De Ste. Croix-The Class Struggle in The Ancient

THE
CLASS STRUGGLE
IN THE
ANCIENT GREEK
WORLD
G. E. M. DE STE. CROIX
The
Class Struggle
in the
Ancient Greek World
from the
Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests
G. E. M. DE STE.
CROIX
Cornell University Press

ITHACA. NEW YORK
Frontispiece:
De Aardappeleters (The Potato &ters)

by Vincent van Gogh
(Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam):
see pages 209-10.
e 1981 by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations
in a review, this book, or pans thereof, must not
be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher.
For information address Cornell University Pre<>s,
12,4 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New York 14850.
First published in 1981 by Cornell University Press.
International Standard Book Number0-8014-1442-3
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-66650
Printed in Great Britain.
To Margaret
~~~
jt@J e ~ r ~:; p I r J
'"f
I' 'MJ1;0. J!J
01 J'
.. ~
0 , 1
PI'
~A~~ i?SMJwrI' ~ P~=f-W t~ J' J9ffl

==1'
immt"t' clwa... ch<1t1~E"nd
:10~ ~";!J'lo
pp
JOdi' f P' ~ F
~Aij1'@
117
n;:Jch la!~o!ioellrl
'"
lAD )! Dll
pp
Ttm 11u I
gr lq ,&J, aJ""p ll!ro
lid
CLASS STRUGGLE in the ANCrENT GREEK WORLD
Corrigenda
p. xi, line 6: compltrt tht bltllllu 661-699
p. 27, five lines from foot: bifort Thucydidc:s th11nge tt1mm11 to
full-stop
p. 90, line 2: the si:ICth word should be stratification
p. 222, line 18:for differmt rttld difficult
p. 237, 12,line lO:for Antonius retld Antisrius.
p. 338, third para, lines 3-4: djttr popular election delete the rest of
the sentmct
p. 378, four lines from foot: change comma to full-stop
p. 451, second para: in line 4,for 358 rtad 357; and in line 9,for
Damascus rtad Damasus
p. 452, eight lines from foot: tht last word but two should bt
necessary
p. 513, 15: deltttand substitute
15. The Emp~:ror Constantine is s:aid to have distributed
'over 300,000 Sarmacians in Thrace, Scythia, Macedonia and
Italy': Anon. Valts. 6.32; cf. Euseb., Vita Constant.IV.vi.t-2;
Amm. Marc. XVII.xii.t7-19; Zos.ll.xxii.l. Thed:ueis334:
Euscb. (Hieron.). Chron. p. 233 (ed. Helm); Cttns. Consta111.,
in Chron. Min. 1.234. The statement ofJordant:s. Gtl. 22/115,
that Constantine also installed Vandals in Pannonia, should
probably be rejected: see Courtois, VA 34-5. Publilius
Optatianus Porfyrius, Carm. VII.2()...2 (of 322-3), suggests
another settlement, after the Sarmarian war of322.
p. 555 n.13: insert closing bracket at end
p. 581 n.8 (oo IV.i) should end Dem. XX1.154-S
p. 629 n.32: fo,. the first four li11es substitute
32. With Sail . B) 41.8, cf. Caes., BG VI.22.3 (the Germans
seek to prevent potentiores driving humiliorts from their
lands). And see Horace, Epod. 11.7-8 (1hc superba tiPium
potentiorum [imina); Livy lll.65.8 (humilioreslpottntiorts);
Vel!. Pat. II.l26.3 !potenslhumilis or humilior, in the reign
ofTiberius); Tac., Ann. XV .20.1 (ut soltnt praevalidi [thtn
asprintttl]
p. 652 n.33, last line but two: tilt last word but ont should bt
Francesco
p. 701, second column: delete entry beginning Antonius Labeo
p. 709, first column (middle): under Digest . Labeo, for
Antonius rtad Antistius
p. 716, first coluuan.last linl": for Antonius rtad Antistius
p. 719, first column: bifore Meyer. Eduard, insrrt metics
(mttoilroQ: 92, 9S6 (with SS4 nn.29-JO). 197, 288-9. And see
undl"r 'katoikoi', 'paroikoi'
p. 719, last lincoffirstcolumn: rtad MiUet,J.F.
p. 726, first column: for Septimus Severus rrad Scptimius Severus
p. 726, second column: for Severus, Septimus rtad Severus,
Septimius
p. 732 (Errata): undtrp. 163, afttr line 3 insert and 9
p. 732 (Errata): undtr p. 404, tht lase word should bt Dioscorus
p. 732 (Errata): delete mtry undtr p. 616
Contents
Preface
IX
PART ONE
I Introduction
The plan of this book
n 'The Ancient Greek World': its extent in space and time
iii Polis and chiJra
IV The relevance of Marx for the study of ancient history
3
7
9
19
II Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle

The nature of class society
n 'Class', 'exploitation', and 'the class struggle' defined
iii Exploitation and the class struggle
IV Aristotle's sociology of Greek politics
v Alternatives to class (status etc.)
vi Women
31
42
49
69
81
98
III Property and the Propertied

ii
iii
iv
v
vi
The conditions of production: land and unfree labour

The propertied class (or classes)
Land, as the principal source of wealth
Slavery and other forms of unfree labour
freedmen
Hired labour
112
114
120
133
174
179
IV Forms of Exploitation in the Ancient Greek World, and

the Small Independent Producer
u
iii
iv
v
VI
'Direct individual' and 'indirect collective' exploitation

The peasantry and their villages
From slave to (olonus
The military factor
'Feudalism' (and serfdom)
Other independent producers
205
208
226
259
267
269
Vlll
PART TWO
The Class Struggle in Greek History on the Political

Plane
The 'age of the tyrants'
ii The fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
iii The destruction of Greek democracy
VI
278
283
300
Rome the Suzerain

ii
iii
iv
v
vi
'The queen and mistress of the world'

The 'conflict of the Orders'
The developed Republic
The Roman conquest of the Greek world
From Republic to Principate
The Principate, the emperor. and the upper classes
327
332
337
344
350
372
VII The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane

i Terror, and propaganda
ii The theory of'natural slavery'
111 The standard Hellenistic, Roman and Christian attitude to
slavery
1v The attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world, ofjesus,
and of the Christian churches
v The ideology of the victims of the class struggle
409
416
418
425
441
VIII The 'Decline and Fall' of the Roman Empire: an

Explanation
i Intensified political subjection and economic exploitation of the
lower classes during the early centuries of the Christian era
11 Pressure on the curial class
iii Defection to the 'barbarians', peasant revolts, and indifference
to the disintegration of the Roman empire
tv The collapse of much of the Roman empire in the fifth, sixth
and seventh centuries
APPENDICES
The contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx's
theory of capital
II Some evidence for slavery (especially agricultural) in the
Classical and Hellenistic periods
III The settlement of'barbarians' within the Roman empire
IV The destruction of Greek democracy in the Roman period
453
465
474
488
504
505
509
518
~otes
538
Bibliography (and Abbreviations)
661
fu~~
Preface
The main text of this book is intended not only for ancient historians and
Classical scholars but also in particular for historians of other periods, sociologists. political theorists, and students of Marx, as well as for 'the genera I reader'.
The use of Greek text and of anything in Latin beyond very brief quotations is
reserved for the Notes and Appendices.
As far as I am aware, it is the first book in English, or in any other language I
can read, which begins by explaining the central features of Marx's historical
method and defining the concepts and categories involved, and then proceeds to
demonstrate how these instruments of analysis may be used in practic~ to
explain the main events, processes, institutions and ideas that prevailed at
various times over a long period of history - here, the thirteen or fourteen
hundred years of my 'ancient Greek world' (for which see l.ii belo"W). This
arrangement involves rather frequent cross-referencing. Some of tho>e who arc
interested primarily in the methodology and the more 'theoretical', synchronic
treatment. of concepts and institutions (contained mainly in Part One) may wish
for specific references to those passages that are of most concern to themselves,
occurring either in other sections of Part One or in the more diachronic treatment in Part Two. Similarly, practising historians whose interests are confined
to a limited part of the whole period will sometimes need references to a
particular 'theoretical' portion in Part One that is specially relevant. (This wil I, I
think, be dear to anyone who comparc!'S II.iv with V .ii-iii, for instance, I. iii with
IV.ii, or III.iv with Appendix 11 and IV.iii.)
The book originated in the]. H. Gray Lectures for 1972173 (three in number),
which I delivered at Cambridge University in February 1973 at the invi cation. of
the Board of the Faculty of Classics. I am particularly grateful toJ. S. Morrison,
President of Wolfson College, then Chairman of the Faculty, and toM. I. (now
Sir Moses) Finley, Professor of Ancient History, for their kindness to me a. nd
the trouble they took to make the experience a delightful one for me a11d to
ensure a large audience at all three lectures.
The J. H. Gray lectures were founded by the Rev. Canon Josc:ph H:r:ary
('joey') Gray, M.A.(Cantab.),J.P., born on 26July 1856, Fello.v ami C'asskal
Lecturer of Queens' College Cambridge for no fewer than 52 years befor; his
death on 23 March 1932, at the ageof75. His devotion to his Collegt (of which
he wrote and published a history), to the Anglican Church, and ~o fn.~rnasc-n ry
(he became Provincial Grand Master of Cambridgeshire in 1914) W<'; ~qualh:d
only by his athletic interests, in rowing, cricket, and above all Ragby footb~~u.
From 1895 until his death he was President of the Cambridge U r.iver5!ty Rt.'Sl,y
Football Club; and when that club, in appreciation of his presidmcy, prescnt:ed
The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World
him with a sum of no less than 1,000, he used the money to endow a special
lectureship in Classics at Cambridge- 'thus making the gladiators of the football
field into patrons of the humaner letters', to quote the admiring and affectionate
obituary in Tht Dial (Queens'College Magazine) no.71, Easter Term 1932. The
obituary refers to Gray's 'vigorous Conservative politics' and characterises him
as 'an almost perfect incarnation ofJohn Bull in cap and gown'. I am afraid he
would have disapproved strongly of my lectures, and of this book; but I am
comforted by another passage in the same obituary which speaks of his 'hearty
goodwill to all men, even to individual socialists and foreigners'.
This book represents of course a very considerable expansion of the lectures,
and it incorporates, almost in their entirety. two other papers, given in 1974: a
lecture on 'Karl Marx and the history of Classical antiquity', to the Society for
the Promotion of Hellenic Studies in London on 21 March 1974, published in an
expanded form in Artthusa 8 (1975) 7-41 (here cited as 'KMHCA'); and another
lecture, on 'Early Christian attitudes to property and slavery', delivered to the
Conference of the Ecclesiastical History Society at York on 25July 1974, also
subsequently expanded and published, in Studies in Church History 12 (1975) 1-38
(here cited as 'ECAPS'). Parts of this book have also been delivered in lecture
form at various universities, not only in this country but also in Poland (in june
1977), at Warsaw; and in the Netherlands (in April-May 1978}, at Amsterdam,
Groningen and Leiden. I have many friends to thank for their kindness to me
during my visits to those cities, in particular Professors Iza Bietutiska-Malowist
of the University of Warsaw and Jan-Maarten Bremer of the University of
Amsterdam.
I had intended to publish the Gray Lectures almost in their original form, with
little more than references added. However, the comments received from most
of those to whom I showed drafts convinced me that owing to the extreme
ignorance of Marx's thought which prevails throughout most of the West,
especially perhaps among ancient historians (in the English-speaking world at
least as much as anywhere), I would have to write the book on an altogether
different scale. As I did so my opinions developed, and I often changed my mind.
Friends and colleagues have given me some useful criticisms of the many
successive drafts of chapters of this book. I have thanked them individually but
now refrain from doing so again, partly because most of them are not Marxists
and might not be happy at fmding themselves named here, and partly because 1
do not wish to debar them from being asked to write reviews, as usually
happens to those to whom an author makes a general acknowledgment.
I have incorporated very many essential brief references (especially to source
material) in the text itself, placing them as far as possible at the ends ofsentences.
This, I believe, is preferable, in a work not intended primarily for scholars. to
the use of footnotes, since the eye travels much more easily over a short passage
in brackets than down to the foot of the page and back again. (Longer notes,
intended principally for scholars. will be found at the end of the book.) I give
thi!i as a reply to those few friends who, out of sheer Oxonian conservatism.
have objected to the abbreviation of titles by initial letters- e.g. 'Jones, LRE',
for A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602- while themselves
habitually using such abbreviations for various categories of references, including periodicals, collections of inscriptions and papyri, and so forth, c.g.]RS.
Preface
XI
CIL, ILS, PSI, BGU. For me, the only alternatives still allowing the use of
references in the actual text itself would have been to abbreviate with date or
serial number, e.g. 'Jones, 1964' or :Jones (1)'; but initial letters arc as a rule far
more likely to convey the necessary information to a reader who already either
knows of the existence of the work in question or has looked it up in my
bibliography (pp.
below). where all abbreviations are explained. I
should perhaps add that titles abbreviated by initials represent books when
italicised, articles when not.
My reading for this book, while concentrated above all on the ancient sources
and the writings of Marx, has necessarily been very wide; but there arc some
'obvious' works which I have refrained from citing-in particular. books which
are specifically philosophical in character and which concern themselves
primarily with abstract concepts rather than with the actual historical 'events,
processes, institutions and ideas' (cf. above) that are the subject-matter of the
practising historian. One example is G. A. Cohen's book, Karl Marx's Theory of
History, A Defence, based on much greater philosophical expertise than I can
command, but which I find congenial; another is the massive work in three
volumes by Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and
Dissolution, which seems to me to have b~ vastly overpraised. however
accurately it may delineate some of the disastrous developments of Marx's
thought by many of his followers.
In an interview printed in The Guardian on 22 September 1970 the released
Nazi war criminal Albert Speer said that in the Third Reich 'Each Minister was
responsible for his own department, and for that only. Your conscience was
quiet if you were educated to see thinJ!S only in your own fitld; this was convenient
for everybody.' Our educational system also tends to produce people who 'see
things only in their own field'. One of the techniques contributing to this is the
strict separation of'ancient history' from the contemporary world. This book,
on the contrary, is an attempt to sec the ancient Greek world in very close
relation with our own and is inspired by the belief that we can learn much about
each by careful study of the other.
The dedication of this book expresses the greatest ofall my debts: to my wife,
in particular for the perfect good-humour and patience with which she accepted
my concentration on it for some years, to the neglect ofalmost everything else. I
also wish to record my gratitude to my son Julian for his valuable assistanct' in
correcting the proofs, and to Colin Haycraft for agreeing to publish the book
and accomplishing the task with all possible tact and efficiency.
September 1980
G.E.M.S.C.
I
Introduction
(i)
The plan of this book
My general aim in this book is first (in Part One) to explain, and then (in Part
Two) to illustrate. the value of Marx's general analysis of society in relation to
the ancient Greek world (as defined in Section ii of this chapter). Marx and
Engels made a number of different contributions to historical methodology and
supplied a series of tools which can be profitably used by the historian and the
sociologist; but I shall concentrate large! y on one such tool, which I believe to be
much the most important and the most fruitful for actual use in understanding
and explaining particular historical events and processes: namely. the concept of
class, and of class struggle.
In Section ii of this first chapter, I state how I interpret the expression 'the
ancient Greek world', and explain the meaning of the terms I shall be using for
the periods {between about 700 B.C. and the mid-seventh century C.E.) into
which the history of my 'Greek world' may conveniently be divided. In Section
iii I go on to describe the fundamental division between polis and rhora (city and
countryside) that plays such a vital role in Greek history after the 'Classical'
period (ending at about the close of the fourth century B.C.) which- absurdly
enough - is all that many people have in mind when they speak of 'Greek
history'. In Section iv I give a brief account of Marx as a Classical scholar and
emphasise the almost total lack ofinterest in Marxist ideas that is unfortunately
characteristic of the great majority of scholars in the English-speaking world
who concern themselves with Classical antiquity. I also try to dispel some
common misconceptions about Marx's attitude to history; and in doing so I
compare the attitude of Marx with that ofThucydides.
Chapter II deals with 'class. exploitation, and class struggle'. In Section i
I explain the nature and origin of class society, as I understand that term. I also
state what I regard as the two fundamental features which most distinguish
ancient Greek society from the contemporary world: they can be identified
respectively within the field of what Marx called 'the forces of production' and
'the relations of production'. In Section ii I define 'class' (as essentially a
relationship, the social embodiment of the fact of exploitation), and I also define
'exploitation' and 'class struggle'. In Section iii I show that the meaning I attach
to the expression 'class struggle' represents the fundamental thought of Marx
himself: the essence of class struggle is exploitation or resistance to it; there need
not necessarily be any class consciousness or any political element. I also explain
the criteria which lead me to define Greek (and Roman) society as 'a slave
economy': this expression has regard, not so much to the way in which the bulk
of production was done (for at most times in most areas in antiquity it was free
peasants and artisans who had the largest share in production), but to the fact
that the propertied classes derived their surplus above all through the exploitation of unfree labour. (With this section goes Appendix I, dealing with the
technical question of the contrast between slave and wage-labourer in Marx's
theory of capital.) In Section iv I demonstrate that a Marxist analysis in terms of
class, far from being the imposition upon the ancient Greek world of inappropriate and anachronistic categories suited only to the study of the modem
capitalisr world, is actually in some essentials much the same type of analysis as
that employed by Aristotle, the greatest of ancient sociologists and political
thinkers. In Section v I consider some types ofhistorical method different from
that which I employ, and the alternatives which some sociologists and historians
have preferred to the concept of class; and I demonstrate (with reference to Max
Weber and M. I. Finley) that 'status' in particular is inferior as an instntment of
analysis, since statuses altogether lack the organic relationship which is the
hallmark of classes and can rarely if ever provide explanations, especially of
social change. In Section vi I consider women as a class in the technical Marxist
sense, and I give a brief treatment of the early Christian attitude to women and
marriage, compared with its Hellenistic, Roman and jewish counterparts.
Chapter III is entitled 'Property and the propertied'. In Section i I begin with
the fact that in antiquity by far the most important 'conditions of production'
were land and unfree labour: these, then, were what the propertied class needed
to control and did control. In Section ii I explain how I use the expression 'the
propertied class': for those who were able to live without needing to spend a
significant proportion of their time working for their living. (I speak of 'the
propertied classes', in the plural, where it is necessary to notice class divisions
within the propertied class as a whole.) In Section iii I emphasise that land was
always the principal means of production in antiquity. In Section iv I discuss
slavery and other forms of unfree labour (debt bondage, and serfdom), accepting
definitions of each of these types of unfreedom which now have world-wide
official currency. (Appendix II adds some evidence for slave labour, especially in
agriculture, in Classical and Hellenistic times.) In Section v I deal with freedmen
(an 'order' and not a 'class' in my sense), and in Section vi I discuss hired labour,
showing that it played an incomparably smaller part in the pre-capitalist world
than it does today and was regarded by members of the propertied class in
antiquity (and by many of the poor) as only a little better than slavery.
In Chapter IV I discuss 'Forms ofexploitation in the ancient Greek world, and
the small independent producer'. In Section i I distinguish between 'direct
individual' and 'indirect collective' exploitation, in such a way as to make it
possible to regard even many peasant freeholders as members of an exploited
class, subject to taxation, conscription and forced services, imposed by the State
and its organs. I also explain that those whom I describe as 'small independent
producers' (mainly peasants, also artisans and traders) were sometimes not
severely exploited themselves and equally did not exploit the labour of others to
any substantial degree, but lived by their own efforts on or near the subsistence
level. At most periods (before the Later Roman Empire) and in most areas these
people were very numerous and must have been responsible for the largest share
in production, both in agriculture and in handicrafts. In Section ii I speak
I. Introduction (i)
specifically of the peasantry and the villages in which they mainly lived. In
Section iii ('From slave to co/onus') I describe and explain the change in the forms
of exploitation in the Greek and Roman world during the carl y centuries of the
Christian era, when the propertied class, which had earlier relied to a great
extent on slaves to produce its surplus, came more and more to rely on letting to
tenants (coloni), most of whom at about the end of the third century became
serfs. Most working freehold peasants were also brought into the same kind of
subjection, being tied to the villages of which they were members: I call such
people 'quasi-serfs'. (An Appendix, III, gives a large quantity of evidence for the
setdement of'barbarians' within the Roman empire, the significance of which is
discussed in Section iii of Chapter IV.) In Section iv {'The military factor') l
point out that in the face of external military threat it may be necessary for the
ruling class of a society consisting mainly of peasants to alJow the peasantry a
higher standard oflife than it would otherwise have attained, in order to provide
a sufficiently strong army; and that the failure of the Later Roman Empire to
make this concession induced in the peasantry as a whole an attitude of indifference to the fate of the Empire, which did not begin to be remedied before
the seventh century, by which time much of the empire had disintegrated. In
Section v I have something to say about the use of the terms 'feudalism and
'serfdom', insisting that serfdom (as defined in JJI.iv) can exist quite independently of anything that can properly be called 'feudalism', and ending
with a few words on the Marxist concept of the 'feudal mode of production. In
Section vi I recognise briefly the role of small "independent producers' other
than peasants. That completes Part One of this book..
In Part One, then, I am occupied largely with conceptual and methodological
problems, in the attempt to establish and clarify the concepts and categories
which seem to me to be the most useful in studying the ancient Greek world.
above all the process of change which is so obvious when we look at Greek
society over the period of thirteen to fourteen hundred years with which this
book is concerned.
In Part Two I seek to illustrate the usefulness of the concepts and methodology I have outlined in Part One in explaining not only a series of historical
situations and developments but also the ideas - social, economic. political,
religious- which grew out of the historical process. In Chapter V ('The class
struggle in Greek history on the political plane') I show how the application ofa
class analysis to Greek history can illuminate the processes of political and social
change. In Scctioni I deal with the Archaic period (before the fifth century B.C.)
and demonstrate how the so-called 'tyrants' played an essential role in the
transition from hereditary aristocracy, which existed everywhere in the Greek
world down to the seventh century, to more 'open' societies ruled either by
oligarchies of wealth or by democracies. In Section ii I make a numbe-r of
observations on the political class struggle (greatly mitigated by democracy,
where that form of government <.>xisted) in the fifth and fourth centuries.
showing how even at Athens, where democracy was strongest, bitter class
struggle broke out in the political plane on two occasions, in 411 and 4D4. In
Section iii I explain how Greek democracy was gradually destroyed. between
the fourth century B. C. and the third century of the Christian era, by the joint
efforts of the Greek propertied class, the Macedonians, and ultimately the
Romans. (The details of this process in the Roman period are described in
greater detail in Appendix IV.)
Since the whole Greek world came by degrees under Roman rule, I am
obliged to say a good deal about 'Rome the suzerain', the title of Chapter VI.
After some brief remarks in Section ion Rome as 'The queen and mistress of the
world', I give in Section ii a sketch of the so-called 'Conflict of the Orders' in the
early Roman Republic, intended mainly to show that although it was indeed
technically a conflict between two 'orders' (two juridically distinct groups),
namely Patricians and Plebeians, yet strong elements of class struggle were
involved in it. In Section iii I notice some aspects of the political situation in the
developed Republic (roughly the last three centuries B.C.). In Seetion iv I
briefly describe the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world and its consequences. In Section vI explain the change of political regime 'From Republic
to Principate', and in Section vi I sketch the nature of the Principate as an
institution which continued under the 'Later Roman Empire' from the late third
century onwards. In my picture of the Later Empire there is much less emphasis
than usual upon a supposed change from 'Principate' to 'Dominate'; far more
important, for me, is a major intensification of the forms of exploitation: the
reduction to serfdom of most of the working agricultural population, a great
increase in taxation, and more conscription. I give a characterisation of the
position of the emperor in the Principate and the Later Empire and an outline
sketch of the Roman upper classes, not forgetting the changes that took place in
the fourth century.
Chapter VII is a discussion of 'The class struggle on the ideological plane'.
After taking up some general issues in Section i ('Terror, and propaganda'), I
proceed in Section ii to discuss the theory of 'natural slavery', and in Section iii
the body of thought which largely replaced that theory in the Hellenistic period
and continued throughout Roman times, appearing in Christian thought in an
almost identical form. Section iv deals with the attitudes to property of the
Gracco-Roman world, of Jesus, and of the Christian Church- or rather,
churches, for I insist that the term 'the Christian Church' is not a historical but a
strictly theological expression. Jesus is seen as a figure belonging entirely to the
Jewish chora, who may never even have entered a Greek polis. and whose
thought-world was thoroughly alien to Graeco-Roman civilisation. The chapter
concludes with Section v, which attempts a reconstruction of part of the
ideology of the victims of the class struggle (and of Roman imperialism), with
some attention to 'Resistance literature' (mainly Jewish) and Christian apocalyptic. The best example that has survived is the fable, which is explicitly said by
one of its practitioners to have been invented to enable slaves to express their
opinions in a disguised form which would not expose them to punishment,
although some of the examples tum out to speak not merely for slaves but for
the lowly in general, and of course the fable could also be utilised by members of
a ruling class to reinforce their position.
The final chapter, VIII, seeks to explain the 'decline and fall' of much of the
Roman empire, leading ultimately to the loss of Britain, Gaul. Spain and north
Africa in the fifth century, pan ofltaly and much of the Balkans in the sixth, and
the whole of Egypt and Syria in the seventh- not to mention the Arab conquest
of the rest of north Africa and much of Spain in the later seventh and the early
I. Introduction ( i)
eighth century. Section i shows how the ever-increasing exploitation of the vast
majority of the population of the Gracco-Roman world by the all-powerful
wealthy classes (a tiny minority) first depressed the political and legal status of
nearly all those who were not members of my 'propertied class', almost to the
slave level. Section ii describes the way in which, from just after the middle of
thl' second century. the fiscal screw was tightened further up the social scale, on
the 'curial class', the richer members of the local communities, who were in
theory an 'order', consisting of the town councillors and their families, but in
practice were virtually a hereditary class, consisting of all thost' owning property
above a certain level who were not members of the imperial aristocracy of
senators and equestrians. St>ction iii is a largely descriptive account of defection
to the 'barbarians', assistance given to them, peasant revolts, and indifft>rence to
the disintegration of the Roman empire on the part of the vast majority of its
subjects. The last section, iv, explains how the merciless exploitation of the
great majority for the benefit of a very few finally led to the collapse of much of
the empire -a process too often described as if it were something that 'JUSt
happened' naturally. whereas in fact it was due to the deliberate actions of a
ruling class that monopolised both wealth and political power and govemed
solely for its own advantage. I show that a Marxist class analysis can provide a
satisfactory explanation of this extraordinary process, which procet'ded inexorably despite the heroic efforts of a remarkably able series of empt>rors from
the )arc third century to near the end of the fourth.
* * * * * *
The fact that the whole Greek world cvt.'DtuaJly came under the rule of Rome has
often obliged me to look at the Roman empire as a whole. and on occasion at the
Latin West alone, or even some pan ofit. For example. in Chapter VIII 'barbarian'
invasions, internal revolts, the defection of peasants and others, and similar
manifestations of insecurity and decline have to be noticed whether they happened
in the East or in the West, as they all contributed towards the ultimate disintegration of a large part of the empire. Even the settlements of'barbarians' within the
Graeco-Roman world- on a far greater scale than most historians, perhaps, have
realised- need to bl recorded (for the reasons discussed in IV .iii) although they
occurred on a far greater scale in the latin West than in the Greek East.
(ii)
'The ancient Greek world': its extent in space and time
For my purposes 'the Greck world' is, broadly speaking, the vast area (described
below) within which Greek was, or became. the principal language of the upper
classes. In north Africa, during thc Roman Empire, the division between the
Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking areas lay just wt>st of Cyrenaica (the eastern
part of the modern libya). on about the 19th meridian east of Greenwich:
Cyrenaica and everything to the east of it was Greek. In Europe the diviaing line
began on the east coast of the Adriatic, roughly where the same meridian cuts
the coast of modem Albania, a little north ofDurazzo (the ancient Oyrrachium,
earlier Epidamnus): and from there it went east and slightly north, across
Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, passing between Sofia (the ancient Scrdica)
and Plovdiv (Philippopolis) and joining the Danube at about the point where it
turns north below Silistra on the edge of th<.' Dobrudja, an area containing
several cities on the Black Sea coast that belonged to the 'Greek' portion of the
empire, which included everything to the south and east of the line I have
traced. 1 My 'Greek world', then. included Greece itself, with Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace (roughly the southern part of Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, and the whole of European Turkey), also Cyrenaica and Egypt, and all
that part of Asia which was included in the Roman empire: an area with an
eastern boundary that varied from time to time but at its widest included not
merely Asia Minor, Syria and the northern edge of Arabia but even Mesopotamia (Iraq) as far as the Tigris. There were even Greek cities and settlementsz
beyond the Tigris; but in general it is perhaps convenient to think of the eastern
boundary of the Graeco-Roman world as falling on the Euphrates or a little to
the east of it. Sicily too was 'Greek' from an early date and became romanised by
slow degrees.
The time-span with which I am concerned in this book is not merely (1) the
Archaic and Classical periods of Greek history (covering roughly the eighth to the
sixth centuries B.C. and the fifth and fourth centuries respectively) and (2) the
Hellenistic age (approximately the last three centuries B.C. in the eastern Mediterranean world). but also (3) the long period of Roman domination of the Greek
area, which began in the second century and was complete beforl' the end of the
last century B.C.. when Rome itself was still under a 'republican' form of
government. How long one makes the 'Roman Empire' last is a matter of taste:
in a sense it continued, as J. B. Bury and others have insisted, until the capture of
Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in A.D. 1453. The Roman 'Principate',
as it is universally called in the English-speaking world ('Haut-Empire' is the
normal French equivalent), is commonly conceived as beginning with Augustus
(Octavian). at or a little after the dare of the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., and as
passing into the 'Later Empire' ('Bas-Empire') at about the time of the accession
of the Em paor Diocletian in 284. In my view the 'Prindpatc' from the first was
virtually an absolute monarchy, as it was always openly admitted to be in the
Greek East (see VI. vi below); and it is unreal to suppose, with some scholars.
that a new 'Dominate' came into being with Diocletian and Constantine,
although there is no harm in using, at any rate as a chronological fonnula. the
expression 'Later Roman Empire' or 'Bas-Empire' (see VI.vi ad init.). Many
ancient historians like to make a break somewhere between the reign ofJustinian
in 527-65 and the death of Heraclius in 641,:~ and speak thereafter of the
'Byzantine Empire', a term which expresses the fact that the empire was now
centred at the ancient Byzantium, re-founded by the Emperor Constantine in
330 as Constantinople. My choice ofa terminal date is dictated, I must admit, by
the fact that my own first-hand knowledge of the source material becomes
defective after the death ofJustinian and largely peters out in the mid-seventh
century: for this reason my 'ancient Greek world' ends not much later than the
great book of my revered teacher, A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire
284-602 (1964), which goes down to the dl"ath of the Emperor Maurice and the
accession of Phocas, in 602. My own terminal point is the Arab conquests of
Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt in the 630s and b40s. In justification ofkeeping
within the limits I have described I would plead that virtually everything in this
I. Introduction (ii)
book is based upon first-hand acquaintance with original sources. (In one or two
places where it is not, I hope I have made this clear.)
I do believe that 'the ancient Greek world' is sufficiently a unity to be worth
taking as the subject of this book: if my knowledge of the source material had
been more extensive I should have wished to end the story not earlier than the
sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and perhaps with the
taking of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks and the end of the Byzantine
empire in 1453. The alleged 'orientalisation' of the Byzantine empire was in
reality slight. Although the Byzantines no longer commonly referred to themselves as 'Hellenes', a term which from the founh century onwards acquired the
sense of 'pagans', they did call themselves 'Rhomaioi', the Greek word for
'Romans', a fact which may remind us that the Roman empire survived in its
Greek-speaking areas long after it had collapsed in the Latin West- by something like a thousand years in Constantinople itself. By the mid-ninth century
we find a Byzantine emperor, Michael III. referring to Latin as 'a barbarous
Scythian language', in a letter to Pope Nicholas I. This contemptuous description
of the Roman tongue exasperated Nicholas, who repeated the sacrilegious phrase
five times over in his reply to Michael (A.D. 865), with indignant comments.:~
There is a fascinating account of the Greek contribution to the Roman empire
and the relationship ofthe two cultures in A. H. M.Jones's briefarticle, 'The
Greeks under the Roman Empire', in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963) 3-19,
reprinted in the posthumous volume ofJones's essays edited by P. A. Brunt,
The Roman Economy (1974) 90-113.
(iii)
Polis and chora

In the Archaic and Classical periods, in Greece itself and in some of the early
Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily and on the west coast of Asia Minor 1 the word
chora (x&Jpa) was often used as a synonym for the agroi (the fields), the rural area
of the city-state, the polis ('1ToA.,o;); and sometimes the word polis itself. in the
special limited sense of its urban area, was contrasted with its chora (see my
ECAPS 1, nn.2-3). This usage continued in the Hellenistic period and under
Roman rule: every polis had its own chora in the sense of its own rural area.
However, except where a native population had been reduced to a subject
condition there was generally, in the areas just mentioned, no fundamental
difference between those who lived in or near the urban centre of the polis and
the peasants who lived in the countryside, even if the latter tended to be
noticeably less urbane (less cityfied) than the former and in the literature
produced by the upper classes are often treated patronisingly as 'country bumpkins' (choritai, for example, in Xen., HG III.ii.Jl). an attitude which nevertheless allows them to be credited on occasion with superior moral virt~es of a
simple kind (see Dover 1 GPM 113-14). Both groups. however, were Greek and
participated in a common culture to a greater or less degree.
It is hardly possible to give a general definition ofa polis that would hold good
for all purposes and all periods, and the best we can do is to say that a political
entity was a polis if it was recognised as such. Pausanias, in a famous passage
probably written in the 170s, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, speaks disparagingly oftht> tiny Phocian polis ofPanopeus, east of Mount Pamassus- 'if indeed
10
you can call it a polis', he says, 'when it has no public buildings [archeia], no
gymnasium, no theatre, no market place [agora], and no fountain of water, and
where the people live in empty hovels like mountain shanties on the edge of a
ravine' (X.iv .1). Yet Pausanias does call it a polis and shows that in his day it was
accepted as such.
In those parts of Asia and Egypt into which Greek civilisation penetrated only
in the time of Alexander the Great and in the Hellenistic period the situation was
very different. In Asia, from at least the time ofAlexander (and probably as early
as the fifth century B.C., as I have argued in my OPW 15~5. 313-14), the terms
chora and polis had come to be used on occasion in a recognised technical sense,
which continued throughout the Hellenistic period and beyond in Asia and
Egypt: in this sense the chOra was the whole vast area not included in the territory
administered by any Greek polis; sometimes referred to as the chora basiliki (royal
chOra), it was under the direct, autocratic rule of the kings, the successors of
Alexander, and it was bureaucratically administered, while the poleis had republican governments and enjoyed fonns of precarious autonomy which differed
according to circumstances. (It will be sufficient to refer to Jones, GCA], and
Rostovtzetf, SEHHW.) Under Roman rule the same basic division between
polis and chora continued, but the bulk of the chora came by degrees under the
administration of particular poleis, each of which had its own chora (territorium in
the latin West). The cities in the narrow sense were Greek in very varying
degrees in language and culture; native languages and culture usually prevailed
in the chOra. where the peasants did not normally enjoy the citizenship of the polis
that controlled them, and lived mainly in villages, the most common Greek
term for which was komai (see IV .ii below). Graeco-Roman civilisation was
essentially urban, a civilisation of cities; and in the areas in which it was not
native, in which it had not grown up from roots in the very soil, it remained
largely an upper-class culture: those whom it embraced exploited the natives in
the countryside and gave little in return. As Rostovtzeffhas said, speaking of the
Roman empire as a whole:
The population of the cities alike in Italy and in the provinces formed but a small
minority as compared with the population of the country. Civilised life, ofcourse, was
concentrated in the cities: every man who had some intellectual interests ... livl.'d in a
city and could not imagine himself Jiving elsewhere; for him the georgos or paganus
[fanner or villager] was an inferior being, half-civilised or uncivilised. It is no wonder
that for us the life of the ancient world is more or less identical with the life of the
ancient cities. The cities have told us their story, the country always remained silent
and reserved. What we know of the country we know most! y through the men of the
cities ... The voice of the country population itself is rarely heard ... Hence it is not
surprising that in most modem works on the Roman empire the country and the
country population do not appear at all or appear only from time to timl in connexion
with certain events in the life of the Stat.' or the cities' (SEHRP 1.1923).
We can therefore agree wholeheartedly with the American mediaevalist Lynn
White, when he says:
Because practically all the written records and famous monummts of Antiquity were
produced in cities, we generally think of ancient societic."S as having been c."Ssentially
urban. They were, in fact. agricultural to a degrl'C' which we can scarcely grasp. It is a
conservative gul'Ss that even in fairly prosperous regions ovc:r ten people were ncl-ded
on the land to enable a single person to live away from the land. Cities were atolls of
I. Introduction (iii)
11
civilisation (etymologically 'citification') on an ocean of rural primitivism. They were

supported by a terrifyingly slender margin of surplus agricultural production which
could be destroyed swiftly by drought, ftood, plague, social disorder or warfare. Since
the peasants were closest to the sources of food, in time of hunger they secreted what
they could and prevented supplies from reaching the cities (Fontana Econ. Hisr. of
Europe,/. The Middle Ages, ed. C. M. Cipolla [1972], at 144-5).
Actually, as we shall see in lV.ii below, the opinion expressed in thatlast

sentence is less true of the Roman empire (including its Greek area) than ofother
ancient societies, because of the exceptionally effective exploitation and control
of the countryside by the imperial government and the municipalities.
A Greek (or Roman) city normally expected to feed itself from com grown in
its own chora (territorium), or at any rate grown nearby: this has been demonstrated recently by Jones, Brunt and others, and is now beginning to be generally realised. 1 (Classical Athens of course was the great exception to this rule, as
to so many others: see my OPW 46-9.) An essential factor here, the relevance of
which used often to be overlooked, is the inefficiency and high cost of ancient
land transpon. 2 In Diodetian's day. 'a wagon-load of wheat, costing 6,000
denarii, would be doubled in price by a journey [by land] of300 miles'; and, if
we ignore the risks ofsea transport, 'it was cheaper to ship grain from one end of
the Mediterranean to the other than to cart it 75 miles' (Jones, LREII.841-2;cf.
his RE 37). Jones cites evidence from Gregory Nazianzenus and John the
Lydian, writing in the fourth and sixth centuries respectively (LRE 11.~5).
According to Gregory, coastal cities could endure crop shortages without great
difficulty, 'as they can dispose of their own products and receive supplies by sea;
for us inland our surpluses are unprofitable and our scarcities irremediable, as
we have no means of disposing of what we have or of importing what we lack'
(Orat. XLIIl.34, in MPG XXXVI. 541-4). John complains that when justinian
abolished the public post in certain areas, including Asia Minor, and moreover
taxes had to be paid in gold instead of (as hitherto) in kind, 'the unsold crops
rotted on the estate ... , and the taxpayer was ruined .... since he could not sell
his crops.livingfarfrom the sea' (Demagistr. III.61). This evidence, as Brunt has
rightly observed. 'is perfectly applicable to every preceding epoch of the ancient
world and to every region lacking water communications, for there had been no
regress in the efficiency ofland transport' (JM704). I would add a reference to an
interesting passage in Procopius. Bell. VI (Goth. II) xx.l8, describing how.
during a widespread famine in northern and central Italy in 538, the inhabitants
of inland Aemilia left their homes and went south-east to Piccnum (where
Procopius himself was), supposing that that area would not be so destitute of
food supplies 'because it was on the sea' (cf. IV.ii below and its n.29).
As I shall not have occasion to refer again to transport in the ancient world, I
will give here a particularly striking- though rarely noticed- example of the
great superiority of water to land transport even in late antiquity. In 359 th.e
Emperor Julian considerably increased the com supply of the armies on th.e
Rhine and of the inhabitants of the neighbouring areas by having the com which
was already customarily shipped from Britain transported up the Rhine by
river-boats (Libanius, Orar. XVIII.82-3; Zosimus III. v.2; Amm. Marc.
XVIII.ii.3; cf. Julian, Ep. ad Athm. 8, 279d-80a). The fact that transport against
12
the current oftht Rhine was, as Libanius and Zosimus realised, much cheaper than
carriage on wagons by road is impressive evidence of the inferiority of the latter
form of transport. (It is convenient to mention here that the discovery in recent
years offurther fragments ofDiocletian's Price-Edict of A.D. 301 3 has advanced
our knowledge of the relative costs of land and water transport, a subject I
cannot discuss here as it deserves.) I will add a reference to the vivid little sketch
in Ausonius of the contrast between river-journeys by boat, downstream with
oars and upstream with haulage (Mosella 39-44). It is also worth drawing
attention to the repeated allusions by Strabo to the importance ofriver-transport
in the countries where rivers were sufficiently navigable - not so much in the
Greek lands, of course, as in Spain and Gaul(seeesp. Strabo Ill, pp. 140-3, 151-3;
IV, pp. 177-8, 185-6, 189). In 537 the Emperor Justinian recorded with sympathy the fact that litigants involved in appeals, who therefore needed to travel
(to Constantinople), had been complaining that they were sometimes prevented
from coming by sea owing to unfavourable winds or by land owing to their
poverty- another testimony to the greater cost ofland journeys (Nov.]. XLIX.
pratf. 2). Yet sea voyages could sometimes involve long delays, because of
rough weather or unfavourable winds. The official messengers who brought a
letter from the Emperor Gaius to the governor of Syria at Antioch at the end of
A.D. 41 are said by Josephus (no doubt with some exaggeration) to have been
'weather-bound for three months' on the way (BJ 11.203). In 51 B.C., when
Cicero was travelling to Asia to taken over his province of Cilicia, it took him
five days to sail from Peiraeus to Delos and another eleven days to reach Ephesus
(Cic., Ad Att. V .x.ii.l; xiii.l). Writing to his friend Atticus after reaching Delos,
he opened his letter with the words, 'A sea journey is a serious matter [negotium
magnum est navigareJ, and in the month ofjuly at that' (Ad Att. V.xii.l}. On his
way home in November of the following year, Cicero spent three weeks on the
journey from Patras to Otranto, including two spells of six days each on land,
waiting for a favourable wind; some ofhis companions, who risked the crossing
from Cassiope on Corcyra (Corfu) to Italy in bad weather were shipwrecked
(Adjam. XVI.ix.t-2).
In point of fact, even the availability ofwater-transport, in the eyes of Greeks
and Romans, could hardly compensate for the absence of a fertile chJra. I should
like to refer here to an interesting text, seldom or never quoted in this connection, which illustrates particularly well the general realisation in antiquity
that a city must normally be able to live off the cereal produce of its own
immediate hinterland. Vitruvius (writing under Augustus) has a nice story which makes my point equally well whether it is true or not- about a conversation between Alexander the Great and Deinocrates of Rhodes, the architect
who planned for Alexander the great city in Egypt that bore {and still bears) his
name, Alexandria, and became, in Strabo's words, 'the greatest place of exchange in the inhabited world' (megiston emporion tis oikoumenes. XVII.i.13,
p. 798). In this story Deinocrates suggests to Alexander the foundation on
Mount A rhos of a city, a civitas - the Greek source will of course have used the
word polis. Alexander at once enquires 'whether there are fields around, which
can provide that city with a food supply': and when Deinocrates admits that the
city could only be supplied by sea transport, Alexander rejects the idea out of
hand: just as a child needs milk, he says. so a city without fields and abundant
13
produce from them cannot grow, or maintain a large population. Alexandria,

Vitruvius adds, was not only a safe harbour and an excellent place ofexchange; it
had 'cornfields all over Egypt', irrigated by the Nile: (De architect. II, praef. 2-4).
Now the civilisation of old Greece had been a natural growth ("from roots in
the very soil'. to repeat the phrase I used above); and although the cultured
gentleman, living in or near the city, could be a very different kind of person
from the boorish peasant, who might not often leave his farm, except to sell his
produce in the city market, yet they spoke the same language and felt that they
were to some extent akin. 4 In the new foundations in the Greek East the
situation was often quite different. The upper classes, living in or very ncar the
towns, mostly spoke Greek, lived the Greek life and shared in Greek culture. Of
the urban poor we know very little, but some of them were at least literate, and
they mixed with the educated classes and probably shared their outlook and
system of values to a very considerable extent, even where they did not enjoy
any citizen rights. But the peasantry, the great majority of the population, on
whose backs (with those of the slaves) the burden of the whole vast edifice of
Greek civilisation rested, generally remained in much the same state of life as
their forefathers: in many areas the majority probably either spoke Greek not at
all or at best imperfectly, and most of them remained for centuries- right down
to the end of Graeco-Roman civilisation and beyond - at little above the
subsistence level. illiterate, and almost untouched by the brilliant culture of the
cities. s As A. H. M. Jones has said:
The cities were ... economically parasitic on the countryside, Their incomes consisted
in the main of the rents drawn by the urban arisrocracy from the peasants ... The
splcndours of civic life were to a large extent paid for out of[thcse Jrents, and to this
extent the villages were impoverished for the benefit of the towns . . . The city
magnates came into contact with the villagers in three capacities only, as tax collectors.
as policemen, and as landlords (GCA] 26ft, '1f37, 295).
This of course is as true of much of the Roman West as of the Greek East, and it
remained true of the greater part of the Greek world right through the Roman
period. The fundamental relationship between city and countryside was always
the same: it was essentially one of exploitation, with few benefits given in return.
This is brought out most forcibly by a very remarkable passage near the
beginning of the treatise On wholesome and unwholesome foods by Galen, 6 the
greatest physician and medical writer of antiquity, whose life spanned the last
seventy years of the second century of the Christian era and who must have
written the work in question during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-80) or
soon afterwards, and therefore during or just after that Antonine Age which has
long been held up to us as part of that period in the history of the world during
which, in Gibbon's famous phrase, 'the condition of the human race was most
happy and prosperous' (DFRE 1.78). Galen, setting out to describe the terrible
consequences of an uninterrupted series ofyears of dearth affecting 'many of the
peoples subject to Roman rule', draws a distinction, not expressly between
landlords and tenants, or between rich and poor, but between city-dwellers and
country folk, although for his purposes all three sets of distinctions must
obviously have been much the same, and it would not matter much to him (or to
the peasantry) whether the 'city-dwellers' in his picture were carrying out their
exactions purely as landlords or partly as tax-collectors.
14
Immediately summer was over, those who live in th~ cities, in accordance with their
universal practice of collecting a sufficimt supply of com to last a wholt' year. took
from the fields all the wheat, with tht barley, beans and lentils, and left to the rustics
[the ~groikoi] only those annual products which arc called pulses and kguminous fruits
fospria te kai chrdropa]; they even took away a good part of th~-se to the city. So the
people in the countryside [hoi kata ten chOran anthropoi]. after consuming during the
winter what had been left, were compelled to use unhealthy forms of nourishment.
Through the spring they ate twigs and shoots of trees. bulbs and roots of unwhok-som~
plants, and they made unsparing use of what are called wild vegetables, whatever they
could get hold of, until they wen surfeited; thly ate them after boiling them whole like
green grasses, of which thry had not tasted bcfon cven as an cxpL"rimcnt. I myself in
pcrson saw some of them at the end of spring and almoM all at tht.> beginning of
summer afflicted with numerous ulcers covering their skin, not of the same kind in
every case. for some suffered from l'rysipdas. othlrs from inflamed tumours, others
from spreading boils, others had an r:ruption resembling lichtn and scabs and kprosy.
Gahm goes on to say that many of these wretched people died. He is dealing,
of course, with a situation which in his expcricnce was evidently exceptional,
but, as we shall sec, enough other evidence exists to show that its exceptional
character was a matter of degrcc rather than of kind. Famines in the GraecoRoman world were quire frequent: various modem authors have collected
numerous examples. 7
There is one phenomenon in particular which strongly suggests that in the
Roman empire the peasantry was more thoroughly and effectively exploited
than in most other societies which rely largely upon peasant populations for
their food supply. It has often been notic~:d (as by Lynn White, quoted above)
that peasants have usually b~:en able m survive famines better than their towndwelling fellow-countrymen, because they can hid~: away for themselves som~:
of the food they produce and may still have something to eat when there is
starvation in thc towns. It was not so in the Roman empire. I have just quoted a
very remarkable passage in Galen which speaks of' those who livcin the cities' as
descending upon their chOra after the harvest, in time of dt:arth, and appropriating
for themselves practically all the wholesome food. There is a good deal of specific
evidence from the Middle and Later Homan Empire to confirm this. Philostratus,
writing in the first half of the third century a biography of Apollonius ofTyana
(a curious figure of the late first century), could describe how at Aspendus in
Pamphylia (on the south coast of Asia Minor) Apollonius could find no food on
sale in the market except vetches (orobol): 'the citizens.' he says. 'were feeding on
this and whatever else they could get, for the leading men [hoi dynatoi, literally
'the powerful'] had shut away all the com and were keeping it for export'
(Philostr . Vita Apollon. 1.15; cf. IV .ii and its n.24 below). And again and again,
between the mid-fourth century and the mid-sixth, we fmd peasants crowding
into the nearest city in time offamine. because only in the city is there any edible
food to be had: I shall give a whole series of examples in IV .ii below.
We must also remember something that is far too often forgotten: the
exploitation of the humbler folk was by no means only financial; one of its most
burdensome features was the exaction of menial labour services of many kinds.
A Jewish rabbi who was active in the second quarter of the third century of our
era declared that cities were set up by the State 'in order to impose upon the
people angaria'- a term ofPersian or Aramaic provenance and originally relating
15
to fon:c.d transport services, which had been taken ovl"r by the Hellenistic
kingdoms (as the Gn:ck. word angartia, plural angareiai) and by the Romans (as
the Latin ang.~ri.J, .mgs,.iat). and had Cl}lll\.' to be applied to a variety of forms of
compulo;ury l;thuur pc.rt(mnc.d t(lr tlw State or the municipalities;" 'the Middle
Ages ;lpplic.d i~ to sc.rvins (oWI'inj nw~..d to the seigneur' (Marc Bloch, in CEHE
12 .263-4), .md in fith't'nth-century Italy we still hear of angararii, and ofthose
bound hy tlak~ in ru~tic vao;salagt tn th~ir Jt,rds, subject ro 11ngaria andperangaria
(Philip Jone!>, m td. -1t16). An c:x.tmrk r"dmihar to mosr people today who have
never heard the word .mg.Jri.J 1~ the sh.lry ofShnon ofCyrenc, who was obliged
by th(' Romans ro carry the cross ofjesus to the place of execution: Mark and
Matthew use tht Appropriate technical term, a form of the verb angareueit1 (Mk
XV .21; Mr. XX VILJ2). Only an understanding of the angareia-system can
make fully intdligihle OJll' of the sayings ofjesus in the so-called Sermon on the
Mount: 'Whos\)l'\'Cr shall compel thee to go a mile-. go with him twain' (Mt.
V.41). A~ain. the word 'compel' in this text represents the t!!clmical term
angare11,-it1. (The pal>Sagc deserves more notice than it usually receives in discussions oftht J.ttltudt (l(Jesus rn the political authorities ofhis day.) Readers of
the Stoic ph1losopher Epictetus will remember that he was less positively
enthu~ia'>tic than Jesus about c~peration with officials exacting angarera: he
merely remarks that it is sensible to comply with a soldier's requisition of one's
donkey. If one objects, he says, the result will only be a be-ating, and the donk cy
will be taken just the same (Diss. IV.i.79).
As it happens, it is in a speech On an,eareiai (De at~!l.triis in Litin, Orar. l) !h;H
tht' great Antiochene orator Libanius makes a partknhr!y elllph.ltlc ;;s~"rtina of
the absolute dependence of the cities upon the conntryo;J...J, ;md lt5 inlubiun~s.
(The word angareia does not actually occur in the speclh, and i'ai H11 .:'.~~~on 0\!'
irs title may be due to a Byzantine scholar; but no une will disput<: 1 ha~ .m_~,!rf i;l'
of a particular municipal kind are the subject ot the- document.} l!~aums. is
complaining to the Emperor Theodosius I in 3~5 that the pc1sar~r-; <lf the
neighbourhood are being driven to desperation by b:lvi11g ~hnnsclve:; and tlKi~
animals pressed into service for carrying away building mbblc: from lht' city.
Permits are givt'n by the authorities. he says, which \v,n allow pri,~t:::- U!'.~ivi
duals to take charge of particular gates of the city and to tmpr~"~ everything
passing through; with the help of soldiers they dmc lldpl~ss peasants with the
lash( 9, 16, 27 etc.). As Liebeschuetz puts it, the- animils oihonorati (l,~ttng .:lr
retired imperial officials and military officers) 'were not notu:!;momd; ()tiwr
notables managed to get their animals excused even if with sumt: ,ti fficult}. A II
the suffering was that of peasants. There is not a word about losses ,.,f f;tndowners' (Ant. 69). Although he has to admit that the practice has beer. going on
for years( 10. 15, 30), Libanius claims that it was illegal( 7. 10, 17-.20). Hl
cleverly adduces the fact that a permit was once obtained from an empl'rllr as
proof that even the provincial governor has no right to authorise it ( 2:2). HI."
also asserts that visitors from other cities arc aghast at what th~y s~"t. happeninp;
in Antioch( 8) -a statement there is no need to take seriously. Tow.uds the~nd
of the speech Libanius explains that the practice he is complaining ahont !u~ .l
bad effect on the city's com supply ( 30-1). an argument that might ht'
expected to appeal strongly to the emperor. (We may compare the complaint ...~r
the Emperor Domitian, almost exactly three hundred years earlier, that th'-
16
infliction on working peasants of burdens of the type of angaria is likely to result

in failures of cultivation: IGLS V.t998, lines 28-30.) And then libanius comes
to his climax: he begs the philanthropotatos basileus,
Show your concern not just for the cities, but for the countryside too, or rather for the
countryside in preference to the cities -for the country is the basis on which they rest.
One can assert that cities are founded on the country, and that this is their firm footing.
providing them with wheat, barley. grapes, wine, oil and the nourishment of man and
other living beings. Unless oxen, ploughs. seed, plants and herds of cattle existed.
cities would not have come into being at all. And, once in existence, they have
depended upon the fortunes of the countryside, and the good and ill that they
experience arise therefrom.
Any foe to the well-being of working farmers and even of their animals, he goes
on,
is foe to the land, and the foe to the land is foe to the cities also, and indeed to mariners
as well, for they too need the produce of the land. They may get from the sea increase
of their store of goods, but the very means of life comes from the land. And you too,
Sire, obtain tribute from it. In your rescripts you hold converse with the cities about it.
alld their payment ofit comes from the land. So whoever assists the peasantry supports
you, and ill-treatment of them is disloyal to you. So you must pur a stop to this
ill-treatment, Sire, by law, punishment and edicts, and in your enthusiasm for the
matter under discussion you must encourage all to speak up for the peasants ( 33-6,
in the translation of A. F. Norman's Loeb edition ofLibanius, VoL II).
I should perhaps add, not only that the practice against which Libanius is
protesting is something quite separate from the burdensome angareiai exacted
by the imperial authorities. mainly in connection with the 'public post', but also
that Libanius himself sometimes takes a very different and much less protective
attitude towards peasants in his other writings, notably when he is denouncing
the behaviour of his own and other tenants, as well as freeholders resisting
tax-collectors, in his Orat. XL VII (see IV .ii below).
The linguistic evidence for the separation between polis and chora is particularly illuminating. Except in some of the western and southern coastal areas
of Asia Minor, such as Lydia, Carla. Lycia, Pamphylia and the Cilician plain,
where the native tongues seem to have been entirely displaced by Greek during
the Hellenistic age, the great majority of the peasants of the Greek East and even
some of the townsmen (especially of course the humbler ones) habitually spoke
not Greek but the old native tongues. Everyone will remember that when Paul
and Barnabas arrived at Lystra, on the edge of a mountain district of southern
Asia Minor, and Paul is said to have healed a cripple, the people cried out 'in the
speech of Lycaonia' (Act. Apost. XIV.tt) -a vernacular tongue which was
never written down and which in due course perished entirely. (And this
happened inside a city, and moreover one in which Augustus had planted a
citizen colony ofRoman veterans.)1 Such stories could be paralleled again and
again from widely separated parts of the Roman empire, in both East and West.
And those who did not speak Greek or Latin would certainly have little or no
part in Graeco-Roman civilisation.
We must not exaggerate the strictly ethnic and linguistic factors, which are so
noticeable in the more eastern parts of the Greek area, at the expense of
economic and social ones. Even in Greece itself, the Aegean islands and the more
17
western coasts of Asia Minor, where Greeks had fnr 'entllfi(.s been !et tied a.r1d
where even the poorest peasant might be as much a J-k!I..m~ :t!" tl:t ,:ity n1.1gn ate
(if at a much lower cultural level), the class divisim; bdwc.m thl" ~~x:pl:li t.:n.\.nd
those from whom they drew their sustenance wa!i very real, and i; n<t:lH:dl~
deepened when the humble entirely lost the protc\.t~o:l many oftlwm had bet.~ll
able to obtain from a democratic form ofgovemmmr is~c. V.iii bck:wj. And in
the 'Oriental' parts, newly brought within the g:-ca.t Hdlc.'!tistk king<lom~, t:h
dear-cut difference between 'Hellene' and 'barbaros' (Grc.:dt ;jn<l natiw) gradLi~
ally became transformed into a more purely class distinction. betwc.'-;n t:.h~
propertied and non-propertied. This is true even of Egypt, wht:r(" tt:~ gulf
betwc."cn the Greeks and the native Egyptians had miginally l1:."t'n ~) wide a.s
anywhlrt.>, extending to l:mguJgc.>. religion, cultnr~ and 'w:.y otht~ m gener-:.11.
In Egypt, indeed, there was ntorc intt'rp.:-nctrarion bl.'tWc:t"'l the two dt"m~'1~lts
than elsewhere. because unttll\.D. 200 citi,:> wen tC.!v (th:"n" Wc."n only Alex~
andria. Naucrati<>. Paral'tomum .'!nd PtulcmJ.is, and in addi!iou Hadri:.n ~ fonndation of AntinoC:'Ipnlis m A.O. 1.'\t.tj, and becallit' f;\r more Grc."ekl' settlc.d
outside :he citiel'. iu tht cour.tr~ di!-tricts, ntltn .u soldic.'r!> n: dministrJto:-s, but
with a strong tl"ruimcy to gravit .ttl' towards rh~ 'metropoleis'. tl-r. c .t~ltt.tls \lf r ht:
districts ('nomd) into which Egypt wo1~ divided. The exploitltior: of Egyp~
under dtt~ Ptolcmic."S (32'\-JI'J D.C.) w.1s not .lli intens, .l<; U!'lc.ier the o;ucceeding
Roman admini!itration. and the rents and taxes ex.l\h.d frnm th(" j:'C3SJ!lt ry wen
at lea!lr speur mainly J.t Alexandria and Naucratili, .md at the othc.r .;;:n:t(~ ,1f
populatiun (not yet polt'i.s} wh,n men of properr,.li,td. and wtrc not partly
diverted (as they wen brcr) to Rome. Nevertheless. the.> inct'Dlt" ui th\! Ptolem.;~ .....
was enormous by ancic."llt s.tand.uds, and the fellahin mm1 ha\'t:' hcc!'l pn1H.r..l
hard to provide it. 11 After 200 B.C. 'some native<> rose ir! the '"~al~ ;md tnclk
Greek names, and some Greeks sank; Greek and native. n.ln~-.'S ...,crur in t h .. !>U:ru
family. Some Greeks kept themselves aloof; but a new mixd race l\>rrn '<!!'d
intermediate between Greeks and fellahin, and Hellene came to rnun a m .an
with some Greek culture' (Tam, HC 3 2~7). 12 In Egypt, a~ elsewhere, "bemg a
Greek' was certainly very much more a matter of culture than of de;cer.t; but
culture itself was largely dependent upon property-owner~hip. Before the end
of the second century B.C., as Rostovtzeffsays, 'From the social and ~c:onmn.ic
standpoint the dividing line between the upper and lower class was no longer
between the Greeks forming the upper, and the Egyptiam forrring rhe lower,
but between the rich and poor in general, many Egyptians being among the
first, many Greeks among the second'; but 'the old division into a privileged
class of "Greeks" (which comprised now many hellenisd Egyptian!') andl a
subordinate class of natives remained as it had been' (SEHHJ.I' 11.88.3). This is
true, although some of the documents cited by Rostovtzeff might now be
differently interpreted in some respects. 13 In the Roman period, ~ith the
growth of the metropoleis into something more nearly resembling Greek d:i~s,
where the landowners mainly lived, the propertied classes generally regarded
themselves as Greeks and the peasants as Egyptians. In a letter surviving on
papyrus from the third century of the Christian era, the writer does not want his
'brethren' to think ofhim as 'a barbarian or an inhuman [aMnthropos] Egyptian'
(P. Oxy. XIV.1681.4-7).
Marriages between city folk and peasants must have been very uncommon in
18
all parts of the Greek world. Occasiomtlly, no do\~br, a peasant girl might be
beautiful enough to attr:.c~ a well-to-do city gentkman, but as a rule he would
probably be far mon:: likely to make hcr his mistress or concubine than his wife.
There is, however. one delightful :.tory . which I caruH>t 1c:sist telling, oflove and
marriage between two 1ich ymmg city men and rwo lovely Sicilian peasant girls,
who became know11 <lS rill" Kallipygoi. This is lransmitted to us through
Athenaeus (XII.554cde), from the iambic pQems ofC-:rddas of Megalopolis and
Archelaus ofChersoneStl$. (How much ~:ruth tb~re is in it we have no means of
knowing.) The t\vo be:tutiful daughters ofa peasam (an ~mer agroikos), disputing
which of them was the tll~)re c:allipygous, \\':m out on to the highway and
invited a young man .vh'.' happen<'d to he passing by w ~:hitrate between them.
Inspecting both, h~: preferred the t:]df:!, "'"i~h whom h.e then and there fell in
love. His younger bro!lwr, w h~r~ he h1:;H'rl about the girls, went out to see them,
and fell in love widt ~he younger. The ag,d father 1;.f th\~ two yowtg men did his
best to persuade his sons to make more reputable !U;lrriages, but without
SUCCeSS, and eventually he ;;cceJmd th~ !W~ l'l"asant girls as his daughters-inJaw. Having thus nsen greatly iu t !:~ ~,orld and h.:"come c-onspicuously rich, the
two women built a temple m A phrodi~ KallipygLS- a .:1lt title which was not
only most appropriate ~o the: goddess of ((~:-:- :md (x.Juty but also made a
charming allusion to tht: t:in:umstances of th-;; foundation. (One may feel that
this is one of tht- cases in wnkh paganism had a di"Stinct advantage over
Christianity.) Marriages of well-bred girls u... }l.~sants must also have been
exceedingly rare. fn Euripides' F.lec!r.a th;: marriage ofche princess Electra to a
poor rustic who is not c."\.'t"P~ givt:n Ol name it1 rh,~ play - h\~ is just an autourgos (a
man who worb hi." farm with hi:> own h:md~} - e> regarded even by the man
himself as a grav<~ ilml ,ldibcrate slight on ehl' girl. :-.nd in his opening speech he
alludes with pridl' to th~ t3cr. thai ht h:-.:-; n~:vc,r t:ok('n her t:~. his bed and she is still a
virgin- tense and t'eurotk, as we f'lT3('ntly d\sr.,)vcr. 14
The contrast bc:~ ween superior city~hvdh:c ;mc\msophisticated countryman
could even be pwj:nc:d im<: the divine sphere. it< a collection of fables by
Babrius we hear ofa bclic.:fth;< ir i~ dll. simple-mimkd !11etheis) among the gods
who inhabit the ,.fiUntrysidt:. while those dt:ith~ who lh:e within the city wall
are infallible and havt. everything umftr their supervi~ion (Fab. Aesop. 2.6-8).
In III. vi below I shall JJtcmicn briefly dw cre.ninfl by wealthy benefactors in
Greek and Rom~m cities of 'foundations' !<' provide distributions of money or
food on special ocusiuu. {'lf:en ~r:,tkd ac,xmling to the p.>Sition of the recipients
in the social hier:uchy- the higher a pt"fscm's su(i;al po!oition, the more he was
likely to get. Rustks, wh~lu che Gn:ck. Ea:;;t would nftc.'O not be citizens of their
polis, would very nrdy i:'l\.-nt~fl from &ut:h .1 djsrrihutiun. Dio Chrysostom can
make one of his li.t!bmm Jl':IS3nt~ Ac.Mu\, fhc;" fai't rh.u his father had once
panicipated in a distribution,.; mou\"y in th&: tn(~l Mwn .as evidence that he was a
citizen there (VII.49j. The only inscription I hc~w noticed that mentions
countryfolk benefiting frmtl a disrriburi,n Ul!lt~tutd hy a citizen ofa Greek polis
is one from Prusias ad Hypium in IJjebynia. whidt s~aks ofhandouts both to all
those 'reckoned .t!l cici:r.et:i' (e'!nkekrimenois) and m thus-;- 'inhabiting the cowttry
district' (to is ten agroikian katoikousin/paroikousin. IGRR ai.69. 18-20, 24-6). n
* * * * * *
19
To conclude this section, I cannot do better than quote two summaries by A.

H. M. Jones of his researches into a thousand years of Hellenistic and RDman
rule in the Greek East. One, from his first major work. Ciries of the Eastern
Roman Provinces (1937, 2nd edn 1971), deals specifically with Syria, wh1ch had
previously been only on the fringe of the Greek world but was brought within it
be degrees from the time of Alexander's conquests, from 333 B.C. onwards; but
Jones's conclusions are equally, or almost equally. true of the other areas in
western Asia, north Africa and south-east Europe which became hellenised only
in Alexander's time or later. Summing up 'the rcsu1ts of the millennium during
which Syria had been ruled by the Macedonian dynasties and by Rome'.} ones
says,
On paper tht th.mgt'ln th~ political d.~()l!~t ot'tb' ('uuntry is considerable. In the Persian
period citi~-:. <'Xi!i-t;,."ll anh on th.: ><'.H'OJ~t. tht dL-s;.rr fringe, and two of the gangways
bctwnn t!wm through the cenrralmuunt.J.in IMmcr. By the- Byzantine period practically th< wholt: of 5~Tiot was partitioned into city states; only in a few isolat~d areas.
notably the J>rd:m v.dlty and the Hauran. did villagc- life remain tht' rule. In reality.
hoWt'\'~r. th' .~han~ was sur~rticial. It
a.hi~ved partly by assigning vast t:Crn
torics to tht lid du~-s ofth ('Oa~t o~nl oft hi." ,;~'S<.'rt tringt', partly by the foundatton ofa
small number ut li<'W dti~~. t\1 ,.ach vf whi(h wo~s ~!oigned a vastterritory. The political
life of th. inhabiunts ot' th. .~.grindtur.tl bdt w.as unaffected; thl'ir unit remained the
villagt'. and they took no part in the lift elf th ity to which they wrre attached.
Economkally they lost by the chantte. Tn~ mw ~ities performed no useful econonuc
function. for the larger villages ~uppl:.ed such manufactured goods as the villager,;
requinJ. and the trade ofthe country~ik wa~ ,,m,!uctcd at village markets. 16 The on!)
effect li the foundation of cities was the <Tt>ati,lr; of a wealthy landlord class which
graduall~ :;tilmped out peasant propn<'l<>nhlp. Culturally, the countryside remained
utterly un.J.tteltcd by the Helleni~rn oi the: oti~~. 17 the peasants continued to speak
Syriac down to the Arab conquest. The mly ~un.-tion which the cities performed wa;
adminNratiVl'; they policed and collected the taxes of their territories (CER P 2 29~).
w...,
And in a note later in the book Jones adds,

The indifference of the villagers to the cities is, I think, wdl illustrated by the
tombstones of Syrian emigrants in th.: West ... :they always record thdr village. but
name their city, if at all. merely as a geographical determinant' (CERP 2 469 n.'.J2) _tK
The other passage is from p. vi of the Preface to Jones's The Greek City from
.4/e.,ander to justinian (1940). Summarising the conclusions in Part V of that
book, Jones says that he discusses 'the contribution of the cities to ancient
Cl\'ilisation' and argues that
Great as their achievement was, it was based on too narrow a class foundation to be
lasting. On the economic side the life of thl' cities involved an unhealthy con centra cion
of wealth in the hands of the urban aristocracy at the expense of the proletariat and thr
peasants. Their political life was gradually narrowed till it was confined to a small
clique ofwell-to-do families, who finally lost interest in it. The culture which the cities
fostered. though geographically spread over a widt> ana, was limited to the urban
upper class. 19
(iv)
The relevance of Marx for the study of ancient history
So .-umplere has been the lack of interest in Marx displayed by nearly all ancient
historians in the English-speaking world 1 that many who begin to read this book
20
may wonder what relevance Marx can possibly have to the history of Classical
antiquity. I have heard this lack of interest described as 'a conspiracy of silence';
bur that would be to dignify it with a conscious element which in practice is
absent: the reality is just silence. I know of nothing comparable as yet in the
British Isles to the symposium on the programme of the American Philological
Association in 1973, entitled 'Marxism and the Classics', or to the issue of the
American Classical periodical Artthusa, vol.8.1 (Spring, 1975). with the same
tide. 2 (The article included in that volume. with the title 'Karl Marx and the
history of Classical antiquity', pp.7-41. is virtually a series of extracts from
earlier drafts of this book.) One often hears the view expressed that in so far as
the ideas of Marx on history have any validity, they have already been absorbed
into the Western historiographical tradition. One thinks here of the late George
Lichtheim' s description of Marxism as 'the caput mortuum of a gigantic intellectual construction whose living essence has been appropriated by the historical
consciousness of the modem world' (Marxism 2 [1964 and repr.] 406). This is
altogether untrue, above all in regard to the modem historiography of the
Classical world.
Now the situation I have described is certainly due in part to a general
ignorance of the thought of Marx, and a lack of interest in it, on the part of the
vast majority of ancient historians and other Classical scholars in the Englishspeaking world. But I shall sugg~st later that this ignorance and lack ofinterest
can be attributed partly to mistaken attempts in modem times, on the part of
those who call themselves Marxists (or at least claim to be influenced by Marx),
to interpret the essentials of Marx's historical thought both in general terms and
in particular in relation to Classical antiquity. I like to remember that Engels, in
a letter written to Conrad Schmidt on 5 August 1890, more than seven years
after Marx's death, recalled that Marx used to say about the French Marxists of
the late 1870s, 'All I know is that I am not a Marxist' (MESC 496). I think he
would have felt much the same about soi-disant Marxists- not only French ones
-of the 1980s. As the German poet Hans Magnus Enzensberger says. in his
moving short poem, Karl Heinrich Marx-
1 see you betrayed

by your disciples:
only your enemies
remained what they were.
(The translation of the poem by Michael Hamburger is reprinted in the Penguin
Poems of Hans Magnus Enzensberger 38-9.)
Much modem Marxist writing in languages other than English seems recalcitrant to translation into English. I am inclined to apply to much of this writing
some forceful remarks made by Graham Hough in a review in the Times Littrary
Supplement of two books on Roland Barthcs. Approving a statement by Stephen
Heath, that the language evolved by Barthes and his school 'has no common
theoretical context with anything that exists in English', he continues:
To transfer it bodily- simply to anglicise the words, which is not difficult- produn'S a wall
ofopacity that blocks all curiosity at the start. To adapt, to paraphrase, which can also
be done and often looks inviting, runs the risk of denaturing the original and reducing
disconcerting ideas to acceptable commonplace (TLS 3950. 9 December tm. p.1443).
I. Introduction (iv)
21
So it is, I feel, with much contemporary Marxist work. even in French and
Italian, and still more in German and Russian.
More and more people in my adult lifetime have become willing to take some
account ofMarx's analysis of the capitalist world in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. As I am a historian and not an economist, I shall do no more than
mention the revival of serious interest in Marx's economics in Britain on the part
of a number of leading economists of our generation (whether or not they
would describe themselves as Marxists): Maurice Dobb, Ronald Meek, Joan
Robinson, Piero Sraffa and others. 3 In the Foreword to the first edition of her
Essay on Marxian Economics (1942) Joan Robinson remarked that 'until recently
Marx used to be treated in academic circles with contemptuous silence, broken
only by an occasional mocking footnote'. In the first paragraph of the Preface to
the second edition (1 %6}, she mentioned that when she was writing the original
edition, a quarter of a century earlier, most of her 'academic colleagues in
England thought that to study Marx was a quaint pastime ... , and in the United
States it was disreputable'. Matters are rather different now. Within the last few
years sociologists too have rather suddenly become far more willing than they
used to be to adopt a Marxist analysis of problems of contemporary society. I
may perhaps be allowed to refer to one particularly impressive recent example: a
book entitled Immigrant Workers and Class Stmcture in Wt'stem Europe. by Stephen
Casdes and Godula Kosack, published in 1973, the relevance of which for our
present study will emerge in II.iii below. Even so, many people would. I think,
agree with the opinion of a leading British sociologist. T. B. Bottom ore (who is
far from hostile to Marx), that 'while the Marxian theory seems highly relevant
and useful in analysing social and political conflicts in capitalist societies during a
particular period, its utility and relevance elsewhere are much less clear'
(Sociology 2 , [1971] 201). Those who hold such views may be prepared to
concede that a very valuable contribution has been made by certain Marxist
historians who have dealt mainly with the eighteenth and nintecnth centuries,
for example Eric Hobsbawm. George Rude and E. P. Thompson; butthey may
begin to feel that their premise has been somewhat weakened when they take
notice of the work of an American Marxist historian, Eugene Genovese, who
has produced work of outstanding quality on slavery in the antebellum South;
and it is surely strained to breaking-point and beyond when they have to take
Jccount of Christopher Hill (formerly the Master ofBalliol), who has done so
much to illuminate the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and
Rodney Hilton, who has dealt with English peasants and peasant movements in
the fourteenth century and earlier, in various articles and in two recent books,
8(1nd Men Made Fret' (1973) and The English Peasantry in tht Lattr Middle Ages
(1975, the publication of his Ford Lectures at Oxford in 1973). We are already a
very long way from nineteenth-century capitalism; and if we go still further
back, into the Bronze Age and prehistory, in Europe and Western Asia, we can
find archaeologists, in particular the late V. Gordon Childe. also acknow ]edging
their debt to Marx. [See now VIII.i n.33 below.]
Anthropologists too, at least outside Great Britain, have for some time been
prepared to take Marx seriously as a source ofinspiration in their own discipline.
French economic anthropologists such as Maurice Godelier, Claude Meillassoux,
Emmanuel Terray, Georges Dupre and Pierre-Philippe Rey have operated to a
22
high degree within a Marxist tradition, which they have developed in various
ways. 4 Even the structuralists have often acknowledged a debt to Marx. Over
twenty years ago Claude Levi-Strauss himself referred to his 'endeavours to
reintegrate the anthropological knowledge acquired during the last fifty years
into the Marxian tradition'; and spoke of'the concept of stntcture which I have
borrowed, or so I thought, from Marx and Engels, among others, and to which
I attribute a primary role' (SA 343-4). 5 American anthropologists have also
become much more attentive to Marx in recent years: Marvin Harris. for
example, in his comprehensive work, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1969
and repr. ), devotes some serious attention to Marx and Engels as anthropologists,
including a chapter ofover 30 pages ('Dialectical materialism', pp.217-49). And
then, in 1972, came what I can only describe as a break-through in British
anthropology. An anthropologist of the very first rank, Sir Raymond Firth,
delivering the inaugural lecture of a new British Academy series in honour of
Radcliffe-Brown, gave it a significant title: not merely 'The sceptical anthropologist?' (an allusion, of course, to Robert Boyle's Tht Sctptical Chymist) but
also 'Social anthropology and Marxist views on society'. 6 I should like to quote
part of the last paragraph of this lecture, because it urges social anthropologists
to interest themselves in particular aspects of human societies which I think
historians of Classical antiquity should also be srudying, and which - like the
social anthropologists to whom Firth is addressing himself- most of them are
not studying. Firth says:
What Marx's theories offer to social anthropology is a set of hypotheses about social
relations and especially about social change. Marx's insights- about the basic significance ofeconomic factors, especially production relations: their relation to structures
of power; the formation of classes and the opposition of their interests; the socially
relative character of ideologies; the conditioning force of a system upon individual
members of it- these insights] em body proposi rions which must be taken for critical
scrutiny into the body of our science. The theories of Marx should be put on a par
whh, say, those ofDurkheim or Max Weber. Because they imply radical change they
are more threatening.
That last word is particularly significant. (I shall return to the 'threatening'

nature of Marxist analysis in ll.ii below.) Now Firth, I am sure, would not
describe himself as a Marxist. Shortly before the paragraph I have quoted he
expresses the opinion that 'much of Mane's theory in its literal form is outmoded': the examples he gives in support of this claim do not seem to me well
formulated or cogent. But what I am primarily concerned to do at the moment
is to make a plea for the relevance of Marx's general historical methodology to
the study of ancient history. If it can make major contributions to history
between the early Middle Ages and the twentieth century, and even in archaeology and anthropology, then there is good reason to expect that it may be able
to shed light upon Classical antiquity.
Apart from one negligible book which I shall mention later (in Il.i below and
its n.20), I know of no single work in English which consistently attempts either
to analyse Greek history- or, for that matter, Roman history- in terms of
Marxist historical concepts, or to expound those concepts themselves and
explain why they arc relevant for the purpose of such an analysis. In fact both
these tasks need to be accomplished together at least once, within one pair of
23
covers (as I am trying to do here), if the new start that I am advocating is to be

made successfully. As I have said, most English-speaking ancient historians
ignore Marx completely. If they do mention him, or Marxist historical writing,
it is usually with ignorant contempt. An exception is a recent wel1-chosen
selection of source material in translation for Greek economic and social history
in the Archaic and Classical periods, first published in French by Michel M.
Austin and Pierre Vidal-Naquet under the tide of Economies et sociites en Crece
antimne (Paris, 1972 and 1973) and then, with some improvements, in English,
as Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction (London, 1977).
The introduction (mainly by Austin) devotes several pages (20 ff. in the English
version) to the notion of 'class struggles'. Now, as I shall explain (in II. iii
below), I disagree profoundly with the way these scholars have applied the
Marxist concept of class conflict to the Greek world; but at least they are
operating with categories that have become thoroughly associated with the
Marxist tradition in historiography and are very often repudiated altogether or
allowed only a very limited role by non-Marxists.
In languages other than English the situation is much better- although, as I
indicated near the beginning of this section, many of the Marxist works on
ancient history published on the Continent are as foreign to the English reader in
their intellectual and literary idiom as in their actual language: they tend to take
for granted a whole range of concepts to which most people in the Englishspeaking world are not accustomed and which they find largely unintelligible. 7
The word 'jargon' is often used in this context, if not always by those who have
earned the right to use it by refraining from a different jargon of their own.
* * * * * *
At this point I must write briefly about Marx himself as a Classical scholar. He
received, in school and university, at Trier, Bonn and Berlin, the thorough
Classical education which was given to most young middle-class Germans in
the 1830s. At the uninrsi.tk".i nfBonn Jad Berlin he studied law and philosophy,
and between 1839 and 1841, among various other activities, he wrote, as his
doctoral thesis, a comparison of the philosophies ofDemocritus and Epicurus.
This work. completed in 1840-41, before Marx was 23, was not published in full
even in German until1927, when it appeared in MEGA I. i.l (the first fasciculeof
Part i of Vol. I of the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, published at Frankfurt and
edited by D. Rjazanov) 1-144. It has not been republished in MEW I (the first
volume of the complete Wt7'ke ofMarx and Engels now in course of publication
in East Berlin). An English translation (replacing an inferior earlier one) has
recently been published in MECWI, the first volume of the new English edition
of the Marx-Engels Colltcted Works (Moscow/London/New York, 1975), 25107. Cyril Bailey, reviewing the original publication in the Classical Quarterly 22
(1928) 20~. was greatly impressed with its scholarship and its originality: he
found it 'of real interest to a modern student of Epicureanism' and ended by
saying that such a student would fmd in it 'some illuminating ideas'. The thesis
looks forward to a larger work (never actually written) in which Marx planned
to 'present in detail the cycle of Epicurean, Stoic and Sceptic philosophy in their
relation to the whole of Greek speculation' (MECW 1.29). It is worth noticing
24
that the Foreword to the thesis ends by quoting the defiant reply ofPrometheus
to Hermes, in Aeschylus' PrCJmetheus Bound (lines 966fT.), 'Be sure of this: I
would not exchange my state of misfortune for your servitude', and adding that
Prometheus (the Prometheus of Aeschylus) is 'the most eminent saint and
martyr in the philosophical calendar' (MECW 1.31). During this period Marx
read extensively in Classical authors, in particular Aristotle, of whom
throughout his life he always spoke in terms of respect and admiration which he
employs for no other thinker, except perhaps Hegel. As early as 1839 we find
him describing Aristotle as 'the acme [Gipfel] of ancient philosophy' (MECW
1.424); and in Vol. I of Capital he refers to 'the brilliance of Aristotle's genius'
and calls him 'a giant thinker' and 'the greatest thinker of antiquity' (60, 82n.,
408)- as ofcourse he was. Later, Marx returned again and again to read Classical
authors. On 8 March 1855 we find him saying in a letter to Engels, 'A little time
ago I went through Roman history again up to the Augustan era' (MEW
XXVIII.439); on 27 February 1861 he writes again to Engels, 'As a relaxation in
the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman civil wars, in the original
Greek' (MESC 151): and some weeks later, on 29 May 1861, he tells Lassalle that
in order to dispel the serious ill-humour arising from what he describes, in a
mixture of German and English, as 'mein in every respect unsettled situation',
he is reading Thucydides, and he adds (in German) 'These ancient writers at least
remain ever new' (MEW XXX.605-6).
(This is a convenient place at which to mention that I normally cite MESC, an
English translation of244 of the letters of Marx. and Engels, published in 1956,
when it includes a letter I am quoting. I need not regularly refer to the German
texts, since they print the letters in chronological order, and the dates will enable
them to be found easily. The letters exchanged between Marx and Engels are
published in four volumes, MEGA III.i-iv, 1929-31; there is a much larger
collection , including letters written by Marx or Engels to other correspondents,
in MEW XXVII-XXXIX.)
Scattered through the writings of Marx are a remarkable number of allusions
to Greek and Roman history, literature and philosophy. He made a careful study
of Roman Republican history in particular, partly from the sources and partly
with the aid of the works of Niebuhr, Mommsen, Dureau de Ia Malle and
others. I have not been able to discover any systematic study ofGreek history by
Marx after his student days, or ofthe history of the Graeco-Roman world under
the Principate or the Later Roman Empire; but he frequently quotes Greek
authors (more often in the original than in translation), as well as Latin authors,
in all sorts of contexts: Aeschylus, Appian, Aristotle, Athenaeus, Democritus,
Diodorus, Dionysius ofHalicamassus, Epicurus, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer,
!socrates, Lucian, Pindar, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Sophocles, Strabo,
Thucydides, Xenophon and others. He could also make use of that charming
little poem by Antipater of Thessalonica, in the Greek Anthology (IX .41 8),
which is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for the existence of the water-mm
(see 11. i below). After his doctoral dissertation Marx never had occasion to write
at length about the ancient world, but again and again he will make some
penetrating remark that brings out something of value. For example, in a letter
to Engels of25 September 1857 he makes some interesting and perfectly correct
observations: for example, that the first appearance of an extensive system of
25
hired labour in antiquity is in the military sphere, the employment of mercenaries (how often has that been noticed, I wonder!), and that among the Romans
the peculium castrmse was the first legal form in which the right of property was
recognised in members of a family other than the paterfamilias (MESC 118-19).
In a footnote in the Grundrisse (not in the section on 'pre-capitalist forms of
production'), written at about the same rime as the letter from which I have just
quoted, Marx has some acute observations on pay in the Roman army. which
need to be put beside the remark in the letter:
Among the Romans, the anny constituted a mass- but already divorced f'rom the
whole people-which was disciplined to labour, whose surplus time also belongtd to
the State; who sold their entire labour time for pay to the State, exchanged their cnti re
labour capacity for a wage necessary for the maintenance of their life, just as doe5 the
worker with the capitalist. This holds for the period when the Romm army was no
longer a citizen's army but a mercenary army. This is here likewise a free saJe oflabour
on the part of the soldier. But the State does not buy it with the production of va1ues as
aim. And thus, although the wage form. may seem to occur originally in amties, this
pay system is nevertheless essentially different from wage labour. There is some
similarity in ~he fact that the State uses up the army in order to gain an increasei n power
and wealth (Grurulrisst, E.T. 529n.; cf. 893).
It came naturally to Marx to illustrate what he was saying with some Classical
simile, as when he wrote that the trading peoples ofantiquity were 'like the gods
ofEpicurus, in the spaces between the worlds' (Grnndrisse, E.T. 858; cf. Cap.
II.330, 598), or when he spoke scornfully of Andrew Ure. author of The
Philosophy of Manufactures, as 'this Pindar of the manufacturers' (Cap. III.386
n. 75). I have heard quoted against Marx his remark that Spartacus (the leader of
the great slave revolt in Italy from 73 to 71 B.C.) was 'the most splendid fellow
in the whole of ancient history. Great genenl (no Garibaldi), noble character,
real representative of the ancient proletariat'; so let me mention here that the
statement was made not in a work intended for publication but ina private letter
to Engels, of 27 February 1861 - in which, incidentally, he also described
Pompey as 'reiner Scheisskerl' (MEW XXX. l59-60=MESC 151-2).
A recent book by the Professor of German at Oxford University, S. S.
Prawer, Karl Marx and World Literature (1976), has shown in detail hew extraordinarily wide Marx's reading was, not only in German, French, English,
Larin and Greek, but also in Italian, Spanish and Russian .
. I shall have something to say in ll.iii below on Marx's intellectual development
in the 1840s.
I may add that Engels too was very well read and received a Classical
education. A school-leaving report testifying to his knowledge of latin and
Greek survives, as does a poem he wrote in Greek at the age of sixteen. 8
* * * * * *
However, it is not so much as the student of a partirular epoch that! wish t:o
regard Marx now, but rather as a historical sociologist: one who proposed an
analysis of the structure of human society, in its successive stages, which sheds
some illumination upon each of those stages- the Greek world just as much as
the nineteenth and twentieth cenruries.
Let me first mention and dismiss two or three common misconceptions. It is
26
easy to discredit Marx's analysis of society by presenting it in a distorted form,

as it is so often presented both by those who wrongly suppose themselves to be
employing it and by those who are in principle hostile to it. In particular the
thought of Marx is said to involve both 'materialism' and 'economic determinism'. Now the historical method employed by Marx was never given a
name by him, but from Engels onwards it has been generally known as 'historical materialism'. (It seems to have been Plekhanov who invented the term
'dialectical materialism'.) It is certainly 'materialist'. in the technical sense of
being methodologically the opposite ofHegel's 'idealism' -we all know Marx's
famous remark that Hegel's dialectic was standing on its head and 'needs to be
turned right side up again if you would discover the rational kernel within the
mystical shell' (Cap. .20, from the Afterword to the second German edition, of
1873). But 'materialism' does not, and must not, in any way exclude an
understanding of the role ofideas, which (as Marx well knew) can often become
autonomous and acquire a life of their own, and themselves react vigorously
upon the society that produced them- the role ofMarxism itselfin the twentieth
century is a conspicuous example of this. As for the so-called 'economic determinism' of Marx, the label must be altogether rejected. We can begin with his
alleged over-emphasis on the economic side of the historical process. which has
even led to the application to his historical methodology-quite absurdly -ofthe
terms 'reductionist' and 'monistic'. In fact the dialectical process which Marx
envisaged allowed to other factors than the purely economic- whether social,
political, legal, philosophic or religious- almost as much weight as very many
non-Marxist historians would give to them. The alleged 'economism' of Marx
is no more than the belief that out of aD the elements which are operative in the
historical process, it is 'the relations of production' (as Marx called them),
namely the social relations into which men enter in the course of the productive process,
which are the most important factors in human life, and which tend, in the long
run, to determine the other factors. although ofcourse these other factors, even
purely ideological ones, can sometimes exert a powerful influence in their tum
upon all social relations. In five of the letters he wrote between 1890 and 1894
Engels, while admitting that he and Marx had been partly to blame for an
unavoidable over-emphasis on the economic aspect ofhistory, stressed that they
had never intended to belittle the interdependent role of political, religious and
other ideological factors, even while considering the economic as primary. (The
letters are those of5 August, 21 September and 27 October 1890, 14 July 1893,
and 25 January 1894.) 9 In an obiter dictum in one of his earliest works, the
Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of lAw, Marx declared that
although material force can be overcome only by material force, yet 'Theory
also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses' (MECW
111.182). And Mao Tse-tung, in a famous essay 'On Contradiction' (dating from
August 1937), insisted that in certain conditions theory and the ideological
'superstructure' of a society (revolutionary theory in particular) can 'manifest
themselves in the principal and decisive role' . 10
It is true that Marx himself occasionally writes as if men were governed by
historical necessities beyond their control, as when (in the Preface to the original
German edition of Das Kapital) he speaks of 'the natural laws of capitalist
production' as 'self-assertive tendencies working with iron necessity' (MEW
27
XXIII.12. I have altered the misleading translation in Cap. 1.8). Such expressions
are rare: they probably derive from a conception of historical events in which a
high degree of probability has been momentarily taken as certainty.ln fact there is
nothing in the least 'deterministic' in the proper sense in Marx's view ofhistory;
and in particular the role of no single individual is 'determined' by his class
position, even if one can often make very confident predictions (of a statistical
character) about the behaviour of the collective mem hers of a given class. To give
just two examples: if you have an income of more than, say, 20,000a year. the
statistical probability that you will normally hold right-wing views, and in
Britain vote Conservative, is very high indeed; and if you do not belong to the
lowest social class you will have a far better chance of achieving individual
sainthood in the Roman Church - a sociological analysis in the early 1950s
showed that of2,489 known Roman Catholic Saints, only 5 per cent came from
the lower classes who have constituted over 80 per cent of Western populations.11 (Recent proclamations of sanctity, I understand, have not departed
from this pattern.)
l believe that some light may be shed on the last question we have been
considering (the 'determinism' of which Marx is often accused) by a comparison
between Marx and the greatest historian of antiquity, Thucydides- probably
the writer who, with the single exception of Marx, has done most to advance
my own understanding of history. Thucydides often refers to sotnething he
calls 'human nature', by which he really means patterns of behaviour he believed
he could identify in human conduct, partly in the behaviour of individual mell
but much more emphatically in that ofhuman groups: men acting as organised
states, whose behaviour can indeed be predicted far more confidently than tbat of
most individual men. (I have discussed this in my OPW 6, 12 & n.20, 14-16,
29-33, 62, c 297.) The better you understand these patterns of behaviour,
Thucydides (I am sure) believed, the more effectively you can predict how men
are likely to behave in the immediate future - although never with complete
confidence, because always (and especially in war) you must allow for the
unforeseeable, the incalculable, and for sheer 'chance' (see OPW25 & n.52, 30-1
& n.57). Thucydides was anything but a determinist, although he often speaks
of men as being 'compelled' to act in a particular way when he describes them as
choosing the least disagreeable among alternatives none of which they would
have adopted had their choice been entirely free (see OPW 60-2). This common
feature of the human predicament, I believe, is just what Marx had in mind
when he said, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 'Men make their
own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it
under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly
encountered, given and transmitted from the past' (MECW XI. 103).
In every situation in which one is making a judgment there are some factors
which cannot be changed and others which can only be partly modified, and the
better one understands the situation the less forced and unfree one's judgment
becomes. In this sense, 'freedom is theunderstandingofnecessity', Thucydides,
by enabling his readers to recognise and understand some of the basic recurring
features in the behaviour ofhuman groups in the political and international field.
believed - surely with reason - that his History would be for ever 'useful' to
mankind (1.22.4). Similarly, what Marx wished to do was to identify the internal,
28
structural features of each individual human society (above aU, but not only,
capitalist society), and reveal its 'laws of motion' .Ifhis analysis is largely right,
as I believe it is, then, by revealing the underlying Necessity, it increases human
Freedom to operate within its constraint, and has greatly facilitated what Engels
called the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of
freedom' (MESW 426).
In the third volume of Capital there is a point at which Marx suddenly and
quite unexpectedly bursts out into one of those emotional passages 'full of hope
and splendour'- an apt phrase ofHobsbawrn's (KMPCEF 15)- which look
beyond the harsh realities of the present towards a future in which mankind is
largely set free from the soul-destroying compulsion which stiU obliges the
greater part of humanity to spend most of their time producing the material
necessities oflife. This passage, one of many in Capital that reveal the essential
humanity of Marx's outlook, must seem less purely visionary and utopian, in
our age of increasing automation, than it may have appeared to those who first
read it in the 1890s.lt occurs in Part VII of Capital III (p.820), in a chapter (xlviii)
entitled 'The trinity formula', from which I also quote elsewhere. (The German
text can be found in MEWXXV.828.)
The realm of fret"dom actually begins only where labour which is determined by
necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies
beyond the sphere ofactual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with
Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and
he must do so in aU social formations and under all possible modes ofproduction. With
his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result ofhis wants; but, at
the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase.
Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the ass.ociated producers,
rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common
control, instead ofbeing ruled by it as by the blind forces ofNantre; and achieving this
with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and
worthy of, their human nature. But it none the less still remains a realm of necessity.
Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the tnle
realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of
necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Cf.
Marx/ Engels, MECWV .431-2, from the Gennan Ideology, quoted in ll.i below.)
Marx and Engels were certainly not among those who not merely speak
loosely (as any of us may) but actually think seriously ofHistory (with a capital
'H') as a kind of independent force. In a splendid passage in his earliest joint
work. with Marx, The Holy Family (1845), Engels could say,
History does nothing, it 'possesses no immense wealth', it 'wages no battles'. It is man,
real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; 'history is not, as it were,
a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the
activity of man pursuing his aims (MECW IV .93=MEGA I.iii.265).
* * * * * *
Except in so far as the concepts of class and class struggle are involved, I do
not propose in this book to undertake any comprehensive discussion of Marx's
general historical methodology, u which of course involves much more than
class analysis, although that to my mind is central and its rejection entails the
dismissal of most of Marx's system of ideas. Nor do I intend to say anything
29
about such controversies as those concerning 'basis and mp::rstructure'. '"or ~h~
so-called 'modes of production' referred to by Mux. in partic:uhr in the Gm~:ar:
Ideology (MECW V.32-5), in Wage LAbour and Ctpitlll (MECWJX .212). ijj ~h!'
section on pre-capitalist economic formations in th. Gnmoiri::$~ (E.T 47!~5 14.
esp. 495). 14 and in the Prtface to A Contribution to the Critiqut <'( P:l/iti~otl Eomemy
(MESW 182}. Above all I can legitimately avoid anydiscu!o~:on ofthe-desirabi1iry
(or otherwise) of recognising an 'Asiatic' (or 'Oriental') m:>d. pri)I.!La:tion, a
notion which seems to me best forgotten. 15 When sp!!.lking (il)r n<<ntpll.')o of
various parts of Asia at rimes before they had been tak.~n ewer by tht' Grcvks ( (')r
the Macedonians), I believe that it is best to emptoy !>uch ~xpressions a~ 'p: .nCiassical modes of production', in a strictly chronologtca.l ~nsc.
It is not my purpose in this book to defend Marx's analy~i=- otc.lpir:clir. r mciety
or his prophecy of its approaching end (both of which in the main I a..::':Lpt}; hut I
have so often heard it said that he did not allow for the grcwth l1f a m.1 rugerial
and 'white-collar' middle class 18 that I will end this final !>(cticJil of 1:1 '' Introduction with a reference to two passages in his Theones C!t'Surp/;1$ V.1lu; which
rebut this criticism - and are by no means irrelevant to the mam sub:JeCt ott his
book, because they serve to illustrate a feature of the modem worlti to which
there was no real parallel in antiquity. Criticising Malthus, Marx says that 'his
supreme hope, which he himself describes as more or less utopian, is tha t:he
mass of the middle class should grow and that the proletariat (those who wor.k)
should constitute a constantly declining proportion (even though it increases
absolutely) of the total population'; and he adds, 'This in fact is the course rak:.en
by bourgeois society' (TSVIII.63).
And criticising Ricardo, Marx complains that 'what he forgets to emphasise is
the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between
the workman on the one hand and the captalist and landlord on the other. rhe
middle classes ... are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and tb.ey
increase the social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand' (TSV
II.573=MEWXXVJ.ii.576).
These passages may remind us of the fact that in the Greek and Roman world
there was no proper parallel to our own 'white-collar', salaried. managerial class
(we shall see why in III.vi below), except in the Roman Principateand Lat:er
Empire, when three developments took place. First, a proper standingannyvvas
established in the early Principate, with (for the first time) regular benefits on
discharge as well as fixed pay, found by the state. Those who became what ~e
should can 'regular officers', especially the senior centurions, might become
men of rank and privilege. Secondly, an imperial civil service grew up gradual! y,
consisting partly of the emperor's own slaves and freedmen and partly offree
men who, at all levels, served for pay (and for the often considerable perquisit:es
involved): this civil service eventually achieved considerable dimensions, although many of its members were technically soldiers seconded for this dut:y.
The third group of functionaries consisted of the Christian clergy, whose upkeep
was provided partly by the state and partly by the endowments and contributions of the faithful. I shall have more to say about all these three groups lat:er
(VI.v-vi and esp. VIII.iv). Exactly like the middle classes referred to by Marx,
they were certainly 'a burden weighing heavily on the working base' , and as
faithful bastions of the established order they too- except in so far as sections of
or
30
the army were drawn into civil wars in support of rival emperors- 'increased the
social security and power of the upper Ten Thousand'.
To conclude this section, I wish to emphasise that I make no claim to be
producing the 'Marxist interpretation ofGreek history': it is a would-be Marxist
interpretation. After reading by far the greater part of Marx's published work
(much of it, I must admit, in English translation), I myself believe that there is
nothing in this book which Marx himself (after some argument, perhaps!)
would not have been willing to accept. But ofcourse there will be other Marxists
who will disagree at various points with my basic theoretical position or with the
interpretations I have offered of specific events, institutions and ideas; and I hope
that any errors or weaknesses in this book will not be taken as directly due to the
approach I have adopted, unless that can be shown to be the case.
II
Class, Exploitation, and Class Strnggle
(i)
The nature of class society
'The concept of class has never remained a harmless concept for very long.
Particularly when applied to human beings and their social conditions it has
invariably displayed a peculiar explosiveness.' Those are the first two sentences
of a book, Class and Class Conjlirt in Industrial Socirty, by Ralf Dahrendorf, a
leading German sociologist who in 1974 became Director of the London School
of Economics and Political Science. And Dahrendorf goes on to quote with
approval the statement by two prominent American sociologists, Lipset and
Bendix, that 'discussions of different theories of class are often academic substitutes for a real conftict over political orientations'. I fully accept that. It seems
to me hardly possible for anyone today to discuss problems of class, and above
all class struggle (or class conflict), in any society, modem or ancient, in what
some people would call an 'impartial' or 'unbiased' manner. I make no claim to
'impartiality' or 'lack of bias', let alone 'Wertfreiheit', freedom from valuejudgments. The criteria involved are in reality much more subjective than is
commonly admitted: in this field one man's 'impartiality' is another man's
'bias', and it is often impossible to find an objective test to resolve their
disagreement. Yet, as Eugene Genovese has put it, 'the inevitability of ideological bias does not free us from the responsibility to struggle for maximum
objectivity' (RB 4). The criteria that I hope will be applied to this book are two:
first, its objectivity and truthfolnrss in regard to historical events and processes; and
secondly, the fruiifulness of the analysis it produces. For 'historical events and
processes' I should almost be willing to substitute 'historical facts'. I do not
shrink from that unpopular expression, any more than Arthur Darby Nock did
when he wrote, 'A fact is a holy thing, and its life should never be laid down on
the altar of a generalisation' (ERAW 1.333). Nor do I propose to dispense with
what is called- sometimes with a slight sneer, by social and economic historians
- 'narrative history'. To quote a recent statement in defence of 'narrative
history' by the present Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford:
I do not see how we can detennine how institutions worked, or what effect beliefs or
social ~tructures had on men's conduct, unless we study their actions in concrete
situations ... The most fundamental instinct that leads us to seek historical knowledge
is surely the desire to find our what actually happened in the past and especially to
discover what we can about events that had the widest effect on the fortunes of
mankind; we then naturally go on to inquire why they occurred (P. A. Brunt. 'What is
Ancient History about?'. in Didaskalos 5 [1976] 236-49, at 244).
Can we actually identify classes in Greek society such as I shall describe? Did
32
The Class Strnggle in the Ancient Greek World
the Greeks themselves recognise their existence? And is it profitable to conduct

an investigation along these lines? Is our understanding of the historical process,
and of our own society, illuminated and strengthened by thinking in terms of
classes and of a 'class struggle' in the Greek world? When I find Levi-Strauss
saying, 'I am not a sociologist, and my interest in our own society is only a
secondary one' (SA 338), I want to reply. 'I am a historian who tries also to be a
sociologist, and my interest in our own society is a primary one.'
I am not going to pretend that class is an entity existing objectively in its own
right, like a Platonic 'Form', the nature of which we merely have to discover.
The word has been used by historians and sociologists in all sorts of different
senses; 1 but I believe that the way in which Marx chose to use it is the most
fruitful, for our own society and for all earlier ones above the primitive level,
including Greek and Roman society. Now Marx never, unfortunately, gave a
definition of the term 'class', and it is true that he uses it rather differently on
different occasions. above all when he is speaking of actual historical circumstances, in which the nature of the particular classes involved could differ
considerably. 2 Even when, at the very end of the unfinished third volume of
Capital, pp.885-6 (cf. 618), 3 he was about to answer his own question, 'What
constitutes a class?' he only had time to say that the reply to this question
'follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes
wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes?'
-as indeed they did, at the period of which and during which he was writing. He
did not live to write down his answer to even that prior question, which would
have produced a definition of the classes of nineteenth-century capj.talist society
rather than ofclass in general; and whether he would then have gone on to give an
explicit general defmition of class, we cannot tell. But after collecting scores if not
hundreds of passages in which Marx operates with the concept of class (sometimes without actually using that word), I have little doubt what essential form it
took in his mind. (I can give only a preliminary sketch here: I shall attempt to
provide a proper account in Section ii of this chapter and subsequently.)
Class as a general CQncept (as distinct from a particular class) is essentially a
relationship: and class in Marx's sense must be understood in close connection
with his fundamental concept of' the relations of production': the social relations
into which men enter in the process of production, which find legal expression
to a large degree either as property relations or as labour relations. When the
conditions of production, such as they are at any given time. are controlled by a
particular group (when, as in the great majority of such cases, 4 there is private
property in the means of production), then we have a 'class society', the classes
being defined in terms of their relationship to the means and the labour of
production and to each other. Some of the most important 'means of production' in the modern world- not only factories, but also banks and finance
houses, even railways and aircraft- were of course absent in Classical antiquity,
and so, to a great extent, was that wage labour which is an essential element,
indeed the essential eletnent. in the relations of production characteristic of a
capitalist economy. (As we shall see in III. vi below, free wage labour played an
infinitely less important part in the Greek and Roman world than it does today.)
In the ancient Greek world the principal means of production was land, and the
principal form in which labour was directly exploited was unfree labour- that of
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (i)
33
chattel slaves above aU; but debt bondage was far more widespread than many
historians have realised, and in the Roman empire agricultural labour came to be
exploited more and more through forms of tenancy (at first involving mainly
free men), which in the late third century were converted into legal serfdom. (I
shall give precise definitions of slavery. serfdom and debt bondage in III .iv
below.) In antiquity. therefore, wealth may be said to have consisted above all in
the ownership ofland, and in the control of unfree labour; and it was these assets
above all which enabled the propertied class to exploit the rest of the population:
rhat is to say, to appropriate a surplus out of their labour.
At this point I must introduce an important and difficult subject which needs
careful treatment and can easily lead to serious confusion, and which I intend to
deal with properly in Chapter IV below. I refer to the fact that a large part of
production in antiquity was always carried on, until the Later Roman Empire
(and to a certain degree even then), by small free producers, mainly peasants,
but also artisans and traders. In so far as these numerous individuals neither
exploited the labour of others (outside their own families) to any appreciable
extent nor were themselves exploited to any marked degree, but lived not far
above subsistence level, producing little surplus beyond what they themselves
consumed, they formed a kind of intermediate class, between exploiters and
exploited. In practice, however, they were only too likely to be exploited. As I
shall explain in Chapter IV, this exploitation could be not only direct and
individual (by landlords or moneylenders, for instance) but also indirect and
collective, effected by taxation, military conscription or forced services exacted
by the state or the municipalities.
It is very hard to assess the condition of these small free producers accurately.
The vast majority were what I shall call peasants (see my definition in IV .ii
below), a term covering a wide variety of conditions, which nevertheless can be
convenient to use, especially where we are in doubt about the precise situation of
the people concerned. In Chapter IV I shall try to show the wide variety of
institutions involved, and how the fortunes ofsome groups mightfl.uctuatevery
considerably according to their political and legal as well as their economic
position.
* * * * * *
Other categories than those of class, in the sense in which I am using that
concept, have of course been proposed for the analysis, or at least the description. of Greek society. I shall consider some of them in Section v of this chapter.
Historians, who are usually dealing with a single society. rarely trouble
themselves with any reflections about their choice ofcategories: they are seldom
aware of any problem in this respect; often it does not even occur to them that
there is any need to go beyond the concepts employed by the members of the
society they are studying. Indeed, a practising historian in the British- and
American - empirical tradition may well say to us (as the author of a major
recent book on the Roman emperor has virtually done: see the opening of
Section v of this Chapter): 'Why on earth should we waste time on all this
theoretical stuff. about class structure and social relations and historical method?
Why can'twejust go on doing history in the good old way, without bothering
about the concepts and categories we employ? That might even involw us in the
34
philosophy ofhistory, which is something we prefer to abandon with disdain to

philosophers and sociologists, as mere ideology.' The reply to this, of course, is
that it is a serious error to suppose that unconsciousness of ideology, or even a
complete lack ofinterest in it, is the same thingas absence ofideclogy. In reality
each of us has an ideological approach to history, resulting in a particular
historical methodology and set of general concepts, whether conscious or
unconscious. To refuse- as so many do- to define or even to think about the
basic concepts we employ simply results in our taking over without scrutiny,
lock, stock and barrel, the prevailing ideology in which we happen to have been
brought up, and making much the same kind ofselection from the evidence that
our predecessors have been making and for the same reasons.
Nevertheless, there are very great virtues in the traditional approach of the
historian, the essence of which - the insistence on recognising the specificity of
the historical situation in any given period (and even area) - must not be
abandoned, or even compromised, when it is combined with a sociological
approach. Indeed, anyone who is not capable (whether fr_,m a deficiency of
intellect or from lack oftime or energy) of the great effort needed to combine the
two approaches ought to prefer the strictly historical one, for even mediocre
work produced by the purely fact-grubbing historian may at least, ifhis facts arc
accurate and fairly presented, be of use to others capable of a higher degree of
synthesis, whereas the would-be sociologist having insufficient knowledge of
the specific historical evidence for a particular period ofhistory is unlikely in the
extreme to say anything about it that will be of use to anyone else.
The study of ancient history in Britain has long been characterised by an
attitude to detailed empirical investigation which in itselfis most admirable. In a
recent reassessment of Rostovtzeffs great Social and Economic History of the
Roman Empire, Glen Bowersock ofHarvard University (who had himself been
through the Oxford Greats School and was a graduate pupil of Sir Ronald
Syme) has spoken of a general raising ofeyebrows in Oxford when Rostovtzeff,
who had come there in 1918 as an exile from his native Russia, 'announced that
he would lecture on no less a subject than "The Social and Economic History of
Eastern and Western Hellenism, the Roman Republic, and the Roman
Empire'''. He adds, 'Together with the immodest grandeur ofRostovtzeffs
topic went, perhaps inevitably, an occasional cloudiness of thought'; and he
records RostovtzefFs own remark in the Preface to his book, 'Evidently the
English mind, in this respect unlike the Slavonic, dislikes a lack of precision in
thought or expression. s Now here we come right up against a problem which
faces every historian: how to reconcile full and scrupulous attention to all forms
of evidence for his chosen subject and a study of the modem literature relating to
it with a grasp of general historical methodology and sociological theory
sufficient to enable him to make the most of what he learns. Few if any of us
strike exactly the right balance between these very different desiderata. It has
been said that the sociologist comes to know 'less and less about more and
more', the historian 'more and more about less and less'. Most of us fall too
decisively into one or other of these categories. We are like Plutarch's truly pious
man, who has to negotiate a difficult course between the precipice of godlessness and the marsh of superstition (Mor. 378a), or Bunyan's Christian in the
Valley of the Shadow of Death, treading a narrow path between, on the right
II. Class 1
Exploitation~
and Class Struggle (i)
35
hand, 'a very deep Ditch ... into which the blind have led the blind in all Ages,
and have both there miserably perished', and on the left, 'a very dangerous
Quagg, into which, if even a good Man falls, he can find no bottom for his foot
to stand on'.
I feel much happier, in dealing with the history of the ancient Greek world, ifl
can legitimately make use of categories of social analysis which are not only
precise, in the sense that I can define them, but also general, in the sense that they
can be applied to the analysis of other human societies. Class, in my sense, is
eminently such a category. Nevertheless, I realise that it is a healthy instinct on
the part of historians in the empirical tradition to feel the need at least to begin
from the categories and even the terminology in use within the society they are
studying - provided, of course, they do not remain imprisoned therein. In our
case, if the Greeks did not 'have a word for' something we want to talk about, it
may be a salutary warning to us that the phenomena we are looking for may not
have existed in Greek times, or at any rate not in the same fonn as today. And so,
in Section iv of this chapter. I propose to begin.from the categories employed by
the ancient Greeks themselves, at the time of their greatest self-awareness (the
fifth and fourth centuries B.C.), to describe their own society. It will immediately become obvious that there is a striking similarity between those
categories and some of the features of Marx's class analysis: this is particularly
clear in Aristotle's Politics.
* * * * * *
Let us now get down to fundamentals. I begin with five propositions. First,
man is a social animal- and not only that, but, as Marx says in the Grundrisse
(E.T. 84), 'an animal which can develop into an individual only in society'.
(Although in the same passage Marx contemptuously and rightly dismissed the
individual and isolated hunter or fisherman who serves as the starting-point for
Adam Smith and Ricardo- or, for that matter, Thomas Hobbes- as an
uninspired conceit in the tradition of Robinson Crusoe, it is impossible not to
recall at this point Hobbes's famous description of the life of his imaginary
pre-societal man, in Leviathan 1.13, as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'.)
Secondly. the prime task of man in society is to organise production, in the
broadest sense, including both the acquisition from outside his society, by trade
or forcible appropriation, of such nt"ct.-ss.uy or desirable things as the society
needs but cannot produce, or cannot profitably produce, within itself, and the
distribution of what is produced. (In an area which is large or, like the Greek
world, much split up by mountains or the sea, the nature of the transport system
may be an important factor.) I shall use the term 'production' in this convenient,
extended sense, as Marx commonly does. 8 It should hardly be necessary to add
that production, in the very broad sense in which I am using the word, of course
indudes reproduction: the bearing and rearing to maturity of offspring (cf.
Section vi of this chapter). Thirdly, in the very act of living in society and
organising production, man necessarily enters into a particular system of social
and economic relations, which Marx referred to as 'the relations of production'
or 'the social relations of production'. 1 Fourthly, in a civilised society such as
that of the ancient Greeks or ourselves, the producers of actual necessities must
(for obvious reasons, to be noticed presently) produce a surplus beyond what
36
they actually consume themselves. And fifthly, the extraction and perpetuation
of such a surplus has led in practice to exploitation, in panicular of the primary
agricultural producers: this exploitation, with which the whole concept of class
is associated, is the very kernel of what I refer to as the class struggle'. (I shaD
deal with it in Sections ii and iii of this chapter. As I shaD there explain, when I
speak about 'the class struggle' in the ancient world I am never thinking of a
struggle on the political plane alone, and sometimes my class struggle' may
have virtually no political aspect at all.)
I should perhaps add, for the benefit of those who are accustomed to 'structuralist' terminology, that I have not found it useful or possible to draw the
distinction employed by Levi-Strauss and his school between social relations and
social structure (see e.g. Levi-Strauss, SA 279, 303-4). I shall sometimes speak of
a set of social relations 4S a social structure, or social formation.
I am ofcourse thinking throughout in terms of the civilised societies of the last
few thousand years, which, having developed technologically far beyond the
level ofprimitive man, have aimed at providing themselves with a sufficient and
stable supply of the necessities and luxuries of civilised life, and consequently
have had to devote a very considerable volume ofefTon to ensuring that supply.
Some anthropologists have argued that by reducing their wants to a minimum,
primitives existing in a favourable environment may be thought happier than
men in at_least the earlier stages of civilisation, and may even enjoy a good deal
ofleisure; but for my purposes primitive society8 is irrelevant, since its structure
is totally different from that of Graeco-Roman antiquity (let alone the modem
world), and any exploitation which may exist at the primitive stage takes place
in quite different ways. Moreover, primitive society has not proved able to
survive contact with developed modem economies - to put it in the crudest
possible way, with Hilaire Belloc (The Modern Traveller, vi),
Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
Now in a primitive food-gathering and hunting tribe the mere day-to-day
provision of food and other immediate necessities and of defence against wild
beasts and other tribes and so on may be virtually a whole-time job for all adult
members of the tribe, atleast in the sense that in practice they do not extend their
economic activities much further. In a civilised community, however, it is not
possible for everyone to spend all his time on these basic activities: there must be
at least some members of the community who have enough leisure - in the
technical sense ofbeing released from directly producing the material necessities
oflife- for governing and organising and administering a complex society; for
defending it against outsiders, with whatever weapons may be needed; for
educating the next generation and training them in all the necessary skills, over a
period of perhaps ten to twenty years; for the arts and sciences (whatever stage
of development these may have reached): and for the many other requirements
of civilised life. Such people (or some of them) must be at least partly freed from
the cruder tasks, so that they may fulfal their specialised functions. And this
means that they will have to be maintained by the rest of the community, or
some part ofit, in return for the services they provide. The producers will now
37
have to produce more than what they themselves consume- in other words, a
surplus. 10 And 'the appearance of a surplus makes possible - which does not
mean "necessary"- structural transformations in a society' (Godelier, RIE 274).
In view of the controversy which has been going on for years among economic anthropologists about the whole notion of a 'surplus', I feel it is necessary
to make two observations on that concept. First, I usc the term in a strictly
relative sense and with (so to speak) an 'internal' application, to mean that pan of
the product of an individual m4n 's labour of which he does not directly enjoy the
fruit himself, and the immediate benefits of which are reserved for others. I
would distinguish an 'external' application of the term surplus, namely the way
in which the notion is employed by anthropologists such as Pearson, to mean
something set aside by the society as a whole, or by those who make its decisions,
as 'surplus to its needs', and made available for some specific purpose- feasts,
war, exchange with other societies, and so forth.U Secondly, I agree with
Godelier that there is no necessary connection between the existence of a surplus
and the exploitation of man by man: there may at first be exchange considered
profitable by both sides, with cenain persons taking upon themselves services
genuinely performed on behalf of the whole community 11 - its defence against
attack from outside, for examplc. 13 The precise point in history at which
exploitation should be conceived as beginning is very difficult to decide, and I
have not made up my own mind. The question is not imponant for my present
purposes, because exploitation began long before the period with which I am
concerned in this book. Perhaps we could say that exploitation begins whrn the
primary producer is obliged to yield up a surplus under the influence ofcompulsion (whether political, economic or social, and whether perceived as compulsion
or not), at any rate at the stage when he no longer receives a real equivalent in
exchange- although this may make it very difficult to decide the point at which
exploitation begins, since it is hard to quantify, for example, military protection
against agricultural produce (cf. N.iv below). A much more sophisticated
definition of exploitation (which may well be preferable) has been offered by
Dupre and Rey on the basis of their anthropological fieldwork in west Africa:
'Exploitation exists when the use of the surplus product by a group {or an
aggregate) which has not contributed the corresponding surplus of labour
reproduces the conditions of a new extortion of surplus labour from the producers
(RPTHC 152, my italics). Although even a good and fully socialist society must
arrange for 'surplus labour' by some, to support the very young, the aged and
the infirm, and to provide all kinds of services for the community (cf. Marx.,
Cap.111.847, 876), it would necessarily do so in such a way that no individual or
group of individuals had a right to appropriate the fruits of that 'surplus labour'
in virtue of any special control over the process ofproduction through property
rights, or indeed except at the direction of the community as a whole or its
organs of government.
In every civilised society there has been a basic problem of production: how to
extract a sufficient surplus ('sufficient' in a relative sense, of course) from the
primary producers, who are not likely to relish their position at the base of the
social pyramid and will have to be subjected to a judicious mixture of persuasion
and coercion- the more so ifthey have come to see the favoured few as exploiters
and oppressors. Now men's capacity to win for themselves the freedom to live the
38
life they want to live has always been severely limited, until very recently, by
inadequate development of the productive forces at their disposaL
AU emancipation carried through hitherto has been based on restricted productive
forces. The production which these productive forces could provide was insufficient
for the whole of society and made development possible only ifsome persons satisfied
their needs at the expense of others, and therefore some- the minority- obtained the
monopoly of development, while others - the majority - owing to the constant
struggle to satisfy their most essential needs, were for the time being (i.e. until the
creation of new revolutionary productive forces) excluded from any development
(MECWV.431-2, from the German Ideology; cf. Cap. Ill.820, quoted in l.iv above).
If I were asked to name the fundamental features of ancient Greek society

which most distinguish it from the contemporary world, I would single out two
things, closely connected, which I shall describe in succession. Thefirst, within
the field of what Marx called 'the forces of production', is a technological
distinction. The advanced countries of the modem world have immense productive power. But go back to the ancient world, and you go down and down
the technological ladder, so to speak. The Greek world, compared with the
modem one, was very undeveloped technologically, and therefore infinitely
less productive. 14 Great advances in technology occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, in the Middle Ages and even the Dark Ages. These advances
were far more important than most people realise, not only in the most essential
sphere of all, that of sources of energy or 'prime movers' (which I shall come to
in a moment), but in all sorts of other ways. To take only one example - I
wonder how many people who have not only read Greek and Latin literature
but have looked at Greek vase-paintings and at the reliefs on Greek and Roman
monuments have noticed the absence from antiquity of the wheelbarrow,
which at least doubles a man's carrying capacity, but only appears in Europe in
the thirteenth century (in China it was known a thousand years earlier) . 111 As for
sources of energy, I will say only that animal power, in the form of the tractive
effort of the horse and ox, was nothing like fully realised in Classical antiquity,
in particular because of the extreme inefficiency of the ancient horse-harness; 18
and that only in the Middle Ages do we fmd the widespread utilisation of two
important forms of energy which were very little used in antiquity: wind and
water (cf. n. 14 below). Wind, of course, was used for the propulsion of merchant
ships, though not very efficiently and without the stem-post rudder; 17 but the
windmill was not known in Europe before (or not much before) the early
twelfth century. The water-mill 111 (hydraletes) was actually invented not later
than the last century B.C.: the earliest known mention is by the Greek geographer Strabo, in a reference to Pontus, on the south shore of the Black Sea, in
the 60s B.C. (XII.iii.30, p.SS6). But the most fascinating piece ofevidence is the
delightful poem in the Greek Anthology, by Antipater ofThessalonica, to which I
referred in I.iv above as being known to Marx: the poet innocently assures the
slave mill-girls that now they have the water-nymphs to work for them they can
sleep late and take their ease (Anth. Pal. IX.418: see Cap. 1.408). There is a little
evidence, both literary and archaeological, for the use of the water-mill in the
Graeco-Roman world, but it was rare before the fourth and fifth centuries, and
its full use comes a good deal later (see n.14 again). Marx realised that 'the
Roman Empire had handed down the elementary form of all machinery in the
39
water-wheel' (Cap. 1.348).

That is the essential background to my second basic distinction between the
ancient and the modern world, which is intimately connected with the first and
indeed largely grew out of it. In the ancient world, as we have seen. the
producers, as I am calling them (men engaged in essential economic activities),
produced a very much smaller surplus than is necessary to sustain a modern
advanced society. This remains vitally important, even if we allow for the fact
that the average Greek had a far more restricted range of wants and demanded a
much lower standard ofli ving than the modem Englishman, so that the volume
of production per head could be well below what it has to be today. But even if
we make allowance for this the disparity is still very striking. As I have shown,
the ancient world was enormously less productive than the modern world.
Therefore, unless almost everyone was to have to work practically all the time,
and have virtually no leisure, some means had to be found of extracting the
largest possible surplus out of at any rate a considerable number of those at the
lowest levels ofsociety. And this is where we come face to face with the srwnd of
my two fundamental distinctions between the ancient and the modern world,
one that occurs this time in the field of what Marx called 'the relations of
production': the propertied classes in the Greek and Roman world derived their
surplus, which freed them from the necessity of taking part in the process of
production, nor from wage labour, as in capitalist society, but mainly from
unfree labour of various kinds. The ancient world knew othet forms of unfree
labour than strict 'slavery' ('chactel slavery', if you like), in particular what I
shaD call'serfdom' and 'debt bondage' (see III.iv below). But in general slavery
was the most important form of unfree labour at the highest periods of Greek
and Roman civilisation; and the Greeks and Romans themselves always tended
to employ the vocabulary of actual slavery when referring to other forms of
unfree labour.
I have indicated that it is above ;dl in relation to its function of extracting the
maximum surplus out of those primary producers who were at the lowest levels
of ancient society that I propose to consider slavery and other forms of unfree
labour in this book. In treating slavery in this manner I am looking at it in very
much the way that both masters and ~.laves have commonly regarded it.
(Whether the ancient belief in the efficiency of the institution of slavery in this
respect is justified or not is irrelevant for my purposes.) Perhaps I may cite here
the opening of the third chapter of one of the best-known books on North
American slavery, Kenneth Stampp's The Peculiar Institution (p.86):
Slaves apparendy thought of the South's peculiar institution chiefly as a system of
labour extortion. Of couiSe they felt its impact in other ways- in their social status,
their legal status, ;md their private lives- but they felt it most acutely in the lack of
contml over their own time and labour. If discomented with bondage, they could be
expected to direct their protests principally against the master's claim to their work.
The feature of slavery which made it appropriate and indeed essential and
irreplaceable in the economic conditions ofClassical antiquity was precisely that
the labour it provided was forced. The slave, by definition, is a man without rights
(or virtually without effc;ctive rights) and therefore unable to protect himself
against being'compelled to yield up a very large part of what he produces. Dio
40
Chrysostom, in the early second century of the Christian era, reports an

imaginary discussion about slavery in which there was general agreement about
the basic definition of the slave's condition: that someone else 'owns him as
master, like any other item ofproperty or cattle, so as to be able to make use ofhim
at his pleasure' (Drat. XV .24).
I suggest that the most profitable way of approaching the problem of unfree
labour is to think ofit in precisely the way in which I have introduced it, in terms
of the extraction of the largest possible surplus from the primary producers. I think that
in antiquity slavery probably did provide the best possible answer, from the
purely economic point of view (that is to say, disregarding all social as well as
moral factors), having regard to the low level of productivity, and also to the
fact that free, hired labour was scarce, largely confined to unskilled or sea!lonal
work, and not at all mobile, whereas slaves were available in large numbers and
at prices the lowness ofwhich is astonishing, in comparison with what is known
of slave prices in other societies. But given these conditions- the poor supply of
free, hired labour, the easy availability ofslaves, their cheapness, and so on- I do
believe that slavery increased the surplus in the hands of the propertied class to
an extent which could not otherwise have been achieved and was therefore an
essential precondition of the magnificent achievements of Classical civilisation.
I would draw attention to the fact that the distinction I have just drawn is based
not on a difference of stlltus, between slaves andfree men, but on a difference of
class, between slaves and their owners- a very different matter. (I shall return to
this difference later: see Sections iii and v of this chapter.)
It may not have been fully obvious that so far I have been preparing the
ground for the definition of the terms 'class' and 'class struggle' which I shall
offer in Section ii of this chapter. I had to make clear certain fundamental
features of ancient Greek society. I have now explained one of these, the
essential part played by what I am calling unfree labour; and I must now briefly
mention another, the fact that by far the most important means ofproduction in
the ancient world was land. Wealth in Classical antiquity was always essentially
landed wealth, and the ruling classes of all the Greek states, as of Rome itself,
invariably consisted mainly of landowners. This is something which most
ancient historians now realise; but the whole question, like that of slavery and
other forms of unfree labour. will require a more extended discussion than I can
give it at this point (see ill.i-iii below).
* * * * * *
In seeking to use the concept of class as a method of historical analysis there

are two quite different dangers that we must guard against: one, a matter of
definition, is in the province of the sociologist; the other, a matter ofidentification, is a question strictly for the historian. After stating them together, I shall
briefly discuss them separately. First, we must be quite sure what we mean by
the term 'class' (and 'class struggle'), and not slide carelessly and unconsciously
from one interpretation to another. Secondly, we must be careful to make a
correct historical identification ofany class we propose to recognise.
1. The first problem, that of definition, is of a sociological nature. Marx
himself, as I said earlier, never gave a definition of class in general terms. Some
may feel that no such general definition is possible, but I believe the one I shall
41
produce in Section ii below will serve well enough, although there may be some
special cases in which a unique set ofhistorical circumstances makes qualification necessary, Even if it could be shown that there are too many exceptions for
my definition to be considered a general one, I would at least claim that it holds
for the society, or rather series of societies, of the Graeco-Roman world,
discussed in this book. I hope that others will improve upon it.
2. The second problem is purely historical: one must thoroughly w1derstand
the particular society one is considering, and know the evidence about it at first
hand, before one can expect to identify its classes correctly and precisely. Some
serious mistakes have been made in defining the actual classes existing in
particular societies, and the results of employing unreal conceptions of those
classes, not corresponding closely with reality, have sometimes been disastrous.
Misconceptions about classes existing in historical societies have not, of course,
been confined to Marxists, by any means, but since they make more use of class
categories than other historians they are likely to commit even worse blunders if
they start out with misconceptions about the classes they recognise. It has been a
standard practice among ancient historians to refer to the governing classes of
several Greek cities in the Archaic and Classical periods, in particular Aegina and
Corinth, as 'commercial aristocracies' or 'industrial and merchant classes' (see
my OPW264-7. esp. n.61; cf. 216,218-20, and Appendix XLI, esp. p.396). This
extraordinary notion, for which there is not a shred of ancient evidence, was
adopted without examination by Busolt, Eduard Meyer and other leading
historians (even Max Weber was not entirely free of it), and it is still being
reproduced today in some quarters. Not a few Marxists have started out from
similarly mistaken positions. It is not surprising that attempts by George
Thomson (essentially a literary scholar and not a historian in the proper sense) to
expound the intellectual development of the Classical Greek world in Marxist
terms have not succeeded in convincing historians or philosophers; for
Thomson presents the development of Greek thought, and even of Greek
democracy, in t."'te sixth and fifth centuries as the consequence of the rise to
power of a wholly imaginary 'merchant class'. Thomson even describes the
Pythagoreans of Croton as 'the new class of rich industrialists and merchants',
who 'resembled Solon in being actively involved in the political struggle for the
development of commodity production'. 19 In my opinion, this is little better
than fantasy. The one book I know in English which explicidy seeks to give an
account of Greek history (before the Roman period) in Marxist terms is a prime
example of the methodological catastrophe involved in giving a would-be
Marxist account in terms of classes that are fictions and correspond to no
historical reality. The author, Margaret 0. Wason, pretends that in the seventh
and sixth centuries, in most Greek states, there came to power a 'new bourgeois
class', defined as 'the class ofmerchants and artisans which challenged the power
of the aristocracy'. It is no surprise to find Cleon referred to in the same book as
'a tanner' (this of course reproduces Aristophanes' caricature; cf. my OPW 235
n.7, 35~1. 371) and as 'the leader of the Athenian workers'. 10
I may add that it would similarly be absurd to speak of a 'class struggle'
between Senators and Equites in the Late Roman Republic. Here I am in full
agreement with a number of non-Marxist ancient historians of very different
outlooks. As P. A. Brunt and Claude Nicolet have so conclusively demonstrated
42
in the last few years, the Equites were part of the class oflarge landowners to
which the Senators also belonged. As Badian has put it, for the Senate they were
simply 'the non-political members of its own class' 21 - those who preferred not
to take upon themselves the arduous and often dangerous life that a political
career would involve. At certain times a purely political contest might develop
between these two groups within the propertied class on specific issues, but this
must not mislead us into seeing them as two separate classes having irreconcilable interests. I shall in fact speak sometimes of the Roman Senators (though not
the Equites) as a class: the 'senatorial class'. It is possible that some other
Marxists may prefer not to break down my 'propertied class' (for which see III.ii
below) into two or more classes for certain purposes, as I do- for example, in
the developed Principate and the Later Empire, primarily into the senatorial and
curial classes, with the Equites perhaps as a kind ofsub-class closely attached to
the Senators, until in the late fourth and early fifth centuries they were entirely
absorbed into the senatorial class (see VI. vi below, ad fin.). But in my set of
definitions, early in Section ii of this chapter, I allow for Rechtsstellung (legal or
constitutional situation) as a factor that can help to determine class in so far as it
affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered; and the .::onstitutional privileges enjoyed by Senators surely did materially increase their
capacity to exploit -just as the condition of being a slave, with its severe juridical
disabilities, greatly increased the slave's liability to exploitation. But I could
quite understand. if some other Marxists, feeling that it was above all their great
wealth which lay at the root of the Senators' privileged position, rather than the
office-holding and the consequential legal privileges it brought them, preferred
to treat the Senators merely as an 'order' (which they certainly were) rather than
a class. Perhaps 'sub-class' would be a convenient term; but I have avoided it.
* * * * * *
I have only one more preliminary point to make before proceeding to a

definition of my terms: I am deliberately avoiding, at this stage, discussion of
the terms 'caste', 'order', 'estate' (etat). Caste is a phenomeuou which WI.' J,, nut
encounter at all in the Greek or Roman world. 22 We do find what can legitimately be described as 'orders' (or 'estates') - that is to say, status-groups
(Stiitul~) which are legally recognised as such and have different sets of juridical
characteristics (privileges or disadvantages). Such groups will be noticed when
we have occasion to discuss them. I shall have something to say of 'statusgroups' in general, and (in Section v of this chapter) of'status' as an alternative
concept to 'class'. But although I shall of course refer at times to particular
'orders' (citizens, slaves, freedmen, senators, equestrians, curials), I shall take no
special account of 'orders' as such, treating them as a rule merely as a special
form of status-group, except in so far as they materially affect the degree of
exploitation concerned (cf. the preceding paragraph).
(ii)
'Class', 'exploitation', and 'the class struggle' defined
We can now attempt to define 'class', 'exploitation', and 'class struggle'. As I
said in Section i of this chapter. I am not going to pretend that there is an
objective entity, class, the nature of which remains to be discovered. I would
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (ii)
43
also deny that there is any definition of class which is so generally agreed upon
that we are all obliged to accept it or run the risk of being accused of perversity.
The concept has been discussed ad nauseam by sociologists during the past few
decades (cf. n.l to Section i above). After working through a good deal of the
literature, most of which seems to me almost worthless, I feel entitled to insist
from the outset that the disagreement about the best way of using the expression
'class' has been so great that anyone who attempts an analysis of any society in
terms of class is entitled to establish his own criteria, within very wide limits,
and that our verdict on the definition he adopts ought to depend solely on its
clarity and consistency, the extent to which it corresponds with the historical
realities to which it is applied, and its fruitfulness as a tool of historical and
sociological analysis. If in addition we find (as we shall in this case) that the
notion of class in the sense in which we defme it corresponds closdy with
concepts employed in the best sociological thought of the society we are
examining (in our case, that of Aristotle especially: see Section iv of this
chapter), then we shall be fortunate indeed.
I should like to quote here a statement by a leading British sociologist, T. B.
Bottomore, raising questions which are all too unfamiliar to many historians.
Speaking of the construction of general concepts by sociologists, he says:
In some recent attl.'mpts to improve thl! 'conceptual framework' of sociology, and
notably in that ofTalcott Parsons and his collaborators. the whole emphasis is placed
upon definition of concl.'pts rather than upon the use ofconcepts 111 explanation. This is
a retrograde ste-p by comparison with the- work ofDurkhcim and Max Weber, both of
whom introduced and defined concepts in the course of working out explanatory
theories. Weber's exposition ofhis 'ideal type' method deals more cltarly with this
matter than any later writing, and had his ideas bt'en followed up sociology would
have been spared much confused and aimless discussion. In essentials his argument is
that the valul of a definition (i.e. of a concept) is only to be determintd by irs
fruitfulness in research and theorising (Sociology 2 [1971] 37, cf. 121).
I should not like it to be thought, however, that I regard Marx's concept ofclass as
a Weberian 'ideal-type construct', in the sense that Webe-r himself took it to be.
For me, as for Marx, classes and class struggles arc real dements which can be
empirically identified in individual cases, whereas for Weber all such 'Marxian
concepts and hypotheses' become 'pernicious, as soon as they are thought of as
empirically valid' (Weber, MSS 103, repr. in Eldridge, MWISR 228).
I propose first to state my defmition of class and class struggle, and to explam
and justify it in subsequent discussion. I believe that this defmition represents the
central thought of Marx as accurately as possible: this claim too I shall try to justify.
Class (essentially a relationship) 1 is the collective social expression of the fact

of exploitation, the way in which exploitation is embodied in a social structurt'.
By exploitation I mean the appropriation of part of the product of the labour of
others: 2 in a commodity-producing society this is the appropriation of what
Mtrx caUed 'surplus value'.
A dass (a particular class) is a group of persons in a community identified by
their position in the whole system of social production, defmed above all
according to their relationship (primarily in terms of the degree of ownership or
control) to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of
producrion)3 and to other classes. Legal position (constitutional rights or. to use
44
the German term, 'Rechtsstellung') is one of the factors that may help to determine class: its share in doing so will depend on how far it affects the type and
degree of exploitation practised or suffered- the condition of being a slave in the
ancient Greek world, for example, was likely (though far from certain) to result in
a more intense degree of exploitation than being a citizen or even a free foreigner.
The individuals constituting a given class may or may not be wholly or partly
conscious of their own identity and common interests as a class, and they may or
may not feel antagonism towards members of other classes as such.
It is of the essence of a class society that one or more of the smaller classes. in
virtue of their control over the conditions of production (most commonly
exercised through ownership of the means of production),_. will be able to
exploit- that is, to appropriate a surplus at the expense of- the larger classes,
and thus constitute an economically and socially (and therefore probably also
politically) superior class or classes. The exploitation may be direct and individual, as for example of wage-labourers, slaves. serfs. 'coloni'. tenant-farmers or
debtors by particular employ('rs, masters, landlords or moneylenders, or it may
be indirect and collective. as when taxation, military conscription, forced labour
or other services are exacted solely or disproportionately from a particular class
or classes (small peasant freeholders, for instance) by a State dominated by a
superior class.
I use the expression class struggle for the fundamental relationship between
classes (and their respective individual members}, involving essentially exploitation, or resistance to it. It does not necessarily involve collective action by
a class as such, and it may or may not include activity on a political plane,
although such political activity becomes increasingly probable when the tension
of class struggle becomes acute. A class which exploits others is also likely to
employ forms of political domination and oppression against them when it is
able to do so: democracy will mitigate this process.
Imperialism, involving some kind ofeconomic and/or political subjection to a
p~er outside the community, is a special case, in which the exploitation
effected by the imperial power (in the form of tribute, for instance), or by its
individual members, need not necessarily involve direct control of the conditions of production. In such a situation, however. the class struggle within the
subject community is very likely to he affected, for example through support
given by the imperial power or its agents to the exploiting class or classes within
that community. if not by the acquisition by the imperial power or its individual
members of control over the conditions of production in the subject community.
There is one aspect of my definition of class which, I realise, may need
clarification. Not all individuals belong to one specific class alone: some can be
regarded as members of one class for some purposes and of another class for
others, although usually membership of one will be much the most significant.
A slave who was allowed by his master to accumulate a considerable peculium,
and who (like Musicus Scurranus, mentioned in lll.iv below. at its n.13) had
even acquired under-slaves of his own, vicarii. might have to be regarded pro
tanto as a member of what I am calling 'the propertied class'; but of course his
membership of that class would necessarily be qualified and precarious and
dependent on the goodwill of his master. A slave who was settled by his land-
45
owning master as tenant of a small farm, quasi co/onus (see IV.iii 12 below),
would in strictly economic terms be in much the same position as a poor free
peasant leaseholder, and we might be inclined to put him in the class of peasants
(see IV.ii below); but his legal status would remain greatly inferior and his
tenancy would be much more at the pleasure of the landowner, who could
therefore exploit him more severely if he were so inclined. And a poor peasant
who owned or leased a plot ofland so small that he regularly needed to betake
himself to a neighbouring city for pan of the year to earn wages would be a
member of two classes: small peasants and wage-labourers. I also maintain in
Section vi of this chapter that women, or at any rate married women (and so the
great majority of adult women in antiquity), must be regarded for some
purposes as a distinct class, although membership of such a class (because of its
consequences for property-ownership) would in a city like Classical Athens be
far more important to a high-born woman than to a poor peasant, who would
have had no opportunity to own much property had she been a man and whose
membership of the class of women would therefore be of far less significance.
Of course I have no wish to pretend that class is the only category we need for
the analysis of Greek and Roman society. All I am saying is that it is the fi.mdamental one, which over all {at any given moment} and in the long run is the most
important, and is by far the most useful to us, in helping us to understand Greek
history and explain the process of change within it. In Section v of this chapter I
shall briefty consider alternative approaches, particularly those which have the
primary aim- as I have not, and as Marx did not (see Section v)- ofestablishing
a scheme of 'social stratification' according to 'status'. Such activities are perfectly legitimate and may even have quite useful results, provided we keep them
in their proper place and realise that they will not by themselves disclose the real
secrets of history: the springs and causes ofhuman behaviour and social change.
I would say that social status, and even in the long run political power, tended to
derive from class position in the first place (as indeed political status always did
directly in the commonest form of Greek oligarchy in the Classical period,
based on a property qualification), and that in the long run distinctions having
any other basis than the economic tended to dtcay in favour of, and ultimately to
resolve thm~selves into, distinctions based upon economic class. (We shall notice
some examples of this process later: see V .iii and VIII.i and ii below.)
Let us be quite clear about one thing. Whereas descriptions of ancient society
in terms of some category other than class -status, for instance - are perfectly
innocuous, in the sense that they need have no direct relevance to the modem
world (which will of course need to be described in terms of a completely
different set of statuses), an analysis of Greek and Roman society in terms of
class, in the specifically Marxist sense, is indeed (to use Firth's adjective: see I.iv
above) something threatening, something that speaks directly to every one of us
today and insistently demands to be applied to the contemporary world, of the
second half of the twentieth century. If Marx's analysis, originally derived
above all from the study ofnineteenth-century capitalist society, turns out to be
equally well adapted not merely to describe ancient society over a long period of
many centuries but to explain its transformations and its partial disintegration (as
we shall see it is), then its relevance for rhe contemporary world becomes very
hard to ignore. Of course in some quarters it will be ignored. To quote Marx
46
and Engels, addressing themselves sarcastically in 1848 to the ruling classes of

their day:
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws ofnature and
of reason the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form
of property- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of productionthis misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you
see clearly in the case of ancient property, what -you admit in the case of feudal
property. you are of course forbidden to admit in the case ofyour own bourgeois fonn
of property (MECW VI.501, from the Communist Manifesto).
* * * * * *
I shall now glance briefly at the use of the conception of class (and class
struggle) by Marx himself. I shall maintain that for five different reasons in
particular there has been a widespread and serious misunderstanding of the part
this idea played in Marx's thought. I believe that my definition represents his
fundamental thinking more accurately than do the statements of some modem
Marxist and non-Marxist writers who have taken different views from mine.
My five reasons are as follows.
First, partly perhaps because of a much-quoted definition by Lenin, in his A
Great Beginning, which (as Ossowski says, CSSC 72 and n.l) has been 'p0pularised by Marxist text-books and encyclopaedias', it has been customary to Ia y
particular stress on relationship to the means of production as the decisive factor
(sometimes as the one essential factor) in determining a person's class position.
Although his formulation contains a profound truth. it will be seen from the
definition of class given above that I regard it as a rather too narrow conception.
Secondly, as is well known, Marx himself, although he made important use of
the concept of class throughout his work, never gave a formal defmition of it,
and indeed employed it in very different senses at different times. Thirdly, Marx
himself was concerned in his writings almost entirely with a capitalist society
which had already undergone a considerable process of development: apart
from one section of the Gnmdrisse (E.T. 471-514) which is specifically devoted
to 'pre-capitalist economic formations' (see the excellent edition by Hobsbawm, KMPCEF), the statements in his work about pre-capitalist societies in
general and the Graeco-Roman world in particular are all brief, and many of
them are in the nature of obitrr dicta. In these passages, as a rule, he takes no pains
to be precise over terminology. Fourthly (and as a consequence of the facts I
have just stated), when Marx spoke in particular about 'class struggle' he tended
-thinking almost always, as he was, of nineteenth-century capitalism- to have
in mind the kind of class struggle which was so noticeable in the mid-nineteenth
century in the more developed capitalist countries: namely, open class struggle
on the political plane. Thus when, for example, he spoke in The EiRhtemth
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte of the French bourgeosie as 'doing away with the
class struggle for the moment by abolishing universal suffrage' (MECW X1.153),
he simply meant that the law of31 May 1850, by reducing the total number of
electors from ten to seven million (id. 147), made it far harder for the French
working class to carry on effective political struggle. And finally, in the work
often wrongly taken to be the definitive starement of Marx's 'materialist conception of history', namely the Prtjact to A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy (1858-9), we find only a passing reference to classes and none at all to
47
class struggle. There is, however, a perfectly good explanation of this, well
brought out by Arthur M. Prinz in an article in the jounwl of the History of Ideas
30 (1969) 437-50, entitled 'Background and ulterior motive ofMarx's "Preface"
of 1859'. The Preface was to be published (through the good offices ofLassalle) in
Berlin, and it was absolutely necessary for Marx to take careful account of the
stringent Prussian censorship and abstain from anything that might be suspected of incitement to cl~s hatred, at that time an actual offence punishable
with imprisonment under para. 100 of the Prussian Penal Code. Marx, already
well known to the Prussian censors, was now living in England and in no danger
of prosecution himself; but he had to be circumspect if there was to be any hope
of finding a publisher, for the same paragraph of the Penal Code also prescribed
the penalty of confiscation for any offending work. Yet Marx had to publish in
Germany, in order to make a bid for the intellectual leadership of the German
socialist movement. The Preface, then, had to steer dear of class struggle. But
when on 17/18 September 1879 Marx and Engels - thinking back to the
Communist Manifesto and beyond- wrote to Bebel, Liebknecht and others, 'For
almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving
power ofhistory' (MESC 395), they were making a perfectly correct statement.
Even in those considerable parts of Marx's writing which are concerned entirely
with economics or philosophy rather than with the historical process he will
sometimes show that the class struggle is ever-present in his mind, as when in a
letter to Engels on 30 April1868 he rounds offa long passage on economics with
the words, 'Finally ... we have as conclusion the class struggle, into which the
movement of the whole Scheiss is resolved' (see MESC 250).
* * * * * *
From reactions I have had to drafts of this chapter, I know that some people
will protest against what will seem to them an excessive emphasis on collective
entities, classes, at the expense of'the individual'. To any such objection I would
reply that my main aim in this book is to explain 'what happened in history' on a
large scale: the history of the Greek world as a whole over more than 1,300 yearsdare I use the rather repellent expression, 'macro-history'? But the history of
'macro-units' (ofclasses, as ofstates and alliances) needs to be explained in terms
very different from those appropriate to the behaviour of individuals. Here I
must hark back to l.iv above, where I explained how I have learnt from
Thucydides about the patterns of behaviour of human groups in organised
States. Elsewhere I have explained at length how Thucydides- rightly, in my
opinion- recognised that the canons of interpretation and judgment applicable
to the actions of States are fundamentally different from those we apply to the
actions ofindividuals (see my OPW7 ff., esp. 16-28). I now wish to advance the
following propositions: that the factors governing the behaviour of classes (in
my sense) are different again from either of the sets I have just mentioned; that
the behaviour of a class as such (that of men as members of a class) may well be
inexplicable in terms we can legitimately apply to their behaviour as individuals;
and even that a given individual or set of individuals may behave as a constituent
part of a class in a way that is quite different from the behaviour we are entitled
to expect ofhim or them as individuals.
If in that last sentence we substitute 'a state' for 'a class', there may be little
48
objection, since the moral standards generally accepted as governing the conduct
of individuals are clearly quite different from those applied to the behaviour of
states: a man who participated in the bombing ofHiroshima or Nagasaki, Berlin
or Dresden, Vietnam or Laos, will not be accounted a mass murderer by most
people, because he was acting in the interests- or at any rate on the orders- of
his own state, against an 'enemy' state; and those who gave the orders suffered
no criminal indictment, for in the event they were not the defeated. It would
similarly be easy to find examples from the ancient world that would be
universally considered morally atrocious behaviour on the part of individuals
acting in their own personal interests, but were yet regarded as unobjectionable
and even praiseworthy when employed in the service of the state. Most of the
acts of odious injustice or unnecesssary cruelty committed by fourth-century
Roman generals against 'barbarians' or rebels which are noticed, for example,
by Ammianus Marcellinus (a Greek historian who wrote in Latin) are recorded
without any sign ofdisapproval; 5 and the same historian could mention without
comment the opinion of'lawyers ofold' that sometimes even the innocent may
be put to death (XXVII.ix.S), and felt no need to shed any tears over the
wholesale extermination of the children of the Maratocupreni, fierce and wily
robbers (XXVIII.ii.t t-14). I suspect, however, that many people would be far
less willing to accept the propositions advanced at the end of the last paragraph
inregard to classes, which I will now demonstrate.
That slaves who rebelled, or who could even be held guilty of failing to
protect their masters from being assassinated by one of their own number, were
treated with pitiless ferocity by the Romans is well known: I have given one or
two prominent examples in VII.i below. The relationship of the Spartans to
their Helots- very much a class relationship, ofexploiter to exploited- was one
ofquite extraordinary hostility and suspicion. In III.iv below l draw attention to
the remarkable fact that each set of Spartan ephors, upon taking office, made an
official declaration of war on their work-force, the Helots, so as to be able to kill
any of them without trial and yet avoid incurring the religious pollution such
acts would otherwise have entailed. The Greeks on the whole showed less
savagery than the Romans towards their slaves; but even in Classical Athens,
where we hear most about relatively good treatment of slaves, all our literature
takes the fiogging of slaves for granted.
Literary sources in abundance from all over the Greek world show that this
form of punishment for slaves was commonplace. An epitaph on the tomb of a
virtuous matron, Myro (who may be an imaginary character), by the Hellenistic
poet Antipater of Sidon, describes quite casually, as if it were the most natural
thing in the world, the depiction on her tomb of(among other things) a whip, as
a sign that Myro was a 'just chastiser of misdeeds' -though not, of course, a
'cruel or arrogant mistress'! (Anth. Pal. VII.425). No one will doubt that
refractory slaves were repressed without mercy, at any rate in so far as this could
be done without excessive damage to the interests of their masters, whose
property they were (cf. III.iv below).
Whom among our main literary sources might we have thought less likely to
order a slave to be flogged than Plutarch?- a man conspicuous, surely, for his
humanity. But there is a nasty little story which has come down to us from
Calvisius Taurus, a friend ofPlutarch's, through Aulus Gellius (NA l.xxvi.4-9).
49
An educated slave ofPlutarch's who knew his master's treatise On freedom .from
anger (Peri aorgesias, usually referred to by its Latin tide, De cohibmda ir.z)
protested, while being flogged, that Plutarch was being inconsistent and giving
in to the very fault he had reprobated. Plutarch was quite unabashed. Insisting
that he was perfectly calm, he invited the slave to continue the argument with
him- in the same breath ordering the .ftogger to continue applying the lash. The
incident was quoted by Taurus, in reply to a question by Gellius at the end ofone
of his philosophical lectures, and with complete approval. But we need not be
surprised in the least at Plutarch's action, if we can bring ourselves to see this
particular slaveowner and his slave as 'but the personifications of the economic
relations that existed between them' (Marx, Cap.1.84-5).
The class struggle between the propertied class and those who were relatively
or absolutely propertyless was also accompanied at times by atrocities on both
sides: see e.g. V .ii below. When we hear of particularly murderous behaviour
by those who had the upper hand in a stasis (a civil commotion), we can be
reasonably safe in concluding that the con.ftict was basically between social
classes, even if our information about it is not explicit.'
I forbear to cite contemporary examples of the conduct of class warfare in
ways which have been widely accepted as 'necessary' but which have involved
behaviour that would be condemned by everyone as morally indefensible in
actions between individuals.
(iii)
Exploitation and the class struggle
Since the title of this book refers not merely to 'class' in the ancient Greek world
but to 'the class struggle', I must explain what I mean by that expression, more
precisely than in the definition I have given in Section ii of this chapter. Now
there is no denying that although 'class' is an expression any of us may use
without a blush, 'class struggle' is a very different matter. Merely co employ the
expression 'the class struggle', in the singular, evidently seems to many people
in the Western world a deplorable concession to the shade ofKarl Marx; and
indeed, on hearing the title of this book (as of the lectures on which it is based)
some of my friends have grimaced, like one that hears tell of a hobgoblin in
whose very existence he cannot bring himself to believe, and have suggested
that the plural, 'class struggles', would be less objectionable. But I wished to
make it perfectly clear, by my choice of title, not only that my approach is based
upon what I believe to be Marx's own historical method, but also that the
process of'class struggle' which I have in mind is not something spasmodic or
occasional or intermittent but a permanent feature of human society above
primitive levels. Marx did not claim to have invented the concept of class
struggle, 1 but it was he and Engels who first made of it both a keen analytical
tool to facilitate historical and sociological investigation and a powerful weapon
for use by all oppressed classes.
The very existence of classes, in the sense in which (following Marx, as I
believe) I have defined that term, inevitably involves tension and con.ftict
between the classes. Marxists often speak of'contradictions' in this context. As
far as I can see, although Marx himself could speak of'contradictions' between
50
The Class Struggle in the Andent Greek World
(for example) the relations of production and the forces ofproduction, between
the social character of production and private appropriation ofits products by a
few, and between private landownership and rational agriculture, 2 it is not at all
characteristic ofhim to describe a situation ofwhat I am calling class struggle as a
'contradiction': this terminology is more often found in Engels and especially in
Lenin and Mao Tse-tung. I realise that Mao in particular has made some
important contributions to this subject;3 but I am not myself satisfied with any
discussion I have seen in English of the concept of 'contradiction' in a Marxist
context, and I feel reluctant to employ the term in a peculiar sense which has not
yet established itself in the English language and become accepted into normal
usage, as it doubtless has in French, for instance. I therefore prefer to speak of
class 'struggles', 'conflicts', 'antagonisms', 'oppositions' or 'tensions', arising as
(in a sense) the result of'contradictions'. Here I think lam nearer to Marx's own
usage -as when he says, for example, that the very existence ofindustrial capital
'implies class antagonism between capitalists and wage-labourers' (Cap. H.57);
or when he and Engels write, in the Communist Manifesto, of'modem bourgeois
private property' as 'the final and most complete expression of the system of
producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the
exploitation of the many by the few' (MECWV1.498). Sometimes, when Marx
writes ofa 'Gegensatz' or 'Klassengegensatz', words which should be translated
'opposition' and 'class antagonism', the term in question will appear in a
standard English translation as 'contradiction' or 'class contradiction': there are
examples (as Timothy O'Hagan has pointed out to me) in MECWV .432, from
the Gennan Ideology, and in Capital 111.386.4
As I have already indicated, Marx himself never gave any proper, systematic
exposition of his theory of classes, or of class struggle. although these conceptions occur again and again in his works. and indeed occupy a central place in his
thought, being omnipresent even when the specific term 'class' is not actually
employed. The Communist Manifesto, drawn up by Marx and Engels in 1847-8,
opens with the words, 'The history of all hitherto existing society ['that is, all
written history', as Engels added to the English edition of 1888] is the history of
class struggles.'
I believe that if Marx bimselfhad tried to give a definition ofclass in the most
general terms he would have produced one not very different from the one I
have given in Section ii of this chapter. Marx began with a fundamental idea of
civilised society ofwhich class is the very kernel. It should be sufficient to single
out four passages in Capital in which the central importance of class is made
clear, although it is only in the first that the term' class' is actually used. The first,
which is very brief, is the one I have just quoted above, in which Marx says of
'industrial capital' (Cap. II.SO ff.) that its very 'existence implies class antagonism
between capitalists and wage labourers' (id. 57). The second passage, which is
also quite short, is as follows:
Whatever the social form of production, labourers and means of production always
remain factors ofit. But ... for production to go on at all they must unite. The specific
manner in which this union is accomplished distinguishes the different economic
epochs of the structure ofsociety from one another (Cap. ll.36-7).
The third passage is equally brief but contains an important implication that
seems to me to have been too often overlooked. (I shall soon return to it.}
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (iii)
51
The essential difference between the various economic forms of society (between, for
instance, a society based on slave labour and one based on wage labour) lies only in the
mode in which surplus labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the
worker (Cap.l.217).
Now 'surplus labour' and (in the case of commodity-producing societies)

'surplus value' are simply the terms Marx uses for the exploitation of the
primary producers by those who control the conditions of productmn; and
indeed, the sentence I have just quoted from Capital I is part of Se<tion 1 ot
Chapter ix (Chapter vii in German editions), headed 'The degree of exploitation
of labour-power' ('Der Exploitationsgrad der Arbeitskraft'), in which Marxdealing, of course, specifically with capitalist society - says that 'the rate or
surplus value is an exact expression for the degree of exploitation oflabourpower by capital, or of the worker by the capitalist' (1.218 andn.l; cf. III.385ancl
many other passages). The passage I have quoted, therefore, is merely another
way of saying that it is the precise form of exploitation which is the distmguishing feature of each form of society (above the most primitive level, of c()urse),
whether it is, for example, a slave society or a capitalist society (cf. Cap.
1.539-40). And class, as I have indicated, is essentially the way in which ex:ploitation is reflected in a social structure. As it happens, Marx often fails to employ
the actual expression 'exploitation' (whether by means of the more c(l]loquial
word 'Ausbeutung' or the more technical 'Exploitation'} in contexts wllere we
might have expected it, preferring to speak in thoroughly technical language ot
'extraction of surplus labour' or 'of surplus value'. He evidently regarded
'Exploitation' as being strictly a French word, for in the work now generally
known as Wages, Pri(t and Profit, written in English in June 1865 as an addr-ess to
the General Council of the First International, Marx uses the words. 'the
exploitation (you must allow me this French word) oflabour' (M ESW 215). But
he uses the verb 'exploitieren' and the nouns 'Exploiteur und Exploitiertern'
from at least 1844 onwards,.s and 'ExplQitation' is found in several of his works,
including all three volumes of Capital. 6 'Ausbeutung' and its verb 'ausbeuten'
are relatively rare in Marx's writings, but they do occur now and aga1n from
1843 onwards. 7 (I should perhaps add that most of Capital was written in 1863-5;
Vol. I was prepared for publication by Marxhimselfin 1867, Volsll and Ill by
Engels after Marx's death in 1883.)
The longest and most explicit of my four passages, which seems to me one or
the most important Marx ever wrote, comes from Vol. III of Capital (791-2,
Chapter xlvii, Section2):
The specific economic form in which unpaid surplus labour is pumped out [ausgepumpt]
of the direct producers determines the relationship between those who dominate and
those who are in subjection [Hmsclkl.fts- utul Knechtscht!fisvtrlJiiltnis], as it grows directly
out ofproduction itselfand reacts upon it as a determining element in its tum. Upon this,
however, is founded the entire organisation of the economic community which grows
up out of the production-relations themselves, and thereby at the same rime its specific
political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions oi
production to the immediate producers- a relation always naturally corresponding to a
definite stage in the development of the nature and method oflabour and consequently of
its social productivity- which reveals the innennost secret, the hidden foundation of the
entire social srructure and therefore also of the political form of the relations of
sovereignty and dependence [Souvn-oinitats- utul AbhiingigkritsvtrlJiiltnis], in sllort, thr
52
corresponding specific form of the State. This does not prevent the same economic
basis - the same as far as its main conditions are concerned - owing to innumerable
different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial peculiarities, external
historical influences etc., from manifesting infinite variations and gradations of aspect,
which can be grasped only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances. {I have
slightly altered the standard translation, after studying the Gennan text, MEW XXV.
799-S00.)8
* * * * * *
I have waited until now to state one major part of my theory ofclass, because I
wished to show that it is implicit in Marx's own writings, and this emerges most
clearly from the last two passages in Capital that I have just quoted (1.217 and
111.791-2). As I claim to have found the theory in Marx, I cannot of course
pretend that it is new; but I have never seen it stated clearly and explicitly. My
point is that the most significant distinguishing feature of each social formation,
each 'mode of production' (cf. the end ofiV. v below), is not so much how the bulk
of the labour ofproduction is done, as how the dominant propertied classes, controlling
the conditions of production, ensure the extraction ofthe surplus which makes their
own leisured existence possible. That was the view ofMarx, which I follow. In
the last of the four passages from Capital quoted above, this is made abundantly
clear; and although the sense of the third passage (CQp. 1.217) is perhaps not so
immediately obvious, yet it is certainly saying the same thing, as can be seen a
little more easily if we follow rather more closely the original German text
(MEW XXIIJ.231): 'Only the form in which this surplus labour is extracted
from the immediate producer, the worker, distinguishes the economic forms of
society, for example the society of slavery from that ofwage labour.' What I
think has been often overlooked is that what Marx is concentrating on as the
really distinctive feature of each society is not the way in which the bulk of the
labour of production is done, but how the extraction of the surplus from the
immediate producer is secured. Now as a consequence of this we are justified in
saying that the Greek and Roman world was a 'slave economy', in the sense that
it was characterised by unfree labour (direkte ZwQngsarbeit, 'direct compulsory
labour', in Marx's phrase: see below), in which actual slavery ('chattel slavery')
played a central role. Our justification will be that that was the main way in
which the dominant propertied classes of the ancient world derived their surplus, whether or not the greater share in total production was due to unfree
labour. Inpointoffact, until roundaboutA.D. JOOthesmall, free, independent
producers (mainly peasants, with artisans and traders) who worked at or near
subsistence level and were neither slaves nor serfs (cf. III.iv below) must have
formed an actual majority of the population in most parts of the Greek (and
Roman) world at most times, and must have been responsible for a substantial
proportion of its total production - the greater part of it, indeed, except in
special cases, above all Italy in the last century B.C., when masses of cheap
slaves were available (cf. IV.ili below), and conceivably at Athens and a few
other Greek cities in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., when also slaves were
very cheap. (I shall deaf with the position of the peasantry and the other free
independent producers in Chapter IV.) We can speak of the ancient Greek
world, then , as a 'slave economy' (in my broad sense), in spite of the fact that it
was always, or almost always, a minority of the free population (virtually what
53
I am calling 'the propertied class': see Ill. ii below) which exploited unfree labour
on any significant scale, and that the majority- often the great majority- offree
Greeks (and Romans) were peasants utilising hardly more than their own labour
and that of their families and therefore living not very much above subsistence level.
It was precisely of these peasants that Aristotle was thinking when he spoke of
the lack of slaves (the adoulia) of the propertyless (the aporo1) and said that it was
because of this lack of slaves that they had to 'use their wives and children in the
role of assistants' (hosperakolouthois: Pol. Vl.8, 1323a~). Elsewhere he says that
for the poor (the pffiftes - a word commonly used to indicate a less extreme
degr~ of poverty than apor01) 'the ox serves in place of a slave' (oiketes, 1.2,
1252 12). The unspoken assumption is that the men of property will own and
use slaves.
Continuing the exposition of the theory I have sketched, I wish to make
explicit another fact that is never stated dearly enough: that an individual or a
class can obtain a surplus in only a limited number of ways. which can be
summarised under three main headings:
1. The surplus can be extracted by the exploitation of wage labour, as in the

modem capitalist world.
2. The exploitation can be of unfree labour, which may be of (a) chattel
slaves, (b) serfs, or (c) debt bondsmen, or a combination of any two or all three
of these.
3. A surplus can be obtained by the letting of land and house property to
leasehold tenants, in return for some kind of rent, in money. kind or services.
I need do no more than mention the possibility that a class which controls a
state machine may collectively extract a surplus, either by internal taxation and
the imposition of compulsory state services (for transport, digging canals,
repairing roads and the like), or by a policy of imperialism, exploiting some
other country by conquest followed either by immediate plunder or by the
levying of tribute.
Now before the age of complete automation, which has not even yet arrived,
the individual members of a dominant class can hardly obtain a substantial
surplus except by the employment of'free' wage labour or some form of unfree
labour (nos. 1 and 2 above), supplemented by the taxation and compulsory
services which they may exact collectively. For obvious reasons, resorting to
the third of my numbered alternatives and letting land to free tenants is not
likely to yield the same rate of surplus, even if the small producers are subjected
to high rents as well as political control: to ensure a really large surplus for a long
period, the bulk of the primary producers must either be made to give unfree
labour, under the constraint of slavery or serfdom or debt bondage, or they
must be driven to sell their labour power for a wage. In antiquity, since free
wage labour was normally unskilled and was not available in any great quantity
(see Ill. vi below), there was no alternative but unfree labour; and it was this
source from which the propertied classes of antiquity derived their surpluses.
The ancient Greek (and Roman) world was indeed a 'slave-owning society' or
'slave economy' (in my sense); Sklavmhaltergesellschaft, Sklavmhalttrordrnmg are
the familiar German words.
Marx refers again and again to the world of the Greeks and Romans, in its full
54
development, as a 'slave economy' or 'slave system' (see e.g. Cap. 111.332,

384-5, 594, 595); and he can say that 'slavery or serfdom [Leibeigenschajt] form
the broad foundation of social production in antiquity and during the Middle
Ages' (Cap. lii.R31). Above all I would draw attention to what seems to me his
most technically correct statement on this subject: 'Direct forced labour [direkte
Zwangsarbtit] is the foundation of the ancient world' (Gnmdrisst 156=E. T. 245).
Yet he also realised the important role played, especially in the early stages of the
Greek and Roman world, by peasant producers. Thus he could say that 'the
form of free self-managing peasant proprietorship ofland parcels as the prevailing, normal form constitutes ... the economic foundation of society during the
best periods of Classical antiquity' (Cap. III.806, cf. 595), and that 'peasant
agriculture on a small scale and the carrying on of independent handicrafts .. .
form the economic foundation of the Classical communities at their best, .. .
before slavery had seized on production in earnest' (Cap. 1.334 n.3).
Anyone to whom the statements I have just made about the character of
Classical civilisation as a slave-owning society seem surprising can easily set his
mind at rest by looking at other slave-owning societies. It will be sufficient to
give just one example: the American Old South. I am not pretending that the
Old South was in any sense 'typical'; but comparison with it will serve to
establish my main point, which is that we are perfectly entitled according to
common parlance to speak of a society as a 'slaveowning' one even though its
slaves constitute much less than half the population and slaveowners are quite a
small minority. A leading American historian, Carl N. Degler, records that in
the Old South in 1860 'slaves made up less than a third of the population of the
region; fewer than a quarter of the Southern families owned a single slave, let
alone a gang of them'. And 'in the antebellum South less than 3 per cent ofthe
slaveholders, something like six-tenths of 1 per cent of all Southern families,
owned fifty or more slaves'.
Nevertheless, Degler insists (as do all other historians) on treating the Old
South as a slave society in the full sense; and he points out the usefulness of a
comparison with the situation in Classical antiquity. In his article, he was giving
a much-needed lesson in historical method to an American ancient historian,
Chester G. Starr, who failed to realise what can be learnt from comparative
studies of slavery and who greatly underestimated the contribution ofslavery to
Classical civilisation. 1 Starr was prepared to say that slavery was not 'basic' to
the ancient economy, on the ground apparently that slaves did not make up a
majority of the labour force or do most of the work- a situation which ofcourse
was equally true of the Old South. Degler rightly replied that 'the really
significant question about the place of slavery in antiquity is not "Did slaves do
most of the work?'' but "What role did they play in the economic process?"'.
For my own part, 1find Degler's question, although on the right lines, cast in so
general a form that it is hard to give a succinct answer to it. I would make it
much more specific, and ask, 'What role was played by slaves - or rather (as I
would prefer to put it) by unfree labour- in supplying the dominant propertied
classes with their surplus?' The answer is clear: a fundamental and- in the
conditions of the time- an irreplaceable one.
It may be useful ifl make a few quotations at this point from one of the major
works of recent years on North American slavery, which I mentioned in Section i
55
of this chapter: Kenneth Stampp's The Peculiar Institution. Using the official
Federal Census figures, he points out that
The [Old] South was not simply- or even chielly- a land of planters, slaves, and
degraded 'poor whites'. Together these three groups constituted less than half of the
total southern population. Most of the remaining Southerners (and the largest single
group) were independC'nt yt>oman farmers of varying degrees of affluence. If there
were such a thing as a 'typical' antebellum Southerner, he belonged to the class of
landowning small farmers who tilled their own fields, usually without any help except
from their wives and children ... [I myself would be tempted to say much the same of
'the typical Greek'!] ... In 1860, there were in the South 385,000 ownlrs of slaves
distributed among l. 516,000 free families. Nearly three-fourths of all free Southerners
had no connection with slavery through either family ties or direct own<.'rship. The
'typical' Southerner was not only a small farmer but also a nonslaveholder (P/29-30).
Of the slaveholders,
72% held lc:ss than ten [slaves), and almost 50% held less than five (P/30).
And yet,
Whatever the reason, most of the nonslavcholders seemed to ted th.It their interest
required them to defend the peculiar institution [slavery as it existed in the Old South]
(PI 33).
* ., * * * *
J have already dealt brieRy (in l.iv above) with Marx as a Classical scholar and
with somt" aspects of his outlook and method. He formulated a largc part of the
main outlines of his whole system of ideas, including the concepts of class and
exploitation, between thc years 1843 and 1847, although of course many details
and refinements and evm some major features <.'merged only later. Virtually all
the essential ideas comprised in what has come to be known as 'historical
materialism' (see l.iv above) appear in some form in the works. published and
unpublished, which were written during those years, especially Marx's 'Introduction to a contribution to the critique [then unpublished] of Hegel's philosophy
of law' .md El~~t~tmi< and Philosophic Manuscripts (both of 1844), the German
Ideolog}' (.t joint work of Marx and Engels, of 1845-6), and The Poverty of
Philosophy, wriUl'n hy Marx in French in 1847. Hegelian as his cast of mind was
from the first m sonw ways, Marx did not by any means develop his ideas in a
purely theontilal manner: he was already proceeding in a completely different
way from Hlgd. Shortly before he even began his serious study of economics
he read a large quantity of historical material: the notebooks he compiled while
staying .at his mother-in-law's house at Krcu:z:nach in the summer of1843 show
him studymtt not merely political theorists such as Machiavelli, Montesquicu
and Rousseau, but a considerable amount of history, mainly recent- that of
England. france, (~lrm.my, Sweden, Venice and the United States. Details of
the 'KreUZIMl'her Exzerptc' are published in MEGA l.i.2 (1929) 98, 118-36. It is
a great pity that the English CCIIlected Works comain only one brief extract from
the Kreuznach notebooks, about haifa pa~e in length (MECWIII.130), and give
no idea at all of the scopc- of thl wMk~ t':"'.n'rpted by Marx. Yet, as David
Mclellan has said, 'It was his nadin~ uf tht' hi,;tory ofthe French Revolution in
the summer of 1R43 that shO\wJ him the n't~ ~,f class struggle in social development' (KML T95). I am myselt~onvinced that another seminal influence in the
56
development by Marx of a the(.>ry of class struggle w:as his reading during his
student years of Aristotlc.'s p(,fitir.<. a work which shows some striking analogies
to Marx in its analy~i:t of( ~ret:k 'iO('i<.ty (set. S(ctiun iv of this chapter). During
1844 and early 1845 M:ux al5l) n:;td and ex.7\,rpt~~.d many works by leading
classical economi~ts: Adam Smith. Da\id Ri.c:mlo,J.nniL.~ Mili,J. R. McCulloch,
J. B. Say. Destutt dt Tr.tcy and orhtrs (.;;.:~.MEGA l.iiiA09-583). In the Preface
to the Economic at1d PhiltJ~t,piti; MoJJJuscripts of it:\44- Man insisted that his results
had been obtained 'by mtans of a wholly cmpinc:.d Jnalysis based on a conscientious critical study t,f political economy (MECW 111..:!31 ). And in the German
Ideology of 1845-6. ju'!>t afttr the well-knnwn pas!>ag~~. sketching the series of
'modes of produrtiun. Marx .md Engels dl"clare that 'Empirical observation
must in each sep.ltat~~. inst;,mce brin~ out empirically. and without any mystification and speculath1n. thl comtt'rtion oftht sodal and political structure with
production' (MECWV35: r:f. J(.._7, 2.~f. t.tc.).
Another important influ~n~~ wao; at wurk tm Marx t'rom soon after his arrival
in Paris in October 1843: the French working-class movement. 'You would
have to attend one ofthe meetings of the French workers,' Marx wrote in a letter
to Fcuerbach on 11 August 1844. 'to appreciate the pure freshness, the nobility
which burst forth from these toil-worn men' (MECW Ill.355). And in the
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts he uses the same language. 'The most
splendid results are to be observed when French socialist workers [ouvriers] are
seen together ... The brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them, but a
fact oflife. and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened
bodies' (id. 313). Again. in The Holy Family (a joint work with Engels, dating
from 1845) Marx wrote, 'One must know the studiousness, the craving for
knowledge, the moral energy and the unceasing urge for development of the
French and English worker~ to ht able to form an idea of the human nobility of
this movement' (.\WCW IV .R4). Marx. alsu attended meetings of some of the
German immigrant work('rs in Pario;, ufwhom dttn Wt'rt many tens of thousands, and got to know thdr lt.ld.trs (Md.dlan. KM.l.1' Xi). His second article
for the Deut5ch-franzi;siscllt' joJhrhiiiher, u.undy tht hrilliant 'Introduction to a
contribution to tht nititJUC' of I {e~ds philosophy of law' (MECW III. 17~7).
written soon after his arrinl in P.1ris. rmttain~. llllt!"o concluding pages, his first
clear expression of the "\"iew that th.: emJ.nnpation ,,fcapitalist society can come
about only through the proletariat. Th~~. ,on~ocpt of class struggle appears
explicitly in this article (see esp. id. lf!5-{1)~ an,l in tlw Ewnomic and Philosophic
Manuscripts, although the actual term 'class' i~ not oti:m used (see, however, id.
266, 270 etc.). we find frequent references to antagonistic relationships which
Marx speaks of in the article just mentioned and elsewhere in terms of class
struggle- and, interestingly enough for the andt."ht historian, these antagonistic
relationships are not limited to those between capitalist and worker but include
also those between landlord and tenant,landowner and farm laboun:r. Marx can
say that 'the rent ofland is established as a result of the struggle between tenant
and landlord. We find that the hostile antagonism ofinterests, the struggle, the
war [dmfeindlichen Gegensatz der Interessen, den Kampf, den Krieg] is recognised
throughout political economy as the basis ofsocial organisation' (id. 260=MEGA
I.iii.69). He goes on to compare the hostility of interest between the landowner
and his farm worker with that between the industrialist and the factory worker:
57
and he shows that the relationship between landowner and farm worker can
equally be 'reduced to the economic relationship of exploiter and exploited'
(MECW III.263, 267).
To those who have not studied the development of Marx's thought in the
1840s I should like to recommend two recent works in particular. There is a
good brief sketch of the emergence of Marx's ideas in the economic sphere in
Ronald L. Meek, Studies in the Labour Theory of Value (2nd edition, 1973) 121-56
(esp. 129-46); cf. 157-200 for later developments. And Richard N. Hunt, The
Political Ideas ofMarx and En~els, I. Marxism and Totalitarian Democracy 1818-1850
(Pittsburgh, 1974; London, 1975) gives a very sympathetic account of the
growth of the political ideas of Marx and Engels in the 1840s (see esp. 26-131).
* * * * * *
I have found that some people disapprove of my using the expression 'cbss
struggle' for situations in which there may be no explicit common awareness of class
on either side, no specifically political struggle at all, and perhaps even little
consciousness ~f struggle of any kind. I concede that the term 'class struggle' is not a
very happy one when used in my sense for such situations, but I do not see how
we can avoid using it in this way: the opening sentence of the Communist
Manifesto and the whole type of thinking associated with it have made this
inevitable. To adopt the very common conception of class struggle which
refuses to regard it as such unless it includes class consciousness and active political
conflict (as some Marxists do) is to water it down to the point where it virtually
disappears in many situations. It is then possible to deny altogether the very
existence of class struggle today in the United States of America or between
employers and immigrant workers in northern Europe (contrast the end of this
section), and between masters and slaves in antiquity, merely because in each case
the exploited class concerned does not or did not have any 'class consciousness'
or take any political action in common except on very rare occasions and to a
very limited degree. But this, I would say, makes nonsense not merely of The
Communist Manifesto but of the greater part of Marx's work. Bring back exploitation as the hallmark ofclass, and at once class struggle is in the forefront, as
it should be. This, of course, is highly objectionable to those who have an
interest (or believe themselves to have an interest) in preserving the capitalist
system: they can no longer laugh off the class struggle as a figment of the
Marxist imagination or at most a deplorable and adventitious phenomenon
which would sure! y disappear of its own accord if only everyone would simply
agree on its non-existence.
* * * * * *
I wish now to examine the position of some modem writers who have
seriously misconceived Marx's conception of class in one way or another, and
consequently have either rejected his approach altogether or, if they have
believed themselves to be utilising it (at least in some degree), have misapplied
it. In most cases their mistakes have been due largely to the assumption that class
struggle 'must be' something of an essentially political nature. I discuss them
here only in so far as they have failed to understand Marx or have misinterpreted
his position. In so far as they advance rival theories of their own I shall deal with
them in Section v ofthis chapter.
58
I begin with M. I. Finley's The Ancient Economy ( 1973), which has made a real
contribution to our knowledge of ancient social history, in spite of its serious
defects, which include a cavalier rejection of Marx's whole concept ofclass as an
instrument of analysis, for reasons I would have to describe as frivolous did they
not reveal a surprising lack ofknowledge of some of Marx's basic concepts, and
of the place of the slave, compared with the free wage-labourer, in Marx's
economic analysis. In Section v of this chapter I shall discuss Finley's attempt to
substitute for Marx's class analysis a scheme ofsocial'stratification' in terms of
what he himself calls 'a spectrum of statuses and orders' (AE 67-8); here I shall
concentrate on his reasons for rejecting a Marxist approach in general. His
statement. 'Invariably, what arc conventionaJly called "class struggles" in antiquity prove to be conflkts b('tWe~o."'l groups at ditYucnt points in the spectrum [of
statuses and orders] disputing thl distribution of ~pecitk rights and privileges'
(AE 68), shows clearly that in Finlt"y'!i minJ 'd.as~ struggles' are primarily if not
solely political in characttr: tht"y concem 'th~.. di!itnhution of specific rights and
privileges'. On p.49 Finley fir!>l rurporrs to describe 'the Marxist concept of
class', in the words. 'Men an daslil-J .tcLorJin~ to their rdation to the means of
production, first between thosl who do and thost> who do not own the means of
production; second, among the former, between those who work themselves
and those who live off the labour of others'. He then claims that on Marx's
analysis 'the slave and the free wage labourer would then be members of the
same class, on a mechanical inttrpretation [my italics], as would the richest senator
and the non-working owner of a small pottery'; and he adds, 'That does not
seem a very sensible way to analyse ancient society. ' 10 Marx would surely have
been shocked, as many of us are. by these suppositions. Even on the most
'mechanical interpretation' of what Marx calJed 'the relations of production' (a
concept which is wider and more complex than mere 'ownership of the means
of production') .U the free wage-labourer. who has his own labour-power to
sell, obviously occupies a completely different position from the slave, who is
the property ofhis master. a mere 'animate tool' (empsychon OtRanon), as Aristotle
calls him. 12 And the slave (with working animals and the land itselt) is placed
specifically by Marx among the 'instruments oflabour' which form an important category of the 'means of production' and are therefore a part of 'fixed
capital' and of Marx's 'constant capital', whereas the free wage-labourer (part of
'circulating capital') constitutes Marx's 'variable capital' -a profound difference
in Marx's eyes. The subject is perhaps rather complicated at first sight: I have
therefore dealt with it fully in Appendix I, with copious references to the various
works of Marx in which these questions are dealt with.
There can be no possible doubt, then, that in Marx's mind wage labour and
slave labour belong to completely different categories, whether in a predominantly 'slave society' or in a capitalist society which also uses slave labour.
Moreover, in Marx's scheme of things. the naturt' and the quantity ofexploitation
-how, and how much. one exploits or is exploited- are among the decisive
elements in fixing a man's position in the whole system of property-relations.
Finley's very rich senator, as the owner ofa vast quantity oflanded property and
the exploiter of a large amount of slave labour and/or numerous tenants or
coloni, would be in a totally different category from the owner of a small pottery
- or even, for that matter, a small peasant freeholder, a creature whom Marx
59
often distinguished sharply from the great landowner, for example in his
writings on ninetc:enth-century France, and most usefully {for our present
purposes) in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, where he says. 'The
small landed proprietor working on his own land stands to the big landowner in
the same relation as an anisan possessing his own tool to the factory owner'. and
'In general, the relationship oflarge and small landed propeny is like that ofbig
and small capital' (MECW 111.264). Engels, too, in one of his most penetrating
works, The Peasant Question in France and Gmnany, draws a careful distinction
between big and middle peasants who do exploit the labour of others, and small
peasants who do not (see esp. MESW 624-6, 634-9, and in more detail IV .ii
below). It matters hardly at all, of course, on a Marxist analysis, whether a man
who exploits the labour of others, by owning or employing slaves or serfs or
hired hands, actually works beside them himself or not: his class position
depends upon whether he is able to exploit, and does exploit, the labour of
others~ and if he does this, then whether or not he works himself will be almost
irrelevant, unless of course he needs to work because he is able to exploit the
labour of others to only a small degree.
The next misinterpretation of Marx's concept of dass which I intend to
discuss is that ofDahrendorf, who is certainly less casual about the thought of
Marx than Finley and has at least taken some care in reconstructing it, but who is
misled by much the same assumption as Finley: that for Marx class struggle is
something entirely political.
Dahrendorfs position is explained at length in his important book, Class and
Class Conflict in Industrial Society, which appeared in 1959 in a revised and
expanded version (by the author himself) of the German original. Soziale
Klassen und Klassmkotiflikt in der industriellen Gesellschaft ( 1957). The opening
chapter of this book, entitled 'Karl Marx's model of the class society', seeks {on
pp.9-18) to reconstruct 'the unwritten 52nd chapter of Volume III of Marx's
Capital', which has the title 'Classes' but breaks off after scarcely more than a
page (Cap. III. 885-6), when Marx had done little more than ask himself'the first
question to be answered' -namely, 'What constitutes a class?' -and answer that
'the reply to this follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely:
What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great
social classes?'. After that Marx proceeds to rebut the answer that he thought
might be given 'at first glance': namely, 'the identity of revenues and sources of
revenue', which he proceeds to specify as 'wages, profit and ground-rent
respectively'. A few lines later, when he is in the act of arguing against this
answer, the manuscript breaks off. Dahrendorfmakes an attempt. most praiseworthy in principle, to complete the chapter: he prints a large number of
quotations from Marx (in italics), and supplies a roughly equal amount of
material on his own initiative. Much of this undertaking is conducted fairly and
quite shrewdly, with little serious distortion until disaster comes suddenly and
irretrievably, with the statement (p.l6),
The formation of classl.'S always means the organisation of common intcn-sts in the
sphere.' of politics. The point needs to be l:mphasised. Classes are political groups
united by a common interest. Tht> struggle betwern two dassrs is a political strug_!(le. We
therefore speak of classes on1y in the realm of political conflict.
I reproduce the italics by which Dahrendorf indicates (see above) that he is
60
quoting from Marx himself, in this case a passage from just before the end of
The Poverty of Philosophy. written early in 1847 in French, as lA Misne de Ia
philosophie. But the passage appear.; in a different light when it is read in context
and as what it is: the last sentence at the end of the following paragraph (from
which, for some reason, Dahrendorf cites elsewhere in his book only the third
sentence, CCCIS 14):
Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into
workers. The domination of capital has created for this mass a common situation,
common interests. This mass is thus already a dass as against capital, but not yet for
itself, In the struggle . . . this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for
itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against
class is a political struggle (MECWVI.211=MEGA l.vi.226).
The context is the early development oflarge-scale industry under capitalism.
I will only remark here that it would be absurd to pretend that for Marx the mass
of workers under early capitalism is 'not a class' at all: it is merely that until it
becomes united and self-conscious it is 'not a class for itself (pour elle-meme: the
phrase is usually quoted in German, asfiir sich). When, earlier in The Poverty of
Philosophy (MECW VI.177). Marx speaks of the stage of class struggle at which
the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class [he
surely means a class for itself!), ... the very struggle of the proletariat with the
bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character', it is clear that in his mind
pfoletariat and bourgeoisie already existed as classes and even that there was a
class struggle between them, although it had not yet assumed a political character'.
Before we can see this passage in the proper light, it needs to be placed beside
another, a famous paragraph a few pages before the end of The Eightt'mth
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparu (1852), following soon aftl!'r the statement 'Bonaparte represents a class, and the most numerous class of French society at that,
the small-holding [Parzellen]peasants'. After an intervening paragraph Marx sets
out to explain how these small peasants in one sense did, and in another did not,
form a class (the italics are mine):
The small-holding peasants form a vast mass, the members of which live in similar
conditions but without entering into manifold relations with one another. Their
mode of production isolates them from one another . . . The isolation is increased
by France's bad means of communication and by the poverty of the peasants ...
Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient ... A smallholding, a peasant
and his family; alongside them another smallholding, another peasant and another
family. A few score of these make up a village, and a few score of villages make
up a Department. In this way, the great mass of the French nation is formed by simple
addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack
of potatoes. Inscifar as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence
that separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the
other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar
as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and
the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political
organisation among them, the}' do not form a das.s. They are consequently incapable
of enforcing their class interests in their own name, whether through a parliament or
through a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented.
The1r representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over
them, as an unlimited governmental power that protects them against the other classes
;md sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-
IT. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (iii)
61
holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power subordinating society to itself (MECW Xl.187-8).
I have quoted nearly the whole of this long paragraph because it is relevant, as
we shall see in V .i below, to the appearance of the early Greek 'tyrants'.
Let us take these two passages, from The Povet1y of Philosophy and The
Eighteenth Bmrnaire, together. It is perfectly clear that Marx considered both the
workers under early capitalism and the small French peasants of the midnineteenth century to be a class: he gives that title again and again to both
groups, not only in the two works from which I have just been quoting but
elsewhere. In both passages, the apparent contradiction between the two parts
of the statement can be resolved quite satisfactorily by taking the question at
issue as one of defmition. If we define a class according to one set of characteristics, Marx is saying, the workers under early capitalism or the French
peasants ofhis day would fall within the definition; but if we substitute another
set of characteristics in our definition, they would then fall outside it. The fact
that a class in the most complete sense ('for itself, or whatever) could be expected to
fulfil the second definition, and that Marx felt it would otherwise lack something of the full set fij attributes that a class is capable fij attaining, must not blind us to
the fact that for Marx a class could perfectly well exist as such before it developed
the second set of characteristics- indeed, he says as much in both our passages:
the workers are already 'a class as against capital'; the French peasants, who live
under particular conditions of existence that give them a special mode of life,
interests and culture, different from those of other classes, to whom they are in
hostile opposition, do Jorrn a class'. It would be perverse to deny this. Again,
Marx could say in 1847 that 'the German bourgeoisie already finds itself in
conflict with the proletariat even before being politically constituted as a class'
(MECWVI.332).
Sometimes, when Marx is dealing with a specific situation, he will speak
loosely ofclass and class struggle as if these terms applied mainly or even only to
overt political conflicts. Towards the middle of the fifth chapter of The Eighteenth
Bmmaire he can even say that 'the bourgeoisie had done away with the class
struggle for the moment by abolishing universal suffrage' (MECW XI.153; cf.
Section ii above). A number of other such passages could be collected. In the
Preface to the second German edition (1869) of The Eighteenth Brumaire Marx
could altogether forget the antithesis formulated near the end of that work,
which I quoted a moment ago, and actually say. 'In ancient Rome the class
struggle took place only within a privileged minority, between the free rich and
the free poor [he means rich and poor citizens], while the great productive mass
of the population, the slaves. formed the purely passive pedestal for these
conflicts.' And in a letter to Engels dated 8 March 1855 he gives a brief general
characterisation of the internal history of the Roman Republic as 'the struggle of
small with large landed property, specifically modified. of course, by slave
conditions' (MEW XXVIII.439): once more, the class struggle takes place only
within the citizen class, for only Roman citizens could own land within the
boundaries of the Roman State. But these are isolated remarks which are of
trivial importance compared with the main stream of Marx's thought -concentrated, as I have shown, in the passages from Capital I, II and III quoted towards
the beginning of this section, and exemplified also in very many otherconteKts.
62
It is open to anyone, of course, to reject Marx's categories, provided he makes it

clear that that is what he is doing, as indeed Finley and Dahrendorfhave done.
I need say little more about Dahrendorf's treatment of Marx's theory of class.
I would emphasise that- astonishingly enough- it is not just class struggle which
Dahrendorf wishes to confine to the political plane: Marx's classes exist for him
only in so far as they conduct political struggle, as the passage I have quoted above
(from CCCJS 16) demonstrates: for him, Marx's classes 'are political groups',
and he will 'speak of classes only in the realm of political conflict'. Yet Dahrendorfhimself quotes several texts from Marx which falsify this, in particular the
very important one from Capital III (791-2) which I have set out at length above,
and the statement that 'the German bourgeoisie stands in opposition to the
proletariat bifore it has organised itselfas a class in the political sphere' (my italics)which Dahrendorf tries to weaken by prefacing it with the misleading gloss, 'In
a sense, class interests precede the formation of classes'! (CCCIS 14).
Among many other passages which might be cited in support of the position I
am taking here on Marx's view of class is his letter to Bolte of 23 November
1871, the relevance of which has been pointed out to me by Timothy O'Hagan.
Near the end of this letter. under the heading 'N. B. as to political movement',
Marx says that 'every movement in which the working class comes out as a class
against the ruling classes', for example in order to agitate for a general law
enforcing the eight-hour day, 'is a political movement', whereas 'the attempt in
a particular factory or even in a particular trade to force a shorter working day
out of individual capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement'.
And in his final paragraph Marx speaks of the necessity for training, 'where the
working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a
decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the
ruling classes' (MESC 328-9). This makes it perfectly clear that in Marx's eyes
the working class exists as such at the economic level, and that sections of it can
carry on activities at that level in furtherance of their interests, over against their
employers, before it develops sufficient organisation to enable it to become
active in the mass at the political level.
* * * * * *
On the very first page of the Preface to his major work, The Making of the
English Working Class, E. P. Thompson, a contemporary English Marxist
historian who has made a notable contribution to nineteenth-century social
history, dedares that 'Class happens when [my italics] some men, as a result of
common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of
their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests
are different from (and usually opposed to} theirs. The class experience is largely
determined by the productive relations into which men are born - or enter
involuntarily.' 13 For Thompson, clearly, it is the second half of Marx's statement at the end of The Eighteenth Brumaire which alone is significant; the first
half has simply disappeared. AnOlher leading English Marxist historian, E. J.
Hobsbawm, in an essay entitled 'Class consciousness in history',l4 begins by
explicitly recognising that Marx's uses of the term 'class' divide into two main
categories, in one of which classes arc above all 'groups of exploiters and
exploited'; but he mistakenly sees this usage as belonging to 'what we might call
63
Marx's m:.ao-t.h~or~'. aud he think!. ~h::t ~~-.r t h\~ purposes of the historian, i.e.,
the studfut ot' ItliCTo-hi~t<>ry, or vfhistory as t happened" ... as distinct from
the gemral ;md f;~thcr .tbstra.:r mo1lds of the historical transformation of
societie~ . It b th.;, ,_.:her c.lh"~ury which 1s nkvant: one which takes account of
class consti'-)mflf55. h)r tlw histon:m. ht' hdicves, 'class and the problem cf dass
consciou.tll~s !lrl' iw,par,lbl, ... Cl.1.;;s m tlw fuli 5lnse only comes into existence at
che hisruri~al 11Wmt!\t w!wn d.tS.Sl'.S hq~in to ;acquire consciousness of themselves as such. Iaccq~t !he.> l.tst s,~nww.~, (~i\'m~ the words 'in the full sense the
greatest possible wl'i~bt). but JJ(lt dw wurd:; Tluve italicised, which would make
it seldom pussihk ti:r us to splak of'da!'s m the ancient world at all. except in
relation to nrt.ain :rulin~ d.tssts. Wh"n Ht,bshawm speaks of'the historian', in
the passagtl hdvt: quoted, he is r~a!ly rluukiug only in terms of the historian of
modern riuws: nf him al01w ts hi;; stattmcnt true, if at alL I realise that Marx
himself;,, art,titl exceptional passages (,;1.."1.' the quotations above from The Eighteenth
Brumairl' and tt~ Preface, The Povert)' 4Piu'lo~p11 y, and the letter to Engels) gives
evidenn' of .tdoptin~ som~rhmg wry lik~ Hohsbawm's position; but, as I have
shown, such .m attiruJt: is not ndlly ~ousi~t(nt with the fundamentals of Marx's
thought. I mysdf ustd to pdv nllldl morl ;mC"ntion to these exceptional passages
than I do nuw.
It is doubtless also under the influence of these passages that a number of
writers in French in recent years, who arc not entirely out of sympathy with
what they believe to be Marx's concept of classes and class struggle. have taken
up a position which is essentially very far removed from that of ~arx. Thus
J.-P. Vernant, in an article entitled 'Remarques sur Ia luttedeclasse dans Ia Grecc
ancienne', in Eirene 4 (1965) 5-19, which has recently been translated into
English, 15 took over an unfortunate distinction established in a paper published
two years earlier by Charles Parain 16 between a 'fundamental contradiction' and
a 'principal or dominant contradiction' (pp. 6, 12), and spoke of the opposition
between slaves and their masters as the 'fundamental contradiction' of Greek
slaveowning society but not its 'principal contradiction' (pp .17-19): the!' latter he
saw in a class struggle inside the citizen body only, between rich and poor (p. 17,
cf. 11). Whether Parain or Vernant would allow Greek slaves to count as a class
at all in Marx's sense is not clear to me. Quite apart from any dissatisfaction I
may feel with the use of the word 'contradiction in this sense (its use is certainly
less well established in English than in French: see the beginning of this section),
I must say emphatically that the distinction between 'fundamental contradiction' and 'principal (or dominant) contradiction' is mere phrase-making and
conveys no useful idea.
Pierre Vidal-Naquct, in an article called 'Les esclaves grecs etaient-ils une
dasse?', in Raison presente 6 (1968) 103-12, follows Vernant in the main but goes
still further away from Marx, with whom he seems ill acquainted. While
admitting that 'the opposition between masters and slaves is indeed the fundamental contradiction of the ancient world' (p.108), but denying (like Vemant)
that it is legitimate to speak of Greek slaves as participating in class conflicts, he
explicitly refuses to accept the slaves as a class at all (sec esp. his p.l05). But
Vidal-Naquet, in seeking to show that there is authority in Marx himself for his
own denial that Greek slaves formed a class, has made a most misleading
selective quotation from the passage near the end of The Eighteenth Brnmaire
64
which I cited at length earlier. on whether the mid-nineteenth-century French

peasantry formed a class. He cites only the second half of the antithesis, in which
Marx declares that in respect of certain characteristics the French peasants did not
form a class; he ignores the first half, in which Marx says that because of certain
other characteristics they did form a class! And, as I said earlier, Marx repeatedly
refers to those peasants as a class: and the few passages in which he speaks loosely
of class and class struggle in particular situations as if these terms applied only to
overt political conflicts are of minor importance compared with the main stream
ofhis thought.
Austin and Vidal-Naquet, in the recent collection of ancient texts in translation (with an interesting Introduction) to which I made a brief reference in l.iv
above, have given an account of class and class struggle in the Greek world
during the Archaic and Classical periods which to me is unsatisfactory in the
extreme (ESHAG 20 ff.). They entirely reject Marx's class analysis, at least as far
as the ancient Greek world is concerned (it is not clear to me whether they would
accept it for any other period ofhistory); but they hardly make it clear whether
this is because they dislike his whole conctpt of class or whether it is because they
think that concept is merely inapplicable to the particular situation existing in the
Greek world. At no point, unfortunately. do they give a definition of class as
they themselves wish to conceive it: this makes it hard to examine their argument rigorously. Certainly they reject, at least for the ancient Greek world,
those two of their 'three fundamental representations' of the notion of a social
class which they themselves identify as the contributions of Marx: namely,
position in 'the relations of production', and 'class consciousness: community of
interests, development of a common vocabulary and programme, and the
putting into practice of this programme in political and social action' (ESHAG
21, cf. 22, 23). They are very sure that slaves 'did not ... constitute a class', and
that we must reject completely the conception often expressed according to
which the struggle between masters and slaves was the manifestation of class
struggle in antiquity' (ESHAG 22, 23). Here of course they are flatly contradicting Marx, who certainly regarded slaves as a class, involved in class struggles.
They have failed to grasp the fundamental position which Marx states so dearly
in the passages I have quoted from Capital near the beginning of this section, and
which he and Engels take for granted throughout their works, from the Gennan
Ideology and the Communist Manifesto onwards. At the beginning of the Manijtsto, for instance, the very first example given of class struggles is that between
free man and slave' -in Classical antiquity, clearly (MECWVI.482). And in the
German Ideology (MECW V.33) Marx and Engels can speak of 'completely
developed class relations between citizens and slaves' in the ancient city-state. (I
will merely remark here, and explain presently, that Marx and Engels ought,
according to their own principles, to have spo~en in both cases of class relations
between 'slaveowners and slaves'.) Non-Marxist writers are of course perfectly
entitled to reject Marx's concept of class and substitute another- although one
may hope that they will then provide their own definition. Austin and VidalNaquet, following Aris~otle, are at any rate willing to accept the existence of
what they call class struggles in the Greek world, in the sense of'antagonism ...
between the propertied and the non-propenied'; and they go on to say that 'the
antagonism between the propertied minority and the non-propertied majority
65
was fundamental in Greek class struggles', although 'class struggles could be

expressed between citizens only' (ESHAG 2l, 24). Here, if we modify their
terminology to make it refer only to 'active political class struggles', they are on
the right track; and in their selection of texts they provide some useful illustrations.
Occasionally one comes across the further argument that slaves should not be
treated as a class at all, in the Marxist sense, because their condition could vary so
greatly, from the mine slave, worked to death, perhaps. in a few months, or the
drudge who spent almost every waking hour toiling in the fields or the house. to
the great imperial slave of the Roman period who, like Musicus Scurranus or
Rotundus Drusillianus (mentioned in Ill.iv below), could acquire considerable
wealth even before the manumission he might confidently expect. This is
patently fallacious. Of course slaves can be treated for many important purposes
as a class, in spite ofall the differences between them,just as one can legitimately
speak of a 'propertied class', in my sense (see III.ii below), even though some
members of it would be hundreds or even thousands of times as rich as others.
Even among senators the range of wealth in the early Principate was from HS 1
million to something like 400 million; and if many city councillors (to be
counted generally as members of my 'propertied class'; cf. VIII. ii below) owned
little more than the HS 100,000 which was the minimum qualification for a
decurion in some Roman towns, then the richest Romans would have had
fortunes thousands of times as large (cf. Duncan-Jones, EREQS 343, with
147-8, 243). The 'propertied class' certainly needs to be spoken of as such when,
for example, it is being set over against propertyless wage-labourers or slaves.
Similarly, slaves can be considered on occasion as a single class in relation to
slaveowners, who exploited them (and who virtually coincided with my 'propertied class'), or in contrast to wage-labourers, who were exploited by
members of the propertied class in a very different way; but of course the slaves
sometimes need to be subdivided, just like the propertied class, when we wish to
take account of factors that distinguished important groups or sub-classes
among them. As I said in Section ii of this chapter, a slave who was permitted by
his master to possess slaves ofhis own, vicarii, was also pro tanto a member of the
propertied class, although of course his foothold within that class was very
precarious and dependent upon his master's goodwill.
Now it may be that some people today will feel that to restrict Marx's notion
of class struggle (as he occasionally did himself) to circumstances in which an
overt struggle I!" the political plane can be shown to exist (as it cannot between
masters and slaves in Classical antiquity) makes better sense and should be
generally adopted. I am now 17 far from sharing this view. To me, the essence of
the relationship of classes, in a class society founded on the existence of private
property in the means of production, is the economic exploitation which is the
very raison d'itre of the whole class system; and, as I have insisted all along, Marx
himself normally takes this for granted. If we adopt the view I am combating,
we are obliged to take the expression 'the class struggle' in the very limited sense
of 'effective and open class struggle on the political plane, involving actual class
consciousness on both sides'. Certainly, the slaves of the Greeks had no means of
political expression: they were ethnically very heterogeneous, and they could
often not even communicate with each other except in their master's language;
they could not hope to carry on an open political struggle against their masters,
66
therefore, except lll Yl."ry ran. occasions when, as in Sicily in the late second
century B.C., th~ ciHumst:nK\':'l happl"ned to favour mass uprisings (see III.iv
below and its nn.X. 15). Uur tf thl divis.i(n inh' economic classes is in its very
nature the expression of tht w:ty in whidt .1.hun .tH ~xplmration is effected- by
which. that is to -.;ly. the pruptrtitd dasst.s liw ,leT tb. non-propertied- then
there is to that exteru .m mtnasm~ strug!!k bt'twnn l'xrloited and exploiting
classes, and in anttquity between masters and slaves above all, even if only the
masters could carry 1t on effectively: they would always be united, and be
prepared to act, as Xtnophon says in the Hiero (IV .3), 'as unpaid bodyguards of
each other agaim.t riwir slaves' (cf. Plato, Rep. IX.578d-9a, quoted in Ill.iv
below). And in my picture the masters comlut"l J. pt'rtn.llll'nt struggle, if sometimes an almost effortless on~o.. m tht wry .u:r oflwl,iin~ down their slaves. But
in a sense even slaves wh<. aJI.' kt>pl in irons .md Jrinn with a whip can conduct
some kind of passive rl'.<oi!.taucl.'. if C\nly
ljlllt'l s.thl tt.tt:l" and breaking a tool or
two. 18 I also r:egard as an imporr.mr t(,rm of cla!'s stm~gle the propaganda,
whether sincere or tongue-in-cheek, winch ma!>t~N iur .my exploiting class)
may use to persu.tJe slaves (or any ~..xpl,)itc.,f d.1ss) tu accept their position
without protest, t'Wil plrhaps d!l, ht.ing 'in rht.ir OWU bc.st interests': the doctrine
of 'natural slavery' i~ only tht. most extreme example of this (sec VII.ii-iii
below). There is even c.vidc.ncl' of nmnttr-prop:1ganda by the slaves, replying to
their masters. But the das!l ~~ru~~dt in th, Gn.t.k world on the ideological plane
is a particularly fa!'cinarin.: subjl.'l't which I must reserve for extended treatment
in VII below.
I wish now to draw attention to a minor methodological and conceptual error
which sometimes occurs in the writings of Marx and Engels, in particular in two
early works: The Communist Manif~sto, of 1847-8, and the German ld~ology, 19
written in 1845-6 but then (as Marx put it in 1859, in the short Preface to a
Contribution to the Critiqu~ of Political Economy) 'abandoned to the gnawing
criticism of the mice', as something through which he and Engels had achieved
their 'main purpose: self-clarification' (MESW 183). The error in question may
sound quite trivial and is certainly a mere slip; but if it is not noticed and
corrected it may have serious methodological consequences. In both works
Marx and Engels, speaking at the beginning of The Communist Manifesto of class
struggle (MECW Vl.482), and in the German Ideology (MECW V .432) of the
'opposition' (Gegensatz) within which society has hitherto always developed,
mention among their pairs of contestants 'free man and slave', 'free men and
slaves';zo and in the German Ideology, as I have already stated, there is also
mention of 'completely developed class relations' in the ancient city-state 'between
citizens and slaves' (MECW V.33). In each case they should of course have
spoken of 'slaveowners and slaves'. 21 The contrast between slave and free, or
slave and citizen, is of the highest importance as a distinction of status or 'order' (cf.
Section v of this chapter), but it is not the right contrast to draw when one is
thinking (as Marx and Engels were here) in terms of economic class: in that sense
the correct opposition is between slave and slaveowner, for large numbers of free
men in antiquity owned no slaves. There is no harm, of course, in speaking of
class conflicts between 'the propertied class' and the slaves, because all Greeks or
Romans who owned any substantial amount of property would own slaves.
ny
* * * * * *
ll. Class, Exploitation, and Class Strnggle (iii)
67
In supp(lrt of t.-,k.~"!! da5~ 4~ :lbo\c :11l the c-allecti\'t~ sori..~l .:':qre:ss1on of the
fact of exploitation. rath<"r thali {:1t rh,~ opposite oC'Xtr,mc) sdt-;:o:Js.:lous and
united political a~t!\ity. I wish hl .Jd,iun a r(Jilt\mror:;ry 't'henoruluun ,,f '':~y
great inter~sr; tlw l.ugl' dass of temporJry n11g_r .&u: (or mwn~r:mr) wnrkr: 5 who
come to tlw roumri,s ufmlTth-wt"St Euror: fro:;;, m:iol~ thr.- hinds bilrdenng
on the Mc:ditnraman. :m,I wlws~.. numht.r m the y,.:;rs fmm a::r~ut 1':157 :o J)i2
was oftht. uT<It"r (lt' 1i millivn .1 ti!!urt: which hy now b.ts bt~n grt\itly xr~'(.'\k~1.
This extraordinary movement. wluch has lx"t'11 d~cribcd :ts 'coi.onis.ltion ln
reverst'. h;as r<.c~;ntly been the subjt'\"t of a ,k~.a;lni and ~~x.:d!..J:t mady, f11rm
grant U,.clfkn.: ,,,/ Cl.-s.s Stm'tlltr 111 Jllt>.>tcm F:cwp.: (l'J7.~).'.!'l 1-y Skph~~n C;lstlcs
and Godula 1\(JS;tt:k, who point out (p.409) th.u It '!nnlves th< :r:mskr of a
valuable: l't.'omumh~ rts"uro.:- hunun labourtr-m rh~ p~li"Jr ro d1c rli.:h C'.}llntries'. lmmi~flnl wurk~.r!. nllrmallv occupy th~lowc$r posrs !.:1 tb( iu~.urd1y ,,f
labour. which indigenous Wtlrktrs prefer to avo1d and nthn ,:-;m hardlr he
induced tn undertake at all. and whifh carry the ll\Wst rates,,( r;~y. Mmt of
these migranrs h.l\'t' nu puhtJ,:;al right~ and do nut bdong h tr;ad~.s unicms. and
they ar~. normally un.ahJ, to takt any ;Knon m dd~nn nt' clw1r l'''~it!tm. Ev::-n
though industriAl 3\.'tlflll tll.l)' flL't"JSion:il!y b~ open to them in prnKplc. thtr~ lS
hardly .my dunce that thc:y will indul~~. in it and thuo; plan th,ir wh,)k pns11i1\U
injeop.trdy .m.i risk .1rnusm(.! thcunrt:asonin~ hn~tihty ofthtJMtiws (Sl'1.Cas1ks
and KosJt'k. c)p. d1. I;:)1 tl. 47H-81l). lmmigra.uts arc thc:r~iurc Jlltm t'"J'>sn! ro
ruthless exploitation than tht" nJilVt' worktr:s.. and thty .u~. nirt'll s,,hjnlnlr) ;c
degree of'disciplinc' which th(mdtgtnnus worker W1uld nor tultr:ar... Thb ,;m
have not merely economic hu! aL-.u social and puliti,al dfc:t'l!i, c.'Xttndm~ f:uoutside the circle of th~-. imnugrant5 themselws. As C1sllt.'" .tnd J\,,~:.~<'k put ~r,
'Immigration hl'lps to give iargt' r,ec-tions of the indigenous wc,rking. das~ th~:.
conscioustwss of a "labour arish,naq. .. which supports or acquil'~<.l.'s tn th<.
exploitatiun ,,,- anothtr st'<:tton of tlw W<rldn~ class. In this w;ay innw~r;tti<>! l
helps to St.lhihst tht captta.hst urdtr. not only ,.,~onomically, but al~u poht i<ilil~~'
(op. cit. 4M I. ~,-f. 42h-7) - a fat'l "\vlndt ha-. of course been uuttd wirb grr;ll
approval by IUl'lllhtrs uttht mlin~ dass in host cournrits. A $hniJ.;r m~..:~..me-m
of temporary iuuuig.r.lnt work,rs into South Afric'..l lr,Jm dw much poorer
countries on or ncar her P<lrdtr<o has ..1lso been taktug plAn' t~1r ..um" time, and
this too has made the white South African Wrkiu~ d;tss llllt:l a 'labour
aristocracy', organised in trades unions from whkh tht hlark mmu~p;~nb ;~n~
rigorously exduded. 23
We see h~re, then, another illustration of the principle we observed earlier:
although the immigrant worker (like the ancient slave) is, almost by definition,
precluded from playing any sort of political role, and in practice has little or no
chance of taking even industrial action in his own defence, the very existence of a
class of immigrant workers has important const'quences not only in the ~co
nomic sphere but also socially and politically. A definition of'class struggle' in
purely political terms, which can take account neither of the Greek slave nor of
the immigrant worker, is therefore not ewn adequate on the political level. eVt"n
though the immigrant or the slaw himse-lf cannot operate directly at that leve-l.
The only definition that does make sense, here as elsewhere, is one that proceeds
from the fact of rxploitation, and takes account of its nature and intensity.
This brings out a question of principle on which 1 feel obliged to register a
68
small disagreement with Castles and Kosack. In their opinion:

Immigrant workers cannot be regarded as a distinct class ... All workers, whether
immigrant or indigenous, manual or non-manual, possess the basic characteristics of a
proletariat: they do not own or control the means of production, they work under tht:
directions of others and in the interests of others, and they have no control over the
product of their work ... Immigrant workers and indigenous workers together form
the- working class in contemporary Western Europe, but it is a divided class ... We
may therefore speak of two strata within the working class [with the indigenous
workers forming the upper and the immigrants the lower stratum] (op. cit. 461-82.
at47~7).
The choice in thl.' p.mi,11f.1r, :l.~t between, on the one hand, two classes, and on
the other, a single 'di\"ldtd da:-!> ur oaw pu~scssing a 'higher stratum' and a
'lower stratum', is nur in itsdt ver~ unport.tnt. T!t{r~ is a significant sense in
which immigrant worktr~ .md iudt~l.'nuus "mrktrs \lo t(,rm a single 'working
class'. However, the prindrk Jduptc.>d by C.1stks an.i K1l~ack of disregarding,
as criteria of class, ~wry thing. ,xl''-'JH rdJ.tiumhtp to the nwans of production is
too rigid. It would nrtaiul> in\'olvt: c.mr tnatin~ the il.lw~ of the Greek world,
absurdly, as belonging to the ;;;.nne. d<i:.!oo ;111 fr(t hirtd workers and even many
poor free artisans and landless p<.a~dntr,.:H Yet. a~ I have shown above, Marx and
Engds certainly wrote uf sl.lws in antiquity a..; d class, even if on occasion they
could contrast them, unsuitablv. with 'freemt'll' rather than 'slaveowncrs' (see
above). Although I gc.mrally t~eat Jndcnt slaves ~ a s~paute class, I realise that
for some purposes thc.y may h.tw to ht c.<m!oid<.'r~d as nry dose to hired labourers
and other poor frec. wllTkc:rs .md d~ ti.,rmint! with thtm a single class (or group of
classes) of'the exploitt.tl'. In my ddinition of dass (in Sc,:tic.ln ii of this chapter) I
recognise that legal (constitutional) position, Rrd1ts~tdl1m.l!. is 'one of the factors
that may help to d~tc.rmim dass'. because it is likdy tu affect the type and
intensity of exploitation mvolwd. The modem immigr;mt worker is not subject
to anything like such extreme l:nnstraint~ as th~ attclt.1tt sl.J.ve, and whether we
should regard him as belonging m .l ditli.nnt dJ.!'iS from the indigenous worker
depends on the nature and purpnst of the.' mwsti!!:.Jtinn w~ are conducting. Marx
certainly regarded Irish immigrants J.:. '.t vtry impurtant !'t'l..'tion of the working
class in England' in his day: stc. his lc.tter w L. Kugt.lm.um ~,,f29 November 1R69
(MESC276-8, at 277) ...mdtumpJrelu.,; Jetter to S. Mtytr .md A. Vogt of9 April
1870 (MESC 2R4-X). quut~d hv Cdstl"'!i .md Kt,sack. np. dr. 461.
* * * * * *
Anyone who finds the term 'class struggle' objectionable when used in the
sometimes quite unpolitical sense which for me is primary can try to find an
alternative. All I ask is that the situation I have depicted in my definition of class
- that is to say (to put it crudely). exploitation by the propertied class of the
non-propertied- be accepted both as the most fruitful way of employing the
expression 'class', at any rate in relation to the ancient world, and as the primary
way in which Marx and Engels conceived class when they were not thinking
mainly of the confrontation between the classes of mid-nineteenth-century
capitalist society. That society had charactc.ristics very different from those of
the ancient world. above all in the fact that the lowest class. the proletariat, was
already beginning to acquire in some of th(" advanced countries (notably England)
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Strnggle (iii)
69
a sense of unity and class interest which virtually never existed at all among the
slaves of antiquity.
In short, I am fully prepared to be criticised for what some rna y think ad umsy
and even potentially misleading use of the term 'class struggle', provided it is
always recognised that class is a relationship involving above all things exploitation, and that in every class society it is indeed class -and not social status or
political position or membership of an 'order' -which is in the long run rhc
fundamental element.
(iv)
Aristotle's sociology of Greek politics
I am very far from being one of those historians who, by instinct or ofsC't
purpose, insist upon defining the society they arc studying in the terms adopted
by its own dominant class- as when Roland Mousnicr, in a remarkably compact
and well-written little book, Les hierarchies Soliales dt 1450 a nos jcurJ (Paris.
1969), wishes to see pre-revolutonary France as a 'societe d'ordres', divtdednot
into classes (these he will admit only in the capitalist era) but into 'orders or
'estates', grades in society based not upon any role in the productive process but
ultimately upon social function. and instituted in legally recognised categones.
However, it happens that I am fortunate in being able to find in Greek thougltt
an analysis of the society of the Greek polis which is quite remarkably like the
one I would wish to apply in any event.
It is natural to begin with Aristotle, who was in a class by hirmd f anlo:ngthepolitical theorists and sociologists of antiquity: he stu\!t,d :hr politics ~nd!.
sociology of the Greek city more closely than anyone else; he th-ought: nt.~.:.~
profoundly about these subjects and he wrote more about them th;~n .any<nThere could be no greater mistake than to suppose that bt'rau."il.' A.rlstlt k v;~
primarily a philosopher he was, like most modem phil,1><)phcr:s .:tth:r incapable of, or uninterested in, cxtensive and accurate c:11:p1rical irtvt-stigau:xl ~
Not only was he one of the greatest natural scientists of aU rtmr, -t'~p<ci .1lly in
zoology (a field in which he had no rival in antiquity); h:~ w:.s ~ho :o ~ociai11H:l
political scientist of the very first rank. In addition to th.1~ tmsterpit:-c~. :he
Politics,' he is also credited with having produced- Jnuhtlls~ with the- .tid opupils- no less than 158 Politeiai, monographs on .ny runl'tJ:mioiJ>, Jntl scwr .it
other works in the field of politics, sociology and hi~tory (~t"..' 1:1y AHI'). 2
including a Jist of victors in the Pythian Games, compild u1 l'()llab-oracion'll'ith
his young relative Callisthenes, for which they muo;t ha-.<' doru: rtsearch in the
archives at Delphi. This is the earliest known archival fi.'S\.~,1tdt wbi <h il CL'rLlin .,
although tht're is a late tradition that Hippias the 'supinst'. rf E!ii, ;.mcpi!!:d an
Olympic victor list (about 400 B.C.), which is genc:rally accepted (as b\ J a cub~)
but seems to me unreliable in the extreme: our only authority iorit~ :xi.~tenrr is
a statement by Plutarch (Numa 1.6), more dispara~mg th:m llHl'-t people reali;.::.
mentioning an Olympionikon anagraphi 'which thcy ~.::}' I HppiJ~ published l1!.:-
having no source that obliges us to trust it' .3 Nll fu~JJU!nts iituvi,~~ l11c
partially preserved Delphic inscription of the 32fJ;; B.C. whirh r~mrds [he
completion of the Pythian victor list by Aristotle and C.;.llisthtrH~ i;;;;; l\J tiirit~n t:
refutation of the view that Aristotle, as a yhilosopher, c:1uld nut h.tv.:: been
70
greatly concerned about brute facts in the sphere of the social sciences and would
be likely to distort or invent them to suit his preconcf'ived philosophical views.
(The inscription from Delphi is Tod, SGHIII.187=5/G 3 275; cf. my AHP 57
n.44.) There is good reason to think that Aristotle was at least the part-author of
the works with which he was credited in antiquity in the field of what we call
history, sociology. law and politics, and that he planned, and worked upon
during his lifetime with his pupil Theophrastus, a vast treatise on Laws (the
Nomoi), which was eventually published by Theophrastus in no fewer than 24
Books (rough! y three times the size of the Politics), and of which a few fragments
survive. 4 Aristotle's competence as an authority on the political life of the polis
cannot be doubted: in this field, as I have indicated, he towers above everyone
else in antiquity. He receives unqualified and justified eulogy from Marx, as 'a
giant thinker', 'the greatest thinker of antiquity', 'the acme of ancient philosophy' (see l.iv above).
My concentration on Aristotle as the great figure in ancient social and political
thought and my relative neglect of Plato will surprise only those who know
little or nothing of the source material for fourth-century Greek history and
have acquired such knowledge as they possess from modem books - nearly
always very deferential to Plato. Aristotle, in the Politics, usually keeps very
close to actual historical processes, whereas Plato throughout his works is
largely unconcerned with historical reality, with 'what happened in history',
except for certain matters which happened to catch his attention, inwardlooking as it generally was. Certainly he had one or two powerful insights: in a
recent article, Fuks (PSQ) has drawn attention to his obsessive conviction justified, as I think - that the tense political atmosphere and acute civil strife of
his day were the direct consequence of increasing contrasts between wealth and
poverty. In particular Plato realised that an oligarchy - in the sense of a
constitution resting on a property qualification, in which the wealthy rule and
the poor are excluded from govemmem (Rep. VIII.550cd) -will actually be two
cities, one of the poor and the other of the rich, 'always plotting against each
other' (55ld): it will be characterised by extremes of wealth and poverty (552b),
with nearly all those outside the ruling circle becoming paupers (ptochoi, 552d).
We may recall the picture of England in 1845 drawn by Benjamin Disradi in his
novel significantly en tided Sybil, or The Two Nations. Plato therefore gave much
attention to the problems of property and its ownership and usc; but his
solutions were ill-conceived and misdirected. Above all, in the vitally important
field of production he had nothing of the slightest value to suggest: in the
Republic in particular he concentratl'd on consumption, and his so-called 'communism' was confined to his small ruling class of'Guardians' (see Fuks, PSQ,
esp. 76-7). But he was not willing, as Aristotle was, to study carefully a wholl'
series of concrete situations, which might have upset some of his preconceived
notions. He preferred to develop. as a philosopher, what his numerous admirers
often call 'the logic of the ideas' - a 'logic' which, if it starts out from a faulty
empirical base, as it often does, is only the more certain to reach faulty conclusions, the more rigorous it is. To take just one prominent example- Plato's
account of democracy and 'the democratic man' in Republic VIII.555b-569c is a
grotesque caricature of at any rate the one fourth-century democracy we know
most about: that of Athens, which in Plato's day bore little resemblance to his
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (iv)
71
unpleasant portrait of democracy, and moreover was particularly stable and

showed nothing of the tendency to transform itself into tyranny which Plato
represents as a typical feature of democracy (562a ff.). Yet Plato's fancy picture
of the transformation of democracy into tyranny has often been treated as if it
were a revelation of the innate characteristics ofdemocracy- as of course it was
intended to be. Cicero, giving in De republica 1.65 {fin.) to 68 almost a paraphrased summary of Plato, Rep. 562a-4a, evidently regarded Plato's account as a
description of what is likely to happen in actual practice. Yet Cicero, in the same
work, can make one ofhis characters, Laelius, describe Plato's imaginary ideal
state as 'remarkable indeed, no doubt, but irreconcilable with human life and
customs' (praeclaram quidemfortasse, sed a vita hominum abhorrentem eta moribus,
11.21). Aristotle's criticisms of the Republic (in Pol. 11.1, 1261a4 ff.) are far from
showing him at his best, but at least he did grasp one vital fact: that even Plato's
ruling 'Guardian' class (phylakes) could not be happy. 'And if the Guardians arc
not happy, who else can be?' bhe asks. 'Certainly not the technitai and the mass of
the banausoi' (Pol. II.S, 1264 15-24). As for the city pictured in Plato's Laws,
described as his 'second-best State' (Laws V.739b-e: VII.807b), it is both so
grimly repressive and so unworkable that even Plato's admirers usually prefer to
let it drop out of sight. 4'
The wildly exaggerated respect which has been paid down the ages to Plato's
political thought is partly due to his remarkable literary genius and to the
anti-democratic instincts of the majority of scholars. Plato was anti-democratic
in the highest degree. It would not be fair to call him typically 'oligarchic' in the
usual Greek sense, as I shall define it later in this section: he did not want the rich as
such to rule. (Plato of course knew well that the standard form of Greek
oligarchy was the rule of a propertied class: see e.g. Rep. VIII.550cd. 551ab,d,
553a; Polit. 301a.) But both Plato's 'best' and his 'second-best' States were
iron-bound oligarchies, designed to prevent change or development of any
kind, and permanently excluding from political rights every single one of those
who actually worked for their living. Plato's arrogant contempt for all manual
workers is nicely displayed in the passage from the Republic (Vl.495c-6a) about
the 'bald-headed little tinker', which I have given in Vll.i below.
* * * * * *
Like so many other Greeks, Aristotle regarded a man's economic position as
the decisive factor in influencing his behaviour in politics, as in other fields. He
never feels the need to argue in favour of this position, which he could simply
take for granted. because it was already universally accepted. For him even
eugent>ia, noble birth, involved inherited wealth as an essential element (see my
OPW 373).~ At times he employs what some modern sociologists (for instance
Ossowski,
39-40 etc.) have called a 'trichotomous' scheme of division,
into rich, poor and men of moderate wealth, hoi mesoi, an expression which it is
better nor to translate 'middle class' (the usual rendering), if only because of the
peculiar modem connotation of that term. In an important passage in the Politics
(IV.ll, 1295b1-96b2) he begins by saying that in every polis-he is speaking only
of the citizen population- there are three parts (meri): the rich (euporoi), the poor
(aporoi, who need not be completely propertyless: see 111.8, 1279bt9). and the
mesoi; and he goes on to say that neither of the two extreme classes is willing to
esse
72
listen to reason and persuasion; they feel either contempt or envy for each other;
they are likely either to be plotted against because of their great possessions or to
covet the possessions of others and plot against them: they are either too
unwilling to obey or too abject and mean-spirited to know how to command;
and the result is a city consisting not of free men but as it were of masters and
slaves, in which there occur civil dissensions and armed conflicts (5taseis ... kai
macha1) between rich and poor, and either the few rich set up a pure oligarchy (an
oligarchia akratos) or the many poor set up an extreme democracy (a demos
eschato.s). The mesoi, he thinks, suffer from none of the disadvantages mentioned;
and the greater the proportion of mesoi, the better governed the city is likely to
be. (Did Aristotle perhaps have Athens particularly in mind here? It surely had
more me.soi than most Greek states.) Shortly afterwards Aristotle returns to the
same theme, insisting that it is the arbitrator (diait~tes) who inspires the greatest
confidence everywhere, and that the mesos is an arbitrator between the other two
groups, who are again designated as rich and poor: neither of these two groups.
he says, will ever willingly endure political subjection (douleuein) to the other,
and they would not even consent to 'rule tum and tum about' (en merei archein),
so deep is their distrust of one another (IV.12, 1296b34-973 7).
On the other hand, Aristotle also (and more often) resorts to a simpler
'dichotomic' model- which, by the way, is regularly adopted by Plato. 6 In
Aristotle's dichotomy (as in Plato's and everyone else's) the citizens are divided
into rich and poor, or into the propertied class (hoi tas ou5ias echonles) and those
who have no property, or virtually none (hPi aporor). Even in the passage from
Politics IV which I summarised above Aristotle admits that the number ofmesoi
in most cities is small, and he regards outright oligarchy or democracy as only
too likely to occur. 1 In general, it would be true to say that in Aristotle, as in
other Greek writers (especially the historians), the nearer a political situation
comes to a crisis, the more likely we are to be presented with just two sides:
whatever the terminology used (and the Greek political vocabulary was exceptionally rich) 8 we shaH usually be justified in translating whatever expre5sions
we find by 'the upper classes' and 'the lower classes', meaning essentially the
propertied and the non-propertied.
One could cite quite a large number of passages in which Aristotle takes it for
granted -quite correctly- that the propertied class would set themselves up as
an oligarchy whenever they were able to do so, whereas the poor would
institute democracy (see my OPW 35, with the notes). Technically, of course,
oligarchy (oligarchia) should be the rule of the Few (the oliKoi), democracy the
rule of the Demos, a term which sometimes means the whole people, sometimes specifically the lower classes, the poor (see my OPW 35 ff., esp 41-2). But
in one remarkable passage (Pol. 111.8, 1279bl6 ff., esp. 1279b34-803 3) Aristotle
brushes aside the mere difference of number, which he says is purely accidental
and due to the fact that the rich happen to be few and the poor many: he insists
that the real ground of the difference between democracy and oligarchy is
poverty and wealth (penia kai ploutos), and he goes on to explain that he would
continue to speak in terms of'oligarchy' and 'democracy' in the same way even
if the rich were many and the poor few! (Cf. IV.4, 12903 40-b3, 17-20.)9 When the
propertied class can rule, they do, and that is oligarchy. Democracy is government by the majority, and the majority are in fact poor: democracy is therefore
73
government by the poor, and the poor could be expected to desire democracy.
(All this illustrates Aristotle's firm belief, to which I have already drawn
attention, that a man's political behaviour will normally depend upon his
economic position.)
Aristotle also takes it for granted- as did Greek thinkers generally, including
Plato- that the class which achieves power, whether it be the rich or the poor,
will rule with a view to its own advantage (cf. Pol. III.7, 1279b6-10). He remarks
that those who have a greater share of wealth than others tend to conceive
themselves as absolutely superior (V.l, 1301a31-3); and he regards it as a
foregone conclusion that those who have very great possessions will think it
actually unjust (ou dikaion) for men having no propertx to be put in a position of
political equality with property-owners (V.12, 1316bt-3). 10 Indeed, he says,
men ofoligarchical inclinations dcfme justice itselfin terms of'what is decided by
[those possessing] a preponderant amount of property' (VI.3, 13183 18-20}. So
completely did Aristotle see oligarchy and democracy as rule by the rich (over
the poor) and rule by the poor (over the rich) respectively that in one striking
passage he remarks that neither oligarchy nor democracy could continue without the existence of both rich and poor, and that if equality of property
(homalotes tis ousias) were introduced the constitution would have to be something different from either (V.9, 1309b38-1Q32). It is just after this, incidentally,
that he records the interesting fact that 'in some States' (he is apparently
referring to oligarchies) of his day the oligarchically-minded (hoi oligarchikor)
'take the oath, "I will bear ill-will towards the common people [the demos], and I
will plan against them all the evil I can"' (131CfR-12). Needless to say, Aristotle
did not approve of such behaviour. Elsewhere in the Politics he remarks, 'Even
when the poor have no access to honours they are willing to remain quiet
provided no one treats them arrogantly or robs them of their property' (IV .13,
1297b6-8; cf. V.8, 1308b34-~; VI.4, 1318bl 1-24). But he goes on at once to
qualify this: 'It does not come about easily, however, for those who have
political power are not always gracious' (1297b8-10; cf. 13083 3 ff., esp. 9-10). He
realised that if the poor are to be kept contented, magistrates, especially in
oligarchies, must not be allowed to profit unduly from office (V.8 and VI.4.
quoted above). Yet he could also admit that all constitutions which he was
prepared to describe as 'aristocratic' are so oligarchical that the leading men are
unduly oppressive (mallon pleonektousin hoignorimoi: V.7, 1307a34-5).
The categories employed by Aristotle were already very well established.
Earlier in the fourth century Plato, Xenophon, the Oxyrhynchus historian and
others had taken them for granted, and in the fifth century we find them not
only in Thucydides, Herodotus and others (notably the writer of the PseudoXenophontic Athinaion Politeia, often referred to as 'the Old Oligarch'), 11 but
even in poetry. I am thinking in particular of the passage in the Supp!ices of
Euripides (lines 238-45; cf. my OPW 356 and n.l ), where Theseus is made to say
that there are three kinds of citizen: the greedy and useless rich (the olbioi); the
covetous poor, easily led astray by scurvy demagogues (ponrroi prostatai); and
'those in the middle' (hoi en mesor), who can be the salvation of the city Aristotle's mesoi, of course. Here, as in Aristotle and elsewhere, these people are
quite dearly men of moderate opinions or behaviour, although both Euripides and
Aristotle evidently expected that moderate opinions and behaviour would be
74
the natural consequence of the possession of a moderate amount of property- a

delightfully realistic view, which may however seem distressingly Marxist to
those who today speak of 'moderates' when they mean right-wingers. (I shall
not go back behind the fifth century in this brief review of Greek political
terminology: I propose to say something about the seventh and sixth centuries
later, in V.i below.)
It is a fact of the utmost significance that the earliest known example- and the
only certain example before Alexander the Great- of divine cult being paid to a
living man by a Greek city was the direct result ofbitter class struggle on the
political plane. The cult in question was instituted in honour of the Spartan
commander Lysander by the narrow oligarchy (it is referred to as a 'decarchy',
or rule often men) which he had installed in power at Samos in 404 B.C., after
destroying the Samian democracy and 'liberating' the island from its alliance
with Athens, to which the democracy had clung firmly even after the defeat of
Athens in the Peloponnesian war had become certain, with Lysander's victory
over the Athenian fleet at Aegospotami in the autumn of 405. (The existence of
the cult ofL ysander at Samos, sometimes doubted, has become certain since the
discovery of an inscription referring to the festival of the Lysandreia: see my
OPW 64 and n.S.)
I have just been showing that Aristotle's analysis of political activity in the
Greek city started from the empirically demonstrable premise, which he shared
not only with other Greek thinkers but also with Marx, that the main determining factor in the political behaviour of most individuals is economic class as of course it still is today. 12 (Naturally Aristotle realised, as Marx did, that
there will be exceptions to this rule, but he knew that they were not numerous
enough to deprive it of its value as a generalisation.) I shall presently show that
Aristotle also. in an even more interesting way, took the same fundamental
approach as Marx towards the analysis of a citizen body; but before I do this I
should Jike to demonstrate the value of the kind of analysis I have just been
giving of Greek political and sociological thinking (utilising the same basic
categories as Aristotle- and Marx) by showing how well it explains the origin of
the so-called 'theory of the mixed constitution'. This theory played an important part in Greek (and Roman) political thought: the 'mixed constitution',
in the writings ofPolybius, Cicero and others, became a kind ofWeberian 'ideal
type'; 13 but by then the theory had developed into something rather different
from what it had been in its initial phase, in the late fifth century and the fourth.
By far the earliest surviving expression of the notion that the mixed constitution
is a desirable one is in a much-discussed passage in Thucydides (VIII.97.2),
praising the so-called 'constitution of the Five Thousand' at Athens in 411-410
B.C. as just such a mixture. H The mixed constitution was evidently admired by
Plato, 15 but the best theoretical justification of it is to be found in Book IV of
Aristotle's Politics. 16
In a striking passage earlier in his great work, Aristode recognises that if
the lower classes (the demos) are totally deprived of political rights and are
not even aiiowed to have the necessary minimum power of electing the
magistrates and calling them to account, they will be in the position of'a slave
and an enemy' (11.12, 1274'1 15-18; cf. III.11, 128tb28-.30). Indeed, in a particularly realistic chapter (no.ll) in Book III Aristotle accepts perhaps more
75
explicitly than .'\11}''\'\'hert dst in his surviving works thl' distirrguishill!i ch:~r,lc
tcristic of Grt(:k dc.mo(rat:y: till' nec.~essity f(r tlzr whole dri.- ..,: io,hiy to ~
soverei~n in the ddibcrativt. lc.gisl.nivc. .urd judicial spheres (1282a2'i ff.. ~-sp.
3+b1), induding nt "nurse thl two artivitil-s already mention.-d to which
Aristotk again attaches the. ~rc:ucst importance. narndy dtt'tirrg the llla!tistrJtes
and calling them to account (h,lirc$i.< and eurhyna, 121i2.a2(,_7) . The. h:aMming th<tt
lies behind this conclusion is hasi.'d llll the recognitim1 thJt while each indi vido.tal
may be a worSl' judg<' than the experts (hoi eid,rt~. 'thos<: w!m know'). rht
judgment t>f all cnllc.cti\'dy is better, or anyway no worse (1:282"16- 17; d.
III. 15, 12863 26-35, esp. 30-.~). However, Aristotle also fdt msriuct 1vdy tliJl if
the poor are all allowed to votl' in the. Assembly they will b~ ;thlc to :-.wa.mp ~~and
outvote the propertied class; and indeed- blandly ignorin!f wh.l~ ;tct"Jally did
happen at Athens, where propt"rty rights were very carefully prts~.:~ved- lte says
that if the rnajority are allowed to Jo c:xartly as they like, they will confiscatt'l h~
property of the rich (Pol. Vl.3, I.~JH.l14-6: cf 111.10, 1281a14-N). Der.1ocr~ry.
in Aristotle's view, can only too easily bt.comt' (ifl may bt lc)r~IVt'll.l m!.:'ll\.'llt.Jry
lapse into highly anachronistic and inappropriate ttrmiuolu!{y) thr dktnunhip
of the proletariat! So it is necessary to give tht propcrtil"d dass t.'XIr a wdglat. so
to speak, in such a way as to make up for thdr built-in numerical inferiority md
bring them to something like a balance with the non-propertied. Aristotle has
various suggestions as to how this might be done: for example, you might
decide to fine the rich for non-attendance in the courts at the same time as you
pay a certain number of the poor for attending (Pol. IV. 11, 1294a37-41; 13.
1297a36-40; cf. 14, 1298b23-6).
This reveals clearly the dimate of thought which originally produced the
theory of the mixed constitution: you start by assuming. as Aristotle always
does, that the propertied and the non-propertied are naturally opposed classes
whose interests are very hard to reconcile, and you then manipulate the constitution in such a way as to compensate for the numerical inferiority of the upper
class and produce a balance between rich and poor, which can be expected to
have the important virtue ofstability, and which you can hold out as a judicious
mixture of oligarchy (or aristocracy) and democracy- with kingship thrown in
for good measure if you happen to have important magistrates like the kings of
Sparta or the Roman consuls. After Aristotle the theory of the mixed constitution changed its character: as it became more and more unnecessary to take
serious account of democracy (in the full sense) as a possible political form, so
interest in the mixed constitution came to centre mainly in formal constitutional
elements and the relative powers of Assembly, Council (or Senate) and magistrates. In Cicero's eyes it was the best way of reconciling the masses to aristocratic
rule and thus ensuring political stability and the security of propertyownership. 11 Discussion has lately concentrated on the later phase; what I have
been trying to do is to show how the theory first emerged and the place it
occupied in the thought of Aristotle. I would describe it as being in its origin a
means of ensuring a balance in the political class struggle.
There are traces at many points in Aristotle's work of his belief that the
con.Aict of interests between propertied and non-propenied is fundamental and
inescapable, and that even if a fully 'mixed' constitution cannot be achieved,
attempts ought at least to be made to reconcile that conflict of interests as far as
76
possible both by constitutional rules and by sensible behaviour in practice.

Perhaps the most useful series of passages to quote here is Politics V.8 (esp.
1308013-11' 1308b25-31, t308b~~. 130<?14-32).
It would be easy to sneer at Aristotle's recommendations for the reconciliation
of the irreconcilable - 'mixed constitution' and all. This however would be
wrong, for in the class society for which Aristotle was prescribing the conflicts
were indeed inescapable, and no radical transformation of society for the better
was then conceivable. In the later Middle Ages the ending offeudal restrictions
and the full transition to capitalism offered real hope of betterment for all but a
few; and in our own time the prolonged death-throes of capitalism encourage us
to look forward to a fully socialist society. For Aristotle and his contemporaries
there were no prospects of fundamental change that could offer any expectation
of a better life for even a citizen of a polis, except at the expense of others. The
greatness of Aristotle as a political and social thinker is visible to us not only in
his recognition (which even Plato shared: see above) of the structural defects of
existing Greek poltis, automatically creating an opposition between propertied
and non-propertied, but also in his generally practicable and often very acute
ideas for palliating as far as possible the evil consequences ofthose defects- ideas
which at least compare very favourably with the utterly impracticable fantasies
of Plato.
Aristotle was a great advocate of the sovereignty oflaw (nomos), a subject to
which he returns again and again. Yet in one of the many passages in which he
honestly faces difficulties he admits that law itself can be 'either oligarchic or
democratic' (Pol. III.lO, 1281 01~9. at 37); and at the end of the next chapter he
explains that the nature of law de2ends upon the type of constitution (polittia)
within which it functions (11. 1282b6-tt). Also, as jones pointed out some years
ago and Hansen has recently demonstrated in detail, 18 Aristotle is demonstrably
unfair to what he is pleased to call 'extreme democracy'- for when many of us
would prefer to speak of'radical democracy' or 'full democracy', Aristotle uses
the expressions es(hati dimokratia or teleutaia dimokratia. 19 Over and over again
Aristotle treats this form ofdemocracy as one in which there is characteristically
and habitually an overriding of law (or the laws) by decrees (psephismata)2
passed by the demos or plithos in Assembly, 21 and in one case he speaks specifically
of the plethos of the aporoi, the mass of the propertyless (Pol.IV .6, 1293a()-10), a
notion which is implicit in all these passages. Aristotle must have regarded the
Athenian constitution, at any rate in the fourth century,22 as a fonn of'extreme
democracy', yet his treatment of that kind of constitution, even if it applied to
some other Greek democracies, was certainly not true of the Athenian form (see
V.ii below, ad init., E, and its n.12). Nor,l may say, can we accept in relation
to Athens, where property rights were carefully preserved, Aristotle's assumption that it was characteristic of Greek democracies to despoil the rich of their
property (see Pol. III. to, 1281a14-24; and VI.3, 1318a24-6; cf. 5, 132()14-14). All
we can admit is that some condemnations in the courts, involving the confiscation of the property of wealthy men, were - in the eyes of some critics of the
democracy - prompted at least partly by a desire to enrich the State at the
expense of opulent individuals. How true Aristotle's strictures were of other
Greek democracies we have no means of telling. He may well have generalised
from a few notorious c:ases.
77
* * * * * *
J now come to what I regard as the most important and interesting part of this
section: the fulfilment of my promise to demomtr.rtt' am>ther way in which
Aristotle's analysis of the citizen body of the Gntk 1''/i' bc.:1rs a remarkahk
resemblance to the method of approach adopted by ;"bn. Aristntlt undtn.tuod
the reason why there are different types of constitution {Jifti.rc.m rlitri<~ij: it wa~
because each citizen body was composed of diffenru p-.rt'!>. mtri. madt' up of
households or families (oikim) having widely differing charactL'tlS1ic.s.~ 3 aud rhcconstitution would express the relative strength of the diftC.nnt dtmc-ms. As
anyone who has studied the Politics carefully will kmw . .-\ri.c,wtl<. h~s v.uillus
different ways of classifying the inhabitants of the ( irl'l'k dty-statt'. In Buok IV.
chapter 4, in particular, he tries to give a detailed li!>t of tht mn~tilllt'nt parts uf
the citizen body, themerepoleos (1290b38-1a8, 1291"3J-hl.l). Thc.,arc~orte'i with
which he begins are the very ones I have specified (in Slrtion iiofthis rhapter) .as
the defining characteristics of class in Marx's sense: Aril'>totk st;lfts off with fi.lur
groups defined according to their role in production- working farmcrr. (.r{tc;,g,,i),
independent artisans (to banauson), traders (to agoraio11. including borh t'rHP''"'i.
who were essentially inter-state merchants, and kapiloi, petty local Jc:alers).ll
and wage-labourers (to thetikon). Precisely the same four groupo; appear in Bonk
VI fl, 1321 3 5-6), but there they are the constituent parts of the pleth~>!. the
masses; and in IV .4 too it soon becomes evident that the gtorxoi arc indntl (as I
have called them above) working farmers, and not 'gentlemen farmer.;' whtl
were really absentee landlords or employers of slave labour, for after Aristotle.
has mentioned his first four groups he wanders off into a mixture of c~onmnk.
political and military categories, and as one of these (his no. 7) he m~ntions the
euporoi, the rich, the well-to-do property owners (1291 333-4). This i~ not one of
Aristotle's clearest pieces of analysis: it contains a very long digression of nearly
a page in length (1291 3 1(}.33), and some people think there must be a lacuna in
the text. But eventually, after listing nine or ten categories, he realises that he has
got himself into a hopeless mess, and he pulls together what he has been saying
by remarking that there is just one distinction which will sort everyone out: no
one can be both poor and rich. And so he returns once more to his fundamental
distinction between rich and poor, propertied and propertyless: tuporoi and
aporoi (1291 b7-8). He ends this section of his work by reiterating that there are
two basic forms of constitution, corresponding to the distinction between
euporoi and aporoi, namely oligarchy and democracy (1291 b 11-13). And in a later
Book of the Politics he says emphatically that the polis is made up of 'two meri:
rich and poor' (plousioi kai penites, Vl.3, 1318a30-1).
It is of the greatest interest, and entirely consistent with Aristotle's fundamental principles of sociological classification, that he was able to discriminate
between different types of democracy accord;ng to the role played in production in
each individual case by the majority of the lower classes (the demos), whether as
fanners, artisans or wage-labourers, or as some mixture of these elements (see
Pol. VI.J , 1317a24-9 and other passages),u whereas he can draw distinctions
only on technical, constitutional grounds in three different passages discussing
forms of oligarchy, 28 all of which would of course be ruled (as he takes for
granted) by landowners (cf. III.iii below). Austin and Vidai-Naquet, while
admitting that Aristode is 'constantly reasoning in terms of class struggles',
78
maintain- apparendy as a criticism of what they regard as Marxism- that

'modem representations of class struggles' are inappropriate here and that 'one
will search in vain for the place held by different groups in the relations of
production as a criterion ofancient class struggles' (ESHAG 22). This is literally
correct - but why should anyone wish to apply categories that are highly
relevant in capitalist society to a pre-capitalist world in which they are indeed
inappropriate? Austin dOd Vidal-Naquet at this point seem to overlook the fact
that the great majority of citizens in all Classical Greek States were involved in
agricultural production in one way or another. Artisans in the fourth century
were neither numerous nor important enough to exert any real influence as a
class; foreign trade was probably often (as certainly at Athens) in the hands
mainly ofnon-citizens;17 and internal trade, although some citizens participated
as well as many metics, gave little opportunity of acquiring wealth or political
power. Aristode realised that it was above all property-ownership or the lack ofit
which divided citizen bodies into what I am calling classes: he had no need to tell
his Greek audience that property was overwhelmingly landed (cf. lll.i-iii below).
The Aristotelian categories perhaps tend to be less refined than thoseofMarx.
Except in one or two passages such as Pol. IV.4, quoted above, Aristotle is
mainly thinking in quantitative terms, classifying citizens according to the
amount of property they owned, whether large or small (or sometimes middling), whereas Marx's analysis, except when he is speaking loosely, is usually
more qualitative and concentrates more explicitly on rdationship to the means
and the labour of production. To put it in a different way: Marx perhaps
concentrates more on the beginning and the structure of the process of production, Aristode more on its results. But there is less difference than might appear.
The very tenn Aristotle and others often use for the propertied class, hoi w
ousias echontes, employs a word, ousia, which is characteristically, though not
exclusively, used oflanded property (cf. the Latin word locupletes). As I have
said, land and slaves were the principal means of production in antiquity, and
land was always regarded as the ideal form of wealth. And Aristotle, in his
analysis of the political community, certainly does come closer to Marx than
any other ancient thinker I know: one one occasion, as we have seen, he begins
his classification of the constituent parts (the mtrt} of a citizen body by distinguishing the citizens according to the functions they perform in the productive
process; he ends up with a basic dichotomy between propertied and propertyless; and he always takes a man's economic position to be the main determinant
ofhis political behaviour.
Now it is true that Aristotle may sometimes impose upon earlier events
inappropriate categories drawn from the experience of his own day~ but it is not
legitimate to say (as some schohis have done) that whereas his picture of class
differences and class struggle in Greek cities may be true of the fourth century, it
need not be accepted for earlier periods. Mfth..century writers, as I have shown,
give a very similar picture; and when we go back to contemporary sources in the
Archaic Age, the poets Solon and Theognis in particular, we find some very clear
examples of overt political class strife, although of course the classes were then
rather cJjft"ercnt from what they had bemmc by the fifth century ( see V .i-:ii below).
Aristotle does record the fact that some Greeks believed the fair regulation of
property to be the most important of all matters, because they thought that all
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Strnggle ( iv)
79
<~ivil disturbances) had their origin in questions of property (Pol. II. 7,

12663 37-9}. Plato, of course, is the most obvious example (see Fuks, PSQ, es p.
49-51). And Aristotk got's on (1266 3 37-7b2t) to discuss some of the views of
Phalea~ ufCh.1lndon {a thiukrr ofunknown date, presumably of the late fifth or
early fi1unh .:entury). who. h\ says. wa~ thl tin:t to propose that citizens shotLld
own equal.tmounts of pruptrty -in f.u:t. as he explains later, of land ( 12671:>921). Among various criticisms of Ph.I)Cd!o., Aristotle advances the view that it is
no use L"llntining a pr..'s<.riptinn ti,r tqual distribution of property to Ian d;
wealth, .t!i he points ,mt, can also l'\lll~J~t nf~laves and cattle and money', and
one should either leave wealth entirdy unrq;ulated or else insist on complete
equality or the fixing of a moderate maxinllun amount. This is the place t:o
mention the remarkable opiniont'XprL'SSI."d by r>iodorus (11.39.5), in connecri<:>n
with his idealised Indian socitty: 'It i~ t(>olish to make laws on a basis of equali ty
for all, but to make the distribution of prnp~rty unequal.' (Against gratuitous
emendation of this passage, see my 0/)JV 1JS n.126.)
I fully realise that some pt~lpk will ti.d irktd by my unqualified and general
acceptance of Marx's concept of dass strug~le;-. with its emphasis on econmn.ic
differentiation as the fundarn"utal dtnuut, rJ.ther than social prestige or stat us
or political power; they may still be disinclined to accept Marx's ptcture as a
generally valid description of human societies. But it should at least be dear
beyond dispute by now that anyone who holds such opinions has no right to
complain of my accepting Marx's categories in the analysis of ancient Gr~ek
society. Far from being an anachronistic aberration confined to Marx and his
followers, the concept of economic class as the basic factor in the differentiation
of Greek society and the definition of its political divisions turn; outto correspond remarkably well with the view taken by the Gr'-'t'k~ thcm~o-elves; and
Aristotle, the great expert on the sociology and politics of the Grr(k ctty. 4lwa ys
proceeds on the basis of a class analysis and takes it for grant~d t'h.Jt mm willl ct.
politically and Otherwise, above all according tO thL'ir ~(:(}nOJntf fiO!ltio::. r!uMarxist character (in the sense I have indicated) of Aristot!"'$ sociology h<h 1~ot
escaped notice. The Aristotelian scholar J. L. Stod.s r<.'m.lrke-d in i9Jt, 11tt:>nc
statement in Book IV of the Politics that 'it mitthr be a quotation f'r.:.!n the
Communist Manifesto'! (CQ 30.185). Stocks's artirll'. b~ the way,ii ~o.'tltlthd
'Schole' (the Greek word for 'leisure'), a concept of c:vusJd,r;~hk imrortance in
Aristotle's'thought which I find it more conveniem to dtJ.I within III. 'i bdo.. v.
on hired labour. In recent years. in the Antipodes and .trru~~ tht At~antk. ~r.;.nu
writers on the ancient world have contrived to forget Aristutlt d:m J n.J.ly;i swhich [dare say they regard as dangerously Marxio;~ -or to pretend thtt it Clil hc
ignored, especially for the centuries earlier than th~. tuurth. They haw manag;t:d
to persuade themsdves that the conflicts in Gn-ek society can he ~:xplairat.-d
exclusively in terms of factions grouped around aristocratac famil it~ - td.:!io ns
which of course existed and could indeed rut across das~ hues. aithough hl trc:a~
them as the basic elements in Greek politics and th ... risl' nfdtmurraqts to By in
the face of the evidence, especially for Athens in tht tar!y sixth .:mtut~ .:mw.1r&;
(see V.i and ii below). I shall waste no further timt" on rh"'~" idtu:;;vnl.'r.ltrk
notions; but I cannot resist referring to the delightt'ultxra..siC"n. 'Arinu:di~'n
Marxist explanations of Greek social and politirill ,kvdopmmt', ::l .1 ~c.nt
article by D. J. McCargar who is prudently disindim-J to r,:il'(t S\!dl exr l.m;!t!OII"
stase;s
80
entirely, especially- for Athens-in the period beginning with Cleisthenes (50817). 2 ~
I should perhaps just mention (since it has recently been reprinted) a very
feeble attempt made by Marcus Wheeler, in an article published in 1951, to
dissociate Aristotle's theory of stasis. or civil disturbance, from Mane's concept
of class struggle. 211 The summary of Wheeler's arguments at the end ofhis article
reveals his inability to make a deep enough analysis of either Aristotle or Marx.
There is positively no comfort in Aristotle, or in any other Greek thinker
known to me, for those who (like Finley recently: see the next section of this
chapter) have rejected class as the principal category for use in the analysis of
ancient society and have preferred 'status'. It is hard to find even a good Greek
equivalent for 'status'; but since Max Weber defined his 'status situation' (stiindische lAge) as those aspects of a man's life that are determined by 'social
estimation ofhonour' (WuG 5 11.534=ES Il.932=FMW 18fr7). I think we may
accept time ('honour', 'prestige') as the best Greek translation of'status'. Now
Aristotle of course knew very well - as did other Greek writers, including
Thucydides (1. 75.3; 76.2, etc.) -that time was of great importance to many
Greeks. For some, indeed, Aristotle realised that timiwas a principal ingredient
in happiness (EN 1.4, 1095a14-26); and those he calls 'men of refinemem and
affairs' (hCJi charientes kai praktikoi)- in contrast with the masses, who 'betray
themselves as utterly slavish, in their preference for a life suitable for cattle'could be expected to set great store by time, which he himself considered to be
'virtually the goal of political life' (1.5, 1095bt9-3t), 'the greatest of external
goods' (IV.3, 1123b15-21), 'a prize for excellence' (arete, 1123b35), 'the aim of
the m;tiority' (VIII.H, 115~1~17). But it is essential to observe that Aristotle's
discussions of timi are kept almost entirely for his ethical works. 30 He would
have had scant patience with those modem scholars who have wanted to use
status as a yardstick in political and general classification - for that, Aristotle
chose class, expressed in terms of property.
* * * * * *
I think I have now made at least a partly sufficient reply to statements such as
that ofBottomore, quoted in l.iv above, that 'while the Marxian theory seems
highly relevant and useful in analysing social and political conflicts in capitalist
societies during a particular period, its utility and relevance elsewhere are much
less clear'.
I have not thought it necessary to examine here any Greek 'political thought'if we can dignify it with that name- of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 31 I
shall notice some of this disagreeable stuff later, when I have occasion to do so
(see e.g. V.iii, VI. vi and Vll.i below), butthereis really no pointin my dragging
it in here. The whole concept of democracy- that great. fertile innovation of
Classical Greek political thinking (as it was, notwithstanding its limitation to
citizen bodies)- now became gradually degraded, as I shall show in V .iii below.
Dimokratia came to mean little more than some form of constitutional rule as
opposed to tyranny. or else a measure ofindependence for a city, as opposed to
outright control by a Hellenistic monarch; and there could no longer be any
honest political thought on a realistic basis. Serious political activity, such as it
was, became confined more and more completely to the propertied classes.
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (v)
81
(v)
Alternatives to class (status etc.)
We must now consider whether there is any more fruitful method of analysing
human societies, according to different principles from those I have been
advocating.
I must begin by putting myself at the opposite extreme from those I may call
'antiquarians', who renounce, explicitly or by implication, any wish to provide
an organic picture of a historical society, illuminated by all the insight that we in
modem times can bring to bear upon it, and deliberately confine themselves to
reproducing as faithfully as possible some particular feature or aspect of that
society, strictly in its own original terms. Such a person may often prove very
useful to the historian, by drawing attention to particular sets of evidence and
collecting a great deal of information which the historian can then transform
into something significant. An outstanding example of this kind of antiquarian
activity, which is yet presented in the opening sentence ofits Preface as 'an essay
in historical interpretation', is Fergus Millar's recent large book, The Emperor in
the Roman World (1977), which begins by proclaiming in its Preface (xi-xii) a
series of methodological principles to most of which the historian ought to feel
hostile. Asserting that he has 'rigidly avoided reading sociological works on
kingship or related topics, or studies of monarchic institutions in societies other
than those of Greece and Rome', Millar goes on to say that 'to have come to the
subject with an array of concepts derived from the study of other societies
would merely have made even more unattainable the proper objective ofa historian,
to subordinate himself to the evidence and to the conceptual world of a society in the
past' (my italics). And he congratulates himself on not having 'contaminated the
presentation of the evidence from the Roman empire with conceptions drawn
from wider sociological studies'. For Millar, 'the emperor "was" what the
emperor did', an opinion given twice (xi and 6), the first time as a pendant to the
'conscious principle' he says he has followed, 'that any social system must be
analysed primarily in terms of the specific patterns of action recorded of its
members'. Another of his 'conscious principles' is that we must 'base our
conceptions solely on . . . attitudes and expectations expressed in those ancient
sources which provide our evidence'. And Millar believes himself to be describing 'certain essential elements', 'certain basic features of the working of the
Roman empire', patterns which 'are offundamental importance in understanding
what the Roman empire was' (my italics in each case).
Perhaps the most serious of all the mistaken assumptions behind this 'programme' is that there is an objective entity, 'the evidence', to which the historian
has merely to 'subordinate himself. The volume of the surviving evidence for
the Roman empire is enormous (inadequate as we may often find it for the
solution of a particular problem); and all the historian can do is to select those
parts of the evidence which he considers most relevant and significant. To
pretend to oneself that all one has to do is simply to reproduce 'the' evidence is all
too likely to result, and in Millar's case has resulted, in a mainly superficial
picture, and one that explains littJe or nothing ofimportance. Moreover, to 'base
our conceptions' as Millar advocates, solely on the attitudes and expectations
expressed in those ancient sources which happen to survive is to deprive ourselves
82
of all the insights that come from penetrating beneath that very limited series of
'attitudes and expectations' and, where they reveal false comprehension and
even self-deception, as they so often do, demonstrating the realities which they
serve to conceal. (Compare what I have said in Sections i and iv of this chapter
about 'beginning from' the categories and evt>n the terminology in use among
the ancient Greeks.) Again, before interrogating the evidence one needs to
decide what are the most fruitful questions to ask. By altogether abjuring, not
only all materia] which is not made explicit in the surviving sources, but also the
comparative method and all those forms of analysis which have been developed
in the study of sociology and of other historical societies, Millar has greatly
impoverished himself and has failed even to become aware of many of the most
fruitful questions. Particularly when our information from the ancient world is
scanty or non-existent, as for example in regard to the peasantry (see I. iii above
and IV.ii below), we may gain much insight from comparative studies. I would
suggest that the passage I have summaried in IV .ii beJow from William Hinton's
book, Fanshen, sheds light in a way no Greek or Roman source can equal upon
the acceptance by poor peasants of the exploitation they suffer at the hands of a
landlord class. However, it would be ungracious not to record that Millar's
book is a notable piece of antiquarian research, an outstanding and invaluable
repository of detailed and accurate information on those limited aspects of the
Principate in which he happens to be interested. One would have had little to
complain about had the Preface been omitted and the book given the more
modest and more accurate title, 'Communication between the Roman Emperor
and his Subjects'. If I have dwelt too long upon the book's limitations it is
because they are all too characteristic of much contemporary writing about
ancient history, though never made so explicit elsewhere.
I find myself not merely unwilling but unable ro make use, for present
purposes, of the wide range of theories of social stratification often grouped
together (sometimes inappropriately) under the name of 'functionalism, 1 the
main distinguishing characteristic of which is the attempt to explain social
institutions above all in terms of their role in maintaining and reinforcing the
social structure. Among the leading sociologists and anthropologists who can
be placed at least to some extent in this group are Durkheim, Malinowski,
Radcliffe-Brown, Talcott Parsons, and R. K. Merton. I cannot see that the
functionalist approach can help to explain any of the phenomena we shall be
examining, least of all the process of social change which is very noticeable in
parts of our period. A paper of great insight by Ralf Dahrendorf, 'In praise of
Thrasymachus' (in his ETS 129-50), has traced functionalist theory as far back
as the Socrates of Plato's Republic (1.336b-354c), who, in his debate with
Thrasymachus, develops (as Dahrendorf puts it) an 'equilibrium theory' of
social life, based upon an assumed consensus, in opposition to the 'constraint
theory' ofThrasymachus, and who thus 'became the first functionalist' (ETS
150). As Dahrendorf says,' An equilibrium approach cannot come to terms with
certain substantive problems of change ... Equilibrium theories lend themselves
to explaining continuity alone, and even this only with respect to the most
formal aspects of the political system' (ETS 143).
A methodology in the study of economic history which resembles that of the
functionalists in anthropology has been emerging in recent years, panly under
83
the stimulus of economists, especially in the United States. (I am sure that those
who are in principle hostile to Marxism will make great efforts to develop it still
further.) f refer to those works which seek to minimise class conflicts in society
and (if they notice them at all) treat such conflicts as less significant than those
features which can be conceived, with or without distortion, as promoting
social cohesion and 'rationality'. It is hard to choose examples among such
works, for some of them may bear little resemblance to each other except their
common 'functionalist' approach. I shall begin by singling out a recent book and
two articles by D. C. North and R. P. Thomas, 1 enthusiasticpractitionersofthe
'New Economic History' (as its devotees like to call it), whose picture of the
major economic developments that took place in the Middle Ages depends
partly upon the assumption that 'Serfdom in Western Europe was essentially
not an exploitative arrangement where lords "owned" labour as in North
America, or as it developed in Eastern Europe', but 'essentially a contractual
arrangement where labour services were exchanged for the public good of
protection and justice'. I need say no more about these authors' fancy picture of
serfdom as a voluntary contract, as it has been sufficiently demolished by Robert
Brenner in a very able article, 'Agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-industrial Europe' in Past & Present 70 (1976) ~75. This deals
admirably with various types of 'economic model-building' which try to explain long-term economic developments in pre-industrial Europe primarily in
terms either of demography (Postan, Bowden, LeRoy Ladurie, and North and
Thomas) or of the growth of trade and the market (Pirenne and his followers),
disregarding class relations and exploitation as primary factors. 21 And Brenner's
case against North and Thomas in particular can be strengthened. No one
acquainted with the sources for Later Roman history would try to pretend that
the serfdom of the Roman colonate, of the fourth and following centuries, was
anything but thoroughly 'exploitative', for in the Later Roman world, over all,
there was no such failure of State power as may have driven some mediaeval
peasants to 'choose' subjection to a lord as a less unpleasant alternative than
being at the mercy of all and sundry. We do find in the Later Empire a certain
amount of resort to 'patronage', as something temporarily preferable to helpless
independence in the face of fiscal oppression or barbarian incursions (see below),
but in general it would be ridiculous to treat the colonate as anything but an
instrument for reinforcing the subjection of the peasant to fiscal extortion and
landlord control (see IV.iii and VI. vi below). And if the serfdom of thecolonate
is thus understood, the case for treating mediaeval serfdom as a voluntary
contract benefiting peasant as well as lord is greatly weakened.
Another good example of the 'functionalist' tendencies I have just described is
the very able little book by Sir John Hicks, A Thtory of Economic History,
published in 1969 and representing an expansion oflectures delivered from 1967
onwards. This is more directly relevant to subje-cts I deal with in this book, in
that it purports to delineate the general features of what Hicks calls 'the lordand-peasant system' (TEH 101 ff.). which would include not only the Late
Roman colonate but a good deal of earlier rural life in the Greek world. Dr
Pangloss would have been delighted with Hicks's account of this system. It was
'very ancient', he says. 'and very strong. It was strong because it met a real need.
Lord and peasant were necessary to each other, and the land, the same land, was
84
necessary to both. The peasant was necessary to the lord, since it was from a
share in the peasant's produce that he derived his support; and there was a
corresponding way in which the lord was necessary to the peasant. Whatever the
burden that was laid upon him, he got something in return; and what he got in
return was vital. What he got was Protection' (TEH 102). This system is at once
hypostatised and takes on a life ofits own: Hicks speaks ofit as ifit could be itself
a living force. 'It did not only persist; it recreated itself, under suitable conditions, when there had been a move away from it' (TEH 104). When it involves
the cultivation of a lord's 'demesne land' by the forced labour ofthe peasants,
Hicks can remark blandly that 'a lord-and-peasant system that moves in this
direction would generally be regarded as moving towards a more complete
condition of serfdom' (TEH 105). And when there is a shortage oflabour, 'it is
competition for labour that must be stopped. The labourer, or peasantlabourer, must be tied to the soil, or re-tied to the soil; in a more exact sense than
before, he must be made a serf (TEH 112). Hicks's characters, it will be
observed - 'the lord', 'the peasant' and other such abstractions - are mere
creatures ofhis system; and in all their acts they obediently confonn to the types
ofbehaviour expected of them by orthodox neo-classical economists, if not by
historians. The absurdity of this idyllic picture of the 'lord-and-peasant system',
like. that of North and Thomas, which I have criticised above, is equally
revealed, of course, by the serfdom of the Later Roman colonate, where
'protection' by the landowner was only rarely involved, and not at all at the
inception of the colonate and for some time afterwards. It is a pity that Hicks
was not acquainted with the source material for the Later Roman Empire,
especially the passages quoted in Ill.iv and IV .iii below to demonstrate that in
the eyes of the Roman ruling class the serf colonus was in a condition so close to
slavery that only the vocabulary of that institution, technically inappropriate as
it was, proved adequate to describe his subject condition. Perhaps it would be
too cheap a sneer to say that we may be tempted to interpret the Protection
which Hicks and others see the lord as extending to the peasant in a rather
different sense from that intended by him: as a 'protection racket' indeed, in
most cases -even if it could sometimes be taken seriously by peasants (for an
example from fourteenth-century France, see IV.iv below, ad.fin.). But at least
we may be allowed to feel regret that Hicks could not have had these matters
properly explained to him by the peasants of Long Bow village after their eyes
had been opened at the meeting in Li Village Gulch in january 1946 and they had
come to understand the real nature oflandlordism (see IV .ii below).
The intellectual origins of the theory that involves conceiving mediaeval
serfdom as a voluntary contractual arrangement are not traced back by North
and Thomas beyond 1952.3 I should like to suggest that an important formative
influence in establishing the background of thought in which such theories may
flourish was a short book written nearly half a century ago by a young English
economist who was soon to become very prominent: Lionel Robbins, An Essay
on the Nature and Signijicance of Economic Scimce (1932, second edition 1935).
Robbins carefully isolates economics from contamination by such disciplines as
history or sociology or politics, by defining it (on p.16 of his second edition) as
'the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and
scarce means which have alternative uses'. Individuals make a series of choices,
85
which for the purpose of the theory have to be treated as free choices, in flagrant
disregard- as Maurice Dobb pointed out in 19374 - of the class relations which
in reality largely determine such choices. (The significance of 1932, a year of
acute capitalist crisis in England, as the date of publication of the first edition of
Robbins's book is too obvious to need emphasis.) From that position, itis but a
shon step to serfdom as a nice, contractual relationship- and if serfdom, then
why not slavery, which, as its defenders from George Fitzhugh onwards
proclaimed (see VII.ii below), provides a security for the slave to which the
individual wage-labourer cannot aspire?
* * * * * *
If we now tum to Max Weber's sociological approach to ancient history, we

can .find elements of real value, even if in the end we feel dissatisfied with the
categories he employs, as unclear and unhelpfuP Ifl may speak as a historiansociologists not thoroughly trained as historians who have ventured outside
their own familiar world into earlier periods of history have often made disastrous mistakes and have sometimes produced conclusions of little or no value,
simply because of their inability to deal properly with historical evidence.
Weber not only possessed rare intellectual quality; he was trained in Roman law
and history, and his earliest work, after his doctoral thesis, was a Roman
Agrargeschichte (1891). 8 It is a pity that British ancient historians today, with few
exceptions, seem to be little interested in Weber. Even Rostovtzeff, who did not
miss much, had not read1 the very interesting lecture Weber delivered and
published in 1896, 'Die sozialen Griinde des Untergangs der antiken Kultur' (see
IV .iii below), which seems to me Weber's best piece ofhistorical writing, and of
which English translations, as 'The social causes of the decay ofancient civilisation', have now become easily available. 8 1 must admit, however, that Weber,
who wrote about Greek society as well as Roman, evidently knew much less at
first hand about the Greek world than the Roman, and that he was much less at
home when dealing with Greek history. 9 It is also an unfortunate fact that the
English reader who is not already well versed in sociological literature and
terminology is likely to fmd Weber hard to read in the original German. 10
(There are many different English translations, varying from excellent to very
poor; the notes provided with them vary even more, some being worse than
useless.) 11 At times Weber can be lucid enough. even for quite long stretches;
but often he lapses into an obscurity which does not always repay the repeated
re-readings it invites. In particular, his use of various forms and combinations of
the German word ' Stand' can be a source of confusion- even, 1 think, for the
German reader. Talcott Parsons, whose translations of Weber arc excellent,
could say in a footnote to one of them:
The term St.:~nd with its derivatives is perhaps thr most troublesome single term in
Weber's text. It refers to a social group the members of which occupy a relatively
well-defmed common status, particularly with reference to social stratification,
though this reference is not always important. In addition to common status, there is
the further criterion that the members of a Stand have a common mode of life and
usually more or less well-defined code of behaviour. There is no English term which
even approaches adequacy in rendering this concept. Hence it has been necessary to
attempt to describe what Weber meant in whatever tenns the particular context has
indicated (Weber, TSEO 347-8 n.27).
86
The whole footnote is an attempt to explain how Parsons has come to translate
Weber's 'standische Herrschaft' by 'decentralised authority'- a rendering which
nicely illustrates the difficulty he is trying to explain. (My reason for dwelling
upon Weber's use of the word Stand will shortly become apparent.)
Under Weber's powerful influence above all, it has become an accepted
practice on the part of sociologists to concern themselves with what is usually
referred to as the 'social stratification' ofhuman societies, under one or more of
three aspects: economic, in terms of class; political, in terms of authority or
domination or power; social, in terms ofstatus or honour or prestige. I must add
at once, with all possible emphasis, that Marx shows not the least interest in
social stratification, a spatial metaphor which I think he scarcely ever employs in
connection with his concept of classes, even as the metaphor it is. (Any such
expression as 'the stratification of classes', in Cap. III.885, is very rare.) He uses
the term 'the middle class' (or 'middle classes', or some variant) quite frequently, in the sense in which it had come to be regularly employed by his day,
as a synonym for 'the bourgeoisie' or 'the capitalist class'; but he rarely refers to
'upper' or 'lower' classes, although in the Eighteenth Brumtlirt, for example, he
can refer to 'the social strata situated above the proletariat' in France (MECW
Xl.l10). My own practice in this book is the reverse: I avoid using the term
'middle class' in relation to the ancient world, because of its inevitable modem
colouring, but I often find it convenient to speak of'upper' and 'lower' classes.
Near the beginning of Tht Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels did speak of
the existence, in 'earlier epochs of history', of 'various orders, a manifold
gradation of social rank' (MECW Vl.482-5); but in spite of the occurrence of a
few phrases of that kind in their works, it would be a great mistake to conceive
the Marxist class analysis as an attempt to construct a scheme of'social stratification'. Neglect of this cardinal fact has led to much misunderstanding of Marx.
Although of course it is perfectly possible to produce a series ofsuch schemes of
stratification for the ancient world at different periods, the result, however true
to reality, will not provide an instrument of historical analysis and explanation
in any way comparable with the application of the Marxist concept of class. At
this point, however, I wish to glance briefly at theories of social stratification
couched primarily in social or political terms.
That the primary and most useful kind of classification was social status was
in effect the position of Max Weber (according to my undentanding ofit), and it
has recently been explicitly re-stated in relation to the Greek and Roman world
by M. I. Finley. Let us first concentrate on Weber. It was said ofhim (with some
exaggeration) by the German sociologist Alben Salomon that he became a
sociologist in a long and intense dialogue with the ghost of Karl Marx! 12 He was
not altogether hostile to Marx (whom he never ventured to disparage), and he
was prepared to concede 'eminent, indeed unique, heuristic significance' to
Marx's concepts, considered as a form ofhis own 'ideal types', but he refused to
allow them any empirical reality .13 According to the American sociologists, H.
H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, in their Introduction to a well-chosen set of
extracts from Weber's writings, 'Throughout his life, Max Weber was engaged
in a fruitful battle with historical materialism. In his last course of lectures in
Munich at the time of the Revolution [1918], he presented his course under the
title, "A positive critique of historical materialism"' (FMW 63). How far Gerth
87
and Mills were justified in adding at this point, 'Yet there is a definite drift of
emphasis in his intellectual biography towards Marx', I leave to others to
decide. I have certainly not been able to discover anywhere in Weber's works
any serious discussion of Marx's concept ofclass- an omission which I find very
strange.
I must say, it would have been a rare pleasure to attend the lecture Weber gave
on socialism to the officer corps of the Austro-Hungarian Royal Imperial army
in Vienna in July 1918, in which Weber actually described The Communist
Manifesto in terms of the greatest respect:
This document, however suongly we may reject it in its critical theses (at least I do), is
in its way a scientific achievement of the first rank [eine wissmschaftliche Leisrung trsten
Ranges]. That cannot be denied, neither may one deny it. because nobody believes one
and it is impossible to deny it with a clear conscience. Even in the theses we rmvvadays
reject, it is an imaginative error which politicaUy has had very far-reaching and perhaps
not always pleasant consequences, but which has brought very stimulating results for
scholarship, more so than many a work of dull corrcctness. 14 (I resist th<' temp!ation to
continue the quotation.)
I shall try to represent those ofWeber's views that arc immt'tiiJtdy relevant as
fairly as I can; but the reader who fears that his stomach may bt' turned hy ~h~~
horrible jargon that is characteristic of so much sociological th~'<.rising ar.d by
the repellent welter of vague generalisation that infects even a powtrtu: intdlcct
like Weber's in such circumstances had better skip the next f~-w paragraphs.
Weber gave more than one explanation of what he nwant ~y Slcmd and
standische l.Agt, which can here be translated 'status group' and 'st.ams !ii<u ation .
He discusses classification in this social sense as well as in economic amlpohtkal
terms in two passages in his posthumously published Wirts{haft UJiri Grse/lschaji
(both very difficult, but now easily available in good English translations). u til d
he also deals with the subject of Stiinde elsewhere, for examplo. in ;m cssa~ on tht
'world-religions' written in 1913, 18 and in oneofhis work!. on India d.atmg troJ'T~
1916. 17 Although Weber, I think. never says so exprt.-ssly. it S<'Cnts cku w li'H'
that he regarded 'status situation' as the most significant kind of dao;sJti"-arinn.
even if, in accordance with his general principles, he did not ..tctua!l~ rmk.t.itdle
necessary determinant of 'class situation' (Klassenlage, a term he us~:.d itl qui!~ a
different sense from Marx), 18 and indeed sa1d that status situatjtln Illi ght h-:
'based on class status directly or related to it in complex ways. It is ttn c.
however, determined by this alone ... Conversely, social status may partly or
even wholly determine class status, without, however, being identical ':i th it .. 1' 1
For Weber, status groups were normally 'communities' (Gnneirts.hqJrm). and
men's status situation includes 'every typical component of the lit~ fat~ Qfmen
that is determined by a specific, positive or negative. social C.!>tixniidon of hcltJ"W'
[soziale Einschiitzung der Ehre)',involving 'a specific style oflife[Lebmifiihrung]'. ~
In his opinion, 'the decisive role of a "style oflife" in status "honour" m:~am. th ar
status groups are thespecific bearers of all "conventions". In whatever way it
may be manifest, all "stylisation" oflife either originates in status groups or is at
least conserved by them' .21 And 'status groups are stratified according to the
principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special "styles of
life"'. 22 We can therefore agree with the opinion expressed by Reinhard Bendix,
one of Weber's greatest admirers, that 'Weber's approach conceived <Jf society
88
as an arena of competing status groups. each with its own economic interests,
status honour, and orientation toward the world and man. He used this perspective in his analysis of the landed aristocracy, the rising bourgeoisie, the
bureaucracy, and the working class in imperial Germany. He used the same
perspective in his comparative sociology of religion' (MWIP 259-63, at 262).
And in its constant attention to 'social stratification' twentieth-century sociological theory has broadly followed Weber. AsS. N. Eisenstadt put it in 1968,
'The central concept in later sociological analysis of stratification, largely derived from Weber, is that of prestige' (Max Weber On Charisma and Institution
Building, Introduction, p. xxxiii).
Yet Weber could also admit, in the essay on world-religions to which I have
already referred, that 'Present-<iay society is predominantly stratified in classes,
and to an especially high degree in income classes. (In the previous sentence he
had distinguished between 'propertied classes' and 'primarily marketdetermined "income classes'''.) He went on, however: 'But in the special status
prestige of the "educated" strata, our society contains a very tangible element of
stratification by status.' Shortly afterwards he added, 'In the past the significance of stratification by status was far more decisive, above all for the
economic structure of the societies.' A little earlier in the same passage he had
defined 'class situation' as 'the opportunities to gain sustenance and income that
are primarily determined by typical, economically relevant, situations'; and be
had said that 'A "status situation" can be the cause as well as the result ofa "class
situation", but it need be neither. Class situations, in tum, can be primarily
detmnined by markets, by the labour market and the commodity market' (Gerth/
Mills. FMW 301: see n.16 to this section).
This is confusing, and the confusion hardly resolves itself when we put this
passage together with the two in WirtschtJjt und Gesellschaft referred to above,
which contain Weber's formal discussion of economic, social and political
classification. Here, in the earlier passage (no.t in n. 15), under the general
heading of 'Concepts' (Begri.ffe), we are first told that 'a class is any group of
persons occupying the same class situation (Kiassmlage)', and we are then
introduced to various different types of class: the 'property class' (Besitzklasse),
the 'acquisition class' (Erwerbsklasse), and the 'social class' (soziale Klasse); after
some unilluminating remarks, especially on the significance of property classes,
both 'positively privileged' and 'negatively privileged', we suddenly encounter
'the "middle" classes' (Mittelstandklassen). The discussion that follows, mainly
of 'acquisition classes' and 'social classes', consists of a string of poorly connected observations. We then move on to 'social status'- I have already quoted
one or two sentences from Weber's account of this. No kind of organising
principle seems to be at work, and the variouS' kinds ofclass evidently overlap in
all sorts of ways. Things are at first a little better- though not much- when we
reach the second main passage (no.2 in n.15), at the very end of Wirtschtl.ft und
Gesellschaft. Here we do at least find a definition of'class':
We may speak of a 'class' when (1) a number of people have in common a specific
causal component of their life chances, in so far as (2) this component is represented
exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for
income, and (3) is represented under the condirion5 of the commodity or labour
markets (Gerth/ Mills, FMW 181).
89
And a little later we are told that

Always this is the generic connotation of the concept of class; that the kind of chance in
the market is the decisive moment which presents a common condition for the individual's fate. 'Class situation' is, in this sense, ultimately 'market situation' (FMW 182).
We begin to see a little light at the end of the tunnel, although we are still very
much in the dark as to how many classes Weber would recognise and at what
points he would draw the boundaries between them. Slaves, because their 'fate is
not determined by the chance of using goods or services for themselves on the
market' (FMW183), are a status group (Stand) and not aclassatall'in the technical
sense of the term' - according, that is to say, to Weber's defmirion of class.
The faint light continues to glow, although still very much in the distance,
when we go on in the next paragraph to learn that 'According to our terminology, the factor that creates "class" is unambiguously economic interest, and
indeed, only those interests involved in the existence of the "market".' So far, so
good: at least this is intelligible. But alas! we then find ourselves in a particularly
luxuriant and stifling Weberian thicket: 'Nevertheless, the concept of "classinterest" (Klasseninteresse) is an ambiguous one: even as an empirical concept it is
ambiguous as soon as one understands by it something other than the factual
direction of interests following with a certain probability from the class situation for a certain "average" of those people subject to the class situation' (still
FMW 183). For the next page or two things get better again, and there are some
interesting observations; the only one that I need notice is, 'The "class
struggles'' ofantiquity- to the extent that they were genuine class struggles and
not struggles between status groups - were initially carried on by indebted
peasants, and perhaps also by anisans threatened by debt bondage and struggling against urban creditors . . . Debt relationships as such produced class
action up to the time of Catiline' (FMW 185). And in the last few pages of
Wirtschaft und Gesellschajt one firm statement stands out from the medley, the
second half of which I have already quoted above in dealing with Weber's status
groups: 'With some over-simplification, one might say that "classes" are stratified according to their relations to the production and acquisition of goods;
whereas "status groups" are stratified according to the principles of their
consumption of goods as represented by special "styles of life"' (see FMW 193).
Weber makes a very similar statement to that last one in an essay on Indian
society, first published in 1916, to which I have already referred:' "Classes" are
groups of people who, from the standpoint of specific interests, have the same
economic position. Ownership or non-ownership of material goods or of
definite skills constitute the "class-situation". "Status" is a quality of social
honour or a lack of it, and is in the main conditioned as well as expressed
through a specific style oflife' (FMW 405: see n.17 to this section).
A proper comparison ofWeber's categories with those of Marx would take us
too far from our main subject, but certain features of this comparison leap to the
eye, and of these I shall single out three:
I. Weberian 'status' stratification plays no significant role in the thought of
Marx, who (as I said earlier) shows no interest in social stratification as such. In
so far as classes happen to be status groups and are stratified accordingly, it is
their class relationship that matters to Marx, rather than any stratification according
90
to status. Is this a defect in Marx? The answer to this question depends on the
value we attach to 'social scarification' as an instrument of historical or sociological analysis. But - and this is my first point- Weber in fact makes virtually
no signficant use of his 'status groups' in explaining anything. Although I have
read many of Weber's works, I cannot claim to know them all, and it may be
that I have missed something; but my statement is certainly true of the great
bulk of his writings, whether on the society of his own day or on Classical
antiquity or on China - or even on the rise of capitalism, in what is perhaps his
most famous work among historians, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. 23 Only in writing oflndia does Weber attribute a central explanatory
role to one peculiar, and indeed unique, form of'closed status group', the caste.
2. Weber's use of the term 'class', as is evident from my citations above, is
totally different from that of Marx. (As I have already observed, I have not
myselffound in Weber any discussion of Marx's concept of class; and I may add
that after consulting many works by his disciples I have not been able to discover
any reference to such a discussion.) To me, Weber's notion of class is exceedingly vague and inherently incapable of precise definition. According to one of
his own statements, quoted above, classes can be 'stratified'; but even if classes
are (according to another such statement) 'groups of people who, from the
standpoint of specific interests, have the same economic position' (a highly
indefinite specification), how are the boundaries of classes to be ascertained? That is
the essential question, and my second point is that Weber fails to provide an
answer to it. Individuals, certainly. can be regarded as 'stratified', after a
fashion, according to 'economic position' in general; but if we are to have
stratified classes we need to be able to define their respective boundaries in some
way, even if we are prepared to allow for some indetenninate borderline cases
and do not wish to have hard-and-fast lines ofdemarcation. 'A class', after all, 'is
a class is a class', and we must be able to define different classes.
3. But it is my third contrast between the categories ofWeber and Marx which
is by far the most important. The 'status groups' and even the 'classes' ofWeber
are not necessarily (like Marx's classes) in any of}{anic relationship with one another;
and consequently they are not dynamic in character but merely lie side by side, so
to speak, like numbers in a row. Class in Marx's. sense, as I said at the beginning of
my definition in Section ii of this chapter, is essentially a relationship, and the
members of any pne class are necessarily related as such, in different degrees, to
those ofother classes. The members ofa Weberian class or status group as such, on
the other hand, need not have any necessary relationship to the members of any
other class or status group as such; and even where a relationship exists (except of
course where the classes or status groups concerned happen to be also classes in
Marx's sense), it will rarely involve anything more than efforts by individUtJls to
rise up in the social scale-a feature ofhuman society so general and obvious that it
hardly helps us to uttdmtattd or explain anything except in the most trite and
innoruous way. I have no wish to minimise the importance which may sometimes attach to certain features of status in a static situation- that is to say, when we
are looking at a society as it is at a given point in time, and not in a historical
perspective, as a developing organism. For example, memben of a status group
near one extreme of a stratified social scale may seldom ifever marry members of
another such group at the opposite end of the scale; and in India membership
91
of one particular type of closed status group, namely caste, may even involve
contamination for members of one caste who are involved in certain kinds of
contact with members of another. I would insist, however, that when we are
concerned with social change, these and similar status elements have at best a
negative importance: they may help to account for the absence of such change,
but they can never explain why it takes place.
Perhaps I can best bring out the difference between thinking in terms of class
and status categories respectively by considering slaves. Is it more profitable to
regard them as a class in the Marxist sense, in which case we must oppose them
to slaveowners, masters; or is it more useful to treat them as a status group
(indeed, as an 'order', a juridically recognised form of status), in which case they
must be opposed either to free men in general or to some special category of free
men, such as citizens, or freedmen? The question surely answers itself, if we
believe that the most significant feature of the condition of slaves is the virtually
unlimited control which their masters exercise over their activities, above all of
course their labour (cf. JII.iv below). Between slaves and free men (or citizens,
or freedmen) there is no relationship of involvement, but rather a technical
difference -however important it may be in some contexts. Slaves and wagelabourers, slaves and poor peasants, slaves and petty traders are not significantly
related as are slaves and slaveowners. (I find it strange that Marx and Engels
could speak carelessly of relations between free men and slaves, or citizens and
slaves, when they were dearly thinking of relations between slaveowners and
slaves: see above.)
Recently Sir Moses Finley has explicitly rejected a Marxist analysis in terms of
economic class and has reverted to a classification by status which seems to me
virtually identical with Weber's, although I think he does not so identify it
himself. Now it may be that Finley had some better reason in mind for
discarding a class analysis, but in his book, The Ancimt Economy (p.49), he gives
only one argument, which, as I showed in Section iii of this chapter, rests on a
serious misunderstanding of what Marx meant by 'class'. (It is unfortunately all
too characteristic ofcontemporary Western historiography of the ancient world
that one of the few practitioners who has taken the trouble to examine some of
the concepts and categories with which he operates should have failed to grasp
even the basic elements ofMarx's thought.) As for exploitation (which does not
even appear in Finley's Index, but does raise its head feebly once or twice), it is
trlated by Finley only in connection with conquest and imperialism (e.g. AE
15tHJ); but both 'exploitation' and 'imperialism' are for him 'in the end, too
broad as categories of analysis. Like "state", they require specification' (AE
157), which they never receive from him; and after a couple of paragraphs they
an dropped again. 23
It is fascinating to observe the way in which Finley (AE 45) introduces his
analysis of ancient society -ultimately, as I have said, in terms of 'status', after
he has rejected a classification primarily according to either 'orders' or'class'. He
makes it plain from the outset (reasonably enough, in view of the nature of our
evidence) that he is going to begin by concentrating on those at the top end of the
social scale: 'they alone,' he says, 'are at present under consideration.' But who
are these people? He actually defines them as 'th~ plousioi of antiquity'. But, as he
92
himself has already made it dear (AE 41), 'a plousios was a man who was rich
enough to live properly on his income (as we should phrase it)': he is the
characteristic member of my 'propertied class' (III.ii below). Finley begins his
analysis, then, by accepting a definition in terms of economic class, and specifically with those I am calling 'the propertied class'- an unconscious admission
of the inadequacy of his own chosen categories. One remembers here the
reluctant admission ofWeber, in the midst ofhis discussion of'status honour':
'Property as such is not always recognised as a status qualification, but in the
long run it is, and with extraordinary regularity' (FMW 187). 24
Of course I admit that ancient society can be describrd (though hardly 'analysed' and certainly not 'explained') in the manner advocated by Weber and
Finley; but Finley's description, compared with one based upon Marx's class
categories, is as inadequate as Weber's and is open to much the same objections.
I am certainly not at all attracted by Finley's unfortunate metaphor (which has
already been given a wide currency, by himself and others) o~ 'a spectrum of
statuses and orders' (AE 68, cf. 67): I am much happier when he says that 'rich
Greeks and Romans' (and presumably not only rich ones} were 'members of
criss-crossing categories' (AE 51). But 'criss-crossing categories' represent a
kind of classification which is the very opposite of a 'spectrum' (or 'continuum')~ and, I must say, more appropriate to Greek and Roman society. if we
want to think in terms of 'social stratification'. Indeed, the characteristics
according to which we may wish to classify ancient Greeks and Romans were
sometimes complementary, sometimes the reverse: political rights (citizen or
non-citizen), social prestige and economic position, for example, might reinforce each other in a particular case or they might not - l ysias and his brother
Polemarchus may have been among the richest men in late-fifth-century
Athens, and in 404 they are certainly said to have owned the largest number of
slaves which can be reliably credited to any Greek of the Classical period,28 but
in Athens they were metics (resident foreigners) and enjoyed no political rights;
and some of the wealthiest men known to us in the late Roman Republic and
early Principate were freedmen, whose strictly social status was much lower
than it would have been had they not been born in slavery. (See the useful
Appendix 7, 'The size of private fortunes under the Principate'. in DuncanJones, EREQS 34.3-4: here five of the first sixteen men are freedmen, the first
four of them imperial freedmen.)
Status, as conceived by Finley (following Weber), is often convenient enough
as a pure means of classification; and again, I have no wish to deny its usefulness
for some purposes. As an analytical tool, however, it has, when compared with
Marx's concept of class. the same fatal weaknesses as the corresponding set of
categories in Weber.
First, as Finley himself admits, it is inescapably 'vague', because the word
'status' has (as he puts it, AE 51) 'a considerable psychological element'. In
defining a man's status we are always obliged to take into account other people's
estimation of him - a factor not at all easy to evaluate even in our own
contemporary world, and surely impossibly difficult in antiquity. from which
only a small fragment of the necessary evidence has survived. I think I know
what Finley means when he describes 'status' as 'an admirably vague word' (AE
51), but I do not share his belief in the utility of its vagueness.
93
Secondly, and much more important, status is a purely descriptive category,

with no heuristic capacity, no such explanatory power as the dynamic Marxist
concept of dass provides- because (as I said earlier, when criticising Weber)
there can be no organic rdationship between statuses. I realise that Finley
himself believes that 'at the upper end of the social scale, the existence of a
spectrum of statuses and orders ... explains much about economic behaviour';
he goes on to assert that 'the same analytical tool helps resolve otherwise
intractable questions about the behaviour at the lower end' (AE 68). I cannot
myself see how hi;; 'spectrum ,,f Hatm~s and orders' explains anything whatever, at either emf of the social sralc.. Anyone who makes such a claim must
surely be. prepared to pron it by ~ivmg a number of examples - as I am doing
throughuut this book, to illustnte the. \'alu~ uf a Marxist analysis. Finley does
nothing of tht" ~t)rf. Tht~ unly example I can find in his book is the one he goes on
at onCl' to ~tw. and tht~ is a false example, which does nothing to establish his
position. 'Hdots rl.'vnltt"d,' he says, 'while c.hatrel slaves did not in Greece,
precisely badll$(" the. hdots pt>.ssc.ssc.'\1 (nut lacked) certain rights and privileges, and
demanded IIIIW (A r: ~. m) italic~). lltis i~ d~.uly false. The Helots- mainly the
Messcni;m hd1)ts rather that those. ,~f L.tconia, who were far fewer in number
(Thuc. f.llll.2: ~t.e lll.iv n.18 below)- nvulred, ultimately with success, not
because they had 'ri~hts and privilt'g~"S or because they 'demanded more', but
because they alone, l)f .11l Grc..-ek 'sl.lve~. were a single united people, who had
once been the independent p~Jlis of'the ~1essenians' {Messene. as we should call
it), and who could therefure take e:t/rctil'c' .Jrtion in common, and because they
wanted to be free and an mdcpmd,:nt entity (the polis of'the Messenians') once
more, whereas the slaves of virtually all other Greek states were, as I have put it
elsewhere, 'a heterogeneous, polyglot mass, who could often communicate
with each other only [if at all] in their masters' language, and who might run
J.way individuaUy or in small batches but would never attempt large-scale
n:volts' (OPW89-94, esp. 90). I have looked in vain elsewhere in Finley's book
t~r any actual use of his 'spectrum of statuses and orders' to 'explain economic
bc.haviour' or to 'help resolve otherwise intractable questions about the beluviour at the lower end' of the spectrum. And his sentence that follows the one
I h.1ve quoted above about the helots, 'Invariably, what are conveniently called
"class struggles" in antiquity prove to be conflicts between groups at different
points in the spectrum disputing the distribution of specific rights and privileges', is simply beside the point if classes and class struggle are understood in
th~ way I am advocating.
There is a very real difference in historical method between a Weber-Finley
type of approach and that which I am advocating in this book. I can only say,
again, that the method I am adopting makes it possible to offer an explanation in
situations where Finley is obliged to stop short with description. I can best
illustrate this, perhaps, from Finley's attempt to give what he himself calls an
'explanation' of 'the "decline" of slavery' during the Roman Principate and its
replacement to a considerable extent by the colonate (A E 84-5 & ff.)- a process I
ha \'e discussed in IV .iii below. In VIlLi below I have tried to make dear the
radical difference between the explanation (which is no explanation) given by
Finley and that which I offer in this book.
The acceptance of class criteria as the essential ones can also enable us to over-
94
come triumphantly the dilemma with which Finley found himself confronted
when he set himself to answer the question, 'Was Greek civilisation based on
slave labour?'- the title of a paper (mentioned in n.25 to this section) to which I
shall refer in its reprinted form, in SCA = SI!Jvery in Classical Antiquity (1960), ed.
Finley. 53-72. Under the influence of his unfruitful notion that we do best to
'think of ancient society as made up of a spectrum of statuses' (SCA 55), Finley
found himself unable to make proper sense ofhis own question, even after he
had gone part of the way to answering it, with a cautious and grudging 'If we
could emancipate ourselves from the despotism of extraneous moral, intellectual, and political pressures, we would conclude, without hesitation, that slavery
was a basic tltmtnt [my italics] in Greek civilisation' (SCA 69). But he then shies
away from the question altogether: the word 'basic', he believes, 'has been
pre-empted as a technical term by the Marxist theory ofhistory'; and he declares
that 'neither our understanding of the historical process nor our knowledge of
ancient society is significantly advanced by ... repeated statements and counterstatements, affirmations and denials of the proposition, "Ancient society was
based on slave labour'". He concludes by throwing up his hands and substituting a totally different question from that ofhis title: 'not whether slavery was
the basic element, or whether it caused this or that, but how it functioned'- an
enormous and entirely open-ended question, to which of course there can never
be any summary answer, or anything approaching a complete one, so that we
are absolved from any obligation to provide more than fragments of an answer.
Let us discard the 'spectrum of statuses, with the free citizen at one end and the
slave at the other' (SCA 55), as a tool of analysis, and begin again, with class
instead of status. We can then formulate the specific question I posed in Section
iii of this chapter: did the propertied class obtain its surplus mainly by the
exploitation of unfree (especially slave) labour? It is by giving an affirmative
reply to this question that we are also able to answer, in the most effective way
possible, the question to which Finley eventually found himself unable to give a
confident reply: 'Was Greek civilisation based on slave labour?'
I am very far from wishing to discard social status as a descriptivt category. Of
course it has important uses in relation to the Greek world, especially in cases
where it partakes of some legal recognition and can therefore be considered as
constituting an 'order' in the technical sense: a juridically defined category,
invested with privileges. duties, or disadvantages. Before the Greek cities came
under Roman rule, by far the most important form of status was the possession
of citizenship (very much an 'order'}, which gave access not merely to the
franchise and the possibility of political office, but also to the ownership of
freehold land in the area of one's polis. (We cannot be absolutely sure that this
was true ofevery Greek city, but it certainly applied to Athens and a good many
others, and it is likely to have been the universal rule in the Classical period.)
Citizenship was normally obtained by birth alone: special grants (usually for
services rendered) were rare in the Archaic and Classical periods but became
more common in Hellenistic times. Non-citizens at Athens could take land on
lease (see e.g. Lys. Vli.IO) but could not own land in freehold unless they had
been specially granted the right of gis rnktisis by the sovereign AssembJyZ1 - a
privilege which seems to have become more frequent from the late fifth century
onwards but was probably not extended very widely. The situation at most other
95
cities is less well known, but it looks as if Athens was not untypical in this
respect. In the Hellenistic period the practice of granting to non-citizens (individually, or collectively as members of some other community) the right to own
land within the territory of the polis gradually grew, and in due course this right
seems to have become widely available and to have been extended in particular
to all Roman citizens. zs During the Hellenistic period there was also a great
expansion of isopoliteia, the mutual exchange of citizenship between cities, and
this practice continued in the Roman period: it was so strong that a Roman
attempt to forbid it in Bithynia-Pontus by the 'Lex Pompeia' was being widely
disregarded by the end of the first century (Pliny, Ep. X.l14: see SherwinWhite, LP 724-5). Some prominent men became not only citizens but councillors of several other cities: there is much evidence for this, both epigraphic
(e.g. IGRR IV.1761; MAMA VIII.421.40-5) and literary (e.g. Pliny, loc. cit.;
Dio Chrys. XLI.2,5-6, 10). This situation sometimes caused problems concerning
liability for local magistracies and liturgies (compulsory municipal burdens),
and the Roman government was obliged to legislate about it from the second
century onwards (see Sherwin-White, LP 725).
The possession or lack of political rights would not of itselfdetermine a man's
dass, in the sense in which I am using that term, so that in an oligarchy a man
who had the civil rights of citizenship, but lacked the franchise and access to
office because he had not quite a sufficient amount of property, would not
necessarily, on my scheme, have to be put in a different class from his neighbour, a fraction richer, who just succeeded in scraping into the oligarchic
politeuma (the body of those possessing full political rights). The non-citizen,
however, the xmos who lacked even the civil rights of citizenship, would
certainly fall into a different class, ifh~ was not one of those rare foreigners who
had been granted fullgis mktisis by the State, for without this essential right of
property he would be unable to own the one form of wealth upon which
economic life mainly depended.
Another 'order' may be seen in those 'resident foreigners' who had official
permission to reside in a particular polis for more than a brief period, and whose
official status was sometimes (as at Athens) carefully regulated: these 'resident
foreigners' are usually referred to nowadays as 'metics' (from the Greek word
metoikoi), 28 and that is how I shall speak of them, although the term mttoikoi was
not universal in the Greek world even in the Classical period, and it largely died
out in the Hellenistic age. (Other expressions found in Greek cities in place of
metoikoi include synoikoi, epoikoi, katoikoi, and later predominantly paroikoi.)30 I
shall mainly ignore metics in this book, since the great majority of them who
wc.re neither political exiles nor freedmen would be citizens of some other city,
living by choice in their city of residence; and even today such people do not
nurmally have citizen rights in the country they happen to reside in. (Political
exiles were men deprived of citizenship; and Greek freedmen, unlike Roman
freedmen. seem virtually never to have been granted citizenship on manumission, a fact which I shall try to explain in III. v below.) Since the metic who
WJ.s a citizen ofpoTis A but preferred to live in polis B could normally return to A
and exercise political rights there ifhe wished, there is no need for me to pay any
special attention to him. It is often assumed nowadays that, in the fifth and
fourth centuries B.C. anyway, the merchants who carried on the external trade
96
of a given city would mostly be metics Jiving in that city; but this is a misconception, as I have shown elsewhere (OPW264-7, 393-6; cf.II.iv n.27 below).
When the Greek cities came under Roman rule, the possession of Roman
citizenship (until that was extended in about A.D. 212 to virtually all free
inhabitants of the Roman empire) created a new 'order', the importance of
which is nicely illustrated in the story of St. Paul in Acts XXI-XXVI (see VIII.i
below). In due course Greeks gradually penetrated into the equestrian and even
the senatorial order, the imperial nobility (see VI. vi below). The 'curial order'
(which became to all intents and purposes a class), another feature of the Roman
period, I shall deal with in VIII.ii below. Certain kinds of individual prowess
such as military ability, literary or forensic skill. and even athletic proficiency
(cf. OPW 355), could sometimes enable a man to rise beyond the status into
which he was born, or at least enhance his 'standische Lage'; but these and other
such forms of personal quality require no particular attention here, since their
possession would merely facilitate the 'upward social mobility' of the individuals who possessed them.
* * * * * *
I do not think that any historian or sociologist who is concerned with the
ancient world will want to analyse its social structure in terms that are basically
political. The substitution of such a method for a Marxist analysis in terms of
economic class has certainly been argued for the modem world, most eloquently perhaps by Dahrendorf, some of whose views I have discussed in
Section iii of this chapter. His position is well summarised in the Inaugural
Lecture which he delivered at Tiibingen and was published in English in 1968:31
'[Social] stratification is merely a consequence of the structure of power.' (This
lecture of course needs to be read with Dahrendorfs other works, in particular
his book, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, 1959, mentioned in Section
iii of this chapter.) I find Dahrendorfs conclusions quite unconvincing for
modem society, 32 and they are certainly even more defective when applied to
the ancient world: I doubt if any ancient historian would feel inclined to follow
them. As I have said before, I am not myself much interested in 'social stratification', and Marx certainly was not. But the view we are considering. that
social stratification depends primarily on political power, has an important
element of truth in it, which emerges clearly when the theory is re-stated in a less
exaggerated form. Access to political power may have very important effects
upon the class struggle: a class in possession of economic power will use its
political authority to reinforce its dominant economic position; and on the other
hand an exploited class which is able to exercise some degree of political
influence will seek to protect itself against oppression. That extraordinary
phenomenon, Greek democracy, was essentially the political means by which
the non-propertied protected themselves (see V .ii below) against exploitation
and oppression by the richer landowners, who in antiquity always tended to be
the dominant class (see Jll.i-iii below). In the seventh century and earlier, before
the emergence of democracy, there was probably a great deal of the kind of
exploitation of the poor by the rich which we find in Solon's Attica at the
opening of the sixth century (see V.i below). In a Greek democracy, however,
making its decisions - probably for the first time in human history (see OPW
97
348-9) -by majority vote, the poor, because they were the majority, could
protect themselves to a certain extent. They could sometimes even tum the
tables on the rich, not only by obliging them to undertake expensive liturgies
(especially, at Athens and elsewhere, the trierarchy), but also by occasionally
confiscating their property when they were convicted in the courts. Such
measures were a form of redistribution which might be loosely compared with
the progressive taxation imposed by modem democratic governments. Thus
political conflicts in Greek states would tend to reflect opposed class interests, at
least in some degree; but this was by no means always the case, any more than it
is today, and more often there was nothing like a one-t~ne correspondence of
political and economic factors; sometimes, indeed, there may be little visible
alignment of class divisions with what we know of a particular political contest
in Greek history. At crises, however, even at Athens (in 411 and 404, for
example: see V .ii below), political factions might largely coincide with class
divisions.
At Athens and some other cities in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. there
was an astonishing development of real democracy, extending to some extent
right down to the poorest citizens: this is a good example of exceptional political
factors operating for a time in such a way as to counterbalance economic forces.
But, as I shall explain in V.iii below, the basic economic situation asserted itself
in the long run, as it always does: the Greek propertied classes, with the
assistance first of their Macedonian overlords and later of their Roman masters,
gradually undermined and in the end entirely destroyed Greek democracy.
It goes without saying that when one people conquers another its leading men
may often, if they wish, appropriate the whole or some part of the land and
other wealth of the conquered. Thus Alexander the Great and his successors
claimed the whole of the chora of the Persian empire, on the ground- whether
true or false (cf. III.iv below)- that it had all belonged ultimately to the Great
Kin~; and they proceeded to m.tke massive land grants to their favoured
!iliJow~r:>. who;;~ domi;o.mr p(,~.idm: i:t :h~- ;orcas concerned then had a 'political'
origin. bting dt>rived from J. royal grant. The Romans sometimes appropriated
part nf thl land of a conquered people as ag publilUs populi Romani, public land
('i lhl Roman People: it would then be leased out to Roman citizens. And in the
GtrmJ.nk kingdoms set up from the fifth century onwards by Visigoths,
Ostrognths, Vandals. Franks and others. in what had once been parts of the
Roman l'mpm.. in G.tul. Spain, north Africa and Britain, and later in Italy itself,
the rights of the new landowners and rulers were again derived from conquest.
But all these examples are of highly exceptional cases, involving conquest by
outsidl.'rs. Corresponding internal phenomena can be found in the seizure of
we.tlth by those who had first gained power not as a result of their economic
position bur as adventurers (especially condottierr) or revolutionaries, who consolidated their rule by appropriating the property of citizens in general or of
their pobtkal adversaries. But again all such cases are exceptions. That in the
regular course of events it was political power which regularly determined
SO(i.tl ~tratitication is an idea which seems to me to lack all confirmation from
the historv of the ancient world.
* * * * * *
There are two other positions I ought to mention. The first is that represented

by L. V. Danilova, in an article originally published in Russian in 1968 and in an
English translation, as 'Controversial problems of the theory of precapitalist
societies', in Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 9 (1971) 269-328, which first
came to my notice as a result of Ernest Gellner's article, 'The Soviet and the
Savage', in the Times Literary Supplement 3789 (18 October 1974) 1166-8.
Danilova's general theory, which she admits to be contrary to the prevailing
Soviet view, is that in pre-capitalist societies control of the conditions of
production is not the principal way in which exploitation is secured by a ruling
class, and that it is 'direct relations ofdominance and subjection' (a phrase which
doubtless owes its origin to Marx's Hmschajts- und Knechtschaftsvtrhiiltnis: see
Section iii of this chapter) which are 'the basis of social differentiation'. As
regards the Greek and Roman world and western Europe in the Middle Ages.
this view seems to me to have nothing in its favour, and I shall therefore waste
no time on it here. It is also clearly contrary to the views of Marx, although
Danilova tries to justify it in Marxist terms.
The other position I want to mention here may appear at first sight to be very
different from the Marxist class analysis I am presenting, but turns out in the en:i
to be reconcilable with it. This involves regarding the ancient Greek world as a
'peasant society' or even 'peasant economy', in the sense in which those terms
have been used by A. V. Chayanov, A. L. Kroeber, Robert Redfield, Teodor
Shanin, Daniel Thorner and many others. In IV .ii below I discuss 'the peasantry'
in antiquity. Although I do not find the concept of an overall'peasant economy'
useful in relation to the Greek and Roman world, it is true that those we may
legitimately call'peasants' (provided we define them as I do in IV .ii below) were
actually a majority of the population in vast areas of the ancient world, and for
long periods in many places were responsible for a major share of total production. Recognising the existence of 'peasants' or 'the peasantry' is entirely
compatible with my general approach, provided a class analysis is applied
throughout, as it is in IV .i-iii below.
To conclude this section, I wish to make it clear that I am not denying all value
to the approaches I have been criticising. Some of them, indeed, can be very
useful, if in a limited way, and some of their practitioners have made valuable
contributions to knowledge. A much-quoted aphorism which can be traced
back to Sir Isaac Newton and even to Bernard of Chartres reminds us that
however limited our own capacities we can see farther than others by 'standing
on the shoulders of giants',33 those great men of the past whose insights can give
us a new vision. But it is not only the giants of the past whose shoulders may
offer us a platform for new vistas: standing on the shoulders even of dwarfs, if
hardly as rewarding, may at least raise us a little above those around us who arc
content to stand only on their own feet. (I say this, of course, without imputing
dwarf-like characteristics to any of the writers I have been examining here.)
(vi)
Women
The production which is the basis ofhuman life obviously includes, as its most
essential constituent part, the reproduction of the human species. 1 And for anyone
who, admitting this. believes (as I do) that Marx was right in seeing position in
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (vi)
99
the whok systi.'Ill of pwdu~~thm (necessarily indudmg u-prudul'tton) as the

princip.1l factor in ckci.:lm~ dass position. tlw qm.!>tion immc:Ji.udy ari~::s: must
we nor allow a special c./;tsY role.~ ro that ha.lf oftht. hum.m ral:t winch. J." a rt.'~nlt ut'
the earlil'st and most fundanwntal nl all lhvisions oi labour. ~Pl.'l"i;tlist.s 11\
reprodu~:rion. the greater p.u! of whirh is hmlog:kJily its m-'twpoly? (L1nlkr
'repro.iucnon I of course includt. in th~ rok of wmnl."n m" uwrdy p;.~.r~untion
but a)so the preceding months ()f rr\"gnamy. ant.l the mb->t.'\~UOlt period of
lactation which, in any but the aduund Sl\Cit'tlt."!i, nt"<"t'S5:trily nnkn the care of
the chtld during rht. tir~t yt.ar .md morl.' uf it<; iifi.- woman':~ work.)
Mar liO anJ F.n~ds. it set.ms t<) mt.. tailt.d tu draw 1ht full llt.'Cl'S$ar\' tnndt~siou.
Engels. in ~ht. V~d:t.:t. hl tht. origm.al G~rman c-ditim {Drr UHprm~ ;Ia E1mi1ir.
des Prillt'ixl'tltlmm.< 1md dr.< Sr.1ar~} ofth~o. Vl.urk I reft'r to by it.!- En~h:dt utk. TI!,Or(~in i~{ thr F.1miiy, Priv.uc p.,,tpt't1)' .mJ tl~t Sr.Jr,. writt~n in 18~-1 {tlw Y'''U .tftt..'r
Marx's. Ul"ath). acknuwlt"dgc:-d sp~citkally that 'tht production ;m.l rrpr,t.lllr"ti.J
of imrmdiate life: is. 'an:ording tu the matl.'rialistn- omception. tht" dt.t~rminin!!
factor in history'. And he Wl'nt nn at unce to emphasise its 'twofold dt;ara~..rtr: 011
the om hand, the productiun ttfthe mt.ans of subsistence, of fond. dothin~ and
shelter and the tools requi:sit~o. tlwrt"'or: on the other, the production of human
beings themselves, th .. rrupagauon of the species'. Marx and En~ds. whn wert>
always talking about thl dtvision oflabour in production, did sp~o.ak .-asuaUy. in
the German Ideology ( 1845-fl) of procreation as involvint~: 'th(.' tin.t diviston of
labour', but for them, 'the division oflabour ... was uri!!inally nothint!, hm thL"
division oflabour in the sexual act [im Geschlechtsakrj' (MECJf:" V .44, rny Jtalks);
and this seems to me to miss the main point- as ind'-'l'd En~ds apr~ars later to
have realised, for when, two-thirds of the way through the <;t'<'tlml dtapt~r of
The Origin cif the Family, he quoted this very passage (as appt.aring in '<n old,
unpublished manuscript, the work of Marx and myselfin 1846'),he changed the
wording slightly, to 'The first division of labour is that between man and
woman for the production ofchildren [zur Kinderzeu~ung]', and he added, 'The first
d~us antagonism [Klassengegensatz] which appears in history coincides with the
development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous
marriage, and the first class oppression [KlassenunterdrnckunR] with that of the
female sex by the male' (my italics: MESW 494-5). And in the same early work
from which Engels quoted, Marx and Engels said that 'the nucleus, the first
form, of property lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the
husband. This latent slavery in the family. though still very crude, is the first
form of property; but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the
definition of modem economists who call it the power of disposing of the
labour-power of others' (MECWV.46). Yet Marx and Engels seem hardly to
have realised what far-reaching consequences ought to have been drawn from
this particular specialisation of role, within their own system of ideas above all.
Engels' Origin of the Family deals with the subject, to my mind, very inadequately. (It is perhaps a pity that this work of Engels has had such great influence
on Marxist thought: although a brilliant and very humane study, it is [00
dependent on limited and secondhand information in both anthropology and
ancient history, and its general picture is far too unilinear.) I propose to take
perfectly seriously the characterisation of the role of women, or anyway married
women (I leave these alternatives open), as a dass, which is implied in the Germt:m
100
Ideology, and for a brit'tHIIltllt"nt, itl the- p:assag'-' I hJvl. quoted, becomes explicit
in the second chartc.r of Thr Or{(!tll 1 rlrc FamU y.
Now the effectiv" property rig:hts ui W(lllWU have often been restricted in
practice. Sometinu."!> this has apph"d to all the. women of a given society,
sometimes particularly to the marrild wom":;, whose property rights have
often been more limited (or even mort" limitld) than those of the rest of their sex,
as for example in modem England w1til the Marri,d Women's Property Acts of
1882 and after began to effect a change. A thv years ago the fact suddenly
dawned upon me that Arhlni.m women in tlw titi:h and fourth centuries B.C..apart perhaps from a handful of expensive rrostitut~. like Neaera and her circle
(Ps.-Dem. LIX) and Thc.od~ltl' (XI.'n .. Mrm. III.xi, esp. 4), whoofcoursewere
not citizens - wc.rr quite.> rt>markahly devoid of effective property rights and
were apparentl}' W\.lrsc.'L)tfin thi" rt.-spcolt than women in many (perhaps most)
other Greek citic.s of the period, Sparta in partilular, or for that matter in
Hellenistic and RmnJn Athens (sel' my OPRA W). A suggestion I then made
that the question of property rights ufGn.,k \..oown was worth investigating
on a much larger scale has already been takln up, in a Harvard thesis and a book
by David Schaps." and I hupl rhc.'H" will b~~ further studies. There are all too
many interesting quc.>stiuns in thts tidd which I myself certainly cannot answer,
and I doubt if any,)m can- at ltast (it the evidence is avilable) until much more
research has been done.
Meanwhile, this is the thesis I propose. In many societies either women in
general, or married women (who may be regarded in principle as monopolising
the reproductive function), z have rights, including above all property rights,
markedly inferior to those of men; and they have these inferior rights as a direct
result of their reproductive function, which gives them a special role in the
productive process and makes men desire to dominate and possess them and their
offspring. In such societies it is surely necessary, on the premises I have accepted, to see the women, or the wives (as the case may be}, as a distinct
economic class. in the technical Marxist sense. They are 'exploited', by being
kept in a position of legal and economic inferiority, so dependent upon men
(their husbands in the first place, with their male kin, so to speak, in reserve) that
they have no choice but to perform the tasks allotted to them, the compulsory
character of which is not in principle lessened by the fact that they may often find
real personal satisfaction in performing them. Aristotle, in a perceptive passage
which I have quoted in Section iii of this chapter, could speak of the propertyless
man (the aporos), who could not afford to buy slaves, as using his wife and
children in their place (Pol. VI.8, 1323a5-6}.
Needless to say, if we think of women (or married women} as a class,
membership of such a class may or may not be the prime criterion ofa woman's
class position. (As I have explained in ll.ii above, it is perfectly possible for many
individuals to belong to more than one class, and it may then be necessary to
determine the essential one, membership of which is paramount for them.) I
suggest that in our present case the relative importance of a woman's membership of the class of women (or wives) will depend to a high degree upon whether
her economic and legal condition is very different from that ofher menfolk. In
Classical Athens I would see the class position of a citizen woman belonging to
the highest class as largely determined by her sex, by the fact that she belonged
101
to the class of women, for her father, brothers, husband and sons would all be
property owners, while she would be virtually destitute of property rights, and
her class position would therefore be greatly inferior to theirs. The humble
peasant woman. however, would not in practice be in nearly such an inferior
position to the men of her family, who would have very little property; and,
pardy owing to the fact that she would to some extent participate in their
agricultural activities and work alongside them (in so far as her child-bearing
and child-rearing permitted), her membership of the class of poor peasants (cf.
IV.ii below) might be a far more important determinant ofher class position
than her sex. Even less, perhaps, would the class of a non-citizen town-dwelling
prostitute or hetaira be decided primarily by her sex, for her economic position
might be virtually identical with that of a male prostitute or any other noncitizen pnwJdtr of sernct:!i m the city. '\JV\ must of course realise that to place a
woman in ;a separate class t'i-om h~or nwnt(llk would often cut right across the
usual criteria of 'social stratification'. so tar as the property-owning classes are
connnu:d: within a single tamily tlw husband might be in the highest class,
\Vh 1k hied; hut m liti.-~rylc she would rank according to the
status ofhtr hushaml. Since tho~t dmwnts m a woman's position which derive
fwm her bdn~ virtually the possC!is1on of another are very precarious and
unstable.. I would tend to discount the husband's position as a factor in the real
status of the wife, important as it may seem on the surface, and put more
emphasir, on any dowry which the women can rely on receiving and controlling,
in accordance with custom. But this needs a great deal of further thought.
* * * * * *
I believe that I am justified in including these briefand oversimplified remarks

on the position of women in the ancient Greek world- at any rate in the Classical
period, of which I am now mainly thinking, as I know too little in detail as yet of
th1. property rights of Greek women in the Hellenistic and Roman periods,
before Roman law became in theory the universal law of the Mediterranean
world, in the third century. 3 Greek wives, I have argued. and therefore potentially all Greek women, should be regarded as a distinct economic class, in the
technical Marxist sense, since their productive role- the very fact that they were
the half of the human race which supported the main part of the burden of
reproduction - led directly to their being subjected to men, politically, economically and socially. Not only were they generally deprived of even the most
elementary political rights; they were also, as a rule. allowed only very inferior
property rights, and they suffered other legal disabilities; a woman's marriage
was entirely at the will ofher kyrios (normally her father, or ifhe were dead, her
eldest brother or nearest male relative), 4 who, in at least some Greek states,
could also withdraw her from her marriage and give her to another husband; 5
and in very many other ways she was at a disadvantage compared with her
menfolk. An Athenian woman could not inherit in her own right, from her
father at least: ifhe died without leaving a natural or adopted son, she as epikliros
w .n expected to marry the nearest male relative (who would divorce any wife he
might have already), and the property would pass to their male children, thus
remaining in the family .11 Many (perhaps most) other Greek states seem to have
102
The Class Struggle in the Ancient Creek World
had customs that were similar in at least some degree.

Marriage was every Greek woman's normal lot, so that it was as wife and
mother that she lived above all. The only group of women who were in a
completely different category were prostitutes (often slaves or freedwomen,
and virtually never of citizen status), the very ones who removed themselves
from the 'class' of women as far as possible by minimising their reproductive
function. Jn Classical Athens at least they may have had in practice a greater
control of property than citizen women, and the same may have been true of
other states.
I would suggest that where, as at Athens, women are largely deprived of
property rights, one good result may follow. If property is fairly widely
distributed in the first place, and if(as in all or nearly all Greek states) marriage is
patrilocal, so that the girl leaves her father's dan and family and, taking with her
whatever she possesses either as dowry or in her own right, goes to join her
husband's family, then to keep women propertyless may well help to prevent
property from accumulating rapidly in the hands of the richer families. If
women can inherit property in their own right they will, in a society where
marriage is patrilocal and inheritance patrilineal, remove it from their father's
family into their husband's; and of course a father who has (in default ofsons) an
heiress daughter will naturally. if he is able to give her in marriage outside his
kin, find her the richest husband he can, for her own protection. At Sparta, the
fact that daughters could inherit in their own right and that the patrouchos (the
Spartan equivalent of the Athenian epikliros) did not have to marry the neXt-Qfkin must have played a major pan in bringing about the concentration of
property in a few hands which reduced the number of adult male Spanan
citizens (the homoior) from eight or nine thousand to hardly more than a
thousand by the date of the battle ofleuctra in 371 B.C. (see my OPW 137-8,
331-2, cf. 353-5). At Athens, as I have already explained, there could be no such
thing as a daughter inheriting in her own right, and the epikliros had to marry the
next-of-kin and thus keep the property in the family. This would help to
preserve family property, and would work against automatic accumulation by
the already rich through the processes of marriage and inheritance; and the
resulting greater equality of property among citizen families is likely to have
been one of the factors making for the exceptional strength and stability of the
Athenian democracy.
The whole situation is to me a good illustration of the validity of Marx's class
analysis, in that it is tht> woman's place in produdion which was directly responsible
for her special status, and in particular created a tendency (observable in many
other societies) for her to be denied those property rights which were available to
men, and indeed to become herself an object of property rights on the man's part,
so that both she and her children could be secured as possessions by her husband.
However, woman's inferior social, economic, legal and political position,
although a probable and very frequent consequence ofher position in the productive process, is not of course a necessary consequence. Even in some modem
capitalist societies (in England, for example, since 1975) her rights are the same, or
nearly the same, as those ofher brothers, although she is still likely to find it more
difficult to exercise many of them. And in some early societies, especially perhaps
those depending on a light fonn of agriculture which is particularly well suited to
II. Class, Exploitation, and Class
Stru~le
(vi)
103
be women's work, she has enjoyed rights superior in some respects to those of
men, including the capacity to transmit propeny (or some forms of property)
primarily in the female line (matrilineality, Mutterrecht). But in a patrilineal
society where dowry and not 'bride-price' or 'indirect dowry' prevails, a
woman can be seen as a positive danger to the family into which she is born. for
(as we have already noticed) when she marries she will take property out of the
family. In such a society we can expect to find the woman s property rights
restricted in some degree; Classical Athens was merely an extreme cast:. Plato,
in the Laws, went so far as to forbid dowries altogether (V. 742c; cf. VI. 774c).
In the Greek world a baby girl probably always had a worse chance than a
baby boy of surviving, or at least ufbcing reared by its own parents. Exposure
ofinfants, of course, has often been resorted to as a means of population control:
by the rich or the moderately well-off in order to prevent the division of
inheritances, and even more by the poor in their struggle for survival (see V .i
and its n.6 below). There is a great deal of evidence for exposure, scattered
through Greek literature. 7 It was no doubt an exaggeration characteristic of
Comedy when Poseidippus the Athenian dramatist (writing around the 280s
and 270s B.C.) made one ofhis characters assert that 'Everyone rears a son even
if he is poor [pmis] but exposes a daughter even if he is rich [plousios }.' (Cf.
Terence, Heautontim. 626-30.) However, there are indications that exposure of
girls was indeed more common than ofboys. In particular, in a famous papyrus
of 1 B.C. an Egyptian named Hilarion {who seems to have been a wagelabourer) writes from Alexandria to his wife Alis at Oxyrhynchus, telling her
that if she has a child she is to rear it if a boy but expose it if a girl (P. Oxy.
IV.744=SPI.294-5, no. lOS).
* * * * * *
I now tum to a brief treatment of Christian marriage as an institution and
Christian attitudes towards women and on sexual matters, subjl'cts which I
believe to be very relevant to the class position of Greek women. because of the
influence Christianity has had in depressing the status of women. We must not
forget that the ancient Greek world, according to my defmition of it (l.ii above),
was at least partly Christian during the later centuries of its existence and had
become predominantly Christian well before the end of my period. Early
Christian marriage has not been fully investigated by historians (as distinct from
theologians) in the light of its Hellenistic, Jt>wish and Roman counterparts. k We
often hear Christian marriage praised today; but its admirers, in my experience,
very seldom grasp the fact that in its origins it was more backward and more
oppressive towards women than most varieties of marriage in the GraecoRoman world: in particular, (l) as in Jewish marriage, the subjection of the
woman to her husband was both more strongly emphasised than in other
systL'ms and given a divine origin not found elsewhere; and (2) an unhealthy
;utirude to sex and marriage can be seen in some of the books of the New
Ti.srament, regarded by the dominant form of early Christianity as divinely
inspired, the very Word of God.
I propose to deal with the second point first, although I regard it as the less
important of the two. Christianity did not have the healthy acceptance of sex
and marriage which was in the main a feature ofJudaism. 9 but treated marriage
104
as a second-best tn vir~ini~,-. Sinnthi:s .nmudc is wo ntkn discussed as if it were

characteristic ot St. P;ul ,);JI~. I will bt~in w!th the passage in the Apocalypse in
which the 144/(11) (allm.tk lsraditc:s). who :.!.1"1: .~a1led 'the firstfruits unto God
and to the Lamb" .md whu art rtprtsnut~d .J sealed m; :heir foreheads with the
divine name, are described as 'tlw~ wiJJCh \\'<n :lUt defiled [ouk emolynthisan]
with women, for they are vir~ins' (Rt>Y XiV.t-5. esp. 4, with VIL2-8).
However, it is true that the.> most pow~rthl illfl~..nce exerted upon early Christianity towards dispar;l~i:t~ sl"x :met t'Vl'Jt nun1agl was the seventh chapter of
St. Paul's First Epistle M th, C.rimi1iJm (I Cor. ni.l-9, 27-9, 32-4, 39-40, esp.
2, 9). 10 To say that marria~t. t\.1r St. P.ml. w.ts .1 n..c('ss~ry evil' would be to go a
little too far; but we nJU~t bl."gtn by r~owgnismg th.u tl.1r him the married state
was clearly inf..nor to vir~iuirv. It is .n indisputahk t:Kt that the only purpose of
marriage speciti(ally Ill<.'ntiont.'\f by P.ml ts th, ;tvmd.mct of fornication ('because
of acts of fomkati1m : r Cor. vii.:!): 11 .md 1t 1~ o11ly it' th( unmarried and widows
'cannot be conrin,ut' rlut rlll'r .ur to marry, filr it il> better to marry than to
burn [with sexual i.kstrd' (wrs;: 9). ImlnJ. Paul suffered from an aversion to
sex as such: he opens his .tis<JUi.;itton on ~t!X .md marriage in I Cor. vii with the
emphatic generalisation, 'It 1s !!lJOd ~i~~: a nun not to touch a woman' (verse 1). If
this is, as some h.t\'C' m.1intaincd, a quotation trum a Corinthian letter to him,
written perhaps from an exaggeratedly ascetic !'tandp<int, and ifPaul is answering, in effect. with a 'Y (.'!.., but ... '.l~t us at least bt dtar that he is saying 'Yes'!
And a lit de latt~r lw says. 'It is good tlu th, umuarr kd Jnd widows to abide even
as I' (verse 8). P.ml wa.o; wry mmplactnt .thttut hi'i own continence: he could
actually say, 'I would that all [and hy PJtii;J. ,lmlrr,;p,u~ he almost certainly means
'all men and women'] were even as I myselt~ (\'t'rse i). Apologies have often
been made for Paul on the ground that he was thinking in eschatological terms.
in daily expectation of the Second Coming; but I t".ltmot myself see that this
excuses him in any way. (We have even been presented recently with the
concept of'the eschatological woman'; 12 but of this theological fantasy the less
said the better.)
I come now to the most important aspect of the attitude of the early Christians
to women and marriage: their belief- which. as we shall see. was firmly rooted
in the Old Testament- that wives must be subject to their husbands and obey
them. In most of the passages I shall be quoting it is wives specifically who arc
addressed, rather than women in general; but of course in the ancient Greek
world virtually all girls could be expected to marry- the 'maiden aunt' and even
the 'spinster' arc phenomena unknown to antiquity. Aristophanes, Lysistrata
591-7 provides 'the exception that proves the rule'. (I think I should add that
when in I Cor. vii.25 St. Paul says he has 'no commandment from the Lord
concerning virgins', we must not be tempted to say that virgins are fortunate
indeed, for I am among those who believe that the passage may have a much
more limited application than may appear at first sight.) 13 l cannot of course set
out all the relevant evidence here and will merely concentrate on the most
important passages. In I Cor. xi.3 and Ephes. V.22-4a striking parallel is drawn
between the relation of the husband to the wife and that of God to Christ and of
Christ to man (I Cor. xi.3) or to the Church (Ephes. V .23), upon which is based
the command to the wife not merely to rrven:nce her husband (the word used in
Ephes. V. 33 is phobit~i: literally, 'let her go in dread') bur to be subject to him in
105
most complete sense: the word hypotassesthai, 14 which is used of this relationsh!J' in Ephesians (V .22,24), Colossians (III.18), Titus (II .5). and I Peter (iii.l). is
th'" word also used in the Epistles for the subjection of slaves to their masters
(Ti:. 11.9; I Pet. ii.18). of ordinary people to State power (Rom. XIII. I: Tit.
111. ;). of Christians to God the Father (Hebr. XII.9; James IV.7; cf. I Cor.
~\'. 27-8). and of the Church to Christ (Ephes. V .24, where the relationship
Church : Christ = wives : husbands is explicit; cf. 23). In I Timothy ii.ll the
woman is to 'learn in silence, in all subjection' (en pasii hypotagei). The forceful
metaphor employed both in I Cor. xi.3 and in Ephes. V .23 is that of the 'head',
kepha/e in Greek. 'The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is
the man; and the head of Christ is God' (I Cor. xi.3). 'Wives, submit yourselves
w1tu your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the
witL', even as Christ is the head of the Church; and he is the saviour ofrhe body.
Hut as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands
in \'Verything' (Ephes. V.22-4).
At this point. unfortunately, I am obliged to tum aside in order to deal with a
highly technical question concerning the metaphor of the 'head' (ltephali), to
which I have just referred, since desperate attempts have recently been made by
theologians to play down the notion of authority which it certainly conveys.
And this will also raise, for some peopl~. the problem of the genuineness of the
various 'Pauline' epistles. I will deal briefly with the latter point first. There can
be u.o doubt that St. Paul regarded his own rulings on the subjects of women,
sex and marriage as directly inspired by God, even when he knew of no tradition
of a statement by Jesus on a particular point. 15 This places in an exceedingly
difficult position those Christians who are reluctant to reject authoritative
statements in their sacred books entirely but are nevertheless sufficiently responsive to modem humanist- not only feminist- criticism to find some of the
'Pauline' statements intolerable as they stand. Those statements, it is felt, cannot
mean what they say: although for centuries they have been accepted by virtually
all Christian churches as divinely inspired, in their literal and natural sense, they
must now be given a very different interpretation. I know of no historian who
would be prepared to countenance such exegesis, but it does seem to have an
appeal to some theologians, as we shall see. One expedient is to exclude certain
texts always accepted until recently as written by Paul himselfbut now regarded
by many New Testament scholars as pseudo-Pauline (or 'deutero-Pauline', a
nicl euphemism) and the work of later writers. 16 One can then pretend that
there are no real difficulties' except perhaps I Cor. vii and xi .3-15- although
wh;n we need to do is to see what these texts meant to contemporaries, and of
course the 'deutero-Pauline' material is very relevant to such an enquiry, providing as it does some evidence ofhow contemporaries interpreted the genuine'
epistles. As it happens, I am myself far less interested in the views ofPaul himsdf
than in what I may call 'Pauline Christianity', which is mainstream early
Christianity. basing itself upon all the epistles attributed to Paul. as well as the
other books ofthe New Testament.
The meaning ofkephale (head) in I Cor. xi.3 (and the 'deutero-Pauline' Ephes.
V .13) is central. In 1954 an acute analysis by Stephen Bedale 17 established that in
some contexts in the Epistles, when kephale is used metaphorically (as it rarely is
outside the Septuagint and the New Testament), 18 its essential idea may be that of
ti"K
106
priority, origin, beginning. However, Bedale admitted, honestly and correctly,

that the word in its metaphorical sense (like archi, which can also signify either
'rule' or 'beginning') 'unquestionably carries with it the idea of "authority" ',
even if 'such authority in social relationships derives from a relative priority
(causal rather than merely temporal) in the order ofbeing'. 19 (Here Bedale was
apparently thinking of woman's imagined origin from man- Eve from Adampictured in Genesis 11.18-24.) Dealing with the 'headship' of the male in I Cor.
xi.3 (primarily in the sense of 'origin'), Bedale adds, 'In St. Paul's view, the
female in consequence is "subordinate" (cf. Ephes. V.23). But this principle of
subordination which he finds in human relationships rests upon the order of
creation. ' 20 It is absolutely impermissible to go beyond this and to treat kephali
in our passages as meaning only 'source' and not also 'authority'. 21 And whatever
may be intended by the 'head' metaphor, the very fact that the relationship of
man (or husband) to woman (or wife) is equated in I Cor. xi.3with thatofChrist
to man and God to Christ, and in Ephes. V .23 with that ofChrist to the Church,
makes the relationship of woman to man one of total subordination: this is
entirely consistent with the other NewTestament evidence which I quoted above.
Some Christians in the modem world have been inclined to lay much of the
blame, not only for the unhealthy attitude to sex but also for the subjection of
wives to their husbands in early Christian thought and practice, upon the
peculiar psychology of St. Paul, who of course was deeply influenced by his
devout jewish upbringing (for which see Acts XXI1.3) and also conceivably by
the fact that in Tarsus, his home town, women were veiled in public (Dio
Chrys. XXXIII.48-9). I must make it clear, therefore, that in reality the subjection of the wife to the husband was part of Christianity's inheritance from
Judaism, necessarily including (as we shall see) a thorough-going conception of
the dominance of the husband, which Christianity actually intensified. This is a
very important question which requires emphasis. In these days, when most
Christians venerate the Old Testament far less than did the early Church, and
the opening chapters of Genesis are taken literally and seriously by none but the
most ignorant and bigoted Fundamentalist, we may need to make a conscious
effort to remember three features of the account of the creation of man and
woman, and of the 'Fall' and its consequences, in Genesis 11-111, which more
enlightened Christians often prefer to forget. (1) first, and most important in its
practical influence upon Christian marriage. is the fact that in Gen. 111.16 God
himself is made to proclaim the authority or lordship of the husband over the
wife. No such religious sanction for male dominance existed in Greek or Roman
paganism. 22 A passage in Josephus is explicit about the inferiority of the wife to
the husband 'in all respects', according to the Jewish Law. 'Let her therefore be
submissive (hypakoueto], not for her humiliation but so that she may be controJJed [archetai], for God gave power [to kratos] to the husband' (C. Apion.
11.201). Interpolation has been suspected, but in any event this passage is an
adequate description of the position of the first-century Jewish wife (see e.g.
Baron, SRHJ 112 .236). Philo uses even stronger language than Josephus: in
Hypoth. 7.3 he says that in jewish law, 'with a view to their rendering obedience in
all respects', wives must 'be slaves to their husbands- the actual word doulruein
is used. (I think I should take this opportunity jusr to mention a particularly nasty
passage in Philo, justifying the Essenes for rt>fraining from marriage on the
107
ground that wives are unpleasant in various ways and a source of corruption- I
shrink from reproducing his invective: Hypoth. 11.14-17.) (2) Secondly. there is
the extraordinary fact that in Gen. 11.21-4 the woman is not brought into
existence independently and at the same time as the man, like all the rest of
Creation (including, apparently, female animals!), but was made after man and
from one of his ribs. This of course reverses the actual order of things: man is
now born of woman, but the first woman is depicted as having been taken from
man and created specifically to be his 'helpmeet' (Gen. 11.18,20). As St. Paul put
it, 'For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man; for neither was
the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man' (I Cor. xi.8-9; cf.
Mk 11.27 for a very similar use of the Greek preposition dia). This particular
myth in Genesis has long been a powerful buttress of male 'superiority'. There
is, of course, every reason to think that Jesus himself and all his followers,
including Paul, accepted the myth in its literal sense, as ifit represented historical
fact; we are not dealing with a mere Pauline aberration. And in face of this, it is
grossly dishonest to pretend that Paul could have had any other view than the
one he expresses, in favour of the subjection of the wife to the husband.
Both the aspects of the Genesis story that I have just described were part of the
Jewish legacy to the Christian conception of marriage, which overall was
certainly nearer to the jewish than to the Roman or even the Hellenistic variety.
(3) A third feature of the Genesis myth, equally accepted as fact by the early
Christians, was the greater responsibility of the woman for the 'Fall'. She eats
the forbidden fruit first and persuades the man to follow her example (Gen.
III. 1-6, 12 and esp. Hr17), with the result that God gives her a special punishment: having to endure pain in childbearing (III.16, where the authority ofthe
husband over her is also laid down). Because of Christian soteriology, in which
the 'Fall' played an essential part, the leading role attributed to the first woman,
which appears only occasionally in Jewish writings (e.g. Ecclus. XXV.24),
naturally figured more prominently in Christian than in Jewish theology. In this
respect Christianity made an unfortunate use of its Jewish inheritance. For ~he
writer ofl Tim. ii.11-l4 the facts that 'Adam was first formed, then Eve', and
that 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression' (cf. II Cor. xi.J: 'the Serpl'nt beguiled Eve') are the justification indeed, the sole explicit justification - for thl' order to the woman to 'learn in
silence with all subjection', and not to 'teach, nor to usurp authority over the
man, but to be in silence' (cf. I Cor. xiv.34-5).
Some recent writers have made much of the fact that many of St. Paul's
cunverts who are named in the New Testament were women; but this has no
significance at all in the present context. A large number of female converts was
only to be expected, since religion formed 'the major outlet for female activity in
tht Roman world', as Averil Cameron has pointed om in an article, 'Neither
m .llc nor female', to be published in Greece & Rome in 1980, which she has been
kind enough to show me. 22 And of course therl' is not the least sign that any of
!lwse women occupied a place of authority or even importance in their local
l'hurches . Nor need the historian take any serious account of that text so often
<tUoted by theologians, Galatians 111.2R: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is
lll'irher bond nor free; there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus' (cf. Coloss. III.ll for a similar tl'xt, not mentioning the sexes). I have
108
discussed both these passages near the beginning ofVll.iii below. They have a
purely spiritual or eschatological meaning and relate only to the situation as it is
'in the sight of God', or 'in the next world'; they have no significance whatever
for this world, where the relations in real life between man and woman, or
master and slave, are not affected in any way. Precisely as the slave who is a good
man ceases, in Hellenistic philosophical thought, to be 'really' a slave at all (see
VII .iii below), so the slave becomes 'Christ's freedman' merely by becoming a
Christian; and the woman achieves oneness with the man, the Jew with the
Greek, in exactly the same way. The situation of none of them in this world is
altered in the slightest degree; and of course the whole train of thought provides
a convenient excuse for doing nothing whatever to change the situation of the
disadvantaged. for, theologically, they have already achieved everything.
Now it would not have been at all surprising to find the early Christians
simply adopting the Jewish and/or Hellenistic social practice of their day, in
regard to sex and marriage as in other ways, but we find them taking a position
which was even more patriarchal and oppressive than that of most of their
contemporaries. Distinctly more enlightened ideas were common in the world
around them. Roman marriage in particular had developed beyond other
systems in the rights it allowed to women, whether married or not. (The
existence of the Roman patria potestas does not disprove my assertion.) 23 I think
Schulz was right in regarding the Roman law of husband and wife as the
supreme example in Roman jurisprudence of humanistic sentiment, and in
attributing the later decay of some of its most progressive features to the much
more male-dominated thought-world of the invading German 'barbarians' and
of the Christian Church (CRL 103-5). The Roman law of marriage, by the way,
showed remarkable tenacity in resisting the modifications (the abolition of
divorce by consent, for example} desired by the Church and the Christian
emperors from Constantine onwards: this has been very well brought out by A.
H. M. Jones (LRE 11.973-6, with III.327-8 nn.n-82). As we all know, the
Christian churches have tended until very recently either to forbid divorce
altogether or at best (as in England until very recently, and in Scotland still) to
permit it only upon proof of a 'matrimonial offence' by one party against the
other - a disastrous notion, productive of much unnecessary suffering, not to
mention frequent collusive divorces.
Apprehensive and irrational ideas about the regularly occurring 'uncleanness'
of woman during her reproductive years might have been expected to have
some effect on early Christianity. since such ideas were not uncommon in the
pagan Greek and Roman world (see IV.iii 10 below) and were particularly
strong in Judaism. In Leviticus XV, representing in its present form one of the
latest strands of the Torah (however ancient its origins), great stress is laid upon
the pollution incurred by contact with a menstruating woman or even anything
she has touched (Levit. XV. 19-33; cf. lsai. XXX.22). Intercourse with such a
woman is a capital crime for both parties (Levit. XX.t8). 24 Many people who
fail to understand the strength of feeling often associated with beliefs about
ritual pollution may be astonished when they read one of the finest passages in
the Old Testament. in which Ezekiel gives what I have called elsewhere 'an
explicit and emotional repudiation of the whole idea ofjoint family responsibility
for crime' (so firmly embedded in the older strata of the Hebrew Scriptures), 25 and
11. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (vi)
109
discover that 'coming near to a menstruous woman' is placed in the same

category as idolatry, adultery, the oppression of the poor, the taking of usury
and so forth, as a serious crime justifying punishment (Ezek. XVIII. 1 ff., esp. 6).
The' Mosaic' legislation on the subject of'uncleanness' was taken very seriously
indeed by the rabbis. To go no further than the Mishnah- one whole tractate,
Niddah, occupying some 13 pages (745-57) in the standard English translation
by Herbert Danby (1933), is devoted entirely to menstruation and the pollution
il ~ntails, and the subject is noticed in numerous passages in other tractates.
{There are some nice rulings, e.g. on how large a blood-stain which a woman
tinds on herself rna y be set down to a louse: the answer is 'of the size of a split
h~o.an', Nidd. 8.2. Contrary to what might be suggested by considerations of
hlgiene, irrelevant here, the assumption of infestation may thus remove suspic:ion of 'uncleanness'!) It is to Christianity's credit that in the end it was not
much influenced by superstitious ideas of this particular kind, at any rate in the
Wc:st. In some of the Greek-speaking communities, however, there remained a
deep-seated feeling that woman's regular 'uncleanness' made it wrong for her,
while so afllicted, to take communion and even perhaps to enter a church. The
~:arliest official exclusions of women in this condition from communion, so far
:t!o I know. are by two patriarchs of Alexandria: Oionysius (a pupil ofOrigen),
around the middle of the third century, and Timothy, c. 379-85, whose rulings
bname canonical in the Byzantine Church and were confirmed by the Quini~cxt' Council in Trullo at Constantinople in 692. 26 The Trullan Canons, passed
by Eastern bishops only, were rejected in theWest; but to this day the Orthodox
d1urches, including the Greek and the Russian, refuse communion to women
during menstruation.
h is true that the Christians were in theory more insistent than the great
majority of pagans upon the necessity for men as well as women to abstai11 from
~~..~ual intercourse outside marriage (from 'fornication'); but there were pagans
who condemned adultery by husbands as much as by wives (see below for
Musonius Rufus}. and a statement by the Roman lawyer Ulpian, that it is 'most
inequitable that a husband should exact chastity from his wife when he does not
pra~tise it himself, is preserved in the Digest (XLVIII.v.14.5). What evidence
thc.rc is from the Later Roman Empire suggests to me that the Christian
churches were hardly more successful than the pagans in discouraging 'fornication'; and the conspicuous prevalence of prostitution in Christian countries
down the ages shows that mere prohibitions of conduct regarded for religious
r~"'.asons as immoral, even ifbacked by threats of eternal punishment, may have
little effect if the structure of society is not conducive to their observance. And
rht" irrational hatred of sex in its physical manifestations (with the grudging
exception of marriage) which was so characteristic ofearly Christianity from St.
Paul onwards sometimes led to an asceticism which bordered on the psych~
pathic. The modem reader of some of the letters and other works of St. Jerome
(an over-sexed man who was bitterly ashamed of his natural feelings) may be
deeply moved by the unnecessary suffering caused in this highly gifted individual by a ser ofinsane dogmas which he never questioned, and the observance of
which sometimes created in him a deep agony of mind which could hardly be
vented except in some excessively ferocious and even scurrilous tirade against a
religious adversary (a Helvidius or a Vigilantius) who had dared to say something
110
Jerome could interpret as a disparagement of the Virgin Mary or of virginity in

general. 27
As a wholesome corrective of the popular Christian view, repeated over and
over again in modem times, that the early Church introduced an entirely new
and better conception of marriage and sex, it is worth reading some of the
fragments that have been preserved of the Stoic philosopher of the second half of
the first century, Musonius Rufus- perhaps the most attractive, to my mind, of
all the later Stoics. He was a Roman of the equestrian order (see Tac., Hist.
111.81), but he probably did most ofhis reaching in Greek, and although he is not
reliably credited with any written works, a certain amount of his doctrine is
preserved (almost entirely by Stobaeus) in some fairly substantial Greek fragments compiled by an unknown pupil, whose name is transmitted to us merely
as Lucius. The English reader can enjoy the benefit of a complete text (virtually
the standard one by 0. Hense, 1905), with a good facing English translation and
a useful introduction, as pan of an article (also published separately) entitled
'Musonius Rufus. "The Roman Socrates'", by Cora E. Lutz, in YCS 10 (1947)
3-147. 28 Musonius is both more rational and more humane that St. Paul in his
attitude to women, sex and marriage, and he is exceptionally free from the
male-dominated outlook, desiring the subjection of women to their husbands,
which was common enough in antiquity but was stronger among the jews than
among many pagans (the Romans above all) and was implanted in Paul by his
orthodox Jewish upbringing (see above). According to Musonius: {1) in
marriage 'there must be above all perfect companionship and mutual love of
husband and wife', in sickness and in health; (2) 'all men consider the love of
husband and wife to be the highest form oflove'; (3) husbands who commit
adultery are doing wrong just as much as wives, and it is very objectionable for
them to have sexual relations with their slave-girls; (4) marriage is an excellent
thing, and even the philosopher should accept it gladly; and (5) girls should
receive the same kind of education as boys. extending to philosophy. 29 Although Musonius sees the sphere of activity of a woman as different in some
ways from that ofa man, he never suggests that she is in any way inferior to him
or that she ought to be subjected to him or dominated by him. Most of the
individual statements attributed to Musonius which I have just quoted can be
paralleled in other Greek and Latin authors, but I fancy that their combination is
exceptionaL
If we want an explanation of the failure of the Christian churches to effect in
practice any noticeable change for the better in moral or social behaviour, even
in those spheres (such as the prohibition of fornication for men as well as
women) in which it advocated a higher standard than that commonly accepted
in the Graeco-Roman world, we may fmd it in the conclusion of a parable to
which I shall have occasion to refer again later (VII.iv below), that of Lazarus.
When the rich man suffering the torments of hell begged that Lazarus might be
enabled to go and preach to his five brothers and save them from sharing his
dreadful fate (for surely they would listen to one risen from the dead), the reply
was, 'They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them ... lfthey hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from
the dead' (Lk. XV1.27-31). In order to generalise this statement, we must
substitute, for 'Moses and the prophets', 'the general climate of orthodox
111
opinion in society': if men are not swayed by that, Jesus is saying, even one who
has risen from the dead is not likely to move them. Hence we should not expect
Christian preaching itself to make much difference to men's behaviour, as
distinct from their purely spiritual life- nor did it.
* * * * * *
I need hardly add that very much more can be done than in most modem
societies to reduce the male dominance which has been characteristic ofthe great
majority of civilised societies, subjecting a high proportion of women to the
exploitation and oppression which arc (as we have seen) normal consequences of
class conflict. Of course, the brainwashing process we all go through in childhood has played a powerful role here: a particular stereotype has commonly
been foisted upon females from infancy onwards, and naturally the vast
majority have largely accepted it, as if it were an inevitable biological necessity
rather than a social construction which could be changed. 30
* * * * * *
I trust that this section will serve to exculpate me from any crime I may have
committed in the eyes of feminists by sometimes speaking of the slave, serf,
peasant etc. as a 'he' rather than a 'he/she' (or 's/he').
III
Property and the Propertied
(i)
The conditions of production: land and unfree labour
In the ancient world the principal 'means of production', in the sense in which I
am using that term, were land and unfree labour. The latter expression should
really include, in addition to chattel slavery and serfdom and debt bondage (to
be discussed in Section iv of this chapter), all kinds of compulsory labour
services exacted from the exploited classes by local city governments or a royal
or Roman imperial administration; but I find it more convenient to discuss these
labour services. performed for governmental authorities (forms of 'indirect
collective exploitation', as I am calling them: see IV .i below) in the next chapter,
which deals principally with the peasantry. The ownership of land and the
power to exact unfree labour, largely united in the hands of the same class,
together constitute, therefore, the main keys to the class structure of the ancient
Greek communities. Free wage labour, which plays the essential part in capitalist production, was relatively unimportant in antiquity (see Section vi of this
chapter). In a sense, as Marx insisted, the hired labourer is not fully free, as he
has virtually no alternative to selling his labour-power for wages; his 'surplus
labour' (as Marx calls it), from which the employer derives his profit, is given
without an equivalent, and 'in essence it always remains forced labour, no
matter how much it may seem to result from free contractual agreement' (Cap.
III.819). Just as 'the Roman slave was held by fetters, the wage-labourer is
bound to his owner by invisible threads. The appearance ofindependence is kept
up by means of a constant change of employers, and by the jiaio juris of a
contract' (Cap. 1.574). Yet the disappearance oflegall y, economically or socially
unfree labour and its replacement by wage labour entered into under a contract
which can have a good deal of free choice in it is a very real step forward. 'It is
one of the civilising aspects ofcapital that it enforces surplus-labour in a manner
and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the
productive forces, social relations, and the creation ofthe elements for a new and
higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom etc.' (Cap.
111.819). Whether this entails our attributing to the ancient hired labourer a
position superior to that ofthe slave or serfis a doubtful point, to which we shall
return in Section vi of this chapter.
In a brilliant passage in Wages, Prict and Profit, ch. ix (reappearing in a slighdy
different fonn in Capital I.539-40), Marx draws attention to the most obvious
difference in the exploitation of the slave, the serf and the wage labourer. The
slave's labour has the appearance ofbeing totally unpaid: he works all the time for
his master and receives in return only enough to allow him to live -and perhaps to
Ill. Property and the Propertied (i)
113
reproduce himself. 'Since no bargain is struck between him and his master, and
no acts of selling and buying are going on between the two parties, all his Ia bou r
seems to be given away for nothing.' With the serf liable to labour rent, or the
peasant subjected to the corvee, who works for so many days on the field which is
regarded as his own possession, and for so many days on his lord's field, the
reality emerges clearly: 'the paid and unpaid parts of labour are sensibly separated.' The position of the wage-labourer, like that of the slave, can also give rise
to confusion: all the labour given by the hired worker has the appearance of
being paid, even that 'surplus labour', as Marx called it, out of which comes the
employer's profit, the 'surplus value' yielded up by the worker. 'The nature of
the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention ofa contract and
the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labour appears to be
voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other [the case
of the slave or serf]. That makes all the difference.' I will add only that 'the
intervention of a contract' similarly masks the exploitation by a landlord of a
leasehold tenant who is not tied to his plot but is free to leave it and go elsewhere,
to negotiate a lease on better tenns with another landlord, ifhe can, or to take
service as a wage-labourer. [Wages, Price and Profit ix = MESW 210-12.].
How were the propertied classes of the Greek and Roman world to obtain
their surplus? Letting land (and houses) to free tenants was always practised in
some degree; but (as I have shown in ll.iii above) it would naturally yield a lower
rate of exploitation than working the land directly, with unfree labour. wage
labour, or a combination of the two. Now wage labour was, as I have said
already (and will demonstrate in detail in Section vi of this chapter), of little
account in antiquity, in particular because it was generally unskilled and not
plentifully available. Therefore, there was simply no way in which the propertied classes of the Greek world could obtain a substantial surplus directly except
through unfree labour - a most powerful argument for the role played by such
labour in the economy of all the Greek states, which is too often neglected. It is
very interesting to fmd that Aristotle, in a passage near the beginning of the
Politics (1.4, 1253b33-4a1), can imagine only one alternative to using slaves- and
that is complete automation: that ofthe statues endowed with life by Daedalus or of
the tripods made by the god Hephaestus, which Homer had described as
running on wheels of their own accord to Olympus! (Iliad XVIII.376). Much
the.- same idea is amusingly expressed by the Athenian comic poet Crates (fr.
14-15, ap. Athen. Vl.267e-8a). There were also, it is true, ways in which the
propertied class could obtain part of its surplus indirectly, even while a very
large number ofhumble Greeks, including most of those I am calling 'peasants'
(sc.-c IV .i-iv below), were still in a condition of freedom and could not easily be
exploited directly to any intense degree: this indirect exploitation, which mainly
rook the form of taxation and compulsory services, is rather a difficult subject.
bt:st left until Chapter IV, in which I shall be dealing with the peasantry and
other small, free, independent producers. When, in the Later Roman Empire,
there was apparently a considerable increase in the exploitation of the small free
producers, the use of slave labour in the strict sense was in principle less
necessary; but the Greek and Roman world always remained what we may
loosely call a 'slave society', with unfree labour continuing to be a main source of
exploitation, and when it became necessary for the screw to be tightened upon.
114
the peasantry, a large number of them were reduced to a form of serfdom.

Contrary to what is sometimes said, a great deal ofslave labour was employed
in agriculture, which was by far the most important sector of the ancient
economy (see Sections iii and iv of this chapter and Appendix II below).
In the Greek and Roman world wealth was never measured by general
income in money, nor were taxes ever levied upon money income. When
wealth was quantified it was as capital, and when direct taxes were levied they
were either a proportion of a crop (a tenth or whatever), always collected by
tax-farmers (teloMi, publictmi), or they took the form ofa capital levy, as in the
case of the Athenian eisphora and the tributum paid by citizens in the early Roman
Republic. Very occasionally we hear ofa political qualification being assessed in
terms of agricultural produce, again in kind: the Athenian Pentacosiomedimnoi
(though not, in my opinion, the other Solonian teli) 1 were so assessed. Only in
Egypt, under the Roman Principate, is there any evidence ofincome expressed
in money being given official recognition as a qualification for the performance
of liturgies (public duties); and it is significant that in this case the income was
purely from laniied property .1 A recent theory that the four Solonian ttll at
Athens were later based on money incomes is an impossible one, as I have
already demonstrated elsewhere. 3 A conclusive argument against any assessment in terms of money income is provided by the extremely primitive nature
of ancient accounting, which was incapable of distinguishing properly between
what is nowadays kept apart as 'capital' and 'income', let alone enabling a
merchant or even a landowner to arrive at a concept of 'net profit', without
which the taxation of money income is unthinkable. There seems to have been
no really efficient method of accounting, by double or even single entry, before
the thirteenth century. (I have discussed Greek and Roman accounting in detail,
and have said something about the emergence of modem accounting in the
Middle Ages, in my GRA=Stutlies in the History of Aaounting, edited by A. C.
Littleton and B.S. Yamey [1956] 1+74.)
(ii)
The propertied class (or classes)
The most important single dividing line which we can draw between different
groups of free men in the Greek world is, in my opinion, that which separated
off from the common herd those I am calling 'the propertied class', who could
'live of their own' without having to spend more than a fraction of their time
working for their living. (Expressions like 'live of their own' were sometimes
used in English political writings of the seventeenth century and later; but my
impression is that they usually signified not the ability to live entirely without
working at all- the sense in which I am using the word- but the capacity to live
an 'independent' life, on the land or by some form of handicraft or other
occupation, without entering into the employment of another by taking wageservice under him; cf. Section vi of this chapter, ad.fin., and its IUl.48-51.)
Although small peasants and other free men such as artisans and shopkeepers,
working on their own account, without much property of their own, must always
have formed a substantial proportion of the.free population of the Greek world,
and indeed were probably a majority of the whole population until about the end
III. Property and the Propertied (ii)
115
of the third century of the Christian era, they would normally have to spend
most of their time working for their livelihood, with their families, at somewhere near the subsistence level, and would not be able to live securely and at
leisure, as members of the upper class. (I deal very briefty with these small, free
producers in IV .ii and vi below.) By and large, a comfortable, leisured existence
could be secured only by the possession of property (primarily in land: see
Section iii of this chapter), which alone gave the upper classes that command over
tht labour of othm which made it possible for them to live the good life, as the
Greeks saw it, a life not constrained by the inescapable necessity of working for
one's living, a life which could be devoted to the pursuits considered proper for a
gentleman: politics or generalship, intellectual or artistic pursuits, hunting or
athletics. Isocrates (V11.45), writing in the mid-fourth century B.C., characteristically brackets together 'horsemanship, athletics, hunting and philosophy'
as the very proper avocations fostered by the Athenians in the good old days,
enabling some men to develop outstanding qualities and others at least to avoid
most evils. (For the prestige that might be derived from athletic prowess, seem y
OPW 355.) 1 For the present we can largely forget about the small peasant, the
artisan and their like, who formed the very backbone of many Greek states: we
shall come to them in Chapter IV below. Our concern here is with the propertied (hoi euporoi, hoi tas ousias tchontts, and many similar expressions), who alone
had the leisure (schole, or in Latin otium), a prerequisite of what was then
considered to be the good life, as I have defined it. The dividing line between
such people and the more or Jess propertyless masses below them was created by
the possession of sufficient property to make it possible for them 'to Jive with
discretion an unconstrained life ofleisure' (or 'to live a leisured life liberally and
temperatelY.'), scholazontts eleuthrrios hama kai sophronos, as Aristotle pur it {Pol.
VII.5, 1326b30-2). Most Greeks would have put less emphasis on the restraint
which Aristotle and his like thought so important. Heracleides Ponticus, a
contemporary of Aristotle, declared in his treatise On pleasure that pleasure and
luxury, which relieve and reinforce the mind, are the characteristics of free men;
labour (to ponein), on the other hand, is for slaves and humble men (tapeinoi),
whose minds accordingly become shrunken (systellontal). 2
These men, liberated from toil, are the people who produced virtually all
Greek. art and literature and science and philosophy, and provided a good
proportion of the armies which won remarkable victories by land over the
Persian invaders at Marathon in 490 and at Plataea in 479 B.C. In a very real
sense most of them were parasitic upon other men, their slaves above all; most
of them were not supporters of the democracy which ancient Greece invented
and which was its great contribution to political progress, although they did
supply almost all its leaders; and they provided little more than the commanders
of the invincible navy organised by Athens which kept the Greek cities of the
Aegean secure against Persia. But what we know as Greek civilisation expressed
itself in and through them above all, and it is they who will normally occupy the
centre of our picture. I may add that they were a distinctly smaller class than the
combined hoplites (heavy-armed infantry) and cavalry, the hopla partellomenoi,
who must always have included at the lowest hop lite level a certain number of
men who needed to spend a certain amount of their time working for their
living, generally as peasant farmers. As I hope I have made dear already (in Il.iii
116
above), a man's position as a member ofthe propertied class depends in principle

upon whether he needed to work in order to maintain himself. If he was not
obliged to do so, then whether he actually did or did not spend time on such
work himself (supervising the labour of those he exploited on his agricultural
land, for instance) is irrelevant for his class position.
I have spoken of 'the propertied class', in the singular, as if all those whose
level of existence was above the minimum just mentioned formed a single class.
In a sense they did, as opposed to all the rest (hoi polloi, ho ochlos, to plithos); but of
course there were very considerable differences inside this 'propertied class, and
it will often be necessary to think ofits members as subdivided into a number of
classes. As compared with the slave, the hired labourer, the full-time artisan,
even the peasant who did little more than scrape a living from a small farm
worked by himself and his family, we are surely justified in seeing as members
of a single 'propertied class' such men as the owner of a large or even mediumsized farm, worked by slaves under a slave bailiff(epitropos, in Latin vilicus}. or
leased out at a rent (in which case it would necessarily yield a lower profit}; the
proprietor of a workshop of. say, 20-50 slaves, supervised by a slave manager;
the lessee of mines in the Laurium district of Attica, worked by slaves, and
similarly supervised by a manager who would himselfbe a slave (or conceivably
a freedman); the owner (naukliros) ofa merchant ship or two3 which he hired out
to traders (empor01) or used for trading himself, manning them with slaves (and
of cour5e rarely ifever travelling himselffor purely business reasons); the owner
of a fair quantity of money capital which he lent out at interest, partly perhaps on
mortgage ofland (a perfectly safe investment, but bringing in no great rerum),
or, at a much higher rate of interest, on bottomry bonds (a form of transaction
known from at least the end of the fifth century B.C., which I have recently
described in detail in my AGRML). On the other hand, all those I have just
described would be worlds apart from a great Roman senator who owned
hundreds ofacres and of slaves, and who was even more emphatically a member
of the propertied class'; but the scale on which exploitation of the labour of others
takes place must also betaken into account in assessing a man's class, as well as the
type of production concerned, and the senator could only be considered a
member of the same 'propertied class' as the much smaller figures I have
mentioned when they are being collectively contrasted with the exploited
classes and the peasantry. I shall sometimes speak of 'the propertied classes',
sometimes of 'the propertied class': the latter expression will be particularly
appropriate when we are thinking of all the men of property as a single entity,
over against the non-propertied.
The Greek propertied class, then, consisted essentially of those who were able
to have themselves set free to live a civilised life by their command over the
labour of others, who bore the burden of providing them with the necessities
(and the luxuries) of the good life. Thisfreedom of the Greek propertied class is
what Aristotle has principally in mind in some very interesting passages, of
which I shall single out one here: the concluding sentence of the discussion in
Rhetoric I. 9, 1367a28-32, of the concept of to kalon- the noble, perhaps; but there is
no precise English equivalent. In this passage the word eleutheros, literally 'free',
is applied in the peculiar sense in which Aristotle and other Greeks sometimes
used it, to the gentleman, the man who is fully free from all constraining toil, as
III. Property and the Propertied (ii)
117
opposed to the aneleutheros, who works for another's benefit. Aristotle remarks
that at Sparta it is kalon to have long hair, and he adds, 'for it is the mark of a
gentleman [an eleutherosJ, since it is not easy for a man with long hair to do work
appropriate to a hired labourer' (ergon thitikon). And he goes straight on to give,
as another example of to kalon, 'not carrying on a menial craft [a banausos techni],
for it is the mark of a gentleman not to live for the benefit of another' (to mi pros
allon zen). Finley mistranslates this passage, 'The condition of a free man is that
he not live under the constraint of another. ' 4 However, in view of Aristotle's
other uses of the phrase in question and similar ones there is not the slightest
doubt that he means what I have stated in the text above: and in the context the
distinction is bl'twl"l'n the vnlg.tr ;~r6an :tnd fh{ gentleman; slavery and the slave
are never mentiomd thcrt'. (Hut .~inky got'!'> on to say, quite correctly, that
Aristotle's 'notilln ,>f livin~ unJ<.r n:.str:tinr was not restricted to slaves but was
extended w wa~t labour .md to others who Wl'T~ economically dependent'.)
It is desirable .lt thi~ point to io,sut a w.1miu!!. In most of the universities of this
country and othl'rs in tht Wt-.;t"m world an.i the Antipodes, the expression
'Greek history' i~ likdy to b~- rakcn to apply to the history of Old Greece from
the eighth ru tht fourth century B.C., and above all to the mainland states,
especially Athens and (to a less extent} Sparta. This may be natural enough,
because of nmrsl-' a large. pmr~mwn of the surviving literary evidence (as of
those parts of the .uc-haeological and epigraphic evidence which have been
collected and published in a form accessible to non-specialists) relates to Old
Greece in general and t~l Athl'lls in particular. Right up to the end of the
undergraduate sta~t' thi.., ~itu.attm1 il> likely to persist, even if in specialist studies
interest happens to shift .l\\'3~' from the Archaic and Classical periods- which,
however, can still bt: mad-: to yidd fresh material, by archaeologists and others,
and the economic and sod:tllustclrJ of which still offers great opportunities to
anyone whose training has not been too narrowly confined within the tradition
of stricti y historical research, and who is not content to remain indifferent (like
so many andent historians) to the tedmiques developed by sociologists, anthropologists and economists. But we must never forget- and this is the 'warning'
of which I spoke a moment ago - that even in their great days, in the fifth and
fourth centuries B.C., the Greeks of the mainland inhabited a very poor country.
with little natural wealth, agricultural or mineral, and that the predominance of
the great states, Sparta and Athens, was due to military or naval strength,
resting upon an organised system of alliances: Sparta's Peloponnesian League,
or the Delian League which grew into an Athenian empire, and was succeeded in
the fourth century by the much weaker Second Athenian Confederacy. 6 It is of
mainland Greece that Herodotus was thinking when he made Demaratus say
that Greece and poverty had always been foster-sisters (VI1.102. 1).
What many people still fail to realise is that some of the most important cities
on the west coast of Asia Minor and its offshore islands were already, by the
early fourth century, on the way to becoming more wealthy than the cities of
mainland Greece -just as Syracuse, under the rule of its remarkable tyrant,
Dionysius I, in roughly the first three decades of the fourth century, achieved
greater strength than any of the contemporary cities on the Greek mainland, and
built up a small empire of its own in Sicily and south Italy. The Asiatic cities
scarcely ever enjoyed political power and independence in the same way as
118
Athens and Spart.l in thc:ir p.1lm ~ d.1ys~ situatl'd a~ tht'y were on the fringe of the
great Persian empire, they were fwm th~ l;at, s~xth ctntury to the late fourth
(when they were finally 'liberated' by .'\lt.'(anJI.:'r rhl Great) either under Persian
control or subjc.ct to strun~ inftu:mcc. .md rn.s.;ure from Persian satraps or native
dynasts, except whl'll thc:y w.:r~ undc.r t\th~ni.m dommance in the fifth century.
I have remarked upou ~his situation elsewhc.r-;:: (OT>fi' 37-40): it deserves much
more detailed im:l:stigation than it has yet rc:~civld. Here I will only say that I
can remember the. shuck ofmrprisc with whkh I first realised the significance of
the information given by Xc.11ophnn (especially in HG III.i.27-8; cf. OPW 38-9)
about the vast wealth oithe famtlv ofZenis ofDardanus and his widow Mania,
who collected thl.:' revenues of a l;re:e area in the Truad on behalf of the Persian
satrap Phamabuus in the. years an;und 4t"JO B.C. We can hardly doubt that the
bulk of the fortune o{ this family will have been invested in land, whether it was
within the territory of Dardanus and other Greek cities or whether it formed
part of the adjacent Pt.'"nian empire; but there is good evidence from Xenophon
that their 'thesaunsc.d' movable wealth, stored (after the murder of Mania by her
son-in-law Mcidiar,) in a treasury in the fortress town of Gergis above the
Scamander valley. i likdy to have been worth between 300 and 400 talents/ a
far larger fortune (c.ven without the family's landed property, likely to have
been more valuab), still) than any which can be confidently attributed to any
inhabitant of mainland Greece before the Roman period. It is true that according
to Plutarch (Agr~ 9.5: Gr.u(h. 41. 7) the fortune of the third-century Spartan King
Agis IV (which he if> :.aid to have distributed am~mg his fellow-citizens) included
600 talents of coined money, apart from a quantity of agricultural and pasture
land; but this is probably a great exaggeration. The Athenian Hipponicus, son of
Callias, often said to be the richest Greek of his day (around the 420s), was
credited with property (in land and personal effects) to the value of only 200
talents (Lys. XIX.48). We do hear of some larger fortunes alleged to exist in thl'
fourth century B.C., but all the figures are again unreliable. Alexander lsius of
Aetolia, who had the same rc.-putarion as Hipponicus a little over two centuries
later, is said by Polybius (XXI.xxvi.9, 14) to have possessed property to the
value of'more than 200 talents'. Fortunes such as those ofZenis and Mania, I
suggest, were possible only for the few fortunate Greeks who enjoyed the
favour of the Great King or one of his satraps. We know of some other such
families in the fifth and fourth centuries, in particular the Gongylids and
Demaratids and Themistodes, all of whom received vast estates in western Asia
Minor from the King in the fifth century (see OPW 37-40).
The wealth of the Great King was enormous by Greek standards, and some of
his satraps were many times richer than any Greek of their day. We happen to
know that Arsames, a great Persian noble who was satrap of Egypt in the late
fifth century B.C., owned land in no less than six different areas between Susa
and Egypt (including Arbela and Damascus), and in Lower and Upper Egypt
too. 8 This need not astonish us. for although the Achaemenid rulers of the
Persian empire seem not to have exacted excessive tribute. according to ancient
standards, from the satrapies of their empire, but to have allowed the local
ruling class a considerable share in the surplus extorted from the primary
producers, yet there were evidently all sorts of opportunities for satraps to make
large personal gains. quite apart from the tribute.
Ill. Property and the Propertied (ii)
119
Alexander the Great, who conquered the whole Persian empire between 334
and 325, and his successors, who divided up his vast kingdom between them,
were able to make gifts of very great value to their followers, in money and land.
There is a nice little illustration of how such rewards had grown even before
Alexander had completed his conquests in the fact that whereas Dionysius I,
tyrant of Syracuse, made a present of 100 minae (10,000 drachmae, or PIJ
talents) to his mercenary captain Archylus for being the first man over the wall
in his siege ofMotya in Sicily in 398 (Diod. XIV .53.4), Alexander in 327, at the
siege of'the Sogdian rock', offered to the first man who scaled the wall a reward
of no less than 12 talents (Arr., Anab. IV.18.7) -probably a greater sum than the
whole fortune of any except a handful of Athenians in Alexander's day. The
great estates handed out to some of the 'King's friends' in Asia Minor, Syria and
Egypt must have made their owners far richer than any mainland Greek had
ever been. 8 It is no surprise to find that Plutarch. in the very work (referred to
above) in which he speaks ofKing Agis IV of Sparta as owning 600 talents in
coined money apart from his land, also makes Agis say that the satraps and
sav.1nts of Kings Ptolemy and Seleucus 'possessed more than all the kings of
Sp:~rta combined' (Agis. 7.2).
In the Hellenistic and Roman periods the leading families of the cities of Asia
~njo~:ed greater wealth than ever10 and were among the stronge5t supporters of
Homan rule. Largely because of their conspicuous wealth they began to enter
rlw Roman Senate in the early Principate, albeit slowly; but the senatorial
fnnilies they provided steadily increased in number in the second century, and
by the reign ofHadrian 'orientals' seem to have been almost on an equality with
\\'l..'~tcmers in their chance of becoming senators and even reaching the highest
posts, of praetor and consul. Recent research, admirably summarised by
Habicht in 1960, 11 has led to a marked revaluation of the evidence and a
r(';lhsation that to speak loosely of 'Greek' or "oriental' senators 12 can effect a
blurring of some important distinctions. First, we must separate from genuine
'Greeks' the descendants of Roman (or Italian) families transplanted to the
eastern provinces and now inhabiting either Augustan military colonies
(Pisidian Antioch, Alexandreia in the T road) or towns with important groups of
Italian settlers, such as Pergamum, Attaleia in Pamphylia, Ephesus, and
Mytilene.1 3 Secondly. as Habicht has rightly emphasised, we must not fail to
notice among the 'oriental' senators a very important group of members of the
old dynastic families of Asia Minor and Syro-Palestine in the late Republic and
early Principate, sometimes possessed of immense wealth and much interconnected by marriage: among these are descendants of the Attalids of
Pergamum; ofGalatian tetrarchs and the Galatian King Deiotarus; of Archelaus
and Polemo, the kings ofCappadocia and Pontus; and ofKing Herod ofjudaca.
Thirdly, the appreciable number of men who can be identified as immediate
descendants of new 'oriental' senators must not themselves be counted as 'new'
senators. for they were members of the senatorial order equally with the older
senatorial families and could normally expect to become senators in their tum:
this is particularly important when we are comparing reigns or periods and
trying to see how many new Greeks entered the Senate during each of them.
The largest fortunes we hear of in the Roman empire, however, always
remained those ofWestem senators. even in the Later Empire, until in thl' fifth
120
century the governing class in the West lost many of their possessions through
barbarian conquest of areas where some of their great estates lay: North Africa,
Spain, Gaul, and Britain. 14 In the early Principate, in particular, some Romans
acquired immense wealth through the munificence of the emperors, especially
Augustus, who after the civil wars could dispose of confiscated property on a
vast scale. An Italian novus homo who became suffect consul in B.C. 16, L.
Tarius Rufus, described by Pliny the Elder as a man 'of exceedingly low birth'
(i'!fima natalium humilitatt, NH XVI11.37), acquired through the generosity of
Augustus, according to Pliny, a fortune of'about a hundred million sesterces'
(well over 4,000 Attic silver talents), which he proceeded to dissipate by unwise
purchases of agricultural lands in Picenum, although he remained 'in other
respects a man of old-fashioned parsimoniousness' (antiqU4e alias parsimoniae) . 1 :~
But it is the Western senators of around A.D. 400 who are credited with the
most enormous fortunes of all. A famous fragment of the historian Olympiodorus, of Egyptian Thebes (fr. 44, Dindorf or Mueller), gives some figures for
alleged annual incomes in both the richest and the middling senatorial grades.
These are almost beyond belief: even senators of second-order wealth (deuteroi
oiko) are said to have had incomes of 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of gold; they tum
out to include the great orator Q. Aurelius Symmachus (consul in 391), who is
placed among 'the men of middle fortunes' (ton mttrlon). The richest senators are
said to enjoy incomes of 4,000 pounds of gold, plus about a third as much again
in the value of what they receive by way of agricultural produce in kind. (Docs
this perhaps imply that about three quarters of the rents of Western senators at
this period were paid in gold and about one quarter in kind?) Those who held
certain offices were expected to spend lavishly on public entertainments, the
'games', and we hear of vast sums being spent on a single celebration: 1,200,
2,000, and even 4,000 pounds of gold. 16 We have no way of verifying these
figures, but they ought not to be rejected out ofhand. 11 I should say that we can
perhaps take 1,000 pounds of gold as not far short ofHS 4Yz million during the
early Principate (J lb. gold== 42-45 aurei = HS 4,200-4,500}.
I have given some of the figures for the reputed wealth of the great men of
later periods in order to place in better perspective the relatively mean little
estates possessed by even the 'aristocracy' of Classical Greece.
(iii)
Land, as the principal source of wealth
Wealth in the Greek world, in the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods, as
in the Roman empire throughout its history. was always essentially wealth in
land, upon which was conducted the cultivation of cereals (providing the main
source of food) and of other agricultural products, especially those of the olive
and the vine, and also the pasturing of cattle. sheep and horses. The ruling
classes of all the Greek states were always primarily landowners; the oftrepeated notion that the governing classes of places like Aegina and Corinth
were merchants, a 'Kaufmannsaristokratie'. is an invention of modem scholarship (cf. my OPW 266-7, esp. n.61). A citizen merchant who did happen to
make his pile and aspired to lead the life of a gentleman would have to retire and
buy land. 'Agricultural land [agros],' says Amphis. a comic poet of the fourth
III. Property and the Propertied (iii)
121
century B.C., 'is the father of life to man; land alone knows how to cover up
poverty.' 1 For a positive panegyric ofgeorgia (Latin agricultura), in the sense of
'gentleman-farming'. owning a farm (and taking a merely supervisory interest in
it), we can tum to the Oeconomicus of Xenophon, a man of unimpeachably
orthodox and traditional opinions. who wrote the work in question at some
time between the second and fourth decades of the fourth century B.c.z
Farming, in the sense I have indicated, is to Xenophon the noblest of pursuits.
the pleasantest and most agreeable way of gaining a living; it fortifies the body
and instils valour (cf. IV .iv below); to the prudent man who is prepared to take a
keen interest, nothing is more profitable; and above all it is easy to learn and it
affords most opportunities for the useful employment of leisure for the real
gentleman. the kalos kagathos (on whom see OPW 371-6); it is 'most important
both as an occupation [an trga.sia] and as a branch of knowledge [an epistemi]'. 3
Xenophon, like other authors. may speak at times as ifhis fanner would actually
take part in the work of the farm, but it is always understood that in so far as he
does this he does it for pleasure and for the sake of the physical and moral
benefits such exercise can bestow. and not because economic necessity obliges
him to work. Xenophon makes the great Spartan commander Lysander express
astonishment at the very idea that the Persian prince Cyrus could himself have
laid out his magnificent park (paradeiso.s) at Sardis and actually done some of the
planting with his own hands, until Cyrus tells him that it was his principle never
to dine until he had exerted himself strenuously in 'some activity of war or
agriculture' (Oecon.lV.20-5, only partly repeated in Cic.. Cat. mai. 59). Even a
Roman emperor and his heir apparent might choose to get themselves into a
healthy sweat by helping to gather in the grapes, as we hear of Antoninus Pius
and Marcus Aurelius doing on one occasion in the mid-140s.~
I believe that the standard attitude to farming of the Greek and Roman
propertied classes was that expressed by Cicero in the De oratore. as part ofa long
passagl' ([.234-57) in which he argues that just as an orator needs no detailed
acquaintance with the civil law. the ius civile. but can easily pick up whatever he
needs to know tor a pjrtuular case he is conducting, so the landowner can be
content with 'what is a matter ofmmmun knowledge' (hac communi intelligentia,
249): tht natun ofsowinv; .and reaping. the pruning of vines and other trees. the
time of yc:ar ami tht mannc.:r m which such things are done. Such knowledge is
quite sufticit1lt f(lr ~j,.-in~ instrurtJln~ to one's general manager (procurator) or
orders to one's overseer (vilicus).
We ht'ar again and again in Latin writers of some leading figures in the early
Roman Republic who are represented as aftlicted by what Horace calls 'cruel
poverty' (.saeva pauptrtas: Od, l.xii.43): they own very small farms (some of the
sizes given are ridiculous) and actually take part themselves in working them.
Amon~ those who tum up most often arc L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (dictator
458) and M'. Curius Dentatus (consul290, 275. 274). The former, weare told,
was actually at the plough when infonned that he had been nominated Dictator. 5
Yet it is sometimes made dear in the tradition that such men were simply
amusin~ themselves. Cicero, for example, in a passage in his treatise on old age
(Cat. moli. 51-60). first says ht' is going to speak of the 'pleasures' of farmers
(voluptoJtes agricolarum, 51); after mentioning Curius and Cincinnatus he uses of
their a~ricultural activities the words ob{ectabant ('they delighted in them') and
122
delectationt ('with enjoyment'); .md he goes 'm h) show that the sort offarmer he
has in mind is a weU-to-do master (d,,mirm.s). whose tiurnhouse (villa) is wellstocked (locuples} and whose s:orc.hon!'.rt iJ> .filii of wint .and oil and other provisions( 56). Quite diti~rc.-nt w"re the sm.dJ farmer:> whl} actualJy had to work
alongside their slaves: rhc..-y .:in uot t\.mn part \Jf what I ;uu ca:Iing 'the propertied
class'. On the borderlin~ of th;u clas.i W1)uid bt: those who nec..-ded to work with
their slaves only occasionally. They may have been quitt' a l.arge group in the
Greek states of the Classical and Hcllt.'Tlisri.;: penods. (We may compare the
situation in the Ameri"an Old South .as dcscrih~-d hy Stampp, Pl34-5.) As Peter
Garnsey has well said. spcalcing of th~ Roman '}'cc"".J!'ant cult' of the Late Roman
Republic, 'The ideali:>ati'm ~f th\ peasar.t rariarch w JS thc.'fl. JS in the twentieth
century, primarily an expnss11.m. of the nati<'n:tlist idca)logy of the ruling class of
a militarist State' (PARS 224).
In a treatise of Ckc:-ro~ which was cono;:d,:-t>d an :mpo!"tant part of the
education ofthe eightet'!tth-nntury English gentleman~ 'Tully's Offices', it was
then generally called -th(re is 3 much-quoted statement, De o.ffic. I. 15 t, which is
just as characteristic ,,f th, outlook of the Greek as oi rh~ Roman propertied
class: indeed, it is rrobab!y dtri,,;.d fron~ th~ Rhodian Stoic philosopher
Panaetius, of the second century li.C. {He:--e I agree with Brunt's valuable
article, ASTDCS, although I would b" intlined to allow Cicero a rather larger
contribution in some respects thau would Brunt and some others.) The life of
the merchant, we are told, if he.' operates on a very large scale, is not entirely
contemptible; and Cicero warmly commends the merchant who, 'sated (or
rather, satisfied) with his profits. retires from the harbour to the fields ... But
still,' Cicero concludes, 'ofall means of acquiring wealth there's nothing better,
nothing more profitable, nothing sweeter, nothing more worthy of a free man,
than agricultura' - which here also means, of course, not working a farm but
owning one; just as, 'in the writings of the physiocrats, the cultivateur does not
stand for the actual tiller ofthe soil, but for the big farmer' (Marx, Cap. III.604).
Veyne and Finley have expressed the fundamental idea admirably: 'In antiquity
land ownership on a sufficient scale marks "the absence of any occupation" ' (see
Finley, AE 44 and 185 n.l9). The life of the landowner is a lifeofleisure(cf. Cic.,
De offic. I. 92). The peasant farmer who has to work his own land is a very
different creature. In a fragment of the Athenian comic poet Menander, a line
which says that 'farming is slave's work' is preceded by one which explains that
'it is deeds of war by which a man ought to prove his superiority' (fr. 560, ed. A.
Koerte, IF .183). For 'deeds of war'. others might substitute politics or philosophy. athletics or hunting (cf. Section ii of this chapter). Cicero quotes a
passage from a play ofTerence (from a Greek original by Menander). produced
in 163 B.C., in which a character, Chremes, refers to such acts as digging,
ploughing and c~rrying as what Cicero calls illiberalis labor, 'ungentlemanly toil'
(De fin. 1.3)-and indeed in the play itselfChremes strongly advocates leaving all
such work to one's slaves (Heaut., Act I, Sc.i). In Italy in the reign of Nero
farming was regarded by the upper classes as a demeaning employment, a
sordidum opus (Colum., R R L praef. 20). The essential thing is that one should not
need to work for one's daily bread.
The characteristic members of my 'propertied class', then, ar(' essentially
Machiavelli's 'gentry' (gmtiluomini), defined by him in his Discourses on the First
123
Decade of Livy (1.55} as 'those wh<L i:vc a1 !dkn'CS~ on the abundant revenue
derived from thd! estJt;--~. .vtthom h~..-ing auyth~r:g to do either with their
cultivation or wi.th oth~r fvrttb of htmm t>S5.;ntui to life'. 6 But Machiavelli
continues at o~K~. sw:h 1111::1 ~:"c l p;.-st [p,,_r,i~io~til in any republic and in any
province'; and J Httk hrer he- .1dJ~. 'Wh::r~ th(' gentry are numerous, no one
who proposes hl Sd. ur .I rtpl:bhc. c.";ll! S\I~~C("d H!;ks5- he first gets rid of the }of!
(He excepts front his stric:uns thr. .1!'11/i/:;.wlm rf the Venetian Republic, who
'are so in name rarh.:r than in i'O!nr <Jf tJ.rt, t~:.< th(-y do not derive any considerable incOJlll' fmm t~slat\':o: dtL'IT gr~~: wca!~h i~ hlscd on merchandise and
movable good:;'.) The C>tltrJst b.;:twt~n MaduJ.dli's outlook and that of a
wealthy Greek m Hmu:m !5- i~u~r,s:m~; 1\bdn.wdh. ..riting in the first quarter
of the sixtt'enth en:ury. f~)T:sh<dowl' tiw (-C~notmc~.Hy far more progressive
mentality ofth" h-'mgtois s;K!<:ty ;bt w;js. .1hnn; w ~merge.
Ir was axior~IJ.Ii~: m dt~ G::-,<"k :~tlci Roman \\'C'r!,! that the g~ntleman should
own his land aud not be a kss~'l. of H. ;I :m:rc: h'nant. Xcnophon can make
Socrates speak of th. m;a:l who JS (QTK~mnJ o1:ly with his bdoved's appearance
as 'like one wh,, h.as rc-mnl ;; p~tct tlflan.i: his c:ow;.m :s not that it may become
more valuable but that h~: hmasi.if may get the greatest possible amount of
produce out of it; whcrc:1s 1ht m.m whosl' aim is affection (ph ilia} is more like
one who owns his own tJrlll. ii~r he strives with all his might to make his
beloved of greater WOI'th' (8rmp. VIII.25). Among all the ancient thinkers 1
know who belonged (hk.t Xmorlmn and Cicero) to the propertied class, I have
found but one wlw 1:01 (,uJy n,,_~mmends the gentlemanly intdlecrual, the
would-be philnsnph.:r, both t!l -;up~nis\' th~: work cltt his farm and actually to
take pan in it r~~l~Oilol:Jy :UJd work With }no,; ~lWll h;mds, but who also explicitly
says that it doc~ lllll u:at~~r wlll'thn tlw 6rm i' his own property or not. This is
the Roman Ct.[Ucstri.m :md St~lil philnsuplwr of the late first century. Musonius
Rufus, whost- rd.ttivdy t'ulight~md \'itw~ on m.uri.tge I had occasion to refer to
in II. vi abow. In )m disqui!iitiou. 'What llll.';m" llf livelihood befits a philosopher?", a fragmen;, ofwhKh ;s prcscrv.:d by Stobaeus, there is a veritabk paean
of praise of t:umil:~ auJ till' p;a;<;h\n) lif;.. Muslmiu" >~ays that the earth repays
many times mtr tlw dforl th.IC i" JUt inhl lwr anal gi\es an abundant supply of
the necessiti'~ nf liti: to tht> tuan who is wtllmg to work; and he adds, in a
charming phrasl!, th:u she do~-s this in such .t ''".a!' JS to preserve dignity and
without giving .my i,ffi=JC~ ; One m;ay ;;uspta rh.u Musonius was indulging in
a Aight of fancy .m.t t(kah:~o:ng ;1 stttMtiou nf which. as a Roman equestrian, he
had had no real, .:hrl'n, p~.r~onal t'xpentnc~. n>n:rr perhaps by occasional free
choice. HoWL'Vt'r, ht is ilt ltasl tryir~~ h: lk1l with rhe real world, unlike that
curious Epicur~:tlli!JJdlllliiast. Diogenes uro~-rKI.tnlk a figure known to us only
through the \'~r'\' Ion~ IUSfnption he put ur ju hi-.ll.ltl\'e city in Lycia (south west
Asia Minor) .-.roun(l A. D. 20cl: a nnntl~ pubh::olted fragment of this depicts a
future Gold,u :\g~ in w luch - if rht' t~xt ha!i l>wnl<'rrectly restored- everyone
will take part not (lnly in ~h~ study ofphU~~s~1ply but m agricultural and pastoral
activities. H
When Plotinus, a leading philosopher of the third century ofthe Christian era,
is discussing what makes men rich or poor (Enn. II.iii.14), the first cause of
wealth that he notices is inheritance; and when he turns to riches acquired by
labour (ek pon6n), his one example is 'from farming'; the only other means of
124
acquisition he n,)tli:t"s is no: radt:" or h:,iusny. hut 'tiuding a treasure'. There is

one notorious example of ~hb Ti. Cl.mJIUs A:ti,w; (rhe father of the great
sophist, Herodeli Atrims). dt dw \'~ry md ofthi.' fir')t <tntury, found a large sum
of money in hi!. hunsl' .1: Atltt:m: dltbnu~~il. ~ lh~~ronzcff says, this was in
reality 'not a treasure hla pmbahi~ mon:::y bddt"J: hy Herodes' grandfather,
Hipparchus, in the trmtblou~ eun~~ ,,f D..mti~!au's ?''rsc.,utions (of which Hipparch us was himsdf a victim)"." At th~ othcr ,~td vf th~ social scale, Horace in
one ofhis Satires imagines a poor \VIg!'-lab,)u:-tr (a ml'r.;mtUJrius) finding by good
luck a silver trea~urc (an 11m;; ar:(mti) whkh tm.tbks hint to buy the farm on
which he works :sat. Il.\'1. 10- uf
Here and ther~. of cours,. a pour man mif,;ht acquire property through the
exercise of some t'Xl't'ption.tl pl'T"-OII.d siolt ;;.~ " soothsayer or doctor or poet or
politician, or, in thl Roman period, as an :nh-o,.ut" or (.t.spccially in the Later
Empire) a soldier, although his chancl'!> of r1!1!ag high in some of these ways
(politics and advocacy m particular) wuuiJ be smaU if be had not received a
proper education from .1 ""dl-to-du tatbt'r m tht tlr-;t pl:.~ce. A political career
always offered tht gn,ttt:"St po~s;hilitkS of rwtit, h) th<l~L' WhO Were qualified for
it, but politics was arduou~ and wry no;ky. and :u thC' hit;hesr levels anyway it
was a full-time job and therdorc npcn onlv ttl l m.m who was well-off already;
and in the Classical period, unless om had tnherittJ r-iitical aretr (competence
and 'know-how') by being born into rh~.. ri~ht surt ,,f tiuuily, one would have
tittle chance of rising to the top.
Occasionally -less often, I believe. than is generally supposed-a man might
rise from poverty to riches through trade or manufacture. Personal participation
in trade or industry, however, would so seriously affect one's life-style that one
could hardly hope to be accepted in the best society; and there are many
denunciations of such activity in the literary record. Philostratus, writing in the
second quarter of the third century of the Christian era, was anxious to exculpate
the Athenian orator !socrates, who had lived some six centuries earlier, from the
charge of being an aulopoio.s ('oboe-maker' would be a less misleading translation than the usual 'flute-maker') leveJled at him by the comic poets (see my
OPW 234-5 and n.7). PhiJostratus will admit that !socrates' father Theodorus
was an aulopoios, but he insists that 'lsocrates himsdfknew nothing about auloi
or anything else connected with banausic activity, nor would he have been
honoured with the statue at Olympia if he had worked at any mean occupation
(Vita soph. 1.17; I am tempted to recall Arist., Pol. VIII.6. l341aH~-b8, a diatribe
against the aulos). The practised advocate Libanius, in the late fourth century.
knew even better how to defend a man on such a charge. When the Senate of
Constantinople refused to admit the wealthy Thalassius of Antioch to its ranks
because he was said to be a cutler, Libanius retorted that Thalassius. like the
father ofDemosthenes, simply owned slaves wh(! made knives (Orat. XLII.21);
and that made all the difference, because by leaving one's slaves to work under
the supervision of a manager (who would himself be a slave or freedman) and
living on one's landed property one could enjoy the life-style of a gentleman as
well as anyone else, even if (as would rarely happen) the larger part of one's
income came from the slave artisans. That was precisely the situation of the
prominent fifth- and fourth-century Athenian politicians like Cleon and
Cleophon and Anytus who are satirised by Aristophanes and other comic poets
125
as tanners and leather-sellers and cobblers and potters and cattle-dealers and
lyre-sellers: since politics, at any rate at the top level, was a full-time occupation
in a Greek city, ifone was a politician one would not go in personally for trade or
industry (see OPW 234-5, 357, 371). It would only be among the snobs like
Aristophanes that one would then 'lose face' because one's fortune (or, more
likely, that of one's father or even grandfather: see OPW 235 n.7) originally
came from industry or trade. Not a few of those among Aristophanes' audience
who laughed at his nasty little jokes about the 'demagogues' he so detested must
have been tradesmen of one sort or another and are not likely to have felt
demeaned by their calling (cf. IV.vi below)- although of course they would
probably all have been glad to escape from the practice ofa trade and settle down
as landowners if they could. The ideas of a dominant class (at least if it is not a
conquering, alien race) are always accepted in some measure by those it exploits,
and most ofall (as modem experience shows) by those who are near the top level
of the exploited and see themselves as about to rise into the ruling class. And
most of the words used in Greek to express social qualities and distinctions were
heavily loaded with the moral overtones which had always been associated with
them (cf. VII.iv below), so that the poorer Greek would fmd it hard to avoid
expressing himself in the very terms which proclaimed his unworthiness.
The situation I have depicted remained true ofthe Greek world (as of the Latin
area of the Roman world) throughaut its existence. Marx noticed that 'the secret
history of the Roman Republic is the history ofits landed property' (Cap. 1.81
n.l, on p.82). In Rostovtzefrs remarkably fuH survey of the evidence, in his
great work on the social and economic history of the Roman empire, there are
several statements which may give a misleading impression if taken by themselves, to the effect that, for instance, 'The main source oflarge fortunes, now
[A.D. 69-192] as before, was commerce' (SEHRE 2 153, cf. 157); or, 'Commerce, and especially foreign and interprovincial maritime commerce, provided the main sources of wealth in the Roman empire [in the first two centuries
of the Christian era]' (ibid. 172). And the second of these statements continues
immediate! y, 'Most of the nouveaux riches owed their money to it [commerce].'
In these and other cases, where Rostovtzeff speaks as ifcommerce were the main
source of Roman wealth, he has in mind new fortunes, cases of upward social
mobility, in which men rose from below into the propertied class. In this he may
well be mainly right. But in the continuation of both the passages I have just
quoted, as elsewhere, Rostovtzeff shows he recognised that large profits made
by commerce would not be re-employed in commerce so much as invested in
something quite different: land above all, also perhaps mortgages, moneylending, even industry (ibid. 153, 172, 218; cf. 17, 57-8, 223-6 etc.). He knew
that commerce took second place to agriculture in the economic life of the
empire even in the early Principate (ibid. 66), that agriculture was of 'capital
imponance', that 'it is no exaggeration to say that most of the provinces were
almost exclusively agricultural countries', and that 'the largest part of the
population of the empire was engaged in agriculture, either actually tilling the
soil, or living on an income drawn from the land' (ibid. 343); the rural population
had 'enormous importance ... for the empire in general', far exceeding rhe city
population in number; and indeed 'the country people who tilled the soil formed
an enormous majority of the population of the empire' (ibid. .345-6). In his section
126
on the African provinces in the period A.D. 69-192 he can say that 'in every case
where we can trace the origin of the large fortunes of wealthy municipal nobles,
we find them to have been derived from ownership ofland' (ibid. 331). Even
what looks at first sight like 'wealth derived from industry' may tum out on
closer examination to be wealth derived from ownership of the land on which
the industry was carried on. This was half realised by Tenney Frank several
decades ago. Referring to the great development of the brickyards on the estates
near Rome of the Domitii (beginning with the sons of Domitius Afer, the
famous orator, who died in A.D. 58 and whose great-granddaughter was the
mother of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius}, he said. 'And yet the wealth of this
family was probably not thought of as coming from "industry" so much as
from a careful exploitation of the resources of their landed estates. ' 10 This is
perfectly true. But Frank went on to describe this as 'practica11y the only
instance in a thousand years of Roman history in which wealth derived from
industrial succt'SS contributed to political distinction' (ibid., my italics}, a statement we can now recognise to be incorrect, for recent researches by a team of
Finnish scholars at Rome have shown that there is no reason to suppose that the
Domitii and similar landowners whose names appear (as owners of praedia or
even jiglinae) on brick-stamps had any direct connection with brick-making. 11
For the period of the Roman Principate and Later Empire I need do no more
than refer to Rostovtzeff's great work, cited above. to A. H. M.Jones's ma~num
opus (LRE), and to two valuable papers by Jones, one on 'The economic life of
the towns of the Roman Empire', 1955, and the other on 'Ancient empires and
the economy: Rome', 1965, published 1969 (both are now conveniently reprinted in jones, RE 35-60 and 114-39}. In the Later Roman Empire there is if
anything an even greater volume of evidence than in earlier periods for the
overwhelming predominance of agriculture in the economic life of the empirein the eastern provinces as much as in the Latin West, although the concentration
oflanded property in a few hands seems to have been much less marked in the
East. This predominance of agrirulture over trade and industry can now be
taken for granted. I propose, however, to give here some half a dozen
interesting pieces ofevidence (which are not all as well known as they should be)
from the legal codes: these concern mainly the position of decurions, the
members of the local Town Councils, about whom I shall have a good deal to
say in VIII.ii below. These legal texts are particularly valuable because virtually
all men of substantial property who were not exempted through being honorati
(members of some superior grade in society) were by now obliged to become
members of their Council and thus assume the sometimes heavy financial and
administrative burdens involved.
Callistratus, a Roman lawyer of the first half of the third century. is quoted in
the Digest (L. ii.12) as saying that 'those who deal with goods and sell them' (qui
utensilia negotiantur et vendunt) are not excluded from the decurionate or from
municipal office, and should not be disdained as 'viles personae', even though
they are liable to be flogged by the aediles. Nevertheless, he says he thinks it
unbecoming (inhonestum) for such persons to be received into a municipal
Council, especially in those states which have a supply of viri hont'sti: it is only a
deficiency of the latter which makes it necessary to aJJow the former to have
access to a dignitas municipalis.
127
The Emperor Julian in 362 exempted dccurions from the collatio lustra/is
(chrysargyron in Greek), a tax payable during most of the fourth and fifth
centuries by tJtgotiatorts, a term which by then had come to mean 'tradesmen in
the widest sense, including manufacturers. artisans, merchants, shopkt>epers,
moneylenders etc. 12 In so doing he added to his edict the words 'unless perchance it should prove that a decurion is engaging in trade in some way'- as if
this were an unlikely contingency. (The law is CTh XII.i.50 = XIII.i.4: 'nisi
forte decurionem aliquid mercari constitcrit' .) In a constitution of364, rclaling
to the payment of the same tax, the Emperors Valentinian I and Valens subject
even 'the more powerful men' (potiom) to the collatio lusrralis 'if indeed they
make a practice of trading' (si tamtn his mt:rcatJdi cura est); and they add that any
such member of the potiorts 'either ought not to involve himself in trade' or
ought to be the first to pay the tax (CTh XIII.i.5)- evidently such men were
exceptional.
Another imperial constitution. of 370, opens with the words, 'If any trader
[t~egotiator] should purchase farms and be called to his local Conncil as the holder
of landed property', and ends by saying that such a man is to be 'subject to the
compulsory public burdens of that Council to which he gave himself of his own
accord by converting the ust" of his money into the profit of agricultural land
(CTh XII.i.72). In 383 the emperors thought it necessary to pass a special law
permitting the enrolment on the city Councils of the Danubian province of
[Lower] Moesia ta of 'men from among the common people, rich in the possession of slaves', to prevent them from evading their financial obligations:
these men are evidently owners of workshops who would otherwisc have
escaped enrolment because of having little or no land (CTh XIJ.i.96: Clyde
Pharr badly mistranslates this text, TC 356). Finally, by a constimtion of 408 or
409, Honorius altogether forbade 'those who are decidt>dly noble by birth or
resplendent with honours or notably rich in property to carry on trade, to the
detriment of the cities, so that the intercourse ofbuying and selling may be easier
between commoner and merchant' (Cj IV.Ixiii.3). 1t Dccurions were not even
expected to take the kind of salaried post known as procuratio, managing someone else's property as bailiff: for a decurion to accept such a post is described in a
constitution of 382 as 'the most infamous baseness', involving 'servile obsequiousnt'ss' (CTh XII.i.92 = CJ X.xxxii.34). But this is a subject which falls
to be treated under the general heading of 'hired labour' in Section vi of this
chapter and its n.4.
In addition to the evidence cited above from the legal sources, it is worth
mentioning the inscription recording tht> fact that Q. Sicinnius Clarus. imperial
legate ofThrace, when constituting the posting station ofPizus as an emporion in
202, said he had put in charge of this and other newly founded tmporia (all below
the rank of city) 'not commoners engaged in tradl.' but toparchs [distrilt magistrates] who are city councillors'ts- probably of Augusta Traiana, the modem
Stara Zagora in Bulgaria.
A decisive argument for the predominance oflanded wealth over commercial
wealth in the Greek and Roman world is that in the Later Empire even the
navicularii (naukliroi in Greek), who were:: responsible- tor government shipments, mainly of com to Rome (and after 330 to Constantinople as wdl), wereprimarily landowners, to whose estates was attached the navicularia.fimctio, the
128
burden of making the prescribed shipments. 16 We even hear from Callistratus,

in the Di~est (L.vi.6.6 & 9, citing rescripts of Marcus and Verus. and of
Antoninus Pius), of men who as early as the mid-second century enrolled
themselves in the corpus naviculariornm, purely in order to obtain the valuable
immunity they would thereby receive from other public burdl'ns, although
some of them actually owned no ships at all! (It was to navicularii alone, by the
way. and notas recently stated by Cardascia and Garnsey 17 - to negotiatores or
negorianres in general. that Constantine and Julian gave the honour of equestrian
status, by laws which have not survived but are referred to in a subsequent
constitution ofGratian and his co-emperors in 380: CTh Xlll.v.16.pr.) Finally.
tax-farmers (publicani, telonat), who continued in the Roman Empire to farm
most indirect taxes (such as customs and market dues, and taxes on inheritances,
slave manumissions and auction sales), must not be thought of as a group
distinct from landowners: they had in fact to give security in freehold landed
property for the due performance of their obligations.
In his fascinating story of the very able Antoninus. who 'defected' to Persia in
359, Arnmianus begins by calling him a 'wealthy merchant' (opulmtus mercator)
and goes on to tell how he then took a not very exalted civil service post as an
accountant under the military governor of the province of Mesopotamia: this
was evidently a potential rise in status. and it led in due course to the honorary
rank of protector (Amm. Marc. XVIII.v.l ff.; cf. VIII. iii below).
* * * * * *
What I have been saying about the minor role of commerce and industry in
the fortunes of the propertied classes of the Greek world throughout its existence is almost universally true, but there are of course exceptions. I am thinking
not so much of individuals: the vast majority of those who rose into the propertied class by their own efforts in trade or industry would be certain to become
landowners when they could. I have in mind a handful of cities, the dominant
class of which either certainly or probably included a substantial proportion of
merchants. They are not easy to find and may not have amounted to more than
one or two. I am not concerned here with the Latin West, where Rome's port
Ostia (which had only a small tmitorium) stands out as perhaps the one Western
city in which far more wealth came to the local notables from commerce than
from land. 111 Lugdunum, Arelate and Narbo. the three great emporia ofRoman
Gaul, and also Augusta Treverorum (Treves, Trier), were certainly in a sense
commercial towns, in that a large volume of goods passed through them; but
the governing class in each case (the magistrates and decurions) seem to have
been almost entirely landowning, while a high proportion of those who acquired
wealth through trade and industry seem to have been freedmen or foreigners. 111
The leading 'commercial city' of the whole empire. Alexandria. undoubtedly
had some rich merchants among its citizens, but I know of no evidence whether
they accounted for any substantial proportion of its governing class: I should
be astonished if they did. One of its citizens, Firmus, is said by one very base
source, the Historia Augusta (Finnus 3.2-3). both to have been a merchant and
to have aspired to the imperial power, in some kind of unsuccessful revolt
against the Emperor Aurelian (in 272). If both these statements are correct,
Firmus would certainly be unique; but thc first may not be true. and the second is
Ill. Property and the Propertied (iii)
129
probably at least a great exaggeration. The whole story, indeed. may be fictitious
(see Bowman, PRIH 158). Otherwise, I know of no specific evidence for rich
merchants at Alexandria except in three late hagiographic sources. which - for
what they are worth- speak of fortWles that work out at about 275, 70 and 50 lb.
gold (see jones, LRE 11.870-1; RE60, 150). But even the largest of these, from the
Hisroria Monachorum 16 (in MPL XXI.438c), ifexpressed in the way it might have
been in the early Principate, would have come out at not very much more than HS
I million, the minimum qualification ofa Roman senator, and neither of the other
two would have reached the equestrian qualification ofHS 400,000.
In the East, the one certain example of a city which must surdy have had a
governing class consisting at least partly of merchants is Palmyra, which was of
no great importance until well into the last century B.C., but then grew rapidly
into a prosperous commercial city. until its period of affluence was ended by its
sack by Aurelian in 272. Palmyra gained much ofits wealth from its control of a
considerable part of the profitable caravan trade with the East. 20 Petra may well
have been another such town, on a rather smaller scale, and I suppose there may
have been one or two more. :n
Mention of Palmyra and ofits vital role in the Eastern trade reminds one of the
customs duties, sometimes heavy. which were levied there and at some other
places on the eastern frontier of the empire on all imports and exports. There is a
nice little story in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana (l.xx) about a journey
to the East made by Apollonius, who left the Roman empire at Zeugma on the
Euphrates. The tax-collector took Apollonius up to the notice-board and asked
him what he had to declare. Apollonius replied with a string offeminine nouns:
'Temperance, Justice, Virtue, Chastity, Courage, Perseverance'. The taxcoUector took these to be female slaves, who were sometimes given such names
and on whom export duty would have to be paid -we know that th<.> duty on
prostitutes at Coptos in Egypt in A.D. 90 was as much as HS 108 or 27 denarii
each (OGIS 674.16-17: 108 Egyptian drachmae). So he demanded a list of the
girls. 'Ah,' said Apollonius, sententious as ever, 'it is not slave-girls I am taking
out, but ladies to whom I am slave (despoinas).'
* * * * * *
We need not doubt that Greek (and Roman) landowners took care to dispose of
the products of their estates in ways as profitable to themselves as possible.
Naturally. this will normalJy have involved arranging for its transport to the
nearest market, but we have extraordinarily little evidence about this kind of
activity. I cannot believe that members of the propertied class (in my sense) would
themselves take their produce even to their city market if they could help it, let
alone transport it across the sea, or otherwise indulge personally in commerce.
Solon may be taken as a test case. for modem works constantly state it as a fact
that he went on sea journeys as a merchant both as a young man and after the
passing ofhis laws in 594/3 B.C. The source most usually quoted for the latter
statement is Aristotle (writing near1y three centuries later), who certainly speaks
of Solon's voyage to Egypt after 594 as 'combining business with pleasure'; he
went, says Aristotle, kat' emporian hama kai thtorian (Ath. pol. 11.1). However. it
is very interesting to find that our earliest witness by far, namely Herodotus
(1.29.1), when giving both a pretext and a cause for the later voyage (to Egypt
130
The Class Struggle;,., the Ancient Greek World
and elsewhere), says not a word about trade: Solon's pretence was that he
wanted to see the world, the real reason was that he wished to avoid being
"'Pressed to repeal his laws. And I suggest that Aristotle's expression, kat' emporian hama kai thforian, has not been correctly understood: precisely what it
means can best be discovered from its occurrence in a text of the early fourth
century B.C., !socrates XVII (Trape.ziticus) 4 :._the only other example of the
phrase that I have been able to find. The speaker, a young man from the 'Pontic
kingdom' in the Crimea, says that when he sailed ro Athens, his father, financing his journey, sent with him two ships loaded with com; and here it is very
significant that the expression used is precisely the same as the one Aristotle was
later to use for Solon's travels: the young man went hama kar' emporian kai kata
theorian, the single 'commercial' activity being undertaken for the enlargement
of his experience rather than an economic purpose. The phrase in question,
identical (except for the word-order) in !socrates and Aristotle, may have been a
familiar expression in the fourth century, since it is likely that any Greek who
was sailing about from one place to another in the Mediterranean world might
take some of the products of one place to seJl at a profit in another, as a means of
paying for his travels. One of the stories in Diogenes Laertius (VJ.9) about
Antisthenes tells of another 'Pontic youth who financed a stay at Athens with a
shipload of another commodity that was regularly exponed from the Pontus to
Athens: salt fish. And even Plato is said by Plutarch to have financed his visit to
Egypt by selling olive oil tht:Il' ;_,s,,[,, 2.H). As for Solon, Plutarch (who was
writing nearly seven centuril'"'i .lti:crwanlo;) ;~]must .tgrees with Herodotus when
he says that Solon's real mouw for sailing .tw.ty fnun Athens after 594 was the
hope that the Athenians would ~row to ancrt hb bws. hut he rejects Herodotus
in favour of some unknown wr:.tc-r when he- maintains that Solon gave out that
he was leaving Athens on account ufhts t~auklcria, winch ~}ught to mean business
interests as a shipowner (Sol. 25.fl}. Plutarch also quot~-s a statement by the
unreliable Hellenistic biographer Hennipruo; that when Sulon was a young man
h~ tried to repair his family fortunes. lar~ely tlisl'irattd by his father's many acts
of charity (a nice moralising touch!). by going in ti.>r commerce (emporia);
against this, perhaps remembering Herodotus, Plutarch says we are also told
that Solon travelled 'for the sake. llf gainin~ experience and knowledge [polypeiria and historia] rather than money-making [chrematismos]' (Sol. 2. 1; cf. Mor.
41 Oa). Evidently the participation of Solon in l:Lnmwr("t'" was a story that grew
with the years and the telling.
It is essential to realise that just as Hesiod had represented trade as a pis alter for
the peasant who was unable to make a living from the land (see V .i below), so in
Solon trade heads the list of activities to which a man may be driven who is
propertyless (achremon) and under the compulsion of poverty (penie, fr. 1.41 ff.):
and clearly the merchant's life in Solon's mind is a hard and dangerous one.
After the trader comes the agricultural labourer who hires himself out by the
year (fr. 1.47-8): this is the sole reference we have from early Attica to such
people except for the name of the lowest of Solon's four property-groups, the
thetrs, a word which normally means wage-labourers. Next in the list we have
the artisan; and then- incongruously, to our way of thinking- the poet, tht'
seer, and the doctor. Actually, Solon docs not speak slightingly of any of these
people. even of the trader or the labourer or the artisan: in this he is exceptional.
131
His own basic outlook is surely that of the landed gentleman (see esp. frr. 1. 3-16;
13; 14.1-3; 24.1-7).
It is probably as a result of the elaboration in the Hellenistic period of such
tales as those I have mentioned above concerning Solon that Plutarch (Solon
2.6-8) was ready to contrast what he took to be the conditions of the Archaic age
with those that obtained later and in his own day, and declare that 'in those time.s
[the Archaic period] work was no disgrace' (these four words are a quotation
from Hesiod, WD 311), a trade or craft (a technl) brought no stigma (di12boli?).
and commerce (emporia) was in good repute, as it gave a man familiarity with
foreign countries, friendship with kings and a wide experience of affairs; some
[merchants] became founders of great cities, as Protis of Massalia. 22 And then
Plutarch, before concluding with the remark about Plato which I have already
quoted, adds, 'They say that Thales and Hippocrates the mathematician went in
for commerce'- but the surviving sources referring to Hippocrates' alleged
activity as a merchant (emporos) are even later than Plutarch (see Diels-Kranz,
FVSH 1 no.42.2,5), and the only story preserved about Thales' alleged commercial activities' is the one familiar from Aristotle, about how Thales secured a
monopoly by hiring all the olive-presses ofMiletus and Chios on one particular
occasion, with the justified expectation ofsecuring a large profit, in a year which
he foresaw would produce an exceptional crop of olives! (Pol. l. 11, 1259a5-21;
cf. Diog. Laert. !.26). Plutarch is able to cite no good evidence ofany kind for his
statement about the situation of traders in the Archaic period.
We also happen to know that in the first half of the sixth century Charaxus of
Lesbos, son of Scamandronymus and brother of Sappho the poetess, sailed to
Naucratis in Egypt; and according to Strabo (who ofcourse lived more rhan half
a millennium later) Charaxus brought to Naucratis a cargo of Lesbian wine, kat'
emporian (XVII.i.33, p.808; cf. Athen. Xlll.596b-d).lfthatis true, Charaxusmay
have been deliberately trying to obtain a higher price for his wine by cutting out
the middle-man; or he may simply have been 'seeing the world', and the sale of
the wine may have been merely incidental and a means of financing his voyagethere is no evidence to show whether the journey was a single or a repeated one.
It is characteristic of the sources for early Greek economic history. by the way,
that we only hear of this visit ofCharaxus to Naucratis because Cbaraxus, while
in Egypt, happened to become enamoured of a famous courtesan. named
Doricha (or Rhodopis, but this may have been her nickname), a mesalliance for
which he was apparently reproached by his sister in a pocm known to Herodotus (II. 134-5, esp. 135 .6) but not to us, and perhaps sympathised with in some
fragments recovered not long ago among the Oxyrhynchus papyri (5 and lSb
Page: see Page, SA 45-51; contrast Gomme, in]HS 77 [1957] 2589). Gomme,
in his attack on Page's interpretation of Sappho, frr. 5 and 15b, takes very
seriously the words kat' m~porian in Strabo, and teels able to add scornfully, 'so
much for the family of"noble birth and high fashion" ' (a phrase ofMurc 's). But
the family surely was an aristocratic one, and we have seen from Isocrates and
Aristotle what kat' emporian is capable of meaning in such contexts.
What is referred to as 'trade' or 'commerce' in the Archaic period and even
rather later may prove on inspection to be something very different from the
activities now connoted by such expressions. Take for example the story quoted
132
by Athenaeus (VI.232ab) from Theopompus (FGrH 115 F 193), concerning

events that occurred in the 470s .B.C. Architeles the Corinthian, who had by
degrees bought up a large quantity of gold, sold it to the emissaries ofHiero, the
tyrant of Syracuse, adding a handful of gold by way of gift. In return, the
grateful Hiero sent Architeles a shipload of com and many other gifts as well.
This transaction partakes not only of trade in the proper sense, but also of the
ancient practice of gift-exchange between aristocrats. I may add that I know of
no specific reference to the conduct of'the com-trade of the cityofCorinth', in
the proper sense, except the statement of Lycurgus (see OPW 265) that the
Athenian Leocrates, some rime after 338 B.C., settled as a meric at Megara, and
while living there shipped com from Epirus to Leucas and thence to Corinth.
(That Corinth did sometimes import com from the West is made very probable
by the reference in Thuc. III.86.4 to the export of com from Sicily to the
Peloponnese; for Lechaeum, the western port of Corinth, is perhaps the most
likely place to which such com would go.)
Pericles is said by Plutarch (Per. 16.4) to have sold the whole produce of his
estate on a single occasion each year, as if this were exceptional; devoted as he
was to politics, he did this, we are told, with the aim of wasting as little rime as
possible on such things, and through an able slave, Evangelus. This may be true,
but once more it is the kind of thing Hellenistic biographers were fond of
inventing.
I agree with a recent statement by Pleket that 'it is on predominantly local
markets that urban landowners will have sold their products (com, oil, wine)',
using as intermediaries 'either their freedmen or independent negotiatores'. 23
However, I think that in the latter part of the same paragraph, beginning,
'Perhaps we are all brought up too much with the idea that the aristocracy in
antiquity was an exclusively landed elite', Picket puts too much emphasis on the
'commercial interests of landowners', which were very minor. Our evidence
about the way in which landowners dealt with the produce of their estates is too
scanty for us to be able to produce a confident picture, though we may agree
with Picket that in the Later Roman Empire the widespread decline of trade is
likely to have forced many landowners to take more active steps to promote the
sale of their crops. The essential facf is that these landowners always remained
primarily landowners, and that any 'commercial' activities they might indulge
in never became more than a minor and wholly subsidiary part of their activities. It is oflitde significance that Rufinus ofPergamum (as Pleket notes) had a
shipowner in his service (an idios naukleros): that must have been quite a common
phenomenon. According to Libanius, a rich man could be expected to possess
ships, along with land and gold and silver (see Liebeschuetz, Ant. 75 and n. 7).
We may also remember Myrinus ofZcJeia in Phrygia, praKmateutis (Latin actor)
of a landowning noblewoman, Claudia Bassa, who according to his own
epitaph not only collected his mistress's rents for thirty-five years but also
undertook journeys on her behalf to numerous distant places, including Italy.
Dalmatia, [stria, Libumia and Alexandria. 24 And since, as I have mentioned
above, the navicularii (the government shippers -of com in vast quantitie5, by
the way. from Africa and Egypt to Rome and Constantinople) were landowners
first and foremost, whose estates were saddled with the burden of this duty,
they at least would all have to own ships, which of course they could use for
Ill. Property and the Propertied (iii)
133
their own purposes, in so far as they were not required for government transport.
(iv)
Slavery and other forms of unfree labour

Although ancient slavery has been examined again and again, from many
different points of view, I believe that I am justified in making yet another
attempt to give a general H"eatment of the subject, if only because of three
methodological characteristics of the account I shall present.
First, I hope that I have at least moved the discussion on to a different plane by
conducting the investigation in terms not merely of slavery in the narrow sense
('chattel slavery') but of unfree labour, 1 in its different forms, of which slavery in
the strict sense is only one, and not always the most important in the sphere of
actual production- although, for reasons I shall explain towards the end of this
section, I believe it always played a very significant role.
Secondly, the situation we have to examine, as I see it, is one in which the
propertied class {defined in Section ii of this chapter) extracts the greater pan ofits
surplus from the working population by means of unfree labour. That is a very
different matter from trying to show that in Greek (and Roman) antiquity the
bulk of production was done by slaves, or even (at least until the Later Roman
Empire) by slaves, serfs and all other unfree workers put together- I am sure it
was not: in my opinion, the combined production of free peasants and artisans
must have exceeded that of unfree agricultural and industrial producers in most
places at all rimes, at any rate until the founh century of the Christian era, when
forms of serfdom became general in the Roman empire. I have already ex~
plained, in Il.iii above, why I believe that the significant thing we have to
concentrate on is not the overall role of unfree compared with free labour, but
the role played by unfree labour in providing the dominant propertied classes
with their surplus, a very different question and a much more restricted one, not
so entirely open-ended as the other. In this, I am cenainly following the central
thought of Marx, for whom the fundamental difference between the various
forms ofsociety lay in 'the mode in which surplus labour is in each case extracted
from the actual producer', 'the specific economic form in which unpaid surplus
labour is pumped out of the direct producers' (Cap. 1.217; III.791, cited more
fully in ll.iii above). And in the opinion of Marx, expressed most dearly in the
Grundrisse (156), 'Direct forced labour [direkte Zwangsarbeit] is the foundation of
the ancient world' (E. T. 245)- a statement which must certainly be interpreted
in the light of the passages from Capital which I have just noticed. I accept this. I
think it would not be technically correct to call the Greek (and Roman) world 'a
slave economy'; but I should not raise any strong objection if anyone else wished
to use that expression, because, as I shall argue, the propertied classes extorted
the bulk of their surplus from the working population by means of unfree
labour, in which slavery, in the strict technical sense, played at some periods a
dominant role and was always a highly significant factor.
Thirdly, I have tried to avoid the very common mistake of denying the
existence, or minimising the extent, of slave labour in situations where all we
have a right to assert is that there is no, or little, evidmce for it. The point here is
that we often have no right to expect such evidence. Our knowledge ofthe large-
134
The Cla5s Struggle in the Ancient Greek World
scale use of slaves in production (especially in agriculture, which matters most)

depends JtJ.ainly upon a mere handful of literary texts, even for Athens in the fifth
and fourth centuries B.C. and Italy and Sicily in the late Republic and early
Principate, where we know that slavery was particularly widespread. (1 shall have
much more to say on this topic later, both in this section and in Appendix II.)
I quoted, in II .iii above, statements by Aristotle about the poor or propertyless free man who was obliged to use an ox, or his wife and children, as a
substitute for slaves. But in this section I am not concerned with such people,
who of course were themselves liable to be exploited by the propertied classes to
a greater or less degree, in ways I shall describe in IV .i below. Here I am dealing
with the propertied class and the unfree labour from which they derived the bulk
of their surplus; the poor free man is prominent in this section only in so far as he
fell into debt bondage or serfdom.
* * * * * *
The resources of different languages - Greek, Latin and the various modem
languages - differ greatly in the categories of unfree labour which they make it
possible to distinguish by name; but as it happens there is a set of definitions of
the three main categories I propose to recognise - namely chattel slavery,
serfdom and debt bondage- which today has a very special status. This set of
distinctions is enshrined, for 'slavery', in Article 1(1) of the Slavery Convention
of 1926, organised by the League of Nations; and, for 'serfdom' and 'debt
bondage', in Article 1 of the Supplementary Convention on the abolition of
slavery, the slave trade, and institutions and practices similar to slavery. (The
Supplementary Convention resulted from a conference at Geneva organised by
the United Nations in 1956 and attended by representatives of no fewer than
forty-eight nations.) There is a particularly well-informed account of the whole
subject by C. W. W. Greenidge, Slavery (London, 1958), who gives the full
texts of the two Conventions in his second and third Appendices (pp.224 ff.) and
a summary of their respective first Articles on pp.25-6.
It would be perverse to disregard internationally established practice unless
there is a valid reason for doing so, as there is not in this case, and I shalJ follow it
as far as possible, except that I shall not treat as a separate category the 'forced
labour' which, for reasons of state in the modem world, has been set apart from
'slavery and other institutions and practices akin to slavery'. As Greenidge puts
it (accepting the definitions in the Conventions of 1926 and 1956), 'Slavery is the
exaction of involuntary labour by one individual from another individual to
whom the latter belongs, whereas forced labour is the exaction of involuntary
labour from an individual to a government, i.e. a collectivity, to punish or
discipline the person from whom the labour is exacted' (Slavery 25). According
to the modem definitions in the Conventions referred to above, those who in
the ancient world were mine slaves belonging to individual owners and those who
were criminals condemned by the Roman state to convict labour in the mines (ad
metallum, always in perpetuity) would have to be put in two different categories:
the first would be in 'slavery', the second in 'forced labour'. In antiquity there
would hardly have been more than a technical difference between the two
groups, not significant for my purposes, and I shall therefore treat 'forced
labour' as a form of slavery. (I shall devote only a single brief paragraph to
Ill. Property and the Propertied (iv)
135
convict labour in antiquity.) I may add that compulsory labour services such as
theangariae (see l.iii above and IV .i bdow). which were performed either by free
individuals or by village communities for a Hdknistic monarch or the Roman
state, or for a municipality (including any Greek city), arc dealt with in this book
under the heading of'indirect collective exploitation', in IV.i below.
My own general category of'unfree labour' divides naturally under the three
headings which follow, established by the international Convmtions referred to
above: (A) Slavery. {B) Serfdom, and (C) Debt bondage. At this point I shall
merely describe them briefly, deferring discussion ofeach until later in this section.
A. Slavery is defined in the 1926 Convention as 'the status or condition of a
person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership
are exercised'. I accept this definition of'chauel slavery' (as it is often called) for
the ancient as well as the modern world, the more willingly since what it stresses
is not so much the fact that the slaw is the le,(lal property of another as that 'the
powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised over him'- for the essential
elements in the slave's condition are that his labour and other aftivitirs are rot,zl ly
controlled by his master, and that he is virtually without rights, at any rate
enforceable legal rights. In Roman law, enslavement was regarded as closdy
resembling death (Ulpian, Dig. L.xvii.209: Nov.]. XXI1.9).
It will bc useful if I quote at this point a paragraph from the very thorough
study of'Paramonrclauses' by A. E. Samuel in 1965. After considcring in detail a
large number of documents connected with (inter alia} manumission. Samuel
makes a statement which some might think over-legalistic and framed in rather
too absolute terms, but which nevertheless contains an important truth:
Legal freedom in Greece is essentially a concept of property. The sole meaning of
freedom is that a man has jurisdiction over his property .1nd family, and the concept of
manumission is the concept ofchange of property; a man no longer is property, but has
it. A man's activities can be limited by restrictions. and he can b<.' subject to burdensome obligation, and thCSl' matters do not affect his freedom. If a man can own
property, he is free, and if he is free, he can own property. That is the meaning of
manumission (RPCAO 295).
B. Serfdom is defined in the 1956 Convention as 'the tenure ofland whereby
the tenant is by law. custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land
belonging to another person and rcnder some determinate services tu such other
person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status'. I must
add one qualification: 'render some determinate services', in the conditions of
antiquity (especially the Later Roman colonate, for which see IV .iii below),
need not necessarily mean more than the paying of a determinate rent, in money
or kind or share of crop. It is necessary to recognise that the serf is a peasant (see
IV.ii below) who does not own, or does not fully own, but at least possesses (as
the slave and normally the bondsman do not) the means of production of his
livelihood, usually on a hereditary basis, and who is responsible for providing
his own maintenance (clothing and food) from his own productive efforts (as
the slave cannot normally be), but who is not a fully free man: he is to a
considerable extent under the control ofhis lord. and he is 'bound to the soil' (to
the particular farm on which he labours or to his village). often by law, though
sometimes only by custom or contract, or (see below) by a treaty made on sub-
136
mission to conquest. (To quote Marc Bloch, speaking of the early Middle Ages,
'Neither the barbarian laws nor the Carolingian capitularies contain a line that
forbids tenants to desert their land, or the master to tear them from it. It is the
lord's business to keep his tenants, legally or illegally,' CEHE 12 .260.) The
question of the precise manner in which Late Roman cclcni ofdifferent types and
in different areas were bound to the soil can be left to IV .iii below. I should
perhaps mention here that binding to the soil (to farm or village) was not limited
purely to tmants Jiving and labouring 'on land belonging to another person' (to
quote the 1956 Convention). but that working peasantfreeholdm could also be
bound, although with them it was always their village to which they were tied:
we may call such people 'quasi-serfs' (see IV .iii below). Since there is evidently
in some people's minds a groundless connection between serfdom and 'feudalism', I
must make it dear that although in some or most societies to which the term
'feudal' has been applied (or misapplied) the labour ofserfs has been prominent,
serfdom can exist and has existed (as in the Later Roman Empire) quite independently of anything that is likely to be called (or miscalled) 'feudal' (cf. IV.v
below). At this point I need add only that most, if not all, of the serf peoples we
encounter in the Greek world before the Hellenistic period entered that condition
as a result of conquest by invaders who settled in their territory (cf. Lotze,
MED, esp. 69-79: and see, later in this section, 'II. Serfdom'). We hear in several
of these instances (Sparta, Thessaly, Pontic Heraclea) of treaties or compacts
made between conquerors and conquered, regulating in some degree the future
position of the conquered and in particular preventing them from being sold
abroad. We must not, however. treat conquest by alien invaders as the necessary
genesis of serfdom: as we shall see (in IV .iii below), that of the Later Roman
colonate, for example, had a totally different origin.
C. Debt bondagt is defined in the 1956 Convention as 'the status or condition

arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or those of a third
person under his control as a security for a debt, where the value reasonably
assessed of those services rendered is not applied towards the liquidation of the
debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and
defmed'. In the Greek (and Roman) world there were many different forms of
debt bondage, not all of which, perhaps. are fully covered by the defmition I
have just quoted.
The position of the defaulting debtor in antiquity was always very precarious.
He might often be actually enslaved, legally or illegally -a permanent change of
status. There is a convenient distinction in German between 'Schuldhaft',
corresponding to one form of what I call 'debt bondage', and 'Schuldknechtschaft', actual enslavement for debt. We must be careful to distinguish between
the two. I would call the man concerned a 'debt bondsman' only if he did not
technically become a slave (a distinction of great importance in principle) and if
his condition in practice was such that he might (at least in theory) hope
eventually to become free again: the possibility of a limitation in time of his
quasi-servile status is for me a characteristic mark of the bondsman as opposed
to the slave. (Here myusa~e diffen from thatofsomeothers, e.g. Finley: see his
SD 164 n. 22.) But there was no general technical term in Greek for such a 'man:
see the opening pages of Finley, SO, who has much to say that is interesting,
137
especially on the myth ofHeracles' service to Omphale, and on various fonns of

debt bondage and debt slavery in the ancient Near East, with ample bibliography.
Debt bondage was evidently widespread throughout the Greek world, and
we must not be misled by the fact that the one Greek city we know most about,
Athens, abolished the institution in the Archaic period. This happened when the
legislation that accompanied the stisachthria of Solon (his cancellation of debts),
as early as 594/3 B.C., put anend-ofcourseonlyat Athens-todebt bondage as
well as enslavement for debt in the full sense. I think that those who study Greek
history too often fail to realise what a radical reform this was, and how adroitly
the new law was framed: Solon did not merely (as people often say) 'forbid
emlavement for debt'; he went so far as to forbid 'pledging the body as security'
(me dantizein epi to is somasin), and thereby ruled out all forms ofdebt bondage too. 2
I am aware that I ought perhaps to have made a more careful separation
between the type of debt bondage in which the debtor actually works for the
creditor and that which involves confinement in a prison, whether private or
official (cf. the Latin expression quoted under heading III below: vel privata vel
publica vincula), and also between debt bondage resulting from 'personal execution' and that which can only be effected by order of a court oflaw. To have
made the necessary qualifications, however, would have lengthened the treatment of the subject unduly.
* * * * * *
The definitions I have accepted of my three categories of unfree labour are, I

think, the ones most people would accept for the ancient world. I admit that
they do not always have precise equivalents in modem languages, but I think
that sufficiently close approximations can usually be found. And the three do
correspond to definite situations which we find existing in antiquity, even if the
edges of each category are, so to speak, blurred: a bondsman who has not the
least hope in practice of freeing himself is virtually a slave; a slave who is settled
as tenant ofa piece ofland, with a 'cabin' and a 'wife' and family ('quasi colonus',
as the lawyers put it: see IV.iii below), is in practice far nearer to a serf than to an
ordinary agricultural, industrial or mine slave; and so on.
One contemporary historian of the ancient world, Sir Moses Finley, has a
strong but unreasonable objection to the use of the word 'serf in relation to the
Greek and Roman world. He is perfectly justified in protesting against the rigid
reduction of the ancient work-force to 'only three possible categories: slaves,
serfs and free wage-earners' (AE 65; cf. SSAG 178-9), and he has himself done
much to illuminate intermediate and special categories (see especially his SSAG,
SD and BSF). Of course we must not treat these three categories as real entities,
divided by sharp lines: there were many intermediate or special situations
contributing to what Finley is fond of calling a 'spectrum' or 'continuttm' of
different statuses which in practice shaded imperceptibly into each other (see
II.v above). Yet it seems to me that to decline to draw firm lines inside this
'spectrum' is as capricious as refusing to speak of the colours red, blue, yellow
and the rest, simply because any precise lines ofdivision of the colour-spectrum
must be to some extent arbitrary, and different people would draw them at
slightly different points. Even Finley is perfecdy prepared to speak of 'slaves',
among whom great variations of condition existed, and of 'wage-earners',
138
another term which included very different kinds of status. He also often uses
the term 'peasants', a far broader category (defined in AE 105); he even has a
'peasant spectrum' (AE 104). Yet although his 'peasants' often cry out for a term
that will distinguish the broad group I have defmed as 'serfs', he refuses to use
the word which almost everyone else applies to them and of which there is now
an internationally agreed definition. The reason for this is simply that he insists
gratuitously upon confining the term 'serf to the European mediaeval serf
within the feudal system~ this is clear from his AE 189 n.5 (especially the
reference to Marc Bloch in CEHE 12 .253-4)- where, incidentally, he specifies
several features of serf status, every single one of which can be found (as he
seems not to be aware) in forms of the Late Roman colonate. Pierre VidalNaquet has also stated, equally without good reason, that to speak of serfs is to
create 'une confusion avec l'epoque du moyen-age europeen' (RHGE 40 n.6).
To this I would make a twofold reply. First, there were serfs (in my sense, the
one now officially accepted throughout much of the modem world) long before
the European Middle Ages; and secondly, what we must fear is not 'confusion'
with the mediaeval world, but the failure to notice features that appear in closely
related (though not identical) fonns in Graeco-Roman antiquity and in the
Middle Ages. I may add that the often very acute discussion by Lotze (MED) of
a famous passage in Pollux (IIl.83) which I shall notice presently is also marred
by an unwillingness to treat serfdom (in my sense) as a general phenomenon: for
L9tze, 'Horigkeit' must be specifically 'feudale Horigkeit' (MED 60 ff., at 64-8,
77, 79) -an unnecessary restriction which is not found, for instance, in Busolt
(see GS 1.272-80; 11.667-70 etc.).
Before proceeding further we must acknowledge the fact that the categories
into which we are dividing unfree labour are not those which were employed by
the Greeks or the Romans. They were inhibited from recognising what we call
serfdom and debt bondage as distinct categories, because they divided mankind
into just two groups: free and slave. This was just as true when the Emperor
Justinian issued his lnstitutrs in A.D. 533 as in Classical Greek times. According
to the lnstitutts, all homines (an expression which here. as almost everywhere
else, includes women as well as men) are liberi aut sm~i, either free or slave
(l.iii.pr.). No intermediate or mixed status is recognised. There follows in lnst.].
l.iii.4-5 the statement that there are no differences of legal status (condicio)
among slaves, whereas there ate 'many differences' among the free; the next
sentence speaks only of a division into free-born and freedmen. The main
statement of principle reproduces the very words of another work: the Institutes,
written nearly four centuries earlier, of the jurist Gaius, who probably originated in the Greek East (Gai., Inst. 1.9).
There are various words in Greek -such as pais ('boy') and its variants, or soma
('body')- which ate used on occasion in the sense of'slave', besides the more
standard terms: doulos, andrapodon, oiketis; and there are other expressions in
latin apart from strvus and mancipium, the regular technical terms. All these
words could be used loosely and even purely metaphorically. But for 'serf and
'serfdom' there are no strict technical equivalents in Greek or Latin, and serfdom
is not visible on a large scale in most areas of the Greek world until the Later
Roman Empire, although there were certainly subject peoples in particular
localities who qualify as serfs under my definition or virtually any other. Nor
III. Property and the Propertied (iv)
139
were there standard technical expressions for 'b<ad . gt> ;md the 'bondsman',
although this institution was known throughout tht Crnk world, as I have
already indicated. Thc fundamental division into 'fn.t .md r;!;av~ i~ im d.~i:Ii.,Je in
ancient sources, and I know of only one literary ~tJtt'llll':U i:t ~i~h.... r bro!,!Ua!!L.
which explicitly recognises the existence of a SC"I of lllh"TID~di.t~<> or nzix._,.d
categories: this is a brief and isolated passage (gemrally h~lin;.J :,~ bl' d<'~\'(d
from Aristophanes of Byzantium) in the Onomastif:"l ofJulius Pollux. a Grtt'k
from Naucratis in Egypt who taught rhetoric at A~h~:n:~ in ~h .. l.1t~ :s~nmd
century, in the reign ofCommodus, and who refers~~~ thos(" "bctwt'<''~ fr_,,mJ
slave (metaxu eleutheron kai doulon, III .83). As it star: .:I~. it ~s :.1 vtr;. dt~qr:int in_!!
statement: our text simply gives a short list oflocal pL'OpC~. J.m._,unting !'> smrw
six or seven items, beginning with the Spartan Helots. wlw w~r~ (t>:-ta::lly Stah'
serfs (see my OPW 89-94, and below), and continuing with J misnllJunms
collection of other local peoples, probably of very different sr<tn1s1:s varying
mainly between what we should call freedom and serfdom. (Tlw mil'tino~l work
may well have been more informative- our version of the Orr,I1MstiaWI represents only a Byzantine epitome.) The passage has ofttn bt't"11 Ji!>l':Js-;.cd. The
conclusion of Lotze, in his monograph on it, is that we should set apart, as
essentially free men, two of Pollux' categories, the Argive G~'mnetes and the
Korynephoroi (elsewhere Katonakophoroi) ofSicyon, and sec the remainder as
peoples of 'unfree' condition, in a kind of 'Kollcktivsklavcrci' to their conquerors, akin to (but distinct from) 'feudale Horigkeit' (MEL> 7'J): th,st ;tl"e rlw
Spartan Helots, the Klarotai and Mnoltai of Crete. tht Thrs:-.th.m Pcu~st.il ..Uld
the Mariandynoi ofHeraclea Pontica. To these he would J.d,l sumc peoples of
similar condition known to us from other sources: the Killyrioi or Kyllyrioi (or.
later, Kallikyrioi or Killikyri01) of Syracuse, the Woikiatai of East I.uui~. ;md
perhaps the Bithynians in the tcrritory ofByzantium. 3 With this llargdy .l~rn~.
except that I would unhesitatingly put the 'unfree' peoples in my cJ.tl'gl'ry of
serfs, and bring in certain other serfs who need to be, but seldom are. nwntiontd
in this connection (see under the heading 'II. Serfdom' bdow).
Undoubtedly there did exist in the Greek world a whole range of statuses
between full slavery and complete freedom. But what I want to emphasise here
is the fact, well brought out by the Pollux passage. that the only mixed or
intermediate categories to which the Greeks were prepared to give full recognition were a few individual cases which had established themsdvcs in customary law and were treated as [.,cal exceptions to the general rule that everyone
was either slave or free. A Greek confronted with some peculiar serf-like status
might apply to it by analogy a term that was in strictness appropriate only to
some different but better-known example, as when the word penestai, 4 the
technical term for the subject population ofThessaly, is used for the peasants of
Etruria by Dionysius ofHalicamassus (AR IX. v .4; cf. II.ix.2): or when the verb
heiloteuein, corresponding to the noun Helot, is applied to a group of dependent
people in some other area, or their condition is likened to that of the Helots (seeagain 'II. Serfdom' below). How long these local variations continued is hard to
say. The Pollux passage is timeless: it does not say when these statuses existed,
or whether they had lasted down to Pollux.' own day (or the third/second
centuti'e's B.C., the date of Pollux' probable source, Aristophanes of Byzantium) or disappeared earlier. I suspect that in fact by Pollux' time they were all
140
almost certainly things of the distant past, as the Spartan Helots certainly were
(see below and n.19). If so, we have a significant piece of evidence in favour of
the argument I shall advance later in this section (under heading 'II. Serfdom'),
to the effect that when an area in which forms of serfdom existed was taken into
the Greek or Roman world. those forms tended to decay and ultimately to
disappear.
I must mention here that I shall not be separately discussing on its own the
longest treatment of slavery to be found in any ancient author: Athenaeus
VJ.262b-275b. a mere rag-bag of fragments from Greek writers, assembled
higgledy-piggledy and with no real discrimination or judgment, yet most
valuable as a quarry (if used with discretion), because of some of the passages
from earlier authors which it preserves. I will only refer to a recent article which
contains much bibliographical material, partly arising out of the Athcnacus
passage: Vidal-Naquct, RHGE (1972).
* * * * * *
It is now time to look at each of our three categories of unfree labour in turn.
I. SLAVERY. It seems to me beyond dispute that the magnificent achievements of the Greeks were partly due to the fact that their civilisation was
founded to a considerable degrec on a slave basis. That slave labour was indeed
regarded by the Greeks in general as essential to their way oflife is something I
hope I can take for granted, without having to go to the trouble of proving it by
citing a great deal of evidence. 'Of property,' says the author of the PseudoAristotelian Orconomica I (an early Peripatetic, perhaps Theophrastus), 'the first
and most necessary kind is that which is best and most appropriate to household
management [oikonomikotaton]: namely, the human variety [anthropos]. Therefore we must first provide ourselves with industrious slaves [douloi spoudaioi]'
(1.5,1344a23-5). Immediately after this the author proceeds to distinguish the
two main species of slave: the ordinary worker (ergatis) and the epitropos, the
manager or overseer. (We must not forget that the vast majority of the overseers
we come across in antiquity were themselves slaves or ex-slaves: their essential
role must not be overlooked.) I have referred in Section i of this chapter to a
fascinating passage in the Politics in which, to replace slaves, Aristotle can think
only of the self-moving statues of the legendary artificer, Daedalus, or the
automated tripods of the god Hephaestus (1.4,1253b35-4al). A little earlier
Aristotle had said that a complete household consisted of'slaves and free', and
had described master and slave, with husband and wife, and father and children,
as 'the primary and simplest elements of the household' (1.3,1253b5-7, 14 tT.).
Polybius speaks of slaves, equally with cattle, as being among the essential
requirements of)ife (anankaiai tou biou chrriai, IV.38.4). But I do not feel I need
pursue this matter further. Slavery was a fact of Classical Greek life, and from
the strictly economic point of view (the efficient satisfaction ofmaterial wants) it
was useful. indeed indispensable (cf. Il.i above}. I do not see how the brilliant
civilisation of the Classical period could have come into existence without it.
I should like to quote here a fine passage in Marx:
In the development of the richness of human nature as an end in itself ... at first the
development of the capacities of the human species rakes place at th" cost of the
141
majority of human individuals and even classes . . . ; the higher development of

individuality is thus only achieved by a historical process during which individuals arc
sacrificed; for the interests of the species in the human kingdom, as in the animal and
plant kingdoms, always assert themselves at the cost of the interests of individuals
(TSVII.118).
Now we must not confuse the situation in Grelk Litll'S. even Athens, with
that at Rome, with which I wish briefly to compar" it. Thtn an tWl! !'t:rJr.Ul'
points to be made here. First, the upper classes of Row~ in us gn~.u d~i :'~' h;1d ;j.tl
immensely larger area from which to draw their surphls rhau WM l'VL'r ;1v:ubbk
to the rulers of any Greek city (even fifth-century Adm1~;. ami who H;;mw
became an imperial power its upper classes were mtinitdy uchl"r than the-it
Greek counterparts - and remained so on the whnk l'Wn when mdl\'ldu;.l
Greeks began to enter the Roman senatorial class: sn Sl'ftion ii of this chaptlr.
especially its nn.ll-13, also VI.iv below for emphasi'> lln the vastly gr~:1tl."r ~l~oll(:
of exploitation by the Romans of their provinces in the latl' Republic th-ln h\' th~.o
Athenians of the subject states of their 'empire' in the titi:h l:c.>ntury li.C. Th~
second important distinction between many Greek cities ,mJ n,,mL is tlut
owing to the absence of any real political democrac~ :a th, ltut:!J.n .~nrld. :h~
humbler free men were much more at the mercy of the men of power r!uu ,nn
the poorer citizens of a Greek democracy. But democracy. wlwn it nally W)rk.s
(as it did, for the citizens, at Athens and some other Greek ('itH'~). has ,\.':tain
very important consequences: it gives the whole citizen population cxwnsiv~.
and enforceable. legal rights, and so gives the hwnbler and poorer :iti7c..'ll au
opportunity of protecting himse1f against at any rate th1 mor~ ..xtrc..m~ ti}rms 11f
ill-treatment by the powerful. I am sure that a rich Athcnianofthdifthorfourth
century B.C. who wanted to grab the land of his humble llt'Ighlmur wouh: tlllt
dare to adopt the methods described in the fourteenth satire ofJuvenal and other
sources, which included sending in cattle to trample down the unfortunate
man's crops and thus ruin him and compel him to part with his land cheaply. 5
In a city like Athens, however, just because it was a democracy and the poorer
citizens were to some extent protected against the powerful, 6 the very most had
to be made out of the classes below the citizens. Now metics (free foreigners
residing in the city) could not be milked intensively: they paid a smaJI tax to the
state. but if thc: screw was put on them too hard they would simply go
elsewhere. The essential fact about the slave, however, was that the.> screw could
be put on him in any way the master likLd. because ht was without rights: as I
mentioned earlier in this section, that is one of the distinguishing features of the
slave's condition; mere ownership of the slave as a chattel, a piece of property. is
in the long run less significant, as a feature of his condition, than the unlimited
control over his activities which his master enjoys. 7 Even that windbag Dio
Chrysostom could define slavery as the right to use another man at plcasurc,like
a piece of property or a domestic animal (XV.24). We need not bt surprised,
then, if we find a more intense devdopment of slavery at Athens than at most
other places in the Greek world: if the humbler citizens could not be fully
exploited. and it was inexpedient to try to put roo much pressure on the metics,
then it was necessary to rely to an exceptional degree on exploiting the labour of
slaves. This explains 'the advanc~, hand in hand, offreedom and slavery' in t!te
Greek world, noted by Finley (SCA 72) but left by him as a kind of paradox~
142
entirely without explanation. (Finky is handicapped here, as elsewhere, by his

refusal to think in terms of class categories and by his curious disinclination to
recognise exploitation as a definable characteristic of a class society: see his
AE49, 157.)
The master might 6nJ th.lt h~ got more \)Ill ,,[his slaves by very harsh
treatment: mine sla\'~:;. iu p.artkuJ:,r. (>iil'n sc.Tm to h;tv;: t>c:-er1 worked to death in
quite a short period.~ Th~- Ps~t;do-:\ri~t~ndtan Ot:"NMIIitil I (.5, 1344 435) allots to
slaves just three things: work. pulli~hmmt and tt:>:d. {It is interesting to find
precisely the same list, in rewri.: order. m En:h;.,_ XXX111.24; cf. 26, and
XXIII. tO.) But in sum( kind~ tit work. t''P~\i.tily ;klikd wurk, it might pay the
master better to treat hi,. .,Ia,:.s wd!. .md even perhaps sc: thtm up on their own,
as choris oikountes. 9 :\swell .ts f!hmi! them the stick (literally, as well as metaphorically). he mi~ht even d.angk before thdr ~yt.'> the carrot of ultimate
manumission. But wrutl'\'t>r rh~ uwthod t"mploy,d.. It w.:ts he. the master, who
decided what it was to be. I h.l'."L' nwnticmed alr~.adv (nl'Jr the end ofll.ii above)
that the flogging of sb.vc!i. wa!i. t,wmr:tlly tak~n tor t:r.mtd.. I dare say that except
when slaves were di~l (h(.tp !attn :1 pmiitabk w.1r. for :imt;tnce) most masters
would not treat their ~i.H'l'S ill tfl} irr,lmm:m manner .md work thcm swiftly to
death, for they wer, hum.m c:.tpi.~! .md prt"<iot;s t(~ tho11 n'.tson if for no other.
Some masters might. t.tke particular care ,,f.,law" wlh became ill; but others of
course might follow th, advice t~ith.t~ ~yric.1! .-.!d Rcm.m lal)downer, Caro, by
cutting down the r:ttion~ (f ~kk s).p_,-s or sd!in~ uti" ~h1J'-'<' who were elderly or
diseased, just like decrepit oxen, uld took .md .my thing else that is superfluous'.111 (One may well wmul~r whu \\:ould buy .~Jd or si.::k slaves!) In Varro's
book on agriculture Wt' ;Lad tholt ingrari,z/,;,: (prlsum:tbly malarious districts) it
is better to use mercennaril'. hired hands, r;ttlwr ~lun slaw!\. (Columella would
have such lands let ;.mt tn ttn.mts, Jnd simil.uly those t<)O far away to be
regularly supervised by their own,r.) 11 Sl.tW1- ,m apt w bc thought less expendable than hired labourers: this is wdl illu~rratcd hy .t !\tory tllld by the American
writer. F. L. OlmsteJ. :n .111 Jt:cowu o(hisjt"Urn,--y on tl1'' stt-amboat Fa.~hion up
the Alabama River m 1X55. He saw som~ h.tlr-s ut\utt,m b,ing thrown from a
height down into the ship's hold: the men thruwin~ the bales down were
negroes, the men in the hold Wt'rt Jrishml'l~. l )]ml'>tt.i rm.arked on this to the
mate of the ship. 'Oh,' said the mate. 'tit, m~~~rs arc worth too much to be
risked here; if the Paddies are knocked owrboard or get their backs brokc,
nobody loses anything. ' 12 The slave, representing an investment by his master,
might at least expect to receive enough food to keep him alive and working; if he
were manumitted, this supply might immediately dry up. Epictetus, an exslave who had thoroughly acquired the outlook of a master, took pleasure in
pointing out that the slave who thinks only of gaining his freedom may bC'
reduced, when he is manumitted, to 'slavery much more severe than before'; he
may experience the pangs of disappointed love and 'long for slavery again' (it
seems to be assumed that slaves would never fall in love); and the wretched man
will remember too how in slavery he was fed and clothed and received medical
attention. and he will realise that mere freedom has made him no better off (Diss.
IV.i.33 ff., esp. 35-7; another part of the same passage is quoted in VII .iii below).
It might be thought that slaves before they were frt'ed could nev~.-r have been
of much account. Certainly the position of the slave was always exceedingly
143
precarious_ Hut some sla\'-ts of rich masters wtrr~ :~3l<IWC'1 w i'rosp.::r and ~~vm
acquire libVl'S '"'f rh~ir .1wn. vicarii in Latin. Durin.; dw Rom:m Pr:n.-ip:ttc: ii::J
Later Empire. imperial slans w"'r{naturally iu th~ hcst f'''~ltion r.: do weal f(,r
themsel n~. ~\en before thty h(<.':nt!l' fn"tdtm'll. T ha~ an t\\ o partiru l arlv n~rt~
illustrat!on~ t"lf thi~. Ot!l.' i!> an im.<:rip~iou of tlw rc..-Jgn of Tiblrius (!LS i514 =
EfJl 15R}. set up to a prmiruial mtmbcr of tht' j;.mili.r Ca<f~~lm, Musims
Scurranas, a men: dispensator (l"ashtC"r} in th~.fiscus (the!' provincial !rcasu:-y) of
Gallia Lugdunem;is. 13 The inscnptmn lw.tr!> thl' na.m.-s of no fewer th;u: !ift('l'H
men and one woman 'frum among the numhLr ilfhis. :1irarii, .vim wc-rl' w~th htm
at Romc when hl dRd'. Ail these slaves of~ sl.tv~. cxn:p: rh, "''mnan ..tn r-:1nft:l
to mention tht"ir resp<'t'tivc twtction!'> in Musi"-us htiUS~~hold: th.:on an three
personal .:>1.:rvauts (;~ mlmll), two 'ge-ntlemen ofth.. bt."dchambcr' (:z tliMw!,;). two
men who looktd athr Musicus' silver plate (.rh :.~rge'rltcJi. twu folltllll'1l (pedisequi).
two couks, 3 doctor. a bur.imss mdn.l..;tr (rr.~ri.rt.,t). a. man who (:ontrollrd :h~~
household l~lCplnditure ($11mptwuilti}. am~ a valet {.1 l't'.~tc): th~. .:i.mclion nf the
woman, St:nmda, is nor specified. Muskus evidenth had mh...r riNJ"ir- hnw
many, wr Ju nut know. The other tllustrauon of the pus!iot'S'iion of wt:a hh by ;m
imperial slav~. is th~. EMa Pliny's .Kcount ofRoumJus Drusilh<tnus. \V!w ."l lnr.k
later occupied a similar position t., Musk..1~ Scmr:um~. that ,,f,li>t-o:s:Jwr. m tlw
province ofHithcr Spain in the [('lp:n nfClaudiu..~ (.\;'Jl xxxm. 145). H: \S s;ud
to haw had a !ollwr dish (a latrx) wtt~hin~ 500 lb., tu manutJ.-turc~ whic:h ;J
special workshop had to he ..:onstrun~d. :~nd ~t~>titt nmtp:tmon p1eces (comite.~
eius), wei~hing 250 lb. each- .l rntal ot23110lb. of)ilvrr. Hd(,re dismissing tlus
oflhand as .1 mer~. yAm we should du well w rcmemhLr that Musint:> l:a~llw~,icd
more than mw uudlr-slave to look after lu!> silver plat,! ThC'.;l rather surprising
examples of Wt'althy imperial shv.~ bring out the fact that m the imperial
household, at any rate. some slaves wert." of higher ~tatus dMu mn11: freedmen:
this has recently been stressed in relation to tht. ltllpt-ridl .I~.<Jit"t!>,rl,,,., (;lllll
incidentaJly their vi(arii) by Weaver (SAS, ed. Finley. U2). In tht l,ntr itnl1l:m
Empire the eunuch cubicularii of the Sacred Bedch.unbt..r h~..c;mw lX'f'' lll:t.gt.'s ,,f
great influence (see Section v below). They all began thdr ca.r.'trs ~ ~tt w.;. umi I
the Emperor Leo ordered them to be freed on .tdmtssiun r, the imJlt'Ti:,J
household (C) XII. v .4.pr. ,6, of c. 473). Finley is aminly rigl;t in ..;a ~mg- th.t.t
'much the greatest opportunity for social mobility llY .nnmg rh, imperial
slaves'; and we need not limit this. as he does, to 'tht' fir~! .n:mury oftf t'r. t'
(BSF 244). although it was most conspicuous then.
There was no doubt a certain sensc of backstairs importance and of hierarchy
inside slave households, as there has so often been among the servants of the
upper classes in more modem times. When Libanius. professor of rhetoric at
Antioch during most of the second half of the fourth century. was petitioning
the Council of Antioch to supplement the meagre salaries of his Assistant
Lecturers, by giving them some lands to farm. he pictured them as living in
unendurable squalor: some of them, he said, had only three slaves, others two,
others not even that- slaves who got drunk and were insolent to their masters
'because they belonged to such small establishments' (Orat. XXXI.9-11)Frcderick Douglass, himself a former slave in the Old South. remarked that 'to
be a slave, was thought bad enough; but to be a poor man's slave was deemed a
disgrace indeed': and another ex-slave, Steward, said he had 'heard of slaves
144
The Class Strnggle in rhe Ancient Greek World
object to being sent in very small companies to labour in the field, lest that some
passer-by should think that they belonged to a poor man, who was unable to
keep a large gang' (Stampp, PI 338-9). We certainly hear from time to time in
antiquity of slaves being owned by men described as 'poor' (penett>s), like
Chremylus in the Plutus of Aristophanes (see lines~. 254, with 26, 1105), or at
least as very lowly people. And Sidonius Apollinaris speaks in the third quarter
of the fifth century of the Bretons as trying to entice away the slaves (mancipia)
belonging to a man in his part of Gaul whom he describes, in his lordly way. as
'humilis obscurus despicabilisque' (Epist. III.ix.2). However, we must remember that the various terms in Greek and Latin which are usually translated 'poor'
can sometimes refer to quite well-to-do people: an extreme example is Dcmosthcnes XVIII. 108, where we find applied to the 1,500 particularly wealthy
Athenians who between 357 and 339 were saddled with paying for the trierarchy
not merely the word penetes but even aporoi, a term normally kept for those who
had no property at all, or virtually none.
In the Classical and Hellenistic periods, contrary to what is sometimes said
(e.g. by A. H. M.Jones, SAW in SCA [ed. Finley] 3, and AD 13). a great deal of
slave labour in many Greek states (including Athens) was employed on the land,
which, as we have seen (in Section iii of this chapter), was always by far the most
important sector of the ancient economy. I have had to relegate the evidence to
Appendix II, not because the subject is unimportant, but because it consists
mainly ofsmall scraps which would be uninteresting and indeed often unintelligible t~all but Classical scholars.
Even after the use of slaves in agriculture had declined (a process we shall trace
in IV .iii below), many were still so engaged. The legal writers represented in the
Digest have much to say about slaves and relatively little about hired labour;
letting to tenants is much in view, but perhaps not quite as much as we might
have expected It is simply impossible to make even an informed guess about the
proportion of agricultural work done by slaves and free peasants respective! y.
My impression is that, over all, direct cultivation by slaves was steadily giving
way to letting to tenants during the first three centuries of the Christian era,
although perhaps at very different rates in different parts of the Roman empire.
But, as I shall show in IV .iii, the fact that land is leased must certainly not be
taken to exclude its being made to yield a greater profit to the landowner and/or
the tenant by the use of slaves, who may belong to the lessee or may be supplied
by the landlord as part of what the Roman lawyers called the instrnmentum (the
equipment) of the farm. Sometimes, perhaps, the absence of specific evidence
for slave labour may suggest that relatively few slaves were being used; but it is
very rarely that the evidence can legitimately be pressed in that way, since in
most areas at most periods large numbers of slaves could easily be present
without leaving behind any recognisable sign of their existence. In particular,
above all where the evidence for slaves and freedmen is mainly epigraphic (as it
often is). we must expect ro find two complicating factors: slaves employed in
managerial capacities. especially of course those who emerged as freedmen, are
likely to be heavily over-represented (in epitaphs, for instance): and among
ordinary slaves. agricultural ones are less likely to appear than domestics or
those engaged in some form of manufacture. In this connection it is useful to
glance at th~:: excellent article by Stephane Gsell, ERAR (which I may have no
145
occasion to mention elsewhere, since it deals entirely with Roman Africa).

pointing out that the slaves revealed to us by the African inscriptions were not,
in general, humble agricultural workers: these. as he says, 'disparaissaient sans
laisser aucune trace (ERAR 402). In some periods, especially the Middle and
Later Roman Empire, we may fmd reason to conclude, at least for many areas,
that slaves and freedmen were indeed relatively few and were concentrated at
the top end of the working scale, fulfilling mainly managerial functions. This,
however, must not lead us to depreciate the importance of slavery in production, 13a but rather the reverse, for there could be nothing of greater interest
to the propertied classes than making the largest possible profit out of their
landed estates, and the direction and control of the labour on those estates must
always have been a matter of the first importance. A good steward was highly
valued. As I show in Section vi of this chapter and in Appendix U below, it was
assumed in Classical Athens that the overseer of a farm would necessarily be a
slave; and the same is probably true of the rest of the period with which this
book deals. Free Greeks and Romans disliked taking permanent employment as
managers (see again Section vi of this chapter). In the Roman agricultural
writers the vilici (stewards or bailiffs) and their subordinates arc assumed to be
slaves, and I have no doubt that they were so in reality. (I have not tried to collect
the epigraphic evidence, but as far as I am aware it confirms the literary sources.)
Needless to say. competent vilici would be required to supervise hired labourers
just as much as slaves, in so far as such men were used - mainly at the peak
periods of agricultural activity, but also occasionally for special jobs (see Section
vi of this chapter). Sometimes in the Roman period slave (or freedmen)
managers are found in control of slaves; in other cases they seem to be mainly
supervising coloni: see IV .iii below and its n.54. As I point out there, such men
were playing a role ofgreat importance in providing the propertied classes with
their incomes. In the Later Roman Empire slaves (and freedmen) certainly
remained prominent as stewards or bailiffs or overseers or agents (t1ctores now.
or procuratores; in Greek, pragmattutai or epitropo1), and indeed are an actual
majority among men in that capacity who are referred to in the literary, legal
and papyrological sources for the Later Empire, 14 even when their masters'
lands are mainIy let to coloni rather than worked by direct slave labour. Slavery,
then. was still fulfilling an essential role in production at the very time when it is
generally supposed to have been 'in decline' -as indeed it was in some degree, at
lower levels.
At the same time, domestic slavery continued on a large scale in the Later
Roman Empire in the households of members of the propertied classes, and it
was accounted a great misfortune by many of the well-to-do (by no means only
the very rich) not to be able to possess a full number of domestic servants. Two
examples will suffice. I have referred above to the well-known speech in which
the leading teacher of rhetoric at Antioch in the late fourth century sought to
arouse pity for the sad plight ofsome ofhis assistants, who were so under-paid,
according to him, that they could afford only two or three slaves. if that (Liban .
Orat. XXXI.9-11). The other text is rarely if evt."r noticed, no doubt because it
comes from the Acta of the Church Council of Chalcedon, which are read by
few but ecclesiastical historians, and pt."rhaps not in bulk by many of them, since
a large part of the contents is (or ought to be) rather painful reading for those
146
who wish to believe that the deliberations and decisions of orthodox bishops
rna y be expected to reveal the workings of the Holy Spirit. At the third session
of the Council, on 13 October 451, four documents were presented attacking
Dioscorus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, whom the Catholics were
determined to discredit and depose. Three of the four complainants made great
play with accusations that Oioscorus had reduced them to beggary. One, a
priest named Athanasius, asserted that as a consequence of Dioscorus' persecution of him he had had to give a bribe of no less than 1.400 pounds of gold to
Nom us, the powerful magister officiorum of Theodosius ll, to prevent himself
from being kept in prison indefinitely, and that he had been robbed of aU his
other property as well, with the consequence that he was driven to live by
begging, with 'the two or three slaves [mancipia] that remained' to him! (Acta
Cone. Oec. II.iii.2.36-7 = 29~, ed. E. Schwartz; Mansi Vl.1025-8).
It is not my intention here to give anything like a complete account, even in
outline, of slavery in the ancient Greek world- a subject on which the bibli<r
graphy is already enormous. (See the Bibliographie zur antikm Sklaverei, ed.
Joseph Vogt [Bochum, 1971], containing I ,707 items, to which many additions
could now be made.) Slavery will of course come up in various ways in other
parts of this book, especially IV. iii below. But 1 rhink I ought at least to explain
why at Athens and in the other Greek cities where slavery was already highly
developed in the Classical period we never hear of slave revolts- although a few
such revolts did develop in various parts of thC" Mediterranean world in the
Hellenistic period, particularly in the.> 1.30s-70s B.C . 1l The reason is simple and
obvious: the slaves in each city (and even in many cases within single families
and farms and workshops) were largely imported 'barbarians' and very heter<r
geneous in character, coming from areas as far apart as Thrace, South Russia,
Lydia and Carla and other parts of Asia Minor, Egypt, libya and Sicily, and
sharing no common language or culture. The desirability of choosing slaves of
different nationalities and languages was well recognised in antiquity. and it is
stressed by several Greek and Roman writers as an indispensable means of
preventing revolts: see Plato, Laws VI.n7cd; Arist., Pol. VII.IO. 13303 25-R;
Ps.-Arist., Oecon. 1.5, t344bt8; Athen. Vl.264f-Sa; Varro, RR l.xvii.5. Serfs in
any given area, on the other hand, would normally be of a single ethnic stock.
like! y to retain a measure of uniformity and common culture, and for that reason
could be expected to feel some solidarity and be more collectively troublesome
to their masters, especially if they were in a position to receive help from their
masters' enemies. As we shall see presently, the Helots of thC' Spartan area
(particularly the M~senians) and to a less extent the Thessalian Penestai were a
perpetual danger to their lords.
We often hear of the flight of individual slaves; but if they were of real value to
their masters they would not perhaps, in normal times, have much chance of
achieving their freedom, as their masters would use all available mC'ans of
recapturing them. Dio Chrysostom could take it for granted that a man buying a
slave would enquirt> 'ifhe ever ran away and would not remain with his former
master' (XXXI.42). One particular Greek slave of Cicero's, Dionysius, an
educated man whom his master used as a reader (llnllgnostis), and who had
absconded in 46 B.C. with a number of valuable books from Cicero's library,
puts in an appearance in no fewer than four letrcrs in our collection of Cicero's
147
correspondence (Ad Fam. Xlll.lxxvii.3; V.ix.2; xi.3; xa.l). Vatinius, commanding in Illyricum, where Dionysius was last seen at Narona, promised
Cicero that he would not give up until he had secured the man; but whether he
was able to do so we do not know. Wc occasionally hear of the flight of slaves en
masse, but only, I think, in time of war. By far the most famous text is
Thucydides VII.27.5, speaking of the desertion of 'more than 20,000 slaves'
from Attica during the Spartan occupation of Decelea in the late fifth century
B. C. (I have said something about this in Appendix II below.)
In the background, always, was the fact that fellow-citizens could be relied
upon, in Xenophon's phrase, to act as unpaid bodyguards of one another against
their slaves (Hiero IV.3). There is a fascinating passage in Plato in which this
theme is expanded (Rep. IX.578d-9a). Socrates, with the monotonously enthusiastic assent of Glaucon, is developing his ideas on the subject of tyranny. He
speaks of rich men in cities who resemble the tyrant in owning many slaves and
yet liw in security and .uc not at all afraid of them. The reason (supplied for once
by Glaucon) is said to be that 'the whole city protects each single individual'.
Socrates agrees, and he goes on to invite Glaucon to contemplate the case of a
man owning fifty slaves or even more, suddenly wafted away by some god,
with his wife and children and all his slaves and other property, to some desert
place, where there is no free man to assist him. And what is likely to happen
then? Why, the man will be terrified of an uprising of his slaves in which he and
his family will be massacred. He will therefore be obliged to fawn upon some of
the slaves and. against his own wishes, to give them their freedom, as the only
possible means of escaping destruction. And it is only now, if you please, and
not before, that the precious pair sec the slaveowner as having become a kf.llax
theraponton, a parasite on his own servants!
II. SERFDOM. There are essential differences between the slave and the
serf. for 'serfdom is not slavery; it is a status intermediate between slavery and
complete freedom' (Greenidge, Slavery 24). For a slave to become a serf represents a real rise in status. The serf, in my sense, although 'not free to change his
status' (according to the 1956 Convention), is not in theory, like the slave. his
lord's property. I would prefer, however; to concentrate on the more practical
side of the condition of the ancient serf, for the precise nature ofhis legal status is
often unclear tO US, owing tO the nature ofthl' evidence, and was sometimes a
matter of dispute in antiquity, and the terminology used in our sources can on
occasion be misleading. For example, although thl' Spartan Helots were certainly serfs rather than slaves in my scheme (see below}, they are sometimes
referred to specifically as slaves, as when they are caJlcd 'the slave population' (he
douleia) in the official treaty of alliance between Sparta and Athens in 421 (Thuc.
V .23.3). And a Greek writer could easily apply the terminology of slavery to
that part of the indigenous population of Asia which worked the land, often in
serfdom and sometimes referred to as the laoi. Thus Strabo could say of the laoi
oflberia in the Caucasus (roughly the modem Georgia) that they were 'slaves of
the kings' (basilikoi douloi, Xl.iii.6, p.SOt). Again, as we shall see later, Theodosius I could declare in the early 390s that serfcoloni. although legally free men,
'should be regarded as slaves of the very land to which they were born' (which of
course did belong to their masters), and justinian was perplexed by the similarity
148
of the legal powers exercised over both groups by the dominus and the possessor,
as the master and the landlord are called respectively. No, in distinguishing the
condition of the serf from that of the chattel slave I think we shall do better to
concentrate on two characteristics that have not yet been mentioned.
First, the services which could legally be required of the serf were limited, at
least in theory, either by legal enactment (a Roman imperial edict, for example)
or by a compact entered into by his people, perhaps long ago, with conquering
invaders, whose serfs they became (see below). Needless to say, the position of
the serf has always been precarious: a local potentate might not scruple to
disobey an imperial law; and how is a conquering people to be compelled to
abide by its undertakings, even if given by treaty under oath? But the serf was
never entirely without rights, as the slave might be. Secondly (and even more
important, though often overlooked), serfs. because they were 'bound to the
soil', could marry and have a fairly secure family life, whereas the slave, who
could not legally 'marry' at all. had no redress if his master decided to sell him
separately from the woman he regarded as his 'wife' and their offspring, until
some rime in the fourth century, when first originarii (whom I would identify
with those described in the East as adscripticii, or enapographoi in Greek) and then,
in c. 370, all those agricultural slaves who were 'enrolled in the tax register' rose
to a quasi-serf position, in that it became illegal to sell them separately from the
land they worked. 16 Next to the prospect of freedom itself. perhaps, nothing can
be more important to those who are unfree than the knowledge that their family
life at least is secure. The break-up of a slave family is the most effective of all
threats against its members. As an ex-slave in the American Old South reminded sceptics, 'The agony at parting must be seen and felt to be fully
understood' (Stampp, P/348). A man there who claimed to have witnessed the
sale ofsuch a family only once said he 'never saw such profound grief as the poor
creatures manifested' (Genovese, RJR 456). Genovese has collected much evidence about the deep attachments created among slaves in the Old South by
their establishment of family life, which was in general allowed, even though
slave 'marriages' were never legally recognised as such by any state (ibid.
452-8), any more than they were in antiquity (including the Christian Later
Roman Empire). Indeed, the slaves were actually encouraged to create and
maintain family relationships, which were commonly believed by their owner.i
to make them more tractable- more 'attached to the plantation' and 'better and
less troublesome workers' (ibid. 452, 454). As the author of the PseudoAristotelian Oeconomica saw it, the children ofslaves are as it were their hostages
for good behaviour (see IV .iii, 4 below). Thus, paradoxically, a feature of the
serfs condition (his being 'bound to the soil') which is one of its greatest
derogations from freedom will also- as compared with chattel slavery- work to
his advantage if it prevents the master from separating him from the land on
which he works or resides, with his family, as in the Later Roman colonatc.
Neglect of this vital feature of the serfs condition is noticeable in several recent
treatments of the forms of subjection in antiquity (e.g. Lotze, MED 63 ff., esp.
67). Even the free peasant who became a serf would at least be secure against
eviction, in theory at any rate.
The possibilities ofVjilriation in the condition of serfs are considerable, and we
must not make the mistake thinking that cenain other peoples l'e<iembled the
of
149
Spartan Helots closely, either in their legal status or in their actual condition,
simply because certain Greek writers came near to identifying them (see the next
paragraph). It is hard to decide, in respect of most of the serf peoples we happen
to know about, whether they went on living (as some did) in their traditional
villages and thus enjoyed a relatively congenial form ofdependence, or whether
they lived on individual farms owned by the masters to whom they belonged, or
to whom they were allocated, as the Helots, or most Helots, certainly did (see
Lotze, MED38).
The Helots ofthe Spartan area are by far the best known Greek serfs before the
colonate of the Later Roman Empire. Their condition was so celebrated in the
Greek world that- to give but four examples -the verb corresponding to their
name, heiloteuein. could be used to convey an impression of the unfree status of
another conquered people, the Mariandynoi ofHeraclea Pontica (Strabo XII .iii.4,
p.542); the Hellenistic historian Phylarchus felt that he could best convey the
condition of the Bithynians subject to Byzantium by saying that the Byzantines
'exercised mastery [desposai] over the Bithynians as the Spartans over the Helots'
(FGrH 81 F 8, ap. Athen. VI.271bc); 17 Theopompus, writing in the fourth
century B.C., could say of the Illyrian Ardiaioi (Vardaei has been suggested as
an emendation) that they 'owned 300,000 dependants (prospelat11i] like Helots'
(or 'as if Helots', FGrH 115 F 40, ap. Athen. X.443b = Vl.271de); and the aged
!socrates, writing to Philip II of Macedon in 338 B.C. (Ep. III.S), could relish the
prospect that Philip would 'compel the barbarians to heiloteuein to the Greeks'.
(Isocrates, of course, was thinking of the non,.Greek inhabitants of Asia.)
Actually, we know of no precise parallels to the condition of the Helots, which
was much debated in the Classical period (see Plato, Laws VI. n6c), and a certain
amount ofoversimplification is involved by forcing it into any general category;
but for convenience I shall treat them as the 'State serfs' they undoubtedly were.
I need add nothing here to what I have said elsewhere about the Helots (OPW
89-93), but I should perhaps repeat the most extraordinary of all pieces of
evidence about the relationship between the Helots and their Spartan masters,
which comes from no less an authority than Aristotle (fr. 538, ap. Plut., Lycurg.
28.7). Every year, on taking office, the principal magistrates of Sparta, the
ephors, made a formal declaration of war upon the Helots, so that they became
enemies of the state, polemioi, and could be killed as occasion required. without
bringing on the Spartans the religious pollution involved in putting to death,
otherwise than by due process oflaw, anyone who was not officially a polemios.
Declaring war on one's own work-force is an action so unparalleled (as far as I
know) that we need not be surprised to find the relationship between Spartans
and Helots unique in the Greek world.
When we speak ofHelots and the hostility between them and the Spartans we
are justified in thinking primarily (though not entirely) of the Messenians, who
greatly outnumbered the Laconian Helots. 18 The Messenians were not only a
single people: until the late eighth century they had been hoi Messmioi, an
autonomous political unit which had recently become, or was in process of
becoming, an independent Greek polis, in the very area where they subsequently
laboured for their Spartan masters. They had, therefore. a natural feeling of
kinship and unity. After Messenia was liberated and became an independent
polis again. in 369 B.C., the only Helots left were the Laconian ones, many
150
The Class Struggle ;n the Ancient Greek World
of whom were liberated subsequently, especially by Nabis in the early second

century B.C. By the end of the Roman Republic at the latest the status of Helot
had ceased to exist, for Strabo, who calls the Helots 'State slaves, in a sense'
(tropon tina dimosioi doulot), says that they existed 'until the Roman supremacy'
(VIII.v.4, p.365), and this can only mean the second century B.C. (or conceivably the first) -for Strabo would have used quite a different expression had
the Helots remained such down to the time at which he was writing, the early
first century of the Christian era. 19
The other main serf people of mainland Greece, the Penestai ofThessaly, 20
also gave their masters much trouble in their efforts to free themselves, according to Aristotle (Pol. 11.9, 126~36-7; cf. only Xen., HG II.iii.36). The subject
Cretans whom Aristotle compares to the Helots and Penestai were much less of
a problem: Aristotle attributes this in one place to their comparative isolation
from the outside world (Pol. 11.10, 1272bt6-22) and in another to the fact that
Cretan cities, although they often fought with one another, never entered into
alliances with each other's disaffected perioikoi (as he calls them, Pol. 11.9,
126~39-~). whereas the Spartan Helots and Thessali.m Penestai received help
from states which were at enmity with their masters (ibid. 1269~-7).
When we hear of alleged douloi who were regularly used as soldiers, we are
justified in regarding them as serfs rather than slaves. According to the Hellenistic historian Agatharchides of Cnidus, individual Dardanians (an IllyrioThracian people) possessed a thousand or more such douloi, who in time of peace
farmed the land and during war fought in regiments commanded by their
masters (FGrH 86 F 17, ap. Athen. V1.272d). This may remind us of certain
Demosthenic passages (cited in n.20) which show large bodies ofThessalian
Penestai fighting under the command of their master.
I have explained above that until the Later Roman Empire we can identify
only isolated local forms of serfdom in the Greek world. Pollux, in the famous
passage I have quoted, mentions only quite early forms, which (as I have
suggested) had probably long since ceased to exist. Only one of his peoples
'between slave and free', the Mariandynoi, lived in Asia, and they had been
subjected not by one of the new Hellenistic foundations but probably as far back
as the sixth century B.C., soon after the Milesians founded their colony at
Heraclea. We do, however, have evidenceoftheexistenceofserfdom during the
Hellenistic period at various places in Asia Minor and Syria- mainly, though
not quite exclusively, in the area which was hellenised only in the time of
Alexander onwards. Unfortunately, although this subject has been much discussed over the last two generations, nothing like agreement has yet been
reached, mainly because there is surprisingly little clear evidence, and many
scholars have not taken a broad enough view but have generalised from the few
fragments of evidence on which they have concentrated. The whole question is
much too complicated to be discussed at length here, and I shall present only a
summary of the views I hold, which I may be able to justify in detail elsewhere.
I must begin this brief discussion of Hellenistic serfdom by insisting that we
must never be surprised to find very great variations in land tenure from one
area to another and even within a given small area. How wide such variations
can be within a single country, even today, emerges particularly well from a
standard work on land tenure in modem Iran, before the reform of 1962: Ann
151
K. S. Lambton, Landlord and Peasant in Persia (1953, enlarged repr. 1969). A

reading of at least chapters 13-18 and 21-2 of that book might do something to
lessen the over-confidence of modem scholars who do not hesitate to generalise
about land tenure in Seleucid Asia Minor and Syria or the Pergamcne kingdom
on the basis of a handful of isolated and often fragmentary texts. Again, if we
look for comparison at mediaeval Europe we can find numbers ofloca] exceptions to almost any rule we try to formulate. If our evidence were as bad for
fourteenth-century England as it is for Hellenistic Asia Minor, and we happened
to possess only the records (very well analysed by Eleanor Searle) of Battle
Abbey in Sussex, dealing with the manor ofMarley after its creation in 1310, we
might have imagined that a manorial estate at that time consisted of nothing but
'demesne land', worked entirely by free wage-labour, with no sign of serfdom
or even oflabour-rents (then still almost universal in southern England), and
that it practised full 'convertible husbandry', which did not in fact become
standard practice for some generations. 21
The Achaemenid kings of Persia (with their satraps) 22 and their Macedonian
successors created new forms of property ownership. mainly by distributing
large areas ofland to their favourites and (on very different terms) to some of
their soldiers; but there is every reason to think that they allowed ancient
customs to persist, to some extent at least, as far as those who actually worked
the land were concerned; and this would allow many local peculiarities to
survive. I should like, in passing, to register a doubt concerning the view, so
popular in modem times, that the Achaemenids claimed to be actual owners of
all the land in their kingdom, in a sense more real than the modem fiction of the
ruler's 'eminent domain'. In mid-ninth-century Israel, cenainly. the king enjoyed no such rights: this emerges clearly from the spkndid story in 1Kings xxi.
in which King Ahab covets Naboth's vineyard but is unable to compel him to
transfer it to himself, even by sale or exchange, until the evil Queen Jezebel
contrives to have Naboth judicially murdered, whereupon it seems that his
property is forfeited to the king- with fatal consequences to that wicked man. 23
Whether or not the Achaemenid monarchs claimed to be the owners of all the
land in the Persian empire, it was natural for the Macedonian kings. from
Alexander onwards, to assert their rights of conquest in the East and to regard
themselves as invested with the ownership of all 'spear-won territory' (see e.g.
Diod. XVII. 17.2) outside the area of those Greek cities which they were
graciously prepared to recognise as such (cf. V.iii below). 24 Even within the vast
area of 'king's land', however, there existed several different varieties of tenure
(see Kreissig, LPHO, esp. 6-16); and below the holders who occasionally appear
in our sources it is likely that ancient forms of tenure mainly persisted at first.
If, when interpreting the epigraphic evidence for land tenure in Asia in the
Hellenistic period, we allow the Greek to mean what we have every right to
expect it to mean, there is not the slightest doubt that serfdom, in one form or
another (not necessarily always the same), is among the variety of tenures with
which we are confronted. There are a few documents recording the sale or gift
of land which include its occupiers in the sale or gift and yet give reason for
thinking that some at least of these occupiers, especially those called laoi or
basilikoi laoi (the native population), were not slaves. Now it may well be that
the conveyance of land with its occupants makes it highly probable that those
152
occupants, if not slaves, are serfs, bound to the soil, whether to a particular farm
or to their village community. (As we shall see later, we find both these types of
restriction of peasant movement in the Later Roman colonate.) But I do not
think we can be absolutely certain that these people are indeed serfs, in cases in
which we have no further evidence of their condition: they may have been
mentioned with the land simply because they were the more or less hereditary
tenants, who could be expected to continue working the land as before and who
would therefore constitute a most valuable asset, at any rate if agricultural
labour was not otherwise easily obtainable. To borrow a technical expression
from English law- they might be thought to constitute a kind of'goodwill' in
the land: to make an important contribution to its value by creating a high
probability that it would not lack families to work it, just as the 'goodwill' that
goes with a shop in modem England, for example, may greatly increase its
selling value. However, at least one famous mid-third-century inscription, a
sale of land by the Seleucid King Antiochus II to his divorced queen, Laodice,
does make it virtually certain that the laoi who are sold with the land were indeed
serfs. The king's letter says that he has sold to Laodicefor 30 talents, free of royal
taxation. Pannoukome (or the village of Pannos) with its land, 'and any inhabited places [topoi] that may be in it, and the laoi that belong to it, with all their
households and with the income of the [current] year,u ... and similarly any
persons from this village being laoi who have moved away to other places'
(Welles, RCHP 18.1-13). It is a fact, certainly, that some of the laoi are said to
have gone to live elsewhere, very probably in a place of greater security (cf.
RCHP 11.22-5); but there can be no reasonable doubt (in spite of recent
assertion to the contrary) 28 that the document records an out-and-out sale to
Laodice, in terminology which is as explicit as it could be, and that the/aoi of the
village in question were included in the sale, even if some of them had moved
away- Laodice, having acquired title to them, is obviously to have the right to
recall them, if she so desires, to the village, which now belongs to her and to
which they are evidently regarded as bound.
A famous Vienna papyrus of260 B.C. (PER Inv. 24552 gr.= SB V.8008), 27
aimed at giving some protection against indiscriminate enslavement to the
inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, then subject to Ptolemy n, refers to the
purchase of somata lai'ka (lines 2, 22) by private individuals, and provides that if
the somata in question were oiketika when acquired they can be retained, but that
if l'leuthera they are to be taken away from their purchasers (unless sold to them
by agents of the king), and that in future somata lai"ka eleuthera must not be sold or
given in pledge except in specified circumstances arising in fiscal matters. The
Greek word somata (literally 'bodies') is very often, though not always, used of
slaves; the noun oiketis, from which oiketika is derived, is uncommon in Ptolemaic
papyri but when it is used seems almost always to designate slaves; and the
adjective /ai"ka comes from laos, a word reserved for indigenous inhabitants,
'natives' (cf.l.iii n.13 below). According to Bietuiiska-Malowist this ordinance
is dealing with 'une main-d'oeuvre libre mais dependante'; and inRostovtzefFs
view it was probably directed 'against the endeavours of certain people to
enslave free workmen, chiefly by transforming Oriental bondage resembling
slavery into regular slavery of the Greek type'; he adds that 'this may be the basis
of the distinction made in the Vienna papyrus between the somata lai"ka eleuthera
153
(Oriental bondage) and the somata onta oiketika'. 28 On the other hand, the former
group (the eleuthera) may well have been, or at least included, those who were
completely free. We do not yet have enough information about land tenure in
Syria in the third century to be precise.
It also seems probable that what I call serfs are referred to in inscriptions
mentioning oiketai (or oiketeia, e.g. SJG3 495.112-13) 211 and in other epigraphic
and literary sources. 30 Among inscriptions I wish to mention only the famous
one of Mnesimachus, inscribed on a wall of a temple of Artemis (Cybele) at
Sardis in western Asia Minor, probably around 200 B.C., and recording a
conveyance - not, as used to be supposed, a mortgage - of Crown land near
Sardis by Mnesimachus, to which he did not have an indefeasible freehold
title. 31 The inscription mentions both 'the laoi and their households with tpeir
belongings' (who seem to be described as 'attached to the plots' and are apparently
liable to rents in money and labour), and also oiketai, who are usually taken to be
slaves. I will only add that in Ptolemaic Egypt we hear of peasants, often basilikoi
georgoi ('cultivators of Crown land'), who were undoubtedly free in the technical sense that they were not slaves and cannot properly be described as serfs
either, but were subject to very strict controls and supervision to a greater extent
than any other non-serf peasants I have come across in the Greek world. :12
There is. however, even better evidence of the existence of serfdom in
Hellenistic Asia, which is sometimes neglected by those who study the subject, 33
perhaps because it comes mainly from the beginning of the Roman period, in
the pages of the Greek geographer Strabo, who Jived at Amaseia in Pontus, on
the southern shore of the Black Sea, and who wrote under Augustus and
Tiberius. Certain passages in Strabo prove conclusively the existence of what I
am calling serfdom on some of the temple estates in Asia Minor: and other
evidence to the same effect is furnished by some remarkable inscriptions of the
kings of Commagene (in north-eastern Syria), of the middle and late first
century B.C. This evidence relates specifically to what are called 'hierodules'
(hirrodouloi in Greek), 34 literally 'sacred slaves', and perhaps best described in
English as 'temple-servants'. My own belief is that the generic form of tenure of
these hierodules (which I shall describe immediately), far from being exceptional and limited to temple-lands. is very likely to be one of the most ancient
kinds ofland tenure in Asia, which happens to have survived long enough to
allow us to find a specific description of it simply because the land was sacred
and belonged to temples, and was therefore not subject to the normal vkissitudes of private ownership, which might involve fragmentation (as a result of
inheritance, as well as sale) and alteration of the terms ofoccupation. I must add
that my position is not at all the same as that of Sir William Ramsay, who
believed that all or most of Asia Minor once consisted of temple-states, the lands
of many of which were confiscated by the Hellenistic kings. Ramsay's theory
has been thoroughly refuted by Jones (GCA] 309-10 n.58). What I have suggested is quite different: that the examples of'sacred' serfdom which we fmd
existing in the temple-estates in the late Hellenistic period are likely to be
survivals of forms of serfdom that had earlier been widespread in Asia.
I find it particularly significant that in at least two of the main texts mentioning
hierodules we hear of a feature of their condition which is also found in the case
of three other peoples identified as serfs in the Classical period: Spartan Helots,
154
Thessalian Penestai, and Mariandynoi ofHeradea Pontica.~ This feature is that

they cannot be sold off the land on which they reside. Strabo says that when
Pompey (in 64-63 B.C.) made his favourite Archelaus priest of the important
temple ofMa (or Enyo) at Comana in Pontus, he made him ruler of the whole
principality and master of the hierodules who lived there, co the number of at
least 6,000, 'except that he was to have no power to sell them' (XII.iii.32-6. esp.
34, p.558). This, I think, is likely to have been a recognition of a long-existing
situation. Inscriptions from Commagene, including the famous one set up by
Antioch us I of that country on the Nimrud Dagh (in south-eastern Turkey). are
even more specific: they not only provide (in the words mete tis heteron apallotriosm) that the hierodules and their descendants are not to be alienated but also
forbid their reduction to slavery (mitt . . . katadoulosasthat), thus providing
conclusive proof that the hierodules, in spite of their name, were not technically
slaves (see esp. IGLS I.t = OGIS 1.383,lines 171-89).36 Strabo mentions several
other sets ofhierodules. including 'more than 6,0Q0' at Comana in Cappadocia,
of whom the priest ofMa was kyrios, master (XII .ii.3, p.535). and 'almost 3,000'
in a settlement belonging to the temple of Zeus ofVenasa in Morimene (also in
Cappadocia, id. 6, p.537). These temples, and others in the more remote parts of
Asia Minor, 37 had evidently preserved the ancient way of life on their estates.
On the lands of some other temples serfdom had decayt>d, no doubt owing to
Greek or Roman influence. The temple of Men Ascaenus in the territory of
Pisidian Antioch, for example, had once had a number ofhierodules, bur this
situation had come to an end in Strabo's own time (XII.viii.14, p.577; and see
Levick, RCSAM 73, 219). There were also fewer hierodules in Strabo 's day than
in earlier times at the temple of Anai'tis at Zela in Pontus, where the- priest had
once been 'master of everything' (kyrios ton panton); Strabo describes the Zela of
his own day as 'for the most part a small town [polisma] ofhierodules' (XI.viii.4,
p.512; XII.iii.37, p.559). There are also many temple estates in Asia Minor (and
at least one in northern Phoenicia), recorded by Strabo or known from other
sources (almost entirely epigraphic), where hierodules are not specifically mentioned but where they, or other serfs, are very likely to have existed. 311 Outside
Asia, and especially in Egypt, we hear of temple-servants who may well have
been serfs, but the evidence is rather obscure. 39 I am ignoring here other types of
hierodules, such as the sacred prostitutes whom we hear ofin some places in the
Greek East (Pontic Co mana, for instance). and even in Greece itself (at Corinth)
and in Sicily (at Eryx). 40
The material I have adduced proves beyond question that forms of serfdom
existed in Asia in Hellenistic times, almost certainly as a survival from earlier
regimes. It is essential to realise, however, that these forms of serfdom tended to
dissolve as a result of contact with the more advanced Greek and Roman
economy (above all, no doubt, when the land came into the ownership or under
the control of Greeks or hellenised natives or of Romans), and after a few
generations virtually ceased to exist, except as part of very conservative complexes such as the temple estates I have discussed above and in remote areas litde
affected by the Graeco-Roman economy, like Iberia/Georgia (see above). Until
the introduction of the Later Roman colonate (for which see IV.iii below)
serfdom failed to maintain itself in the Greek world (or. as we shall see presently.
in the rest of the Roman empire), and when it disappeared in a particular area,
III. Property t2nd the Propertied (iv)
155
there is no sign that it was re-c5tablished.

It has been claimed recently by some Marxist scholars, especially (in their
different ways) Kreissig and Briant,41 that the dependent condition in Asia
which I call serfdom (as does Kreissig, though not Briant) is a form of production
basically different from the Hellenic one, and that in the Hellenistic kingdoms
we should recognise the existence of what Marx himself and some of his
followers have called the 'Oriental' or 'Asiatic' mode of production. I cannot do
better than cite part of the last paragraph of Kreissig' s latest anicle, which is
conveniently written in English and is a most useful collection of material on
Hellenistic land tenure. According to his view, in the forms of tenure he
specifies, which include by far the greater part of the land in Hellenistic Asia,
'the laoi-system, dependent labour in the form of serfdom, overwhelmingly
predominates ... In the most basic section of production, in agriculture, the
Orient in Hellenistic times is profoundly Oriental, not at all Greek. 'Hellenism'
was confined to elements of social superstructure' (LPHO 26).
I cannot accept this as it stands, for the following reasons:
1. The existence of an 'Oriental' or' Asiatic' mode of production seems to me
a useless and even misleading conception, evolved by Marx on the basis of what
can now be seen as a seriously defective knowledge of the Oriental world
(though based on the best sources available in his day), and far too imprecise to
be of any value in historical or sociological analysis. I cannot believe that anyone
who has read the works ofPerry Anderson and Daniel Thorner cited in I.iv n.lS
below could still wish to cling to this outmoded notion. Pre-Classical modes of
production (cf.l.iv above) need to be characterised quite differently and much
more specifically.
2. Even if we assume for the moment that an 'Oriental/ Asiatic' mode of
production is a concept worth employing, there is a decisive argument against
seeing the serfdom of Hellenistic Asia as an example ofit, which takes the form
of a reductio ad absurdum. Around A.D . .300, with the introduction of the Later
Roman colonate, serfdom reappeared, this time imposed and maintained by the
Roman imperial government and on a much larger scale than ever before,
increasing both in geographical scope and in severity as time went on, and
becoming the predominant mode of production. As we shall see (in IV .iii
below), all working tenants and even working freeholders were originally
bound to the land, some to their actual plots, others to their villages. This was
serfdom indeed, not fundamentally different. as a mode of production, from
some of the earlier forms we have noticed in Greece and Asia. If we were to treat
the serfdom of the early Hellenistic period as 'non-Hellenic', as an 'Oriental/
Asiatic' mode of production, then we should be ineluctably driven to consider
the Later Roman Empire as having that mode of production- a notion which is
patently ridiculous.
3. Kreissig himself admits that in an area such as Priene, 'an old Greek colony
and not a new settlement of the Hellenistic period in Asia Minor, ... chattel
slavery .. would have been quite normal' (LPHO 25). But before Alexander's
conquests a very large part of the best land in western and south-western Asia
Minor had been taken over by Greek colonists, who from the ninth century
onwards founded walled settlements that grew into cities; and we can surely
156
suppose - badly infonned as we are about methods of exploitation of agricultural land in Asia Minor- that the citizens ofall the cities founded in Archaic
and Classical times would have made use of slaves for agriculture when they
could. The obvious exceptions would be cases where a pre-existing system of
serfdom. or one that could be introduced at the conquest of the land, gave
something like equal possibilities of exploitation; but the only certain preHellenistic example we have of this in Asia, noticed by the Greeks as peculiar, is
Heraclea Pontica (see above). (Of course there may have been other preHellenistic instances of serfdom, but I know of no certain evidence of any,
except perhaps the Pedieis in the territory of Priene.) 42 A goodly part of the
coastal areas of Asia Minor (its most fruitful and populated regions) would
therefore have to be removed from the category of an 'Oriental/Asiatic' mode of
production, even if we were prepared to concede its existence in principle; and
the existence of this area would be bound to have a powerful effect upon
neighbouring districts. ea
4. As for the remainder of Asia Minor and Syria, Kreissig and others have
hardly made sufficient allowance for the fact that serfdom there in the Hellenistic period was a very transitory phase, which evident! y began to wane as soon as
it was exposed to Greek (or Roman) influence. After going through all the
evidence cited by Kreissig and Briant, I would emphasise that it is concentrated
in the earliest part ofthe Hellenistic period, especially the late fourth century and
the first half of the third, and that it is rare in the second century and ceases
entirely thereafter, save in such exceptional cases as age-old temple estates or
districts little exposed to Greek or Roman influence. After Strabo's time, until
the introduction of the Later Roman colonate, there is virtually no evidence of
the continued existence of serfdom, even in remote areas (cf. Rostovtzeff,
SBHHW 1.512), although of course our evidence is too poor to enable us to say
confidently that it died out altogether. I conclude, therefore, that in the absence
of special circumstances serfdom tended to decline in each area as soon as it came
under Greek (or Macedonian) or Roman rule and was directly exposed to Greek
or Roman influences - which spread by degrees farther and farther into Asia.
However, although serfdom was not a major or necessary part of the original
Graeco-Roman system of production, it was by no means entirely alien to that
system: it certainly existed, as we have seen, as a local institution, at various
places within the Greek world, sometimes maintaining itselffor centuries in an
area where it had become traditional. Asl shall explain in IV .iii below, when the
rate of exploitation achieved by slavery had become greatly reduced, and the
Roman empire, if it was to survive, had to bear heavy additional burdens
(especially a much enlarged army and civil service), serfdom was introduced
from above on a grand scale, in the form of the Later Roman colonate. The
existence of serfdom in the Hellenistic East, therefore, even in the fairly brief
period during which it retained its importance, should not lead us to deny that
that area was subjected to the standard Graeco-Roman method of production.
Outright slavery, as the mode of production most favoured by the Greek and
Roman propertied classes, must always have exercised a pervasive influence,
even in areas where as yet it did not actually predominate. The vast wealth ofthe
'King's friends' of the Hellenistic period (cf. III.ii above & its nn.9-10 below),
and of the leading citizens of many Greek cities at that time (including some of
157
those newly founded by the kings), must naturally have led to a rapid expansion
of the area dominated by the Classical mode of production, in which slavery
played a vital role; and slavery and the exploitation of free peasants who had
emerged from serfdom then became the principal means by which the propertied classes acquired their surplus.
I must again insist that we know too little about systems ofland tenure in Asia
to be able to describe with confidence the methods by which the working
agricultural population was exploited, either before or after they came under the
direct control of Greek cities. In particular, we simply do not know what
happened to the native population of each area, the laoi (no doubt consisting
largely of serfs), when they were first taken over fully into the Greek economy.
Even the moment at which we should conceive that change as happening is
uncertain, but perhaps we should see it as essentially the transfer of the peasants
concerned from 'king's land' (and probably the lordship of a native dynast or of
a Hellenistic courtier who aJlowed the old system of exploitation to continue) to
a Greek city. Not only were many new cities founded by the Hellenistic kings
and the Roman emperors in Asia; many ancient villages and military cleruchies
were eventually promoted to the status of cities;43 lands were sometimes (how
often, we cannot tell) transferred to favourites of the kings, with permission to
'incorporate' them in the territory of a city (see esp. Welles, RCHP 10-13 and
18-20);4<1 and land could also be sold or given to a city by a king: we know of a
sale to Pitane by Antiochus I, and of a gift by Ptolemy II to Miletus (OGIS
335.133 ff.; SIG 3 322, 38).
What, then, happened to the serf when he emerged from that condition?
Again, the answer is that we do not know: we can only speculate, in deciding
between certain alternatives. In principle, the alternatives are that when his
condition changed he was likely to become either an outright slave or a free
leasehold tenant- or conceivably a freeholder, but I would imagine that this was
very rare at the initial stage, although the descendants of some ex-serfs might
manage to acquire ownership ofland eventually. Many Greeks who took over
agricultural land from indigenous Asiatic owners must have been strongly
tempted to treat serfs - to whose condition they would be unaccustomed - as
chattel slaves, when they felt they could get away with it. And I agree with
Rostovtzeff: 'I see nothing to prevent the kings, the chief priests, or the feudal
[sic] lords of Bithynia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, and Paphlagonia from
selling under one pretext or another some of their serfs to an agent of the Roman
publicani [tax-farmers] or to a Delian slave dealer' (SEHHWII.1515 n.49). Let
us concede, then, that some proportion- but an unknowable proportion- of
former peasant serfs were reduced to full slavery.
On the other hand, many scholars have held that when former 'king's land'
was absorbed by a city (whether ancient or newly founded) and became part of
its territory, its chora, those of the existing laoi who had been serfs ceased to be so
and became free paroikoi or katoikoi of the city - not its citizens, and therefore
possessing no political rights in it, but recognised free inhabitants. This was the
view Rostovtzeff expressed in different places, with varying degrees of confidence, and it has often been stated as an undoubted fact byothers. 45 A forthright
expression of it is by Tam, who says that 'the peasants might sometimes still be
serfs, ... but generally they became free hereditary 'settlers' (katoikot), paying
158
taxes t~ the city, and their villages sometimes began to acquire a kind of
corporate life ... The Greek city then was a boon to the Asiatic peasant and
tended to raise his status' (HC 3 134-8, at 135).
The most persuasive argument for this theory, to my mind, is the absence of
evidence for serf tenures in Roman Asia after Strabo's time and the apparent
presence oflarge numbers of free peasants. Positive evidence of the conversion
of serfs into free paroikoi or katoikoi, however, seems scarcely to exist. One
inscription which is often quoted as evidence for this process, namely the letter
of a Hellenistic king to Priene, of the third century B.C. (Welles, RCHP 8),
seems to me of no value whatever in this connection: its interpretation, by
Welles and others (even Kreissig, LPHO 24), seems to me greatly overconfident. 441 Again, in 133 B. C. the city ofPergamum gave its citizenship to all
its registered paroikoi and certain other persons (mainly military), and at the
same time promoted to the class of paroikoi various other groups, including
public slaves (dimosio1), the descendants of freedmen, and 'adult or youthful
basilikoi' (OGIS 338.10-19, 20-6). 47 As in the inscription of Priene just mentioned, there is no mention of laoi. But who are the basilikoi? Some take them to
be slaves, others serfs. I suspect that the ambiguous term basilikoi was used
deliberately, to cover both statuses and any doubtful or intermediate cases.
Serfdom, then, did virtually disappear from Hellenistic and Roman Asia, but
we have no means of telling how many ex-serfs became slaves and how many
achieved a fully free status. I would guess that incorporation of their land in the
territory of a city did tend to lead, in the long run, to a theoretically freer status,
as most scholars have believed. This might be expected to enable them to make a
rather more effective resistance to exploitation; but, on the other hand, they
would still enjoy no political rights, and indeed their former position as serfs
may have given at least some of them some traditional privileges (a limit, for
example, on the rents or labour-services that could be demanded of them) which
would no longer apply when they achieved a technically free status. Indeed their
incorporation in what was to a certain extent a market-economy and a moneyeconomy may well have led to increasing exploitation of them and to an increase
in economic and social differentiation among them.
I need make only a brief mention of what I may call 'the Roman area': that part
of the Roman empire which was not Greek according to my definition in I.ii
above. Serfdom was not native to the original Roman area either, although
some form ofit may well have existed in Etruria (see above, and n.4 below). The
Romans may have preferred to treat as free at least some of those coming under
their control who were in some form ofserfdom: I give three probable examples
in a note, 48 one from Sicily, admittedly a Greek area in my sense.
It is time now to tum to the Later Roman colonate. It was only at the end of
the third century of our era that legislation began to be introduced, subjecting to
forms oflegal serfdom the whole working agricultural population of the GraecoRoman world. In outline, leasehold tenants (colom) became serfs, bound either
to their actual farms or plots or to their villages and almost as much subject to
their landlords as were slaves to their masters, even though they remained
technically ingenui, free men rather than slaves: working peasant freeholders too
were tied, to their villages. There were appreciable differences between different
II I. Property and the Propertied (iv)
159
groups among the working agricultural population and between different an.as:
for the details, which need not concern us here. see IV.iii below.
As I have said before, neither in Greek nor in Latin had there been any general
technical word for 'serf or 'serfdom'; but the Latin word co/oni. which had
originally been used in the sense of'farmcr' or 'colonist' and during the Principate had increasingly come to mean 'lessee' of agricultural land. was commonly
used from the reign of Constantine (the early fourth century) onwards to refer to
men I call serfs. From A.D. 342 (CTh XII.i.33) the t~rm colonatus begins to
appear, in the sense of the tied colonatc (sec IV. iii below). By the mid-fifrh
century we find thC' Latin term adscripticii (enapographoi or enhypo~raphoi in
Greek) employed to designate those c~Jioni who according to my definitions
were strictly serfs (see IV.iii again). Ewn when the serf colonatc was in full
swing, however, the government found it difficult if not impossible to express
the legal condition of the coloni satisfactorily without resorting to the terminology of slavery, which, as it realised, was not properly appropriate. (I shall
deal with this subject rather mor'-' fully in IV.iii 21 below.) The Emperor
Justinian could show some ('Xasperation at the difficulty he found in distinguishing between slaves and adscripticii (C] XI.xlviii.21.1, A.D. 530). Earlier, in
a constitution of c. 393, relating to the civil diocese of Thrac(', the Emperor
Theodosius I, while admitting that its coloni were legally 'of free status' (condicione in~enui), could qualify that statement by adding that they 'must be
regarded as slaves of the very land to which they were born' (servi terrae ipsius cui
nati sunt aestimentur). and he could speak of their possessor as exercising ov'-'r them
'the power of a master' (domini potestas, C] XI.lii.l.l). I need hardly add that of
course it was impossible at law for land to own slaves or anything else: a fiction
of that sort would surely have shocked a jurist of the Classicill period of Roman
law (the second and early third centuries), who would have condemned it as the
legal nonsense it was. There were other attempts, which I shall record in IV .iii
below ( 21). to represent the land as endowed with some mysterious legal
personality of its own, and exercising compulsion. I may add that in mediaeval
Europe we encounter from time to time assertions that everyone is either free or
a servus (see e.g. Hilton, DSME 9); but by then the word sen,us would often
mean something more like 'serf than 'slave'.
One cannot help remembering here the brilliant passages in two very early
works of Marx, the Contribution to the Critique'!_{ Hegel's Philosophy of Law ( 1843)
and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts ( 1844), describing the inheritor ofan
entailed estate as the property of that estate, inherited by the land. 'an attribute
fettered to it', indeed 'the serf of landed property'! (MECW 111.106, 266). But
Marx, of course, was fully conscious of the paradox: he was writing in a very
theoretical way and with great irony, while the Roman emperors were simply
giving lame excuses for a situation which they knew to be anomalous under
Roman law but were trying to justify.
I have gone into some detail on the question of the legal status of the coloni of
the Later Empire, as seen by the Roman government, because it brings out most
forcibly the dominant role that slavery in the strict sense always played in the
minds of the Roman ruling class. They may grudgingly admit that their coloni
are in~enui and not slaves; but they are driven by the subject condition of the
co/oni to apply to them all but the strictly technical tenns of slavery -never simply
160
The Class Struygle in the Ancient Greek World
servi or mancipia, but servi terrae and similar expressions, which from the strictly
legal point of view are mere metaphors. The very fact that Graeco-Roman
society was still, so to speak, permeated with slavery and dominated by its
ideology, I would suggest, strongly affected the institutions of serfdom that
developed from the fourth century onwards (cf. the last part ofiV .iii below).
I think it will be helpful if I speak briefly at this point about the usc in Greek
texts of the word perioikoi, often translated 'serfs', as for example in Ernest
Barker's version of Aristotle's Politics and even in W. L. Newman's commentary thereon. 49 This translation is wrong: the essential characteristic of the
pmoikoswas not at all that hc-was unfree (what we call a slave or serf). but that he
was without political rights in the state. He would not be a slave, but he might not
be a serfeither. It was the Spartan perioikoi whom a Greek of the Classical period
would naturally think of first, when he heard the term perioikoi used, and
everyone knew rough! y what the status of the Spartan perioikoi was: they wert>
certainly not unfree and they had a certain amount of self-government in their
settlements, which on occasion can even be called, inaccuratdy, poleis (see my
OPW 345-6); but of course they had no political rights in the Spartan State. 511
Other communities ofperioikoi are known to have existed in Greece itself in the
territory of Argos, Elis and Thcssaly, and outside the Greek mainland in Cyrcne
and Crete.:u Aristotle wished the lands of his ideal State to be cultivated, if not
by slaves, then by barbaroi perioikoi (Pol. VII.IO, 13.30a25-31; cf. 9, 1329a24-6);
but since he goes on to speak of them as if they might all 'belong to' private
owners or to the community, I am sure he would not have conceived them as
necessarily in a state of freedom: surely in his mind they would be more like
serfs. Aristotle was acquainted with Asiatic peoples who were in some form of
serfdom or quasi-serfdom to their Greek conquerors, such as the Mariandynoi
of Pontic Heraclea, whom I have mentioned above. (He had evidently studied
the history of Heradea Pontica.)s2 And Aristotle would doubtless think it
perfectly natural for Greeks to accept the existence ofserfdom in any non-Greek
country they conquered. Similarly, when Isocrates, after complaining that the
Spartans have compelled their neighbours (the Messenians) to heiloteuein, speaks
of it as in their power to join with Athens in 'making all the barbarians into
perioikoi of the whole of Hellas' (JV.131), he is surely thinking of a status
comparable to that of the Spartan Helots rather than that of the Spartan Perioikoi
- compare his letter to King Philip II of Macedon (which I quoted above when
discussing the Helots), anticipating that Philip would compel the native inhabitants of Asia to hei/Oteuein to the Greeks (Ep. II1.5).
Before leaving the subject ofserfdom I must mention that the definition I have
adopted (from the 1956 Convention) of serfdom arid the serf may not appear at
first sight identical with that which Marx seems to have had in mind when he
used those terms, or German words of which they are legitimate English
translations. In reality my conception is very similar to his: it merely lacks one
element which sometimes, but not always, figures prominently in his view of
serfdom. The immediate impression that emerges from some of the writings of
Marx is that for him the outstanding characteristic of serfdom was 'labour rent'
(Arbtitsrtnte): the obligation upon a man who is 'in possession ofhis own means
161
of productiop' to perform a substantial amount oflabour on his lord's land. This

is true in particular of Marx's main discussion of 'labour rent', in Capital
lll.790-4 (=MEW XXV.798-802), from which I have quoted elsewhere- it is
one of the most important passages Marx ever wrotl'. Ar one point then he
seems to be giving a brief dlscription of serf~ as 'those subject to enforced
labour' (Cap. Il1.793). Whenever Marx wrote of serfdom, he was probably
thinking primarily of a typical situation in Europe, involving. as he puts it, 'the
peasant serf, such as he, I might say. until yesterday existed in the whole East of
Europe. This peasant worked, for example, three days for himsdf on his own
field or the field allotted to him. and the three subsequent days he performed
compulsory and gratuitous labour on the estate ofhis lord (Wages, Prire attd Profit
ix, in MESW211; cf. Cap. III.790).
I feel myself that the existence of'labour rent' would tend to make the tenant
more subservient to his landlord, especially in an economy where slave labour
was not uncommon, for the tenant would be working directly under the orders
of the landlord or his agent (actor, procurator) and might well becom., in the eyes
of the overseer, hardly distinguishable from a slave.
Now if'labour rent', in the form of substantial personal service on rhe lord's
land, is indeed an essential characteristic of the: serf, then serfdom could hardly
be said to have existed at all in antiquity, for there is no proof of the yielding of
'labour rent' on any substantial scale in the whole Greek or Roman world until a
very late date, in the sixth century, when the Ravenna papyri disclose the
existence of regular labour services for several days a week, whereas at other
times and places in the ancient world we find at most only a few days' service a
year, as in a famous series of inscriptions from north Africa (see IV .ii below and
its nn.16-19). Yet, after all, the giving of actual labour service does not seem to
have been, for Marx, a necessary feature ofserfdom, for he can say of the man he
caUs, in English, a 'self-sustaining serf ('a direct producer who is not free', bm is
subject to a 'direct relation of lordship and servitude') that his 'lack of freedom
may be reduced from serfdom with enforced labour [Leibeigenschaft mit Fmnarbeit]
to a mere tributary relationship', presumably the payment of an ordinary rent in
money or kind (Cap. III.790). And after distinguishing the sc:rffrom the slave
(who 'works under alien conditions of production and not independently') he
says of the serf that 'conditions of personal dependence are requisite, a lack of
personal freedom, no matter to what extent, and being tied ro tht soil as its
accessory, bondage [Horigkeit] in the true sense of the word' (ibid. 791, my
italics; MEW XXV. 799). Similarly. in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts
of 1844 Marx could say of the serf that he is 'the adjunct of the land' (MECW
111.266), and in Wage Labour and Capital that he 'belongs to the land' (MECW
IX.203). In the Grundrisse he speaks of the worker 'in the serfrelation' as 'an
appendage of the soil [Zubehor der Erde], exactly like draught-cattle' (368 = E.T.
465). In the first volume of Das Kapital (MEW XXIII.743) Marx describes the
emergence of the wage-labourer under capitalism as taking place after he had
ceased being 'attached to the soil' and 'leibeigen oder hiM~ to another person'.
(The standard English translation misleadingly renders the German words I
have just quoted by 'slave, serf or bondsman', Cap. 1.715.) Although Marx
sometimes uses the terms leibeigen and horig in a general sense ofbeing subject to
and dependent upon someone else and under his control. the words 'attached to
162
the soil' (an die Sch<'llf g~k~st'lt) pmv!: b~yo11d qut:stion that he was thinking here of
the man I am calling a Sl."rf So I thiHk M.1rx wouk! h.lvt a<.Tepted the man I have
defined as a serf under th.u J~s\~uatiou In<l:.:~d. m .l tontuute in Vol. I of Capital
(717-18 n.2), referring t(t th{' 5ituatkm in Sd~si;i iu thtlou~\.'ightecnth century, he
can use the expressmr: 'di~..s'' s~rf.-.' whidt m MEW XXIII.745 n.191 is explained
as 'Leibeigenen'. h1r such a nmdition he nmually employs the term Leibei~en
schaft, but somerim~..s Horigkeit, apparently .t:\ ;m .lltl'm;uive name for the same
status. :>:J A passag~.. in which ht> dwells upon th~ wndition (>fthe serf of mediaeval
and modem times is C.1p. 1.2.35..):! (=.-\tr:w XXJIL.25i4). Here he speaks again
and again of Leibe(\!t't1S(II4t .tnd f-'r,n::rlwi~. I lll"Cd only 1dd that ofcourse we must
not take the use of tht words 's(.'rt~ and s,rfdmn' to imply any necessary
connection with feudali')m. even it' we regard ieud.thsmls necessarily involving
forms of serfdom (cf IV. v below). Thi!i poiut i~ made ..xplicitly in a letter from
Engels to Marx datld 22 Decl.'mh~..r 1HR2. Aftli."r ~.xprl'!'sing his pleasure at the
fact that he and MJrx an in agrl'~'m1.nt llll the hi!.tnry ufl.t'iheigenschaft, Engels
continues, 'It is certain rhat l.r'iiJt(!!~'~l:.,h":_lt and lliiti!ktt arc not a peculiarly
mediaeval-feudal form; we find dwm ~wrrwhcre. or nearly everywhere, in
places where conquerors have the hnd nduv:ued for thtm by the old inhabitants, e.g. very early in Thessaly. Engds Wd~ ofwurs~: thinking of the Penestai.
of whom I have spoken briefly above. He and many others, he adds. had been
misled by this abouc Mittelaltersknechtschaft (rnedi.tl:"val servitude): 'one was
much too inclined to base it simply <'II nmquest'. ~This letter of Engels is
unfortunately omitted from Ml::SC in thl' Fn~lish nr~ion I normally refer to, of
1956; but it can be found on pp.41 t-12 of an earlkr English edition, of 1936,
which has a different !>dl'ftion ofletters. Tlw ( itr-man h'Xt i!o in MEGA III. iv .587
and MEWXXXV.l.'7.)
Ill. DEBT BONDAGE. I said earlier that debt bondage was a common
phenomenon in the Greek world and we must not make the mistake of supposing that many other cities followed the example of Athens and abolished it
entirely. As far as I know. we cannot name any other single city which certainly
did away with debt bondage, and it is quite likely that many allowed even actual
enslavement of defaulting debtors. The Sicilian Greek historian Diodorus, who
visited Egypt and wrote his account of it (with much second-hand material) in
the second third of the last century B.C., inspires no confidence when he
attributes Solon's reform of the Athenian debt laws to borrowing from the
legislation of the late-eighth-century Pharaoh Bocchoris: but he is surely speaking from his knowledge of the contemporary world when he declares that most
Greek lawgivers. although they forbade the taking ofindispensable articles such
as weapons and ploughs as securities for debt, nevertheless allowed the debtors
themselves to become agogimoi (1.79.~5), a technical term which would cover
liability to both debt bondage and actual enslavement (Plut., Sol. 13.4). We
happen to know that one Alexandrian citizen could not be a slave to another (P.
Hal. 1.219-21). Some other Greek cities evidently had the same rule as early
Rome, that a citizen who was enslaved must be sold abroad (at Rome. 'trans
Tiberim '); but we cannot be sure that this rule was universal (see Finley. SSAG
173-4). I think it virtually certain that forms of debt bondage existed at all times in
the great majority of Greek cities. We often hear oflaws being passed by Greek
163
cities, dt.l!iug with pwbkms of in,kbr~dm:"s: ,-\sheri, LGPD (1969), discusses

forty known t'X.tmpks in rh~ half-m!lknium blrwccn 594/3 and 86/5 B.C.
Just as Lnin w~._rJ~ lik~ ~nvitus;' and snvir~ were sometimes used (as we
shall set~ presently) to nw.m \'ltlwr 1ht' m.rd y tnnporary 'servitude' of a free man
in debt bondage nr the rnnJJtioli of d p!:a<,;mt .,;erfwho was 'free' only in the
sense that lw wot-. rwt redmi.otll~ ot slaVL', so in Greek we find applied to those in
debt bonJJ.~<' Wlmt" (c..-.z; Jt)l,lvi) which ought to be reserved for the slave, as
well as tho')l' whiC'h arc most often applied to slaves (e.g. somara, literally
'bodie-s'). A fragment of Mcnandcr shows how wary we must be. Daos, in the
Hero, ashd if the girl he loves is a doule (a slave), replies, 'Well, yes, in a sort of
way' (h,mros. h'i)"(hli. tropon tina); and he goes on to explain that she and her
brother dfl' 'it'rving to work off a debt (Hero 18-40, esp. 20). This is evidently
concdwd as luprl.'ning in Attica, for the setting of the play is the Athenian demc
of Ptelca (litu: 22); but we must rcmcmb~r that all Mcnander's plays were
produced in tht.' generation following the destruction in 322 of the fifth/fourthcentury Athtni.m democracy. when forms of debt bondage could well have
crept in and even received at least tacit legal recognition (cf. V.iii below).~>-~ Some
of our texts from the Classical period, if taken literally. suggest that in some
Greek cities the consequencc of defaulting on a debt might be actual enslavement orthesaleofone's children (see e.g. Lys. XII.98; lsocr. XIV.48: Ar . Plut.
147-8}. 5 ;, I doubt if Aristophanes, in the Acharnians (729-835). would have
represented his Mcgarian as actually trying to sell his two daughters (who
would then, of cours~. bt'comt' the slaws of the buyer) unless such things were
known to happtn in the Greek world, even perhaps in places where they were
contrary to law. According to Herodotus, writing in the third quarter of the
fifth century, the Thracians - who were of course a non-Greek people. and
incidentally provided Classical Greece with mor~ slaves than any other 'barbarian'
race- had a custom of selling their children abroad (V. 6. 1); and over six hundred
years later Philostratus attributes to the Phrygians of Asia Minor (by then
largely hellenised) a similar practice of selling their children {Vita Apo/lvn.
VII[. 7). In both cases the sales are represented as outright; and although nothing
is said of debt. we may suspect that usually the children would be sold as a
substitute for the enslaveml.'nt or debt bondage of the parents. (Diodorus says
that the Gauls would give Italian merchants a boy, p11is- as a slave, ofcourse- in
exchange for a jar of wine; but he gives as a reason not debt but the Gauls 'lov<' of
wine and the 'accustomed avarice' of thl.' Italian merchants, V ..26.4.)
Arrest and imprisonment for debt seem to have been common in the cities of
the Achaean League in the mid-second century (Polyb. XXXVIII.xi.tO, B.C.
147-6). At Temnosin Asia Minor, in thelast century B.C., we hear from Cicero
of a man named Heracleides becoming 'add ictus' to his surety. Hcnnippus. who
had had to discharge his debt (Cic., Pro Flacc. 42, 46-50, esp. 48-9). Although
'addictio' was also an institution of Roman law (mentioned below), entitling a
creditor to seize his judgment debtor and imprison him or (in practic<') make
him work for him, it seems equally likely that this case would have been
regulated by the local law ofTemnos. The practice of seizure and imprisonment
for debt was still rif<' in Egypt in A.D. 68, as shown by the famous edict of
Tiberius Julius Akxander. the Roman Prefect, to which I shall return presently.
And Plutarch, around A.D. 100. could speak of debtors being actually sold by
164
their creditors (Mor. 829e), and of others who fled for sanctuary to the temple of
Artemis in Ephesus (828d), evidently to save themselves from seizure. The
passages I have just referred to come from an invcctivc against borrowing,
usually known by the Latin translation of its title, De vitando arre alieno (Mor.
R27d-832a). In this work Plutarch (828f) shows a pathetic inability to grasp the
significance for the poor man of the law of Solon to which I have already
alluded. At one point. too, he can remark that 'nobody lends to the poor man'
(830d), while at anorh~r he says. 'Do you possess nothing? Don't borrow, for
you won't be able tn repay' (~2Yt). In a pa<.sagl' whi~:h i;; almost unique in Greek
literature in profflnn!! advin to rh..- "'-''Y ro,lr man on how to maintain himself
(830ab), Plutarch tdls hun to ~am a h\mg by teaching r('ading and writing
(grammata didasko,l: by d'tin~ lS poJidtJg.~t''' which involved taking children to
school, an action nnrmJ.lly pert~mn~d by sb.ws; by being a door-ket'per (thyr6r6n). another activity :~lmo5t monupohsc:d t>y slaves; or by going in for sailing
(pleon) or the coastin~ trad~ (po~r.IJJftr}r~) - anything rather than becoming a
borrower. for Plurar~h wdl kmw whu rhat was likely to lead to. (I shall re-tum
to this passage in Sntiou n of th~~ dtdptcr. dt.llin~ with hired labour.)
Those who arc t'dnnliar \\lth tll{" N~w T~~umnu will rem~mber the Parable
of the Unmerciful s~nJnt. Ill Mt. XVIII.23-.l4. where j('SUS, thinking as he
always did in terms ufthL' .:1/iit.JofPalt~tim (st'l' VII.iv below), is giving a vivid
picture of the kind of thing that nnght wdl happen to someone who dcfaultl'd
on a debt to a mernhlr of tht' td.mil y , )fl kwd. The 'slave' (he is called doul~Js in
the Greek), who owes his m.lstlr . .1 king. the cnurmuus ~urn of 10,000 talents, is
very nearly sold up, with his wit~ and children; but he pleads for mercy, and his
master remits the debt. The servant subsequently puts a 'fellow-slave' who
owes him a mere 100 denarii under guard (or 'in prison'); but he himselfends up
being 'delivered to the tormentors' until he has cleared offhis own debt to his
master. (The picture is complicated, from a strictly juristic point of view, by the
fact that both the royal servants are called 'slaves'; but I think we nt'ed not bother
about that.) The first servant is originally condemned by the king to be sold,
with his family: this is permanent enslavement ( Vmklavung, SchuldktJcchtschqfi).
The second servant has temporary debt bondage (Schuldhaft) imposed upon
him, by a powerful member of the king's household acting on his own
authority: this is a form of what is often called 'personal execution': and we may
contrast this with Mt. V .25-6 and Lk. XII.58-9. contemplating the possibility of
the enforcement of a debt through formal judicial process, leading to official
imprisonment.~ The first servant se('mS eventually to suffer debt bondage too,
with torture thrown in; and here we need not consider too closely whether it is a
form of 'personal execution' or an official condemnation by the king. In the
Gospels, then, we can see three different sets of circumstances resulting from a
debtor's default: outright enslavement, and debt bondage resulting either from
'personal execution' or from legal process. (There is, by the way. somc interesting material on this subject in the Old Testament, above all Nehem. V.l-13.
which reminds us of Solon's seisachtheia; also II Kings iv.l; Prov. XXII.7, and
other references in Finley. SO 179 n.65.)
I am sur" that there were many other places in the Greek East at about the
begirming of our era where conditions would have been very similar to those
described in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (and elsewhere in the Bible),
l/1. Property and the Propertied (iv)
165
especially in areas ruled for a long time by kings or dynasts which had recently
been incorporated, or were soon robe incorporated, in the Roman empire. It is
not clear to me what lies behind the claim by the Roman client king, Nicomedes
Ill ofBithynia, in 104 B.C., that 'most of the Bithynians had been carried offby
(Roman] publicani and were serving as slaves in the (Roman] provinces'- an
allegation which led the Roman Senate to decree that no citizen of an 'allied' state
should be held as a slave in a Roman province (Diod. XXXVI.3.1-2). Perhaps.
as Badian has suggested, the publicani had made loans to Nicomedes, and he had
pledged some ofhis subjects to them as security (PS 87-8). In Ptolemaic Egypt,
for which we have much information from the papyri, there is clear evidence
both for outright enslavement for debt and for debt bondage;:'7 but in the
Roman period the latter seems to have replaced the former. It is difficult to
generalise about Greek cities, because the evidence is so scanty, but it does look
as if debt bondage largely superseded outright enslavement for debt during the
Hellenistic period. 7"'
* * * * * *
So far, in speaking of debt bondage (and of actual enslavement for debt), I
have been dealing with the Greek world in the Classical and Hellenistic periods.
In Roman law, to which I must now turn (because it ultimately prevailed
throughout the Greek world), the position of the defaulting debtor was in early
times very bad indeed. His creditors might keep him in chains; and ultimatdy,
according to the most probable interpretation of a laconic provision of the Law
ofthe Twelve Tables (HI.6). they might cut his body in pieces and divide the parts
among themselves (FIRA 12 .33-4; there is an English translation in AR.~ 10, cf.
14). Other interpretations have been suggested; but the ancient writers who are
known to have mentioned this law. even if they wt'reshocked by it, all took it in
the literal sense (which I have accepted): Quintilian, Tertullian, Cassius Dio,
and especially Aulus Gdlius, who may well be conveying thl. opinions of a
leading second-century jurist, Sextus Caecilius Africanus. represented by Gdlius
as praising the wholesome severity of the law in qmstion (NA XX.i.l9, 39-55).
The wealthy Roman regarded a defaulting debtor who had been driven to
borrow because of dire need, rather than for some speculative or luxurious
purpose. almost as a kind of criminal. Alternatively a debtor. in early Roman
times, might become subject to the mysterious nexum. an institution of the early
Roman law (much discussed in modern times) whereby. most probably, a
debtor in effect committed himself totally to his creditor as security, 'giving his
labour [or 'labour power'] into servitude', as Varro put it (suas operas in servitutem. LL VII.105); with the result that his creditor. ifhe defaulted (and perhaps
even before that), could Sl'ize him, by the procedure known as manus iniectio or
otherwise (possibly without even resorting to legal process), and deal with him
as he wished, on dctault selling him as a slave and perhaps even putting him to
death. 59 Historians are often content to say that nexum was abolish~d by the Lex
Poctelia of (probably) 326 B.C.- and so indeed it may have been. in its full
original form; but the position of the defauhing debtor remained precarious in
the extreme. Modern Roman lawyers and historians usually say very little about
his plight. I have found no account in the last half-century to equal the fundamental study by Friedrich von Woess in 1922 (PCBRR). which showed beyond
166
doubt that in practice what is commonly called 'personal execution' - that is to

say, seizure by a creditor - always remained in the forefront as a means of
coercing a defaulting debtor. This was also the position taken some thirty years
earlier by Ludwig Mitteis, in his great work (quoted here as Ru II), Reichsrecht
und Volksrecht in den ostlichen Provinzen des romischen Kaismeichs (1891) 41~58
(esp. 442-4; 450 on the Principatc; and 450-8 on the Later Empirc).110
Von Woess understood particularly well the nature of the Roman state and its
law, as an instrument of the propenied classes; for the propertyless, he realised,
the state 'couldn't care less': 'Ocr antike Staat ist ein Klassenstaat, der nur fur die
ftihrenden Schichten Interesse hat, das Schick sal der Besitzlosen ist ihm herzlich
gleichgiiltig' (PCBRR 518).
Well before the end of the Roman Republic a procedure had been devised
known as bonon~m venditio: the 'selling up' of the whole of an insolvent debtor's
property. 61 This, however, was not at all a benefit to the debtor, but rather an
added penalty, as it did nothing to prevent 'personal execution' against the
debtor himself or his being subsequently sued for anything that might still
remain owing, and it also involved disgrace, infamia, and was regarded as a great
misfortune (see esp. Cic., Pro Quinct. 4H-51, characteristically exaggerated as the
passage is).
The procedure known as ussio bonorum, instituted by Julius Caesar or Augustus, 62 enabled some few debtors to escap~ 'personal execution' (and infamia) by
ceding all or most of their property towards discharge of their debts, and thus
avoid being 'adjudged' to their creditors and dragged off to prison. 63 The earliest
surviving imperial constitution I can find which refers to cessio bonon~m shows
that that is precisely what the alternative was: the cession of property is a
btnl{/icium, a privilege, ne iudicati detrahantur in carmem (Cj VII.lxxi.l, of A.D.
223). But cessio bonon~m was permissible, it seems, only for a man whose dcfauh
was not blameworthy and was due to misfortune: fire. theft and shipwreck arc
mentioned (Seneca. De bentj. VII.xvi.3; CTh lV.xx.l: see esp. von Woess,
PCBRR 505-10). Papyri show that it might be avilablc in principk even to a
'poor' man;IW but such a person would surely be much less likely than a man of
substance to be granted the privilege, and ex hypothesi it would b~ of no use to
the propertyless.
A greater privilege, the appointment (by the praetor in Rome or by the
provincial governor) ofa special curator. to carry out distractio bonon~m, the sale of
enough of the debtor's property to satisfy his creditors, was available, at least
before Justinian's day, on]y to an insolvent who was a person of great consequence, a clara persona: the examples given by Gaius, in Di~. XXVII.x.S, arc a
senator or his wife. It did not involve infamia.
Recent standard works on Roman law, howevt'r much they may disagree
about the technical details of manus iniectio, addicrio, and the actio iudicati,leaveno
doubt that in the Roman world 'personal execution never ceased to exist. As
Schulz says, 'The plaintiffwas permitted to take the defendant home and to keep
him there until the judgment was fulfilled . . . This execution on the person
existed throughout the whole classical period [of Roman law, roughly the
second century and the first half of the third], though it is but rarely mentioned
in our sources. Some rules of classical law remain unintelligible if one does not
remember this form ofexecution' (CRL 26-7). 65
167
We hear of men referred to in Latin as obaerarii or obaerati in several different

parts of the Graeco-Roman world who are evidently being made to labour under
burdensome conditions as a result of having defaulted on debts (which of course
may include rents);66 and a number ofisolated texts strongly suggest that creditors
often imposed very harsh conditions on defaulting debtors (including tenants),
making them work almost like slaves in order to discharge their liabilities. 67 Later
evidence shows the prohibition of imprisonment of private debtors in the wellknown edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander. prefect of Egypt in 68, to ha vc been
essentially a piece of propaganda for the new regime of the Emperor Galba and a
mere flash in the pan: 68 'personal execution' in Egypt in particular remained
'ineradicable' and 'pertinacious', as Mitteis insisted (Ru V 55, 59, 447-50). Much
would depend on the relative social position of creditor and debtor, always an
important factor in the Roman world 69 and one which played an even greater role
in the Later Empire (cf. VIII.i below). In a court case in A.D. 85 the prefect of
Egypt expressed horror at the condUt:t of a creditor named Phibion: 'You deserve
to be flogged,' he said, 'for keeping in your custody a man of quality (ruschemon)
and his wife' (M. Chr. 80 = P. Ffor. 61 11.5~1).
Quintilian, writing his handbook on oratory in the late first century, could
speak of debates on whether a man is a slave if at the time of his birth his mother
was 'addicta' (serving a creditor as a bondswoman), and whether 'an addictus,
whom the law orders to be in servitude [servire) until he has paid his debt', is. a slave
or not (Inst. orat. III. vi.25: Vll.iii.26). (Of course there could be no possiblt! doubt
about the answers, from the proper legal point of view: the first man was born
free, ingenuus, and the second was free also; but the very fact that such questions
could be thought worthy oforatorical debate is significant.) And when Quintilian
thinks it necessary to point out that 'being a slave is different from being in a state
of servitude' (aliud est srrvus l'Sse, a/iud servire), it is the bondsman, the addictus.
whom he is setting beside the slave (V.x.60). A fragment, from the second
century, of one of those curious rhetorical declamations in which orators displayed their often perverse ingenuity refer<> to an addirtus in sC"rvitude to a moneylender, and asserts that 'an addictus never hopes for freedom' (Calpumius Flaccus,
Declam. 14, ed. G. Lehnert. 1903, pp.13-14). The statt:ment is strictly untrue, of
course, both literally and juridically, and is tven falsified in the imaginary case
given by the orator; bur it may well give a fair impression of the situation of many
addicti who realised that they had little or no hope ofescaping from servitude. Two
of the declamations which have come down to us under the nam.: of Quintilian
(for which sec Michael Winterbottom, in OCD 2 317) also deal with the addict11s.
Om:. in the 'major' series (Ps.-Quintil., Dedam. 111.17). describes an unfortunate
debtor, known to us from a passagc in Livy (VITI.28.1-9), as 'an addictus and
scarcely a free man'. The other, from tht 'minor' set (Ps.-Quintil., Dec/am. 311),
again raises the question whether an addictus is a frcr man or a slaw, under the
guise of a disputed claim by an addictus that he has bcrn frt-ed from his status by a
clause in his deceased creditor's will, manumitting all his 'slaves'. Fortunatianus,
in an Ars Rhetorica written probably as late as the fourth century, when giving a list
of twenty-one different ways in which a particular person can be described,
including name, age, sex, place oforigin. 'fortuna' (rich or poor) etc .. gives under
the heading 'condicio' (legal status) the l'Xampks 'servus, addictus (11.1. p. 103,
ed. C. Halm, Rhet. lAt. Min., 1863). In Gaius' Institutes (111.19'J) we find a casual
168
reference to the fact that just as there can be theft {furtum) of members of one's
family (a child in potestas or a wife in manus) or of one's auctoratus (a man bound
under contract as a gladiator), so there can be theft of one's judgment debtor, a
iudicatus, who is evidently assumed to be giving useful service in working offhis
debt. Salvius Julianus, one of the greatest of the Roman lawyers, who wrote in
the second third of the second century, could contemplate a situation in which
'someone carries offa free man by force and holds him in chains' (Dix. XXII.iii.20);
and Venuleius Saturninus, writing about the same time, could speak of the use
of'private or public chains' (vel privata vel publica vincula, Dig. L.xvi.224). In the
early third century yet another jurist, Ulpian, writes of the man who, although
not strictly 'in servitute', is put in chains by a private individual (in privata vincula
ductus, Dig. IV.vi.23.pr.). At about the same period Paulus speaks of the man
who casts someone into prison, to extract something from him (Dig.IV.ii.22):
the passage seems to me to imply that the prison (career) is a private one. 'Private
imprisonment by powerful creditors was an evil which the State, in spite of
repeated enactments, was not strong enough to uproot' Uolowicz and Nicholas.
HISRV1 445). Some of the situations described above may. of course, have been
created by indiscriminate acts of violence by powerful mrn; but they make
much better sense if the perpetrators were creditors, as Jolowicz and Nicholas
rightly assumt: in the passage I have just quoted.
It is true that the creditor who seized his judgment debtor had no explicit legal
righr to make him work off his debt. But what would be the point of merely
seizing a defaulting debtor and incurring the expense ofkeeping him in idleness.
except perhaps when he was believed to have concealed assets? The addictus or
iudicatus to whom the word strvire could be applied in popular speech (see above)
must normally haw been 'constrained' to work for his judgment creditor, if
only to save himself from the even more unpleasant alternative ofincarceration
and chains. with only just enough food to keep him alive.
Most of the texts concerning 'personal ext>cution' that I havt' quoted so far
come from the Principatc. In the Later Empire the position of the lower classes
deteriorated further, and laws passed to give some protection to the humble
were if anything disregarded with t'Ven greater impunity by the powerful, thl'
potentes or potrntiores, whom the Severan lawyer Callistratus evide"Dtly had in
mind when he wrote (in the early third century) of the man who is 'kept in
chains. potentiore vi oppressus' (Dig. IV .vi.9), and again when he recorded that
taking refuge at a statue of the emperor was permitted, as an exception, to a man
'escaping from chains, or who had been dt>tainl'd in custody by porentiores' (Di~.
XLVIII.xix.28.7). A constitution of Diocletian and Maximian dated 293 insisted that pledges for debt should consist only of property and not of'sons, or
free men' (CJ VJII.xvi.6). Another constitution of the same emperors in the
following year stated that 'the laws do not pl'rmit liberos to bl' in servitude
[servire] for debt to creditors' (CJ IV.x.12). Wheth<:r these liberi arc to bl'
conceived as free men who had become the bondsmen of the-ir creditors (or had
even tried to sell themselves into slavery), or whether they are children whose
parents arc being forbidden to commit them to bondage (for the Latin word
could refer to either category), is hardly dear (see e.g. Mitteis. Ru V 363-4, 451
and n.J, 456). In the Latl'r Empire, in spite of a series of imperial laws positively
forbidding the existl'nce of private prisons (CJIX.v.1 and 2. A.D. 486 and 529), 10
169
large landowners openly maintained such prisons, where defaulters could be

coerced, along with other undesirables and criminals. More is known about this
practice from Egypt than elsewhere (see Hardy, LEBE 67-71). One papyrus
reveals that on a particular day in c. 538 there were no fewer than 139 persons in
the estate prison of the A pion family at Oxyrhynchus (PSl953.37 ,54-60): many
if not most of them are likely to have been debtors.
We may conclude, then, that 'personal execution' continued unabated
throughout the Principate and Later Empire,7 1 at least to the time ofJustinian;72
that measures such as cessio bonorum benefited mainly the propertied classes; and
that attempts by the imperi.U government (such as they were) to assist the weak
foundered on the defiance of the potentrs.
'Debt bondage' in antiquity. as I have defined it, would include at any rate the
more burdensome form of the condition (which I can do no more than mention
here) often known technically as paramoni ('indentured labour' is perhaps the
nearest English equivalent for at least some of its varieties), which itself varied
considerably not only from place to place and time to time but also from
transaction to transaction, and might arise in very different ways, for example as
a condition of manumission from slavery. or as a result of defaulting on a debt or
even incurring one, as well as embodying a contract of service or apprenticeship.73 Juridically, the person subject to the obligation of paramoni was un~
doubtedly 'free' rather than a slave. but his freedom in some cases was S()
circumscribed as to be very like that of the judgment debtor in Roman law. the
addictus, who (as we have seen) could be said to be 'in a state of servitude'
(servire). although not technically a servus. It may well be that Dio Chrysostom
had one of the more onerous forms of this institution in mind when he spoke of
'myriads of free men selling themselves to be slaves according to a contract'
(douleuein kata syngraphen). sometimes on very harsh terms (XV.23). I suspect,
too, that something very like paramone may possibly have been involved in the
case of the boys and girls described by Cassiodorus as standing around at the
great fairin Lucania (in southern Italy). to be 'sold' by their parents, to their own
profit, passing 'from the labour of the fields into urbana srrviria' (Var. VI11.33.
written about 527).
Before I leave the topic of debt bondage I wish to mention briefly a subject
which can hardly be discussed in any detail without going into highly technical
questions: I mean the sale of oneself or of one's children into slavery. This of
course falls in strictness under the head of 'chattel slavery' rather than 'debt
bondage', and it has already come up once or twice in this section; but since
sdf-sale or sale of children would virtually always in practice be the result of
extreme poverty and very probably of debt, and is often associated with the
pledging ofindividuals for debt, it is convenient to refer to these practices here.
The situation before the Roman conquest of the Greek world is so poorly
known that it is best for us to confine ourselves to the Roman period. merely
noticing that the enslavement of free men seems to have been possible in many
places in the Greek East before they became subject to Rome (see above, and
Mitteis, Ru V 357-72). In legal theory a free person could not in general become<~
slave on Roman territory. But certain exceptions existed at various times even in
strict law, quite apart from the enslavement resulting from certain types of
sentence for crime, such as condemnation to the mines or quarries. In particular,
170
the sale of newborn children (sanguinolenti) 14 was sanctioned at least from

Constantine's time (Fragm. Vat. 34, of A.D. 313) and perhaps earlier (CTh
V.x.1, of319 or 329, referring co the 'statuta priorum principum'). Whether or
not the sale ofolder children was ever legally permitted, it certainly occurred as a
result of poverty and debt: this is clear above all from a series of constitutions
issued between the early fourth century and the mid-fifth (see esp. CTh
XI.xxvii.2; III.iii.l; Nov. Val. XXXIII) and from various literary sources and
papyri; and we also know that adults in need sometimes sold themselves into
slavery. 7:~ A passage not often quoted in this connection is I Clemrnr lv .2 (usually
thought to have been written at the end of the ftrst century):
We know that many among us [presumably the Christians of Rome] have handed
themselVl'S over into bondage [eis desma], in order to ransom others. Many have given
themselves into slavery [eis douleian], and with the price paid for themselves have fed
others.
The implication of the word used, epsomisan, is I think that it was their starving
children who needed to be fed. (Of course, this text and some similar ones may
in reality refer to some form of paramone: see above.)
The unfree labour characteristic of the pre-Classical Near East and illustrated
particularly in numerous.cuneiform documents seems to have included a high
proportion of cases of what was really debt bondage rathcr than slavery of the
Greek and Roman type; but that is a subject with which I cannot concern myself
in this book. 76 Anyone who wishes to make a direct comparison between what I
am calling debt bondage and ordinary chattel slavery can read a useful, if
idealised, account in Philo. Dt' spec. lt'g. II. 79-85, of Hebrew debt bondage, as
contemplated by Deut. XV. 12-15; cf. Exod. XXI.2; Levit. XXV.39-43:Jerem.
XXXIV. 14. Philo is trying to make the point that men in this kind ofbondage,
who must be set free at the end of six years' service, although called slaves,
douloi, are really in the position of hired labourers: he uses both the standard
technical terms. thrs and misthotos (cf. Section vi of this chapter). That concludes
my treatment of the subject of debt bondage.
* * * * * *
Convict labour was never very important in the Greek or even the Roman
world, 77 and it is only in the later Roman Empire that we hear much of it. It
appears most often in the condemnation of men oflow status ad metallum: that is
to say, to serve in perpetuity in the State mines or quarries (see Jones, LRE
II. 838). In the so-called 'Great Persecution', in rhe early years of the fourth
century, we know from Eusebius that many Christians were condemned to the
copper mines ofPhaeno in the south of Palestine, many others to the porphyry
quarries of the Eastern Desert of Egypt, and others again to mines in Cilicia. 7R In
the fourth century minor criminals from districts in Italy and from Sardinia
were sometimes condemned to work in the Roman bakcries (CTh IX.x1.3,5-7}
- where the bakers used to supplement their inadequate supply of convicts,
according to the ecclesiastical historian Socrates, by setting up taverns and
brothels on the ground ftoors above their bakeries, from which unsuspecting
customers were precipitated below, and put to work at baking for the rest of
their days, until the Emperor Th~odosius I in c. 390 put a stop to the practice
(HEV.xviii.J-8}.

Returnin~
171
* * * * * *
w tht: sUbJl'Ct <:!ofslavay prp(r. r ~hou!d lik~ tn ;;uc_;;s 5CH!h't bmg ;
which so t:1r I ha\'l" !PV~:I u11iy thl r.riefc~t n:t.>mion. The- :l.lt!IT<' of tmr .:ndt'!l;'t'
for antiquuy ts otkn sud1 as tl t('mpt us tn i!r~tw :1iskadmg cnr:.-lti.Sle>ll~. ;1bH1ll
the absl'li( of r<'l"t.li!: rh~nomena, wh~n .t!l Wl' ha\'t: ;t rig-ht!;:.\ dv ~" :~~ ll<Hl' dw
absence of r:.id,trCr' };,.. rllllS~ phenomena; and SO It is ht'fl', J'iw nJIIIH' of t!J,:
evidcn<"l' t\.1r ancient ~l.lh':'\' is such that wt. ar, i1kd" to i!nd ~liln" L1hm:r
(outsid.:: tht domestit." o;ctnc. .mywayj g:n..-atly uud.r-r.pt.\.'S<'Jilnt I!; J!Ir s<~l!n"!..
as indeed are ;.1i1 t(lmb l~fl.~tmar. nll" .-.id"n' !i.~r tht l'wp:(Jy::rl':tt tt ,(;n't's in
production in antiquity can hl vtry o;canty ;.'Vt'n t(r ;Lu-,.._ .md timls ;;r .d11:~h '"'~
know it was widespread and t'SSt'nttal. EYru whtn thr: rund.unrl1!;1\ i'm pl.tyd
by slave production cannot ht denild. as for part;; ot'th~ (~n"<"k ru.m:l.md .tnd
some Clf the Aegean i~landi during- the Classical period .u:d ([' ,1 It~~ xt~nt) th
Hellenisttc age. we should have scarcely any mentl>ll ,,t' rlw usc ,,f ~lav(.;' ::J
Greek agriculture uutside Attica were it not for tht fJCt tho~t hi!>h,riJn' ("' ln~Y
dides, Xenophon. Polybius) make incidental mt"ntiuu,fl'uch ._J.,n;; in .u'\tltmrs
of military campaigns. if as a rule only when rccor,ting capturt'l- .-,ud h<'''~y: -.t,
Appendix II. lndlcJ, but for a few scatterC'd texts in th, ..'\rh~m.m olaton .md ~
handful of inscriptions we should have hardly any !-p(dtic ~.\'id,w, ,,f rh,..
central role played by slaves in production tvcn in Attia itsdt: It, s.t bc~:dL' th,
general (and often vaguc) references to slavery in Plato, Anstotk. Xmophc,rl'.;
Oeconomicus and utht.r ht.:rature. For many areas of the Gr.,k WtlFld i1! lll!hl'
periods no sources exist from which Wl' can l.'xpect spl'l'ifil l'Vi,lm,._.. .,f tit
employment of slave labour. I believe that this has not bct-n ~ufticitntly rctlbnL
When there is little or no rdevant literature or epigraphk n;atc-ri.\1 front whirh
we can expect to derive enlightenment about the labour o;Jtu;ttwu - as. for
instance, in most of the Greek world outside Egypt in the l klltni~tic periodwe must be particularly careful not to jump to the conclusion that untree labour
was oflittlc significance.
To give only one example- we have no right to expect any mention, even in
our best-preserved building accounts, of the many slaves who must haw bem
working under the craftsmen and transpon-contractors who undertook thl'
various pieces of work (mainly quite small) referred to in the inscriptions
concerned. Some of the building accounts mentioned in Section vi below and its
nn.20-3, for instance those for the Erl'chtheum and the temple of Eleusis in
Anica, name a number of slaves, all of whom I would take to be choris oikountes
(see above and n. 9). To treat such slaves as the only ones involved in the building
operations is an error of which scholars have too often been guilty. Anyone
entering into a State building contract might, and often would, make use of
slaves in carrying out the works for which he had undertaken responsibility; .md
of course there would be no occasion for any of these slaves to be mentioned in
the inscriptions. No slaves arc referred to in some of the building accounts,
induding those recording the works at Epidaurus in the fourth century (discussed at length by Burford, GTBE): but it would be ridiculous to suppose that
there were no slaves working there . And the slaves engaged in the Athenian
building operations are likely to have been far more numerous than thme who
are mentioned by name in the inscriptions.
Those who are inclined to infer from the scarcity of references to agricultural
172
slave labour that the bulk of the agricultural work on the farms of the wcll-to.do
was not done by slaves should ask themselves what evidence there is for any
other kind of labour! As I have indicated earlier in this section (under 'II.
Serfdom'), there must have been many serfs and quasi-serfs in those Asiatic
areas which came under Greek (or Macedonian) control from Alexander's time
onwards; and of course a large part of the working peasant population of the
whole Roman empire was brought into some kind ofserfdom. at different times
in different areas, in the late th1rd century and later (sec IV.iii below). But
serfdom, I have suggested above, tended not to persist under Roman rule before
thl' institution of the Later Roman colonate. How then, if not by slave labour, was
the agricultural work done for the propertied class? How, otherwise, did that class (a
landowning class above all: see III.ii-iii above) derive its surplus? The only
alternatives are by wage-labour or by leasing. But there is good reason to think
that wage-labour existed on only a small scale, apart from seasonal activities
such as harvesting and vintage and olive-picking. and the hiring of slaws (see
Section vi of this chapter). And leasing (see IV .iii below) cannot bl expected to
yield nearly as much profit as working land directly with slave labour - provided of course the landowner can acquirt> not only ordinary working slaves but
also a thoroughly competent steward, assisted wht>rc ncct:ssary by 'slavedrivers. (The steward. as we saw above, would himself be a slave. or perhaps a
freedman, and all the slave-drivers would be slaves.) The view held by Roman
agriculturalists of the late Republic and early Principatc was that one should let a
farm to a tenant only when one cannot work it properly on<.>sdfwith slaveseither because the climate is too bad or the soil too poor- or when it is too far
away for regular personal supervision by the owner (see Colum. l.vii.4-7,
discuss<.>d in IV .iii below). Therefore. provided the cost of purchasing or rearing
the slaves and their overseers was not too great, slavery, as a means of extracting a
surplus, was superior to any other method of exploitation; and surely. when
Greeks or Romans who were used to slave-worked agriculture in their own
countries went to settle in Asia Minor or Syria. thcy would ust' slaves to work
their farms when they could. An exception might be furnished by som<.> local
form of serfdom, or of quasi-serfdom, in so far as the workers concerned could
be kept in that condition by their Greek masters; but it looks as if these local
peculiarities were usually not long-lasting, serfdom (as I have said) not being an
institution that flourished under Greek or Roman rule until the introduction of
the Later Roman colonatc.
* * * * * *
Some may question my justification for having used the portmanteau term,
'unftee labour', on the ground that it is objectionably broad. Is there not an
important difference, it may be said, according to Marxist categories or indeed
any acceptable ones, between slave production and serf production? The serfhas
at least possession of the means of agricultural production, which is legally
recognised in some degree although it may not amount to ownership, or cvl'n to
Roman possessio -which, incidentally. not even a frt!e leasehold tenant enjoyed
under Roman law. The position of the scrfis therefore different in an important
way from that of the slave. Was there not, then, a profound change in the
conditions of production, as between the earlier period ofslavery and the period
of widespread Sl'rfdom which (as we shall see in IV .iii below) began round about
173
A. 0. 300 and eventually covered a large part of the Graeco-Roman world?

My answer begins with the assertion that 'unfree labour', in the broad sense in
which I use that expression, is a most useful concept, in contrast with the 'free'
wage-labour which is the basis of capitalist society. Slavery and serfdom are in
many respects similar, and societies in which they are the dominant forms of
production will be fundamentally different from capitalist society, founded on
wage-labour. In the Greek (and Roman) world it is particularly hard to separate
slavery and serfdom because, as I have demonstrated, neither the Greeks nor the
Romans recognised serfdom as a distinct institution, and neither had a general
word for it. I have illustrated in this section the perplexity shown by Roman
emperors from the fourth to the sixth centuries in dealing with serf coloni, who
were (as the emperors well knew) technically 'free men' (ingenut) as opposed to
slaves (servt), but whose condition in practice was really more like that of slaves.
The solution adopted by some of the fourth-century emperors, it will be remembered, was to regard the serf coloni as in some sense slaves of their land; but this
conception was as questionable from the legal point of view as regarding the
judgment debtor who had become addictus as being in a form of slavery to his
creditor.
There is surely no doubt at all that in the Greek (and Roman) world, when
forms of unfree labour appear, it is commonly slavery in the strict sense which is
in the forefront. Serfdom occurs, in the Classical Greek world, only in local
forms, each ofwhich is treated as a unique case. Only in the Later Roman Empire
does it appear on a large scale, and there is really no word for it until 'colonatus' is
coined in the mid-fourth century (see above). Even then, we sometimes hear of
large slave households, though mainly in the West (see IV.iii below). The relative
numbers of serfs and slaves cannot be estimated with any degree of confidence,
although by now there were undoubtedly far more serfs than slaves, at any rateif
we discount domestic slaves, whose role in production would be indirect only.
There is, however, a great deal of material in the Roman law-books which to my
mind proves conclusively that even chattel slavery remained very important in the
Greek and Roman world, right down to the time when Justinian published his
great Corpus Juris Civilis in the early 530s. I suspect that the continued existence of
slave and freedman managers (see above), even when slavery was far less important at lower levels than it had been, may be partly responsible for the frequent
references to slavery in the C07pus.
It therefore seems realistic to me to describe slavery as the dominant form of
ancient 'unfree labour', not in the quantitative sense that the propertied class
actu.ally derived its surplus at most times mainly from the labour of chattel slaves,
but in the sense that slavery, with debt bondage (a condition which hardly differed
from slavery in practice except in being chronologically limited), was the archetypal form of urifree labour throughout Graeco-Roman antiquity, so that not only
the occasional early fonns of serfdom like that of the Spartan Helots but also the
widespread Later Roman colonate had to be expressed in language derived from
slave terminology. whether technical (Helots as the Spartan douleia) or not (coloni
as 'slaves of the land' or 'in servitude' to it). I suggest that such a society, where
slavery in the strict sense is omnipresent in the psychology of all classes, is
something very different from one in which slavery proper is unknown or
unimportant, even if it is serfdom which then provides the propertied class with
much ofits surplus.
* * * * *
174
A very recent publication has revealed that we now have explicit evidence ofa
vase-painter at Athens who was a slave and was even prepared so to describe
himselfon one ofhis products. On a black-figure kyarhos (a ladle in the form of"
cup) dating from the 520s B.C. and discovered at Vulci, a man named Lydus
records that he painted the vase and that his name was 'Lydus, a slave [dolos], a
Myrineus' - meaning that he came from M yrina, an Aeolic Greek city on thf
coast oflydia in western Asia Minor. 79
* * * * * *
Freedom was the great hope of every slave. Some could be almost certain of
manumission. For others, who had little or no chance of it, there was only one
way ofescape from slavery: death. That in death the slave gained his freedom is a
not uncommon theme in slave epitaphs (sec e.g. Anth. Pal. VII.S53). To end this
Section I quote one of the most moving of all ancient epitaphs. It is on the slave
Narcissus, a farm overseer (vilicus) in the terrimry ofVenafrum in Italy, who
died at the age of twenty-five, and who is made to say that his freedom, denied
to him as a youth by law, has been made eternal by an untimely death (CIL
X.i.4917):110
Debita Iibertas iuveni mihi lege negata
Morte immarura reddita perperua est.
(v)
Freedmen
The slave of a Roman citizen, if manumitted formaJly by his master in one of the
ways legally prescribed, became a Roman citizen. The manumitted slave of a
citizen of a Greek city seems never to have achieved, as an automatic result of
manumission by his master, more than metic status, as he certainly did in
Classical Athens. In all Greek states, as far as we know, only a decision of the
sovereign body could confer citizenship upon a freed slave, as upon anyone else
who was not hom a citizen; and such decisions were uncommon. There is an
interesting letter ofKing Philip V of Macedon to the Thes.salian city of Larissa,
now dated 215 B.C., pointing out that if they were to follow the Roman instead
of the Greek practice they would be able to increase significantly the size of their
citizen body (SIG 3 543 = IG IX.517, lines 26 ff.: there is an English translation
in Lewis and Reinhold, RC 1.386-7). The Rhodians, in their heroic resistance to
the famous siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes in 305-4, were unusually generous in
granting citizenship as well as freedom to those slaves (purchased by the state
from their masters) who had fought well during the siege (Diod. Sic. XX.84.3;
100. 1). At Athens, citizenship was occasionally conferred by a special grant of
the Assembly upon ex-slaves for services rendered, as upon Pasion in the first
quarter of the fourth century B.C. and upon his former slave Phormia in 361/0
(see Davies, APF 427 ff., esp. 430, 436). By the Antonine period there were
apparently freedmen at Athens who had managed to become not only citizens
but members of the Council: these were expelled by order of Marcus Aurelius.
(Freedmen, although not their sons born after their manumission, were as a rule
disqualified from becoming city councillors.) Marcus did not exclude the sons
of freedmen (born after the manumission of their fathers) from serving on the
III. Property and the Propertied (v)
175
Athenian Council. As for the august Areopagus, he wished it were possible to

allow only those whose fathers atld gramifathers had been born in freedom to
become members (an 'ancient custom' which he had earlier. it seems. during his
joint reign with Verus in 161-9, tried to rcimposl'); but since this rule had
become impossible to enforce, he later consented to allow the admission of
those whose fathers and mothers had been born in freedom. (These provision~
of Marcus have come to light only recently. in an inscription first published in
1970, which has aroused some discussion: sec Appendix IV below. 2.)
As far as I know, there is only one statemt:nt in any ancient author which
attempts to explain the surprising generosity of the Romans towards slaves
manumitted by their masters, in accepting them as Roman citizens, and it is too
rarely quoted. It occurs in the Roman Antiquitit'S ofDionysius ofHalicarnassus, a
leading Greek literary critic, who wrote at Rome at the end of the last century
B.C. Dionysius, drawing attmtion to the difference between Greek and Roman
manumission, cmphasises the great advantage obtained by Romans who were
very rich (eupororatoi) in having large numbers of citizen freedmen who were
bound to assist them in their public life and who would be clients (pelatai. the
Greek word corresponding to the Latin clientes) of their descendants also (Am.
Rom. IV.22.4 to 23.7, esp. 23.6). 1 Probably no Greek state had anything
approaching the Roman dientt!la (sec my SVP, also Vl.iii and v below). the
institution of patronage and dicntship, which (among its many ramifications)
made of the frr:edman a clirns of his former master and his descendant~. (We
know much about tht> relationship of the Roman freedman to his tx-mastl'r, 2
littk- about that ofhis Greek counterpart.)
My rt>marks on freldmen will be highly sdectivc, .ts it is not my purposl' to
giv. a general account of them. Admittedly, there have been few useful studit>s
of Greek freedmen since A. Caldcrini's book, La manomissione e Ia ccmdiziMII? dei
Iiberti ;, Grecia. published as long aso as 190R. but we have had three books on
Roman freedmen in recent years in English alonc.a Alii want to do hlre is to
emphasise that the question \Vhcther a man was :1 slave or a Roman freedman or
a freeborn Roman or Greek might be far less important than the question whose
slave or frccdman he was or had been and what financial condition he had
reached. I have spoken bcforc (II.v), with disapproval, of the elevation of
'status' -useful as it can bl' as a descriptive and secondary classification- to a
position supcrinr to that of class as .tn instnmwnt for the l'fTcctiw analysis of
Greek society. This consideration applies with .xn:ption.tl force in thl present
context, at any ratc to the centuries in which some or .til Grt'l'ks were under
Roman rule (and above all to the third and following centuries C.E .. when
virtually all free Greeks were also Roman citizens), since being a Roman
freedman ('libertinus') was strictly a one-,l!rneration condition, and any childrrn
born to a frC'edman after manumission wtn in,l!ermi. free-born, and subject to
none of the considerable legal and social disabilities attaching to actual freedmen, .J
even though they would remain clic:nts of their fath..-r's former owner and his
heirs. One freedman's son. C. Thoranius, is said to have enrl"red the Roman
Senate under Augustus (Dio Cassius LI11.27 .6); and P. Hehius Pertinax. who was
twice consul((. 175 and 192), and emperor for a few wetks in 193. may also have
hccn th. son of a freedman. 5 Had I been dealing with the Latin Wl'St instead ofrhc
Greek East, it would have bet'll necessary to say somlthing of the prominent role.
176
played by the descendants of freedmen in municipal life in many cities, but

nearly all our evidence for this comes from the West, especially Italy."
'A freedman is a freedman is a freedman' is hardly a more helpful assertion,
therefore, than 'a slave is a slave is a slave'. At one extreme, especially in the late
Roman Republic and early Principate. there were freedmen of wealth and
influence far greater than that of most equite.s and even some senators of their
day. (I need have no hesitation in paying attention to these men, as many of
them were of Greek origin, in the widest sense.) Demetrius, the powerful
freedman of Pompey, is said to have died worth 4,000 talents, which would be
HS 96 million in Latin terms (Plut., Pomp. 2.9; cf. 40. 1). Augustus' freedman
and procurator Licinus. who is accused ofbehaving with odious injustice during
his 'rule' of his native Gaul, evidently amassed great wealth. 7 And the three
greatest of all imperial freedmen, in the reigns of Claudius (41-54) and Nero
(54-68). are said by Pliny the Elder (NH XXXIII.134) to have been- among
'many' liberated slaves! -even richer than Crass us, one of the great millionaires
of the late Republic, who is particularly remembered for his remark that a man
could not count as rich (locuplts) unless he could maintain a whole army out of
his own income, and who must have been worth more than HS 200 million
(over 8,000 talents)." Narcissus and Pallas, two of Pliny's three outstanding
imperial freedmen, are each credited with up to HS 400 million (over 16.000
talents), 8 and Callistus, the third, cannot have been far behind (see DuncanJones EREQS 343, no.lO). Such figures tend to be exaggerated in literary
sources; but if in fact any of these men did possess anything like HS 400 million,
then he may have been even richer than Seneca, whose wealth was said to reach
HS 300 million (or 12,500 talents): see Tac., Ann. XIII.42.6; Dio Cass. LXI.10.3
(75 million drachmae). If we set aside the imperial families of the early
Principate, which of course were incomparably richer than any others, we can
say that in the late Republic and the Principate only Pompey the Great is credited
in the surviving sources with wealth greater than that of Pallas and Narcissus:
Pompey's fortune, confiscated at his death, may have been of the order ofHS
700 million (or nearly 30,000 talents). 10 However, Narcissus and Pallas were the
most extreme examples that could be found at any time during the Principate,
and several of the other most notorious freedmen also belonged to the same
period (roughly the second third of the first century of the Christian era)- Felix
the brother ofPallas, for instance, who became the husband of three successive
Eastern princesses; as procurator ofJudaea, he 'exercised a royal power in the
spirit of a slave' (Tac., Hist. V. 9) and incidentally is said to have kept St. Paul in
prison for two years, hoping he would be bribed to release him (Acts XXIV,
esp. 26-7).
Soon after this time imperial freedmen were gradually ousted from the higher
offices in the imperial civil service, from which the vast fortunes ofPallas and his
like had come, and these offices, in the late fint and early second centuries, were
taken over by equestrians. 11 The one important office that imperial slaves and
freedmen never lost was that of cubicularius, 'chamberlain', always freed after c.
473 (see Section iv above). The cubicularii, who were all eunuchs, were in charge
of the imperial bedchamber of the emperor and empress (the 'Sacred Bedchamber', sarrurn cubiculum), and since castration was illegal within the Roman
empire they had virtually all begun life (in theory anyway) as imported 'barbarian'
Ill. Property and the Propertied (v)
177
slaves; but the scope of their activities extended very widely, in particular to
imperial audiences. In the Later Empire very great political influence was
sometimes exerted by the cubicularii, especially of course the Grand Chamberlain, praepositus sacri cubiculi. 12 The Emperor Julian, writing an open letter to the
city of Athens in 361. could speak of the benevolence towards him of the late
Empress Eusebia before his accession as having been manifested 'through the
eunuchs in her service', just as he attributed primarily to the machinations of the
Emperor Constantius' accursed chief eunuch (ho theois echthros androgynos, as he
calls him), whose name happened to be Eusebius. the fact that the emperor
could keep him for six months in the same city (Milan), without seeing him
more than once (Ep. ad Athen. 5, p.274ab). The official Acta of the first Council
of Ephesus in 431 happen to preserve a remarkable letter from the Alexandrian
archdeacon Epiphanius to Bishop Maximian of Constantinople. giving a list of
the bribes lavished on members of the imperial court of Theodosius II and
Pulcheria in the early 430s by St. Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, in his
determination to see that the contradictory decisions of the rival parties at the
Council should eventually be turned to the advantage of himself and the
Catholics, against Nestorius and his followers. The highest figure recorded in
this list, 200 pounds of gold (14,400 solidi). was paid to Chryscros, a pratpositus
sacri cubiculi. who also received many other costly presents, and several others
among the cubicularii received at least 50 pounds ofgold, as did two ofPulcheria's
cubiculariae ('Women of the Bedchamber'). 13 More than one of the eunuch
imperial freedmen cubicularii achieved distinction in military commands. above
all of course the great Narses, sacellarius and praepositus, a supremely successful
general under Justinian. 14
It was not only freedmen of the familia Caesaris who acquired riches. Pliny
the Elder, as we saw a moment ago, could speak of 'many' freedmen (not
merely Callistus, Pallas and Narcissus) as being richer than Crassus. Pliny
himself in the same passage (NH XXXlll.134-5) gives details of the will of a
freedman, C. Caecilius Isidorus, who died in 8 B.C.: according to Pliny, the
man said that although he had lost a great deal in the civil wars he was leaving
4,116 slaves, 3,600 yoke of oxen, 257,000 other cattle, and HS 60 million in cash
(2,500ta1ents), and he ordered HS 1,100.000 (over 450 talents) to be spent on his
funeral. (At least some of these figures are probably exaggerated. perhaps
grossly so.) 1s I must not omit to mention the delightful account in Petronius
(Sat. 45-77) of the enormous property of the imaginary freedman Trimalchio.
who is represented as being worth HS 30 million (1,250 talents): he is made to
say that he was left 'a fornme worthy of a senator' (patrimonium laticlavium) by
his former master's will and that he had greatly increased it by his own efforts.
Among T rimalchio's friends are depicted several other wealthy freedmen: oneis
said to be worth HS 800,000 and another a million (Sat. 38), and there is a
reference to yet another freedman who had died leaving HS 100,000 (Sat. 43).
Now I would not deny that quite a number of freedmen may have been really
well-to-do, and a few perhaps very rich indeed- although I think that in order to
attain great wealth a freedman who had not been a member of thefamilia Caesaris
would need (like Trimalchio) to receive a very substantial legacy from his
former master, and this would be anything but a frequent occurrence. But, apart
from the altogether exceptional imperial freedmen, I see little evidmct.' for large
178
fortunes in the hands of freedmen. It would be a mistake to see in Martial's

expression. libertinas opes (V. 13.6), any implication that freedman status and
wealth went naturally together: in this poem. Martial- who calls himself' a poor
man' (pauper), although an honorary equestrian - is expressing his scorn for a
rich freedman, Callistratus, and the word libertinas is the one clue he gives to the
man's status.
I feel that far too much reliance has been placed on the fictitious cena Trimalchionis in Petronius: its inventions have too easily been accepted as facts and its
deliberately comic exaggerations treated as if they were typical. Even Rostovtzeff
could write at some length about Trimalchio as if he were a real person instead of
an imaginary character: he calls him 'one type of this age' (thejulio-Claudian).
although later in the same passage he does add, 'l am inclined to think that
Petronius chose the freedman type to have the opportunity of making the
nouveau riche as vulgar as possible' (SEHRP 1.57-8). Finley, who refers to
T rimalchio in at least ten different places in his Ancient Economy, treats him as if
he were not only a real person but a representative one: 'Trimalchio,' he says, 'may
not be a wholly typical ancient figure [my italics], but he is not wholly untypical
either' (AE36, cf. 3R, 50-1,61,78, 83). And later he says, 'Once again we turn to
Trimalchio for the bald truth' (AE 115-16)- but in reality we find once more a
ludicrous series of comic exaggerations. 16
Surely the great majority offreedmen, at the time of their manumission, will
have been men of at best very modest wealth. even if a fair number of them were
comfortably off, and a few quite rich. Many of them must have been povertystricken wretches who were either allowed to buy their freedom with every
penny they had managed to accumulate as their pt'culium during slavery, or were
left at their master's death with the gift offreedom and nothing else. A children's
nurse who was manumitted on retirement might not be far off the poverty-line,
but the Younger Pliny settled on his old nurse a 'little farm' worth HS 100,000
(Epist. Vl.iii.l) -perhaps of about 25-30 acres (see Sherwin-White, LP 358).
Nearly all those freedmen who accumulated really large fortunes will have done
so because they had been the slaws of very rich men, or had belonged to the
familia Cat'saris. A delightful funerary inscription (ILS 1949) from near Rome.
which no one able to read simple Latin should miss, records the benefits received
from M. Aurelius Cotta Maximus, who was consul in A.D. 20, by one of his
freedmen, Zosimus, who after manumission had acted as his official attendant,
accensus. (The man's name is Greek, whether or not he himself was of Greek
origin.) Cotta had more than once given him the equivalent of the equestrian
census, HS 400,000 (saepe libms census donavit equestris); he had brought up his
sons and given dowries to his daughters, 'as ifhe himself were their father'; he
had obtained for one son the honour of a military tribunate (the usual first step in
an equestrian career); he ended by paying for the inscription. in elegiac couplets,
which he either wrote himself or entrusted to someone who understood how
necessary it was to stress Cotta's munificence.
It appears from a famous inscription of the year 133 B.C. that freedmen
(exeleutheroi) and their descendants in the important Gr~k city of Pergamum
were in a condition inferior to other non-citizen residents. here called paroikci,
for while those already registered as paroikoi were to receive the citizenship (in
the emergency confronting the city). the descendants offrcedmen (though not,
III. Property and the Propertied (v)
179
apparently, freedmen themselves) were merely to become paroikoi, and this was
clearly regarded as an improvement in their status (IGRR IV.289 = OGIS 338,
lines 11-13, 20-1).
In a Greek city in the Roman period we can expect to find freedmen of Roman
citizens having much the same social rank (other things being equal) as other
freedmen, outside the local citizen body. Thus in the donations of Menodora at
Sillyum in Pisidia, prescribing hand-outs to be given in a series of grades,
according to social position (see Section vi of this chapter,just after its n.35), we
find ouindiktarioi (Roman freedmen duly manumitted per vindictam) put on the
same level as apeleuthtroi (Greek freedmen) and paroikoi (residents without local
citizenship), and below the citizens (poleitai) ofSillyum (IGRR 111.801. 15-22). 17
I know of no reliable evidence from any part of the Greek world (or the
Roman world)l11 that could enable us to draw trustworthy conclusions about the
comparative frequency of manumission at different periods or in different areas,
or the ages at which it took place. The evidence, even that of inscriptions, is
always too 'weighted' to give us anything like a 'random sample' and is useless
for statistical purposes.
Finally, I must reiterate that the financial condition of the freedman really
mattered more than his technical legal status, which died with him (and with
those of his children who had been born in slavery and manumitted with him),
while his children born after his manumission counted as free-born and could
inherit the bulk of his property. 19
(vi)
Hired labour
I have already pointed out that the single most important organisational difference between the ancient economy and that of the modem world is that in
antiquity the propertied class derived its surplus mainly from unfree labour
(especially that of slaves) and only to a very small degree from hired labour
(wage-labour), which was generally scarce. unskilled and not at all mobile. We
must also remember that many hired labourers (in Greek, misrhJtoi or thftes; in
Latin, mercennarii) 1 will have been slaves hired out by their masters.
I can illustrate what I have just been saying about the prevalenct> of slave
labour and the comparative insignificance of hired labour by summarising three
of the delightful little Socratic dialogues included in Xenophon 's Memorabilia.
which demonstrate very nicely how small a roll' was played by wage-labour in
Classical Athens. They arl' all lifelike conversations, bearing in this respect little
resemblance to the dialogues - often, no doubt. of far greater philosophical
profundity - in which Socrates just argues down some unfortunate Platonic
stooge. In the first of thl'se, the charming conversation between Socrates and the
high-class call-girl Theodore (Mem. III.xi, esp. 4), Socrates, with assumed
innocence, quizzes the girl about the source ofht>r income. She was obviously
well-off, as she had nice furniture and a lot of good-looking and well-set-up
slave girls. 'Tell me, Theodotc.' Socrates says, 'have you a farm [an agros]?'
'No.' she says. 'Then have you a house that brings in rents [an oikia prosodous
echousa]?' 'No, not that eithl'r.' 'Thl'n hawn't you some craftsmen [heirotechnai
tines]?' When Theodote says that she has none of these, Socrates asks where she
180
does get her money from, as if he had exhausted all possible alternatives. She
answers, very prettily, that she lives on the generosity of her friends. Socrates
politely congratulates her on having such a satisfactory asset. The conversation
goes on, and Socrates makes such an impression on the simple Theodote that she
even asks him to go into partnership with her: he is to be her associate in the
chase for lovers, synthirates ron philon (a metaphor drawn from Xenophon's own
favourite recreation, hunting). When Socrates evades this, Theodore says she
hopes that at any rate he will come up and see her some time; but he turns that
aside too, and the conversation ends with Socrates telling Theodore to come and
see him- although he is rather cavalier about it: he says he will welcome her
provided he has with him no other girl-friend of whom he is fonder still. (I like
this dialogue. It is not often that one finds Socrates in what one might call a
heterosexual attitude.) The point of this story that particularly concerns us is in
the nature of the three questions which Socrates puts to Theodore. They suggest
-and here they are entire! y in accord with all the other evidence- that anyone at
Athens who did not work for a living might be expected first to own a farm
{which of course he would either work with slaves under an overseer or let
outright); or secondly to own a house, which he would let either as a whole or in
sections (there were many tenement houses, synoikiai, in Athens and the
Peiraeus);2 or thirdly to have slave craftsmen, who might work either under an
overseer, or on their own as choris oikountts (see Section iv of this chapter).
The second dialogue from the Mmtorabilia (II. vii. esp. 2~) is a conversation
between Socrates and one Aristarchus in 404/3, under the tyranny of 'the
Thirty' in Athens. Aristarchus, once a rich man, is now at his wits' end to know
how to maintain a household of fourteen free persons, mainly female relatives
temporarily abandoned by their menfolk, who had gone off to join the democratic Freedom Fighters on the barricades in the Peiraeus. Aristarchus of course
is getting nothing from his land, and he is receiving no rents from his house
property either, because so many people have fled from the city. nor can he sell
or pawn his movable goods, because there are no buyers or lenders. Socrates
gives him excellent advice- quite different. surely. from what Plato's Socrates
would have recommended. He begins by citing examples of several men with
large households who have prospered exceedingly; Ceramon, who has become
rich in some unspecified manner, through the earning power of his slave
workmen; Nausicydes. who has done so well out of making alphita (barley
groats)3 that he has large herds of swine and cattle and often undenakes expensive liturgies (civic services); and some other people who live luxuriously Cyrebus, by being a baker, Demeas and Meno and 'most of the Megarians' (he
clearly means most of the wtll-to-do Megarians), by making various kinds of
clothes. 'Ah, but, Socrates,' objects Aristarchus, 'they have many barbaroi as
slaves and make them work for them, whereas my household are free and my
kith and kin.' 'Well, and if they are,' retorts Socrates, 'do you think they should
do nothing but eat and sleep?' Eventually Aristarchus is persuaded to put his
womenfolk to work; he borrows money and buys wool. They enjoy the work
so much that they even refuse to have a break at their dinner-hour, and their
one complaint is that Aristarchus himself is the only person in the house who
eats the bread ofidleness- a criticism which Socrates rebukes with an improving
fable about the dog which protects the sheep against wolves. This passage shows
Ill. Property and the Propertied (vi)
181
that in Xl'll)phon ~ opinion the average upp~or-dass Athenian of his day automatically .tssunwd that a really profitabk manufacturing business would be
slave-workl\l. Wt cau agree that this assu111p.tion did exist, and was justified,
and that manutiu:tun widH.'Ut l!!bV<'~ wnuld only be on a very small scale. The
prosperous tecimirai w.; shall ~r1cmmttr pnseruly in Aristotle would normally
have obtained th,ir \Walth hy m:tkin~ us~ ut slave labour, like Socrates' Megarians and the rest. Thl pc~:;.sagc: alsv sh11W:s that an Athenian belonging to the
propertied cl~ wouUd not think it proper for his own family to do any manual
work. t'XCt'pt of (;t~urst the :>orr of spinnin~ and weaving and so forth for the
benefit 4 rlltfamiiy itself which Gn.lk wom::n were expected to do- and Roman
women. l'ven (down to the early Prinl'ip.m) of the highest social class. We are
told that the Emperor Au~ulitus mmn:alt~ wore (though only when at home!)
clothes made by his sistl.'r. witi.. dotughtl"r or ~rand-daughters, and that he had
his daughter and gr;md-dau~ht~rs tr:aimd in ~pinning and weaving (Janifidum.
Suet., Aug. 73; 64.2). Thewoml"n l)f:\ristar~hns' family were doing something
quite different trom that: thq w,~e rwdu\in~ things to be sold on the market as
commoditif-~. Nl'ldkss k' say. rlw story pruvidLs no evidence about the habits or
outlook of the humbkr Arhmian. who must often have done manufacturing
work of this kind, with his whnk family: there is no reason to think he
considered such work d~gradiug. alth(lugh no doubt he was glad to get clear of
it when he could, if thln~ \.n'n Jll lppnrtunity for him to rise into the upper
dass. But at present we arc mainly inter(stcLl ~tl the fact that the labour exploited
by the propertied class is that of slaves.
My third passage from tlw J\-ltm,wbili,z (II. viii, esp . .3-4) is a conversation
Socrates had with Eutherus, described as an old comrade ofhis and therefore no
doubt a member of a respectable propertied family. It is after the end of the
Peloponnesian war in 404 B.C. Euthcrus tells Socrates that he has lost his
property abroad and now, having nothing on the security of which he can
borrow, has been obliged to settle down in Attica and earn his living by working
with his hands -toi somati ergazomrnos, 'working with his body', as the Greeks
put it. Socrates points out that he will soon be an old man and ad vises him to take
a permanent job as overseer or bailiff to some landowner, supervising operations and helping to get in the harvest and generally looking after the property.
Eutherus' reply is very interesting: I think it would have been made by any
Greek citizen who belonged to what I am calling the propertied class and
perhaps by a good many quite humbll' men too. He says, 'I just couldn't stand
being a slave' (chalepos an douleian hypomrinaimi). What Eutherus cannot endure
is the idea of being at another's beck and call, of having to submit to dictation
and reproof, without the option ofbeing able to walk out or to give as good as he
got. If one is making or selling things oneself or even - as Euthcrus had been
doing- working for hire on short-time jobs. one can at least answer back, and at
a pinch betake oneself elsewhere. To take the sort of permanent employment
which most people nowadays arc only too glad to have is to demean oneself to
the level of the slave: one must avoid that at all costs, even if it brings in more
money. Of course a really poor Greek. even a citizen, might sometimes have
been glad to find such a post, but only, I think, as a last resort. When we meet
identifiable bailiff~ or business managers in the sources, they arc always slaves or
frt'e'dmen: sec Appendix II below. It is true that at the very opening ofXenophon's
182
Oeconomicus (1.3-t) th~ p)Ssibility <)f bl\~ommg s.om~one else's overseer is

raised, but only as J hypothni..:-;l] pom~. as .;m l!lulotntiort of the fact that what
you do for yoursdf y'm ran also do ~~-~r otlwl"s. But m the later chapters,
XII-XV, which ar~ thCiroughly pranK,\1 ;;ud di~ms.; ch;.- ('boice and training of
an overseer or bailiff {.an t'jliCrt'Jltl.<}. n i" tak~-u i(-,r gr;tntc:d that he will be a slave
(see esp. Oecon. XJ1.2-.';; XIII.I.-ii; XlV.tl.')).
The last of the thnt Snc:-aric dialogul.'s of Xenophon which I have just
recounted brings out very wdl the low estimate of wage-labour in Classical
Greece; and things were no diiii:rr-nt in Hdlenistic and Roman times. Nearly
eight hundred years later tht'rt is a tJ.scmuin~ wmntutim of Gratian and his
co-emperors (mentioned in S!!ction iii t'f this chapttr and dating from A.D.
382), which in the nwst ~rrin~tnt terms ti:lrbid$ tht' tmrusting of property by
w;ty of procuratio to a Jtcurton (;a mtmbt.r o{ a ;.iry Cmutcil). who would thus
become what we should call a b.Itlit"t' or or;alJ.ried mana~lr. The emperors speak of
3 decurion who ilCl"t'rttd Slll"h J rnst as ~lilt' who. 'undertaking the most
infamous baseness. hl'tdless ,,fhil> lihlrty Jnd 1!1-:~ hm'J\!t'. ruined his re-putation
by his servile obsequh)llsn~:o;~' {C"Ti1 X ll.t.'(! -::o CJ X.x:oc.x:i.34) .4
* .. .. * * ..
The first appearance in antiquity of hired labour on a large scale was in the
military field. in the shape of mercenary service. (As I mentioned in l.iv above-.
this interesting fact was noticed by Marx and is rt'ferred to in his letter to Engels
of 25 September 1857: MESC 118-19.) I need do no more than just mention this
topic here. as the subject of Greek mercenaries has often been dealt with (see V .ii
n.l6 below). Among the earliest pieces of evidence for Greek mercenariesserving. however, not inside the Greek world but for the Egyptian Pharaoh
Psamtik II in Nubia- is the inscription M/L 7, scratched on the- leg of a colossal
statue ofRameses II in front of the temple at Abu Simbcl.
* .. * .. * *
It is Aristotle, needless to say. who gives the most useful analysis of the
position of the hired man, the thes, as Aristotle usually calls him. The term often
found in other authors and in inscriptions is misthoros (the man who receive-s
misthos, pay); but Aristotle for some reason never employs this word, although
he does use its cognates:' It does not seem to have been sufficiently realised that
in the eyes of Aristotle (as of other Greeks) there was an important qualitative
difference between the thes or misthotos, who is specifically a hired man (a
wage-labourer), and the indcpendenr skilled artisan or craftsman who works on
his own account (whether employing slaves or not) and is commonly called a
technites or banausos (occasionally a banausos technitis)- although I must admit
that in some contexts Aristotle, when he is speaking loosely (e.g. in Pol. 1.13.
12~36-bt), can use banausos/technites for a larger category, including tht' thrs. (I
deal with the skilled man, the technites, in IV.vi below.) Unfortunately Aristotle
docs not give a full theoretical discussion of this difference, but it emerges very
clearly when several passages in the Politics, Rhetoric, and Nicomachean and
Eudemian Ethics are put together." Aristotle does not say in so many words that the
labour given by the hired man is characteristically unskilled and poorly rewarded,
while that of the banausos/technites tends to be skilled and better rewarded; but this
183
is som~timcs impli~d. especially in a passage in whicb t\ ri:owtl;. .b.tinguishe.~ rh~'

labour of the hanausoi/tech~litai from that of the ID\'Il '\.Vh:r arc 'wl4ill~d md
useful only with the body' (Pol. 1.11,125Hb25-7). This i-. lll!!.ll'r.;t.mdJbk: 1Jf
course a skilled man would always work on his own {. :ht ('VCn c:-:rloit ii.w.:
labour) when he could, whereas the unskilkd mau \Vou!d scucdy ;v~r h.: . hi.~
to do that. For some Greeks, including Xcnophon. tit~ word r..dmit(\. most
often used for the indcpt:ndcnt craftsman. had acqwrd Sl!ch a necessary
primary connotation of skill that it could even bi. us~d of ~kilkd slaves, as m
Mem. II. vii.J-5. (The ttrm cheiroteclmai is us~.d in pncisdy the s::;m~, Sl'llSl', of
skilled ::;bves. in Tl:.~rvdi.;ks Vil.27 .5, to d~.scribl th.: llUJOn!~ of!hL 'm)r~~ ;l;m
20,000 io!.tv~:-. wh .. t'~''"}xd frmn Attica during the fir\it! stages \)f the !'du-
ponncsi.u1 w:.u: s..:. ArJwmh., II bdt.w .) Wh~Hiw w~~ not;u~t nukmg. ihmg:. tLr
sale on his owr: K(Ulll~t. til<' sk1!kd .tr:i5.1ll (or, f,_~; t!:;H u:Jtll'r. tiw IIUlJ ,,.!J(,
posscss(d some t.'luirw~u: \.f h:s own th.u could :~, ~b~inlm u.nbJ''H t. fl>r
instann) WOUld Jl(lrJ:UJly p~rti~t~a ',\<Jrk l~.>T othlrs hy l'llh.'rlH!! tnto S!.h" 1.itK
contrarls. Our ,vt.luc, tl.\::' ~adt .lcttviti~.-s comes m.ti:1h tr0111 :nso:ptiuns.
rccordm~ J'Uhhr WJrks. {s~l>tlow). whtrc the 'cont:.K:o:' (;!:.. wr :;houid ;;~H
him) is most othu rdi:rr..! w.1s a t~:i.. :fl,.tt".'. but sonhtmJt.::- (t:otlt;tdt 1\tb.rh) hns
ergo/a b..~. l'f.~(lf,rbcitl ~o.n ..,;~;ill!;:\. :mJ ~umt.tinw~ i ,,. rcct':H'..' nc.l tl"dJmcal: \;tru, . .t"i .lt
Epidaurus twht.rt.tt 1s simply s:tid th.1t ht 'un,t.nook '.llfiic-t,l, :1 p.tr:i<ul.u u,;k)
or in titrh-<(ntury Arh~.ns. 1 .l.:..ai with sud1 men :u IV. \'i bdm.\. th1I d:t~s.
position is distnKt 1hm1 th:tt tl!. "'~;;tl;;;t,i. "" IH' hire thnu~dvc~~ c:m u: ;j ~em~ul
way and mlt (.lS :1 rull'j ti.1r sr~-cttkJohs OJ thnsel'l'')lliriag sktiJ ()( ~qlUJ}I)h'llt.
Hen it is mt~~r~stinj.! to ncall a remark mad~ by Plata. who w.as JU~t .ts
contcmptuiUs .ts Arish!lc ofhired labourers and pJ..,:,d tium t.15 ld Amhdc)
at the wry bottom of his social scale (Rep. li.J7hk: ct: J,,ilt 2'1\}J: l..tws
Xl.918bc; and V.742a, where thl' mistlrotoi arc slaves or t"or.i~\ncrs). In ~''!'
11.371de Plato describes his misthiitoi as servants who arc .llt"i~ctho lilt fit tn
associate with his citizens on an intellectual lcvcl but have l'llnugh J1hp1ctl
strength to labm:;-; ;md hl' f?;OC:> on to speak of them.,....,.!"' .1C<.-ndr ..1~ 'thm.:
who sdl tlwu lab,'tlr powtr' (l:cl ,,,;;,,,,f,s th1tis ~~dl)'f1.' ln,i,m: vry lit.:ralh.
'those ~dliu~ tlw liSt' \f tlw:r str:ugth') -a plr.tc wluc:h shcml,! rnmnd llS
immedt;udy ot \ nMjr 'r~r tinwtrd t;.tk~tl by ~hn.u ~~ m11'.1htiug ln.,: bt'ory or
value, whtn h\ ~.lllw to r~".Jhs~-. in 1~37-1'!-. thatotw lllll'! spt:ak ,,f th~ wmkn~
selling w Jus twpk>)tr nut h1s fdiWII but hi~ l.li"''llr J'"''i't (:_,r c:tp.t:u y): ~c\' !'he
Forewurd l'!v M.nnn Nr<ul~ms to his f:n~ho;h transbtmtl
1\br"C:., Gnmdl'i.l>'
( 1973) 2U-1. .44-7. M.1rx rdi.rs ou tw, .,,.,:.ts:nt;s ti> 01 phr.1s~ iu Tl:(>lJJ.i' I k>bb~:'
(Lrviatlltltl I. x! wluch alr..J\.ly tmbu.ii~d the. i.k.. b~. \nslwd r'' express: 'Thc
value. or Wtlrth tlf;t mJn. i;; as of.tll (>th,-r things. his ;>ri.-c:; thdt '' tt) o;a~. so1nuch
as would be gtven ti.>rth.. USe nfhis ptlW~r' (C:.:p. f. i/(tu !: ;111J fr,~\'t'j, f>,-ju ll.llif
Pr'!fit, ch. vii). But hC' dlll'S not s.:~.m to h.1n notU."ld ~bt si~mfkam~. of tli\'
passage in Plato's Rqu/111< wh1l'h I havt quottd. Jrtd I haw u.wt ~~\'n 1t nnd 111
this conrt~'<"linu. In ;mtlqmty. nwst w.lfll'-IJhour~ro; w~n umktlkc! nun. not
COntrattin~ W dv srl'dht' pu<'t'" uf Wnrk t~ lJ dllllttl\r {.lS tbt" skrJI\'li. lJ;d;,'F-J>tf~'llt
artisan mJ.y ~~<). bm hutng our tht'lr ~~twr:tllal1our Jl<'w~r tt:. odlt'r& tu n;wrn r<r
pay; and it looks as if they tended to bt St'\'tr~+;' cxplond.
As we should expect from Ans:~ ltk. h:s .h~Jrrrov;tl of th\.' r/1i.> ti ;m integral
part ofhis sociology and is det'ply mc:tl:d in hts phtlliophy nthii:. f'or him, there
,,f
184
could be no civilised no.stntn; ;~-.r IID~'Il -..vho diJ t:ur h.w~ !risure (scholf), 7 which
was a necessary ,muliti(u (thnugh nut of course a mfiicicnt condition) for
becoming a good ;m,! ,ompett!t: driT<'tl (~tc c:sp H1/. VII.9, 1329al-2), and
indeed was the goJI (l!'lM) oflabo~1r. :1~ p:tct w:1s ofw.tr {VII.l5, 13343 14-16)although of cours, thL'ft.' w.1s 'no kJsllf~ li.r sh\'t~ (m sriwle doulois): Aristotle
quotes a proverb to that t'tt(:cr ( IJ.J4....10-!). Now th(' 'wcrriding nt:"cessity for
leisure excludes the dtiztns oi :\mrotl.-' :o idt.tl S:a:~ fwm all forms of work,
even farming, not to nwntiuu craf:sman,-lup But m ;u1 urdinary city he realises
(in passages from Bnt.ks IV and VI <~idw Ptlim. d!,..:usstd in II.iv above) 11 that
'the masses' (to pli"tllo.? c;m b. ;.iivid(d into rom gr;;ur~ (mere) according to the
kind of work they pnlcmn: farmLrs. arti~.t:t). trad.r~. and wage-labourers
(georgikon, banausikon. ;l,<;c~t.lli'rl, ria'riJ.:,:,;). wnh rlw wa~,~-labourers (therikon)
clearly forming a group dift\:rt>ut fwm tlut Llfthtmdtpcndent artisans (banausikon); and although (as I haw alr,~:ady mtnucmd) hi~ ]Jnguage elsewhere is
sometimes ambigunu~. in rhat it 1~ hJ.rd to tell wlwth,r h, is identifying the rhes
with, or distinguishing him from. ~lw hm.<~Il.>/trdmi;i'$, yet in some other
passages he again shows that iw -'ts luw t\\'L' &s~iih't ~ruups in mind. especially when he says that it: dig.lrchw~ th~ c:xisttnt~ of high propertyqualifications makes n impossthlt f,,r rlw till'.' lt' h .1 nttzcn. while a banausos
may be, 'for many L,f th, tdmir.u arc rid1' Wl. 111.3, 1278a21-5). 10 By the
exercise of his skill, then. and rw doubt bv r.xpltntin!! ~l.tve labour in addition,
the banausosltechnites may ncn ~aiu nwugh pwpt>:-ty w mter the wealthy class,
but this is denied to tht (uuskdk,li rlli'..
However. the l'Sscnti;ll fac:t whi;;h, itt Arisrotl,'s ,yts. makes the hired man a
less worthy figure th<m the nrdlllary .mis;tn 1s 1wt so much his comparative
poverty (for many indt'pt'nJ,nt o&rti'ian-. art' likdy to be poor too) but his
'slavish' dependence upon his employer. Thi., wuuld apply equally. of course,
to the day-labourer and to the pcrmamnt b.tilit'f. l'Vt'n if a gentleman like
Xenophon's Eutherus might feel that W(\rking m the: former capacity was not
quite so 'slavish because he would retain Ill Lift: frttdum t>fmovemcnt. Near the
end of the Politics (VIII.2, 1337b19-21) Ari:;.rotlt tont\.'ruplates acts which are
done for other people and do not have ~:trtain s.wing d1aracteristics (some of
which he specifies): any such dl't ht sti~mJtis~s J.~ both rhitikon (appropriate to
the hired labourtr) anti cltlflikcn (:ll'Propriah' to the slave); clearly the two
adjectives had a vay similar tolmtrtng in ht-. mind. 11 To allow your life to
revolve around anyom t'Xt'l'pt a tnL-'tlll i-; J,ullkcm. slo~\ish, Aristotle says in the
Nicomachean Ethi,.c (IV .J. 11241>.'\ 1-5'1~. and hl' o~dds th.u 'this is why all flatterers
are thitikoi', they have the ch;mwttristk~ ut' hirt'd men. In Section ii of this
chapterl quoted Ari~totll'.Ht'm.lrk in the Rlw.m; (J.lJ, 1J67.l2R ff.) that at Sparta
the gentleman wtars his h.tir hmg. as .l mark of hi:; ~,ntltmanly status, 'for iris
not easy for a man wuh long hair to do \\ork apprurnte to a hired labourer'
(ergon thetikon). and also tht statement that follows. that 'it is the mark of a
gentleman not to liw t()r th". benefit of another'.
There is one curium; ft-ature of Aristotle's attitude to the wage-labourer which
is worth mentionin~. For htm (see Pol. 1.13, J26{}1J6-b6) the slave is at least a
'partner in life' (kolJtlt;n,. ,:,i,~s) with his master, when.'J."- the banausos technitis
(here certainly induding tht this, of whom Aristotle may be mainly thinking) is
'further removed' (p'l"ht;r,-r,m) from his employer and 'subject only to what
185
may be called a limited servitude'. Now Aristotle expects the master to impart
to his slave a certain amount of arete (in this case, moral virtue); but nothing is
said about the necessity for any such process for the benefit of the workman who
-rather strangely, to our way of thinking- is evidently conceived by Aristotle
as deriving less benefit from his relationship to his employer than the slave may
be expected to obtain from his association with his master. Here again no
distinction is drawn between the temporary or long-term wage-labourer or
independent craftsman: none of them, in Aristotle's eyes, has a relationship with
the master as dose as that of the slave.
* * * * * *
The lot of the hired man is almost invariably pre,.,llt<"d throughout c;t~.:k ;m,_t
Roman history in an unpleasant light. The one srrikin~ ;..x:..:~-priou l kthlV..' is
Solon, fr. 1.47-8 (Diehl= 13.47-8 West), where th~ r:arnt i.thou:-e,. hirt'i h.,- the
year is depicted no more unfavourably than other proplrtylls~ mtn. ,:omlr.tined
by poverty (line 41): the Sea trader, the artisan, the rwt, thL dll(Wr (_>r the l'~'t'l'.
When Homer was making the shade of Achilles tolllJ'Jrt IJj, nd~h'U(t' in the
underworld with the most unpleasant kind oflife hL wuld rhi11k ,\f(>JJ ..~rth. th.:.
occupation he pictured was that of this to a poor and lJndks~ m.m (C)J_
XI .488-91 ): 12 and Hesiod shows what sort of treatrn1'tU th~ o~gri,ulmoll.;bl,l1CI= r
could expect at about the beginning of the seventh cenrury B.C. v:h~u ht'
advises the farmer to put his this out of doors whln summ~r ~om~s (IVo!'l.:. ,11ul
Days 602). When Euripides' Electra is speculating dolefullv. htfor~ she has
re-encountered her brother Orestes, about his present mi~Lr .~hit- txist~tu:t~ n 1
exile, she imagines him working as a hired labourer (Electr. I J0-1 u:~t;; the \\Wd
latreueis, and lines 201-6 have thessan hestian). We have seen with wh:u disf:n.-~,~ r
Xenophon expected an Athenian gentleman to ngJTd takin~ t'\"\''11 a utl:a
superior form of permanent service for wages, JS " baiHH: o~nd tht !'nunbcentury Attic orators speak ofbcing driven to work Ji.1r wa~t's ;lS iftt wal:' a fi.u,
second only to slavery in unpk-asantncss (Isocr. XiVAH: Is.w_ V.JIJ)_ Jn tJ!ll"
speech by Demosthenes (L Vll.45) tht' fact that many citiZl'tl woml'a in : tiuw >f
emergency had become 'wet-nurses and wool-workers .mJ ~rapt-lurwsttr~ is
given as an illustration of the way in which powrty may wmpd frt'1.'tlldtviduals
to do 'many servile and base acts', doulika kai tapl'ina pragmata. Euthyphrc1. :n
Plato's dialogue of that name, is pictured as farmin!t with his fath~r :n N:cxo~ :md
employing a dependant of theirs as a hired labourer (pd.ltiJ . cthc::mm ekei par
hemin): when the wretched man kills one of the slaves on the farm in a drunken
quarrel, Euthyphro's father binds him and throws him into a ditch, where he
dies (Euthyphro 4c, cf. 15d). When !socrates was speaking of fifth-century
Athens as having the tribute of the allies displayed on the stage of the theatre at
the festival of the Dionysia, he evidently felt that it made the idea more painful
and wounding when he described the silver as 'brought in by hirelings' (misthoroi,
VIII.82). Demosthenes, too, uses the term misthOtos for 'political hireling' in a
bitterly contemptuous way (IX.54, and esp. XIX.llO). Hired labourers are
commonly depicted as doing rough or unskilled work, or tasks considered
characteristic of slaves (see e.g. Ar., Birds 1152-4: Ps.-Dem. XLIX.51-2; Poll.
VII. 131). And when there is evidence about their pay. it is very low, as in the
two long and important Athenian building-inscriptions of the late fourth century
186
B.C. relating to Ekusis (U; IF.l672~.-.., o:! wlnrh :>t><' b..-.!ow): at this time, skilled
artisans like bridday;:rs .m.i pl;;:;r,r,~r;; Jrt" rn:c-n.'t!li;\: .:! or '1'h drachmae per day,
while the hired lahouros (m:sri11jrrr;) gc~ only 11/: dradnrne. 13 (The daily keep,
trophe, of the pubh slAWS cmploy<d i11 thc s:mw tp~ora:imts was half a drachma
per day.) 1 ~ At Atht"nS. rncn wishin~ w h hmd- iil( 1ho;.. ;agricultural Jabounrs
in the Parable ofth, Vin.:.y;ard. in ~-tr. XX i-i6- wngrlgatcd in a recognised
place, known as Kol(lnm Ag<lr,tio" (or Ergat:ko:- ll! Misthios), apparently at the
west end of the Atiwmau Ag(rJ. This ts known n~:iy tbwugh a fragment of Old
Comedy and the sdl\)lidsts ;md kxin>graph.::rs.: riw ,\'ldm.::e has been very well
set out by Alexander Fuks. 1 ~ Hmd bbonr :1t the peak periods of agricultural
activity (harvesting, vim;sg~. ,,lht"-pi\king) mm! have been quite common
everywhere; but I have WUll' aero~~ surprisingly few pa-.sages in Greek literature which mention the employmtnt of hired labour !II any form of agricultural
work in the Classical period, 1s and it is w;1rth f{'Jilt'Tnhl~ng that men so engaged
might well tum out to bl sl;lv,s. hirld (lllf by rl..-!r master... as they certainly arc
in Ps .-Dem. LIII.20-I. No doubt th,rt' w.ts .1ls .l go,d 'k.1l of mutual assistance
among farmers, ahlhlugh I 'i'-l twr rt.'GIIItn Grtd.. hr,ntnrc any parallel to the
mention of such l':.:changl'~ hy two Lnm .m:lwrs nf :he mid-second century of
the Christian era: 1\pu],ius, .-\.p.l. 17.1 (;m it'" mutJt.:t'iJ.- operas cum vicinis tuis
cambies), and Gellius, .'VA 11 ..:!9. 7 (rrmm m11mam Jorr- thnn an Aesopic fable, of
which Ennius made a Vl'TMUU.m Luiu ll'tr.unehr... id. 211). A prosperous farmer
might wish to empi''Y hi., l'l'''r,r Jll'~~hbum.; .L:" hirnl \\'urkers at peak periods.
as apparently in Caw, I>t,,_.:r. mlr. 4 (i'Jit'rilt'h'>.llliliJb ;'n,lrces).
In antiquity it \'\'J.s not only in the c;rt"tk :md Unman world that the hired man
was despised and likdy to be iU-trl';tr,'tl. In Judat.a iu th, p,rsian period (the fifth or
fourth century B.C.) the pmphtt ~bblh1 thnatt'llt"d dtvm~ punishment on those
who oppress 'the birding iu Ins w.Jgt~. nwntionm~ in the same breath thost.'
traditionally helpless tignn"S uf huditl" '>tl(itty. "thl widow and the fatherless'
(Mal. HI.S; cf. Deut. X XIV .14-1 ~: ltv XIX 1.\}. Whl'n Alexander the Great in
323 sent Miccalus of Cla:rollll'Jldl' fmm lJahyiou wuh .1 brge sum of money (500
talents), to procure cxperienL"t'tl Jddinon:tl Hl'W~ frum Phnenicia and Syria for an
expedition into the Persian Gulf. Wt' .1n t\))d hy Arri.m th~t his instmctions were
to hire some and buy others' (Anab. VII.19.5). Evidently hired men and slaves
could be expected to serve side-by-side. [must not t;~kt time to mention other
evidence from the 'pre-Classical' world. (I have refcrnd .u the end of this section
to the passages in the New Testament that mention hirt.'<ll.tbour.)
For the Hellenistic period, where the sources for ewunmic history are more
documentary than literary, and regional differences can be very great (not only
between Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, but between individual areas
within those countries), the evidence about wage-labour is hard to disentangle
from that concerning the activity of artisans or even of peasants who occasionally take service as hired labourers. 17 But over fifty years ago a brilliant essay by
W. W. Tam, 'The social question in the third century', 111 which Rostovtzcff
described as 'the best treatment of the social and economic conditions of Greece
and the Greek islands in the third century B.C.' (SEHHW 111.1358 n.3), showed
good grounds for thinking that in the early Hellenistic age. while a few Greeks
became richer, the condition of the masses probably became appreciably worse;
and of course in such conditions hired labourers are bound to suffer. (I acct"pt

this coudmw:1. c-vt:r; thoud1 l.ml titr
ks~
1~i
((tlltident than Tarn abour the vahdirY
and tht: :mpl~eat!ons n( lii~J.lY cf!n~ tig1:ns..)

.
In the f<om;u; l'rmnp:t!~ ;IJ!<i Lmr En:pir~ th~ l"Vtdl"r~n c.- agam very h.\rd w
intcrpr.t. :md .;tgai'J rhc j;:fl;.-.t:rm unJ(nbt.-.:ily v.;r;t'<i gr:~atl) fmrn u.a ~o al''-'1
We seldom i:c-:tr of h1r~d hbuur C'Xcq.t in .1g:-;.-ltlnH~\ wht':'t' 11 w.B lughh
seasonal. and ttl building, wiKrt tl w:~s C1:\llal and rr:-1gular (st:t: bd(l'"') ~ ,\..s J
rule, th~ si!Uiltlon of s;,1dt h1nd workcn as we: find :.~~'tlh ,., !:;;. \'t:rv hmn blr
indeed. t'\TJJ ifoccaslnuaHy >HIIsnl:tt;;d nnt m.J.n;tg:;;s, hy .-. t:<Jil!iJm:mc,;l p( !(OOd
luck and h:ard wcrk (!w would f<r:uuhtK';.l both), ;o rJ5C t\l rb.: ,vor1d .1nd t'nt:<1
the propertied d:.~s. like dll nni..n<>WII man whc ls the mbJ"ct o1' .l l~mous
third-century ll'!l'trlf.ll l'plt.lph iwm Macrar in i\frKa (modern TmmH ): m
came tro111 .1 po.-r tauuly. hut partly by ;tcrmg 'h fc)fL':i!;;n ._,, 'r,anr,s o( rc;1po:rs 1r
harvesi-Hnw. lw Slll'{'''''dtll m bC'comin;,~ .1 pr.-,~pl.'rOIIS !amkw11er hnn!' dt' 3tH.! J
mcmb~~r t hi.;; l.x:~l Council (I I.S 71:'7 :::. C/1. Vlll. ! i rC.i: rl.~tr l:!> ~ tr<~.mi.Jtion
in MaLMulkn. NSR 4.l!. Hut this m;;m was probab!\ .. wry r;tn: :otn.:ptF.>ri.l
doubt it'ht is much lilln 'tYpil".tl' th:ltl th~ :lm,.mwd hi;;.hnr wh. is s:ud by Joilll
Moschu~ h' have WLrk~d with his h.ltld~ as a l:duur..-r in tiw ahuilding ol
Antioc-h ,1thr ;h~ !!h',ll <':irthqtukt cl 52() (/'r,;;r;,r \J1irf:. 37, i11 :"!JPG
LXXXV11.iii.2:o<S:l->'). Th;.rt W;l!i also a S.llry ITh."11tKm.l by su~-rouiU\ (v.'h\)
says hi" l."fl~lfl'i lo ,-cif~ it h.td b~:o1 unSl\l'Cl'sstUI) <h.lt tht ptat.-gandhth~:r ,,f
thC' Emperor Vcspasian (\'l.h-~ r~tgm.f iron 6lJ to 79) haci h,r:u a conrract()r
(matrccp:;) responsible for hrmg111g g.m~s ,,f.ograu!tur.! l.>hi-1\He:s trr:m Umbria
into thl S:thit:l' coaun y {
,1 l.h; but I h<> ... wry :hd not alkgc th.tt th(' n)ll) ros.:
in this wa~ tr.-.m Jnnrty. Ni douht .A ;-.u.uo Jltwuat ols1.1ch rm~ <Jtil! v labour
existed Ill Vaf!IIU' p;nto; o)f tho (;red. \\'lr}d, .t, wd! ;)~I!; :h: w~~St, and l'll<'fC \'\'!Jl
undoubtt,Uy have ~~,u a lllllnh(r pf llti"c.'rll>l~ poor Gr~-.:.h like rlH Jtali:m
mercnlfl,trii whthC employnwut V.uro, as Wt' havt' 'l'l'~l (in ~n~ion 1\' illxnC:t.
advisl'i in .trc.'.b h)f.l unhealthy t;H prt:,:i''ll' ... 1;], v~s to ltnkt-J dwr,. A'ld \' Hn)~
rc:contlll\'HLkd J't L<'ll<'c.' of tmrloymg lurL'd men .~~;Tt in htJithy ,'l,i,trtt~ r~r
occasions vftu.'JVY wurk. sud: Js thl'hJrv:;;.t .<nd :he V!Tlt.l!,!C tTl!N' ~l;r,w bc::n
general tn tlw Gr.l(Yl-Rmlllll world. I ~hnuld mnniu:1 h~c rbr m 1he ~am
passage VJrro stall'S that !!1.111~' tbl!'flii. \vh JHU'I h, mt'n i.n some ~.in,J <li
dcbt-bondagl'. w,r, ~r,IJ ,mrhytd m ilb d;:y t:n (.um~ :n At a !\-1innr ;lit .u:.gy}'l
as wdl.1:\ Jllvrinnu (RR T. 17 ..~-.3: ,C. St'tl~>!ll\' ofrlm;d:.1p;n .111d it5lll.t!-7} .I
cannot resist mentionil!J.:. ;d''' tl11 l'~~~J)!<' m will<'h C . .~Imndh. dlliOJS~IIlg tbr
rearing of thrush~os (tJrl. says titac :;,>Ill\' JWtpk g;t\T tlwtu dm.d rig~ which
were prl'-chewed; but. lw adds. 'whn1 th~ tmmb,-r \>t thn:~h\s tli l.ir~,. :t 1~
hardly expedient to do thi.,;, hr.tu,~ tt c;(l<;t~ no! .1liuk h.) lua pt,,p}r.'t\l cru"'-"' tl11
figs (111.'c parl'o condllcUIIIIH' !Ill m.lli.#,mt) .m,: tbn rh.m,.ln, l<'!ld to w.;.u)<Jw J
fair quantity because: oftht tHCt' t.l ... t:.' !l~H Vl!I.IO .!).
nm.,.t >urd~r 5Uf'p05r
that thcrl' wert large numbas r' pnm pt'.t....lllb .m.! .lrH:!'.d" ' ' lw s ''P~'ltn:l!ntcd
their mlagn incomes by t.lktng tnllpur;uy nm~d post~ w)wt~ :b~ .... !l(~-,_1t'd ro do
so and the: work was av.lll.lbl.; .m.i sNr.~mhkillnl m..:n .viii JJtldt~ 11-l"t: tx-...n
obligcJ tll<':arn rlwtr hvin~ prnn,mk it! rhar w ;r. H1!l :his. -...auld h.: -11'1~ ,,1!~". t.o
be rl'sorr,d to t~nly it' m~ \Wr, m.sbk t.1 nukl a livht: ,itht'l' l' :lw b1 ,-.ha .._.)
ski1lcd l'f.lit'itll:.tll o.>r "''llll-Si>!li.;d wurk.:r. A p.lthtn: ilhl:iU-liK>Jl ,-,t th! d-.-
,r
v...
w,
pcratd'\' p\lUf <'<>lldltillll (lt".;om;, ha~cf ;ogrl(llltUrol! [.t:,,-lHt~r!. i~ ~j\"1~1~ b~ ',no~bo

(III.iv. 17. p. lt\,5). pr-.:rv:n~ th.- :~;;:,,n:ll by J'p,.,d,:ni,:s f.1 s!,.r,. told hlil hy .1
188
The Class Struggle in the Ancimt Greek World
Massiliot friend abuut ;m e-statt .:fhi5 n: t:~nna, Ammg .1 number oflabourers,

male and female. wh\IHI ch, J\hssiliot hJd hmJ lo)r digging ditches was a
woman who left iwr work H give: hlrt!: tn ;~ rhild ;md c:m1e straight back to her
work on the same d:1y. a:. ~hl'Lt.I,Jhf U<Jt att~r,! !los.t htr p:Ay. (I do not think this
story loses its fon. whn: \W l'O!IIJ.'.ln' :~with V;;rru 's ~t.oh:ment that women in
Illyricum 'ofren' ght hmh durin~ ., !mt'f pause :r; th~ir agricultural work and
then return with tht d1ikl ~'"' t:ondubmly that 'yoti \\'(mlJ think the woman had
not given birth to ar but ho~.d i~Hmd i(. RH IJ ...;.9.) In tb~ Roman period, as in
earlier times, the- hind tnJn mi~ht wdl be un:.bk to obtain payment of his
meagre wages (cf Dio Chrys. VII.; l-12). A wdi-k!own passage in the New
T estamcnt, James V. 4. n:huk5 rich m.n fnr thudulmrly withholding the wage
of the labourers(~";_~,:~:::) wlw h:l\'l' h.,n har'>'l'stin)!' tr llll)wing their fields. And
in the Spiritual MNJ,, ... ofjohn T\1m:hus. J:uin~ from th:: ~arly seventh century,
we hear the compl.lint of a man w!H, d.tim~ t<.J !u.ve been working as the hired
agriculturallabourtr uf .J rkh m.u1 t(r iiltt,m rn:--s. without ncciving his pay;
but such long seninundtr a !oin~k lmpi.,yt.r ~- I believe, unparalleled (Pratum
spirit. 154. in MPG LXXXVII.iii 302!-.t).
Although I do nut !!n''' in ;til r~sp~c:s with tlw .ut.t!ysis offrancottc, in his
book on Greek indu~try. I think ~hdt !w ts. bn)a,Uy ri!,:ht when he says that the
description of a man .as miHihit<s iu,hc:tli:S un. L'llllllitiun socialc inferieurc ...
C'est un ouvrier d~ rang suh.thtm. un "llll.:rL.:uJir~. un "journalier"' (IGA
11.150 ff., at 157).
* * * * * *
Public works may have b..-... u ;m imrtmam sourC<: of employment of hired

labour (as wdl as the mun skilkd .tcti\it v ll!' cr.1thmcn) in some Greek cities,
but here the cvidmn~ ot' thtlirtT.lrv sourtt~ is sc.111t y .md. "Try unhdpful, and the
mod(.'rn literature is tJr ff'llnJ s:uisJ:I\:tury. Wt h.n- .1 wnsidcrable quantity of
epigraphic maten.tl for public buildin~ Wtlrko!. iwm F.ptdaurus, Ddos and other
places, 20 but the u~r inscrucrive dc:t;lik<l tvi,it:ncc co;ms from Athc-ns in the
fifth and fourth centurit>s B.C .. abmL all trum ;. ,otri,s uf accounts of the early
320s, relating to thl' works in the tLmpk .u Ekusis - tilt only ancient source 1
know which pro\'iJt's unimpt.lch.Jhltl\'lllLn,tm J smgk set of documents not
merely for a widt ran~t ,,(prices, indudm:t rh.u ,,f nm1 (both wheat and barley,
sold by public auction). but also tor tht w:t~.:s t)f men specifically called
misthotoi, for the wst of maintt'lldlll't' ofpublit sbvt:., fdin11sioi), and for contract
work, remunerattd snmttiJnt~ at 'Liml-rates' (nikn calculated by the day,
occasionally by the month} and somttirms at 'ptt'L'e-ratcs', all in the same
chronological and gcu~raphical .:.:mtt'Xt ...! Fur the .mcit>nt economic historian
this is one of the tllt)!>t nlu.1blt somns irum ( ;nYk antiqUity. Most of the work
here, as well as in tlw ~nar m.1jor1ty ot\nlwr t.tst'S ot' which we know anything.
was done by a St'rtes of wh.lt WL' shl)uld t'J.ll 'l'(ltltranurs' (misthotai), and not
many misthotoi in tht stritt sms~ art" \'t:othk (sec .tbove, and n.l3), although of
course some wag:t-l.ihtlUT mav h.l\'~ been cmployld by those contractors who
did not do all the Work t~lr Whll'h tnt')' \\'l:'TL' Tt'SJ:'tmsible either by themselves Of
with the aid ofthttr slaves. Guin:i.t bJ..:.k tn wh;n I sal\l earlier in this section, when
dealing with Ari.;wtl"''s trt;mu~~u (lflund l.thour. I must draw attention again
to the fundamental di'itiul'tt~m b~tWt'\'11 rh;: gt':Jt!'.tllabourer, the misthotos (plural
I II. Property and the Propertied (vi)
189
misthotoi) in th~ proper sense (Aristotle's this: see above) and the misthotes (plural
misthotai) or 'contractor'. I want to emphasise that we shall only confuse ourselves if, with sunw moJLm writers, we take the principal dividing line to be
that between ptl'C'l:-work.~r dnd time-worker, or if we assume that the payment
of somltlling called mi>tl1os places the recipient among misthotoi. 22 The essential
dichotomy is b('t\H'l'll tlw ~enerallabourer. the misthotos, who hires out his
labour pmwr tilt unskilled or at b~~st partly ~killed work. in a general way, and
the man I am callint: .1 'nmtraltor' ;miHihitc's. rrgolabos, ergones etc.: see above),
who und.:rtakes a St'rfljictJ,.k . .1lways (or \irtu.1lly always) involving either skill
or at least tht: posSl$Siun of equipment of some kind, such as oxen or asses or
carts for trarrion or transport, block-and-tackle (trochilria) or the like. and
probably slavls. 2;' As I have indiratld. the use of the word misthos, which (when
it does not h.1pp~n to llll'an 'n'nt ; Wl' ;,:an nearly always translate by the equally
imprecise 'pay. does not help us to distinguish between misthotes and misthotos: it
can be used in dthlr case. and even for what we should caU a 'salary' given to an
architect or some other relatiwly dignitil'U person- in which case it is normally
calculated by the day, even ifactually paid at a much longer interval. The state or
its officials (in Athens, usually the Poletai) would 'farm out' contracts,
sometimes for very small sums. Often this procedure is described by some such
phrase as misthousi ta misthomata (as in Arist., Ath. Pol. 47.2; Hdts II. 180, and
many other texts}; but the expression misthomata can have different shades of
meaning, and in one of the late-fifth-century inscriptions from the Athenian
Erechtheum the use of the phrase 'misthomata and kathemrrisia' probably
distinguishes between payments made at piece-rates and day-rates respectively
(IG I2 .373.245-6). Misthotos is a passive formation, misthotis an active, and the
basic distinction is remarkably like that which modem Roman lawyers have
established between what is called in Latin locatio condu(tio operis and locatio
conductio operarum (see below).
There is a much-quoted passage in chapter 12 of Plutarch's Life of Pericles,
purporting to describe the organisation of the great public works initiated by
that statesman at Athens, in the third quarter of the fifth century B.C., and
representing them as undertaken deliberately to provide employment for the
whole citizen population (to 'make the whole city rmmisthos', 12.4). including
'the unskilled and banausic masses' (12.5). Most of the workers Plutarch then
proceeds to specify would have had to be skilled, but according to him each
separate craft had its own mass of unskilled men (thetikos ochlos kai idiotis)
working in a subordinate capacity, and the prosperity of the city was thus shared
out widely among the whole population (12.6). Certainly, any misthotis contracting for a major piece of work may have utilised misthotoi as well as slaves.
However, the whole passage is highly rhetorical in character and - as Meiggs
and Andrewes have independently demonstrated recently - is likely to be so
exaggerated as to have little or no connection with the rcality. 24 Such reliable
evidence as we have (mainly from inscriptions) suggests that even at Athens
metics and other foreigners (as well as slaves) participated in public works to a
considerable degree; and in those few other cities for which we have similar
information (and which would normally be less able to supply all the craftsmen
needed) the role of non-citizens seems to have been greater still: this makes it
unlikely that the main purpose of such works was to 'provide employment' for
190
cmzens. Cc:rtainly a ~uy was :-q~:mlLd ~ prospt::-oH'. and felt itsdf to be

prosperous, when then w.1s .mL~nptio~:.t; :tn~uu1 of productive activity going
on inside its walk as l~ll' ~-x:mwk ,lt f:)hl'5ll"' iv ;;n7 :md again in .WS. when
large-scale military prC'J:>.uati(J:~\nr~- h.:iu~ mHkn;tha thlrc- by Spartan commanders, in the fil'",t r;;o;~- by I. y~.md"r (Plut .. Ly$. J.J-41 and in the st>cond by
Agesilaus (Xen., HG III.iv.lf!-!7): bm nty a;,utt.~ w~re seldom t>nough to
allow for vcry mudl.-:lktpri:-l' ,)~"tim. kind. I:! .1H s\ll'h t";t;.~s it was doubtless the
local artisans, the !tYllrit<Ji. who wac th~ lll.1i1: 1-wlldiri;trils. and when there was
more work on ha11d than thq ul.i.op~ wi~h tlwr. was very likely to be an
influx of foreign cr<ilhmtn. ~'In tb\." l"Y'S ofl!>, cr.m" (VHJ .21), whe-n Athens had
been 'full of mer cham;; and fi 'Tl'ign~rs .Uld m.ri.:..- it lnd e-njoyed twice the
revenue it receiveJ ;a :he tinK ht> w:" writir:g (c. 3~5 B.C.). when- according to
his exaggerated piaur~- 'llch pl'llpk were ahs.-:nt.
Anyone who w;anr~ tl) nl.lkl' mu th.lt riw hirtnJ.t ofirrr- l.tbour in construction
works played a n1.1j1r p;trr in the economic lit~- <)f d!ll"l1~nt cities should ask
himself how. in that C.l~c. thc- nwn ClliH":m,.,{ Wl'r, ..tb!.- w live:- at all when- as
often happened - thLrt was littk or no publu bt<Jldin~ ~oing on. It is worth
noticing the attitu,l, of1\ ri::tot k. who w:ts wdl .tw.m th.u 'tyranrs' in particular
had been respon!'ibk for ma.1or puhh.;- \W..rks. but lh'VL'r attributes these to a
desire to provide ..l lwttL'r h\'dthoud fur tlw urb.m P' lOT. ( >n the contrary, in one
passage he gives ir J.S J. dtJ.fJl'tnsnt: ,,f ryrdtlt!' tlut tlwy (like oligarchs) treat the
common people (tht ,,/:/.:) b.tdly :md \lri'''' them out of tht cit( into tht>
countryside (Pol. V.liJ, 1311-'!.3-~4}. A liuk bta {i,f. II, 1313 18-25) he
develops the theory thdt the tyrant i<, .tnxinu:.: to k~r his subjects poor, an
objectivl' for which he sees two re.l'lllllS: t(,r the tlrsr. the interpretation is
doubtful (as the text may be unsounJ: $n~ N.wnt.m. PA IV .456-7): the semnd is
the desire to keep people so uccupi~d th.tt rhq w11l h;tw no leisure to go in for
plots! (cf. Arh. pd. ltd). The illustrations Aristotle gives arc the Egyptian
pyramids and the pubhc works undertaken by thrcc sets of Greek tyrants (all in
the Archaic age): iho: Corinthian Cypsdids, Pcisistratus of Athens, and Polycrates ofSamos. All these measures, he adds, have the same results: poverty and
the lack of leisure. Now the whole of Aristotle's argument assumes that the
works concerned will have beln carried out. not by corvfes but by the voluntary
Ia bour of free men, citizens indled- nothing is said of slaves, although of courst>
their use as assistants is not txcluded. Most people nowadays would naturally
assume that the purpose of the works in question was at least partly to giw
employmtnt to the citizens who were engaged in them. I think that this motive
may well have been present. at least in some cases; but in Aristotle's mind it played
no part at all: for him, the citizens were being givc:n work in order to keep them
poor and too much occupied to have any inclination to plot against their tyrant.
Why the tyrant should desire his subjects to be poor may not be immediately
obvious ro us. Xenophon at any ratl' seems to have thought that the more
poverty-stricken the subjects of a tyrant were. tht more submissive (taprinoteror)
he could expect to find them (Hiero V .4). But in order to understand Aristotle
fully here. we must look at a silly passage in Plato's Republic (VIII.566e-7a),
which Aristotle is thoughtlessly transcribing. and muddling unnecessarily at the
sam~: timt' by introducing the notion of public works. Plato sees the tyrant as
beginning with demagogic measures such as the cancellation of debts and the
191
distributiou uf l;111d to the demos {d~."wcuts whidJ do uot occur in .1\wrotlc):

then, itp~ac,: i.; secured, th;: tyflnr coJJstanti} surs up tiln:i~n \'l.':trs. 'so that tlw
demos lllilV be m nc:td oLl J~;;i~a- ;m ika whirh is n:x.ned word for word by
Aristotle.( B!Jl:28-9). In Pl:ato. the way iu .vhkh t!h; tyrant llllp~-;.veri;;hcs the
peopk is b~ nMkil~g th<m pay financiaiJ~,ies (d. Ar:!'t,. l3i3b25-8): tht:.o :t rs
which makes dwm JlOtlr ami ohligt'.i them to spend all their timr workmg. ~~:>
that thl"y art dismdincd to rlnr. Tit~ puhhl' buildings whidt Anstc;th <ir.lgs t~
arc not properly worked into thl argumc-111. wht,h is dc:~r<I aud bc.c.cc~ with(,i.H
them- tf orht.rwt!i\' t"qually tl.'t"bk --in Pi.w. W-.: IIJY f{-d rJnr. ;\r:swek is far
from his b,st m the passages I han just quotl,t. hm I do not dnnk ..-.; i':lll ;1flord
to ignore the complete abscnc' tiom hi5. work :.nd that nt:il! hi" c:>n'.{'1llJl(IJ':"trtcs
(including Plato) of ;my suggestion rhat puh11c wort.!\ ".-n n<r ond,~rtakcu io
provide a livelihnod flu the urban pom. nl\' r~w oth(r p.:ts~J.g~:s dlscribmg
public building in ( ;r('t"k auth,)rs. with th~ smgk l'l\;~-ptillll oi PbtJrcb. ihi;/f~
12 (discussed in the prn,,iing paragraph), also contJ.itJ 1111 h111t \lf ;any d;;;irt. ;n
create l'lllplovm~nt. lndt"cd, there is nothing about th, provi;;i,,ll ot" <.'ITIJ'Iu'tment by mt'ans nf puhlir works in the whok of rlw litt.r.aturc o-f thr tlith ;md
fourth centurit"s B.C .. as tar as m~ kn.,wl,d~t goes. This is. c(rtamly tnil' (Vl"ll
of the treatist.s addn~sld to (ur pur inw the mouths of) t}r;~nts: tiw Hi,~-,;. f
Xenophnn. and hunatt's 11 ("f,, Ni'dr~l. III (Nicocles). 311\i IX (E<'d.~rwJ.:), ~..
lsocratl's. in om ofhts m1st unpleasant ~pt''-'che". tlu :1rl':lp<~glrirw (VII}. gwing
at one pt,int 3 ludurou!l(y idealised picture~ 15 tf.) ut''tb~ guud o),l ~hys ;,t
Athens (llll'.llllll~ th, l'arly titih l't'ntury~ Sl'l' it). rn:tt.nJs that wh.k t h; pu;r
regarded dtt' wt>alth oftht rid1 (which thty scrupulously Tt"~l'rn,d) .b .tuu:a~:-.
of prosptnty (t"IIT'''rid) tir th:msdves. tht rich bt'haved h~'lll'\ol,ntly tll\"-'Jr(h
the ponr. ka:;ing land tt somt tfthem at moderall r<"nts. "t'!hi:nJ,: -.mt \)tlwr.;, on
comml."rdal journeys, and providing resources fiH others 'to ~ng:tgt' in ,,rlwr
kinds nf activity' (eis tas alias t>r~asias. ~ 32). But in this cast> l!h' thtn 1~ llt>
mention of public works (although ui c-our<.l' Isocratl's wa~ Wl!l JW,ln' l l t rh~
public building th.n h;~d gone on latt.r in th~ titih century, ~ f;-6j. !or thL' Jets ~_,f
kindmss .m npnslnted a:; thnsl' ofwl'Jlthy nuitv1duals ,d. :,sz; .md I may ;l<j,J
that the word l'rg.J.~id has just been USt'tl. iu S~ .\II, 1tJ rd.lt:llll tv l!l=rialitur;t) work
Later in the speech we arc told that th~. Athlni.tns m tiu: 'ianll' p,rimf nnpdkd tht
poor 'towards fannin~ and tr.1diu~ op.:r.ltiom' (~~ 44j. md til.lt 1\!,UJY ric i'll"n:;
'never entered the city even for festivals' ( 52). Kt~rillg tht poor n the
country, away from the city. is a courst" urged upm ,,hg;.trdJl< by tlw ;;urhm.
doubtless Anaximenes, of tht> Pseudo-Aristotdian
t;: .\l,.>;;,r~~;ia. wllt)
points out that if the ochlos congregates in the city it '1.\'tll ~~rtwr,liktly tLl umtc:
and put down the oligarchy (2. 19, 1424b8-t0).
The literary passage which gives the most detailed and convincing account of
a large-scale piece of public construction in the Classical pniod is Diodorus
XIV .18. dealing with the fortification ofEpipolae with a wall.30 stadt's in kngth
(about 3 113 miles or between 5 and 6 km.), undertaken by thl grtat tyrant
Dionysius I of Syracuse at the wry end of the fifth century. W(' hear of 60.()1~)
able-bodied countrymen organised in .30 labour teams. each with a masttr-build,r
(archill!kton) in charge of one stade (marly 600 f<.'l'l), six builders (oJikodom(i)
und~:r him, each responsible for ont' plcthron (nearly 100 feet). and 2()()unskilled
labourers assisting each oikodomos. Other men quarrild the necessary stonl' .md
HI,,.,,,.,,.
192
transported it to the site, with 6,000 yoke of oxen. (There is no mention of slave
labour.) In so far as we can rely upon the narrative in Diodorus, the passage
provides evidence against the existence of a sufficient pool of free labour for
major construction work inside even this exceptionally large Greek city, since
the mass of the workers are represented as being brought in from the countryside. The whole project is said to have been undertaken in a great hurry, and
finished in twenty days. Prizes were offered to each category within the team
which finished first. I may say that we hear of no attempt by Dionysius to
provide regular employment for his subjects, although he did carry out a certain
amount of public building (see Diod. XV.l3.5). When in 399 Dionysius built
warships and made large quantities of weapons and missiles (again organising
the work very thoroughly). he collected great numbers of craftsmen (technitai),
not only from the cities he himself controlled but also, by providing high pay,
from Italy, Greece and even the area dominated by Carthage (Diod. XIV .41-2):
and again the work was done as quickly as possible.
Only in one case, apart from Diodorus XIV .18.4 (mentioned in the preceding
paragraph), are we given a definite figure, reliable or not, for the number of men
involved in a major building project: Josephus says that 'over 18,000 technitaf
were engaged on finishing the Second Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 64, two
years before the outbreak of the great jewish revolt (A] XX.219). According to
Josephus, on the completion of the temple the 18,000, who had been dependent
on this work for their daily bread, were now 'out of work and lacked pay'
(argisanres ... kai misthophorias endeeis); and Agrippa II, who had been financing
the work, now agreed to have the city paved with white marble (evidently to
provide work), although he refused to have the east portico raised in height, as
the pt!oplc had demanded (ibid. 220-3). Josephus can be very unreliable over
figures, and I would expect the 18,000 to be a vastly exaggerated estimate. I
imagine that a good many of the men concerned ought to be regarded as
independent craftsmen rather than men who regularly hired themselves out,
even if in this case they mainly worked for daily wages -which Josephus says
they received if they had done only one hour's work (cf. Mt. XX.l-15).
Probably a good many of them had come into Jerusalem from the countryside of
Judaea, Galilee and even farther afield, and would expect to go home again when
the work was finished. The economic situation in and around Jerusalem was
now very strainc:d, with a great deal of serious poveny: this of course contributed
greatly to the enthusiasm of the revolt.
In the whole Graeco-Roman world. it was probably in Rome itself that there
was the highest concentration of free men, including freedmen. Anyone accustomed to modem cities would naturally tend to assume that these- men would
have made themselves available in large numbers for hired labour. In fact there is
no evidence at all for regular hired labour of any kind at Rome. A certain
proportion of the free poor lived to some extent on hand-outs provided by
wealthy families whose clients thc:y were- thus bringing themselves within 'the
sound section of the populace, attached to the great houses'. whom Tacitus, in
his patronising way, compares favourably with the plebs sordidaP frequenting
(in his picture) the circus and theatres (Hist. 1.4). But the great majority of the
plebs urbana must have been shopkeepers or traders. skilled craftsmen (or at least
semi-skilled artisans), or transport-worklrs using ox-carts, asses or mules. We
193
know that there were large numbers of such people (an actual majority of them
probably freedmen or the children offreedmen, by the late Republic), because
of the mass of inscriptions which have survived, mainly either epitaphs of
individuals or documents connected with one or other of the scores of what are
often, if misleadingly, called 'craft-guilds' (one form of collegia}, which tlourished
at Rome, and to which, incidentally, slaves were only rarely admitted. 28 Now
even some of these skilled and semi-skilled workmen might be driven at times
to take service for hire as general labourers, although as a rule they would not do
that, but perform their specialised tasks for particular customers. And of course
the unskilled would very often hire themselves out generally. We arc obliged,
thereforc, to assume the existence of a great deal of short-term hiring at Rome- a
very precarious form of livelihood. Here it is worth taking into consideration
the one literary work we possess which describes in painstaking detail a whole
system of public works: the De aquis (On the Aqut>duas) of Sextus Julius Frontinus, written at the very end of the first century. Frontinus speaks several times
of slave workers (II.%, 97, 98, 116-18) and gives particulars of two large
slave-gangs, one belonging to the state and the other to the emperor. totalling
together no fewer than 700 men (II. 98, 116-1 HI). but never refers to free
wage-labour. He also contemplates the possibility that certain works may need
to be undertaken by private contractors (rrdemptores, 11.119, 124). There is
nothing at this point to indicate whether the contractors would make use of
slaves or of free workers; but Fronrinus also mentions that in former times,
before Agrippa organised the care of the aqueducts systematical1y (11.98), contractors had regularly been used, and the obligation had been imposed upon
them of maintaining permanent slave-gangs of prescribed sizes for work on the
aqueducts both outside and inside the city (II. 96). There is no reference anywhere in Frontinus to the employment of fre-e wage-labour in any form. On the
other hand, we must remember that Frontinus is dealing entirely with the
permanent maintenance ofexisting aqueducts; he says not a word about the type
of labour involved in their original construction, a short-term job in which free
artisans and transport-workers and hired labourers must surely have been
involved. as well as slaves. (It is in the Dt> aquis, by the way. that Frontinus. with
all the philistine complacency of a Roman administrator, depreciates, in comparison with the Roman aqueducts he so much admired. not only 'the useless
Pyramids' but also 'the unprofitable [inertia] though celebrated works of the
Greeks' [1.16]- he no doubt had in mind mere temples like the Parthenon.)
Brunt has maintained that 'demagogic figures' at Rome are 'continually
associated with public works'. 29 There does seem to be some truth in this, and I
see no objection to attributing to some of the Roman populares a desire to
provide work for poor citizens living at Rome. But I feel far from certain about
this. Neither from the Late Republic nor from the Principate, at Rome or
anywhere elsr. do I know of any explicit evidence ofan attempt to recruit a labour
force from poor citizens as a means of providing them with sustenance- exct"pt
of course for the passage in Plutarch's Lifr of Pt>ricles 12.4-6 (quoted above),
which I would take (with Andrewes: see above and n.24) to be a reflection of
conditions nearer to Plutarch's own time than to fifth-century Athens. It hardly
encourages one to feel confidence when the only piece of literary evidence on
such a major subject turns out to be an imaginary description of Classical Athens
194
in the fifth century B. C.! Moreover, when Polybius speaks of the interest of the
Roman plethos 30 in State contracts (for the construction and repair of public
buildings, and for the farming of taxes), he is thinking only of those rich men
who in the Late Republic formed the equestrian order, for when he proceeds to
specify the various groups concerned in these activities and the profits31 (er~asiat)
they involved, he lists only the contractors themselves, their partners and their
sureties; there is no mention of small sub-contractors (who would be artisans of
various kinds), let alone men who were hired and worked for wages (Polyb.
VI.xvii.2-4). This must not be taken to disprove some involvement of free
labour in public works; but it does suggest that such labour did not play a major
part. (Cf. also what I say below about Dio Chrysostom's Euboean Oration,
VII.104-l52.)
I find it hard to takt.> st.>riomly tbt uniqut.> and much-quoted text, Suetonius,
Vespasian 18.2, in whirh tht t"tnpc-ror ro:iusts to milkt u~t" tf a new invention by a
certain mechanicus, designed :n t'adlitak thC" transpmt ut" heavy columns to the
Capitol, on the ground that 1t would prevent him trtlm 't~eding the populace'
(plebiculam pascert)/~ Tht (twious, implication ;s that such work was done, and
Vespa sian wished it hl lOntmu. :e~ be done, by th.: ri.ll.ll->t'Ur of citizens, which
the adoption of tht imLntion w, uld h.tv1~ m.td~ umun,.~.try, thus depriving the
citizens concerned ~f thdr IJ-.-diho,ld. !\.1y n'Js\ltl t\lr d~dining to accept this
Story as trUe is th,Jt v~~p.t~i.ln- Wil\l WJS fhl ti.1uJ- ~\IUJd have had no possibll."
motive for refusing to uk~ up the inwnrion ;It ,,11. ,wn it'11 would have saved a
great deal of indispensable labour,, R,,,,. .. fur ot' mur,.~lt ,-ould have been most
usefully employed dsewher, m rh, ,mplr,. t';.p,t-i.llly tir such things as military
fortifications, how,nr irnpohtk it uu~ht h.1w bl"t'n to hrmg it into use at Rome
itself. For this reason .llunL tfw sl,lry must surdy h.1vl." been an invention.
Moreover, the emperors ,hd not iu ta~t r,gul.nly ,iul, out food, money or
anything else to the poor .1t l~unw (''r .;mywh~r~ d,-;.) at any time in return for
labour, and we never hear tlf .my attempt to nnn1t a labour force from the
poorer citizens as a means tlf pw\iding them with .;ust,n.tnce. Vespasian, like
most of the earlier t:mptrurs. ~rt.tinl\ (.lrrit.>,J mu a l.tr~, programme of public
building at Rome; hut .ts far .l!o I .1m .1 wan \W h.1 w thlt .1 single scrap ofC'vidence
about the type ofbl>uur t'mplnp.,l in dws, works. I would guess that thl"y were
mainly organised thnlu~h ~untrJctnrs, hmh !Jrgt .mJ !oiiiJ.ll (redemptores, mancipes), who will ha._.,. us.,, I ~.mgs ,,f~bns {if p,rlup:> mt ot"ten on the scale of the
500 with which Cra.ssus is a~ditnl hy Phat.trlh. Cr'''' 2..5), and will also have
done a good dC'al nf what we shilUI.I ,-.11l ~ub-contr.tning' to independent
artisans and transport-workers, as well as employing much casual labour for
unskilled work. I am tempted to say that employment on public works cannot
regularly have played a major part in the life of the humbler Roman, for thc
programme of public building varied a great deal in quantity from time to time.
and in particular, whereas Augustus had been responsible for a tremendous
amount of construction and reconstruction, there was hardly anything of the
kind in the reign ofhis successor, Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years (14-37).
Had the lower classes at Rome depC'nded to any large degree on employment in
public works, they simply could not have survived such pC'riods when little or
no building was going on. However, even if the story about Vespasian which
Wl' have been discussing is almost certainly a fiction, it was accepted as true by
l/1. Property and the Propertied (vi)
195
Sueton;li~. 'NTH!Uf! prolx1bly -.~.ithin h:,lf .J century of V!.':'~).t!>oi~tn":. tk1th 1:1 79.
and it IJIU!>t hJ.Vt" SOtUidld rl:msiblc to .<t kast some of his contcmpor~uie~. Thl:'
same wili b(" trm ofP!ut:lrdt. rcrid~s l1 .4-{' (sec .,bovc). ;fill dee-d it C~11~lC5, ~ J
beliC"vt. fr'-'!Jl !lw Ht.tman p~~;od (:sl~ :.bo\T). m~ p!ol;.-.bi~ tht." ._,r i?,ill:<l moru:.
as well :t~ l'hu.m;h. w.1:. iiOttll\'nnd by n.)n,hti.m~ :.>.t Rom:. w~,.t1HI'>t pas:;nubiv
conclll(k, th~~r.fon. th.it :!w l,tbom ufbL:Jilblt frt"~ wo:n did pl;ty .t rc.tl p.l:-thow larg;;. wt h~v~ no UlL'Jtls \If tt:lliug 111 the org.<:lls~t:on of public works ;;r
Rome in tht' t}r~: n'nturv. altluJUI!h hirl'd labCJar. ll! tltl' ;;rri.:t sense. is likciv to
have plo~ p:d a fo~r ~mall"'r. r,lk rh.11; that of skilled ;;.rhi liL'IJJi-s\ i lbi mm paf()~nt
ing specific t.tsks. Hut thL' city of Rome, uf coursl.'. i~ .1 vny ~p,ntl (;b<'.
I for one tiud it Dmptlssihk- to accept the: mutiv.: .utrihlll(',i by D1< C:t5sits
(LXVI [LX Vl-10 ..2. in the abridgml'nt of Xiphilirms) to V~:.-;pa:-iar.'s :u:tion in
being the first, at thl rebuilding uf thL Capitoline temple, r,) br:utz out a ].-ld.<l tf
earth: he hoped, according to Dio-Xiphilinus. t(l encourage ,v..-.t :he most
distinguished men to follow his example, 'so th.u the service (d;,d... ~lfm.llmight.
become unavoidable by the rest of the populacl.''. (Thi.:; r:amw docs nut JPi)l"~r
in the earlilr account by Suet., Vesp. !3.5.) Therl wcrL' ,:.n:amly no .:.r.'<:r_; .::t
Rome. Therefore, if we want to take the text ~.nou!>ioly. w; must ~ttppu~c ~hJt
the labour to be furnished by the cirizcns would un,s~u1!" be ''<J!lml.lT~' .tlld
unpaid. for V espasian is set'n as expecting the actior~ ,)f rh~ llhl!'~ dMup;u i:.twd
men' to encourage 'the rest of the populace' to com, t"mw.tn!; JnJ Jt Wl'llH w m~
absurd to imagine 'the most distinguished men' as oiKrir:~ thlH strvi..:e~ to:hire. Yet iris surely unlikdy in the L'Xtreme that Lar~t munh.-rs ,,f 1''-''-'' mm
would have wisht"d to otflr their labour for nothin:.t . .-wu tow:;:o\1., rh,: (OIIStrm-tion of a temple, and indt.ed many could scarcely h . w .tli~mkd w d(> so. Tlw
text, then, hardly makt.'s sense. If, on the othlr hand. we seek w .1 nw.l tb~ Jb~m.l
conclusion I have just outlined by supposing that tlw poo:- w,n hem~ ''XP-'('tc.l
to offt.'r tht.'ir services for pay, then the argument bt:conw~ nw~l mKtl!llltlrt.thle
for thost" who be-lieve that public works wcrllargcly fd!"rt,d out 1')' tlw L.bom ,;(
poor free citizem, for it is a necessary implication .::.f thr :oiory dt.U ,,,-,, n;.utt
poor citizens could have been induced to come forw..1:-d hut fm II\(' ,mp;;rur's
initiative! I should therefore prcflr to adopt a suggL'stic'll :n:t.::k h llll" lv Bmm:
that wt.. should ignore the motive suggested by Dio, and s,;x V,:sp:.si:tn \ :11t JS
somt>thing akin to the laying of a foundation-stone by JO}'.tlr\' 111 ~h~ mo;km
world. (As he points out, there is a close parallel in Sud .. N,.,., 1'1.2: ci .lb.)
Tac., Ann. 1.62.2.)
In the Roman provinces, including thost.' of the Greek East. a good proportion of major public building by the cities during the Principate camt." to depend
upon imperial munificence. Unfortunately, we arc as badly informed about thl"
types oflabour employed on building in the provinces as we arc for Rome and
Italy-except of course when the work was carried out by the army, as happened
frequently from at any rate the second half of the second century onwards. :J:I
One rna y well wonder how it was possible for the poor in great cities to
maintain themselves at all. Certainly at Rorne:l-1 and (from 332 onwards) at
Constantinople the government provided a limited quantity of food free
(mainly bread. with oil and meat also at Rome) and in addition tried to ensure
that further corn was made availabk at reasonable prices. It is clear from a
passage in Eusebius (HE Vll.xxi.9) that a public corn dole (demosi(}tl siteresion)
196
was being distributed at Alexandria near the h~g;nmng of the sole reign of
Gallien us (the early 260s); and Egyptian papyn. mo'Stl y published very recently,
have now revealed that com doles also L'Xt~tt.'li ;u Hermopolis at the same date, at
0 x yrh ynchus a few years later, and a wh. lit. (c:mury earlier at Antinoopolis. All
the evidence is given by J. R. Rea in hi~ public;,.tion (lf Tiar Oxyrhynchus Papyri,
Vol. XL (1972). At Oxyrhynchus, from v. hich Wt' h.th' mut.h more evidence than
anywhere else, tht' rulc.-s g:owmin~ admission to the. hsr of privileged recipients
(partly chosen by hlt) wl'rl' nmtpJic;-;ut.'\l and arc. not c.mird~ dear; but there is little
doubt that it was rc.asonably well-to-do lut'.d ritizc.1J:i who were the chiefbeneficiaries and that thl nally poor would havt:' bttk t.'hanc.l.' ofbenefiting (cf. Rea, op.
cit. 2-6,8). Freedmm 'it"-'m to have qualitieJ onl~ tfthc.y had performed a liturgy.
and therefore had at least a fair amount elf propc.ny (ibid. 4, 12). The distribution
at Alexandria was subsidised by the govemmc.>nt. atlc.ast in the fourth century (cf.
Stein, HBE II.754 n.l), when there is reason to think th.1t Antioch and Carthage
(the next largest cities of the Mediterranean world after Rome, Constantinople
and Alexandria) also received State subsidies oicom (~Jones, LRE 11.735, with
III.234 n.53; Liebeschuetz, f\nt. 127-9). A seriou~ riot in suc.h a city might result in
the suspension or n."<.luction uf the. mm dtstribution: this s,>tms to have happened
at Constantinople in 342 (Son .. HEll. lJ.5~ Sol .. HF JJI.7.7). at Antioch after the
famous 'riot of the: statuc..-s' in .387 (Lic.bc..-sc.huctz, .-\m. 1.29). and at Alexandria as a
consequence of the disturbances th,lt t(lllowc.d the installation of the Chalcedonian
patriarch Proterius in c. 453 (.E:.vagr .. HE 11.5}. The l.'v1dcnce so far available may
give only a very inadequate idea of thC' extent of SUL'h com doles. As Rea has said,
'We have relatively very little infom1atiun about what begins to bear the appearance of an institution widespread in thl.' c.'ittes of Egypt' (op. cit. 2). Whether such
doles existed outside Egypt and the other places named above we have at present
no means of telling. We hear of subsidies in com (and wine) granted by the
emperors from Constantine onwards to some Italian cities of no very great size,
such at Puteoli, Tarracina and Capua: but these were very special arrangements
intended to compensate the cities concerned for the levies in kind (of wood, lime,
pigs and wine) which they were obliged to furnish for the maintenance of the city
of Rome itself and its harbour at Portus (see Symm., Rei. xi, with Jones, LRE
11.702-3, 708-10). Apart from this there are only isolated examples of imperial
munificence to individual cities. which may or may not have been long-lasting,
as when we are told that Hadrian granted Athens sitos etisios, which may mean a
free annual subsidy of com, of unknown quantity (Dio. Cass. LXIX.xvi.2).
There is evidence from many parts of the Greek world for cities maintaining
special funds of their own for the purchase of com and its supply at reasonable
prices: as early as the second half of the third century B.C. these funds became
permanent in many cities (see e.g. Tam, HC 3 107-8). The food liturgies at
Rhodes may have been unique (Strabo XIV.ii.S, p.653). In the Hellenistic and
Roman periods wealthy men sometimes created funds in their cities out of
which distributions o(food or of money (sportulae in Latin) could be made on
certain occasions; but, far from giving a larger share to the poor. these
foundations often discriminated in favour of the upper classes. 35 ln his book on
Roman Asia Minor, Magie speaks of what he believed to have been 'the only
known instance ... of what is now thought ofas a charitable foundation ... : the
gift of 300,000 denarii by a wealthy woman of Sillyum [in Pamphylia] for the
197
support of destitute children' (RRAM 1.658). In the inscription in question

(IGRR 111.801) there is however no justification at all for speaking of 'destitute
children'; and the rest of the inscription, with two others relating to the woman
concerned, Menodora, and her family (ibid. 800, 802), shows clearly that these
people made their gifts strictly in conformity with social rank, according to a
hierarchical order in no fewer than five or six grades, in which councillors come
first, and after that 'elders' (geraioi), members of the local Assembly (ekklisiastal), and then ordinary citizens; below these are paroikoi (resident strangers,
who would have been called 'metics' in Classical Athens) and two varieties of
freedmen (cf. Section v of this chapter and its n. 17), and finally the wives of the
three leading grades, who (in the two inscriptions in which they are noticed)
receive either the same amount as the freedmen etc. or rather less. In each case
the councillors receive at least twenty times as much as the freedmen. (A
convenient summary of the figures, which arc not perfectly clear in the inscriptions, is given by T. R. S. Broughton. in Frank. ESAR IV.78~5.)
* * * * * *
I am concerned in this book with the Roman world only in so far as the Greek
East came to be included in it, and I shall have little to say abou[ strictly Roman
wage-labour, a good, brief, easily intelligible account of which will be found in
John Crook's LAw and Life of Rome (1967). 38 A certain amount of free hired
labour in the Roman world can be detected, for instance, in mining and various
services, often of a menial character. as well as in agriculture, where we have
already noticed the employment of mercennarii: see above on the Macta r inscription, and Section iv of this chapter. The situation docs not seem to have changed
much in the Later Roman Empire. during which the greater part of our information comes from the Greek East (see Jones, LRE 11.792-.\ 807, 858-63).
Many technical problems arise in connection with what we should now call
'professional' posts (see below). Cornelius Nepos. writing in the third quarter
of the last century B.C., could remark on the fact that the status of scribae
(secretaries) conveyed much more prestige (it was multo hononficentius) among
the Greeks than among the Romans, who considered scribae to be mercennarii'as indeed they are', adds Nepos (Eum. 1.5). Yet secretaries employed by the
State, scribae publici, who were what we should call high-level civil servants and
might serve in very responsible positions as personal secretaries to magistrates,
including provincial governors, were members of what has been rightly called
an 'ancient and distinguished profession' (Crook, LLR 180, referring to Jones,
SRGL 154-7). Statements of this kind make it easier to accept a later apologia,
one's instinctive reaction to which might have been derision: Lucian, the secondcentury satirist from Samosata on the Euphrates, who wrote excellent literary
Greek although his native tongue was Aramaic, 37 was at pains to excuse himself
for accepting a salaried post in the Roman imperial civil service, although in an
earlier work (De mere. cond.) he had denounced other literary gentlemen for
taking paid secretarial posts in private employment; and the excuse is that his
own job is in the service of the emperor (Apol. 11-13)- that is to say, the State.
There was a parallel in Roman thinking, and to some extent even in Roman
law (which of course applied in theory to the whole empire from c. 212
onwards). to the distinction drawn by Aristotle between the hired man and the
198
independent craftsman: the earliest text I know that brings it out dearly is part of
a much-quoted passage in Cicero's De officiis (l.lSO), referring to 'the illiberal
and sordid ways of gaining a living ofall those merwmarii whose labour (operae).
not their skill (artes), is bought; their very wage is the reward of slavery (ipsa
merces auctoramentum servitutis)'. Here again we find the notion, prevalent among
upper-class Greeks, that general wage-labour in the strict sense (not the specific
labour of the independent craftsman) is somehow scrvile. 3 H Even if Cicero is
closely following Panaetius of Rhodes (sec Section iii of this chapter). the
sentiments he expresses at this point are thoroughly characteristic of the Roman
propertied class.
At this point I must briefly mention a technical and difficult question: the
distinction which most modern 'civilians' (Roman lawyers) draw between two
different forms of the contract known to the lawycrs ofRome as locatio conductio
-essentially 'letting out', 'lease', 'hire'. (The rest of this paragraph can easily be
skipped by those with no stomach for technical details.) The simplest form of
this contract, with which we are all familiar, is locatio conductio rei. letting and
hiring out a thing, including land and houses. Two other forms of locatio
conductio, between which I now wish to discriminate, arc locatio conductio operis
(faciendi) and locatio conductio operarum:39 a distinction does seem to have existed
between them in Roman times, although it was never made as explicitly by the
lawyers as by Cicero in the passage 1 have just quoted, and was always a
socio-economic rather than a legal distinction. We must begin by excluding
many 'professional services', in the modem sense: in Roman eyes they were
simply not in the category of things to which the contract locatio conductio could
apply. 40 This is a very thorny subject, which has been much discussed by
Roman lawyers: I agree with the opinion that the texts do not allow us to
construct a coherent overall ptctur~-. because the status of the various so-called
operae liberales (a modem txpresstnn not found in rhe sources) 41 underwent
considerable changes between the Late Republic and the Sevcran period- a few
leading teachers and doctors, for example, achi ..vo.d a notable rise in status,
while some surveyors (mensores, agrimm.'<'rt'S) sank. Broadly speaking we can
say that professions like oratory and plnlosophy were perfectly respectable
because they involved in theory nu direct p.tynll"nt for the service rendered
(except of course to 'sophists' and ph\losoplwrs who hdd State appointments as
professors), while doctors, teachers .m~l tlw lih. whu did receive such payments, were thereby mainly disqu;~.Jiti~d from thl' high drgn"C of respect which
nowadays is accordlJ to their pn,tC.s~ions. untd 111 tht tir!>t two centuries of the
Principate a few oi their mo~t rronnmnt members. especially teachers of
literature and rhetoric at the ht~hlst Jc:-wl, achieved a very dignified position.
The derogatory term mercrnnariu.; is never used in connection with locatio
conductio operis but is attached only to the man who 'had hired out his labour',
operas suas locaverat (Dig. XLVIII.xix.tt.l ere.); and this form of contract can
scarcely be distinguished from locatio conductio sui, where a man 'had hired
himself out' (see e.g. Dig. XIX.ii.60.7: 'si ipse se locassct'). Hiring out one's
labour (operar) was in itself discreditable, and Ulpian could say that the incurring
of a certain specific legal stigma by a man who hires himself out to fight with
wild beasts in the arena depends not on his having actually indulged in that
particular practice but in having hired himself our to do so (Dig. III.i.1.6). It is
li I. Property and the Propertied (vi)
199
merely a n:riom :mr:ou:diy th;at m !,Jfrri, umductio operarum the workman (tht:
mercenn,uu,;) who ,ontr.ICI.S ii)J th "l~ttiug: ,-,~a (of his strviccs) and who docs
the work (thl' l'f-''''t:) .m,l r~'"l\=lvt~ rh, P*YIIlt."llt should be the locatol', whereas in
locatio corzd,crritl v;;'ri; th, ftlr,u::r :~ :tw w.,n wh. puts out' the job to the condmt<W
(we mi~ht call !lR lantr -~h.' rcntr;,,tar'). who dms the work (the opus) and
receives rJw p:tywn (In io1c::i:) (ll!lciu.-:i.' 1d. tit, !vcator is what we should call. in
the case ,,f bnd. tlw 'k.;;o;ror ..md o!' ..:uur!-, ir !s he who rc..:C'ivcs the payment.)
The leg;tlt~.-!m:~a!ir:c.;;, ,,,t:lrhGu~d JS tlwy ;,n-, should nor be allowed to hide
from Ul> the wry rt'"J.l hft~nnct w~udt Ci<wo had in mind when he distinguished th:: rd.mvdy r,.-.pt:n . bk nun who aJI,,wed his skill to be purchased (for
a particubr jo~) .md ~h~ltlt't::m;.lriu whn hl !.,lHng the gennal disposition ofhis
labour P''w~r nc~iv,d ;1s }u~ tm~ 'thl n'\\';tr.-1 o-f _,.)avery'.
In cast u i!' objnr~J th~t :.11 tlw L"Vtcktl<'l' I .i!ll citing comes from upper-class
circles, anJ th.tt olily thl' wdl-ru-d,, would n:~:1.rd wage-labour as a mean and
undesirabk .tctl\'lty. I mu;;t 1mis:t t!t:tr tlwrC" lj ~very reason to think that t.wn
humble t'olk (wht.l :.f ,,urs,~ \wn t..r ~rum J,.-.pising all work, likl the propertied class) n:.llly .;li;l regard hind l.ti>.::r ~ ,-, k>s dignified aud worthy form of
activity tlun t.:!tK' m which nnt could r<en:.tin ,,.,,'sown master, a rruly free man.
whether .t~ a peasant. tr.1okr. shorh~rL'r. or artisan - or L'VC'n a transportworker -:;udt as a bargce or dcml..~y--driv<.r. who could hardly be classed as a
skilled n.aft~man. I am tt.mptnlt' 'U!!~t.st th.tl in Grc-t.k and Roman antiquity
being a fnlly lr~e nun .thn,st n:y._s~.trily inv"lvcd being able, in principle. to
utilise sl.lv~ !Jbour m wh.ttt'Vtr l)lll" w:&s ,h,ing! Ewn a petty retailer (a kapel!ls)
who was prospering might hu~: .1 slave to l,ok ,,ftt.'r his shop or stall; a cartt'r or
muleteer might aspire to ha\~ .1. .;I., \'c. to .ttttnd to his animals. But the misthJros.
who would h~~ paid the v~.ry minimum ti)r ~1\'lllg his cmploycr the full usc of his
labour-p,w.w. WlltJI,{ untr lw .tblc to ~.u:rluy .1. slave out ofhis miserable wage;
he alom wets thll.t pwp;rly lrLt' m.m.
As I hope I hJv~ nuoh .. uftki,ntly dc;tr. tlw "latus ofrhc labourer was as low
as it could wdi b.:- cntly .1 iittk ;Jbovt tiM! o}flh~ slav<., in fan. Even in tbc-ir I)Wn
eyts, I ft.~.l .. ur~. men w!UI hired dnmwh._, U'.ll would have had a minimum of
self-regard. Coux .. t ti~.~titious cho~r.ttt~r whil in the Satyricon of Petronius is
hired as a portt.t ;m.lts <.tll~d a lth"r-.-,.,m,,ius \mi~translated 'slave' by RousC' in the
Loch e. lit ion ,,f I'J 1.3. curr..dd to "hirtliu!!' in a revised edition in 1969),
strongly nl~Jt't't~ ro lw111g tH'.ift:d .t~ a h\:,tst of burden and insists (in corrrct
technical lL'nninuh~y: lll't' ,,bovd th.u what h~ has hind out is the service of a
man, not a hclT':>L'
"J'r"l'ili I'IJI'i, "''" w/:,,/li). ~ 2 I am as frL'C as you arc.' ht.
says to his employer. 'e-ven if my father did leave me a poor man' (117.11-12).
But it is implicit in the story that Corax knows he is not behaving likt a fret'
man. I would aclept that as a true- pinurl' of such mcn in gm~ral. l find it
significant that Plutarch, when advising the propertyless man on how to maintain himself(Mtlr. 830ab), makt.s no refermcc to taking hir~d st.rvicc in a general
way. The occupations hC' suggests (which I haw reproduced in Section iv ofthis
chapter, while discussing debt bondage) do includl' two unskilled activiries,
ordinarily performed by slaves, which thL poor free man could undertake only
for a wage: acting as paida,!log.,s. to take children to school. or as J doorkeeper,
thyroron (cf. Epict., Diss. III.2fr.7). For the forml'T, he might hl paid at whanve
should call piece-rates; for the latter, only timC'-ratl'S seem approprtatt.. Hut each
(1,.,,,1/1,
200
of these tasks, however unskilled and humble, is one that has a narrowly defined
sphere ofaction and docs not allow for the man who is hired to be used as a general
labourer. For Plutarch, and surely for most Greeks. I suspect that this would make
a great difference. Undertaking this kind of post would at least put one on the
borderline between the provider of skiUed services and the general hired labourer
in the full sense; and we ourselves might be inclined to think that Plutarch's
individual would be crossing the line and could best be classified with the hired
man. But perhaps, for Plutarch, the specificity of the services he recommends
would have preventc."d th~ men ,Wtc{'mc:J ti-mn smking mw the category of mere
hirelings. The only ndll'r passJ.gl' I know in Gr\,k Jir,rature which shows any
concern about the pruvisillll ota hvdihood f(,r tht. urban ruor is in Oio Chrysostom's Euboean orati,,,,, VII.104-152; and the ~nJ.tt"f part ,,f this is devoted to
discussing occupations in which the poor mu~r ,,.,, b(' .1lh,wt.-d to indulge. either
because they ministt'r to rh,unnecessarily luxurious hf, ot rh, rich or because they
are useless or degrading in themselv.:s ( 109-1 i. 11 'i-2.'\. t.U-52). Ideally, Diu
would clearly like to settle the urban poor in the countryside ( 105, 107-8); the only
identifiable occupation hl nn)mm~nds for tho~~ in the l'ity is to be craftsmen
(cheirotechnai. 124). alth1m~h m ~modll'r plan (II~). with wh.u we can recognise as
a literary allusion (tu d spt.'Ct'h ot'D~mosthm~s, LVJJ.45). he;> does say that a man
ought not to be sneem.i J.t menlv hl.:ausc h.is muthlr h.ul. been a hireling (erithos)
or a grape-harvester or a patJ wt.'Hmrs~. or hnau:>l' his father had been a
schoolmaster or a m.m wht' tnuk d1ildn~n m s~houl (pairl:t~,i_cos). I must add that
rhere is never the sli~htest hint ()f public works undlrtak.lrt in order to 'give
employment' in any ufthl doZl11 ''r so ur.ttion!l ofDio delivl'red in his native city
of Prusa (XXXVI, XL. X Lil-li). J.lthouf!h th,~n .m~ st"wral references in these
speeches to public buildin~ and Diu's own r~..-sponsthility th~..n~for. 43 One passage
in particular, XLVll.13-J5. makes it r~rfic-t.tly dl'dr that the aim of all such works
was simply to make the <.icy mnn h.md<>mm anJ nuprcssin- ;m activity in which
many cities of Asia Minor indulglJ to excess in the first J.nd second centuries. In
all Dio's references to his goodwill towarJ.o; Litl ,;,.,,,j, ri'inMikoi, plethos (e.g. in
L..J-4: XLIII.7, 12) there is never any rdi.'Tl"'lC~ to ruhJi, \li!)rks: and his claim to
have pitied the common p~..opk .mJ tril',;i to 'h!!htt'Il tht"ir burdens' (epikouphizein.
L.J) would have been quitt indpprupriar~ to ~uch J.l.'tivitit.-:;.
Surely, in any slav1 sul'il-ty d luw ~..srim.ttion 1\t'hind lahour is inevitable, in
thC' absence of vt:ry splcial rirnumtJ.IIl't.s: ti.w tr~t nwn will resort to it unless
they are driven to dn so hy Sl'V~o.r~ econonnc pressure. and they will suffer in
their own estimation and that of everyone dse by doing so. Wages will tend to
be low: among the factors that will help to keep them down may well be a
supply of 'spare' slave labour, with masters possessed of slaves they cannot
profitably usc letting them out for hire dirt cheap rather then have them on their
hands. doing nothing profitable. In tht.> antebellum South, where to work hard
was to 'work like a nigger', and poor whites could be said to 'make negroes of
themselves' by wage-labour in the cotton and sugar plantations, there were
many exhortations to the yeoman farmer and the urban and rural proletarian not
to feel demeaned by working with his own hands - 'let no man be ashamed of
labour; let no man be ashamed of a hard hand or a sunburnt face.' But the vcry
fact that such assurances were so often delivered is a proof that they were felt to
be necessary to contradict established attitudes: this point has been well made by
201
Genovese (PES 47-8, with the notes, 63-4), who emphasises the presence in the
Old South not merely of'an undercurrent of contempt for work in general' but
in particular of 'contempt for labour performed for another' - precisely the
situation of the ancient misthotos or mercennarius. The poison of slavery, in a
'slave society'- one in which the propertied class draws a substantial part of its
surplus from unfree labour, whether of slaves or of serfs or of bondsmen (cf.
II.iii above)- works powerfully in the ideological as well as in the social and
economic spheres. It has often been remarked that in the Greek and Roman
world there was no talk of'the dignity oflabour', and that even the very concept
of 'labour' in the modern sense - let alone a 'working class'- could not be
adequately expressed in Greek or Latin. 44 (I do not imply, of course. that labour
is depreciated only in what I am calling a 'slave society': see below.)
It has often been said that in the Greek and Roman world the 'competition' of
slave labour must have forced down the wages offree, hired workers and would
be likely to produce 'unemployment', at any rate in extreme cases. 'Unemployment', indeed, is often imagined to bC' the necessary consequence of any great
increase in the use of slave labour in a particular place, such as Athens in the fifth
century B.C. But we must begin by understanding that unemployment, in
anything like the modern sense, was virtually never a serious problem in the
ancient world, because. as I have shown, employment, again in our sense. was not
something sought by the vast majority of free men; only those who were both
unskilled and indigent would normally attempt to take service for wages. I shall
deal presently with the question how far slavery affects the position of these
hired labourers proper; for the moment I wish to concentrate on the artisan or
skilled craftsman (the technites), including the man who was semi-skilled and
had some equipment (see above), engaged in transport and the like. Such a man,
in the ordinary way, obtained a rather different kind of 'employment': he
performed specific jobs for his customers, for which he would be paid at 'piece
rates', according to what he did, except perhaps when he was working on what
we should call a 'government contract', in public works, when he might be paid
at 'time rates', by the day. (The best-known evidence for such payments comes
from the accounts relating to the Athenian Erechtheum in the late fifth century
B.C. and the temple at Eleusis in the late fourth century, references for which
will be found in n .21 below.) A sudden influx of working slaves might of course
reduce the craftsman's chances of finding people needing his services and willing
to give him jobs to do; and to this extent the slaves might be said to 'compete
with free labour' and in a vC'ry loose sense to 'create employment'. However, it
would be simple-minded to say that a man who made use of several slaves in his
workshop 'must have' under-sold the small craftsman who worked on his own
in the same line: the larger producer in antiquity, not being exposed to the
psychological pressures, the ambitions and the opportunities of a rising capitalist
entrepreneur, might be more likely to sell at current standard prices and pocket
the additional profit he might expect from the exploitation of the labour of his
slaves- here I am rather inclined to agree with Jones, even ifhe was able to give
only one illustration, which does nothing to establish his case (SCA, cd. Finley.
6). 45 Above all, we must remember that the size of a slave workshop, unlike a
modem factory, would not increase its effectiveness in proportion to the number
of its workers: it is machinery which is the decisive factor in the modem world,
202
allowing the larger workshop to produce more cheaply and thus to undercut the
smaller one (other factors being equal) and drive it om ofbusiness. The ancient
workshop had no machinery of any kind. It would be valued, apart from any
freehold premises in which it happened to be carried on, solely in terms of the
slaves employed in it and any raw materials of value, as in Dcm. XXVIL4 ff
(esp. 9-10), where th(" orator- anxious as he is to put as high a value as hl'
possibly can on his father's estate- values thl' two workshops controlled by thl'
elder Demosthenes (one his own, the other held as security for a debt) in terms
of nothing but the raw materials in them (ivory, iron. copper and gall) and their
52 or 53 slaves. 46 Dcmostht.nes speaks of the slaves as if they virtually were thC'
'factory' in each casC'. Increasing the numbn of slaves in an ancient workshop
would do nothing to improve its efficiency. In fact, as soon as it became large,
problems of discipline would be likely to arise. So the ancient artisan was not
nearly as likely to be 'drivt'n off the market' and into 'unemployment' by 'slave
com petition' as we might have been tempted to think, on the basis of misleading
modern analogies.
Having sufficiently distinguished the skilled craftsman and his like, I now
return to the wage-labourer proper, who hirld out his gent"ral services for
wages. I suggest that such men might indeed haw their wages forced down and
even suffer unemployment, owing to the 'competition of slave labour', in one
set of circumstances particularly. l refer to a situation in which slavcowncrs
were hiring out their slaves on a considerable scak: we know this did happen
(see Section iv of this chapter), but how prevalent the practice was we cannot
tell. Ifin these conditions the demand for hired labour was not greater than those
free men wishing to perform it were able to fulfil. then some of the frt't' men
would be likely to fail to obtain work. even if the slaves' masters offered them at
wages no lower than would be given to the free; and if the masters were willing
to hire out their slaves at cut rates, then the free men's chances of getting
employment would be much reduced. 17
I know of only one isolated passage in all Greek or Roman Iircraturc which
gives even a hint of any feeling on the part of free men that slaves were 'taking
the bread out of their mouths'. This passage occurs in a quotation by Athenaeus
(V1..2Md: cf. 272b) from the Sicilian Greek historian Timaeus ofTauromenium,
who wrote in the late fourth century B.C. and the early decades of the third
(FGrH 566 F 1la). According to Athl'nacus, Timacus said that Mnason of
Phocis (a friend of Aristotle's) bought a thousand slaves, and was reproached by
the Phocians for thus 'depriving as many citizens of their livelihood'. So far, so
good, pt>rhaps- although the number of slaves is suspiciously high. especially
for a rather backward area like Phocis. Bur Timaeus (or at any rate Athenacus)
then goes on, 'For the younger men in each household used to serve their elders';
and this seems to me a complete non sequitur. I cannot help thinking that
Athenaeus has misquoted Timaeus, or that somt.thing has gon(" wrong with the
text. Even if one is content to accept the passage as true and meaningful, there is
no parallel to it. as far as I know. Otherwise thtre arc only a few general remarks
such as Appian's that the Roman poor in the Republic spent their tim~ in idleness
(epi argias). as tht' rich used slaves insteadoffree men to cultivate the land (BCI.7).
Even in societies in which unfree labour is a thing of the past, or nearly so,
wage-labourers have often been dl'spiscd by the propertied class, and sometimes
I I I. Property and the Propertied (vi)
203
they have been deeply distrusted even by would-be reformers on the ground
that those who receive wages (especially domestic servants) are too dependent
upon their employers to be able to think and act of their own volition, and for
that reason are unworthy to be entrusted with democratic rights. The English
Levellers of the seventeenth century have been described as 'the one genuinely
democratic party thrown up by the Puritan revolution' (Woodhouse, PV,
p. [ 17] oflntroduction); yet some of them 411 wished to exclude from the franchise
all apprentices and 'servants', as well as 'those that take alms', on the ground that
'they depend upon the will of other men and should be afraid to displease
[them]. For servants and apprentices, they arc included in their masters and so
for those that receive alms from door to door' - thus Maximilian Petty, in the
second 'Putney Debate', on 29 October 1647 (Woodhouse. PV 83). The conjunction of beggars with servants and apprentices is signiftcant. 49 There is no
doubt that james Harrington, the very interesting and influential political writer
of the third quarter of the seventeenth century, divided the population into two
classes: Freemen or Citizens who can, and Servants who cannot. 'live of themselves' or 'live upon their own' .50
The desire to discriminate politically against those who work for wages
continued well beyond the seventeenth century. I cannot follow it further here
than to say that it is still very visible in some works of Immanuel Kant, written
in the 1790s, where we may find some interesting reminiscences of the distinctions drawn in Roman law referred to abow. Kant wished to confine the
franchise to those who wert> their own masters and had some property to
support them. A man who 'earned his living from others' could be allowed to
qualify as a citizen, in Kant's eyes, only ifhe earned it 'by selling that which is his,
and not by allowing others to make usc of him'. Kant explains in a note that
whereas the artist and the tradesman, and even the tailor and the wig-maker, do
qualify (they art> artifices), the domestic servant, the shop assistant, the labourer.
the barber, and 'the man to whom J give my firewood to chop' do not (they arc
mere optraril). He ends his note, however. with the admission that 'it is somewhat difficult to define the qualifications which entitle anyone to claim the status
of being his own master'! (I suspect that Roman law may have been among the
influences at work on Kant's thought here. The distinction he draws may
remind us irresistibly of that between ICicatio conductio operis and opnarum which I
drew attention to above as a social and economic differentiation. Kant was
prepared to give it legal and constitutional effect, even though he was unablt> to
define it satisfactorily.) In a work published four years later Kant returned to this
theme, asserting that 'to be fit to vote, a person must have an independent
position among the people'; and now, without attempting a more precise
definition of his 'active citizen'. he gives four examples of excluded categories
which 'do not possess civil independence', such as apprentices, scrvants, minors
and women, who may 'demand to be treated by all others in accordance with
laws of natural freedom and equality' but should have no right to participate in
making the laws.~ 1
* * * * * *
I must end this chapter by rc-emphasising a point I havt' made dscwhcrt in
this book: that iffrcc- hired labour played no very significant part at any time in
204
the economy of the Greek world, then the propertied classes must have extracted
their surplus in other ways, primarily through unfree labour (that of slaves, serfs
and bondsmen) perfonned 'directly' for individuals (a subject I have already
dealt with in Section iv of this chapter), but also 'indirectly' to some extent, in
the form of rent (in money or kind) from leases, or else from taxatian, or
compulsory services performed for the state or the municipalities (which I propose
to deal with in the next chapter).
It may not be out of place if I add a noteD listing all the references to hired
labour in the New Testament, of which the only ones of particular interest are
Mt. XX.1-16 (the 'Parable of the Vineyard', referred to above) and James V.4.
IV
Forms ofExploitation in the Ancient Greek World,
and the Small Independent Producer
(i)
'Direct individual' and 'indirect collective' exploitation
So far, in discussing the forms of class struggle in the ancient Greek world. I havespoken mainly of the dimt individual exploitation involved in the master-slave
relationship and other forms of unfree labour, and in wage-labour. I have done
little more than mention such relationships as those oflandlord and tenant. and
mortgagee and mortgagor. involving the payment of rent or interest instead of
the yielding of labour, and {except in l.iii above) I have similarly said little or
nothing about the indirect collective exploitation effected through the various
organs of the state- a term which, when applied to thC' Hellenistic and Roman
periods, must be taken to include not only imperial officials (those of the
Hellenistic kings and of the Roman Republic and Empire) but also the agents of
the many poleis through which the Greek East came more and more to beadministered. Broadly speaking, all those among thC' exploited classes who
were of servile or quasi-servile condition (including serfs and bondsmen) and
also hired labourers, tenants and debtors were subject to what I have called direct
exploitation by individual members of the propertied class, although- even apart
from the slaves of the emperors and other members of the imperial household,
the familia Caesaris- there were a certain number of public slaves (demosioi, serl'i
publici) owned by the Ruman state or by particular poleis. The forms ofl'xploitation which I have caJled indirect, on the other hand, were applied by the state {in
ways I shall describe presently) for the collective benefit of (mainly) the propertied class, above all to persons of at least nominally free status who were small
independent producers: of these a few were either traders (mt'rchants, shop
keepers or petty dealers) or else independent artisans (working not for wages,
but on their own account; cf. Section vi of this chapter and III. vi above). but the
vast majority were peasants, and most of what I have to say about this category
of small indepcndcm producers will be concentrated on the peasantry- a term
which I shall define in Section ii of this chapter.
Ideally, it might have been bl.'st to deal separately with the kinds of exploitation effected by landlords and mortgagees (taking the form of rent or interest)
together with other kinds of what I have called 'direct individual' exploitation;
but since they applied almost entirely to those I am calling 'peasants'. l have
found it convenient to trl!'at them in this chapter, with forms of 'indirect
collective' exploitation.
By 'indirect and collective' forms of exploitation I mean those payments or
services which were not rendered from individual to individual but were
206
exacted by the authority of ~hl~ s~:t~' (a-. ddinctlabuw) trom a whole community
(a village, for example) or from indindnak Tlwy '"'ould normally take one of
three main forms: {!) uxation. in mor~~:.y or in kiud; (2) milit:try conscription; or
(3) compulsory mtn:al strvicc-s such J.S tht 1:11g,rri,lr' J !Jl(nttoned in l.iii above.
Taxation, of courst. w:b usua!ly the !JWst :n:port;mt nfth\sc forms of exploitation. Afrer working out th<' p('sitioul h:t\f\' JUS I stab:d. I ..::une across a statement
in Marx which provt~ th:at he too dtstingwshed bet wt'~~n what I am calling
'direct individual' and "ir~dinYt mlkcuvc l'xplo>tatimJ. ~ptdfically in regard to
taxation. In the earlil!'st of his thrt~ m<~.Jor works otJ nYtnt 1:rench history, The
Class Struggles in Fra11;r {puhlish\d as .1 series of a:-tldts in the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung during 1850). M.1rx s;1ys t'>fthe l"tmditimll,ftllt' Frmch peasants ofhis
day that 'Their explt.,itation hft(:r;; only !n_;i:ti trum the exploitation of the
industrial proletariat. ThL l"Xpluitl'l is rh~: ~alllt'~ cap~t.-I!. ThL ~ndividual capitalists
exploit the individual rL'lS3tltS throu~h ltiNf,l[i~\!t".; ;llld lli:ll)'; the Capitalist class
exploits the peasant class thrllugh tht. Sr.rr;; tr1Xt:s' (:HE< .'J-11 X .122).
Now except in a demmncy. likt that oi Adwns 111 the fifth and fourth
centuries B.C., which extendtd t'lohtictl ridus w th~ lowLs~ lcvds of the citizen
population, the statt.> would b~ ,; dt(,r sn~ply th, insmnnmt of the collective
property-owners, or t'\"~n of;; Tt.5rairtt;.i ink .mHm~ rlwm- a Hellenistic king
and his henchmen, for m:;t;anc\. or ;a R,ml.ln L'lllPt.'rllT .md the imperial aristocracy. 'To the wider "~isi\ltl ofth~ hishri;m.' Sir 1-l;m,)d Bdl once wrote, 'one
ruler may differ gn-.uly frum J.lll>tb,c: tt tlw plasant tb~ difference has mainly
been that the one Lhastist,! bun w:th wlnp~ :md the ntha with scorpions.
Quite apart from dinLt l'Xplon.uion ,~fsl:tv,s. bondsmL'II. safs, hired labourers,
tenants, debtors and ,,ther~ by ithlt,duJ.l pwp!!rty...:wn,rs. such a state would
providt' for 'its own lll'l'thi br t:rx.lt!on. tht> t'X.It'twn ol compulsory services,
and conscription. l';~.xatltm Hltk nuny ,{ijf,rmt t;,rms m the Greek world. 2 In
the cities before the Hdl~nistic priml it nuy ,,ftm haw b,tn quite light, if only
because the lack of anythiu~ nsnnhhn)! ..1 JlltlJ;.m ,ivd s;'r\"irl! made it difficult if
not impossible to collect s.nMl1 sun~ it: t.u;o..s pwtit.thly frm poor people (that is
to say, from the grt.>.:u m.tjority uf the population), without the intervention of
tax-farmers (trlonai 111 Cr~\k. l..un publicani). wh,-. ;;,,m to have been very
unpopular with all d.t:'st'-.. Wr h.1w hardly any int(.>nu:Ltiou about taxation in
the Greek cities in tht (:l.tl'"ic.Il J'l'titld, ~qn ti.r Athtm..:' where the poor were
in practice exempt lr.;m rh.rl.;p/i,rll. tlw on I> t~mn ot'dm.-r taxation, and were
probably little affct:t.."d by iutlir.t taX\!0 ttiKr than the import duties and
harbour dues. (It is a md.Iul'htlly i:trt . .:-har.lt'ltri">til" .~f, ur s' mrccs of information
for Greek - even Atlwni.m- t.'(tnumi, bt;;hry. th.u our tidlcst list of taxes for a
single city in any littr.try .. unrt't'l>htuld tll"mr m Cmnt'dy: Aristophancs, Wasps
656-60!) The total bnrd,n tlf t.tx.nion in the (;n,k niH"S and their territories
certainly increased 111 tfw Hdkni:.tit .md Roman p\m)ds. According to Rostovtzeff. 'the Helleni:>ttr p~ri\Jd did tll)t iutwdu.c .my subst.tntial changes into
the systt'm which had b,:;:u tinuty ,,t;thh!Ohl.'d for ccnrun<s in the Greek citi.:s
(SEHHW 111.1374 n. 71). W\th lmph.hi\ on thl word ~ubsrantial', this can be
accepted. but the cvidt.Jl.-( (:<ms.Jsts mJ.inly uf "mo~ll ... l"up..-: the only individual
source of any rt<al significanctls .111 ms.-ripti{>ll ii,m Co... ;;;1(;:1 1000 (which has
been fully discussed in En~h,.h). 1 Aut ttk~it ,lf tlw Cr-.-d;. ,irics were sooner or
later subjt!ctcd to sonw i(mn vf r.tx:nwn by l-ldkuis;til kill!!" and eventually the
IV Exploitation, and the small independent prodtwT ( i)
207
vast majmuy had tc p;y ~;:xes to Rom.:. lu A.ia. uf course, the Hdlenistic kings
inherited tht< p._rsi.w s:.'stc:m aft.l ....;tion. firs~ ~Jrg.mised by Darius I at the end of
the sixth nmury B.C.: ;md a!:hm:gh ll: h: H::-ik-:tistic pl'riod many Greek cities
w~rl' exuup~ from r.hu. liK p,.<s;mh o:; !;;r:d m: included in rhc territory of a
city muse alwa\'! havt hc~cu ~bJC"C ro thi~ bmden. In Egypt, the Ptolemics
reorganised t~W ol!!t-.:ld :;,x.i:iou sy>tl'!li (>f. rh, Pharaohs, and the elaborate
arrangcm,llts rlwy d ..v~;;,;i weo!~ l.uer t:JIHnt('d by tht Romans:; Modern historians hav<> brgdy ignorr::-d 1h ri::s'lme quc~r.inn of taxation in the Hellenistic
and Ronun !''-'riod"l. uu d"lub: ma!n!y b{cm~, of the Vl'ry unsatisfactory source
material. Ut:-tnvt:.r.rl i~ .1 pn mint'Ilt ~xnp~ion. A glance at the relevant index of
his SEHHW (111.!741-2) wi!l sh-">'l ll<:".triy dmc columns filled with entries
undlr T:tx :,,)!-:nor:- ... Lt\'.ttllltl . :nl-s' (.-.ntf sec the column and a halfin the
indl'X to hi~ SFllR P, II.~ 1:,). Furth,:r :pignpluc discoveries may well extend
our knowkd:<!; ot"tl:is stobj~n. 45 thty LtV(' do.lll;: m thl past. For instance. it was
from an iu,aiptiou d:~Cl.}\'l'rc:J nut lun~ a~o in Bulgaria that the first example
came to light of J. poll-!:l,_ (nf un~ ;kn:.rit:!o f'l'r head) collected by a local city
from sonu- .,f tlw inh,\htJnt~ of its .-.re:i.. with the L'Xpress permission of tht
emperor. ti}r irs 1..\\\'n b.:ndit UGBr~IJ! IV. 2.:?6.\ lin<.'" (,..8). 11
Taxatiou gr(-.ul~ illi:r~ots.\d in tlw Middk .m'-! lata Rfmt.m E!:1pire.: t:.llin:t
most heavily llll t!w pt'J'o,mtry. who h ....! l~a$t pm.\'lr t<) rt~i~t -;lfo I sh:di ~xp!.uu
in VIII.iv hdnw. rhl ridt m.m lud .t f;11' hlUer ch;Hte( uil"S..";\~ittg. nr lltim:mslll!.
payment. Th~ ~m..tll pmd!l,~r ~!ti;:bt .lb..' b, compdk.i to pcrii...rm a_IJ kinds of
compulsory s<nkes. :at the hdt(st oftlw <;t:ltl'. :1tllnt lll:tiuly iu thos~ p.ms oi thl'
Greek Wlltld (e,;;ptri;,Jiy E:!YPI ;md Syri.t) whkh h;ad oaK~ torm,,i plii o1rh.
P'-'rsian <.:mpirl' Jnd itl wiJidl tlKrc surn\~d in,idimtd~ I~>TliiS ._,f ol>hi,!;l~'"Y
personal scr\'iC( such .1;; tiK .:.nir (1~-:.r rcp.lllmg c:m.;h, l'tc:; <..H t h, a;msp.:rt
duties winch w,r, rh, .mginal,m...:'ri'u i:s~ Uti .1hov ,md tb 11.H bdtl\'').
Among dw t(mt:s o)f wh.u I !l.l\'\~ called m~lrnct nlltctiv" l'XJ'h.>it;~ttoJ!' \\'\'
must nor f1il to uotHY nmscrtption. Jn tlu: Gntk cmt.,_ ~m\it.try s\n'i'~' in rh,
cavalry or dt~: bc-.tvy-o~mh'tlll6lllry ~titt hoplttt' ;muy) w:~.o; ;1 'lit~argy \':-ii"'n,,i
mainly ot' thos~ I .un,.tlhn~ 'tlw prnp<nic...l d.tss~~ (~n Ill. i1 .tbow) .tlthnu_!.th J
believe th:u hoplitt. s,nt~~ox som\timl~ (J'l'rlup!o otft'tl; \W'ut ,k~wu r.ttlwr bd.-t\\'
that lcvd .ttJd aili.(t,d !>V~n, llt'thosc v..lw w.>rm.ally h.td 1<. ,!..,.~ <:t'rt;tiu :tnwum
of work t'l.1r ttwir living. Light-:lrmnltw,ps .111,1 tl.l\'.tl ti_,r,:co:;. Wt.'ll' .:.:JIIitt:.l
from th( lhJn-pr<.ptrtitlL .uul some cities even usecl si.tvls, among others. to
row their w.uship!- (~tt q.t Thuc. I.54.2; 55.1). I suspect, howewr, that
conscript ion of tlw rlc.>r t~~r such purposes was rat he r-;;r, ..It any rare unless pay
(or at least r,ui,nl-) wac ~i\1n. And I think thert i~ n~.1sm to hditn: th.tr .It
Athl'11S in p:mirul.tr tho~t bdow the hopliu. class (tht Th~:t(s) \H'I\' mnscripte:d
only temporarily. in emergencies (as in 428, 406 aud perhaps .\7h). mHiJ 3t\.'!,
when - as I think - conscription of Thetcs for the fleet w,1s iraro.lu<:d and
became much more frequent. 11
The feature of military conscription which is particularly relevant here is that
it will have represented no really serious burden upon the well-to-do, who did
not have to work for their living and whom military servicc would merely
divert from other occupations- often more profitable. it is true. For all those
below my 'propertied class', conscription, diverting them from the activities by
which they earned their daily brcad, could be a real menace, and those who werc
208
furthest from belonging to the propertied class would presumably suffer most.
Marx, who knew his Appian, quotes in a footnote to Vol. I of Capital (pp.726-7
n.4) part of the passage in which Appian describes the growth of great estates
and the impoverishment of the Italian peasamry during the Republic (BC 1.7),
and adds the comment, 'Military service hastened to so great an extent the ruin
of the Roman plebeians.' (Appian, indeed, in that passage gives the freedom of
slaves from conscription as the reason why Roman landowners 'used slaves as
cultivators and herdsmen', rather than free men.) With the inception of the
Roman Principate (and indeed even earlier, from the time ofMarius, in the late
second century B.C.) conscription came to be replaced to some considerable
extent by voluntary recruitment. although it continued to a greater degree than
many historians have realised (see Section iv of this chapter and its n.1 below).
(ii)
The peasantry and their villages

Although the peasantry represents 'an aspect of the past surviving in the contemporary world', yet it is 'worth remembering that- as in the past, so in the
present - peasants are the majority of mankind'! Thus Teodor Shanin, in his
Introduction (p. 17) to the valuable Penguin volume on Peasants and Peasant
Societies which he edited in 1971. 1 In the present generation, partly as a result of
the recent proliferation of studies of backward or exploited countries (the
so-called 'developing countries'), there has been a remarkablL' growth of interest
in what some people like to refer to as 'peasant economies' or 'peasant societies',
and aJournal if Peasant Studies began to appear in 1973. A great deal ofinformation
has been collected about peasants; but just .as this }lr.mdl 11t" studies had to rely
largely in time past upon historians untrainlJ in !oUCilllo~y and with little or no
regard for wider sociological issues, so now it is m d.m~lr ufbecoming mainly
the province ofsociologists who have an im.uttki,ntly hi~tuncal approach or are
not qualified by their training to make the hL"">I ust ufius1urical material - in
particular that from the ancient world, much of winch ts ,~l'ry hard for anyone
but a trained Classical srholar and an.:ientlus.tunJu ru u~t" pmfitably.
Now I admit that a vtry large part ,lftllL" (;n,k {anJ Rmn.m) world throughout
most of its history would satisfy sonw of tlw .-urrlmly p1)pular definitions of a
'peasant economy' or 'pt>J.Sant society'. nouhly ont th.H t~ witldy accepted today,
that of Daniel Thormr. presented m tlw Stnmd International Conference of
Economic History o~t Aix in IIJ6.:!. as a paper entitled 'Peasant economy as a
category in economk history'. rublished in 1965 in the Proceedings of the
conference2 and reprinted in Sh.min's Penguin reader mentioned above (PPS
202-18: see esp. 203-5). whLn vn: also find a number of alternative definitions
and discussions of the concepts nf 'peasant economies' (e.g. 99-100, 150-60,
323-4) and 'peasants' ( I04-105, 240-5. 254-5, 322-5). The ancient historian needs
to be able to operatt' OL'L"il!>ionalJy with the concept of a 'peasant economy', at
least for comparative purposts, .md he may sometimes fmd this category really
useful in dealing with Grc~k .md Roman society. On the other hand, he will also
want to isolate the sp~dtk t~amns which differentiate the various phases of
ancient Greek (and Rom.m) ~unt:t)' from ptaso~nt t'L'onomi~,;- or other peasant
economies. My own inchnatton!". an r.lthlr of th-.: StYund variety, and although I
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (ii)
209
shall certainly make use (after defining it) of the category of "pcb;<l!t s'. I shall
rardy think in terms of a 'peasant ewnomy'. I agree with R~dt,~y Hihon, wlw i:l
the publication of his 1973 Ford Lectures at Oxford ha~ poin rrd o:;t th~: 'thb
concept "peasant economy" could embrace most of hm:t.l!l hi:sto:y twt,vl''-'n
"tribal" (American, "folk") society and the complt;i,-m ofinb~u:~~I tLlllSt~r
mation in modem times. It could certainly apply to lli"Jst European media(v.\I
states' (EPLMA 7-8). If we feel the necessity to dassi;~ the partiwl:u :S<:.i,>ty w~
are studying, in order to group it with certain broad!, ;;iwil.u ~.-.cietit.~ OIIHl w
distinguish it from those in.other groups, then for most pmp1~ses I thi11k wr shail
find it more profitable to place the ancient Greek world. in its "urcessivo:- and in
some ways very different- phases. within the field of 'sl.n..: soric.ty r: thcr t.:h.l!l
'peasant society'. although of course operating mainh with th, ti.mn~:r coJHX}'t
does not by any means exclude the use of the latter in appr)prt.lk s.itu;.tions.
Perhaps I should repeat here what I have said before :q~. in II iu ;mJ Jll.i\'
above): for my purposes, the fact that the propertied cl.I~Sl'S \>r' tlw Gnc.k .m,!
Roman world derived the bulk of their surplus from thl n:pluiratH.m (~f,mtr~,
labour makes it possible for us to consider that world ;ls (iii .1 wry Jr.,).,..;- ,.-ns~) a
'slave economy or 'slave society', even though we han to (CJIH'f(k th.~ ,iuri ~~~ .1
large part of Greek and Roman history peasants and Jthcr illd~pc:nd,m producers may not only have formed the actual majority o(rhl tlt.tl pJpul.ttion hu:
may also have had a larger share (usually a much largtr sh.m:) in rrodu1:tilln dun
slaves and other unfree workers. Even when, by tht> timrth century nf th:
Christian era at the very latest. it is possible to be fairly !iUrl' tlut prudunicm by
chattel slaves in the strict sense has dropped well below thl' cnm binn f :-roductiu:
of free peasants, peasant serfs. and miscellaneous artisaus .tnd nthcr tiTc- \\':;r kc.rs
of all kinds, whether working on their own account or ti.)r wctgl"!i (st'C 111.\"l
above), the unfree labour of the serfs is a major factor. and pl'rmc:ating the '.\hoi~
society is the universal and unquestioning acceptance uf sl.1vcry as p:1n of ~hl"
natural order (cf. III.iv above and Section iii of this chapter). As I shall demon~
strate in VI. vi and VII.iii below, Christianity made no difference whatever to
this situation, except perhaps to strengthen the position of the governing few
and increase the acquiescence of the exploited Many, even if it did encourage
individual acts of charity.
The townsman through the ages has always regarded the peasant's lot as
unenviable, except on those occasions when he has allowed himself some
sentimental reflection upon the morally superior quality of the peasant's life (see
the first paragraph ofl.iii above). Edward Gibbon, congratulating himself in his
autobiography on having been born into 'a family of honourable rank and
decently endowed with the gifts of fortune', could shudder as he contempt ated
some unpleasant alternatives: being 'a slave. a savage or a peasant' (Memoirs f?fmy
Life. ed. G. A. Bonnard [1966] 24 n.l}.
To my mind, the most profound and moving representation in art of 'the
peasant' is Vincent Van Gogh's De Aardappeleters (The Potato Eaters), painted at
Nuenen in Brabant in April-May 1885, a reproduction of which forms the
Frontispiece to this book. Apart from preliminary studies, two versions (as well
as a lithograph) exist, of which the one in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam
is undoubtedly finer than the earlier one in the Kroller-Miiller Museum at
Otterlo near Amhem. As Vincent himself said, in a letter to his brother Theo,
210
written on 30 April1885, while the picture was still being painted:

I have tri.:d to emphasise that those people, eating their potatoes in the lamplight. have
dug the earth with thosc= very hands they put in thr: dish. and so ir speaks of manual
labour, and how they have honesrly l'amcd their food. I have wanted to giw the
impression of a way oflifr quite diffcrcnr from that of us civilised people.:l
(I am sure it would not be possible to find a parallel to that statement in the
whole of the literature that survives from the Greek and Roman world.) The
quality that impresses one- most about Van Gogh's peasanrs is their endurance.
the-ir sohdity. like that of the earth from which they draw just sufficient
sustenance to maintain life. In at least four of his letters Van Gogh quotes a
description of Millet's peasants which certainly applies to his own: 'Son paysan
semble peint avec Ia terre meme qu'il ensemcnce. ' 4 The Potato Eaters are poor.
but they are not evidently miserable: even if the artist shows infinite sympathy
with them, he depicts in them no trace of self-pity. These are the voiceless
toilers. the great majority -let us not forget it - of the population of the Greek
and Roman world. upon whom was built a great civilisation which despised
them and did all it could to forget them.
* * * * * *
People today are apt to take it for granted that peasant production is inefficient,
compared with modern large-scale agriculture. 'agribusiness', because the latter
can farm a vast acreage with very little labour on the spot and can therefore
undersell the peasant and drive him off the land. However, on the- basis of a
different method of calculation, taking into account the vast quantities of fossil
fuels, manufactured fertiliser and machinery that 'agribusiness' needs to consume, there are those who maintain that peasant production is more efficient,
ecologically and in the long term. I do not pretend to be able to decide this issue.
* * * * * *
We must formulate a definition of'peasants , 'peasantry'. I have found the one

given by Hilton (EPLMA 13) most illuminating. and my own follows it dosdy.
He is prepared to accept the 'peasantry' as a useful category not only in connection with the period he is concerned with (roughly the century after the Black
Death of 1347/R-51) but also as applying to peasants 'in other epochs than the
Middle Ages and in other places than Western Europe'. The definition he
proceeds to give is based on treating the peasantry as 'a class, determined by its
place in the production of society's material needs, not as a status group
determined by attributed esteem, dignity or honour' (EPLMA 12). That is
precisely the way in which I wish to trt.at the ancient Greek peasantry. My
definition, then, adapted from Hilton's, is as follows:
1. Peasants (mainly cultivators) possess, whether or not they own, the means
of agricultural production by which they subsist; they provide their own
maintenance from their own productive efforts, and collectively they produce
more than is necessary for their own subsistence and reproduction.
2. They are not slaves (except in the rare case of the servus quasi co/onus, dealt
with in Section iii of this chapter) and are therefore not legally the property of
others; they may or may not be serfs or bondsmen (within the definitions in
III.iv above).
211
3. Their occupation of land may be under widely difft>ring conditions: they

may be freeholders, lessees (at a rent in money, kind or shans, and combined or
not with labour services). or tenants at will.
4. They work their holdings essentially as family units. pnmarily with
family labour. but occasionally with restricted us~o' of slaves or wagl-labour.
5. They arc normally associated in larger units than the family alone, usually
in villages.
6. Those ancillary workers (such as artisans, building and transport workt.rs,
and even fishermen) who originate from and remain among peasants may be
considered as peasants themselves.
7. They support supcrimpost.'d clasS('S by which they arc exploited to a
greatl'T or less degree, especially landlords. mon<.>yl(nders, town-dwellers, and
the organs of the State to which th(y bdong, and in which they may or may not
have political rights.
It will be sten that thl' P"~'s;mtry . .~.~ I h.tvl ddtnld them, partly ovl'rlap the
categories of unfrt>l'labour wh~eh 1 h;in Lud .lnwn in Ill. iv abuvt:: all serfs arl'
peasants, and so arc lll\~"t a~ricultar.~l twn.isnll'tl, but slaves are not- although
the 'slavc I"Oionus' whur:1 I Lk~ailw m 12 of ~L't'tion iii below musr be allowed
for SOOil' rurpos,~ [ll ("(lUll[ d .. d pt'.,b;UU At rh.ir highest level, peasants begin ro
mcrgl' inh.l my 'rwp;:nkd d.~~~ (J~ ;krln.-d m HI.ii above): but in order to do so
they must cxpltir rlzrJ,zJ:,,.,, ~{<'tlrtr' om~ilk tht t~unily. by making use of slaves.
st:rfo;, or hinLIIJ.h,:_~Llr~ors, ;m,l .1s soon as tiKy Jt\ chat to any significant degree,
and bccomL' .1bk ILl live without htin~ ohh~-t''d to spend any substantial amount
of tht.ir tltrH' wurkin~ ti1r thdr Jivin~. d11..y n'.N', according to my dcftnition, ro
count among- pl'.IsAnts .md mmt bt trL.md as members ofthl propertied class.
Only by exploiting the l.ab,mr ,lt'uth'-.'r; cuuld a peasant family hope to rise into
the propertied class.
Onc of iitl' bl'Si .111.aiysls i know of a pamc-ular pt'asantry i~ that given by
Engels in 18<)4 in :m .arudc m:itl,d 'Til, p' \1!-..lUt qu,stion in France> and Germany'.
(An Englio:,h tr.m~IJtl\lllls iududLd Ill :HES~H2.4'}.) Engds knew much more
about peasants at tir!ol h.m\l than mus,t .Kad..::m.- historians. As he wrote in some
travd nohs l.th' i11 184X. lw h.lll s~okcu to lnu~<ireds of peasants in thC' most
diverse regions 1.\f Fr.Uh"l'. {.HCC"J-f/ VII.J.n). In the article written in IH94 he
distinguishes thrt.c broad groups of peasants, wi1h one, the 'small' peasant, set
apart qualit.lll\'l'ly from the other two, and ctrdully ddined as 'tht' owner or
tenant- particularly the former- of a patch ofland no biggL'r, as a rull.'. than he
and his family can till, and no smallcr than can sustain the family' (MESW 625).
Thc other two groups. of 'big' and 'middk' p(asants, are those who 'cannot
manage without wage-workers' {637). whom they employ in different ways
(624-5); th~o bigger ones go in for 'undisguised capitalist production' (o3H). It is
roughly along tht>se lines that I would divide ancient Greek peasants, although of
course the labour which the 'big' and (to a less extent) the 'middle' peasant would
employ in thl Grt't.'k world would more often be that of slaves than of hired
hands. lt will be seen that dausl' 4 of th<.> definition of pcasants I have given above
cxdttdl.'s Engels' 'big' plasants altogcthlr: they arl' part of my 'propertied class',
and my 'p('asants' ar~o mainly his 'small' ont"s. with somt of the 'middle' variety.
212
Another analysis of J p~:t!>:Ult simation wh!ch sho~'"-s a. d~~p understanding of

its class constituents is that JfWilli:un Hintun. m his r<'m.trkable book, Fanshen.
A Documentary of Rcw:u,iotJ m c: Cl!itii'Sc' Viil.tgr (196(, and rcpr.). At the very
outset of the Chint"s~ rtvolurilfl in \'ar.h art'.J. it wa~ :wiX$SdrV to break down theconformist assumptions ~c1wrared in dw minds of dtl p~.1.s~nts by centuries of
landlord rule:' The anckut hismria.n cau iiml t>.xtrJvrdit<~ry interest in Hinton's
description of a me~ting hdd iuJ.muary llJ4fJ in l.i Vilhg~ Gulch to decide upon
the nature of the ;1grariJn rdorm to be llndcnaken in dte Fifth District of
Lucheng County in rlw Provi:Kl' liSh:m.si. which included the village of Long
Bow, the particular oh_iel't of Hinron s sru,!y. Th~ main practical question to be
decided was whether rent should comimK to be paid to landlords. But the
meeting opened with a consideration of n-ru:n fundamental questions. beginning with 'Who dep(.rul<. upon wh,,m t~'r a living?'. Many pt"asants assumed that
of course it was thc.~r who dL'J't'UdLd up(ltl tht ldlllllorck 'It the landlords did not
let us rent the land, tlwy s.nd. \no \\'1'uld starve. M:my who had been driven by
poverty to work as hired labourers for landlords were prepared to accept their
situation as part of the natural order, provided they were not actually cheated
but were fed and paid according to their contrac1. Gradually the peasants came
to realise that it was the landlords who dcpt'nded for a living upon them and
their labour, and they grasped the fact that 'the exploitation inherent in land rent
itself was 'the root of all the other evils' (Fansllen 128-30). I may add that the
criteria for analysing class status in the countryside, forming part of the Agrarian
Reform Law of the Chinese People's Republic (and set out in Appendix C to
Hinton's book, 623-6), arc well worth studying: the categories recognised there
are again defined primarily by the extent to which each individual exploits
others or is himself exploited. When there is no one imerested in opening the
peasant's eyes to his oppressed condition, he will often accept it. whether with
resignation or with rt'sentmenr; and his lords, who would like to belicw that ht:"
is perfectly contented. may even persuade thcmsdves that h!.' really is. When the
Pearce Commission rLportcd in 1972 that the majority ofth~ African population
of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), amounting to five or six million. refused to
accept the sham constitutional reforms offered to them by the British Conservative government and Smith's Rhodesia Front. and designed to prolong th!.'
rule of the quarter of a million whites. the British and even more Smith and the
Front were astounded. 'No one could henceforth believe that Smith gowrned
with African support, or on any other basis thanjorce majeure' (Robert Blake, A
.
History of Rhodesia I 1977] 405).
I do not wish tO elaborate on the differenc..-s one could proceed to establish
between ancient Greek and, for example. mediaeval English peasants. In doing
this one would of course wish to introduce those varying political and legal
characteristics which my definition, couched as it is primarily in economic and
social terms. deliberately omits. Yet even then one must admit that the differences between various kinds of peasants inside the Greek world or within
mediaeval England were in some important respects more significant than the
differences at each corresponding level between the societies. I would suggest
that the free English yeoman who held a small plot ofland in free socage and the
Athenian small peasant of the fifth or fourth century B.C. had more in common
in some ways than the yeoman with the villein, or the Athenian with one of thl'
213
abject villagers of Aphrodito in Egypt who grove-lled be-fore their local bigwig
in a petition of A.D. 567, quoted late-r in this section.
It may be asked why I have singled our the peasantry as a class. The answer is
that those I have defined as 'the propertied class' (or classes: see III.ii above) ofte-n
derived part of their surplus, and sometimes a very substantial part, from
peasants, either by direct and individual exploitation (principally through rent
and interest) or in the mainly 'indirect and collective' way I have described in
Section i above. In some places, at some periods, by far the greater part of a rich
man's income might be derived from unfree labour; but even at the very time
when we have most reason to expect precisely that situation, namely the Italy of
the Late Republic, we find Oomirius Ahenobarbus raising crews for seven ships in
49 B.C. from his 'slaves, freedmen and coloni', who are shortly afterwards
referred to as his 'toloni and pastores (Caes., BC I. 34, 56); and some- members of
the propertied class, especially in the later Roman Empire, derived much of their
surplus from nominally free coloni rather than slaves (sce Section iii of this chapter).
There might be very great variations - political and legal. as well as economic
- in the condition of peasants over the vast area and the many centuries of my
'ancient Greek world'. In an independent Greek democracy which was its own
master, the non-propertied classes would at least have a chance of reducing to a
minimum any direct exploitation of themselves by the State on behalf of the
propertied class (cf. Il.iv above and V.ii below). Under an oligarchy they would
be unable to defend themselves politically. and when they became subject to a
Hellenistic king or to Rome they might find themselves taxed for the benefit of
their master, and perhaps subjected to compulsory personal services as well. In
the Greek East (see I. iii above) the peasantry derived little or no beneftt from the
costly theatres, baths, aqueducts. gymnasia and so forth which were provided
for the enjoyment mainly ofthe more leisured section of the city population,
partly out oflocal taxation and the rents of city lands, partly out of donations by
the local notables, who of course drew the greater part of their wealth from their
farms in the countryside (see III.ii-iii above), We can still think in terms of
'exploitation' of the 'small independent producer', even in cases where no
particular individual appears in the capacity of direct exploiter (see Section i of
this chapter).
Of course the great majority ofour 'small independent producers' were what
I am calling peasants. Some might be tempted to draw firm distinctions between
a number of different types of peasant. Certainly in principle one can distinguish
several categories even among the peasants, according to the forms of tenure by
which they hold their land, for example:
1. Freeholders who had absolute ownership of their plots.

2. During the Hellenistic period, men who in practice were virtually absolute
owners for the duration of their lives, but who held their land on condition of
performing military service, and who could not transmit it directly to their heirs
without the endorsement of the king. (In practice, such lots often became
eventua11y equivalent to freeholds.) 6
3. Tenants who either (a) held on lease, for their lives or {much more
commonly) for a term of years (which might in practice be renewable at the
option of one party or the other or both), or (b) were what English lawyers call
214
The Class StruJ?gle in rhe Ancient Greek World
'tenants at will' subject at any time to the possibility of being ejected or of

having their terms of occupation made more onerous (e.g. with a higher rent).
These tenants, of t'ither class, would fall into four broad groups, according to
the nature of the landlord's return, which might be (i) a fixed rent in money, (ii)
a fixed rent in kind, (iii) a share of the crop (the Roman colonia partiaria. modern
metaya,(!e or share-cropping), or (iv) labour services. Combinations of these
alternatives were of course possible: in principle, a share of the crop could be
combined with a fixed rent in money or kind or both; a rent could be made
payable partly in money and partly in produce at a predetermined price (as in
Dig. XIX.ii.19.3); and labour services could be exacted in addition to rent in
money or kind - although in point of fact there is surprisingly little evidence in
ancient literature, legal texts, inscriptions or papyri for labour services on
anything more than a very small scale (about six days a year) until we reach the
sixth century when a Ravenna papyrus speaks of several days' service a week on
the 'home farm' in addition to rent in money (P. /tal. 3: see below). I will add
only that in some cases payment of rent in money rather than kind might make
things much more difficult for the tenant, who would be obliged to sell his crop
in order to pay his rem, and might have problems where the crop could not
easily be disposed of on the spot or at a nearby market.
1
This is a convenient place at which just to mention the form of leasehold

tc:nure known as emphyt('usis, under which land (usually uncultivated or derelict)
was leased for a long term or in perpetuity at a low rent (often nominal at first). 7
But emphyteutic tenures, which became widespread in the Later Empire, from
the fourth cemury onwards, raise very complicated problems of Roman law. In
most cases the lessees would probably not be small peasants (but see the end of
IV .iii n.SO below).
Some people might be tempted to say that peasants who hold their land in
freehold, as absolute owners, 'must always have been' in a better position than
leaseholders. I would concede that there is a small measure of truth in this, if we
add, 'other circumstances being equal'; but as a generalisation it will not stand,
as there were too many countervailing factors. In the first place, the properties
of freehold peasants would often tend to become smaller by subdivision among
sons and might well end up as units too small to work economically, whereas a
landowner leasing out property could choose what size was most profitable (cf.
Jones, LRE 11.773-4). And in many circumstances- for instance, in areas with
poor soil or subject to exceptionally high taxation. or after successive crop
failures or devastation by enemy raids or maltreatment by government officials
-a tenant might well suffer less than a freeholder, especially perhaps if the tenant
was a share-cropper (co/onus partiarius), and even more if his landlord was a
powerful man who was willing to give him some protection. The freeholder's
farm was a far more valuable piece of property than mere rented land and could
therefore be used as a security for debt - and become subject to foreclosure on
default. Debt was always the nightmare of the small freehold peasant, especially
since the laws affecting defaulting debtors in antiquity (see under heading Ill
oflll.iv above) were often very harsh and might involve personal enslavement
or at any rate some measure of bondage while the debt was being worked off
- sometimes an indc:finitely long process. Impoverished debtors sometimes
215
agitated not only for a moratorium on interest payments or for Jimitation or

reduction of the rate of interest (which could be very high), but for the total
cancellation of all debts; in Greek, chreon apokope; in latin, novae tabulae. This
demand was sometimes supported by radical reformers in antiquity, and it was
frequently joined with the advocacy of a general redistribution of land, gis
anadasmos, the other main plank in the platform of radicals on the political left.
(For recent works on both these phenomena see V .ii n.55 below.) In the Greek
world there were two occasions in particular on which we happen to be quite
well informed about these demands and the degree of success they achieved: at
Athens in 594/3 B.C. the lawgiver Solon granted a complete cancellation ofdebt
(known as his seisachtheia) but refused to redistribute the land (see V. i below and
its n.27); and at Sparta in 243-242 B.C. King Agis IV procured a general
cancellation of debts but was prevented from going on to the redistribution of
land he had also planned (see V .ii n.55 below). Similar measures, and agitations
for them, are recorded not only from the Greek world but also from the Near
East. in particular the reform brought about in Judaea by the prophet
Nehemiah, probably in the 440s B.C., described in Nehemiah V.l-13: 11 this
provides the nearest parallel I know (even if not a very dose one) to the
debt-cancellations by Solon and Agis.
The possibility of foreclosure by a mortgagee and the consequent forfeiture of
his land made the humble freeholder's position much less superior to that of the
leasehold tenant than it might seem at first sight. And a tenant, the 'mere' tenant
of a landlord. might have a weapon ofsorts, if he and his neighbours could act in
concert: the anachoresis or secrssio, an 'exodus' which was essentially a strike.
taking the form of a collective departure (preferably to a nearby temple where
asylum could be claimed) and a refusal to resume work until grievances were
remedied. The evidence comes largely from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt.
where the practice was evidently common9 and was resorted to even by the
tenants of royal land. the 'king's peasants'. Tenants might indeeci be able to
draw some advantage from the fact that the landlord's intcrest (even if concentrated on exploiting them as much as possible) was not entirely hostile to their
own, and they might actually receive some measure of protection from a
powerful landlord, who might even be the Roman emperor himself, and who in
any event might at least be willing, in his own interest, to try to prevent his
tenants' efforts to cultivate the land from being thwarted by the depredations of
officials or soldiers- always a terror to the peasantry in the Roman empire.
It is worth while to give a few examples of the plight of peasants. out of many
possible ones, in the shape of four very well known inscriptions (texts and
English translations of which arc easily available), 1Q recording the bitter complaints of peasants against ill-treatment by government officials. Three are m
Greek, but I shall begin with one in Latin, the most famous, from the first ylars
of the reign of Commodus (c.l81), found at Souk ei-Khmis in north Africa
(modern Tunisia), and referring to the saltus Bunmiranus, an imperial estate lee
out to head lessees, conductores, who had sub-let to small peasants, coloni.
(Although rhis document relates to a Western area, far outside my 'Greek world',
it has attracted so much attention and records such a characteristic situation that I
think it well worth mentioning.) The inscription records a petition by the co/otli
to the emptror, complaining of collusive action ro their detriment between their
216
head lessee and the imperial procurator, who was responsible to the emperor for
managing the estate. (This situation is likely to have been very common
throughout the Greek and Roman world.) The coloni, describing themselves as
'most unhappy men' and 'poor rustics', object that more than the proper share
of their crops and the prescribed number of days oflabour services (six per year)
have been exacted from them and that the procurator has sent in troops and had
some of them seized, and tortured, fettered or flogged, simply because they had
dared to make a complaint to the emperor. (R. M. Haywood, in Frank, ESAR
IV. 96-8, gives a text and English translation.) 11 The other three inscriptions all
record petitions in Greek, to the first two of which are appended imperial replies
in Latin. A petition (of A.D. 244-7) to the Emperor Philip from the villagers of
Arague in the Tembris valley in Phrygia (in western Asia Minor), who describe
themselves as 'the community [koinon] of the Aragueni' and as tenants of the
emperor. mentions an earlier petition to the emperor before his accession, when
he was praetorian prefect, and reminds him how deeply his divine soul had been
troubled by their plight, although it appears that the only evidence they had for
this touching disturbance of soul was that Philip had sent on their petition to the
proconsul of Asia, who had done nothing (or at any rate, nothing effective)
about it - they were still, they said. being plundered by rapacious officials and
city magnates against whom they had no redress. (This inscription can conveniently be consulted in Frank, ESAR IV.659-61, where there is a text with
English translation by T. R. S. Broughton.) 12 In another petition (of A.D. 238),
from Scaptopara in Thrace to the Emperor Gordian III, the villagers, who seem
to be freeholders, make a very similar complaint, adding, 'We can stand it no
longer. We intend to leave our ancestral homes because of the violent conduct of
those who come upon us. For in truth we have been reduced from many
householders to a very few' (IGBulg. IV.2236; there is an English translation in
Lewis and Reinhold, RC 11.439-40). 13 Most interesting of all is an inscription
from Aga Bey Koy. near the ancient Philadelphia in Lydia (in western Asia
Minor), to be dated perhaps at the very beginning of the third century. in the
reign ofSeptimius Severus. (There is a text with English translation by Broughton
in Frank, ESAR IV .656-8.) 1"' Here the peasants, who are tenants of an imperial
estate, actually threaten that unless the emperor does something to stop the
dreadful exactions and oppression by government officials from which they are
suffering, they will desert their ancestral homes and tombs and go off to private
land (idiotiki gi) -in other words, become the tenants ofsome powerful landlord
who can give them the protection they need, a practice we hear of as actually
happening elsewhere, notably in mid-fifth-century Gaul, from the Christian
priest Salvian (see below).
As between the various forms of tenancy, much would depend upon the
terms of the individual letting. Rents in money or kind might be relatively high
or low, labour services (if exacted) might differ widely, and share-cropping
tenancies might vary a good deal in the division of the crop between landlord
and tenant: half-and-half was common, but the landlord's share (often depending on the nature of the crop) might be as much as two-thirds and was hardly
ever less than one-third. Perhaps share-cropping was preferable as a rule from
the tenant's point of view, in bad times at any rate; but this would depend upon
the shares allocated to each party, and these would naturally differ according to
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer ( ii)
21 7
how much the landlord provided of the slaves, animals, tools, com and other
elements in what the Roman lawyers called the instrumentum (the equipment) of
the farm (for which see 18 ofSection iii of this chapter). As the second-century
jurist Gaius put it, 'The share-cropper [co/onus paniarius] has a sort of partnership, and shares both profit and loss with his landlord' (Dig. XIX.ii.25.6). In the
event of a near-total crop failure even the share-cropper. who would then have
to give his landlord virtually nothing, would himself soon be left with nothing
to eat, and he would be just as much at the mercy of his landlord. or some
usurious lender, as any tenant who defaulted in payment of a fixed rent. In a
moderately bad year the share-cropper's position, and whether or not he was
driven to borrow from his landlord or a moneylender. would depend as much
on the size of his plot as on the share of the crop he was allowed to keep- this is
often overlooked.
r think that the most important factor in the peasant's position must often
have been the labour situation in his locality -or, to be more precise, the supply
of labour in relation to the area of cultivable land. Landlords needed labour to
cultivate their lands. There is little evidence for hired labour on any considerable
scale, except at harvest times, when it must have been very common; but it
cannot have been available in large quantities at other times: see III. vi above,
where I have also mentioned some texts which speak of neighbours helping each
other out. If slaves were expensive or difficult to obtain (as they evidently were
in at any rate some areas during the Principate and Later Empire), then there
would be some competition among rich landlords for the services of tenants.
Plagues, conscription, and the capture of agricultural workers by 'barbarian'
raiders would naturally improve the situation of those who were left, as the
Black Death improved the position of agricultural workers in fourteenthcentury England. But as early as the beginning of the second century, long
before the Graeco-Roman world began to suffer seriously from pestilences or
major 'barbarian' invasions, we hear from Pliny the Younger of a scarcity of
tenants on his estates in north Italy: see his Ep. VIL30.3 (rarum ~st invenirt idcmtos
conductorts), and 111.19.7, where pftluria colonomm must mean 'scarcity' and not
'poverty' oftenants 15 (cf. raritas optrariomm in Pliny, NH XVIII.300). We also
find Pliny making large reductions in his rents (IX.37.2) and contemplating
more (X.8.5).
In an interesting article published in thejournal<?/ Peasant Studies in 1976, Peter
Garnsey advanced the view that 'the only substantial class of peasant proprietors
for which there is documentary evidence in the late Empire consists of military
men' (PARS 232). This I think needs qualification: it seems to be founded pard y
on the belief that in the fourth century assignations of land to veterans on
discharge were 'tax-free' (ibid. 231). This is an appallingly difficult question; but
since I accept the views of A.H.M. Jones on the matter of iu.~atiolcapitatio (RE
280-92; LRE I.62-5, 451-4), I would regard the tax-exemption of the veteran as
normally limited to the capita of himself and his wife (and his parents, ifliving),
and not extending to their iuga ofland (see esp. Jones, RE 284). And this was a
purely personal privilege. not extending to children. The words 'easque ptrpttuo
habeant immunes' in CTh VII.xx.3.pr. must refer only to the lifetime of the
veteran (cf. Ulpian, in 'Dig. L.xv.3.1): I see nothing in CTh VIJ.xx to contradict
this, and there is no trace of further privilege for veterans' sons in CTh Vll.xxii
218
or elsewhere- indeed, during the fourth cenrury the sons were expected to serve
in the army. But on these questions I do not wish to seem dogmatic.
* * * * * *
I tum now to a brief consideration of labour rents. an expression I use for

convenience for those labour services due regularly under the terms of a tenancy
instead of, or as a supplement to, rent in money or kind. (Labour services. as I use
that expression, could include not only the regular labour rents I am considering
here but also labour demanded occasionally from tenants, whether legitimately
or not, and resembling the angariae which I have referred to elsewhere, especially
in !.iii above.) Labour rents seem to have played a surprisingly small part in the
Greek and Roman world. I say 'seem to have played', because it is just possible,
although in my opinion unlikely, that labour rents were in reality far more
widespread than our surviving evidence suggests. As far as I know, only one
writer in recent times, John Percival, has seriously examined this difficult question
and suggested that labour rents may have been a great deal more common than
most of us suppose. 18 I have nothing new to contribute to the discussion, and
I can do no more here than state the position as it is generally known.
Only in a mid-sixth-century Latin papyrus from Ravenna, dealing with an
estate belonging to the Church of Ravenna, do we find labour rents exacted on a
scale resembling the situation in many mediaeval manors, up to three days per
week (P. ltal . .3, 1.3.2-7). Apart from a few texts which may or may not refer to
labour rents, 17 it is only in three of a well-known set of African inscriptions of
the second and early third centuries that labour rents figure prominently, and
here they are on a very much smaller scale: in two of these inscriptions the
tenants have to perform six days'labour per year (two days at each of the seasons
of ploughing, harvesting and hoeing), and in the third (and most fragmentary)
their obligation is apparently to supply twdve days' labour per year (four days
on each of the same three occasions). 111 It is of course only for the benefit of a
landlord's 'demesne' or 'home farm' that labour rents are desirable. and it looks
as if it was rare in the Greek and Roman world for such a holding to exist,
surrounded by farms let to peasants whose labour is utilised. 19 1agree with A. H.
M. Jones that the institution of labour rents was 'relatively rare' in the Later
Empire (LRE 11.805-6), and I believe that the same is true of the Principatc,
although a few days' service each year, as revealed by the African inscriptions I
have just mentioned. may well have been exacted much more often than our
evidence reveals.
* * * * * *
A thorough investigation is needed of the ways in which agricultural production was organised in the various parts of the Gracco-Roman world. I
believe that the best way of approaching this subject is through the forms ofland
tenure, always with the primary aim of discovering how exploitation was tffected,
and to what ex rent -a point of view which has all too often been absent from
modem work in this field. A vast amount of evidence is available, not only from
inscriptions and papyri and the legal and literary sources (including among the
last the ecclesiastical ones), but also from archaeology, although those who have
done the actual excavating have too seldom been interested in the kind of problem
219
l havt" m mmd. Silof'-~ 1hen il' :1 t:re:tt deal of material in legal texts, especially the
D(f!est, the w-opaa~ion of Hom;m b'"''Ycrs should be particularly helpful. (I
hope to pursue this undtrt.tkinl! with th\ aid of some Oxford colleagues and
pupils.j In any such f{'5t'arch it ts dcsir:sbl.: tul:nploy. for comparative purposes,
some of tlw amph: evi,Jencc abotl~ m~li.tt"v:tl and modern pcasantrics which
histori;ms ha\T t::(likctcd about individualsodlties. commonly without regard
for widtr sudologkal issues. 1nd in which s_,ciologists have recently become
very intt-rtsttd. (>fteu (as I liaiJ at the hq~inning of this section) with an insufficiently histori~.-aJ appro.tch. But tht~ maiu J,sideratum is a concentration upon
the precise conditions in ,ach individuJl ;m at different periods: only upon the
basis ola who!~ SrTi~s of nginnal :.m.tl)'St'S. can any secure general conclusions be
arrived at. Such stndil'S haw nrtainly bl~un htrc and thcrc, 20 but all too rarely
has sufficient attention !:'lten pa1d to th~ type ;md degree of e"xploitation involved
-to the class stru~gle, in tiw.
I should like t(l nwnrt(IJl at tlus pumt :a serit-!' of passages in which Marx dealt
with the question of rmt: I havl' listc.>d 111 a nMc21 a few I happen to haVl' come
across. Some of these apply specifically to rents within a capitalist system,
governed by an l'COnumy '\"(.ry different fr,lm that which we find in the ancient
world; but sonw :J.nof !(l'Ill.'r:ll'>ignitkance.
* * * * * *
In I. iii above I referred to some evidence suggesting that in the Roman em pin~
the mainly city-dwel1ing class oflandowncrs was able to exploit the peasantry
and appropriate their products more completely and ruthlessly th.m most
landlords have succeeded in doing- so much so that during famines it was often
the cities alone in which food was available, ratht!r than the country districts in
which it was grown. I quoted a horrifying description by Galen of the effects of
several years of famine in what must be the countryside of Pcrgamum, and a
description by Philostratus ofhow on one occasion of dearth the landowners had
got possession of all available grain. which they intended to export,leaving no
food but vetches for sale on the market. We hear occasionally ofintervention by
the authorities to prevent this kind of profit-making from exceeding all bounds
and driving many poor people to starvation. Among the best-known examples
is one from Pisidian Antioch in the early nineties of the first century, where an
inscription has revealed that the govcnor, L. Antistius Rusticus, intervening at
the request of the city magistrates, ordered everyone to declare how much grain
he had, and forbade charging more than 1 denarius for each modius- twice the
ordinary price (A/j 65a""' AE[1925] 126b).:zz I also alluded in l.iii above to thdact
that many times between the mid-fourth century and the mid-sixth we hear of
peasants flocking into the nearest city during a famine, in order to obtain edible
food, available there and nowhere else. I shall now give seven examples of this
situation about which we happen to have some reasonably reliable information.
1. In 362-3 there occurred in the area of Antioch on the Orontes a famine

about which we have perhaps more information than any other in antiquity. 2:1
Its cause was partly harvest failure in Syria, partly the arrival at Antioch in July
362 of the emperor and his court and part of his army, preparatory to the
disastrous Persian expedition of March 363. Our sources here include some good
contemporary ones: above all the Emperor Julian (who was present in person),
220
the orator Libanius (a leading citizen of Antioch), and the great historian
Ammianus Marcellinus, in whose narrative one particular passage, XXII.xiv.l2, is especially fascinating for irs condemnation of Julian's attempt to fix
maximum prices, in terms that would commend it to most contemporary
Western economists. The influx of country folk is mentioned by Julian himself
(Misopogot~ 369cd). On this occasion. as on others, there is evidence that the local
landowners callously hoarded grain for sale at inflated prices: and when Julian
arranged for some special imports, from Chalcis and Hierapolis and even
Egypt, and fixed a low price, they bought up the grain cht>ap and either hoarded
it or sold it at a profit in the countryside where Julian's maximum price could
more easily be evaded.
2. A few years later, probably in 373. we hear from Sozomen and Palladius of
a famine in Mesopotamia. in Edessa and its neighbourhood, when the starving
poor, tended by the famous ascetic Ephraim (who induced the rich to disgorge},
included people from the surrounding countryside. 2~
3. During a severe food shortage at Rome, perhaps in 376, :.~;; there was a
general demand for the expulsion from the city of all prregrini, which in this
context means all those whose official domicile was not actually Rome itself;
and it is clear from our one account of this incident, in St. Ambrose. De o.ffic.
ministr. III. (vii} .45-51. that numbers of country folk would have been involved
(sec csp. 46,47}. Ambrose puts into the mouth of the City Prefect of the time
an eloquent sp~ech. addressed to 'the men of rank and wealth' (honorati et
locuplttiorrs viri), pointing out that if they allow their agricultural producers to
die of starvation, the result will be fatal to their com supply- a piece of evidence
that an appreciable part of the com supply of the city still came from the
neighbouring country districts. The speech goes on to say that if they are
deprived of their peasants, they will have to buy cultivators- slaves. of courseto replace them, and that will cost them more! A subscription is raised, com is
purchased. and the situation is saved.
4. Shortly afterwards, probably during the urban prefecture of the orator
Symmachus in 384, 26 there was another food shortage at Rome, and all pertgrini
were duly expelled. It is clear from the passage l quoted in the preceding
paragraph from St. Ambrose( 49,51) that many country people were driven
out. Th~ saint expresses great indignation that the Romans should eject the very
people who provide their sustenance.
5. There was another famine in 384-5 at Antioch, where the supply of com
had been deficient for a couple of years. A speech ofLibanius mentions that the
country people had come into the city to obtain food because there was none in
the countryside (Orat. XXVII.6, 14).:n
6. There was a serious famine at Edessa in 500-.1, caused by a terrible plague
of locusts in March 500. There is an account of this famine in 38-44 of the
very interesting Chroniclr (surviving only in Syriac) written probably c. 507 by
the ascetic generally known today as Joshua the Stylite, who at many points in
his work gives precise figures for grain and other prices, and does so in this
case. 28 Joshua twice mentions the crowds of peasants who came into Edessa to
procure food( 38,40).
221
7. In the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy, in 536-8, grain from the state

granaries at Ticinum and Dertona was sold to the starving people of Liguria, and
a third of the stores in the warehouses ofTarvisium and Tridentum was also sold
to the inhabitants ofVenetia. (Both Liguria and Venetia had been ravaged by the
Alamanni.) The first of the three relevant letters in the collection ofCassiodorus
( Var. X.27; Xll.27, 2R), giving orders for the opening ofthe granaries, remarks
that it would be shameful for the cultivators to starve while the royal barns were
fulJ. 29 Again, the exploitation of the peasantry had been severe and effective.
There are some other examples of state granaries plentifully filled with com
while many starved, as in Rome during the siege by Totila and the Ostrogoths
in 546, when famine conditions prevailed in the city. The only amplt' supply was
in the hands ofBcssas the Roman commander, who made a large personal profit
by selling to the rich at the exorbitant price of7 solidi for the modi us, while first
the poor and eventually almost everyone, we are told, ted on boiled nettles,
many dying of starvation. Bessas continued to profit from selling grain to the
rich, until in December 546 Totila suddenly captured the city. and Bessas'
ill-gotten gains fell into his hands.:w
I imagine that large distributions of food by rich men who were charitably
inclined were unknown (see my ECAPS 24-5 ff.) until at least the fourth
century, when many of the wealthy were converted to Christianity; and even
from then onwards they are likely to have been very rare. The only actual
example I have discovered is beyond the scope of this book: Luke, the future
stylite saint, is said to have distributed 4,000 modii of com (as well as animalfodder) to the starving poor from his parents' granaries in Phrygia, probably
during the great famine of927-8 (Vita S. Lucae Sty/. 7)_:u
The landowner who was more prosperous than the 'peasant' (as I have
defined him: see above) would find it easier to take the advice ofHesiod and lay
up an ample store of com (WD30-2). Ausonius, writing over a thousand years
after Hesiod, remarks that he always laid in two years' supply of produce:
without this, he says, hunger is near (De hered. 27-8).
* * * * * *
The characteristic unit in which peasant life was organised was the village, the
most common Greek word for which was kome. 32 Of these komai. many were
situated inside the territory of some city; and some belonged to a handful of
absentee landlords, or even entirely to a single proprietor, to whom the villagers
paid rents. On the other hand, there were also villages of freehold peasant
proprietors. It is impossible to form any idea of the proportion of villagers who
were freeholders at any time or in any area of the Greek (or Roman) world,
except at certain periods in parts of Egypt from which useful papyrological
evidence happens to have survived. The bibliography is vast, 33 and I cannot
attempt to give even a summary account, since many important questions are
still in dispute, and on some issues I have not yet made up my own mind. I shall
confine myself here to a few remarks, mainly about peasant villages in the Later
Roman Empire.
Some villages, at least in Syria and Asia Minor, had what appears to have been
a democratic form oforganisation, headed by a general meeting of the villagers;
and- strange as it may seem -it looks as if this democratic fonn of organisation
222
may actually have survivtd in s,,m~,. 'illag(:>. in p.urs ofS;ria at any rate, after all
the genuinely democr;trk d'nwnts had pt'ris.hcd from t~h: ,onstitutions of the
cities throughout tht' l'mpir' {set Jon'-~. GC.t1J :?72) .::.~ l'hl' villages had magistrates of their own. -.ometnne.s no dc.ubt h~o.rcdtt.uy. but <)ften elected. (The
usual term for the 'head m.m' ot a ,iiJagt, k,im,,t::imi. tums up in relation to
Armenia under Persian ruk .r.s early as 400 B.C. in x~nophon's account of the
northward march of the 'tl'fl thousand' acwss th( interior of Asia Minor: Xen.,
A nab. IV. v.lO, and 24 to vi ..'.) Some oi thtm 17'4..'rcainly had a general meeting of
villagers which passed Jetree~ like tht' -~"Sl'mhly ,,f .1 dty: this is referred to in
inscriptions by a variety otttrrru. including the him~:. th<)S(' ape (tis) komis, the
kometai, the koinon c,'s kiimis, thl dimos or ekklesia or ~yll<~~; or synodos, or even
the ochlos. a.~ (The last is rather surprising as :1n oftkiai tlrm. for it had often been
used in earlier times in a pejorative sense. to rl'fi.r tn rht. 'rabble'!) I agree with
Jones, against some othlr s.dtolars. that a C't'undl (boule) wa~ the distinguishing
mark of a city and is nl't ti.mnd in villagcs;110 whkh. huwt.\~r. sometimes had a
council of elders, callt.d agl:'rc-u.;i.,.'t: as nf cuur~t" did many cities. Virtually all our
information about villagt administration comes thm1 in .. ~;riptions and is very
different to intcrpnt; in p.:utitubr it is nftl"n hard to Jat~ tht> inscriptions. All I
can do here is to cxpnss tht h,lP'' th<lf further research will be conducted in this
field, in particular (ali I said ah(m.:) with .1 view to discovering how and to what
extent exploitation uf the village population was effected. The appearance and
the unexpectedly long survival of democratic organisation within the villages is
a topic which would also be partit:ularly well worth studying. The development
of villages into cities, a not uncommon event, is one of the aspects of village
history which has already received a good deal of attention.
In the Later Empire, with which I am now mainly concerned, taxation bore
very heavily upon the villages, the great majority of wlrich paid their taxes to
collectors appointed by the local city. But in the fourth century some of the
bigger landlords (potentiores possessores, CTh XL vii.12) acquired the valuable
privilege of autopragia: the right to pay their taxes (or at least a considerable part
of them) direct to the provincial governor; and they would then be responsible
for collecting the taxes due from their tenants. The earliest evidence I have come
across ofthis practice consists of three imperial constitutions, of383, 399 or 400.
and 409 (CTh XI.vii.12 and 15; and xxii.4); the last of these uses language
suggesting that the practice was already widespread (quae vulgo autopractorium
vocatur), and in the fifth and sixth centuries it may have done much to increase
the power of the great mep. 38 During the fifth century the right of autopragia was
extended to certain villages - how many, we cannot say: only one (as far as I
know) can be identified with certainty, Aphrodite (later Aphrodito) in the nome
of Antaeopolis in the Thebaid (Upper Egypt), about the affairs of which in the
sixth century we happen to be exceptionally well informed. 38
Now we must not assume that an 'autopract' village (one enjoying the right of
autopragia) would necessarily be in a better position than one inhabited by the
tenants of one or more landowners, at any rate if the latter were men of
influence. able to protect their own coloni. Some of the great men seem to have
resented the grant of autopragia to villages, and their hostility might be more
effective than the always precarious rights enjoyed in theory by villagers. The
need for even an autopract village to adopt the most abject and grovelling attitude
223
towards important officials is worth illustrating. in a historical perspective.

It will surprise no one to find a humble individual tenant in sixth-century
Egypt addressing a petition to his landlord, the wealthy and powerful A pion, in
the most submissive and cringing terms:
To my good master, lover of Christ. lover of the poor, all-esteemed and most
magmficent Patrician and Duh of the Thebaid. A pion, from Anoup. your miserable
slave [doulos] upon your estate called Phacra (P. Oxy. 1.130).
That is the way in which any co/onus in the Later Roman Empire might find it
prudent to address a great and powerful man. and it must not be assumed that
only native Egyptians would be likely to address their superiors in such terms: it
is simply that Egypt is the one area from which papyri survive, rccordmg
petitions of such a kind. Indeed, as Sir Harold Bell has remarked (EAGAC 125),
there is a striking contrast between petitions like that of Anoup and earlier
Egyptian ones of the Ptolemaic period, like one which he quotes, from a minor
village official. of the year 243 B.C., preserved in P. Hibeh 34:
To King Ptolemy. grl"eting. from Antigonus. I am being unjustly treated by Patron,
tht" superintendent of police in the lower toparchy.
And Bell comments. 'It is a minor official in a village of Middlt> Egypt petitioning
the all-powerful King Ptolemy Ill Euergett>s; yet he addresses the king without
servility or verbiage. as man to man.' I will add another petition, of220 B.C.,
from an even more humble person, a working woman:
To King Ptolemy [IV Philopator ], gree-ting from Philisra, daughter ofl ysias, resident
in Tricomia [a village in the Fayum]. lam wrongt:d by Petechon. For as I was bathing
in the baths of the said village, and had stepped out to soap myself. he, being the
bathman in tht" women's rotundaand having brought in rhc jugs ofhot water, t:mptied
one(?) over me and scalded my belly and my left thigh down to the knee. so that my lift:
was in danger ... I beg you, 0 king. if it pl('asc you. as a suppliant who has sought
your protection, not to suffer mt.>, a woman who works with her hands, to be thus
lawlessly trtatcd
-and so forth (Hunt and Edgar, SPII no.269 ~ P. Enteuxis 82
= P. Magd.
33).
Let us now go forward again nearly eight hundred years and return to the
mid-sixth century of the Christian era. to look at a petition from the village of
Aphrodito (mentioned above), dated A.D. 567, which is the subject of a most
i1tstructive discussion by Bell (EVAJ). and has also been studied by other scholars
(see n.39 again). The submissive and even servile attitude oftht> villagers would
have been unthinkable in a petition made by a city at any period of Graeco-Roman
antiquity. It is true that the petition was drafted by one Dioscorus. son of Apollos,
a notary and man ofaffairs who had unfortunate literary pretensions and 'achieved
the distinction, for what it was worth, of being the worst Greek poet whose
works have come down to us' (Bell, EAGAC 127...g).ll' But such a person should
have known exactly the right language to use to a great man.
To Flavius T riadius Marian us Michael Gabrid Constantine Theodore Marryrius Julian
Athanasius, the most renowned general and consular and most magnificent Patrician
ofthl' Prcfrct Justin, Dukt and Augusta I of the Thebaid for the second year. Petition
and supplication from your most pitiabk slaws, 11 the wretched small-ownl'rs and
inhabitants of the all-miscrablt: village of Aphrodito. whi'h is under the Sacred
224
Household and your magnificent authority. All justice and just dealing for ever
illuminate the proceedings of your prc-cminen tly excellent and magnificent authority,
which we have long expcned as the dead in Hades once awaited the coming of the
Christ, the everlasting God. For after him, our master God, the Saviour, the Helper.
the true and merciful Benefactor, we ser all our hopes ofsalvation upon your Highness,
who arc among all men praised and bruited abroad, to help us in all our emergencies, to
deliver us from the assault of unjust men, and to snatch us out of the unspeakable
sufferings, such as no paper can contain, which have from the beginning befallen us at
the hands of Menas, the most illustrious scriniarius and pagarch of Antaeopolis. We
humbly recall your all-wise, most famous and good-loving intelligence, but it reaches
such a height of wisdom and comprehension (beyond the limited range of words to
express) as to grasp the whole with compkte knowledge and amendment [the sense is a
trifle obscure here]; whence without fear we are come to grovel in the track of your
immarulate footsteps and inform you of the state of our affairs
-which the villagers then at last proceed to do (P. Cairo Masp. 1.67002, in Bell's
translation, EV AJ 33; cf. EAGAC 126).
As this complaint was directed against misbehaviour by the pagarch (the
imperial official in charge of the area, under the provincial governor), it is
relevant to recall that in an imperial rescript to the dux (the military governor) of
the Thebaid, as a result of a complaint from thC' very same village some sixteen
years earlier (c. 551), Justinian had remarked of the then pagarch Theodosius
that 'his intrigues [prridrome) proved stronger than our commands'! (P. Cairo
Masp. 1.67024. 15-16). I have much more to say about misconduct by Roman
officials in VIII. iv below.
I can do no more than just mention here two very interesting forms of rural
patronage, which were more formalised than the innumerable resorts we come
across in Later Roman sources to that form of protection, often involving what
is called 'suffragium' (see my SVP. esp. 45). One of these two types of rural
patronage appears in the second half of the fourth century and the fifth, partly as
a result of the growth under Diocletian and Constantine and their successors of
the practice of giving the military command in a particular area (a province, or
more usually a group of provinces) to an individual separate from the provincial
governors and known as the dux. This division of authority was cleverly utilised
and turned into a weapon of class struggle by many peasants, at least in Egypt
and Syria (from which all our evidence comes): groups of peasants. and sometimes whole villages collectively, placed themselves under the patronage of their
dux (or some other powerful man), and with his help- sometimes involving the
use ofhis soldiers- resisted demands made upon them for rent or taxes or both.
This practice was resorted to by peasant frt'eholders as weU as by tenant farmers,
coloni. Both could use it against tax collectors (usually decurions and their agents,
who were responsible to the provincial governor; cf. VIII.ii-iv below), and
tenants in addition against their landlord and his rent collectors. How effective
this device could be in both cases is well illustrated by Libanius' Oration XL VII,
Dr patrociniis, and by a series of imperial laws fulminating against such practices
(CTh XJ.xxiv; C) XI.liv). tz Unfortunately for the peasants. the patronage of a
great man was not something that could be acquired for nothing, and the
wretched creatures may often have had to pay dearly for it. In tht' East, though
apparently not in the Western part of the ~mpire (sec jones. LRE 11.775 ff., at
777-8). the government legislated against patronage and threatcnt'd to inflict
225
heavy penalties on the patrons concerned (see CTh XI. xxiv .2 ff.; C) Xl.liv. 1-2).
The second of my two developed forms of rural patronage appears most clearly
in Salvian, a Gallic priest writing in the second quarter of the fifth century. Here
we see something that makes us think of what was to occur in many places
during the Middle Ages: peasant freeholders threatened by extortionate taxation
(on which Salvian lays most stress), or by barbarian incursions, surrendered
themselves to some great neighbour. who could give them protection -of
course, at tht> cost of thdr land, which was ceded to the patron, the peasants
becoming his coloni (De gubernat. Dei V .38-45). Both types of patronage I have
been describing could involve a heavy price. However, some peasants evidently
thought thl' price worth paying, as a protection against even more burdensome
exactions. The patronate. oppressive as it must often have been, seemed to
many desperate mt>n better than unprotected freedom (especially dangerous to
freeholders), accompanit>d by the unchecked activities of the dreaded finance
officials, soldiers, billeting officers, and those who imposed compulsory labour.
(I shall return in Chapter VIII below, Sections iii and iv, to the exploitation of
the peasantry in the Greek world in the Later Roman Empire.}
Outright land-grabbing by the powerful at the expense of the humble,
whether as a result of direct appropriation or of foreclosure on what we should
call mortgage, is a phenomenon that can be seen from time to time. but is not the
sort of thing of which our sourct>s take much notice. Except in those Greek
democracies where the poor man could obtain effective protection from the
courts of law (cf. V.ii-iii below), the process must have gone on throughout
antiquity. Administrators of ecclesiastical property were no exception: a letter
of Pope Gregory the Great to the rectores of the estates of the Roman Church in
Sicily in 591 orders the restitution of 'the properties of others which had been
seized by Church administrators' (de rebus alienis ab ecclesiastidis difensoribus
occupatis: Ep. 1.39a, II). Such ecclesiastical administrators might also subject
hapless coloni to severe exploitation and unjust treatment, from which only the
bishop could save them, if he cared to exercise his authority in the cause of
mercy, or even justice. Cheating tenants by the use of fraudulent measures was
very common. In A.D. 603 we find Pope Gregory writing to a notary. Pantaleo.
ofhis indignation at the discovery that certain coloni Ecdesiae had bet>n obliged to
hand over their produce according to a modius-measure containing no fewer
than 25 sextarii instead of the proper 16: he expresst.'s his pleasure at the news ~hat
Pantaleo has now broken up the iniquitous measure 'et ius tum fecisse (Ep.
XIII.37). It would be interesting to know how many sextarii the new 'modius
iustus' contained, in view of Gregory's order. in another letter (to Peter, a
Sicilian subdeacon. Ep. 1.42), that the rustici Ecclesiae were not to be compelled to
hand over their produce according to a modius-measure containing more than 18
sextarii! Again, the charming Lifr of St. Theodore of Sykeon (an almost exact
contemporary ofPope Gregory) describes how the peasants of the estates of the
Church of Anastasiopolis in Galatia were constantly harried by Theodosius, a
leading man of the city who had been appointed chief administrator of the
Church lands, to the point at which they were driven to resist him by force. St.
Theodore, now bishop of Anastasiopolis (in the last years of the sixth century),
threatened to sack Theodosius. who persisted strenuously until he was persuaded
to yield obedil'nce to his bishop, by one of those miracles which arc more frequent
226
in the hagiography of the Early Church than they are likely to have been in
reality ...a One other document is worth quoting here, although it relates to a
private estate and not to Church property: it is a letter written by St. Augustine
(Ep. 247), in sorrow and anger, to a landowner who was one of his flock,
rebuking him for allowing his agents (actom) to oppress his tenants (coloni, 1;
rnsticani homines, 3), apparently by extracting their rents twice over. Augustine
refers repeatedly to the tenants as 'poor and needy men' (miseri et pauperes . . . ,
mi.~eri et egeni homines, 1; homines miseri, 4). I will only add a reference m a
famous passage from a sermon by Sr. John Chrysostom, of which there is a
convenient translation in C. E. Stevens's chapter in CEHE J2.123-4: this illustrates
vividly the merciless treatment of their peasants by the landowners of Antioch. 44
(iii)
From slave to co/onus
In this book I have singlttlout :1 pwptrtkd class in rhc ancient Greek world the
members of which w~nlti:umd. 111 dtl scm~ tb:u rh,y W(:rt> n1\t obliged to devote
themselves to the lab('llr of pnw:~tin~ tor thtJr own sust!.."lUlW\' to any appreciable
degree, even if they somt"tinws ll('l.'tapitd themselves for short periods in the
productive process i11 a :mpt-rvi~ory capa,iry (S<'C' III.ii-iii above). I have also
emphasised more thau clrll'~ that su,h :1 propertied class can exist only if its
members exploit the labour of odtt'N. whether as unfr('(' labour or as wagelabour, ro the extent uccxss;try tel provide rlwmsd\'('S. with ;a surplus sufficient to
support their leisured ~xtsll'llL't'. l have argu~d {in Il.iii and lll.iv abovc) that wc
may speak of the Gret.-k (:tnd Rotman) wurlJ :1~ (in a lotl~t1>,ns~) a 'slave economy'
or 'slave-owning society'. because tht prupt'rtit'u class Jl!rived the bulk of its
surplus from unfree labour. mainly that ofsl:l\'t"S, although ''Jrious forms of what
we may properly call serfdom were alsc known, Jnd ,lC'bt bondage too was
widespread (see III.iv above). In thus characttrisin~ th, :tlll~ient Greek world
loosely as a 'slave economy', however, I hav~Jult J~m,nd thtlact that there were
always large numbers offrce men and womtn. mainly rt'.l!>ants, living not much
above the subsistence level, who were exph\ill'd hy dtt' ruling class to a greater
or less degree, to some extent individually Jnd Jirtttly (thl' leasehold tenant by
his landlord and rhe freeholder by his murtg.tj!t"\.', ti'r ~~xample), but partly
through what 1have caiJt"d 'indinc:r 3Ud .-uJI,rtiw' flmll!> ,)t\xploitation, such as
taxation, military conscription, and compul~oT} '>C'n;~,-s {,~w Sections i and ii of
this chapter).
I have now to discuss the important change which came over the GraecoRoman world by slow degrees during the first three centuries of the Christian era:
a change in the fonns ofexploitation, involving no sudden or radical alteration until
the end of the third century but a slow progression. in very varying degrees and at
very difterent speeds in different areas. The subjcct is extraordinarily complicated
and difficult, and every assertion, if it is to be strictly accurate, needs to be hedged
about with qualifications. But I have no space here to give anything like a
fuiJ-scale account, and I propose to plunge straight into the heart of the matter and
make a series of satements designed to convey the essentials of the process Jhave
in mind, without many of the qualifications which arc ideally necessary. 'Those
who are unfamiliar with the mass ofliterarure dl.'aling with the vexed question of the
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (iii)
227
origin of the "colonate" heaped up by the industry and ingenuity of scholars

since the time of Savigny will probably tum with impatience from a fresh
attempt to give a satisfactory answer', said Henry Francis Pelham in his Inaugural
Lecture as Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford, as long ago as 1890:
see Pelham's Essays [on the spine: Essays on Roman Histol)'] (191 1) 275. I wish to
emphasise that what follows is an oversimplification, and that there were far
more differences (above all in the rate of change) between areas than lam able to
bring out here. I hope to be able to deal with the subject in a more satisfactory
way in a few years' time. To make cross-referencing easier, I shall proceed by
numbered paragraphs.
* * * * * *
1. We know all too little of the details of the economy of the vast majority of
Greek states in the Classical period, to which I must go back for a moment. At
that time, at Athens and most of the other leading states of which we know
anything, it was slaves principally who provided the propertied class with its
surplus (see III.iv above and Appendix II below); but purely local varieties of
serfdom existed here and there (especially the Helots of the Spartan area and the
Thessalian Penestai), and free peasants also contributed, more especially no
doubt in non-democratic cities, where the poor man would have far less chance
of protecting himself against the depredations of the powerful and could more
easily be exploited by the ruling class (see II.iv above and V .ii-iii below). Now
the most extraordinary fact about Greek (and Roman) slaves is their cheapness: 1
in particular, at Athens, one could apparently buy an average slave in the late
fifth century (and probably most of the fourth) for 200 drachmae or less -not
much more than half what an artisan would earn in a year. Later, prices were not
nearly so low. The comparison with American slaves in the Old South before
the Civil War (about whom, of all slave populations. we know most) is
astounding: in the first six decades of the nineteenth century 'prime farm hands'
could be sold for several hundred dollars, going up in the 1850s to not far short
of$2,000; and a skilled artisan such as a blacksmith could fetch $2,500. Agricultural slaves were commonly hired out, over the year, at between ten and twenty
per cent of their market value. artisans often at 25 per cent (Stampp, PI414-18).
At the same period the annual cost of feeding a slave could be put at between
$7.50 and $15.00; and the total yearly cost of maintaining him 'seldom exceeded
$35.00, and was often considerably less than this' (ibid. 406-7). The fact that
mid-nineteenth-century American slaves were relatively many times as costly
to buy as fifth/fourth-century Athenian ones was of course due primarily to the
large and expanding foreign market for American cotton. (For the remarkable
growth in the world demand for cotton between 1R20 and 1860, and its important effects on the economy of the Old South, see esp. Gavin Wright, as cited in
n.8below.)
The great majority of Greek slaves in the Classical period were imported
'barbarians', among whom Thracians were particularly prominent.
2. In those parts of Asia Minor and Syria which were brought into the Greek
world from the late fourth century onwards, with the conquests of Alexander
and the many city-foundations of that monarch and his successors, slavery
already existed; but the institution was not nearly as developed as in the Greek
228
world, and it seems likely that a far larger place was occupied than in Old Greece
by other forms of exploitation: occasionally outright serfdom and debt
bondage. but also exploitation of free or semi-free peasants through rent and
tributary payments and a variety of compulsory services: angariae and the like
(see I. iii above). I see no reason why the process which had begun in the
Hellenistic period should not have continued in these eastern districts when they
became Roman provinces - sometimes after periods as 'client kingdoms', a
condition which was very likely to increase the grip of the propertied classes on
the peasantry. Even if actual serfdom steadily receded in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods (as I have argued it did: see III.iv above), the increased exploitation of the peasantry which would be the necessary result of Roman tribute and
other new exactions (including the often large profits made by provincial
governors and their staffs, and Roman or local tax-farmers) must have driven
some smaU peasants into outright slavery or debt-bondage and converted others
from freeholders into tenants or landless labourers, some of whom might tend
to drift into the towns. The Greek propertied classes certainly went on drawing
considerable profits from the peasantry in rents, taxes and services, even if many
of them were made to disgorge part of these profits for the benefit of the
Romans. Greeks and Romans coming to Asia who were accustomed to employ
slave labour at home would naturally make use ofit in their new abodes, except
perhaps where a native population was already by custom subjected to very
severe exploitation, thereby making it hardly worth while to import slave
labour. There seem to be no figures from Asia for large slave households to
equal the 200 slaves and freedmen ascribed to Python of Abdera in Thrace in 170
B.C. by Diodorus XXX.6- a figure which (for what it is worth) presumably
includes only male slaves of military age, for they are said to have taken part in
defending the city against the Romans.
Egypt. Ptolemaic and Roman. is a special case: here chattel slavery never
seems to have played a very important role in production, at least agricultural
production; but the peasants, who formed the vast majority of the population.
were apparently in a very subject condition and. although they were technically
not slaves and most of them could not be described strictly as serfs, many of
them seem to have been in a condition near to serfdom (see III.iv above). The
general impression we derive is that much labour in Egypt was not fully free.
The very fact that there was relatively little chattel slavery is likely to have
necessitated a higher degree of exploitation of the humbler free men.
3. In thC' late Roman Republic a series offoreign wars and civil wars provided
an ample supply of chC'ap slaves for the Mediterranean slave markets: the Greek
island of Delos in particular was such a market, and we are told by Strabo.
probably with much exaggeration, that 'tens of thousands of slaves' could be
imported there and exported again on the same day (XIV. v .2, p.668). With the
beginning of the Augustan Principate (c.JO B.C.) and the relative peace that
followed, from rhc reign ofTiberius (14-37) onwards. the number of slaves that
were simply apprt>priated from outside the Graeco-Roman economy, or brought within
it by purchase at very cheap rates, soon began to decline, even if from time to time
an occasional slave-haul either brought in a new batch of'barbarian' captives or
(as on the suppression of the Jewish rt>volt in A.D. 70) reduced ro slavery men
229
who had previously been Roman subjects of free status. The Graeco-Roman
world certainly acted as a magnet, attracting to itself anyone capable of work
who was enslaved or captured in war in a neighbouring area. Thus we hear from
Tacitus of an auxiliary Roman cohort of German Usipi who, after being sent to
Britain. mutinied in 83 and went off on a piratical expedition around the island
(during which they even resorted to cannibalism), but were eventually captured
on the north coast ofEurope. 'sold to traders, and after passing though the hands
of various masters, were brought across to the left bank of the Rhine', thus
entering the Roman world as slaves (Tac., Agric. 28, esp. 5: 'per commercia
venumdati et in nos tram usque ripam mutatione ementium adducti').
4. There had always been some breeding of slaves, even in Italy as well as in
the Greek areas. The author of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica I (5, 1344bt7-18)
had actually advised allowing slaves to breed, but for him the usefulness of the
practice lay in the fact that it was a means of providing hostages from the slaves
themselves, in the form of their children! Similarly. planters in the American
Old South 'did everything possible to encourage the slaves to live together in
stable units; they realised that a man was easier to control ifhe had a wife and
children to worry about' (Genovese, RB 12).
I know of no decisive proof that after the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. the
breeding of slaves in the Greek area began to play a steadily increasing role; but
that is the inference I would draw from the scanty evidence. which includes
more frequent references to home-bred slaves (most usually oikogeneis, Latin
vemae). The best piece of evidence I know is that of the Delphic manumission
inscriptions, 2 as analysed by Westermann, SSGRA 31-3. (I have not been able to
make a fresh analysis, taking into account some inscriptions published after the
appearance of Westermann's book in 1955;2 and having regard to the serious
unreliability of that book at many points~ I would emphasise that the figures
given here should be treated as approximate only.) If, with Westermann, we
separate these inscriptions into three groups, covering roughly half a century
each, namely 201-153 B.C, 153- c.lOO B.C., and c. tOO- c.53 B.C., we find a
marked increase in the proportion of home-bred slaves in the second group
(153- c.lOO) as compared with the first, and a further increase in that proportion
in the third group (c.100- c. 53) as compared with the second. I will give the
figures for home-bred slaves for each period. for what they are worth, first as a
percentage of those manumitted slaves in their group whose origins (as homebred or not) are known, and then, in brackets, as a percentage ofall manumitted
slaves in their group (including those of whose origin nothing is known):
(1) B.C. 201-153:32% (13%)
(2) B.C. 153- c.100: 63% (47%)
(3) B.C. c.100-c53: 89% (51%).
On the basis of these figures we are presumably justified in inferring an

increase in the proportion of home-bred slaves owned by those who manumitted
their slaves at Delphi. and who came mainly from Delphi itself or (in the first of
the three periods) from cities nearby." We must ofcoursc remember that the area
in question was something of an industrial backwater. not to be compared with
the larger cities such as Athens and Corinth. although perhaps for that very reason
230
it is not untypical of the agricultural areas of Greece. And it would be very

wrong to draw any conclusions about the total number of slaves in the respective periods, even within the restricted area of Delphi and its neighbourhood,
for the practice in manumission may well have changed in various ways during
the years in question. However, I feel sure that the proportion of home-bred
slaves in mainland Greece did grow during the second and first centuries B.C.. if
only for the reason shrewdly pointed out by Westermann (SSGRA 34), that
there must have been 'a westward movement of most of the marketed slaves'
between the mid-second century and the mid-first, into the Roman rather than
the Greek area.
In 146 B.C., according to Polybius (XXXVIII.xv.3), Diaeus. the general of
the Achaean League, sent out orders to the cities which were members of the
League, telling them to free and arm (for the forthcoming war with Rome) and
send to Corinth those of their slaves who had been born and brought up in their
homes (oikogeneis kai paratrophoi) and were of military age, to the number of
12,000. This figure was given by Diaeus himself;:> he made an assessment on
each city separately, ordering that those which had insufficient home-bred
slaves should fill up their quotas from their other oiketai (ibid. 4-5). Tht: figure of
12,000 is a striking testimony to the increase in the breeding ofslaves which, as I
have suggested, had been going on in Greece during the third and second
centuries, and was to continue. As we shall see presently. this breeding of slaves
is the decisive factor in the development we are considering: a gradual change in
the forms ofexploitation in the Graeco-Roman world, involving heavier pressure
upon the free population, and the greatly increased use of letting to tenants in
place of the direct working of the estates of the well-to-do by slave labour.
5. I must make it dear at this point that my argument is not affected by the
conclusions of Michael H. Crawford, in his very interesting and able artick in
JRS 67 (1977) 117-24 (esp. 123). It is true, as he points out (121), that Italy had
suffered severe losses ofslave manpower in the n.volt ofSpanacus in 73-71 B.C.
(when over 100,000 slaves are said to have been killed); 6 that Pompey's suppression of piracy in the eastern Mediterranean in 67 B.C. must virtually have ended
the kidnapping and slave-raiding organised by the pirates; and that in 63 B.C.
the inclusion of vast new areas within the Roman empire will havt." made them
no longer availablt>, in theory anyway, as a source of slaves. I accept his
suggestion that the large numbers of Republican coins found in hoards in the
lower Danube basin in modern times (something like 25,000 in Romania alone)
may well be connected with the slave-trade and should be dated to the middle or
late.' 60s onwards, with a slackening off in the 50s, presumably due to Caesar's
mass cnslavements in Gaul (perhaps of the order of half a million), 7 and a
renewed increase in the 40s and 30s. However, the fact remains that any slaves
coming in at this time from tht: Danube an~a wt!'re not war-captives of the
Romans and will have had to be bought (and the costs of their transport for a
considerable distance paid for) by the traders who brought them to their
destinations, and therefore ultimately by the purchasers who used them. We
have no information of any kind about the prices at which they were eventually
sold. They can have done no more than fill a gap in the supply of slaves. I may
add that many enslavcments of war captives en masse must have profited
231
above all the Roman generals whose booty they had become, and who would
have sold them off at the highest price they could get. Hut one would expect
relatively low original prices for slaves sold in thousands or even in hundreds:
and of course the sums involved would remain within the Ruman economy, by
which the slaves were simply appropriated.
6. It is here that I wish to draw, in three stages, an important conclusion.

strangely neglected in every modern discussion I have seen (even Weber's.
mentioned in 13[a] below), but (it may be: thought) obvious L'nough once it is
stated. I shall first summarise: this conclusion and thln discuss various parts of it.
(a) If slaws arc to be induced to breed in large: quantities. they nrrainly
cannot be kept in barracks, as were many agricultural slaws in antiquity, not
only (as is well known) in late Republican Italy but also- to some extent- in
Classical Greece-, for <'xample at Athens: sec e.g. Xcnophon. Oecon. IX.S.
whcrc the male and female slaves have separate quarters (the andronitis and
gynaikonitis) and cannot breed without th<:ir master's p<:rmission. Indeed,
if th~y ;;,rl h ,ujo~' the rdativdy stable family life which (as slaw socil"til:s
have lftt'll foun.i)Js most conducivt" to reproduction on a largL' scak, thcy
should idc.:tll}' h~o s('ttled in small 'cabins' and allowLd to become what we
should call - tf ~lnly they were free rather than servilt' - tenants, peasant
tamiliLs (c.t. 1:? hd1w).
(b) Tn-;ttm~ sl.t"'l'S in tln5 way. hmw~Yr. is likely (and this is my l'SSl'mial
point. which has ht:l'll gl'tur.lly ''''trlnnlH,t) to lower the rate at wl11ch they ta11
hr expltit,.J. fi1r rhL t~nulc.: ~bws at k<l~t willluve part of their timt" and energy
divcrttd from normal work to hc:1ri:~ ;md rearing children, and- what is
more important- with high rates ,,f ntllrtaht y. many slave mothlrs wil I die in
childbirth, and those ofthl dtildrt>n {o~l:lr~t pruponion. in antiquity) who do
not liw to an .t~t at whkh thly em ~i''l' 1 good day's work will be a dead loss
(se~ 8 below). A dnm~o;tk s~n;mt-~irl could be thought .1 nuisance if sht
had a child to nurSl' (J-k;ind. ~flV (,0.:!-3). Fur breeding purpost's it is neceo;;sary. too (if st;ahll tannly unit-; are ,ft-s.ind). to establish a fairly equal sexratio, in place oftlt~ Jar~-t~ l'Xl'tss ofmah slaves which seems to haw been a
feature of many ,.I.wl-intpnrlm~ !1.\)('Jdkl>. notably Italy in the law Rl'publicdouhtl~s.; htt~aust JIH)n profit couhl be made out of males than females.
Brer.Ii11~ ,;(,wo imid, tl1r' fit'llt'lll)'. tiwn, instead of mainly bringing thrm in
from outsic.fc... tith.r cheap or even (as a consequence of the t"nslavcmmt of
war l'lptivcs) virtuJlly gratis, necrssarily imposes a.~reater burden tJn the uonom y
as a u/1t1[r. t"!ipt'<'i.tlly in a society like that ofancient Green (and Rom.), with a
high infant ;md m.at.rnal death-rate (cf. 8 below).
(c) The inevitahll consequence is that thr propertied class cannot maintain the
same rate of profit frm slave labour, and. to prevent its standard of life. from
falling. is Iikel y hl bt drin-n to increase the rate of exploitation of tht humblerfre~
population - a~ I hdit'W thl nl'tnan ruling class now actually did. by degrees:
sel! below, and VIII.i-ii.
7. Perhaps I should make it clear at this point (although it is obvious enough)
that we need not concern ourselves with the gwc.-ral question whether slaves can
in principle be 'profitably' bred inside an economy- that is to say. whether an
economy which has to breed all or most of its slaves can go on flourishing. Thar
232
question simply do\s n<lt ari::c: lwn. tw.:-:mse \W :m ~k.1l:ng throughout with one
particular economy, and what w~ ;m rml:sldl.ring is th~ r.-!::tive profitability ,for
that economy. of importing cheap sl.1ws. and t.rnd.mg them internally. The
general question I have referred to i..; !ll_lf nut tlut em h answered a priori: much
may depend on particular circumo;tanns. abov(' all tlw rd.ttion of the economy
in question with the outside world. In cc:tt;uu ~l:u~s (~tlUll.' of the islands in the
West Indies, for instauc~) the tntpi1ssibilitv olnnpurtmg slaves may have been
responsible for a markt:d ~kdin ... m th . . .,wtll'nty. :md <'Wtl the disappearance of
slavery. Opinions difti.r abtlUt tht heJlthuws~ ,,(tho.. i..'t'onumy of the American
Old South just befi1re the Civil War, but J.t h.-ast it i-s clear that the antebellum
South had large ovtrs~o.ts markets for its m.1jor pro,ducr...: cotton above all, in the
nineteenth century; c!.trlkr (on .1. IHUt'h ...m.&lla so..iik) wba<.w. and to a less extent
sugar.~ The Graeco-HnnMn world .t~> cl w lll\k (<"rtamly had no large predominance of exports over import-;. Indeed, by the early Primipate it was importing
luxury articles from th~ Ea!it on quite a large s<"ak: pepper and spices, pearls,
silken clothing, ivory lOo trum Africa and amber twm Germany. According to
statements mady by Pliny tht EIJ~r in two Jtlii.nnt passages. the trade in
luxuries created an annual tlram ill cao;h ofHS 50 nulhun to India and as much
again to China and Arahi.a cumbini:'J (NH VI.101; XII H4). The payment of
subsidies to 'barbarian t'hids and king~. m.unly m gold. grew to great proportions in the fifth century; and even bdi.,n that the Ruman ~uvemment became
anxious enough about the {\utfluw ,,f~,,IJ to issuc ill .\7~ (ur a few years later) a
constitution forbidding payments to 'h.ub.niau!i' in y;ol.t (ii.\r -;laves in particular.
it seems). and adding that if any gold happened to bt discowred among them, it
ought to be 'got away from them by some subtle stratagem' (subrili auferatur
ingenio: C) IV.lxiii.2). All this, however, is irrelevant to my present theme.
8. A major recent work tries to calculate the point at which the average
planter in the American Old South about 1850 'broke even on his investment in
slaves: that is to say. reached the point at which he began to make a profit on his
total expenditure, after making all necessary aJiowances. including of course the
premature death of many slave children. It is of great interest that according to
this calculation the critical point was the attainment by the slave of the age of27to which, incidentally, fewer than half the slaves at that time survived, although
the general life expectation of United States slaves then 'exceeded the breakeven age by more than a half decade' (Fogel and Engerman, TC 1.153-7). A
direct comparison with the Graeco-Roman world can hardly be attempted. as
there are too many unknowns there: the expectation oflife of the ancient slave;
the standard of life he was allowed by his master: the comparative incidence of
disease, and so forth. But at least we can say with so.me confidence that whatever
the figures were forth~ ancient world, they were probably even worse, and
certainly no better, than those for the American Old South. I agree with Keith
Hopkins's conclusion that in the Roman empire
life expectancy at birth was probably under 30, with infant mortality above 200 per
thousand; for this has been generally true of pre-industrial populations and correlates
with the predominance of agriculture ,low average income. and scarcity ofdoctors and
of useful medical knowledge, which together distinguish the Roman empire and other
pre-industrial societies from modem industrial societies (PASRP 263). 9
233
The American figure, even if it is too high. may serve as a warning that in a slave
economy which has to rely entirely, or even mainly, on internal breeding of
slaves, and moreover has no such extensive export markets for its products as
had the antebellum South, the margin of profit on the exploitation of slave
labour may be much narrower than we might be tcmptcd to assume. And in any
event, the expectation of life of the Greek or Roman slave is likdy to haw been
below the average for the population as a whole, and well below that of the
American slave c. 1850; and the 'break-even age' will then have been correspondingly high.
It would be interesting to know at what age a young slave in the GraecoRoman world was generally believed to change from being a burden on his
master to being an asset, who could more than earn his keep. The only specific
evidence that I know on this question is a rule appearing in the collection oflaws
codified in 654 in the Visigothic kingdom in Spain and south-west Gaul and
known as the Leges Visigothorum: this deals with the infant abandoned by his
parents to someone else to bring up and known in the Greek world as a threptos. 10
Such a child, until Justinian changed the law. became in effect the slave of the
person who brought him up. 11 The Visigothic law allowed the child to be
reclaimed on payment of one gold solidus per year for the cost of his maintenance, up to a maximum often: after the age often the child was supposed to
have earned his keep (quia ipse, qui nutritus tst, merudrm suam suo potest compensare
servitio, IV.iv.3). 12 We may compare this law with two issued by Justinian, in
5.30 and 531 (CJ Vll.vii.1.5-5b; VI.xlili.J.l}, putting value5 (for technical reasons
arising out of bequest and manumission) on various groups of slaves, in which
those under ten years of age are treated separately and valued at ten solidi (or
thirty, if eunuchs). A statement by Ulpian shows that Roman lawyers considered a slave to have some value provided he was not physically feeble or
unable to provide services for his master, and was at least fi vc years old; but it
was also stipulated that in establishing the slave's value (in certain legal actions)
'necessary expenses' should be deducted (Dig. VII. vii.6. 1,3).
9. It is difficult to trace the details of the introduction of slave-breeding on a
large scale in the Greek and Roman world. In this field I am obliged to have
regard mainly to Italy. because I know of no sufficient evidence from any other
area; but I believe I am entitled to treat the process that took place there as
characteristic in some degree. We can surely at least assume that if a diminution
in the supply of slaves from outside the economy became noticeable in Italy
itself, it is likely to have been felt more strongly in other parts of the GraecoRoman world. Indeed, in areas other than Italy (and Sicily) the process of
transition from using mainly imported 'barbarian' slaves, procured by capture
or purchase, to breeding the bulk of them at home is likely to have taken place
rather earlier and to have gone further than in Italy, unless perhaps slaves
happened to be available in exceptionally large quantities nearby, owing to the
presence ofa major slave-market such as Delos (see above). In areas where slaves
had not been available in large quantities and at low prices, ofcourse, the process
I am describing may have been very much less marked, because slave-worked
estates are not likely to have predominated to anything near the same degree as
in Italy, and a larger share of total production will have been in the hands of
peasants, whether serfs, leasehold tenants or small freeholders.
234
The Class Stru~~lc in the Ancient Greek World
I must mention at this point, for th .. b.ndir of t!Hl.;., wr.lcquaintcd with the
Roman fiscal systt'lll, that R~man tl"rritory in J~.Lly lun~ enjoyed a special
privilege: exemption !rmu rh, paym~.m Lfl:dtd t:l:> :m.1 pull ux. Trihutum. in the
original sense ofthl word (.m oct:dl'irn.ll f.apit.tl hvy). wa~ k~vied in Italy down
to 168 B.C. only. A~ia that. Hnm.ln hnd in Italy p:oid n1) hmd tax (rributum soli).
and poll taxes (tribu:um '''triti.<) Wf:"l' l~vkJ Otily in thl' rn~vinces. A few Roman
towns in the provinc~os rl~o:dwd .; iZ-~ant of imm:mi!..:.' (a privi!tge also retained by
only a handful ofGr,tk ,iti~o.$) .md CV<'Il t{-w~r ~nj,,y~J rh, special privilege of
'Italian rights' (ius lt;llkm). ~'lH tin!! th~rn \lJI tlw sana: t"l1oting as Italy itself. For
some time under th~o.l'rinip.m thl'Sl" pnvilq:cs \Wri:' WT}" v.1luable, and land in
Italy (and in the few t-wvitKia! ,iti(~ with thltr tnritmies enjoying immunitas or
ius Jtalicum) must hJ,-~ yidded .m ~:xwptionJlly lar~t profit to its owners and
thus have had an inH.lttd value. But by dq~rt'n ttilurum b(came insignificant
compared with the growing system l)f nqui!>irior;~ in kind (indictiones etc.).
theoretically in return for payment but b\~wmin~ increasingly uncompensated;
and by the late third century, when Diod,ti.m .1bulished the privileges ofltaly
and of the cities possessing immunitas or i11~ ft,l/icum, those privileges had become
relatively unimportant. 13
10. It looks as if women and children were not widely used as slaves in Italy
during the Republican period, and in particular were not put to use in Italian
agriculture nearly as much as they were in the American Old South or in the
West Indies or Latin America. Conclusions by Jonkers and Brunt, from the legal
texts and the Roman agronomists, strongly suggest that after the end of the
Republic the sex-ratio among slaves began to grow more equal, and that
slave-breeding played a much larger part in the economy. 14 One factor that may
have militated to some small extent against the general use of female slaves in the
actual operations of agriculture in the Graeco-Roman world was the existence,
even in the highest circles, of superstitious ideas about women in general.
Columella believed, for example, that if a woman during menstruation touched
a shrub of rue it would wither, and that young cucumber shoots could be killed
if such a woman so much as looked at them (RR XI.iii.38, 50). The Egyptian
Greek writer Bolus of Mendes, in the third century B.C., some of whose works
circulated underthename ofDemocritus (cf. ibid. Vll.v.17), did little to restore
the balance by describing how a menstruating woman could kill caterpillars by
simply walking around the infested plant three times with loose hair and bare
feet (ibid. XI.iii.64). In Greek and Roman literature, women arc generally seen
as busying themselves in the house, while the men work in the fields: Columella
has an impassioned statement of this view (RR XII.Praef.l-7), taken directly
from Xenophon's Oeconomicus {VII.23-42, esp. 23, 30), which had been translated into Latin by Cicero; and he proceeds to describe at length (XII.i.t to iii. 9)
the duties of the slave housekeeper (vilica, generally mated with the slave
overseer. the vilicus). Yet an isolated passage in Colum~lla seems to me to prove
that he expected women slaves to be working in the fields provided it was not
raining and the weather was not too cold or frosty (XII.iii.6). (I need make no
apology for referring so often to the Roman agricultural writers, since their
advice was largely based upon handbooks either written in Greek or dependent
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent pmducer (iii)
235
on Greek sources - this is true to somt> extent even of the work of Mago the
Carthaginian, translated into Latin by order of the Roman Senate: sec Col., RR
I.i. 10, 13 etc.)
Although r realise that it can be dangerous to usc isolated littrary texts to
prove a historical progression, I think that if we look at statcml'nts btaring on
slave breeding made successively by the first three leading Roman agricultural
writers whose works survive, namely Cato, Varro and Col urn ella. we shall sec a
faithful reflection of the actual developments in Italy. Cato, who died in 1-l-9
B.C., never rtfcrs to the breeding of slaves in his handbook on agriculture; and
indeed he nl."ver so much as mentions female slaves in that work, except w hl"n hl'
speaks of the slaw houslkecpcr, the vi fica (De agrirulr. 10.1, J 1. 1, 511, 143),
whom he contemplates giving as a 'witt' to thr overseer, the vilims, also a slave.
Plutarch. however, in his Life <if Caro, says that he used to allow his malt- slaws
to have sexual intercourse with their female fdlow-slavcs for payment (to
himself, of course: Cato mai. 21.3); and these l'ncounttrs must haw resulted in
occasional conceptions, for Wl' also hear from Plutarch that Cato 's wife USl'd to
suckle the babies of her slave-girls, in tht hope that this would make them
wdl-disposcd towards her own son, thtir futun mastt'r (ibid. 20.5). Varro.
writing mon than a hundred years later, in 36 B.C., conremplatcs the breeding
of slaves in two contexts only. First, he seems willin~ t<J .llkw ;'t;um~ (sh.:phtrtls
and herdsmen) to have mates. If they arc living in til\ t:lrm""(.nmplc:o.; u~df f.th~
villa), then, as Varro charmingly remarks, 'Venus P.l~lor:,hs' wt!l be :s.ut~ti.:d if
they have a slave-mate there. Ht also ncords a pre\Jknt \'l\'W th.u 1fllw E'N'ol/1'3
an morc remote and live in huts on their own, it is no b.td 1h111g C. l'f,idl rh~m
with women, who will be able to share tht:ir work U~H ll.x.( tr: rf. i ]fi- But
Varro first discusses the purchase of pastores. which ht ~~;.m.; to ,,usidn th,
normal method of procuring them (x.4-5). Secondly. \\h~n h1 b W!"iti11,_,: ;,b,lut
slaves doing agricultural work on the farm itsdr: lw .11ki~,... ~i,iJ;..:: kJ~uk
fellow-slaves as matt'S to ovcrsctrs only (praefecti, sJ;,v,-.ln\Tr1->). ~a bc;tr tbm
children and thus make them 'more rdiable and more .uudwd to thr. i.um
(firmiores et coniunctiores: R R I. xvii.5). In the sanh p.ass,a~~. howtn: r. V ;;mo
happens to remark that slaves from Epirus (a Greek-spt';lkiu~ .ar.-.1) \Wt~'\'.1h:d
mon highly than .1ny others at the time because of th~- t:uuily rd.H tm~h1p.;;
(cognatitmes) tlwy \\Yn' .1ble to develop. Evidently whok t:nnilit.,; ,_,1 f:.pirm
~laves were alr~.1dy ht'lll!! sold as units and would ~in t:~a:cptwn;.ll\ :-~nnd
service if pl.'rnnttt\1 to1 nt;tin that unity. A leading cqt:csrrun ,,f thtl.ts.r 'mturv
B.C. (110-.'\.:!). T. l'llllJ'llllius Atticus, thl friend .md \~orr,~l'~'th~u of Ci.wo
and a vav rich nun who owned large numbers of siJ\'s.. ts ~.ud by hi~ fn.~u,! Jnd
bio~raphcr. Cun1diu!> :'1-kpu-s. to havl kqt nut a smglt ~I.Hl wh( w;L'i nor b()rn
and traint>d in his uwn houst' (,l,mi 11.1tmu d.mi.Jue factum): Nepos takes this as a
d~mon:~.tr.1tion of .'\ttil'll!-. ,-,.,,;,,.,,;,,and ,Jil~~flltia, and it was evidently exc.:ptional Jt the lilllt" (o'\tt. 13.3-.Jj. Llll'T writ.r-. who refer to slavcbrceding in the
Rcpubli1 J1\.l\' ht imrn.lmin~ Jn,tdtr,,uiso~.ally a feature of the economy of their
own d.l)'. J.\ wh,n :\ppun. "PcJkm~ of dw nn~tdlc plriod of the Republic, says
that 'tlw wrkrshir ot' sl;n'c!> b~uu~ht the ~:.:h great profit from the many
childrt'nfrh~- sl.l\c~. wh,,~>l' umnhtr mcr;.as,d without hindrance because thL'Y
were exempt trum nnht.1ry ~~rn.-~ UU.' 1.7).
Columell.t, writm!! ;tb,ut .tlnmdr,,l )"l'.lTi Lttcr again. in the 60s or 70s of the
236
first century of the Chr: .. rian cr;,,;., k:..'(.'ll co h;l\'(.' hu:u~-brcd slaves: he advocates
rewarding female slav~:- fvr PL".trin~ (hildan and ;dd~ that he himself has been
accustomed to give (.'~(.mrtion from .111 work ro :111y woman who has born three
sons, and for any further onL"s. irtt:dom (R U I. viit.l'i: J. Salvius Julianus. in
Dig. XL. vii.J.l6, cu,d bdc)w). Nothmg ts ~aid ;tb(tu daughters. who seem to
be excluded, as the \\'urd I ha \'t' trau~lattd rhildnn is ratas (the masculine form.
although I think that ti1rm could indudt l!Jrls .ts wdl :1s h<,ys), and the three or
more who will earn Ji.'r the woman t"Xr::mp~i'-m or fn~dom arc filii (masculine
again). It is just pos~ihlc that offspring ofdthn :;cx an ntl'dllt, but had Columella intended to inclu(.{l." ~iris he would surdy have: ~pokt.'ll of liberi. Pctronius.
whom many would Sl't' a~ a n>ntcmpor.uy of Cclumdla. wrote in his comic
account of the wealth ut tht m1.1~in.uy fr(.tdnl.l:l T rima! duo of '30 boys and 40
girls (slaves. of cours~) h11rn in a :-in~k day on hili t'StJU.' at Cumac (Satyr. 53):
the story is significant. huwtvtr cxa?!!trated th. number~ may be. I will only
add that it might indt'ed b.. 1wnssary. as Columdl.t O'lltt'mplates. to reward
female slaves who actu.Lily bc\r~ ,hrldrtu. In au1magmary .halogue in the second
of Dio Chrysostom 's t "'' di.;n lllrst.s ()II ~/;wrry andfreedom {written probably in
the later years of th\' tir"t nnrury) it 1s ,ts.stmld rh:u sl.ln women who became
pregnant would tend to tl'~lrt h' abortion or 1nfamicidt ~~~~metimes even with
the consent of the m~o.n nm(.ern.d). s,,.ts not tn h.l\'e tmuhlc m addition to their
slavcry, by being ohlig~..d 111 rear ,hrMrtn (XV.~)- which ,,fcourse, as Diu had
no need to remind his .lUdi(.'ll(\'. mi~h: dll'n h.: r.tkc'!l ,l.\ny trom them and sold
to another master. A~ latl' J.!> th. tlr ly tlurd century th,n w .!.'> no general practice
of buying female slaves with the deliberat, purpu'il' .,f l'>neding from them
(Ulpian, Dig. V .iii.27.pr.: 'non temere ancill.lt' ius rei causa comparantur ut
pariant'); and thereforc their offspring were nut t\'fhnially regarded as 'profits'
(fructus) of the estate (ibid.). u. Nevertheless, .sud1 utl~rring were inherited with
the cstat~. which they 'increased', as wen ,fi11o'tll> {ibid .. with 20.3). And a
woman slave who had become sterile or was past the age offiti:y was regarded as
distinctly less valuable (Paulus. Dig. XIX.i.21.pr.), for 'couCtiving and bringing
to birth a child' was regarded as 'the most important p;nticular function of
women (Ulpian, Dig. XXI.i. 14.1).
Further useful ~vidence is provided by the legal sources. Of a large number of
legal t~xts mentioning the offspring of slave-girls or home-bred slaves, very few
go back to the lawyers of the Late Republic or the time of Augustus. This of
course dol!s not prove anything by itself. because the great bulk of the jurists
cited in the Digest belonged to the Antonine or Scveran periods (A.D. 138-193235). However, Brunt, with all due caution, is prepared to infer that 'slavebreeding assumed greater economic importance after Augustus' (IM 708): and
Wl' may surely agree at least that by the second century of our era it was playing a
much larger role than in thl last century B. C. In the second and third centuries
the lawyers soml'timcs usc the correct technical expr~ssion for the 'consorts' of
slaves, C{lntuberna/e.s, hut sometimes refer to them as 'wives'. uxorcs, which in
suict law they could never be, although the term may often have been applied ro
them in popular speech. as by Cato. De agric. 143.1. quoted above-. Ulpian in
Dig. XXXIII. vii.l2.JJ uses tht: right word, contllberna/es, but in 12.7 of the same
tide he actually refers to the consorts as uxore.~ -a surprising lapse by a jurist.
unless it had become very common for slaves to have permanent consorts. to
237
such an extent that even a lawyer could refer to them loosely as 'wives' . 1.; A
particularly interesting text from SalviusJulianus, writing probably in the 150s,
contemplates a case in which a man provided in his will that his slave woman
should be free 'if she bore three slaves'. but she was prevented from doing so by
his heir either giving her some 'medicamentum' to prevent conception or
procuring abortion (Dig. XL. vii.3.16). I may add that children born to townslaves in a man's urbanfamilia might be reared on his country estate: see Dig.
XXXII.xcix.3 (Paulus); L.xvi.210 (Marcianus).
11. I hope I have now established that, in so far as it is permissible to speak of
a 'decline' of slavery during the Principate, what we must concentrate on is the
fact that as a result of slaves being to a large extent bred within the economy
instead of being brought into it under exceptionally favourable conditions. the
rate of exploitation of the slave population as a whole must have diminished, to
allow for the diversion of effort to producing and rearing children, including a
considerable number who would not survive to become useful to their owners.
The increased cost of slaves imported from outside the economy would also
diminish their profitability.
12. We have now admitted the necessity for slave-breeding in the Principate
and the desirability of encouraging slaves to breed by establishing them in
conditions conducive to the rearing of families. It need not surprise us, therefore, to find actual evidence, from as early as the last century B.C. onwards. of
slaves settled as virtual tenants of agricultural plots- a situation which might
have been widcc'spread without its making an appearance in our sources, but
which we happen to know about from quotations in Justinian's Digest from
some of the earlier lawyers whose works are cited there, including two of the
very earliest: Alfcnus Varus, consul in 39 B.C., and his younger contemporary,
M. Antonius Labeo. who tiourished under Augustus. Alfenus wrote of a man
who leased a farm to his slave for cultivation (quidamfundum colmdum servo sutJ
locavit: Dig. XV .iii.l6), and mentioned the possibility of such a lease as if it were
a normal occurrence (XL.vii.14.pr.). Labeo (and also Pegasus, who was at work
in the 70s of the first century). as quoted by Ulpian, wrote of a urvus qui quasi
co/onus in agro erat, 'a slave who was on agricultural land as ifhe were a tenant'
(Di~. XXXIII.vii.12.3). The same situation is also referred to by Q. Cervidius
Scaevola. a leadingjurist of the second half of the second century (XXXIII.vii.20.1,
with 18.4: cf. XX.i.32). and I would see it retiected again in two other texts of
Scaevola: Dig. XXXIII.viii.23.3 (coloni praediorum who are slavL>s) and vii.20.3
(where the reliqua due from vilici, as well as coloni, may well be, or at least
include. rents). All the texts in question mention this situation quite casually, as
if it were well known, and I suggest that it was probably very common indeed
from the first century onwards. In such cases the tenant, considered from the
strictly legal aspect, was still a slave; but from the economic point of view the
slave was properly a tenant, and he might even employ slaves ofhis own (vicarii.
mentioned by Scaevola. for example. in Dig. XX.i.32), as an ordinary free
co/onus might (see e.g. Dig. IX.ii.27.9,11; XIX.ii.30.4). Ulpian could contemplate a slave as occupier (habitator) of a house (Dig. IX.iii.1.8); he goes on to
define a habitator as one who occupies a house that is his own or leased to him. or
which he is occupying by favour (vel in suo vel in conducto vel gratuito, 9).
238
In the late fourth century slave t~nants wcr.:: ~pp.trendy still common, for an
imperial constitution of 392 (Cl11 XVJ.v.~l). _,r,tt'dng the punishment as
criminals of those who allowed htrt'U<.":ll mc.c.!ing~ to t.1ke place on lands they
owned or leased, decrees th.u ;1 kss<'t' (Mt1Juot~) guilty of any such heinous
offence is to pay a brgt tim: if a frn nun. but, if he is 'the.: offspring of servile
dregs' (sNvile jaece Jm:e1Jcfl_;) and is wnttmptuuus ''t th" line because of his
poverty and his low condinun, h.:- 1s to be flogged and d,p()rted. (1 realise, of
course, that the Latin phrase I have- qunh.d need not nt.'Cl$S;trily imply more than
servile birth, and was presumably used to cowr hllth si.1n-s and freedmen.) A
century later, in the 49fJs. a slav!.' of the RnmJ.n Clmrdtnarnc.d Ampliatus, who
had been conductor of some. of its IJ.nd. ts mcmion..d in .t lc.crer (fr. 28) of Pope
Gelasius (A.D. 492-l_o). 1~ If sudt t(Hand~s cf .;l.wcs w.:-r.: tound to be to the
master's advantage. tlwy "vould duuhrk~s be wntinmd indefinitely, and the
slave-co/onus. if not mamuuiued in hi.o; masttr~ lit';.-tinu:. might well be freed by
his master's will (as in Dig. XXXII ..xcvii. P.mlus). The situation I have been
discussing has long hc.t.n known. of nmrlie. ;md good us~ has been made of some
of the texts I have quoted hy v;ari,,m modlrn hiswri;ms, mduding for instance
Marc Bloch (in CEHE 12 .251-2). :~!though htJs connntrJ.nng entirely on the
Latin West, whereas we are primarily umr;;-st~d in the (;rt:t'k East. The 'hutted
slave', servus casatus, so much in evid'''Ht' hy the time of Charlemagne, is not
known under that designation in d1l' Ronl<ln ~mpire: the term casatus is unknown
before the Middle Ages, and the ;,w1rii who are bracketed with coloni in a
constitution of 369 are as likely to be free 'cottagers' as 'hutted slaves' (CTh
IX. xlii. 7 = C) IX.xlix. 7). But Pope Pelagius I, in a letter giving instructions
about an inheritance, part of which could be claimed by his Church (Ep. 84, of
A.D. 560-l), 17 advises his agent, Bishop julian of Cingulum, that a 'rusticus vel
colonus' is preferable to an 'artifex et ministerialis puer' ( 1). and warns him not
to release 'those who can become ccmductores or colon( ( 3) and not to give away
'such men as may be able to occupy cottages or to become cultivators' (qui vel
continere casas vel colere possunt, 2) -where thC' words 'continere casas' come
near to calling these men 'serv1 l.'.lSatJ .
The servr4S quasi alt11ms was wdl known .1mong the Gc.rman tribes as early as
the first century, for T adtus O<"!'.cribc.'li tht condition t)t" o;uch a man as the
characteristic form ofGtrmau sb:wry. r::ath s.law. he. say!>. lives on his own. and
the master imposes on him liaNlity ri,r a tixttl tuauttty uf com or cattle or
clothing. 'as on a cof,,t,u.s, or 'as it'lu: w~.n a "''''lilt/ (ur i,,J,,tw: Germ. 25.1}. We
can accept this withuut mi'igi\.ing: it wa!' prol,ably the bc.~t way of preventing
the slave from escapmg to his homl.'. which mi~ht ht quit(.'mar (see Thompson,
SEG22-3, 18-19 = SC.-\ [td. Hnltyjl%--7. l'J2-J).
According to a mudJ-tfUUt(,l kttc.'r t)t'Piiny the. Younger, written in the first
years of the second century. he fnm~df nowhere used chained slaves (vincti,
elsewhere also compnliri. ;11/iJ!IIl). nur dtJ ilnyone else in the part ofltaly to which
he is referring (Ep. III.xix. 7). Sherwln-Whitl.', in his commentary on Pliny's
letters, has shown that the .ma in question must be on the edge ofTuscany,
where Pliny had an estate in the upper valley of the Tiber. at Tifernum
Tiberinum (LP 254). A passage in the poet Martial, probably written within a
decade before this letter of Pliny's, contemplates the prospect of 'the- fields of
Tuscany resounding with countless fetters' (et 50net itmumera compede .Tuscus ager.
239
IX.xxii.4); but this may not refer to a real contemporary situation. In the early
70s the Elder Pliny had deplored large-scale cultivation by vincti, housed in
prison-like barracks (ergastula): this, he says, is the worst kind of farming, and
one could well believe that it makes Mother Earth herself unwilling and indignant! (NH XVIII.2J ,35-6). However, Columella (writing probably a few years
earlier) does refer occasionally to chained slaves: and although two of these
passages rather suggest that the men concerned (ergastuli mancipia, l.viii.16--17;
mancipia vincta, XI.i.22) will be in that condition as a special punishment,
Columella also speaks of vineyards as being 'very often cultivated by fettered
slaves' (vineta plurimum per alligatos excoluntur, l.ix.4; cf. l.vi.3; vii.l; also
l.praif-3; iii.l2). Evidently the use of chain-gangs in agriculture was on the
decline even in Italy in the time of the two Plinys but had not entirely died out by
the beginning of the second century.
13. I wish to mention at this point three works which have made a particularly valuable contribution to our understanding of Roman land tenure and
the rise of the colonate in its earlier form, before it was converted into serfdom.
(a) The first is a brilliant lecture delivered by Max Weber in 1896 and
published in the same year. It remained unread even by Rostovtzeff(see SEHRE 2
11.751 n.9), who did not miss much; but in recent years it has become easily
available in good English translation in no fewer than three different paperbacks, under the title, 'The social causes of the decay of ancient civilisation' (see
II. v above and its n.8 below). and Mazzarino has described it (with some
exaggeration) as 'really the most fundamental work and the greatest work of
genius which has ever been written on the economic crisis of antiquity' (EA W
140). Weber's interesting approach to his problem is from the point of view of
the supply of labour. He points out, as I have done, that the slave-barracks
which had Aourished in certain areas in the Late Republic were anything but
self-reproducing, and that when the external supply of slaves began to some
extent to dry up, 'the effect on the slave-barracks must be the same as that of
exhaustion of the coal-deposits on the blast-furnaces'. When that happened.
Weber adds, 'we have reached the turning-point in the development of ancient
civilisation'. But his sketch of the decline of slavery and the development of the
colonate, perfectly valid as far as it goes. 111 fails to bring out the complex of
connected processes which I explained in tl above: the fall ;, the rate of exploitation of slave labour consequent upon the widespread extension of slave-breeding.
and also an increased exploitation f.!{ humble free men, as a material result of the fact
that the propertied classes were determined to maintain their relatively high
standard of life and had all the political control necessary to enable them to
depress the condition of others.
(b) The second work is a long essay by Fustel de Coulanges, 'Le colonat
romain', in his Recherches sur qurlqurs problemt's d'histoire (Paris. 1885) 1-186.
Fustel has a great deal to say on the development of the colonate that is still of
real interest. He lays particular stress on the fact that coloni often went deeply
into debt. like the tenants of the Younger Pliny. some of whom seem to have got
into a hopeless position, with their arrears (reliqua) ever mounting and their
securities forfeited (Pliny, Ep. 111.19.6-7; IX.37.1-3; cf. VII.30.3; IX.36.6;
X.8.5). There are many references in the works of the Roman lawyers cited in
240
the Digest to 'rents outstanding from tenants' (reliqua coloncm11n). These would
surely include rents merely due after the testator's death, and not only rents then
already overdue, in arrear (for no text I have noticed distinguishes between the
two); but of course they would also include any arrears, such as the reliqua that so
worried Pliny (Ep. 111.19.6; IX.37.2). More recent work has shown that Fustel
was mistaken on certain technical questions of Roman law: in particular, he was
wrong in believing that a fixed rent was essential for the Roman contract of
lease, locatio conductio (see e.g. Clausing, RC 161-2; Thomas, NM). Nevertheless, his work is very useful in its demonstration of the humble status, and the
precariousness of the legal and economic position, of the coloni of the Principate.
Horace, as the very opposite of 'kings', had chosen 'strengthless coloni' (inopes
coloni: Od. Il.xiv .11-12). Later we see them dominated by their landlords even in
religious matters: in 251 St. Cyprian could praise African landlords who had
preserved their Christian 'inquilini et coloni' from the act of public sacrifice
demanded by the Emperor Decius (Ep. LV.xiii.2). and around the year 400
masterful landowners in North Africa took it upon themselves to convert their
coloni from Donat ism to Catholicism (August . Ep. 58. 1) or vice versa (Aug., C.
Litt. Petil. II. 184, 228).
(c) The last of the three works is an article by Bernhard Kubler (SCRK, esp.
580-8) which brings out better than anything else I know the very weak position
of the lessee under the Roman contract of locatio conductio. It is worth drawing
attention here to something recently pointed out by Elizabeth Rawson: 'the rarity,
among the upper class [of Late Republican Rome], of renting. which may be
connected with the unfavourable position at law of a tenant' (SRP, ed. Finley, 87).
And here. going back to what I said under the heading 'III. Debt bondage' in
III.iv above about 'personal execution' for debt, I must point out that rent in
arrear, a breach of the contract of locatio conductio between landlord and tenant,
would constitute a debt for which the landlord would be entitled to 'personal
execution' against the defaulting tenant, as against any other debtor. I can now
add an important consideration to one I advanced in III.iv above (in the paragraph just before the one containing n.70), to the effect that the addictus or
iudicatus, who could have slave-terminology applied to him in popular usage,
may often have been obliged in practice to work for his creditor. Is it not very
likely indeed that in such a situation a landlord would often offer to keep his
tenant on the same land, under mort burdtnsome conditions than could normally be
exacted from a willin~ ttnant, and that the tenant would prefer to accept such
conditions, rather than risk being turned into an addictus and simply kept in a
prison, or taken away dsewhere to work off his arrears? We know from a
statement in the treatise of Callistratus, De iurr fisd, preserved in the Digest
(XLIX.xiv .3.6), that by the second quarter of the second century a practice had
grown up of forcing the lessees of public land to renew their tenancies if no one
else could be found to take the property at the same rent. (Tax farmers, too,
were similarly made to renew their contracts.) Hadrian, rebuking such a procedure, refers to it as 'a thoroughly inhuman custom' (valde inhumanus mos). from
which we must conclude that it had already occurred on numerous occasions.
And according to a provision of the Emperor Philip in 244 the retention of
'unwilling lessees or their heirs' after the expiration of a lease had 'often' been
1V. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (iii)
241
forbidden by imperial rescript (CJ IV.lxv.ll). It is indeed easy to believe that

private landlords, as weJJ as imperial agents, often attempted to keep their
tenants on the land after their leases had expired, although of course they had no
right to do so- unless, I would emphasise, the tenant was in debt to the landlord:
see the reference at the beginning of this paragraph to Ill.iv above, dealing with
'personal execution' for debt. l would assume that in the case which is being
dealt with in C) IV.lxv.l t the tenant concerned was not in that situation, but
that had he been indebted to his landlord for rent or the repayment of a loan, and
unable to discharge the debt, the law which was being stated would simply have
been inapplicable.
14. There was one factor in particular, noticeable in Italy, which we might
expect to operate almost as strongly in the Greek East: the additional time and
effort which a landowner working his estate directly with slave labour would
have to expend in order to get the best results, compared with the landlord who
leased out his land, and the impetus this would give to leasing. Even a landowner who did go in for letting to tenants might occasionally be involved in
tiresome supervisory activities, as we find from some of the letters of Pliny the
Younger. 19 But, over all, farms which were leased would normally have required less attention from their owners, and this would have partly discounted
the higher profits to be expected from land worked directly with slaves. It was
always considered highly desirable for the landowner to be present in person on
a directly worked estate for much of the year, as ancient writers often stressed. 20
Columella bewails the disinclination of many ofthe landowners ofhis day (the
mid-first century), and of their wives, to remain on their estates and take a
personal interest in them (RR I.praej.12-15; I.iv.8; XII.praif.S-10). The ladies,
he says, regard a few days spent at a country house as 'a most sordid business'
(sordidissimum negotium). The obvious solution for such people was to let their
lands on lease as much as possible; and this was all the more likely since many
large landowners in the West (and to some extent in the Greek East) owned
estates scattered around in many different places, which they could hardly have
supervised closely in person, even if they had wished to do so. My own
impression is that until the Late Republic wealthy Romans perhaps tended to
have fairly concentrated landholdings (even the thirteen farms ofSextus Roscius
were 'almost all along the Tiber': Cic., Pro Sex. Rose. Amer. 20), but that in the
Late Republic, and still more during the Principate and Later Empire, they were
likely to own property more and more widely diffused- in the Later Empire
above all we hear of Romans owning estates in many different provinces. This
would of itself encourage leasing, for reasons I have just made clear. Certainly,
we ought not simply to take it for granted, in the absence of sufficient evidence,
that leasing became much more common than it had been in the Republic: here I
agree with Brunt, who has made a useful collection of texts relating to leases in
Italy in Republican and Augustan times (ALRR 71 nn.27-33). 21 Nevertheless, it
does look to me as ifleasing did grow, at the expense of direct working. I think
that many of the farms distributed to discharged veterans may have been dealt
with in this way. Horace's Ofellus is a case in point: his farm has been confiscated
and handed over to a veteran, whose co/onus he has become (Sat. H.ii.2-3.
112-15, 127-35). We also hear of men selling their farms on condition of taking
242
them back on lease, a practice contemplated in Dig. XIX.i.21.4 (Paulus) and

XVIII.i. 75 (Hermogenianus). I must add here that letting land to a tenant does
not by any means imply a cessation of slave labour (see below and nn.52-8).
15. If up to now I have concentrated too much on evidence from Italy. it is

because (as I said earlier) we have much more explicit evidence from there than
from the Greek East for the developments I have been describing, during the
Principate. In some of the Balkan provinces of the Roman empire we find
numerous slaves down to about the middle of the second century; but later the
proportion of slaves in the population seems to have declined very considerably.
This has been shown for Dalmatia by Wilkes and for Noricum by Geza Alfoldy. Z"l
In most of the Greek vo.orld, however, above all in Egypt, slave production had
never reached as hi~h a level as it did in Italy in the last century or two of the
Republic, and in partimlar there were nothing like as many great estates as
existed in Italy, Sicil}' and north Africa- latifundia, as they have generally been
called in modem tim'-'s. although in antiquity that expression is quite late and
rare. In the last yean of the l~c.'public, Varro could speak ofa large farm as a latus
fundus (RR I.xvi.4), but th'" l.uliest occurrence that I know of the actual word
latifundium is in Vakriu:; Ma:ximus {IV. av. 7). who wrote in the .30s, in the reign
ofTiberius, and who refer!> imnif,llly w mugna latifundia. 23
Large estates, of course, could he eithtr sbve-worked, or let to tenants, or
both. As it happens, we have litl"rary tvidtmt tf()nJ the first century for large
numbers of tenant-farmers in tht Wl'!iit, Africa p3rticularly. Seneca, in a letter
written in the early 60s, speak" of 'thous,md:o. of '"''l.mi' working the land of (it
seems) single owners in Sicily and Atika. CEJ'. CXIV .2.6). And the Roman
surveyor Agennius Urbicus (whose date is mK~'rtain). probably reproducing
the Dt controvtrsiis agrorum of Sextus Julius fruntmus. writhn in the 80s or 90s,
speaks of individuals in Africa as owning estates (saltus) 'no smaller than the
territories of cities, many of them indeed much bigger; and individuals have on
their estates no small number ofhumble people [non rxiguum populum plebeium]
and villages of the size of towns around their villa. 24 The same general features
were at work in the Greek world; and I would say that for my present purposes
the main difference between Italy and the Greek East was merely that the change
from large-scale slave production to what I may call 'peasant production'
(principally in the form of the letting ofland in small parcels to tenants) was less
noticeable because in the Greek East peasant production already played a relatively larger role. I must admit that I have not yet been able to collect sufficient
evide-nce for the different areas separately. Figures of any sort for slave households in the Greek world in the Roman period arc non-existent, except for
statements of a rhetorical character like that in St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in
Matth. 63.4, in MPG L Vlll.608 (Antiochene landowners possessing one or two
thousand andrapoda). I know of no estimate of the number of slaves in the
territory ofany Greek city in the Roman age apart from a casual and surely quite
unreliable one by Galen, in the second half of the second century, to the effect
that his own city, Pergamum, had 40,000 citizens, plus 'wives and slaves' to the
number of 80,000, from which we may presumably infer that Galen - who
could hardly have known the number of slaves at Pergamum- estimated that
number at about 40.000 (Dr cogn. curand. animi morbis 9. in Galen's Opera Omnia
V.49, ed. C. G. Kiihn, 1825).
243
16. Although I could not yet prove it against sceptical opposition, I believe
that the condition of the peasantry throughout much of the Roman empire,
including its Greek areas, deteriorated markedly during the first three centuries
of the Christian era - just as the position of slaves improved somewhat,
especially if they became tenants de facto (see 12 above). This depression in the
status of the peasantry (and indeed of ali the free poor) was facilitated by a
deterioration in their legal rights (in so far as they had any), in ways I shall
describe in VIII.i below, and, in the Greek world. by the final extinction of
democracy (see V.iii and Appendix IV below). The various processes
(economic, legal and political) were closely related; but the legal and political
aspects are better evidenced and can be more precisely described, and I have
found it convenient to treat them separately, setting them apart from the
economic side, which is a perfect jumble of small scraps of material from
different areas of the empire which were developing in diverse ways and at
unequal speeds, even if the final result- achieved by no means simultaneously
everywhere- was very much the same over the whole vast area. The one thing I
should most like to know, but have not yet been able to discover to more than a
small extent, is the relative weight in the early and middle Principa t~: of the three
main burdens imposed upon the peasant (see Section ii of this chapter), of rent,
compulsory services (such as angariae), and taxation, and how these changed
over the years.
17. We are not yet quite ready to take account of the enserfment of most of
the free working agricultural populatiun of the Roman empire, which took
place from the end of the third century onwards. Before we do that, there are
two major connected problems, unnoticed as yet in this book, which we must
briefly examine. The first problem, which gradually forced itself on my attention while I was working on the emergence of the Later Roman colonate, is the
very large question of the settlement of barbari within the empire. This was
discussed in part as long ago as the 1840s, by Zumpt and Huschke (se~ Clausing,
RC 44-9, 57-61, n-89); a very brief but more up-to-date account ofit was given
by Otto Seeck (GVAW l'.i.407; ii.591-2), when formulating an important
theory which I shall discuss in connection with the second of the two problems I
have just mentioned, and in the past few years particular aspects of it have
attracted attention; but I know of no recent overall account. The subject is much
too large to be dealt with properly in this book: it raises a host ofhighly technical
questions, such as the nature of the laeti and gentiles, and it involves consideration of epigraphic and archaeological evidence, as well as a great many literary
passages, some of them hard to assess. I have. however, set out in Appendix Ill,
with a few comments, all the relevant evidence [ know that seems to me
important for the settlement ofbarbari in the empire from the first century to th'-'
late sixth. This will at least give some idea of the extent of these settlements,
which will, I think, astonish most people, and may be useful to those who wish
to pursue the matter further. I need make no apology for directing some
attention to these issues, although they affect the Western part of the empire
much more than the Greek East, for the introduction into the empire of what
were certainly very large numbers of barbari as settlers, amounting to many
hundreds of thousands in all, is obviously something that must be seriously taken
244
into account when we are considering the question of the 'decline and fall' (cf.
Chapter VIII below), especially if, like so many recent writers, we regard as an
important aspect of that process a 'shortage of manpower' - whether in the
absolute sense, ofa general decline in population, or (as I would much prefer) in
the relative sense, of a diversion of manpower from productive tasks, in agriculture
above all, to spheres of activity which, however important they might be in
themselves, were not directly concerned with production, like the army and the
imperial civil service. 25 1shall return to this subject in 19 below, after taking up
the second of the two problems I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph.
18. My second problem arises out of a particular text in the Dig~st, which
seems to me important in any attempt to trace the emergence of the serfdom of
the Later Roman colonate. The text, Dig. XXX.112.pr., is an extract from the
Institutes of Aelius Marcianus, one of the last of the great jurists of the 'Classical'
period of Roman law, who was probably writing around 220. 28 1t falls into two
parts: a brief statement by Marcianus himself, followed by a reference to a joint
rescript of the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. This rescript can be
very closely dated, between 1
when Commodus became co-Augustus with
his father, and the death of Marcus on 17 March 180. The text is as follows:
n,
(a} If anyone bequeaths inquilini without the lands to which they are attached [sine
praediis quibus adhatrent]. 28 the bequest is legally invalid [inutilt];
(b) But the question whether a valuation {aestimatio] ought to be made [sc. of what
the heir should pay the legatee as an equivalent. in compensation] is to be decided in
conformity with the wishes oft he testator, according to a rescript of the deified Marcus
and Commodus.
Interpreted according to its natural sense, the passage implies that the first of
the two points it makes, namely (a) above, was already settled law, and what the
emperors were deciding in 177-180 was that in the event of an ineffectual
bequest of inquilini without the lands to which they were attached, the value of
such a bequest might have to be estimated (so that the heir could compensate the
legatee to that extent for the failure of the bequest). In any event, we can be
certain, ifwe accept the text as it stands. that by 180 at the latest it was settled law
that those tinquilini' who wn-e regard~d as attached to pa11icular lands could not be
bequeathed separately from those lands. (I must make it clear that our text deals
not with inquilini in general but with a particular type ofinquilini.)27
The very use of the term inquilini in such a way may seem to some to create a
problem in itself, for it is often supposed that right through the Principate, in
legal texts, the word inquilinus normally means 'a tenant living in a rented
dwelling' (thus Berger, EDRL 503), a man who leases a house, rather than the
tenant of a farm or plot of land, who is a colonus. However, I think we must
assume that the word inquilinus is being used in its less technical sense of tenants
ofland of any sort (cf.Justin XLlll.iv.S). Unfortunately, the fact that the word
praedia is used is not decisive. It tells us only that we are dealing with some form
oflanded property: in principle, either praeditJ urbatuJ, of which buildings are an
important element, or praedia rustica, essentially agricultural land, whether it has
buildings on it or not (see e.g. Dig. VIII.i.l; 14.pr.; ii. esp. 2, with iii, esp. 1 and
2; iv.6.pr. and 1; iv.12).
245
What is extraordinary about this text is that the inquilini in question ar~
described as attached to the 'praedia', in the words 'praediis quibus adhaerent'.
One explanation of this text has bet.>n offered which. if correct, would offer a
neat and tidy solution and would not leave us with any disquiet about possible
further consequences. This is the theory of Otto St:eck, first published in 1900 as
part ofan article on thecolonate (RE IV.i.483-510, at494-7). and set out again in
his aclount oftlic Later Roman colonate contained in his massive history of the
decline of the ancient world (GUAW P.i.404 ff., esp. 405-7, with ii.585-90).
Seeck suggested that the inquilini of our text. far from being inquifini of the
traditional type, were barbari settkd by the Emperor Marcus, mainly in frontier
areas of the Roman empire, after his Marcomannic wars (for which se{' VIII.ii
below): that these settlers are the laeti we l'ncountcr from the time ofDiocletian
onwards, who were indeed Germans settled on lands within the empire (later
referred to once as 'terrae laeticae'), apparently with the twin obligations of
cultivation and military service; and that the attaching to the land of these men is
a natural corollary of their settlement, and foreshadowed the scrf-colonate ofthe
Later Empire. The date of our rescript is, prima facie, an argument in Seeck's
favour, for settlements of barbari on an appreciable scale wt.>re certainly made in
the 170s (see Appendix III below. 7), and the circumstances referred to by
Marcianus must have arisen at that very time, if they were the subject of a
rescript of the late 170s. It is perfectly conceivable that a landowner on whose
estates Germans were settled (whether they are to be identified with the later
laeti or not) should attempt to bequeath them st.>parately from the lands originally provided for them. Unfortunately we are not told the reason why the
bequest of the inquili11i in question was held to be invalid. If the men were indeed
Germans (laeti or not), then it may be that they were held to be inseparable from
the lands on which they had originally been placed, and that they could be
bequeathed. if at all, only with that land. (I shall leave aside for the moment the
question what law was being applied if they were not German Jaeti or the like.)
Seeck's theory has been accepted (with or without modifications) by some
scholars and rejected by others;28 but I have not seen any additional argument of
any weight in its favour, nor have I discovered any convincing argument against
it. If it is true, the theory provides us with an interesting anticipation ofthe Later
Roman serf-colonate, which (as we shall see in 20 ff. below) certainly tied a
very large parr of the working agricultural population of the Roman empire to
the land in one way or another. The one argument of some weight against Seeck
is that there is no further evidence of'barbarian' settlers tied to their lands for over
a century: the earliest relevant text would be the reference to laeti in the Latin
Panegyric IV (VIII), of 1 March 'N7. mentioned in Appendix III below, 14a. (I
reject as fictitious the inalienable plots of land in Hist. Aug., Alex. Stv. 58.4which ofcourse purports to refer to lands granted to Roman soldiers, not barbari.)
Two problems seem to me to have been generally overlooked by those who
do not accept Seeck's theory. First, how could any ordinary inquilini, as early as
the 170s, be said to be 'attached to lands' in any sense at am And secondly, how
could any landowner at that date feel himself entitled to bequeath his ifUluilini with or without land to which they were mysteriously 'attached'? If Seeck is
right, these problems do not arise; but if we reject or doubt his theory they
cannot simply be ignored, as by several ofSeeck's critics. I know of no evidence
246
The Class Stru~/e in the Ancient Greek World
that tenants (coloni or inquilini) in general were ever thought capable of being
bequeathed by will during the Principate; although of course when the serf
colonate was introduced, in the Later Empire, and tenants could not be separated from the land they leased, they could - and indeed must - pass with the
land by bequest or inheritance as well as sale. As far as I can see, tenants during
the Principate certainly did not form part of the itrstrummtum of a farm - the
equipment of the farm, which might be specifically mentioned in a lease or
bequest, or might be held to go with the farm automatically if it were leased or
bequeathed by the owner, with or without the words 'cum instrumento' or
'instructum'. The Roman lawyers were at pains to define precisely what was
included in the itrstrumentum, both in Di~. XIX.ii.l9.2, in that part of the work
which deals with the contract of locatio conductio (including what we call the
leasing of land) and. at ~natcr length, in another part dealing with legacies
(XXXIII. vii), for r:.trm!> \Wrt' lltten- perh.~ps usually- bequeathed with their
instrumentum. Sian.;. of coursL-. could form part (lf the instrumentum; but the
slave-colonus, discusstd in ~:; 12 Abow. w .l" held not t~, h~ part of the instrumentum
of the farm ofwhidt ht was r~garJLJ .lS thL icss:;-~: iDtJ, XXXIII.vii.12.3), and a
fortiori an ordinary frcL' roJI'""'' Llr inqmli1111.~ weL:ld ce-rlainly not be. It is true that
some writers (including Jom~; Sl'L' hdow) h.1 \'l' taken the inquilini of Marcianus
to be slaves; but had ~hq bn-u :'l.lws tt ts surdy inconceivable that a bequest of
them apart from th~ land on wh1ch rh~.y lupr~.rwd to be working would have
been declared invaJid. lt>('~~h;trd s.tw tlu:m as 'grundhorige Sklaven' (RE IX.ii
[1916] 1559, s.v. ,,,.,_uiim1) But sl.&vc::o bounJ w the soil are a category which
never appears, as tar as I knuw, bLforl tht i(,urth century, perhaps as late as c. 370
(sec IH.iv above and tts n.l6 hdl>w;. Irdots Jllll solve our problem, therefore, to
regard the inquilini ofMarcianus s !i-lan~: and I t(:d J>ltn' that Marcianus himself
would not in any event havl" ntt.rnd t\1 o;l.l-.~o:s ..ts 'inqudini'. Inexplicable to me,
too, is Piganiol's statement (I:'C~ J07 n.2l: 'Au m~ ~l-ck. tout colonus peut etre
dit inquilinus (cette observation L'Xplique ll' t~oxtt d~. M.1rrim)' -of course it docs
nothing of the sort. Even A. II. M. Joms :oh~~w~.,~ ua~h.l:-;:cteristic imprecision
when dealing with the text we have been txamining: I am not quite sure what he
means by saying that the persons described as inquilini 'must be slaves, or they
could not be left by will, but are attached to land and are only alienable with it';
the sentence that follows may be an imperfect rccollt>ction ofSeeck. although he
is not mentioned (see SAS, ed. Finley, 291-2).
It is possible, I suppose, that Saumagne was right in thinking that the text of
Marcianus has suffered interpolation and that originally it did not contain the
words 'without the lands to which they are attached' (ROC 503 n.3). To this one
instinctively objects that in such circumstances there could be no aestimatio (see
above). for how could a valuation be placed upon free men? As we read in the
Edictum Theodorici 94, 'Homo enim liber pretio nullo aestimatur'. (The same
objection would apply to any attempt merely to delete 'qui bus adhaerent' .) But
a valuable footnote of Fustel de Coulanges (see n.28 again) may provide an
answer to our objection: the valuation in the aestimatio could be based on the
amount of rent which the legatee would have received had the bequest of the
inquilini been valid. If we are willing to suppose interpolation in Dig.
XXX. 112.pr., it may be that this is the solution ofour problem. If we reject this
and also Seeck' s theory. I can suggest only one possible interpretation of the text
247
of Marcianus. As far as I can see, tenants (coloni or inquilini) were relevant to the
instrumentum only in so far as they owed rent: the rdiqua colonomm are certainly a
normal part of the instrumemum. May it not be that the inquilini ofMarcianus had
defaulted in paymt:nt of their rents (or had committe:-d some other breach of their
contract of tenancy). and that their landlord had then re:-duced them to some kind
of debt bondage? As we saw in III.iv above. a man could be regarded as having
property in his judgment debtor (iudicatus), sufficie:-nt to make removal of him
thl"ft (jurtum: Gai., lnst. III.199). Could the tenants of the testator in Marcianus's
passage have been iudicati? If so, he might indeed have felt himself entitled to
bequeath them- although it is then hard to sec why the bequest should have
been held to be invalid. It is a grt.>at pity that we are not given the reason for this
decision. I would regard Seeck'~ theory as quire possibly correct, but I would
leave the whole question open, with the two alternatives I have mentioned as
other possibilities. [See, however, n.26a.]
19. A glance through Appendix III will giv~o SIHIL' idea of th'- J~hni~hi1;.
t:xtent of 'barbarian' sctrlcment. One aspect of clw ~ubyn. on whio.:h quit~? .1
large literature has grown up recently, is the laeti, .md d,,.,ro.<-lnl"~'-'non (1f.1m)
with the so-called 'Reihl'ngraberkultur' (in north-c.4:-fL'T!I i:r;tJir:: .md the L1m
Countries) and with other categories ofbarbari such .1.\t:,mift, Jn,l_ti,t-!.a,ui. :l I h.earliest mention oflaeti, as I said above, is in 297; tlwy .mnotin,i s..-vcr.J.l tmHs
by Ammianus during the reign of Constantius II aud hy "th~.o"T wr.ttr~ s:1~h ls
Zosimus and Jordanes; we possess the texts oflaws rdl-rriug ro. tlwm ir,m: J!J'J w
465; they tum up in the Notitia dignitatum, mainly in th~ Prd(.-.tuH' of rho. Ga1,b.;
and there even seem to be references to them in a R.avnm.t P"P~'"'' .1~ i:1tt' ;.;; ,~;,.
mid-seventh century (P. Ita/. 24,lines 1, 21. 46-7), and in .-.>m~ :V('JtiJ.tl."r tcxtc; lP
A detailed discussion of the condition of th~o b.nl,,,; so;.:ttkJ in th~ 1~. man
empire is beyond the scope of this book, and I shall li~nit t!q:sdf to two
observations upon them. First, it is clear that the terms oi the-ir -s,nknwws
might differ very widely; 31 and secondly. their in!>t.tll.tti.l(l m-;icf :he clllpirr.
which from a strictly cultural point of view may hav~ t"t~>mhutt'J tn !It c.. J.,linr of
the empire, must certainly. when considered from it~,.,,,,,,.,,;, .lsp~..:~. ~c.. rq;r\kd
as a contribution (however temporary the effect in t'".J.("h lasd t-' tht. ;'".rw..ri.tr
of the t:mpirc. I shall deal briefly with each of these pilll::> mtmu
As for the terms of settlement, Wl' can broadly disrin~t~i~h al!l:>n~ tb<' ,,rthd
barb11ri two main groups: those who became mcrr t~~n::mts r colom . .m.l tltPs~
who prcsumably received land in freehold. There is vry httl.- rosttm.'t'"\'ldc..th.:C.
but I would guess that the vast majority of barbari wh<l c<Jmt: iu .t:hr captnn by
or surrender to Roman generals would have become mac ~c..,l.lms :o1hu p.rh.1p~
of imperial estates). whereas many (probably most, tf not all) .,f rh,)s~ whl
entcred thc l'mpin. by voluntary compact would h.1.v:: rn,iwd i.md it: fn;hold.:12 or ar kast in some bcncftcial tenure such as emphytt.usis (for whtch sec
Section ii of this chapter). Ofcourse. when lands were granted to a king or chief
and his tribe. the condition of individuals might vary widely: the chief and
perhaps some of his n:rainc:rs might become frechold~rs and lease out parcels to
mor~o humble men. Unequivocal evidence is rare, but, of the settlements listed
in Appendix III below. no.23 refers Spt'cifically to wlm1i, and in several other
cases the settlers certainly seem to have been mere tc-nants.aa Except p~orhaps in a
248
few cases, where an emperor had been obliged to grant land (which might
indeed be in the possession of the barbari concerned already), it is likely that the
lands remained subject to imperial taxation, as well as involving liability to
military service; occasionally the tributary status of the recipients of land is
specifically mentioned.:" [For hospitium/hospitalitas see n.34a.]
My second observation (sec the last paragraph but one above), pointing out
that any cultural 'barbarisation' effected by these settlements must have been
balanced by short-term economic advantages, needs clarification. I shall say
nothing about the process of 'barbarisation', which has often been discussed.
The economic benefits seem to me far more important, when we remember the
decline in the rate ofexploitation of slave labour resulting from the difficulty the
Graeco-Roman world had, from the early Principate onwards, in obtaining
slaves gratis or at very cheap rates from outside the economy, and the breeding
of slaves within the economy which consequently came to predominate (see 6
of this section). The 'barbarian' settlemt.nts, I suggest, must have had a highly
beneficial economic effect (if temporary in each case) which has not been taken
into account by historians bm becomes immediately obvious when we realise
that all those in which the settlers became mere tenants, and (if to a less extent)
the rnajority of those involving freeholders, provided both recruits}or the anny and
an adult work-force, the cost of producing which had not fallen upon tht: Graeco-Roman
ecorwmy. (Recruiting could of course continue indefinitely, but in each case there
would be only one generation of workers not produced inside the economy.) I
have already emphasised that breeding slaves within the economy involved
much Joss oflabour, not merely because the whole process ofbreeding necessitates giving slaves improved conditions of life and because the mothers do less
work during pregnancy and lactation, but because of the very high rates of
maternal and infant mortality which prevailed in antiquity (sec 6[b] and Bof
this section). The 'barbarian' settlements, then, produced exactly what the
Roman economy most nel!ded: adult farmers (many of them potential soldiers),
the cost of whose birth and nurture had been met entirely outside the economy.
and who would normally provide some surplus, either in the form of rent, or
produce they did not themselves consume, or at least by way of taxation; and
many ofthosl! who were disinclined to do agricultural work would be ready to
serve as soldiers in the Roman army. It is true that sometimes- especially in
some of the cases in which a block grant of lands may have been made in
freehold - little or no surplus in taxes. rent or produce might be derived by the
State from a particular settlement; and here and there we actually hear of the
emperor agreeing to pay the 'barbarians' a subsidy. But in any event the new
settlers would provide much-needed recruits for the army. and the great majority
probably at ]east paid tax on their lands. Those who became coloni would of
course provide a much more substantial surplus. After recording the despatch of
'bands ofbarbarian captives' to 'dcsert~o.d lands destined for them to cultivate',
an enthusiastic panegyrist of Constantius 1 in 297 rejoices because
Now the Chamavus ploughs for me. and so do~.--s the Frisian . . . ; the barbarian
cultivator lowers th~ cost of food. And if he is summon~o.-d to tht" military levy he
responds, and is smart~o.'lled by disnpliw.: ... ; hl' mngratulates himsdf on serving
under the tide of soldier (Pant,_~.!At. IV[VIII].ix.3).
249
How large a surplus could be extracted from a whole tribe of Germans settled
together on land which had become their freehold is unckar; but we should not
underestimate the quantity of agricultural production which might be ~xpected
of them and would naturally be reflected in the rate of taxation. (The question of
the agricultural and pastoral activities of the Germans is trtated with admirable
succinctness and clarity in two small books ofE. A. Thompson:EG. 1965, and
VTU, 1966.)35 Even in Julius Caesar's day the Germans, although then primarily
pastoralists, did practise agriculture in varying degrees, if at a rather primitive
leveL And at the time Tacitus was writing (roughly the first two decades of
the second ccntury) 36 the role played by agriculture in the economy of many
German tribes, at any rate those most influenced by contact with the Roman
world, had appreciably increased: even agricultural slavery was known
(Tac., Germ. 25.1: see 12 above). We must not suppose that the work-shy
characteristics vividly depicted by Tacitus wcrl' general among the Germans: it
is only the kading men whom he describes as lounging about in peace-time,
doing nothing, concentrating on sleep and food, and leaving the care of their
homes and fields to 'the women and the old men and the weakest members of
the family' (Germ. 15.1; cf. 14.4, 26.1-2, 45.4, 46.1). Changes in theeconomyof
the various Germanic peoples depended largdy on the extent oftheir exposure
to Roman influence. Evid<.-nce is scarce and mainly archaeological, bur there
does happen to be some good literary evidence for a considerable increase in the
use of slaves by two groups of exceptionally advanced Germanic peoples: the
Marcomanni and Quadi (across th(' middle Danube) in the second and third
centuries, and the Alamanni (cast of the upper and middle Rhine) in the fourth
century; and in the latter case at any rate it is clear that slaves were employed in
agriculture, if only by some of the leading men (see Thompson, SEG 26-9 =
SCA, ed. Finley. 200-3). And the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, who play a major
part in the story of 'barbarian' settlements in the second half of the fourth
century and throughout the fifth, seem to have bec:n predominantly agriculturalists even before the Huns, in their great westward movement in thl' 370s,
conquered the Ostrogoths and drove the Visigoths to seek shelter across the
Danube in Roman territory. Ofthe settlements recorded in Appendix III below,
only one or two seem to have been of peoples who were nomadic or seminomadic and would consequently not have been capable of yielding to the
Romans any kind of surplus, even by way of taxation, ~xcept perhaps the
produce of their flocks and herds; but I doubt if this applies to any except the
Hunnic tribes, such as the Kotrigurs (Appendix III, no.30d; cf. 26)- among the
Germans, even the exceptionally 'barbarous' Hl"ruls seem to have been partly
agricultural (ibid. 29b and 30a).
20. We now reach the point at which a very considcrablr part of the hitherto
free working agricultural population is legally bound to the soil, in one way or
another. I have no doubt at all that this began to occur towards the end of the
third century, as part of the great reform of the system of regular taxation
introduced by Diodetian (284-305), and became universal during the fourrh
century. The nature of this innovation is rarely stated properly. In my opinion
the only account ofit which fully brings out its essential character (and therefore
on~ of the most illuminating contributions made to the study of ancient history in
The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek Wodd

modern times) is th.;~ -1 -\.H. M. Jv~!Ls: hut _.,c.-r.: son!t' '~fthose who refer to his
250
treatment ofrhe snbjLt.r iM.r( tailni t m~dn!.t.;nd ir dH;roughly. 37 Not merely

leasehold tenants b1;t ~h. whl,lt" 411:, working =.~tiwltural population throughout
the Roman empi~r.. imcnbc.I iu tlw rax r..:-gis.~en. ~''t'rt> tied to tht' land on a
hereditary basis and thus l:'t~t~rtd imo ;atam11 - <.:- (:.s t:&r JS peasant freeholders
wen: concerned) wb.tt I ,1m ralh:t~ qu:;.st-s.-:!"t(iom (:s~.-~ bd,Jw). It seems that the
peasantfreeholdrr (p(;lS.l~lt pwprkto!', t!!t' absc,Jm, O'.h'ner ofhis land) 38 who was
entered in the ccnsm. in rbt <;oo;lr_itv. how~.nr ;;mill h!.S plot and whether or not
he also happened to lt"J.stl.and {rom' someon~ tb,. was t!ed to his village,:19 while
the peasant who WJ.~ :lr:!; :1 it'.:,<:cl/ai'd tr>l4m wa.) ~i~d to r!w actualfann or plot he
rented, as a coloml.>, pror,ided hi~ n.mto;. 'Pr,artJ ::1 in~ landlord's census return.
(The landlord in tb-.~ latter CtSl' -..v~uld ~Hlr:no:l!~, b .t t'f~,~-h:)lder, but he might be
only a head lessee . .tstxplaincd in 22 hdow. l.g. tb~c,ntdtworofan imperial or
ecdesiastical cstatt. "... h,) ndchr ,')ftt'n be"' .-.-,~;;lth.- !llJ.~.) The tact th.tt different
systems of registutim 111 ;jl~ nmu~ .n~n .~<1>p::~d :n ,litrcrcnt parts of the
empire brought abcmt complicati.~ns. and i~ may b,. tbJt I .om over-simplifying if
I notice only the two broad grm:ps I havl" mottwncd. But in somt'- probably
most- areas, includm~ ;lt ..my ro~~~ Asi:t !\1~t .. ~r .1:1d ~!w /\,gean islands, Tbrace
and Illyricum, thl'fl: j;; n:asm~ t-' thinK. ri1.11 !.>.nd.:lWJ;<"t:. ~~mred on their r..-tums
the names of all thlir tenant~ who wtrc- not al~o propii~r,,rs of freehold land. In
some other areas, howt'V<'I. endu,tm~ :n kast Egypt di.~r which wc have some
solid evidence) and pruhal-o!y P:~!t>smw ;llid 'lome oftht> pnwinces in the Prdccture of the Gauls, the nJ.nns ofl~o~~thoid tt'll.lllL-'' W(n. apparently not entend in
the census returns t'f tht lauJ~''"1wrs front whom rhq: leased their plots, but
only under their villages, t'\';.'tl >fthq; .:wu~d Ill~ frnhol.t l.md in addition to their
rented plots; and in these .trL'J!\ ah~ ~~n;mts swm tu h.tve been tied, not to their
leasehold farms or plots. bur to thLtr vtll.l!!l'S, ;ts ''n'n all peasant freeholders. 10
The overall situation. 1fl h.lW .uuly!'1'JI,)w..;;
1. The peasant who owned any land in freehold was entered in the census
return under his village and was tied to his village, whether he also had land on
lease or not.
2. Thl situation of the peasant who owned no freehold land, but was a
lea$eholder 11t1ly, differed according to the area in which he lived: it seems that
(a) in some areas (including at lcasr Egypt. and probably Palestine and some
of the provinces in the Prefecture of the Gauls) he was, like the freeholder,
l'ntered in the census return under his village and tied to his villa.f.!e; but that
(b) in other areas (perhaps in most, and certainly in Asia Minor, the Aegean
islands, Thracc and lllyricum) he was entered on his landlord's census return,
and he was then tied to the actualfann or plot he rentrd. (Only thesl' last. I believe,
Wl're properly adscripticii, although the expression may sometimes have been
used of members of my group 2(a) also.)
These far-reaching reforms amounted to the ensC'rfment of a large part of the
working agricultural population of the empire, in ordC'r ro facilitate the increased
exploitation of them - through taxation above all, nm to mention forced
services and military conscription - which had become n..-cessary to maintain
the Roman empire in the form in which it was reorganised by Diodctian and
251
Constantine. That reorganisation was of course sec:n by its a:J.thon as necessary.

in the common interest ofall, for the very prcservati<'n (If rht t>mpi~t. imperilled
as it was now, as never before, by 'barbarian' thre:a:s. b:-o th~~ mar~Js,d puw~:r of
Persia under the Sassanids, and by internally desmK~iw rivalrit.s filr cuntwi r...,f
the imperial power (see Chapter VIII below. esptdally Scnion i;). Hnwcvn.
the propertied classes were determined to maintain. 1nd w~r: i!!hk tn maintain,
their dominance and their economically privileged sitll;UIUI!~ ;md ~he. gnat;.r ;1
man's wealth and the more exalted his rank in the social :md pdnir.1l hi;:-rau!i.y.
the more likely he would be to succeed in preserving and l'\'t'n strengthening h i5
position, even if a certain number of prominent indh1dual!S had to be sacrifir~.d
in the process. The great reorganisation was theret(m primanay t~'r tct' b\ndit
of the propertied classes as a whole: and for them. or .u any r:Jtl" thrtr npp~:.r
crust, it worked wonders for a time (cf. VIII.iv below). Wt Jh''-' (ntn nplm th..
period commonly called the 'Later Roman Empire'. in wl;i,~h th~ \.'mpcrvrs.
from Diodetian onwards, assumed an even more exalted pt)~itillll .-nahtingthem (if they were competent enough) to exercise still gre:>.ter ,:.:mtro!. in th::
collective interest of the governing class. But, as I have ~xpl.titKd iH VI. vi
below, it is a mistake to imagine a fundamental change in tltl' n:ttun: 11fimp~~i;ll
rule, from 'Principate' to 'Dominate', with the inception nithl.' l.<t.h.r Etnftrt.
The Princeps (as he was still often called) had always been in pr:Ktitl a virt;J.llly
absolute monarch, and the most significant featun of thl {h.mgl'"' thll c~n 1::
about with the Later Empire was an intensification cJtth.~ form!'> ot\xt'loit.Jttm.
among which the introduction of widespread serfc.t, 'm W;lo; r~rh;tr~- in th~long
run, the most important dement.
21. I think Jones was right in believing that the law bmJing pt'!~aut> to their
villages or farms was 'primarily a fiscal measure, designl'd to {ll'iluatl' :llltl
ensure the nlllttttun of th~: new poll tax, and nut specifically .llllll'd ;a tytng
tenants to thdr f:mns'; bm that '1auJ1ords found thllaw useful in nu1ding ti:l"tr
tenants and rl.'daimmg thtm itth.:y ltft". ar1d the emperors l!xtcndnltlw tlri:?in ~11
measun t\1r thLir hlndit (stt t'Splnally CJ Xl.li.l. of Thtu,to~ius IJ, .m.l
increast'd tht dependence ofrinl co[,,m ()Jl their landlord~ by .1 ~trk~ ''~ bws tWt.'r
the fourth and fifth centuri~s (font-s. RC, in SAS, ed. Finlc.'y. 21H-;:;:
Jon.~"'
RE 406-7: LRli 11.79l.....X(l]). Pta~am frn:huldcrs, howl!wr. Jlrhn1.1gh th~y .llw:~"'
remaintd mumrouo;., ;\t :UJf ratt iu the Greek East, W("TC nfno partic!lbr imt.n~tlo
the landlord class. :mtl tltt hws bindi-ng them to thtir vtll;tgls S(l."lll ro h.lVC' been
little ent'lrccd, except when villag~ thtm~dvcs took Jttion (as Wl' sc:c m P TIJ.;o,u/
16-17) to stop mass desertions- whach were pwbably nn:.t(r pt.a..-;aut fn-.huldn;
would seldom be driven to tht.lul~th of.1hi11Idoning tht.ir dthrstral properties.
As regards tenants thlto~itttlll wali exceedingly coruplll'att'd. The tied 'co)n..
nate', in the.' ~ense oftnlJnt~ bound to the plots they ltdst.d (;md ntt ~imply to
their villagt'si. was naturally a m,mer ,,fk~:t.'llllltl'Tl'~t ru the l.mdlt.>rJ dJ.~~: it\,.. t~
cxtendt.d to Paltstinc by a law ot'Th,,t,dt)l'im I Cqttlttd .;l>ow). dlt.l pr,~!Mbly to
Egypt wdl bdl.,rc 41~. when \Vt:" tirst iw.n ,,ft~n.mt~, alkd (H!,ml;,,,,,,,f,~t!i (CJ 11
XI.xxiv .6.pr.. J). wlw apparently ~nduJc:d t\:n;mc~ :u c:st<Ut'.l>, although the).
were actually n~~~t;:rt'd in their villages. r~vC'n ti,d .;;)J,)m. hawewr, althot!~h
serfs ;u l"urdin~ w my J~ottmrion (in IIJ.iv ahuvd. r;:m.mwJ th<rdir..-.;;11, tr~~ in
status: tlwy :~.'n<' m:.r ttdmic1!ly sbn:~. H~i'im th,- ;;~.cimd lulf <f th, t~,tl:rh
ct'ntury rh~ term ,,,i;,;:w.; h.t,i fi)llli.' nart usl tor rh:: .,,rf ~lm;~t,. h' ~e:r!;,st
'"r
252
appearance is usually dated to 382 (CTh XIV .xviii. 1 = CJXI.xxvi. 1), perhaps on
the strength of the Thesaurus LingUAt LAtinae, in which that is the earliest text cited;
but the term colotuJtus iure occurs as much as forty years earlier, in CTh XII.i.33,
where it is already used as a technical term. At this point I must revert to the fact
(already mentioned under heading II of IU.iv above) that from the later fourth
century onwards the emperors tended to use for the serf colonate the terminology
of slavery, inappropriate as it was, in a way which the great lawyers of the earlier
centuries would surely have scorned. Jn a constitution of c. 395, relating to the
civil diocese of Thrace, the Emperor Thcodosius I, while admitting that its
coloni were technically 'of free status' (condicione ingmu1), could add the sinister
phrase that they 'must be regarded as slaves of the very land to which they were
born' (servi terrae ipsius cui nati sunt aestimmtur), and could allow their possessor to
exercise over them 'the power of a master' (domini potestas: CJXI.lii.t.l). A few
years later the Eastern Emperor Arcadius declared that it was 'almost the case'
that serf coloni (here called coloni censibus adscripti), although admittedly libm,
seemed to be 'in a kind of servitude' (paene est ut quadam servitute dtditi videantur.
C) XI.l.2.pr., probably to be dated 22 July 396: see Seeck, RKP 132, 291).
Between 408 and 415 Theodosius II, in a vivid phrase, referred to 'all those
whom Fortune holds bound by the chains of their inherited fields' (omnts quos
patrimcmialium agrorum vinculis fonuna tenet adstrictos: C) Xl.lxiv .3) - a curious
phrase, paralleled in an earlier constitution ofGratian and his colleagues, in 380.
speaking of'persons owed to the law of the fields' (iuri agrorum debitas), to which
they are to be brought back (CTh X.xx.lO.l = CJXI.viii.7.1). Ina constitution
of 451 the Western Emperor Valentinian Ill ruled that the children of a free
woman and a slave or co/onus must remain as coloni (colonario nomint>) under the
control and ownership (in iure et domini} of those: on whose lands they were
born, except in the case of a woman who had beforehand been given formal
notice (denuntiatio) that she might not enttr m to such a union. in which event the
children were treated as slaves: there is a rltC.rent.'t' to the former being held by
nexus colotuJrius, the latter by thC' umJi,;i, ;rwilllii. (Nell'. Val. XXXI.6; cf. CTh
IV .xii.4-7). From the mid-fifth l"t'Iltury lmwrJs w~. bc~m to hear ofa particular
kind ofserfcoloni known a!i ad.crit'ticii (rn.rp,~,grc~ph,,i >r rnl1ypographoiin Greek). 41
who in the West are called trihutarii. ''r(cmalfJ 1lT ,,n~!(i~l,trii, and whose status
began to verge towards th.lt ofslaves. (l'hdr precise natun is still disputed, but I
believe the account given b" Jones t11 hl substantially n~ht: LRE 11.799-803;
RC, in SAS, ed. Finley, 298-302; RE 417.) In 5.~' rht Emperor Justinian found
some difficulty in distingui!,hin~ between o~J..-rit'ti.-Ji and slaves: 'What difference
can be detected,' he says. 'bctwt-en slaws and .Jrluripticii,when each of them has
been placed in the powtr ot his m~">ttr (dlllfimu). who can manumit the slave
with his peculium and alienate tht ,,J.oiptidlls with his land?' (Cj XI.xlviii.21.1}.
A few years later Justinian could describe it as 'contrary to human nature'
(inhumanum) to defraud the land of its adscripticii, 'its very limbs [membra], as it
were': the adstripticius 'must remain and adhere to the land' (remant'at adscriptidus
et inhaereat terrae: ibid. 23.pr., of the early 530s). 12 Significantly,Justinian treated
marriages between adscripticii and free persons as governed by the rules of
Roman law regulating unions between free men or women and slaves (Cj
Xl.xlviii.24, very probably of 53.3; Nov]. CLXII.I-3, of 539). The legal issue
was not really settled even yet, andJustinian, as so often, kept changing his mind
253
(see Jones, in SAS, ed. Finley, 302 n. 75); but whatever the legal situation might
be, the emperor was determined that every single co/onus should be made to
remain on the land on which he was born - that, he says, in a very curious
phrase, is what the very name of colonus signifies (Nov.]. CLXII.2.1, of539).
One of the most interesting documents we possess, dealing with the Later
Roman colonate, is a very short letter of Sidonius Apollinaris to his friend
Pudens, which must have been written in the 460s or 470s (Ep. V .xix). Its
terminology is worth special attention. The son ofPudens' nurse, a dependant
of Pudens, had raped the daughter of Sidonius' nurse. Pudens had begged
Sidonius not to punish the man, and Sidonius now agrees on condition that
Pudens releases him from his oriRinalis inquilinatus and thus becomes his patronus
instead ofhis dominus: this will enable the ravisher, as a cliens ofPudens instead of
a tributarius, to take on the character of a plebeius instead of a co/onus (plebeiam
potius . . personam quam colonariam) and thus to achieve libertas and marry the
woman, who was already free (libl'ra). The man, although not a slave, and of
course not requiring to be manumitted, cannot be regarded as fully free until
Pudens, his 'master', recognises him as no longer a colonus, inquilinus, tributarius,
but now a free plebeius and a cliens.
22. In 20 and 21 I have been speaking of what I have called 'the workin~
rural population'. who in the late third century were bound to the land (freeholders to their villages, and those who were only tenants and had no freehold
land of their own either to their villages or to their particular farms or plots),
although for reasons I have already mentioned much less pressure was put upon
the freeholders -provided they duly paid their taxes. Historians (and lawyers)
not sufficiently familiar at first hand with the literary as well as the legal evidence
for the colonate are apt to think of the long series oflaws we are now discussing
as affecting only leasehold tenants; but this is quite wrong, because by no means
all leaseholders were bound, in the fourth century and later, and at the beginning
of the process most if not all working peasant freeholders were bound too, in the
areas in which the serf colonate was introduced. This mistake is made, for
example, by Finley, who speaks of the Codes as providing evidence that 'from
Diocletian at the end of the third century, tenants were tied, not free', and adds
that 'with the disappearance of the free tenant [presumably with Oiocletian] went
the disappearance from the legal texts of the classical Roman tenancy contract'
(AE92, my italics). This formulation is most misleading as it stands. In the first
place, in so far as it has any validity at all it applies only to the Latin West, not to
the Greek East. In at least some parts of the Greek East there were even among
working peasants (as can be seen from the papyri) a considerable number of
tenants, including some apparently quite humble ones, who were not 'tied' but
took leases for short terms. 43 Finley's statement was perhaps taken from the one
work he refers to: an article by a distinguished Roman lawyer (Ernst Levy,
RPGL, 1948) which hardly makes it sufficient! y dear that it is concerned almost
entirely with the West alone, and moreover shows altogether inadequate knowledge of the non-legal sources, even for the West (see the next paragraph). A
book by Levy, published eight years later, is explicitly devoted to the West and
does draw a contrast with the; East on the very point we are considering (WV
251-75, esp. 251 n.476); but again it shows unawareness of important literary
and papyrological evidence. The overall picture of Later Roman leasing from
254
the strictly legal point of view is rather better presented by Max Kaser (RP Il2
[1975] 400-8). Although paying too high a compliment to Levy's book by
referring to it as 'grundlegend', he does at least draw a series of contrasts
between West and East. However, even he, in my opinion, exaggerates and
antedates the decline in the West of the Classical Roman contract oflease.locatio
conductio, in his almost exclusive reliance on legal sources.
In fact people we may conveniently refer to as 'head lessees', who did not
themselves work the land they held (often either imperial domain, leased from
the res privata, or else Church property), but let it out to working tenants, coloni,
were not tied to the land at all: these are the conductores (in Greek, misthOtai) who
still turn up frequently in the Codes and Novels, in papyri, and in literary
sources. Leasing according to the traditional pattern, without involving any
enserfment (see e.g. C) XI.xlviii.22.pr.,1, of A.D. 531), continued even in the
West into the late sixth century and beyond: there is ample evidence for this,
well summarised by Jones, LRE II. 788-92 (with III.252-5 nn.44-50; and see 97
n.13). The lessees concerned varied gready in status. In a papyrus from the
Ravenna collection dated 445-6 (P. ltal. 1) we find that some of the conductores
who took leases from a retired high official (a former Grand Chamberlain) were
able to pay very high annual rents, amounting to hundreds of solidi (up to 756),
for blocks of estates (massae) in Sicily. 44 These were evidently men of substance:
but at the opposite extreme we come across conductores who were actually slaves.
I have already referred to Ampliatus, who appears in a letter of Pope Gelasius in
the 490s as a slave-conductor of the Roman Church. 45 There is also the enterprising man Clarentius, claimed by Pope Pelagius I (Ep. 64) in 559 as the son ofa
female slave of his Church (who would therefore himselfbe legally a slave of
that Church): he is said by Pelagius to have acquired a peculium of his own,
including a small farm (agtllus), and even to have had the audacity to pass
himself offas a curialis:" he was to be returned to the ecclesiastical massa whence
he originated. The most interesting literary evidence of all is provided by the
letters of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), showing that the vast estates of the
Church of Rome. the patrimonium Pttri, were still very often let to conductores,
who sublet to coloni. 47 In 592 there were no fewer than four hundred of these
conductom on the estates of the Roman Church in Sicily alone (Ep. 11.38);48 and
the same system of exploiting its lands was employed by that Church in other
areas, notably Gaul. A letter of Gregory's written in 595 is addressed 'To the
[head] lessees of the estates or farms [of the Roman Church] throughout Gaul'
(conductoribus massarum sive fundorum ptr Galliam constitutis): Ep. V. 31. (Among
many other interesting letters of Gregory there are two, Ep. 11.38 and V.7, of
A.D. 592 and 594 respectively, which contemplate the possibility of bribing
Jewish tenants to convert to Christianity by offering them reductions, up to one
third, of their rents, pensiones- which, incidentally, were paid in gold: sums of
from one to four solidi per year seem to have been common.) Further literary
evidence for Late Roman conductores is not hard to find: see e.g. Symm . Ep.
IV.68; IX.52; and later (between c.507 and c.536) Cassiod., Var. 1.16; 11.25;
V.39; VII1.33; XII.S (of which V.39 relates to Spain, the others either to Italy in
general or to Apulia or Lucania and Bruttium). I may add that I could cite over
thirty laws, mostly issued in the West, from the Theodosian Code and the
fifth-century Novels. which speak of conductic> or /c>catio, conductores or locatores,
IV. Exploitation, and the small indepmdcm producer (iii)
255
and the rents (pcnsiones) payable under these contracts. not to nu.mion oth~r
texts. 49 Iris indeed impermissible to speak of the disappearann ofth~contract of
locatio cMrductio. even in tht> West. in the period cowrld by this book. And
peasant freeholders, although over all a dldining group. cspccially in theW eo-st.
still survived in considcrablc numbers throughout thl' Later Empire, at any ratl'
in the Grel'k East;;o and. as we have seen, many of them were also 'tied' to thtir
villages. (That freeholders as wdl as tenants Wl'rl' tied has often been overlooked; but it was noriced, for Egypt. by Gclzcr, although not vay clearly
stated, in a book published seventy Yl'ars ago, SRVA, 1909, which remained
unknown to Jones: sel' n.37 again.)
23. Apart. then, from landowners and 'hcad lcssles' who belonged to my
'propertied class' (III.ii above) and arc nor to be rlckoncd among thosl' I haw
called the 'working agricultural population', we can recognise four broad groups
among the non-slave working agricultural population::; 1 ( 1) peasant frctholdcrs.
of whom an unasclrtainablc and varying (perhaps decreasing) proportion were
tied to their village communities; (2) fre.: leasehold ttnants; (3) those tenant s<..rfs
who were Yl't technically offr~e status. and (4) adsaiptir'ii, Sl'rfs who by thl'sixth
century at least had become scarcely distinguishabk from slaves. It is im possi bk
to make even an informed guess about thl' rdativc proportions of these groups.
which will have varied greatly from place to place and from timl" to time-. Smnc
people today might wish to confine the term c(llonu$ to my third and fourth
groups. who alone were 'slrfs' in the strict sense (see III.iv abovt'). The sources.
however. even the legal texts, sometimes us.: thl' word colvni more loosely, in
my opinion, in such a way as to include at any rate those of my Jirst group who
were in fact tied to their villages, and perhaps all or virtually all working
peasants (cf.Stcin, HBE II.207-8, esp. 208 n.l). Tied frccholdlrs, ofLoursc, do
not in strictness fulfil my definition of serfs; but, as I havt !!xplaincd in II I.iv
above, if they paid heavy taxation they were not nally in .l very different
position from serf-tenants, and I reflr to thl'm as 'quasi-s<.rfs'.
Agricultural slaVt's, while legally ntaining their servile status. benefited
during the fourth century from a series of imperial enactments (for whtch s~c
III.iv II above and its n. 16 below}. These culminated about 370 in a Ia w which
forbade selling them apart from the land where they were rt>gistl'red m the
census (cmsiri: CJ XI.xlviii.7.pr.), and thus raised them in effect to a scrf-likt
condition. If manumitrcd, they would have ro remain on the land thty had been
cultivating, as adscripricii. Pop~ Gregory the Gnat. who was determined to
enforce the laws forbidding Jews to possess Christian slaves, gave ord~rs that
the Christians owned by Jewish tenants on the estates of the Roman Church at
Luna in Etruria should, after being freed, remain on the same land and perform
'all those services which the laws prescribe concerning coloni or or(~inarii' (Ep.
IV .21, of A.D. 594).
* * * * * *
Before I leave this section I must face a problem (perhaps of greater in tcr~st ro
Marxists than to others) which I have so far ignored. It concerns the- m termediate period, ifl may call it that. between the general use of slave la~ouras the
principal way in which the propertied class obtained its surplus, and large-scale
serfdom. which (as we have sl'en) did not come into existence until the very end of
256
The Class Struj!gle in the Ancient Greek World
the third century and in some areas was not complete until the late fourth
Cl'ntury (as in Palestine) or even the early fifth (as perhaps in Egypt). This
'intermediate period' may be conceived as beginning at very different times in
different areas. and it may be that some people will deny its existence altogether.
But I believe that mQst historians who interest themselves in problems of this
sort would be prepared to see it as coming into existence at some time during the
first two centuries. We must then face the difficulty: during this 'intermediate
period", must not a rather large proportion of the propertied class have derived
its surplus more (perhaps much more, in some places) from letting its land to
free tenants than from working it directly with slave labour? And if so, have we
any justification for continuing to speak of that surplus as being derived from
the exploitation of'unfree labour' at all. before the introduction of serfdom at the
beginning of the Later Roman Empire?
My answer to this question can be divided into three parts.
(i) First, leasing land to a free tenant must as a rule yield a smaller profit to a
landowner than working it directly with slaves, sinct> the tenant will need to
provide himself and his family with a livelihood out of the produce of the land,
bC'forc he can pay rent or taxes. Leasing is simply not considered as a desirable
method of e-xploiting one's land by the Roman agricultural writers, unless the
land is situated in an unhealthy district, where the landowner would be ill-advised
to risk employing valuable slaves, or at such a distance- that he cannot give the
necessary regular supervision (Colum . RR I. vii.4,6-7). Therefore. landowners
eager for profit would be unlikely to resort to leasing, unless they could not
obtain the necessary slave labour, or could not exploit a particular piece ofland
adequately because it involved more personal supervision than they were
willing or able to give it, or because they could not procure efficient stewards.
(ii) Next, the use of slaves must not be thought of as necessarily or even
ordinarily absent when land in antiquity was leased. A leasehold tenant might
have his own slaves, in which case he would in principle be able m derive a
greater profit from the land and as a result pay a higher rent. Far more often. it
seems, at any rate in the early Principate, slaves were supplied by the landlord as
part of the instrummtum (the equipment) of the farm; and of course, if a tenant
works a farm with slaves provided by the landowner. the latter profits from the
labour of the slaves, because he can charge the tenant a higher rent. I referred in
18 above to the two main passages in the Digest defining the instrumentum of a
farm. One, from Ulpian, describes what items are 'customarily' supplied by
way of instrumentum when a farm is leased, so as to become the subject ofa legal
action if they are not included (si quis fundum /ocaverit, quae so/eat instrummti
nomine conductori praestare: Dig. XIX.ii.19.2); but of course any items might be
added or excluded by explicit agreement. (This is so, even if the words 'nisi si
quid aliud specialiter actum sit' are an interpolation.) The Digest texts, which
also speak ofbequests of a farm supplied with slaves' (instructufS2 cum mancipiis,
etc.), show that slaves (although not mentioned in Dig. XIX.ii.l9.2) were
frequently contained in the instrummtum, and they might evidently in some cases
be quite numerous and varied and include bailiffs or supervisors (vilici tt monitores), as weJI as various specialists (Dig. XXXIII.vii.8.pr.,l), with their 'consorts' (contubnnales: ibid. 12.33; cf. 27.1}. who in other texts, as we saw ar the
257
end of 10 above, art> actually called 'wives' (uxom). We often hear ofbcquests
of landed property that include 'rents outstanding from tt>nants', reliqua colonorum (see IJ[b] and 18 above); and sometimes slaws are mentioned as well
(e.g. Dig. XXXIII.vii.27.pr., 1) -although in the lattn 1.'0LS1.' we ncxd nut a'\sumcthat part of the land is being worked directly, for the s.lav..s may simply i'll' thosl
handed over to tenants: and when we find another text rd~rnng ru 'iarm!i
furnished with their overseers and rents outstanding from t~u ..nt:;' {/lmtJ,,,, .
instrncros cum suis vilicis et reliquis colonorum: ibid. 20.pr.; c.:f. XX.i ..U). the
overseers, mentioned alone without other slaves, surely have the ftm~tlnn of
supervising cultivation by tenants. Dorothy Crawford has drawn .mmtwn to
the fact that 'vi/icus-management' on the imperial estates whkh ~he. h.1!> madil<l
in many parts of the Roman empire 'often went together with leasin~ (in SRP.
ed. Finley. 50). Installing such men as overseers would be all the mun n<"c"'s..ary
when the tenants were share-croppers. When Pliny the Younger was fi!c~..d wuh
dt>clining returns from his north Italian farms and was thinking ufgnmg over to
what came to be called colonia pa"iaria (share-cropping, mitayclg~'), he.- rcalised
that he would have to put in some of his own slaves as ovt'r!.t't'rs (t,prri~ rx.utCir't'i.
custodes frnctibus: Ep. IX. xxx vii.2-3). Earlier he had brought lllavt~ thmt hi~ ,uy
household, urbani, to supervise his rustiti, during a vintag~.. (xx.2!; th,'.c,c tustici
may be either tenants or (as I think much more probable) slaVl's. :~."And in cmt' uf
the most important of his many letters referring to his estat(."!!. Plinv -.pcaks of
the resources of the tenants on an estate he had acquired a!> having h~..<'n gravl.'ly
reduced by the fact that thl' previous owner had on several tll'l.'a!.i,,n,. f()rfcitL'U
their securities ('sold their pledgt:s ', vendidit pignora. III.xix.6). thu~ m thtlung
run increasing their arrears. The pixnora evidently included ,)avl'li. ti1r Plm~ now
regrets that he himself will have to provide the tenants with diidt>nt and
expensive slaves (ibid. 7). Pliny goes on to speak of the value of the estate in
question as having been reduced from five to three million sesterces: he attributes
this to what he conceives as a prevailing recession (communis temporis inquitas)
and the current ptnuria cofonorutn - an expression which (as I said in S<.>ction ii of
this chapter) must refer to the shortage of available tenants rather than to their
poverty. Certainly Pliny complained in another letter of the difficulty he was
having in finding 'suitable tenants' (idontos conductores, VII.xxx.3).
There are many indications that slaves were being used to an appreciable
degree in agriculture throughout the Principate and beyond, though no doubt
much l<:ss in Egypt (as always) than in other parts of the Greek world. For
example, in Hadrian's law concerning the sale of oil produced in Attica about
A.D. 125 we find it taken for granted that a slave or freedman will be in charge of
production (IG 11~.1100 = AI] 90, lines 15-18). A law issued by Constantine in
318 seems to assume that a dccurion will have both urban and rural slaves
(mancipia, urbana and rnstica: CTh XII.i.6). Even in the handful of surviving
census records of the late third or early fourth century from which it is possible
to make some estimate of the relative sizes of the free and slave labour forces in
two or three places in Asia Minor and the Aegean, slaves do appear; and if in
some areas they seem to constitute but a small porportion of the registered
agricultural population, they also tum up elsewhere in households of20 or more
(see jones, RE 228-56, esp. 242-4; cf. 296-7 = SAS, ed. Finley. 292). And when
in many imperial constitutions of the fourth and fifth centuries we hear of
258
overseers (actores ;t!ld/or pr<1Ct~r~u;n~. on:."lswnaHy ~diol), they often appear to be

conceived as slawo;_:., (Cf. lll.l'' .tbun- and its r1.1.; bdtw.) It is seldom if ever
possible to tell whttlwr ~h~:sc: mrn are supt'r\tsmj! rht employment of direct
slave labour: probahly TJJ.Uly if not rr.ost or :h-m wouid spend al least part of
their time contro!Hng tl~<: ,tl't:viHeo; oflum~b)c: :t;i,mi. In \!~w of the reluctance of
free Greeks and Romans m gtnt>rJl to takt> )un~-ttrrn lured service (set" Ill. vi
above) and the disindinatmn 0t many mtmbtrs of the propertied class in late
antiquity to s~nd time supt:-vi!'ing thtir .::~tdtl'S (see above), the function of
slave (and freedman) oversetrs was essenu;~L ;~nd I would see them as playing a
very important role in the ecunom y. rerhap~ far nwrt' so than has been generally
realised. (On the traditional funrttnn~ tlf;a dllw>. sc..'t.' To~:nbec, HL 11.57(;.85.) If
we speak of a 'decline of slavery' in tht ~-.trly cl.'utun~.; of ~he Christian era. we
must not forget that slaves (and trl't'tbrll'n) .1lwJys played a major pan at the
highest level, in providing the propertied dJ.s~ with their incomes.
I suspect, too, that we may tend to undcrtsnmatL' the actual number of slaves
usefully employed in the Later Empire. Occasionally mass enslavements might
occur, usually as a result of war. Perhaps the most remarkable example is the
defeat of the horde of Goths and others led by Radagaisus across the Danube and
into north Italy in 405-6 (see e.g. Stein, HBE l2.i.249-50), when we are told that
some of the captured barbarians were sold off at one solidus per head -perhaps
about one-twentieth of the usual price of slaves about this time (see Jones, LRE
11.852; Ill.2R6 n.68). A generation earlier. in 376-7, when vast numbers of
Visigoths were allowed to cross the Danube and settle in Roman territory (sec
Appendix III below, 19b). the Roman officials Lupicinus and Maximus arc
said by Ammianus to have taken advantage of their inability to obtain sufficient
food by selling them dogs to eat, in exchange for humans, who thereby became
slaves: one dog would be given in exchange for a slave. who might even be the
son of a leading Goth (Amm. Marc. XXXI.iv .11). In the Expositio totius m1mdi et
gentium, a survey of much of the Roman empire, of very uneven value (written
in 359, according to its latest editor,Jcan Rouge, SC 124. 1966), we find buttwo
references to slaves, both using the technical term mancipia. In its ch. 60 Maurctania is said to be an area which exports slaves, and in ch. 57 Pannonia is
described as 'in part, rich also in slaves' (terra dives ... ex parte et mancipiis). These
statements may wdl be true, in the sense that in both areas there were at the time
numbers of'barbarian' captives: in Pannonia at any rate, if we can date the work
in 359, the Emperor Constantius II, as Rouge points out, had just brought to a
successful conclusion his campaigns against the Sarmatians. A letter of St.
Augustine, written at the end of the second decade of the fifth century, speaks of
'innumerable barbarian peoples', as yet ignorant of the Gospel, from among
whom captives arc taken and enslaved by the Romans and are then given
religious instruction (Ep. 199.46). [See also Evagr., HEV.19 (c. A.D. 581).]
In one case, from the first decade of the fifth century, in which we happen to
have many details (whether accurate or not) of the estates of a particular person,
St. Melania the Younger (or of Melania and her husband Pinianus), we hear in
one source (the Latin Life, 18) 55 ofher owning sixty farms or hamlets (villulae),
each with 400 agricultural slaves (servi agricultores), and in another source ofher
offering freedom to her slaves, a gift accepted by 8,000 who wanted it (Pallad.,
Hist. Lausiac. 61). Many other texts in the fifth and sixth centuries mention
259
agricultural slave households in smaller numbers. ;;t; lt is worth noticing in

particular the will of St. Remigius, bishop of Rhcims. which gives an exceptionally detailed picture of the landed propL'rty of a moderately wdl-to-do
Gallo-Roman of the first half of the sixth century. This, I belkve. can be takln as
fairly representative of the estates of a substantial section oftht: men ofmodtratc
wealth throughout the empire, in the Greek lands as well as the Roman Wt'st.
The will. in its shorter form (which unlike the longer one can be: accepted as
genuine).:n disposes of fifteen parcels ofland in tht territory ofRhcims and ofR 1
named individuals (52 men and 29 women), some of them with families.
amounting to roughly a hundred persons in all, parrly coloni and partly o;)avt>s,
constituting the work-force of the land. (The farms and their workers seL~m to
have made up virtually the whole of Remigius' property.) Fiftet'n or sixtt>cn of
the individuals bequeathed arc evidently slaves. twelve arl' called coloni; of the
oth<.'rS it is uncertain whether they are coloni or slaves.''" Although a majority of
the work-force in this case arc likely. I think, to have been cvlom, it is quite
possible that nor many fewer than half consisted of slaves, some of thtm slaves
of the coloni.
(iii) Finally. I would again emphasise the uniwrsal and unquestioning acceptance of slavery as part of the natural order of things, which during the
Principate still pervaded the whole of Greek and Roman socic.ty- and of cours~:
continued in the Christian Empire just as in carli<.>r times (sl'l' Vll.iii bdow).
Slavery continued to play a central rak in the psychology ofthlpropcrtied class.
And h<.'rC I would refer again to what I said l'arlier about debt bondage: every
humble fre(.' man must always have been haunted by fear of the.- coercion,
amounting to slavery in all but name, to which h<.' might be subjeCtt"d ifhe rver
defaulted on a debt to a rich man - including the payment of rtnt, of course. as I
have pointed out above.
I therefore see no serious difficulty in the objection I have discussed. and I fed
justified in re-stating what I said near the md of III. iv above: that slawry was
indeed the archetypal fonn of unfret" labour throughout Graeco-Romau .tntiquity.
I have said nothing in this section about hired labour. a subjen treated at some
length in Ill. vi above (see csp. its n. 19 below on the Roman perioJ).:I\J
(iv)
The military factor

There is one aspect of the situation of the peasantry in the ancient world which I
have no space to discuss properly but which needs to b<> carefully c.xamined; and
I offer some reflections for consideration. One view of the dc.clinc of Roman
power. especially in the West - which might commtnd itself. prima facie. to
some self-styled Marxists in particular- is as follows. It is an established fact that
the next great advance in Europe. namely capitalist society, was to develop nut
on the basis of communities of small. free, independent peasants but out of
urban clements growing up inside fiudal regimes the economic bas<.' of which
had always been a peasantry mainly held in a very subject condition, often
outright serfdom. As Max w~btr put it. 'At the timt: of the decline of the
Roman Empire the fururl' bclongld to the dtvclopmt>nt oflargc. landownership'
260
(RA 264). Therefore, it could be maintained, the enserfment of the Late Roman
peasant was ultimately, in the long view of history. beneficial to human progress. since it facilitated, over several centuries, a new and better form ofsociety
which could never have developed spontaneously out of a largely peasant
economy. As those who are fond of this detestable phrase might like to put it:
'History was on the side !if the great landowner. with his serfs, not of the small,
free, independent peasant.'
There may be some truth in this view, but it ignores an element in society to
which I rarely have occasion to pay serious attention in this book. but which
must now be allowed to come to the fore: military efficiency. When a society is
dangerously threatened from the outside. as the Greeks and Romans were on
various occasions, its very survival may depend upon its military prowess.
Hert', in individual cc~.ses. factors peculiar to the situation may sometimes be
decisive: sheer weight of numbers, technological efficiency, an unforeseeable
disaster like a plague, or the death of a gifted leader (Attila's in A.D. 453 is an
obvious example). But many of us - and not only Marxists - would say that
military success, at least in the long term, is largely dc>pendl'nt upon economic
and social as well as political factors. It was certainly the growth of a free and
fairly substantial peasantry in Greece in the Archaic and Classical periods which
produced the hoplite armies that frustrated the might of the Persian empire at
Marathon and Plataea (B.C. 490 and 479). The success of Greek over Persian
fleets in a few decisive engagements (above all, of course, Salamis in 480) was
due above C'verything else to the indomitable fighting spirit of their sailors and
marines; and no one will doubt that this spirit was inseparably bound up with
the polis. a political community offree men based upon fairly widely diffused
landownership and access to political rights by the whole citizen body or at least
thc more well-to-do members of it. The successful armies of Philip II and
Alexander the Great were highly professional. but we-re based upon a sudden
great access of landed wealth, in varying degrees, to the formerly insignificant
Macedonian peasantry and aristocracy. producing not only cavalry which was
more than a match tor that of the Persian aristocracy. but also excellent infantry.
in which the- Persians of the Achacmcnid pe-riod (mid-sixth to late fourth
century B.C.) were entirely wanting. The irresistible military power of Rome
in her great days was similarly founded upon a free peasantry. at first conscripted. then, especially during the Principatc, furnishing recruits in large
measure voluntarily to a standing professional army (although conscription was
still often employe-d) . 1
For some three and a half centuries before the mid-third century of
the Christian era there had been no major cxtemal threats to Rome: after initial
disasters, the German tribes which invaded Gaul and Italy in the last years
of the second century B.C. were effectivdy destroyed, and although the
Parthians could cause anxiety, they were no more than an intermittent nuisance
to Syria and Palestine. The German Marcomanni and Quadi were very troublesome in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in the I60s and 170s (see VIII.iii below).
but they were eventually contained. Then, from the mid-third century
onwards. barbarian pressure on the frontiers of thc empire became severe, if in
fits and starts; and the Sassanid kingdom in Persia (A.D. 224-636) bt>came a
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (iv)
261
much stronger force than the Parthians had ever been and presented a real threat
to some of the eastern provinces. The defeat and capture of the Emperor
Valerian by Shapur I in 260 was a milestone in the relations between the
Graeco-Roman world and its Iranian neighbours- to whom at least one gr~at
historian, Ammianus Marcellinus (a Greek from Antioch who chose to write in
Latin). much as he disliked them, never once applies the term 'barbari' which he
uses for every other external adversary of the Roman empire.~ Military efficiency now became a matter of life and death to Graeco-Roman civilisation. By
the end of the fourth century the Roman armies had probably grown to well
over half a million men, considerably greater than the figure in the early
Principate (cf. VIII.iv and its nn.9-10 below); and from the reign ofDiocletian
onwards there was once more regular conscription. although by the rime of
Justinian recruitmenrsccms to have become mainly voluntary once rnon:.=1 The
army of course was a very great burden on the economy of the Roman emp1re
(cf. Vlll.iv below).
* * * * * *
Before proceeding furthlr, I wish to state the main thesis of this section in
summary form.
1. As I have just shown, from the second quarter of the third century
on wards pressure on the frontiers of the Roman empire becamt' much greater
and tended to go on increasing. and the defence of the frontiers therefore became
a matter on which the empire-'s survival rested.
2. In the circumstances of the time, the necessary standing army had to be
raised largely from the peasantry.
3. In order to provide sufficient recruits of strong physique and potentially
good morale, it was therefore essential to maintain a reasonably propcrous and
vigorous peasantry.
4. On the contrary, as land, during the early centuril"s of the Christian era,
became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few owners (throughout
most of the West and also, to a less extent. over a large part of the Greek East),
the condition of a substantial proportion of the agricultural population became
more and more depressed, until before the end of the third century most
working peasants (as we saw in the preceding section of this chapter) were
subjected to forms of serfdom or quasi-serfdom.
5. In the strictly economic sense, this may or may not have been a progressive
development. (Whether or not it promoted the efficient usc ofscarct." resources is
a question that deserves investigation, but which I do not yet feel able to answer
confidently.)
6. Socially and militarily, however. the process I have described was very
harmful, since the peasants became increasingly indifferent towards the maintenance of the whole imperial system, most of the burden of which fell heavily
upon them; and the morale (and probably the physique) of the army deteriorated, with the result that much of the empire disintegrated by stages betwe~n
the early fifth century and the mid-seventh.
7. The maintenance of a relatively prosperous peasantry. sufficiently
numerous to provide the large number of recruits needed for the army and
willing to fight to the death in defence of their way oflifc (as the free Greeks and
262
The Class Stru~i!,gle in the Ancient Greek World
the early Romans had been), might have made all the difference and might have
preserved the unity of the empire very much longer.
* * * * * *
The statement I have made in 7 above' becomes morc than a mere hypothesis
when we look at what happened in the Byzantine empire, whtrc tht.> success of
the imperial armies against invading Persians, Avars, Arabs, Bulgars and other
Slav peoples, Magyars, and Seljuk and Ottoman Turks, from the time of
Heraclius (610-41) onwards, depended to a considc.>rablc degree on the condition
ofrhc peasantry which still provided th, bulk of the recruits. I need say no more
on this subject here, as it has been admirably dealt with by the great Byzantine
historian Oscrogorsk y. 4 The tenth and eleventh centuries were the decisive
period: after the death of Basil II 'the Bulgar-Slayer' (976-1025), the landed
magnates (the dynatoi) finally triumphed, and the army gradually disintegrated.
Much the same situation has existld down the ages, until the ninetlenth
century. As Max Weber said,
The nctd for recruits was the reason why the ml'rcantilist ruler~ during thl' ~poch of
'enlighttntd despotism' curbed big enrcrprist. in agriculture and pnvcntcd enclosures.
This was not done for humanitarian reasons and not out of sympathy with th~
peasants. The individual p~asant was not protected - the squire could drive him out
without any scruples by purring another peasant in his place. Uut 1f, in the words of
Frederick William I, 'a -;urplus of peasant lads' was to be thl' source of soldit:rs, such a
surplus had to exist. Therefore. any reduction in tht. number of peasants through
enclosun:s was prcwnted bt.cause it would cndangtr th~ r~cruitment of soldiers and
dcpnpulatt. the countryside (SCDAC 270). ~
lt was also Weber who point~d out, in one ofhis most inspired passages. that in
Renaissance Europe therl' was one conspicuous exception to this situation: England, the exception which -we may legitimately say. for once - proves the mle.
The frl't' labour torct ntcessary for conducting a modern factory . . . was crcatt>d in
England, the classical land of the lartr f.1ctory capitalism. by the cYiction of th~ ptasants.
Thanks to its insular position England was not dependent on a gnat national army, but
could rdy upon a small, highly trained professional .army and ~mcrgcnry forct.'S.
Hcncc tlw policy of pcas.mt protection was unknown in England. although 1t was a
unified Statl' early on and could carry out a uniform economic pohcy: and it b("came the
d.lssimlland of peasant eviction. Thl' large: labour force thus thrown on till' market
made possiblc thc dc:wlopmtnt tirst of the putting-out and the doml"stic small m.lst~r
systems and lattr oftht industrial or tactory system. As early as thl' sixteenth CC'ntury
the proktarianising of the rural populauon crtated such an army of uncmployt:d th.1t
England had to deal with thL problem of poor rclitf(Wlbtr. GEH 129 = WG 150). 111
I do not wish to be dogmatic on this subject; but it does seem to me that

societies which depend largely upon armies recruitl'd from their peasants arc
much more likely to hl' dcstroyld or at least damaged by invaders from outside
if they allow the bulk of their peasants to be so oppressed and exploited that they
lose interest in the maintenance of the regime under which thl'y live. Naturally.
a society in which wealth is mainly in land is likdy to be dominated by its great
landowners. Sometimes, however. such a society- at any rate if political control
of it is concentrated, as in the- Roman and Byzantine empires. in the hands of a
single ruler who knows that he is personally responsible for the fate ofhis whole
kingdom - may be forced to acquiesce in measures designed w protect the
263
peasantry upon which, .l.!oo its potcn:i.tl soldi~r:s, its very survival depends. The
policies of several of tht ByLilfJ.'.in'l" ':."lllJX'TO~:s. above all Romanus I lecapenus
and Basil II, were strongly i:; fav.-.,ir o)ftiw imkpendent peasants and against the
appetite of the magnates f;lr ('.~r-it~r~;t,.;iu~ dcquisition of great estates; and
indeed there is intermiucm l~gisl;;tir:! bv tlw Roman emperors from the third
centurv on\'1. :trd.s . .ltt~'lHprmg m ~1rb th~ .Ktivities of the potenti<1res which were
seen as a dm:J.t to thl." :;(lunry nf thl t;upin. as:~ whole (seen .4 again. also VIII.iv
and its n.U bdo."l.).
For the man who Jctu.tlly haJ to work Wlth his own hands (the autourgos, as
the Gn:fk~ c.tlkd him). f.muing Wl<. universally believed to provide the ideal
training tl)r th( lloklit:t.r~ lit~: rhi'l i-s c<pli,!t m Xenophon and other writers.
including C.no. Pliny rhl E!.ier :md Vegt"'tius ~On the other hand. 'the mass of
artisans .md thoSl' with Sl'dmt:1ry Kn;p.ni.o:-~~ (opificum vulgus et sellu/arii) were
thought to bt. thtlc.:ast i>Uitt.J tlt'ailru miht:try .sr.rvice; and in Republican Rome it
was onl\" Olll'Xc.;p:ioual oc,:a~ion .. that thq: would be called up, as in 329 when a
Gallic itKurswn Wcl~ thought to bo. im.Jmt~cut (livy VJIL20.3-4). I know of no
paralld to the attempted levy (If -soldi~tlo from the urban slave households of
Roman senators in the cris1:, ,.[ 398, revealed by Symmachus. Ep. VI. 58, 64.
Vegetius. writing probably ne.1r the l'nd of the fourth century of our era,
innocently reveals the essential mntrihution made by the poverty of the peasant
to his military qualities: the more frugal one's life, the less one fears death! ('Ex
agris ergo supplendum robur praeciput. videtur exercirus; nescio quomodo
enim minus mortem timet qui minus deliciarum novit in vita': De rt' mil. 1.3.)
Poverty and frugality, howtver. arc rdatiVl'"; and below a Ct.'rtain limit poverty
can beconu. deleterious and insupportable. and may even kad to a dtchne in
population, as many historians think it did in thl Middle and Later Roman
Empire (see e.g. Jones, LRE 11.1040-5).
Now we must surely admit that thr attitudt ofth1: plasantry in both Eastern
and Western parts of the Roman world durmg the Latl'r Empire in the face of
barbarian irruptions and conqucsb was l'Xtraordinarily passiw and indifferent. I
must say, I havl' only come across on~ case in the Graeco-Roman world in
which the government is actually SCl'tl ordering the inhabitants of thl countryside to confine their attl'ntions to agriculture and leave all military action to the
army: this was in the o;ummcr of536, whcnJustinian's forces from Sicily under
Bdisarius were moving into southlrn Italy. and a Gothic army had been
mobilised against them in Lucania and Bruttium. Cassiodorus. as praltorian
prefect of the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy during th(' brief nign of Theodohad, admitted the dcpredations of thl Goths against the peasants but ordered
the local governor to restrain rash initiatives on the part of thl possessores
(amtinete possessomm imrmperamrs mtltus: Var. XII.S). He strictly forbadl individual lessees of gnat cstatl'S (sifl.~uli C!mduct,>res massamm) and the important
landowners (pMsesst~res validi) to takt up arms and connrn themselves with the
fighting: they were to take pll'asure in the thought that others werl' fighting the
foreign enemy on their behalf. Evidcmly thc governml'nt was afraid of armed
assistance being given to Bclisarius; but I would not carl' to say whether the
people Cassiodorus was most IR'rvous .about were the mass of pcasatHs or tlw
landowning class- thllanguagr I have quotl'd certainly o;uggcsts thC" latttr, fi1r
elsewhere Cassiodorus normally uses the words pos~e.<$ore.< and Ctltldrwtm. for
264
landowners and head lessees (see e.g. Var. 11.25; V .39; VIII.33).
Jones justifiably speaks of'the passive inertia of the civil population, high and
low, in the face of the barbarian invasions', and gives many examples. As I shall
demonstrate, he is too inclined to ignore or discount some of the evidence
showing that many humble folk in the Roman empire might evince a positive
preference for barbarian rule, as being less oppressive than that of the emperors
(cf. VIII. iii below). But in the main he is certainly right in emphasising that 'the
peasantry were in general apathetic and docile' (LRE II.1061; cf. IV.ii above).
They usually remained passive, although if they were formally conscripted into
the army, or were pressed into service either against the barbarians (often on the
initiative oflocal notables) or by the barbarians against an imperial army, they
might fight obediendy enough until released. 8 (Discipline in the Roman army
was virtually always such that once a recruit was enrolled he was completely
obedient to his commanders: see below.) On one occasion, during the conflict in
546 between Justinian's forces and the Ostrogoths in Italy under Totila. we even
hear of peasants being impressed into both armies and fighting a battle against
each other. 7 Perhaps the most striking example of what seems to be spontaneous
military action by peasants is attributed to some villagers of the region ofEdessa
in Mesopotamia by the contemporary Chronicle of 'joshua the Stylite' ( 62-3).
We arc told that in 503 the villagers greatly impressed the Roman general
Areobindus by making sorties from the city against the invading Persian army,
after Areobindus had ordered the garrison not to take aggressive action. The
outlines of the story may well be correct (see esp. 63 init.), even though
miraculous happenings tend to creep into the chronicler's narrative when he is
dealing with the holy city of Edessa (see 5 and 60 for the reason).
The view expressed by some scholars that the peoples subject to Rome wer~:
forbidden to manufacture and possess arms has recently been attacked by Brunt
(DIRDS). 11 He is clearly right to point out that it would anyway not have been
possible to stop the manufacture of arms in village smithies; and that apart from
occasionally prescribing disarmament as a temporary move immediately after a
capitulation or in very special circumstances, Rome was quite willing to allow a
certain amount of armed force to remain at the disposal of the local ruling
classes. who were 'left to control the masses and share in their exploitation', and
who in return were mainly very loyal to Rome. 'There was no good reason for
Rome to impose disarmament on any subject communities whose local governments could be counted on to show fidelity' (ibid. 270, 264). It is certainly
relevant that we do not seem to hear of any state arms factories before the reign
ofDiocletian, at the end of the third century; and it was only in A.D. 539, by
Justinian, that the manufacture and sale of arms was made a complete state
monopoly (l\iov.]. LXXXV). However, apart from local police forces (264 and
nn.15-16) Brunt seems to be able to produce no specific evidence tor any 'local
militia', even for the early Principate, the period from which all his material
comes. I certainly know of no such evidence for the third century or after, apart
from small local levies of burgarii and the like to defend fortified places: 9 and in
the Later Empire, as far as I can see, there was nowhere any regular 'local
militia'. Jones may not be justified in saying of the Later Empire that 'the civil
population was in fact, for reasons of internal security. forbidden to bear arms';
but I entirely agree with his continuation, that what was more important was
265
the general 'attitude of mind ... Citizens were not expected to fight, and for the
most part they never envisaged theideaoffighting' (LRE 11.1062). Allowing the
possession of weapons does not necessarily ensure that men will be organised,
and trained in the use ofweapons. In Cyrenaica in the early fifth century, when it
was being attacked by the nomads of the interior, Synesius could get together
hundreds of spears and swords (lonchai and kopides) and a certain number ofaxes,
but no body-armour (hoplOn problema), for the militia he was organising to resist
the barbarian raiders (Epist. 108; and see n.6 to this section). Nearly half a
century later Priscus could represent the Greek whom he met in the camp of
A ttila (see VIII .iii below) as speaking of a general prohibition on the use of arms
by Romans except in the regular army. The general view was certainly that the
defence of the empire was a matter for the professional army alone; and, as I have
indicated, the civil population mainly regarded fighting as something with
which it was simply not concerned.
I would take seriously a passage in the speech which Cassius Dio (writing
perhaps towards the end of the second decade of the third century) makes
Maecenas address to Augustus. when advising him to create and isolate a
standing army: 'If we allow all adult males to possess arms and practise the
military arts, they will continually be the source ofdisturbances and civil wars'.
whereas if arms are confined to professional soldiers, 'the toughest and the
strongest, who are generally obliged to live by brigandage [a significant admission!], 10 will then support themselves without harming others, and the rest
will all Jive in security' (LII.xxvii, esp. 3-5; contrast vi.S, from the speech of
Agrippa; and cf. V.iii and its n.40 below).
The limitation of arms in practice to a standing professional army, and to it
alone, was a natural consequence of the very nature of the Roman empire, as an
instrument of class domination. Recruits for the army, as I have said, always
came primarily from the peasantry, even if from the early fifth century onwards
the government, desperate to maintain agricultural manpower, had to exclude
coloni adscripticii, tenants tied to their plots: see Jones, LRE 11.614, with III.184
n.14. (It will surprise no one that it was the great senatorial landowners who were
able to offer the most stubborn and successful opposition ro the levying ofrecruits
from their estates, even in an emergency such as the revolt of Gildo in Africa in
397.) 11 As I shall argue (in VIII.iii-iv below), the indifference of the mass of
humble people (most of them peasants) to the maintenance of the imperial
machine, under which they suffered merciless exploitation, was a prime cause of
the collapse of much of the Roman empire in the West in the fifth and sixth
centuries and the loss of many Eastern provinces to the Arabs in the seventh.
I would adJ. that the army of the late Roman Republic, Roman Principate and
Later Empire 12 developed a most remarkable discipline and esprit dl' (Orps of its
own: the rank-and-file soldiers became entirely detached from their origins and
were usually the obedient instruments, if not of their emperors. then of their
actual officers. Except when an emperor could command general loyalty. and at
rare times such as the year 69 when there was a widespread collapse ofdiscipline,
all the soldiers accepted the hierarchical principles on which Roman society was
conducted and would often follow their commanders with complete fidelity
into insurrection and civil war, when that was what their commanders ordered,
just as into foreign wars. Tht" civil wars of the third and fourth centuries were
266
invariably contests for the imperial throne (sec VIII.iii below). Among the few
mUtinies we hear of that were not primarily attempts to secure the imperial title
for some favoured officer, it is those of the armies on the Danube and the Rhine
at the beginning oftht re-ign ofTiberius (A.D. 14) of which we have the most
lively and instructive account, in the Annals of Tacitus (1.16-30, 31-8)!3 The
speech of Percennius, the leader of the mutiny in Pannonia, is vivid and
compelling in its description of the lands given to veterans on retirement, after
thirty or forty years' service, as 'stinking swamps or mountain wastes' (1. 17.5).
And the ferocious discipline to which the common soldiers were subjected is
nicely illustrated in the account of the centurion Lucilius. who had gained the
nickname 'Bring me another' (cedo alteram) from his habit of breaking his
vine-stick on a soldier's back and calling for another and another (1.23.4).
Lucilius was murdered by the mutinous soldiers; Percennius, needless to say,
was l'XC'Cuted, with other leading mutineers (1.29.4; 30.1).
* * * * * *
I think we should admit that when in Europe the most dfective form of
defence against attacks from outside (by Arabs, Turks, Magyars, Northmen
and others) was found to lie not so much in the simple foot-soldier, but rather in
a much more expensive military figure, the mounted and armoured knight,
there would be a casl.', on military grounds, for a sufficiently increased exploitation of the primary producers to permit the maintenance of such figures in
sufficient quantity to repel invaders. The mediaeval knight, burdensome to his
society as he was, certainly played a role in preserving the heritage ofGraecoRoman civilisation in Europe against outside attack, whether we think that
heritage worth preserving (as I do) or not. His role, that of doing the required
fi~hting, and the accompanying one of the priest and monk, whose essential
function was to do tht> prayinJ! that was generally believed to be a necessity, were
accepted willy-nilly by the great mass of the people whose function was working;
but the latter might fed thc.y had cause for bitter complaint when the fighters
ceased to give them any real protection. Rodney Hilton has recently drawn
attention to the fury of the French peasants after the battle of Poitiers (1356)
against the nobll's 'as a whole, for not having fulfilled their duty of protection,
which tradition and mutual obligation demanded of them' (BMMF 131). I
should not wish, therefore, to assert the necessity in all circumst.mces for a
pre-capitalist society to maintain a solid free peasantry as the basis of its military
power. An even greater military burden might have to be shouldered. Nevertheless, efficient cavalry forces can in principii.' be maintained, in the same way
as infantry. by a statl' which levies general taxation, rather than by allowing
mounted knights to support thlmsdves individually by the surplus labour of
peasant serfs (or slaves) on specific tstates. And in any case I do believe that the
accumulation by a landed aristocracy of vast estates, greater than would be
necessary to maintain effi,i~nt cavalry forces, is a devclopm~nt which can
sddotn if ever- and certainly not in the Later Roman Empire- be regarded as a
progressive feature.
This whole subject. and the cxt~:nt to which military considerations have been
allowC'd (and should be allowed) to pndominatl' over others in given socictits,
would be worth carl'ful consideration over a vcry long pl'riod. I :am of course
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer {iv)
267
thinking only of military strength designed for usc in defence against attacks
from outside, not for internal police duties.
(v)
'feudalism' (and serfdom)

This seems a convenient place to deal briefly with the subject of 'feudalism'.
Throughout this book I have studiously avoided using the terms 'feudal'.
'feudalism', in reference to any period or area of ancient society. These words
arc often used by ancient histon'ans (even some of the most distinguished: Jones,
Rostovtzeff, Syme) 1 in a slipshod way, a habit which can only be deplored.
Unfortunately there is still no complete agreement among hisrorians, even of
mediaeval Europe. as to how the essential fe-atures of their 'feudalism' should be
defined. 2 but at least they can point to certain societies which they and virtually
everyone else would not hesitate to recognise as 'feudal'. There arc a few
mediaevalists, on the other hand, who would prefer to avoid the term 'feudalism' altogether. According to a recent writer in the Amt'rian Historical Revit'w.
'The tyrant feudalism must be declared once and for all deposed and its influence
over students of the Middle Ages finally ended'!:' At the opposite extre-me, we
find a symposium published in 1956 with the title, Feudalism in History, investigating the question how far feudalism can be discovered in all sorts of different
historical circumstances, not only in western Europe but in Japan, China,
Ancient Mesopotamia and Iran, Ancient Egypt, India, the Byzantine empire.
and Russia; a 'comparative study of feudalism' by the editor, Rushton Coulborn, wishes to see feudalism treated as 'primarily a method of government, nor
an economic or a social system', and with the relation of lord and vassal as its
essential feature. 4 W c must of course leavt' it to the historians of other countries
Gapan and China, for instance) to decide for thcmselws whether certain societies
in their area of study can usl.'fu1ly be described as 'feudal' (or 'slmi-fcudal' or
quasi-feudal'). provided only that they make it ptrfcctly dear what these tl"rnlS
mean to them.
There are, J suppose, two principal characteristics of a society which most
often lead to its being designated 'feudal' by those in the English-speaking world
who are not specialists in European mediaeval history: one is the existence of
something resembling the military fief of European feudalism, and the other is
the presence of serfdom on a large scale. In the former case there may sometimes
be little harm in making use of some such term as 'quasi-feudal'; but the
existence of serfdom alone certainly does not justify the cmploymem of an-y
such expression,:; since forms of serfdom have existed in many societies which
have little or no resemblance to those European mediaeval ones which have the
best right to be called 'feudal'. I wish to make it clear that throughout this book
any reference to 'st'rfs' or 'serfdom' (see especially heading II of III.iv above')
must not be taken to imp}y any necessary or even probable com1ection with
anything which can properly be described by terms such as 'feudal' or 'feudalism'.
There is a short definition offeudalism which I think many Western European
mediaevalists would accept. and which was adopted in one place even by Marc
Bloch: 'the system of vassalage and of the fief' (CEHE 12 .265-6). Pollock and
Maitland suggested that 'feudo-vassalism' would be a more serviceable ex pres-
268
sian than 'feudalism'. 6 But Bloch never for one moment forgot the economic
foundation of feudalism; and indeed the formula I have just quoted occurs in a
chapter entitled 'The rise ofdependent cultivation and seignorial institutions'. in
which Bloch goes on at once to speak of the seignorial system as closely related
to feudalism. And in his great work, Feudal Society (described by M. M. Postan,
in the opening sentence of his Foreword to the English translation. as 'now the
standard international treatise on feudalism'), Bloch actually begins his list of
'the fundamental features of European feudalism', occupying some eight lines,
with 'A subject peasantry' (11.446).
However, many other Western mcdiacvalists, when they are speaking of
feudalism, feel they can afford to treat the whole edifice independently of the
sub-structure which sustained it, and define it entirely with reference to those
free men who were each other's lords or vassals. united by bonds of fealty and
the creation ofbenefices in the form of fiefs. When Ganshof declared, 'The way
in which the word [feudalism] is used by historians in Soviet Russia and in other
countries behind the Iron Curtain seems to me to be absolutely irrelevant'. 7 I feel
sure it was their Marxist disinclination to forget the 'subject peasantry' which he
found particularly tiresome. Postan, in his Foreword to th~ English edition of
Bloch's Feudal Society to which I have already referred, has a fascinating pangraph on what he describes as
an Anglo-Soviet occasion when the two principal speakers, the Russian and the
English. gave carefully composed disquisitions on feudalism which hardly touched at a
single point. Th~ English speaker dwl'lt learnedly and gracefully on military fiefs,
while the Russian speaker discoursed on class domination and exploitation of peasants
by landlords. Needless to say the Russian disquisition was packed tight with familiar
Marxist furniture: the state as a vehicle ofclass rule, 'commodity exchange' as a solvent
of feudalism, feudal economy as an antecedent of early capitalism. Yet for all its
dogmaricism and ancient verbiage, the Russian use of the term appeared to bear more
directly on the intellec[Ua) mtcorprisl' of history than the conventional connotation
adopted by the English speaker (p.xiii).
Although I have little sympathy for the kind of mediaevalist I mentioned at
the beginning of the last paragraph, I do feel that since the word 'feudalism' has
some value as a generic name for a set of European mediaeval institutions of a
peculiar kind, characterised in particular by vassalage and the fief, even though
resting largely upon a basis of some kind of dependent labour (most characteristically serflabour), it is a pity to weaken it by extending the vocabulary of
feudalism (includingjeodalite,feodale, Lehnwesen, lehnbar etc.) too widely. As I
have already insisted, serfdom can exist and has existed in societies which have
little or nothing in them that can properly be called 'feudal'. In the Hellenistic
kingdoms, for example, where forms ofserfdom certainly existed, only a minor
role was played by the military katoikiai and other settlements of soldierderuchs which provide the nearest analogy to the ficfin the Hellenistic world
and have led some of the best scholars to speak of'feudal' tenures: and there was
certainly no necessary connection between the military settlements and serfdom. It seems to me regrettable, therefore, that some Marxists seem to want to
call a society 'feudal' merely because it rested on a basis of serfdom. Wolfram
Eberhard could even say that 'Marxist scholars' (whom he does not identify) 'tend
to call feudal any society in which a class oflandowners who at the same time
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (v)
269
also exercised political power, controlled a class of farmers and often also a class
of slaves' (Hist. of China~ 24).
It may be rather a pity that Marxists have been saddled by Marx himself with a
terminology in which the name of 'feudalism' is giwn to the 'mode of production' in Western Europe out of which capitalism emerged. Terms such as 'the
feudal mode of production' are perhaps too deeply rooted in Marxist writing to
be replaced by any such alternative as 'the mediaeval Western European mode of
production'. But Marxists ought to remcmbt'r- as they too often fail to do- that
Marx and Engels described feudalism at one point in the German Ideology as 'the
political form of the mediaeval relations of production and intercourse' (MECW
V .176); and at all com they must avoid using the terminology of feudalism in
such a loose way that it could be made to fit, for example. the society of the Later
Roman Empire. The usage of which Eberhard complains (ifhe is not misrepresenting his 'Marxists') would extend, indeed, to most pre-capitalist societies.
including the greater part, if not the whole, of Graeco-Roman antiquity! Of
course there are borderline cases, such as Hittite society in Asia in the second
millenium B.C.: [need refer only to R. A. Crossland's admirably compressed
summary. in which he says that 'The Hittite state was a feudal society, in the
sense that a large sector of its economy was organised to provide a trained army,
and that there were in it social divisions based on tenure of land under the
obligation to perform military service for the king. ' 8 [ shall not myself presume
to lay down a defmition offeudalism. There have been several recent discussions
of the subject in English. If what is wanted is a Marxist analysis of the expression
'feudal mode of production' which would limit that term strictly to the society of
mediaeval Western Europe, to which alone (I think) Marx applied the expression,
then I would prefer Perry Anderson's (PAF 147-53). Rodney Hilton has produced
a much briefer characterisation, in a single-page 'Note on Feudalism' (TFC 30),
which would allow, for example, for the fact that Marx could speak at one point
ofjapan as having a 'purely feudal organisation oflandcd property' (Cap. 1.71R
n. l) - the only time. [ believe, that Marx applied the terminology of feudalism
to any country outside Europe. The brief definition of feudalism given in a
single paragraph by Witold Kula (ETFS 9) is less specific: he is thinking
primarily of Poland in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
(vi)
Other independent producers
I intend to be brief about my 'other independent producers', who are a very
heterogeneous collection rather than a single category, and of course must not
be treated as belonging to a single class. My reasons for dealing with these
'independent producers' in a separate section are to indicate broadly how I think
their class position should be determined, and to mention a few relevant facts
about them.
I begin by excluding two exploited classes with which I have dealt already:
first, hired labourers in the strict sense (see HI.vi above); and secondly, those
ancillary workers - artisans, building and transport workers, fishermen and
others- who originate from the peasantry and remain among it, and are treated
here as part of the peasantry (see Section ii of this chapter). Manual workers who
270
cannot properly be rqtardtJ .b p.trt oftht p:..-:lialltr}'" (b.Y;nho;', for example, they
live in a town) form the bulk of thl)l_;'' I am rnmtd;:r:n~ m this section, with
traders and those who providt transport ;md orh~r ''f\'iC"t''> of various kinds.
Perhaps the largest single gn,up would b\ ani..;,am L)T n.tfi:smcn 1 (Handwerker:
the German word ha.; a S.\>lllt'\\hat h!'ll:t.kr ~(l>pc'). Trakr~ of different sorts,
from the merchant!oo whu card,~d lln commcrn b;.tw{"n:. ctt1..:s (emporoi) to small
local dealers and shorhtp~:r~ (!..11''~!.11). w:m!:.i be a group of perhaps equal
importance. A fair numh:..r m almost ..:very s~:ctlotJ would be freedmen (see III. v
above). The status .mJ th;: da,.~ posit!UTJ (>Lill dws. ptopk would usually be
closely related, but n.)r alway;.: hlrc, it h only thL' tm~r with which I am
concerned. and tor I~lt tht mair: dett:rmiu.mt ofaH indl\'idu.il's das.s position in
antiquity is the ext<:nt to whic-h lw o...,plo~h tht h!:-<)1.4r of lth<:rs (mainly slaws,
but also occasionally tund men) or i-; hun~df~xplo]tc:d ..-o\t 1ts hight>st level niy
present category -lik' th.tt )tp~-;t:;aut;;- w1il mer:zl with ny 'propl'rtitd class':
thl' criterion for memh~r..}np ,,f tl1.1t d.1ss ..1s I hJ.w ..~.lrt.tdy madl' plain (in III.ii
above). is the ability t11 li\~ .t Iii~- ot'k1~un withoat J.ctu.tily working omsclf ro
provide one's daily br~;tJ. And it is hkdy th,IL auy uf ntv 'indcp~ndc-nt producers' who acquired ~uifi..:icut wt:;kh fl) .:mbl, :lwm m live tht> lift.'" of a
gentleman would makt t!w :wnss.i!V dt.mg~ ,,f lit~-,tyl{:, although others
might aim higher aud prdcr w ,onrinu~ rhi.'ir tr.tJL ~~r bu;.in\!,;s activity until. for
example. in the Rom:m period. rhq' JU.tlit"icd for tlw n{lll''>trian order. (In my
scheme of things dw Sl'.:nr~d stt f.! in.biduJis, .b wuch .ts the first, would
alnady have tntcrcLi tlw pwptrtitLi cb:os ..thh ....>tt:!:h tlwir .~otial status would be
relatively lower until they n.t~td t!wu b,m.nask' :1ctn.r1ty.)
Most of the individuals I am nnw CilHSilhr:n~ would b~ '[Uit~: humble ml'n,
who could normall} ratst thtmsdn-s into my proplru~J dass' only in one of
two ways: eithtr by displaying stm~ l'Xtr J.ordnury '>llil, or by bt'coming able to
exploit the labour of others. Among tho~c \\'L' !>hould call '.lrtists' (thl' anci~:nts
did not normally distinguish them from aaftsmeni. \W h~ar of a handful who
madt thtir fortune-s, although ti~ ftw ftg\IJv .. we. tim I in th~literary sourns an
sddom very plausihlt- tht HS 1 milli-ll. t~1r imtance, whid1 lucullus is said by
Varro to have proiJliSl'J the s.-ttlpt,r Arcesilaus for making him a statue of
Fclicitas (Pliny. Nil XXXV .I ;\f), or tlw tWL'nty rall'llt!'' wc.ight of gold which
Alexander the Great is supposed hl have paid flw paint.-r .'\pellcs for dtpicting
him wielding a thtmdcrbolt in tlw temple- or" Arttmis .lt Ephesus (ibid. IJ2).
Certainly the great Atlwm.m s,u)ptor Pr.ndhk~. whnsLlift probably spamu:d
the first six decadl's of the rimrth (mturv B.C .. mu:;t have becom<.> w<.'althv. for
in the 320s we find his son Cqhisodotus appearing as a tri~:rarch and as ~ne of
the most conspicuuusl~, nch .'\thni;ms of his day (see Davit'S, APF 21:S7-8}. 2
Ordina(y skilled cr;lttslllt'JJ mi~hr }uw to h, prepared to travel about a good
dlal if they did not liw in .1 l.lr~l' nty whtr, there would always be. plenty of
work. We often hc.ar ut( ;reek ndlitc.Yt'i, ~,ulptNt;, huthkr"> and thl' likL moving
from city to city wh~rt :n.lJC>T rrujo.ct:o \\"(1( in pro~Il'M {stc Ourtord, CGRS
66-7, with example-;;; .md rd~'rln.-ei!. \t'h,n Dhlllpius I. the famous tyrant of
Syracuse, planned to attack thL C;,rllt,tgmun J.r'J m .NV B.C., he is said by
Oiodorus to have br,n~ht h>;.!~rh ..:r r,.d:mr::i f,) rnak~: weapons of war. nut only
from the considerat>k l'>rllDt! ,,f ~hdy whid1 h<.> controlkd hut also from Italy,
whlre there were mJny (~r~k .-ui._,.. rr1:1 Grc~:cc its~lt: and ~.v~n from the
1V. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (vi)
271
Carthagini.m ,1omm1om (XIV.xli ..\-6).

Doctur;;;. in th t"arlwr JK'nod.;: tfGrt,k hi~ttlry. were also placed in murh the
same cat~i-tury :;.~ other n.lft<;m~n': i! Hon~r the doctor is grouped among
demiorrJ!i. ;.vith dt~ !v:n. th(cn-pmrn an;l th,mmstrd (Od. XVII.3R2-5): and in
Plato he !s put em the s.un~ kvd as tb;.: l'iupwr!glr (Gl1~1?'- 455b). Only one Greek
doctor hefvr; th ... Jldkn!~til p('riu~i Jpp~.u.' in itcrature as having earned large
sums of Jn(~!lt'Y by h::; prLfl."ssllm:;i sk11l th(' famous physician Democcdcs of
Croton. as ~arly as tb: .;ixth century B.C., IS !laid to have been paid in three
succcssivC' Y"t~rs a t:ll\'llt hy Aegina, 100 minae (Ft3 talt:nts) by Arhcns (at this
timt unJ~r th'-" :yr:J.UI Pd!>istr..uu.;.} .m.i two rJ.lcnts by Polycratcs, the tyrant of
Samos (I Mts IH.13 t .2). h: c;Lst .my~l!H' J~:dlo. thlC Democcdcs was really giving a
form ofbircd bbonr. I h.td txrt{'r .-xpl.lin th.u wh.lt the Aeginctans and Athenians
and Pol}'l'r:lte.~ Wt'n.. rt:.1!1y p.:1yi:g ti.r w,~!l Dt'mc,t>des' valuable presence in their
cities; h\" nuy wei[ have nud:- l,iditi,l!l:tl Laruings from his patients. In the
Hdknisu. Jttd Rum.w pt:ritl,ls dw sr.itlb oi tht more successful Greek doctors
(though lurdly of ,l,ctors as a wh.:k) n:rt.ti:,ly rose; and we havt numerous
texts th.at ~pt.:tk l>t' dJt'!ll with !';."sp~c:. m particular the 'public physicians':!
cmploytd by citi~s ;m,l ar the my Jl t..Htrt!.-: m rh,: Roman period the title of'chicf
doctor' (arlrioltt:s iu ( ;rt,k) w.;s wi:!l'!>pr~.hi. The greatest of aH Greek doctors,
Galen, 4 whusL" ht( l(wnd the l.1c,t s.:vl'll dl.:ad:-s of the second centnry, was
plrsonal physician to the Emp,wr M.muc, Aurdius.
Talcntl'd hetairai (c(lllrtcs;ms) ;md ~~tht~f providtrs of essential services sometimes did v("ry wdl ti,r rlh'rns.:-J-w.; Am(m~ tr.tdcrs, rhc p<tty lKal Ol!(~ c.Al!ni
kapi/ai would r:m1y if ever 1~1.1k~~ subtar~tiJI sums: hm ;:mptrl~i. i:lt\.'t-dty
merchants {whumiy.ht a.isu b.. ,:;111\~d tMuk/i.r,i if they Wt'H' 5hir-''''ncrs).~' must
somctim~~s luvc m.hk forlums. i;"uut m'o~rly a-. oft~n .ts ut.tny lllol! ..rn schol.n!.
have supposcd. 6 But th~ gnat aujoritv oftht.. J'l'<plc I .un tkthng with in tlas
section an. likely to h:t\'l' Hvn! not v~ry f:tr :tbov1: ~lw pvcrty-l~m. uni1:s~ ;IJid
until they could mamg, to .~cquirt.. J !.bw or two . .~s l think ,l fair m nn lwr m;; ~
have dom .vh,n cr,nditkn~ wen. f<tvour;;bl .. ..mrl ,.!;n''S Wl'Tl' chl:.p. n.~..n tl> :~
very rcv,aling rem.trk in S.tllu!>t. dtl>cribm~t llw nm~mou1wnpl, whmt~ WH<:!>. 111
his opimon, had bnn m.1iuly n-sp,msihlc: fur the dnti)n u:" M.1.rim (.J tlOV!fs
homo) to tht i'llUSU]s.hip ,)fIll? n.c. (bl:t Sl'l' VI.\' u.(IIJ od<lW).lu-,k.;,crihts :htm
as 'artisans .1uJ counr~ynwn .n. wh,:c ;.~,,3t'l5 .wJ miit w.:n rlll;e.irc:d ifiiiJ,;,Ir.md.
(ttp!/ices wt.-.srt'$rfltt'<mm,"S, !"''"W' r;lJi,lc.'ll" i1 m.~t~iims ;;,,,,. t't,m!: IY i.:l.f.,~. h1this
thl craftsrn.u1 .md tlh pm )t pcas.mt b1 uc .1 stn mg rcs,mbl.mc ..~ h_ ;,.Ldt oth~:!.
Those I J.Jll JtJbng with indus section :.~c a.ll. by ddiuitiuu. ur.tt lill"tnt'lt..'rs uftlw
'propertied class', .tp.trt nt r(Urs~o. trom the 6:w "'ho manag~o.-d :o !'iSl' intu it.
must then a:\k.. I low
thn ,xplllt,d. :md tl wh:u xr;:u:: This i\ nor .tt 1ll an
easy qUl'Stion [1.\ .mo,:wn. Th~ !!:'~;u m.1_1orir~- of rh~w mJivi~lL;.,LI:' will h:\w sha.r,J
an important dur.ll'[\'nsti<' with thnsl pc;:ts.rtts whl w~t trt.,hol,lrs: as a ral<.
they were not suhJeCt !t l Jjnrr ,x:rl~lit~tttoJil\)' lttrlwr,111.1f rrKmJ,~r-5 <.t the- rrop,rrit.:J
class (cf. Sectivn 1\>fthis chapter). cxn.pt il: so fJr ;ts thq1 ~-': inw ddlt rorirh m,n.
They wert.' tmlikt ltir~d labourers in thJ.t th,tr prmr~ral . t:.!;(~t. thtlr ;.kill i'~:n
bodied in their h;ands'), w;~s un,kr their tlwn ~ilJlrrtll: b ;tddiri:ln. ,;onv.- ,,ftht:n
will havc owned simpk tools and the Jikt, but rh, \lu)y il~m;, m rhi; ott~gory
which arC" likdy to havr been really important arc tb,,,.._.. th;lt belonged to S!)llJ\'
rransport-wurk"T;;: mules, donkeys and oxen. carts and wagons. Ex;"~!,)Jt;ltiu
'""'Tl'
w,
272
of members of all the groups with which I am dealing in this section will
probably not as a rule have been severe, unless it took place in an indirect form,
through taxation or compulsory menial services.
As we saw in Section i of this chapter, taxation in the Greek cities in the
Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods is a very difficult subject, about which
little that is significant is known, owing to the fragmentary and chaotic nature of
the evidence: but I believe that detailed investigation might well reveal a heavier
incidence of taxation on these groups than has been generally realised. In th<.'
Later Roman Empire there is at least one general tax on such people about which
we have some definite evidence: the chrysa~(lyron or collatiCIIustralis, imposed by
Constantine in the early fourth century upon negotiatores in a broad sense,
including for this purpose not only traders but also fishermen, moneylenders,
brothel-keepers and prostitutes, as well as urban craftsmen who sold their own
products, though not rural craftsmen (whom I have classified among peasants:
sec above). The tax was payable at first in gold or silver. but from the 370s
onwards in gold only. It is probably the fact that this tax was payable once every
four years which made its incidence appear so heavy. At any rate, there are
harrowing descriptions by the orator Libanius, the historian Zosimus and the
ecclesiastical historian Evagrius of the hardships which the collection of this tax
was believed to impose: parents are even said to have been driven to sell their
children into slavery and fathers to prostitute their daughters in order to raise the
necesary money to pay the tax. 7 We have only a single figure for the amount
raised by this tax: in the last years of the fifth century, 140 lb. gold was being
collected every fourth year at the important city of Edessa in Mesopotamia
Gosh. Styl. 31). This works out at 2,520 solidi per year- not a large sum,
certainly. compared with what peasants had to pay (see Jones, LRE 1.465), but
enough to cause distress, or at least bitter complaints. The tax was still being
paid in Italy under the Ostrogothic kings in the sixth century; but it was
abolished in the East by the Emperor Anastasius in 498 (CJ Xl.i. 1, dated by
Josh. Styl. 31).
I cannot resist mentioning here one amusing fal't, arising out of the payment
of the chrysargyron by the brothel-keepers of Constantinople. The trade of the
procurer (the /eno} was forbidden in 439 in Constantinople by the Emperor
Theodosius II; but the wording of the imperial constitution by which this was
done (Nov. Theod. XVIII) begins with a fascinating preamble ( 1). showing
that it had been necessary for the chief promoter of this measure. Florentius
(who had just been Praetorian Prefect of the East), to make a setrlement of
property (undoubtedly in land) the income of which would be sufficient to
compensate the state for the loss of revenue from the tax consequent upon the
hoped-for disappearance of the leno from Constantinople! The Novel in question, written in the degenerate rhetorical Latin of the fifth century, is well worth
reading as a whole. It begins by expressing satisfaction that no one need now
doubt the historical traditions of'eminent men putting the interests of the state
before their own wealth': the opening words are. 'Let historical works earn
credence from contemporary example' (fidem de exemplis praesmtibus mereantur
historiae). Not for another two or three decades, by the way, were brothels
prohibited everywhere, by a constitution of the Emperor Lt"o (Cj XI.xli. 7) which of course was widely disregarded. As the lawyer Ulpian had said more
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (r,i)
273
than two centuries earlier, in a passage reproduced in justinian's Digest. 'brothels

are maintained on the property of many men of quality' (multorum honestornm
virorum, V .iii.27 .1).
Specialised work<-rs of various kinds- not only craftsmen but also merchants,
shipowners, ferrymen, fishermen, moneychangers, gardeners and many others
-became more and more addicted, partly under Roman influence, to collective
associations, often referred to in modem times, misleadingly, as 'guilds'. The
normal Latin word for one of these is collegium. 8 In Greek a great variety of
collective terms is found; 8 it is also very common for the men concerned simply
to refer to themselves as 'the ferrymen', 'the bakers', 'the shoemakers', 'the
wool-workers', and so forth. Some of these associations may have been little
more than 'burial-clubs'; and there is very little evidence of their having acted
like modern trades unions to improve their members' pay or conditions of
work; but there are a few scraps of evidence for such activities in one or two
places in the Greek East, extending even to the organisation (or the threat) of
what we should call strikes. An interesting article by W. H. Buckler (LDPA)
presented all the important evidence available down to 1939; MacMullen in
1962-3 added a few scraps (NRS). Of the four documents printed and discussed
by Buckler I shaJl single out two. Buckler's no.l (LDPA .30-3) shows the
provincial governor intervening at Ephesus, in the late second century, at a time
of 'disorder and tumult', to discipline 'the bakers', who had been holding
allegedly factious meetings and refusing to bake sufficient bread. Buckler's
document no.4 (LPDA 3~5. 47-50, republished as IGC 322. and finally as
Sardis VII.i [1932] no. 18), an inscription precisely dated to 27 April459, is much
the most interesting: it shows 'the builders and artisans [oikodomoi kai technitai] of
Sardis' making an elaborate compact with the ekdikos (dtjensor) of the city, a
government otticial belonging to the department of the Master of the Offices. In
order to put an end to strikes and the obstruction of building work. the
association guarantees (among other things) that any work contracted for by
any of its members will be properly carried out, and even undertakes to pay an
indemnity in certain cases of default. and to accept liability for payment oftines
out of its common property. Although the word misthos docs occur in line 23, it
does not refer (as so often elsewhere: see III. vi above) to the wages of hired
labour but to the payment to workmen of their 'contract price': this is clear from
the technical terms tr~odotis and trgolabisas, used several rimes for the employer
who 'gives out the work' and the artisan who 'undertakes the work' respectively;
and when in line 35 the word misthos occurs again, it is used in the sense of
'indemnities'. to be paid as mentioned above by the association. These 'builders
and artisans' are all craftsmen, not hired labourers.
A constitution of the Emperor Zeno, issued in 483 to the City Prefect of
Constantinople (C] IV .lix.2), forbade anyone to create a monopoly (monopolium), on pain of confiscation of property and permanent exile, or to hold
illicit meetings for the swearing of oaths and the making of agreements fixing
minimum prices (ibid. pr.,2)- evidently such things had recently been happening.
Building and other workers were forbidden to refuse work on contracts begun
but not finished by others (ibid. 1), and the officials of other associations were
threatened with huge fines, of50 lb. gold, if they dared to enter into a conspiracy
to increase prices (ibid. 3}.
274
* * * * * *
There is a much-qtoJred passage in 1~lu~.u-ch' f-i{,. oJf Pricles (2.1-2) which

some people today may find astonishing: !11 Plnt.t:-rh~ :yes no young gentleman, just because he h:ill H'~r th.;- Z"m of P2i<:-lh.t:s <tt Olympia or the Hera of
Polydeitus at Argos (two ,,f ~h~ tnos~-:o\!mire,; ;;.unen< ;t:uues) could possibly
want to be Pheidias o:- Poh-dcitus. 111 Such st:lWDIII."Ilt~ 111 :he mouth of a 'real
Roman' might not s~l'lll sr; surp:-isil!~. it will h ~a:JJ; but was not L. Mestrius
Plutarchus, the Rom;m ciuzm (.1lb~.it .1 Jllwly-m.1dc. !"irsr-!.!tneration one), also
very much a Greek? Th ;msw~.r is that iu th~. Hom. m pc.-rioli the Greek as well as
the Roman propem,d dass~.s f.:.lt .1 !!re;ater ~ulfbct'"'-'t-'tl t!wmselves and all those
(including technitai, .md ~ht:ret'lm .lTiists') whu m~ag~J in 'b.mausic' occupations
than had the leadin~ Grl'cks oitht Cl.1ssical period, .1t !tao;t in Athens and some
other democracies. Had Phddias .md Polyclcitus sculpted purely as amateurs,
had they enjoyed large private 111C\ln1l'S and rl'~dv~:d no payment for their
artistic work, Plutarch allli his like would havt> t(mnd nothing contemptible
about them. It was th~. ta~.t that tlwy ,ould be considered to have earned their
living by actual1y workm~ with tlwir own hands th.u madt ~hem no fit model for
the young Graeco-Homan ~\.ntl~m.m. Plu~:trch s.tys dS\.wJwre that the Athenian
painter Polygnotus showed he was no mere t.,'/mitl'.> b} decorating the Stoa
Poikile at Athens.l?'ratis (Cimon 4.7).
Sincl' in a class society many of the values of the governing class arc often
accepted far down the social scale. we must ''xr~~cr to find disparagement of
craftsmen, and theretorc even of artists, existiug in the ancient world not only
among the propertied Few. In particular, anymt~. who aspired to enttr the
propertied class would tenti t> anxpt tts st:ik of\'aluts e\~.r more completely as
he progressed towards jmning it Yet u would be absurd to suggest that th~.
lower classes as a wholt dutitially accepted the social snobbery and contempt for
the 'banausic' that prl.'v;nkd amnng rhe wdl-to-do. Many Gretk'i (and westtm
Romans) who might be calkd 'mcrL' arti~au-, hy sup('riur peopk t"vcn today
were evidently very proud cfthc1r ~kills :md !;:!t ~hat thq o.cquired dignity by
the exercise of them: tlwy rdi:rrtd to th~.m with rnck m their dedications and
their epitaphs, and thq ~lfi:~n dtllSl" to lw p1aur.:d on their tomb'ltOnl's in the
practice of their craft ,,r tr:t~k. lnnubk .Ls it m~ht h~. in the cy~s of tht>ir
'betters'. 11 To say that 'thl JIH"icnt ( ;r,"'.k-.' dcspisc:d cratr.;men is one of those
deeply misleading star,nh:nt .. whidt ;.h,,w blindness to the exisrcnce of all but
the propertied Few. It mtght haw shufk,d even thl humhll Smikythe, who, in
an inscription of four wordll annmp:mying: ;m ,,.rlr-titi-h-<."l'ntury dedication at
Athens, took care to record her ,,nupation: ~ht: w;t:r. ' plymria, a washerwoman
(/G J2 .473 = DAA 380). 12 It would 'wtainly have ~ho,ked the- families of
Mannes the Phrygian, who was made to hu.l~t on his tombstonl' in late-fifthcentury Attica, 'By Zeus. I never saw a bl'tt'-'r woodcutter than myself (IG
I~. 1084), 13 and of Atotas the Paphlagonian, whose tine Attic monume-nt of the
second half of the fourth century, describing him as 'Atotas, mintr' (metalleus),
bears two elegiac couplets advl'rtising the Sl'lhsthewusstsein of the proud tt:chnician, with not only a conventional claim to distinguished heroic J.ncl.'stry bur
also the boast that no one could compett with him in technt' (IG IP .1 0051). 14 In a
dedication of A.D. 149, also in ekgiac couplets. probably from Pcrinthus in
Thrale, the sculptor Kapitan and his assistant Ianouarios (who inscribed tht:
IV. Exploitation, and the small independent producer (vi)
275
verses) prided themselves on being 'skilled in craftsmanship' (sophotechneies). 1:-.

They were using a very rare word; but the sophia in technr which they were
claiming, whatever it might be called (most often just techne), had a long history
that we can trace for many centuries, in literature and inscriptions, right back
into the Archaic age. The name Technarchos ('master oftechne'), revealed by a
graffito ofabout the last decade of the sixth century B. C. in the temple of Apolio
at Spartan Amyclae, suggests that around the middle of the sixth century an
artisan could hopefully give his son a name that would suit a master craftsman.
proud ofhis calling. 16 And very many makers and painters of vases in the sixth
century B.C. and later, especially at Athens, proudly inscribed their names on
their products. followed by the word 'epoiesen' (for the maker) or 'egrapsen' (for
the painter). 17
v
The Class Struggle in Greek History
on the Political Plane
(i)
'The age of the tyrants'
In this chapter I propose to concentrate mainly on the ways in which the class
struggle in Greek history manifested itself on the political plane.
After the Dark Age which succeeded the Mycenaean civilisation, our earliest
contemporary picture of Gret"ce is that of thf' poet Hesiod, in the Works and
Days, written from the standpoint of a Boeotian countryman, in the late eighth
century B.C. or at thf' beginning of the seventh. 1 Here the lot of the farmer is
presented as hard, with unceasing toif.2 But we must not think of anything
resembling the miserably poor 'Potato Eaters' whom Van Gogh portrayed with
such heartrending sympathy (see IV.ii above and its nn.3-4 below). In fact,
Hesiod is writing for reasonably well-to-do freehold farmers, 3 who are assumed
to have a number ofslaves, 4 as well as the occasional hired hand, the this, 5 and
various kinds of cattle. When the poet advises his reader to have only one sonor, ifhc has more, to die old (WD376 ff.) -one remembers that this theme, the
desirability of transmitting one's property undivided to a single heir, has often
obsessed members of a privileged class, especially perhaps those who are on the
lower edge of that class and whose descendants may fall below it if they inherit
only a part of the ancestral estate. 6 The mentality is very different from that of a
peasant serf in a 'labour rent' system such as that of Poland from the sixteenth
century to the eighteenth (as analysed with great acuteness by Witold Kula),
where the peasant's obligation to perform the traditional amount oflabour for
his lord was paramount, and he could not hope to rent additional land and profit
from the sale ofits produce unless he could find additional labour inside his own
family, with the result that 'in this economic system, in which the families of
rich peasants arc those which have the most members, they arc not larger
because they are richer, but on the contrary, richer because larger'. 7
Access to political power in Hcsiod's Boeotia. as in all other Greek states of
which we know anything at this time, is clearly the exclusive preserve of a
hereditary aristocracy, described by Hcsiod as 'gift-devouring princes' (dorophagoi basilies)," who scom justice and give crooked judgments. The outlook of
these blue-blooded gentlemt"n is superbly expressed in the Theo.{!_nidea, poems
probably put together at a later time, around a nucleus ofgenuine poetry written
by Theognis of Megara at some time between the mid-seventh century and the
mid-sixth. 9 But now, in Theognis' world, the situation is very diffcrf..'nt from
what it had been in Hesiod's time. The old secure days of aristocracy arc gone.
The poet himself, a class-conscious aristocrat if ever there was one. had been
V. The class struggll' on the political planr ( i}
279
driven into exile and his lands confiscated: for this he cries bittt.rly !' Zt'<H t0r
vengeance, praying that he may drink the blood of those who hav~~ his ldnds '11
For Theognis, society is divided into just two groups, his tcrmi~E.'k'~Y t~:.r
which (as always in ancient Gnece) 11 is an inextricahk mixam: .-,fth.- s.o.::nl ;,r;,l.
the moral. On one side are Theognis and his likl. who are qLitH= Jl[lr-;-,Jly 1iw
Good (the agarhoi or t'Sthlor), and on the other sid, an the H:td (the i...ri.-,,; or
deiloi). 12 Everything depends on birth: in one ofhi~ JlK'St ('r:tuuon<>l ph'n'S the
poet bewails the corruption ofheredity that comes iron! :ntz"r)lnrrtage be~vc"<'ll
rhe Good and the Bad (lines 183-92). 13 In mating r;um .wJ .lss.s and hH~s. iw
says, men look for thoroughbreds; but now, proviJ~d lw t!~ts "i.tr:;~ d.-:wry . .l
'good' man (he means of course a man ofblue blood~ J0~., twt Jw,tt;&tr w nur:-y
the 'bad daughter of a bad father' -a kaken kakou, rht cbu~hh.'r of wiur I luw
sometimes heard called 'a pleb'. The result is that pi'"''''< mre:.w ..:..,ws; ptriMps
'wealth confounds heredity' (llJO, cf. 192). Correspondingly, a woman w:llhl
disdain a 'bad' husband, provided he is rich ( 11'17-8). A nin illustration WOl~ld h;.
the marriage of Pittacus of Mytilene in Lcsbos, dt>scritwd (ptrhap~ quir..- uut:irly)
by the aristocratic poet Alcaeus as a kakopatridi'. {J m;m wub a low-hrn
father), u to a girl from the arrogant Pcnthelid family of tht san:.: town- w htl.
according to Aristotle, were in the habit of going round str1k.mg r~,,pk wirh
clubs, an unfortunate trait which led to their being attJ<'kcd (;md "I'JlW tlf:ht~r.
killed) by a certain Mega des and his associates (Pol. V. lO. U ll b1f~). "' Mtr,
wealth. without good birth, remains a trivial quality ti>r Th,ogui~; aud h~ lS
being bitterly sarcastic when he apostrophises Wealth !Plutus:! .lio 'thL: iaina .uH(
most desirable of all the gods', and says, 'With yuu a m.m tonomlt"" C;pud
(esthlos) even ifhc's really Bad' (1117-11'!). As for tht 'demos' (&iJp.to;l. lh.l,,w,r
classes (the great majority of the population), who had bt.'Cn taking the wrong
side in this acute class strife, the right way to treat them is to kick them hard,
prod them with a sharp goad, and put a harsh yokt on their necks- then you w1ll
not find a demos anywhere so philodespotos, one that so loves its master (~4750). 16 Theognis must have thoroughly approved of the: way Odysseus trt'ats the
low-class agitatorThcrsites in Book II ofthe Iliad (211-78): he thumps him into
silence, and of course everyone applauds (see VII.i below).
In the poems ofTheognis we see bitter dass struggle- with a vengeance. What
had happened to cause the remarkable change since Hesiod's day? The answer.
in a word, is the Tyrants. 17 Between the mid-seventh ccnt!lry and tht late sixth
(and later still in Sicily) many Greek cities, dominated until now by hereditary
aristocracies, experienced a new form of personal dictatorial rule, by tht" socalled tyrants (tyrann01). Attempts have of course been made to deny any
important class basis to the rule of the tyrants and to pretend that they were no
more than isolated adventurers, greedy for power and profit. Take any one
Greek city on its own, and it may be difficult to prove that its tyrant was
anything more than a self-seeking, power-hungry despot. But one might as
well try to represent the English Reformation as nothing more than the consequence ofK ing Henry Vm's annoyance with the Pope for refusing to help him
get rid of Catherine of Aragon. Certainly, each Greek tyranny has some features
peculiar to itself, as does the Reformation in each of the various countries of
Europe; but in either l"ase it is when one looks at all the examples together that
the general picture begins to become clear. When the rule of the Greek tyrants
280
ended, as it usually did after quite a short period, of a generation or two, ~

hereditary aristocratic dominance had disappeared, except in a few places, and
had been succeeded by a much more 'open' society: political power no longer
rested on descent, on blue blood, but was mainly dependent upon the possession
of property (this now became the standard form of Greek oligarchy), and in
many cities, such as Athens, it was later extended in theory to all citizens, in a
democracy. This was a change of fundamental importance and it provides a
good example of the process I am trying to illustrate.
The classes I would recognise here are on the one hand the hereditary ruling
aristocrats, who were by and large the principal landowners and who entirely
monopolised political power, and on the other hand, ar first, all other classes,
sometimes together called the 'demos'- an expression now often used in a much
wider sense than in the fifth and fourth centuries, to mean roughly 'commoner'
as opposed to 'aristocrat'. At the head of the demos there were likely to be some
men who had become prosperous themselves and who aspired to a political
position commensurate with their economic status. 19 Those of the tyrants who
were not (as some were) 20 renegade aristocrats themselves may have come from
this class: we rarely have any reliable information about the social origins of
tyrants, but in some cases they do appear to be commoners of some wealth and
position: an example (though probably not a characteristic one) is Phalaris of
Acragas in Sicily, in the second quarter of the sixth century, who is said to have
been a tax-farmer and then a contractor for building a temple. 21 (There was once
a widespread view, propagated in particular by Percy Ure, 22 and taken over by
George Thomson and others, that many tyrants were, so to speak. 'merchant
princes', who had made their fortune in commerce; but in fact this cannot be
proved for any single tyrant, and the most one can say is that some tyrants may
have been the sons or grandsons ofmen who had had successful trading ventures
and had then acquired the necessary social standing by turning themselves into
landowners; cf. Ill.iii above.) A few of these prosperous commoners may even
have achieved the ultimate social cachet of providing themselves with a warhorse
(roughtly the equivalent of a Rolls-Royce) 23 and thus becoming hippeis
('knights'); but in my opinion the great majority of the hippeis would normally
be members of the ruling nobility. Below the leading group of men 1 have
mentioned came the mass of well-to-<io and middling peasants: those who are
often referred to as 'the hop lite class', because they provided the heavy-armed
infantry (hoplita1) of the Greek citizen armies of the seventh and following
centuries, who played a notable part in defeating the invading Persian armies at
Marathon (490) and Plataea (479), and by whom the inter-city warfare that was
endemic among the Greek states was largely conducted. Membership of the
hoplite class depended entirely upon the ownership of a moderate amount of
property, sufficient not merely to provide a man with a full 'panoply' (complete
military equipment, including body-armour and shield), the only qualification
that is sometimes mentioned by modern writers, but also to ensure him and his
family an adequate livelihood even ifhe had to go abroad on campaign or stay on
guard away from his farm for weeks or even months on end. A man who had
too little property to become a hoplite served only in the .fteet (if there was one)
or as a light-armed soldier, using a bow or sling or dagger or club rather than the
spear, the gentleman's weapon (cf. my OPW 372-3). In the literature of the fifth
V. The class struggle on the political plane (i)
281
and fourth centuries the term 'demos' is often used particularly of this 'subhoplite' class. Some of them would be poor peasants (freeholders or leaseholders), others would be artisans, shopkeepers, petty traders, or men who
earned their living in what was then considered (as we have seen: Ill. vi above) to
be the meanest of all ways open to free men: namely, as hired labourersmisthotoi or thitts. (The last expression, used in a specialised sense, was actually
the technical term at Athens for those who were too poor to be hoplites.)
There was a very simple reason why tyranny was a necessary phase in the
development of many Greek states: institutions suited to maintaining in power
even a non-hereditary ruling class, let alone a democracy. did not exist (they had
never existed) and had to be created, painfully and by experience, over the years.
As far as we know, democracy had never before been established in a thoroughly
civilised society, and the Greek poleis which developed it had to build it up from
the very bottom: they had both to devise the necessary institutions and to
construct an appropriate ideology- a brilliant achievement of which I shall have
something more to say later (Section ii below). Even non-hereditary oligarchy,
based entirely on property ownership and not on right ofbirth, was something
new and untried, lacking a traditional pattern which could be utilised without
potentially dangerous experiment. Until the necessary institutions had hem
devised there was no real alternative to aristocracy but the dictatorship of a
single individual and his family - partly according to the old pattern of Greek
kingship, but now with a power that was not traditional but usurped. Then, as
the tyrant and his successors (from his own family) brought new men into
positions of responsibility, and political arete (competence and 'know-how')
gradually seeped down into at least the upper layers of the social strata below the
nobility, a time came when the propertied class (or even the whole body of
citizens) found that they could dispense with the tyrant and govern by themselves. As Glotz so admirably put it:
The people regarded tyranny only as an expedient. They us!:d it as a battering-ram
with which to demolish the citadel of the oligarchs, and whrn thrir ..-nd had hem
achieved they hastily abandoned the weapon which wounded their hands (GC 116).24
The metaphor of the 'battering ram' must not of course be taken to imply that
the whole process was conscious and directed by the demos - in the sense
explained above, of those outside the ruling aristocracy- towards securing
power ultimately for themselves. The movement might often begin as a simple
revolt by the demos, or (more usually) some sections of it, against oppression
and exploitation, simmering possibly for years and breaking out only when a
willing and capable leader presented himself- a leader, perhaps, whose aims
eventually turned out to be mainly selfish. The motives of the tyrants have often
been scrutinised; but this is a singularly pointless quest, since with hardly an
exception we have no real evidence except later traditions, often at least partly
fictitious, and inferences from actions, 'Which will support different hypotheses.
There is one political figure in the age of the tyrants about whom we know
much more than any of the others: Solon the Athenian, at the beginning of the
sixth century (he was archon in 594/3), whose political outlook and activities
can be seen dearly in some of their aspects in his own excellent poems, considerable fragments of which have survived. 25 There is no doubt at all about Solon's
2R2
perfectly serious conception ofhis own role. as a would-be impartial arbitrator

in a situation of severe class strife, who was pressed by the demos to make
himself tyrant. but rcfuscd. 26 Although Solon also rt>fused to make a general
redistribution of land. as demanded by the impoverished lower classes, he did
take the extraordinary step of cancelling all debts, and he forbade for the future
not merely enslavement for debt but also any kind of debt bondage. by the
simple expedient of prohibiting the giving of the body as security27 - a muchneeded reform affecting Athens alone, of course: we have no 1dca how many
other Greek states, if any, followed tht> example of Athens here (sec IILiv above
and its n.2 below). Other leading political figures who were less reluctant than
Solon to take unconstitutional power need not necessarily have had less worthy
motives, although no doubt many of them will have hem primarily concerned
with gaining political power. Cylon, who staged an abortive coup at Athens
nearly thirty years before Solon's archonship, failed completely: either the
discontent had not yt.>t reached fl.'ver-pitch, or the Athenians knew enough
about Cylon to reject him. Peisistratus later completed Solon's work at Athens
by enforcing (if with a certain amount of 'fiddhng') 211 tht.' nt.'w constitution of
Solon - admirable and progressive in its day - which (in my opinion) the old
aristocracy ofEupatrids had been sabotaging. 29
A subject for investigation that is decidedly more promising than tht.' motives
of individual tyrants is the social basis of their power. Here again the evidence is
far from satisfactory and its interpretation is much disputed, rl.'cently in particular in regard to the t.'xtent to which the tyrants received support from the
hop lite class. I think I have said enough above to indicate how I would set about
solving such a problem. The fact is that the situation must have varied greatly
from polis to polis. In some cases the tyrant might be installed mainly or entirely
by superior force from outside, either by a more powerful city. or (as in Asia
from the late sixth century to the late fourth) by the king of Persia or one of his
satraps or a local dynast. 30 In other cases the tyrant may havl.' come to power
with the aid of a mercenary force, ~ 1 and may have maintained himsclfin power
for some time by its aid. In the absence of any such external pressures, the tyrant
would have to rdy upon discontented sections of the demos. My own feeling is
that the lowest classes (the poorest peasants, the landless labourers. the humbler
artisans and the like) would not at this early date have formed a source of
strength effective enough to bring to power a tyrant who was not acceptable to
the bulk of the hoplitc class, whose role, if it came to armed conflict, would
surely at this period have been decisive. 32 Many humble citizens in some poll'is
are anyway likely to have been clients of nobles or to have had such a depl.'ndent
relationship to them that they could do little to oppose them. I myself have no
doubt at all that a considerable proportion of the hoplite class in many poleis,
especially at its lower levels, must have given support to tyrants. This thesis,
first argued in detail by Andrewes (GT, 1956) but criticised by Snodgrass in
1965, is now sufficiently established, in my opinion, by Paul Cartledge's
excellent article, 'Hoplitcs and heroes', inJHS 97 (1977) t 1-27. 33
For Aristode, there was an essential distinction between the two Greek forms
of monarchia (one-man-rule), namely basileia. traditional kingship according to
established forms oflaw, and tyrannis, the rule of a tyrant. They differed in their
very origin. Kingship, says Aristotk, 'came into existence for the purpose of
V. The class struggle on the political plane (i)
283
helping the better classes [hoi epieikl'is -just another name for the propertit.d
class] against the demos' (the common people). whereas tyrants arose 'from
among the common people and the masses. in opposition to the notables [hoi
gnorimoi], so that the demos should not suffer injustice at their hands . . . The
great majority of the tyrants began as demagogues, so to speak, and won
confidence by calumniating the notables' (Pol. V.lO. 1310b9-16). A Hule later he
says that the king 'wishes to be a guardian of society, so that those who possess
property may suffer no injustice and the demos may not be subjected to arrogant
treatment', whereas the tyrant docs just the opposite and in practice considers
only his own interests (13t0b40-lla2). The tyrants, who had fulfilled their
historic role long bt.fore Aristotle's day and by his timt' w~:re often the oppressive
and despotic figures he conceives most tyrants to havc been, receive almost
uniformly hostile treatment in our surviving sources. One single figurc emerges
only slightly tarnishcd: 31 the Athenian tyrant Peisistratus, who receives some
positive encomia from Herodotus, Thucydidcs and Aristotle (see n.28 again).
I must not leave the subject ofGreek tyranny without recalling some passages
in Marx, inspired by the seizure of power in France by Louis Napoleon in
December 1851: these arc cited in II.iii above.
(ii)
The fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
Before the end of the sixth century virtually all the tyrants had disappeared,
except in Sicily, and in the Greek cities of Asia and the offshore islands in which
many tyrants ruled as Persian quislings. 1 The two centuries that followed, the
fifth and fourth, 2 were the great age of Greek democracy, when democratic
constitutions of various kinds, successful or unsuccessful in different degrees,
were introduced, often by violent revolution, and sometimes with the intl'rvcntion of an outside power. The regimes they displaced were usually oligarchies of
wealth: political rights had been confined not merely to a F~w (the of(<(OI) but to
the propertied Few (cf. II.iv above). At its broadest, such an oligarchy might
extend to the whole class of the hopla parechomenoi (those abk to afford to serve
as cavalry or hoplitcs: see Section i above), who may perhaps have accounted for
something between one-fifth and one-third of all citizens in most cases (sec esp.
Ps.-Herodes, Peri Politeias 30-1. discussed in my OPW 35 n.65). If the property
qualification for the exercise of political rights was put rather higher, the
oligarchy might consist of what I have defined as 'the propertied class' par
excrlltnce (see IILii above): those who could live off their own property without
having to work for their living. And of course the membership of the oligarchy
might be more restricted still; at its narrowest it might even be confined to a few
leading families, forming a hereditary dynasteia. I think one could say that,
broadly speaking, the narrower the oligarchy, the smaller the chance of its
surviving for a long time, except in special circumstances, such as the backing of
an outside power.
Classical Greek democracy:' is far too large a subject for me to discuss in any
detail here, and I shall content myself with a v~ry brief summary of its principal
characteristics, as we can see them both in contemporary (and often hostile)
specifications ofdemokratia 4 and in what we know of its practice. 5 Unfortunately,
284
we have so little information about other Greek democracies that lam obliged to
treat the Athenian democracy as if it were typical, as it evidently was not,
although it was certainly the most respect('d and illustrious of Greek democracies, and the most highly developed one of which we have any knowledge.
A. (i) The first and most characteristic feature of demokratia was rule by
majority vote of all citizens, determined in a sovereign Assembly (ekklfsia,
normally voting by show of hands) and large popular lawcourts, dikastlria,
consisting of dicasts (dikastai) who were both judges and jurors, voting by ballot
and inappellable. Even many Classical scholars have failt>d to realise the extraordinary originality of Greek democracy, which, in the fundamental sense of
taking political decisions by majority vote ~fall citizens, occurred earlier than in any
other society we know about: see my OPW 348 (Appendix XXIV).
(ii) Demokratia was the rule of the 'demos' (87i~). a word used in two main
senses, to mean either the whole citizen body (and its Assembly), or the poor,
rhe lower classes. Since the majority of citizens everywhere owned little or no
property, the propertied class complained that dimetkratia was the rule of the
demos in the narrower sense and in effect the domination of the poor over the
rich. In so far as this was true. democracy played a vital part in the class struggle
by mitigating the exploitation of poorer citizens by richer ones - a fact that
seldom receives the emphasis it deserves. (I have discussed this subject sufficiently
in Il.iv above.)
(iii) Only adult males were citizens in the full sense, and women had no
political rights. When I use the term 'citizen'. therefore. it must be understood to
include adult males only.
(iv) We must never forget, of course, that Greek democracy must always
have depended to a considerable 'extem on the exploitation of slave labour,
which, in the conditions obtaining in the ancient world, was if anything even
more essential for the maintenance of a democracy than of any more restricted
form of constitution. (I have explained the reason for this in Ill. iv above: sec the
third paragraph of its I.) However, even though we may regard slavery, sub
specie aeternitatis, as an irredeemably evil feature of any human society. we must
not allow the fact of its existence under Greek democracy to degrade that
democracy in our eyes, when we juJ.~e it by even the h((hest standards of its day, for
Greek states could not dispense with slavery under any other constitutional
form either, 8 and virtually no objection was ever raised in antiquity to slavery as
an institution (see VII .iii below).
B. The great aim of democrats was that their society should achieve as much
freedom (tleutheria) as possiblc. 7 In strong contrast with many twentiethcentury societies which boast of their freedom but whose claim to have achieved
it (or even to aim at it) may be denied and derided by others, the opponents of
Greek democracy fully accepted the fact that freedom was indeed the goal of
democrats, even when they disparaged that goal as involving license rather than
real liberty. Plato, on~ of the most determined and dangerous enemi~ that
freedom has ever had, sneers at democracy as involving an excess offreedom for
everyone - citizens. metics, foreigners, slaves and women and (a brilliant
conceit) even the animals in a democracy are simply 'full of eleuthtria'! (Rep.
Vlll.562a-4a). Since public debate was an essential part of the democratic process,
V. The class struggle on the political plane (ii)
285
an important ingredient in democratic eleutheria was freedom ofspeech, pa"hisia. 11

C. Hecaustc' under democracy every citizen had an equal vote. political
equality (isotes) was, so to speak. a built-in feature of Greek dimokratia. 9 Greek
democrats would say that their society was characterised by isonomia (perhaps
'equality before the law'. although not a 'correct translation', conwys the
essential idea best to a modern reader) and is~~oria, the equal right of everyone to
speak his mind freely. 10 There was no pretence. however. of economic equality.
D. It was a fundamental principle of dcmocracy that everyone who exercised

any power should be hypeuthynos, subj~ct to euthyna, the examination ofhis
conduct (and audit of his accounts) which every official had to undergo, at
Athens and most if not all other democracies, at the l'nd of his term of office,
normally one ycar. 11
E. Democrats believed deeply in the rule oflaw, however much they might
be accused by their opponcnts of habitually overriding their laws by decrees
(psephismata) passed ad hoc and ad h()minem - an accusation that was conspicuously untrue of Classical Athens, even if the strictures of Aristotle and others
under this head may have bemjustificd in relation to some other democracies.~
Since it is alleged by some ancient soun:es and even by some modern scholars
that Greck democrats believed in making appointments to office by lot rather
than by clcction. I must emphasise that this is true only of minor offices and of
those not involving military command. Th" issue is well put by theauthorofthc
Pseudo-Aristou:lian Rhetorir to Altxandrr, whilh we may as well now call (with
its latest Teubner editor, M. Fuhrmann, 1966) Anaximenes, Ars Rhetorica:
In democracies it is ncnssary for the minor magistrates (the majority) to be appointed
by lot, for this avoids civil strifl, but for the important ones to beel~:cted by the whole
citizen body (2.14, 14243 17-20).
And the same work goes on to say that even in oligarchies it is desirable to
appoint to most offices by lot, rcscrving only thl greatest ones for 'a secret vote
under oath and with strict precautions' (2.18. 14243 40-b3).
* * * * * *
The cvidcnCl' that survives from th~ fifth and fourth centuries is very fragmentary, and although a large proportion of it rdates to Athens, there is also a
scatter ofevidcnce for scores of other polds, '-'ach different in some respects from
every other. Glneralisation is cxcccdingly ditHcult and oversimplification is an
ever-pr('Sent danger. I have, however. done my best to examine virtually alhhe
important evidence that is in any way relevant (far more than I have found it
possiblc to cite), and I now propose to make a series of general statements
concerning the class struggle in the fifth and fourth centuries. bas~d upon thc
specific evidence I have mentioned.
1. In an anci~nt Grt.('k polis the class struggle in th~ basic economic sense (sec
my definitions. in Il.ii above) proceeded of course without cessation in so far as
it was between property-owners and those workers whose labour provided
them, directly or indirectly, with their leisured existence: that is co say, chattel
slaves in the main, but in a few plan-s principally serfs (see III.iv abow); some
hired labourers, relatively few in number (sec III.vi abow): those unfortunat<.s
286
who were obliged by need to borrow at interest and {probably in thl' great
majority of poleis other than Athens) might become debt bondsmt"n on default;
and more indirectly their tl'nants. This struggle was of course very one-sided: it
expressed tht master's dominance, and its essence was his exploitation of the
labour ofthost" who worked for him. I know of no paralld to thc mass liblration
of the Mcssenian Helots (see III.iv above, Il, and its n.18 below), who in
370-369 obtained their freedom with the aid of powerful outsid..- intcrwntion at
a time of unprecedented Spartan weakness, and became once more the independent
polis ofMcsscnc.
2. Then. were, however. very many Greeks who owned little property and
no slaves: the majority of these will have fulfilled my definition of'pcasants' (see
IV.ii above), and a good number of others will have been artisans or traders
(IV.vi). Collectively. these people were the 'dcmos', the common people, and
they must have formed the great bulk of the citizen population in the vast
majority of Grel'k poleis. How did this demos participatt in class struggle? If
class is a relationship of exploitation, then the answer to this qucsdon must
depend upon the extent to which the members of a particular demos w~:re either
exploited or, although in danger offalling into that condition. were successful in
avoiding it by political class struggle. What happened in practice would depend
largely upon the result of this political class struggk which (as wt:shall s~c) was
essentially for control of thl' state. We must look closely at tht nature of this
struggle, and how it was rdated to the state. It is convenient and profitablt: to
deal with this topic here, in relation to the fifth and fourth centuries, since bcfon.
that period our knowledge is insufficient, and after it the Grcek poleis wert:
mainly no longer their own masters but were subject to a greater or less extent to
thL dictation of a suzerain, whether a Hdlenistic king or the Roman government
(sec Section iii of this chapter). Moreowr, I can discuss the subject in tht very
terms used by contemporary thinkers, Aristotlt and Plato above all.
When I speak of control of the ''St.Ht' I il.m rdi.rring to wh.ll the ancitnt Grt-cks
called th~ politeia -literally, the 'nustimtillll. dw ti.ttbm.nt.lllaws and customs
governing political life; but tht Gr\'\'k word h.\, on utY.tsiun something very likt
the force of the modnntxpn~:;ion, 'w.1.y uflifi..-. (socrates describes the polittia
as the very soul of thc .:ity (tht !'~) hi rl,,;s. VH. 14). Aristotle dcclans that
when the ptllitcia changcs, the city is juSlnot tfw ~.mw ,ity \HI/. 111.3. 1276b3-4).
For him, the body of citizens h:l\ing ti.tll pnlitiral rigln ... 13 the politeuma, is
'master in all respects of the polis; politeuma and p.litr'l< arc identical' (111.6.
1278bt0-1 1}, the two words 'signify the samL' thing' (12.79'125-6}. The constitution is the ruler or rulers, whu may be One man, or a Few, or the Many:
each of these ought to rule in the intt'rt'Sts of.tll mtmhtrs ot"tht community but
in practice will often not do so ( 12.71J-12.7-.'\9). ti1r Ari~tl,tll makes it plain in
numerous passages that whJt ''lll' must t'Xpt't't m prJ.t'tit:t is that thl rulers will
rule in what they regard as thtir own p!!rsonal or class mterest. (It is worth
remarking here, by the way, that Ari<.rntlt antf other Gn'\.'k mtdlcctuals did not
regard the preservation of the rights tltproptrry as J main ti.mction ofthe state, H
in the way that so nuny l.ltt'r 1hink~r-. h.Ln d1mt'. m JMrtJcular Cicero. who
fervently believed thai 'itatp, ~~Xil>t prim,uily in ordtr tu pnltt'Ct private property
rights (De offic. 11.7.~. d: 7S, ~:;; J.~l) ..md tit cnUN' l.(lt'kt .md the many other
political theorists of mor, nwdl'nt tiams whv hJ\'t' held ,;.imilar views."'
287
We can accept the fact that what we call 'the state' was for the Greeks the
instrument of the politeuma. the body of citizens who had the constitutional
power of ruling. And as I have already shown (in Il.iv above), the Greeks
habitually expected an oligarchy to rule in the interests of the propertied class, a
democracy mainly in the interests of the poorer citizens. Control of the state,
therefore, was one of the prizes, indeed the greatest prize, of class struggle on the
political plane. This should not surprise even those who cannot accept the
statement in the Communist Manifesto that 'political power. properly so called, is
merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another' (MECWVI. 505).
3. Class struggle on the political plane, then, was above all in most cases for
control of the state. If in a Greek polis the demos could create and sustain a
democracy that really worked, like the Athenian one, they (.:ould hope to protect
themsdves to a high degree and largely to escape exploitation. The- only longlived example ofreal1y successful democracy which can be cited with confidence
is Athens between 507 and 322/1, when the democracy was securely in power
except for two brief oligarchic revolutions in 411 and 404-3 (see below and
nn.29-34). Many other democracies existed, but our knowledgeofthem is slight.
4. When, on the other hand, the propertied class were able to set up an
oligarchy, with a franchise dependent on a property-qualification, the mass of
poor citizens would be deprived of all constitutional power and would be likely
to bt>come subject in an increasing degree to exploitation by the wealthy. In IJ.iv
above I quoted a number of statements by Greek writers who took this for
granted. As Plato says, an oligarchy becomes 'two cities', of Rich and Poor
respectively. for in oligarchies some have great wealth, others extreme poverty,
and almost everyone outside the ruling class is a pauper (Rep. VIII. 551 d, 552bd).
Oligarchy, Plato adds. is a form of constitution that 'abounds with many evils'
(544c). As happened under the Roman oligarchy in Italy (see Ill.iv n.5 below),
'the powerful' in Greek oligarchies must often have been able to usurp possession
of most of the best land, legally or illegally. Aristotle mentions that the leading
men (the gnorimo1) of Thurii, a Greek city in southern Italy, were able to profit
by absorbing 'the whole countryside, contrary to law, for tht- constitution was
too oligarchic' (oligarchikotera): the eventual result was a violent revolution (Pol.
V.7, 13073 27 fT., esp. 29-33). Aristotle goes on at once to generalise about
'aristocratic' constitutions: since they arc oligarchical, he says. the<(!n6rimoi grasp
more than their share (pleonektousin, 130734-S). No doubt in most Grc~k
oligarchies the law of debt was harsh, allowing forms of debt bondage, ifnot
actual enslavement tor debt (cf. III.iv, III above). Even if they retained
personal freedom, defaulting borrowers might lose their propl!rty altogether
and be forced to become either tenant-farmers or wage-labourers. or they might
resort to mercenary service, an escape-rout(' available on1y to the most ablebodied. 16 In oligarchies there may well have been forms ofcompulsory labour for
those without sufficient property to make financial contributions to the state or to
serve in the hoplite army (cf. the angar~iai we so often encounter in the Hellenistic
and Roman periods: see I. iii above and its n.8 below). And with the courts oflaw
staffed exclusively by magistrates and oth<"r members of[he ruling class, it will
often have been difficult for a poor man even to obtain his legal rights (such as
they were) against members of the oligarchy- in whose eyes justice. as Aristotle
288
realised, was likely to be equated with the interests of the propertied class: they
normally felt themselves to be absolutely superior and entitled to make all
political decisions at their own will (see ll.iv above). 17
5. An oligarchy, once securely in power, might survive for quite a long time
if it remained vigilant and above all united, and if its members did not abuse their
political power too grossly. (In II.iv above I have quoted some of Aristotle's
remarks on this subject.) Few examples are known oflong-lived oligarchy. One
of the most obvious is Corinth, for nearly two centuries from the fall of the
Cypselid tyranny (probably c. 582) until the democratic revolution in 392. The
most enduring oligarchy of all was Sparta (see my OPW 124-49), where successful
revolution was unknown after the setting up of the 'Lycurgan' constitution in
(probably) the mid-seventh century until the coup effected by King Cleomenes
III in 227, when there began a troubled period of two or three generations ofcivil
strife. Economic distress often drove the impoverished to attempt revolution,
with the aim both of capturing control of the state and of effecting some kind of
reallocation of property- most frequently in the form of a redistribution ofland
(gis anadasmos), or the cancellation of debts (chrean apokope), or both these
measures (see below, with n.55). There is an important proviso to be added: no
democratic revolution had much chance of succ~ss. or of leading to a stable
democracy. unless the impoverished masses received leadership from some
members of the governing class. According to a neglected passage in Aristotle,
however, light-armed forces and naval crews -drawn entirely from the lower
classes and therefore uniformly democratic in outlook- were very numerous in
his day, and since in civil conflicts 'light-armed troops easily overcome cavalry
and hoplires' (he is not thinking of pitched battles, of course), the lower classes
(the dtmoi) got the better of the wealthy (the euporoi: Pol. VI.7, 1321a11-21}. I
may say that the only way in which oligarchy could be transformed into
democracy was by revolution: I know of no single case in the whole of Greek
history in which a ruling oligarchy introduced democracy without compulsion
and by a simple vote.
6. Conditions favouring successful revolution of either sort {from oligarchy
to democracy or vice vcrsa) were most likely to arise when (as very often
happened) an outside power was called in by the would-be revolutionaries. This

might be an imperial state (Athens or Sp<irta), or a Persian satrap or other Asiatic
grandee (see my OPW 37-40), who could at the very least produce mercenaries
or money with which to hire them. Almost invariably, intervention by democratic Athens was in favour of democracy, by oligarchic Sparta or a Persian
monarch or satrap in favour of oligarchy or tyranny. tA
7. Of course it was only adult male citizens of a polis who could indulge
effectively in class struggle on the political plane, except in very special circumstances, such as the democratic restoration at Athens in 403, after the rule of
the 'Thirty', when metics and other foreigners (and even slaves) participated,
and some of them were rewarded with citizemhip. 19 And we must not forget
that land- by far the most important means of production and form of wealth,
as we have seen {III .iii above)- could b~ owned only by citizens and by those
few foreigners to whom the exceptional right ofgrs enktisis had been granted by
V. The class struggle on the political plane (ii}
289
the state, as an honour or in return for useful services. Probably metics (resident
foreigners) could take land and houses on lease in most states, as they evidently
could at Athens (see Lysias VII.lO; cf. XII.8 ff., 18-19);20 but any profit they
could make out of it would be greatly reduced by the rent they would have to
pay to their citizen landlords. In a sense, therefore, the citizens of a Greek state
could be considered a distinct class oflandowners. according to my definitions
(in II.ii above), over against foreigners, although of course they themselves
would be divided into different classes in confrontation with each other, in a
more significant way. I will only add that anyone who feels that mctics ought to
be given more attention here will fmd the subject sufficiently dealt with in II. v
above and its nn.29-30 below: most metics who were not freedmen would be
citizens of another polis, living voluntarily for a time in a city not their own,
probably - whether or not they were political exiles - with the intention of
returning home in due course. And surely metics could not be exploited
intensively: if they were, they would simply move elsewhere.
* * * * * *
I said earlier that much of the evidence for the history of Greece in the fifth and
fourth centuries relates primarily or c:-xclusively to Athens. Athens was anything
but typical- I have explained why in OPW 34 ff. (esp. 46-9). Yet I propose to
concentrate on that city, simply because the evidence for it is so much more
plentiful than for any other.
The constitution of Cleisthenes in 50817 gave to Athens what the Greeks
regarded as full democracy. in the sense that, although property-qualifications
were requirc;od for the holding of certain offices, 21 every citizen had a vote in the
sovereign Assembly. both in its deliberative and legislative capacity (in which it
was known as the ekklisia) and in its judicial capacity, when it was the hiliaia,
divided for most purposes - if not until later, perhaps even 462/1 - into
dikastma. 1ury-courts'. Apart from the organs of state at Athens itself there
were numerous and important local political fimctions, democratically organised,:l'l
in the 'demes' (roughly 150 in number) into which the citizen population was
divided. No very important changes were made before the destruction of the
democracy in 322/1 (for which see Sc;oction iii of this chapter and its n.2 below),
but there were certain modifications. both in the constitutional structure and in
its practical working, which made it distinctly more democratic-, to our way of
thinking, during the fifth century. Apart perhaps from the 'reforms ofEphialtes'
in 462/1, of the precise nature and details of which we know far less than many
modem scholars pretend, much the most important reform was the introduction by degrees. between the middle of the fifth century and its dosing years, of
pay for the pcrformanct" of political tasks: at first sitting in the jury-courts, and
on the Council (boule) which prepared business for the Assembly, and later (after
403) for attending the Assembly. 23 Although the rates of pay were low (less than
the wages of an artisan), this reform enabled even the poorer citizens to play a
real part in the political life ofthe city if rhcy so desired. I would emphasise (since
the contrary has recently been asserted, in defiance of the evidence, by Sir Moses
Finley) that political pay was certainly not peculiar to Athens but was introduced in a number of other democracies by at any rate the fourth century: this is
perfectly clear from a series of passages in Aristotle's Politics, even if Rhodes is
290
the only other city we can actually name for the fourth century- see my PPOA. 24
Political leadership at state level was long monopolised by a fairly small circle
of 'political families'; but Athens' acquisition of an empire in the fifth century
created a large number of new openings which made it necessary for this circle
to be widened; and in the last thirty years of the fifth century we encounter a
group of 'new men', often unfairly satirised by upper-class writers such as
Aristophanes and the other comic poets as jumped-up tradesmen, 'sellers' of
this, that or the other (see my OPW 35~2). 25 The politicians who played a
leading role were often referred to as 'demagogues' (aemagogo1), originally a
neutral term meaning 'leaders of the demos' but one which soon came to be used
most frequently in a disparaging sense. The most famous of these 'demagogues',
Cleon, who played a leading role in the late 420s, was a full-time professional
politician, very different from the vulgar 'tanner' or 'leather~ller' ridiculed by
Aristophanes (and depicted in a very different light, if an almost equally hostile
one, by Thucydides). Some other 'demagogues' are known to have been similarly
travestied, and there are good reasons for thinking that the time-honoured
picture of most of these men is very unreal (see my OPW234-5, esp. n.7).
I have explained at length elsewhere why members of the Athenian upper
class such as Aristophanes and [socrates should have detested Cleon and his
fellow-demagogues (OPW 355-76). To put it in a nutshell- these demagogues
were aemotikoi {the equivalent of the Roman populares): they often took the side
of the lower classes at Athens against their 'betters', or they acted in some way or
other that was considered inimical to the best interests of the Athenian upper
class or some of its members. However, the political class struggle at Athens
was on the whole very muted in the period we are discussing (I shall notice the
two prominent exceptions presently). and the internal political conflicts recorded
in our sources seldom arise directly out ofclass struggle. This is very natural and
precisely what we might have expected, for the democracy was firm and
unshakeable and it satisfied the aspirations of the humbler Athenians. The
Assembly and in particular the courts must have given the poorer citizen a
considerable degree of protection against oppression by the rich and powerful.
Here it is worth remembering that the control of the courts by the demos was
regarded by Aristotle as giving the demos control of the constitution (Ath. pol.
9.1 fin.). The democracy was also remarkably indulgent to the rich, whose
financial position was secure and who were not heavily taxed (even if we allow
for occasional hardship resulting from the eisphora, a capital levy sometimes
imposed in wartime), and who had ample opportunity for achieving honour
and esteem, above all through public service. The fifth-century 'empire', 28 from
which the leading Athenians profited most (Ibuc. VIII.48.6), 27 had for a time
reconciled many rich men to the democracy, which was widely recognised to be
an integral part ofthe foundation on which the empire rested. It is unique among
past empires known to us in that the ruling city relied very much on the support
of the lower classes in the subject states (see my OPW 34-43) - in striking
contrast with other imperial powers, which have commonly aimed to secure the
loyalty of royal houses, aristocracies, or at least (as with Rome: see Section iii of
this chapter) the upper classes among the peoples they ruled. The miserable
failure of the two oligarchic revolutions of the late fifth century, which I shall
briefly describe presently, discouraged any further attempt to attack the
291
democracy, even after the fall of the Athenian empire in 404.

Between 508/7 and the destruction of the democracy by the Macedonians in
322 there were only two episodes in which class struggle at Athens erupted in
violent stasis, civil strife. (1 need only mention in passing two abortive oligarchic
conspiracies in 480-79 and 458-7, and the assassination of the radical-democratic
leader Ephialtes in 462-1. )28 The oligarchy of the Four Hundred in 41 t, which
lasted for only about four months, was altogether a product of fraud: 29 the
pretence, known to be false by the revolutionaries by the time they put their
plans into effect, that if a form of oligan;hy were introduced at Athens some
desperately-needed financial help for the war against Sparta might be forthcoming from Persia through the agency of Alcibiades. The whole thing was
planned from the start by men who were among the wealthiest Athenians: the
trierarchs (Thuc. VIII.47.2) and 'the most influential people' (hoi dynatotatoi,
47.2 [twice], 48.1), 'the best people' (hoi belristoi, 47.2). The Samian dynatotatoi
joined in the plan (63.3; cf. 73.2. 6). The preparatory moves were carried
through amid serious uneasiness on the part of the demos (54. t; cf. 48.3), allayed
only by the belief (emphasised by Thucydides) that the demos would be able,
when it wanted, to vote away any oligarchic constitutional measures that might
have to be imposed as a remporary expedient- a vital consideration which is
seldom given sufficient emphasis. 30 In the weeks before the climactic stage of
the revolution there were a number of assassinations (the first we hear of at
Athens for fifty years) and a ddiberate campaign of terror (65.2 to 66.5); and the
actual decisions setting up the oligarchy were taken. nem. con. (69.1), at a
meeting of the Assembly convened at Colon us, well outside the walls, to which
-since the Spartans had now set up a fortified post at Decelea, only a few miles
away- the hoplitcs and cavalry must have marched out a.s an army, with few if
any thetes (sub-hoplites) present. Meanwhile the fleet (the nautikos ochlos: Thuc.
VIII. 72.2), based at Samos, remained staunchly devoted to democracy: the
passages in Thucydides which bring this out vividly arc among the most
moving in his work (VI11.72.2; 73.4-6; 75-n; 86. t-4). The oligarchy soon
collapsed, and then, after about eight months with a 'mixed constitution',31 the
full democracy was restored.
In 404 the narrow oligarchy of the Thirty was forced upon Athens by the
victorious Spartan commander, l ysandcr, some weeks or ewn months after the
capitulation of Athens at the end of the Pcloponncsian war. during which period
the Athenian oligarchs had evidently found it impossible to forcl' through a
change of constitution on their own. 32 The victory of the democratic Athenian
Resistance in 403, made possible by a sudden, complete change of policy at
Sparta (for which see my OPW 143-6), is one of the most remarkable and
fascinating episodes in Greek history, which ofu.n fails to receive the attention it
deserves, although a whole book has been dt.votcd to it by the French historian
Cloche. :J.1 The Athenian demos was surprisingly magnanimous in its victory,
and it receives high praise for this from many quarters, notably Aristotle, Ath.
pol. 40. (Th~ demos even refunded to Sparta money which had been borrowed
by the Athenian oligarchs to pay for the garrison supplied by Sparta, said to have
amounted to a hundred talents.)~
The two episodes I have just described arc dear examples of a struggle to
control the state, bctwcC'n the mass of the Athenians and a few 'top people, with
292
many of the hoplites inclined to waver-as one would expect ofmesoi (sec II.iv
above) - but eventually coming down firmly on both occasions in favour of
democracy. (In most other cities democracy had evidently not gained anything
like such a firm hold on the mind of the hoplite class.)
In the fourth century, with the fortunes of Athens tlrst rising and then falling
again, it was taken for granted by virtually all citizens that therc was no
practicable alternative to democracy for Athens, and for roughly two generations the upper classes evident! y gave up hope of any fundamental constitutional
change and concentrated on immediate issues, above all on foreign policy, now
a rather bewildering problem for the Athenians, who often had cause to wonder
where their real interests lay- whether to fight Sparta. or to accept her as an ally
against Athens' immediate neighbour Thebes, now growing ever more powerful; how much effort should be devoted to regaining control of the Thracian
Chersoncse, at one of the two main bottle-necks on Athens' vital com-supply
route from the Crimea (sec OPW 45 ff., esp. 48-9); and whether to try to
reconquer Amphipolis, the key to the timber supply of the area around the River
Strymon and the strategic point that controlled the crossing of the Strymon
itself. Once or twice we hear of a division on foreign policy at Athens on class
lines, between rich and poor (sec Hell. Oxy. Vl[l]3; Ar., Eccl. 197-8); but on
most issues, home and foreign, there is no clear evidence of any such division:
there is not the least reason to expect it at this period.
'A decisive change began, almost imperceptibly at first. with the rise of
Macedon, in the person ofKing Philip II, from the early 350s, at the very time
when the power of Athens and her 'Second Confederacy' had begun to decline. :J.~
The role of Philip is something that can be more conveniently treated a little
later: all I want to emphasise here is the fact that Philip was a highly despotic
ruler, with an unlimited thirst for personal power, and naturally no friend to
democracy; and that it was all too likely that if he gained control of Athms he
might feel it desirable to install a government of oligarchic partisans- as in fact
he did at Thebes after his victory over that city and Athens at the battle of
Chaeronea in 338 (Justin IX.iv .6-9). It took quite a long time for the Athenians
to appreciate the underlying realities of the situation, but I think there is reason
to believe that Demosthenes suddenly grasped the truth late in 352, 36 and soon
came to understand that it was the humbler Athenians who were most likely to
respond to appeals for an all-out resistance to Macedon, for the simple reason
that if Philip gained power over Athens, he might well decide (though in fact he
did not) to destroy the democracy- in which event they, the poorer Athenians,
would necessarily be disfranchised, as indeed they actually were in 322/1 (see
below). In fact it was no part ofPhilip's plan to treat Athens roughly, ifhe could
avoid it, as he did; and as it happened Philip's son and successor Alexander the
Great had no occasion to interfere with the Athenian constitution. But when the
Athenians led a major Greek revolt against Macedon on Alexander's death in
323, and in the following year were utterly defeated and compelled to surrender,
the Macedonian general Antipatcr put an end to the democracy; and after 322
Athens was subjected to a whole series of interventions and constitutional
changes and was never able to decide her own destiny for very long (see Section
iii of this chapter; also Appendix IV, 2, and its n.S).
Perhaps the most obviously noticeable failure of Athens in the fourth century
V. The class strnggle on the political plane (ii)
293
was her inability to find the sums of money (very large, by Greek sundards of
public finance) required to maintain the naval forces which she needed, to a far
greater extent than any other Greek state, in order to pursue what I might call
her 'natural' foreign policy. I have already, in OPW 45-9. explained why Athens
was driven by her unique situation, as an importer of com on an altogether
exceptional scale, towards a policy of'naval imperialism', in order to secure her
supply routes. (I have also, in the passage just mentioned, listed the principal
occasions on which Athens came to grief, or nearly so, when interruption of her
com supply was threatened.) Athens' whole way oflife was involved; and what
is so often denounced, as ifit were sheer greed and a lust for domination on her
part, by modem scholars whose antipathy to Athens is sharpened by her
promotion ofdemocratic regimes in states under her control or influence, was in
reality an almost inevitable consequence of that way oflife. In the fifth century
the tribute from the empire made it possible for Athens to maintain a large fleet.
After 405 the whole situation changed: because of the rudimentary charactl."r of
all Greek public finance, and their own failure to innovate in this sphere, the
Athenians were perpetually unable to provide the funds nece5sary to man their
essential fleets. Contributions from their allies in the so-called 'Stcond Athenian
Confederacy' of378/7 ff. could not just be demanded by the Ath~nians (as in tht:
fifth-century empire) but had to be requested, and voted by tbe allies in their
synrdrion. In the long run these contributions were not adequate, and Athenian
commanders sometimes resorted to what were virtually piratical measures in
order to make good the deficiencies. I think that by no means all historians
sufficiently realise how desperately serious was Athens'lack of state funds zn tbe
fourth century. I have collected a great deal of evidence on this subject, which,
since I know of no single presentation ofit, I will give here in a note. 37
But it is time to take a more general view of fourth-century Greece and its
future.
* * * * * *
As I shall show in Section iii of this chapter, Greek democracy, between the
fourth century B.C. and the third century of the Christian era. was gradually
destroyed - because it did not just die out, let alone commit suicide: it was
deliberately extinguished by the joint efforts of the Greek propertied classes, the
Macedonians and the Romans.
Greece and Poverty had always been foster-sisters, as Herodotus put it
(VII.102.1); but poverty in the fourth century seems to be a more pressing evil
than in the fifth. The seventh, sixth and fifth centuries had been an age of stt>ady
economic development, with a distinct increase of wealth in at least the more
progressive cities; and from the meagre information availablt> one gets the
impression that there had been a marked rise in the standard oflife of practically
all sections of the population. There had certainly been a genuine economic
expansion, made possible by .the growt}l of commerce, ofsmall-scaleind\lstry,
and of a money economy, and greatly assisted by the earJy movement of
colonisation, in the eighth and seventh centuries. The export ofGreek oil, wine,
pottery, metal work and other a_gricultural and industrial products grew to
surprising dimensions, reaching a climax probably in the second half of the fifth
century. 38 On the political plane the whole period was characterised by a move-
294
ment towards the attainment of political rights by an ever-increasing proportion

of the citizen community. In the fifth century the Athenian 'empire' undoubtedly promoted the creation, or the strengthening, of democracy in many other
Greek cities (see n.26 again). In the fourth century this development stopped,
and indeed in some places was reversed. The status of democracy in the fourth
century, except at Athens and probably not many other poleis, was always
precarious, and it was perpetually on the defensive. In both the economic and
the political spheres, then, the tide of development had turned by the beginning
of the fourth century, and a slow regression had begun. As reg;nds the details of
economic life in the fourth century we are still very badly informed, except to
some extent in regard to Athens; but my own impression is that there was
widespread and serious poverty among the mass of the people, at the same time
as the few rich were perhaps growing richer. I do not myself think that we have
nearly enough evidence to be certain whether or not the first trend (the impoverishment of the Many) greatly outweighed the second (the enrichment of
the Few) and produced a real total impoverishment of Greece as a whole.
RostovtzetT, in his great Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World
(published some forty years ago), argued that the economic decline of many
Greek cities from the end of the fifth century onwards was mainly due to the
contraction of the foreign market for Greek exports, as local production began
to grow at the periphery of the Greek trading area: he traces the growth of
ceramic industries, coinage, jewellery and metal working, the manufacture of
textiles, and the culture of the vine and olive, in districts as far apart as Italy,
Thrace, Syria, the Crimea and south Russia, all of which until the latter part of
the fifth century provided markets for the products of Greece itself, but thereafter
became increasingly able to supply their own needs, often by crude local
imitations of the former Greek imports. 39 Athens was altogether exceptional in
needing to import the greater part of her food supply (see my OPW 46-9), as
well as all her timber and metals (except silver and lead, which were supplied by
the famous mines at Laurium in south-east Attica); but many other Greek cities
will have been dependent in some degree upon imports, even ofcom when their
own crops failed or were deficient (as often happened), and if their exports
declined seriously, they would have difficulty in paying for necessary imports.
How far this theory ofRostovtzeff's (recently endorsed in the main by Claude
Mosse) 40 provides even a partial explanation of the situation I have described, I
am not sure; and in any event the whole question needs to be re-examined by
someone with a far greater command than mine of the archaeological evidence. I
certainly know of no single passage in any Greek literary source which gives the
slightest hint that any of the Greeks realised that the market for Greek goods was
contracting against them, or which betrays any awareness of a need to increase
exports. Moreover, can we be sure that the production of the commodities
which used to be exported (wine and oil as well as manufactured goods) was not
offset to some extent by an increase in the growth of cereals? Except during the
great grain shortage that began at the end of the 330s, the price of cereals does
not seem to have risen very much in the fourth century, relative to other prices.
My own impression, for what it is worth, is not so much that Greece as a whole
was poorer in the fourth century as that the wealthy class was now able to
appropriate a greater share of the small available surplus than in the late fifth
V. The class strnggle on the political plane (ii)
295
century - though probably less so in democratic Athens than in most other

states. If so, the real cause of Greek decline is much more deeply rooted in the
nature of the Greek economic and social system than Rostovtzeffs theory
would allow.
I should like to draw particular attention to the very large and increasing
number of men who took service as mercenaries, not only in Greek armies but
also with non-Greeks, especially the king of Persia and his satraps- in the second
half of the fourth century especially they numbered many tens of thousands. 41
We have a series ofstatements in the fourth-century sources, above alllsocrates,
to the effect that it was inability to make a living at home which drove these men
to become mercenaries, and others ro wander far from home in search of a
livelihood. 42 Writers of oligarchic sympathies sometimes abuse the mercenaries
bitterly. According to Plato they arc about the most overbearing, unjust,
violent and senseless ofmen. 43 !socrates represents them as bands offugitivcs,
vagabonds, criminals and robbers, 'the common enemies of all mankind',u and
he says bluntly that they would be better dead (V .55). [socrates was anxious that
these men should at all costs be prevented from banding together against thos~
of their fellow Greeks who, like himself, lived in some affluence, and seizing
their property by force. 45 The obvious solution, urged early in the fourth
century by Gorgias and Lysias, and most persistently by !socrates himself over a
period of some fony years;16 was a grand Greek crusade against the Persian
empire, which would wrest from the barbarians enough land in Asi<L to provide
a comfortable livelihood for these men and any other Greeks who were in need.
But when the crusade was in fact undertaken a few years after the death of
!socrates, by Alexander the Great and his Macedonians, the rt;ality was very
different from [socrates' dream.
* * * * * *
In the political sphere. democracy barely held its own in the fourth century,
and in many cities outside Athens the class warfare which had already become
widespread in the last quaner of the fifth century became more acute. Since a
very large part of the surviving evidence for the political history of the fourth
century relates specifically to Athens, where (as I said earlier) the class struggle
on the political plane was probably much milder than in any other Greek city, it
is easy for us to overlook the parlous condition of tension and strife in many of
the other cities. Oligarchic and democratic leaders had no hesitation in calling in
outside powers to help them gain the upper hand over their adversaries. A
particularly interesting example is the situation at Corinth in 387/6. just after the
'King's Peace' or 'Peace of Antalcidas'. Corinth had recently ceased to exist as an
independent polis, having beeen absorbed by the neighbouring democracy of
Argos. 47 When the Spartan King Agesilaus appeared before the walls of Corinth,
'the Corinthians'- that is to say, the democratic faction which was now in
control at Corinth -at first refused to dismiss the Argiv\! garrison which ensured
the maintenance of the existing democratic regime at Corinth (Xen., HG
V.i.33-4). Although they knew that if the garrison withdrew and Sparta regained
control of the city, Corinth would be reconstituted as an independent polis, they
realised that this would also involve the reimposition of the former oligarchyand they regarded that as a more unpleasant alternative than accepting the non-
296
existence of Corinth as an independent polis, and remaining a mere part of

Argos! An equally extreme example, this time involving oligarchs instead of
democrats, is the surrender of the Cadmcia (the Acropolis of Thebes) to the
Spartan general Phoebidas in 382 by the oligarchic Theban faction led by
Leontiadas, a devoted partisan of Sparta. Leontiadas then headed a small oligarchy, thoroughly subservient to the Spartans. who installed a garrison on the
Theban Cadmeia to keep the puppet regime in power. It is interesting to hear
from Xenophon that the Thebans now 'gave the Spartans even more service
than was demanded of them' (HG V .ii .36) -just as the Mantinaean landowners,
when Sparta destroyed the walls of their city and broke it up into its four original
villages, were so glad to have an 'aristocracy' and be no longer troubled by
'burdensome demagogues', as under their democracy, that they 'came for
military service with the Spartans from their villages far more enthusiastically
than when they were under a democracy' (ibid. 7}.
In such incidents we see Sparta47 as the great supporter of oligarchy and the
propertied classes: this was the situation throughout the first three or four
decades of the fourth century. until Sparta lost her pre-eminent position in
Greece (see my OPW 98-9, 162-4}. In the early fourth century, Xcnophon in
particular always takes it for granted that when there is a division within a city
on class lines, the rich will naturally tum to Sparta, the demos to Athens.~"
Among several illustrations of this we can certainly include the case of Phlius,
which has been badly misunderstood in one important respect in a detailed
recent study by Legan. tB
Some cities seem to have been able for quite long periods to preserve at least a
certain superficial harmony, but in others there were outbreaks of stasis (civil
strife}, sometimes assuming a violent and bloody form, reminiscent of the
terrible events at Corcyra in 427, of which Thucydides has left us such a vivid
account (III.7~81; IV.46-8), and which he himself regarded as one of the
opening episodes in a new age ofintensified civil strife (III.82-3, esp. 82.1). One
of the most sanguinary of the many fourth-century outbreaks of stasis was tht
skytalismos at Argos in .370, when 1.200-1,500 of the upper classes wen: said to
have been massacred by the demos- an event which caused such horror when it
was announced to the Athenian Assembly that a purificatory sacrifice was
immediately performed (Diod. XV.57.3 to 58.4: Plut., Mor. 814b).
Tyranny, a phenomenon which had become very much rarer in the fifth
century than in the seventh and sixth, now occurred again in several cities: its
reappearance suggests an intensification of political class strife. It is a great pity
that we cannot reconstruct what happened in particular at Heraclea Pontica: the
real situation is almost totally obscured by abusive rhetoric in the sources,
especially the local historian, Memnon (FGrH 434 F 1), who wrote several
centuries later, during the early Roman Principatc. Part of the essential truth
does come out in a rather unlikely source, Justin (XVI.iv-v, esp. iv.2, 1()..20),
where we learn that class strife had led to a revolutionary situation, with the
lower classes clamouring for a cancellation of debts and a redistribution of the
lands of the rich; that the Council, evidently the organ of oligarchic rule, sent for
the exiled Clearchus, believing that he would make a st>ttlement in their favour;
but that he in fact took the side of the lower classes, who madt> him tyrant
(364-352/1 B.C.). He evidently pursued a radical policy, in opposition to the
297
interests of the rich: it is hidden from us behind a welter of abuse in Justin,

Memnon and others. 50 The 'wickedness' ofClcarchus surprised Isocrates (Epist.
VII.t2), whose pupil he had once been, as he had also been Plato's (Memnon, F
1). In the same letter in which !socrates refers to Clearchus he shows( 8, cf. 4)
in what circumstances he would be prepared to accept a tyrant as a kalos kagathos,
an expression we might here translate as 'a high-minded gentleman' (cf. OPW
371-6): he praises Clromis of Mytilene because he has provided for the security
of the property of the citizens; he has not made any confiscations; and when he
has restored exiles he has given them back their property and compensated those
who had purchased it!
Another interesting figure, a contemporary of Clearchus. is Euphron of
Sicyon, who receives much abuse in our two main sources for the 360s,
Xenophon and Diodorus, 51 as having made himselftyrant ofSicyon in 367 by
taking the side of the demos against those of the citizens whom Xenophon often
describes indifferently as 'the richest' (plousiotatoi, HG VII.i.44) or 'the most
powerful' (kratistoi, iii.l) or simply 'the best' (beltistoi, iii.4,8), from whose
property he is said to have made wholesale confiscations (i.46; iii.8~ Diod.
XV. 70.3). Euphron is also said by Xenophon to have proclaimed that he would
set up a constitution under which all would participate 'on equal and similar
terms' (tpi isois kai homoiois, HG VII.i.45). But, for Xenophon and Diodorus,
Euphron is a tyrant, and Xenophon is disgusted at the face that the Sicyonians,
after he had been murdered at Thebes, buried him in their Agora and honoured
him as a 'founder of the city' (iii.12), evidently giving him the rult proper to
heroes. (Euphron's grandson, also named Euphron, was specially honoured by
the Athenians for his friendship and assistance to Athens in the difficult days of
the Lamian war and the oligarchy that followed, for which see Section iii of this
chapter and its n.2.)~2
The Athenian democracy, secure and impregnable as it was against purely
internal attack, came under constant sniping. In some ofour sources, and in the
judgment of many modern writers, this situation is seen mainly through the
eyes of the wealthy, from whom all the surviving propaganda comes- hence the
opinion so often held that in the fourth century the unfortunate rich were
dreadfully plundered and exploited and taxed by the merciless and greedy poor.
That was certainly what many of the rich said. Listen, for example, to the
piteous complaints oflsocrates (XV. 159-60: ct: Vlll.l28):
When I was a boy [this would be the 42Us}, bemg rich wa5 considered so secure and
honourable that almost everyone pretended he owned more property than he actually
did possess, because he wanted to enjoy the prestige it gave. Now, on the other hand,
one has to defend oneself against being rich as ifit were the worst of crimes ... ; for it
has become far more dangerous to give the impression ofbeing wdl-ro-do than to
commit open crime; criminals are let off altogether or given trivial punishments, but
the rich are ruim:d utterly. More men have been deprived ofthr:ir property than have
paid the penalty of their misdeeds.
But when we put generalisations of this sort on one side and consider such
specific factual evidence as we have, we find that the situation is totally different.
For example, we shall not take very seriously the gloomy passage I have just
quoted from !socrates when we discover that the orator himself, although a
very rich man by ancient standards, had borne a quite remarkably small share of
298
state burdens. 53
As I have already indicated, outside Athens the political class struggle in the
fourth cenrury often became very acute. Rich and poor would regard each other
with bitter hatred, and when a revolution succeeded there would be wholesale
executions and banishments, and confiscation of the property of at least the
leaders of the opposite party. The programme of Greek revolutionaries seems
largely to have centred in two demands: redistribution ofland, cancellation of
debts (gis anadasmos, chreon apokope)_ These twin slogans, characteristic of an
impoverished peasantry, had appeared at Athens in the early sixth century, in
the time of Solon, as we saw earlier (Section i above)_ They are not much heard
of in fifth-century GreeceM but became ever more insistent in the fourth. At
Athens. where the democracy put the poor in a position to exercise a certain
amount of political control and thus to protect themselves in some degree
against exploitation and oppression, we scarcely hear of them again after the
early sixth century. Elsewhere they became the permanent nightmare of the
propertied class.:~:~ The mid-fourth-century writer Aeneas, generally known as
Aeneas 'Tacticus', who wrote not long after 360 (and who may well be the
Arcadian general Aeneas from Stymphalus mentioned in Xenophon's Hellenica),38 affords some interesting evidence of the fear by the propertied class of
revolution prompted by the burden of debt: among the measures he recommends to cities under siege is a reduction or cancellation of interest and even of
the principal (XIV.1-2); and in general he shows a positive obsession with the
danger that the city will be betrayed to the enemy by political malcontents
within. 57 Sometimes a leading political figure might take up the cause of the
poor and put at least part of their programme into effect, at the same rime
perhaps seizing power himc;elfas a tyrant. (We noticed one or two examples of
this earlier: Clearchus ofHeraclca and Euphron ofSicyon- ifindeed Euphron is
to be classed as a 'tyrant'.) But these explosions were futile: even when they did
not result in an irresponsible and ultimately repressive tyranny, they merely
effected a temporary levelling. after which the same old process started again,
intensified by the rancours of civil war.
In the long run there could be only one satisfactory solution, from the point of
view of the propertied classes in general: the acceptance of a powerful overlord
who could quell by force any further attempts to change the existing scheme of
things - and perhaps lead the Greek crusade against Persia long advocated by
!socrates and others (set" above), which- it was thought- might provide land
and a new hope for those who could no longer make a living at home. It was this
solution which was ultimately adopted when Philip II of Macedon had defeated
Athens and Thebes at the battle ofChaeronea in 338. Not that by any means all
wealthy Greeks welcomed this development: at Athens in particular it looks as if
not very many did. The desire of each Greek polis for that absolute political
independence which in reality few of them ever enjoyed for very long died hard.
But the remarkable support which Philip obtained, in the shape of what would
nowadays be caUed 'Fifth Columns' in the Greek states, shows that many
leading citizens understood that they had within their walls more dangerous and
irreconcilable enemies than the Macedonian king. The affections of some of
Philip's Greek partisans were ofcourse bought with handsome gifts. 511 We have,
for example, a fascinating vignette showing one of Philip's Arcadian supporters,
299
Atrestidas, returning from the king's court with some thirty Greek women and
children, enslaved by Philip on his capture ofOlynthus in 348 and given by him
as a present to Atrestidas, doubtless for servict>s rendered or expected -a story
which is the more valuable in that it is not a Demosthenic fiction but goes back
to a speech of Philip's admirer Aeschines, who had told the Athenians how he
had burst into tears at the sight (Dcm. XIX ..305-6). But men may require no
bribes to induce them to pursue courses that are anyway congenial to them (as
indeed some Greeks realised), 39 and even at Athens there were a number of rich
and influential citizens who needed no persuasion to support Philip. Th~y
included Isocrates, the leading publicist and rhetorician ofhis time, and Speusippus, who had succeeded his uncle Plato as head of the Academy on Plato's death
in 348/7. 60 A recent article by Minor M. Markle has well explained thl" political
attitude of these two men and those who thought a~ they did: 'Support of
Athenian intellectuals for Philip', inJHS 96 (1976) 80-99. Pointing out, with
Momigliano, that Philip could expect support in Greece from theoligarchicallyindined only, Markle demonstrates admirably why men like !socrates and
Speusippus were prepared to accept Philip's hegemony over Greece: the king
could be expected to support the propertied classes and to favour a rt"gimc of a
more 'hierarchical and authoritarian' type than existed in demoaatic Athens
(ibid. 98-9). And indeed the League of Corinth, the almost61 Panhcllcnic league
which Philip organised in 338/7 and his son and successor Alexander renewed in
335. explicitly guaranteed the existing social order: city constitutions were
'frozen', and there was an express prohibition of the redistribution of land, the
cancellation of debts, the confiscation of property. and the freeing of sla"es witb.
a view to revolution (Ps.-Dem. XVII.lS).
After Athens and Thebes had been defeated by Philip in 338, Philip installed
an oligarchy of three hundred of his partisans at Thebes Oustin IX.1v .6-9).
backed by a Macedonian garrison;112 but he treated Athens with great mildness
and made no attempt to suppress the Athenian democracy- he had no need to,
and it had always been his aim to app<':lr not only 'completely Grl'ck' but also
'most friendly towards Athens' (hellenikotatos and philathrnaictatos: Dem.
XIX.308); and above all he himself, and even Alexander in the 330s, needed the
Athenian fleet to secure their communications with Asia. However, as we shall
see early in Section iii of this chapter. the Athenian democracy was changed to
an oligarchy by the Macedonians in 322/1, and thereafter, although at times it
revived, it was never again secure. If the f~ars felt by men likt" Oemosthcn'-"S that
the Macedonian king might well destroy the Athenian democracy were not
realised in Philip himself, they were justified by the events that took place less
than twenty years after his victory over Athens.
The results of Alexander's vast conquests in the East in the late 330s and the
320s were ultimately very far-reaching. They had less direct, immediate effect
upon the old Greek world, but it was subjected to the suzerainty of a series of'
Macedonian kings, who controlled the foreign policy of the Greek statt:s in
various degrees but sometimes left them a considerable degree of precarious
civic autonomy (see Section iii of this chapter). By far the most importan~
indirect result of Alexander's conquests was a great spread of Greek civilisation
into Asia (and Egypt), with the foundation of very many new C!(ies by
Alexander himself and his successors, a process which continued in the Roman
300
period. The consequence was a remarkable Hellenisation of the Near East, or

rather of its upper classes, extending far into Asia, with Greek cities dotted all
over the map from Turkey to Afghanistan, although by the beginning of the
Christian era there were not very many cities that can genuinely be called Greek
east of Syria and Asia Minor.
As early as 380 B.C.Isocrates (IV .50) had declared that being a Greek was not
a matter of nee (genos) but rather of mental attitude (dianoia), and that the name
'Hellenes' was given to those who shared a particular culture (paideusis: the
process of education and its effects) rather than a physical relationship (a koini
physis). That Greek civilisation was indeed a matter of culture rather than 'race'
or 'nationality' comes out most noticeably in the vast eastern area which became
Hellenised only from the late fourth century B.C. onwards, because in this area
a striking difference can be observed from the first between two worlds, one
superimposed on the other: those of the city and the countryside, the polis and
the chora. As I have already discussed this subject (l.iii above), I shall only repeat
here that in the newly Hellenised East the world of the polis was largely
Greek-speaking, with Greek city-life and Greek civilisation generally prevailing, if sometimes much affected by a native culture, and that this world
existed (a fact too often forgotten) through its ability to exploit the world of the
chora, inhabited almost entirely by peasants living in villages. who spoke mainly
their native languages and shared to only a small degree, if at all, in the benefits
of Greek civilisation.
(iii)
The destruction ofGreek democracy
I have now to describe the gradual extinction of Greek democracy, a subject
often ignored or misrepresented in the books which becomes fully intelligible
only when explained in terms of a class analysis.
In the early Hellenistic period the lower classes, especially among the citydwellers (who would naturally find it easier to attend thC' Assembly). may still
have played quite an important parr in the life of their city, at least in the older
Greek cities of the East as well as in some of those of Greece itself- unfortunately, we have not much information on this point, and much of it is
epigraphic and scattered over a wide area and has never been properly collated
and analysed. Very soon, however, there developed all over the Greek world a
tendency for political power to become entirely concentrated in the hands of the
propertied class. This development, or rather retrogression, which seems to
have begun early in the Hellenistic period, was still by no means complete when
the Romans took over, in the second century B.C. The Romans, whose
governing class always detested democracy, intensified and accelerated the
process; and by the third century of the Christian era the last remnants ofthe
original democratic institutions of the Greek poltis had mostly ceased to exist for
all practical purposes.
The earlier stages of this transformation are difficult to trace: not much firm
evidence survives and it is often capable of more than one interpretation. I shall
presently single out three aspects of the process: the growth of royal, magisterial, conciliar or other control over the citizen assemblies; the attachment to
magistracies of liturgies (the performance of expensive civic duties): and the
V. The class struggle on the political plane (iii)
301
gradual destruction of those popular law courts, consisting of panels of dicasts

(dikasteria, in which the dicasts were both judges and jury), which had been such
an essential feature ofGreek democracy, especially in Classical Athens. All these
were devices invented for the express purpose of getting round the fact that
outright oligarchy, the open limitation of political rights to the propertied Few,
was still likely to meet with strong resistance from the lower classes, and had
been discredited in many places by Alexander's time by its bad record in
practice, notably at Athens. In fourth-century Athens even would-be oligarchs
found it politic to pretend that they too wanted democracy, only of course it
must be the good old democracy of the good old times, not the vicious
contern porary form which led to all sorts of unworthy and wicked men gaining
power for their own nefarious ends, and so forth- the odious !socrates furnishes
some excellent examples of this kind of disguised right-wing propaganda,
notably in his Areopagiticus and his treatise On the PetJce. 1
As I shall not have occasion to describe it elsewhere, I must not omit to
mention briefly the destruction of the Athenian democracy in 312/1, at the end
of the 'Lamian war',1 by Anti pater, who may be described as the Macedonian
viceroy of Greece. When the Athenians received the news of Alexander's death
(which had occurred at Babylon in june 323), they soon led a widespread Greek
revolt, which they themselves referred to proudly as a 'Hellenic war', against
Macedonian domination; but in 322 they were utterly defeated and compelled to
surrender, and the Macedonians turned the constitution of Athens into an
oligarchy, limiting the exercise of political rights to the 9,000 citizens (out of,
probably, 21,000) who possessed at least 2,000 drachmae (Diad. XVIII.18.4-S,
with Plut., Phoc.27.5; 28.7, on which see n.2 below). The figure of 2,000
drachmae may have been roughly equivalent to the property level that would
enable a man to serve as a hoplite. After 322/1 Athens was subjected to a whole
series of interventions and constitutional changes and was never able to decide
her own destiny for very long. There was a short-lived restoration of democracy
under dte aegis of the Macedonian regent Polyperchon in 318, but in the following
year Antipater's son Cassander regained power over Athens and installed a less
restricted oligarchy, excluding from political rights all those who possessed a
property qualification of less than 1,000 drachmae (Diod. XVIII.74.3). At the
head of this oligarchy was Demetrius ofPhalerum, who was virtually tyrant in
the Macedonian interest, having been appointed overseer or superintendent of
Athens (probably epimelites, perhaps episttJtes) by Cassander under the terms of
the treaty made when Athens capitulated to him in 317. 3 Pausanias calls Demetrius a tyrannos outright (l.xxv .5-6); according to Plutarch his regime was
'nominally oligarchical but in reality monarchical' (Demetr. 10.2). Yet the terin
oligarchy still had a rather unpleasant sound, and Demetrius himself claimed
that he 'not merely did not destroy the democracy but actually reinforced it'
{Strabo IX.i.20, p.398). There was then, to quote W. S. Ferguson's Hellenistic
Athens (95), 'a new era of internal and external conflict for Athens, which
continued almost without intermission for 46 years. Seven times the government changed hands [in 307,303,301,294,276,266, and 261], and on as many
occasions the constitution was in some degree altered . . . Four times the
institutions were modified, and a new government established, through the
violent intervention of a foreign prince [in .303, 294, 276, and 261]. Three
302
uprisings were bloodily suppressed [303. 295, and 287/6], and the city sustained
four blockades [304, 296-4, 287, and 265-1], all with equal heroism, but twice
unsuccessfully [294, and 261].' After further vicissitudes the story virtually
comes to an end with the heroic and futile resistance to the Roman general Sulla,
which ended with the sack of Athens in March 86 (see Appendix IV, 2, and its
n.S below).
The relation of the Hellenistic kings - or, for that matter, of the Romans at
first - to the Greek cities within their realms is hard to define with precision,4
because each side tended to see the relationship differently, although a king,
especially when he needed the support of the cities, was often willing to pander
to their amour propre by using the diplomatic terminology they preferred. 'It was
rarely that a king so far forgot himself as to issue commands to a city; he was
usually scrupulous to give advice and offer suggestions' Gones. GCAJ 111).
While Alexander the Great was actual! yin the process ofconquering Asia Minor
and those of the Aegean islands which had been taken over by the Persians or by
pro-Persian parties, he did not hesitate to issue some peremptory orders to the
cities; when he discovered that the democrats were in general on his side, while
many oligarchs and would-be oligarchs were prepared to fight to the death for
Persia, he prescribed democracies everywhere (see my OPW 40 n. 76). But since
he was 'liberating' the Greek cities of Asia from Persian domination. he was
quite prepared, when a city was firmly under his control. to avoid speaking of a
'gift' of freedom and to use a technical term which signified 'recognition'
(literally, 'giving back'): instead of the verb didomi ('I give'), he used apodidomi or
some similar word (see the list at the end ofn.l2 of Magie. RRAMII.828). The
difference between these two formulae emerges best from negotiations in the
late 340s between Athens and Philip II of Macedon concerning Halonnesus,
which the Athenians refused to accept as a 'gift' from Philip, insisting that he
should 'recognise' the island as theirs (Ps.-Dem. Vll.2-6) -with the result that
Philip kept Halonnesus. The essential thing to notice here is that it lay entirely
with Philip to decide whether he should 'give' Halonnesus ro Athens or 'recognise' it as hers. Similarly, it was purdy a matter for Alexander to decide what
formula he would use in regard to the freedom of the Asian cities. He was
usually prepared to 'recognise' the freedom of Greek cities he 'liberated' from
Persia; but the velvet glove could be stripped off when necessary to reveal the
iron hand beneath. When Alexander in 324 issued a decree or edict (diagramma)
prescribing the return of exiles 5 he of course had all the Greek cities in mind; but
the decree will simply have used the expression, 'I restore' (or, more probably,
'We restore', katagomtn, the royal plural: cf. Diod. XVII1.8.4; 56.4; Tad, SCHI
II.192.10, 17). without addressing a direct order to the cities, and it was
therefore possible for them to pass their own decrees recalling their exiles and to
pretend to themselves that it was they who were issuing the orders, even if the
mask occasionally slipped, as when the T egeates referred to 'those whom it
pleased the city to restore' in a decree which makes repeated reference to the
diagramma of Alexander as something binding on the city (Tod, SGHill.202,
esp. 58-9).
The successors of Alexander behaved towards the cities in whatev~r ways
they thought their own intere-sts dictated; and it is just as mistaken as in the case
of Alexander to press the use of words like apodidomi as if they had some genuine
303
legal, constitutional significance, apart from propaganda.' Jfl had to choose a

single text to illustrate the realities of the situation, it would be the statement of
Antiochus Ill, at a conference with Roman envoys at Lysimacheia in 196 B.C.,
that 'those of the cities of Asia which were autonomous ought to acquire their
freedom by his own grace [charis] and not by an order from Rome' (Polyb.
XVIII.li.9; cf. App., Syr. 3). A little earlier Antiochus had sent ambassadors to
Lampsacus, to insist that if they were to gain their liberty it must be in
circumstances which would make it perfectly dear that they had obtained it
from himself'and not usurped it themselves at an opportune moment' (libertatem
non per occasionem raptam, Livy XX.X:UI.xxxviii.S-6). 'Freedom' (tltutheria), in
the mouth of a king, signified very much what 'autonomy' (autonomia) had
always meant. As Bickerman has shown in his fundamental study of that
conception in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., 'Toujours le terme autonomia
indique que Ia cite n'est pas Ia maitresseabsolue de sa politique', and 'L'independance d'une cite autonome est necessairement imparfaite' (APT 330, 337).
Claire Preaux has rightly said of Alexander's actions in regard ro the cities of
Asia, 'C'est sans aucun doutc agir comme un maitre sur des villes sujettes:
l'autonomie, quoiqu'elle s'appelle "liberte", n'exclut pas la sujetion' .7 And so it
was with all the Hellenistic kings.
As for the internal affairs of cities under their control, whether theoretically
free or not, the kings might or might not interfere directly. Some cities were left
almost entirely to themselves. In others a king might reserve the right to appoint
one or more of the regular magistrates, or install an overseer (e.g. an tpistatis: see
n.3 again) ofhis own choice, with or without a garrison (sometimt!S paid for by
the city concemed); and a city might sometimes be made to fed that it would be
impolitic to pass decrees on a certain range of matters without first obtaining the
consent of the king or his overseer (see n.4 again). The imposition of a garrison
(by no means a rare event) could be particularly destructive to a democracy, if
the garrison commander (who was exceedingly unlikely to be a democrat) felt
obliged or inclined to intervene politically; and even ifhe did not, the menacing
presence of the garrison was bound to have a deleterious effect on internal
democratic politics.
At this point I must jump ahead for a moment and (in a single paragraph)
glance at the relationship of Rome to the Grcck cities within the area she
dominated. With some Rome made actual treaties acknowledging their freedom: they were 'free and federate states', civitates liberae et foederatae. Others
received freedom by a unilateral grant: they were civitates liberae. Thl" great
majority (except in Old Greece, where the cities were from the first declared
'free') were subject to the provincial governor like any other 'native' community: for them there was no corresponding technical description. I have no
doubt that A. H. M.Jones was right in saying that 'freedom was, it would seem,
to the Roman government what it was to the Hellenistic kings, a privileged
status granted by itself to cities under its dominion, and the principal element in
it was exemption from the authority of the provincial governors ... Rome took
over the royal concept of freedom; she too by a free city meant not an
independent sovereign state. but a state subject to her suzerainty enjoying by her
grace certain privileges ... But there was an infinite gradation of privilege. and
some subject cities- those of Sicily for instance- enjoyed rights hardly inferior
304
to those of some free cities' (Jones, CUE 112, 106, 109). As for the 'federate
states' (civitatesfoederatae), they 'differed only in the sanction of their privileges:
those of free cities were in theory as well as in fact revocable at will, those of
federate, being guaranteed by a sworn instrument, were in theory irrevocable'
(ibid. 113). But 'in effect the difference was not very great, for free cities were
not arbitrarily degraded and if a federate city offended Rome it could generally
be found that it had violated the terms ofitsfoedus. which thereupon became
void' (Jones, GCA] 117). And although federate states continued occasionally
to be created as late as the early Principate, Suetonius mentions that Augustus
deprived of their liberty several cities which were federate but were 'heading for
ruin through their lawlessness' (Aug. 47) -in other words, as Jones pms it,
'internal disorders were a good enough excuse for cancelling afoe_dus' (GCA)
131, cf. 132). An apt illustration of the Roman attitude to civitatesfoederatae much
weaker than themselves is the statement of Appius Claudius to the Achaean
League in 184 B.C., reported by Livy (XXXlX.37. 19): he strongly advised
them, he said, to ingratiate themselves with Rome 'while they still had the
power to do so of their own free will' (voluntate suafacere); the alternative was
that they would soon have to do as they were told, against their will (in11iti et
coacti). The Achaeans, needless to say, were afraid to disobey, and they merely
allowed themseles the luxury of a 'general groaning' (omniumgemitus: id. 20).
In Jones's great work on the Greek city in the Hellenistic and Roman periods,
from which I have already quoted, we read that 'whatever devices the kings
might invent to secure their control over the cities, there was one which they
could not use, the formal limitation of political power to a small class; ... the
kings felt obliged to support democracy in the cities and were thus unable to
create and effectively support monarchist parties which should rule in their
interest; the few attempts made- notably by Antipater and Cas sander [in 322 ff.]
-to establish oligarchies of their suppo.rters roused such violent discontent that
this policy became utterly discredited' (GCA] 157-60, 11 1). Apart from the
short-lived oligarchies just mentioned, Jones could produce only one exception
to his rule: Cyrene, to which the first Ptolemy dictated a moderately oligarchical
constitution (replacing a more extreme oligarchy) in the last quarter of the
fourth century, perhaps in 322/1. 8 But I think there are likely to have been other
exceptions. For instance, in an inscription ofPtolemais in Upper Egypt, of the
third century B.C., we hear that disorders had occurred at meetings of the
Council and Assembly, especially at the elections of magistrates; and with a
view to remedying this situation the decree (of Council and Demos) proceeds to
restrict the choice of those eligible for the Council and the courts of law to a
select list of epilektoi andres (OGIS 48.9-11, 13-16). I find it hard to believe that
the reigning Ptolemy ~ad not intervened on this occasion, even ifhe tactfully left
it to the organs of city government to provide against repetition of the disturbances (and cf. Jones, GCA] 104). Also, it is only fair to mention that in many
poleis of the newly hellenised East, unlike Old Greece (and the long-settled
Greek fringe of Asia Minor), the citizens themselves were often an exclusive
oligarchy among the permanent free inhabitants, a large part of the old native
population (essentially the poorer classes) being excluded from citizenship (see
Jones, GCA] 160-1, with335 nn.l0-11).
As for the new cities founded by Alexander and the Hellenistic kings, it is only
305
rarely that we have any details of their original constitutions, but there is reason
to think that full political rights were never extended to anything like the whole
free population, even where (as at Egyptian Alexandria) the constitution was at
first of the standard Greek type, with a Council and Assembly. 9 Some of the
disfranchised (like the Jews of Antioch and Alexandria and Berenice Euesperides,
and the Syrians ofSeleuceia on the Tigris) were organised in special ad hoc bodies
known as politeumata, through which their affairs were administered; 10 but
probably in most cases the natives in the countryside, who cultivated the lands
of the citizens, had no political rights of any kind, except to a small degree in
their villages, and remained to a considerable extent outside the ambit of
Graeco-Roman culture, which always remained essentially urban. As I have
explained in I. iii above, the relationship of those who dominated the Greek cities
to the natives outside is best described as one of exploitation, with few benefits
given in return. As a matter offact, there are traces even in Aristotle's Politics ofa
situation in which 'those around the countryside' (hoi kata ten choran) can be
expected not to possess the franchise. In Pol. VII.14, 1332b27-32, they are seen as
likely to join in a body in revolutions begun by those citizens who do not possess
proper political rights. An example of such a situation might be the revolt against
the Gamoroi ofSyracuse, perhaps in the late 490s (see Dunbabin, WG 41~15),
by the demos of Syracuse and their 'slaves', as Herodotus calls them (VII.155.2)in fact the Killyrioi, who were serfs: see lll.iv above and its n.3 below.
I have mentioned three principal oligarchic devices by which democracy was
in practice frustrated after the fourth century B.C. The first (control of the
Assembly by royal officials, magistrates, Council or otherwise) is obvious
enough and requires little comment. Assemblies continued to meet in most if
not all cities, and sometimes quite large numbers of citizens might attend the
sessions, as we know from a handful of surviving decrees (mostly of about the
early second century B.C.) which give the actual numbers present and voting.
On three occasions at Magnesia on the Maeander attendances o2,113, 3,580
and even 4,678 are mentioned; an inscription found on the island of Cos records
a decree of the Assembly ofHalicamassus passed by a vote (unanimous or nem.
con., like most of the others) of 4,000; other figures are smaller.u I might add
that all or most of the decrees just mentioned are honorific in character, as indeed
are the majority of the city decrees inscribed on stone which have survived from
the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
The second device, the assimilation of magistracies to liturgies by attaching
special burdens to the performance of magistracies, is much more interesting
and deserves discussion. Aristotle, in that part ofhis Politics which is devoted to
advising oligarchs how to run a state of which they are in control, has this
remarkable passage:
To the most important magistracies should be attached liturgies, in order that the
common people may be willing to acquiesce in their own exclusion from office and
may sympathise with those who have to pay so high a price for the privilege. Those
who enter into office may also be reasonably expected to offer magnificent sacrifices
and to erect some public building, so that the common people, participating in the
feasts and seeing their city embellished .with offering and buildings, may readily
tolerate a continuance of this constitution [oligarchy]. The leading citizens. too, will
have visible memorials o{ their own expenditure. But this is not the policy pursued by
oligarchs today- they do the very opposite: they covet profit as well as honour (Pol.
V1.7, 1321'31-42).
306
This passage (which seems to have escaped general notice) is of very great
interest, because it describes something that did happen in the Hellenistic period,
when magistracies and liturgies often became to some extent assimilated. (One
wonders how many 'thinking' members of the ruling class in the fourth century
shared Aristotle's sentiments!) There was seldom, it seems, any constitutional
requirement that magistrates should perform liturgies, but this became the
custom in many cities, which no one would dare to fiout. Tills has been referred
to as 'a tacit convention whereby the people elected rich men to magistracies,
and they as magistrates contributed freely to the public services under their
charge' Oanes, GCAJ 167, d. 168); but this does not take account of the passage
from the Politics which I have just quoted and obscures the fact that the whole
process was partly an adroit expedient by the wealthy class to keep the poorer
citizens out ofoffice without having to pass invidious legislation to that end, and
even more to serve as a substitute for the one thing the wealthy Greeks would
never tolerate: a legally enforceable taxation system under which the burden of
maintaining the state would fall mainly upon those who derived most benefit
from it and were best able to bear that burden. It is fascinating to read the passage
in Dio ofPrusa's Rhodian speech, expressing horror at the very thought that 'a
rime might ever come at which it would be necessary for each individual citizen
to pay a levy from his private means' (Dio Chrys. XXXI.46). Oio congratulates
the Rhodians on never having done such a thing except when their city was in
extreme danger.
The third significant oligarchic device by which democracy was gradually
extinguished was the abolition of the popular dikastma mentioned above, on
which in a full Greek democracy all citizens were entitled to serve, just as they
were able to attend the Assembly. This, the judicial aspect of the decline of
Greek democracy, has received even less attention than the political aspect ofthe
same process: the decline of the popular assemblies. This is partly because the
evidence is so deplorably scanty, but also because modem scholars tend to
forget how extraordinarily important the popular courts were for the maintenance of proper democracy. (Clear separation of the 'political' and the 'judicial'
is a very modem phenomenon.) My own collection of the evidence is very
incomplete, and I do not feel able to give a coherent account; I shall merely
mention some of the more interesting material later in this section.
The seventh, sixth and fifth centuries. as I said earlier, had been characterised by
a movement towards the attainment of political rights by an ever-increasing
proportion ofthe citizen community. By the Hellenistic age, the upper classes had
learnt that it was unwise to make legally enforceable concessions by granting too
wide a range ofpolitical rights. Instead, they offered to the lower classes a certain
amount of charity, to be granted or withheld at their own pleasure. When things
were not going well for them the charity could be cut down, without anyone
having the right to complain. They were prepared on occasion to enforce upon
recalcitrants among their own number the performance of expensive tasks
which were really necessary; but inessential offices involving some outlay could
at a pinch, in very hard rimes, or when no one could be persuaded to shoulder
the burden, be conferred upon some obliging god or hero, who could scarcely
be expected to make the customary expenditure.u One of the worst features of
this whole process was surely its demoralising effect on both sides.
It was only in the Roman period, however, that the last remaining vestiges of
307
democracy were gradually stamped out of the Greek cities. (The evidence for
this is very fragmentary and scattered, and I can do no more here than give an
oversimplified outline.) It was the regular aim of the Romans to place the
government of provincial cities under the sole control (subject of course to the
Roman governor) of the propertied classes. This was effected in various ways,
partly by making constitutional changes, but even more by giving steady
support to the rich and encouraging them to.assume and retain control of local
political life, as ofcour~e they were only too ready to do. Livy puts it perfectly in
a nutsheU, in a speech he gives to Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, in 195 B.C., which
almost certainly derives from Livy's main source for this period, Polybius.
Addressing the Roman general, T. Quinctius Flamininus, Nabis says, 'Your
[the Romans'] wish is that a few should excel in wealth, and that the common
people should be subject to them' (paucos txcelltre opibus, pltbem subitctam esse
illis, vultis, XXXIV.xxxi: 17). And, as Plutarch said in the reign ofTrajan, the
Romans were 'very eager to promote the political interests of their friends'
(Mor. 814c). 13 We know enough about this process to be confidentofits general
outlines, but the particulars are difficult to display in a palatable shape for the
general reader, even in summary form, and I have therefore relegated the details
to Appendix IV. I will refer at this point only to a single series of incidents, from
one small town in the northern Peloponnese, which may not be in themselves at
all typical of what happened in Old Greece after its final conquest by Rome in
146 B.C. ('typical', in the sense that we might expect many similar occurrences
elsewhere), but which certainly brings out very well the significance of the
Roman conquest and the effect this could have upon the class struggle in Greek
cities. In the Achaean town ofDymc, probably in 116-114 B.C., there was a
revolution, evidently caused in part by the burden of debt, for it began with the
burning of the public archives and the cancellation of debts and of other
contracts. This was suppressed, with or without the aid of the Roman proconsul
of Macedonia (who now had a general oversight of Greece, not yet organised as
a separate province); two of the revolutionary leaders were immediately condemned to death by the proconsul and another was sent to Rome for trial. Our
only evidence for these events is an inscription recording a letter of the proconsul, Q. Fabius Maximus, to the city of Dyme, which complains bitterly of
'disorder' (tarache), a 'disregard of contractual obligations and cancellation of
debts' (chre[okopia]), and twice speaks of the revolutionary legislation as carried
'in violation of the constitution given to the Achaeans by the Roman.s' 14 - a
reference to the oligarchies imposed by the Roman general L. Mummius in
various parts of central Greece and the Peloponnesus, when in 146 he had
crushed the revolt of the Achaeans and their allies. Much more often, I imagine,
any local disturbance would be nipped in the bud by the action of the city
magistrates themselves, who would usually be anxious to avoid attracting the
attention of the provincial govemor by making an appeal to him. Thus we fmd
an inscription of Cibyra (on the borders ofPhrygia and Carla in the province of
Asia), apparently of the second quarter of the first century of the Christian era,
honouring a conspicuously wealthy citizen named Q. Veranius Philagrus who.
after the serious earthquake of A.D. 23, had not only reclaimed for the city 107
public slaves who had somehow escaped from their condition (perhaps at the
time of the earthquake), but had also 'suppressed a great conspincy which was
308
doing the greatest harm to the city' (IGRR IV.914.5-6, 9-10).

Dio Cassius, writing in the early third century. puts into the mouth of
Maecenas a speech addressed to Augustus, to which I shall return later in this
section. One of the policies Maecenas is made to advocate is the total suppression of city Assemblies. The dimoi, says Maecenas, should not be sovereign
in any respect (mite kyrioi tinos), nor should they be allowed to meet together in
ekklisia at all, for they would come to no good conclusions and they would often
create disturbances (LII.xxx.2). I agree with Jones (GCAJ 340 n.42) that this is
'not true even of his (Dio's] own day but must represent the policy which he
himself would have favoured'. We have little explicit evidence for constitutional
changes brought about directly or indirectly by Roman action; but we can trace
the imposition- in Greece itself in the second century B.C., and later elsewhere
-of property qualifications for at any rate magistracies and membership of the
Council, and in some cases the courts, if not for access to the Assembly (see
Appendix IV below, 2); the gradual turning of Councils (boula1) into little
models of the Roman Senate, with ex-magistrates having life membership; and
the exercise of such control over the popular Assemblies that by slow degrees
they eventually died out entirely. By at any rate the end of the second century of
the Christian era the Assemblies of the Greek cities had either ceased to meet or
at least lost all effective power, and the Councils, which had orginally been
chosen annually (as a rule) from the whole body of citizens or at least a large part
of it, often by lot, had been transformed into permanent, largely hereditary, and
more or less self-perpetuating bodies, sometimes enrolled by censors chosen by
and from their own number, the councillors (bouleutai, duuriones in Latin) being
drawn only from the wealthier citizens and, with their families, eventually
forming the privileged curial order, by which and from which in practice all
magistrates were chosen. (I shall have more to say about the curial order in VIII.i
and ii below.) Paulus, the Severan jurist, can say that non-decurions (plebei1) are
excluded from local magistracies, because they are debarred from decurionum
honores, the offices open only to decurions (Dig. L.ii. 7.2). He is speaking
specifically of the duumvirate, the principal magistracy in very many towns of
the Roman West, but his statement would apply equally, mutatis mutandis, to
Greek cities. And of course a city Council might suffer interference from the
provincial governor in its choice of magistrates. Legal texts speak of a Roman
governor giving directions to a local Council (ordo) to elect a certain man as a
magistrate or to confer on him some office or liturgy (honor vel munus: Ulpian, in
Dig. XLIX.iv.1.3); and it is contemplated that the governor may himselfbe
present at the meeting of the Council in question (id. 4). A proconsul, says
Ulpian elsewhere, ought not to agree to the election of a duumvir by mere
'low-class clamour' (vocibus popularium), in place of the regular legal procedure
(Dig. XLIX.i.12).
I know of no detailed description of this process which to my mind sufficiently brings out its deliberate, purposive character. The 'Greats' pupils I used
to teach at Oxford, who study one period of Greek history and one ofRoman,
with quite a large gap in between, were often puzzled by the way in which Greek
democracy, so vigorous in the fifth century and even in the fourth, has by the
beginning of the Roman Principate become but a shadow of its former self. The
books sometimes note this as a fact in passing, but most of them make no attempt
V. The class strnggle on the political plane (iii)

309
to supply an explanation ofit, md when it is noticed at al! ;t tends t'' b" n:<.'tmJcd
as something that 'just happened'. Characteristic is the statemtnt ,1f Hugh Last.
in CAH Xl.458-9: In the East democracy had been in decline.- cvm lxforl." Roml'
came to throw her influence on the side of the more !iUh!.tantia! d~mc..-nt\, a11d ir.
Rome itself circumstances had combined to make oligm:h~ th( ont pm~ihk
alternative to monarchy. In the munidpa1itics the same force-s Wt'rc ar vmrk ...
Rome showed no enthusiasm for demoaacv. I tlll tht t')thtr lund would S(t' the
whole process as part of the class struggl~ un the political plan.:: tht: (;reek
propertied classes, with the as'iistance first of thdr Mac\"tlonian O\'t.'rl<mh and
then of their Roman masters, gradually unckrmint.d and in tht. tnd l'tltirdy
destroyed Greek democracy. which before thtcnd ,,ftht Priudp .. rt had bc:..:umc."
extinct. Of course the suppression of (;reek tlemocracy was gratiiymg to the
Romans; but it is clear that the Greek propl'rtic.-d classes did nor ml."rl.'!y atquit~n.
in the process: they assisted in it- and Jl() wonder, becaU!i<: tht.y themsdves .1fi:cr
the Romans, wen. tht rhicfhc."nefidarie.s uf the system. An Important l~ttc.r ot
Cicero's congratubtes his hmthtr Quintu., because he ho~~ madt" ~url'. during hh
government of the province.> nf A~iJ. d1at the munidp.tlitie!i haV\' bl.'t.'n administered by the ddibc.'Tariono; t:tf the- le:~Jin~ ll\t"II. the 'J'fitnaftJ (Ad O:fr r.i.li: rf.
De rep. 11.39, and passages from tht l>r1 Fiacco quott.d bcli.lW). PRiny the
Younger, writing in c. A.D. Hl7-8 to hili frit:nd Caelestrius Tiru, who was then
proconsul ofBaetica (southern Spain). reminds him of the necenity to preserve
distinctions of rank and dignity {disaimiM ordinum dignitatumqlll'). 'Nothing,' he
declares, with a characteri~tic.1lly Roman perversity, 'is more unequal than
equality' (Ep. IX.v. 1,3:
lLxii.S). Doubtless Pliny was familiar witb tht
curious oligarchical argument fin the superiority of'geometrical' over 'uithmetical' proportion, which wasknuwn to Cicero (see VII.i below& itsnn.I0-11).
The 'greatest and most influential men ofevery city' arc s.Ud by Aelius Aristcidcs.
in the mid-second century. to act as guards of their native!' pl.Kcs lor the Roman-..
making it unnecessary for them to be garrisoned (Orctt. XXVI.M). Those: of the
principal propertied families of the Greek world who were prepared to accept
Roman domination wholeheartedly and CQ-Qperate with their masters sometimes flourished remarkably. In Asia, with its great natural wealth. they might
become immensely rich and aspire to membership of the imperial nobility. the
Roman Senate (cf. III.ii above). Even in Old Greece, with its comparative lack
of resources, they might at least achieve great prestige locally by holding office
through several generations, like the four leading families of Roman Athens
recently studied by Michael Woloch, which held a high proportion of the most
important magistracies (as well as some major priesthoods) in the period 96-161;
and occasionally they might eventually enter the senatorial class, like the family
ofFlavii from the insignificant little city ofThespiae in Boeotia, whose history
from the third century B.C. to the third of our era has been ably reconstructed
by C. P. Jones. :~ A man who could claim to have expended much ofhis fortune
for the benefit of his city (as some did, eager for the prestige it could bring)
might sometimes receive from the city a real 'golden handshake': in the reign of
Domir:ian, 40,000 drachmae/denarii (nearly? talents) were given to julius Piso,
by a decision of the Council and Assembly of Amisus, on the southern shore of
the Black Sea. Trajan had issued instructions to Pliny, as his special governor of
Bithynia-Pontus, forbidding such gifts; but he gave a special exemption to Piso
ct:
310
because his present had been made to him more than twenty years earlier {Pliny.
Ep. X.ll0-111). And at about the end of the third century the lawyer Hermogenian regarded it as settled law that pensions (alimenta) might be decreed to
ruined councillors, especially if they had 'exhausted their patrimony through
munificence towards their native place' (Dig. L.ii.R)- a claim which was by no
means infrequent (see Dio Chrys. XLVL3 etc.).
In the earlier period of Roman rule - indeed, even occasionally in the early
second century of the Christian era- the Assemblies of some Greek cities could
evidently still show signs oflife and vigour. Cicero, in the speech he delivered in
59 B.C. when successfully defending L. Valerius Flaccus, who was being
prosecuted for extortion during his governorship of the province of Asia in
62-1, indulges in some bitterly contemptuous abuse of the Assemblies of the
Greek cities of Asia, contrasting what he represents as their disorderly character
with the dignified procedure of a Roman Assembly. Parts of this speech (Pro
Flacc. 9-24, 57-8, 63) ought to be- a<; thty rardy if cvcr are- prescribed reading
for those who are studying the history ,)( r(llitical imtitutions. Cicero pours
scorn on Greek popular Assemblies, whose very procedure in passing their
decrees (psephismata) after genl.'r.ll Jt:"haet:' and by the holding up of hands he
repeatedly derides ( 15, 17, :!]): he san that these Greek Assemblies are
excitable, rash, headstrong, tumultuous(~ 15-19, 23, 24, 54, 57. 58) and that
they are dominated by mcu of m1 ;trcount, 'uneducated men' (imperiti, 58),
cobblers and belt-makers ( 17}, arti-.an~ and shopkeepers and all such 'dregs of
the state'( 18), rather than by tht 'rilh bu-n-pmsants' (locupletes homines etgraves,
18), the 'leading men' (principes, 54, 5R; optimates, 58, 63) for whom
Cicero and his like, as we have seen, always wished to reserve the monopoly of
political power in subject states. Cict."m .1ctually .lttributes the 'fall' of Greece (he
uses the word concidit, 16) to 'this ,)Ill' l'VJI: thtunmoderate liberty and license
[ licentia ] 16 of their Assemblies'; and just afterwards he shows that he has Classical
Athens particularly in mind( 17). None of this need surprise us, of course, for
Cicero's speeches, letters and treatises are full of abuse of the lower classes at
Rome itself (cf. Vl.v beJow). And it should not escape our notice, by the way,
that Cicero, who represents Greeks in general (even when he is not artfully
denigrating them by calling them Asiatics, Phrygians, Mysians, Carians,
Lydians: 3, 17, 37-8, 40-1, 60, 65, 100) as totally untrustworthy witnesses,
'men to whom an oath is a joke, testimony a game'( 12; cf. 9-10, 36. 37), can
bluntly tell his jury that decisions in a lawsuit ought to be rendered according to
'the welfare of the state, the safety of the community. and the immediate
interests of the Republic' (quid utilitas civitatis, quid communis salus, quid reipublicae
tempora poscerent, 98)- that is to say, the interests of the propertied class. The
merits of the particular case are in comparison unimportant.
The difference between being a genuinely free Greek city in the fifth or fourth
century B.C. and a city subject to Roman rule can best be conveyed by a few
quotations from a work of Plutarch, the Politika parengelmata ('Political precepts', or 'Precepts ofstatecraft'), usually refered to by the Latin translation of its
title, Pmepta gmmdae reipublicat' (Moralia 798a-825t), written in about the first
decade of the second century of the Christian era, in the earlier years of the reign
ofTrajan. Plutarch had been asked by a young friend, a citizen of Sardis (813f,
with 825d), to give him advice for a political career- or at least, that is the
311
ostensible occasion for the composition of the work. (The young man is
obviously a member of my 'propertied class'; the alleged poverty discussed in
Mor. 822defis simply the absence of ostentatious wealth: see 823abc etc.) 17
'Nowadays, when the affairs of the cities do not include leadership in war, or
the overthrow of tyrannies, or the making of alliances, what opening for a
conspicuous and splendid career could one find?' Well, reflects Plutarch, 'there
remain public lawsuits and embassies to an emperor, which require a man of
ardent temperament and one with courage and intelligence'! (805ab). He suggests various ways of doing good turns to friends (809a). He protests against
being laughed at when he is seen (as he says he often may be) supervising the
measuring of tiles or the transport of concrete or stones, as a magistrate of his
native town ofChaeronea (811 be). And then he really comes to the point: 'When
you take up some magistracy,' ht.> says. 'you must say to yourself, "You who
rule are a subject, and the state you rule is dominated by proconsuls. the agents
of Caesar", . . . whose boots you see above your head. 18 You should imitate
those actors who ... listen to the prompter and do not take liberties with
rhythms and metres beyond those permitted by those in authority over them,
for a failure in your part now brings not just hissing or mockery or jeering, but
many have experienced "the terribl~ avenger: the axe that cleaves the neck"' (a
quotation from some unidentified Greek tragedy). and others have been exiled
to islands (81Jdef). Let others do their rabble-rousing with the common herd,
Plutarch advises, 'stupidly advocating imitation of the deeds and designs and
actions of their ancestors, which are out of proportion with present opportunities and conditions' (814a). 'Leave it to the schools of the Sophists to prate of
Marathon and the Eurymedon and Plataea and all the other examples which
make the masses swell with pride and prance' (8l4bc). 'The politician should not
only show himself and his state blameless towards our rulers; he should also
have some friend among those men of the greatest influence. as a firm bulwark
of his administration. for the Romans themselves are very eager to promote the
political interests of their friends' (814c). Plutarch is scornful about the highly
profitable procuratorships and provincial governorships 'in pursuit of which
most men in public life grow old at the doors of other men's houses, neglecting
their own affairs' (814d). He insists that the politician, while making his native
land amenable to its rulers, ought not to humble it unnecessarily, 'or. when the
leg has been fettered, go on to place the neck under the yoke. as some do when
they refer everything, great or small. to our rulers, and thus bring the reproach
of slavery upon us, or rather, altogether destroy its constitutional government,
making it dazed and timid and powerless in everything' (814ef). 'Those who
invite the rulers' decision on every decree or meeting or privilege or administrative act are obliging their rulers to become their masters [despotai] more than
they themselves wish to be: the principal cause of this is the greed and contentiousness of the leading men, who ... call in their superiors. and as a result the
Council and Assembly and courts and every magistracy lose their authority.
One should placate the ordinary citizens by offering them equality 19 and the
powerful by corresponding concessions. and thus control affairs within the
constitution and dispose of difficulties' (814f-5b). 'The statesman will not allow to
the common people any high-handed treatment of the citizens or any confiscation of the property of others or distribution of public funds, but will firmly
312
contest aspirations of that sort with persuasion, instruction and threats- although
harmless expenditures may on occasion be permitted' (818cd). Plutarch proceeds
to cite some instructive precedents for the making of concessions to the people
to divert their feelings into harmless channels (818def, cf. 813b). One remembers
here that Pliny the Younger, writing to a friend in 107, describes a certain
leading citizen of Ephesus, Claudius Aristion, as 'innoxit> popularis', which
should perhaps be translated 'inclined towards the common people, but harmlessly so' (Ep. VI.xxxi.3). Above all, says Plutarch a little later, civil strife (stasis)
must never be allowed to occur: its prevention should be regarded as the greatest
and noblest function of statesmanship (824bc). After all. he goes on, war has
been done away with, and 'ofliberty the common people have as much as our
rulers grant them; and perhaps more would not be better for them' (824c). The
wise statesman will aim at bringing about concord and friendship (homonoian . ..
kai philian); he 'will lay stress on the weakness of Greek affairs, in which it is
better for prudent men to accept one benefit: to live quietly and in harmony,
since Fortune has left us no prize to compete for . . . What sort of power is it
which a small edict of a proconsul may abolish or transfer to someone else, and
which, even if it should last, has nothing worthy of enthusiasm?' (824det).
It is anything but an inspiring picture. Notthat Plutarch and his like were at all
basically dissatisfied with Roman rule: 20 the Greek propertied class had greatly
benefited from it politically, when everything is taken into account (cf. Vl.iv-vi
below). They had even managed to preserve some of their self-respect, if with
the loss of some of the nobler qualities of the Classical period.
As Rostovtzeff and others have seen, 21 there is an interesting correspondence
between the work of Plutarch which I have just been disrussing and certain
speeches delivered by Dio Chrysostom, 22 mainly in the last decades of the first
century and the first decade or so of the second. Particularly striking are Dio's
advice to his native city (Prusa in Bithynia, north-west Asia Minor) to give up
its futile quarrels with its neighbours, 'for leadership and power are vested in
others' (meaning of course the Romans); and his apt comparison of such
squabbles with 'the strife of fellow-slaves [homodouloi] with one another for
glory and precedence'! (Dio XXXIV.48, 51). Dio could warn his fellow-citizens
to be particularly careful not to give offence to the neighbouring city of
Apamea, a Roman citizen colony, which, as long as it behaves itself, he says, can
enjoy prestige and influence (timtn tina kai dynamin) with the proconsuls (of
Bith ynia: XL.22; cf. XLI. 9). Even the status of a 'free city' was a very precarious
one and might be lost by some act to which the Roman government objected
(see below and n.23).
It seems likely, from some of the passages quoted above from Cicero's Pro
Fiacco and similar evidence, that as late as the mid-first century B.C. the poorer
classes among the citizen population of a Greek democracy might derive some
protection against exploitation and oppression by the rich from the control they
could exercise on occasion over their popular Assembly - in which, so long as
there was no property-qualification for the exercist> ofbasic political rights, they
would form a majority if enough of them could manage to attend. The local
notables, however. could normally rely on receiving Roman support, and if an
Assembly were driven by exceptional circumstances to act too strongly against
their (or the Romans') interests, the result might be what Plutarch calls 'a small
313
edict ofa proconsul', inflicting a penalty on the city (see above, and Appendix IV
below, 3B). And if the people dared to come together in a spontaneous
Assembly, like the Ephesians who gathered in tumult to defend their precious
goddess Artemis against St. Paul (and are said to have shouted their rhythmic
civic slogan for a whole two hours), the city might well be punished by the
governor, as the town clerk contemplated on that occasion (Acts XIX.21-41.
esp. 40). This might involve withdrawal of the right to hold Assemblies (see Dio
Chrys. XL VIII), or, in the case of a 'free city', the cancellation of that status- a
step of which we know several examples,z.1 and which Augustus (as we saw
earlier) is said by Suetonius (Aug. 47) to have taken even in regard to cities which
were actually civitatesjotderatae. 'Nothing in the cities escapes the notice of the
provincial governors.' remarked Dio of Prusa at the end of one of his speeches
(XLV1.14), delivered perhaps in the 70s, before the Assembly ofhis home city,
when a band of his fellow-citizens had threatened to bum down his house and
stone him, in the belief that he was partly to blame for a grain shortage (cf.
below). It is interesting, by the way, to notice the threatened resort to 'lynch
law', which indeed we fmd at intervals throughout the period of Roman rule in
the Greek world, even in the Later Empire, when there are some striking
examples of murderous riots, usually occurring as a result of famines, although
in the fourth century onwards it is often Christian fanaticism which is responsible. 24 (I shall return presently to the subject of riots.}
By the age of Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch the Greek popular Assemblies,
the very nerve-centre of Classical Greek democracy, were already in full decay,
although some of them still met and might even occasionally discuss important
matters, as is evident from the works ofDio and Plutarch themselves. Gradually,
however, they died out altogether, as their functions became too trivial to be
worth preserving. There is a great deal of scattered evidence of general Assemblies continuing to function in Greek cities well into the third century. but by
then it is never possible to detect evidence that they are acting with any
independence, let alone deciding policy. One of the latest decrees that have
survived at any length, that passed at Athens in c. 230 in honour of M. Ulpius
Eubiotus Leurus (and first published in 1941), records the making of a manual
vote for and against the resolution; but the issue was entirely non~ontentious,
for the vote was unanimous- and no wonder, for Eubiotus, a man of consular
rank, had given the city 250,000 drachmae (= HS 1 million) and much free
wheat during a famine. :l.'> I know of no recent general discussion of the evidence
for the functioning of Greek Assemblies in the Roman period, a subject well
worth studying in detail.
Curiously enough. we happen to know from an edict of Constantine that in
Roman Africa the elections of city magistrates were still being ratified by
popular vote-no doubt a pure formality -as latl'as the 320s (CTh Xll.v.l}. far
more characteristic of the whole Gracco-Roman world by the late third century
is the situation we see depicted in an imperial letter (in Latin, and probably of the
time ofDiocletian, A.D. 284 ff.) regarding the raising ofTymandus in Pisidia
(southern Asia Minor) from the rank of village to that of city (FIRA 2 1.454-5,
no. 92 =MAMA IV.236 = ILS 6090). Great emphasis is placed on an assurance
given by the inhabitants that they will be able to provide a sufficient supply of
decurions (town councillors), and reference is made to the fact that they will
314
now have 'the right of meeting in council (coeund[i i]n curiam) and of passing
decrees' etc., and will have to create magistrates, aediles and quaestors- there is
no hint anywhere of a general Assembly. Well over a century earlier, in A.D.
158, a recently discovered letter of the Emperor Antoninus Pius to a city
{perhaps Parthicopolis} in the ~trymnn valley in the pro,ince of Macedonia, at
the site of the modtm Sandanski in Bulgaria. h.1J Authorised a Council of 80
members, emphasising the di~ity or repute (a.d'''"') which the citizens would
derive from the si:ze of suda a Council- which. ind~kntally, seems to have been
below rather than abtlVI.' .1wrage si.:zc. (/G Bll~f(. IV.22b..l). 2"
With one possihl~ t~Xrtptiun. from Pi'iidian :\ntinch (noticed in Appendix IV
below, near the end uf .llJj. rhlIJst meeting I havt b~t.'l.'ll able to discover of the
public Assembly ofa Gr('t.'k city ufwhich we have .my detailed record took place
within a few years c.ithc.r !~.id,~ nf A.D . .100 .u (.hyrhvndms in Egypt- an area
where. ofcourse, proper c.iry Jifl' lw\er dt'"wlopt'"J in tht way it did in most of the
Greek world. We happen to possl~s part of tht ~htlrthand record of this
meeting. which ~raphic.11ly conwys th;. tm,r futility of the political life of the
cities under the Latlr Roman Empire. Thc pt~upk. t(u some reason which is not
apparent, are bent un passin!}; a decree that vt:r~ day in honour of Dioscorus,
their prytanis (the Ch.urman ufth~.. Town ComKil. wl' mi~ht call him). during a
visit from the proviru:ial gonmor and the principal financial officer of the
province, the Katholikos. This io; the record (which I have abbreviated slightly),
consisting oflittlC" mort' than ardamJ.tions {Jl 0."(}' IA 1 = Hunt and Edgar, SP
II. 144-7, no. 239):
Bravo Prytanis, bravo the city's boast. bravo Dioscorus, chief of the citizens! under
you our blessings still increase. source of our blessings! ... Good luck to the patriot!
good luck to the lover ofequity! sourct'" ofour blessings, founder of the city! ... Let the
Prytanis receive the vote ,let him receive the vote on this great day. Many votes docs he
deserve. for many are the blessings we enjoy through you. Prytanis! This petition we
make to the Katholikos about the Prytanis, with good wishes to the Katholikos, for the
city's founder (the Lords Augusti for ever!). this petition to the Katholikos about the
Prytanis, for the honest man's magistrate-. the equitable magistrate, the city's magistrate, the city's patron, th~ city's lover of justice. the city's founder. Good fortune,
governor! good fortune, Katholikos! Beneficenl governor, beneficent Katholikos! We
beseech you, Katholikos. concerning the Prytanis. Let the Prytanis receive the vole; let
him receive lhe vote on this great day!
The Prytanis seems to have been seriously embarrassed and he speaks with
deprecation:
I welcome. and with much gratification, the honour which you do me; but I beg that
such dt>monstrations be reserved for a lcgitimalc occasion when you can make them
securely and I can accept them without risk.
But this dignified reply only stimulated the people to further transports of
enchusiasm -perhaps it was all part of a time-honoured ritual.
Many votes docs he deserve ... (Lords Augusti, all-victorious for the Romans; the
Roman power for ever!). Good fortune, governor, protector ofhonrst men ... We
ask, Katholikos, for the city's Prytanis, the city's lover ofjustice, the city's founder ...
and so on, interminably.
I have said nothing here about the Gerousia which appears in many Greek
cities, especialJy during the Roman period. because thcrc is nothing to show that
315
it ever had any political or administrative functions: it enjoyed prestige and

influence but was strictly a social organisation; and the same applies to the
associations of youths: Epheboi and Neoi. 27
The most significant result of the destruction of Greek democracy was the
complete disappearance of the limited measure of political protection afforded
EO the lower classes against exploitation by the propertied, which became
intensified in the early centuries of the Christian era (as I shall explain in VIII. i
below) and was one of the prime causes ofthe disintegration of a large pan of the
Roman empire between the fifth and seventh centuries (see VIII.iii and iv
below). Modem historians have shown little concern with this aspect of the
disappearance of democracy; and when they have noticed the disappearance at
all, their interest in it has usually been submerged by attention to the supersession of' city-state' or 'republican' forms of government (which of course may
be either democratic or oligarchic) by the monarchy ofthe Hellenistic kingdoms
or of the Roman Principate. Both these characteristics appear in Finley, The
Ancient Economy, where attention is focused not on the destruction of democracy (a process that is noticed nowhere in the book) but on 'the replacement of
the city-state form of government, with its intense political activity, by a
bureaucratic, authoritarian monarchy' (that of the Roman Principate). Finley
sees that process as making a 'major contribution' to the developments I have set
out in VIII.i below, which are described by him as producing 'a cumulative
depression in the status of the lower classes among the free citizens' (AE 87; I
should perhaps add that the passage is indexed in AE 217, with only three others,
under 'government, democratic', although it makes no specific reference to
democracy).
* * * * * *
I said earlier that I would return, before the end of this section, to the decay of
the popular lawcouns (dikastiria) which had been characteristic of Greek democracy in its great days. Th~y evidently di~d out partly in the Hellenistic age and
totally in the Roman period. One drawback of the dikastiria of Classical Greek
democracy needs to be emphasised: both to make them representative, and to
make bribery expensive and therefore more difficult, they needed to be large.
But they could not be really large without the panicipation of many citizens
outside the propertied class; and to make this possible it was nec~ssary to pay the
dicasts, or at least some of them. It has recently been claimed that Athens was the
only city to give dicastic pay; but this is certainly false, and probably many
democracies did provide pay (if only for limited numbers of dicasts). although
the only other cities we can name with confidence which did this are Rhodes and
Iasus, and only at Rhodes have we any ground for thinking that dicastic pay
continued well into the Roman period (see my PPOA, with V.ii above and its
n.24 below). 2"
As part of the general decline of democracy during the Hellenistic period, the
popular courts, like the Assemblies, evidently came more and more into the
hands of the propertied class, although it is rare for us to be able to find any such
specific evidence as that which I quoted above from a third-century inscription
from Ptolemais in Egypt (OGIS 48), confining the choice of dicasts, as of
councillors, to a chosen few. In the absence of sufficient evidence (which l
316
believe does not exist) I would assume both that the participation of the poorer
citizens in such dkastic courts as continued to exist became increasingly rare,
and_that in many citi...-s legal cases came to be tried more and more extensively by
small boards of ma~~:istrat<"s. even where words like dikastirion continued to be
used, as they did gt'~t"r<tll y.
I agree withjoms that in the: sphere ot"jurisdiction the:. Romans 'interfered far
more systematically than had the king~' (GC."J 121-.'\, cf. 119). During the
Republic and early Principate difl~n-nt ruic:.-s obtainc:.J in different provinces, and
moreover the position ofan im.ihidual dt y rnig;ht vary tu !\ume extent according
to whether or not it was a 'fn<.'' or free .;md tc~~kratc:.' ~tJ.tl." {but see above for the
precarious nature nf thc:.-sc:. statusc:.s ....-spc:..'Clally thl' t{mnt"r). Our best information
during the Republican pc:rmd tli irum S1cdy (ibid. 121-.2. and see Appendix IV
below, 1 adfin.). w._. also know ~om~thm!t ufthc:. p.,sitiun in Cyrenaica in the
early Principare (sc:.'C' App\'llciix IV. 5). In bc1th provinc~ we fmd the collective
body of resident Romans (itmetJtJ.i .:ui11111 Romatfl)nlm. of whom I shaH have
more to say in Appendix IV} providing judge.~ tor lawsuits. From the language
used by Cicero in letters \'Hitten while he w.t~ gnwmin~ the province ofCiJicia
in 51-50 B.C., plumin~ ham~l'lt <lfl his ~mc.w.siy 111 al1t1wing the Greeks O try
their own cases, Jt seem~ tha~ tht: citit."S of that pnwinn had no guaranteed
constitutional rights o(jurisdicti<lll, and that the- position was probably the same
in the province of Asia (Ck.. A.d .-\rr. VI.i.l5: ii.4). 29 Otherwise, most of our
evidence comes fnlm duc.um~nts gJ\in~ spcdal privikges, including resort to
Roman couns, to Gn'('k!. who W\'rc. promirwnt pn)-Rvnun~. such as Asdepiades
ofClazomenae and uthc.r~ in 71'1 U.C. Jnd Sdc.-ucus ofRhosus in 41. 30 I believe
that jones may well be riftht (,lf au~; rah' t~1r !>Ume areas) in thinking it 'possible
that the Romans abolishtd the jury system, which was already moribund, and
substituted for it in the cities an arrangement like their own civil procedure,
whereby a judge was appointc=d to rry each case, perhaps by the local magistrates' (GCAJ 123). At any rate. I can see no sign of dicastic courts still
functioning widely, although they continued for a time at Rhodes and perhaps a
few other places (see below).
In the Principate interference with Greek judicial autonomy was intensified,
with several 'free cities' losing their privileged status; and we now begin to find
specific mention of the transfer of cases to the emperor's coun, 31 a practice
which became more and more widespread. Sometimes we find the court of the
provincial governor mentioned; 32 and sometimes we may suspect that our
source is referring to the governor's court rather than that of the city (see
perhaps Plot., Mor. 805ab). Even ifthereis a dear reference to a city court.:~:~ we
can hardly ever be sure that the case will be tried by any larger body than a board
of magistrates34 or a panel ofjudges drawn from the morf' welJ-to-do citizens35 and this is true, unfortunately. even in examp]c:s wherf' the word dikastrrion is
used. :l4i In particular, we find many timf'S some such f'xprcssion as mrtaprmpton
dikastirion, in the sense of a small panel ofjudges (one or more) sent by one city
to try legal cases in another, by special request. 37 I think it is significant when we
find Hadrian's well-known law regulating the production of olive oil in Attica
decreeing that certain offenders are to be prosecuted in the Athenian Assembly
(see n.34 again)- the Assembly still existed, but the old Athenian dikastiria had
presumably disappeared entirely by now (cf. Appendix IV below. 2). As far as
317
I know, it is only at Rhodes that there is any real evidence for the survival of
something like the old dikasteria into the second century of the Principate (and
incidentally for pay being given to dikastai who served in the courts there: seem y
PPOA). There is, however, at least one other possible exception, namely Tarsus
(see Dio Chrys. XXXIII.37). When Dio Chrysoscom (XXXV.IS) includes
dikazontts in his list of the various people who can be expected to attend the
judicial sessions at A pamea (Celaenae} in Phrygia, he is certainly not referring to
mere local 'jurymen' of that city, for the occasions he is describing were the
regular visits of the provincial governor, to preside over a court trying cases
from the whole judicial conventus of which Apamea was the official centre. Dio s
dikazontes must be members of the governor's consilium (his panel of advisers,
assessores) and/or those men appointed by the governor to try less important
cases who later (from the early third century onwards) became known as iudices
pedanei and who might have their own assessores. 38
Before the end of the third century the local courts seem to have die<i out
completely, and aJl jurisdiction was now exercised by the provincial governor
or his delegates. (No doubt many governors were glad to allow local magistrates to try minor cases.) This development 'bore hard on the provincials, and
in particular on the humbler classes, who had often to travel to the metropolis of
the province to obtain justice and could not afford the gratuities expected of
litigants by the governor and his officials. Moreover. when as was often the case
their grievance was oppression by these very officials, they had little chance of
satisfaction if they obtained a hearing' Qones, GCAJ 150). The institution of
dtjensores civitatum or plebis (in Greek, ekdikoi or syndikoi) in the fourth century is
not likely to have made a great difference (cf. VI. vi below).
I have said nothing here of the dikastai who appear, though rarely, in inscriptions (mainly of the Hellenistic period) in roles not normally associated with
dicasts: performing administrative functions, acting as witnesses to documents,
moving decrees, and even perhaps filling eponymous offices, 39 since I do not
think they are in any way relevant to the subject we are examining.
The whole process I have been describing, in which, under Roman rule, the
legal and constitutional position (the Rechtsstellung) of poorer citizens became
steadily worse, with the loss of those democratic elements that still remained,
deserves to be considered side by side with the marked deterioration in the
Rechtsstellung of humbler Roman citizens during the first two cenruries of the
Christian era, which I describe in VIlLi below, Both processes must have facilitated the exploitation of the poor: in the one case Greeks. in the other Romans.
* * * * * *
The most important long-term effect of the destruction of Greek democracy,

as I have already indicated. was the removal from the poor (who formed the vast
majority of the population ofthe Graeco-Roman world) ofall protection against
exploitation and oppression by the powerful, and indeed of all effective opportunity of even voicing their grievances by constitutional means. If they lived in
the country, as most of them did. they could do little. when things became
intolerable, but take to Hight or to brigandage- unless of course they could find
some great landowner who would give them a measure of protection in return
for their becoming virtually his serfs (see IV .ii above). I have quoted in IV .iv
above the interesting passage in which Dio Cassius takes it for granted that the
318
most vigorous elements in the empire would tend to live by brigandage

(LII.xxvii.3-5). When Fronto thought he was going to become proconsul of a
relatively peaceful province, Asia, in c. 155, one of the first things he did was to
send to Mauretania, on the other side of the empire, for a man he happened to
know, Julius Senex, who was particularly skilled at dealing with brigands or
bandits, latronts(Ep. ad Ant. Pium8.1, ed. M. P.J. vandenHout, p. 161). In Italy
brigandage was evidently rife in the fourth and fifth centuries; a series of
imperial constitutions of the second half of the fourth century attempted to deal
with this condition (CTh JX.xxx.t-5), and an edict of 409 actually forbade
anyone except an ordinary rustic to put his sons out to nurse with shepherds on
pain of being treated as an accomplice in brigandage (ibid. xxxi.l). But it would
be superfluous to cite more of the plentiful evidence concerning brigandage (or
banditry), which has often been discussed in modem times, for instance by
MacMullen, ERO ch. vi and Appendix B, and Lea Flam-Zuckermann, in an
article in Latomus (1970) ..f0 Doubtless most of those called brigands in antiquity
were indeed essentially robbers, who had no wish to change the social order and
were concerned only with their own personal advantage. Some, however, may
well have been much more like what we should call social revolutionaries, with
at least the rudiments of an ideology different from that of the ruling class of
their day: a good example is the Italian Bulla, in the Severan period (see VIII .iii
below). It is salutary to recall that in the series of suppression' and 'encirclement' campaigns waged by the Kuomintang against the Chinese Communists from 1927 onwards, the term regularly applied to the Communists by
the government was 'bandits'. In VIII .iii below I quote the statement ofUlpian,
in Dig. l.xviii.13.pr., about the importance to a latro of having local assistance,
from rtceptorts.
The poor townsman, or the peasant who lived near enough to a city. had
more effective means of making his protests known: he could riot, or, ifhis city
was large enough to have a hippodrome (circus), an amphitheatre or a substantial theatre, he might be able to organise a demonstration there. I need say
nothing here about the very marked quasi-political role played during the
Principate and the Later Empire by demonstrations in these places of public
entertainment, sometimes in the very presence of the emperor himself, as this
subject has been admirably dealt with in the Inaugural Lecture by Alan Cameron
as Professor of Latin at King's College London in 1973, entitled Bread and
Circusts: tht Roman Emptrorand his People, and also-up to a point-in his book,
Circus Factions: Blurs and Grems at Rome and Byzantium (1976). Such demonstrations could often take place, of course, quite apart from the presence of the
emperor or even the provincial governor. 1 Those organised (roughly from the
mid-fifth century to the reign ofHeraclius) by the circus factions, the 'Blues' and
'Greens' mainly, were often futile affairs, sometimes apparently no more 'political' in intent than an outbreak of 'aggro' at a modem football march, for the
factions as such had no specifically political characteristics - although I believe
they rna y have acquired a political significance more often than Cameron would
allow: this question, for me, remains open:U Outright abuse of an emperor, in
the circus in particular. was not unknown. John the Lydian preserves an exceptionally entertaining example: a lampoon in four elegiac couplets, posted up
in the hippodrome at Constantinople in the early years of the sixth century
319
(c. 510-15), attacking the Emperor Anastasius at a time when his financial policy
was being carried out through Marinus the Syrian, and indeed was probably
inspired by Marin us, who was praetorian prefect of the East from 512 to perhaps
515. Anastasius is named; he is addressed as basileu kosmophthore, 'Worlddestroying emperor'; he is accused of 'money-grubbing' (philochremosyne);
Marinus is named only as Scylla to his Charybdis (De Magistr. 111.46). The most
famous example of a major disturbance arising out of the games is the so-called
'Nika Riot' at Constantinople in 532: it began as a demonstration against certain
oppressive officials, developed into a revolution against the Emperor Justinian,
and ended in a frightful massacre by Belisarius and Mundus and their 'barbarian'
troops of vast numbers of the common people, estimated by even the most
conservative of the sources- no doubt with the usual exaggeration- at thirty to
thirty-five thousand (see e.g. Stein, HBEII.449-56).
That, one cannot help remarking, is the sort of price that may have to be paid
for the total suppression of proper democratic rights. Occasionally we hear of
milder demonstrations, like the one at Alexandria mentioned by Philo, who
says he saw an audience rising to its feet and shouting with enthusiasm at the
mention of'the name offreedom' in the Auge, a play of Euripides now lost to us
(Quod omn. prob. lib. 141). That remark of Philo's may make us think of some
passages in Dio Chrysostom 's insufferably verbose speech to the Alexandrians,
which contains a series of animadversions, sometimes hard to interpret, on the
public behaviour of the citizens (Oral. XXXII. passim, esp. 4, 25-32, 33, 35,
41-2, 51-2, 55: for the date, see VIII.iii n.l below).
One of the last references, during the period covered by this book, to a
popular movement inside a major city is made by the historian Evagrius in his
Ecclesiastical History (completed in 594), concerning the situation at Antioch in
573, in the reign ofJustin II, when a Persian army under a commander called in
Greek Adaarmanes was invading and plundering Syria. (The work ofEvagrius.
our only surviving narrative source for the whole of the period it covers,
431-594, is not limited to the history of the Church, which is its major subject.)
Antioch had never fully recovered from its sack by the Persians in 540: although
rebuilt by Justinian, it had suffered further disasters, including two earthquakes,
in 551 and 557, and more than one outbreak of plague. In 573 it seems that only
the countryside and suburbs of Antioch were devastated by the Persians,
although much of the population had tied. But before the city was abandoned,
according to Evagrius (who may have been present at the time), 'the demo,( rose.
with the aim of starting a revolution' (epanesti neoteron pragmaton arxai the/On);
and he adds the enigmatic remark that this is 'an event that often occurs [hoia philei
gignesthai], especially in circumstances such as this' (HE v.9 fin., p.20tl.l t-13,
ed. Bidez/Parmentier; and sec Downey, HAS 561-2. with 533-59).
It is no wonder that the imperial government was suspicious of any kind of
combination or association among the lower orders in the Greek East. The
Emperor Trajan refused to permit the formation of a fire-brigade in the city of
Nicomedia in Bithynia (which had just suffered from a disastrous fire, and had
no organised body to deal with such things), on the express ground that any
association in the province was bound to take on a political character and lead to
disturbances (Pliny, Ep. X. 33-34). Indeed, there seems to have been a marked
absence from the Greek East of organised fire-brigades such as there were in the
320
West. For the same reason, Trajan was also nervous about allowing new eranoi
(friendly societies, or mutual benefit societies) in Bithynia-Pontus (ibid. 92-3). 42
One popular form of riot was to lynch a detested official, or bum down the
houses of local bigwigs who were held responsible for a famine or some other
misfortune. In the late first century the common people of Prusa in Bithynia
threatened to bum down the house of Dio Chrysostom, and to stone him, on
the ground that he was one of those mainly responsible for a famine. We possess
the speech he delivered on that occasion in the Assembly ofPrusa. which I have
already mentioned above: he claims that he is not to blame for the famine, as his
land produced only enough grain for his own needs and was otherwise given
over to vine-growing and the pasturing of cattle (Orat. XLV1.6,8-13); he also
reminds his audience that the Romans are watching them ( 14). On other
occasions the victims of popular indignation~ 3 may even have been innocent of
at any rate the particular offence with which they were being charged- as when
Ammianus tells us of a Roman noble of the third quarter of the fourth century,
the father of the great orator Symmachus, whose beautiful house across the
Tiber was burnt down by tht> peoplt> because of a baseless rum our to the t>ffect
that he had said he would rather use his wine for quenching lime-kilns than sell it
at the price they expected (XXVII.iii.4). But I do not think we need waste very
much sympathy on most of the magnates whose houses were destroyed in this
way. The situation at Antioch in Syria, about which, in the late fourth century.
we know more than any other city in the Greek East, may throw some light on
this matter. I should explain first that the food supply of Antioch seems to have
come mainly- as we should expect- from the neighbouring area, the plains of
the lower Orontes, j4 and that it was the Council of the city, dominated by
substantial landowners, which was always regarded as responsible for the com
supply, a sizeable proportion of which is likely to have come from the estates of
the rich proprietors themselves. Their prime concern was evidently selling their
corn at the highest possible price, even in time of famine. They were accused by
the Emperor Julian of stock-piling it in their granaries during the famine at
Antioch of 362-3 (Misop. 369d). A little later St. John Chrysostom denounced
them for throwing whole sacks of grain into the river rather than let the poor
have it cheap; and speaking of one particular landowner who had publicly
bewailed the end of a thrt>atened scarcity because of the loss he would sustain
through the consequent fall in prices, the Saint spoke with some sympathy of
demands to have his tongue cut out and his heart incinerated, and (with an apt
reference to Proverbs Xl.26) declared roundly that he ought to have been
stoned! (In Ep. I ad Cor., Hom. XXXIX.7-8, in MPG LXI.343-4). These
passages should not be written off entirely, although Chrysostom may well be
exaggerating, as usual (cf. Petit, L VMA 117 n.S).
I need not describe here the famine at Antioch in 362-3, which I have already
mentioned in IV .ii above: it did not give rise to outbreaks of violence, but this
was en tire] y due to the personal presence of the Emperor Julian for some seven
months and the exceptional measures he took to reduce the famine (see IV .ii and
its n.23). It is, however, worth drawing attention to the demonstrations which
took place on the emperor's arrival in july 362. both in the hippodrome (Liban.,
Oral. XVIII.195) and in the theatre Oulian. Misop. 368c). with rhythmical shouts
of'Plenty of everything: everything dear' (pant a gemei, panta pollou). I will only
321
add that there is but a brief and vague account of these events in Ammianus,
who, although one of the best historians the ancient world produced, was
himself a member of the propertied class of Antioch and sympathised strongly
with the councillors. Ammianus merely tells us disparagingly that Julian,
without good reason and out of zest for popularity, tried to lower prices, 'a
thing which sometimes, when not done in a fitting manner, is apt to produce
scarcity and famine' (XXII.xiv.1; cf. XIV.vii.2) - Ammianus was evidently
what would be regarded today in the capitalist world as an orthodox economist!
But he does give us rather more details concerning a somewhat similar situation
at Antioch in 354 (XIV.vii.2,5-6).~ 5 The Caesar Gallus, who was ruling the
East, realised that a corn shortage was at hand and advised the councillors of
Antioch to fix a lower price- inopportunely, as Ammianus believed ( 2,
vilitatem intempestivam). The councillors of course objected, whereupon Gallus
ordered the execution of their leading members, some of whom were put to
death (Liban., Orat. I. 96), although the majority were saved by the intervention
ofHonoratus, the Comes Oricntis. The common people begged the Carsar to
help them. According to Ammianus, Gallus virtually accused Theophilus, the
provincial governor (consularis) of Syria, of being responsible for the crisis: he
was tom to pieces by the crowd, and the people also burnt down the house of a
rich Antiochene, Eubulus- who, as we happen to know from Libanius, only
just escaped stoning (Orat. 1.103). The way the riot is referred to by Julian
(Mi.sop. 363c. 370c). and the failure of the authorities to take any very severe
measures (except against a few humble people), 411 suggest that Theophilus and
Eubulus between them had perhaps been conspicuously responsible for allowing
the threat of famine to develop. Thus was a rough sort ofjustice sometimes done
in the Later Empire- but at what a cost!
Justice through ordinary channels was virtually out of the question for the
poor man by now, unless of course he could obtain the help of some powerful
protector, at a price, in the way I have described dsewhere (SVP) and in IV .ii
above. Emperors like Julian, and some imperial officials, might be wellintentioned, but if so they were likely to be defeated by the intrigues of the
dynatoi or potentes. the great landlords. Even the autocratic Jus tin ian, in a rl'script
dealing with a case of oppression by a government official in Egypt, which I
have described in IV .ii above, could say apologetically, 'The intrigues ofTheodosius proved stronger than our commands' (P. Cairo Masp. 1.67024.!5-17). In
a constitution of 536 the same emperor complains that in Cappadocia (central
Asia Minor) many small possessions and even the greater part of the imperial
estates have been appropriated by the great landowners, 'and no one has
protested. orifhe has, his mouth has been stopped with gold' (Nov.]. XXX.v.l).
The best-intentioned emperors could do little to protect the humble.Julian. one
of the best of all the emperors in this respect. is said by Ammianus (XVI. v.15) to
have deliberately refrained. when he was commanding in Gaul, from giving
remissions of a"ear.s of taxes, although he reduced the amount of tax for the
future, because he well knew that everywhere the poor were invariably obliged
to pay their taxes at once and in full, and that remissions of arrears could benefit
only the rich. (And see VIII.iv below.)
* * * * * *
The Greek term dimokratia became steadily more_ devalued during the process
322
I have been describing. It l5 ros..;ihk ra ,Jisd~:gui5h I\\'\) phases in this development: the first be~an .mitt ~..arh iu tht. Hdkni:-:i.: "Pcrit>,l; the second is not
l'Videnced (as far;.,. I k1;ow) urnil th' lB:d-~,n-:,1 n;ttury of the Christian era
and may not have t'\'olvtd much ~arlin than th<tt. Omin~ the third and second
centuries B.C. dimokratia in~.r~:&Sm~iv ,;&mew !ltgmfy nn Hlllre than an internally
self-governing republic, 41 wh,thtr dt'lth>l'r.attt' ,,r oli~;.Ht'hic, and it could be
used merely for the very litnitl'd dt~r,.,. uf ;naon,my .1;:corded by Rome to
complaisant Greek cities, or w t"~..kbrJrt a r,srtnrion uf con=-titutional republican
government. The bt"sl tarly illustuli(>n of this th.u I em find is the bilingual
dedication by the Lydan lt>.tgul.' to Cc~pitoline Jupiter .Lt R,lme. probably of the
160s B.C. (IGRR l.fll). 1 ~' Thtl yli.ms themselves refc.r in Greek to the restoration of their 'anc,~tral d,mocra(y {I,,< patrios di.,,,,~,:,,u,,,}. equating it in Latin
with their 'ancestors' hht>rty' Vlzi,:nmJ leibertas). Hy rhL l.tst century B.C. this
sense of dimokratia setms hl ha\~ b..-cumc:- r!w st.tndar,i one. The Romans, of
course, had no W(rd uf thlir <lWII t(r 'dt't!Hl~r:cy and never resorted to a
transliteration ofthl Gntk word. Whtn Cil'l'n>. i~lr t'x;unplc, is speaking in his
De republica of dewua.tq in rh, nri~iml Gr,'1.k. l'l'IN'. h~ usually substitutes for
demokratia either lib,., I'"'P''i.,.~ or just J't'?JIw ~~:.g. l.l2-<>. 53. 55, tl9; cf. 66-8,
where Cicero is partly p.n;tphrao;in~ Pbw. Rt'l' VIII,51,2a ff.), and on one
occasion he says that a stJ.tt' in wlurh the people .m: all-powerful is called a civitas
popularis (1.42). Tht uri~m.d Jtltaning of demokt.lti., io; !itlll occasionally found in
Greek until well into tht Prindp.uc. 1 ~ .1lthuu~h this 1-; more usually expressed
now by some othtr word. ~u~h ..1~ .cllt.kMtirl ('nwh-rult') . .iO
I do not know whl'll th, Crn:k word di'llhh..lti,l w;tli first used for the
constitution of tht Honun Rtpublic. but lt <,t't'ms likdy that this happened by
the last century B.C .. or .anywa~ hy the fiN century of our era, when the
cllmokratia of the RLpubJi,nmld \'>,- nmtr:Jst,tl wirh th, monarchia of the Principate.
This was a perfectly u.lluralu:.;t~' giv~11 rhe previous lklknistic developments:
it was simply an application w H.uuh' ,,f the terminology already in use for
Greek cities. The earliest t,xts I iMppt'll ll' k.m l\\' in which the Roman Republic is
clearly seen by an .mthnr writing iu Grttk as a dt'tllrlkMt;.., arc of the late first
century: Josephus, A] XIX.It.2.l~i. and PlutJrch. G.llt1 :!2.12. Josephus tells
us that the soldiers who made Cbu,lms emperor ,,u tlw dSS<~'isination ofCaligula
did so because they realised that a dimokratia (wlndt here can only mean a
restoration of the Republic) could newr h.1w sutHnem control of the great
affairs of state, and anyway would not b .... l~\'.mr.lbl~: to themselves (id. 162).
And Plutarch says th.u tht'llaths sworn tn Vndliu-s .ts emperor in 69 by the army
in Upper Germany were ~inn in breach vfo.uh~ ~wom but a short time before
'to the Senate' - in faLt. tu 'tlw SL'tl.ltl' .md Plork ,,f Rome' (22.4), which
Plutarch describes as Jrm,,k,.,r;k,l. One L'Utdd .:t'rtamly translate dimokratikoi
here 'republican', espl'dally sint't' rht very givin){ nt'tltnst ''aths had been an open
repudiation of the cxis.ting l'Inperor. Galba, ifnut ofthl' Principate itself. Greek
writers of the first, stcond and third CL'tlturits r:ommonly refer to the Roman
Republic as a climokratia, in contrast with tht Print:ipatc. which is almost always
an outright m.,narchia,s' under a basilros (d. Vlxi bd,,w). Occasionally they
apply to the Republic some other term th.ln :Um,k~;~rio~. fnr Strabo, in a passage
written early in the reign ofTiberius (bt'lllrt th, dt.J.th l,t"Germanicus in 19), the
Republican constitution was a mixture of monarchy and aristocracy (politeian ...
V. The class struggle on the political plane {iii)
323
miktin ek te monarchias kai aristokratias). characterised in his mind- as were also its
leaders- by arete, a word conveying approval not only of its efficiency but also of
its moral qualities (VI.iv.2, pp.286,288; cf. Dion. Hal.. De anriq. orator. 3).
Appian, in the second quarter of the second century, often refers to the Roman
Republic as a demokratia (sec n.Sl again), but in his praef. 6 it is an aristokratia (cf.
VI. vi below). Dio Cassius, for whom demokratia is the standard term, sometimes
describes the late Republican constitution as descending into, or at least disturbed
by, dynasteiai (a term he seems to use as a milder form of tyrannis);~ and for
Herod ian, writing in the mid-third century, the Roman Republic as a whole was a
dynasteia, a word he probably used to mean a dose hereditary oligarchy (l.i.4).
very much as Thucydides and Aristotle had done (Thuc. Ill.62.3; Arist., Pol.
IV.5, 1292b7-10, etc.).
I have spoken of two phases in the devaluation of the term demokratia. In the.>
first, as we have just seen, it carne to be used for almost any type of constitutional.
republican government, however oligarchic. The second represents the ultimate
degradation of the concept of demokratia: from at least the Anton inc age onwards
the term could actually be used of the Roman Principatc. :;.1 ln the oration To Rome
of Aelius Aristeides, from the reign of Antoninus Pius in the mid-second century.
the Roman empire as a whole is claimed as the ideal dNt~okratia, because all the
people have willingly resigned their powers of ruling into the hands of the one
man best fitted to rule: the emperor! 54 And about A.D. 220 Philostratus, writing
an imaginary dialogue between the Emperor Vespasian and some Greek philosophers, makes his hero, Apollonius ofTyana, after loftily dismissing constitutions as unimportant (his own life, he says, is in the power of the gods), declare
that "the rule of one man who is always looking after the common good is a
democracy [dimos]' (Vita Apollon. V.35).s.~ What Aristeides and Philostratus arc
really praising, of course, is monarchy. Much the same line of thought is expressed in the extraordinarily interesting speech with a dramatic date of29 B.C.
which Dio Cassius puts into the mouth of Maccmas, addressing Augustus in
reply to Agrippa's advocacy of a form of constitution called demokratia and
represented by Agrippa not only as the traditional Greek but also as the Roman
Republican form of government. :>6 Maecenas is made to claim that 'that freedom
of the mob [the ochlos] becomes the bitterest servitude of the best. and involves
both in a common ruin', while under the regime he advocates (an outright
monarchy) everyone will achieve, paradoxically, 'demokratia which is genuine [ten
dimokratian tin alitheJ and freedom which is secure' (lll.xiv.4-5). And the
Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-80) could apply to his own ruk if not the actual
word dimokratia, a whole array of terms which had meant something very real in
the great days of Greek democracy but were now largely empty. In Medit. 1.6 he
says he has learnt to endure free speech (parrhesia). 57 In 1.14 he applies to his own
rule the concept of a constitution preserving equality before thl' law (a politria
isonomos), administered according to equality and with equal liberty of speech
(isotes and isegoria). But of course- these- are merely attributes of a monarchy
(basileia, the most dignified name for that institution), which, he thinks. honours
above all things the freedom of its subjt:cts (tin eleutherian ton arch~Jmmon, I. 14).
* * * * * *
There is one text I wish to mention, which lll'vcr seems to be brought into any
324
discussion by historians of the later uses of the word demokratia, perhaps because
it occurs in a work of much greater literary than historical interest: the last
surviving chapter of the partly preserved treatise in Greek, On thf! sublime (Peri
hypsous, or De sublimitatf!), a piece of literary criticism which used to be attributed
to 'Longinus' or 'Dionysius' (and often to Cassius Longinus in the mid-third
century) but is now generally agreed to be the work of an otherwise unknown
author, writing in one of the first three centuries and perhaps most probably in
the first, or the first half of the second. The writer states a problem put to him by
'a certain philosopher', who may of course be a creature ofhis own imaginationa common literary device. The 'philosopher' stresses the world-wide dearth of
great literature, and asks whether it is right to accept 'the oft-repeated view [ekeino
to thryloummon] that dimokratia is the effective nurse of great achievements [or, 'of
great men'], and that literary genius flourished almost exclusively under it and
perished with it'. Demokratia is then virtually equated with freedom {l'leutheria)
and contrasted with the 'slavery' which is represented as universally prevailing
(44. 1-3). By 'slavery', of course, political subjection is meant; and it is described
as 'douleia dikaia', an adjective I find puzzling: is it 'legalised, legal, legitimate',
or 'deserved, justified', or )ust'? (I think that perhaps 'deserved [or 'just']
political subjection' gives the best sense.) The reply by the author of the treatise
is bitterly disappointing: it hardly notices the 'philosopher's' statement and, in a
very traditional manner, characteristic of the Stoics among others, attributes the
prevailing 'frivolity' (rhathymia) to avarice and the pursuit of pleasure, and all the
evils accompanying such qualities (44.6--1 1).
What the 'philosopher' says is of great interest. The general view of literary
scholars today is that it is the introduction of the Roman Principate which is
represented as the transformation of dimokratia and eleuthtria into 'slavery'. ~7
Yet the literary scholars, best represented by D. A. Russell (whose edition ofOn
the sublime can now be regarded as the standard one).~ fail to bring out the
startling paradox presented by the passage in question. It might be possible to
maintain that lAtin literature of the highest quality flourished best in the Republic
and did not long survive its extinction.~~ But although the author of our treatise
dedicated it to a man with a Roman name, Postumius Terentianus, and must
have been writing at least partly, if not mainly, for educated Romans, he is not
interested in the slightest in Latin literature, which, apart from a passing
reference to Cicero (12.4), he entirely ignores- as did the vast majority of Greek
men ofletters, including even Dionysius of Halicamassus, who lived at Rome
from 30/29 B.C. onwards, and who never notices Latin authors except when he
has occasion to use them as historical sources. Even Plutarch, an omnivorous
reader, did not take up the study of Roman literature until he was well into
middle age (Plut., Demosth. 2.2). Our author is concerned exclusively with
Greek literature. And I do not see how it could possibly be maintained that it was
the institution of the Principate that had crippled Greek literature, which was
surely little affected for the worse by the fall of the Roman Republic. A very
much better case could be made for saying that Greek literature, apart from
Homer and the early poets, did indeed rise and fall with dimokratia - in the
original and proper sense! Certainly the largest number of references in the
treatise On the sublime to works which evoked the admiration of the author are to
those written in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.; there is little or no enthusiasm
325
for Hellenistic literature. 60 The author reports the opinion I have been discussing
(that of the 'philosopher') as 'widely held' - unless, as is possible, ekeino to
thryloumenon in 44.2 has a pejorative sense: Rhys Roberts's translation, in his
edition (of 1899), is 'the trite explanation'. Could the statement about the decay
of great literature after Republican times have originated with Romans, thinking
primarily about Latin literature in general, or perhaps oratory in particular, and
after much repetition by them, could it have gained currency among Greeks? Or
did the statement originate among Greeks, who realised that the period of the
greatest development of Greek literature was precisely that in which real democracy had flourished? I must say. I should be rather surprised if there were many
literary men in the Roman period who had opinions of the latter sort; and I
would imagine that the view expressed by Longinus' 'philosopher' originated
among Greeks during the Hellenistic period and was tenacious enough to retain
a few adherents even under Roman rule. Dionysius ofHalicamassus, one of the
leading literary critics of antiquity, opens his work, On the ancient orators, by
dating the beginning of the end of 'ancient, philosophic rhetoric' (by which he
means essentially the Attic style) to the death of Alexander the Great, in 323
B.C. (De antiq. orat. 1). It evidently did not occur to him that a more powerful
influence might have been exerted by the destruction of the Athenian democracy
in the following year!
* * * * * *
Two very puzzling references to Jemokratiai (in the plural). for which I have
never been able to find a parallel, or an explanation, occur in the works of
Hippolytus, Pope (or Antipope) of Rome and martyr: one is in section 27 of that
curious work, On the Antichrist, which seems to have been written very near the
year 200, and the other is in a slightly later work, the Commentary on Daniel
II.xii.7. 81 (For the Book of Daniel itself, see VII.v and its n.4 below.) Of the
image depicted in Dan.II.31 ff. it is the toes (verses 41-2) which are singled out
by Hippolytus as symbolising democracies- I catu1ot understand why, since
they play no significant or independent role in Daniel (or in the Apocalypse) and
are not given any particular explanation there, unlike the ten horns, interpreted
as ten kings, with which they could be equated. (It is interesting, by the way, to
find Porphyry, the great pagan scholar and anti-Christian polemicist, giving as is now universally admitted- a far better interpretation ofDaniel's beasts than
any of the early Christian Fathers. I need do no more here than refer toG. Bardy,
in the Sourceschretimnes edition ofHippol., Comm. in Dcm., mentioned in n.61,
at pp.23-4, 271 note a.)
* * * * * *
Real democracy had always been anathema to the upper classes of the GraecoRoman world. By the time of the later Empire it had become a vaguelyremembered bogey, now- happily- extinct, but still something that a rich man
might shudder at. It was probably in JJ6A that the historian and bishop,
Eusebius of Caesarea, delivered his Triakontaiterikos (or Oratio de laudibus Constantinr), a panegyric announcing for the first time the full theory, including the
theology, of the new Christian monarchy of Constantine, on the thirtieth
anniversary of that emperor's accession. (I shall have a little more to say about
326
this speech in Vl.vi below, and see its n.77.) Eusebius contrasts with Constantine's moMrchia the ex isotimias polyarchia, 'the rule of the Many, founded on
equality of privilege'. He may well mean any form of rule other than monarchy,
but isotimia suggests democracy above alL And he declares that such polyarchia is
mere 'anarchy and civil strife' (anarchia kai stasis). 63 This was very much what
Plato had thought about democracy. But in the seven eventful centuries between
Plato and Eusebius democracy had perished utterly. Its spirit had been partly
broken before the end of the fourth century B.C .. and its institutions had then
been gradually stamped out by the combined efforts of the Greek propertied
classes, the Macedonians and the Romans. In Byzantine writers from at least the
early fifth century onwards, the word demokratia and its verb demokratein can
denote 'mob violence', 'riot', even 'insurrection'. 84 The democracy which
revived in the modem world was something new, which owed little directly to
Greek dimokratia. But by the very name it bears it pays a silent but well-deserved
tribute to its ancient predecessor. 65
VI
Rome the Suzerain
(i)
'The queen and mistress of the world'
This book is concerned primarily with what I am calling 'the Greek world' (see
I.ii above) and not with Rome. But Rome became the mistress of the: whole
Greek world by stages during the last two centuries B.C. (roughly bctwt"C'n 197
and 30: see Section iv of this chapter), and my 'Greek world' was therefore ruled
by Rome and part of the Roman empire for more than half the period of thirteen
to fourteen hundred years dealt with in this book. Moreover, the portion of the
Roman empire which preserved its unity and its character as an urban civilisation longest was actually the Greek portion, in the sense of the area within which
Greek was spoken by the upper classes (see I.ii-iii above). It is therefore necessary for me to say something about the Romans and their empire, and its effects
upon the Greek world.
We commonly, and rightly, speak of 'Graeco-Roman' civilisation; and
indeed the Greek contribution to the culture of the Roman empire was very
great, and actually dominant in many parts of the intellectual and art~stic field. If
we ignore two or three Roman contributions in the realm of technology we can
say that the Romans of the Latin West showed a conspicuously higher glnius
than the Greeks in two spheres only, one practical and the other intellectual.
First, they excelled in ruling (both themselves and others) in the interests of their
own propertied class. above all its richest members. Vergil expressed this
perfectly when he made the shade of Anchises (the mythical ancestor of the
Roman race) tell the Romans to leave the practice of metal work and sculpture,
of oratory and of astronomy to others who can manage such arts better (he
means of course the Greeks) and to concentrate on ruling:
Let it be your work, Roman, to rule the peoples with your sway -these shall be your
arts: to impose the habit of peace. to spare the conquered and put down the proud
(parcere subiecris, rr debellare superbos: Am. VU147-53).
The proud, the superbi, were simply those who refused to submit to Roman
domination; and beaten down they were, by 'the queen and mistress of the
world' (Frontinus, De aquis 11.88), whose people was the lord of kings, conqueror and commander of all nations' (Cic., Pro domo suo ad pontif. 90). The full
force of the verb 'debellare' emerges nicely from a passage in Tacitus (Ann.
11.22.1), where Germanicus sets up a trophy ofhis victory over some Germans
in A.D. 16, with an inscription recording that the peoples between Rhine and
Elbe had been debellati by the army ofTiberius; the preceding chapter (21.3) tells
how Germanicus had given his soldiers instructions to be 'steadfast in slaughter;
328
no prisoners were to be taken; nothing but the extermination of the race would
put an end to the war' (cf. 1.51.1-2). Vespasian, whose son Titus sacked
Jerusalem in A.D. 70 with the most appalling carnage, is called by Tertullian
'ludaeorum debellator' (Apol. 5.7). Let us never forget that the Roman passion
for 'ruling' was anything but disinterested or motiveless: the intensely practical
Roman governing class ruled because that was the best means of guaranteeing
the high degree of exploitation they needed to maintain. (How far the acquisition
by the Romans of much of their empire was due to this factor is a different
question.) J fully agree with A. H. M. Jones:
lfl may venture a generalisation on the economic effects of the Roman empire I would
say that its chief effect was to promote an ever increasing concentration efland in the
hands of its governing aristocracy at the expense of the population at large (RE 135).
The other sphere (the intellectual one) in which Roman genius displayed itself
was the ius dvile, 1 the 'civil law', a term with a whole range of meanings
(depending mainly on the context) which J shall use in a fairly broad sense, to
mean the private law regulating relations between Roman citizens. (Only a
small minority of even the free population of the 'Greek world', in my sense,
was affected by the ius civile, of course, until the Constitutio Antoniniana, in A.D.
212, extended the Roman citizenship to nearly the whole free population of the
empire: see VIII.i below.) I must immediately make it clear that I do not mean at
aU that the Romans had what we call 'the rule oflaw': in fact that was conspicuously lacking from large areas of the Roman legal system, including
particularly what we should call criminal and constitutional law (together
making up 'public law'), the very spheres most people today will mainly be
thinking of when they use the expression 'the rule oflaw'. The opinion I have
just expressed about Roman law is so different from the admiring one often
heard that I may be excused ifl repeat and amplify some views I have expressed
briefly dsewhere, 2 with some citation of writers on Roman law who will
command far greater authority than I can.
Jn the standard work of H. F. Jolowicz. Historicallnlroducrion to tht Study of
Roman Law (now available in a third edition. revised by Barry Nicholas, 1972),
the section on criminal jurisdiction in the Principate points out that the Roman
'criminal system never passed through a stage of strict law', and that here 'the
"rule oflaw" ... was never established' (401-4, at 404). As for the constitutional
sphere, I show in Section vi of this chapter how autocratic was the rule of the
emperors, not only in the Later Empire but also (if with more attempt to conceal
the reality) in the Principate, from the very beginning. Even the operation in
practice of the civil law was deeply affected by the new forms of legal process
which were introduced in the early Principate and gradually came to supersede
the 'formulary system' that had flourished during the last few generations of the
Republic. Jt is difficult even to give these new processes a collective name. but
perhaps 'the system of cognitio' 3 will serve. Introduced for some purposes
(fidticommissa. for example) as early as the reign of Augustus. and always of
course dominant in the provinces. this procedure had become universal even in
Italy and Rome itselfby the late third century, in civil as well as criminal cases. It
was sometimes referred to by the Romans as 'cognitio extraordinaria'. even long
afrer it had become standard practice. The Institutes of Justinian (published in
VI. Rome the Suzerain (i)
329
533) could refer to the older forms of process which had long been obsolete as
'iudicia ordinaria', in contrast with the 'extraordinaria iudicia' introduced by
'posteritas' (lnstJ. III.xii.pr.), and in another context could use the expression
'as often as a legal decision is given extra ordinem', adding 'as are an legal
decisions today'! (quotiens extra ordinem ius dicitur, qualia sunt hodie omnia iudicitJ:
IV .xv.8). Mommsen, in his Riimisches Strafrecht of 1899 (still a standard work),
characterises the cognitio system as being essentially 'a legalised absence ofsettled
form' and remarks that it entirely eludes scientific exposition (340, cf. 34()..1,
346-51). In practice it gave the magistrate trying the case a very large measure of
discretion, and its general extension justifies such statements as those of Buckland that 'civil procedure was superseded by administrative action' and that
there was an 'assimilation to administrative and police action' (TBRL 3 662-3).lt
is true, as Buckland insisted, that the civil procedure was 'still judicial' and that
'the magistrate must abide by the law' (loc;:. cit.); but the magistrate had very
wide powers, and as far as criminal procedure is concerned even so doughty a
champion of Roman legalism as Fritz Schulz admitted, in two separate passages
(PRL 173, 247), that the rule 'nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege' ('no
criminal charge except by a law, no punishment except by a law') was always
unknown to Roman law. Ifl am devoting more attention here to legal procedure
and less to legal principle than might be expected, it is because the Roman
lawyer, unlike his modem counterpart in most countries, 'thought in terms of
remedies rather than of rights, of forms of action rather than of causes of action'
(Nicholas, IRL 19-20), so that the nature oflegal procedure was all-important.
The Roman ius civilr was above all an elaborate system, worked out in
extraordinary detail and often with great intellectual rigour, for regulating the
personal and family relationships of Roman citizens, in particular in regard to
property rights, a peculiarly sacred subject in the eyes of the Roman governing
class. (I have said something in VII.iv below of the obsession of Cicero- not
himself a lawyer, of course, although he was the leading advocate of his daywith the inviolable nature of property rights and his belief, shared no doubt by
most of his fellows, that their preservation was the main reason for the foundation of states.) The admirable intellectual characteristics of Roman law,
however, were confined within a far narrower field than many people realise.
Quoting with approval a statement by Bonfante about the great importance of
the law of succession within Roman law as a whole, Schulz comments, 'The
Roman law of succession is indeed the focus of the Roman "will to law"' (CRL
204); and later he repeats this statement, adding that it is
in particular true of the law of legacies, and whoever wishes to obtain a vivid and
impressive picture of classical jurisprudence must needs study this domain of Roman
law. However, this achievement of the classical lawyers reveals their limitations as well
as their greatness ... One cannot help wondering whether it was really justifiable to
spend so much time and labour on these difficult and tortuous questions, the practical
importance of which was so slight (CRL 314).
Mentioning various fields in which Roman lawyers showed little or no interest,
he goes on to say that they
refrained from discussing any issues in which public administrative law was involved.
On the whole classical jurisprudence remained within the magic circle described by the
330
Republican lawyers. These were iuris consulti, i.e. lawyers who gave ,.esponsa, legal
opinions, and advice when consulted by parties. Their sphere of interest was, therefore, inevitably limited, but questions on legacies were just the matters most frequently brought before them. since their clients mainly, ifnor exclusively, belonged to
the beati possidentts {the rich]. In this respect the classical lawyers remained true to the
Republican tradition. Absorbed in the spinning of their fine network, they not only
neglected other issues which were of much greater importance, but they apparently
failed to realise how complicated the law of legacies grew under their hands. The
magnificent achievement of classical jurisprudence. here as elsewhere, was dearly
purchased (CRL 314-15).
Later in the same book Schulz acknowledges that the Roman lawyers 'hardly
touched upon those questions which seem vital to us' (CRL 545), such as the
protection of workers, or of'the poor lessees offlats or agricultural land'. (I have
already referred, in IV .iii above, to the severity of the Roman law ofleasing,
locatio conductio.) But when Schulz says again that 'The lawyers wrote and
worked for the class of the beati possidentes to which they themselves belonged
and their social sense was ill developed' (ibid.), we may be tempted to comment
that the 'social sense' of these lawyers was aiJ too well developed: they were
thinking, as we ought to expect, in terms of the interests of the class to which
they themselves and their clients belonged. Law, indeed, has 'just as little an
independent history as religion' (Marx and Engels. German Ideology I.iv .11, in
MECWV.91).
One other feature of Roman law needs to be mentioned here: the discrimination on grounds of social status, based to a high degree upon distinctions of class
in my sense, which I describe in VIII.i below. These manifested themselves
chiefly, it is true, in the criminal field (where, as I have pointed out, Roman law
remained a rather disreputable affair); but they also entered into the administration even of the ius civile, in the sense in which I am using that term, for instance
by attaching greater weight to the evidence given by members of the upper
classes. As I explain in VIlLi below, the inbuilt disposition of Roman law to
respect and favour the propertied classes became more explicitly institutionalised
during the Principate. Thus, as A. H. M.Jones has said, 'There was one law for
the rich and another for the poor'. 4 although in the purely civil sphere 'it was not
so much the law that was at fault, as the courts' (LRE 1.517,519).Jones's account
of the practical administration ofjustice in the Later Empire provides by far the
best available summary (LRE 1.470-522).
I will conclude this brief sketch of the Roman legal achievement with a
reference back to the statement by Friedrich von Woess which I quoted in lll.iv
above: the Roman state was a 'Klasscnstaat'. interested only in the upper classes;
for the propertyless it 'couldn't care less' (PCBRR 518).
* * * * * *
According to the Elder Pliny (in many ways one of the most attractive of all
Latin writers), 'the one most outstanding of all peoples in the whole world in
virtus is without doubt the Romans' (NH VII.130). It is an isolated remark,
followed by some pessimistic reflections on happiness, felicltas - with, unfortunately, no explicit expression of opinion on how the Romans compared
with other races in that respect. Virtus has a whole range of meanings in Latin:
sometimes 'virtue' is a legitimate translation; sometimes the word will mean
VI. Rome the Suzerain (i)
331
panicularly 'courage' or 'manJy excellence'. Here I would be prepared to translate

'moral qualities'. Imperial powers- the British until recently, the Americans
today- are easily able to fancy themselves morally superior to other peoples.
Romans often pretended that their empire had been acquired almost against
their own will, by a series of defensive actions, which could be made to sound
positively virtuous when they-were represented as undertaken in defence of
others, especially Rome's 'allies'. Thus according to Cicero, in whom we can
often find the choicest expression ofany given kind ofRoman hypocrisy, it was
in the course of 'defending their allies', sociis dtifendendis, that the Romans
became 'masters of aJllands' (De rep. III.23/35).~ The speaker in the dialogue,
almost certainly Laelius (who often represents Cicero's own views). 8 goes on to
express opinions- basically similar to the theory of'natural slavery'- according
to which some peoples can actually benefit from being in a state of complete
political subjection to another (cf. VII.ii below, with my ECAPS 18 and its
n.52). Anyone innocent enough to be disposed to accept the view of Roman
imperialism that I have just mentioned can best enlighten himself by reading
Polybius, who was an intimate of some of the leading Romans of his day
(roughly the second and third quarters of the second century B.C.) and well
understood the Roman will to conquer the known world. even if in his mind it
was more dear and definite than we perhaps have reason to believe. (I give the
main Polybian passages in a note.) 7
In fairness to Cicero, we must not fail to notice that on several occasions in his
letters and speeches he shows a real awareness of the hatred Rome had aroused
among many subject peoples by the oppression and exploitation to which she
had exposed them: he speaks of iniuriae, iniquitas, libidinrs, cupiditatrs, acrrbitas on
the part of the leading Romans who had governed them (cf. Tac., Ann. 1.2.2,
and the passages cited in n.19 to Section v of this chapter).
But nearly all that I would have wished to say about Roman imperialism in
the late Republic (and much more) has been admirably expressed by Brunt in an
importanl recent article (LI), the purpose of which was 'to explore the conceptions of empire prevalent in Cicero's day'. I agree with Brunt that the Romans
had managed to persuade themselves that their empire was 'universal and willed
by the gods';11 and I particularly like his statements that 'the peculiar Roman
conception of defensive war ... covered the prevention and elimination of any
potential menace to Roman power' (LI179), and that Rome's 'reactions to the
possibility of a threat resembled those of a nervous tiger, disturbed when
feeding' (LI 177).
* * * * * *
l do not wish to give the impression that the Romans were habitually the most
cruel and ruthless of all ancient imperial powers. Which nation in antiquity has
the best claim to that title I cannot say. as l do not know all the evidence. On the
basis of such of the evidence as I do know, however, I can say that I know of only
one people which felt able to assert that it actually had a divine command to
exterminate whole populations among those it conquered: namely. Israel.
Nowadays Christians, as well as jews, seldom care to dwell upon the merciless
ferocity of Yahweh, as revealed not by hostile sources but by the very literature
they themselves regard as sacred. Indeed, they contrive as a rule to forget the
332
very existence of this incriminating materiaJ.9J feel I should mention, therefore,

that there is little in pagan literature quite as morally revolting as the stories of
the massacres allegedly 10 carried out at Jericho, Ai. and Hazar, and of the
Amorites and Amalekites, all not merely countenanced by Yahweh but strictly
ordained by him. (See in general Deut. XX.l6-17, cf. 10-15. For Jericho. sec
Josh. VI-VII. esp. VJ.17-18, 21.26: VII.1, 10-12. 15,24-5: for Ai. VIII. esp. 2,
22-9; for Hazar, XI, esp. 1 1-14; for the Amorites, X, esp. 11, 12-14, 28-42; for
the Amalekites, I Sam. xv, esp. 3, 8, 32-3.) The death penalty might be
prescribed, as at Jericho. even for appropriating part of the spoil instead of
destroying it: 'He that is taken with the accursed thing,' said Yahweh to Joshua,
'shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath' (Josh. VII. 15); and when Achan
transgressed, he and his sons and his daughtt!rs (not to mention his cattle and other
possessions) were stoned to death and burnt (id. 24-5). When Yahweh. at the
request ofJoshua, was said to have prolonged a particular day, by making the
sun and moon 'stand still', it was for no other purpose than that the people
should 'avenge themselves upon their enemies', the Amorites (X.12-14);
Yahweh even joined in the slaughter by 'casting down great stones from heaven
upon them' (id. 11)- just as Apollo was believed to have saved his temple at
Delphi from molestation by the Persians in 480, with thunder and lightning and
earthquake (Hdts VUI.35-9).Joshua then reduced one Amorite city after another:
he 'left none remaining. but uttedy destroyed all that brtathed, as the Lord God of
Israel commanded' (Josh. X.40: cf. Deut. XX.16). And few narratives are more
blood-curdling than that of the Prophet Samuel 'hewing Agag [the King of the
Amalekites] in pieces before Yahweh in Gilgal' (I Sam. xv.32-3). The Midianites
too, we are told, were mercilessly slaughtered: after the men had all been killed,
Moses rebuked the Israelites for sparing the women; he only consented to let
virgins live (Num. XXXI, esp. 14-18). The Greek and Roman gods could be
cruel enough, in the traditions preserved by their worshippers, but at least their
devotees did not seek to represent them as prescribing genocide. 11
The Gibeonites are shown as escaping total destruction by Israel only because
they had previously deceived Joshua and the leading Israelites into making a
sworn treaty to spare their lives, by pretending they came from afar Oosh. IX,
csp. 15, 18, 20, 24. 26). Their fate was to be perpetual servants of the Israelites:
their 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' (id. 21, 23, 27) -texts often quoted
today as a Scriptural justification of aparthtid.
The Romans, although refusing (like so many Greek cities) to recognise
unions between their own citizens and foreigners as lawful marriages or their
issue as Roman citizens, showed nothing like the ferocious hatred of such unions
which we find in another revolting Old Testament story, that ofPhineas, the
grandson of Aaron, in Numbers XXV.1-15: he kills Zimri the Israelite and his
Midianitish wife Cozbi, spearing the woman through the belly. and thereby
earns the warm approval of Yahweh and the cessation of a plague that had
caused 24,000 deaths. 12
(ii)
'The conflict of the orders'
This is not the place for an outline history ofRome or even of the class struggle
there; but (cf. Section i) I cannot avoid discussing some features of Roman
VI. Rome the Suzerain (ii)
333
history. First, although the Greek world was very little.. Rntn.lnisn.lm s]w\'ch or
culture, it was deeply influenced socially as well as pnlirkally b .. hLmg hruu,zht
within the Roman empire. I have already explaim:d briefly (in V.di: ;tJld Sl't'
Appendix IV below) the political changes which callll' .1bout by J"~n~c..~s aftc..r 1lw
Roman conquest of the various parts of the Greek world (on th1: whoic nmtinuing, but greatly intensifying. a process which h:1d :tlr.:-:uiy btgul! umkr 1tw
Hellenistic kings), and I must not neglect to give a h~lc..f :sonologi~al an.t!ysis nf
the Roman community. And secondly, the class stmggh: m l~cmw :t:sdf rrls,nts
some very interesting features, which may illumin;;~l rht' Crnk siHutiun by
contrast as well as by analogy. From the very beginning of the. U, 'rn;m lkpubli.(the traditional date of which is 509/8 B.C.) we find what is in rc..ahty ~u J. I.J.rgi.'
extent a political class struggle, although not techntcally so (I 5hali ~xrlam thil'
distinction in a moment): this is the so-called 'conriK"t of the. Llrdc..rs , ht'h\"c..':.n
Patricians and Plebeians. (This is one of the two mam mterl<l(ked themes with
which the historian ofearly Rome is obliged to conc('m hnnsclf. tht other bl'ing
of course the territorial expansion of the Roman staft'.) 1-h~turiJ.ns ;lr~ ve~ far
from having reached agreement on the origin and narun ~,f the distinninn
between the two 'orders', and several very diffennt th(nrit>o; hah been put
forward; but my own starting-point is a view of the urigin nf tlw difl~nnti;atwn
between the orders not unlike one skilfully developed m l%':1 by Bwkc..nnJn: 1
the Patriciate arose from the holding of public oftic~. md h..-canw iu rractict.' dll'
hereditary privilege of those who, by the end of the lh-gal prri~,J that pr~~..-JL"d.
the Republic, had been able to sustain membership of the Sl.nalc..' -ullndsiuglv
in practice the ruling power in the Republic. although in rh~or~ tt wt~s <lllly an
advisory body and its decisions (senatus consulta) were never 'law~ :&'i ,.hn dmsl.'
of the supreme Assembly, the comitia populi Romani. By the foundathllt nf clw
Republic the Patricians had succeeded in becoming a closed 'order', a group in
the state having a special constitutional position (involving a monopoly of
office), one that it had arrogated to itself, not one originally created by any 'law'.
This led to the emergence of the plebs, the Plebeians. consisting in principle of
everyone who was not a Patrician: the 'first plebeian secession' and the creation
of tribunes ofthe plebs (traditionally in 494) and of an Assembly of the collective
plebs (the concilium plebis). presided over by their tribunes, mark the appearance
of the Plebeians as an organised body. During the 'conflict of the orders', from
494 to 287 on the traditional chronology. the Plebeians gradually gained access
to virtually all political offices and to the Senate, and in 287 the Lex Hortensia
placed plebiscita, the decrees of the plebeian Assembly (concilium plebis), on an
equal footing with the laws (leges) passed by the comitia populi Romani, the
Assembly of the Roman People.
In what follows I can hardly avoid some over-simplification. The sources are
notoriously defective and misleading. The modem literature is vast; but as the
subject is only marginally relevant to the main theme of this book I shall hardly
refer to any modem work except P. A. Brunt, SCRR = Sorial Conflicts in the
Roman Republic (1971), which is perhaps the best brief introduction to Roman
Republican history for the beginner. (The third chapter of that book, pp.42-59,
is devoted to 'Plebeians versus Patricians, 509-287'.)
I have already described the 'conflict of the orders' very briefly in what I
believe to be the correct technical terms before attempting to bring out its
334
underlying realities. his tmly hiO:It';;s}' ti-r thost who :n,.ist on accurate technical
definition of the terms 'P:~tr~d:ms' :tllll 'l'kbd:ms' tc .;;:w blandly that they have
nothing to do with propnry or ~nmmlllf JK~itl(m. or class in my sense (as
defined in II. ii abov,~). Ttdmk:illy. this is 'l~lltt' wrnct: w~ ;&redealing here, not
with 'classes' but with 'urJtrs. juridica!ly rlcogni!>~d \atq~mies of citizens. But
of course the Patridans \Wn able to ~p.in .KO..'i>~ to, ;md uhimatdy to monopolise, political power :tl RonK i~tntu.>e thC'y W\'H' by ;u11l brgc the richest families
-in the mainly agr.lrian sur!ct\' ~f {'ilrly nome rh,..- :rrrgest {,mdowners above all.
(Here some ofBick,rn~an's analugKs trnm Jmdzal'\'Ji European communes are
useful, although sonK ut tht towns ill' rt"ftrs [;\ bd .1 bigh proportion of wealthy
merchants among their t!nar rtll'll .ts J~oml.' mwr dtti.) T.iw richer a family was,
the more chance it wnuld h.aw. other things bting ,qual. of gaining political
influence. Of cours~ ntlt qmtt :1i/ dw wealthiest farniht!o would acquire patrician
status, and some of tlw iamihf'..s whilh di.l :;n Illl}' not have been among the very
richest; but the equa1i1lo, PJtri,iam = largest lau<h),VJttrs. must have been
broadly true over all. .md when a ,;.mil~ did become' }'-ltri1:ian and thus gained
access to the small cirdl.' dtJ.t mjoy,d pol:tic.al pnvikg~. ir would naturally have
every opportunity w L"nnsuhd.u~ and mrwn tt!> own position vis-a-vis
Plebeians. The Patricidu!>. ,,fwursl. wen :.iways tcw in number: 'after 366 only
twenty-one clans [gentes] are altt'Stcd. 11fwhich some were tiny, and not more
than another score before that datl." 'Brunt. SCRR 47). Some of the Patricians,
however, had largt uumh..r~ nfhurnbh pl.hdau 'dimt; (dientes): men bound
to them by personJI ti6 ir.vol\'in~ fbli~Jti1n~ on buth sides which it was
considered impious to di:-n~arti. (I s.hJ.IJ r,turn in Sl'l'tion iii of this chapter to
the enduring importanc, in Roman histo)r~. from rht" ,.uliest times to the Later
Empire, not so mudt ufrhts r-artimldr institution J.l<tm a!> of the whole system
of patronage of whid1 th.. dic-ntdjJ i11 tht >tril't .lntf ttthnical sense was the origin
and the nucleus.) Tht l{mnan dnnahs.t~ of tlw Lllt' lkpubh1: :tssumcd that in the
'conflict of the ordtr~. tht" Patnnans n~t'ti wd mtll'h snppm from their clients;
and I accept this, as do most modtm histdnllls (st"l't'.g. Hrunt, SCRR 49).
The Plebeians Wl'rt! not .1t <Ill. as on tlu wlwit till.: P.unnans were, a homogeneous group. Thdr l.:adtr\0 \Wr, JJldinly fidl men who could aspire to the
highest positions in tht state. c\'en thl l.tmsul!>hip . .1ml wtn interested mainly in
gaining access to offin ;md to tht St-natl' (dw ,,; J,.,,,,,wn) .md thus to political
power and the chan1:t uf strt"llt!llwning thtiJ' own po!>itiun The rank-and-file
had totally different objectives, whidtt"'J.Il b, hm.ttlly -.ummarised under three
heads: (1) political, (2) juridical, and (3) l't'mttmtic In ( l) the political fidd they
would normally supJ.,l)rt the a!opiratitm~ of thl"ir kadtrs to state office. in the
hope (vain, as event~ were w pmvt) rh.1t pld,~::i:m oligarchs would treat the mass
of plebeians better th.Ul p.ltrll'i.m oligarchs would. Their two main objectives in
the political field, hmwwr. were very ditftnnt: thty wanted recognition of
their own Assembly :th\." concilium plebis) as a supnmt ltt?;islative body equal
with the comitia populi R.,mani; and they wanted ..t stnn!!:thening ofthc powers of
their own peculiar otlin.rs. aho\'l' all those of rhdr trtbmn" Jbout whom I shall
have something to say in the next paragraph. In {2) the juridical field, they
wanted the laws (and the rules of procedure, th:: lc:~i oliti.lfles etc.). originally
unwritten and locked up in the breasts of the rJtriri.m magistrates. to be
published, as they were in c. 450, in the form t)t' dw Twdve Tables' (but thl'
335
legis actim:.; .:m!y iu J04): :utd dlC'}' wanted their right of appeal againsr kgal
decisions of ;; magi:~otnte ~tht pr;J!J;.(dti:'i affirmed, in the teeth of patrician
oppositilU- bws <.\11 rhis poim. ;Kc;.r,!in~ w thl tradition, had to be re-enacted
more than nee. Ju (3) ril~ l'\oanllH\ =itl,J. which for the mass of the Plebeians
was probably even mmc uuporum ~tun th. other two, they wanted three
things: rdieffrom tht vny harsh nwn:m bw "-'f debt, involving enslavement of
defaulter'> (rf. HI.iv ablwt); dt~mbu~ron!' llf land, either in the form of colonies
in conquered h~rriwry .lr ,,itl,im (hy mdi\'iduai Jistributions); and finally a less
opprcssin.- l'ni(ln'L'llh'nt oi tht Jhliganun to po.rform military service, which
remained ;l v,ry :"trilmS hur.in, right down m the last years of the Republic, as
Brunt ill p:trtil.'l:lar ha!' ;.1-.wtnsu;,hl m lns fr,Jli:m Manp(lwer (esp. J91 ff.; cf. his
SCRR 11~!7. 6t.-f!j. RomL'WJ~nmtill<UII~ ar w;tr, and the bulk ofherarmywas
Plebeian. (.\.brx Jl\)ft'd that it W<&!' 'wars thrm~h which the Roman Patricians
ruined th~. PkhdJ.ns. by \'lllt!pdlin~ thm rn serve as soldiers, and which
prevented them from !"\'!'roduri11g !lli.'i! :NHlitions of labour, and therefore
made paupus of th"m': C.1p. lli.SlJk-'.1.) Th.: most effective weapon the
Plebeians ~t,uld use, tlwnf(m.. ;;~ thty nalis:td from the very start, was the
secessio, th{ strik( :~gains.r .:onsription: the sources refer to no fl.'wer than five
occasions whtn this Wt'apuu i-. !>;ai.d to have been used with effect, three of which
(in 494. 4-4-9 .md ..:!~7) are probably g~mtint. :z
The tnhurKs (trih1111i plebis) wer\' .t mu~t t:XtT:10rdinary featun. nf tht l~cm;.ut
constitutJlltl. doncmstrating th~o ~kq> nm!lit:tufintcrcsts inside th !:n.fy politic.
The first tributws w~rt. t'rL':ttcJ. accordin~r to the tradition, as a fl":mlc: of 1he
earliest plebeian 'sn:cssiun' ir: 4':14. whm i;Wd!' not so much that tiw P<trrici:ms
accepted their existt'Uet' (.:s " snr~ <>l ;mti-ma~istnq) .md their BJI\'iO(Ol!-lllity
(sacrosanctitas, bttr giwnltgal ncognitinni as thdttlw Plth~ians tt .. lk ..t collectiv~
oath to lynch J.nyont' whu ;ltut.k~d them! !\: tirst. unt llli~ht s.ly. thr :>ltll!d to
official state mJ.gistr.tt\~ almost as slh'P ;;t,w:lr& to nnnp;1ny clirt'('hl~: but
gradually, although they rnwr atquir~d tht insigni<t .mJ tnpping~ uf state
magistraics. ch;;i;- p('S.itil1ll iwc.ullt' mun .1:1d mon~ .as~iruiiawJ h1 tiMt u['uugstrates of rht lhnn.m PL't)pk" in o~lmus! ,11! nspt'tts, .xnpt oi nur,.,; tha( rhq,
were drawn timu Pld,Li;u: t:uuilks <)ulr. Jud that th~y cou!J unt prtsidt in tlw
comitia populi R,m.mi hut t;n)y in th ;,,,,iliJtlll/./,bi~ (s~~~ Jhr.)Vt~) .. Tht'ir power~
included the right of v~tuiug .:my a,~ .1fdw. ,.,,,,,.or of.1 lll.!gistr.tt~ (i1J!t'rit'$5ic,):
rescuing anv Plebeian- h~t:r. :mv citi:zttt- m~'ll:lf~;l b, :t lll.l\!!Str.tte \its .rot.\:i!i:
ferendi); anLl. as part of th~tr ri~d:.t to ~o'XL'rdst '-'(ti:r..' th, Jl;;lu r to ;a;nst .md
imprisou ;my uugistrak. even ~he- t'orsuls thtm~clvcs. Th\tdnm~s powlT uf
veto cxt~ondl!'d to ub!otru"tin~ m:liurv kvi,s: auJ .m.u ka~t two on.;nl-iom m tlw
middle of tlw s~urhl t"l'lltu;~. thq ":,.m "'' f:tr as to arrest ami intpujult nHtsuls
who persist~."t:l wnh J f<ll-u}~-tmt t)tu~ in 13x B.C .. rLprt'">l'lltt'd by Ckt"ro as tb;.
first timt smh a thin~ had lupJtn~J (De kg. lll.20; cf LiV)' P. 55). b~r .ll~:>
earlier, in 151 {Ltvy. /lt. 4\S). It is worth Il<l'ntiouintl' thJt tlw trihumos pc:wn tu
summon Jlll'L'tiugs w.ts uotliuutld to thl ,,,,, ilim I'Ir-Jm;~ they Jls il.td d1l right
to summon and preside \lVi'r ;.mti,,.,,.j, rul'>!ilm~~ttmg,; nur d.:;;lgncd (ali. \\'t'n.' th(
comitia an.i ;,,<ifium plebi.) I'll' lc!!tiil:uion vr uHinal dt>c!kn!i., but \~mrcsp\,!tdiJI~
rather to th" ~r(-dt'l'H\lO llll'd11l~~ ,,f Briri;;h polw.~l p.1nic>. or (it nJs ~'l~nl
suggested) to th;: mndcm 'pnss ,:nut~r~.u.:, ."Thij; r~lWl'nlt'r'm"::l:ln! ,,wci1''""'
was vitally illlpl~rtdlll. b~..;:au~t according to Rll!;)U t'iJil>titutr.ln;'ll ).l\\1' any
336
meeting not presided over by a magistrate (or a tribune) was an illegal assembly.
No speeches or debates took place in an official assembly (comitia or concilium
plebis), the business of which was confined to voting. Great importance might
therefore attach to contiones, at which the people could be informed, for instance,
about the nature of legislation about to be proposed by a tribune in the
Assembly, and their reactions tested.
I have been trying to show that the conflict which was ended in theory in 287
was conducted, so to speak, on two levels. Formally, it was a struggle between
the two 'orders': but it was also in a very real political sense a class struggle, the
participants in which were on the one side a fairly solid group consisting of a
good proportion of the principal landowners and on the other side a much less
unified collection of men with very different interests, but the great majority of
whom were seeking to protect themselves against political oppression or economic exploitation or both. The political class struggle, however, was maskedas class struggles so often have been- by the fact that it was formally a struggle
between 'orders', and was therefore led on the Plebeian side by men who were
qualified to become members of the oligarchy in every respect save the purely
technical, legal one, that they were not Patricians but Plebeians. It is legitimate
to see the 'conflict of the orders' as involving a series of tacit bargains between
the two different Plebeian groups: first, the leaders, who had no important
economic grievances or demands and whose aims were purely political (and
usually, no doubt, selfish), concerned with the removal of a strictly legal
disqualification for offices which they were otherwise well qualified to hold; and
secondly the mass of Plebeians, who hardly suffered at all as Plebtians, because
the legal disqualifications of Plebeians as such were for posts the vast rnajori ty of
them could not hope to fill in any event. Thus it was in the interest ofeach of the
two main groups within the Plebeians to join with the other: the mass of the
Plebeians would help their leaders to achieve office so that they might be more
influential as their protectors, and the leaders would obtain the essential help of
the masses for their own advancement by holding out the hope that they would
ensure the fulfilment of their aspirations for an improvement in their condition.
The 'conflict of the orders' was both a conflict between 'orders' and a class
struggle, in which - exceptionally, as far as Roman history is concerned -the
lower classes, or at least the upper section of the lower classes, 4 played at times
quite a vigorous part.
The historical tradition relating to the period of the 'conflict of the orders' is
highly corrupt, and a great many of the elaborate details in the long accounts of
Livy (down to 293 B.C.) and Dionysius ofHalicarnassus (to 441 B.C.) must be
fictitious; even the main features of the events they purport to record are
sometimes open to grave suspicion. But there are several narratives which, even
if they contain some fiction, are likely to give valuable clues about the nature of
the 'conflict of the orders'. One in particular is most illuminating about the
heterogeneous character of the plebs: this is Livy Vl.39 (esp. 1-2, R-12), on
the 'Licinio-Sextian rogations', revealing how different were the attitudes of
Licinius and Sextius, the tribunes, who were mainly intent on gaining access to
the consulship (still being denied to all Plebeians as such), and the mass of their
followers, who were much more concerned about reforms of an economic
character, dealing with land and debt. In fact Licinius and Sextius and their like
337
satisfied their political ambitions and entered the ruling class, whose outlook
they soon came to share fully. However, it was then 'harder for the poor to find
champions' (Brunt, SCRR 58), and their 5ituation had to become acute before
such champions were available once more and a fresh series of political conflicts
could break out, from 133 B.C. onwards.
It is also salutary to read the accounts in Livy and Dionysius of the murder or
judicial murder of a number of prominent political figures, whether Patrician or
Plebeian, who were felt by the leading Patricians to be too sympathetic to
Plebeian grievances: these accounts reveal that the Ruman ruling class was
prepared to kill without mercy anyone who seemed likely to prove himself a
genuine popular leader and perhaps fulfil the role of a Greek tyrant of the
progressive type (cf. V.i above). Such a man could be conveniently accused of
aspiring to make himself king, rex - in the precise sense of the Greek tyrannos.
Cicero was fond of mentioning three famous t"xamples of such men who in the
t"arly Republic 'desired to seize regnum for themselves': Spurius Cassius, Spurius
Maelius, and Marcus Manlius Capito1inus, whose traditional dates are 485. 439
and 384, and whose stories have recently been well re-examined by A. W.
Lintott. 5 We should remember, in this connection, that Cicero, for example in
I..aelius 40, also denounced Tiberius Gracchus for trying to seize regnum for
himself and indeed 'for a few months' succeeding; and that the tribune C.
Memmius, a popularis (see Section v of this chapter). could speak sarcastically in
111 B.C. of the restoration to the plebs ofits proper rights as being in the eyes of
his opponents a regni paratio, a plot to make oneself rex (Sail., B) 31.8). Parts of
the narratives concerning the three men I have memioned may well be fictitious,
a retrojection from the Late Republic, but I would accept the broad outlines; and
in any event the attitude ofLivy, Cicero and their like to these men is signif1cant.
It is indeed worth paying careful attention to the ruthless attitude of the Roman
oligarchs to anyone they believed to be threatening their privileges - a posture
which is treated most sympathetically by livy and the other sources, and often
apologised for by modern historians. To come out openly on the side of the
unprivileged against the ruling oligarchy was a dangerous thing to do.
(iii)
The developed Republic
The result of the 'conflict of the orders' was to replace the originally patrician
oligarchy by a patricio-plebeian oligarchy, differing very little in outlook and
behaviour. It is a characteristic feature of exclusive oligarchies that their numbers
tend to fall steadily (see the second paragraph ofV.i above and its n.6 bel~w),
and the Roman Patricians were no exception to this rule. They remained
technically an 'order', retaining a few minor constitutional rights as well as great
social prestige, but the influential position of their members was now based
rather upon the wealth which most of them possessed than upon their status as
Patricians, which in itself gave them few political privileges. Even at this stage,
however, we can observe a phenomenon which is noticeable throughout
Roman history: the governing class, although it grudgingly consented to a
gradual broadening of its basis, somehow managed to remain very much the
same in character. The patrician oligarchy became patricio-plebeian: by the
338
early second century B.C. the Senate was already predominantly plebeian- and
of course it was the Senate (as I indicated in the first paragraph of the preceding
section) which was in practice the 'government' of Rome: its members were
men who had originally been elected to state office, and they all had life-tenure.
The exaggerated respect which men of great distinction always enjoyed at
Rome was manifest in the very procedure of the Senate, where debates were
dominated by those of consular status (consuls and ex-consuls). The oligarchy
thus remained very much an oligarchy, even though a handful of 'new men' did
gain admission to its ranks, usually because they either had outstanding
oratorical ability, like Cicero, or because they enjoyed the patronage of leading
members of the oligarchy.
After the end of the 'conflict of the orders' and the disappearance of most of
the specifically patrician privileges, a new concept slowly emerged: that of
nobilitas, 'nobility'. The nobiles, unlike the Patricians, were never strictly an
'order' in the modem sense, a juridical class (that is to say, they never enjoyed
any constitutional privileges in virtue of their nobilitas); but they were a wellrecognised social class, and their combined political influence was so great that
in practice they could make it difficult for anyone else to hold the highest office,
the consulate. The precise defmition ofa nobilis has been much disputed, and I am
not satisfied that even now the problem has been completely resolved: we must
take into account the fact that there was no strict 'legal' or 'constitutional'
deftnition and that our surviving literary sources often have a private axe to grind.
Most historians now seem to accept the view of Matthias Gelzer, first published
in 1912, that in the Late Republic the term nobiles included only consular families
-descendants of consulars, men who had held the consulship. The exclusiveness of the nobility is expressed (with some exaggeration) in a much-quoted
passage by Sallust: they handed on the consulship, he says, from one to the other
(consulatum nobilitas inteT se P" manus tradebat: BJ 63.6; cf. Cat. 23.6).
Now senators became such in virtue of having been elected to state officefrom about 80 B.C. onwards, the office of quaestor. They therefore owed their
position indirectly to popular election, even if the Assembly which elected
them, the comitia centuriata, was dominated by the wealthy (see below and n.9).
Once they had become senators, they held their dignity for life, and of course
they were often able to advance their sons (provided they did not have too
many) to the position they themselves had held; but membership of the Senate
was never legally hereditary during the Republic, nor did the families of senators
yet enjoy any special legal rights. Before the law, in all important respects, all
citizens were in theory equal. (There was much less juridical equality in practice.) During the last century of the Republic we find a new social group
emerging and becoming very prominent: the equestrians (equites, or equesteT
ordo). I must not take time to trace the curious evolution of this body, originally
the citizen cavalry (for eques means literally 'horseman'; hence the common
translation, 'knights'), in later times specially associated with state contracts and
above aJl the farming of taxes, and from the time of Gaius Gracchus (B.C.
123-122) onwards given one special constitutional function and one only: that of
providing at first all, and later some, of the iudices or commissioners of the
quaestiones, the standing tribunals which judged certain important cases (both
criminal and civil, according to our classification) in the Late Republic. The
VI. Rome the Suzerain(;;;)
339
qualific;lt:on fi'tr m~.:mhf"rsiup of this cbss (the ,~questrians) was a financial one:
the poss(.~~imt ,_.f prop<rty of:. .-(:-~.lm lllimmurn value- in the last years of the
Repubh,awl iu rh, l'rinrip:l~t~. HS ~i(!/li). (T'h: smators, on the a verag~:, were
of cours< even ridwr th;m rh ~-qm:;tr::am. but during the Republic, strangdy
enough. thtr~ 51.'~ms not to haYe b~~r: in th.::t~r:: a still higher financial qualification tor becoming;~ ~~nah)r.) Like thL" .'<ruwn. the equestrians enjoyed certain
social pr:vtltges: \\',aring tlw gold rm~. :;inn:~ m special seats at the theatre. But.
apart frn:n thL ;lddui<)Ua! '\\'tightm~ glv~n w their votes in the cornitia centuriata
by their n~ch~si~t ros5ot'SSi,m Of Jlll t~\\'l.'r t!IJ.n e-ighteen centuries, their only
political privikg~ (au unpirt;mt hur strictly limited one) was serving as commissioners on tiK lll~ll'ifWI'-' Bo.:l{ln. th~ court$ of law they, like the senators,
were not in theory in a better po~mon than ~he ordinary citizen. And their
families h;~.d no prinkgt~ dt :1ll; nor W<~S ~qucsman status hereditary, in theory,
although ttf l'O\IrSl" 10 praCti;;.o: til(' pml't'Tt y Wh!Ch ga W aCCesS tO the ordo ('qUesler
tended to p;ls~ fnm1 father !O '''~~ an1l d. thtrt was only one son his chances of
succeeding to Ins t:uh~r\; r:mk "''-'"ld }-., hiJ;:l! '
For sum~ n:.).uttl tind it h.mtao und,r~tand. J. great deal offuss has hl.'en made
by some mn,.krn "{'ho.1brs .1bot~~ aHl'gcd impurt;>;Ut conflict between senators and
equestri.ms as such. Oc~..-.a!'tnn.tllr th~ two orders might come into conflict
tcmporanly: above ;1ll. the C'(mposition of the quaestiones was a matter of
contention between thtm c. 122-7U B.C. Yet the famous remark attributed to
Gaius Gracchus by Ci,~ru (J.>e lt;~. 111.20;. to the effect that in giving the
quaestiones to the equestriaris he had 'thrown 1.i.lggers into the forum, is - as
Bad ian has rightly said- 'obviously (tf ~('rmmc) a rhetorical exaggeration' (PS
65). Again, late in 61 B.C. the Sen.1w .ll tir~t nfused to grant the request of the
publicani (the leading section ofth~ equestrians) tor a considerable reduction of
the amount they were liable to pay under the contract by which tht:y had secured
the right to collect the tithes of the rich province of Asia. 11 But even on that
occasion the disagreement was only temporary: to quote Badian again, 'The
affair of the Asian contract did not cause a split between the Senatt: and the
publicani' (PS 112). In reality no long-lasting or dt=ep-seated hostility ever
developed between Senate and equester ordo. I entirely agree with the opinion of
Brunt, in his excellent paper on the Equites in the late Republic, first published
in 1965;' which opt:ns with the words 'A conspicuous feature of politics in the
late Republic is the discord between Senate and Equites' but in the same
paragraph decides that 'It might seem that there was more to unite the orders
than to divide them. In fact the area of conflict was in my view more restricted
than is often supposed. The Equites [in the broad sense J did not constitute an
united pressure group with economic interests opposed to those of the Senate; it
is only the publicans who can at times be seen in this light. Moreover the
disputes that occurred ... died away precisely in the crucial period, the age of
Pompey and Caesar' (ELR 117-18 = CRR, ed. R. Seager, 83-4). This, of course,
is precisely what we ought to expect, if we take a Marxist view and regard class
struggle as the really fundamental kind of antagonism in society, for on this
view senators and equestrians cannot be regarded as two different classes, and
therefore no class struggle could develop between them. In fact the two groups
were very homogeneous: the equestrians, although on the whole less rich than
the senators, were essentially those among the very rich Romans who did not
340
aspire (or had not yet aspired) to a career in politics, involving the holding of
magistracies. Three good examples ofleading members of the equester ordo who
openly preferred the career open to equestrians, with its virtual certainty oflarge
profits, to the more risky advantages of a political career as senators are T.
Pomponius Atticus, the lifelong friend of Cicero; C. Maecenas, the friend of
Augustus and patron of literary men; and M. Annaeus Mela, the brother of
Seneca wd Gallic and father of the poet Lucan.~ Against the old view of the
equestrians as primarily 'business men', it has been demonstrated beyond doubt
by Brunt, Nicolet and others that, like senators, they were essentially landowners, who might make large profits out of finance and moneylending (not
'trade': they hardly ever appear in the role of merchants) but would normally
invest those profits in land (see n.4 again). The allegedly rooted opposition
between senators and equestrians is a myth developed by historians in modem
times on the basis of a few ancient texts which provide far too flimsy a basis.
Compared with the fundamental opposition of interest between landowners
and financiers (the latter virtually always also landowners) on the one hand, and
peasants and anisans (not to mention slaves) on the other, the internal squabbles
within the dominant class, whether between senators and equestrians or
between other groups, could be no more than superficial disagreements about
the division of the spoil of the world.
Senators and equestrians, then, were the two orders, ordines. When it is used
in a strict and full political sense, the term ordo, 6 in the late Republic, commonly
denotes only the ordo St'natorius and the ordo equester. We hear of'uterque ordo',
each of the two orders; and when Cicero speaks of the concordia ordinum, 7 or
harmony of the orders, as his political ideal, he means simply senators and
equestrians. In our terminology the plebs was an 'order' in the early Republic, as
against the Patricians, but the supposed 'ordo plebeius' seems not to have been
an expression that was ever used in the Late Republic. (The word 'ordo',
however, is sometimes used more loosely and applied, for example, not only to
scribae and praecones but even to freedmen, ploughmen, graziers. or merchants.)
Rome, of course, was never a democracy or anything like it. There were
certainly some democratic elements in the Roman constitution, but the oligarchic elements were in practice much stronger, and the overall character ofthe
constitution was strongly oligarchical. The poorer classes at Rome made fatal
mistakes: they failed to follow the example of the poorer citizens in so many of
the Greek states and demand an extension and improvement of political rights
which might create a more democratic society, at a time when the Roman state
was still small enough to make a democracy of polis-type (ifl may call it that) a
practical possibility. Above all, they failed to obtain (probably even to demand)
a fundamental change in the very unsatisfactory nature and procedure of the
sovereign Assemblies, the comitia centuriata and comitia tributa (concilium plebis). 11
These allowed no debate (see the preceding section of this chapter); they were
subject to all kinds of manipulation by the leading men, and they employed a
system of group voting, which in the case of the centuriate Assembly (the most
important one) was heavily weighted in favour of the wealthy, although apparently rather less so after a reform in the second half of the third century B. C. 9
Instead of working towards thoroughgoing constitutional reforms, the Roman
lower classes tended to look for, and put all their trust in, leaders whom they
VI. Rome the Suzerain (iii)
341
believed to be, so to speak, 'on their side'- men who in the Late Republic were
called populares (dimotikoi in Greek) - and to try to put them in positions of
power. One explanation of this failure, I believe, was the existence at Rome, in a
whole series of insidious forms, of the institution of patronage and clientship.
from which most of the Greek cities (Athens especially) seem to have been
largely free, but which played a very important part in Roman social and
political life, and which came gradually to pervade the Greek world after it had
been brought under Roman rule. I have discussed the subject in outline, right
through to the Later Empire, in SVP = 'Suffragium: from vote to patronage'. in
the British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954) 33-48, 10 and I shall have something more
to say about it in Section v of this chapter; but it is necessary to explain a few
matters here, in order to clarify the role played by patronage in the class struggle.
Patronage in Roman society took many forms. Those not already well
acquainted with the subject will find a good summary of them by A.
Momigliano in OCD 2 791, s.v. patronus' (and see 252. s.v. 'Clitm;"). From t:hc
earliest times until the Later Empire we hear of formal clil.'ntship. thf:.' dit"nrfi,:~. 1
social institution very difficult to describe accurately. It firs: .tppt'ars ltnun![ dw
so-called 'Laws of the Kings' (ltgts regiat), its found:Jtaon bdng atti!hntrd to
Romulus by Oionysius of Halicamassus (Ant. Rom. 11.9-10): .md we fn:d it
referred to in two of the surviving laws in the Twtlve Talti,.rol451-l30 RC ..
one section of which provides that a patron who acts frauJulC'ntl)' t<!wards his
client is to be 'accursed' (VIII.21: saur tsto). 11 Cicero could ~ay th11 rhti>Jcbri;;ms
were originally clients of the Patricians (Dt rep. ll.lfo), 11 .md doubt!L~-~ many c.1f
them were- if so, this would have been a complicating fac.:t<,r in tlw 'r.ondkt of
the orders', for of course the very existence of the du'trtc'la, in its ((1m r~{' tdor m.
tended to make the clitntts dependent upon and subservient to thl'"ir rm~m:. 01!1~
special form of the clitnttla became, from its very nature, most stm.:tly tcnmulated, and it alone is the subject of frequent attention in the Roman !.1 wbooks: this was the relationship of the freedman to his former ma;r,r. wh...
became his patronus and to whom he owed a whole series of obligatic.ln~. Other
forms of dientship and patronage could be ill-defined, and my own feeling is
that the nature of the bond might differ widely in individual cases. It con~j b-.
very strong: as late as the end of the fourth century of the Christian er:~ w~' ht:;;r
from Ammianus that the vastly rich praetorian prefect, Sextus l'c.tn1n ius
Probus. 'although he was magnanimous enough never actually to onll:- .r di t't!!
or slave of his to do anything illegal, yet if he found that one of them had
committed a crime, he defended the man in defiance ofjustice and without any
investigation or regard for what was right and honourable' (XXVII.xi.4).
There is a significant parallel in the field of foreign affairs. Rome acquired by
degrees a number of what are often called nowadays 'client states'; and many
modem writers have believed that the Romans conceived their relationship to
them in terms of their age-old institution ofpatrocinium and clientf'la- a! though.
as Momigliano has said, 'It is a controversial point whether the relations ofcertain
vanquished states with Rome are to be described as clientship' (OCD 2 252); and
of course the terms actually used to describe that relationship would normally be
'friends', 'allies', 'treaty-partners' (amici, socii, fotderati). Sherwin-White has
rightly observed that 'To speak of"client states" is to use a mctaphor.lt is not a
term of international law for the Romans. There are in fact no client states',
342
although 'clientship and patronage came to form the background of the Roman
attitude towards them' (RC 2 188). 13 As a matter of fact, when Sherwin-White
himself tries to illustrate what he sees as an explicit declaration of the doctrine of
the relationship of Rome to her allies as a form of climtela (RC" 187-8), the word
used by the Roman Senate (in 167 B.C.) is not in factdientelabutaquitedifferent
metaphor: tutela, the term used by Roman lawyers for the 'guardianship' of
minors and women (livy XLV.18.2). There is, however, at least one case in
which the words patrocinium and clientela are used (or represented as being used)
by a leading Greek state to describe its relationship ro Rome. In Livy (whose
source is doubtless Polybius), the ambassadors from Rhodes in 190 B.C., after
speaking of their country's amicitia with Rome, and her having undertaken the
preservation of their libtrtas against royal domination, go on to speak ofRome's
patrocinium over them and of their having been received into the fides and climtela
of the Romans (XXXVII.liv.3, 15-17). I must add that it was by no means only
the Roman state as such and some of its subjects that developed relationships to
which the metaphor of clientship might be thought appropriate: individual
Romans, especially conquering generals, became hereditary patroni of cities and
even whole countries which they had captured or benefited- for example,
traditionally Fabricius Luscious (from 278 B.C.) ofall the Samnites, and certainly
M. Claudius Marcellus (from 210 B.C.) of the whole ofSicily.l4
I believe that the existence in Roman society of forms of patronage and
dientship with very deep roots had great political as well as social consequences.
Even during the Republic, when political activity by the lower classes was still
possible in some degree, many individuals, out of obedience to their patrons or
in deference to their known attitude, must have been diverted from participating actively in political class struggle, and even induced to take part on the
side of those having interests directly opposed to their own. One ofthe proverbs
in the collection ofPublilius Syrus, 14 a late Republican, declares that 'To accept
a favour [benqicium] is to sell one's freedom' (61); and another asserts that 'To
ask a favour [an officium) is a form of servitude' (641)! Under the Principate, as
we shall see in the last two sections of this chapter. such political influence as the
lower classes had had soon largely disappeared, and the ways in which patronage
could be valuable to a great man changed. With the virtual cessation of election
from below. and indeed the gradual drying up of all initiative from below, as
political authority became concentrated in the hands of the Emperor, the new
role of patronage assumed great importance, above all through the dignity and
influence it brought to the patron, through his ability to recommend- and often
make sure of procuring appointment - to all sorts of posts that could be both
honorific and lucrative (see Sections v and vi of this chapter). And the venale
suifragium (purchased patronage) which the emperors vainly attempted to suppress (see Section v) surely derived part of its tenacity from the fact that it was a
natural development from that suifragium - that patronage - which a patron
would give gratis to his client. I demonstrate in Section v, from a very revealing
passage in Tacitus (Ann. 1.75. 1-2), that for the great men of the early Principate
the absolute! y unfettered exercise of their patronage rights,Jor good or ill, was an
essential ingredient in libertas itsdf.
It would be easy to discount the pervasive influence of patronage and clientship
if we were to notice only the relatively rare occasions on which it is specifically
VI. Rome the Suzerain (iii)
343
mentioned as such, with the characters concerned actually referred to as

'patroni' and 'dientes' or the use of the technical terms 'patrocinium' and
'elien tela'. There were in fact many situations where a relationship which was in
reality that of patron and client in some form would not be so called, for fear of
giving offence. In Section v of this chapter I explain that a real gentleman would
expect to be called his patron's 'friend' (amicus), not his 'client', even if that
patron was the emperor himself. We know of innumerable occasions from the
late Republic onwards when great men busied themselves in the imerests of
those in a less substantial position than themselves, above all in writing letters of
recommendation on their behalf. Many such letters speak of the man recommended as an 'amicus'; very few say anything that enables us to tell whether he
was technically a 'diens' - and it hardly matters. The very humble Egyptian,
Harpocras, for instance, on whose behalf as many as four letters passed between
Pliny and Trajan (see my SVP 41 and n.5): was he a formal client of Pliny's?
Again, does it matter? What does seem clear is that patronage was capable of
extension well beyond the circle of those who were technically clients, and that
patronage in this extended sense increased rather than lessened in importance in
the Principate and the Later Empire. In IV.ii above (and see its n.42 below) I have
briefly described two forms of rural patronage which are visible in the fourth and
fifth centuries, one of them in Syria and Egypt and the other in Gaul. Here again
we see the institution manifesting itself in new forms. A price always had to be
paid for it, but in Syria particularly we see villagers turning the practice to their
own advantage and using it as a weapon ofclass struggle, ifan expt>nsivc one.
* * * * * *
I shall resist the temptation to expatiate at length on one particularly fascinating subject: the manipulation of the Roman state religion by the ruling class
in such a way as to procure political advantage. Ifl may be allowed to quote
what I have already written elsewhere (RRW 69):
The Greek historian. Polybius, writing in the late ~cco;~d century B.C., speaks
admiringly of the Roman attitude in religious matters (VI.lvi.7-12). But when he gets
down to details he says that what maintains the cohesion of the Roman commonwealth most of all is dtisidaimonia, the Greek word which is normally used (as by
Plutarch. Mor. 377f-8a; cf. 164e-7lf) as the equivalent of the Latin supersriti,J or our
'superstition', and is employed in general in a derogatory sense. (fhe way Polybius
introduces it here shows that he realised this.) Perhaps we would do best to translate it
here as 'fear of the supernatural'. At any rate, Polybius approves the deliberate
utilisation of this fear, explicitly in order to control the masses. The Roman upper
classes shared Polybius 'low opinion of the common people and felt no compunction at
all about using religion in the service of politics and government: this was taken for
granted as a necessity by many writers, including Cicero. Livy. Seneca. and above all
the great authority on Roman religion, Varro, against whom St. Augustine later
delivered a devastating polemic. I!\
A religious weapon that could be held in reserve for an extreme emergency
was the use of the auspices (auspicia), which might be employed to invalidate the
election of some magistrate disliked by the oligarchy, 16 or to put mend to
popular Assemblies that were about to pass legislation objectionable to the
oligarchy (especially of course agrarian reforms), or to annul such legislation
retrospectively. 17 1t was surely of such powers that C. Memmius was thinking,
344
when in his tribunate in 111 he spoke of all things at Rome, 'divine as well as
human', as having been under the control of a few (Sall., B) 31.20: divina et
humana omnia pmes paucos eranr). let us note the value placed upon the auspices
by that most articulate of all members of the Roman governing class, Cicero.
For him, in speech after speech, the leges Aelia et Fufia, which facilitated the use
and abuse of the auspices in the interests of the governing class, were 'laws of the
greatest sanctity'; they were 'very beneficial to the state', 'bulwarks and walls of
tranquillity and security'; they were 'the firmest bastions of the state against the
frenzy of the tribunes', which they had 'often hampered and restrained'; and as
for their repeal in 58, by a law promoted by Cicero's enemy Clodius, 'is there
anyone who does not realise that by this one bill the entire State has been
subverted?' . 18 In one ofhis so-called 'philosophical' works, containing legislation
for his ideal state, Cicero is insistent that his magistrates should have the auspices,
so that plausible methods may exist of hindering unprofita hie assemblies of the
people; and he adds. 'For the immortal gods have often restrained, by means of
the auspices, the unjust impetuosity of the people'! (De leg. III.27}. It was
through the auspices that the oligarchs may have felt they had the immortal gods
most effectively in their pockets.
(iv)
The Roman conquest of the Greek world

At this point I propose to give a very briefaccountofthewayin which nearly the
whole of the Greek world was incorporated into the Roman empire. later in
this chapter I shall return to Rome itself and give a short sketch of the developments in Roman society from the Late Republic onwards.
In just under a century and a half after the end of the 'conflict of the orders'
Rome acquired a large part of the Mediterranean world. Of the Greek area.
Rome took over Sicily first: it became, in Cato 'swords, 'the granary of the state,
the nurse of the plebs Romana' (Cic., ll Verr. ii.S). Over Macedon and Greece
itself Rome established control in the early second century, although Macedon
was not formally annexed as a province untill46 B.C . and for another century
or more most of the cities of mainland Greece were in theory free; Greece was
perhaps not organised as a separate province (called Achaia) until 27 B.C . but
remained until then what we might calJ a Roman 'protectorate'. Rome's conquest of Macedon and Old Greece has been described over and over again, 1 and I
have nothing new to say about it. Rome's treatment of the Greeks was usually
rather less cruel and ruthless than of other peoples she conquered; but in 167 a
vast number of Epirots (150,000, according to Livy) were enslaved by L.
Aemilius PaulJus, in pursuance ofofficial senatorial policy;2 and in 146 Corinth
was pillaged and destroyed by l. Mummius. As I have explained in V .iii above
{and Appendix IV, 2 below), Rome made sure that Greece was kept 'quiet'
and friendly to her by ensuring that the cities were controlled by the wealthy
class, which now had mainly given up any idea of resistance to Roman rule and
in fact seems to have welcomed it for the most part, as an insurance against
popular movements from below. The extent of Roman interference in Greece at
this time cannot be estimated, as there is so little evidence. In V .iii above I have
referred to one single inscription which happens to have survived, from the little
VI. Rome the Suzerain (iv)
345
Achaean town of Dyme, as showing what could happen jf th'-'n wnc lny
revolutionary movement from below; the action taken hy l<o":J:c on th;,r
occasion may have been only one ofa series of such iut('l"\,nt:nns. or It lll;ly ha. v1
been an isolaced case and such action may rarely han h~u 'm-ct-ss;n~ ... :\t any
rate, the Roman governor of Macedonia could evidnJ tly mrnvc.nc anp;lw;, i::
Greece when there was a threat to the Roman-backnl ordl"r.
The remainder of the Greek world came under Rmn;m r.1l~ by stagi:~ {whid1
there is no need to specify in detail here), beginning wnh llw ridt ;md it:1pnn:mt
Attalid kingdom in north-west Asia Minor, centnd .u Pngarama. whidt w;~:
bcqueathed to Rome by the will of its last king, Attalus fiJ (wlm .iird iii lJJ
B.C.), and was organised as a province in 129, after a majc1r n'"'h. kd lw otll'
Aristonicus, about which we are badly informed, but wllllh >~Till~ to lu \'l'
developed (however it may have begun) into a class war by to.l~l:-' oftho."p~or
and underprivileged, including serfs and slaves, against the.. Rtm;a:;; .md d11
upper classes of the prosperous Greek cities of the area (sec Appc..ndix IV bdow.
3 init.). There was another anti-Roman outbreak in Ar.i~ in K8 H C.. in.m~at{,l
by Mithrid.ltc.'s VI ofPnntus. wht.n a large number of lhun.ms Jud lt;a)i.n ts in tht>
province.. '""tn massauc..d - Rl!,fiiJIJ according to two of our o;unr~c~. ISO.OUI
according to Plutarch. whu was probably using Sulla's Me:n)Jrs: but ::vtnt h,
lower tigure must be vastly exag~trattd. 3 Rome then ~rJdually al:Slltbt~f hy
degrees the remaining westl."m ..lnd southern coa-;tal .ana~ t'f Asl<~ Min)~ (in
which the Greek cities of A~ia W<.'r'' tl>ncentrated), .tJs,, CynnJir:t. Cnt.;:, S) m.
and Cyprus, and finally (in 30 U.C.) Egypt, which had b,c..-:! J H<'lkttil'tt,kingdom ever since its mnquest by Alexander the (~rc:.at in .tlo2 .A.!tlt~>llgh the
Roman take-over of AsiJ. Minor and tht tther art'.!.!> just mnuitm~'li did rwt
involve any major war ofconquc..f>t at'hr 129 U.C., Rmm\, wars ;!~Jm;t Mith ridates VI (between 88 aml65) and hc..r own t:ivil war~ {t'l>Jlt't:lllly bc.twt~-~~ -l!J 111,1
31) resulted in a series of c..xal"ti' ms in whidt the citit~ Wt.'r~: t\ln-(d w pay ovt~
enormous sums, even apart from tht r,gulJ.r taxatimt md tn supply !ta,al an.!
military forces. As Broughton has s.ud. 'Tit, Roman fkpnhh~ h.ut t'"}'luirc,l in
peace and pillaged in war the human and material rc..-sonrces of th~ ~a>tenl
provinces until all their available reserves were exluusr\'ll: She:r rJp.Hit~ .&.:. .;
factor in Rome's expansion has recently been re-cmphasised by W. V _ Harris
and by M. H. Crawford, both reacting against a tendency in modern times to
play down this aspect of Roman imperialism.~
I shall have nothing to say here of the further conquests made by Rome during
the Principate and Later Empire; but of course cities founded by Alexander and
his successors which were at least in some respects 'Greek', east of Syria and the
'upper Euphrates (the eastern frontier ofthe Roman l."mpire under Augustus) and
as far east as the Tigris, came into the Roman empire and went out of it again,
according to whether Rome ruled the district in which they were situated,
forming at times parts of Roman provinces named Mesopotamia, Armenia,
Osrhoene, Assyria. 11
Since attention has so often been focussed upon the exploitation by the
Athenians in the fifth century B.C. of the subject states of their 'empire', it will
be useful for us to remind ourselves that the exploitation of the Roman empire
was on an entirely different scale of magnitude. (For the latter, I need do no
more than refer to the facts given succinctly in Jones. RE 114 ff. and Badian,
346
RILR 2 , especially chapter vi.) Whether or not the original tribute of the socalled Delian League (which became the Athenian 'empire') was 460 talents. the
figure given by Thucydides (1. 96.2). it seems to have been running at less than
400 talents a year in the period immediately before the Peloponnesian war of
431-404 (see the notes on M/L 39, at its pp.87-8). although of course it was
greatly increased in 425. almost certainly to a theoretical figure of over 1,400
talents (see M/L 69). Scores of city-states in the Aegean area were involved.
Now we happen to know from a letter of Cicero's (Ad Art. V.xxi.7), written
during his proconsulship of the province ofCicilia with Cyprus in 51-50 B.C.,
that his predecessors had been in the habit of exacting no less a sum than 200
talents a year (equivalent to HS 4,800,000) from the municipalities of Cyprus
alone (not at that time a particularly rich area, and only a minor part of the
combined province) as a personal bribe, in return for graciously giving exemption from the liability to billet soldiers. This exaction was of course an additional
burden on the Cypriots, over and above the official tribute they had to pay to the
Roman state. I do not know how common it was for governors to exact
payment from cities in return for exemption from billeting, but there is certainly
evidence for the pr.t~tk~ in C~rl'tiJ.i';~ in the early years of the fifth century.
some four hundred .ami tift~ y~.trs dttl.'r Ckeru 's day: see Synesius, Ep. CXXX,
cd. R. Hercher, Epi.t.,f,,_~r. GMai, ll'i/J (= C:XXIX* in MPG LXVI.1512BC).
Provincial govemtlr!>. then. must somttimes have done very well for themselves and profited ~narly. :~, cash ,md DU kinJ. out of illegal (or at least
unauthorised) exactions. l'Vl'O ifrw om dlio~ l'lJUllled tht.> ~normous sum which.
according to Cicero (I Vrrr. 56). \hrr~-. c.'XtUrtld trnm Silil~- during his governorship there in 73-71 B.C., .tnh'Untiu~ to no less than HS 40 million (or over
1,600 talents). Tax-timmro; nn~ht J.i<.u m.tke large protits- Although probably
as a rule on an altogether lower scall: ;~s UJ.\iian has ~aid, 'The exactions of the
publicani would become bearable under guud ~~w~rnors, intolerable only under
bad' (PS 113). Too many modem writlro; han tad,J to distinguish the illegal
exactions I have referred to from th~ s.um' whifh governors ordinarily expected
to make out of the money which passed through their hands legally in the course
of their ordinary administration. Certainly, they (and thdr quaestors) had to
account. though only at the end of their terms of ntHn. tor what they had
received and ~pent; but- at any rate before julius Caesar's Lc:c]ulia of 59 B.C.accounts could evidently be absurdly brief, for Ciwro quotes in one of his
speeches against Verres the official record of the accounts handed in by Verres in
respect of his quacstorship in 84 B.C.. when he was attached to the consul Cn.
Papirius Carbo in Picenum:
I received HS 2,235.417. I spent on army pay, com, legates. the proquarstor and the
praetorian cohort HS 1.635.417. I left at Ariminum HS 600,000. The account rendered
toP. Lcntulus and L. Triarius. urban qualstors, in accordann with the decree of the
Senate (Cic . ll. Verr. i.36-7).
Ifl may continue with a quotation from what I have already written elsewherclr is true that this account was handed in dunng a confused and revolutionary period,
and that Cicero inveighs bitterly against the extraordinary impudenct of a man who
could hand in accounts as brief as this - 'Is this rendering accounts? Did you or [,
Hortcnsius, or anyone else c:vcr submit accounts in this fashion? What have we here?
347
What impertinence! What audacity! What parallel is there for this among all the
accounts that have ever been rendered'' Neverthlcss, some thirteen or fourteen years
had passed, and Verres' accounts had evidently been accepted (GRA 46).
We need feel no surprise at all, then, when we find that Cicero, who boasts so
often of his own rectitude and would have been careful not to do anything
actually illegal during his proconsulship ofCilicia, makes it clear in his correspondence that he himself derived from his governorship a personal proftt of no
less than HS 2,200.000 (his own figure, in Adjam. V.xx.9; Ad Att. XI.i.2). or a
little over 90 talents. He himself describes this profit, no doubt quite correctly,
as made 'legitimately' ('salvis legibus', Ad jam. V.xx.9). He had even incurred
the resentment of his staff {'ingemuit nostra cohors'), by paying back into the
Treasury another HS 1 ,000,000 which they felt ought to have been divided
among them (Ad Atr. VII.i.6).
* * * * * *
The Roman state itself, as such, did not profit very much from the taxation of
most of its provinces, in the Late Republic and Early Principate (cf. Section v of
this chapter), and perhaps only Asia and Sicily produced a really handsome
surplus, if military and administrative expenditure is set off against tribute. But
here one is reminded of some penetrating statements made by Marx about
British rule in India, in one of the series of remarkable papers which he and
Engels wrote for the Nrw York Daily Tribunr between 1851 and 1862, when
Marx was London Correspondent of that paper- there were nearly 500 articles
in all (McLellan, KMLT 285-7). The paper I have in mind was printed as a
leading article in the issue of21 September 1857. (Until it appears in dul' course
in MECW, it can be read in Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modrrnization, ed.
Shlomo Avineri [New York. 1968, 1969] 235-9.) What Marx says here about
the way the British profited from India applies to a less extent to Rome's rule
over much of her empire:
The present stare of affairs in Asia suggests the inquiry, What is tht> real value of their
Indian dominion to the British nation and people? Directly, that is in the shape of
tribute. or surplus of Indian receipts over Indian expenditures, nothing what~vcr
reaches the British Treasury. On the contrary, the annual outgo is very largt ... Th~
British Government has been at the '-'Xpcnse, for years past. of transporting to and
from and keeping up in India, in addition to the forct"S, natiw and European, of the
East India Company, a standing army of.JO,()(X) men. Such being the case. it is l'vidlnt
that the advantage to Great Britain from her Indian Empire must lx limited to the
profits and benefits which accrue to individual British subjects. These profits and
benefits, it must be confessed, are very considerable.
Marx goes on to specify the individual beneficiaries and the amounts they
received: apart from the stockholders in the East India Company, doctors,
retired pensioners, and various ecclesiastical figures (bishops and chaplains). to
whom of course there were no corresponding Romans, there were in India
numerous British civil servants and military officers, not to IDL'ntion 'other
European residents in India to the number of6,000 or more, employed in trade
or private speculation'. And Marx concludes,
It is thus evident that individuals gain largely by the English connection with Ind1a, and
of course their gain got-s to increase the sum ofth'-' national wealth. But against all this
348
a very large offset is to be made. The military and naval expenses paid out of the pockets
of the peoplt.> of England on Indian account have been constantly increasing with the
extent of the Indian dominion. To this must be added the expense of Burmese,
Afghan, Chinese and Persian wars. In fact, the whole cost of the late Russian war may
fairly be charged to the Indian account, since the fear and dread of Russia, which led to
that war, grew entirely out ofjealousy as to hl'r designs on btdia. Add to this the career
of endless conquest and perpetual aggression in which the English are involved by the
possession oflndia, and it may well be doubted whether, on the whole, this dominion
does not threaten to cost quite as much as it can ever be expected to come to.
* * * * * *
Cults of the City of Rome, in the form of the goddess Roma (a Greek
invention, of course) or festivals called Romaia, were set up in many Greek
cities, especially in Asia Minor, for much the same reasons as the numerous cults
of Hellenistic kings 7 and of other benefactors (cf. Section vi of this chapter)sometimes in the hope of future benefits, or from sheer apprehension, sometimes out of genuine gratitude or goodwill. The earliest known of these cults,
instituted at Smyrna in 195 (see Tac., Ann. IV .56. 1), involved not merely a cult
statue but an actual temple: it was a clear 'appeal for intervention and protection'.8
Cu!ts of individual Roman generals and proconsuls began at the same time in
Greece itself, with Flamininus9 ( cf. Appendix IV below, 2), and eventually
became very common all over the Greek world: even the infamous Verres had
his festival, the Verria, at Syracuse (Cic., II Vm. ii.St-2, 114, 154; iv.24, 151).
A few Greek cities lying to the east of the Mediterranean area were either
absorbed into the Roman empire when the districts in which they were situated
were made into Roman provinces during the Principate, or else they remained
outside the empire altogether, or for long periods. Most of those which entered
the Roman empire not at all or only for short periods were usually under the
suzerainty of the Parthian empire and the Persian (Sassanid) empire which
succeeded it in A.D. 224; 10 but some, like Edessa, came under native dynasts. 11
A certain amount of historical evidence is available about a few of these eastern
Greek cities, notably Dura Europus on the Euphrates, a Macedonian foundation
where the upper class long remained Greek in a real sense, although the language
generally spoken there was evidently the native Aramaic and Syriac and the
lower classes must have been more Syrian than Greek. 12 But for my purposes
there is so little evidence that I shall henceforth mainly ignore those eastern
Greek cities which were not permanently absorbed into the Roman empire (see,
however, Appendix IV below, 1).
I can do no more than just mention here one very interesting and fruitful
feature of Rome's ultimate policy towards Greek cities (and other states) which
she absorbed: her adoption of the principle of'dual citizenship' (as it is sometimes called), allowing a man to be a citizen both of Rome and ofone or more
her subject communities. This process has recently been elucidated, notably by
A. N. Sherwin-White (RC2). 13 As late as the second quarter of the last century
B.C . Cicero's friend and correspondent T. Pomponius Atticus felt unable to
accept the citizenship of Athens when it was offered to him, because he believed
that this would involve the loss of his Roman citizenship (Nepos, Vita Attic.
3.1). A similar view is expressed in two speeches by Cicero, dating respectively
from 69 and 56 B.C.: Pro CaeciM 100, and Pro Balbo 28-31; the latter( 30) shows
of
349
that some othc:r H(ml.lm had not hlcn a!"> cautiou-. as Atticus. How~vrr. by :1
development of rh~ re~ulhr Rmu.m uotion of cil'itrtr JifJf ::r~(Jr'Si. ;lssod :ud
with the status of the mrmifrp.. th~ Hnnuns had lh'taiy r~.Jchc~ tbc ~~:.gc: ..:
which a mtmh\r ofJ.n Julian tmmiripuma. ar any mtc. nmld IK rq~;mi.:d a:> iu .111
respects a l{oman. Thi~ is ad111ir.tbly ~o..xpr.:.ssld i:1 J. 6mot~ p:ISsa~c. 1n Cktw':;
De legibru (11.5. ".Hitten probably in th~.l.n~ 50s or mid-401'). a t\x~ :md tran:~
lation of which are conveniently printt>d in Shc:rwin-Whit.', UC' 154.~n,l
before thl L'nd of rhc:- sJ.rnc: ccriruty. m the. c.u ly ycars of dtt' Prir;d JMft'. \\'t' ti n.t a
similar doctrine applied to tht Gn~ks nf Cyrt.'ndi<'-d; rhc id~.a w:Js ~oon gc,1c.'ra
lised to indullc: all commnnitit" under Ruman mlc: (s~o.t n. B ;tg.:iln).
I must not lake rimt to Jiscuss the further cml~tqu('IUTs ,,, l~oman imperialism ti.1r the class struggle m thl (;rttk wuriJ ..o\s w. so~w in V.iii .!hi:w,
those local Greek uppl'r da~sc:r. who ntnaintd faithful tu Rome could numtally
rely upon Rmm's assi'itanc:c. iu maintaining their pmuimti'Uci-:i. ti;, workmg
population, wuh thl' result that ()ppression and exrlllllatiun ofdw low~r da!-isc:~
must have.. im~rt.'asc.d. Grc.-ek dc.mncracy was gradually extinguished uttc.rl~. dtc..
Romans ensuring a l:llntinuaOl'l' nfthe process whu-h had already ix-~un undn
Macedonian rult~; a11d >f course this made it incn'J!'Iingly diirkuk .md ultimately unru~siblc.'. for the humble to offer effective. rc.-~istance to th- pu\\'(.'rfid
save by l'Xlrcl-legal means such as rioting and the lym:hmg t)f unpuruhr <'f!lciah..
Rome a]ways exacted tribute. except from the limited lirdc. ot' Gr:"k .-irir.Jtts
liberae et immunes, whose status was precarious even if they \\'en: (it-ir.J: ..s.f,t:!l' r..at<Jt'
(see V.iii above). If a Greek city which came unJt"r }{oman r.Jil w.u ;a)r<~aJy
exploiting its working population as far as it was satt. to du s<l. th, tribute:. ;)Jttlc.lf
course the additional exactions made by Roman official~> .1nd t.lx-t'Jrmt"rs. w11l
have had to come out of the pockets of the propertied class, at least in part; but
no doubt the burdens on the peasantry were as a rule simply increased, to cover
the tribute and the other Roman burdens.
The effect of Roman rule on the position of those peasants in Asia who were
serfs or quasi-serfs (see III.iv above) is not known. We have very little evidence
about the condition of the peasants in the Asiatic provinces, and I have no mind
to add to the speculations, often over-confident, in which some scholars have
indulged; but it is an obvious guess that while some poor peasants feU into debt
bondage or even actual slavery, others improved in status, legally at any rate,
owing to the fact that Roman law did not recognise serfdom as an institutionalthough no doubt Roman magistrates, like Macedonians and Greeks, would
have been willing to preserve local forms of subjection and dependence.
An interesting sidelight on the arrogance of some Romans towards their
Greek subjects (if the story is true. as it is likely to be) is the rebuke Cicero says he
received from Vettes' successor as governor of Sicily in 70 B.C., l. Caecilius
Metellus, for making a speech at all to the Council of Syracuse, and in particular
for making it in Greek: this Metellus described as intolerable (idfmi nullo modo
posse: Cic .. II Verr. iv.147).
* * * * * *
Throughout the rest of this book, as here, I often speak of the Roman
'empire', using the word (as vinually everyone normally does) in an essentially
geographical sense, to mean the Roman and- after the Roman conquest- the

Graeco-Roman world: dtl' who]( ilrea of RmJ,:t r,,;,.. including Italy and Rome
350
itself. (On the rare occ;~~ion!' on which I rdi:r t<l tht Hmtan 'Empire', with a
capital E. I mean tht' pcrh!d Jurmg which !111.' ( ;ra~n~-H.om.m world was ruled by
an emperor or emperors: th;tt is to '>ay. dw PruHipo~tC' and the Later Empire.) I
realise, of course, that 'empirt.'. ;tnd particulilrly 'm.tpL'riJ.bsm', are often used in
a very different sense, ro rt'li.r to situations m wlm:h ont.' pohtical entity (whether
strictly territorial or nut) L'Xl'rci.;"''i Jomini(ln mtr other,;. However, except for
the period discussed in this sl'ction. during wh~eh ~lpuh!kan Rome was conquering the Greek world. I hav: paid link .lttl'ntinn ro Roman 'imperialism, in
the strict sense of rule hy rhos.t. who w<.'rL tl,hnirally 'Romans' (cives Romani)
over those who were nor (pcngrmi. including Gn:ck~). Ha,t I done so it would
have complicated the picture unm'L.'L'S'l:lrily. During tht' Priucipate the Roman
citizenship was gradually diffused in some degree, if vt>ry unevenly, over much
of the Graeco-Roman world, until tn the- early third nntury it was extended to
virtually the whole free population lSt't' VJIJ. bd'''"): but weare not sufficiently
informed about most of the d"tad!i, and 1t would be impossibly difficult to
determine how the da$s stru!,l:gk (th~ nt;tin theme of this book) was affected, in
particular cases or owrall. l-oy tht Jistmction between civis and peregrinus,
especially since some leadm~ (;n-..ks who were Roman citizens rose into positions in the imperial administration and even into the Senate (see lll.ii above and
its nn.ll-13 below). whilt many others. although members of the propertied
class, did not even poSliL'!,S thl dtlzLnship. Thost wh,~ an interested in Roman
'imperialism' in the "al'n<;<.' I han just btt.n Lk~crihin!( will tind little or nothing
that is relevant to th.u suhj('l't tn tht rt'!it ,lfthi:. book.
(v)
From Republic to Principate

I now return to Rome itself. In the last century of the Republic (between 133 and
31 B.C.) there was a series of political convulsions. These began with attempts
at reform, partly in the interests of the lower classes, which were fiercely resisted
by the great majority of the senatorial oligarchy, and ended in a series of civil
wars which finally left Augustus the undisputed master of the Roman world.
The system of government he founded, under the pretence, as we put it
nowadays, of'restoring the Republic', is generally known as the 'Principate', a
term (derived from the Latin word prirueps) to which 1 shall return later, in the
next section of this chapter. Perhaps more has been written on the end of the
Republic and the foundation of the Principate in recent times than on any other
topic in Roman o~ Greek history; yet problems still remain on a very large
number of issues, even some central ones. The whole question is much too large
and complicated to be summed up adequately in a few generalisations, and of
course this is a matter of Roman rather than Greek history; but parts of the
Greek world were drawn into the civil wars of 44-31 B.C., and since the whole
Greek area was subject to Rome under the Principate (continued in the Later
Empire) I cannot avoid a briefexplanation ofhow that regime arose.
Sir Ronald Syme, who has made so many distinguished contributions to the
study of Roman history, gave to his first great .book, which described the
foundation of the Principate, the title, The Roman Revolution - somewhat of a
VI. Rome the Suzerain (v)
351
misnomer, one may feel. In the conflicts he describes there, in which (as he puts
it, on p.S), 'Italy and the non-political orders in society triumphed over Rome
and the Roman aristocracy', his gaze is concentrated enrirely upon what the
advertisements of the London Timrs, a few years ago, liked to call'Top People'.
It is not that Symc and his pupils arc actually hostile to those he himself describes
(in his Colonial Elitrs, p.27) as 'the slaves and serfs and the voiceless earthcoloured rustics', conveniently forgotten altogether by most of those who pass
judgment on the past: it is rather that for tlris school what matters in Roman
history is the activities of the leading men alone. One of Syme's outstanding
pupils, Ernst Badian, has gone so far as to assert that the study of the Roman
Republic is 'chiefly the study of its ruling class' (RILR 2 92, the last sentence of
the book). Another able pupil ofSyme's, T. D. Barnes, has recently stated that,
especially in a badly documented period like the age of Constantine, 'the
reconstruction of the families and careers of individuals is a necessary preliminary
to any worthwhile social or political history' URS 65 [1975] 49, my italics) although of course the only individuals about whose 'families and careers' we
are likely to know much, and indeed the only ones who can be said to have had
'careers', are those at the top of the social scale; and if the reconstruction of their
families and careers is a necessary preliminary, then 'worthwhile social history' of
the ancient world throughout much ofits existence might have to be indefinitely
postponed. Prosopography, the study of individuals, has become, in the hands
ofits practitioners (those I have just mentioned and many others), the study of
prominent individuals, their careers, their families, and their alleged political
connections; it has reached a very high level of expertise and has made a major
contribution to the study of ancient history. In Roman history it can be traced
back to F. Miinzer, Romische Adelspqrteien und Adelifamilien ( 1920). Parallel
investigations in modem English history by Sir Lewis Namier (especially in-The
Structure of Politics at the Accession ofGeorge Ill, the first edition of which appeared'
in 1929) seem to have had no direct influence on the early development of
Roman prosopography. Ja
Perhaps the treatment ofTiberius Gracchus, tribune in 133 B.C., may serve
as an illustration of the approach I am criticising. Tiberius enters the pages of
Syme's The Roman Revolution twice (12, 60). 'A small party,' we are told,
'zealous for reform- or rather, perhaps, from hostility to Scipio Aemilianusput up the tribune Ti. Sempronius Gracchus.' And again, .'These prudent men
soon refused further support to the rash, self-righteous tribune when he plunged
into illegal courses.' But Momigliano, reviewing The Roman Revolution in the
]ournt~l of Roman Studies (1940), has rightly objected that 'very few revolutions are
explained by their chiefs. The study ofthe leaders is necessary, but by itselfis not
enough'; and Brunt has protested that 'It is a fundamental misunderstanding of
the crisis of 133 to explain it primarily in terms offactional feuds'; Gracchus was
concerned with social problems: the impoverishment of the citizens, the growth
ofslave estates, the decline of the peasantry which had always been the backbone
of the Roman economy (SCRR 77). The motives oftheGracchi and of the other
great populares of the Late Republic are comparatively unimportant, and they
can rarely be reconstructed with any confidence. What makes these men figures
of real historical significance is the fact that they provided the essential leadership without which the struggles of the lower classes could hardly have emerged
352
at all at the political level. As Brunt says, 'Their personal motives, which it may
be hard to determine, are less significant than the real grievances and genuine
discontents on which they could play' (SCRR 95). 2 Only once in the Late
Republic, as far as I know, do we hear of those in weakness and poverty being
warned that they ought not to put their trust in the promises of rich and
prosperous men, and that only a man who was poor himself would be a faithful
defender of their interests. This, according to Cicero, was said by Catiline ('that
nefarious gladiator', as he calls him) in a speech made in 63 at a private gathering
in Catiline's own house and later openly avowed by him in a session of the
Senate (Cic., Pro Mur. 5(}..1). In a moving letter to Catulus, preserved by Sallust,
Catiline asserted that it had been his habitual practice to uphold the interests of
the poor in public life (publicam misrrorum causam pro mea consuetudine suscepi: Cat.
35.3). If this is true, it becomes even easier to understand the extreme detestation
with which Catiline was finally regarded by Cicero and his like, and the
vilification to which they subjected him.
The populares of the Late Republic, who appear so often in the literary sources,
were not an organised faction or party or even a compact body of men having
substantially the same outlook on major political issues, as on the whole their
opponents the optimates were, at least at times of crisis. 3 They were simply
prominent individual politicians who had what we should call a 'popular
following', in the sense of support from the poorer classes (whether urban or
rural or both), and who adopted policies that were disliked by the oligarchy.
usually because they were in one way or another unfavourable to the wealthier
classes. Some of the politicians concerned were clearly motivated by real concern
about the menacing social developments in Italy: others may have taken the
courses they did mainly because they felt that this was the best way to advance
their own careers. There are certain features of the policies of the populares which
tend to appear again and again: agrarian measures of one kind or another,
including above all the distribution of land to the poor or to army veterans,
whether in individual lots or in the form of colonies; the supply of com to poor
citizens living at Rome. either free or at a low price (frnmentationes); the relief of
debt; and defence of the democratic elements in the constitution, such as they
were, especially the privileges of the tribunes and the right of appeal (provocatio).
All these policies were anathema to the oligarchs.
The populares, then, served, faute de mieux and sometimes no doubt against
their will, as leaders of what was in a very real sense a political class struggle: a
blind, spasmodic, uninformed, often misdirected and always easily confused
movement, but a movement with deep roots, proceeding from men whose
interests were fundamentally opposed to those of the ruling oligarchy, and who
were not concerned (as were sometimes the equestrians, whom I shall mention
later) with the mere exclusiveness, corruption and inefficiency of the senatorial
government but with its rapacity and its utter indifference to their interests." I
submit that the sudden growth of perhaps not very remarkable men such as
Satuminus, Sulpicius Rufus, Catiline and Clodius~ (not to mention the Gracchi)
into figures of some historical importance is more easily understandable if we
recognise the existence among the poorer classes in the Roman state, especially
perhaps the much-abused 'city mob' ofRome itself, of a permanent current of
hostility to senatorial misrule and exploitation - hostility which might be
353
repressed for quite long periods by a mixture of sternness and condescending

patronage, and which is both minimised and vilified in the oligarchical tradition,
but which nevertheless remained a potent force in Roman politics, available to
any leader who incorporated in his programme one or more of the few simple
policies I outlined at the end of the last paragraph, which would be regarded as
the hallmarks ofa real popultJris. But except in so far as they tried to promote the
power of the popular Assembly at the expense of the Senate and magistrates6 (as
for example did Tiberius Gracchus, Satuminus and perhaps Glaucia, and even
Julius Caesar in his consulship in 59 B.C.), it would be misleading to call the
popultJres 'democrats'. As their name implied, they were essentially those who
either were, or represented themselves as being or were believed to be, in some
respects 'on the side of the common people', against the ruling oligarchy. Cicero
defines them as those who wished to please the multitudo in what they said and
did; he contrasts them with the optimtJtts, who behaved in such a way as to win
the approval of'the best men', optimus quisque, and act in their interests (Pro Sest.
96-7). The Greek equivalent for populartts was dimotikoi, a word which (unlike
demokratikor) had no necessarily democratic connotation: it could be used even of
a 'tyrant' who was thought to favour the masses in some way. and indeed
Appian describes Julius Caesar, a highly autocratic figure, as dimotikottJtos {the
superlative form of the word. BC 1.4), just as Aristotle says that the Athenian
tyrant Peisistratus was considered demotikotatos (Ath. pol. 13.4; 14.1 ). It is the
activities of the populam which are important for us, not, their lineage or their
motives or their ambitions or their moral characters. As I have already indicated,
their motives, which have so often been minutely scrutinised, are of very
secondary importance. The questions we have to answer are: what historical
role did these men play, and what social forces gave them their strength? In
point offact most of them, as we should expect, came from the most prominent
families. Catiline was a Patrician, and so was Clodius, until he turned himself
into a Plebeian by making a transitio ad plebtm in 59 B.C., in order to qualify
himself as a tribune. All this is understandable. Depressed classes have often
been obliged to seek leaders from among the ranks of their rulers, until they
have obtained sufficient experience and political capacity to stand on their own
feet- a condition to which the Roman masses never attained.
There is plenty of evidence to show that a large number of the common
people, both in Rome itself and in Roman Italy. regarded the popultJrts as their
leaders, supported them, and often revered their memories when they were
done to death -as many of them were: in particular Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius
Gracchus, Satuminus and Glaucia, Sulpicius Rufus, Marius Gratidianus, Catiline, Clodius and Caesar. 7 Much of the evidcn('e for the relationship between the
lower orders and some of the leading populares is virtually ignored nowadays:
for example. certain statements made by Plutarch about the Gracchi. When
Tiberius Gracchus was proposing his agrarian bill in 133, the Roman people
chalked up slogans on porches, walls and monuments, calling upon Tiberi us to
give them back their old possessions {Plut., Ti.Gr. 8.10). Gaius Gracchus,
during his second tribunate in 122 B.C., left his house on the fashionable
Palatine hill and went to live near the Forum, with the conscious aim of arousing
the regard of the poor and humble who mostly lived in that area (C.Gr. 12.1).
He also gave offence to fellow-magistrates by pulling down some private stands
354
around the Forum which they had erected there in anticipation of being able to
hire out the seats to spectators at a gladiatorial show the next day; Gaius claimed
that the poor should be able to sc:e the show for nothing (C. Gr. 12.5-7). After
the death of Gaius (in 122) the Roman people demonstrated their respect for the
brothers by setting up statues of them, regarding the places where they had been
murdered as sacred and bringing first-fruits of everything there; many came to
sacrifice and worship at these places, as if they were visiting shrines of gods
(C. Gr. 18.2-3; cf. Ti.Gr. 21.8). Cicero in 70 B.C., in oneofhis speeches against
Verres, invites the judges to consider how he might have excited the feelings of
the ignorant multitude by producing 'a son of Gracchus or of Satuminus, or of
some man of that sort' (II Verr. i. 151). 8 Seven years later there was a popular
outcry when Cicero, in one of his speeches, gloried in the killing ofSatuminus
(Pro Rabir. perd. reo 18). A form of cult was paid to Marius Gratidianus (praetor
in c. 85 B.C.), with a statue set up to him in each district (vicus) of Rome, at
which candles were burnt, and incense and wine were offered. 9 Catiline's tomb
was decked with flowers on the condemnation in 59 of C. Antonius (Cic., Pro
Flacc. 95), the fellow-consul of Cicero in 63, who had been the nominal commander of the anny that finally crushed Catiline and his followers. Caesar was
highly regarded by the Roman lower classes, who also revered him after his
death and - mistakenly - transferred their allegiance to his designated heir and
adopted son, Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus. 10
Again, Clodius and Milo are commonly represented by modem historians as
rival gangsters who employed bands ofgladiators and desperadoes to intimidate
their political adversaries. Clodius may or may not have been a man of more
disreputable character than the average politician ofhis day. But when he was
murdered by Milo's ruffians early in 52, the Roman people showed their anger
and distress by violent demonstrations, in the course of which they actually
burnt down the Senate House. 11 They gave no recorded sign of disapproval
when Milo shortly afterwards was forced into exile, nor did they ever make any
general demonstration of political enthusiasm, as far as I know, in favour of any
Optimate leader. z I do not believe that the Roman lower classes deserve the
vituperation they have received from Roman (and Greek) writers, especially
Cicero, from whom so much of our historical tradition about Late Republican
political life derives. If indeed they were to some extent demoralised and
depraved, it was largely because the oligarchy had made it impossible for them
to be anything else, and perhaps preferred them to be so, as our own ancestors
preferred to keep the English labouring classes ignorant and uneducated and
without a voice in the government until well on in the nineteenth century. What
chance did the humble Roman have of acquiring a sense of political responsibility? The unfortunate thing is that we can virtually never feel we are seeing
things as they really were: our sources nonnally present us with a mere stock
caricature. This has descended from (above all) Cicero, through Plutarch,
Amyot and North, direct to Shakespeare, through whose eyes we see the
Roman populace as a pack of bloodthirsty sans-culottes, hooting and clapping
their chopped hands and throwing up their sweaty nightcaps and uttering such a
deal of stinking breath that we shudder at the very thought of them. Their
fickleness, too, is well exemplified in some 130 famous lines of Shakespeare's
Julius Caesar, in which Antony turns them from thoughtless acquiescence in
355
Caesar's murder to a frenzy of 'Bum! fire! kill! slay!'. I suspt:'ct that .t<:(~ptancc..
often perhaps unconscious, of this bitterly contemrtuou:s attitulf.: to t.ltc lo.Hr
orders at Rome lies at the very root of the perversion (lfHc:ltniln hi!'lOT)' whid1
has dominated most modem accounts. Recently, a ditTtrt:'nt J.ktur' h:;s bcgm
to emerge, notably in books and articles by Brunt and Y.\Vt't1, and nnw
Helmuth Schneider (see the works cited inn .2). Som~ ir.ftmnfc: ha-; bc.cnl'li:'-'rr~d
here by Marxist historians of other periods, in p~nicular Huh~bawm and
Rude. 13 But the standard picture is still virtually the one prescnr~<l by Cic""rn .111d
his like, for whom the lower classes at Rome are the sord~s urbi: crfa(';\:, dirt ~nd
filth (Cic., Ad Att. l.xvi.lt), the mis~ra ac ieiuna plebt-cula, a starvl11g. cm:te;'mJ:>tible rabble (ibid.), the senrina urbis, the bilge-water or dregs oftht city (.o\,l.o\rt.
l.xix.4); they are to aporon kai rhyparon, the indigent and unwashed (Di<n. Hll ..
Ant. Rom. VIII.71.3). 14 When they show radical tntdenc.:ii.s tlwy ;;.n babitudly
described by Cicero as the improbi, the wicked, and contraHed with the. nvm. the.
decent folk - that is to say, the oligarchs and their adherents. He n we JTt'
reminded again that the Greek and Roman world (as I explain at the hq~inning
of VII.iv below) was positively obsessed with wealth and ~latus. the lath::r
depending largely on the former. Sallust, who often \nakc.'llS his pu.:t:.m: \oJith
facile moralising, sometini~ realised the truth, as when he wrot~: 'Evt:"ry nuu
who was most opulent and most capable of inflicting harm pass~u fur a bonu'i..
because he defended the existing state of affairs' ('quisque locnplttissirnus rt, iniutia
validior, quia praesentia defmdebat, pro bono ducebatur'): Hi.<t.. t'r. 1.l2. ~J. n.
Maurenbrecher, 1893- a passage which does not appear dth~r in the. l.t'lo!.~b
edition ofSallustorin the Teubner text by A. Kurfess (3rd edition, 19;7 3.: TLTr.).
The complicated political machinery of Rome was such tha~ it would nc.-vc.r
have been possible for the poorer classes to attain the relativdy uuitl-d ti:ont
which the oligarchy could easily achieve through the Seniltc. alwar'i dtmtinattd
(as I have said) by a handful of senior consulars. The <.itizl'n J.Wpul.ati,>n wall
much less concentrated than in any Greek polis, and whm 1 largr part (~{ l1aly
was enfranchised after the 'Social War' of91-87 the Assemblies (!he u.,n;li!l md
concilium plebis) became even less representative. 15 Nothin~ :Skr a gm:Jitu: ly
representative form of government emerged (cf. Section vi of this cluptC"r. ,,t/
init., and its n.2). All major political decisions vwrt" takt>n mttrdy at Rom ...
normally in practice by the Senate, which rcmaim.d m1mensdy piWlriUI.
although sometimes the Assemblies, which were ~till ma>~.,.-mt"tting~ of rhl."
Roman People (or of the collective plebs), could pass t~ll'.lSt.:n..s Ctmr;;;.ry to d1~
wishes of the faction dominant in the Senate.
In addition to the vastly greater area inhabited by Roman citizens in the late
Republic, which made: attendance at the Assembly virtually impossible for the
great majority, except on rare occasions, there was another factor which was
responsible for making the whole complexion of politics at Rome entirely
different from that of any Greek state ofany period: namely, Rome's position as
a great imperial power. Enormous wealth, by the standards of those days, came
to Rome as the result of her great wars in the third, second and first centuries
B.C. The story has often been told and the available figures given. 16 There- is
more than enough contemporary evidence to convict the Romans - or rather,
their propertied classes (magistrates, tax collectors and business men) - of
plundering the provinces on a vast scale. Diodorus, a Greek-speaking Sicilian
356
historian of the last .:t.ntury B.C .. who :It times sh<IW!> sorm: signs- exceptional
in a Greek or Roman writl'r - of sympathismg with th~ oppressed, 11 remarks
that the Phoenicians had a tah.nt i(tr discovt'rir.g sourt'cs ui wealth, the Italians 'a
genius for leaving :wthing t'tr .mybtldy dsc"l (V ..~.3; c Sallust's 'letter of
Mithridates to Ars-an"S . quc..\rt.d in VII. v hdo.v). Another obiter dictum by
Diodorus, critical oftht.~ Rtlmans. is i:1 XXX1.27.5: among the Romans no one
readily and willingly giw_., any of his pr<'rcc-rry to an~um.~. There is much
evidence for the inordinat<.' appt.rit..: of leading Romans j~..,r wealth and luxury.
Four letters written by Ckettl hl Ins friend Atticus in tht. tirst half of 60 B.C.
complain bitterly" about the sdiislmc..~s of dll)St' very rkh men - piscinarii
(fishponders), as he t.'ontt..mptuonsly ('ails thc..m (,'\J A.tt. l.!ux.6; xx.3) -who are
fools enough to think that ~'Vl'U wht.n tht.. Start is dum tor they will still have
their fishponds (pisdtrat. l.x\iii.6; Il.ix.l). rht 'leading men' (principes) who
'think themselves in hca\'1!'11 itt he-y have bt"ardt"d mulll'tS coming to hand in their
fishponds. while thty n"gitt.t t'Wrvthing dsc' (IJ.i. 7}. Tht'H~ were no mere men
of private leisure: most uf the: knuwn pisciiJ.Jrff .tn mainly 'lc;ading men' indeed.
Only P. Vedius Pollio, tlw trit"'ld of Augustus. wa:. .lllit'rc equestrian (and a
freedman's son): heir wai will' had tht habit ofpuni,.;hing. his slaves by throwing
them alive into his pn,J. ro bt. dt.\o~lrc!'J by hi~ lampreys.'-" There are also some
striking general statl'mcnrs hy Cil'l'ro, who will hardly be accused ofharbouring
either prejudice against the Ruman ruling d.1.ss ur r.u.lkal ideas on the subject of
Roman imperialism: I l.m du no mun hert" th.m gino reti:rmces to some of them
in a note. 19 1 will quote only tht.. opiniun ,l(T.Kitus: that tht.. provinces did not
object to the change from Republic to Principatc, 'for tht"y distrusted the rule of
Senate and People because of the struggles between tht.. nwn of power and the
greed of officials, against whom the laws, crippll'd by violence. intrigue, and
especially by corruption, gave them no hdp' (.oo\n11.1.2.2; cf. Sections i and iv of
this chapter). Not only did vast sum!> in boor~ .md war indcmnities and taxation
accrue to the Roman state 'legitimately'; tht.. H1l0Un military t:ommanders (who
took a considerable share of the booty} 20 matlt. imnwn!-t..> private fortunes. and so
did many of the provincial go\t.mors. It is true that the majority of the
provinces- perhaps all except Asi.J. and the thrc..'\.' gn.tt islands: Sicily, Sardinia
and Corsica- must have t:ost .u J~..~.a!\t as nm1:h to 'padfy' and garrison as they
yielded to tht Statt in tribute; but virtu.Uly t..'Vl'ty provanc.:i.~l governor expected to
make at least a small f'Llrtunt..> out of c."\'<.'n .1 .sm~k ytar 111 office. When Cicero
made a profit ofHS .2,200.000 {.1littk <.J\'c..r 90 Ani<.' ul,nts) ,,ut ofhis governorship of Cilicia and Cyprus in 51-50 B.C., ht m,c:rthd,-ss tclt- probably with
justification- that he had al'tc:-d with complete rroprit.ry (!>c.'C Section iv of this
chapter). The soldiers collectively profited from thl.' distributions made to them
out ofbooty, even if the rank-and-til~ ncdnu unly mo,tt...st sums individually.
(Brunt has given a full list for the yean. 2fll-167: 1Al.W4, Table IX.) And the
poor at Rome, the plebs urbar:a. benetited inJirl'..dy in \'<l.tll)US ways. for instance
from the public works whkh tltt" pruiits otempin Ill.lllc.." possible, and above all
from the regular supply of <'hlap ~..om trom Skily. S.udini~ and Africa. 21
The results of Romm irnpt.riali!>m. ovt'r all aud in the long run. need to be
assessed by an analy'fliS iu tenm of class. This has sometimes bt:en done even by
those who are far from being Marxists. For example, my own teacher A. H. M.
Jones (who to my knowledge ntwr read Marx or took the slightest interest in
357
Marxism) gave a perfectly acceptable class analysis in his paper on Rome to the
Third International Conference of Economic History at Munich in 1965,
recently reprinted in his Roman Economy. After referring to the impoverishment
of the provinces in the Late Republic ('most clearly demonstrated by the virtual
cessation of civic building in this period in the provinces'), he went on to say that
it was senators and equestrians in Italy who profited from the empire.
But they did not use their newly acquired wealth for any economically productive
purpose; they spent it either on luxury goods or on the acquisition of land. Their
demand for luxuril"S encouraged a one-way traffic of imports into Italy. which
provided employment for provincial craftsmen and profits to merchants both provincial and Italian. Their acquisition ofland led to the pauperisation of many of the
Italian peasantry. The Italian lower classes lost rather than gaincd by the empire. Many
of them lost their land and were recompensed only by cheap com 1frhcy migrated to
Rome, or meagre pay in the army (RE 124).
Now thc plebs urbana, simply because of their permanent presence at Rome.
had some political influence as voters in the Assembly. and the senatorial
oligarchy had to take account of them, in so far as they could function as a
'pressure group'. If necessary. they could riot. 'Riots at Rome fill a large place in
the pages of Cicero, but their effect on the course of events was limited: the
government could in the end always repress urban disorder. if it could command a loyal soldiery' (Brunt, ALRR 70). The soldiers and wterans. however,
were a very different matter. and pmentially a very much more serious source of
danger to the oligarchy: in the end they hdped to bring down the Republic.
Perhaps the single most important factor here was that a large and increasing
proportion of discharged veterans had little or no property to support them
when they returned to their homes. (I have referred at the end ofiV.i above to
the part played by conscription in the ruin of part of the Italian peasantry.)
Sometimes in a man's absence on military service his parrots or children would
be driven out by an influential neighbour (Sail., B) 41.8). There is much
evidence for the forcible dispossession of the poor by the rich during the Late
Republic, which has been set out by Brunt in a valuable Appendix to his Italian
Manpower (551-7, 'Violence in the Italian countryside').2'.l
Great emphasis is often placed on what has been called 'Marius's creation of a
client army' (Birley, TCCRE 260 n.3): the enlistment by Marius as consul in
107, for the Jugurthine war, not only of members of the five property-classes
who were traditionally liable to regular conscription for the legions, but also of
volunteers from among those who had roo little property to qualify for the
classes. These were the so-called proletarii or capite censi - 'the poor. who
contributed little or nothing to the welfare of the state'. as Hugh Last characteristically put it (in CAH IX. 134). In fact proletarii had sometimes been recruited
before, although mainly in times of emergency; but Marius' action set a
precedent, and 'after Marius recruiting officers ceased to inquire into the property
qualifications of citizens, before enrolling them in the legions' (Brunt, IM 35, cf.
R2). 'Marius himself does not seem to have perceived that he had secured the
means to dominate the state as the patron of his troops ... Only in retrospect
could it be discerned that penniless soldiers could become the pliant instruments
of an unscrupulous commander. Thus the censure of Marius' conduct [by
Sallust in particular] is anachronistic; it implies, however, that Marius set a
358
precedent that later magistrates had followed and that a proletarian army
overturned the oligarchic Republic' (ibid. 406-7). we may well believe that
Marius' main motive was to preserve his following among the people by
sparing those who did not wish to serve and attracting the penniless with
prospects of rich booty [cf. Sail., B) 84.4]; yet with the steady decline of the
peasantry the change he made was surely inevitable sooner or later' (ibid. 407,
cf. 410).
Of course the senatorial government, even in its own interest, ought to have
provided at least the poorer legionaries with land on discharge; but distributions
ofland of any kind, whether to ordinary poor citizens or to army veterans, were
always detested by the oligarchy. 23 Consequently the loyalty of discharged
veterans, and ofsoldiers who knew they would otherwise be left without means
on discharge, was deeply engaged to commanders who could be relied upon, in
the teeth of senatorial opposition, to make land grants available to their
veterans, by laws promoted in the Assembly by or on behalf of the commanders, as by Caesar in 59. These land grants were sometimes facilitated by
large-scale confiscations from political opponents defeated in civil wan, a tactic
resorted to above all by Sulla the Optimate and by the triumvirs of 4.3-42 B.C.
(see below). This gave the commanders irresistible strength. 'In refusing to
satisfy the needs even of those "miseri" whom they were obliged to arm, the
Republican ruling class displayed not only a lack of social sympathy which is
conspicuous in their policy as a whole, but also a lack of prudence that was fatal
to their power and privileges', ... [for] the wretchedness of the population
from whom the army was recruited enabled leaden whose primary concern was
their own enrichment or aggradisement to threaten and fmally to subvert the
Republic' (Brunt, ALRR 84).
It was Augustus who took the essential step towards creating a permanent
standing army, above all by setting up in A.D. 6 a special treasury for financing
grants to discharged veterans, the aerarium militart, fed by two new taxes, the
more important of which was much resented by the senaton (see below). The
army now became decreasingly Italian. As Brunt has well said (IM 130), the
burden of conscription in Italy that Augustus had reduced Tiberius finally
lifted; for it was under Tiberius that the levy in Italy fell into disuse, once the
programme of foreign expansion had been given up. The Pax Augusta really
began in A.D. 17. But it was made inevitable by the exhaustion of Italian
manpower. The exhaustion was not strictly numerical, but moral. Italy could
still have mobilised great armies. But too many Italians had been fighting for too
long; ilfaut enfinir. In all the literature of the time the words most characteristic
of the new spirit of the age were not any of those famous commemorations of
Rome's imperial mission and martial glories, but Propertius' ..nullus de nostro
sanguine miles erit" '-'You'll get no soldier of my blood' (II.vii.14).
It is worth mentioning that during the period of intermittent civil war after
the assassination of Caesar in 44 we often hear of attempts by the common
soldiers (and sometimes the junior officers) to bring about a reconciliation
between their implacable leaders. 24 The plebs urbana, so much despised by many
historians, also demonstrated in favour of peace and reconciliation on more than
one occasion. 2:~
In its primary sense, as the way in which exploitation of the slaves and the
359
lower ordtrs w .u. l't.mdun~d by ~h\ o-.1. wrs of pn>pert y (cf IL 1i : bovr.-). 1ho: d01ss
struggle in the Litt H.tpl:bhc pr:xe;:dc:ol "''irh f,~w of those dtt"cks ..... U1<'
activities ut~he powtrful.-l:hidl Gnek dtmocr.;cy had so C<tr~t:lly provided In
the politir":tl sphere. th~ Middle Uqmhlk (s;iy .:?H7-iJ3 U.C.} saw ftw iilt.-r
conflicts: tl1i.-. wa~ th~~ gr.::;t ~gc of~xpa::.sio1~. ;u;d of ~~:;p.u:dkkd enrldumn: tru
the olig.uchs Jnd :hc1r h;i~~lr.s-nn. wi!h tb. Hlhllic! ..:h~~ on rh~ whol,
remarkal>ly ~mtttd. Th~ puhtic&l ~rn:ggk~ cf ;!whtt~ ~~.-puhli.- ( IJ} !I.) whKh
ended in tlw ~:.st.thbslmtt'IH ut'rh, Pr:rKip.;;c by r\olgt;;tm. bec:.m{' pns;~~ble oni.,
because seriuu-. splits l>q;an ro d.dnp w1thm :ht ruling d.l.Ss most bm by 1:<l
means all of whi.rh ..arosl nm "lf ~"ll"n.mt:Al .unhitinn n.rhc:r :han .memp:; at
reform. That .1 ~llVtming ,,Jigo~.rdty 15 unlike+; to be ""~nhrown J~ kmg ,._.. ::
preserves unity within its nwn r.mk'i 1s m ..:I ~hose plH'c'phvc ob.. ~:-vatiJil.)o
now regarcltd almost as tru~)ms .. ~ .t result \}f t!;; wriri:tgs of lxuit1 ;md M:~o
Tse-tung. Hut this wry obsenJu,m was made as t-.uly :u :ht t:~llrlh cxntury
B.C. by both Platu and Ari-.tutk. Tc) n(apitd.ltt' wh.u J lta\'c s.Ji1i dsl.'wh~..r':.', in
relation to Classin.l Spdrta {OPW9 i} -llw G!"c'tk~ reali!i,,,l !ht' simpk f:tn (s.ta.hlt
as such by Plahl \ S.m:r3t~si rhat d1;.n~ls iii"" ;;t.oh' bt~in Jrn:n dis:><nslu:'> .mKH1!,:.
the rulin!l das~. ;md th.uthcLon;;;titutiun un h.mU\' b(ups<t as !uu~ ,,s th.,r d.1~s
is united. smallo~.s it may Dl' (Pbto. Rrp. VIIL5.J5J). Pro\'tkd rt..~ ml,r~ .trc not
at varian(.'C among tht'msthc-;. th\. n.'!>t w11l tall b, Jl oldds wi~h "'.li'll other
(V .465b). Aristotle speaks in mudl rh<: ~.lnn: \.'l'III: J.ll oligarchy Wllirh rno;,tn.-,s
harmony insillt itself will nut c:;1slly tw 1.1\"t.'rthwwn from wj!h~n (l'r>! V.f.
1J06.il9-10), Thl:'rt' Wt'T\~ tl(.T.t!ooiunal ...trlicr ~igns ot" ,lisa:z,rttmtm witbm rb.:
Roman ruling dass2 " (d~ Stt1llln 1i ufthi!\ dl.lpttr). bm unly with 1hc nil,lal.lr,
ofTiberius Grac.dms in l.l1 B.C. d1d a ~.-rinus hr~ach b,.~iu to ,k\'dup (s~c
Cicero, Derrp. 1..11: t.'ll'- Cf. San .. Bj 42.1: lim. I. fr.ll}. Tht:n~ wtr..: uo_IW SO!Ol'
members of the governing daso; who could stt th.u nJ(nms were necessary.
however much the remaind,!' ,,f [he ,,Jig;mhy lllig-ht H's,nr them. Then were
also members tlf tht~ oligarchy whu tuut.l not TC5ist the- tpportuniti<'s for
self-advanl'('llll'ut ,,ltich W(t"( thntst inn tlwir h;mds by tia. j..'H~m~ .:las.ontcnt
of the masses, especially the soldiers .tni veterans whos.,, Mllt.ttinn I have
described above.
Most modem scholars present a very differmt picture from the one I am
giving here. 21 Badian. for example, in a recent article on the rribunare of
Tibcrius Gracchus, is very scornful about the atmosphere of class strife which
pervades the accounts of Appian and Plutarch: he' places 'little trust in thlir
chatter about the opposition betwcc.n "the rich" and "the poor" uwr Tiberi us
agrarian law; to him. 'it is no more than a stereotype of stasis- a purdy litlrary
device oflitde use to the historian' (TGBRR 707). But this ignores much earlier
testimony. indeed that ofCict:ro himself. who, in one ofhis most serious andsince it resulted in a unanimous wrdict in favour of the man he was deflnding
(Ad Q. Jr. II.iv. l) -most successful speeches. sees the agrarian law as supported
by the populus, because it sel'med to br- strengthening the poor (thc tenuiores),
and opposed by the Optimates, because it would 'arouse discord' and the rich
(the locupletes) would be deprived of their long-hdd possessions (Pn' Se~t. 103).
There is much other evidencl' to the same effect in Sallust (writing in the late 40s
and early 30s), for the Gracchi and tht: decad~s that followed. 2 ~
The new period in Roman history which opened in 133 is cummonly regarded
360
as more violent and bloody than that which preceded it; but the real difference is
that Rome itself now experienced at first hand on a few occasions the cruel
violence and unnecessary bloodshed which had characterised so many Roman
actions in their foreign conquests. In the preceding generation there had been
several atrocious deeds by Roman generals, including the methodical massacre
or enslavement of tens of thousands of Epirotes in time of peace, carried out by
L. Aemilius Paullus in 167 (see Section iv of this chapter and its n.2 below), the
vindictive destruction of Carthage in l 46, and the treacherous slaughter or
enslavement of the Lusitanians by Servius Sulpicius Galba in 150: the first two of
these acts can be considered part of official Roman policy; the third was due to
the initiative of the general concerned but went unpunished. 29 Men habituated
to such excesses abroad were not likely to behave in a strietly constitutional
manner at homt', once the threat to their dominanct' (or even their property)
became really serious -nor did they. The first bloody episode at Rome was the
murder in 133 ofTiberius Gracchus and (according to Plutarch, Ti.Gr. 19.10)
more than three hundred ofhis followers. After that things went gradually from
bad to worst', until a prolonged series of civil wars on a massive scale ended with
the victory ofOctavian, the future Augustus, at the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.
The Pr;incipate of Augustus and his successors (see the next section of this
chapter) was one of the most remarkable constitutional constructions ever
devised by man, and it was supremely successful in maintaining social stability.
in the sense of the dominance of the Roman propertied classes. Without undertaking a description of this extraordinary political edifice (a task far too large for
this book), I must try to explain, in this section and the following one, how it
achieved such stability, and continued to work so successfully not only undt'r a
political genius like Augustus (one of the ablest political figures known to
human history) but even under some third-rate emperors, and survived two
major outbreaks of civil war, in 68-70and 193-7, before partly disintegrating in
the mid-third century under 'barbarian' attacks and military coups, only to
revive again under Diodetian, from ~5 onwards. The Later Empire, which is
usually taken to begin with tht' accession of Diocletian in 284, was essentially a
continuation of the Principate, even if the personal power of the Emperor,
which had steadily increased all along, was now more open and undisguised
than it had been at the outset (see the next section of this chapter).
In order to obtain the power he craved, Augustus did not hesitate to use as
much force as might be necessary: he crushed all opposition without mercy. and
he obtained enormous wealth, far greater than that which any other Roman had
ever owned. He was, however, by nature and instinct a thorough conservative,
who wanted the minimum of change in the Roman world, enough only to
secure his own position of dominance and that of his family. Those who were
willing to follow him unquestioningly he would accept as his instruments,
whether they were blue-blooded aristocrats or nouveaux riches. Once he had
created a regime that satisfied him there must be no further changes. 'In the civil
wars he had fought against the nobiles. Victorious, and now a legitimate ruler, he
became their friend and patron' (Syme, RPM7). A remark ofhis is preserved by
Macrobius (Sat. ll.iv. 18), which reminds us of the definition ofa bonus given by
Sallust, quoted above. 'Whoever does not want the existing state of affairs to be
changed,' said Augustus, 'is a good citizen and good man.' (This statement also
VI. Rome- the Suzerain (v)
361
resembles Lord Blake's definition of a British Conservative, given in Section vi

of this chapter.) Above all, property rights were to be secure, in so far as they
represented no threat to him and his dynasty. Restoration of the inviolability of
property ownership by Augustus is emphasised, along with the renewal of
agriculture, of religion and of general security, by Velleius Paterculus, whose
history was finished in A.D. 30, under Tiberius: 'rediit ... ccrta cuique rerum
suarum possessio' (11.89.4).
During the period between the murder ofCaesar in March 44 and the battle of
Actium in 31 some other tendencies emerged, besides threats to property.
which might have deeply disturbed the senatorial oligarchy. Attention is usually
concentrated nowadays, naturally enough, upon the use of military force for
their own ends by the leading men, Octavian and Antony in particular. But
there were also signs of initiative on the part of the soldiers themselves, which
might have seemed ominous to the senators. It was not until A.D. 68, with the
proclamation of Galba by the legions under his command in Spain, that- in the
famous phrase of Tacitus- the secret of empire (imperii arcanum) was divulged,
that a Princeps could be created elsewhere than at Rome (Hist. 1.4). Even earlier
than that, of course, the installation of Claudius as emperor in 41 had been the
work of the Praetorian Guard. But as early as the autumn of 44 B. C. Octavian
had marched on Rome with a private army of Julius Caesar's veterans from
Campania, an act he repeated in the summer of 43 with eight legions and
auxiliaries of which he was the official commander. Just before the second
occasion a deputation consisting of four hundred centurions was sent to the
Roman Senate, to demand for the legionaries a promised donative and for
Octavian the consulship, which had become vacant through the death of the
two consuls of 43. There are indications in our narrative sources, Appian and
Dio Cassius, that the appearance of the centurions exasperated the senators,
some of whom, we are told, could not endure the soldiers' assumption of free
speech (parr-hesiazestlut1). 30 And we must not forget other signs of initiative on
the part of soldiers and junior officers and of the plebs urbana between the years
44 and 38 (for which see above and nn.24-5).
It was not only that revolutionary movements from below were now made
impossible, and that initiatives by members of the lower classes ceased. In the
years 43-42, before Octavian (Augustus) acquired supreme power, there had
been several attempts to levy taxes in Italy, which had known no direct taxation
(except in emergency) from the end of the Third Macedonian war in 168 B.C.
until after the death of Caesar in 44. The levies of tax that we hear ofin 43, 42, 39
and 33-32 were less productive than might have been expected, because they
were strongly resisted by the rich. Self-assessment was still the rule, as it always
had been, and in 43 and 42 we hear of fraudulent under-assessment, punished by
complete confiscation when proved; there was general resistance to the introduction of taxes on slaves and on inheritances in 39; and during 32, when
freedmen worth more than HS 200,000 were ordered to contribute an eighth of
their total property and other men a quarter of the annual produce of their lands,
there were disturbances throughout Italy.31 It was largely because of the stubborn
resistance to regular taxation that the triumvirs (Antony, Octavian and Lepidus)
resorted at the end of43 to wholesale proscriptions, resulting in the confiscation of
the entire property of some hundreds of very rich men. As Syme has said, 'The
362
proscriptions may 11\lt unf01irl~ h ngardi.'d :1~ il; pur post and essence a peculiar
levy upon capital' (RR I'!:;; 1-i. Dio C.Ls;o. Xl.VII.t-.5). But the proceeds were
disappointing. and tht aim~wirs Jmx:t<kd to pr0daim a levy on 1,400 of the
richest women, a tigurr soon adund ~') 400 :~.fti.'r energetic protests by the
leading women; this tax was then ~mppkmt'l:tt'd by ;mother on everyone,
whether a citizen or not, who owmd :n ka~l HS 400,000 ~tht census of a Roman
eques): each of these men had w comributt <t whuk Y':;fr 's :u~ome to the expenses
of the forthcoming war and lttJd m ~ht st;ltt' 2 per nnt ot"hts property. 32 All this
was exceedingly alarming tu thl.: rrnp~rt!o:,! da~St"S ur"Homt' ;md Italy. Octavian
at the end of 36 remitted ;11l unp;~id taXt>!o (App., BC: V .130). and when he
achieved supreme pow~r he mad~: u ,kar that large-scale exactions were at an
end. The relief and gratuudt uf the rrnr,rtitJ das,...., w~r" nalUrally boundless.
Only once did Augu~tns impos, n~w t01x-ation of any stgmficance: this was in
A.D. 6, when he crc.at~..d tht" .JtroJrium milir,zr,- ('military tr~as.ury '), to provide not
for ordinary army pay hut t~1r th~ Sl."ttlc.>nu.nt otwt~:uu:. un discharge. Augustus
started it off with a largt donation uf HS 1711 nullion from his own private
fortune (Aug., RG 1i .:!) and the promise nfturth~r annu;~.l contributions, and he
arranged for it to bt rq~ularly fed by tht prun~..-ds of two new taxes: one on
inheritances (at 5 ptr o.nt. with t'Xc.>mptimt'>) and the other on sales by public
auction. It is interestin~ tu not~. rhat th~.. inhtritan~..'--' tax wo~s n~ceived with much
ill-will: there was a~it~tion in th~..~ s~...,tatt:' fur ib :tbolitiun, and seven years later
Augustus was driven to let it be thought that he. was going to substitute a tax 'on
fields and houses', a pwspc.t'l whkh thoroughly alarmed the senators and made
them abandon their Outl..'f)' tor the l.'nding of the inheritance tax! (The story is
well worth reading. in Din Cass. LV. ~4. 9 to 25.6. and LVI.28.4-6.) 33
Although it would be tt:'l'hnitally nu-orrt"ct. I am ttrnptt'd to say that Augustus, as it were. took the n>lll't1i\'e pltlt( (tsptdally at Rome itself) into his
personal clientela (cf. beh1w), pm\'uriug Js the outward symbol of this a grant to
himself of the tribunician puw~..r (d. Tac .. :\m1. 1.2.1: 111.5n.2)- as a Patrician,
he could not actua1ly btconw a rrihnm hnn~df With b~:; m~i~tue combination of
aucroritas and potestas (on whkh set tht'IU.'Xt sc.>~tiun of thi:. chapter), he knew that
he had all the power h~.. net>tkd . .lt least from IY B.C .mwards; further constitutional powers were unnecessary and would only n1.1kl.' 1t mure difficult for the
great men to accept his fiction of .1 'n.....tun,l Repuhlk' . .But the poorer classes,
loyal to him as the hdr ui thl' ~no~tco;t of tht P'l'"[;lrt'S, Julius Caesar, feared
above aJl else a restoration u(th~oppr~...so;i \'e :oil.'ll.lturial oh~anhy and would have
been only too glad to have <,till gnater powers ,(mf'C-rr~.....J upon Augustus. :u
Their loathing of th<. old rr:-ginu: 1~ well brought out in the description by
Josephus of the murder of Gnus (C.iligula) and the installation of Claudius as
em peror in A.D. 41. :Whlnas th(' s~...nator!> r~...gardro the emperors as tyrannoi and
their rule as doult'ia (political subjtctiun. literally 'slavery'), says Josephus (AJ
XIX.227-8), the people (the di'mn.~) ~aw in tht> emperors a restraint on the
rapacity (pleonexia) of thl' St:natt: ((f. 224) and for themselves a refuge (kataphygi; cf. Thuc. Vlll.48.l1!). S1mil.1rly, when in the following year the governor
of the province ofOahnatia. 1.. Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus, raised a revolt.
with the declared aim \)f r..-storin~ the RepublicM and the ancient condition of
'freedom', his soldiers .u om~t> d~...~~..rttd him. as they suspected, according to Dio
Cassius, that they would at:.Jin have 'trouble and strife' (LX. xv .2-3).
363
* * * * * *
How was Augustus able to induce the Roman governing class to accept his
rule? Let us be specific and speak of 'the senatorial order', for the equestrians
obviously stood to gain more than they lost. How, then, did Augustus reconcile
the senators to the Principate? I would say that the Roman aristocracy wanttd
five things above all: (1) Peace. (2) Prosperity. (3) Position, (4) Patronage, and
(5) Power; and that it was only the last of these that Augustus was unwilling ro
allow the senators to pursue to their hearts' content.
( 1) Peace, internal peace, after the years of civil war. was of course everyone's
desire; but the Roman governing class had a special reason for wanting it. Bitter
experience must have forced most of them to realise that in the absence of one
supreme ruler, concentrating power in his own hands, a new struggle for
mastery was all too likely to develop. almost certainly involving further civil
war; and if this occurred the victor might well be another Julius Caesar, or even
some much more radical dictator, far less concerned than Augustus to preserve
the status quo. Tacitus, a senator through and through. reluctantly conceded that
after the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. it was in the interests of peace (paris inte~{uit)
that all power (potentia, a word with sinister undertones) should be conferred on
one man (Hist.l.l); he knew that pax and princeps wen~ inseparable (Ann.
III.28.3: iura quis pace et principe uterernur).
(2) As for Prosperity, it hardly needs to be stressed that the Roman governing
class longed for it. They wanted to be rich. to indulge whatever tasrcs thty
might have for luxury, to enjoy unrestricted opportunities of acquiring new
wealth, throu~h pnlVincial governorships and in other ways. Augustus was
very ready to gratify these desires, within limits; but he regarded himself. and
was gemrally regarded, as responsible for the empire as a whole. and if he
allowed members ot' the governing class to plunder too freely. as in the past,
there might be trouble, which it would fall to him to put down. It was therefore
desirable to put ~omt check on the more flagrant forms of extortion and
oppression .md illegality. cwn in the provinces. 311 'I want my sheep shorn, not
shaved,' said 'l'iberius reprovingly to Aemilius R~~crus, the equestrian Prefect of
Egypt in A.D. 14-, who had sent him mon th;m the prescribed amount in taxes
(Dio Cass. LVII.x.5). An~ustus .md m.my nt'his successors would have applauded the fascinating passage rtprodmx.;i iu S(.ction vi ofthis chapter, from
the Discourses on tht rir~t Dti.ldt <'i l.il'}' (1.55), in which Machiavelli recognises
the necessity, in a state containin~ ovtr-powtrtul gentiluomini of the kind he so
detested (bearing a striking r~lmbl.mce to tht' Roman landed aristocracy; cf.
III.iii above), for a monarch w1th 'absolute and overwhelming power', to
restrain the excesses of'the powerful'.
(3) The senators also wanted Position (a term I use as roughly equivalent to
dignitas), and hereditary position at that: they wanted to monopolise the magistracies, priesthoods and other dignities which conferred such immense prestige
among the Romans, and ro hand them on to their sons after them, as in thC' 'good
old days'. (It is difficult for us to realise how highly the Romans valued the mere
'dignitas' attaching to membership of the Senate and to holding the great offices
of state, above all of course the consulship, even when these offices no longer
364
automatically provided a large sphere ofliberty of action.) Here the senators did
not lose much. The emperors promoted new men to the Senate (who were often
sn~ered at as men of low birth, 'obscure loco nati'), 37 but only in limited
numbers; and the recognised senatorial_aristocracy continued at first to monopolise virtually aU the highest offices, even if the choice of candidates for them
was to some extent in the emperor's hands - even under Augustus we hear of
some cases in which the consulship is said to have been given or offered to a
particular man by the emperor; 311 and Pliny the Younger, when he became
consul in A.D. 100, could acknowledge in his official speech in the Senate,
addressed to that 'optimus princeps', Trajan, that the choice ofconsuls was now
the emperor's. 39
(4) The senators wanted their rights of Patronage, sanctified by the ancient
Roman custom of rhe 'dientela' (see the end of Section iii of this chapter}. to
continue as of old. These rights too were maintained, although at the highest
levd they came under increasing imperial control- I shall return to this important subject very shortly.
(5) The senators also, of course, wanted the Power they had always enjoyed.
The reality of power, however, was the one thing the emperors could not afford
to grant to them, although they might choose to give a carefully controlled share
in it to those individuals who had proved their loyalty and their fitness to be
imperial advisers and legates in command of provinces and their legions. The
army was the emperor's concern, and the great bulk of the armed forces were
stationed in provinces governed by his legates, appointed directly by himself
(cf. the next section of this chapter).
I now return to the suhJct.t of Patr,ma,~t. which deserves much fuller treatment
than I can give it at this point. (I have ;tln-.tdy dis~u~s<.>d it .lt some length in my
SVP: see Section iii of this chapter ;uhl it~ nn. IU-1~.) The clientela, as I have
explained, was a very an,ic.'tlt and nn1r.~.l l~'.lhirl' nf R,-,m;m society, and the
exercise of patronage by the great ntl'll (by 11\.l nh:ans limih.~l to their clientes) was
a major factor in political and sociallit'ttn -.md incid,ut:llly much more pervasive
and effective even in du: judid;~.l sysr.:m th.m has bttn trtmr.dly realised (see my
SVP 42-5) ..Jl Patronagt. indl't'd, must bt S\.'C.'Jl a11.m in:.titutiun the Roman world
simply could not do withuut. nm:t tht gtrmindy dtrnu,ratic dements in the
constitution (circumsnihed as tht'}" had .dways hem) were on the point of
disappearing altogetlwr. This is seldom suftid\.'tttly r4-'J.Iised. Under any political
system, many appointntl'nts to positions mvnhing the exercise of auth01:ity
must be made somc.-how. Derno,ratk rroft'SS illlows them to be made from
bt'low; but if it ceases to exist, everything has to bC' done from abovt'. At Rome
election from below became less and less important, even in the last years of the
Republic, and early in the Principate it came to o<.cupy only a minor place.~ 2
When nearly everything was done from above, however, and appointment
largely replaced election, patronage of course became all-important. A Roman
emperor made most of the top appointments himself, from among men whom
he would personally know. He, on the recommendation of his immediate
subordinates, or those subordinates themselves, would appoint to the less
exalted posts; and so the process went on, right down the line. to the humblest
365
local officials. Everything now depended on favour, recommendation,

patronage- on su.ffragium, in the new sense which that word had begun to have
by at least the early second century, replacing its original sense ofvote' (see my
SVP). The clientda never entirely lost its imponance; but as time went on, more
and more was done by what the emperors, in attempting unsuccessfully to
forbid it, called venale su.ffragium, patronage that was openly bought (see SVP
39-42)- for it was inevitable that the giving offavours by patroni to their clientes
should be supplemented by the purchase of such favours by those outside the
useful circle of clients.
It need not surprise us that the Latin word which had originally meant vote',
namely suffragium, had by the beginning of the second century come to bear the
more usual meaning ofpatronage' or influence' or (in the eighteenth-century
sense) 'interest'. There are many fascinating texts which illustrate the working
of patronage under the Principate (see SVP 37-9, 40-4), and in the Later Empire
it assumed an even more important and more sinister role (cf. SVP 39-40, 44-8).
The Greeks accommodated themselves by degrees to this Roman institution,
which they could not now afford to do without, and in due course they became
thoroughly habituated to it. As Liebeschuetz has demonstrated, a leading Greek
orator of the late fourth century like libanius might have to spend a vast amount
of time soliciting favours from or for his friends (Ant. 192 ff., esp. 193). Libanius
sometimes admitted that the practice could be objectionable, but he simply
could not afford, placed as he was, to refuse to do what everyone expected of
him, since 'the giving and taking of favours played an essential part in social
relationships at Antioch and, indeed, throughout the empire' (Ant. 195-7). Even
men holding no office conferring any power, political or military, might be felt
to be persons of the greatest influenre if they were friends of the really great men,
the emperor above all. There is a most revealing picture in Eunapius' Lives ofrhe
Sophists (written in or after 396) about Maximus of Ephesus, a leading pseudophilosopher, renowned as a wonder-worker. who was an intimate of the
Emperor Julian. When Maximus was summoned to the coun at Constantinople
by Julian in 362, he became the centre ofattention at Ephesus and was courted by
everyone, including 'the leading members of the city Councils'; the common
people too thronged around his house, jumping up and down and shouting
slogans, and even the women came in crowds through the back door to beg
favours of his wife. Maximus went to Julian in great pomp, 'revered by the
whole province of Asia' (Eunap., VS VII.iii.9 to iv .1). 43 The more Christian the
empire became, the more powerful was the influence ofbishops and priests, and
even of monks and 'holy men'. As early as the 330s we hear of a Novatian hoi y
man, Eutychianus. living near the Mysian Mount Olympus in north-west Asia
Minor, who became famous as a healer and miracle-worker: he successfully
interceded with Constantine for the pardon of an accused officer; and indeed
that emperor is said to have generally acceded to requests made by him (Sozomen. HE I.xiv.9-11).
Since the very apex of the great pyramid of patronage was, needless to say, the
emperor, we must expect to find him subject, far beyond anyone else, to an
extreme degree of solicitation, not only by those he condescended to call his
'friends', his amici (see below), but also by more ordinary people with ambitions
as well as grievances, and of course by cities. (Here I need only refer to the recent
366
book by Fergus Millar, ER W, which- in spite of a title that promises too muchI had occasion to recommend in II. v above as an exceptionally useful collection
of information on the subject of communication between the Roman emperor
and his subjects, in the period with which it deals, 31 B.C. to A.D. 337.)
To avoid exposing myself to an obvious objection, I must point out that an
emperor would not inflict upon any ofhis great men the indignity ofbeing calltd
his 'diens'. Cicero remarks that men who see themselves as rich and honourable
gentlemen regard being patronised or called 'clientes' as 'mortis instar' (Dt o.ffic.
11.69) -as we would say, 'a fate worse than death'. Therefore, the man whom
the ruler delighted to honour with his personal recognition would be styled his
amicus, his 'friend'"' - the high-sounding title which everyone has heard of,
because theJews are said to have cast it in Pilate's teeth at the trial ofJesus, crying
out to him, 'If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend' (Jn XIX.12).
But amicitia between an emperor and one ofhis subjects, even when it happened
to involve warmth of feeling on both sides, could never be a relationship
approaching equality. It would of course be technically incorrect to say that it
was that of patronus to clims, but in reality it would often resemble that relationship rather than what we should call genuine friendship.
At times some senators could feel bitter at the loss of the old libtrtas. It is
usually admitted nowadays that under the Principate the word libtrtas, in the
mouth of a member of the Roman governing dass like Tacitus. meant essentially
libmas smatus. the freedom of the Senate (sec e.g. Wirszubski, LPIR 137, 163}. I
would go so far as to say that in the Late Republic the situation was very much
the same. Cicero and his like might well qualify assertions of the liberty of the
Senate, the organ of the ruling class, to do exactly as it pleased, by some such
phrase as 'within the law'- for they of course (and this is the cardinal fact) had
made the law. fashioning it and administering it in such a way as to ensure their
own dominance, and they could hardly suffer by its observance. 'The Roman
constitution was a screen and a sham', as Syme has put it (RR 15); but to its
authors and beneficiaries. the Roman ruling class, it was authentic Law and
Order. If the common herd acted of their own volition against the interests of
their rulers, that would be not libtrtas but licmtia, mere licence: a charge of
illegality would almost certainly be brought against it. How nicely the senatorial concept of libmas was tailored to fit the senatorial interest, in particular the
exercise of their patronage rights, emerges b!;:st from a passage in Tacitus'
Annals (I. 75. 1-2). After describing how the mere presence of the Emperor
Tiberius in a court oflaw (where he would be sitting as an adviser, assessor, to the
officiating praetor) 4ll ensured that the judgments given were uninfluenced by
bribery or the entreaties of the powerful (adversus ambitum tt pottmium preces).
Tacitus comments that while this aimed at justice, it destroyed libmas (std dum
veritati consulitur, lihertas corrumpebatur}. To be real, for Tacitus, the libertas of
senators must not be precarious, as it had now become: for an emperor to
prevent the praetor from giving judgments in court in favour ofhis own and his
friends' proteges was something that corrupted the free essence of oligarchic
political life, even when such initiatives were scrupulously directed only against
rhe giving ofjudgments procured by bribery or favour! One is reminded of a
parallel in the Confessions of Augustine (VI.[x].lo). The saint's young friend
Alypius (later bishop of Thagaste in Africa) was acting in the same capacity
VI. Rome the Suzerain ( v)
367
(assessor) in a fiscal case at Rome in 383-4, and again the judge would not have
dared to resist the demand of a powerful senator for a decision in his favour
contrary to law, had not Alypius insisted on justice being done. remaining
impervious -to everyone's amazement- to the man"s bribes and even his
threats. I fancy that many readers of the Confessions may fail to realise that the
situation depicted by Augustine, ahhough of course even more common in the
Later Empire, could easily occur in the early Principate nearly 370 years earlier.
It was once urged upon me in a letter from an eminent Roman historian, in
defence of Tacitus, that the point of the passage from the Annals which I have
just been discussing is simply that Tiberius, 'by being present, prevented judges
from judging freely, as they were embarrassed (who would not be?) by his
presence'. But that is not at all what the passage actually says, and, as we shall see
in a moment, there is conclusive evidence against it. The presence ofTiberius
may well have embarrassed the praetor; and Tacitus could easily have said this,
but he has not done so. Tacitus was a master of the ambiguous phrase, and his
perfectly explicit statement here should not be disregarded, in favour of a
presumed but unstated implication. Tacitus claims most specifically that the
presence of Tiberius actually prevented judgments - unjust judgments - from
being given in response to bribes or the representations of the men of power: 46 it
was precisely this, not a general 'embarrassment' of the praetor, which 'destroyed libertas'. And indeed there is positive evidence in favour of the picture I
have presented. Dio Cassius (LVII. vii.2-5), dealing- as is Tacitus, in the passage
I have quoted - with the early years of the reign of Tiberius, says that the
emperor took great care when judging cases himself to impress on his assessors
that they were to speak their minds quite freely: Dio is most emphatic about
this, and he even adds that Tiberius would often express one opinion and his
assessors another, and that Tiberius sometimes accepted their view, without
harbouring any resentment. We may feel, then, that in the passage I have been
discussing Tacitus has given himself away: he, as a member of the Roman ruling
class, felt no reason to conceal his deep conviction thilt the ability to exercise,
whether for good or ill, the proper degree of patronage to _which a great man's
position in society entitled him was indeed an essential ingredient in libertas. In
the same way, he shows in two separate passages his instinctive feeling that
senators who were financially embarrassed had a right to expect subventions
from the emperor, without being obliged to give the sordid details of their
financial situation: Ann. 11.38.1 and 7-10 (cf. Section vi of this chapter and its
n.101 below).
Modem historians have too often suffered from an unfortunate tendency to
see the Roman concept of libtrtas either in much the same terms as the Roman
ruling class saw it, or as something 'vague' and hardly worth taking seriously.
The former tendency is exemplified in a very appreciative review by Momigliano,
in]RS 41 (1951) 146 ff., of a much-praised book on libertas by Wirszubski
(LPIR, 1950)- which, by the way, never discusses (and, unless I have missed
something, ignores entirely) the passage from Tacitus' Annals (1.75.1-2) that l
have emphasised aboveY Momigliano reduces the interpretations that have
been offered oflibtrtas to two 'mutually exclusive' ones. According to the one he
accepts, which he commends Wirszubski for adopting. 'Libertas is a juridical
notion which, if properly analysed, proves to be identical with the notion of
368
Civitas' (Roman citizenship); 18 and he quotes Mommsen to that effect. He then

proceeds to express disapproval of'thc other interpretation', according to which
'Libertas is a vague word which usually conceals egoistic interests'. This latter
interpretation he attributes particularly to Syme, from whom he quotes two
passages: 'Liberty and the Laws are high-sounding words. They will often be
rendered, on a cool estimate, as privilege and vested interests' (RR 59); and
'Libertas is a vague and negative notion- freedom from the rule of a tyrant or
faction. It follows that libertas, like regnum and dcminatio, is a convenient term of
political fraud' (RR 155). Wirszubski, actually. is driven in the end almost into
Syme' s camp. After quoting a few examples of'vindicatio in libertatem', used in
onjlicring senses, he admits that this phrase 'was a much used political catchword
and became as vague as Iibertas itself (LPIR 104, my italics).
This obscures the real issues. Syme's view is certainly the more realistic; and
indeed he himself continues the passage from which I have just quoted (RR 155)
by saying, 'Libertas was most commonly invoked in defence of the existing
order by individuals or classes in enjoyment of power and wealth. The libmas of
the Roman aristocrat meant the rule of a class and the perpetuation of privilege.'
This is perfectly true. And we can agree with Syme's commendation of a
famous passage in Tacitus, to the effect that 'Nobody ever sought power for
himself and the enslavement of others without invoking libertas and such fair
names' (RR 155, quoting Tac., Hist. IV.73). At the same time, we need not
discount libertas itself, with Syme, as merely 'a vague and negative notion' and 'a
convenient term of political fraud'. 'Vague' is not at all the right word for the
majority of the most interesting uses of the term 'libertas'. In most cases the
meaning of'libertas' is specific enough: the point is that it is capable of expressing
very di.Jferent and even contradictory notions. Certainly one particular kind of
'libertas', in which Wirszubski and Momigliano and others are mainly interested. and which they seem to regard as the most genuine one, can be treated as a
'primarily juridical notion' and made the subject offairly precise analysis: this is
the kind of 'libertas' of which Cicero was the great expositor. ~ 9 Juridical analysis
is not out of place here, for. as I have pointed out above, Cicero and his like
(from the early Republic onwards) had madr the law, and they would seldom if
ever be disadvantaged by appealing to it. For Cicero himself. indeed, the
constitutional law ofRome, at any rate before the Gracchan period, wa!) the best
that had ever existed in practice (see Cic., De leg. 11.23; cf. De rep. 11.53, 66). But
in the Late Republic there was a totally different kind of'libertas'; and to those
who hdd it the Optimate version of lihertas, that of Cicero & Co., was servitus
('slavery', political subjection), while their 'libertas' was stigmatised by Cicero
as mere licentia ('licence', lawlessness) 50 - a word used also by the Roman
rhetorician Cornificius as the equivalent ofthl" standard Greek word for freedom of speech. pa"hisia (Quintil., Inst. crat. IX.ii.27; cf. V .iii above and its n.57
below). This is not the place to go into detail, and I can hardly do more than refer
to one particular group of texts. Wirszubski never even mentions the very
significant fact that when Clodius procured the exile of Cicero in 58 B.C., for
having executed the Catilinarians without trial in 63 as consul (an act which
Cicero of course saw as a necessary defence of his kind of 'libercas'), he also
obtained a vote for the destruction of Cicero's grand house on the Palatine
(purchased in 62, for HS 3% million) and the erection on part of its grounds of a
369
shrine to Libertas'" -the personification of the very quality which, in the eyes of
his opponents, Cicero had attacked! In his speech, De domo suo ad pont!fice:.,
Cicero equates Clodius' Libertas with the 'servitus' of the Roman People
( 110-11) and calls Clodius' statue of Libertas the image not of 'libertas
publica' but of 'licentia' ( 13 1); elsewhere he speaks of Clodius' shrine as a
'templum Licentiae' (Dt leg. 11.42). The 'libertas' which was opposed to the
Optimate variety can also be found in other texts. 112
As for the Optimate version of Libertas, to which Cicero subscribed, I
suggest that it corresponds well with the opinion ofa speaker who is represented
as addressing his hearers as
if not equal all, yrt frec,
Equally free; for orders and degr~:es
Jar not with liberty, but well consist.
I fear, however, that some may deprecate my quoting this passage (Par.1di.se Lost
V .791-3) in the present context, for it comes from a speech by Satan, which
Milton describes as delivered 'with calumnious art Of counterfeited truth'
(770-1), to a concourse of demons.
Augustus himself was usually tactful enough to avoid stressing his own
dominance in such a way as to remind senators publicly of what some of them
regarded as their subjection. their servitus (literally, 'slavery'); and those ofh is
successors who were 'good emperors' (that is to say, emperors of whom the
Senate approved) persevered for some generations in the same tradition. In the
early Principate the senator might wdl feel irked by his 'scrvitus', but under a
'good emperor' he would normally feel bound to suppress such dangerous
emotions. I doubt if the Younger Pliny, for instance, was concealing any real
qualms when composing in A.D. 100 the panegyric ofTrajan to which I have
referred above- to the modern reader at frrst sight, perhaps, a loathsomely
dishonest document; but Pliny was surely expressing what he felt to be perfectly
sincere sentiments of loyalty and gratitude when he declared that now 'the
Princeps is not above the laws, but the laws are above the Princeps' ((}5. 1): cf.
Section vi of this chapter. In the same speech Pliny rejoices in the fact that Jupiter
can now take things easy, since he has bestowed upon the emperor 'the task of
performing his role towards the whole human race' (80.4-5). Most revealing of
all, perhaps, is the passage (in 66.2-5) that begins, 'You order us to be free: we
shall be' (iubrs tsst liberos: erimus). The words that follow show that this freedom
is essentially a freedom of speech, a faculty that was particularly welcome to
senators. The contrast Pliny proceeds to draw with tht> situation in the recent
past under Domitian shows that even freedom of speech was indeed within the
gift of the emperor. (Pliny's Panegyricus has recently been printed, with a good
English translation, by Betty Radice, at the end of Vol. II of the improved
reissue in the Loeb edition of Pliny's Letters, 1969.) Pliny's more intellectmlly
sophisticated contemporary Tacitus could occasionally be very bitter aboutthe
Principate, but he was realist enough to understand that it was an absolute
necessity, if an unfortunate one.
It would have been interesting to have Cicero's opinion, both public
and private (there would have been a great difference), of the Principate of
Augustus, which he did not live to experience. He did live through the much
370
more undisguised dictatorship ofJulius Caesar, which he survived by less than

two years. He conformed in public, sometimes (in his speech Pro Marcello, for
instance) displaying a feigned enthusiasm which belied his true feelings; but in
private, writing to his intimate friends, he could express himsdf with great
bitterness. It was not just libertas which in his eyes he and his senatorial colle-agues now lacked; even their digtlilil.~ ""ao; go11c, for, as he said in a letter (Ad
fam.JV.xiv.l), how could om P)SSl'S!> digtlit:l~ when one could neither work for
what one believed in nor a~h-<Katl'lt oplnly? Would Cicero, then, have followed
the example of thos~: famous l~omau Stoics, especially Thrasea Paetus and
Helvidius Priscus, who in thl t.t~ anJ ii"ls of the first century came out in open
verbal opposition to Nero or Vesp..1-si.m, and paid for their temerity with their
lives? Perhaps. But Brutus. wh,, kut'w Cicero well, could say in a letter to their
friend Atticus that Cicl.'rn did not reject servitus provided it involved the reception of honours (serrinlftrn. /hlthriti&Rm modo, non aspernatur: Cic . Ep. ad Brnt.
l.xvii.4; cf 6; xvi. 1, 4. ~~.This was thl'atritude of the great majority ofsenators.
The Emperor Tibenus. it was -:.aid, used to utter a bitter exclamation in Greek
every time he left th\ Slnate- Homl'. describing the senators as 'men ready for
slawry' (Tac., Ann. 111.653: c:f. 1.7.1, 12.1 etc.). A famous phrase of Cicero's,
cum dignitate otium.:.:; p~rti.-~tly ~o.xprt'Ssec; the political ideal which he held in
common with his fc-llow-Optmtatl'~; and whether or not Cicero himself would
have found it realistd in the Prinl,pate of Augmtu!'. I have no doubt that most
senators would have don<'. 1 'hl prl'ci.sc: mtanmg ,,f the phrase otium cum dignitate
has been much disputed. I .unpt Hnmt \ revealin~ paraphrase: 'an ordered state
in which men were valued il(cordiug to thdr rank in a hierarchical soc;ial
structure' (SCRR 124; the whole passage, pp. 124-6, is well worth reading):'4
It is misleading. I believe, to regard the political change from Republic to
Principatc as a 'Roman Revolution'- the title ofSyme's great work. to which I
have referred above.:,.\ It h.ts hlen d.unwd that what happened was 'a triumph of
Italy over Rome' (Syrul', RR 45J). and that 'Italy o~.nd the non-political orders in
society triumphed owr l~nm<' .mci the~ 'Rmt.,l'l .lril-t.lrr. u:y' (RR 8)- but if that is
true in any sense at dll, lt is so only ii k'' i_~tlltr tiJt' r-a.<t m.yc>rity of the population,
who had no share in any such 'triumph'! Ju!ot as the PJ.tm,o-Pkhdan oligarchy ofthe
Middle Republic was in most unportant ways wry little different from the
Patrician oligarchy it succt'l'clld. !>l) tlw g.uvt.minlt d.t!i!oo c,ftJw Principate retained
(or acquired) most of the charattt'ristil., ufth~u Lut. Rlpublican predecessors.
There was very little change in thl' l\unumtl' s~'Sll"lll.lnd nut much in the general
social complexion of Italy, except that the governing class was now drawn
increasingly from the Italian towns instead of only from Rome itself, a process
which had already hl~un under tht lkpubllL. Soon men of provincial origin
entered the Senate, at first mainly trom ~uuthL'm Gaul and Spain, but in the
second century (after a tri(.klc in the tirst) fmm the richer Greek provinces, Asia
above all {st::e Ill.ii above and it~ nn.ll-11). dndalso from Africa. Even l'mperors
were sometimes of'provincial origin'. in the sense that they came from families
(sometimes old Italian onl''>) rt.-.;ident in a province: Trajan was born at ltalica in
Spain, near the modem St\"ille, and so probably was Hadrian; Scptimius
Severus came from an equestrian family ofLepcis Magna in Africa.
How much real change there was between Republic and Principate even in the
political field is disputed. I myself would see it as essentially the completion of a
VI. Rome the Suzerain ( v)
371
pyramid of power and patronage. involving the placing of a coping stont" admittedly a very large and heavy one- on top of the whole oppressive edifice.
The direct political role of the class struggle in this change was. in my opinion.
perhaps not a central one; but the very existence of the poorer classes. as a
potential reservoir of unrest and a source from which soldiers might be recruited
by an aspiring dynast, was a factor of fundamental importance in ultimately
inducing the upper classes ofltaly to accept as supreme ruler a man they knew to
be by inclination entirely on their side against any conceivable kind of revolution
from below. The Roman lower orders had rarely played any very important
part in politics, except as members of the faction supporting an individual
politician whom they believed to be a popularis; and in the period of transition to
the Principatc they were on the whole only too content to leave their own
political destinies completely in the hands ofOctavian/ Augustus, whom- as the
heir of the great popularis, Julius Caesar - they mistakenly regarded as their
champion (see above). By the time the Principate was fully consolidated, it was
too late. The Greeks, who had already become accustomed to Hellenistic
kingship, usually saw less reason to conceal the reality of imperial power behind
republican phraseology, and to them the emperor was a king, basileus (see the
next section of this chapter). They had of course no option but to accept the
Principate, which for them represented more gain than loss.
There has been much sneering talk about the Roman lower classes being
content with 'bread and circuses'- a phrase ofjuvenal's, whose derisive 'panem
et circenses' (X.81) has echoed down the cemuries, 56 (I am afraid that even Marx
could see the situation in those terms, as when he spoke in a letter of the
dispossessed peasants of the late Roman Republic as 'a mob of do-nothings more
abject than the former "poor whites" in the South of the United States'.):-.7 I
myself find it hard to understand why so many of those who have written about
the Roman world have thought it discreditable to the humble Roman that his
prime concern should have been bread. I see no reason to think that the attitude
of the common people was unpleasantly materialistic or degraded just because
they thought first of filling their bellies. In any event. the 'bread' (see Ill. vi
above) was received regularly by only a vl"ry limited number of the plebs urbana
at Rome itself (and in the Later Empire at Constantinople); food and cash doles
were provided now and again at other cities, on a small scale (and often with the
humble entitled to a smaller share than the more distinguished citizens; cf. lll.vi
again); nor did the rural poor anywhere rt>ceive any such official dole. And the
number of those who could attend 'circuses', even at Rome. as Balsdon has
demonstrated. 1111 was relatively small in relation to the size of the population of
the capital. The Inaugural Lecture by Alan Cameron. entided Bread and Circuses:
the Roman Emperor and his People (1973), to which I referred in V .iii above. would
be most instructive reading for those brought up on the traditional picture of the
obsession of the 'Roman mob' with 'free bread and circuses'. As Cameron says
(pp.2-3), 'That notorious idle mob of layabouts sponging off the state is little
more than a figment of middle-class prejudice, ancient and modern alike. And
he adds, 'It was not the people's fault that, being in origin religious festivals.
public entertainments were provided free'- as indeed they always had been. In
point of fact the circus and the theatre sometimes played an important quasipolidcal role during the Roman Principate and later Empire. "9 a subJeCt I have
372
already touched on in V. iii above. It was certainly the plebs urbana, rather than
the far greater number of peasants, who were in the best position to make their
influence felt at Rome, if only as a kind of'pressure group'. Their outstanding
characteristic was that they were mainly very poor. It could be said of the
workmen and peasants who agitated for the election of Marius as consul for 107
B.C. 60 that 'their assets and credit were embodied in their hands' (Sall., B) 73.6).
In 63 Sallust describes the Roman plebs as having no resourcl!s beyond their food
and clothing (Cat 48.2; cf. Cic., IV Cat. 17); and when he writes of attempts
made to rescue one of the revolutionaries of that year, P. Cornelius Lentulus
Sura, by 'his freedmen and a few of his clients', he reters to their efforts as
directed towards 'workmen and slaves' (opifices atque servitia: Cat. 50.1), as if the
two groups might be expected to have much the same interests. It is impossible
for us to tell how much fellow-feeling there was between the slaves at Rome and
the plebs urbana, a fair proportion of whom are likely to have been freedmen. On
one occasion, certainly, in A.D. 61, the common people ofRomc made a violent
if ineffective protest against the mass execution of the slaves of Pedanius
Secundus (Tac., Ann. XIV.42-3: see VII.i below), but I know of no other
important L"vidence.
(vi)
The Principate, the emperor and the upper classes

The Roman Principate was an extraordinary and unique institution. Gibbon hit
it off admirably:-the system of imperial government, as instituted by Augustus,
can be defined as
an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms.of a commonwealth. The mast~ors of the
Roman world surrounded their throne with darkness, concealed their irresistible
strength, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of the Senate,
whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed (DFRE 1.68).
(Anyone who reads Dio Cassius lll.31.1-2 will find an apt reflection ofit in that
passage of Gibbon's.)
One of the essential features of Greek democracy in the Classical period, as I
said in V .ii above, was that it made every holder of power hypl'Uthynos, 'subject
to audit' (euth yna), subject to examination and control by the whole citizen body
or some court oflaw to which it delegated its supreme authority. 1 This was true
both in theory and in practice. With the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman
Principate we have already arrived at the opposite extreme- for what king or
emperor will deign to make himself accountable, or how can accountability in
any form be forced upon him? In his orations On kingship, Dio Chrysostom,
writing in the early years of the second century (and thinking above all of the
Roman emperor). specifically defines kingship (basileia) as rule that is 'not
subject to account': the king and his monarchy are anhypeuthynos (111.43; LVI.S);
the king is 'greater than the laws' (111.10), 'above the laws' (LXXVI.4); indeed,
law (nomos) is the king's decree, his dogma (111.43). That was not the constitutional theory of the Principate, but it is a correct description ofits practice. It
could be said by a contemporary (albeit in a satirical skit) that Claudius, the third
of the emperors after Augustus, 'used to put men to death as easily as a dog sits
down' (Seneca, Apocoloc. 10).
VI. Rome the Suzerain (vi)
373
I am no..lt .m~g,sting. of course, t.h.n rho:- v:uo: Roman world could ever have
been rultd by anything resembling,. .kmcoer.u:y ,_,f the Greek type, which relied
essentially - tu put it ,ruddy- oa govnnuKm hy mass meeting. and could not
have been applied :u ;t lafg~ :t:-~~~ witb ~n .u ;my r .ate a development of representative and federal iu:;ti.nniou.\ f:ir 1:>...-~ud .mylhiag the Greeks ever imagined. 2
Nor did the Gr~....-k!' suttir .myfiutl!o loss ~,f"in ..dom', in any sense, when the
Roman H~.public ti:nuu.ien~d :.11<1 th\~ whot~ empire became subject to a single
master whu was 'n()t su!~~-~t tl) .tCCL'Uil:. They had lost their freedom already,
many of thnn wl'llov'-'r :t h:..mdud yt>Jr:s :."arli:r. even if they enjoyed various
degrees uf irmm.tl autonomy (s(,'(' V.ii .111d VJ.iv abow). Many modem
scholars han S...'t'll the change from H~publi~ t> lrincipatefar too much in terms
of Rome and th~ It:tlian ruling d;m;_ Tht prYinccs had always been subject to
rule that was 'not subject to .l('folmt' by thm1 .md there is no reason to think that
rhe vast majority of their ihh.tbit:.mrs n:~~m~;,l the change. In the preceding
section of this chapter I t!UOtc.;.l the opinion It Tacitus (Ann. 1.2.2) that the
provinces. b.hing learnt ~., dis:rust 'the rule ,,f Senate and People', did not
object to the imrndtu:tiun t:f th.:o P~incipJ~e u:' A~egustus.
The Prindpatt 111a~ be said to ):,,,.,. l.;su:d ti:lr some hundreds of years, for
there was JJU l'SSl"'ltial dt<~nttt.: m irs mnl.tnhic.1l ~-haractcr (as 1 believe) so long as
its centrahstd control nm;~im:~l- in dK Wt~st, vnly until some time in the fifth
century. I low lun~ one. aJh,ws the: 'L1t~r Rtlm;m Empire' to have continued in
the Greek .East ill.lJnattcr oft;lStt; bmevt'U if om prefers to speak of a' Byzantine
Empire' trotn som~ d.ttc.m. s;.v, tltt' snx1h nntury or the first half of the seventh,
the desputiC character uf thl n~um wa!> ti.:ndam~ntally the same. very different
as its extc.rnal dSpl'<"t was iu stlnt~ w;ays. h halo long been customary for Englishspeakers to makl a break brtwwn 'PtiudpatL .md 'Dominate'. at the accession
of the Emperor J)i('t'lt'U.ln in .2M-5. ~ I bdiL'W that any such distinction, based
upon a supposed t~md.lJill'lUJI (1-:>r ;1t least ~igmficam) change in th~ nature of
imperial rule at the. l'nti nt tht' tlurd century, i., misleading, because it takes
appearance for reality. l do uot d<?ny that the \JUt ward forms ofimperial rule and
the terminulogy 111 whidt tb.u rult> was t"Xpressed did change by degrees during
the first few n'nmrics i1 th, dirc.ltiou nf~w1 ~tre-ater autocracy: but the emperor
was always in n;tlity an dbsulutl' tnnn.uch, huwever much he or bis supponers
might pret'-nd tbt contr.ary- a pnh:m:c- which, I would say, was by no means
always insincere. I m}'sdf lWtamlr rind 11 convenient to distinguish between
'Prindpate' and 'Later Empire' ('Haut-Empire' and 'Bas-Empire'). To draw
such a line is useful not only as a way of distinguishing two different chronological epochs: new elements did indeed enter in with the reigns of Diodetian
and Constantine, but those which were formative and of major and lasting
importance were not so much a transformation in the position of the ruler as an
intensification of the jonns of explllitation. The Later Roman colonate, reducing a
large proportion of the free working peasants to serfdom; a new taxation system
of far greater intensity and- in principle- efficiency; and a more extended use of
conscription for the army: these were the features distinguishing 'Later Roman
Empire' from 'Principate' which mattered most to most people and were of the
greatest importance in the long run, and it was they which necessitated a further
growth in the authority and prestige of the emperor, to rdnforce the increased
dominance of the ruling class. I shall brieRy mention below the further exaltation
374
of the emperor in the !.ixth and s"nnth centuries, in response to intensified

pressure on the empire fwm ~mtsiJ~.
My purpose in this hll(lk ts to r,wal the realities nt"lifc in the Greek (and
Roman) world, mainly as rhq afii~o'tl:.'d the VJ.sl majority of the population,
rather than the much more pl~.tsanr ii.-;aturl~ of th.ulife which the ruling classes
commonly perceived or ima!!imd. In ~.kahn~ with thl. nature of imperial rule,
therefore, I am far less intL'rr;;ted in the subtk ways in ..vhi~.h, for example, the
self-satisfied Roman picture ofdte ~Ulld rukr ditl:.."'n:d from, or resembled, the
equally unreal Hellenistic purtrait uf tht.' iJe-al ktn~. ur the variations that took
place over the centuries in th\ snphistil'Jh:d ,on~.~.pr' ot monarchy produced by
philosophers and rht"toririam. Such qtw!olicm~ (induding the problems of'rulcrcult') are well worth pur.suin~ ..md they have been exhaustively studied- if
rarely with as much l'l 1m mon scnl'L' .md dear-sigh redness a~ one could desire- in
such monumental ,.,..llrk'i as Frit1 T at~glr's Cl1arimr.r. Smdirn zur Geschichre des
antiken Hemcherkultr. (2 vols, 1957 & l%0. marly 1.20C pages), and Francis
Dvomik's Early Chri.ri.m and R):::,mtiur p,,liti<,d Jl/,if;s,phr: Origins and Background (2 vols, 1961. mtarly 1.000 p.l.j!t'S), nut to mentitm many others. Anyone
who wants to read :t hrkf.md ckar st.lttment. setting out most sympathetically
the benevolent intL'ntinns uf the emperors, as expressed in their own propaganda, can hardly do better than read M.P. Charlesworth's Raleigh Lecture on
History for 1937, where we are told of the imperial propaganda that 'Perhaps it
would be fairer to call it not propaganda but the creation of goodwill. For it was
very sober and truthful propaganda, and it was not far divorced from fact. The
great emperors of the second century were very much in earnest, very much
aware of their r~ponsibilities; what they announced, the benefits they described,
were real and positive; they did bring peace. they did erect great buildings and
harbours, they did secure calm and quietude and happiness ... Their propaganda
was nor promises for the vague future, but a reminder of genuine achievement'
(Charlesworth, VRE20-1).
By contrast, I am primarily concerned to show how imperial rule contributed
to maintain a massive system of exploitation of the great majority by the upper
classes.
In the long run, nothing was more important to the empire than the emperor's
ability to direct foreign policy and to exercise effectively the supreme military
command which always belonged to him. It was not absolutely necessary for
him to take the field in person; but being under the direct command of an
emperor who was a successful commander-in-chief could have an inspiring
effect on the troops, and an emperor who knew something of military operations
at first hand was mor~ likely to ntake an informed choice of generals. Many
emperors conducted military campaigns in person. Tiberius and Vespasian
were successful generals before they became emperors; Trajan and Marcus
Aurelius commanded in the field during their reigns; later, especially in the two
centuries from Septimius Severus (193 ff.) to Theodosius l (who died in 395),
many emperors spent much of their time on campaign. In this book I can do no
more than emphasise. without going into detail, the very great importance of
the emperor's role in all branches of what we call foreign affairs, including
relations with outside powers and client states, genetal foreign policy, diplomacy, strategy and military operations - not to mention the organisation of
375
the army. and the t:.~x:tti(\li nnd-:-d to rrwi,le- for its requirements. I find it
strange thac a rt'Cf'llt l:irg~-:".::;&k :.cfOHJit uf Ti1e Emperor in the Roman World
(1977), by Fe-rgus Mlll:&r. shuu!d v;rtu;allr ig~:nrc financial policy and taxation,
and make- only a p(rfum"tmy n11:n1iun of tlw Lmperor's role 'as a commandtr
and in utuiun t<J th( army. Jmi his (ompk'~- diplomatic relations with foreign
powers .md ,.kptm!i:IU kings :uum;g m.my uther dements which would need
to be taktn into Januut in .1ny complete ~u.li~sis ewn of the functions of an
emperor. kt altlct(" nfd:lmtin ndtural, soci:.tl.md political system within which
he lived' (ERW fil7-18). For Millo&~. 'the: ~.rn1wror was what the emperor did'
(ERW xi~ 6): but Bw ho~~ not suft1ckntly takm im.-> .J('\'Olllll tlw lu;Hkd ch.n:arte!'
of our evidtnn ti)r 'what the nllptror di.r. Indeed. h~ ~iVl$ wh;it i> .1hl1~~~ .1
reductio ,,J ,,h..,mlmn of his own p.lsiti(lll when ht admits. ~Jut rr w .. t;llkm '""'
evidence, we mig:ht.almost ('Utnt.' to helit\e that ~hl' prinnry rok oftht ,mr,~t)r
was to listen to spt.'l'Cht~!\ in Gr<"t.k~ (f:Rn 6). Allowm~ himsdf ru be- o>-.rinfl.uenced by his own stkction frtm the .,.&rtirul.tr kinds of .:-vid,:nn that
happen to have surviv,d. Millar can speak of 'the -::tttia! p.m:i,.tiry t.f thl r1)k
expected of the emperor', .md \.m say that 'the emp:rur's ruk m :dar~t.m ruins
subjects was c'.~.ttrtio~lly rh:u ofh:r.tcllin!:( to requests, and nfht:anng dtsput.-s ':he
can even suggest that 'gl.'nt'ralt.dirts were in fact a rd.ui ..dy nnu~H p.ut of
imperial business', simply because few general edicts are preserw..l on shm.
before the end of the third century CERW6, 256-7, my italics). c,rtainly, we
must not expect to find emperors concerned to rhangr their worhl. in th. way
that many modem governments are. Innovation was surmrbing tht. l~oman
upper classes always dreaded, and when it did take pl.lt.:~ it wa' likdy to be
dressed up as a return to ancestral tradition, the mCis m.Jitmm .. a!- iudl.'l'd the
Principate of Augustus was represented as a rcstontion of the Ikpubli<. w~ can
agree with MtlJar that 'the nature of the emperor's personal activitits ..md oft h.:
physical and social contexts in which they were ~:,m.lul'tcd. WJ!> such as w
exclude the initiation of change as a normal and exptt'tt>J ti.mctitln' (ERW 2.71 J.
For this there was the best of re-asons: the Roman ruling da.'" as .1 wi1olt ptrf,cdy
fulfilled the definition of a Conservative (of the British ,.,tritty) given ..cnntly
by a leading academic figure in the Conservative Party, Lmd Blake, Provost elf
The Queen's College. Oxford. Blake. reviewing io the J'im.~. l..itt'WY Surplmrent a biography of Balfour, quoted Balfour's .mswn tel a <tucstiun frotu
Beatrice Webb: 'I am a Conservative. I wish to mainrain txistin,: institution!>.'
And Blake adds an opinion with which we can all whuleheartt'tlly ;a~nt:
is, after all, much the best reason for being a Conserv.uin ..md it is undoubtl'dl y
the reason why the vast majority of Conservatives Velie as thy do' (Tf.S 4tl.\ I,
27 June 1980, p. 724. Cf. Augustus, quoted by Macrob., Sat.II. iv .18 . .as Cited in
Section v of this chapter). I must add, in defence of Millar. that lw m'Vl'r tril'l> to
introduce any limitation on the autocratic nature of tht: emperor's positton.
from the beginning to the end of the period with which his book deals. (trum tht
battle of Actium to the death of Constantine, 31 B.C. to A. D. 3.37). llc,n,'\'1.'\rtr.
he makes no attempt to explain the social basis of the Principate, or how the
office was transmitted, or even why a monarchy, so repugnant to the Roman
aristocratic tradition. had become necessary.
nus
* * * * * *
The words commonly used in Latin to designate the emperor and his ru]e,
376
namely princeps and pri,l<ipatllc:.' \Wrttult otfu:ial titks'' but were terms familiar
from the Late Republic, rt>t'Lrnng t~~ th, outstm.iing prcstige, dignity and
influence achieved by a- LlT lhl kadUlg Ill:,:; (m. with principes in the plural,
]eading men), norm.&lly (f t'unsu!dr Tl::k. JnJ they wt.n carefully chosen by
Augustus to avoid .1ny JUfmaahi;.-;-;\ ta:m. In !u~ atmum uf his own achieve-
ments, his Res Gestclt .A.ugu!">tu~ rd~rrcd tu hi~ U"\.\'11 rl'i~n by the phrase 'when I
was Princeps' (me pri1ripr)." ffc J.l;;o dnw .m imporran! Ji.stinction between his
auctoritas1 and his filtr~ro~.< (RC.-; J4 ..3) ~ T!w !aa~r word <knotes legal powers
constitutionally confC.rreJ; it can :,;:itimaldy be tran<;l,ltL'd 'power'. For auctoritas there is no f.n~lish tqui\'akut; r,rh.:tps .t ~'(lmhln.Jtion of 'prestige' and
'influence' best conv-.yr. irs ml;mir:g: Iu the Rr.' G1'!1c:i' 0-L\) Augustus chose to
emphasise his pre-c:-mincnt :111c ttr:r;;. .md h play d,lw:~. rm~ quite honestly, his
poustas, which in nality w~~ ~quany pr'-'-<'mimm. A sentence in Cicero's speech
against L. Calpumiu!, Pi,o Cu.soninu.i {ui5:1 B.C.), describing an incident that
had occurred at the end of 61. illul'trates perfect! y the contrast between the two
qualities. Q. Caecilius Mttdh..ls Cdc.r. who was mc.rdy .:.m~uldesignate (for60)
and thus enjoyed m.1 l'lltt'stas, but was a m:m ot ttreat prl'!>tige, prevented the
performance of some.' games ordered by a trihunc: in JLti.tme of a ruling of the
Senate. 'That which he could not yet brin~ about by potestas [legal power),'
Cicero says, 'he achi'-wd by llltr<rrt..r.< Ut1 Pii. 8). The auctoritas of a Roman was
his ability to comm . md n-spt"et .md ,)h~diwcc by the accumulation of personal
qualities (including "'" ,:unrsc. d-i~rin~u;~h,d ancestry) and his own record of
achievement, irresp~::cti\c. Lit <"onstitmiunal powers. In this respect no Roman
ever surpassed Augustus.
As we shaD see pnsc.utly. the Gr'-cks \-'l'ry ;;nun cnne tuuse for the emperorand even to address him by - thdr worJ for ~~~itimdtc.' kin!!, basileus (and their
term for his monanhy was b.z.~ilri.t); but in latin tht com.sponding words, rex
and regnum, were stuJiously avotlkJ durin~ J{,Jmblic and Principate, except as a
term of abuse, as whc.'tl Cinw dc.'lll.lUIIl"c.s Tihtrius Gracchus for aiming at
regnum (see the end ofScniun ii ~;fthis di<ipl~"'l'). ,-,r wrtl('S .-:fthe regime in which
Sulla had been person.illy dmmn:mt d~ dtl' 'SuU.mum rcgnum' (Ad Att. VIII.xi.2;
IX. vii.3). Accordin~ to Cicen1. aftl'T tht t'X~ulsiun ut Tarquin (when the
Republic was creat1.d) the. n,,mau ptorl'- wuld lltlt 1.'WH hl'.lr to hcar the titlc of
'king' (nomen regis a11dirr n.m
rrp. 11.5~: d. III. ~7)- a statement which
was certainly true
tht' Rum1lll mhn~ da-.s. o~l-tom whus~. attitude alone we
have adequate informatitln. Tlwy uo;~d r(.\' ouly fi.;r tim1gn kings (whether of
independent states likt' Parthid ur tht'tr ,,,..,.n vas!ials;. or as the virtual equivalent
of the Greek tyramiCIS. I know of only UllL' prominent l'Xceprion to this rule
during rhe Principate: Seneca, who in his lJt" dcmmrio~. addr~so.;ed to Nero in A.D.
55~ (and much influenced hy HdlenL~tic. !dtds). rtptatldly uses rex and regnum
in a good sense, coupling together rex and ptillir'J'~ in the singular or plural,
writing the word rex as a clear !t.yunuym t(,r pntlilpi ur imprr,tror, and using rex of
the emperor himseJfwithout lctu;ally addrl'ssmg him hy that ill-omened title. 9
In his De bemificiis Seneca ~n~o,; so tar a~ tn r:.ay char tht hc.st condition of a State is
under a just king (cum opti,a;. .-;,,ir;:ri~ _;r;m;.< >ub rr-gr UMi.il. II.xx.2). 10 I can only
endorse what Miriam Gririiu h.ts ;;;u.i on this subj~ct in her book on Seneca, 11
merely adding that tlUc.' nuy l~d dur h;t,{ St'ncca lived h.1lt a century earlier or
1ater, under Augustus tlr Tnj<~n. h~ might wdl h.ave used rex and its cognates
,,f
,,.,,.,,,,:D.-
377
more sparingly; he might have avoided drawing a contrast between reges and
tyranni (as in De clem. I.xi.4; xii.3: Epist. mor. 114.23-4) and have preferred to
speak instead ofan opposition between principatus and dominatio, as the Younger
Pliny did in A.D. 100 in his Panegyricus (45.3), from which I have quoted in the
preceding section of this chapter. 12
In the end, however, rex and regnum became permissible descriptions of
imperial rule in the Latin West, as basileus and basileia had always been in the
Greek East (sec the next paragraph). By the year 400 the poet Claudian.
repudiating the notion that the rule of a superior Princeps was servitium (total
political subjection, literally 'slavery'), could go on to say. 'Never is liberty
appreciated more than under a good rex' (Stil. III.l13-15). 1:1 And if we are
tempted to dismiss Claudian as an Alexandrian Greek writing in Latin a.nd in
verse, we can tum to a Western Christian writer of the same period {the last
years of the fourth century and the first of the fifth). Sulpicius Severns of
Aquitaine, who very often uses the term rex of an emperor, as an alternative to
imperator and princeps. all three expressions once appearing in a single short
sentence (Chron. 11.42.6; cf. Vita S. Martin. 20.1-7 etc.). I do not know when an
emperor is first recorded as referring to his own rule as regnum in an official
context. but there is a clear example in the Emperor Majorian's address to the
Roman Senate in 458 (Nov. Major. I. I). According to his opening words, it is the
Senate and the army which have made him imperator, and in the next sentence he
can also use the terms sanctifit"d by tradition, referring to his rule as a principatus
and to the state as the rrs publica. Yet in that second sentence he can also speak of
his regnum (in the institutional sense, not the geographical). a word which can
now be used without shame, not only by the emperor himsclfbut also by his
panegyri~t - 1lr 'ptlt't, if we:: rn;~,y degrad~ that sacred name', as Gibbon put it
(DFRE IV.lJ)- according to whom 'ordo omnis re~num dederat, plebs, curia,
miles, f.t ,olll~J. simul'. The panegyrist. ''r pocr. is Sidonius Apollinaris (Carm.
V .387~) ,later a hi..'illOp, ;~.nd described by Stein J.s 'pour nous le demier poete et
prosatcl:r btia dt' rAntiquite' (HBE!~.I.369).
The standard titl~ th~ Grt't'k.fo nmmumlv l'mployed for the emperor was
aurokrator, the norm1i ( ;n-~k tr.m..;l;uion ot th .. L:ttin imperator. This is intt"resting
in itsdf. as the Gn.tk term, .Jhhtug.b tint so highly chargt"d with military
significance. 1:tnpl1.1sis,;; tfw .1rbitr:~ey ,.J~n;.:~rt in the power of the holder of
imperium, in .1 W.J)' rh.Jt ""T'Mrm it.~rdly ;i,ws. and princeps of course not at all.
The Greeks also nfern.d h) th~ nup,rnr .1s tiwir hasileus, their king. The poet
AntipaterofThess..tll'lllC.l rdcro;. tu At.:gusnr~ lo; his basileus in a poem (Anth. Pal.
X.25) pruhahlr writt~n a~ t.trly .as) B.C. {m perhaps a few years later). 14 It is
sometinws said that l!,r.ilu. 1s II\ II u~~:d of dw l'mperor in prose before the second
century; 13 bu1 thi~ i1o t:tJ~,. Srnbt', writmg uudtr Tiberius, seems to me to be
using basifeus m une p.tssagc: ti.rrh, mptror ~X Vll.i.12, p.797); and even if this
is wrong. thln i~ Ut) J,)ltl-tth:u Jowplms. iu hi5}ewish War (dating from the 70s,
and origmally wntt\'ll Ill 1'\r:un.lk). :tppli{s this term to emperors on several
occasions. 1o; Diu Chry~t>~~mu ~i-;,, u~~" tho.. thnm basileus and the verb basileuein
of the Rom.m c.>mplwrs. ;~ m pJ.rtKJI.lr :u ;1 sp,:cch that is very probahly to be
dated in tht t:uly 70~ :Orlll.myw;r~ Ill)! l.1t~r rlt.mthe ROs (XXXI. I 50, 151). tH New
Testament tl'Xb. tot>. ~,mwt:.nw~ To..fo..r w rb. ;:mperors as basileis. 19 During the
second and third centuries rh, u~: ~ttiJ:: . r!l'a> ;1ud its cognates for the emperors
378
became increasingly commun.;!ii .4. particularly intLresling passage is Appian,

Pratj. 6 (cf. 14): the Rom.1n Hepublic, we are told, 'I.Yas .m .zristokratia until julius
Caesar made himsdfm.,,wrrlrr>i, whale prc:~otr\'tng the form and name (the schema
and onoma) of the palitl'i.:J (the. '"~ publiia: we r.m translate 'the Republic'). This
form of rule, under one m.m. Appian saw as P'-'rsi~ti.n~ until the time at which he
was writing, the sc.-coml quartL'T uf the. second century. The Romans, he continues, call their rulc.n not ba~ilci! but autokratores (Appian means of course 'not
reges but impeTaton.\). 'although in fact th<.'y are basileis in all respects'. Greeks
addressing an empc-rur in rhC'ir own lan~u.1gc would often call him 'basileus';
and the second-century JUrist Mac.rianus, in a passage preserved in the Digest,
records a petition from F.udaenwn of Nicomedia to the Emperor Antoninus
Pius (138-161). addnssin~ him a'> 'Antoninos basileus' and opening with the
words 'Kyrie basilcu Antuntni'. '!\lly lord King Antoninus' (Dig. XIV.ii.9). 21
By the early third century we begin tu tind emperors refet"ring to their own rule
as ba.sileia, when writing to Greeks (Sc.>t' Millar, ERW 417, 614), but for several
centuries they did not formally .1elopt lta~ileus as their official title_ Synesius of
Cyrene, addressintt the E.lsttm Emp("ror Arcadius in 399 in a treatise On
kingship (Peri ba.silei.J.. in latin De'"-~",). could still say that the emperors, while
deservedly addressed as basiltis. prcflrrC'd to style themselves autokratores ( 13,
in MPG LXVI. 1085). Only wid1 Heraclius, in the early seventh century, do we
find a new imperial titulatur~.. in which that emperor and his son first describe
themselves (in Greek) a~ put,i m ( :hri tiii Jugoustoi (' Augusti, faithful believers in
Christ') and then, from 629 onwards. as pistoi en Christoi basiltis.22 Those who
can understand Greek may derive much amusement from a reading of the first
six chapters or sections (only five pages long) of that curious work by John the
Lydian usually known by its Latin title, De magistratibus populi Romani, written
just after the middle of the sixth century, in the reign ofjustinian. 23 John was a
Latin enthusiast, eager to show offhis command of that language and his grasp
(which was in fact very feeble) of the early history of Roman institutions, from
the time of Romulus (if not Aeneas!) onwards. He usually employs the Greek
word basileus in the sense of the Latin princeps. and as the opposite of tyrannos.
For the early kings of Rome, who to him were tyrannoi, he uses a Greek
transliteration, rix (prJ~. which had come into occasional use in Greek in the
fourth century.
* * * * * *
The empire centred in the emperor. His role was always primary, but from
the mid-third cenrury onwards, when barbarian irruptions began to threaten the
very fabric of the empire, and the social evils the regime bred within itself
became more apparent and more evidently harmful, the personal ability of the
emperor. above all in the military sphere, became a matter of far greater
importance. First-century Rome was strong enough to 'carry' a Caligula or a
Nero, and second-century Rome a Commodus; Rome of the late third and
fourth centuries could afford no such dangerous luxuries, especially as the
emperor was now even more of a master than ev~r. The need produced the men:
for a little over a hundred years, from the accession of Diodetian in 284 to the
death of Theodosius I in 395. a succession of mainly very able and sometimes
heroic figures occupied the imperial throne. For Graeco-Romans like Ammianus
379
Marcellinus (in the late fourth century), needless to say. r&u altem:ati\'t" to the rult
of an emperor was conceivable. As Ammianus says (XIX.xii.17). 'The safi:t} of
the legitimate Princeps, the champion and defender oi good mc.n, on whom
depends the safety of others, ought to be protectt>d by the." unite-d dfort$ ~,f
everyone', and 'no right-thinking man could objed tc till' f:tct :ha: in crw~s!i
gations of the crime of treason (m~Jiestas) Roman law allown.i not even th"
greatest men their usual exemption from torture, llt)W inflic:t~:d as:' m.utc:r ();
routine on members of the lower classes involved in lt~gJ.I rroc('SS {sec: VI H. i
below). Unnecessary haughtiness in an emperor might be. out (If plan:. and
when the emperor was commanding his troops in th<. tidd h<. Cl)uld l'!c-havc as
any great general should, and need not put too mudt di$tann bttwnn himsdf
and his men. Ammianus evidently counts it a virtue in the Emrt>ror Juhan th:n
when he and his army were in great difficulties in the bst stage.~ nf thl'ir Pc.rsi:m
campaign in 363 Julian 'had no dainties provided for h1s dinnc.r. aftt"r the manner
of royalty [ex regio more], but a small serving of pottagt under the low poles ofa
tent' (XXV. ii.2). On all other occasions complete dignity was essential; and it is
interesting to find Ammianus praising Constant ius II (of whom ht is ofttn wry
critical) because he 'maintained in ewry way the rn.sti~e ot the 1111ptrial
majesty, and his great and lofty spirit disdained popularity' {XXI.x\i.l). and
criticising his beloved Julian because when he heard of thl" arriv <~I of rhc. 'philosopher' Maxim us of Ephesus, whom he greatly admired, ht jmnJ,cd up in thL
middle of a lawsuit he was trying and ran to receive and kiss tht' man (XXII. vii.J/.
At the end of his sumptuous narrative of the entry ofConstantius II intn nonw
in 357, Ammianus makes what may appear at first sight to be an irnm!' commentary on the personality and behaviour of the emperor:
Saluted as Augustus. he never stirred when the roar thundered back from the hills and
shores: he showed himself to be the very same man, and just as imperturbable, as when
he was in his provinces. For he both stooped when passing through lofty gates
(although ht> was very short) and, as if his neck were fastened. he kept his gaze: straight
ahead and did not turn his face to right or left; and- as if he wert a sculpred figure- he
was never seen to droop his head when his carriag~whc:cl jolted, or to spit. or to wipe
or rub his face or nose or move hi:s hand. Although this was a studied attitude on his
part. yet these and certain other features ofhis inner lift' were indications of no ordinary
endurance, or so it was given our, granted to him alone (XVI.x.9-11; cf. XXI.xvi.7).
There is no real irony in this passage: Constantius was behaving exactly as a

Roman emperor should. The atmosphere had undoubt~dly changed since th~
first century. wh~n imperial arrogance and even aloofness could be stigmatised
as alien to the ci vilitas expected ofa Princeps; but the essential reality as opposed
to outward show, remained much as it always had been. To their credit, the
Roman emperors, in the period covered by this book, never described themselves in the ludicrously grandiloquent way that was characteristic of their
Persian counterparts. In Ammianus' version of their correspondence in 358,
King Shapur II of Persia and the Emperor Constantius II could call each other
'brother'; but Shapur, in his arrogant letter to Constantius. styles himself'king
of kings, partner of the stars. brother of the sun and moon', whereas Constantius, in his haughty reply, is content to describe himself as 'victor by land
and sea, perpetual Augustus' (XVII.v.3.10).
* * * * * *
380
Occasionally in nwt.km bouks orw ~'!KOt.lllh-r-> tlK scnously false notion that
there was a necessary and ~~~tp-m\.on;d ~:onr!kt b~:w~~:: ~he emperor and 'the
Senate' or 'the arir.mnaty'. Th.-rl is a :~c.:m ~}:acnph: nn an article by Keith
Hopkins (EMRE SA':\. ~..l. fini:~y. 103-20), whirh spt>:tks again and again of
'tension', 'conflict' m 'htl;;rilitf hlw~:t'l! t~e t'tllpt'ZTr ;wd the senatorial aristocracy collectively (5/l.S ill'i. 112.. 113, 116, I !9;. ~vr:llllf the emperor's 'battle
against aristocrats' ..md l,f .tll the cnlptrc)rS :ts n\:n:-ssarily engaged with the
aristocracy in a struggi~. r~r puw;:r (SAS ! !5. 1L:?} . ._h:~'kins complains that
there is 'a tendency J.mong mndcrn hi,.torl:'I'i 10 ::llninn:.l! this conflict'; and
while candidly admmin!! that of ;;-..mrs._. l! 1s Jiftkuir l.tr nupossible to prove its
importance', he thmks th('n is nu~s:v,~ t-vtdt'tHx ti1r it' (which he does not
produce) in Tacitus. Sudcntl.:"'. Dio Cassius J!<d th-~ HisH:ri,J.<\u~usta (SAS 107).
This theory isesstc"nti.llly talst>. Thtn: ;,rc~ owo 1~U.lordntwnts of truth in it and
two only. First, any 'it'rt.:IUs n'V<l:t ag:;.msr ;;nlmpc.:wr would nearly always be
led by a member or mcmlw,~ of th( a:i~tocr:lC)'. ti>!" oniy such men would have
enough wealth. pn.-stigl and mth~l:wc- [0 h.tw ;my dtaw:.: of success. But no
substantial part of rlw scnatonal .u:sroa;tCy i~ ._., n t(nllld taking part in a
revolution against an ~tu~wnr Without linmg nr ;,t tlw s:mw time behind some
other claimant to thl' tmpt:rial thwm.. mor~ <lti ..n :!uu ant a senator himself
Never again after thl ;;:s:;;tss=natiuu (It' ( jaui.S i~ -1 l dn we hear of any serious
consideration b~ing ~iwn. even b~ th~ Senate, to the idea of 'restoring the
Republic'. 24 And semndly. thl' nuptrnr. likt- no om else, was personally
responsible for the whvk :mpir..: ;m,l. was liable to face assassination or a
military revolt if things wnn w,-, h:c.dly wrong; and he might therefore be
obliged to put a curb llll c.'Xc.'i:s.tve nppression or ('xpluitation by individual
holders of key posts. sudt .1~ pro\'iiH'ialt_~CI'\'l'rnors -of whom the most important, of course, would l->l Sl'natnrs (sn ldow;.
The truth is, therl't(m. that .thhough mt 111duiih1i onrr'tilt might act in such a
way as to make the sl'narurJJI dnst(tfJ;Ky d~t,.-.t him. thdr remedy for such a
situation was always to try t-~ r,;.o/,;.-, U11~ hy ,!;:o:itrr m:;lt'r,;r. It is permissible,
then, to speak of'tension, C'Clutli,t (u h,)sllhty' (s.r; .th(w,} h,tween an emperor,
or some emperors, and the aristonary. but uN b(tw~'''" tile emperor and the
aristocracy. It is a mt:-:tJkc w p:ty rov mud1 .tttc.mion h' th few emperors like
Gaius (Caligula), NI."T\1, nlllllilt.ll), CcmHIWtiu~ .-.ud C.tucalla - who were
driven not only by au ;mtnn.uic dispoo;illuu but ;,.bL hy extreme tactlessness.
and some of them by llbJt:l"tiunahlt pt'rsotul qu;tltth:s- aud to forget that the vast
majority of senators wmal,l ~l..tdly accept, pr.,vidnl 1t was mad~ sufficiently
honorifica (as it usually wa~). J. status which tlt.:ir republican ancestors might
have stigmatised as $ntittt. k( S\cttLn v <~f this ~.h.ti'll'r, ,.. ~.on Brutus' opinion
of Cicero). Serious nppusititlO m pnndpll to tiw ruk ofth\~ emperors as such
died out, as far as WL' kuuw, L"arly m tht> Prm..lpltl', .111d thereafter we find
nothing more deep-seated thau ..:nti('isn, uf.mmJividu.tl rnltr. at most with the
aim of replacing him with a m11rl' .t~(..pt;\bk onl'. As \W shall see later, when
considering the qucsriun oftmpln.1l o;u(t'I'S'liOn. the SLn;&tl' Jtd not even aspire to
play a decisive role m tlw pwn.-,s l'f d1i>osin~ the next emperor, and, until the
sev~nth century, it did s,, in practice on only tW>l occasions, in 275 and 518 (see
below). In general th~? s~t~atl' would accept wi~h resignation, sometimes even
with enthusiasm, an emperor whu rn:u\d th~n1 with tact (especially gratifying
381
if it amounted to :I$SI:Itl~d tldctttiJc~). g;tv(' 1lwm jurmiktion over dwir owu

member!- .. Utd only ~:~l'Cmi::,i tbos'~ '"'ho \Wn' g\:tlty ut'or~n rd)d!ion. T gtvf
just one ~.xample of imperial tact- i115 ,.,,u~dy ch:&riii'W~islic of:\ugusll!:-o tha: ill
the famou'> snit'S of edicts of the bst y\'.trs B.C. t~mn.l.u Cj'rnl (EIJ-: J 11) h~
should USl~ p,~r~mptory language2' when by111~_: .;i(>Wl~ rt:c trw r._,:~t nt~m~
procedurt Ill tlw province. but s~~bst:IUfl' tiK r~itt" ph~~IS(' <_;ovrrn.>r~ ni Cri."IC'
and Cyn:-;te wiH be acting ~;tirly :md corv,nkntly m my .;-y~s :f ... .~:d w!Io;~t: ill
effect givitl~ l'lrtkrs Jjr,,tJy W ttt,; rfl\l'OJI.;.ul. who WaS nfcnuts~ ii :,>~IMh'l!.
Cert;nu impaial ~r,cdmt>JI in the l'.trly Prmdp.H~: .md ~ldh:-rs ;:!r <:um~ehs. in
the Latl'r Fmptn might Jcqmr\.' grl;at unpnrt.lnC\.' ;Z.< lllttitt.i~tt~fs, bttt in the- lcm~
run the inptri.ll sy~tl"m could rdy liJ'"I' clw suppon oftht !'i~'uatnr3 a.:,,.-/,;.:~: th,
great m.1j(1ritv <li thl' ('mpc-rurs. r~.ali!'t'd this and rl"Ctivni dt;n >upport. Even .1
man likt Srilidto. who ii1r morc than a d~.c.-b.k b~..i\,,-,. hJ!; d1.ath 111 -1!18 ''lrl\l.llly
acted as regent fur tlK Westnn EmJwmr Honoriu~ (t-1 whom !w w.1s lnmrkrdv
loyal). did his b('sr tu cnli!tt rlu n~lptmritlll nttht H~101.111 Smak. in spit~..oftlw
fact that it dt~pistl him iiS a jumped-up rwhcdy. tht- souf.l V .m.t.~l,ltfi(tr. t-k
did so, ;ts .'\Jan CJuwrnn has said. 'quit.. ~imply btcnb~ thl' L'l>-tlp-r Jlitll \If .t
body o( nwn '-'hc1 h~tW('t'JI th~.m J.hsorh~..d a maJOr part llf tlw rt'<oourl.:.~ lfl tJiy,
Gaul, Spain and AfrRt',t was ~SSt'ntiJl ti)[ tht' ;tdmini:;tro~tim~ 11i tlw western
provinns' (CI,mJi.m 1.U). Th~. Eastt'm ~l'l\Jhlr~. <I(Cuno;t.mtinople, were never
quite as much of a forct' in government or administration as th1.ir WestC'm
coliC'agues, at Rome; 27 but the cmpt.rors treated thtm wtth studied politeness,
and Theodosius ll in 446, by an edict retained in Justini:m \Code. went so far as
to assure their gloriosissimus wetus that all new legislatum would first be submitted for their approval (C] l.xiv.8). Only in th~ btrt'r part of rhc third
century, by a process already noticeable under Galhl'lllll' in the 260s and culminating in the reign of Dioclctian and his colleagues (undlr whum the ~r~at
majority of provincial governorships were held by equt<otriam). ~ thtn .my
trace of a deliberate policy of excluding senators trnm pu!Oitiuns ofpl\WT;~" .md
Diocletian's policy was rcvcrst>d under Constantin~. and Ins !!Ons. with thl- result
that (as we shall see towards the end of this section: thl ~tn.Itmul~~rdL~ Wl'W
apace and by the t'arly fifth century had become th1. ~oh imr~rial.m!!.toaacy.
* * * * * *
It is intert'sting to read the re-mark ofSuctonius that the Emperor Domitiannotoriously a 'bad t'mpcror' (that is to say, an emperor the St'natc disliked)'took such care in coercing the city magistrates and provincial governors that
never at any time were they more moderate or more just. Since Domitian 's time
we have seem most of them guilty of all crimes" (Dom. R.2). Now Suetonius was
basically very hostile to Domitian, and he is speaking here of his own times and
from his own personal observation: he was probably in his late twenties at the
assassination ofDomitian in 96, and he continued to live under Ncrva, Trajan
and Hadrian, who wen~ officially 'good emperors' (Ncrva and Trajan in particular). Brunt, in his detailed and accurate account of the prosecutions of
provincial governors during the early Principate (CPMEP), doubts the statement of Suetonius;29 but I see no very good reason to follow him here: the
second part of Suetonius' statement at any rate will seem quite credible to
anyone who has studied the letters of the Younger Pliny, a rather older con tern-
382
porary ofSuetonius :m.l. iikc hi:; frkn._t T:tcims. a distingui~hcd consular. It is all
too dear from these llttrs that the S('tl.llt' t~n&kd hi adopt an extremely
indulgent attitude to S(mt of the nn-mb,rs <)tits order who had committed even
the most shocking crinws durin~ tlwir admini:.tr.uion oi pwvinces- even to the
notorious Marius Prisms. who :os pro\"uusul uf Ati:ira in 97-8 (under the
Emperor Ncrva) h~d b.."\n guilty of appalling audty {immanitas and saevitia:
Pliny, Ep. II. xi.2) . .\lthou~h prosecuted by Tacirus .md PHny on behalf of somc
of the provincials nml'tmed in <)<J-100, bdi1r~ a Senate presided over by the
optimus princeps Trajan. a~ .:tmsul (ibid. Wj. Muius rc.~.:c.tnd only the very light
sentence of relegati<' (bauishmc.'nt. but without loss of property or civil rights)
from Italy, and paynunt iuh' tiw Tr(,1sury ,.,fa parncuiar hnbe ofHS 700,000 he
had taken for having a Roman kni~ht tlo~~,f .m~l str.m)!lc.-.:1 (ibid. 8, 19-22). In
such a case the pnlvincials th"'m!it'hc:"" rcn'l\"td nu ndn"-.'\S whatever, beyond
such satisfaction as rh~.y might dc:nw trom ohstning rhe punishment (mild as it
was); y~t Pliny, counsd tc)r the. pmvmn. show~ uo Slt!n t)f dissatisfaction. It is
intlnsting to comp.ln' tlw anitudt of the. satiristJunn.al. who occupied a much
less exalted position m Hnnun ;;o,~i,t~: lw symp.uhists with the province Marius
had plundered becaus.:. thuugh ncruriuus. it could only mourn- 'At tu, victrix
provincia, ploras' (S.u. I..J~:0.-511: cf. Vlii.K7-l.J5). In anudtL'r ILttcr Pliny describes
with much self-satista,tion hi~ .activitks. in A.D. Yi. shortly before the beginning
ofTrajan's reign, when he hq~a11 au an.ll"k on a praetorian senator, Publidus
Certus. Here he makes .1 most ilhnnitMtiug n.mark: nsl"ntment had been felt
against the senatori:al urdt.r "bL,-amt. ahh.mgh sc.nn 11gainst others, the Senate
spared senators alone.'.,,,( it b)m~ttu,,l
rdis..;.uuulattonc quasi mutua': Ep.
IX.xiii.21). His clam1 r.~ h.1w trl"t-d thL Smatc. tram this invidious position by
his attack on the not very import;nu (\rtus is of t"t 1urse a ludicrous exaggeration.
But not even a 'good emperor' likt Trajan, whose rdations with the Senate were
particularly cordial, could all~)w unlimited plundering by a proconsul like
Marius Priscus -or Caecilius Cbssint'i, wbt) 1-ttlWntt"d Ba,tica, also in 97-8. and
had boasted 1n a lettt..r to hi~ !.t1rl-trknd (11mh;!,,} ;:~ R\ITU~ _,fhaving made a cool
HS 4 million profit hy 'sdling pwvin,iak m lus own words, read out by Pliny.
parte l'ntdita Baeti((mtm (Ep. Ill.ix. D). Sud1 unahar.htd rapacity will make any
reader of Machiavelli '!Co I )i.<l'llrit'' '''ltht' H,-,<t I >a;.~Jc i~{/.ir nmember the passage
rhat stresses the desirability of havtng .1 .;in~l~ rukr. n-spunsibh." for the whole
State, to restrain the depredations ufM;tthtawlli's m.,r-mighty gmtiluomini, who
so often remind us of the Roman uppl'r daliSc."S (l"f. lll.ni ahuVl' and its n.6 below):
r,,,,il,,.-,.
Whcrc the material is so corrupt laws do not suffict.' to keep it in hand: it is nccc.'Ssary to
hav(', besides laws, a supcrior force, such as appt'rtains to a monarch, who has such
absolute and ovcrwhdming power that he can restrain excesses due ro ambition and
the corrupt practices of the powlrful (I.55).
I am not suggesting Domitian's reputation as a 'bad emperor' was due in any

important way to a refusal to allow senatorial governors to plunder their
provinces, or that it was a characteristic of'bad emperors' to be exceptionally
solicitous for the welfare of their provincial subjects, although I feel that any
such courses of action by an emperor would be likely to contribute to his
achieving that rC"putation.
I have represented the emperor's role as bcing above all the reinforcement of
383
the whok sociai ;md politiCll.sysh:m .mJ m;,lo;jo;~ 1t .:~ strr::ugn ;mJ m(r<' d:ic~o~m
instrumcm ior the ~xpl()Jt,Uit)lla.>f tiw gr<;U majon,y. Til~n i~ no UHY:Jtsi;;;,nq
between rhi~ :md rh~ lppwving. rd~rt"l;(:~ I h.t\T]i;s: m:id, 10 MaclllH1cli!, h wa~
very ncl'(ss;uy J~)r tht~ ~mp.rors tn r,rn~ss ifldi,,;..;,.,lh w!J,, gttatly pvr:rs~l'PJ><=d
the mark ami in,h;l;;tt'd !u :;cts ,,h:ch. if Jllr\\'(~d to cmtmtK' .uHi spread. mighr
disturb .uaJ tudangc:r ~h, whuk sy:Ht"Dl. Ewn sl..1ws ,ouiJ n'CI.'I\':7 51-:ll:ll' ),gal
protection against into.kr;a hk ~r~atrntnt. S.lmKtll"!h'S i,~r :It(' ,,;.; p:-<.'s.<; tC"a:;on t h<H
this was uh i m:udy i1 tlar ;,,.,-,st:' (!/ m.mt'r.~ con,.,-, ~w~! ~ (:it't' VII .iii bdow ;md 1t ~
nn.6-7). Similarly. an 1.'lll}'l'WC \'ould exprt':'S snhcinuk ii:.r t:.xp:~yn;; on t!w
ground that th1.y m'<.'d\d to hl protl'(tt'd :tg<utJ:;t gr~cdy oftiri.lls. m ,n<lt:r w lw ,,b/e
to pay rht'ir t.l.n'.' itljl,ll (st-. ,.g. ;\;,~1'}. VIII. <'sp. pra<f., pr., l: cf my SVP 47-8).
I shalluwntiuu only (llll' or two,xampks of the many llll}'t'~i;,j prnnmm.-.-~
ments Wl" happen to knOW WhJdl <,(.'~'k to prot~Ct thl p11(1r .md i.'."<'.ik ;tg;ti!lSt
oppressinn by tht rkh J.nd pmwrful. In tht !t.Htrth nurury ,,.,. ii11d ch;. ptSt ,1f
d4ensor (5onwtinh'S ,J~t~'tJ.Ct>r .-i..-ir.ui.. or Jrjirsur pM. i ..:), whwh frntn t'.trly (IJ rh,
joint rci~n o(Valcntmi.m I and Valens at ka-.r (< .\18 tL) w;J.s iJillndt>tlll, .,fi~rd
protcctiou to !Itt' ordinary provmd:tl. although ,-,,- nlt<rsdt i.ugdy i;.tbl to t\tltil
its intemkd tunction. 30 The Tlritii Mrr/,)tth< Emp<"rnr MaJOTI.m. in458, ~~ .111
intl"rcstmg belated attempt t;.1 restore tlw import.tlln' .md t~s,f~.thKSl' of the:
difmsores. And [may recall wh.at I tM\, .;;tid t".trlit;.r .\D(Ut a sn~s ;.fnnil~ctual
atte-mpts made by the l.'lllplrnr~ to .tholish or rl"strict L'<'rtJJtl t~rm.' <)I rural
patronage (see IV.ii o~boVt'. Jlfirr,: Jnd,l-rietfy. my SVP J3 .md :t.2). N('''' ir ha~
been said that the earliest surviving ~n;actmcnt in wh1d1 ;.n ,u:p~rnr i~ k1:wn tn
have denounced thl' \)ppr('S!'iVL' p.uwu..lgl' rigllls ~xlnisld by ch~ ptmt:Nt"s lth:
'over-powerful') 1:> :1 wu:>tituuuu. ( ~/IL :xtii. l.tw. , u( thl' Ernplrur Chmliu,. II
Gothicus (A.D. 208-7!1);n Howrwr. we must utt iniir frm thu. th;;t !llt' gr\".\t
men did not t>l'gin Sl'riouslv to Jbuse their power nutilthe mid-third ~~mary
All we have a right tt') say is th.u the activitil'S of the potentiorrs wcrcrhl rC.Ir!y ~hr
government as a senuus threat unul the central power w .t5 gr\-.ttly \\'c:.lkln.J :n tht
second q!~::.r:~~ ,, .. th{ dt~rd r~ntury by;::~~'\'.' ..... ave or b.t:"b,ll"'!an. IT!\';!siow JnJ
civil war!> (ct: VUI.iii below and my SVP 44). lm.~ndom.ln Sn tum ,. of r:th
chaptc.-r tlw passage in which Sallu.si 1opeak~ ,,,-:a twi~hhnurmg rclftlrlcJI drivlllg
off the land the parents (lr childnn tlf a pt':tll:mt absent on nuhr;try ~t'T\'K~ durin~
the Latt' Republic (BJ 41.ii); auJ thtn arc othLr rl'f~_nJII'L'S trunl the Lat<
Republk and Early Primipatt to :Ktual nr poiL'ntMicppr..:...,.IOII 0f 1h< pclllt :cnl
humble by pcl/t'llrl'.>, T''''''rJticrt~ ur prolt'l'lidi. :I~ Nnmtrm:~ ..-x.lwphs of nup1.r i:ll
rescripts, n-.poutiing hi sp~odtil' t'tllllplaiut<o of maltreatment. !'t:r\'1\'t' frunl Jon~
before 26~ (s~.e~o.g. Millar, J:RW24l)-52). Fur the sinisrlr rolltnt'rh:: J'l'lt'tlil,,,. in
the Later Emp1r1.'. see VIII.1v and Its nAJ bdt)W. I must add that some of the
Christian dmrdtl'~ wlnl'h Wt'rt ~natl:mdlc1rd:.. esp<.cially cf courst' th~ Church
of Rome (see IV. iii and its n. 47). mi!!lu ti!tun pwminently among the P'tt'tlriores:
unless restrained by their bislwp. tlw~ ('(>ui~.l probably ill-treat their tmants
more or less as they pleased (~Lt tht ml nfiV .ii a bow).
* * * * * *
The position of the Emperor has been conceived in very diftlrcnt ways in
modlrn times, and indeed there were basic contradktions at the very h<.\lrt of till'
official version of it. I shall begin by summarising what an to a considcrabk
384
degree the opinions ofJones (LRE 1.321-6)- which are all the more striking in
that they refer particularly to the Later Empire. The emperor was ( 1) the direct
successor of a line of elected Republican magistrates; (2) his very sovereignty
was derived (it was said) from a voluntary surrender to him by the People of
their own sovereign power; (3) if he were to be more than a mere usurper, a
'tyrant', his assumption of power had to be approved by at least Senate and
Army; (4) his position did not pass automatically by hereditary succession; and
(5) above all, perhaps, he was expected to submit himself to the laws. The
Greeks had always proudly contrasted their own freedom with the 'slavery (as
they conceived it) to the Great King of all members of the Persian empire,
including even the satraps- who might well have been astonished, I suspect, at
be-ing so described. When the satisfied Roman or Greek depicted his own position.
he might characterise it as a middle status between the slavery of the Persian to
his king and the lawless licence of the German 'barbarian'. Pope Gregory the
Great distinguished 'barbarian kings' (reges gentium) from Roman emperors in
that the former were masters of slaves, the latter of free men (Ep. XI.4; X 111.34). 33
That is the brighter side of the picture. I shall maintain that in reality it is
deeply misleading. My own position is much nearer to that ofMommsen: I am
not referring to his much-quoted but unhelpful notion of a 'dyarchy' between
Princeps and Senate, but to his description of the Principate as 'autocracy
tempered by legally permanent revolution, not only in practice but also in
theory' (Rom. Staatsr. JI3 .ii.1133). 34 Against each of the five elements I have
mentioned there were factors operating in an opposite direction, which I shall
describe, and illustrate mainly from Greek authors, in the sense of men originating in the Greek East. whether they wrote in Greek or - like the historian
Ammianus Marcellinus and the poet Claudian -in Latin. a.~
(1) For some two centuries, from Augustus onwards, the conception of the
Princeps as the heir of the Republican magistrate may have had some faint
shadow of reality, but by the third century -and some would say, long before
that - the ancestry was far too remote for anyone to be able to take it seriously.
The Princeps, although not officially numbered among the gods of the Roman
state until he was dead and had been formally consecrated divus by the Senate
(see below), already in his lifetime was credited with a kind of divinity in
dedications and celebrations by many of his subjects: and from Diocletian's
reign onwards he became a more remote and lofty figure, surrounded with
greater pomp and approached by his subjects with the ceremony of adoratio,
'adoring the purple', in place of the traditional salutatio. (If some of the ritual
reproduced that of the Persian court, the process of development was none the
less an internal one.) The imperial treasury was now referred to as the sacrae
largitiones, the imperial bedchamber as the sacrum cubiculum: 'sacred', in such
.contexts, had come to mean 'imperial'. The acceptance of Christianity by
Constantine (and all his successors except Julian) meant that a fimtline had to be
drawn between emperor and God; but the person of the emperor, as God's
vice-gerent on earth, became if anything even more sacred (see below).
Again, (2), in reality, the alleged transfer of power by the People to the
Princeps was virtually a fiction from the first, for the prerogative of the People
to play a formative part in the process of law-making, and its exercise of
sovereign power, hardly survived the Republic and soon came to be exercised
385
by the St:n.u~: _Ca~Jmlv. a.:umlir.g to a r:unom; :md Hllldl-quor,~d extu(t ill th;;~
Digest from th\.- lrr~tilllh'S of Ulpiau tti11~ \.!TC.tt Snwan \;,wy.-r who d:tJ i11 :?13),
'whateVl'T tht PmK~-ps d~citk-s II.JJ rlrrJtlr,T '!flaw (i1:t1.; lr.rlt't r:!g,>wn). an.i this 1s
based expli\,t)}' l:pOll tht' aJkgati(m that by ,I /t',\- n:~i,l :h( P~'f'"!"i ,~()fli~rs Oil the
Princeps .11l its <-wn :mr~r:mn ;md ;wt,.sta.< (Dig. l.i..l.pr.: h'P~Jtcd 111 b;st}
l.ii.6). And Ulri.m got>.s ur; to say thJt ;my rrnnounn:nwnt hy rtw !'rm;;xps (thl
most g''nlral h'rm i~ ;WWituti<} in (1111.: nt thi. recognised r(mns (;\hteh lw
specifies; is admitrnf tl> itt' bw Ut.~m ,,;._;, wmt.u; l)~r;:- I.w .1.1; r\pc:~.t.:<.! m ltH) .
Joe. cit.). Sinnlarlv, the Dl,'ll'>l quott'S. <t statt'nll'nt from the mid-second-century
legal manu.il ufP,mtri)JllllS to the: ctlh~ llnt 'wh.tt thl P:-mnps hi11.~df 'n;t<"1S
must be observed li ilit wer ,zlall'' (pro le~t: /)i~. I. h. ~- 1::!) ,-'\u im,n:stlltg poim
is made in th~ ltwitlltrs ufGuus (oiabout tht tuid-s~.,nnd &:t"ntu!'y): 'It h;' n'v~r
been doubttd, ~<~yo; Gaius, 'th;tt ;t ,,.,~riwri,, oi th1. Pnnc~ps tak'-"" the: ~.ltt~rlace as
a law' (kgi$ dmn). 'sinet' rhc- emperor himsdf rn-d\'l"'> h1s <.U('nm~ power
[imperium] through a l..n/ (1.5)- Ulpian's 'kx ngta'. l.'t cour._,,.
In the Capitnlim Mtts~um .tt Rom.:- th"n ~ thl' sur\-t\ing purtton of a lamous
bronze tahltt. discovered (huilt imo lll <&ltar m the Church ,,fSt. J'lm Llkranj
and displayed in the 1340s by Cola di Ritn.zi, which gives us ~~ur om ~urvt\'in~
example of such a 'lex regia': this is the so-called 'Lex de impc:no V<spast.tm'
(ILS 244 = FIRA 2 I. 154--6, no.15 = E/j 2 364; there are tram. lations tn .-\ RS
149-50, no.183; Lewis and Reinhold, RC II.89-90, etc:.;. This dcuumt'lll, 11t'
A.D. 70, has been discussed and reinterpreted again and ag.tin: I .u>t'pl m all
essentials the masterly analysis by P. A. Brunt, in]RS t7 (1977) 95-llf (w1th a
text, 103), according to which the 'lex' conferred on V(sras.an aU th~ pu,,,.-..,rs
customarily voted to a Princeps, and much of it W('nt ba..:k ttl dw a.:c~s.;i(1ll ,,f
Tiberius in 14. Although this enactment calls itself a 'kx (lin'-" ,2{J). itf< l.:mguag'-" is
that of a resolution of the Senate, a senatus consultum, and t>vidently thl'l''iSt.<ntlal
part ofirs passage was its origin in the Senate, its pcrfumro~- L'nd,,rs,~nwnt in tlw
Assembly (the comitia) being regarded as relatively ummport.ant. ;llthuugh only
that could technically make it a lex. 36 In a passage :n ~h~ Digest -...-!lirh may he
described as naive or realistic, according to taste, the lc:gal wnt,~r Pomponius
remarks that senatus consulta had come to take the place of leges, enact~d by the
comitia or concilium plebis, because it was so difficult for the large number of
citizens to meet together! (Di~. l.ii.2.9). 37 We may note Brunt's shrewd observation that the real r~ason why a senatus consultum, early in the Principate, came
to be regarded as having the force oflaw, just like a comitial decision - and, for
that matter, the opinions of auchorised legal experts, the responsa prudmtium311 was that it could be taken to have the authority of the Princeps behind it (Brunt,
op. cit. 112).
Unfortunately the 'Lex de imperio Vespasiani' is incomplete: we lack the
opening portion, and we cannot say how long this was or what it contained. But
the powers it confers on the emperor are very wide, limitless indeed: see
especially clause VI, lines 17-21, where the same powers are said to have been
granted to Augustus and his successors. This makes it unnecessary to discuss the
complicated question what is meant by various statements in the legal and
literary sources to the effect that the Princeps is 'freed from the laws'. I will only
say that although the 'Lex de imperio Vespasiani' specifically exempts the
emperor from a certain number oflaws only (lines 22-5; cf. 25-8, clause VII),
386
The Class Stru~Je in the Ancient Greek World
and although the legal texts all seem to relate to the laws of marriage, inheritance
and testament, there are statements by Dio Cassius which show that in his day
(the first half of the third century) the Princeps was evidently regarded as freed
from all laws (LIII.18.1-2; 28.2-3):19 Some will say that he was 'expected' to
obey the laws, subject to his right to change them; but J cannot myself attach
significance to this, there being no effective sanctions to enforce any such
expectation.
The last piece of 'statute law' that we know to have been voted by the
Assembly (the comitia or concilium plebis) is an agrarian law of the Emperor
Nerva (Dig. XLVII.xxi.3.1, A.D. 96-8); 10 and there is no reason to think that
legislative assemblies lasted long into the second ccntury. Electoral asemblies
certainly survived much longer, into the early third century indeed, for Dio
Cassius speaks of them as existing in his own day (XXXVII.28.3; LVIII.20.4),
although it is dear that their role was unimportant and that from some time in
the second century they had done no more than formally endorse a single list of
candidates. The purely formal enactment by the comitia of the senatorial 'leges de
imperio', although we have no positive evidence after the first century, probably
continued at least as long as the electoral asemblies: both presumably died out
during the half-century of general anarchy that ended only with Diocletian (see
Brunt, op. cit. 108). I would suppose that the Historia Auxusta is being merely
inventive when it purports to describe an assembly in the Campus Martius (a
{(lmitia centuriata, therefore) on the accession of the Emperor Tacitus in 275; and
in any event, the assembly is represented mainly as giving vent to acclamations
(Vita Tac. 7.2-4). By now, and indeed two centuries earlier, the way the
common people expressed their feelings was not in any sovereign Assembly but
by a noisy demonstration in a place of public entertainment: the theatre or
amphitheatre, or (in a city which had one) the hippodrome41 (see V.iii above).
Even so good a historian as Norman Baynes could take seriously the role of
the People in legitimising the rule of an emperor: 'The necessity for the acclamation of the People, if the claimant to the throne is to b~ constituted the
legitimate ruler of the Roman empire,' he says, 'lives on throughout East
Roman history. Even under the Palaeologi that tradition is preserved' (BSOE
32-3). 42 To speak like this is to treat constitutional fiction with undue respect;
and in any event the statement needs to be modified so as to refer to 'the
acclamation of even a minute fraction of the People' - for under the Principate
there soon ceased to be any democratic institutions whatever through which any
significant fraction of the People could be consulted and express their will, had
then been any wish to ascertain it, as of course there was not! As we saw near the
end of V .iii above, a fulsome speech in praise of Rome by a Greek orator of the
mid-second century, Aelius Aristeides, solemnly declared that the Roman
empire was a kind of ideal democracy, because all the people had willingly
surrendered their right to rule into the hands of the man best fitted to rule: the
emperor (Orat. XXVI.60, 90, cf. 31-9). But this was merely the final corruption
of political thinking, the result of a long process by which the original democratic institutions of the Greek cities, and the democratic elements in the Roman
constitution (such as they were), had been deliberately stamped out by the joint
efforts of the rulers of the Roman world and the Greek and Roman propertied
classes (see V .iii above and Appendix IV below). Much rhetoric was devoted by
387
the empcrnrs Jnd their pn)p.!.gandt;,t.s. t<..l d01im~ tb.u d;q; n:k.t i-y till" awv-.Ts:tl
tmcu (:\u.!-:u~tus. R,_, g~r,rt J4. i; ff. ~.i2) ... r f\'l.'n ~ftu,n .utd 1.ods
(Val. Max .. ;m;ff; T;t;:., Hi:;r. I. 15 ,;t,~ ) . Aug_tlc.;m< cbim ( Rc' .~t'ifalt _\;t 1) Lhat bv
28/7 B.C. h~o. h.l\l g<~in\d ,:l)mpl~J( contro1 of cv-.~ry:hing by tlw cm~:u:nt of
everyone' had nmdl t. jnstify it: h.- 1X~t;tir1iv livtd moa~ th:m io:!y ye.us .cfccr
reaching the sununit uf pnw~r . .:m.l ,li~d n: lw; bed. L~ttr. :IJ, .\bs.nrd ticuun th~t
the consent of tlw ptoplc. ha<l <~cwaliv h"~u ~-tiven ro th( n.tl, of th~ l'rmc(.'p~
served only to conc~al tlw rla!itv .m..i m.1h :he- constiwri.cm.tl ~mpm:: ,_.of th~
regime an even more ft.lit;r;mt dc~~crriun. YL't lir-Rnic-:: \V;ts n-~,{at~:dh' ;1;11d tcit. even b\ tho~~. wh,, kn<'W its t";.Is:tv. Th,lu!'>tonatJ Ikr.:dun. wn!;n~e .!WIIt!d
the middl~- of tht. third t."lntury. l(mlJ !'JY optniy tl<'<H rlw b,?IJiUl!i~! ._~tT~ i .... .-.rt
that with Au~U!\tus tht Roman hcndnary oi:g.,r< hy (dpw.>ttw) b, c;trrl~ ;l r;wlt.~r
chia (l.iA). Yl't when ht. i.s putting speeches itth_, tik m'-Uth~ .-.{,:,w ,mFl'J:Jrs. or
referring to the llll'Ssages of ambassadors snu lw such a11 .:mprror or hy d1c
Roman Senate. lw \nil Sl)]e-mnly Spl.tk of'tlw nom:m l'lopl,. ;;s h.\\'11\!Z n.m:ol
of the impaial otfic, (11.8.4; IV .15. 7: VII .7 .5; VIII. 7 .-~.'~).
As for (.l) the Ilt."'t.'d ti.u a 'legitimate' emperor to obt.tin ~h.:- appron~ :H SlJu<t'
and Army. it was oti:Ln only a small fraction of the J.rmy whnsl' ,:.-damari~)
created .1n Auf!Ustus, a Caesar. or one who turned out rn ht. .1 nwn: u~nrp,r' ~
As Mommsen put it, 'Any armed man had the right!(\ naakt olll'!o'OII.:' ds~o. d ~l)l
himself, emperor! (Rom. Sraatsr. IP.ii.844). It was the <'Wilt '':llr th.,; dtr:d(-;1
between lt~itimo~.~y and usurpation: an emperor dcmmJ!>tr.tttd hb lq:mm.Kv lw
successful maintenance of his powe-r against other CJ.HthJatts. :t!!i li:\'"lm~- .-k.-~r
during thL" strugg:le for P?wer in 68-9, in the 190s, .md .lg.titl .llld .i~.m! .tih-:wards. Magmutius (A.D. 350-3) failed to secun lumsdl !II p.-wa .m.:l '"
therefore remembered as a 'usurper', and an inscriprit'JI ~,t up .11 lt;m1c in .)52
could refer to Constantius II as the suppressor ofh1~ r~stit\wus lyr.ntuy' (JI__,
731). But surviving milestones inscribed in Italy wluk it was nwi,r !h, cnmwr:
ofMagnentius not only give him the title of' Augustus bt:t call hun 'hl(rJcur of
the Roman world. restorer of liberty and the commotaWt'.lhh. prc:;{'r\'t:r .-.f thL
soldiers and the provincials' (e.g. ILS 742). As latl' ,,, 45~ MJj(lwn couhl
announce to the Senate of Rome, with some truth, tltJ.t ht h:nl h~'<om.: iw;n,a,u
'by the judgment of your election and the decision ot'tht mnst g:aJIJJit :mu-v
(Nov. Major. 1.1). The endorsement of an imperial ;&t'L't'Sl'J<lll by rh~ Sm:J~< w;c:
certainly invested with great significance in the early Pnnopah. ;I> ;, mark Jt
legitimation; and Tacitus and Dio Cassius arc c:1nful to m.:urd u on ~;;dJ
occasion, while ignoring the subsequent proceedings in the Aslit.'mh!y \v!li,h ~;1.\0
we have seen) had already come to be a pure formality. Yet th"rt' 1~ ;t tirw ir.lny m
the way Tacitus describes the accession of Nero in 54: 'The decisions of dl\
Senate.' he says, 'followed the voice of the soldiers' (Ann. XII.69.3). t4 A1.d m
the military anarchy of the mid-third century the endorsement of a new
Princeps by the Senate, now more than ever dictated by 'the voice of tht:
soldiers', became meaningless except as a useful mark of prestige. In the fourth
century, significantly. the careful Ammianus does not even bother to record the
senatorial endorsements of imperial accessions, although he happens to show
that the Roman Senate was deCtdC"dly averse to Julian's rise from Caesar to
Augustus in 360-1, which it was powerless to arrest (XXI.x.7). Uut Syrnmachus, for whom we may say that the Se-nate was a way oflife, must haVt' been
consensu~
...
'
388
speaking with his tongue sadly in his cheek when on 25 February 369 he
delivered a eulogy ofValentinian I, an emperor chosen by the army and meekly
accepted by the Senate (see Amm. Marc. XXVI.i-ii). Symmachus actually
describes the army as a castrensis smatus, a 'Senate under arms', and he adds, 'Let
those who bear arms decide to whom the supreme command of the army is to be
committed' (Orat. 1.9). On only two or three occasions before the seventh
century did the Senate itself as such create emperors, and only the last of these
choices was really effective. In 238 it elected Balbienus and Pupienus, who lasted
only a little more than three months before being murdered by the praetorian
guard. In 275, if we can believe two unreliable sources, the army actually invited
the Senate to nominate a successor to Aurelian. 4 ~ Whether or not this is true, the
man who became emperor was an elderly senator, Claudius Tacitus: he performed quite creditably for a few months but was then murdered. And in 518
the Senate -not of Rome but of Constantinople- chose Justin I; but this time the
Senate was probably manoeuvred into its decision by Justin and his associates. 46
Ncrva, who reigned from 96 to 98, is often rt>garded as the Senate's choice; but
all that we can say for certain about this is that Nerva was as acceptable to the
Senate as anyone.
(4) No other aspect of the Principatc brings out better the extraordinary
conflict in its very essence between theory and practict> than the question of the
succession. 47 That an emperor could not in theory guarantee tht> succession even
of his own son was easily circumvt'tltt"d. by placing the designated heir in such a
strong position that no one could s.ati.ly challenge him. The Princeps could
adopt his intended successor as his ~on if he had no son of his own. Augustus
himself thus ensund the sucnssion ,)f Tibtrius: on the death of Augustus in
A.D. 14, an oath uf all~~tance was immediately tak.~u to Tiberius, as his
inevitable successor. from thl consuls downwards (TaL .. .'inn. 1.7.3).~ 8 even
before Tiberius renind continuation uf his position by tbrmal vott>s in the
Senate (id. 1.11-13). This example was othn followed. Withm little more than a
decade in the fourth ,:c:ntury Valentinian I. hy .lll intm~;;t.;,{ choice which was far
from universally appron-d. made his brotlwr Valens an Augustus (364), as
Ammianus puts it, 'with d1~ rnn~~ut (lf all. tc'r lll' <nll' ventured to oppose him'
(XXVI.iv .3); Gratian was \"fl".tted Augmtus hy hi$ f.tttwr V alentinian at the age
of eight, in 367 (XXVII.v!.4): and on thl sudd,n dt"ath ttV .1lentinian in 375 the
army chiefs had his son V;lkntinian II dt\:1:\r,d Au~u'itus .llthough he was no
more than four years old (XXX.x.l-5). Dynastic st'ntlmtnt was easily aroused
in the army in favour of the family nf an emperor who, likt> Augustus or
Constantine, had been conspicuou~ly successful; and this sentiment could
extend even to young daughters ut dw imperial house, from whose leadership
military victories could not be expected (see Amm. XXVI.vii.IO; ix.3). The
dynastic principle convt>niently worked equally well in favour of adopted sons:
in accordance with Roman custom, they would be regarded no differently from
sons who had been begotten. But there was one hidden defect in the system: a
Princeps with a son ofhis own who was unfitted to succeed him could not very
well disinherit him and adopt someom else. (I do not know of a single case in
which this happened.) Not only would it haw been repugnant to Roman
custom; the natural son would automatically have commanded the allegiancl' of
the army, or a large part of it, and h<' would have been a serious threat to any
389
other would-be emperor (cf. Philostr., Vita Apollon. V.35, ed. C. L. Kayser
1.194, lines 16-25). A Commodus or a Caracalla could not be prevented from
succeeding, and their respective fathers, Marcus Aurelius and Septimius
Severus, could not avoid designating them as their successors.
Among our sources, two documents provide particularly good indications of
senatorial attitudes to the succession: the speech Tacitus puts into the mouth of
the Emperor Galba when adopting Piso in 69, and Pliny's panegyric ofTrajan,
delivered in 100. Tacitus makes Galba declare that he, unlike Augustus, is
choosing a successor not from within his own family, but from the whole state
(Hist. 1.15): the empire is no longer something to be inherited within a single
house, but selection has replaced the rule of chance that governed hereditary
succession under the Julio-Claudian dynasty; and now that adoption can reveal
the best man, a sort of freedom is being achieved (loco libertatis erit quod eligi
coepimus: 1.16). Pliny too appears at first to be an enthusiast for adoption, the
manner in which Trajan had come to power in succession to Ncrva (Panex. 5.1
and6.3 to 8.6, esp. 7.5-6). At one point he goes so far as to say that a man who is
to be emperor 'ought to be chosen from among everyone' (imperaturus omnibus
eligi debet ex omnibus: 7 .6). Yet. almost at the end of the speech, he- can utter a
prayer that Trajan 's successor will be, in the first place, a man begotten by him;
only if this is denied him by Fate does Pliny contemplate his adopting, under
divine guidance, some worthy man! (94.5).
The Senate's attitude to the succession could hardly be bl.'tter expressed than
by A. H. M.Jones:
Senators did not go so far as to claim the right of electing the t>mperor, though they
were insistent that they only could confer upon him his constitutional prerogatives.
Their desire was that the emperor should select his successor from rhe whole body of
the House. and be guided in that choice by its sentiments. Thl"ir objection to thl
hereditary succession was partly a matter of principle, but was more dut." to their
suspicion that a prince, bred in the purplc, would be less amenable to their influence
and less respectful of their dignity than a man who had been brought up in the
traditions of the House (LRE 1.4-5).
Finally. and most important, (5), although the pretended subjection of the
emperor to the laws was a principle to which everyone, including of course the
emperor, paid lip-service, and he himsdfmight be considered to be acting like a
'tyrant' if he broke the law to gratify his own desires, yet, as in each of the tirst
four contexts in which I have been examining the imperial power, theory might
equally bear little relation to the harsh reality. Monarchy was now an institution
the Roman upper classes could not do without, and those who profited by the
t'xisting state of affairs, like the emperors themselves, wer~ naturally tempted to
idealise it. Let us remind ourselves of a statement made in A.D. 100 by Pliny the
Younger (quoted in the preceding section of this chapter): 'You order us to be
free: we shall be' (Paneg. 66.4; cf. 67.2). And when we read Pliny's claim that
'the Princeps is not above the laws, but the laws are above the Princeps' (65.1),
we must not fail to note that Pliny has just given himself away by congratulating
Trajan on having voluntarily submitted himself to 'laws which no one intended
for a Princeps' (ipse te legibus subiecisti, legihus, Caesar, quas nemo principi scripsit.
65.1). Throughout the Principate and Later Empire we find equally nai:ve
congratulations bl.'ing offered to emperors (sometimes by themselves) because
390
they are not despots but have made themselves 'subject to law'. In the early third
century (according to Justinian) the Severans, Septimius and Caracalla (whom
no one would count among the less autocratic emperors), had 'very often'
boasted that although they were 'freed from the laws' they nevertheless 'lived by
the laws' (lnstJ. Il.xvii.S). A little later, Severus Alexander remarked sententiously that although the 'lex imperii' freed the emperor from the sanctions of
Ia w, nevertheless nothing so befitted the exercise of sovereignty as to live by the
laws (CJ VI.xxiii.3. A.D. 232). In 348-9 Libanius expressed his enthusiasm that
the Emperors Constantius II and Constans, although they were 'masters of the
laws' (kyrioi ton nomon), had 'made the laws masters of themselves' (Orat.
LIX.t62). 411 As late as 429, in a constitution addressed to the praetorian prefect of
Jtaly, the Emperor Valentinian III could say grandly that 'for an emperor to
profess himself bound by the laws is a sentiment worthy of the majesty of a
ruler, so much does our authority depend on that of the law~ indeed, to submit
our Principate to the laws is something greater than the exercise of sovereignty
itself' (CJ l.xiv .4). 5(1
In a speech delivered in 385, Libanius, addressing the Emperor Theodosius I
in the standard Greek way. with the traditional word for a monarch ('0 basileu'),
could say to him, 'Not even to you is everything permitted, for it is of the very
essence of monarchy [basileia] that its holders are not allowed to do everything'
(Oral. L.19). On this occasion, however, he was speaking in the most general
and abstract way: he would never have dared to tell an autocrat like Theodosius
that he could not carry out something specific he had a mind to do. The reality
emerges clearly in another speech by Libanius, the funeral oration he wrote for
Julian some time after his death in 363: Julian, he says. 'had it in his power to
override the laws, if he wanted to, and ran no risk ofbeing brought to justice and
paying the penalty for it' (Drat. XVIII.184). The emperor 'has at the tip ofhis
tongue the power oflife and death,' says Ammianus (XXIX.i.19; cf. XVIII.iii.7)~
but all the historian can do is to hope that this absolute monarch will not behave
arbitrarily or despotically. (He often touches on this theme: see e.g. XXIX.ii.lS..
19; XXX.iv.l-2.) An imperial constitution of384-5 forbids dispute concerning
any exercise of the imperial judgment. on the ground that 'it is a form ofsacrilege
[sacrilt~ii instar) to doubt whether he whom the emperor has chosen is worthy'
(CTh I.vi.9 =C) IX.xxix.2).s 1 This pronouncement may well have been evoked
by a dignified protest from Symmachus, as City Prefect, about the poor quality of
some of his subordinates (chosen by the emperor and not by himself) - men
whom. as he tactfully put it, 'the multifarious preoccupations ofYour Clemencies
made it impossible to test'! (Rei. xvii).
As an emperor could punish, so he could also pardon, and graciously allow
some 'freedom of spttch . In the second century Favorinus of Aries. the Gallic
hermaphrodite who became a Gret"k sophist, had been accustomed to maintain,
explicitly as a paradox, that he had 'quarrelled with an emperor and was
nevertheless alive'; and Philostratus, recording this, compliments the emperor
concen1ed, Hadrian. for 'quarrelling on terms of equality. ruler as he was, whh a
man he could have put to death' (Vir. sop h. 1.8). Ammianus tells a revealing story
concerning Julian's behaviour in the 350s. while he was still only a Caesar- at this
time a title indicating a junior partnership in the imperial dignity, subordinate to
the Augustus. then Constantius II. Reproached for an act of clemency, Julian
391
replied that even ifhis dementia was objectionable in the eyes of the law (incusent
iura dementiam), it was proper for an emperor of very mild disposition to rise
superior to Ia ws other than his own (legibus praestare ceteris decet, XV I. v. 12).
Ammianus is dearly admiring julian's conduct. And apart from punishing and
pardoning according to his own will, an emperor could in practice, above all,
make and unmake laws, generally or even ad hoc, at his own pleasure, for he was
now the sole independent source oflaw. lfl have space for only one example of
an ad hoc alteration of the law for the ruler's personal benefit, it must be the
constitution (CJ V .iv .23), drawn up 'in sonorous and circumlocutory Latin' ,52
procured in the 520s by one of the most conservative and traditionally-minded
ofall the Roman and Byzantine emperors,Justinian I, while he was still only 'the
power behind the throne' (ofjustin 1). This edict changed the Roman marriage
law in a way that can have had no other object than to permit Justinian to
contract an otherwise unlawful marriage with the ex-actress Theodora. Yet the
emperors were if anything more clearly 'freed' from the marriage laws than
from any others. 53
I realise that some people, especially perhaps constitutional lawyers, are
impressed by the notion that the emperor was in theory 'subject to the laws', and
many even wish to discuss the question whether the better emperors did not
really 'live by the laws', and the causes and consequences of this phenomenon.
For me such questions are too unreal to merit discussion, even apart from the
feeling many of us may have that some of the oppressive and crud laws of the
Roman Empire would have been more honoured in the breach than in the
observance.
To sum up- an emperor was subject in reality to one sanction and one only:
that of force. This of course meant that he needed to obtain the willing adherence
of those whose discontent with his rule he could not simpIy ignore or suppress:
they included mainly the highest layers of the propertied class, and perhaps
some army officers below that level. An emperor might be assassinated, or he
might be removed by an armed coup; and if this happened it would be claimed
that he was a 'tyrant' who had received hisjustdeserts, although of course what
had made him a 'tyrant' was simply his inability to maintain his rule (see under
[3] above). To provide against such contingencies the emperor had his own
personal bodyguard (in addition to the praetorian guard). and he was also the
supreme commander-in-chief of the Roman army - from the very first, in
practice. If in the early Principate there were troops not in theory under the
emperor's direct command, in Africa for instance, the municipal authorities of
Lepcis Magna could think it prudent, when setting up an inscription commemorating a victorious campaign against the Gaetulians in A.D. 6 'under the
military command' (ductu) of the proconsul of Africa, Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, to refer to the proconsul as commanding 'under the auspices of Caesar
Augustus', a recognition that militarily he was the emperor's subordinate (EfJ.I:
43 = AE [ 1940] 68). In a poem addressed to Augustus. celebrating the German
victories ofTiberius and Drusus in 15 B.C., Horace had already described the
men, the resources and the plans involved as the emperor's (Od. IV .xiv. 9-13,334,41-52). In his Res gestae, of course, Augustus could speak of all the campaigns
in his principate as conducted under his own auspices, and of the Roman army
and fleet as 'my army' and 'my fleet' (sec Wickert, PF 128-31). And the military
392
oath (sacramentum) seems always to have been sworn to the reigning emperor
(see below). Indeed, in a very striking phrase which he puts into the mouth of
the emperor usually known to us as Pupienus {in 238), Herodian could say that
the military sacramentum (in Greek, stratiotikos horkos) was a semnon mysririon of
Roman rule- words for which there is hardly an equivalent in English: perhaps a
'sacred talisman', 'august symbol', 'lofty secret' (VIII.vii.4). Thus the emperor
was in a very real sense a 'military dictator'. But I would not myself place too
much stress on the strictly military aspect of his rule, even though it was
prominent in his official title in Latin of imperaror, taken indeed as a praenomen by
Augustus and by later emperors from Vespasian to Diocletian, who in their
descriptions of themselves normally began, 'lmperator Caesar ... '(The official
Greek equivalent of imperator was autokrator, a word far less strictly military in its
connotation: see above.) My main reason for playing down the 'military dictatorship' of the Roman emperors is that they could not afford to use their
armies regularly as a means of internal control. and that when the system
worked properly they did not need to, apart from suppressing an occasional
revolt. The system normally had the full backing of the upper classes. As I
insisted above, however much individual emperors - Tiberius, Gaius,
Claudius, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, and others later - might antagonise
'the Senate' or 'the aristocracy', there was no necessary or permanent conflict
between them.
As I have alluded more than once w official panegyrics delivered to emperors
(normally in their presence), I should add that I agree with Alan Cameron that
they are not the easiest of documents to interpret and that they need to be
considered from several points of view. I particularly like Cameron's conclusion: 'What mattered more than the content was the form and execution. The
panegyrist was applauded and rewarded, not, in general. for what he said. but
for how he said it' (Claudian 36-7). This situation would have delighted Isocratt:s, an anti-intellectual who deeply believed in paying attention and respect
to form in preference to content, and who must bear some shan~ of responsibility for the deplorable fact that this attitude became standard in the Greek as
well as the Roman world. (For Isocrates, sec csp. V.ii n.SJ below.) During the
Hellenistic and Roman periods Greek education became ever more exclusively
literary, and its crowning rewards were reserved for rhetoric.
* * * * * *
The modem literature on various aspects of the ideology (including the
theology) of the Roman Principate is abundant, but much of it seems to me too
subjective to be rewarding. above all when it is based to a considerable extent
upon interpretations of iconographic evidence, especially that of coin-types. I
am not referring so much to coin-le,(!ends: we all know that, as Charlesworth put
it, 'Coins proclaim "The Loyalty ofthe Armies", FIDES EXERCITUUM. at
the very time when armies are rebelling; or "The Unity of the Armies",
CONCORDIA EXERCITUUM. when they are turning their swords against
each other'! (VRE 22). I am often astonished at the confidence with which some
modem scholars use coin-types to identify the policy and mentality of an
emperor. Surely, we can hardly ever be certain, in the absence of other evidence
(often unavailable), that a particular coin-type is even to be taken as representing
393
the outlook of the emperor in whose name it was issued. As I shall show in a
moment, there is reason to think that emperors did occasionally order particular
motifs to be stressed on coins; but even then they are unlikely to have issued very
detailed specifications, and it would have been left to the imperial officials who
gave orders for the minting of the coins to carry out the emperor's instructions.
And we do not even know who these officials were! In the vast majority ofcases,
J suggest, it was these men who chose the types and legends, in accordance with
what they believed, rightly or wrongly, to be the emperor's wishes; and they
had good reason to avoid over-subtlety. A little over twenty years ago A. H. M.
Jones, in his contribution (recently reprinted) to a volume of essays dedicated to
the distinguished Roman numismatist, Harold Mattingly, expressed his own
scepticism:
It is questionable whether the elaborate messages which some numtsmatists dt?duce
from coin types were intended to be conveyed by them. and still more questionable
whether they were generally understood. In the Middle Ages we arc better informed
by literary sources on the significance of pictorial representations; we know that the
symbolism was simple to the point of crudity. We arc hardly justified in postulating a
very much greater subtlety in the average inhabitant of the Roman cmpirl' (NH 15 =
RE63).r"'
And Jones then recalls the statement by the late-sixth-century ecclesiastical

historian John of Ephesus that the female figure on the solidi of the Emperor
Justin II (565-578), which was in fact- although John does not say so- a
personification of Constantinople. was fdt to resemble tht> pagan goddess
Aphroditc; Justin's successor Tiberi us Constantine prudently substituted a cross.~..;
This certainly shows how even a standard coin-type could be misunderstood.
Jones also made much of the absence ofliterary evidence that importance was
attached to coin-types and legends (NH 14 = RE 62). This I think is right. even
if we take account of a few literary passages (not noticed by Jones) that speak of
an emperor's desire to strike coins expressing a particular motif. In the whole
field with which I am concerned I myself know of only four such passages,
although of course there may be many more. In one, Augustus issues a silver
coin bearing the zodiacal sign under which he was born, that of Capricorn
(Suet., Div.Au~. 94.12): and in another, Nero strikes coins (and orders statues)
representing himsdf in the dress of a singt'r to the cithara (a citharoedus: Suet ..
Nero 25.2). Both these statements are confirmed by actual coins. In a third
passage Constantine, according to Eusebius, orders himself to be portrayed on
his solidi in an attitude of prayer, with eyes uplifted (Vita Const. IV. 15);
Eusebius adds that these coins were in general use. Now it is perfectly true that
many Constantinian solidi from 324 onwards do display such a portratt; but
whether Eusebius was right in supposing that the type was deliberately chosen
by Constantine with pious intent is another matter, for the attitude in the
portrait can be paralleled from Hellenistic times onwards, and the view has been
expressed by numismatists that 'the coins were not designed to express any
Christian attitude or virtue'. 56 The fourth literary passage is the continuation
(not quoted by Jones) of the one from John of Ephesus to which I have referred
in the preceding paragraph (HE III.l4). The Emperor Tiberius Constantine, wr:
are told, declared that his substitution of a cross for the female figure (representing Constantinople) which could be mistaken for Aphrodite was dictated to him
394
in a vision- the only example. as far as I know, of divine intervention in this

field, and perhaps the most useful surviving testimony to imperial concern with
coin-types. 5 7 It is worth noticing here that in A.D. 365, according to Ammianus,
the 'usurper' Procopius tried to advance his claim to the imperial throne byamong other forms of propaganda - having his gold coins circulated in lllyricum: the point stressed by Ammianus is that they 'bore his portrait' (they were
e.ffigiati in vultum novi principis, XXVI. vii.ll). Of course the name of the aspiring
emperor was inscribed on the coins as well; but from what Ammianus says we
can infer that people could be expected to notice the portrait too. On the other
hand, Ammianus does not trouble to record the interesting legend, REPARA TIO
FEL. TEMP., which apparently was home by all the gold coins ofProcopius, as
part (it has been suggested)5!! of his claim to connection (by marriage) with the
Constantinian dynasty, which had come to an end on the death of Julian only
two years earlier, and coins of which had been inscribed FEL. TEMP.
REPARA TID from 347 onwards.
One might perhaps have expected the anonymous author of that curious little
pamphlet, the De rrbus bellids (probably of the late 360s or early 370s}. to express
some views about the usefulness of coin types and legends; but although he
realised that rulers did put their own portraits on their coins (which, he believed,
had earlier been made of earthenware and leather as well as gold. silver and
bronze!). he thought they did so merely for their own glorification and to inspire
awe (L2,3, in Thompson, RRJ 93-4, with the English translation, 109; cf. 26-31).
Th~ texts I have quoted show that emperors could and sometimes did
personally order the striking of particular types; but in each case the type is a
very obvious one, and Jones's point remains: would there ever have been an
intention to convey any elaborate or subtle message; and if so, would it have
been understood? And above all, as I have pointed out, we can virtually never be
sure whether a particular motif should be attributed to an emperor. rather than
to the unknown official responsible for issuing the coin.
* * * * * *
I have scarcely mentioned what I might call 'the theology of Roman imperial
rule', a subject with which I must deal more brieRy than it deserves. It is of
course very relevant to the class struggle in the Roman empire. because religious
reinforcement of the emperor's position could and did strengthen the whole
gigantic apparatus of coercion and exploitation. This topic divides neatly into
two parts: the pagan and Christian Empires. On the pagan side it is the so-called
'imperial cult' which has usually been tht> centre of attention.~9 (Jt is hard to
define the expression 'imperial cult' otherwise than as the performance of acts of
cult in honour of the emperors and sometimes their families: 60 this of course did
involve some kind of 'religious worship', or at least the formal attribution of
some kind of divinity to the person receiving cult; but what most people today
would regard as the 'religious' dement was often negligible.) For the benefit of
those who know little of Roman history I must just mention the well-known
fact that although a Roman emperor was worshipped in his lifetime at lower
levels (so to speak). by provincial assemblies. cities, bodies of all kinds, and
individuals, he never became an official god of the Roman state until after his
death, when the Senate might or might not gram him a state cult and the title of
395
divus, 'the deified'. (The course taken by the Senate would largely depend upon
the attitude of the succeeding emperor.) At the other extreme from deification, a
dead emperor might suffer a damnario mrmoriae, amounting to a general condemnation ofhis reign, a cancellation ofhis acts, the destruction of his statues,
and the erasure of his name from public monuments. The eventual giving or
withholding of divine honours, and the confirmation or cancellation of his acta,
represented a kind of control over the emperor's behaviour while he ruled, in so
far as he took such considerations into account: I would not rate them as having
much independent weight with most emperors, who would anyway be much
concerned that the Senate, as the representative organ of the imperial aristocracy. should regard them favourably.
The imperial cult cannot be properly understood, at any rate in the Greek East
(where it originated), without tracing it back, through the Hcllcnistic cults
expressing gratitude to distinguished benefactors, right into the Classical period.
In U.iv above I have remarked on the significance of the earliest certain case at
present known to us of a cult by a Greek city of a living individual: that of
Lysander at Samos in 404, a clear manifestation of political class struggle.
Although of course it was kings above all who were in the best position to confer
benefits, it is misleading- however convenient- to speak of the earlier cult of
benefactors as 'ruler-cult'; and it took centuries for such cult to become officially
limited to one particular set of rulers: the Roman emperors. We must accept the
fact that many of the earlier cults of benefactors, whether kings or not, were
spontaneous expressions of gratitude. As Tam said, in a brilliant passage:
The cult-names of the earlier kings - Soter the Saviour. Euergetes thL' Benefactor exprL'SS the fact that they wcr!.' worshipped for what they did: ... tht> typical function of
kingship was held to be philanthropia. helpfulness to subjects ... The Olympians
conferred no personal salvation, no hopt> of immortality. httle spirituality: and as
guardians of the higher morality they wer!.' mostly sad misfits. And one had to take so
much on trust: one might believ!.' in the power and splendour of Zeus. bur one could
see the power and splendour of Ptolemy. The local god could not t~d you in a famine;
but the king did ... Apollo could not help the managtrs ofhis temple at Delos to gl't in
his debts from the islands; Ptolemy. when appealed to, stnt his admiral. who got thLm
in at once. Had not then a king powers denied to a god? So .lt least men thought (HC'1
49-55, at 53).
On the other hand, men and women also knew well that in some of their
predicaments - illness in particular - what they wanted was supernatural or
magical assistance: in such cases they commonly directed their prayers not to
even the most powerful king but to the appropriate deity or other superhuman
figure. If we feel inclined to limit our use of terms such as 'religion', 'worship',
'pkty' to occasions on which the supernatural is involved, we shall agree with
Arthur Darby Nock:
The touchstone of piety in antiquity is the votive offering, made in n:cogmtion of
supposed deliverance in some invisibk- manner from sirknl'Ss or other peril. This we
do not find directed to rulers dead or living (CAHX.481).
In A.D. 14, just before the death of Augustus, we hear that the crew and
passengers of an Alexandrian ship which had just arrived at Puteoli approached
the emperor in the white clothing and garlands that were appropriate for
worship, burning incense to him and praising him extravagantly: 'It was
396
The Class Strn,(!gle in the Ancient Greek World
through him they lived, through him they sailed the sea, through him they
enjoyed their liberty and fortunes' (Suet., Div. Aug. 9H.2). As Habicht has
observed, 61 the Alexandrians were expressing their gratitude to the emperor for
worldly benefits, such as being able to sail the seas and carry on trade in peace
and security; in a storm, however. they would have appealed for help not to
Augustus but to the Dioscuri, the twin gods often invoked by navigators in time
ofneed. 62
In an able article published in 1957 Nock examined possible exceptions to his
statement, quoted above, and showed that the few cenain cases are very special
ones (OJ= ERAW 11.833-46). His generalisation remains broadly true. Perhaps
the incident that is most worth recalling here is the display of miraculous powers
of healing by Vespasian at Alexandria in 70, a few months after he had been
proclaimed emperor- the first of a new -dynasty -by the legions of Egypt and
Syria but before he had gone to Rome. His miracles, described by Tacitus,
Suetonius and Dio Cassius, 63 included the healing of a blind man- with the aid
of spittle, a feature shared with some of the miracles of Jesus (Jn IX.6; Mk
VIII .23; cf. VII .33). Vespasian himself was a rather reluctant performer. but his
staff persuaded him: as Suetonius says. Vespasian had nor yet proved himself as
emperor and he still lacked prestige and the capacity to inspire awe (auctoritas rt
quasi maiestas qua edam: Vesp. 7.2). A miracle or two might therefore be a valuable
demot:~stration of his qualities. But he was not acting entirely by his own power:
the god Sara pis had already given an indication that Vespasian could be expected
to exercise miraculous gifts on his behalf. as Tacitus (Hist. IV.81) and Suctonius
say; and according to the doctors, when consulted, Vespasian had an opportunity of demonstrating that he was the chosen human instrument of the gods. 64
(There are many other illustrations of the widespread occurrence in antiquity of
events accepted as miracles: many readers may particularly enjoy the Philopseudes of lucian. )65
As early as the third century B.C. ruler-cult had begun to be systematised and
to lose much ofits original spontaneity. Many Roman governors of provinces in
the Greek area could aspire to receive cult- even, in Sic;ily, a Verres (see Section
iv of this chapter). During the Principate the imperial cult was soon introduced
into the West (where it had no such natural roots as in the Greek East), by the
imperial government at the provincial level, and at lower levels mainly by the
influence of Greeks and Greek cities. 68 Coins issued in the reign of Aurelian and
later give the emperor the tides of deus and dominus, god and lord. 87 But many
scholars now realise that the imperial cult is not nearly as important as it used to
be thought, at any rate as a religious rather than a political phenomenon. One of
the main reasons for the inflated impression of the imperial cult in the minds ofat
any rate those who do not know the evidence for Roman history at first hand is
the supposed importance of the worship of the emperors in the persecutions of
the early Christians; but this notion is quite false and is now being generally
abandoned (see my WWECP 10, with 32-3 nn .26-34 = SAS, ed. Finley. 216-17;
and most recently Millar, ICP). 67
I shall try here only to show how Christian thinking on the subject of the
emperor's role was anticipated (as in so many other matters) by pagan conceptions. Out of c1 mass of small pieces of evidence - not cohering into a single
whole, and often, indeed, conflicting with each other- I shall select three: two
397
literary ;md ,mt konographic. t~omhiuing to pttsent the emperor as the viceroy
on earth nftht king of the god!'. I hav, rhost~n these pieces because they all come
from tht> reign ofTr:..jan (98-117). one f th, few emperors who earned the
enthusial'tic lppro\1al oft ht. St.n.ue. Eariit.r, in the 90s. the poet Martial could
speak of the' Emperor Domitian as Jupikr. or as 'our Thunderer', an epithet
assimilating him ro Jupiter; and Jnuthtr puct. Statius, could make the Sibyl
invoke Dt\miti.m.ts a god .mdsay that 'Jupit,rurders him to rule the happy earth
on his b~..half' ..;~ Huw~..vcr, Domitian in his later years was an autocratic
emperor. who (we Jn toltl) wished men to ad~..iress him as dominus etdeus, 'Lord
(or Masr~..r) and God'. 8~ flam.ry which might be regarded as untypical and (if
not from Statiusi insincl'rt.'. wh~..n addressed to Domitian, can often be accepted
as spontarwuus and ~..harelt~tlrisrk whc:n its uhj~..~~..t is Trajan, the optimus princeps.
My first pien~ of evidence ir. a litl'rary passagl' in Latin already referred to in
Section v of this chapter: Pliny th~ Yuung('r 's notion ofa delegation by Jupiter to
Trajan of'the task of performing hi!' ruk tuwanh the whole human race' (Paneg.
80.5; cf. 1.5 for Jupiter's choic, uf Trajau). The second is part of a speech
delivered to Trajan in Greek by Diu Chrysnstmn (probably very dose in time to
Pliny's Panegyric), one of St'Wn oratiom by Dio dealing with kingship (or
tyranny or both). 70 Here w~ tind th~! sam .. b:L-.i<" idea as in Pliny, of a delegation
of power to the ruler by the greatest \)f th~ (tod!> -Zeus in this case, of course,
and in a generalised form, referring however not to a particular ruler, or to any
king whatever, but specifically to guod kings, whose concern is the wdfare of
their subjects (1. 11-12). And finally. the same conception appears in the same
reign in an official monument in Italy: the 'Arch of Beneventum', commissioned by the Roman Senate as a compliment to Trajan (sec lLS 296), and
finished in the last years of his reign, between 114 and I 17. I shall quote what a
leading Roman archaeologist, I. A. Richmond, had to say in 1950 about thesculptures of the Arch ofTrajan:
Jupiter, the omnipotent protector of the Roman state, is shown preparing to hand his
thunderbolt, the symbol of executive power, to Trajan himself. This awesome conception is not advanced at all in the form of a claim to identity withjupiu.r. In the other
half of the scene T rajan is shown as solemnly accompanied in his round ofduties by the
protector deities of the Roman state. The delegation of power is the declaration of
confidence in Trajan by the supreme Deity in a fashion which presents the Roman
Emperor as his vice-gerent upon earth. A claim to divine right is thus transfonn~d into
a proclamation of divine recognition. 71
A Roman historian of the last generation from whom I haw already quoted,
M. P. Charlesworth (who apparently saw the object handed toTrajan by Jupiter
as a globe72 rather than a thunderbolt), also referred to the sculptures on the Arch
of Beneventum as illustrating 'the father of the gods stretching out his right
hand to give to Trajan the symbol of power'; and he added, 'and that act is
repeated on many coin-issues. Sometimes the ruler receives the symbol of
power ... from his deified father, sometimes from Jupiter himself. but there can
be no doubt that he is the chosen of the gods, sent to care for things on earth by
divine Providentia, and he in tum exercises his Providmtia in various ways for the
good o(mankind' (VRE 15-16).
This, I suggest, is the particular form of pagan imperial theology which most
nearly anticipates its Christian counterpart: it is mainly for this reason that
398
I have noticed it here, not because it was of any great significance in its own time
-I do not think it was. 72 However, the concept of the reigning emperor as the
chosen lieutenant of the gods, or of God, has one serious drawback, which docs
not apply when emperors in general are seen merely as enjoying divine supporr.
In the latter case the existing emperor need only be accorded obedience so long
as he is a good ruler (however the quality of goodness is defined), and he can be
overthrown as soon as he begins to act like a tyrant, whereas acceptance of a
given ruler as specifically chosen by divine will leaves no logical basis for a
subsequent claim that he has ceased to rule well and therefore ought to be
removed -for of course God, and even the pagan gods. must be assumed to have
had foreknowledge of his behaviour when appointing him! To acclaim the
emperor as the divine choice, then. means that in principle one is (ifl may use the
phrase) stuck with him, for good or ill. Perhaps it was pardy a realisation of this
that prevented the notion of divine choice of an emperor from playing any
significant part in the ideology of monarchy during the Principate: it crops up
occasiona1ly, but only as one theme among many in literature and art. Far more
important was the notion (incompatible in principle with divine choice, as I
have shown) that the Princeps was entitled to reign only so long as he was a
'good emperor'- that is to say, so long as he was accepted by the upper classes,
represented above all, of course, by the Senate. An anecdote illustrating this
point of view is recorded by Dio Cassius: Trajan, when first handing the official
sword of office to his praetorian prefect, unsheathed it, held it out. and said,
'Take this sword, so that you may usc it for me ifl rule well, but ifl rule badly,
against me' (LXVIII.16. ]2, ed. Boissevain III.20.3-4). 73
The Christians, on the other hand, were committed (I shall suggest) by their
own sacred Scriptures to accepting the emperor as God's chosen representative. 74
To them, of course, any form of cult of the emperor himselfwas impossible; nor
could they continue those ingenious developments of the notion of a particular
deity as the comes (the associate) of the emperor which arose first in the late 180s
and then again from the mid-third century onwards (see Nock, EDC = ERA W
11.653-75) -for although calling some divine being (god, hero or daimon) the
emperor's comes did not necessarily imply his subordination to the emperor, it
was obviously not a practice to which the Christian God could be accommodated. It was perfectly natural that the Christians should wish to fmd a
theological justification for the new Christian monarchy of Constantine and his
successors. (I shall say nothing of possible Old Testament precedents and
influences, since the Israelite conceptions of kingship were a jumble of conflicting ideas, including a strong anti-monarchical strain, deriving from the
Prophets; and modem scholars have advanced extraordinarily diverse opinions
about them, often constructed on the basis of a highly selective use of texts. F:>
The Christians accepted the disastrous Pauline principle that 'The powers that
be are ordained ofGod' (Rom. XIII.l-7: Titus 111.1; cf. I Pet. ii.J3-17, and I Tim.
ii.l-2: see my ECAPS 14 n.4l). Thus, 'the union with the Christian Church.
from the time of Constantine, gave the system a religious veneer, and stamped
subjection as resignation to the will of God' (F. Oertel, in CAH XII.270). There
was now every reason why the Christians should revive the idea - existing
earlier, as we have just seen, in the Principate, but not then of any real importance- of a divine delegation of supreme earthly power to the monarch.
399
The wholt> structur~ was prcscntc.i by the historian and bishop. Eusebius of
Caesart-a. \<) Coustantim. who had ~)Jsted earlier of the Unconquered Sun (sal
inviaus) as his nmw.; bm w.u now perfi.,tly prtp.Jred to abandon all such rdics of
paganism. Const.mtint' -..\'as mort' r.h;nJ rt<tdy In receive such ideas: during the
winter ,,f 31J-ll he h:itl writrt-ll a rm;,rkablt ktter to Aclafius, almost certainly
the vicar (the vice-prefect} of Africa, towards the end of which he claimed that
God had. 'by his celestial will. committed the government of all earthly things'
to his control {Optltus. Append. III). 76 The theology of the Christian Empire
can be sctn .1hnusr in tts full developmmt in the portentous address by Eusebius
to Constantine, the Triakontaetirik{'>' (nr Orati de laudibus Constantini), probably
of336, which I mentioned at the end ofV .i1i above (and see its nn.62-3 below). It
is a most extraordinary document. Its ~lllpd\mg. inflated, verbose, bombastic
rhetoric-expected at that date, on a wry solt"na: occasion-makes it wearisome
reading today, whether in Greek or 111 Eu!!Jish; but it should not be missed.
Anyone who has no stomach for sud1 stuff in .my quantity should at least read
the passages I have cited in a nott. 7 ; Here we find the emperor. as God's
vice-gerent, invested, mortal as he is, with a supernatural aura, by no means
inferior to the lofty status to which pagan emperors had aspired by accepting
cult themselves or associating themselves with gods in one way or another. Tht>
Christian emperors lost none of the majesty or authority of their pagan predecessors. Indeed, the imperial power now took on a deeper theological
colouring than it had ever had in the Principate. As Nock has said, The climax
of imperial dignity was reached under Christianity' (EDC 105 = ERAW 11.658).
The Emperor Justinian, on 15 December 530. in the constitution (beginning Deo
auctore) giving instructions for the compilation of the Digrst. opens by referring
to himself as 'governing under the authority of God the empire delivered to Us
by the Celestial Majesty'. 711
A particularly fascinating document emanating from the Later Roman
Empire -now displaying many of the characteristics we associate particularly
with the devdoped 'Byzantine Empire'- is the poem in praise of justinian's
successor, Justin II, In lm-1dem lustini Au~usti minoris, 19 describing the inauguration ofJustin in November 565 and written within a year or two of that event by
Flavius Cresconius Corippus, who was himself present in Constantinople at the
time. This is worth more than an incidental mention, especially as the poem and
its author are not to be found in the patrologies or in such works as the Oxford
Classical Dictionary 2 and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Churcht, or ~ven
perhaps because Corippus wrote in Latin- in Dvornik 's massive Early Christian
and Byzantine Political Philosophy (mentioned near the beginning of this section).
The admirable publication of the poem by A veri! Cameron in 1976, with an
English translation and commentary (see n.79), was an event which seems to
have escaped the notice of most Greek and Roman- as opposed to Byzantinehistorians. For our present purposes, the most important part of the poem
(which is in four books) is the inaugural speech Corippus puts into the mouth of
the new emperor (11.178-274), delivered in the presence of the full Senate (177),
which immediately 'bowed down and adored the emperor, praising his pious
speech' (11.276). The emperor begins by emphasising the God-given character
of his rule (178-85), and he then develops an elaborate symbolism, uniting
Emperor, Senate and People in a single body, while preserving of course their
400
hierarchical order, by referring to the emperor as the head {tht caput) of the body
politic (197-200, 205, 214), the senators as its brea~t and arms (200-16, the
proxima membra: pectus and brachia), and the mass uf J'l'opll (dit' plebes) as 'the feet
and minor parts' (pedes . . . et membra minora. 2!(_,..18}. A delightful touch
foilows, to round off the idyllic picture: the lmpcnai T:easury, thefiscus, is the
belly. which 'nourishes the body' {l'f'tJft'r .zlu {Orp~. 1~9-51). Later in the same
book there is a curious and unique pas..~a~c in whi'h Curippus actually speaks of
the emperor who conduct~ him!>elf properly a!> a dc14.<, ..1 god (422-5). This
passage is immediatt'ly ti.,llow"d by two lines (427-8} dcdaring that Christ has
given all power to 'thllords oftht t'.arth' (th< ftnamm dom:im: the emperors are
meant); Christ is ommpott'nt. and tht tmp~mr is his very image (Ille est
omnipotens, hie omnip.,tenti> im.~~:). Justin w..:~~ to r~mt(m:L" this symbolism by his
construction inside tht ralace ()f J nt..'W 'Goidcn Chamber' (Chrysotriklinos) for
ceremonial use, with th~ emperor's throne placed beneath a mosaic of Christ
enthroned, 80 thus vis.ihly emphasising hts role as Gud's vice-gerent -which. as
we have seen, was firM ~t't out explicitly l->y E<t'it>biuo; bur was implicit in St.
Paul's maxim that 'The powLrs th.\t bl" .1re unbimd llf(~\l(.l'.
Thus, near the end of the pl'rtml with whifh thts book i~ concerned, in the
second half of the sixth century (and iu the SL"VL'nthj, then occurred, as I said
near the beginning of tim st'l'tion. il iurtherexaltation ot'thl'l'tnperor. This is not
difficult to explain. Grtater l'lurdcn!' th.m ever were being imposed upon the
Byzantines by the enunnnns mihtary tft0rt~ d~nt.lu,ltd of them by Justinian and
his successors, which uewrthdt-ss kd tu a :O:t'ril's of dis;tsr,rs. culminating in the
subjugation by the PLrsi.1n-; during th~ tina rhrt't' dlcadts uf tht' seventh century
of Mesopotamia and p;uts ot'S-yri;t and Egyrr: and o~.lthuugh lllraclius seemed to
havt' restored the situation hy C.JO (tht yt:tr m whKh he triumphantly returned
to Jerusalem the 'True Cross, now rt"t';I.J'tured trom the Persians), the greatest
disasters that had ever bdJ.Ilm thL EJst~ru cmpir~.. were now ro take place, in the
form of the Arab conqmsts (t(,r whidt see Vlll.iii below). Throughout this
period the rulers of tlw nnpir~ n~.h~,d that the gn;ltt:~t pussible amount of
cohesion would be nL'L"Ucd rn o;untve th~.. continuing l'nmity of Persia and the
assaults of 'barbarians' from all Jm~tion:-o. and they felt that their survival
depended upon divine hclp. Thttmrtrur~. thwugh whom- if through mortals
at all- God's aid might hl' exrt'th'd tu mauift~t itsdt: .md who alone could unify
the Rhomaioi (as the lly:tautit~~..s c.tlkd tlwmsdv,s). were naturally impelled to
increase their own dominance by ...v~ry av;ubhl... means, and the upper classes
had no reason to do other than .l~iii~t in this process, now that their own
privileged position was in grave danger from barbaroi on all sides. We must see
the aggrandisement of the emperor as only one among many dements political, religious, ceremonial, liturgical, iconographic and others"'- designed
to secure the cohesion of the empire and th<-' aid of the Almighty. One very
significant feature was the marked growth in the cult of icons and relics, and in
particular the cult at Constantinople of the Virgin. the Theotokos (the Mother of
God), whose robe and girdle- relics in which inestimable value and power were
believed to reside-had been acquired by the city in the fifth century (see Baynes.
BSOE 240-60) and who appears in the early seventh century as above all the
principal channel of intercession with God. Her intervention was believed to
have saved Constantinople from the Avars in 619 and most conspicuously on
401
the occasic;m nf tho:: Tllt'Oal:ing attac-k by A van; dud l'ersiam in626 (in th~: ahs~'Jl\.\:
of the E mpt:ror l-lcufHus), whm rht Virgin htrsdt" w::ts thogb~ to l!:~v~ made :\
personal -tpp,aralin. sword in hand. in front ofll1: church ,kdic.atl'tlro h\:'r Jl
Blachernat. tar up tht' Guldc.u Hom. ><t The (>mp(:mr~ wok 1ht-ir full!lhart in thi-:
growth uf pic.ty ;md supt;sritiun. ~' ;md thc.rc !'tems to hc no oid('IK<.' that the.'
educated. in this uninr:~~ally Nt"dulous a~t. were O\(rhonw (as ~na- h:tvc.~
suppost'd) by a waw of'popular ii.diug' from hdow: ind:c.,~i. ':!J<> ~rpcr cbs.sc.s.
ifanything, led the. way'. 114 Alan Canwmn hal\ wc:U d.::mon:nra:~~d bow, from the:
late sixth century tmwards and t>spcdally in rh~ nignnf Htrldius l~. ~h(' first half
of the seventh, the Cirt'ns Fat'ti\.ms (rht Ulucs ;mci dt, (~r~,t~s) Wt'H gi\''-'11 ;m
increasingly important ruk in tmp,rial ~~.nmunial \CI: 14'-J-70. 2'1~. w,. Jtm~'
see this as 'a very positive dfc.)rt mward~ sodal irm:gr:~.tion'."iJ Scnu!arly, tht'
emperors 'had much to gain in term~ nt !oolial comrnl thm1 ti)rma!ismg t!le tult
of the Theotokos and transformin~ it mto a spt>dal gt.:ar.mtt't' of safity t{,r the
city'; and we may see tht' whnlt prun.'ss .lS 'an attt:rnpt 1-y tht gonming d.tss tn
impose control'86 through the US\.' ,,f appropriate aud mcaningiul ntual and
symbolism. The lower classes always obediently t(,n,,w~:d tlw l'adc.rship nf
their bishops in religious matters (cf. VII.v below). Politk:~l or ~mh~ny rt'\'alt
was anyway out ofthe question for them altogether ..md t'ew signs ntpnsitiw
recalcitrance on their part can be detected now. except t'br example in dt'St'rtilms
to the Arabs by Egyptian Monophysites, embitter~:d by the. perst'cution they
received at the hands of'orthodox' Chalccdonians (~\'t' VIII .iii below}.
In their enthusiastic reaction to the coming to pnwt'r ut .a luw ,,f Christian
emperors from Constantine onwards. Eusebius and many ,,flu;; tellu\\aha~hnps
saw no need to limit the delegation of divine auth,,riry on t':trth to a t'cl
emperor, as even Dio Chrysostom had done (see a bow). !'>O contidcnt were thc.-y
that they could commit themselves completely to Constantine. Pt>rhaps at fir!'lt
they simply took it for granted-ifthey thought about themattc.r at ..all- that the
emperors would continue to be God's men. Their whole tht'l\ry of di\"ine
choice, however, going back (as I have shown) to St. Paul, m.:c......ir.ueJ thtir
acceptance of the monarch, if not as God's reward to them, then .a~ the m~tru
ment of God's will, working usefully in its customarily myo;ttnm:s \-\";t}' fi,r
their improvement through chastisement. 117 (I cannot enter her1 inh\ tlw various
arguments they devised to give themselves a free hand in stw:tl~ rdt)CtOus
matters against emperors who in their eyes were not <"arrying nut tht' will of
God.) The emperors repaid their bishops' loyalty h\' condemning and persecuting 'heretics' and 'schismatics': and in A.D. 545, by his Novel CXXXI.l,
Justinian went so far as to give the force oflaw to the C:mun~ ut tht t(JUr General
Councils of the Church that had already taken place and were rem~niscd by the
Catholics as oecumenical (Nicaea, 325; Constantinople I, 381; Ephesus I, 431:
Chalcedon, 451). Justinian tactfully ignored the Second Coundlt,f Epht$US, in
449, which had a hardly less good claim than some others to be r.:garc.itd as
oecumenical except that 'the wrong side' won: it has come to be knuwn .ts the
latrocinium or 'Robber-Synod' (cf what I say below about the Cvm1t-il of
Chalcedon).
How little the Christian emperors lost by accepting the new theological
formulation of their position is wen illustrated by a passage from the Latin
military handbook written by Vegctius, probably in the late fourth century. He
402
reveals that soldiers on recruitment swore (if I may translate literally) 'by God
and Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Emperor's Majesty, which, by God's
will, ought to be beloved and venerated by the human race'; and he adds, 'For
when the emperor receives the name of Augustus, faithful devotion must be
given to him, as if to a deity pres em in the flesh [tamquam praesenti et corporali deo] ...
For the civilian or the soldier serves God when he loves faithfully him who
reigns with God's authority' (11.5).
There is one other strain in the ideology of monarchy in antiquity that
deserves a brief mention here, not because it is of any real importance in itself,
but because some scholars have recently brought it into the foreground and have
invested it with a significance which in reality it did not acquire until the high
Middle Ages: I refer to the notion of the wise and good king as nomos empsyhos
{lex animata, 'law endowed with a soul', 'living law').!ltl As early as the fourth
century B.C. Xenophon had recorded the view that the good ruler was 'law
endowed with the power of sight' (blepon nomos, 'seeing law': Cyrop. VIII.i.22).
Aristotle spoke of the cultivated and free man as 'a law unto himself' (EN IV.8,
11283 31-2); and in the Politics he said that if there were a man so vastly superior to
all the rest as to be beyond comparison with them, he could be likened to 'a god
among men' and not subject to any law: such men indeed arc 'law themselves'
(111.13, 12843 3-14; cf. 17, 12883 15-19). The concept ofthe good king as nomos
empsychos certainly emerged during the Hellenistic period, for Musonius Rufus,
the Stoic philosopher of the second half of the first century of the Christian era,
could refer to this notion as held by 'the men of old' (hoi palai01); but the earliest
certain appearance of the phrasl' in surviving Greek literature may be the one in
Philo, De vita Mosis 11.4 (early first century). The expression crops up only
occasionally in the Principate and Later Empire, and it is absent from the
Triakontaeterikos of Eusebius; but it did not disappear in the Christian Empire,
and we find it, fur example, in the legislation ofJustinian, who could speak in
537 of his own monarchy a..; '"'nh'.' c""'l'-~}',lw~ ( .1\',.,. .J. CV .ii .4). "9And now. in all
seriousness, this is th~~ Jir~ct ~tlt of God. (:\ny-ouc who wtsht~S to read English
translations of some relevant pas!>a~es in Plutan~h. Musonms. 'Diotogenes' and
Thcmistius will find thcmm B.trktr. AC: ,3o.>-to. Jf>.~. J7~.}
To the Byzantines tht t'lllptror\ aututr.kv wa<;. intht words of the scvl'nthcentury 'Po<.>t Laureatt' G~or~t' ufPt~idiJ. a thtwfl'tikt,,n kratos, a power whose
foundation is God himsdt (St'l' lbynt'S, nsor; l~-5. 57-8; cf. 168-72). Such
statements are not n<.'C:l'SSJ.rily th~ pwdul't ot .lll}'thing thJt deserves to be
dignified with the titlt of'politicalt/1t14.!!/Jl'. 1\;,,rm.ln B.1yne~ believed that to say
'there is no discussion ufpolitical tht~,ry hy dw Hyr.lntinc..<~ is '.l 1nisapprchension'.
and that 'Byzantine littraturt is iutt'rpt'Ut'trated by political thought. i.e. by the
theory of East Roman monarchy. m.soE .\2). This SC<.'ms to me to take the stuff
too seriously. George's phrase, 'Hmv fair .1 rule is monarchy with God for
guide', is a representative specimen (,fit (il->1~L 58; cf. 34-5 and n.25).
* * * * * *
When only one supreme figure r<.'mained in the Gracco-Roman world, the:
accretion of unchallengeable prerogatives in his hands proceeded inexorably. In
rhe Christian Empire, apart from armed revolt, the only possible chalkngc to
his authority that he might need to take seriously was an appeal over his head to
403
that God whose viceroy on earth he was; and this kind ofchallenge was confined
to religious matters. Even there, as I shall demonstrate elsewhere, an emperor
who had a mind to interfere could enforce his will upon the clergy to a much
greater extent, even in the doctrinal sphere, than ecclesiastical historians have
generally been willing to admit. In recent years scholars have begun to bring out
the powerful role played by Constantine in Church matters, first in the Donatist
affair in north Africa (especiaJly Numidia) and then in the Arian and other
controversies which convulsed some of the churches of the Greek East. Fergus
Millar, whose collection of useful information on the subject of communication
between Roman emperors and their subjects I have referred to in this section and
in ll.v above, has brought out particularly well (ERW 584-90) the extent to
which Constantine's earliest intervention in Church affairs, in the Donatist
schism, was due to direct and repeated appeals made to him, especially by the
Donatists. (His treatment of the Arian controversy, ER W 590-607, is much less
satisfactory, perhaps because it illustrates unsolicited active intervention by the
emperor, a theme that is less congenial to Millar. )90 Once upon a time ecclesiastical historians could see Constantius II (337-36 1) as the emperor who began the
'interference' in Church affairs that led to 'Caesaro-Papism'; and this point of
view is still sometimes heard. But this is due almost entirely to the fact that
Constantius was not - in the eyes of those who became and remained the
dominant faction 91 - a fully orthodox Catholic emperor; and 'inteference' in
ecclesiastical matters, like 'persecution' (see VII. v below), merits its pejorative
title, in the minds of many ecclesiastical historians even today. only when
conducted by those having what they regard as heretical or schismatic tendencies91- an emperor who coerced heretics or schismatics was simply helping to
'preserve the peace of the Church'. Now Constantine, converted to Christianity
in his maturity, did not strongly fancy himself in the role of theologian. This
emerges with particular clarity from the first document emanating from him in
the Arian controversy: the long, emotional and moving letter he wrote in 324 to
Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Arius (given in full by Eusebius, Vita
Constant. 11.64-72), where he makes light of the super-subde theological issues
involved, treating them with great asperity as questions creating unnecessary
discord which ought never to have been raised in public. Constantine was
mainly prepared to let the bishops decide doctrine, but when a strong majority
opinion emerged, or (as at the Council ofNicaea) seemed to him to be emerging,
he was eager to support it powerfully, in pursuance of his fixed and overriding
determination to secure peace and harmony, In and if necessary (as at Nicaea) to
punish dissident clergy with exile. 93
All subsequent emperors were brought up as Christians, and some of them
had strong theological views of their own, which they were sometimes prepared to force upon the churches. Above all, since it was the emperor who
decided whether, when and where to summon a 'General Council of the
Church' and (a vital point) who should preside over it, an emperor who wished
to do so could sometimes stack the cards decisively against ecclesiastical opponents and assert his will to a large degree even in doctrinal matters. This
appears with startling clarity in the proceedings of the Council ofChalcedon in
451. Those who have innocently accepted statements in such 'standard works'
as Altaner's Patrology, and even the first edition {1958) of the Oxford Dictionary of
404
the Christian Church, 94 to tht- ~tl~rt tha~ i~ W:l~ papill hgat~s who 'presided over
the Council ofChakt"don' will need to b~ h)IJ th:u rhi~ i$ .1 t:ross misrepresentation of the true situation. md that i1: f.td the." Cumt~o:il w;t:; presided over by an
extraordinarily high-puv.tr~! l.ly ~-ommi>siun \)f imporlant imperial officials
and distinguished S.t'nar.,rs (nwsdy gloriosis1imi. ;,,~d th;: rest magnificentissimi)
appointed by the Emp\ror Manian himself. w!w thus ensured in advance that
its decisions would bt" in anlrd;uKt" wrth Ius llWn will and that of the influential
Empress Pulcheria. both of whom happened to be lrthudox. (It is precisely
because the Monophysir..- bishops, with thl' singlt> t"Xl't'pth)n of Dioscurus of
Alexandria, were owr01wl:d. and th, C1Unril produced a s~ries of 'orthodox'
decisions, that our tcdt'Sl.lStkal hiseorian~ h.tve failed to nurirc the way in which
it had been thoroughly 'tix~d' !l~ J.dvaD!c..)
Emperors might som~tilllc."S deal h.trshly with hishurs. exiling them from
their sees: this practin. was begun by Cvnst.mtinl? hiimd( r\nd emperors could
on occasion issue rebukLs to bishops who they tdt \Wrr ,~.1using trouble. Not
many authentic imperial n.pht's to t>ptsn,pal prt'ttn~ion!. have been preserved.
One that stands out is tlw krr~r (sur\'iving in thL Cl/({ti' .-\vel/ana) written by
Justinian in 520, whtn hL Wl:S nut yL:t t'nl!'L'Wr (ahhou~h already the power
behind the throne), tn Pop:.- H~lnrlisdas. pol ltd\ but pc-nmptorily ordering him
to refrain from unnc-~o.'c.'s~ary d~o.alm!!:~ with dangerously nnrrovcrsial matters. 95
The last sentence rl'ads, 'W ~.. shall ntH permit [non pati1mm] a furtht'r religious
controversy to be raised in our st.th: by anyom. nor J,_,L'S it become Your
Sanctity to listen to rhus~.. wht arc qt1.1rrdlm~ abu-.tt :mptrfluous questions.' In
Justinian, indeed, as Ostrog~,rsky ]w; wdl s.titi. 'thL Chri~tian Church found a
master as well as a pruttcttlr, r\r d11mg.h Chrtsn;m lw n:mained a Roman to
whom the conception ot .uty autunumy in the rdt~ious sphere was entirely
alien. Popes and Patriarchs were n~.tnft'd au,l tr~attd as his servants. He
directed the affairs (lftlw Churd1as ht~ ,{id dhlSl' oftht statl' ... Even in matters
of belief and ritual tht tina) tktlsiun nst~..d wnh him \I ms ~ 77).
Bishops, needless hl s:1y. StlllWtin:.:;; t~lt \lbli~~~~ w ppn-.e emperors whom
they believed to be actin~ wron~ly in dtl.'illil~u;tl or ~-.cdesiastical matters. The
earliest document I know in whid :a hiliht'V nnkrs an ~..mptror not to meddle in
ecclesiastical affairs (ta ckkli'.i;utik,,) 1s th~ lltt~..r wnttt'll by the aged Bishop
Ossius (Hosius) of Ct,rduha to Cnnstantius II m 35t. prl.'s~..rved by Athanasius
(Hist. Arian. 44). 96 The emperor is wamed thar (;(,~I has given to him the
kingship but to 'us' - the bishops -the affairs of dtl' Church: and appeal is made
(for the first time in this context, I believe) to Mattht'w XXII.21: 'Render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that arc God's.' I
cannot see this, with Frcnd (EC 165), as in any sense 'the first statement of the
Western theory of the Two Swords': as far as I know, this theory was only just
beginning to emerge in the works of Peter Damian in the eleventh century
(Serm. 69; cf. Ep. IV .9) and did not achiew its definitive expression until the
Bull, Unam sanctam, of Boniface Vlll in 1302. where both Swords (the temporalis
or materia/is gladius as well as the spiritualis) are seen as ultimately under the
control of the Church, itself ruled monarchically by the Pope. The nearest
expression of opinion that I know to this in the early Christian centuries is the
letter of Pope Gelasius I to the Emperor Anastasius I in 494, where the world is
said to be ruled principally by the auctoritas sacrata of priests and the regalis
405
potestas, with superiority in 'things divine' belonging to the former, above all to
the bishop ofRome (Ep. XII, esp. 2). 97
It was not only their spiritual patrimony, the heritage of St. Peter, which gave
the bishops of Rome their extraordinary prestige and influence. In the fifth
century and later they had no such powerful imperial master close at hand as had
the bishops of even the greatest Eastern sees: Constantinople, Alexandria and
Antioch, who sometimes had to pay a heavy price, in ecclesiastical terms, for the
virtually unqualified way in which most Christian bishops had expressed their
loyalty to the first Christian emperor and his successors. Strong-minded and
intrepid bishops might occasionally denounce emperors for favouring those
whom they themselves regarded (and who regarded them) as heretics or schismatics, sometimes employing the kind of intemperate abuse which is all too
characteristic of the religious controversy of the age. The most bitter denunciations of an emperor that I have come across in the early Christian centuries are
those of Constantius II in 356-61 by Lucifer, the bishop of Calaris (Cagliari in
Sardinia): he ransacked the Scriptures for the most lurid parallels and images. 911
(Apposite appeals to the Old Testament, to settle an argument, could always be
relied on to gratify the faithful: among many examples, see e.g. Evagrius, HE
IV.38, p.187.17-27, ed. Bidez/Parmentier.) Lucifer, however, is not a major
figure in the history of early Christianity, and I prefer to quote from the great St.
Athanasius, the patriarch of Alexandria. For Athanasius, writing after the death
ofConstantius II, that emperor was an outright heretic (De Jynod. 1). 'the most
irreligious Augustus' (12), who continued in heresy to his death (31). A few
years earlier (probably in 358), while Constantius was still ruling, but in a work
intended not for publication bur for private circulation among the monks of
Egypt, Athanasius could call him the patron of impiety and emperor of heresy
(Hist. Arian. 45), compare him with the Pharaoh of the Exodus (30, 34, 68), and
say that he tried to emulate Saul in savage cruelty (67); Constantius was 'a
modem Ahab' (45, cf. 53, 68), the 'second Belshazzar of our times' (45), who
made promises to heretical bishops as Herod did to the daughter of Herodias
(52), and was 'more bitter than Pilate' (68); he was 'godless and unholy' (45), 'the
forerunner of Antichrist' (46, 77, 80), indeed the very image of Antichrist (74).
And with all this, Constantius is said to be dominated by eunuchs (38, cf. 67:
Athanasius of course means Eusebius) and is allowed no mind of his own at all
(69)! The fancy picture that Athanasius draws in Historia Arianornm 52, in which
the Church makes all its own decisions and the emperor never interferes in its
affairs, no doubt represents the ideal situation which the bishops would have
desired- except, ofcourse, when they needed, in crushing their rivals, to invoke
the aid of'the secular arm', a weapon they were delighted to use when it was
available to them and not to their opponents. But the fantasy bore no resemblance to the reality, which has been well described by Henry Chadwick in his
excellent first volume of the 'Pelican History of the Church':
As the fourth cennary advanced, it became increasingly the- tendency for the fmal
decisions about church policy to be taken by tht> empt>ror, and the group in tht> church
which at any given time swayed the course of l'vents was very often that which
succeeded in obtaining the imperial ear (Tht Early Church 132).
* * * * * *
I wish to add a very brief sketch of the sociology of the Roman upper classes
406
during the Principate and Later Empire. With the foundation of the Principate
there were important changes. 'Nobilitas' lost its importance as a kind of
unofficial qualification for high office (see Section iii of this chapter), although
the term 'nobilis' long continued to be used as a kind of technical term in much
the same sense, for consuls and their descendants, umil the Later Empire. when
it apparently came to be applied to city prefects and praetorian prefects as well as
ordinary consuls (but not suffect consuls) and their dcsccndants. 99 The two
'orders' were transformed. The ordo senatorius was extended to include the
families of senators to the second or third generation, and became a hereditary
governing class: and every senator had to possess property of the value of at least
(probably) HS 1,000,000 (one million sesterces). 100 Sometimes an emperor
would subsidise a senatorial family which had fa1lcn below the necessary minimum of wealth, either because of its spendthrift habits or because it was too
prolific in the male line: several such imperial subsidies, running into millions of
sesterces, are recorded in the early Prindpate; 101 and in the early sixth century,
according to John Lydus, the Emperor Anastasius bestowed upon the ex-consul
Paulus (son ofVibianus, a consul of 463} a gift of two thousand pounds of goldone thousand to pay off a debt due to the honorary consul Zenodotus and
another thousand for himself (De mag. 111.48). The ordo equrster, now greatly
enlarged, became a sort of secondary nobility, although its privileges were
personal and not hereditary and did not extend to the families of the men
concerned. State offices, now greatly increased in number, were limited to these
two classes, except that at first the emperor's freedmen (and even his slaves)
might hold posts which ultimately came to be reserved for equestrians. To
qualify for the highest offices one had to enter the Senatorial Order. either by
being born into it or by special grant from the emperor, given in the form of
permission to wear the latus clavus, the broad purple stripe on the tunica, which
was the distinguishing mark of the senator, as the narrow purple stripe of the
equestrian. In course of time, during the second and third centuries, senators
came to be known by the honorary title of clarissimi '(already an untechnical
honorific title in the Late Republic), while equestrians, according to the dignity
of the office they held, were (in ascending order) r~rr~ii, peifectissimi or eminrntissimi, the last title being reserved, from the third century onwards, for the
praetorian prefects, the highest equestrian officers.
By degrees the ord" equestrr became entirely a S('condary aristocracy of office,
all members of which were, or had been. holders of certain official posts. Even
in the Late Republic a man had been able to describe himselfloosely (as Cicero
did) as 'born in equestrian status'. 102 Although an equestrian could not hand on
his own rank automatically to his son, he could hand on the property which
entitled the son to offer himself for equestrian posts conferring that rank -or at
least, he could do so provided he did not have too many sons! (The division of a
census equrstris of precisely HS 400,000 between two brothers is amusingly dealt
with in one of Martial's poems: 'Do you think two can sit on one horse?', he asks
derisively, V .38.) This situation remained fairly stable until about the middle of
the third century; bur during the later third century and the fourth there were
great changes, which I can do no more than summarise in a sentence or two.
Broadly speaking, we can say that the sphere of influence of the equestrians
increased greatly during the later third century, at the expense of the Senate, and
407
provincial governorships which had formerly been reserved for senators came
to bt" held by members of the ordo equester, especially those possessing military
experience. However, the ordo equester, lacking an organ (such as the Senate)
through which to make collective decisions. never acquired a corporate character
or unity of purpose, but remained a collection of individuals. In the fourth
century, from Diodetian and Constantine onwards. equestrian status became
increasingly detached from office. because the emperors issued numerous
honorary codidlli, granting the privileges of one or other of the several equestrian grades (which now existed separately. and not as part of a single 'equester
ordo ') to those who held no office. Then, during the third quarter of the fourth
century, the highest of the former equestrian posts began to confer senatorial
status. Thus the Senate, which by now had more than trebled in size (a separate
Senate existing at Constantinople), absorbed the higher levels of the- l:'questrian
order; but this process was not completed until the last years of the fourth
century or the early years ofthc fifth. 103
In their own eyes and those of their toadies, the senators constituted the very
summit of the human race. Nazarius. a leading rhetorician ofhis day, dedarl:'d in
a panegyric in honour of Constantine and his first two sons in 321 that Rome,
the very apex of all races and the queen oflands, had attracted to her curia (her
Senate House) the best men (optimates viri) from all the provinces, and the Senate
now consisted of'the fl.ower oftht" whole world' (Paneg. Lat. X[IV].35.2). The
great orator Symmachus described the Roman Scnatc in a letter written in 376 as
'the better part of the human race' (pars melior humanigeneris: Ep. 1.52). Rutilius
Namatianus, in the poem recording his journey from Rome up the west coast of
Italy towards Gaul late in 417. UN praised the Senate (whose curia he dignifies
with the word rel(~iosa) for its reception of all who are worthy to belong to it;
and- pagan as he was- he compared it to thc consilium of the summus deus (De rrd.
I. B-18). And in the panegyric he delivered to the Western Emperor Avitusoq 1
January 456, Sidonius Apollinaris could say, addressing Rome herself, 'The
world has nothing better than you; you yourself have nothing better than the
Senate' (nil tr mundus habet me/ius, nil ipsa senatu: Carm. VII.503). It was entirely
natural for St. Augustine- when he was considering 'thc caust" of the greatness
of the Roman empire', why God should have wished that empire to be so great
and so long-lasting, and attacking the astrologers- to choose the Senate, the
clarissimus senatu.s ac splendidissima curia, as the most suitable simile for the starry
heavens,. which of course he saw as subject entirely to the will of God, much as
the Senate (although he does not make the point explicitly here) was subject to
the emperor (De civ. Dei V .i). Until the fourth century there were only about six
hundred senators at any one time. The equestrians were far more numerous; but
the two orders together could hardly have formed as much as one tenth of one
per cent of the total population of the empire.
I cannot do better than end this section with a text that shows how powerfully
people's minds were affected in the Later Roman Empire. down to the very
roots, with notions of rank and hierarchy. The grades of precedence which
existed in this world were projected into the next. The heavenly sphere, of
course, went from the Godhead at thC' top, down through archangels, angels.
patriarchs, apostles, saints and martyrs. to the ordinary blessed dead at the lower
end. I do not think the relative positions of the middle strata were very dearly
408
defined, but I would imagine that an archangel and even an ordinary angel, in a
heavenly ordo salutationis, would take precedence of any mere human, except of
course for the Virgin, who occupied an anomalous position, unique among
females, analogous to that of an Augusta in the Roman imperial hierarchy. It is
perhaps less often realised that the diabolic sphere might equalJy be conceived as
organised in an order of rank, reproducing that of the terrestrial and the
heavenly regions. I need only quote one piece of evidence for this. Palladius,
writing his Historia Lausiaca in 419-20, records some interesting information he
had received from a number ofleading Egyptian monks (Cronius, Hierax and
others), intimates in their youth of the great Antony, the first (or one of the first)
of the Christian hermits and a mari of unrivalled prestige among the early
monks, who had died in 356. According to Antony, a man possessed by an
authoritative demon (an archontikon pneuma) was once brought to him to be
cured; but the holy man refused to deal with him, on the ground that 'he himself
had not yet been counted worthy of power over this commanding rank' (tagma
archontikon: Hist. Laus. xxii, ed. C. Butler, p.73.10-14). He advised that the man
be taken to Paul the Simple, who eventually drove out the demon: it became a
dragon 70 cubits long, and disappeared into the Red Sea. (This was a dragon
larger even, perhaps. than the one disposed of, with little difficulty, by Donatus,
bishop ofEuroca in Epirus, for the removal of the corpse of which eight yoke of
oxen were required, according to Sozomen, HE VTI.26.1-3.) I may add that
Antony, the original source ofthe story in the Historia Lausiaca, was an Egyptian
peasant, who, although his family had been quite well-to-do (see Athan., Vita
Ant. 1, 2), was illiterate and unable to speak Greek (id. 1, 16, 72, 74. 77; Pallad.,
Hist.lAus. xxi, pp.68-9). When Paul the hermit died, it was to Antony that two
lions came, to dig the hermit's grave (Jerome, Vita Pauli 16).
VII
The Class Strnggle on the
Ideological Plane
(i)
Terror, and propaganda
In this chapter I propose to illustrate the way in which the dass struggle was
conducted on the ideological plane. For any overt expression of the point of
view of the oppressed classes there is unfortunately very little evidence indeed:
we shall look at some of it in Section v below. The nature of the evidence is such
that we must resign ourselves to spending nearly all our time on the ideological
class warfare (ifl may call it that) of the dominant classes.
I shall waste little time on the simplest form of psychological propaganda,
which merely teaches the governed that they have no rea] option anyway but to
submit; this tends to be intellectually uninteresting, however effrctive it may
have been in practice, and consists mcreJy of the threat of force. It was particularly common, of course, in its application to slaves. 'You will not restrain
that scum except by terror,' said the Roman lawyer, Gaius Cassius, to the
nervous senators during the debate on whether there should be the traditional
mass execution of all the 400 urban slaves of Pedanius Secundus, the Praefectus
Urbi, who had been murdered by one of his slaves in A.D. 61. The execution
was duly carried out, in spite of a vigorous protest by the common people of
Rome, who demonstrated violently for the relaxation of the savage ancient rule
(Tac . Ann. XIV .42-5)- which, by the way, was still the law in the legislation of
the Christian Emperor Justinian five centuries later. 1 In Pliny's letters we hear of
the similar murder in the first years of the second century of the ex-praetor
Larcius Macedo (Ep. JJI.xiv.l-5). The slaves were quickly executed. Pliny's
comments are worth quoting, especially since he describes Macedo (himself the
son of a freedman) as 'an overbearing and cruel master'( 1). 'You see.' he says
nervously ( 5), 'how many dangers, insults and mockeries we are liable to. No
master can be safe because he is indulgent and kindly, for masters perish not by
the exercise of their slaves' reasoning faculty but because of their wickedness'
(non iudicio ... sed see/ere). There are other indications in the literature of the
Principate that slaveowners lived in perpetual fear of their slaves (see e.g.
Gnffin, Seneca 267, citing Sen., De clma. l.xxiv.l etc.). The latest literary
reference I have come across to masters' fear of being murdered and robbed by
their slaves is in one ofSt. Augustine's sermons, in the early fifth century (Serm.
CXIII.4, in MPL XXXVIll.650). Slave revolts, of course, were mercilessly
punished: we hear from Appian (BC 1.120) of the crucifixion of the six thousand
captured followers of Spartacus along the Via Appia from Rome to Capua, on
the suppression of the great revolt ofB. C. 73-71. To avoid such a fate, rebellious
410
slaves often either fought to the death or killed each other. 2 In case it is objected,
quite rightly, that such cruelties were Roman rather than Greek, let me emphasise the way in which the Greek geographer Strabo deals with the Spanish
Celtiberians, who, on being captured and crucified by the Romans, still tpaionizon, went on shouting for victory from the cross: this, to Strabo, was merely
another proof of their aponoia and a~riotes. their senselessness and savagery
(III.iv.18, p.165). However, I must admit that Strabo's mind had been thoroughly infected with admiration ofRoman imperialism (see e.g. VI.iv.2fin .
p.288; XVII.iii.24 init., p.839). The passage I have just quoted reminds one of
another, in Sallust, where the admitted heroism and steadfastness of the revolutionaries who followed Catiline to their deaths in 63 B.C. is seen only as
evidence of their pig-headedness and their urge to destroy both themselves and
the state. amounting to 'a disease like a plague which had usurped the minds of
most citizens' (Cat. 36.4-5).
The Greeks. among whom sheer cold-blooded cruelty towards the victims of
their civilisation- slaves, criminals, and conquered peoples -was on the whole
much Jess pronounced than among the Romans. naturally acquired many of the
characteristics of their Roman masters. including even a taste for gladiatorial
displays, which are known to have occurred in the Greek East from at least 70
B.C., 2 " when the Roman general Lucullus provided such combats on a great
scale; they were subsequently presented by Greek notables who could afford the
expense, and they became very popular. 3 Even female gladiators appeared.
Louis Robert's bitter comment is very apt: 'La societe grecque a ete gangrenee
par cette maladie venue de Rome. C'est un des succ~ de Ia romanisation du
monde grec. Mommsen wrote with equal detestation of this 'abominable
entertainment', describing it as a 'cancerous affliction 4
In matters where evidence lasting over thousands of years is available from
many different human societies, it is often very dangerous to generalise; but at
least it seems to be true of many slave societies that ruthless treatment of the
slave (if only as a last resort, and combined with rewards for the obedient and
faithful slave) is most likely to maintain that institution in being and make it
serve its purpose best. There is more than a little truth in the remark of the
ex-slave Frederick Douglass, 'Beat and cuff your slave, keep him hungry and
spiritless, and he will follow the chain of his master like a dog; but feed and
clothe him well, -work him moderately- surround him with physical comfort,
-and dreams of freedom intrude. Give him a bad master, and he aspires to a good
master: give him a good master, and he wishes to become his own master' {see
Stampp, P/89). On the other hand, it has recently been claimed (if, as some have
plausibly argued, with much exaggeration) that even in the American Old
South the slaveownc.-rs relied very much upon incentives and rewards, as well as
punishment (Fogel and Engerman, TC 41, 147-53, 239-42; cf. 228-32) -and yet
they made far less use than the Greeks and Romans of what one might think to
be the supremc.- incentive to the slave to obey his master's wishes: manumission
(ibid. 150-l). Genovese's just appraisal of the evidence for American slave
revolts - which is surprisingly scanty - and other forms of resistance has well
shown how slaves may in certain circumstances be induced to accommodate
themselves in some degree to the system that exploits them (R]R 587-660, esp.
587-98, 613-21, 648-57). And of course slaves who are allowed to rear families
1
VI I. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (i)
41 1
thereby become subject to one of the most telling forms ofcontrol which a master
can have over them: the threat ofbreaking up the family (sec lll.iv above, II).
A more sophisticated form of ideological class struggle was the auempt of the
dominant classes to persuade those they exploited to accept their oppressed
condition without protest, if possible even to rejoice in it. According to Aristoxcnus of Tarentum, a pupil of Aristotle, it was laid down by the Pythagorean
school that just as rulers ought to be humane, philanthropoi, as wdl as versed in
the science of ruling, so ideally their subjects ought not only to obey them but ro
like them- to be philarchontes. 5 Another interlsting word which is by no means
uncommon is philodespotos, 'master-loving'. In the Archaic age- tht> aristocratic
poet Theognis believed that if you kick the empty-headed demos' (the mass of
the people) hard enough you can reduce it to that desirable condition (lines
847-50: cf. V .i above and its n.l6). A Syrian public slave at Sparta in the Roman
period could even be given the name Philodespotos. 6 An essential function of
the ideology of a ruling class is to present to itself and to those it rules a coherent
world view that is sufficiently flexible, comprehensive and mediatory to convince the subordinate classes of the justice of its hegemony. ' 7 Governing classes
have often been successful in achil"ving this aim. As Rodney Hilton has said,
'For the most part, in so far as one has cvidencl" at all, the ruling ideas of medieval
peasants seem to have been the ideas of the rulers of society as transmitted to
them in innumerable sermons about the duties and the characteristic sins of the
various orders ofsociety' (EPLMA 16). Those who disapprove of the techniques I
am referring to may call them 'brainwashing': those who employ them will
reject such terms with righteous indignation and may prefer to speak of a
process ofenlightenment by which chose who serve the community in a humble
capadty are enabled to achieve a more profound understanding of social reality.
Those of us who teach in universities often think in such terms, for a university,
in a class society like ours, is among other things a place where the governing
class seeks to propagate and perpetuate its ideology.
The most common form of the type of propaganda we are considering is that
which seeks to persuade the poor that they are not really fitted to rule and that
this is much better left to their 'betters' ('the best people'. hoi beltisroi, .:~s Greek
gentlemen liked to call themselves): those who have been rrainrd for the job and
have the leisure to devote themselves thoroughly to it. In the ancient Greek
world this demand is sometimes made quite unashamedly on behalf of the
propertied class as such. 8 Sometimes it is limited to an even smaller circle: of this
tendency there are two outstanding examples. First, there is the claim made by
aristocrats that the essential qualification for ruling is noble birth (of which
property is of course an inevitable accompaniment: see II.iv and its n.S). Of this
kind of mentality we have already noted some examples, from Theognis in
particular (see V.i above). Secondly, when government by a dynasttia of one or
more well-born families had become almost extinct over a large part of the
Greek world, we begin to find the assertion, familiar to everyone from Plato
above all, that ruling should be the prerogative of those who have the right kind
of intellectual equipment and have received a proper philosophical education. In
practice, needless to say, virtually all such men would be members of the
propertied class. Plato would no doubt have denied, as many of his modern
admirers have done, that he was advocating oligarchy according to the normal
412
meaning of that term (which he knew very well; cf. ll.iv above); but this is true
only in the sense that he did not wish access to political power to be given to the
whole propertied class as such. (In l.Aw.s V. 742e; 74Ja-c he first declares, in a rather
qualified way, that a man cannot be both good and very rich, and then goes on to
say explicitly that anyone who is outstandingly rich cannot be outstandingly
good, and cannot be happy either! Plato himself, of course. was not one of the
richest Athenians.) In fact Plato would have entrusted all political power to
those men who were in his opinion intellectually qualified for ruling and had
received a full philosophical education- and such men would necessarily have to
belong to the propertied class. For Plato, any kind of work that interfered with
the leisure necessary for the practice of the art of government was a disqualification for membership of his governing class: this is true both of the ideal state
pictured in the Republic and of the 'second-best' state described in the Laws, and
also of the more theoretical discussion of the art of ruling in the Politicus (or
Statl'sman). 9 The notion that manual work, because it 'weakens the body' (as
Greek gentlemen evidently supposed), therefore weakens the mind, may havl"
been a commonplace of the Socratic circle: it is very clearly expressed in
Xenophon. Oecon. IV.2, and there is no reason to think that it was invented by
Plato. But Plato has this conception in an intensified form: for him, manual
work can actively degrade the mind. This comes out very well in a fascinating
passage in the Rt>public (VI.495c-6a), describing the fearful consequences which
are likely to follow if 'unworthy interlopers' meddle with such high affairs as
philosophy - and therefor~ government, reserved by Plato for gentlemen
philosophers. Unpleasant as it is from begirming to end, this is a dazzling piece
of invective. Plato thinks it deplorable
when any poor crt"ature who has proved his cleverness in some mechanical craft sees
here an Opt"ning for a pretentious display of high-sounding words and is glad to break
out of the prison ofhis paJtry trade and take sanctuary in rhe shrine of philosophy. for
as compared with other occupations, philosophy, even in its present case, still enjoys a
higher prestige, enough to attract a multitude of stunted natures, whose souls a life of
drudgery has warped and maimed no less surely than their sedentary crafts have
disfigured their bodies. For all the world they are like some bald-headed little tinker
(chalkeus phalakros kai smikros). who, having come into some money, has just got out of
prison, had a good wash at the baths, and dressed himself up as a bridegroom, ready to
marry his master's daughter, who has been left poor and friendless. Could the issue of
such a match ever be anything but contemptible bastards? And. by the same token,
what sort of ideas and opinions will be- begotten of the misalliance of Philosophy with
men incapable of culture? Not any true-born child ofwisdom: the only right name for
them will bt" sophistry. (I have made usc ofComford's translation.)
It was of course the development of Greek democracy, especially in its
Athenian form, where it depended very much on 'bald-headed little tinkers and
their like, that impelled Plato. an arch-enemy of democracy, to launch this
tirade against the sort of person on whom it was so dependent. But Plato was
well aware of the realities of the political class struggle ofhis own day: he knew
only too well that (as he says in the Republit, IV .422e-3a) there was in each Greek
city a basic division into two groups, hostile (polemia) to each other: the one of
the poor, the other of the rich (cf. II.iv above). The two states he depicts in the
Rryublic and the Law.s were both designed, among other ends, to overcome this
fundamental disunity.
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane ( i)
413
The physical defects Plato attributes to his tinker remind one irresistibly ofthe
earliest portrait which we have in Greek, and perhaps in any language, of the
popular 'agitator': that of Thersitcs, who dares to speak out against King
Agamemnon in the assembly of the Greek army besieging Troy, in Book II of
the Iliad (lines211-78). Thersites is all for sailing home and leaving Agamemnon
and his noble friends to find out for themselves how dependent they really arc on
the rank and file; and he makes great play with the large share of spoils. in gold
and bronze and women, that the king receives from the host. But Homer is not
at all on his side; he represents the bulk of the army (hi plethus, line 278) as
disapproving strongly ofhis seditious speech and as breaking into applause and
laughter when the great Odysseus thumps him on the back and shoulders with
his golden sceptre and makes him subside weeping into his seat (lines 2h5-78).
And Homer has carefully caricatured this prom-demagogue: he describes Thcrsites not merely as 'an irrepressible man who. when he felt inclined to bait his
royal masters, was never at a loss for some vulgar quip, empty and scurrilous
indeed, but we11 calculated to amuse the troops', but also as 'the ugliest man that
had come to Troy; he had a game foot and was bandy-legged; his rounded
shoulders almost met across his chest, and above them rose an egg-shaped head,
which sprouted a few short hairs'. (I have used Rieu's translation of lines
212-19.) I might add that the aristocratic society for which the Hom...ric poems
were composed would have regarded Odysseus' brutal treatment ofThersitcsas
perfectly right and proper, and characteristic ofa great man. A little earlier in the
same book of the Iliad (II. 188-206) wefmd the same hero's courteous behaviourto
chieftains and leading men contrasted with his violence and contumdy towards
commoners ('men ofthedimos') who ventured to take independent action: such
men he bludgeoned and abused, admonishing them to shut up and defer to their
betters. The speech Homer gives him ends with the famous words. 'A multitude
of chieftains is no good thirtg; let there be one lord, one ruler' (lines 204-5).
There is much other material of this kind which I wish I had space to quote,
notably from Aristophanes (cf. my OPW 355fT.). There is even a passage in
Jewish literature which, under the influence of Hellenistic thought, asserts- in
terms which would have warmed the hearts ofPlato and Aristotle- that only the
man who has leisure can achieve wisdom; the agricultural worker, the
carpenter. the seal-maker, the- smith and thc- potter. whose pursuits are admittedly esse-ntial for civilised life, arc unfit to participate in public deliberation or
exercise judicial functions. The whole passage, Ecclus. XXXVIII.24-34, is well
worth reading.
I shall content mysdf with just two more pieces of anti-d<.'mocratic
propaganda. The first, a very abstruse and rarefied type of argument, was
developed out of the mathematical and musical theories of Archytas of
Tarentum, a Pythagorean ofthdirsthalfofthcfourth century B.C .. who seems
to have been the first to devdop. in a work on music, the notion of three
different kinds of proportion, two of which, the arithmetical and the geometric,
are material for our purposes, arithmetical proportion being nprL'sented by the
progression 2. 4. 6. 8, and geometric by 2. 4, 8, 16. It may well have been
Archytas himself, rather than Plato, who first applied the notion of distinct
arithmetical and geometric proportion to politics: it certainly appt"ars with this
application in Plato and Aristotle, and also (in a debased form, as we might
expect) in !socrates; and there are echoes of it in later times. down to at least the
414
twelfth century. The whole subject is a very difficult one, but it has been
illuminated by a most penetrating recent article by David Harvey. 10 whose
interpretation I fully accept. I cannot do better than summarise his account,
which explains very well how arithmetical proportion was alleged by antidemocrats to be 'a paradigm of a democracy; the geometric, of a 'better' form of
constitution'. The equality exalted by democracy was said to be a kind of
arithmetical proportion in which each number (representing a man) stands at an
equal distance from its neighbour (2, 4, 6, 8, etc.). But this, it was claimed, fails
to take account of the real value of each number (each man) and therefore
introduces flagrant inequality, for the higher up the scale, the smaller the ratio at
each step; hence, in political terms, the better the man, the less his worth is
rewarded. Geometric proportion, which is not employed by democracy, is
much fairer, in that the ratio at each step up the scale (2, 4, 8, 16 etc.) always
remains the same; hence, in political terms, what each man receives is always
equal to his worth.
I am afraid that the theory stated thus baldly and without the complicated
intellectual scaffolding which surrounds it in Plato and Aristotle looks even
feebler than it really is; but Harvey is certainly right in his judgment that the
whole construction is essentially a subtle attempt to avoid an honest statement
of the real oligarchic belief that 'Inequality is a splendid thing', by substituting a
statement of the form, 'Inequality is true equality'. So flawed is the very basis of
the argument that I do not think it is unfair to quote an unintentionally comic
version of it in Plutarch (Mor. 719bc Quaest. conviv. VIII.ii.2):
Lycurgus expell~d from Sparta arithmetical proporcion, as being democratic and

favourable to the rabble (ochlikos), and introduced geometric proportion, which is
suited to sober oligarchy and law-abiding kingship. For the former distributes equality
in numbers, while the latter distributes what a man deserves, by proportion; it does not
mix up everything together, but it makes a clear distinction bt-tween good men and
bad; ... they get what befits them in accordance with how much they differ in virtue
and vice. God applies this proportion to things: it is called Justice and Nemesis ... God
nullifies as far as possible rhe equality which the majority pursul', which is the greatest
of all injustice, but he preserves thai which is in accordance with worth, defining it
geometrically. according to law and reason.
No one acquainted with Cicero's writings on political theory, which owe
much to Plato, will be surprised to find reflections of the theory which we have
just been discussing in his De republica (1.43, 53; 11.39-40), where, as Elaine
Fantham has put it, the 'moralistic language only thinly veils the fact that Cicero
is approving a constitutional device to give political power to the wealthy in
proportion to their wealth - no surprise perhaps in view of his respect for
property and those dignified by its ownership in actual political life'. 11
My other specimen of anti-democratic propaganda, which must come from
the very end of the fifth century or the beginning of the fourth, is a brilliant little
piece of pamphleteering which came to the notice of Xenophon and was
inserted by him in his Memorabilia (l.ii.40-6). I think this is one of the bt!st
anti-democratic arguments produced in antiquity - better, anyway, than
anything in Plato. Its thesis is that when the mass of the common people (to
plithos) enacts decrees by majority decision, against the will of the propertied
class (they are specifically hoi ta chrimata echontes). it is simply acting like a tyrant,
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (i)
415
and its decrees are not nomos, law, but bia: force, coercion, violence, often
presented in Greek thought as the very opposite of law (see e.g. Xen., Cyrop.
l.iii. 17). Decision by majority vote, a method which in the eyes of Greek
democrats (perhaps the first inventors of it: see my OPW 348-9) evidently had a
peculiar sanctity, is treated as not different in kind, when it involves the coercion
of a propertied minority, from the coercion of the majority by the Few or by a
tyrant. In this little dialogue Pericles, the great democrat, is made to look a fool
by the young freelance aristocrat, Alciabiades- who, in the speech Thucydides
puts into his mouth at Sparta (VI.89.3-6), describes democracy as 'an acknowledged folly'. I have translated this passage as litt.'rally as possible.
They say that Alcibiades, when he was less than twenty years old, had a conversation about laws with his guardian, Pericles, the leading man of the city.
Tdl me, Pericles,' he said: 'can you explain to me what a law is?'
'Certainly I can,' replied Pericles.
'Then explain to me, do. For whenever I hear people being praised for being
law-abiding citizens, I think that no one can really earn that praise who doesn't know
what a law is.'
'There's no particular difficulty about your wanting to know what a law is, Alcibiades. laws are what the mass of the citizens decree, mt't'ting together and raking
counsel, and declaring what can be done and what can't.'
'Do they think one ought to do good or evil?'
'Good, of course, my boy, not evil.'
'Hut ... if it's not the masses, but a few, as happens under an oligarchy, who come
together and enact what is to be done- what do you call that?'
'Everything tht.' sovereign power in the city decrees to be done, after taking counsel,
is called a law.'
'Even if ... a tyrant who rules the city makes decrees for the citizens- is that a law too?'
'Yes. whatever a tyrant as ruler enacts. even that is called a law.'
'But ... coercion (bia) and the negation oflaw- what is that, Pericles? Isn't it when
the stronger compels the weaker to do what he wants, not by persuasion, but by force?'
yes, I suppose so,' said Pericles.
'Then whatever a tyrant compels the citizens to do by decree, without p~rsuading
them, is the negation oflaw?'
'Yes. I agrcc,' said Pericles. 'I take back what I said, that everything a tyrant decrC'(.'S
without persuasion is a law.' (Of course he is done for now; having incautiously
allowed himself to be led up the garden path he is going to be led down it again, to his
own confusion.) Alcibiades goes on,
'But when the Few make decrees, using not persuasion but force- are we to call that
coercion or not?'
'I should say,' replied Pericles (he has evidenrly not s~n the red light evm yet), 'that
whatever anyone compels anyone else co do, whether by decree or otherwise, without
persuasion, is coercion rather than law.'
'Tht"n ... everything the masses decree. not persuading the owners of property but
compelling thlm, 12 would not be law, but coercion?'
'Let me tell you, Alcibiades,' said Pcricles, 'when I was your age I too was very
clever at this sort of thing: for I used to think and talk about th~ very things you now
seem to be interested in.
'Ah, Pericles,' said AlcibiadL"s, 'if only I had known you when you wen at your very
cleverest in such matttrs!'
The techniques of psychological class warfare which I have been describingfar from crude as they are- become even more subtle and interesting when
we find the governing and cxploiting class seeking to pl'rsuade not merely the
416
exploited classes but also itself that its dominance is both justified in principle
and benevolent in practice. Let us briefly consider, then, some of the ways in
which the Greek (and Roman) magnates salved their consciences and avoided
those feelings of guilt which can sometimes afflict even the most complacent
Dives when he sees Lazarus hungrily eyeing the crumbs that have fallen from his
sumptuous table. The theory of'natural slavery' is the perfect example of this
kind ofthing.
(ii)
The theory of 'natural slavery'

I begin with two kindred themes: the distinction between Greek and 'barbarian',
and the ideology of slavery. Early in Greek history we encounter the dichotomy
of the human race into Hellenes and barbaroi- strictly, Greeks and non-Greeks,
but I shall sometimes use the term 'barbarian' as the translation of the corresponding Greek and Latin words, as it is so convenient in practice, if often
technically incorrect.
Plato, like the vast majority ofhis contemporaries, took it for granted that it
was right and proper for Greeks to enslave 'barbarians', whom he calls their
'natural enemies'. 1 In the funeral oration which he puts into the mouth of
Aspasia (a parody of the standard Athenian speech delivered on such an occasion), he makes her say that war against fellow-Greeks should be pursued 'until
victory', but against barbarians 'to the death' (mechri nikes, mechri diaphthoras,
Menex. 242d). He also believed that all those whom he describes as 'wallowing
in great ignorance and baseness' ought to be reduced to a condition of douleia 2 the standard Greek word for 'slavery', which in this context may mean either
that or merely 'complete political subjection'. Those who are not inhabited by
divine wisdom, he thought. are actually better off when controlled by those
who are (Rep. IX .590cd). As Vlastos demonstrated more than thirty years ago in a
brilliant article, 3 slavery exercised a profound infl.uence on some ofPlato' s basic
philosophical concepts. Although Plato never explicitly formulated the doctrine
of 'natural slavery', it is implicit in his thinking (as Vlastos again has shown);4
but the earliest surviving writer to give a formal statement of it is Aristotle,
whose discussion of the question is by no means as dear as could be desired.$
Aristotle, for whom the slave is essentially an 'animate tool' (empsychon
organon: see Il.iii above and its n. 12), says most explicitly that some men are
slaves by nature, although he has to admit that not all those who are in practice
slaves or free men are by nature slave or free respectively. 7 For the 'slave by
nature' he thinks it is better that he be subjected to a master; for such a man
slavery is both beneficial andjust. 11 He does not actually say that all barbarians
are slaves by nature, but he quotes current Greek opinions to that effect without
expressing disapprovai.B We can certainly say that in Aristotle's view 'barbarians are slaves by nature', provided we remember that for him what is
according to nature is not necessarily what occurs in every case: 'it is what occurs
as a general rule (epi to poly) that is most in accord with the course of nature', as he
himself puts it in one of his great zoological works. 10 And in Book VII of the
Politics, after prescribing for the lands of the Greek proprietors in his ideal state
to be tilled by slaves (who are evidently conceived as barbarians), he goes on to
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (ii)
417
suggest :us an int;nnr :tlttrn:uiv, ~h(" u:-t- <-fbrharian pcrioikoi 11 - that is to say.
mm wht wtm!l! ll<lt f:,,. acluJI ~hw~ (lhot;f!h !hty might be what I have called
serfs), hut wh would ccrt:titlly llll ,cnJ:- .u:y of the rights of citizenship in his
polis (cf III.t'' .lhuw :tnd its lln..l9-S2 bdt~w) .
The t'SSOH..'t' ni rite ;ric:w~ itd.i by Pl:i1n ;;ad Aristotle on 'natural slavt>ry' was
nicdy txpr,ssd. mur~ vividly th.m 1'-y l'i~hn of them, in a book by the Virginia
slaveowntr. G~~rgt Fitzhugh. publishcd in 1R54: 'Some men are born with
saddles Oli rhc.:ir batks. and or has h-ut.-d .m.i spurred to ride them; and the riding
does thettt ,l!:jn-.: (Fit:thu~h mast ha.~ h~n quoting. and contradicting, some
famous \\'<rds -.rnkm (In til~ s.-afl(llJ iu IM6 by tht> English radical. Richard
Rumbold.) t: I lis b,-.,,k, hc:triug ~h, tirle (r,~m;irkable at chat date) of Sociolo,{ly forthe South. or tilt' P.lilun (~,- Frn s.vit't;'. is JWrh;tps the best of the ripostes by the
slaveowncrs ,,f the l>ld South a~ainst \\h,n :.l'emcd to them the mor~ impersonal .md inhnm.m rrc..atnhnt by the Northtm farm owners of tht?ir hired
labourers. ('~lavt.'s.' Fttzlm~h lliJint.lirwd. 'tll'\'er die ofhungcr; seldom suffer
want.') In hi<; Pnt:ut. .ltta apnh1~1sin~~ ii.u h.\Ving employed in his tide 'the
ncwly-(oiu..-d word Sodolotry', lw .:ouunues. 'We could. however, find none
other in the wh1k r;m~c or tlh~ Engh~h l.'dlguage, that would even iaintly
convey tlw idt.a "'hkh \\'t.' wislwd to l'Xprt.'so; Speaking for the Virginia slaveowners. he says h~ will :;how 'that Wl' ar, inddted to domestic slavery for our
happy l'X{'mption tr.un the snd.d atlhnilns th.tt have originated this philosophy'_
One p.l~:o..l~t: in rlu f',Jii:!r:f th~t !!> ~ ..rticular)~r interesting is the one in which
Aristotl, ~iv''' tlw :lllvin th.u .1U slav;,~ :-hulti he offered the reward of ultimate
L'mancipati~.m; he prumi~;~:~o to giw his reasons later, but unfortunately nl"ver
does so. 11 Tf '"'<.' r~;td this .lli\'Kt' with earlil'r passages explaining how the slave
can bencfit trom hts :JS!>O('t.ltlon with his master.':' we may sec a fairly precise
paralld, at rh, iudtvidu;ll l~.nl. with tht thtory of the 'tutelage: of backward
nations', one t>f thl' main pl.mks in tlw id~.~.,lo~y of modem Wcstcm imperialism.
But th1 stJ.tt'nlt'nt in tht Po/itus whidt corresponds best with the outlook oflatcr
Greek (;md Ruman) 1mdi~.au:als. iS th;it in which Aristotle denies th\. wry name
of slave to the man who does not dcserve to b~. in a condition of slavery- or, as
we might say, denit>S that the man who do('!; not deserve to be in slavery is 'nally'
a slave at all. 111 This, and not the theory ofnatural slawry', became tht standard
view of thinking slawowncrs in Hdlenistic and Roman times, as we shall see in
Section iii of this chapter. Even before Aristotlc wrote there had betn protests
against the hypothesis of'natural slavcry' 11 and cvln against the assumption that
barbarians arc naturally inferior to Gneks 1" - although of course the great
majority of Greeks and Romans always took it for granted that they were
generally superior to 'barbarians , and this attitude hardly changed in Christian
times. As late as the beginning of th" fifth century of our era the devoutly
Christian poet Prudlntius could say that there is as great a distance between the
world of Rome and that of tht: 'barb;~rians' (tantum distatll Romana et barbara) as
bctw~en bipeds and quadrupeds, humans and dumb brutes, Christians aud
pagans (C. Symm. IJ.816-19). 19
The theory of'natural slavery' indeed is not at all prominent in antiquity after
Aristotle's time, and when it docs n.appcar it is mainly applied to ptoplcs rather
than individuals. This may be in a merely rhetorical context, as when Cicero
stigmatisesJewsand Syrians as 'pl'opks born for slavery' (De pr''''- wns. 10). but
418
we also find it seriously stated by a speaker (Laelius) in Cicero's dialogue, De

republica (111.24/36, cf. 25/37), that a nation can benefit from being in a state of
complete political subjection- (servitus. literally 'slavery')- to another (sec my
ECAPS 18 and n.52). There were. however, some distant but powerful echoes
of the 'natural slavery' theory in much later times, when it played a highly
significant role in Christian Spain in the controversy concerning the rightfulness
ofens Ia ving negroes, and the Indians of the Caribbean and Central and Southern
America, in the fifteenth century onwards. It was, I believe, a Scottish professor
at Paris, John Major, who in 1510 first applied the Aristotelian doctrine of
natural slavery to the American Indians. 20 And at the great debate ordered by
Charles Vat Valladolid in 1550, to decide whether Christian Spaniards might
lawfully wage war upon Indians and enslave them, before evm preaching the
Faith to them, Aristotle's doctrine was accepted in principle by both the leading
disputants: the great scholar Juan Gines de Sepulveda and the Franciscan friar
Bartolome de las Casas. The principal point of disagreement, it seems, was
simply the factual question whether or not the Indians were 'natural slaves'; it
was hardly questioned that negroes were. (The main book in English on this
topic, by Lewis Hanke, on which I am mainly relying here, bears the delightful
ride, Aristotl~ and tht' Amt'rican Indians!) It is things like this which give point to
the remark of Engels that ancient slavery, even after its disappearanct>, left
behind its 'poisonous sting' (OFPPS ch.viii: see MESW560).
Anyone who is astonished at the acceptance of a doctrine so intellectually
disreputable as that of natural slavery should reflect not only upon modem racist
parallels but also upon certain other conceptions which arc equally disreputable
from the intellectual point of view but are widely accepted today because they
are so convenient from the point of view of a ruling class. I suggest as one
parallel the extension of the expression 'the Free World' to include countries like
South Africa and a number of South and Central American dictatorships, while
excluding all the Communist countries.
I have said nothing here about the position most opposed to the theory of
'natural slavery': that slavery was not merely 'not according to Nature' (ou kata
physin) but actually 'contrary to Nature' (para physin). For this position, for
which we have evidence from the fourth century B.C.. from Philo of Alexandria
in the early part of the first century of the Christian era, and in the Roman
lawyers of the second to the sixth century, sec the next section ofthis chapter.
(iii)
The standard Hellenistic, Roman and Christian attitude to slavery
From the Hellenistic period onwards, Greek and Roman thought on the subjl'Ct
of slavery, with hard! y an exception. provides a set of uninspired variations on a
single theme: that the state of slavery -likt.> poverty and war, or liberty, riches
and peace- is the result of accident, offortune rather than of Nature, 1 and that it
is a matter of indifference, affecting externals only (se~ e.g. Lucret. I.455-8); that
the good and wise man is nev~r 'really' a slave, even if that happens to be his
actual condition, but is 'really' free; that it is the bad man who is 'really' a slave,
because he is in bondage to his own lusts - a wonderfully comforting s~t of
doctrines for slaveowners. (I fancy that such austere philosophical notions are of
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (iii)
419
greater assistance in the endurance ofliberty, riches and peace, than of slavery,
poverty and war.) An early example of the line of thought I have just described,
from the first half of the fourth century B.C.. is Xcnophon's statement that
some are slaves to gluttony, others to lechery or drink or to foolish and costly
ambitions (Oecon. 1.21-2); among many later formulations, see the brief one in
Augustine, De civ. Dei IV .3. And of course it was easy for those who held this
position to conclude that where the 'bad man' was a slave, his condition was, for
him, a blessing in disguise. Ingenious developments can be found of this or that
aspect of the general theory, and of course some authors emphasise one aspect of
it, others another; but there is a dreary similarity of sentimc:nt over all. I think
the fourteenth Oration of I >io Chrysostom is probably the most entertaining
example I know of this kind of perverse ingenuity. Interesting statements of
principle regarding slavery are rare: I would single out that ofChrysippus (the
leading Stoic of the second half of the third century B.C.), that the slave should
be considered as a sort of pt'rmanent hired labourer. in Seneca's Latin a perpetuus
mercennarius (seen. 17 to Section ii of this chapter).
It is often said that Christianity introduced an entirely new and better attitude
towards slavery. Nothing could be more false. Jesus accepted slavery as a fact of
his ~nvironment (sec my ECAPS 19 n.54), just as it is accepted in the Old
Testament: and his followers accepted and adapted the prevailing GraecoRoman view which I have just described. (From now until the end of Section iv
of this chapter I shall be very selective in giving references, especially to modern
works: those not given here will be found in my ECAPS.) The significance of
the much-quoted text in Colossians (111.11). 'There is neither Greek nor Jew.
circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free', is better
understood in the light of the parallel text in Galatians (III.28): 'There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male norfemale; for ye
are all one in Christ jesus. There is 'neither bond nor free' in exactly the same
sense as there is 'neither male nor female': these statements are true in a strictly
spiritual sense: the equality exists 'in the sight of God' and has no relation
whatever to temporal affairs. The distinction between slave and master in this
world is no more seen as needing to be changed than that between male and
female. (As I have explained in Il.vi above. the relation ofa wife to her husband,
in the Pauline view. bears a very strong resemblance to that of a slave to his
mastt.r!) For St. Paul, Jesus had set all his followers free- from the flesh and all its
works. The exhortation to the Christian slave to regard himself as 'Christ's
freedman' in the same sense that the Christian who is a free man is 'Christ's
slave' (I Cor. vii.22) may well have afforded him greater spiritual comfort than
the pagan slaw could obtain from the familiar philosophic view that ifhe was a
good man he was 'really' free already; but it was basically the same view.
Christian masters arc briefly enjoined to treat their slaves fairly (see ECAPS 19
n.56), but then are many similar exhortations in pagan writers, e.g. Seneca
(esp. Epist. XLVII: see the full treatment of Seneca's attitude to slavery in
Griffin, Seneca 256-85, 458-61). And the yoke of slavery is fastened even more
firmly upon Christian slaves as the emphasis on obedience to their masters
becomes l'Ven more absolute. CL'rtain phrases in the Pauline Epistles (see
ECAPS 19 n.S7), such as that in Ephesians {VI.S). exhorting slaves to obey their
masters 'with fear and trembling. in singleness of heart, as unto Christ'. had
420
s1mster implications which w~re fully brought out in two post-Apostolic

works, the Epistle of Barnabas (XIX.7) and the Didache (IV.ll): they explicitly
tell the slave that he must serve his master 'as a counterpart of God' (hos rypoi
theou), 'in r~vcrence and fear'. [ know of nothing that goes as far as that in pagan
literature. St. Augustine even uses th~ apostolica auctoritas of St. Paul to rebuke
the presumption of any Christian slave who might fondly imagine himself
entitled to appeal to the provision in Exodus XXI.2 for the release of the
Hebrew slavt.> after six years' service. No, says Augustine (remembering
Ephesian.i Vl.S), the apostolic authority commands slaves to be subject to their
masters, 'that there be no blasphemy of God's name and doctrine'- a remark
(however faulty its logic) that is significant of Augustine's whole position on
social matters (Quaest. in Heptat. 11.77; and see further below on Augustine's
attitude to slavery).
Whatever the theologian may think of Christianity's claim to set free the soul
of the slave, therefore, the historian cannot deny that it helped to rivet the
shackles rather more firmly on his feet. It performed the same social function as
the fashionable philosophies of the Graeco-Roman world, and perhaps with
deeper effect: it made the slave both more content to endure his earthly lot, and
more tractable and obedient. St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to Polycarp (IV.3), is
anxious that Christian slaves should be neither despised nor 'puffed up' (mi
physiousthosan); that they should 'serve the more, to the glory of God': and that
they should 'not wish to be set free at the public cost. lest they become slaves of
lust'. (I confess that I find the last phrase somewhat inconsequential, nor can I see
exactly how an even more intense degree of labour on the part of the slave can
enhance the glory of God.) The Fifth Canon of the Council ofElvira (in the late
third century or the early fourth) punished with no more than seven years'
excommunication even the intentional flogging to death by a woman of her
slave girl2 - doubtless one who had accepted the sexual attentions of the
woman's husband. Later episcopal decisions decree flogging as a penalty for
ecclesiastical offences by a slave, female as well as male, when free ml.'tl and
women suffer some less degrading punishment: a fine or a period of excommunication. 3 And baptism seems to have been refused to a slave by at least some
churches without the consent ofhis master, perhaps at first only if a Christian
one. but later even if a pagan (see ECAPS 21 nn.59-60).
The situation changed not at all when Christianity succeeded to the seats of
power in the fourth century, and the Christian Church - or rather, churches assumed a position even in the public life of the Roman empire of the fourth and
following centuries which I can only compare, functionally, with the role of
what Eisenhower (in the final broadcast ofhis Presidency, on 17 January 1961)
called 'the military-industrial complex' in the United States today. (One should
normally speak of the Christian 'churches' in the plural, rather than 'the
Church', because the latter expression is a strictly theological and not a historical
concept: see Section v of this chapter. But perhaps the term 'the Church is too
convenient to be abandoned entirely by the historian.}
St. Augustine at least admitted that slavery was an evil in principle, but with
that extraordinary perverse ingenuity which never ceases to astonish one, he
saw it as God's punishment upon mankind for the sin of Adam (De civ. Dei
XIX.lS-16, cf. 21)." (These are among the many passages justifying the astringent
421
commrnl ofGihhonnH th, Cit}' ,,,f(~,Jc/. of which Colin Haycraft has reminded
me, thJt :\ugu:;tine's 'learning is tl)<l often hurrowed, and his arguments are too
often h1s own': IJFRE Ill.:! llt!.i-16 ) It ,:nd"nrly did not occurto Augustine that
it might be. rhuughr blasj'!wmons ro attribute to an all-just Deity such a
singuhrly mdts(Ttmm.trc. mnhuJ uf t:llk-cttvc punishment. In thus suggesting
that 'justly was the burd~n ,,f s"n'ittt~k ldid upon the back of transgression',
Augustin~ rerrcsenteli ~lawr)' as <,Omlthiug divinely ordained, and gave the
institution .m l'Vc.'n w"ightia jusrifi(ation thJ.n it had ever received from preChrisri.m thit~klr~ sinLc. th\ Jays when theori"s of'natural slavery' were abroad.
Indeed, .4. ugn~tim- and Ambr(lse went sv tdr as to rhink that slavery could
actually be guod for tht" sbv<.', an mstructiw tirm of correction and a blessing
even- tor. J~ Ambnl~(' put it. 'th~luwl'r the. !.~.ttion in life. the more exalted the
virtue' (SC.:l' ECAI'S 21 nn.t>.l-4). I haw not been able to find in any early
Christian writer anything like.\ d~omand fur the abandonment of slav('ry or even
for a g"twral freeing of cxt!>ting sl.tvcs. Pas!-.ages in early Christian literature
which c1n som~tlml'S ,n~J .ts nmtaiuing .macks on the institution of slavery can
be shown on in!>pcctinu not to haw :my such implication (see ECAPS 21-2).
Although the Christians l.ttd !!rear cmphaMs on the importance of monogamous marriage and the sinfulness of sc"<u.d intercourse outside it (if with no
great success, it must be said: see Il.vi above, and jones, LRE 11.972-6), the
Christian Empire did not provide for legal marriage between slaves, any more
than the pagans had done. This need not surprise us. The antebellum South was
deeply rdigious. bur no single state legislature ever tried to legitimise slave
unions and thus give them a greater chance of permanency. and they always
remained subject in practice to the master's whim.~.
Legislation giving a small measure of protection to slaves in certain respects
was passed at various times by the Roman emperors, as when Claudius provided that a sick slave exposed by a master should, if he recovered, become free
and enjoy 'Latin rights'.fi However, it is sometimes made l'Xplicit that enactments in favour of slaves haw also in view the protection of the inten:sts of
masters in general, which might suffer if a few exceptionally cruel masters were
allowed to behavt!' with 'saevitia' and inflict intolerable indignities and injuries
on their slaves. 7 (Probably it was reflections on these lines which made Augustus
refuse- apparently- to allow the usual mass execution of the slaves ofHostius
Quadra when they murdered him: the man is vividly described by Seneca as
degraded, a portentum, a monstrnm; NQ I.xvi.1,3,6.) Again, there are parallels from
the Old South, as when the Supreme Court ofSouth Carolina in 1849upheld the
conviction of a slavcowncr for not giving his slaves enough to cat. on the ground
that the law had to be enforced for the sake of'public sentiment, ... and to protect
property from the depredation of famishing slaves' (Stampp, PI 217-18).
In the Christian Roman Empire, slaves were generally debarred from all
grades of holy orders; serf coloni were similarly excluded, either entirely or
unless their masters consented to their ordination. On this, Church and State
were agreed, and there was legislation on the subject from 398 onwards. A It
could of course be argued in defence of these disqualifications that a slave would
be unable to consecrate his whole time to the service of God: this argument is
found in a letter written in 443 by one ofthegreatestoftheearly popes. St. Leo I.
More powerful. I suspe!ct, was another argument advanced in the same letter:
422
The Class Strnj!gle in the Ancient Greek World
Pt"rsons whom tht" ml"rit neither of tht:ir birth nor of their character recommtnds arc
being freely admittt"d to holy orders. and thost: who have not been able to obtain their
freedom from their ownt"rs arc raised to the dignity of the priesthood, as ifservile vileness
could lawtully rcct"ivc this honour . . . There is a double wrong in this matter. that the
sacred ministry is polluted by such vile company, and the rights of owners are violated.
in so far as an audacious and ilhcn usurpation is involved (Ep. IV.l, in MPL LIV .611).
As Gaud<.>mct remarks, comrnt:>nting on a le-tter of Pope Gelasius I (A.D.

492-6) in this connection, 'Le respect absolu du droit de propriete prive et de
structures sociales cependant peu con formes ala doctrine cvangelique. etait ainsi
ncttement affirme' (EER 139).
In the Roman lawyers (apparently pagan to a man), from the second or third
century of the Christian era to the sixth. wc sometimes find the admission that
slavery was contrary to nature or to natural law- contra naturam, iuri naturali
conrraria; see Inst]. I.ii.2; Dig. I.v.4.1 (Florentinus, third quarter of the second
century); XII.vi.64 (Tryphoninus, c. 200); and l.i.4 (Ulpian, first quarter of the
third century); and cf. L.xvii.32 {Ulpian). 9 Slavery indeed seems to have been
regarded by at least some of the lawyers as the only feature of the ius gentium that
did not also form part of ius naturale (seeJolowicz and Nicholas, HISRL 3 106-7).
This is a line of thought that can be traced right back to the unnamed thinkers of
the fifth or fourth century B.C. who are said by Aristotle to have declared that
slavery. because it was based on force, was contrary to nature and wrong (Pol.
1.3, 1253b20-3: 6, 12553 5-12) -not merely 'not according to nature' (ou kata
physin) but 'contrary to natur~ (para physin), a significant difference, not sufficiently brought out by modem writers (cf. my OPW 45). This line of thought
may or may not have descended to the Roman lawyers through some of the
Stoics. Certainly, apart from the Roman lawyers, the only identifiable Greek or
Latin author I know in whom we find a reflection of the argument that slavery
can be 'contrary to nature' is Philo, the HellenisedJew who wrote at Alexandria
during the first half-century of the Christian era. In one work he speaks with
evidl!nt admiration of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, who (he says) do not have a
single slave; they drnounce slaveowncrs, he adds, for being unjust in destroying
equality (isotb) and impious in transgressing the precept ofNature, the thesmos
physeos (Quod omn. prob. liber 79; cf. hoi tes physeos nomoi, ibid. 37). In another
work he similarly describes the 'Therapeutai' - who must surely have been
either imaginary or a sect of the Essenes - as believing that the ownership of
slaves was altogether contrary to nature, para physin (De vita contempl. 70); and
again w<.> have the interesting assumption that equality is the ideal: Philo speaks
of the injustice and greed of'those who introduce inequality. the origin of evil'
(ten archekakon anisotita). It is perfectly dear, however. that Philo himselfdid not
by any means reject slavery altogether. His own basic position was that which I
have described as the standard one in Hellenistic and later thinkers: that the good
man, even if he happens to be enslaved, is 'really' free, while the bad man, the
man who is worthies~ or senseless- in Philo's Greek, the phaulos or aphron- is
always 'really' a slave. Philo wrote two whole treatises on this theme, of which
we possess only the second, usually referred to by its traditional Latin title, Quod
omnis probus liber sit; the other, intended to prove 'that a phaulos is a slave' (see
Quod omn. prob. liber 1), has fortunately not survived. The treatise we do possess
is actually the earliest full-length statement of the theory to survive complete,
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideolo~ical Plane (iii)
423
for the !itlll ~\trlwr Stotc :mJ odtc-r wri~tu~~ \.II< rht subject now ex 1st, if ar all, only
in fragments. It is perfectly po55ahk t1.' J~mvnitr;ttc from Philo himsdfthar whar I
have described as the stand;ud .-i(u f ;;Ja>wy t'wm Hellenistic times onwards can
be assimilated K the ,_,Jil th~(.'fY o!" ~:.m;r.ll sl.wcry'. providld slav<:ry. for the
worthkss m.m. i~ tn:-ar\.t .15 :1 h!;dn. h: ml~ ,)(his fanciful atttmpts to l'Stahlish
borrowings hy Grtc:l ;u.ub. :li- 111 th~ c:.~t~. Ztno tht founder ofStoicism- from
the Jewish Scriptun~. Ph1!o f\"{"Jll" (;n;::m XXVII.40. whcrt Isaac tells Esau
that he io; to 'Sl"f\'~ hi:- broth{"r jKnb b the Septuagint, ustd by Philo, the verb
in this passage IS a form uf;/,,.,J;.IIriL tht com:unncst Greek ttrm for serving as a
slave. Isaac believed. Phtln nmtmuts, th.t~ wb: Sl'~ms to be the greatest of l'Vils,
namely ~Iawry (d,adci,l). 1'- th~lu!!ht:st po~si!~k good for a fool (an aphron), since
his being deprived ofliberty preve-nt~ bin! fw:u doing wrong unscathed, and his
character is improved by the l..'ontnl ~ll" ~xp~n~nces (Quod omn. proh. /iher 37).
Plato and Aristotlt !s~e St:'cti.)u ti ...~t'tlns ,}Mpt.r) would have warmly approved:
to them, such a man w.ts .1 sl.1w 'by tutun.
Some Stoics- the C"\-slan Fpkhrm. t~r ;;,.:ample- may occasionally haw
spoken as if they actually disapproved in prinnplc of possessing slaws (St'l..' my
ECAPS 22 n. 72). But this is all ultimately unreal, part of tht smokesCTCl'n of
plausible ideas by whkh the more ft'!>rtdiuus thinkers of antiquity conCr.akd
from themselves the unpalatable truth about a ruthless world of which rhcy
were trying to make the best they could, according to their lights. The unn.ality
of all this talk emerges most clearly from Epictctus' description of the ex-slaw
who ends up by becoming a senator: he is then subject, says Epictctus. to 'the
fairest and sleekest slavery of all'! (Diss. IV .i.40, p.360. cd. H. Scht:nkl. 1916). If
being a senator was slavery, it was slavery in a Pickwickian sense, a kind of
slavery which the vast majority of the population of the Gracco-Roman world
would have embraced eagerly enough.
In early Christian thought 1 have been able to find nothing that goes tvcn as
far in rejecting slavery as the purdy theoretical statements to the effect that it is
'contrary to nature', made by the early thinkers mentioned in Aristotle's Politics,
by the Essenes as reported by Philojudaeus and by some of the Roman lawyers.
The farthest that I think any early Christian writer goes is to admit - as docs
Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), whl'n freeing two of the many slaws ofthl'
Roman Church - that 'it is right that men whom nature from the bcginnin~
produced free and whom the ius gentium has subjectC'd to thC' yoke of slawry
should be reinstated by the bcnC'fit of manumission in the liberty to which they
were born' (Ep. Vl.12). Yc.t even Gregory ordered no larg(.-scale manumissions, except of Christian slaves owned by Jews. I cannot speak from
personal knowledge of Christian literature much after the sixth century, but I
know of no fundamental change in the attitude of the Christian churches to
slavery for well over a thousand years after the fall of th1.. Roman empire in the
West, and there was certainly no absolute condemnation of slavery as an
institution by any Christian writer during the Middle Ages: statements I haw
seen quoted from Theodore the Studite, Smaragdus Abbas and others always
have some particular limited application (see ECAPS 24 and n.76). I dare say it is
only my own ignorance, but I know of no general, outright condemnation of
slavery, inspired by a Christian outlook, befor<: the petition of the Mcnnonites
of Germantown in Pennsylvania in 166810 - a Sl'Ct (not far removed from the
424
Quakers) whose sixteenth-century founder was an Anabaptist and who were

outside the main stream of Christianity. Christian writtrs have often emphasised attempts by Christians to prevent or at h.1st discourage enslavement;
but thesr;: efforts were rarely if ever extended for tht btndit of those outside the
Christian fold, and writers who have drawn 3ttentilm to them have often failed
to mention that condemnation of the sin oflm;lav!ng Christians is commonly
accompanied by the tadt admission that enslaving non-believers is permissible,
and even praiseworthy if ~nslawment ts followed by conversion to the Faith- a
conversion which perhaps in some cases could hardly be attained by other
means. 11 Christianity, therefore, actually came to play a very positive role in the
slave trade of the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. Boxer has remarked upon
'the dichotomy whil'h bedevilled the Portuguese approach to the black Africans
for so long - the de!>irc to save their immortal souls coupled with the urge to
enslave their vile bodit;'. with the result that 'a close connection speedily grew
up between the missi<mary and the slave-trader' (PSE 98, 101). Papal bulls of
Nicholas V and Calixtus III in the 1450s record with approval the way in which
captured negro slav~li had been brought to receive baptism and embrace the
Catholic faith; they gave the Portuguese, as a reward for their efforts in this
field, a monopoly of navigation and trade over a large area between the Gold
Coast and India; and they expressly authorised the king of Portugal to reduce to
slavery all unbeliever.; inimical to Christ (see Boxer, PSE 20-3). In the American
Old South Christianity was regarded by slaveowners as an invaluable method of
social control. As Kenneth Stampp has said, not only did pious mastC'rs fed an
obligation to care for the immortal souls of their slaves and to look after their
spiritual life; 'many of them also considered Christian indoctrination an effective
method ofkeeping slaves docile and contented' (PI156-62, at 156). The Bible,
needless to say. was pressed into service in favour of slavery, as it so often has
been, notably in the great argument over Abolition in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries in the U.S.A. The negro, it was widely believed, inherited
Noah's curse upon Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen. IX.25-7). and some would
even have made him the inheritor of God's curse on Cain (Gen. IV.l0-15).
Those who knew their Aristotle could easily buttress his theory of natural
slavery with an argument supposedly founded on the Bible. 12 Ifl have ventured
far beyond the ancient world in tracing the attitude of the Christian churches
towards slavery. it is because I wish ro emphasise that we need fed no surprise at
all at what we find in the writers of the early Christian centuries.
At this point I must mention one thing that has long puzzled me. I realise that
on Christian principles a good case can perhaps be made for accepting the
condition of slavery for the slave, in the way that Stoics and Epicureans accepted
it, as weU as St. Paul and so many of the other early Christians. as something
external and unimportant. This is so, even for those who might not go all the
way with Cardinal Newman when he declared that according to thl' reaching of
his church 'it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to
fail. and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in
extrc.-mest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that onc soul. I will not
say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one
wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without
excuse' (see ECAPS 23 n. 74). But what of slavery as it affects the master? Surely
425
the Christian who prays not to be 'led into temptation should proceed to
renounce the total irresponsible domination over fellow human beings which
belongs to the master of slaves and is only too likely to lead him (as we know it
often did) into the gravest temptation, to commit acts of cruelty and lust? I do
not know when this was first realised; but it was evident to the genius of
Tolstoy, who in a remarkable passage in War and Peace makes Prince Andrey tell
Pierre that what is most evil about serfdom is its effect upon those masters '-Vho
have the power to punish their serfs as they please, and who, in doing so, 'stifte
their remorse and become hardened'. (The conversation occurs in Book V,
during Pierre's visit to Andrey at Bogucharovo.) I can only conclud~ that VII hat
prevented the Christian Church from admitting the dangerous, brutalising
effect of slavery (and serfdom) upon masters was the irresistible force of the class
srrugg1e: the absolute necessity for the dominant classes of the Graeco-Roman
world to maintain those social institutions upon which their whole privileged
position depended, and which they were not willing. or even able, to forego.
(iv)
The attitudes to property of the Graeco-Roman world. of

Jesus. and of the Christian churches
From ideas about slavery we pass to a closely related subject: attitudes to
property. In V .i above I have briefly discussed the way in which property, from
the seventh century B.C. onwards, largely replaced nobility of birth as the
foundation of political power and of social respectability in the early Greek
states, as in early Rome (for which see Vl.ii above). Throughout most ofGreek
history, except perhaps in a few democratic states in the fifth md fourth
centuries B.C., the bulk of the propertied classes would have agreed '-Vith
Tennyson's North~rn Fanner. N~w Style that 'the poor ina loompis bad'. Origen
says this most emphatically: the majority of the destitute (hoi ptochoi) ll.ave most
worthless characters (they are phaulotatoi ta erhe, C. Crls. VI.16}. The GraecoRoman world was obsessively concerned with wealth and status; and wealth
was by far the most important determinant of status. Ovid put it beautifully m
three words: dat unsus honores, 'it is property that confers rank' (Amores
III. viii. 55). The Eldf"r Seneca. writing in the late 30s B.C., could represent
Porcius Latro. a famous orator, as exclaiming that nothing in human affairs
shows up a man's virtues more dearly than wealth: 'It is property [census again]
that raises to the rank of sf"nator, property that differentiates the Roman eques
from the plebs, property that brings promotion in the army. property that
provides the qualification for the judges in tht> forum' (Seneca. ContrCJv. II.i .17;
and cf. Pliny. NH XIV.S). The Greeks, from archaic times through the
Classical and Hellenistic periods and on into the Roman age, habitually expressed political complexion and social status in a fascinating vocabulary which
is an inextricable mixture of socio-economic and moral terminology, with two
sets of terms applied more or less indiscriminately to the propertted and the
non-propertied classes respectively. (For what follows, see my ECAPS 10-11.
and its nn.29-32.) On the one hand we have not only words which mean
property-owning, rich, fortunate. distinguished, well-born, influential, but
also, as alternatives for virtually the same set of people, words havin~-t a basically
426
moral connotation and meaning literally the good, the best, the upright, the
fair-minded, and so forth. And on the other hand we find applied to the lower
classes, the poor, who are also the Many, the mob, the populace, words with an
inescapably moral quality, meaning essentially bad. Even Solon, often regarded
as the founder of the Athenian democracy. could say in one ofhis poems that he
had made laws equally for the kakos and the agathos- for the 'lower class' and the
'upper class', of course, rather than 'the bad' and 'the good'; but nothing could
alter the social fact that the upper class wrre 'the good'. the lower class 'the bad'.
The Roman governing class was as thoroughly devoted to property as the most
wealth-conscious of the Greeks. No surviving Greek writer is quite as explicit
about the overriding importance of property rights as Cicero, the earliest
known to me in a long line of thinkers, extending into modem times, who have
seen the protection of private property rights as the prime function of the state.
To mention only a few of the most interesting passages in Cicero -in the De
officiis, after asking what greater mischief then~ could be than an equal distribution of property (aequatio bonorum ... , qua peste quae potest esse maior?), he goes
on to declare that States were established above all with the aim of preserving
property rights (11.73, cf. 78, ~U-5; 1.21): and in the De legibus, after some very
grandiose talk about the greatness oflaw (1.14) and how it is the highest Reason
implanted in Nature ( 18,23). an eternal principle governing the entire universe, l indeed the very mind of God (11.8}, he qualifies this by saying that of
course he does not include under the name oflaw certain 'pernicious and unjust
orders of the people .... many pernicious, many pestiferous enactments which
no more deserve the name oflaw than the rules that brigands make for themselves'( 11, 13). And all three sets oflaws he singles out as least deserving the
name of law were- we might haw guessed- primarily agrarian in character,
and sought to effect those distributions of land which the Roman Optimates
always regarded as a potential threat to the very basis of their power. In one of
his speeches Cicero launches into a panegyric of the ius tivile, the civil law which I mention~d in Vl.i above as one of the two greatest achievements of the
Romans, their only outstanding one in the intelJectual field. In the speech in
question, Pro Caecina (67-75), Cicero emphasises that if the ius civile is subverted, no one can possibly fed certain ofhis own property (70); and that if it is
neglected or treated carelessly. no one can be sure that he owns anything or will
inherit from his father or leave anything to his children (73).
An interesting sidelight on the Greek and Roman respect for wealth and social
position is the fact that 'charitable' foundations and bequests which provided for
distributions in money or kind to a local population often divided the hand~uts
into two or more categories, with the larger gifts going to those ofhigher social
rank -councillors arc the group in favour of whom discrimination is most oftcn
exercised (see Ill. vi above: and its n.35).l
In the nst of this section I shall concentrate on one particular aspect of ancient
Greek ideas about property: namely. the way in which the ideas of the early
Christians on this subject wen moulded by social forces far beyond their control
into something very different from those of the Founder of their religion. This
again was a direct effect of the class situation in the Graeco-Roman world- of
the class struggle. Unless Christianity was to become involved in a fatal conflict
with the all-powerful propertied classes, it had to play down those ideas ot)csus
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideoiogical Plane (iv)
427
which were hostile to the ownership ofany large quantity of property; or, better
sti11, it could explain them away.
We must begin with the central fact about Christian origins, to which
theologians and New Testament scholars have never (as far as I am aware) given
anything like the emphasis it deserves: that although the earliest surviving
Christian documents are in Greek and although Christianity spread from city to
city in the Graeco-Roman world, its Founder lived and preached almost entirely
outside the area ofGraeco-Roman civilisation proper. Here we must go back to
the fundamental distinction which I drew in l.iii above between the polis (the
Greek city) and the chOra (the countryside)- because, if we can trust the only
information about Jesus which we have, that of the Gospels (as I believe in this
respect we can), the world in which Jesus was active was entirdy that of the chortl
and not at all that of the polis. Apart from Jerusalem (a special case. as 1 shall
explain presently), his mission took place exclusively in the chiira, in its villages
(komai), in the rural area (the agroi) of Palestine. Mainly it was conducted
altogether apart from polis territory, in areas of Galilee and Judaca administered
not by cities but directly by Herod Anti pas the 'tetrarch' or by the Roman
governor ofJudaea; but it is highly significant that on the- rather rare occasions
when we do find Jesus active inside poli.( territory, it is never in the polis itself. in
the sense of its urban area, but always in its country district. As we shall sec,
whenever we have any specific information (as distinct from vague general
statements) the terms used are such as to point unmistakably to the countryside
-the komai, komopoltis, agroi, chora. also the mere, horia, paralios, prridroros. There
is of course a great dispute about how much reliable historical information can
legitimately be extracted from the narratives of the Gospels, even the Synoptics.
But I would emphasise that in so far as we can trust the specific information
given us by the Gospels there is no evidence that Jcsus even entered the urban
area of any Greek city. That should not surprise us: jlsus belonged wboll y to th<.'
chOra, the Jewish coun trysidc of Galilee and Judaea.
Palestine, which had been ruled from Egypt by the Ptolcmics for over a
hundred years after thl" death of Alexander the Gnat in 323 B.C., became
around 200 part of the Seleucid kingdom. Just before thl middle of the second
century Judaea achieved a considerable degree of indlpendcncc for nearly a
century; but from 63 B.C. onwards the whole ofPalestim and Syria was always
effectively under Roman control, althoughJudala (and Samaria) did not actually
become a Roman province until A.D. 6 and Galilee and Perala until 44. 2 In
Palestine the native language at the beginning of the Christian era was Aramaic.
which was spoken throughout the countryside and also by a good proportion of
the inhabitants of many of the cities. (Some vernacular Hebrew was appannt ly
spoken in Judaea, but very little in Galilee. in which most of thl' preaching of
Jesus took place, and Jesus must have preached almost cntirdy in Aramait.f' By
the time ofjesus, Palestine contained a numbl'r ofgenuine polcis, soml' of whkh
were much more Hellenic in character than others. 4 With thl' cxnption ofTyrt
and Sidon, which I shall mention presently. thl' cities on tht: coast (Caesarca.
Ascalon, Gaza and others) were too far from the main snne ofJesus' activity to
be mentioned in the Gospels, and we can ignore them hen. Thl' cities Wl' need to
notice arc. first. Sepphoris and Tiblrias, the only two in Galilee; mxt Sam.tri.l,
between Galilee and Judaca, recently re-founded by Herod the Great as Stbastl'
428
(but never mentioned under that name in the New Testament); thirdly the
well-marked duster of ten genuine cities administering a large area known as
Decapolis. to the east and south-cast of Galilee and the north-east ofJ udaca; and
finally one or two cities at the periphery of the area within which Jesus moved:
Caesarea Paneas, founded in 2 B.C. by Herod's son, Philip the tetrarch, some 25
miles to the north of the Lake of Galilee (and referred to in Mark aml Matthew as
Caesarea Philippi), and the ancient Phoenician towns of Tyre and Sidon. of
which Tyre lay on the coast, due west ofCaesarea Pancas, with Sidon to the
north of it.
Now the word polis is often used by Greek authors (and in the Septuagint) in a
loose sense, of places which were not true cities but simply large villages or
market-towns which were described more correctly by other expressions such
as mitrokomiai, komopoleis. In the Gospels, Luke especially, the term polis is used
on dozens of occasions for individual named places which were not technically
cities at all: Nazareth, Capemaum, Nain, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Sychar of
Samaria, Ephraim, Arimathea, Bethlehem- and jerusalem. The last is a special
case. From the early Hellenistic period onwards, Greek authors such as
Hecataeus of Abdera and Agatharchides ofCnidus (ap. Jos., C.Apion. I. 197-8,
209) could call Jerusalem a polis; but that was never a correct description either in
reahty or in the strirt technical sense, and it is best to regard Jerusalem as
essentially the adminlstr:tuw ""Pital ofjudaea, of the ethnos (the 'nation') of the
Jews.l Of the other rbces iallcd 'poleis' in the Gospels we might wish to call
Bethsaida a 'town': nun~o. (lf the others was really more than a village. And
although much ofthl'.ll"Uvity tlfjcsus is said in the Gospels to have taken place in
desert areas or by th~o. shor~.. <~f the Lake of Galilee or elsewhere in the country
districts, we are somt..rim(s tuld in very general terms that Jesus went through
poleis (Mt. XI.ll; cf. l.k. IV.4Jj, or poleis and komai (Mt. IX.35; Lk.XIII.22), or
komai, poleis and a,~ro1 (Mk \'1.56). But in such contexts the word poleis must be
understood in the very loose and untechnical sense in which the Evangelists (like
some other Greek authors) habitually U.!W it. As I satd c-d:licr. whenever we have
a specific reference to a visit by Jesus to one of the genuine p,leis, it is in every
single case made clear that it was the country district of the polis concerned to
which Jesus went. (Perhaps I should say again that I am omitting here many
references which can be found in my ECAPS, esp. S-8.)
Let us begin with Samaria. We can forgctthe bogus polis ofSychar Un IV. 5). a
mere village of course. and the passagt:' in Matthew (X.5) in which Jesus tells his
disciples not to go 'into a polis of the Samaritans'. That leaves us with only two
passages in Luke: in X VII.ll Jesus merely goes 'through the midst of Samaria
and Galilee', and in IX.52 he sends messengers 'to a komi' of the Samaritans' to
prepare for his coming. which in fact never took place- Jesus went to another
komt; (IX.55). There is never a mention ofSebaste, the city founded by Herod,
which was a pagan town. with no large proportion of Jewish settlers, and the
only genuine polis in the Samareitis.
The Decapohs (see above) crops up in two passages in Mark and one in
Matthew, and the manner of its appearance is significant. In Mt. IV .25 crowds
from Oecapolis (which had a large chOra) and elsewhere follow Jesus. In Mk
Vll.31. Jesus comes from the borders of Tyre, through Sidon. to thl' Lake of
Galilee, via (as the text has it) 'the midst of the boundaril's (or 'tl'rritory') of
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (iv)
429
Decapolis'. But it is Mk V .20 which brings out most clearly what I am trying to
emphasise: that in these cases Jesus is clearly in the country district attached to a
polis and not in the actual polis itself. It needs to be taken with its whole context:
the story of the demoniac out of whom was cast the legion ofdevils (Mk V. 1-20;
Mt. Vlll.28-34; Lk. VIII.26-39), whether this is to be located at Gadara or
Gerasa, both of which were cities of the Decapolis. (For an alleged 'Gergesa', see
ECAPS 6 n.15). In all three Synoptics Jesus is in the chora of the city, and the
incident is pictured as taking place beside the Lake of Galilee; the demoniac
comes out of the city (Lk. VIII.27) and indeed was always 'in the tombs and in
the mountains' (Mk V.2-5); afterwards the swineherds go into the city (Mt.
VIII.33), and they tell the story in 'the polis and thea~roi' (Mk V.14; Lk. VII.34),
whereupon people ('the whole polis': Mt. VIJI.34) come out to Jesus (Lk.
VIII.35) and beg him to go away-in Lk. VIII.37 it is 'the whok multitude of the
perichoros of the Gerasenes' who do this. When Jesus tells the former demoniac to
go home and publish the news of the divine work, he proclaims it, in Luke
(VIII.39), 'throughout the whole ptllis', and in Mark (V .20) 'in the Oecapolis'.
The situation is exactly the same on the two occasions on which Jesus is said to
have visited the territory of cities outsidl' his main area of action. It is not in
Caesarca Philippi itselfthat he is found, but in its komai (Mk VIII.27) or mere
(Mt. XVI. 13}; and when he visits Phoenicia it is to the mere or horia ofTyre and
Sidon that he goes (Mt. XV.21-2; Mk VII.24, 31), and he is there approached
by a woman 'from those horia'. When multitudes come to him on another
occasion from Tyre and Sidon, it is from their paralios (coastal district, Lk.
VJ.27). There is one reference in Matthew (XJ.21) and Luke (X.13) to the doing
of'mighty works' in Tyrc and Sidon: but (and this nicely confirms what I have
been saying) this is simply part of the n:proach to the 'cities' (in reality, komai)
Chorazin and Bethsaida (and Capemaum) that if the mighty works which had
actually been done in them had been performed instead in Tyrt' and Sidon, they
would have repented!
It will have been noticed that I have said nothing so far about the first two
Palestinian cities which I put at the head of my list above: Scpphoris and
Tiberias, the only two real cities of Galilee, which had been founded by Herod
Antipas (see ECAPS 7 n.l7). There is the best of reasons for this: just as we hear
nothing in the Gospels ofSebaste (the pf)/is of the Samareitis), so we hear not a
word of Scpphoris, and Tiberias is mentioned only in the Fourth Gospd (Jn
Vl.1,23; XXI.l), and then not in its own right but only in connection with the
lake that bore its name, better known to us as the Lake of Galilee. Yet Sepphoris
was only about four miles fromjesus' home village ofNazarl'th, and Tibcriasis
on the shore of the Lake of Galilee at almost the nearest point to Nazareth. One
can understand that Jesus would not wish to enter Scbastc. a predominantly
pagan city; but both Scpphoris and Tibcrias were thoroughly Jewish in population and rdigion, even if their civic institutions (those ofTiberias at any rate)
were of the standard Greek pattern, and even if Sepphoris was to be exceptionally pro-Roman during the great Jewish revolt of A.D. 60-70 (sec ECAPS 7
nn.18-19). Yet it need not surprise us to find no record of jesus' presence in
either of these cities: they were both regarded with hatred by the Galilaeans in
Josephus' army in 66 (see ECAPS 8 n.20), and Jesus would no doubt have seen
them as belonging to an alien world. In Mark I.38 it is the nearby komopoleis (the
430
substantial villages) of Galilee in which he contemplates preaching: that

represents the reality.
I dare say that some NewT cstament scholars may object that I haw made far
too much of topographical evidence in the Gospels which they themselves are in
general reluctant to press. To this I would reply that I am not using any of the
Gospel narratives for any topographical purpose: it is a matter of indifference to
me whether, for example. the pericope containing the 'confession ofPeter' (Mk
VIII.27ff.; Mt. XVI.I3ff.) is rightly located near Caesarea Philippi rather than
anywhere else. Nor have I drawn any conclusions from uses of the word polis.
My one purpose has been to demonstrate that the Synoptic Gospels are
unanimous and consistent in locating the mission of Jesus entirely in the
countryside, not within the poleis proper, and therefore outside the real limits of
Hellenistic civilisation. It seems to me inconceivable that this can be due to the
Evangelists themselves, who (as we have seen) were very likely to dignify an
obscure village like Nazareth or Capemaum (cf. ECAPS 8 n.22) with the title of
polis but would certainly not 'down-grade' a locality by making it a country
district if in their source it appeared as a polis. I conclude, therefore, that in this
respect the Evangelists accurately reflect the situation they found in their
sources; and it seems to me that these sources are very likely indeed to have
presented a true picture of the general locus of the activity ofJesus. I rna y add
that although I have not been able to find the point I have just been making
emphasised by even a single modem New Testament specialist, it did not
entire! y esc apc the notice of the greatest scholar of the early Church, St. Jerome.
As Henry Chadwick has now kindly pointed out to me, jerome remarks in his
In Esaiam xii, p.507 (the commentary on Isaiah XLII. ItT., in MPL XXIV.437),
that 'if we read that jesus was within the boundaries [termini] ofTyn and Sidon
or the confines [ccmfinium] of Caesarea Philippi, which is now called Paneas,
nevertheless we must note that it is not written that he entered into the actual
cities [ ipsas civitates]'.
Jesus, then, lived and taught within an area which was neither Greek nor
Roman, but wholly Jewish. This is best brought out, in my opinion, in the
admirable recent book by Geza Vermes,Jesus the jew. A Historian's Reading of the
Gospels (London, 1973: see esp. its 48-9). As I mentioned earlier, Galilee, within
which by far the greater part of the activity ofjesus apparently took place, was
not even a Roman province during his lifetime: it was still a Roman 'client
kingdom'. until39 part of the tetrarchy of Herod Anti pas. the son of Herod the
Great. Of course Jesus was well aware of the Roman imperial power that had
already engulfed Judaea as a tributary province and could easily swallow up the
remaining petty client kingdoms of Palestine whenever it wanted to. But he
may well have had virtually no direct contact with thl' Roman imperial administration before his final arrest and trial, on the pretence that he was a political
agitator. indeed a 'Resistance leader'- a charge which was certainly false, even if
his followers may have included a few men with revolutionary associations. 8
Even the 'publicans' (publicani in Latin, telonai in Greek) who crop up in the
Gospels, such as Matthew (or Levi the son of Alphaeus), will have been employed
by Herod Anti pas, the tetrarch, and not by the Roman governor ofjudaea- who
by the way at this date, as we know from a recently discovered inscription, had
the title not of Procurator but ofPraefectus. 7 How much contact jesus had with
VII. The Class Strnggle on the Ideological Plane (iv)
431
Greek culture it is not possible to say, but it is likely to have b~~u 1r.inim:d. 1"
The main element in the preaching ofJesus was th~ rms:o.tt::t, 'Ikpo:nt. fur tht'
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'. The meaning of this i~ that th~~~:nd,,fth<' wlwt,
present dispensation is near: God will intervene and hring w -1 :o-pndy <.'1:ll JII til,
powers of this world. In preparation for these earth-5luk iug ~vt~llts :urn must
repent of their sins and obey the law of God. In anoth~r ~.:~~~~ uf dtl' txpn:;;.sinn
'Kingdom ofHeaven' (or 'Kingdom ofGod'), th:u Kingdom i,; withm m;an~
power to grasp now: if he repents and follows the right way ofliti.. b~o. (;m tu rh.1:
ext~:nt enter into the Kingdom even before the final catacly!lm." V Jri('U~ on~l"
qucnces follow from this. One of the most important i!' th.u th~ pmsc!'~iou ,,f
wealth is a positive hindrance to entering into the Kiu~dCJm 'II is t'a:>kr ior .!
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich m.tn to l.'nter tht Kin~.tnm
of God,' said Jesus, after the man seeking eternal life who 'had great posstssiou!l.
had gone away disconsolate on being told to sell all that he had and gin ir to tht
poor (Mk X.l7-31; Mt. XIX.16-30; Lk. XVIII.18-.30). This story, br the w1y,
is commonly referrt'd to nowadays as that of 'The Ru:h Young Man' ..u~d t}Mt is
certainly what Matthew calls him: but Mark and Lukr makt" 11 d(.ar th.tt m tlu:ir
minds young is what he is not, tor they make him daim to haw kt';:'! the
commandments Jesus recommends 'from my youth up'! There is mw re!IJ't"~o:t in
which Matthew's account differs radically from that in th~o. othlr two Sy:toptil'5o:
Matthew (XIX.21) inserts into the command ofjesus the qualitic.ati(lll, 'If yt)tl
would be perfect' (ei theleis teleios einai) which is not in Mark CX.21) or Lukl'
(XVIII.22): in them the command to sell all is unqualified. As we shall sec
presently, it is in Matthew's formulation that the passage is invariably quoted by
the early Fathers.
Nothing better conveys the contrast between Jewish and Graeco-Roman
attitudes to questions ofwealth and poverty than the account given in chapter IV
ofluke's Gospel of the public preaching ofjesus at Nazareth. (The pointl am
interested in does not occur in parallel accounts in the other Synoptics.) Jesus
reads from the sixty-first chapter oflsaiah, opening with the words. 'The spirit
of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the
poor' (lk.IV.18). Now the word for 'poor' used hen: by Luke, as in the
Septuagint version oflsaiah, is ptochoi. a very strong word indeed, which very
often in Greek means not just the poor but the down-and-out, the destitute, the
beggar- Lazarus in the parable is aptochos (Lk. XVI.20. 22). Classical scholars
will remember the appearance of Poverty (Penia} as a character in the Plutus of
Aristophanes (lines 415-612). and how angry she becomes when Chremylus
rt'fers to Penia and Ptocheia as sisters: no, says Penia, the ptcchos has nothing,
whereas her man, the pmis, may toil and scrape, but he has enough to live on
(lines 548-54).
I must just mention here that although the word pto(hoi docs also appear in the
Septuagint version oflsaiah LXI.l. it thlrc translates a Hebrew word which is
sometimes better rendered- as indeed it is in the Authorised Version- by 'the
meek'. But this takes us into irrelevant questions. which I am anyway not
competent to deal with, of the various shades of meaning of the Hebrt>w words
expressing poverty, lowliness and the like. Some of these are as ambiguous as
the English word 'humble', which can be purely social or purdy moral or a
mixture of the two. The only point I need make here is that in the Hebrew tcr-
432
minology, unlike the Greek. poverty and a lowly station in life are often
associated with the moral virtues.
Luke is also the only Evangelist to give us the Parable of Lazarus (XVI. 19-31)
-who, as I have just said. is specifically a ptorhos, here quite rightly translated
'beggar'. Expositors seldom bring out the fact that the terrible fate of the rich
man in the parable (Dives, as we usually call him} is clearly seen as a direct result
of his great wealth, for he feels (verses 27-8) that Lazarus alone will be able to
teach his five surviving brothers how to avoid a similar fate. In Luke's account of
the Beatitudes, too. there is a very interesting divergence from Matthew's
version. In Matthew (in the so-called 'Sermon on the Mount', chapters v-vii)
Jesus is made to say, 'Blessed are the poor in spirit [hoi ptochoi toi pnmmati: we
might say, 'humble at heart'], for theirs is the kingdom ofheaven '; and' Blessed
are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled' (V.3,
6); but Luke's corresponding version (in the 'Sermon on the Plain', VI. 17-49)
has simply 'Blessed are ye poor fptochoi, without qualification], for yours is the
kingdom of God', and 'Blessed are ye that hunger now [not 'hunger after
righteousness'], for ye shall be filled' (VI.20-1). In both cases, of course, the
fulfilment of the blessings is intended eschatologically: they will be realised not
in this world but only in the Age to come. And even the Lucan version is
echoing the large number of passages in the Old Testament (especially in the
Psalms, Isaiah. Proverbs and Job) in which the poor and lowly as such are
treated with special reverence - several different Hebrew expressions arc involved. In the thought-world ofPalestinianJudaism. out ofwhichJesuscame, it
was not so much the rich and influential from whom the moral virtues were to
be expected (as in the Graeco-Roman world), but the poor. An illuminating
recent treatment of the Beatitudes by David Flusser (sec ECAPS 12 n.33a)
shows interesting connections with some of the literature of the Dead Sea Sect.
Although Flusser is sure that it is Mt. V .3-5 which 'faithfully preserves the
saying of Jesus and that Lk. Vl.20 is an abbreviation of the original text', he
nevertheless insists that 'Matthew's "poor in spirit" also has a social content'.
There is just one other New Testament passage. again in Luke alone, which I
wish to mention: the Magnificat (Lk.I.46-55, esp. 52-3). 9 Here we find an
interesting variant on the eschatological conception we have noticed already,
according to which in the Age to Come the poor and hungry will be satisfied.
We arc still within the realm of eschatology. but the desired result is now
conceived- in one form of the tradition ofJewish Apocalyptic- as having been
in some mysterious way achieved already. 'He hath put down the mighty from
their seats and hath exalted them oflow degree. He hath filled the hungry with
good things and the rich he hath sent empty away.' In the Greek the 'mighty' are
the dy~UJstai, and Thomas Hardy took his title, 'The Dynasts', explicitly from
this passage (see ECAPS 14 n.40). In fact nothing of the sort had actually
happened: the Dynasts were now more firmly in control than ever, as the
Roman Principate began its long era of power. The picture in the Magnificat, in
which the events are represented as having in a mystical sense occurred already.
was a pleasantly harmless one from the point of view of the Dynasts, who
certainly cashed the blank cheque St. Paul later wrote them when he said, 'The
powers that be are ordained of God' and enjoined strict obedience to the civil
authorities: Rom. XIII.l-7; Titus 111.1; cf. I. Pet. ii.13-17; I Tim. ii.l-2. (On the
VII. The Class Struggle on the
ldeolo~ical
Plane ( iv)
433
nature of the 'powers' to whom every soul is commanded to be subject, in Rom.

Xlll.1, see ECAPS 14 n.41.)
It is worth mentioning here that the Greek word rapeinoi, which is used in the
Magnificat for 'them oflow degree' (in opposition to 'the mighty', the dynastai)
and has in Classical Greek literature, with very rare exceptions, a thoroughly
pejorative SC'nse (mcan,lowly, poor, weak, base), appears as a personal name in
a Greek papyrus emanating from a Jewish sectarian community at Nahal St>elim
in Palestine about A.D. 130: one of the 'brethren' there is actually called
Tapeinos, 10 a term which may have had much the same significance in the local
community as it evidently did for the composer of the Magnificat.
I need not cite any of the othC'r evidence from the Gospels showing that the
possession of any substantial amount of property was regarded by Jesus as a
positive evil, if only because it was all too likely to ensnare its possessor and
divert him from the task of seeking the Kingdom of God. I am tempted to say that
in this respect the opinions ofjesus were nearer to those oflkrtolt Brecht than to
those held by some of the Fathers of the Church and by some Christians today.
Within a generation the message ofJesus had been transformed into what is
sometimes described (perhaps not unfairly) as Pauline Christianity. This process
cannot be understood by the historian (as distinct from thC' theologian) unless it
is seen as the transfer of a whole system of ideas from the world of the chora to
that of the polis- a process necessarily involving the most profound changes in
that system of ideas. And in my opinion it is in this process oftransformation
that the most serious problems of'Christian origins' arise.
I shall waste little time on the so-called 'communism' of the earliest Apostolic
community, which appears only momentarily in the opening chapters of Acts
(11.44-5; IV .32-7; V .1-11; cf.Jn XII.6; XIII.29), while the Christian Church was
a single small body, and then ceases altogether, to reappear only within single
monastic communities from the early founh century onwards. This situation,
which was already characteristic of certain Essene and other communities
among the Jews, is entirely absent from the remainder of the New Testament;
and even in the early chapters of Acts it is clear that communal ownership was not
complete, and in any event had nothing to do with communal production. Later
references which have sometimes been taken wrongly as evidence uf a continuance of community of property are no more than idealisations of a situation
in which charity is conceived as complete, as when Tertullian says, 'All things
are in common among us, except our wives' (Apol. 39.11), or when Justin
boasts that Christians share all their property with one anothe"r (I Apol. 14.2).
* * * * * *
I tum now to the attitude of the early Christian Fathers to the question of
property ownership. 11 There are considerable differences of emphasis, but I
think it would be true to say that with hardly an exception all the orthodox
writers seem to have no serious qualms in accepting that a Christian may own
property, under cenain conditions, the most important of which are that he
must neither seek it avidly not acquire it unjustly; that he ought not to possess a
superfluity but only a sufficiency; and that what he does have he may use but
must not abuse; he must hold it as a kind of trustee (ifl may be permitted to use
that peculiar technical term of English law) for the poor, to whom he must give
434
charity. (Of many possible examples I will cite only Jerome, Epist. 130.14, to the
very wealthy Demetrias.) It is upon the necessity of almsgiving that there is
most insistence: the whole conception of course descended direct to Christianity
from Judaism; and here the Christian churches do seem to have gone far beyond
the ordinary pagan standard. (There are somf' interesting remarks about the
absence of similar organised activities among the pagans. in the works of the
Emperor Julian: see ECAPS 25 n.81.)
I shall return in a moment to the question of almsgiving, which is worth
special attention, and I shall also have something to say on the question of
sufficiency or superfluity of property. But I must first add a rider to what I have
said about the general early Christian view of property ownership. The words of
Jesus to the rich man seeking eternal life, which I discussed earlier, were not
entirely disregarded; but it seems that the unqualified version of Mark and Luke
was conveniently forgotten and the words of Jesus were always quoted in
Matthew's fonnulation (XIX.21), in which the direction to sell all and give to the
poor was prefaced by the qualification, 'If you would be perfect'. Out of scores
of passages I have come across in the Fathers I have not found one that even
notices the discrepancy between the Matthaean text and that of Mark and Luke.
So complete was the refusal to recognise the existence of any other version
than that of Matthew that when Clement of Alexandria, in his Quis dives
salvetur?, sets out Mark's narrative of the whole story in txtenso in his own text,
explicitly as his source, he inserts Matthew's 'if you would be perfect' at the
point that corresponds to Mt. XIX.21, without any indication that these words
are not in Mark! (See ECAPS 26 n.82 for references to the standard text of
Clement and the good Loeb edition by G. W. Butterworth.) St.John Chrysostom is even at pains to put the conditional clause in the forefront and to make out
that Jesus did not merely say to the rich man, 'Sell what you have'; he actually
rubs it in, expanding the words ofjesus into 'I lay it down for your determination.
I give you full powerto choose. I do not Jay upon you any necessity' (Hom. II dt
.ltat. 5). Thus, by quoting thl! statement ofjesus in its qualified, Matthaean form,
the Fathers were able to make use of the standard distinction between 'precept'
and 'counsel': the command to sell all became literally 'a counsel of perfection'.
(Among very many examples, I will cite only Aug., Epist. 157. 23-39.) And I
think it would be true to say that after the rise of monasticism in the fourth
century there was a tendency to take 'If you would be perfect' to refer essentially
to the adoption of the monastic life: thus when Jerome presses on his rich friend
Julian the desirability of ridding himselfofalJ his possessions (again of course on
the basis of the Matthaean text we have been considering) he is clearly advising
him to become a monk (Epist. 118, esp. 4, 5, 6, 7; cf. Epist. 60. 10).
We can now return to almsgiving. There is an enormous amount ofevidence
of the high value attached to almsgiving by early Christian thinkers which it
would be superfluous to quote, and I shall concentrate on two passages, one
from a Latin and one from a Greek Father, both of which emphasise the
expiatory character of almsgiving and thus demonstrate the Jewish roots of
Christian thinking in this field. Optatus, in his polemical work against the
Donatists (III.3), had occasion to allude to almsgiving when speaking of the visit
of certain imperial emissaries (Macarius and others) to Africa in 347, in order
to make charitable distributions provided by the Emperor Constans. He fll"lit
VII. The Class Struggle on the ldeoloJtical Plane (iv)
435
claimed, on the strength of Proverbs XXI1.2, that it was God who had made
both the poor and the rich (a significant and characteristic use of the Christian
religion to justify an oppressive social order), and hi? then proceeded to explain
that God had a very good reason for establishing this distinction: it would of
course have been perfectly possible for him to give to both classes at once, but: if
he had done so. the sinner would have had no means of atoning for his faulls (s1
ambobus daret, peaator quae sibi succurreret invenire non posset). To drive his poim
home. Optatus now quotes what was for him another inspired and canonical
work, Ecclesiasticus (III.30): just as water quenches fire, so do alms atone for sin
(sic eleemosyna extin~uit pmatum; Optatus might also have quoted Tobit IV. 10;
XII.9). Later. the theology of almsgiving - if I may call it that - may ha vc
become more subtle, bur whenever almsgiving is being discussed, tht:- notion
that it can be an atonement for sin is seldom absent. This is conspicuously true of
the second example I said I would give of the Christian concept of almsgiving,
from a Greek Father. This comes from the work by Clement of Alexandria,
usually referred to by its Latin title, Quis dives salvetur?, which is actually the
earliest treatise to provide a detailed justification of property ownership by
Christians, and is perhaps the most important work of its kind. Clement puts
most eloquently the argument that almsgiving can actually purchase salvation,
and he exclaims, 'What a splendid commerce! What a divine trading!' (32.1; cf.
19.~). Needless to say, almsgiving oft~n played an important part in penance
(see ECAPS 27 n.89). Too often, however, it seems to have been resorted to,
contrary to the admirabl~ prescription ofjesus in Matthew VI. 1-4, as a means of
self-advertisement: there is a good example in PaulinusofNola, Epist. 34. 2, 7, 10.
The early Christian attitude to property ownership. then, developed into
something very different from that ofjesus- as ofcourse it was bound to do, not
merely because, as time went on, the eschatological nature of the concepts of
Jesus gradually lost its original force. but (and this is much more important)
because such a development was imposed on the Church by irresistible social
pressures. The orthodox Christian position that I have outlined was held with
only minor variations by virtually all the great names among both the Greek and
Latin Fathers (see ECAPS 28-31). So far I have found only three partial exceptions among the non-heretical writers: Origen, St. Basil and St. Ambrose. Of
these, much the most interesting is Ambrose. certainly in the social sense one of
the most exalted of the early Christian Fathers - he was a member of the
senatorial aristocracy, the son of a Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls. and himself.
at the time of his appointment to the bishopric of Milan in 374, the governor of
the province of Aemilia and Liguria, of which Milan was the capital. (I know of
scarcely any other early Father who could be considered his social equal, except
Paulinus of Nola.) Now Ambrose is far from consistent in his attitude to
property rights; and some recent Continental commentators, in their anxiety to
rescue him from any such heinous offence as a belief in 'communism' (on<'
monograph, published in 1946 by J. Squitieri, is entitled II preteso comunismo di
San Ambrogio!), have given rather perverse interpretations of some of hh
writings. 12 The fact is that in certain passages Ambrose shows great uneasiness
on the whole question of property rights. Yet he can allegorise away the
statement ofjesus contained in all three Synoptics (Mk X.25; Mt. XIX.24; Lk.
XVIII .25) that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a
436
rich man to enter the kingdom of God; he can say that not all poverty is holy nor
all riches necessarily a source of crime, and that in good men riches can be a prop
of virtue; and of course he accepts almsgiving as the great panacea through
which the taint of riches can be removed: thus alone can riches become 'the
ransom of a man's life' and 'the redemption of the soul', for 'almsgiving purges
from sin. And so, when Ambrose says that God intended the whole earth and
its produce to be the common possession of all men, and continues, 'sed avaritia
possessionum iura distribuit', he nevertheless goes on to accept the existing
situation, provided the property owner gives to the poor. His attitude is perhaps
best brought out in a passage in the De Helia et ieiunio (76), where he tells the
sinner to redeem himself from his sins with his own money, thus using one
poison to subdue another - wealth itself is a poison, but almsgiving, which
redeems from sin, turns wealth into sin's antidote!
St. Augustine seems not to have been troubled about property rights. With
characteristic ingenuity he extracts an argument in his favour even from the
Parable of Lazarus: Lazarus, we are told, went to Abraham's bosom; well,
Abraham was rich! (Epist. 157.23-4; cf. Serm. XIV.4 etc.). As this and many
other passages show, the level of argument in this field is not always high, and
some may feel some sympathy for the Pelagian who turned one of Augustine's
favourite weapons against him by advocating a figurative interpretation of
Abraham in the Parable (see ECAPS 31 n.l12). Sometimes in the fourth century
the poor are warned that they must not think they can take the initiative and
demand even the necessary minimum of subsistence from those Christians who
had vast possessions. Two centuries earlier lrenaeus. citing the Scriptural parallel
of the Israelites 'spoiling the Egyptians' at the time of the Exodus (Exod.
111.21-2; Xl.2; XII.35-6), had expressed some sympathy for the man who, after
being compelled to give years of forced labour to another, makes off with some
smaiJ portion ofhis property (Ele,uh. IV .30.1-3). But now Gregory ofNyssa is
careful to show that no such initiative can be justified by an appeal to the
'spoiling of the Egyptians' in Exodus as a precedent (Vila Moys. 2).
If we may ignore some passages in early Judaeo-Christian writings. it is only
in the mouths of heretics that we fmd an unqualified denunciation of private
property ownership. Usually. of course, we know nothing of their arguments,
all our information being derived from orthodox condemnations of their views.
In this category are four or five strains of heretical thought from the second,
third and fourth centuries. which I have already sufficiently identified elsewhere
(ECAPS 32-3). I have been able to discover only one single surviving work
which argues at length that the mere possession of wealth creates a tendency to
sin and that it really is best to divest oneselfof all one's possessions: this is a work
probably written in the first decade of the fifth century, the De divitiis, either by
the heresiarch Pelagius himself or by one of his disciples. (It was first published
in 1890 and has been much discussed in recent years: see ECAPS 33-4 and
nn.124-5.) I will only say that although this remarkable treatise does recommend divesting oneself of all property (thus 'transferring it from earth to
heaven'), it does not actually condemn 'sufficientia'. and it regards even wealth
not as an actual sin but as something that is very likely indeed to result in sin. The
most radical passage goes so far as to treat the existence of the few rich as the
reason why there arc so many poor, and continues, 'Get rid of the rich and you
437
won't find any pom' { 12.:!)! Thf'r<! is. h()wcvcr. not a word to suggest that this
desirable. (m 1~.-a11 b.:- :achi('v,d hy ;m ytiung but religious persuasion; and- rather
strangely. perhaps- tht'~< 1s nc :.~pptal tt~ th~ 'primitive communism' (ifl may
call it tln.t) of the ~:.:-hcst Apostoii~: '~>mmu:Jily at Jerusalem, and indeed no
advocacy at .111 ntwnunanity !Jfpropei!;r, ~v~:n as a theoretical ideal. I know of
no evidlnn. that .my Pliagian c..;(r advoca:txl thi.' reform ofsecular institutions. I
will only add that this work. tht l>: ,i:J,Iliis, m spite of some over-ingenious
argumems ;J!lJ : h( U.'il!;>l inti;md r:~cronr, ~~"t"m! to me a far better approximation to tht thought (,f Jc..:sils. a~ c-xpr.:~Sl'<~ 111 the Synoptic Gospels (Luke
~specially). than ;at .my r:ttt rh~ prin;:!p:~l 'l.vnrk on the orthodox side, Clement's
Quis divn stlil'ncr?. fmtll whi.<:h I quot(c..! tadi:r. Clement does not scruple to
make usc. ofdt~ :rgunwur {..:h .B) rbt m:l y i(;t nran possesses some property can
he do thl rhings tht Lord rtquir(": fnJ tlu hungry and give drink to the thirsty,
clothe thl nak~'\i .md l'ntc..nam the. r"'mrksli - :L" Zacchaeus and others entertained
the Lord hims.df (Lk. XIX. 1- W). Wh:.at shartll!! (koinonia) would be left among
men,' ht ask..;. 'ifnobc,Jy had .~u;-rhu:g?' (This at least is not quite as feeble as the
passage iu -...Inch .'\:-isrutk . .Pvi.ii.:,, J:U,J!'S- H, pretends that th~ very great
delight ,,,- ~~mn~ a kindness m friends or guests or comrades is possible only
when thtrt is pnv;t!l'l>Wlll'r~hip ,_,fpwt:.n y - .ts if generosity or liberality could
be expresse-d only in the form ot JHllt'n;t! b,ndits.) But Clement's principal
weapon in thio; cuntr<l\'{'hY. '" ;;n tic-11 d~nviwre, is a resort to the allegorical
method ~;fmtnpn:.arwn which had hn:; inv:-ured by pagan Greek scholars in
the Claso;ic..al period J.ttd pr&tld by Hdlttu:ootic Judaism in regard to the Old
Testamtnl (Philo prcwidts ""'u, ex1r.tordin.ny l'Xamples); this type of exegesis
flourisht>d extr.l\ag.mrly .tr Akx:tndrt<i m p;trtindar (see ECAPS 35 n.128). The
Fathers of the (:hurd~ soon n.thsttl tiur .my ~nconvcnient statement in Holy
Writ could l'asily lw alll~t)ri5~~l .tway; .111J th~y somelimes go to the most
extreme kul!th~ in rht:-tr tll~lnimcs .appli.:.n1nu~ of this technique. 13 Anyone to
whom <.'Xl'Trists ut' thi~ ~.1rt .trc nn1 alnady wu tiresomely familiar may derive
some innon.ut :~rnus~.:rmnt fmm tht JMSS;lgt' in which St. Augustine, in one of
his anti-M;tnithJ.t\lll wurk:; (C,mtel l:.nw. M,mi;h. XXII.48-59), deals with the
awkward probkm .f ){.Khd .m.i tlw tu.mduk~s. in Genesis XXX.14-18. (At
the dimJ..I( uf thi11 fascinating <;Wry, u will bl' remembered. the Patriarch Jacob.
trudging. iu ;rom the fields in th~ l":,uit~g .ttirr :. hard day's work, is greeted by
the older :m~l'nr tll-t:l"<tmd ~fhis tWl wi;r~ with a confident.' "Thou must
come in unto nil'. t(,r '!>ltrl'ly I h.tvt hin.d rlwc with my son's mandrakes". And
he lay with her tlt;ttni~ht. tlw r,;..uh lwiug llisa.:har.) But it would be wrong to
end this glance at allttruric:tl inhrprlr.ttinn of Scripture by the Christians on a
note oflevity. Sud1 interpretation cunld ~dso h:~VL' dire consequences, as when
Sr. Augustitw. in ytt another ofln., .tll~!:!ori,;,( tl1ghts, dishonestly perverted the
sense of the. \\'t)rlls \ompd thtlll tn l'\lllll' in' which occur in the Parable of the
Great Supper in l.ukt's Gu~pd (XIV. lt-2.f) h.1 JU~tify the persecution of religious
dissent, interpn.tin~ thl" 'hi~hways .mJ h,,fgts {in the command to 'go out into
the highwaylO and h,,~t.~ .md "-""':n]'d tlwm tu come in') allegorically as 'heresies
and schisms'. :lwrd'Y furnishing :H~odi;t.:'l.;t) ptr~:c>cutors with a bogus Scriptural
foundati,m tor thlir .~riviti;.;;., ,,f \\'hirb dh'V Jil not hesitate to make use. 14
The e.-rly Christi.;u . niudr.: ''' pr{pc..fty ~W:!o:rship, as I have d~scribed it. is
opl'n to aiti,iitll fr,m: tn>h' du;~ an~ dir,~atol!. quitl' apart from its departure.
438
from the teaching~ c .i~ fut.IUdl~r. I shall sin~Mc out two respects in which it can
now be seen to be llil':i<ttis.t~.::tmy: !!r:>t. rh~ ~.:~ctedingl y important role it allotted
to almsgiving; an,i ~..wndly, tl!i nor ion th:~t ;; sufficiency ot wealth was harmless
enough. even if a SllJWrtiuity w.ls ,l;mgeruw:.
Until quite rent~tiy. d::lrir: (:u its most mat~n:tl t(~rm, almsgiving) was
accepted by the grt':t! :u.1joriry .lS .m mtirdy admirable thirg; and it is only in our
own generation th.lt l.tr~e numbe.r vf pt"Upl<" h.1.vc bq:;:un to criticise powerfully
the whole princip!, of \lrg:.mi.o:;~d durity w1~hi.c: th;., conm!unity as a remedy for
social evils, not only bt-"attsl' ir pwvidt'S rhc g1 H~r with .1 moral justification for his
privileged position bm ais.o bnaus it is i::l"'!l'a!tin!!IY tdt by the recipient as
something degradin~. a-. ii d(-r()~;itiOII oihum;n; lii.~u:ry - J. feeling with which, (
must say, l myself ~mirt>ly sympath1st.'. {In r!w cnncqr-ti;::m ofthc 'Welfare State',
such as it is, every,1nt ('(lllt:"i~ut~"i it ho:- t<m; .mJ 2Dl' re('l"lv-:s what he does receive
not as charity but as a s;Kul nght - ;1. fimdamtuta!ly different principle.) The
almsgiving upon wht(h the early Christiaus so prided themselves, therefore,
appears to many ot tts !h)W;day:. in ;J Vl'ry mth:h less attractive light than it did in
its own time and t(.,r (~murilS ;lt:lrw;m!s. It was obviously very desirable as a
means ofprescrvmg ~iw sofi:~l onkr. by mitigating the last extremes of poverty
which might lead fl.\ n-,olurionary ourbrL'itk:o. But :r was s,lmething much more
than that: it also t"n;ihll"d the pwplrtll'd dJss tuH m<rdy to retain their wealth
without any feelings ,,f gilt. but ('Vl'1t to glory in it, nwtsting it with a moral aura
derived from using a small propor:ion of it (fix;.d rnurdy ;;t their own discretion)
for 'good works' that would hdr w ~nsurt' tltlir;nnt salv:Ltion.lfcharity had not
been part of the p.uri1mmy mh,rit::-d by Chrio;ta:mil y from Judaism, and recommended by Jesus himo;eli: tlw Churdl would ..urdy haw hwo driven to invent it.
My other critin!ill1 nf thl otdy Christa;~n f''lsitiou concerning property
ownership is that tht (OJKt'rr ~~f:. 'suttki'-n,y nf prnp..rty, whenever it was
introduced, was alw:ty' kti \\igu..-and w.ll' m1 hi."tta ddin~d than by some such
impredse formula :IS 'non plui' quam 11('(:,-.s,- ,st', wtth the result that anyone
except perhaps th~ <llh'itnt ,quivakur >tf th\ muln-uuHiunaire could feel that he
had no superfluity. Phny dK y,,,Ul~lr could claim th:u hi! had no more than a
'modest fortune CSum quidem t mminu nobis mudi;:ae facultates'. Epist.
II.iv.3), yet he camltll h.1ve been Wllrth rnud; h-o;s.th;m HS 20million and counts
among the two or thn'-'-h1ztn ndw.;t Hmn.m. w. il.lppt"fl to know about during
the Principate, 15 evtnt tf ht .. assets w:r. lu:.lly flll)r, than a fifteenth or a
twentieth part of those attribut,d to th. richt";;tm.n of all, who may have owned
300 or even 400 million- Jn,f who thtmsdws did not approach the great
imperial families in wealth. Tlw !!n:~: ''l!tnn.s b,canw grater still in the fourth
and fifth centuries, and in thus\' da,s u was l'Y'D t;t.;hr ti1r the well-to-do to feel
that they were poss<.sstd of ,m)y 'rnud,sr t\rtmw~ Four lines in a poem by
Gregory ofNazianLlh .u. Wt.lrth quoting: c.~.~t .nv:y .1ll and possess God alone.
for you are the di~p.nsl.'r of rich,..,. that do not behm~ tn you. But if you do not
wish to give all, give th, ~n;tt.r p.m; :md tf twt ~v,n th.tt, then make a pious use
of your superfluity' (icll. rNit:,i.' r"!N'IIt'l. Czmt. Ti,.,i. 11..'3.113-16). The effect
of such advice onnhS.t {id1 m~1 .-.m ;:;,~tiy :'l"lll.t!!im-d.
* * * * * *
It is tillll' to sum up. Why did early Christianity so signally fail to produn any
439
importam change i-.x tb~ h't!''r !!l Gr;~~c,-Hn.m;;n society? Why did slawry and
kindred forms -:.~I tmfr-;:"tlabour sud1 ,1s tht {T)!onate persist, without Christians
even realising th;1t tlwy W~7TC l".ril in tho;-n::sdvc:s and that they tended to brutalisc
both slaves; :md masters? Why. 1f;n ;h.: .:mpirl became officially Christian, in
rhc fourlit n:a:ury, riid thl" o::nnmcs of wealth and poverty throughout the
Roman world (:md csp..:t:i:llly i:1 thl West} ht'mme even greater, with enormous
riches cOltCt"r:tr:niug i11 tht lnmh ofcb~ .srn.uo~1al class, and taxation becoming
decided!: llltr' oppr:.~siv<? why .iid tortur<~ blwme even more prevalent and
punishn~~:nts eve-n harsher. wi:l: the h.1rban-.n;;; practice of mutilation added?
The standard ;:w..,.tr :o ~.11 rlu:;;t qm"s.tirms (most of which are dealt with
elsewhere m this book) is fj.mili;n ~o 1!: of t:s: Jesus himself and the early
Christians wn~ COJK~IIltxt exdr.tsivdy with the relations betwt"en man and
man, or man and G.xt, .u~d 1111t ;u :til w!tb sociaL ~:conomic or political institutions
-with the n~.uions bt'tWt't':l m~!l :md mtn. 1f1 may use that expression. That
does not ~L'L'tn to mt .1 \':'t}' go,)d am.vcr. n,~n .tS far as it goes, for although the
New Ttsr.&uwm wrir;.-rs (lih tiw .:niy i::;uhr~) concentrate on questions of
individual mor:ili:y :md nuk..- no .ute111p: to prescribe a general code of economic or pulitiG~I bduvimt, cJ:,:y do tn.tk~ :1 saies of statements on political
and ecomnmc questions whid) rhc ( :hmch ~!uly accepted as canonical and
inspired: St. Paul's disasnmts 'Tht pc.myrs thJ~ bt: are ordained of God', which I
quoted o:.trHL~r. i:' uuly one Jwong m:my s11dt pronouncements. One form of
what I luw call~lt 'the- standard Jnswl'r' is that. we must think in terms of the
salvation or rdimn.uim~ tlf "the: tndi\'illlla.l' - a tl!"t'S-=w modem Jbsn-;~.:uot;
which might ahuos~ b~ dtsigH ..d w nHsltatl: rhts t.l!t~n bt.Y_)I:ws :l}'}'~:nt :f
replace it by whJt ir u:allr nw:u:s. "all iu.:li,iduJ.!,;', or .-.Kh .md .-v,ry m.ltd~
duar. Thos, who s.ky t!t.u it i-. 'tht mdtvidu:tr .md not s.:J,;i.&l iuslihnim!s whlfh
need to be chan~nl (or th1 bttu.r arc in pnn~cc advot'JIIH!!. liut rdi:mn bt
postponed uutii .d) illdt\idmls. or :it .1m r.1t.~ th~ 5{'"~.lt m:;jurit~. luv~ lllldr!'gone the mcxss;try 1111pnwrnwnt - :1 ckvcr .mo:i c.ov..r: ;trgumcnt l~r kc-~ptug
things as they :m. Studcnr:o of Gr,lk thought ;m~ t;.:munat<", m that tht> obfuscating notiun 11f 'tlh: imh\'t,lual' r;ud~ o.ppnrs !11 ;m:tqnity .wd md!.',-d em
hardly b .. txpressed 111 Gnck. l'r f(lr th.u m.tth'r m Lttm
But can the traditt()n:l! Christi:111 plsition which I !uv, outlined J'h)\'l~k ;,
satisfactory Jusw~r to til}' qu\"SllOIJ:'.. ,v<:H ifrt :s :nljushd lllsu.-h:. ,;.'l~ .tw :;.h\.1
those unpkasaur i~;uur..s of \';lfl~ Clm5n;m thuu).!ht s.urh .ts tiK ;,cnpr;u,<:t oi
slavery and ntpubucJl J.Um.-r;tey wlnd1 so mJny Clmsti;ms rod;,y .m'llllWtlll!l~
to endorse? Thts of -.u~rsl' ts a marhr ,,,- ''Ptmon. I w1ll .m!y ~;,: rb::l 111 my
opinion 11 was pnnsdy thl l'.ltdu~i \.,. cotKntr.Jt:ontlt rh, ~-;uly Chn"<tt.ms up<m
the plr~mul rd;ttJmts between man and man. or man ;md ( ;od, ;md th-.'ir
compleh' m,hft\rntn. as Christians. to the institutwns ot' tb~ wo;t.l 111 which
they liv,d. lh.u prt'Vl'l'ltl'd Christianity from even h.niug au:d: dk:t !;_,,.goad
upon the rd:\tums between man and man. I suggest th<tt the r.-huuns ;,f!wrcn
man and m.m m any organised human society arc Sl'nr,ly .:mdmnLd hy dt\
relations brtwren mrn and men- bctwel'n different Sur,s. ;an,l l"~i.'! w;.~~~ :htl~ rt'lll
groups (classes above all) within States. relations gu:n:H:d a "wk b~ .~nt:ti:o
very diffcrl'nt from those which can be applied ber ;~;.,':1 n1:m .1uci m;111. 1: i1:1i
often been realised that Christianity has been con~ri(U\U'-IY llll~lKns;;.!iti !II
preventing war bl'twcl'n nations. It took the Churdt a l.n1f! t:111: to n:<i\'c- ;,
w.
440
doctrine of th~ 'Just War', although incidentally even the early Roman Republic
had had a doctrine of the 'bellum ius tum', derived from the principle of fctial
law: that no war was acceptable to the Roman gods unless it was a defensive
war, waged to protect Rome or her allies- itself nicdy criticised by Cicero as the
means by which the Romans gave their aggression the appearance ofleginmacy
(see ECAPS 36-7 and nn.130-1). And the doctrine of the Just War has never
come to very much, because any country that goes to war can always justify
itself easily enough in its own eyes. As for the class struggle, I cannot sec that the
Christian churches have done much more than either deplore it in principle or
ignore its very existence; and all too often they ha Vl' explicitly underwritten the
existing social and economic order in its crudest form. To quote a well-known
Anglican hymn 16 Tht. rich man in his castle.
Th\. poor mau at his gare.
God made rhcm. high or lowly,
And ordrr'd their estatt:.
Pope Pius XI's encyclical, Quadragesimo anno. of 1931, admits that the class
struggle had been a serious danger forty years before. but then proceeds to speak
of this danger as having been largely dispelled by Leo X HI's Rerum tiOvamm- an
opinion which has hardly been confirmed by the events of the years since 1931:
not even the growth of fascism, while it lasted. could validate that claim. There
have, needless to say, been a few striking individual exceptions within the
churches who have broken right away from their official policy. from john Ball
in 1381 to Camilo Torres in our own time. 17
When the early Hebrew prophets, or Plato and Aristotle, tried to formulate a
vision of the good society. they thought first in terms of the Israelite nation or of
the Greek city: for Plato and Aristotle the society as such had first to be good, to
have good institutions, before men could lead the good life within it. Their
successors, in both cases. tended to despair of creating a good society: for them,
either the individual man (the Stoic, in particular) had to discover how best to
live his personal life in an indifferent if not hostile world, or else there was a
Good Time Coming, but it would be achieved by some supernatural agency. In
the latter case one could comfort oneself by imagining (as in Jewish Apocalyptic) that in some mysterious way the desired result had been achieved
already: the passage in the Magnificat which I quoted earlier provides a good
example. The use of the future tense- 'He will put down the Dynasts. exalt the
humble, feed the hungry. and send the rich empty away' -might have created a
very different atmosphere: it might have pointed to social change instead of
acceptance of the existing order. But the institutions of society were (as I have
put it) the relations of men and mtn; and the Christian as such was therefore not
concerned with them, and there was nothing to prevent him from being a
complete political conformist. I have already referred to St. Paul's order to
Christians to obey the political authorities, as 'powers ordained of God': he
equated resistance to them with resistance to the ordinance of God, necessarily
involving condemnation.
At the present time there is a debate going on among Christians whether (to
use the language I have employld) it may not be absolutdy necessary to reform
VI I. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (iv)
441
the relations between men and men -in particular the relations bttwel.'n States
and between classes within States- in order that the rdations bttween man and
man may not be for ever distorted and damaged. Among these relations
between men and men, I would suggest that a central role is played by propertyrelations, including in particular owntrship of property and the way in which
production is organised. Those of us who watch the debate within the churches
from the outside may feel that careful study of what actually happened in the
early Christian centuries, both in the fidd of ideas and in actual social life, might
well shed some light on current problems and controversies, and as a result
might have a powerful influence upon the future of man.
(v)
The ideology of the victims of the class struggle

Let us turu ww to ~um~tltiug V\'TY diffcr;:-m: dw :.koloby .m.~ pnJr:lgand;l or: b~
othcr sidr.: m rh das~ ~rrnggk- ef ~he: t':<ploitcd .m! th~ ''i"Prf'S.'t'<L ,,f 1h, !:laves
above all. Tiw diffict.:hy lwrc ~~ 1bo. st:mtin.~;; ... d the ::v~,kun.. c\'t:; ior the
humbler 11lt.::.-~u. for tlll" gre.at p~:ri-od u( Gto:';:k hi~:my. rhe iifih .md lourth
cent uric~ B. C., th<"h' 15- -an;~i:1ly sonw ti..nlot:r:nic: prop;l!!:tnd;t, insi~riu{. on tiK
fitness of thl' l'Ctur dtit~n. a!' weB :t5 dw :,d1. to share jr. ruh:;~~ th, ~:.ltc; tim
might hl (l>lllJ'.u~d wtrh ""111(' ,,j' tlh' .lrg:mn,:nts ad,:mt:t:d 111 snc-ur~cnt.h
century Eaglo.n~d. rur.1hly rih- l..:vdlcr ;:oucrihutions to till" Putney Lklnt~~ in
1647. (Tiu./l(' do.har~s. pr~.o;nl'<l jn rl:.- { '!..1rk.: Papers, ar~ nw~t fn:wcm~ntly
read in WnndhmJS(", PL:.) 1 _r,, tb. Cr~d~ ilutorian thost. JdJ.tt<.":' shouk; btexceptiun;Lily int~r~stmg. tiJr t;w gn;u lllt'SiloH Zll~.St:;. w.h )'H'"J:<ly rh;Jt whkh
dividt.d Gr'-'l'k uh~.Lrrhs and .icmu<.Titts; ought poimc;ll ri~hr.. w b~ ;.!mtly
confined (.h lksir.~.t. t"l,r .-xampk. by Cromwell au.ll:-d<lll) to tmu ,,f .;uhstantial prnp~rty? ,\!} th: H'l;tia :h:n~! that I speak fm.' s:wi b.:tan. :-. b~cuL.,tl
would haVl" an ~yt to pr_lp\"rry' (WcJn~Uum~.. Pl..: 57':.~ Bu: '-'"'''J ~!lllh' :lt thr:Ltvclkrs (thou~h rrnb.Lbiy JIOt th~: g~'l m;lJ<>m y) :. ,,,k th: litot" th.tl htr,;,i
labourer~ ;md S(n;:rms .J~ blitlg_ hln d,p,n~i.tu ''}Wit olwir,n;lsto'rs. ou,;hr rrul tu
enjoy the ti-;mchi-., (s:~: n:.,'i .JJ ..w,~ ..lcl.fitl.) Mn'it ot' !h< ~rvi\'illf:. G!,-d
litl'raturc that I h,t\'< ;n n:ind !rtr~ ,-:th,r pk;ui.; :h, ('lll'\\' cf d,m,li-r:ll:~ {Jrwug
citizens .th)JJ~. ni c;:urs1) ''' m,rdv. witlr 'ioloo, IH!{t'"' th pWc.:l"f~ll :o .1b;1t~
their cxdu;;i''i" ;md .urogant dJim .md rlcogni5l, m Coluud R.-.mblll111~lr\
famous wnnls .it Puru~y. th;cl 'the poorest he ir;1th .t hi~''' bvc -~.~ th, gn:at,st h'
(sec WoudlwllsC', 1'1.~ :iJ). Vim1ally all thi~ Gt,~~k na.lh.rBl I:J!- wlu: ""'' mig:h:
almost t';liJ ,I middk-class n;WUUT, :md llhk~J lllU'-"h ;\ftt COlli(' ti-I.IIH thr rtlr'Ni
(the! men uf motkr Jt: w,;Llth) 5t' bo.:k"cd hy t\ rl!>t<tk .m.i ,,:Jwr~. oi whom
Solon b au ~~m~e.tadht;{ ,.ll.,unpk. Nc:tdJ,ss to S<~Y. ha:-dly .u,:u:w ,v,r thinks of
the mass ,.-m;n~('t}ut:L,!I uf ~b-,." un!z:s .. rhty h~l\'c ''"hnar.Tr:.i fir miliury or
naval Sl'nic,- during ,1 :~.ni.ma! emlrg.n(y'.:1 An'trlMtw~ it: th Fn~~~ (hat-s
190-1, ci. .H--1. 6'J)-.t) nHk,s Ch~r~1n !efuse tn :i.rry ;, 'i.l\\: o~'~'' th, Sry x tml1'B
he was t)nc at dJt~s wh 't(\l!!h: it! t.h JM\',Jl !.mk' - dut {\( ArguHiS.ill', m ~uti,
in which a uumh~-r ~,f Athtu!:u ,J.lv~~ ht.I, . ,.J ta '.\' ~:w sh1ps N. ~h~ Arhui;m
tlcct (as th,-y Jll''.'Cr did J.t n.-n-nMl :~m~} ::d \\'en n-..,;ml,-;i wirh thct~ !r\.t.:krrl.
Solll(' of rb: lir..:nry n.ntri;;i ir~~nr the Gnd; wnrid Ill whidt we em r\(;gtih~
the hcarttilt cry ,,( tih' ''l'Pr~;;,,~ ma~ j,, dtnur.h~ m,t sfri.::~y 1-~\"rnM:ll' lL' tht"
442
subject of this book. lxc;msc '' n nniy n:c!<kntt~iiy a product of class struggle:
some of it is ess,':lti;l11y a proto~ :<g:nnst jori'~g~: impaialism; some of it is
primarily a re/igio:.~ pro:cf>t; and :mmc- oi u ~5 bo:h these thmgs, like the Book of
Revdation and som~ ot!wr Apo...1ca!ypuc k~r;ttu!"r.'. )C''-"Ish as well as Christian,
including the Bo<)k nf Daml.'i. d<:nng r~om it.7-l6J B.C. (probably 166-164)
and the earliest smvni:1g pien known to 1m: u1 ;my ianguagc which can
justifiably be dcscribcJ as 'r,;;;:;::tNI.' hnr-..;r:m~. ~ But I myself would certainly
not agrl'C to exdttdt: most of :fw !it<'!:ttbrt l have just referred to. When
imperialism leads dir.nly co c;pk:i::Him: 11:" ,1 co:lqutr,d fll'oplc, or at any rate
the primary producers a!!W~<f; thm. l(r tbt i~t.wh: oftLe t::>reign rulers, that is a
situation closdy rc:;~mb!ing das;; s:ruggk; :t!l<.i, 3s I have indicated in my
ddinition of clas~ and cbss :Hrugg!c (!I i1 ;;bcwt'). cfftccs arc likely to be
produced upon th~ d;~ss stmggir w;thm thl' nppn;;;(t:i ~vmmunity -as certainly
happened, for exampk. m S,!~uc:d J>.ucs:me ,i:-td \'\'I'll :ncrc in Roman Palestine,
where some memba~ (>i tbr- J<"wi;;h p~op~rani daS \r.:" hand-in-glove with
their Roman masto:r<. :m;! rh\ ~r-.-.u lh,,uh ._.r A_ P (,f.., 70 was directed partly
against the nativt Jwi;;h f1PFf'~Sc:-s." Nor
protests which arc primarily
religious in form {lila dw ~O(~k:; :f[hnid .md l{(,clatlm) be excluded from a
consideration of the- cntlook. or ;m t xtklr,d d;t:.s a~ ~uch. at any rate if Ollt' oft be
reasons for their v,ry ,;xi"'t~tk~ i"' tht "l'rr~<;~iv,n\~o; )f tht~ implrial powlr, as in
the two cases I h;~w JU~llllt'lllion~,i Uomt. undr th~ ~uisc. of'Uabylon', is
ferociously attacknl.:t Jkv;:b;in~l. (l.'.g. H U: VI <'-1': XII-XVlll; XIX.2), and
is said to be 'drunk wuh the blo,-,,! i :lw :uints and with !Ill blood of the marryrs
ofJesus' (XVIJ.6): ;md wh~ll sb \ou,-.,. itt r::ru~mhr:liKt" bdon God', he. 'givc.s
unto her the cup ot rlw WIIK' tt th'- ti,H'CII~-ss. )fbi.; "''th (XVJ. 19)- splendid,
blood-curdling stuff'. in which tht Jttlpotnlt t'my H. tht lppresscd, unable as
the-y arc to revenge rh,m1ld\c..s. tinds s:ltJ'ifJftWn IIi t!w Cl'rtainty of divine.
vengeance.
For nearly a cctml~' ~dwttn have "''''ated a gr;;:t .k.tl of attention ro the
so-calkd 'Acts of thL' P . g;;u f'vlaJt yrs uf !\kx:mdria'. which survive only in
Egyptian papyri ;.1t the. ~'''nod ~f ,!J,. l~ol!l:m PmHip.th published in modern
timc-s. 6 The form of mu~t ufth,'!><'JMpyri i~ a c;lpy. ut r.ulwr a pretc.ndc.d copy, of
the official records ,.,f tiw trial" ot' t'J>..mmtm r\k~Lilllrians, who are most
sympathetically m.;ttnl by rh~ r.m;~ikr'. wiuk ~11\ h.tr.;hncss of the Roman
c.mptrors toward:. ah~ grc.lt '""lmpoli,. .-.f Egypt is impliddy rebuked. Thlsc
documents emanat.:d fn~01 rh, l.::t.lm~ ord~o:l'- .u :\lc"'.l!lliria, who were themselves, of course. members <}f ;m xpllllug class. and I mention them h<.rc
merely because they do con'itllHt m.lign.un prp.tg ..Hul.t against an imperial
power and havt" arous~d so m.w-h ~d:ilbrly inH'l''~t Sn~ of them- the Acta of
Isidore and Lampo!~ ..md :_f l r.nu;tisnts .. Lh' '""'' lmt..-rly anti-Jewish: they
provide. l suppo'i' tlw r.lrl:,~~ ~tl:'\'tvinl! ,~:'i.tmpks ai popular anti-Semitic
propaganda. Anti-S,miti~m w.t~ t'!l~krmc ..: ,o\kx.mdr~: in the early Roman
Principatl', for thl'J.:w:.: th ..:-, il.td n ..:d.td v.:;ri~.m~ pnv:kgt$ from Julius Caesar
and Augustus. wbi:..h :twu;~d rcsl'ntm<.'nt ,;,nd .t'"J,,ii'"~' on the part of the
Alexandrians. (Tlwn. ti ;;,n ,xnlk:11 .h\"m:t ,,t' ~~w tu.;.u:uH of thl' Jews in Egypt
in the Hdlenistic .tmi H..muu P''r~od~ h~' Y. r,.-h,!'ik.:\'~,. C. P. )ud. 1.1-111.)
Other anti-impcn:;H,;,r P"''J'.l!,':~:~t!.l {.um-Grwi;. ~t ;:nu-Roman) has bten
asslmblcd by recent wnt~r;;: i( u:dud~.; .;:~m~ ,,j :ih' Sil,yl/ine Oracles, in Gn:ek
VTI. The Class Stmggle on the

hexam~tcrs,
ldeolo~tica/
Plane (v)
443
the so-called Oracle of the Potter, surviving in Greek papyri from

Egypt, and the Demotic Chronicle, a text in Egyptian demotic; from farrh~.r Easr
come the Oracle ofHystaspes, a Persian work survivmg only in some paraphrases
in Latin by the Christian writer Lactantius, and the Bahman Yasht, anotht:r
Persian text, in a Pahlevi translation. 7 Most of this material seems wry strange
to us today. Anyone who wishes to read some specimens might begin wirh
Orac. Sibyll. lll.350-5. 356-RO; and V.l55-7R, 3R6-433, prophesying the doom
of Roml' (cf. VIIL37-49, 81-106, 165). and four other passages from the
Sibyllines, IV .115-39; and V.137-54, 214-27. 361-85, containing prophecies
associatld with the 'false Neros' who appcand in the twt.nty years after Nc.m's
death in 6R. 11
I mus! uo1 f.1.1.! w uu:uuou !hr,:~ renurkabk doa.nnel!ts m L.mu (on:;:; !iu:r.lr\'
letter, the n:-h,r two httnry ~p(;.ch,s~ wh1ch rt:n..-.tl HlfilC rccogmtion by
members o!th~ Rom;m ~\)Vl'l'JJllig d~ss uflh'- ttJC'lH;liit~ of Rc>a~<':s vat:~ims it
would b, B,i'lfl_;! :~m.-h ~'0 far w ~lt-.1:.. ,,f slm:nw 'sympalhy' (d. IV.tv n. U).
The only on~ whwh rda:~.s to th, ~';tStC'ru p;.n f,flltc Rmu;m t'lllptrl:' 1s 1h, 'lt.u.-r
of King Mithnd~tt~s [VI Enpror of Pl:>!lrtlS_! to Km~ 1\rs;;n:~ l,lf J>:ml,i;t).
compos('d hy S;1ihi:;t :1nd 5111"-.rivmg .ts .1 fmgn;.:ur of hl~ Histonr~ (TV .tlJ)
Mithritbt~;; .!ttr1bl1t~~ :o rh.' H(IW:.ns :a dtq)..sat<d d,..;ut t!)r krmnatil! 1ml
rule' as tbr1r 'or;<" m.-,t~r.lk Hllll:\'(' tor :tuking w:tr m .-.Ji UJHn5., jWpks .lrtll
kings' ( 5): thr ktt;.r c.dls ~ium 'tht ph.f!.Ul' ,,f dw world' (!.:m. itlt tcrr.uwlt,
17), acnJ!'\'S tlwm ufh.wing b,~c,l:Jh' gr(';U 'by dariJ;g ,le.::~it ;md ;&ddinj!: wu to
war'. aud d,dar~.s that thty wi.il (ksrroy t..'V(rythlll~ or ~~n-;h 1~1 rh, ;mtmpt
( 20-l). In a phras(" winch no douht rdkns Sallm1's own bdkf. th~ ~.Ia~ 1~
made to say, 'Fr:w au~'~ ,ksin:llb~rty: a lilrg, pwport1o: .m conhm wid~ jtn!
masters' (pauci lrit?rt~:.m, ;'!rs ma.fl'l'' IIIli:. aloml:,5 Pc1/rrt:l, : R}. The Olhc! tWCl
documents an spnTh~ .. In r:.dtns. rd;ttlllg to the WI~Srem p:rt nl.lhc ~~~~~ pir;~.
which also ~ho.\ S(:lt' r-,;:ogntttuH ._,f :lw mnttahry of the opplT"S<:d. Tlh~ fi r;;r IS
that of !lw iicn dy .mt1-rtnm;m Bnttsh dul.'fiam Ctlg:tcus (A.i,rr!L .\ll-2i. who ts
depicttd ad,hl-ssing his men b..-!in tin- batt!~ nf thr: 'mons Graupim (pcrh:Lps
not far south of htv.-rm-;~) m 1\ 0 . ~J r t(4. I~ ~lru;uns d.~!i;;Jr! sLtttnK'!;ts ;1 hmu
'liberty' which. m T:uin:s. ;tr~ h.mUy >lll'f~ tha11 lkHrr;u' iJdl{~, ;.nd mus: ha\'t'
been writt\.'11 with quiet Jtri-sim: I'll hi~ p.1rt; but on: rnuJrk h.t~ ~dw\"(1 ,!t~\\11
tht agLs: wJwn liw tt;\:IUil'i'. ~:ty~ C;~l~.~~u .... 'crea;. " ,b,datt\m, tlwy t:allu
ptan (11/o1 s.,Ji,:Admem_l;l.-i:m;,tu;.-r'"'ll'!''li.:m. ~~ 6j Th~ .-.,?wr sp~ro.:il. m :\mt.tl.>
1.17, is tlw Olh' i h.wo: nt.rn,;l to r1'.1r th(l'li<1.-I'IV.!'' >lb'\'t', ~)' ;t k:ui,r .>ith~
the mutiny tf tb~ P.un<JUi.m k~ltliJS m r\. D (.;, uamcd 1''-f(l'IHlltl'. dt:;rri!'o.'d
by Tacitu~ ;ts .t t(rmn IL'.1tkr lf~m( otrh, thL'lt:K.Il f.KtiOlls :nhi Tt'}'tt'stmd hy
him as a JlllXi\IUS ;:hm;t~,,gu;: (sL';.' ,sp. IV .iv n. 1:\). Tlw ~,;o\ d,,,;;t .m,ut ,dt by
Tacitus l~r .my 'agltJ.hlt; whi.-' pk.:t:~,-d tht' lower oJckn !I! th, prnnnc,s by
uttering ;.;.ntmwnrs hustil'- ~''Rome ;,r us rul~rs ~:wr~ws mcdy rr<m ~h~ hn.f
but conn'n!r<Htd lJl\'l'Ct!n o! 1/i:sr. lV.t.~ .t~;uns: .lllin:s V.1k1:riou~ .t k;ldin~
man of tlw Tr,'\'i.'ri. wh,, at an .~~~'-tnl,ly dt:r:rog r!u C::1l!i< r.:-vulr Ll( l\ D. ill
'hc.apld insult ;u~J udnun llpLlll th, j~{'Jtal:l!l pt>.)pi~ T.-uims i!:OTJ!i IC t:nti!Y.:
these, au.l t'i.~w:m;; him-.df with rtMrkiHg- rlw :hly :ndudcd '.1H !h< dMrlit~s
commonly l,vd!,d ;~i~:,:u'" gr;:M .:n;i'in:;. wluch - :f h-. is not llJt"rdy di~
missing thl'lll with ,.,,llh'lllpl- bt pn':>tlmlhl~ !'~;-r:ki ~,, t>)t> f;~.nnh:tr w m.:d
spl'('ifkation. I ~h.tll do l~U ll)HT\': h~;a ,-,,yrrd 1:1 ;. ~ 't'' ;t to'\\ ~ x:lmrl.:'l ,f olt]lLr
444
speeches, usually tksaih\n~ ~uhjcction to Rmm as slav(."ry, which are put by

Tacitus or Dio C.tssills uno d:C' m<mrb of lt.1:k:s of r{"bdlion against Rome.
There is one form ofl'..xprl"".>~ion oiprntc:sc, ~issoJCi;~~n! particularly (though not
soldy) with slave~. whi<h dc-:s;.rv~~ w b, single~i u<IL th:= table. Phaedrus, a slave
and freedman of th~ Emperor Augustus, aho \\'TOte iH Ltin in the first half of
the first century ot tbt Christi;m ~ra, !~ m.<dc: g-n..at !!!W of'' ,Jlections of the fables
of Aesop. another o:sl.l':t". ,dw pr<>b.th!y liwd in ~be lady sixth century B.C. 11
Phaedrus has a fasdn;1ring iMssage in dw Proingue to !!!s Third Book, lines
33-40. He says he will exphin ~"\!r~ th!' fable -:a~ invented: it was to enable the
slave to give cxpressiotl ~~~ .1 disgnis~d C.)n:l ro ~,:ut!t:)":-H:s which he dared not
speak out aloud for ft~;u uf punishm.:m! 1\nd :~ '-''Js tlot only slaves whom
Phaedrus had in mind"~ rhe ~h:g:u:cd h~roes off:Obh:s. Ou~ ofhis pieces, about a
frog dreading a ~~hr. h~rwc'H two bulls. a.s i:.m,ihm:d with the words, 'The
lowly are in trouh~.. WAtl:U the P('w,rfui ,;u:urd' (il:cmilrj laborant ubi potentes
dissident, 1.30. 1). :\nd .1! tlw end <)fdt~ Ep1log~:~ ~~~Ins Third Book he quotes
Ennius: 'It is sacrilege fi-,r .1 cmm:um m.m I:! plebeir1sJ l..l mutter in public' (Ill.
Epil. 34). Another fable, lnt:ndcd to J:m..msrr-.:te !:u''' ~weet liberty is', speaks
of the wolf who is (>n tin puir1t l.!fb~in~ p(rsuadcd hy t!lt: ,t.,g to serve his master
when he notices tlu~ rh,~ d~,g.; m,k h2s b~:t:t: galled by :1 chain; realising what
this means, he refust':S m joiTI t!w .iog in st::vita.k (Ill. 7; d. Babrius 100; Fabulae
Aviani 37). The fo1hlr J lik~ b~!.-t of o~l1 is ,xplidrly collcerned not merely with
slaves but with tht'" poor iu gener~l (the pauperf'~): i'haedrus introduces it with the
words, 'A change in tht p,r5t)ll who mnr:rcb rh': St;m l:fl may so translate in
principatu commutcm,J,, ~ hrin~~s to the p.l<.l:' li<) d1J11g~ ja their situation but a
change of master' (1il pr.::'t.-1 :lour.mrmr -if ~h:ll i'i th, mnct reading). This fable
(1.15) is about a timid o!d n\Jn. p;t~mring ;l ihmk~Y in:~ mc;\dow. when suddenly
a hostile army approaches. ThL old m.m begs thl J,,HkL'Y to flee with him, to
avoid capture. But the donkc~y rncr~.+,. enquires it' th~ remy will make him
carry two packs at unt:t: and ""hm his nwn'-'r says h, J,)L'S uot suppose they will,
refuses to move. 'Wh;tl ,]o;.~s 1t m;ittcr tu me whose Si.'T\Oint I am,' he asks, 'so
long as I carry only nu~ p.u:k .u ;a tnu.:?' c.;,~r:ml W~tts.t.mlq expressed much the
same point of view in H1:lO, in his /\pt-'<'(:1 f{l Ail bc-:l;Aml.:ll, when he said of the
poor in England that if they slumld fight Jnd wntjtWr d t~mign enemy. 'they are
like to be slaves still. for the ~,rmy ....til h.:we :.11 ... For. :>ay they, "We can as
well live under a fi.mittn ,m:my WL'r~dng fm .lay W;!g~o-s as under our own
brethren"': see the coll~ltiun by Hill and Ddl (citc:J m Vll.ii n. 13 below) 387.
'Aesopic' fables Wl'fl' J.litcrary ~tar~ s~mpk L'IWU~h w appeal to those who
lacked the elaborate hterary education neetltd t(,r a prop.:r understanding of a
large part of Greek and Lnin lit~ramn: and L'\'L'II dtos, w1th no education at all
could grasp them itmn,di.ndy. Quinrili.m. wrumg iu rh'- nineties of the first
century the standar.-1 LJtin h.mdbook on rhttmic (l'l>tltlltio Oratoria), remarks
thatfabellae have o1 spldal .lppL:d ro ''Oll\ltr~ boms dUll the uneducated (ducere
animos so/tnt praecipu,. nmi.-,,,.,.,, d :"'I".,i~,. mm. V.)u.l'l). He would certainly
have said the samt' about the P.u:thkl> of Jesus. But th'- governing classes of
antiquity were clevl.'r enough tu I:Jkl ,wer this weapvh of lheir subjects and tum
it sometimes to th'-ir ~l\\'11 .lh';mu..::.-. Vk ~n knit\\' th..~ fable of Menenius
Agrippa, from tht. CiJri~>l.mri.' ofSh.lk.t>~i-''-':.l!'l' (I. i .5J-1i,'J). if not from Plutarch's
Life of Coriolanus \ll.J-5i or from Livy (H. :.ts.xii.~ l~). llowever fictitious its
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (11)
445
attribution tL the con~uL1~ in qmstion and the yt>ar 494 B.C., it is the most
famou~ of :tll ~hos; !"":ibks th;H WL'T<:- appr)pri.ited by the ruling class. Among
other f.abk::. im{n.ied ~ . , k~~:p worJ.;,:n m theor place is the amusing one in which
the donkns :1ppc.al tn Zeus ktr rdi~f irom thL"Jr labours: its moral is that what
each imli.idu.1l nmst ~~~hm: .:~nmot l."' .:urcd (it is ath'rapeuton). 12
It W.lS !Wt ., shl'T but a lt:;an:t,i :w;. thl Hellenistic scholar Daphiras (or
Daphida.-.) ntTdaJ~o"SS~<s.. w!J,-, nnt o11ly n.:-v:k,l the Attalid kings as 'filings of the
treasury of Lpi!luchus. wl:o mk Lydia .u">d Phrygia', but addressed them
directly .as 'purple \W;1ls' (porphyri,,i tt:ti!,>pr'.t. Strabo XIV.i.39, p.647). He can
only h;lw been Iikeuing the kini-{s w tit~ w;;rks of a whip on a man's back. This
was wdl ll~ld:r:)ttyJ,I by TJm. who shrw~ exceptional awareness of social
realities 111 tht Gntk Ea~t: but st'\'l't:al ')thtr !'dmlars have failt:d to grasp the fact
that for D.1phit:1~ th; kiugs. as oppr<.>ssors, ,u, purple weals' on men's backs. and
they ha n ~uppo~;eJ rh~ nrs~ to be pretcndi.:g that the Attalids were once slaves
themst+.-,-s. 'purpid wnl: brms,!i' or "with stripes' (Hansl'n, and the Loeb
translator. H. l .. Jom."S); 'thq h.l,i puqk b;1cks then too, or should have had'
(Fonteumst'l ~ D.trlmas. ~y th{ \\';ty. ~ ~;un tu have paid for his lfse-majesre with
his life: il~cordm~ to ~trabn, ht was cmciri.;-.-1 ou Mt. Thorax, near Magnesia on
the Matanda.
A few direct and open attacks on emperors, necessarily anonymous, are
recorded here and there. In V .iii above I mentioned the bitter verses put up in the
hippodrome at Constantinople in the early sixth century, addressing Anastasi us
as 'world-destroying emperor' and accusing him of 'money-grubbing' Qohn
L ydus, De ma,~istrat. 111.46).
* * * * * *
I must conclude this section with a short discussion of the religious issues
which bulked so large in men's minds in the Christian Roman empire of the
fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh centuries, in order to make it dear that in my
view the religious questions were very largely unconnected with men's class
positions, except in one or two special cases, ofwhich Donatism in North Africa
is the only conspicuous one. In this book I have been concentrating upon class,
because I believe that in the long run it is the production of material necessities
and the economic and social structures through which this is accomplished that
have the most powerful effect upon men's behaviour and l!vcn thinking. rather
than any incidental religious beliefs they may hold. But in the short run religion
may pia y a decisive role in influencing men's actions and the nature of the groups
into which they divide; and so it was in the Christian Roman empire, when
political class struggle was a rare phenomenon (cf. Chapter VIII below) but
religious strife was widespread and intense.
I agree with A. H. M. Junes that it is a serious mistake to sec the doctrinal
controversies which so agitated the early Christian churches as the expression
either of 'nationalist feeling' 14 or of 'social protest'. His article, 'Were ancient
heresies national or social movements in disguise?', in]TS n.s. 10 (1959) 280-98
(reprinted in his RE, ed. Brunt, 308-29), and his LRE 11.964-70 (with III.326-7
nn. 61-70), arc absolutely decisive. I must, however. point out that Jones's attack
is concentrated against the view that certain heresies were essentially 'national';
the word 'social' in the title of his article is relevant only to his discussion of the
446
social aspects ofDonatism t;-,- which of course was always rightly regarded as a
schism rather than a heresy, until the Catholics had the ingenious idea that the
Donatist belief in the necessity for rt-baptising Catholics admitted to their fold
could be regarded as a hcrctical belief, sufficient to bring the Donatists within
the scope of the stringent laws passed against heresy in the late fourth century
and the early fifth (see CTh XVI. vi.4.pr.). Whik admitting in his book that
Donatism was 'associated with a social struggle' (possessing. indeed, 'some
features of a class war'), Jones insists that its social aspects were far from being
the essence ofDonatism; and he is clearly right. (See. however, VIH.iii below.
on the Circumcellions.)
Another area in which religious 'nationalism has bt"cn seen by some historians is Egypt: bm I klllW .Jf nt.> ~r,~::ifically :-digiu~1~ material from that
country. comparabk with d:~ ;~uti-Rt'lllan prop.1pmb of the Acts of the Pagan
Martyrs' of Alexantln.:i. rd.::"rni to J.bovt:. which, as we saw. were evidently
produced by mem~c-rs of the .\!,xJndriJn uppl'l" d .sses. However. some of tilt'
literature emanating irom EgyptianmunJstif c~in-1(;, i.~ worth a menrion here for
its denunciation of tht orpn:oslm of tiw (K:=s;tmry. lt was of course essentially
religious, and its StKial durJ~t~r \\'il!o purdy sccoucbry .md due to the fact that
during the Larcr Empir~ p.t~Jmsm- out$ld~o. Ak;o.;an,lri.l, at any rate- became
increasingly confined to th, lll'PL'l d.IS~s. The omst.lllding representative of
this trend is the mnuk S.hLrmll' {whc)s~ name is dlso rendered Shenoutc,
Schcnute, Shenud1. Sd~cnoudi. SdnumJi. Ch,mmJe. Ch,noute; in Latin it is
Sinuthius). His works. Wfltttn m Coptic (UthJin,:). but shPwing knowledge of
Greek literature, sc,m nnt to l;l, wdl knowu tn ;mcicnt histrians, although they
have been edited in Coptic and tr;msbtt..J int') Lttn .tnJ l'cmJc modem languages.
Shenute was abbot of the Wlnt~ MuuastLry Jt Atnpc en tlK ,lcsert of tht' Thcbaid
(Upper Egypt), whl-rl hl is sJid tn hil\'l' liwd ttu mln than eighty years from
the 380s onwards and to h.n, di(,l.u wdl owr ;t humhttl. p~~rhaps as late as 466.
For my purposes the mn!it U"it'fttl Junumut, \'S}'\'ri;ally ti.>r English readers, is
Shenutc's open lcttn tn ,, wt.althy p:t~;m !:m.I,wswr. S;.~mnus of Panopolis,
edited in the original (\lptK 111\ITl' th.us once an;.l rrausbtt'd complete into
English by John Barns. SHS ( 19MJ. 1" Slll'tllltl' hims.lt" w:ts of peasant origin
and, as Barns says. 'his sympathy lay warh .1 ~tr:mnu ,,f ..;ociety normally too
inarticulate to express 1tsdt' in Greek. :md ..a t:.n.ui,-;tl fe;1rlessness made this
formidable monk an outspok~u ,h.nuptnu nf tht urpnssld Egyptian peasant
before the highest authnritit~ (SH~ 155, 15~). H, ddighttd in open attacks on
'the paganism lingering aUt<lng th, pr,,pertit,t .:ia;;s (ibid. 155). We hear of the
pillaging of more than om ut the ti:w p.ag.m t,mplt-s which had somehow
managed to survive inhl tht" ti fth nntnry. and ,,f r:1ids on th, house of the pagan
landlord mentioned atli)Ve. wlud1 Shl~nute regarded .\s ddiled not only by the
presence of pagan cult objects a11d ut magical papers .u .. l potions, but also of
baths, built by thefbrccd labour ,,fthc rl'J!i.lllb on tlw ~staw and maintained by
contributions exacted from thc.m {sn Bams. SHS i54-5 .tHi n.l7, 158). Baths,
as Shcnute insisted, Wl'f\' S\llllethin~ that r,.;;.auts Jid llOt net"d. Later Roman
peasants could indeed bl gnatly mtJl!t'~:'~.-1 }ly '''hlt ltds b~~cn cynically called
'rhe odour of sanctity' in its. mlrt.' ~xrnm" f~mn.;, rh, roung St. Theodore of
Sykeon (not far from thl m.-,,!,nl Auk;ar;s) m~J~ ;1 \'~:ry ~ro:Jt impression when
he came out of the ~o'<t\'t' it! "\\'hl~h he hali 1~:! ~~viag 1:1 r,~h~icus isolation for two
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (v)
447
years: 'His h~ad wa.s t.:<J\''~r.~d with son,s ;i;d pus, his hair was matted and an
indcscribabk na:nb ..r or" \\'nnns wert: iod~cd in it; his hones Wl'rc all but
through th~ tksh ;end riw stench \Vas such th:ot DO one could stand near him' (Visa
S. Th('CJrl. Syk. 20. h tl:~ English tro~.nshl~ion by Elizabeth Dawes and N. H.
Baynes, Thrt't' Ry:;:ami,h S.1i111.s IDI).
Shema.;-'s ktter ~o SJturm:s. \igmous ;md highly abusive, mentions a numher
of indigui1ics and .iujust!c~ -~ll~.,:n!iy mfticwd by Saturnus on his dlpendent
peasant~: ::~rrying otT th"1' prupny (m(b~ling t'attlc .md carts), the imposition
offornd i.1bour. :md compelling th~ pc;tsants to buy meat and wine from him at
unnason:;.bk p.:-iccs. } ic:n Wl' do s,.,. ;1 lndi:11; deric acting as protector of the
poor: bu~ one !.! bo\md to womk~ .vh:rhc:- Shemm:'s attitmk to a pious
Christian lmdlurd who was s;mil.t~ly opprts.s:..: might not plrhaps hav~ bccn
very ditl~:r,m. !\ad as lbrn.s !:Jy~. "lf any bupcd that the fmal triumph of
Christianity would llh:Jll tho:: nnifi.-:;ttiu-n ,,f sorial C'Vils and a less birt~r spirit in
the popnl.nion uf Ej!ypt. that h)l''-' w~.s to bl: ,iisappointl'd. With the passing of
th~ pag:,n l.mdlo:d tht ryr<mny ,_,f the.~ gn-.n {'St:ne only became more absolutl';
and one:: p.!gJ.t!ism \.\'3S .ls good .1s tk;~<! ~hi.' r.sentment of the governed -by
now an ittvt:t,rat;' h.1b:r 1.1f wiml- mad, difii:r.:nces of Christian doctrine its
excuse tur dis.ltK..-tion from thl :-tOWJliill~ power and schism from its established Chmdt" {SHS 156): d. VIII.iii bdow :\Uti its :m.:;:!-S.
I wish I had hl,n .1bk to give a ")'51l"l11Jtic .\ct:um:r ()i J. few ,,th.J" rdJfHiliS
figures who an rlcordtd as :Kti~t~. or at kast sp1:J.k tni:. on rh'-" sad~ ,_,f rlw immble
against tlwir '-'PJ'h'~sors. Thq' i:,lJ inh' Vt'1"Y llit'f.:rl:nr '~-ltg.o~rit:s. SLm.:~mas ..1;;
with Sh~rnar.; l!l th~ inriJl'lll ju>t ,{.;~crihnl, the-y arc simply St.11hhl!!_: llp i~)l
Christians ag.JimH r>W(r(i.Jl p.ag.m~ -or hll llll'lllbcrs of d~ir (l\\'11 'i.'t't .:l~:lillSI
'heretics. l)f ~whismatics . s.)m, of tht:lll are bishops 'lC'n;stn~ thdr .;cdcsi-
astical authority to pnwnt -lC'ts uf obvious injustice (for tx.uuple .a~:uust thccoloni on Church e!ltatcs). Jik,: Pope Cn:gnry the Grot and St Tht;:,dcm: of
Sykcon, as dcs,ribtd Jt the end of IV.ii J.h\.lVC'. ~Thtr,' ar, mhl'r L'X:tmtks of
Gregory's C()ucc.rn fnr rht P'~as.a.ms on Church l.:m;.i~.) A pani,:ul.uiy mtercstmg
group are those 'holy nwn whos, .utthlriry- tlw ~mn:IJJ~ wout.l h.t\'\' \';t)k.-1 It
auctoritas as opposed tu P'''sflls (s~ VI .... i ,,b,,..-e :111d us n .oM bd,nl\') - i~ nut tlf"
political or t'\~n L'l.'dl'..<iia~tilal n.trurc but rs dLrh~.t friJm tht ti:or.x ot tl1~1r ow u
personality. ~t'tt-u h"ighttn.::d by th, rt~pt:ct \'ll~~tl\kn:d by tlu ,xtr.;ml rig~m
and ascttil'ism ,,,- rh,ir hvcs. Tlwy h,l\'t.: btl~l stmlh~d i:t ~:uumi.Jr hy p,.,,.r
Brown, in .m .midt in}RS (,I ( 197 I} R0-10 1 {I united aim, lSttutirdy to Syn.l.md
Asia Minor) whkh h;L;; s\nm~ t':.scin.:ttiug nMt,:ri.al but is m;mnl b\' bliutln,~s hl
the rcalitks oftht dass struggle iu th, L:attr Homan Emptrt' iste -~.IV .n nn.2-1
and 42 hdnw}. DLti;mce of 'lawful" l''-'litica! authority i~ wry r:m-. sm,:: tlw
Christian Churdws- miudti.Jl .~i'tht iustrut:titm of St. l'.mlpn~:tdt~d J.bsohu,
obediem't' w tlw S~J.tt' .mJ its or~:ms LXt't'pt wlwn it w;,~ l'ldit'Vt',l w }1,-,,t);,_mHu!t
against rdigt,,n (st~t' the latter p.trt ufVI. vi above and its nr1. 77-l.JM bd(W. with
my ECAPS I l and n.41). Uut iut.:rnss~uu with the puw,;rr\tl tlll bdulf or'dt,.
humble is n,unkd on several.:lil-'l~ltliiS. often as a .oi1npk plLa iur JUsn,-,. ''r j(,,
mercy and forgtvm,ss.
* * * * * *
It is difficult for most people nowadays to understand the great importance
448
attached to religion in the ancient Gr~ek WtlrlJ. ;\bov~. all in the Christian period,
when dogma could .l$SUrn~' a cmtral rule \"vo.n in th~ minds of those who very
imperfectly underc;tood th\ subtle th~olugical issues im<,)ved. I have often been
struck, when reading the hthers and the tccksias~k.ll histnrians, by the way the
spiritual leaders of those times Jomina:td th~ir cummumries and received their
unquestioning loyalty: the. pmst .1s \WU as th~ bymau almost invariably believed
what his particular bishop told him ht ought h) bdi\n. txcept of course when
that bishop was a man who Jid nnt hold the trad:tion.U hdiefs of his community
but had been foisted upon it against lb will. hy imperial dc:~ree for instance. (The
institution of a Catholic patriarch in Montlphy!>ite Ale.xandria after the Council
of Chalcedon- for which the use of trUt>ps wJs 11<-'L"t"ssary- and his subsequent
murder by a Monophysite mob pwvidc <mly the- nhlr.l famous example of this
kind of imperial interference .1nd its unhapry rcsulb. )I; Among many examples
that could be given of the steadfast loyalty ot\ongregarions, whether 'catholic'
or 'heretical', to their bi$hup. Olll'" of tht bl."st is that llf Cyzicus (on the north
coast of Asia Minor) in the seltmd ha.lfoftht i;.1urth ll."ntury. In 367 its bishop.
Eleusius. who seems always to have btc:n .1 nu.mbtr llt dw 'Semi-Arian' sect led
by Macedon ius, was induced by the thn:ns of th~ Emperor Valens to abandon
his particular doctrines and subscribe to the emperor's own brand of Arianism.
Eleusius soon repented of his apostasy, and on his return to Cyzicus he announced to his flock that he no longer felt worthy to hold his bishopric. His
congregation, however, refused to accept his resignation, and insisted on his
remaining their bishop. When Eudoxius. the Arian patriarch ofConstantinople,
supported by the emperor, sent Eunomius to replace Eleusius, they built
themselves a new church outside the city, where they could continue their form
of worship under Eleusius; and they persisted until Eunomius withdrew. 111
Eleusius himself, it is worth remarking, was no mean persecutor: he had
destroyed pagan temples in his city before the accession ofJulian in 361 (Soz ..
HE V.15.4-5); he had also demolished a church in Cyzicus belonging to the
Novatian sect, whichjulian compelled him to rebuild (later exiling him); 19 and
he did his best to harry and drive out those whom Socrates calls 'the Christians',
meaning of course the Catholics. 20
A set of beliefs, once acquired, was indeed not easily eradicated: what made
most of the German peoples so stubbornly Arian for so long was simply the fact
that Arianism was the form of Christianity they had originally adopted; to them
it was the true Catholic faith, and C~tholicism was heresy. The Armenians, who
had to make valiant efforts to preserve a certain independence from both Rome
and Persia, were untouched by the Christological controversies during the fifth
century (they were not represented at the Councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon)
and became acquainted with them only in the early sixth century. from Mesopotamian Monophysites fleeing from persecution by Persian authorities who
supported Nestorianism in that area. The Armenians consequently condemned
Nestorianism and adopted a Monophysite form of Christianity, which they
retain to this day. The Egyptians, as Jones says, 'were in turn homoousians and
monophysites partly because they had been taught no other doctrine, but
mainly because these were the faiths of their great popes Alexander and
Athanasius, Cyril and Dioscorus'; and the fact that the Council ofChalcedon
not only condemned Dioscorus but also gave precedence in the East, above
Vll. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (v)
449
Alexandria. to Constantinople, 'the upstart see whose pretensions the patriarchate ofAicxan<lri.l h.-tJ always rL"!!ol'l!tt'd and often successfully crushed', was
an impnrtam tanor in m.1king Ch;lln,.ion dc..ct'stable to the Egyptians (LRE
ll.966-7). E\c..n quirt sm:aU 'pc..lCk~ts' ~)f c..cn~ntric belief of one kind or another
might pc..rsist f;--,r a lc..mg tunc.. t~ p.trtiC"u!ar .mas, .l'l in the village in Numidia. part
of St. Augu~tlm 's dtonsc.. c..1f Hippo. whc..:rc.. all the inhabitants were Abelites/
Abelonii. pnrtism~ a strange varic..ty of continence and perpetuating their
commumty hy :tdop:ion. until thr-y were.. hruu~ht to see the error of their ways
by St. Augustine (De hafrn. 87, itt MJ>l. XU1.47}. Such peculiar communities
were far kss hkdy w .:xi:o;t t{n 1om~ inside.. l'.itics: but we hear, for example, of a
congregatic..ln ui 'Tc:rtullianists' .oat C;a~th.I~l' who worshipped separately in
churches of thdr t''-'11 atHl only gaw up the.. last one to the Catholic bishop of
Carthage.. at tht' enJ (\J the t{mrrh n-nmry or !n the early fifth (Aug .. De haeres.
86, in MPL XLIJ.4f,).
Religi<)ll in those days was universally regarded o~s : matter of enormous
importann'. and it was generally believed by Chri:ilian~ that holding the
'wrong' dogma, and sometimes even practising the 'wrou~ ritual, might
involve eternal damnation - a position which is far from n\tinc..:t !t)day. of
course, although it is very much less widespread than in tht> Lat~r num .m
Empire. The niceties of doctrine could obsess very <lrdmary mmds. Gregory nf
Nyssa has a delightful sketch of the passionately theological atmosphere uf
Constantinople in the late fourth century, which has often been eire.., I ~lit is sttll
worth repeating. 'If you enquire about your chan~t. YlU will ~~t a piece i)f
philosophising about the Begotten and the Unbegott<n. he warns. 'If you ask
the price ofa loaf ofbread, the reply is "The Father is ~rc..atcr .md the..: Son init-rior".
And if you say, "Is the bath ready?", the answer is that dw Son is irmn nuthmj:::
(Drat. de Deit. Fil., in MPG XLVI.557). This is part of a passinn.ttedenunciati"n
of ignorant, insane. deranged. illogical and incomprdl("nsible philosophising on
the part of amateur dogmatic theologians who are .til slaves, rogues. runaways
from servile employments, tradesmen, moncy~-hangers or purveyors of
clothing or food. (I have rearranged the elements uf tht' inwftivt ~~~~htly. but
every expression I have used comes directly from tht tc..xt.) Ttw:~t arc.. pk.Is.tntries of a type to which many of the Fathers of the Churrh wtrt .lc..i~hnc..,l whtn
denouncing other Christians belonging to a rival sect. Grc..~~ny is s;l'yin\:! that
Constanrinopolitan thcologising is what we might call a ttwrc.. momhmg of
slogans: and so indeed it is likely to have been on the p.u-r uf uu1$t l.1ym~n and
even many clerics and monks. who were simply perstwrin~. t:tithtully bm
blindly, like human trams, in the truths- as they saw tlwm- whirh tht>v h.td
received from their spiritual leaders. This passage is utlt-n l'itcd hy usdt'. nut nf
context, and those who quote it usually fail to observe the essential f.ll't that the
formulae which Gregory so abhorred were detestable not bccause they were
mindless slogans, but because they were Arian slogans. I have never come
across in any of the Fathers any protest against a repetition of what the Fath~r
concerned regarded as Catholic slogans- those embodying the tenets ofhis own
particular sect. I cannot refrain from mentioning here the famous theological
poem called Thalia which Arius the heresiarch is said to have composed in a racy
metre for the edification of his followers: St. Athanasius gives extracts which I
shrink from reproducing, since they must seem little better than gibberish to
450
The Class Struj!gle in the Ancient Greek World
anyone not versed in rhc tlinri~:;; of the Ari;m contr.ovn5y. 21 The Thalia would
have been rather strone ~m;tt !(lr ~he ~mc:duca!:d. Hut the ~~cdesiastical historian
Philostorgius, who '"":~s hiln>dt ;m Ati~n {:md tl.-r;!:~m survives only in fragments). mention~ withou:. dt~appwval th;ll AriiJs iilso \VTOte, and set to catchy
tunes, popular tho)klginll balhlds in dw fiJrnl of worl<--~ongs for the mill and
travel-songs for jnurneys by st".t <~nd h:tJ (I-IF II 1). Anorher theologian who is
credited with the: samc;o kind of activity is Apulhnan~ ,,f Laodicea (the father of
the heresiarch of thU nanw). w!m. m rh~ $c.:nw.i half of :he fourth century, is
said to have had his p<lcr:u (whkn W{"rC' all 'tor th('" r;is{ ,,fGod') sung by men
not only on convivial occ:asi(:o:!S bm also at th:tT .:nrk, and by women at the
loom (Soz .. HE Vl.25.SI.
Many of us mJ.y tinJ much LUll'UUSl'lous !umwt:T, even absurdity, in the
writings of somL' nf the Fathn and in m.my ot' th~- )Upersubtle theological
controversies in w!l!ch th,y indulged. Th~ ,_k,mu ( :hrl~tim, however, may see
such things in a \~ry .dit"tl~rent light. T (I ;wotd gtving unnecessary offence,
therefore, I shall (o_mtiue mysdf to a single l:Xal!tpi, . .-oming from the Arians.
whose heresy is surdy n<)\\' cx:inct. We hear ft(IH! S,cr-Jt.:s (V .23) of a dispute
which agitated tht~ Arians fr,.m .lbtmt A.D. 3~3 onwi!rds. for some thirty-five
years in Constantilhlph and ill l'th1r i."Ui~~ cwn innga. Believing as they did
that the Son was 'cn;ue.:lcutt of nothing', tht :\:n!"~ 1;_.11 imo controversy as to
whether the Father w:u. :s.udt. :md ought to be ~-..lhi 'Father', before the Son
eYisted. When th(' party l.'fDurwhta.:s.. whkh took ~lw nq;.ativc view, gained the
upper hand, the fllllo\n:-~ nf M.armu ... who .III5W(red the question in the
affirmative. insistin~ tlut tbt f-J.tlw!" h.ui .tiW;tp \-(,n the Fatht.r cwn when the
Son did not exist. built 'it'p.tii'",Hl' rhmch~o; t~r rh,--Ju;;dn.s and worshippcd apart
from the others. Socr.tt('S .llhh t!ut th, LtH;:r St'\l!ull of the Arians were nicknamed 'Psathyrians', ,tth:!" mw of thdr 11\tllli:r, Th ..ucdstus, who was said to
have been a cake-st.:lkr. f'i;ltll}'l~'z.oi!b. T!t. nin th.:o!tgi;:al issue between the
two groups was ntv.r dt'tu:tlly "t'ttkd. ;m.f th.- dl\'i;;j,-_,n htween the two parties
in Constantinopk w:ts h~al~,i <uiy wiwn itll s~;k"' ,;nfl'r,d into a self-denying
ordinance never to .tlh1w ~ht qu..~ti,>J! h h, r;u~~.-,f.tg:un.l'
Apart from sarC':l~ticj,~~t.!i ;tt rhC' ~l'"'n10' ,,f 1llll'~ rdi;ruus advcrsarit:"s (such as
the use of the term r~athyri.ms' n~ thl w.l'~ I h.J\'c Jml described) deliberate
humour is a comntodity tllJt i~ sen;( t'll< IHgh - plrkrp~ .1ppropriately- in the
ecclesiastical writLrs. Socr;jtc~t- dot'S ,kvcHr. .-.r:, whole chapter (HE VI.21) to the
witty sayings of Sisimnus; ;ubi :hi' i~ .1ll rh, nl\rt remarkable in that Sisinnius
presided over tht:" schismatic Novation sect at Constantinople (395-407). 22 But
pure theological humour is exceedingly rare. I haw come across in the early
Christian centuries only one example of a real joke which is both strictly
theological and not made up for the purpose of ridiculing someon<.' of a different
dogmatic persuasion. (It is a strictly Greek joke, which cannot easily be reproduced in another language.) At the service of dedication of the first church ofSr.
Sophia in Constantinople on 15 February 360, the Arian Eudoxius. who was
patriarch of Constantinople from 360 to .no. startled the mngri.gation by
opening his dedicatory sermon with thl' words The Father is impious [asebes],
the Son pious [eusebes J'. A great commotion immediatdy arose at this appar'-ntly blasphlmous stati.ment, but Eudoxius quelled it with the.: explanation.
'Tlw Father is impious because he worships [sebei] no one; the Son is pious
VII. The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane (v)
451
because ht. worships th\~ F:t:hc:r. nH~ .iok:: w.:nt down wei!. and ~n-ordmg to
Socrate10 1t ,..,:~ :>tiH r~nKmbt:-rni h1 hti own day (t~w sen.m.l q~J:;~tt"r ()f t!lt tit~.h
century). :1i1hough he:: hin~df re"mark:> gr<lwlr !h:u \'.rlth such sophtsmt~ tht"
heresiard~ nut th~ Church ;.$\m\kr (HE. II A3. i0-1:.15: cr'. Soi-., HE!V.26. l). !,
In tht Wt'S!. thhitJ~ictl t..m~t~Jw:.~y ,:s rr.uchtd in f.n ltss subtle ~..:-rm~ th:m in
the Gred~ E:st (its profundities o-,u!d bt~ ~kb.:ikd m..:m imnr.111~!y ia Gr,'l.k. and
some of !h~m could scarcely be l'Xj.mssro 111 brin). hultt ..... a.~ {~qually \':igowm in
some ph~es. t.;;;p~:~i;llly ;\fria; ;md ll.omt itsdf. Wh.:.'ll Const:~:1W1sll i11.~S.~ !~sued
an order d:4: dw l<nm;m h1sohnpr:c.sheuk: ht sh;ul'\i h'-"~''un t!1l t\Vv rival popes,
Liberius ;mci Fdi:'. rht p~nplc- asscmhlt.:J m tht C&r..u:s ;&rt s;mi Lo h;m: :s,-.ondt-d
with unanimou:. .md ir.;.hgr~.m: sh<IIU c.f ou._. Gc,d, one Chr1st. OlJC~ btshvp'
(Theod .. HE II. !7.6:. Thl titn, !iJ!hting ra~'t\'.,tn rile. supporttl"!'> ofrh:
pait
of rival pnr~::;, n:.m.\SCUS .mJ Ur~inus. m -~11. \\o'(.' .an rold by Alllfl t!anus. !c:ft 1.~/
corpses iu J. $in~lt day C\B thdloor nf.1 R\,ni:t!: b:t!iic:, (.Anml. XXVH.ii. 12-13):
another ~~tmumpor:u y wmct' g!\''S J il!-tur, of Jfit1 vktm1s .:"One ,-ou],kit!;.' many
similar examples of vidcnt suit~ .mrl m.ts~n on rh~.. r.~~~ \.f t"llthti5i:istir Chris.
tians ofdl\ fourth ;;.r:.d ~lk>N~U!', CC'I;HiT;C'.S, lil th.:' Easl t'Wa :mw: th.w r.h. w~s:.
Those ,,ho cnjuycd d~ ~uppHl uf r..h~ ~t;ue- {usually, b11t hy ruJ H!C<IIIS ,.),,,.;, ;~. thr
Catholk'i) Wt'rl." ~ddnm r>L"hwt;uu to use ti_ar:;,. ;v,n .urn,d t;.r;-t. '~insr thtii
religious ;,Jv~r~uic..~- '''-'c..'tJrdi:J~ to Sotr;lt.'S .m.l s.):runwn. Man.lnl~lll!'>. tit;
Arian p;~trio~rdt ofCctbt;u:t!tu pk il! th, 3SiJ), '~ru fimr unir~ (o~rittrmti. ''~.!i'''':ro~) nf
troops uith(" :-qwi.1r army w ~-:o.su:--~ :lw ;:u,~rsi<~:t w :\ri.uti:o: ofd1:.> ~-~-=,pt!\n
ally largt c..ongrt"gatiur: uf tht Nuvatiau >t'Ct .11 tlw lit: h. tuw:a :f M:nuinium in
Paphlagonia (iH IJilrtht.rn A,,J;l Minc.r). Anniu~ rlw:ns-h.-s widt si~klcs ;;n~i ~~x~-:.
and whatev~:.r else c.m1e to !t;au.t til .. pcas:mts ddc:.u~.-d th~ su!drHs Jml killed
nearly all uf dwm ill ;a bloody b.tttle m whidt t!u.v thc.m!!d\'t.s suff(rt'l:l heavy
lossl's (Sc..<r . HI: II.JX.271>;.,_~'!t); Suz .. HE IV.!I. 1-2). :.;
Thest :n1d othn sud1 :atrocrtits na;o\' m;ak,: us sympathise with Ammianus whCTJ
he endorses tlw upuuou c_af thl' Emptror Jt.di.ltl that 'no wild beasts arc.. such
~uemie~ lc..~ nuukiml ;ts ;~n r10us1 of ilw Cimsuaus [plerique Christiat1ornm] in their
deadly h;m,d ot c.ln, :uh.>th,r' (X XII. V3-4) Thi> statement should surprise only
thoSt' who horv,llor srudk..l thc..-ri;;.in:J .~uun:(.; ~(r the history of early Christianity
in detail hut h.wt rditclupon rnc.:lc.ru h~xtbollks. It is essential to understand
that thl Chril>ti.ms. r~Kktd hy hc:r.sy ;10d schism - of which we can sc~ the
beginniug'> t.nnnt Nc...w T,st.tmmt tinws-:r.- '"''!re nevcr anything likL: a single.
united btl~ly ..uhi th.1t c..:.Kh s,,r (by no means only those who had the be-st right
to call tlwmsdvt.s 'C.lthubcs') h.td an unpleasant habit of denying mc..mbnship
of 'the Chur.~h and indt"\d tht very name of Christian to all 'heretics' and
'schismottic..s' - dut ts h) s;Ly. to :11l thus-c.' who \\'t:re not within its communion.md of l't'rsaur;ng thc:m m one.' w:1y or another whenever it could, as sinmrs
outsid.. 'rlw Chunh'. For the Chrtsrian 'eccle-siastical historians' by whom the
history ui'~".Lr!y Chrisu.mily h.ts mai:1ly bt.'l'n writtt:n. 'persecution is t'S~lntiall}
what is dew!.',,, 'tlw Chm.-h (i:! tb, r.;;Htc..:t.,{ Sc.'llSl' I haw just cxp!Jincd), l'ithl'T
by pag.ms or by 'h.:n:ll\-"' u: ,;;cbJsmati.:s; th('y hav~ usually forgottm the
persecurl\.!11'- ''r ~h~ Chm..-il' (1.:.'. \vh;H th:y .~onsidl'r to be tht orthodox or
'Catholi' dtUrch) ,,[ r-~;mi.J::''.V!>. ha:rcnG or ;;,-hismatics. Anyont: who has nor
discovlr~,i chis i(,r huuo;.df zu::y dt:nvc sorn;; .nnuslment from a glann at the
two cntr~<,;, uu~kt '1\h~m:.;m' m thilt often :x.~dltnt and Vl'ry scholarly work.
'"':\!
The Class Strug_~le in the Ancient Greek World

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Clrurch 2 ( 1974): one deals solely with the
452
persecution of the early Christians and the other reads merely, 'Persecution: s~e
Toleration'- and when we look under 'Toleration' we find only a very brief
reference to the persecutions conducted by the early Christians (with hardly
more than the remark, 'St. Augustine went so far as to demand corporal
punishment for heretics and schismatics'). and we then jump straight to th~
Middle Ages! In an unpublished rapport ddivered to the International Colloquium on Ecclesiastical History held at Oxford in September 1974 (a revised
version of which I shall publish shortly) .I tried to explain the earlier stag~s in the
process of persecution by the Christian churches which 'made of organised
Christianity. over more than a millennium and a half. a persecuting force
without parallel in the world's history'.
* * * * * *
I doubt if a better means could have been devised of distracting the victims of
the class struggle from thinking about their own grievances and possible ways
of remedying them than representing to them. as their ecclesiastical lcaders did.
that religious issues were infinitely more important than sociaL economic or
political ones, and that it was heretics and schismatics (not to mention pagans,
Manichccs, Jews and other 'lesser breeds without the Law') upon whom their
resentment could most profitably be concentrated. Of course I am not saying
that leading ecclesiastics magnified the importance of theological questions with
the deliberate aim of distracting the <"ommon herd from tht:ir t('mporal grilvances: they themselves quite sincerely held that only adherence to the 'right'
dogma and the 'right' sect could ensure salvation and escape from the frightful
prospect of eternal damnation. But there is no doubt that the effects of religious
enthusiasm were as I have dlscribcd them. Not many humbk folk in the
Christian Roman empire were likely to become obscsscd with reforming the
world of their day, or (for that matter) to achieve much unity among themselves. if they acctptcd what they were taught (as the vast majority did) and
believed that life here and now is insignificant compared with the infinite
stretches of eternity, and that their real enemies were thosl' enemies of God and
his Church who, if they were not suppressed, would endanger men's immortal
souls and bring them to plrdition. 'Heretics' and 'schismatics'. as well as
'unbelievers, were an entirely new kind of internal enemy, inwnwd by Christianity, upon whom the wrath of'right-thinking people' could be concentrated.
for in paganism the phenomena of 'heresy' and 'schism', as of 'unbelief'. were
inconceivable: there was no 'correct' dogma in which it was nccesary to believe
in order to avoid anathema in this world and damnation in the next. aud to
stcure eternal life; and there was nothing remotely reslmbling a single, universal
Church. We may reflect by contrast upon thl' good fortune of rhe mass of
Greeks in the Classical period. who had no such beliefs instilled into them, to
prevent them from recognising who thtir real internal cncmi"s wer". and to
ptrsuade them that democracy was a useless if not an impious aim, since 'the
powers that be are ordained of God' (set the preceding section of this chapter).
VIII
The (Decline and Fall' of
the Roman Empire: an Explanation
(i)
Intensified subjection and exploitation of the lower classes

during the first three centuries of the Christian era
In this last chapter I shall again show how a Marxist analysis on class lines can
help to explain, and not merdy to describt, a historical process: in this case the
disinttgration oflarg'-' portions of the Roman empire, part of a process which
seemed to Gibbon 'the greatest, pc.rhaps. and most awful sc<-'ne in tht' history of
mankind' (DFRE Vll.325).
I have dl'monstrated in V.iii above and Appendix IV below how Grl'ek
democracy. in the. course of the. class struggle on the political plane, was attacked
with incrl'asing success from the late fourth century B.C. onwards by thl' Greek
propertied classes, their Maccdonian ovl'rlords and eventually their Roman
conquc.rors. As Wt' have seen, dtmocracy, when it worked. could play an
important role by protecting the lowc.r classc.s to some extent against exploitation and oppression by the powerful. Demoaacy still led a precarious existence
in somt places in the last century B.C .. but during the first n.ntury of the
Christian era it was gradually sti.llc.d and during the m:xt century it virtually
disappcarcd; cc.rtainly before. the end of the. third cc.ntury it had, for all practical
purposes, sunk without tr;~cc. (Dtmocraly in the Latin West had never existed
on anything likt the. same scale, and I know of no real sign of its existcm-c aftl'r
the first cc..n tury.)
As we saw in IV .iii above, the gn.at age of slawry in the Roman world.
especially in Italy and Sicily, was the last two centuries B.C.: the advent of the.
Principate in the last generation B.C. and the. marked decreasc in thl' numbc.r of
wars producing largl' slavt-hauls gradually brought about a new economic
situation: slaves now had to be bred far more extensively than bc.fore. if their
number was not to decline drastically; and for the reasons given in IV. iii( 6ff.)
above this was bound to result in an attempt to incr<.:asc the raw of l'Xploitation
of humble free mc..n. in order to make up for a reduced rc..turn overall from
slaves. An exploiting class, c.xcept in so far as it can be forced or persuaded (like
some capitalist classes in the modern world) to abate its claims in ordc.r to
facilitate its own survival (an eventuality which of course did not arise in thl'
Graeco-Roman world), will usc whatever means may lit' to its hand.
In order to tighten the economic screw more efti:ctivcly on the lowtr classes
among the.. free population, it was obviously desirable: to restrict to an absolute
minimum not mc.rcly their political but also their legal and constitutional rights
and privileges. Until the second and even {to some small extent) the early third
454
The Class Strug_{!le in the Ancient Greek World
century of the Christian era thes<" right~ an,{ pdvil:g;.~ might vary greatly, in the
Greek world under Roman mk. both in til~~')!)' :1111l (t..:. a kS"i' extent) in practice,
according to whetht:-r a man wa~ (tl) <~ R~>mau ci:iz('rt (tiris 1/;omanus), 1(b) a citizen
of a 'frle' Gret.k city. :t chita,; lib('m (D\'Gt~ioH:ili' oll:mfi1e~l.nzta), which enjoyed
greater powers oflonl JUri:;dktion th:u; oth,r !mmi=ip:lht1ts, 2 (c) a citizen of a
Greek city which w01s nnt r,chnic-;~.ilr 'fn~ (;md was tlwr\Ji:Jrc more completely
subject to the control i}f rht" ~am.m provinci.:ii gm~~-mc..r). or (d) an ordinary
provincial, like th" gr~:;( nuss of ::1t p(puLlt:<.m (t-spt'd.ttly the peasantry),
whose juridical rights w~..r~ ti.~'"' .ui<.l iU-d~imtl arni. m m fu as thLy l'xistl'd at
all, wcrl' enjoyed largdy ou !0\:fft.t-;~n<'<'. Fr\'t' ll<\'11 who watnot Roman citizens,
for example, were not l.l5U;1!1y tortund dmin5 t!a: Hum;m Ihpublic or c..uly
Prindpatc. (sec e.g. (;lmscy. SSLI'RE 143 ami ff.). 1-'{my tortured only two
female slaws among the PClut:~ Chris~i:ms he ln("d (ll~ hi~ Ep. X.%.8). But I
know of no binding gnKral ;ul.~ t(~ rhi:; ,tr~~a. ('xnpt fix Homan citizens, and I
cannot see how any pcrr.~riml$ (non-Rmn;m) who was torturl'd by order of a
Roman governor nuld lMv had any hDp\ <:f rldress, except through thl'
intervention of somtinth;,nu:.! p.trroll.
By degrees, by a J'nll"('S.:O- ll\.'\-~r yt'l. to Ill)' nmhi. .Fil,~uatdy described which Cl'rtainly bl'gaum pra.-tic~ m ch~: tirst nutury ufrlw Christian era and was
mainly 'institutionalised' and giwn cxpli\it lt.~J.I t(muul.uion in the second
century and the early tlm.:L~1 L'SJWd.lJiy in tlw AnwuiuL pc.riod (A_ D. 138-93),
the legal rights of th' po('t~'J das~es wut !tr.t.lnally whi1tl~l away. and by the
Sevt>ran period (A.D. 1fl.)-2.H) h:td iw~n nJucni to nui.;;hin~ point. Possession
oflocal citizenship cuu.: to tu.::m nutlnn~. I:XI'('pt t\n tlwsc who bdongld to thL
curial order': that is tn say. tiw m,mb,r~ ufthL' cit\ Councils and their families
(cf. v .iii above and s.nion ii ,,fthis dtaptn). wh., ~-tr<tdu.tlly l~came a hereditary
local governing class. It was p-sS(~ssiou uf th, Rom.m <:ttlzenship which had
long blcn the source of the most iluptrl.lnt juri,hc:tl privikg,s. but the citizenship came to mean less and kss .ts J. Ul'W s<-t ,,f.,t..cial :md jundical distinctionswhich. as I shall sh.-~w. w;,tT i'!'!i'-'l~;i;illy. in th,: tn:~iu, d:tss distmctions gradually developed. ,;uuin:~ rtght .Kross tlut l''IW\"{'11 ~i1u 1nd pere.~rini, so to
speak. By the so-calh..-ll (.'twsrituri, A.m,;ui,;i.:rr.J (th;. c.-...t for short) of the l'mperor
we usually call CaracJ.lla or Cn:~c.&llus {hi;. r.-;.al IIJ.llli.' was M. Aurelius Antoninus), thl traditio11:~.l (aud ;thn~Jst ccrt;uuly rh, :.nn;,)) dat<.' of which is A.O.
212, ~ the citizenship was ('XtL'tl\ltd h-' .til. or ''irtu;tlty ~til, the free inhabitants of
the. cmpirl'." But this 6,;t i~ \'<"TY much kss r,~uurktblt than it appears at first
sight. The only contemporary t:xpnssion lf opiuitm .tbout the purpose of the
CA which survives is that of a leading Gr;llY,,_Jlt)lllan historian who liwd
through the reign of Caracalla as a ~t"llJrtu .lllti ,:uusul.lr .m~l was in almost as
good a position as .myum t< U:ldtr!'t.tuJ tmptri.ti pt'h~y: Diu Cassius (LXXVII
[LXXVIII].ix. esp. 5}. Di( ~.tys .:xph(Jtly tlut Ctr.K.,ll;,\ purpose was to
increase his revl'nue by makmg ti.,r:rJ~o.r prrt:'.!-iui hJhl, to c::rt;tin taxes paid only
by Roman citizens, tlw uul$t 1111}\<H't:un o!which w;t;; tl.-~ 5 p\r cent inhc.ritancc
tax (vicesima hereditatiumj.'' Dw ,,ftour:;.:.- ,ll..'tt'~>tJ C;tr.t(';llb. :.uhi some historians
have felt able to reject tlw :1lkgtd motiw 1~1r rht Ctl. r my~df would nor carl' to
deny chat a desire to r;n;;;: ;1dditirn.t\ !'{,.:m:. li likdy til h:h'\ pt1yl'd a major part
in rhc emperor's mind. ''"P'dJIIy it' w~ ;,;:n~t. ~l& I think "'''must. th~.. opinion of
J. F. Gilliam that the mh,ri:-AtK~ !::.._ ;,ti~;r,-d l'S:ani <lfmad! iowcr valu~.. than
VIII. The 'decline and fall': an explanation (i)
455
has gcmrally been assumed and applied even to quite small fortune~/ -;o that a
very large number of people would have been subjected to it as J result of the
CA. Whatever the unbalanced Caracalla's motives may haw been for issuing his
edict, I would say that by far the most important fact in the background, which
made the CA both possible and unremarkable, was precisely the 'new set of
social and juridical distinctions' I am just about to dtscribe, which by now had
nplaccd the distinction bctWl'l'n t'ivis and pere.f.!rinus for most important purposl'S and had made it!> continw:d existence unnecessary and irrekvant- a point
to which I shall return pn.scntly.
The 'nC'W set of social and juridical distinctions is not ~:asy to describt in a tew
scntcnCt'S, and l know of no satisfactory and comprehensive tn:atment of it.
although thtre have bt.-cn wry useful studil'S by Cardascia (ADCHH) and Garnsey
(SSLPRE and LPRE). Here l can do no more than give a bri<..f and ov<..rsimplified summary, in numbered paragraphs, to make cross-rdcrcncc easitr.
1. (11) Tht~ \'1111~: ,., .1 (;r.~ek.' of pos!O('ssin~ tl(' Hom.lll citi:i!\'llihip m th.: ~-:tdy
Principatc 15 ;u.1!1l:r.ably Jllllstr Jl~d by th, stcry (i11 A<t!O .X:'\ 1.2f, h) XXVI..~~~; .-f.
XVI.J7-9) uf St. i'.Jul. .l Jc:w uf ~ood ..-duca~icm {XXll.J) who musr h.1v.:.
bdong;.d w a tiurly w,Jl-to-,io r~:r-il~ .lnd (ould dum {X X I .59) ro p:)ss<-ss nm
only th~ H'-'!Jtal: ciuztnsinp bur .~1m rit.1: of.Ltrso:s. ~h: pri::ri;J.1l ( ;r.;ck dt~ of
Cilicia ~n .~.~~uthau A~1.1 l\1iuur- .1 prlnkttl" not l'IIJO\'c.l. iunt:k:n.llly. by th,
lincn-worklr~ (li'h'"Y;Ni} \,f :Jut nt y. ;IS we know from Dio Ciuy:.os1..:.11n
(XXXIV.:..!l-3: ,,-_ Appeudi.x IV JH btk\\'). N\\' tin: :.-chmc1l kg-Al consequcnn~ whidi ~hould be ,!r.\Wii fiutt! th ... story ufP;mr~ ':tppt:.! il_ C:<l'.;;;;" :Jt'
by no tutan~ nrt.lin i1: .1H n:;op<"'l't'>. ;m,l G.1msq h.t~ rctvntly .trgu.,( rh.u h~rn:..
tht Prorur.ltor ot]ud.ll:t, w:is ll<lt bnan.t r,, "'1t.l P:ntl hl Hft~w." Bnr ;J woLd,[ b,
a nustak~ ii_r ns to ,-,m.:,nrr:.:.~r._ ,,t:iy n Pall" ~ .lpp,:.tl It) h, tr ;cd by th~ <":tlpcrtlr.
More impm I:UJI is th, t:n tlut ;H an c;u !ilr ~ug m th'~ pron,,Jings it wa"
beyond IJli'Stio_\11 P~ur .. insi.;;t~n;'(' I.Jrm hi~ u._,l\1.!!1 o."itil'cn'!ip whidt tirOI
nscued hin from an 'iuquh:it~ni.lr flug~:~n~: in r!w h.~rr.tl'k., .u _km,:km .nt:l
subscqu,nly indu,:\.tl th. ,-,,mw;;tJ,J rh~n. tht u:ilitJry tribtaw Cbu.tim
l ysias. w t.lk, .-!.rhurJt~ prc.-;tw~oms to s<.'lli hirn to Ch'S.;Hl'..l. th, pnwinci:tl
capital. A imk ov.:r :UO kilow,:tn:s J\\".1\'. :l!Hk~ strmt~ r:tilit:~n t'S\:orr. th~:-,bv
saving inm frlm b.;.:mg !m:r,kn..~ by .1 h.m,i oi_J;:wish conspir.!or~ (su: Acto;
XXII.::!:i-'.1: XXHL W.l2-22.D-.li: ,sp. XXll.~( . 29: XXIII.2;>-7). W!ht:J,~r or
not Ft.>~hl!!o w;e:> kg.1iiy t)bh;~t..! to allow Paul's .~ppt::tl to tl:, nup,:rm. t!w f~o:t i:-;
that ht: did .1liuw !t; ;tthl <'\ell (;.trus~:y 1~ prt~p.lr,:d to li!fl'l'th.tr P;m)\ ,:mzmship
played a p.ut in nuk inr; np lu!'> mind iS SUJUi /t',). If no sud1 .tppt'.ll h;ni ht:,n
possibh~. J';l\(1 wottllllhmbri;.~S!t h..!\'<' bl.'\.:'11 tr:~J h~ h~t\.tS at_kr'.l:\J!,m r.s Act~
XXV.'1.21~";. Ut'Ll,s~rily with .l altii/ium H.k".HhJJ~Jc:ws who wuuld luv, }l,,u
strongly r-r:llt~h.:nl .t;.:;lillst !nm" ::" u:d~"t'd h, .\' -~~ !lu1 llm!,l,~rd <.t1 thl ru.t.l
from C;tl''>;lrl'.l w.km~li~!H. :as Wt' .m r._,ld th.kw~ h.ad pi.um,d {A<t'> X XV .l-4}.
Had he 1101 h~tfl .1b!, to dUJ:! Uou:.m t'lt~z,,:~l:ip, then, Paul would neva even
have rt.>.u:.h~.t C.K~Jr,= :md tlk rrd\'::1\i.tl i!wernor's court; or if he had. he
would luv, bt'l'll ~~m~lwd c>trly :it~Jt"-;; !:,iriy .:asily. I should perhaps add that I
in gl'lh.'r.tl .tl,(pt th, ~t,ny 11< A,,~. ~:ven ii ~ ...>me of it, which can only come
ultimatdy twm l'an! hun.;.dt~ e;; .~Inw,;t ~,..-. :!''nd to be true. (Most of us. when
first arn.;.rnl .ts l'.ml ,v;~:i ;:r ,k:;:;i:!l~Lu, w~t!~J h.tvc shouttd out, at an early stage
456
in the proceedings, 'You can't do this to me. I'm a Roman citizen.' Paul waits until
the last possible moment, when the centurion in charge of the flogging party is
just about to give the order to begin; and he is studiously polite and detached.)
(b) Almost at the end of the Antonine p~riod, in the early 180s in fact. the
peasants of the Saltus Burunitanus in the province of Africa, at the modern Souk
ei-Khmis, describing themselves in very humble terms as 'miserrimi homi[nes]'
and 'homines rustici tenues', could feel entitled to complain to the emperor
because the head lessee of the imperial estate on which they were tenants (coloni)
had had some of them flogged, 'even though they were Roman citizens'm (I
suspect that flogging administered by a magistrate. rather than a private individual, might by then have been something the peasant would have had to
take, so to speak, more or k.ss ir: hi:; >rri;.k!} And cV\'11 m rhe Severan period
Ulpian, in a famous r;l~~agt" induJ~d in the D(~nl (XLVIIJ. vi. 7; cf. 8 and
Paulus, Sent. V .xxvi. I). could !>pC"akofthe t..\".fu!i.z dtrr pl,Mi.-a (of Augustus) as
forbidding the execution. flogging or tartur<' <'f any n,Hn.m citizen adversus
provocationem - that is ro \ay. in defiance of .:lily right ut' ;~rpeal to which the
person in question might h~ ~nttd~,f.
(c) It is an exaggnarion wh,n f;am~~y. in thl pcmdtnn.ttc paragraph ofhis
book (SSLPRE 279-80). asserts that '.lt Jlll ~t.I~l iuthf' r~raud under survey was
citizenship as such a St)unt (lfprivik~c. (The pcritld m quesunn is 'from the age
of Cicero to the age oirh~ Slwran Emp,rors: that i:-. trom tbt.> mid-first century
B.C. to the early third ,~~mury A.l>. : SS/.I'RE 3.) Th<'n i:. ;mlmportant clement
of truth in what Garnst"y goes on tu say, that nti7cn-;hip merely 'bestowed
certain formal rights on its holders as t'illl lllL'lllhlr~ <lf tlw l~oman community,
but provided no guar;mtt'l' ofthlir exlrd;.t'. Then wa'i no cast-iron guarantee,
certainly. Citizens of t~Ycn tht must .ldvamt~t mtldtm ... rates are sometimes the
victims of illegality and injustice. But the example of St. Paul is sufficient to
prove that citizenship could be a 'source of privilege' of the very greatest
possible value, which mtv;ht indeed make all the difference between life and
death. And it is interesting to remember here that Greek cities -Rhodes and
Cyzicus in particular- could be deprived of their 'free status for having taken it
upon themselves to execute Roman citizens. 11 As we shall see, Garnsey minimises the changes (mainly during the second century) which substituted for the
purely political qualifications of the citizenship, as a source of privilege, a social
qualification which was ul~imately dependent very largely upon economic
position- upon class.
2. (a) For all practical purposes the constitutional rights to which an inhabitant of the Graeco-Roman world was entitled by at any rate the early third
century (let us say, by A.D. 212, the date of theCA) depended hardly at all upon
whether he was a Roman citizen, but, broadly speaking, on whether he was a
member of what I shall call 'the privileged groups': namely, senatorial. equestrian
and curial families, 12 veterans and their children, and (for some purposes)
serving soldiers.t3
(b) The many relevant legal texts from the second and early third
centuries sometimes give privileges to undefined groups, designated by a
variety of terms, the most common of which is honestiorr! (often opposed to
humiliores), although there are many others, not merely honestiore loco natus, in
Vlll. The 'declineandfall': an explanation (i)
457
aliquo honore posirus, in aliqua dignitate positus, hon,Jra::t., q:i it: aliquc> ~md~t .~s: (:;lJ
equivalents which show the dose connection bctwltn pn,ikgeJ ~ratus and
official rank), but also splendidior persona, maior persottt:, a/tio. Tlw immil:or m.w
also be a humilis persona, humilis loci, humiliore loco pMirt1~, jld lwmi!ilm., lrt'c' c.J:,
qui secundo gradu est, plebeius (particularly common). !On!idh.. lt'uwor, and (m the
Later Empire) inferior persona, vilior pr!rsona, even puimw q~ti_<,JH' (My i!:sl~ .ur
not intended to be exhaustive.) The Roman lawye:"s. l"urtmbly ~no\l~h. 's(rc
chary of giving precise definitions: asJavolenus Priscas rm ::. 'Ev~:ry d,fin,li<Ja
is dangerous in civil law' (Dig. Lxvii.202). But in thi" c:tse tb,rc w:ts J pe-rf~:ctly
good reason why they preferred to leave their tern1s unddlrwd: .ali dws<' tt.xt.:>
relate to cases involving judicial procedure, wh~:rc it w;;s \'cry dt5:tahk to k:wt
it to the individual judge to determine who was and who w;ts nul !ndu.-kd_
(This has been well brought out by Cardascia, AIJCHH BS) Wmll,{ th~
brother of a man who had just entered the Senate. the wife ot tht Pr:u:wnm
Prefect, or the bosom friend of the Prefect of Egypt b~ nmsid~nd" ll:fllli/:.w.jmt
because he or she did not happen ro have the technic.alltU.lbfi(J.ttun !i)r mtmhtrship of a privileged group? I cannot believe it. 1 ~ Exalt~d r.mk cm11lt !w >'Xp('t'hd
to shed its lustre upon a man's relatives: in a papyrus oftlK l'Jrly third c:-ntury
(P. Gen. 1) we find a petty official in Egypt advising: ~lllllt' odtc:r smh tJilnals \t.l
be very careful how they behave towards the relatiws of .1 man hd\n~mg to
only the third and lowest equestrian grade (a viregre.~~~~~i wh<) lupptncd to <'ll.iY
the confidence of the Emperor Caracalla (cf. now Mill.tr. I:RW t 14 :and 11 :m.
(c) Much of the discussion of the emergence of the pmJk~i:d gmups. Cardascia's excellent article (ADCHH), for instance- has connutratni tm the
largest group of texts. which establishes different penalties for offences committed by the two categories, using for them some of the undefined expressions 1
have just been discussing. There are many texts, however, which are quite precise
in their terminology and give privileges to perfectly well-defined groups:
senators. equestrians, decurions, veterans, and in one case the eminentissimi and
peifectissimi who formed the highest grades of the equestrian order, with certain
members of their families (Cj IX-xli.ll.pr.).
3. Again oversimplifying, I shall now summarise the legal, constitutional
differences which developed mainly during the second century (and certainly
before A.D. 212) between the privileged groups and those below them. The
latter I can call without hesitation 'the lower classes': virtually all of them would
fall outside what I have defined as 'the propertied class' (see Ill.ii above), and
they would include virtually all those free men and women who were not
members of that class. I have avoided speaking of the privileged groups as 'the
upper classes' or 'the propertied classes', because they included for many purposes veterans (and even serving soldiers), who might be men of '11odest
fortune; but I would insist that veterans (and soldiers) were given the privileges
they received because of the unique importance of the army (which of course
included a large part of the imperial civil service) 13 in the life of the empire and
the necessity of turning discharged soldiers into contented property-owners:
failure-to do this had been a major cause of the downfall of the Republic (see VI. v
above). The privileges of veterans were explicitly patterned on those of decurions; as the late Scveran jurist Marcianus says, 'The same honour is attributed
458
The Class Stmggle in the Ancient Greek World
to veterans and the children of veterans as to dccurions' (D(f!. XUX.xvii1.3).

Now the dccurions (sec Section ii of this chaptlr) wtre always, broadly speaking.
thl' class of principal local landowners who were not hvtwrati (not members of
the senatorial and equestrian aristocracy), and as time went on they became ever
more nearly identical with that class. I would cmphasise. th~refon, that the
'privileged groups', apart from wccrans and soldiers, had by the third century
become almost identical (at kast YO per cent and perhaps even more nearly
identical) with my 'propertied class', just as the non-privileged arc virtually my
'lowlr classes', bdow the propertied class. Isolated exceptions such as iniperial
freedmen are too flw to damage my case, l'specially when we rememblr that
being a freedman is strktly a one-generation status (see lll.v above) -and
anyway some of these freedmen received equestrian status, and ant: or two l'vcn
quasi-senatorial rank. 16
(a) The most con~pKuuui a.ud best ;ttt~!oot,J Jiff~rc~ncl between our two
groups (often in this conlll'Ctkm rd-..rred m .tl> ;,,.,rrmims J.nd humiliores) is 'the
dual penalty system', in whKh llw privikgcd groups rtc::iv( ' iightt'r penalty than
the lower classes: decapn.Hion. for mst;uKc;, ~:lst~.td ofm,, ui the summa supplida
(crucifixion, burning tn d.:Jth. or th~ bl-:tSts/ .tud gcm~ral e-xemption from
condemnation to the mir~e:s or tort~d lahnur {<>fll.< p~tloiiir~m), uttcn inflicted on the
lower classes. There is an lntc.resting c.:mterowrsy b~otw,c.n C.ml.tscia and Garnsey
about the emergence l'f the du;tl pc.11:llry sysMll irom a matter of practice,
according to the discretil'll ot'Judg~s. tt_ ddinih ruks offixc.,i l:lw: here Cardascia's
review of Garnsey's b~o1ok sc.c.ms rom~ d~lisiv'-'. '' :m,l I wouhl see an important
change as taking plac\ in the: Anroumc. .nul St>wr.m a~~.. nth.:-r than in the first
century. I must not omit to mc.'nttnn (m~o: sratc.n~t:nt in the. Digt~t. by the Scveran
lawyer Aemilius Macer, that slaws \\'i.'r't: puni,;hrd ';uxording to the example of
the humiliores' (cx~mplo humili,rum. [)~~ XLVIII.xix.lo.p,.). As Garnsey aptly
comments, 'The sequenc~ nught h:l\'~ hwu r~v~r!icd. Wh,n one examines the
forms of punishment used uu lmmil,.r;-~. um is. suuck by thL' connection with,
and the derivation from, typi~! slave p1mishmems' (SSLNNi 127).
(h) Flo~ing, during the-lkpuhli< :md l'arly l'rincipatl'. was not supposed to
be used on citizens, whul'e right of appeal a~ain!'t it. !!-iwu by a law of the early
second century B.C., WllS confirmed by th( Ltx)11ii,, olr l'i J'llbliia of Augustus. 111
Probably humble citt7.l'll~ \\'l'fl' ntrtu .,nbJ~o'Ctt,{ to flogging by over-zealous
magistrates during the mv~stigatHln uf (<til'S - l:omparc the modem 'third
degree'. But as we saw abow, Sr. Paul was imnudiatdy rescued from an
inquisitorial flogging by his ass~o.rnon uf citizenship. and as late as the 180s
humble African peasants could fimually prilll'St J.gahtst th~o. flogging- by their
landlord, as we saw in t(h) ahllW -of rhos~ of their m1mbc.r who were citizens.
The whole situation had ch;lllgl"t.i draiitk.tlly. however, by the early third
century. The precise clmmolugy 1s far from d~....u. bur nu one can deny that well
before the end of the 'il'l'Ond r~onturv. {'ltl1'l'J\S hd~oln~m~ tu the lower classes
could legally and properly he riuggc.'\i ttlr :.1 wtdc. \'.lric.:ty ~i reasons, while their
superiors were given legal ~x"'mption. (Tht- mosot int<.ns.tin~ texts are perhaps
CJ Il.xi.5, of A.D. 19M. .1nd C;tlli!>tr:nus in Di~. XLVIIl.xix.28.2,5, the last
showing that the excmpth'll ._,i decurions was a central 6.-t.) Interest in this
process has too often concentrated on the exemptions, to which our evidenc:e
mainly relates, and as a result the really important devdopment, which is the
Vlll. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (i)
459
introduction ofh::;.;~mg: for th~ gl'\'-.!1 ma~l. o:-im:nblc citizens. has tt:nded not to
receive n:~~-+ att~"lltHJII. U::fe)r!\t!l3tdy. I do not think it is possible to dLcidc
precisely huw k>tl~ bdi.H ~ riw t'!:d nf r!<l' 5::n.'ll(! (Cntury the Ragging ofhumbk
citizens bee:..tll!l' fully 'institut!;m:;iis~,!" (,-\.; I 'hall show in St:ction ii of this
chaptt:r, dcnHiou; ill dw fnnnh nmury lost their general immumty from
flogging.)
(c) '[._,,rm, traditi;:-.:tat!y w;;.s rc:,lrvcd l"n ,.l.wes, but free men oflow rank
wt:re not immt!l!t' ~n th, =>C<Tlth~ ;;n<! r!m.! n:ont;.;:i.::s', and 'Torturl' of horH'stiores
was not p~rmincd ill :iw ;\ur0nll:\ ;,ud s,,r{r;m periods': these perfectly corn:ct
statements hy G;i!'llS\"Y :;r: ch;;r~ln.::muc o)f wh;'lt 1~ to bl found in most writings
on the Slll~ll'n'. "' Thy nml'n.l the f"'n :lnt .1 -;;u:king chanJ:e took plac<: in the
second CC'll~Hrv. vny pruht~ty in the Anwnm~ period. A curiously limited
constituthlll <lt' !\hrcus A1ndm!i winch -::xn1s~d ..:-t"rtain dt'SCt'ndants of rhc two
highest gr.ltks of d1.: n!Ul'-'itn.m ~1rde:- (<!u!lll''!ri;simi and peifcctissimi) 'from the
rkhli.Ul!< or r~om !urtttrl"' (!'1,.1eiarum pocnis vel quaesti<>nibus,
punishml'lli.S
C) IX.xh.ll.J"'.) h.t!< r:hlr~ than''""'' l-:-.11 :ti~\'usscd without the really remarkable thing .thollt it b~o.ing !.~r~s,.:!~ rh:!l ic ,:how.; rhat most Roman citiz<:ns had
now conw to bt tfiidally ""~~r.kd .,:; kg;.ll~ liabk co torture! Whether it was
ever consi,krnf mn~~ar\' to r:iv, lqrJI 'Xt'Iltpti.:m to such exalted cnaturt:s as
emittentis~imi .md l''~f,<w.ittli rhcm;dvc" may wdl be doubtt:d; but, since the
privileges of th~ ,qth:,trian or.kr W<'H' mor~. ~trictly personal than those of
senators, MHcus ohiomly th<!~ghc t th-~i.r.thl..:: to give specific exemption to
members ,1f tlw1r t:nnilif, withtn nrt.nn dq.~rt~o.s. 20 (Compare what I have said
above on tlw Ju .. m ~h(d hy exahnl r:111k upon a man's relatives. The circle.: of
relatives autonutico~lly entitled to :"Ouch benefit might wdl need formal legal
definition on utXJ.Si(JU: '"'doubt a g.ovl'Ttt<lr lnuld always extend it.) As with
flogging . .;u with torture: thl t'Xl'tnptitlll of dc't'm ions was the essential thing: it
may alway-. h.wt been the pr;tai.:t, .md l ns(rtp of Anroninus Pius shows that
by the timl' ,"'f that l'lllJWror { U~-llll n h.l.d ht~nmu stttled law (Dig. L.ii. 14; cf.
XLVIII.xviii.l:i.l = Hi.pr.; lh. i; .m,t. fm ltn' ~'~vcran period, Ulpian's stattmcnt quutlJ m C:J IX.xli.l1.1).~ 1 Thi" ~qu.dly shows that there had been an
important rh.mgl' in kg:al pranin in the ,,you.i nntury, and that there was now
nothing ]~,.1-!dlly objectionable 111 tht tornm ofltwcr-dass citizens. Pliny, whtn
persecutin!! tlw Christians inc 111. h:~d tmtun.t mly slavts (see abow). and we
can believl." dlJ.I m.my ot1i..-iah. 'l-tiH pn:ten<=qfu"t t-' torture free mt'n of .my sort if
they could ;tVllid ir. :.!~ But tht appli,.uion of torture in court to accused persons
was soon extended even to w itnlsstos ,,fhun t hk nmdition; and by about the end
of the third century the lawyer Arc .t,iiu.-. Ch.riosius. in his book On witnesses cited
in the Digest (XXII. v .21.2), could actually Jhi~\ that 'If the nature ofth(' case is
such that we are obliged to admit a lhll'r'IIJrius or some such person [vel simi/is
persona] as a witness, no credence ought to be attached to his testimony without
the infliction of torture [sine tonnentis]. (A harenarius, strictly a man who took
part in combats in the amphitheatre, was regarded with special contempt by tht'
Roman upper classes; 23 but the words 'vel similis persona' might. 1 think. be
held to apply to almost any prop~rtyl~ss individual who earned a precarious
living at the bottom of the social ladder.) There is a tendency to prohibit the
torture of slaves in order to procure evidence against their owners. former
owners and even possessors, and the near relatives ofsuch people (sec Buckland.
or
460
RLS 86-91, esp. 88-9). This. however, is due to concern for slaveowners, not
slaves. As Cicero had put it, in his speech for Milo, torturing a slave to get
evidence against his master is 'more ignominious to the master than death itself',
domini morte ipsa tristius (Pro Milone 59). I should perhaps add that in cases of
treason, maiestas, all rules relating to exemption from torture could go by the
board, as indeed did most other rules.
(d) In various other ways members of the lower classes who were charged
with crimes were at a disadvantage compared with the propertied classes: for
example, they would find it much harder to escape imprisonment pending trial
-to get out on bail, as we might say (sec csp. Dig. XLVIII.iii.l ,3). And ancient
prison conditions could be very unpleasant for humble people: see Section iii of
this chapter, ad.fin.
(e) More important is th~ t.i('t that ~o.'\'h.kn~.Y f:W'-'11 in nmrt by m"mbers of
the lower classes, wh.:ther in crltntnaJ Or civil t"3~~s. \.VJ~ JCt:orded less Weight
than that of their sod.ll suptrinrs. Tht" k.ey tl'Xl 1s .1 p.1s~age from Callistratus in
the Digest (XXII.v.3.prj. '-'Xphinmg th<' prirH;pt~s ou "'hi~..h evidence is to be
evaluated: of the crih'TIJ. m~..nt.lliWd dw tirlit roru~rn~ the witness's social status
(condicio) and is 'wh~..th~..r h~.. is a ~..kcuri<m or a rommorwr' {clecurio an plebeius),
and the third is 'wht"th~..r h( 1s nch or puur' (l,,,upks :d l'gens). Callistratus
proceeds to quote a "c.'nt~ \lt rescripts of HaJnan, sOill!: ut" which illustrate the
kind of discriminatiun h, nlords (ibid. 3.1-2.6). Tht '\J.tnist Juvenal. writing in
the early second century. had \omplaimd 1hat at R<1nw 1 witness was valued
according to his wc:1lth (Ius (i'tJ.'/1.); th~.. numlwr vf his slaves, the extent of his
land, the size and qu.dny <,fhis dimwr-senin. His char:Kt~..r and behaviour (his
mores) came last: he r~..n1vcd n~..dit i!l pwp<lrtiuu to thl' number of coins in his
cash-box (Sat. 111.140-4, ~..nding quantum quiscJne sna nummorum servat in
area, Tantum habet et tid1.'1'l. Thi!> w:1s r'klstr t<, th~ n;tlity. even injuvenal's
day, than I fancy ml)St mudl'n. nadlrs otJunnaJ :tppndatt, and by the time of
Callistratus (c. 200) it was almust tit~. ht~..ral truth.
{f) In the field of private law, we find that torts committed against a
member of the upper classes by a member of the lower classes are regarded as
more serious: such a wrong may become automatically an atrox iniuria. to the
assessment of damages for which special rules applied. 24 And the actio doli, or de
dolo malo, the action for fraud, might be refused to members of the lower classes
against at any rate particularly distinguished members of the upper classes. This,
howtvcr, was of much less importance to a humble plaintiff than one might
suppose from reading the recent accounts ofCardascia and Garnsey .~ 5 who fail
to quote the continuation of Dig. IV .iii. 11.1, showing that the injured man
could still have a remedy by bringing an action in factum, not involving an
accusation of fraud. (Such a plaintiff would lose nothing in most cas~..s; but the
great man would suffer less if he lost the action, since he would not have the
same liability to itifamia.)
We need not be surprised to find evidence from the Greek East as wdl as the
Latin West that when distributions of money (sportulae, in Latin) or food were
made in cities by gracious benefactors, dccurions often received more than
ordinary citiuns; 26 but this of course is a social and not a l"gal fact.
* * * * * *
VI/I. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (i)
461
The vtry summary and simplified account I have given of some of the
principal w:ys in which the lower classes of the Graeco-Roman world were
placed - m mu~-r t('sp~:cts. i:t-=nasiugiy- at a disadvantage compared with their
social supu1ors. during. th( tirst twl ,-,r tlu.:e c~~;turies of the Christian era (the
changes cmning about principally in the semnd .md early third centuries), will ar
least have shown th.lt th( pr~lp;;rrin! das~ts now round it easier than ever before
to exploit thos'~ humbk trn Ill en upon whos~ bhour they were becoming more
directly dtp{Hd~m for their surplus, nmv :h.u slavery was somewhat less
fruitful than h! rhc hst ~ wo ~,muri~.'s B.C. I dotn say that the deterioration in the
legal posinon nftill' k.. \\"(r dass WJ'i lll't th: result of a deliberate and conscious
effort by tht proptrti~~;.1 d.ls:; to :mbJl'C: th(ls~ b:n::ath them to a higher degree of
exploitat:on. wi~h ks" ch"l'l<'o; uf n~"tti:Jg dlcrtive resistance; but that must
certainly ha\"t' hl>t"n tlw dt't-ct '-'t' th~- whnl~ protxss. My own inadequate account
can be snppkmcnttd hy C:Jrns;ys hook (SSLPRE), a very rich source of
informat1on and ~lwwmg .l'-'-':tnnt.'i'!i of :Juny ,:of the social evils in the Gracco~
Roman world over which too many ancient historians have fdt able to pass
lightly. If I have expressed disagreement with Garnsey on om:- or two specific
points, it must not be taken as a disparagement of his very interesting and
valuable book. I should also like to recommend at this point an informative
article by Garnsey which should be easily intelligible to those unacquainted with
Roman history and even with Latin: 'Why Penal Laws become Harsher: The
Roman Case', in Natural Law Forum 13 (Indiana, U.S.A., 19tiB) 141-62.
* * * * * *
I hope it is already dear that what I have been describing in this section is
essentially the replacement of one set ofjuridical distinctions, largely unrelated
to class, by another set which was directly so related. The earlier set had no
direct coumx:tion with class in my sense: its categories were purdy political,
with cititt'Ul>hip as the determining element. But although such things as
execution. t!oggmg. torture, criminal punishment in general, tht' evaluation of
evidence, .md the tre;Hni\'IU ~~fuhlividtl.lls by tht authorities might vary greatly
in practice aclunliug to d.tS!Io p1lStt11n. as (.i:unsey's book seems to me to haw
dcmonstr.tttd. itt ll~tWitllllt'IMI r1,-..,r thq ;hft~rni according to the possession or
the lack elf dti:ll'll"hip .lluut. N1l\\' fr.m tlw :nly Principatc onwards. through
the grant of th~ citJ7m-.lup h.l }'U(~tlmi wlw lMd .-omplctcd their full twenty-five
years' sen in m tht uuu-nti7nl .lUXih.ary rq.tuu.nts or the fleet (down to A.D.
140. with thtir ddldren). 27 the possession ,,f citi7cnship came to corrt>spond less
and less dc,;;dy with membership of the upper classi."S. And from Caesar's time
Roman cin:ttushtp <opn.atl wi.kl~- through the foundation outside Italy of citizen
colonies .ltlll RLmJn tuuui,ip;\lities, although much more so in the Wcst than in
the Gretk world.~~ A rl'Ccnt wruer has remarkld, with grt'ater shrewdness than
perhaps he rl':1li:-lll. that in tlw West wholesale extension of tht' citizenship
'must have k.l w o;cmw pr:Ktinllimitation of a r~~ht whifh would h11ve become a
truisance when llll'''r::,:ii~c.n~~ The new set of distinctions corresponded very
closely with class position. as we have seen, exnpt for soldiers and veterans,
who had to be placed coll:xti,dy :mttu~ the privilt.ged groups for many
purposes bnJ.USt' 1lf th1ir ~n:.tt unpl>rt.m(~ in maintaining the whole fabric of
the l."mpire, .t~ainst ptlrtmi.tl iut~rn;,l r,bdlian and discontent as well as against
462
external enemic:s. Eventually, by !12. nt;z.c:nship w.1s ptrnived to be an unnecessary catt:~ory, ami Wt" may liC't' i~s sudd<.u gc;~r:tl ''Xti:1'J511:m in 212 equally as
its disappearanu, whtn it h<Id become;< supf'rji:..a~-: th prop(;rtied classes (with
soldiers and ex-sold1crs) tWW h:1d a!i t~w wnsmmior:;<i pr!.:lcges they needed,
quite apart from the citizenship, pan!y by trJdir!on hut mainly by specific
imperial enactments, m;ly smnL of "-"htch ,~:~.~~I~ identified today.
The whole process 1s iru:l,t,i ;a:: m~~r:iinttg, ilh;..-..:r:.Hon of the way in which
class can assert itselhgamst purely juridic:il cat{-go:-i(.'S w!llch do not correspond
with its realities. Of n)ursf the imp(lrt:m: dliftrtn-:es rh:.: ~xisted at the latest by
the Scvcran plriod ( IY.)-2,;5) twt w~~n tht OJ!lsntunonai nghts of the upper and
lower classes reflected in p<in th di:1~rmres m thl" pun !Gi.i m:atment of the two
groups in earlier gcn~r:~ti\ms: but thly w~r~' no-.v dK snf-jt"ct of settled law and
were much sharper, and dwy h.1d to be .stri.:dy o.b;;t"ncri by provincial governors
and other magistrat,s. Ti) und~"rsr:u~d :h'' w~ h;&\-, unly to ;;.sk ourselves what
would have happenn1 h' St. Paul h.lci h\ hv;:d. 'ay ..1 hundred and fifty years
later than he did, at abc)ut the ~mw of tlw C!\. lh:kss b~ could have claimed (as I
am sure he could not) w l>~ :1 w~mb('r of t!l .. j:)' C<ltl!J61 of Tarsus, a decurion,
he would have been ~UhJlYtt.J tJ an uupk.;.s.:uu ~nqm~amrial flogging, and he
would probably have b,;,n t'lnishtd ntt'by dt~Jcwl' :won .:rrcrwards. He might
or might not have got .lS f;r as the gov;:nmr':s t:ourt. bm h< would certainly not
have been able to appeal surccssfully to h.;l"Ul i'<l!' rri;l b~ th~mperor in H.ome,
and the odds would haw bt.c:n h.:":avi.ty agJ.a::o;t h:m Jt ,; ~ri;.l iujudaea, where the
governor would havl." i::ld :t CIJII5ilim: flt::dhli-',,h-ws ;tt h;s (ib1w (sec n. 9 again).
It is naturally impo!<:;~hk f.-,r u:c: :> pnvl' ~h;t !1:~ \ktct!\)rat:on in the position
ofhumblc citizens- and tuJ~~d of pnoc fr~' 11 :t'lllll g:":w:-ai- during the first two
centuries of the Christ1.111 ~r .twas. .tu~ hl t!w ddibn;th' dtsm oftht> upper classes
to reduce their legal ug,hts, with tlw :t2m f nt:iking t!wm le-ss able to defend
themselves against ithr,o;a:o~nl exploit;t11on: lmt that w:1s. I .;uggcst, the direct
effect of the changes I h ..vt ,kscribed Si11ubrl)'. tht ~:-.plntlathm of the humble-r
citiztns of Greek citit~ mu~.t lwv.: hwn similarly f.t.:ilit.v~d hy the process I have
describe-d in V.iii abcv,: tit.: ~r.tdtl.ll ~:-;tmn .. n nl th~ rnuaming democratic
features of the city comtitlil!ttlS.
* * * * * *
I would invitt. wmparison of the picture I have bt't'n drawmg with that given
by Finley, AE 84 ff.. who notts the 'dLclinc' of slavery and adds that this
'requires txplanation (cf. IV.iii n.18 above). Acnpting the hypothesis that 'tht
employt.rs oflabour in the latl'r Empire were not making the eftorrs needed to
maintain a full compil"mmt of slaw labour', he produces his 'explanation for
their bt.haviour'. which is 'a structural transformation within the society as a
whole'. H~ now comt.s very mar to saying something valuable. wh~n hl
dcdans that 'thl key lil'S not with tb<. slaves but with the free poor', and ht' adds
that he bdicves thl' dements can bl 'pinpointed'. Alas! all we get is a 'trend',
visible from tht' bl'ginning of the Principare. 'to return to a mort "archaic"
structure, in which ordl.'rs again became functionally signifilant, in which a
broader spectrum of statuses gradually n:placcd the classical bunching into free
nwn and slaves' -roughly. that is to say, thl process which I have bcl"ll at pains
to describe in this section, but connivcd from a superficial point of view, in
VIII. The 'decline andfall':
(Jtl
explanation (i)
463
terms of uams. serving to com:e;;l its mainspring and its essential character.
What I St'c.' as pr:m~rily ;, dc~vdoplllcm dut would facilitate exploitation is to
Finley 'a n1mulativ~: d~prc-sskm : th~ statu! of the lower classes among the free
citizens' (A l-47. Ill}' it;;hc:s). But hnw incs the 'trend' described by Finley
explain til~ changeov~r (d,'snibcd i:1 IV .ii1 :<bo,,.,} from slave production to what
I would c1!! mainly safpr('dncnon? (finky p:-ders to speak of'ticd tenants'; but
see III .iv .llld IV .:ii ;:~bovt.) Thr 'c~:phu::\ti-'U :>hould be precisely the other way
round: it WdS be<<lliSt ;;l:i.,.<"ry 'N:is !a)[ now p~nducing as great a surplus as it did in
Rome's palmi.~sr <bys that rh::: pmpl'r:wd d:;.ssc-.;; needed to put more pressure on
the free pnor. Oti p.9J Huh.y t"o::h'" vt>ry Ui~:u to getting it righc. But 'exploitation' is JKII .J 'om:copr lu. iS prq,J:~d !( usc: for him, '"t'xploitation'' and
''impcri~hsm ;;:-.~. :n cltt t:nd, too !'lrl)o\d ;.;:- t";ttcgorics of analysis. Like "state'',
they rcqlurt' >opcc!tic:mon' (;\E IS7)- wbJCh :.hey never receive from him. But
the histcri;m who debars himsdf !rom usmg ~-:~Cploitation and imperialism as
categories of ;m:.~!ysis will h;ardly m;;k.: mlrc :o~<"nsc of rhc ancient than of the
modem world.
* * * * * *
To ceomlurl\ thi.;; '~.:riou I shall brwny rnin\ th~ trwd.-...brussed the or~- >(
the 'dcclitw ;md fl!r .:rrhc HmuOl!) t'mpir, :tdvan,,-d by H(hHWI7.i.'li" in hio; gn:a1
work, first publi;;htd Ul 111.:?1.:, 11~> s. ci,d lui Ercmtllr:u: 1-li;fNl' 4 ,,,,. /(,>m;w
Empire, rm~o: ~;,f tih t~w hok~ o:i :mcknt bisKry which t!:, hi~mrlln of ~<.>rnc
other pnio.:l, 1f 1w1 tht g,lwr;l1 r\':hkr-'. W!l! IIJt )n:y h;Lv, hcani of bti 111.1y
actually have r~:ut. ilr ;lt lt:l'\t. d!Jill('d mto, .nul wh:cl! ,.v,ry <;.r:d ~n.i f<m:-tn
historiau ~~cmsa)t-~ of:1'1l. It W."l!i ~O!Ul'Wh:tt .Lit;rnl t;-,1 :IK bttttr IH tr.\~b!;U it-m;
into Gcrmau and [t.aliaa:. ;~.ud it was r:'-n:hkd it .1 much-improwd ~- .....;nd
English nlmun hy P. M. hJ~~: tu 1957 {SEHUP.;. As j;. wrll km.vn, !(.;)~
tovtzeff rtfHs,d tf ga\'1~ a cmnrlch' :tll!>W~r. k1 .&!em a '>ill~lr ;:m.. wu. to tb1
question why- th, Rnm;~r, ,rurir, ,hdiui .md fdl'. IT>llh'lll~n~~ him:>df wirh .1
summary crni.-i-;m ,,f t"rtJifl th~or:s winch he th.:.t:~ht f;.~sr or iu;,,i,qu.ut
(SEHR 2 I.';J.~-:1 1;. J dull comment rr,'!'~lllly 'II .l/1 interesting r~a:t:k Ill hi,;
very last paragr,tph. !\1 thi~ p~lint I wish to t:h'llf h"' th, in~~f'pn:t.Ltio!l 'A' hid;
Rosrovt7.t'IT lw11sdf oiT~r.; ._\(the JWtioJd m wlud1 h: ";.!,din t~n. bn';arHL'
apparent: rnttghly frum t!w dta~h of Nbrn1~ .-\m,iih to d~ acc:c~ ... ion ,,f
Oiocleti.m. :\.D. ~~!1-21-\4 (J .J91-5o1. ~~~ .i3]-:l) H.,H.r.w;rrffnuJglli~, tha1
the civilis;ujuu ofth.: H,uH.tlt :nrm.-!' ...,.,,r:a!ly t::-b.m (d1,. nHpirt, b.{ ..:,,Qy~.
was 'urb~mis,d !n ~J<:o~~ . 1.311'}. ;md \h:~~ til\ J."~Vlkgn! t:ppt"t\J,,,, ,,frlto: citKs
- 'hiV(.'~ .,:" drorws'. lh.''\l!Wt:r.df oll'UlJ.!h tl1~ th\'111 (l 3XIl. d. 3J I) -liwd tn
some lu"ury .:.fi" tht' b:~d.:-. nfrlw WLrkmg poplli-'ltna. urban .o:n; ftr;:J. ~b""" ali
the pea!>;mtry who t~,rm.-.{ :!u bL1llo. ot th.;r pcpll!.lthm ( i. r.iii .1:1d IV .JI
above).'''' S.:) r.r. :: :-'llY H.~rn:m nbC-'I'i;m::-; w.:>llhl rind li<Uhiug t(> ~U;Htd wt: i:
Our Ro:!-to\'~7dr. who h..td hHn~dt"~x:t.'rWI-~d tiu: Hn:.~ta~t r,v,hmun. w~.:w ('It
to find rlw ,xpLm;lt!ll i' rh~ Ul>h,-~,;;,J~ n:' tlw third n:utm ,. il a ..ldib.-r<tt~. .tnd
'
'
class-con,-ci,i.:~ .tH~rk hy Lht... t~:;,knt~"d 5'"',-.!\:ua:ry. ;.t,inj;! ~~ 1!i sp._~!hl~:tdrhat
large an::r w~1it"11 "''" r;n\uHd r~;.ti!l!, i'runl it,. ;a!lk". ll('tn ~h~ '1:!1)' hA:tgcoisic' (.1 J{,,,~,,,,~1'<'t1\;lll ic) -;,purdy :k!>otn:ni\'t' :m: .. k. whKh ,.,,1id hr"i:ag
no lastil~ g:tn' !> th~ .. ,tni-b.ul'-:~m" ,,i~r.-~, .. (1. ;!: ....:i. ,r~~n.-.Hr !'J 1-5l ~!). Tlm
theory kt~ bcn :;ikc..l: on nnit bv m,my wh,, do nat li.n.::w t!H: .;uur,,><; t;): rh~
w,,,
464
The Class Struggle in thr Ancient Greek World
Middle .md bt~r Roman E:urir" at fi::;;t h;tlct, .md h.1s uf;,~n been cited with
appr,v.ll. ;;.ltbcngh rarely (;I.S Hosl0vtzt:t1' lnmseif to.:.lhsed: see 1.494-5) by
Rl'tnan histuri;ms. In fact, nmc of thl~ evak:Ke Oft'l: by llostovtuff supports
his !htcry. )r$ prmcipal and r;tr:t1 d..-t{-n h;IS b(."{n t~.xposc-d S('Vt:ral times, notably
in a n:vic-w tud an article by No:-rno.\li Baynt"s, publi~h~~c! in 1929 and 1943
H:SJWl'livdy::~.; til<' "'utunpor:try sou:..:es nv~;;l that tht ;;oidters, far from being
':"t"~;mild by ~ lw pt'J.S.lt~!" d:S !ho.:ir :-~'Pr.~-s,ntati,oes. o:- even;,.~ :,!lies. were actually
their -:ousr.mt ttrror.
his, :t)d~~d. Hosw.r:lttl' h:;mezf realised: see his
SEHJ.lf: 1.48-i t'i>r :t pass:tgt hqp!ming. 'T!:c ins.trumen::o of oppression and
;,.xanioll "v~rr" s,,J.iil:'rs
. ThLy w,r{' ;> n-al ttr:or :o ~lw population'!) Rosmvr-tdi"s.p~-;ks ;;:;:ail: 1nd. :t!pin '-"f~-h:'S<5. c-wt: (in J.:lOl) c,f'thc tL'rriblc class
wa.r ,,f the third co:ntury- ;; roc nons misc:onnptkm. ;ts I sh:;li e-xplain in Section
iii of rhi~ dupttr. Y~t ;a!rh,mg:l: hl!' ;unlysts of rhc das5 fl_,rces of the Roman
l..'mptre S1>:1Wtim('" Vt'r~,-s ~m mw wh:dt w;,uld b, ;acct:pt;thk to many Marxists,
he himsdt .ilways rtpmb;ot,J ,\otar~l'\:11. 0111d hi~ wnn:pt of classes and their
stm~gk j;;; ;Hatir ,lf;d ,._.-:-,v\\'~L!'d. (I find i! xrr.:;.,~rdm:uy tiut even so good a
his:ori:m ;;s. U.tym.-s ~hmld h:n, r.gr.rd,ol R..!5tYr?df .is <! kmd of Marxist.P2
\V \' trms.: pta g~~ his : heory .1bo11t th( tlmJ-ct:ltury n is!:. of irs l'cccntric features
and snip it dn\\'ll, so !( ~p-.:-:llc to wh.~t ts ti.md;m;,r.t:t! ~md trat" in it: that thtre
wa~ JU;tssivt exploir;;.t!<..m by an ,;rbil!l pr.p~rtwd d;~s 'Jf what Rostovtzt:ff
himsdf twtn refers :0 .1;; ':hi" wnt kiug-.-bss" .._,f th~ ,uapif\: the rural population
(trn or oth . :rwii.) anc! tl:.- .1rtB;m~. n!;r.:l~tr,,d,:--.; and :>l.w"s. in the towns (s~..c
~..sp. I.J5 . .;~:; ..(,). Whe-n w, 1knk1;> rl11s, w~. lwgin ~n sc( the rt..asons for tht
fL'IIl'WL'd ,kdi111'1U rh~ l..u.:r Emput (:.1 l'l'rlJl wirh wlnd: Hnr.tovtzeff set:ms to
it.t\'l' lwl'll k)~ t:uniliar} .t!kr tk lwrui.: revival ~f rl:~ tt~ of Dioclctian and
Const.mtiu~... The Lllfr Empm. dp.~i;,!ly 111 the W~:-;t. w;!s rather less a spccitictlly nrb:.~u .-i,!hs.ltioll,lut
.
i! Wl!i lt;myhmg l'V''IIlll<ln' :1 r..:gitnl' in which the
vast m:tjnrity Wt:~e c~plui~~.l to rh~.. v:ry limit t~r th~ hcudit of a few. (Rostl\\'tZL'tf Sl'tms lL' h.l\'l' n;tlis~:d !Ins: s.,.-~ St:IIHE: ),5:!-:: ..Jt ..l Among thos~. few,
tht> indiiteri'u.:, to tlw 1mbiit' ~od d~ So:Juwthmg 1 h.u cmr~.ru,-;;t unly other people,
ht'lll(;UtnJ by T;LcllU!> (1-li.r. I. 1: iR><:t;;l ,.(,; p:oblu:1' ;It ,:/Jc'llae), had grt:atly
trtl'Tl'as~,i: .md rh,: utas~ Jfdw J~puhtJt\tl. J .. dwir- hdM<itllr .;h,ws (sel especially
SntillTI iii ,,frhis dupt;.r). had Htl r.:almtcr,~t 111 tht pt-csi.nation ofthL' empirL'.
Tlw l)ttwr dtmcut in lh~tu\'tzdf\ t'Xptm;llhtl ,_.f th: ".kdim' on which I
wtsh h c<>muww is th.: Vt~!'Y ,nd nfhb last p;u::~.gr-;tp!t. 'Is if possible,' he asks
dlSJ'Olllkntly, 'to cxti..'thl .1 higlwr civilt'>.ttion t<> the lower classes without
ddw;mg irs St<ln.l:ad .md .lilutin!-{ t~.s qu.1lity w rh, vanishing point? Is not every
l'ivihs.uion b,luu.l to .t~c .t y .1~ ~o.m .h 11 hgins ('o J'l'netratc the masses?' To this I
think we can n:plf iu th WilhilO ~t' Cml,)u Cht!d,: the cultural capital accumulatL'd by rlh~ ;:i,i!isaUulJ5 ,~f.mt~iHIY
w JS no more: annihilattd in the: collapst of rh, Roman c:mpirt' than smaller accumulations had been m the lesstr catastrophes that interrupted and terminated the Bronze
Age. Of course, as then. many rcfmcments ... wo:rc SWl'pt away. But for the most part
th~sc had brcn designed for, and cnjoytd by. only a small and narrow class. Most
achievcmt"nts that had proved themselves biologically to he progressive and had
becomt firmly e-stablished on a genuinely popular footing by th1 participation of wid~r
classes were cons('rved ... So in the Eastern Mediterranean, city life, with all its
implication~. 'itill continucd. Most crafts werl' still plied with all the t('chnical skill and
cquipml'nt evolved in Classical and Hellenistic time-s. ~ 3
V/ll. The 'decline and fall': an explanation (i)
465
Here I agree wi:h Childc. Tih mat~ri;~l.~:rs an: lW\'l': tht exclusive pr(srrvt.' of
a gov<.ming dass. WhL"I1 .\ civi]i!)ar.tnn rnllaps ..~. dw gn~t:min~ r.Gss uftr:: disintegrate~. ;l):d i:s cdtw;. (its litc:.lnl!<: ;md ;m ;mJ so fonh) often comes to a :i:ll
stop; and th: s-o.Jdr:ty whidl 'i:!{"\~~:d::. h,,_.. ({~ lil~kl' ;t r~t!sh St:l:~- This is um true of
the matcr101l ;nt:s .<lHi natis: im:tuv :r.ld<.'' of cour1:e m.:;y di.sar~<ll, and l>;tr-
ticular techniques m~ }'..fit> out ~.s th:ckr~1:md for them ...-~as~~~- b1ti m the m.u~ the
:wr:t.l);\' io; aawsmita,i mn or less iat::lct ~'-' suctw~ding ~~ncra~
tions. Tha!> la;t;; lK~'ll dt~ f"Xf'~ritnn <.}f :b bn fin: dmt~::.;md yt"ars :md more ia
the Far East~~m. N(':&r Lrs~c-:n. i\11n:iiterranc-:m anci Wc~t1:rn ;;ocictics. Each
society caa norw:l!iy hq~in in m.<ny nl:lt.ri.t! n~p:rt;, wht~t its prccb:c-ssor kft
off; and tlu~ do:.'s matter. I: ;,p;H':r'. then fun. that it wa:s ;lhovc 2-ll in the .!q_:re~
to which it 1u:d (to us(-. T~ust4\'tl{ft~s phrJsc) 'pt:v..t~ =-~~;{\i the a:asse~: ~h~it the
legacy or Gr:~(;.'(>-Rom:m ,:ivili;;.u:on r.m;.iB~d comitn:ot:siy ahve. \Vhn
Europe 01:n m)n began to .utv .tlKC ;;s 11 vrry ~oon ,il.l >nn~ th~ ... ,~s of tiw
'barbarian iuva:omans' had ~r,~:u th<.to:sdv.~. :iw old t~dmiq\1~. h.mdt'l.i down
from fatlwr to son .i~l.l fr . .ml a.~ih1:1.m '" :tppr,'u!ic~. ;.vcn~ .;.1illw;;:i;1hk lor thcm~diacval world ~t) buikl. on. Th,: 'n:.mom:, ,kd!il~ vfth. l,m~o~n ~:mp~r.: .v;ts.
essentially .1 fl,_.,,ri.ur o~ti,m in t hoe Cl:mmrm.: .rg:n:ts:tri;::.>n ._,flht ~~mrir.-: r:.thcr- ti:J:J
in irs tt!chuiqms., \vhich d.-t,rior.uni lin!,. n~c~pt !u so f.1r as th\:' J;ack ,,f :uoy
widcspr<..td l'tt~'(tiv~ Jcm.md iLr {~n.ain luxury ,!!ouds and 't"!'\'hXS cv<mtully
dried up thlir suprly. !\kdltnh; of pr,),fUL'ti<tO, :Sl!dl ;1~ th::y ,wrc >~.:'l~l ft> h:w~
hdd their own thr: wb~n th: arr!~ti, ''lim of the W(>!~ l'ror!!.lc.~,i bo:camt
poorer. h lus been !><~tid by llk Am~.ri,~:m htswrm: Lym: Wh:1~. ~ Mad I .a1tr,t,
that 'Thl'n: is no proof th.Jt .auy iUIJlllf!";mr skill~ ,)f tilt Gr.tcr.oltoman world
were lost during the Dark Ages even in the unenlightened Wts:. Julll'h It_..~~ ir.tlu
flourishing Byzantine and Saracenic Orient' (TIMA 150; d. IIi n.ll bdowi.
Indeed, as White has claimed, 'From the twelfth and even from tht d~\'('nth
century there was a rapid replacement of human by n<tJI-hmu;m imrgy
wherever great quantities of power wert' needed or where tho: nquind nwt1un
was so simple and monotonous that a man could be replace.l by ;; mechamsm.
The chief glory of the later Middle Ages was not its cathedrals or its ~rJCs or its
scholasticism: it was the building for the first tim<.' m htstory (tf u ,:nn:pl,x
civilisation which rested not on the backs of sweating sbws or nuhcs hut
primarily on non-human power' (TIMA 156). That 'rri111.mly' 1s an t'X;lggeration. but there is an important truth in White's S!<tt~tlKllt, .md \W rotl(i
certainly say that by the later Middle Ages there was a r.:;Ll pmsr,:t't 1..lf batldmg
'a complex civilisation which rested less on the backs o:' l'Wl':lting !>l.tves or
coolies and more on non-human power'.
tcchnologic;~l
..
m.
(ii)
Pressure on the curial class'
In the last section I showed how the propertied classes of the Grat'co-Roman
world as a whole were able during roughly tht" first two and a half centuries of
thC' Principate (let us say, from the time of Augustus to the end of the Sevcran
period in A.D. 235) to tighten their grip on those below them and place
themselves in an even more commanding position than they had previously
been, by reducing the political and constitutional rights of thos~ members of
466
The Class Strug_(!le in the Ancient Creek World
the !own classes who w~~n. f<omiln citiZt'!li. I must now describe bridly how
and why the goveming do<ss of the empire, the men of conspicuous wealth,
came to put incrcasing pr.~ssur~ upon 1he IIJWt't >t't'tictt l!{tltr properried class itself
namely, what I am c.l!ling rhc cm1al ems (Jtfm~d h:low). 1do nor need to giw a
general :tccount of tht" cmi:.l das...-. as the whole subj,ct hac; btcn dealt with by
A. H_ M. Jom.s, wlttJ grc~t pn,~tration. in '>\'VI..'ra! c.hH'trcnt works. 1 This
pn:ssun. !:pon the. n:nais. began wd: bt.fon. rhe t"nd ,,f tlw .>.~cond Ct'nturv and
~\'as ;llr~ady ~:u ad\';mc~d :n tht> ,.triy third: in :hl' fourth century it was i;nm~lfit~rl. rill' pr:.:s.mrc cominud in rh~ t!f!h .md by the si.:o.!l! n::ntury tht curial class
had h:tn gr~-;~dy 'l.vc;;ktnt,i ;md h.1d !o:-t n:,tdy ill iu forme: pn:stige.
When I spt:;k of the niri;ti dass l1m>an rhos;_ rrwmb;:rs ofdte propertied class
(with tht:ir iamiik-s) who ma{k ;tp :h: Cmmds ofth': r1ti~~ (fJ'I/ci>) ofth~. Grcl.:'k
:1st (and of COU:'W th~- torr~soondmiO: \Vt~'l:m t'il'ir.:rrs) ;m,i ill.kd all the important
m:;g;~tunts. w which th,~y wc~r.- ~origi!l:.IH)' (ia tht Ch:isicJ! and Hellenistic
pttiud~} dt'itnl by tJw A~s.:mb!v bu: c.u~J:' ,v.arualiy {nui.nly during the first
two r~mun..:s of till.~ Chn!i-ti;m l'T;t) to hi~ nomitlJh'! by l'ht< Council itself or
nrolhd by otilfi.l-s appomt-.d by it (cf. \f_ iii abovt :md i'. ppr."ndix IV bdow). As
(OUIH'iliors tlll'Y wtr, (:tlkd m l J.:~u dauril1flf's. i:; Gr1.:'1.-'k iMuicmai. and thty arc
oittn nf:rr,d !<)in Eughsh .:ss 'dn.'\l~luns'; b~~r ~he Hrm 'n1rials' (curiales) was
nfh'll US<.'d of i,ntriC>us .m,l mfmb,rs "t" ;h~ir f:.mili,., by thl' ~arly fourth
nutury.~ and as I wi!.h w :sp,:,1k of;, 'rl;l!>~- I rind tlw ;uti~Y:ival form 'curial'
c-ouv~ni~.m. The word 15 dtnvcd from 1Wi:1, tht Luia: wor,i t'or a SL'natc house:.
whkh ai!\u c;;um; to ih- :l'-L'd - ;b did the tl'rm ofl];l {iltr!o Jrwri.mum) - for the
&.:oll,div~ rouno!lor'i of' p:trncuhr (.'H. y. Ill th.: Lttin w':01 th, tlYdoJ Jw~ricmum of
.1 ;;uhsrauti:tl h~\\'1~ ou!d b, txp~ct<"O to numblr .tbou; .J hul;Jrcd nt~.mbcrs: m
the Gr,<.k E;,~t it mu.:hr 5(JHt'llJU~5- h, ;t.:rclt tk.,l hn!t'r..:1I 11\:tV add that in some
;m.u of rlw Gn'(k ~:orll wht'fl r!r~ htt: h:td bc1'D1 sl;_,w to ,{,~v~lop we may fmd
,l&.:tao;;turt.tl xnrrtlliS tn tht' g<'!Wtai ruiL";; I .lm :l;mn~ hdt:: ~'-'l' for exampk the
md uf :!lli Appmhx IV hdow t"l1r .m mKipuon (lGI:ItJ~~. IV.22h3) rd.tting to
,;: l\1.lctdnnM:t n-m:~m:::my '.'lh:d: 1:; A.D. :58 had .c:ttuns. an t'kklfsia, and <tn
anmul magt:o;trah' (a /h'f,ir.tt'dlj, bur .1pp.m~mly ll<l Couual. Ncvcrthdess. th~
pirturLl am prts~nting h~r, t5 tru~ m th, '\';1sr m:tjmity ._,f cases.
Jn strKtllt'ss it might wdl bt. Jnt\mik fO k.;rib. r!w J,wrions and their
t:mulil:'s as rh, 'curial ordcr' r:1tlwr th,l!l 'n:n.,} dr~s;'. t(r ofn:mrsc a man became a
d\.Ytn inn nly w!tc it~: ...:t.ully bdd dut posn:on <ll!l uor mcrdy becaus<.' ht'
owawJ pWJ>L'rty of a suttintm ,-J]u, (lotHii) to quait} lmu ti)r ir- pt.rhaps, in
o;ub.;tantil rnwtL" m thL I.Jtiu \V~st m tiWL\trly s;.-cou,t :~nwry. something in tht.
u~ighbnurh<od ''t HS [rJtJ.II(J(t (tlw tigur<' at Cmmnn m the early second
,~11tnry: Phuy. L:i' I. XIX ..".). one qu;rr~r t tlw ~~lJlW.o;tn.m ccnsus and om tenth
o{ th, <it'JI;>Wri:tl: hnr thL ti~wc uu~hl vary Vtry grl.1tly. ac,:ording to th..: size
.m.t nnp<lrlan,-,. of th, oty tonnnwd (..;l,.: Jmw.;,, LHE II. 7Jl'(.. ): Duncan-Jonls,
F.HT:QS ~C-X. 147-i~). HI'\V<"Wr. l:w th~ uu;, my .;ro,..y 111 this section really
o~wns. 111 th, brt"r st.cond c~nt,;.ry, r!w class nf mm t!Jl.Uldally qualified to
l,~nm, ,ln:nn,~IJi (<md not able 1. ;tdunT til;.' IH<)r:.~ l'.-.:.&hLl: pnslfion of h,m,lr<lti,
d:r\li!!h Hh'mb,r..;hip of tht S<.'tl:ltvrnl r>r ~'\11il'~trl~:l ortkrJ was bl'ginning to
.:,rtKid~ hi soml dtgret' with th:. ;tctuai -=t~:-i;tl ord~r c.:l~ri;:l ;;tatus had always
bwn d~itr.It.k ;t!' an honour, am! ji-,,m rh~. tir": h.M vf th;. second century
onwards Jt mvul\'cd important kg;!i pr:v!l~~._;; (di;;{'U""'''' m Section i of this
VI/I. The 'decline andfall': an explatlatiort (ii)
467
chapte-r), Sfl ~h : most [JJC'Il quahficc! iC.r ~~ wowd n;IIU::".illy try[() Qbt:tm ir. It i"'
true that in rh~ (~;;rly second cc:ntury rh.-re W:\;; ollt'CJdy, Ill B!!hyHiJ-!'ontus and
doubtless ;n most o~her parts vfth(' Gnd: w::>r~d ..l g,~n~r.ll :t:ding .mmn}; the
uppn classes (vhich lirn-,. cv:,iemiy sb..1~cd) r.li.:l: dt:~lTinn;. ')l:ghl w br chust-n
from families ;tln::tdy of o.mal st:ma.'- frnmlw~trm htmll'rrn r;uher th;"ln ;: pldn. as
Pliny puts :t (Ep. X. i'l 3). Hat b1'Uig ;t.ll:'nl:--ton. d~s1r;;ble oH it was m mdi~ W.tS
beginning by the scnmd half ::! :!w ,-,_r:tury to mvolv" tin.1nc:al burdens which
the less affluent !(.,tmd H :Jl~Tt:;~singly chfficd~ to rhsdurw: An m:scnptmn ti-mt:
Galatia d.~r~,,: to i45 c:nl rt'!"cr tn ;\ dti;.:"n .\S havH:g bccu .1 c~\mc:l!or_~:mm (pnk''
bouleut(ou j): bu: dm und llll'.-cn no mor~ th;;n :h:a hl h;tc: \,tn .tdbHd Jttro the
ordo, as al: h('twm. waiamt h~mr. m:td( to pay ilw ti:e :n)lnnily ">;;~ft~d iu ..;udt
cases. 1 1-lvWL'\T!'. !rom :he i;~ur sccOJld rr.:r:tur:1 pressure W;l~ ;tlh'llSiti~d oa
financial!"' qual ificd rnl'n who w~r.: sui! pl~bt'l' w bccoml' men! i.._.r ~'".:he-n ord:
An intcrl':oOr:ng papyn:5 of thC' :;<dy :h1rri n~lllli~y, .l'> rc:>-tnrnl Wlfh rt:asnu.abltprobabih~y, spe:tks uf !:wn posses~mg ;; t'UI'i:1l ~.ui:1r, (houleutikr .t.n~} who .m:
not yet o~rollcd tm the nuiai n~:bc,r {bmlfr:aik:u: f<'ui..ttlu:). .n.:l ~ay~ th.u th::y
must no: t"V<td~ loth tiw o;;.tn:ct'' ;mrJOed op dll common t-"'~'-'P!- (dim,li!.MJ
hyperesia(1 on !lJl' grnnml !J;;n dwy po~~css cun..l! !llt".lns (':.Jwr;:: /1r:1lr11llku'L aud
also curi;ll litllr~.ic.;; (fMrir~ril.a; lr,wm:.z~o~:) on th ground rh;u <ih'Y .lr, rarJt YL'I
ClltC'rld on tb nllia} f\'t,ISh'T (Sfllll.i.T_Y.Jj." b-.u HI rh, ti)trrfil Yntury I!Wtl
who Wl'r(' qualiiiLd t. h:.c-r.m;- k!.t:ra ..us. c.mld o.:c.l,lll.l}ly h, T;l\lllti."1 l:t i
stcms lik,ly dl.!t by th;. end .-.r' ic- ~cwr.m p;:n:,,J ({\ .L> ~.-i;;) riwv WlT\.' .tlrL:~dy
fairly rar~ .. tttd th;U wh;tt I h;H'\' ctlli"J urul d.ls' .ml nm.l m~t,-r ay nvlrly
coincidt.d. \Xdut lonks ;t! f:rst .;.:;:ht ltk ,. .m qrdn tum~ om tn h ... , ..,,nti:dl~ ,,
class. It i' of ~r~.tt mr.-r,:st rh.n .t!rhough tiw post ,.f :lto.triu mighr J?wolv;
considcrahk tiJJ,mci.l! .md Slil'tni.,, r y r,~ponsibilitit.,. Dio)ddiat: could .~rtully
providl m l'J_) rh.tt ,v"n tiRal'r~-y "'""' nt r.. h ~,u.,\nd 111 pr.v~lif ;: :n.m !rum
shouldtrutg 1h.: bnr.:l,n.; ;J..;St:n.ih\1 with b,m:: ' ,}, HlfiColl (( ~/ X.xxxii.t>: ")lt'r'lc'.
litteramm ;/a~lflo'IIC'5 m:m,,,t raa,;:oo 11111 fll'l';,;l,.m illr.~i.' llhrtr.ttc dt't'Urtrt~
sonll'timt.s amn up m th: p;'I'Yrt." .'\,. \\''' ~ . w i~o Ul.11i ~bon. till",. &t maJt rlt) oi
decurions t!J :ttl tlw nnj,:- rin~-~ (t'Xt't.pr :t t~w. !Jk, o,.rit and i><tl:uyr:t, \\'htdi
wen~ part:<:l:Lt:-Iy "cmIJH\'lC!;'I!' :tl ;;h:u:il"t,r) were rritu.aTJlv r.mdJ\~ IWTS' In
sma11er and r,nr firt,s, wiKr~ th, h-;,sr w.:a!rhy of th, J,,;mo_,.,, :nt~hr Lw mto~
of vtry Uh>(f,ral\' prl)pcrty. mnr, of llwlll wttl.l b~ IJkd~~ ;o g.< m t(>i m.mufac.:tutl'. h; ;l H":1l ,-,n.~-hors\'-t<.WII hk~ Abtbt:t,w ::' Byza,~~ot." m Jtl), w: tillli
that Cat.;,-ilian. w)h> i-. :h-llully .t.!thWif (;1 m.ai!~,t~Jh'). i.;, ., working Wt",l\'io.'t. w]w
takes hil' .lunwr wuh his worktn.-u. \\ i:wrh,r -.l.r\'''" or ''l::t~:-bbourn~ (<~m
. ["1c
. 1: ( ) l'l.lflb. nppcn
A
d . II , t.- _,.,.,
t' _,,:t
,,- I,, .:J,t,
, m
. C.)
... ']"I
"' X''l
cperarrtls
~; ,..
..: .. ,,
" . LX I. ("
_
Ziwsa). And An~usruw mentions a 'poor curialis' nar:ni f"mu.1. \.-h~ h ...tlx:~n
dlllltnVir oi th, IJI!IIIi(it'f'lm Tulliensr ncar Hippo: he: cail~ him ',l ~itupk rL"oiS.l!l: .
simplidrer f'li.<tiiillllis (D: d<l'l.o?'P'l'd,, pn m'muis 15. in C5Ft XLI.h44}
* * * * * *
The nasons for the tightening oftht' screw upon the curial class .tfl' not far to
SC'l'k. Let us glance at the condition of those: poor fr'-'l' men who wcrL" btlow
rlwm in tht social scak pt.asants above all. I o;trongly susp~o.cr that those who
were kssccs had always hc~o.n made to pay as much nnt as th~o.ir landlords could
g~o.t out of them. Tbc position of small pc:asant ftl...holdcrs would vary J gr~o.at
468
deal, according to wlw:!JC:r h.trv~~sts .vcn g<wd. whether conditions in their

neighbourhood Wl'T~' p~:;tc:di1i ~m.; frt"(' trom !mgand.tg>' {or 'barbarian' irruptions), whether th(' 51\Jallholders w~'r, mbjccu::d 10 ~;nu:::u;;l fiscal extortion or
oppression by powc:rti:l neighbours (ct". IV.i1 .;bove). ;ud so forth. All in all. I
would expect that JS the re~mns iiou: dt;~nd sbwry ,ledincd. additional
exploitation of the: free poor. ;..C":: w~:~n f.:tn!:t~i~'-'d by r!w depression of their
legal status, would hardly ni.hss rhc habw.:e.
By the time oftht. EmJ.:wr Marcus Aurdius (lt.t-~n tht" Roman empin.' as a
whole had not sufftrcd Juy gn;tt nl:mmy ~l!K~' th<" bq.dnaing of the Principatc,
apart from the civil \\".ITS (:i 68-9 an:! mK or ~wo !or::t! r<."volts of which the most
serious was probably !it;tt ~~,.t by C. Julill~ CiYiii~ in loJwer Germany and
north-west Gaul in 6'J~7Ct. \\"trs, even m rhr ~,i~t:s of D,lmitian and Trajan,
were not ruinously t::<ptustw. tf Wt.' aEuw ti-! th" .:m1.std~uhle booty obtained in
some of them, esp~Yially Tr.t}m~ J;tst cnnp;tign in Daria in 106. Most of the
sums of money tranHmttt'd m cur iihnry sourn~ t(,:- puhlic expenditure and
receipts are unrdiahk. and tiK ilguu ofHS -4fl,I)(IC1.\JIJ).(J(JC which Vespasian is
said by Suetonius ( V1'-"l-' 16..;) to hJ.'."l' thought llrns,.ary to meet immedjate
r<.>quiremcnts at his :!{"(~~sion i~ h9-7i1 ('rhl !arg..-5t sam of money mentioned in
antiquity', according to T<.'nmy h.mk, ES:\R V.45) has no better credentials
than the rest; but Vespasian cvi,kmly d~J take lht" wry mmsual stt.p of raising
the amount of imperial tribut(', plrh.tps :<itlb\!,mtl;tlly (ll1u Cass. LXVI. viii.3-4;
Suet., Vesp. 16.1).lt \.\'tiS inch~ h.:l!!ll .~f!\.t.ucu~ Anrdills th:.u things bt>gan to go
badly wrong. The Pa:-thi.t!l w;u rhat npowd in Ill~ must have been very costly,
and when it ended successfully in ~iJf'.(, !ht armll's brought back with them a
dreadful plague, wJndt r:1gt'..! fLu smm y(';trs m many parts of the Roman
world. 10 The Germ.m~ tuw btrotm;. a n.1l rtwn;tCC'. A German irruption across
the DanubC' between l6f,.md 17! (p,rhaps 1711 or 171), which even reached Italy,
was followed by a ~..nl'!- of bin a ..,;ns J.gain.oil the Gem1an Marcomanni and
Quadi and the Sarmatt.m la:tyg~.!' whkh (IC(upwd :t good many of the later years
of Marcus's reign. 11 lu 170 M 171 :1 r:ud hy thL Cn'h 1hod altually penetrated as
far as Attica; and in 171 Baltil'.l (sonthlm Spain} w;ts att~hkt(i by Moorish rebels
from north Africa (s~ Birlt>y. MA 225-9: IIRMA 222 l'lcl. Among internal
revolts. the most Sl'rious lli.!Y haw hrrn th<H ,,f tlll:.' B,lfkrltJi in Egypt, in tht>
early 170s, led by a priest. [sid,'rt'. which was ,rnliht.J with some difficulty by
Avidius Cassius: we havt II( IHtlr~ t h;m :1 hrit:f~~tcnuon t)f it, by Dio Cassius
(LXXI.iv) and the Historirl A1~~mt.1 (s'H11rc. A11trl. 21.2; A1id. Cass. 6.7). 12
There are stories th.!t Mar( us suiJ rhl crown Jt.'wds .md his other treasures by
auction (perhaps in 16l)) to rais, nlllllt'y hn his wars. l"J and that he once refused
his soldiers' demand t~1r a tlmtath.l wnh the significant assertion that anything
they got beyond th..- traditi,n.ll am(um would be 'wrung from the blood of
their kith and kin' (0il1 l.XXI.tii ..'\). It is also said that of the surplus in the
Treasury ofHS 2, 700.0fln.oool,t't tel Marms by his predecessor Antoninus Pius
in 161, a mere HS 1 rn11lion rrm.umd in 193, after his reign and the disastrous
one ofhis unbalanced son Commodus (Oio LXXIII[LXXIV].viii.3. with v.4).
Then. from 193 to 197. there was another burst of civil wars, about which we
are not well informed but which are said by a contemporary historian to have
involved some bloody battles with great loss oflife (see Dio Cass. LXXIV.viii.t;
LXXV. vi.l and vii.l-2): this is the beginning of the Severan period.
VIII. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (ii)

Diffen:t views l:.;.,c- bt:tll
paying'" ;md IU.-I!m;imn~ the
469
cxpr:.-ss~d''
.;b;x<t the c<rnn to wh:d, tht" rost ur

:armks. c~~tamiy tlw !argc:;t smgle 1tr..':t1 o(
imperiall~;p~mtitun.'. w;<:s iucflJ.~l'd dunng w.1mrm:. I wiil onJy ;!(hi wh:~r sc:~m:<>
to me a con.:lnsavt.~ .trgu!!h'n~ 1n r:1vnur of th~ '1t~.._,. that iarge-st.~ak c~tinplign-;
must han lll'fl::'sJtated f;tr greater military sp~mbng:. Thl'rt w;~s no: ~11urh
fighting in Hadr1.1:: 5 nig~1 (117-.l.~) .1ud vtry lmk mdc:d nmkr hi ,.urccssor.
Anroninus Ph1s (U~~td). It WOiS surdy tlus l":1g P''r!od ofrd;~ri~c pL?.KC tlur
enabled Pius to llan m th.:- TrtJ.smy at his ;_k;1!h {as we sa,, ,,hove") the
enormom sum ofHS ~ .700 tmlhm; ;m.i it CI!I (\;Jly b:t~~~lK--n the majm \'ars
undertaker. durmg rhc rc:gn ur'Man11 {~~P'.:dally tL'i. ::ui~ '':Jrs> 'dnch drain~!
away thr ri:'S("TV~~s (5~"\' t!Jo.:- twu rnc.!ding Vl"rif!Pphs). 1\-hrcm W.lS ITI'(<:;n Jy ao
spendthrift. It ts rntt th;<l ht n:Jk ...-.m(: .:nstl~ ,IJsrrinmlons !o tlw Hom;;,n pld1:;
urbana; h.: :tlso r.:duct'd some taxes .md shor:ly bd;:m: :hf' :;:,ll-~f iiis rctgnlu.
remitted ;;il ur;.;ars uf(;~Xt'S .m.-l-,lh-::r ,kht.; ~hK !o :h, Tt<,\snry ov:r a p.-r~o.l of
forty-fiw Yl~arl> (Di(\ C.1:s.s. LXXILLXXUj.J2.~). Bt:t he d:d :Kt mn:t"~ aTlll)'
pay or indulge iu auy \'Xt~t:sive building rmAr.umac> I.;~, :l'' Jlh'niJliw I <Hhf"
conclusion that m;:_ior w.u~ necessitated :rw~ll brg{r rmbr.t,y L'~:ptuJitm:.
It can be mi!\kildmt;: :o pa~ t1:o nmc!. .i~~o;.ut-io!l ~tl Ro:n.m o;tatt' tin.cw:r. fm lt
was quite possible t(Jr till bulk uf c~t. R!Ji;ln g<)Wmie:~ da ..:- ~'\ pm!OJ~r t'\'cn
though thl' Treas--ury WJ~ vuhiJ.lly haukmpL But iu ...rit~ .-.f;iJ;ll!'i ctimbvi,l:Jal
prospt'rity m m;my i>fthc Cltll'':i cftlw Gfnk E;... t. as ,,fth~ Wls.t.tt dxs seem
that by the thit,i qu.trt(r ,lf th.~ S<Ynnd n:nmry tlw w.;;;lth or' th Jr.-plrt(,,l dass
was not Js s.ccurdy b.ts,d .Lo; 1t had so;.._nKd tu lw in tlw b1 it'w g<'l,r:tfto1s. And
it is precisely in thl lhOs. durmg ~he jnir1t r<'l~ll" !lt"\rhrn.~ Aur,!n:lo. .md Lumts
Verus (the divi _fmtrr~. lfl-'1), tl--.;H rh~ tlr~r ,~!;tin t"vi<kn,-~ ;Lpp;ars 1'' h.:-th of
Hon1~n
regular financial pressure upon tlw nuial class and of rdu\"-t:llll'~ and even
inability on the part of many poorer dccurions to su~tai:1 tho: hurJt'!l" th:1t \\:on~
now being increasingly put upon them. The whk 5UbJ~Ct is ,so,,Hng)y
complicated, but an admirable recent survey by Garnsc:y (ADUA E) h.h L:lhia~
lined some of the details in the general picture alrea,ty C1\t.LbiLo;hLd b~ .kll<'" .md
others, and has demonstrated the significance in thil> nmn,ctin 1.\f .;ouh >t ;Itt~
passages in the Digest, notably three which refer to 1\runnun.--ttJH't!'i ,_.f r.bc. rlwi
Jratres. One of these speaks explicitly of'those who p~ri(nm ~ Jll,lgl~lr:JC)' wider
compulsion' (Dig. Li.3R.6); another, as Garnsey say~. \knwuJ.tr.u ., dt~. ~.xi.o;
tence of a sharp cleavage between rich and poor in th.: council' ~t_j,Jqw .. cL
vii.5.5): and a third refers to 'those who are left m ,ld\t as -1 ro:stah of m.
administrative office' (L.iv.6.1). Before this there had been s1gns oftlu- rrut1hk
that was to come: some men had shown reluctanw to perform iitur!tl'~s. or
magistracies involving heavy expense; exemptions frum ... nc:h .lutks l:.!d bnn
curtailed; those who had promised voluntarily to un~.ll't't.lk~.. pubh,- \'lro;k:s h.td
sometimes had to be forced to carry them out: fees had b,!.fun t\1 ':1~- demanded
from new councillors: and so on. There are unmist:tk.thl.; sittns rh.lt (w quntt:
Garnsey, ADUAE 241) 'the Antonine age was a pnic\d tlf prosperity tor rhe
primores viri and ruin for the inferiores within the counn!r.". (Th~ btm r.~ntsJnc
those used by Hadrian in a rescript to Clazomenae 111 A~i:t Minor: DrgL. vii.S.S.) When we remember the extent to which uur ht~-.rary rrldifi~.,u ,o~~
cerning Classical antiquity is dominated by writers w h<l'C: \H.iti\ ,k :~ t:,;;tn t i1lly
that of the propertied class, and the fact that ancient hi~t(\n<Ull> m the mnd:-rn
470
The Class StruJ?gle in the Attcient Greek World
Western world have either been members of that class or have thoroughly
shared its outlook, we need feel no surprise that the Antonine period should still
be remembered as a kind of Golden Age. I can think of no statement by an
ancient historian about thl' Roman world that has been quottd more oftt.n than
Gibbon's:
If a man wr.:re called to fix the period m the history of the- world during which the
condition of the human race was )1Jost happy and prospl"rous, he would, without
hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
Commodus (DFRF. 1.78)-
that is to say, the yc.1r~ tr.:-1!; 'If! tP 180.

Under rhe Stvera:l dyn:i"tY (19.~-235i .. ,~is well ka.w.n, compulsion was
mort and mon stringently .1pplkd w tlu- curial d;;s~. n,~r(~ is no net'd to go into
detail: public servic~~ fJ.I! k1~1ds '\'1-TT~o' ~hmand.:d .,f m:o~iHratcs and decurions,
some of them, which c:lllll' to he im.)Wil 1s mwtt~-; f"'r;,,,:rtli:. imposing primarily
personal service, rut,! others. nii'"M Jhl:rim.r:;i. r!w txpu1.:liturc of money; in
time munera mixta were ncognisni. whih inv.-.iv:d hllh pr,onal and pecuniary
service. 17 Even mU1h~1 pcf>mlllfi,,. ho\w;.nr. :m;:hr iHvn!vt considerable incidental expense. There w.as ,1n dabut.llt" ~t:rks of pruvliinn~ giving immunity,
set out at length in th(.' l>if"f: L.v-vi .md othn ;1i!udni ~'-' d5ewhcrc: these were
revised again and ag;tin loy rh, ~-~~~~xwr"i. us:..o;;.Hy in ~ud1 ;1 way as to nstrict or
withdraw the immmmy Ji~d :m;,k, ~h, ..,,nlcL c\'~o'r uwrc- ~cucral.
A natural r('sult of:h prtw.m J~l ~b, lttri.~l d~ wh:.-:h J have just described,
increasing from thL A11tnninl ;l~t imu ~tw 'S~'\'L'r,lu. wa;. a marked fall in
expenditure by 'pubhc-sp1rircd' (<tr .mtbiti't~"- and ~tlf-;,,lvertising) men on
civic buildings and ''n 'founJ.Ull'll<;.' to rrovl~h boenlfth t(n Lheir fellow-citizens
and SOmetimes others. ("flw ,kdnw 1U rlw 1\U!Ilbl'T tlftiJl' J.utct is evident to the
eye from the diagr;tm!\ in lkrnh.n.i I .u:m. Srittlm.i!'"' itJ ./er ~riechischm und
rom is chen Antike [Leipzig. I., II 9.) \Y! ~ tlt' t :wt ..,,. MlfJ'TI!>t'd to find that from
about the middle of the third fl'ntury tmwar.ls th, irks. in "'ctting up honorific
inscriptions, tend tn ,uunnrrar, lillir pr;ns<.'S. m1 tht pruvmdal governor rather
than on local grand,<.!>. 1 ~
I have said hardly .m~thing- "" f:u n-, ,x:rlai.n how the ,urial class came to be
steadily depleted and ultinutdy rtdund tn a !llt'rl' ;;;.JuJow ,,fitsdf, especially in
the East. It used to be ~~w.wm.uy t(r hishniam :,, express great sympathy with
the curiales and shed tears over clt,Jr s,,,t fl~,; but in recent years it has been
realised, largely owin~ t<l rlli.' rl'S{'oitdlL'S of A. H. VI.Jones (see n.l above), that
we need to look at th, wlht], ,,u,stil'H in a wry .iirlf.nnt light. Characteristic of
the earlier tendency is the picture presented by Jules Toutain, in whose book.
The Economic Life IJj the Ancient World, we are told that the people who suffered
most from the economic decline of the third century were 'the wealthy and
middle classes - the landowners, manufacturers and merchants, to whom rumomic
prosperity really owed its being' (p.325. my italics). Now the landowners, at any
rate, were precisely the people who had appropriated and monopolised what
prosperity there was in the Graeco-Roman world. To say that prosperity 'owed
its being' to them is a grotesque distortion of the truth. In the third century. the
curiales must have represented a high proportion of the propertied landowning
class, in the sense of those members of my propertied class who were able to live
by their land without having to spend any appreciable time on working it. But
I"'
VIII. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (ii)
471
the curiales. although I ol~m rcft-r 10 rlwrn as a class, when contrasting rhem with
the imp~r!:zl aristona~y (tbt senatm:oo ;md cquL:'strians) on the one hand. and the
poor fn.~ m,n. cc,hlfli ;tnd sbve~ OH dw odu:-r. wert' a dass with a considerable
spread'. thost :Jt rh~: very io\'.n: tmi of the o..cak hardly falling within my
'propcrticd d<t~:', whik :11-'St' :u dw l.:!p t:ml mtg:hr be wry rich and might hope
to bc:xonh' :;~cmbc!s of the unpnul .ui:stoc:01ry rhemsdws. And the key to the
undl.'rMatJding .,ftht posi:ion of :i:~ cunal cbs~ in the fourth and fifth centuries is
the rt'alisatton ot't\'loO f:.n,., Fir~::. t.~e r:dw: tlw dtcurion, the more likely he \vas
to bt able to escape Hp'.'.'Jrd:.. imo tht. rd.lt.k., \.)lthr.: imperial h,m,>rati, or to obtain
by influt.nn ur brilt~~ry snnw posil:on (in :he imperial civil service in particular) 1'1 which t'.,lmph'li him fmm curi;"tl dutit:S. thereby incn:.tsing the burden
on the poPr:: laembtrs ofth:~ ,-ordrr '"ho w~on left, sometimes to the point of
actual ruin .md loss of propcny. r\ud .;(rtlltdiy. curial burdens, far from bt'ing
distribut(:d 1~1 pwport~n:: tc W(."alth, h~Hd(d to f.all more heavily on thr: poorer
decurio11.s 1:1 ,I giVt'il c~fi!Jloli.
In view ,,fflw ir.h~nnriy hi.nr;hir.li :~r;;knci::!oo of !hl n.)man wok~. 11(1 (>Ill'
will be surpris.cd ~;:; ii:~J.
t'ttria! mi.r de:ckping ;m iom~r rmg of privih~t:
within itself whidl in Jur coun.... ~t't"t'ivcs kg.Jl rc(ognitioy; _~a I h.:vc ddilwratdy
said nothmg o:'riJ,_. dt<.-,. ..,r>riml w!H hq~ir hl a;~;-o,.to:- ill Jt;:;li:itl .md Siolian owu:;.
in the l.1U U.q1:hhc as tiw l.:,.httg :n~rnh.-rs. ;)!. tiw '~'~;,, ,J,ywi,nuim. t ,,f tllL'
dekaprof,,r, tlw ~irst h'n rmu (~,)JUtilll~'s tlkc'J;Ip''-'l. tilt 'iirst tw~::n y '}. wi:o an
known in tht (~r;:\k wnrld fwmJm~ lift.":' til~ middl.' ul dw tir~t ct:rm:,y ofdu:
Christian era unn~ tlw h~iPmu~; ,,f the- frnrti1 ;;.:111 ;u, ;1hvay~ d,,:ur;uns.
responsible for a iisn.llit\lrgy ...: 1\l:hnu~h th. dehw.-;:,,i/,it,>~u:'\iltlt ar.: ,,fr,-n
mentioned as such tu horwnfk l!i~nipttl>ll~ (an.i th!'IT tl.mcth_ofl w,,s dt~'H'!cr ;;
dignified one), there IS m .;.tgn tlur 1ht"y, ,,uy wort tl1.1u tlw ;;,.,.,ptM:: n: :b
West, enjnytd Jny -"P\'\i.tl privikg>:-5 . . ,r pow,rs .ts ~~a-h. ll~.tlprivil\g-o. .ims.
howcvn .l~'p~ar m th tu::rrh n!m~ tJII\\'.Ihh 111 :O!It"(ticm wit.h clw k;uhn;t
decuriono; kllllWJl ,IS. rrllloit'l/t'5, a tall! whirh first appears In t!t~o.' CiJ(ks .IS L\11}'
as 328 (C1"i1 Xi.x,i.-4). h, tlw stcoud lulf,,frh~ fourth ntunr~ wt ,,fr-=n bc;u ;:.f
these p,.;,:-;rait,;, whu.1n Jrob . \b!v iokn:i\;11 with .111:w ~iud o(d.roltni,:i zn.w
appearing iu \'J.nnu.; p.trt~ oi til\ t'llll'it~ (;;('~ Jut~~~. LR F. Tl. i3 i: No)rnuH.
GLMS B_;-4). By th" '-':trly tlfth nntury, .::ousrir1~liota~ of J-kmor:us. <tir~cHd
toward-. st.unpin~ nut l loltuti~m iu nord Afnca (f._,r whih ..-.~,~ VII. ; . bov.~).
reveal by thl dift(:-{'1\i';.' 111 the siZL' ni ~!u~ p::nm~:ay pt'n;~hic;. ~h~Y pr,:s.-rih the
large gap whkh hy uow h.1d opened up b,rwL,~nllw !c:~;.iing dl'O::urtolh .md till'
others: a con~tituriun ,,f 412 which punisll,s !\cn.ll\IT'lo wi:h .t iin.: ,,,- J(t lb. gul,{
rates the pritr1ip11k at J(l lb. gold .mol mlwr ,f,,mi,)th .u only S lb. (C'/11
XVI.v.:i.::?.l"'): ;md in drHltlll'r law. uf~ 14 (td. S4.4i. W\' tiu.t so:l.ltm-s .ISS'5s<.,l :tt
100 lb. silnr. tht. .lratnptmu mtiJit"s :tt ;\0 Jb .md tlw nJuaiuin~ dn:11nuu:o .tt h
lb. (For coloni, by the way. both laws prescribe t:h'rdy ~o~tiil1!!~ 52.4; StS.)
Norman has well emphasised that by tht. latte-r p:m of tlw t~nrrth l~lntm y 1h
great division in the curiae is 'horizontal, based purdy on ~otKmk .itti'~n-uc"s.
and the few great families have deliberately cut thtmsd ,.,.,. <.ltl"t;m \mly t'r1m tht
tommons but also from the humbler membt.rs of the .n,kr ... Th" r;tp;;.-i:y of
the wealthier and mon influt.ntial principalt>s was ili(Ti.'JSmpd)' .hre~ld ;,j.!;t:n~:
the poorer decurion for thdr own financial gain' (Cl MS ~J-.l). Th, d-.s;
srruggle proctcded apace ewn within thl' curial onkr'
472
The longest of all dK r.itk!' ]n tlw Tlrt't_'f!t'SWtl Ottit of 438 is Xll.i, De

decurionibus: it contains 192 hws. fmm Cuu!>t:111tin;:s rdgn to 438: and other
laws affecting decurior.s appca:- dstwh~~~ in th..~ C.,,it-; d~c.'r~ .are still others again
in Justinian's Code (X.xx.<ii and ds;;wh~n.). By tin th~ must important consideration, in the eye~ dtt' ('mpl."rors., was :<:1 pn:v~nt JL"curions from evading
their obligations, for example by t'sf;Lping inh~ ~h'-' a~my. o..\r into one of the more
profitable branches of the imperia! rivH ~c.-r\'kt'. or intu d1,. Church. The whole
story has been well tnld in dl>tail {~ct :l.l olh(lvc:) ..md I need not recapitulate it
here. 1 will say only thar rltl: ~,id ..nt:l' ~hows ."lil to~ well the ~xtent to which the
richer members oft h,- cm.kr wcr' .ahlc- to ~'5c-.l?t' trom thrir. obligations to their
curia by doing the v~ry thing rhc. <'mperor:; \nr;:o St' anxitn:!> to prevc::'nt, sometimes by obtaining honc.~nry rtJdifilli (k~t~r:o; p;1:ent). gr:mring them some rank
which conferred exemption from l'uria~ dutie~. ~omecim. .~ by actually obtaining
some post which carried such rank. The constant repetition of some of these
laws shows how inefficient they were: patronage (suffragium: see my SVP) could
often procure the evasion of a law; and the Councils themselves tended to be
reluctant to coerce defaulters. partly (as Councils would claim) because it was so
difficult for them to operate dfectively against a man who had obtained high
rank and be\ause it might be dangerous to incur his enmity, and partly also
through sheer corruption and the hope of favours to come from the ex~ecurion
(see esp. Jones, LRE 1.409; II. 754-5). As Norman has said, curial decline in the
late fourth century 'could certainly neVl'r have proceeded with such speed had
there not been powerful support for it from inside the Curiae themselves, not
merely that manifested by evasion and subterfuge, but that also providc::'d by the
wealthy principa/is' (GLMS 84).
The desire of decurions to obtain senatorial rank illicitly, even if it meant
selling much of their property in order to procure the necessary bribe, was by no
means motivated only by the wish to escape their financial obligations- which
might. indeed, be UlcnascJ by senatorial status (sec. Jum-.~. LRE 11.544-5, 748
ff.). The sheer prestige was itsdf a -"litj.:H' c-vllsi.:ia:tiion. in .1 society intensely
conscious of rank and order; but r~rh.tps m<lst important of.all was the desire of
the decurion to obtain personal security against the maltmitment which in the
fourth century was b~ing increasingly nu.ted out to (Urials by provincial
governors and other im(Wnal officials, but whi~h they would not dare to inftict
upon men of senatonall'tarus.
One interesting sign uf the gradual deterioration in the position of the curial
class during the fourth century is the fact that whereas all decurions are still
specifically cxemptt~l trom all flogging by imperial constitutions of 349 or 350
and 359 (CTh Xll.i.J9,47), by 376 the use of the plumbata, the leaded scourge. is
permitted upon all rxo:pt the leading decurions (the decrmprim1), although the
emperors express the rious hope that this will be inflicted upon them in
moderation! (habeatur mtJderatio, IX.xxxv .2.1). Although constitutions of 380
and 381 again forbid the plumbata for any dccurion (XII.i.80,85), by 387 the usc
of the. dreadful weapon is permitted agau1 in fiscal cases, and this time even a
principal decurion (principalis) is not immune (XII.i.117, cf. 126. 190). It is not
surprising, then, that we find Libanius. in the late fourth ccntury. insisting that
it was above all th" fnqut.'nt flogging of Jcnarions which had drivcn so many of
them to seck the rank of senator (which alone would giw secun. immunity), 22
or
VIII. The 'declineandfa/1': an explanation (ii)
473
even at 1hl Wit Of r-aying .l \'<'T}' Jarg~ pl'it.,;> f\1~ the privilege, and that in this way
the rank:t of the c:ol;Olcilh)rS had h('Wlllt' .ieplctcd. The severity of Later Roman
floggings is bmught out hy St'\'fnllitcr.uy pdSs.iges, notably in St. Athanasius.
suggestm)!, (tv.:n i( w~~ .tllnw !i. r thl' t:.;;:u:'s h.:.bitual exaggeration) that in the
mid-fourrh c,,.tmy ; tlr.ggiug. even wirh(\:1 the use of the plumbata, could
easily re-sult !n death (Hist. Ar;,m. 60: t.:t'. !~. 72).
In th~ mid-lhurth .:::nttury. a tOtKhing pic:~m~ of th: relationsh~p bct.W<"<:n <I
local Cnmh:11 ,;ud rhl gmr.ai population. :t.." .\ leadin~ m.:mbl"r of ~llt." loc::1i
properti-.d d.1s...ot liktd to inug:inc :r, is giYl'r. by Lib.miu:s: th.: rt"latl.mship i.; :h.lt
ofparcms ro d:ulJn:t! (Orar. XI !Amil1ri1ikvs] i.50 fL. t-sp. !52}Y1 Tht Emp ... ror
Majoria!I m ti5S \oulc!. .;rill, in .1 ch~trmh~ phrase, stat: ir :ts .m ttl!lloubt~! t'3ct
that the J~nu;n:~s w.:rL' "tht SlllL~w;: of rh:: \'tHH:t;ot~wt~f~h :md the vit:;ls of the
cities', n~ti,;[,; ,,..,.,,,l$ r>!r rri pub!i,,r: .rt ~.i.;t,t~l (;,,;,,JI:m: mdlns ~\''!''''111 U'-''V. ,\t,~i.
Vll.pr.). In trw Ea:;t it ~c~ms tv h;;w bnu Lar!y in tlw 'iixth c~ntur,., ir. tlw r,.::~n
of Ana!.it.l~ii.tS {4'JJ-511i,l. that th, .-ity C'ut:ds ti:l;dly ceased to l:l.l~tr vtry
much in dK iuc.tl d:\isiuu-mak.inl! pr('-~-s~. ;md P'-':h.lp!i L'\'tn to meet. Tlw
decurioa~ w~n- r,,,w r~dUl"\d to ht:k mon rh;tn mmor }o,.o.l,ftinh rc::.pm1sihie
for tax-l:olit-t.t1Lit1 ;tll.i the po:rf(rm;UKI" <lt orhcr public d!ttlL'S. (Jn thl Wt~~r th~
position w;as not very ciitT~rl'llt. even it tlwn.: is t'\'i,ku1c uf .:-11y ComKds
meeting J~ ldte .1s. the early s,venth i.'l'ntury; sct'Jmlt~. I.RE II. 757-~.l.)
The wiHlk prVl't:s:;. brings Nit .l<illlU;J.b)y th~ ~)mplctl' ,:,ntroi ex,rri>ni ,w,r
the who!, Gr:u..-o-Rmn:tu wmld b-y :!., Vtry bigho:-sr class. of s~n.iwr~ :mil
l:.'questri.t11';- wha h.ui nr~.:d ltlhl ;1 singk onkr l'}' .u 1.:-:.st dtt' bcgm:1ing ;:ftlw
fifth ccnrur\' (s\'l' VI. ,.1 Jbnve, :Jol tin. 'L There \\Tre llllW uHr.; ~radts w ~thib! th~
scnatori.t! ~rder: tiH lowt:st w<.';l. ,i,zrissimi, thtn came .;pt.:r:ldco; AIHi tiHally
illustres: by tlw mi,l-fifth century tht: most illmtrious were rlt.~,.;nifi<''r.tii~lllli :m.:l
even g1Mic1i.>imi. Th, utter lack of any kind ,,f re:~.l rwtr hdnw tll<' h~ght~st
class left <'VCJIIllt'll of!o-'!m' J~ropcrty .mrllrw~:l .hsrmcl!uJJ hdpk~s ~uh_icns ,,fth~
great, except in so tar as tht l'lllf't'mrs dinst to pwt,.-r rlll'lll. :1!0 dwy w~:re
obliged tO do tO some <'X~t~iit. il lh<~ ~mptrt' WaS 10 ht kqn jl.mng (cf. Vf. VI
above). The screw, h.wing .lln.JJy hl,u tight.;nd .ll tht hon<m1 f tlw S()li:tl
scale by landlords and t;IX-t:ollc:ctnrs .lhunr as t:tr as Jt W<lllkl !ioJti.!y !!<l. md
indeed further, had trnm the l.ucr se~..md ~cnrury l'llw.u.-1;; (;ts rl11. sitnatin of
the empire became J~,:;s t:wonr.tbl,) ..m1t r1'guR,uly dHtilljl :h,;: thud. ll' bt rlll ,-,it
the curial class, as th, only :titlnuri,,,. trlw incrt-.1!\('d ru;t!um of1lw rt".cil) ,j(h.
which they would never h.tvt endur,d. As ;;oon as the cun:1ls b~~aut- ..-h;u't''
even to a small extent from the b~nl'tinarics of thl sy~tnn uuo it' Yktnu-;. {.1s
those below them had always been). thty made indignmt pr<>w~~s. wh1d1 us~tt
to receive unduly sympathetic attention from hi~wri:m.;. Tihn J.S rt.-wy nf
evidence that they did not allow themselves to suffir unril tlt,y h.:.. l-.quTz,.:lth,
very last drop out of those beneath them, in partin:l.n thtrr o'i/,mi Tht~ pnl.;r
Salvian, writing in Gaul in the second quarter (i rlw tifrh .-.n~ury. ::-.uld
exclaim. 'What el-.c is the life of (uriales hut injusti.:,?' iiliquir:u: De :i Dr:
lll.50). We arc often reminded that Salvian was ''r&JU.;: tcJ ,x;~~g,ro~tint~ (d.
Section iii of this chapter); and indeed in the same p;1:;s;.g k .;::on,,.~- h1 thliv~~
of business men (nt;!IMiantes) only 'fraud and perJury. of ;._>:)'i,i:.J, '61,;~ accusation' (calumnia). and of soldi<.'rs 'plunder' (rapitlor./. Ua k,; w: b, t~mJt:.-.i r"
dismiss l'ntircly his strictures upon curials, we shtLl;~ k~>k ;u wh.tt ;,;. t my
474
mind, perhaps the most extraordinary of all the constitutions ever promulgated
by the Roman emperors: one issued by Justinian in 531 (CJ I.iii.52.pr., 1), which
strictly prohibits all curiales from ever becoming bishops or priests, on the
ground that it is 'not right for a man who has been brought up to indulge in
extortion with violence, and the sins that in all likelihood accompany thts, and is
fresh from deeds of the utmost harshness as a curialis. suddenly to take holy
orders and to admonish and instruct concerning benevolence and poverty'!
(With the curiales [bouleutai], Justinian brackets cohortales [taxeotai]. members of
the staff of a provincial governor. on whom sec Section iv of this chapter.)
* * * * * *
I have seldom had occasion so far to notice movements of revolt or rt"sistancc
on the part of the lower classes in the ancient world. I shall have a certain amount
to say on this subject in the last two sections of this chapter. But since I shall be
dealing there mainly with the Middle and Later Roman Empire, and of course
this book is concerned with the Greek East rather than tht West. I shall haw
little or nothing to say about a number of local revolts against Roman rule.
almost entirely in the West and during the Republic and early Principate. which
have been discussed recently in two article's by Stephen L. Dyson, with the
praiseworthy aim of applying to them knowledge available today about movements against modem colonialism. 2 ~
(iii)
Defection to the 'barbarians', peasant revolts, and indifference

to the disintegration of the Roman empire
The fable of the donhy whkh r(C<"i,n widl imtit)i.:-en: the news of a hostile
invasion (see VII. v a bow) lllJ)' hdp us to .achicv<' ~l htt r,r understanding of the
quite considerable hody o( cv!dt'l~fl' from both E:tStl'nt .mtl Western parts of the
Roman empire that tb~ atriwdc ofriw Jowt"c cbsscs rm.v;mh 'the barbarians' (as I
can hardly help calling the Gtrrn;tuk ;.:~nd otlla invaders, tlw barbari) was by no
means always one ot ftar all\i hns!iliry. :11ui 1hat l%1L"Ursious of 'the barbarians
(destructive as they could b~. r.spt:n:;lly t> prnp:n y ..._,wru-n;) were often received
with indifference au.i even on ocr;lStOI~ positive piea,;urt ;md c~pcration, in
particular by poor mt'l"l llrKrtdm:Ib:y burili:ttcd hy r.:rxacwn. (As we shall sec
later, even men of sumc rroptrry wh: !ud bi."t'll the -.t!uus ,-,finjustict. and legal
corruption arc known tn h:l\,~ dtfc-cl~d w tlr. b:1rh~:tiJ.:t:>.} There is a considerable body of evid~~1.::c frum :h~ ~cn:md century [O the s~vcnth of flight or
dese-rtion to 'the bar hanar:!i . m of appt:ds to :lwtt1 m c-\~n help given to them,
which has never, as far .ls { ku'-W. b~,;: f~tlly pr,;.st~uh:d, in English at any rate. I
cannot claim to havl mad~ .tny:hm~ lik a ,tmpkr, ro:k,:non of the matenal,
but I will mention h~rt ~h~ mam ~:~.-.r:>! haw (Ufllt' ;tcross.
It is convenient tu m.:nfl(ltl Jlso 1:; :his. ~(:nion some evidence for peasant
revolts, especially I!~ C:m! iDT!d Sp:Ain. whkb ha;; b..t"n ''cry well discussed by
E. A. Thompson (l'IU.~GS.;: SllS, cd. Finlt-y. Jn+..2ti). 1: i~ not my intention,
however. to try to giw ;n,ything !ik:- a r'nl! li:-; oi :h;, mwrnal rebellions and
dissensions which br.-kl f~:: in ,;m;m; p&r!; c;of ~b Gr~o.:k. and Roman world
during the Principatl :md i:. ~t~or Em pin: i::.r tJl,)it of!h:::;, l'~lisodes the evidence
VIII. The (decline and fall': an explanation (iii)
475
is bad and it is m:da r whcth~r ther<:" was any sigmf:cmt demm~ of revohmou
from belu ....- or {'Vt'!l ;:-.t" ::;oa:1l prme$f. Scm1etimr:s our o:1ly :some~ is ot stKh poor
quality or s\J t'mgmauc th:u we J.n~ ::ot :lbk co rdy on H. Fur ex;1n:pk, >t 1s only
in a speech l)f Dio Chrysostmt (X.:\..XIJ.7 i-2L which has been va:im1siy da:,d.
between 'll and :he r..-ign of Traj:m,l th:n we bc~a of :1 serious dtsmrb;wce
(rarache) HI Akx:mdria. lt\!<'("5:>it:mng tiw me of dlllti'd j(,rc{': by tht> pn:ti:n nf
Egypt to s~1ppr~'S.S iL Tb~rc ts J mysterious rr:fer.:JKC m a mid-SC("t.Jnd-c.nwry
Spartan inst~ription to llf'iitemt~l,ll (disturbanc~. rc;oim1onary muv~mellts),
which m;~y nmn:w;<h!y be contle(t~d \Vllh ;-, rb.Uio in Gr~:t'tt: t!lt'utinllt~d in tht
HistC'ria A:1gli.i"i:l :;s ha vmg bl";.~n put down by thc- En;pt"ror- A::wnitliE Pit.:s (A. D _
138-61). And .:t~:\l!i, it t.s only''' :he Hwr:ria t\li,lf:Ht<Z t;;;l( w..- have' ~c-fcr;.ll<l" to
'somcthmg :'l'Sr'lnrli:l'g a :sl;~vc:: rcvoh' (qMsiquoddam ,,.,.,,fie bdir.~m) in Stdy
during thr sok r~ign of GaiHcnus (260-S). rakl!l:,\ till' !"urm. 1t i~ said. of
Wtdesprr;;d iJ;mdlfJ}' (/atrvnibus r'Jiagantibus). 't }\:tuditr:.' Of brigandage\~ nft~'ll, ,If
course, a sympt<:m .-.: i'n~--1.11 j:U~~.-s~ (cf. V.tii ab~1V!:'). tm: w~ ;bn ~onw lno~
certain ;tHcgcd bri.g:Htd dlH.:~~ \VhL1 .1!;' hi.dy to have begun ;vi:h ~ t;.~iiuwing
consistiHg largely ,,f pc."\;;.lms. !wrds;n~1, runaway ~i.w~o.,; and ollwr h11mbk
folk, bur wh- bc(.mw lo.;-;t! d~sp>t~: for inst~nce, t!w .Hi.tntur,: :md .~:i\~gt'!!
bandit, Ckor: nf G<HhOtlC"l)Jil~-. t:: dl: las! nnn:ry n.c. ~ s.'m<.'tim.~. :t~ i;: th,
movemtnt h"J rhc- ;1r~a of Carthage. ,,ulv m ~.3~. \'llhtdtlt:li t.-thc ;lrodam.cW.Il ;t"l'mpcror {.md rh~ exn'\,hr:gly i,nt'f rr:iga) :.)f tiw ~-d Go.-~h.n; i, J nd b~td
owncr whr was 1hcn pr.xon~u! nf Afrtc- i: i~ l"\'idt'IJI tb.a~ tbtro. was no
'popular' c.r 'p1..'0lS.1l1t' npn:;.iit; l-m r!ut dt,' \\'il(t~ im}::~~ {"".<m' irom ~l:t tiPI''r
classes - iH tiw Airu-:~u l':><.:m:pk ~ hJ'W ,ilht mt'nttcm:.:d. :~u~n a tr~''* of
'wdl-bo::: ;md r:ch ::o:m~ mc.-u. vVh. r.:S<'!I!.d rcT<!:t wnd~~~ ur !uJriou <md
the sevnity wi~h whid1 they ,\'t'tl' ;tpplil.'d by rhc pnl\M.ttlr ol tht [mp.rm
Maximin. au.l w~r, .lb!, "' m.-,bilisc th~:tJ .iq,ud;iiltS iu rile ,-,.;m;rysi~t ;uul
bring tlwm
IJl!tl C.utb!~t.
(lkr;_cli;ul VU.iv ..~-4. wlth
lii.:) tt'.) . 1 In
scmw ,-;"~'"
t.vcn events nf rt:ti uuprt.UK'- .:..hwl-.t t'\'C:rythmg: ts Ull(trt;Ufl. fm mst~mn. th,

rok of Manadcs (or l\otm:.td~s) ;md ufrhc !ow~.~ d.tS~l''> ut Antio..:h :n :iw tJki11g
of that ~ity bv SluptJ I o..f Pc::-~i;t. in 23b or th~rt:ai~ms .-. Somc:ttmi~" rlt.respectin ;,,}t~ phy('\1 in .1 nbdlio:1 b~ tbt11ppr .md (,-_.,\'l'l ;;-bss~-s ;;r. lh'l nnd.:
clear by mr SOQIT~\'., .m~i ar. nry Y~tri,_.usly itlll'' p)'thd ly J1tli.--.n~ hi"~' ri:ms the rl'bdli\tlt t)f Finuu:;. in n.r.rth Africa m 372./.) :.-."ii-I IS I!> ;t .-_,.,,.in J'l>int: of
other Ali-i(,;~ I't'\';lt,o. lur.ily .my dct.iih ,ll't' l.!li"""Wn: th~y o:pp~;~~ :\1 rw: 1c hav:
been l"SSt'lltiaih: i r ib.illlln\'tuwul~. 6
I wish h> s.t~.' wtth :.H f'llS.SII'k l'llll'h:,~i> due mall casts known to me in which
thlrc Wl'n cout~o;;fJ' ti.r rln tmp~ri;t) llll'<\llt' tht:rc is no sign that class struggk
cvt.r play~d .:my siJ,trufi,.mt ptrt. Thi::> " u ~:~ .--.f thl' compltition for the principatc
on the dL'.lth ,,fN,"Tt.. 1u fr':'i, t th, tll':i: s~n..:s oi ;nmcd conflicts from 193 to JlJ7,
and also t1fd1~ h;.tf-,,~ttury lr,-,,., riw md ,,fth..: ~t'VL'ran dynasty in March 235 to
rht. accLs-.:uu ,)f Pwd~~i:m !.tt~ in 2~.;. whtn rh~ sucnsston was virtually always
SL'ttlcd b~ t(u,,, .-,ud tiw Puly ,-mpl'!\lf wh liv~:d to count thL' yt:ars of his rt:ign
ill doub!c figuns was (;,llhttm~. Ji)int mk1 tiom 253 to 260 with his fath.:r
Val~rian and soh- (-mp,r.-r fwm ~/',!' :~- :u~. N<">r can any oftbt. few subsl'quent
civil w,th in d1~. t~l:nh ,-cm~ry hl' ..:.:t'll .to. .l dass war, r:vcn whtr, (as I shall
explain in s,~ni;lli :, r!. :hi,; ,h.iptn) '.\'t' d,) fm:i a Ct'rtain numbn of men drivLn
dtsp~ratL' by h~JV\' ~;;x;!:ict: .111:.! :t highlv ppr~ssiw administration taking tht
476
side of a pretender: l'tO\"CJrms in 365-6 - dt.:!r 5Uppon was but a minor and
incidental feature of his r~-bcll:.m. Ail comp,t:ti}:> t;)r tho.: !mpcrial dignity was
entirely between mt"mb~-n )f th.: gav~m:ng da'-s. Jttempting w seize or retain
power for themselves. :md d::.: c.:mt~:sts were .11~ ,kcidcd by at least the threat.
and oftt.n the usc, of armt.x! tort r.
At thC' very b':zmnit;g ~f the 5.'n:!d c:utul'y Wl' hear of dlserters to
Decebalus, the Dac:Jn chid. Ac\ordi11~ to Die C<ssis (as preserved in our
surviving excerpts) fkn:b,1lus ~:w~ .t :-r:k~tan~ ~~n.d'r~:;kin~ to surrender to the
Romans both 'th< dlsl.'rta~; (il.'i aut<>mc>lv!) and Jus arms and his military
machines and artifi~.~:-~ {ll:,chanemata ;m,i m<chun(lp(lioi: cf. Hcrodian III.iv. 7-9.
mentioned on the next r;:sgd. Dlcchaim ..Mbo pro1nis~d for the futurt. 'not to
receive any d"'sertcr or w \'!tlploy :m; soldwr fr('m t!w ll.oman empire'; and Dio
adds, 'for it was by ;r;tbcmg nwn fron: there that he had been obtaining the
majority of his forcn, Jnd ~hl h,;.t ,)(d;on' (LXVIII.ix.S-6). 7 On other occasions
too we hear of 'dt.~'-'rrn~. and ~P:n\:imts the numbers given arc so strikingly
large as to suggest th.H the mu;;r h:~n been civilian dl'fcctors as well as military
deserters whom th~ Uomans \W!\' amo<ms to reclaim. (The expnssion aichmaliitoi, 'captives'. ''~rr;titdr i;:i:h:dld dv:lian as well as military prisoners: see
Dio LXXI.xiii.3.) f)j._, speaks ou o;.:v~.r;~J 'h"(,lshms nf dcsc~ters to the Quadi,
Marcomanni and otlKrs betwm the" late ~~~us .md the i~Os. We hear that the
Quadi in c. 170 promi~,:d h' s;rrn:,.kr :1H rb, d~s,rh"rs .md the captives: 13,000
at first, and the r(">l bhr (Dw LX.XI.x:.2,J.J, a ~nlllns~: they did not fulfil
(xiii.2). About five y~;t;r~ !;w:r ~:w Sd.r;aar~.m I.t7y;:;,~. according to Dio, gave
back' 100,000 caprin-<. thq sti!l h:td . ~tl\'T m.my h.1d h,tn sold [as slaves] or had
died or escaped' {X\'t.?). Wl11n >kscnJ-,in!Z rlw tn.tth'' of ptace made by Commodus, shortly aftl'r lll.; ,\l-t'l""'illltl in !SO, ti~~: with thl' M rcomanni and then
with the Buri. Dio mentions the Roman demand to the Marcomanni for the
return of 'the deserters and captives' (LXXII.ii.2) and then speaks of 15,000
captives given back to the Romans (by whom, is not clear - by the Alans.
perhaps). in addition to 'many' returned by the Buri (iii.2). I think there is reason
w suspect that large numbers of civilians may have gone over to the barbarians
in these cases of their own fnc will. In 366, proof that many of those alleging
they had been captured by the barbarians were suspected of having gone off
voluntarily is furnished by the constitution of that date mentioned below.
providing for an inquisition in such cases, whether the man concerned had been
'with tht. barbarians voluntarily or by compulsion' (v(lluntatr at1 coacms: CTh
V.vii.t = CjVJH.l.19).
Just before the end of the Antonine age, somewhere between 1R6 and 188.
came the revolt in Gaul and Spain led by Matern us, a military deserter, for
which I need do no mon. than rl'fer to Thompson's account (in SAS, ed. Finley,
306-9). As he points out. the revolt foreshadowed the first recordt.d mov"'ment
of the Bacaudae a century Iacer, described below. Our sources for this rtvolt fail
to reveal much about its character. It is nfcrred to in the Historia Augusta as a
'war of deserters' (bellum desertorum: Commod. 16.2). 'countlc:ss numbers of
whom were then plaguing Gaul' (Pesc. Nig. 3.4). Although discontented soldiers
may have formed its nucleus, it may wdl have involved many tmmbcrs of'thc
submerged classes of Gaul and Spain', as Thompson suggests. Matemus was
soon betrayed, captured and beheaded, and his forces broke up.
Vlll. The 'decline and fall': an explanation (iii)
477
At th.~ cud of :h~ fl\"11 w::r ,_,!-l9:-\_.~ b~tv..:,n Scptimius St.>wrm and Pesccnnius
Niger m:my of !iw s-.lc!::r., uf riw i.!c~~,.tk.l Niger Red across the Tigris to the
Parthia:~ ).ph,:~. This. :1 ;u!b:..'~Jlan."'1' ,-,fa cmw:-st for the imperial throne which
lacked ;my dur.a<t:rl!o:ic of., so~i . lwwcrra-:lt, would be hardly worth mentioning
hcrt btl: tor ril.~ f.::(.t clw i-krodnn (llJ .:-.. 7 -11) mahs much of it, rightly or
wrong!y. m thl' gn.unJ th.tt th~ du~r!l'T~ indnded many craftsmen (technitai),
who n1t mlly g.t ,-.,- t!w larb.m.tn:> v;;b<thl~ in.;~:,lction on how to use weapons in
hand-to-hand ,omk,~ bw al~.-. tJ.H~ht th~ut h<"''N :o make such weapons. (Herodian
seems to h;p..:: h.~d .. pc;us .md ~'-'!..l!d;,. !tl miHd.) At this time and in the years
between 1'-14 .l!lL! !99 L-uHN put rh, .ll"t:vith~s ufTi. Claudius Candidus, which
we knuw nly from .1 ::r;:ptiL rdi::r,nL'\' lll an inscription. ILS 1140:~ he conducted wih~ary op\r:tti>':U 'by );arld :md >v;{ J~;linst rcbds and public cncmics'
(terra nuuiqtcr ,,o{,.:-mtl r.hrl!c~ ;,J;. 1'!~-) Hl rb~ provinces of Asia, Noricum and
Hither Sp.tin. In ladt ~'d..;c. h.,,w~cr. C.mdu1u~ will doubtless have been operating
mainly .. m~! r,rhP~ ,nttrdy, .1gainst riw .tdh, rents ofSeverus' two rivals tor the
implriJl thw11,: PL.;c,m:in~ N1ga l!Jd ClodiHs Albinus. Another inscription.
ILS 11.;.~. nfrd~ thr.. .lcti\:o\'s ,,i C. J.. lim S-.ptimius Castinus, with detachments ,,r't~ll1r !q;inn~ fth,, Hhiu~ :l! lliy .1pparcntly c. 20H or shortly afterwards.
'again~l d,-~Lrt~o:r-. .tnd nb~ k (,lr/Ptr,tc dc:.f r,,,.,., et rebelles), who must have betn
Gauls ur G~rnuns.
his .lt about rllt.' ~an~< tuw: ur a hai, .triicr that we hear of that 'Hobin Hood'
figure. Bl:ll:t or fd:x. who:-. said w h.rv~ phmdc.red parts ofltaly for about two
years, with .1 rt'b~;.r l->.md ,;ff>t!f~ w~n (inc.:Iu,lmg, strange ro say, a number of
imperial trL;.dnwn. whu h;,.-1 h~,n r,ct'l\:iu~ hak pay or nom: at all). until ht too
was capturcd, .an.i rhrown to rhe beasts (~lc.: Thompson, in SAS 309- to). A
contcmpurJrr sourc.'t'. Die. C.l'isiu~. lltr nMin authority for Bulla (LXXVI. x.l-7:
cf. Zonar. XII. to), prtserves two ,,fhi<r !>.rymg~. The first is a message sent 10 rhe
authoritils through a captuhc.l nntudon; 'hed your slaves, to stop them
becoming brigands.' The. thc.~r io: Bulla's answer to a question at his inttrrogation
by tht great jurist Papinian, riwu praetorian prdtct: 'Why did you become a
brigand?' Bulla replied tersely, 'Why art you prefect?' (Here one is irresistibly
remind,d ,lf the dialogue between Alexander the Great and a caprurtd pirate
which rounds c.1tLI ~j]dbut powtrful chapter, IV .iv, of St. Augustine's City "J
GtJd.) h .tppc..u~ trom Oio that Bulla received much information from country
folk in t lw ac1~h hourhnod of Rome and Brundisium; and this may rl'mind us of
the stat~n11:11t ,,f Ulpi.m in the Digest that a bandit {lam,) cannot carry on his
operations m l'c.IJKL'alnwnt for long without local sympathisers (rcct'ptores,
l.xviii.13.pr.) - an opinion which applies equally wdl to modern gul'rill.l
mOVl'mtnts.
Aftt.r this.. uutill.ltc. in thl thir.t .:lntury (t\.'r the history of which our sources
arc- vt.ry deft!ctiv(.). l know oi ,,nly on~ pi,n: ufc.vidcnn that is of real value for
our present purr<l:'il"' :\ Christi..m bJSh'P in mid-third-century Pontus (in
northern Asi.t Mirhn). Sr. <.;rl'!W'r~ I'h.mm.lturgus (the 'Wondcr-Worhr') of
Ncocal'S.lft'.l. srlmly nhukl'S }u:;. tlodl m Ius C:m(mical Letter. written perhaps in
255, fi)r !Z:lin~ <Wt't tp~r;ly til the: invading Goths. hdping them to murder their
fdlow-(itllt'll:i. :m~t Jlliutmg out to the 'barbarians' the houscs most worth
plundaing 9 - Jn:''"" wlu(h we shall find paralleled in Thracc in 376-8 (see
bdow). The failun ofdtL' inhabitants of many ofth(. citil'S of Asia Minor, and
478
The Class Strug_t;!le in the Ancient Greek World
even of their garrisons, h (if~-~ ~my r~~si.sr.:uK< to th.: Guthic invasions of the
mid-third century is an indk.uio:1 of thl." low s!at~ ,,f mer Jie at this time: see
especially Zosimus l.xxxii-xxx,. Zo~imu5 ;<)so sp~ks ,-,r:~.~r.istanc<:> giwn to the
Goths in r. 256 by flsh\.rmc;1 of (::mal ThraC'C, <?nabling them to cross the
Bosphorus (1. xxxiv.2: cf. 1, for .:o-opn;;ti)!l by c;~p:i\'c> and traders).
It is in c. 284, in tb. r~~g~ ofC.1rit:~::;, th;.t w~ ii.rst hc-;u of the BacaudaC'. 10 a
name of unknown origin. giv::-n to p:-.rti~ipatts itl a whc.:!e series of p"asanr
rebellions in Gaul and Spain whkh wr;timJni intt:mutndy until r. 456 (see
Thompson again, in SAS J.t l-.20). Th\.ir tirst r,,,ol! was easily crushed by
Maximian in 285. For the timrth ~tuturv ~!Hr.: i!- vim~.t!lv no direct cvidenc<'
about Bacaudae: bet our littr:uy s~.mrcc.s ~r,, .alw:ays r:ha::a;,t to discuss military
operations against lnwn-ctu;~ nbds: .m.! wh~n AmmiJ1i11S. writing of the C'arly
years of the reign \lf V;tkntinun I (364-75). allud.:s .l:;rkly to 'many battles
fought in various p:trt5. ,)f(l:ml' whi.:h h, tl:mks kss wnr!hy of narration' than
those against German barhui:ms. and goes on to say ~h.u 'it is superfluous ro
describe them, both b~c.1ust th,ar outcoml' led w nothinl! worth whik, and
because it is unb.:cona1ug to pwkm~ .1 history with iguoble details', we may
suspl'Ct (as Thomrson shtl'Wtii)' ollslrves) that Vakntini.m was suppressing
further movements of Bacauda.- .md w'ith<u: .my r~o.sounding and compktc
succ.:ss. 11 The mosr imptlrt.mt risings of H.lraud;,, were in the earlier fifth
century: in Gaul in 407- !7. 435-7 and 442, and pah.aps ..f4li ..md in Spain in 441,
443, 449, 454 and 45f. On st\eral of th{'St.' nt:.:;asious i111paial armies oplrated
against them, led by comm.llld~ts who indudcd the %t~iitri militum Flavius
Asturius and Merobaudls. 12 T!ws( uprisings. omint-t .as tht')' did at a time wh~.n
the Roman world was facing unparalleled pr<'ssun. \Ill its \WStcrn frontiers, may
have played an important p;m iu ~rin)tin~;t about the disintegration of a considerable part of tht. ~\sr~rn t'tnptr.. I luw sp.11e for only two of the many
small scraps of cvidluo. rhar have 1\Uf\'1\'t.'d r'i!.J.rdmg thi.'~t revolts. First, the
eminent senator Rutdius N;mt;lti.tmto;. dtscrihiu~ in hi~ pucm Dr rediw sut a
journey he took from Ho:m :!",!a.;; ua<lw C.:mllow;mh :he md of 417 (see VI. vi
n.104 below), praise~ tht acuvtty ilfhis rd.ltlw Exupcrantius iu rtstoring 'law
and order' in ArmLlrifa. the m;tin centre of H:.,~audic activity. a largt. district
around the mouth ottlK L,11rc. Exuptrantius. h.~ s-ays. t'i now t<.aching the arca
'to love the ntum of peace tr,m
(lh liSt'~ a )u~hly tlchnkal term,
postliminium); 'he has rcstorc.'d the laws and br,lcl'o;ht bad. hbcrty. and he docs
not allow the Armoricans to b~ s}J.V('S w thtir owu ,I.lntt''illcs' (rt srrvM famulis
ncm sin it esse suis, 1.213-16) - a clear indication of the class war whi<'h h~d been
taking place in north-wt.st GauL Stcondly. in a comedy called tht. Qunolus. a by
an unknown author writing apparently in the early ytars of the fifth century,
there is a disparaging rcfcrl'ncc to life 'beside the Loire' (surely undlr tht regime
of the Bacaudat.), where men live undtr thl ius ,l!entium. anothtr namt.' for which
is 'woodland laws' (iura silvestria), and where rustici spclchify and capital St>ntences arl' pronounced under an oak trec and ncordcd on bones; and indeed ibi
Mum licet, 'there anything goes' (Qurrolus, pp.l6-17 cd. R. Pdper: see
Thompson, in SAS 316-17).
There is no explicit evidence of pt'asant revolutionaries in Uri rain in the fourth
century; and Collingwood put his case too strongly when he claimed that
because 'the sam.: legal and administratiw system. the samt distinction bcrwl't'n
.-.il,.'
VIII. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (iii)
479
rich men in gn':it vill;;5 and pvm ltWr, in village huts, and the same barbarian
invasion~. '\Vat' prc~cnr ~ov.ads the ~'nd ,,f t!w fourth century in Britain' as in
Gaul. 'it i~ h;i!dly to be dm:b!<:"d th:.t t>llccts we-re identical too; and that the
wandtrim~ h;m-:\s ;Jhich Th~(dcs.ias ;qw in Britain [the reference is to Amm.
Marc. XX Vli.vi;i.7. t\.D ..~~] iududc1! iar~c numbc-rs ofBacaudJ.e.~ Howtver, Thnn;psrm h:i" n..".':mly w::~<k !Hlte a good casetorsccmg the revolt in 40Y,
in Britam ;md :h:. wh.;k t:f !\r::orit'.l.mci mother provinces of Gaul', described
by Zosim:ls VI. , .1-3. a~ :. mh'.:mcm :Jt;;. typt akin to tht revolts of the Gallic
Bacaud;ll'. 1 ~ \V~ 1io not know l'nough ab<Ht tlw social situation in Britain in the
early ftlth ~"raury or abmt th~ d~~;;ih of tih revolt itsdf to make a positive
affirmation. but Tho1~1pson':s lm:rpEt;;t~ot: i~ not contradicrtd by any anci1nr
source .md :~ pr<b.Jbl,~ ...n'-'U!!b 111 it;;df
Apart fiom th, m.1r.-rul l h.;n b,,n disctlssing then are for the time of
Constantin~ or;w.irds many smJll scr:1po;. of L'\'idl'Ot'e and one or two particularly
strikin!! passages. Hd~rnKt'S w th~ fhgl't of sl.!ws to the barbarians arc only to
be expt'Ch.d, and I w1H tlll'nti.m bm two ~x::L:nplcs. CJ VI.i.3, a constitution
issued hy Cmlst;;mu;t b,::w{,:n .H7 ;u~d ~)2J. pnscribcs as a penalty for such
desl'rti.-->n :.Ill put.lt it.u ,_,f ;1 j,_,,H or ,-on.;.igtuu,~nt to the mines. (Mutilation as a
punishnwnt j;,,!' aim h.td nrdy b,,~rl iuili.:t~~d by the Romans until now, except
in spcciJI r.1:.~') unJl'r 111ilir.m di'>tiplin.: hut m the Christian Empire it gradually
became more- fnqutnt, and in the stventh and eighth centuril's it was quitl'
common.) 16 Secondly. it could be said that during the first siC"ge of Rome by
Alaric the Visigoth, in the winter of 408-9, virtually all the slaves in Rome,
totalling 40,000, escaped to thl Gothic camp (Zos. V.xlii.3). lt is hardly significant, too, that thl e-ccltsiastical historian Euscbius should sp~ak of Christians
fleting to the barbarians during the 'Gnat' perst"l'Uthn (ot' .~il.~ .m.-1 th~ yt.rs
following) and being well r~cdved and allowed to practise thnr rdi~m11 ( Vit.z
c_:,,,st. 11.53). It is mon interesting to find an edict of Const.mtint m .\2_\
demanding the burning aliw of anyom who afford~ t<' h;trhan;ms .111 oppMtumty
to plundtr Romans, or shares in the spoils (CTh VH i. l}, ;md :modwr ,di.:i, 0f
36fJ, ordering enquiry to b~ madt'. whenlver anyone d.nm-; th.u h, h.td b~..cn
captund by barbarians, to discovl'r wheth~..r he had r;orw off nmhr coturulston
or 'of his own fret' will' (CTh V.vii.l = CJ VIIJ l.l~J. 'lnotni .ih(l\'"}.
Ammianus, telling thL story of the P~rsian inva~iou of Hom.u M;,;;,,pot;uni.l
in 359, mtntions a former Gallic trooper ht himsdf .uHHtcrni. wh h;td
dtsertld long ago, to avoid being punished for a crim, ..IIIli who h;,,t lw.u wdl
rec::~ived and trusted by the Persians and often sent back mtu Rom;m t~..rritory a-s
a spy - ht of course was t'Xl'Clltld (XVIII. vi.l6). In .lfl9 C'uut Thrdusms
disbandld tht arcani (perhaps a branch of the imp,nal ,tvti ~l'l'\'h.''}. who had
giwn Sl'Cnt information to the 'barbarians' (Amm. XX\'III.iii.~).
From the years 376-8 wt haw some extraordinarily intlrcstmg l'\'t.knn rr.Hn
Ammianus about the behaviour of many members of th" I.1wr dass~s iu the
Balkan area, which we may compan with the tirad, of St. Gngory
Thaumaturgus in the 250s, mentioned above. Unde-r Fritigcm anJ utht.'r chiefs
the- Visigoths, who had bc~n allOWl'd by the Emperor Vall'ns w cross the
Danube into Thrace in 376 (St'C Appendix III lYh below). but lud !->t''-'11 lry
badly treated by tht Roman command,rs. began to ravage Thr;11..~. fruiglru
advistd his men to l~..avt the cities alom (he 'kept plan with w:.il; . he h I .I
4RO
them!) and plunder the country districts. Those who surrendered to the 'barbarians' or were captured by them, says Ammianus, 'pointed out the rich
villagts, especially those where ample supplies offood were said to be available'.
In particular, certain gold-miners, 'unable to bear the heavy burden of taxation',
did the 'barbarians' great service by revealing to them hidden reserves of food
and the secret hiding-places and storehouses of the local inhabitants (Amm.
X XXI. vi. 4-7). Roman soldiers who deserted to the Goths also gave them much
valuable information (id. vii. 7; cf. xv .2). Even after the disastrous battle of
Adrianople in 378, we hear of300 Roman infantry going over to the Goths, only
to be massacred (XXXI. xv .4); some guardsmen (candidati) who tried to help the
Goths to capture the city of Adrianople soon afterwards were detected and
beheaded (id. 8-9). Yet information was still given to the Goths by deserters:
according to Ammianus it was so detailed, concerning Perinthus (the modem
Eregli) and neighbouring cities, that the Goths 'knew about the interior of the
very houses, not to mention the cities' (id. xvi.l).
Dealing with the year 380, Zosimus speaks of \very city and every field'
in Macedonia and Thessaly being filled with lamentation and appeals from
everyone to the 'barbarians' to come to their help: it is just after he has mentioned
that instructions had been given for the rigorous exaction of taxes from these
areas, in spite of the serious damage recently inflicted upon them by marauding
Goths (IV .xxxii.2-3). Nicopolis in Thrace seems to have gone over to the Goths
about this time (Eunapius fr. SO)Y A constitution of397 threatens with death
anyone entering into a criminal conspiracy with soldiers, private citizens or
'barbarians'. to kill some great man or a member of the imperial civil service
(CTh IX.xiv.J.pr.). A large number of men described by Zosimus as 'slaves'
(oiketai) and 'outcasts' joined the army ofTribigild the Ostrogoth in 399 and
participated in the plundering of Phrygia and Lydia (Zos. V .xiii.3-4); and a year
or two later we hear of'runaway slaves [oiketai] and military deserters' plundering the countryside ofThrace, until they were crushed by the Gothic magisttr
militum (and consul in 401) Flavius Fravitta (Zos. V .xxii.3), who is also credited
with having earlier 'freed the whole East from Cilicia to Phoenicia and Palestine
from the scourge ofbandits' (or pirates, liistai, xx.l). In the first decade of the
fifth century St. Jerome complains that Pannonians have joined the 'barbarians'
invading Gaul: '0 lugenda res publica,' he exclaims (Ep. 123.15.2). There is a
fascinating passage in the Eucharisticos of Paulinus of Pell~ (written in 459),
referring to his presence in the city ofVasates (the modern Bazas, south-east of
Bordeaux) during its unsuccessful siege by the Goths under Athaulfin 415-16.
Paulinus speaks ofan ineffectual armed revolt by 'a body ofslaves [{actio strvilis].
combined with the senseless fury of a few young men', who were actually of
free birth, and he says it was aimed deliberately at the slaughter of the leading
citizens (the nobilitas), including Paulinus himself, whose 'innocent blood', with
that of his fellows. was saved only by divine intervention. 18 Two or three years
later, in 418, we hear of a 'rebellio' in Palestine, put down by the Goth Plinta,
comes and magisttr militum ofTheodosius II, and in 431 of .a revolt in the West, by
the Non, suppressed with armed force by Aetius; but we know nothing of the
details in either case. 19 Soldiers in the army sent by Justinian for the conquest of
Italy in the 540s seem to have deserted wholesale: Procopius can even make
Belisarius complain to the emperor that 'the majority' have deserted (Bell. VII =
Vlll. The 'decline and fall': an cxplanati(ln (iii)
481
Goth. III. xii.R; ct: VIII = G.tli. IV x:..,::..:i:.~n; .<::.ht:c tlw m','(t jJ.lril~;~ph bdo,v-).
Other sot~H\'S too, bo:h Crttk .m<t L-.rin. sp~~ak of 1l~~ !nhabnmm of ~h~
Roman l'111j'Jr,. as ;;.:n;:tlly dc~aing. h~ cnmin~~ of th, 'b:..r ha:-i;u:~ _ Th.; lacuhat
the pan\gyric ddivcrnl h} the Emp>T\t Juli.m by Ciaudius M.emc.:nmu.s on l
January Jf,:? includes a phr:ast :,, thi_,_ dkc;, !iU)' b~ of ii:rlc or nu 51b,rJUtic.ute\'
(Paneg L:t. XI. iv. 2. ed. E. G.\lkti:r; ~~r i11m b.-:b:m lit$idemrclit1Jr). ,.\, !!~ J tm ld
ignore- rtw r.,ltJni! iu Lli->.m~t:~. 0Mt. XLVII 2f) (of r. J'Ji}, innginmg l.!ut Hlq'
which i~ in soml wc1y uis;:d;;mt;\f.cd (o:- pat 10 du: wor~= dauowneTii) by
anorhl'r rm~<:ht C\iJ in tWH;:hbomiug i.lrll'':
iL> ;:,Ui.~s. Uur: l wouid he :nclmcd
to takt' m 1:-.; seriously th~ st:tttm~;Jt ,,fTh,miHi.l:s to tlw Eli'li\.rtr V .:1kns m Jt-.<.'1
that 'nuuy nf the noble~ ....ho hil'-"l' hdd nt"ikt iiH thH:'- gcnc:-r;~uor..s nt;tdt~ rh1.'H
subject'\ lung r;)r rh, h.ub.ari.ms' iOrm VHf. t 15.:): tb,: orator had JUSt 1)\:cn
speaking ,,f dtt' rrmtmku:!- bu;-d,n of I.IX".lli)i'l, whi.-h h, r~pr~~mts ib h.:~vin!-!.
been dnuhkd in dl(' ~~~~ty yrar:; h.:t~)l'l" th..: ."!C!::s~tO!I or V;~l('llS 1!: .364. OlJ! 110'-Y
halved by Valens (1 Lhl'c_l SmulJr!y Or;5ius, wnriu~ "'. th: ;m.1ptinn o~
Gcrmans into Gaul .md Sp:ti:l :..triy iu r:h' t~fth century. could SJY th.n sun;,
Romans preferred to li\''' :.LIHO!JF rh1.: 'barbari.ms', pr_,._,, h11t ~n libc:-rty, l'dthn th<m
t'ndurc the anxiety of pdyirl_! t.:.x~:"" it~ tltt !~om.111 ':mpm (VII -'i i. 7: tmn 'ntriJan:;
,,s
pa11perem libertatem q1Mm
if!tr't
R,,ww; rrilmMriam
s.!ii.-ir:tdit:t~n sustintl). l-Ien
again, as so often, it is the hurd.~u t~t' tdx;u,utl wind1 llUIWclghs. .til othtr
considtr.ltilm. Procopius too, -tfc;r lko;,nbiug tlw vicimLo;. l\d:.IV!Ollr >f rb.:
army ofJustini.m in Italy in thl'L\lrh 5~0:.. n.l\lld admit that th. !O<)I,!~trs m;adc the:
Italians prdi:rthcOstro~Nhs (Hd! VII= C.tlr. HI.ix.l-b.f tv. i>.lb):;mduah:.
case also Wl' hear of ur~just \'Xtort~ot~ pr.u:dst~d hy Ak XJIIkr l he logNh.rl', wh., 111
Justinian sent to R.ln'llll.llh 540 . .ltal J littl, iatcr lw lk~s.~s ;ll f(or~w m 54~-t . ~u
A particularly eloquent complaint is that of s. :vi.m. a Chri~.um }rtrst in
SouthC'rn Gaul, who probably wrote in the tarly 440s. M.tkm~ sum~ \';.~ry ;,(\'l.~r~
strictures on the wealthy class of Gaul in his day, wholll he co:np;ua~s r.n ;~ pa;l oi
brigands, he says that the oppressed poor (and not mly rlwy) u;;:d ~~) H:::r t()r
refuge to the 'barbarians' (De gub. Dei V .21-3. 27-~. 36-8) or to ~hr !tH:.md;'\r
(V .22, 2~; cf. Section iv of this chapter). Salvian str\'SSt"~ .ll,.,w ~~~ the opprGs
sivlness of Roman taxation, which allows the Wi.'.1lthy tsl g~.- rotY l1ghtly but
burdens the poor beyond endurance (IV.20-1. .\il-1; Vl?-l8. ::!S...(,, 2lk\:.?.
34-44). I decline to follow Jones in discounting ainto~t tmir,h th.' ,\t,kllo"t' of
Orosius (V11.41. 7: see the preceding paragraph) a!> ~Hs.pal m<llh<tr ot S;~,Jyi~m
as 'biassed and unreliable'. 21
Although of course I recognise that Salvian is prom to rhetorical e"aggeration, like the great majorityoflater Latin and Greek writers, I agree with
Ernst Stein that his De gubernaticme Dei is 'Ia source Ia plus rcvelatrice mr Ia
situation interieurc de l'Empire d'Occidcnt, Ia seulc qui nous laissc voir dircctcmcnt toutc Ia misere du temps dans sa rcalite atroce' (HBE f2.i.344). Stein
devotes more than three pages to describing some ofSalvian's strictures on the
oppressive-ness of Roman rule in the West in his day, and he points out that some
of these are reflected in an exactly contemporary edict, ofValcntinian Ill (Nov.
Val. X.pr., and 3, A.D. 441: see Stein. ibid. 347). To this I would add another
edict, issued seventeen years later by the Emperor Majorian, which I have
sum!llarised in Section iv of this chapter (Nov. Maj. II, A.D. 458).
Although, as I have already made clear (in VII. v above). I regard Donatism as
482
The Class Stmggle in the Ancient Greek World
being primarily a rcligwus r:wv~uK:tt ;lll...i twt .111 c-.xprcs.'iitm of social prott.st.
there is no doubt that :t ..-:un.L<:m:d a :strong d<..rn\::ll of sl:r.:h protest, simply
because the class oflar~, bud<)W~llrs. mt:orth Atricu (iududing Numidia, where
the concentration ofDon;uists was h:ghtst} was O:!Vt'rwhdmi~rgly Catholic. The
role of the Catholic Cbmdl !u 1:orth :\frka m rh~ Litl'l' Roman Empire has been
admirably described m the grC'at hook on V;Ul,b! Afri::J hy Christian Courtois
(VA Part I, ch.ii, 4. esp. 132, JJ5-44). A:s hnays. '1.. 'Afhquniu V<' siede nt
demeure romaim. qm plr k d<.mblt> :appui de l'aristo(T<I~i~: t(..mcierc t't de l'Eglisc
catholiquc qui s'acwr;:kut pour ;usunr i'i n~t.u le minimum dt. puiss.mcc
indispensable aIa let:r' ( U2. cf 14~). Th~ Circmr:cdli.-:m~.rJ the militant wing of
the Donatists (somet1m.::s J.J'Pl';trinf:. if w.; ;m: tlot ;;.~~rim:sly misinformt:d, as a
kind oflunatic fringe.'. b~nr on rdigious suicide), ..~..::d. JPl'~ war on occasion
not only upon the C;nhnRk Church in o'\fru.-a bnt . ais.-1 upon rht. class of largl'
landowners from wlud1 th.u Church dlriv,d us nldin st1ppl1rt. Th~ war-cry of
these men, Deo laud<".; ('Prai~( be to (;ud': it {)tt;.:: ..1pp.ars on Donatist tombstones), was more to bt t~~arc..;.l. a~Ynrd.;ng.ln St. Augustim. than the lion's roar
(Enarr. in Ps. 132.6. au CCI. S~r. Lu . XI. [ !.J56] 1930). But thest. fanatics,
barbarous as they might s<'C'll! w tlw iand),;rd cbss. wac :~uything but a terror to
the poor, for We hear uf tJwm dmJ.tl'Uill~ tO ptUrish llWlll..'yll'tldcrs who t:Xactcd
payment from the peas:mts, and t(,rcitl!! lamilords to dismount from thl'ir
carriages and run before tlwm wlnllthLtr sla\'t.'.'\ druvt>. or 10 do slaves' work at
the mill (Optat.. III.4: :\ug .. F;,, lflli [,,ij !~-{: li35Li\J 15~.:-f. ~l:S . St.tc.).
There arc dear indic:ukms that dt~ rq~iml rlw V:md;tls St't np on thC'ir conqu~st
of Roman north Afrka in 4~ ami th v.:ars l\lllt"''llil! was less t.xrortionatl' than
rhe Roman system '-'Xisting dwn. t~rom dw poir;t of \kw of the coloni. :z.1
Constitutions issued by.Justimanm 551.md 558. m;~.uy ytars J.fter his rtconquest
of north Africa in 53.3-4. shuw that durin!t rhc- VandJ.lJlriud many coloni must
have achieved some kind <lf tr~~~ctntu by t'srJ.riug imm the estatl'S where they
were in the condition of scrt~; sec Corp. Jur. Cwil. III [Nov. just.] 799-803,
Append. 6 and 9. 24 (There i:; also reason to <hiuk that in other Germani(;
kingdoms humble Greeks and Romans may havt. found themselves better
off.) 25 Although the Ostrogoths, for example, could !i(.>nlt~times - like other
'barbarians'- behavt with gnat :i:W:t!!lry to ~ht iuh;thtt.mts of captured towns.
even indulging in genlralu~a!'SJl'Tl' and cusl:tVt'IUI."IIt.!!" tlwrr rule might sometimes seem at least nn \Wir'SL' til;m th:u ot'tlw itnm;m l.m.towrwrs. as ir evidently
did in Italy in the 540~ during thtwgn ofTotii.J. tlw Ostmt-tt,th (541-52), who in
the areas under his comwl rnattd the pl'JSJnts p:mwul.lrly ,...-dl (Procop ... Rei/.
VII= Goth. III . xiii.l; l'l~ Yt.5). in 'iltrung Ctllltr;lst wtth thlSt' (;tpart perhaps from
Bdisarius) who comma mil-d the Homan ;muy ~~nt hy JustintJn. 27 Totila made
the peasants pay their n.'nts as wdl as thttr taxes w himsd(:! He also acet:ptcd
into his army a consiti..'rablc number uf slaws who had hdongcd to Roman
masters, and he: firmly rc..ti.ls,d to hand thtm over. 29 J k ts also credited with
representing most su~:nssii.dly to the peasants of Lucanl.l. who had been organised into a m~litary ti.lr(t' ag:tinst him by the gn;u IJ.nd,,wner Tullianus (sec
IV .iv n. 7 below), that if tht'}" returned to the cultiv;..n~m of th~ir ftclds the
property of their landlt,rds wo;.tld become theirs (B.-ii. VII~ (;,)th. Ill.xxii . 20-l).
All this material comes twm Procopius, who w:t;; t:s.r;;ouJ.IIy pr~sent as a
member of the staff of lkhsarius. In the light of thi5 iutirmation, it is easy to
483
underst;.md rhe p:imet.!IJrly vc;wmons w;.y ill which Totila is refcrrtd to by

Justinian in ins so-c-.ili,~d 'Pr:agmnic San,tion of 554.'10 which (among other
things) ordl.'red t'\'erythiug: dont" by Toti!:\, including his 'donations', to be
abroga~.tl { 2). wnfisr.<tt:! prop:..rty w h:.. ~.stored (13-14), marriages betwcm
free persons .md si;,ws to be d1s~olvcci at tiK wish of the fr~C' party (15). and
slaves and cCiloni who had p.asstd into t!w poss'-'s:sion of others to be rtturm:d to
their original m;;:>t,.-rs ( 16). Tht: st;lt'mClt hy.Joncs that 'the mass of the Africans
and ltalb.r;~ \'\'dnm1ed the ann It'S ofJ~Istiru:m' !s far from being justified ewn by
the few pa55:!.,!!.0:~ h. iS lbt~ :0 '(UOtl' frn:n J'r.>eopius. a witnt'SS who would
naturally h;wc b,'l'll gbd 10 fiud .:..id.nx oflr!~ndlint:ss towards rht: armies of
which h ..: himsd!w;~s ;.c ~~ll.mb,r.-~ 1
At th, v~:ry ~r! ..! ofth~: S!\th c~W~H>' Wl' find Popt Gngory the Great writing
ofCorsi('ans :md C.unp:umm ,idcctmgtu tia Lombards (Ep. V.38 and X.S, ed.
L. M. Htrtuurm. L!J ..'24-o :md 1Li.24i-!).
In th, s~venth n:ntUr}' w .. b~.:ll' from th. Chnmicle of Bishop John ofNikiu of
Egyptians Lk:snnu~ ro rh .. Ar.1bs ..,~ Th.:- CO!Kjucst by th~: Arabs. tirst of Pakstinc, Syria. tvkscpot:uni:& :u:d part of l\rnh:nla (not to ml"ntion tht Persian
empire). and riKil ,,f Egypt. was ~iX(m:pli~la:tl with astonishing spet.d within a
dtcadc; Syri.1 .~:l. hltw~.er& fJj4 and t'..tO. :md Egypt by 642. This startling prot'l'SS
was no doubt r~dlirattd by tlw pn\'iou~ largt.-scalc Persian attacks (undrr their
King ChciSWi:S II) on thC' eastl'rn provino:s of the Roman l'mpirein the quartercentury ht'gnmir1g itl 604: 3" they overran Mlsopotamia. Syria and Palestine;
between (.1 i anJ (,.~(.1 they devastated many parts of Asia Minor; and in 617-1 H
they conquered Egypt and held it for some ten yt:ars. Thcse lands w~:rc not
entirdy freed from the Persian danger until 629. the yt.ar aftcr Chosroes was
murdcr~tl i:1 a t.'('llp. Althou~-;h th. sun1vmg Slurccs for all these events arc very
unsatist:Kwry Jnd srnm oft lw d;u,s an Cllll y ,1pproximate, the general outline is
reasonably secure: lmt 1t is tmpl:ssihlc !(' .;;1y lmw far the Arab victories durin!,!
the next few ~'l'.&rs were due U tlw JisC\lllr:&~,mt.nt, ~xhaustion, damage and
loss of life ClU:>l~d by the P~:rsian im.uJmH>- The Arab conquest~ CC'rtainly
deserve much mm~ space than I can ~J\'t' th..m here, since they wen. evidently
due in largl' part to the old int,ma! Wl'.tknes~cs of the Later Roman Empir...
~:specially of course class uppm;:;;i,,u. :m.i mduding now religious strif~ and
persecution. Not uuly did tlw ,xrlott:r~ion uithc many for thebcnefitofthc few
contimt\' J.l' hdurt (it'uut ou Jllitc:- th, s;un, :;;:ale as it had done in tht WLst); the
hostility hNW~l"n th~ varic,u~ Chn~ti;m s,~ts, t='Spccially now betWt.'Cn the
Monophysucs of \yria allll Egyr: (tht: Jln,httcs and the Copts) and thl Chalcedonian 'Or1.hodux s~.riou~ly nduct.d tltL' will to resist the. Arabs on the part of
the popul;uious ot Syri;l and Egypt. whkh were predominantly Monophysitc
and had sufti.nJ murh persecuttnn on that account. Michael the Syrian, th<.
Patriarch of Antioch ar the end of the twelfth century. speaking on behalf of his
Jacobite brethren about the Arab conquest, says, 'It was no small advautagc to
us to be delivered from thC' cmelty of the Romans [the Uyzantincs). tlllir
wichdness, their fury. their implacable zeal against us, and to find oursdve~ at
peace' (Chrott. Xl.3 fin.).a-. Tht. same statement was made in the thirteenth
century by Bar Hehraeus (Gregory Abu'] Faraj, or Abulpharagius). another
Syrian Jacobite historian, who used Michael as one of his principal sources
(Chron. Elcles . Sectio 1.50). 3~' I ft.cl I should emphasise here that for the scvcnth
484
century in particular Syri.Ic :som.-l'S ;m: often t:S.St'nti:tl ft)t thco Roman historian:
for those who (like mysdt) d,l uot rnd Syri;~c. tr:mslations are often available,
into Latin or a mod(m lJn~uag{". Th(n is fortunately an ex.:dlent account of all
the main editions ami tr:msbtkms by S. P. Uw-ck, 'Siriac sources for seventhcentury history'. in B}' ::.mri11 omd Alodi!nt Grr:d~ .Srw/i,s 2 ( JQ76) 17-36.
I know of no gocd l"vidcrKt' rh..lt '.~u S~riJu ChrL,.fiJn;; :tctually hdped the
Arab invaders, whmu th~o.y natur.1lly t(:and and hated ;as infidds until they
discovered that the Muslims w~n pnr.ut>J i:1 g;.ncr:l :o ;~!low them to practise
their own particular t(;r m ot' Christi.mity (as dt~ B yzar:tiw:s were not). provided
they paid a poll-tax t~'r th~ priv:kgc As fur du Egypuan Copts, most of them
st:oem also to have regarded rlwlT conquerors a: firsr with :tvcrsion and horror.
Ouchcsne was clearly right to sJy rhat th~1r stnnml'n!S were hostile to the
'empire persecuteur' rath1~r than t:tvcmrabk w th~ mfidd invad~r.!lf; But some of
thcm soon came to rc-g:ard rht ntk of the Muslims, who as a rule wc.-rc far mor~
tolerant towards tht'ir s.ubJl'<"ts in religious m;Ut(rs. as a k$!<c.r evil than that of
the persecuting Orth,dox- tlw 'Mdkitl's, or 'Empt<wr':; men', as they called
them. Even A. J. Burler. whu in his hi:iotl)f)' ofrht Anb o:mquc.~st of Egypt (still a
'standard work') is r.:tglr to dt"i~1d the. Copt;; ;j~:linsc any unfair charge of
treachery and dcsen:cm to thl' Ar:th ~idt. i~ obitgcd to .uhnit that from 641
onwards the Copts did on ,,,.Gl$10U ~i''l' J.Sl'a.;tanct> to tht Ar.1bs, notably when
the brief Byzantine r~u(cupJ~a:m of Altx.mdria m 645-6 w:&!' tc1rcibly terminated
-and the whole of Eu:vrt was :ul\1 co tht Grwk wur!d ti.1r <'verY Butler also
records the commem~,{~f lhr l-ldllalus (Cinw;. Erd~! .. Sntio 1.50) 3 ~ on the
temporary restoration to tiK M~'i:cpt;uuiJu .mel SyriJn Mtnophysites in the
early seventh century, by tht~ P~'TSi:m Kmg Chosr.-tt) H. tlt' the churchC's which
had been taken from th~:n .md h:udnl Wer to ~h.: Orth(lrl,lx by the pcrst'cuting
Chakedonian Bishop n~IIJ)(.'tlJnUI'O ,,f Mditc:Jh: (fi.n whum 'ot'C n.34 again: Bar
Hlbral'Us was hcrc npwdu,ing MKhad the Syn:.n. Clmtl. X .25). Michael and
Bar Hebrac'Us rlgardtd th~ p,rsian conquest ufJ\.ksopotJmb (605, maintained
until 627-8) as a divint' punishmC'm on thl' Ch:!ke:bmans !or their persecution
of the Jacobitl'S- in thtir .:yt'i'. of ,,mrsc rhc. Orthtdux. :\nd ButlC'r adds, 'It is
the old story of Chri!>ttaus ua1fh-ing countrr. ran. and rdigion in order to
triumph owr a rival ~tct llf Chri.;tJJ.n:- {o;t'l' n. -:.7 :~gain).
It was not only row .tr.is ti\';Jl s,ct;r; within Chrisfl:tllit y hat dlt' Christians gave
vent lO their religious .Jillllhllill)'. Tl:, r'sritutlilll w _krusakm in 630 ofwhat was
bdiewd to be the 'T w. Cro:s.s . c:u ri("d ,,ff b\' 1ht \kt1llious Ptrsians in 614 and
now taken back from them by rht Empatlr fltradms. was followcd by a sC"vcn
persecution of the Jews. who wtn ;ar,n~td .:1f p.tJ'tidpatiug in thl' massacre of
Christians at JerusalLm which h.ul tillluw{,f ir~ f.pturc.. by th~ Pt.rsians m 614.
The consLquc..nc~s Wl'!'' so1lll ro I uulurnm:u. fur thc.l{,lmJ.n cmpirt', for when
the Arabs attacked Syri.1 .11t.l l,;!k~tint' m tlw 630s the Jews evidently rt.ct.iwd
thlm favourably and in ~Oillt' pla.ts !J,.JV' Lhlm significant support. :19
* * * * * *
A large number of'barbarians', mainly GLrmans, achiLvcd high positions in
the Roman world through SL'rvice in thL army in the fourth century .md later. As
early as the mid-fourth cl'ntury Arbitio, who had tnlistcd as a common soldic.r
('!rt)tarim miles), reached th~ most exalted of all military ranks. that of mdJ!ister
485
eq11itJ1m, ;m,! iu .'\55 l'Vt:JJ bl'Cllllt' ~\msal. an honour rarely conferred on upstarts
(see PLR /!. l. 'J:I-5). ThL v.ast nMjonty l)l th~~t "b.1rbarian military commanders
were compktd\' 1oy:l W lhmw. an.t it is rar'"" in,ked to hear of them being guilty
of treach,ry, lik~ dw Atun:mni,: cbi'"f Hortar. appointed by Valentinian I to a
Roman army ~-om:n;and hut rurrur(:d and burnt to death about 372 for treasonable correspondence \'ith hi:' itmll,r nmapatri,lts. ~~~With hardly an exception,
these mt'n r:.mt> t<) rt>g;ani themsd\"cs J;; Romans and thoroughly accepted the
outlook ut tht ltmnau rulinl,! d.1~s. of which they had become members,
however mnd1 they might be dl"'>pi~Ld b)- some for their 'barbarian origin'.
Their siuutltJJliS J.dmirably illu!>tr:utd h~ tlw st-ry ofSilv.1nus, especially as it is
told by Ammianus Marcellinus XV. v.2-3.l 11 Silvanus was apparently a 'secondgeneration immigrant', sin(\: Ammi.mus ~reaks of his father Bonitus as 'a
Frank, it is true', but <1111: who h.od fmghr loy.tlly for Constantine (ibid. 33).
After rising to very lngh military \""~ttkl' . ..l!o rr..1.~i.ter peditum (in 352/3), Silvanus
became in 355 the subjl'l't of .m ~nrirdy Ul!j~tstifi~d accusation of treason. which
he knew Constantius II was only roo likely to accept; and in the circumstances he
was virtually obliged to have himself proclaimed emperor. at Cologm:- in
which capacity he survived only twenty-eight Jays before being put to death.
Silvanus had thought at first of deserting to his kinsmen the Franks, but ht> was
persuaded by another Frankish officer, Laniogaisus. that the tribesmen would
simply murder him or sell him to the Romans (ibid. 15-16) - an interesting
indication that many Germans had no use for those ofthdr own number who
had gone over to Rome. Uuring a debate on the Silvanus affair in th'-' Consistory
(the state Council) of Constantius II at Milan. another officer ofF rank ish origin,
Malarich, the commander of the Gentiles, made an indignant pror~st that 'mm
devl'ted 111 the empire ought not to be victimised by cliques and wiles' (ibid. 6}.
Before turning back to the behaviour of ordinary Greeks and Romans, r must
emphasise once morl' that the prominent military mm r have been discussing in
this paragraph, although of'barbarian' or('!itJ, had becomlabowall members of
th<. Roman ruling class and Wl'rc no more likely than other Romans to prove
disloyal to the empire that was now coming to bl called Rl1mania- an exprl'ssion
the earliest surviving usc of which dates from c. 358 (Athan., Hist. Arian. ad
mouach. 35; cf. Piganiol, EC 2 45H n.3).
* * * * * *
Against all the evidenCl' Sl't out above for discontent, rebellion, and dc.:tcction
to the 'barbarians on the part of humble Greeks and Romans. I have come
across very little sign of spontamous resistance to 'barbarian' incursions on the
part of either peasants or rownsmen. References to such activities in the countryside, which I have listed in IV .iv (and its n.6) above, almost always attribute the
initiative to prominent local landowners, who organise forCl'S ad hoc, thl' nucleus
of which is provided by their own coloni and slaws (set' IV.iv nn.6-7). I know of
even fewer examples of the vigorous dlfenCl' of cities by their own inhabitants,
especially without the assistance of garrisons of professional soldiers. u This
may be due partly to the fact that 'barbarian ravaging was naturally focu~sC'd on
the country~idL. Walled cities, even if not strongly dLfc.:ndLd. could present a
difficult problem. for fLw 'barbarian' groups were cap.1bk of mounting proper
siLges. Fritig<.rn in 376, when advising his Visigoths to conccntratl' on thl' btst
486
and most fruitful country areas, is said by Ammianus to have remarked that he
'kept peace with walls' (XXXI. 6. 4). Many other passages testify to the inability
of 'barbarians' to capture towns and their consequent preference for the ravaging
of rural areas. Besides, many towns were garrisoned. But in the article published
in 1977 which I have already utilised above (see nn. 10, 12, 15), Thompson has
emphasised the rarity of recorded civilian resistance of any kind to 'barbarian'
attacks. As he says. we hear much in the valuable Chronicle ofHydatius of the
ravaging of north-western Spain by the Suevi, and in the Life of Severinus (who
died in 482) by Eugippius.aa (511) of the depredations of the Rugi in Noricum
Ripense (part of modem Austria), but we never hear of any organised resistance
by the provincial population. And he continues,
Eugippius makes it dear that the Noricans, even when there were impcrial troops
stationed among them, and still more when there were none, were incapable of
making any collective effort to check the ravages of the invaders. They never tried to
ambush them. or to sink their boats as they crossed the I >anube, or to launch punitive
raids across the great river inro the territory of those who w~rt tormenting them. Ont
or two forts in Galicia [m north-west Spain] took up an aggressive deft>nce against the
Sueves and inflicted some losses upon them;'-' but in general the picture then' was one
of helplessness and d("spair .ju~t as in Noricum.~5
It was not only the very poor who became defectors to the 'barbarians'. At the
vt:ry highest level of society, needless to say. any outright treasonable conduct,
betraying the empire to a 'barbarian' rull..'r, was almost unknown. I cannot add
to the only two cases known to Jom~s: in 469 Arvandus, praetorian prefect of the
Gauls in 464-8, and soon afterwards Seronatus. who was either governor of
Aquatanica Prima or vicar of the Gallic diocese of the Septem Provinciae. Both
these men- no doubt, as Jones says, 'despairing of the Empire' - were condemned (and Seronatus executed) for collaboration with the Visigothic King
Euric. 46 We also hear of a few by no means lowly men who defected to th<'
'barbarians'. One or two of these evidently acted for reasons of personal
advantage. Craugasins. f(lr instUKt' .1 k1ding mJ.Jl o:" Nisihis in Mesopotamia,
who fled to Persia in _-\;9, Sl""t~ms tl have: bt."\.'11 mouvouc:d numly by affection for
his beautiful wife, wh1 h01d b,<~n l"aptund by rlw P~ni.ms. ,;and by the prospect
ofbeing handsomely trtattd by d1c Ptrsiau king. Sh:tJmr 11. 17 And the bishop of
Margus on the D:uml>t'. wh., in '-1 I b~tray,;l his t'llY to the Huns (who
immediately destroyed it/, sctms h. have l~etu lwh:t\'mg in a scandalous
manner, robbing Hun gr:l\'t~ 111 bu::ach of a trtat y oi 4Jt.: he probably handed
over his city to t:St-:tJX" b,ing hnnsdf ~mnndc:red to the vengeance of the
exasperated Huns (Prtsc.'\1$
2). Uut thtn: S.t"C.ms t( lw uo glod reason to think
that there was any u~;tdwry em dtL" p.m uflhsh,,., Ephracmius of Antioch just
beforc thC' capture .m\1 sack
rh.u ~ity by Klllg ChL~srws I of Pcrsia in 540
(Procop., Bell. II = Ptu. ll.vi.l6-25; vii.J4-IS. ,sp. lt.-17). The bishop of
Bezabde in Mesopotamia abo l<UlW unJtr SliSJ,idon ofh:tving bctraytd his city
to the Persians in 360: but Ammi:mus ..Llth~ng:h h. adrmts there was a primafacit'
case against the mat!, did nul bdtt'W thl.' .!tYUS<ttion. and we must treat it as at
best 'not proven' (Amm. XX.\'il.7-9). B111 i.'\'m men of some substance could
be drivt>n to defect. lik, thl' pi>M. by lll.Jll~tic-: .md m:l.ltr.Jtnwnt. There is an
instructiw story in AnuHiami~ JbtHII :.1 ''~ry :~hit- Jl)J~ lhi.ng in thl Gretk East
named Antoninus. wh' .trhr l,,cm~ing 01 ttdJrucrdum, h~l takm a position as
tr.
' *"
Vlll. The 'decline and fall': an explanation (iii)
487
accountant \>ll the st;ttT l.f rh~ 1.:nilit<1ry gmrent\>r (the dux) of tht: province of
Mesopoa:t!lli.l, Jnd h:.d ~illaHy recei\'\"d the honorary rank of protector. Certain
men of powo;r {polet:tl'! 1 f~tri,ttr'J) Wl'l'l' abk tim:mg_h their command of patronage
to victimise hiJu .and ro compei him to ;.;ck!lowkJgc a debt. the right to enforce
payment of which wa.'> by collu~ion ~ramfcm.d co the imperial treasury; 48 and
when the Cunm of the rr<"astl-:-y (lhC' t'omr.; Hm-arum largitionum) pressed him
hard, Antoujnus dcfl".:n:J sudd{rJ.ly w i'trsia in 359, taking with him the fullest
possible d~tdils of th~ Hom<In army ;1nd its r-~sourccs and dispositions, and
becomin~ rb: righr-hand-man of King Shapur Ii, who was planning to invade
Roman \ks.urm~wi;t (:\mm. XVfii.v. !-J.8: vi.3, 19; vii.10; viii.S-6; x.i;
XIX.i.3~ ix.7~i3: XJX.vi, 1). At;~ latet p:trk~ wit.h the Roman gmcral Ursicinus
(the patron of :\nm:iJaus), .-\mnr;iJIIIS pmtes.tcd. vehemently that he had not
deserted tiw Gra(ce- Rmn;lJl wnrld volunur"ily, but only because he had been
persecuted hy hi;; iniq:titOll!> creditors. ,\hom even the great Ursicinus had been
unable to hold in ,:h~rk_ :\t th<" t'nd of thnr c:rJolioquy Antoninus withdrew in the
most respectful manner, uor turnill1: :lr<:Oitllll bm facing Ursicinus and deferen
tially walking bat:k w.mis 'lllti! h~~ wa.s.Nu ,_,f .,~~~ht' (XVIII. viii. 5-6)- a touching
revelation of his rt.lw.:t.mn ~o ah;m .h:m !IK Sl(Wt)' in which he had lived, and his
veneration t(!r its ~~>:td~ll~ m~on.
At least two men of~.;ouac quJht")', one a doctor and the other a mr:rchant,
actually took refuge auwnJ:! - of all barbarian peoples - the Huns. A midfifth-century Gallic chmnngr ;trin,: source bwnically records under the year
448 that .1 dc.t"h)r nauw~t Eu.loxtlls. -dtnr hut perverse' (pravi sed e.xercitati
ingenii), .tftl': h~ug ;u\olvtd 10 r~voh of tht Uaraudac, fled to the Huns ( Clzron .
.\1in. 1.6fl.~). Tb \lthc:r 111:111 h rh,- suhjt'Ct of tho: fascinating story told by the
historian .md d:plom<tt PY isn1s (fr. x): nfhi;; lllt:"t'ting. during his embassy to the
camp of Attil<t m 44ti t'r 449. w1rb .lu Uutlalllt:,i man from Greece who had once
prospcrld as a Tllt'JI.'hant ar Vn:un;uiumtm tht Danube (the modt.m Kostdacz)
and marrit:tl ;a wry rich wui: tht"rt;. bur lu.i hwn captured by the Huns when
they toc:k I hi.' dry In 441 ;md rud tl-lcn fought for the Huns, even agaimt the
Romans. Ahhnu~h frrt<l by his captors, he lud by prcfen'tlce >tayed to live
among th{' Hunli, His s;:;athiug description of Grae-co-Roman class society is
reported by Prtscus. J finu bdiever in th{' ,,!ablishcd ord('r, with a gravt.'.
incredulous disapproval whidl makes tlw tt.;tlUiony all the more valuable. The
Greek s.1i,i that things wtn: b;td l.IH>Ugl, 111 w:u-time, but in peace they were
even wors,-. lxc-.mst (f h,;vy t:ox ati.-m: ':md m;principled men inflict injuries,
because tht hi\Y'I art nor ;;lhol.lt.aioo;t rver y,)n~o ... A transgressor who is one of
the very nch ts ll)l puui~hcd i(n lu.; in.Jtl~tln~. ''"hilc a poor man, who doesn't
understauJ busuws~. r;y~ till~ kg;al P'~n;,Jty- th;.t is, ifh(' doesn't dit: befor~ th,
hearing. so lnng JS tlw ,-nur;;(' o)flaw~uits prn~r;.rted, lnd so much i~ the money
that is sptnt 1111 them. Th, dmux of uns~ry. plrhaps. is to haw to pay in order
to obtainjusti~:r. For no ont'
~1\'\';.1 IW;.tring t() an injured man unless he pays
money tu the judge :111d Ius ;~ssist~llh
This wa.; all too trUC'. Tlh Grn:i.. .;,~m;; to have been thinkmg primarily of
civillitig;ui,,n. Wt mu\t n<t, xpt!t''. h ~ind ,,:.u~~ rcfercncrs to long-drawn-out
civil suil'. lmt w( di he:~r ,,f (>:l~ ;.\'lurh .;l~~ut c;) have lasted for eighteen years,
from A.l ), ~~~' tu .:?44. ;md .ill<lti:lr that w~"
kd by the personal intcrvrntion
of King ThL'\l(1ur!t' dlf 0'-:n~lh (wh, minim Italy from 493 to 526), after
wm
,: ..
488
dragging on allegedly for thirty years. w The position in criminal cases was even
worse, for the accused, if they had neither honorific status themselves nor a
sufficiently influential patron, might spend long periods in prison, sometimes in
appalling conditions. In a speech of Libanius, giving a distressing picture of
prison life at Antioch, we hear of a case in which a group of villagers, suspected
(perhaps without good cause) of murdering a local landowner, spent many
months in prison, where five of them actually died before the case was fully
heard (Orat. XLV. esp. 8-13, 25...{): see Jones, LRE 1.521-2). Indeed, 'Roman
criminal justice was in general not only brutal but inefficient' (id. 520-1). 51 The
Greek was justified, too, in what he said about the venality of officials: all
officials in the Later Roman Empire expected to be handsomdy tipped. evenand perhaps especially- tax collectors. In a typically emotional edict Constantine says, 'Let the grasping hands of the officials refrain; let them refrain, I say,
for unless after this warning they do refrain, they shall be cut off by the sword'
(CTh l.xvi.7, of 331). And he goes on to forbid their illicit tips, sportulae as they
were called. a term which extended to many other types of payment, both
forced and voluntary, including those madl by patrons to their clients, or by
benefactors to their fellow-townsmen or others (cf. V.iii above'). It was an
empty threat, however, as the officials must have known only too well. Only
about twenty-five years after Constantine's death, in the reign of Julian, an
inscription found at Timgad, recording the order of precedence at official
functions in the province of Numidia (roughly the modem Algeria). actually
lays down an official tariff of the tips which could be legally demanded by the
officials of that province: they arc expressed in terms of modii of wheat, from
two to a hundred modii -say from a quartl'r of a bushel to about twelve
bushels:'2 One civil servant of the sixth century who had literary pretensions,
John Lydus (John the Lydian), tells us that during his first yl>ars as an exceptor in
the department of the praetorian prefecture, quite a minor post (although in an
important department), he actually earned sophronos ('without sailing too clmc
to the wind', perhaps) as much as a thousand solidi, thanks to the solicitude of
his great patron, the Praetorian Prefect Zoticus (De magistr. 111.26-7). As an
ordinary exceptor, his nominal initial salary would probably have been only
around nine solidi;>a and although various additional fees and perquisites would
have been available, he would not, without powt:rful backing, have come ncar
earning a thousand solidi, unless he was prepared to indulge in corrupt practices
to which the word sophronos would have been most inappropriate. John also
mentions in the same passage that when he wrote a panegyric in verse in honour
of his illustrious patron, the great man gmerously rewarded him with a gold
solidus for every line of the poem- although perhaps 'generously' is not quite
the right word, for tht. money was paid out of public funds!
(iv)
The collapse of much of the Roman empire in the fifth, sixth

and seventh centuries
After the murder of Alexander Severus in 235 there ensued fifty years of
unparalleled disaster for the empire, with a series of futile civil wars bl'tween
rival claimants to the imperial position, barbarian invasions, and a plague which
Vlll. The 'declineandfall': an explanation (iv)
489
broke out in 251 and raged for some fifteen to twenty years, with even more
disastrous consequences than the pcstilence of the 160s. 1 Only in 28+5. with the
accession of the very able emperor Diocletian (late 284). was the situation
temporarily stabilised;2 and it was not until324 that the empire entered upon a
long period of internal peace, with Constantine's victory over Licinius and the
unchallenged supremacy of the Constantinian house. Even after this there were
occasional short periods of internecine warfare, due again in every case to
contention for the imperial throne. As I insisted in Section iii of this chapter, the
civil wars of the third and fourth centuries. like those of the first and second,
were all fought out between the respective claimants and their armies; nor once
is there any dear sign of an alignment of class forces corresponding ro the
opposition between the armies, and we must regard all these struggles, ferocious
as they sometimes were, primarily as attempts by individuals and factions
within the governing class to acquire or retain control of the supreme power in
the empire.
No doubt men driven desperate by oppn:ssion could somt>times be led to
hope that a change of emperor might result in some improvement in the1r
situation, and it need not surprise us, therefore, if we occasiondlly come across
statements about the support given by humble men to some pretender to the
imperial throne. Writing probably in the late 360s, the unknown author of a
curious little treatise, known today as the Anonym us De rebus bellicis, addressed ro
the reigning emperors (who, at that date, must be Valentinian I and Valens).
speaks with vehement disapproval of the greed of the rich. whost' store of gold,
he says (11.2-3).
meant that the houses of the powerful (potrntrs] were crammed full and their splendour
enhanced to the destruction of the poor, the poorc:r classes of course being held down
by force [trnuioribus videlicrt violrnria oppressis]. But the poor wrre driven by their
afflictions into various criminal enterprises, and losing sight of all respect for the law,
all feelings ofloyalty, they entrusted their revenge to crime. For they often inflicted the
most severe injuries on the empire, laying waste the fiec-lds, breaking the peace with
outbursts of brigandage, stirring up animosities; and passing from one crime to
another they supported usurpers (I have used the English version of E. A. Thompson.
RRI110).
The word here translated 'usurpers' is tyranni, the standard term for a would-be
emperor who did not succeed in establishing his rule firmly and achieving
recognition (cf. VI. vi above). Certainly, the worse the situation of the poor
under a given emperor, the more likely they might be, a priori, to support some
new pretender to the throne. But we must nm be too impressed by the allegations
we occasionally meet with in literary sources that the followers of a particular
pretender were- or at least included- the scum of the earth: such statements are
part of the normal armoury of ancient political propaganda. However, on one
occasion in particular I would be prepared co cake such statements seriously. We
hear from Ammianus and Zosimus that many humble men joined in the
rebellion of Procopius, in 365-6; 3 and there is a good reason why discontent
should have been greater than ever at this very time: taxation was especially
severe. Taxation had always been recognised by the Roman government as the
prime necessity for the maintenance of peace itself, as the Romans understood
that term. In the words Tacitus puts into the mouth of the Roman general
490
Pctilius Cerealis in 70. 'Without ,~:n:5 till'I"C' c::;1 bt" no pt.;n a:nong peoples [quies
gentium], nor can t!wn b, ;m:l:s with<.nt~: P~"Y m pay \'<'!thout taxation' (trihura:
Hist. IV. 74). And in th~, h:dicmu.sly oprimi.,:i i'h'til:'(' oL1. <"Oming Golden Agt:,
put into the mouth of th: Emp(nH !)robns (276-,;;2). r!w nssation of any ned
for soldiers leads dinniy w :~ \\'.:.rld ill .'.'iud. :;;x.Himl ~-.1H di>appear (Hisr. Aug.,
Pr(lb. 20.3-6 and 22.4-.~3.3. o>p. 21JJ.. 1.'.1). T:.~:..it:on. under the new system
inaugurated by Dio,ktian. i::.ld sh:..t.diiy mrr~a~ni dming :ho fourth century, and
even Julian, who in G:m! 1s s::;id !' hav; n'ltliC't'd !h:: t;.o-,: on t>ach caput from 25
solidi to 7 (Amm. M.ln. XVL....-.J.i-15), tvid~;<iy m.1.k !lU !eduction in the East
during the short time h ru!.d ttWH' m Jf,l-2. ,o\.-nmfmg to Thcmistius. addressing the Emperor V.ll~m in 1\:hr.:-h jf~. :mpo:ri.1l ~.lX,I~hm h.-.J doubled during the
forty y<-ars before tht .tL,-~~si,mniV Jkn:- i:1 .\fA; .111J ..tlrhou~h Valcns proceeded
to halve it. he did so 1111Iy in hi~ fourth ~car. Jf,7-8 {th, F<r after the nvolt of
Procopius). kecpin~ 1t undtdn~~d umil tlwu (Orat. Vllf. i Uab,c). Furth<-rmore.
Valcns' father-in-l.1w P...tr.miu~ 1 (in what ntt'ir,. wc arc not told) had made
himsdf widely hattJ by hi!- rmhkss ,:oc-.ri~lll of .lrr,.us of taxes. accompanied
by torture, and g .~:n~ b:.Kk . .lc,~ordit~g- :,, A:nmi:illus, to the rdgn of the
Emperor Aurdian (170-5). tw.lrl) a hnudn:d y,.1rs earlier! (XXVI.vi.7-<J).
Ammianus attributes tMrd\' to ,f.-h.,t.ttiou uf l'ctroniw; the adhesion to Procopius of many of tht: co~lllwn pl'tlJ'k i'Jl<'l'"!u.~. l'ai~w: ibid. 17). Similarly.
Zosimus ascribes the wide-;pr,;td ~uppurt iu At'ril'.l t0r hrmus (who rebelled in
372 or 373) to rht l'X;Ktims of 1~.m1:t::~s. tlw ',,.,,.,_, .vncar, in Maurctania
(IV .xvi.3). 5 1 shall r.;:mm siJ<lrtly w 1!tl snhjen ,,f t.1x.1tiou.
One of the many rittik ~hil wars. bdwo:-~u C(;n.st.mtins II and the 'usurper'
Magnentius, lt>d to .l 111.1:,jur b.trtlt 111 :b I :r Mmsa in'-,1r to the conflul'ncc of the
DraVl' with the Danuhl) whi,h may wdl h~n,; iw~u 'tht bhmdil'St battle of the
century'. as Stein h.l!' (JikJ it. with a tvl.llloss. t)fhri: 'i.tid-uo doubt with much
exaggeration, as us;.Ml-tn lu\'~ b~ ?..J.OOI)_.; :\n,l th1r, wrc innumcrabk wars
on and over the frunntrs. uor >uly J~;till'!>l 'b:ub;maus' like the Germans and
Sarmatians in tht north. d.lid in th<1ilib c.utnry th'- HilliS. a., well as against the
nomads of the desert who uthn atul:k.,J Egypt. C yrl"llJtct .mJ the othl'T nonh
African provinccs, 7 but also .t;.:,Jiust the P~.r$i~11s. wlm ,uuld be considered a
civilised state comparabk wnh tlt,~ l{tlllldll empin ihdr: .md who becamc much
more menacing in the S.1ss:mi.i ptrio,l rrnu1 2:?4 tlllW:thls (sec IV .iv above).
Julian's disastrous c.xptlbtion ;t)';;tinsl P.:rs.i;, iu Jkl 111\'<)lw.i perhaps the largest
army ever asscmbkd by .1 l~.>mantmp,wr t(>r .t campatgn across the fronticrs. ~
and the resulting losses in manptWLr .md quipmtnt, although they cannot be
even approximately estimated, must luw bttn caustrophic. Ordinary campaigns on the frontil'rs may not have resulted in a greater drain on the resources
of the empire than occurred during peace time, for no doubt the prisoners and
booty captured will haw roughly balanced out the losses. Even war with P~rsia
may have yielded a good profit on occasion, as for l'Xamplc in 298; but in glncral
the long sl"ries of conflicts in the East must hdw grcatly strained the economy of
the empire. And of course when Roman territory from which recruits were
customarily obtained was lost to 'barbarian' invaders, as happened above all in
the West in the early years of the fifth century, permanent damage was inflicted
on the military strength of the empire (sec t>sp.Joncs, LRE 1.198).
It is indeed hard to estimate how much wastt of rcsourccs occurnd during
VIII. The 'decline cmdfall': an explanation (iv)
491
wars: the ;umy itsdf w.t:~o ;o \'ery gr~:n burden on dmsc rcseurct:~. 1fl~:>s m 11mc of
peace th;m during .,;;r~ (d~ Scrriou ii ofrhi.s d1.1prer, with its nn.l=!-i5). Om:
thing we can s;oy wi:h <:otdidtn:t:: th~ :lrmy w;;s now cuns:d~rably enlargt"d
beyond whd.t ;, h;ui he~-:1 in th<~ r:;::riy Pr~w::ip:uc. Th~ wtal !'atwr ~tnn.g:n oftht
army may hJV~' been ;~bout IOU,!M"IO or nmn. c."Vcn 111 d:~ 1\ntoninc period.~
When St>ptinti:.> s~v~rus r:used thne IKW k~lOiiS tl::..r tm campaign a~ams! tlw
Parthians i1~ :97. he w~1s :nr:r.~:t5i.ng th~ kg10!iiiT}' .1:my by about ten per (l'm.
Estimati:lg thl.' mm:bcr~ of rht'lrmtxi forces IS;; very ditticult task, especially a~
regards dw auxiii:Lf)' rrgiu~;~nts (au:..ii:ri). which ;;vi,kn.rly outnumbcH.'d the
legions; :md alii !i.d .tbl.e t~ say is th;t Diodl!i.lll :md Com;tantinc tm:sc h.w:
greatly incr..:::tsl!d riw s!:tt oft he army. h) p~rhap;; wcH over half a mi!Iio,t men. h
is no wonJc.r th.n Dioc:kri.lll .1isu btg;u; a e.howu~h-gmn~ !dorm of dw who!..:
system of t.dX.ltiiJll, '"hid; w.1s :tppoarcn:!y t:u more r:rTecun in ~.::uucrmg fmm
the working population- :lw p-::-aSdlltry abo..,t.: :!li, of n:mrsc- 1hr: llHH:h grt::.m::
resourct>s n.nkd :<l tubk rh~ gov.:ntm!'nt to sustam t:io mil:r,1~y ;:md admin:strative m.u:hiue. Fmrh.:-r :-xp;n:sion of th.-:- :~:my may ~J;l\'c: bmngh: it 11p to
more th:t!l I)CJO.fli)o) bdi.1r-.: tltt: tJHi c.i' ~b(: fourth ('.:"afllr}', \V.'t !uppc; HI r~)SS\'S:'
two sets oftigun;s tor total ;,rm~ srrc.'U:Il:h. the. nature. of which rnay m~ptrl." s::C\'
confidence r!J:m we can Hsu::ll~ fed m suc:h c;,:;,:-, ho:cmsl they .u; r;nt no t!w
usual vl"ry round ~~u111bcrs :md t!lcH!in,lo.:ok .t~ tt'thl:y may~-' b.u:l.: ,,,lnm:ttdy
tO gcnuint otfllly Jists. WIJt.thcr tht'y T<'}-'Tc.'Sl'lll tht'm acn:r.U\'Jy Or nOt. \l~ry
detailed- :J:HI nut ;It .!II implausible -li?,nr. ;; "vhKh add up t\. 433. ,?!>(: ar, gwcli
in thl mid-sixth CL'ntury by John LyJ.tl~ U> ,,,,.~,.< 1.27) ii)r th~ nig11 J.f Ot.>detian. (r would gu~"Sos !h.tt thlr ;,rc frmu tlw ~::lrh..r r;;tl11 thau th.l.~n potrt ot
that rcigu, dunn~ wh1.-h [ rhiak tlw ;11my gn;, cua ...i.-ln:thh.) r\:;arlnas. wr~ung
perhaps<. S~ii. ~p~.1ks nftlu:' Jrmy as nmub,rmg bl3,1lt)i)' ull(kr rlw :tupt'l''~" iJi
former tintl'~. (hypo tii11 rti.Ji basileon: Hist. V. B- i7), ;t rhnS~.~ wind1 mu .. t rdi:r
back to the..' tunC" be.filf(' til\' dtvistou nltht <'IIIJ'IlT m _\1)5. 1" All th~: tigur\, I h.tv
given an hkdy. ,,fnmr~~. to rqnst'llt 'p<~pn ~tnngth'. burn,u it'tlw h:o't~ wr,:'
inflated (:i!; ~nrns vt>ry hkdy) by quite ;; l:ug{ m1mtw~ of fictut<J\:~ ~olJ1ers.
whose p.ay .n~ol r;llt(>IIS Wt'r :'illtf'ly :1pprupn:t~nl by th~ ottinr;;. r~o;pon.;ibk t~-..r
the lists, 1t i~ the 'paper stnngrh' whu.:h nuntrs. a'.r'ttcs lt:~s inst~.d i~hn.l1
again), fir tr would have lw~n thosl' ft!!ur~.;, .-.n wll!ch tl\(' .tcnul i ..,aa..; tpay .mJ
allowann~o; w~.rl'
b.tsld.
It was 11111 ._mly tht Jrmy wh:ch grcw '.llldn D1ocktian and his succ('ssors: the
civil Sl.'f\'KL h:on w.ts .nnrnu usly ntbrgtd. th. gr.:attst single l'xp.msion l-oming
when Di,ldttiau \'lrtually douhkd tlw mm\"'cr of provinces, to oVl'r a hundred.
(For the provinoal reorganisation. "'~ sp. Jmll':-i, LRE ll1.381-Y.) At the time of
the NtJritia D(~mr.uum, drawn up (iu ~h.- t~~rn: m which wt have it) at the time of
the division nf tlw 'llll'tn 111 ,N5 ;m(t r~..-i~~o:d m 1ts Western section during tht
firsr quarter (t rlw tifth Ynt\try. th.-r.;: wen. according to my cakulation, t IY
pTOvinc~s. ti Now th, total tmmt..-rs of n: .n ~mployed in th~ imperial civil
service Wt'Tc uvl n.~:tlly ~xic:s,;i;.,. wlwr: \H' t.tl;. into account the vast art' a of the:
t>mpirc ;md the: nmd'~'l' \lf ~fliri! (hm-:.a'I.IX) >Ynccrned - those not only of
provind.tl gov,rnr;;. hnr ,,;- Lht 'p4l;tit~ mimslrics' (thosl' serving the l'mpcror
dirt>ctly). the pr;lc.'lf>tUll prcft.:t,; .m~! tbir ~i.-.trs of {hi.' civil dioc~sc:s, tht t\vo
urban prl'fe(t.,; (of n\)lHC :md C;>J!'l~!lla:tpl~). tht magistri militum and others. I
would agrc~ W1!h Joms. who.ls;; k:Kwk.lg. of th~. evidtnce has never bcc:n
492
equalled, that 'the grand total of regular officials was not much in excess of
30,000, not an extravagant number for an empire which stretched from
Hadrian's Wall to beyond the Euphrates'. 12 But. as we shall see, the burden of
the civil service upon the economy of the Roman world was out of all proportion to its numbers.
Even before the great growth in the numbers of the Christian clergy (which I
deal with below) the army and the civil service represented a tremendous drain
upon the resources of the Graeco-Roman world. In a sense many of the men
concerned were performing essential functions in defence or administration.
But they were all withdrawn from the productive profess, and they had to be
maintained by those who remained within the process, above all of course the
peasants and slaves. Some of them- a high proportion of the superior officials,
in particular- would already be members of the propertied class, who if they
had not been involved in the administration would have been gentlemen of
leisure, and to that extent an equal burden on the economy. But there is an
essential fact here which it would be easy to overlook. Had civil servants been
ordinary gentlemen ofleisure, they would have been a burden, certainly. upon
their own coloni and slaves. What made many of the civil servants an exceptionally heavy weight upon the economy as a whole was that they were able to
extort, by means of their official position, a far greater surplus from the working
population than they would have been able to do as mere private individuals.
Their opportunities for extortion naturally varied very greatly, and the higher a
man's position the more he could make. It was not so much the nominal salaries
which were the lucrative part of top appointments: indeed, the fixed official
salaries, largely owing to the great inflation of the third and fourth centuries,
seem to have been distinctly lower in the Later Empire than in the Principatc, 13
even if the highest recorded salary in the Later Empire, the 100 pounds of gold
paid annually to the Praetorian Prefect of Africa in justinian's reign, is no less
than eight hundred times that of an ordinary clerk. 14 Officials enriched themselves
primarily from extra-legal exactions of all kinds. As we saw in Section iii of this
chapter, John the Lydian in his first year as a fairly humble clerk (though in a
palatine ministry at Constantinople) boasted of having earned quite legally a sum
which must have been something like a hundred times his nominal salary. This
will have been altogether exceptional, because it was due to the patronage ofone
of the highest officials of the day, and no doubt the ordinary civil servant would
have had to be content with much less, or else resort to questionable or even
illegal means of extortion. But 'extra-legal' profits were evidently made from
top to bottom of the administrative machine. In the fifth and sixth centuries it
looks as if would-be governors of at least some provinces might be willing to
spend on a bribe (suffragium) that would procure them the office as much as or
more than the salary it would bring them - a clear indication of the additional
profits to be made out of the post (see jones, LRE 1.391-401, esp. 398-9).
The officials who were probably in the very best position of all to extract
bribes, namely the cubicularii, the eunuchs who, as slaves or freedmen, ministered to the 'sacred bedchamber' of the emperor or empress, could sometimes
make enormous fonunes. (I have said something about their influence and the
wealth they could acquire in III. v above.) The corps ofcubicularii being closed to
ordinary men, it was the other 'palatine' offices which were most sought after,
VIII. The {decline and fall': an explanation (iv)
493
and in so: I\<' c::~r:s we: hear uo~ only >t'ii:mts bli:t:;< pl.oceJ :n: ~ht.' m:mt:-t'r cofn1m
who couid tK adrnittcll. Gl~l,_.J Il;rtuti. but ;1lso oi mpc'r!ittmu.<rii. \~ho t:irh.-r
worked W!thout saiary ur '\nit~d to :it~p u-:ro dead or r~tircd men's ~hoe:-; ~
even find ~rad<"'5 be~n_!! ~-t:tblishccl .mwng thlse supcmumear1es.'' A1 th'
lowest lcvt"l. ~h;1( of tht> oJ1ic;.l)s c.f the pmvinci.ii g.ovcmors, km.wm as tohort11l.>
(over 10.000 ir uwnbn). s.thri.s w:n h'ry iow (~~ Joms. Ll!E ll.594) ;md
legal perqui~:r,~ :-.:htivd l !.m.i:l: tht!o w;ls the '-'lliy p.m of th~ ci:il ;;.::-rvwe . . dud1
in theory a m;m could not 1::-Jv:.: ;md in whidt his ~~ms '\'<'Tl' :~!so :,,~nmrl to ~.-:rvc
(see Jones. RE -HJ). Th. l-Kk ofa;:kqual(" ott~.:i~i rc~w-:.rds m;l~' ln.~o drwc111;,1.any
cohortales w icJrm~ of cxrortu.m whi.-h th~ !Jw ~nher did nut s.Jrlcnou <~~ i'~sl
tivdy forbad .... J c:;,n best Hlus~r;u~ thi~ by nti:nmg .1:;-:.ir. to tk :1:>wnshmg bw
of Justinian in S?ti . applyill!= tu "'*'''Nh.< (u.w:o;:ai 111 Gndcj as wdl as fllr"iafl'},
which I bad U<"CJS10r: to m~ntion in n~o1rJ to :~tti,lll'> .:~t 1he nd ofStctlo:J i i of
this chapter. As \W s.t w thtr.~, Jmtini.m 's r~: .asm; t~lr prohibiting wF:ortafe-.; ~ml
curiales from hnoming hi.ihop:> or p:-t~srs was that they would have ix'fr)m:
habituatt>d to dupra{:ticc uf\')ltntu,,n with inl.:m't' amhruelty (C.J J.ii:.S~.,N., 1).
The chil s:rv:('~, t!wn. ~bd not merely ~.lftr.ht a 5urplm trum dw \.\'Nk m~
populatim1 (auJ oth~rs); .:t :~pproprla.tcd ;a iitr l:trg.tr .unnnllt than its n:1nivd~
modest nurub('r~ nnght sug~-.st. !\r:uy .m,l d.il senin t''~l'th"r w-.:rc :1 t~~.l rful
burden on the Gra~co-Rurn:m ~ronu:ny. Gi\tn th.lt thC." Ruman ~mp1n W;IS 1o
be stabilised and strt.n~tht.m't.l. witho;lUI :my timd.01.mental changtin it.~ n:mtT(',l~
was fortunate indeed in most of 1t~ ru[,rs trota Oiocktian tu Tht't.Hinsiu~ J
(284-395). What men t.'<ltuM do, \:ithiu thdr lights. tht.y did. S.;m,timt"s. they
appear in quite a heroil' wll. Bu!. inmir.tlly t.'nou~tit. riu: vny rni.~bur~:;; they
took .. necessarv as they W\'n' ifthc: ~y!>tl'ru w.1~ to be ruamLa!Jt\.'d, iwlpt."'l \u hn-ak
up the empire, tor th\' inncast<s ill ;trtnr .and t'i ..JI :;ervin iJH'Ol\'cd ~!Jt' extran::Joa
of an incn.tsc:d -surplus trum tht aln.:ady onrhurdt.u::d pca!>:m~ry. I >md;.u;at;.. a;;.
we have seen. thl'Toughl~ nt.\rt:;.mh'"d the system of t;axatic,n. Coa~t.mrine
added twu t.ntird)' new taKt.''i. one on ;;;.naturs. tht' J,lli,; or w/i.ui;J g!d;;1/i:-: (~t
cates whkh \\'en. . relative.+ \'C'r\' low indcd). 16 the other. the fllllatio !:utMlis ur
chrysargyron, on tlt'gCiticltCirr:s.
mdndtd tilr this purpose nut oJily tr;ldcrs bllt
urban craftsmen \Vhu Sllld tht.jr own pwdnc.t!., tishenncn. moru-ylm:kr;;, hrvt hdkeepers and prostitut~.~. (rur tht .lt.o;trL"if> alkg~.dly c:m"c'l h} t!K c,,tl:lti,, ltmr:dtl.
see IV. vi a bon ;md its n. 7 hdow.) lu dw E;Lo;t. the fimu,r 'ax w;1;; .1b~,l.islwd by
Marcian m thct.uly 45tJs (C~I XIJ.rJ.:!). rhd.lth'T by Ana~r;asius iu 49~ (CJXI. i. I.
dated by Josh. StyL CIJrCitJ ..\1).
who
* * * * * *
In the preceding paragraph I have characterised the majority of the Roman
emperors from Diocletian to Theodosius I as men who performed their functions as effectively as circumstances allowed, and even with some heroism. It is
an ironic reflection that most of the Later Roman emperors who served the
empire most loyally were men who had risen from a lowly station in life.
Diocletian himself was born a Dalmatian peasant, and his three colleagues in the
T.etrarchy (of295 ff.) were also ofBalkan peasant stock, 11 including Constantius
I, the father ofConstantine, whose dynasty lasted until the death ofJulian in .3()3.
V alentinian I, who founded the next dynasty in 364, was the son of a Pannonian
soldier of humble origins, who had risen from the ranks; 111 and there were later
494
emperors who were also of peasant stock, n;}~;thl~ _lustil! I and his nephew
Justinian I. 19 Libanius, in a lament for Julian wrimn :1buw 365, could say that
there had been 'not a few emperors of no m~an imdligtuce who had lacked
distinguished ancestry. and although th-ey \mder:stoo.l how to preserve the
empire were ashamed tt, spe:1k ofthti.r p:.rl'Htag:, so rh:n !(was quite a task for
those who delivered encotui~ of thl~m w :aiJoiatt' this U<i:tma'! (Oral. XVIII.7).
Members of the Rum.m uppt>r dasr. wo!id ;'pp!y w such men, and to leading
generals and officials who t-ould buas:: of:1o :llu.:;tri<>us ;nKl'~tors, contemptuous
terms deriding their rustK origin, such ;15 d.,l(''t'-'li.c, s~mi.a.~rc:ris, suba~restis, suhrusticus.20 The first two oftht'Sl.' words .1rc used by (:unmig others) the cpitomator
Aurelius Victor, a sdt:coni~!':;cd;JclfV<rm. th>:$0li ._,fa pJor :tnd uneducated man
(Caes. 20.5), who nc:vcrthde5s ddmits tb.u ali ~h~ mtmbL"rs of the Tetrarchy,
although enjoying huh: c-nnugh ium~&n:ir;u (cuitun) a~1d inured to the hardships
of rural life and military s'~ni.L't'. wcrl.' of ~r""'.ll h('uc:~it w th stacc (39.26). The
senators on the other hand. ht ~"Y~ ~Iorild in idit.'llt"SS :md at the same time
trembled for their wealrh. thl' USl and thL i:.creasr l)t which they accounted
greater than eternal liti. itsdf' (37. 7}. T!w R)I!l~U! urp,:r dasses, indcl'd, could
sometimes save thtmsl'lv;..s (lfilv hv r;tis:rw ilidivichnl members of thl' most
exploited class, the p,:a$antry. to 'rut~;~ pos:~;ons. >ft~r. ~cause of their military
competence and ability to <"Omtn:and m camp.1igm. Nndkss to say, they took
care to select only those whoan tlwy expected (~lsu;,!ly with reason) to promote
the interests of the upper dtssis. while ndnt.'ii.uir* thdr exploitation of the
remainder. It was a form of 'soualn~~:,bihty whJCh imolvcd no real danger to
the ruling class.
1
* * * * * *
Since the subject of this book is the Gnd.; WllrlJ, I nu~ht perhaps to say
something about individual Greeks who bt'C;ltnt' l~c,m.m emperors. The first
clear case21 of a 'GnL.k' emptror was th\. yunng Syriau. Elo~gabalus (or Hdiogabalus), born Varius A':it1:s B;usi:~!1<!:~ a~ Emesa in $y:-i:&. who in his teens ruled
for four years (218-2.22} as M. Anrdius .'\monimas umit"r the auspices of his
formidable mother, Julia Suat"miali. u11til both Wt'rt' munknd by the praetorian
guard. The Emperor Philip {M. Julius SLwms Philirrus. 244-9) came from
what the Romans called 'Arabia': he has he.::.u :apt!)' ti~"!ll'ribcd as 'the son of .m
Arab sheikh from the Trachonitis', south of f.hm;L~L:ns (W. Ensslin, in CAH
XII.87). For the next ('~ontury and a half tht l'tnptrors were all primarily
Westerners, whose first bngua~, was Larin: o~nd tht' ~ttting up of a permanent
Greek-speaking court at Constantinopk came only with tlw lasting division of
the empire into Eastern and WL."Sttrn rarts on the J,ath ot'Theodosius I in 395.
After a succession of emplrnrs m tht East who m.1} gL'nuiudy be described as
Greek, another dynasty originating in th~: West ruled at Constantinople from
51R onwards, and under Justinian I (527-65) reconquered much of the Western
empire. Nowadays little account is taken of the 'Latin' origins of Justin I,
Justinian I and Justin II (518-78): but in the eyes of some later historians who
wrote in Syriac, namely Michael the Syrian at the end of the twelfth century and
(following him closely) Bar Hebraeus in the thirteenth, all the Roman emperors
from Augustus to Justin II (565-78) were 'Franks' (meaning Germans), and their
armies too; and these Syriac historians conceive a new 'Greek' Empire as
VIII. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (iv)
495
beginning only with Tibcrius Constantine: (574/8-582). 22
* * * * * *
From rhc second d~c.-..,k of dJt> fourth ccmury tmward:;, ;, m.w cconornir
burden suddenly .lppi:";U'tt!, of a kin.J no one could prc\imts!y O<l\'C' cxp~ctt:d.
With tht ;1doptlon uf Chris~i.\!jry ;l:S rh: otlidal :ellgton of the Gra.:ca-J~mr:.1;1
world, by Constantim :l.!Hl his. ;;m:c~sson. the economy IA<:d ~o st:ppon an
increasingly iar~t" body of dtrio:s. mcmks <ll:d nllns, the vast l!htjCH;t-y of ,'!l;cm
were not engaged in ;my t"('OtlumicJ.Hy prutk:tivc Mtii!it}' .m.d therefore whatever t!u~ir spirim;;l valu<: to the community- u:us~ be t~ountcd. from ~tJ\
economi<: ;K~J:; uf !~.v. ;~:; sn many 'idll' n:o>l:bs'. h! h~ p:tgau world titen h;ui
been very r-:.-w pwfi:5:>t<.>:l.t!, fi.tll-riJm~ priL'St!o. oms;~.k E~~ypt. Now ..} \oiS~ ;.md
steadily growing number t,fChrisu:tn ~t"li~i'-'~; h;id rn h,~ sup;ocad a~ pnbll
expense, iu..n form ._n :moti-wr. it ~ tnl' :h;t~ atos; of the b1shn!)S. n-a:m:. rr"lh!'
priests and ,_l.:.li.'>.ms ar:.:i s.am~- oJt'th~.: mmor d~rgy :<11d 1\Klnks \wr.. or lu~i h.-o::n
wealthy nwu. willl had never .ioul." ;u:y prochlni.,,. .w.rk .mJ wl:usr b.bol;r w.1s
consequ~mly :l:)t :m .hlditinn:d loss: but a ~ood m:~ny of th monlo::s .1:1d :umor
clergy c~l!lll.' from tiw prf.rcr d.tSSl'S ;md rh~1r !:.bnur was :ho:refor1 wirhd~;twn
from pruduni.-111. Stnnl"' of !h~ U!onastr;:ri!5 wtn m;;:nt=&im:d hr t!w l.&bonr ot' rh,
monks thnmdvcs. but it Is udikdy rb;U m<-.r.: rh.m :1 h.m:lt\,1 (mainly tlwst' m
Egypt org:~ui:;('d tm~kr ch... Padtomi;~u mJ,i prc._hrn:d :t 5~1rplus h<.'}'(lnt wh;u
they thcmsd;r('S consume\1. and of cours~ H WJI~ .lbovt ;,jl producr:r~ .-,f J surplu;;
that the G~a,..-u-Jhunan ;:.::o.:momy unitd, ;a" i; w.u 1< pn: ..tnv m t>xtsti~ cbss
structure. Th~ number of mnuks .1~1J fnll-muc. rkric.~ hy tiK 1n1d-tii:h cx!tury
must aln:Jy iun b~~n rn.111y hundr~d!' ofthou,.;mds. In !ht> :'itxth C:."lltury. iullu
territory of trostannuopk. thrn ~n~lil tl h;t'..T hLtn <\'\r ctght~ monastcncs. ~;1
and, in lit<.' (in;n Chur;:h ._,f Comr;mtmnrk .t!l)ne, many more than the full
establishmtnt oi _:;]~ m~l'dl.t:t"<Jm dl:'ne!o {from priests to cantors and doorkeepers) t.: whidtth.. ..mptrur th<.'f1 wislwd th~ aumbers to be reduced (Nov].
UI.i.l, of 5.35). Th'-")i(,' figures, fm tht r-;;pital city of rhe empire. arc of course
exception.,); blat odwr substantial on<.::> coul.f !w produced, above all for Egypt,
where rtw mon;astk and nnulth: m,~v~a:tn<5 riourished most of all. 24
I need scut:dy dildt1. Ollth<. immms.. W<.o;1lth nithe one and only empire-wide
organisa1ion that c-:.jsrn.l apart fmm rht inp;.r,;tl administration itself: I refer of
course to th~ Christian Church. {1 h;a\c p~i.Jud out in Vll.iii above- that the
historian ..ts di~rir.~'t from tht tlwulo~l.u::, \)ll~ht really to speak of the Christian
churches, in tht~ plur:~l: but in tins t':lW tlw .;iuJ!ular is harmless enough.) The
income of the Churrh c;i.ln,l.lrgd~ ii,nn tndawments provided by benefactors
(nearly always . .:lf nmro;t. tTl thl.' furm ilf l.mdld estates), but also from regular
conrriburion.s maJ .. hy the :sut, JnJ t'rum th~ o!fcrings of the faithful. 25 Of all
the churches, Co11st.mti111.' J.rd his Sl!l'n'Sj;nfS made that of Roinc the richest.
Particulars given m thtl.l#>,r l'.llt~timli:o: (xxxi\-xxxv) enablt' us to calculate that
the estates settled on the Rom.m Churdt in the reign of Constantine alone
brought in an annu:tl inwm~ 11f
iWI'.r ,'\11.i"l(i i >~olidi (more than 460 pounds of
gold). ~8 It is hardly surpns.ing th.u .tl'L"ilrdiJig ~o St. Jerome the genial philosophic:lli.l pagan, V.-rrius Agurm' Pr;a('lt::o;,t.uu~ {who died in 3&4, when consul
designatl). r~markd -inm!cally to Pup..l.lam:1sus, 'Make me bishop of Rome.
and I'll ht'i:'l\nl( a Christi:m at once.::' By the- time of Pope- Gregory the Great
c,
"""If
496
(590-614) the estates of tht> n.nnnn Church (by tan he: most imponant part of the
patrimonium Petri) WL'rt' widespmld .md l'nn!mo\!.S i:1 thl,ir extent, not only in
many different parts oflt:t!y hut al>o in Sidly, Sar,{inia. Clrsica, Af1;ca, Gaul,
Dalmatia and probably Jllyri~: e-.uhr Wt' .1l1to ht.\l.r ot\::statcs in the Greek area, in
Greece itself, Syria (Andtlch. Tyrc. C y-rrhws}. Cilicia (fa1'llus) and Alexandria in
Egypt. 28 The incoml~ ufthl hi!!hups. of whlml there were by the fifth century
well over a thousand, wen~ smndimt'S larger than that of any provincial governor. W c happen to hear of ()JlC bishop in the mountain country oflsauria in rhe
early sixth century who d:Cmcd - as .t dLt~nc~ to a charge oflending money at
usury- to be receiving llss th;m six solidi pl'! year, 29 two-thirds the pay of a
minor civil service clerk (Sl't' S~ol:tiun !ii ~_,fthis dtapt'-'r}. But even a small-town
bishop like St. Thcudorr uf !'iyko:.un is s:tid to h.J.\"1.' rec:.:hed for his household
expenses as bishop of An.1~tasiopnli~ dtt.' }~.arl\ ~urn oL;65 solidi. 30 And a great
prelate like the metropolitan bishop of Rawrm:&, at about the beginning of
Justinian's reign, received 3,000 solid!.:n a littll' nmn than the highest paid
provincial governor undtr th~ s~.ah. uf ~ ..tlari~s 1.-id down by Justinian a little
later:32 this was tht Augusta] prd~.:t and ,/,;.~ ,lf Egypt, who received forty
pounds of gold, or 2,tu-i0soliJi (Ju'>(in . l:ditt. XIII ..~. probably of A.D. 53R-9}. 33
Even in Merovingi:m Gaul. just hc."t(m. the midJk of the sixth century, Bishop
Iniuriosus of Tours is sat b} Gr<"~ory ofT(lUrs to h;avc left more than 20,000
solidi (Hist. Franc. X.3l xvi)." 1 St.John the Almsgiver. Patriarch of Alexandria
in the early seventh t'l'Utury._ .lcdarc-d ir~ his will ..u:~ord!ng to his biographer.
that when he was appointed to hiss~ he.- !~)llnd in the bishop's house about 8,000
pounds of gold (well over halt" a million solidi), and that his revenues from
Christ-loving persons 'almost exceeded human '"akub.tiuu'. :.a To sum up, I can
endorse the opinions expressed by A. H. M. Jones, who made much the most
thorough investigation of Church finances that I have been able to discover. By
the sixth century, if Wl' make tht~ nry n.tson;thll' a!>sumptions that 'every city
had a bishop, who n:ccived un th( .rwragl' th~ salary ,,f .a provincial governor',
and that mctropoliun bishops ofprmim:c:> wca .1..<; the known figures suggest.
'paid on the scale of vk.us [tht d~puti~~ of the praetorian prefects] of [civil]
dioceses', then 'the cp1Sf(lpatl' r.:nst have cost the empire far more than the
administration'. Tuming tu tht nmaindtr of the clergy, and ignoring the
numerous monks, we <"an sav th;tt 'aft!w ti~uns w<: have for the numbers of the
lower clergy are at all typkai, th-::y must
t"!u outnumhm~d the civil service
.. The staffing of the Churrb abs.ub~Li f:u more manpower than did the secular
administration and the Church'!' !;;al;try bill was far heavier than that of the
empire' (LREI1.933-4, d. S94-'Jili.
We must not exaggerate: thl Chur<"h was not nearly such a heavy burden on
the empire as might be assunll'd if w isolate the facts about its wealth which I
have just mentioned. Again~t all this we ntu!itt remember that the Church, anlikl'
pagan associations and indhidu.ds. certainly spent very lar~~ sums on charityperhaps roughly a quarter ,,f th~: income of its tndmvnwnt. '101 (From the time of
Constantine it was used by the emperors as the \'ehid~ Ill. charitable distributions to the clergy and the poor_ )!17 It is also true that the vast agricultural areas
of which the Church was landlord would have paid roughly the same amounts
in rent had the lands been owned by secular landlords. But this cannot alter the
fact that the Church did create a large number of economically 'idle mouths'
iJ;,.,.
VIII. The (decline andfall': an explanation (iv)
497
which had to be: supported toy the overloaded Gracco-Roman agricultural

economy. Whtt!lt:r the Chmd1 gave a p:ood return for what it exacted is a
question I shii.ll nut t'llft'r lilt. I: must be tlbviuus that I believe it did not.
I have rlf~rn:d near t!w ,nd of VII.\" :~bwc 10 some of the many deplorable
episodes in th~: hittt>r srnft dllWII~ rival ~wup!l .-,,christians which so disfigures
the history tif th&:' Chr~o;tiau Roman Empi::-t. Smh events seem to many of us to
cast thoruugh discn.dit upon tht> daun ,..,f Christianity to constitute a divine
revelation. Thi., :nJin can b;mJly bt mrt <'lHYpt by recourse to the machinations c1f ;t I >tvil. or by th.: ~P'-''ious datm -- mdde repeatedly by Christians on
all sides in .mnquiry (Si.'l' VITx ;Jhon;, bm dt~a~trous in irs consequences- that
there is ouly tnt: rr..al Chr:suan Church awl th.H all other men and women who
may rcg;ml rhtm~dn.s .ts Christ!ans ;~r~ h~rctk:r. or schismatics who cannot be
accounteJ Christi.m~ .lt all. If Wt" .lr-t: to drdJc wh,ther Christianity strengthened
or weak~nt:d the Ruman empire we must ~et off the social cohl'sion it undoubtedly produced witltin individual ~tcts .l_!!ainst the discord between the sects.
The former was surdy !>trnnj!er than an~th'in~ known in paganism; the latter
was unknown to pa~.lnism. I iind it h.ml :n m.!ke a comparative evaluation of
the two ,ounttrvailin~ h'lllh'nl'i~s ~>tChri~namry that I have just mentioned; but
I believe that the IJttl'r (tht produrtiun of Ji~(\ord) was far more powerful than
most historians have reJ.ii~t>d (or at kaiot b:t\"t' b~cn willing to admit) and that
over the centuries it was probdbly the stron~~r of the two. Religious strife
continued sporadically. r:ot unly w~thin thl Dyz.mtine empire (most noticeably
during the Iconoclast routnl'\Tr~y in tht eighth dUd ninth ct'nturies) but between
Rome and Constantinopl,. In 1054- the intermittent schism between Pope and
Patriarch became efti.:crivdy tinai. An attempt to heal it was made by the
Byzantine Emperor John Vlll and his leading bishops, who submitted to Rome
at the Council ofFlorence in 1439, in the vain hope of obtaining Western help
against the now serious threat from the Ottoman Turks. But even the emperor
and his bishops were unable on their return to overcome the deep hatred of
Rome in the Byzantine world, and the reunion collapsed. The la.st Byzantine
emperor, Constantine XI, made a desperate but fruitless attempt to heal the
breach at the end of 1452, a few months before Constantinople finally fell to the
Turks. The historian Ducas records with disapproval the opinion expressed in
Constantinople in 1453 by a most distinguished man (who shared the later views of
Gennadius) that it would be better to have the Sultan's turban in Constantinople
than the Pope's mitre (XXXVII.l0). 38
* * * * * *
It was, I suggest, the combination of unlimited economic power and political
power in the hands of the propertied class. their emperor and his administration
which ultimately brought about the disintegration of the Ruman empire. There
was nothing to restrain the greed and ambition of the rich, except in so far as the
emperor himself might feel it necessary to put a curb on certain cxct'sscs in ordtc>r
to prevent a general or local collapse. or simply in order that the population of
the empire. under a just regime. might be prosperous enough to be ablc to pay
their taxes promptly- a motive which can be seen clearly in numerous imperial
constitutions (cf. below).
For the peasant, it was the tax collt'ctor who was the cause of the greatest drc:ad.
498
What a terrifying indi\'idual h: C\lu!cl h :S mcdy ll~1stratt-d in one of those Lives

of Saints from which s(l mud~ of our inform.ttiOll ahnut t~u: lives and outlook of
the poor in the Late! R,m1.m Empir~ is derived: th~ L!ft' :! S:. John the Almsgiver,
from which I have '!U<ltl'd ab,,w. If w~ wam to d!lt-:Jtttri~c .J cruel and merciless
person, we sometinn~ say. 'lk's likl' :~wild th~:,..a. 'Wdl. tlw Saint is represented
as thinking about dot Jn:adiul mnu~tirs h, m::ty me~: :<it,r death, and the only
way he can adequatdy ('Xpress thl!' appalling t~rority oftht-s~ wild beasts is to say
that they will be 'likt t:t)(-1.'Uiit(.'tt>rs'! 39 Certainly. ru mllt<:t!on from the poor in
Roman times was not a manc.r t~f polth. . !etters .mJ. ;n..1 i;;.st rtsort, a legal action:
beating-up defaultcrli was a m.;,.m::- <:of routm:-. if tb:.y wc:~t" humbl~ people. A
casual remark of the tifth-t.t'nturv c..:dt ..ia!--titai wm,r flwoti.Jret shows us what
the procedure oftax-collt-ction .~J.~ lii.dv ro ht in .1 Syrian village: At this time,
he says, 'collectors (praktore;) .arri\'ed. wlu' compelled them to pay their taxes
and began to imprison ~llm<' :u1d rn.altrtat other!'' {lli!t. reli~. 17; cf. Eunapius,
fr. 87). In Egypt the same hrutal pl"ocedun can be seen at work: local officials
would seize taxpaytr,; whllm thq .lll(~~~d (rightly nr wmu)!:ly) to be in default,
imprison and ill-trc~t d~.-m. J.nJ. wirh th~~ aid of soldi.rs ~nd local levies, bum
down their houses. Afttr ~uoting a particular l'x;mtrk of such a procedure,
from the reign ofjustini.m. Sir Harold Bell (a leaJin~ p.1p~wlogist and historian
of Graeco-Roman Egypt) remarked, 'Suth. tn .Judgt" by other evidence, were
regular accompanimc..'tU~ to the. rron:ss of c.:olltl. tiug arrears of taxes from an
Egyptian village in tht !'ixth ccntury' (EVAJ _'t4:r. Actordirtg to Ammianus. an
Egyptian in the late fourth century WtlUld h!u ..h for .-h.mw ifhe could not show
on his back scars infltt'ttd hy tht tdx;.,,Jkcr,,r\ whip (rub,.<rit apud eos, si quis non
infitiando tributa plurimil' ir1 r.lrp.w ,..;;,ii('~ srm.i.rr: XXIl.xvi.23). And it is worth
repeating here the statement of A:mniauu'!l whidt I <JUuttd near the end ofV .iii
above, that the Emperor Julian n~alistd it w.1s no good ~ranting remissions of
tax arrears in Gaul in the 350s, hccms~ this Wtlu!J only twmtit the rich; the poor
would have been made to p01y tmmtthatdy .anJ in tull (XVI. v.l5). There must
have been many occasions, too, nn winch hapk~;;. }'Ca~.ml!i were forced to pay
their taxes twice over, whtthc.r btlaust' tht t.l.-.: h,tJ first bt"en extracted from
them by the agents of a u~urptr' (lf. VI. \'1 J.b,,n,. ur bt'cJuse their landlord.
after collecting the tax, becamt itlst)lwut lld\,r, J'.lyiu~ it ,wc.r to tht" authorities
(or the persons to whom he w.t~ n:spm:sihld. Thar is .m l'xample ofthl' lattl'r
situation in a letter of Pope Grl"gnry tltl' Gn~.tt, wnm11 in 591, from which we
learn that the rustici on an t'st:Ul' of the. H.om.m Church in Sicily had been
compelled to pay their burdati,, twit:~ to the ht.ld lc:s~'" Theodosius, now almost
insolvent. Gregory. an e::'l.t'tption.tlly consfitntious landlord, orders that the 57
solidi concerned arc to be npJ~tl to tlw peasants as a prior claim against
Theodosius' estate (Ep. 1.42).
It will be objected that the appalling situation I have been describing is
characteristic only of the Later Empire, and that things were surely very
different under the Principatc, especially in the first two ccnturic..-s of the Christian
era. Certainly, taxation became much heavier in the fourth cemury onwards (cf.
above, and Section iii of this chapter). But then~ is no reason to think that
defaulting taxpayers who were poor men, especially peasants, would be much
better treated in the first century than in the fourth. although. until certain of the
privileges of the Roman citizenship bl'caml' in practice limited to the uppl'r
Vlll. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (iv)
499
classes, during the second century (see Section i of this chapter), the Roman
citizen who was a person of no consequence might occasionally be able to assert
his legal rights. (St. Paul did so, as w~ have seen- but of course he was far from
being an uneducated pcasant.) The native villager. especially if he was not a
Roman citizen (as very few villagers were in the Grec;-k-speaking part of the
empire before 212), would have had little chance of escaping any brutal treatment which soldiers or officials cared to inflict upon him. There is a certain
amount ofevidence pointing in this direction. of which I will single out one text,
quoted by several modern writers. 10 Philo of Alexandria writes of events which
he represents as having taken place 'recently' (and therefore presumably during
the reign of Tibcrius, 14-37), apparently in Lower Egypt;H as a result of the
activity of a rapacious and crud tax-colltctor:
When some who appeared to be defaulting merely through shlcr povlny took to
Aight, in dread ofsevcrl" punishm.:nt, he forcibly carried offthlir women and children
and parents and other relatives, beat them, and subjcrttd them to evlry kind of
outrage. Although they wen unable either to rcvcal the fugitive's whereabouts or
(because of thl'ir own destitution) to pay what was due: from him, he persisted,
torturing them and putting thm1 to death in a cruel mannn. Others committed suicide
to avoid such a fate. When there werr: no relatives left, he t'Xtmded his outrages to
ntighbours and sometimes ~ven to villages and towns, which were rapidly desl'Ttld by
the flight of their inhabitants to places whtre thly hoped to escape dttecuon (Dr spec.
lc~. 111.151'!-<>3).
Even if wr nl.ik, tht llt'l't,;;;u : :tllowaJKc for Philo's characteristic exaggeration, a grim pit-tliTL't'ru~r!~'s; ,md ..1s Bdllu~ s;u,l, 'records found in Egypt have
brought u~ pwof that tiwr, lS subst;Ulh<al truth 111 Philo's statc:ments' (EAGAC
77-8). We ntu~t ddmit, wirh Piult). that such outrages, not only against the
property hut :lg.uu~t rlw hodil's .m,levcn the lives of thosl' unfortunates who arl'
seized in ,.uhstJtuttou ti.r th'-" actual,kbr,,r....lr, only too likdy when th~ annual
collection of tax,~ is iu tht h.m,l~ ;_,f 'mtu ,f barbarous nature, who ha vc ntvcr
tasted ofimm<Jn .:uhurt :ami .1n <hr-~ing tyr;umKal orders (ibid.).
Some of the mmwwus t~(llllpl-tints about t.tx.ltion in the litlrary sources for
the Later Runuu Erurin are ,,i course .w.:r~c:oloured; their exaggerations arc
often tranJbl~. to politk.tl or n-li,!!ttllls spitl', or to a desire to flatter th~ curr'-"nt
emperor hy d.lllllling hi~ pndttl~SSOTS. 1-l..l'Wl'\'eT, anyone who is indmed tO
discount tht ;ulm1mdJy wry rhnor\ol ,vidt'IIL.'t' of thl literary sources should
re-ad somt ot the impcriallq~isl.tttnn. A p.ITlll'ui.lrly interLsting specimm is thl
Sectmd .'\llvd (issuC'd on 11 1\turh 451-!i L)ftht IJ~t great Wcsttrn emperor, the
young M.tjuri.m . .,j wht)m Stein ~atJ that we could 'admire in him without
rese-rve tlw !.tsr tl!-!-un poSSt'S!ooiug .1 real ~randlur in the history of the- Roman
West' (HUF.' fl.t . .'\7;=i). Altltt)U~h tlus Nowl w:t~ issued only in the West. the
situation it depicts, mm.m.~ 1'/fll:mdi.~. prl'\'dil,;,l .1lso in thl' Grelk East, whLrc the
opprcssinn ofthl' va:s.t JU.tjority w;ts dt~,t,d 111 ways that wtn basically similar.
("VCn if it ~.lid 11ot n:.tdt quit, tht s.unt tk!!n:e of intL'nsity. The Novel is wdl
worth nading as 01 \\'htl~: i->Hr ll tii ~U:l! . md I can do no more than o;ummarisc
parts of it. (Then. 1;; .l full tr.m;;Lmun:n Ph.trr, TC 551-].) Th, Now] is cntitltd
'On the nmt.,,.i,,:, 11t .trrcars I: :' r.~,.. i'. {), indu(~entiis reliqrwnHn. It begins by
stressing tht woes l.'f th;: l'r.win(uk whoSl' fortunes arc said to have bee-n
enf,cblcd and wom ,bwn . .-;rt ~:tiy hy thl l'Xaction of the vanous form~ of
500
regular tribute bn: also by t'Xtr.wr&nary tiicll h;,mkns (extraordinaria onera,

superindictitii titult). and tht ~w,t.ssuy of p~1rd~;~m~; kf,rments - by bribing
officials. A nice abstrar~ phra~c ,.,,fJ 1111J''>silliii ;/t''''~i<Jiii:. c-haracterises the plight
of the landowner {pt'.~sr:sstr"}. dr:m~cd oi n~nrn:; (t'xi:.mstus) and unable to
discharge his arnar~ '-'f ta~. whc:l cnnfwntni wi.t!; :'\'~ .1nother demand that
'dutiful as he is, he cumot tulti~. Wit(} t!w f'.XCi'jHion Pt.!JW minor tax in kind, a
general remission of .lrrears is t!-r;tnt.nl ( 1). t'.".plidtly !~)r the benefit of the
landowners (posse.'"~). who ar.: ~.,.,,:,~lvt.d a;;; r-:spumibk for all taxes. Even if
payment has been undt~takt!J by someone ,.,,.,. (n~~ dt,ubt at a high rate of
interest), perhaps on th, fairh of" .Stlkmn promis' b> >llf'ltlatio by the taxpayer,
the latter is still to hav;: ~di..-i (d No:'. M.:t:. 11.2). Tb. . N;.wcl goes on to boast
( 2) that the emp~ror has 'pw .1.11 11-i to the llarshn\~~ of the ferocious tax:
collectors'. There~ a ~in~r nm pbim ~h~t tlw !otat"rs nf d:t i 1ighest officials ofthe
state (those of tht pr;tt>Wn.m pr('tt'Ct~ an; singled (lta) range around the provinces, and 'by crwrm~ms ~~xJ.ct~om h.rrurise the landrowncr and the decurion ,
accounting for only a ~llt.lli rmrurtinnclfthe tax.:-~ th.r i:ollcct and, greedy and
swollen with pow~r as :hq .ur. ~.xtvrting twkL ;iS mud~ or more by way of
commission (sporm!.~t) t(,r thcm~tlws (cf. J,mts. LRE 1.468). In the good old
days, Majorian aJ\l:;;, t:a_..: ntlLYtkn lMd l;tm carried out, through the local
councils, by the ot'ikr. Jor;llf til the provincial ~ovcJm lT. who were fairly humble
men and whom tht" ~llh:r:wr could keep in orJtr. But nuw the collection was in
the hands of emis!'.Hir.:; oftht central 'pJ!atmt"' Jdmm.isrntion. described by the
emperor as 'terriblt wuh tltl' pn~tig, '1f tht'lr exalted tlttkul rank, raging against
the vitals of the prminci.a.b. tn tlKir ruin' ..md .1bk :u m.ap their fingers at a mere
provincial govem(lf_ (Maj,,ri;tn W.:tl> nnr by any Jmaus the first emperor, or the
last, to complain abtlll the intnnnnun of c~.ntral g~>v~.mment officials in
provincial taxation procedun-s.) BtYJll"l' of dtt' ppn-ssiuu 'f these high officials,
the emperor goes nn, the ,uks h:Lvt b~,o .t,,roil.~.-l.fth ..ar councillors and can
provide no qualitkd tkmrinn: .md tht l.mdl'Wm'r">. nrritied by the atrocious
behaviour of the fiuandotlttfktais. an ;lt!ot'fllllg rhdr wmury estates, as they are
faced not mcrdy with tlw loss nf thtir tirtnllt'-"' hut with 'severe imprisonment
and cruel tortures irtfl!tt.d upon th,m by rh,- m,rrik~~ (ltlicials for their own
profit, with military aid. Th.. ,:ullt.cti,m of t.llh~s must h( ..:ntrusted once more to
the provincial gov ..murs. and d1 ..n- mu~t h, nv nhn inlt'J vent ions by palatine
officials and the mdit;try. tx,..pt to ,n;;.c,ur.t~(' ~owm<ro; to do their duty. The
emperor stresses a~ain ( j) th.at h, t'i makmg this orduwwc as a remedy for the
landowner (pro remrdi,, l''>'>f'.,ri.). He pron;.d,!; to compbin also ( 4) of 'the
men of power' (pMrmtr.~ pt'r.~.moJr'). w ht1St' agents throughout the provinces
neglect to pay thtir tax~s. and whll Tt'm.1in contumaciously on their estates,
secure against any summons m tlw ti::ar inspired by their arrogance. The agents
and ovcrseers of thtlSt' f:muh~o.s which .lrt. '1ienatorial or powerful' must submit
themselves to the jurisdinitlll ,,f dw pn.w iul'i.al ~\Wnwrs i:.as they had not been
doing), and so must tht lt)t'.ll d.!!~nt:o; in l:h.1r~t' c,f t'l)tltl$ belonging to the
imperial household. Monowr ( 5), pn1\incidi ~ownurs must not be subjected
to molestation by false ;t<'t'U~:ItitmS fr.ml ~ht staiii. uf the ~reat officers of state,
who will be furious at haYin~ ~nnrm~)u:;ly protirabh sp,,iJs wrested from their
own fraudulent grasp.
Some other laws of the fifth and sixth centuries unloose similar streams of
VIII. The 'declineandfa/1': an explanation (iv)
501
righteous indign~tion a.~ much tht' s~mc obJectives: sec, for example, Valentinian IJI"s ,\!(.ltJ<'i r_j ~~ (of"lSO}, foikwcd in 3 by an ingenuous remark which
reveals the m>1in rt'.tson for th( <.'litperor's solicitude for the possessores: A
landowm:r who has becm madl" poor 1s iost to us; one who is not overburdened is
useful to ~:f: There uc se;:er<li ,.imiiarly revc-:11ing laws, notably. for the East,
the long Eigltlh Ncwtd o[jnstmian. of A.D 535, on which I have remarked
elsewhere (SVf' 47-8)_ ju~timan t.oo ;.;;; concerned lest excessive exploitation by
the great m~7n. ;md th~:ir !mposaron of r:xtr.Jord.m:~ry burdens, should impair the
ability of hJs subject! to p::~: r!l~1r r:gubr !Jx;nion, which he calls not only
'accustonH'd :md hgal' but ;;]so 'pmus' (('fl.irllt'lS phoroi, Nov.}- VIII. Praej., pr.).
Similarly. ~h~ ;mxr~~{y ~1).-,,vn by Ju:mniJ.n 1t1 J series of three Novels in 535 to
protect th(' f:y~ p-easants :~;" thc pr;lctori;.n ~nfecture of lllyricum and the
province! of 11ailn.ln Haen:Hnwnu~ .md .Mtwsia Secunda against moneylenders (i'r('I'J. XXXHfV) =- very likdy to h.wt' b<'cn due in large part to
anxiety to prcs~.c':"V; fh:~m :&.; :m ~mportam sotdcc .;(recruitment for the army. as
we know 'hL'Y were''~ ht;;; rc:gn. -If
The law,!; I have lw.~n d~scribm~ mcdy illmtrate the T:lO:>t !llUdiH11t'nt;t! h"aS(Jl
why it w;15 ncctoss:ary to h::l\'C .m empc~rur Ill lhL first pi.i.n- ;J. s.ubjeO::: I h:i.h'
briefly dis:cnss,~d nJ V!. v .. vl above_ The Prim:ipan:- wJ:'o ;\f~:qtnJ (jf :u fi:-<.1 with
some gmmhhn~) by th~: H.om<'n (am! Gltd:.) ~uop~rtlc;.1 das:.cs lt-..~~,.:;;, un th~
whole th,y rt'aliscd rh.at th;.~lr (1wr1 pnvikl~td p1-"l1tion might ltt ll!tpctllkd 1f tn
many incihi,bab among thc;r nmniwr Wfn :tiinw,~d. a~ in rh-: L:.r" Rqmblic. to
plunder t!u: '~'llf'lH' tol. fndy. lftb~ fnJ'pL'!II.':l. civil Wln (,K(':untp:iuicd .ts thty
could well h.. by rrt.of.fOption<, ;md C<'lllltSC;Jf!lll'S} ;.m.-1 n~n P':'Th:ip~ rcvoiutiolL'i
from below might rh;noy many .;f them. rh.: sw.ution coJhi !t.udly bt put
better than In ,"v1.tdH.wdl'~ ~rat{'mcnt, .luC".h I h.w<" quutn:1. aL'<-'IIl rh !ll.'("tssiry
for having, 'wiwT~~ lh<' matcrnl i:s jO .:-ern1p~ .... ioc.;:cks h\'s ..1 '"P'ric)l t(J'f\'.
such as appnr.uns to a mon:trdt, who h;n such abso1utt and {lWr\'\'hdming
power th01t h: C;tll n5rnm C".sc-..~:s~ duo: H ;ullblti~>tl .utl th ,,rrupt p:;utinl' ''t
the powl'rful' (sec VL vt above. rcftning to th1. Di.l('lt/IN'.< <tli the Fmr Df'{oll<' <1./
Livy I. 55: .tnd ct" M;,du.wdli 's .!i;lm\),: ;;g.:in~t laudd ,~;.-~~tillh"ll:lr. quatcrl in
III. iii abovt ui itil.). lntlh l.th'l" F.mpir-:. dlC[I<fo'tlft">, r"lrtrfiorc> Of 'Y'Mill, tiw
men of pnw,r. becamt h:uda to r;)rit:ul and o!h-tl ddi.d "r drn:m,,nt~~! th
emperors with i:uput1it }'. ;,~ St'u:ttnrs, ::t nllfl? d,,. ridtt;'St ;1n,l rb most iuriucut!;d
group in the~ .:m)liTC'. Wc.Jt n:"rt: r-a,;Jv able rhan :mycme w :ld:t~ or Jv,,id
payment of thtir t:\x;.>s al!d t!J, ln!filmc1:t ,,f; ~ten othn ii:ahihtic'l> This w;~ 1rw
even in th~o. :a!'tl'W p:trf of t!w t:mpin:. ln .~97. J~tr cx"lllJ'I~. an ~ili:t tJf th~
Emperor :'\rc,lat.:.. ad.dr~s~,l to) dt<~ pr~t:t.1ri.m pn:fc:T~ ~lfrh, E:,~r. c'~mr..,hitwd
that in so111c pro vine{';; h:tlf ,,f dt~ ~.:tx,s ciuc iru11: s'flalur:-; '''<"H" :11 .l!'il'.l:' iCTit
Vl.iii.4). In the West. wh~r tilr~ :'.l"ll.&h.rs \Wrc (';'<:tl r!l:hrr .md moH' ~~ow,rti.li.
this situath'll w;cs WNS('. Ill r.iw n~ry same yr:aY, 3':17. '-\'i)l"ll rlw rvo:oh ofGiMu in
Africa ha~l nnpc~rilhl dw .urn >upply ofRonw ihdf. tim, ,.,,l).. iguit~c;md.aws
were issu~od m rh \\\st. whut th~ ymi!J::_~ Emp~r:;r 1-l.mnrit;s w::~ ,!o:tiil~o~:.d hy
his able ,.,,,_.:i.~t .,,,/in~rri Saib:lt'
llh fir'>t,
in]!m,. <Jtdt"r,-:,i tl141 nut ::O".'l'llllllp~on.d
estates shotld b~ .~u:~,~~d ti,ll! dt~ o~H~.:.nrm to -.apply H,m!t" m r,tsim

(CTh Vll.xiii. i .?) . Th~ tr011d ~~~~ thi:l. m ~.~ptta:h,~: :~11d Nmt.mi->.,. wr:~kly
conceded. m ~..-spu:n h "'"H:!hir;.ll nbjc.::rions. th;;r .i~'D:<ruri .1lo;w (t"o"t'U ifhtOid
lessees ot imp~r1:il ,;;rat~':;o} .ohmld ~l!ln th~ r:~;ht to commute their liability to
502
The Class Strugglt in the Ancient Creek World
supply recruits and pay in gold mstl:td {1bid. U-14)."1-! And as late as the early
sixth century we fm.:.l :ll1 ;:dj,: .;h~;f;.d by C;~:ssiodoms to! Thcodoric the Ostrogoth, then king ot"Jr;;ly. dt:plori:1g rh~ hn ti.1l H.:Hil.!::J senators, who 'ought to
be setting an cxampk". fud p:ti:~ ,.;r~~~:IIy !lotu of ~he :Jx.-s due from them, thus
leaving the poor (dK rt,JU!'~) to b,.:1r .iln iutoh:r.1bk bmtlt"JJ (Cassiod., Var. 11.2~25).
The texts I hav~ bee!: qu.\Hillg". ilh::Hnre \;ry ..... dlihW rhc 'govcrnment' was
continually frustr;1h'd in such lrti?mpt~ :.s !t did. l!nk (fx whatcvcr rcasom) to
protect the peasamry by :lw tJ.<t th.~ lLl" :1:or, !mp.:.rt;mt of thc officials on
whom it was obli:J:t!i to r~'~Y !o cu:-y o::t it.!' .mi,r,; \W'r~ themselves members of
the upper class, .m.i vr" ,:... o..:rse t~h an iu,-.tiucti\'' 'Yillpathy with its other
members and oftl'U nmniwd .u thll~ malpractices. :md ~ndced were guilty of
much extortion th~m-dws Tlw rukrs otrhc- empire r.1rdy if ever had any real
concern for the puor ;md unp-riY:!,~<d :.:.. ~uch; b11t they :;;omctimcs realised thc
necessity to give somt: ,,f th\.tn smw J'fOf('l~tt~o.m (.ls \\1l" iuv~ just seen), either to
prevent thlm from b\.m~ unaly rnmt.-i ;md rim~ j,,rmnc useless as taxpayers, or
to preserve them <lS pottntl.ll r,-~ruiL' ii1r th~ .mny. Try as they would, however,
the emperors had ''ll .:.hole, hut t(" ;~,., throu~~h rhc officials I have just charactcristd as mcmb,rs of dt, ~xpl\ttm~ dass. N( text ~h.t.t I know speaks more
eloquently of the dd~ns olthi~ sys:"n' th.u1 a Nowl .:ftill Emperor Romanus II
issued between 95lJ .md 'Jb.l: w~must b.w:lf(' kst '"'' $1'11\.1 upon the unfortunatt:"
poor the calamity ofl.tw-otH.:crs. HlLlrt' naankss th.m !".tminc itsdf. '"3
Over all, no mw 1 tlunk wl!! J,ltlht that the pnsirum <If humble folk in the
Graeco-Roman W11rld 1->(canw .li;;ruhrly w.-.ro;( :tfttr thL"l".1rly Principatc. l have
described in Section 1 llfthl~ d!Jptcr hnw tlwn RNirr;;tfll:m~ deteriorated during
the first two ccntun~:s: and ltJ So.:l'Lhlll u l h.tw slll'W" how ,ven the lower ranges
of the curial order (td.lhug uuly ju:>l itmd~ ..111d .;onwllnH.!o. perhaps even a little
below, my 'propertied cbss') Wl'r, ~uhJ<:<'t,d tu ma,.tsmg fiscal oppression
from the second halfoftlw scwrhi nnnrry onw.1nk an,l ,luring the latter part of
the fourth century lu~t at l,ast <IlK ,,f tlwir mos1 \ alu.t~k privilcges: exemption
from flogging. It n.,d tll)l ~;urpn,( 1:s wh.n Wt' :1~t told :hat in the numnous
papyri of the Later Roman EmJtrl' tiwu dw Oxyrhyndms area the USl' of the
Greek word doulos, once tlw sumlard ti.c-hmc.ll r~:-111 hlr 'slave'. is almost
confined co occasions on whifh lnnnhl, lll~'Jilh\.rs ut rh,, free population are
referring to themselves when :tddn's~tn~ pn.tpl< of hi::ha standing (see IV. ii
n.41 below).
I hope ir is now clear how I would explain, through a class analysis, the
ultimate disintegration of a large part of the I~ oman empire- although of course
a Greek core, centred above all in Asia Minor, did survive for centuries. I would
keep firmly in view the proct:"ss of exploitation which is what I mean primarily
when I speak of a 'class struggle'. As I see it, tht:" Roman political system
(cspccially wht'n Greek democracy had bL'Cil wiped out: see V .iii above and
Appendix IV below) facilitat<:'d a most intense and ultimately destructive economic exploitation of the grt.at mass of the people. whether slaw or free. and it
made radical reform impossible. The result was that the propertied class. the
men of real wealth. who had deliberately created this system for their own
bemfit. drained the life-blood from th~ir world and thus destroyed GraccoRoman civilisation over a largl part of thl' empire - Britain, Gaul, Spain and
north Africa in the fifth century; much oflraly and the Ualkan~ in the sixth; and
VIII. The 'decline andfall': an explanation (iv)
503
in thl' stventh, Egypt. Syn;. :1nd Mcsopo~:ru.:l, ;and ~g:01m nor~h t'.frtca. w!uch
had been rcc(mq~:~n:d by _lus~mia:-1's gc-n~uls ::l th~ SIXth cwnury.'~ That, I
believe, \'..'JS !he pnnc1pa! ::;:lSon fm t.h: ,J.-.-tirw ofCiassH:al crv11isauon. i wm:~d
suggest !h;.;t the c:msts oftht d~~d_m(.' were abov(' :all economic and son;li. Tb~
very hicr;;:::hic:~l pol.iw.:al St!:xtnr~ o~ :hL Homan ~mp1rc. of course. pioaycd ;m
importam pan; bm ll was pH'n5dy d-:e- propcrtll'd d;~.ss as such winch m t!v. kmg
run monopclrscd poii::cal pow~r, with rhc ddirmc purpust uf rna:ntammg ;md
increasin~ its sh:.rt' of the romp~ r;mvdy :sma!i smpim wiiKh could b ~.o.;t r;.nt:d
from th...- prirn;;ry produc~?ts. By non-1\-br.:!s[ instonans :h:s pwce:<1' 'l:tl'i
normally bel.'n d'~~nibed :i!' ii It wtrc:. llloti' <r less ;mt.-,ma::c ono', o;onw:!wlg
that 'just h;appo~d'. If e-m wams w rind ::1 ~tr;:~, vnid, ep:gramm.tLic dlaracterisarion of 5om~rhmg th;,t h<~ppem:d m ~h. Rntn:m world. one- :un:raHy tu:-:;~
first to <_;ihh:"lli. Az1d :ndlcd, in the ~:o.o;r!'\t:~ ~>J tih~ end of im J81h ch.1p:rr,
entitled 'G''IWnl obscnatwns on t!h~ r~~ll nf :h~ llm:t,m. C'rr;pi~ i:1 th1 \V,,:,!'.
there occt:rs th~~ .;-xprtss;~' ll~:n~:H:I.". 'Tilt s~np.~ndous li1bnr YJhln! to tlw
pressure ,,firs ''WI! w~tght. In Pl'lt'r Hr(.wn s somnnws. brill can~ huk i'h"ok.
The WorM :lL.Ju Amqu:ty (i971), t:Jcrt is .1 ::u;t:-~phor oLt r;trtwr d:ffl'rl.'m !1.:1d.
which eqtdlr .xprn.s.es thl' k~$-i.c 1de;, .-,f smmthing tha~ :~1~ -..-sSt:ui:.Jiy eithe-r
inevitabk or ~-.lst tl.lrtuitous; ;\lrog(!h,-r. tht pr.Jsptriry oi ;h, M,,hhn.'lnt"".ll
world Sl'\'ll!S to ha\'t' ,lraifJrr# to lilt' h';~ (Jl, my t<lic-.) - Brcwu 1;, SJ;tk :u~ ni th,
fourth ctntnry. ;uad hL h;t!' JUSt tnt'!IUltnd t h:Jt 1u till' w,.;.ttm p:ut of tlw ,-n:ptr~,
in that nmury, tht> ~cn.ltoru.l ;;risto\:-ot~oy wa..: fin Linw' ndwr. nn dlt' .ow:ag~.
than the 5-l"Halors ,,ftJw tir"i! nmurv. (in tlu' Gr,,k Ea~t. rluu)!s w.r1ot '>H'<'ry
different ..Jithngh tiw ~cr:Jlllri.tl d;~.;s w:ts nt tnit~ ;;o xtn\;;~~~!l~ly cpuk:t .\:in the West.) lfl wcrC' m S<ardt nf.c 111\"t.tphr w .kscnht th.: :-tr~at ;uhl ~rowing
concentration of W(J.hh 111 the hilntls f the upper cbsscs, I would not incline
towards anything :S> innnl,nr .m,f ~., autmn;ti as drainage: I should want to
think in terms of S\rnlthing mud1 111nn purros.iw and delibe-rate- pe-rhaps the
vampire bat. Th, hunku ot' maiuummr: tht imprrial military and bureaucratic
machine .<nd th, Clnnd1. iu Jddir;ou tn ;, k1sund class consisting mainly of
absentel J.m,luwmr~. fell primarily upun tl,.- P 'Jsantry. who formed the great
bulk oflltl populatin; and. ironically nl;)agh (:1s I haw already explained), the
remarkahk mllit;ry 'uhf ;tlhtuutsn:niw r~r~:.-.nisation effected by a series of
very able (mp,nrs irmu the lottt t!ur~l f('lltltfy to the end of the fourth (from
Diodcti.m ;ami Const;mHIJ<' t Th~udo~in.; !) succeeded in creating an even
greater numhl~T ni t't:olmlmkJily 'tdk ruuuth: and thus increased thr burdens
upon an aln:tdy ovtrbunlcncd peasantry. Tlw peasants Wl'rl' seldom able to
revolt at all, and ntv,r '>tK,~essfully: the impcn.t: military machine saw to that.
Only in Gaul and Sp.ain Ji,f thl lbr.md;t, c;ms, Sl'Tious If intermittent troublc
over sn...r.d generations (SI.Y s,Ytl\lll tii ,,f tlus chapt~r). But the merciless
exploitati(lll of the peasant;; :n.tlk m.auy ofthtm rccci\'C, if not with enthusiasm
at least with iuditrLr..u,... the h.ub:arianmva,l.-n who might at kast h expected
- vainly. ,ao; 11 u~u.11ly tumtf,lut 1:- to shatttr the opprLssivL imperial financial
machim. Th''"'<-' wh .., h.nT b:..n du .. u,~d w1th scorpions may hope tor soml'thing bt.u ..r tfthc:y tbmk rht~y w:il h<. ;:-h.ts.ti'\;.d only with whips. 4 ~
Appendix I
The contrast between slave and wage-labourer
in Marx's theory of capital (see II .iii above)
We can begin with c,~i! H..3<~-'7 (cf 83): m :my S(l{'i:&l form ufpwduction, 'labourers and
means of production' ;A~:' ~par:a: eiC'm.~m.: which :m;!!\! t1~11h: ir1 some way in order for
production to take phcc. 'The sr,~ciik manner jl! .vhich this Lillian is accomphshed' is
vitally important- su mud1 se> ~h~nt \bstingutshe> ti-,c difTlrcm ~pochs of the structure of
society from one aoothL"r Sl:.vl! :ab\ll.l~ :m.i tr~-e wagc-iJbou~. therefore, remain fmtdamentally different, ne: wh,n ri;q' happen ~L' (:D~xit't 1: ca ~nritty.
We can tum next to; he passage~ i:1 which \-1.u.~ ~k?.l;: wid1 the! bbour of production as a
social process. The IJ.b~\;r ;m.,r.! of!!,, frt'c Wlri<...-r (p!lri"h.:ucd by the c:mployer for
wages) is here caretully di:;titJ;!Uir.hd. il! ma~J}' p:os~:.p_;\~:>. >\:> ..,Jtiablc: capital', from the
'constant capital' corur"-\mg :hl' rm~ms of produ.-tJi;)l!, dtC'Jl!.~d\h~'S divided (when Marx,
as in Cap. 1.178-81; li.IM-;. wish~~ t<~ draw th: qmtc- dift~'l<'!:l dNinction between 'fixed
capital' and 'circulatiu~ <.tpic.aJ) lutu (<i) ~hi.' ~ub)ttt!' nt'ldb<ur', ,:tch as raw materials and
auxiliary materials iike .:oJI. lt,;,s ::or l!':Jt,ttr, (wluch ,l!o! ':m;oJ).;tang capital'), and (b) all
'instruments of labmor' (wh:ch "r'~ 'tixt! .-:.1pit:1n. itJdudmtr. land. buildings, plant,
railways, canals, W(lrkmg .min;!s (i~utl:: J:.J;: ....:C' c~p H. u.\. !65; cf. Gnmdrisse, E.T.
465, 489) and, quitt' SJ".'citi.:ally. !iio<ws (C!Jp 11.~.>; Ill ~04). who, in contrast with free
labourers, 'form part dlld r~rc..-1 <)ftjl~ nl'-';1711> 'l('r<)cillrt!O!l. {C:p. I. 714). In addition to
the passagL"S already cittd it wd! be: ~uft'i~ll t~ r.-f<r H c,~p. L 177-81, 208-9; II.160-8,
221-3, 440-1; 111.814-HIt is true that Marx ott,n rcfust:i. whrn ft,i_~ hc1nb vigilantly accurate, to apply to the
ancient world the terminology ('c:;:pltal' t"tc.) wh!ch is stri<.:t!y appropriate only to
capitalist society: capitalts 'rwl J. thin):. h11i r:ot!t,r ~ \efinite sdal production relation.
belonging to a defmite hi~turical ~~-r:~Jtttm {,f ,..,,.l;'ty' (C.1p. IU.I'H4). Now 'direct forced
labour was the foun,hrion uf t!w mdc:M wnrll' \l~r.mii.<!t'. E.T. 245), and 'wealth
confronts direct fou,d hb;:,\Jr nt~t .1~ i."apitll. but t.uh.:: as :. relation of domination
[Hmschtiftsvrrlriiltnis!' (Gr:mlriss. E.T. J2i>: .:f :'U. ;o:,,i sco: al~o 464-5, and 465 on the
serf). 'So long as sla\'t"TY is pr.:t<~mm;.m the .:a pit.! I n:b::ionship c:m only be sporadic and
subordinate, never d,munJ.nt (f'S V lll.4 N). A:1d "'' 111 Cap. II. 164-5, after recalling the
division of'means of production' imaJ, Ill (.',,p l.l7~1j lntl' 'instruments oflabour'
and 'subjects oflabour', which he stcs 'it .:wry l.tbmtr-pwn-,;s. regardless of the social
conditions in which 1t takci p!.u:,~. M.a:x !!r...-.s on to say rhar [!,,th instruments oflabour
and subjects of labour 'b..,,t)Uil' capi1al only tmJ~r the: capttalist mode of production,
when they become ''prodllifi~capital'" {tf C';rp. 11.170-1. I%, :!liM. 210. 21~11, 229-31);
and he adds that the Jistim'ti.-n bctwt'C'tl th.m 'ts rL"'l~td in ~1n.'W form: the distinction
between fixed capital and cirrul.nm~ capital. It is only th"'' tlut:.. thing which performs
the function of an instmml'llt uflahnur becomes fix,,{ Jrilal'.
Nevertheless, havic.g closc:d th~ tror:t dt"'r .\t.urr rn-..-.r.pitilist society against 'capital'
(in the strict sense of productive capital), Marx orms tht' b.~o;;k door to what he caUs
'money capital' (for which see Cap. 1.146 tr.; i. II .57. 4~.2-J o:t~.); he can also say that 'in
the slave system, the money-capital inv~~tc::lm ~b .., punh:.,;,: ui !J.b~)ur-power plays tht role
of the money-form o(fixed capitar (G.IJ It ~.J. my !~.lli.'!i). In O>ther words. the slaveowner
Appendix I
505
buys labmtr-;:owc~ in I'IJc sl;lVC in a capii.a.l.Ut.>d fo:m. exactly as With working animals.
The slave sys~~m. fm Mar;~. :lf course rt:Sembles ~he t:apitalist system in forcing the direct
producer to do unp;ud iabm:r, but lm. m.t;;ter purchases him instead of his /abot-lr power.
I may .:tdd th;~t rht analysis I have gn;<-n here doe:! not dt>pcnd in any way upon the
distinctim1 (tirst worked out in dcuil by i<.tux .lllhough it had appeared L'arlier in a less
clear form :1nd With difft'retu tcrmi~~ology m Ram~;iy: see Cap. 11.394. 440-1) betwccn
'variable c.apiul' anci 'comt.mr r:apiruf. The dis:i:1nion between the free wage~Iabourer
and the slo!v.:- labourer. ;lS dr,1wn by fvbrx. can equ;~ily wdl be conceived in terms of the
distincticm hr{ween rhosc ::inrnl:m r..1tcgonC!1 of\.lass!cal political economy: 'cJrculating
capital' and 'fixed npnal' Tils a su. wh.:;iln ur not we include in our definition of
circulating c:.p;:::rl ;h~ ow ma:cri~l~ .md .tuxali.uy matlnals used in the productiv<'
process, .~s.l\IL.-x ;md Ad.:un ~ltuth did (~ec Co1p. 11.11'18. 204; and especially 297-9. where
Marx distingutshed hetwcc:l 'the v;~ri;&blc :md thl.' co:mant part of circulating ca ptal', as
against 'ii:-<cd Fpltal'), .1hhuugh or.hen did nor. m puticular George Ramsay (set Cap.
H.2Jt, 39.-. Wil-i). Whar is ~~~cd in purcha.~mg t~ labour-powl'r of thl' free wagelabourer 1~ n:nainly nr,ublin~ ap:ul (!.ce e.g. C.1p. II. 168); but, as we haw scm, the
slave, as ali 'tnstutrnL'tl! oflabour' (just hkC' a warkmg animal). is purchased wirh fixed
capital and hinuclfbomc-; fi.,.rd cJp1ul.
Appendix II
Some evidence for slavery (especially agricultural) in the
Classical and Hellenistic periods (sec III..iv above)
There is nwro. th;m.:tlJugl: ~ndcl.:r H) ;;h,>w ti1:11 iu ,o\::iro~ agrif.th~ll";ll $lav:: l.lbour Vlf;&~
widesprtad in th.c Cl.l!:!lic;.l ~1r:ric.J. For !;;r~r ~1.\/t' hut~holds ll.t:< X<:l:., Ortf)lr. \111..35.
IX.S; an~l Xr!. ~to X'/.5 on ~l;~v.- hailiffi (esp_ X H.1-J.I9: Xlff.(, .. JO; X IV .(),;J: X\' .J.Si.
showing th:.at rh,s. n~u wen~ tndccd s.Lwc.~ :c~d W\'fC' inil'ndeilpramanl,.. li.r '!'llpt'msing
agricultural opcratiom. These: p.:~<to;.tgcs rrfc;, it ts true, to .m C':l\t't'J.IIionafl~ rtch man
lschomadnas; l11t d:>.twh.!r.: 1uo \\'(' futd agnnJltnr;~.i ~1;;"-~TY t h'!l [(,. g~.,mct. e.~. in
Aristoph.Jne<._ In the l'!m~u. Chamy1u~ th.~ r:.rmcr. who is ;;pr.::iit:ally lk.:r-ibC\1 ~\5 ~
1tEVfl~ (Jim l'J) ~~~~ll i~ tfl" .,f tho: TDL'77rWEii" ~a~rtui fJ>ililll"' :!5-l. OWl'S S~"Y~r:t! d~\'C1 (lim~ 2()
1105), nut only th.:Carion who tsoncofth.: mamdlJI;tf!~rs i!, :he ph~ Jon~"!'.:\ D l:!aud
138 n.54, tr~:.t.s C;lno:; ;a~ jmt ''stock comK fi5'1.arc: bu( tbC' nth~ il;avt!!> are -=rta~nly noc
that: they art. not =i"~:.ry figurr and indeni Wlll.lld Iuv~ ~Pf.!lh WI.' :lu.mOIIic rictur~ (ill
which Chremylu;; po.ny i .. :.n ~~~'1lri:;1 d(mcr:) had they~~~ l>~:t'tt dur... :eristic. s ..-c
also Ar . f>!:.1. :, !f~o..!t ::ttd &d,~. 65l. /)twr I 138-'i, ll~i.-A; f>!i.-D,m. xnn.S2-3; T.IIUJ:
Dem. LV3l-2 (cf. 35); .m,1 mhcr tt'l;tS. I c ..m:Jot lccept ~i:t grn.:nl JS>\lllllptmtlS of
Ehrenberg, i':'\=1f,:.\.'YI (c:h.vii). ~bom th.:- ummportance ofsL.:.> 111 Ah~n\;,~t~nmnrrk
life: they !ii'f"ll to :n-. rn b~ in hr; n,:,tht with tht .vilkl~r h~- himnli lu~ pr.lllu~t.-d.
But perhaps th, 1::,\~t telling .;zgument for t!t!' import~n.x of ~bvs iu Arhmian .1gri
culture is the nc:1tl\'e ou~: liJ;,, !a;e,i iabum. th;: only alternative wo~y in \Vhtdt Arh,ui.o~ll
landown,rs G.ulJ h;w~ m;nk appreciab!.: ia.::omt-s ;:u: o! ~!:,-!( f"")ler: y (~ ,,: hmw the;
did), or .indnd ill)' rrof:t ;tt :ril (.lp;trt fw:n kasmg). Wai ('\'id~IJ.Il}' I:i~' Jmi f.'<Jnti~~~d
to th.- ;;c$i>ns Gfh.\rV~(. \'~I~C~g~ :itid.i.l~,-pirl.:ang. \1 h:.\'C ii"~~d 01 JU.vi ... ttl
below tlw on!) p.110~;a:t~-' I ha ..c lw~ ~ik to d1~o:dv::r :'n tll!' use oi bred hbu1:: 1n
Athenian J~triculture. i Evt"r th! overseer tr rTFanager (~'11&-:-::mm.;. oq.:u:.1~tJ:Ul)' ;m.,OT<lnj~.
ol~~:ov.O"o~. olKovoJLtK6~) ~r .U! cuut;, iu ActJ.;;o ((lr ~J.,.:w!u-r~) w.:.uJcl nmm.;lly be~ lwe .:ll
a freedman:&::.:: X.-n . Mrm. H. :ii. :.-.>p. J-l (r.ariccd :n m. :~ .lhov,,); Or.,)lt. XU-XV. ::sp
mainly
506
~ht n . ~:h:t~s :;;inz1cd ~: m ri:t seromi ->l'll!r-nco: ~~" rhi5 .<\p;~ndrx. ~1;tv,-., . md in:~ilit1t::l
pndomir;:lh'd ;lls<.o in ottKr :n:m-a~cri:al C.t~..:tri~.!>; ~~l' ~-~ x.: ... J\fm; us.-.): A:-!i:..-lilli.
1.97; D.n XXV!Li'l. :..'11, ;md XXJX.5. 25-.ft, ;~32ctr..; f'~.-Dct:L XXXV12M-j(Jand
U-4. with XI. V .3J; l's.-Amt .. 0.-cfo'PJ. I 5, IJW'2~1; ("f Cmus trtlw~r. XVII. i i.-16. 21.
2.i, oN ((untr.lSI 11. 51); .l:;d till' forctgnc:r~ !T~ lG ur .lh73.Si-9. b l~c-1:5 Vl (Phi/cl(f.} 2.!'1- i
~!lc: wom;tr: Alee, wha ':nanag\'\i' .Ew~t~mm\ h<lU.~C" !I! tiw c~r;\l~t'Km (wiwtht"l ln
cheo!"y ;ls h..s~:hold rt.n.:tnt or not} V.'.l!l ~t ~1~'-r or li~~>t.h"nn~J:': and h.::- :n~!l,iJH:~d itJr!nt""l
oiovnrr \Vi~,, had :;i':n~!.ir!} !~=]~ a hti}t!u~I :r~ Et;-:-tt""l!lnns hO\ISt: in r~'i:~Lc:~t~
lt.i).
lpparendy as h!s tenant, w~1> abo ;1 !'rc:t>dwoman. Wh.t: Xl.'n., De vect. IV.:>.::. contemplates .-\rht.'ni:ms :.s we!) as i.,r,igne:-s ~'olkm;; rnar.ag!l;;l po~ts it<p(':,t,;mg ~bws
working i:1 ~h>" nlllli''>, h~- i~ again no; d~:~rr:lm:~ .111 cxr~t::>g <;itu;I:lm- a!'o(! ;.;:'Y''';~ t~
J::'l<lll:igt:rs \\'{>U!c!. b;;- workmg f:,:- :iw SLHt'. \WI l~T"iV.lt~~mploy.-r~ (I h:t''\' dt;.lt w~th X(~l.,
Ou:rm. J.4 m liL '" :~.hv\t:.} Se!: .:.1m Gc-r: ,-\ udri::g. Obc: dt!~ \1uc~wn.al:,r i"flitt"!Ms) in
,it-Jram~dwr: Lmd...irtsdt;Jft dc.s ;_ Lmd do 4. Jh. v.u.Z. ', ~n !o\ii,, 55 (l'i73) i(~}-if, .
cs
.'\ tL'x: th:iT ~ fttn :m:>pi>t\~! IS Thuc.
vn.i;.s: ,,h-:trr ri:.ttr 20,00(1 ;;iav~~ c:..;rap-.:d f:'<)Jll
.~ rtk; dunn!! :he Sj.':Jrt;;n rn:p.. rw: .:.t' fkcd.-ra. l1Hi t> !-;ar tn0 oitcn rqr<.'M"flt\"!! :1~
~.OC(I !OI~'=~ ', ..s r.~cutly hy Fid~y (:\E 72 ~-..m:n<~t .:?-;) ;,:"! ,"\'t':l'l Dnv:.
];m,r (it;
n,,
G,mmw. HC'f IV ..:IUI-2) f::r;;.t !W'"' it
r~!<!it
c:m p.O:O!. .and 1ha t\,;,.- spr..tksu..-rdy nf
'20.U(l0 sl.a\'~; on pA02 h, d.arh X>utr:.dtcts Tbucydid,~~ by ~"yiug J.O.OIJ(l W.l.~ th.- /,r,;/
de-'C!fns'. ~nd o:m p.411! !~~ acu:;Jly spC"aks of 'a precis~ N;mbc:r'. which
numhc~r of
'imrh~
that he (Thuq:dJJ.,.~ i has a Ct"rtJm l-'\m~t o(tiu:l' m mind'!
ff}
lavc- hb.:our"d :.Its
point. it i:s htc';ll!~t." J wish to 'IIIJIusis.- that Thmyd:dc-s was olw;uusly gn-lu;r a ,..,,.~:Jr
t_<rmraro: b, i'ou]J our p;:ts~ih1y ha'''' lmc wn. cv,~o widun wid, limn.~. htlw 11\;tll}' ~];.,~~
h;t.l ,-s.-aJwd .md hil> 'mou th;m ::'fi.()JiJ ;;.hv"s -:mm precisely, 'm<.rc ti:;H IW'' u:-yri-td;'
(rr.il.io1 ';J lia111 p.ttni-c'it..-) - in<h~l!t'S th;;t he h.-Ji, v.:ci :!f.t,C~~i"' ht 1 "'Zitlilll!ltl (whid1 m:ty
t'Omdvally ha\'c' btTn !~r,at1y ~xccedl'di; rh.- "'''.'"'""' itl hl!> mmJ c:;m h;~r,Uy h;- rut;;;
vcry muh kss tb.ln ,\O,OC(l, t(r du ~wx~ "''1' Ullht :l.ltUr;llprut~rt'S:<l0:t .tfr.'r 'lllor.- tlc:.1:1
two ruvri.td~ i~ c~llhtr "thrc tn\'n.l.is' r .u !,:&~t '!ll".Jrlv tl!rc..~ lHVrtiids .1\ .. ,1, J$ I h;w: 'ia!d
in mv n,itw ,,f W,"'-'itcrrt~o~n~. SSf;R.-1, m CR 71.::: n.s. i (ICJS7i .5-J tT. .tt 51, the
il:lll"lll''nt tho~t fnl!ows, 'and ,,fth.-S< rlw ~r,:th'I pttrt \n'rc ,.,,.,,.otl("tt .. m"k'~ II nnhkdy
thiit .ts sn many :-dl\>bn hn, "''l'l'mnl. Tlu;qli,k~ is rt"ftnin~t maml'!- h> mm-;.l.tv;.'So.
Tlw t>n]~ <lllwr tlllll' rhucyciiil~-s .rs,s dc wnr~ (VI. il.3) it IIJ,ans ... xp.rr~- U1 W:I.I IS it
itapp"llll. Au.i th.u rh, am~:m:' \\'t'II' tuJn! .'l..ii/1',! m.: l>t.-st lililB Tluu:rhdl.'s' m~o1mug
hn, dS tht nuph ... n' ..:ti rtri>rt~JJ' rn.hc:-Ut~ tlw itss w;,,- :ll rlw more li.t'luly i\11 he.-au,;th(
Jc:scrters wr, nuinly sktllt~c! Wr krrn-n- "" ,t. ~lbt including ':~nntlhlr.~]<.p.:nah~~s s~td:
:Is VltJt'"'(lrcs;;~~s, wh<~ Wuld h,h't' ittn \;ppmtw;ir1es i;_~r rumi11g away than e.g.
llllllt'-.!Olan~. {Th, ;lremm:nt h~on IS not .tt'qi.rt::xt :( wuh iOJlW so:h.-.lo~rs. we read 1roAI!
p.tptK: in VIL.?.7.~. \\~th mosa MSS. i"'o..td .:f n. r.>Ai' .U.I"'"" w11..h It we then merdy
tr;mslilt~ 'a great pan' mt.:<tl ''l'tbc grc.n,r J'olrt'.;
I nmst add h~on th.ll l kn w uf (ttl~ nn( n.:m ;r,J:mut vi Athenian agriculture in the
Cb:;.sJcal pniod wh!.-!1 givc-s s~,a,.,., y i:s pw;:-..r r.:.k ;ual pr,linlt~ thl' essential evidmc,
,., md!tdy ;md .ururatly: thl) '" M1dt:1d ll J;mwson 's important .~rtidc-, 'Agriculture and
o;J.tv,ry in CJ.L'I"h'al Athens'. m (J IJ i l'i77 -8) 1!2-t~. which r rc:td only after Chapll'r Ill
and thi~ Apptndix had b.:,n ti:ri.,b,d I .uu ,:l.td to t'in,l that we are in substantial
a~n,mc:ut; but,,[ course the-re ls nmch gl\>d nut.-riai in J;~nws<>n's paper, going wdl
b,yolli wh:u I haw !wn1 ;ti>k ro d":t! wtth m this h<nk.
* * * * * *
We can now leave Athens and look at the tl.'st of the Grcrk world. for the fifth and
fourth centuries sec l'.g. Thuc. III. 73 (Corcyra: ev1dently many slav~ in rhc countryside);
VI11.40.2 (Chios: more oi.t(E1'at than in any other Greek state except Sparta; they kn('W th~:
country and must have been predominantly rural slaws, nor did Chios have any very
developed industry); Xen.. HG IIJ.ii.26 (Eiis: very many slaves, drJI6pa11'o&r.
Appendix II
507
captured fr<Jm :he coumrysiJ('); IV. VJ.fo (1\c;~m;mtl: numerous slaves, avopinrooa, captured in .1.~9; many of thmt uot ~ng:tgcJ m t..bL" production of crops may have bl'l'll
herdsmen); VJ.n.(l {l.on:yr:.Jg:.<it1~ m.my sbvt~. r~.l-'&pci-1Tooa. captured from the countrysidt in {. :u,:: r[ 15. 'i.l5); Vl! v. I ~-15 (Jvtmunca. 362: thl' ipyC.rat arl' dearly slaws,
as they aw romra~~ni w!r!1 udwrs ~is~ l:.l.t,tltv'"'') We sometimes hear ofbesiq,;cd cities
arming si;Vc.! ar1d using t1wm tt d.:ti:nd th~u w.:tlk this happened, for cxampl.:. at
Cyzicus in JiJ (Dmd X VIii 51.3) am.~ a Rhodt:~ ~ .)IJS-4 (XX.H4.3; 100.1). but Wl' do
not know how m:my ct chc:s.- "'""""' wnl' ;~J;!:ultur;.L
Various pii:!CS;!!t,t'"' in 1-n!yillth tithcr ~xph:1tlv mrnt1nn, ur su!Sb'Ot the l"'~'1Kl' )f,
considl'T,lblf' numhcr~ pf :;:l~vt"'i in tiw ruwtny~ick L'l ~h" Grt-::k world in rht: law third
century B.C. !r :s t~u, t.i,:tt in lo)y!:mb thv mctltiCin cf (>ill(:... w r:ho"t quahfic;Jilorl. as
booty (m j.'IJ:l<rli!Lt! bo.:.:y) Gll .tpp:y mdifli:rl'llri}' t .nt:r.T ;\lh:i fn:t' l'-T .g n. \'1,1'1: l:"it. Hi;
IV. xxix.6). Bm ~!o &tr.\"'<' ''~'IH~ we~.- vldcnrJy an mlpN~m part of th.: bm1ty
obtaint'd bv lhC' Il!vn01ru on tht r.umnt' of rlw n~ v~rv rml:ro; ;all! l.'lt'J ,,f 1'-hol'nicl.' i11
Epirus c. 2:~; B.C. '(n. vi.f.): :a at k~IH urw othr~t c~~~:. ~1t'j,pi~p~li5. wl! ,hl>;Jr of ,,..;,,._.rra.
som<.> of whirh .;m; ~p,=.:iii<.lllv ,!l.!icrihcd as ;s._,.,,~o., ...,, .>ad u~h~:rr. as ci\Eilf4.p<o (!l.lxii. !IJJ; and
whcr't WI: .arl' tol.:! uf.1 r;~.id b;.- 'tnift;mcl:,. v: rlw f.:omf~'t~ i:Onnhcm< 'kw:vn :J Chyron's' m
Mc~Sl'nia wr t!ml s!.\-.~'S, this t:m.: unm!stak;<bl< a5 ~i"t""' ii.mmng a H~atli.:-Jnt p.;n ni
tht booty {IV .IV. I). Th\ brgr:-r,.-;1!, plu::ch-rmg .xpnht:ui~ l:thltdw! fw .!11' A.:-rnli:m~ imu
Laconia ar.:m111i 240 H.C. (.'-t'1.' W~lh.a!... HCf 1-l~.J: ci Will, Hf-'Mf-1 Ut15), which
Jccording to Pul~!m;" caU!;,~cl tlw l'l15b:~m.:n! ,-.( 'dw p~:riu..:cit \'til.,::~.' (IV ~.:-;xi iJ}, i~
said by Plutarch to h:i\'~ :-,,ultl:d 111 tlw c:.trymt: uff of 51U~:i} 'l;g..:5 (Ck,'>n. l;-13)- ;,fj,j
<.>vm if tbi:; fi~~~tr. i~ !!fl~dy ,xaggt'TJtd i1 1~ iild!l :n rnchtd. ;t mn;h:krabk nlnnb.~~ n!
Inl'n and \\'<imcn who Wl'IT ;;:ready "'i""''S, !-. , ~h~ P~n,>;o h~i :;o H,l''"1nd rhn:~~llth'd
Plriol"CI tht~m~..:v,~ ('mtld h:.rdiy h;,w munb.... t"d mythi~~o: };}~, ,.,~ mo~n~.
;,ht,.r ;:of
citi~s in A;;i~ l'\'lmur .md~y ;iqz:- pmtn'"l~!~~ in~.lm :( tlt.:.r \i.wn. ''' i:;h:c:- tlwm to jt:r:
in th<.>ir nsi~r:mn i.-\bv.lu.. a: the Hdl,-:;p.-..ut. P~hh :"\VIco;<::o..t.2; SclgL' in l'is;di.1.
V. lxxvi.:"i), lnth,li~iu .:oi tiW!i' t,;,.t;;, ,1u:l ;>I :\,ll);~hoa'3 O.t.llt'!l:ll'!t: jU0h'tl nbm'l' ahnut
the many slJ\'c'!' 111 the ro:mu,y:ottl, of El:s (;It tlw ,.,.r.,. ,ml ;:ot' :h. ftf:h H'nt,uy). 1t ..,-,,n~
very likd:; rlut \\'lwu Poi:; hi:;~ sp::nk-; .;t' Eh"' m rh, late tim,! o:L111111) .:ts b.inr; tht.-ld~
popubt.... l uul.th'llllhllt( in .rc;.,_.,,~ .. (IV .iv.;.iii.t.~ rf. h "" l:!., 7). h~: 1111'" hw~ Lw, .a,;
wdl as fr~ iH mind l'~tlroll <Jf Alllkl'.l h.n~ ;I VC,'f\' J;~r~( ~l:.w hLus.dtdd nr ! 71o u c . il!w
is rightly cn:dit~:J with arming and 11..111~ iu .t.-i~.n.: o:.fhi; .::1: y (11ntil hl .kTukd I b,;r: y
it) '2()() siJ,c~ 1JJ<ifr:.:dm~n of his uwu' (rhd. XX X .f.). In i->t. li.C. tht-r.- ~ Htld!i<Oil i1
Polybiu!' <l.tll\lnkr Sl'tlt w :h.: .:w.-s (>f~[~, i\,IJ:~r;m h~gll<' ~y 1.ilc ~~-nl'r:tl DiM'll~ rr fn.~
and arm 11n fcw,r th.tn !2,1:~' ,[.,._,.t~ of :mlit:ur a!!.'-' ';tm;.-ng IJw,, -..-.hu h.o.cl to.'l'11 brn
and bred .tt hurnc' (ulll'n~~rti.: "ui :: ..p.i:J~....,.,,, t.,l;h XXXVlll X\1.J. cf lr'Y dt:<n~:<lfm
in IV.iii 4.tbuv~)
For th.- J ldltn.sr~o: pt~fh.d m ~~-u~ral. ~~t' (on :;gw:-ultural and som~timcs othrr ~laws)
Rostovtz.fl. ~EHUJ.J' l.17fl, !ln. :!ili' (wrth Ill. !..W>-7 n.J~). 243 .i 17. 537-H; 11.77H~5
(with IH 1514-lt nn.47-~!), ~~~. (w1th HI 13.:!1-~ ,._;,.,, .md Rostovtzcfr~ amck. NEPPK.
~sp. 377-'' .;~2-.l}. '>'4.'!. llli6. 1l: 1. Ill~>. lls.:.i (but cf. 1.52J-4), 11112-%, 1~5~)3:
111.1435 . .'!t.O. iS02 n.-t. J=,r Egypt. s't:' id. U!t !, with 111.131J3-+ n.119. and 1!.1099;
also variutL~ W\trh hy I. Hhi.-uil;;;b-M:t"f,~.~o;r, ,;,p. Ef:~R I (cf. lll.iv n..l2 ht.low).
Such a l.lr~, t'ru~hlrtlOI; uft!w H'lil> iliao;:n~lllf! :ht.! .-mploylll<'lll of rural slav~s rdat~: to
their (:ap:un tJrltl~ .m r.,n1y hl\:tsi.-,,., !bf "''' n~d not b.- ~urpris.d ~~ findmg so little
evidrnct ('lfh,: w:l)' ii 1r ma,;r pl.to.t'i.
As call\' ,\~oo .mii B.C. Wt: i'::1d ~ .v:::~ltily i'rs:;o:. Asidah'S, who was poss'sscd of an
~statt' on rh~ pl01.n: m~.~ f'ctgamum, i11 mr1i1 \\'61 A;;.:;l Minor, e-mploying slavts iu quitl'
large nuJ:Jbi'Ti (X(~: ..-'l.t;r;!o. Vll.~iit.l :!.lit, i~~) X.-alphon, 111 tht plundcrin~ cxp~-dinou
which h, :k,;..:-ribc-s (wdww du~ k;~;.: ;.~~;;;.r ~fsh~uw) .11 thl' wry t:nd ofhis Anaba>i.<, r~fcrs
to thl"St" tu.;.11 ;1;; ou!liol;'':i:l ~-,,n b,:f\>!"\ riHu ,::.;uur, . ..J:nd thcy must surdy ha\'c bnn slavl'S
w,.
508
in the Greek sense. r.1tl:~..- th:m dependt'nt peaSilntS. Som~ two hundred were caprured
and carried off( l':i). Again, w: hap?..::s to b!OW of d::s sc: of slaves only because they
became the object ol a rmli12ry ~:ocpeditior, and ;;:rr mt.'tlliC'~l<l in one of our narrative
sources. Except wh{'r( special c:irrumstan~ obt.~l:!et.l. for ~nsr.:mcc at Heraclea Pontica,
where the Mariand }'aoi formed :: sort of qli.tsi~3l"J f popul;ctiGil -.vhich could be profitably
used by the Greek s~nit:rs {s~e Ia 1v all:! m n. :;) , I~"" no n:'il'iOl) to doubt that Greeks who
settled in new areas nt' .\~iii or Syrn ;~r.d bcc;om(' iandu.,,ncn would immediately buy
slaves to work their t;mr.s. as \n rht'1! houu:imili. Nothing prn-ented them from doing
this, and since manv si:J\'\'.j; h~c been brought co Gn:ec.e !tsclffrom districts in Asia Minor
(especially perhaps G~i;j, l.yd];~. and Ptlrygia) :mci Syri:;. 5la,.es would probably not be
exceptionally dear ~htn. Whf"ll Hom01m: be~m w mono tntt> the East in considerable
numbers (see e.g. IJw~tgbtr;n, RI.AM. <~nd t:l E.S.lli 1\'), th..-y mo would certainly want
to use agricultural d.ii...,~.lo. except :;;{'~hiip~ whcrt" a local ,~..-as.utt population could be
severely exploited, tQ o.hn()~t th\ .>aWl" dt~rcc ,1 ~l.-v~5-.
I have not tried to ~olkn th<" matrra!. ;md I ,_.,,iii mentiouj~:s~ three interesting pieces of
evidence, the only :~ms I h;;.ppn: fo h.w<" come! ;d:r;l!ili in whidl prices are given for the
initial purchase of s!avc;.~ ' 10 ~;m.irc m iml)( ::-" tbc Classk.<l :m!! ddlmistic periods- far
below the price at whi,;h th~r wmalr.l I."Ventually b~ said, nf (:oursc, in order to allow the
dealers a profit. The fiur a~ 11tuc. Vlil.:?li.4; on thi" uking ofb~u" in Caria by the Spartans
in the winter of 412/41 i. th.: i11h.tbitants, slave and lrcc (and sur~!y including women and
children), were solo:! ff h"l nssapheme; ;;.: ;~11 ;~gr~! price uf I daric stater per head
(equivalent to bet\\Tt":l 2S J.n.t ,2l} 1\wr dnrbru<ce) The stc.:md pi.ct> of evidence is
provided by II Mac \'tid: (C"I' I M-.cc m.li) andJo... .'\} XH.299, where the Sdcucid
army commander Nic;mor tl~ 165 U.C ..mm.!\lJCc:i tlut iw w1H r>t'll.all rhcJews he expects
to capture in his fortltcom111!= campaign..,, ~b. r.\lt' r>fl.lil per t;;km, or 66'/, drachmae t'ach.
The third piece of c~i(!':rtcc- ..... 111 Plut.. Luculi. !4. i .an~t .1\pr-.. Mith. 78: lucullus'
campaign against Mt!!mtbn'S of l'onw,:; U1 77J! H C. was s.o ~~..:cessful that slaves were
sold in his camp for'=' lwk a~~ <ir.:~dn',lC' (";Kh- a :sus.J,lC~ow;!y low figure, but perhaps
not impossible, ifth.r. wen iar~!l"llut"f!\t..h ul rr.~<J::,;oa. for t!:e slaves might have to be
transported some w.a~ b.ti>n rh.~ nul!.! ~ ;;~!d pr.rH"ir:.bdy 1:\ bulk. (I do not feel able to
give any figure for the price _,f th~ Thcbau~ ~ld niT~~ <:!.w..-s (>I! the sack of Thebes by
Alexander in 335: Diod. XVIJ.I4 t,J iPVC!o -I-Ii! taka:s for 'mon' than 30.000' Thebans:
but his figure may wdi i"-' a com~~tnn.1al ont:, and hr fHb;ab!e source, Clcitarchus,
FGrH 137 F 1. ap. Athtn IV. !4~J ..-, gtve~ 1h.~ ~o.1mo: ~jgure, '-~Onll.'nts, for the total sum
realised on the sack uf tho:,.,~ y.)
I conclude with a !!mr.d .ae-~nlt.-W ~or the sre.1~ mi:~Urt;,uce of slave labour in
agriculture in the lands hnr,i,; llli~ Ql! rho: A~gL';In .md in du isk :ds of that sea. In an article
publish~d in 1923 iNEJii'K J77...~i ll.>5tm17.d[ pNU!L'(.l t..u! :hat although the only
treatises on agriculttih~ t< l>m>tvC' irom 1hr Jllc...nt wmld :arr by Latin writers. their
authors undoubtedly b;~.,;<d 1h.-u wmk "'' c:;r;,lc: i'U11t<=:.:.. m;.:tiY of whom arc actually
named. in particular by V:~rro. wh. speukl of\*-'''" th:m 6ft~ Gr.-ck writers on different
aspects ofagriculturdRR! I ;. W} .llld l'fi}'L~,,~{sro
.1l0r1f> ba o.)fthem. The majority,
as Rostovtzeff rcmarkt><L 'wtn :1:un~s tXI of:lw ::Jl;J!nl:J\:d ofGn:-,cc ... , but of the large
and fertile islands (TbJ~'" l.cmuoi, Cillo>. !Utodos), i Asia Mimr (Pergamon. Milctus.
Cyme, Colophon, Pr:mc, S.uli. M;;,l!<):.. Nicaen ..m.! H~rAkt.:<),,ll~d ofthcThraciancoast
(Maroneia and Ampiup.>l::-) Mcs~ ,,, ~iwm hdoag r,, rh.- Hdl,~nistic period.' As Rostovtzcff says, 'wed'-' ll<>t km1w tl: com e-m ;.~t':h;."S4" tr.-:-10><";;. hlt It seems evident that it
did nor differ very mud1 fr,,m tlw ,,f!h:- th".;Uit'~ vi V.llr' C<>t:unclla, and Pliny'; and he
goes on to infer fron: rh:;: si1:nl::n:y rh:,: :lu m.~.t fu-,:c~.t.ct\1',, ,,f ;;.griculture in the East,
and espcl:ially of \'lt!Culture. ~lvn:.cuiture, ;;tid canl.:-.. breeding, was slave labour'.
Rostovtzeff deals with th me u:j~n m hh SEHHW II ! i~.::-;,) (with Ill. 16 16-19): here
he admits the lack of :"\':J,m:.: 'unr.r.rmng! ;:crl:od,; al culti:;;ti~u 111 the Greek East. apart
from Egypt, and is \'<.r;.- .:m<~tm:-i>l dr:1wing .:<mclc~i .n~. I 'o\'o:>uld accept the- statement
Appendix II
509
which appears on p.1196, following the admission that to various questions he has asked
no satisfactory answer can be given. No direct evidence is available. It is, however, certain that
some of the landowners in the Sdeucid Empire and in Asia Minor instead of renting their estates,
large or small, in parcels to local fumcrs, cultivated them by means of slave labour and hired
hands. We may conjecture that this was the method of cultivation adopted by the Attaliili on
some of th,ir estates. There is evidence of the same practice on the estates of some rich landholders
in the city territories (for exampk Pnenc), .md it may be assumed to hav~ prevailed on the
holdings - dtroi - of foreign settlers tn the oraro&o<i.tr and cities created by thl' HellenistiC kings,
when these cleroi wtre not rented to local tenants ... What was rhe inftucnce of these progressive
farms on thetr surroundings, on thl' peasant e-conomy of their neighbours' No answer can be
giwn 10 this question. The general imprl'Ssion left on the student is that the estates managed in thl'
Greek manner remained scattered islands in rhc Orimtal sea of small peasant holdmgs and larger
estates, whose native owners had their own traditional methods of l'xploitation or cultivation.
Rostovtzetfis concerned here with the whole vast subject of the overall aspect of agriculture
in Asia. I of course admit that the great bulk of agriculrural production there, as in most
parts of the ancient world at nearly all rimes (cf. esp. IV.i-iii above), was the work of small
peasants, whether freeholders, leasehold tenants, or serfs in various kinds of dependence.
But I have been concerned to investigate htJw the propmied classes iJf the Greek world extracred
their surplus; and when we ask this question (a very ditferl"llt one), we can sec that a very
important part was played by slawry, not to mention debt bondage, e.g. that of the obanarii
(or obaeratt) mentioned by Varro as still existing in his day in large numbers in Asia, and in
Egypt and IUyricum (see III.iv above under its heading III, and its n.66).
Appendix III
The settlement of 'barbarians' within the Roman empire
(see IV.iii 19 above)
I give here as complete a list as l have been able to compile, with fairly full source
references and a little modern bibliography, of those settlements of 'barbarians' wirhin
Roman territory which seem to me n:asonably wdl authenticated, from the first century
to the late sixth. I have felt obliged to take into account, as far as l could. !>Cttlements in the
Western as well as the Eastern part of the empire, because l am interested tn these
settlements not from the cultural but from the economic point of view (see IV. iii 17
and 19 above). and from that aspect their effects might be felt far outside their immediate
area. I have to admit, however, a very inadequate treatmmt of Africa, where the literary
sources are nothing like as abundant as for Europe and Asia (above all the provinces on or
near the Rhine and Danube frontiers), and the epigraphic and archaeological evidence is
often very hard to interpret and may sometimes refer to the conrrol of nomads or
semi-nomads or transhumants rather than to permanent new settlements inside the
frontiers. Apart from 22 and 32 below. all I can do here is to refer to an imprClisive
article which I saw only after this Appendix had bren writll'n: P. D. A. Garnsey, 'Rome's
African empire under the Principate', in Imperialism in thr Ancirnt World, l-ditcd by
Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (1978) 22~54. at 231-3 (with 346-7 nn.39-49).
I have begun at. 38 B.C. and have disregarded some carlil."r sl"ttkments, for example
the removal of no fewer than 40.<XXl Ligurians and their installation on public land in
Samnium in 180 B.C., a transplantation which, unlike the vast majority of the settlements
I am going to menuon, was against the will of the Ligurians (Livy XL.3!! . .3-7). I have
ignorl"d a few texts which sel"m to ml" irrelevant or of no value: this applies particularly to
the later period (after no. 23 below), fur which the l'Vidence is oftm undcu. I have also
510
ignored various treaties in the fifth century by which parts of the Roman empire were
ceded outright to external powers, e.g. the surrender of part of the diocese of Africa to the
Vandals in 435. Many of the literary texts were first collected by Zumpt (1845) and
Huschke (see Clausing. RC 44-9, 57-61, n-89). but l know of no work which sets out the
essential literary material and adds some of the epigraphic and archaeological evidence, as
I try to do here. {The fullest collection I know is that ofSeeck, GUAW l 4 .ii.591-3, with
i.407-8.) I may say that, for convenience only, I shall usually speak of 'barbarians'
without the inverted commas which I normally employ. The whole subject seems to me to
have much more importance than is commonly realised: see IV .iii 17 and 19 above (with
its nn.28-.36 below). where the subject is discussed and further bibliography will be found.
1. Octavian's general, M. Vipsanius Agrippa, probably in 38 B.C., transferred the
German Ubii (at their request) to the left bank of the Rhine and settled them there, as a
complete civitas: Strabo IV .iii.4, p.194 (and presumably VILi.3, p.290); cf. Tac., Ann.
XII.27. 1-2; XIII.57.4: Germ. 28.5. See Hermann Schmitz, Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (Cologne, 1956).
2. In 8 B.C. the future Emperor Tiberius, as general of Augustus, received the

submission of the Suevi and Sugambri and settled 40,()(X) of them on lands west of the
Rhine: Suet .. Aug. 21.1, with Tib. 9.2; Eutrop. Vll.9; and cf. Augustus. Res Gestae 32.1.
The number of 40,000 (Germani) appears also in Oros. Vb:xi.24.
3. It was almost certainly during the first few yt'ars of the first centuryC.E. that Sextus
Aelius Catus settled 50,<Xl0 'Getae' south of the Danube, in what was later known as
Moesia: Strabo Vll.iii.to, p.303. These people wen in fact Dacians: see A. AlfOidi,
'Dacians on the south bank of the Danube', inJRS 29 (1939) 2H-31. He publishL'S a
supposed military diploma of7/8 November 88, of the auxiliary soldier Gorio, Stibij.,
Dacus, from Nicopol in Bulgaria (which has since been shown to be a forgery, by H.
Nessclhauf. in CIL XVI Suppl. [ 1955] p. 216), and refers to one or two similar documl'11ts
(esp. CIL XV1.13). On the chronology of this settlement, seeR. Syme, inJRS 24 (1934)
113-37. at 12lHJ =Danubian Papers (Bucharl'St, 1971) 53-5.
When the Gl'rrnan chieftains Maroboduus and Cawalda were settled in A.D. 19 at
Ravenna and Forum Julii Tl.'Spectivcly. the personal retainers (comitatus) of each were
settled outside Roman territory. beyond the Danube. to prC'vcnt them from creating
disturbances in pacified provinces (Tac., Ann. 11.6.1, esp. 7).
4. In A.D. 50. or soon after, Vannius. on ceasing to bl' kmg oftheQuadi. was settled
by order of the Emperor Claudius in Pannonia, with his clientes: Tac .. Ann. XII.29-30.
esp. 30.3. (See M6csy, PVM 40-1,57--H, 371n.13.)
5. (a) In the 60s, in the reign of Nero, Ti. Plautius Silvanus Adianus claimed to have
brought over into his province of Mocsia and obliged to pay tribute 'more than 100,000
Transdanuviani, with their wives and children and chiefs or kings': ILS 986 = CIL
XIV ..J608. The most recent treatment I have Sl'l'n is by T. Zawadski, in La parola del
passato 160 = 30 (1975) 59-73.
(b) It is possible, as argued by Zawadski (op. cit. 72-3). that L. Tampius Flavianus
(PIR 1 111.294 no.S), the legate ofPannonia in 69-70 (and perhaps earlll'r), performed a feat
resembling that ofPiautius Aelianus {see the preceding paragraph). since ILS 985 = CJL
X .6225.lines 6-8, as re-edited by AlfOidi and Reidinger and reproduced by Zawadski (id.
73), lines 7-9, is probably to be restored '[multis] opsid1bu~ a Tran[sdanuvi/Jrus acccpris,
lim ]itibus omnibus ex[ploratis I hostibus(?) ad vectig]alia pracstanda [ traducris ]'.
6. Some Cdtic Cotini and perhaps Osi (cf. Tac., Germ. 43.1-2) were apparently given
l.md in P.mnonia at some time during the first century: see Mocsy, PUM 57-60; and cf.
7 cbclow.
Appendix Ill
511
There is then a long gap, until the reign ofMarcus Aurelius (161-180). Appian, Pratf. 1,
refers to ambassadors from barbarian peoples whom he claims actually to have seen at
Rome, 'offering themselves as subjl'Cts', but refused by the emperor on the ground that
they would be of no usc to him. This passage must have been written under Antoninus
Pius, while 'a long period of secure peace' (as Appian calls it) still prevailed, and it seems
to refer only to requests for annexation: nothing is said about entering into territory
already Roman.
7. Varie>~;~ s<"ttkr:h'IUS .:-fGtrn;.:m t>... rh,\:iar.s :u( !'"e<ordcd, or can be inferred, during
the reign ofMarcm ,'\urdiu~. "J1~o~y wii! modr h;;.\';:o !J.:t'n made during the !70s.
(a) According t:l Dit, Ca;;siu~ LXXl.l(!.ol-5-, "ioJriuu.s barbarians (who will certainly have
included Quadi) ucci~-ed hmi from MJrC\S in D.1-:1a. f'.mnonia, Mocsia, Germany (i.e. the
two provmc.:-$1lt'th.un:ma.::) .md lui~ mdt. (Thi~ may havl' happened as early as 171: see
Birley, MA.l\J-2.) Wh!'n o~u uprising tOtk pl.t.~ ::.1 lta,enna, Marcus sent the barbarians
out ofltaly anJ brought ll(l :nore in there. (for the d~population ofltaly by the plague of
A.D. 166 rr. sn Oms. VU ..n.:H.: .x.."''ii.7: .mJ cf VIJI.ii abow and its n.lO below.)
(b) Di<. Cl~~- LXXI.xii.l fr, ~p. 1-~': th! 'Astingoi' (= Asding Vandals) were
promised b.nd 1frhq .ri:tu~ht Jg.m~s! tlw ,nml~t~s of Rome. (This also may have taken
place in 17 I; ~n Birl,y. MA 2..\2- _q
(c) Furrh.r C\.tn:i !d S (, oaf.ov~) !m:~t abo h.i\"t" I~'' .~rablisht"l:i trl ~iiSl<::nt l':mn.:m1n.
apparently ar->unJ Murs:t J.Ju.f Cihalo~.:: ~'"' Mo.::s~ l'UM l!i-1Jl. !')). 248: ,[. Cfl_
VI.32542 J ..~; .l~5H !!= l>la CA'I. I.X.XI.:..ii.3; TK. Gmn B (ci. s..::ck, <:I!'A
) 4 .ii.583-5j. Thts, SC"ttlenli.'Ut.s rr.Jy .d~,;. h .. ,.,. <Xtmd ill 1"11.
(d) Dio Cass. l.XXL,.Y1.2 {AJ>. !75)~ tit SJrnt.auanl.l7yg<'s g;tw to M.&r<lb l-1.111.~1
horsemen. ut wlmm he S(Jlt .~.51JIJ (I} Britain ..1\,:.,)rdtnt-t hi r)Ju. thC:'Il' l"tl'll W'l'(" Jlo"o>\id~d
under tre.1ty ( 1), 3'!- tht nmtnburuu of the: ID:O'J!<'.S t:> thtJr .11li.uKc:. ~~ mp:p:.-~im. :md (I
should ha"<' rhuught) one: mir,lu th.nofc.>r<loa\'c ''-"p~aed thm to i"k. tr.:.ltcd :tsi..ttioT,,ri,
rather than Jlo .tn auxiliary unit uith, Roman Jnny. '"'Pl"l'Jllly ;lS w..t: not ttld rh:11 tlw!-'
wen' to rt'<:t'l\"<.' land within thl <'mpin Hut dw !ooUNo<qu.:-nt ~vadcuc~, concerning men
who are gnwr.Uiy {.md probably rightly) Ctn::iJcrctl tnt>, .mum~ th, tl.-scendants of these
Iazyges su~t-:I.'St:> rh.at they did in fact recta.-, l.u..l for ,.ttknKnt .:m.l :h.u thq ;oi:n:l th.~
regular Rcmo~n amay. in thl" units l.ucn'l:n.b nWJtll''i. A wdl-lnuwnmscriptimat' A.D.
238-44, fr;m-. Ribche"tn. ah< ;11Jci,ot Urrmrtrnn;;.r.un (prub:,bl~ Brcmcwnn,;cmn Vc~t{'
ranorum). rders to a lu,um~}
l:irrttlrt'tmf:loowmm}. un.h:- a
praep(osiu~t; t1111mctii rrrro:~'nli.l: IOU 5!H = Cll. Vll.21~: <"f. !'rtl'!' 1 trt'.r' m Riff ;:..-.7 =
CIL VII.:?.:!~. Tht unit crrc..,um.dly nt a tio-w humirt',l rmn; " r.f<rr.tl tu :ts ''' .r/,,
Sarmatarum nu tWl rumh~hm~. I<.IB .)~. 5'J:i CIL V11.22'). !Ji!..mJ iu th\! ..:arly fif:h
century it !-.till c..-<is.~d a;.,\ <"1111'"' .Sm,.lol:;lt:'m (Nor. 0~: .. Occ ,'(l.5-li Th who!. suhj.:c.'l
has been .fisnJsM.'d i11 tl.-t.ul m ;m ;,bk J!tid, hy I. .-\. lhdutwmi, 'Th, S.cnaut.H'.
BremtltPJIIcJctmt
and tht> Rt-;:i n,,.,...,,.,miloom;'.
.JRS J; (1'.'4:') 1:;_:?'J.
Richmond points uut rh.at this .ana ip:trt tf th.-l~~ldc". inth.lhl>hk V;jJI,y) 1~ p.uuntl.uty
well suittd for mamtaimug tlw lo~qt h)NU u~"C.dtJ ~~~r th<''><" ~lt.!.J!hr.td <-:.1\" .1lr y'. Jn,J tlw
the origin.tl h.Itdatll.lz}l~<'S t~o lik.dy w h:tw bn:n t<ukd htr<"lll bulk. nn r~urnnnt fro:ll
their Sef\'1\"' !douhtkss in.l whc)l< group ,,,,,,,,..m) .JI'<llll A n. !IX! {1<1(. c:: 2.~-J) Ho\\
many wer<" .KtuJIIy <it'"ttl.:d 111 th< Fyld< ts not kmwn Thcy m.;~y w.ll h-t,c ;,,.,n ><"t to
drain and clear tlt<" land, Js we k:aow h.tppt'JWd tt> V<'tl'r<ln<o. 5t'rt),.,; ,l;,lwh,~,. t ~ at
Deultum v~wranorum in Thnr, (Plm:.. NH IV .4'i; d. Rtd~m,>u:i. "J' n1. 2~) .l!i,l
probably illl'J<,tc'rn Pallnnuia {,;,tc dtt prt0.,hnJ! p.!r:.l.~r:aph .md H h hd<l\\'): ;:f. aho T.K
Ann. 1.17.5; ;md C.~T Xl.h...; (m~d by Ri.-hmond . ~p. nt ..~.3)-= ,'\r,,,, n,.~;,i. XXIV.::.
where th\ Wrd~ "lll!l\"C:r,;ts .-:m: r1ll;dih,,~ ~mllll>JU~ 1\lr, suggest >oll1l'dan>g- !hrr,r 1h;,n
'marshes' Oones, l.RI: ll.r,:,.~. tr;cu,!;u.-s w.u.r mc:.t<l<''''s'): also C.i \'11. xli..; I = ,\r,,,.
Theod. XX .3.
(e) Ditl Cass. LXXI.xxi: 3,000 Nartstal' rl'Cetved laud. which must han betn in
!'"'''"''/ s,,,,-.,,,,,,)
httmr""'"'
512
Pannonia (cf. CIL Ill.4500, from Camuntum: see again Sleck, as cited in c abow). The
date may be 179: see Birley, MA 285-6.
(f) According to the Historia A11gusta, Marcus settled itifinitos t'X ~entibus on Roman soil
(Marc. 24.3), and in particular h~: brought to Italy a large number of surrendered
Marcomanni (22.2). Cf. 14.1: various c~tmtt'S driven on by other barbarians were
threatening to make war on the empire, nisi recipercntur.
8. It was presumably in 180, the year in which Com modus became sole emperor, that
C. Vettius Sabinianusjulius Hospes, as governor of the Tres Daciae (AE [1920] 45: sec
Wilkes, Dalmatia 447), promised land in Roman Dacia to 12,000 Dacians who had been
driven out of their own land: see Dio Cass. LXXII.iii.3.
There is then another long gap, until the 250s, apart from the minor settlement
mentioned in 9 below.
9. The Emperor Severus Alexander (222-235) is said by Herodian Vl.4.6 (cf. Zonar.
XII.IS) to have settled in villages in Phrygia, to farm the land there. 400exceptionally tall
Persians who had been sent on a mission to him by the Persian king. This must have been
in A.D. 231-2.
10. The Emperor Galbenus is said to haw givc:n part ofPannonia to the Marcomannic
King Attalus, for settlement: (Viet.], Epit. de Caes. 33.1, with Victor, Caes. 33.6; and sec
M6csy, PUM 21J6...7, 3)9, who dates this 258-60 (in the joint reign ofValtTian and Gallienus).
11. There are general statt>mrnts by Zos. I.xlvi.2 and Hist. Au.'l Claud. 9.4. that tht'
Emperor Claudius 11 Gothicus (268-70) scttlt-d many Goths as farmers m Roman territory.
12. The Emperor Aurelian (270-5) is also said to have settled some dt>ft>ated Carpi:
Victor, Caes. 39.43; cf. Hist. Aug., Aurel. 30.4; Lact . De mort. prrs. 9.2. This was
prt>Sumably in Thrace. The allegation in Hist. Aug., Aurel. 48.1-4, that Aurelian planned
to buy uncultivated land in Etruria and settle there familiae captivae, to produce free wine
for the Roman people, can doubtless be ignored.
13. The Emperor Probus (276-282) evidently settled many barbarians in Roman
territory: see Zos. I.lxviii.3 (Burgundians and Vandals in Britain); Ixxi.1 (Bastamat' in
Thrace); lxxi.2 (Franks; cf. Panex. Lat. IV(VIII].xviii.3); Hist. Aug., Prob. 18.1 (100,00)
Bastamae); 18.2 (many Gothic Gcpids and Greuthungi. and Vandals). Unlike Gunther
(UlGG 311-12 and nn.3-4), I do not think we can make use of the fictitious letter of
Probus to the Senate in Hist. Aug., Prob. 15 (esp. 2 & 6) as intended to refer to the
settlements just mentioned, since (a) the author does not give them until Prob. 18.1-2 and
seems to put them later (in 2RO ff. ), wht>reas the letter to the Senate seems to belong, in the
author's mind, to 2n..S; also (b) Prob. 14.7 (whatever its historical worth) shows that the
author cannot have meant 15.2-6 to refer to the settlements described in 18.1-2, but must be
thinking in 15.2 (omnes iam batbari vobis arant etc.) of barbarians made tributary. and in 15.6
(arantur Gallicana rura barbaris bubus etc.) ofbooty taken from the Germans. (Zos. l.lxviii.3.
however, seems to put the settlement of Burgundians and Vandals in Britain in 277-8.)
14. There is clear t>vidence of many barbarian settlements made by Diodetian and the
Tetrarchs (285-.306):
(a) For Gaul (and Thrace), see especiaUy a document of particular value because of its
early date (1 March 297): Pamg. Lat. IV [VIII]. The most important passages arc:
(i) i.4: 'tot excisat> undiquc barbarae nationes, tot translati sint in Romana cultores.'
(ii) viii.4: 'omnes (barbari] sese dedere cogercntur et . . . ad loca olim descrta
transirent, ut, quae fortasse ipsi quondam dcpraedando vastaverant, culta redderent
servi~ndo.'
Appendix Ill
513
(iii) ix. 1-4: 'captiva agmina barbarorum ... atquc hos omncs provincialibus Vt.'stris
ad obsequium distributes, donee ad destinatos sibi cultus solitudinum duccrC"ntur ..

Arat ergo nunc mihi Chamavus ct Frisius ... et cultor barbarus laxat annonam ... Quin
etiam si ad dilectum vocctur, accurrit et obsequiis tcritur et tt'rgo cohercctur C't servirc sc
miliriae nomine grarulatur.'
(iv) xxi, esp. 1: 'itaque sicuti pridem tuo, DiodetianC' Auguste, iussu desena Thraciat:
translaris incolis Asia complevit, sicut postC"a tuo, Maximianc Auguste, nutu Nerviorum et
T revirorum arva iacenria Laetus postliminio rcsritutus et reccptus in leges Francus cxcoluit,
ita nunc per victorias tuas, Constanti Caesar invicte. quidquid infn:quC'ns Ambiano ec
Bellovaco ct Tricassino solo Lingonicoque n.stabat, barbara culton rcvirescit.'
All thl sc!lin)J~:JI~ itt G:<.1i ~di.-rrt-d t:) ita 1'.111'.!: IV nust h.l\'l' ~;.~--~!; plac< bct\'lCt~n ::'.93the date ,,f tlu: vJ.:rory wt:: t!w Ch:umv: ;11~:.! has1i (s.--:. tx.:\), whe> fn.l bc.l~n ;ollit~ uf
Carausius- ;md :..:;rl\' 'J:.il, the do.t~ nf H;:.;. IV. Wr m1~! n,,:.- 1i:rm< :"<Xa.l tbu whcn"l'-'
the settk-::tut <)f th; f!".tnh :~ !'!~w (tlw ,..-;.:IIWF ~~ rtt;mu it; !~). rh:tt .. ; tht J,:m mu5t
have beer. C'.trlic-r, for tht< lo~rt:;s 5 J.'Mtiir.iPJio t'<"J!PIIctlfJ. !! the wma! /,:cf:l! llr-n h~~ rh.:. ~~~rn...:
commonly :ttrilmtl r._, ir (~c= IV.tii I') ;;,brw~- :t'l.! i~s n.2'i h:low). thm r!J.:s ts :fn:
earliest kuow11 :tst uf rh. w.1rd :r; :h.u 'it":l"-t' Tlwr :> nnhit:~,; tu ~b,,,v wh<"n th.- nri~~rn;~.l
settlement of th\'sc~ flli!tl ~ouk pl~c:;:: 11 :'luy h::tv,; ht'\'11 ColW oi :ht ,-;:.:<e> rdcrn,f t!l ;&h.)W.
Nothing seems tn t... know: <:!f Dtooit-tt:m's -;..:ttk!~lt'llt ,,f A:>J;!.tu:.. in n~:Jn (:->~:i l).
Another t';trjy dv.:u:nn>t ts 1'111:'! l..1t VII( VI]. \'t .? ()f ~~lO); 'QuiJ lnqmt tu:stts
intimas Fraud;.(' n.tnou.-_, ... .l proprii' ,.,. >ri~n: sm s(-dihus o~I1U<' .th uhmus bubariae
litoribus J.\'t:l~a... ut m .le~r.rti~ (i;llli.l' r~giun~hus ulln;.u.at" t'l ;'Olt:cm Rom:m1 IITIJ'I:'ri;
cultu iUVdTl'lll .:-r :trm.tr.hk.rur- Tlus r:tss;lj;l" is 5tlllll'lltll(';; t.lkc.'n Ill r,::~r !tl ;: s.'l l'ir.TtC'IH (If
Saban Fnml~ n; H:ol.l~"l;, hy Cuut:tnm.,; i. <. 197 (thotsJulh.lll. HG VI! ~5-J.). lli1 tt.2,
198-9); but tlut sdtl("Jin'llt h,a,. ;,]s< l,,,n .tttrilutr.d t) Cml.Stans ill .\-1-1 ist:'.' i:l. 81i 11. 5. I ~ll
n.2) or tn thl usurpation of!\b~taentu~ :n.15(t..J (Pi!l;-llli.,J. E.(.'! 135-6).
It seem.. nr~ likely th..ar .I f.mwns lr..td :tlt'<idlbm I. ~nus i.pKr-. t>Tlt' 0 r tlte ,. ;U'I0\1 ~
settlements. ju">t nmt1vnL sn ~h~l;< R. ,\Jt(il.h. 'Zulli Ly>IWI Bicintt>t'lltltnn', in
Schweiz1r ,\lim;:hi.itt.fl ( l'J'i~) (.~~. "It ~us!~~rs th<ut: !!> th, F.PP'''"~~ M.t'o:inrum .md
Constantms I who ;m >hw~ ;u n.-r.'I\'ing mn, women an.! dttl.lr'l m :?'k. Iu !h, Ll~A''-" r
scene on thtmcr.l.ilh,m th._.. rnigr.mts :.rc also depicted .t~ r.ro~~iul!'.; brid~1 m,.f :.h'. Hhinc.
Fl(umm} H'tfiK from C':r.wl{lm.,,l, rh, mclllcm Kasrd. to JH.~r.:rti.r,u.t: IJ.binz}.
(b) More~ CJrpi w<r icttll 111 l'".tSh7nl P;lmwuiJ in ;!');)...~,_ Amm 1\hr: XX Vlll.JS;
Victor. C:l,.~ .\'JAJ; Eutwr. IX ..:!S.2; t >m~. VII.xx~o. !.'!; .-f. H11r~ L.n IV(Villl.,. -~
(where 'tlla ruiu;r. C.u-pnr:un' i~ vcr y rcc.nti: ;md sr:: 1\M.-sy. /'! !M 272. nlc- ol.at. :!%. i-.
given by Eu,;d. (1-l!t'rtn._i. C:J,,,,,, p.226 (ed. n. Hdn. 1951); C.n.>. Ct,,t.:ttl., j,, Cluuu.
min. l.2JIJ. Pl>S:;ll-1~ .lrain.lgc :mr.i clearance wcrk; were o.rw:d on: hv th.- wuk~: ~~
Victor, C.rr'. -IIJ.'J-10. wuh 1\t.lo\', JIUM !1~~
(c) Ba!>litlll.ll' .ta.f S;mu;lll.urs .1~o: ;11~" s.ud 111 h;IYr hecn srttled on Roman so1l in large
numbl"rs: Eurn'r
~5.2:. Oros VII.xJC\" .l!; ,f bet., Dr Mort. Pm. ~.6, with th~
commeniJ.f\ ofjacques Mon'.l\1, SC .'J') ( !J34i 11.411-12, daring thl Sarmatian swlcment
to 303. h)r the BastamaC' (1',1:";). s.:. Em.cb. (f ti~r,m.). Chron.,loc. cit.
or
:x
15. The Emperor Constantine is said to haw distributld 'over JOO,(X)() Sannatians in
Thrace. Scythia, Macedonia and Italy': Anon. V1rln. 6.32: cf. Euscb., Vita Con.srar~t.
IV.vi.l-2; Amm. Marc. XVII.xii. 17-19; Zos. ll.xxii. 1; Publilius Optatianus Porfyrius.
Cann. Vll.20-2 (with 32). This is dated to A.D. 334: Euseb. (Hinon.), Chron . p.233(ed.
Helm): Cons. ConstaHt., in Chron. min. 1.234. Thestat<"memofjordanes, Get. 221115, that
Constantine also installed Vandals in Pannonia, should probably br rejected: see
Courtois, VA 34-5.
16. The Emperor Constantius II (337-361) seems to have made morl than one
settlement of barbarians in the empire:
514
(a) liban., Orat. LIX.83--5 (of A.D. 348-9): in Thrace.

(b) Amm. Marc. XVII.xii.17-20 and XIX.xi.l-7 (esp. 6: 'tributariorum onc.ra ... c-t
nomen'); cf. 8-15: Sarmatian limigantes, A.D. 35R-9. Cf. perhaps Auson., Mosel/. 9,
who speaks ufSarmatian wloni in the re-gion ofTabemae (the modern Rhc-inzabern), on
thc: left bank of the Rhine - the journey in question was perhaps in 3(l~- Hut sirKt'
Ausonius speaks of the coloni as 'recently' (mtper) plante-d, the stttlement may have bee-n a
latc:r one. effected by Valentinian I.
(c) It was presumably c 348 that a certain numbtr (perhaps nor large) of Christian
Visigoths. fleeing from persecution under the leadership of Ultila, were se-ttled by
Constantius II near Nicopolis in Moesia Inferior: Philostorg., HE U.S (7ToA.i'Jv ... A.aov);
Jordanes, Get. 51/267 (populus immensus); Auxentius, Epist. dt tide, flita et ,,bitu Wuljilae
59~). p. 75 ed. Frie-drich Kauffmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila = Trxte u. Unrersuch. zur
alt~erm11n. Religionsgesch. ! (Strassburg. 1M99); cf E. A. Thompson, VTlJ 9f'>-7, with xi.
17. Julian in 358. while still Caesar. allowed the Salian Franks to remain wher.: they
had settled on Roman territory. nc-ar Tongrcs: Amm. Marc. XVII. viii.3-4 (cf. XX .iv .I);
Liban., Drat. XVIIL75; XV.32 (cf.Jul., Ep. ad Athcn. 280h); cf. Eunap. fr. 10; Zos. Ill.vi.3.
IM. Vakntinian I, c. 370, st'ttled Alamanni (captured by thl ma,'(istrr equitum Theodosius, father of the emperor of that name) as tributarii in thl Po area in north Italy: Amm.
Marc. XXVIII.v.IS.
19. (a) The Emperor Vakns in 366, after crushing tht n:volt of Procopius. is said to
have disarmed a conungt"nt of Goths, which had been sc:nt to hdp Procopius (and which
probably numbered (. 3,000, as stated by Amm. Marc. XXVI. x.3. rather than the 10.000
ofZos. IV. vii.2, with x.l). and thm to have distributed the Goths throughout the citil'S
(of the Danube area), to be held El' a&ap.~ <bpovpq or <bv.l.a"ff; they were received by the
citi~s t~ ra~ olKia~: sec Eunap. fr. 37; Zos. IV.x.l-2 (de-arly relymg on Eunapius). Some
of these Goth~ will doubtless ha\e been turned into slaves. others pt:rhaps into coloni.
(b) Valens in 376-7 settled wry l.ugc- numbers ofVrsigoths in Thrace: Amm. Marc.
XXXI.iii.8; iv.l-ll (and cf v ff.); Eunap. frr. 42-3; Socr., HE IV.34.2-S; Soz .. HE
VL37.2-6; Cons. Constant . in Chron. min. LN2; Phtlosrorg., HE IX.17; Jordan., Get.
251131-3: Zos. IV.xx.5-6; xxvi.1; lstd., Hist. Goth. 9, ed. T. Mommsen. in MGH, Aua.
Antiquiss. XI~ Chtt>n. mitr. H.27l. Forrhewholestorv. ~ceSeeck,GUAWV.J.99-tm.
10. (a) Under Gratian in 3n, his general Frigerid settled Visigoths and Taifali, to farm
lands in the- territories of three cities in Italy (Mutina. Regium and Parma). jusr south of
the Po: Amm. Marc. XXXI.ix.4.
(b) Ausonius, Crat. Actio 11 R (md of 379), splaks of a traduflio of Alamanni captured
by Gratian. and ofSarmatians 'conquered and pardoned'.
(c) Gratian in 3HO (with the subsequent concurrence of Thcodosius 1: Jordan .. Get.
28/ 142) concluded a treaty with the Goths. allowing them to Sl'ttk in Pannonia and
Upplr Moesia: Zos. IV.xxxiv.2; xl.l-2;Jordan .. Get. 27-R/141~2; cf. Procop .. Bell. VIII
(Goth. IV).v.13. See Sleck, GUAW V.i. 129-30. 141-2. Contrast Demougeot, MEFB
147-50. And sec 21 b bdow.
21. Major settlc-ml'nts wcrl' made by the Emperor Thwdosius 1:
(a) In 381 the Visigorhic chief Athanaric (who immediatdy died) and some of hts
followt'rs were received into thl eastern part of the e-mpire: Zos. IV. xxxi\' .3-5; Socr .. HE
V.10.4; ThemJst., Drat. XV.l90c-lb;Jordan .. Ger. 28/142-5; Cons. Constam., m Chron.
min. 1.243; Prosper Tiro, Epit. ekron. 1177, in id. 461; Hydarius o, in Chrorr. min. II. 15;
Marcdlinus Comes, s.a. 381 2.111 id. 61. Sec Seeck, GUAWV.i. nu.
(b) By a treaty datld 3 Ocwlxr J82 (Cons. Constant., in Chron. min. 1.243) Thl'Odosius
installed a very large number ofVisigoths in the Balkans. espt"cially the Im..-er Danube
area. The number may have been at k.1st 20.000: SCl'jordan .. Get 2H/144-S. For tht' othtr
Appendix II I
515
sourc~:s s~,. Sc:eck. GU:HI' V ii.JS; Stein, HBE l~.ii.521 nn.l4-16; Joms. LRE 111.29
n.46; Ottnotlf?(:N, MEffi !53. N~Jtt: c5p T!wmt~r.., Drat. XVI.211-12; Pam:~. Lat.
XII[ II]. x~ll ..; (P.1c.w~. ;\.D. J~)) Til~ (;odu wen~ ;dlowed to n:main under the com-
mand of thrir own h:aci~N and ceot.:nt J.S ~'JITI;J.llf"ttlrtati: this was perhaps the first time
such a stJm,.lud ~a, c..mftr:t"cl <;;}I Oiltb.l!Uru;SI.'Hkd within th<.: ,mpirc; but a precedent
may almtdy h;<v<" ~)l:.:'ll it't by th~ tr~.:;~y of JRl) (on which sec 20 c above). For critical
verdicts 01~ rh:s pron>dm~. >C'C' ('.g. Jl~nl'S, U-="E 1.157-H; Pigan10l, EC 2 2.15; contrast
Demou~:."~t. MEI'H i:i:!-'7 (..md ,:. lH~Sfl).
(c) Tho:vd(1Si!ls :tiso ~(U!C'd ;;om\" n~tn..l~IJ~ru and Grcuthung in l'hrygia, presumably
after the dcf,~.:a ofthC' O~ltl:g..:llbk .m ... mp :r nos.o; dw Danube in3Xh (Zos. IV.xxxv.l.
with the ~h:.tthl~~ In XX)(Vl!i-ix; Cl<tud~n. iJr rv C.m.s. H(>IIOY. n23-3(>): set Claudlall, bl
Eum>p. ll.ISj-5. Th:-:~t' nun Wt~n: ::1:u-audmg i:t rr.ntr;;.J Asia Minor under Tnbigild in rh,
spring ofYi<J: :o;c~ S~t>m. HllE l~.n ~i~! !t :7: St(t... GUA.WV.i.306-ll. It must have been
this alarruir;.~ Hvc.it ~r1 ~ar::n1h: :h.r.t ;~r ... -.ukn! fh{' p;;..~sionare outburst against whoksak
usc of non-Hmna.n :-r::->t.:pS i11 chap~l'P : .._!5 of tit\ speech Ou ki,xship ddiv~orn.l bv
Synt"siu!> of Cyrt.'nc ''~ ;he Wt\""!'!l Emp<:-or Ar:;;,J1us at Const.mtinopk- in 3<)9 (Mf'G
LXVI.W5J ff., ;>.t !0~-17; th<.'rt' l5 :m English u.inslatiOll by i\ugustim FitzGtrald. Tht"
Essays ami 11j'n~.l5 ~~ S)?T'flfH !/ CyP'I'I!!' [li.IJI!] J i0':-1 ff. at 13VJ). Callinf!; rhrGoth~ ~KUHar
(with Hcro<~OtllS Hl !lllrt.i), Sy!t<''i"" olll;i,-k\ n41 ,,n!~ then S<'ttkmcnt {l!l Roman soil by
Thlodo!'>ul;. (:lid. Hlli7AB = IJ~) b1~t .;b;o t!~t grt1<~ral d,ptndencl' of the empirr on
non-RomJll >oUitTy. fi;n ..L5 Gibbon 5-<~~'S. 'till' comt of An:adius indulgtd the z~oal.
.tpphudtd the dm,u.:f.l(C, ~:,i neglt.-to:..ltl:w .t.:h'l\1.' of Syncsius' (Df'RE 111.247).
22. CfiJ XIII ~-::.i:J. I~U('d :'~: ~he. W1!.~~n1 Empnor Houonus in 3~. speaks of the
nccc-ssity 10 giv, un,,( l.;,ti<.tt 10 ~)('r~l~lri .:o! lllli!Y n:.~tions cntcrmg the Roman empire.
(For th(' ll';i :ta<i ::!ti: 1.-.!:,:s. Sr'(' 1.V. ii1 :,Jww .utd m nn.29 and 33 bdow. Lafli arc also
rcf~rred :o incidC'l~t;lUy m CTir VU.~;.L!.p., oi',.il.r, ;u:d cf. VH.xviii.JO, ofrhc sam<' year.)
I woull! t!<! mi<r fwm Chu,h.tn. Sr:l I 2:!2-J (A.D 4110). withGiinthcr (UlGG.~12). a
recent sdtkm ..,lt i>ITr:.mk .. ;m.! '-y~.un!'\"1 in (iaul C1audian's words are roo vague; and
S<'<' Cam.roll. C'l.mdra11 'll-1. J.J#>-7. u Cl.m,Uau~ t~ndtncy to usc well-known naml'S
indiscrimin;ud~ ~l'lnc.."tim-:s '''/l~U a-sln:.:ttnt~ \.'Xti:Kt on~:s from Tacitu~ (cf. D' IV cons.
Ho11ur. +tt.-5;'.).
A consmmion of Hononu:., of -4-llY. CTit Vll.:>i\' 1. addressed roth.: vicar of Africa.
mentions :!rt:~o; ofbnl )!l~d i . ~ rh, '"':''1''' !o ..:mii's for thl' dcft"ncc ofth, frontitr (cf.
XI.xxx.i.~. c:.f4.1S. ~-' th,- J'f"'"!J:<<tl ,,f Afr:.-.. m~,l~loning tht prac{ecti ofth~.'letlti/c$). I
know ol 1,,,
,,:~ .as 1.1 wh,~l h,s, IJn.l !tr;trl" were ongmally madt, but the thrrd
century is. qtnh' p."Ssibh: ;;,,Jon..,.. /_R/J II h5l-1, , ...ith 111.201 nn. W3-4. Th<r,rm,l.'t'llli/es
in thcs. r.xrs ~~tnb ~ h~ the <qmv<:~l~'!II oii~Inffln. ;,,. m CTh Ill. xiv .I. of c. 370 (contrast
XVI. v .4t. wh..:r~ .1/mflir'f :~rc the;~: romn:JC>uly c~!k~.l pa,~ani. pagans). For tht' specialised
use of Gmtli.,; tor ,; .-r;ado; rq!iuwul ,.f tb. llll~cr::allodyguard and fidd army. from at
lt'ast the tU:t fCil'-l.lliUlain"! Dindda;m. ~<!(-Junes, LR1.54, 12fl; ll.613-14, with
111.18~ ll:l.l ~- !J.
In 409 Al.1ri,. dw du,f ,,f t!l\' Visig.rths. r::d(k 1 WJ sucnssiw demands of Honorius.
Th firsr was. thur
pr,wiun~ ,_,fV:nctt.a. a;. wdl as Nonl"Utn (also lhln divtded mto
two proVIUC~'I'i) and D.d;tall;l, h.: int:~k.i ''''<'t ru hu:a (Zos. V. :'\lvtii.J-4). When tlus and
othl'r d,m.md,; w:r, :1'!\1:-ni. Al.<ri, ma.i, ,; !l'lll" !lloderall" one. tor hoth provinCls nf
NoricutJl. a ~~(":.! p.trt vf wl:u:h tlw \fi-,ig.-!1:.. ~cm already to have ocrupitd; but this
dcmand :'1.:. w::i r>:jl.:t~d {ZI.'!l. V U: li.IJ. Jr. rh; ti,l\;.)wing yl"ar. 410. Rom was sark~od
hy A!Jnc. b1.u :h<' {;;)~h:;; ma\'l'<~ 3\\'0!'{ ii0m N::-n::ta:t:.
23. U1:.kr Th;~o.k>~l\\oll. i>rCTll V.\'1.3, Lrf l2 A;Jril409 (addressld 10. and no doubt
originar.d hy, th\ Pr'.w:or~;sn ithn /1nth:-nm~.l. the captund Scyral (Sciri) are to b,
distribur,.-Li : i:&mk\\':1~f' ri41'r nluualll.l, tied P thr:ir fidds, wah a twenty-ytar~.xcmption
from C(:tirnpr:::.. Tiwy are to ~"!' .,ttl\d in r.:.,,marim provinces', nor Thran or
,.,.,J,.
' .h
516
Illyricum. Sozomen himself saw many Sciri farming in different places in Bithynia. near
the Mysian Mount Olympus. south ofPrusa; he also says that some of the Sciri had been
sold off cheaply (and even given away) as slaves (HE IX.v.5-7).
24. Under the Emperor Honorius more than one settlement of barbarians rook place
in the years between 411 and 419:
(a) Between 411 and 418 there were several movements of Alans. Asdiug and Siling
Vandals. Burgundians, Suevi and Visigorhs into various parts of Spain (Gallaecia.
Lusitania, Baetica): Hydatius 49, 60, 63, 67. 68, in Chron. min. 11.18- 19; Prosper Tiro,
Epit. chron. 1250, in Chron. min. 1.467; Oros. VILxliii.l.
(b) Visigoths under Wallia, returning from Spain to Gaul, were settled, mainly m
Aquitaine, in 41S-19: Hydat. 69, in Chron. min. II. 19: Prosper Tiro, Epit. chrcm. 1271, in
Chron. mit~. I.469; Philostorg., HE XIL4; Isid .. Hist. Gotl1. 22, in Chron. min. ll.276.
25. During the reign ofValentinian III thcre were large settlements in Gaul of Alans in
440and442 (Chron. Gall., ann. 452, 124, 127, inChron. min.l.660) andofBurgundians
in 443 (ibid., 128).
26. In the reign of the Eastern Emperor Marcian (450-7), after the death of Attila in 453
and the disintegration of his empire, many Germanic, Hunnic and other peoples were
given lands for settlement in devastated areas ncar the Danube from eastern Austria to
Bulgaria, and in Gaul. Among other peoples, we hear ofOstrogoths, Sarmatians, Huns,
Scyri, Alans and Rugians. and Burgundians. Our information comes mainly from
Jordanes. Get. 50/263-6, 52/268; cf. Chron. Mir~. II.232. s.a. 456; 1.305. s.a. 457.
'Zl. In 473-4 the Emperor Leo I settled in Macedonia a large group ofOstrogoths under
Theodemir (the father of the great Theodoric): Jordanes speaks of sewn cities being
handed over to them, nearly all of which they had occupied already (Ger. 56/2854!). The
Ostrogothic occupation of the area. howewr, seems to have bccn brief.
28. In 483 the Emperor Zeno settled some of the Ostrogothic followers ofThl'Odoric
in Dacia Ripensis and Lower Moesia (mainly northern Bulgaria): see Marcellinus Comes,
s.a. 483, in Chron. min. 11.92.
1!J. (:1) In 506, while Anastasius I was reigning in the East and Thl'Odoric the Ostrogoth
was ruling Italy (with the principal title of rfx). Theodoric took under his protection a
large body of Alamanni who had been defeated and driven south by Clovis the Frank, and
settled them in Raeria, in an area which might perhaps still be considered part of the
Roman empire (Ennodius. Paneg. 72-3, in MCH, Auct. Antiq. VII (1885] 212, ed. F.
Vogel; Cassiod., Var. 11.41; Agath.l.6.3-4; and see Stein, HBE 11.147 and n.l).
(b) In 512, still under Anastasius I, there was a settlement ofHeruls in Roman territory
(presumably in northern Yugoslavia): see Procop., Bell. VI = Goth. II.xiv.28-32;
Marcellinus Comes, s.a. 512 (11). in Chron. min. II.98 ('in tcrras atque civitates
Romanorum'). Cf. perhaps Cassiod., Var. IV.2 (perhaps of A.D. 511); and see Bury,
HLRE 1 II .300 ('No people quite so barbarous had ever yet been settled on Roman soil');
Stein, HBEII.l51, 305.
30. Several settlements were made by the Emperor Justinian I (527-565):
(a) Early in 528, on the conversion to Christianity of the Herul king and his chiefs,
Justinian gave the Heruls better lands in eastern Pannonia, in the neighbourhood of
Singidunum (Belgrade): Procop., Bell. VI= Goth. ll.xiv .33 ff.; VII= Goth. III. xxxiii.13
(cf. xxxiv.37), and other sources given by Bury, HLRP 11 .300 and n.2, and Stein, HBE
II.305 (cf. 151. 156).
(b) In 534 Justinian settled 'in the Eastern cities' a number of Vandals who had
surrendered to Belisarius after his capture of Carthage in the previous year and had been
formed into five cavalry squadrons, the Varulali lustiniani. to serve on the Persian frontier:
see Procop . Bell. IV= Vand. II.xiv.17- 19. (There must have been at least 2,000 of these
Vandals; 400 deserted and sailed back to A frtca.)
(c) It must have bem during the 540s (probably 546) that Justinian settled Lombards
(under their king, Audoin) in western Pannoma and Noricum, giving them territory which
included the town ofNoreia (Nrumarkt): Procop., Bfll. VII = Goth. III.xxxiii.10-l1.
Appendix III
517
(d) Justinian settled in Thrace, apparently in 551, some 2,000 Kotrigurs (a H11nnic
people), with their families: see Procop .. Bell. VIII=-: Goth. IV.xix.6-7.
Conquests made by the: Frankish King Thcudcbert (533/4-547) of portions of Roman
territory in liguria. Venetia, the Cottian Alps, Ractia and Noricum (sec Stein. HBE
11.526-7) were apparently nl'Wr recognis<:d by Justinian: see Procop., Bell. VIII= Goth.
IV .x.xiv.ll,IS, 27~9 etc, against VII= Hl.xx.xiv .37.
There is a very interesting passage, Bell. VII =-: C.>th. III. xxxiv .36, in which Procopius
makes some Gepid ambassadors tell Justinian in 549 thar his empirt has such a supc.:rf!uit)'
of cities and tlrritory that he is actually looking for opportunities to give away parts of it
for habitation!
31. In 578. after Maunn (who btcame emperor four years later) had conduettd aver)'
successful campaign against the Persians in their t\rmtnian province of Arsanrne ( ~>n the
upper Tigris), thl' Emperor Tiberius Constantine (578-582) settled large numbers of the
population of that area in Cyprus: sec John of Ephesus, HE V1.15, cf. 27 fin., 34; Evagr.,
HEV.19, p-215.16-26ed. Bidcz/Parmenticr; Thcophylact Simocatta Hl.xv.15. cd. C de
Boor, 1887. A lat~r scttlcmtnt of Armenians in Thrace, said to ha vc hem planned by the
Emperor Maurice in 602. ntver rook place: see S<.beos XX. pp.54-5 in the frmch
translation by Frederic Mader. Pans, 1904.
32. It apptars from Greg. Magn .. Ep. 1.7J. of59l. thatthtre had been a rcccntscrtlement
of barbarian 'daticii' (surdy dediril'ii) on the estates of the Roman Church in Africa.
33. It must have been in the 590s that the Emperor Maurin settled some Bulgars in
Upper and Lower Mocsia and Dacia (in the area ofBclgradt:in Yugoslavia and northern
Bulgaria), devastated by the Avars in the reign of Anastasius: set' Michael the Synan,
Chron. X.21. in the French translation from thl' twelfth-century Syriac by J. B. Chabot,
Vol.U (Paris, 1901-4) 363-4. (lam grateful to Michad Whitby, who has been srudying
Theophylact, for drawing my attention to this material and some of that in 30 above.}
Later transfers of population (although mainly those of peoples already inhabitin~ one
region of the Byzantine emptre to another such region) arc listed by Peter Charanis, 'The
TransferofPopulation as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire', in CSSHJ (1%0-61) 140-54.
He also me-ntions some (by no means all) of the: settlements I have listed abovr.
* * * * * *
Relev.mt h<'rt' .arc .1 nu:nht.:r t!f ;.utrit.:-s in :he N;!lllf~' D(~?nitatum (Parr. Oaid. ), including
the following. whidt [ ~i\t' .lCt'onlit.~ ~" d,,. ~Jui.::on by Otto Sccck (Berlin, 1876): Occ.
XLII.3J-4<1 {\~.m,ns prao:fi'lli /Mtonmrj; 4f....(L\ :111<1 66-70 (various praiff1i Sarmart~rum
gmrilium!; ft5 (a l'"'~trtui S;lmw.mun ct "l'o~tli:l.''""~ tentilium). All these are f()und 10 the
prefectur~.,,f dtt.' Gauls (n tht. Jlh;'JU.:~ ,lfLugduneusis Senonia. Lugduncnsis II and III,
Belgica I .and 11. Cr~.nn;mu II.md Attthani:t i!. ,x.-~pt nos.46--63. which are in Italy. Sc<.'
also ch.xiii ut' tht v.-r.m l.i>t (ed. s~..~ck in tl"' same:- volume, at pp.251-2). [know of no
corresponding t'UiriL'S in that p.ut ,,fdt~ \h>lili;t dealing with the partes Orientis, although a
few names of umts there arc tho'!\' Al.~.man~i. Franks, Sarmatians. Taifali, Vandili etc.
Many of tht. loarbarian peoples st.ttlcd in (i:ml haw left their mark in various geographic.ll n.mws (m,tinly of villages) m t:)u,fern rr;m.:e: Hurgundians, Sarmatians, Alans,
Taifali. I;r,mks.. Al.ln.mni. pcrhoi.J'S Gc1ths. (sc."n".~!- .A,. Grenier. in Frank. ESAR HI .598-9;
also his M.murl d',zrriJi,,i ..~1111-ro'ti:.JiJ.- l[P.tri, 1').;!] 398-402; and R. Katser. Vnters1-1ch.
zur Geult. J,.., Cir,it.J. mrJ Di~i:r'.ic ,;;,,i;;(lrJ.' m r.r.i;fher und mtrowingischer Zeit (Bonn,
1973], a~ dtc:J by Giintht>r. ULGG -~15 ~nd r.n.29-.\0}. The same is also true of modem
Italy: Sann.ltians. Alatn.umi. Suc>\'1. Tti:'Jli ("'-r t' g Stein. HBEII.42n.2). I have not been
able to in,o:,;f!~at~ ~h\' j!TOwin;t h,Jy l)t .m:h.I'"'Iugt~~;d evidence (in part concerning what
is somerimt'!o ,-all{'d th~l.Jtt' )(,mtJil Rt1iwn!!f!ibr.-rlultur' in northem and norrh-easrern
Gaul), ti1r wh1th "-'(' th c:omonit"lll stmllit.4ry h} G\iuther, ULGG, and the many recent
works thtr( cit<tl.
,,f
518
I should perhaps mention here that I agree with A. H. M. Jont's in rejecting rhe
commonly held theory that in the Later Empire the limitanei, or some limitauei, were 'a
kind of hereditary peasant militia', who occupied heritable lands and pt'rformcd military
duties as a sideline: see Jones, LRE 11.649-54, with 111.200-2 nn. 97-109. The limitanei make
their first appearance in the 360s, in CTh Xll.i.56 (of 3fl3 or 362) and festus. Brcv. 25
(perhotps 369-70; but cf. B. Baldwin, 'festus the historian'. in Historia 27 [ 1978] 197-217).
Only in the fifth century do we find limitanei as such with lands to cultivate: CJ XI.Ix .J.pr.
= Nov. Thtod. XXIV.4, of 443; cf. CTh VII. w.2, of 423, r~ferring to castdlorum loca or
re"itoria, to be occupied only by the rastdlanus miles; and see Jones, LRF.ll.fl53-4.
* * * * * *
Some further bibliography on some of tht' subjl'Cts dealt with in this Appendix will bl
found in IV .iii 17-19 above and irs notes below, esp. 28-9; and see 34a on hospitium!
hospitalitas.
Appendix IV
The destruction of Greek democracy in the Roman period
This Appendix is inr.rukd to be T\:1d .~:.a ~upplo:omc:nt to Chaptc:r V Section iii above.
The evidence for tl1is :mbjtcr is so snttt>n.l anJ ir.>.gmtnt.try and difficult to interpret
that in the text abmc: tV .iiij I hae .:iwu \uly a b;.n~ odin~ of what happened to
democracy in the Gr, tk Wrld as .:1 whl~ m dtt: Hdknista .mJ R"man periods. Tht>rc is a
good deal of cvidem wlu.:-h.sr<'lll:' r~ot rn h:wt }..,~ I''''Prly f('ikctLd together yet, and I
carmot pretend to ha\'t' ~;unin.:-..lm.r th:m a po~rt fit mysl'lt: although I think I have
looked at enough to lw sari!Otitd tho~l th ptt'htr, I r.iw ~low is correct in its broad
outlines. I shall present herl' a scn<"S ,,t" "''t ,~r~ well ourwc:r.-.lubservations, with some
of the most important rdi:rm.~~~ to tht sour.~ .md ' lirrh- rJh..Jdt>m bibliography. in tht>
hope that others will-.oon und(rtak the task oli rn.mbalhng -til the availablt' evidence and
drawing general condusi(nt!' fttm it. wnh :.s mudt d,uil.ua.t dS much chronological and
topographical precision ali the t.'ViJm~~ :tlluw", 'lilt' llt.l!oS ut cr1graphic material which
has been accumularin~ dwin~ tl,,. p.&S.I fi~w ,j~,-.ui~ n.:;.:is w ioe combined wuh the
previously published <'J'i!lr.tpbk tl'lr.l!> a1hl rh,llttrar~ ,,idl'IK<'. into a significant whole,
with variations and t:XI"<'?tions nouc~d. Th, \<lmn,s of .Sl:'l; Cl.7 up ro 1980} and of AE;
the critical summary hy J. and I.. Roht'rt ,,j rh, y;r's epigraplm publications which has
appeared regularly al> a 'lluJI,-tiu fptgurhiqt:t' m REG; the- many epigraphic papers by
various scholars, csp<'t'i:tlh' by 1.. Rdxrt in ll.l!~ir,t 03 ,.,,ftsmes up to 1%5) and
dsewhf're: and a nmlll'kr lf nn.\' pubbt:iltions of ia,..uiJlim" (lnduding a few relevant
ones in Larin)- all thl-si: pro\iJ.... mudtm.at,rial ti.r .1 ll<'W s,nthL'SJS. Of existing works. I
have found most usdi.tljoncs. c;C.V 0'141.1) and CEDI''! il'l71). which can be supplemented, for Asia Minor, by Magw RR A.M ( llJ51J. g1gJI1llC coJI,-.'tion ofsource material
and bibliography, selJ&ITil t::ltlul-ttlJl~ mu,h }u.<;tnn;,Jm~it!htl. 1 three admirable articles in
REG 1895-1901 by J.,idort l.,;,.y (EVMAM 1-111). Vs.wr Char't"s LA provi"ce romaine
proconsulaire d'Asie (IIJIJ4). l"llr. its pp.1~17'1, .llld thtr wmks: but even Jones does not
give a complete conspectus in one place. au.ll ha\'<' nut b.::.~u abl"' tv discover any gcnl'ral
work dealing comprehensively with th~ subJC~'t a~ a w!tolt. I h.a.w of course made use of
the fundamental worl. l)f H~inn,h Swlh1da, (;F
l)i( g,l,.-kischrn Volksbeschliisse.
Epigraphische Untersu:hutli'fl {Lrtpsi!?, I~No} .anJ uf thtr st.md.ud works. such as W.
Liebenam, StiidtevetWo~ltrms im
KrriJrT?o?i;:llt (l.ip:n~. iOOII). I am also most
grateful to A. R. R. Shl"prarJ thr :tUowm~ Jll(' ttl nJii h1~ l )xford B.Litt. thesis,
Characttristics of Politi~o:ll.!ir-,., t#r, ( ;,,.t'k C::i<; ;;;;, 7(1. Uii A 1). { 1'1?5).
I warmly agree with lwrbara I.,,kll that th<r j,; om t:r~..nt ~tt for at least a catalogue
,(l,,;.;h,.,,
Appendix IV
519
or concordance of the mscriptions of Asia Minor: sn h<-r short paper. 'Grclk and Larin
epigraphy in Anatolia: progress and problc:ms' in Acta of tht' Fifth International Co11gress of
Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967 (Oxford, 1971) 371-{>. The four volumts of
Indexes (down to t973) to the Roberts' invaluable 'Bulletins epigraphi4ucs' (in REG,
from 19JR onwards), prepared by L'Instirut Fernand Courby and pubhshtd in Paris
between 1972 and 1979, haw madl it much easier ro d1srover matenal published by the
Roberts between !938 and 1973; but they represent only a first step. I must mmtion also
the analytical index by louis Robert to the five volumes ofM. Hollcaux's Etudes d'ep~~r. ct
d'hist ..f!recques (cd. l. Robert), in Vol. VI oft he Etudes( I%!-~).
* * * * *
In Rom!:, ~dar~on~ wi~illther Jt.llC! .-:\'1:'11 in Italy i~clfthcn .1n many mdir-;tdon.~ tba~
she w01;l,i n;Jturail) f:!..our tbe l'*>wcrful und :nc- ;m1p~ni~d (pmvidcd of cour:s~ they
were not auti-Hom:m. Jn patriotic: or ,,th.:r gm~:r!ds). :md hdp to supprcs.s rc\oiutmn5~ I
will giv:: dn dc;~.n:;: ,x:.mrl,s. b the revolt ofth~ i :ltlm ~mi Carnp;~.UJ:ms m J.ll-~1 B.C~.
the Cam~~:mi.t~l rquites. to tlw numb1r of l.!ij.(), kqll aloof fium t..ht: Tl'!>l, ami wc-r, duly
rcwardtd by H<11n~. ~,hen rht> T.:'.'uh W!l!> suppr~t:l. \vith ~::.mm du~,:uhp .1n p:ud tit.'m by tbci: m::mrymc-u (LJ\'Y VIH.:<i.IS-)6; cf. ~:!\~ ifJ)~ Similarly,
after C:tpt:;~ in 216 h.ui gone ov!"; to H.mnibaL 3Ut Camp;=ni.lll ~:jUite.c wh~, b.1d b<.>t:!!
serving Ill Sidy c~ml' w llonn: an.:l.v~rl." gl'o't'Jl ~h.: Clfl7<"11S!up (X X m X..':XL 10-11 ): .:nd ill
213 arrot!Kr 112 rt~s rwTnf fro111 \ :,.pu;HiaertrJ m th<' U(wnm :md .\ere:- dt:l~ nccl\'cd
by thtrt, (:'<XIV.xhu.12-U). ft.., tho: Cawplr.i:m r;:lilt>. "'"!." Tphn:. Ht 131.:.~-..
401-3. At Arrc-tium i;1 J02 U.C. [\mi<" i:*'r\'("ll,,i HI t:J\.:.cr ofrh:'.l''u Cllfli,;, rhc- nd:.~:
local fanuly, who wet, in oi!:lpte:- ;..fb,i:o~ ..!ri "t'r! our. ane!r pid1i
(Livy X.tii.:!: v. 13; Jlt.:i .;~.: H:m;:;, REU (,J-5. I 15) In ~")f~ Ji, ~ r~'"Cm:d~ rh..- wp;Jn:"IOJ'
among Ill( I.!:Ca!ll:ms (wh; h~i tlrt-~c:.:t lilt.: ;\ tn~at ~ w11h Rc.rm: <n 2'99-S: X .x1-:ii) o..f
'seditioue.s ;l pJthrii> ''t ,-g:l1t1bt:s d\ldh!" 1r:as.'. hy Q. f~bim !\b.\!:IIU!i, tu rhr gH'ol!
delight
thr I.~r.mian optimate {~\i:1.ti). :\1 v.-.L~m!i ,-, :U:.S-! Jl;;m, hdp(~t t: ~ .. ppr.\~
an insurnctt<>not!hcsC"rfs again-. ti1t"ir Etrusc.tll m.lllt.~:-s.: 1-hy. P.r. lll, fl,:oru~ ;. I'- ~i P,
Jal (=;).21): ZtuJr. VHI.7; 0.-''" 1\i...~~~'i: IJ. ,.,,. ii!u;i. 3>:.Ji.,h:t d. Aw ...d, f,. 51 (111
FHG IV .557). tlc:. :~ud Sc."t' H:nrl5. REU 115-1:<, ct i'l,;-4, J!-;!. Aunrh~r sndJ n;;;urwcrinn
in Etruna u: l'lt, G1Jl< l hy I. a\'Y ;a r.;umr ;H S('P: 'H~:t: ;.>ud ,. \J.it'rlt Iy "'ric11.~ ( ~\cc. r.lm~
to Livy II made- "Ecrun;un mfL-st:am j)Wpc"). w.-.as mthh:-s~!y p;;: duwu by .t Homan army
under f\.1'. Aciluh Gb.hn<~. wh< nur~td 1m! o.:n.,iftc:J ~n!1.f ;,i th;- r.hds ;ih,i H'unw<l
others to rbc1r 1./.,mitJi (La~y XXXIII.xxx,;;~ !-j). E!r<SGi!l >Ocitt~ w.~~ ,l~ctly ,h,;.lc,l
betweeu., mimi,! dass. d.s.-rih.-.J by .-xpr<"Ssi~!' ~,tdt as piil'"~"''i:i/,<;,, ,fiti,:m,i. J"m=
6vvaTfinrH"' ~ti;~<.a. ;m;l ., $Hbj,~et dass. ut d,lSS...>s. de:5cribc~ a~ .~i. '""' ; :rn'in". Tlw
precise r;mch~h)l; .-fthLllllh:t t:s: \ll!<:\:rt.ltn,lm: w.tS proh:~hly a fcum <>fs,riilo.JJ i,;c,llln
above a111llf-s" 4 lrkw; .md ,f. H.crri:;, HEU H2 in t.br ris;!-.t .,( !CJf, 'rh, n:h.-J,. Wt'h"
dearly lll=ub,;rs. <f tln: l.1cal scrt ~b:o~t.'). l1tt'n h;;s ht't'll mm:h .t:~fUt{: .lb,}uf l{o.>mt\
attitud,; row;ar.t~ 1hc- E, rtasotb. hm I h:, . , nu Jouhr th:;: itr.rri~ i.; righr: :xnpt wh,n
Etruscau pritl<iJt..~ s.lwwed dtsloyah~ to ({''''I'". :1~ orras!"ua.lly du!'TH~ the H.aumbahc war
(218-20.Jj, th<" T<om.ll!s 5npp::-rtd lbem abainst ~!w.i.r "ll!)j<Cl~ .. 'tl<rc- w:t" Ill> .lltemativc
... whtdt wnuld 1Wt rm'tllv, n.ial.l! social changl:' (llJ:(.J l.~J ..J.I ..a~ p. i-t~).
Ther( <lJt' oth.t l'X;mtplt.'S "f tiw ;>;m:t H.n;;u p)h,y dmmg ~hl" H:anr.it>;&lir w .ar. Tlw
defecti'm nf Cmt.m ro I Lum!b.t! 111 2 b is tksnil.ll.c i11 most t''-Plkit 11.-ru:~ by J..n~ 11:
XXIV.ii-iii. aitC'r two bri~( JnticipJ.lur; r<l.~ll:t!,':c~ XXIUx:.l.:? :1i1J XXJII.:;;:,x.~>-7. H.-
,,f
explains that
~fu
ltah.m dll~:i w,n a~ ifinf~:~d wuh .! sm~k d;s,:~-."" plh,.s :md 'P'im;lh'.f
were on r~llll)ll\' iks. Wlth th.: ;m,w in\tunt>~ Hz:w m cad! i:;~Sc.' and rb, p/i-io;
Carthat:< {XXIV .n.~). Undl'l tlw k;,J..-1"'-Int' {,f .-\tisr<>tn:idm,;. th, !''~~~:.-;:; pku!> ut
Croton. tht ,;ty w~ surr.-mlt-r.-d w :h<' H~litci;!u>. .1lh,,. ~iC:,rrh.t~~ i-l!'d rfJ-r~;.!:nt-::t in
XXIV.i.l .t~oo h;u,d. by tbt Grtk ,:ita..:.:!). whtk lh' ~;ir:.~w r.rir;d ~~r<:. rh:- ~:udd. "''htrh
they had i~rtitil.! i11 J.dnca.:t (li. !(lo.Jl}. Th, sina;;tio.-n: was much dlt~ i,a;:h m N-.:,. 111
520
21~214. Here again the- loc.:al srnators, C!ipccially their primom, were faithfu1 to Rome,
while the plebs were 'whoDr tC>r Harmihal" .md, 'ol., usual, wanted revolution', with some
advising defection to Hannibai \XXIJI.x:l\'.7; cf. Plut.. ,"fare. 10.2 fT.). The senators, by
cleverly dissimulating, managed to Liday J ~\olt (lhy XXIII.xiv.S-9). A little later the
principes were again alarmed at preparations by tlw plebs for betraying the city (xv.7;
xvi.2,5-6). In 215 th~ ple#J$ wen: inclining tow:~.r&.. R.nne (xhi.3} but by 214 Livy can
describe them as 'for alon~~; timt diYft'C..1t.'l..i t<)Wo1r.:i'> Romt an..! hostile to their own Senate'
(XXIV.xiii.8). The SJntati~n .u l.O<ri in 21...:2:5 i!!i ,;alinlcmore-.-omplicatcd. As in the case
of Croton, the revolt, dt.~bc..-d more fully in XXIV.i.2~1J. i~ a:nicipatcd in two earlier
passages: XXII.lxi. 12 anJ XXIII xn !). thc.> latrcr asscnu1g hridiy :hat the multitude were
betrayed by their printipa. .t.sr.ttt'rn~'l:! nu! h<>r.w nat by tht rmm. ,!l'::ailed later narrative: see
especially XXIV .i.S-7. wh1~1'C' th~ pri,lclpe> I..m"l~illm arc.> !Wd to hAw com:okrd ln
Assembly because thty themse!vt."S were:- ,,v;.rr.om.: by fi.;u'. :.md tbt.T<: i~ .:nph.a!iis m th(
fact that 'levissimus quisque n.v;~. r,;mwartJolkt '"rirroJre'ftl malln1t'; tht dt"c:i!itou tc go ll\'l'r 11:.
Hannibal is represented as hc:t~ virtually unJ.r.im<l\1~ In 20.:; Wl d!s(LWt'r ftlr tht tir!i.t timt
that there were LocriJu principes with the Rtm.an!> .u Rhc:gium: they hold bC\.u 'driv1..11 ou~
by the opposite faction' which h.:t~l ~urrcndert"J tt,fri to Hannibal (XXIX. \1.5), \X.'llcll
Rome had regained Clntroltf th~ (1ty the Locri.an o~mb.as~arJors natur..Uy tric:-d tu prtttr:J
that the defection to Hannibal w;t!> 'rro~..-ul a puhliw wn~ilii) J.nd th1r rc.-mrn to tht'
Roman fold due in no ~mo~ll m.t!lnn ro duir twn r~ntm;ll tfi,rt~ (x.-ii.12).
According to E. H.1.dian. 'It i~ dltlkult hi mo&kt 1ut wbcth<-T lhy~ aaouuc of class
divisions in Italy durin~ the [Hanniba}i,] wart with tht upper da!l:ses fo~vourintz Romt J.nd
the lower classes Hannibo&l) truthfully rrpn"St'IJts .l ~tate of afliurs due to political .atfinity
and coUaboration or i.~ ;, Sl"Cond-..lnn.ry m}th. iriVI..'Dtt:J tn uphlld oligarchy in Italy': au,i
he adds, 'the latter !'4."\m~ morc.- likd{ (Fm'i~u Cli.,trl.Jr 147~~. Giving exampl<."i lTI
which he thinks 'Lin ,,r,:esJ,,nalh C<llltToldicts his own mam tltt'!ii~. D.tdian dtl'S, for
Locri, only XXIII.xx~.8, ignoring th" much more detailed na.rr;,.uve at tht bt:~innmg ,,f
Book XXIV, summarised above. I '.Jmtot. therefore:. accept l.ocri as .m ,...-amJlt in
favour of Badian 's condw~ion: Jnd he- ''"'"tts !<J me tv gu wdl hc-ynnd thL' <'\;dlncc whl'll
he claims that at Atpi (XXIV.xlv1i.fl) ;~uJ at'P;&fe'fltly at T.\r.:ntum (xili.Ji thl Pt'<1pk
favoured Rome'. As for Arpi. allth.u bvy says in XXIV. :dvii.f is th.\t .luring,. 'liUCl."~stid
Roman assault on thCJr town ct'rtJ1JJ individual Arpnn 1ompl.tmt-J th.u thl"y had hn'tl
kept in a state ofsubjl.-.:liJJ dlld orpr.:ssiun h~ .1 f,w a.uli h:mJcll OVl'f f<) Huuubai 1>~ thl:r
principes. What else wuuld \lnc e-xpect tht..m w s..y. iu tht.-it' tk!>ir~ to cx<'Uip.ltc thlm~ckL-s
to thc.- victorious Rornan~? And as fin Ta.r<'DtUr.l. XXi\".)uii.3 is a llll'fl rc:pt.rt
statement allegedly made w H:mmh:1l by tiw ycun~ T.umrl11,. unhl.-s, that dw p[,-ft, ,,f
Tarentum, who ruled th1 city, were 'in put.,'it:u.tumontm'. ;I large p.1.r1 olt whom(~ 2)
favoured Hannibal. In rhc subsequent u:.rr.atiw ,,f rh, .-.~rum~ of th. ..-il\ h~ 1-l.mmh.~l
(XXV. viii-x) and its rc.-c'J.phtn' by Q. f-abius M.a:ooimu.' (X X VII.,. vxvi; ;.-t. Plu1., l;;~l
21-2) I see no sign oi .my pro-U<m.m t~dmg
rhc r'n f the ccumi<JU pc.urll'. At
Syracuse, certainly, thc nmnwu J'l.'\lpk
t"nrwhdmingly hus~iltlel Rc>Ull'. whi!l
certain nobilissimi viri (lt"'Y XXV.,.xiii.4j were pn-H,,man anc.l dt"l~i11.'d m .!14 h
Marcellus: sec Livy XXIV.xlU w XXV.xx.'li, in particular XXIV .xxiii Jt)..JJ: x"';' 1.\.
7-9; xxviii (esp. 9); x.\xti.!. 1: XX\'.x,.;ii.4. with xxxi.3,6.X. w,~ h.. ,.,.Jl~<;~ int<rnutim
about other Sicilian dtJ..'li m \\'hlc'h ht>snliry t<) lhlnll' \\';\S str.:ong. and rro--R.mtJn iolc'ltcms.
may have been lackin~ in \t.>llh.!' of them: but Plutanh tdls olD cnttnammJ! story (from
Poseidonius) about NinJ..... thcll,tdin!llltlzcn ,,f Engyum wh., W.l~ J.L...., th, m.1in old\uc;m
of the Roman cause thtn' 01nJ w ,b dul~ n-wardro hy Marcellus ti.Jr lm. !iotT\'i.a-,. (Mar;. J.l. 5-11}.
Badian rites no othlr c\'Jdtn.:t. in f.l\'our l>llu~ d1"""ii.. ~nc.ll kt ..lW ufncm~ Hc.> <il'I("S nar
mention the cases of Arrt'hUm .lt!d \' ,,1~1mi. wh1ch lluvc.- quote-d .1bow.md ht tuo~liti;;s
the Livian passage connrr.in~t I.u"ama with olD 'ifuuc'. Ht dew~ ;admit. hmw\'l'r. rh;arm
174 the Roman Senatl' inr,n'l'n.:-d m lll lllll'nt.il dispute Jt Jl;ttJ\"lUIJl Ill \~,.u.tta. (.>c-Jiri,,
inrestinum bellum, Livy X Ll. xx,it.J). it\,)urs, on the sidnlf the rulin~ d;as~. I cJ.mttlhl'\'
,,t .\
'"''fl
''II
Appendix IV
521
why Livy's general statement about the nature of Italian class divisions during the
Hannibalic war should be part of a 'second-century myth, invented to uphold oligarchy
in Italy', or how such a myth would serve its alleged purpose; and to say that if two or
three of the examples given are not true, 'they strongly suggest that before the war there
had been litde Roman interference on behalf of oligarchic governments' seems to me a
non sequitur.
The tendency of upper classes to incline towards Rome is a very general phenomenon.
We even hear from Appian (Lib. 68.304-5) that in the early second century B. C. there was
a pany at Carthage which tppw~Aii"o", distinguished from those who lll"'~.toKpanCo" (and
another group which favoured Masinissa). Appian (lllyr. 23) also distinguishes between
the respective attitudes of the 1rpoiJ'riovrE<; and the &iJIMJ'> of the Pannonian town of Siscia
(the Segesta) when Octavian demanded its surrender in 35 B.C. The fonner group (the
lwaro of Dio Cass. XUX.37.2) wished to comply with Octavian's demands for the
installation of a garrison and the giving of hostages; but the common people would not
receive the garrison, and they fought the Romans energetically until they were compelled
to surrender. Certainly in their relations with the Greek states the Romans always and
everywhere prejmtd to support the propertied classes, although, in their hard-headed
way, they were quite prepared to depart from this policy when practical considerations
made it necessary for them to do so (see 2 below). Dealing with the year 192,just before
the war with Antiochus Ill, Livy says it was generally agreed that the pri,lcipes, optimws
quisque, in each state were pro-Roman and were pleased with the present state of affairs.
while the multitudo t't quorum res non ex smtmtia ipsorum essmtwanted a general revolution
(XXXV.xxxiv.3: cf. xxxiii.t on the Aetohans). In 190, during the war with Antiochus.
we hear that the multitudo or plebs in Phocac:a was for Antiochus, while the smatus t'l
optimates wished to stand by Rome (Livy XXXVII.ix.l-4: cf. Polyb. XXI. vi.t~). And in
171. at the outset of the Third Macedonian War, we fmd that in most free Greek states the
plebs inclined towards Perseus, while the prindpes (and 'the best and most prudent
section') preferred Rome (Livy XLII.xxx.l-7). Attempts have recently been made. in
particular by Gruen, to belittle this evidence, but without success. 2
* * * * * *
I suspect that greater influence than has been generally realised may have been exercised
upon the political life of some: Greek cities by the bodies (,onventus) of Roman residents
established in many places throughout the Greek world: ol 'Pr.ui'1'UII or 'Pw!Lailuv ol
i1rr.&,p.IWvrE<; or (more often) 1rpayJUXT001EIIOI. or (most commonly) Kfrf'f),KoiJJITE<;. The
political influence of these resident Romans would be most in evidence when they
participated in the administration ofjustice, as we know they did in Sicily and Cyrenaica
(see 1 and 5 below) and as they doubtless did elsewhere. Since we hear more about
these resident Romans in Asia Minor than anywhere elst. I will give references for them in
3 below. The standard book on Italian businessmen operating in the Greek East is still
the admirable and comprehensive work of jlan Hatzfeld, Lts Trajiquatrt5 ltalims d~n.s
I'Orirnt He/Unique (BEFAR 115. Paris, 1919).
1. Sicily etc.
It is easy to overlook the fact that a province containing many Greek cities \'.as first
acquired by Rome during the second half of the third century B.C., before she took over
any part of Greece itself. This of course was Sicily, which, as Cicero put it, was the first
foreign country to be given the name of a provincia, an 'ornament ofempin. .'. 'She first.
Cicero goes on, 'taught our ancestors how excellent a thing it is to rule over foreign
pcopll:s' (11 Vm. ii.2).
Sicily. with its seve-ral dozen Greek cities. came under Roman control and became a
Roman province by stages, from 241 to 210 B.C. Differences of status among the Greek
cities of Sicily do nut concern us here. Most of our very scanty infom1ation about
522
constitutional details comes t:nln~r imrn instnpuc,r:s (which I have not been able to
examine thoroughly) o~ fron Cit'<'f~'s VnTitrt'S. !.">:p. II Ve,. ii.l~S. Constitutional
changes were introdhc;:J iu ~.u-ious pl.\c:,s at dtfi~rt'rlt titnt'-': ~h, most important were
those made by the Le.Y Rupiii.: (r~ularit"~ns imp<:>st-d by P. RuJlili~.:~ in 131 B.C . at the end
of the 'First Sicilian S~a\.: W.:~') ~mo.! t!lo.sc i:nmJuctd by Augustus.
The Sicilian cities, as. Jnlit:riptic-r.,. sht~w. nidc-utly n:t<~"'cd thcjr Assemblies for some
generations after the Roman .:onqut.""St: but ;:"illt."lld} d-.~jr Ctlunrils soon came lO play an
increasingly importam p.ut und~r Ht)mJU ruk wicl1 thC" ?''Wt'1~ :md functions of their
Assemblies steadily waning. By th-.:- time of V~:rr<"\<. ~"''t!1lhnship (73-71 B.C.). at any
rate, the Councils seem to have b~o-cno.t k.Lit p~rtly reurganisc:d on a model nearer to that
of the Roman Senate. Our pnnnpal r.ourre htrds Ckf'w, ll v,.,... ti.l~l (general), 122
(Halaesa). 123 (Agrigentum}. 12:; (Hend<"a). W ht:.tr 'li a prurerty qualification for
councillors (census, 120) ant! oi V~m'3. pt'r.iCn.J.IRy .;tpp"~lttirg men 'ex loco quo non
liceret' ( 121). It is a pwbkm. t-spet:i..IIy in \'tew ~>ftht U~L' of the word su.ffragium twice
over in 120, whether !C('JIK form nl t"'L-rtion of t:oum:illo~ hy ~he Assemblies may not
have survived, at least in s.ontl' t.'ltit"ll; but Cic't'ro '!'. r<'!!lll.lr use of th<' word cooptare for the
appointment of councilltrs.m ~} I~) (general, lwtt:t.'). 12:! {H.J.IJl.'U. ~"1ce), 123 (Agrigentum)
and 125 (Heradea) suttg("'ts to me that counc.illon w~rt ,ho!lcn. iu most cases anyway.
not by popular eJection tor J yt.ar at l timt., b1.11 t~lr Jd(- (thi!f> would ne the most important
change), and in one or m"n of litn'\' Wll}'5: (I) wit:.t we 3houla (all 'co-optation proper:
namely, choice by thl.' tolk-.::nw t'uuudllou themsdn-s: (2) nomination by magistrates
filling the role of the Roman it'rl..torr5; Jnd (J) autont.ttically. upon hdng elected to certain
magistracies. What we know tltRlltn.tn rractic.:t in Italy .tnd in Uithynia-Pontus (see 3A
below) makes me inclined to thmk that m C:\~us:i:~tiowil th,c:ry there existed a combination of the second and third m~thotl~ rather than dw lir!!l Cicero himself could
certainly use coopttttio of apJ'lintmc.'Tits tn<nlt by censors ("'-'t' l>e leg. III.27: sublata
cooptatione crnsoria). 3 In order ttl mo~.kc ,..,,,pt;Jrt'/(''l'f,ltl(l sm tmm: appropriate, we might
have been tempted to wonder whttht'1, it' Sicilian coumillnr; wt~;e enrolled by magistrates of censorial typc (my 'lconJ altl"md.tl\'t'), "iuch mattt~trat~'S were elected by the
councils themselves; hut ag.ainst an\ iu~h ~upp..,sintn is Ck .. II Vm. ii.131~3. 1~9
(especially comitia ist( pt.~rt,rt rrn.;crum m jjtJud:llldi /14iJrnt ~:III.I.J fuerunt, at the end of
136). I would guess th.lt in prJl'li.:t" . .1..~ dtsrmc.t trom thtmy. nlJgistrates performing
censorial functions wnuM he. hlmnd to ;1 n"ltb>tdt.rOf.hlr \'Xh'lll, 111 clttJr choice ofrecruits for
their Council, by the vic.\\'~ ufirs douuuam s.:,tbt. "Thi~ w\lulJ make the usc of the term
cooptatio for Censorial Utmuu;lllull p,,aJiarJy apJroJ>ri:th"'.
One remembers how mst:;lml tiw Athtni.an ;kul\lt:r.tey h.td m't'n on the principle of
public accountability: that ..~wry mat;Jl\tr.tu. .hmdd l't ~ub.kct~:J to euthyna at the end of
his term of office (Sl."C V .ti I) allow). Ar Syr:.&.:tll><' hy th. l.ttC' 70s, on the other hand.
ruthynai were being couJucttd by th~' c ..uncil {J pr:tttkt whtch h.acJ t"vidently been going
on for some time); and tin~ C1luld t'wn be .l,m iu "~<"<TL"CY l~c: Cu .. l/ Verr. iv.140). And
the procedure adopted hy the Syra.~us.m ( :uundl .11 the ~anw p;.nud is indicative of an
oligarchical atmosphere~ thc.ordtr in whkh ,.,,..,,.Ia~~ wa~ ddiwn~d was according to 'age
and prestige' (aetas and 1,,,.,.,,} .tml th ... .rf:to'l:ri.u of rlu k.1.. lin!! men, the principes, were
entered in the public rtc:urd!' {i,l. IJ.~-.~).
In spite- of the fact that Halacsa was in the small privileged category of civitates sine
Jordere liberae et immunes, I cannot agree with Gabba (SCSEV 312-13} that at Halal'Sa.
unlike Agrigentum and Heradea, the Assembly retained the right of electing councillors
even in Cicero's time:, for Cicero, recording rhe petition ofHalaesa to the Roman Senate
in 95 B.C. to settle its controversies 'de senatu cooptando', specifically mentions (at the
end of ii.122) that the city had asked that its choice of councillors should be made 'nc
suffragiis quidem ': probably elections had taken place down to 95 B.C. in the Assembly.
but were now. by the new regulations given to Halaesa by C. Claudius Pulcher in 95, to
be effected by the Council itself.
Appendix IV
523
At Hab(r.~. a~ any rate. there .\':iS ~J,)I =~nl: 11 property qualification (census) and a
minimum :rgt< of ttJiny t<.n bcir:~ a ~~o;.nt~illor: nwn practising a trade (a quaestus), e.g.
aucrionens (praeconrs). wn~: :~is<} dtbm.i (ii. Ill) Similar provisions had earlier been
included in the rules pr...,.,nhcd for rht Cuuuii of .-'~ngentum by Scipio ( 123, perhaps
L Comdius Scipio. pr.oc-tor in Sicily in 193 li C.:,.,~- Gabba, SCSEV 310). and probably
in those bi.i .iuwn by Hur:tiet~ fi1r llcu;.:ka Minoa ( 125).
It is in Sitily, J think. thr Wl' han rht t>",dieo~t tvidcnce for the body ~f resident Roman
citizens ((clllft!"'ICU.< ,;,,;,,., Ror.an,ncm} pwn:iing rhc.- JUdges in certain lawsuits, according
to the Le.l R11pilia; but pr~ci~el)' \.; ht~--h ruit~ wtr~ in, clved is not clear from Cic., II Verr.
ii.32 (cetrr'""" rrrum ~elo'lfi iudicr> ;it-itcttt R"m'"'""'"' ex ccnventu). Cf. ii33,34. 70 (e
conventu S)'ra.-uJalfll), iii.21i (Jr lon~.-.rru~. It i.~ Yt.'ry likdy that these judges would be chosen
only from ~he: wc.~OIIthll:r n'1>icic.nts. a" we :lmll.nc.:- at Cyrene, where we know that in the
rime of Augustu\ th\' systtm '"'JS woll'kin3 t>adly tsw 5 below).
Amon~ minur p:.nnr.s. Wt' m.1y :J,,t~ th:.t iu ;1IJ.wsu:t between an individual and his city.
according to rh~ L..r Rupilia, it '-' '"!! rhe 'scn.1.t1~ of some other city in Sicily which
appointC\l thr Judgt:.~ (II Vm. it..'\2). It 1s .;J~o worth noticing the quinque primi of
Agyrrhium. in iii.73, who had b~"('fl ~mlllllllllt~d b: Verres, with the magistrates of that
at home.
city, and with th<"rn h.t.l r..portc~ b.Kk U thl'tr
Of the subsequent nmstctutlimal l"han~l'1i i.n the S1olian towns I do not think we can be
more spc~cific than to sly th:Jt rhey ;m:~~ h.-..;, fnliowed the general pattern observable
elsewhen.
I see no reason to treat the O'Vy~tA')'TO~ which is equated with semJtus in a bilingual
inscription from Naples, and which appears beside the Assembly (ctAia or Biifi-<K') in
inscriptions, certainly at Acragas and Malta, and (later on as 1rpixT1<A~) at Naples, and
probably also at Syracuse. as anything but the Council of these cities; the 'tu~~:A~ which
appears once at Rhcgium beside both etA Ia and f3ooAa is unique (SIG 3 715 = IG XIV .612):
see G. Forni, 'Intorno aile constituzioni di citta greche in Italia c in Sicilia'. in Kw~eaA~ 3
(1957) 61-9. who gives the epigraphic evidence and bibliography. Robert K. Sherk, The
Municipal Decrees of the Roman West ( = Arethusa Monographs. no.2. Buffalo. N.Y., 1970)
1-15, is a useful sketch of'The Senate in the Italian communities'.
-.,,.,,.;rus'
2. Mainland Greece (with Macedon and some of the Ae~ean islands)

Roman inrluL'll<"' ll{'\)'' rh, pohtic.tllife ofOJ.I f~r,:,.--~.. and Greek resistance- to it, around
the time of th~ I~om.1n nmqu.-st. h.tw t<.'t.Tntl)' b..--en treated extensively in two monographs: Joh.mucs T onlmun.Jk<!>. I),-, IJrajlus> H.wu auf die Staarsjcrm dtr .~ritrhischen
StoJdtstoJiltl'tl Jt's FritlanJr~ UPid dN ln$''" IHI r'NI"'I Jllld .:ll't'llt'nJlrdf. v. Chr. (Diss .. Gi)ttingen.
1967); and _Jur~~n I kmm~t:r. 1),-, tlllich WiJ,r.TJt:.t -~egen Rom in Griechmland 217-86
v. Chr. (Bt.rlin. 1'.171). Th, ti~1 i.; i.'S!iol'llliollly J.llt'!{ll.lu~tive collection of the evidence: see
the review hy F W. W .alb.mk. in.fJ-1.') ~~~ (l'.lf'}~ 111-811. The second attempts much more
in the wa~- of interpretation, buttts underst.Jndmf! ufthe political and social situation in
Greece is gravely defective: sn the critical rcvit.ws by G. W. Bowersock, in Gnomon 45
(1973) 57Ct-X0 (~p. 57li): Jl ~- Dc:-rnw. in Plt(lt'tii.A 2h (1972) 303-11; and especially John
Briscoe, 111 CR HH ,.,. n s.!.J (I'J7-I) !~I: .mJ M't.' .al!oo Brunt, RLRCRE 173. The best
modem trt.atmem of tht. suhjt.(t i-s by Uri~.:ue. 'Rom and the class struggle in the Greek
states 2()1)... (--Jfl U.C in l'.z.<t .mJ p,,._.,.,,t .\6 (1'.167} J . .2(), reprinted in SAS (ed. Finley)
53-73. Has \"iw oilh111te's policy 111 dt~ tust hdlt'ut'the second century B.C. can best be
summarist.-d m Iris 11wn words: 'Th~ n,uural rrder<"'tC<' of the Senate and its representative$
was for the upp<'r .::b"'-s~.,. anti ti>r l~nn" 1>t ~m:,mmrnt in which the upper classes were
dominant. Orhtr :hin~s h<'Ul~ ~.luAI. tt wash' du!i 'T!d that Roman policy was directed.'
On the oth<'r h.&ntl, "itl r!,,,. turbukm P'n,xf i2tll:'-1l5.J it is only rarely that other things
were eq11.LI Rl,r.h;S. ab.Jt,r wa~ ru wln !hr wars i~~ which she was 1..--ngaged and to
maintain the control ,-,w:- Gn-c:-k :1t"i:urs whtch h... r m:~ltary successes bestowed on her. To
524
this end the Senate was f'bd t.l .tet';rt support !roan thou- .vho wrre willing to give it to
her, irrespective of thlir po~itiil: m tb.~ 111t~m:~l politics oi th<ir ~vn states' (SAS 71-2).
But 'under the Roman Em pin :ht pi~un i~ ..rry different. There w:~.s now no question of
a struggle for leadenh1p !II rh.: 1\'k.:ltt~rn:l(',ill world - ltmnc-'s mastery was unchallenged. It is not surprising rhat nndlr tht'..."C' <:onditiolll5 Ronw's natural preferences
came to the fore. and that both in Italy .m.t 11: :h.- pro:incc~ ~~Willi the richer classes who
were dominant . . . Tht> r~::<ul! Cli Homo 's da-r~ was ir~dnxi w stem the tide of
democracy and the ul:imlll" .,.l't>ry bdongc~;l :(>til<" uppn daS'!'t~ (SAS 73).
In the Hellenistic pnml, anordu;g to Alt::'ll.u:d.r F\lks . .1lrhough the- Greek upper
classes might have vtry ..ilff.. rmt attitudes hwads l~or:n. 'd!~ JM41titudo, plebs, demos,
okhlos was always and l"Vcr:ywhn- mi-nl'mm a.nd r~ro~c:d !t~ h:pes of a change in th~
social and economic sima.ri<m mall wh.-, m.mik<.t.;i <J?P!Sm n tn 1-t,>me (Antioch us III of
Asia. Perseus of Ma"dou)': set Fuk.~. 'SmiaE rt'\'"hmon in ( ;,~..:.:<" 111 the Hellenistic age.
in La parola del passat1 t ~: ( 1%~,) ~.37-t!(, Jt p.445; and d 'Th.- B,llum Achai,um and its
social aspect', inJHS '.i!.i (1'171)) i8-rl. Th~ forthright .;to~tement. which does go slightly
beyond the available ('''idt'Ill'~. b,; rl.'nndy bt''-"1! :ntackc:d h;: Gruen in relation to tht'
events of the Third MAn"tloui.tr; W:t: ll: ~71-~'S H.C. (Sf'C.' n.Z again). By carefully
isolating the events i:1 ljm~ticn. Jnd by dniug his utmo~r t~ p!J.y down inconvenient
passages such as LiV}' Xlll.xiii.'i {d. App . M.:ud. II. i: Diod. XXIX.33); xxx. t-7;
Polyb. XXIV.ix.J.-7; x. ~~~ XXVII.1x. !; x. 1.!; .md Sh<"rk. RT>GF. -'0 (=SICa 643 = FD
III.iv. 75). hnes 22-4, tm~n il:ds .abk w .teny alt\)g,~thcr fiu thts period any 'attested
connection between social condkt md .utitu.tn. tt\War,i ur hy th<' major powers' (op. cit.
in n.2, p.47). In spite ofth< dt:i..,ts iu hi~ ;;,rg:mncllts, the general ~onclusions in his last
two paragraphs arc lar~dy umb.kl'tiona!>lt'_!;r thi. particular war: 'There seems to have
been little genuine cmmmtmt.'nt tn th,: !ol~ .;of C'itiW!' n,"n tlf I'C'r>l.'US .. ThC' populace
was not eager to fight ;nul dit! m il ,;m:>~; n tlwir own. Aunu.lt-s fluctuated with the
fortunes of war ... Stt:urity dlll .un.;\'a! w.n tin dnmiuant mutives, not class consciousness' (op. cit. ~). I of o"OIITS<' W<1UIJ Joay that .mti-R<m;an}t"t'ling on the part of the
masses in general would wr ~ cfi:,Jtll<'l ho:- al>l.- tu display 1tsdfi.r1 '"'"'"as it would tend ro
be overborne by other l'On"ideutious. t"'~"t tally sheer prudtmc Jnd rerognition of the
futility and even danger Clf outrt~ht ''rJ1<'lsitin to H.uJ;I~ - whid1 might have fearful
consequences, as the fate ofHaliarrus in 171 showtd (lhy Xlll.lxtii.J-12). The Roman
siege ofHaliartus ended w i<h massacre. general rn;;!;;.vrnl'nt. :md the total destruction of
the city. That was in tlli~rirst }'till !ftilt' I<'". Tht cata-srrrht .u IIJ.h.J.rtus would have been a
most powerful deterrml agJ.inst ;&ctu.r.IIy Jc>inm~ it .tnti~Htllll.lll J.tivity, even for those
who were most hostilt iu thd.r lnartli tu R.nn.m lhrnmJ.m~. Earlier in 171, wh~n the
news spread through<ut ( ;r:~tn tlf.t J\.bl'<'lft>ni;tn ,;n,,r~ in .t CJ~:dry engagement with
the Romans (for whi,h l't~r Li,y Xl.T1.5~1). rh. indip.ari11m c1f nt 'II'OAAoi. ot o)(Ao' in
Greece towards Pcrsell~.lur!J,rto m:tmiy <:utK.llc~d. h.td 'bur-n ~Jt~r like a fire", according
to Polybius XXVII.ix.l. x. I ,t I'ht' whc1k pa~~atot~ (tx-x! ts tJ.s,matmg: Polybius felt that
Greece had suffered al tht h.md!i nf tht 1'\.t;tn,flun;ut kings hm had received real bent"fits
from Roman rule (x.3}. and ht' tr. Jnxu,ns tn ~:xt:"ulpatc his tC.IIclWcountrymen from the
charge ofingratitudc ttl R(lJIIt'. iGnt,'ll oi ,ou~t ;ttr.mpts tu Jismunt tht usc.' by Polybius
of thl' terms ol 'II'OAAoi. nl P~Aot; hut ~t'\' nn.2 ;mJ 4 .1gain.) Rl>nlJn power could indeed
inspire awe. A leading prcl-Rllllld.'n opposed tu o~n inl'1pitnr rt,-,,It might call attention not
only to the benefits of peat'' but to the vis R"mana: ht: wuld warn the young men ofthf'
danger of opposing Rlllll~ :And iniiolll t't.u II> tel thtru - .l.' .Juliu,;. Ansp~x of tht Rcmi dm'S in
Tacitus' narrative of tit, \'\'t"JllS in \.;tul l.'arlr iu A.D. 70 (Hi.t. IV.in).
In the fmal struggle a~ain,;r Htltll"ll! J-k,li. C. m particular WI:' tind ~reat emphasis laid on
the participation of the l...lWt'r o:b.">-~~.,. 10 thl .lllri-Rmn.l:llll''orn.,ll: 111 particular, Polybius
speaks of the crucial meeting of th;; .'\lman League J.C l\1rinth ill dtl' spring of 146, which
declared war. as tx:ing attended hy 's.nd1 J crowd of Wt>rkmm mJ .utisans [l;p-ya.r:rr7Jpt.aK6w
Koi. JjoP01ia'ct.IV av6pcinrt.w)..lo h.itf Ut'WT J.'iS\'Inhl,"t.f bd{lrC'' {XXXVlll. xii .5).
525
Appendix IV
The first ~llOWII example of i\omatl interfert."!1CC with the constm;uon!. o(
mo: dtu::o ot"
Old Greec.1s froru 11Jb '" !':J4 B C .. whe: T Qumc:1us Htrnminu5. mhu ~r~kmc-n;of
Thessalian .1ffan:~ 3fter the end Jf :h, Smul MaL-coo::!~\ W:t:. trnpoo;ct~ pwpruy
qualificatiorn fm C!.:>Uncil!or~ (pu,bllhly fedcr;'ll or.~) ;md ju.dge> and did llli best 10
strengthen 1h: nntw\ of the citie-.;: by (;.s Lr,;: put;; at} 'dur p:1n of tl:c citizen POI"llabon
to whom it W:lS mot<." e:<:p~dic:c! to bve ~VL"!"YU!.!!tg s.~?cm~ and lr<Jnquil' (XXXiVli.4-b;
cf. Plut., FJ,tltli'' 12.4)- th.: propc~:~~d d;~ss, cr' ct)ur:n:. (We are uc.uold that Rarninmus
o.;:righ~ ol:g.~:d:y by mr>l.Sti:lg uu limiC.3tion t>f the right tu .ttti:Jld the
Assemblie.~.) By 19.?, Lw~ tti!sn;,. ir ....;a~ gc:mr:rlly ~ali~t"ti mwng the /uwlhJI!Iand thru
allies that thl* leading m.-:-~J ,,f riu~ riri~. wcr-.: proHom:m a:1d :-t,jt'ited in th~ presc;at
condition <lf ;<ft;llrs. while tht: multitude wi.~hr..t lor rcolutt-c:ll (XXXV.xx:-.:tv. 3), According to Ju:o:m XXX Hi ii.7, M.lC\'ti0<1i:l. received fmm I. r\t'n1ilim f';mllu!> r!\ I~ 'the
laws which it ~t:l! uses' (c:f U\'Y XtV.xvih ;md )(X\x-nx, ..,.P X\tii.6: 'm ;mprabJr.l
vulgi adsentator Jobqu.mdJ tibenatt:lll salubri modl"r.lti<ln~ .~um .ui h~ou:iml
pestilentei!1 ~rahent'!}. Aftc; cru~ung rh(' :e\'rlh of the Ach.u.. u Leagt1~ .rntl its JiliL"11 in
146 B.C . L Mummius (wh:> ~ncidentally llc.s~ro~~d Cormth md ~'-,hi t~ \"-'f'"~auon in1o
slavery) is ;;1id by Pausanias ~o h.wc 'pl.!l !awn dcm<C:t~O<!; :,u.:l t'~m:bhshcd 'f'TPJ'o<:'rly
qualificatiot!S for holding ;_,ftiet"' (V1Lwi.9) Polybtus XXXIX.~ pc.:~h nfthl! palirt'l<l
and nomoi grv~n w :h., c~-,...-k. cir:.r-s (~n :tr ....:; B C.; ~ml c:f. f';u:s V!l!.x;s;;.,.,IJ). In V.iii 1
have men11ul1t"d du: klttT of Q. f-abm~ M;.txm1w h Dym.- ir: ,,,-h;i,.;t, ;tlttt a r.: ...u.lutionary ourhr.;-ak :h,r. w.v~rds thl'>:ldofthc- scnmdanu:ry IJ.C.: :his rdc~ n~itTt<.l lltt:'
politeia gi\'OI ro the A::h.1cans L~y Rm11~ (S IG' f.R.O :. AIJ '' iiue-; .). Ill. 19-.20). Nc\"L'rtheless. wt must lllhkr~: :10d 1h~ ,;,otl'mcm ofl'';ms.m!.u winch I. h; ve JUt;t quoted m .l very
qualified sens:, ~ j;,, .t~ th d("j:mni-n ol dcmotrh-y !. cou.:,rn.-.1. flr tlit'l'-e t!ii ~tnpl'
evidence ui th, continuing t')L!Sttu,. .~i' o-.:mil&lhtirI!.S ;,~ I,;.; nunin.ally ,fnuocr~u, In
thesecities:">t't'\'.g. Trtll{um.~kns. cp. ;-i:. l! !I i:llT:.tn)dli.:~Jll ,.,..,~t:h:t-::;n-'t.-k 1\odd.l
system had :.h"".ad:o bt,;_:nco 1:1irly ;;cn.:I.olly C!;l.:blislnd h::f(I'C ;ht Rom;m ,,mq\lrst
whereby propo~al!< h.a,t to h.-: ;appro-.;:-.;! hy somt l.ovdy f m;lf.,,.WH:..~. !;''.',, l-ot"forr b<'itl~
submitted to th< Comdl ;o:td 1\s,~mbiy: lot'<.' JtH<'S.
[(>~', {'\\1tl: 33'i n.22), !W.l}
(with 33H n.:!(~ Tins rr:..-u.:. t11J}' h;l\'<' h,,n C.'i:IC'Illlt.i (ZU, a5 it !JdpJ.-"-'m-.trc- frpm .". .. r.L
Througi1u111 do\' citi:-s <:f i!l.tin;.md (;r,~c.: ;uui rh<' t\t.'gcan islands, in the early Roman
period, th~n ts $;11'pri~:ng;ly la:k m :h. w~y ,,f identifiable constitutional change that we
can confid,ntly Jl trtbur., tn Jdih.-! tt: .\~t 1\:11 un d~e Jl;trt of Rome. When. for example, we
find from :1 tiun<ll" !u~-:npw ui M,:ut~u, .lithrl.tsl rnuury B.C. (IG V .i.l43J.lines 11.
38) that S<lln ,,; ,hm.. nllo:d 'l:\i1'rrl .:r.d .. n thu~ ~.tiled x~tpol'tJ(va< were outside the
tribl"S comro~iu~ til<' ~;tizcn body. ;md t!H.'1't'lon: mrmot have been citizens at all in rhe
proper sens. W<' u., d nor ;;npj)QSt lh:t! tile ,~fr:.uKi!I:St.ment of these artisans was due to
any outsidt rn;~ur~ (th thts mscnptiml ;;nd id !U.!, set: th(' exhaustive c:ommenta ry of
A. Wilhdm. t:rko..:u~kn ;au:;. Mnsmo:. in _ICMl 17 {1914) 1-119, csp. 54-5, 69-70.) l
believe th.u wh.n w, "~"t" if w~ tOI~t' .a wry lm.:d .md general view of the political life of
these citit.~ i..; t'l>!oocaltl:dly ;r. couriuu:uion of !hr proccs.s- sketched in V .iii abme- that had
already gtllt quirt f.:1r tlll\kr tiw lldl<:m"'(l( kings: b.hind a usuaJiy democratic fa<;ade,
with Count.-il :md As51:'JI'll>ly p;a~:>mg dn:n::!!oo ;,."'a: ,,Jd times, the real powlr is in the hands
of the proprti,d d.Jsl>; th nJilln1m people r:;rdr sln>w any capacity to assert themsclv~s
or even tc> tx~rn~"~ IU!!u,"'n:e. Th< Ht'llcnis6r kin;r.~ had mainly been contt.-nt t<.l leave the
cities alon.. ,;,l !\)!I~ l they gave no trouh!o:: b~;t ott'w~rse the very cxistcnnofthe kings.
dominatiu~ tht' :rs: ..r:l Mediterranean Wrld. wJ ' thr~at to democracy. which the kings
at best tolt'a.u~L \Ull.-ss .:-;.(r-.pliu,;;<; ,:ir.umst:>:!'- m.:adc them positivdy encourage it
(like Alex.anJ.-r :nth.:- J.<'t ictml.{:ll'ring .-\1.1) o: :.1.\t<i' rate pretend to favour it or c.'vince
what could ht. nmr?r:;:,;t - wtth~j~:: :r:t{ n-rJ Jnstitl;;~i<hl- as sympathy towards the lower
orders (lik1 }l,r~ru:> <J!. M;,,,,{.m. ;;;r'!d Mttiuidatr"' V! f.uparor ofPontus). Rome too was
imposed
ccrv
526
quire prepared to toltr;~~ (;rt"t'k d~moCT;mc cor;:;t; t-..J: ''ms as long~:; rh, Greeks kept quiet;
but it must soon have' ~~~:ul.' eohv1ou.s tha! ~h: wr,.1lc! m:<"!Ven(' to protect her 'friends'
among the leading citt~lt.- lt thty \''C'tt! :hr<'.i!t"lu:~d tr<)ill hdilw- on. n.:edless to say. they
rarely were now. And :bs ll<.t~~r;~ily led ~! " t~~r ~b,r ceoncentr;ol.lO!I of pow.:r in the hands
of the propertied cias:>. ;\fti'r i46 ftC.. wi:m [{om:: w:;:; \'Cry t"l1!Ch the mistress of the
Medit.:rranean worl,L we hlr.dly evl!r IJt'.tr t'f :my upsurge from bdow. The most
remarkable. in Old Gr,t'i'~-. \\';i.S t.h~ .o\dJc!li:<li tc.\olutionary rew-me of~B-86 B.C.. led by
Athenian and Aristim:. who nf rou:-sr :.~. .:kyi~ed :L-; vi!lar::r:u~> tyrants m our surviving
accounts.;; And this mu.eml'll: c:m1id hardly !uw ~.-C" m~d bm for the ami-Roman
activities of Mithridatl:S of Pon:llio iu Aii;i Mi!:m. wh.idt m::;.d.- :nany Greeks hope, vainly
as it tumrd out, for l:: .::1.i tl l~on,:;:J dor::mann. Tb-:- ~~k of t\:hms bv Sulla and his
army at the beginnin;; :' M:nd~ i\t. whld1 pu: ;m rmi tc the H'hlutionary movcment,ij
must have had a sever.:-i)' dt~~ouraging dft"<~ 011 :my": h.;r ?<J~C'!l:lal 'trouble-maklrs . Yet
there are indications ~i:tXhrr upheav:~l.l.! At!;.;ns m .1hcnu A.D 13. A good account of
this neglected episod.- h:u ~,cently bem j!i\'~'1 by Uc;wcrr.oc-!<, wh> sums up admirably:
'The leaders were C'X(~ut~d: rh, .1ffa1r i.'i .t~>c-rihc'{l ,-.u~oaJ>!y :.s ro ~;,>vae, stasis, and st>dirio.
These descriptions ;m r-rf,.-dy co:up~t:bi~: vd:~1 ;;~: a!:ti-J.;mn.~:1 i.:~ction gains thluppcr
hand, stasis becomes r.voit' (t\l.W w.;-8, .If !fi'/). Om,,.,,nd,r~ what action was taken in
Thessaly when a man wwill'{'t:O!.:u:;. .v;l.S b1m: w d,.rh. pmh;,.hly during rhc principatl'
of Augustus (Plut . .''Her. 8\S,i; ;m.,! see C. f'. Jtb PR 4fi.J .m,i n.7). In the Historia
Augusta (Am. Pius 5.5) th.:-ti~o ;t hom m,n~lm uf .m .1!kg~.J r-tbdii:, iu Green in the reign of
Pius: see vm. iii abov..- :tlli its. IlL hckw.
Some oligarchic nwdtri;.ui;lus. m.t~ h:w, h ..-l"!J tmwdt'c~d mt<> the consutution of
Athens at the v~ryend ofrh, :>c:ctahrbmlr', H.C. (:;,...,: lk~:.:-r~ork. AGW 101-2, esp. 101
n.3). and it was perh;,.l'" tl~ rq:um whtrh Sulh rnr...hd lf-t~r .:rushing the r<-volt of
8K-M, for it is said that it, :H;;,k ';J.ws rm Atht:ros da;tt w,r-. ';ub~t;mtially thl same: as those
previously cstablishcJ by th.:- U.:m.-.&S {App .. M.rh. J9: ~-= H~''''t1:>~ock. AGW 106 n. 2).
Therr Wl.'re further nm~tuun,n::l d~;mgcs "' ,-\rh.-ns m th l.n, Republic and early
Principatl.' (see Gcagan .-\C'~j: hat J o:cruio ;kmocr:tllr f;;~a~lr: was preserved, and the
Assembly continued t>llh'<'t an,i l'l!>~ ._l..n~-..: Ulllil ;,ti:.J!>t tlul:at.~ s.veran period- one of
the latest known is fr~m .- .?.30: .lll h_nntif ,t,.-rte m t:,\'nur f M. Ulpius Eubiotus
Leurus (Sel V.iii abo\'t' ;md it!' n.~:;i. T!h- Ah''o\'l'"'~m. t,,_.,..cvcr. !tad becometh~ main
political force, and thtrc IS !J\ ~ign .lurmg t!w lri,;.:ip.h' .,(;tny al political activity in the
Assembly, any more thau 111 mmt Nh,r (;h"\'k l<l;lll."li. At :\tlw11s. :ts dsewhcrr, we find
much evidence of dirt'l'l ;ut<-rt~r,-u\{" b, :lw itlf'<'rtal p;~w;.r. through th<' provincial
governor or evcn the tnprnr lums.df, Y<'l s<U~<"tl:llt"" ,,.~- Clll sw ,t,rnocraric institutions
still permitted to fun..:ti.a. a~ wll.:-n "' ,fr.ct'l.'i." ._.f i l.;;hi.tr. wn"'rmng oil production in
Attica provides that t'<'rt.un bn.-;-1.::h"s uf liiC' r.gn!.lri.J~ thL'T~ !.\1<1 ;)own are to be dealt
with in the first place hy tn;l~ 111 du Couu.:;d 1f th} 11!\'oh<" liP rnrl' than 50 amphora...
and otherwise in the A"istuhly c'H-; XV 1118 = /G n~.lllll = !\/j 90. linl"S 46--IJ: sec
Oliver, RP 960-3; Day. EH.-\H.I> I?;L9.?); .-f .'\ZI "I = u-; IF.! H.IJ (perhaps also Hadrianic), lines 7..g, pnwi.ii11g: fc.t u:.,l hy tiu A.uop.t!\Ult ,,t uit~nc...-s against certain
commercial regulatiom. :\tl iukrl's:i=~ .,,....:,m.:u ui:m imperial dircctivc (whether it is an
edict or a letter) from tbL" Emperor Marm~ .-\urtlm~ to the dty t Athlns (to be dated
between 169 and 176) w.~S publishe-d Ill 1971\ with tr:mslJtli>rt :md ,mnmcntary, by J. H.
Oliver, Marcus Aurelik.;: A5flCo7i ,~f Cit-'IC . mJ Cr1lt11MI Pdiq m tl:t' E.m ( = Hesp., Suppl. 13).
It has already excited :1 i-:"l)d ,!"J!,;f diSCU$...'in ,lli;i H-iut.-rpr,rat!<ll~. I will only mention
the improved n-storatl<lll' :tnd tr.m;i<~nm h C. P .Jou,-s.u ZPEi'. (1971) 161-83. of the
largest plaque of the in~::r1ptt<m (II~ E). d,,Jltu~ J~:.i,~l:. wifhjudJ;:ial matters. and two
subsequent articles: b~ \'\'J:'I1!W W1lii:um.. in Zl'I: !7 (l'i75). :.r ]'l-56 ((f. )RS 66 [1976]
78-9). and by Simone f'oll&. tn H:c. ,:,. !,:,~1 ;J ( ~ 1J71.J) ,2<J_.;J, ,,itl~ a complete t..:xt and
French translation of ;h: ~.ur.~ prm>n M.un;;; \;\pt.:->.>.6 h:~ ~j:J:.'at 'concem for rhe
reputation of Athens, so that ;;h.- may recover lK! t~unL'r Ji;t~lity' (or 'grandeur',
Appendix IV
527
UE~v6n}o;-).
t\'ltllough he feels obliged to ;1lluw the 5Dns of freedmen born after their
fathers' mam.:mi3sicn- not frccdme11 ~hemsdv~- tc become ordinary councillors (Jines
79-81, 97- 102). i:~ insiS:s that :11cmbers of the~ ;\~';!Opagus must have both parents bom in
freedom (!I: I\'> t.l-6); .:mcl h. . ~i<pn_iJ15 the tconrl w;'ih tillt it wcTc possible to ninstatc the
'ancient cu~!om' whaday A:copagi1~ i;ou.! !u h.r~~ uor only fathers but also grandfathers
of free birth (En,s 57-E.q Oh~:ssion ,,f:his bud with :ht status of members oft he local
Athenian gW(ming d;as.s l:!;ty <xci~t"" om cknsJ!>;: when Its profcsscd object is to enable
Athens to 'recover her t::J:"J!J("r iJtl''"'}:"7i_.!
The Ath~il11 :c,ru;dn;.aon '.Ul<k! d:JC' !~om;m i'~nc:patr l'Tt"Srnt~ many pur.d~. md
there are seve!:::.l q~ri(l~~ I itd ..hlifted w k""<l.\'1"" Ol'tr. nw:dy rrftrr~ng m the rct"C"J11
discussior: by f~'.1g:m (ACS). thC' useful rc<:1c:w nf ili.::.r work hy Jljckct. i11 Mtrem_ ~ :?J
(1970) 451-3. :mci !h:- mn:111gr.1ph ly Oliwr (\'l.'rth mnchf,c.oticms) m~rllioncd in :b<"
preceding pr.l.~r:.ph. It m:.y h&.~h.at(.;;sundoubrdJ~ :.tAkx~:Jtiri.&: C. :.Jtli IUSJ.53-i;
150. 3-4; and sel' Fr:ls..:-r, i'A ! _7t....S) p.\:ttci.paaon in ;he t"ph"t'b~:~.. :av.lllabh of~onrst"" only w
the- well-to-dn, h~d fwcom~ ;u, ~,;Hn~r.!! Guothtin::m for :uembership ~f the .-.ue;;->r)' of
fully privlkg,i ciiJZ~'US wb.. o~l<m( W<rc: tjll:,lifi.::J fo: thc- C(;uncil (a)'''' much mme
capable ot" llr..iq.:c:ud'-"J;r. ;;.;til"ott th:m in rh..- Ci=i<0\1 yt!riod) .mJ ~rhi'~ 1ho: cuw:.;. {~c
pp.64-5 of O!iver""s :llt.JlKgr:pb). ;md ~o-.hc m.1y (a~ lt':Jtollivd~ :<~USJ.oestl'd hy Ge:t~Jrl,
ACS 86-Tj h.1vc: bt:t'n th.: SJIH(? gwup a~ :hOM~ w!M atou< wne emirkd ::> ~pc;~k ;u thr
Assembly a.'i wd! :1::: aUt"nd ;!~ ~rs.Mnns ll."'ll '.'Ott~ m chc-n! (i 1i1c tre:atm~nt ofT.arstl~ m
3B of this :\p!,ndl"); tht ialt~r !!T<""lf' m~ lo. th~ !14111<' ..lS ~hn~r :""t'fo::md to as oL
~ttltAflu&a!;llt'l'f.: .oru:rn :1.\ "''PI\~Iln~l i~J llr~, l8 u!- .J km'T m Ad,c-tl!' E...m J\.t.H(!lS ;;nd
Commodus. lu\\ b~:-t r;.;u! ;,;. O!i>'{'l 's in~cr~pnon no A, i'Jl-S~~ it. \<"f_ rheo EKKA71CTLr:tm
in two Pu;:d::m ;::.ti("s. mentioned in 31!. hd.:w). There nuy h ... ,~ be~:. a poJ.-rry
qualification tcr tho~c- C"llllli{ to ixcomo~ \()llllriliors~ hut "'!~'"ll~ lt may ll;a\'t" ~"C"'l ~~-it
that no qu;mtUatrn~ ;.ssessn,nt w:.r. lc-rt~'"3:'"Y. bo.~v:n~ ~;g.1rd to tho: titn r!:;;: g11ug
through tiK ephebia {it tbr '.V;&~ ~th!n-rl:; u,,:,-J;.,..l!'"i' qualific:motl j{,r t!w I'X_-rci>.: .-,iii,!:
political n1tht~) would b pns~rb1r 011iy f<~r 1h1 ~nu,. of mct C!f snm, proJ>(:Hy. -lll<'r~ 15
unfortun:atdy 5<Jln(' uun~naintr .1bou~ Jl! th,'Sc :tl.lfto."T!': :h.. "l'l~:r:a;!uc :,..:~ .~!"~ nut
absoiUid,. dlYI~Ivc .md ll 15 h:ml fl:' sar how mud1 l>ttho.: mtriguing ('>"Hknn p!w,.id~Coi b~
Lucian (e.g_ m D,-,,r, .wu I. 1-+-FI; lupp rro1_~r i>. 7, IS. 21>; :),,t"' II: c,,/J. 22; ,>!r:. 19-.!11;
Nar1(~. 24: Ur$ tUfll> I, 12) w.: ,-.Ill tr!";lt .1' "O:Ilr.ttdy r.-tkl'lllli! nlnt~mtKrary ?r-';ric.!
In man) ,-,dt~ar Gt("or-k tiUts ~n=th.. nf tlh. uid ,-on~-titt&tio~J;fl1.,1ofl~,!o \.\'c.:rt. pl'~srr,,- ..]. t .,.,~.,
when they h;,.J ~,:~t~m. an .~mpty ,;hdl Th~ Cm,uciloJfCar~stu;..o:.n Eul,.:o.:-; w~> Mttully
chosen amm.dly b:: ')t :~s l:lt.- :~s tlw n1~~: of H.11hi:m: '!.I;'C /(; Xl11x.! l. In SJ;It:\,
surprismgl:: .-nour,!a :,J far~t :>ght. rhi"r<' w:s .1.1 k;;.st ow dl;;ng~ m .a ;!ir~Yill'll "P!~tmr.: '"
what we might !J;I ,.<' t:XI~cr.~d: rh~ t r.,dltln>IJI C.-rm.:>iJ. ,.,ll,lr.t!ng ,,f uwn r.\ <T f~. w '"'
Wl"n: clcctld for 1h~ r..-.:1 o.f th.:l: !i;oe:>o. ~;-..mr, :o h;~v, bccmu~ cramf-'>mw.;, iiPp.m:ml\' b\'
at least th, h>t (c'IIUirV B.C., a;.tn ;t Couron! .:f!t0rno,,l Grt't"k a~~ !:.umct:~ne-s .lc.t:;,1ll:
callc:d a fjlnAci). ,,.u~i~IITit, ,,; Ill<:: I dccrc-d umu:I!Jy. W!~h 11!-de.:l:(n P)>~1bk S\'1' w.
1
,.
Kolbe in IG V.i. p.J'i (.:oHIIl<'l!f:lry .n, lK ''2 !2~]; K. M T Chrimc~. ,\o:orrr -"rm1.1
01:1 i :l:t:lk Chrim1. mx~ wdl b; n~th: m;ucr~ili!= rh~ <""h.lttMc'
(Manche~t.r. 1~)<4'Ji lJ~...;):i.
to Cll"om~,..,. Ill. Ill th. 2~ ... n
c. Ac,.{.\lg tu P.:m~nt . ~ Ill
"~
l..th:G. .. a~u in h~l.v
was the Oll'<li'i,ll(w .\""f&.lf""'''ocv,,,.;.~ ..

rlf..; ::u.\1:-t-in,..
.
City Asscmblie~ ),,u!~ f.ntinu,d. but th1"'\' is uo rdt.tbl, it::nry r:vd~l!f<' oi ;;nmtn
political ;Kti\":ty llll ih~rr part dur:ll~ I h<' Prm'lp;u, {a~ tiwr. IS io~ "'lllK" ._.i tlw nt>l'"!O .,f
w;
Asia Mino)J) .m.ll!~'.:rl~ all th i;;scnrrion~ wlu.h !oilf\'tl'<~ t<'f<mJ lu"l'-'-:""lii;: io:cn:,::.;_ Th.latest defuu:.-lv d.J::-,}11( tk~n.-.: frm:1 Gr~rn ur d:e !~!..md~ btuwn t'l SwPilmh .~h~ll he
publishl"d f)j, .~li.dris(hen Voii.:.~hiul:Hit1r m I~J. w;;.- ti1< m n<n\' .-.p;:~l:s.h,-.j :.> IG
XII. vii.SJ. i~mn A.r.-N:n, {>!I th,ISI;m,! l'f r\uu~'i-t''' "'lti.-h w;o,. J.:u.i 11 : i 1)!:"-.mh-:r
242. in th~ r<i~n ,,{ G r.h.~~: III. dl i~;ln(t itic psep#!: .,,., ~.1: h.~ tii'lw; <Jf th.t: ci:y (Sw~1!liod.a,
op. cit. lf-:5, W:i$ !tn,!..tk ...'lt in r-:fcrring ~hi.- decntt., Aigni,. :ntN!.cr d:y ~Jf Arn.-rt:'-"'). I
know of no 'i"'ihtitcly .:!;,t.t.;hl' lan~J n:.:-~:tt1.:!l iru1~'" ~itt. Jn:~ '\\'l!il \V~n~~~ I ;!tt1 ~o'~'~t:UH.'d
528
here; but there are on;. or two known a!ecling.s of Greek ;\~<":!"lhli::s half a century larer.
from Asia Minor (as we sh:d1.sl.'~ m 3R below) .u:d Egyp1 (o.:f. V .:ii above).
I must add a word about the Ualb:15, :J!J ::r~>:t i:1 wbidt my hfe was slow to develop
except in a few centre... n~c-~t is .a:!.-:!$! 1.m:- MiliTdonia.;: community which is proved by a
very interesting inscrip1!.:.u dahi ..u late .1;. .\..D. !9..J :~ h.n r.:\d .m KKAljui.a, 1I'OAt:i"Tat,
and at least one magi~r;<tt (.... i:h a mh- ofr,:; f.:mu:! i11 1\-bc,:d.;,mi:..t, cities). a 7TOA~mip)(TI~.
but almost certainly ~<> tl>l,~. +, - ti.~: ~h:." .~.:mhly was s1~:1:;noncd by the poleitarch;
instructions for carrymg ou: th: :lt'(n~ (thf' c!:-:-~ath.~ part cof wbch begins f~E Tril~ n:
1!'o)o.nrapx"l' '!'al. Toi~ ,.(,1\.f.i~:tto: !>ll.(...fl'Wi&<;'fritn) are givtn to ~he poleitarch; and he and a
number of others an. list~'l.i hy ll.lillt" : :h~ ~:u! of the dcc.:rL-r, hm there is no sign of a
Council. The inscrip::ou. tin.r pnblis.h~d m !8HI:!, -wa~ republished in a much improved
form by A. M. Woodw:.:nl mjHS 35 (!9-13) :~374;, ao. 17. (lt has not, I think. been
republished since.) Th;: C"llltlfll~mty IS a<( ldlrmfiahk. lmt 1: may, as. suggested by
Woodward, be Eratcrua. p~ri~:~~;:~ th(" place c-:~iln~ E~:1~yr.1 by Sv:~.ho VII.vii.8, p . 326. In
spite of the 'citizens' a!ld ~hlir P"lt:!anll (prvv:'li hi lines 2,~5 :u C.: :.:t annual magistrate). I
am not entirely satisfied th :hi~ C"-"mna:."l:~ ,,-.lJ.:. prt.!p:'r P'i'l. a;; .usumed by Woodward
and others (including Rosto'l.'tlt"tl SHIRE' U.65l n . 97). Th~~ llt.-rnative is to regard it
either as a smaller political umr withtn tht ~:f:,:a; {rc-f<"rn:d to 1 hm 33 in connection with
an embassy to the p~o<ir;c.~.l gunm()f. to otn:Jill lns .amh(l~'>-;stlon of the decree), as
believed by Larsen aud )ll;tn (see Fro~nk, ESt\ R JV -'-~J-.4), c;':' lS the ethnos itself. As
Rostovtzeff says ofMl<nl.:or:i;;,. 'Tb lrl\prt-s>il':< ,,m~ g.lin~. i10 d1~t the economic backbone
of the country contim~co! w l-, l11c:- n.m\i' ~nbc::< ;;.ud
mm,.~~t:..:. villages, particularly
the mountain villages . uf r~";~.:r.ots .m.:i sh\:phenl~' (SEfillE: i. 253). I wonder if perhaps
the community on tl:t sit:.: f ch, mod..:rn S;md;;n.~kt 111 Bulr.;.r\a, in the vaUey of the
Strymon (now the StrnmJ:), 1iso :n M.Jrnli'tol<i, W:t.<> m.H yct ;1 t'!ill polis in A.D. 158, the
date at which Antonirm;; Pu~ l>r..'tll ;o lttt<~r ro it, p:.rt of wh1d1 w.l! recently found in an
inscription,JGBu/g. IV . 2263 (referrc:! tHll V.lli :tbn.- .t:d it~ u..lN. h has been assumed
that Pius was merely auch~>nsin)! 1U1 !:tnns(: in'''~ number ui t.:UIIcillors (lines 8-12); but
may he not have been n~i:rrmg to thf CTo:;tWm ofJ. Cut!t'il. :&!> p:trt of the formal inception
of a true polis? At any rate:, thC' m!i.-rlrtrmt pt~bh~ht.i h~ w,)o:>dwarJ should warn us to be
prepared for possible v:m.atio:r:s f~m 1h.: usual pattcn of rl.' J,vdopment, as late as the
beginning of the Sevcr;m rrio,lth.Jt is why I have,!,~~~~.,.,! ~tm .tttcntion to it.
In the section of tht~ Appendix dealing wtrh :\:.<:;J Mmur {~ .\iJ below) I shall have
occasion to refer to .1 ,ii~tinction. iu tf.~ !(,~nut ~~,~rio<l, ~'f\'l!fl'fl citizens who were
en tided to participate tuliy 111 th~ general Assembly tt:t ci!y. :m.t '"ho in at least two cases,
Pogla and Sillyum in l'i~Jdi.t . J.n ull~'\1 f..:II"Alm"'"'i {.:t".. pnlt:trs EKK~'JCT&ei-,oJift~ 1<ma
Til! 1101'1.&4:oi'Eva] at Ath"'l!o. llh:"')llom,d '"'"'('}. :il1! m inferiur \~I'Wlry who evidently did
not enjoy full rights in th(' .1\s;;cmbly, altho;tgh ;;t 1h~ r..vo Pi.~i.h.u\ cities they are called
7roAEiTa& . The existcnci' of tiK"t' gradts in Af-;.& u~.:a)' h:lp ,t~ In uCJUL'r"tand an inscription of
the Antonine period tn1m J listri.t n~ rhl' Drrud_j.1, whc:rt Ah:~.. an outstanding female
benefactor of the city (who mar r<:rund \!~ ofl\.kiu!t>r.o <JtS:.llr!lm: sec the main text of
Ill. vi above, just afte1 1t~ n.J~. aud ').Jt h<lo~). lx!i.t\Ws J s.rif.> of gifts on various
different categories ot" mhJbit:.J.nb. C0~mdll,lh, IIIL'tnh,n oll" th.~ Gerousia and certain
other groups head Ab;,a's h~t: tb.y r ...niw l Jn,:1rii <':>~:h md must o~lso have shared in the
distribution of wine (oi:l'flm~c<tl') whi.-h was ro b~ gw,:t to \'J.rious less dignified
categories, including 'rho:;c. an th t::i!l~ (.hi'Aai) wla~) ~or;; ;>:g;;m5ed in groups of fifty
(11'*""JIWI'Tapxi..cn)' . ln subsequent lm~~ lf rh;.. lus.-riruor. (37-43) which cannot be
restored with any confidence there ;n~ rrti.r~am-s !o 1:- li;,IJuo: :md ~. wA;;~. The inscription was published by Em. Popescu, in [);;.,i~ n.;A {1%0) 27~~:,,,; bt:t it is best read in the
slightly revised edition hy H. W. Plrk..t. Epigraphica II (-= "I ;-~:l'i Minores XLI, Leiden,
1969), no.21, making u!k.ufrh~ obse:nt.lonsofj. and l.. Rui:>mir. REG75 (1962) 190-1,
no . 239. I am inclined to .1gre( with fh<' .u'\~t ,,b.;cn':lUcms ,_,dlkket, in his review of
Duncan-Jones, EREQS . m (;,,.,,,., 4'} !ti17) 5S....W .. :.ll pr.t!-:i . d:~t 'those organised in
f},,.
.,1
529
Appendix IV
phylai in groups of 50' are perhaps to be identified with the category of privileged citizens
who have the right to participate fully in the Assembly at Tarsus. at Pogla and Sillyum,
and possibly at Athens, and who an~ distinguished, in the two Pisidian citit'S, from plain
1TOAiTat. (Picket goes on to compare the Histrian phylai with the African curiae discussed
by Duncan-Jones and others.)
3. Asia Minor
An episode oi thC' VC'!)' grt'ilte.st interest (v the hi5tori~n 1~ ; revolt wh:d1 wok placr m
western A:si.t Min.r :.t rb:: vcry til~i" wh.~n it began :n p::~SS under R"Lmi\n ml(' ,\tt.lhli IIi.
the last kill;; .:!fP~..-rgamum. dird m UJ B.C .. !<'tlvilli; hi;; ki~l!!!'m~ by wrll tu R<llli', 11t~
gift was aiT.('ptni b~ the [(oman S'na:.-. Arironinu. 01 b;l!;t.ou:r.f;,-.n ofl':ing E11nwm~~ II,
claimed to ht~ the h,.-~r t>f.~~t.dus . .-.m~ hxi J Jarg~--s.:;llo:: ''-~ok .;.hkh wJS not ~n:!:.hc:od uuril
129. This subi.-n b!i ba:! l'md: J:s::l.!lscd in r<"ccm .c-;m., .1m! ''{:rv ,jiff<"rcnr V1t'W!i have
been put lll~.v:.rd .:on>C"ming ti:., da.lnctt~r of th~ revoir. ll;~!" ~~ ~trll no gsner:d
agreeml'nt or. !lc.w :;1r rr ~hmtl.t be .-:un..id.-r;'d primarily a~;, wo mm of dJt' p<l.;, -.vth
rhe slaves Jud "rf.,, : pra~~t ag;un~r th t"'l:i..,tm~ l(tCJ;{I :.:J<-r (cmrl ~...o:n ';1 sl.a~oc ll'''oll').
how far it \\~.!." l 'n.ttlm.;lii:' <lr .11m-Hmu;m minJt .. nd w!ar pu~dsd y was tbt role of
Aristonicu~ hma10df I hJ\'1' nethiug nn<. w ~:ry <H :h sub;c::t. :iw h."!r o~ccourH
wluch
seems to nw th rno;~ fl'>X:<r on.:. th:u ufVla.tHn ir V.-.vtint"k. Aristonicu~ ofl'ergat n11m:
pretender to the' th:-'m' or ka.lt'H>fHtnf T<'volt?', m Eimrf 1.3 il975) (17J-2'>. v.... tincl<,
who had lum10.-lf p:--<>thl,-,d J h.,,,k n11 dJi. 11:.;nl: Ul Fr,.nch -.;.arly twu1ty vcars t.:.Ub~r (L;
Revolte d';\ristomi;l<, Proli-tUt. 1'67). ;ttV\'5 J~ ~xrdk}t rrv;,w of d.o: wftol~ u1r.~ of
theories, iu.:ludiug rhost of B(;rmr. Dn .:ta nlumc~. Dtw:.::ur. ;md Vog!. Tho~ who
CaJmot easily obtain Vil\'tlnt:k 's ;;rtwk :md wuh t<)r .t hn.f ;\t'(tl:mt )i ~his s:Jbjc-.c -.... ouk!
perhaps do best to re.td Rosto~l7~ff SF.HHW li.i<i6-!<, especially ~}7-1 I (wilh l!i. l3:!.18 nn.75-9'.1}. ;,md Vogt (:.t~ 'It~,{ m a.A). l will ~Jouly .told. iilr th, ~pec;:~Iut. o1 wry tl~l\!l
article by C. I'. J'lll">. 'r>iocloms P.tlip..lr ~ md th~ Nikrph11r.;t ~t'P,rt(;,mort . zn Cit iN<'I -1
(1974) 18~2ti5, dcmn ..{tatirajl; tht ttw lt:ti,iu~~ of Dic...-!nru~ l1a~rma:.. of hr~pnillm
were assod<ttcd nnt (;l!i u,,,J tl> lx: ~linrJ) with th~ \\':or nfAristonicns hut nr!a.-r With
the Mithrid.ttiJ~ war; fmm thct-i~htll'!oo tn :h~ SIXtlc'll n.c.
I have alnatly n:fcrr~cl. 111 r!w m:mduwl:-: p.ur r.f rhis "J~radlx ;n,l i1a ir~ 1 (.m-:-!
shaH reven m ~ h..lcw'l rn thl.' hl>.ilt'~ l'f lt<ltJ.lll raiJ,n~5 111 Y;;rtnu~ Greek d111~~ II IS
particularly in ),siJ Min:,r. anJ o~hc~\'c' J.llm tlu pmmc(' uf Al>tol ihdf, tb:u wr: kn.ow of
their presc'n.ct .md ~cti,itic~. :nait11lthrou~h llt~~riJm<Ms. Til~ rvtd~ncc fm A>a M111Dr.
and much elf tht nmdtm lit.:ratan. Li gt\c.ro 1~ 1\ob~k. RRAM 1162-_\ {w;th Il. 1051...>
nn.S-13), ~~1:\.4-t.(wtth Jlli:?'.J-.~:m.5!-6); ll.t.:.X.;!-2n.44; .m.i ~et.II.Ir>l~16 iura lilt<~f'
some fony nuc~ iu Asi.t ~lmor wh,rc (ttr.l'cfflf.' ,-j,,j,,,,, .!(,mi.,,:," I '"''fl:' kum.vu <!own to
1950. Among mu,b furth,-r anfurm.autll thar ho~.. nm !u h~lll ~inr.~ ~lagte w;;_)~' i:s ;1
decree ofChio!l rl'ti:rrin~ tool ITitiH71'&6lJ~biwf't-~ '}1<uJI.Aifbl' (hut~'!!)), h) be Utt:d hardly Lt1~r
than 188 D.C. (or jU'>I .aftcrnud~j. o~mi tim!' nmd.carhcr ~h.1u .my oOvbgr,. t~amplcs.:
see Th. Cb. Sarik.tkt-s, 'Oi f:v Xiql 7TCI/1ErreirrJil"i'w~ 'P<u,.Qu."' m .\: ..'1-'(ik Xf;orr.;f, (1'.173)
14-27, with text p.19; Ronald Mellor, fttc'r 'P<iJP"' Tilt Jt!,nhiiJ !!(II:" G..JJm RtM iN /l!c
Greek world ( Hypomnemata 4:2, Gottingen, N75) hO-!; 1 tl: .Lu;, lf .ar~(> .J. aod L
Robert, in REG ih (1%5) 14h-7 no.305 (the de:"tl'\. \lir d.att:o:,f~rres1..1 p;tL\.d'Apa.m~):
F. W. Walb.mk. in}RS 53 !l'ifo.'\)3: W. G. f<'nt'!<t. ,:itcti mSEGXVl.J.1,Lu:ad,uclt111ga
late-third-nntury date.
or
A. Bithynia-Pcmtus
Here we have to take account above all of the Lex Pomptia, known mainly from Pliny's
correspondence with Trajan in c. 110-12(Piiny, Ep. X.79. 1,4; 112. t; 114.1-3; 115; cf.Dio
Cass. XXXVII.xx.2}, which was still in force in the early second century. as slightly
530
mudul~d hy Augustus. The: !_.~-:r: I'"IIIPi'lrf :-r11bod!ed :1-.t" 51.-:rlrmC'Ilt ~rTected by Pompey in
!>;;..._-;. li.C .tfter his vinorv t.nt:I M~rhnd.uo o:" Pontt~. (fm its nature, see ShcrwinWiliH'. f_f'(!Nl-'H, 71~. 7](i, 721. 724--5,Jont"s, CERtn 156-t,?..) For our prescnr purposes.
rt1.:- mo;;~ impmum p~Jvisiom oftb~ i.J:.-.: Pompri., ""''rt: :Jut th~:-c was m be :1 minimum
3~4' of }0 f()r h<>ldin~I .1 magi~trrtcy or becoming ~ councillor: th,n councillors wrrc ro
:!dn::-.-,. th.1r sums hy bemg cnrolkd by ofil::tahi whilm I'Lny c.lll:i (nrsorl':; (the actual title
:n Grt>k Wool!' nmrr<<i); ;:.:1d :hat r:~-rnot~":iHr:ltes nw5: ;tutmn.mcally be mrolled, although
digibility w~;;; 11m ,onfim-:! to thtm. Au~U!itu~ ted:and thl' ;lgc for certain minor
:na~i~tr"3Cit~ ro .?~. Pliny rt"po:t'< to Tr -\i.lt1 ,, 1~---al L}pl:llWI. ~-. hich he St't'ms to share (it
:n1ts~ hall.:" b(."<'ll :i:\" opmkm or"thtlrldiilg f.uniiie5, ".vjth whom h!..' would associat\:), thar
II w~ '!a,ns~:ar y' :o cnntiuu~ a rr-~ct!C<' :h;;: h:u! ~ro~~n (tp. ai emo!hng some young men
<~gli h..r.wo1 2.! :md ::1~) a;;. nmncillon. r.-,n; thc.-n~ib rhf')' h:-td i:dd no mag:stracy. And ht
.1dds a r.-:uoirk of gr\".U l:l~=-~:. !::vm~ ~:w rt.:!son t~>r !h:s n~l:mun: rhat it is 'much better to
ch .. ~st rlw m.~ ,,fl:!<::nh~r:o m th1 upper d.1s~ ~'-! rhr.- C.:ntt<il: a~ her rhan men trom tht.
kw,r or,kr~ Owm!!to'w'' ltomit::mr /iben1j ill"' r 1-'ltbt', E;J. X .79 ,.;)_ From this statement
t!lny \<)JldU:'IIm:. iu,vit.til: inll..w: (I} rht ymmg mt"r whm~ it w;ts considered drsir o~blc
to \":nul:..!' '''l.mctllors Wt:e .alr(;1dy u;,tnh,r$ ,,f wh;;l wo:- rna~ lhiW bq~in to call 'cur1al
J:um~a;.~ (thp,;, winch h:od llli.:"::lb\'!'S s.:-nitll! n t!tt CoLmn!): (!)but thLse young men
Wt.'r( rdn'U:'lt r.. ~ill u: ,,f ti,,~ magist:'aci:~ which wo\;l;i ~u:omltically have led to a sear
on rln CuLm,; I_ surdy hi.'Clll~<' Jl the expense mvuh,,.. t-. :o1ui (3) there were men of
suifkit>llt m.an~ ut:c'i.!, tb nr:-1.- oi rurial famil:,-~ wlm .-ould h.ave filled a magistracy
;an,t tlwrrhy qualified tll~mwlw~ t~~r .t sor o, rh, Cnm;.r!. i; t the {Ileal curial families not
o~w'tt>d tn this broad~nm~ ,,. th;.-~r .-ird~- \T r;l}ll' nr.: ..knt.llly. told Pliny rhat no onl
uutkr JU mt:~:ht !() become a m.mh~r .,::; 1.~.-~1 Cn~mc.1L ('>cn;:t rhrough holding a
rtla~tstuq .) In tln ... cumltni<nl mt:l>t o~bo n.{"ntion :m.,:h,r i,nn ,,fPiiny's, referring ro
tftt' i5osm ofiuvita:i'll~ tor o:rt.lJ!> i.'ll:t'r~anmlc-ms h 'tht whole C(L<liCil and even no small
uumb,r from th(' ltW<'T dass,-s' (I''''"' {II: ttl .t:ofl<t' ni,lll! ,. ploi,, ff:lfl ,.,, iguum numcrum): here
again w1: Sl';.: tlw l'llh:r!~L'Il<: .. f.1 fl!r"''l' '-''~!mlus ,,; oan;d ;;mws. distinguished from rh
plebs (I':p X. llh.l)- .111 .::lTly ~t;ag, ill rh, ;lnd''l'l'lh'lt o\i.ttimd.ltll;.'ntal division soon ro
be given ,-ottSUIUtloJJ.tl r,-,.,,~uillnln ,.,,ri.-:o1:s w.-ws (si'\"' VIIJ i-ii .tbt.~ve).
Th.rl' IS lliiJ'ftff of a prop.rty qu;alifi;:ui...n
n .. uw:ill.ts (or t:tagistrate-s) in the l.ex
Hmpri.l. hut sum. would int~r rlw (':>~l~h'lln'of un. tr,,ml'1llly. lit-' X.ll0.2; cf. 58.5 and
r.,.
I ii.2 {sn~ Sh,n\'maWhu,. LP72fJ;.

Th, il11S''':~ (n,.,~r~<i} fh.ug,:d w11h th, t;.sk of ,mollm!; rlk .:<>uncillors ofrhe cities of
Bithyni.1 .mJ Puntul' (Vlmy.l~l' X. 'N .; II?. I .2; lli. !} ;m: o:iki:als who do nor seem to
h.n, t\tru.d "I' y,t d~tWhLr in A.\M l\'\uam. ''""''PI ;;;;
ar AphrodisiJ.s and
Pergamum ;on.i :1~ iJ<raAYpirtboa at ."\tl<yr.a (,;c(' .,.:,..--tn!: if hd.w). We find n,.-.,rai. in
Bithynia, at Pn~:>;~ (LH/\'(' 1111). l'm~iJs ad Hypim:: (.SEG XIV 773. !3-14 and 774.8;
TGRH 111.&0. !J. M.6, f>ll. 7; HCH !S [ l'illiJ ifl-5 t:,,_])] lfJ}, I l:;t {BCH 25 [ 1901] 54--5
II<-' .I9.K,6j, oauJ ,, dttACI)'pno:6uo;: at N1;:.1t'a (U;I~ R Ill. U97. l L t A .I). 2l:!B-!), as restored by
1.. i{;>htrtutliC.'H52[112M) -110-1 1).
Af> crlw:.t~s. W\' must be prepared K> tim-ILxceprional pru~:,du:,;; o.Jn occasion, as when
Tr:.tJan allll\\'l'li Pru~a tn elect no fcw(~r rh;.u 100 counCillvrs. ,vJ.kntly in the Asslmbly
:.,..,,:co
'Du1Chry~
XI.V.3.7.9-W::
W.: ku>W ,,fuo sp,-dJI ruks u: lh,l.n l'i~ri.l regarding riK Assemblies or the courts
,,( rh" <.ir~,k ~"!U\S, .tml rhi~ >uhw,:r c-J.n I~ cn:at.:d for Asia !\.1invr as a wholt under 8
hduw. whtr~ I ;;ho~.llal~ ""'<~~iu;1allv ,f,:tl \\"ttlt uu.u.:rs rhat ali"cct !he whole area, such as
nl>tainillt( rlw rn,vir..-i.ll goveml~l ~ .mtho)m,.,tn,,ll t i't'JUltl dl'\"f\'<!5, and his power to
..;usp..ml A.ll~l'mbli.~.
B. The rest ..,j Asia Minor
As early as Cicero's speech for Flaccus in 59 B.C. it seems that the Councils of some
Greek citi('S in the! province of Asia werl' already pennanmr bodies, thl' members of
Appendix IV
531
which we:,- C"::rollcd fin life: Cicero :.Krually >pc"k~ only of Tern nus. in rhe H<.:rmus
valley, but UJe fo:-m of worci~ bC" tl5~ may s11ggt~~ that me kind of Council he had in mind
was not lim1tro ro:: thill city (/'" Ff,ur. -t23) Jmt'5 J.&OCS too far, howcwr, when he
generalises fi>r tlm pcriod it{fn! Tc-mnu.' :u 'ch~ t\!.inti<.: cities' colkcnvely (Cl::.'RP 2 61);
and he himself rtJliY:' tii;&t dw Coun..ib ,_,f som~ 'f:tl:' citi<.:s', in part1cular Rhodes and its
former dt11Ciltlenc: S:.ratoniccJ :n Caria ..unl :l!so l\tylasa. long continued to c:hangc
periodical!:- rhos(" ;H" H!:J:!,-:<- :.md Su:tto::Ke~. cvny l'!X momhs. For thL l'videncc. it will
be sufficitl:~ !q rd(r, ii>t ftl-~e.dcs :md Str;i!,-"'i\C:I, to Magie, RRAM 1Ui34 n. 18; for
Mylasa, see LB/W .:i"Jt;: iiCN ! 2 ( 1888) 20-1 no, 'I. I ;.;r;nw of no littrary cvidtnce for such a
system, cx~~pt Jll'rh;.ro~ D:o Ci :~ ~s XX X [V 34-tl, ir~m which 1t apptars that the prytami,
at Tarsus i~l Di0'~ dav s~-.C'd f<)r ~:- muntlu on!v.
The f"vid.~tKC' !<.1r the growrh in r\s1a l\-tinor ot ~'emu! order' (v.hich by at least the early
thin! cent::~y was ~nb~lt;mn>lliy a ~urial dtm: >e~ Vlll.ii above). is almost purely ~:pi
graphic, apa::: frow l'l:n;/~ >'m~~pQr,._;t"iln: wdt T::~pn concerning Bithynia-Pontus,
noticed in A .ah<..c:. n~, insrripri0m nmremed :.uiy enable us to generalist', even for a
particular .tr,.,_ ;md I $h;,!l m;,kc ~:o .mnupt to summarise them here. Perhaps it will be
sufficient if T ~d.-:::: ulle bl:<!1 oi irm:np:il;,,~ i~ura Lycia, which show that during thl
second ccnwry dw comln(n foil.. iil')llir..u., ...,.. .-r, 4 rt"rognisably distinct category from
the {AA!I>.Et.,.,., (:1~ .11 Sl,lyn~<>, .'\.0. 1~:t-92 TAM II. f/6 = /GRR 111.597--8, wirh TAM
II. 175), or !'wm co! f>' !l O~no;m,L; (lt";k.~ l!t4if2), dn;:htkss the same as ot 'ITEVTaKOo-wt at
nearby T l'rllll'io1-m Mitwr. wh.- ;n;;<" iO dr.atarii ,:,v.:il.lt a distribution when the r.TJ!J.imu
get only~ Jrnarii t'.Kh (BCH :HI I'Xi0)3J8-..Jt ,to.l.25-7). At Xanthus w.._. encounter
daints to dt"::.:l"nt fmm ;, f_;.th,r. grJr>df:t!hcr ,<!h~ o>thcr ancesrors who are dcscrtbcd as
fJovi>.EUTOti { T:lM IL~J5; ;<mi JIIJ = JGHH III.b2to; T:\rtf [1..308 refers to a father who wJs
fJovi>.EII'TiJ~ .lt Pi:1ar.1 W,). i'r !'<'ntS to i>, th, .;.;-.m:; ctegory. of councillors, which IS
referred t11.1.t Buhr>U.J..<i th.: rq;t._;,fth~ :::JH.r.fiII"Tt~ ,,fdtc ciry (IGRR 111.464). at Balbura
as Ta(L~ 1J l"pW'I"f~"'"'u tr lrnxvr fl :ril[.l.u} {CIG IH UROc .l) and at Phaschs as To Tl'ptirrov
raypa riJ~ TTuAf!.x ( T:Bfll. 1202: ;md 1:,''((1 = I< ;J<R Ill. 764). At Xanthus, too, an athlete
who is b~in~! h<llloUnd 111 T.\M H..'\111 -"" /GHIIJII.h.~J is described in linc:s 3-7 as the son
of an lw8p(~ marirpol pnt~Au>Tri' ~A.#<rm~O<: f\'#l'l;tr.:. ~'>'IIJUWLK'iW ,Uv p.i.av. {3ovll.wmc~ liE
Tl'aua~ (cf. Jone!'., GC.--\f lM!l, \~llh .U2 n.-'7), An,t in other parts of Asia Minor we
discover references hl,l l'lnUI nr,(,r, .\S ar lut<~p.ttll l :llttia in the I 70s (IGRR 111.833 b.4-5:
,BovAEUT&{JC.l.l i n'i:)'lolct~ ~...:; d .A. 2: i rcryp.tar irw lftouA.evrtKoti)). Sometimc:s we find men boasting of delln'ut trvm .I~K<'Ston. wh\ w.r~ not m.r.-ly councillors but magistrates (sec
Jones, GCAJ 175).
Outsid, Bithynia-Pontus (~t'\' A. ;~h>w) rnu.nn Jues not seem to have come to light
ofCouncll.. l>t'11t~ ournll,,( by th..: Gr:~k <'tllll''"'''ne oiRoman censore.<, exc~pt ar Ancyra
in Galatia. wh-r :h.:. di<!.Jls ,:;m;,m,d ;qn- o::lll .d i.~:wA.qypa.Po (AE [1937] R9; IGRR
111.206, anJ l7J
OCJS U.5-l'l! lllJ at :w" .:iu,~~ m me provinn of As1a, where (as in
Bithynia-P.mtu~) riW')o' .ITt' r~t,1 r(li: Arhrodrs;t~ (REG 19 [1906] 27~ no.169.2: Toii
7'EL#7p'Uil) ;md P,rgamum (lC";HII IV .4J:l...{>; :\th Mrtr 32 [ 1907] 329 no.60). Elstwhere
they prol-ahly nmt to he. dt,t.-J more .md more gmerally by the Council itsdf, by
co-optation (d. 1 Jhc.\T 1m Si.-il~). Tlw .. r.Jtemnt hv Hadrian, in a much-quoted letter
of A.D. 129 t< Epht..,..,us. o~.skm~ it to d~.::t his prote~r L. Erastus as a councillor, is
sometimt'S uk,n tv pr.-wid: l''idntn' vi popular election there, because when the
emperor prnn11ses to pay thc ti.: nqmn'tl trllm a n..w councillor on election he says he
will pay it [Til~ apxat}pEfTio:~ lt tKKr~ ~.'ifG" i(\X -; A.l_J RS, line 14). However, sin"' the
letter is addressed nul tn rh~ I kmus of Ephl"SU~ but ru the magistrates and Council only
(line 5), I W(lllld mt~t th~t tht'rt" W.!ioln> n.1l po~.rri.-ipJti,~n by the Assembly in the election.
Nowhere. J.S. idr ali I ;~m awar. d \\':' bt'Jr ot' .1. rrnptrtr qualification for membership of a
Council; hut. t'pc.ti.lll} .lS h.ing l ma.:i,rratt .ltli ,:!>Uncillor came more and more to
involve the." expenditure \It money. rh, ~n-rr.p:ru,d were automatically exdud.:d in
practice (cf. VIII .i-ii abo"<)
532
h .ouM. i !lullk. ht~ univc:s:J!;> agre'"'J th;tt ('b:non ef ro;.mcillors and of magistrates
from bdow h:td n:a.."'':! .:vcrvwhere, or ~irn;~l!y c~rtwhere. before the end of the
srrQnd .:~rltJJiy, J:ld that rb::.~~ Coundls w hidt wcn am' ::;t:-~1!1.::.:! by censors' appointed
rh.:-ir ow~~ namhcrs hy f\.--.....opu:iou When che Ass~~mbly j(io~ ill, it is merely to ratify a
_{-.1it .-;uo~mpli; I would th.us exrl:m; tht iuscription fn.m1 Sm ym.-., apparently of the early
third numry. whtch rrft"r~ ti) d1c decmm of" principal "''"Pi~ and his (six) colleagues
Ka-ri riw .,.""; 6i,,vA .tt"tp~>:<l'iav (C/G 11.3ir.2. !b~ H ~'J).
f)! adrrission t\1 rhr .o\ss~mi1ly. ;~r least .1~ ;,. iull :Hrm!-...-r. r-r.-'r.crty qualifications were
vid~utly :mm"~in;ot nnpns~! i:1 <:-ac way or ;~rmth<':. Tlw ~:x:tmple most frequently
q:Jotcd is T.a"m;, wh<"r~ :a i'c:~ )f .'tOO d::Khmac .vl..' p(;Kt~ti too large-, according to Dio
Chrysostom (X.XXIV2!-J). t<.Jr thf: !iut:n-wo:k,n who formed .a substantial section of
th !)W('r da~<:<."!l' hut r~ma:t;~-.i (as l>;o puts ir) 'all! wr:n o~..:tlitd: the constitution' {iiHrll'f'P
);(olftl' ri1o: ::r~'~u~~. 2i). ho:ing regaHi:.! 311 foreigncn (oo~toiao:f''> &XA6Tpw,, 22) and
suH~~ring S(H!ll' form o..lf dr.:,.:ic. ( 21), which .tprar~nrly uid r:.J~ extend to dyers. shoe
makers or r;~~pl"'nkr> :as ,ouch ( 2J). Fru1~1 th( .vt~ Dio ~pe;ks {S 21), it seems that the
lint'n-worka:; wt'r~ ?tnut~t~~ :.-, b:. pr.:'s:rn: 011 th\: Assembly: we: must surely suppose,
b~.lw.w:r. zh:u .os no:~-ciri:r1~H~- th\'}' (uuld :1drht:t :>Jtt':ik nor \'u~c there. In two cities of
PisiJi:t, 11,u11dy Pogla (AIJ 1.:?1 "' IGRR fUA.J'-J) :md Sill~-um, men known as
fltl(lo.1J'11ttrrni lt~ distingaish.-c! frm:1 uubt;,:y :mXtirfll (:u. wdl :~;:from jXJvAV'f'ai.), and at
Sill:-yull! rhq rrcdvc far i;ug<'r rums rhan il'O.\t:i'Tt'.. tm:kr the fomdation of Menodora
(IGRR Ill. 800-:. d. H02) l'r.;-~mu;.!>l }' th< .-.fiki:.~ rr-fcrrtd w .as :roATO'}'#)QiiMn in inscripti\'mi had ~h< du:y oi krq~m~ ~!lt" m:c;;s!'JT}" re~;tJSr,~r-s {fC>r ,;x.uupks, sec Magie, RRAM
U.J51)J n.~~i} Hn :~.g:,n; (d. :i:r pomw&s oi 2 nf rhi,; App.."'!l<ilx dealing with Ath("ns
anJ Hi;;rri.} Wl' h.tVI" e-..:..,mrh:!l
dw ;l;,,i,;J.-.u ~f:h, permanent rt"Sidc-nts in a Greek city
imu gra .kJ -;;atcgonr,.,. \\oid1 only a limited 1mrntw:- ~title.! !o c-x.rcis~ even the right of
pJ.rti.:ipatill)!: fully b tiw !!~twr~l!\'i~mbly.
S\lJlll'rtmr-s wt: tin.~ J.o>tn p;.;;s(c! Ul.'~ -~: 1ly ly .: Council td .<\.o;sembly but also by the
bo,fy ,,f nstdtn! H(m:m ~".Ct:zt'!ls. ~~~ l'hrygc.t: r\p;mt~~ \lll h.: province of Asia). for
t'X:.trttpk ..1. r:umh("r uf h"'lll!:tf\' Jccr..~ open "'ith th<: wc.!'lis 11 jkwAT, Kat b Mt#AIK Kat ol
Kttmuwia~..- 'PuJAti<ll (;-.,iuiJ<rm. (IG/ll~ lV.TN. 78~-4. "!Sf;-11. 793-4); in om: case the
W11rJ~ tr')'.,~t:-rJ..: ::'nlliliJpur (;"""''";.,, :&n: :t.,;l:kd (i,l. 7'11.~}. h1 ... rhcr cities too W' findb
lt-;,w~.i<tm.l With II ~rpcr,-partr.Uuel'<il 'f'wiiJai .... g ..ll :\.;.~u~ (lGilR IV .24R), Cibyra (id.
'J{!J ...5. 'I!J. 9J!.... I9i, ~nd dsc-wh-::a~.
Tht .'\!'~mhiy h.,d .-.~,..;.,,{ ~'Y ar diiY r..... dw mddk ,,; !ht scu.md century to have any
J'!<llitir.tl irnporr.ut;..,~. 1: i" rww uv<>'k:-d Jn:! !'rMilkd <:>wr h~ magistrates without
whnsl' cmt,;tnr ntlung can [>, J"T)r.:x.t :trod who llS!jally :Jloear as the authors of
nautJnns, wtth St>nll' ~ndt 1hr~ISt' ;,,; .T,l"~'~"'" (or .:~, ....,~,.,,;,,) -yvw,...,, and with the
,,lncurr.nn ( the Cotuu:Jl J ::.:~r:-. wu!J I~J.tl.l"t" l.i-, th;;t we- have to recognisl' Teffacenwut ;I{' (;a tlOthm lk;; d11:it. d\! ~-HJ'1~ ~U\"Ct;:l!f:.l 'af"faiblisst.mcnt de l'ecdesia, ou plut6t
:;.uu amululati;m. t.-1 cs.r. :\I' epoque AntUII:<\ k phi-Jwuine capital de Ia vie constitutionndlt de Ia ntt' :;:r~cqur. L 'assemblce p<~putir..- est non seukment impuissante, mais
Tt~J~nlit' .i J"nnpms,;aucc. J,v.t:at k~ usurp.ttl<ns de to1at g,rm: qui achevcnt de Ia
dl~pmdlc:r' \EVMAM L~lK cvuclll,hlll' rlw 1:.. -st .tet:ount I h:tw t~mnd of the degenerallclll ''t dw A!!tsnnhht'~ t' th ( ir.;d.: Oll{'S. ;.of.'\:;;:;,, li1J. ~}5-18).
I w,;)uld .11~,, .t~Jw Jtt~uriu ''' ::n ~,.;;;dkm p:-.s;.01~c lll]m,s. r;CA].l79 (cf. 340-1 n.44,
c:<m~.unmtt tmh.:!l inr.-r'~"tiug ;-,u!,ll<'r):
,,i
Undn the Principatc the- formal mowrof a de-cne. if put on record at all. is almost invariably a
magisrtab: or group of ma!tistrates, and pnvare mmbcrs of the Council arc stated mrcly to
'introduce the proposal' and ro "request a vote' on it, proc<sses wh1ch wtrc apparenrly preliminary to the formal motion: in a number of cases the mtroduccr and his secondlr. tfhe may be
so called, ue alone recorded, bur in these it is probably assumed that th(' magistrates moved.
Dccrns of the pmplc moved by privat< p<."rsons arc recorded only at Athens and Ddphi. both free
cities ... The evidence- rhus pomts strongly to the condusmn that it was the univl'rsal practice.
Appendix IV
533
outside a few free cines where democratic tndition was strong, that magistrates should propose
decrees, and that private members of the Council should confmc themselves to introducmg
proposals. This uniformity of practice. howcwr. hardly justifies the assumption that magistntcs
alonL' had the right of moving dccr.:-es.
Isidore J.(',y. wri:111~ in 1895. rn\Jid iimi Jl ;;int:!o: example in the second century of
that hallma.rl\ of anivil}' ittiti:ud in th.:- J\~~mltly itr.df: an amendment of a decree
(EVMAM I 1!:~). :md I knnw ufnt ~vi~k,,.:.. disco,o::r..-..-1 since levy's time.
I think it \v;mld br s.d~ ru say :h;.t br d:t- th!rd Ct'l1tury, even when decrees still use
traditional ti,rnml.u.lik.t Eli<~ .,-r,j tM~'i " ~c;,, iYiiiJAil', the Assembly of no Greek city
should be rtogard,d. 45 ha,:n!;: play.:,! any )!:rr.;ltt" p;tr; tl:..an merely assenting by acclamation to decisitm~ rak;;-n by th! mat_dstt:ltl;; :md/()r tht Council. From about the middle of
the second ,-,~nll:li'Y unwards. b~.:riptiom ucorJin!-= decisions in which an Assembly
participate'!- will somr:imcs us, 01 word signifyin~ m.trely 'acclamation': c .g hrE</>WVT1aav
{Tyre), ~fli"t'm& (Chilkl~). f.~{fc~--.:v; ..lmj .-i O<.:lS 515 ( A/J 133). an inscription of
about A.D. 110 inmJ M yl.t~a in Cm~. wh:-n 1:1 !in.~ S5 we find the corresponding Latin
term 'succlam(anun) ,-,;r'. Iu tht kn::, s.:-ri.-s n!'in:-niptions from Rhodiapolis in Lyaa.
recording th Ul!;,n!ikcn.c- of 01':-anw.;!>. w~ ii1ld l.'.g. ->) 1Cpm'ii7T''1/ roil IIJI'<lv( f3milt.Tj
i1rE!JoTiuo.ro 'ri t!rJIOq~o li~~JJ"9i}s.:n (T:-\M ll.'.l(l5. 45. XII 8.3-5 [ IGRR III.7J9D;
cf. f1TI.{Jlnj(rc.; {iu tho:m~uhr .\mi rlma!}ir ...~~- J!:>:d. 16, IV G.l3; 43, XII A.2. And SCC'
Jean Colin,
nl (in Vjli nAI ....dow) 112-]{._ f.r 'les divcrs vocables lift'CS de
I' hnflinluu;' hr a l"n~ lis~ f o;imibr :!xpr~~>;m~ in Latin, see W. Liebenam.
Stiidtrvrrw,zltfm.~ lltl riittw(luu Kllis(rm.-llt' (l dp:r.i~. 1'.100) 248 n .1.
And in tit<' nr~ br~"!l r.:cmd .H. ol dC"<T<"C of :a Gud.: A~sr:'JJ:bly tb~; l h;1 ~. !x-~11 .tbk to
discover (with thl po~5ibl...- nc.<ptio:m
~h~. on<' boo1 t l.>t)'(hyttdms, an P 0.\-y. 1.41.
quoted in V.tii .tbwt). ii-om Aminc-i~ m i>1"idia. w.: ;;g.1in fiu.I .....-rillrn in Lt.tinm !he::
middle of a Gn"tk mscripri1 111 (unii.,rtuuhiy wry thgtn(:J;t.try). th w,,r.-1~ '"oc!am(;,Htm)
[est]' (fr. i.:;). Thi" in:unpti,m n:ma rt."CnnJ a ;lto.:n:.:- "i rb'" 1\sscmbh. ~UK"' it .dm~t
certainly rdt-r~ w .1 .;,( -rjd,.u~o~) (tr. 1.! J ). Ctlt<n"\i in th 1'1.1111:1~<~ (':ro~~.o~1ptirblt, fr f. I~),
with a copy dt>pn'llir,d m rh< .Lrchio (1-il;yptu~o ,;'!1'.-..cf!tp.tl'<t. ii. f.IJ) .md 111 fi. 12
we have-[K~Ii BiJ"wlc-~ar.dm
f II !rJno:&'IIIA.Jj(l<rd :fiiM,p_,..j_ Artkm.n. w!J,, (ublished
the inscriptum m)JJS J ( IY13) 2.13-l- 7.1111. II. hk~.> tht apl":mutn~:;f;h,wor:IIK)aiCTap,.
in fr. h.3 as .m md1(".Ltl<ltl uf o~ .l.ttt. 'nut nmr.h t'.trlwr ~h:m.1hom A 1 ). 215'. I rhiul we Qll
indt>ed dat<' th.- documml durin).: th~ T<"tr.trdry ,m the- years f(,lhwin~ i\hrdt :.!93. ![
my know},dgt ui tiu<o Ill~< npunu t1 BarbJrJ i-4vick, whose mrne~t Ill Ptsjdian Alltioth ~
well shown in her hluk. Rmrln
,;(5 '" Soutilt,.. A.~;. :\-liIIIJ. l\if-D.i
Evidentlv in S(>lllt: (.!S.:'i tr wa~ t~snlti.;&l io't 1 dtv to bitv. .l d ..,:r~. nt:it ( :ouJictl mdo'm
Assembly rantitd by the provincial Jl:I'\'Clllllr
H. o:ivtr. 'The llOllloltl t:>I\"."'"IIOI''s
permission for J ,(l't't'\"\' of the polis', in Ht.iJ'-l) (1954) I(,J-7. Ius lli:.(.u.>~ui dlis quc;;tio,t.
citing six dtcr,'t"!f (ti~nr trum Ephesus :ouJ um c:ch trl)lll s;.tym.l ami Smyrn:J) which hti'H
on this question; .-t' M;1gw. RR:\M l.M!-l; II. !;\l.J~ u.19, IS{)(, n.3?. Among mh~r
decrees. I would add tht, m rubli~h.-.;1 by Wuodw;~nhtl I'-' t>. dtsmss.-f nt"u d1t" l'il-' ,f 2
above. PlutJrt.h. ir. a prl!.~il!t' I have qu,h:,J 11: V .iii .;,hove,;;, ,f:ph.'rd. the pnt'tice of
referring to the g(l\'t"Oior <.'\'t'ti minor n~;~tttr$, ti1r whidt oh\' gtl"<<:rnors aiJHo:~l w1s
dearly not a <'\nstitmon.al n~..:~:-ity: ht pumts ut th;at rhi~ u:.Hg~ .. :I<' ~ov~nwts to
become the &0'11'<0Tu
tlu cin,.., h,yonJ t1tt.' ,l,:~rw thl."y themscl"'~ ,b~iiL
Rt>volutionary J.l'tl\'Ity. uft:oun. w;as ahnn~t inomrri\uhk~ n ~-.::~t~ld navtm) dune!
success. and I do lh't ,vtn kuow <If lilY '>utviving ~'\'hit'IIC( th.u ~~ w.a~ .;;rt.rupt~d.
although \W dt OtYa.~im1ally ht.lr ,,ft{"l\>d rlb 1s in Di0 Ch:y~o~t(>m'~ H1thyni~ (!!i<.'::' V.ii1
above). and ,,f .1n ~,,.:.t:-oicrul ~.;m,.pirlilw.I uutJ:.n.tk "f violtn-.: ao; wb,~u Pttr;ttus ws
burnt alive." in Tlh:!is.Jiy {s,~ ~ 1 Jt>o,,). At~ isrpnom hJ..,- :!n1 at Cb;~~ in 1:.:.....-,ur ofQ
Veranius Phib~rus {m.nn>nl 111 V .Iii :.tbtV<'), with i!.>i rnvst:'T:cu nti.rc-r..--: to the
suppression ,,fi '''-'r> h.IW'll-:.li ro:1.ori1 ;:cy', may ''r may not }>,:c,kl ;,.-,, w,ft,rm~t:ntlm
the part of dw non-privilt:gcd; ir ttMY equally well rcfc~ w s~>utc iK~ttlu.ll struggle
involving tn:.lLJJly the inter<:'StS Of.t U!SS~U:'fitJ .-Jc"ment ant\ll1j:: th~ il>t~~~ propertied cJas;
or.
tr.
""'l':'
c,,,...
f.
,,f
or
534

4. Cyprus
Cyprus was first annexed by Rome in 58 B.C. and attached to the province ofCilicia.
(The letters written by Cicero during his governorship of the joint province in 51-50
B.C., some of which rdatc to Cyprus, arc among our most inform.1tive sources for
Roman provincial administration during the late Republic.) From 48 onwards Cyprus
was put under client rulers of the Ptolemaic royal house, but after Actium it was again
annexed, and it was made a province on its own in 22 B.C. (Dio Cass. LIII.xii.7;
LIV .iv.l) or perhaps rather 23 B.C. (sec Shdaghjameson, '22 or23?' in Historia 18[1%9]
204-29, at p.227).
I know of only two clear pieces of evidence .1bout innovations m the constitution of
any Cypriot city which can with confidence be attributed to Roman influence. Both
arc inscriptions referring to men who had occupied the position of n,...Tjrt,<; (censor, cf.
3A above). One, from Cyprian Salamis, of the rc:-ign ofNero, describes its honorand
as n~&1JTEi>o"a[~]: see T. B. Mitford and I. K. Nicolaou, Salamis, Vol.6: The Greek and
Latin Inscriptions from Salamis (Nicosia, 1974), 24-6, no.1l,line 5. In the other inscription,
from Soli, also of the ftrst century, the honorand is described as n,...1)Tt<Ta~. 'riJv
f:JovAiw[crra]At~~: secT. H. Mitford, in BSA 42 ( 1947) 201-6 no.l.lines 9-10 (rarhcrthan
IGRR 111.930).
It seems to me quite possible that ir was Augustus who provided for the t'Tirolmmt of
councillors in Cyprian cities by an official corresponding to the Roman rmsor. This
innovation cannot be dated, but it may conceivably be connected with the sending to
Cyprus by Augustus, for a second and extraordinary proconsulship (probably m the last
two decades B.C.) ofP. Paquius Scacva, 'procos. iterum extra sortl'm auctoritate Aug.
Caesaris et s.c. missm ad componcndum statum in rcliquum provinciae C:ypri' (ll.S 915
CIL IX.2H45).
5. Cyrenaica (and Crete)

I have alrcady mcntiou.d \iu V. iii :thu''": ;m,l >.c iu t ."<) thr ~:y mtl'TCsting constitution
dictated ro Cyrcne by Ptlmy I. t-wbably in J:?.~/1 B.C. F,lr rht subscqumt ver)'
chequered history or' C)'H'II.:il\.l dcwu "-' 115 .-,,g;ll!tS.:<tll!l 3~> a H.oman provmc~ I will
rnc:"rely refer to Jom:s. CJ:Hl1 ~ .liof,...i.OJ, with 4'11.-7 ml. !fi-IJ. (I'his part of CERP 2 was
revised wuh the hdj. ..(io)'IT M. J<,yu.:>lds.) fi,.j-;,r,. ({<mt.tiok ver there was tvJdc-ntly
a good deal ofintcrti'Ml.:t by rh .- Pt.k!ll::ic ruk~~ (.r,.-.- j;{. JSS. with 497 n.13; addJtan
Machu, in RH 205 [ I~'S 114 !-S5) ..>\ltlwu;.:!: hcq,h.uhd to lt.nrw by thl will of Ptolemy
Apion (a bastard son tfP~klll}' VII Eua~l-tt'S H). wl;u d;.:d 1n'l6 B.C., Cyrenaica was
not organisl'd as a Rouuu pr;wi!lfr umd .11 lra.,.c i~ i..t :1u,i rrl1aps even later (see the
works cited in Jones, C'EHPt. -N7 r. I;!, .-ou!r0\5! W. V. J-brrii. War aud Imperialism ill
Rcpublicarl Rome .127-7fJ li.C ( 11171}) l5-1.2f,7) Ait('C li>nlur rh:mgcs, it tinally became
part of the province ,,fCr..-r. dnd Cvn:u;iJ ilt~<kr A~<gn~r.ls.
Therc is hardly any ,..,.i,lcJK.: 101 l:tit:.tl ,,mdilion~ i11 rl:t titics, apart from a brief
statement by Strabo. prl-s,rwd t-r Josephus PI XIV 111-15). t('l the effect that Cyrenc
itsdf contained four categories fmhabitanh: du:c,r.~. t:trm('r~ (yEc..opyoi)," metics and
Jews (a privikged d.tss of lll<'tic~) ~ J;rl!J! rhl~ w: '"'..1~ uft'r th.1t m the early years of thl'
first century the old n.ltivt flltlll popuhthm di1! ""' '~l)O)' ~h. ntizL'IlShlp ofCyrcnc (and
set" Rostovtzl'ff, SEIIRE~ 1..\I)"Jlfl}. lt:tysdf dll :1o~ !J;.hw th:tt tt had cwr done so, as I
cannot accl'pt the thn~r}' tha:lb :o,;,,[,,.,,., <~fl J.ir:- IV. Jr,l J w.~r.. nativ<' Libyans, m spite:
of the advocacy ofdus '!tory !l; ;:Kh srhh:,;, ;;~A. H. M. J>m,; (CERP 2 351, JS'); cf.
497 n.13 ad fin.), Bts-.i.t. :nd L.1r~l-l:. s,.,. th, d.i~m;;s~.}li t-oy f Cnamou~. Cyrene sous Ia
monarchie des Bartiad,.; ([;;n~. !~J5J) !?!-t .~n:fth~ Jt.:n,;.th!~ ~1gg,stions m~dc more
recently by l. H. jl'fi~ry . 'Tiw tt:..::: uf ~b rlro:t ;,tti<:r;; t Cyr. :::-', in Historia 10 (1% I}
13<>-47, at 142-4.
Appendix IV
535
There art a f<r:w ~c:ap~ ofi!lf.:rm;lUon fr.-;;m in~crip~i-;:ms found on the sites of other cities
in Cyren<Uet. 1;-, SEC -X Viii. 772. ~ pro;.::tljl dt"crc~ ofJStJ-.320 B.C. from Euhesperides,
we find tllt' Epbtrs :.lui G~.~wu:..:~ introducing a proposal to the Council, evidently the
ruling body, for the dlXree U!-'Cm wirh rh~ \\'tl!dl>. if-Opwv Kt:ti -y~;poPTwv f'm:ry6rmuv, ~ll~:
Ttil {Jw'A.(),, ;;nd :hett" as n[) sign ,-,f 11 gcno;:-::1l t\s:;embly. Similarly, we have a recently
published tkcrc!'. Jlmo~t ctrt~u:l:~- .-.1 th~ second vr tht: fairly early first century H.C.,
from th~ !!W<krn Tr>t.H ('faudJCHD. Of' rcmhc-!1"3, known in the Ptolemaic period as
Arsinoe), which wa5 pas,.::d !y the Gcmm....-s .1:ld Council (rhcre being 109 votes in
favour), witll J me~mon c1f other magis~ .ll~ (Epl:Frs ::~nd Tamiai) but not of an Assembly:
sec Joyn: M. !kynolds, A r.wK denot. f:oal Toc:rd m Cyrenaica', in Anh. Class. 25/2n
(1973/74) (>22-Jii; c:[ L 1\!nrr.tt. 'Un c!r.Tf<"tn di ''!"SlllOt.' in Cirenaica'. in RF 104 (1976)
385-98, esp . ..miJ (or: :rri.\10 u lim: !3). I Wl''l!ci Ul"JW :&tt<:ntion to lines 11-14 of the Tocra
inscription, pf;>\:'1!1~ :h. bonora!11! f'o: the wav he had conducted himself ITOT' ro<;
ox 'A~ [~ej.~, :ril.iU<R .-,m! r!:~ words ~ ~ niw O:\';..,.,, rw:-qpiall in lines 53-4: here we find
a non-pejl>tati>'L' ;fS;.' of the t.::r:~ t>x.\~i (;11 the plural bccausc. presumably. th~: man's
generosity ha(l notlx--:.n c~:ntirtr."tt w r.,n:i), which oc<:t:rs also in some village inscriptions
of Asia Mmor and Syri:1: :o.o,>( lV.u ~bovt~ Jn;t :t; :,.,)5 hdow. Even if. with Morcrti, we
kfep 2TOAitr iu Jin;: L3 {.n I th1:1k \W pmh.th!y ~hot:ld), and still more if, with Reynolds,
we emend to :rAi~lt~. w.: ,.ft~:; hr JliSfifi,.t in tiudint: m Cyrtnaica, as m othl"r arl:"as, a
pnvilegl'd class ot'ful1 citiz.:u;; . .::mtn.s:,d wirh:; l.1:~cr numbl:"r of others (thl ox~m) who
had no pt_htll':d n~;ht~. '}f only v,ry inmttd ot:t"s.
In thl" pc.rio.i oi l~;mta n:l, .;ot.:lawns s,rin. ,,fdo;-uments stands out: the inscription
recording li\'1." ,di.-ts nf Au~J~toh J.auu~ lrnn 7ft'! .; D.C.: E/)2 311 = FIRA.~ I no.68 =
SEC IX.~; d X~V.~: XVJ.iJt,~: XVEII.72'S: Jmi ~<'c esp. F. n ... Vissch.r. Lrs Mits d'
Au~uste dhmlti :i Cj,':r. {Lomvo~m, 1'1-IIJ): ..:f_ tl11 !::-ug rcvi.~w by L. Wenger, in ZSS.
Rom. Ah1.. f,2 (l'i42} 41.~-_-\h; ;m\t r~ Vl....;~chn's ht~r artidc. 'La justic" romain~: m
Cyrenai'qu:. m H.IIM.\ i l { !~,,.~) Jli-J5: .!lsoJ.-lowia and Nicholas. HISRL'1 71-4. For
our present puipx-s 1l 1:. tiw tir~t J.mi :i.,urh ,-,f ~hc edicts which art" relevant. Both
dcmonstr~h t!w p.lrrinp.t"'"'~,fr,i,ht Rnuns h.l.twsuJts at Cyn"nl:". The first shows
that whl'll Ro>m.tuju.lg.,~ hall btTt dl<_,~,~~. rha~ h.1d h.cn takl:"n only from Romans with a
t:ensus of.tt lc!<L.. t .:!,5<1i ,I!JI.ITI\, of whow tiwn \W! 215 in Cyrenaica in 7/n B.C. Tht"
same edict.~:~., atTur.ls 1'\'lLklKc' or a:{>lllphrw~ hy lh~(,)cal Grl:"t:ks of unjust beha\iour on
the part nf H;,m.m ;ud!!~. !\u~us~u. ~nc._o; tr Gwct.;; ...:cused on capital charg,s tht: right
to choos< whctlwr r.. he m~d hy l~llll:<llJt:.i~~"> "' l:y ;m equal number (tw~nry-five each)
of Romans .111 ;m,-1 Gr,~ek:;. r,, b.: drawn from thos~ wirh a census of
at least 7.5fiO .lctJ,Lfli. l.lr. ifth.:r: .1r !"'' h-w 111~11 vtml. such a qualifitation, rhen at least
half that figure. Tho tc,urlh ,,l~ot !.-~;,. l';; u w th, l'ro:\'~l:cial govcrnor to decidl" whtthcr to
take capital case~ l:uu5olfm '" h.tn :h,u: :n.-.1 ;Js ~l'~dtied in the fi.-st cdict, and adds that
in non-cal'ito~l c.cs1s th.- JU,I~t'" :ur ,,, :,,. Gr.d,;~ ltl)k~r, a defendant or accus~d prdcrs to
have Rom.n:~. (I lltllt !oom wir.r l'Hl\'ist.,as.)
* * * * * *
I do nor propose to treat Crctc separatdy. How.vf"r, there is one passage" of exceptional
interest which we cannot afford to miss: Strabo X.i\' .22, pAH4. At thl:" end of his H'ry
muddled and inadcquatc account of Crl"tan insmuuons, okrivcd mainly from Ephorus
(and thtnforc very much out of datt:), Srrabo adds that not many of th~sc 11014'11-" ~till
txisr, but that Crttl' is 'mainly administl"Tc"d by tht. iJJ.aTa'}'p.am of the Romans, as happens
in thl" othl"T provinces'! (It is With tlus text that Swoboda, GV 176, opms thl:" ninth
chapter of lus book 011 the dccrtT~ of Crrl:"k Assc:mblil''i: 'Verandcrungt.n untcr k-m
EinRussl' der Ronwr' -)
6. Mass<!lia
OfMassalia it is only nccl."ssary lor mctusay that tht." tamous anstmraril' constitution, .1s
536
The Class Stru~le in the Ancient Greek World
we know it from the early Principate, was not a product of Roman influenc.: but an
indigenous growth. 11 In the time of Aristotle, who wrote a Constitution ofMrmalia (see his
fr. 54Q), it was not a democracy: two passages in the Politils, taken together. show that an
extreme oligarchy had merely become more moderate (V.6. 1305b2-!0; Vl.7. 1321'2~
31). By 197 D.C.. as Wl' know from an inscriptionufLampsacusofthatdate (SIG 3 11.591,
lines 43-5, 47-9), the directing body at Massalia was already the Council ofStx Hundroo
described by Strabo (IV.i.S, p.179, very probably from Posddonius) as consisting of
-rtp.oifxot, who sat for life- and were presumably appointld by co-optation. as W\.' hear of
no general Assembly at Massalia, and two passages in Cicero, De republica, quoted below.
would seem to exclude its existence. This constitution was much admired by Strabo: and
several Roman writers, including Cit:ero (Pro Flaa. 63), livy, Valerius Maximus
(JI.vi.7) and Silius ltalicus, speak wdl of it, using terms like gravitas and discip/i,a.
However, Cicero in the De r'pubfica, although prepared to say that Rome's 'clients' the
Massiliots 'per ddectos ct principes cives summa iusritia reguntur'. yet admits that 'incst
tamen in ea condicione populi similitudo quaedam servitutis' (1.27 /43); and a little later he
compares this 'paucorum et principum administratio' with the rule of the Thirty at
Athl!ns (28/44)!
By the second half uf the second century uf the Christian era, the constitution of
Massalia (now Massilia) had evidently becomo: thoroughly romanised, with 'dccuriones'
and the usual Roman municipal magistrates (duumvirz etc.) . 12
7, .\lt.<o'i:;!f,m:ia .wJ ;,,.~,,,;

We have only a few s,up;; ,,,-it'i;:Otlllatlon abum th~ c.msmmtun~ .md political life of the
various Greek cities ofMI!'l'oporamia ..tnd f.trthc~l \';lSI. Thl 111'-':1-t ~..uterly of all these cities
about whose internal poiitical affairs w~ hav( :my tvidm,t th.1r is rdevant for our present
purposes is Seleuceia ''ll th Tigri~. :.n xn,pt:un.tll)' lat);t' to"'r: w~th a population put by
Pliny the Elder at 600.000 (NH VI. I:!~. ou whJ.t J.udwrity \W d<) r111t know) and believed
by Strabo to be comparable with that ,,t Ah..ondria and r.tthtr IJ.r~Lr than that of Antioch
(XVl.ii.S, p. 750). Sdeu(d.a was ti.,r a tmw tlw :tJJin Sc-lnuld <.'ilpltal. It must haw been a
flourishing city in dt.: l.ar;: third ccntnq U.C. if it i~ tru~ that Hermeias, the chief
administrator of Antindms III. alUM impose u it a tim of J. lh,U!i<illd talents (reduced by
tht> king to 150 talents} fur having taken pan );: the rrvoh of Molon in 222-220 B.C.
(Polyb. V.54.10-11). FrmnJnSl ,.lfi('r thomJJl,,,frhrstcorul n:mury B.C. Seleuceia was
nearly always within thl' l 1.uthi.m uth.r than tlw Sd.udJ or Ruman sphere of dominancc. but was evidentlv allu\wd a nm~iJ~r:Lblt ttu.-;L.;un of independence and selfgovernment. We hear ofib being under a :yr01ut. 1-Iim.:na,., probably in the 120s B.C.
(Poseidonius, FGrH ~7 1: 13). According to l'hH.rrh. writir~ tf Crassus' campaign
against the Parthians i1o 54-3, Sdcucci>t IUA.i :1lway~ b.m lllt{isposed towards the
Parthians (Crass. 17.8i.
In relation to the year A.D. 36 Tacitu~ speaks of faction at Sdeuceia between the
common people (the populus or piths) ;md the three hundred members of the Council,
described enigmatically as 'chost:n for their wealth or their wisdom to be a Senate' (opibus
aut sapimtia dtluti ut smatus), a form ofwords which may indicatt.' that the members of the
Council sat for life. Factious disorder was particularly likely to occur in this city, because
either party in a stasis might call in the Parthians, as Tacitus notes in the same passage
(Ann. VI.xlii.l-3,5). Before 36 the Parthian King Artabanus III had put the commons
under the primom (presumably the Council of.300); in that year the situation was reversed
by the prC'tender Tiridatcs, who had the backing of the Emperor Tiberius and was
welcomed by the populace of Seleuceia but soon fled back to Roman Syria. Artabanus'
successor Vardanl'S reduced Sell"uceia in 42 (Ann. Xl.viii.4 to ix.6). and that may well
have been the end of popular government in Scleuceia - brought about not by the
Romans, be it noted. bu1 by th.: Parthians. Sdeuceia now bt:came increasingly orientalised,
Appendix IV
537
and w~ hear no more of it txcept m connection with Rome's Parthian wars: it was briefly
taken over by the Romans at the tnd ofTrajan's reign, and sacked and partly destroyed by
Verus' general Avidius Cassius in 165 (see Magie, RRAM 11.1531 n.5). Dio Cassius in
two passages in his narrative of the campaign of Crassus in 54-53 stresses the Hdlenic
character ofSeleuceia (XL.xvi.J; xx.3), and in thr: first ofthest he speaks oft he city as an
existing polis still thoroughly Hdknic in his own day (wAEiaTov ro B.II.TjVtKiw Kai vii~
E)(OV!Ta); but this statement may haw little foundation- then: is certainly no evidence that
Dio himself was ever in or even ncar Mesopotamia (sec Millar. SCD 13-27).
For the history of the city, seeOCD"971 (with bibliography);addM. Stn:ck in RP 11.1
(1921) 1149-84.
* * * * * *
Anothc.-r Mesopotamian city about which a good deal is known is Edcssa (the mod,:rn
Urfa in Turkey, not far from the Syrian border). which is always known by thar na m~
rather than the one given to it as a Seleucid foundation: Antioch by Callirhoe. The most
rccmt book is by J. B. Segal, Edessa. 'The Blelsed Ciry' (1970). Sec also E. Meyer, tn RE
V.ii (1905) 1933-8. For what is known ofthC" constitution, sC"e C. H. Welles, in A. R
Bellinger and Welles,' A third-century contract ofsale from Edcssa in Osrhoene', in YCS
5 (1935) 95-154, at 121-42. I have no kgitimatncason for mentioning it here. but there is a
remarkable exchange oflctters (bogus, of course) between Jesus and the then dynast of
Edcssa, Abgar, in Eus., HE I.xiii. (Eusebius, who thought the letwrs genuine, says he
had them translated from the originals in Syriac in the public archives of Edc-ssa. 5.) The
Edessencs firmly believed that Jesus had made a promise to Abgar thar tht:ir city would
nt'ver be captured by an enemy \Josh. Sty!., Chron. 5, 58. f/J, l'd. in the original Syriac.
with an English translation, by W. Wright, Cambridge, 1882). It was m fact captured
more than once by the Sassanids, and in 638 by the Arabs.
Notes
[I. ii]
I. It is astonishing how few maps show dus very important lingui>tic div1s1on. It dot, ~ppcar m ,.. ).(.
Wcstemam.l Alias ::-ur Wel(~e.<rhicllre (Berlin etc.. 1%5) -t2. For the situation in the Later Empire.
Sl"<.' Joms. LRF. II. 'JHo. In support of my division of north Africa b<.tween the Gr,ek and Latin
worlds I would cite p.9 of Louis Robert's book on gladiators in the Greek East ('<'<.' Vll.l n.J
hdow): 'La Cyrcnai'qtw fait partk d<.I'Oriem grec, et j'ai laisst' al'Occidentla Tnpolitaine .
:?.. For tht cltil'S ~ hich wen newly founded. or achieved tht status of ritics, only from the tinll' of
Akxamkr omvards, sec e.g. IV..stc,n,mtrs Aria.< (n.l above) 22-3: CAHVJI. Map -t; lkngtsnn.
CO\ Map9.
3. Norman Hayms. Vvho had s;ud m 1930 that 'the nign ofH<.raclius llllrks the beginning of
Byzantine history. later came to fed that 'Byzantine history begins with C:onstautin<. the
Gnat' (BSOE 7H and n.2). For th< Uyzantim hhtorian Ostrogorsky it was in 'tlw .1).:<' of
H<.radius' (6 10-41) that 'th<. Roman penod ,ndtd and Byzantim hisrory proptrly -;p~akmg
bq~an (HBS 2 J(}(,). For Arnold). To~nbl't' 'an<il'Jit Grt,k or Hdlcmc lusrori<.:~l thou~ht ..
camt to an l'nd whtn Honwr yiddcd pne<.J,ncc to the Bible as the ~acrccl book of .1
Grtck-sptak mg and Gr<-.:k-writmg inrl'l/(~rnl zia. In till' S<'flt'' of historic1l amlwrs [ thdt] evem
ocrurnd bctwt,n tht datl'S at wludt Th~ophylactus Stmocalla and G,orgl' ot'Pio,idta produced
thtir rcptnivl' works' -that is fO say. dunug the rtign ofHl'r~dius (G",.~ Histcl'i.al Tholl~llt
fmm fl<mn 1<> the Ag !t'Hml{llus. 1952 aud rcpr .. lntwduction. p.ix).
4. for English-$p<akmg rcad<.rs rh, most convinnng stattmtm of this virw is by lbyncs. BSOE
1~2. Diffcrmt as my own po~itiun is from Ius in some,uys. I find him entird~ convincin~-:on
this particular topic.
5. Nacholas [J]P<~pa. Er. H. inj. D. M.1nsi, Sao. C.'"'. ,r,ra t ,unpl. ((11/, XV (1770) tHI'~:?.l1, at I'll.
npr. as T:p >If> in ,'HPL CXIX.'J::!6-{>?. at 'H2.
[I. iii]
I. S<.c Jones. LRE II.H-H-5 (with the not,s. Ill.2H3); Brunt. /.'\.170.~-f, (who notes that 'Jom, ha~
much th<. ckanst connption oft he g<awral conditions that ohtained ti>r the tooJ supply').
2. Sc<. tsp. the rcfamce'' that follow in the mam t<'Xt abovt h> Jone~. I.RE anJ R'L Amon~ many
ot!wr di~<ussion' of ancient tram port.'<'<',.~. Dunc.ln-Jmtts. EREQ.o.; .'\66-9: also C. A. Y eo.
'Land and sc.a transportation iti lmp<.rial haly'. in 'f'APA 77 (1946) 221---l-t: and of cours<' tht
ind<ws to Rostovtzcff. SEHHW and SEHRL 2 s.". 'Transportanon <'tc. On any que"ltiOn of
navigation or St':t transport. sec Liond C.1sson. Slup' aud Smmcmsltir iu tlu At~cimr w,,.J.i
(Prinnton, l ')7 1). Thtre is a ~rear deal of miscdlatKous infirm<~tion about trawl and journeys
by land .md sea in th< first two cmtnri,s C.E. in Ludwig Frit-dHiml<r\ nnssiw work.
Dar;tcllmrgeor <liiS d1r Sitrm.~cJc!.iclltc Rc<m.< i11 Jcr 7.cit 1'"1 .-\gu<t bis ::w11 Au~~mg dtr Anr,,.,;,H.,...,o
(lc'ipzi~. 1')]9-21) U16-HH. csp. 331-57.
3. The fragmlnts of 1Jiodet1an 's Price: Edict known down to I<J3H-'J W<'r<.' published (wtth an
Enghsh translation) by Elsa R. Gras<.r, in frank. J:S.-lR V (19~!) 305-4.21; thn~ an smne
furth,r r.kvant fragm<.'nt' in hC"T artick. 'The significann of two ll<'W fragmmts ofth.: Edi<.t of
D1ncktian'. in TAP.'\ 71 (1940) 137-7... An edition by Siq~frit-d Lauff,r. Dicklctiaus i'rd,eclikt
(Dnlin, 1971) w.ts compkt<.' d<)Wn to 1970; ant>tlwr edition (with Italian trambtion) l>y Marta
Giacd1.:ro. Edirtum o,,,,fttwn 1'1 Coll:l!an11n de pretiis '"""" l'f11<1liu111 (G,noa. I'J74). incluJ,s
sc:vnal frag-ments found ~ubstqucntlv. anJ ;, nnw the mo't u>eful sin~lc tcxt. A nuiJiber of
Notes on l.ii-iii (pp.H-15)
53<)
fra~nntttsufthc' Edin fuuncl.;; 1\<'l':lm 111 Plu)'gtil. un dw upper Rhyndacus. mak,up th~ most
~~uimr ~d Jv.;d;lbk i:mu ;~ iinglt .uurn. Thtsc fragm<'nts (mcluding a clear
wmplt'h' i..aiir.
priLc o: 72,1kll) tknarii fm th~- pound (f jlold .md (i,IM~l fi.>r tht pound of silve-r) have b<m
inmrpor;otl'<: 111 c_;j:.c.;:h~ms ~dilion, On rh.: p~tbil.:ntion of tht Atzam fragments by R, dnd F.
Naum;um il1 i'H.1. v;c ]<>yc~ lkyrmt.f~. m /RS f,f, ( I'J7t) .251-2 (vvith Hugh Plommtr) and 1H.1.
with ti<~ worb dr..-d 111 <he bu.-r p.l-~a~- 1111 117-1'1 I giV<' h..:rc. for convctn<'ll<'<', a kw
partKuhriy !ntport:.nr Fnu trL1m tb~ Uiici (in JctJ~tii) which c.m now h<' r..:g:udtd a' twrain:
(I) th~pm~ndof go!J-7?,4~~1{<1i~cho:Iu~.LI.:?); (:~) thl' pound of silwr: 6.000 (G. 21'1. \l): (3) dll
ordin.ly >!:tV<' lJ.'<-rl !f,-;11: mJl< )11,1~~). :'cm;;~k .:5,1~ (G. 29.la.2; L3u!Ttr .~l.la.2); (-<) th<
dailv Wi\!-:= 111 un a~nculmr~l wnrkc: :!'! ;~11-b tlvJ {L, :md L 7. fa, cf. IV. iii ~bow and irs n. 1
bdow). (5) tht 'uh::.nsi<; modius': ut wh.;~t lOll. iJi buky oO (G. and 1.. 1.1.1.2). The last
s~.:tHll~ of all in tb: Edil' 1, d:~m~ wiili S<.'ll :1111i 1\'~"l :l'Jttuport cbrg<'' is no J5 in G. md J7 in
l.; the ~.-.-uon kalmg wuiJ l~ttd 1r.1mpon dtoll}!<.. h IIH 17m <'ach. Thl' btst aucmpt to soln
thl' nmtpiit:at=d rrobkm ,), :h~ ~-iz~ of:h~ (ol>lmw, m.diu, (probably 11h ordinary mndti) is by
R. P l >:u~.m-Jom:~.
>in <>ltht' tlta>d11o r.JJi'l'l'll.fiJ , n Zl'l:" 21 ( l '.i7h) 53-62 . .:f. 43-52.
fur a ht~h .-\l.-yrt't' ilf ht~ruy ;tm.:,.,g tht.. IHlu-tll.lru ,,f th<' Clas>Jcal p~riod. set tht adrnirabk
artidl b)l F D Hurvt>'f 'l.i1~1aq in thr 1\th.-ui.m ~kmmr~cy'. in REG 79 (19M) 5~:i..(lJ5.
Athcm w~~ 11Ll d~mb: <'xetpriona!. in rim ~~ :n ;u rruny othl'r way. lllittracy wa~ nry
romm;m i:~ l-kl.bti<ti and R01t:~:1 E~Wl~ J:"oil)t'<"iJll~ amon~ woml'Jl: ><'e H. C. Youri, .
.'irriptllmml~t (Atllst.:r.htn. l'i7.J) J!.f,ll-!7, ft2'.'-S1 (nos. 2'J and 30). t<'printm~ (with num>r
addltb"'ll*) lwc,.;rtidcs. ' h"'\~,..:..-.o" ~n :1.5pcc: of(~r.,...lc sooety in Egypt'. in HSCP75 (I'J71)
161-/i,: .md 'i:;.~..'.>,.,. 7!-M'.<.: 1'<:.-..m ht.r;;cy .md iJJir,rary'. in GRBS 12 (1971) 239-61.
Suftici.t,~ blbli"!=~J~h~ wi!l bt: (tun! dwrc b.,n ~ villa~<' cll'rk, a "~>JJ.O"ypaiJ.!UJ<U~. who of
(OUTS.:- w;" ~llj'J"il<.J4 in
Srriptiu11r11fa 11.t.77 ..;_;s. ~ r'!:m: .:-fP~tms. ~il:. ,\, 1'~-r~.u:;, ou [, scrih< 411i m s:w3it pas l-crirt.
inCl:4! (1911:.) 127-l.'.
The bt-, .l;i<>nl<t ofrh:5 fimdam<1>f.JI :.>p~imiriil" b-ctw'l' !OWn and l'Ollillry in rhe Grtd f::J\t is
injon6, CC::1,i ;:;:i')...Jllo~ (l'a.r: V. 'Thl .K!i,vcmrnr '.r'th<' cities'). tsp . .?t6 ff Anothtr major
work lw Joll"'- Cl.;'R/' ~:"r,q~uth t ;T<',j ill GC.l_/1. b,ts OC<'n nissutd in .t S<'rond tdi!lon,
CERi' 1 ( ;<l'il). whh :,;Uiti{''" ~ t~w crfdl~u~ .-..hr.>mi;ll. A ncelll work. limited to the lat('
lhpuhli :.u,! h~ l'~im:i(r,-. ~ M:.dvlulkn. ibj( h..- ti.r~tchdpt<:rs (>fthi" (l. 'RurAl', and 11.
'l{ur:.l-t.lri..u,, l'P 1-:'-.{,"! 1-oil\'l'Jllr .. i ...-.fJ-,bnstn i1l1o;rntiYL' mat<rial- ulan 3ntlquari;;~n rarh~r
than hi~r"!'l<"~ll.-lr.l!.t~"r. ~i!c~ hi; h<.hl; (hlo..-th r<:<l .,f MacMulkn 's work) i~ 11"1 supported
by au\' 01U~l.!rt(1J'. "'"tna;tn ofd:n:ry "'' Jllt.dl(Kl. ;.n..~ t~n:~;.~t(lrc la':k.s 31l). pnncipk ofor~ani~ation
and is ~ddo. "' tL<'\''"l ~hk- I> [,uui..'h . -'}'Ltn.o!.>t,!o. For thr opnuons of a g-tl'~t scholar who
knt'W :!w .lrC'h;i<:<.l'f!k.ll .,.._ ,v,J: ::~ t!ll li!~r:.ry :_1id~nn parriul:uly wdl, s.'t' Rostovtzeff.
S.EHkl:". ~-!!;- 1..55-7~-< (wHh I! !l:.-t-ii), _44-::.?. _\71<!-SO, :;11:'!. For a similar >ituanon in the
W,sr. <t''-' l J:-. '>t..;,J . .!1..!3--4. !lu!y). ::;;,;~ [r!u;;~~) ( ;hould perhJps add 1ba1 I know of no
paralld h' Str:.too 's .~l . ~itic;< i.m ~t:" .Jt,'li~-,,i, rr.Lrif(ti~,,; ~nd polirikvi (X Ill .i.25. p S'J1): It may
be nL !1-r<:- th:"lrlollt'il,-.tin ,--.fl-"bi' lAIN ii! .iT7~"1. which ht had quottd.
Galen. lPo1or tlr.:JJ,._J,:,c ~ ... .: 1..._.;,, I .l-7 = Drl"'"j' t~Wiisquf .<tori,, eJ. G Hdnn,ich, in Corp .
Wtrlir. C:t.IJ:. V !" "!, C.:~l.-n.,_s (LtJpziy;llkdiu. t.~.!.') 1.'-11)-'Jf = Doproi>i~prtwi.<qwalimt'II/Mmn
souci.i, ...-.1 t~ (-; J{iiht, io 1-;ai1:" V! (Latpl.if:. 111~3) 7i-'~52. with Latin trans.
As llmnt <.ay~ il.\1 '/i.IJ). "(urr,lu:lb.iH :x~rnir;~otim j_; still m'<'tltd' of ancient tamin, His
n,,.
4.
1.,.,.,,.
5.
6.
7.
own hri. . 'f rr.:.\tnu.:ut o! th& S-HhJ,..,t ;, .:lot.tnti~;ib]... ~r:d ~;.ve~ ~ ti~\\' at~.. rc.'nccs to other \\'orks.
anw1~ wbi hI 'o\',,.ll.i ,.;,,!;:k , ...,, 1\b, 1\ol\tlk.o. [J;'(_J 2N-S4 (an appmlix <kVottd l'ntirdy to
fami~~~~- lont H. l' R,lm.;, ! ,.,,.,11("''~'4;, ., 11rd i/llt({!o'rrtoo/roo im >piirarotikr-
=
Anli:jooiJ.:; Lll, Jk.,.n, l'iii}
8. S~<' <'$1' P St;c-d,._.,_ 'Att.\n:ll.ll Ho~bhmic ht;-:;;~.on. in :\C 3~ (1'J6lJ) 16.J...-H. at Jf,(,, citin~ H.
R,,, (
Hani1::1 b H;m.r .!\.:; ~~x:!b~r i11di.-~t~. ~a~;t.t,_. ~"' md by the rabbi m qu<'StiOn hJ' the grwul
IUCall!U)! (:' n;tlro;.,., Ollld Lln'l""in;: Alld .,... I' ri.:bi!(, in Z:VIf/!H (1917-ll-1) f>.J...-72. For
an.fat-:l!i.' it ~~~~~~-'! ;,. th-:- (,tr~~ (~11.:! R-~11!.1rl) w ..u:...J. sec: Uor,h)vtz.:ff. "An~ariac. 1n Kfil, 6
(I'JI~'l 249-SH; -'ElW::' 1.."'1-~ (wi'h H 7113 tr!-35,7), -il'J-20, 11.72."\ n.46; 1-. Omd. Die
Lrt~<l.~i' (t..::it~!~. 1'. I '7) 2!-1 . .;!<1.')0 (:>r I IlL in. 1.\,'}': r; !f .mgart,ll' fall in~ on rh, P"~~dllt and not
th< \\:11-h-.i.> [;o:t;l; ..,-,.,.,, '"' l"tcl..._.~.-huru .-\11. h'' (un Lihan., Orar. L. Dr,m.~"ii .. ). 4U<lt<'d
in tb~ tt""'-1 i~l~a":, rt'!' thi.' -.ttr~ \'\'~Li~ l11Ci:t~!~.~ t)f tJ.lr:sport St..'rvicc.s of VJ.tiOLLS kinds ttl thl
l~om:,or tmrin ... rg.111';;~d l>;- rh, \~;1111~11 ):OI\'trr,.;,;111 ~;; thl' Prlwu/,aio.latL'T th< rursus ptllolim.<.
540
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Notes on !.iii (pp.16-18)
see Stephm Mit.-h~:I, 'illq~ilf-ilionro ''~nc.port m :ha: Roman ttllpt~: a mw mscriprion from
Pisidia' {Sagalassus), in_JP.S 6!> (l'l'/(,) JO(.,..;r, ~i;> :h~ l.m of::!l dmumnts (111-1~). A rcxr in
the Dwst that is sddo:u nol.l;:ed nwmion~ a r~:Scripr 10 1h ~~~~cc that ships hdongmg ro
v~tcrans augarian ;:'''~ (XU.'\. ,.:n ..!, i. UJ,n;m) In ~ papyrus we ,veil lind rh, word
.W.:vya~o~ !SR r.4:~6).
Thrre is an up-to-<i;;tr bi""hlicgraphy (;; (hi; n~bJt;il, ~-')f :h( West~";,~ wdl as the Eastern part of
the Roman ~mpirr. Ill I'. ,-\ !!mat. ~l.!lCl~E = Th~ r<nmanisatkll of the local rulin!t ,lasses
in thf' Roman tmpirf''. m .'hsimilati'''' ~: li.n~to;>~fl.' ,j /,: wlr&r~ W'(-r.,.o:.;mf dans If rn<>nde arrnm ==
"l'ravaux drt VI" [Madrid, !'174) C.;o,l,O,:h't IurnnatwrM/oi'l:WAN Cl~tm.J"f-' (Bucart"st/Paris, 1976)
ltll-7J, ar 17~2. I >hould r~rh;;pHt~tij<,loo, CUlt'' T.!ik~h':l.-l GC'lJ 28M-ll5 (partly but not
cntirdy n:plact-d hy i.RE U.'Jt>f!. lj(,f!.<J. )') l-7). H,sw.-:;:d'f. SEIIRE 2 II 6'!.6-7 n.l. h66 n.3<>.
J. C. Mann. 'Spoken b:n: m is~;t;;in as 1'\"ldMK~.! m ho::- ln!crJptJcns'. in Britat~nia 2 (1971)
218-24. although dlahng l'll"id~ \'lith }jr:r.:m. ::u.y suggest .I wo<y in which rcs<:arch mi~ht be
conducted m orher a"l.".U.
On Ly~tra, St"C Barh.;l:'.i 1.~'\'!ci.', i<'C5.1M :;~-3. 15.\-'1. (')5 .7,
The- rcwnue of tht" tl"'~rtiog: P:;,:,m}' !< l~irr. in rcsp...-.....,:.!:1< ollll'l.~nl murccs as 14,!!00 talents of
silver and 11/z mill:u;; att:oh.a, oi w h:;~t in rb: ~m.:! >Ill .irk: c_ftil~ tbi~d nntury B.C. O<rome.
ln Dani~l. XI.S), ,:;wJ ir ti !;;.,, ('ftr~t:ry H C ;;;:; il.~1)1} I.Jimu (C.c .. ap. Stub. XVJI.i.IJ,
p. 798) or 6.000 tak:us {Dtord XVn.;.u:l: s-c-~ }{.;,~r,.,.~::f:'...;EH111f.'II.1150-.~. wah 111.1607
n.!ltl. The total population ~it.._,. P:u!~mak Egypt (I ,,n !~. C J j, given as 7 mtllion by I >10d.
1.31.8 (with the t"l"'~l<i.r!;r. nrow m,l.tl<>!>ly :tn:cpt.'<J~ .,..,j'~'"''' fm r,.......,.,.u.w). That ofRmnan
Egypt in the Flavi~u rt;iml ;3 gi\'n1\" J.>>., 81 U..l..l\3. o1> 7o/: 1nilliua. apaft from Alexandna.
These figures may ,.,,. approximatdy rorrt~t W~ "'h(uld i',hars llow a million m so for
Alrxandria: cf. Fr:l>'l. P.'l 1.94)..1; fl.l"il-:!11-J.:'il(.
Cf Rostovtzdf. SEHHIJ' !1.~78-'>14; ,.,,,,.,, CEI!!u .~.!-! L
For cxampk. Claud.. V~!l.a;,:~t''' i._. :n~ AO>>c .bus :.. l.mj,:u, do~ ;apyrus grecs', in CE 4!1
(1973) 339-49. argttt:s d>J\ U:: I:"Xpr,;;~l"ll" .~. o~....... whcnurru~~o n the papyri in refert"ncc
to Egypt. should h< 1:,km ~.) b.. ,ksc-ihin:;; a l~rth:ul.n S('('t.;n .:>f tb, native Egypuan
population, indcf'd ,l ~~~~~r:ll' -..,ri._>ll, ';:.:m;h, <Uj"'.'llt'oor:.: <:!.' b ~JUiarion egypticnnc, existant
aussi bit"n a l't'poqu.: rhara;ui;~n~ 'fu.~ ~''rt"il.r' ptolemalque' Ccf. .Jilother work ofV.andcrsleyrn, wh<"h I h:n '"'' h.,.,, .tbk t' r.:-...!. L.-~ Gut'f'f'es d'Am..i> [ l 1nl]. csp. 182-4 on theRoseua Stont), ami nut th~ ft~~~:.al m.1s,s -ithc tntrw r-rul.tt:o>n Rostovtzt'ff, like many
other scholars. will thc'J II.&\'~ m:~mt.rp11'!:..'\! th< Wd" ;..,,.. "'- 1:1 such documents as th<
Rosetta Stonf' (OGIS '.10.1~ SO.'\' SHIHIJIII7l3l;) .an:l in tlw papyrus ho: describc:s in
.~EHHW 11.883-4- h ii1l tv ~vth.r.f,.r.~<cr. Yihh'h ;, HGIJVIII (1933) 176R (W. Schubarr
and D. S.:hiifcr. s,.;jiJ'il.-.n:ti.lr p,,,.>.,; ,,,.., ,,,..,li:it: if~ ,j,._. H,.,,,f..leopolitef : .1c,~yptisrhr
Vrkundm aus de11 <la~t!JiiUrl M11.ftllf ,, lin!'" Grr,.dii.oir Url:lmJr'fl Vfll. Berlin [ 1'133),
no. 176!1, pp.47-9). H(W<'Wl, \'.llaoi,r,.I,y,n~ udn~a.-1' .lu llC:t "i'l~ar to be securely f'Stablished: contrast W. Cl.uys.... .,,.1,, s,., ; (1'1/h) 1M:> tl . ;~t 115 .&nd rm.224l (pointing out that
Vandcrsleyen tak~ int Jlrnt mly tb. tMIII ~..:..:ami twl th,. .a.t~tiw Aa&JK. for whi<"h st"t"
e.g. Preaux. ERL .!24 ~uJ n.~!. AnJ lkiu7 H.i'"'" 1hrcl 127 t"i:. .u 144 n.]2. who dt'cl.lrt'S
himself unconvinc.d; cf ll<'i11<'11 in :\t<r. So( I! 1,1 ')77) 1.3o.i :t. 2! ~
Eurip . Eltctr. 31-53.1.r17-J.H7-~7. Ji2-LI, J(,;!.J .t~IJ..:\ Ar.,
46-72 1s irrel<v.anr herf',
since Strrpsiades. how,wr it<-...nh t>r fl)tlll. ~ 'h""'nl~ o:nu,..,iw.:l as well-to-<lo and does
not fall within my Jti11iti<lr. '''" J'l';b~nr ;s..-...' IV. ii ab.w:'
Cf. lGRR IV .108'7. fr ..n: c,,s, tor oo1 Jtstmn't' b.tw ..-..'11 fl)iJCLITQC<tt'l~<iboniJilci~ ,..;,., :.olAt>'7'U.."
ai 1'0[1.) Wo!~m~,Wma Ktri ~ 'l"!~-1~1 & "r\AD'I'I ~feU OtAIJ. ,..;,., ~ 11'0An7~1' Kai 'A..p~~U..I' Kol
I&EfVOKIIIIf. (l can S .,,, _iu~tilk;atin ;,,, hntng-lll' th~ tw1; s:h I mhabitants 1n parallel and
making the JCarolt;.,.,...~ th' i1111<"ttS. 1ht> a.. ..
thr R<lm~n~. and the ,.~, the
metics. with RosiOVtl<':'f. SEJINE.: 11. t.54n.4_; i Ul.l.}' a.ld th;,~r th.-r,t~ !SOme evidence from th
Larin West tor the c'!Ct~-:.m.,., ,,f Ji.,t:i.butins to mduJ.- ;uh.J.bir;~nr. ,,fa city who ;u, nat Its
citizens (municip ..s. l)f :.:'"'') hul ,.,,.,.,,.,. ~~ hdOYi . .1.1\J nunc:aO~l'IIL'!i, EREQS .259 n.3, Z79
n.S). This unfonun.ttd~ r:.i~~ J. th<ntl' '~"'"'lion o~.l'<'ut th, :ll<".llllJI[. fthL" expression inrol4e.
They dearly arc pe.rk wh,, J,, :wt h~\'(' ':ta<"'l rijth~~o 111
riir.J.> or ri>A1c in which (or in the
territory of which) th,}" r~SiJ,.. Hu: .&n. :h~)' ( t; 'Imply n...;&JL'Tlt~ w11i1 a domidlium in the city
who have an origo clwher,. "'" ar. ~hl'l Ol rnm.mh ch" population .~fterritory subject to the
city. who have no Io,~i (ltl;;.:n n.,:hb, .-..-h,:h... r or :,..,t they art' clici.ally its 1111ributi (or
contributi)? The fornnr ~~ th ~u.nJ.ud \'I<"\';...:~~ Bl'r~;.r m Rli IX n. 1249-56), the latterthat
o,.,,d,
,.,,u-
tl,,
Notes on l.iii-iv (pp.l9-22)
541
ofn~mvt~df. .~Efl[!l-:.'~
II. fl.~ u..Jl. ci. trl7n.\!7_! ~ree with Brunt, lM 24lJ: 'Though the
rc.-rm "incolotl." . irlltiY \'i.:w dcllt.'lO no morr- d;;m "!fi:S!dcnts without local citilen rights". and
is no: ;< 1<-'ChniJ.I :c:r:~ ~!,-:,i~l.tlnljf mtmbcr~ of:: wbjtct population. it IS Wldt enough to
cmbr~cr such:. d:l!5.' Two lrgal U'1H5 6CC'11llO ~~~~ w how a dt"velopmmt between the s<:cond
and r!oird .colt\m~. f',.:mponi~. in D;;( l ,.;vt .Hr..:. writmg in about tht second yuarttr oftht
SCCQOU r:rntU:}'. ~ll.llt'S iPflllol W;~h G;cri. ;n;,~ ~11d includes in his definition of 111w/a, not
onl}' th~ who tt'11itl-.- m <'flpir!o bt.:t .3}~ theM.' wl:J haw farmland (agmm) withm the boundar:~ t)t tiW tOWil W 11ich ~~ Ul Svlll<' sc;gc tiJ~lt home (such ( takt to he tht mt':lning of'ut in
eunt :\t' <1::.-.1-i!:: aliquam <edcm ~c:cipiant'). ~m ;,mum! tht second quartl:'r oftht third century
Mod~thnt lio~s nut co:111t ;.s ~n Jllf<l/oJ .;, a ~P<i' "~"!U""'" on th~ ground that a man who
mak;,s no us~ vi the O{-:d1-..,.,, (norr:mm~. i'OIIV~IIi~r:ci'S. btn,ftts) of J. city is not to b<' constdcred
irs mro/.t (0(~ Li.JS. in Gt~L'l>) By rlum . .:u lilY f4h', i; seems that attrilouri and thtlih wen no
long..-r (or,s1t~et"C'I! to bt' !:rr.,/,u- an important t!J1d11~ion. for since about th<.: third guartt'r of the
second cu:t,ry iC(tU h..,: ~ill" C"q~u.!l;r lt;;bl.: Wtt'h local c iv~.< for rnu1Jera puh11ca (Gam'. in
Dig. I. 1.:!9). I ft:;.i 11 !1\t~n:-snng th~ m i!..S1-"'ll~ (dthc third quarter of the s~cond century).
from Sicc; Vc:;.;~::, in Nu111lrli:., UK itr~lllcl who ;:;.cc to benefit. with mmuipf.<, !rom tho:
foulld:~~ion til.:r._ nubluhnl ~:: f>_'jtf1c:t'<f to thve livin~ 'in tht butldmgs included m our
coluU'I. A!l:l m lt:li;~rt dri.~ !l~n' lr~mr!t~io~-.. \\h.,-o.: rhcv exr~nJ to the lower classes. arc
sptat1allr lin:Hd !~ rhc ,,,f~:rr l~l<l:icicm >t'<' (',g Puncdn~Jortt's, EREQS nos. h3S. fl~ (;
116~). "'l7. ~4i, 'lfll, 97t., 'HI, W!J. 111(1(,, W7'1tn
16. This,,. "'d~ h(m~ om by Ubanius. 0..:1. XC'JII: th:: 'lr.cgc populous vilbgcs in the trritory of
Anrioch 'X!h:mg<"J thcsr Jro:L:;tr. wuh ('aci' .-,til' r ~c rhdr fa1rs (7r<>"'JYV~~t~J anti 'had httlc usc
for tit.- dry h,~.::IU'iC' o( ~lu:r <'.'i.dl,il!!:~ lltol&;ollg <tu:tuclvcs'.
17. Cf. ltnsw~t:tdT. SEHHIJIIJ.llC>!i-'7

18. Connas~ tlw r.ftico;~l ;,w, cxprnscd
~>r lllpi;m i11 1>~ l.i.JO. that th parria of a man who

m. ''!li.t~ ~ Jh, .irv (rc !'lt!Nu .. ) I who.:h :h, villa~tl' bdong~.
19. Jont"s. I .\llr lHr<. u;our 1l:d1 thl!' s:am~ :~ i w<:mld wlKn he u-.d thl xprtssion 'too narrow a
das~ (._.m ..!.truu'; hu r<r lum d;;~>'-:. r~nr, !..- ;,<..1 quito: often- was not somtrbing that
n<.~J,,i co l, tkti,,.,l, ,.,, ,,r.:n, :i.: th.;; m~H\'!, dmughr about. I hesitate to giw t"qual
promir'l'JC.- "' the ur;al ~;lll.'ctl.- "t :h.c ~-n~rop<: m question ('The great mass of t!K
JlOl'lll.Uhlll, rbc rr"l~U~~I of tht' h>Wll~, <t!lif <til\ more the peasants of tht COlllltrysidc.-,
rcm.llll<..il l.trh.l.r i;ms'), ri~ It ll<>l >:lly us~s ~F~:n th.: ir~;~ppropriatL' expression proletariat' hut
end> with .a w.rl "hi.~h tt1.: l!~,,.ul H'Jkr' is hJ..dy t< mtsund.rstand unt.-,s bt reali~es that it
is very much a C!.a~'''a! ..-h(>!n',. <lll:"i--r,~,;hui.-;-,l '"sm. almost the equhaknt of the Greek
word loarloarot, not rt..:,~~uil~ l>:.llllllit more ~h;cu'n(m-Grcck'.
ori~liJoltc-tl
[I.iv]
1. Ther, o~n vo-ry il'W <-x,puvn.., th, 'llilll> lltlc' 1>&-ist: f. A. Thompson: set e.g. his .4 Rornan
Ref;mt,., .mrilwrr.r(.I.J> ,,Jiric:r uith,\>MI)'"I'I> iln~ms brllrfis, 1952), esp. pp.Jt-4, H~~; and
othor works. mduolit~ A llmm; '~' Aflll,, ,1,,1 m.- 1-1: ...-s (194!1). Th, Ellrly Gmnans (1965) and
Th,. 1-'i;('"''''; m riJ, Tim~ >j fJ!iil- (l'_if.;,,) lkn~rntn hrrington hds also madt u~c of Marxist
con,'l'l>', ,.. g. in his Grk S.-inu-. <l'..tic.an. 1'153 "'''I repr.) and his colltction of t-ssays, 1-leaJ
and 1-lmJ"' Aouient Ctr'>'o' (l.n.l i'l"?). l'<! CU>r~~ Thomson and Mar~artt 0. Wason. sec
11.1 ,d>t>\'<' .m.l>b nr . :r-,'!1-, 1>.-lmr,.

2. l shallm...,rdy r~c.;>rJ til~ 'Sd.:;-r t-ihlii>:_~nl'hY ,,,, M.:..~""m and the study of antiquity'. by R. A.
Padgu~. pp IY'-!2.=.. lflll:..v-, r.raiu.~ll!l rh~~ "''"-k.much that zs m nty Arethusa arridr. it is
bcco~.us.- u.-.r JU:.III\' 1'-">Jllt iu tlrrr;:uu ha\'<' .-...~,. '~n~ to a library cont.umng the pcriodicalm
question.
3. I should lik .. ll r.nrd :n p.11H\11lar M"llri"' ]Jubl. Cm E"'non1ic Throry arrd Sotialism ( 1955 and
repr.l: ol.lhi l 1r>liti;al &,,_!Miy ttiJ Capitalism :JJJ7 atu.! rcpr.); Ronald l. Mc.-k, Studies in tlu~
La~''" Tllt:o>rr r!} J:11uo" (1''7 3); .111d the 'Pcns;IJ:n Sr-~oal' by Andrew Glyn and Bob Sutdim..
4. I
Briti.<h (~J}'IM!i>>'l. Jtl;riro1'i oll<ri ,;,, r~o.>j:t. ~:jo.-.'N (, ..In}.

h;n.:l>..l>'ftll..,_i '"''tli-ttb!h' iro>111 (-:;;_>dt'li'-"~ RTE: Dt>l're and Rey, RPTHE; and Meillassoux.
'From rt-rl'l..ittnton tirttr.lu;tt<n- A MJn:l ~rrl'\~Kh to conomzc anthropology. in Ec~momy
and S,>ti,tr I (1'17:?~ 1,;-1115: 'Ar~ rh,r, .a-;romltt;b:t' in Ewnomy and Society 2 (1973) 119-111;
and 'E;~.ai J'intrpr~'rJn... n .ttl ph.:-c.;.m<n.: :'=Jolqile dans lcs socictcs traditiondles d'auto-
Notes on l.iv (pp.22-23)
542
subsistancf.''. in Cahirrs d't'rudcs qfrirames 4 (1%0) Jll.(l7. A pap<r by Tcrray. 'Classes and class
consciousness in th{' Abron Kingdom ofGyarnan'. app<ar' in cHurxisr Analyses .md Soria/
Anthropology, ed. Maurice Bloch ( = AS.-\ Studies 2, IQ75) ll5-135; and the bibliographic'S at the
end of that paper and ofth('othr:rs in the same ,.olum<' rl'ftr to further works by T erray and th<
othlr Marxist anthropologists I havl' mtntiom:d.
5. Sec J.-rzy Topolski. 'levi-Strauss and Marx on history. in Hrst"'Y and Theory t2 (197.~) l'J2 -20'!.
for a demonstration of tht b>Ttat supcnoritv of M:nx to lc.'vi-~tuu~s in under.;tanding of th<:
historical proceu
6. This lecture. alreatt:< pui1iisl:~d :oqw .>.!ely. t iu i!l<' i'.rt.omliiiJII 4rill' Bth. Ar.:~J. 3!! (l972) 177-213
(pubhsbed early it~ l'fi4) Jt ha b-.'t'H r<';lrttl:d m .w.1nit lr:o1l)'lt$ ;rlld,S,,ci.,l Amhropo{~y {sec
n.4 above) 29..1,(),
7. An exampl.- is E. Ch. WcbkJrf. Dlt ['l'""~~~:to'41mllrr1r.iitnln~ im dltm Oritrtr n.o1of trt oi~ "n<vlruzfl.
riimisrhen Antike (11.-rhr,. f'lj71. Tber a~~ oi raurs<" ~ illlmht-:- of Nh~: work. p:;oli!ihcd 111 rho:
German Dtmocr . n, Jh-pnh;;- .on! b~ Italian 1!'<~ :-:r:11da M.>r,:h 'Vhirh .r k '" :1!in! 1o1 :\:.
bulk of Wc;osrem ~.-hvlan. ,o..,~ ..:;nl!' :hr (_;,nrl;IH >>~:bl:r~ti:,n;. ,hf {a:n d''" i ::m;t <!wio~ly
rdevant to th( sUi:J,';'I ''~ [j:;s (lf)(l~ ;< t!w cc.ll.-r~i"" w<.>rk, Htllontorlt,- P(T/ri f(wr il'andlrm,l(
Wirkung, ed. E. Ch. Wd~k.l:>i (~ \''1>, Pi' L'Wt, lk-rli::, 1'.17-!).l;u;! l!:i''t" not nft1n ii:mmi II
Usc."ful for my pa~t:.-dJr rrp:)~~. A.mmr. <1!hcr f;t:r:n.;;;J ~rticli';; :.:d rnc~Kgf~Ji";s. I wrruk!
single- out 5t.'Vcr;cl r-~ 11~::~-z Kt('iiis:!~ ~.-.d~.ht:~~ lJh t12tcicrJ /.!cu1:mrniLL.Ytl,\'r' ~J;: }:.dti~~L-;Jn
Krie_~~s. Kl11ssm u::.! l\1,u,,t:ka~~lpfu; laiii>!m.: J'> i_iahr!t r.11.% "' .'~fJuifr'" ::ut (rl.'id_,. u Kultur
drr Antike I (lkrlm, !1711): orl,.r ,,orO. hj Kr~ss1g a~~ dttli it: 1Jl.i11 :n ;:. ;a ~wlcw
Translations into
lJ[lJTol'l H::>>lal' (whi;h 1.-ry fl'w WUtt'HI (" b~ric;;l sdNI;:r, ;-;on ~ddl
am ashamed to MY I r.lllliOI) ,.,. .a.L..:- btin!' l'llb!i;hd m tlte DDR. "-!-: E. M. S:h:~it-~m~H
[Stacrman], Dil' K.,,,. :!n .<;;,t,w,.,,;,,.:,.. ,,,,i,.:~ ;.,, Wcsuwr 1ltJ '"'lltilf: Ri:IJ,r (D<"rlir. l'lfi4)
German translariu!"' in:u ti;, lt1:s<i1 h;ln ~i~: begun tu app<-ar .n 111.- (;,.n:'' hxkf;,l
Republic. e.g. E. M. ~t.ll"rru ..m. J),,. Bliit.~-= .!,., Sklavmwirwhqfi m Jn .,i,oril~>l: ll(r"l.m
(Wiesbadi.n, 1%',_): T V. 11\.IH!>k;'-'"" f. ~- C.dd~r.'J\'":' :~.ni A I l';oi.J\">io.:.j;t. L>i..Sl:i.t:rwi ;.,
hellenisti5chm Sta.:!,tr :rtl ,f I :1, JJ Cl: !WI;;l::J;iw. 1"711. &ll.i :>ec b1lLw fur ''' h.dh:1
translation of a Ru:>>l.ill
n,, lllhliv;.t;:l::' =m .umk., i-kf,.,rtii, ,.;1 ;os;:,pl; Va~r
(Bochum. 1971). h;N ma~:y Ituss:t:~n ,.,,;! I:Ast l:m.-,,,.,.. , w<gJ..s, wtl: "!IC"!i :t:<l:;,~ly r:~IH
literated as well a" !wm~ :r;m~IAtt'\1 :rt
rlur-~ 1:" ;,.,.,.~, .,..,,.,.. l),"ui, h~'l"~i:n 1:1
G.:rman of SOffil' ,,f th. sv,i.r ll!AI\'11;1! ~~<' .- .~ rn..inh Vittinttl:.>ff 'Pk Tlhri':l des
htstorisch~'ll Maknah~muo;. ut...r .t.~r: AU>I.t" ..SJ.i:I\TIIiMlr.-r-t;,;t(' l'robkm.- :In ,.1\:tn;
Gcschichtc be den "Kl.~.>slltnl" .i,-,. M:.rxi"n" nnd in ,in mo<k:mn wio:isr!t('"
forschung', in Sar<ulr~m II il'l{~.} l!"-Ul; d' Ius 'IJJ.- fk,kuhi:Jj! .l.r '\kt.w lor ,,,.,.
Obergang von d,r .A.nnk :ns A!>,ul'inilis.-h Mrn,Mt,r'. ''' Hi>l /L'''" I'(! (!If. I) ;.!1'.';.7~.
with a risum in J(Jl <:c.4tl,-;ri.!i lru~,,.,,...,.,l .It: s~-it,,;.'~ 1-li_.,,.,,:.,-1i sc, t\'Liu.h lt. ! ~-!!4 ~.i . Rtf,.,1 !- !;'~'"'
Communic11tions (Citlt.hrot etc., ,,,,.,~,) i! .1 rh, l.uc,.t ~uh W:k dut I ll.l\'<' ~...,, i G
Prachn..-r. 'Zur lk.ll'UIIIII~ .lor .JUtdo.,.., Skl:.n-I"''!I\.,Io:.mo11Wirts(h:Jr ft;r dc.n Ni.:J,r~~.a:~t'
des romiscbc-n R.:i.:h~~ c.H,m.-rkml!!'ll /.Ill m.&r.xisus.-htJ) Fms.:lmn.tf Ill lliJct.ri,, -~2 ! ini.}
732-56. (And~ l:mlly. ;\E 18~ ... J'J,) T!tn.: .&nlt-MJt>n.<t wud.. ~ h.-;, r;;rh,r u.rrnm: s.-,,,,..
and ar~ dirL-ctc.-d .ag:~tn'-1 :\t.ar ..u.t (r w<.ol.i-1" 1\1-tr \lsi) int''' ,,r,l;lli"'~ ,-,f :t10n1 Jir.r \
sgnifil'antly diff~rtfll tiunt tJhllt: the~ "'.: l.,r;d~ ~r.k\.utt t<- th :lrttm:t"''~ I ~.:,.om" m rh:,
book. Much mor i)bje.'t'ti\'t ;omlm~tnKtiv, "'' '''""' tut''"' h lkil1.1 J kiu,,, ,.; 'ih''''f (.m.l
Polish) matenal t\n inl.lml\'~ "''"'""' >J.n-.r, ,,j ""'idt I b~v~ ,..,,n il) ~~l'r<' ~''"'''u-.h~
Monographl~:n zur (.;,..,,hi,:,;,..,(,., .'\h,rtmr;~. in Hi;;l""' .!4 (l')i!>) .~7~. ::~) l\. (3) :N,mr<"
sowjt'l. Veroffenth(hun~..:u zur .me. Sklo~.""t'1. 111 Ht;r'''"' ~:. (l'l'lr) S.tl-5, ~nol ~! t.?~t 1:.!!.\-~:
(4) & (5) 'Zur Skhhrc'l m d.-r holltuNkhtu \\',If I JnJ II. in .i~h -~''' 7 ( 1'17r,j 1.~7-44 JUJ i\
(1977) 121-54 (th,.,.,. ~~~~ wth nudtm,ro: J,uiltoi Ji;.n.~iom} s.~ .tl>' I kit~,~o\
<)II ..
lraci Fedeli. Marx f 1/ m.rJ. .mri;,, (Mtlan. 1972).11 Hw. t'" :J,II'.mtrl 5 ( t.li.5} ~.?ol-3.'; 04nJb\~
article, 'Sur le rtgimc Ju tro~H.Jl dans I'Egyptc ptolcmalquc All Ill' it'dt ~"' .I -C .l
d'un livre recent deN. !'! P1k11\. i:tl.t Monde Gre.. H(llflma)?'.! .r C,nr, P,t'.:t._, ()lru~s.k 1'175.)
656-62. See also P.1ul Ptnt "I.. o:da,;a!t<' Jtmqu o~;,,,~ 1'1>>~'"'' ttr:wh:, "'"-'lo'Cif!l:,. ,;, .-\:r.-.<
du Colloquf d'hiJi . ..... I9'1U = --lot:ir !:rtluiro~ :i. n ....r: J, lJ{i;ll<;:,l Ui\ (I>.U!~. :17;'.) -~-~ Tit\
only work I know u1 f.n~iib dt.ll ,;an' J gru-r .. l rni;.., i S..l\'iC'~ "''itk '"' lt,\i\':u hi~r,f~'
from the Revoluttnn .iwn = th 1<15& \10 th:.Jntd, h\ H I' [i~.th;a:u, 'Tir. <i.::::iirJnt rt>hai
the study of Anci~nt Ut'!OrJI!n rlt.. Si>\'lo'l ~.~z ...... . JU c;!.J ~~'!.:11.-' (!'..if.7).S!0-'!7. I !lf"'diy
regret that it has Ut>t """l")iliilk i.:or ru\ ~ ;:: 11 ,. ~~ii>ll:.: C.t:<'t~ally ~:.r:.- !ilo\'' " hn~ i 1h::
c .,..
"""'k.
c ... ,....,..
"'"i'""
rr.r"
Notes on l.iv (pp.25-29)
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
543
iargc qullnlity of luliau M:r.rxi!t m.atai-1! on am::~n (mainly Roman) history which I know
exist>' I .:211 acly :::emiun w:ne wc.:ks whtc1: I was 110t able to do man than glanc~ at until
~fcer dus hc-ok lwi !lCrll substam!~ily fim.s.lt~d: M.uto Mazza's valuable arriclc. 'Marxismo c
stone ;mua. Note wH.; ~tiJ!Jo~~fl2>n~: ..:.,.u ill !ah~. in Studi stori<"i 17.2 (1976) 95-124. with
much hihlwgTIIJlily; M.w~:.1\ ilooi.. (..,u, ~,>;iali t' t6tauraziour autoriraria nel Ill ;a. d.C.
(npthh~hcd 1n 1\mu.-, l'TiJ); .11:,t :tnl:.:..!J:m ::~n~t~cio!1. La schiaviri nel/'ltalia 11npenalr l-111 sa.
(Rom~. l'.i7;). vi;: boui!. p<ibli:;fu:d m ltcl>si;m ia 1971 by E. M. Sta~rman and M. K.
Trofimov.~. .,'lth a xnos~ <l$~:"f..:l 37-~c Irdacc b;: Mazza discussmg Russtan and oth~r
mod~~n M.uxm wc~l< o, .ir.c:~n: (mainly )km:;n) !u.~tory. Unfortunatelv, l have not been
able~" ~d _.,nPI,Iiisi 1/h!!"-i!tk i i<~irra ,;IJIJrn~ ( := f\:u"''i hi/Jiiotcca di aolwra 178. A Ill d..! I' Isrituto
Gra..,mJ. \.'U. ltlli;l t _.f'ngr,:s: ;m<~ mh~n (Rome. !978) Muth interstmg work irom a
Mar\::\! S~;trlipul'lt h.~> b~tn it<.:b!,~!td i:J :;;,:y .,,, .m:"icnr littraturc and Jrchacology, subjects
wttb wind! I 3m ntt ditl'rliy C\JilC&:tm:tl hr:rc, .:nd I will rntntton only the most rellvant of
t~sc I k!l..w: Vt:on"' Citll, Tai'tlir,, ; i;:JI.: li dw m Grecia (Naple-s, 197R). Among recent
French wmk5 ""' ;;a.-J:-nt h,;tmy w~i!t..-n hy l'.br .ht' I would sin~k out thos. ofPterrc Bnant.
mer.~h:,nt-:l ~-! Jll.tv :&b':-'''"A.nd it:! nt~.Jl~ . .ti !:u:lc\~
MECW li ;.01~;,; Si.Z~ (w1rh t-.~l "'N~) = MEG,-1 l.ii..IH0-1, 47!\-9. And se~ Johannes
lrm:;d,r . 'frt~,fnrh b~gds st\l'~'~r~ AltcrtumsWillMU:haft'. m Eirene 2 (1%4) 7-42
MESC ~fl5-7, J~ ..i.[~-. Sv.J-'1 (~p S!U, 5(:.;...'), Stt7), 540-4. 548-51. (Th, last lctttr is now
kno>"ll ro lwvr l';l,"t"JJ writt,u t<' "'!. B,rrgltt~. lilt: H St.1rkmburg as once bditvc.>d.)
S\.'\' the ftw-,dum.- S!'lo:.-.1 U'~r;,.j 41/ ,,t.w 'TJ~:~<~t.:: {in English) I (Ptking. 1'H.S and rcpr.)
311--H, ;tT 3}1>; "' :he >!t:.-v;:um .Soi,..:~i H.,~o'l!twsftom the Work.<~~ Mao T!Mrmg (P~king.
1%7) 70-l}ic. ;,: 14
Kathrm!.m,l C. II. (;ro~;:c:. ~ot~o~n C~th,,i:,~;.r.:h~\rd and social status'. in lkndx-lipsct,
est'= .\14-lltl' ol fl'\'lSo\1 r,rnm (of .u. src\;], m_lr~l.!i H.-l~'[iOfl 5 (1<J53-5) 33 ff. For thr ,ffecr of
econ.-.rmr ~t.mh 1m '-'ililot: m tht '<l-'nt.-m .ktt~o>~r;.,'los, S<'t' S. M. lips<t, in Bcndix-Lipstt.
CSI': 1!.\-~ (.:i. Jl.o~ u 11 bd,ow}
Th ul\' T<'C\:Ilt p.tp.-r of \'..llur on this subjccr th.1: f h.tpptn to haw s.-en is E. J. Hobsbawm.
'K.ul M:tr,.~ nnrrihmr t historiography, ml.t,.,,;,,.i:Y irr S"'ial Siierr'c. cd. Robin Hlackbum
(Font;~rM l''i'rh~.-1... 1'172} ,:!r,s...)i.\.

13. The d!~llllt'f"-"' {wlndr . .t~ I s.ty mth no alii l"Xt .d:m..-. I do not propose to dtscuss in this book)
betwt'\'11 th, n:vnunuc 'h.&~i~' ,,f ""i~1y and it~ hleological 'superstructure' w:b already
forhlubtt'\f in l'.trt lfrh,t";,r..,.,.,IJ;,i>;!f. ~ith'11ji>Jntly by Mar" and Engds in 1~~-6 (s.:c
.'JEC :W V .KfiJ, '"'{ 11 b nM ck:uly st.al,-.,1 h~- Man lmusdf m a famous passage rn tht Prtjact' '"
a C.mtrihutio.; I" !1;: Ci:i.n.. ;:f i>olitical F.:.>l'"''i' vf HISQ (MESW Hit), on which stell.ii .tbove.
AlthUt!h tin~ ~<l.a Jt,., hbmJ mu.b Jwb;.c Marx wuc.,; (a good exampkts th criticism of Sir
Fredc-n. li.lt'l). '" Cap. v 5- !i>. ~ ( 15 II . .': but thtr...- arc scores ofstmdar passagt"s), rhave
fouu.l t\ow .,,b,r explicit r,f,:reui:~"' h> 11 hy M.uk hm,.lf. See howewr rhe arly J,utr loP. V.
Anmnkuv, ,,f]l\ J),.,.,.,uJ:>cr ll'W(,IME<;C .\J...'iJ. ~r 40-1, 45), and thl' passage.> m the third
chaptr fT#r( l!i.;:lt,.,Yllh lin.,,_,iu ,!; ,.,...,.;;
111 which Mat" wntes, Upon the diff,rcnl
form~ ol property, upo.n tit. ~.In:, I (tr~<fttlo'on~ ,,f, 'tst~ncc. rises an entire superstructure of
difftrt'llt and distinctly l~>rml ~ntun.:rb. tllusJnt~>-. modes ofthought and views of life. The
tratirt~ dass <T<.rte,..md f<rms th<'llloUio>t ib m.uuiJtl fo>undanons and out ofthe: corr~-sponding
social rdauuus (.\IECII' XI.I.!K~. It ~ms that wl1<11 in later life M.arx was sup.;rvtsmg the
Frm<"h cr.an~l<~ttlll J d,,. lM::i) Prof.r.:r. he wm:d .town the stac~ment chat 'the mode of
produnnu ,,i m.at<'ll.&l bt\ !ttJitiJ!I : ubo>rh.1up1 thl' social, political and incellcctuallif,. proce-ss',
by dt<O<>!oiiiJt ''' pm<Tit tho(i,rman Wl>rJ~ I h;aw quoted by 'dominl' en general'; see Prawer.
KMWl. 41JO.-I, apparently m agr<'f.m~'nt wuh kubd. The other standard dtscnssions of thi~
topic are by Engels, in particular rothtl,mr!o r.:ltt\lm '' 9 above and h.ts speech at the gravestdc
of Marx c\ll 17 March 1883 (ME~ II' ~2''-.~.IJ. hw nwnt discussions of the subject rhat I have
seen IJ<~\'' b.~n tllunun.muv: .lp.ur tilll rwu u~tid papo.rs in which Gerald A. Cohen
sUcf<'lliiiU!l~ ;i,1:uli,;h,.; bJI.-.riilli ni~.-:i l>y II B, .'\cton and john l'lamenatz to Marx's
noti<>n
ba .md ~ul'<r.;tn:.<t<J.r: on -;ome <'nticisms of historical materialism, in
Procot-:!ir:jl !i rl:. .1\tJ'Iro!;,,,, ,.;or:.~:)' \Su}pl. v,l)_) -'-1 (lno) 121-41; and 'lking. consciousness
and rul~: oln !(,,. tC>Lmdauurr~ ,,f ht~rvtl(.ll :t:&l<'tio~h:r: '. in Essays irr Honour~~ E. H. Carr, cd.
Chian<'ll Abr.unskr !l<i7:1)b2'17 . ~'ld<'\"IIPWC<lh::'~book, IG.Jrl Marx's TheoryofHist()ry, A
LHjr.,,,. ( l'.ir7S. r::pr. :r79;.
11.""'1'"''t
,,f
544
Notes on I.iv-II.i (pp.29-32)
14. SCt." Hobsbawm's excellt'nt Introduction to his KMPCEF. o:sp. ll, 17 and n.2, 19-21. 27-38,
49-59, 61-5.
15. I regard Perry Andttsrn. 1-\S .;;..1-<:-J,;, , ;.:mdusi\'" ajo::~ln~! :..-tlltnmg th< conception of an
Astatic/Oriental modr tf pu,!uctiou. II m~k,.,.; ;;Jm1 \th' "f ;:>Uot> a cent work. notably an
t'Xcdlent arttdt' by J);;au:l Th~l:-w: (M.A.Io'.11'). who show< t:l ;:.l:Ucular that the Enghsh
translation of Das J-:.:piroai J m J!\87, wl:~da WD "t~v1~nl hy Engd!., makes Jt on<" potnt a
significant departu~, frlll ~h r-;...rrn::a: tt"-'d {no,,.~\\'~! :.::.1 i>1.\1Hi' XXIII.354 n.24). which
speaks of small-sc~!.- p('.U.lrtt ;;gri.:t;lt:<rt' :.nd ln.i~:j:-::m!o;ont hmdin;>l~ .S formmg tho: basis not
only of 'th{' feudal !::a<i~ c;f rruo!tl~tlO!). but l!5<~ of 't!tt- Cl:iHiGI tYI"lmunitics at thdr b.st.
after the primitive ( )u.-n:.4l t'otm ,,fh'-:1enh>; oJfian<i 1::1 -:ommo;; i;,..! Jisappt'ared. and before
slavery h~d stized ;::!l pr::d;Knnr~ h ~-..rr;,.;:'. 1!: ,,.,ultrii~l :b, W,rd Oriental' (MAIMP 60).
And in his Origtn q(liJ( Fo~rttiy, p11hh,l:;:--O: 111 IH~4 (d:e ra: after M:.rx\ death). Engels n<'Vl'r
refers to an Asratic/Or;,nta! !',:od, of pmJm:t~<m; d <":<~' .l!E<\U' ~I. Marx showtd littk
intcnst in a spedfi1;tlly .'\~illlf/,):i~nr~! ~n:.,!eo "' h:> i.ht ''<':~ (~ ~sp. Thorner. MAIMP
6.1-6). although he oc::;;sior~a11y m:.k~s p~s~in~ r.-i,:reu<~ t.:. cr: ~n C.:,rP. 1.77~ n.l, 7<); cf. 334
n.3, 357-g; and S('e ais<J TSV IU 417. 43J . .OJ5. Cf :.!so. on tbnjU'-'SI'c'n of the AsiatiC/Oncntal
mode:, Hobsbawm. KMP<.'EF; !, \1:,1. 1'.4, ;'S. 32-i!, 3! . .Sb. b1. !J-1. Thos' who U<' able to
take a grc:ater imereH rlun I ,-..m ur wo:~d.i-t:r 1\.b:"J~t .ii!in:~siou <>f th Asiatic moJt> of
production and b1bho1:r ;o;-l:ci A<"\:'ll.; ',,- ~u.-1: .1i,u~l.:>t> {4-sJucially in the U.S.S.R.) n1ay
consulr a st'Ti('s of ar:ido rr.I:-iro-.:o.J. Ch~.~rh::-.1:1'1:. m .I (lWH) U! ..-lt\.]. Petirka. m tbid. 147-09;
6 (1967) 14174; P. S~:4hi~k 1m! T. Pol.>r:. in 5 ( i'N>ti) 17<'-87. Eughsh r'-"adcrs may find ust'ful
A. M. Bailey and J. K U.:.b.-r::;. 'Tl:r .-\ru!Jor:od, "f pr-.>l111<::11 An :mncrtat<d bibliography,
app'-"aring in four p:m" :n Cttlti'~ ~f :\tt:l:~:rlt~.r I b..v, ,..,.., .'Illy two parts: '1. Pnncip~l
Wntings of Marx ;.:.:! En;.:d.~'. it! n". 2 ..:~(that J'l'rl>!i(d (A:ttunm 1':74) 95-103; and 'II. Tht
Adwnture-~ oi th<' c.-..,.-,.,,, lrt.r': l'ld..J,;a,,J, lu S.t:ali:l. 111 no~AIS {.:\urumn 1975) 165-71>.
16. Such criticisms of Man; aH )rt'n .,~ Hl-f,uu,i,d n :II" ,;,lr,:>.du:t!' b, D.~brcndorf(CCCIS 22) of
antsolatd passage m C;;;> IU 13f',.S !e'l.vmg :) Jm:: wrV. mt~mC'. This happms to h orw
of those places at wh~n M~r-.;; l'elh:J" ._.,.,r-n.~,;l~w lu
l'uo~,lo>x (e.g. 'th(' abolition of
capital 38 privatt" pu~,,:::~ wi:hir,; !hor ir'lmc'<ui.. tr ~"'l~itiist J'r!<iuc:t1on irself'). The passago:
becomes fully comrrdtC'Imbk r.-nl~ wi::.: rt"a:l wnh ;, .-.;rh: ""'' Clf' 111.382-W. (I memion
this in order to refur, '-'11' M: nfD:ahr..-nd,)r!~ ~l~t:-'C"titm IJ Mar ...:'\ rh;ory of cla~s.)
'"t i
[II. i]
1. 'The history ofth<' conC<'Pt ;;-icb:s m ~uciokc;~: i' nt'ly one: ~t :h ""'" t'xtrcmt' illustrations nf
the inability of sodo.l)gist> :~<'htn .t ramm.uw ~i ~l,>:'u~ 1'\',Jlt: thr modest busines5 of
terminological deasin~. sJvs DAhrr,.J,,rf. CCC:IS 7~ II~ t1ll't> 111111tions nirtl' authors who
have given 'vt>rsiOtll< .m.lJ"''' v~,-~''"'' of lho a:t,c-rr .,f cb1- ,lmm.: the last half-cntury.
including Pitirim Srkir. wi ... Ill h Cmu..:;t.JI.t)' .s,.,.,.,,:o.':l!li nttoriff (192!1) 'counted
thirty-two variatiml-< itb,,-.-m.:qt'' H,sr.-..-,':\',1 H ~~h'tl;;t1LJ.Icz.-u rtccnt ddinittons. but
none of them bears :Ill}' r;;~noahiaun "' :lu ''''' l.<<i'Pt 1n tlu" l:h,k
2. I have sct~n a numbc-1 o:..d r;a~h~r h:tlf--:zr.'tr:~.i ~n~rrt._t!-- t.__.. ~~ ;nj: (1rJn ,.r ufthc confustc-n cr"'ah.d
by Marx's varying us:a~~~: 't :ht :.na das~. m:w ui wlud1 ~.,.Ill, en m .1dcquatt'. A charactcnstic
exam pi,. useful as f.u b tt ~.,..., bm ultn<.r .-cm!rr.:b,tsi''t'1or l't"iound, i~ Uenell Oilman.
'Marx'!> useof"clas-" . J>J ..1r'l'' Jr! ~fS.::.I. 7.\ (I'IN!J 57.'1-SI!. I h."''' not mysclffound much
illumination In Oss.-.,....k:. c.-.:\C, "rlu .~,,.,. >hlf~:.-n:s '"1!-:'o'IS .1. l.r. d~s-. sncult" cht'Z Marx'.
in Calti1r. illttmaliom''''' J, ,,.,,,,;,~.,.,, ..!~ ! 1);s; h"i:. 1i.
3. This passag" is repr>tlu,:;,d i:1 m.u:~ lfhl<,n:s compii...t Pfulu :\br..:'s wntmg. the most
u~eful ofwh!Ch are !"rb3! :hur ,.f h.n,mmn~/Rubcl. K.\1~ li:JJr,l,n. KMECSR.
4. Just as in the- capitahst worl.~. w1th lh hit:.iah J,vdtt~d '-w ,_,j pn'r"r:y. so also in th(' Grck
(and th' Roman) Wtrl,:. ,u::rrol '"''' rh, ,-,,n,iiu,rn, ,,; J!O:,iu,t:it; w.&s exrcis,-d above all by
propC'rly owncrshi~ .m.i th;r;' : !I<> u,~ltv r<r Ju; t ... .,,,.,;j,r "" .,th,r possibl,, nwthods
whl'rcby such contr.::l mi!_!l:t k x<'r:~~i. Th.- P'"'~~= !1: 1h~ 1.::'-: l,.~>'t"> open the posibility
that such other m\th..U' >111~\u :;,;1~1 i,,, .. ,;.,~.,.:~- .
'" .~ "''"'::" w1:hLtt a d,vdopcd property
Jaw, in which anu~i l"""''""tH !' th.~ m\';a: ,,f t'",,\l<cn.!>n kr:;dllv land) would be th
ddsivc [;~ctor; cf. C!:.u.k 1\kitt;, .,,m;. ,\r, :br, :.. t;, iii ),,;li.1:''. m Economy and s,r.-irt)' 2
(197.1) !N-111. ar p. i)r.
545
Notes on IT.i (pp.34-38)
5. G. W l'r.>W<"!"S~ck. m [);:tM/ui(I'J71~) 15-l.i, ;>t l7 ;s. hlr a vry interesting and acute appraisal
of R~rovtzeff ;u a hiltJr'.:m (nutdt the b:-st I kn::ow). $CL' Meyer Reinhold. 'Historian of the
Clas~k wur::t, .. critiqu ofRvstO\Udi". m Snt>rJ(i' nna SociNy 10 ( 1946) 361-91. There is a large
bibhuj!';t;a;'il)' of!{o!:oortzd1"~ wnting.s (-"Uitcrus) hy C. B. Wcllcsm Historia 5 (1956) 35H-RI;
and lh<'rc :.~ ~1:10;: !>iography by Wdl!!i u~ .irrlr1ttt11 d01d' Crajtsmcn in History. Festschr.fiir Abbott
Pay>.tt~ U.<h. (rt:hltlgr.n, 1'1'5b) 55-75
6. Sec C~JI. !!,, opening s~-::tlun oi Hit! G;mh~Ur lE-T. 83-UXJ); cf. the translation by David
McLdbn. M.-n's Gtimdn:ss.-(1!71) tll-33.
7. There"~ ,o,!'ltc ~'fl1! rrntArlu en th<' dii"f<>rn;: way~ 111 which these expressions cJn be used by
Marx :u:d I!n~~b. !ll R(JI:.l.! t Mlo .'i.lltil,~ io; iJf, La/Jour Theory of Va/1tez (1973) l<l n.2.
151-!. Jfit i.s IIDt iHviCill\1~ !( rit:;. 01.1:4 J\:lndfu\ O;r";,;npks from a large nurnblr of pdssagcs.
pcrh;1ps I f'ouid m~num ~::::4;: i .. ;o); !IJ 'lit. Sl4-ili, 1!31. ~81; and rhe 1859 Pr~(are (.\.1ESW
Itil) SM.' .!hi~ :'oimo,, iii ,,r rbis ch.1ptc:.
8. I use th; ~m 'primi=i''~ socitry' ;1, th: ,-c.-::mlmK .. nd lt"'.!4~...-i rn:.mly ~t"Cbnolagu:al s~m~ In
wha~ I :,m (ailing pun:t:VI' soci,"'i~' br:f\' m:;y l..-.e m d.ibou~~ :."'l ~u~:hisriL';m=d kimhip
strUCtl'.h~ J.lld .)L!ll.; .t '"'""?lir:::ued id~k;;:f; bLlt rh~t i~ ~ntircly bt:rid.. dw 1'0lllf.
9. I mak<! ~hi~ rc;,n~tton m ll~m~ far ob;cr lti,l:lilr.~ tho~ <>i the Si~n~ ... n,kw Gm"~" bv ll. F.
Salisbury. J=,,,..; .St,)fto" :., St...,.; ( 191'>2); ;{_ Gut.ldiu. kIF ?7.'1 ff
10. 'The cr~.<tio11 <:"[ sllrJlha>\'~1": {includin~ renr} ;;{wJy~ It;~ in b;.J'i> ill :.he rr:btiv~ ;rluc:wir~ o(
agri-:-llll\trl:'; riw fir$l h':l! r;_,Jm cf ~LiJ}lltl~V;t!uc i!i :;-.,.-pi"" f .;giculn,nl pro<hK- {fuel<!). ~Ill
th(" t<r" r.:.l f<::J ret of ~ltr,l~~:lil'.>lllif!"'"' ....-h.-~nnt' J'crk"'f i\ ;;hk (o pc.xl.ua: :h~ fol.)d lOt two'
(Man 1'SVil :11.0: 'the 1m..- l'!o~~i.:.J! b:..<(;;:fl'hrrio<racy. ~.-.:m.~in~t rc1 1\.i~mSnutb).
11. H. W. l'.~t>tt:i. i:t f'hnyt, TMEE .l:"l>-"'i (:.'1 ..\:!2.-J), "ch~rlc (~vi) ,ntillni 'Tl;, cctmomy
has IW iutpittl': niJiq,r, ,.f .l 1h...-.ry }f ti...,ci.-F!Ucnr' . (II woul..t br liJI('r!iu,l k t:it~ <Mhc'T
litlr;,turc i:: :his tidd: 11''11!:11 ofi!: h ,ti:;ru~~l ''':" i_:o.:idl.<'~. RJE 24'J.3!'-1.) i'l";tl'li('orl fiuds~
s.us~ m wlurh ';tll in>tltt:U<~rJ.CI [a5 u'l''"""i r. .1 'lltnloiJ:!I.C~II! dl'ttrmi!l<'I'J rm
.~i 'T"~nfir
surplu"'"' - tb.:ir cw;tri;m :.n.l ~rn~!ovmr:m - "~Y !>~. trunfi,Jiy ~p~hcLI w rh< ~n:~lyu r.f
cou.:mic dc'\'d"J'mn:' libt.i. .l;~'), Jtnr 1n hi" arr,uh':JI hi" :i thinking IHII o:.i d:(' llll14l diviu(f1
of tiw pFJCI:.cr~ of hunun IOill>::)<tr bl.l& ~~- d~rr :~rdJ. Cririrr.s."g "'lt~rs 11~ nf thl" !''llll
'surrh~S'. h(' a!'>. Tt.a<' is kvd ,,,. ~>Jh;.ht~rt.: wtticlt =>>..: r.-;ciJr--J Jwv;d~ :~. mc;~sun:- ... ,w
speak d .. .J.\~>t olv,~ wi1kh the s;:rp-ht> lllW> "rht~ ~11pi:;~ wludt ro /t')'''llr' ftt,-,l. 1-.cllf'(I'H
lzapJ>rtle ./ttiJ[.:u'f it.tlKl i' rl~n ::1 ><>~I "~~ .tv,i!Jhl~ :t rn~y he: radi\1 ..t.J<J.td. ,,, LUcd
to st:Jtpm: tho:- !'XtsiL'!In" ,_,; .-~.u":-.ttc!P1. a kisnrc: d~s.,. or uth~'t wnpr-.>Lbcrivc n11~1~1hr> ni ~h.
socic-t~ {ill,i. i. f bvirlf. c~(Jil;;Jitr;l himsclf Ill :hi tlt;fN:tcrr.trt' .lt-:i'l!llOll. )'.-..l'~l>li tl>t'll
disc-u.-;,;. wh.rl11r 'stlhs>to'lu~: u,-..,t<' ,.,,. "ill>!ogiG~!l~ .b:h'l!nl:t.._,;l' or ':;oci;d]~ ck-tin.-d'
Rew<tittt llu: iirst >dt~n.:n"''~ h; ,.,,,~don-1.-.s. 'lf it ;, hdd tbJJ! ~.\lb.s.is::.u.:c n~d~ otr n>r
bioJc-,~1<-.liJy l>nl fo<.d:tlJ} 1l.-fi1Kd. r!wn :> ~K fi'<IU i,-,., tiJ~ COIIf'<"jl ..{ :t!".lltlll' ~W}I:.!S. i1: :hm
thl <iisu:llltllm o)f -on::k rnou:.:l. b~two,t: sub;i;;l roc.: ~r ..-t >ih.;r !''l.ll:it~.'Urt'l>t3o" lttnntml .,,.)} withiu rh" ~....-{,,:moxr of u.~..-i 1hu~ .1;-iillt~l
F:h~ .:::om:t:1n of ~urphu l!i t<> be
rmpi->Y~ h.-r<." ~~ ~11. 'tiUIJr>l h: :,:.;, Jri;II;\Y vr 0\l>~.wlw:o;.,asr_ In brl.ef
r,iw;. qwndt} 11f
goml ( ,..,,.;,~ ''<."'"!l..lll<. ~mplu;; (>trl}' ifth.. so}cict )" 111 >i}rtlr m.o,Mtr ::t th~i~ jlmnt.itin ~~idt:
and .t,d;~t,\llhnn ro:: be il\':lihhk fiu ' t!':<o!~ purp1no:' (!brd 323). M} ~urplus'" nmthot
whi,h :111 ~.,r;,. .,t tn ~"u~ sn~&uno:.~ ~,~r-.. :t'!iii.;.~ ..,_ tn wnH "".4)' .,.,u~io~.a~ (' .iU 1tfi.--ch., l~: 1h:n
whid: ,,.,_,rl\rs 'l'i.-t,l u;>. fur rh' }),,uditli ''tl>1'>. d~ tint pLha)' '<>lunrJllil;. in n:lorn tor
useful : ,icn. i<:r bt (lh:- S13f.:- t which xplt"':iur P<'(lllru) wi1lnrul illl ,,,J,-quat~ h'IUrn,
and nr.d.-r rh, iulh1.-r1" i ~"rscc.uiou .\n~! .-.umuhi 1,
12. Godd1,:. !lll:. ..!7.;..., ~ul;,. l.i\i.;;.u.mS!. S.-\ J:~-m
1.1. s~-c IV .i" ;;hn-.-1.". ~sl rh.:ut~r:u;,, lo H1lr::.u. nMMI' f:; I.
14. The \';ry t;r.:.t! ~;i.-;-dtiTS ill r.lmolin" i1; h:- lllu.-lntt world do nor ned domment~rion her,:
hut I "':1\ mcuri.>n rwa pl:S.S.<!:'"> I l:.t'"' Clr11r a.-rr>:>< wlnh l'ntphasis th..- imnwnsc imrcas. m
agrinll<lt:tt rr.:.lur.hiry; Jr,mt.: Ht.t'l. 111, l;trd ~~&.-Old Ordl'l in Rur.1/ Eur<'P<' (Prinnllm.
111711) 13t' .ud tL'W.: ;awi V, f~ard:l ChiH,, ."u~rt'h .m,t.4rdtaeolo.~y ( l'J44). who qnot<s (p.2-t)
th, ;t>:t c.fll t\m,,un.:l ::.;ei<li;cl Co::m.~u:.-,(><1 T<'t'imologial Trend' JnJ Natimtal Policy.
!93'7 t:> th( :-ir;:;: til;tl 'i:t J7lQ tht ~ll!l>ht< rr....h;d by ninetl"<'ll fo~rmer> WJ.S required !0
suppitt nl: .-\t~-~h\~lkr: f.a-."'~'~ '~!lC:tl"':'al f..-:n~J':1'~ rr~,JttCI. on tht.. aver.1gc suffi'-ic-nt to support
fifty->::\ ,-1rr-~lwdl,r~ :to,f ~ .., ftr:~:,!!it'r>.' ! C.l!ll,: ;;i, a dt;ukd bibliography h,re on Greek
and l~o!l:~ou :.rl:n;-.l.,~v f~,r ;.rrn!'ro:l ..\ll"'r"f~. :~ )'( W. Plrk~t. 'Technology m tht GrccoRom:au ,,.,d.t.;. )!;C~o:r:l.l ~-=rll'. itt ToJ/>::i!:; (1'77J) f-..-47. M. I. Finley. 'Tt<hnical innovlrion
pt
'"a.
r'
546
Notes on ll.i (p.38)

:1:~ . . ! ,;.OtiiiJ!:iic p!og;r~ss :n ttv: .,.,ri'-"Fl: \-...rnrld,. :in &r1tt. iii1: P.tt1 1 1~ (i'H6) :?-l-4S . Fl11k-y\
r'~vl;:ow-ar:td(". 'Tedrr..:ktg}' it rl,~,;;ncio:-r.t wmk!', in i;i i:!(l'>S~ l~t-.5;Rj FNl'o.'>. Swrll.:-si"
,ot,u l'!rlm(t[QJiY ~;>l~u.U; (on :wnm:r;oofmt'tJ!:}'} lj! (lW5) :41t~IJO,,~! Fo:in~ ;:b.,p:t'r X\'~J 11.
llmt"'l 4 T.clrr!l<\1!;' 1'. t'G. Ch.u. Singt'! -'~~'! udw:~ ( 1951'1) fm- :he advanca m rhr' Middle
.\gi'"s, ~('(" i."<p. l.yun Wh:r..-'s lmlh~r:r lll't:d- TlMt\ (l')<IH). whiri1. ;U:h~:m~th 'iO' r:~;irdy
ro~r=-"~ tn ~~.,~41t' .},t:f.i3 ;net supe-t~~~k-:\ .u wrvn:~l f1oinu o~~ n1on: ;4cntriltc Tea:~t work ('i.Or:ac 1.1-f
~~ )n~ '''''n). rnu:Jirs \'('!'\~" we11 worth rr.ldln~ u ortC' oft1u: 00~ ~UCJllll:\' s:..J.tC'r:1t"l'i~J (ri ttw
r,~hll\'l''~K~i ;uh.nKr..\ n..ul~ an :t~~ ~hdd1r: A;~cf.. It 1s t1at op1~..:l ro tn;m' darn~~.;ui!J fn~ici"Tn..
..l~ ill~ l'K~sr n~,.~u: ~,-x)l., .\11'$( ..~ ( t.}r,~): (~t ~nm=:- of lhD::o t""":iti{"i\Hb. 11.'t' tl)~. r(VH.~ ....ir11d(' hy
U ll. H~lrc~:.mdV l-1 S:''"Y~'!. "T~::hniGl!d~"rmm:5m: thstirn:JI:~n.lthq:lou~h. in/'.ur&

,.,,.,.,,, ;!.o ( l'lf..JI '.ilr-..Jti. ~.- zl~e '.i1httc"s cotmiht~ITOHI> :Vi.-"~!Tlf !"Jr.r:J(,-, a:xi .\ C Cru111b~
ll'Hu) 112-'i!. t"f Jll-1. 3.!i~J~~: ,,,d nKt"'l l'("<:.ml) Whho:~ rhoJ.t->IL'ln :he ''"i'~"~<m ur
lt:::!tu.)[o;:~ 51~1~ i3i!l'r, 1n FFI !F.: MA ""thL Fom~r.:1 E(t"L H11r. ,,( E1mvr, !. Tl:r M!olrilr :1 .......
,..1 C.ult; .M Cipolla (1'172) ii.>-7.;. mdtuiitll!: : "'~:d biblmg~:.phy (17~-4) I h;wc llflt.yl.'l
nl"l'l;_.,,'".,! rhl" fullest :-,-,.,u! :~.cc.vm:! kn>\>tt :.'l m in~ single~ oi lit. J,"d"(>IIWJtt 111
!cdutl,logy t!t.:n:tg ~h~:llnn .n Ernp-irl.. : f-:-an: K!,~hJ~ .. S!!luPn~r,.bti: t!'thnil:ltr F~1r;uJ,,;,~ inl
,.,-;"~i~t:;~! Rl'"iLI: (Futirh .,.,~ ... ,r~rt Si:l.u~d j , 'l'~6b;;d..--n. 1~~~.~ 1'hh l" ".;urr\t,d~l,iffn ... ; ntKh
uY.~!ill inf(.r:u.tri(:-u. a!'r.t~tgt... ~ "-"'n'""~li~o'.!atlo:; \;u,ttt ~iit~~r-.uf !1"'.4\hn.g--~ ~~'~ i 1\ 4il,fortunatt.:h
vn~,ne,i ;u. .\ j~1l~Pfjh.. Jf_;.ita~~ ~~~ .."' ~\.ux-tsr' JtO;.itk~~ ,,.Ju,h ~' .J""'U'a~d. t,,. b,- rtr~~ ;:-~~(' a.'XI!t::ntC"
,.f ~!~\',ry Wl' tt.'~r~!t~.ih!~ in a :.a.;-k "){ t;:d"l~tlc_,t;,~ctl P'"'~h~~ '" iH:lhfnity ~t"lJt' historians.
\\':'itua~ fr'.'lll .t ~1;atxi1': 1X.1~~~ of \'lt''-\' h:.,., h.;:!d th~to~o >."\"i'~~~!. l:11= ~-- ;or_. !~t..n: ~:t:lt" !lt:rl"lo\t..::o:!H hl,tom.un.; 3nd 1i;l~ tl<ln'." ;l;;ttli.kthlt h i!uggi;g !S not :j\ill: ;, dt"a<l O!l<'. ;~ i< tU>I J
)-.'1'Jl\Jin~o""IY ~1.-.: ~~~ .. nn~ ~:~h,_r Itt h1" ~trto.hn ~it..!n Ki~.dJit hr~:rJ.Ii. ~,,. 'tr'-"~illJ; ... f:..tnn,~~ ktr1.'"r .f
[,,~,I;. {'"hicb. ,~aQ,lr.;~~~~:... he . . ~tl~~ il~ ~tcund h.11:tJ :nd '-1.~:~ r,! l ~ taut:.ar\ ~~;,1~) !~1~r: .t-.1 t-,i :S
Ja!ll~;uy !:o<'ll.lu : ;;.)'< ~111:1\\":0~~ uur 1: ".\'o!S wdiiCh : w tiHtf?.m:;.nLIJ:,,t H St.;tk~.lm;g),
. hh.u~h rlu;; ,k-t> "'-'' :mal:ch <>f.w.h ('<" MHI' XXXIX ~:;..7 = \ff.:.SC :.-1~-j.q Ki,t:l:kn:mhllll<"" ,vllh ,, q\\otation .::f;a w.l;..lq~OWI1 fJOtn:>t' 'u [l<u ;.:.::iloll (MEll .XX Ill.~ l u 17.,
~.~p- I 1'If,.!) I) which Clrt:.u~\ y de:;,~ ':rt~' t";tc-ro~ th;t~ 'ru~~~~ r-rodt~,-'lnH ~,. s.li:"-c );,hatlt' ~'td~
a (_,sdy process~ .;.t.ich ol~ hc-.1.''h't =-~l~u!nir.d :rArlu:.;."nb h.-..-. ~::o ..~dt-:.,iirl. ~'~"'-''~'. het~
~.l~'pi, nothing abuur ~J.-.,,r~ h1n,t,riu;: in,.t,!~JlJcn':'s'!i. J\l:.:x 1~ h,tL" \\'r:cu,~ .ll1t:1:t1 Auh'f;t'.tTl
,1.1''""' ~ a:hl U!llolltg ~h~ 'VI".'r)" ~,o: .,,uJh"'"<'i. tbl~, dV;alj.l)'lll,- l I (\h~ii!"il. /lJ~~1~y .:~r 1:.: ,,rN;_,..,,tr--!1
ST-1".: Stollr'i :111.=.!.\, .u1d J. E. C.Lirm'"' o,,. .-\t.n R"'''' \ l:o<f>:!). I lll""'-lfkn ..i miin1,~ in
!-.rtu '< tc~o .~u-.tify t~n bdi,t ~har h., rhoa[!ht sb'~ry -:w~~."'-"""~~Lr:ly .J hin.it~nu4;~ r.. rC"Chr~.ra' i'rQ;rt:~s
:'\lor J,.,..,., F.t;~~i,; s." ~,. in hih Otl~'-
tlJ /=;;rrlr. ~~riar~u;;h ~ l.t, l''{i;t~1u!y ur~t~~ tlf
AJtiVuinill' br- JiJ c:~ll sl.r"T\' .m intJ'r,\nrJo'nf '" ""'~: ,i:"d!<:t! !r<><ln.-~i..,n' ~~~-~ s.w rh~'t
Gn""--;.. to~ ~nnsb('[: (U~ .accouH; .-..j ,;,Ltt"r'f. {Eng ~ran.s. -!L"=-14. ~!o~4~)\'. P~t7 t. !'l.'t':
l.o.au,fcn li'/5). ;utJ m r)l, hl<l}' t 1iJ,u W<rl. ,,.,. tind th.- ~I:JP"'"'"l 111:\P >1;\r~ ,,. ~- .,,., ;>f r!to
,.. hi&~f t"J.t.Hi.~S ,,,- rh, ,I,~:J~,. d:" tlhs )~t-w:-.-J~lcs d[Jti.llllo! whJ.Ul lt \\'Ni "'r:t. . '"!.."~a;i~~.,~, f,~tut ,!of
t, .,,..fucllnn (i"-hl ~ h.) Y..: EJt::;.fs tbrn pru.:-....... t~ :..t .-u~:.~~ C=' ''''"'1,~,~~-;;~,.: rh.:" .itlll~-u..;,t't ~'ro
~r.:'ssiv4~ r,~tt. rh..r ~.J.~,,r~ ,,t-~}:.,1
d;(~ (;h"C"k :;u .. l UJH.tn h''"d~ '\\11tht.1t! ~h\~ft'. 1:-t (~:-;.-d.:.
'-r.tt, . n,-l(in~k .Jr' :.tthl ~.. i.~Jat~..:.: ""itbt.J'd i~:C\~r,. 'i: 1-l~!'lUoiJI [~t,tit"i" 1\~h '' i:ho1tt ti!~ b~.;i~ l:.d
h\' <..tt"('k .-ol!~l:, a~lJ IlK Umu.w J:,,pr,. ;,;.,, ,;,, "'"'""''' Ec~t<>~ loi.wcl>k' w"r'K h;u .,f .-.-. a,~
I
.:/
.!.
l!..-ra '\\'("').-._,.,,,db, .\~~ll. .. l\l..trxist,. ,;.., ,~H'-;:,. 1 1 (krnl~;:. n-\'-wh~ i' {f 1-i~ht"J. il.vnul~';"i,~t
U!oi ,-,ut,t,r:.) ~n t-:,,~"'''''1-1 (1-,.7:!; ,; 1 J.-lh, r~~_.,.,b, it .,s -'', :in!p!L rc!~;.,~."t~inn ..-tf \.; h:a1 h, .-~,u'!o ~;,t
\\
".,, ~2..~\rl."n' hil:,i,r~..-.! :-,o.hutrri(f"ch:k;~lrrtg:~...,~ !h :t~

t.ro~'tN th:.' h:.; :n:l!hl'tht~ .. -.f ~~-!\''~ ~nt.!{,ti t~("'haric-1
ttl:Jnv.at:oitl' ~uus.sc~.,..;,r,. ~n.:.t ,.._ ~rr~t'' h: ,\f,..,_,.,., ''''\:i.t.:~ rh.tt ~!."~~ :ihvnv"S: J.,. du.'i!"' \'\"-:.~!st'
,\[.:,.\ ;-'' ,u_,ml.''' rh ..u rh;
Rl~J\l.lU flllf'~'-..
(jL3),
:nt,~U\~ti,,u
,f
~r;,,.
.\l.4.,i...t
~.H-~. '-'~' n.tl:t., "C;(irJ;CS -~~": fl!Ui.fl."~t '\--l.o!d h:\\" t'f."!""r? ~t .. nis-h~,1 bY ~hl;h st,l~l'l:t,t::s) "
.!,~K !J IU'~~t' i'J~ti~Ji t.-.:th'C' .. ~fKi,, },!..-'.,. t""n~k . ,,~itt\U f~-~~~t;a .t A.t:.t:'\.i;.~ }:.:'~k~t ;:.J ...,;,.""'. h\!t "~H4~ "~~~
l'"lm qmt~ di:t~r:-m irmn u, ~ til;,r ,.( K I' .!~:t!l;', llt Klio ;,. (l.i72) .'>7":-l,o. lrhid. I
~h,u;-.t .. d~i ~h.iil iu .J:i ;_I:~ , rii((i'' u; IH ~~rlv a-:o~~rk. ~:'1~hi~~!hd iu 1Ji...'7 :"' 1'-'r: ,,r :u"'l''kn~h
.tp,.h": K:arlii ..JnZl""U. f\tar~ ~til.'a! :!u: \'"Lrds ~~~~ d,JI'raa.~IL''':.). '' bh-b ,_.,.uu'li ;!:., .t..:.,J.~~"ln ._tf
th, r'-'t'~'iJ~~!Ii. ,,; antiqui1,~ b.!~ hr \"\';ti. ~ftfl~ ~"''' rtr,~~1~4~ 1!1 n'r'Jlo\ "~f n,_haoh""1!1' .,. . hi~
itt~h,t~r .:-tlkl:i!!'~~(~~.
'rhc
,i~, , ... ,ffltila-,l:~ ~~~tu:h '''1U rt~,,:.i.,;;
rh: t:..;)~.t
~~-,nl~i t;-.~,tflab lU rh~
\t.d~~ ,,1 rptlb:\r;:,, N-::!1 .\nl''ri; .-: {.l!Ff~fr v: :t~5. t..,:an t\.l"l\~nr::.li;~ll~ cr1t~,-;1st1t
o4l:..t ,-!'!l!~~4! ltlirAh~.,.,
'JJ-.. nq.,t'~lh.;;:.. !-;.,11~!~- J\ rifl';;. ~~hd J~~.: kr~t~;;:'-r~.:,~!~ f\.k.at~1')
LJttth,n
15.
~:.'1' J.::.~,~h
N,,-.IIJ;,n,, _.;;Jo'mr .lrltl Cir,dio.!lh"r ''' ClrrrtoJ l\1 .i: ( l<Jir~;) 5:-t--71. t
f.;7 lhd II'
>111
Wl;ar;, Tll\1>\
Notes onll.i-ii (pp.38-49)

16. Stt Kl.-rhl~. Uf'. de 15..."-62, .mdothctworkscitt'<i ic n.l4 abov~. For China,
cit.
547
~"e
Needhm1. op.
J~l-i-.il).
17. On all :l~I-'C'<:!3 <.ll ;uu:icn: drip~ an1: \i'liling 1<"t' Um!d C:&ss;m, .Ships ami Stanumship in rht .i\11;.
Wor(.l (l"r::K~tnn, 1~171).

liJ. See K~rh!~. op. ~:u. (tr. n. i4 3buv(:) 115-Jf.l, ,,nd Farl11:s, as cited m n.14.
19. Gffir~;t Thom!''lll, Swt! 111 Au. G~..-lt Sol'i.-ry. il. 'flrr Pirst Philosophers (1955) 249 ff., at 252.
20. Margaret 0. W:.Wil, Cl.u~ Sr:IOJWt.fl!l .1rtr. Ctra (!90:7) 82, 36n.l. 143; cf. 95, 96, 98. 99, 134,
144 t'iC.
21. Emsr B.:..i\.11\, i~M1Mma.'lr1Siml1'TJ (PI.Ill~din. !'-171)-;:?: l"f. many other passagts. <'.g. 49. 50. 51.
84-5. 'J I. 9:l. 91!, I li1 {"3fiT!tt,roh:? :n c:-J(plmt=~nou' !~e:wccn governing chte and Equites). Tht
must i!lumin.:mng wNk~t.-YI !Itt F,,l;';~,... ;u~ (~} i. A. Urunt. The Equitcs in the Late Rl'public',
m 04'1>1-.'t:i~ru Ct~J!/hi!tlcln:mw. o!'lli11. ~rttn. [Ai,.-ftll":ovmn. 1962]. Vol. I. Trade a11d Politr<"s
in tit,. Alii W.rld (~riS. 1%5) 117-W, w::" C<:>n'll>l"nt by T R. S. llroughton, ibid. 150-62.
both tl'j'l 1!1 'fit~ Co1tJ t.:i til~ H~r!llll R~pllli, t'd. l)i!\.!:t Seager ( 1%9) 8J- 1 I~. llf.s-30; and (h)
Claudol NIC(lct, J_ '0"1'~ tljllrnr. oi !'ipr:oq1r ~luillitllirr.- (312-43 Jv. J.-C.) = BEF.'IR 107, tsp.
VoU. ~finitiot!.;juridiqa tf Jrr:<m<ra J(lr.ollrl (l>;;.ri;. 1';!60), on which seo: ~runt in Amzalrs 22
( 1%7) !l~-S: \ld If ~... 1"'-~''f"lj[Y<Iphlr Jt~ rh-r:-<i:~ rl!mams (l'aris. 1974). Cf. al~o B~njanun
Cohl"n, 'L;o mxi<.lU. "ord<~" tl:n:;l:l Hom~ ;1ntiqu{', in Bull. de I'AS<or. C. Bude. 4' St'rw. 2
(IY75) :!.5'1-~!. ;tt 2'..4-5; Finhy, :II; 4~Sii 1: ;;p0>cus from :1.11 mc!d<1ltal rc.>mark 111 Cap
lll.5\16--7 th.JI in thr- rv~ ._.i l\lhr":< ,ju rh.<r.ctt'ristio: Equn w" 'th< usurer, who bl'comes a
landed i'WJri\'1\Jt or ~ d;;J..-h,-,ldC'r l>irr:.o!W $.)!11' E..lu.'lts may wdl havl' maJ.- their pilt in this
way. inti tli.'>l.l!~holt wlli.tlw;Jys hOI'.'<' ~c-uprm!ITII) l;mdowntrs. And see Vl.iii .1bow.
22. The lli<' ... i:h~ t.mt':"'sc.- ;;hacl.E p(rh:.ps b: O...-ojfin<!'ti t'J India. I'm a r~n-tlt short introduction
by ~ i~:a:liu~ 5ocidor.-:~l. '' ;lh brid 1-i\liograph~. t Bottomnre. Sucr<>lo,l(y' 11i9-94. A book
wh~<.lo h.IS h:'C'r r:re,.,,..~ .,,ith 'IIi :hrJ!>I ~ll"livcr~al d!'"" of praiso: in th Wl'S! lS loui~ Dumont.
Hom:> HkrJJtrlticm. which til!ot lf';~ared ill f,~a-..::h in 19fi6 ami in an English tranl:lrion in N711;
but it i;. tUO>I "ll>lltisi.nrmy hl ~ hi~t;.r\~''' t'nr : M:'lr:-.:ist vi.-w of cast m India by J Frcnrh
anthruJl41-kl:;:~t ,..-nil ATi..ou ..,pi!t;~n.:-..e. o;<-c r"I,IE\;..."~~-.u~~ op. cit. in n.4 above.
[II.ii]
I. Mar" :.tkos it cl,, ;,, ~wr.all'l''"" rh~r '''(tiM/ \~:!,. nor a thing. but rather a ddinitc $Olial
prod1Ktiou <'it:rilr/ {C"l' Ill.~~ l): il is ..,_"'~r.riallv lhl '"'nmo~nd over unpaid labour (Cap. 1.5,3.;).
2. SC'(: C~o~r Ill :11'15 ('<:otrlit;;.litt. th. aJrt.-pri,cllo\1 of rht unpa1d labour of othl'rs') and many
si1n:l.o
f.A-ii;Jg~~-
ditT~w: \'k\\ lr,.,,. ,. ;;; Dahrcndorf. who wish,s to understand

das... 111 l"bti.~l r.1thl"r tl.t:~a l"i<mi r.ml<, ~,;,t lor '-'<hom 'control over tht mC"ans of
pro.i...."till LS l.>m a pc...-i,tl (.-:i.Sl' tJ'-.llld:;:::-ity" (CCC!.S. ,sp. IJh); cf. s..:tion v ofthisthaprer.
4. 'Mo~t co~mm:::.ly'. l.mt uvt .lh'l-lf>: r.y t!L'iimti::m .;;llws for <'.g. control btin!!= exactso:d by
dirt'\'"IOoJ> t>f a !iwit.:d .:'''''P"IW whu .tiC' hOI ilOO majority ~huthold,rs. Cf Marx. C.1p.
111..~:!-.n (;m,i l.t\' lt"-'''~. lllf))
5. E.g l!~, rr,~rt,.cn: oi lurb:.riaa b! .\r,m M.uc. XVI.xi.'l: XVII. \'Iii :>-4. xtii.IJ-20:
XIX xi 1-1-15, XXIV 1v .5: XXVHis.-;..7: XXX " 14; vit.l'l. and aboVl' all XXXI.xvU!; als0
the :~,h~tn.ui,111lt1 XXVII.x..J...J. ''i~b X~"\X.1i.i. ,-\mmianu~ d.-srribrs without a shuddtr
tlw .tuuntlo:"o f.imtibl.11 r bum:1:g :.!:-;~) n-po.at:<_\1,. mfhctl'd by Count Th,odosiu (t:uh.-r of
thr f::lll't't"t n,,.~;~.,~Ht.t:.! ,i..~ti~..:.l '' ,.._,,~1'1 ionall)' abk by Amm. X XIX. v.-1) on
tr;Iitm,;o ;Jil:i r~b1.b ill A!rit:o: X XIX.,, :!:~-: (wh<-r.: t\nnniant~> warmly approv., th< art ion.
3. Hen I 1;1k:. i<U:.bnutall
with~ tuntaicm from Gr:tl<l ;ol><llll wJ:,~lc";c ~f'<-.ritv'). 31. .JJ. 4~-'l. 'lil.
f1. Tlw m:.,.~.urr :"1;o f'"''': th;-m 71~ I n:~:n:".'~' ,,f th, Ji>t">s of At>~ma at rlu- od of rh< rrvulutiou
led by Nic-.-.-lr:nu;;s m :I:; arly tilth l''ntl!li' (i lilt.~ VU!H-'Jl) is said to hJv.- h<'-'11 rh work of
'thl' ,,.:;;khy cmn (II! ~.\tH. ':J I) :ond w~>- tt- d<ll\t-r :!lc pmdutt of da,;s conflu:t bttw~.~n rtch
and l'"'" \ Cur;) r:. ;n ~Y iT!>~.<::. ill. 7;1.:..: I);,~ 1:::: :1)\am and :.ogaitu)fth< rlcmo< m1 OIK sid<.
sam., l!lh.-:n OU1';k11d ,,ith :kl>~ (l'1.4), ;jll,l ~ ito~ <tther ofdw r>il.iyo (74 1). some of whmn
wer. ,:rr ri.:"h. (11) -~)i iu ~ !U lird. XIII !1-1) Wl' """" rh dfmt>.< agaimt 'tfw most infiuelll!al
peopk' (l:-\.-")- ;:~..,., ,:,,,.;1J.~ ug.il:. fikr.- nt' 3Jln;an difkrs frun1 that nf A. Fuks. m .HPlJ.:!
(19"11 J.;,;.:;5,)
Notes on II. iii (pp.49-58)
54R
[ILiii]
I. S;-c nr M,1; ~~ l,uct tn \TJ;.)'4Jcm.-ycr oJfS M.uci; ~ "Nu n~t ;~ d>J< w rn..: for discove-ring
till" l.'~iHmt:c of clascs j:; llltl'j.ml :\04:i.:t)' 01 the strU~!JI~ bctwCL't' th..:m Long be-for< nJL'
billt:~oi.> h!sior:ot?.' hA~ ,{.~(lint~~ the htsuxic~l d<-vl"'opmcnl of ~his class 'nuggk and
b..Hgro~ cco:mumi.lit~ rhr ,..,onl1mit an.atomy of :hi." cl~' tMF..SC li6; th continuation ts
wr~ Inll'rt'1tilt~) ~: ;~ h:1rd to name tho: 'l:t<11lf}l:I!C'I! hhcmimll" in qustion: c..:rtainly rh,y
:ndt:do:- Augustin Thin:~- whom i\f><r: c~lli ';b, f01thr oft~ "cl.lss struggk'" in fr<n,h
hismri"l!."l"<\j.'lay' (ME.SC !liS, :!.'1 July lli~4), '!:;d whn lx 11&n mo:~tmmerl in th.lett<'r of5 March
!S:SJ a!n,;::!: :.-.fl'!Ted ~t, witb Gai<~ ;md]<'lm W.1:!{'~ prvlui.\y ,,isoMignt, mmttomd, with
Thit:rr .utd Gt1:zm ..:w! 'olll tlt<;" f.ngli!.h hiuori.<r;;; !.Ip t~;~ I~'111'. II" kttn ofEngds of~5 January
Ill').! (MESC SSO) fo1 .'\Jchio1 tu Thier~y. Guizor. W.:o.i~ ~w.l M:~t-WI. W<' should prhaps add
SmHSmwu; anci I l~oo1~ ;o.l!o H':.'ll iPn\L'<'t (on whom sec Marx'>
kmr :lJ Srlaw!'il:~~ -~f J.fj.ro:.arr IMll\, MESC l'i2). ':iif.rnondi. TI:io:rs. and ~wn Mac:mlav.
whrnl' M~ri\ d.-ai'l5rda~;; ':.p:t=J:tid:~~fi.:rof~i~tory' (C.;p. l. 7!'In. I; cf. 273-4 n.2). forth<.'
t'"ffil'IJ::Om:,;o u! d:>!. ttorm::l<~lo~ in England. St"\' ~.-<a Brigg!. Ttl.:- l:ingua!-1' of"'das" m early
m:;;tc;,uri~~t)' Eugl;md', ill ;;noly. ;,. f.,l/o,.rrollmvry t t'Li. t\o;; Briggs .1ndjohn Savill
(r:,..,. dt1., 1')!7} 43-'l:i Tlu: (';q:>rr:'~sion. 'hig!Y.'r' J:ld 'n1i-.!<ile' d ...~$cs ar..: known to haw
OIJ'i;,-;;r,~i m lht' ~gh~n'Tltb c.:nnry, tb~ work:ng d:.J.ll~,,~ .-nl)lll II( I), W. A. M.Kkinnon in
1~..:..-.: 1!C"ihwd hi~ '~>i'i"'t' 'uudd!~" :mJ 'luw::."1' ch~:M!< m l<'rlll< tt' nu:"nll'.
2. For ~<:'wni\;~~c. (...ill cit.: only Olll" worl. fo;~ nil thr ~r<111p;:: {~) Cotp. 111.249-511, 257. 263-4.
1'1~1. (b) :.!fm .~..:.;1~ (t:) ~I..!
3. So.'\' I iv .ul-ll.ID llbLw~. M;<u, :11 hi L'!':''' "(.1;\ ccn:l';l,t;:1ion , ,L,:ing from August !'l37 (><'<'
It\' 11 10 :oho,:o). sp<.tl~ d' 'rh<' roo:ra:ii,tio:~ b~rw.~t; rh, "'Pkltmg and ..:xploitJ da~sc~
(.!ar.. wn-d, 1:;- <3~'" '')' 1\h:x ;~.,.i fugcb): h ""':'S it -.s tW'Ih!i' ~" .-1.-vdop to ;J. c.rrain ~ta~c
hl.'fvr, i~ 'asswn.~ "''' fol'tll cf O!'<'ll .un:t~.;,uwn. 'l'h::rc i ..,.Hllc '1/o:!y ;I nit<' discu~sion in th1s
CDil}' of rh"" pri~;n~k tbt ;b(I~<M gui:!(' Jo M:u ...b: wnfr ..m:l"':l with thi' kind of revolutionary
~1u.:ttl't; ~u
,,.iJj,h ~ta-...' t~'t!nd lnu1.~if~u :3J7

(.;.:nn.m Nij!inah )~e Mi;G.'\ I.~.HI = i\lEit'liiAI'i. ;\.tl<.i Mf:Jf XXV .....1Y.J.
S~ ,\fF:G.' Iii! l I. i'!.. i7 o: .\1/0CW !Jt.:!l'-2, .:!t>J.2f,i.
h. s,, <:.>~ HEC.l r ,, ..\'!f ...i:! { == .\lEW HU<J.~'.') = \li11' V -II liS- !3; .\lt'IVXXUUm. 419, 743
~ C~p. 11':11. :!.11 . il~; .HEW XXIV.2':li.I-31MI. ,;iif', ... c..,1o. IL>!l . ..\411(; MJ.:Ii' XXV .51. 1+7.
I:. i. :!o7. !.t!. ;!~;-= C.lp. Ill ~ l. 15'.' H:!. 1'-"-7. ~ . .!I!.
7 . .\!ECA Li i.;i.f.;\ = MEC.:Jtllll.1.~1 ..m~ll('<' ~-~ .\JEW XXltl i.U = Ctrp.l.715 (Ausl>mtw(q,
.:ro!b.ltr.t,, :111,! i!.:t>t:.-1/is!i<;llc' ~~~rl,oir.:ti;>l. :;!I <murimt do.>~ fO!O:.:tl:r): MEW XXIVA2 =
Clf ll.J7 iA:<.<;,.;,:,mg drr .-lrlrdf;kt.1/~); ;\4J.:U XXV !..!.1 = 1~11' lll.t1119 (t'i"f srkrmdiire
4.
5.
Tb~
.\ !bb~..~~~--).
H. My ot\\'U transl..-.~"* i> WT~ liltf'.ll far ,I mx~ f~;bi;k .;..,, ....... lkC'-IIIJ(,rL'/Rubd . K.\ol'J')- ttJ.
I hJ\'<' fdr hl~;\11 tim ronr ~hscu<T Gt'llrlil!l :'l<J."<~>:<Il, 'H<"''~-l1AI:r und Kn.:chtschaftsverl!~bu:~ t"n!;tti~ll!t~lnt ~.- t.k::ln;.rK"'ll :.~.u,l ~nhj~~:lutl'"). inh a ~:",:"r concr~tc English one,
r~ l,,1J(t!Uh..!1a bt-t1.,.rt..,~ thoj( 1.\'11~> dc:ni1t~ii' a.nLi tl:osc "''hrt ;l~( (u ~t:hic-..:-rit>n .
CJ, c~rl N Do.<glt!r, ~t.lU ...... J,,,~y. ii1_1F.H 1':!(1"~59}.!71-7, ni:idsin~C: G. Starr. 'lltiOVl'fdOSl'
tf ;;!ave!),., ;11_!/!H Jr; (I'JSll) !7-Jl. l.lL'!<Ins .,:oc.~elltut .l!ti;k h. Lllll(rtuuatdy b..:tu umiucd
irom dt:.' lllou~lW ll:bli~~'l''"'' ;w 11:tii>ru ,..;k!,w,r,i, .:.: _los.:1h \'jl!!l (Dt.-hum. l'J71}. For
Jnth;:t .-rmq11 fStau ' ..c.rtkk 1:-ss ""ff.~tiv tinul"lti,r', ~.-.!', Oli\a. 'Die lkd<utung d<r
n. 11 J HI- 15.
r.i:ll>< <~pm what h< mistak.nly ralls th< 'brilliaur
:o. ,;2tw ~Lo;o .-fl."r> with approval ro a wmk by VtdaiN.hll~<~ wl:id1l 'nriri,;.,. i.tnh.r <'I' i1 tit. u;,i;: :''"I :.b<.>\'t'.
II. I :;~:tn- ..,;ti: r.Q.St ... r \\ hJt J A. 11~1>1.. s;tys 1: ,\l,n-x:u ,'\,n.iW)' i .-$li'"' ( N70) ~S-8. l'xceptthat I
"r.\n.d ..~ rn.~: .. cf,.: rel.r4t:.an~hip,. '''hidt l3bt.t.trt~t ... h;,v~ u4'tl: .,11,., {(llmrrc'YS in a C()-npt:rative
sysr-r.m' I ;.;; p1:1 ~f 'til; ;r~"l((:i;:l f',r.,,, ~i .-~l><!tht!un" i>1:r ;.. ;:trr uf 'the relations of
P'h:,::rm' I ~l>l :t!al:il;>t'V .1!,.,,:r th(' ww ~h, iir1 p;oro~[!r:Lph ,~n MM ~7 is phras.d. but I
~\r.t:'l\:$' :\~:'\'"C !I((LlJ!~ ".\ith U.~J~~j th:!' ~-~~ ~trugglt~i. :;.!\"' 't.:a }l( ~~1; 14'~ sitnpJy a!\ a hi~tory uf
.:0,.-.fril.stt ~~\.~,,~,, !"':.}1!:-Tt~' "'"'t;~of; :ro~d t~, ;.~hl;"c"r!~!~-.;. ~ ... ::t~dt. i~ll JS an incvltabl~ coni:.."\.U:"''!~~ i.'i rll~ df\'~':i...11~, t~f .~-"'ficr: ~!~,;.g th: t:n~-... t:Ji'"" rr!arl"',J'h~~, n '.''hich rht.. producr~ ofout
c:~~ 4!"~ appropriat~--d- t~t h~; iz! po4r!. hy th:o :-:~~h.:-!'. h: hri....-i. it''\'"-'"'':r ~.,. plt)itltlOU is achit.vr...d.
whr-t!J~r throu~h i<>r<r or :h::."t~:, ;;,~i:.ll;o ~.Jrm,:-d m:tl~i~ ,,f kgal justification. th<
~nr>kt't1 Sid.tv.~ui" itlt\crt~ lb:!. S (I 'XII) _Y.!'I.
~u: 11'1 II!! ..~l-1 fit:ky rvc-:U. hi

.m;tl~~;.; ~~ O;s.~w~l". C..S.S(..': ~,,1 i~
W. Ill
Notes on lf.iii-iv (pp.58-69)
549
distmctlun bt:twt"".:tl vrioll cbs:sC':; I! to b~ umwn 11long the lines of the manner in which the
products ofbbl.'lur 1IR' !llstriburl"d'.
12. Arist .. Elh. Nir_ vm. 13, 1 ifilb-t; r,,l. lA. l:?~":n. wl~h ff:; cf. J"Jth. E11d.. VH.I:I, 12.11bl.~.
And ~co: V.uro. R R Lwii. I : lrmrutit"Pitr>W~
13. Sec pp.\1-111 oftnr !'clian P"P'rbad. <-dltl.ofl. l':li-~ (;1nd r.epr.), a reissue of the original edition
"'"IIi
:n
ofl%:1.
14. E. J. Hu!NbJwm. 'Cl~s.s .:onscimiS'R~I in hi>\>:;ry'. in .l.Jpfcts !f Hist.ry .mJ Class CtrscitliiSIIl'Ss,
cd, h:v;m 1\ks:tucs ( I'J7!) 5-21, atro. 1lw.1!~lj,-. :.:r mitt.
15. By R. Ar.:bl'J ami 'i. l:. I iumph..~y-s. ~ 'P.,m::fk ~ on the class stru~glt iu Ancient Grtct:t,.. ;-,,
Crititf'!' ~~f Atlthrupl,!ll'f 7 ( 11'1{,) r,/-H I.
16. Char)C's PJJrotL"l, 'Ln Glr~'t",~n. .:;u!C'.fiqucs dd.~ i;mnh rl.l'se~ dan~ I'Antiquw.' cbssiqm-'. in L~
Pc>~.<h IOil (A1nil IWL!) 3-25. The db;~incti;:~n !>1.'\'Jta rob, a fcaturl' of french nco-Marxist
thoue:ht
17. Conrr:'"' OiW~t. ! w"Ould mm ~rn's my!.dfdti1i:n,tly.
lit Hcre r ~l'(()l!ttiiL'Tid thL third ;;:h;;pl.tJ in S:ampp. N (~'.-140), entitled. A rroubksotn~ proplrty'.
whtch ~h'n t:n:c!: l!'lt~,nin~~ '""'d1:1n r'rom tl:c Old \our h. R. W. f.,~d and S. L. En~erman.
Tim( tJir '~" C>\lu ( l~il). m~iut;,iu, ;;~htly '" Wl.mgly. that Sumpp overestimates the rok of
punishml'nt in :h tr.:..um~nt lt' :\m,"!'ic:nt slav.:s, ;ox\ :hat he has not allowed uflicicntly tor
rcw.:>rd"; bu! sre tlw o.hapter (II) h; H G1:tm-ll' :m,1. l{ Sutch in Rtck.mill.!! ll'ith S/.w,ry, ,d. Paul
A D::vu.l.lo;ll oth!":s (Nn\ Yotk. l~17l>) ;i>.n. In ;uuk!uiry. of course. au evcnmon valuable
rcwar.l
Wl~
avai],.bk rh;an :myrhirt!! 1\.;y,nh<"n. ,;l;wrowncrs were nornully willing; to ofier;

tho: pros~.-:! r_,fwl:id 11111~1 i;,w, ht'~< .>..-cry powerful inducement ro the slaw
mAtmn";.~,on.
to illO.:I::1tit< hi::~l!'w;,~; hi~ t:J;~;,;t:'!. Ci. III,, h.-.v,,

J,!,2) IS t:-Ul c.i \Ill\',.; t!lc C<lmparativdy ti:w fl':llly impmtJnl
and ''"'"'ll,-m l~"~i"''" <>!. Par:< II ~"'i IIi ,,f Vthm1e I of the Grm~11 fcl,-,,fo,~)' (.\IECW
V. ~"i-HJ). '1)11 \"deb ~~ Md.<'Ll.u, /.:,\(/. T l~?j..3 I wJ,o is rit~htly rritic:tl. But I warmly .\gtcl'
wnh hi' h:ol.-,ih ;ilffit\'lll ~r.li!': om ''r.r~ l,tth ~arm: work. which he calls '"n<' ~Jfthcmmr
C<'tltfa! nt'tl.-bt~~ \\'orJ...~ . . :~ mm.-:tdu;~;.:~rhi.:.,.,,,,.,,,! .. Marx tl<'Vl'f suhscqucmly 'tatl'd h1s
uut<ri.di>t <olUctptill ,,fl. ish>:!' ;;t '"-''b icn!!lh :m.i in ;kt.ail. lr nmai11s -l mJstrrpicr h>day'.
AtnoJ," o!h:t .::..'.a:.lt':'!,i of rl: Ui~' l.'f ~hr ...::t-,.,.M._lJI 'lri:L men in rc:"ti"rtnn. t<.l a situanon of cIa 'is
stru~~ ;,;~~:tins: b.o"-1. wlur, ,.;~,.:oow;;. r~ w.,.,:,l haV<' bcLn pref,rabk, SL'l' the arttdc by
Eng.:l~ iuth, Sot Ri~<it:i.rlz, Z.-itm.-.: lot 1 j!tly JIH,'i, .\!ECJI! Vll.l~3
lr is m:.-r,;:iu~! '" rom}~:>r~: :t <t;<h'll'''' ~>l:.aJ, ;,. ~ b;:.,;. publishl'd 111 I !'IJ(, by Eduard Glns. a
prO![Ti'''>.. ;,.,. H~.-lun wh-~, ;,,_,""'''PI !..w M~n :tt:~mkd in th<latc 11'!)4), at the U11iversiry
ofB~Iill. ,oml '''"' h."l bL'C!l i~>t(l\,'tln.ll~ S:.illl-'ii;l,,m and hi~ followers. 'Om<'. s.ud Gan,,
'thl'fl' '-"'1' tl;e 'J'l"'->'iti.:! l,..... ,.,~n msr.-t ~"" .,J:w;, h:u b~twecn pat.-iriau and plLb,ian. J.nd
lar.-r .sttll htw~<'ll i;Hd:,l ;,,r;l .tnoi \'~..s;al. n~w ,,.,. 1:~,.,.,. the idle rich and th~ wnrk~r. (l quot<'
front W<'"""i tlitllil"n!:o.-c:.~;. J(,,,f ,\l,:t..-jUJ.J>> b~ il<1'll~)as Scott. london, IY72J+Uo.)
Th,r w:t< at ,;o~.,dic:t r.-.;cw ul :hi,.: l._.,..,:.:_ I!& ~t.: T;hus Littr,rry S"pplmrnrt nu JTN (2~ August
197:') ,165--f,
I have 11<1 il<."''J' hi<; t~J n::-J 0..--.cl.: ;,-fi,dt h:<111 :-t.\'lllly ~r-pand Frcdcricl:. A Johmtollt'. Clas..
R.tlt'll"l G.-.1.! -\ Sitorlr ~I Ciw> J.:d.lli<l'u lrlil U.,. f,.,i iJ;:<rrimiuari''" ''' S>11tlr .-\ti-i"t (london. 1'171>).
In parrimi.u. it''''"!.! b< :m;,.,.-,iblr. ~ll tl...: rrittd~l- ~dopt<d by Castks md Kosa.-k. to trt.'Jt a
sl.tw )("'~Ji" <k..:cia {"-'' IIIJV ;,b,w~ ;;ml 31:> :.. '!- Ld'W) u bdongiu!= to a dttfo.:r<nr das from tlw
poot fro 'Taf<S.t:l'lll, WhOnJ he \'!(ltliJ t\'>\'lr\lJ, :11 afl tdtvant rl'Spl'('[~ l'XCl'p! that hl' WaS tn
unfr,-,. 11\:lll, who~~ ~Ll:iv,h !''hil'}:""l ~~:u;. (J'i:,J .l.l.tw) was intinittly precarious.
(.
19. This r:1rti;::th: r"~~i!~ \tECIJ'
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
[II.iv]
I. The mosr convmicnt t:xr of the P<litir; is that ofW. D. Ross (OCT. 1957). The nu>st useful
Engli~h tr:m~lauon is th:ll ofErut-st IJarker. Tire PlitltS~f.irist<tlc (1':1~6 and r~pr.); but rhcre
an oc..:asit>n.ll mistransl.1tions. <'.g. of JTfpimoco l> s,rfs' (cf. lll.h above). Tht' wry d<taild
commntury ofN,wm.m. I' A "'W L. N.:wman. The p,,/itics !f Aristt>tle (-I vols, 1&!7-1902),
mak.-s thc sanK crror but is not otknnurnd by simil.u on<-s.
2. I shall ~iw no tkr:ultd rdcrnlCL., btr,; sec tlw JX'fiHirint.ll<' parat:r<~ph nf my AHP = Aristotk on
histor~ and poctn (Potric.< ~. 1~51JJ6..l't I)', Ill Tltr A11rimt Hish>rioJil arrJ /11.< Ma~<-ricJI.< (Essay in
Honour ofC E. St~nns). ,.d B.1rbara le'"ick ( 1'J75). -15-SX. Th, rnostuo;<-ful r.c.:nt bnok dt'alm~
550
Notes on II.iv (pp.69-76)
. i:h th '?lhtiral' and hi~toric.1l writings oiAristotle is W.:tl. AH = Raymond Weil. Arisltlii'Pt
l'lff~tlm" (P;>:i:;, !<;l(J(J).
3. l'hu . J\lu.tiot I .II= Dit'ls-Kranz. FVS 6 ' IU30. no.il6 B .3 = FGrH t-. f ~ (m L 157; cf. ~77). Th.:
Gr.;-.1< i:. ..,;.,. '0Atl,..11'tovKwl' ... <i.v rl,vavorypttl{lT,vOt/Jt <fl<>rT<v 'lrrwiavi!Kiloiwa< Tiw 1-iAtiov. a-n- ui&vi><
1\G.I';"u'(o~ ir.-.ryKatov 7TpO~ 1Tii1Ttv.
For a d!all!l;<' in j.1robv \ Vlt'W, sc.: his .-'l.rr/11.' (I ')4Y) 35.~ n. 3.

5n ai~o ;~:d;i.r ;;lo!-'J. 297n.li. and 1-'Grf-1 Ill b (Suppl.. 1'J54) i ..1HI
4. Ser In}' Al-Ii' fn.2 above) 52-3 and 5!-! nA<;l, cittn~ cp. H. Bloch's admirable article, published
in i~~cr .
.;~. I 0:\\'<' aot bo;..-u abk to take accou111 of.1n article by Akxand<'r Fuk 'published postkumrusly ~s
"J)I:ato a>ld the social qu<stiOn: th<' probkm ofpowrty and rich,s in the UIJ.>'. in An(. St>&. 10
(197~} .U-71'1.
5 ..1\~~mdlutl en PI;~&.J, Tlr~<W 17k. ~ romnttlrl (;r.k ''~~""' w~;; :htH man \\a> liyn,i< if hi>
f:~n;il)' h:1,! L"r'n l'id: to: sc\lt'tl ~'lll'U.tloiU. Sum,. t>Ch.:r tdev~nl P":nagcs arc qnotcd by J.D.
Ll<"r:lii~rln in hu <'tinton or'!!.11r!J'idcs. lJI'.-rt {iY.W) .H ;>p IWI-1. d. '.<"5. for wmc fifth/fourth~u:~l: y ;ott;J.d,> <.>lli'l-'"'""'' ~~: W K. C. Gmh:ic, i ilmrr !{CII'"('~ flriiPs,,p/ry Ill ( l'WJ) 152-5 =
r;,. S<tlhistJ (paptt~;ici<, ! 'f71) I ~2-5.
6. h: ,;umr :--.:~mpks, ~t-r nt 0!'11 .!S11n.i;C., nl-1: ar~tl tn 11 f~ .tcld es;;-.Pi.oto, Rep IV.422t-3a.
7. Ati!lt-. !~~~ '.V. 1 1, J29f,'!:! :i. . c.!s;.!. _)(-.~ ~~y t.."\l..~' v;.;.'\'i" i; th3t the u:mro.\ncd 'one; slnglt~ tnan in a
posl!,o::l (}j .mtiwdly whD S<~t up~ ltli.wd roasti~lll!1.111 112%'~--~41) .lo only be Solon: cf. Pol.
II I?. 1.273 !i-4'.' I.
H. s~c- Ill}' ECAi'S Wand 1111.:!'-J~. Nr\i\'lllilll, p,". !V.JJ:! lH11
v 1.131i4bl). givt-; a list of
~'"~''ii~~<:s :n rlw J'<litii> ill w1lid1 o iii;,~<<~'< (iu tht K'tl5<' ur'liw !.jwcr cl:as,;,s) IS comrasttd with
p,,,
..-,!
::"t\r~~'t.l.. ;,~ e-it~U,.hll-.., ',.; ffi~ oivofC"'-.: ~,to!"t~.
ii '!JI'Cdtt;.a.r,._,
~: f:~l~&o('f-\0: 1 l"~ t"VCll
oi. 07T.\i1'Q't..
i!1 ~jl< J!;, :u~ rct.:~n! ,d:t;r. h~\-c mh ...:ill:tt~J:.-.,1',.,..,~,-.. im'MJIW" Wlthuut any MS
;ullh<>r!!\', An:1~ol!\', <'l!lJ~r ~.u!in;; t;ml~ madt !<) 6: b>th th, iu:tz\C'dial<' comexr {12'.10'301~!1) ~="~ m.s !~.11'!t,...ii(\'1, (~"'I' 127'JJ,.111-1>), h!:(:.ll,-o the CX~hlpk ,,, Cnlophon rhat follt.WS
(l29o)'i5-17) ..;tld t!~,. im.1gin~" :.'otSl" in !2'.M 1JJ. i (w!m-h 2'1';11~ ll .,,.. prccisdy similar, and
ill,-i.lcolr;&U,. (l1J1l~!ll~ ;a l!lt"WHVn oi d,-t~:.-vrr..y) :ilt: r-.rr:rpt:~Jt!;. ~"bi..:!1 do not fit tht d.:finition of
do'tJillC:'.li}' .m.l 'lo~:.l~('h~ ~~'u u ll'd"!i-lfi Hll i: i ;:..rf~crly ,-1.-:lr from IIUl. 127'i'17-19
.nul l~7'.1".~Rrb !"!ol' 127'P.3'.-.;ifj). !h.t :o llh'lttlo'll \'ariool Nher passages. rhat in
An~<l<>tl,'s mtnd oll!:;~I.-!-1}' !5 :.i>.-.\'i' iii; tin mk ftli propcrticd .-!.;.~;.. ,J,ntOcracy rhnuk ofthe
P'"" .,o that lljjl"o( ~tilt' 1111\rt' rdo\,m< \hl:'d \:1 1290bt5. If. lu>wr. with Ntwman (PA
IV lt. I}. WI' int.rrrrt ~~~~~ 14-1:; .u s:t~irr" mph;:tio!l~ 1 >l<'~ltr:a;ut ~'f th<"ir w..alth 11111] .-rmply
~,.,-.lll~th<'Y :.r, nl<~rc r.mh'I.m:, thr, J" .,..--lr:.p> s.-.m. Jll~lihL.l:l<m fm rtadtng Oo\'YPxia.
9, In
t,,t. IVA.
10. Cf. 1'1. 111.9. ~-?l'lll'27-J!: V.5. Ut!.~1't.-7

II. Fin :.11 thll'. ""'' my ( Jl'li' J:;..'l (;m,\. on l's.-X.n., Ath. Pttl. in gemral. OPW 307-10,
.'\pptn;hx VI)
12. Thi~ is '"td.-Jy a.hnm.-.1. h-Wt'\'&'1 r.mtil :la.-r:...-1 11;,y t~ "' Ullzy W.:.'I<'ITI id~-ologish. It should
""' "llt)i.n! In r,f,r l. S. l\t. I irwr. "loJc-,-:-~ ...!u: tl.o." <,.,pr.-s~ill< ,,f th~ dmocratk class
~1111~. m lknd>C'illt!N'I, CS1'1 4l3-2l'l, '~!' irom !'l! :!.;!1.711 ntt,IC 1%3 Anchor edition
(N,w Vorl.:) ilipsc~l. flul:tiNf M: (l'J(.;-J):
13. I ;,.,.,w of!ii w.:.rlc. i'<-'llf;ti!U(: ;t fdly ,,,~~lllatc sr.ul; ,,f tbt> cm!C~p~ oi~ht 'milled consriruuon',
trutl 1t~ tirs~ .ll'll(";,rdmr iu Tl111.- Vlll.'.i7. i-! .l;wn ! rh l!nuldn j)\-riod. Thr most rcnnr
W<Jrk~ I !1.1vo: ~.,at o~.T<' b~ Jo;,,1~: \'oil! fm<. n:~ n,,.,r; :I :1;, ,\11,\r-.i C".n.mlltwn i11 A11tiqu1ty (N,w
Yml, 115-IL wh.~ CIUC,Urat.-;. "" f';::,lybm~ . omHi J [I .1\~ltkl'!o. Dil' Thtllicdcr.~l'michtm
I ,.,!i''"'''.'! l''' t\11.-.r:.m (Ar::~r....,t.m 1. l111>1'1), who <li<n:SSt".< rh, ::or!~ ;~.pJ"'araJK<'~ of th.. nmccpt
hoHII.'l~ r:,o: sutTt.rt,11~ly ,;u.sp<l rJ,,_. ft~. fll.loi.k ,._, d~Jt t.~ An~t,>:k ~~"''':'~II. that oligarch}' was
:h1 mit oi rh~: propcrtR'd .-!:J.;,' i\ \'.-fY a~liti hro.ef '"'' "~':' i~ tbl t-W~Ibank. HCI' 1.639-41.
14 . .;,.~Ill\' CIT As I ~hall npj:,~n .-1-J:"wh:n (iillli-R"t \' ii :md i!< nn_11t-! hdow). I ,.c nt)[hing w
lll~k:rm o~ltt~! D!\' ''iC'"'~ j,r :h( ;,~:i.:k b" i'. 1- l~l~o~<k"- i,, {!-/j --~I 1972) ! 15-27. which t-nntains
tiJt a .s.ittt;J.. v ....lid. ;1(.'\\' ~~;_!'~tU-;r,r-"P
.
.
;:; S,:c-..;;. \'(mf-r;::L,>"J.' :il. (i~;t~.!.~;<h..wL') 71\~"!l,
11. 1\w: .1\i. lV.M-'J. i:!').;"JI-').:1!:: cf_ 11. 1?'15h1-JY.U~ U. !':!\.17'".\"b!.
17- s~~ t i.! C.. i~-. ),~ ,,.!1 I . .a.!3 .. .;..;_ '''~ I!.: L ~7 ~-:~
Iii. j ..;; .. l{) $;1.<:
if. lh;,,,..,.,, '.\/: .m4 f>;,phim"l m fimnh-ce!lr;:r)' Athtns. iu GRBS 19
(hl71i) 31.;.,;:;; ~rd n,,; n, .-\~h.,l~n J':&dfJi<: k;:i~l:.t ;;ir-.:r ~Gr! B.C.?'. in ibid. 20 (197'1)
.!7 &_;j_ J ,v!>-h ,,, u;:htL''" hn~ W111t ~ti'l('T t~rt .-~rrKh-; hpr ~ l.:t~;u"t-, Y~~'t~"l,~h have 1u.u!l a ust..~ful
~uurbt~uvn ~c. i't:' k''"'fc~~:, ,,f ~h~ ~,..~:-~;,,1~ . .,f rh, \ths.,ttt4n .i~nocr.acy: "Hov.: n1.1ny
1\t.
Notes on ll.iv (pp. 76-80)
551
Ath~ni~l!\11 :ttmdel! th\" fitdesitl?'. in ibid. 17 (19""!6) llS..34; 'How did the ,\,henian. Eccim~
vote?'. in ib!d IH (1 4'i7} I'~J-37; 'How qftro dtd 1h~ F.cdtiia mc'eti', iu ibid. 43-7iJ; ''Don-;:;:.
Ecd.-:;i,; :mt! DttJUt1'>n'" iro CLl~~i~:1l 1\thctt\'. ur 1bld. I') (197~j 127-46; ;t.."ld 'The durat_,cn of a
meeting of th~ Athcnun [i(l'fr., i1t". in c P7-1 ( i 9711) 4l-'J; cf. zlsa The Sovtrtignzy o_! the Pf<p!' ;~
CouJilli /UIIl'!u rn rhr- F~11rth Cmlorry 8 C wrr.l 1/rr f'ulrlu .101illn WIIimt (.!r.ronstillltil!lli!l !-Yo!m /!
= Orbu.-l..':tw Cl.-u. ::;mJ. I (I'JU)
19. See e.g. Pul. !If.-!. l2'lfJ: IV I i, 129trll-:ll ::. 12'161>?;-30; 14, 12911'31; V.lO, 1312"5-(l {whcr~
ij &rj!J.-...;~r.tt ~, '"-"-lmtll> 1S il '''Pf'"''i~) .\5-11; ll, U l.i'32-J; VI.S, 1321>"17. The word -;-d,.l-.,-ai:U
is usr>.! pa:tiy ~'--..~" thr \"~tlt.:nw' fcmn of Ot'llloct.lcy i~ ~lso the l:i~t ro dcv~l!:p, ~ .,-o;A.flmrLl:
TUi~
__,7.-->tf, IV.6. ll~Yi.
20. For Aril!ot!~"s conn:?lh,n of :h~ rt'l<~tirm ho..-rw<'m MilLo< and ""'"""~'-" see his EN V.IO,
1137b 13-32 {~il. l.i-1< ..'7-32); cf. f-\1. IV 4. 129~+-13. 23-5, .30-7.
21. The m:~it1 j':l&s:~i;t,!i, ;wn ily Hansen on t'-~1 r:rfhi1 l'n9 drticlt (n.IH abuv.-), a1r p,,/. IV.4.
1292'-'-IJ (~fl .'1-7, It}),,;;.:~. J2-4 . .H-1; l1, i:..~t'4J 11"., csp. 1293"'9-111; 1-l. 129!l"' 3-1 'i: V.S.
1305'32; , 13!11-':?....;; .:i VI..'. UI7"2X-'J.

22. Cf. H~nst-n'~r lwo amdc> (1 1R ~b.w.:). tam not ~UI'\: myself whL"thtr Aristotle would have
rhoui_lhl of tho! Athe:niJ:; rnus;iwti<m "' """rninr. rhr lorm of'rxtrcmc democracy in 462/1, or
aftl"r h~ J;;-;,!h offc-rides. o: m:ly with 1hc inm)duttion of Assembly pay after 4ll3.
23. Arist .. I',I lV ..i, (1..~:!.7-.~~u
24. Forth!- ,jar.b.~aon i>'('~w~~n i .. n-~'"' .ll1d """'d'IP"" ~reM. I. Finkelstein [Finlc:y]. in CP 30
( 1935) J!i)-:.\6.
25. Cf P;/, {V, i2, i:~"2~3;; ~n! Vi4, LUxl'!',..;/'4; .11lsc IVA, 129thl7-28, when th< categories
are muJdi~l- th.::v "''l"1J.p. TwH~Ih: i'"'':.og~... lv.->. l~l)1b34l-~"13. and 6. t2nb2J-J'IO, an
trchrn.:.L
th~H'" c:ceJ ;II th" ::~)<1 ""'''" lll 1)<(1<'N )!' .,Jigarch~. Anoth,r p4ssag. mentioned
in th.~ l<".'i.t ;oi"-'"C' VIZ. IV.-'. 1~ii_)I>Jtl-I"K w:t}, l.?' I' _;:_:...bu. is gt'nt'ral and applies mdtffcrcmly
to oh,;.~!t"h; ,:I'd .kmo~'ril'}. dlrhough m.1inl~ mor~ n:kvant to dm10cracy
26. Pol. JV 5. l!92'1YJ-11 lCI'; !\ 1?-.l.lJ;~...H; Vl.c,, 132~fa::o!-;4. Thtsc texts may be comp.ued with
the ~"''' .:u ..d !r1 1},~ l'n'n"<lll<~ ua~-~ (E"'.li~>Ja~-.!'L\, 1292b2J-3'10) relating to democracy.
27. I fed I must mJh.Jsh." hen: th:ll I h.w~ ~,;,j 'n.'ll-1'll17.'1\s and not 'mt"rks', btcaus~ although I
m.uk my l'~-~""ll r'~rf.-.::ly ckar in OPW ~S (a.,-J u.59) and J<)J ff., two of my Oxfi>r<l
toll~-a~~>:'l', ,,.,.;,.,.,;.. ~ ri1.at i''"--'K- .~ecus;-cl mi." uf h:licin~t rhat 'C.n-ek. rrade was largd y in the
han.h ,,, m.u,-.. (G. J. C~"'kwdl, in CR :it!= u.s. !:5 [1'175}. ar 259) m of'rdying heavily on
the llloltlt-rrt tl:o'try rh;l tr::d.: w~l:u;tc-1:.- tn h.- h;tm!~ <1fmet1cs' (Oswyr1 Mmr:~y. in Grcflr b
u,,.
R""''"' :Y.lJIY73!. Jt ?itS}'
28. D. J. McC:1rgur. 'TI" r-.J..tive bt~ .f Kki;:hnt.f lt-~l~lation . in Hiwri~t ~5 ( 1')76) ~~5-'!5. at
.W4-3t. lk !C'h'rs teo su:t:c i'l tho \\'o')rlc. I h:n-t" :r. :uiHd; one could add l".!( I{ ~'aky. 'Tht
ori1::u:< .t' o~..;.tr.m,:', i C ...:Ct t, ( lJi'JJ !53-15~ ;u:d A Hrsto'}' of the Gret'k Cit) St.ltfs ra.
7(JOf_i.~ It C. (lkrkd,y u.- , 1'177). 1h.- wr }' illl11i>f~crorv naturt ofwhich i" wdl hrougfu our
in dw ,,.,.,..,.. by l'11nl C.trtlottl!~ in _Il-l.) ''il ( l~'~l ~lJ-4.
29. 'Ansc .. rJ,,. :<!!.:JY"" ,:frh.- ""II'' ;oi ~~:lm.-:.h~rn~l~'. i.n AJP 72 (1951) 145-t> l. npr. lll Arricll's
on AiJto'tl, ]_ &lr'a mrtll'.1/i:iti, ~I }ullotlh:A H~n1-:~ ;,ud or hers ( 1'J77) I :;J-fl<).
30. Vtrm..dly . 11 .Ka.IT"-na.-s "i~hr \\r.rkrk dwid, into two mam gr<>ups. anordin!!: in
alm"t ~w:~ <AS<" to who~th,-r !il.r ...-or.t is l\i"irt-: '-'S"<Im thr smgular or the plural (I) In th<
plrwrl . ,_....i. th, .~:-..:-omp!.:i .--n>ll~ a~:r1SI .rl!.ird~ !r.un th< p.,/itics. where rp.ai = O,)(ai =
offins.. IIU~i>tra(j,~ tbi;; U; m:ido 'i'~if;,_ i11 Ill. h. 1~ t-'.31-2. Among other pdssAg<'' dll' II.H.
1268'1{1.,; (WhtJ;o :"IJUct ih ?.l "" !...-., ..,, m l..'; r..,~:mot 1!6N~ fm TCI'-11 in the singuldr: cf. below):
111.5. I :!7!f'3'1-!l; :J. 1..?101' 14; ~V .;. !'.f.XI i J. H; I 3. i :>>7~(>-{1 (whcr<. n,.ai = ro opxm in V. H.
1.1l~ 1',t'i;: V -~>. JJ!i5"2"'' {wbt-rl' r;l'u i::-l = ,-..,,,,i h J): H. 1301ibto-14. (2) m the sit.~ular. T<P.'fl is
homm. <'>lWI>I. sorntthllo~ highly subj~ctiv,. i11 tht s,n,.that Jifftf(nt ptopk may well <t'C" it
VC'f}' .!uT.r.:m!y; II -~ tl&( \'illl demcm 'fl w~-...rlhnley 'status' ('"'>zialt Etusch:itzung dcr
Ehr. \Vd,.r. :.s quotc.'d a: n.m~l;dlU "' rht m.~:n t<'Xt above) Th cxo1mpks arc Jlmosr
l'ntitd~ ii''"' tht ethical \lourl~ . .; ~ (a:.u!;!n,,-,,, :;; ~he' passJ.ge~ quortd in th, nain trxt ~hlV<",
and;;Llrnt",-lhL:r,)!-:".''I.'VIII :4. JI,.Y1-li.IO:!~m.i. :.!.;lbto-1\1. S.talsoRiz~r.l5.1361''27-lh:!
In rlt,J',lr:ir; d:.-r~ :.r:- .mly ,,.,:- "' '"''' ,'"'al :ll'&tl:<~l' of r&iJ.'iJ m du: si11gular. <'-!! IP!. 12(JX'H
(cont:;,~t 21, ii-.:bq,l,rr:.l: >tc :>.!::ovt!~; Ill. 1.!, l~'t<.J'I-4 (.:rhlerics); and V .2. 1.31l2'-'~-2b2. wnh J.
1301'' Jl}. 11 {~..... -~ ol
rnr;.t;) n.~
CoUr~e a ftw P<"<uliar ll>-lgl's. c.g. l'ol. I. 7.
125~_;;, ( =- .-.t.~J~-~ '(i.t:~). ;.~:! V!!. !(), wsto:;, ("' f..h~i'tlon of\x:i.ng in ..-hargc ot): and Oil J fcw
orh,r '"'~im" ih: wnr,l ::~.::.n><J-11.:-<::,~ lU., ,i4l11.\l;;,ll (<'.g. Rlrt'r.ll.2. I.\7H1'3C>-l: 16. U\11'1-2).
o ,,;
; ,_-:
552
Notes on Il.iv-v (pp.80-85)
31. Ernest Barker, From Alexander to Constamine (1Y56), give~ a fair ~ekction m translation. whKh
reveals the shallownes.o; and futihty of nearly all this stuff. Liuk of It seems to me to rl'ach even
the modest standard of Cicero's Dr rrpubli<a. Oth<'rs may b. able to find ntllrc of value than!
can in Ernest Harker~ other anthology. pubhshtd a year lat('r: S<>rial and Politiwl Thought in
By zantillm from )11stiman I''' the Last Palaeologu.< ( I<J5 7).
[Il.v]
1. On 'functionahsm'. ~~~ o:.g. Hil~tomm. S,:u/,~ey 1 -l:.!-S ..~1-'l. 11.2. ~01-1. 29<J-.300; Hmdix/
lipsct. CSP 2 47-7'2 (xrr.~.; !r,;ml <'~>~,~ b~ Ki:'l~~('v D.cv!s :..r,; \Vribcrt Moon-. Mdvin M.
Tumtn. Wfudzim:t'~:i: W,,;.1uw~ki. ~nd 1'.~1hr.:.r L 'i~imi!.-,~r:lh<'),l{~JiDahrt'ndorfs lnaugurd!
Lecture at Tiibmgr.>. '01 :!:<" m11)in ,,f meqt,a!i:~ um.mg ,:,en'.,,, s,,.ys in the Theary o} Soci1ty
(1968) 15l-7H, repr. ;H s, .. h:r.;rl,lii:r. ,d. Amh' Bftci1k (l%l ;;mi rcpr.) 16-44, at pp.2H ff.:
Ltonard Reissma:1. :r> s.,aolt>,r.:;: A.: it!Mrl:ull<m, ~-c. N<ti J. S:ac-lser (1%7) 225-9. For an
eloquent protest l :. thst>ntzauhnt anthropolog!st ~~-!!~<! wh~: he could describe in the
Marttt Lecture for >'.13fl '" 'tho; ti:r:nional thcory :.i<:ni:;a::~ in f:rlg-hsh anthropology today
(the situaoon is radt..-r ,!JtTM"<:r: r":n). $'(:C E. 1:.. E"~:;;.J'r1t.-!1<0rrl. E.-... ys in Socr.rl Amhrop<lo,l/y
(1%2. paperha.:k i'XO). !1'-.Zi! (th.- Jhr;~ 'l':,t;d ~~ fr,,m ;<?fr). 4!>-foS.
2. The passagt quoted t'<"''ll<'l< fr ...:n. rh. ns. ~r:.l f-ll>fth, llla~;oriJtSf'UC:m: a rh,orttical modd'.
injEH 31 (1971) 777,8fD, .11 i' n~. 'l!:,-,1:h,r ;;md,
N>rth ~r.:! Thomas is 'An conomic
theory of the growth or' the we~t.n w.:dd'. m C'f'" Jli.<t. R ll_~ (I<J70) 1-17. o~n.! rh.l.itcr
book is The Risl' oj tlr. lfm,rr w,,/,1 (C .. mbnJ,; NH)
2a. Brenner's article h;~,. l>t-.:n ,riti<t5,-J t: :no~m lilffn:,m W.J}'>. ,. ~ u '' strk-s of papers of wry
uneven value m f',li' ~;. f>rr;rlf 78 (!Iii!) _:!.;.._;.7 ..li-.47. ~~~.H. !..- M. M. Postan and John
Hatcher. Patricia Cr'"'' ~r'd D.o;iJ l'~rkcr. ll<t,i, Wu,,.{,r. :mJ 711(.r.!s<J 19'78) 55-9, 60-'.1, by E.
Lc Roy Lad uric. ar;,ll ;u~ Ji,::.;; hLJ: I h.n, ~.,.n n; lhl:lt! :h~r )! .-1~.: 1er<' w wlakcn 8renmr' s
arguments against th r~!~lon adopted 1-} Nt>rth 3lJd T!li>!'IJL'3. Sec p.5 n.l of their l'1711o~rud,. cited in n.lal><wc.
4. See 'The trend ofm.,,l...m ,.,,,nmi..... . m Duhto', l'drlit:all::"l<"''f .m.J Capitalism (1';137. npr.
1940) 127-84 (csp. 17f~i- whid1 lu~ h.~, .:urt\'n>ittrlv r.,rrl!ltn! in A Critiqu of F.w.,flmic
Theory. ed. E. K. HL~nt and J (; Sd1w;1Ft'l' \l'nl:mu, ('17,,) .;':1.'1:.', esp. 71-8. (I OW<' my
knowledge of this w<>rk ofDobb's tojdfn:y.JJmc<.l
Th&:rc is a Schr!Jienvrr::.iohlll> of Weber's publications hr (;.rm.lUtlU
755-fi(Jofthc biography
ofWeber by his wtdW. Mananm Web~r. Max Wrb~t E"' J.,.f.,~;IIJ {repr. l<l50). The most
recmt 'Max Weber Bibliographic', ny Dirk K.i~l ..~._r,-,: by Hdn:ut fogt. can bt touud in
K;;lner Zeitschr.for .<iozioloKie u. S.:io~l.rr'''''~~ ..- Zi (l'fi~) iO.klfl. followm~ ~n antck on
pp.663-702 by fri,Jrich H. 'fenbrud.... "D.a~ w~rk Max 'l!;'.b.-rs'. 'lh flow of contemporary
writing on Weber shuws. n ~ignt>Lo~l>.. tuto.c. Th,lli.;t Zt . .-l,r . .!til ( !%5) devoted a hundr~d
pages (529...(,30) to thr,'t' arttd..,. on Wthr. l>y Altiv,\ Htn'' W<>li~.ll;;j. Mommscn. and Karl
Bosl, of which rh, lir>r rdJt"' ~p..,.ukall} t th(' tu;i,~ut w"rld Heuss, 'Max Wdxrs
Hedt-utung fUr di,- Go.-lticbtt ,f,-,. !~nht>rh-i;u!isd.,n Alt,!tums', pp.'i29-56. Bcnd1x,
MWIP vii-x, give'~ a U5d'id ~hort h~t .rs m.tm works 111 Gt.rman. with English
translations. Webc:r. CIH .\11-l.t has a Drst ,,f Enghsh trom~l.tU<>n' of Weoo. wuh some
modem works on hirn in En~h,h: thn.-rs ~~~" .l bibliography <tiiiiJ!lrtant works in English
by Weber and oth~r.- m Eldnd!!' .\flf/Sll .:!:'JI-.'> .\1om: r,;.-,'111 !h.tn any of the editions and
translations menrit>n,d tn th1~ nut t~ rh,- mts.ilttsi.a,tvry f.1>~tlL'h tr.mslauon by R. I. Frank,
with the inappropriate ritlt, 11~o A.(t.~tiull s,.,;,,[,~~ .; .iuiotl Crrtlr.~.;rio"s (l<l76), of Weber's
AA (set' my Bibliography) I nn,:ht Jb,> !llt'fltin rh ;uunsrn,; t"~'cbcr m Polanyt. PAME
135-8, cf. 124.
6. Max Wrber, Die romischf A~rargtschi(hte in ihr,.r Bedrutu"~ fiir Jas Staat;- und Prlvatreclll
(Stuttgart, 1891).
7. SC't' Rostovu:eff, SEHR2 n.751 n.9.
8. Wc~r's 'Die sozialen Grundedes Untergangs der ;antiken Kultur', ddiwn-d in 1!196 at Freiburg
and published originally in the magazine, Die Wahrheit (Stuttgart, 1896). was reprinted in
Weber's collected essays, Gesammtltr Aufsiitze :z-ur Sozi~l- und Winschafts,~esrhichtr (Tiibing&:n.
1924) 289-31 1. An English translation by Christian Mackauer. under the title quoted in the text
above, was published in Thr Journal of General Education 5 (1950) 75-88, and repnnted in
,,l
ry
s.
rr.
Notes on II.v (pp.85-92)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
553
Eldridge. Mll'lSR _15.; .75, ;md m TI,. Sl,w, E.: . m.''llles, Vol. I. Historical and Theort'tical
PersptttietJ, .:;! Ellgl11<' D.(;.~,"~= (N<"''' y,,rkJl.nion etc., 1973) 4:;...67: thtreis a daffcnnt
onei:t Wd~r.ASACJS'l-'11 S IV.iiuh}'.'<', ;;;~01).
That h.:" co:d<l.ni!c in h'~ Ail 13i ,,f'di, ).: .. ,;fm~:mi!.ch" (Oligarchic] von Chios' and 'die
kaufil!linmd:.:ou Ollga:chi~'IJ Ku:i:;th~ lrJI! K.~k~rits' (contrast my OPW 2fh.7. 396) may
show no :m:.o:<" tl!au th.~l he rook ovn som~ ::un.ut ;:~<tdard vitws', how<'vtr groundkss; but
in g<'u,ro~l }" '"'':th ll< thorough .Kq:.lu::m;:, wirh tht onginal sources lor Grl"l"k history in
thrs '''ork (r :.n h:~ JI'G ur ~-br:"h..r(,.
For S<>lll<" tmar..star.g ;!l:d _jt!Sti~!l'd oh~n;,non,; on !h.:: difficulty of Wtbt'r's Gt'rman, and of
translating 1r !:1:..:- Er.,:f'-,f:, ...~ ;!w P~d;u-~ It (~Jr';JMI:Is. FMW vi-vii.
Most useful.m W..t,_.,, l!.S. {3 vcl:~). TSI:O .md GEH1rhe last lt'ss well transbt<-d); Genh/Mills.
FMW; Eldridge. MJI'iSk
See Gu~r..rher Roth, r!:.,. hl;;:nlr.tl r:llti<.onsl,ip :o i\t . rxism', in Scholarship and PartiJanship.
Esst1ys '" .\f,:x W<'bo. <"\L 1~.:-Ulh;,r,i
.:.mi Uuth ((Nperback 1971) 227-52, at p.228; and sec
G.:rth/M;IIs.l'.HW JI~.5U. h.1.
See e.;~ W,-b,:r. MSS HH. r,prita,l m Eldridgl', MWJSR 228. Cf thr rssay cit<d in the last
note .It r.l40,
Sec FJdudge. Mli'J$.R ~.') (I have altered thc translation sbghrly). Weber's kcturr, "Der
Sozi.. lismu~. 1~ lltitll'<l i1; his Gesamme/tf Aifsiit;u zur Soziol~J,I(Jt und Sozia/polirik (1924)
IJ.-,.:;,,.,
492-~ lit Sl'\.' 5{1~-3.
15. The tw passage.~ . m (I) WuG' lli;-!111 ~= ,;,..; I Jo02-7 = TSEO 424-4); and (2) WuG;
11.5:\l-41) (= ES ll.<l!h-.\'1. mo~ir1ly reprinted tiwll G.:rrh/Mills, FMW 1~95). And sec the
passag<:s quoted 1 th n.xt two I'Htes. But I ar,r~ wrth W. G. Runciman, Rclatilr Deprivation
and Social justice ll'ltti.) J7. nprtut ....! m th, Penguin Sctdal Inequality (cd. Andre Betcillc, t%9
and rt'pr. i 4f... th.\1 it i" Tll't a:mir:ly .-k~r what w,b,r >neant by h1s 'dass, status and powl."r'!
16. See Crtrth/Mills. 1-'.\IJI!Ja)).. j_ rrml~rt"J ii:..m ,\rrim_lur Sozialwrss. 41 (1915). repnntcd in
Web.r's
:b.f.,'iru -~u R~li,I{I.'"-'A'-<:'il7~~i I '!J7 ff., at 273-5.
17. See CJ.rtlt.Mtlk 1:,\rW 41t!i, il~.aau tt.trn. t'rm an :nud,, in the Auhw (1916). and repnntl'd in
c;,.,.,,...,f/,,
Webd~ G:'\~RS
II -H-l
18. Accor.Jmg to Ruuriu~n . RI>:~J(n.l5 o~t>.w;) :17~~. r,punted in SI (n.15 above) 47, 'A person's
"da...s"..,;nuauon. in Wdtr~ ~ns... ~ th lo<-alion which he shan~ with those who are
simil.uly Jlo~.<ro m tilt pru-....,.:~t.-s of production, dr.,rribnrion and exchange'; and he adds. 'This
is do~..:- to the M.ann~t Jdimttuu of dass. This !K.'I:ln~ to me not an entirely correct dt:Scription
ofWdlt.'r's position.
19. Webc.r. WuG 5 [. 180 ("' E\ L~lt."'" "TSEO 421J). d. Ji'~;G 5 11.535 ( = ES 11.932 = FMW 187)
20. Weber. WuG"Il.5:W I'" liS U.9.l2 = FMW 1Ah-7): d'. l;MW 405.
21. Wcbl'!', W::G'!I :SJ7(., !:;'S!!.9.~5-1'1=FMWtl)!).
22. Weber. WuG 3 ll.538 (.:. ES 11.~.31"" 1<.\IK' lCJJ~.
23. This work originated m 1\\.,, ~rtides. 'J)i, pnttc:sr~un~che Ethik und der "Geist" des Kapir.alismu~. in .-tuhi1 jlir .'to,;:ialwi> lll (l9114) o~nJ lt (1905). repr. in Weber\ Gesa,melte
Aujs:itze zur Religionssoziologie r. t7-21-lf>. Thc:r<' i~ "good English trans. by Talcott Parsons,
with a Foreword by R. H. Tawl'f'Y ( 1'1.11.1 .mJ npr. i. Forth~: controversy aroused by this work.
sec p,,,,,.,,,mti;rtl ,md C.:pirllli.;m, l111 Wtbtr n,~is ro:J it,; Critics. cd. Robert W. Green (Boston.
19511;, whkh i1dudos c:.<dr.u'ts fr111 .t JJ\urtt-.:r '"t" .:tllth-rs. including Ephraim Fischoff. Albert
Hym.1 .md H. M. Roi!C'rt50n,(A ~L't'tlnd ~d:tion of l'arsons's translation (1976) has a useful
Intrudn."ttun by .o\nthony (ji,tdm,. .lnd furthtr bibliography.]
23a. A Gernun correspondent of mint' (who is far from being a Marxist) correroy identified a basic
clcmt'llt in Finley's oudock wht''l he wrote, in .a IC'tl<"r tt> me, 1h01t 'in der Amienl Econ11my Finley
von dL'II Bewusstscms~trukturm .1115)!1-'ht'.
24. Weber. WuG'II.5.W-51~ liSfl.'l32) ..
25. Finley's 'ipt"ctmm' r 'conllnuum" t' ~tatu\4:\ St"tm~ te> have appeared for the firsr time in his
paper. WGCBSI.. .1lt'Cturc: drlivt"rtd tn lilSS and put>lished in 1959 and sine~ n:printed more
than l'rl<'C'. "tt m SC:.-1, t:d. hnl1l !'13-7.:! i~-. '!lr r.55). It can also be found in sever.11 of his
othr works, e.g. AE 67-8, H7; SSA(I IHI>; USF 247, 248. And see J. Pcffrka, 'Von dC1'
asiati~rhm Produktionsweise zu L-in,r m;&r~:lltJ$Ch..:n Analyse der friihcn Klasn-ngL'Sellschati'en'. inEirr'l<'f'l (l'H,7) 141-7-J .at p.l72.
26. Lys. XII. ]'I: 111) \l:t,n. rrbo~.t>ly iududing ,lumt."Stl-;; <~i wrll as those who worked in the
brothers' \hidd-r'dct,,ry. We ho~.r o( thf Ath'lll41l~ who allegedly possessed even larger
numbers of sl.avC"i: ~iti.lio l.fli)U. Hipponicus hlOmd Philemonides 300 (Xen., De 11ect.
IV. 14-1.5); buuhC"J;<'I)~ures are lurdlpdiable: set Wt.,;t'fDl:mn, ASA 461 ~ SCA (rd. Finley) t!J.
554
Notes on ll. v-vi (pp. 94-100)
27. See J. Petirka. Th,. formu/,tfo Iii<' Cu:r~~ 1)_/ E.t~'JrJiJ Ul A11i4 fmmpti>'>:s (Acta Univ. Car~linae,
Philos. et Hist. M<II~';Wifp/;ifl :": V. i'raguc, !'.100}. rht" 'CcBomlDil~ ,,re on pp.137-4'}. See also
Pdirka's 'Land tcnu:1: :~ml th~ d.:\'rllt\:;:;~n:ufrh(l\thcnun :)oh&', m !'EPA~. Studies Pr~.< to
Georgr Thomson, <-d. L Vo.rd md n. F Wilkr~~ (T';.a~uc. lW,j) lii~21JI.
28. I admit that l hav-: not rhcroughl}' mvestlg~reti thiS LjUI~riun. tlf which I haw setn no
comprch.-nsivf:' trt":l:mem, ami J will mc-rdr give RJi=-r~;~KC"> :,-,two very recent works: I. S.
Svencickaja. in Ei~t 15 ( )~177) ~i~5-;, .lt 2;1-.9. 30-1; ~ud M H. C,.awford, tn Imf'mal:sm in the
Arrcient World. ed. i'. D A (~msc)' .1rui C (: \'/httl;<kl': ( ]')7H}, u l'JS-6 and .132 n.14.
29. There is a large btbhognph; !.':1 tnctlC>, ,_.f whtdtH Wl!!ba:sufiklt'!\1 10mention H. Hommtl, m
RE XV.1i (1932) 1413..58; Hu,olt-:-w~a. (;S LZ'12-.:~03', M Cll-rc. Us mt'tequn ath'lien;
(Paris, 11!93, limltC"d :o t\!llcru}. A k W Hmr.m;;, Tire Ln' ".f:\rl,ens I (1%1'1) 1K7-'J9; and.
ntosr recently, Phil:p;:e Gauthier. Sy,.liliiLl. f..t ,Jrrom.;.-u ~; (ll lllltilr <lr:tu /cs otes _crnq:H< (Nancy,
1972), .1n unn.:ccssBn!r vcrt'C>~ !-AXJk: ofu:ln'L'lli.Juality. with .1 kmg chaptcr (i1i. pp.l07-56)
devoted largely to :;,~-r:.~ ,11 1\!h.~:l> (I d.: '"'~ icnow whrll:.,r 11 1< .an:kssn.ss, or a lack of
sufficient familiarl~y witt :h, Engl:h !.mguo~g::-. \hidt b! (;.Jt!rhllr. op. c1t. 1!!0. to give a
gross misreprcsent:ou<ll i i:nt<l!~S I r. ~pr~d :1: my NJA F. I. I lis st;lftmcnt that I 'voyait .:n
tout et pour tout d.Uii k~ ~,.._,,,,,.,.t-"'J&U..V.. ,;,., titigoc-> ,f,>ra!.rc commercial, portant sur des
biens' prt"tcnd~ that 11:;,!;1 \-j,.,,,, .,, !:id: :n ta;J I ws ;,t p:tlll 1<~ !"t"tltt,~ ,It length: sec esp. NJAE
1.95-6, 101-3. 108--ltJ) s~ Jl> now r:~,-1,~ Wiutdwall. Tilt !J,.f~~y ofth.- Athfflian Metic (-=
Camb. Philo!. Soc , Suppl. Vd .0, 1n7>
30. Thus in OiJ!. L.xv~.239.;~. l'.:ponio; ell> eqtJAt\' ~~nm.m .,,,-,,1,1 w;th Greek 1rapout~. For
~rO.po~<o( (or ICaTollo~i ;u th< st~ncl:.nl Hdlenisuc word for wh.~: W~ usually call d 'metic'. sc~;
Welles. RCHP, pr.3:U, ;.;:..
31. Set' n.l abov.-: tht" pl~~~;:c- i:t _,n.st.o.l 1:'- m n.:!l.l. 1~'1'$ IU = Sl .il, where Dahrendorf is
t"Xplaming his 'sul>t.lu~al ,,,,.:_,~on'
h<S J''~~>-J~.I~ JUbh>rwd viws. Cf. Dahrmdorrs
CCCIS 204. when b~ s;;y, dJ.lt b~ 'd:-~ hC' rn..&u iKr<: 'rruJl!l<'" ;:r~ups that an gt"nt"rattd by
tht ditftrcntial distribution of ;\t<th.:dl}' llll"l''r.;rinj <(u:<im.:t:-.1 .llssoci:uions' (d. 1d. 138
etc). His 'im~rativd~ UJor:lno;l.h"i ~5o-xi.ounn' :s Wd~ 11Nf.-tlt~{~erband (1d. 167).
32. It wdl bt" sufficient t r.i.-r ~"~h. ~hjcctwn; h D~hh'l"l"l f, !1'-s;r~n ra1scd by frank l'arkin.
Class Inequality 12nd 1-'11/nmd Ofll,, ( i'fi I, l'~::a.-!m i'-'~~rr..l.- l... 1972) 4~ I agrt't' with Parkin that
'to somt rxt.:nr, . . ta tn1fi'Jvc oi ~r.~u(cr.1lim in ~<uns ,,frW<"! :1~}- simply be anoth<'r way
of conct"plualising dw .la~:r>bu: ..m .ti d;.ss :;nd ~1!1.1:~ J.Jvant.io,;~s That 1s, to speak. of the
distribuuon ofpow.r '"nl.i hr .m.!,tsh""! "' Jtnth w . y ,,(,ks.:r:hmg tht ftow ofnwards
... In otht"r word~. ym11n . <.m h huiJ<~ f J~ a'''''"'!''''! m.-ra.phor whirh is used ro
depict the flow ofn.wmn~ :il1tl. W~- All.i J>Iarl-.u, h1m"lf ro~mwl.rrly concemed with 'udal
stratificJtion ha~ no .xauu ro nou::\' that (;;obrt:nllof ;,{~lltu'c!s gotinst Marx <Itt' partly
based on the mistal..t'll.l"-~.unpttr: th.tr M~"' w.u .. -:ku~ t ;;.-o;mnr fur smmfication (cf. the
main t.:xr of this sect;.mj
33. See Georg Sarton, Ill ;.:, 2-1 (1'1J.;~ h)'f.<J. q~lr:ng J J.u,-r "i N.wr<n to Robert Hooke (of
5 February 1675/6). :.u,i ..l> lkrn;lrd ,,fCll.trttL"5, .-.s I'll'-'~ hy _1,-,Jm I Salisbury. Metalo,llicorr
IJI.iv, 900c (sec the ,..f,tn t't)l C C. I. \Vtbb. :929}; _,,,,j i'i. Rc~ntd Klibansky. in Isis 2h
(1936) 147(-9).
[II.vi]
1. To my astonishment. some fnends to whom I showed a draft of this section objttted ru the us..of the word 'production' in rdcre11ce to human beings, and s:nd that treating 'reproduction' as
a form of 'production' is a kmd of pun. In fact, of course. netther word is cssrntial for my
argument. By 'production' (see the second !)fth~ fivt" propositions St't out in ll.i above) 1 mean
all those basic activities needed both to sustain human life. providing the necrsstties it r<"quir.:s
(and if possible, of coursc,luxunrs too). and to kt'C'P the >pl'des in brin,ll by be-aring offspring and
rearing it to marurity. 'Production' happens to be thl" most convenio:nt single word cvvering
both these sets of fundamental activities. I see nothing in the least objectionable m saying that
farmers produce food. that ;~.t Cowley thry produce motor cars, that both I and my pubhsher
(in different senses) produce books, and that women. wnh some co-optration from men,
product> children.
Ia. The book, publish~-d after th1s chapter was fm1sh~-d. is David Schaps. Economic Ri~hrs of Women
in Andent Grem (Edmburgh. 1979). a very scholarly work.
Notes on II. vi (pp.I00-105)

2. It
doc~ ml ;aotlt<~ ~(ry mu~h.
wive~
fm tbt"
~mct:-nt GI~~l
555
world, whrther 11 1s women in gcmral or
rrl'!lr.i .1~ .1 cl:.ss:, (o: v~lt<ally Jll Gr.ock wonwn m;uned (scclatcr stalemcnt'
m th~ '"-";: abov;:J. llut of l>::ltl!<" tlit> qax~uc.n ffi4}' need to be drndc:d m rdation to other ';OCittie,.
3. The fund~rmn:.ai gl'l!~!;~,! work h: Mt::cis. J-;,,J-Iurrlu u"d Volksmlu m dert o.<tluhm Pnwi11:m
des ~fjorliS.-Imr K11i.st'm:U:Iu (IS91, r~-rri<J!<"9-73 (esp. -t70).
4. Set' A. IC W ~-iam~ull. "fl:t" l.olll.-' ".i.-!tl,...,u, f '!1:. Famfy artd Property ( 196B) 1 ff On thr whole
sub_i.:c1 ,,j .~,::m!~:! m~n:.;oj,!~. :;~~ uow tlw ~dmiubk arr.cle b} E. J. Bicknman. 'LJ
cou.-,~pt:c.D :k r:!:lrr,;gc- i; r\l~ii'lu , m !ilDJ,' i'ii ( iWS) 1-2~.
5. Sed!;,nhon, ap. ri:. 30-2. ~3 . 123 n.~ (on p.l24), Cl.1i~ Prcau'<., in Recu.:ils d..Ja So, ]ran Bodm
wi:.:>:lt
~vc
XI.]_,; Pt.rnmr film~:>t'ls. 1\IS'i) 117-7j, lt !.!k, lh.iA.

6. See 1-J::..m;o;.u, ~P m 1tLil. D:!-S . .'..H9-!!
7. See ~h< bibh~t~Hph1 in J(;,,wvzydf S1/iiW !U\~ (with 111.1>5 nn.23-'l). WJ2 (with
III.I.l47 r..lifl): Si;f1~(; 1 !i. 7.'~ 11 i5. Tht' n:-lcmJl"\.' that follows in th, main tnt ahov< to
Poseidippus !' lo: hi. 1;,. fl. m fo:,h:f., Cl\liJJ..J}~-'-J, olp. Stoh .. Anthol. lV.XXIv.c.4fJ (rd. 0.
ll.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Hense, IV.614). S.:(' ;,)_,;: (lllilin!~ t(r ir.aly) 9nmL lM 14!!-';4. [Only afttr this book ws
fini~h;;l :!t,! ! ><"C: 1b: "'r:ttk :,r fl.ml<i F.nf\"k 'Th< prublem of fcmak mfanticidt in the
Gnnl'-It"m:.:: wa:l.!'. :11 Cf'i'j (1Q(4f)) ! 12-:D. wh!d1 i~ obviously bJ.sed on grcat<r knowll'dg<"
Of r::;.,;l~nt ..!entt.g.Jp!ay th:tt nrost ;,ncicn! historia~~ ~"'osscss. Engels, L:onclustonls that a ratl'
of [I} p;'trt"::J ur f.,.l.\10" !1:rth; keLt<,.! J~r yc..1r wulliti b-:- highly tmprobabk .1nd rh, rat<' almost
cert.":.ly u,.,,,.~ ,xnvdnl ;llor.lb:.:l ritt.ll;..,,,. P<"IC"-'llt offemak births m .my cra (121l). I of
course regard rhr rJ!:- 3S iaPSiih ,,. ,,rim:: My mk conctm has bccn to ,h,1w that a gtrl
child had ltss d ..m.-~ i!IR'<n:~ :i"~lr,d I~ it.s :wllJ'":-'urs than a hoy_ J
Thl Til~ Jti, f t!:t, lo.ir:i !..f',.:wn to :1... .h~t emil'! :mywhrn: tlL'at bein~ adequat<' IS I krbtrt
Preisk.;r. ClrUf<llllrl'l 1111r! l:il~ :rr . ;,.,, ,.,,,...~ ,f.-i .1<1..-l;:mclertm ( = Neue Stud!<'n <fir Ge~dz. d~
Tho;i 1111ri Kir(l,,- :!3, lk:ln1. 1'(.'7),
Thel<' \\'J> ,1 ~tr.>:g tt'nucnn J1:1vn~ rdi.i~:.-..us .kw3 '<l limn sexual intercomS<" <'Wn bctw<'1.'n
hus\1.111J 11nl ,,.,f, ''' rh.- :ru.:rcdlt<tn I ;i>,iJr<'li "u!y: s,.,. Jos .. C. Apio11. 11.199; Baron. SRHJ
112.:.?1S..l\. w:th -ll.llt n.l. I il1d IIJ:>tlu:r ''''i'~",i"j( th;~; )au! laysdo\\on no surh spcnfirrc~trktion.
Amuntt tho ,,ri,;f 'l'..&ul:n J'-l'i.'"g~ lbt.,r~ ~~\c'Vdlll h..-rc (most of them nkrred to later on in
the nt.!ill txt) ;ar~l Cor )I;J ..l-1;;; XI\' .\J-5. J7; II C:o>r xi.3; Coloss. IIJ.IR-I<J; Ephes. V.2~-3J
(esp. U-1. ~lj; 1 Tir:. n 11-Li: ,. : t .. J!. l'it ll -1-~- ~""also I Pet. iii.l-7.
I surrn~~n ""ul.l.,... "aid th..t "udqo~.>!<.:Ot:"" .t.\ I Tml ri.lS and v. !~recognise that thC." primary
funo"tt:.>l>tr:;.arng,
rh.- wnm.m:.! '" l'f"''''''' !ul.lnn.
S"-.: Rulm Scroggs, 'l'.;.tl.mil rhcodwukt:i;;~l w"'''''" in]nl i>{th Amtr. A.-ad. oJf Rel~~i<'ll .JO
( l9i2) 28J..J03; and ')'.m).m,l lh~,.,.ci:Jr.>l,.:al wonun: rt.-iit<>d', ibid. 42 ( l'J74) ';32-7. Th,
corcr~ nghdy l<;l<'<:hi a> .tnutr.td>ct< m rcuus lly Elaine H. Pagds. "Paul and \Hlffil"n: a
resJ'IIlSI' tn rn~l ;il!icl"siuo'. dhl. 'i)!l.l'.l - >''he. JS llf'V('rthdcs~. in my opinion. fAr too
f,.,
indul,rcnl huh '" l'.ud .m.t "' Scr~;;a.

13. I bl-h,vc th.at tho vir~n f wrs. ~5. b.k, th, nr;:m ,,( ,-.rses 36-7. may b, .1 subirztmduaa; l>ut rh<
subJL'I'I t r.o mtj<li<'Jtl h :,,, .lt.:tll with her~ (Among vanou~ texts in th< Edrl.. Fathtrs
dealil!! wit!: subintrodul~,;~ '''' J>hl Chr.-su~t..,n, :\dversu.< ~'"' qui apud .<r hahent '''~1!;,.,,.,.
'"'"'''''~s..a"s. ir: Mllf_-; XL vn .. a~:;-s 1.1
14. Any>lll' whu wo~nb r> pr'tnl,l ah.u 1.,.,,.,,,,,,.,,,~ i~ less ~trong rhan t),.orKotiw- (u....d c .g. of
chil.lttn nl,.y1n;: tlt<"lf 1'.&<""'' ir1 Eph~- VI I. C..JI~ss. Ill.20) should read I Pet. iil :i-6. whl'rl'
the IW<' worJs are equated :u r,l!ard to wurn<'n . .111,t wmp~ll" Ephes. V1.5 and Col<lSS. !11.22.
whcrt' th< W<>rJ ust"d for th t>h.cdt<'ll< ,f,laws 1<: their masttrs is v"'a"""""' w1th Tlt. 11.9 and
I P.-t 11 11\, w lwnu> 1"""""'"""11." I mu~l <~I hor. !hat only m one small respecr can I admit
thai Sr, Paul tmprovcd <>n 1h, . rutn.it,. to n.lrri:.t~ existing in his day: sec Dav1d Daub<.,
'Billu,allandmarks in th stru~j%1 f<l W<.>tn<'ll , ri~ht'l'. mjrmtlilal Revieu' 23 ( 1978) 177 ff .. t
184-7 ;,.,p IK:...) Uu1 whall lo~o.tb.;.J.lls ,m mrr.wus step forward' (an c:xaggt'ration. to my
mindi 1~ ,;u.-h l>y <'cmrJr~n unl~ wnh .kwis..'I l.i,_.o; about marriage-. (Note. by thl" way.
Danbl,.~ '"'m'ltitlll olthr .trtid". '1'.1ulinr privllw~. in ODCC' 1054.) Of roursc lortm of
lnn"'nO'O'tn'.lr:- u.;t>J,,f w-:vo: br 1'-ll!"W (.;reek writ.-r;.. l'.g. Plur .. Praei. lOIIillg. 33 = :Wor. 142c
(~~m.,-,;.";;,..,,.,), wh ~I'Jb;:o :. th: hu~l:.~o,r, rvl~ not only such terms as 1rl'*'JJ.O"io ""'
1Tpu.tipt.crco; (IJkl~ htt .11~" Jtpoiihil- (;,~ >4.\ h> l><~h) and i:lpx-~cv (142l). Plurarch'-. ideal of
W<'liUll~ l>lh;h'lllUf 1~ Ji1M1p:n -Ri u;.,.....; ( H!.i)
15. In I Cv1. i1. :1i!-l i). ,,h,r.l'.aul Jr..;um.ab:) h.aJ m ~::.i::.:i sayings ofJesus such as thos.. contained
556
Notes on II. vi (pp.105-108)

m uur Synoptic Gospds (Mk X.Z-12, esp. 11-12; Mt. V.31-2 and XIX.3-1.2. esp. 9: lk.
XV[. iii), he felt able to say specifically. 'Unto the married I command (,.QPaYYiAAw}, (yer]not
I but thL Lord.' Yet in vtrse 12 it is 'To the rest speak I. not the lord': in verse 6 ht says. 'But I
way of permission and not ofcommandment' (KcrTiravyy1161,.1)v, ail Ka,. t ..m:ryrw).
mnmm~ th:lf he is allowing, on his own ~uthority, an exception from what he regards as God's
j!';Cnr~l rulr. and in verse 25 hC' remarks, 'I have" no commandm('nt [ml'<rYfl] from the Lord
concerning virgins'- a text on which I have already commented in the mam tl'Xt above. In
verse 40, however. at the very end oftht chapter. he says (replying perhaps to thost who
d.nn:rd Jinr>e inspiration along different lines), 'I think I also have tht Spirit of God.' And at
the end ot .mother chapter, tmmediatdy after giving instructions ro womm to be silent in
church, he s~ys (specifically replying again to anyone elst who might daim to speak with
special prophetic or spiritual gifts), 'ThC' things that I writt unto you art the commandment
[&ro>.i)] of the lord' (xiv .37).
16. fl.)r example. I Cor. xiv.34-6; Coloss. 11[.18: I Tim. ii.ll-14: Tu. U.S; lnd abovc all. of couoe,
EphC'S. V.2:'-4, 33.
17. Sr,phrn Bt-d.dc. 'The meaning of t<llo~~ in the Pauline Epistles', inJTS n.s.S (1954) 211-15.
(ioud .xarupl('S illustrating his thesis are Coloss. 1.18; 11.10, 19: Ephes. IV .15.
18. In dt, t. )ld TestamC'fit rhe Hebrew word roslr, primarily 'head' in the anatomical sense. can also
l'lo.' U~l-..1 fiu ~ ntl,r. ,bit-t~ captain. n.lnl!n~mkr ~tc. h: rl::!t :!<'ns;: rl:cl.XX commonly translates
lip~cw. ,;,.:'cij-, "r i;p\..,...~ (also ~,...~~- .ip\i<M"-'.-" >''"rTP..,.,....~). but occasion~lly it usC'S
.oce<tla~i'J: l'.g. in Ps. XVIII.U: hu VD !!--'); Jnl~. XI.\ I; Jtld ci. the head/tail metaphor in
Deut.XXVIII.IJ .mJ -H. ;mJ l~at. IX. H. '""'J'I-"t rhar I'~ CXVIU {CXVII in LXX).22, I!'~
ICfd>ltA.i)" yw~u-.~ (.lis n.msl.atan~ r:tjil). m~y hiltl' 1><<'11 :o p.ortt(IIi~rl~ infiuennal passage with
thn~t ,-;arl~ Chruttiln~ wit.~ (hi.. Sr ~~u!) lmw tin Hdr<'w .~ wdl :~s the LXX tl'Xt. for it is
quoted"'' ti.~wa thJtt fin um,... rn tlu ,...,.w l'.:st:l:th111. Mr. XXl42 = Mk Xfi.JO = lk.
XX.17; ActsiV.ll; I p,.r n 7: o:f I l'l't. iiJ :.mJ J:;pft,-,..U.Yl), wh.:rc.i.tcpoyw~oar~comesfrom
tht [.XX ttfl~.11. XX VIII .Ito. StTOgg~. "F' ,ir iiu u.l:! al14n-t'). <'<>n,mtratC'S on the fact that roslr
111 tht ,..,~,J~l'\.li mle ur lrd~tnp is r,lft'!'ll tr.tn~l.tt<.\l .occdlol.it 111 dtr I. XX- he- thinks that whrn it is,
dt<' tr.tnsl.nor was l":ing 'wol<i'flh.tko:l r ~kr{~ iC'p. dt. ! 1'174_1 534-5 u.8). Ht fa:ds to
r.'J.Ii,., the significau.:~:ith fa;: th;ar rtJ. rh~ nui lfdrc,...- \\<r,;l i~r 'head'. is very often used
in .t sense which dt'nl.lu.L, u .. n.oilatrm by thl' 1;rrd W>rJ., I h.w<' nl111lOnt-d that signify rule or
;auth.~ritl. anJ th~r th\~. for thtt~ f~milidr wllh th HrbrC"w 0 T ~>' wdl as the LXX. would of
Jt:o;dftm.i ru tTid<W th~ (:rn:k wnrd ii-~r It..arl', Kt.,.,HJj. wttb thtJuthoritarian smse in which
Wt' fmd it U!<t'<l .. ftw tinu m tbl' LXX ~nd tov St. 1A11l,
19. lkdalC". op. nt. (m n 17 ..lltc.>vtl.:!!-J.. I~ . .t:!JE>.
20. Op. cit. ~I.&. It twn 'mdudt-,. the "sonship" ,,f ch, ( 'hn~t hnn-.1( in I Cor. xi.3 God is the
'head' r.i:.:hri~l. Arod t1 mutt'S irr wry nicely t 'XJlaiu th rdi!fu~lnt ofChnsc to the Church
111 Erhc~. V .?.\.4. But<>i l'I>Ut<cm f.Ih<'!>.I ..U, ... 6..Aiwl.,..ti!Jra~r!J l'ocA'IJO'~ it is purely the
:&uthorit}' fChL,t. his 'wrlurd,.bip', ...-h:d' ~ t..m;,; sn.~.:-.1 .s Bedale half admits (214).
21 ..'\~ l(r l.'x~mplt' Scroggs ha~ dun.. ur. de. jm 11. ! :! ;al'~<w.-). ,sp. (1 1172J .298--9 n.41, when he can
L'Vt'n misn"t'r:ient Bcdalc .lb irmrprl'tmJ; .o-"l'l .,,, rdi.r ru sur~ r origin, ototlordship' (my
ito~lit"s!. Scrut'!t' ltl<~h"S ~vmt <llltt..lg<-.:-u "Jtcr.t,-.n,, '" th etT...-r tho~t Paul is 'rhe only certain
~ud nn~tstl!ul >J"k-sn~n ftr th, hbcr;uitt ;n~<l '-"Jl1Jht~ ._,f \\'<'1111"' !11 rhe New Tcstam<nt'.
;mJ 'tin on ,J,,)t \"<icC" in tlw !'kw "1\-...tanll-rtt asserting tht tro'l'tl~>m .md .-qualiry of women in
thl" ,-~h~ttl'~i.-;&1 ,.,mmurut"'! l~r. ,.,t. ! 1972) 283 and !II~)
22. [ knuw oi nnthin~ ,;nml~r Ul l'"~~'' lir.urur.-. <'X<"'!'I tht r.htttouo; r.a.on (tht" prestige oflsis)
f!:IV<'IIly Oi.,;.l. St.- [.;!?.! ..."!. t~IT th, SltpJ":-.r-,.1 t:-ct that in Egypt thl' quem 'has greater power
.mJ htm;onr than tb" lin!!. ,md th ..u .1nr.>ng pu,~.t.- individuals th.: wife has authonry over her
hu,band' - wh.,re flilnru uS<~ th s.&llh' ,-..rb. tnput':~= .nth, !.XX Vl'rion ofGrn. 111.17
(16) t(r th ltu..h.ami':<~Lithruv '''""' tht w:r~
.~:!a. The arttdtl>y .1\ >'<'nl C:~ur"""' N,tthtr 11l.i<nr ftm,.J.-'. has "''w -n publish,d in Grn'Ct' &
~rtak ~hi~ by
r....
u,.,,~1.1 uw~o: 11iW~,
23. ll is trut th.u n> woman could be a paterjiJmilas, but his dominance ~x1end~d to his whok
i.amil)', udu.littg even grown-up sons. whereas his wife, unless marri.-d on condition of
pa;;~mjlmtv hi~ m<JifiH, would still be under the potesta.s ofhcr own father as long as he livl"d. A. II
JUristh 'YSI<"m~ haw made chtldrc:n up to a cen.un age lc:g.rllv incap~blc of many things. e.g.
<11h'rtl'lt,! 1111< \<rntracts and making wilk Roman law simply e-xtended this Situation farther
thJn thtr .. )'tC"ms - in the absence of mumdp<~no, to the death of the father (or grandfathtr).
Notes on II. vi (pp.108-111)
557
24. Cf. l.evit . .'I(VJII.i,:_ The }-It-brew"'""' used in .>\X.1!! normally igmfies execution or
cxpul:>im lrc>m :hr rm:rmu:1i:1, .or..! ;~ iJ nopr<"o...,t.-d tn th~ LXX by i~olloiJpevlnjuow,,. Levit.
XV.2-~ r.il<.r it~ whok <:)!!:I.'" I) h:..t n0 t..:ra~;,:,u w t;w.:rify any penalty. apan from 'ondo3mw;~'.
25. See my 'H~rodo~t:n', m Grrrrrr &
2~ (1977) L';,'J.-.<8. at 146-7 and 14B n.24.
26. For Dionys&m '1hc: Gn:nr.' oi Aicl<.cm,iria. SL~ th( Sto:c-nd Canon in his Lcrr,r to Basilc:idl's of
Penta polis (C,tm:~i~-..). m tin! ;und;~ul ~iit~"-''' of !n~ works by C. L. Fdto<. Tire Lrtters a~d
othet i<,.,tu1ir. 4 V!o>rt';'lilu ~;A l~xolllt!t,,r {i'X!-+) 10:.!-J; and MPG X .1281. The Engh~h translation b} f-;lt~. S:. Dionysiw Jj.-tlrxa~ir:o<. l..-nm .md Treatises (1 'J18) Ill. dclicatt>ly omits this
part e>fr.h' lun ~od tht iallowillj; sealoro;;, wuh fhe words. 'Three rulings tollow on pomts
which il is ll~t 11'...-("~!;.<;~ () ~: : lKrt' 'n:~r. ,... 'l'IWl'VCr, a full English tun~lai!Oil of the
!cUt::' b~ S. IJ. f S;:hlMICi. ill y,,l, X.X JC th :\llu-Nium Christia11 Library (Edinburgh. 1871)
l%-.::'"1 Th~ k~ltr Wll' sab"''liU'':I(h s:Kimi"{ :tlh:- ,,,mdard Byzantin.- collections of Canon
Law ,..:1:( ;, A. k;lli;.t!t,l M. I'm b.>.,~.-........,.,... :-,;,; r'l'ei..,;<aoil~p., o:a..Ovw~ . IV (Athens, 1854-)
7, wihrt~ t:w .-ommcms of Zonar: a:rd ihl$;mnn arc also printed (7-Y). For the letter of
Tim>thy, ,\m;'\'Cf 7. ~ P.aili5 <tnd f'Ml~!i. ;;p. nt- IV .JJS;andMPG XXX!Il.DOO. for Canon
2 of 1h" CnnnCl11tt 71,.1/o, m;liU!OI-ii1ir;g Dlon,o;j;]s's ::auons. St'e- H<>fde-L.:dcrcq. HC III.i
( 190'1) s;_,J;_i. P. 1\l,ust. Srlm'"''" Cmrilit>~rms 1\,',,,.,, tt.'\mplissima Colkaio XI (1765) ')3'J-42. (I
am f;r.~t.-ii;l rn :uy f}lftl<'r p:pil "' ;t!><kt;l hs"'"''V. Dt !\:;llhstos Wan-. for hdp with som<' oft he
.il.'"'
nfer~ncr.s-1.-:
th:> llt:W:.)
H.-lti'l (''I' .:!. 21. :!I)~ c,.,, . ,, V:-:rlmlr. (with Epist C!X. <'sp. I, 2); Co11rra
jovi"i"" l (c! 4!1); Vi;a f.>,;rl .1; Frt:! .Hnkl" f,; [-pitr XXII (L'sp. 7)~ LII.2-3; LV J-.4; LXXIX
(esp. 10): CVIT (l'>p. 1 l}: d'_ :XIV_Ir;('H~th&: i~ '"I'" washed mChristn<"t"ds not to wash agJin'
-a nor~ :<m-d tnt.rpm:.U<II l'(ln XUI. W); cvm l :); CXXIII; cxxv Ill: CXL VII. lt IS very
intl'm,;wsyto!in.i. ftIU tn~ .-.uu.ll 01itu..i,.,, r C:1p. ( hl.'n.l.that Marx hadrLadJerome, Epi.<r.
XXllJ. 3!) n,,lY.' whl' "''"i' :oti .1 srhd.,:l'!< <<>llrtt by aChnst1an ofJtrom<'s artimd~ to
scxc:~h:y. :U:I'll.lol!'<' ;md vi,~n:ir-y ~t:..d.J h<-f;~l ,,,,),}. N.D. Kdly.j.-rornr. Hi$ Lif<'. lfritill,l!>.
tllld
,~ ,,,,.,;i-:. (1975) '.1.."~'' 1-~---~. tHJ.i, 171-:!'. JSt:..Yt, 273-5. 312-t.l Tht WJnnJ<.'tllOn
p.I~J i~ pll'!i,ahrly ::t.n~titlg: J: w~~ St p,-,111 ,,.h.-,m ht Utroml'] mad< his chid oracle.
twJStltl~ :h.- t:al'~<l:~ t<':<!s ,_,fl Cuiu:ll:'-'1"' 7 :.n.i i Tilnothy to wrest from them an evrn grcJttr
aver!'im: ttJ ll>>~!'riatt~ .m.l )~l.un,t Ih:;rria~:s th"nth..-~ c"ntain.
28. In additlllll :vI lens.:~ m~o-.i~>nr<>u ro iu~ ''"\!at:. I tlw Jntck bv Lurz, s~ A. C. van Gcvtc'lthc~k.
Mw;~"'''' R:~tru ""'' Gr,:i.o IJi.:t1ht-, :,.,. ,.,h; rrml.n.d by H. L. Humans (Asscn. ttl63). e~p.
ch.iii. pp.SI-77; ~nJ M. 1'. t":llltkn\'Hfth. fla, -"'t: (=Martin Classical Lertures. VoL VI.
Cambndgc-. M;til~ . l'l.'lf_l :;;\-''
29. Th< ni,wn(<'> w :h.: p.l~~~g~'! h.. ~.., :IHN<-..! irmn Mu~nnius at<' as f(,Jlow' (according rn I utz'~
c-diti,m) ( 0 fr .XUJ.'\. pr.li-."'-'J: !;!; fr :"i:IV l'l'lioJ-~); 13l frr. IV. pp.-H-5, and XII. pp.llti-7 llld
~l): i4) I: \JV, rr <to.';; l5) {!! IV, t~rA~-'.1. :tmi Ill. pp.3S-4J. It 1s true' that in fr.XII,
p.MO ~ii. Mn-.>n;lb ,..;,,;,:h.: ,,r,l\ J:IJ)'"'"' ,,f ~ar:,f Ultcrcourst a~ the begctnng of ch1ldrrn,
and n:~ard;; it a,;. '>Jujust ..IUd uuln\\ ii1! wit: tl is 1111'1' l'kasure-stl.'king, t'vtn in marriage'; i>ut
this "'" .Ill llf;r,.,{,~ t,;k,-., lr h tTUny C1uitm. :-r.ud ro many of us today it scrms bs
obje<'t~~>nablc tlt:tll lh l'~liHc '''""''J)t(;-,1, af ""'tr~!,\'' .1s a -.cond-btsr to complLte virgi11ity
and .ll tatfNllltJ.Ih'l~ th:.:n;;.r w:ty ''"'ll~tt)'ing w},.tt would uthtrwisc bt sinful lust.
27. Jerona,
r-:',lf~,.,;
c... .
30. I havl.' llt th ..u,::hr It 'll''l"'~~r~ In 1--:iv tn,tril libli.,~:;;,Jhy m thts s.:~;tron. Th~rc is a 'Sckct(d
bibh'~otr.ll'h" -'II wor<l;on i1, ~l!lhJilit}. In .4tl:lbl > (Spring 1973) 125-57, by Sarah B.
Pom.-r..~- wlt<>s b;;>uk. (;,,.;,t"'''. II'Or,ro'J. Wir,;, ,,.,,/ Sldves. Women in Clasirdl Antiquity
(New York. 1~7:5). ;,IMp~l\'1'~ 'it pp.lS 1-9 ).l.mg brhli~~~raphy tu whtch many ~dditions collld
alre.1otv h, ~:t.l.lt. ;:.i!. rwo> ill'l"''t:tllr .lrri.:ks hy C llichnnan: tbt one tucmioned in n.4
abo\'c. ~u;l "(.;)w ~!'~"!-' tn ch, Hom,rit" Hymu It ,\rhroditt', in Athmewn n.~. 54 (1lJ76)
~2'}- H hr .if}'"'" tmptcd ~~ .t.n:cpt tht ridin.:!,t:s a,!<oa, advo<ated i11 ncenr tinws by somL'
adm!r rs -i 1'1;.1;-. 1:l~l Plato w;IS 'feminist' ,lt.:uld r.,,d rh, 'xfcllmt ;~nick by juli.t Antla>.
'Piati;~ Jl,-;;llillr n:l t;:tnn-<w'. ;, l'ili},;"l'~Y ';! ( 11'71)307-21. whiCh, 111 spit<' of its mlc. rs not
lnnit.,!tv tlw l.'q~rltli; hu glan<<-> :d uli,, r "'"'>.~ l-)' J'kto. mduding the Timaru; (of which in
partin1i.r -t~l>r .ud 'lll,:-'lh .t,,.,,.,_, r~rdy \;..-..n.-,,: 111 thisconn.crion: se-t ibid. 316) and the Lur<s
(csp. VI. ~SH;!. ~b: X1.917;;._ ;:>< 1!-;;i .iii) Ph i'ii-Htl (1i<:aliti.-arion i would make rsrhat the wry
bad l"'~l!hll) ilr w;,j.-1: )>bto \,,.ui:~ k.Wl' Wl,l\!:'1' !JI the l.aws ts very like rhtir rondirion at
Arh.r!;; i>:u should n<l h;- ,i.->;:fij,,-.1:; 'tlt;:-:;>ilt"! .~f. totrth-<:enrttry Grrrk wonun' (ibid. 317,
my i~;~!t~). :n~nv,H thn1 tb~.- w~r~ {~r..,k t:u<" whi1:h ~av<' women;~ much h,rter sutu> 111
rcga~.i t~ J:lP,:ti' ~-~,~.'""",!it! 1\drt: ;,re ?.lttW<'. :t Ia and my OPRAW. It 'hould surpri,..
sss
Notes on III.i-ii (pp.114-119)

no onr to find Plato choosmg an unpleasant and r~pressive alt~mativ~ wh~n there were more
progressive onts in the world around him. [Afttr this book was in proo!ther~ appeared th~
best single article I have scl'n on the position ofwomm in Classical Athtn.:John Gould. 'Law,
custom and myth: aspects of the soctal pos1t1on of women m ClassKal Athms', in]HS 100
(1 'JKO) 3M-5'J.]
(III.i]
1. I have wrrtren a very fulltcchmcal analysis of the Solonian TiA71, which I hope to publish shortly.
2. See Ulrich Wilckcn, GriechischeOstraka aus Ar~typten und Nubim (L~ipztg/Berlin. JH'J'J) 1.506-9;
Gnmdzii~r und Chrcstomathie dcr Papy'l'llskundt (Ldpztg, 1'.!12) I (Hist. T .-il) i.342-3.
J. Tb~ theory is that of Rudi Thomsen . .Eisplwra. A Study '!f Direll Taxation 111 Ancic"t Athm.<
(Copcnhagr.:n. 1%4), my review ofwhith is in CR KO = n.s.ln (I Win) YO-J Cf. Jon~s. RE 154
n.21. dcscribmg Thomsen's book as 'a basr.:kss phantasy'. My own vin\'S on tht cisphora arc
given in 'Demosrh,nes Til<'Til<"' and du: Athr.:nian ~sphora m th fourth cmtury II C .in Clilss.
n Med. 14 (1953) 30-70. I gladly acc,pt the small mod1ficmon suggtst.d by Davu:s. APF
126-33, ar B I.
[III.ii]
I. Among tnuch modlm writing on anctem sport, sec t'sp. H. W. Pkkct. 'Zur Soziologit' dts
antikcn Sports'. in Med.-delin.t?m ''an her Nfderlands ltmillllll tc R~rnf 36 (1974) 57-H7; and
'Gaml'S. prizts, athletes and ideology. Som, aspects of the htsmry of sport in the GrecoRoman world'. in Stadion I (1976) 4<1-89. r.:sp. 71-4
2. Ht"rad. Pont .. fr. 55, m Fritz W~hrlt. Hcrakleide.< Pontil.:t.< 2 (=Die Sclmlr dn Ari~tMe/,s VII. 2nd
edn. Basel. 196'1). trom Atht'n. Xll.512b.
3. In Clas~ical Athens I have conu arros' onl~ om ce-nain <'xampl of .l nlln who is said ro haw
owned more than on~ ship: Phormio, th fornwr slaw nf Pasion (Ps.-D<m. XL V.M).
4. AE:' 40-1. A similar mistranslAtion of rrpO<; aAAov '>i~ ('that he dot-s not hvr.: under the rcstramt of
another') appears also in two othn articks hy Finl<"y, WGC:IJ~L 1~ = SC15f>; and BSF 239.
5. Sccc.g. Arist.,liN IV.3. 1124"J1-5J2 (a fas.:inating rassag); [f::JJl.7. 1233"3+-K. Atisrntleucs
a slightly dttfcrcnt form of words for r.:xactly tiK sanll' idea m .\f,I<~J'Il. A.2. 9H2"2+-K. wb.r, hr.:
d<-scrib.:~ th< al'llpworO<l ~AEiitkpo<; as o arilroil t...,l<o ""''~'Tt ai\Aov i;,v. S<'t' .1lso Pol. lll.4, 1277bJ-7;
VIII.2. 1337b 17-21.
6. l haw treated the Pdoponnt~ian lagll<' at kn~th m my OPW. cluv (<:>p 101-24). <~iso 333-42.
For tht' Oehan Lt"agu and Atheman Emr1rc, !K't' V.ii Jbovc and it~ rm.2f>-7 below; cf. my
OPW. <."Sp. 34--49. 291'!-307, JW-14. 315-17. for rhe Stcond Arhnian Conf,J,rJcy. S4'e V.il
n.J5 below.
7. Wear, told by Xtnophon (HG Ill i 2H) that the w~alth m th falllily masury was sutlki,nt to
provid< pay for an army uf!l,IM)O men for 'marly a )'<'ar'- J ~rattmcnt wh1ch looks tonK like a
genuine ath:mrt to giv~ an estimate of th rc.1l valu, of the trtasur.:. Now wt may rak
mercenary pay at tlus Jatc for land tmups to have lx-.:n 25 drachma per month m a link murl'
for the ordmary solditr; doublr.: that sum nught lx ~iv.:n to tbt junior oftinr and four times as
much to a ~miur command,r (se e.g. Xen . Anab. VII.ii.36; iii.l!l; vi.!). If\w undtrsraud
'nearly a yar' as ten or ckvcn month. we can cstimar. rhc \Walth in th treasury as
som,wlll'rt' in tht lll."lghbourhood of JSO talents.
H. St'<' M. Dandamay<v. 'Acha.-mnid Babyloma'. in Andmt :\lrsvp<>lami,l, S,,c;,,.J:,orlllltJic Hr.'''''1'
td. I. M. Diakonoff(Muscuw. I%'J) ~%-31t,t~p. 10.2.
9. On the 'King's frknds'. sec E. Bik,tm.m. lnsrrtutioms d<s Selrucides (P~ri~. IY.'\H) 4/J..(J; C
Habicht. 'Die herrschendr ( icsdls~:haft m drn hclknisti~chtn Monarfhim . in Vimdj.,hrscltr!fi
fiir S"zial- rmtl Wmschafts~e;chidte 45 (IY5K) 1-16; Rmtnvrzdr. SF:HHW 1.517-lx; 11.1155-(,
l'tc. The wealth ~>fthr.:sc men would ofcours b, mainly inland. but Di<>nysius. th<' S(cnrary
of Antiochus IV, could puxiu.: no fcw~r than l,tJIXJ slans <.trrymg line 5ilwr plat, a a
contnburion roth< magnilinnt pro(lssiou orgJmStd hy Anti<Jrhu .11 Daphm ncar Anumh m
166: Sl'C Athcn. V.l9-k-Sf. ar l<~Sb = Polyb XXX xxv.J(,
10. s~c e.g. Rostovtzr.:ff, SEHHW II.H05-t> (with lll.1521-:! n. 76): !-!19-::!ti (wirh 111.1527-K t1.CJH).
Notes on Ill.ii-iii (pp.119-121)
11.
12.
559
1143-':Jct.:-.; SEHR11.J.;<J.5I. with ll.b111-2n. !3; ~63 n.20, t'tc.: Tam, HC" 10~-13. A~ far as I
know, ;hl" !at~ ion anc ;mributed to a Grc.:.~ durinj; th~ late Rtpublir and Principate is the
HS UXI million (well 13\'cr .;,(lUll Lllrnts) c-L-..-iih!cl by Suctonius. Vrsp. 13, to Ti. Claudius
Hipp:nch11~ {tht" gr:m!tinh~r <1f H-.:nY.k:i Atu~} Among the othtrs <m: Pythodorus of
Tralles,th~ 1rim1l oil'4mltll:). whn j, uid by S~ho{:<IV.iA2, p.649) to have had over 2,(X){l
takllts ( = HS ~;; millitm); ;md Hll'l':t of l...:.c-<ii~:.-an-the-L ycus. who is s.:~id by Strabo again
(X II. viu. H1, p.57!!) to haw ~lu"":ilt<li w hli c:ry :>v~r 2.000 talents.
Chrisa.:-n H~j;,dn, 'Zwcl nco.:~ lnschriftt:t m:. l'crg~mon. in Instanbulcr Mirrrilun.{[m 9/10
(Dl'lltSdlt'S .-\n~hlio!O:Ii3chcs !nstit!.lt. Al:tcihln~ h:mbul, 19W) 109-27, at pp.120-5. Sec also
L<"vid:, RCStlM HJ.i-2t.l
Sec C S. W ~!!on, on"'nt::.! ~lt~rnr!' in1h<" s<"rvi~ of i'.nm:: a study ofhnp.;nal policy down to
the- d:Mh ofl\laro:w. Aomliu~, mJ H.S !'J (192'1) JB-6to; P. L.1mbrcchts, 'TraJan ct lc rtcruttm,nt
du S~n..c', in Arrl CJ 3 ( !9.\b) !t.'ill. l'.b>lll H.ammond, 'Tht composttion of tht S<natc.
A.D.
i;,JRS P (1 1~7) 74-1!1; Thr :llll<'lliJJ.,. :\!..,..!+lrclly (Rom<". 1959) 2~9 ff.. esp. 251-4;
and !he: s':=lndo:~d pri)S<>poj.::r"phiul Wt)Q:~ (~orne o! t.lwm very out of date) by~- J. dt Lact (28
B.C. .'\D. 6H), 11. Stem (f>Y-117). l' I ~";h.:d~u 0 17-l<n). and G. ll<~rhteri (193-2!15),
dcscnbin~ dr .:"mpusitic:l o:-t.!Jc f(om:m !ICU."orial order in thl Princtpatc. which (with the
worl. t;fl' Willcm<; u:tli":.:' licpublir.m :S!"u;,c-=. I Kli~S) .are nmwnitntly listl'd in OC'D" 975. in
tht ;,nd 'S<n>mr.' b A Mwnigli.mn
ltvici., NCSA M l ; 1-l'i, g:w> .,u <'K:dknt .;;>l'r;;.u.d of the main senatorial familits ofPistdian
Anuoch. op th> c~d.. r.~ui! ~ml Fi.W04lll f,,r :\u~l<'la t't.::., set esp. RCSAM 127 and its nn.J-4.
Set' Jonn, LRE 11.55-1-7. ixl~-1, d 7!11-11
Tariu~ H,;f.lfi i n;l.l3 in Dur.on-Jotu:s\ ti,! cf grt>Jt private fortunts under tht Principan
(ERQ$ .~J:...;.. App. 7), an.i ha rq".t~~t Wi:a1~f. i~ t!tl' ~amc as that of the richest Greek in rhat
hst. Ti Cl;.!:.ihr~ Hippardu:-, r<:r whmn sc, n IO at.. v.:.
Justim;;u i, >.Ji:ll< h~"'' 'l"'ut :~,(~:;o lh. ,;oiJ ou hi.; g~ms at Con~r.mtinopl wh~n he b,camc
consui frtlt,11r>IIU:tl' ''' :'>:! 1. u cl:. t!';gu f.Vu~;,, (Chrom. Mm. 11.101-2. rtmarkin~ upon rh~
sensatim: !ius .:.~u~,d- rh~lig, w~~ 'Mr.,.,.,j,,~~ f.,r \.onsrantinople)_ Olympt<>dortb fr. 4~
-spc.al..;; ,,f! ..:!L; lh. l!l!d b,:nf.;JI>Cil! b,- i''b:, l'.:~ .ofOiybrius. on his praetorian );ames (this
will h.i"H~ h in llonC'.: l!l), ;md 2.W~I ib ~1!<\ by Symmachus on hi~ son\ pratrorian
gam" (;t Ptll!<' itl 1\Jl); n<'o1lsu Il'i<'r> to thc Cl\j ..:!lditm;;of UKKllb. ~old on prattonan games
which mu~: h: tl:(o:<t'
.-.r R~<h' 111 lito: Jr:~n,rsitip (m ~ lO or .1 yar llf two tucr) of
Petr.m 1\.b ..;mn. wh h-e ~m <'Ill!'""'"" U h w,_s~ for a few wctks m ~5';: s.-e ChaS!d~nol.
FPRWi .:!i\J. On rh. 'l!':~o< !u ~<!!>'t,ll. st"LJ'"'"~. i-RE ll.lOif>-21
J. 0. 1\t...'lt.:b,nlldt"Cr. TIJ' lt',M ~~rri.,Uu (1'17,-,) 1;\i, rq~ards OlympioJoru~ ~tatmttnts a~
of'q:lt:'Stim.uhlt: Y.Jlu I (,l~IH.vt' ttl,rt 'iliU~i ftgun~ rn Olympindnnt' art dubtous and some
art' outriJ,.:bt fanrutic'_ Bttt '~'Ill\' ruilll tis:- lt;!"~:r,. '" n.16 aboVl' (mcludmg tht first. from rh
sillth<.utuy c-:immr:ir ,,,- l\l.tr~dlirms C.:"'"'"l "-'"''' at kast of whirh would pwt.ahly be
math'r> ,,f .:ullllll"U lo. '''"':,,lg.. ~,,. .:ruumn<'. wuh the;<;<. ~inn in the !t'xt abovt'- although of
couts r.hq <':t.lll,t i.t ta~;nt<. Crfi'JU eh.u { }n Ohmpiodorus, set also E A Th<>mp~ou.
'OI~upi<Jo<i"ll' <>r Thdw~. : CQ .11'-(HH) -D-~:!.J 1'. Manhows. otymptodorusofTh,hes
and th: l:ut.n ,,i II:. w,~,. ilJ!l Iii) (19711) 7'-''17.
(jg..::_u,
13.
14.
15.
J(,.
!";,.,,,
17.
[III.iii]
1.
Amphi~.fr.l7.2-3.inKmk.C.-'lFII ..:!41.fromStoi;1acus.:lrlth.l
IV.ii.t:ap xL.J.,,LO Htnsc

(He-rim. l'JO'l). IV .377 Cf. othtr passags indudcd in tht' sanh' chapt.-r (w. pp.37h-HX).
2. Thtlxst short a,,ount in English of Xmophon\; lift and wtitin11:s is hy G. l. Cawkwdl in his
lmroduction (pp.'J-4~) t<> tht Tl'iSSUl' of the l'mguin Ch.-i(, !rJn,)anon of Xmophou's
.-lPiaf><l.<i~. by Rex Warmr: Xmoph'" Tlu Pnsia~ Exprdirion (1972).
3. Thl:lst passa~c is Xn .. Oe((!n V1.~9. Other relevant porrinm <>ftlw samt work .mIV -t-17.
20-5; V. 1-20 (esp 1); Vl.l-11. XJI.IlJ-20; XV.J-1:? (cp. -+. 10. 12): XVIII 10: XIX.17;
XX.I.22; XXI. I. And sttlV.lvn.5 bdow.
4. Frunto, F.p1st. ad M C.1t'.<. IV .vi 1 (d le!!<'t frmn Marcus ro Frunto). p ti3 ,d. M. 1-'. J. VJI1 dm
I lout. 1954. cf. Hi~t. Au.~ ... -\111. l'ir1:> 11.2. In~ 2<>fthe '3me kmr Marcus tdls Fronto how ht
.md his f.uhr had afterw3HI t'llJOytd thnnsdvc~. listtning to 'tlw yokd (ntstiu) chatting om
anmhn m the oil-prl'ss room
560
Notes on lll.iii
(pp.121~127)
5. f()r !loth ~h~" Jiillli;I!:(CS ~ Cic~:ro. ~ 'il'~'Lcd unmLodiatd~ :)r, dK m~in ccxr abow; also e.g.
Plir:y. Nil XVn!.l~}.i); V:d. M;x tV.iid (Cunus); iv.7 ~nd i.ivy HJ.26.6-IO (Cincinnatus)
AC&:ar.:\iug ~l'll.:w 1!1 Z.'l.H, Cmcimutu~!r:~d ~tnly .ow.~,..-.,('- 21h :Kr~): cf. Val. Max.IV.iv. 7,
wh~n h.- hil> 7 il#,!'rT;I (less :i~o::n5 ;;,;.-re-s) butltY.ol'~ 3 wltich :.n: glc;t~ i.lt ~ ;retyshtp for a frnnd and
fo:(('itft! - i1 dt:'ira;;t~~i!'nc rnouliiJI1l( couch.; d ['lut . Sl 2. I. ~r~ m the main te-.t .tbove.
M r\:ilius Ho:-gu!m (rou~ul2fl7 ,;nrl 25ii) i1 ;x;mthn mch 6gt~n:- in the most d,taikd vcrston of
his story, (b;;c nfV:.1. M.;.l<. IV. i .f>. h.- ls >.~id tu ho~\-... writrcr~ to t!u: Sc:nat~ in 256-5. asking to
r.,.lir-,r.! of his o;omru.onJ ::1 .~:'rica. on tiK' ground 1hatth~ overs!:'<"~ (vililus; cf. Pliny. i\iH
X VUJ_W) ,.,f hh f:mn oi' i .::0!1'"'" had dirrl ami J.l!in,~ mal \"1<"rt'rltr.t1<r, cf. s,rwc .. Di,ll. XII =
,M i-idt. xii. 3; oA:nhhl' mmmr~mi in i.ivy, l'rr. :00: \'I: I) h.:&dd<"C~III~\:.i with his ,;tock. so that his
fa:u:ly W<"n" m d;;~ngcr cf doucu:ion 1111lef. tu~ rch.UJll:d Lo them (In C'.ol .. RR l.i v .1. Regulus is
d('~."nbc-d ~:~. th~: cultiv:.tLr (lf Jt pmilott/1.< um11l ,., txilir ".llri at I'J?inu. for whKh d. Varro. RR
l.i:-: .5.) ! ;:t;~ with flrl-'nl: thl' ,1~1')' ,_,:-n~u!u, -:;m biJrdl) b~ :ru~ r.,f :-. nobk and a mag1strarc
ae
,.,.,.11 iu d!r thm! 'lrltl~;. but diu~t~Oite5 wl1~t tnc~t h:t\~ b,~n ~h t:~-:l~hr of llldllV cumrnon
soldiers in t!l~ fon'i_s:t w~r~ (l!U M..?.J).

'
.
6. Sr-. :h:: l'dK'ol" l:l~i.:x niiri;m by &r:aal Cn~l.-. Mtl!"ltioltrlli: Tl1~ Dim11rm ( 1970) 245-6, 247.
!'h:o a.ut;.iidk:n is: uv~!~!l ,,fthar by tc... h~.- J- Wi31:K.,r. I'ht {)ur;..,.,uo ,1_{,\1ircoM ,\tlatllia,rlli. 2
..._,]; (t.-.>tlkm, l95fl}. ii'om "f"l<tu 1~ ,.,,..,,. llct:!.it' lml ..l<ir ,;~ ,'\liu,o/,', .'WoJrhiardli. <'d. Guido
Mazzom ;ond Mana Cr.s~il:. (F!orrn.,.~. ]J:N) 127.
7. Jn LmLf c.-;.htivll. of i'lofl (b )"CS !<~.no J! li ilh>nt), th~~ i5 f:-. XI. pp.H0-5. from Stob;wus.
l-utz's a.<l;<l,111<:ofl i; "withom ,-j._,;;.cing one' dignity or lK'li".~ova:t'. There may lx omc
rdl~"'"ll\lfl Cl Mlt;onni~;' ;.trimdr towards f~rrni:1~ 11> Pill (:hryso;;~,lill. who was said to haw
:~,..-n tlt~~l<'r!n-,\ h 1\lm- ~r.c" U: an!. A:-TI )(.:..S. ~'I' U
H. Th\ ;.a~Sdg.: ill qnesu~t :s p:m.f'N,..o>. Fuga:mr-2!'. published b~ M F Smith. Thirrccll Nrw
Fmt;r:a;l$ aj 0.11gmN .if (.1.:-l!i.lli!'t:lt c: (ll':,rn:l;:h. :\k;d. ,1rr \VtH .. Plulos.-hist Klasse.
Dmk;rl:r, 1!7 ~E~~'lt!l111pl"iru!.: <:IH1('0: Titl! NiDi H'11111n'J 11, V:nm.1, 197-+) 21-5: and Sl'l.' p.H
ti1r .\ tLilll>ihi:.;!lr;tpii'~. ittduding C. W. C:Jn:!ul.
f);,':.:~;. 0.-.a~u.,ol. ,z.,,.~,.'""ta (L<tp2'ig. 1%7);
:tnd l>i~~"i ~fO,tr;~,,,.,,f~~ The Fr~~~lzo.t:f;, u l'hs'r~ . ti4J 1..\,H:m. (ti.,tuton etc. 1~71).
9. S..~ l' Groam.!" . u,, m/l:.,rJ.l:r.- .:mi;;ut, l ltlt .-~1:i, m <'f l_(.:or;i!/, (C~\ro, 19.)1!): John Day. Ar1
~'tJI>Irr IIIJJ.r) o~j.o\llr,w l'tl4rt /(;m,,:r! f}.;t'lttill:r." CN.-w y..,k. l',i.l.:) :!35...(>; K. Miirrschcr. in
HE VI11.1 ( 111!) 12~: Jt,,~,.,.w.,.,tf. .SF.HR/:.0 I 1.51.
lCI. fr.tul. E'i.-\Ji' V ..:!i~.. ~~ 21N; d. l1i~ EwMr.ic Hi;!.<! I' vJ RC<ntt'! (1'127) 227-31. at234l-l; ~nd
Udou_J l n,m,. llloiiiJIIj' .,,,/ C.tllot'o"lcr '!! tlr. Cit}' 1 fl.-ton (50 IJ.C ]tlllA.n.) =johr1> Ht>pkins
V:ir _.;,,,.: Jr: Hr,: ,1nti ft./. S;/.-or~ I. Vl.l (lbhmwr..-, l'JJi>j !Ill-~; .1bo T. P. WiStman, 'Thl'
potrerit~ ~iVilicrms Jml R:~ir~m~ ~t .'\r~!iht,, 'n Ml(',.,o; 1 If: [~liJi 2754l3
11. ! haw S4"<'t: 5{J f.1!' onl:: ~:.rto Hd.., . Ot:(ll"ih'llillrr ~f Rrm.:" l.l71l"i: PrNrrr/illl in rlu First aJd s...,,.,d
Cmtomn 1\ :> ..1r !,;r,t{l.tli'" 1 H,..,.,.,,, /iri;~ Sr.11Ptfl> = :lthtotlo'l A,.:J,..,iar Stimtlamm FNmim
[)i;st'llolt~oll<'$ 1ltlr!f.l;;:tl" l.iu,rommr S [H,Isiuld. !n5); .:.11d J 1 ~ivi S"r:ila, Privat IJotnirJi ;,
Hlir nr~.-k .'ic. n;.-. :{tl~o E1r.p:r.-. :l lt.aJ,,,,.,J! ,,IJI I''"'''P<'::r<~;;luml Study of Landowners in thr
I.Ji,ar>t '1 H'""'' = id I!' {i-tdsillk:. 1977). Tll.-ir \"11"\\, ;a!lr) : ~: .- g~:r:ing gcnl'ral acc~ptanc.:
S<'" , . g. th. r.Votw .:fSc-:.ili.'s llll"lgrilph ~:- ;\. M S.~;oll. ;,., n;>ml: n ( 1979) 369-72, who
:tY~ J-1.,(,.,, ha" co:l\-i:IITti hill" '<il.ll {l,otlml O<h' d;ay <list1ii"li :;;n:l not lrid;. works. A d.mtintrs
fiRlmarum ,lj,lu~t ""' ri-i kfin~tim ~~~;c;.:;;.ri1y i:r;;aln- him.sdfir lrido: production, though h
<'Xl'lu:-.llus i;m,lly ur:tlt;; it m t:: -:t1ln:,..,,,,,,,, .;:f .A kss.cr ur.!,t Thi imrpreration riJdtcally
.tffi.,~t...~ -;,.n:; tlrrent i~k~ ;.i?tt-;t :he n.atnrt flof du... i~nolv~:nc~~ o{ t!t~ l.,ornan aristocracy in
12.
iu.!u"cr' (Ym;..
Tho'f' l< ;o g"<.'Oil .liscusslotl of the original nuaning nf th, LJtin wurd 11rgott<1tor and of lh !al<'f
.-h;tll~ 111 iu Jll:"aning iu Rouge, ROCM.ll.-117+.?1. 2'H-4 ..~12-1~.
J~lll lh:~idJ, l.rs trafiquant.< Italiens dans I'Orrmr Hrllbuquc (Paris.
Forth< carher phase, S<'<"

1'119), Part II, pp. 193 ff.
("l; l'JJ-c . ;t;.-;..7).
13. Mxs:.;luti.wr. hl'raus rhe bw is addrtssro ro Flurus. who was pra,torian pTlfcct of the East .
.llli.! 1\t....~i;, blf,nor. inthl' Thr.acian diOCCSt'. wa~ in th;,.t rrcf\:cturc. wlurcas MO<.-sia Supenor
\\'l~ 111 t!li" D:<tlAll dtoCCSl' and the pt'll'lorian rrcfcrtllrt' oflllyric:um.
14. Thr l...l!!tl ~~ 'mbiliorts natalibus ct honorum lun (onspicuos <'l patrimonio dl!torcs per~
i~i>'U~Il uri11ltus mrnmonium l'X<'tCL'tc prohibcmus. UL intr pltb('!Um ct negoriarons
ta<J!m~ :011 1Knd1 vcndendiqu<' cornmncium . I haw ado~pr,d th< rrauslanon of Jones. LRJ:
11.1171. nrrd)' :rymg to give effect to the comparatiw adj,ctiws (ttohrliow, dttlores), wluch in
t:x:;. fth:> ;-:nod an oftm used as mrld f<>rtns of the supcrlatlvr. both in leg1l texts and in
Notes otl III.iii-iv (pp. 127-133)

litcr;;ry ;~.udwn su~h ;1!.
561
1~.mmianm
15 . .'ill.' li.R<'!O = IGRR L766 = 1\1} IJ l. There-
L~ 1111
Ent= ttans. in ARS 224. no . .274,
5~ J.'l'l!.'S.
Cf.'[([J1 22-3 (fC\', G. M.th;u!o'.').
16. On tbo=umiru/11ii. ~:-e Jones. P57 -'l, 3'N-1U1; :.REH.B2.7-1~(withHl.272-4); llout!e. kOC\!M
2.B-.f, :!..W-1), :NS-9, }~,.1-5. 4JI-5, .HJ -~. ~!IU-.l
17. Card.ec;a, 1\fiCI-!1-1 3J'f; i.-11low~d b) ~nury. ;..SiJ>RE 25M n.l. (The u>c of th<' word
lle.f!ollallttJ i11 lilt -,.~ns~ nl't',\Wt.::'''l n :<~!)'\~::, ..uuqu~ to 0~ XLVIJ.xi.C>.pr.) I would point
out that CTh Xlll. v. 16 -~ ~pecitkdly "np!tas:~c~ til1t other ne~otiarorcs wrll not be allmv<d to
obtam imrmm::.u oy :be: fr.n<ittl.:nt j.'l;'fCUI":' ct~iug JtO:IIicularii. Cf. above and Dig. l. vi. l.pr.
18. Therns ;i usefui bm:f :0;..-~ch in Jonn_ !lE 5J..,5. ~itb rdi.-n:-nces. ~.g. to Frank, ESA R V .236-52:
F. H Wil:;\on: :&!l..l R Me:,_:gs. Rtmiln 0Jrj,, (:i:.rc i!. nuw l2nd edn., 1973). ont' of our best
booh on ;::ny Html,m tcwn f'ot l'ute{:!t. S<'":' J. B oYArms. 'Putl'oli in the second century of
th Homal! Ernf'irt: '' ~~.,d.<t aud ,etltlOmk studv' in JRS 64 (197-1) 104-2-1. with amplt'
rcfcr~t'Jotcs tcj du. .rA:iir:f 1!t~~!:.at.re
19. For Lugci:ml:<l ;md t\rd.ttt'. ~.:~Jon,.,, UE~i2-! The- !;~;,.uon was rh~ sanw ar Narbo. This doc-s
not ;mcgt mfi~ct~ntly :'ro1:~ Hostov~'\!if~ a<:~OII<~: i1 SEHRE~. e.g. 1.166-7, 21H. 223. 225:
II.6Wrdl. 1)11-!Jn.li. Cf t'in~ag!uon,m S..-.i~t'T(\d.), CRR 127-8, 129-30.

20. On P.\ln:yr;,. lf<'J<a,'!l. CERI~ 1l'J. :!J.i. ~t.S..(> (wi.:l: 45!1-9 nn.Sl-2). 563-4: RE 55-7, 145;
Rosh.V:ldt'. sntRJ~ !.'15 (Wlll: !i 575 ll.l.'i), l:\7 (with 11.604-7 nn.19-20), 171.2 (wirh
ll.hl4-i5 n.JJj, !.t7-'J (witi Jl,(,f,;!..,\m11S, .'.1}:
(;aravatt Cities (1932): 'lcs in.cription'
l:'arav;::ri~auddalllllo''<''- i: ,\J,'/ t;, Gll:~ (P:Irl\, l'iJ:?} 11.793-!!11: I. A. Richmond, 'Palmyra
undt.'T :itC' ;;,.,gis f fto;rt:'. !11 JUS -~-; (1963) .:,1 .. ').t; J. 1'. Rq-Coquais. 'Syti<' romam<' d,
n,..
Poml\;1. flj,-,,-l.'rt:-u',:njllSI>S (141'/li) .i-l-7.3. :;. :.:.t. 54-(,, 59--61.

Pc~u. "''~' _1..,..,,, CF.P.I~ !'i-" (with ~7--!-S n.&":, .:.tS: RE 57. J.J 1, 14J. 1-W, 15lJ; Rostovtzdf,
SEHRP J.'i-l-5 {w:~h ll.:~n l-l. yx,.7n.-l). f.'\7: 'flh Cara1ar~ Citw (IY32). lkm1t bibh()grap!Jy n P,n;; wrl: 1.... f,,,:u,l J>: 1_;, W ll.w,n<k' .lrtick. A Report on Arabia l'rovinoa'.
injii.S r-.1 !!~7!1 :.!!~'-41. r\~ i!..r [J.-~s...mel Ni~Jh!~. roth important l'l'lllrt'S of commerce. I
know ot'lt(> .-,-,,Jnn ,)fr:d: m'"rdw:ts Ut tb-ir cutl.ll dass. See e.g. J. 8. Segal, Edessa, 'Tire
Bli'S.'ll Cit)' ( ~ '17i'l) 1,1o~... s. rf ~~'-5 I. I! "'>igroill;:;.n: th;;: in 498. when Anastasius abolished rhcchry.~~~-rll/:,ll~lfc irti!Miil ia rh, E:ur. Edt"SS~ i:.ad b..-.:n paying at the rate of 140 lb. gold every
four ~;..m. vr 2.5::'t.i ;..-,bdi p.;r ,;;,u:;& - yct tb.- t;l,. ia qucsnon includ,d ~lll'l<'JlOfiarom in the
widt,r "'"'"'' (:k'<' !ht IIJ~IIl tt'"<t ''""''". .&t ra Ill: J<>~h. Sryl.. Chron. 31. from whom our
inforniJiitllo:tllll'!>, Jil.m-,. u11 !ht ;:~u:ra! <'Uihl~i.mn ~'a used by the abolition ofth.: tax, which
evide-ntly .tU:;-rtr>l ~ \'t:ry );ut-w r:utnh..1 of 1""'1'11. . .\t B.atnae in Anthl'mu~ia (in Osrhocn,) we
h~ar "!malt\' otrtrt.:t,rJ "1'::/.-m~;. b~:r o~::.ly .u ~h, amaual flir in ~arly Scptmblr. ar which
am< ll.; n:r.JC'II fr.:m lwli~ and Chm~ -... ..,..., ;;u!u. ar..:nt!. oth.:r thinKs (Amm. Marc. XIV. iid).
22. See Aris~ .. fr. ::>-1'' aJl A.thcu. XIII 57r,ab. Jut" Xllil.ih.4-lJ: livy V .34. 7-S. for the main
accourah ~f th<' tc.lllllli.ltill <)f M.ts~i);,, 1\n~u :k JJ.i' thl" Phocaeans founded thl' city 'in rhf'
cour<>C' uftr.&.i..- i("ll't)lli<!r \pUlJ&e>i: but d. Jn~tin. l;:., dt., esp. iii.S-R. wirh Hdrs 1.16}..7 (csp.
lb3. i: It,, l: par.1f)'l23. H. W l'ki.;,l. '&,;r,mr.r ilisror~ .,f th( ..m.-i,ur world and epigraphy: som.: inrroducrory
rem:.rl.;:;.', in .'\lu: rlt"i VI. lttl~.,,lli;:o:a/,.,, 1\.,n~I(W"!.fi Grirrhisrhe 11. Lat<misclre E'p~~raphik =
Vesti~"' 17 ( 1'172} 2+.)-17. at..:!:>~~4.
24. Sec R;,~hWt.l'df, SEIIHP 11 t.,;; n :;, l~.tr ,, nmm bo:u.-r text of IGRR IV.11l6 (the epitaph of
Myrinus) - whidl, ly thl" w:.~. i, >llts, ..t~rpl";'t,d it~ Ziebarth's n.l to SIC" 122'-J = ICRR
IV.841, thctt>rcr~~rmr.lu~nrth'll'iHwiu-. Zmd~. I' Hit"rapoli~ in Phrygia, who cla1mcd to
have 111.11.k 7:? \'H~<'.<;orvmt,{ Ca~x M.&k.-, t .o Jr~l~21. On
[III.iv]
1. Cf. Finl<'y. who speaks oi 'dep\:'nd.-m (or involuntary) b.bour. an cxprssion he uses to include
'every on~ who worked for 3nothcr mt b<<:aust of mt"mbcrship in th.: lartn ' familv. as in a
peasant hous,hold, and nor becaus.: be had ~ntt>red a volunrary. contractual agrt'cmenr
(whethl"r for wages, honorana or fees), but bccaus.: he wa~ bound ro do so by ~ome pacondition, birth into a dass of depcndlnts or dt'bt or captur..- or any thtr situation whtch, by
law or custom. auton1atically removed some

usually for .1long term or kit life' (AE 69).
rnt"~sure
of hls frndom of choir and action.
562
2.
3.
Notes on 1/l.iv (pp.137-142)
S.:~ .o\rj,sL,
1l:lr. PCll . .:!.::!.(,.I. 'U; i1h"- Sit~. 15.2. ~rld o):h~: l:xt.; ;md tf. V.ubov;:. I emnot
:J..:'IX:J!t fi::ky'~ u:l'(':pnt~tim. in SD 16871, ofr.lrt Soitmran debt~~ituatinn, nfwhich I hope m
publish .tl\ l."~.;::m,.ritm sbor!ly. ('1w ;1n1d~ by 1\. 1\ndrnvn lllld him~eJf. whkh Finle-y
jlmlf!i5C$ ill SV 169 n.J'.l. h~ not )'(I ~ppi"~tnl.)
t=J! ail !h('~l' 'unflt.o.:' pc-opk-~. !IL'\: th!.' ild~x :o lou~r. MED. f.~r. fl)J the Spart~n Hdot~ and
Tit'~:t!!.m l'c.ll:s:;;i, ._.~ ;h, 111~t11 i~X! of this sccnon ttno.1L"r :h.- ho.:admg 'II. Serfdom. and
~!11. !~-
i? (I Mots) ;;n,i :!\J (l'=l'~to~i) bC"low _ !'ur rlr~ lo.:lamtJi ..w.~ Jl.ba'iitai nfCretc, sec Lotze.
MEL) k~:i. 79: for the Mariandynoi oi lk:"2ock.;~ !'ondc::.. irJ 5f,.. 7, 7~-'i. 7'J; Magic, RRAM
Jf i 192 n.2.0: Vid.~!-No\qmr, ~HGE 3'7-.'~; ~h(r !111 -'~ ;nui 51 bdt1w; OVId for thl' Killvrim, cf.
Du:ab,1h:'' 11-'G Ill, 41 ~- Fo~ thf' B:thynioatL> m di.. rnritorv ofUy-_,__;umum. SC'l' rhe mam tc:xt of
:his ><'<!I(>H am: ll. i7 bdcw. hr ,<01:11' !tm~,~:mg !'rovui.ons for!tiJrling the 'ak of <'l'rtain
~~r#S, J;1."t'
th..- !-;Un~ !\"::\.~ .1ud H'r~.~l!;J, !wlu.,.
4. 0;; :h;.,'(ndit~\>l!Oithf' 't'l'lll'~~:\i' ufEtr-uri-2. S~t~p- -..v. v_ H:rrrh. RU 114-2':1 (c''P 121-2). cf.
.11---1:0, J.;_!. fM a lntl!'!' , .....~,, :rccm:mr o)l >=~I ;,u.~ C(<'.l101!11~ .~,.\'\'kmmcnts in Etruna. v.ith
ample bibliograph-y. ~tr M, T<>ro:-!li. '1'.-rm mw !mt~>lrt d:-!'~1::<.~~~ L'Il Etrurll'', in Aa.s du
Colloque 1973 sur /'tkl,wt~:: = .-li>lllfl litl(t,:ircJ tit I'Urrir. ,f~ BN<VII'"' !l!2 (Pari,, 1975) Y<l-113 .
.'\n;l ...,.,. 1\:u..:ol;i Tc.~nh~~- 1-lalimh.!'; 1.~.:.--, (l'Jt,~) :r 34[~;_ To Illustrate the variety of
rt'f\IIU!o>lr~~ th.u \\'(' r-rr.,ut>r,r l:&>n :hll\ Lt:n ~h<':.: !f'rti or ,..,.[.lilcl' pcoplcs are concemed.
II li ptrkiiJ~ -,.,-,,ub lll<'llti.ntn~J rh.~t iJir:..-..l(nu. wht"n cka.ling with :he ErruscJns iu V .40
(j!<"rb.ap-" utll;smg 1'.-.;-cid"lhl~). a~l31"'-"-1l< uf.,; ~P<~ft'(ia.,.H ''A~ I 1). of row IJUJ~<uvut!vrtuv
t~Kt:r;,J- .,i-..; i..\i)r~ '~'il"'~ '\'l'biil dr:-u ~:u~r il.J!}{ . :.'\:eht;; c..r~~ ~-"'~"""'~~ ~iav ( .3)~ and of ol
fl'f.pQ::r""''rt( \Vhu =.t, ~\l'ult:n:tly dl.sti11{'l fi-..lrtl ol i~t~W; . ( "')
5. Ju\'.,,S.n. XJ\1 :.iS.5I;(t.I1.MaMI').n'\ V 3N);Jihn ..H~r 17H;.(=lh'Supmtit JO);Sencca,
l~.,~lt XC.J'I. fn Ius~"'- XI. VI 1 {<bting l":rhaps tron> r!:r c-.~;ly S:l.). l)io Chrysoston1 thinks it
wmth w!uk t" ;,.>.1.>1 !ha: ll<)f!i'o>fllls neighbours c:;11 .:.mpLi:l ,,fh.>\'iz;g bttn evicted by him,
/l~tl;- '" 1ltlfl4.''''! cl(,(o_> clur~~~ M c.:wo.~ n,J.,.,,.,; vt4i. w:t\1 ';-,pulsioms VKinOrum'.
pmbahly a ('l.'lhi:I\>Jl&O:<'It"-'liol'. J;.,r o~ ,~.;,iJccuon of passages :i~LI>Ir ;~t111~ tbc v10IC'Ill'L' often olkrcd
to tht> poor .nul ~1\ltlbh. . br th<" r1'+. l!ld powC'rful in the dtKk'n! wor!.l. stx tht first chaptcr of
MacMulkn. HSR, C:SJl- i-i:J (w!th :il.- n<~t..,., !lj; loll tr), l\>ba\1uta-.. V'-aks of 'the ex1stmcc of
.:-du.I,!;;rl kiJr,t~ ni ;xW": '".a ilcgu't~ri:t' ~nr)'risir:.- (ill. 7). Ar.-:1 r.=-:: V1.\ ..hove and us n.22 bdow.
6. "fh, ''"/)' <'X.IIIIJ:'Io: 1 h:<t~l' b,.,n li>l,r.. find ni mtntiut'ttti.;! m:m n .~rcising p.ltronag<' at Athlns m
>lh'h ",,-.~.~ J> h lh-'rt"t"r.- wirh rhc- wmsl' "(iu~::;-;." th '"'I!' ,,f Akibiadcs and Hegemon of
ThJ'l<)S, rlw J'Oihdist, in Ath.n. IXA117rn:. u._,.,l :h. ..-:~ ml';;rlti;;;;;l fourth/thirJ-cmtury
\'\'nlt'l .. Ch.:.nro~.-1-. m '>fllc-r.Kio-.t i'nuhct. (fh:~<- \-' IU _f.'-'.i. ;s ,..,.:-.- nkv;;ul herl'.) C<>ntr Jst, for
th, Rom..1t wodd. lrly ~VI, .-~r ~;!.:;_
7. l\:-!llltl~ :;;:m1 nth<"r wo:l..r.. ....-c- f'>P Gmm.u l.andtmllll- 11;< on:~;u,flll~ lruquo~lily of rlu Soci.11
c_'/,J>.r~ ~ t.UH) .!'!7~- ~r UX--4; .111.\ i I. J Nr..t""'', Sl,IWI'f ,,, "" l~tJutrrl Systma (1<)(0). In my
opinion. w. J__ w~t:rm~ll insi~tC'l tll\idl t~ ,,r...u~h .... ~.r:;,n< 'rtr,hts' whu:h he bdievc-d
sla\'('S I"'"~''Si(<l: s~.- ~us $.SI.R.'I, .m,t dw bil>li~r"J>h~ uf!ns nwn works. id. 172-3.
8. W h-'\'<' ;a nrt.nn J.nhuru f !lllo>rm,,~;u. m:.inl\' 111 ,.null sczitps, JlsU th, sbv~ in the silver
(.;~oll~d) min ,_.f Laurinmlr. Au!,-,.-,...,. r!1< rotlli'~C~IO:llsi.,; w.-.rJ. ,,r Stcgfn.:d Lauffer, Di
I;."''Kk--."tA:; . ll;~lm ,,,,, :. .-utarr I Jnl II= Ailr.r.J:. d.-t A\.-.,1, ,,,., Wi.;.,_ u. J~r lit. in Main7.
(i.i~r ..-... u. s:n.alw1-~s Kl.J~ N55u<d~-l'l'-IHl~l~i7"' 1-117, .tn.! 19:'!6no.l1. PP-~-'l
l(l]S :m,IJ'il.;).ll* =o ll'i.:~i' ~- (f-.>1 dt<" h'W>lb th'T.. lll '? :_1)...5 ,11:-:i 1 }ll.j..olli.C. SL'C'iJ.IJ. \112-14 =
1-48-!ilt .an;l 'l't!-tnt5 = ..!..!1-::il 1'11.: Jrm.-i;;~: "l>IIIO:t>> i<>r da, tirl nvnlt arc Diod.
XXXIV ..~.I'I.tnd Ows. V.95. ;m,-i i.>r ti,.,wml n\'oltl'<s.-id., FCtHll7 F 35, ap. Athl"n.
Vl.:!71,0 ln.:ut VI. I<\ if>-::; .i.-~:11~ "'ith symJ.. d~ tni" kl .-.i rh, ;.l.<w> in th" gold mines nf
th;l':tll,!l';t;_;,m .l!"ta ('S.-.alt!L,<al.t'. r!o~ Shpt~ ll1li- il !.tt~ VI -lt'.::O). !\ hurrifying dcscnption
oi th~ J.-tlul dt<.-r,. ,_,j llllllll~- iu th1s '4>' Itt rh.: lllli k;i~,.,., n!int"S :tt Pimohsa ncar PomPopolis Utl 1 ;~,rh!Jg,,uiJ (m:-.t<(chc- lt1w H.d)'$. inr ..J:rh,m A.i.. Mir;or). is givt'l'l by Str.tbu
XII .iii.40. p.:Wl llu)dllrt~ ~t:.s ~wo paruculaJiy YIIl'~thctK ;,f'Q)II!1t5 of tn<' tcrribl..- conJiti<IIJS. in th !!<l,l:nion.s ;Jl E;;)'l'l (11!.12.1 r._, H.5) ,.,,d ~it- ~~h.-J ll<U:<'S in Spam (V .35.1 to
.~- .~j: ;.(-:: Benjamin 1-Jrnn~l<>ll, J.)l::ht:u 5;>!;; (ln.m.,;ur~r J..:,n:n at Swana in !936,
rubh;;J:,.,_-1 1937) Jl,'!,'ii ~.,;: 1-latni u: :hrrkll t_--;,-r,-c, ( 1~17) i>'l-7l>; :.J,.., J. G. Davit's. inJHS 7:'!
! 1'155) 15.t wl1< p:Jn,'{ .1r.r:1l,;:ll~ -f;,, rh.- ;;.~bftr; .i j'Ji;>itrt:> ;>~::turc. mduding SOilll'
pitr:.tl1~! pl-''-Ji:,~ c~ th" / .tt.r; cf~t C);,Ti.~u Th,.. .;.,,nr~..- ~f the :"ir~~- r.f th~.~~~.~ tWll pass.attt.s in
[)j;,d,>ru<: !n th,l~;n'Jttio.u tt<ld nl:ti !> Aj::.:h:;r\l!!;lc;; .-.lcr.i<h- wb;, wrut a work On rhc
.f:.rJtl:t..t:-,;t S ..,, u~ rh,, l.r.t~ i~;Ju~! ~;t:tr)' H C.: ilt tht7 ;.....:~ ;-,f rht ~".,!",~"1''"' tnad~ (indcptndtntly
:11111'111
Notes on III.iv (pp.142-145)

of[)ioc.!urm;' va..You) by l'h;:;ciu!i, s en,: .. c,..;rtj MirrMt'J. cd.
563
C Mi.ill~. I (!>:trill. IH:"l.'l)

!73--4, 539~511 (esp. 543). A~ccording '"
StrabQlll it JL!. pp. Jn.x, !olyhlUs wrotl!'of:llc nlvc: ll11DC5l1r:JI Nov;;o,C..nhtgc! mSp;~inth<lr
40,0110 t'!C'I \Wic: -~:nplllyt"C! thc:rt .Uil.~ It;!. the l{._,m;m ~l~t.: rc:o:;vt'll .a :c~~ue of ?5,!KJ0
dradauac: (oHcr 4 ulcnrs) ttr. ,l;.y t'wcordin~ ro l'litry. !\lN XX;l-:11(.~7. 1h~ S[.Qtu~b stlvc;
minll:5 i:1 Humib;~!'~ tim, (thr l~tc Jr..! ....-.rury 1\ C ) hll ptodttccd ]();I lb. \ll'A-1!1<": d::~y
9. Among tht Jlrn:&r\' p.1S5:i!le$ t~f::-rrmg w the -,...,..,l; ti>lion~ ;o~ An<!oc. 1.38; A~."Uhm. I on;
Throphr . Cb.,,_ XX:<.l5; 1\\;:r.l;md., Epimp J'TS-SU
F H. :).mdbarlr = 202-4 ('d. A
Ko,-rr!: (;ttl ref-mi;ll;! It the _.l:"l>o''"'" pairlto dn mli.!tcf~): .m;.i p!csurn.lWV i-'"-Xm ..~111 pl
1.11 (whlt'fC rJ11: IJl~ICf!l hccmllt' 'st.we11 ro rhnr sJa.,.es':): cf. T~.o fr. :Vb (J>p.46-7. cd. 0.
Hen&<.". 1~X~i). 1' S:~~h., Amhol V p.7:'!~ (cd Hr:-.1ur. \'Hl) In l's.-L~. X!. VII. 72rh!: sbve
wh() ,_,-.;>:~ ~-'<< IS a fr~~wo:;~.m. D<m. IV .JI:, :u~t; ~~H.r ill~iuly lfnm cntinly w ir;bt..:n;
and .-\H!'tll. Gr. l.Jl(d 1- i:\ (~cl. I. lwlk-e:) ddln~~ \"'llh: olJv>-rt~ 01-i fn'l.'dnt~'fl o sb.vN
Lampu. mrnt:Or.~.! ag.1in ;m;l ~gain m is_ Drm :\XXIV. H d~9r:'ht:~~ ho'iJ ;.~ ~ '1-hip.lW!I\'1'
(valiAr,pn-.. f,) ;;nil :.! ~ 's!;wr:-' of !Jima ("'"'"!< 11: 5~ S 1i\ f'UI..! him amnng. !iW ~:u<! uf
D1ou); lt a. ~av~:. h~ nughr be m;uid~rni ;~ )c~Ur.i~ ,.J .;till', but I thmk h: w;;~s rrmda !'Jl(>r~ prok,ill~
a fre<"!iHl:lU, ::.s bdt~vc-d hy S:md;;, (~ hiG n.:.r<:> m f-. A P:~ley .:.:>dJ. 1~ Smdys. S..--lrcr i~~ll(
Orat(~''b ~if l_;t~~lhlii,~W' i" i_ !WM] Sr1.). l=:,~;n t!u. . :t~~t.o: l'rl-ilt:-~' WL" mt;S~! l!'! ptincp!~ ~t~~tiJ:;a~U1!i>h
~Ia vn ;JinJ 1-<..- !<H~thc-a {and '""''-~r!~i ro l>) som ~udr .:xjn,~~~i~'IJ "s .uot".pr. i.'ir. _., q{l-..,...apoiio....-.),
as m l's.~Xc=.'l., .ltll :->1 !.17; X.-". Dr o'1'rl J;i 1:..15, 1'1, 2J; 1~:.~ Vl!l ..;); P._ ..J.om.
LIJI.:!LJ.t. D-m- XXVJ!.:?H-i. with XXV:U.I2: llttt>ph: .. Cl:.u X~O:.t:'; /:.:~trl. (;,_
1 211. J:!.J.l (!. IkkkC'r); L l'l..u! ..ui" ~1-..l- J j.;.,,,\,. ,,f n~:~ f>'r.np!.-t\ly <.ltt."i~.:f.::rry
trea[!'lo~~t: , .. fttn~ ''t!~~-t Yr m.ost :("&-.atl"t' IUn~a1 i-:rnnit t EJ.:~-cs \~..,;~~~ ol .tros.-r-7.-( ... ,., .ltrtl drt
Collltj~ {971 "'' tm/,w.;;-.:- (O.:ntre Jc R<'Cn(:tcit,--s .I'J:i:;:oi!e .:.m:iam.:. Vol.: I} = .\1:.:1,-,
littb.ritc; do:- !'l:.!nil-''-ml J,IW.;cml"' !"J (l';m. I'J'i-1) 47-5(; ~'"t 'Con:ubut1m1 :1 !'ccwtc- d'm:~
autn i'arc~g'-'ri, d" ,~Jic!41,.}. ;.!t~ll~-,.. l.._~ .m.-.~lhu:,Jwr "4"'"'~'urltJ1'ta . ha "''''~ . 197 _i ( .
Voi.IM) c: .-\r;~;a/t's ... liQ(Jiarill. h1!1} 17'i.. ',J!. tf !'.t;:! ..l s.~.:-:ob~:-. tar Gr.te-c.;Hum~H Egyp!.
1. B:,lmi;;kr.-M.!towto;t, 'l.t~ ~:;rh\'~ ;';l::ild l'ii'l',.,....,,.; d~rls !'Egy}'t.c 1;"\:--t;;;mat;u', inlfl
1~3-9,
fr:
23-~ On Agarharcbid~.
Fra~r. 1'.-i i
ro
15 (J 11)f,5) i5-1'J: "(."~~~~q~1r:~ f~n"J;'II\~ 1~.:-,0 1\"J'i'!l&'!!'i ._jt' !"nrld'\-;\\:'L" d~l!.. !c lflW1dc ~l! ....~t'"Tl. 1n
Anticlrl'' ()lulr.;.,.,,_..,, ,,. lltui~m Slitr)J (1\-k~::-uw. !.it,1) .il--<. dar l:an'-t with;, ~lercno: (<'/.!
and :r.l) "' an nid,ntl~ u~f<>l :.~hclr ::1 lt;bl!;l!l jWhJch I ,\,. mil :.~ad) by bnrly GncrKal.ak.-.,itch. i1: VL>l ( l',l(:cl rnd) 2.\---4~
10. Amo"g ~vrnl rJn.t)tl.'S r.cornm.:uJing the ......~. i kk slaves, S<'t" -~- Xen., Mfln. II iv.3; x.2:
Otcll. VII ,\;, (' otr.-.-~ lw::trt!os~ JJ\'in i~ in hi~ 0.- .-t,~i:. ii.4. 7.
1I. Varru. RR I. X\'d.:!-:i: ,f. l'!tzt .. C.'~:m. :!. 7, wh"r Cr.:;ss;1s is said to h.tvc taklu gm11 cart" of his
slav;, ~.... !;";"!! tl:.,,); ,,flm h:NJ:.,l,i 'C)IIom:y O<l ;.:hn of Arist., ENVIII.ll. l 161"4 (('f. Pol.
1.4, c.!SJI:-_\,2), lllr Co.llillttdJa p.l.ij;<'1 aU fi'JI I "1.1,-1 (lands W!lh .1 Sl'WH.' dimatL or barren
soil), tt-7 (.litJm ,s::~t.::s).
12. F. l. Ohnst,-.1. .f~mlf}' m tlu .'),,,,,,.,.,,1 Si.w. Sr.lr!.'.> ( 18)6. reissued 191'14) II. 192~3; Tlu Cotton
Kiol,;:ol<'"' (ll'llo!; ,d l\. M '>ihi,~llljl<"f, J':l5.3,1;!l~i~IJ. Th< i'ill'rbl .!:;,.,.,;,,,,,,.., ,-,f rl:, l'~i,~.-ir-t&. Jo!rlh>ll;tio :;!ways of slave (and not l'Wn ftt'('dman)
statu-.. '"'~ roll>i<<-J hy i' II. C. \'1/;;~\-.-r (thn11~r1 :mll;<rfity on rbefamilia Cae.<ari.<) a:; offirials 'uf
inttmu:di;;k t.rt;~;,l..'l,. ~~~ '"'1"-'ri~l ~llr..&nuq l!'t' ho~ JUpcr in SAS (<-d. Finlty). at 1.2<J..32; cf.
his .trtid.:, 'ViCiil1rtl ~n.l ,,;,.,,,,,,,,., tl tlt /',rtrri/ir c,,,.,,,ris', in}RS 54 (1%4) 117 ff.. at 11~2CI:
and h:,: l=.trrnl:.l C.~&;t~F!! ( tl'i.!l .!l'l-1>. ?M -~ ;tc.
l3a. In an interestmg o~a.J ll"t'!i>l !>Jt \''! ~ n--si,l.-.~ au.i .K>nl<'limes inacmratc a nick which appeared
wlwn this book w;o in dh~ ;"RiiS ('H.:tr.al lli-llm ;.. rhro'f.' Roman proVI!lC'-"1 in Non-Sitwe uloour
in tlr, C;rr;,-/lmrwl Jll,,,u. ,,I. l''fT ( ;,:.m;;.~ C.onl. Philo!. So<-. Suppl. Vol.6 ( 191!41)73-l)'),
at 7T. C. R. Wh:ctlt: lu~ ... m~!nim'\ltw.-i"ly tlu error: he can :1ctually speak of slaves
rcccr,l,,l iu in;cnrri,r:s inu:tt~o~g~:i:ol !"sl> _,. ,;.uo:,rned witb cstatr supt"rv1sion. '-"llction of
rcvmntl 'or .t.nm:~~ ~~....-"~ . trrdnmu brc- I h11! :.>t }'odu<tior1' (mv italics) - ;~s if' production'
took piu, "nly at 1bo l<_,,, ,-s: !"''ds (>f work! On the next pag' h ,an say. With somt
tXal'i:H:d:;:t (rlf.-rrml: tlJ Gl'll. mv.n. l!Will\-=>:i lirdc earlier in the maiu f('lll above), that
'Gs;ll'~ ~.:-kbn:i"J ,atalogue ;,i n:r~l I=<' '" R~:., Africa can Without V10knn h< almost
cntird) n.-i."i .u .,,pt't'VtwN .1111: ,\Lnmtl;- >:.tft'' This i!(nt>rts. for xamplc. th larg<'
sla\~;.,\tt'i..\....-! :o~t.u~ ~. i" f~: .. htri:an~ lit""' (.\:-~ in r ~ ~rr,h:ania 10 the mtd-~l~C(lll({ cr..ntury. which
\\'t" h:t;'P\.'\1 ~ . , knL\~ .:lh,~~ ~:!hr [,;-r.t~u.:- vt ~!~': ,\:~r ..!~ .. .. of l uniqut htcr.J.ry text. the.. ApolV.fl)' of
Apu::oi~~~ Wh:r::.J.:r: ,!;-.~ givr :!:~ i'ricf~t r'"ii.J<:: r.-fcnron tu -'~pol. 93 m h1s n.'J.7. bur
564
Notes on lll.iv (pp.145.148)
without mentiot,it~ the l.r~: number. of ~lM,:ji (~)()or :Ior~) .:~r aaother passage m the same
speech, 87, shuwiu!!- th:u at l"".lSr a ilrb:- Fof! ,,fthr ,,~r.ue w:u <Uh with slave labour, There is
nothing to suggest th:t~ rh~ s:~::!!OI! w~; <'M'<'(l~ilw.-.1, .~11J :her m~y have bten an apprcdabk
number of such l.:w-w<.:IHd c::ou.:.:s iu :::r6 Af~k;t. (''<'11 rf :.h<: bulk of tht. agricultural
population was m1.1;:h .-;.; Wiuc:ak<r ,!,>~:;~,.., Jt. ! i; ;o "''.iuu~ C'lmt <>f ml'thod always ro press
what little ~vidcm, WI' 11;)\''lfl}ll~ dm~nim! . .om! 1::. jn-:!:t"t,J that '''"can know slave labour was
almost non-existf'nt i': ~~ i<r ,hit:h th:- ..-~;.1..-rcr- iS ho~h <.!ctiot"nt and largdy tpigraphic.
And Whittaker'!' handling f>i th:- tl:'~<t;, IS mtll<'IIUies misleadn,g. Ht can say, for l'xampk. that
in Oiod. XIV.7J.3 'tho- 200.l:OX Ub;.u;~ wh" r.-h,iku .lg.m:;: C.:~rrhage m 3% B.C. we-retermed "slaves"', w:~>~!~iy (iS~ f ~zilO.ilo:JOsl;&vo:- Ja<~inn~: of .:!1-.).f.(~-, 'bv~. ~ays that Carthage's allirs
formed an army .m.:! rl:o! w,r~ Jl.llu.J i.~y 'f"'!-'!:t.o; .::"'tt si.tv:s-'~ tih ,-la:es are nor emphasised and
receive no furth<r tr,rinrr. Whittt~l<.:~ cl,,uly lm..ws ii!.r nmtc 'iboUt Africa and Gaul than
Asia. He would l"'' ha'-'~' o~~n ll> o.),;iid:-:tr .11,.,..:1 tlw .tlkg<'~t '"vtrwhdming prcd<>minancc of
laoi on the land oith.' Hd!l'r.iwtic ilmi!do:,,.' (77) ifh., h.l(! coikno:~! ull the surviving rcfl'rmct!s
to laoi, which in
arr ii-w. :.tid lmmo.-J .05 .. mk l" spniic j;.,.;ahty, and do nor of1eu allow
us to draw any 11dmio:: ~tom:t til ,,,~m!:t:tlu cl tlw>r i'<:<lp!~ ,xcept that they are nonhello-msed 'nativ~ Wtrh,~ut pi.iui,,..tl ri!t!JI.~o. Wh1t:;k.r is- ;olu. ~1:i~:~ken in supposing that thl'
terms paroikoi and ;,.,,,,,ik"''"'"~ ..-.ar. ~::..ully he :J\<"tpted u r.-irrm~ ... to p<"asants in v<Jriou.<
forms of dfpendmif' (77. my iuH.,.): i<r rh .&~~ <>f;'""'''''~. tllated in the Roman period
with inca/a (whk!: o":\~rll'tf tli} ~tl;gi.'!<l!llll ~~'dependence'). s-;, l.lll n.15 and ll.v n.30 abovl'.
including a refercl"' h> W11~,-. RCHI'. r'P .\5J, 345. It is miJ.-..,bug to say that in th~ Eph<-sian
inscription. SIG~ 742. thl'"''il~o~i ..rc 'r;mhd ''''"ll''idc- !C'mpl, .,rvants and freedmen' (83).
without also mr:ntioning thC' i;.wir'l' (.l ;'riiii{:I!U
L'f '""'-ciriz<'ns) whom they are
equally 'ranked alongsidl'' (ir. i:n(' -14) 1 .o\nd Whitt.lkt:r a .1,_:am wrong in dt:nying (againstJ.
Strubbe, 'A group .flmperial esu~~ ''' .-.mr.al Pluy;:ro~.l .i.<. .S,:c. 6(1975].229-50, at 235)
that Soa (the Socni) had becomc !'';:.; h~ th, ttnrt:U-l(';JlR [\' .i-11:;; rhar dcr...~ is by the l)ovA.iJ
as well as the &;,p..I!C, ~ .-J,,u =~n "( j rli'. t:nr<~ulkkJ /;~. t~r .& [ know} for a mt.rc village. 1n
Asia Minor or Syri.&.Jt Jr1v r.lr('. i. Jortts. Cl~R1"'t'J .WJ n.l"'. lml. on the gen.-rat qul'Stion.
IV. ii above and 1~ .ll~ h<'l< W
14. Sl.-cjoncs, LREII.1:1K''l. r:~r. 'NIJ (with HU54u 41!-).Jc:r>lll<'. (:.>mm. in Epist. ad Tit. 1.7 (MPL
XXVI.566}, assutm~ tho~r tht C:"l'''Dl"'ro~ry lieN> wtllll< .- s).,w.
15. The bibliography n .annnu <;)a"'' 11'\'tlt~ ~ wry l.tflt<' 'fh~ b.-st 'mgk tn::llmlnt for English
readers is Vogt, .\..,.Uf {m f:nghh tr.JJ;~'bttt>ll) :1-.. wtth :~1:;.. !4. gtving sufficient rdcrcncl'S
to other work. St.'<' .J.~, ,.. ~. Ttynlx~. llt IL\1,-;....~1. Ou tht rC"vclts in the Athmian silver
mines in the S<."ConJ h;t(f l)t' tht ~,,nd n.'J1tury ll C., <;<.,. n.ll ~loovc; and for the war of
Aristonirus in A~i.l Mim.lr in 13.\..1~"1 !S.C. s..., . .'\rpenJi\ IV C~L'\~. 3 ad init . md its n.!L I
need waste no tim<' tm tht r~nlt <>tS;mrn~.::u' m rbc lt'l>J"'foiii.UI'~ in the late second century
B.C., as there ism rC"a<Kn tt> ~ulpo.,.; dut Saumau W;t~ asl:~.v lhtsuppon of this view I can
now cite Zv Wollj?;antt Rut>m~fu. s.urmo~kM: .nrc 1<1ot htt)'. modem pobucs', m Historid
19 (1980) ~70. an .ani.-IC" whi.-h .arpt..nJ .at(,r thil>t..,,k wa~ lim~hL-d. It includ<-s an English
translation of the Diophantus ms.:r1ptt"n frnm Ch;-ro.""'"'u~' :;IG 3 700 = /OSPE 1'.352.]
16. For the idmri6cation of ori,~in4,il"nti'"'lt:; an.t ~mpri;~tfewur'il>)J)tlOo. see Jon.-s, in SAS (ed.
Finley) 298-9 ff. = RS: :1112-.\ if; .mJ RI; -U7. Th~ lw ..... J7n. ofValtntinian I and his
co-emperors, is C..J XI.:dviii.7.pr.: 'Quema,bu ....ium l'n!!n.ano~ :~bsquc t~rra, ita rustiros
censitosque servo~ V<'lldt omnifariam mm hc-1'1'. (lr muNI b.- d~tt'\1 between the cre:ltlon of
Gratian as Augustus in 367 ~' th J.ath (lt V.ll.ntim.an I 111 .\'iS,) This ml'asuK wa~ repealed
(probably by Theodoric II Jn th.- 4!>{1o,/4f,O~. ful \'m~~:cthic G.&ul: >L't: Jolowicz and Nicholas,
HISRL 3 468) by 142 cfth<~ l:Jrituffl rrr.~>J..,,t mmtiCin<'d \4:t' Man m,,,h. in Clillli 1: .'5.:>. In 37:7 Constantine had
ordained that slaws mt('rL-d tn thl' .-msus lit~ (.,.,,.,.,.;.l .l>'irt.J ,,..uibus) should be sold only
inside the same:
Cl'h Xl.iii..l . .addr,M4.-.l th \.~m.~ ~acedoniac ("ould the law
perhaps have hem imn.kd for rh.- ,tj,,.,~ <>f Ma,c..foma uul\~). In CTit II. xxv .I (perhaps
334) Constantine bad protested against th unn.:t:csury brNit.mt=: up of slavt' f~milies when
estates of the imperial household in SarJJJUa haJ l>em re..mtly .iivided among individual
propril'lon, and had forbidden suc:h things for the- turun:. !In th C:) version. lll.xxxviii.11,
referma-s to tolot~i adscripticii and ruruilini have N<':!l infrll"l~t:.l.) Hut although Constantine
ua
'"'''li:'"il
P'""'"'';
t,;
Notes on 1/I.iv (pp.149-151)
or
17.
18.
19.
20.
here ~~~b Ill gtn~!al terms

~!Jc.' undcsir ~biliry of bn>aking up families, the actual terms of
the- law, t.'\'l'n m ~~~ bwadn C.J ronn, wt>ulti ::<j>piy only ro the division of L'States. In 349
Coml ..m~iu.; H. r::nntemp!..ing tlut m !Kln~ (unspecified) circumstanc,s serving sold1ers might
bt" gl'vaJ imp~n.;J FMmi~on to lt.:.ve thnr hm;,IOt'hnkh: (/llmilia<') wnh tltcm. specifically limits
this to 1h:-lr 'wl\'1'1i, dlllch~n, QOd~Lno:,; hou~hr ..uh thr paulium castrensi, and excludes their
'slavNt'l>rnii<",llo;t :h,(';'fl'<'-' lis~ (otrvot .. .:satpiPJWuibus): CTh VII.i.3"' CJXII.xxxv.10.
Cf. P<lyh. IV )li.7, w)><'t~ !h<'iMi ha11d~lt b:.u:k to rh Byzantines by Prusias I an no doubt the
H1thvn~an (:ds. Stt Wallx.nl;, fiCJI ;m
Thuc.' LIOl.J. (Cf. H.. ;,bov~. at p.~.;] 'lllliE!'dit.k~ says that mvst of the Helots were:
Mcss~iii\S, :md tili~ was .:hy t!to:y ,,{/cum to; he c:Uid 'Mcsscnians'. He does speak twic~ of
'Mes~emans ;,nd lic-!a:,.' {V .J'l.~,. ;f,.21. .;nd m1.-~ ofr,1;:ssenians and the other Hdot~' (35. 7) who .. l't' j<)iuet! with 'J<'~,~t.:r;; r:.~ul l..:&<:ol:ta' (perhaps som~ Perioikoi as well as Laconian
Helots), lm11:15(,,:_>. ;u( ~ilo'IJ>Iy 'tilt Hdor.< frr,n i :rami' But he refers more than twenty ttme5
to all riKH '''hn Wl'r; to Naui';n'tU\ .t~ 'Mtnlur'', and that was what those s~ttled at
Naupattu$ c;llcrl :hml>~hcs (M/L H. n. Doubk~ those who survived in the r"volt of 465/4
ff. wcn u.;.m~y Mtsnoi.ulS. D!Cd, X!.tlJ..t.l. 1-4.'7-b ts very unreliable (note esp. the exaggeratln" m f.'l ; ,4). ,-\ilh;;u;;11 th .-..::hqu-11<. Y.nm~<! in Laconia, indeed at Sparta Itself. and
one nughl !.h.-r<'fcn Cl<J'r~ !~:. 1.;..-mt~:l Hdnt,. w :tt"i:.c tht'ir opportunity and revolt first (as
indt"(d nw ,_,; ~h:rtl :m: h1v~ :1'.11!'), fl;d,:rrc i:cs the main role to the Mcs~cnians
(64.1.lj .. m.l :1 ~~ o.m!y :! .; hr~ 5L!~"C' th.lt h, wtitl'-" 1>f 'rbe [Laconian] Helots' as revolting 'all
togtrh.-r' (o:.... ,.s:,l,. whim mu>r be ;u; cx~g.-r.. ti.:-:1) and joining 'thl Mcsscni;ms' (64.4).
Again. m II~. 7-~ '' !s t!il}' ~h..- i\-ks~1H.ms ;,ho ;u~ .Jilowed to go from lthomC' to Naupactus;
the S~au;u:>'. :ys Diode:;;;, pnn:sla~.i (will: ,k.llh. ub~iously) those of 'the Hdots' who bad
lx-cn th<'IIUthul"\ of h: nvuh. ~.,,.; "cI"U'W"I' tb~ :.- ~~- l><'rhapsa misundcrstandmg by Ephorus
(alm,st \<:r!:ttn!~ th:- s.ourcc oi i_I,.:>Jcnt> hen) ,,j :he i;lnguagc ofThucydidcs, who nils all
thost s;nl<"<l :~t N,m;:1o:I:Js 'M~:S!cn1~ru (>t."e ~[w\'c}.
Arrian. lr.i W. ~ (w rr~t<';> ;,, til<' nmi~t--c:"t cnu u:>). "11'-'lks of the Spartan Helots as if th~y still
extstt'll it hi~ ,hr: bm th: ,,...,.,-: ~ll__. u '"''""'"''trot Arrian is simply rransntbing here his
sourn. M .,p,thna.~. whu wt' ar.:wu! .IIIli U ('.(I'. A. Brunt, whose knowledge of Arrian
is un~nrr.ts.s.:,f. .!t:ol wh r;; i'h'i'lilj.; ;~. 1c~ '~ ,;,!iot.'t I !hr second volume of Arrian for the Loeb
seriC!', tells uu tb:ll il<'l"')C,Ill~~ "'''h ;'.&l~l,$su.:,., ~~ cit><.a.Ctristic of Arrian.) Pl.'rhaps some of
the Hd.ts v.ltu rou.Jht:-.! .If~,~~ NJbi'.s l~m~ ,,!_,c.,iu,d th<ir fr~cdom and othlrs b,camc
outri~tht sl;ao11rs. hr" Slilkkll r,iilt:ttlo.nl ttth.-.::o,"K':< advanced by Cbrimes and Robins, s
B. Slnmh::. 'N.tli ,,f..,r:,:,.. ::11:-i th. 1-kl;,t,.. ll t:{r-.: (1966) 1-7.
Amontt tlw uwst iut.-ro~Uh!: h':>:t'iJII lu"l''ln.r;,j uiT!l.-,.,aly are Dcm. XXII!.199, w1th Xlll.23
(Menon tbt- n,~~g.ahan bring! 200 or 30J of lm Pmcstai to Athens, to srvc under him as
cavalrymt); .'udn-:L;;oohu~. fi.rli t:~ f ;, olf. \:!"'11. Vl.264ab; Xcn., HG Vl.i.ll; TheopomJ'- PGr/lll5 fHI,olfl, Athc \'J.l.'o'I!:..C>II.l ll..u<H< of no further reference to the Pcnt.,;tai
in a rrt..!t!-lo h!lit.-fi<':J.I cnh'l<.! .&f~o
fmtnl! I<'IJiury B.C. Slc alS<l Lotze, MED 48-53.79.
For th<t:.ct tbdt th< J'.n.,.t.;,J.:tld ntot i,. >nM if the land, sec n.35 below.
Sec Elt;,tl\lr S,,.uJ,., /..orJ~IJi~ :# C.un:tl"''']': lio1t1ir ,lft;,.-y lltld irs &mlieu, 1066-15J8 (Toronto,
1974) 16'1, ; ;J..5. I!!.J. !'H. z.,7.. 3Yl (..-sp. 268-9. !TJ.fK).
For some cxamplcHJfsuch gifts by f'i'Ui:m l.:n1p..1u;t:-vcr. satraps. sec my OPW .38-40. We must
not add tht' gift bv Phamabazus tt Alc::ii'n.~,l,.,., .Ilk!;''' I hy Nepos. Alcib. 9.3. a crude error by
Nep<JS m In~ ~urc~. ~.: H.ttido!. t\!: .\-4-:!rl ..~.
For the unfJir lrC'JIJJWlt ,, Aho~b \'llhkh w 11111: nJo<ft from the authors of Kings, sec my
'HeruJjttu,ri, m Gr(t'i'f aiJ.I N"lli 1 ]I 0'J7J) L\<1-~<!, ,,, IJ2-3 and n.J. In their present form, of
COUf!o<'o King" I .md II .;,r.- ll'i't'\:l;~ll~ i:.ta th.11< tlw r.-tgn of Ahab (c. 850); but l regard the
picture uf lsr~dit bnol t.'ll:mm tit, ~;~ba~h >Wry~ wry likely to be historical.
I need .:it;. o1nly 'I .-o:l .!\G11IIUI'i5, .:p. !iw II. whm: Altunder claimsthe x<iopaas his- with
the important '"!ISt'o.jU<':'r tb . a it ~m ..u! Ji.1ll to >;,.,., as thl.' next S(.'ntcnc"shows. One can
see such a dann t;.n"11bJol,,,w;t m X~'llli<'ll. ~ 11.-I/(rlictl, where the property of the undcrsatrar !\bm;~ illl.t. 1.?.; i~ IJtd a> th.- prop~rty or'h<:r' n~-<ster Phamabazus, and is consequently
rcgar.t.:J ol.~ having pas~d h tilL" '''n4n~~(:~ ,lfl'it,tm.tl>.rzus ( 26). Ofcourse C'Vl'll a satrap. in
Greek cy.'5, was but J ~I:aw' ,,f tho f:~o:~ Kn,: (>~"(' Xen . HG IV.i ..36: ~.\o"'); cf. the
allegl'lll,t!r I P~rn~ I. Mil. :::>, ~.t.ir,..,.;;,;\l l'.t~cortul &wA,..., (lines 34), where the king
speak.; .;;il:j;,.q.;,,.
[)'!~, fourth-centur> I ~:.-.i.:,; ;t;;d Maccdonians d1d not distinguish as
clear)} J~ w. ;,(., b<."tWl";.'ll ~l.l\'t'r>i~uty ~to;l .~.,.n,r.;.bl' and l am not dear what th position
21.
22.
23.
24.
565
566
Notes on 11/.iv (pp.152-153)

~'11nlr ,,.~ in.~d!AenJco.tid P~rsin_
25. Tin y~~ :~ ,~;-snih-~l ~s 'the ~'hh y~:.r' (of :iw ~ci~ucid o=-r.a): that
RCI-W. pp..:~:, (o;mn:;;.,ut;~.r~ I'Ht ml.ll'i.H WJ
r.;,
254/3 B.C. See Welles.
26. [''~'thinking p;tr:i,ul;~rJ~, of ITo:<'lll ~r:ick~ b~ i"il'!l(' Hri;m:. "'I' RLER = 'Rcmarqms ,;ur i<'s
''I lui" et ~~du'\'~~ r1or;m.~ en A:s:n: jv.iucmc hcll~mstil~llc!'' 11! ,'\,res du Colloqtu 1971 sur
l'r~r!.::-11_~.- = AmMfrJ Urtbol:t ri.-/'UniJrr.;il~ dr lkJ.nr~"" J.;jl (t'otri~. IY72) 'H.I.)J, at 103-5.
Hri.JI>I hdit'v~ 'tis ~~:i~~- th.a tbl" ''>fll ot ,;,,. Laad;cL' <nsaiptJ<:>n (\VeiiLs. RCHP I H H. 12,2o)
._,,,.,.. lot $<>!<! w:th th" !an..l he- :hmk~ L~oo;1n r\'C.''"o;-..i onl~ :b"' rcv.-nul's of the land! This
misc.ak, S'.'t"lll_. :,) 1o.' ;,,<>IJ(l~'ti,m ;w-o mi>t ,mt~-pllot!~. fl!'!-t, Uri.im plans great cmphasis on the
f.;.-:, ?OUt:nl o;:t h 6rilrrr:;.m (whidl i .Jbr: ;)(C{'\'1), dut :hi f'L"a->ant~ arc bound to thcir villa~e
ra:h:r th~:; !. ;ud:h.!n;! 1lc1t~: ~hq ;;r(' .rdJcripri l'lfr> :;ah<o tlo;m.tJ,, riJm ~lcl>ae. (So wt're some
l.1~cr l~m:&;J l"..'a>-J~t sl-.: IV.ii~ :..0-1 ;I\1-c:we.) Hut unk~s W(' ~rt ro prt'tend, gratuitously.
that 11,,. G!'C':-k ,inn :ivt "'oi"::'f ;..-h~t 1r Jays, ~~ mus.t ;uhnit that rh:: vilbg<' its<'lf was nrtainly
~alnVC)..:a;.f l!"il J.-\.:dil."'e~ .u~~t tin~ S1'1.r";oo. :1~:0 HrHi.lii,! ''"~ lfr.'t.J)'rng tit~: c~ pc-.lsants
also passc.d to lht

.;s '"'r ,\,,r;:rr.cm 1:dn'tl ~p~o:n'ir:.Jiy ~av. ~.w1uii~, lirianr has appanntly misun.ic:.;lt:o.Jd !illc'~ ;. !3 .-~it!l trl;:ri!"llll (wht<h ~h cmt<"L'Ih' t!:tnd.rlcd by Wcllcs). I fJncy that
tw mar h.a,.,. hvr: m:sk;i ~w :h, r,ftr<'=r:cr m iiii<"S <).Itt to 'rh~ :t"Jt<Hues of the 59th [Sekucid]
y::~!' (ci: n.:!S .tl:>vd. ,.,J>i n:ay h.i<''-=' f:.il(,! :;~ r.alist< ~hat rhi>- r~im ;! specified merdy to make
:r d,;s;-~""'~ly :tf .vh:or lltll;--L~.'lC!i~ '" tt:tk m;r :iu rl"~r!l\1<'!- bert RCHP70.9 is rd('vant.
:-.;,." r:'.tubl:si~.-d .t~ ,; . t rt:. /'!,,.: ].t -1 rht~ .i.Jnt:ill"t,: h,\> ian lti.-.ll>S<'U again and agam since
!!~ ;ongt~n! p.~,;,b~l';t!\m o>':~r 411 ~:,h .:;g., by 11. U.:\J;':<Il '' 'F..itt E:hn d<"s Komgs Ptolematos II
Philaddphos 1!!:-.r ~h Ot:klar..uon v~n V1eil " Sl:l~vtn :n 'Y"~'" u. l'honikicn'. in A~!,'- 16
(19]6) 257-91 I~ wiilhl' s-o~ftkicrll t rite" 1{,"''''''7~11. SF.fii!Jio'l..>~)..(, (with 111.1400 n. 13S) .
.llltlth.: l.att-sl tr,,o\tiJI<'t~t. wlll;h u ~-(u'?l:m:lUy ckiir :orui :>~mihlc, by HI.zuriska-Ma1'owisr,
EF.C;R I (lli;&] 'N if.. ''I' :_l~:>. 1'1-.1!
Ui,7uri.d~o.a-M:tf<WM. EF.Gk G].~. J(,,,,,_,,.:J'tri. SEt!/IJI'l.:H.!-:!.
s,,l'trJl I'MOA. in I'TGA (,,i_ M I Fi.-.lqJ. "' 7~-f}, ii H't('l w 'paysans dependants' and
.::om pares cb.m 1.\'ith :h, Crcr.a.tt,...-.r.., <>r
For other l.'\'Jd<'lltC\', ,,..,, th<'''-"'"\"' dtsn:~! h.r.. wi!icir m:.y :mbcatt thc prl'so:m, of nativl'
: ,,.;lt:t'tto,
27.
211.
29.
30.
..,.,.,...-,1
s.rls, s~o't." ,. g. At!wn XV.t.'Ji<l. wh1r.- .\:t;~h:~ I of J>,t~dll!lm appoinh a 6coca<Tril~

;~n,.,.,llii>l
:-iJ . ti.o:&<r (unk" w, ~h,uM ~.-:..1 ~-"..,..,< UOIO'&lu~. with Atkinson.
SGCW.'\M .l<ln. J:.!i.l'lut . Eu1;11 H ')
t!u ~'l'rlfg~ ,_,f(:,laenat, <- 321 B.C.); SJ<;J
.~:~;!. 14-!5 .IJI,i ~'dk>. RCHP" IU tT (l',,li,i~ "' p,;,,,,_.); Or'; IS 215 and 351 ( = lmrhr. von
l'r~o.,,. 1!>1 .m,l .\<.1:
.'\Jf;' 27~> ~-~ ;ami .\1td:d, !UG ."1..>: .27 = S<;DJ III.Ji.5533 e.6
,...,.. ,-(,,
('"'"'""Ito
,,,;,,..,,.,.i.
[L.dd.L}; Scrabo Xll.i1. '), p.il9 (tlwlm~~ ,,fCJr)'J'ako.a ho&.fJ""~s.sS<:d ucl.,.om mth<' .uca of
M.l:!a<.z). A;:;dr;nrh t.:md. f-C.-H S, F l1, ap f'.thm V!.::!-;;!d. is mmtioncd m the text
ab.w.-. A nuntclun.-.11 tonu whid1 u '" ~:ou,.uil~ ~.tl;,.t h tr,)tt..,J.ot< 'dP<ndanrs' (its Lmn
i'tJlll\'.:tlcnt t!o .litlllf';) is Jft-'ci'l'".: """' .-. ._:. ClkU .i76 = JOSI'F. [L\SJ. line 5 (an ins~:ripuon of
~hn,m,t;~l,t-,;. :\ J)_ ijl. fromth.- 'Unsp,r.at' ktll~dmn-); 1'1;;1 c ..m. 21.7 (Pardnans); cf. the
r.po'""*i:w t>f thor lllyn.att .\r.ho110tt. wh" Wi'f( su~h 'i'rf~ .JJ:J could bt compand by
Th.~rot~Jrl:~ w1th th. Spart:aJ Hd:~ !~"'
;uot
ah.;.,::, _i1as1 ~!tt>r the refc:rmn t(O n.l7) _
31. Th,m;.nJ~U<>Ilo>i' Mtt...,llllolo~t:.IS W;aHir>~ l''tiohht~li\ W H. Jl::<idcr and D. M. Robinson. m
:1].-\ It (t'll.!i II JI,Z, .mJ l.:alt'J m dt u ,,I.CJn ..l h i~-IIJIl lis .-.!Sardis. St~rdis VII. i (Lt>tdcn,
J),\!1. nol I. lc ha rc,'lltly b.t'li r.ruhlit ..-.1 with ~~~ F.nghsh u.m~l.nion .md rcintrprttation
by K. M T. !\dun"<n. .'1. lldll"uJ~tK J.md wnwpnn~ the est:.t or' Mncsimachus m the plain
t>t'~.arda~'. 111 H1.l'"" :!I (117:~1 .1,5 -14. ''hs.' .tn:&l~st" ''' ;tm~:Jl Ltcc1't. (Thl nkvant lint"S ate
I II. 14-l'i. If>: 11.5.; H,r m;,~: im('tr..&r.t o:o_utdu~i ..n twhio::h ts \\nainly correct) is that thc
o>ugm:.l tran'>o~.-uun wo~' who~t F.ugb.h l.t\\'Yt'r> ""'"''''' ~!I" mY~' .-.nn' and not a 'mortgageSw .al~u thnarhcr rttdc l>-,. th, s;~mc o~mlu.r. S.G<:W .o\M. ~"'}~ ((>tlth.eesratr ofMn.simachus)
.\i, 4(. l.1ls. .a~r._.,,. wu~: hr :h.11 ~b.-smui'!ms c.tul.t mt h,,,.~ ''"'""' thl" property m freehold:
h~ t<'lllll<' i quite .-lJtii~.-url~atn rh.u ;;w" '" c'.); b,.b: .mi Ari,todicidc-s (Wdlcs, RCHP
)g..~~~.lml l(l-13). I rnu~r~Y, lo~m nm h:ti'J}' h.'llt cr.-:t:tl): rh .;,,:-ra, hrre as slav~. since th1
Wdrd ttaoocl>i>!"'f" :wrh,;:i I< rl:.:-m in I tn., '" "''' Ul uy ,,;p:-rt.:r;;-;: nscd for slaves.
32. I h ~tl>nd gcmr.1l ~kli<nrt, I"'"'''' ;,; :h.Jt<tl(~rv,~:-cii . \l:t-11-lW 1.277 ff_ ("P- 277-80);
II. I 1'H.-I:Kioii .-r I h:a,: ,,b;._, ;,,::rv.! \'c'!~' in&Ulla~;, rh: :lhl'ugh monograph by lza
Htdm'i.ok.l-M.a!vw~;;t. ii[:t-;H 1. n th~ l'tku;!.:; ;~od;! :b:i no:>r s..'C' VoL II, on rh< lloman
~~n,,d, tlltti! tbi,. ''"'lt: \\'7to f:u:>!K~. M\ld~ :mc:-s~ h.:.~ 1~.-:: ;,hrown in thts subj<tr in recent
'1-''.r.; b,. Sv\'1<'1 ~h:>l.lrs. bu: J~ I ,lo lill r.~.d i{ll~"i:l" ! ws u~1 .tille ro examinl' any of the
""'
h'-''
Notes on lll.iv (p.153)
567
works i ~m now ~oin~ to rn~ntron ;mtil dus j:';m of nw book wa5 vi..r:uailJ finished. The main
works th;.: h.1vl" com, to my i.zwwlo:dL~c- .ue as ii11luw;,:
(I) Th.: .il.... ~aagc mttnngt"t'h '" Ru~~~n i.a~ N N l'iku!. (Pikous). the mrn:h ride ofwhi.::h
wmald be tl~rim/t;~.,, my.w.\' fpmtlw run mmtidi.Jt_. l'' .misdns d:ni.I'Ejyptt tlu .Y .!itrlr 1W. n. (.
(Mm...lW, 1%'1}, with rhe nvi1w C.~ H('llu HL.,IKTI m C8~5 (1970) ltlf...S.
(2) iluo rontribunun by Pikus '" the Alit'! JIJ )(' c,T,~~re3 inttmtlt. k Pap>;rilii)J!IItJ (WO!r"a'~.l
Cracow, 1%1), cd. J Wolski (W3rsaw ere. 1Wo4) IJ?-1!17, entitled t'c:;r.i:oH~tc dans
I'E~}'PU: hc:D-i:'lusCiquc'
(JJ ,'\ lm,k 111 nw!!i~u uf:!Hpp hv K K. Lclyon (~11J 11.1. K TrV.nuov~~. lh frrw h !ilk o;
whidl W('UJ.I b~ l.nJimrl~i J( dipi'IIJ.JnU hu :,, Mt'a!liurr.trn'~ (rirfll.ak .l /''1'"'1"" ltlfllHiJii<fU'
(M)~.cow, 1'lf''l) 11-i~ ""''~9b nf
~-par:.w ,wJ:o-,, oi which th1 tina, bv Zd)m, L~
fonm.":> (~< d~'pl:nd;\IIC~" !'O:p."ql"" hdiL"niiinqu;,' (pr.tJ .. JI'fJ. y;nmds p>arm:ul.arlv imcrLsrintl.
inth~ avt~w by L F i=iklun.m. in Cf:45 (l'}1fl) ill1-l. .=.t il')-4
(4) /..('iym'5 ;1rtick "' <D' (1'-1(,7 no :?) 1-.H. in ;{u&Si'll> '' lth Ho !:nt;l>ioh """fllilf y. rh~
Eugiid1 H~!t- <ll whld1 I~ 'I'; in.:!;l.,.nf murpbo!n!!k:1l d~\i.<it:,.\U<>\1 nlr< >rm <lt d.;<'nIL'FIL<''
(5) A ho1k. -~~~~n~n:,. P\lh-~;~hc~i i:J nu.~si~t;; ~~ T \' itb"~~;L;aii. t. S G~hdH"it..""l.'J ittl-':! A !
Pavh.l\~~k..:il:l (rvtu~n.l\\', 1%..:-:aL ~;1\! '",htil'!ucntl~. tr.u~~l:hd int<J G:.::n1~P. a:s Dh 5.&:(.-rwrr :,1
!!''"''
c:,.
lul/,-,;;rrgl:. Sr....,,.,::} -I . .fl J.'

cw.~-sbadm. ~1 !). :hr ori~:;-,Jl l~I:TI! rzn ufwhkh.
by P.tv!ov~k.;it;:, w~5 ~~~,,c--1 by 1:7;; Uo~!>ari.k:l-l',toTawli! :n hn.ch l!l CE ~. ( l'fll) :!\ioi-~
(6) .~11 iTWi<. ly hwloor<J<:ilol Of) !-'Llt (i'JI(, fiLl..'} 7.\!4, Ill ih;~L~II i:h an lOI>glsi:
SU.l:~JH.:I!)'. :hi Enghsh ci:l" "..1-l~ "' f:s(h ;~ ~\!.1\'.:"~ in -l~f~:.HhUfr: IU ~.tftt:st.a F.g 1~~~
In my <>!tlntUI mo mncil -m~h;ms rr.\' lJ;;w ~~!J pi~<:ro by sc:t~ ~.:llolan vD tlw f.ttl th.lt tile
knowr. l.,;:~,~ (from ''l.'f1o. Jm~i:,J .:;r~;J.S). !:1 dt. ~:.JI: l'hlkttu: ;:'{"nm1or.r-i.ill~. :.pj~-'' t tx
fret.~ C(Ullfdcts"'. rh~.lx-;tSJHt:J ..\'Ch~ :il(!diy .:Ol'l~rc.lkd T!t n:~r:t~ ufrtanr "'l!:l'it:ulrur;~] .l~..hi.lits (!~
e.g. l{<o~tuvtufi. .~f:li!IW! !l~r. :i7 ..>l\l). Th ~ng.tg.-,l ill d!'l'r.-..tu.::l~o::r1 .:! ~~;,t.:,k
oils ~'\,r~. ..up~r\.t.St.d .ut.+ h'J:lll..trc.-d t' ldt "xtr. l.-rcl:n.~r~ .t,~~:r.-..: ._,,. !1.i ~r..;.;. bAM,I Tli..,:a~tv ''!.J
P. R,-,. !.Au'' !'"!th ~c:-.:-;liii:J m W. Cit, 2~~ (.:A. !-1:?). :!4'' {:-11_;..7). ::.><n (.~5N}. li\1 (7J-8):
and 111 Hum ;;o11d Edt=:;ot, S.f J!. m-35. no.::".l~ i-k .ll'!Y) I ~ct,:ard. tit:- >JUcnmn o! tk rok
pJayl"U by >l.n~ ~ll f.,nptian :-=U<11lllC hi.- .1~ sll1J r:a~ti\' ->II 'JJ!t";l >Ill". _<\, f';"~dr;J; r!u II>.' eof
sJavri '-~~ J~:-Jc.uh~if~t iH the Pru~:m.ric ;'t'J't.::d. I .:~;:tee ~\itl rh.: 'li,.uf,;~, h.....~.. :uh ,.. x;.::t~so.J 1,~.
Uidoml.k.t-l\hf,-,,\ lf.l (('llot,. ri't' with ( :t..i~o: l'r-o'-Ju:) :!1.1: 'k J'r(Him,: '"' J!t'\1~ Nr, ;ldntl
tavt.~nltUI r~o,... !\i ~.,!.t~::-.l',":.r..a .a~:th! Ja-~ ~,:hY:~/ ~EEGR )._,)) :\ltho-,~~h . h ..r- ..-~; ....n: bh.t ia. tfr,
sam<" w>rl-. sh:" u
.i'-riri..ll, f<J cund\~ol.- that il;tlerr s,,v.nt <J!h" ti.rt ;en ..J''"'i"'rr.m.:c
comub... t~rrn~ d' rr:,\--:~il d.;a~-p f,'s. dont.liiJ~ fllli.tfn~il.a.~-.: d""' i;, J~r,n.dnc:iuil \td 1.*'11 ' . cf K:!~'
'She ...u~ U~\,rth~lr.'!L~ .1is4, .ffinn. .),lltb.tus c.'\~ ig.&rtl,nt.\ \~lh."'"-'-~!'\4 \.'(!"'"" ,(t.h" f . .:..d..t\' )1~, ~.lut \ ~
classiquc: ,\\!r"~t unc ;,:.s;..~7. gr.;t,d~ :aurcr1~m.,. ~-r qu,l.: ru~:ubrc "-~- ~"" bv~~s ~t''\',\~l ~~,::f-IJI!to!_.;.!.'l k-~
chiffr,... !lh...1t-..lt> '1:,, l'cr~ ;c;(tllt'l p:ttfr_,,. ;l.ua~ h hrrc'-r-..!,.ro ill ,,,..,.. (ii 1~5). E.,._.,, ia>t llw
Egypt:.ou ,..,., .he: h,l, w.-ll .km,ntr.u,~d tis~: sLt\''' cWtlln!tij~ 111 l'ti.-m.i.: E~\r! \\'o~.lw H
mean>- ,.,,,tfincti c:;. dsl" nd1 hut WL'Ilt ~ g<!<'At \,l;a~ dow111h~ soc;.,l ;,;::.tk: itl~.~.tlll<: 'rris n'r..Jrt.i>c
dan~ ll's lll:ii~~IIS ,~.-... ;:~"l"'ll otis.O,.. rt:N \1M IY. .-f. l:lil ~..i Cl' th:- tl!~l l'""'!;f AJ'h >ll 11.1 .
on J,~ n)l,~ d~a"$. tti'Ch\ ...-s d..&JJ.i J, .. IU_I\.I~":'l~ H:.JiS-\J.;lS ---&~;~t~~.uur"";.t) ~.......
;u rht"' :1Jth" hn
EEGH I l.i4' !}!''' .m>.l IW.> .w.:,t,'!> (~ltr.~oly .:mtl ''' n.'l ;,1,.,.\'r) :.r: ...,,1.za~. 0.tyo~t:l
l'mr....,.,,... ~l,tu~ I'F.f!V}l~ r;r,:..:,_._,,,n,uw'. 1u_(if'l5 it'J!,!\t ~t 7o..?; .lut 't.}L..Iqu..-.
nll
typi<tli<'S J,. r~.scltV'lj;l' IllS :~ lll<IJI.f~ ...:n<'la'. ill .b.rl:l......- CJI,.<h:h.-su I= tblilt'PII s.~-,..,d
(MO!<.-mt\'. l'lf7). :.r'J2-4. ,;, li~\'<'torh;-. <lmi,J.IhHt: w~hl \IS.'tl"'l:...-.:~. -mh tlr.,..,~ll, rr.-!a
woul.lh..,~'lllll'"'' blo..-1) to.!v ....... lith rrp.ns.d ,:l.t." .., ' \\ h.. l,m.hltJa' .~;,.,!.{ u.. oi~lAve
l.alxmr ttl Eg rrt. ,.,,..rr tm J,,TU,<.ti.' I'"'' I"'"'~ an.J ill Wa>rk ~hop. ,,, rh. f<'\\' .-w.~ ~.~I' 11.!1
Alr~;IIIJ J.2), tlws I wcnld '''PJ'<~S.~ rlut the '''"<hfl-'" ufri i.-,. I""-" i!~>C'!!';>IIIS, ~rt1!\illlrs,
htrl."<ll;cbour,t, .mJ >thosJ w.u st .ci:>_J('<'I.\~ It nul< l.-~.1! ,... ,l;,v~r,.! ~al;,.,mnU' I stbp..ol.
how.v.r. tll.tll:uir. '<: bl'itu ""' r have played l ,.,r...at.:r rrr ... ft.-iJil( :It; ~rr-ari-.1 rl<A<.<".J :.:rlr
thrir ~,,:lk.o th.t IIW-t F.~yl'l"lgiSis have b.-.1 '"t''"'h'l iu r~vcaling. ,,,,..,_,,.,.,, nnn.lv ~s
they b;~\' b.,: will! ~udt :uJthr~ .~ tl:t ~lure "I,;."''' 111 ,..,.,,!nmic bfc Ill i:<.11o:r;.l. r..athl"r th.l!t
their rok Ill pr<,,.Jm!:' '\ i'~ir!,; .;m;;.ll<l;c.;.,;. ,,i rr>l'''rtYWlll'f~ "'lth .~ urp(u,;. h> JXrti.--.:.IJI,
fornu,;. ,,,J..btl"-n.t;,.g. mdu;l:utt !hL'IIIt>r,;- burJ,::~<'u;.~ v.m,n~ :,fp.n.t>r.v>J.' (~ 1:. ;J. bd,w),
may h.a\'c; ~., 111:;r~ important rhtu -:.;;.~::~..,},r~e~ ~~J:s,,.:~i- Ar,d ,~"rri .r),J~rr:i iid\':-ry :(t;i~' hullo.
largn th.m Itt mm~ modern an~url., if w; .:; u m ;it.: w il;' I ...,, .;,;h,~:&tul;l .~ :. r.:,~:m.: c.t
pro,iding tht" pr.r-m;;J i.'l;u.O<',; with t!J,,r <mJ'h:~. ;m;l ;f ~..: :11<" rlt-1:-f,,rr.: l~<>t ilNil;;.~;:l hy :h,
=t"
,w,,, .
fi"'""'
(...
fact that the >r"iiU4J'\' i:-rt ~~'fP~~\1 v\\tl-\! ':'~ ~h\1 ~~'-.
!til\' U~,:Jt !h.C,J: !'~l.,.lt~fit::it\"l 1 :0t"~-"r !t~:.&H ~1;
568
Notes on ll/.iv (pp.15J.J54)

dh.~ rt~'t
,.. f d1c Grt"rk :.tr-..G
H\:n.1.~1
wudd -
"~t.1o tJQ)5ast"J M t.-.01:-t one or two
slaves who
:to:r;r.~Uy .~urkd bnl.i, him.lik: (for=mpi.:J ch~ 1"-x;r Ath.TI!~n (see Xen .. M~m. ll.lit.3). It
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
:n;oy wdi !>e. l:<>wter, ~h:.r :h.. p:o~.:~~s, eamom:c ;;n,i non-.:c:t.onomic, ro which the humble
fr~ Egyrti;m w~ ~u-,j,crl:ti, ;md th<" i:.n rb:&r <: y,.,.,m ro h;;vt hl'~'n cheaper to maintain life
~h~: ~ll,;,r> .III]'Whl."rt else in :!te (iueco~~om;m wojld {5 Diad. SIC. Ul0.5...f)). wl.'re so
:-~fo:-.-:rivt- rh"t a g:~.wr ~t.rp:~Is .:m:l1i !w ~M!~v:u:d f~t.>m :hr ircr: pcpulanon in Egypt than m the
r,".St <Jfd:r Mediterranean .vorM. :.nJ rhen w;;:< ronM"qurnLy tit~ kss need to bnng in slaves.
Its lltgr;ir~;;o;ul~ l:ardiy appreci::t.:.~ w rhe f~1H C'Ven by the two M_.rxi>t scholars who have most
n.-.n:l~ i'ro-.iu;,d t::-:ter.-.iWt~ lin;~.,Jtm~ of Hdlc:n:sn: J.~ncl remr" in the East: Heinz Kreis~ig
o~nJ f':,rrc lkh~u. for :heir :1t.1in wtrh m tr.Js ~hl. sc-1" <">p. Bn~m. RLER (in Fnnch) and
51[)>\H.'\ [i:: Gnna;u:) ..;.~d Kreissig, UtHO (ir~ Eroglish): :h tiOt('S to these articles are all
C\thr t:n~r~M! l"il tmpo;:r:nm-::. t::s:n-p: ,r,.. wm. clr" !1. ~-1 M )oms, wh~eh are strangely
i~IJ>OT"ti. :\I r..-.l.y !Wt l:avcm:ca~i<m ro rcfi.--r ~'' n d~cwlwn. llviJI nll"lltlon here a uscful recent
.~rrid<" by :. ~'"'~''' sdmbr. I. ~- ':l.c:lnd~JJ;t, ~nm..- p:ob!r:re; of agranan rdations in rhc
pw,il..:t ufAH.c. iu F1m:::: !3{1'177) ~~-~1.-1, whi!:hoit"ot:m: d.-.t!~ With thl Roman peiod. This
cws nmch 'Pl(F<Fhic c:vidmc. :&11:.1 dtals very ~nsibl',' w;rh the problem~ on which It
conn ut~;;C~- Two ,-.u lllr ;~;rtd~ by til': s.t:n. :.m::or m R\l.S..<l.ut :u-t known tom.: only through
rhnr Eu~iish S<lf!lll~.mc. 'T!J, anditicu <~f ~1;. ~"'fIn :h. ~.-: .. w:id kingdon', m VDI (1971
nu. I) it<. :<r:d 'Th ,,,:~oht:<:on of a~n-~ltur:.l "rl...r;. >l! tht~ im;::ri.d domains in thc province
,,f .>\~1~. in VI)( (1'17.~ l';C.3} n. whn..- rh: ~utl::;:\ :r:um :ll~i-1rs m the anglicised form
sv,lltsir.>il;,: i !II b.vth (;rYo. [Olly wi.'l thh ll.:mi. W'\~- ;II l~<'prC'S' dtd I become aware of the
hu4>1> hy 1\ n-:;.; :l' H'lmrli!fi' lif'l:i ( ;,y{f~dltl}i "" ='~ltt<kio!r..tlmd;: Dir Eigmtums- und d1r
Abh<ill:,i~J.:k~it.<r..,h.'i!to:u.u' (lkrhn, l ''7ii). '"~ih h:ls ! as~:iti h~~ ,-.rJ<: rnssig's rdev:mr articlt-s and
m<>n!tr.ar!~ w 1975 =l' 1:.-"J; o~<l:! :h~ :und~ iu Kiio 197'1 :"~~m>n.:-d in rh.- nxr nort.J
'fJt,,s,. uraCiJIUII>I~i wuh tfl,. ~:ilij.,-: ,,f u,,..s."'i.i \.<.t:.l wdll'<.'!;ill wirh th, good little article
b'!o F. R W .;dl>~l. Hlo'l':>..t'lri', m OCf}' "'t P. ~" .1!,.. i':n<' D,l:o.rd, 'I.' Esclavagc s:aClc: Er~r
,k !.1 jUt'SHull. ''' l\: In tho C;il"'lr" I !it 1 tmi'~,,.J,;~'.\'' = .'\r:or,,l,~ !II! .tc I'Univ. dr Brsan(on 140,
P;.ris, l97J) l!l..'i-Sil. W!lll c-X:I'IJ>t\':' lt!hu~r;tpity; 11.-p.tu:g. 'Hi-:rod<luloi', in RE Vlll.ii (1913)
;45'~>H: U5m,-r, UR$( ;J( II !-4'.':''1; Ill O:'>i-70 (= 21~.'~). h~ rhdaif'roduks of Asta Minor,
!<' Uh>u~lll)ll, i10 F.S~\lc' (.-.t l'r;uoi..) lV.(-...1(., t',4J.3, i~. For .'\s!.- Mmor and Syria, see H.
Krt'a~~~~- 'Tc;tardl;md. I<Armk,t:, lhro<inl,n Ill> ;,,.lo-..kd,.,,.,.,,))'_ in Kli" 59 (1977) 37S-li<J.
J=nr F.gyrr. ,..,. \'>~('. itostcV!OI<'Il. SJ:ff!IW I ~i~ (with ll!.l.i-1:1.\..4 :: 'JO). :121-::1: ;ond W. Otto,
lft'ltJ.t!r :u llutdtrrc:ic ;m ;,tllt'fliltiJ;-1:,-., A.~'i'jlMI {= Ahifa.,,li., H.tyor Akad. d. Wiss .. Philos.hi~t Kl.~-. Murud1. r; f. 'Z<I. J'15Ui. jt)l,Jy ,;,fti'l dtl> .n:ptcr wa>-"' proof did I S<V tht> aniclc
Z,y K.-'\X'. Wdwt'l, 'Ahb!i!IY,i!\:- I_,.,,.IJ;.:\o:,u,,t'~\IU:;rll "-iT::n:r-~lkrriiOrim im he!lt"nistischcn
Kle~n'ls~t'lll:i;cl '\y;wn. ;:~.1roc . .$tJ(. In (lffl) Q7-1 iH.)
f;.r tht" lkl,): c>i Sparta. :w E)hC'tnt~. rc;,ll 7fl' !!'i. <~,ot ~:r:l Vlll.v.4. p ..365; Myron of
)u,u.-. 1-'Gtll !1)6 F 2. ap. Ad"''l XIV 657.-J; !'l.:t., l=>t. Lie. .li "'Mvr. 23Qe (wht.:'r<i.,.<irparo"
~lu>uiJ b. <''-'lllr:.r~d will. < ~... n')-t.r ii~t'rllttc ;, H..it VI ~,;,, ;i >tty OPW 149-50). for rh.),ut'l>t;t,uil'hr'iS.Ily.s..~ 1\rd!ll.tdul''-'fF.o;\!..,.-.., Fi;rf14.NF l,:lp. Athrn. Vl.264ab. For
rht l\.hri.-.uJy11ois ,-,f Ji,c-;;d.-:t l'oulio:.t, r" J,,.,,.;,;,,,.;,.,, FGIll'~ F 8, ap. Athen. Vl.2o3d:
Stull" XU 'llt-1, Jr !>4::
~-v: ,;;(' b:n .1111.C I'Jt(hl frni'l~t..- "~"' ":r,f ;.n ~h, r,it:\~nac 11L~irr:.,1h from Comn1agt'nc. S"
Hdnml W'.al.lm:.otU- l>;o kt't'lllldJ(<fli>.-ir 1\rolrrt';;''"'fllrt;.~rr 1\,">rliJ,' .\lithraddlt'S l, KalliHikM untl
,,.,,., .'i,,;m, tltlfl'fllo'.> 1 .., fjtcJt.l'r'll~wrr,J ,,.),. lld~~l"li Oimt11!rs dam I' Empire Rvmait~ 34
(l..i,kn. 1'17Ji, wh.n ~h~ it!l.. wing pag.n .-,r,; i~,-aut: (!) i'P :;- 7'.' (1( ;LS Ll = OGJS 1.3R3
~ l..auna. SrJtl. I! 1-l!i.;.\ = Mwlwl. RIG iJ5). "~l' {.'! {!!Ia,, 17! -"to);(::!) pp.123-41 (IGLS 1.47),
'"'P !15 (Ciu<".s.Jil-2) an.l t,,rr ~lim.s ~,_!ttl:; C'l JJ.i.>-:~ UGI.S I 5~). csp. 34 (lin~ 10-:24); (4)
rp.80-l2.: . .-.sp. :lHim,.,. '"-"""') .m.i ~i (lin.-.. !'\l~d).
Tb rwu !....~r n:n1i,.. ut tltr f,,~,., "t' :ti.vo'-ot.i< it,. which I .MI ;,,tl'lt'M<'d, apart trom rhc six
n:.:uj,,n,;lm rh, m:,m tc:o;t Jh.>~, ~.m;! u: tlu 1nn:Ji1:g. n<tc). ~:, i l: the ~<wl'i>froll.~of Ameria.
in th< t.rnr~r~ ,,f c::.bdr:; in p.,nt=~ (Sr;ll>o Xll.iii.J l, p.5:rl). ru1d (2) Albania = Azcrhaijan
(Sn.;ab.> Xi.J\' 7.1'.:;(,_:.)
F--.:- (I) J';:,,:nu i~ (~;-..1.,~:.; ~S~(.l:, Xll.v._t, l.!tr.7). p) A.?.JIIi ~1: i'nry~io~ (IGRR IV.571 =
Ot';IS II. ;11~? ~:1J .-11:: ( :~.:'*-'): (3} ~~~.- r.,.apk 'Zo!a:~ 1\).rw.u~~ ;,, Mysia (Strabo XII. viii.'!,
r 514); !') th.: h'!"J'I ,.,jz,n .,! Olb11 il: c;li;:a (XIV -.-. 1!. ;. ;.,1:!/; (S) thr trmpl of Anaitis in
t\i~rku, . .ar:i! ''"'" h,r: j,, An~:,.,:,. (Xl. '\J> !t>. 1.:"-t~}; JI (r.) th:: tt>mpk nf Zeu~ (Baal) of
n~..... :K:'~~ !I~ N,.n;l,~:r:. Jli.,;:,~;uKi:. . :l~, ~~Jbj,;~ t ")i 1 i;."' {)!- d.:..~t~:t:"uh (known tOr OVLr 2(X)
Notes on Ill.iv (pp.154-158)
569
years) inscribed on the north gate of its peribolos, the publication of which as IGLS VII (1970)
4028 (with a good commentary) has sup~rst>ded all otht>rs (e.g. AIJ 147; OGIS 262; !GRR
III. 1020; Welles. RCHP70). The Seleund grant 'for all time' of the l<>riJ &rroJCa[K11)1'71 to the
god, m,, 1"oi~ tr11a>Kilpavu Kat ocafnl~<ovrn lTau. must have included its peasantry. Th, village
seems to have bl-m in the territory of Aradus rather than Apamea: see H. Seyrig, 'Atltiquitcs
syriennes 48. Aradus et Bactocacce', in Syria 2K (1951) 191-206. I agree wtth Krt>issig, LPHO
20. that the grant gavt> the temple full own ....rship of the land. Further btbliography on the
subject of tempi~ lands in Asia can be found in Magi,-, RRAMII.1016-21. nn.62-6.
39. Examples art> (I) the tempk of the Motht."rs at Engyum m Stelly (Diad. IV.80.4-S; cf. 79.f>.7);
and (2) the remple of Aphrodite at Eryx in Sicily: Srrabo mentions only the large number ot
sacred prostitut,s in earlier rimt>s (lrpilv . . tpo/ioiiAwP yvva<~<<illl lTAijpl< ri> 1Ta.l.a.Ov. Vl.!i.6.
p.272); but in the 70s B.C. there were 'permulti Venlrii' there (Cic .. Pro Clrwnt. 43, and sec
Scramuzza, WVSS. and in Frank. ESAR TII.317-18). Sec also n.34 abow for bibliographv on
the subject of IEpo6ovAia.
40. For Conuna Pontica. see Srrabo Xll.iti.36. p.559; for Corinth, VIII. vi.20, p.37!! ('more titan a
thousand tfpOOovAOt naipa<), cf. Xll.nr.36. p.559; for Eryx. St'l'thc previous note. Tile girls tn
Hdts 1.93.4; 94.1; 199, and Strabo XI.xiv.l6, p.53.2. arc in adiffcrc:nt category: thdrstatuswas
t'"mt~t.J!'Jr}'
41. Sec c.~ Krrissig, LPHO, l">f' ft, :!f, ('Ofi~'TJtllJ'); lloant. RLER. esp. 118 ('Asiatic'). and
DD\H.-.; with th~ :nmy \t-rk .. by thtmvl~tc .:md mhers citld in their thret articles. Briant's
cmp.h~.-i$ ,,..1.\:ff~rent iro!\ Jo:r~.::S..i:j: 'sc he crmet.1!ITJ:t"> on the peasant viilcl,~" and he refus.~ to
USl' r!Jco H-:rll ':wrf. ~-:.drnt!) .mdcr the misbk..'ll itnpl"l.'.~sion that serfdom involv~s 'f.-udahsm
and :t 'fnl!:~i nto,k :;-,f p:.-or1u;-:k>n" (~~ ~ f{L1! lliS-7. 1 Ill); he therefore prefers to usc: a
vag>.:!' rc:m ~:11"11 J; d~pl'!>i!.lrts' (ibid. lfJh).
42. Forth<' l'<'cfl<'lH,II':wn ,_..,. Sit; 1'1!~ ( = 11' l).IHS; Welles, RCHPI{( = /P 1(,). 13.2,]; OG/S
It ( /1' H) .:_\i. ~m'..wlr t:-.ns !l~rn, .-.v~-rr!~dident in SEHHW 1.17~'J. with 111.1355
n.44 (wlnr~ the rdi:r~ut~ r;. Ro~to~tt;rtT. SC.":RK !' Kshmat'] should presumably be to p.260) _
Cf. n ..lt. bt'low Th.- lwllpa1rooa f whom J,thht~ rh,l.ydian ofCdanae bo~sred to Xcrx~ in
480 lli.iy ,..,.H 1-.:ov.- ht-m "'f!~ (ll.l::;; VIL~~.J; ,[ Plm .. Eum. 8.'.l. quoted in n.30abt.Jv,).
42a. Partie uL1rly hl$11UO:t1VI' h.-rc :s ~ tc-x: .ltscusscoi in AJJh"ndix II above: Xcn., A~tab. VII.viii.8-14).
esp. 12.11'.. i'.l. Th:'- ;.Jt.-.w;.:. w.:.:~lthy ~mo~n, ""'''bu~. as ~arly as 400 U.C .. employing on n1s
fin.- ,.,.t.<~ cu th: tiAi" ,,,. &r l'<"rg.nmnu .1 l..1r.,;c ""lllh<'r of slaves. of whom. after son1e had
escaped (~ e1. x~~.:pholl .~pt"rl ;,.conu :!Ill' I( i'i) 'Uarbarian grandees were oft.n onlv too
ready to ~JIIrr:-d>}'rotC"~o~
43. For (,.,th !h,s pw.-..-s~~~. ":; 3b<w" ctll -'""~'- GC.A,._/ and CERI"; and V. Tscbcrikower
[ d~whC'rr 115U~II~ Td:erU;.w.:r.J. Di~ hd/rrmtilir~rt St,"o-ltRriindul!.~rn von Alamrder drrtr Gros;m
bis m~f,l,.., R;imt"fu:r = f'llrf,,!,~''' ~:tJ!l. X IX I ( i").!f).
44. The~ !\\o: ,~.. uurl~~ ~tr ,,f cr~,~L~f\'1: r.<> .\:i;;tudicid<"s (ltCHP I0-13 = OCIS 221) and to Laodic.:
(RCIII' l 6-2!1 t t{; i.'i :~?3 +- j. nl' ~x1 .ii\;us~i:.m of these transartions h by Atk imon.
SGC\\'All.t. I ;;;a:~ptlia "''~\\' i 1><~1~ J 1'1-10 1'-L!O (cf. 1!1-1'}), that th Hdkmstic kings
were l''"l':.r.;l to 111.1k.-: .:.bsol..:, hrrni;l;,.r~ F.r.JII!> fhrod m Asia. in what we tall frerhold. not
only (.,-! w ochr~ (s.-:..- !!,.two cx~mp!:-'i !tiYl"l! ;l, lhc main text above, imm,diatdy afttr thr.:
nfcr,a.n' lo_ 11,;, .,.-.:,), (b) h: t<'l7lj'kl (.-, nu ' i!' n.3!! abow) .md (c) co i11dividuals.
accompanie,lly tlu tt~ht t: jotlll lit~ b~tolt" h.-: ~~rnlory of a ncngnised dty (as i11 the cwo
~xamplt:'s gin1 .-,, th<' bcginni11g ;: dol> U"!\'), h~11 :.l<o (d) to individuals. without any such
accumpami:t;!" rtl!ht ~
&mrripllll!l itbJtl ,,,-,~r S.:ythopolts m l'alcstim. published by Y.
H. L1~td:111. !\ Gm:i< itr~n f.nmi><'"JC !id;::bn~:, i;r IE} 16 ( 1%6) 54-70, lines 22-3 ( IVa).
whi.-h h.1~ hc:ctl r.:~ditl, witJ1 l>tbltl:>f~t''i'l'Y h}' f fhd1.-r. in ZPE 33 (1979) 131-8 ( I~; and
(2) Wdk. iiOIP 51. lt1;.:.s 2il-!: cf. SfCl :.0..>2 (""J' lines 9-15. 1!-!-23) and SEC. XX ..Jll (esp.
line .lJ) I :".\lttlo>! f.>l!:w ~r'ISS!g (U 1HO 17, 211), br,wcwr. in indudmg IGRR 111.422, 3> it is
ofR,r:t.;,tl d~t,-. N:v>tthrl,-u. i'C'hl~ rlk>~ ~m. or my typ< (d). although 'herednary' in the
sem~ t!ur dtl"~' ,{l,j u:r r~~,,r! .>:lhlllto~tiCJIJy to th.,- kilt!\ o.m th~ death oftht holdtr, lik derurh1c
land. mi.:lu n:H be~~ ;..:.! l :h:' ilt:.:.:,~ wa: h+l g~ilty by rh, king of some otTctlCl'- as they
wonJ,i uo.t h, ((Or W>Hl:ll"'lllll'h k'-~ ),J.;:Iv Jl !~)!lin !hl c2tegory ofrype (c) abov,: hlnc<"one
oftltr. ;t:i;,:m.lf~:~~ith.ot t;;.c of ~nnl.
45. Sec ]{;.;;r;n::.-i:l. ~1:11!-iW l ,;.y; ~wnlo !1! lol41 u.~S: and th~ rtfer,nces tht'Tt' given. l'>p.
Rosr::,t;.~r:. S.t-;HI( 21-.1-.3/, l"lll i~ CAI;VU.162-.~: Wdlt-s. RCHPpp.%-7; Tam. HC" 13+.8.
46. Welle" (RCHT l' ;.;:;) ;,q:.;">. :l::t" ";;ccr:pr;:;l ;~.trrpr~r.;ricon of RCHP i! as being rhat th~ king
'"<' (;} I:,
..
570
Notes on lll.iv (pp.158-162)
"!J;ui ~rmiur.i ~u.-.b oi tl:~ P.:..iins .:d applior-1 wthi1t 30 ,!;.ys to becomt: 1tapo<Ko .
,,,.,,~l<'ll.c. fu! tht":n ;,.n:.,h-:mr,;ag-= in :h-1: ;u P,t<rci\....,. Mf!Hh~' wrulitt lc better than serfs, while
ab~IIJ!h :::Dil!l~lln:t with .. Gri"'d<
they ;&("qillf(rl :< g'-"KK dcai offreedom'. KrciSSig accepts
:iois~ mcrd~ ~mJ-ilasisi!l$ tb;;.: :ho5<" wh~ ,jj,f no: apply 'r..-m.lll..rd i\aoi. Both possibilitic:s
xis:<.-.f (U'J-1() ~4). Ag;;ainsr r!iif, I wouid pomt out 11ot c..--:>1) that there is no refer ...ncl in the
inscnption l<~ ;,.ll'; (d. :\d;in:!.I'Jn. SGCV!AM 38) bm ~h:tt wr ha'lll" ~.-,take 1rapouceiv in a sense,
namely 'to Wt:p;,:. lmJ""'"~~. whic.r. I have r.tVC: ob&ctVL"\i d.scwhere.
47. 1\tkmso:I. SGCWAM 3.'\-9, ai ww~>;; u nllrng thlS d.-.onncm 'thl' Will of Attalus Ill"; bur she
b:u; sor::.mdol: things co ~v ;~1-o>olllhi!o insn1puun ami du: gmt: aI QUl"stion I haw b~c:n <kaling
wt:h (ih:d .H~2. SJ-7).
48. Tlt~'l l.-~rt"U <"":;se. m m;- mmd, Qt !-!-'St~ in Sp:nn. wh&)IT ;~n m>Jcriprion of tR<J B.C.. JLS IS=
F:llA i 1.31, r.-conb .1 ;!cci!liml by L. Ar,.ili,:s ~ullus llut 'qu"l i lasttnsium servet in turri
Ullru(;l.:>;t habit.":Unt la~rt"i t:.!iu,-,:n, Jl~:d ~!oouU mn~un.1~ :ol' pos~css and hold, at th
~t1.:~51!n~ of ~h.: 'poplu5 .>ell.tllUtfUt' Rtttll~nn:'. rhcir ~p:m:u opp;dumqu.'. I chink Haywood
(fSGD i46-7) u probabl)' dghr in Clllphasmnt; t~r :!;.- vl)~~~~:t'll of land by the so-called
'so.~_.., (("'J'''l dto~;.gi! :t 1!1d noe "mawu tc own~rship) ~h.-v1 rh.11 they ne more hkdy to haVl'
!:'("l'll ,..,.f~ t.ll;;a s1'l''<'S ..mJ h.;t' I "'~'';ld .:o;n!l"-rc the: ,-..-.ndir:...'n ;>r'tht (rt:rman 'st<rvus quas1
c.:lt"'u~ {ifl uuy nl! hm: th.:;:). ;i.,;.:-:;h~<\ h\ T.lc .(.;1!':.11 .25 1 (2cdV .iii abow, 12). The us<'
.,f th( li'ch:oir.-! ''~'rd 'Wrln' lrettu :o rnc tn t.how 1h~1 tho: Lucm.mi wt'rc not being made
cmK~rl'l
my
'hho.rt' uo,r~!y :u r;n ,..,..,,... tina I thn we: t'l':m, ,_.~o;,:u ~~~111 ~mdc:r thr com rot of thr Hastt'IlS{"~
(d~ AfJ. p.2So, r:.:on: (>!< ie no.2). My ~~::"(ll<l CJ<llmpic: iJ p2;tirublly im,rcsting. a~ the 'sole
;:utmcr ftt.'mF!r ~cru r: luly' (fr:mk. E&IN 1.2'.1J-olt: Crcl'T11, f'rn Clt<rnr 43-5, accuses
Op~~lltrl.-.rs ~i trc;~oiug ;a ir.:.- .:.u,i 1-t_o:n;l: rit~~=~' rm- M:~:-;illr; orl.ariuum in Italy, whom ht
J\'SCO\)o'' a,; m:ui\trJ !'llhllri f\htti~' ;m,i 'ill l\huis iimili;,' lml rompar<S to thl' Vn,rii of
E11'" m Siril~ (111~ tl:tr;! .-..~ampk, ~d<wj, .td.ir;\t rl:-;\1 Op;,O.micus action caustd great
rnol'llllll-"11: ~!lliJb 'rl :.kn:u.:ms .,.,,( II th. <'lti~tt.:< f L.u1mmt', who brought an actinn
against Opr::m:.n,;. ill Uocu. We:or.-n(ot ro:ol\: \\"I W~ll (~ .... CJS<', '"II it Sl"<'ms hkdy that it '-"lS
Oppianicu. ~~-., 11 wn .. IJ ha-..- hn"t in C it-.r: 's mttrc->! !<) "":.>hon an" condemnuion of
Opri:.nhcu; (sec: I I:Jvw<~C.. t. TS(:g_) l.f:H'I Mv lim,\ ::-.'~'"1'1<- i~ du- Ve111.'rii of ~icihan Eryx,
.lboilUC !!... ~.. ;::tiU~ .. ~ vr:~r~s. tt:u(" ?h-.-rc X'C'!l!~ ,,~ h.:..c- :,""n u-,.~1(" .. iisput.:: st~ t..sp. Lie .. Div. in
S~J.
th< cunm~ ,._.,,. ... "~)"~ url..lyl ....~'l1i1l, ,J,-,.ixd by cl(cro as a 'libcrra
v,Jh'Cl) Ery;:in ... '''It h;A .f l..._
.. ,ma 'cupic>.tl':,.. ~ J.ruJi$', ;qJ.'i who had d.timt-d under
f'!'c'll~llrC' dt:&~ 'st" ct '11,< Vl'lh"rl.!i r.!\\', wnh tho l<"<nlr rlut h was. rr.luced to ,lavery again by
V.r""'$.. qua~~cm, (.1. c,,,dliu"' Ni~~r. bu w.t> "l'J':lr,lltl' r~i~~'J'~d in frc,dom by v.rn:s
him"lf:,s..._.. S.-r.IHlliU.t, WVS..'\ ..m.t it: h;nok. Silli 111.317-hi).
49. Scr th h1ik~t'"} to tn.:':><" \~ufk' ;.m!, m Nl'\vmm. PA. esl' !11.3'~4. lV.30-I. Aristotk refers 10
1TEpiot~eo 1Jl 11i II.'), 12M1' ..\; !<}. 1:?"'/lbJ!l, 127'1'1 .I~, V J, I ~lYS (l"f Plut .. Mor. 245f): VIIJ>.
13~7b 11: 'J. Ll2't"26; tl\, 1.\.~r19 Th,ri' :ore hli'<'t' t'''"'l n:~~~,; ,_.n Aristotle's u~c: of the term
c.,,.,-.
l'flimotn '''
trl
l, ..
finky. S:S..-\(; l'lt.; ~ui.s:'Clor:rr. !'Hf;[}.~-;
SU. On tl>< SpArl.lt ~tPC.'"''" ~..... ,~!,.._, '"Y OlW '1}, :ni-1.. ..17:!. h~t gtn,ral trtatmtnr.. set
Bn,..,hf-Swllb()ii;,J. f;su (l(3f; I. A. n l.r;:<"to, .- ,.,...,,,;Jr,i. u~ kE XIX.i (l'l37) 816-.:13. AI
:-nb. 8\l.ll.l'.w.:-! Oil\' .a, Sp,:rt.l;,,.,lltn
p,.,/>lffl'.s (i'r.oRUc. l':l-71) ~5...n2.
51. s,~ I..:ns.-u. ~I' <'it. il.!?~l. Sa-l!. r-:-~: A1]!0~. ~~ W. G. F.><r~. 'Thcmi~tuc!t-s and Argos', in
CQ
11.~ ill l,t'lt';Oj 121-l! . .u !2: 'J: lmu. ,\1';:1) ;,.:~;; K W Wdwci. Un(ri'JC'im antiken
1\ri).':!ilrlt, i. Atllr" '"''~ S,t::lrM I~
Z!l> o:>:t . .'\4;/,...,,.,,f 5, ,,,;,:sbad.:n, 1974) 11<12-<J2. For
~h :reti'""'''''fCy{.-li" (t-i.t:~< iV. ;u!..J). ~ :\1'!"-"ll,it' IV.~ 3 .lhav.: not yrt bem able to makl'
fnJI ....,._..._. ofd:, '''''Y <~mp!ic-.11\"d ;;...-i;;;l ~loti ,.,.,.,.,.,..,1..:: ~u:mr.- iCretl" and will mrdy ref.r
''-'lui~'\ .. MEl.>. ,~1 4.J.;,. T~
52. s.,t.g .\u~: . f't>i V.ll. uushs. I;, Y. l'IAtoJ ..l~.... ft='fcn (t) tht l\l"o.Jtri;,r.dyuoi in1AW5 VI. 776<:d,
'"'"'!
:...-=
'=m
,,.!,,rc th~~y ;.r-. compared \~lth l~ll' (ff"i,"n :tttd l't;.~:.sta~

53.
GtrJ11,111 11~.\;:<" of the~ wm,l;; Wtril'$ f[IJii('h'l:.n A<Ciro.lmg 1'1. Busolt[ -Swobodol]. GS
U.t>i1.1 11 . .;, 'lliitit;k;.tt .:nd :.,tlxi;;I<'IUduft j;;,;,;,"11 !idl !.w~r b~14rif0kh nicht charf unter-
,,h,~J,!l. nn .tli)C~t:t-111'1' '"!'!'lot~llltl!:tt: ~~~ :,;,., L-ilrt!~""'~'"!it rim l:,ichslfll Cr.1d J,T H,!ri.Jlkril
'll!~' :t.aH~j. d::r .iiid ,~n .l\~ Sk!av:-: ..~i ... ur d:.ittt..\'; h 1~l~t:rci1ridct .. Li.lSS u,r Lt.ibc..igc.~nc nilht
'lllttdt o~J;; S~o:l'" l~ct;(clur:. ~r-:1.-tu t'irl i'tr'->ttlidtJr..kt~r hi;. Zll cin.-n1 gewissen Grade
lll<"rl..:ml! wihi.' 11 hJ:i Jltiir :11:k.i b~ ;iiscolS~itm v:- tho: Hd~r. by d<signrm~ rh,m as
'Horige'. l!l,!:t:1: 'hu Umt:<t>,;l :k~ allgemcinn1 UtgrliTo: :J...-r Hilngktit J.:<hiin,n sizu d~n
Grundhorignl t;:;;! Z\\'11~ ;"t dl~l inlotif!o'ltll fl.~tJi."m, <ienn ~it' w.I'Cn llnttr Sdml3lc:rung ihr,r
571
Notes on lll.iv (pp.163-166)
persiJ.uCI\hc':'l Fri!llun Jr. :!ir Scht.>ii~ J;"Cbunt:kl'! uml ikl'l Grundherren zu besummten Abgabcn,
sowjc zu i'~Isfu>lic:h~ D:.:mtk.stungm Yrr~riicbtct' (ibid. 670). The whol" paragraph ts
eJt:ceH.:r,l.
54. Therr ~ ;111 ur=t~..-~ory dunJS:uc-:1 ofMc:1-1nd .. Hrro 20--40 (and its Hypoth. 3--4), in A. W.
Gomou: :1nd E J I. SandbJch, ,\fm.:.,Jr,_ !\ C~>t!IPit'll'''1' (1973) 3H5, 3<J0.-2
55. Gommc liHi ~ndb;;.dt, op. :::1 ;J(t, :uc: c.:r:~inl} wrcmg in taking Isocr. XIV (Plat.) 48 to refer
to Pbt:tt;<;IJ~ .:r .-irO:.ot, '"' ":.. ng :rh"l! children .-mland for petty dtbts (etc.). Thl" Plataean
speak<'h ,lf<' :.;:e~<'lmd "~ h.w:ti~Jtb: .n:iw..! ir> Ad1ens as suppliants( I etc.); thcy have not
yet t"-"l.'l'l tt:cx~! at A rh.:Jls a~ :n t?7 (ci 51) an~l mdcTd ar.;: snll 'wanderers and beggars'
( 40). :!1ru f.nm1icr brc-~.~il up(~ ~<:l). T:-.IS i> R', wh-ther the speech i~ tn be taken as wntten
for ., t-:trtit.::tlol: oc::-;.sicr: in J71 <Jr .u : l.uer pre of ~he-toric.
56. On til' Marrhae~n rrxu w!uci1 I h~v:: rdi:-;~ II), ~nd on othf"r matters d~alt with hen. sc'<.' thl'
mai1:ly .1dmm1hk ~t>rlr !>y !ll,'tl"r Nilrr. '[1;, t;nllgdi.:n des Nl'um Ttstanlcnts u. d1c
sogwamt(' b.;lkmsmd\c H.xh;~l..<m', 111 ;~:-;.;; -nl (1'.161) '12-141, at 135-8 ('Vollstrcckung'),
140-1 f7.1ls:m:mw::f~~UIi;'! Cf c;n..-lu:;cl:,~ um! ri{'ntalisches Recht im Neucn Test.',
Norr'! ootnbut!OII IL' th., .\.rr J,. xr c'''\1''~. iu:r"t:Mt. de Papyrol<J~U<'S (Warsaw .:tc .. 1964)
109-15.
57. St-e Btdunska-Ma!r.w~t. EEGR ,_;,.",1-i'i (a .-rr.- d'-'"~ .malysts), 9'1-100; Prcaux, ERL 312-17,
537-'3. ;..:::1 d. JUt<- L?. h th~ "!t.::es~ o.f th:- :uy.d ~lmtnistratiou, restrictions wen placed
upor1 p~'~tm~l,.s-ccutinn'ag;amst t:'.g. tb~ ff<,v~"''-.l p ...pyoi andinr<m~A<i.,: ,..,. P. T.br. 5.221-30
(=Mn, .36).
SM. f-orth'" ;.t~th'll!rlll ~ul thn>no: .tf 1hr c:tti ;,) 'hl" p:ov:ou-. ,,...mn.x m rhr !t'll:t ~~)<I 'fl.' lr !h::ould Ill'
sutlk!,'llt w ~.. ~ w w.,~.. CP~ Iliff (l"il' ~'IJ. !'l); NC.n. ,,,,_ m (iIU.St'l<lbrJ\'o') 137; :md li~)T
Egyj'tj Ulct'''~b~M .. r, ..,-ist, J.,c_ =t~ (n.57 IHwt). Ttw I.,H;;ml 11!1; i-t vcr:: well '11 ar
.-c~rtair. IU~ l.;o l!cliti<ll~ "'' i'Ew !::ndaii vi:.ihlo:umt 3 rcstn-i~l;lr,,e ret.:..Ctrl.' :lt~mc it kl:r
rcscl:~vag~ ;1~-t~:l:l:f s;m;'tiOJJrn:ll k;; di.btt\'lin ;rn'l!s !llSuh~!-lcs 1:: PSI :i-l'l rfm wluch sa< ld.
2~-9w -'il Jl.Jitslt ~'j(~ ti,n ..Jl!!J('I ,,,;~ Ia fih '~-- rfpoqu~ ru\!''1JJ-.ilt:t~t :i'~1!J~"t\'1SUa.('l~ Ll~.i
homlll~ libt.-s ':&it pr:.iuilc:. l'nl'b"Jah;. r.'Jilp..r:oir..- wh.-h I "'"l't,t ,_-:all '.kbl b ..r.~g.::]
res!:tlll n;n;alt>l:;ni.l:h,lt ,1<il.:t~. (iJ "'~) n: !khr hndage m iii:il>\'lltlit\' Gnnyn Ill ,.,t"t;,
set 111!-'t (;,,.,_ IV 72 = ){ F. W1ill1>, T;u 1... ,,,. Clltlr ,f c;.M,>I i = J..~rl"'''';, S:.!-'1'1 I, B:rliu,
1%7) -~i.~fi: Cd 1.51t<.'II ! {w1!i Etg- tr,t>l!oo.), -&nd :~n \\1ill<":r. hi:t.r~llf So>fld'f z Alrii'Hr
Cm, (1'15;\) Jto. ').:....(-, i mut ;t!.<<lltcnti"n41 t:tispnint l.lu Cllrv. XV ,!11. s;a'lilllg r.h.ltfl"-"'1>1'
-.roA.I.nic ,.,,) mpoopo. EiwoJLOVP'"""i i!lb.-rs o.m >dl1hou .. ms: d.t" ;, :t<.>f II;C"tt!Jvll:-.1. .tnJ Da1 .~ti<'.>
that liM' l~rh,r~ .:;u, alo ('"I rh(IJ ~"\t> r.; ,j,-,.rh. Tho;. pnsmnahl}' r:f~,; "' !lon-11:-.\: but on
the !i;lio ;:;f dtol.lh'll -.,('<" ..< '""" I'IS"-<1-l' iu1J.,-- u.in r.-..,: _.h.\'<' :.~,,1 1~11 -1+-51-do~\
59. Arnon, m.tn\' ltc-.:tthtCBt.:\ uf n.r:"""''l. ~'1.' du: b,.,~r -'w ~u inJ,~wt,'l .,t;~~~~i Nid1vl~~- 1-II:SRl. J lt~:..J.
(cf. l~'l'"'): will.-ilt\1\'o'HO:IIl<'i>llh)r,r:,Jh~ ;IJ',i rllc~.:.,.:.~iVJm>.lJ \'II lll:'i.
60. {~ont-:.s, !=-:~lcr;~~~- wiw ~~~ . .,.1, ... th:.t -~,~ rh. f=:tt~l'if~ H i dt..Jt rh~' r~-.~ :..clcwp~ \\TH" uudc to
l'nfor, l" i!J dh~ J!ft.~\ iH'-~jt rth.~ RulUi&n prin.c!J'h.. ~h~l l)i)!H:~.l~t\' ur ~u~:.,risotunr.~tt ilint.ld 110:
hapt.:u wnlum .l uri ror,kt iCLPL' 1.!'-'-"')i, :tnd ku th~ i"l}>:-rial ~i\i<'ltl;n,nt ':tt[r.oducc:d
for.!.~!-! i<rm, .1;1.! tr...'{'c-Jttl<'' rl:~,r ...-~,,- lllil:!, .UIt1: J,.,.,._.,,\ 1h.11 '"'' Uut: tho lH""IIt<""'
had l!l.\\'a' [CCtD 1-11) : ;:'""""' ~,.,. t!u: lat. c~r!i.-ir ulv.. tior> (CCPP 130 11 1-~) ,,f chr
Jt
,j,..
dU!ho>rll~
M!llt't '" Jll~l!ti;.l l :unl ~'ldy
IIJ th!' rri.-i)':u,JXl!':l(:f':tJh It> jl., . 4S[l
cndiu~: ".f\.t.lnn kJ~J :t.JhL:- ,.,~u .jl!.":' At".:U.Ji:Ul ;au~~hnt. J.;~~ ~~: dlln L~!t-tL-t~ J-'hrlt,1od ...rt(n J.<r
Kai!'o.r;r,it d1< hr,.:u;;i,~nui.,IJ i~ ~-''"'-'''' f(.-i;:h,: ,-j,, rl:>!.--11<11"< pr;l;.tisdt..-;, lastiiuc ~,-biltltt
hat': 11 i> t'" ~!h--,;td i ktly u.s.di Ci. dim
'l~x Hl'lri;a', 1-lil.-\ F.l?-1-.':. ll.l~).
I'J;
xxii. II ~M.In;m I..., ..,.,.b,,{ tl Cis~!JIIi l; . u! Ill ;b.- .:1~ u.c.;. 'I.e" Uc>LI~OS!>'. ;,f. 17'J,
no.2t. lx! 1-J. fr (C.:"Jr:.t:'s CliU,'II mkn~- Ct>l.,::i c.~~o::vJJc:ll,c. H 1\ () ( 1:1:~ Ill thd:lh'l
Emru.-. ~"''" M''"'' (H1 J-' 1''). ,j,--, w; h:1lth.t ".h 'l'it::"o>mi:n K~i;~-~ drr 1-.-~~"n:ll
cxcn;t>"" -l~li ;~:i" lt'~!in:r"~',t~ p.rh~lr,.,.-irt11', l!'o:! t\ D J!'l.'i i11 {;,:: (CTio JX :g ll . .>no! u;r
th~ l:t'XI ;:tgc !:. (:O::r.l'h ':1,: U,, :lr;~t.h:dpunktc' ,~;rh 'oil. rlutio:hlid..:ll VL-rh:altmssc',
sho\\111" Ub>-<'tlthUJh- th.ll p,, ...... "J~:. l<li;or( lCi!l~a ..-t! wh'l'IUhl !lr.rin.Uu', nnr~. 1-krc II
ma~ h';!i'I'''-'F;i;lr~ l'.) cic:- Sdtdt. C~l- J U: ,n;;~ IMwmm ~~~rr whih ~(( rh> w>o;r p,1i"lll:lpl:
but t\,: , ..f chc na.tn :-ex~ .tb""~ aud ~il~ r;,'it r~~' ,:~hi b~};-l,-..) \\,rts t'~;;J.tdt"'li ..l.'- o\li t'J.:L"l-.. fJCiuu:.t
privi.!r~:~ .m~i nut .,i 1h.: 'ir.uti~,~-pohlt .. -.~- .t ur\.\ J,.l"]t,;>~.uL'i;,t n1 lhL' lo~\t .._., .:.-~..:, uri~~..,u
Ex'-~\\ut,_.n i"ft th~ iu::"...Jn itt1l :i~n;!d r:."'1 h11p;.:~rr41nt r,, ~u.)~, it tl.. k"..c trlau.~nl1 d it"Y furth,.,
61. for h;'Wril:M i't't!rilt4c1_ ti'W~,.~n~~~~~u~t~Til. iiot."l." Ua.-~~lll,J, Tl1~'1.' 1 .JH!.. i. t:.."'.\.;, (,T~~:J,.tu\o~'tc;
and NJil:h.-.i.b. 1-11.:~~1.: 1 .!17 .. :;t"'., .;.f~: l:'L"''~- :J.:J 17:!-t' i .. h.... :.J.Lll~b h~L h, rrl ..,m,u.ttd ~"
it
,,j_
572
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Notes on Ill.iv (pp./66-169)
ingenious lnd <'llt,::;~in;ng :tl"':id~ on a sub~ {"<k,oc;,n') dusd1o .illied m msio lwnorum:J. A.
Crook. 'A study i1; de:m:do!l'. m Ltrll">rll! 2f>(I'JM) Jh}..7l: cf lw LLR 176-7.
Sec Frederiksen. CCfJ.) l J.7 -~ l, wbo m~ quJtc,.. go;lod c~ f;:;: .:.mibmin~ ~he law to Caear
rarher than Augustus.
On assio bonorum ;: ;;~u::ol \on Wo~:s~. PCBRR. i ~till LITIJiUrp.<!l!lr.d (but >W n.M below): he
gives references ra th;: .::trlit:r wario;~ of!.uciL''H Guinoun .l...ll i'<'.lli. l.~morum, and M. Wlassak, in
RJ:::. IH.ii (IK99) IWS-2000. "fhC' he~ summ:arv accmm: iu f.;tgh,h that I know is g1vt>n in l
singk paragraph m t!t Zdm~t;J. '"'' "f Gdru1 li 136. A ~xmwnicut work wh1ch utilises th
papyrological evi.ientt frum Egypf ;n dcreibaug ';.o~.r.suo;:l cX("Ctltlon and .x.<sio bonornm IS
Chalon. ETJA 11;<22. lfll. .S~ ;~lso n.IJ! abow.
Thl account of <CHro loJl41frl~ l,,. o,;on WOrt~. ?C BRf(. muis to be modified ht>rt>: see
Frederiksen, CCPD 135-6 (but:-!~ u.(-.11 ~h(Wc) Chalan.. E J_'/li. Jf wdl worth consulting: sc.:
esp. 117n.33bls. m wJ,,,h h" qnD(t'! ~mi <!i:.russc> P. iqi.1!.7';.md P. Vind. Boswinkrl 4.
Cf. Schulz. CRL 1: .1, ~fi2-5; ;~,!,.-, W, ,!:"\I, .3U:t. ~9-60. 'lll S,"t' ~!so Jolowkz and Ntcholas.
HISRV H17-~ ..?15-~6. -lUl, .;.;.;.. ';; lluddm,!_ fBRL 1 t-.11"~.!3. ~H. 642-6. 671-2; de Zulueta,
lnst. of Gaius 11.242-7~ CrooL U.R 170-1:1; f:r-Jrriksen, CCf'U 1.24-30. 135-6. 141: and cf.
P. A. Brunt's lms :,J v-:lu.tt->1 H'\'lcw afW...-~tmno~nn, S-SG/.~.4. and two other hooks on
aucient slavery. i!: IRS 4.,;;, ( i'il5.8) iL~7U, .-.r Ull! ,\:yme tempt~h" l'xpl.:~in awav an mcidmt
such as that d.:sc!lho.-d by I ivv Vl.xt\'.3 tT (}jj5 B.C.}, on :h" 1\~";uo~lthat it oclurrcd beforttho:
lex Poetelia (cf. l.iv~ VIII '<Wiii.l-'ij, dvuld note Llvy XXIII.:.tv.J. wht'rL' tn 21f> U.C. Wt'
har of the freeing (!_( military u-1 \'iC<', IIL!Mllft.lll cmrtl!\'11C'(. uf rh:.~ accused of capitalrimcs
and ~f jud!/,mrrlt d.-lu.rn (C'"tdc-mly nwnerou:;) who W!'fl' IY.in(; k.:pt in chains ('qut pcmmao:
iudicati in vinculi~ orn~:l '). !r 1> $1~r.:f:r-.llll rluu l. :vy, whose: outlook here ts typical of the
Roman propctti~d ;t~,.,.,.~. :q;.u.~ :hr lit-.r:s!iv>t ,,f tht'.Jt' s.kht.>l'S a~ an 'ultimum prop.
despl'Tarae rdpublt,-.;, ;,t,oxllmm, n.ll!l 1-.ol;,.,r,~ u1i!ihus c~d~:,.t'. tl.l whil-h tho: Dictator M.
Junius Pcra 'desc-,u.!:r'' V:.L M.a.' \'II.v !, ~Lmm:.ns.:.>;;: t.h". f:l!l~ the debtors 'addicti' and
records his own "''II~~ c,f sh..nne (' .:.Es:uE:! rubom IJ.ilic.m:'}
Set" Varro. LL Vll.li15 (ob.~co'.!l14o)~ IWL~1i.:!-J (,,r,q,.,,,,;;, in ,1\,;i;~ M!!or, Egypt and lllyricum).
Thl' word obaera11u. of(;Our-:. '' .;,lso m.!tc:::u.:~ tJ>c-J m rl11 c-rdma.r.;, simple s.-nsL"of'debtor'.
as e.g. in Livy XXVI.~!. H. :m:l Sv.~t., 1);,,._1,,{ If (whcr<:
is tmui. adhuc t'l obat'rarus).
For rent m arrear ;lj 'kN, t ....: [\' il ;;bo,,, .md i1/' bdow
In addition to the nuutll wlti.-!1 fc;!l;w !l-, tllll' \.l'~' ~~ r-.g. c~,,. BG l.iv.2 and Vl.xiii.l-2
(pre-Roman Ga10l); T.ac \r11; lll.:o.i ! .m.i xlii. ~ -~ (J:nt!hll Ga\1: in A.ll. 21). C:olum., RR
l.1ii.l2 is very r,kvari J..,r, ... i;..-. ~ .. H.. Cnr ..';J.I :\::;! ,,. M XVIII.21-34; V .25-6: Lk.
XII.5H-9, lllcnriout'il in tl.- r.-~ ~ ;.1:ll''. T!l.- r ~ Ulll.-!;~hJ,IliJttol:<l .ii(~Usla sp.aks of Hadrian
as abohshing 'ctg..st::h :.t"t\"CH<m rt Uhrornm {H1~' il~_tn C.J iV.I~v.ll (A.D. 244) shows
that attempts had 'illi,t'J.,,nuu.ko c;, 1"-vn.r :a;!>;r wtm Wl'l~i :.rrcar wirh thl'ir rcms front
leaving the farm~ th,y il.t.l k.lrst'd, ~ pr:..nj,,.....llkh i-bllr;;;\>. )on,tclhan a C<'ntury earlit"r, had
found It n~;Ct'SSar~ W ~'Jlot\". :t :m 'inhumanus uo<.os', .iJ; t~::.rl h ot"ases ofpuhbc Jand (D~~
XLIX.xiv.3.6). Cf Jls\) Rnstu\'l2oNT, SHl!lE' i I il\-'!(with II r.l'!.:!2 nn.42-5), IYU-1, 471-2;
]one'!>, LRE II.KJ:, ..;, -iS".
The larest and bt"st ,Ji~a<m ._,j~h.:h<t<.oili:crilL,j\iil; AJ.-.,~llli:T [OG/S (J6'J"" IGRR 1.1:!!.3) is
by Chalon .. ET}:\. Tl~t:ti' 11t F.~!!-iil'li 11
IJo.-luding til.1~ r:.i .-\ C Jolmson. in ESAR (ed.
Frank) 11.705-Q. ThC' r..kv:.mliu,., oflh,,,ij,., .,,. 1'!<-!S. f<n Cl!,dn's cumrm'ntary st.-.: his ET]A
111~22 (csp. 114-J'I.lrl<t r..llbi.l:. :;u:,hf hnr .\7, with Chr;b10\ :t.>IJ~unttary, FFJA IK7~. where
I rhink Chalon is l''''l~o~il~ fl~ht 1:: rdi.:~in~ :., s~:. Ji-r,,l,l' : >'S.;io 11onorum. And see von
Wocss, PCBRR 412--.i .uul ''-"~ :.h- >!.;;. ~~.l <.u .\I.Cit. 1; '= 1'
lnv. 244.lmcs 7~.
S<."<' Garnsey, SSLI'RI:, '1\f' '.I<J-Ji''' ;!T/.. HIJ.
Oliv1a Robmson,
ru"''H" in .cuu.P 15 j!lf,.;) .~-'-..,;. at .WI, sc.'l.ms to rake CJ
Vll.lxxi. 1 a~ appiru1~ t> iloJlir.:tl ;u :t<'~lt'l';,!, "(!.u~ in f:.<t ir ,{,.:.!~ unly with thosl who have
been allowed to n~o~l...-,; >r'!.'ro> II''IOT:tPII, f.,r w!;:dt ~l :Jilt\-:- ~rt;ltn lol-4
Mirrea~ .. RuV 4.5041, :1r~:. ~'l:,::- 1!\r'H'>I'!ng ,..,'ll.!<-na-. mduding t!l.t ufSI Ambrosl' for Italy.
SeC' e.g. Schulz, CHI.ll.l. b. Our m;:y d;,~J!>t '\hlth,r ~r;i:li:,l ;"actice chang<-d much for
thl' bt'ttfl'.
For rrapa~M'JI'it Sl'l' csp. A. E. Samuel. RPCAD. iududing a discussio11 uf modt>m thlorics
(221-8); BertrJnd Adams. Pararno11r 11. 11erwanJte T<xte, Stud. ;;:urn Dirnltvcr1T<t_l( irn Rchr.-.ler
Papyri ( = N!!ue Kolnfr mhtswi,<s. AbhatJdl. 35, lkrlin. 19M); W. l. West~rm;mn, 'l11c p~ramotll'
as gt'ncul ~rvice comract', m JJP 2 (194K) 9-50 (not reliable)~ the bibliography in Norr,
c_,,..,,,
67.
(IIJ.
J,.,;..,,,._,u.
v,..-
6q.
70.
71.
72.
73.
'l'r"''''
Notes on 11/.iv-v (pp.170-175)
573
SRl\FAI~ 3'.l n. 107; .aut! Crook, LU~ 192-3,200-1, 141\-7.

74. The ar.m.aJ tr.-rm ,!lfPI.~II'~~rtr ac011~ m dJc t:de Clf CT7r V.x and in CJ IV. xliii.2.pr. ( = CTh
V.x.LI"'.)
75. For rh~ nto.i.u bw~ rdtttlng :<:' ~k of ~hildrn1 0111d ~ltlw! fr prts.:.tts {inl'luding t~el!:.....,.k. :.
diflkultsubjlu;t, U:..:oo by llodd:n...l, ilLS ..::!7-33) ~ 1:1<p . in addittart tCI tlx: thtcr wmlih 1tion~
qn01o:d m tht t:-l!.; ~bl:w~. 0:.~. Xi_ VH1.xv (utt &he: l('x Etbia J~ rJ/ri)!'I.JniJ); Cj VIT.!<Yi.1
(Ca~aoli;t. 21!-17), 10{293); IV.sllii.l (29-1-}; VII xvi.39 (2'14); lit. l~"-ll (31.3); CTIIiV .viil.6
{323); cf. Pml.. S!'lll. V.Ll: D~~ XL'ti.i.JJ. Ensia,oumt ofii'CI:' p(win(].lb .liS~ result of
Rom.111 ~;;:,lrt;.:;n. 1~ ~i~l to hlvt oc.:;.trr~d in !ht' lu-c R~ruhhc :1.uJ c-.nly i'rlrrcip~tt.: ~\'1:' c.~.
Plu1 , I..J4mll 2!11. 1~: 1\l,l' iiC iV f>4: T~~;., .1nu iV.hom ..t.s fCir dw litcruy "our-.:l"S ~nd
papy~ (rum :!lc!' l.:atcr Rostlotll Ernp~r~ .!ol.'\"
I.Hf. ll "~-<4 (wnh H! :.!.~7 n 71) :he d~.:Jtt':!r
arc Zo~ Jl .l..'U-J; Ulrnr., O.m. Xl.Vi :?2..J; lllliJ'Ir., H:JI. MmwJ;. if fin tl.'Pt X.XU:Yl
Hist M;~muh m .-t,-x 14..3-7, ~d A. J. h~~fll!ri<'n (Bm~sh, l9l.d). u~.i<>d., v,,,, VIJ!.B (>L'(.'
them-;;it: r~xt.iliovt:.jn!it bdow n.73); P. G;rlnttiTO:U; .adl'i r.'"'!lr ., HF. Ili.31}(cf IV .vhl>cVl'll
must ~d.ci :1 word b~ Jbom one typc of lil~ 1,.11.,., lrc"'r.fhk s~nitlJJ (01 .;undition ''lhich could
aris.~ nr c.-c:r..J diffcl:ll! wy~; sc~ ~.g. lic:rgcr .!:DR I.. ~}. namrly ti~ ITW!l '''ha has .Jllowoo
hinu~lf {:t ht.' l-~,\1 'i!.rt~, :t1a~~!}' tn (1tltr 141 .41" ''~ J;lkL. :\tl u.ati;' !\~~!\1 l~.xu. '-bj ~,ah cbi.;
srruariou rh,u 11 JtlUS{ h1\'\' br. <"Jt:!l~l....,l - ""'; w..1: .;.nJ: in th, l...o.:o:r l:mrr.' "' ,v~n ch~
s,v.:101n !'l!l'liHI. o:spl&lly 1i tlw rl'l(r~t..:,.. ro u rulmg o!' Hah~n fll th~ 'll~H.-r ill [),,1(,
Xl. :-;i ~ ,~_, .. i:; not :Ill h:l~rpcol:llion I WCIIhl wril(l! :h:<l ' ;u;m "'t .. , Jtlnw~.;l hirntdf IO h"'
sold ,., ord~ l<l ubum :r.art of the i'r\'1" ""'Unklnn1m.aliy Ll" so wi:h :he airu cf rocuing hti
family, 1fnor himself. frmn .~.uv-atiun (I ha~ r"ad oothing mte J'I:CC'P! th.tn !4ockbnd, RLS
[19!.1-''] 417-:i.'l. f,,~ furti\,,' i&blio~u;.-!~y ~l!'e::.v. !<W~<r. Ui'l' ~ 1971 !211 nA'i, .l(Uit.S.)f.ll w;u
onl}' .:.fr,r thi~ rh.rt'l' w~.~ f:?li.,hd :h~l m~ ~:t.:TII:-"lt .v.u :ln.w: ,., ti,. ande b) n~~,,
May<'r-M:;!y, 'Das Nnrwrk~';.lt:.r,ds d1-; H:tlt.:>tlir> ,ln LS.S 1$ \1'':.0~1111>;5 .I
76. Ther i~ .\ l~ood tl\'4'-lll'nl ,_,f lhi.., Htl>,it-<1 b:: b.:.: Mon,lrl,.._,Jm. Sla:'rt)' 1!1 tk,.. lluimt NN f.Jf
(Nt'w York. ls-49). I wuuid ~:so l::k:: ra .tr~w altcuoon 1: \h,: hrict' :~mo~.-l.s <m rt.1s snbj(!'a 111
Fmk}, ~p !7!1-. ;u,lth" :.ar :.-1,. by J. flnnt-r'.:., ;D~s-..>r,b i'rononuqu<- r:'l .1unubrimt <to .1.-r.lf'.J 01
Mcs<.ll<t:..:oti a l't'~""i"' p,.!,\-b:.byllt!:(.m,'. in JESHO 4 i l'::!:l) I B.fi-1. wim:h is. m:U11k
abour rlw i.,uwm ,din t' Kit:~ Amwi-~ ~.tmJ. 1 ''!'lhbylon (tn !~-.,~ i; """~~5:! ar QJ f-l;o mnmr:rbi J,
77. See Til M.mmtjl:'t:. U1l"l 511-!fj. ~4'15:;, 'l\\'<' WiljT ~\:.llllf'k; i"ll! cia' l't'ig~r <.1 N.-.,, &1'\'(.t)
SUl'l., J'lj~,., 3! .3. wl ..:r.: th.- 1 111J";rLl >rdn~ 7011\'i<:r> f!-lll'll -.li JNUI~ .,j du ''n>JiJ" '" i~,- ~r;"\11 h.>
Italy In uk; !':&rt :u huil.im!~ his proj,croo:.i nun! :im l.;(i., ,1\,"~;;fl!U' h Os:i:1. ;md (bl.b~ . I!J
1115"'-' wish ~1\C! .. i'/,,.., i'i.:!. wl:.;or, Vap~i.;l.n ~~-=:td~ ,,,L~.() ~-NIIlf! t:t"n (rms ~~~l<>UI( Ch'J"''"''
caplur,li .u T 11 i.-h.&<"-1<" m S'l'~~nl'<'' 1.1. to work on lhl' call;lllht":sl~b rj,, istlam:s ~fCoriat!:
wh1ch. h<~dJ~'il !x't'lr n~'gtw hy Nl."r(lll ?L'~OII.
78. For d-., . .:.sr<~ )J<> '''"' 10 lilt' Cr!N'r min,..,,-,fl'h;,~'"' ~...: Eu~cb .. HI; Vlll.l3.5: .\-tarr. Pal. 5.2;
7.2-4; 8 I,L\; t~>r lh>'"l' iurhl' l"'~'l>hyry m:u.-s "JlJll>l>it(" th Thrbaid, .\farr. Pal. 1-!.1; 4.1; for
rho~ SC"ra !<> t!: Cilir-:~:1 :1:in~.s .\i,nr 1'.;; 11 t. wi<h ~.13: 9.111.
79. S..'C' Fulvu C:.mo:llti. J.~;I,~, ,!,r Skl:.w?'.m.-l~ttib KmJSt21 (I<J7ll) 17-20; G. Neumann .. 'Zur
lkisdarilt .mf.luu KY"'l'"".. ihi(i 2i-:! '11is f'amt<"l onnot br th ~lm<' .as rhr famous l ydos.
J._.,,
...
wh ~i;;u ( ,\,J;.-,.
80. The Cjit.~l'!t 1'~ tcJmo:,;i iu ,hotl>,ri l.ll. II 11 ,.. Com
46M. II( If! I:).
!."' Ep(~r., ed. f. Uiichdcr (llipzig.
11'.97)
[III.v]
I. Dionysius adds that he has known Rc>mam who have fn,d all trwrr slavt~ at thc:"ir drath, rhus
provtding an tmprC'ssivdy larg, rrain of moumers: th1s practKC ht dc.ply dcplon-o; (.iR
IV.24.6); it was restricCl-d by Augustus (stt' Buckland. RL.'i, ,h.xxiii, <'Sp. 540-8).
2. Ofthdarge btcraturd will cite only Max Kas.:r, RPI" (I'J71) 298-301 ( 70: 'Frd~f'1asS<'nt' und
Patronat'), with 112 (I<J75) ~5. and Kasc.r's article. 'Dif Gt's<"hi,htt dcr 1-'atronatsg.:walt ubtr
Frcigelasscnl Til 7.SS 58 ( I'J3f!) AA- 05; and a work I hav(" not seen, J. lambert, Les iJperae
Iiberti. Comrih11tio11 al'lmtoir<' J,s droitr de pammat (P.uis, I 934).
3. Set the bibliography in M. I. Finky's arlick, 'fr,'\.-dm..-n .in OCD' 4471!: and m Otrger, F.DRL
564 (s.v. li/lertll.<) and 609 (~.v. oprrae llbmt). Add 1-'. H. C. W~awr. f'amilia Catsaris: a Social
Sr11Jy rJ{ th~ Ernpm"'-' Frl'odmm and Slaves (1Y72); and >Cl' Wcawr~ aruck r'Pr. m SAS (cd.
finky) 1Z1-40. Ronran manumission t~ dlalt wilh at gnar ILngth in mo~t ofrh M'Cond halfof
574
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
HI.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Notes on lll.v (pp.175-177)
Buckland, RLS (>37 tT) !he b<"gin~"~<'r mi!;ht .vcll sct!l '"ilh r.h.M Iivdy work. Crook. LLR.
csp. 41, 50-S. flO. 1'!1-7.. MoJ: hi1ton:un I t:mtk 1\'~u:.~ :1gn~ th;~,t manumis.,ion was much
more common .ll:)OU!f l~m::llll~ !!tall Gn~d;s, !tt.e,b. Gh;o Ai:Olr.ly's artie!<'. 'Dit Frcdassung
VOl! Sklavcn u. h< s~rul!U! ,:<':" Skl<>Y('"'i in de: mmm."hl'TI !o.:at.scueir'. in Ril'. stor dell' Ant. :!
(1972) 97-129, a~r; !T
For the disabilit!Cli oftbr fnxrJm;m hm<Klf, Yo'(' Dtll. HillE., t<h.n:, iv. vii; and the b1bliography
iu Berger. EDRI. !io(rJ, s. v .;rp~... liitfli. Tit<"t~ l:! 1 b:i~f mtmt1o1:y in Crook, Ll.R :> 1.
Th<" only exphcit l:tlhnlt~ r<r :h~" '~ #IISI .1~.-.., l'>:mr.~.c i \; d f'/H. 2 1V .fJ.'.-7. H l1o.7J.
See in particular Ma:r i. Gunilfl. n~: f~dr::~n~ ron ::1 m~rmdpal hfr'. in]RS 21 (1931)
65-77; and most r~1t :y G:~:ru.c-y, flHJ (mainly, hu1 by u.; mc4ns cntirdy. on Uencwnrum );
also e.g. J H. D'Arno>. 'l':tl-.;,h in rh~ ~n;m,i cm::uy af rh~ ltiJman Empire: a socio~l and
economic study'. i1:_IRS 6-1 ( 1'~7') lfH-1-L. -=-~- Ill- U.
For l.ICinus, seC' l'IN~ lV.iii (l'.lb6) ?].If'' I no..3111. For !:ts nl>~~haviour in Gaul, SN' csp. Dio
Cass. UV.21.2-8~ ~u.L. /.)i~ . .'l:.~o' ':.7. i; ~-.,,~., .1poc~t/. { IIi~ w~lth is spoken of as if it wen
comparable wtth t!w <Jf l':t!l.!~ {.ltro". I. J!)lJ. ,f bdcw :m.-i n.'l), .11nd as late as the 470s he is
mtntioncd in th<' ;'>lllp~y <f -.nn nt~cr 11\torin:.:s imp<r fil !rt:dmen (includmg Pallas and
Narcissus) by Si.tmt:u, Aru:l::ta~:~. Ep. V. ~ii.J 1-k .trp~n l l r.i i m Duncan-Jones, EREQS
343-4, App.7: 'Th.- l'IZ~ .,fpnv.Jt, fim>~n<') nn.kr t!al':imi.JM:,.
Plut., Crass. 2.3. s;}'"' rh.t: Cr;tt,u~ "'"II ,.~,..~~m.,.,! d i1i; ;m'i"'rry iJ 55 B.C. (aftrr he had made
vast brifts) was 7, !fil t:.!,uu (.t littit ow~ HS !ill rml!:<:); and ~mrclin"- to Pliny. NH XXXW.134.
hl' had land worth HS lf~lrnt!li,,., (;,>Vt'r H.~lt:.lc-,.,rs). Hi> L'lll::t~ u:~mark is quoted by Pliny,
lm. cit., as n:f~r~.,,~ '" th ilmu::.! ";11..:-;p of.: lt)tlcn (~W'!'I=tt'd by Frank. ESAR 1.327. at c. I
million den;mi a;t~i l>y Crawfrli .:at 1'1: rmlhm !(>r rl:. O!'rln-J: _,.,. \'Jil.iv n.IO below); but m
C:ic .. Dt <Jjjit. 1.15, 11 ~fer~ :u au .( ..<'rOll\ ... .llll m c'~-. 1'.;411 Vl.45. tlus is made mor.
t'Xp!icit: Crassus ,,,.,.,,.Jl~ <JKi..: :i .111 ,.....,.,<trll.f ,-,; M.< legion; wuh aux1liary horse and foot.
which would ~ur..ly h.t\-: <h: ~'''~"'rhu!!. in th< mtghl'k'l:trh><"l fllS 34).6(! million yar.
For Narcissus, st"C' lJ~ C1~s. LX(l.XI).J~A (1fllmiilt.rt :fr.t,!mu~ = H~ 44~1 million): for
Pallas, Tac., Arm. XIJ.i:d (HS Jflf) rmlh,n\, ;or.d l.hc L'<ll 14.1 (trW> mtllion drachma<").
I bast this figure on h~ f.11f tiat m JJ LtC. Cll\'1'-' (X/Cf l'in/. \:!. ci. W, and II Pint. 93) could say
that the Scnatc !~-t,l r-~tms::-.1 Sn;tm l'ollttpcr HS 7f~i nuih.li, Js compensation for thf'
confiscation ofht~ iui,rs l'f"J'r:y (:f. AJ'I' BC IU.l m W n.C. Sextus had bl'c:n offcrcd 50
million drachmae .,.. .!tworJi (liS. ;!1~.1 mdli,a\. '"-'''H. C. rh,li)!llrC seems to haw bc:m put ar
HS 70 million (Dr. XI.\'11Lv._.3 I'I.:'>!X.UIJ dr;sobm.!<'},
The standard vit'w rh~ tht> l~tl.. p)_., .., rrly r l;t.&in!~ j,,,,,, the rei!,lrt of Hadrian onward~ has
lx-cn romrovert.t by Wcw,r. iu dh Wu!l..,; tUWtlniln n.3 above: see bncfly SAS (cd.
finkv) 137-9.
See Jon<"S, LRE Jl .."lf.,7. 71); M K. Hopkins, 'Funt~dl>ll politiC" 111 tho: Lar.r Roman Empm~. in
PCPS 1!!9 = n.s.'' i l'.lt~~~ t,_!~41, (This arud,IM~ "''"'bern nr,iut<"l. With~ few changes. as
ch.iv, 'Thc poliu.-..l p.>w,r ,,f cmmd~~. m rlw l>u"l.. i:o~llJkius ut~nllorlt'd tn n. Ill below.]
For the kttl."r ofErirhaui:I!>O. so.;, .l<to~ C.ol;. (J,., , ,.,t, E '\ohwo~nz. l.lv.3.222-5, 293-4. Thc
subject is alo;o tr<',lfl';l by P11rr~ lt:.:rfr(>i. J.,-;. pn'.u-;.r.;. J~ S;;Jiut Cynlk ~ Ia cour de Consrantinoplc'. m his Etu.t.. of,. :;!'".~!'' tl.l',,,.;,,.._,l ;i:'' \Pfr:s. I'J!I) 1~1-N Tht' list ofbribt's pa1d ro
Chry;;cros is on 1'~4 uf ci .-\:r:t, lm~ ~-l-!!1. 1\hnsi V \Pill) '11!7-'J give-s the letter of
Epiphanius but omll~ tl:t d~duk ui Cynl's hril>t,; dt tlrml i~ :!'\14n the Acta Cone. Occ.).
See also Nestoriu~. 17,,. H,,_. ,,, ~i f-I,,;r:/riJ,~. F.n~ trlr~~. iron Syria, by G. R. Drivl'r and L.
Hodgson (Oxford. 1'-'.!.~}. ~n. '!7'1-.ii'l. ~ ""d "'P J.l'l-51; .:i xxii-iir, xxx. (Only the
Syriat translation ,,t' th Gr.-.k c>n~u.al snnrws:: u wa~ <'tlit,d l>y l'aul B-dJan in II) 10.) h ~.-.:ms
uot ro be- dear wb.:rb.r Ch!\'><r~~ (\"h,,.,.. n.nuc ~t..lto be given d~ Chrysoretus or Chrysoreres) w~s tht" prarp.ltlu frh, f.\tl'<'lor Th,~>Jl!itU~ II or oft he phu Empr<'SS Pulcheria. For a
summary of the n1.11n ;.,..,nJ,,Ir<~u ,,, ,-;,/~~.- t:iwu lw ~r C~ril. sc..:Joucs, LRE 1.346. The
gifts Wc'r" so t'Xpcn~i\ rh;r.r Cyrilt< ,aid !)I h:s ar,h,io~~"' tn h~"~ hurrowl'd 1.500 lb. gold
from the Coml'S AmunthS, ~li,r h.t,in..r ;mpp.d ~j_, Cirurd: .~f rwrything (mle.<ia Alcxandrina nudata: ~ lbt .1:~.,. J> U:\, hm.,; .\J-:1, !; ~-'-'"i S.1 Crral was a most r<'markabk
cbarattcr: he is cau>U&'o~Hy ~k"<'nl:-:! h tho .~rc'-ll hMtr!n f.r.t~r St,m (himself a Runun
CJtholtc) in his Hill: [ .J. 271
s,,.. c.g. Srcin. HBI:' IT _;:.rwo~..~l. -J!>J. :..17-'17 .~:

Wtstt'n!lanu. ASA .:_;, u.:! "' SC.'\ (ld. l''uak\') 7'J r! ~- :.i:r-.th~ ii1:'1res for slaves and small
ammals; hu1 P. A. llr.:r.~. 'Tw;> ~r.:;.r lf<lll~: l.111iw1..-r;.. h !.s:t.o~;11c J4 (1975) flllJ-35 ..ugtR'S
Notes on lll.rJ-vi (pp.178-184)

16.
17.
111.
19.
rhar Isidorus is not likely to haw cxcccdcd tht!imJts of credibility. althuu~ll he .,)~o admits that
the MS figures may nor hav< bten transmitttd accuratdy.
Cf. Duncan-Joncs. EREQS ~JH-4H. Thnwll-known cs~1Y by J>. Vlyne, 'ViLdeTrim~ll:l\lil'. in
Annale.< lf> (I% l) 213-47, h.1~ much cxcdknt matcnal. but p;~rhaps d~M~> r.m fully hrinj:.uu~ thl"
cxtravaRann ofsom, of the exat;gaarions in dw Cma 1'rim.;~ldu!ll!i$.
c f. IG u R IJJ.)\(12. I~-26. whtn QV&V~I KTOtp&llt and anf t.fvt1oipo <~gain ;cp?C'~f tlgcdv.:r (line 25). bu<
dw "II'Otpo<Kot an orni11cd. J> ,m: (doubtk's hy mistak,) rbc ,-oJoEinn who a~p.!aT nc~~~ to 1h:
tKKA"I)<Tuta-rn:i in HO 1.14 and H(~l. ~-IO. ln:-1(~1 tht "vwii<Krapwt. dunot Jrpcar. See :.ho S!,;tion vi
of this chaptt'r afta its n.J'i.
What I havt' said applies, m my opinion, t'Wn ro the matcrial .:xamull'd Ill tlw wry mttrcsttn)!
and ahie arridc by Gt'zd Alfi\ldy mentinllc'd illn.3 .1hove. wah which I mtd not cmu-rnmy;df
h~rc. as it deals only w11h Rome .1nd Italy. Spain. Jml the Da1mbian Jrca. and nDt wnh rny
'(;rnk world'. [Cf now Ktith Hopkius. c,,,,qutrors attd Sf'"'"' Soci,,/,>~lwf .'>r~<d. itr R'"""'
Hist. I (l'J7H) 115 n.30 md 127 n.ti3. which l r.ad aticr tlus S<'<tion was tinishcd. I am j.:bd tu
find that W<' Jrt' in broad agr~tm,nr about Alt(ildy"s wnclusmm.]
Sc~ n.2 ahow; al~o t'.g. W. W Buckland. 'I"HRI." HH-'JO. or. murh more bn.:fly. Dut( FFRE
~3-4: Crook. LLR 'i.l
[III. vi]
1. T'his ~.nim ,,;;ru:~l!y .,,.;;.Ht!"~L""!< .;~ C.:1:tk t~tilt: tlt~n Homan wa!1:c labour: but. JS I shall not
have an tPl'lll>ut!l~ to 1:i,, 111("1:< ;han (>(.~.,.~hJoto:.l bibhograplucal rl'f,nnc,s for Roman
meru,.,;,,if (:u:.i th, !~w rd.ttii>!-: H th'lll, whi.h )>.hall lolv<' to wuch upon), I will mcnt1on here
sonh t-tlhbrJ w.-.rJ.., !h.t: ,I~aI ;., .1 ~u~r.oi \\' _,,. \\ uh I! oman lured labour and the law relating
rhtrct<: ~.:u'' 1\la:tit>~. '.\iarto:rMrjru '. Cmribut<ull :studi.> dri r11pp>rt1 di lar"' iu diritt,> ''""''"''
(Mit..... l'l'.li); ;u:rli.i !!yr. M J), [{.~~rtis: th twn llH.'IliJOII~d Ill ll 3f> below:
also II ~litirr,t ..S..E";j.Jtli\1 t .lt:.::o, (li;,f;, '\J}..,..). Jlj~,:Ctr,:..-,h~ aj$ori,ttil'o nd Pn~mdo rvm111W, .lui cofit:"t?i
de/1,, H.;!!tiiHo.-,; ,;/!, :v;l;,r;:i:mi ,(,/ B::;).
(N.tJ'ks. IY5'i); St,ri(J df/1, (,>rpt>ra.::imri '"dd
,,.,..,,.,,,f.,
J,.,,,,.,,.
ret;i"''' ,,{i<'{i,IW
"'""m; (2 vi. B,n;. 117!). W<' als\J nn.){> ~nd J9~0 bdow. [Only
wh,n lius d1~rru ,,.,,, h, 1'''"-'f <lil I,,.,_. :h, .:tHid !r P. A. Hrunr. 'Fret' labour and public
work~ .ll !(.,,.,,',in JR'i 7n (l'o,l!.l) ~i-Ii~. !f whir.h th<' author kindly sltnw<d m~ ,111 ,:.rly
draft I ."KC\'I't ~1mrh ,-,f wut lw s;;~s .lh"C 11111"; t.;r notl' his o;tat<'tlWJlt (p.H4) that h, is 'not
ddinung th.. l \\ l:.tt i. tm, t~t [{,m J.....1,1.., '~" ,~ll,.t Wns in tho: ,mpire .)
2. Cf A,-s.-hin. I !!IS. ,,.,,,.,,. tltl" ilm:;. t>i ;!<'~''ft~ ,,,..j,;~~l an: Jwdimg house and tcncmem house
(t>rkio~ .md r:;ih; i<r th~ .Jj,tiu.-ri.n. '< ~ 12~). bn.!, slav'' ami tnomv inwsrtd iu loans.
3. St'<' L A !\.t.m~..:. '\llhi!;, - :<l,.,t.;-. i!l CIJ ~J (I .;I) 113-.17; (;ram ..\fi/1,< ,md flt>rtr iOJ Class ira/
Atiii;JIAil[ ( ti~). o:~p. 1~1-5<1.
4. Th, hw \\':Is :\aded b~ ,j,-,,u;,,.,. r::ki1:;r ><r ' h:~l-k;IS<" of th prop<rtv
th~~ wt'r<' going to

s,"'l 2hac llh.;J LtiUI-.1 lq:.;..ll~ d:lu l[u 1"1,.,;du.t.t..' uot prolur,Jttr-~~ hur th1~ prdLricc tuo
W.lS ti)tbld.kr> ;,~. Th.-....~ .... i;l~ II .n;d v. !~nt::i.:w I!I m -l.W. by'""'' n wl. rx. I. whidl c'Vl'll
~Ot..~ ,ar. t:o f,,r~~i.t ,J,t-:'llri("rr,, _..,:t~i.! .,~ ~:.t.tit-:' t:,, i~;tt~_'-'':! ( 4).
5. Aristut!, !iJ'i:al<l- of hirc;l t,l..,,m .1; .t f.ma) ,,f ..,.,,:o,.,,.;,. (HI. I. II. 15ilh5-7). ut "'""'~''''""'"
<pyarru ''' rl~,., (\'1112. i.H;t..u. U; l:ti1 E.:r.l. ll t!l:-'.>1; cf l's.t\rist .. (),.,.,, I:!. U_.l':?'J).
and II~>'S lit<" ,.,rh ,...,r.~.,.,,.,,,. (P.i !V.I.!. l.""b:'~-.t11) H ncwr ust"' """~"'for hind labour.
6. Tiu si' lt:.l!ll p.<s..<.l;,.-.;: ;,, 1\ri~t!, ~r,J'M. I.;!. l:!.:,~t~,_i: 13, 12fl~'-~ 1 '!: 111.5, 127H''::'I-'i: IV.-l.
l:?')(lPJ.l'l<l; VIJ, ~J:!I"':;...,, Rim I 1. !J.t.7''2..._J2 F\Jr oth<r pa~sag<s on th< tiJC$ and hi'
aniviuc......-. Ari>l Iori F.r"l VII !.!. 1!4~~>_q; :'.~1(5: tlw t<xb t:ir ..d mn.!'l abow in" hkh
~''"'~'rt~ .;n,! i' <j.t'l.lh' ;op~,~~u: and
lll.5. l :!ii''t lw U. 17-IH. ~ t-1: VI. I, 1317 '2-+-f>: ~.
Ul'r.?t,..,l<f; VII t.;, U.!':l'.i'i-S (r<> l~~:r.it:rsw,,.j 1n th<: 1ght ofK. 1J1f,'21-5. 1.)2~ 1 '2~): VIII 2.
133JI'I'.I..:.!I:i. U.OI 11 J.";.J.I. 7, !3-1~1~-.?1. !:B: . .\'il.IV 3. 112'i'l-2.
7. Among o:lh'r j>~>S&~. ,,.,. Ars: .. /'lt I(.S. l:';fo'l'3.;..o, (riw T<ill'avay~aimv. . TxoAiw): IVA.
12'Jlh::!56; VII 'J. !.I:N'l-:!: H. 1.\3J-' JJ..t.; 15. l.ti:'l~lfl; witb tlw admirahl< pap<"r hy J. l.
Stod'' IXD\H'. t! Ctj -"' i l';.;..) !Tl--'7. t)ll ~t:" (the Latin wmd most n.-.uly- althmtf:!:h
ufh':J ?h.'t \'\t~ h~=--tly - ~'~u,~pco~.;:i!~g :.::.,.o~,,;":..i..i:l) rh~:rt.' l~ a large rc:c~nt book of no ft"\vcr than
57ll ~"il~t.A.l,~ J~;aro~ ...t\i~,ri:- A:;:b~. !- ,\t~r~i;: .f.:,~; 1,1,'H' u~,-,:/t ff mtellrcru~ffl r,mrrlHlt ,Jn m({!rtu,) a
/'ipc't/<o" olll.~rwr.,m ( = 1'1\F>I .1:- I;, i-.:., ,h'' t.-~arc. ct scienn~ humaiu,s <k Paris. Serie
'ltl'chtf;-h,~. XXX. I':.r:~. I'NJ.)
lll.IJJ.tJ!,~.
tcr
576
Notes on III.vi
(pp.184~ 187)
8. Arisr l'o>i IV.~. :2JG'-'JB-l'll. 1291"33-bB; VI. 7. 1321"5-6; cf. Vl.t, 1317.24-6; 4. 1319"26-~;
VII.~'. Ul?'J~-1.4.
9. Cf thr .l:.sc.ts.~icn uitlw r -.,. , p;~sug;~~ tr:; qn~suon 111 H 1v ;,~o'l.:, irom which it should be ev1dcm
dllt o~hllottgh ir ~~ ul; th\ OllC :u Hoo:;ic vr whwn !el~ mu :r :k-al wuh the P.EPTJ of the .. ~..;,"o'
:>l-"('<\tic~l!y. )1:1 t!,. i!rst lfli:J JtP"i :~: !\',oi !t!TIH"l to include tht: dilropo<. the
propertied d<~.5'i .mJ :hu!\'r~ :ttl" :n ,m-n dr~r~i:nn cf d>~ r:-~ ..,,..._,.
10. Unlike most ,:htmo;. I W<~lllc ,.!,(,~1~ :he:.,: in ho.- 1i. for h rnr opmion it would bt' absurd to
~upp.--:o...- th:~t .\ri!Wtk ,-;u: ht~ <.<}'1:>1(: :i:.;: m~>.t: ": ~b.- ... ,..,,,.,.,.., ~re rich - especially m the
olij1-Udm-,. uf .,ht.:h i\rlstulk i> h.:~.- "I':':Jkia~!l w.-,d,i M>JlP<I!iot", h; the way. that TtJCViTa< who
l~ram" rt<h di<l ,;.o h)' employing~:;;;,";' i.IO(l<. ;;kt! Cy:.-f,m am: :he others mentioned in the
scco~al .,; Xcnophon's dialogues S\;:nmnr-"r:-d ;;b:,.,.c-- :h~ uuc- wt:h Aristarchus (Mem. II. vii).
wh,r~: mdt,d all the n:<'11 <"L"l<nmd ~rcsp;.:l!';c;!ly ~t.i.~";"..! :oJ ha\c made th,ir pik by usiug
sl.&w-. Surb mm '~ th~ flllh,:~ of lsV<"r.;otc-~ .ut.:! r J,;r:~$rl.~;t..,. W('uld crtainly fall mto th1s
category. ( )n tht thn hnJ. 1 f~l ~urc- th.tl .vh,~ A:isWtk >p~aks of o1l(t"PI'ii"'~ (Pol. 111.4.
1277'38-t.ll J.:t-:i rn \t'lil"rJ~i<lit (IV ..;_ i2'1! 1'2~-i-.} h.- os <!unio.~ng pr.:r!;srily ofhired workers: note
thJIMi,o.oo~i.&IJ of l.:?lf'J7 o~~J th1 ;.i; ~~~~~ <r,l(oA6:'Ev ofli-!1''~(:.
11. f,_,r arll>tho:r 31:&:..-m.:nt treating "-;,g:--l~b"m and slavery :t~ ;:~~ much alikl.'. sec th lat~
Penparu..: work. Ps.-Arist., De ?ir.ut 1. l25t 1'Jn-l-l (<'!lp. Oo>< )fiTKix aillov~mrpElrij~
/>V1Tap6o;, o&A<r.~i.ll!c 'CUi lA~I~Deu<"MM2'PI~!-
12. Other passages in Hom.:r in win,h '"t~c oiJ>r.('r ~rc lllul XXI Hl-57 (where Post"idon and
Apollo serve l'i<lllldou ofl f<'Y fi1 lure tt>r J lc-;;r. h:r ;m ,h~t,-.1 of their p.ty- probably a
vr~ ,,rnmon coxpericnce t\>r rh, ,,.Wj: OJ}s.;. IV IJ~ (wh,r; 'il~~ and household servants
Jn' <'11Vi;;;.1JtJ as the likely ~<)llfi'<' r::.r rm.wn!. XIV. !Ol-1 (;wrdr:tm); XVTII.356-61 (farm
W(>rk:;; .:;i. l!iold XVIIJ.!io:'iit. :Roe'. wh,-r, thlp.t79 arc prt-surnably Jlso hin:d labourcors.
~.i_J..,?. 1.!.~. 15.~'>. 292-5, 299; 1673.4. ~9. 44-5, SS-9 (p.un'l<noi).
Somc addmon.d l'l."'tcr;ltlclfts h:tw l>c,n niJ.<k ly Kcvm l]mt<lt<. ht\criprions from Elcousts'. m
i\pxac.o~O'l''lriJ 'F..t61)Jl4!pic ( N71) 8 t- t~- o~t ~3-8IG, 112.1672.4-5 . .J.:!-J, ! 17- ~li. 14 !-~; lf!73 ..\'J(&Jt.W.nN) And s.:;r;. IJ above.
'KnA.c..JOO< ,.wrfl&oo:' labt.mr c~.-IUftt.,"\" m Cl:o.o;.~tl".il Atht'n~'. 111 loraoM N ll ~I) 171-3. (Th.is Kolonos was
not ..t d~mt. hke Kolcnu' f ltrpto~. th. J;._'ffit: cfthc F""'t '..-phod,-s; It was in the dcme Mclitc:.)
I give he-n ~11 the passages I J.n,,w from Ath-n relating to hirc.-t lo~l>uur in agriculture: Solon fr.
1.47-M and P~.-Dem. LIIJ. .?0-1 (cite-d m d .. text above); .-\1 . W.ups 712; Dcm. XV111.51;
l.VII.45. lhL'<>phr . Ch.lr. IV.~; Menand .. Agric. ~...i; Dp.- .~.~.l-1; cf. Xen., HifJ'o Vl.IO.
In th~ 1.651 po~tt~ oit"t .mJ notn. 1n Rostovtzeff, sralllW. th,r .an: few specific references to
wage-labour utMdc.' Ddu~ (thr ~ituati<n m whkh IS. Ji~rus~-d iu r .tm's chapter mentioned in
n.18 below; d. l.ai'\c~n m frank..l!S..'l.R l\'AJK-12i. Perhapsthe mu!>t usefuhtatemcnt tsonein
S.EllHW III. t(J(J I n.:i.~; 'lb~ average nmumro~ttou of technical "'rvice (with fcow exceptions)
W.l<; ;,.b;-,ut 1 Jr. a JJ.y, miC"times less. s..mtnn ..... o~lntk mn. fh, salary of a 'foreman (for
<:l!o.lmplt. a t,yEjJ-Wv m tit nuht.ary 5c.n.-icc) WJ.~ no lutre than d.~ut>k the salary of a common
mhnitt'1. which was 'littlt" more th:&n ~ li\in~ wage, whde tht uthlc.illed or half-skilled hired
hutJ:o co~mro a little. I(Ss th.ut thi~ IivlllJt w>~tt.
In The lltllrnist~< .o\gt, by J H. Hury ~~d <'th,n. ! IJ.?.\) lti!J-111 Tam gives no referencl"S, but
many ofthcom \'..Jil easily be diSC't>VI:Tnl with tht ..Jid ,,f'T.Im, HC' (esp. eh.iii); Rostovtzeff.
SlillllW; o~nd l.aN:n's 'Roman (;r,"'.'t\.'. m l;r.lr,k. l:S.o\R IV .25'1-4%.
In thco whl'lc- ofRostm.-rzl.'tT. SEIIRI?:. rh.:r, o~.n h.ar.Uv .u1v rfrrc'1tn-. to hired labour which an
supported by rh, prudut1ion of C.'ll'ldmCt". And I kn~,w ,,( nothin~ J.t all to compare with the
Mactar inscription. nt~"ntioncoJ tn the' t~"Ct above. just after th<" p.t~..age to which the present
nute relates. I see no r<".ason to give a string of uninformative rl'ti:or~m:.:s and wiD content myself
with rwo. First. then" 1~ IG XU. v .129. lines 1-4-.)1, whl."r<' th<' P:m.ms. in the second century
B. C rongratul.ue thC'Ir "~'''"""""'' ti.1r hnutjt J,alr ,ustly both with hired mL-n and with their
cmrlm.-~rs. ,md ftlr having obligC'J the run.oJ nl<'n tO go to Wt>rk .mJ tbe t'mpJoyers tO pay their
Waj;~ WldloUI litigation. [ ajttl."C' With Buckler, l.DPA .?fl (!>L'e esp. his n.3), that the mm are
mor..-Iakel!" to havco been attnculturallo~bourc-r. than indu~tri.al workers. Thl scc::ond text is Dio
Chry~. Vfi.ll. om uf,-,.1"). ti.-wwhtch speak oftic-e men "''f\'IDft .n hLrJsmm for bin. Perhaps I
should .add that the most inten."'tinJt of the do.."Umn1h 'M.'t \)UI .mJ .:li~~-ussed in Buckler. lDPA
(36-45, 47-50). namdr the- Jcdo~r.anon by the collc-ctl\'t' buddint: wtrkers of Sardis dated 27
April4511, hunothing to do with hir-N labour in thctL"t'hnu:.ai ...-nr... 1~ IV.vi below). I think
we ro~n generalise the 'tatcmmt Rosttwtz..-fTtu.akr<O ,,rz Egyrt (I 471 ): 'We can hardly presumt
the txistencc of a s~;fic wageo-eaming da:o~ ofl;d>c.lur,r in EF:,.rt. The mo~jority of wagecamt'rs workro oc~ionaUy and b.td .anothe-r pc:-nnancnt ,,,,-up~tion (most of thcom being
peasants); moreover, women and childrm worke-d along with thL m .,,. The- position oflabour
13. I(; II'.Ih72 .)>...lei.l.:!-4. -6~.
14.
15.
16.
17.
tR.
19.
577
Notes on lll.vi (pp.188-189)
in imh!~try ~ ..\l!:J<.);~ m..,h\vWII. Thi~ can ~:rd be- tak~n co be broadly trm of the whole
.:mpiH: l1wre \\a~ cn~ainly ,\ g<.V.ld d~:.i ,,-hir~J l.tbour in agriculture, of a purdy s~asonal
natll:t" (r.f Mac."vvui!,..:L RSR 42 ~m! ;1;2 m: .. n-S; \Vh;te, RF 347-50. with Brunt's rcvil'w in
JRS (,:! [197:.').1\ ISS; }Cll71:.!.. l_{rE 1!.'}'().?-3). A. W;V cxcepnonJ! construction programme
whid1nffn<'"!l h1gt1 r~c~ofp;1y. such a5 rhL buildin,; ;;t gnat spc.cd by Anastasius in 505-7 of a
new frcut:~r :::-.r~'~"~ ,~!:y ,,r !J.a:-.1 (:rc=n..:un~~~ A~~~!-o:~!-iopohs) ncar Niftibis in Mesopotamia~
mighr artr;J(: br~r ILtmtb-.~~ ,;f '"-''l'l..ns "';l,j,- it t~r~l. and many of them might he p.rtfWTo'l
mcrcml.:i (n't' .hm<:>, I !Jl'i H.ll.)lo!). ;;:. l'mwp .. /k/! !!I ( Vand. I) xxiii.19-20 for l:khsar1u~ at
Cart!-t=t~:- !:1 533 o!!('rin~: ~:,..:t~. .r~\U ~V P"ti :ot,;:'.-; :r ~t~f. ~'' oil'<oiial'io" TfXVi7"aL~ -raL ~ <IAA~ bJJ.i.A~ ..
ro r\"p:llf th~ Lity wall ~l~.l s;;rrm:r;d ;r W;th ~ J1~rh and a wooden stockade. I think that
Procopius" ,IJ:>Illl<~tnn her-.,.-.,..., rh~ ,.. x:-<rm ;u,.t !h,- 1\o\o\o~ &j~.<AO~ is a g.:nuinc on: the lact,r
would be t~.l.tU~h t.!~A:\IdH~."'t! ~v.:,~-L\l')OH.:e!s_
20. For Ep.lo~:r,;~, ;.,..., !iur:Nti, C'H11: ""7.. _;. iiS-l iS. B !, iJii-Sis. 15'.1-flf.. 1.-.->-'.11. !'Jl-:~!<6. I:.GTFl.
<'Sp. 1-l.-5 .?7-31, J! f..~ 1 kl~>. ;:<' J' 1-1 I ,:.1'-'1>. n,,lldu> building ,,,.,;,.-..r.o.. in J'.CH t.l
(1<J37) 10':!-J.S; >tl!l md1.tl tu. is(; Gk:t~. J.,., b::c< i Dc-lc1.~'. m.iuf,{,.; Sornds II ( i9L~)
206-! ;_ ;~:'!J..i;~}. II:\\'~ :~<llm:l.rit~ :hi; hoo!.. ''',as i,ru~h.d :hat I w ;;; ;,hk reo l=k ar; ;,,hnrlla
Bod-:-i ftJt:lll:u. 1-Ju*.:.trt r:;l:firi <t itrnf,t~io'u 'tr.~r ,.n,4tn.:.:. ,J.~.u~r (Bologna, P;'l-1) I
21. fG n:. 167.'-.\. ffr :h. ;J.M(f ....... " ' tht~ .:.-,.cuUie:lts. S('L" 1>. u .tb_\'l': f;,r rlhc ll"'JLtkru.L n. P:
the.~ :t:h~ (ut:l. I67~ ..~.S-SH.. ,: :t9~-} .-\~i.lOIIJ; \'.lren,t.s ,-.,th-.: .u.-wut:t1i fi-oJu 4\1l1t:ns. 'rtm~t
mC'nt><'ll '"''''''~...r ~11. End~l~H)I :[.,,,, h~ l..a! .i::.-;,d, ft!!l' nirh ''"'''W)': ~'"C' il.--; 1' .]71-4 .mol
ll 2 .lt.5-l'>. wih .tdh~i:~ tn SEC ~sr. X __lf.l\._;;:;:~ "''d r . n C"'k.-y. iu r~:. Ernkrlzl'lm:
(192'/J. ,,1 J. M 1'.1'-'" .u;d ;;>thrrs. ,-}; w Tii('St' !:ll!tc-r 11(\\'llr~~ ;n u,..,;i.:~l-,. 1f woe v:ry .nttd~.
anah.l to,l(. H i::.n.t.. U. 'T!w Ehchriumr; ''".>rl11-c-n'. m :lH 5i i!'J:C,j) Fl~-2!11 1 h.1w
refcrr.<l "' WA;!I"lo b~ rh: ''!! !h, .,.. . .;,r. .ac lt:ut <~n<.- .-~'I,..J ...-. ... ~11 c1 .,-.,.," ( tG I' .37;; 1~5-1), cf.
[11'at)t 1 cfpj~or,c.:..~ ,.~.,.~,,.,.,; m f(; F .t.:.:\.J:~. !.t: ,..,..."E<: 111 ..1'). tom 11 i ~.nm m.:od d:.J: th.t the
rate'' by rho d.\v, t:d cv.,l tl~ ~l.u~ nfti .:~;!mcc:t .u A.:l:,m. Epidaurus ;lli" ds~wh<!<' !.~
usualh ~t ... 111lOdt pr ....\. W.&!! ..~ rdlo.i !if"''' .:aln.l.u.-;li i>~ d muud,. ~,.,..,..;'"'" Uo:
mentll'll'''l ~nr:ai tmtt'" '" tit.rJ..,-,..,,f:lrv AttlT.loll' mscriptions, .- ~ ;c; I" .H'I ~}.1-!t (:7
(whr, tiwy ...,. J'<'rho~p ,INtnot ~rrl :lu ,_,
in line 63); J51.3;'; _\o',_\.!"'1. '"hr~ I
think,,._., ''"ll hJrllly se-parart' ll'lii<! from ,_,,r.'1->;t<itr..c)
22. My P~IUC>U ~ wn diffcrcnr frmn dnr nJDllrf.rl. (.;
!i~ ti:. r 11 ~. ""nlh~ >t.lt ... mmt
that fin ..-c.nuts fcr the: repair ,>fth Er~.:hdwi<~n ,.., ..,hi "d.ay-w.l~<...," (,:c.,.)l"r,)('Oiidt<>
"hir.-.! wurlcr.~" (pcm)omi)" is f:.r fror J>ISUti.-,1 ..,. th~ tdnt.-.-; rh, ,, .._,at,,.,,~;,.,,.~ n~nr
appears 111 itith-(<ntury .'\cJ,.,'IUoll' m~nlp;l<lll", ~ ~~~ 1\ I k.uuw. ~nd ,,rt.atnt\1 n.: rr 1<; !~ . tnd
tht wor,t ut!ri.ftvlt!:"t:'l t_,~"<\.l!IT!- )'']~ ut ,_llh,~ ..... .,tr ..~r ira dtt~ s.uu'~\in~ p~nt1u~t c-f fh, Ert\:"hdl~Utl
acccol>llb. in f(; )< 3o7..L~H iof. !td). ltJ 1n t!J., t.v .&!to,~: h,\':tf\li tl"' '"'J or-tbt: pn~~-rJph
contJmrJ: the r.frnn tu tm m;t. ('Z1j. Th,llt:.lllltin,,r,, :mmtwna~; 1..-h'r<''' 1~ aid .1.1,
who 111 rh.: J:r.drthnltll .a.~.:.uuts t(u tiJ7lfJ ( /G I' ..FI. oll)4-17~ W<~~.- p.aill tlr. ,-.1dt:tl ,.1, u11:s
day;; 111,! Wt rn-ulU.iohly I:Jr.,{ l~ dw Ja~,- iR;~,,,IJIJ. up. nt :.){IJ), Wl'ft' \o'l'1 r ;>wblol~
J'&Ut,~qWj Ill til<' >ol;Rt S<-.bt!>ut olr\' 1\CI " ' ct!k,f lll r!;t hll''$ Sl11\'l\'l<lt;. I!C.Of lS lltt~r rJ\ \;ltll'd
J'&Ut'fix; term w~\kh ~~ rl..- r,duh,um ,,,,:~tu:tl!o ~.... m, t,_, \,.- K5:a,.._i !<" ~n~ ;:.ty tf II~
arch&hc.-1 Ju.-1 u.!!r~s.rr~t;,ry ~3:'4 J)i'-1~,, ~l';1rt it'lD :11 ;'-.-s.~th~.: ''J')1(-;ar.-~tit(,. ~i~ f,t~,.. 2.! I
woul.t p.. rUt1l!.&rl~ ..mt!.a,iit'. tnu. thatm JG F..\?12 ...~~3 !p.o.)cr/1<1< i r~itl u 4.;.o/,i II C. t:tlht
1,.,.
.,.,.,,.,r.:..
nu:
sculptor.,,; tho: r<dun~l:t~r.:h.-li. uftlw P~rthc."tllr:. ,,.b,, wut.i lr- ~~~~hi:,~ bu' lll<'f< ,. ,.,,,,,..j.
Mun'hK 1~ ,,[,.., j!l\''11111 th, t:ltu~im.&n.l(.:,,um' wntl!t'J rnrn whn lJ'J'l'.lr r. !x: sl<!ll.-ol ;Jrlt,:&n1.
contrat>rs: ...,,. '!.C. lG W 1t>n.t.7-Q, IIC~ll. 14-1-:0. Hi',-r,.,; lti.l '"' ~l-J. _lt. 1::.1 ..-..p. (5 tu
near th \'lid. wh,r<' II-'"'.,'" appe-ars '!!'lin .nd J~ain a~ giv.n li.r th U><' ,,f yol.ts. ..,- ''"'": ITl
transporting rht t.unl-ot~ of rht columns. a.u.. :J,. i11 >\I JUs Cit a f(o~~~o hun..:'rd dr:arhm11' ~~ ;1
time. And here ,.~.ain. ,,i ,m1~ tho; Jr:;-htt .a:t.i other lii.UT<"> <.t l~'J'IIhhi iiJIU nL'<"'\'~
J'caiJOe. Gi\rrl by th(' St~t ,~.,.,llfx :~ tuvbJXll'll~hl:. I do IM.t WJ..'lt t<) t!C 11\t<l 10.-:1 nllllh d<'ll!l
about the I"'l'l!b;mn.."" -.f the- tuiiJn:}! inscnptlons I l!;n, ll~<'l<llfOJ1't .lnd lfh<'l',.. hue I ~hit~ (
shoulJ .adc:l dm'>' romt"- 1;1~1. \W ......--asionally fin. I P:trm~ut;. .k;;;n!xoJ ,;,~ tN:-iu ipr<>\'l~;i,llli,
ratit~u\} t> building w<>krs.. wlnrh we nt.IY tr.aus.ldr.- 'llitl<ln rnny . .t> m i(; JJ' f<'7.?
(Eieu~t~. 3~/8), where the paymt'llt :> ;.! rh, r Jt<' tf f,,t.,_.J, ;~. ,f.J;
~";; tlt.:rnhr.f trl~11 .,f
unk~"wn st,Uu. who have been <'.U\'ltlJl; lll<<'fl;'totl~ ~n>!ldh. ,...,. b,.,., ~ :Jlth~'llll nrvn ..:far :1> I kmw. Ill nt~nrt:.liJ> - ''Jf m'n r,Ji:tr,-J "' u ;.,.,.,.,,.,,.,, wh~. ,,.,,rJ; i v.td :< !J<.
remunerated ~t m m;~nn t-~n "' i;><-.J omh ......: A!htn. VI..Nt>i-71. :!tmg csp. Ph~ Rtp.
IV .420a and F.ubulu. ThirJiv. it i' mun:-~1~ 'f'<"Clitc:ally r:.rJ,J ~ht particular payments
ah.
.tl-"
578
Notes on Ill. vi
(pp.189~ 194)
ba~'f' b-:-." tnadc: r., "'''~rk<'N .:k-scr;ht'ti u ..l~ru (litcr.lll)', 'l':oting at home'). evidmrly
signiiyin~ ;h;at ~lK!I ~1;pply rh.:ir own i'Qod (.:.g. iG IF l67.L?X. 29, 32. 33. 46. 62. Ill, 160,
178); bU! 11:..-l ;fcr~m :ha: th~ usrofth-:o wori :n que-Hum h;;sn" 2:gmficance, and rhat meunot
dt"~.;rtbt-d ;.~ oi"outTot did p:>t ~c!C':"in i:'l additiO!I r;~t!mu. m :ntm.:-~ ~hertfor. (It seems d~<~r th<~t
!hcr~o i' Pol difft::~n~ ir.. :;:~~ <:~f ;:\one llaV accorcint.; to ""'h"th :he word "'"6<TTo~ 1s used or
!k~t; :Hi o( cut?nc, 1f uot ~-n'lg olft.;.~,. 'h.Kt tnvoi;~i :,,id.L!J,,.:r:.l remuneration in money or
kino.!, then th<" ,.c-kv:m: t"Xpto:ldim~c- wnult! h;lvc- h<t1 ''Ui'PC;l: n :ih ;:,ccounts- and 1t does not.)
i m:11y ..dJ :h;~: dt1' ::t:ipknu of pay who .1~1" lt>~~"t:bcd il5 ol "~'''''" ar(' sometime' IJ.TflwToi
( !i>721'., 3,"\, 41~. 6."?), :md :h:t~ only one: i!.lyn~t:w :.:~'I ol .).a..-r<K B ;~etually calkd IJ.W'96<; (line
Ill}. T~;. Wtr! ,;i,.,~,~ ocn::> (>!:lytn !672. :tml m>r m rh~ ~~~rv~d portions of 1ti73.
23. In :h.- survw~n!.; }l:tr!s of riw F.n'<.hrhtum irL..-r:p1ioru (><~ .~.2 i .:.bovc) only onr mat; seems
!li'Cl.otl, :., b~ r:ailn.::. 1'-~fl..rio: II;<" mC"ttr Ui-:llf>Pk'.l>, m J(; fl J74.99-IOO, 264-7. later.
nOW<'\~f. d~( w;;r;! h ax! ;ltorc:" fr~ly ..-a:,,t IIi till' f.l1:11~:;o ;.(T:>;m~ (sec n.2J again) it IS ofWn
;~r-plicd '" rontmrt:.ars_ R;H I do ,,,,rmy~dfsc.~ lit}' r..-1i ::~'Onomi.: ;;lgnifitann m th, tcrmmoloj;tr... ! varianon~ m th~ chtF-rn:~ iu;';ttmls. Outs:dC" A~hn~. ~s Juid carhcr m the main text
100\'C'. i>Ut~r rerms m.ty he~~~~"~ for 1!1.:' "-..mr.t..-tm.lii'U. .1.( tj'li..,lnl~, for msraucc-. he is mcrdy
~ard :., l:.a;c 'uu.!rr!:.k,:t' thr
24.
s,-;o Mnggs. Af ! 311:. ~p
..r<rk.
IJ~'-~1) (.t:> ~!lcdi.-:t:
p:hstgl'). ~~''Win,: ~hat it would bt' a mistak" to

a::1~~~'' tlLtt_~ l>tr 1:~ :.u. nt'n'SS.irH) fi,u:n)l."'t 'J'l:. good mnt~n:rc-'r.uy sourct (as has so often
be-nt :.~~lllll(t): ;~i~"' i\_ Aml!'l"w;s, 'Til~ <)PI*"Iion :~ t':riJ..l~'.mJHS 9R (1')7H) I-H. at 1-5
(lJp _;..;). ~)In!) li:.rth~o: .~::J pl.iu~1N~ .11i!'amg ~l>.t: :he l':l""'~" IS worthkss and mu't derive
lrn:l l. l.1r" so:tn:(', p<:rhaps :i CO!ltpus!~ior~ t'rc..-lu<C"d by :, >t'JJtm in some post-classiCal

~~.hod'. Y."' Iii{ .J\., Burford. 'The- hu!<i.,r> ollltc l':.rrh;rtl'. i l'anhetto5 and Parthenon ( =
G1ttrl" l;. Nt:~t~, ~~:rpi. to Vill. W. i 1H;.~} .!3--J:O, ~-';:' ,;.~
csr.
25. S-rl"
Uur!iml, EGTB JO-'. :rl..- Fra.n;Ntc. /G.l ll.!i.;...i.
26. Th, s;l;.-:b l' '-'ilsol<"r. 11(11J ,'v'in,ul.) ~ p;stti;:n:arly Sl!!lll!i.-.4111 lwn:, ~II tee the passagein 15-16
h~r U~;;t!.b ,-t.,i:~.~ t..U "'-'~)flrl'< .t~i>'rw.ttn l'uuc:tl;r.r m:tc:nll~r rhcmasses. Perhaps I should
jt!!lt ~,i,! dt:.r 1t wr.ul:f uf o:tu~ l>c" wr<tz~ ru l'r~t~nd tit.at w 1\,n f.),m.ades spoke of n>lhwpura as
the 'glue nf tlt<~ d.-tnNr~ry' !w<'~A l"'iic ;;.,...,.,..1... ra..~- ir ll '' ~''i'IW ap. Plut., MC1r. lOll b) he
could ha\, ht"OI r.t~rnt:~ t .. th, Jmb-li( WNII.~ whirft "''''~ JMi,l f<r ut of rhc: th<-oric fund (se<'
rh: J>.ts!';&g,;; lt:o.t-d in my ~o~,,w fJ .I Undr;u:.m. Tlz~"'~'' ir: CR 78 = n.s.14 [1%4) 191).
n It '" 'k<~r rh.&t 11 wa,; th.- Jr"triiJuri.r~s <fth<r<c :m"Y ,~-,r ('ft;om lestivals (tof lir.oml"'~ rn
:h,. !'IS!o.IJtC: qnr)t.'(!) w whkh D..nt;~da w.1s r,i,rrm,:. -1\:"UJ'P'"""the contrary would be to
;bsl.:nu:. 'A-lriu,ur lhe slightest r,-..son, li>:tl l'hrr . u.h w:.,. 1uisu11Jorstandmg Demadrs; and il
wot(d o111~ \\: .l)' h ridiculous to uua~tm rkat s<llh" \'crv nu,\or pui>hc works could lx- railed the
'!:n( f d'k d,-+'Jn{l{r:.~o
27. ~.~.. Z>t \'anu:. 'l 1 l1bs~or.ltd.a .ill ,\:i.,., us...:; (i'.i(51 ~J5-.>ll;d 1 evitaspopul:ms', inAtme
r lf,r.:l :r.s. I ~ l'lt:>5! rt~ lit). O!a th;.- g<'thr:tll "~t:id ~'"'slinn hW the poor at Rom'-" wcr<
~,-;,nuuood:'11itl irn.ai:1ly in V~Ur<lWi,l.tnd uus-.afr t"J'h'lmut~hutLO:.."S, insular) set, for the Late
R .,.ubli.-. Y .lWl1.
b,iug r.bu,.n, i,l rt.,1u t):ln plebs :r~ lt,Jubhcan Rom"". m Latomus
17 (lJ;M) ;_,;.._ :7. hpr. m CNH (J S,.t~<'fl !t,:!-7'. and, fonh,:.rly Prtndpatc, 8. W. Fritr.
n~. ~.m;,! trHrk~r il i"::rly Im!<:ria! U>nll', in.JH.S r.7 ( 1~7J) 2?-.r/ As Brunt has norict-d (sec
StlS. nt finky. 'II; u -J'I;. th.r.ts ,.,.td.-nn iri'~O .al..&t.-)(,put-b,.tuJurisl, C. Trcb;~tiu~ Testa.
ui p:ottons providm' f,,,. r.nandc.-. to>r rh,:r wn ur th.:r wvo "lih,-rri ~~ climts: D(f{. IX. iii.S.I.
2H. s~c J. ~1'. Waltzing. f:tuJ. IJm.t"JJI~ >:.r it; , ,.,.:ri.rL< r~lni.llllrli.:; dr(Z les RC1maim I (LouvAm,
1~'15) -~ ... 7 (;i H f. l.o.mi. lrJu.~r-. olll:i C('m!f!rtrr .~( tlu Cuy ~i Rlfll' 50 B.C.lOO A.D. ( =
J.l:r. fiTkr,.: Unu_ ,;;,,,,.,_ ''' Hi.wrir.l/ Jn.ll,.,lr~:,,l.S.-it'no"i 1 VI.?. U.tltimore. 193R) M-5 etc.
29. I. A lhum,m,IR:oit..,l (1'17.\) ~S.O. rdi:mn~thnis SCHHh.:itS'bl,l.-,.. 164. u. 'pubhcworks');
d Hnmt m .S.-\C {'d Fml"}') t'7-'JI iAnd S..'l.' "''""" Hrnn~~ t}l'll; artrdc. mentioned at the end
n,.:-
i.f u. lul>tw. J
30. ~ W Jlbank. HCP 1.6~-4 on the whole subjct. He cite5 (692) Livy XXIV .IH.13 for the usc of
the- to~tlll t~nn piths in the samc sense as Polybius uses the Gkck word ft'A~ in Vl.l7.3.
31. I bvm.:- :<'~J:-'r.t to the contexl, ~nd Polyb. IV .50.3, I bdk-vc that Walbank (ibid. 694) is nght in
:3ktnj: mi..: C,tycrai<uOJ T<ri~ ~It rotirt.o~> to mean 'the profits J~""' the contracts' rather than 'the
b11si,,~ '':><":!umtial"" the contracts' (Brunt, as citoo in n.29 above).
32. (l!:ly .ofr,r th:~ chapte-r was finished dtd I Stt the interesting anicle by Lionel Casson. 'Un~
,u~r!uym;;m. th building trade, and Suetonius. Vtsp. llf, in BASP 15 (1978) 43-51, giving
.l:!.,tb,r }ru,rpretation of that text. I shall say nothing "bout thi~o her", as P. A. Brunt will
Notes on Ill. vi (pp.195-201)
QIL' )uhj<.-r.t iilll~ (s.-, .ag.;~iunnw ht> J<)HO artldc.]

lVbd.llulkn. 'Hom;m litij!t'rial bu1L.fm~ llltlu.lrovinc:cs'. in H.'ICPM ( l'-15'1) 2117-35."
a m.m uiinform.. tion 0!"1 ot~ ~llbJL'Ct fm riw mk ot"rlt, arrny. sc:c: c:sp. ibid. 21-1-22
Sl'l' Dt=:ll.S \r.l!l Ilt'rdl<:m, LL'J Jrmr/..J/J<llll o!f Mt tl ti',Jn~rrrr ,)laplcb.- l"<'lllllill<' "''" l'mtpilt (Gcncva.
193'1); ;mdcf. now _I !i. f{~,.. P o.,r XI (N72). TJP"-15.
Tht' L"'l.-idt~ is mou pio:-rn.i.ful fm h;;lv ~nrl1\fric~: ;his ha bc:tn ,ol!t.-cttd and wdl ana]y,o.:d by
Dutlr.""ll!l_ktlt'S, E!U:Q.'i ~~-::' (Afria) am~ 1.1?:-l~ (laly): S<'<" ,sp. LW. 141-J for ;anal dtsnimhmtl'll T!:.. val~ t''><X"phuu I tuv!' conu J-crou ro tht' ruk that where: di,tributmth .He"
grad~d. 1h~ grad in~ i; ~~~trliy.lloordiu~ Ill !K"){"i.Jli'JU~. Is \vherc a fndman ar Osna ~tws mort'
to 1\u!'t:.si;;k~ lU!L"llbdv~-. if ~oms fnt'.im1t) tb~u lU dlTurions (ClL XIV HI = DuncanJonM, RQS n.::.t.7~ --= i'/1.. i'l~- !7n-.7_ J:'i7). S..l in l~<'n<r~l A. R. Hands. Chaririu mul So(J,,{
:lid ifll C.:-.'f( ,rlt.! l<llmt" ( E;r,l!}, t'SlJ 1-l.,._'f:! ~nd. among hi tr.ln~!Jttd ducmn,nrs. D -t 1
(M1IO:.km) ~~'{ D .m. ~.::. -~ (l,aly}
Crud. l.LR 1'.1!-X, wt~il :ompl, r~r\:,:,n,, -"2ll-lmt.5'J-% I would .1dd Th. M.tyn-M.1ly.
[.pc.Jti~ GG'I'NiUHJtl ( = ol'lm., ....lu.<ql.rl:ithrli(lrr .irltrirttt IV. II.J5o). l'Sp 12]-7. and Dt<'tl'T Ni\rr.
SRUfAH -= zur .sJ..zi:.kr> ""d rcddkhn ~h"-''''~:;mg J<r liTim Arb,it in Rom'. 111 ZSS t'2
(19f~$} 67T lH5. \\thldt t." p.:.rt!y ~1 :-\!\rj;._,o\' o:' r-. l\-~ n.: I~obertis. LUJI(lrt1 f lt~Prlllft>ri W:'l '"'''h'''
rcm11rr. (U.ui. J')i>J): d l)clk~rtJs. l rupp.rii Ji /.,,.,,,,, n.-1 diriu, n>mmw (Milan. 1Y~(). My on<"
ubjn:-t: tu t_:r,><k ' !lt r,rla! :. hu ,,.,;ric" L'fC!t: . ->;,J All. XIV .1ii.l (44 B.\. ). lS cvtdmn
that 'JJJ: \"'-':K..:r m .; !,:ildm,: ~L1!t:ucr t'o: C1c,w .u Tusculum ... wmr oti"tu do harv<."tin!(
in Apr!!' (I.LP l'13) A s;,,:,l;;t :toad111g nf t':. p.m-1g...- app,ars 111 While. Rf :; 13 n ..n. Thi~
int(rrrruu ..:l .,fth< wor.h 'aJ fnnm:HI.un'mrh~t k:rtr is absolmdy rub! out. ho\V<"Wt. both
by t! ti1u.- ,.~- ~..,_., (rh,lltC'J~ had '":nmd by ~ar!v ,1\pril) and hy thl continuation ot'C.nro\
Sl'Olo'IIC.'. 1.:. t!h' i!T...-~ 1ha: tho~ ""'" l>:ul 'n-turu:rl .~qJptv-band,d, r..-porting a trong rumuur
thai all 1!1o t!~'<lla :u Rot:l' w;" 1..-u.~ t.k.:a ~" ,6,,u..,,,s hom,'. Th4' phras "ad frunwntum'
mus[ m~?-11 "tJ Lny ~r:.i11' I m::-.~ r<m;J:l: til.lf llmm'~ inlcrprctation of the sant<' pJssagt (m
SA.S. rl. Fink,. lo)) Wo>ul:l r-qajn w: ~,! ::mu:-ntiHll' but e.g. 'ad fnnn ..nraJion<'lll. ami ir
a}sc ,int'"!\ ~~~~~ !\.'.Ut th-. COU~IUU.dlon of~h: .ot~:nr.-lc::
For rh, mag< citln .~str.-:ul(ts 'Ar.IIlt.\i.- :\uol 'SHi.~.:' in the: <'arly Cl'nturies. se~ F. Millar. in
JRS ;,J ii~J;I) 1 ft" "t 1'1'11'
W< rtli..IS~ nut, huwcv.r. j;'-' >0 fJr <!S t<l ;m.tf~i~:~ th~r th, nge-labour<.'r wJ~ k~ally Jssiuulat,d to
lhl ,.J;l\~ in ltol!n.ln l;,w. _,,. ""'"''' sdt!:tr, h:"o\'o' h"t ttmptd to suppos~- Thc ''"'"'~m.trut5
l'l.'rl;un~\' ;ltd 1101 t<-nu part ,-.fll~ f.rmilii!. io:- irt>;f~Hc.:-: norhin!t in D~l! XLIII.xvt.l.lf>-20 or
cls,whcu JUSUfi,s a.:h an '"tmpri" Ami in 1.1'.~- XL Vll.ii.90 and XLVIll xix. 11.1 the
rdannhir. I th<'lllitol'll!,uiw "'hi> ''~>f'l"""' ~'"'' mon b, .:quatet! with that oftlw ~l~vc to
his mlsl'' th;tu wnh t!1;.1 c>l th( tr.-..-,bu;m ;.~ tl-.. .-jj,:t: his patfllllrt>; nor can 'loco ~~rvorum in
D~r{- VIL \'ill . .J.;r . .tn<l Xlm.s,i. J I!! Nm: ... :Jd,.l h. apply w ordmary ""'tMmarii: t;,r all rhi>.
s~ Jt 1\brtmi. op. o11. (11111. I abo\,.-) IS~ tT ,-~~- Nl-72. [8<'tter still is Brunt. iu :;, pp'N- J(KI.
ofrb, l'lili' arncle .-u,,l.u thl' <'lli c>f n i "lavc.j
for tlw :lhb,;~r.<t>hy, ~;:,u .. ~. aouv., .tis" c,,,._,k; U.l~ 192-H (with 3211-lmL"''J-%) lthiuk I
hav; ti"'lII!I)S' i(k,mu.. u.: ir~n rh.-~ ~rt:d, hy _1. A C. Thnmas. 'L<<IIic and ''P~"''" in
BIDII f,~ (l'lrii) !Jt-H. I &~n-. w~rlo Ct ..:.J. rh:o: Schulz, CRI. 54~-4 ;, ovtr-lq~.tlistir 111
bdir~lm 1~ tho distincti<-: I .am .:l~c-rilita~. ,\Jam~ :1:~ e.uli~st passa~.:s in latin rekrri11!! to
loca11.: {r:lro.""ll :-'''"""') woul.t 1~1.-k <>Ill l>!:ull .. Tr,,.o.mm. !o!-U-4. !'1:;.~-t
s. _. Vt:r~ hndl~ U,r~. f:'f)Rl. ~-.7 {.c,a 1,;111' .,.,J,.w,, o>prramm): Huc-k land. TliRl. ' 50:'>-4. I
agr.~ wuh th, M>.mnt ,;iwnl~ ~:w.:L l.l.H. :!11:;_;._ ,;,nowing: Thom.1s. op. nt. 2411-7.
Exclptlo ~lllltt"th>J !'vtS h~uli<IO: \llJk .XXXVIII. 2t.p.
Thom.l. P ,it. (ltar;.3? al1,w> .!JJ, uy~ h- !i:11~'- 'no kgal usc of 1>pmu IMolrtfc,mdurm bd<m
th.: tim.: ,,(llJdri.ln'; but J,rr.. uius ..<;.11. 111 11-1!.. .itt"d in tht tt'xt abow, shows th.ll it"""'
wdl kn;>wu '" ,dilllF)' ;;,.,.,,, ~y tho: :ui.!-tlrt n,cury.
Sec <'sp. D1 Chr~ XI. -~J~ Xl. V.I.~- if; XI. VI."': XLVII.l2-21; XL Vlll.ll-12.
It will hest!ii,,,nr lv nt<r w Finle-y, .u; Sl. wnh l<i.; : __ 5H.
I take: 11 th;,t ir. tb "'-'nl.:l'":.. D,:h>tbn;:-; !!'';;r:b1~~ did not daim that th<y hd sold off rh,
pro..tu.:r <flm; f:.,to.>r)' ~!1<.-J'- o)\\'Uot: rv tll( ~neJlrJ f!h:. hut that they did not sdl thc:m.1t ::cll. or
altNUJrt\'ol}' urtdl rh,- >iJv.-< wrk Jnn.:> ti r"fc:rring to [km. XXVII.:!0-2 13ut his
<"OilL"hl~lu> :cr(; 1~a: J\l>t:tkd. I J,,-,,,~ ... r~llo 1.< ~t~!Ja 1 : .1 set of posschk .dtcrnativc which lw
thittl.. .-\~>h>hu;. nt:):in rr.opo.<' _ ;,,l,l W" corl luvr hrde idt'J. what the real situation w;": "'"<'
Davw... 1\11: !?Jt-.!3. ,;,( .::n _-.,-!:n~r.al-1:.' 'IH'I;cti.Kc\ll~IIJ ofDlmosthL"ncs' assertions.
sho::!y br. d::.lir.g wllh
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
411.
41.
42.
4J.
44.
45.
579
Ram~y
580
Notes on Ill. vi-IV.i (pp.202-206)
46. Davies' APF 127-.\.\. is t'~t"c-ii~r't "" th ~.st;r.t(' "f!kmo:s.thcn' l3th':."r. l3ccepr his modificalion.
p.131, ofthe thoor, I put firw~rd "1 Clt.w ...: Ml'li. H (l'~:iJ).j(l-70.: 1: ts dearly an ;mprovcmmt.
47. Jones, SAW 19().! "" SCA ,:,, ; , ~gin~ lun~u>n 1!1 witi: a pr~~w~mhy attempt ro distmguish
between free craitsmru :lt\J htt<'<il;;lxmr:=n. ll:l: th,'Tl, \'\-hcr.llc l.i <Stmsibly dealing wuh htred
labour. after as~c!'tit:~ !i;.: w, do ma k:<"V~ wh:. [)" pr'dcr*:e of private ~mploycn was, but
the Ath~nian Stoale. :t> ~h<7 ~fmpic huddinl!; ;o<To<:r.ts prove. f>:iid the same ratt ... ro free
48.
workers or hired sl;;V">', h m:&b :1 <tf\"r~:.-: ct1 :h: En.-,:hth~um ucounrs, whrc there arc no
specifi(:ally hirt'tllabour.r Ult'h ~~ :itt: "'~tf~Q,~<>i of fG n~_lf,7:?-3 (see n.IJ above) bur thr
payments for work d-"~'" "r' (!a rY op;nJtl) gt.~ '" rhoii<l.nn calling 'contractors'. apart
from the groups <>fua~pci;i,.! mer! ;n IG F . .>].;_.;(.14-l7, n~t:ned in n.22 above, whom I
take to bl in faC! "''"'"""'" ~lthow~h th~y =1re :1a! w called.
I find it hard to dc<lilt" I'<.1W~'('I!
pvsitiou l.!op:C'd by Kd:h rnm:us, 'The Lcvdlcrs and the
franchise', in 71:( :r.ttm;tr.rmt. 1'1:~ Quest r<,. ."imlr"l~:r l646-1fJ6U. ed. G. E. Aylmer (1972)
M ..c-pbc-~srJn, Tl;r/'.,iilit-1! TIJ~try "'j I\rut'niv Individualism, Hobbrr to
57-78, and that of C.
Lo(ke (\962). e.!' 107, 1.~1-ii: ~nd Dnr.;to.Nif Tim>r; Essrtys 111 R"<itval (1973) 207-23. whose
views are at lea~!Jl.11rtly ~hu.-d by Chm!<'pn<'l Hit;. Pr.tirat~w;: oiHl! Revolutron (195R) 307. and
by Pauline Grc:gg, m ht:-r d<"l,iflltlitl h::.rk m tll,. m~~: ::11110rtat:t of th lcvcllrrs. Free-born
John. A BioJlrap11)' ofjohn l.ill!;;,.lo' (1':11,1) 2>3. !.!1-:.!. ~~57, ,l!i~ Thoma. is certainly right in
emph;ISising rht wide difti:rmco!:S Qf -~;~i:i.:. lJC<'fli; !h.:o L,., ..-lkr ;, ;!nd on the w hok he seems
to me to have th.- t,.ttr :t' rhc: ,;,r~u::l\'1'1.
There has bem s1an dispute b"w :u '.lru~llk,n: bu;<hll.~: di~tin~uished from 'beggars'. and
also on the qu1~:ron how WJ;ic th, :;--.at<-;:y <;o! ~l'rvrm:s WJ5. and how far it included
wage-c-amers wh W'f' ll'l h"usd~ll \V,"n-~11' ~..,. tho WiCk>' ntcd m th preceding note.
For the first ddinituu .,.... (t1) n1r
~~ m.!i /l.mir~1''"; ''~J his Other Works, ed. John
Tolaud (1700) 8.\. i~1n Oi.MIIJI (ut'lf.5f,~ .ond (It) :hil -'.ii. inm; rlre An<!fLarv,~ivillJI (1659),
Book Ill, ch3ptl"r 1 i ~c: vaut~ h.l\;: n t w ltrr.-wlthl "' !i \'<" f>l) J.IJ.!-1. (Tilf p-l);<' rcfcrt'nces ar< the same as
above in the twc lmnu nffT.\i. J>llihsh~'\i l<'l'""'r.-ly illl<'lll'-'tl ~nd Dublin.) On Harrington, the most rr"'nt '\'-"ilTl S\'>:ltl>- ~.:1 b. lw C~l;~rk~ Whnr . .'\.o; Immortal Comrncmwealth. Th,.
Political Th11ughr o!]"}Jrtlo'> Ho~riJO,r,lfOt
\'~rk .Sa.J r: /';t. S.-ro'IIU 1, New Havrn. 191\0). Th,
latest edition of<J;:,..,...: (wrth lltJt:'li> i" by 'I ll ui,i..-:-:tr.J.;n,; H.1rrin.~ton' Ocrana (H,idd~rg, 1924). SL-eOILio>lhll. tp cit. {lllll 4ll.ab..vi. csp . .:!'.!>;...,);.\;I(, H. Tawney. 'Harringtons
Interpretation ofhj, ..~,.. in PlH ~7 (1'141) J-'l'i-113~ 1111J ti;. lu:,\,,:ar.~l L~cture as Harms,~orth
Professor dehver~-d at ()xil'r,t (o~nJ pnrli~h.-.i) 111 I.'Tit> hy J.~,l, I', firemc. All Mcn Arr Crrald
Equal, csp. 17-2.'. With Ji-~ nn.ftf-~. fOnly ;aiicttbt' ,..,ticn w.1~ tinished did I b..'<'onw o~war.
of The Political W,"ls :f}o~mr.llJ,;;,;;>,;,;::.:. t"t _I G f, p,;.,_.-..:0; {N7'7).]
My quotations ar. iiwn rh, ,.,,,11.111 summ.~ idul'<liu<?<l iJ<;l< of Kant in Kt~llt'> Politi(al
Writinjls. ed. (witlt lnu ..,lui.'tnl'l .m.fn,.r,-s; by Htn~ lt;u.s .~~.. lrr.-.nslatcd by H. 8. Nisb('t
(1970) 78 & RotC'. U'l-.lll Th, rdir.-.,:.-~ r.. r!,. G~I'DJ;lll rc-~t iu .~.1ch cas, will be found on
pp. 193 and 197 ofth ho.k
Mt. XX. 1-16 (wh,rc ot~r.u ir.,ru rh. ..,..,.,. lm~l '" wc1rl.. iu-t~ \ir.,yard by its owner. rcce1v
p.wtNx from an ~lfi.~pom....:,i; ~tk I .!li (p,,,_,.,, "''~~hlp); I k X ;{the t-~~ is worthy of his
,lol~). XV.I7, :<~ tf<c,orffu&);JnlV.Jti;a h.&nl'!ol<'rrwh~<~). X.l2-l3 (.~,.~ who1s
not the regular ,..,.,..;w d...~, nat l(">lt. afhr th, ,h,,t trp..rl\'~: J;;m,., V.4 (lt.ceping back by
traud the,.~ nt' tht tP}'ti:a who l:.n,l'<'l'll h.u \'\'SWI!t I m''"'iu"'i Cf. Lk. Ill. H (0/o<ilvW> nf
soldiers); I[ Cor. xi.!i ll 1.ml r~'("iw'<l ia/.t.U1t< lrum dnuhr,~. II l',r. ii.15 and Rotn. Vl.23
(,&~and~..... ~,._.,{,,.,.utrhori<"::lly).
:r.
49.
50.
o,....,,,., ]..
'=
51.
52.
[IV.i]
1. H. I. Bell. inJHS M (1944). at p.36. Th~ metaphors. of course. romt frorn I Kin~ts xii.l4.
2. Sc.-c Jones, RE I 51-86, 'Taxatton in antiquity', rightly dcscribtJ. by the ,diror uf the volume.
P. A. Brunt. as '3 valuable and inde<'d unique introducnon ro the suhJ<"ct' ..
3. The-re is a useful short summary injon,s. Ri-: IS~. Th,lnngcsr account of Athtnian taxation
available in English is that of A.M. Andrt-.l<ks, ,--!, Hi1tory ofGrf<'k Iublic Finance I (Eng. trans
by Carroll N. Drown, Cambridg<', Mas .. 1933) 268-391, but It ro; not wdl written and is
already in m~ny ways our of dart. lt i~ sri!l worth going back to th< great worlt. of Au11:us1
Notes on IV.i-ii (pp.206-216)
581
Bode h. Die S:orf.rthotiiSh~l~ucf ti.-r ,-\;i1'1N~ (!~).

4. Sec ~OS!<.'Vtl.df. SEHHJJ'I.;?4:-3 (with Jil. l-'74-!o rm:/1-2);Andn:ades, op. cit. 150-4.
5. Sc:c S. L '..Vallacc, T:I.YIIIWn i= Etnlf.-l\l~oliiW'J ,., i}ffilc/etiarr (1938). an unm:c,ssarily d1fficul1
bock on :01: ~dmrt~dt) V!'f'Y difir.-ult~b_it. 1-1 C. Voutie, Scriptirmcular 11.749n.t ( = AJP62
[ 194! J'1,:; 11.!), t('Vil"witljl Wo~!!an:'s bouio.. (\.>T!V.'!r!J'I:tly giws ref~rencts to other nvit>ws. by
Dell, F.n..<sbu. N&pht.oli Lew1~. l'r.!;lU..<, RQSI.:tvtr~r1: and Westermann. I agree w1th Brunt's
rerr.;r~k o;pp~:,ic~d w Jrli'Jo< 107 !;$ H .!4: 'T!;,. Y!l!lrvdlously lucid account of taxation in
Ptol.n:a., .oad llmr..u1 Egnt iu t.J. Wiki!.m. Gr. Os::.~ka I (1899). though in parts antiquated,
rem.l;::s pe~h.aJ~ the b-o-rt iz;:r<rt!>:rtl''" Ciair,~ 1:-em::>:. ERL. makes as much sense .1s anyon,
can hJI:t h: :ll:~lt.: "' th, itctl,n::lk u:o.a:lt>To S)'>IC"I:~
6. Cf. V.aii 'ilO.:Nt' -u1.:i iH r..,Zt. bdaw: ~~oi Arrr~lh IV 2 ad .fin. Tht> words roi~ uri>,u.ut ro&i'
~~'v'~'""' setm ~;~;.:m;abl;; ,<'rt;o:~l nu.~~ oi ~h:-1n who have to pay the poll-tax are defined
only :.s1H.ltlit .~;.,.,.:..;.-.,.l.tA.'oun.,.
7. Sc:eJunl$. RE 82'1. owr-t.;.~JtJcm.mJ thnkdi:1~ of the Roman Empire'; and LRE 1.411-69
(esp. 4to!-'J). :\u.t cf Sl'l:'tJ<IJ: '1 ot this ,-;upr:r :wd :: n. 7, ;,lso VJII.ili-iv above.
8. See-,:~.. ~ <.2.~. Thu.-. ilf.!!'.. l. tlr .;i.lt),
HG l.v\24; for376, HGV.iv.61. For362. see
Ps.-tkm. J..!~ 7. 16. Afetrtb:u,s..<" hnn. Vlll.48 (ddiwredt. 355); D<'m. IV.36 (ddivered351
or J115! ;.{r.:): Ill-' (rrfunr:~ ~ l~h J51); A.~hit, ll.l.l'o (refcrnng ro 346): pc:rhaps Tod
II. tb7.!J'i.oL.l (J.If,, hu: II is uur nrt;;in tha! ,.,,n~c:r;plion was involved her<.'). Contrast passages
rf.:>rrin~ to tbq~.Jrl..-.:irr .362. e.~: Thuc VI .~: .:i; l.y~. XXI.lO; Oem. XX1.154.5.
x,,,_,
[IV.ii]
1.
,.,,h1111:: P..r.;,:;;r S,cirry A Rradtr, cd. J. M. l'tlltl"r, M. N.

G M l'ilst,r (ll{sln. lit,;::
The paper w.a,r. >rlgtnally pmuw n: !h.-l'rvr.:u,:s. /.)ruxiem<"[ 1962] Confrrentr inre,at. d '/Jist.
f((m. (Pam, l<lf,5) 11.287-Jrri. ~t't .1!sv Tihma~ :t:tid,, 'Peasantry'. in lrtemallanal Emyrloptdia
of,;,., $,o,i.d Srt.-l:rs l I i I'li"1 S'H-1 i.
Set. 1'h r.,,,,rltt;- Lf'ttrt> '1 Virtif'l! ~"'l G.:.r11 (3 , ....!.. J...-ndon, 1958) Il.370 (Letter 404).
The C:tnrlou 1-mm (k'l' 1lw pn.-.,,lint r... r<') IL315 (l.trer 406); cf. Jf7. 372. 3R4 (Letters 402,
405.41il!
Cf. llih'"' Fl 11..\-IA II>. -JII<hll in riJ' main r.~:t.i Vll.i above,just afrer its n. 7.
S1.-.: ,. )!. l{u~lt>\'tz,r1. SEIIHW I 2xol-'i. 4~7 witlt 4!12-9 (esp. 487-9) and 497-501; contrast
II.M5~~. 7'!7-1, ~~~-)-1
Ther -tr, bibliographic> in ti:~ ~ortid~ 'lfi ,.,;,JIytn.Ji.s by Barry Nicholas, in OCD" 382-3.
an,(ti,r;t('f, EDRL 452; :mrl h'(~ KaS<r. RP IP ( tl7':t) 30~- 12. But forth~ historian. as distinct
frvm tl,; l{m;au l.awyr, the Jllo)S~ IISI'till ;an.utl I know is tnac of Junes. LRE 1.4 17-19;
JI.i~S-1 ), 7)1.
And :>o't'lh<' r.~!~nn , ... !hc-ntkk l>y n. u<-rlf Ill. iv n.7fr 400VC.
Amun!( m.&>t~ ~ .-..uuts .. trh<" pr;.~.-til' ,...,.. { ~- lt,~tavtzelf, SEHHW 1Ul98-9 (with Ill. 1549
n.l79); ''"'"' I:!'.ll. .:.U'J. 411 (wirhlll. J.li'ln 21N); IJ.i,.;7; SEHRP 1.'274, 29tJ (wirh ll.677n.52),
40:0..1 (wuh 11.71~-1.1 u 6). 44-''-': l'r~a11". I;'I~L 492-3. 5110-J, :;tlfl.9. 511, 51'J-2U, S.W;
Ma...-Mniln. RSR .'\4 iwlth 15M 11 . .!.$). l'he 1"'1<'111'<' .:an be uaced far hack. into tlt, l'haraonic
pen.>d St'1' rrt.ur.:~s Po;..mr, ., ......l(.;,Pit'"~ ,(;tu.;. l'f:gyptl' phar.aomquc'. in LeMoNd Grtc.
Hr'ltlrna,i<'i ,; C.:l""' l'r,'.ru. iHru~d~o, J1)75) flt.'-<1 l1a"ll'rm Uc)(<ilP'IlfJ'&~ 1s also ustd, more in the
TheJ<t~ :o ,.,,rr=~ponJitt A.1m6r-.-u
Di:~:r .1111t
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sl'll""' lt"uugrauur tu Jnuth,r ,b~tnd.

10. I kn"w i (.'\) nly "II' <'nlkWOJI wlu.-?J b;a;; t1-.:ts <>I all four of these inscriptions in a single
voluuw~ A.!J (111 rh, ,,,,f,r 111 wh1d lh,y ~rl"''' 111 rbe mam ttxr abovl') no~. I I I, 141. 139,
I 42; .mil of (B) nulJo' n~ t.,,.,J.: .~ont:.iniit; J:n!!hl: :rJnsbrions of all four: Lewis ami Reinhold.
RC II (111 thl' satn ,,r,~or) 1~-'-' 45_\-1, l~'l-411. 4;i2-J. Among s1milar insnipllons which I
cam,;t t:lk<"tim,t ,fsm-.~!!< AI.J H1 l; l\.,tl .. u:\ Phmcrstcin. op. Cit. 111 n. 14bclow. pp.24-9,
no.lS). 1hm \kud,rho>1il lh lit.-r<mtury i>il'lriJ;.,l.-Jphia m Lydia. ofthe<arly third CL'tltury
(pP"<!.tbi) 1'11'1-!l J)
11. Cf. 11. tu ;.!.:\':'. 'lin~ 'll;n;ci:.u ~Alj 111) i> :-.1 1:11~.1" 1.495-8 no.lll3 = CIL VIII (ii) 10570
and (SPI'i.) lHi;-l lh~r :.n vtih'r l~n~~Ed: u;u:sl.lnons. t.g. ARS 219-20 no.265. For other
evJiktli\' rd.tt;njt t< mlp~r~tl <.;;t:,t;; 111 A!u,~. "'''!h.; works cirt-d by Millar. ERW 17'J n 20.
12. cr. IL.JLI.aht.W Th. :,.,,in E!\..'l.'llV.to.5Y..I)( rpr..duces !h(' b.sl one: that ofRostovtzd(
582
Notes on IV.ii (pp.216-219)
13.
14.
tS.
16.
SI:HRE"! 11.74!-2 ,,:!(,, Thi~ ir:~<"np:'"' (AIJ 1.&.:) i~;.i~~ OGISS19 IGRR IV.598 = CIL III
(Suppl. 2) 141 1)1; cf. HR,P l.5QC/. lOr:!, 107.
Cf. n.lO abov-,. Tlu." ms.,.ipliL'n {MJ l.J'i) i~ :l-o SIG 1 888-= !(;liB 1.674 = CIL Ill (Suppl. 2)
I:!JJt>~ cf FIR..\~ 1.507-~tn.:.>, Wt..
cr ll. lllo~.lo<WC': tt..inscripnon is AI) ; 42. '11: ongt!l~t rnhii..,.tl.:ir' W~S by JoscfKeil and A. von
Pr<'llll'l"'ot<'in. o~richt iiber Cllll' Jri!re 11.-i!foo.~ ill I.~llwn . . lll o...Jksc1rr. dn- Kais. Akad. Jet
Wis. ;, Wim, NtiiPs.-1:~1 1\l:.~'k' 5i.: (i9l4) !i1-'1 ,to..S. s~t' :olsr- Magic, RRAM I.678-81.
with II. 15-'i-91111 ~:;.
Prnuri:1 alwa~~ :r,ans ~n.rC:t{ rather tblln 'r.,rry", t JO'f '"~ il Classical latin: see the new
Oxj.1rJ l ..J:i>l !Jicrir~t~.:rr. tJSr. VI (1977) L'2h Thnl<-~:c-<1 parallel I know 10 Pliny, Ep. III.19.7
is Cic. 11 v.,. Ill :.:!~. wher. till' ~,..,,,,,. r~u.iol which oc~-urs four times in 12~7
rcrtainl}' m~Jn~ 'fo(;,r,lt~'; d ~:nlmui~ 'lk"'r711! :u.\nd::.t ,ll)lniw.rum atqut ararorum' and
'nm~<: auttm II~ ... .p<iqu.:rn rpt'tirt:Jor 'tli 'lllll' volum:ah ol!'.u.:. p#lm essent reliq11i' in 125: the
<'mrh.ui"~ nn 'rdtoF'J <~mt,r.-. m S 121>; and r,.i:4uttJ .,...,t,>rcr c.t:~~:' m 12!1.
John P,rn.. :n~m arud, L~ "').:Jgn.-unl oasrccu ,,f l..t.. Jlm:a;~n ~rate management', in En~.
lliJt. lirl' IW {IWor,:; +411-7:t St.. ~l!ot P. lt<ll. J :.Tld R,om.l." '"'"''' llld>IJgement ', m Hommages .l
M~,,.,.! Rt?lilrd II (
I..JtCfllli,< 1u,'!. ltnass.:l.~. l'lf>'l) 6fP1-H ( ),,.. fthe few m.-dia<.'valists ro
1.1k .~ T'.tl mr,rot m du~ J>nbl,m t P. J JunN: set h:; ,-.al:::.ll.ol, 'l'ltalia agraria ndl'aho
m~JI(...'\'0: probll'!lll .ti CllllllllugiJ .: d! C'\liJtinuita', "' s.~,,lft.111f !.r tudio dtl Centro italiano di
>tudi 11111' alto medl,.-,..,, .'\Ill .-\J:riro:IIU.J r m.;trd< """it it~ Oai.iN:t r:dl'alto medroev<> (Spolcto,
f(l(ltjj :;7-(~ ..It 1(\-4; .111J til<' ,ft;.-tl'>,it>n Wlh V<'f'(olnl<'II'I!. ll-1<1. 2:.!7-'1.
f..n n:.Jmplt. C.nll.il:> . R R I. \'U. I (' ,J\'ari1s "l'<s "'.i~Jt tt;.m ro~n~: \llc' s'), on the interpretation
,,f wludr I oo~gr..: with M I. l=mk~. 5ndia itt ROtWtl Prlrr-rt) ( 1?16) 1\<J.-20.
Tbr ms.:.riptiolll~ Jl\': ( 1; FIRA! I 4il4-ll.l ,,., IIM.I "' .1\.0 74 .:.. CIL VIIIISuppl. 4) 25902 (Hcnchir
Mtt,h. Vdh Mo~~n" V.~ri ..t~~a. M4rr.ali~ Sij~:a}, ..t !\.1 ). I lf,..J7~ \::!l HRA' I.49S.S no.l03 =
AI.J I 1I
II..S l.i!-7il
Cll. VIII {it; 10570 (Suppl. lJ H-IM (Souk el-Khmis, Saltus
Bur ll~ll;~nus). ,,f A. D. 11!0-.~ {or~ whi.-!t ><'<" ,.t,.,,n. II above): {:4j CJL VIII (Suppl. 1) 14428. A
IGa'ir-.\kru:ar~. of .'\.f) !IH Thr i'.? d.a)'>' in 1he third ,,,.,.,,Jti<m may conceivably be:
;.om<tbing imposed on dn 1"11. al~m wh,h th"'- ;m complaining. rather than a legitimate
C'X:.Il'tli.lll I ha\'< '''' O<'<.l~iun h<rt t<' nrr1uun1 ;nt th two other inscriptions. which, with the
thrn- I h~\'<'JU~I <'ll<"tl. m~kt"
an important group offiv<.-: thty arc (4) FIR.'\ 2 1.490-2 no.IOI
= AI] 9.~ (:ll \'Ill (Suppl. 4\ 25943 (Ain ei-Jemala. !>altu> Bland1anus et Udensis). of A.D.
117-38; l:;) f'TR.-\'1.493-5 no. 102::. Cll. Vlll (\uppl. 41 ::!b41t> (Am Wassel, same Saltus), of
.'\.D. l'ffl21l: !>..tb rd\t ihk nn 1j I<' 'r,rtt.l> r.1rt.-s ltnttuum . r~o>A (like no. I) to th< lex
~bnn:an.a. :1111! no.5 (lik, nu 2l tv th, l.~x H.a.:lrun:.. hr nos. I. 2. 4 and 5, see R. M.
J-!Jyw....J\1. l:ll:r.Jtl.. 1.'\,'\R: V S'J.. ltJ I {tC'\1~. .;. u Am. Jl"l ....... m.): and tir further English
tr<an,.J.auon~ (ap.lfl frum thns nli'UII('"'"-'11! un ;(L I I :tbnw) st'\' :\H.'> 221 no.:!fJH (my no.5);
lo:wL~ and R,urhld. llC II. 1'711-!U {my no.'!'. I and 4-:l).
Thl"r.- i~ a ro~~zbk x:amrl.: i11llcr ~,.,.,. S:1him J.t.-llm- :i m.l,.,,l \,.,.<'..Ill t~k<' literally his Epist.
b:iv.l-.1, wnh S<Jt II. \'U.ll'i-lll(.:i. lu~ O..t Ill -.:~1 :.."JJ}. S.d lotbrld, A~ricola 21')..17, 235,
dtld l'r.wal's first attick fil~l 111U.If. ;,hc.w. r 4!-l.ltiJ ll : (with .. tti. to Fustel de Cou1angl'S).
'fhi~ ,,( wurs;; h.._, ttnl l1.:t"n .alt...:;!. I C.ltlll<l bt-~~u; h g~" btl>li"!;!'"Phy, which, ifu was ro
1'< r..
u..-tui. W<ut.l n<..-.1 ru Si"cify lfllhVt<ln.:al ''"'tniuti"u~ h> wm colkcnve works
which :m ,,f 1'<'1)' unntu.al Hlu,. suh .a~ rho: rwo v~lunw;; t.li~.:d hy M. I. Finll"y, Stud. in
R.m.m Jr,pcTtf i l'l7t.) ;~uJ l'-blt'mo-s J, f,r ,,..,.,, m Grtu lriJi"1111 ! = CivJiiStttiolls tt Sociitt's 33,
11.rn!>, 1'17,\j. AhhC1Ujlh IIIII} ~,.,.,n nvhbOil" w smgl< out ti.w l'~ru,:ular works, I should like
ltmnunu V N. An.Jr.:1-n. 'Su111c :tsp...:b ..,f ~):'T.Jri;,Jl Cc)ttdiut~u' m Attica m the fifth to 1hird
nntunt':l U.C . m Ef,,,,.- \2 l !~l'i4} .:.....-. whid1 suuun.. r~s.,.. \\'ith somt" corrections and
supplt-ments, the: .....,,,.,,1~ .~; ~11;1:ht <"lrh,r pap..rs Jubli~h,o;J l>y Ao,tr.y,v bo:lWt'\'11 1958 and
1972 and listed 111 tiS u l ..uJ ;; ,.,.n.., ,,f ti nr arnd.~ h, H. I Prirrhard on agrarian matters in
Sicily 111 lh< tiN i<'ll1Uf1' H.C.. m HJSr;~ri.: il'i q,Jt.<ll 5-l:;...5f,: 1" (1970) .~::>2-68; 20 (1~71) 124-.\!!;
o~.nd :?1 ( 1'17:?) f..tt..liu. In .tnur~rur/.s ,zfo;dlrc:. ! ( IW7) thnc ~~~ rw; i'~rirularly useful articles
dealm~;~: :&lmV'>t <'1ltlrd~ wnh lllrrh .~irio: t 1,,'"'"''' J'J:s..-ur:o>f>>~Y. Notl'!o sur lc ph(nomem:
.:1 .......-i:uif JJn,. k fllonJ,. :.}:m ~ r~ik'JU<' .tu liJur-t:nl('ir.' (5v.:rt). and Claud~ lcpeiJ.:y.
'(l,:;tm U >'l'dllhl\~ ,;~,. r..:n,:!lr.Jr.: ~trKJ:n. ,,,, u~ f.mprn:~ A pr;....;,;; :l'un<'IOJ dt l'cmpcreur
rs
=(:,.u
17.
18.
19.
20.
ur
,,n}'
H'""'""" ~C.:TI: XI x.w1ii tJ]' ( 1.\5-;..J).

21. Th, RI<Sc llll~l>r[o~.nt passage.~ ...... ,.j:?{.-1 ?~;_!(".;; ,., f:.Jp. m i, l-1-~ 1.5 il':.l'! VI. cb.X)(XVIi-xlvn ""
MI!W XXV ,,~!7-4121); cf. 'f~ V II. !~-l''~' !fl-J. .>J<~.;7.~: III.JI'&-.;115. 472, 515-lo etc.;
583
MECW 111 .?59-7!1 (tho:- &.m . .:r:i l'l:il">- MSS). 417-JO; Vt 197-206.
22. This f;~min, u >:>rnrtmlt'3 !l:<t:!;lrr tu br ri;~ t:.mou$ 0111~ in Rev. Vt6. where the prices given
wo1k llUI ;:.! AO>mt 8 ,i,-n;~rJi/J:-,..:hma.: fr,r <m.- >!tod>~~ (one sixth of a medimnos) of wheat or
thrt"'' "fbari~Y- S.."'' o,g. M .. a;i Rl<.f\M 1 58!, wuh II 1443-4 nn.JS-9; Rostovtzeif. SEHRP
11.59'1-l..OO {;::111 or' thr vt:!y ,_urf:al :1. ,io-,r()od-supply and famines).
23. I knc\\' \'f:m c-utirdy s1ttsfact~~ry ~ul
;u(uum of the famine of362-3; but sec Downey,
HAS J.!\3-J. }Sb,.ij t, ..md 'Tnl" ,;::onomic riis _.t Antioch under Julian', in Studies in Reman
Ecoow,.ic ;.;orJ $11(lollll:;t:><'f m ll:wr f!( .-l C ,l~tlmsoor, cd. P. R. Colernan-Norron (Princeton,
1951> 312-21. i';;.ti l'l"fr, LIIM," 109-l!!: P. ,,,. Jlt~ge, 'Scarcity of com and compriccs in
Amm:o&llll:j. M.u.-.l!i:,,.~. in M"">-,J-'' ! ( 194.~) 2.'\.~;0.24. Soz., HE Jll. ";:i 15; ,f. l':all:l;l., 1-1:51. l~rd .;.), cd C Uuth (1904) p.l2ti. That the shortage of
foo..l wa~ .-iul' i.\r,;ly tu rh., lth~"',t I :h,- n.::h IIJ<tl .-.f Edcssa doc.s not <"merge at all in the
treatnw-m ,,i th:,; in('ide!it by Ptllr H-.,wn. 'Tht r\~ and function of the Holy Man in Lat<'
Amiqmr,-. !c]RS!:! (l<i'71) !:I{L lUI. ~~ 'i::! h i' llttr~ted only in the fact that (as he puts it) 'It
was .l!i a "!!-tN~f,:'T" lltJJt fphrair:: ''~ ahl,: ~u .tdninister food supplies in Edessa during a
fannnl, t~lt rou:JC' of tht" iuc.ll'< {'n.J>J trusr ..,,,.umlb:r'. That is nor how our sourc<"s pm it
{inatkqu.ll'' .is tho r.:-): rb,~ i'Jl<''il< oi rnUl;l,d Jrstrust not on the part of 'thl locals' bur
spcti.ikally ,,fch.- nd: : .:m<l th' \'cl y 1:-.m; ''"'I"<" u-,~. giw (meekly accepted by Brown) ts that
of thl' j;\llh' JOfh i~lk! In a t<JrUt;lh' (i -'~) '''' thr ~.;me pagl' Hrown alludes ro the famine- at
Asp.nd1:s, IO'III)r><."'! hy J>hi(,_.,rr:.rn. Vi~.: t\p.!lwr. !.15 (sec !.iii abow), .md again he is
int<"rt-sre.l '":!} iu rl..- f;,;:t rbr 'Apoiionitdo ,,I T~-;.cna did rhc same {as Ephramt], and, also, as a
tot;~ I ''stnngn". 'dtssoct;u,..,.f' by til l'}rh;;~~or,'4r >w of silt-nee'. This is charactensttcally
subtll'.. but agam :1 ,unct"al~ by iar th,. mut lmrtrt.ml. fact: that it was ol llvv<>Toi who had got
pos!'<'~~tou of the mm ffhq1 ~re :-Io-:uly rb, nd: ];mJowners, for they h<~w hidden away rhr
cont>n tiKJr mury ,:jilalt"S, <'Vl'H ii A,,.,n,.mo~' wntten message to them addrt"S: thm as
"""P'"h'
CTLT\'Pit(i~Atl
S'l!rc)y ~ ~f,hl~ 1t~ ih~h1.)
25. This d.atL bas b.,u proposed by J. R Pilbtlllt 'F:m:mc:s it Rome ala tin du IV' st<'cle'. in REA
33 i 19J t; .\.Jf.-5(,; cf. Chastagnol, FPRHI=' llH
26. r acnpt th, ,br>nuittY uf P.hlrl<!ll<" (!11.'' th< ,,,,.,.,,hng nor e) and Chastagnol. FPRBE 223,
agam~l s.....,-~ \ .t..rm;t "t'Svrlnt. Er 11.7 :,; ;~.\ (SI::t' Secck's lntrod .. pp.cxix-<:xx and n.601.
to hi" ,,tnitn ,,i\,.-mm 11 Mc-;u, A.11u. ~\lltio~ur. Vl.i, 1~3). Ag:unst some inttrpretauons
suggested hy (), Rut-.:r:tt~ ,u,J :Rug.,:im':tu.alh llll.cTcptable to me), see Edgar Fa11rc. s~int
AmbroiSt" <'I l'expulston dn r;:~('~~in~ d, R''"''. ;,. Etudes d'hisr. du drort lanoniquf' diditr.< .i
Gabri,.II Jiras (Pans. 19f.S: l :'>.!'-"'' '!oJ' ':i:!l. 5J.i:. 5:16-9.
27. Cf. lih~n . o...,r l22t. if, X 25. Sr, N<lrm.m. 1::\ :!IJ-..14 (on Orat. 1.225 iT.): l>ownty. HAS
42(1-) (~ll;~rds si;,Uuu,d "' rh1 dly !l'ai.-..Jrn,r,r..lthe peasant (ri>l''l'~"'pyov) from taking out
mor, rh.m tw<~ 1<.1'\'<'S Cllt>Ju .. Or,JI XXVII lt ct~ I...N).
28. The --~~uhrJ nbtonu ot)sh~ by th htst Syn:t: ~cholar onus day. W. Wri~ht (Cambridge.
I~_?). h;~;;. .111 f:11.;lr~Jt !T.mhllCll
2<). Forth. w\'c'f<: fn!llll<' Ul :0.\1\ lunnh vi u<>rth _,,.,1 >.-:trallraly, from Vneti'l and Aemiha to
Tu!<O:la .m.J l'i.:<:mllll. -:~ t"\(! I'I'II<"OJ' , lMl VI ((;Cirlt. II) xx.l5-33: ht was~~~ cyt-witnt'SS in
Pice!lll!u { ?2), Jrtt.i !w ~1'!.'"-IU .,( t'?<.-:l~ ,,; 11\e~lll tnt> of thousands dymg of starv.1tion.
30. Cf. Pru.-up .. lk/1. VII (G,oth fll).wi1.l fi". '"'!' 'J-19; "i~. 1.1-14: xx.l. 26. On ,om prices in this
pen:><i. se:- Stein, lllW 11. 51J~ 21 11. I
31. S thn"<hlt'll b~ 1-1. l'lcldiJ~'<.l.t'i ~<l:!fl; ,St)!iw ( = -~"l>sdla HaJliO)(raphita 14, llrussds/Pari~.
192.\. r.-;n l'Jtol) l'J!\-237 .ult)!-.!.

32. For Sl'III<' ... rlwr t<rnt.~ j,., 'vtlliig,', s{\' :\I) p . .!.!; llm~~lmm, in ESAR IV.t11S-':1.
33. See II ~W<h. ..t . >rfillf'll m HE Surpl IV (1'14'1 '151-7t,,Jonl's. GCAJ 272-4, 2RI'>-7; andste391,
lnd.x.; ,_; CfRP~ L\7,-U: . .'!81-'l.J: ..thl ''"' _:;q:;_ lnJc~. '"(add e.g. 67~. I!(J, 233); LRE
rii AF. ludo7~ ..:.: C. M lbtl""r. v;n,.~, aimin(,rration in rhe Roman provmcc ofSyri~ . in
YC.'i I :,1'.-!i.i} luJ..f>M; liroo):hr.m. m E5:\H IV f,li\..J7. 671-2. 737-9; and s.-.. 950, Judex,.!.!'.;
Ro'-lii\'IU't'f. '>CIJHJI' Ill. t7.J7, ltldfX.

661-f 1111 ..'!.1-.\:'ti:
M~!!l<'.
1.1; Sl!IIRI!" 11.1121, Index. 5.v (<"Sp. f.S0--7 nn.l)..7,

RRt\M [(.lr-(,.;j, Itid<">., i .a. iesp. 1.14}..6, wuh 11.1022-32 nn.ti9-77,
and :h r:.~J:"' "!h'd i1 ~-ll !b-.><'C". >~I;;;, l.t>-~. wtrh ri.R62-3 n.4 !). Some mtpre~sivc TlTrnr
book;. iu fl'o'l<\h. !}' T,h,lknll! !i~oi du :hapttr; and cf. Litblschurtz, .inl. 68-73.
34. This i~.;. ~ui.i<.:t \\'ln.-h \\'(lo:t!>i ~r.-h r.p:.~ u.uti.J mvf'Sugauon. I have Sl'l'll 110 illuminating
rd\r:.'ll r. it lhiT tb:m rh, ~a <tl<ut,,i ,n r!i: m?.in rcxr abow. Of course, by the fifth and
5S4
b.-'"i =tp;...t:cHti}' c.J:-\rdo;:.eci o1ln~g rvr-r :nore hierarcillcallin~, as in

but i.'.t:d,;.'no: s.:"t'"1~t~ atlnu.;.r :l(~n-cxjstcon:. ~;'olt~pl kar E~\.-p.t.
~ ..... '!! th:- wt>rJ.~ .:..ttr. 'Thf" urh.mi~-.r.ion "~~~~~ lr;!l;j<":n j>rinci;;_.l,1~' , :r' jRS.? I {!'J~>I) 26:1-75. ,sp. 270; Harpt'r,
J}. dt (;n ,, 3.3 ;~bmt>) 1l2-.> (ugainst l~.i-~ . ...:c Jm1cs. <~F.Rl" 2X6-7). The O)(~o~ as the
.'\>si'J:I~iy. :!h.:- vill.aj;,'/5 n:ldl:l m J(;f(j( l!l l 11}1:'" I hlW ?l.i.'l !.:\cot 213R, as in IGRRJ, from
S:ucw.110 Sy!i.t (latn M .. xit!I!.::J'>hs. fr>lll, .\c.~l-. ><":Jvr.n. CERP 2 285, with 465 n.82),
\\'h~!t 4
h.&ve ~.~.ll!ta.;.-ta.,..tf;;:.u riJ.; !l~fJ.JlC irt rr~- ileUrr~Jt h1 v.:-tnc 1.'illagt>s of Asia Minorl e.g. in
th, tl':'!lh}~~!- .,fC:il1,'r-l :.n.l ( )lf'~>d.;. ;,-r;nci :m.-rrrn..-m !n whwl-. '\.I)-and-so giws a donation
'Ill hmmtlf ,,, :h.~).~.... (l:,;tt;;.ll~ (rj..,,,._.oriitO:c~-"~) "'C ... .,. ere lit ;J67a; and E.J. 5. St.rn~rt.
';\n ~rtj:Uj'!::Kal ]Ot:nJqfliilil-J) :1 ,\:;~:~ :\1i!IOI . in f',:,,.--rr of rir Am<'r. School of Class. Stud. at
,-\rhnrs ~ ( lSSS) n<>>.nY"...' ( = It ;]O< IV~~~!), 72-S. U;: I hav '"''' llOtiCI:d anything in thrs,
ll!sntj'UO:ous w !nd; f . b:ifJ~.5 mfcrring :he''"' ~t,nc..-of a11.ou::u:;,I,A. n<mhly ,a/led the 1ixii.<K. A few
~,~ ;1r< :,._:u:d.d -~ h:i\'ll1g ;n i!<~-"""'" (w,rra J.:c~. Rl: :<l-2), <'.g. Castollus nar
J!uiJ\~.!rhir, (Ot_;Js O:i!S); :he Janaman1~. d f:dt:m:l ofnl!.l',;C1' :n Cari~ (Michel, RIG 479);
~rn! ( ltcistu~. <m til<" bc!"i<t~ "f .'\>i.\ .md Ci~l.t!o:. \\ hd,l:ad : !E.. j,r,,'I'Tia. . 7T4~11Tj~&O~ (sec W.
ll. Uu;ld,r. '" JllS .'iiI J<Ul] i-H.. esp. '' or fL.\; .m,~ d Jn.;, CERP' 67~ and 3'J2n.6.<.).
Sn _l;~r:-. Cl':RP 1 ::!~ .../:HI:: 3:?-....:d pp.27].. j,,rh,.. >r!Kk (<>~ !.Jl) ctcd in thepaccdsng notr.
E.;; .:at ( )rd~tu~ .auJ C>lllllu,.: ~.:.ICilllll\' .5311; OGI.S 4~i!
On ,..,.,.,:r,..ni ~~ ~wir>, I-IIIi'; 1'.~ .!-"' . .?/1'-9 (w:~h i: 'it.;_,~ n.lli); Hell, l!AGAC 119-25;
Gdnr. S8V:\ ll'~-~~. ~.,,1111 :\cllitj. /'.11' !'(I'll.') !~S-<1. 37'r-7: ouillard. ACfiB' IJ-15.
~-"'-' !'12-J. !Judy. UOJ:E 5-!-'~ Vis:u.t!l~ :-.il ;!;, "-'i:!~r:c= '"'ws from Egypt: but CTII
XI \'li.L~ It\ D. ~J. tiJ, ,ubnt :otrr <-f <'"ltmw I kr:<'w r".~: th ,,ist~nn ofwhar was later
.tll<"Lir<'l\' be undcrst<rJ m th:- ll~hl ,,f XL..:xi; 4) i~ .t.l,{r..,.;.,d M Mt>s>;o~la, who in 3'1J-4(MI was
!'r.l<'ttn.u prd~-.~ ,,j lr~ly (uu:h1Jm~ ,,, '"m~.- ,$n,a a~.-1 J'~Ntonia; sec csp l.v.l2).
Al":'\:dfiHI'l'lc an,t lb c:ilo!!.U.th; ,1.._.. u~l !l"-'~r~ ri:..' .)~';~.!! hoc~,,:-c tbc t~ith {"\.'ntury; but s~o.x IG
sixth
.;;~!lt~!rio "tU;~~~ !!:~
~he ,.,h."s;
35.
, ,.. : -
...,n..
36.
37.
38.
IX
e 1.\7. hm ~!. t~r rh.- u ..... ,,!-...i~'"''"'{inll r~'' ..,,.,_.,,,,,! ,-.uto.~r\ H C .. at Calydon in A.-tolia.
o~rr.mnrl\' ii>r till' llj:hl "' , ... r-.r.dl~ o')!,J(tll;: ;a liiiC'
39. l)m mt(lrnt;,tn .ai... ~ut Aphrodito ,,mte,; frcdu J i.llf:<' gr.,up .,J' japyri which havl' found thrrr
w:ay ru Co~trt.lnJon. Florence, r ...a.-.-.t.m.l fil>ut: s.'<.:~; R (i '\~lomon. 'A r~pyrus from
C~rN.tntmopJ,. IHunhur~ lnv N .... ~ 111) . i.fE1-~ (1'~-ll'l '8-111!1. :\phrodito was fortunuc
Ill tiMt I )iu~nrn~ (nalll<nll'' lli lhl' UI.IIU '~" .lh.>$ wa" rrp.:trcd to busy himSl.lf on
b:h.tli ftlu ''ilia~ .m.! .:u '''"'li''"'Y c.-. CnullrwJ!, t( '"ii, it hdp from htghly-pi.K<d
hur,.m.-r.u~ th,r.:. Tho: ,ili.l!,!'l~:tJ ,_,.,t.t:llo'\111~ J~rhJr.;;t l.mr m th. thtrd quart~r of tht ftfth
c':!Jtll!~ .. ;~~ da, :"i;_tn :~: 1.~"'1) I. ~:17-7f. (P {;4'' .\l,~Jv i r.7hl~. ii:H<~ 1--6). but it con'\tandy
,.u(ftr.d JJbtrr.r \i tr.:Jitll<'lll ''' th< h.m.f, "i'll<'cc:ssn-.1'"'""'' h, ,,; Aucaeopoli~. ~nd in ordlr H
j,!;tlll ltllf"'rloll rrt,tiou I! ho~,{ iu,{tt,.dl c'Uflk;l .f~ p;.rr ,,f the btlls~huJd (oi~. oi~eia) of
Justinian's w1f~, tl.~ Emprr~"' Th.:.,.hr.. (iliJ .. h"'!- \ l-1 ~:d. ihi,t t.O'f.!!{3). whosl hous("nold at
her dl'ath ilt ::,-1~ W.l~ .Jm.tl,.:;;nutcd wt:lt tit, It h. l'llrt '>i th, iliii~<'Fial ('sacrtd, or 'most
5-t,r.,f) h,u,h,,liJ_ th.. ~ .:.f th ,mp.r-r hiut.>di i""-'"(' ~!Ill:. 'P- .-it. 102 n l>). For the
!Jt~tlhk;, I .\~luo ..lll. :,;.,.., 137-8, 1~7. The ll!OSI
unprtam tlonllll<'nts .;,rc P. Cairo "~'I' l.ro'!(~i1 (p.111 ~ wl~t;h ~~ ginn in thl' main I<'Xt
~1-.w). to/11:!'1. t.ifl!4; P 1-1,,,.,1. lJ: :;.:.-41i.l (oiwhid1 Sl!<:r''" ~tVl"' a text). andP. G<nrv.
unt .
''I'
("'t'\' So~lun~<>n.
7lS5. J) I..:d \' lf>7-4. !f,n_ !(,';'<f, 011 pagarchs. St-c. W.
l.td)('s<hu,l7. ~lit, r..t;:;~r.lr nty ..t1~<1 impcnal ..,imn"rr,tull in llw;.~ntim Egypt', inj)P 18
( !'174.: !f.'-l'i; "Th, n~tll oirh.- ,,:~in: oft he pat:o~rch . 111 If;;- Ltivlf. t>h (1973) 3~.
40. f)r Pto'''"Lis. s.-. ;.p, J. M~J'<.'ru. 'Urt ,t,rni,r 1'<--it; ~r,, :fE~n:.: l.lio.wrc. fils d' Apoll<h',
lnv. rw.,!ln
.'\rhtt)o;ht<~
u RE:G 21; I'll !i -'~"-"!.

41.
I. J' hkluu.tJI l"inr" ''"' 'In rh, l''r~u ,,f Bp..mtmc 1huhndiUs "'doulos" was used
..tlm,~t c.;,hlb!Wl,.' h~ P'"'!"l:- oi ir,;- tJ.t<: tir th.m.,.i;.~o;, \\'h,r :,dJr,-ssing ploplc ofhi~htr
standing and v.r>' .;d,l.uu .."-tt ..;i;wc,;' ('\La\',.,. m Mr-;:m:m.- O:qrhchus', w Akren dn XIII
[ 1971] Internal. Papyrolo_l(mkrmgr. ~J. t:. K1c-.sli1:1! J>n! li .A l(olf'l'''-.:ht [ 1'174] I 17-24. at 119).
.o\5
42. I !u,:: .:~'m th. .-ssential bibbo~turny ~!I Ill}' SVI h n.:! Aoid thl\~ tlw ,dition ofLtban .. Orat.
XI.\'11. with an <"x.-,H,t:t f.ut: tu,,;.. !-v A f N.rn-'1' t:: r!t; l ..:,.t libanms Vol. II (1977);
and (,,.,, works by f-ui tl.trt>-it:.t. ,)i '~"1<h tuil. il;,o(J:i~ Jr, l!lWr. tn n.50 to Section i1i
Notes on IV.ii-iii (pp.226-227)
585
of this d:apter: the vcry full :-dmou of th(' same speech, with tt:xt, french trans. and
con:u .. Ubamtu, Dua>:''' !I" !J'J p,ttt<Jn.:._gts (hi5-;), ~,..J Le patr(lrzat sur lw colleL"twites publiques
des ctri,tim:s ..m 11<s-Empur (J'r.rti. !957), c-;;>. ~:?1-.'17 c;1 the Later Empire. A turally dtffcrcnt
pictnn: lwm :;ua(' ;:;f rht; rc,h: .,,- r:Jl J'Jir~"''~" m Syna in rhc Later Empir~ can be found
in Pe~ liruwn'l .l::id1.' 111 th.- '1loly M:m' (S\'11 n24 ~bove), at ~5-7. Brown. who has mv,r
grasp~i t!;.- H~aliti~ of !h. d.ti> struggl~ in ~~~ mcicnt world, can se~ only the good side
ofp;>tfulli~C', .1:11! it;;; r!:w1J --I~Cllllnt uftl:.:~t !!!StltilUOn g1Vt'S only a fraction of the fl'.ll pictur~.
m SJ!Itc ~! tlu1~<' :la>~h...-s <:f t.'l3iJ,:h: which Bmwn !i.'tows mtermiltcnt!y. as always. Of course
it w;:s an ;,tlvantagr lor villagcrs to ho1vc so~>te<>lle to.)rb-itrate in their disputesamll'l.~ thrmsdvt'>,
l'SPt"<":~ll)' !lin!'t' !q;;~i pr-=s m d)~ Ram,lr: wcrl,i W<~S su unsansfacrory and op,n to abus~.
But t!:.~t W.l~ 11o: wh.1r was n:.unh ."XJ~nr:l ,,( .h..- patrons I h.1ve referred to: rh,y
wcr.:- hrnught 111 hy lh<'l"~":<:lll~' ro tror,~t til.-m a:',{~inot opprt>ssion, in partu:ular by landJ.,rds
and r~x-rr1:lt..rta:~ ..1c:d t_.,.: l"U11::l~ du." pr~,:~:ts al,,~;ys r.xactcd a price for seivi<.'l"~ of that sort
(se.: C"l11 X I n1v .1; C) XU(,.!.;."., Z.J.).l\~<1 prub,,i.,ly often a heavy unc. Even the story of
how tn 'h,,ly n~n Abrah.un b~.u~ p.trr,~l,,--,f,. ;ilbse (appart>ndy ncar Emesa) looks rather
diff,-~,nr '"lwn
d:S-cnvc:r that Ur:r\~n, 'wh..-r: rh.-r:t~ colkctor came' stands for Tfu:odort's
'now protl.:t!'tt! ~rriV<.'t!. ~h<> n-:t'lt-dkd dl<'l!l [tit. vi!bg..-rs] to pay their raxt"s and began to
impr1sor;~omc am! n:.hr:.1t ,,thl'n (.tfm ,-dl,!: H. mMPG LXXXII.1421 A).
43. Set the Euy. :J;.:,l> b~ f.lrntw~l: J.l;.hw> ~m! N. H. liaynt's. Thrtc IJyzantinr Saml. (194!!)
Ll9-41) (ci 76).
;t:.nd.u,t edition of 1h~ D.il~~ (or Liv.:s) of Sr. Thl-odore is now
A. J f..,.m~i!r,, Vi,,,,. 11:r.,.11,m!r ~r",.,;, = .'\~<l:td!.l Ha,~io_~rtJphica 48. 2 vols. Brussels. 1Y70):
see ,-~r- J.tJ....;, JLci-f~ 7. Aly -...:n,n~ :s !r_.,, )nlm Chrysostom, Hom. in Marth 61..1 (MPG
LVIII.SIJI-2); .-f: F.A;tt: ;~, J',,fi., .as. 1'1, ,;;p. ~ ~ (MP(-; LV.SI0-12). Hom in Aa. Aposr. 1~.4-5
(MPC-; LX J.ri-5)J ~~ iuttrt'Sth'!( in irs bch,fch.:at !:Jil:lng a church on an f'Stare will help to kl'--H. (The reader should b.:war.- th~
cxtr.mr<tiro:.r~ ,..,.,, lm p ...!KI. wh,r IW rifh Athoman citizens. Mtncclcs and Stratoclt>,
in Is~- lllMmal.l ]') . .~5. ,,n,l XI 111-tc"! ~~. wh> uwned property co the value of7.000 dr
and 5'1: t.d.-r,rs rc~~n,d')l . .Jtl' IJLl'll t<J:oq ,.1-&w'lo, >::lllirdy without justtficallon.) S..~ also,
for slaw pri;,o;.. Jon.~. SCA . :n s.-\S (,.,!, r:ul:")' i 1- H . .-sp. 5 & 7 (fifth/fourth-century Athens);
7, 1'-lh. 0 !Jl.<>rnar: w.-.rld. R,-p,\bb.- ~o b: Empire); LRE II.H52 (with lll.2!l6
n.68i; llt: MJrtlll .S<."W IV .1 tl'l74) 2f, 1111 f>t~-: \J)-40 n.6: Westt"rmann. SSGRA 14-15,
36, 71-2, !fl.. I; Dt:n.:}r:Ju:tt.s. F.NI:Q:S (on.:,m,:d ~!most entirely with the West) 11-12,
-W. 5(. 2-U' a~od
.~:>u. lknrul) llmo~u-:Jut's ha, nudt a bold attempt to \'Stimac~
the ''-"'' -f sl-l''''S m lr.ns :i wh,..: v;ilu.:S ill "''''"'' stparate contt"xts ovtr a period of
som.: 1..=..111 y:tu. ti-111n th, ht. tit':h Hr\lty llC <>nwards: see his 'Two possible indices of
the pm.-h;4"lrg J~\\'et l mmy 111 (lr,'\:lc. anJ RLlman antiquity', in the proc,edings
of a c;onii.r,m .It the Fn-:nt. Sdlt!';;l 111 l~oru; m Novcmbt"r 1975. published as Lts
'Dia.sl""""'; .l R ..m.-, EP''i"( Jt]"rll.;:mo:r .t iorr;'mlle (Coli. dt I'Elolf jra"r~isr de Rome
37. U'llll'. 1'.'78i 15.l-to!:!, .. t jt,.~..J !t..io.
E;.l:.:t ,,fllio.-knan on maxllllum prin-s. of 3CJ1,
is tht nh d:Ulltt11t I ku<>W irn tht wbolt <)f .uui:tuity that g1ves borh prices for sbvrs
and till' \\';J~t>s ,,f \'Jnns dilli:~m workers. (for rcc11t edttions of that Edtct, see
(.iii n.J .&l:<l\:;.. ,j Ito P"'"" 111 :lcm.mi (u''"' n;nd J,-,,reciared, of course) for ordinuy slaves
aged lt....4C' .If~ .x.i))ll ii:r llllJ.I, ~,,.! ~5.((1(1 fi-.r 11 ~-.,m:1k; rh.- w:~g~ of an unskilled farm worker
is 25 .-l.n.m
.i.l}' ""th hli"<t' iJ'I:it;) - ~~~ :c.-1,\!tkn >\'hkh cannel b~ tillld pr\'ci5dy. but to
whifh llu:JI:,n--J.,...:.., (lb&J lh\i ti.aul'h J!ltt .. wheat value' of 111 additional th1rd, or
abot:t itlloth,z 1.1 litr,-.. ruJk~ru wo~h tlK J ~' ii:r.-. .,h.-at value' ofth 25 dnarii a total of
4.4 htt... Th.- "wh,.u v~(,,,. ,,:-ri1:- 1.1\'e prier ;ot 31),)1 kl denari11s given by Duncan-Jon,s (!oc.
cit.) .bO ,;, ~JJK hrr,-... ,,, 1i9?i !m.-s !J, r.:al daih W.lt;l' -I would call ir thrw full yens' pay.
I ;.m ra! o:tidl' !t~rrY .:.hJ;t :h, ;ri.-:-;; ,,; .il;w.;s; iu the lt~,tal sourc.s. from Gaaus to th~
Corpu llm.c C:iii. tlu~tll)l:l". flm:D!'!-:.)<11"' (l:R E:Q..;, 50n.2, ~CJ) accepts a standud figun
1. For slaw
Part II',
J'f!f\1.' .lt
111
Ath.ns
Ho.p .:!5 (lljt,;. 17S Jf.
;.t
'"'r-
n,..--
rr
586
Notes on IV. iii (p.227)

:ill~ 2J.III~IO .u. ~h.: f"'' I:~ t.~t"!i.b.v~t) r:-.:. 'f{~ll plupr~i\"'"\ '. '!11~:"':" ~ o:~: t.~try good pie<:t: of evidence
loc tin~. '"h:.:~n
{a:,Jtor:.,:natrr :or ~=~Y J--.:~_pc.. .:..:, Jn t!!t~ tJ.Ol,.:) comes from Afnca Pronms:l.m..s C!f_ Viii (S>tppl 4) 2JU'>!i. ::o l!Jgmr:lr.ilr'l/ ms::i~tivn dated A.D. IH6, from
lf.t:Klll: Saobb<"tl.!. wl:~:...- .1 ~hvr \'"" t~>rlll'< m:;.-.ri.l. !~i"lH> :o.> hr . . . alued at 500 dt~narii (line 14),
w:n.-i1 .,; r:o:.;n..r.- H~ Z,OOIJ (Cf A H. M.jv:u:1. ~.-\'l'. i:: SCl. ~i. Fmky, 10. for a rang<' of
:.cn;o~l Ffl"""t""~ ,lllriut: Uw i'rinn~ar~ m.hotia~ tl:c,l 'a n.-,r~!""llll !'W~ t:Jr an unskilled adult' was
ai>o~;t .;ili)-iJIJO \J:II.\n1,) .\p~r! tnm tht' HI~ ~ISG!Jlll<.lll f t:;:V(' qU<)t~d. hoWCWT. the figure of
HS 2.'~1( :c< ~he 1,~,; ...;~!:,.- ;:.fa sl.aw dC""pc!l..!.s. >n ~Hm :;l;nc rrns or valuations in aurci or
~hli in.lst;!:l~l\ \ C.ctp! .. ' .;-i:h llW .nr.-:a ;;lt.l ;l;di!S: o<S.SIOllc,.,! :o bt equivalent to HS 100:
:hl"S<." .m. ::-ith.r ;?Co .tUT(l (D:!- lV.l\' .)J. I'.Jil:Mil; V.uil. !7. Llllt.;t!t; V.ii.9. Paulus cir,d by
M_,d,!tilu;~. :mrlnt;>l:.tn.~ C.J VU.iv ...!. r~hp C::.r~o::all;;) L: 1U ~olidi (Oi~. XL.iv.47.pr ..
l'.tpmil.u: C) Vl.i 4 p . ,,j 3 17; a1d VII. n:. !.5,
5.)(), -'ldo VI ...!iii.3 1, of 531. whcrcthc
tij:ur-:5 wory 1-t,tw.-.-:, !Oand 7!),.,_,lidt. :!t.l!~n~ rh.h .. ~l\" nu,)- N ..w :lis tru!' that from the time
o(Jcbu~ C:il".Slr n:ow:mls :h, ~urnc; wa~ .\<w;:;~ rrgardrd as t!'-ll:!'.l';.i.-nt to 25 dcnarii. or HS 100.
;,uJ rh.tl thi~ .-nlltUtd-.i ro b, rh, ftk1"l =~t:;; 41 least unn! th; !PH" of D1o Cassius (sle T. V.
Buttrt~. Dh. z,m .. r:as .mJ th~ \'~llt" .t the:- RmJu ;~,lr<'1o> . ~:tjR.S '!I [ 1961] 40-5)- although
hy [)~~~ tm1, :htr, nust hav: ht~ll.l Hack !M.ril.l~tm Jou:ci. u.!JI-".O. has pointed out (RE 195);
.md 111 th ,lts;astmu.< h.dt'nttnry (lJj..2M) l-..1wm' :h" tml of1! .. Scveran dynasty and the
.Kl'.:11su~r .;:'Vi,,Lktio~t rh,n .-;~u hu,il~ h .,,. !>._..,ulmy :,~.JL,tt:- rm (It may be usLful at this
ro.mu u null th~t mnl.-r Au~l~>tu tlw ptno.i ,,f t?IJ IIJ<i~ up 42 -4urt:J, under Nero 45, umkr
Cn..&;:-.J.ll.t.JI"III 5il .. m.-1 ,,uJ,r ,u,,,-.,l:u.: <'lllll":r;.:' ~;-:-n ,,.,-.,,~ :mkr Diodetian n wu at first
li; .t! tho e::tt( i ~h~ l' ,,,. Edrcrthi:' i~;.:~r( w~,; (.i, ..mi tlo, tl:.-.mn.tl value of th< aureus was
rb.r.iLr 1.11 .!qrr,t:JtN J,,,r.t ~ .ilt~'t!. ,.rn.tJG: ,...,.I. iii :-tJ :ti>ove. From Constantine
onw.uJs tlw ~<llidus w:.~ stru,k .at T:!. tv rh,twiJ.)
In th< kr,.al s"u'"'' !i~te.i tnth~ !.1st ('.ll":.jl:nrh rh:: ..:IJ<us ;,..._, ..ti,n (as by Mommstn and
Pun(;m-J>tJ<'") b..~ur.1...: I< ntn~.,tt HS l[tJ. S<t rha: "' .horri .ITI' HS 2.oon. Howewr, the
;arudr hy 1\ ihi,r ptlb:.isbl-"(\ i l~;;.Jtl (SCHK 56t>-7'1J, wladtl h.aw pr;uscd in 13(l) of the main
t<''l(t t" tins ~um:. <l"t'mS t< m t:O h;o\.,~ m..!itl,d tltt..' pinur,. I shall cxu.. ct two relevant
folltdn~iun~. l l) cxccpt lllil r.ll!ll'UI;IJ >.UI' wh,r;tb; n>U:r.u )I ;;m }"-"!haps be proved, a figure
j.tt\l.'u 111 Ju~tini.&n 's C!'rpll! u> .IUr.i r s,,lt,h wluoh rti.h'\"1' .t sun1 expressed in sesttrccs in thl'
Cldl>~J<",d law-boo!..!> 11111~1 N- llkt:1lt< ,,ln-11<: th JUfl'll' .:.r solidi'~ with HS 1,001, not 100: and
(.:!) thtii ...n.I t'X-4!1UJMIIOt df tht few
,1Jt,{ "a)u;mon f sl.tn.,. 111 sest'f(:t'S which survive
t'romtthe Cl.~r..~K;l) l.lwv,r., s,,m tn iunf\ th, n>u,ht\i<r 11l.1.t t),,. standard valuation ofa slav~
''' tlw kt:JI wnt.r,; w~~ I-IS IU.J)I,I:>. Ctrr:tmly Imr.] Ill vii.J t:lCpl:,.itly quares tho. .turcu~
iwhwh ho~,{ nuw .llklht ,,..,,,.....-long a~J:. J>,.tntu . I'"''' h'JIIH>fdo<'ounl) wnh HS 1,0110, and
!lm 1~ h:"lll1<' 0111 h")' t~111 po.~sa;;:.,. in that \\"o>rl. witto:h ,urKl'J'<>Ui ;~;.,(y wuh parallel passag'S
111 dt.- lmt,.,:,.> uf(~:.ms t.uintt twm flh' rmJ-s.--.,n.i ntury Thrw ufthesc (lns1). 11. xx.36;
III lri,. :t; o~nJ [Jl.),:o..vi.&. ,f,riw.l respccriwl~ frtm G.1i , ln>t II. :?J!): 111.102: and 111.161) have
nothing to d,, wt1l1 ..iJ\'t'ii, but Insr). IV. vi.JJJ ;,ubmtut,., \It"""~' t(>rthe HS 10,01'10 valuation
ofthcslaw 111 <::n . ln;r IV.5.~1. cquatinr; rlh JL<r.u~ clur..t~rn,th liS 1.101. Thlonly c.rtain
~1.1\'<" J'flh., llmvw wll~o:h art' left tn sestt'H'"' 111 th, P~~.._,, J.Jo' th. H~ IO,f)(JO and 5.000 in
X XI.L5; I \l':~uh ...l.
-lll"JI<~ \wsbtlll,f rc.aJ "nnln' ti~r "!lnll.l"- t!-1, 'quinque milia (HS. of
,uurs.) 111 X.iiL!." (Julianus). wh~oh l!i> I<"i'r<:'l'llt<d "'' lulfth , ..,.h,, ,,frh.: slave .11 'aun-orum
J.-c,m' .-arlicr in the same I''~~~ :\ post-Cb,~ic.l .:ompilation, Epir. l..}/p 11.4 (FIRA 2
II.!No;, ,l,:ds. Wtlh th,tu.am;mis.~>nvf:, slavt' wh.'J'.J~'> ior that pnvikgc 'dcc.-m milia': that is
tn sa~, ItS lfl,tlilll It ts. worth ntII<Jn~ htnth.Jt JJ~. XXIX.,.. 25.2 {twm Gaius) has a penalty
ur' ll.ur.t.:<'rr~"l"'"'hn~ r.. nn .~.-ll'\. h.1.f!1.1 in I'Juln,. s..., Ill v. 12a; ~nd thar in two
tlwr t"t" 111 th,/)r.:..,r r1fyn>~ J"""'Ju,;. (Ll\\!i.tl'~. Cdu.. XXXII 97, P.ulus) the cunnus
rhraso '(('Jlli~US l\JI ,;.uti.-..,') ~llf~>Jlllll. 11111~1 mrd\ r.rb(' tib' lllnliar 'ccnties SC:St!'ftium'
(liS II millidll) in th( U)tllldl lt:\1 In Vl'f\ 111JI~ r''"'"'!!'' ir: :h. IJ~~rst the valuation of a
,.l,,n. or rh, rn.:, h< ba~ r. !'Y fr rn.au111i~ion. i, ;~i"<'ll s:nply as. 'decem. rn!'anmg
uuJo>ubt<""otly Ill AUI<'I (rht tot:n
.tj'~:;.~s) . .._,,.,. ~. Xl .. \'11, whlrr phrases such as 'si
J,,,m ;l.-J,m .lthrr (~h; ...~,-nr uo "'l k;.;;r !~- oittf.,r,nt .,.,ciml(o \i,-n.,saun-os'm3.13). Mo~l
,,f th, 1.-j!.d I<"Xf" (<'lltdii>UI~ .J;av; J"fl\'"li :>r ,~lt:~ti<J~ tn ..~ ~;tio:tJ>S be. eXJ'<:l'lcd 10 give
exceptionally lngh figur"' r.~ rh;)' ;,r, l!''!t!JII\ J,-,.!in1: Wllh !:.;.,,;. who arc purchasing the~r
freedom or arthought \\'rthy ibt"ing fr,-.;! \>)
:r, ]J;; ;\]..vii, and (as throughout
rh~l r.trtl\UIJr urk. whth rd.ttt-<; tv slatulibt'f") til.: hll'llf' .. ~. fw.: :'"'~mal J.nywav. Only in a
t'" r'Si.'rtJU,.,. ;:.-ulluU\!1' -u!-t as (~I VI ,fiii.: I; VII \'lt l .' ..r: "''' enrirkd to ~xp~.ct
or
rn,.,.
"'"j
"''''""lll'l'"
'"iii."'
Notes on IV. iii (pp.229-234)
587
figu~~! f wcuJ.i ru1.! :h;ot thr 'gold value of .m unsktllcd adult male slave
works oul .t<Xoding :u ili~ EdifC ,,f [)iudrti;m :it~/" Ih. gold, a fraction ttnder 3111 )tOdetianic
au ret u e:<ll.::ti)' ){) Cm~t:mtm!!fll ''~hdi.
2. I haw 1101 :'uund the-;;(' ;n~r:prtoM tist:o:"d m i1.1ll ,\nywhcrt, and I will therefore giw those l have
been ailk to hi.-n::f}, hwludm~ ""ntt' wh1ci1 '.\..'I:C published too late to be taken into account in
West~mt0111:1'~ ~u.tly~i~. td~rrcd I! in tl,, tli:Otil t-:xl ;;hove-: 1-D lll.i (1929) 565-72; ii ( 1909-13)
212-<7; 111 ii')J1-43) 1-'.i.'. DiJ-'1. I i-1-'t. 20.5-i~, :;{)!j..J 1. 258,262-%/7. 311(1-37. J:W-41, 3~9,
35 I -l!.
.}i;5-4ll; :. (\t<_;u.7') 7(1-.1. nt. l7~-~.J'9, vi (1939) 5-58,62-95,97-1 to. 112-4012;
and ::f th ~clt..~li<l:t in SGPI !I.J:i-\' (1if(!6) lll84-2cl42; vi (11l99) 2343. Sonw of these ref.:r to
dat(~ l.it1'J rl::m c. 5.31' C.. .,h<'H Wt-sco:-rrnijJm';; ;.;:;.lysis and mine end.
2a. Sec th.>w 1\,'i~h Hopkins, (;,.,;querorr ,:nJ S/.wrJ . ..;.,,.irJioRical Studies in Roman History I (197R)
133-71. :,uhl.ul;ed after thb chapt.:r w::u iiHt5lwd. I lis figure> rake- account of rather mor.:
inSC!i;'~~Oij tln" w~Uirmat:Jl kl1f'W, hu: Iltl h'~l>l13 arc 001 significantly dtffer~nl. for my
purp.->H'.> (~<~ t'>P l-+lu. !5: w~~nta._.urt, ii~t:r~ .ur: 'wry slightly different' from those of
compktdr r..Jh5:i:;
:m.?-n .
Hopkm~).
RI}' Tt'\'i<'W ,fW.-st..-:m:.m~~
3. See
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
b"'>k, m Ck 7i = :t 7 (1957) 54-9, and che review by Brunt

cited i HI. i\ 11.6.5 :.!Nw SC"t: ..als<J :~.5 betv.v.
I haVl'liOI 5C<"I ~ycltms llh re r~C'"' Qli tili~ ijll<"l.t;~ll than r.. Daux. Dclplle> au IJf fl '"" sri-cle
(Paris. l<iJt,) 4'i!l..l.
The ubj,.-!i >!t~ ,_,f We~l:rm;mn . .'i.Sc;P.A 32 I.:;J c:m lx ,lisrq~ardeJ. As so often in that book he
has nn<i::hrJ~r,d. the: t~~t: 1 d;:>t-< ''~ s:.~ rl:~ rh.:- nm wcr actually cnlistl.'d. but only th;ll
rhey \\'<'n- .t.-m.m<t..-d hy J)\,1'.':1> That :; :~::.t l!"'m"~rmt with th, actual rota) force of 14,1~)()
infantry ,\rt.i bOC co~v:.!lr~ r.Jri,ol by l':ms. Vll.\\.7 West.:nnann artually bdt<'ved tho~t this
passage (in C~rl"dO:) 1:' prrsor 11<-:in: th~ L11111 lutn;m Orosius! - ">Ce SSGRA :\2. (I think h~
must haw nu.;;umt,r;o.l<><d tb.- hr ... hn, m rho l. ...t> ,,iuion ofl'olybius. Vol. VI. p.423. whtch
of wur>c rdir.; to d1. xiv .J mriy.)
Livy. Ptt <H>-7: AJ>p .liCit l7-..!i
Over -lii(J,II(i), .lcc<.m.lmj; ro Vdl. I'Al 11.47.1. Plut., Cars. 15.5, .md App . Cflr.2. say that
Cat'S3r tu..J.. " null;,~n J'D!o<'n~
It will b, \Utlim1lt 10 ntcr :u r"ll'"l .JII f.nl~ilii>;Jio. TC 1.15-16, 20..2, 41-3. ~994. and 24:.-6
('Mv~t li.S. (Ufll>h WJ.S WIIStlllltoJ u;:ot m rh.but.tbroad' (. !R50). Our Gavin Wright hJS
shown th.u 1'1 -gd df<<l En german b.1w n"t nu.t.- "utliocnt allowann for the ,ff<-.:1 of tht> world
dem.mclt~r ,.,,,t,>n on the South,m un<>mv r 110-50: S<'<' his chapt!"r vii (pp.302-3() in
RtrkctJil~(! ll'irlr S/,rnT)', by ]'o~u! .'\ JJ:o:\'lohu,l th.-r,; ( 1'176).
Hopkm~ ,~,J,J~ tlw h1~ 'urptr h111it flik '.li.J'i'ftatKy i~. however, rcntalivc, in rh, sense rhat rhe
detcrmiuant~ o)f th. J<'l:to)jolf:!Jh.i J('\'oltllloJU ;r. w,-sccm Europe are enn now only dimly
undtrst<''d. N, ~rrhd,.,.-s 1t ~.,Jib r.mrth.u rhr butkn of proofis firmly on tho"' who wish
to as!<,rt that th, Hurrldlll'"l'llbtin 111 t:<'ll<'rotl :..1J;. I.Wcr mortality than nthlr pre-industrial
popul;ttl)n~ \litth si11lllr r,,ht,ai a.-ha,.,.,.m,'1t~ tr towns: thy must show that thcr.: W<'r<'
pns.ut in rb, ltmn ~nrir, f.cc.,n. whd1 wul.! have led tn a grnnal diminutton of
morcahn (l'ASRP ,!t._\...1). llrtnr ar,rov~ wuh f f,_,,ki"' that th Roman xpectauon of!ifc mu~t
have hc.:'n 'b.ltW .~I '\'lllo tul'd11t m;rt:oht~ ;,J,..,w ~-<l' per I ,llOIJ'; but he is doubtful about
Hopkins'<. lower limit for ,xpectation t Ilk ~ .t'' 1:u as the.' frre population of Rlpublican
Italy is couc ,ml \TM I.H). [And sec nuw tl,.. .Lrttdt r}' Donald Engcluited arrhnnd of!I. vi
u s_
i .
n.7.tl'<w.J
10. The 9ptr.roi .tr.: a 1htikult ~urj.-t .m,ll ,iJ;tJlmmrinn ~nly the good d1scussion of Pbny, Ep.
X.lx\-bo.vi. lx:o<t. iw Sh,rwin-WJnr.-. 1.1' to\Oio..l. ,;j,\..l, 659, whtrh gtv<>s r.-fcrcnn.s to other
recent Wl'rk. induJmJ!: tho~cvfC.uu,rn (l'l.N).
11. Sw bnctty j.Jh.,.. 1. Rl?. 11 M:U. with dw r.f,n-:.1<'-s in Ill. 2M n.70 - alrhough I think the
J,ahn!( p;tially w1:h :zot~nt< wl:< !:Jad !x'1.'tl sold by thlir parents. JS isl.' .g.
V tsigothic lw 1;.
""t
CJIV.xhrU.
12. Le~. Vi;:,a::;,. IV.,,.. ;; i~ .:J. K. z,umr. Mt;U. l.:~i'.~ l.i (I'J02) I'J4. I can find no spc.cifk
figurt" Ill .:.arh." bw .;u;h ... d . Ci>U>l.:.r.tm;ao: cr;, V.x.l.pr. (pretium quod pc>USI V<Jiere
exsobuJ;a.,-JI\'.xl:ii ..1.t;L;t flm,,.,,;,.IV !\' 1-~.
13. The subject b "l'ralh~>jt!}' mt!:i ;l!<';.l "'' ]:.;,;;;, i..lll:' 1.341-I. 114-'i. 448-9 ff . wirh lh<' notes;
also RE 8-11. 1hJ.7JJ i;:.:p. z:.~lr>). f':,r "!":mr.;; :u1,(1h~ IllS ltalicum. s.:c also E. Korucmann, in
RE IV 1{1'11..-l) Sl~;: H M l.:&~r. ir1 CAIDi.I.451,.1. 45~.

14. E. J. jL\IIk,r~. E~rirr:lirl,. ,.,. ,;:;.11, rN~r.r.,oio: ;, ;,,., r....,,.,nsch.- Rijk Mijkfndc '"' l~tr Cc>rpus /uris
588
Notes on IV.iii (pp.236-241)
(Wageningen, 19)J) II.\ b~t> lS2 [,,g.ti :,xis nkrin,: w t>-J::<$ ,mri/larnm or ro vmrae. and of
these only four ar, SlUJ 1,-, drr tkruhii<.l:J or A:Jgt~SL&:;j:!'ris:~: !~ ik.mr,JM707-t!. Ofthe four
cited by Brunt. vnl~ tim:t c.-:uir.h iulf:l t.'nnnc Vll.i.6l:!.pr.; IX.ii.'1.pr.;
XXIV .rii.66.3 (Xl.l ,__.. pt >(<m:; ~' ''mw f.--on' N~r~!h> r;.d:c: than Trebatius); but add
XXIII.iii.l8. 5 ~~~ 1\r...:l:. IM !--l.l-4 (t>.ip. p.l 1.l) l'crh:.ap> i ~lwuld add 'It this pomt that
then seems to b.- !:::1~ .~: r;<~ information :Abou: ~IJ\'t' ~J<-callc anywhere at any rime in
antiquity. (I do Wl rt~ ..r.lrh.,.. rd:;,.ti_,,,_. f~~qt~er;qf l.lf ;u;''~'lfl!:..-~i>.r.. s as informative on this
question.) As I say m :h:ll:am tM :Jh~~t'. 10. Ca:o m~nr m<'m:.-.!u femak slavcs. apart from
thl vilica, and I may ~.M thw.~ ;-:1\l<'h :he s.;-:'li.' ;} !ni~ }f\/;,r~:J. who. 4part from tht passag.-s
cited in the main.,.,.., ;at!J.)W (behv:,n :m. ~4:tm! 15}. reit:>r,.:. i~\a;~.i~ slave~ (I thmk) only in RR
l.xviii.l.3 (the vfU,,;). :mJ m II. ..!, wh,r !l,. :~>:,l.:-~s Cc~m.us nmark that 'in fundis non
modo pueri sed etJJ.m pu.-liJ~ ptbnm' h C.-:-bp,!l.t. ~'!I t!:~ other hand. female slaves often
appcar, and he tO<' co~n tind cmploymmt :wt on~y t<: ;l~.-.:- be;'> Ul.ii.lJ; IV .xxvii.6; Xl.ii.44)
bur for children oih.th xes (XII.iv .3) -:~d ;'n~ ;m r.'l<<-' .;~:./,; d t..tr (VIlJ. ii. 7). M. I. Fmk-y
may bt right in a,I-\(K;atiJt!! t!:l'o~r '17~ ~~~u~ld '1~'<"ili :nf:orl',~<n fwm ~hanges in the practin-s or
institutions retlectro "' C.J.t~. V.a:TJ .it! C."'ILO.:'l:dh. ''= ;,: D~r:.-~! xcerpts from Sevcran as
compared with Rl-rnhhc~r, "r ,il.riy h~1Jl<'fidl,tt:n'lt>; altU ht dr.....; ::.dmtt that the differences
between them 'mol}' r,tka in~tituti\>n.ti dt.lllj!<".s. Uur k (:>~;;t"t;:l'rJr,., absurdly in saying that
'the presumption:~ ''' "''''~.: rbr nati1i~~ .,.,,,., !h.m "li:.-r .uy hl'i:'f)'" !ics behind them' (SRP4,
my italics; cf. t04i. Thlr.- I! no or,udt 't'rl"~\lmplluu Thl" ,-,,m:pl" I bav{ u~ .arc not the basis
for 'infcrC'II.ces', but th.y J.. rr.J(" ul~llli!olr.lll\'l' n.1.11'<'
14a. After this chapter W.l~ t'nmh.! I ~-!W tit~ ltltt"H'5llll[: .. ~~:..-~,. hy n.l\'ld Daube. 'Fashions and
idiosyncrasies in lh<' <'liJ"Il>iU<r: nf rh, U<>JI1dn I;;~, ..t P'"f<'rty'. 1:, Theories of Property. <-d.
A. Parcl and T. FIJI>il~;,u (W~r.rlo... Or.1 .. C.!11.:.J.a, 1'119) ,;:;.)(1, .11 .15-7, discussing the ruk
that a Roman usufru.-ru.ny dtd P''qmr.- :ar~ght ro.:. sl.a\'' W>man's o)ffspring, which was not
considc-rcd to bejruct11
15. The word uxor w.as applied 1>)-' tlul~dutg ,o\lf)nin )Ui.t. C} C.-rv11hus Scavola. to what was
s~rcly the consort of a sla\'( ,,,,,,,. Di;l- .X XXJII vn -'1 4; ;,nJ 1r :~ Jntilarly used in Paul, Sent.
Jll.vi.38; c-ontrast lf ..,ix.t>, Ulp .. Ro'). \'.5. S..xJI~" C:t\~t.am'"''\ l~w. CTh ll.xxv.l.pr. And
as Paulus put tt, in DIJ{. xxxvm.' lfl ;;, th(' tnhni~ t~UIIS ,,; f".I:IJatio {such as parcntts,jilii,
fratrts) were sometnn.-s u~.l in relan,,n h> ~J.~,.,.,., .drhuutth .<onir1 '~~~raatiot~rs W<'l't' not legally
re-cognised (st'd ad ltgr< smilu .-..gt.lti.orr "'" pmmr''ll j.
16. Gdasius fr. 28, in Epi;t. H.man l'omit'. .~tllllill c't.l ......Jhlt~a~ 'Ibid ( tlit.::-8) 499-500.
17. Pclagius I. Ep. 84, l'li P. M. c;,~s.w .1uJ C M. U.nll,. Pl<~ill I P.11at l!pist. quae supersunt
(Montserrat. 1956) .!lt:H.
HI. M. I. Finley, AE 83 fL :5!.-.'nb ro ::w :o ~~:~1;:t:.kn1~:,! WdX'i '~ r5it\nn. In an .attempt to cxplain
the 'de-cline' of slaver~. on which I hi~\'<' ,unmlcun-..lm Vlll i ~l>cvt,lw asks. 'What happenl-.:1,
and why? .. Wh.u ntnrivatt'J the upper cl.a'-~'"' m p.trtl<'ul.lr tiK ,,wners oflarg<' estat<'S. to
change over from slave- ~.tt\t:~ to tied tc:nJtUs!' Tic~ ml~ ~xri.matmn he mentions. befon
producing his own. b. '"''' th.Jt he c-.all~ - withc>UI .ttmt>tttult: 11 tn :~.nyone in panicular - 'a
simple cost-accountin~ <'llrl.tn.ttiuu tb.lt .aiier the grtat .&it<' f R<>ntan conqut"St was over.
insufficient new sl.&ws wcrc brought ou tu dl( market tt\ n-rLan the' srock. By far thc bes1
treatme-nt oftht' problem on thes.: hncs tlw I (;au dmtl.<f~ Wtbo:r ~. mlhc essay whtch I have
just outlined in the m~in t''ll .tbovc. F!JIIty W1ju~tly Jcrrcnal"' th~. accusing Weber (wuh
other writers) of asserting 'th.tr l.tH lal>cur i~ m.-t'\i..::cnt .arlca~t m agriculr:ure. and ultimately
unprofitable-' (AE 83, with 15u.l>4) - wh1rh m t.l.<'t W ..t-.:r Joes m)t do in any work that I have
read, and ce-rtainly nN in rh(' r.t~s.o.; rct<m.J ttl in buky'~ nt>te. Allowing 'an obvtous
element of truth' in th interprt'l.IU<>n ht l~ rnth'l"lllfl. Fml.y .uta.b it with three arguments.
none ofwhich has an)' reallorcL'. ;;inn 1I:1mU1h llh1n' ,\'IJI:'u{<'l~ ul't.--..k-.:1 than from ont' single
estate (AE 196 n. 74); (2) no assumption o~h..ut tht wt~tJ~tit.-rury (b.uactc-rof<rt-rmans as slaves
is necessarily involved, or usually made; nor \3) 1;; tha ;my nn..-s,.ary 'assumption that a
reduction in the surply ,,t' .:aruw <>r importt.-d loiw:.. .-.anm\1 "'' m.r t., breeding' -the correct
assumption is only that l>m-dmr; is mart crmly to ~l.t\'e '''"neh in general than the mass
appropriation of earn,.:~ or tht' ~urt"h&Sc: .u very cheap rates ot' ~J.i,.,., produced outside the
onomy (cf the m.&m trll.t vi tht rt-rit>u).
19. See Pliny. Ep. V.xiv.ll; Vll."o. J; VIII.u.l-14; IX."''i.!. xx. ~; ~":oc\t.b: xxxvii.l-3; X.viJi.S-6.
It may be convenient If I h~t bert" <>th..-r r~~"",;'"' 111 l1l.u~,., (L~tr.; concerning his (and
others') estak!l. The m~t tnl('<>rt.mt J\ Jll.l!." ,., .J,5-7.~>: ""'' .a!... I u.l6; xxiv.l-4: ll.iv.3;
Notes on /V.iii (pp.241-245)

xv. !-2, V
'-'1. ~
2"1, 9-12: VL<il. !-1: VJI :-.1
!.~i;
xiv.l-2; VIII.xv.l-2. It app~ats from
X. vhi.5 th:o.! i'lil'y cl,:ivcd ~ annu.:oi itu:om vf r:tore than HS 4UO.OlMJ from his cstatn at
Tif<'rU<Il Tih.rim.:m, ,;ll ct' wi11ch w~~ ;rp~rcl!tiy let to tt>nants. I may add that I am not
imp!t'>SL:J by !he cpmion of M. I Finly that :i1~IC! lS 'no significant managerial differenn. for
absmtecs. bctwm1 tetl;uKi~ aud sl:.n~-opcrar.roesi.:Hc:o; und<r v1!Jci' (SRP 117). Ofthc lctt<rsof
Plllly m whtd'! hr :.pi'l';ll:', X i!i.5-t r.... fas ~o mm:11cw letting' (d()uhtles' after 5 years) and
the p.o;;;itiil~v o! ;.. n:ducrinn ltl rents dt...- I<~ ;m txctptional series of bad harwsts: in
IX. X.)i.>;'nLi, ;a~ain,l1e~, l~.a.v~> ;u(' nN:t.'$:$.<r~ (!'<.: 11.'10: u~uaiS years. 2); and in Ill.xtx.2 Pliny is
sint;>l)' ;iSkmg fo~ ~ fuc-nd's ~.l\'K' whthM h, 5hou!d buy an adjoimng e'tate. Caecina, whm
he ,;,.ti.<Ja,-; a rolon:<' :trnttt'. w;,;.-. :u:'lknJ~ th~ rth:i ofhis tstatcs (C1c., Pr!l Caec. 94). Tha1
tcm.m::t:s w~rr- irl{ked ,,~gad:d ~~ ilwohinj; l:zs ill;~trvision is perf~crly dcar in Col., RR
I. vii.S-7. Au,j<;,:: tl:<" worlm:ti"n <ft!H! m:tin ~J;;l above.
20. Slc "!' Xm (IN;,., X!L.?U; XXI.'J.l i, Colm1' , RR l.pra~{.12-15, 20 etc.; l.vii . .3-5,6;
Xll.;m;.:(I'(.H); l 1 ~ttl' NHXVIIU~(l'wbgo}, 45
2!. A very ~.;,dy p:ti9!{l' I !u\'i" not u.~, qu ld ;,, rhis ~onnc-ctton is T erencc. Adrlph. 949 (produced
160 B.C.). \\'!:l"U l:k:n.-.o ~.:.~t:ud.;, 1\ltd~..' :h.;t he ha$;, little farm ncar the city which he is lll tht
habtt ..~i rntmg rl1ir (l.~tih:t i1i( nil rrrlr- r::./jom ;JI.'fld l.:dtas Joras): Micio only seems surprised at
hcariutt 11 ~lir..J ;, 'llftl(''ti1rm fp10ul1tt :,:,r.ol(frtrl~) Ewn tfthis comts directly from the origmal
by Mm;m:k!. th, use Jf rh~ !rcqn~"~iH crb. /,cito (wh~eh I have not cncount<'rcd
dS(whnc), ,.,~ly suggesl5 th;:t f~mnl\nll ill :ll.: mid-;aond c~ncury H. C. wcr~ used to ngular
farJaktt1ta\!'S..
22. Wilk\'5. l>ctl;;,,,.,,: 13-1-t.o. )'11. d 149. 197. 24.\ 276, 280-1: G<'za Alfoldy. Norirum l'J0-3 (esp.
TJh!o:' IH.Il j.. (91) .-:- 1.11',..,\.~

n. Wlutt". 't,u'iii!r.Ji. lll !JICS 14 (l'.lb?) !\J.-('J ... ,jght In saying that tht> tf'Jffi lat!{undin IS
'post-Anglt~l.\11, JuJ ~irw~l!) lh!&it~d lo' ~ mrruw J'('tiod. that of Pliny rhl' Eldcr. Petronius
23. K.
and Scn"C.t'. Jlth>ugh he ntiss.d t!:, "':"l"'>t ~~~q~ in Vall'rius Maximus, which I have
quurt'.i iu rh~ rn:Jill :cxl .IDl'" H, _!~iVC'; .t "''':.~t utful colltttion of early sourc~ material
rt'ftrn~l~ t,l.trgc nt::o.ro;,.
24. Sec C"''1' -'\\'rlm("fo. flom I'd. C. Tlml'n (l.eJI'li~. !"!.i) l.i.45. lines 16-22, replacing the older
worl.:. J]i,.;;rirr!fr,.,,J,., ,,;.,1. FT/;J..:c,;.~t I. d. 1'. ltlmn~. K. Lachmann and A. Rudorff(Berlin,
1~) t;4-5 Cf rlw tU<It:h-qut.-J )J,ei..-Un'lll (li rb, Elder Pliny (.\'H XVIII.35) rhat Nero
exe..-utL\i ~~~~ !.<nlwu.r~ who 'posS<:sscd li~lt.,j Airi.-;o:', and whose hold1ngs would have been
contioGih"\llud b-;cuJw imptrial propert~
25. I am vtrr di.'l'<:artstitd w1th A 1:. It Jlo_>:.j,. i\tllll'''"'rt ..'>l1orta~<' and the Fall of thl' Roman Empir in
the 11'<'1! (.o\nn Arbor, I'J55j, ti>r th~ n::uunartourunny review. in Population Studies 10 (1956)
118..!0; d': M. I. Fiukv'~ r.~i(W-<Iisc:u~si'"' ,,frh,, ,;..om<" book inJRS 48 (1958) 156-64.
26. See A. M. J(,,r.,>n'. 'Th s.-v.r:~n i.J.wy.~\: A prdu:llll:if!-' surwy .. in SDH128 (1%2) lfl2-232. at
212.. J.l.
2ba. After th, 111.tiu t<"'ltl ,,f th:~ 1-<....J.. w:a~ ''' pa~e rroof. I -.cdvtd fl'om Tony Honore an opimo11
wh1..:-.h rs ,,f (O\lf,_. t:lrw.:lt:btir th;m mm, ;tmi ;u,l"<'\l,,n such 3 mAtter is thr most ~uthoritativc
I coul<! ulm.tn. H, h.;lt"'\'<"To el~;;l :he wur.ls 'siw t=:a.~-d>L~ qui bus adhacrmt' are undoubtedly an
intcrp<>l.lfl''' by :!1 :JmJiler t>fthi' p:tt c.i
D~t~r..:r. whom he identific~ as Tnbonian (s.
Hourl-. Trilwri;lll ]11 i. lk,lu:sc;.uf ilqlfiliu lilrr,>l") were of course void in law. bur th< very
fact that M.tr,"i.tml~ ,leah '"i~h t!n:a m ' r.~.-.tl>,:o~.l lor studenr~ shows that thry were not
infr,"'U<'III, :md 1:-y th l,u.; 1'71.1~ t!t, emptrors wen appucntly prepared to construe such
lt'ga<i'li .1s bequf'sts uf the ,,..,, ill<"ilvcd. if tbu r.t'\'mt.-d to fulfil rh<" testator's intention:
aesrimo~ti. would then b.. nt'c<-ssaf1'. 1 .!II' l.l'-lldltl h Tony Honor~ for this view of Di~.
XXX.ll!.pr., whifh l'lll'!il b.! rrdcrr,...t to rh .llc..,.uativcs I have offc-red in the main crxt
a bow. Itt;. mh~tltttwlly th" .um. .1~ th~ ,,ml>ill:>.ll\111 ,~f th~ views ofSaumagn and fustcl de
Coui.An~l'S th.&t ""'ill ht iiund on J'.Z-11; oat->u
27. The mist.Ak ofthmkn;tt :ha.t th, r,..,,r .r' Mo~r<C:~nu. r,i;:rs to all inqwilini (and indet'd all coloml is
mad, h\-' Norb..rt Drodullf11"r. t\k~r~.:n.ni;m ur.J itkonomisrh.s Denkm in der Gutswirrsclraft
das r:iniJ.-i~o: l:ri;:ilo (Di>;,., 1\;Jihum .. !'Jf~l !.N. wJi,, says, '1m 3.Jh. wurden die Kolonen,
insb<o;;''''d'l'' ;b,lnquilinm. t..:rc1r~ ..,, ,;dn mu ,l,m l;ut idt.'!ltifiziert. dass Mare~an sagte, sic
konu:"rthu, tltr.:- Parzelle ru.hr \''mJO:ilt w.r.kt
28. St.-cck 'i t~'"'!l' h;..,; 1>\-.'tta.:r,lt:d on p~rn.- ... hr h 5iti,:. HBE P.i.l7. 22, 29-.30. 55; ii.409 n.6
(Set-CJ.: ;.mon .l\'1,; :1'J .:r; r(-iu:t: il\1 :lfp;o>t' r! ~;t.;"lm: publication poS!Cfi"Urc'), etc.; .:~!so by
De Murn>l. Sf::R' IV 1 ii'IH) ,>w,'l; G;ar.si:llt-. i;tCUE 263-4 (cf. n.37 below); Hdtland,
,z.,.
590
Notes on IV.iii (p.247)

1\~PirD-111 .t4<J ;.:"! 1!,.\ ..lt'A!-1; :uu! mhcu. _loleo-JZ ;>.nd Ntr.:h)la~. ~ftr:r saying that the t'olom1s m
rh<> L:m.r t.''li?Ht! 'w;,:; :.h~:ui;o ~~far.~~~ api'Ulll!l.ncr urthc l;md :md wuld. m some cases at
lt":iSt, hr bcq:l';ith.-d ;iong wath it', Cl~r m:: fJ.i~'I-<IJl,~ frorn M.!:t:ianus m a notc. Jddmg. 'Tht'
!~:!< t s~~r.'-s of mquiliril, :\P4i <ltr}' W<'Tl' pcrh~p~ G::m ...lt pti:sont'r~ \.,.ho had bcen scttlcd m the
<'I:IJ'Itt-'. wH1 a :<"fi.rcuc!'.' !() ~'-"CK (!It'\' !h'l~ i tiSRL 1 ~-'~ 11111i n 9). Sc~ck 's th.:ory ha> been
r<',;.'rtl":! bv &dk.;,tr:n (CkO 4t).S) :mtl Cl.ut:rin~;t (RC i90 fT., a~p. 195-7). and by Pigamol and
S.&u:u.J~II' (s~ :h: ll14in t:o.~t a:,.}w) Fut!td lk Coula.ngn. in~ ess..y on the Homan wlonatc
:ncr:!l<l:;.d i11 iJ{II) ~bov= (and pnbluhl-d 2S Y<'il> het:.m~ S!!cd<';. interpretation .1ppcarcd),
.J<."t"S a: kast l>t1t-r ~ =~ible suggL-stl<>n <1~ :o how th<: U'$tlltor in qu~~rion may havt' concciv"d
t.!:ll:St'lf ;as ablr tL bequf':\!1> bi"tr:-~:/ini; wh:u :\11:' t<:Au;m rt:-al.ly hal in mmd. says F-ustd, wa' a
b.c;u:St ... -~!:, rn<sJ:tid by tin inquilini (65u.l) n I m~y :o.y. Wbuld have bec>n Oltt' ofthos.:
l;~ymt'n' s f'!:ou tti whicn J(Oin:m t(!'JUton ~,.,,..,: pron~. Thr m~J! would nor have ralisC'd that if
1,. m.&!." 110 spcci!lt' !l<:'.jUC'}t ~f tlr );md i1~.-!f (owmalup d whidt of course mdu<kd the right
I< ~C'<-.i\'IC the ~~lti) :t would S1!<li'lr i'~H w rh~ h:ir. wld1 wlur ,,., ihould call the ns1duary
t:Sb\<', Ut!! I rannot 1(-Jlnw 1:,J..td in h.-lll:'vm~t ~h;~r M:ord~nus 'wm dire: S1 un tcsratcur leguc
tm inquilinus ;~v.:.-c !.:< :c<" ui; i! es! 1t:Jdte. 1:: l~s ri! \'ut,b:(', j,~ 1hc scnsl' rhat it 1s the land
which is b~qm.1thro hl f'i't the:- b.qu.~! cf o1 trc:t' tC'hllll(, wit!: n: w:th:mt the land he occup1cd,
wa~ simti}' t:ul! ..uui ""1:.! u: l;~w, ~' in:kcol fUSli: ~liln:-J (~ rht :-~.dicr part oft he samr not<').
NoJ ,i,,..~ fusrd n:;.tl.iir. h1)\V Mo~r.;;u~u~ n-.nid '"'<" ti:f' nrpnsingly 5t:<>ng ttrm adhaermt of the
J'~:~:'it:i Fur :i-1.\('d~.er \\'.ty :a": ''hirJt FuHtt~~~ n.Ctl<" may b,.~ li').t:o-fuilv .&~lplicd, ste thL ntain tl'Xt
.. bvv~. lll'lr tht U\t! u! IS.

29. On :ht" allcg<Xl OOMC'Cllon bc.-twcru lhr ~u:: (;u>d .~tiiN) :u1d thc- !l(l~'il!kd 'Reihmgriibrkulrur'.
I haw lll.'L'" t'tJU'."Jn(('rJ ~~y rh<' adrmrrbly o:l..:u -tl):'..lllletlt~ ofR:g..il,-n t-::iimhn. 'La~tl. Foetkrari
uuJ Gnt1l.-a m N-<>rd- ,m,l l'brdu.;;tt:;a!IX.'!l 1'11 Zus.lll!!llcnh:mg mit der sogtnanmen
I ~<'hcU~lvilisatl(:t', Ul ZfJfllt. fitt .'lr;->141. :=; (!')71) j,.:'i'.l; 'DJ.C ,,,7:al.n Tragtr dt>r friihen
Rih<1J.tril':""i..lr:rur .u Iidgo.:-.: uu,t Nordfrankreich im 4 IS. j.&hrh,', iu Hrlmium 12 (1972)
:~~--72; a:1J ULGG "' 'Wr.:g; Jh'lt UJl(.:or>l.l<"h ;ll< lt>n UC'I<'II :,, G.."'ltlkn in C.alb.-n nn 4
j.1.hrh u. 71: tiar"r hlil. l.l,,!,,:twtg', in f:lm 5S (l.l'lt>) J! 1-:?l On :he la,.ti (:~nd .~rmiles), in
nidnit": t. ti" >\'t~.ks (dorrr.d "'itt S l!i.J'J oithl" trmil t,-..~ of tit;; ;;c:crw11. in Appmdix Ill.
,.,,,J inn.:~ abwt'. 5e;: '!! ~n,,i:,a~,, Drlll...m;-:..,.,t. A;mpt~ dt,.,.lirw.~aulols du IV' sicclc', in
llntrJ.'l' ~"' .Hrm G.!dt I Jr.-i J\'~rd:?rli,.J_ Ft';t;tll iii t: .>\lti;"'"' (lio:rlin. 1970) ll.lm-1 !3;
'L,a,~tt ,., Gc'1ottk~ 41ms Ia Ga'd" ;!1: IV'' ;il.-.,:k', in :lltt'.i .rh Gdi<WII' ,l'lt~t. so<iale t970 = Annales
/Itt. ,t,I'Ui" Jt' &ulttj;tt; !~S (l':ni-.. !'Jil) itlJ.tl2; Mf.fU = M.xlaht1'S J'itablissl'mcnt di.'S
t<-d~r.:-~ b;;rh:ttC'.S .... Guu.u ,., ,j, nte-."'"'~. Ill .\Uiali:L' ,J;,:.I .mr (!0rrt.o a Wtlliam .'\!'ston
~l':1ris. N'/ol) I.J:>-(-.1}: ,f J), ,.,,,.,,. J i.t ,litl.'i"llll' l'l~npit '""''''" }Y5.4 tO. E.<;ai mr lr g~rwrmc
~t:m: itiiJtm'~l (t':~rfi. 195!) :!:\ ~'l')l.t-1. 223-:;, d ~;_i.e-:,,-;, LRl: ll.l..::!o, wtth 111.186-7 n.26.
Svlllo.' vf thf' h1rboori:m s.rt!<:I:J!'J:I> arc ;d~' n~>ni:('.j l~y IC.ollb;t~ M.\rM.. Ucn. 'Barl>~rian cndavc:s
iu tb, ~'''rth,m lhlln.<JI ErnJ'l~C" . n Alii C!<W 32 ( l'.~t.:li S.S2-b I. A'nong other rckv~llt rec,nr
W(rk~ whtdl I h.tw s.wn bm h:t\"' '"'' l~<"1' 1>11" ~it!?-;;-u J!H.pt:!y ~,,. Uszl6 Vaudy, Das lt'l.Ztr
]ahrh. Hm~o~~mns, J7t.-l-l{J (o'\ns.c.r.bm. !rlf,9j. .: 15-o-'j, -~H. 462-7; and Diclrith
Hoffno:mu. !>.~.- '!''"';"' lln.-,;m.~si''~ " rilr N,1filir D~'lli!llro.:
Ep\eraph Stud. 7
(l>us.~l<l<rt11 ( l'lro'l), II {l'i70), e~l'- :-.!:-
I. !J'.I-t L i ~::-!dl . :~-54 I did not ~t Pavel Oliva.

Polrltt'"'<k ,,,tJ tho Ourr !! Cri~1.; m tilt Nw'"" F..~ttp {rt ..gm. l9b:!, m F.r:l; rrans. of the origmal
C7.C.'i'h ,,uio>I! ,,,. I'J!\ii umtl thi~ .b.J!h'r W.J,; tmts!tNI Fm ;ul..hti(ol:~ : iite bibliography' set> its
ICI~oi .~li.\-5 {t"ir .. 'li..Ll-:0 '' H'l. m,mi...r:m!l= \'.IMuus woulo.s 1u Ca-ch. R.:;,sian, Hunganan etc.).
!Ouly wht'JJ tht m;.~in t.-.;t tthL" ;bar'"' w~ in r-lt. !ro:t'~ii<ll r"-lli ~wo imp(lrtanr an ides by
E .'\ 'fh"rnts..r whi<"h m;ar.rrally ""'l'i"U(O ~u mut.~r;;:~;,.bn~ ,,i th<" rt'latlons bcrw~rn the
lt\lm.&JI ndtfii .uu) tho p.ut>.trians', th< \fi.,lt:th... Ill )l,Lnl<tll,W r('hc Stttl~mcnt of the
i'larb.tn.lll~ Ill s.urh,rn C;;,,~L'. m JH.'i- 4t', fl')5f>l r.cr.1so: ;,n.,! 'The.- Vis1g.-.rh~ from Friugtm to
Eurk', in fli~r.ri.: 1:,! i J<}t,J) if/5-.?t;. An<>rh'l' tUt'l'l<'itu~ p;lJJrr by Tbtrnpson which has just
appeared. 'lbrhan.&t: iu-.r.drn ::n;! n<>li!..tll t:dhl><>rat:u', ''' f!?ri<','<'""' (Carleton Univ ..
Onawa] 2 <Fllil't) '1 i~'X. ,b,...-u~;;.,.,. :!(.'IJW f :I: ~u~r~iil! oi:-.<l: with hl Vlll.ui abow.]
30. SeT,. lr-.! I. rP .an.j II I. .., .. r;. 7 (:i:>n: :il.: ;o:.u~rn~!ll,'l.fY 011 I' 1t:.:! l-1), where rclenncl"S will
l:ot. i.-und. Ou; ;.~ rll~ ''-'"-!$ i!O CIL \'.ii.'ml, clAD. 5'~l. fr""' G:tlua: s<.,. th improved
r:.,.hr..tn.-.. ,u: 1'. ::,!. !. ,,_.:TJ l
31. 1 tl"::lth.tt :!<iio ;:li;tmni<>r: ~:::ay be< rrit:-tt~!. l(,.f C'>(;.noplc. Ill C71o V[i.~mi.lb (Honoriu~. 406),
\o\'hh.b contemplates tl:' :t~r.u:1:u'-:' {lof ;.!;t\''"..i ;,fp,.~J,.,,.,d .:.t:,f uf dt":iitc;~
32. E-!! :n partim!:u. m a\f~noi:x Ill. ~1.-..;.t lli, :1, :.?'I(R) nr:.t(ll), J.h, ~7.
591
33. E.g., In 1\j,pt'ndix 1!:, t102. 14(41) mr! (II), !9(-2), :md.l2. t would u11dmtand Cl'h XIll. x1. [() (no.
22 m fh,:n Appt~;uiix} ro ~ ;~ft.'Tring ID irupaial plLilL~ or sales of terrae lacriclf to well-to-do
Romans wl:o Wl!Uid bccom~ thr frrcllold owners of~t,ch lands and lxndir from the tman<.: y uf
their IMti.
J4. Sec. in Appmdis III.no,, S(<l) Jd (to), 16f/t). lli
.~4a.l hav(" :tel <I.""Alt Ul 1hi, book wlt.h :he- y;:cm ot" lw.Jffitirmrllro.rpillllll11$, 1crm11 whidt in tile- tifih
cf'nt-4\r)' cumc to be applkd to tbc divi$1011 o(tbc Wv.ft~<l prDp~ny ofutdiVIII<~.~~II{onum v.tl.da
'barb~ri.ll:n~ on filled ttrltl!', as 11 development of mndard Ucmwn pncuc~ i11 billc."tiog {for
which ~e C:Tir VIL viii.5 = C) X 1Llll.2, ~f 1\, D J')S}. My mll;" n-aon for m-gl.:c:ing his
subjtct. 3pllrt from its M:trrmr ct'rmplcxity, it th~ f.:~ct :Jut w~ lent\\ \I ofiu a:is~:etta onlyrn ~
W t>!U. (in l~ly. Glul.:and ~p;~~in. ~nlQ!Ig 1h1~ Vi~lf,'l.)th~. O.trogOths. il\trgundiu.s and prrlupt
Al:uu) ;and Ciilly at R !.:at~ ~l~tc: tht' c-.xt.n: C't't:atl\ rrfrn'l!cn jlft: f"r -toUt ~n.l +U . ..Ithauj!h die
system Jnr.y wc:!l h~V(' b~t'1: appli.d nr.: un the ucUkmrnt cftb.' Vi~o:.hs in .'\quitant'-"nl 418.
In~!\tl<l~iC\! in .-\pp~-ndi.X m ~ 2-l (b) ;\D<YJ'C. I !IL"C"J do DO llh''' !l"'l'l h~fcr ... th:c Jljn~m
tnam~-m nf the" M~h.kct. h; ;: !..ot. 'Du r,;ai:nc: o!r-!'llu~p:r.>ilt~- m RHPH 7 (IQil!} '175- Wll:
and to Jon~,.. LRE I ~"-'l-:0. wirl~ IHA~7 11n.16-3i (11!-R 2'i 11.. J'i nH>): ..;~d Thomp1~4:m,
two artrdr.& ofi':)Sl'u.ml !'NJ..i, lllL"lltinr1i ~ tltc <11tl ofn .2'1 abuYl'35. Scu~p- Tn.,..npwrt. RG:l--1,1, 15-1~. 2:5-'1. 51-J. 57; VTV15-H.32-3.
Jl1. Taciuz~ wrot< dt\" Gm"""i" iu 1\ J). ~ pr jllst lHc-r. tiJ.,. Hu1>1-r~1 pl~ll:tbly rut ~R' firln ~ntt the
An,lotf> itlrht- bu: ~amd ;mdlor !he o:.rly third <lt"<.~d.: <lf rhc ~c-.~ood c'ml\rry.
37. Tht> vt~Wl uf A. H . .M.jOJIC!S on UlC' IJtnHont:\1 (Coi<Jtu>lo:' r.ara bt l~>tm&l m ... irily in thn.~ liik ratl
works:{!) 'Thr Roman colo;mtc', m Pr:~t & I'r"~ot.'ll i3 [I~ l-13, which CIUl 11lso be tcadii;
Jom"-'. PE19)-.3(f7 or (b:U.., ,;csl!) m S.iS (~t!. Fia.!t:r) 2tl~JUJ. ;....-jcb impmornnrrn.' in thrnotn
by (}()t;;:>lhy C111Wforc! c~ ll-5 p.x); (:?) !_I(~ ii.7M..Sl3. ~''1' 7%-~12 (with da foOtC'I,
Ill.247-11;,1f~J1. :576-lnn (>2-?'i); .-.l!ld (3} llMM1, 2:1.:!-J, .u!dc~p- 40~.-.d m.. 17 Agood
dt>al cf rhtr earllrr wo:k Cn tb::- l-\~r "nm:o<1 ~du11tt" ur. be' ..,,u.icl~:-rd our ofcl:~tt ,.)n..,:Jrtnn\
magistcri::ol LTC'o~Uncf:l of tb~ mlojccl. fo~ .t ;dcc:tiv.r hiblrogor;rplty u( !lOOks :aJUI3rtidl3 p-.Iblisbl~ down ro I'T.!.>, KC: Ci;\t~'l'"~l llG ( ''lli) ;~!li-23. Ofthrs.lh.-t>Ja.;i...-nncec mDy fmd
mos1 ns-rti! 1-1 Ooll. C'~I~\Il, CRO e Dnvlotwtu ' - ' " rrklltlw "'ril!"'' (Am~tl'r<llll. !~;fi}, o~~lll
Rost.ov :tdf, SG.~ K {I :11m. An imptruur work nut :wtiad by Claustng it Mllrthiaa Gd.~r.
SBJ".-t (1?;\",l), ,.( w!nd, -:he most rC'leo.'.;'lllf p;~rt ~' lii'M if (sp. m-n). l"h<' 1111ro ".dtn' of
Cla~ing"s bocl: lio in Its :a:-clol'\1 G~f ~rlin ''ir.wJ IW" 1:'\nu tD ,,.,. '" Jt.a,..~,rlli!J5 imJKfrtiiDI
to s~r Oirm:c-lf tl1..1t U. bnll "'"'.. and alid. t\mlnl( :ht wt~rh on the L'ltct lloman culonilk
publi~hro ~i:rc: l'J2.'\ arc Ch s,,,,n,~;~gp.. HOC = 'il;t r.">k dt: r~~~' ct da1 :mnu dn-.s Ll
form;~uou du olx;~t rmn~iu', in Byr. 12 (10..l37j ~17-51H; F. r. G.uuhof. SPC..llE = 'l.c ltahll
pcrsonrd .-lu ::r.IJ: .111 001;.-Emrir,. ()~-;ari<m!i m m:ue.'t' d"un.: th~>rit'J~m<ll\ilc'. in .A"'
C/a.<1. l-4 { IIJ.l.'i) 261-n (.>II<U!'.nfuUy mm:isinli: p.;11 ,,f S:lUllla(;Jt' \, PI'J""'); Anxt"k St"gti:. 'Thr
Hyz.-mtm~ a.li>a3t~ '" 1"..xli;io S t 1947) II.J.\..J;;. M:.ut ,,., l~ll.n11<. 01i~ l'l (Jr.rirkllr ,! p-n'l"'mfr1
C11fon.tt Jl,,.hlirr G1o U.-u-Bmpirl" { =- liM J, j,, 1:-:r 1/r Droit tic t'llnil. ,f'A(~; 1(1, Lyon. 19511.
93pJ1.)~ t.::iain frfJU'<. 'LM ll~thlitc'a d<' l"amadu:!o h gfrbcd.~os ;~-I.'YfllC (;ll."<l~C'l r<lll-li.....-',
in Rtmt'il~ tlr ld St1t. Jr.Vl B.:roii11 11~. Lc- Sm~ (2nd r.:Y. c!tlition, Oru~~~~Cb., 195'~ 3..1~5. Paul
Co!lintf, 'lr <oioJ.'lt ci:ms l'f..mprn: ro:nain'. in ibid. 85-120, with" .~llf t111r!j1/I'IIIt'1111<1ir< by M,
Pall;w.:, 1~1-S: F M. f>r ihbc'ni~. LI'Jtl'<' ,. ,,..,,,.,.,, ,,J
(Ibn, lllbJ) )J9--; 11;
Marc Dlcdt. Cbaprr.J 'VI. 'TJ... ri!O<' (>t Jq"'holmc m!ri.'lltioo Dnl isdtw-oria.l imtn:u~ODS . Jn
CEll 1: (J%6) .:!:.~.i)ll (r~pt. t"~am l!t etlitiom, I~U). l rJ! .1dt:l hat" a tt.'itretca: ro th1
mfomn:1\'~ ;,'(';-,u,t h:l.Jllt'l' ._,( CEIlE I' (tG(.t.) "i.!- t.N. :\~ricnhm'L' a1.i TLI!~,lli~ iu rill: l .,llr.r
Roll Mil Empl~.' ~~ c' . .St<.:l'tns. witlr 755-{ol. ~ ri!VL;c.-i .mi '"' by J ~~ MDI m or tbr.
bibh)~~l'llpl;y iu Cf":H/11 1
38. Land -.r l~<w-~. p<"fiJ.:<ps. co .-,a.,.,,, t;)r ~h.! i>ll"'ritltH, "'ho in some passages in the Codes setn"ts to
be tlkt~o;u~t of ;o hou~c. ;t;. h:c -.:uainl) iina>~ur. pa-o;s;ascs in the DiKest (cf. ISofthtntain text
ofrhis "<'"--f::).
39. Sec L'SJ.' Cfl: .'l( ..,,i.2 1 (t PO). Xl.xldv.I...J (.:,f .;tl~. 1.-l~ting to Egypt): and tht' papyri nted m
,.,,.,,.."'-II'
n.4U ~~~"~.
40. Srei.'Sp. P. C1tP !ui. !2h (ai~ijj.<;;, .Uro tDi (or"3!4). ;ll1d P Tht>ad. 1f)..17 (of332). wi1hjnncs.
RE406:cl'.Jont's' r.mdiu.~AS kd- fink,:) 2'~J..:>. T:tecondusionapp.:arstobcjustificd that
peasants who di1i '""" l:.m! in freehold -...tmM owl iaa any event a.ppcar on the returns of
landk:ti' fr\n1 wi:lJ!l :~li';' bapp.,,.ccl also ti k..St' filnd; although rh<' only specific <'Vidence
I kn-''\' ic.n:::~it in cr:, Xl.dl:: q J\ HtL4.1" I (af371).
592
41. The word first oc:mr> i:: :t speeci; ;,:'tho: Emp-:rcn M;~r-;r,.:; to ti;, Cu11ncil ofChalc.-don in 451:
Acta Cone Oe"'"' cd E. Schwm4 ll.i.~ (1933) 1:07. i ;; (U....m;ypacfw>~). For a hst of
occurrences in th~ p.apyti. fmm.:9? ~tl"''~nls. st'C JO!'~. Lllf; lll.:!f'il.) n.74.
42. I have ignored SOPJt' h'Xh U>illJ,; wur& hk<" '1=-!''~cl'', whkh dolill! necessarily r.-fcr to any
form ofslavery at ~ll. although i:; c:-~rain Ol~f5 thty lll:iY d<> ~.1 For "'stance, in J71 Valenunian
I, Valens and Grat;;on SJJoet ofth~ IO{czi a1lf! i~!floifim )fll1yrictl!l1, 'lns:.,rviant tcrris ... nomine ct
titulo colonorum'. addmo.t rh.a.! ;f :~t: ran ..tway :!:.:-y rnight lit !nought back in chains and
;:>lllL~hrd (CJ XI.Eil. I ~). B) Jt>\!(. :,5,''l'i~:rtl1Jil' Liti: (ilo llW;)y> in Classical Larin) normally
mt'aO> ~.::-.~ 1h:- pnp\:>scs of, \:rr tb:'. 'ma1i~N ro. (fll.'i' c.~:- {~f lll.xii.2; CTh VIII. v.l. and
mnr~ dt;m a n'r~ ci o~hef'lt~~~l te."t~); ;;~d !'Yt'lll:l C'/'11 XIV. witt> (of 370) the words 'suh
\'U:(\liis' 1..~,1 :o b. ;ui:l:d ~ rn;;k, :! dl.':lr wlu: 'ptstrino . _ ta~a..-iat' there tmplies; only m
C'Ji: XV. xi:_J (o:f JlS) do t!lc 'o\'g,h 'm('!;llin
ins~rvm:' !i1cntsdves remind us of the
trad:non:tl J'h' .1:0.~ 'stl"Vi p~t;;:'.

43- s..~ Jlll'!i- l_/{1; 11.7'1:-l tT. t~F- ~.;2-)_ :\ lnn~t ;1,1 ri rnch k.1.~~. da!~! h<'TWC<"n 2!!5 and 63J. is
~IV<'t1 h)o' l\ C._Juluw-''' .m>L L. C. WcH, J1;::.:..,;uu E.ftP~
iwd. (Pnnclton, 1949) !10-'H.
44. 1'. lai I is n~. !-y J .n Tyi.!H. J>:r :id::/ittr<:ri.dlrn latcinis<hn: 1-\ip,vi llalim< aus dr Zeit 445-700
(l-Lill<i. l'i5:0) f_ !'12-~ (with G..--rr:.lal (n:u.), .-!. J)8-lf.J5 iK""""nJt,trf} The rents payablt< ('quid
;li:I1U;: _
~'"!;ul; .:mJt:cr<.r.,;. ;!:;r.: dcNm') u.-li..t!l it& line 57 tf; for th 756 solidi payable
for ch.- M.1~o1 [r.JI"'r;;nro ........ !1111' 59
45. S-. hov,;o ~!:.ho.ll>; also.J.-mn..l.il!; H.'i'.l (with Ill 25-4-5 u.-4'.1).
46. l'd;;!{- t. fip.i~.:,! G._,~,).&,.Jii,.:il.~.;v-117-7((,:t.ll. l7.J.!>iw) Ct~Casstod .. Var.ll.lH:somc
llh':l ;::.r.Jd .; r~~o:l.- t:i t!:dr loc.il Cnunal Wtt.- d;um,d l~ l.w.-> by tnc Church.
47. s~~ rb, Mf;H,di:.ia.l} oi th~ i,rr,h ofl'i"' '-rj;ttry, in fo::r l'"rts: l~r::-t. 1.1 ( 1~7) by P. Ewald .
.111<1 l.11 (II;~:). II, (!i!<_(;), :i (!8'J;) .. r1:! j;: (l~J',tj, ),~ t !\.1 lf.111mann (Berhn). On the
~J.IIrilflr-lm"r f',rr;. "i"t' Jr.~. U<'l: I 'loJ: II. Tlil, 7t<l-l. 7~); Ia 2;1.1 r>.JI. 252-3 nn.4:.-6; Reuc
At,.;!.m. 'I. tlmpo:d de~ ..'giL~> ''~nll:.-t~r;,k~' = rh. wi i IIHfirc,J i'E,~Ii$1', .-d. A. Flichc and
V. M.ut.n. V)L5. ,;,,":?""'1~" r.,.m:i. ;~, 'r.t:J b.rl.~; t i.: tonqui-!r oh (.;90-757). by louis
llrtihi,r .md Jl_ .<\rt::lll
1:47) 54.!--:il. wnh h1lhu~r.111iy (:~t~n 1); F. Homcs D11ddm.
Cro:~""}' tile' (;fo!i/1 !J:J jlj,,f.J' ;,; J-lis:. ,11J 'f1m~::/:t. 1 Vi)b (1';;('6} J :!'6-J2{), CSp. 2()(~<); and cf.
,...,,,
1"-"'"
VII!. 1\' .&b<w.- a~ol Jls n1. ~t; ;u..i 18 1!.1; ,.,.,
48. s,-.. . th, .HGJ/,.,f,~i(! (n47 :ah'''':) I : U}-,;. ar U4-~'49. Arunn~ th~ r.l,:c~r lo~ws Jsst~l'l in tlu W<5< ;.r CfJrl.,i I (J.'.l7j.:! iJ'I!l); IJ.xxx.2 and xxxi.l
i4.!2t V vu.J {4'""-'~}; X iii;! (.H1); ,,. 3 (37fl-3), ,. (,\%.. ~): ,.,.,.; ! :n.i 2 (426); XI.xvi.5 (343).
U (J!!!t); XIV.ai l'! (J'K,), .XVI,. .:Sl 'I i41t7). 51 l (~!.!), SU .m.~ ;, H14); vi.4.1 (405); Comt.
Srrrt~tm./ Jl, (.k'l!); ,">/;,,._
Vl.i.l (441): :;_ t i"U): '"'"'' ,\l.rJ" Vll.t.l (458); CJ Xl.lxvU
(.3'lfo.. ?); )J<xl.;;_.a (orly Aro.b~o~~ ;uui H(llt<>rtU~). h<.u.=-J>..'T (?l::':~l- Cf. the Papal documt"uts
,,f th l,.h. t!rth .,,,1 nid-si:.tb .-M:hlll<"' l''"'' hr Jm;~. l.kli Ill.254 n.49. Too mtKh
emphasis h~.- I(>Jiltt;::<" b~.~~~ pl;,c,:L on 1l1.:- >.i>l'fflc, from CTI< ,,; ;~ !Jtk- com:spondin(l. ro CJ
IV .lxv: Dr !,:at'' r't :,.,rltik ff c.~ltl:oil'"~'; it1 th: Loh'l Empire in general. stc Jones. LRE
II 7SI(/f.?, 'I'- i~1
50. '-t..- "'""'" .\IIJm<>. /.. il11. 77.'-~ I. s-; ..-,. "i\1~ rh.- :"''~ I k!T' .:.g.;;m l1rur~t di~agn'<.' wnh Fmky.
1\E !W.u 7.3. wh.. ;i''''''''~tr~h!y m;t~\.('n ""'"It !hl,..-.t>->UI rd(r,..:d to in lib.l!nUs, O.at.
XLV (l)t p.:IH'fitliis}. Th"~ fJll :nto '"'" <jlltt!" :INinot l!h'"l~ to lv rho;- s.cond ofwhr<h
Filalq:' Hl..tll'r<l<'nts ''l'P'Y
til~t J;lUJ'. dot:hb speCllically ofpc.asant
ar,..,. h,11,l..'rs ..l:nl trt th-.~.: :,;.--..:Jans '"'"' ti"d r~~,u~ ,1~- th, r,uns !hi~t:-.n. OOi-Ao' and ut&.~a~
sub)'"('t to -~ ~"~''"'' I wludr .u.: ~.11,\'lt b' 1'1::,.~. ,rs i:..ii, .ttl):!> d1a: :h<' men concrm.-d ar!"
"''' 'jr,,lo~n.:iHW '"tg }'{';t"illt~ il:r ~ .J, _,; :::,:.:r,._, E.r::mu d~-si1:r~1t>- tht peasants rhcmsdves.
01s ~wtt~ 1.-.r:mul :s.c-... :uri;l.-m;.ll} r!nr<Y..,pu: ;s "'"''.! ~t ll!) ll.l.nC'"'"er, rhc peopk harm<d
toy I!a, p.llrll;,r '' hkh tb\ p..-'ls-~J\(~ tl.th, iir~: ~'''''l'<>hu.r: iro>l!l r.!t, ..lt;x are- not landlords but
'th..;.. wh., <nlko! rh:: t.rx:-o' h"r<l)oo"?'' 'i :1 }. i.e. :11, ,knu;.-.:,; ,,s su.:h- who would not hav<.
l'<,n lll\'''''''~i "' r.u., .._.n,-c~o:> frm>l ri'l'l: p~<>pk bail~!:,,.,. t>:"tl c11i"" (th,lr landlords would
!hm !:..w.~ lt~1 nsponsiblt: f,,, 1h.:ir '~-"'>J. It u. :d~ th" ,,., ,.:,;! ~~rtup. Jcalt with in 11-lf>,
WIJ\l :.n:t:.t:: (:tlld with wh>rtt hbll\111> ~~ O>bn.-mr.l}' m1:~!: '-'"'"' ~,,.;:~md 1n rhis Spt'\:Ch): it
!~ rn.:1, IJmil;r;!" wll" .::...- ,f,~r.!,.:! ~ ~ I! as :h:;f ~,.,...:,,; (:md ..Vp10c). and it 1s th,o;c
tlt.o~:'-.,.,f.- "'' ,_t.,da ,,h ;u, h.ln:~~:J ht ~h=- j!o:\thnt~t!'-.
\\'hirh '-ib~llll.i.. is contplain1ng. (The
t~.:rtn.t. Ac"!7:l:-rt" .t~a:i ,..,,.. ,.-...:.
t!,.:- ,\~~;. ,.,.-;:-;.u- :ij!.lit! :u S 1'}.. :~: -3. ,,hr.tT th(.~y \\-ill rC't~r to rhe
'"-'"~ I''"!'I.-;;> hn;r .j p,,. i\~0)\:!l ll'"'l~ !>} 1-hh:hu:::;_ :loti f. I- H (~-sp. o7). which Finley
v.,;,
n,,.
!.,..
*rui;-ls;"'"
!i
l't"rt:\.:h'
~\l!h~ S~ al~:-J' l.cJ:1b-
,.r
Jiotr~:t:..~lL i-iit.~'r'!'~1- I.JtJIOur.~ sur le~ l1atrcna~e:s
593
(PuhL d!:' b !:;,;:_ <i.:!!Lc:t:~ t!~l':m..- lkD":"tnkm:. 2' Si'rie, Fasc. 1, Paris, 1955). <'Sp. 124-40
on the two grO.llc I bvt' ,!i~tinguis!l!.'c.l; cf. Ham::md's lo~rger work, L' Patro"ar sur It-s
coller:il'i:o'J publiqu.:s (/(s "l'l'lll'- '"' li'o1JEro:;n~ (l'uoi. de ... Clermon1. :?' Sene, Fasc. 2. Paris.
1957) ~9-i'ol !.t.:hc:schue-tz, Ao:r 6&-n. ahly vr~ur. the evidenct for independent peasants In
the :uca of 1\,:uer<h. m:.J.:i:l{ w~ uith.c: i::,pt:rt.mt HX:C1;t books m French which have provided
so m:tdl r~<'\\' iof.crrli)ll ~b.<.uL ~crt.utt f-"''G of ~mMr: Syria: G. Tcho~knko. Villa.J?f> amrqurs
de la S;ri, ,:,. ~_.~,..J : Mo:uli1u n.~t.u .> /'lr\''{11' r.....:,:mr (.i vols. Paris, 1953, 195H): R. M"ur~rdt:
.md /\. )'(i<id~;u, L~ 'LIIIfl~.f .;,. 0Mlcir, '''.llll'iwcti,ur Jot Ia steppe"" haute Syrre romaine (Pam,
1945): .m,! .'- l:.is~\15. Sdtlltlo.;,.~s dm'~r:tu t!: .';rr: (P:ms. 1944), ~nd lnvenrar"T<' archt'olo.~oque de Ia
regimt ,,, ,,,,tJ..~tJt iltitrt.: (I l.tf!1ih<n>. 1-J:ISJ ,\~ irl lih;m .. Orat. XLV. so m Theodore!. H.r.
reli~. (M;;r:; J.XXXU), ~oc tir:d horn u-.J!frti ;mi i:hold peasants in northcm Syria: for the
form,r. ~ rh. !' (r..:,I l-Hl-U, ,.sp. 14b.-\il): f.Jr he htter, ch.l7 (coL 1421-4. l'sp. 1421A).
for tht"J>O:'IS~lhlr wk .i .:!!!plll'lc~u irlJ,.om<>:m~ th f'l"Spcrity ofsmaU and middling pcasJnts
in thC" ue-.1 dc-<Jh w:d~ b;. To;ha!<!ka (:101 di~C'llS.:Y.>i lo:: !.iheschuctz; bur see h1s Ant. 72n.2). S<'l'
Tchaknk.l), <IJ' <ll IAH-li.
51. In thi;. \'try snn:mJr)' acc<IUI "i h i n: Roman colonatf' I have had to ignor~ many
COffiJiilnllui::.S Ulo! ptwlir,r.tl<'~- h:Or ol\.ll'lll'!<. I c;auuot undtrstand the situation dcpict<.d in
Cassi.,,f. Vr.o. XII<) ((i .... l) S.U-7), wha,, n A1rlc:on ptT<',~rinus, daimmg under a speci<d
ancestr;,l nut.m t) mh~it th, hwluh ii:liow-.-.:mn:~ruan who has dild wtthout htir~. will (if
his d.om "'l'C''~J~)Ix~ru:m~ a fS~'C'.!.Wt .:md ~ l('lllln nti~.en,liablt to pay rrrbwe~, but inf~rior to
orher d.mi '" b.-m~ u:ul>t>! !;:; .Uic:,.t:" ttc pr'l"'re ~. !t ts captiviras which is responsible for
makill~ tl p>s!!il>l~ tir th" :.u ''' rr:juy H,.,,,,,,,, t'i:illl.! as wdl as ~frorum pri~il~~ia- was hC'
perh;a~< dti1Jt!Jt~ '" suc.:-,.-d rltt .t.-..-:::!1-4:,1 :l> : frn--d:nan? But tht ino~bdity to ali~uatc rt'ntains
inexpb;;::ahk. Nor h.. ,.,. I '-:tid .any thin;: m till~ ,.c-choat .:o.I'>)Ut labour s<.>rvic~s. whilh could have
been dt,.rt11ss.:-d as playtng th> impt.JU.!l! wl, in :h.- Cr,;,k or Roman world but for a pie<c t>f
evidna.-~ fmm mid-sixth-c,uhny lu.l !" wio:,-b I kw lll'l>ttontd in Stctionn of this chapt<'T.
52. The lc~:,c:y ,,f .1 fur;,b;, irt.-Ut:tttll' S<"'l:l5 til ha ~~~u lightly broadlr than that uf a fundus
cum n:~lliltlh'HM ': ..... Btrgt:r. EDRL SO'i ( .I'. -~~~~1rui:II.IID dllmU [fundi rand 'irtstrum~nturn
fundi f;f,,nmoT. "'idt hricfbibliographyl. ;,ml -;.u; (. ,. 'kgatum instrum<'nti').
53. See Sh,rwiu-Whir.-.l.t'5ti-J. -.!,,.,.,. rh, r.~<r,~t,"\7 in the l~enulrimattlinc should be ro VIII {not
VII) .:.'n. (vn r 44'1)
54. As e.g. n C'l11 IV ....u.:> (A.I> .lf2l. Vll.x'"iii:!rr .. l (.;.79): Xll.i.179.4 (415); cf. No11. Ma,~.
Vll.i.ol {4;.K; Sn:tm,.-s rh: r_;:,trr (.fth~ JX~Illt>:> tltr<ltcm't.l a~pinst such men suggests that
th~y 1rc: hk.dy hl h ~ld\'<'l'. J.~ e.g. m CTil VII. >oVt:J.J l; IX .xxix.2.
55. Thc- Lttm /,!f' <!f S: MA.mi.: fl11 Yorm,l[t ,vJ~ cdiced by C de Smcdt and orhcr~ in AB 8 ( 1889)
16-(.:_\: d. ib. f. 1.5. !I J h.n,. ,.,,_., h-..-u ,,j..J,. l" r ......t r)r,, more complete l'dition by Cardinal
Rami"'lb, s,,,,,: .\1./tlrl/:: r-:rurlillo' ''IMti{:
(ltolll<". 1905). The best edition oftht Gn:~k
Life h uow rl:.ttl-ty I kuy~ t'rt.ru, ~'" .ir .~fl"l' M,lo~ru~ = .SC90 (Pans, 1962): Set' csp. its 1.
9-12, 15. 17-:U., J 7 If \\'L", .111 thl~t
I''"' IArs (p.ou ~}, oonfirmcd by Pallad .. Hist. Laus. t>l).
Melama AnJ h.-r hn..b;\n,( Wt,.d -=.;tlf6 in lta1~. ..,J,;ily. Afnca (illdudmg Numtdia and
Maur,t.un:.). Sr.ut. G;;ul.mtl Um,ttrl . .'\nd !t~ P !\l!;t.r,l, in RQHH1 (\1)()7) 5-30.
56. Sec c.g.JIll,..,.. f_NF-1251-2: U.7~l. 7-r.l. 7'1:1-5, SW(..,i.lv~ .,fro/om), 815,818.932. wtth thcnot<'S
57. A. H. M Juu;.-.s. 11 C.n<'Utn anJ J ,o\ Cr.-....1.. ~n" ;tuthenti.:ity <lf the 'Testamentum S.
Rcmi~ii"'. m HHPII 35 (l'J57) 55f>.7.3. '1\hilc -r'LtJ.rding rh, longer version as 'byond
salvation' (.\.57 :>.5), h.n,, m~d\ ,-,., ,.,.,dl.-tlt c-.1"' iC>r _.,-<";'piing the shortf'r om as authentiC. It is
edited by n. Kru~.-b. 1-ir.: ,'i R.,.~o:ii J2, Ill JJ(';IJ. ,.;;, .,.,, Merov. [J[ ( IR%) 3~).
58. See esp. If' . .-n. J71--3 .1<)1n.,. LH IJ.7!i5, 7'JJ-4.
59. This is. a Wt1-' diift, \lit ~(ln"ilf(n. I J,, un wr~h l\ d,:J~ thai hir~d labour. esptrially at p..-ak
pc:rio,{; ,,,. J.ttl"icllltl:r.t!.&.-U\'1:\, u~:~~ b-&\'1' h:.'l.'!llllunlmportant than our surviving cvidcnc~
sug~&:t~c sc 1.'.;;. linult'; h"\'icw .-;( Wlrt.. RF. i~1 _IRS ()2 (1972). at l51l- although in mY
opinittl th :illllortll4"-'>o'; i Cui . RR Ill ~,_; h ;,,,. rn-1m!y tile ownt>r's slaves. working under
the suptni~i,>n.>fil:h.:r .u.-lt b\'f J .mrlitlt.:.: :r t~ nt,:\ if roo m~ny vines riptn at oncr thaw
may l n.:,,~.;;.;_,~ 1.:. hu'l<l.liri,.IMI W<;rk;r.; (plr.ri.: ''!"'r<ts . . _ conduccre. 10). Tht c:laboratc
c.tlcul.tllu ,,,- m:t~~ ...i=<r~ (-'?'M;) ""'\'" '-ll !';;':;.-:l!;,:ly Colunwlb. (Sl'C c.g. RR Il.xir; a11d
Xl.ii JM>I"'. '"'I' 17, 41) :tr. >u:d;- l!>Cc:tl"i : l:.lr !II. bndown.-r to dl'ctd(' whethe-r ht will
net>d hu,J h.m,h tv ~li;'J>'"Illc'llr r!,,J;,t""" v!hi; ->1~,~;;; ;md if so, how m.my. likt oprr<~c, the
re-rm 'l''r;ftir .-:in r~-r ,,, dl,')Jm),,wr.-:-'.;. i;.;\'r<' ~ 111 hir--.:1 ml-n- but w~ must llt'Vl'r for~et th~t
t"'ven i:.ir,~d !1.1lhl" zn:.y .,fr:-:u )"- ,:J:n,-_,.. h"j~-t~;::i~J~ 'l!t ,;~h-~..'r l.1ndowuers. Slltllt" of lh4.. \\'orkers
'""If''"'
tl.-
594
Notes on IV.iv (pp.260-262)

mentioned by Cato, Dea~ri cult., may well be free men('~" Henland, Agricola 171-3); but some
of his operarii must be slaves, e.g. thosc in x. 1, xi.l and surdy xxiii.2; thcn arc also hired
operarti, t.g in i.3 (stnsscd by Phny, SH XVIIl.2~; c:f. 300), iv (locabis ... c~trduces), v.4,
rxlv.l. Varro refers very occ:1sionally to h1red worker,, e.g. the merccnnarii in RR l.xvii.2-3;
the hired at1t11Versarii ... V1cit1i of I. xvi .4 are not agncnlturallabourt'rs but doctors and artisans;
the opcrarii of I. xvm.4 must hl' slaves. Htrcd workers an consptcuously absent from
Columdla, RR I. vii.1,4,7 (cf.l.iii.l2; lx.4); .1nd indeed I haw found no dear mmtion ufh1red
agncultural workers in the who!.: of Columella. RR. t'xc~pt in III.xxi.lO (ctted abov<) and
l.praef. 12. although the operar in ll.ii. 12 and IV .vi.3 may b, (or at least include) rhos.: of hired
men. even if dsewher.: they are ofttn dearly those of slaves, as" g. in XII.xiii.l. Operarii in
other writcrs are often dearly slaws, as c g. in Phacdr , F<lb A.-sop. IV .v .23. As I have not had
an opportumry to mrntion It before. I will r~cord here th, useful artide by K. D. Whir.:.
'Roman agrrcultural wntt>rs I: Varro and h1s pr~dcccssor~'. in ANR W l.iv (1':173) 439-97.
[IV.iv]
I. The opinion that l'Onscnpnon was widd} resorted to in the Principate IS pl'rhap~ not yet the
'standard virw"; but St'l' 1'. A. Brunt. 'Conscription ;md volunrl..-ring m rhe noman Imperial
army, in S.ripra CI.Mica lsraclica I (1974) 9!1- 115.
2. The best gcneral account of ancient Iran is by R. N Fry.:, The Herita,eofPmia 2 (1':176). Frye is a
sptcialist on th< Sassanid period but dl'als wf'll with rh, Al haem mid and Parthian eras.
3. St>c Jones, LR c II. fJ6H-70 (contra>t n14-19). A~ainsc some recent objections. S<'l' John F. Haldan.
Rcauitmm/ m1d Consrription m th Byzamine Amoy <. 550-95() A Study vn th Or~~?~'~' Clj tho
Stratiotika Kt<.'mata ( = Sb 357. O>terreichisrhc Ak.ad. der Wiss., Philns.-hist. Klassc, V1enna.
IQ7<J) 20-8.
4. Osrrogorsky's view,
~ tilts :mbj..:t, wtriclt wll: bt: wuml iu t;!n!cr .lttailzn his HHS" (e.g.
133-7, 272~. 2!1-2, c'.!IIHi, !'~4-S. .3167, }21)..3, .lol'l7'l. :U11. 371-2, 391-4. 4Hl-3). ar,
summarised in hl><"l'l.u:lk'! d:.IJ'Ir fir CHfJ: !' (1 11;)(,) 2'15-.H(~~ .1!17-H, 21:;-l!l. 219. 220-2).
Sec 1lso his ;utJclt', Tilt" ll:.m, lm~mj..ril.>ll right'. h:.filS 37 ( t'.l.P) I 17-26. Smc,lhc rtign
ofHeradius rs withm rhc- i""~"l cmeud hy tin b:.x,L.! rrlll~l :<':~<~ drt' f;~tt dur rh,rc has been
much cnticism of t),..t..(C!i!:_'!~ky"~ oilltih~:tl&.~: ~.-. t f~.-racf'tt!'O ,. ,- ;ha)n_,tsbgotng tefornts of the
Jdministration, incl~<ilhl;': m l'"ru.:::r.-,r Ill<' .:ro'-ltio:i ;-,f th~ 'rhcrt .. .. l'~tom visible in later times.
In this fidd Ostrofi;r~k { J>;ctill;;: i.;, c!:~:h ,,,.,.rJt.\WI. ,\!hm~~h it ~e111s prob~blc that
Hcraclius did btgin lht ~l,iht.> rcorganioanon wh.i.-h .'tr.:i;, '~ m h:ll ;ii"vdormnt in the ttnth
century. In my opmi1n1 the h..~oot ~ )!.1111 i3; :he 11<>1 1\'0XTJI on.:: th.; .1fHaldon. np. cit. 2~).
As for tht" Middle llyzanrint'Jl:.'Fl"d,lo~m to"'i'l'mg wn by w:<y ,.!ilitf,lration nnly. and I must
do uo mon than cit<' H..:l;kllt. t!' .:lL !7-l'J, .; l:i. ;;;t<t ;til ~H;, 1<: :: Roslmar}' Morns, 'The
powerful and rht pom :n tm:rfrccm<:y ih?.a!:!nma: bw .i>"l r...:ia: . tfi Pas/ & Prcsml73 (1976)
.~17, both "'ith fuil bibhoguph w:, .., I(>J !lh~ "~tu<.''Jit,,J ;\b,.r :lJi: conflict b,tw<'t'll 'the
powt"rful' and 'the l";,or' (whi,h lo>i.;um'IC >t'>: dS a .--\.us >t:Ug~l:) j, th:\! owr all 'the p<lw,rful'
wtr, <'>sentially largl 1-.lii\\'Tlt'f:<, h\vcn t!ll"~ ma~ h;tvpl~l ;>) b: characterised in kg:~!
donmlL'nts, r.g. th1 iJm<li~ N''''t..'l V ,,f<l)d (9_>;) ,., ~<'11\'<11'.1~ 1-co:lpi."Rus. inJ. and P. Zq,..,s,
Jus GrlC'wromamnn (Arh,:ls. l'(H, f<'l'' Adtil, I'H-.2: L.!IIS-1-+ k~p 21''- 1-'J, wncentrating on
rank ;md offilc-hololiut: s,-. M;rlb, ";' ,..,, H) b :liscussing !l~t lll<.'livation of the imperial
legislatron on bch.. lf ,,, 'rhr ,,,.,~~ J.r.ololsl '1h l"'w~!al' '.Ofllr hisrunan~ may prefrr to
concentratt' Ol> tht .1.-~r u: rlw empl't.T~ t "~rb !h-~ :bn~''''.rah d~ruptiv" and ct'ntrifugal
activitws of thrrr '"''"' ..,.....r-m1ghty subj<'(1~. "'''~~ 1h1 "'"I ;.t VUI.iv abov,. while <'tnphasismg that f<"w ll JYI} o.Jf thr J:,.:,l;m <'111!"<"1\..1< ll.lj OiJUdt :o>.;.:an for tht poor and
unpnvilq~ld a~ sud:. I !t::~ve :;:r,-.,.,l rwo IWU'.'''' f.,~ :h: J.:~l.>i.1>orJ in rh~ l.J.ttr Roman
E:mp1rc dcsr~tnd to pt;>!i.': !I:,; ~~r~somtf'\' ,, luil T the ioi:'iF ru1 ..,,.,.m to me cv~n mor,
rmporlanr: thl prt'~~:rv:'l':"'ll ,,( th~ ,h!lity ._,j ~b ;'<'.s~al!ts l<l)~"'\ !.1 ..1> . .1nd to Sl'rw a r.:cruit~
for tht army. (It i '"" n,.l,\'.:nt !" ;lhl tl~;,r rh, l:tr;,::.:-.ot :~pn!;:ilnn: of money raist'd by
taX.IIlon "as pndsdr !'n :11: JJIH'o.)
-ta. Ne,dlc~s to sa\'. tl11s :li:: H'.:Ot r>ca;r th l\t)ci~c c.r M:.t' -I:Jr of f~w., Hu:nn. from whnsl.' Til<'
History ~{the Re1g1J ~t'~'".'i Nrnr~ VI! (16.22) 1\!,:r:. <J!~>>II'~ !U good ,ffo;-ct in Cal' 1.7(<,1-20: S<'e
~~p. 720 n.2, b~~~illJUUl:. "liJ.\~Ui' :..t",:~;.\,. r.h, 1,:,-,nt~,xio;, bc~t.',;,""!; l r~'-~-. 'vt.J)-ro-do pea'\JllUy
and good infantry'
595
Notes on IV.iv (pp.262-265)
4b. I havf" .:itcr.:C theturul~rian h Frank H. Knight 5lightly. to make it dos<r to the German text.
5. X e-n .. 0 ..-wt~. V. +-5. :J.-JS; Vi.':)-10t<t.c.; 1'5.-Arot , f>.Ytm. 1.2. 1343b2-6; Cato, Dea~ric., Praef.
4; Pli.;y, i\'i-i X VIJ!2i.; Vq;ct . Dr r~ nilu. 1.3.
6. I give :'i('lflll~ cxampks hcrc. (c;) Ill :hr c.u-l'y '!flUs Odcnathus. ll ID:IJliWI: ofP:t!myra. orgmi:!oi:d n
larg<' hOOy of t"'IImry folk ~mo ~~~army whu:h heu.t off the l'cl""i..:l~: :;ce fcsn1s, Br-r;. 23, and
orht>r ~ilt:rr.-l'> ~:w:n 111 J \V f.;~.Jtct\ <'1!11~1'11 (l'lb'Ti, PI' 14-1~5. (b) In J\1'9 V<~l<:11t111us >lf:'.-dg~ 1'1
Pam~>hylia n~fullr raist.'tl t1 brj!\' foro~ of!;.];,\;::~ m.J ~;m. (uh~~~" .. ~ iji!PlK o:C!~ '""',..,..;...)
agaiust Tribigild lhe Ostrogct.'J 1u:d hi~ maram!in)! =>ml'!' (Zl~ V .X"-x.i. op ..w.S). Zoemnm~.
no donut reahsmg bow r.:rc mdt n;,loi;.,. wert.. rCittMb 011 the act tint the mtn rn!!n<rm-cl
were ali hQ'bitl.l.l!ed ~.-. nad d'!siw" h: long cxpaiemx of :mned resistance to nrighlxmrin.,:;
maramh.u_ {r) Til-r .a~n ir> Sp.ur who"' 4{il w~r-r :nme.U.. 'l.lJ::'Hcctually. b) Oidymm ~nd
Vcn:u:m hd.uivts ()t :il.: l~mpem: Hm.orhl>i .l!Jtiu:.r trot i"v~ding .b'TII'" ofCoruam, mn of
the usmpn Co::st:tn:m..-. \.;'i'r~ duubr.J~ IIUlrJ~ th.:it OWl' illlolfli ~:ld 1-bvrs; ;,roc: zl)l;. 'VI.n.3
(.r~'ij91 ~trt!"tiW ~~~ ~~:VM'~>l'), Wlth ..... :dl:.t .Z; VI ~. i. IV l. ,. 1-1; 'ioOl... Hf IX 11.4 (11'~'1jtilr.i:
aypoi<W~ 1<0\l i~<lil"). o~o-;. VJI.o$!1 'l-8 r~~tVIIil" l:m:um >Ul'\ ~~ ~'rtlf'ftl (C\lhg<'II~M ;a.;
wrna::t~i!s Jh~:l:es sum::otihu"l (d} fm C}r<:T,iiiCJ.. s~r Syt~)., ; 1()7, lOS, 12: (wh<'f( inrh..early ~lf:h cn1tur-y d1c p:iats of th~ vi!hf.:r ;:,t A:;omi~ Clfiill!X rh~ ;>o~ant5 !o :,-;t,;.: rht :oul;ul
ra1deo~~. l~. Cot.:J:., iu Mf"G I.XVL15t.NI (women :.iso :,~.. ~ mllSl. fJ.: r-:roo H. (I _...,o:l~
draw rt:.11W:on t- l:p. 7l\ .t~ ~l;.;:,wilf tn:<~ on ..::n(: ocr:;swns :lt :,ny rAt<'
mmb.:r of r:~i.iing
barbarl:m> lllil>t hJ&:' b('(,, ~::~ small. ~ mrt' ~~ 1-!urunc ~uxda.:1r~ h.,,; :.lu:.11iv w~tl vact!Jor,~.
and Sy1"'1m:~ wa~ t"<m!ldcr.t t.!t.,l .t!'ltll:_.., l6ll, moktng th tn:al up t(l ::!ll!l. ~o~.cukll':><! rll'
ml."nt..:-t oithr At~uriam Cf i:ip. h;! fpr.1 qttkk :m<l d>'l\'t' v,nory hy rll'l' rfu.\' M~r,dlin\t\)
For ~lU\&vit::~ U"3tc~ of thC' tl~tl-tb"t"' uf '~'I" t~.._,UlJ~r~~id~ .;:~f t~yf":"n:k.-11. ~c !~ (~ (~totl-.:!dJll.t
'Mapp:ug Rmwu: i..iby.:<'. inGt:oi }"I !Ill (l'.i52} 142-5-.l.. ,u !'"741. l~ll). 15!. (~} fr(!l:l;,r!ri<'f
B:dat Y! (u1 CJrr.,H. 11-f:rr IL~l) ll :;p~rs th~T v:h'" tlw Su:t r:av~;..'<.'i! p:o~t ~~~
GaJiao:<.l..t (1:! !r!h\\'1'<1 '>p.,;rl 111 .J3H, thl' ceomllfill 1"-"'Pk (thl' ,.t.-1>.<). </'"'( ,.:wft,, '''''''"
rnim/.t..;t. r<'~ISkO dl''trl mo'" llCn-sfully Ci. H~da:. J8f, {n Cl1rooor. M"" l[_t~t; :i:.t !l~ ~lu;aii~
praiS<"Wirth~. rC'"l~!~l!l.t' l)i:. 101ti :c.rr;:;e;i Jli\<<" : till: ("";cal:> t -157 (r) t\n:m,!ill;i.; to Si!<"<ll
Apoll E,v. IILiiLJ-o! {~p. 7). E,"t!irtll>, rh~ ~:.fo>I!IC'NI1-b\, ... , s:d.... lill, .;:.,fl.."t:tn! ' l.la:.ll
miht;try l~lh:t" i! :ht" e.:;rh' 47U~ ill A.~.~v,tf;tc". !~t-;1~,1tiJ cf,it~.~. h dri~ n.1 <:lr;m(0~1t fc~~r:tnlt
ag.aimt in.-;:~~'ll" bv r:., Vhi~Qh-~ S S:~n. IIliE!' j __\'13; C E. ~!f."''<.'t!5, Si.lcr.I:IJ llrUit>:lt:~
and hi,;
i ).GJ.l i41-'1. tJ.i Jr.,op .. H.Ii. Ill (l'md. 1).:~.:_.!~-<u:mttm~ ti,;,ll':.llk"!lll~ vl(_k,_
in SJJ 1 .-,i,.~,t tru:~ ~t.i'1' {:,..:,"t<'l rh,~ V,~,,,l,&l fr.-.m his 1"1"\'::l!:<'. l'riJc>lit:uu. I ~Ill\'~ ;wl t:Ja,k
US<'hon,iJr,>:u.l1 1.'3 l!> -I(C.'iH.. I.VI= 12..\ :. ,\flLXXII).~iJ>r.-llh!alc:ti>Jtoh.th!y
thf' SJ>I!Itn.al 'IU"Tit~' ,,j E:\'iUI'<'rlll> 1" ,,;u,!J rbt uh.:ot!'" ui f,.,[!.-;o"" ~ h6.,!! ..nuh.n,,t.
Som<"t1!llt!5 ut/,tru l[lld ~v~ w.-rc nrgant~\'d by IiLLi: liU~!rt!l ir::o .lrW<',J ll;~nd~ l'llr !,~~ l'ltrir4ic
purpcs.:,.; s,.,. '"-f. lkw:Juu VII.<.Ll (\\irh Hhr .-\,~t[, (;.,:.,1. 7 .14). rJ:.m :;s ,m;'trur iu2.l1': \\'<! hc~r of tl1< pArticiro\!i"" .._,f co..'l:t>!r}'lrtnt.
arm-.~,t \\"Uh dui~ =tnd .Js~s . uh;;u,;: "l~& '~r.:c!'~ tif ~bC'ir tTia:ts~:-ri-, 1-c,.--:r'Tl"lr~ ~cc Vill.i1J n 1.
bt-low); _,J'tll"r ,\u\' . Fi,. ,r.- ! '! .1 ('it;~ '"''r 1ho~r '' h,n l'h>fitlu~ '"~ hi'r"lf,mp.r.r m
rhc 27ff:;. ht .tn~tl ~.i.l(lii c-fhi> ,l.tH-,.}; ,IIJ,i J'r.<l'. lf,IJ V ((~.:lr l)"'!l.!l4i-1 {'lhr..,.bs rltl'
Osttugvlh r-.tl"!t"d a 1UJC\" oft1~ ahidt ! ..-.~.-, ,,,,.,. .., ..... l d.,. l:"' .. l.l .,fEn.;,. nd ltull:dt \vJJ~ ;, .......,~in . .525). ( "-iill ,{, .. .: ut,~r-. J.h.u, nlors,ri.-.a~ },,_,,.. ,,_., .. ?\rui.i !1_ 28. l.~ n.s~h {hidt d,,.,,. '" Lu ;, \\'"~~..
havr n<> rm:.ms ,,~:dlin~. h1 VIII iii .u,,l it< 1: 421 J!i\'''''"-""i''"' irh~ ,i:trn\ i.iri,-, I~ th,i~
1nhab1t.-:auts. 1:o:- ,{('l~;tnn to dl'' l~arh:ar!.lllSt t~-::~n! rc,.,,;,~ ,.:, .. s,,~ Vlll :1i .tnii j, ... n-.rc'
7. Tullianu~. :1 k.ll"~ J.n,,f,wnr <>t'I.I!~Jm ..-I:Jmttnn:r. <'r~t-\l:is,~! ~ !.rt:l' for.:c .,f i"':ts.c:>l5 a,:.1i1"1
Tocil. dt: 54.io.f, (Pro:or.nr- . 11.-11 \'II (C.,llr rtl).xv:LJ..0-1:. ;;xn I 5) l",olii,, .,..js,, r;t!snb>a :amry ,,J
counrr~ hll., whh w.b .:i,(.-tl (i,t. ..: ~~~ -'-"ij. 1\nr r.,~ih ,,. ~' dll, !u jlu.-.,r. :b. :ta,rtiou ,,f
Tulh;lm' l"';,~.;nr,, b, miilo.in~ ch.-u lll:i~tLu (\~iln w.rc !"'" m b, i"'''"'r) ..:,1.-r :h,z~o to
noll~ ~f
''t"
rl'lurn:._.r:.,trLJmfs(i<t .!Ui.li.lll-l) I've l'uril.:o,H~ ~Is. VIII li.Jholi:,au ~-:;ja

K. l:Jrunt '" :ir~ni:tt: sv:-nt'i;-.tU~ :1g.:iz~st M.&o.Mtllkn. ll.'iR ..l!~ f..,;,~;!~-''~ :t) r .1gr.: ;,; t;;~.tu:r;,l
with Hr::tt's .i,w of D(i:,;: XI.VIII.nl ff (llli(PS :).2-4) rMhr tO:\lll' ;:. lh.: oJf]omn.l..RI:
Hl.34 ..~,.. :'4
9. Sn M T. [sic! iC"''.{\'t>elf. ~.,!-+t~ ;~;..;,;..._~ iu]Uit. ~ (( JQlR) 2f>-33, csp. 2930.
W. Fcrgu Millar. St.:() !VI ... ,,;~t th;,s th~ r:k''"cc t:t brigands is 'a ckar rt'fcnncc to what
\<')1'\n S~ptimill> ~,,t'fll~ \'nilo::l! Cl\r ncru;:t~t\111 t'ofltaJian iutn th(' pratrorian cohorts'010 hilluo.\'ii :;;o.y... l~.:cr lr.it l.'mhtl! ltali:.n .....:tr dh'l'll to lxcomc l:>rigands (lXXIV.ii.S-6).
11. Hy <:Tit Vii.xi;i. U-1". o) .W7. :w:n.1tm; akm:: w~:r~ ;;,[j._,.,.td 10 commute in p:olJ forth1. n<mils
C'OSUt"<!
596
Notes on IV.iv-vi (pp.265-270)
they should have furnished; ~nd d. Vtgd., De rr milit. !. 7.

12. Forth.: Roman army. s.:.: the btbliography in OCD' 121; addJonts, LRE ll.607-86.
13. Anyone who ts remptd by tht brilliant colouring by Tacttus in tht 'reeth ofPercmnius to
suppose that Tacitus had any sympathy wtth the murin<'ers should read th.: tT<'nchant nmarks
hy En.:h Auerbach m tht second chapttr ofhis Mim,i.<, 1940 (<'sp. ~7. also 3'J-41J, 41. ami cf.
52, in th(' Enghsh translation by W. R. Tra,k, Princ!'lon. IIJ53 and repr.).
[IV.v]
1. Jones. CERP 1 31'-<l ('wh~; ru.:y Le C\liiV<"'llrn:!y 1f tu;Kn:~:d} called .1 feudal system apparC'ntly because' 'v:1hf!'S w~n mv-.:ed by lor:lf; ;lw \'iiiJ~l'l> WI.":..: snfs. bound to the soil'.
lattr Wt' h3ve 'a ku.1n! ;u:~:Nr:tcy'. :h.- :'-"hl :svw::n' :.::d :r-:npltsas r,udallandlords'). A
glana at rhe lndt'.'< ~., itol.HA.-.:ff, .o;!!iiiiW \:!! r.,-:,.;1 m1:t; l'l."i;:tnc('s tn Jlkgtdly feudal'
structures. ari~tcM:r.ci.,-s C't(; ~u.! ~ (,i~ SGRK j77. Fe~ Syu<. :<~L his RR 11-12 (the RomJn
Republic 'a ti:ud;;J o:kr ''I wctC't\).
:llsol>. W. S. HL,llt, T'ludal survivals in loma'. in JH.'i
f. 7 ( N47) 61'!-75; T:.rn . .'lea U~S. and 111-'t!~' .th:.-r ""r:r., ili.karnan. in lus lnstituriot~.< des
S8t'uide> at any ril~\'. ;."'r.IS w r:~crN :-.p:;;.~ianslii.:r 'I:, strucrur. ft'odak', 'chl'fs f<odaux'.
and 's<>rfs' lor 'H~m.--r\~i. tiut ~~ :n !W')'. A"''~ ~~xdudir>g A\<tt Mir>i>r (se-<. his IS 172-(>).
2. I will rdi.r at tlus >:;lt: <t:al ,,-. !=. L \.~nhui, hoo.i::!i>lll {.\;J :1r. J'l rh, Eng tran~. by Philip
Gne-rson. 19M, n~ :l~o: wml; rigmall~ J'l>bii..>h~: i:ll:rmch :,; 19-~. Qu'esr.r, qla.ft'odlllitf?);
Marc Bloch. l'm:!.1l _s,,d,rr 2 (Eng. II'J!l~ ir:.:! \'ah, b\l A ll.hrr:mn. 2nd L"dn .. 1462. of La
svcrit(f(odalc. 2 vols. Po<!i>. I~GJ-411); ~!,;eo Ulurh' ._haptc: i:: CJ:JIJ~ 1'. cird subscqumtly in
the.- rext; and thl." c:socll;;~iJI; by :.~Ill< Whiu, :\l<'tiina/ T,,l:;,r/<t~;u;d Sacial Chan,llt' (1%2) :2-1~.
BS-t>. of the them,,-,,,; H [~rmm,t l~<l.J. U Srr.1yc rq~;.rchng hi' mccprion offcudahsrn.
3. Elizabl."lh A. R. Dro:wll. rl": '>'''"'"~ 'Jf l v.m~:mt ,~..."t.hsm ,,..d historians of Mc-dival
Europ<', in Amcr flw [.!,.,, 7') (!'i7l) f:)f,.).io~. Tho: il'wl:>U)to i rwon lhtlast rage.
4. Feudalism in Hi;tO!'j'' .....i. J:u-h:!-!11 c~JIII!.-ra ( 19Sio)' T!w l-.itm" ~:oy IS on pp. 11!5 ff. Thtrc is a
rt'Vll'W-arndc Olllt1IS boo:oi. hy c~w.nl.at:illl(or.:. 'fnd.:.bm !ll j.,_,t,lrv'. in Past & I'tf>l'nf 12
(Nov. 1957) 47 -5"/
5. As by Jont'!i and R<>>:\'f:tdf; >L-:- r;.l .>iX>\'C' R.:~to\t,,f( iu his SGRK. and Wlckm, Chrest.
f.J.2H0-4, bmh SP".Jk .:f'lxhllslalhf
h. Frcdtrick Pollock au.l f W. M~tl!bu,l, Hr"'"i' ~~ b1?1iAi: l ..rll'l' .!.:o~.--7 (-..1. S. F l.. Mtlsom. 1%H).
7. Ganshof, FtJdalism (S-1!1: !J 2 .1I1m~) ~''' 1.1.
8. R. A. Crossland, Hma si~t" '<hi "~ ,.,-.,,.,,.,,j, basu. in llfCS 14 (1%7) 106-H. at ltlt>.
Crossland gives rd-~"''''"! ru ,,;,. :d~'VdU! ht..-ruturr. i~duding s~~:.,; Alp. 'Di, SOlialc Klasse
dt'r NAM.RA-lt'Uh uu,j ilrr. h,rimiJ.o:h, lk:-idmm>J. , Ill /,;itr!r _;;;, ~lrin.:siat. F11mh. 1 ( N51)
li~J5; and K. F-abtl<Ul!>, "Th I lu:.t s.y,tnll fhu.l t'lhorr in :h:- ""ond millcnium B.C.. in
s,.,.
Acta Orimlalra 7 ( I'J~)) .!7''-''2
[IV.vi]
J. The on<' reent book m En~hsh on annent craftsmn. Alison Hurford, CGRS = Cra{rsmm in
Gmk and Roman Sotl<'l)' ( I'J72). has sonll' Tl'a(m,rits. hut is not wholly reliabk Among m.1nv
orh..r works that ar<" sttD worth t:onsulting ar, Htnri Fraucorrc, IGA = l. 'industrif' d.:ns l.t Gri!cf'
at~cimllf', 2 vols (Hrusds. 1QCJ0-1); Paul Guiraud. L1 m<lin-d'otuvr( induslnellr dan.< l'anciome Gri'ce
(Pans, 19(0); Gusraw Glotz.
rraroail dmz, Ia Griw a11cicrme (Pans. 1920). Eng. rrans. a An.imt
Gru.c ar Work (1926); and 'lndustrie u. Handd', in RE IX (1916) BHI-1439 (Gre~k, by H.
Francott~) and 1~3'J-)5j5 (Roman. by H. GummLrus).
2. Being a lt'ading architect in fifth/tounh-nntury Athens is not likdy to haw brought large
financial rr:wards. We hl."ar of at least one such man. Philon son of Ex<ccmdtos, who in th
fourrh renrury was a tntmb,r of the rrirr:arclnc das~ (sec Davies. APF 555-fl); aut.! another
architt'Ct, Dt'momd,-s, of the lat<' fifth crntury, may well have bt<tn the father nf two rich
Athenians ofdw first half of the fourth nntury: Demosthrm"' (thl' fathl'r oftlu stalcsman) anJ
Demon (ibid. II~ 14). Bur 1h~r. ts no proof. and no likdihooJ. that such m~n obtain<d rh.ir
wt-alth by dw practin of th<'rr profcsston. Crrtain1y the sUit' sal ark~ paid to arc:hitets in all
record<"<~ GlS<.'S art small. e.g. 1 drachma ptr day for tht Ercchrhtum in thl' !at~ tifth nntury
Notes on IV. vi (pp.271-274)
597
:::.J.
(/G I" J7:.. lm{~

109-:0. 2'5(..8) .:md ~Jr. at Elcll~" in .'1291~ (/G IP.I672.11-12); cf. the
350-3 Jr. !'('f yar pa:d 1o r;,e;xinnu;. :l~ ~rd,;,n' oi ri:r temple of Asclepias :~t Epidaurus c.
J70 B. C. ( iG IV~.:. !ilL stt Burf~nl, C "fil!: 21 '!-17; :m~i cf. !3MS, with refc-rmces for Delphi
and Odo.s- i ~g:tt wuh he: here. -".S.~llbt Gl~'t.: :tt>d L;ocroix). Anordmg to Vuruvms. in order
to b~com,: J :i~s:-t-.:>1~ ;udlil4.'ct Clrl<' nen.lc:d an ~tl'051\'C cdueation from childhood (I.i, <sp.
1-4, 7. 11)-15). >u\'h "" hdli!illd~hl.i to~<.,.tv,..,qVi ['>nor/ 4)- y<t he could admit that thTs was not
trul' of m.v1y practmll~ :1rdm:-ns ufhi;
(icl. t-7). Vit:uvius boasted that his own objecnvt>
had 11(>1 b<Yll :<l >l!o:-.<' lllutwy ;.m: ofhn; p:nft"SSmn (id. ';)
3. The mo;.1 H'f'"t trn~m>F.r:trh :; English. by l.ul <":olm-Haft, Tltr Public Plrysicia"' of Aruimt
,uJ: c~u. Sc:.,i. 1t1 i iisr ~1. Northampton. Mass .. 1'156). is limited to 'the Gr<"<'k
Greerr ( =
city-s\.<t~ of :b~ pcna.l dnwn :<:~ thl(undin!); oft he Hnman Empire', and ts th<refore nbligcd
to set u~td<:> :h, l:orgc v..-.i.lnt:- .,j ~viikm~ !(: bu~r pcmlti~: hut it IS thorough as far as 1t go<'S.
(One lJ:.a}' i;,-,;-lth:<~ !!tt amhm il:u ~;>1'1.1: roo 1;1urlt :mw lamcntmg th< ddici<ncl<'S of <"arlia
wriren.j Fn tb f !..Jicmin(' ;:~nod. s~ op Hnstovmfr; SEHHW JI.IOHS-lJ4 (with 111.15971600 .:!:.45-M). runh,r i.'l'~l:a~r..,pby will bt: fuum~ i:t OCD 2 rin4. Add Thomas. LO (l'.lf>i)
J.,.,.
s..
241-3. Qfl dol(!L>f> :md I~OIIl.11l1.1M
4. A goo<.i !oij,);c}~:r::ph; "'' c .. ~.l l> !-:1Vt'!i Ill ! F.dd.s<cin'5 0111-too-bri.-f arncle on hmt in OCD 2
454-5. G~ur)l'l' S:lrhm. (;.,i..-n.,ff'r~eamt'IJ (1..-J.wr~un:. ~:msas, l\154). indudcs a list of Galenic
ll'Xts 4\'olll~!-ok tn English l':''lJISio\lifl~l (A;>I~:.,h...,; m pp.l!ll-7).
5. Se-eM. I Fmkd;~.-m [Finlc:y j, "' e;.~ ...,...-. N.-.,w.\'!r""' <nd ~a'"lA~: a prolrgonu:na to th~ smdy
of Arh,m.... :ra1k'. i:1 Ci' J(! (1'~35) J:!!J.JiL I ,lfJ! ;.<~mg virtuall) nothing in this bu<>k about
Greek l:ndl!u:ts: hut ;n, f<>rr.<"r _r~,!u;~r..- p:!)il Ch:.dn M. Reed, hopc.>s to produce a book
on Gr,od, ~n.trllllll<' u.t.kr h: thl'l1"" !'t:wn
(t. I am rc:lu,:o~ur (t<f Ill \ .bto\~) :,, m;li-.f .lObi' mr uf the ligures st".lltt'rt'd ov~r the Satyriton of
PetronmY.. >Ill(;:: :lt.-y :.r<' "'"''''llllll'li wildly l!!l;il!!~tt:Jh'.;.t (fur an cxamplc, S<'<' Duncan~Jones,
ERF.Q;ii. ?_\'i" l, i1;it i Th'" i:l .'i,ll 7f, t.-:roH111~ ;:i"<"' T~1makhio a prnfu ofHS to million on
a sing!, , ..,Fl; airr ;; Jis:1str:~ l'llt: '" wh.-h ~'" lvst thrre tim~ as much; and cf. 1 17 filT
anoth<~ ~._.s~ lw slnJwr..-k. ,,( trn:(" tn~tr H~ :: :mlbni But I think It is significant that after
Trimai,hj,, h;;~ ll1:~Jc hi 't<"n ll<illiu' h, tti:cs up m<!dunting himsdf and goes in for staking
his frel.'JIU<'II (7;,); h JOtW thiuJ... ill r<'JJI\ iJandcd rrnrerty (7fo, 77; cf. 53).
7. Sn Joncs. lUi .H-h. Ull: 1.1111 1"-'~ (wirb Ill :!'In 2~). 4~1-2 (with III. IH!!-9 nn.52-.~). 404-5;
li.HSJ-1 .~71-.! (wtth III.~~~ ;ud lt-...1~). s,.,. p. Uh~u., Oral. XL V1.22-3; Zos. Il31U-.~;
Evagr .. HJ: IILJ'l, ior !h ,f:srrc'5-> ~n,.:;,!lv .;;m,..d hy ti .._ tax.
8. On the r,>l/~~~''''flb, H111-111 "en !.I ~n.lthdr c;r,..i; rquh.cknts, s~-c thl' comprdt<nsivt work of
J.-P. '~l:lhziiiH- J?m.l~ 1,,,,,,.,,!,"' I ,,., "''P'i'''-' :,~fessiontrelles rha ks Rllmcrin~. l-TV
(Louv;tm, 1~6- 1)1 ij hr '\lh< r \\I I. ~ uJi Gn'd. v'Jcit.swesm by Ztebarth ( l H%). O<hlcr
(1905), J>,tl.oul (1'1114) and ~lwn. ,.,.... th, bJhiiJ!r.lpi>y by M. N. Tod. 'Clubs. Gn:ek', in
OCD" 25J..S Cf. .1ls~ Ro;t,\'t:r.df. SHIIlP I.tlS.). wtth H.hl'l-20 nn.-lJ-4 ('The rreatml'llt
of thl corporations :n .-xitm!; w.::>rk~ is wh.lll' iu ..l.--qu~tl', lxing rnrrcly syst<"ntatic .md nut
histortcal', n.43).
rn.,..;~y,, ..... 0:'1tc:'~\.:'ii .... , ,;.f,ryr..-&. ,rift,.;-,11u. t~J.;.t/!i..... u~. CTVPEp')'atJ"ia. ip)afTia . .-...ori~vov.
rrraTi.6J, ~1':"'1.\U'(. '!'!'.,~i:rl: .. !~ -,~~,_w, ot~~~' ,..,.,,, t, ~.,....a ~'IMJj. Thc:n; IS a handy C()llt.crion of the
evidem,,.t..-h r1 ~Jms:.ttt~~ mAs~;, Mm..t 11 tit ({.-,man period by Broughton. in Frank.
9. E.g.
t<"
~-'I"'' f<,r !it.- :ml.l~ ,,f til J..,r, r ll.-m m Etnpin. S<"C Jones. LRE II.K5R-t>4.
10. For the fmlluuatt>ll tt rlus l';'s_~.. ~ tll11!tloncolt An:..nc"u, Philemon and Archilocbus. and for
much <Jthr nu,;r,stm!! m.tr.:i.tl ......: Un1111' ,.,.,,lll'ln ll'-'h:. ASTDCS IS n.l: Anacreon aud
Archilodms atlr-J~I ..;,.. ,,. ~~&~rd~.l a~ llh''' uft;acl da:.r.lchr'- ami ArchJiochus. I may Add. was
said to), :It,~"'',,,- .. <l.w, ,;rrl I !Hit~! aJ.,., ~.w h,;r, rlur W<' need to lx: carl'ful m int<rprcttng
Plutardt'~ frt'lu,m r.:t<r,uc,~ t; ltl' in.lnl~C'lKc' iw _!!f''t men in artistic pursUits, for thdr
ESAR IV
implic.Ihou~ ;uc' II= .tlways hvtuus

'"';"'I'~'' :n II<' story. wh1ch Plutarch thought so
.tdmiral>h tlhNr;ati\'l' tltat h( N,i it'"''" j,,wr th;m :iur ...:paratc treati~l',, Wl' hear of the
harper whn~ playtu;; w.t<> ;.nnri~~l h~ 11illl'l' oll\.t;.-.-J,n, and who tt-sponded by expressing
the hope riu: the ki".: ";uJ.lm.'\'(r mk "'' j;,w .-.s l~> _.cqurrc a gr.atr knowledge-of playing the
harp than h,. h.aJ i-ml~t')t (:\1,, 171~#.-i.t, I'Nl>. _;_~,1. (o...~i). Hut only in two ofthsc (t>7t:..(,Ha.
and t"Sp. f.,'\l.i) J\r..' l'lut.\1\h h'\'<';.i tit.").;.--..... ~ '"''"'~ 1:s to duw from the incidnr: that tht
harper w~ d,"l ~:! ;trtl} rrt.ilk"'~ riK J..tud';. lhtpertincnc m fancying that h~ ktu:w
bctt<"r 11!"'' -'l'hli-lf:i.. L
11. Sc~. brit'ti}'. u.:ritor.:i. CGR.'\ !f>.IAU. .!117-l". wub rh.nn!l'S, 243-5.249-50. ~iving .Jsdectionof
Notes on IV. Pi- V.i (pp.274-278)
598
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
the c:videnCL'. Ho~ruvtr.rtT, SEHR1 !. lM-1, md ~l' II nll-1::: n.17, sl;.uuiU O.(lt bcm:gk~red.
althuup;h dealiu~; wtrh Ill' L1tnt Wt~t. and ,x"iikaiiy with the Moselle regilr. S~ aJ.so
Crook, LLR ll:lJ, With 32H 1lll.fo5-7 f-wr :~ u:~o:ful o:olkr-tion ,,f ~:pigup},ic material. ~l'f: fda
Calabi Lunmtazti, ~ruJi uoll.J &<o'itt.l nll!dnt: rllott\Tr>' orrliwrg ( = Hiblioteca srorica univ~:rs:tari~.
SLm II Monogratic-. Vc!.IX. Mil;m. t'J:iMJ ISI~H'Iscriziuu\'. :!21 innuro))(r, mai.nlyioLati.'l,
but soml in Gnttk).fAftrr rhos u-cr1on w~ fimsucd l.uw thl' article by j. F. Drinkwater, 'Thr:
rtSL' and fall of tl1e Gllik. II!Jii; .aspl~ (lfth dr'\:eWJtlm'l"'l of the .msrucr:.cy uf 1h:: three Gauls
und.r thL' brly Empire', in L:sumu.< JJ {1978) 1117-511 ~l'L' LOS!'. ISJS-4(,,]
Cf. the fullers uf IG P.4JJl, rt~.? + .;<JJ ( = D.-t.-t 411) ~ml751 ( = D.:\,-1342).
For another family <1l Grt"Ck '"u>t.kurtt"n, prnu,l of fhciz n.Jli11g. Sf!': the cb:~rrn.ing ~pitaph.
Amh. Pal. Vll ..:4,,
for IG IJ2. 1<151. ~~~..- :si.:gfrit'd buffer. Oir fJr'.~"'rrbskwtt'll ' '11 j_.lurdon II ( = Ahh. dcr Akad.
1.h:r Wiss. n. dlr Lit. in .1\.l.lll)l, Gdsts- u. !<Ui.tiwiu.i<!;~;~,. l~;;(,no.l1) l'J~-205 (= %2-I.J), cf.
U2-3 ( = M%-7). ;\tor;t~ m-:.~ or may 1:1nr h.s~c ron~ ;o ,\Ilia~~ a alavc; whLn he dicd he was
almosr ccrtamly no$[~.,.<: m t'\'nl tlto<!cr~round ""e>riw1 (>e:c Lo~uiii:r. op. cit. 132-."l. I W-2<1): I
would gue-ss th:l he m~v h.tlle l'l'"<'tl in ::h.u~:t otf nu.!riu;r v;wr.arions in an i!pyar<Tnipov, in
which capacity thrr, m.:.~ a;;~t hl'l'n mum ~<Of!\' fur d&pla~ <Jl l:lf'i! I takc this opportunity of
mtntioning fur:hl'> !lihlmg~l'h~ ror rlw .Srl/lrlfo(rllliS!lsrirr o( cr;;f::smen, m H. W. PkkLt's
article m Talatllil 5 (1973} fo-47 1t .l..W 1m lf>-]N l=ll.ln. 1-1 abow). And ~ee MacMulkn,
RSR I J<J-20,
lGRR l.KW =G. Kaibd, Ep(eramrnaru Grn'''a rx lapidrhus c~~trfw,r (llerli'l, 1H7K) 1!41 Calabi
linuntaui. op. cit. (in n.ll abow) lfl5. n(1.107.
TG V.i.H23 =Jeffery, LSAG 2W. no.J1.
A britf but mast~rly summary will bt fimnd m J ]) . Deazlc). 'Pott.-r and painter in Anrknt
Athtns'. in Proc Br. AcaJ . .30 (I'J+l-) 1!7-11'i. at 107 ff. (also publishtd scparatdy, at 25 ff.).
when intormariun rs also giwn about imcnp!ions on m.rblt by potttrs. mamly frum the
Athl.'niau Aropoh (ibid. 103-7 = 21-S). and about rc-pnstnr.mous on vJsc' and votive
pbquts of pott<rs at wnrk. or at ki~urc (ibid. H7-10.\ = ~-21).
[V.i]
I. Tht most rtnnr tdition ofHcsiod, w.rks <il!d Day.. IS hy M. L. West (19711).
2. Hcs., WD,csp. 176-7, 302-I'J. :m...xn. 3Hl-2: ,r. fo37-411. 717-lM
3. That Ht'SIOO has th{' frccholdtr ratha rhan the tenant-farmL'F In mmd is clear from
-1. Hts .. W[) Eii.J, -170. 5112-3. 559-Nl, 573. 5'J7 fl.. 6<12-.l. W7-M. 765-f>.
wn 341.
5. Ibid. 602.
fl. It will be suftkient to rcl'rr h' lltl.!lll. IM 141)..1. ..-h. Ltl<'\ \!Gt onlv th..lin,s of Htsrod to which I
have rcftrnd (JI'D ."'it; ff) ;un! ;;, fascinating <'i);hl.l'<.":l~h-n~t:ul!f passage- from Galtano
Filan,gicrr oi N:~rk~. but .1!r.., l'o!yb }o;XXVI.wii..5-il rtud i;;.mous l<'xt attriburcs th,
dporut:niouofGr:,.:e !\' :h., ...~ ~,.;( .-.-.,r~l"' t~ C m :~iindirr,d\m to t~ar childrL11. and in
particular to a gem',,\ :k.si~o <l'-" !a ;plit '-'J' All ('j.!illt' 11rnonc~ t:lo: !iun one or two children (~el
csp. 7 fin.). with rh:- ''"'ult rh"' ~lli.tlly frmihn br-.::.u~ ,. ,rhn. Mumnius Rufus complains of
similar moti\'Jti<r: fm lh, C'SJ1.:,.uh' l d1ildr.r1 "' ;:,, cid I~> t!~: .-.. rly Prmctpatt: st'L' his fr.
XV, d. Hl''llM' or l.1tCl td :1 v 311.~ it~ tm JK'' ~.hmc:): ~,; ~""Y"'"'"oa reKva ll'+i TpEd>Ew. l~a a
fFp<YytwpEI'(>. ~i) ~~~A""" I ,,.l'lkl ;,d., tlt.ol ,!,.n: i .wnw :;n'lti.'ll! material in Brunt, Uvl.
IJI-55 (ch.st. 'R~producl],it~ lll 3!l<';,;ont lr:.ly'), m:li .,l.,::id u apphcablt to the Gu't:k
world. [Cf now the J.ddtt:.:l r,, ll.vrlt.7 Jb<>\'l:.j
7. Wirold Kula. An/::'"''''"'' 'J'II~''Y :ttlw Fnfi!. ri S)'.llo'fTI (1'17(), ch.J .. ~. l'Sp. p.7:! & 11.6f't. citin~
SOml' lllfl'f<'Sfltl~ <':J:th~~l'T\tf,-Ccnntr~ tn.lt~'fi.l} r11i' !J,..,'}}< Tl'-<!l:i ll'lllarkahJy wdl, although
translated mto Er.~,:l~<h (h.y L.awr~n.l':' G~rne:) from ;on ha!i;:_,, ll:uoslatiun from th~ onginal
Polish cdition oi l'J(,,:! A k-.dmg !=r.-u.il hi.,tori:m. f-ernanl Ur;mdd, in hi$ introduction,
dt~cribt's thl' bool an :x.:tthV! of:; M.1r '(!~! pmblcrnatk o:t.a~tC'n'U, as>imilatcd and dcvared
to thl' lcvd of a lu!"l;l.,ui m;l.'ih~I<:Ill hunt~ms!TI. 3r.J ~ bwacli'"JbP.Ja(ion nf th rvolution ofthl
collectiv dlstin} of
.md .a~ ',~11 ,.H(,,J :' :,hj...-tiv, ;m:i ratiCllt rtfttLtion. of unusual
intclltctual hont~tY.
~n impnrtmn .:\"'111 j., lu,rnri~~ ... :1 .u.rkstomm our common
m.,, .
rcslarth' (ihid. S)
!!. Hcs .. WD3K-'J.
2~1-L 24~5i,
.'!fi3-.a
Notes on V.i {pp.278-282)
599
9. ln supporrofthr 1.-'"Jr(~ d:itc (wbich I f~voor) ser M. L. West. mStudks in Gnrk Et.:~y and ],,mbm
Umtmlfll, :ur llrrtikc-" l..ir u. (ftsrlr. H. cd H. Dorrit an c..! P. Moraux (lkrliniN,w York.
11J?4), dt.iv, 'The: lilr ;nni tim~ ot' Tb1.'C1gnt~'. pp (t5-71. St.t l'sp. 71 !: 1 ht'O~nis' 'poetiC and
poliliai cafccr b<.'giJJJ in the fo)l~ :If thtl:itt'SI. .:nul ~rr.arcntly txtmd,d ovn scwral dtcad~s. h
may hol v~ rcJicbcd .into the SL'(th C:!!lll~ltY' nvt-rbpp111 ~ s,.!on' s.' I ha Vl' U~ld the T ubnl'r ,di tion
ofThLt~g:ti' by E. D1du. tn.o\mlhll, tyrrm Crortr.-11 11 ( 1'1.50): th<.'T<.' is a mor ... nuntt(xt b) M. L.
W\.":\f. in /<4ntlri <"t E.lr:;:i Gt.un i ( 19'?1); There is als.-:t u tcl<t (much less rdiabk) with :.m .English
trm:ilaticon m d'W Loeb Ben- anf!<lmmu 1(1':1::11 mLi n:pr.), by J. M Edmonds. On Th<"ognis.
s~ thc :~nn:k by C. M. Bnw:-... in fX:LJ~ IU5f>-7 (with bibliography). and Bowra s book.! :arly
Gt~,h Eli.ib{1 1HS, r~-pt 191i41) I..W-70.
to. Theogn. 3-tt-511, cf IJU?.\!02
11. SL"e "')'CAPS 'J.-1 I (wlth iBnn.29-3Z): l:f my OPI'i' 35H ff. csp. 371~.
12. Cf. Sol<m lir l J.l; 4.'1; 2J.;!t; :!US. Fur Soltm 1 hilv.- Uk'd th, T,ubna edmon of E. Dtchl. in
A11th,.J l.)ti(ol Gr.uq F1 { !.loW}. Thc.7r it." lJ1illr rttcut,.tlitimt (unfortunately \vith y<'t anothrr
n-nmt!bt'ting o( thr fr<l!f,IUCIIa) by M. 1-. Wcr.t. .. in iambi rt Dh:~i Grafci II ( 1\17::!). Th<rc is also d
text (m11ci1 l."SA re!i.lhlt} wnh .\fa EnghYb rraus!.'!riOtl ill the Lotb Elegy ar~d l.nnh11s I (><'<' n.<J
abo\'t:),
1J. Cf. Th!!agJL l<JJ..i> . I! 12 ~"
14. Alc;tetiS, fr z .:;.;, ic: E. lobd and n Pil!IL', [',.rflfmf'f Lf'~/oi,,ru.., Fragmema ( 1'J55): J.nd S<'<' D~nys
Page. S~tpJ~Irr.tiim! .l.fr,enu (1955) lh'.\11'..23:.--ill. Cf th~KaKo1TaTill< m Thl'ogn. 193.
15. St.'<.' tht "t''tmn""t.uy ofN~wlll.lr.. P:1 iV .-4~2-3.
u. Cf. Th.,)~ll. 51--,tl, 2JJ ... Ct(
17 . Thtrc b. .11 v~t 11"rntur t111 'hh tu;til:. 11ll' l~t lnrtoduction for th<. ~cncral rtJ.der" j, 't11l
Audr:.-wi:'!i. GT. fut~:. EGD, i& valuublL iu 1h~1 rt rarri<.'S rh, story on. beyond thr poim
(mughlv S!:th li C. l at whidt An.drr...~>J ltnp<. It> ihuw tlw subs<qn<'flt <'volutton ofGnfk
poliric.lll foJrms cl.lwn to d1e democracy of !Jrtc:o-fitilt-c(."ntmy Athens. H W. l'll'ht. 'Th<
Arcb:;i> ;~rM>!Ii~ ,in Tlll.urt.z I ( lo/.fJ} l'l-61 (fm rh.:- ~tlCciali.t). is mnfin,d mainly to the tyrants
in Arh,.,_,_ Cmimh 1:H~ l t"~hm, wjtil Vl'ry full rdi.~!K'cs to modt.rn work. Th most <.:ompkr.:
worl:. un the Grc-t"k cyra111~ ill ~'"'-"Ill (t:>n~: down to tbt fourth century) is Hdmur lkrw. Dif
Tyralllti.Jl1r-i r!"': G.i'fll,..f (M:mkh. !'li't7. twv vnl~. ~i10'11t' t"i pagts).
lli.. Tht> lanl~' imoowo\ trr.umy ;,. th:tt d11' Ortha)';orid; {induding Cl.1~thmes) ofStryon. which
ts said h~ i\:-i5:., !'!. V. 1:.!. iJt5"'Jt.;.a. tu "l.:tw l~H\'d Hcntury.
19. Cf. the wkoldn m:+. i'll!b~~;tru m thLItL>tn~n "C.mfli;:: .1ft he Onkrs'. bndly dio;clls~td m Vl.i1
.-.t
300\'1'
20. E.g. J>dsi~lr.~!ll> ,_,I AtL"t~. Cvp....-:u~ ,,f Conu:h 15 s:ud to have had a moth<-r bdun!,!in!! to tht
rulins lhn:hiad arisl\..:;-.._).. whu wil~ l1tnw a1l h~d tbCTl'ltn< be<'n marri,d ofl'to .t cornmon,r:
S<"-'1\a<,irno. GT J5--Y (\,;rl: I~ n.J.;)"
21. l'nlyam. V ,i. l: iC~ ~.g. DltGb~bin, WG 3 I 5 (Th.~r.: Ii :m Eng. trans. of rh, P<>lyJrnus pJssap:c
011 Pi' :?74-!' ,,fth~ rm.:J: h:c lJ N. Un: ,,,,.,ti~:ncd in rh.- mxt not,.)
22 . 1'. N. Ure. rltrO(~iu ~f"!)...an11r (1'J211.
21. Cf. my Of'H' ~ o.t: il ~~ .....fifth-ccntl.arr ArbL=tl'lL-n: W<'tl' at ka~t I,(MMI Hipptis at my ~ivcu
tnm. 01mllt hu t.li.'(!n 5~~fld 10 tr.l' !1,111 Wl<\lldh.llcdonl' bett<r to speak ofJa~udr owntr
rJthl'T th;m r:~!h-H.~y.;~- ''"'ller;' :is th<' l'qnivall'llltf tht Hippl'i5 at that tim<'.
24. T'ht Fn'11.:h o-r~~:u'"'i ,,fri~ h<'>.ri:, Lt Ciri.\'"-.:1"" (l'~ri,, 1')~~). was rctssmd a ftw yc.lls ;~.go in a
mw ~.iitiuu (l'.uis, 1'11'~'1) wi:~ :>uppiL'IliC'lll~tl' uull.'l Jnd bibliogr:~phy.
25. I USl' Pit~hi's roition ;ud numb,:ung .,.. t!h" iJ;)gmcr.ts: Sl'C." n. 1.? abow. The most relevant
frag!loonr.s .ll<: i. K, 1". 1.7. ~uti op . .>-S .ilml !3-5. I kotuw of no compkt~- account uf Solon's
oucl'"''k .m.l acthit}' lls:: ~~'l'll ~ .., m~ ually ~,ti~i.1o.tury: but S<'f' Andrt'wcs. G'f7!!.9 I; forrcst.
EGV 1~-\.74
2(l. St'c l'Sp. s,~le-tt fu ~. J.f,; 1.3 J -21 : ~t Ii!- ::'5: ,!.:; . o-'J Di..hl.
27. Thl'fti,IIOI Uts r... Soicm's b\~... on dm~ ~ . r :uur. Arist . :lth. PQ/. 6. I (cf. 'J. l, 10.1, I 1.2);
l,lut.. S,f. l5.2. 5( (till' "'':'-llnl b~ 1\m:lrc.tR><I. \\"'~n in 15.3, is Cl'rtainly to k rt'jcctl'd).
28. s~e t'Sp, Tiw.~. \'[.;.,.:;..(,; ~r. Hdt; U'i.ro: ""''', ..~,;, H/. 16.2-9.
29. I hop~ :o-:''ti!..J~: th1.:. cho:\,h;:n ~hmdy
30. St'<' rn; Of'W .11-,H.
31. Ev,n i,.,,,,,ro.~u~ r1H;>Iuyed illl"rr.-narie; in .51i'. [ICI: Hdrs I.fl4.1 etc.). bllt hr ~!so h:;:l considaa!>!:t ropp~lr~ ~;mon:-:.:11" Clfln'lli: W!' I'>~> Hdl I i-.2.1.
32. Cf Ari~r /.,_/ 1/1. 7, 1.}2) .. 11~21. ~sp. l'J.-11, cit>.!'d in ~uion ii l'lfthis chapt<'l', l~ the ~zubf~ 5
I am~~,.,,. :hi~ would,,;::;: h:vt ht'1.11tru~ bLrc11r the lo:~tslifLb certttJry.
600
Notes on V.i-ii (pp.282-285)
33. Cartledge gives very full bibliography. Thr article bv A. M. Snodgrass. 'Thl Hoplite reform
and history', is in ]HS 8.5 (1%5) 110-22. I cannot sec that Cartledge's conclusions arc ar all
weakened by J. Salmon's artick 'Political hoplites?', m]HS <n (1'177) M-101. which how,ver
adds some interesting ;~rchaeologKal dctails. I am temptcd to suggest that some useful results
mtght be achieved. here as elscwhtre, by comparative studies of comparablr phenomena in
other societies. (Great caution, of course, would be neccssary. as .1lways in such cases.) Th,
most obv1ous parallel is th, ris< of the signorie in the ltaban town~ in th< late Middle Ages
(thirteenth to fift~"t'nth centuries); but th< situo~tton then was totally different: see esp. P. J.
Jones, 'Communrs and despots: the city state in Late Meditvalltaly', in TRHS (1%5) 71-%.
The history of the Italian towns, however, can in some respects illustrate the history of the
Classical world: see in particular the admirable arneit- byE. J. Bicktrman, 'Somt refiections on
early Roman history'. in Rf'IC 97 (1969) 393-4AA, esp. 402-5. I partimlo~rly like his WlSl'
remark on p .406: 'Th, valu of analogies is not probative. but illustrative. and. thus, heuristic
They can make us recognise aspects of facts whtch would otherwise tlmam hidden from us.'
34. I have in mind such passage-s ;~s Hdts I.59.4; 00.3-5 (and parallds in later sources).
[V.ii]
1. King Darius I of P~rs~;t .tb:lluk"i:,tl h:; ~~I PI"'': f,1; Greek ry:.ll>'S m 494. in rh,ory. bur they
continued to .1pp.-..: na :i: ;\si~ti:- (;r.-..k ..-lh'"" .;uJ Aeg,~nl~i;tllk s:..-.. my OPW 37 ff.
2. Perhaps thc best g<'mu! hc-oi. n iiith-cmruq Gr!'""" I'~"'"" fu:-;t:ard Will, u ,\rlondc gre( et
/'Orimr. 1. L' V' ::U~t.- JJ(!.4of (P:lre;. 1~171).
3. I have nor been .ill>!.- 111 r.-o~.l rh~ nnnt h..-,k bl J K Dav;,;.. l>""ray and Classical Grera
( 1978). Those who! lw:. not ;,.lro:toiy ~rmb.-..i rh, Ub_t,rt thur,u,.:hl\ would CC'rtainly bmrfit by
beginning with .1'11"' .-\D. dl~ptt'f'S. III (::S!' !"~.41>4.,2) :.Yloi V, ksl'ribing respectively the
ideology ofthedtnto)o.TA'Y :;r;,f 11~ pramnl worku1g. 5.-.JI"'' Fom'!i!, EGD(cf V.w.l7 abow).
4. Anyone looking for .1n dD(.a.'llt ,f.otirlitiun ,,j tit... .am~ ut'Cio~~sj, ~I (_;I<."< k &r!,w~<paf'illr might begin
with Arist., Pol. V.'l, I.WI":.!~-.Jf. (UN<' th ltoJ.>ti!. (11diug) .m,l Vl.2. l317"40-bl7, both
emphasising free-dum .llld th .ibtlity w "liw .l\ }'OU wash'; d VI.J. Bl~27-32 (hostile again);
also Rhn. !.8, 13t.ll4. whfl" thco objective, tit rl,.\cx, olf d1noJ.:r.l.'l is ~n6Epillr, as wealth of
oligarchy etc. See .ll!tll. ,,f etur~. Thuc. 11.37-".l (t.>sp .\i.2-.\ JIJ.l; 40.2). 'Living as you wish'
.as a definition of personal trttdlnt l.~ot.r h.am .1. ulrnmuupl~.:e. which we often find in
literatun:, e.g. in Cic., Dt ojlit. (.i'(l {ilfrt'llf vtlis); l 1t1r<1d. V.i ..'\4 (plllfJfiiS vivmdi ut v~lis,
occurring in a passage t.Jkin~t .il~ itr. text rh Stot' m.111im that 'th wise man alone is fn"t''), and
Epict., Diss. IV .i. 1; Diog. l.atrt. VlU2l li.Eowict aunmpcry~j.
5. Jones, AD, ch. V (pp. 99-133, with thr: mtc:.~. lS.l-1). inrill w.surp.n!K.-d asa briefdrscription of
how the Athenian ~mocracy workru m pn<"tir4."': it i.~;,. IJU..~tl.rri"Ce of compression.
6. It stems indL'Cd that slaves may have ho..cn ~n.,.. trr:~tC'd m -1 J~mocracy (at Athens anyway) than
dsewhere: see the quotation from l 1l01to, Rt'J'. VIII. 111 tht" m111 l.angraph of the main text
above; .and cf. Ps.-Xen., Ath. p,,; I 111.12 (.l str!ldng p.l.U.I!!:l'); Xn1 , HG ll.iii.48 (where ot
llaiiAo& may. I think, be an echo ot'tht ~1ti f riu:t_...,,,hip t~ ~~Ill' ut'tb ~laves who fought for the
Athenian demO<.ncy in 403); and oth,r tnt~. q_;. thuP< .;JJ(IWtn~ th:at a "lfl4<1nl G1pe~ could be
brought by any AthLnian (not only tlu m.ar,rJ _.ft.lltl~t Jny,nt whu injured a slave (Arschin.
1.15-17; Dem. XXI. 45-9: Athen, VI .!Mr:...7a. dting .;,l,.., Hypc.rd.k-s and Lyrurgus). and that
the slave at Athens might obtain "'Ill<' rrm:taon ag.11n.~t lltre~tm.:nt by taking asylum in a
t.-mple (the Theseum, and perh;~l~ rb, hruw ,,( th< !>..m11at,l and reque-sting to be sold to
another owner (see BusohS'Io.t>l-....L. GS U.htl-.\1.
7. Sec, in addition to the p.&!i!l.ilJI;i:;.it-d m thr: te;oM .anJ in nA o~l><YI', TilU.:. VI.39; Vll.69.2; Eur .
Suppl. 349-53, ~. 4.38---41:
hiO-;; Hipp.l .J!J-.\: 1 1~.-J.ys. ll.tA-19, 55-7, t.4--tJ, 68; Dem.
X X. 106 (contrast wtth Spam>: .mJ "'"u~- h,)su),un"ro in I.,...,., .u." Pbto .Jnd others, ,.. g. lsocr.
VII.20: Xll.l31: Pbt(l, H'P VIII '>57~b. 5tt~Jr; IX.5n:; ,.,.,.,III. 7iilab, etc.
8. The most recent tre.ltlll<'11t I h:.vr "'-T'l 1r#Pf'1CJfUa i~ bd; S.up.lt, P.mlusill. Storill Jrlremtinn
dtlle 1114' traduzioni "''""''"'' rl'rr:s.,~. I 'lf>.J). Th<'\oo'\)ftltir~t lJ>l''.ll' m tl!.e late fifth Cl'tltury. e.g.
in Eur., Hippo/. 42!. I.m t>:':!. 675, Pft,>m. J)t 11 h :.!;;co ri.>uud n D<'tnocr., DK 68 B 226. (Cf.
Section iii of this chapter ;,a.nJ it~ n. ;7.:; I .l!un>t tollow hr :h.-lt'r history of the word and
wiU merely refer ro the work" nt.-.J bl Peter Brown m)RS fo.l (1'171), at 94 and nn.17t-2.
r,.,,
ur
Notes on V.ii (pp.285-288)
601
lJ. Ariswt!~ oitn1 rcrogniscs" IX!I!Il~-rtlon bt~wt.T01 d..mocracy and political tqu.lliry. He takes It
for p:r-ln:! :J;~: .-.1 OT/Jl.OT<t<r>l scdr. ro 'iuo11 fm ri> 1tAtrflrx (Pol. V .~. 130/l" I!- 12; cf. V .I,
1J01~1f,.Jl). Jrl .'1 p;.ss~e critio.! of dt=rnoa.'C}' wh~eh I hav~ citl"d in n.4 above (Pol V.9.
13 W'l'l!-30) h-:- li'.'I:S dr.rni>CT'"U ;a .iSSUffilllS thl:: equ:l.!ny is just and Idtnttfymg it wirh tht
soVI."rr.;gllty i.l( rb l>A~it>;. 1-k nu~ dwup"illl held by s.ume that 1<TDn7~ as well as ol.ovlltpia can
be att:ib1Jitr! m0$1 o(.-!1 tcHil"'lliOU.l\'Y (!".' .-<, l!'i 11':\4-S}. In scwral passages, of whith perhaps
th< mos~ mtnatmg 13 VJ.2-J, iJ! 7'.oll-i~5-. lu &.mQnstrare how h1s own concern f<>r th~
minority nf j'~OJ>.:r.~'""JWHen preventS i:im irnm acceptmg thl' equality demande-d by
dem;lrr~t>.
10. Sel' m:.:1y i tiw ;>~!iago:.; m,-d 111 nr ~ l 7 lheov~- i ;;m not fillly satisf,cJ with any of the
trcatt:H:u:3 d lrw~w J !:~V<' ~~~n. 1hc m~t rcxnlt of which arc by Hofivoj Boncky, 'Die
politisdll' hl)nmnic', in Em;.~ f:l (1971) S-:N; :~t:,f H 'W. Plcht. 'Jsonomia and CJ,isthenes: A
Note"'.'" T!llt:rrlil I (lW.!) UJ .aJ Thn~ r. ;m ;,dn:t:.biy thorough discussion ofth~ ongm and
meam"g of d1C' wo:d by .Mr.:~in Ostw;kl.
the Be.~inninxs 'fthe Atheruan Democracy
(1%9) 'ift-1 J.(, (::f. U7 fl.}. whicl; :1cv~nbd<= s~rns to me to se.:k for a grear~r predsion than I
would ~llf'P<l<!<' Jns~l:;!, I .,.,-,:t'p: (l.,;:w,;ld'> ;K,,, rh41 isonomia IS 'not A form of !'<>vtrnm.-nl
but~ p.;:luirlll pmKif'k' (l 11. r!. }7, 1 hi). ':hr principlt- of political equality . . . not a
const~tuli(.m:d ti.t 111 ( 11.3}, :.n;l J h.wo> thcr.t;)rc dKubed dcmocra<y in the main rrxr abovl' as
'char.:r.r.-a,-:1 1>7 ;,,...,~,,....,. o~tw:.ld rlflld-,. rl'IUV\.;~ tit:<! 'imwo,.ia comes closer than any uthl'r
Greek w.::;~{i II) :xvr,"llo:i"f: t!J,, nc.<ie~n nct~lll' oi"righ!!:" m the snsl' in which wt' speak ofth,
"rtght.;; m;,r;". uglm .-,;a m::;r,,., ..... IIlli oi!(lgficr.", etc.' ( 113 n.l). Jntcrrstmg later USl'S of
luo"''"o-; ilodu.! App . lfC I t:.u._)~ M:~r<"U.' A.1rd , ,w,.,IJt. l.lt for lo-oro,.ia and oanp.oopwt St~
e.g. f)io u~~- XLI.l7.J: XLIV.!.:. Til, b~"ll trtatment I know of l'"!yopia is by G. T.
Gn fiith, '),..g,ria 111 thl Ass.:mbl y :&t .o\: iwm J!l r\ttn' Soci<"fy and lnsrillltions: Studies pmentrd
to Vi:l Hrrmb,rg ti'Hh) 11!)-5:-1: :ual s A (; >.,._,..!had. '"I<TI)')'Opia and thl' Council of50U'.
in Hi.Wriol !t (1%7) !~1-4!1.
11. This i~ ; t:.:atur~oi ,!,mQT-q wh;di 1b <:rl!l(> wrr,,"mrally not fond of emphasising. Aristode
docs lli)l ll"t' r!l, 1'111l foo:r.-i~w, ;h,oJ:h II' <ic;,:, rcf.-r to tr.th>vac m (for rnstanc') Pol. II. 12,
1274'1.'i-li!, IIU L l~I<:JI>)2-4. t1~!'!~-14.2r ..7; VIA, 13U!h21-2. Hdts 111.110.6 speaks of
1mnlthlvo~ irpxit a:<o .~.-baracrn~tK ti-..uu:~
that "'" ii'*..- iiP)(OJ< which has 'thL fairest namt" of all'.
iuollo~&i'IJ. (Thts '"' pdrt i th, ..,,_..~n,-d "I''UJ.m .kh~. rhe l'atliesr surviving discussion in any
langn:ll!;<' <>f .t(t('m:tti\T li:.Tm f J"'IUic-.11 l"HII">titu:im, which must be .a literary fiction,
origil::.t!n)l:. I b.hn-,. u: Ill\ b1, s"'" cnm..ry "' rh,-,:~rly fifth.) Cf. Vl.v13bovc. adrnit . for
the.- r\'lk<11LIIl" of Diu Ch:--,.S<st.m on th. f;," th . tt d u1.:march (such as tht> Roman "mperor) ts
:\1,..,,,,. ,,,:
Qwweloflt'l(~.
12. This subjo.:;t well tr..t~.'\1 iu ht,.fbyj.-.n:-;;. ,.\p .:;..i.J. :J11d more recently it has lx:m cxamin~d
thoruugilly by Hamu. 111 th, \'~(uJ!>l, :utKk~
in Il.iv n.lR above. For the daborat
proc;,lur. m,..,.~:UJto' 111 tnurdtC'1111tY Ad:t~> t tlt,r fundamental laws, s~ C. Hignetr, A
Hi$1''!' 1 rl1~ .hitr"rli.r" C.nwlt~<~r:tll ''' tlh' [>,./,') rl(,- Fi{rh CNitury B C. (1952) 299-305. For
Ath<'ns. ;it!ltiust such ;o~s.<o;~g-s .:t!o !ht.i~ rdim:.lt< i.r1 ILiv n.21 abov<'. set" t>.g. A<"schm. 1.4 =
111.6; l yc., C L11'1".!'. J.t [')em XX 1\1. !.. ]~Oo-fi rc.. (cited hy Jones, AD 50-3). For the
impconJt""'' t ,,.,,,,.,, to~wt', <'n~l-ling_ th t""" t<J ,t.,,J,utt"rms of<'quality with the rich. Sl'<' csp.
Eur. SupJil. -'.l:'-7. I ~'\"IlL' h';l.~tm. by rh w:1y, why 01ny Greek do:mocrat should not have
subsrnlx~l tu lh irnJ"Sliind .11ivuco~q uftht <llpftro;u:y of the laws in Cic., Pro Clumr. 141l.
13. Perhap.\ l<htndd.nt~l ~nu.m h,.,,. J,l- V .b, l :Iii!'' 11-1'' whnc Aristotle envisages a sttuation in
wbid1 thtr I~ <Ill rn!ll'r fltlg: Wlfhin .111 ''lit:~rohi,~j f<'lllc'Uma, to the mlmblts of wnich certain
offin.,. an r.:~otn..:-,1 . .o\ ~><~1..\.llhJk 1> tlu- 1'"'',..''~' constitution ofCyrcnc. for which see
Sectron ii ,,f rh1" di.IJ'''r mtolllt n ..li hd ..w.
14. SCI: Aris1 .l'.i. IIJ.iJ, l~.?:!-J.?: VIIJ'I. i328'.~.' ..,.
I 5. By far the btosr h....lk I krww vn thlus:<>'f1' nf i,k.as .liN>II proptrty is Richard Srhlattcr, Private
Propm}'. "/"lr,lli>:""l' .if ,11 fJ,"<~ (1~1!) IJ.IAd Art. b.ix-"' bcstrcwals Ctctro's auirude. J
16. The Sl.lllll.nc1 00.1k in Fndhb l'll Gnd, nnr,lttdfll..,., is li. W. Parke, GMS = Grt'rk Mrrcmary
Soldlf".ir''"' tlr l~rli,q Ti>110 ''' tllf n..:rl. ,,; IJ""' (1133); and S(.'C also G. T. Griffith, The
"""i
tWrro.,~rr..~ ''' :it,II,-!I,:~;,;; Jl1~nld (1i:;.,;;j
''"'!
17. See th mo~in

vfll.t". '""P th: ti:'i'l p~t" tlw !'"':.;:raph conraimng n.IO.
18. Seem)' OlJt' .\7-U, ~1. 1-44. H7. ;i.U..I It'~ t!oi opponunity ofmenriorung a ncgk-cn-d
sourC whr,h ~ro\'ilk~ .111 imri.;nm~ linh~ picture ui tl:co $1asis in somt ofrhe Aegean l!>b.nds- m
chis .-;...-,. I, :am> :m;t Srh~'''' ..-lii.W4o~d the year> Ji:.!kwing: b.ocr. XIX (A<:_E'itr.) 18-20. 3S.9.
602

(Thi!. 'llt.'\'Ch is the lmly ~enumc one Wt' possess from the Classical period whiCh was actually
wnn<'tl ti:r delivery to a court or assembly outstde Athens. apart from l's.-Herndcs, P1ri
f"!lllrioiJ, mentioned m my OPW 35 n.n5, ifinde<'d that speech is !lOt JUSt a lnl'rary composition.)
19.
s~ ~l'-
ToJ, SGH! II. 100. With its nOll'S, gtving the- litf'rary material and much btbliography.
nnc:rc 1a:u! Eng. trans. by Austin and Vtdal-Naquet, ESHAC 271-3. no.7fl.) Add /CIF.24<l3;
and .'iC XII (1955) H4 =Daphne Hc.>reward. 'N<'w fragments of IC IF. w. in 8.S.4 47 (1952)
lnl-! 17.
20. L~-,; VII. i\.1 (from the 390s) shows a piece ofland in Attica let out to a freedma11. Alcias. at the
:.:m oi ~~century. In Lys. Xli.H ff. (esp. JH-19) Lysias and his brotht'r Polcmarchus. both
Il!~tit:~. ;tfi' in posstssion of three hmts<.s. on<' wntaimng d largt workshop. Tht dialogue in
Pi:ttlo'~ fieJIMir rakes plat at the house ofPolemarchus in th, P<'ir.Icus: se<' Rp. 1.32Hb.
21. ,-\.n itnr'rtlU;t reason for this (perhap~ mdtcd th<' prinnpal reason. dlthough modem o;cholars
s~Mu:11 llt>!icc it) was that if a citizen hdd an nftir< in which stat( funds pa".:d throu~h h1s
!>.11d.: (O<~ i!tcy did m many cas<'s) 11 was thought J,,irablt that he should haw ,uftint>nt
~~~Op(rt)" lu make tt posstbl.: for any funds h<.: cmhezzkd to he r.:covcrcd from him. The only
nugir.tr;,cy tor 'INhich wt know that a nenssary qualification was nll'mbership oftht highest
pJo;,t<:-:y ...hss. th~ Soloman Pcnta,oslomlxlimnoi. was that of th<' Trtasurers of Ath,na
(A!:sr .. :\/J;. Pol. il.l). who had chargl" of all tht offamgs nude to rht ~oddess, many ofthtm
;n g.fl!ai Cr :;.iJver.
22. -rh,n 1> .111 :xcdlent and dtar dtscription of the dtmocraric organisa1ion of th dtnw in
!11~ h:.1:ellr:.l lcture by R. J. Hopper at Shdridd University in 1957. Tht Ba>i~ cif flu !lr!rmt~m
Do'.'I'Wrrorcy (Shcffit>ld. 1957) 14-19. with 23-4 nn.H0-152. For tht spl'cialist. a \'ery full account
t tb, dct!"'" tribes ere is givtn by J. S. Trail!, The PolitiCal O~~anisati"" o(Atti,a. A Studr v(
Trittyr; and Phylai, atJd therr Rrpresrmarion in the :l.thmian C(}UIUil "= Hsp.' Suppl.
,;,,. n.........
-"1\! (l<J73)
23. ~ufl'k:mt infnrmauon. wirh the necessary refcrcnn-s. is giwn by JO!Il'S. AD S-f1 (with 136-7
!11;.3-1-1). 17-lil, 49-50 (with 145 nn._~). 80-1 (wtth ISO nn.\9-23). On pay fm magistmes.
~ !\.1. If Hansen, 'Misthos for magistrarts Ill (:Jassic.d Athens', in Symbolae o,/ot'IISe.< 'i4
( i'1i'J) 5-l:!.
24. :\~.1111~1 huky's a.un:tl.lr. till! ;:,.,i,!u~;l pay ~\-:u. ~i:u nnl\ hy Alh<"J>S, as a onstqutncr <>fhtr
~mriJ<". lo~;ldll.:,.,l !It my l'PO:\ ;, wh.c!:- scr:;~ >I passages fw:l Anstotlt's Politics, proving
l!tynl .ltult rho~l :1 tl:, lflluth '''!lilt:,. 1'. C. political p.<y wa ':or only given at Rhodes
(sp~cific1~ly mt:PIIt:cJ i1' 11,,1 V .5. l."\l}il 1 '27--~ 0 i~l! "" 1 ,:w.:cteristlc fcaturc of Greek
democr.t.-i, ... . Jn.ll.tl !ltw.-.1 rh.u l'"htif.tl J..~:: ,-.:;Mi:,,.r,) ;1! rdn'ii<'S mto the Roman ptriod
.and tlt\stnf :1' H,lkn.ti< tn,,,., ;,, &t!.-;,.r .m, oth-:1 .~;!'. l;.s;o~ ln his lhaprer on the Athenian
cmp1re :n !mperiali!-m m !l:r .-\,,;,mt World, m i' D A. G.l'""''' .11>d C. R. Whittaker (I'J7A)
ll!.~lt. J(l\,...111, hul,v !Ill~~""-'''"'"" hs '"'kll<t' .tr.d ill<'~ !i illt~h it aside. 'That Rhodes
,.,.,,.;i;IMIIr p;u,t i.-.r ,.,;m jji(l"' :h, i;lt:" l..ur:h .:.:111!11'\' ~mi l'rh;.ps in the Hclknisti< pniod
i ,jr Dl;,. Chry(>l'm.:.;rcdy h.longs ~., :!w I ldl.::i~tk l"-ri'-'!'1. .nd Hellf'mstic lasos. too. and
ril.tr A~l$t<>li, .,,,,.-!~ "'"' ,;:r~.;i "'ll;.;rk,, '-'~' rln :;ubji:L! ,-,r J~Y !~ th:: Ioliric<, completely mis,.:s
tlw r\rc"''f 1:1\' .l.lf.llr'ol!"t~!. hi' _.,~-s (.>H ro.SJ. my il,;!~) Argunt<"'t:>tlatly conrr3dlcted by thL
~v!dlu,-:r. ;~tT uut'~~t-,nss,~\~t". ~~.,,,....,.,.~ ~~ud f,u:..:~ :h,i: a11:hors tnay Jmaginc. them to havt.
Th.-:.~ A:~C&J.ti:- 'h:J.-\l ~n;c ,.:-.1"~"' rrr.arlt Hl! :}n s:1b~c: .-.i p.&}'. is an tngenious und~r
t:Utnu:t ,_,t\ll;ot Aritl>lk -W~- am~<.trmug :- misrcr!r~~ .. l:\1!<>11 In parucubr. as I showl-d in
11t'f)A. Ai>tu;l, ru,.kes it rrt;:.:cly d~r m a ,.-h.,:,. ,,.,.;4; ,), pssages that in his day pobtical
pa~f'" :\.,;,.,..1'111 ~.J (Citll~>. w;o~ ch.,na~n~t:.- .,~ ,,~;_,! iw !t~cuues calls 'exrrcm demo-.-ra.;i~--. (d !II\ ,ll!.J\.,, h;a,\ .Jir,J~\1.' been ov,rtumed by thf'
;mfi>rt;n,ar~ run!l~>:ls they h:1d l~t'nl ,!nvrn w ~d.,p: ir. ,,r.i.., w ~''''vide the n.-cessary funds,
.md -"-' ;,n~ <~t k~: rw; i'~!;.r< d<JI<}flt'tkrt :h,~ sit::.iri<!li .-:Ali~"' (My potnt rl'mains valid
('\'O"!! of W' lq.':trd '1:.1.my' ol:> :t !"Ob.tok <'X3g~er nt.1\l ~l1li J'f<;'J.:r \"dunk in terms of'somc'.)
M.~r.\'('T, m-Y I~ !'10.4\ I rn~t\ 110: :;,l'I<'IU<: ,,.,.... n,.;a i'!ll,.~'ltmi:ake. I dtd not <"mpbasist'.
,l:j; r-rh.l!,; I ,.bould h.! d ..m. th.tr !"l'l' i thr n,, ,. '"''1'1'.'''"f'CS vf pohtical pay At Athl.'ns. that
1-:,: :at:,n:hhl,; tl:.:- Assembly. -...:.~ firj: lllllodur.~i \11!~.- ~iln th; 1:<!1 of the empire. and was
subsequently i:"~.._.~,-ci s..,c~:!i l!.tm. A:r;,.,:,.;,liSJr.:-& (:ill 5- W), fi,lley s.&ys thai he 'tried 10
f:tlsifv' d:r ~ri!Jli'.;.:u;:.,~ fnk~ lumsdf Mi;';:~t 'by pomting !r, :h. .,:.,,iva/ of pay for office after
th;;.]l :'llll'l<'. .mil h, i1~il b~:-,, gleefully qu'-'td i~ ,,:l't'> L',- writers' (ibtd. 310 n.54. my
l!-'lif~}. f'lu,; !~ \m!:.:!:"c.;>;of>!'( mislc.;,.djng (~jnJc:: >ll;'}'rr;:s:,>,; :!W futt:C vfjonts's argument wbt'tl
!t~ ~tJt~.Jk; ,.,fhiu~ ~ ?i'~~fii~~ t" tiu, ~t:t!lll~:: ,-.; ;..-; .\it"! d1:- ktu. of .:~'iirc: Jon Las's actual words
Notes on Vii (p.290)
603
""'I
(AD~) rrfo=-r 1\Ql to 'sur.,.lval' bul ill 'a

,t,J lmpolmmr_f..,., 1ll p.>y. dur for ~nmd11.me '"tho:
Asscmhly' (cf hl J.i 1-hmcll, in GRBS 17 [1117f;], Jt BJ) To lL'j)I'I."'C.'nljcu~ ""'~pa~--.ing o(
'survi~.11' b dl&tn~ettuotlii- bur af course it i~ e~:.c:ntbl to Finky-. ~rgmmmt, htlhr o;ccont\ tali
of his n.54. fhat rho:n: shJ4Jld bcm~n 'auntval'. hadt.n~ll) Fmlcy s;ll.';~k~ .,g,m ;.~ndJl!tiiln of
'pay Cut u(tut' (fom IIIIo~''>, tbld 122.audJI!Inn.5J-t).mdofnotlungds~:. 8u1 p;av (or y,h.uts
nsuall y mc.'J~ t by 'tlfficc w.1~ nLu.ivd y wumporrmt (~ H.utsrn. as rued inn 13 Jl>cw<~): wh.it
matt~ W'IS p.'lf for atlL'nding rh n1ur~ :ma:i A""-"mbly. Jnd the Council. Athros m~y wdl
have b.:J.,lll~ rlnr Gr~k dctnocruy 1(1 rnak .. llti hL,ILt mmw.-non, .UILi )wr trnp~;ul rev..~
will of ctl\lr3t.' h;lvc mad~: ib~ mtrcdnction ufpy fittOOUHUnd Coun,illcs oJh burden than 1t.
wouJ,t ~lwrwi!>r h11vc been; but it 1s caum both th~t ~h hrr..clf. ~n....,. rh. f;~ll of 111:'1' ~mp~u
(when 5iko w.n in~ rrl.ttiwly muc-h wot'lld1noncial po~irivn). continued d~ t:>ti~rinji: l~u-m~ 11f
politia~T p:&y :md intrrn.hJc-ed am~jo; m:w ou.(for n!.C!lding the As5CITibi~), ~nd !h.. l a mnubo.!r
of othrr drnroctrl-s follow(d h'f r":1111pk, ;t '"' y r.IIJ: iu m'' ;"Ourt..h n.'!ltar)'.
25. A rcccm wurk 011 this :rubj~c: ~
j~ C.O!:Jtc.~r. 'flo."'~'" l'a>lilil:OUU nf FiJiii-Ct'lllmy AI/IOU
(1971), 1: ~;, J.~Wnidln1g !D find Gaud.: ,'.o\1:'!~~ 'l't><":~m>g tho: t)mcmporal')' ;~!4-g.a.rions th.;~.t
'CI"on c.<t :.IIno:ur, Hy pc-.rbolw. f.1lnont cic lilltljll'>. Offlphvn, lluhi~L'. widl1orl rnntradictl11~ th~-~~~ (in ~duu~ml Will, Cbm!c l\1o~s& ami hul C...:oukow~h. LJ MoHtlt _o;:l'f'r i'l'
I 'Orimr, if_
iV' olb'lr (f l''i'lllf'lr lr~l1'nwiqul' tp:uis tn5]1115)
26. I need nu: :!:st:L!n the Amc.'llia.fl t"ftEpfr~ in 1!M l:,,.,)l, :l.~! have 01m:1.dy ni>fD'I<!d my ~w~ ,,p.>W
it in OIW J4-i9 (.1lso :!'lH.J07. 308. 6/) with 315-17}~ ~f my CAJ! .:.oo 1'\J/\E.. The 'Milmi;;.-.1
worl;' on dt(' O:lilfM<" i;.nm" !uucll Mi.'lggs .tlF. = 111r ,o\lllcno~l r:ml'i'' ( IW.!j. ~ mtJOT i:Jcr.i:
of wtll h\'1': (,llll rlg~. l !law Krn mly nnro more ncon b,,,,~o:, c>n rho.: ~bj~"' 'Wolfgl:lng
S{hullc1. Dil' Ho>1:uh!ll ri,r .'!:llfll(t ill f.~Rfi!rlnidnrt S.-t!tunti (11~alilliN<"W Yod., 1974). ()n
this l.>I:Luld p<"rb;~p~ rLt:urd rht ;udgmcnr vi 1}, 1\1. lewis, mIlls !~"Vll:W in Cf.? lil ~ n,,,:;7
(1977) 2'J.~:il~'l: 'l h:~w l~:trul vitr,1;;tly nothing lr:.::, :, .111d hnn-y s.-IJom ror.h~ to.H!;ff<'l'l."m
concl\b:l."'., 011 ;m is.wc from tlut ~nru!y 1\'.IC!>..d by Mrigg1 Sd;:,lkr'~ :mbsequcm (:c11d. quit!!
shon' r<>::ogr[Jb, I'Jir .Sr,,.lloll> Tynrm1- :\l;lr>li 1-lm;;.:.,,li lllll'1 ~iJr llto..i~.-.-.w.w.iJ (KiJmot:au..
)97H). ;;CCI\~ 1- In<' IV l-.:1<'<' lli;<ifllji btbhor.~:.,~h.iol y,1l~..::. ,'\ j.l'l\."'ft ,!,-~( :h:lt '::t bt'O:" ,.-,irl('U
againMtb:lm:;:iticu [ 1.~\'r ~kpiC'",I t>:bo"lS nthlo"r upi:J misr~)l'~5~1lOhan (111u::l~~' llli,.; itlllil<"tr)
of th,l1111<' :vid<:uo: w. )o,;n.,. ;,r t~><n .US:nissal "' }';tt6.>i>l' ;:ofit.. Th"n: i~ .~ ii~ ""''uJlir ,,,thl.' f....mncr to:tdu.::y :i.n n r~-c~n ;~rtid~. "lrw rT>JII(m at M~tibu:', itl lli!JPria 25 (1'17lo)
42C)...41 i. lv U [) W::;.rlak~. a sd1ol:t1 "'"" h:tS to:..:.. I.:- ill:''.'<'l.~ll~dnl .;w,!r.bttiO:.>IS J<'. f:fiitc.:ntut h~$tlT}' In 01'11' 41.11 [ <'trlpiu~~;t t!u! in tb~ o._.,. .t M~ilou' m 4:!7, :to i>l ~:111)1
other~. wr! .~;llt s.r '!lo l:t~rl.tcf <litT<~uce C>f;;ttih:dt tow:11ds tbc iHItcrhl city htl\\'<!l'lllh: n:liui;
w_
Few
:&1~:1chr :=-~
oi i:;..vn...:-1.1;;; nt::('':''
r:otmr>Jtin~t
on rhe
mutiw~itl11:
,.cry.
Mv!ll,u;w:m
denu..s (il\ Titur liL272 :. ~.1). I 1'"~~1 111 It"! 'it wu.dli he
3imrk-;,j.,;kd t ..
intcrJret rhcir or~ uow;cdin!.-: drm;md (kt oljt:'lb'raJ,!j~n:hmll ,,fr.J,,Iitrl!: rrmainin~ foo1d} :u
thl.' Sttn> wr;d ,-,f wh:.r th('y \\",lllt.~d. TI!c (;~ct tla~' tb. l\olynlt"<uar.llt ulig.-arcln. .lui 1r01 5 til ~
com!lv wuh dt<~f
vn~.
a..,J.Mr "'>(LI~l hm itonmtmcm!y 1-Utfl'ltoil'to;l.! .ti;...-:~!t1t>ll.
_ ~ J
sufficit:ut iuJi.:atimr !ut !In f<toi.. 1!10: ti;.c .km;~.,;l of rh~ <l~:ncos ~~ me.: rb.,ltiU i:;.<o: ''llht'.
and rcabs...,d tlliit !_j,,. ].,w.::! ci,,;.;.:-~ "'"''I ,,r,r be rdlctl <'!ICn !<> ii~br, <'VO:II if th~: liH dc-~rr-.Jild
Wl'FO: m..-r '\V..~rt:.kc:o. who o!b.!rwi(' i~n:'lh.'> \b:.t I h..\'t .,..,,,!1<': ~buUI tb.- ~'volt .I<'I~S ni
brit'ft)' .ll >Ill" JN"IIll I( rloa ri~1o1 xllt('JKr I iLw, ja~t 'l""r.'l :l>oJUt r:u ;uu!iroy f:m OJW
(supprt'ssing rh, S~'t"'."ui. wind .~Ap!:ains. 1111d j1Wll\H it); bur hr hlatui!~ tb~mi.,_.-, i wuh ri~<
words, 'Am>rJill,'i' 1;) ];,,,.,,;idr'>. rh,y r.~ b ..-.-:otu. tho.:~' Wc:'U huu!_!:rr' (131 ~ 11 12. ~~~ i::o.liu).
In realit)o'. that tb. dnt)l~ t><k !hr )tc-r dwy .U.! lotr-r:. tlr.-,- .,.,.,,. h:....,.,;. ~ r::~~r wh.tt.
Thut.)'lt<lrs oloJa oir 3.l)', ~hito)>lj;Jo ,_,j.n.ou:"' It, .-nki .:.~i!.- h.w., :lo.>W ~o, h;,,t iti)('I!IJ;I f:hr' (.-i
only lfl ..:!7.!). Whar !::-duo s..v h dloltlh~ .km:.; 11)/J rl1" men on pouon !t:.o: :l>.~y w.&:n~.:.t :J;;:o
rcmOI.ITIIU)~ .-.:ntc<l!<~ iih.tri o\ltt :atll<-'~tt; <'l'l'l~'l.l>e. ,,, rl;' ~h<'Y would th,,.u;dvoo coon.- to tr-nli
wuh Athtn,o an.lll:cu.t rvot tho dty WC'S~bi..,,. I>li~lt~t:ati<lr.>iT~J;I,o-.li;!~.; (f"r du: ~ wbr it
IS) b-.~ tbL l'SSt'nial l!tl>tltlll l<l ISS!"'' l :tSllllll:i gratuilou.fy :h,ct -,vj,~t ! \VI!!Ii \(..,' .>i Jo
perf,,th l::wra!ji;r "'C':'t
1hr p;:n
c:~: d1p;u Hjl{OI"liC."d iu wl4 .lr)C'ri"'" N(~ thr
Jem:>~<, wh1;h _...,ui.i h!v~ it.t<! r.u l'arlin l!'t'uru:m:)' tt> :.rg;,.,i.;~ ar ...h: 1:.~~ Jal t>."Gint" a hi.-(''
act ht <:>n~n (tuh' ch~ ............. ;.~-.;...-in 27.3) iar t!t. fbi tlmt' lr '.'lr)' .;~m.i~ly ~.:: l~>r\'.'"41<1
two .ilh'n:.&l~\-: d~~r.J!i, ,;..:crcy r:;,:-.:-.~Jn~r !~f u1:4in .JbJ~t:tt\'~~,. at'~'' !I t:mn~: thoi( ';'1/Jt::t
were ,.ur,~llly ~'-'r..ff'n~~ .t~JI.ll th~it ,-,..rn h.uuy...~ . a.tt!d~ ~h(J;~ '"},,, .u::t~.lll,: dr.t'ir~.-i.;. i.tJt ::"t".d~! tc
Athct1i. rn-. nilrri':iv~ "-:-tc~url'';Jd,!"Sf i'h'f'1' ~ d&:::il !ta;iic:)ti6t: tll.lt :, "''~ rh: a:1nt:.-:i ~r.r,~:tt th:('
rt.::.Jhr llld~h"r"tt Wt CJl! t\of. loi:.n ,-~!- da~~.
!..... t
'"''''
diTr~~ r~P.!:lri.i. fir;.t.
ch:: i.dtt1rn;nun :.tf rt~::"'
Notes on V.ii (p.290)
604
demos did not_i'JSt S:'}'. u one !:a~h: h.tvc c!<pn"tcd. 'Dh!l' u~ !h~ food, or Wf' won'r fighr'; the
alternative was wry r.u;..-h strot!!:-"r: ttr =-~ ;.lt;~!E b;~ro~y :ilr :il} '. ,6, nd secondly, the oligarchs
could perfectly wdlltW<' t.,l-..1.'J !h.- ::ntn<:di4~ !!oblem by o:ompl}"ing widt the first alt<:mative
(a very rcasona!>lt< (ltu in itsdi, .t.s i.- .i.nKJS wen pnw being :l:dced to fight), had they not
realised, as they L'VICkntly i!l.l, th.\t rhr- iuiti~l.km.mol '''n only u1 opening movt, and that it
was the second :tlttrn.tuv, >l~>r;, w!n:1! "'";u(.! ~~.t:sfy th.- Jolllmant section of the demos.
Confronted with 1"'0 ;a!tem~r;,.~. thty did:!~" Nnlpiy, J~ d:,,y cc.uld have done, with the f~r
ltss unplt11sanr first o"': thcr a.W!':d c~y !1~1 w ~~;:r;>r tl: ~-.:o:,J altt>mative. terrifying as n
was to their Jeadi:Jg.nw:.tbus (2li.l), lt ~let('~ ~t:u t~ n11 si:nplo:-nnndc:d' not to recogpist' that
this is exactly wbo~t ThuqnliJt<s ;nte,.,.!,..! tc unHy: I tird mn:nbiguity in ir. In OPW I was
roncemed to m:ok. th, ,-,.Jd po:pr tlt:.4 ,,n :his .x:caDOr (~~ m ,., n~ny others we know about)
'there were two ;listtnl'l !<1~'-':p.. "'ith twu W!"}' duii:r~m miturl<"s to revolt: one was determinedly hostile t Ath<'lts. thr mh~r ilni:t:n~:nl !I! :i.,;ltriJo~ lor :a "fnx-dom.. which would
benefit not thems.!v,-;. l>m tiwrr r.tltn' {d. II."' abo'"). Wc-Jt!;ok.c h;;;s porn ted out that there arc:
several cases in whi.-h Tinrydrd('~ -...m~tl' to providt> ""~' ck1: i:u!d:mcc on a question of some
substance': his wvurrd <'xpbt:uion :~ .olack ofinform.&Ci>JIt Thucydidt-s" part. So it may
often be, and so :r
br. v;-:l in this ns. Uut Thucyd:d< \:lka;;,:s arc sometimes due to his
justifiably assumin~ 111 his '"-'lllt"nll"r,.ry r.&,i.:-rs ~....,wt~dg which may not always be
immediately aplt.~F<'JII tn wq'<l!l\' now:aJ.~~-s. (Au ,x(:.:Ucrit <'Qrnplc of this is his failure to
specify the Pdor<>:m~~r ut<' !tlh At:t<"J. i:. H!. '':: wl:kh 51'<' my OPW 7 n. 7.) Thucydides
shows throughr,U! hi$ wrk "" :tw.or~mss ith.~ den.ag ,.,,dun many cities of the Athenian
empire between uppt"r dsrs who ""':-:. rl..--r)lly oppo:<t-d w Athe:tian dominanet and oth.:rs
who t'lthcr preferred it (rn;uul:-, I l>c-Jirw, 1'<'0!1\\" t !ltr. <ktnocncy it might make: possibiL" for
them) or wen. at 1.-:.st n>.Jiitt"r<'nt d">Ut u .u:.t di,iudi::,-J !o r.sut ~~- He knew perfectly well
that this was cootn1vr knwl.~l~~ '1111"'~ th c.iutt"d ( ;r,~lo;, tlu5 day. who would notnt>td
to have the snuatiun ~pdt lil i<>r thl ''1 e,,ry ""' o~stt>U. }i~ ,,mJ,l wdl alford, therefore, to
make Ck"On gin- .vh;at hm rl"dci.-r.> \A'.:uii J"<rniw :;s ;. u;i~r.~r"lllntauon of the facts about
Mytllt.'flt' (111.39.(o), ,.1111'<'1:< hJal :;uiflnrttly n>UIIh"tr.J CIL't>n's ~l:ttcmmt in advanc.: (27.2 ru
28.1) and was to r,UJicuc bi~ n.orullv'' wth ~'' !'\'~n mr. '~"rhr.lt passage in rhe speech of
Diodotus (47 .2-JI I mu~t :~dr.lt!t.iot w,-,.d..Jo.:~ arti.-J, 1:> "' l,..,;t , ..... ~ much better than rhos of
Bradeen. Legon .ln4. -Ktt. 77. [It Sffms convmimt to
add a reference h,'t',. tu .1 ''"' y courageous :111,1 tll<'llj;btr"""kit~ .ortidt> by Gillis, which I saw
only after this se<'tiur: wo&.~ tinishc:d: 'Mur,fn ,,,, M,),.s'. i" l.,lilllto I.omll;mlu (Reml. Lt'lr.) 112
(1978) 185-211.]
27. Sir MosL-s Finley, tl\ ~~~~ disappointing ch~j'tcr (S), ~nw !ii:!l-<.ln:ury Atho:nian En1pirc: a
balance-sht.'~t'. 111 ,..,,.,.,;,diitllrt: tlhlln.-imt W.riJ. ,.,f I'. D. A. l-;:&rnsey and C. R. Wluttaker
(197!1) 103-26, say~, "Ill<' ptmlr. i" rlw \W ~,,. UIM!ol I-' ~Jl.:Lify hvw thl." upper classes could
have bc.:n the ~hid 1-.n.;tin.trk~. A1~rt ii...n rh, .. ,~,lru;ll~<nt pr.,r-tty in ubject terriruri.-s,l
can think of nothm!t th.r th.&n n<'!;.IIIVI' )>.,twtit> 1123): IJ, s.:<:111 t" have: in mmd principally
freedom from high IJlCitt"n llur h~n .u ~o ,ft<'ll. ~ J.:latr.-.- .uthl~urth-<'cntury evidnce can
be illuminatmg. For rxo~:nrk. ( li A~.-inn I lil7 all~~ th:a1 'fumuhus had secund the post of
archon in Andros (dllub:l,~~ ;lmin.: riu s.-:.,i"l V.' :..r ,,;.'>:;J.,;) i"' mr..ms of a bribe of 30 mmac,
.a sum whtch hr bJd ll'\rrt>\w;l ,ll iH pr n-nt. "I hi!. n;,,y f ,<:>urn !>.. a basel<-ss s)andrr, but it
suggests tht tht Athtmau .~rch,n <t( ;1 lo~r~, ,.J.md ,vru in tit<' mid-fourth century (whm
Athenians could hlTJ!~ 'tltrt'"" d11iJ w~:i~lu ab.ut' ~s JIIU.-It .:.s in the fifth) might expect to
make a substanti<ti pmfiL. ,,,,1 th~t 1111'\' wunl.i nt tb>nk nunro~,;o:n01ble ifthis wcrl." t'Stimatcd
at well over hlf .1 r~l,ut. AuJ {l:) ~;,
SC ;Jllll.l5.:' . .'\u,lwu.u (the Anhtdographer and
politictan). who h.t.! b.,'lt Ath<'"im .1r.hun ,,i Ar.:o::.ill<' '"' .'\mot,:os dunng th< same war,
gains the valuabl. rnvlo.~ ,,j l>o.'t'.. mlll!f hr... hrllry Arho.m.ln rr'lt'I'IOS of Arccsine. a post
whkh might be b.:th fil!;.ll"ll:y Ju,uuw .a1d l"'hu.aliy <~dv~rm.,:-.us: sec t'Sp. S. l'.:rlman. 'A
note on the politk.\! 11uri.-~tl-'IJS <>f l'~''"'lli.l iu til r<mrth ;:"J:ul) 8.C.', in CQ 52 = n.s.~
(1958) 185-91. Thts. w;~ hi~ "'\':lrr.l tlr 1,-,,.linlt Arc...,;im mCl:l<'f. it,-.. ofinter~-st, with which to
pay the garrison {:altuit .-r:_.,,i) ,.,.,,J. ino.1:kut.tl!}. hy th, .tllllJ syn~drion: \et" lines 24-5,
with 156, lim."S 9-12} f~tlt.r 1\rh.:tl~l:l\'c~~oar> :md phmurarchs, r,rhc fifth century as wdl
as tht' fourth, rna)" ,,,11 h.:.\, ld.ltotl d .. opportunity r. lend monty r. the ciri.:s they gowmed.
at a handsome rar< iilt;:r-.-;.: ..\ur.ir,>Uon had also 'r.ut 1:t.1d: <~ m::.tn<'cofhimsdfto ciuzensor
visiting foreigner;;':
w~ m:u;;uJI ;::ur:)t ;tttn<.t w:nment, and reward! I must add that
"'"' !'
r,,.l.
t":
Notes on V. ii (p .291)
605
what Th'l:. \'!llA!$.6 !:a~ u: :::md i~ , ... !dl!ll~l~ w p;;.nicular (because of the words rroprnTir~
ovro~ "'::.i 0.7r,-)'rlric< ,;,.. ,.,..,;;,, ''i> 6t)lf~) mu!..!oau P'"JlCised and carried in the Assembly by the
KaA<< ~,uf!ori he. B fll.lkh:;; l'hJfllidlus r~fir to- a&r..-iy including such things as appointrnmts
of e~d n:h, 4.< ;>fdtans, phrourarchs, amb.au:uion etc. This makes it unlikely that 'the
acqu~itt<>n of property in !'<P.Jl :~itmio rdi-.ua\ to by Finky (scl' the beginning of this
notl') wa~ il Thucyd;,!,,' >aiW ,;.i:~n he Wh>~t' Vm.4l'IA But of course such acqui5itions may
nl'V<'rtilk." h;.n grcntl~- \,.ncii!-.~ mdni,(".:.: J\,h,mans. (Here I hold to the suggcstions I
mad\ II 01'111. m ~~:tr -f~~.~ :ummmts ,;:.! F-..111~:. ''P- cit. 308 n ..37, who gives a false page
refetmn !<J :It<;! l"""k :?.;.'> in~r:-:.;i ,;:.; H-'.) Sitl<'r d;r lin in 'Table B: property abroad sold by
Poll"t.:.i" by W K l'n~.d.:.:
H"jfl !5 ~ ~~-~{) :n1 ~ necessarily iracompktc. I g1v<' here for
con\".-oic-r.c~ ~ !i.l ;;f ;t)! d;c- p:~s>.&g.:s <n;:rrm,,d th:tl I :taVl' blm able to idcnttfy in th< 'Attic
Stelot!' ;<tbli$lKd bf P!i~chctt m U.,;pcrio~ 22 (1953) 240-92: Stdai nos. IL177-9, 311-14:
IV.l71l/?: VI ..H-.f., IJJ; VII 7S; Vlll.J-~. ;_7 Jll<! probably 8-9: X.I0-11 and conceivably
also 3Jo6 Th, qtl.llltll~' Jf prc,p.:r:>' "'' Ettbo-..;. ownd by proscribed Athenian~. at Ldanton.
Diws.JJJ\<h_;c-n!S!(>S (II ;n.;, ~~ 1-14; IV 17-:.!1/!). mostly by Oionias son ofOionorhares of
Ate..,. l'l.lY l.~ du. h' r!u 'f'(:m"' t">l.t'.\-:n IHh<'ns ;oucl Euboc:a mentioned by Lys. XXXIV.3.
Othr \f<'IIIS ~f rmr-<:":ty mrs:d. .o\ai~;,. belonging co the proscnbcd. were at Abydos.
Ophr.-rll'in:J, Tbams '1-r~.i Or..o:~
28. Sec Plu~ ~lr.;,r. l3 (4,.'CI_r...79)~ n~~tc. UoJi". 4 (-i.S!'I '" 457); Arist . A.th. Pol. 25.4 and other sourcrs
(462/ I). nl' ::unsr:r:~q: of .4/iiJ.--.1'9 wili b~- d~.11! '~ith by Davtd Harvly. 'Thl' conspiracy of
Aga~l.l' ,ml As.:h;u,-s. ~~ .tmck to k puhl,,.h,d iJ;:tly m Phoenix. (I am grateful to h1m for
kmcily ;oli.w;r..: til" to ll'lli;. ,h.::f: ,,f,h1s P-'l"'' l~:fi;r. publication.)
29. This il' lll.t<k ;k.tr !oy .4\ril , 11:.; V ..J, l.~'-l~7 rl, CS.l' 11-1~. a passage which is all tht' more
imp..-.tant 11 :h.n ch. ;.fnuu :n r\rt>t;-d,--, :\:l 1''1 29-33 is totally differ~nt. Thr Politics
pass.a~t. trf' J~n,: tho , J>l' ;)j' th: f;)ur I IunJr..:J .. ~ ~ d:.~sic example of revolution procur.:d by
dt'celt .m.t I!>JII!f.tr.eol h}' (,,,,:.~, ~ $Jr.-ly 1-.a~..lur<~u i bul'yd1des (whom Anstotlc never one.
quor,,; toy naru< h,:r :M,(uf r,,..,,,. '""'!.d. 11")' .'\Ill';. fur although Thurydid~sdors not say in
so rn.my wr,b. tlut l'is.m,(,~ & c ... oli.J no..'l. n,..::d. om 1hcir rcrum to Athens in the spring of
411. th:.t thqr lmn\' thr.:- w.ts. now uc h"pc <f ,,t>t;oumag money forth< war from tht King :u1d
PharnJI.uu~ _,,,if Tis~.lpllCIIII'S,
l:.t...-illtt rred to be a broken n:cd, he dearly takes
this tin grame,i_ .tiw tia;ll tb.- ~i~r.-J.:r ,,,- rl.: 'iJ.tHan-l'ersian treaty concluded in about April
411 CV!IL5g) w.as ll<)t kll.. ~\11.&1 Ath.u!o>. l"h;. "''"
lCCOUnt, on the olh~r hand. ha~ only a
bnet l!!t'llf!Clll !JJ '!:-'. li .,f _.,, Ad.,.,,i:moxpo..-:;~l:<ll'th.ot the King would fighc wtth th.:m rath,r
(thaJJ rh SJdll.tll:~> J, if1l1..-y !'It tit,ir ,,~r:~cih:lt ,., it;to 1~1e hands of a few'_ I would suppose that
it wa" J<..l<flflp!; th. ,,......,.h i t\ntiplooJ~> lit fti,...:Wolokti.-::. (so much admired by Thucydides: see
VIlLi~. i2) .Jil.i/or th,- .\trhi. ,,f Androtion (;..,n of Andron, a kading mcmh<'r ufrhe Four
Huno{r,;l; wlud1 CIIJ<i.- An)turk ,h.ong' h1s miud ..1bmt the coming to powcr tf thl Four
Hun.b,J (1'1~ bc-h.-r'th.J: Akt""'l:~ nuj!latl,.. ;lbk to nving Peman fmanaalassistancc over to
rhe Ati~ni:ul suk '"'"~ ~,i,f.:r,tly h\' ml~.:-:~1 01~ fv::lb ar the time as ir may now appear to u~.
for <'Wfl th, htghly lntdhg<'llt lhr.1~yhul1!\ l:dd 11 S\'C Thuc. VIII.81.1; and cf. 52, lira,s 2')-JI)
OCT. wbcre Thucy<h,fo rr-''""~ Th"'l'h,r.h ,.,, very ready to b.: pcrsuad~d by Alcibiadts
ro lx,~ut' tl,.- iij,,,d ~f ,'\then>.;
30. This~~ nhiJ a c-.udmal tiln l.!iJ uur ltriul' it out suffiCiently m my CFT. rh<' argument of
which It suJpmt. ilt i" ~),.,, vrr~ :J.uno~.!(lllf. to the th<-ory of l~hodcs, mmtioned below. o~s I
shall <'Xpl!lit.l Thr~ JJ'l' rw<> ~ully imp<>rtdl:f pass..1~es m the admirable account. in Thuc.
VIII. :'iJ-t ,,f tlw A;s,N~ r wh1< h i'~isander pre!>t'nted his proposals on the first of his two
VISit!> h> .'\dur~ it 4!.'- \I. thl ''"' ~11 (probably) January 411. In 53.] Thucydidcs makes
P~iur..t.:r Sf'\-'-k ,,f ... mun lll(.i,ar. i.rm lli 'll'titution' and 'n1mmiuing to a few the
oftk~ irlw cO,\i\'1) - not, I would r-mt um. tho t~.:mch1sc. Thucydid,s rh~'ll r.pm;c.'tlts
Peis;uoJC"r ,., ~:.-m;; rll;tt :_;,r,: '-'" ir wdl 0.- r,..,,iMo !;"us ro chanfll' ba,k a)lllltl, if w~ an not
compktcly ~:islil.':l" (:'i~ .htitl): :md I" 5-~. L i'f.""-'k ;11!: on his own person. Thucydidcs says that
rhc demos, 1hhm~h .. ~ iir~: they di,-i uot ..r .t!l hkt> what was proposcd about au oligarchy,
nevrthd,.,., !!'~H' tn ,..:,'l~tu..,llv. beitli; .o.;.;;l::.:-;1 b., p,\:;.;.nder chat there was no other m<ans of
salv:mu. .;rod h<mg in J .;1 41<' i t",.ar. aud ;,: :iw ,.,..,,_.urn, expecting too rhar there would be a
chan)io" lo:.;i: ,;,:::in'. The ,;.t~uiif,-,,.,., ::;; ,', .au..i ,.,.,._thl,tira< m 54.1 show that the Athcnian
mas.'<:> mu,~l!l::,lth.ui d:m!!~ '''O:J:~ 1->Jdh' tl:;-,. .,,,;,ul;! I'C abk to vote rhc dlmonacy back uno
exist<u.-.: 11g;un: til~ ilolk.:-!1!1 \!111.67.3. w1thArist .. Ath. Po/. 2lJ.5.lu
':t
"'""i.l.k>
rl
606
Notes on V.ii (p.291)

t:.u:t jr .,,.~),. .m<!th,r r(".rol;~~":m
""''i'
t<l
g,t r:._! oft.'1~ t;;:.u: Jhmdr(.J,In which 'many of those from
l'<tr~<':.l~ rb':'<'<i 01 p;~:t.

dw b&.Jir uf th ha?h!rs: ~Ill}' CFr 9. P. J Rhodes. 'The Five
Th~t:~:alld iu !la,'.:b:u\o\IH'")!,I:oonC..f41 i B.C ',&njl-fS'fl(l'Jl~) 11S-27. at 121 and 123-4.
p:;<frs. h.b. <)Wn fam:i;: w tl11 r.Jornl:le .:.fThuqd:lk~. h~ ijuggrsts that Thucydides 'ought not
~o be ~qr.ud::d ;u mfallible', :b.;,~ Tha;:ydi&l~ 'm:oy h:w1: bo::rn wrong' - and of course
Thlcydid~;ltd. t" t'l( .,.,:y 'iV:"'JI'l~ ,fUhr.J.-.\ pi<::m is ro ~:and. Given rh._. chmce between
Thuq;lid-es ;m.i R.il.(d~s~ \W mU!;! t::-.tu~ttaringly pnkr Thu;:-;d:des. It is a pity that Rhodes
paid nu .lttC'f)fl<>n at ;l)! !u :hr passages l haw tmplwt!t:d i1 l'i:uc. Vlll.53-4, which show
d.:.1rly the m01.>d ut' rh.- dL'll!."~ at the beginning nf :h-:- ev:-:u~ in 4; 1, seen again in the narrative
in VIII.'j1."-1 I, 'IJ, q1.1 I wc.ul.! ago.in empharis'! r:,~: In the; c.io:d~ivc: episode- in the struggle
:~g:un..: th ~lttt.lrdts. :rom.lf th~ tk>rruction oft!!-: ...-~ilu Efn:l'l.l, 'the hoplitl'S and many of
rho!l<. fmm th, P.-!l'acus IJI:t' n.mar;U!y ~p<>k" ~f do:-u h}.'{~;,-~ ;,~ :he coming to power of the
hw ThmJ>;&ttd r11he~ th:m hill d~'tuonac;.r ~mpl~ ff.~n prudena: and the fear rbat 'rht Five
Tbn~urJ" ~M111 m:ktWI> ~nd act1:;.;ly !tur.-.-x:<tcl!l) mght !:Jl" ;,bl.- :o take power and frustrate
thm ('.i,!.1(!.l 1}. 'fhq were '::fnill', ~>"' Tlu:rydfrln (9'1. :1, li1c 7 OCJ). 'that th" Five
Th<.>Us;tml n-.1!ly C::oil~h-..f .,m) tha~ ;tltyc>n<' (fley .spoli.~ to might br ~ member of that body.
Tltu.-ydid~-;; '"'IJ:hrl)l il;od :: :iotak :h:~l riws-.~ .vho wc:re :N'iillntt t},,. Four Hundred. or at any
Uh thr )Zr:lt bt:lk. of thc~ltl, !;;o,i Ill) kmlo,r!ring fu o~nurlrcr lit.. rhy. even if it consisted of
;,fll~l.lttJ W;i!;. th.-rcim<' ,,.,.,,C! rr.:O:'oi;:v ,,....ed rha.. il.:.- f!\i$lif>~\ :!:<HOW oligarchy of the Four
llun,lnd.
31. S'-'\" my CFT. h\ :!u~ r''"l;~-;!mg nu:~ ~ ha?C nll:"h!lc.nn! OJ!t' ~~';oC:Ol! why the attempt of Rhodes to
~nb..ntut{' ri dtiiine::t pl<t~~ for th:;: ofThlcydtdc:> :>a failu\". I may be abk to dlal wtth rh~
'U~II'\.1 L....-wh,rt ruhn HIOT<" fully ikt.- I w:ll mi ;\,ir! tho~t there is a patent fallacy in
Nh,,J,.,.'s alftt!>J'I t . ""pl;oin .<w:ry Thnr Vlll'i7.:!. H~ :.J:uitA (ll:!) that! am righr m saying
rh.ll 'h \"'<)ht,xt> ~i this kind rh~ !\ohrly ;~r 111 ;>:ty ki."'.d o: Nlmrnc:l maJority but spcctfically
th" lvwc'f d.~~,...,; ((f. ll.h" 4~>W). hlU I" rh..-:: Cfle':S ~~ u,,,.,.,,_, ,.,. ;..i,tln dis;~,trous cono;equmc.-s of
thl" adnus~rJn. Although hr n~1.s my gau="i nH"ffr~oliom. ht' canfully refrains from
JI:IVlll~ lu~ '-'"''''r.an,.!:,rk >f Vill:.,17 ..?; :ml h' ~.i~ U)l wi:b :t 1"\lflt>l.ls picture of a constitution
h.I'IIIJ! 'oi.n i,;~turo (:h.lr:..,r.-ri.~t( {.fmwri:uti~n~ ::1 :\it~ l"~w,r I<> t!tc Few' (in rhatthcr. was,
.1> ht thtnks. ";~ pt>J:li"'rt}' ijll-ili!li:~;i,.., {.., ;,,::(iV~ ~-lliiC'"SIHp': :1:.- hophtl' ,ensus), and 'OIIl'
.-il.lrJ."tri~h t".-;n~tmnun~ j!:IVtug powtr to 'Jt> l\l;m/. whir!tltt~ proc.-.ds to identify as 'r~a/
sor,ere(~nty in th<" h.m;b frh, assembly r~th.- th;;u 11!.-: b<uk"li.:!J. t!y italics). Thts rewals the
fatal wt>akness mltht>t!t-s's posirion. T~:, tii\1 f<~c:\IT<",t!t.- "dl.II.Alistiofconstitution giving
P<-'WI'r t. rh, F,w tt!t;~ is. the allcgC\1 proptmy q:r...h:;:-J.:i"" ir ~hncrase of pohtical nghts).
woul.i bt r-.rt<.:tly J.!l ri~lu, il ir w,re ~ fact. (Ot" ,,,ur;;,: I ,t .. 11<1 i'<'licve then was a property
qualifical!.n f<- !lufnndm( m.:ij. rb l"l';r::OSL' oi bJI"~ ;~oh:ic.1! rights, although I agre" that
being ar l:t.~l .a l>opht, w . t(t.altti.~u'"' iN .-x,rn.;.ira~
day-to-dlly control of the
operation <f rh, Jl".lici,o~l systttu. i ""
Tb11c. Vlll.97.1.) Hut Rhod~"s
'charactlrisu,- .,f <'on,rihrt<~:'5 ~;ivlt>!!
t .. !l!,l\.tany';s .-...-.m,kely bogus in rhis contexl.
Tit\." -..ir.tl ta.-c, whkh \\Tc.-ks lu~ interpretation (lout >~ (..&!>!.- tt <~(:JJ'C anyone who doc:~ not
scmutt"'' th,,tr~tUmtur.-.ar.-t.lly), is that tb..- Asu,;hly. ~ ;~r.
sovertignty' ofwh1chht'
l:..y.s ~:,,ss, '' rallis pln:;t,. '' tr:&i~l" '''.r11rrhi "-"-"''"hili. r,mtirrcly .-:.rludm.r all th Tl&etes
wh<l I~ !11!\' l>t:,rpr,:;~rin:a (t'\'i'tl hs 1Wn) mmt innu :at lt-:tu rh, iulk ofth Many! In r~:aliry,
then. nla~~ lllt:rpr<'tatton, th M.l!l~" (r .11 .;t\). ' ' ' ' th< hulk ._,,d,.. Many) get t&olhitl.l! whai(Ver.
Oi <~>u,.,, it could b. said tb:.r ~~~ !i;:.. r.hy wlhdl 1lloWf .. Urh.- e>lagarchs son,.. say is 'more
dcnn,:r-~tk" .&t I.:.J.st it .-, l'i;:kwicki.ll' s.:n~. 1ia~n .m~ wind: "'"s up a boulf (like the Four
Humlr.-d) ;~10 Ill all-powrft,l :m~h"inty r,::~~~~~ w:t}no, thl" !m!:"'""' But this involves a refusal to
think ;,, !orm:< of Thucv;hl.-~
:Jml llrh:l\'. ;.'"' ) .l:t:'l'llllll.diJn ro ,;ubstUUl<' diifLTent
ah~r"": ;hg.IJdJ~ :..nd ,lur:~4y, wbicl1 ;:uu.-.... "Jlutt"Jltln might h.:lVe u...-d 111 'J7.2.
!>nt ,flJ ut Tlwr. is :mh mr '" lx s;&td r. r!tis qu,s:;<m. i:; f'".lrtJcular abnut the Significance
ofth. "',rd '"..,. ..,.r.~N. b,tt till~ masr w:~oit to: :tftothcr"'"'l
32. So.'i my Ol'W I-H. I 57. 3-U Th, ,l,-:-::is!\'..- pa>o:~ 1 :1". ~h.. wiY~~; rh11r. Lys;,ndtr was abl~ 1o force th
,o\thL!J!,Ub t<> >t"l UJ> rn, Tillrt).' ~\' :Jar,;mmu~~ !o> 0'1111li.h tilo'"f>l (d\>~l~tlt~S by mas l'11Sla VL'ffil'tll)
ll>T hrc':;l\int: th.- l''';o(\" (<'Jill>. by :~:.1 l'illimt: :i<>Wt ~h L,o;~~ W:tll~ ~nd rhc l'tira,us walls in
:t:n.. ~ Ly~. X11.7!-fo. '>1l 7-:; ~:d rf cwu !S7n.l~i.
33. i~ul C!&:fh(~ . L," r'.Jtt.n~;~~l:~ :i.;,.ar,,:r.qt .~ l\tl;,~s !'1: .,;;J Wr!tr~ J. -c ..- {1 1arts, 191 ~).
34. S.:~:. Ari>: . t\ri:. :n! .;O.J: l.y-.. XII S.'; X~ .. HG Il.l\'.l~~ '"'"'- Vllo"ax; Den1. XX.ll-12. The
:J,,arl\r ,;. :.i:~i-L.;~ui h~ (:1\f~t'. apo (L J-r,,.;.;:J_
f'i'''""'
"''"''!>"'""
q:;.,,,..,.
,,,,u
nw
nl
Notes on V.ii (pp.292295)
(fJ7
35. It wa o"iy afrer tlus ci1.1pt.:-: V..'H fuu~!-.,.,-d that rhcrt: appc:an:d an account ofPhilip II which must
now rank .as
i~.sl l(f..d m~ lllc:"ful t1VI:'I' aD, b; G. T. Griffith, in N G. L. Hammond and
Griff.d;, A Hi.11y of Maudo'"i", :t. S.l0-336 B.C. ( !979) 201-646, 675 ff. Griffith was not able
to
tttk<> lf.~'(l:m
(of IWQ c~rh.::r
books: J R.
8!H.
l'hilip ll and Muredonian Imperialism ( 1976},
whid1 ro'l;1nH ')OTTit: '>'Rhr ~ml (; L Cawio:'"~r.. l'ltilip of Macedo" (1978). r<'prt>sentmg a point
of view ''cry ditt!'llm! ~'r.:ml my own. 11o:" ~s: bock. un the Second Athlnian Confederacy is
Silvio ,'\cG~mr, L./w,:~mlo':\rdri W(. !FJI.C. (Rom". 1941). By far the best rcnnt discussiOn
ofthr Cm~f<:>J,u.cy i~ tbe ;!Octlci, O}' G. T. GritT!dt, 'Ahms m thl fourth century'. m Imperialism
in tbt" .1nrit'lll WoriJ (f,,, which irt n.l7 ~tl!''.'~) IJ.i-44 (with the not~. 310-14): this is less
inchr1,-d ~hln 'llJ.c"1S< modem tre:1m~u:s 10 ,tudg~ A:!::ms by standards much harsher than those
appii.;d tu oth1~r Grcd< nu.::~ (.:f. :uy 0!'11' 3J-4). For che tvents that occurred during this
perwd, f. !-1 M:or!'i-aH. "l~r ~m:tr/fZ ,-l.:hwiom um{E"krnq (l'JOS). although out of datt', IS still of
somn:~. t>;pn.i-;~ly :f tr.ld Wllil Tn:l. sc;prrr
.36. I cann.:l disr.uss rius h,r.:, l~:;: I '''~Y :.y t!l .: i IX"Iicw it was rht appearance ofPhilip m October
352 :<1 Hn:1ion Tcidto> (P~:-.. Ill-') :1m m;ad~; fitt:;osthcnts rtalisc how dangtrous he- could
be- h> .'\:h.~. fi:r he '1\...S !lOW m:.t"h i.~r!'hrr ;._, rhr F.~$: than he IS known to haw taken an army
t>~rJ:o,r . .JIId he ;;:c.uid b..: v.t.'li as ;; dJI'(':.r ~~ til, !W<> bottle-necks on thr Athem an mmrouto:
from ri:o Cnruc;~: tl:c ll;mi;~nd!o ~:It! rh.' O<JsVimrm (see my OPW 4H). That Demosthtncs
had n1t 'io\iii"t<"i~!rriy rottr:is.-:1 dtl' ttmscr ufl'h;IIJ ~rlier is tvidtnr lrom his speech XXIII.
whtdt inlf~ l'fe'S''m form seems ro d.u;- fmm IDl2
37. The- folbwmg ~; t!:> b1 c,( j;;;r.:og,;. r.<IJ("<"~t-.! t\ ,-,...,. of the most Important arc italicis.d. (I)
B.C. 3.89-'l ("i"hr.<~}'bl:i::. ;:: thr c:...tnn Aq;;c.'4t>). Xm . HG IV.viii.27-31; D1od. XIV.94 ..2;
99.4: Ly$. XXVIH 1--~.ll.l:!.li; 1't XXIX !-2.~/): .'<.IX. II; anJ cf. ToJ. SGHI 11.114.7-8;
IG W ;!4.-\ ;.5; Dn. XX.l.oi.l. (:?~ B C 375-1 (flfiMhcus at Corcyra): Xcn .. HG V .iv .66 (cf.
Vl.i1l): bon. XV_ f(;..'(.?'; i~.-Arist.. Otw- ll.u.~.~i. 135()']()...b4. (3) B.C. 373 (Timothlus'
S<.c~ml 1'.-"J':.-.,,s): 'Xn., H<.;VIl:.: :-1~: l's.D<'Itt XLIX .&-8. 9-21 (esp. 9-12, IJ, 14-15). (4)
B.C ,\;,; .. 2 iltht.:-r,.t..,.. ~~ C:myr"'): :~ . ., . Hf.; VI.:LJ'i (in spit<' offtOtalmts booty: Dtod. XV.
47.7: ,.f Xn. H(; VUl 3(): .:i. i.;lv~.:,,. Ill.i:o;;.5,; (;md JO?). (.~)B.C. .166-4 (Timothcus at
Sanws ..:11J 111 tholldlr~rul .:.:d:..-ml ,\c-.;ra1:): U~or.- XV. I 11-lJ; Ps.-Amt .. Oao11.ll.it.2Ja,
1]5f,.L~.Ifr. J,.._,!~.t~ Ill . 1. !il (S:IIIl). I.J o~ti! 1~rbps 1 (Oiynthus); Nepos. Timoth. 1-2.
(6) O.C. Y-2. Sc-}h>nbo:r. t.~3l:.t1. F.bru.\r~ (o\t'<lltoi<~rus' tri..-rarchy): Ps.-Dt'm. L 7-JS, l.l-5,
35-f,, H, 55-t; \i; H.C J.;t-S (Citato~ ;IJ;.l Ar!:.baw...): Diod. XVl.2212, with Plut .. Arlit.
16..\; fl,rll hP:\.-'; Sch.i. Dc11. iV I' m.i IIUi; n.m. IV.14: II.2K; Ae~chin. 11.70-3: lsocr.
VIJ.x..
cf. fk:n XIX.~32. (14) iS C. .H2-1 {Di<'~'<trhcsar th<l-ll'llcp<mt): Dtm. VIII.R-'1.
19 . .' [~. -k-7; 1':- i'm ;..;n \, Nlt ~.:-m:-ql; lk1 m 211; XVIII.ll4; XXIIl.M. 171: Atshin
w;
II. 71: x,n_. M.-.1r. iii lv :;

U<-.ShtzdT. SlilliiJf (, .-lt.li, ,.,.,, 9.~-'. w~th tho ''"tcs. 111.1327-1:! nn.2.~~.
31J. Sec n"~wvt.:d!. SEHNJJ' F"J ff. ,.,,., h~-15-. wl!t :lr( notcs,lll. JJ28--37nn.27 ff.
40. Clau.l~ Mou~. i...: Ft.o Jo'IOl d,',mo~lr arhenic'""' (!'.Jr~.. 19h2) 12.l-32. sp. 127-~. Th.- th<"my is
:~H. Sc:o:
~y Ao!st~r. .u~<l V::b!-N;olJioel. ES.II.\C: H!. but not quirt' fairly. for Rostovtzdfs
evi .l.-u.-. i~ ''''' u.nii,.C'o: ...!nmsr ,;:ru.-l)'. ;,~ :i~o ;omhors imply. to pontry: it indudes also
coi:r;., )1!\Wll:'r y. 111<"1-ll'~:-lo. !il.rs, to::.!iil:'>, ...,.;,,~ ;md oliw oil.
Ste- 1 1J~I<-. I ;,\t~ ~7. wh) ,rr tlausibly ~:;.11ou_.tcs oh;,~ 'bctwt'en .199 and 375 lJ.C. thcr wer.ne\'<'1 k,,.~ dt<tr .:!5,1,>iii_> t:~r-n;c;d~ >!' r<in ..<r.J later the 'lV<'rage nutnber must havt'
r~m.tiriC'd aixnr 5t.'.CN.-J'.
See-c'i' lsorr IV. !4t. !!~'I; V .Ui.LJ: Vi!l.1:; ~m! d. th(' pr~ccding not<'.
Pl.rtc. I..r:N 11~;; tb; 'f rh(' nc-~1 l'<:c- (44).
Jsocr Vlll.-l}..(,, d V. i:?\>-1. Epia. lX (:\.: :b!lrM-.! 1<- Hl; lkm. IV.24; XXIII.I.W
Forth, <!.tl r,.-:s .,q,,,,t:U;,;:' \\'hole attitude, S<~' i1a~ther on m the nuin text ab<.>V<" and n 5.!
C"nnosc.l
41.
41.
43.
44.
45.
bd\\
(i,,,,;,.,t ''' i;.>rg.OL>, .,,, lio>'mita: >X' Dtds-Krattz. FVS' II no.!l2. A 1 4

(from l'i:i!.>~t' . VS 1.'1), ,111i ll lJ.;t. Th!> >j':>rh 1~ ;'Nhably to hl' dated 3Y2: ~,.,. lieloch, GG
IW .\.521 ~ H J. irt an :l;l!<:;kioJ <kll.,~-rt,! :.: ~l~u. Gor11:ias also assntt-d th~t 'victories ovc=r
bart>:ors.o:l!> >1l~und ip:ms. b>J! ;J\-.:r Cn.'d;;~. dil'i:t-.:, and stnsstd Athem' VICtor!L'S ov,r th~
P.:f"'l;ttl~ fl:.;;o- li .111, tt.. I~; tfmm l'hi!::.,u .. 1:1id ), and B 5b Semndly, Lys. XXXIII
(l'sr ~ n. ~-''). wlu.-.!1 ;, J:;..~i J~ll by 1),.,;1. XIV.109 ..\ but i~ mort probablv of .~1'14: see
Gw::. HG
7it. 7:!. n.:!; !>i. }i 1: !. ;~{;(."f~l-~ to3ak Up thrs thtme m3HO, Jnd ll'tUrnt'd tn ir
ag<tin :mit .:~:trn \;:oTii hi,. ;:,--:lri! Itt 3:;~ ,-.,!it oil, m .i!o.~l, he wanr,d Adwn!> and Sparta jointly to
4(,. Ftrst. th: 0/~~,pif
vm
608
:c:ulth'l" -:rus~d.- (IV. ap. :~. 13-- lb. lH....l. 11\2. 185) In ~hdm: :m111 he may have had hop,s of
.:;i l'btr;,... ,,..,,. -.1 .l i'i; c_[ X,..,l., !-!G Vi.1. 12) [,, r .3til! hr Jppcalcd to Dionysius l of
Symncsc: (T;p{l I, ::sp. 7), ;.:1(1 m 356 to Kang A:rniwmu~ HI .iS?arta (Eprst. IX, ~sp. 8-10.
i7-l'i}. h.,:n ;;,;~J onwJ:ili iJ,. COIH.":'ntr;ir.::,i on K....ing l'i::hp II ui Macedon: from that year
CCOI<".d!!~ Ot,;(, v (!:<' op. '-' 12 -i!i. J0-1. 9->-7. i .!IJ-3. U6. nn); at.342 he wrote his Epw. II
(sr..- es;l I!). -'l!l'J 1:: 33R Epist IJ: {!~ c:;p. 5) CUsiln. XII i!>J.
47. Th~ h~~ tratm~nt ,,i :h~~ "::n!li IS snll G. T Griffi:h, 'Th.- <.:"1oo. DfCorinth and Argos (3'12-.'!!6
B C.)', i:l Uimr.'.z : (19Sil) ZJti...Sf:. Mt~r<" re~: .arti:k; h<on ;Id.il."l!: nothing of real valm'.
-1/:;. .\: tbt ,n:! .:'1'1](}, .:f~-.~r ~hi> ch.1tlr: will fiuislted, :ht"r~ o~ppeared whar is now the best book on
;-:.:1 y Sp;m.. P.o,tl Cotrtldr:c:-. Sp:l .::'.1. L:l..'l'n:J ,\ if.,~>i01Jt<:l i IHtlry 1J{)().J62 BC.
48. Sc.:- ~:.g Xn .. JIC, IV. <m.Zil; VUn. !.o. VH t. ~; rf. i 'i"d. XV .45.1 etc. F('Or particulu
C)<.~!l'J>Ic;;. h"C r.g Xt:r. .. 11G ill iv.l: V.i.J.~: ii.7. Jfi, i IIJ, Vl.ndl: iv.l!!: Vll.i.43;
JJ~:-K!. XV . .Ut 1-5: ..:~-'~-'.. ~u... ~-J c;c_
49. H P J.,~ol. 'Pbliasi;m pd:~(~:; ;m:.lpnlic; in th(' ,.uly fmmh (C':t~my'. in Historia In (1%7)
.'24-J7. -ll ~.\~-7 i.~..m s:mpl;- .;~~u:11o. w:thmu th~ !l.":llt iu~::rk.. :iun, that 'th!.' mizens' (ot
J.t>o~
""i-~ihcf) 1!1rj;, rm~ti>R<':! by X:t:"i'h~u (Ht-; Vllii. 'i-':1) H ~u<:tl?.4Shdly repdlmg an attack by
l"XikJi ~nJ. dl\:~t aU1-;::~ :~~ JtJ9. \4.-~r\4 :b.:"" "'hlj\ (:.._"iy q.j lbhas!~OS, \VhL"TCJS of COUl~t
th.-r, b ll<> 1!-.'lii :.-,suppose rh11t ~h<:}' w~r. r.:;y!hin~ bo!! t!! .li-~r;::h:o: body who were now the
onl~ ';uiut::; m the- full S<'t;:<c- (tl;~ J-~!iteuma). str u;: ~~ ;, !':':\lr ;;-f:la Spartan King Agesilaus'
lflt\~1"\'<'ll:!on w:o. !ITo Y<'Ol~) e.u lio:r (ci. '1:0!1, u;:- ':! . .132 --$).
oligarchs alone would be
anOJ<'\I.a~ b<Jin~~. lnd th,y u;ust bw mn:~rc<!.:\'o'' 1,\~'ij (k-.. X~n .. HG V.iii.I7)- more
dt:Jilc)('fJ.'n(
n"
th;;m enough ''-' ""1'1." ":h rt:.- ~m.til u;v:uiil'i! t..>U<" e1f! !>i~). :wfl though theS(' wcr~' ~idt'd
(VIf.li.5) by rr.urvr, in.s1:k rb 0:r- I~,,;,~ :t<I.I d:~: th, mn~l ~":-<111 rr<atmenr I have scn of
Phhasi"" polrrK. ll'lnhty I.. PtC<inli. 't!im,!c e il prnm~ nl;>~' di staro democratJco', in
,-\SNI' i ( l'Ji4-l 57-10, ,,,,,." ~ J.-al w1th d:..- \'Wt:t.' ,,i .'-'' J>.\c~ b.t~ a u<>lful bibliography on
,-...r ly tiurrh-~umry lhll\l~

50. h>r th ,.,.,J,n,";, (VIIC'r.:ia~ c:..lrdlib. S.'<' ~- M u ... ~,,..... Outp<St .oj Ht'llmism: Thr Emergence
if H,~.uk.t '"= rJ,.- Hl:.trk S.-o~ = Um. !i Ctlifo""" /':tWwrr.-..w Clew. Stltd. 14 (197f>} 47 tr.. esp.
i'J-to!\ !wnh l~i-.\4), Among .::1rii.:-r l'umms. s.:c T. l.,:l~o.hm. m RE XI.i (1921) Sn-9;
Htluu.u lkn-l'. l),, ) ~rannis h~r J, f;r:o-ci:,,; (Munkh. IH, ::; Ll !)..LS: II .679-81; Glou:-Coh.-n.
HG IV i.l7-I'J. S.... .dw.l..loo..by, n;,H Ill b ('K"Ilr.t'fll:n. N;,:.), on thl.' fragmcnrs of
Mcmn.\u,lns :l\.-'.l4
51. .X,n HG Vll.t4-1-1>: iU 115. m.;!.. J!; Dtod XV .7<.J
52. IGIF.44ii ~ SfG".\tri02J/1JtC.) + .Hi(.\JWI71H.: ):.<t,,op. SfG3 310n.7.
53. I~''l'r.ltl"' Will- tri;;rardt ;It nwsr dtm. lll'~ll'~. ;.rNr.:ud~ 1 <':l<h ....-...~ion jointly with his son
hr.ct. X v. i <J5. s,;.,. n. \'i( "IF 2-1:...8. 'l'h IWI 1110~1 tll,llllli:JIIIli! ucatmc:nts ofrsocrates in
any language .ar.: thlllk' ofH~~nl's. I!SOF.\4-J..t_,i: .nlll M:u.r M. M;rlc.le. 'Support of Athrnian
intellectuals filr Philip', :nJHS 1Hi (l<flt.j l~(1-1r:1.
S(t:&I!Ou fuks.I~[SG.
54. S::,. lr.>wnn. Thuc. V .J.!-5 {lt-.trtmt. , 4!:.! It C.).

55. I kut.~w .,; ,,., r..-lly ;;artsl~'tIJY L!(rt..-r:ol rn..ltmt11 .>l tins sub,l<'((. A. l':t~scrini. 'Riforml' ~ociali e
.iwisium ,h b.:ni aodl.a (;r....-i;~ dd IV"'-~~ a.t . ;,, :1rlm: S (19.30) !13-9R. 1s ust"ful only as a
milctt.:n ,.( fl).)ttri,.l; cf hs ( ru .. u Phn.,S{'<-iJh :l.-1tt Gr,oa i Romani', in Athen. II
(! )J,\) .VI'J ..J_-;, wh.r. ..1r.amthe inwrpretation .;h,-n hi ><l11Wtftho: s<urces urilisc.-d can be wry
t:&ulrv. Th1r ..ltc t\\''' ,:,,.,,i general coll~tio11~ nt' viJm(~ hy Jl..lvid Ash.-ri: LGPD and
l>iltrilou~i.ti ,/; tc'rtc tltl'd>lllo.l Gr;-, i;: ( = Al,"' ./.-!i'.-1;; ~.1. J<"ll .'i<!ttl::t' di T orinv, S<'t. lV .10,
Tunn. l'lt.t:>}. Aumn~,t thc ntr.~'h'!!t'lntl' iitnrth.,-:-,murr t':\rs m.nriomug both r.-distriburion of
l.an,t .mJ cm.cll.ttbiJt c)f .t,hr>- .Ill~ )1,-:;t. XXIV. ;.Ji !th< Athnm hhastic oath}; l'laro., Rep.
Vllf StS..(w, :;rl(,.; l..ru.-. J[[.l>~: V .7..k>od; IsCT. X11.1!>t:\.'l: :and I'" -Dcm. XVII. 15 (dted in
thf' mam u-xt :~b.wc. at th n,i ,,,- rh, paragraph ti.lll\\!in~ d:.' un._. from whil'h this note
.-.un~.\. I Ullbt not ~rep .lshl< II !Jsr th,later source> hh, lur I ~houid like to mentionJustm
XVI.iv ...? tl. {s~-~huw dll<ll.~'l .md tb,'o>.lth ,,iltJth..>>-' it C!'t'h' .."'G'~ 526 = IC IU.iv.!l (se<'
jj,,.., ?1-J} .:t h ,._.,.[~ tllld muury.
,4\s J:.:, :cs rhr fl .. n:m J'<'Iioc.lUio Chrysosrom could

COngratulate r!t UhC)Ji.lllol>,,;.::ci.lO:.\ &h;::r ~.1\\'~ JroWIJ~,I t;,r d:t !JI;~>t ;;tring~nt penalties .t~illnSI
both the praccices I !1.:..-, 1>...-u nlc'l>!iull!!of iXX.\.L'l'()). 1\r rh: r~.;!;:ribution ofland, s-c for
th. fourth (CTltury Ari,;lvtk. H>i V .s. Hii'ii4-17. fi~ Ill. !fl. 11111' 14-14; V.S. 13!ii"5-7; VU,
IJ J.;'!:l-.6: .1trr r~l .W.,ll1 ~- -Ari,!. Hiur ,:,i tl!ox ("' An4-XIlli''~~;;. :1n Rhor.) 2.17, 1424"31-5;
S/t;D H!. !U- ~I iir,:n C<rqr:t Md.&iu:~/Nigra). lb h~td:i">l>d .-.mediation of del>ts smce
~,l\ta,. rh.u m2~J H C l>); Kutt: ,4,g lV ,,~-.,r~.rt:.. h..s r,,,,;,t!y ;,,.,,:discussed by Benjamm
Notes on V.ii-iii (pp.298-301)
56.
57.
58.
59.
flO.
61.
609
ShlmrQtl, ;...,,. Spl!ll 11r( ;)pmt.':tl k,r<~/rori,ur 241-146 B.C. ( = Arethusa ,'\.-fono.~raphs 3, Buftalo.
N. V , 1972}. ~p. 'i-16 Plut .. C/ollh, 17 '}it ~!l1'\tlarly significant for its mmtion of rhe
hop<".j uf distribUtion ,,f l~nd .am! ..-~m,dl.t~ion uf debr~ raisl'd (and disappointed) in other parts
of the= f'doporm~ by th~ c:am~~m of A::;i~' ruc~swr. Clcomcms Ill, in the 220s. And sec
Stct!.!Jn ii.i uf th\5 r!a.1p1cr arultto n. i4 lcr th.; rcvt~lurion at Dymc in Achacd in th<.' late second
cemur~, ;u,J one ot :wo iat-:~ attom~pos to destroy .:vidence of indebtedness bv rhe burning of
public ;&rci:ivo
Xl'll .. HG Vii ,j, I '11u:n h qm~ ~good En~. tr..:U: m the: Lol'b .:clition (1923). and a critical
cdi:im.oit'rf{'rl.l "'' SitJ;:mrlji, by L W. Hu!tttT, ,,~ S. A. Handford (1927, with ttxt and
commentary: ~,,.1 ~~ 11lo~ b:uldu.:t;,~a. pp.:Jt-x:o.:.:!). See also H. Bengtson, 'Die gricchischc
Polis ht"i Aeneas T.:n:tiOl$', ill fli.wo1,1 II (1\l(L?) -6~<>~. In my opinion. the work wa~ most
probilhly wrim.11 in the :llrly jSDL
At"n. T;1r~. U, il-i; Jlt. 7-ll; UU; V.i .!; X-'.~->.1!'. 20.25-6: Xl.l-2 (wtthJ-6. 7-10. lOa- II.
13-15), XIV. 12; XVH I (w;r: 2-J. ::;), XVHI 2 ir. !ol ff.; XXII.S-7. 10. 15-1H. 19. 20, 21;
XXm 6. 7-11. XX Vi.l! .5~ XX~X. J-~ ff.: .:OG\.X. i :?. 1\;nong othr works providing evtdtnce of
a simt!ur 'l~'llJ:c"l iltr.ht- fuur:n wnlm~. ~':.1>;-.rr. Vl (."\rrlri<l.) f>.l-8. t'Sp. .7 (dating from r. 366).
Denl.:.>~thrn<"~ hotro:tto:.ily . : "''k;.. i~u (Jppom;:~ ;;: 1\rl:.-ns and elsewhere. sometimes wnh JUstic.:
and sometimt's 110;, :;s }t<J,o!ng !}('t"lt brilinl by 1-'hilip il. Among rhe passages in question. see
1.5: V.bl!; VU'.l-">: XIX. WtJ" ~' 11-.. l.W, !45. 167-~. 207. 222-3. 2:!Y-33. 259-(>2. ~65-H .
.294-!i, )11~-b . .l29~c.; iX 54, ;it;; X VUUI, J3.(~. ~I. 45-~. 50-2. 61. 132-3. 136-7,295 m. ThL
rerly .~1('.-.)yb. XVIII .ti;i llo :tvA~ p.trti:llt;;.d~ illt:-restmg.
Sccq;. Hii t.hy VJ!IHJ :;,;
For :h, ~c[.m\.rl5h:'. Stt' I>J"I~- tl:'FJ52-'
Sparta was Jdil,;:atdy t'.'l:du.k,{ s~:l' o\rr __ .-tr~ilh I.i.2 and the very significant words
of ;\lt"'.;mdL"r. ,;,...Ji.-:all>ll r... Athcrr.1 fth~ ~;.)ii ,,f the Granicus in tbid. xvi.7; and cf. my
OTW if'"'~i.
62. Cf. ,,bt hiii'J"'tt(d iU r\ml-4d>. (liinJ
~VII .L' l~o:.), Eli (D<"tn. XIX.~W. 2'J4; IX.27; Paus.

IV.]l! .;....;, V . ~. 1 ltu,i XVI"-~~-~). o~ou;i b.:-;ri,t ..ud On:us in Eubt)('d (Dt'm IX.l2, 33,
57..6.2. 65-t.; XVIU.7L 7''; IJ;oJ. XVL74 i).ln Vn:t IX.61, bc'\iJ_tA<>qorwvnp.-,,.,;..,mu~t not b.:
tak~n f r.:.-ti.t ro r!o. okti1<r;lti;' r:l;ty' '" flt<'ii>; it is the rr.:hnical expr<ssion for thl."
[dtu~<rr.'ltic) Stat<" ,,j \)nus.
[V .iii]
1. St'c ..g. h<n. VII 1.:!, '-4-15. kltc ..~J.~. ;;!.5 .'7-J::!. 44-5. 4H-\l. 51-5. 57, 6tl-1. 70, H3;
VIII.lJ-14 .:.":>-7. 5t_4>. t .J. 75--<. t ~'.!-JI. UJ. Alll ..ug many other pa~sagcs in l~onatrs see ,.g
XV .l;ill..(.ti {l}l;ut,,t in V 11 Jl'''''), .ols<:' :!.32-5. ::. D-1:.
2. I knnw ,,j no> <IJ>-In...;l.trr. ~i>>!uu:;h .<1!:1 <IIHtt~,rilll: account of the 'lamian war' and 1ts
imnh.~.!i;,~, \C<)II"<"''"".:>. N:tt'r'lri, .-:on!;..- r:;,ut\d iu hrguson. HA 14-~a; Glotz-Cohen. HG
lV.r ,~loi7S: A \\' l'kl.:;"ri-t.:ambridg~. U'''"i>Rl!rr.; (1914) 47J...H6: Grot'. HG X.247-66; and
see Pt,r,: Tr"'-'O, 1)~.,: ..._.,,,..,,. .,.,,, ;,/r,r~:i j>'~-'l CB:-.t!, )9.'>3) 173-9R. More rt'cent treatments, l'.g.
by Will. II PM II 1.17-.liJ.unl Clu1:J~ M ...n.7. .'\lh,tt1 i< Dulill<' 404-86 B. C. (Eng. uans. by Jean
Stt'W;lrl. Lolldt>niJIPsUu. l1.1iJ) .,.... itil. ar.:-lncf. ;jl!J the latt{'r do~s not even think it worth
whdc t<> unt1'"' the' v;-r}' tmportant ;ti>o;. tii\lsi<l ;,,;ide Athens, wben: the propertied class
(ol "~"~'"''m"'":) Wr.; il).!~!nst the war. w!ul.:' ,,, ~.AI'r!l>; (admitt~d to be the ~rr<:at maJority. bur
repr.~<'llkf ui ,-..urs. .l.;lh'l'>lfl::tt tO b. :rUt'l
ih:nr:tgogucs, ol 81JILOI">!TO<!) Wl'fC strongly in
faVI)lJ(' ;.,,c~Jl. fJ11>.i, XV[ll !0, lo if~'
(,_rJ thr)ecre~ 'giving eff~C! fO tht'impn)SCS ofo!
a'll'' ..'"''i' hlll :b,u~hl 'lll<'Xl>~'dit'lll' !-~ d XVIIl.lH.4 (in rarticular th.: statement that it
wa.. tlt. pt)i)J. ,Ji~fraudn,;,;j b\' Ant:p;ltrl. wh na,i bern tht..' Tapa)(WkL~ ocal 1tOA(~ll<oi): l!i.5,
with l'lm .. pi,... ~7. :..!t<.. 1 ai1e oligarch:.- .:rr>lim~i,:r: Plmarrb 's 12,tMJO fort he number ofthe
disJi::.:tduxi h ~~a~:.aJh, :m.i probablr 11;1hrly. prdrrrcd to Diodorus' 22.000, a figure which
is or-~.11 <'llh'lliii:l-t::rordingl y), ;,~o! (,.",. 5te. i.7.i, !~: <I<~ bttr~r rcstntment ofTo 1tl\t,!Jo~. b o)(A<X.
ro 7Aij,;..< ;.;,,, d>l."''"'''"" .;;:.lUIS< Pi1il\i;:.,. _.,,,; J.i;. ;;.;sociate!o in Jill, during the temporary
r<srur.ati<r> ,,f th:- :km-.-raq undl'r tltt' ..:li\'i~ ,,i !'olypcrchon. while :rroAI\ol Tciw u~rov8aiwv
c\-vB,;.;.., p<Jliy ra;>~rl;i~l with l'h.:.ci;:,:i. hr mher evidence for th<: important role of
Phc;;rl (rim l\:t~Ul:kl.' tl~u::-) mrh, ";;~ottdl}' i>r.\22.JHl and the hatred this had aroused
l-
ry
Notes on V.iii
610
(pp.301~305)
-amQt;g :hl" lower d~;;~.; . .O.-:'t' f'lu1 .. PlfM. 27.6.7 (it ~ simpiJI th.:- Maccdonian .~amwn ro
whid 1-'h;,:ciGII Dbjrrn:d); )II A ,I'\; 32. l-J: 34.1 t-o .l5 ..t. Some nf1hc m.lln sourres fort he Lam ian
w.-.r I!~ ~1:11 l:ty WtlJ. t-!PMH I 3ft: add in p.sui.~l:ar Suid , i i' Dt:nades (oin-o~ Kcniio.vcn T<ir
li<>~:t<J'ri:;tr'-') .rnd IC :r ~11\, t.>sp liDC!i4J-!I, 47. 52..(,.(,().(, f-1-4"' SfG" 317.linc:s9-ll, 13.
1.!;-22 . U-7. 28-.'\IJ (and ci. SIG" Jill,lino li-U .. IG n~ 44/':,li.tll') 7-12). There IS nmhmg
imrr-=s~in!t m Dt~:ppu>o. ;:cr~J IUO i= 31-ft. It -m~ 1mli~tl) !lut many of tlw Athenians
d:sfr:tnd\,r;:! 111 J22 Ja:~;m~d Ant1pa1cr'~ o!li-r lo:>llrttie :iR."TtJ in Th.rar, (DioJ. XVIII.I8.4;
Jlltn . ['(;(!(, 21!. 7, ct 1\IA ;~m! Wi: mgul;On, HA '!IJ.-7); bm Wl" be.-~r tht many AtiU'mans ci<luinkss drawn from :host" diif~a:Jclmto :.g~i:' 111 :"117- wcm hi CyrcnJKa to join m the
"!l'-mv~ .:::ocp-:::!ijonofOj'h~I!Lii mJU9/~(Dtod. XX .OCI.fi-7} l dunl)t tnysdfbdit:'ve (with e.g
Jm<'l. 1\fJ jJ .md ll:! r1.Sl) tb11.t 2,lNK1 dr w.\~ the 1-t(!utiul q::alifir:.rion for the Athmian
hoplitc/ZCII!o;!lt': ll'h:o!J argucrlscwhe:c th:1e tf~to '.\'3~ r.r) t'XjJlC!S..:C
fixed quanritattvt' terms,
:n monq Tit\' vrew -.f ti;udt-Swo':loda. C:S !1.9121 n.l, with !U7-B. ch.1r the traditionAl
:jUJ!ific:tCIC'"' ''' :f,,. A:b.-oi;,: h1p!urlwug<r, was Hdl dr. ~ fou..,J,d on a serious nus-
mukr>~U1111ius: ..,(PolL Vlll. TJU.

3. !-.:... nr~llS(Jit, H.L~.i4(t~~p .. on tlll'po~iaonof!k:nct':'llls, <~7&n.J}; Will. HP/HHL4J-5. An
in~.:r-ip:i,...l: <>fl!!b li.C. !mm Stleuri,. in ltim;1 (SEG VII E.:?"' Well"" RCHP45) provid, th
t:uli,-s: l.1:uw1~ insa:u., of:-. tt>yal ~O\ImlC ;,ksuibr.tl.u UTI lrr,ar.\-r'-1~ m a Gnek c-ity in the
Sd,,od ;r;rca i!;n, 24): st-c o:5p. l'.'l. Holk.1u,,, in I>Cii 57 (1 1133) tt-f,7. t<"pr in Ius Erutles d'rp(~r
~~ J'hist .S:'"<?"~J 1!1 (~':\~~- I'J41) JI)I.J-25~. ~ 2H..2fl.v.d .5J~.
4. T!1, bt:1>11K\'C}Il1lt I!' ~he ~-err brief(InC' t:civm by Jc.uc~. GCAJ9:i-112. Tbtt is a vast bibliography
111 1\.bl:!a', Rll.1M 11.1(.'2 (n. Jo"r) ti'. fl ll!dhl wod; an th<;> n<.>wly ioundcd cities is by V.
T~c:hnilww~ (1ls.<:wh.~\" ~m.illy Tdu:nko,c:-r), .ss cit~ iu lll.iv n U ,,bow.
5. Fct tb~ ~"'!eo; deer~,,,.,. E lJtkcr!T1:UI (t'I~~IC'I.: ~~~~ily .!ii,k\rm.m). 'la kttre d'Akxandr~ J,
Guud dUX blrl!tt .;r..-.~. :u M,'f. Ho:rit = R1 4:-1 ( l'I4U) :!!:'-J.S; J. I'. V. D. l:lalsdon. 'The
"tliviury"._..f :\1,::-:;Ultlt<r'. iul/i.-ro>'ltll (195i1Lif>3-AA.;,Lli'l.'-~: E. Badia!l. 'Harpalus', inJHSH1
(!.l(.l) l(-IJ . .s: .:!5-31
6. I riuJ \'hw;. >m:h .u :h;:;s:- qf Zl'>lll,
IIH.-IM 11.825- IT. 'SI'

l;C.t} II! I!,
lf!7~)
L~t.uci>..:~u,
T;uJ:,
H~
:.mi Jl.i~il (for wh1ch
Sl'C
Magi',
i:I5Ufficia:;ly l:":iiioric Cno:IIJ-~: :h.- ...."'lsibk picturt' in JmL'S,
wrrhJl'htr:.~~~-
7. Clam Pri~""" :n Nfcrr.il> lire J,l S.t>;.J~ lf.>./ill ;, (15!) r,J-tJ. ....IIS7. part of one of the best
a.:,rmts ,,( :\!,x-.m.l-.-r'!i rd.;tu~t. ith th Gn-.l.. d:in.
8. SF.c; IX.:.!. wuhXIJU,It.; XVII "NJ. XVIII T!to; .XX.'7JJ_ s~~J;:,nn, CERP' ]5~. with 495-0
ll J: ara.! fur thrth": btbliuj;n:plo, Will, lllMH l.J.; na.:- fi,i~:..t .1\.--.ussion m English i~ by
M Cuy, iJ.:_fH.\ .UC Wi~'S)Z!.!-JS.
9. St'\: frh'er./'A I .3-t (W;tlo II. t:i3 n.J), .1lso :H .:tud 711 ((If th'mltiv.,. Egyptian popubtion). %-8
(tin magistrat~). 9ii-- If!( (1!1\: wurkiu;; .,f th' c-;,,,L,:;r,uinn), ~ 12-6 (tl:t' wurts). The cndcnce
l by Fraser cor:<ll~dy ~titt~ till' viJ-,., n.urt (K"l' e.~- HC~ ; .;jj, 145..(,) that Akxandn 's
UC'III'Il ti>Uthlcl,;\;,.X:tll:lrt;;s '-'<''" 11"1 pttl""l Gtn:k polri$ bu! m:o:,. 'mlkcrion oipolu~umar.r'
(c[ abi.i. 15?). I :ttlr"" wu!: fr:r;'l''> Mmmlur-r:r ~ l"h l'r"lc'"''ic Akx:mdna: 'Public
insumnnu~ :u;d ;odtllllll~l!.llt.;;;:; >tJilst1.x ;.bk.
w ~ ......,. t:.Jint.iu,,:lth<' apptannn whi<h
thly il;act in '"' a:a:I,J~<'u;J,w ciw->tJ<~ cn:t,;<j;., h1~!e 1m! dik:.,~<na. the hallmarks of a
dcuux:r.lltl<: $t.}d,;ry. ;~U ~xi>tttl.btll .1ll wrt<" J-.u ,j,!.:l1r.d, inrlr'td cor.tt<,lltd bv the Crm"n l'ithl'r
dir.-,tl~ thwugh <.ul"'IWr :d;n~. or lllthr.--oly by r.-.r;m ::lflh: i.to:t t!t;d Ptokmy WJ.s l<.ing. ami
rl,. .A.II"xandmu~> Wt'rt' iris suhbt'h' (I 1l5), !=:Jr "'<l;:taikd ~o:u~::l', .,f tht siruarion at Antioch
sa lloWlh''\'. 111\S II:! E); I'U: lluV:>di 'h'{ lin I~ rcasc.u ":; doul,t 1h~ t>xisrencc from dK first.
h..-r, ,,.,;I m ;,,ose if I!''' ~~~ rta crhn drnJ.:>t;c :'otond;~.!.!on~. of ~iu~ nomt.ll institUtions of a Grc:ck
(tty. c\'~11 if roy .a I cnn:r,l Wlt> l'l"U!l'l~ by thr IL<>r.oll.uu"' f" "IJ'l.'UIIIcndcnt or govt'mor. as
f,), in~!:m.~;,t $cJn.. l'i.t inl'ieri. (IGi..S l t~.> = Wdlc:\,/\Cl/1'4!} ~ SJ:GVII.n2) and laodicea
....: 1\bt. (lr.-;rs 12{l) fr, :1:.- c.;tiic-.-fm~;J;ttL'w l<>unhi" bv lb~ kiut~r, which at thar creation
,li,i nl h.l\'<' htt:JSIIL ;r:;mes. wt cl" Hll: l.:n: w ftr arrm whn!~r tb.; were originally citil'S or
nKr.:> nnht~ cui<-'lll"S (katoiki.;1), :.aci ;,.tt w.- shmtld dn wdl 10 follow the cxampk of
Rw.l;l\'t}.df(SJ!H/Iff' I 41\:t 1!1 11.>7...-l r,-?z,l'f) .lll {1<>'27)
,,t,. .
>!""'"
:~~JU. l.iJ.S.-1
11. Th. tbrt, m~nrci<m~ fror. 11.1~~~-"i;. ltl~ h; ()IU ;(.<'til, lnKirr. 1111 Ma,~nesill 11m Mae11nder
(lkrbu. l'lllfr) J!. tJ iV: )o~. t:.~;. an!! '\fl.:ll~ll; <h;! :k"CTCC of lhhcamassus in the Co~n
Notes on Viii (pp.306-312)
12.
13.
14.
15.
611
inscripti.:.n is included in Mkhd. R/G455. trom ilC:H5 (IHH1) 211-16no. 6 = W. R. Paton and
E. L H1oo, The lnrmptiiJIU ~iC.n {1891) i3, linL'li 20-2 lists of known Hdkmsric inscriptions
giving rc.--.11'1kd II"DfCSQD !x (ou:rul in rhr .~.rtidr~ by l..ou1s Robtrr. 'Nouvclks inscriptions
d'lasui', 111 REA 6!\ (I'K.>:.i) 298--32'}. :ll J04-7, .m-& M.. H. Hamm, 'How did tht Athmian
mlm11 \'Ct~'. m G!O:!.S HI (i'177l t.2J-.J7, at lJl-2: cf ~lso Buso1t(-Swoboda]. GS 1.44(> n-5.
W< h:. ... ,. by thr: w;a.,., hal-.. rdi.abiL infomunon ;tboUI ac1ual voting numb~rs before tht>
Hdlomi,t~:: 1criotl even at Artk-1\.\, !i:lr wlllch ~ IG W.164111.3U-3, and th<liter.ry sources
giwn by Hlmsm. op. ciL ~L i!.iU15ol:'1 ptllnt) (lilt (fJ(l-2) th.tt then is no clear <'vidtncc for
vot<'S bdng a.ru.-.lly .:ouut~ L"scrpt whr.c th~ WtH' givt'n by ballot.
St>t' Magi~. RII'AM i.SCJ, .tnd iLIQ~..tj) n_].:. wi:h rhoe works thr;r, cited, esp. L. Roben,
'Divtmtr" ~pcmyult'!', in 1-id/mir.t:? (1':.14b) Sl~..l
Fur a Vt'l}' iuccr~>o>ti11~ I!}J((imt.~ ofRomr's mostrnthusiastic 'friends', in a nm,h <"arlitr period
(c. 1t; B.C.), nanw!y C.llHC't~tors oi lront1un1. so:e l'alyb. XXIV.viii-x. csp. viii.9- ix.7 and
x. 3-~- C;~lbcr:.Ut'& iii \'t'l\' we: !I trt'~IC" (i'ml) 12-2J.
I nd :!o no more than ref-:"r to t\ll:xmdl:'r r,,k!,, 'Sor1:.l rtvolutwn in Dvm<' in 11f>-114 B.C. E.'.
in Sr Hin'llSI. :?J ( 1971) 11-i. ;he> gh.., ~ i'ulH.,bliography. Thnns~nption is S/G1 U.6X4 =
A/j ll"' Sbr:J... RDGF. .;;:\;th~rt' IS.m Eng ~.rilm. ir>."RS 35. nu.40. St>ea!so M. H. Crawford.
'Ruml' ~m! 1m Gr~l w~rld: C"Conamic r~onsllip1i', in ficot~. Hisr. R,v." ]l) (1'177) 42-52, at
4~. Am,-;ng tlht"r r'''lr1k-<l buming> oi ;urh1ves. allcg<"dly to d,srroy tvid<nce of
indebtduCS$.liT~ rhos~~ :JI,IL'tll!l<lkm in'' D, llCi ll' , i'j II.4:25-7) and at Anttoc-h m 7U (VII.55.
60-1 ! Slrer with DPW!lt')i. 1-1.-\S ~14-5, 5flf>..7. ;rg~insr Krading).
M~th;.d Wlllud1, 'fuu; i:.&dinjZ f:;.rnilit"S in J~mnm A.hns (A.D. %-161)', in Historia 1H (1%9)
'iOJ- Ht, C P Jones, '.-\ le:J,!i:,td;.mdy ofRam;n T\l('.;.piat>', in HSCP74 (1%8) 223-55. I wish
w~ l.mw th. id<>lliU >trio. "'"'._.,., who ~p)IC:ll i=idc th<' 1iop)(oi'Te\' Jnd {jovAf! m hne 12 of
the Th,-..pi;m uucdj!io)tl .f ft.. D. ;7u. i, pttbliRhetl b~ .\. Plassart, in Mr'L Glo1z II (1932) 731-H
(SL'~ 7."~7_g)
16. Among m;uoy >tnriLr p~ga, ~,.,. ~F' C:i' . [), 1: I .:4. 67-8 (npmducin~; Pldto); 111.23. The
compl!oitl! w~.-.on ...lt' by 1t1;-n~hr.1:; t!!-ll1" J>rcpcr:iL':l d;;,~s in antiquity that the boasted 'fr~edom
offulf tl.-!l:dCrliC"f, ill \.'bids rh.lowercla>Sdol''nictp'-'ll'd. has a natural f('Udency to dcgenl'rOil<'
into ll::.ms. libr.,M ~>m~.,; lium~o: (cf VJ v .1bcwc:). and OTJI'u"'pa-ria rums into ox:Amcpmi.a.
This lin.: .:.f .tr;:ultl<'l>l. ,_,f whi..:h ,_.( ''-'\''"'' J!;;lo w:.; one of the rn~in ann,tors, was fully
dlvdoJ-~:1 in rb: Pldic!'!I~Ti~ J"'"i>ll. wh;r tll: ~~~lri 1,,'1;~<-~<pcnia was coined: it apptars in Pulyb.
Vl.i~.ldti: !vil.9: cf. :>t.-.!, A.ml~~l 1\.\i.::'l.....t C: W~chsmuth (IH!l4) ll.lSO, line 23 (and ~cc
WaliAtll., ur:;J.i..... i-1, ,'&Jilt !I 50 bdm.,). I (u .. y ~bt a similar allitude ro democracy bes
bdtmd th(' n!'ininu~ ~Kjl~ in the l.ut paT;t.Itf'ilph oi a S<"rits of six article in Arhmurwn n.s.
9-11 (l,;Jl-3). mir tiw )t~c~.:r"l mi ... 'St.l~ ,li >:o.)ri;, dknistico-romana .by an ltahan F~~cist,
Alfrrcll I'IIS.-crir.\. S.:-, : l ( J<IJ31 .>.14--'io (llt~ l.;~t ~~r.:.-uces of the seril'li): 'M;o ora l'ltalia t' Roma
stl'S!'.l rimcud"''"r~~ :.kl~ :!>cro!, ;lrtt!lt:::.lica p~t "lrc.-,,~,erersi alia sup~non td,a imptriak. Di
smnk i;; Gr.na mm .W:"''~ ud ~,,., pr.~>-r,, nulla: r ,i: h<'!J giusto,
anch \ssa s1 acconc-iass<' ad
nc
ubbl<ht,'!
17. Ford,,. ,hrt)<lt:t;tv ;;fl>lul~<eh' w:-r~, L"-" C ... i' joo~. 'To-...anis a chronology ofl'luunh's
work-.', ir~_INS'>~> (l'K,t,) (,1-74:. -~111 chr c:Ofotoologi.:alublc inJmws, PR 135-7.Joncs'sdate fm
~['
the J1.,(i .\,
: ';dr. )t'
h<-,rll"
l lf. Of ih15 work thr, is a recent edmon with
on:l"~lll.r (w!mh I h.a\tnl h<vn . bk r" r.msul:): !>lutarw, Pratwptagermda~

E. V~lt:it~li" ( = T..ti ,. ,l;oo.,nmti ,,.., lo !l,,.li.lili':\mcl,itii ,2, Milan. 197h).
reipubliwr, by
lH. The ,..,;A~"-'' :>i ,\Ill>' :,.; lJt' :~roe th.- ~"''"rori'<l>it.,,~ ~i._.;~ (fi;:IC,ach'i. ,;,~'>'S:.lh<:.i.JJ -~~li~lu~. lJc.-,md up with rh tlwory of'g~,,m,tncal
prop..t\l"l' (f wludl ;..,- Vlli .-,!J(W.:' ,..-,,:itS 1:11 l.l..ll bdow), an b, found in Mor. 719bc,
parclv y,i\'.:r! in Vll.i ;~b.~vC'

20. On Phu;,r;:h's
.tttir;~o"il' W
H>mc.
:!'
<:":!' C 1'. jo:OII:l'. t>R, wirh whom I basically agree. Th,
t<"a~"f
:f '*h p;la:;;Jg;-s in I>olyi.it::> ;,., XXIV s!-'i.i!l may wdl ft't'l a simtlartty r.,rw<'l'll
Plut:rr.:h' ;mi~'''~" ,.,,i <h;;r .,: !.:el~bi:t,;. notably i11 rhe latter's rr,fennc" for the policy
adv:\:ltt:>! !>~ J'!&r..)>'Jr:"ll ovl.'!' tl.:.t i:lf Ar~:m:mu:, wirhout Mrungly cntic1sin~ tht s.cond:
Sft' .;iii.2.4 (w:rh i:. pnl[t"l ~g~i:IU 11~h;,,in;t ~1k: pt:l<nnt"rs of war'. Ko:l1a7rp ol &pui.XUTot),
s....ll.
:,b.~~~;.:-. ~-
21. Host,,..,_.,~:::-tT. SEJII:E ll :;M"J-7 n. Hi, Wi!h m.;rny rd:.-:rnc~.
612
22. Diu Cl:ry-:.. XXXIi (i\lrJQt,,lr;,, t~r :n~ d;l:, m: \!IIi tii n i ;ll:jow); XXXIII-IV (Tarsus);
Xl V-\'1 ;~:;,!XI. Vfll (l'ra.i'<}: ""d i "''"iJJ.! .d.! XXXI (Uh<:Jt!<">cj.S<-~esp. XXXJ.105~. 111-14.
r~)'. 1;~'--~J. 15'~-f-IJ; XXXIV -08. ;! (<ir<d m ti:c m:.m :ex: abo~c); XXXIL71-2 (the recent
rorpn~;,: s-r-.: 'lill.tii !I. J ag:Jtrt); X xxm J? (rtdfymg ;,, ~i!C amrmuanCl' of manu.ll voting in
.~cmbh,"'l ~:;;.llon! agamst l'ro.mnal gov~m>!.>. d 42), 16-21 (d!scord bctwcm
.'\ssct!hly, Councii. Gt:r<:l~l~ .'!~.). 21._; {r;r:~~l.!istr~nchJ>nnt:;: of despised linen-workers;
t:~,m: ,-,f 50!! dr tO:, ~;.~r t'!uolm<'lll d5 a cim:m). Jl (poiitko:~! m;p;r:.:nccofthose who perform
h~m~:i.-s). JJ (i;,><t:l, iittmdr.- ,_.:'romm.;;r, t""'pic:, cf J<J). 3!1-'> {offic<'s held for six monrhs
,,nJy) .5H (ddtl:"At<' si:~w~o1:
Pult'Om. d. ~ ~l. 4i\.::: l ). J.l {;lt.ngl'r oflosmg right of free
'FlT<'h, ~a..-.r-r.mu: .:f XI VJII.:!-.i. l5}; XL-!2. with XU.9 [s t:..r mam text above); XI. V .6
(or.lr-r :i-..;m rr~>".'inri:d j:{!\"<'r:lUI r--:.::-1rdu~ ci~y tir.aacc). 7 (lfl :\sw:ltHy); XI. V! !:(people chn-.t:<'l< toston.- Dio and bum h1s
pr.,,-..rt~: d. 1 .&. ll-U), "(Di,, c!.;;rm~ bo: ~no~ to blame f1..r :he famine; cf. 9-10). 14
(thr.<rt o)i l:ltffwnt!<>t: 1;-i' j'l''Wi!'.cni gno:m>); Xi. Vifl i (rmv:nnll govemor had restored
tiw nght :o hald .4.~:nb!w> ... viJ~,rJ} Wlth.!ro~...,, ,.., .a .:onsequencc of the disturbances; cf.
:!-J. ~W. H-15 tc). t! (f~~ ic-t enrolment 1: Council, tlov~evr.,.<t); LVI.IO (most
o-4
:.l,Jnd.t~i>!..!UC'~ ~I:J J!)C!h!~hh, cW:rpoikn.-\ft~ ~'"P.,"~rtl. .
ti~ tv.. ,.~~_.,.,).
23 . .S,r q; M;;tw. h'PAM 1. ~H {wit~J 477) .md :>i.!.; (Cy-rirus. t"'i.:.-), i)O (lycians); 54!! and 569
(l{hu:k,;, rwi;:~}; 5(,! (prll!,..bl~ ~.am~); :.;i (pr.lbabl"!< Cts); wit!: li~ refe-rences. 11.13.17 n.21,
U.N-~.i ... l7, L~t-71! ;;o, 140i... il;."]4; l>l:?'t-m!.";/ W . .O,n;ht'<:' Vlll.1n.ll below. For Cos, St'(.'
rww Susan llo~ Shn.,.iu W!:;n. ,i::ri,tJ! C:>l (= i-l?P""'"'''"'::a ::,;, l'l71.1) 145-52.
24. Thtrt i~ " mditl ,:llkcmn ,,; dw nJdt"~: m ~~,.. o.,.;,,,,! n I.Ju. tl:.::sis by J. R. Martindale,
l'rlblu /)j,;,..if,-,; i111i1~ I..:u 1!...,..;:., Empire, th~ir C:,:u, .111! ( :Jr.rr...:r.r i 196 I).
25. Th.- in;;.:np:~oon l:\ 1(-; W.K~:..;, wtth additions !d'. Sf!G XXI "5(11}, ~u:ISOS):secnow J. H. Oliver.
'l'IJt ,;,,,,,,.,# ( ;mm.J "' Htsp StrJ'l r'. (a''-Ui 115-'1 no:.j! (r~x!, tnu>. and comm.), with 142
un.X?. Oli\~J. 'Ou "''" .'l.ti:,ra~n d<-cr,.-.;, i~r Ulp::~; f.u!>1ut:~. u H<"sp. 20 (1951) 350-4, as
,.,,rr,.,;-,-d by B IJ M..n:t, ;n I kp J2 ( I<Jr ..l: ,2{... 1in. ?7.
26. S., o1l'o Sl;G XlVA7'1; r( XVI41JII; XXIV.t.l<l. 1.\nd d.~ 2 ~>fAppt"ndix IV above, adjin.).
27. Th,r. i~ .111 up-to-d~t<' ..a.:nll.illl,.t" th" ( ~.:ruu.l.t. wuh mtn'rl!<t' bibliography, in Magie. RRAM
l.t.~ (wuh 11.85~Jn ..\!l). hnh. Ei-hd><'l.thlN<-.i. ~,-l'tJ 1.62 (withli.852-Snn.~7); add
H. w Pl.-k.t. c:.llr_'fi!IUIII !Jwmuttt
A Jl<lh' ,,,, olllll<'lll youth-organisations', in
.\tll;m.,;.' ;~ 11Qf'IJ ~1-<1'1
28. I kutiW <1. n(l !JnJl<'\'ld<n<Y for polit~c.ll p.t~ .. r ..-.th'"'~ in rlnl i-!l&~nsth period. Without making
.m xho~.usti\1 'k".tn:h ~~~"'''~ th, Jlll'<'T1rtin~. thl btt>r , ..,.,J,,u, I em quote for any kind of
:n;l.Je>r nm-ill'i~.atim; i;:r~::n;- "''rVK .s 1ln "<>-<aii,,j Jt-rJI"'' I,,.,J f<' members oftht""Council
Ill Y<'oiJ'i "'"UIIJ dl<' m1JJk i th<' ""-.:n,l ;,'l>t<lfY U.C ....m<t r),j,. was evid.:ntly a spw
.b~tnlutlon 111aJ for rh, a(o..tiv.d ,,f tit< Th,,..,.., ~nJ i ml t N' ot'l'll IS political pay of the old
kmd. !G IP .i~- 14-15 ( l>Jlllt H c;. 157. '1- !0: (;. 15Kn). 'JS!!. ll-IJ < 15514). 959.11-12 (L 150
r .1 lttdtIAttrj.
29. Thrn is .1 ns.-tid discussion of the prcetse m<-aning of Cic1ro 'swords porrl"gl'ini iudius by J. A. 0.
hr"<'ll, t~vnignjudges" in Cicero Ad Attim111 vi.i.IS'. n CP43 (1948) 187-90.
30. .'\sdepiadesetc.: Sherk, RDGE22= IGRRI.ll!l = CILI.:588. There is an Eng. runs. in lewis
and Reinhold, RC 1.267-9, md in the loeb Rmu~ins of Old l.Ari" IV.444-51. SdL'llcus: Sherk,
RDGI~ !it! "" 1:/f 301 [ IGLS lll.i. 711!], ii, 8. There is an Eng. rrans. in Lew1s and Reinhold,
RC L~J-<11. And stt the artide in two parts by F. De Visscher. 'lc statm juridique des
n.uvro~ux dtoyc:nsromains et I'inscription de Rhosos', in A"' Cl11ss. 13 (1944) 11-35; 14 ( 1945)
"'""''''i''""''
29-SJ
31. E.~. O: A/J .'t ... Sherk, RDGE67 =Elf 312 = SIG3 780 = IGRR IV.1031 (Cnidus): (2) A/j
1::!1 "' IG V 1 .21 (Sparta); (3) A/j 90 = IG IF. 1 tOO. lines 54-5 (Athens); (4) AIJ 119 = lGRR
IV.ll~ (Ct~). The literary evidence of ~:oursc includes the case of St. Paul (cf. VIII.i above).
S.."t'Urity mitthr be demanded for a reference to the emperor's coun, even from a city: sec e.g.
H. l.)Ji,er in Htsp. Suppl. 13 (1970). at p.38 and n.20.
32. Th<' C':>ci~tt'Jit'(> of the: provincial governor's coun (held in the principal cities of the province) is
I<~ wdl known to need dtalion of evidcn~. and 1 will merely m.:ntion as specimens some
1..-u,l"'io in Pliny, Ep. X: nos.29-32, ~. 72, 81, 84. ~7. 11(~11.
33. !u "IZ in i11 Rhodes (see my PPOA; add Epict., Diss. ll.ii.17 for a private suit at Rhodes before
'lucO<nai, pr.~hoo1bly in about the fint decade of tht' serond century); (2) Chios: SEC XXIL507
J.
Notes on V.iii (pp.316-318)
613
Slw:k, RDGF. 71,1 (:= A/j lfl = l:.IJ :ll7 = :>fCl 7HS = IGRR IV.<J43): lim 17-IX art
par!l"-'hiy imctcuir;g, ;~ thry suhj<'d f\<:m;,:" 111 Chios to th, rity law' (s~t 1\. J. Marshall.
'Romans undc:t' Ch.iMI lllw', itt GP-8.5 Ill [I 'U-N] 255-71 ): and (J) IGHu~l/ IV .226J. an
inter~sti1l~ anu n:CI"lllly d!S.."''eri'J ln1i0tpm"'>t1 (C"f n.26 above); Jwrc. prcsum3b)y, C.lS<'S
invol:.ring IIH.rr~ tlurt :5H d~'!U~,j (line.-,; i.?- 1.;) Wt'nl ll> thl' provitH:ial governor's court.
34. But see, e.;t. for Athr1u.. ( l) SEG XV.JO.'~ = iG ll".ll(~l =AI) 90: Had nan's oil b,~ (mentioned
a litl!t l.\1\"'r in me tc~r :tbovC" ;.ud 1n Appe....,dm IV. l). whcrr lines 45-:iu providt for trials in
th~ C~Ctldl .-.~ (i11 "''r::ltt &:o!.ic~) :ill- Au-m1bly: (2) AI} 91 a lG IP. 1103. lines 7-~: the
Aroop.tJ'Ll~: (J) ;I~ tdi(t
ufM;trnts 1\\m:Hus. ;,f 1(,<~76 (~<'<'Appendix IV abuvl', 2). Plaqutll
= E, lint.-s:l. 6!!, '15. wlwrt ;lw b:~; :wo l<'tifo;-1\CCf. must surt!y be to thr Arcopagus: _,.,. Oliwr.
in J-/n;r . ~~1pp! !3 (1'Ji'li) .&1 ~:.i1S .

.35. As in (vt~rv probably) .Sicil)' in :he i<!'ptbli 4!W (C(':t;unly) CynnaicJ in th< l.ltc lhpublic and
early J>nnc.pQ!e (<;t'J: Appcn&x IV .Jbov.:. 'i;5 ;.5), ~nl no dnuht in many l)!htr places. It has
bee:~ w:,:gl'"~:rd ~h:;r itl P.orr>..-n AthC"I1~ <),_,,,..i w,rl drawn {lilly from tho" qu.llified to
bero111 C..:m:\Gillln (>\'1.' "l'I'C:tldix IV.?), an~! by the second quartl'f of the stcond nntnry
pcrl1.:4p~ (Jti!V ;:-,,::l Arcopagitcs: ~n C!r:1.:r. up qt (inn.34) 64-5
36. E.g. (I) l'lut.. Mt~r. ::liSa; and (2) 1\J,T !!.! = IGflRlll ..fil',l (Pogla m Pistdia for tht intcrprl't.liiOn
of'~'"''" &,;,.,.~:+,;m a....,.,,.,.,,.,.,.....,~]. :;a'C J~. CElli>" 142-))
.37. Sec ..:-.g Magic. ;;FV\.\-1 U 1.' (with ll.'.ll'..>.l-\ :1.:!1). 525 (with 11.1382-3 n.36). (l4t\ (with
II. !5: i-ll'! :l .;J) Cf Lu..,m, citro in n.:!JJJ.bu~<".38. (n th<! c>ariy J'~!ncipal\" .1\p.un,;, w.:~ :h, ~nrr<: oi" .::u, tht rum'<'lllus oft he provmct' of As1a: sce
Jow.'s. CEP.l-'1 (,.._91. ~~ !'J7J, <'f i\.bgk. RR.\,'!lr; l l71-2 and Index, l-'' 'Dioceses (judiciary
dis::'in.s)'. ll'c :Mi:1 ~ir,: >n;;tl<' b Dk XXXV.I~-1"7 is that the holdmg ofthc courts 'bring'
ror.~r h,r ~ m01s.s ui ~~lc wr~l:ot:~ m:mbtr :co .\r;~w,-a ( 15 ini1.); and thcr~fon the 8u<a~nv1'f<
ought 11'1 (0 I~ J.-..-;j[ l'tlr. r ~01\'\\'4}' 11<:>1 nuirdy. Apart from tht two altcrnariw
mt.rprct ;rtl(.'ll; vf~a.~ri-Covr<~ ~!l!!!;t'"il.:-..la; :h, m~irr 1~,;; abuvl'. th<'Tf' is .1 th1rd which (suppose is
JUS' 1"''"-~tb!,: rhatrhn' , ..,.,~t.-,i at Ap:u:'":t :u 1'1:' Hlll>l' a syst<'lll nf_jury-courts such as wdind
in th tir~r ;m,l i.mth irh c yt~m E.li.:c.. ~i ""i!'"''li (set' Appendix rv 5 abow). I know of
no tr J.'' ;)f su,:h ;t o;yst,m ;~uywh it, Asj;o !\tit:cr in tht Roman perimi, .1nd I regard this
,,j
altt'lflili\( ~<5ll';ljkdy i), tJ:." o'X"!r{"f1lC:

39. St'eJ. Touloum;ol..~. '.lucre""''"' lrollu.1'', "' H~J:<ri. rljo; (l':lii.'llli7.1L
4H. In MacMullen. J;;RO, thor.: ar, .m:Kk> ;,, th ,,.,, ;n,lrr;re~> '"'" 'ollk\.i~ 1\.l:u.cst ;;ccorulls.
partly iust;(rl hu l':oJtly tli"-"Uh-,:,1. :\ ,l-.wh;-.~. ,\bMulk1 dt"1. ~<".;,1 -.io;oL vf j;'">;t
mat.ri.l hm fail" I-' m;,.k, H<n;!, II( ,_.i it...wing to tho -,.;rill~ m.>..k'i"''Y Li his ("(>lli""L'J:llli:,J
cqiiiJ'Uh'J>I. A. M~mi~li.ano. rni,wira~ 1\,b,Mullen, El:Sii. it Eli. _,,,,. io,:l W.(> (1'.174) .lfr'-1.
ent!s wuh rh, \...-;nt~, ~1!1 i.- ~tr~tu1cJ7~1lnl l;; un 'lii\"S:t=ti ,-,-~olltl'k~~ ru~u~ ~o!J~U;; ..~;f'ittln~t"t;
rotlJ~n,~ U-''~ rub ~$~-r~. .:~.:inliu.lt.t .::<-.; c...r,'!;'"':.: pr...... ._,:--l~~ i:t!~::'~. I \\'is.!:. I kKw ..,, h!t.h U',. .t.r.ris2t'
cat.;;""'"' Monn~:~"~ ha! i:lll:lthi' I ;.,~uMr t:m:k rh:o! ;<rt:,.,/r \1(,', btlf;u, ~"a~sis wonl.t b.w~
matl'r.i.oll~ ltdptII\-1AI."Mulloh to nJIc1i Jh:-l'h"'"'"''ll h: "' ~ly rtotdt Til, ;.rr idr !~ U-:.
Flau-Zu;:k,rm:um. 'A o.ru~w~ ,fuu.: iuscrittim: ok Sni~~ (CII. XIII. 5fll0): 'lli." .t~.
pht'!!)Hio!IIC' dor brigand~;,;~ J~IIS l'f:.m!ir~ rot;<,lll\. Ill /.oii'"IU.' ~1(19illj J~ 1-7J. "hid; hu ~
ver-y 1argt.
uu:,,!"~r :-~{ ~, ......;.~ ,,-fcnu:-~!t ~:t hlu~h
)tJ:Iillol--:-tt
r\ihhu::r:pit~r., .:!r.1.\ ~ ~~\tin}; ~k
counilmtim i,rral JI!'JJt:lll 1;'J"rt<'l tll' .m.d}'"<' '"''-=Jologique ,Jn pho"'::>ml"n<llu ltrio;;aa;by.c'
(id .J!I !;; l>nr l'l~ Hl.! an wr~ IIIU.illi ~u dno;l''l'rtou whctiwr il('l;t. ofhrigandagt' .-.n;,tin !"'
be F\,~J.rd,-d J. das.s .srru~~k:~. :om( riwr: '' 1110~1 mh~utuc,l.arc.mpt <'" l'lil ti: r.h-:onc'Hil'
the l~,:u4tn ~floCIJl h~::-;archy as .:nnsisti!l~~ utl ,.,d=t.q\~ ~c1ci~ks i'Ul ,,f g!C'!IP~~ $(~id ~ f [fh.,.. .
inscnptl<'",l it itcr tllh- ,-,111 ll>osr cnnn~nkut!y hi: musub,.-t ;os ILS 7lJIJ7.)
41. jean C~hu.
l.t'> aifi.-.o lrbffJ J, l'VItl4 .~,,y,o.r,H~Uitt ' ' !'ltiV<'I lie ~;pf-li;, p;ll ,;;t /Jtolfcj!'"l.i !"'1"'/11;,..,
Lll''"l"; 81. BntM.-1~. l'i65). hJ..., ~ ,,,]k.-ti'lll ,,f
l:t tl.is rid.i, hut :s \"cry
unrdi;alll', c..~.,d;,ily "" "''l"t1rutiunl qlli'Sii>l~~ . .;....,.. ;d" 1\;bllar, FRW -~'i 7) I h;;w uol
M'!l o~l:lo to study Tr.augutt li~>!lm!:t. 'll,,,tfr":,_. Lu.....i.:, l)i,11uMil"'"tJdrlftl11t.>tnltioilr>t r;: dm
~ffet.oriiolm! Sfit'io"l irr H,p,: tin jrM:,rr. K::irt'f.trtt "'''' i~ .. llf'OI~'"''~ ;,., ;,..f,rr;tJ,(l t ..!tl (PI~~ .
(= {.';/1
,,.,J,,h,.
Bar>d. ! ~JIJ). w!n.it. ~~ :r 111k Jr:J,,"Jf'-" a;; nutlr:.:.J ttr l(ulllo.'.

4la. Tht>r<' ie. :i J:W~r.ihk ~\:\'i:w i C:.n~,;r;m';;. Cirn,; f:.7i;J>:J P't' W. I-~ht',;,:h\,~t;:. i11 JRS i1g ( !978)
191>';.. ~tld IJI'oi)lhoJ ;,; CJl 9) ::- n ~ ~ OfN} J~.~. br t':)fi: M~ag i ~n c.rrl)' ;:>JI!t:llt w:h
moil i'i dt~ z,t';u1,._. ,;i;;i., ;.,t (~.ut~:-r:.-.,~' rh\-.i~. rsghtly -LI.:111,..ing dre id:'"1i.tdic.:t~ .....~ ofthr ftt.r(~,JrtA
as
!v,~-t~rrn '"~''~~:.(ci~~ ~.- p;&rti~tJI.&r rc::-.~r.utuic:
!)) .d;.:,i.o~"
~~i.i'i'" ~1td ~t1~~o~tt,l h~vhtg
som" ~~f cilf.' r-i\K~\-,\n,.rt-:-.i uf r'huwl ~J,l!n1i='-.- T!'!li i!d!. uf hii book i.i. m4 ... t '~~~,,,bk i.nd
614
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49 .
:ni>T~~}' <'OI'lvmnng. l~:il i ,un ni>tCOtJirit:cd by l:uH'iNU;iidmJ;;! (5L'tcsp. his CF 271-'16, ch.x)
of .til p;,htka:i si~;~t:!it:ml."'t: ~a the f-.nmn~ Cf ;be r-.:vlcW br Rober: Browning in TLS 3')()2
(14 Vtx~:!l!x:~ !~'ifi) liiO<t. On thi; ubjcct I fed tlw ! hav.. pmiitcd from discussions w1th
M:d1:l Whitby.
U11 Rmu.t, l>nh,v :owa!.:ls d-.h; :"tc, 5 (v~q hmtk) !ili!:rwn Wh1tc, LP607. 60~-9. flH!l-'J.
Ft::; :.~n~ lis: of ,_,::CiS><>:.;; m wh:ch we lw~r ,.( th~ ~tanmtc of l"')min~nt men or the burning of
th,-ir h(;.u:;.:<o (;.: <>f!hr,-;,,; ro comm:: tb~l' JoC"u), stC' l\bMullc;J. RSR. 171 nn.30. 32.
f>>f rhl" fo;)d ~"pr.!~ of,\ciudi . .SU h"ti!, L!,'M.-1 lt'1!;-2:.!.l.idl<~huc:u:. :\111. 126-32.
s~c rt:o)Ult'S[.>;,, HW;\J\:160-11; P~n:. V'MA lfi7.1}, f-iL,Wllt;'y, J-US :M>S-7.
Cf :it -.rrptK >tat<'ll'~'l~ :n lmu:. M;;rc XV '.iii }.: Jr 1hc suh~juent inVt'sliganon by the
l'r.ut..m.m )l~' :-.,,t ,,; th.: L:~:. (<'fl'<iz: l.umr. U\1/r.!vcd in the .us~;;~ltJ-lllon ofTheophilus merely
ln.! rh,:r rror-,~t~ n:mf:.~.--~t<'<!. whik ~omc .I'""Src''<'l' were conkrotth'cl (to death. undoubtedly)
.1l~h"u~h ~h,y lnd :tnt \'\'!"'1 ix'CTI ~:""'''111.
f'l>'l>'l..,,,.,..,r.... in t~t< Hrll.~:i<ti'I""""'"L ~ _i.,ucs. (;C:V i5'i :T.;J A 0. Larsen, 'Representation
.md .kl<tocuc> l!J !ld!.ms~r :iodr!;alism'. m C'l' ~I (l~b) (,';,.'17. r. !l8-'Jl; Walbank. HCP
I :?21-.! (o:o p,,!yh IT _;.~_f>). ]Jil, .;?!!. h>r rln il.:m<.<~: pniod, "'-'" Jmcs. GCAJ 170 ff.
IGRH L!ll = /G XIV.~ =- OGiS ~;31 = Tl,S _;; F>;.r the dar<". wn.g Magic-. RRAMII.954-5
:L.1 ..o\':'H~'n~ oth~o.t ~lr.>cri.;-:titlr~ ~h&t nught ~ 'i'~ortd. :i-t"~ :h~-: llt:rw-,~~c..nc one of 46-44 B.C ..
.\iur~ th~ Ji.i,,._~;i ho~,l; th.r-. P"':c~o:US1li ni A'1, 1 St.r\':lw~i :,..~i~!it US~~ saviour and ben~f~ccor
lJtr.i ti"{''U~d~ tl:.:at ht had r~:st,.,!~"! ~) ,;,"-. i't~ rU-; rto1'ptovc i'f;"~ Kc:ri riw ~,.uucparia:Jl
...,..,,,,..,., ; i\1] 23 .. Qt;i.S 44'J .: ICP R l'I.43J .,. !!..S i-!779
.\~ U! ( 1) Jlw., U>: .\.f;orr.zrrly. l)(lolfotmuy flPIuJ ''-t:tury). wh<":. .Or;,,.,...l~'w, .\ .ti~t:rltui~hl fNw '"'"'~'Kpq-rUi, is d1sparagt-d m
r',n,ur '"' ~lh'n.;ttdt~~ {.t,.ntli:"cr;,cy .. ~.\)'1. fJio ..t.~\a~H~ \"t;:~:<.-t!' tr.,.tf(),,.~rvvr) and Cipfn) from the
1\iill'"' >I' ;;>;It> lt.liu ,,,,.,..... ..,..,, .... ~,.,...., ""' :'~"'J.I'"'- ..~ iitl~:t! wt:c: practicabk!}: (J) App ..
11C lV UJ, "ikb,n u i..5 !r.c' nmmum soldki>, i<r~wrh in il:h!s C.l.esar~ armv. who serve
lbht~t!lo .;.n.:i ( ~J'-S.;~~~ tr.-t, .f;)i~..-.-.(.1.."\;.~, ..3'" (~'-' ;.!1'"' ~ ."i~,:h v.:hil~ l',_,rt .-.. f democra~y is n1canr ln
tJu~ ,-;rs~) J. ~111'\'t!JI~ ~<>Jllli<'lll ioll...vs: h&IJAA" ,;.,~).;;"" ld "-''"""'.o~ IW alei; (-*J Philostr.,
1,.:\ V ..,\;!, .,,h,:n: A"'IIC"'ir IIIUSl io:tw :r~ .rt~m,.i m.-Am:tg, ;., ir i~ dtstinguishcd not only
~r:>l\1 ,.,,..,,.,.ilior< hut 11l~<. tr'"'l J"''l'l.~n .or!J :.,,, .,.,.,J(poiofi<l. (I> V .H. liOW<'VCt, It is the Roman
lkJ.utll": r,, whtd\ l:a:h il'l.ll'>"P<Iiim'a& ti :.'> ,.,;, ,..,.,.& ""''""' rrror; ;md V .3"1 is one <)f the
thl<'\'
I gt\'<:!, furth,r .... in the' !11.!11! r.xr .tlN..rw. wlwrt: the Principate itself is a
.t~nl<l\.T.\(Y, Mii'D"- !hrhr,.,. ch.1pr .,,, V .H-5. nrt;>ltll')- :lhLI!;;t,_. rite possibk vanations in
lll\'-llllllg' llt'A1JJ.I'ILptl1'ioJ,lllll its "');1111.:-.; Ill~ >insk .lllth,r. ,'\''.'0 Wilhlll a single pa~sagt.)
:\~ ;n r ,,,, Gs,.'i~ts .XI.IV !.!,; UII.~ i-; d."~~....; t.)Sl-<f<:" i l u !L:); .!.Ud perhaps O#<tAO~ Ill 14.3
;m.l J'<~;.,;ihly !'\.4. Th,r..: IS ;t cnn111t., r:i..-r.ncr- ,,,,!J, ''\"'~ a1 l:.m~o i1 D10 Cas. LXVJ.l2.2.
F.v.:c~ru-.. wrUUig .u tb(
.,,1 uf ~~-- ~:><tit :~u~r.r..xu!,l ,1.-.;cribt- the late Roman
lkJ'ublk. uut vJ',,h.i,h_luliw; C.;,~r; I&<>'""PV" t:m:.!)!~'\1. ;;~ ,\rt~~\:"""paria: HE III.41, p.l42
,d. J. Hid,l :m.l L. 11.arm.:nt1. On:'\""(H, ,...,. ""' '' If, .r...,.,. hr .tn oratorical work by (or
01ttnhm.-,1 t.l.i "C.ro-.k rh.-tnn.m ai rh: Iitt~ dn."ti "'"II": C. 1: .. M.-u.mder of laodica on the
l. y~u~. w tiwl ~''""~>'""' :. . :-ian:! by ......,.,,.,,,.,: ""'' Rn<':~.' Gn, lii..'59-(,(J, t'tl. l. Spengd
( JS51'}. ak.t;~1\\' ~f ~~ .... dC!il'f ~~~ur:'CUiX .,; !h:- WL~r,t.. iilo;~uA,.tT;...... ~ut.,.,rrl'i0'8cu. There i& a t.llthcr
nn latusr ,,[;;JI~OII'partia in Evagr .. HE VI. I (p.223 cd. Hide: and Parmt,ticr). fort he rule of
th, r.&~!>tn~. which the Emperor Maurice (582..6(12) thrust out of his mind. e>tablishmg there
.., .ip....,.6orpn-rj,r of r,.ason.
Out nhu~n.,.fpossibleexamples I will give only App., BC IV.69, 97. 13MI.'tC. (for hisPr<1ej. 6.
~-. l.th't "" op tht main text above-. and VI. v1); Dio Cass. XLIV .2. 1-4; XLV .31.2; 44.2;
Xt \'IIlt1.4; .\1.1-5; 40.7: 42.3-4: L.l.l-2: lll.l.t; 9.5; 13.3; Llll.1.3: 5.4: 11.2,4-5; lfo.l;
i71-.;,l L Jx.~; 19.1; LIV.6.1: LV.21.4: LVI.39.5; 43.4 (where alon<' the Principatl.' is a
rni,.;tnrt of ,.,_.,.ap;rcO<. and bru101cpaTia); LX. I. I; 15.3: lXVI.l2.2; Herodianl.1.4 (the Roman
Atanr..i. ,-hau~cd Jnto a IUJIIap)(ia und~r Augustus; cf. ivovaani<n in Uro Cass. UI. I. 1). Tht
vtr!> 3o!,..,>epor.tio6ora and the adjectiv~ lni/UJIIIIGT'~ (for which sec esp. Dio Cass. l V .4.2) are
t'l:~'ll u ..;! in t!tc same sense as &r,,w>epq-rio. Dto can eVl'n usc &r,,.orur~ (meaning 'most
npul-!Jt:n') 111 XLIII. I I .6 of the arch-reactionary. C.to. I haw sard nothing h~rc of Philo. the
leading AI.-!01-,.,,,!rian Jew who wrote (and thought) in Greek in the fim halfof the first century,
since his ll""' vf the word i'IJ.COKparitJ. in six differt"nt worb, " a noronous puzzl: (l) Dr
.-\ltro~ho~m: !-1.?, (2) Quod Dflls sit i~~~~t~ul. 176, (3) De spec lqr IV.237 (<-f. 9, llTjp.oo<pano<6~). (4)
r.n.stt"'
50.
,.,.,y ,.
51.
615
lie riml. ISO, (!i) Dt dJltic -15. (61 Dr nm{uJ fiJt lfltl. In thrr.e ofthos., rc:xt~ (nos. 4, 5, f.)
M!leo><r.ari4 iS the opp~itt!' Ctf li)(l\~,_,ma. in OIK" (IKl. 1) it iS the opposi.U: Of t}'flll'!Dy, in tWQ
(nof.J, 4) u u a.....,...,Mnl :md U1 f'-1w (nmd .!.. .i. 5) it is.:PpWTIJ. AU this would im:linl.'onc to
chin!.: 111.11 lu Ph.la'~ mmd tlw term ~ ...pn'ria would fit the Rom;m ~piilblil!". Y!!t h~~
81JIU'~>ar.f.a ~ ~ho (h;~r..ctcru...-d by 1..,)..,,.. (uos J. It). I tt'Cl l:here may bf Sl:>mc:tbins in lh\:
suggc:sililn whid1 h.>.~ lx-<11 m.:uk :h~r h1 hi~ wnu:-ption of br,,.,oKporiu Phil-. wo~s much
infltoerur.i by .a uniqttr. p;t~;t.ge 1n J>Jato. namely Mot"Jtr:r, nKbc-~.a. raking ir to be serious pr.tiSl'
of the- 1\rhcman cumtitunon 1n~c.:ad of 1 rL-prOOuctJon - in l'laro, d.e<:ply i:"<,nic.ai - of .vhat
Athwn~n dcmat.nt! :hrnut!hl ., i~ld (I luvo: TID[ t-<'Cn any m.ore recent m:.:umcmt. of lhis
qm~dor, r.ha11 th~t of F. 11. Cui !14m. in th~lu-b Miti.,u ofl'bilc.l, Vu!. VIH [1!139}431-9.)
52. See ql;. IJ1o C.ts.s XU.I7.3; XLVI.J.I ~; Xl. V ILW.1; U1.1.1;6.3; l3.2 {81....-wT-.iT:M<:P"l)~ 17.3.
Cf. Ar!J-, Pnl'f t; Gaul.~ I= juli1n] Ut.~llit"l>rni>~m( made himself,.Dop)(~.lr. Dion. Hal.,
De alltiq. ,.,...,o,_ 3 {writ:'"Jl m10.kr Au~u'ffil!>), ch Hc1111an lca.;.lers arC9& iiUioG'O'TEiioo>ret.
53. Sec C. C. Stur, "T!-:c. pcrfeH dc:-llJO(T;!C'f" ofth.: U11m.m Empire', in AHR 58 (195:1-.3) l-it\. Tlus
artick 1> quin ~ m;eful mlh~niL'n of ITI.ttt'rui but 5how~ no uuccrstam!ing ofGreek dtmorracy
in iU gtl:M d;~y~ m of;~ proc<=SS (t!(";oL"nhiJ L"atiJC!" Jll tb m~in teXt aooor:) by Whic:h, during the
Hdlcnl>!m: ~:'I01i. rh-:- :em: lud 'rome m pr.Ktk-o: h b{' :~pplicabl~ to ;my government whtdt
was no1 LJf..:~Iiy mun.:.'L'hi:~l' hbiJ . .2)_
54. Ad. ;\n;R .. ,_,,,,:,XXVI {I U Kcil}, l."'ip. 611, 'Ill; cL -:!-i, .30, JJ. M. (,S, lti7l'tc. ITh, k~ phras
in (11) 1-' lln~<Tl"'J".. """!7 ri1<t ylf' ll'lW'"'IltlTi<o ~ ~ .. ~ api<TTIJ! Op')(WT< :r< """1'-Tiril and in~ ')()
3ytp.oKparial' ..,,,.,..j ~'I>; oWtJ. h~ob- .. ,~,.,.,d. Eff~JAPrrt!i~l'<><-) Tht datt' ot thl' ~ptch ~~ usu.!Lly
givcnnow.llb~\ ~ A D I4.\, or ilnywJy i._-t\WL'IL ~bnut 143 and I -16. and thus durinf( th~ rc1gn
of A~to!>inu.: l'uu, "Il&<"t't' io.n ~Jition, with F:ng. ll~r- and comm .. by J. H. Ohwr, RP; but
Ob\'f':.;: <>ftcu rndy ro :o~l.1 Ar"1l'idrs' par.~:gri~ At (00 nlar irs fan vJiut_Dl' Martino. SCR"
IV.1 (1')741 ~i>.'l3nA4. list!~.., r.v~c.w~ ~,fOlw~:r'H-dllion, w!!h othtr litt'raturc. Rustovtztff.
SF./-18.P Bl S44 11.6. ::h!r.klo !lu: 'P"dt 'w<-::J.-ri';_;J"
55. Then ,i,; .1 y;..:md n.n,lt abr1dp;cd En!{- ~~~~. h; C. l' Joms (Pl'l!guin Classic~. 1970), With an
lntm:l. b~ G. \'l1 Uow:n01:L:: clus tncludc, m~riy all tht most important parts of th1s
intl-J<"tfing w;;rk 1llt-R' i!'o .\Ito a {>:unpl~t:- lod> ,dit im in 2 vols (\\' ich Eng_ trans ) by F. C.
Conyk~rc (l'JC!).
56. For <Ul.'IO:c:oum m'ttm lu,r";~ry :!rb;m~ (111) ('~ l.li.i!.l to xiii.7, and xtv.l l<l xl.:!) SL't" Millar,
SCI.> lill-lli' (I ,-rrt~ini .-;mno.f ''NJ'I hi> \"lr\\ tlut th<.> spwch of Ma<'l'ma was actually
ddiv.~rC'd b)l Di(> l:>!'tom.' rl..- EmJ!eror C.r.l"<'dl:~-,.: Ni.:<lntdia late inll4, ash, sugp:esrs. or at
any o>lhr p!::t<T ""'! I1ClJo" Til: ";:;;!ld t.:&vt be;:,, .1 t;,mlhardy act. o~nd it would havr bt'<'n highly
unl1kdy "' h.n, ..an~ N"(oY! ,,n ll ,k;.J><>I iii.~ C.11.1wila l There ar some mtcrl'sting fcaturt~ in
Agrlppa 's lpc.:<h wt;;dt ~ .:;;mto! <fi>~,~llhl"ft". but I must nul fail to draw <ilt<."ntJon to the u~,- of
luo;..,.,.;., ml.ll.4. I
57. Seen.::! to S('"cti. ii <t thi.< dt:,JIt'l'. Ot:\ f-'i rh~ l:.~l'r ~~~o~~imcm of our Gt:e<'k treatlsL'S Ot~ kingshrp
(A.D J99j, by Syl!<'.i~t~. l;r.t~ 1.:. l_,.,.cr:m~ l:-13l"'l' -.i Cyrl'lll', can still praise trap(nluia in its
opctrn,~ l'~r~<.;r-.;1:. ~ wmething tl:... r ""'llh! w be !mr,roo by l'ntpcrors (MPG LXVI.l05n).
and 1111~, .-. d;,im 10 .xcrru(' ir. (ihit!. <rr,....1. ~~ 2, J).
57a. Aft('t rhti .:h'411h'f "'~ lol>\sh~i i ;C'ltl r!tt di.;;;Sil!l:!! or""Longinus", Dt- .<zoiJ/im 44, by \.o.m1on
Willi;uus, Clu:'\<!f IIII-i n..,;,.~. !(,,,,,,,, Llt ..
F-arly Emptrl' ( = Sacher Classinl Lccturl's
45, Ucrkdl"1o"IL<.l'..<ll. 1'17H) 17-15. "l11is !s wdl w':nh reading and m.:tkc' some good potncs,
bu1
importaul p:rn.:ot'tiJo>:,r-gmn"'' ~ ~ntah:d by Withams's <kmonstrably false bclrl'fth.u 'it
S('('IJI' unlikely . _ lh.n:. Grr,k ti the f;sfl>~I'C' w.:1.1l:l use tht' word M,u.o~<l)a1'1a ofthf Roman
R~rnbh{" ('~I a.J3), ;md 1h.,t Gr,d.. \'rtr<'r> iurwt >m to h.Jvl' been pohtically conscious of
the cl~o'lr.g~ from r(1llll:h.- ,,., l'""avate '" "'~" "rY tkll, for instance, Roman Stoics in th early
Emtr ",r,' (a;;. :\s 1 ~h.~ ;,, ~~~,. m;&~n ~~"t :obt-\'C' (and n.SI), Ofl-l)a1'W. ts applil'd ro th
RomJ:I R<'r"h!i:: ironl (j,., l.ttl: rinn u"'otury .'f :rc.1 .arlier, and i a standard term for it in the
Gr<'(l\. bst.. rldlls <>f tb ~~cvn! ~.:.! f~Hi r.entcni"s. This is perfectly natural in view of th<'
de!;'"ntrattul; :n 1h,- mC"JIIilljl "i tit<' wrm.\ whidt lt~.d alr:ady taken place in the Hl'llettisti~:
period:~.._. tht m:.:.11 t.~t ;;r,;i ::G.J7--:i .~I>W('
58. 'Lon.~inu' Ot~ ~: S.:.illr~. ,-.t ;,"ith ~~ lnt:.d. ~not Comm. by V. A. Russell (1%4). Sel' also
Anr"Jif Lito">:")' Cil"i'm, ~J. fl. A. l<lu"dl.>&1d M. \'l!~ntt'rbottom (1970) 460-1, 501-3.
59. I SUVI"'"'' I r.m:c.t ~li<mion t!ft_. T:ac., [J;:ll {c;.p I. l, 27.3. 31<.2, 40.2-4. 41.1-4), ~lrhough of
conr>e !I 1>: O{o!t"lj' W.1l(":"nl;o:{ W1:.!1 :or;.m~ y. ~-.:1 '(.onginus doc~ nor hrn1t h1msdf ro that- for an
earhl"r H:m:.r! \"l'r"" "'i"th; (t.!~h:!mr..,-,fm.11uCf il:1 :1:, t"nJoymcm of pracr, Lcisur~: and a good
llllt
"'!
616

('l'll~titutillll, ~c-.
CK .. Hn~. 43-6., r:or! .-.i .. im~ p3~~3.~. 2:'>-51, in which other Interesting
r("ruarl;; Lltt".Jr II' 2t.. .l9. o~nd .-sp. ~?-S!, maintaining t!;;;: o"/(1,1".,..,:;.1 was at first peculiar to
A1hrns ~\ld ur.ktt<:tw:r !,., Th~ (exc.,y! perhaps fc: E;>.m<m)rd,:), Argos, Corinth, and
;;.1.~.\''' .al! S;-:oru, bt:.r ~h:..t <.>rAtory bur sp:!'a~ ;.o 11 tlc i;;bnd ~h~ the whole of Asia, with
unt()rtu::Jt..: rou~I"!U"'I''''~ ~:-.:apt 1! ilhod....,;
60. l:l<pn-ssly or by :mrh'''"llt}ll OLlr autho: sho~~ SOilll' 'tlthu~iasm (if qualified in a few casl"S) for
~~m
II wm,r (Aachrhl,., A!.-hilod:w,
(J,m<Jsthf'f1~. l'.unpui~s.
Herodotus, Homer.
Hyp.-rl'"toi<"~. l'ir"!;'' l'htH, Sappho, Sunon:~!~.'~. St.rttod~. St<"Sichorus, Thcocritus,

Tlnwylld:~. :m-.! X.-n."lpl:.n), of whom 1>::!y one, Tin-et:!:~us, ii Hdlc:nisric. and only four
th<'r~ (A:-,hilmlms. H::,r. S;,ppbo. :omi St01d,orns} t!o n"t ,x,mc from the fifth or fourth
tutury Oit!~~ t"iilll Hr!ic::is:ic writ.:r~ he mrnUo:B. olil~ nc, .'\pollonius, rrceivc:s praise
.1~1J "'' ~.;m:r~h: ''" rhrn (.6.~!11~. f.:~:o~r!u."D;.'5. ~m! Tiu'IOu"ll) hi~ wrdicc is mixed; and four
(A:;.hi.:i..r.:s. Cl.it.1rcims. J lr-g-c;~i;;,, J!1J M.mis) :Ire !!mhly .:-r:nciscd. A curious omission Is
M,'1,..,1,1cr. whu :~ m~v~: ,-,,cntion~l. !'~rit.tps l.<i:lt!hb,lti th.~l tooll a.~thoris th<"onlyGn-ek I
ho11Vt' n>: :.a.... s,; wh< nK:tKr~! ( wtt!l ~rim:r.m<,l. in'; '"I) C.t':to"~u 1.} perhaps not from direct
acru~iru:..n(~ wir!t th" l.XX: d t~(' -~lm~ l:<n :JIIi m f:..a I.'J
61. Th, mIY r.-icri"uC<~ 1.:-o~t ti1d it> llip;'GI:n~ (.Il'~witt-rr:) M th'";'t' \l,mocraaes' are indeed in
Dr ,-\,,t,ilrr "!.i, ~-d. Hilt; Adldu, 111 GC.S J.i1 (1897) t: .c,.; .,;,,, .... ~.~ &r.mill."'~ Til~ lo<O~o"' d~
llm~or>tepcol'l&o< .twfi"!'TtlJ""'" ;;;u,\ C;>tt~m in !J.:t' il. "il'-' ni G N lill\Htsch. in GCS l.i (1897}
~~. ;md M.u.Ort\.(' L..fh-r.-' IU '''rr-l}ft' c""'"'ttlt.rir..- mr !)., ;,-s = sc 14 (Pans, 1947) 144: dra
M~<:v4<ll ,.""""' ;...,~~e,~tt.;-,.-<o; , A""'""~a
IM~AA:o4."-..> )oi:""'"""' AI this point we must
t.1l ...:cmmc ,,f dw '}~~s:' With tn lt.ms itJ D:m. VII (7, .?I'Ji. i.tt:orrctlod there as lt'tl fJao'l\ci~
(\t:rsc :~1). 'lii>Y Hip pol . C.,.:rr. ir [J:IO:., "'I'Jit:O. thttm l<~ i 1h, ;nuge in Dan. II. 41-2 with
tht ten lum~ <".i rhe 'btasr' (IV \'ti.5) . .1nd tdmtiitL'l' tht tn. l>im~ a~ t<TI kings (IV.xiu.3); and
~Jmil.nly !h l>o ~\11tirl -:!.7 h, SJ't'aks uitllt' t!'n i><.>niSOt rh, 'I"""':.~ ~-. kings. Cf. tin beast' of
R..-,. XJJr.! if. .ru,t XVJI .~IT. . whl'IJ J!;.< h:u Ml hnrm (XIII 1; XVIL3.7). interprl'ted as ten
,..,,.1.\ti~ {XVU. !;!.lTJ Th: A;""'""''''"' or:- :a rr:~l pw!>lrn ~~ tTIC. I ~:annor understand how
l.~'~" Altol,ly. 'Tl~t ni~e ;::of tilt tinr,l
~ .~~ ~ -,,l>y lllmr-~r.uies m GRBS 15 (1974)
l'N-111. .1t '1'1 mJ u ..'S. t"..ln ~a} rh;o~t 'h<li'IC'II<, lbpJ"'lym~ o~n.l T..,tullian we-re already so
=:;pr~s..-.1 !r~ :h.- rr..ohunl~b o~lkr C<OIIIIln~tu~ drat It tluc dK\' ,.r.citcted, as did Lactanrius
!:.r::r, tb. r .nc ,i;oy the l"lhi ,,f tht' bl'ljlr wtdJ .-unu rhmuj!h It~ disinttgratton into ten
.,:
<:,Ill" .
..
"dcno.-r.~,,,.,. ... _,1.11~ ,.,a,, fit. In SUI'("'C' <li hi~ lr<,l . .iJt '''''"'''' V.~6.1: Hippo!.. Comm. m
I 'an. IV "i :uaJ [), :\11iil" :!5; Tort., l),rt'"" !4 Jl<: ,,n,II.J't., D~ mst. VII.lt>.l ff. As I haw
,;.ud. th, .,.,ly two r.xt,. ~hJt ;.:,u wm.- r.-lo.'\',"'' ."l:'t' tit~ rw. !l!ut.~.~ .lt rbc.> btgmning of th1s
n11r.:-, .mlnt .111y ,,(tho~.- ,lt;:d ~y Altol.l~, Itt ;,a,b ofl-1" r:...~so~g:c we certainly find the trn
h,tn>s =
t'll
J..ru~"
kxo:rt C.'""'l "' D.m. IV.,.;; '"" ~.-, ,. g. lV . .,it!.,\)
62. Sw H. A. I k.ik,. 'Wh,,l w~ rb, ,f, l.tll<bht: c,,,~t.mtini"' .td",r,..t?', in Hisroria 24 (1975)
Jt5-.it (csp. 35~-t.). wh' J'Td;.:r. J,Jt, tu X\5 ;ul dunk til' ,.,u1al day is likely to have been
25 July in that rt;or. " \\',ib nh .ll[('r tlu~ SI.'CI11111 \\''!.~ iirhd rb:..t I ~.lW Drake's substqumr
),._>t>l. In I>waa.<o" <1 (.',.,m.mrio;c .-\ Hllt,rr:.;l St.J1 ,,.;J r-..il' Tro~mi.ll'''' oj Eusebiu.' Triutmial
(Jr:rtim ilim~ .yC.r'!l<''"'.;l'ulo/i:,rlr.n>. Ch;,_ s!,.;. 15, U,rkl,yll'ltdon, 1976).
63. Ettsfh,. 'frj,,:"fll ("' ()r,,, J, 1.,:.:1. C"l!fo~llf.) !ll.h, d.!. A I 1\':kd. ,,, L'CS 7 (1902). Thtn ts an
f.ng ~ran~. r'tlu,; 5J~"'<-.!l \<>r "F""''dKs) u t:,,,,j,,,., "'SPNF I ( 1~.~1& ,-.-pr.) 561-t.IO .r revision
lw f:. C. nwh:tr.Js.,n(<>ll thd.t~is,ff. A. H,ui ir<'ll~s.-ot~ol ~o.lill:nlth~ Gn:.:ktext in1AA9)
t"rh, o~uunyJ~u l:u~ Iran~ JuhhsiJ,-.i h So~mud H;,,:sur .m.is.-...~ m London in 1845, lrom
rh, ~.,ntr:nth,Un:y (-;r,'<"k :oxt I\' V.llo-;oms (s'-" .Vl':\oJ= I :.:. 4(6. 466-7. 469). The ne\\
b1~.dbh tf.ltt,.J;tticnl>y II. A. Llr .-.I.., (>w th,pr,.,.,hng- ""I~) ~~ -orJ.d from tht improved text by
l-k1kd I n.-.J not ,nr.;-r !l<'h' ir'' tl~, qu,,til'l \\ h,tlll't' 1'i"'"'' 1-;() and 11-lfl shuuld be
t r,-.u,cl as .1 :uoil, <>r ...~ ., Jifhlln .~i 1wo sr.;orat. Jd;~,,~;.-s: thrlutcr ,,.,ms tar more probable
(!o<,lJuk,, .. , ir:-J in tnt" tr .-.lm;.: n,>t.-..m.lJ. Qu;~st.:t. P.ltroi)(~' 1111.1960] 32~8).
64. n,, arh.-~t .."Xar.pks 1 !t:~t('{'n tn hil\'<" ,oan~ J<'R'll> ..n- mth~ .-.-.rr.-;pvnJe"':r lx:tween rhc two
p;~uiuch,... Artia:~ ()iCrn~t~,:mopl;o~r,;l C\'11! ..i A!,x.r~<lru .-..u,-.-:n,og the rehabilit<~tion of
J>hu Cbry~~!i.>m. ~" tl:..' ,_.,umi :k-.;-1,!.; ,,; th, titiit ::.:"'11_,: ,:.:, C"nl. Ep. 75 (by Atttcus), in
.\-ff'(; I XXVll _1-t'.ICll.ith! "'i' .i~.?.'\ {::;..r,., ,.;, . ""''~'''" el~ ii.llll>'l"'riav rlJv1TOA.w). Then
.m .,;:-,a~l '"~'~rl,. ;., Jl.,. M~b;~,; (1:::.1-..i..,.:i: n-:nur)'). 0:"1-.{{'.lPhia, cd. L. Dindorf
(C.'illn. li.::OII!I. ~iBl}, ,, ;:. ;.J'~~I.l'>-17 (IJ,,.,~ X, C:;.lrt>::i:t :t<r Green facriun. given
:rOI'P'Ir<~> by rll,. t'lll"''Wr. f6r,.JW..: 1.,\:-r.-..fo :: ){~>U>~ .1:,,1 o:orit,r 'lli,t~); 246.11)..\J (Hook X.
Chudm~i; ;.1;;! c;;p. J;.iJ. :~..~.()I,,.,,. XVI. ;\l:.~<tJi..:~: t!:<" ('.r,,n i;o,t:n :&r Antioch MJIU'"I>Broil"
Notes on V.iii- VI.i (pp.326-332)
617
1rljp)(~'l'o T'Oi~ lip)(oo<ril'), and 416.9-10 and 21 to 417.1 (Book XVII. Justin l: the Blue faction
rioted :at Constantinople until th Praefectus Urbi Thcodotus .......-.n.~dr~na~crt "'~ &r,f'DI<ptrria'>
TGilf BvCa.,.,.u..v: at Antioch the Comes Orimtls Ephracmius also ;,.wlfia'a"ro 1<anl T<ilv
&rjp.o1eparoiwrw" BwTwv. etc.). There are some particularly good e-xamples in The-ophanes
(early ninth ce-ntury), Clr~onogrctphia, ed. C. dt Boor (Leipzig. 1883): L 166.26 (A.M. 6012:
fa'f)fUJKpOTrJ<n ro /JEIIT'Ov p.ipo<;), 181.17-18 (A.M. 6023; ocai. eyi""vro KOO'JI.tiCai. &rjfUJKpaTial ~<a<
cfiOro), and 492.27 (A.M. 6303: ~ &rii'Docpcrtia" ey.ipa Xpw-ru:troi,.). Sec Cameron, CF 305-6,
improving ~n G. I. Brarianu, 'Empire ct "Democratu~" a Byzance', in Byz. Ztschr. 37 (1937)
86-1 t I, at 87-91.
65. I ought perhaps to have said more in this section about the sl~5eis and revolutions in Greek
cities in the Hdlenistic age: some were de-arly forms of p0litical class struggle to a
greater or le-ss degree. But our sources an; u~ually defective or bias~d. and the movemtnts in
question we-re rarely very significant. I shall mlrdy refer to a comprehensive set of articles
by A. Fuks: the main one, 'P.111em~ and types of ~oCJal-economic revolution in Grrlce
from the 4th to the 2nd ce-ntury B.C.'. in Aile. 5. 5 (1974) 51--81, hsts the others,
p.53n.fl.
[VI.i]
1. For a~'"''! l>mf;t:<h~l!lmt of w!t:.t m;;.la "k.m~.u,l;aw (Vlrtually the ius <il'ile in thnensc in which
I am ll~ing :he ;~nil) ':he 11\'-'St t>r;gm.,l ;-rc..+.l.-: l>trhe Roman mind', see Barry Nicholas,IRL
= A lmo'olf~ 1: N.,.,.,,;l..lw !, 1""2) 1-~. n~;~tl,.><l (<fxv + 281 pag<-s) is the bestclem~'tltary
intr(~<.tu~tim, t. d:~ ~llh_l(-ct in E.t:~hsh . .JIIii is A rno.>del of clanry. Mort compre-hensive,
and d~-lllllt' Ills\! wirh pubhcl.aw. ~ H F. J.,J;;w:cz. 1-IISRL' = Hislorica/i,.troducrion tc the Srudy
of R,.,;zr: 1.<111', jr,i edn. revb,.,f h}' ll.ul"}' Nidl"l.l i!'172). Other works ar~ rcfcr!ld to in the
text h~>.:. Th,;s,ntnc.J<I.Iiut<\1 with H,n1:m hw who w1sh to SL't' how it actually functioned
in R.-mar: sontry will tinJ thit h<-st 'way im<> ~~~~~UbJ1ct through Crook, LLR(l%7), a book
whid1. m tho m~r pnL~wurcby nw1mr. ~v;.! tb: unnecessary technicalttscs that mak. so
many ,Jf dl<' wrillflg! ,_,f m<>d<., n sreti.ihsts i:a RulllJnl;aw scarcely intelligihl( to anyone except
anothn ncb spect.&liEt Cr.1ol. h0WM-''r. t.u:~s ;1 f~r rllore indulgent VJcw than I could of the
class n~tur.:- of tht ltum.1u la~.Jl >}':'1!<'111 ..u.l the wa~ It hclpt-d to fortify the position of the
Rom;~n propertied d;~Ss.
2. Seem)' WWECP, in S:\S i.-<1 FiIY,l 21l\.2i:. with rd<rences (csp. n.S3). cf. 249n.170.
3. To th nf,r,:nres given rn my :orrid,- <ire" I m u :! :d"-'''7 ~ddJolowicz and Nicholas. HISRL J 175,
397-8; Kl5rt. RZ ( 1966) J3~(). S fl6: "W1!1tn !nd Artl"n der Kognirionsvcr(Jhren' (~cc 339 for
the 'Sannnl'ib.t:riif K.-~itlom-;ro.r.c.s."'). HI' II' i 1'.17S) 16-17.
4. This W.l$ h~- 11<' lli<"J.J1) "l.&h' okw:l<:p1n:.,ll m Romul . ow Set." Go~mscy. SSLPRE (referred to
St.'Ver.tl tirncs in VIII i !lh<~w):J M Kdly, R'"'"'rl.itl_.:.rtiotl (1%6); Rudolf von lhtnng. Schm;
und l:ltb' '" ,.J,- }llli;p.,,f,:f'l:: '"tb ,llu. UIJ>Y~t: I'IIJIJ) 17S.232 (Abt. I! .iii: 'Re1cb. und A em im
;~ltrti1ut~rh~., Ci\'ilJH>7<ss').
5. Cf. n<W Uru:t. l.l I ;;..K
6. S<.'C Drum. 1.1 !.51)
7. Set c,;p. l'"l}b. l.iil.t:7.':. W (and cf_ 4): vi..\; lxiii.9; lll.i1.6; IX.x.tl; XV.ix.2 (d. 4-5); x.2.
Cf. .\1'10 I. \'i b: ~.:.' ~L-..." ! -::'. II. xxi.9; xxxi.K; Ill.iii.9; V civ .J: Vl.u.3; I. h. (Cf.n.6 to Section
iv ot'this rb.rll'l.l
8. Brunt. l.llfil. nr~ rruta..-~t :h"' tillw~. 1.1 li2--72.
9. The- htm;;l ~.w.:.,:ry ut' Y;liJw,h '"'"5 ..: ,,mrsc d~picte;i l>y h1s zealous worsh1ppers as l'XIt'tlding
not omly ~., fi>ro:i,.:11 F""'PI<" hut a1~&> IL disobedimt l>radu.-s. As mv conc<'m ar tbis p01nt is
only with rh1 t\.onn~r. I give bur : ni,r.' I< rh. i~t~ tmagined for the Iauer: D<uteronomy
X X \'Ill, wb.r. :({tcr t 4 vtrs.-~ .t.:.-..nl-:n~~ ch~ bk>in~s of th< obtdient, there arc 54 verses
t'OOf.!IIOIIlj!: ~~~ -IWC'th:>l'lfll'!: llt ;;J' CI<U'S i.IJl<>li IJ~IIl"!!'rt'SSOtS - mcluding th~ only biblical
rcfeh'nl'a' l knvw t" ,~:al'.ut.p!-.;,~w (Wr::{ .5'T)
10. The arrh:IJ;i.-;,1 r,,:;r,i i~ '" t )'~t absolutely --1.-~r; t>ut (<~) ah hough Huor was a wm1derabk
nty wlu.-!1 .-.-.ul.t h.l\'~ lx1 :I:<W}'\,i \)' lit::'],;,r.;,,l\tts und<r 'Joshua' 1n the lat thinecnth
century 11 C .. Fl (l) it ._,._..,,. ~)tm,,;r nTlAII: rlur ~;.~ dcstructton of th< major nty of Ai took
plan tlli>r; :h.m.1 rh,,.ts.lll<l v.:o~r; .u h,r .m.i cb.a A, ,.,,l(d not poss1bly havl' bctn a place oiany
size Lr i:nJvJUrKt' 111 J"'hnai ,t;j~'; ;,.j,,, (:) th.:- 11~'.JI day<; ofJeri<'ho W<'rl' al~u much .:arJi,r,
618
Notes on Vl.i-iii (pp.332-340)
and the place ws in a poor way after thcmid-sLXteenth centurv and in the time ofjoshua' was
small and unimportant and probably unwallcd. But lam conctrned htrc not so much with
what actually happL'tled as with what the Israelites w1shed to behcve about their own past and
the role pl.ty,d by their God.
11. I understand from Zvi Yavctz that the arlie5t survvmg passage mentioning th.- advocacy of
genocide of the jews is Diod. XXXIV/XXXV.1.1.4 (the fncnds of Antiochus VII).
12. Sec m partrcular Num. XXV.H-9. 1~13; I Chron. lx.2H; Ps. CVI.JO. In Ecclus. XL V.23-5
PhinLas rs cckbrated along with MosL'S o.nd Aaron. He 1s also cited wrth admrration by some
Christian wrirrs seeking Old TL'StamL'fltjusnficatiOn for persecution, e.g. Optar. 111.5,7: VII.&.
[VJ.ii]
I. E. J. Dickerman, 'S.."ltnt' rd!..-ct~o)n~ on e:~rly ~om:11 hu.ury'. in Rl" Iii filo/ 97 (1%9) 393-408.
2. Among many rccrm wotki' dealing "'lth rll.- pwi>km otthc =YJSiwra, sL'e csp. Kurt von fntz.
'The n-orgamsatr.m cf dc l{(n~.m g.wnumrn (n JM B. C. ~ild th so-<:alkd Ltcinio-Sextian
laws', in Historia 1 (N51J) .l.-1-1. ;,tll-5.
3. See lily Ross Taylur. "f"<'rmmr~;;otrh.Gr:l>ctri'. m)RSS2{l%J.) t'"-27,at20, withnn.lt-12.
4. I make this qualifi.:.t:imJ bt"t:i".u': ~!J,_s~: tal.>"~ qi..rtw~ ;:.r: 1:1 rht" sm:~siones (mcntion~-d in the
main text above) .tl'(' u~>t likdy l'' i>;,w :rK!"Iii !l:c poor<:.,~ ,i:i~ll' ..,ho at this dare would not
have been scrvin~ ;,.., rlt, '"~r1; .1mry,
5. A. W. Lintott, 'Tho:- tt:.o.iitim ,,.r" vu;.),-r,.:>: "' d:.:.Jnn-U;ufr!:e Early lfomaan Republic'. in Historia
19 (1970) 12-2'J; d L.;~:U , ~Oi>k. Vidmt<' "' i!<Ttll!ir.tP R:)~rl' (I 'IN!) SS-7 ere There arc at
kast four passagn 1:1 \.,,,., .. m<"tll\<lm~ otU thr.'' mo~!l (C.u..mt, .l\l~dtus and Manhus): Pro
domo ad pontif. 101: 111>/i!. 87 a"J Il-l. Dr hp. II N ..A.:rl'-'11;; .>~ltl Ci,~roruan texts rcfernnp;to
one or more of thn :m l..td. ~ J;d Jt>; I.R .<C'f:or: _'>fJ; f'r~ Ml!. 7?: l Cat. 3; 1 Phil . .12. Cassius
and Manlius an: dcpicr;::d .u l'~tnCI;ins .ami omsuL!$, M:.;-bas Ol!i ;.. rKh Pkb.-i~n who had
dJstnbutL-d com tf th J'<..;:;.t. '-'"-'\' s:.y:!.l!>:.:_ M.anh.:.s. '":~ 'J.n:au,. ..mmum ex patribus popularis
factus (VI. 11. 7); ..:d o1f"t. !>i~ ~K>n~dOtl;.i~ ~"''':ai u:.:m,-.-.: (V!. :zn. 14) that Manlius would
have been m,mor.h:l~ ,t ha: ho~<l n~>r bn~n b>m ,r> l>~u .-i.:t.: ~ Cf. 11.41.2 (on Cassms).
Among orhtr narnr ..,s, I "'"lild ,;;;iW ollt""l''''ll r., r.h::: o>fC11 G,:tu.-iu~. tnbune ofrhe pl('bs
in 473: livy 11.54-i:. (~P ~4.1J-.h.l): Di<-r.. fbl., t\R IX .)7~l.'i. I""' I' .1!'.2-J); X.JI'!.4-5
[VI. iii]
1. (Or des,('ndants of msular lllbrm" it( lkl;tt... r~.) r;..t;,., .. Dir Nohilitiir dtT rb"rttHlhfn R!publik
(1912) was rrpr. m !:~s Kkm, .'-liJT~f,,ul (W'c.b;.:.;i,~'' lrll'i:!~ I !.J5:.ml i~ now eastly availablt inJ
good Eng. trans. hy !{,)bin Se"t~~r ...,
Rtr.;, Nlli1; (l'JI'I)I-!J11. Cf. H. Strasburger, in
RE XVII.r (19.16) 7~-l, 1 I' 'N:.I.!k.;. ,J.nd I?:!J-.". , ..-. 'N"'"'"'"'"'o'; E. Badian, in OCD 2
736. 740, ''' 'Ncl:hra..', 'Nmn blmo'; ~y:u~. ~H ln ii; It H. ')cullard. Romml Politic.
120-150 B.C. (1951) I''- I!: ~rut 't'i .'\ . .\tiL:h:~. 'Zm ll<tir.:ti;m ,;,., romischl'n Nobilir'ir vor
der Zeit Ckl'"ros'. ;II C:iot<1 n A:1<'d. 7 (l'J<~S) l~oli-:'l~l.
2. rhus Wl."l"OCOum.r phr.l~qildJ r.;lir;:;lli'<O u:um rrru (Cic, D. "P I.IO; Dele,~tl'a_~r.l.27;
n.,.
Nepos ..4tt.l9.2, ci L 1: Vdl P;ar. II !;~ :-?;f XI>:!). t\rHIt" \ 11 \'i n.W2.
3. SC'I. e.g. Badian, PS li)C~. 1117, i 11- 1~.
4. Sec ll.i n.21 abov, fr~ r.,t, :tllol utio,: .,.,.,,r).;~. h, Nkui:~~. Coh:!l, ,t.:
5. Fur Amcus, Sl't' Nep''' .-l:r . {"Si'- ! I, o. 1-5. I I ~- 13.1>. l'LLW 5. h? Mal'Ct"llJs. ,,., esp. Vdl.
Pat. ll.!iH.2. For At"""'" M;h. '!o("e T;;,: .. ,\,.: X VI l"/.:;. Ci. I iiJI_ 11-1~6 on Come bus fuscus,
who in bts youth ,..,.,... c.,n\lm ~<l:m'!1' ,.;.lln.at' in nit: l<.o :;w.- ch,lt:,pnial s.-rvrn The MS.
~iving Ius motiVL, kts ':tlli>'!l' -'\tJ:,!>t<~'. m.r ,x!b>: l'rdrr ..,;,llli, .. r 'quaLstus to "quit-tis'.
6. Ste csp. H. Cohen. op a: m II i ;,_2\ Jl~~-=
7. See e.g. H. Srrasburt.:<'l. C"U~I,j i.1>clmum Elnr Ull~sudtUIIR li:'l'r P(.)litik Clmos (l>i~s. {at
Frankfurt]. Lctpzig. l~J.'\!}
8. I .lc,('rt tht view thai ~h ur,.,.,;;; to;h;:;,, Wilo: :;kn:t::;,ll\'llh :l:~ umcilium pl.hi> (cf. Se<'t!on ii of
thi~ chapter). ex cepe :h.<t th(~' (,.) ah.o illd ..dL..! P,,rri i~n; (w!:.> r.i WIUW wtrt few in number
CV<'Illll tlw Middle ltt"lt:h!i;:}. :u!i. i!l J:~c~tlhlt <:v.l !i: l~"''':i!l A.rr..bbt is by l.tly Ross Taylor,
Roman Votin.l! Assemilltof ;,-,.,,,, lhr !i.urlilr,!llr ll'l "' rl~r Dia.,llrrs ~( C111's.zr (Ann Arbor. I'Xlfl).
Notes on VI.iii-iv (pp.340-344)
619
See ai1<: f.. S S.UJd;cy, Cn-A- ltld R;n,.,m Votinl o:o:d Elections (1972). G. W. Botsford. The
Rom.u: A t.r'l.'lblk' jF.!'II h~iP OriJ!in r.. tlli~ -:J '!}' r~ P~public (New York, 1909), is still worth
cons,Jit!nj.;. f1~rtl1>r blbho~r;~:,l'ly wiil be fm:nd in the ;;rticle. 'Comitia', by A. Momighano. in
OCD' 2721. .-\nd .>t't: th:- il::t ;>('It~

9. The
l;a~t
wori. I !la..-c
~r '.'l' ~he ~ubjtc.: IS
com1li~ cr"O!tr;.;ll;r,', m Ar.I<Cflll"'mtrt.~.
n.
Dcvelin, n,e thi.rd-cmtury reform nf th;:o
56 ( I'J/'K) .l-lC..-77.
10. I mu~t ;~dd h~-. t!tt li,.,. <~Yi!tin oitilc- wtmltu.ffm.~'""'' t.~~ bnn admirably explained in the article
by M. l~mh,:,!!l ( 190J.) circe ~:lillY OPi'l' J48u.2. wlllch I did not come across until after my
SVP was p;lhlt;iJ,:d

11. Amor:~ .ruiol'~ ~b!;c.n..;., see FlllA' [.62. Another section, V.S (FfRA' 1.41), refers to
patmn:a;:-c. bv~ c .,.t,r fre<..l!!t~n .:.r.ly.
12. Cf. l.wy Vi.li!.~; Pion . }i,;,,. i3 ..~fir., :'1, /,",
clitr:r~i. r. S ~m.v
fO:' thL ongin and early dLvdopm~nt of the

rhc- t<'t'c-n! .,~:~>~~~by II. StusburgLr. Zum antiken Gesellsfhaftrideal o:
Abl'""tll. ;!,-~ 1-kiddbt"rt~.t<: t\ht!. t!r: Wi~\.,l'hlos..-1,. Klassc (19'76no.4) 104n.731, which I
saw cuiy ilftor rlu .-h.op:-cr was fi:1ish~d T;J '"Y m:m!, the dissent cxprLsstd in P. A. Brunt's
revi.w ti th:t! wok, in G:umMI 51 (1979) 4-~j ff. at 447-8, is JUStified only if a narrow
intcf~>r.c:ttum 1> ;r..i::>!'t(.i, ;;n,l w::- ti:ink putdy 111 ~{'l'tns of C"ast-s in which the cliens!patromu
rclatiou..hip ~.~ist,J fc1rm;all:-- "'"'is n:;utt" ~xpli.:;;.)
13. W. V. I !arri~. Jl'a .l>ullm,.m.l!um m liepubllt.:n R:m" }]7. 70 B. C. ( 1979), which I read only after
thrs s.:~I<>Jl w us iimshed. h:.> ..:t xcdltnt :;..:rt-=-, ! .!:]. L l. pointing our that 'Massilil'nses nostri
chent~ 1t1 Ck . o.. -; l J.,;, 1>:.. rd.:n:nCl' t.: ti~ tlurtl'la of Scipio Aemilianus, not <>fRome,
and 4iso th..! th{ iir.!t .:i<'llt .,~, (I dH: 'dwm' .neo-..:;.phor by a Roman writer for RomLs
relationship wirh sm.- ;,hr~ s~ti'""'" ;; !: rl~ XI IX .,,,.7.1 (Proculus. mul-first century C. E.).
14. SeeGelzcr, The R1J~r.~1 Nobility (n.l h'll) 6J.s>!d l>n.:,S-9; :md on thewholnubJt'Ct E. Badian.
ForriK'I Cli,..,,,.;,~ !64 ill H. C. ( 19~.
14a. I haw us,.,[ !ht L"..-1' c:.!Ulu!r. b)'.! W .:.1;il .'\. 11.1. !iuti' ( 1934).
15. In m~ l~NW! r.io ir. :11>!~ ((1'9n :..>~) t<> Augustmc, Dr.-w. Dei!V.]I-2; cf. 27 (ag:oint ScaL'Vola)
and VI 10 (agamst Stl!k'\4}. :.i~. C!c . 1>.- tl' II..U-3 (contrast De div., esp. 11.2H-150); livy
J.IYA-:.. and DIO c~ss UI.Jt..I-J
mend'<r" ,,i rht )~O>m.lt' gvvn-:1nr:;
A~~,,,., lll<tJir:...
of the religious opinions Cl(prtsstd by

himself, is often doubtLd
De l~g. 11.16. rressing the
pra;ri;,Ji u.r'f~<ltlfi,' f l11<.11k~ug .1. ,;rn:r .1! J,(h,h'rt ~ '''religion: ir secures respect for oarhs. :md
"tht it..u ,_,f .ll'llilh' rtunhllunr !t:tS r.~d.iru.-.1 .....,.,. from cmm' (cf. 11.30). Withuur pietas
tow:.r.ts th~ ~"1~. Ct.-<'Jl l\.ly" ,J~wh,ro (Ur: !loll 1"''"'"' 1.4), 'fidc:s t'tiam <'f societas gen.-ri!;
hutu:uu <'I uru 'X<:<'llurt>~ntu \'irtlo~. iu~rm~' m.1y wdl disapJK'ar. For the gemral attitude to
relij:i"" tu
Rm~r wuri,i. ..,.,,.,:i:olly '"''' <:;f the m:ing cJa,s<s, .'It'<' also my WWECP 24-31.
r~pr tr) St\.o; (l fl.~) !J.S :x; ..,.. t .-f :,..,,. IIrma. J I I6S-8.
16. As w h~um."2'1 C the appointment ~i!\1 Cl;m.ln" Marcdlus as d1ctator wa" dt'clared invalid
by rh ...mt:urs: ~,lt\iy VIII.23.14-17 Ci mw tb~,-'Umplcs (not includmg thLonf just givl'n)
set uot m J H W G l.tdlt::;;f'lntz. C.ttm'lwty ou,;l ClllliiJl<' in Roman Relij(iOtl (197'l) 309
,:,,~.... .on.t 111 l'rllcular Cicero
(with huw umd1 .::.us,t ts wry tw,l ~ .., ~.,~j. I 1111> o~.dd here Cic.,
;j,,.
(AJ'!'W<tix)
17. As wh.:u tlu~
l~H
.. ; M l.iv;,,. I lru~l.i il\ _It II C
, ...;:rc cancelltd by th< Scnltt''. one of the

h;, IJ31, a fasdnatiug pas~agL; Ascou. 61, In
Co.,Jr'it,J>I ..
A. C. Cl;.rk. J lo'J -7). Ci perhaps thl' uubsation of sinistl'r OntL'll" by rhf
haru10p1L'n t.>stQJ' t!tl" ;~.gruriau iillui ....-x. "( iiius, tnbunl'in 99 B.C. (Cic, Dfl.-g. 11.14, 31. and
othor MJtlfo''- f!awn t~rr:ut.l.:<' Alll Cb,. Sttr.-.' 113, and in Broughton. ,\-IRR 11.2): the
law .- ruJu .:uhl l~ S:.tl\1 to IIC """'"' llll.'l'iii.: {,;rae. And r.et A. w. lmtotl, Vic>lmet in
grC\nml~
i:.ug dl~tq:;.r<l.,j ~UJK'' lCK ..
,,1.
i)(
Rrrrtl>l:"' Hm (l'lfl.'~i !J.J.. :;

18. The r<'lir..-uc.... t. th..- '" p.&~~J!<' I h.,, .-'!'"':'~' ~r. Cic .. In Vat. 23; De h~r. rnp. :OR; In Pi>. 9:
Po~t r~11. IIi Yll. I 1: In Voll. II<; Pt< s.. 1 :13 ~,,ff,.n,'l~ bibliography on rhesc laws is giwn by
H. H 'in:l.mi 111 OCfr O:t!. r 1 'J .~~; .'\,b~ {lj .\dia et Fujia'; and Lintott, op. cit. 146-7.
[VI.iv]
L The fullest acmunr thar I know ts by Gaston Colin, R<~mr rt Ia Grhe de 200a l4fi <~v.j -C. (Plns,
1405). A partkularly intt"rcstmg rcnnt work. ~1ving d riru:al gnnal surwy of thL arlic-r
literarure. 1s E. Hadi.~on, Titus QuitUtlu.< FlarniniuuL Philhcllenimr tmd R~alpohuk (Louise Taft
620
Notes on VJ.iv (pp.344-348)
Sf:mpk Ln:.!\lrc, Cincinnati, 1970). A recent very scholarly general work with good hilIi,..
graphics :3 W,Il, HPMH I and II (1966-7). And sc:c n.5 bdow.
2. S~c <'.g. L H"mo, Primitive Italy t~nd tl1e Be.l!innings of Homan fmpmalism (Eng. trans., 1927)
~6.a..7lt fcr ~his and some similar <'Xamplt:s ofRoman brutality towards conqucred peoples.
n~tb,m, :i' .-it. 56 n.SO, gives the sources for the Epirot episode in full, and refer., in this
cnur:,-c~ion r... Paullus's approval of a massacre m Aerolia (Livy XLV. xxviii.6 ff.: xxx1.l ff.).
addmr;. 'Fhmininus appears rcsplmdent by comparison. H. H. ScullarJ. 'Charops and
Rm~n ~or>lkr in Epirus', in JRS .35 (1945) 5~. docs his b<st co dd,nd Paull us. in my opinion
ur:SI\~~fallr. For 'the Roman method of conducting war', St'<" also Rostovtzeff. SEHHW
11.61)(o.
3. 'f1tc t":!ct." al!J ><m~ -~r, g1wn vuy {ui!)' h1 M;;!,")(', HR.1M I.!~ fl. (~-sp. 21~'17), .v:ith th<"
n,.,.r~ i11 fl ;rn:; ff. (~$J' l !0.~ :u:.Jf..7). S;-.. :al~> llm:n. J.\{ U+ 7
4. T. R. s UrOU!Jhti>ll. In J;.<;A rc (ed hor.i.) IV .S'o:l, f;:;.t :h-.-detail~. ~rdbid. Slf>-!'J, 525-6, 5(12---tl.
:,; i -il, 5N..S7 (.tu,i :SJ5 rT.). Ci _lnt~o. R1;; 14-1~
5. S~ '111. V lf:~rn;, "()n w.u.u:.! ~t<<t-:.: uaLh~ v.('un~ n"tll11r~ U.C .in AHR 76 (1971) 1371-li5.
and M. H ~::::.wiord. nwtw ;md th c;mk .,,orl<l: .-c.mc:rt:c: rd.1:1onships'. in Econ. Hist.
#lt'J'.' :..\!) (1977) 4~-52. ~~th !1au:hfying :!w ;'inure pns-:m-d m fbli:an. RILR'. ~ mine: of
inl~rm.G.ti>:~ i:1 cot'lj''lt (.m:t wh.ch l> i"rh.tt' :m~l !ikiy ~o 1::- mn,altcJ by students gaining
th.-u t';r~t acqu:u:;:a:<"t' wuh l{<>rl.lt c.'{J.'"'"'""'ll 1:1 litr l:ut tw> ,,:-;nudes of the R.public. And
sn Dr:.ur, Ll 17(l.5 fOrdy .-fr>':r !.lm >crflou ;n f;;1~hr'! 'id I ;.,-r !h< mteresting books bv
1-brn,; (m~~or:une;! in u. 13 :,_, S.O..:ti: in af this <:hpt~r) .:::.! Mido..:d Crawford. Tlu Roman
Rtr11Mi: (J;,,:11.1n.: t lost ,~f thr: A:1c. \JI:r,.,, ht 17~i. J
6. I must.~,!.! r!:at I ~rmr t~">ll<W thQ~ '''Yll.:l' wh1 b.tve suppo~ttlrbJt th. policy of Augustus and
must <>fht ~u..xsso,,. w:t>' ti.tllli~ltl<'lli:.Lil~ '~.:.fnsrw and escb~w'".l inr:her conquosts. My own
"ic-w~ :J.r(' mu.-!1 tht' ~.lmc a> llln,:, of I' !\. llr~mr. m h;!> n.-o,w of H D. Mytr, DH
AII!J'I'tlf'ii/irii.,iJ .-\:'.~"-''''c r"'d ,Ji, ll~'"'~'f'i>d:o f>i,-lltl:..: (C,!ogt~<', Jr;, i ), in ]R S 53 (1%3) 17(1-t'
au<i :\. it. 1.1irky. '1(,,111111 ih.-nti;t; ,,n,i l{i.lll~ll fr.::r;.;-r puiic:v: ""'I<' reflections on Roman
imperialism, ~= Tm,;. ''i r:,.- thrlm .111i Ar:hm,..J. ~;.,, '} lJ;II;l;J"' .1nd Nonlrumbrrl~ml n.,.J
( 1974) 13-25. Tho: ')(151<71( ;lurn:y th l'riu,i~..t <~i ;t ~trt'll~ <.llttut of opinion m favour of
t\:nh,r o'.\JUmmn :~ ,,.,,u,rlm,g th.u ~hmM ut 1:.- ''llllfdy i;:ra.t.~.:.l whtn we an considering
)t,om.ml:nr.nhlism mh, L.at, Jt,rul>h.- (d. ~.ntct 1-flhl~ d!h'< and its nn.S-7). For a
~c.lthmg ;ririrun:
J(,.oman 'in.atJ<"' J'<>licy' u1 tho l'riu<-i!,'.ll<'. ,..,. the impr.:ssiv<' 01Ft1de by
J (~-Manu ...nl<'tt<>ntnrsoflh l'rindpatc'. ;., :'-"RW 11.1 (l~NJ51.~33 (with a bibliography).
7. Cf M 1' Nilswu. (;.:.Al l(t)i,ch. Rel(~ion II' wor:) !17: 'fJ),.,,., Kub hat densdlx:n Sinn und
Zwo-.J.. \\'lt.' J,r lkrrs.h,.,lulr. Th,n,;J"'' IW- h'o..\:11! ><-lll;>r:h,~i\'< tn:.lhn<'Tlts of the Grwk rule
.,( llo:ll'. 1-y ll;:!ll:Jd Mdlr, ~o'l':i:l"l 'f!:~ W1>r1l:ip .j thi :"";,'llik;;; ;;:,r;ow it~lh Grotk fJwld ( =
ll)'l""''''''"r.t.J 4..:!. (;fttUII!<TI, tns:1. dlll ~ work ll:ow rlN ;.xu: C:trl.l Fayer, II mlto della lxa
Ro'flla Orr..:mo' ,. J!!fu;;,,,,. fldt'lml'"'' (C.I/.""' Jr -"-'.1:\'1 ( Rr;,..rl,,. '' P<"'-~J.I. 1976) - st"e rho revi,w
(>fhrh wurh by I C. D;t,i~. Ut]RS hi ( 117/) .J:IJ.H:. I .jgu.,. with !\.kllor (21 and n.SO) on th
..I,..., I,.<. uf .11;~ "rdt)!lo>U~ .lti~<1J"ion' { m th m<'<lont tn'i<') "' tilt' r;tlrs of rulers and of Rome.
8. J. :'\ 0. L1r<.:n. s,m ,.trly .'\n.tt<h.u .:ult<. otf ltoru<', in Mo1l.l"(t.i .l'.~rch~ol. er d'hi>t. offrrts a
,-\.,,f,,1 l''!!:lll!;'l (P.uu. l'lf~.; 111 ho;l5-tl '11t~l&~tui;:,,lr> ;,iJ~ ..,,,_, 111.'\~ia Mmor known down
h.> lbo 194(io> ru M.lt'i NllJ\,\1 II. H,i,\..l4.lu"'"'"' ll\.i.'ll>lll'<n<-.io,( iy the much longt"r list of
all k11o\\rl C.ro..k n1lt~ '\I R,m;; ~~,.,,, i'Y M.-l!1r. '-'P ;it .?i.J'/.).~.
9. Th( cult ntl=t..mllunu~ w. still 1-.m~ .-d.-in.&tt"\l.JI ( ;yrhmUl in L1mi.1 in the reign ofTiberius
l~c..: F.lf 111?.: l-1:.?) .md .u Ch;~ki~ 11 lub.-..-a ''' f'llll.tr.t., t1111,. (J'Iut., Flam. 11l.5-7: cf. IG
Xll.l.'--~1.3).5-1) Ourh, wh<>lo ~ul.ICf! ,..,. Nil\O.n. 'J' m. (it u.7 :1l>ow) 17S-Iill; Kurt lane.
jl,;,..,sd~.- Rii.~i~~. . . .~.stJ_ ~ 1Qhilj .'L!.JJ.
boo,..;. eku'"'' II ;mcio:m l'<'r>.:. IS ll. N. t=r~" Tht Herita~~ (fj Ptrsi<l 2 (1976). s. . . . also
R (;Jl!r;obm:;.u. lr.lll (1'1!:\;; Eu.::. rr;u:~, 11!>4).
11. flrtlt h:st'''~' ,,i[;l,s,.unJ.Il. ~.:j{.tl. t:J~.:, n:.IJI,.i.<rdCil(;ltm): E. K1rs1en. 'Edt'Ssa'. in
H.;c'.: -1 (!~5~') 5::02-"i
12.
:~,. c. H. Wdl,-s. ~rir. Population ai n.:.,mn Du:;;.', u: :\~:r.i ... HI..,Nm E(on. and Soc. Hi51. ill
H...,,,, ,f .1. C. j.l"l.<:on, ,-.1. 1'. R. Coknt.ar.-N.,rtu;; (P~u''"''" li~l) }.SI-74; audJ. H. WardP,rkm. 'Th, Ui>llJ:l Wt":.l ~11d rh~ J:,nhi:.n EJ~r.,,. 1'1!.'\ !ol (f'Jb!>i 175-99 (with Plates). For
tltrtiwr bibliography (including ~hr ,.,.,;w:o~.t:' r,l"rb) ,.,":' OI"..:Dv t~.?. s.v. 'Europus'.
13. Sh,rwm~Whitl'. RC~ 3~58 (cf. _:or_.~I~J.1-H. !11-1. ,'!'1.:1, ,?'J:; .\Ilh, 311-12. 3~. JH2 (wuh
_u.,), oI!H!! Tlif>~l i>f tb :n>d.:-n: lir.~nt.rr.~. "''" ;;j..;, .ll"' ;.,.,. -41:;1 Ni: h:.olas, HIS R L" 71-4.
10.
'111.~ b:~M
s.-,
Notes on VJ.v (pp.350-352)
621
[VI. v]
1. I canno: d(~,l :h: p~:-st:i.or~ ~;.~tt: ~~!\by F.(;_ ll r.1~U~r. a. (..1?8l:::: n .s. IN ( IW~) ~!lS-!,~ ~n .. :,;~&s
63 (1973) !>: 7. wlrid; ll>il~' lrrl,~j; lx- ~:mtnam<"d as the ::>elic::w~t, m th~ ~imc oi ,o\ .. ~:<~n:;,,
expr,-s.s.,ons uch ,;j:; r~ ''''blicii :c:;:~n:t;c' ar~ 'r:r.t iiltd!' w i\.1\'t' m<:..nH rlut rht fh!pt:hhc w:u;
rc~tot;;.d. wd rh;.r 4-\HgL~tn~ n~ve! t"vton d.&i~n~d to havl 'rc!itc-i::d th~ R:-puilhc" r-.liJI.lrl~ '~uu~
JUStlflerl iu i~<>~n::g .:JLit :h.. ~ 111 wm.- st'lcn:><"llC> ~bo::t .:1 n::;t,r;j!nm u~ tb ~...,. pubhc:i ~lut
term lm~: b< rmm.lJt~c; 'rh.: ~:.l~<' ...-.: "rh, t<.\ll<iitk~!l u( t~nbik .1ff.:1rn'": m .uldiuon ~o
pass:.gr> ~::.-h ;u j_.,y ill.~~.'! (whi.-h h ql;ot'-"'Sj, !A!C: /m5 . MC L I.J; .,,._j 2, wl~rtr rhr Grcc-k
c..~quh:ik!lh.ir(" v..cr:h n.. 1:!1":1::;. Btn Au~~ ... t~h hin:~-df, nt ilf: J4 1, t'l!ln" tu h;;~vc i~:,sf"r'"'",J
the )'r'J r~b!it"d (sun. .!~; 'L.:..~:,ci ~i:b~ --.c:.tt,t') fr~1n ;,~own p,r;,-Jfrfj nt.J ~i1t arbirrill''' ofthe R&lm..JD
Scnat, :toll...:; l..<~':pk ~ 1:h.i '-''h;u :.~ du~ h.~: :t dJ.t! t:!' h.tvr "'k,~..: S'n:ci~ly wh;,: ;-....:pk na"'. . u1
now.aday> ,vh"n th;y s;1ak of a :.--s:nr:;:~::m c.f_;!, lic;mbhc' rlu'. is w uy, of the st:<r.c m 1t.:;
prc--rr.i~n::~\-~~;4,1._-,:)usti~uon.al .tu ..t ;;..'!=;it~t:-ai !~~nn? !'ht. (;a~.l \'L'rM!<l~ nf /~(; .'4.1 ~.pL,,l.., L~t .l
trans!cr L:' .._'tiJUflu~ ;na!tcry, fron\ Ius ,.,.,o:s ~l)ln".l'i-'1 (l ~~~t l.f the Roman S.t.. n:ifc ~tnd f'coplt"; ;~nd
in a f:ilnt:.t;i ~k ,.,., (\l; H.4rcnu tt ~::. -~"'-' Augustltj ~h.~a;;. tl:.:.t -tifet d~~~ uansflr J'::iiol ru~...,Joon ..~d
h.: \\4 bh~J h"~ ;al'i;"-'d' t'n~ r~ ~t:;\'(' rompk1r ~~;_~':J.I,;r ._\r b~9Lz .. 5 .;"""JhU.:U :-..:~ ln ,~.-h;\t nrtwr f~,r~n of
4
"~t:"t\;~ (ld]\~ h.!,~C" TU.l,~'!' a de.tt-=' d.tlttl ~.~.. hrtl.'C' rc-n"Ju.J ~h~ ~~~tuhhc i! th.o;- \lctv
whitl~ :!w phrase normally bt"'fl :(.. b~. nur rl:,- :.;;mu ,._.~, ''"'" -' r;:.,rurdJ)' m .~n hu(
word.,
!J.I::. ....-
''""'I'"''',;
of C(lurs~ "rldrh :"t."'LUt_trUl'd ftdt~! th, t-.i,jt,. b~d ;u rha:r: it ,.,..:t.i c~o~ ~ incn_;,rdl' ~ s~ at!t 1he J~:h!
rea5411 w r.~J.."-' :!!,.. Wl.)rds cf\'itrl!~ ,/). .ml:it<"'l L l'~'.'i
:11d ~lh"f passag,s :J'vh-.1 by itill.ir.
as a dts!-''~"......~fufthc. ;.!4tn1 h> h-'\~.... :c"~tLrt-~1 :b: 1~-:-j,~lhhc" \ 1cHetus !oJ"-"lk~ ~~'~-ifially o.t :hc_;;,n:; i.i
tht St,.':l" (~~ .& r)f-tr#t!tz ~ ti.,!\ft.rt"; ~t~ .,;. lll'ltch~uote:! r~~- !!;,~~h;at ~;t.al~ \\ftf:h th,\\11Td\. p:[,,(;~ 11J;-t L1
antiqn;, 1\'i !'~:l'>l:r.t<' f<m~ J'"<'W'<'.it:i (ll.i!9.3). Ar.:i tlv::. ~ d p.:;.;~'~ I sl:e~1;1d l:h ~o clt.:" ("mt~
in rh, .l<),o, lmJ,r 'tlh.-nu~) wind1 1 n: u.I

Consi.IJJt. P.ni>. l'iJ5j c<:> ,,,tj~ m~-'11
tl;.
i,._d,..xr. . ~du:r.... ,,mpuhlu&:tr. {1

T,,,iJitr ultt.r. C:. "'-'>11'~. lXK.'!, ~''"1''-'t br I'
'th~ ~pulb.:' .In s;~u..-
aitht' d.->:Jologic.ll Liiil;ru!t,,
Ca('.!o.trt.u:.; ":-.n 'nh r,c;..r t ,\nt:u'"'" (:.1' ::: (,:. !'.l), r;1ct: ..r rh;:.n lulu~ ( :a,'t.l:-, :,:....-.. u~\ ... t lhhl
Ext. l !t"t..lr:m pratsi..J.~ P"!'il,.i.I!~~;. >&!ll .IJ~t:'~ll:: -~=~"''tJI~} .~nd ~ '-'-'i\Calirtl!. wlth :itm~ .::nd ~!c;;b1.1~
with ,vent~ after th ~,,..,..,1lil<:. o,- ArJ;:r"rh,-;. h~ 1\-brt. Ant.o>l)' 111 .l).
la. A. Momigliano w;., ''''' it>riin:e.l i~ rn:a;.tkin!!. i:o h\, ''";"'' .i~\'11);' T.JnrtJJ (: h'll~mc to
Symc's RR), tl>.u 'l lhu, N~uw -1ls. Vorganger isr '"""' n>cht '" ,;,~,;.;,., ,,... <~lwJ _;:!
( 1961) ~;;., ~~t"r 1u \l,,lrlit:h:n,J \ 'frr~o Contributo .i!l.: ,:~t.,, ~l(rtl~ "''"I d.,~Jt. t' .r Jrti ,~._.,,,],. u:~
(Roh. ~.If,,; i:,J. \\ih,n hr- "'"' r::l!' Jl, ..,,m ll.~;ft.ior:~":. ~~ nJc h.tJ hot ''t"'t !i":t~ N~ul:~c;.
2.
t~J'
Urmor',. titn.f ., .....llt-:lly important .JJ'IIi 1\IIU! = ''lh .UIII'I. '"''' ttl.: l.m.: ;;J rh.
,,..,.
m_IN.'i _;,~ il962) 69-SO: '-""' h~ .t.-llh: r ,.;,...,, m_IRS Si>i! 1':"'") .!:..~-i.J:.! ir~r111. 2._'\11 .:!). I Chr"''~'' Mn.-r. R~ 1~11>11<'1 :\om;_,,, (Wtl-.o.t.-11. ~Jf!i/ Jr,kv;mt J,..r, taa i.
anot:wr ,,,,,,;,. h'll nu,nr. '"1\winu., n th~ Lch" N}fH.ta ~L'I"'oli,c in f'(:f'S I'Jl
1e.~.ll
(I%~) 1-~'11, repr. iro CHI/ :,,f "'3!ti'Ti l'I'J-11W f-~ !!,,. g.-.;.r~l r;;~o!,r', Hrmtf, ~: .. ~>1 uwlltl
artie ... m rhis fidd 1~ 1 !x- RuJtJJu mb'. 11 1'.1>1 (; l'ri'i(M .~5 ( llfi) .\-:!1. n-JI. ~wlb "''
add('Jhluu) 111 S!\S ll FluJ,..!I 17~. II!.:' Tilt);, with ;II J,:.t .1 hrtlr ltudor ;..,,,,,,. kdt: ~ 1H ,; .,-.
protic from /... 'r' .u,t:r. l''l,l, . 1!:1 Princeps (I IIi") i --3'1: Jlr<llidtu.rh ~o:hun.ln. l)!r Er:::u>u,.,,~
der r.>mi. ,;,,., J\-lilir.irJilr.Jr: Krie u>Jd Niedt'r.~-m, ,.;,4,-tl R.;or.l.lil: ((: lugu;. 1'177). l.t!
sorr\ t ""~that 1 \.lllnt 11h' am1 th,r rt"<:llt '"'"'"' '" .tr:u:l"" d1.1t ;h.r :h. .um ~:r~l
pOSUIU!I J,.lllllll': tht':"''\'10.:, \\'\' Jlllh! ~~~ !.t. ~ 1\ llc.'n!~ (>o"l.' r: ; bd<><\ ).
3. For .1 l:'""'l bl"'<"t s:.thn<"nt JJ,..:t Optun.tl\.s .11n Popularcs, '~ lln:~t!. Sc :1111 ''2~'- N.-,,,.,
to th.; .-un-.m t:tad,ard ,j,w (wlu, h 1~ nvt rm:~,). but better !ll.llluu:th.:r n.,.;ru '' u.uutlh.
is E li.J,i:au's ..u,,-k. 'Optimarcs. Populares', m OCIY '/)_>-.: lk .:111;'! twu rn-.n: wal,
on th, Prul.n'~ h\ K. Riibclmg and C. Mt:,r: .,,,: H "''r.lmg,:, m 1\1! X\'111.1 !! 1.\<;)
773-'18. ; ,. 'Oruru.llcs'. The lol:4s l!.wi<ii..< i<>r tho: J~l!ndi'" hrtw.,u Ol'lll";t:~, .cntl
Popnl.arc.o... fr~n; lh,: ( s~:~!n.l:'"' pt,srat ,~r,s"". ~,f.-,, .,:o."' \ ,! .. /'t,t Sr.,. ..... 1....; ~~~'?'"' ,-~i' h~.5
on th J'..,l'ui;~"~'}. 1.41:-lr-,
4. I do nt 111<'.1'1 t. 1ml'!y ttlol'. thJI,;I!- ~r.,l111:d ahm: the rrtatmcnt of provmcials: no doubt
thl" IIM~tmt\' o,)t rh.-m w ;~n~nl ti:.r oilJr ._,~- rl.c spoil~ t: tmpirt'. Bur w.: should not forget that
most ,,f rhl i~w .lftt'll'fl" '" tll':;>t>'''' ;>rth'll'l<'ial adnunisrration, including the Gracchan jury
bdl .lilt! C.ltc>,tr', important i;H,. .f 5, W<r: "~''"".>:.J by recognisably 'popularis' figur~s.
5. I shoul.i J.k, tl ::tkt' this opportunity O>t' :-~.:,ornending tht book by E. S. Beesly, Catilmr.
Clodtm. ::! 'f,;,.,,:;; (187H: rtpr .. N1,,. '\rlr.. I'J!~) ..1 scnrs of tour brilliantly wnttcn &nd
highh entertaining kC!II!~ tkt\~r.:.l.tt :b.- W"rbr Mn's C'olkg at St. Pancras. Beesly
(11131-1915) was Profe;,o._,, ">tl h~t,')n ll \Jnl;':o-Na:~- College London. H<" was not just an
s('('
Hon~.tu
,,J"""''-.
:,.
622
Notes on Vl.v (pp.353)

l141dL'fll hisruu;ln; he- aim publi,htd a ~lk un Qttt.'Cn EJi~~h. md wmt~ m:.ny articles {'In
Cmllempot;~ry .tlhi~ Alt.bu11gh a ~omtijln l'mKi.visr r.uh~ thiUl .11 Mmci!lt, Het.-sly w~
<r hainn;m of till: inaul(nr.1llll~~ting ~l St. lvbrrin, l-Ull, LOJI414)11, on .?li ~temhcr 111M nf thl."
lnttr,utimlal Workmgnwn'1 Auociuion (tbt: 'Fir:u lnl.:tltlltional'). Scveralleuer:s frotn Mar~:
ro Becsl) h1 IK7U-IIuvc blompubliu~e.'dm MEW XXXffi. xt: ltoydcnHarris'::ln. 'E. S lke;ly

.lnd K:<rJ ~T$ in lRSH 4-( I%1J) 225~.11)H....~; und 'Professor i!(nly and the: working-ciass
m.Qv'"mnlt'.u; &stl'fi irr '-4bar11 Hill., ~-d. Asa Brift~ts andJolm Sol vine (rs:v. edn. 1%7) :!fi!".-41.
l\b:~ dt..~~i U!!oly irul"ttc:t In KULtChmmn on l.l IJ...'fnblT 11('1ll ~s 'a. v~ry c.tpable ~nd
CULtt:igl.'l)IB m;lln'. doyit..- $011\t: 'crot~hcu' ~:krivinjllfanl his diu:tmt..: ro Cu;ntc; 3nd in a
k~~ !:U ~y 1.1f t.:!JmlC 11171 lle fold lk'oly tblll 11l1hou~h bt: him!;clfw;~s very h1~tik Ct~
Comt<r's iot':ll!, ~ OJIIsid,rt"d l:lcrslv ali 'th~ culv (~r,~mrist clthn tn Engl;md or France who
di:a.b wir,h biswricll"crite~" no' ~s ;; !kocurbn bu~ .u 1111 ~t~.~~~ ln the: ~st :oi'no~ nfthe wor.J'
(.\iEW .~XXI1L:!2X-JI)) H:unsou b-1,-.: above:) mt'nfil,lll! :w."Yc:'41 k'tt\'r.i from H~-c.'Sly L!.l Marx
whkh ltz~llc: not yet l.J."tti publi:olwd The cwu.alw~y~; n:numni g<)lld frk-nk Sl.'C <he ~t.:ucmen!
ily Un-~!y quot~d by H~rrMil, up. rit. ( 1')5'~ J:? & n-l
6. A ~~rticulzrJy 1\'ntl)tkabk action ,,m Gro~cchm wa!i proaunn~ the ih-pusi1:ion bv the .-ourilium
11/rbi.! ofhu fdlow-i"ribww. M. Ocu''lin, whu in 1~J by intnpOW'lt Ins wto was threatcnin~
l.o dcf~t th~puj)\l~r will (?luL.
Gr. ItA tu I:!.(J. ~te.). Fut Saruminu' and Gl.mcia nrrain
law> pnscd by f~ ~H>pul;jr Anmthly. ptccribtng lhl ukm~t ofo~Mhs by ma~imatl'S and/or
st'l'lill<l~> ro obty d-o~.m ~ !kiK. I .1nJ oH", bduw). h.1vc W11U'r.nnL~ hcet1 hdd ro bL rdev:uu; and
I Wtmk{ ad! ea. . ~, "t{rllrUul Ll\\-'; m 59 (11~ 2 illld J). Unt0r1tm<~t.:ly. the dat,., of ~onw of
lhcse l:tw:s (110\ 1-h) .ur unc~torin. It h~ll n1mn>n:r lx"'"' (blnwd tl111l OJths b~ magisrrc1tes to
ob~)' bv.'li \\o-'\:'tl' no: new or nL'n''S&:uily'IW:Ipulnris'ml':tt;Urc' this !think is true. cwntf we draw
(01~ Wi.' lt1li!'l) :t fum cli;a IIK'tioo- 1\Cot ~uffi.c11:11tiy rc-cogni-.al by fi. V. Sum nc-r, in GRBS 19
( l';l?l'!) .2! 1!3. at 2:!2~:\tt.S:!, orA N. Shcnvh-Whir,, in /R.!ifo:!\1<,172) H.VN. ar 92- betwl'l'll
{o1) !)~ V<:ry t:~uc-rol oath ru ubt-y th~ 1.1\Vll, whid1 aprLirL'uriy h~l tu bl tahn by l'vcry
n~~ismtt: within li\lc: d;JYJi llf mu:ru~ UJilln o!li~ -.nd i~ lmown from 2m U.C. (livy
XXX~_!ifl.i>-"J), 11tJd (lo) (J,lJh, htohry ~ Gl'l~"lfk J~W, sud as ' 'HJ'o." mt.:Jllioncd i11110~. )..(> bdo\\'.
111 ~p:r, of thr ''f11mon~ expn:nl;'d by !1. ~";jss.:rini. in ."..tltttr. tu. l.l (I \U4). c->p I.W-43 ami
.:!71-.- . .111d G. Tibill.'tti, in id . .\I ( 1953) ~111 ,~ 57-ltf. : wmdd :~~.:cpt (I) the oJth by cwry
it'>lo'\UH which Wa )1ri!St:ri~J b) th,:~gnri.arl l.aw ofS::ttlmnw (1\pl' .. HC 1..29-31; Plut.. ,Uc!r.
:!9. ?II; (f. CU. ;-.,.,, SrJI. 37, lUI, rtc) liS ,._,,ucthinlt cibj~nitllnbl~ u the S<'lldtnr~ nut merdy
1-ot~ !:!-1: rh.y ~"'nsiiki<"Cl th b\~ fn ~u~'C' lli.'I.'T> pa-.-d ilk-t:..U!i.
(.!) Cacsar \first ~grarian l.nv
in hi Nnsr..ohhir iu59 (t\p1, . BC H. 12f*1:.1"1ut .. G11. min l:!~lf.l>io C.1.>s. XXXVIll.7 I;
..... Cic . , .., s..,_ (ol. .-t~,). , ..bkla .~ho impos~ Ill! ,,~th 00 !k'tl.. tors, :uod (J) Ctl'Sar,
~ubwLIIA-"trt l.aw niii'IK' '\fl.'? Ortltii!INIII, which rontlintl :tlWW lio.luiQath. fo.>r <andidat.s tiJr
~u;t-:1srrlcics (Ci.; ...1~ AI!. ll.x ... iti.:!): tile~ ~ 1>;&1-'mto chinl:.du.rl.,Jah thest provistons \Wrt'
Ui."lC.'~td by o,~,ilnatl',, il_p;or: frolm tl: be: rh!\ IOC 1.\~'S \\'('!\' ~ti},'11lattso:J J~ having bt'l'll
pos;ed illt>I!C.-ll)' Arull!l('f l.wl, H). ordcr11'1Jt n;>ths tu ~- tookm be-th by magistrate:~ and hy
.wnaturs, 1M mon J::ilb.\bly (althou~h rtot .~-eruL,h) llr' rlw bw ~L!';u or two of th, s,cond
.:onur~: lht; L~ l...ltin11 r.lul,Jr Amrtrr.lt, r:lliA 1 I S:?4, nu.tl. 3-t. lin,s I +-:!J and 2J !l'. (:'!)
Thr l~nJ.("!"'IHm T .ntsllimrHt. fim pnblishL"''i by k. Hmncrini in l:p(l!>frir ica 'J ( 1947. pul:>li~b,d
)'~'lj 3-Jl. md t~-.,;li:ni by Tibili'tti. ll)). ch. JK-57 (cf. 57-66, 7.1-3). nmtJins inlitws 211-3 an
o;.th by tn;tgi.IT:It~~; bu; i1 c~OI'OI be ..-.:un1ly dnt,:rl (c>tii1'~SI Tibilcrti. op cit. 7,\-5: H. D.
M;mlnjtly. hr .l!tS 5'.' f lWiiJj 12\l-4.l, :uui A> f!'/111] 1>'-..tl.'l; Sherwin-Whit<'. op. m .. and
Smturc:r, iJfl. ~-t.) Thr lut 1>f (bni." tt:!tt; i$ (to) tb 'Jlir.lt<' Law', of whic-h one v.:rston wa
db>ru\1\"r-;.i ,,t DdJ!hl in lb.- IK~ Is lU otl ~<n~tlll'T tr::u r~'t\'tlll ~ ~!l f;urul o~t Cnidu~: Sl'l' the artick
hy M. Hus:;alL M l::,--1wf:..td ~tncl J J(eyn(>kh. m }t-IS M CIWH 1'6-22<. when tlll'rt' ar,
,-Lllnbir-..~A t~x~ :oml a3l:,,brmol~ (:!tll-7, ~117-')). Htt! t'\'l"ll dtLIlc!t>hk wrsion. which h,ts .111
~t.h (m crrra111 maptr:.t~ (fffl,.>.' 1.1~1-131. INJ.9. C.li-!v), prtwid.:s no vid:nn tlwth
cr.
~w Wils ;~~IUI.:trit' or in nu) \VilY mti~~turi:ai: iO (~sr .~~ th:o OUJ.i.otl qu,srion nfdtl' Jate.
1i-lr wh;.:-h I wt~uloi :tCit\'11' 'I') ur thtlo~J: .~-:;y; Q( IlK I r.nlk'( !mil 10 1-Hiil) A. Giovanuim and E.
Gr.z~b.k. in .\1!1<. fMr . .lli (lt,l'l);) 1."l-47: Surn!<(:T ,l,l' m. To ium \\)> -ltq~;ard only thl' oaths in
!lOa. l. ::! :md ~ (tb~ oon by lieilllron., :md p~rhap~ 1lu1 l>y m~l'ioarafl'i in no.~) and th Oill' in
1: ..3 .;,,;. ~i)..'llific.Jtnly "pupu[;,ru' tn d!UQcWr. ht ihlo roptcxr. "" '' i!. .aln.u~t cTrt.nnly a!Ill no .5 i~
J)lhsibl} \rrd-:-.Jnt
7. ::;.'t" iarth.!r ::.n irttt11: main IC'~I .tbovc, llrld nn.H-IIl l>cluw, !or thdi.'L'Iing<Htfchr: plebs and the
IY-o~1~tt!li th~~ pond ro;a ~llr ,,1nnDTi:".t. o(Ti. nnd C. Cr.oc:d\1\S. So~tnminu'-', Marius Graridianus,
Notes on Vl.v (pp.354)
623
Catilim:, Oodiwo llllll Caear. lr ~ vrry in~tC'\Iin!1, ro funl Otno rC..iint; obttg~ w Dfrr:~
in5inCCf~ pt-aio;c co thr Grxcbiwh.cn 11ddn11!ring the Pmpk in a tonti11. as in tbt DtiNgr. ll. 11),
31, HI (rontr~st 1.21, 111~Sm~td).md Pro Rlrbir. pm ,1!11 14-J!i. Hill n'31 opmmn) alxltth.t
Gracdd we:r~ ve:ry ddfncrUl t e.g. J:k r:~:(fic- Dr. 1(19-. IL-t3; /...JUl. -tn, Of "l' 1.31; lkk$
III.20; 'I"II.lt, tliip. IU.48; IV .51; D('_{llt, IV .65~ Dr ru.u, drttt. I. IU6; l:ltur. 21J(cf. 103. 1.25-ti. W.
224); Dt- Pr. l.lK; P!lrt ot W4. 106; fur. 29 (d. 3); IVCI:. 13; l'av Jo"wfllirJOIItif, ~DtllaT
rrsp. il; PIP.<;m. 14tl(cf. lUi. IOJ); Drp"'" I....,. IK; PnoPLmr.IIK; Pn>MI/11.11. 14, 72;1" Vlil. D;
Vlii Plsif I3-1-1. SC"vrr11l of~ J>i!Saagcnhow th~l Cic:rtll tfwrou~hly appt<Wtd rb.: killing o(
both thL" Grn~chl. The mnstrrcrnt1rnttna:Jt I havr ac:m of this ru~~ by Jean .Bt:r.ln~r, 'I .n
jugetnnu~ ,fC' Cki'r\-m Wl' lt't C"'uq~. in AN RW U. 7.\2~1. rome.slll tbr md to cimcl~miona
.1bour :lrero'~ arrinJd.: which !11.'>:1l1 Ul me gnvC'ly m:i~;ukm and COiltt:ldicttd by much oftht
<'videna: BCt:ml:t<'' himtt'lfot~, ll"m!10I \Uldn>t.:ud how ;Ut'fOPr C.'IIU2)', :tli bt'doo., 'jarmD il
n'y md'ootr.mce.lkdt.~igmnmt ~ylfmt.Ut.iljiii!OLI d'ac:rimonjc. Mmh- ~'il ~pion h.-ur anion,
Cicffllll rcndjomccaut Cr-acq_uL'$' (762) .. Evm G(('rooould h.udlydt.'11')' dl!ulbt'Gn.;chi ~c
~ffllt(t~ arid lc:ading mrn~ Far Catilinc. M.'t! mo S:tll., C.At. JS.J, lfi,5; and "P J712
(contr~! ~.1-2), fil. t-r. lr wonld br imcrcsting to know wh~ther M~rk Anturry mll~
grc01r
claimed to ~nblC' Ouilln~. 11' Cie4'ro :.Jiegcti (IV Phil. 15).

R. Cicero unut biiv.: had pattirtll;trly 1n mln.l tiu: m:.h :dn 1rtl ~.,in our so:u:~ (uuifrumly lrosrilc
to him) as L Equititl.s. wlw ill ch~ lUI }'tal".. of the ~cooci CL'T1Cl11')' n.c. ;lrDuSt.-d tor~l
exdremrm JUJJoog thr lower cbnes ;at Ronw by tl'j:lrL'.'iL"ntiug hinH<.'If jSo ll son of Tibm;.1.;;
Grarchw, .and who w;p~l;illai iu l!i) imnwt..'l)ttly on h~ d(l'firm 1\l dll: trJ bun~c. 11U! m:W1
sou1l:n ;m, .,nly putlv gi''nl io ~idgc & Cluy. Spome-r H-.-7, ltU.. lrnt: udd Cit , f>i(t RQ/1
Pert!. 20: Val.
M"''~~
Hr viri f>: IX viU [ll'l(<)u1pletc in
.s,~,,c~;
u, l; App .. 0C Ill, JJ
Pani1:t1Utrly wttJ\'ting 1111 thr pojtUL:rr l:'nhto\~ ;atousccl by Eqwtim an the p;as~~ jttlf
cited frum
t. 1\.bx. '"" wbom {lui\ ill~ W'"d$ ;j Prlf'ltiiUfl, :. .......wrtm), Jnd App . EC U7..
9. Cic., /)H1fif. l!ll!V: 5rnL'Cil. D. il'olllJ l!U; l"liny, I\/tOe'< XHI Ill~ XXXIV .27
Ul. On tLu: whale qu~:.lan .>( ~~ gp:o:~t populari,y v.ith t!l.: tna~set ~ 7.. Yatr~:t~. PlriM ""d
Prinrl.';ll (l\ltW), ~p. Jlf-81. It i5 f;oscin..uwg 'o obse"~: how Algl.JSI>ti, ,vi,ile s.y!i11e hiutiiCl!'
'divi tihus' JZ.d mal: !llji ftlli W(' uidll" :.pp<o:.i tl:' ~~ f~>r thr-m;wct by being~~ 'slt!!Jr,
l'VC'!,hl3!1}' ,t,;,vt:i:ttl'd lmJStli i"r.:Jt Ul'~r. TJ,iJ },.,~ b.:cu ~miuhly brough1 olit by S:m.:.
RPM 12-l4, :;;howiltghow Augu~tan l"opag:mda J'...:fi:r"'--od ltl p~y down :lild;u; i;;~ ~SJICliSiblc
ro forg-:ot C:J<"Q:. ht Horan.. ou S~'tU.: pw~ i1, '.Jli(l~ C:ao'><:tr j, u.-.: QIILIC' H"JI"ln-d rt ~s; .. -pnii'm'
(sec ,,cly dw 'Inl:mn !rirlus' oi 0.#. l.:{ii.47 :md tbt c~~~-:.r;:i uitor' ,,f l.ii.-U), ln ti:1 Am~.
V~rc;l icu,-.nJ~ e,,,~J:~r CliC'tpl in VL't.'l25. whcon: ic is u~;n wd n!l>t h1mpc:y who> i$ ~llm'tl
to throw i~t.)W;t h;~ .mn~ lir~ l.ivy. ~ Wl' t,,,..,.,. m\ Sa!~ (NQ V.:ot.vili.4), vr... ti--~ h> I!IC'
v..
.r ..
unct"rtain whcotber m~ binh <f Cae1ar b.-.d b.'fldit,'d d~ ~wr. ~ whrtlm it would llot !T.ivcbec,, Pdter j.-,rit h:-.d ht- IUlt hem bum; and a'r"r.ltng 10 TaciUl> (rlllr UV.J~.-1) llliJl.ISI.t!llllSed
to c01ll Lv; a 'liompo-i:ums': /u 5:)rnc romnK:ntli, 'Thra<' mnr lnuk:~si>t,.,!eacb .-..dtCr. Ltv~ ;y,.s
quill" siu"-r~ am! rt,;:- .:-~:lt~ot!on c.off'.ctu)'C=;l~ :;.o !'olr from of!Cnding C;~.-s,;r Alli,t~IU~. tiucd
admr:;,bly wi1h !i~ pulky' (RI)M 13), Fini!lly, ~!hough tl'umpey'> ~ w:n atrricd '" 1hr
fun,r .tl ;>rOo::oilol:l ti Au~ustu.~. with d-.~HC pf ot:hrr ~r~ QC"ll~~ls. U.rsr 's w.u not. It roHlo.i
of comi~ lt(' said rholt un;'\r b:~,{ hn:t.n dcifi,'d ~ml tltc:r:.fo~ w;u; uot to be>n;oldcccd a mcrnl
man (sec D:n ('.;ag l VI.J4.2-.~): l:ou 1 '' uulti r.,k., d~t: uuu~~i.-.n, ~~>' Sym.- 1~11~, :~s fi' ;;nolitr':'
piece oi r~.:tdruce th:at {115 Symc puts it) 'h w:.s \'"V~'Iirnt trJI J\ugu~tUf t.> dlll.roO.l:c himsdf
frow C;a:-nr . , , Hr: rx;:l~hcd th~ :IJ~iruty tf h.i.~ ?-J\1!nf ;;md j"lliTIIIi~.l du~ titnli!.t\1!\. <)f '' Dll'i
jifru, ". i'm ;kj! d)C', U~.YI tho." f'I1M'llf!SU\ :illoi dicr::ror \\';&l ~'ltn forgutte10' (fli1M 1J-i4)
[Syl('';; lli'A1!s IU''''' 1\'j>C. ut lud~m- ,..,,.m (1919) I.M-11: s..--r~-sp. 21]-!4.]
11. ThL'So." eV(';;JU .tl'\d\'.h'11br<l .:mlllto." sour~! g1v"u, in ~"'~r.ti m"'+-n' w-vrk:;, ;mlm'g which: will
mcutim~ ncly T lti Holmi!S, 11f' ;J,.,..,.t 1\tpub/ir ( !'f!J} II. itil> oln.lu ! Uu: ci. rh.:o ltovk. hy
E. S. ~:y, cir.:d in l.:i.:dwvc.
12. Cin:ro (A1i Atl. TV .i..)-5-) lll<&kl"u out ~h.,t cr. hts n:tum from exile (o.lccrcd by a spedal mccung of
thl ,,
Mlii"Ftl!ll) \:; ;\11~~1-Srt:r.nnhr ;,; !!.:o w::s gm:tcd with unanimous ,nthusiasm
borh 1111 hi.o j<>llnl")' ir!~tll H:mtdi~ium to Ho~m and m hf' city itsdf. This would b a surprising
..,,!hi
ClCCl"J'tion w th: gftltm'! ruiL, t! ;, w:no trw. It i~ of course easy 10 bl'licvc rhat \wrynn< of
every r-~t~r' r"'"" !rlmr "''"' /tHllrl;lll:, Ckrro' ~ "'""'""ll~tor cam out co m~rt h1m as he rach1..d
Rome <S 3), ;;ud cha1 o.t! ~!Jc: bwrni illlt! hO)nr~ti~i.n! wdrom,d him( 3, 4). Hut w.: may expect
Cicero tv c:;;agg~.U!:', c-~ret:u:l!y ~:ouch;;; tunr, ""d ir.d.:<-d in 6 of tho: same lctt.:r he happens
ro mcmkn tl~.:~t ~tharl..l'i. 'CJ,U\loU em by Cl!Jdiu;' IU.d dt'monstrated against him three d.lys aft~r
624
Notes on JV.v (pp.355-359)

h~-.
.;nra;1l in nome. There arc several indic:~otions of Cicero's unpopularity with the plebs
Do Cass. XXXVII.3M.I-2. He himself was wdl aware of it: sec e.g. Ad Att.
VTJJ iii.5: xi D. 7 (both from 49 B.C.): and VII Phil. -l (43 B.C.). when Cicero boasts that he
h:o5 ,,lwl;.'S opposed the r;;ashness ofrhe multirudl'; cf. Aslon., In .'Wilonian. 33 (p.37, cd. A. C.
.,,b,l;~; sc, ~.g:.
Cl.n.k. OC1).
13. Y;,..~-~~. m th.- !abho;.:r:~.r.hy o.>fht' h<::d: c:in:J :~ til. above-, mentt:>n> Gt'\"rg< Rude. The Crowd i01
:f~t /rlf'OI1l! R.w.l:eit'l ( l'-'5'1; t!wrtt,; no:ow .. p:.Jl(':h;)ck, l'lil), ~1ld nor Cowd 1>1 History. A Study
~f Popular HiJt11lw:ros tll:r,mtr .,,,,: rinxJ.;uJ ! ')lj.: i\4~ ( 1'111..1). s,.,. ;.lm N.udt'. Paris and London in
tllf E(rthtemt;l Cr>1:1'i'. S:tfo!ia :>J fitp,.!.:l l"ilt~JI {I )70, a \>lh.-cuml DC~.;3ays publi~hed betwef"n
l'J5:~ .tnd l~'f\'1): F.. )- H"hstuwm ;md Ci ICu\!'. Gtptam S:'i!'A' (1969, Pengum 1973);
Ho)b~bJwru. R.~nJm ( i':<#>'i): l.,.i,.:ltil'f' Ritdr" ( 1'171).
14. AlP ,tdrmrabk r-~r-r wiid; IS rt'h.ar~ no: ... ~ wdl io.n<!Wl! ~" :: .>hN:l,! !It' is z. Yavetz, 'lf"Vitas
ptlpuiart~. ir. :\tt"'l<' ,. R;!;o:,Hl 5. i() ( l~I(:O) <;.7-t 10: .md ><T Y:.~t:, 'J1jdlS sordtda', in Athen<~ellm
~ .sAJ ( I'H)S} :!'1:->-.'i~:, .m.-1 'Tin living <"<r,;ii:J<':t. tH. :1.: ur!:lJI pl,hs :1' Rf"publican Rome . in
1.-.Jt'"llk: l! ( i'-'!lti) 31~1-17. rcpr. m CRR (t:d. S,!Jt=J 162- 1'9 ..... w.is,,!o._hbove. I11s interesting
tt> S'l.' hClW Ck('PC), 1!'1 ~speech dd.:~,n"\! :il th, populace 111 J '~':II' codd pretend tO be shocked
wh.-cl r''-'lling h,m hill Jpcn~llf, Rt:l:u,, had refem...! to :h~ ''r~:m plebs as if he were
~k.inl( :i :llit/hol nl:,..:, .:( MI :1, ,,,.,;..,,!,""' iviu11 Sfn~rc (Df' 1~1(~ .:.rr H.70).
15. f<r tb~ Ruru.ltl n:u-'\as ti~o.:un.. rht< m~t ;outhmuau\"e w<>rl;. 1!'- :::>w Ur'.la.I,'W.
16. Ih, ,;.,:~ .i'ld r!~uns .ar<.nn"'tly rn~"ltJ. (r:or 111 :l '"'"'}' e;Nh' ''"sima!~~~ way) in Frank, l;SAR
I. A lbdul s..k\tti>l! will I'< tC.ot:1J 111 A. H. M j>ln-s'r. r>trih::'"" '."ncient empires and the
<"-''"ltmty; R;mt,', ~.. lh~ r:.l"''~ .-.t'rl" 7'1!rd l:r.-..wtr.,.,,,r C.nf. ojEcon. 1-list. at Munich in 1965,
Vtl. Ill il'Jf'i) S!-1114nSI-'10. r,pr. noJurw-.. RE 114-14.
17. S..-.: Hn.arum hrrington, J)j,..J,r:u .Sim::<; V>:nrr.<.:! lli.t'Utr ih;.;,u~nrJI LectUre, at Sw;;ansea,
l'Hf,, pul>)~h,.J 1937) -.: Hr.-J .mJ HIJiti :OJ ..~.,;imr Grm ( 1'H7\ .)~~7
18. In ~rh r~~~g-s as V.m RH m lii.10; Jo.\ii.~!. -~- .:;..!-l,li-"1; 11lmy. NJIIX.I67-72. we find among
tb, ._,wn.n ,-.f [;,m~ fi.~h;."ml Q i !<">rt<'I~~IU\. M .mJ J J.mnioas lurullus, a Licimus
Mur.-u....m.i A Mar(IIL~ Vh,bppu. fr Vt't.hu~ lollio. s..--,. Syr:h'. IUlUil and n.J.
19. S\t'l.g. CK . tJ_t<l"' XV.1;. {.m !n't.lhk;;p;ot,b llHh S.'it, fint Cl(\ro's provinnofr:ilicia);
I'rr lt~l!~ Mo1ail (o5: J)i::. rn C:;lt(. 7; Tl ,.-,.., iii.,!l17; \>.l:!to (c'i TJ. ~ftit 11.73); Ad Atl. V.xvl-2.
20. The tlflltll<bio~c r lfloltnlw.: ~-,. P. Tnn.,., tn OCIF 1M. with bricfbibliogr;;aphy. Cf. Jones, RF.
llf>-17. wllh tm l(,..t':l'. \'lltt rdc'ri'JIC.: t<t l'mpt"y~ ,!un.tivt" in n.16 should be. to p.IIS n.6.)
And Sc.'(' rh, rcti.r,'ll<"( t Brunt. Io\f.l11ol, on thontain K"t J.t'llt\'<'. ,1 t.::w hnts on.
21. lbe temporary intcrmption ofrh, c.. rn ~urrl~ thm Sic!~ &~ .1 ,,tu"~<-.lu.-ncc ofth.: first Stcilian
Slo~Vl" War of 1.'5 ff. B.C. must hJ.'H ho~J .. "'-'rtvu rltt ou rh, nrb.an J'<OOr at Rome. by raising
tht rnr of hr.ad, thr ~l:lplo ,fi,t; .md I~ "'"Y haw helped !; ;:~cipit:~te Ti. Gracchus'
agr.ui.m 1-oill: o;('t' H. C. Dvrt~n. 'Th,nrl.m stdtut tht." Gracchan ,..,ommtc crists', in AHR 63
111)57;"H)II'illo.'II.J:!, npr. 111 CNR tc-.l. S,':l~cr; 54-61
22. And~ lll.iv ;d1<W<'. &: 11~ n :.
tJrunt. ALRR h'l (the t'"l(ollt'llt t>~tnJ! ro~.ru, 71~J. ~U .K4; :tntl cf his IM.
23.
24. II wdl b. c'tlllVt'tll<'Ultil m.amly gtw rt'fcn-,:w..... h S~mc, RR. llu c-. .St"' I have in mind arc in
H C. 44 iRH 1111) ...J.\ (RR 171C-'1 .m.t ,..:;., "'r l!ll.o. J;. 41 (RH :?i.J'i. ;;u,l App., BC V.20/79-80),
.tnd 41.1 (Ril.."!l7}
25. E.g. in B.C. ~N{Syme. RR221). when rheyweresuccessfulin forc:ingontheirleadersthe'Peact'
ofPuteoli' or 'Treaty ofMismum'; and in 38 (RR 230: scc App . BC V .92/384).
26. Sno<'.tt.l ti,.ROli~Taylor. 'ForeronnersofrheGracchi'. inJRS52 (1962) 1~27.1 myself fed that
the ra~sint: of the ballot laws, lt"g~S tabellarillr (of which Cicero so deeply dis;;approved),
deserves mon emphasis than it usually rect"iVL'S, for ballot voring of coui'SC' makes it much
more difficult, perhaps impossible. for leading men to ensure thar their clil'nts. or those they
have bribed, vote in the 'right' way. Of tht' lrgts tt~bel111riat, the two most important were
before 133: the Lex Gabinia of 139 for elections, and the Lex Cassi;;a of 137 for trials other than
for ptrdutllio. The main sources are all in Cicero: Dt 1~. 111.3~9 (esp. 34, 35, 39); l..aC'I. 41;Pro
Sest. 103; Pro Pllln,_ 16; Brut. rn, 106; cf. DdtgC'a.ft. 11.4; Pro Cornel., ap. Ascon .. p.7R.2-3.~
(~- A. C. Clark,
5, briefly, Brunt, SCRR 65-6; E. S. Stavelcy. Greek and Roman
VotingantlEtmiom(l972) 158-9, 161,228-9, 253n.302. For C. Flaminius, who appears to have
been the most notable pre-Gracchan popularis, and was tribune in 232 and consul in 223 and
217, see Z. Yavd:z, The policy of C. Flaminius ;;and thl Plebiscitum Claudianum. A
reconsideration, in Athmaeum n.s.40 (1962) 325-44.
S..
ocn.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
.36.
37.
Notes on Vl.v (pp.359-364)

625
Anyot win wishn ::> !G"i .m .=rroutlt or rh.: Gr Joclu. ~nd of thr penod that followed, totally
differ'-'!" tiom 1hr: ~>~l~ t-r,o;ort l:~a~ m~rllt try 1'1 f. Smith. Tlte Failure of thr Romatr Rrpublir
(1955) Th;; J$...-d~ smmn.::rised in ri.. Of>cllntt;; \'\'ortb of the review by G. E. F. Chilver,m]RS
46 (19.5.6) 1{)7: ~nt~ !-lory l'!-of~;osor S:ru:b ~dl~ h of the destruction of a dose-knit and
harm<>Jkms sac:cty h-: :h::rrrcsponsih;iuy .:rt' r.to hmrhers, young men m a hurry. who tried
to lpl: viulltSi'IJ'illr:.ll~.... rmng !~ th~ handlin~ <:f il political structure peculiarly til adapted to
absorb it. Til.- eltl~ w~ <ll~imq;J~'K!, n;t :;ly f pnlittcs, but of morals. rehgion, tast<'; and
the WL>!k c.ftho Gr.l' h: "';&~. r:ur u;>dr:m' unt1l A;!(t..,;tus imposed the harmony which Rome
migh~ ')tfln'\\~C' hc n-.. dwd through J":-"t:\:'fu! t:bnge.' Another account ofTi. Gracchus.
totally dtii-rt'rll ~;.ill!!. !111 1111:1!." :.or<:! .-.s!Ji(Ji~;at:' :h~r ''hsession w1th th prosopography ofth
rulin~ Rtm .. l. f~!nilk" wi:id1 lu,; htn ...o .cum:lOil i:1 rec~"!lt y<ars, is D. C. Earl, T1beri1"
Gra,(l:r. (!'lb)). n whkh so:e :h~ r.vi ily i' .\ Urunt, in Gnomon .H (1%5) 1ii9-'J2arrack,!. cm~u<=<'<'ssiul.l~ :u t!:. "~n:. hy II... ,Ji.m. TGBRR 674-8 etc. (Bad1an's arttde is
howcvrr .l :um ,,fbrbhogr;apb.inllnfconl!;riOlt. 5llpl'k!Uc:nting his 'From the Gracchi to Sulla
(1941 1-l '1~9r, m Hi1IIIPI1J ll I !'.'.t.:~ )l ''i 2 -'S.) .o~m..d,r r~c~nt account of thdidl of tht Rtpublic
whid1 '1.:.:;:,., :,-, me deeply mistake!, ;I! ~:,. Wh~tptk>:t of the atttrudc of lhc Roman lower
class:-:.>. hu: h;;s il:ui considerable m.:lu:"' I'SpL.-:a:ly in G<"rmany. is Christian Meier, Res
Public.! .-lrrci>ot {Wt.-'jlb:.d" !~:ti): 5cr cl:{ rwkw b~ I:Jrum, inJRS SH (1~) 2.29-32, with
whki-J I Jnl wl:ul!~ !~; lW<YTI!t'llt nl\ ht~: P.r ~i Mc:~rs book is perhaps his critinsm ofrhc
mod,m ll\Tr,cmpho~sis nn >lll'fIJ>:lly tnd:nnr, p:.hu;.::;l factions based ro a considcral>lc cxtent
on tin: tl~ ikit~lu!l,. lttrm~rna.:< :;r,d .l"fi.itr.< Or; ~his and oth<r matter~ s<e also Brunt's
artieII'. 'Amt<ill3' i!;Jb:'i). nt.-.i J,u;.l :~h-~: Jt'<! T. 1'. Wiseman's very shortartidl'. 'Factions
and i'atml~th't-s'. u: 1. ..-.p~l Cllli.,/ i\lcmtl:!r I (~97tl) 1-3.
Stt the 1':'\kw ol.\,,-.,.,s b.1vk ~y IINIt\1'llrll). mmu<:md in the preceding note, at 231-2. givmg
many nfi.mJtn. '-sr. i~um S.allu,~ Oi till':I~. I w>tl-.1 stress panicularly Hisr 1.12; Car. 3~39.1;
B) 40.,\,41 ..:?~ (r.!ip. 5i;.S~.LIW<Iui,Jak .t;{,t Hi.: Ill~ (Oratio.Wam).l7..S; Cat. 20.11-14; ZH.4
With .\3.1: .\fd; 37.14 (:.ntr.l.~l ~-1):.\'!.7: ..QI.':lillh.~; 31.7~.20: 73.6-7;R4.1.
Sec th W<lrlo:..: nr,<J 111 \'l.l\'11 l.ch>w.
The mu~ int~r.:llhn!l: ra~~.a~.... in !h '!OlliTL''"S .m Arp .. liC III. 86/35.'1-6 and 811/361-2 (wh~th~r
referring to tw" stJt:C\'SSl\'l' rnh3l'\l\'~ or JurhcJimllo single one); Dio Cass. XLVI.42.4 to
43.5. The Wilrd~ :ruOP'!IJ'ih .lnd r.Qpp't)'roa\t"*- appeann App . BC III .88/362. Somcimtiativo
is attnbUtL'Ii w rh~ lc..1.>if'ln~ ty A].p . RC lll.86/353, 356; 88/361. 363; contrast Dio Cass.
XL\'1..12.4, -wnb 4.\.l; .:f. -1.\.5, whcro: a ~<'ltahlr J"lk" whether th~ men have bn s...nt by the
legions thrms;:)\"l'" or by Oct~v1:m.
For earl~ 4.~ B.C .. sn-C:k. El' .rtl Bn1t. l.x\'lli ..'J ~sr..u.Jult.nt rerums by the recalcitrant boni viri);
cf. Di(IC.Iss. XL VI .H.Jt"J.2 1. fl)rthti~rth Wcltl<lnon landandhou~s bterin 43, sec Dio
Cas~. XLV If. \4.2: til< <~Wuc:r ni r1 huuM' m Rmr oJ lnly had co pay a sum equal to the annual
rentifit w~n. J.:t. an.i lulfth:lf amuu111 fh, ..:mr<-d it himself; owners ofland had to pay b;lif
its pr(),tii('C'tn U'll. For thetaxonland o~n.t~l:lw.. in .J:.? H. C.. S DioCass. XLVII. 16.1 to 17.1.
esp. H>.5 on unJ,r.a~s~~J1l<'lll. F.rJ'J II C .. 'It"<' Ap; .. !JCV.67; DioCass. XLVIII.34.2.4. For
32 B.C . !I<:C Diu C.ash l...lli.4~; Jlnr .. A.r. ~ 2.
App .. lfC: IV .3:.!-34; V.ll M.a..'- VIIT.iid.
Birlt:}'. TCCRI: ~hl ~:. 2. tMI~L"' tb~ <"h,m~'-" i11 dJ\' .\M~ that fed the Qtrarium militare. to A.D. 38.
Forth< .attt;mrrs U l1 U.C. tHnuI<"C" Augusrusru ~C'omt' dictator, consul t'Very year, and <1 ~ort
of ccn~o<r ti>r lit''.:.:- Au,;., RC; :i.l ..\: \'('U. tar. ll.tsl.5; Suet . Aug. 52; Dio Cass. LIV.1.2-5
(esp .~j and .:!.1. d~ t..1 i21 JJ C.; dnd l). I (1'1 H. C.)
I think rht!i ts n.ruinly thl m ..anlllj% ot ni,. ,,.., />iJ,.mo tr.lli<Tv ompa 11'pm'(ii'OI'mf inDio Cas,,
LX.I5 .~. h>r rh,n~m.-, M~ f>TR:, .'\ 11.1141_1.
It is wtJdy hdd tb.u lln.i<r thl'rin,'il.ll<' th< pnvin':S were much better govemL-d. There i>
soml." trUth m du~. hut :s..nuus .tt>us.-s t:<>ntmu,d .:n esp. Brunt, CPMEP = 'Chargl-s of
provittrJ.al m.ala.dmtn15lr.lll<ln ll"feJ tnr f..u!~ Prmripo~te', in Hist~ria 10 (1961) 189-227, and
Seainn vi of this durc..-r
'Obscun' ll-c< nJtu~. oi C'<urw. "':t a runt that b..C'amr familtar in the Late Repllblic. Sn: esp.
the founh ,h~pr~r o~IT. 1'. Wis~m.ut. ~..... Mm ;., rlt, Roman Sef'Uitt 139 B.C. A.D. 14 (1971)
65-94. Prhap!r (,,lul.lll"<lll<'llliJ h~n .Jg.ln r~. usdullinl~ anicle by Wiseman, cited at the
md df n !7 at...,\'.:-; .1nd rh,larg<"lx"-'" ~'Y l>r..,J Shat.rman, Sm4t.,rial Wealth and Romart Politiu
(Colt l...rto>ttll<i 14.:!. Orusi<.l~. N75). whkh hW'WI' i marred by number of errors. point~d
out by rr~"I<'WC'Tir. s..~ J)so Maria Jacynow~ic.a. 'Thl ,;;:onomic difflrmttation of the Roman
nobiltty Jt the end <lfth.- Republic', in Hist""" 11 (IW.l) ~99.
Notes on Vl.v (pp.364~370)

626
38. s,... ehd~: g1vm by Msil;ar. in _IRS 6..1 (\':ITJ). a(o~ n.'J:'
39. Pliny, ;-.,:ut_'i- r);l.2. Tl 7: Q2 I.U: 1J3. I; ci. 77. I; ')3 2
40. On ;,-;at:onagt', >ex .1!w Lily Ron; r aylnr, Par/)' p,,f,un m r/1~ :\.l'~' ~~ Co1n.zr (ili:rkcl''~ c~c, 1949,
r.-~1. 1%1) >1-'J, 174--i .1m.l ptllilltl fttfliltT hilihognph) w1ll b1' fmmd in A. Mmnigliar.o~
uuc!c~.
'Ciit-:!;
~nd
'P.,monus'.ln OCD' 252.791.
41. !.l:'t" .l!l,.. mo.'1 ltaS b..cn p.:l,ll\ rlw. :mb_ll"CC rh.m 11 d~rv!". ,~,tt Itt rwo us~ful tc::cn:: books.
_I M K.liy, Ro~rr.;" L.ilt.\llll!i"" ( i 966), .md !'l:'!t': (";~ m~~y . .SSI, PI<'F (lll71i}.
42. Fot;; go;J it~cf:a<.r.(1\Ut oftht' wholl' !lllb.Jc~ (if1dudinj; ,J,;to'n>~rio. nwtmmrlatio :md .'li'mimtti!),
.l:l 3\xn-c) .!!i-2J. with :?61-3 nn.42..'\.4ll,
or
wh:-u
m~~:,'t~"ll! btbhogl.<ph~
.,..1]JI,. faund [ lu~~ clns s.."Ctlllll w;~~ fnu~bed, thcrca~pe1r:d an

Holbd.. ~. 'The drctJons of n:~J!im.ll('~ inrhe E;;rly Prindp.ue'. !n
i~:rC'rrstlll!!, P~lll:r l>y l\

l.tlMrllJ J7 ( 147H} lfi-f--'J:'t.J
43. EU!I:&J~-- V8
vn. iid !L :. I. pp. r/6-7 (lk>l'i~HI1:Ht.-), ~d. Ju..:ph Gi:m(l:r.t!:!de, Rome, 1?--::;6. ThC'
pusa~ 01~
J!so t.,.~ found e-n pp.W1-l cofrhc loeb ~-diuan of Philmr:atu~ and Eunapius, by
W C Wrighr. i':Zi mdr.:pr 1-r f1-1'<imus. 5C\' PLii:l' i.S..~
44. T!lrt4' lS 01\: .:.cdlnll ~md~ oi.,nu;!I.S ;n the Ln" Rt-p11hiK. hy i'. A. Bmnt: sc:e n.2 above.
\'(tn!l>l:~ :.~ of \':i~I;I"S(' j(k&t;; whrn he- s;;;d h,- ,,;;,,; wri:i:ag "' Cic~:w (Adfam. V .ix.1) as if a
d~o~ ra h1s fr.J:'''H~:> ,--\!> fi.\t d~~ ~c-ru1 dt"lir&u. n f.iJ\i!i! ~ntrtim~j Oc u~ 1n rather a surprising
w.:.y ts wll4':l Qo;imm Cic.:ro r::-lls ht hr.:.;hn th.<l h~ L< pb~>e~! Ill the prospect of Tiro's
rl:.tlllli<J:'"l)rl. ~ dl;~l h" GUJ ht .\;:amin~ r.~lhc:r tb.a.n Ol.'nl'IU (Arllo:m. XVI.xvi.1).
4,:,_ \.( fht> c..s~. t VH "11-fo.
46 . .1\mther ),;ulu:li J{on:.m bismri:u::. who kindly tt.'oldJo <ir.tfc irfli, ~ntio&:. objected to my saying
1h:at tht prt"~nor.' ;i"Tihtr.ns ~r.vcru(".::l' th~~c- :ll!jll~t jl<'!lfllr<'l:U from bciJ1~ giv~n: 'No.' he
l>":li.J. 'th.tt w.L~ lh~ ir.;.-.u ..m.' a;,,: .tg~m. ;h.- Lldn h tx;ti::cdy d:-.u. tb<" 'consulirut' bdongs to
th ,,,.,, ~.,,~,nc-:; 'uULll.l . . ;.'<IIUtirttt.J' t:m only mor;m :lrat ck::l~iuns werr aaually .~ivrn
aJwnon~ aml-uum ,t po:~'l!ll>ltl j'r.-.~
47. Thr~ r-l~!o.\:!l<~ 1, :1ls.. ll'-'t '"'llt~! :,._. W;1:.7: Ji!!~.>, 'Lilic.:~ds lx-i ')"~(11~1' '. 1:1 Hmnrs R4 (195(,) 3JI-53.
48. o\11>1tllf,!li.n~ is ~~:.tm~y ri,:hr ;;'!-.om WlTlll;b~i;;t',: -.i.:w: ~rt' lli~ U'!f.: 3-~. 4-5. 7-9. 14 & passim.
Hut .t~d:n .a t..::o( ..-J._,s, :J.-:mti.-:aton pf /ibertm wnh rirm~ >t't' Em~t Lc:vy, 'Lihcru~ und
Civu.a~.an.ZSS78(19tll ~n.;l
49. Wt~ll'ul~kt ~J.-"''~I..svt'Ca:;';. '""'~''' j,'{('.lh~m [LiIR ~'7), .ll\:1 ill ~Y:t'l'-llhies an strongly with
Lllt"rl~ durmi!J:hly l:~:ardk.d Josy,,-.:..: ""'"''-.!: !a~ l.i'li-' i'l ...! (wnh thl.' sc:cond paragraph of
52} ;u!l{ nth~r- ,,a~~f!t>. He r.lll c.r-11 ~~r. 'Taiw~ i<~,,-_.. ekw ~ ~ best th~ R('publican
("OI1Sfll !IF i< II rr Wltlcd ~:l:Un:tt:ulita(\\: j ~nlJ<)n> ' (Ll'i it \1 rJ) .
50. Cf V m.mJ rt'i lit,.,,..,,.,..

SL h-1 1h m:.iu f.1cu. of.('= W:Jiro: Alic:H. 'Cia:r;:,'~ h,.,,,.,. ~,..: hlo;-n">. m TAPA 75 (1944) 1-9.
Wrnzutosk1 n-f;rs t< C~.: , p, ,~.,.,, ! li1 So U I. bu.t.>J! ,. i:! ;. f;,.., ..,,t,. to jusrify his statement
that 'C!,,..Iius 111 h.1w ;,;,._, Jl'c>~.:-:1 J> !thrr;.tnr' (l.f-'ill ;n~, t> ~) I k oiu..~ not even mention the
tmpl "il.ll't:rtas.
52. I nmst n.:t J!llhll.:" this issut' further here. as it IS not sufticitn&ly rd,vanr to my rnam tlumr. It
wdl !>. n.n~l to refer m~inly to om author, Sallust: sec: his Cat. 20.14 (from tht sp..-,ch of
Cldit W lti.~ usociatcs; cf. 58.8, 11, and. for the spint animating rht> rt'bc:ls, (,I): 33.4 (from
tht' ~p.:'i't'h nf C. Manlius); Hist. lll.48.1-4. 12-13. 19, 2~ (from the spe1och of C. Linnius
M.lt"<'t111 '7:J I\. C.). Wirszubski pay~ little attmtion ro such texts. although he rfe-rs to some in
1~1(\1111>< .mJ !l:ives the ironical SaH., H1.<t. Ill .48.22 as an exampk of the 'nusus..- of the
lil...,!as (LPJR 103). I should also like to draw attmrion to a couple of expressions in
l.tvy (JJr,~Jv mentioned in n.S to Section ii of this cbaptl't), which bring our partu:ularly wdl
rh, IJl~thly cbg~rchinl smse of liloerra.< (of Cicero's and Wirszubski's /ibmas): livy 11.41.2,
wht"rt Srunu~ Cassius is said to p,..rirulosas li?crtati opes struc:r~' by giving the plt>bs th~ land
thty s. S\>Tt.'l} m:eded (cf. 5: swvituttm); and V1.20.14. r<'marking that M. Manhus, who was
l'lll 1< ;kJth ~>'Ill trumped~up charge (see n.5 to ScctJon ii of this chaptr) of ~rmmg at re.tlnum.
W'tlld h;.,clx'l.'n memorabilis had he not been born in ltbtra civrtate!
53. T!t. ~'hr;t"'-'""'"~'$ e.g. in Pro Sest. 98; Adjam. l.ix.21.
54.
th~ tll;,,;r accessible rcct>nt scholarly dismsion, for the Enghsh reader, i~ Wirszubsk1,
'Ci~r;.';. m., Ji,!f!itate otium: a reconsideration', in}RS 44 (1954) 1-13. wh1rh ts nprtnt-d in
CRR k.i s,;c.:.r) 183-95. Th most imporUill of the relt>vant pa~sagc:s in Cicero IS perhaps Pro
':OCJ.'fL'1'Slt'lr
(,,m:.r..
...,
~.
55. ~n. tru r~cent article by K. E. Peuold, 'Rom:ische Revolution oder Kmt' dr romischcn
Notes on Vl.!J-vi (pp.371-376)

56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
627
Republik?' in Riv. 5/or. dell' Ant. ~ ( 1972) 229-43. whose outlook is vexp!iiT~t:t'Ilt from ntinc.
He discusses a number of difft'rent views.
Cf. Fronto, Primip. hist. 17 (pp. 1'>9-200, cd. M. P.J. van den Hou1, L:;den, 1954): 'mquiscil'.'t
populum Rom anum duabus praccipuc rebus, annona ct spc~:t~C\Ilis, tmc:.:i' e!c,
The letter (newr actually de,patched) was writtf'n in French, auhe end nf1R77. to du: OO.imrob
Russian Journal: see MESC 379; MEWXIX.lll-12. The word~ 'mo>b' and 'poc;rwhltr.s' .:m: in
English in tht' original. Cf. Marx's reference to 'the Roman plebs at the tltrol:' ofbrcJd an.:l
circuses' (Grundri.<5e, E.T. 500 = Hobsbawm, KMPCEF102].
J.P. V. D. 8alsdon, 'Panem ct circcnscs', in HomtnaR~s Marui R.t'ltard II{= Coll.l~rtotaus :02,
Brussds. 1969) 57-60; L!fe and Lfisure m Am. Rom(' (1969) 26770.
Even in the late Republic it was possible for C.icero ro say th'lt the Roman po:ople made clear
their point of view (the-tr iudicium ac voluntas) not only in (Onlillllfl<i!ld comilill (for !be cliflere~':\re,
sec Sc<"tion ii of this chapter) bur also at the gamts and gladiatorial show'S {Fr.:~ Scst. lllf>-27; fur
th< garm:s etc. sec 115 ff.. csp. 115, 124).
Sail., BJ 73.4-7 writes rather as if the decnon of Marius ~:; con~ul was du~ lO d1c OJr~lir.ts
ll.J!resresquc; but this can hardly be so, smce the consular election.s w~,e held in the com;a..,
centuriata; and it was no doubt the support of the eque-strians and the well-ro--du fltm-nobl!!s
which was dtctstw (cf. tbtd. 65.4-5).
[VI. vi]
1. Thi!> app~~Ii .:.~ f'arly .u t~ 'hr!i!:m lkb;;nl." m Hdh (liUl0.6), for which set V.n n.ll above.
2. See l.'~i' J. "'. 0. Lirl~il. u.prNollfatiw C..Pmll'1l!lt iN Gr('(k and Roman Hwory ( = Sather
Clas:itCl! 1.\(":::.o:O.'f. :!X, !\<:rk,-1.:) ~:tc., I'J;;,); .1nd C.-.k Federal States. Their lnmrmious and
Hist<"l'll'~'i): .thl f \'II \V.\Iblk. '\".''.: lhl.'r'" C('el.. feJtral states?'. in Scr. Class. lsrat'li{(l3
(197il/7} 27-51. whicli rightly U11hold.\ till.' ~uincl~ tederal character of some ofth~ Greek
cont<-dr:-.,fK!Il>, ag.:uns: A. GiL>v~~m;m, lJm,rmdwnxen tlba die Natur u. die Anfiing<' dcr bundesstaat/irlrm St"'l-"'!:lvi~> Criori.,.,lL~~~~ = i i'fp<'ml'ff<a!a Jj (GQttingcn) !971. who argu<'s that they
w~rc 111\l!~ry >l:.t<s, '")' 'lhu,~l'>-!!-l;!l~l:'n' ",. s:,.~tmbiinde'.
d~l i:f~ii i>' , .... w k.ttuwn '" h:l'o'<' ~~~~~ 20 Novcmber 2!!4: seeP. Beatty Panop.
(19M).!,Ii~"~ lt.2-.3 (:l<'. (wit!; p. J.l$).
See. hndl~. J 1'. V ll. ib.lsd"" ;11 OCD 1 S77-S, u. 'Princeps'. The most comprehcnsiw
trealn"'"t rh.~t l iLIW' S<'t"l' h tlll' ;lrti<k l-oy toth~r Wickert, 'Princeps (civitatis), m RE XXII.ii
3. Drockrh11'>
4.
l'il.ll:L~.?'.Ii, ~.~ .1lw Wick.-u' ~ sJ;n.-:~ ,,( t<'n~:o; work on th Princip~rt. in ANRW Il.i
(1974) .~7(.; hr~ Lt~dul Mnd:. l'F = 'lkr Pru~;!lp;u mul dk Frt>ihl'it', m Symbola Colonituia
losepl J<,,,/j s~ ;).'r;..m..
,,M.,r.1 (Ct.l,;r,,, '''I'~) ; I 1-41; and hts less int<'tt'sting 'Pnnceps
uud Jt"''''""-'' ia KiiC' 3t = lo.f. l8 O'.l'i l-15; ~lso De Martmo, SCR" IV.i.263-30fl.
Wick~:tt'" ;;rl!d~ 111 IV:. ;~n.-i.J.-Jt~ Dh;lnr.~r. R:d,,..,{m sur l'a5pat idro/oJlique du Prindpat (=
SchuoJ;n 11.-itt. : .1i~f>Jn"'>r'r;>. , R,.~J,. 1'63}. ~r.- c. viewed at length by W. Kunkd. in his
third "U;ridt iibo:r llr'll<"h' Ari){Jh'U Lm ril:ui,..h~ll Verfassungsge~ch.'. in ZSS 75 (19511)
302-51 i l..av, r.,.un1l ~.:urcdy ;'''}'rh~ rha h .,,,,h IWW and illuminating in the recc'nt ani<"k by
D.C. A Shou~r. 'l'rounl...llu,..lrlil.. n .~. ~11 tire Sor 9 (1978) 2):;...55.
5. I mus1 r>N .ti;;aJs:> he't' d1~ offi~llitlo <>fthl'l'riun:ps. ewn che most important, 'Augustus'.
whkh 'cr,~:no:~;; rw m.:;i!:asttn.~i p<.wt:ri ;.: ;,!i ...:;,;l IS vet the highest that the Prin<"eps bears'
(Joh~w!<l .n:i N.:h~:.-. i-11$1.1_' ;HJ) ..o\l!l;,,uglt th. title of Augustus was often applied to
Tibt-rius. h .. ~, ,t: Ni'it'lA!ly .,~umc ..~ l!,lJu~ .l1d Vi:dr.us in 69.
6. Aug .. J~G 13; .)(!. !;Jl.J: ,,,,.;in S1wt .. Ar~o,' Jl.5: d ,.. ~ Ovtd, Fastdl.l42: Tac .. Ann.I.U; <).6.
The usu.ti Gt;;d, t:.m~r~"'' ''i P""'I:PJ is !Jloof .. O.~ .; "')rd which could also stand for dux (cf.
Aug., RC :5.2:; .il. !). 1\mortg \";;rl(>US ~;l!rwn~ c-!:l"lf.~s Ge5tat>, the best and fullest ts that by
Jean l:ag~. /<,'1 Gm.;.- Di.-rth~mi' (J~~i. I'J5m. N;.u-"pecrahsts wtll find useful the Latin text
(foil'~""~, Wllh ~lin<>! d::n1~1< oi}"tnCtuation', th.:tt ufE/f, ch.I. where the Grcck text will
also l~ found), ..,;,it English ~~.:~r.drt(lOJl, \!i.t~.;.;tnmron .md eommtntary, by P. A. Brunt and J.
M. Mmr\, Rt::;.t-::;artU Dlv l\1\'':1011 11tt 1'\,:,;,.,t,.,,.,; ..fthe Divin~> A ..~ustU5 (1%7).
7. AnyotK wh;., me on' af'thc c.luer editions llfthr Rn Gmae. such as the Loeb (1924. printed at
the ,.,,,j i>t th history o3S V:-i!('Jil.i i~.:r~uh,,;), .ih<>o:id bt'warc of tht' Latin vcrston of 34.3:
d(~nii:lt,~ {rr.m~141~-j ':t: <.iHk'J. arapi.>~ .:.fr..;ctoritate, '11 rt:liance on the Grt~k. ~ii,u:art, known
from th, Vi"l"'~'"' <b5CCvno:;l;a: Am:yr~. 1,hrrr- ~~~~ i...'it:7a word cannot be read. Tht Grt'ek word
(1954l
..
628
Notes on VI. vi (pp.376-377)

Wll:l thuughr im't Uhr,-~i<>r.:~bly) to justify th~ n-'tc.n~icn vf dig1i!rl~~, unul the discovery of the
>"l.ntc.r. ;Jl Pitdi~n .'\nti<X"h (published in Jn'l). whidt b.o~ it~J:.til:rir~:t-.

8. Sc.-. ~-fl. lk M"run.,, SCR IV 1.!7E>85 (t>t C1,.r;.rr:oib), ~B>) (Oil ;r<r:e$tas).
9. S,nt,J, L)... rf.:m., U~.:>l rrx i!~.; 1~01.d ~~!!!!t' <)r ChliJ'kl> !('.., lJ\d rnm~pi (in stngular or plural) in
liii.J; iv .3: ll.iJ; v.2; ht' u.w.s n::...-;s uynonyzd(M" pri"''l'' ino.~ I ...,.;i.4; xiii. I, with5; xvi.l-2;
~viLl. wit!t ~ .1~1J for r>!fPe'l'!1t,r 111 l.iv.2. w;!il l; rt. i:v4; :o:1d hc tses rtx for the emperor
!mn~dfm t'.t:.l.-.-ti:.l,t..7, wnhx. !: "":<.l-J. :'i-io.
10. ( kc:;O:mnlan} ")I .md ciflffltt Pnight b.. t'mr-ll}':d ir: ,~htit~Sophical' t:f'lti54:s for the,~oodking and
h1~ rule.~;; by Cinru, l)t up.l . .J.!-J. f{k II 4J. ~-~'.
11. .Mtri.am CintT:n .o;
(Ji7t) l3.HI . ''"F H 1-8. d ~1+-li.H.
12. It :s ~rharc wvrth ntnnorrin~r lhrt th;,.t Ta."ltu,;; llt'V'-r r~!,rs. :o :u cm~r as rex or (I think)
II!H"" rf'.~tlr. rt.~ll<' .~r tw:-o r(fl.' ,,f att t"'D(.~~-r . .r.l!h."..gh b, ...,,n~~ 'lt r.tcn calling th.. Augustan
itu\1~~ dcor.~<.< r::,r;:rri.~ ~A.mt. I. 4 ..J). Wh,'J: h<" l!t<sriht .~mo..r:,,~ F,.hx. th< procurator ofjudaca,
as x,rcJSmg itu :~11111 (HISt \' .1), h;;1~ rr.:osum.thly r<pn:sc.,:iug hem as governing lik~ one of
the petty(. )rknta! k:r:gs {M ~r:~, of wh.-m hli"' w.u related by r:>;orr:~ge); and when he speaks
of the prt't(-n~ ,lt'Egypt a.' :twng tt~' 't.~f'll (l.llj. ill' moly orJy ~thinking ofthc- Ptolc-mi<-sJhlul!~h da rnfo.<'tS of Egyrt. !ik.: th~ rrf<'Urtt\:n. ot.Jlld:ol'l. \'Hrc of course subordmatcs of
the emperor. Y ! trl.l. fourth st:o'h passage TlcthlH';&P ~ <>!1'.-.ll.r.~. the freedman a rlltiot~ibus of
Claudius and NC'r(o, th"t h, ,.,futarbitrium r.-.~"' J.~'l>": (.-tit XIII !~.I>; .r.ndof course Pallas was
..,=
pur(' '"'ll<'f>;ol tim\110t,.~ry ~lllmo:. W1til, l'"':!o-:1th rl"ti;altl<llg ir<>m applying monarchical
trmtnok-'!!)' to ~\'\.11 'bJJ ~'llll"'''""" T .aci.ts l"'l'i.!,~al} (.-1; I~~ ~l.,.l'tlltlon in castigating thC"tr
suh~hlin;at~s openly ft.r tht: w;a,- tht'~' :x~ras.-.:! t!tr qmn-Hj;:>l i'''wers they dcnvcd dirlctly
frum tlw;r lmpenilll nMslt'f5. JliS,<J (c:!if<'n;~liy Ill Its rr"(nl r..artkirhltorm) is OC(3SionaJiy used
of t'lllf'C'rllTS from :It<' ar!y l'r:ncipoat<' nwo~r.is,.,;; w!wf! V.ae.:ml$ M..aximus {writing in rh, 30s)
S.pc:"~l..~ Lli Jw1 ~i,ltm ,lr~"'';'' ,:~>~
"'"'~ ro-gomli nwittr.tmrHIIIm t~umen (IX.l<v.2); and I
think 11 nutht l>o. pt~K~ib!, '" tin.! ,;,rltr J'.&r~!!l'i; CVL'11 tt su.-!1 a statement .IS that of
M.lll>c"rfliiUS. Pantg. [,JI. n ~-~--; (,o\.D 28'1), ~'"ltl-t;Allll;ttln~ Uiod4'tian Olod Maximian
b.Lll~ thr 'rule the ~tar, wuh ~=,numl' l,rm ruloi!l.Jm ~~~ ,..,,,. rt~rtis), and rcfrring to th<ir
lll<lio,,t,ti ti.J, mer..-""'-.I bv thtr ,.:mr;riJiu"' ,,.,...,, wl:tl. ,., tht "<lUI' ume they prcscrn by chcir
unity the .tdnntage of smgle r.m;tuJ ~;,,.,.ru.m ir:_;!ul.n..-). lt.:n.,r.:- Stat ius and Martial here:
for them ,.._. 11.68 below. ExamJI'$ dt<Ul'l.' ,,ftht w ..r;ls ni,rr~;l to in this note- and similar
n~- r,,,. TJ/' r"J:"' tl::,!lllllrl,. rc)o.'rt.lt.r. ~iu;, rrl{.rli.<, ,.u:,.{ t<rtirl.l i(r m emprns- arf' given by
'\l'J'k\"rt .It nls.211K-IS ilu~ <~rll'k 111 UE ,-ired m u.l ;al,..:v..
13. 'l'h1:- "lattIJ..-tll hy Cl.mohan 'n~ '-llloh-d with great .arl'1tW.ll :nIt" ...wnreenth century. notably
by Utn.Jtlll't>ll, .1~ Alan Cuu,r,.nlt;a, r....:tntly dennllhlr..tt..t (CiuJi~" 434-7).
14. 'Hu d;;;:.- n:' .-\1;:!; !';;!. X .2:"> lkj7.:ndr. :>il;; i'l"<l::utJr.~~:..t~ r;o:i .";~.:.- io: 1. Calpurnius l'iso (cos. 15
li C. ), rrl>.&ltly m '1/K H C .. ~-. \u llc>t~o~IJ !o~m,s bnlb.mc 4Ttido, 'The Titulus Ttbuninus'.
I" .Ut.., Jr'J VI.
K'llftl fiir f;tlf" 1/. l.4tom. l~Fr~'""'llk. Milnhm 1972 = Vesti.(ia !7
<1
'""''
r.,,,.'""'
i 1')7.\) ~"~-~~ \(. .ll 1i't7

15. F ~,t hy H. J M-"' Grff li"":./,r
R,,,.,,,,,,,,,.,;,.,,, .-1 Lt-Xil<m 11nJ Analysi1 = Amcr. Stud. in
l'oiJ')'tol~.n 1.\ rroronttl. 1?74) lli-.!1 . 11 !,'!<},

16. Jost>phus SJ""3K~ olrh, llo>llW emperors as,8ao-l.tt~ ntl~llll. J51.1V .5'16; V .563. In V.Sflhccvcn
calls Tihb r.f,l.omlo.elx. Cd ,.,.)).although Titus wa~ '~ wr ....ty C..0;.-.1r (and of wurse V cspasian
wa~
liv, wh~11josephus was wnrutjlj. Ji>st"pln~ .~Is -pc.a._;. ithe /lQ:a&A.rU:t ofV,-spasian
(V -liN) ~nd 115~"S rhe verb P..rr.\~>i,. ,.-, 1.3- .nod IV.:Wt> .,f apir;,uts to rh, imperial throne 10
,.,ill ..
A.D. t ..~J. A~ t:tr '' 1 (",IJI ,_.,,JtJ'ltl ,1,~ 1<111><'-mtar.al>l,l.m~;uagc in hb other works.
Cnt.l rhi ,.,. t...~-.. u.,. t'n,'}"''lilt U~t w . :>n~m11ly \\rlth._, in Aumaic' (S~ 8) 1.3: bur of
,,>nr"M tJr, 1~1 l'> llllt.'h u.r. ~h~u a mere tra\l~l.uin auJ rri-ANv inwrporates cxtcnsiv<'
writing.)
17. ()j the Orae1ons of Dto Chrysostom. nos. I-IV an '-ntirkd On kinRshp. and no. LVI
/l,\';lllft'tlll'"' .r On kin~ship; no. LXII1s On kin~ship drui tyranny; and cf. VI, Dio,tze>lts, or On
'Y'"VIt'. In "~'eral of these rhC" rule of the Roman emperor IS ckarly s..'t'n as a form of P..uAfiilt,
-lll<i ~ m l.Xll.l the words ~..-.A.w. ...... iila-mip r i arc d1rc-cdy o~ddresSt'd to the empc.ror.
;urt'l)'
IJI~- Ju VJ!.I2 (tho: 'Eubocan Oracinn') rhc pt'3Sant is made to rdcr to rh..- emperor as
.,.J
a., w.
18. f,>r tlh J.u, iDio\.hrys. XXXI, S('(' A. Momigliano, inJRS 41 ( 195 1) J4'J.53. The refcr.:ncl"in
XXXI. Uu fo N<"ro (ronrrast 110: rru>-roKparopwvrcd. as isthat in lXXI.9.
19. F..~ . .1 XIX 15; I Tim. ii.2; I Pet. il.IJ (cf. 14), 17; and<-sp. R.:v. XVII.IO.
629
20. Dio C..usius (rno: .J( whu.J.C Hulary W<I.S wrirt~ ir, ;!te first quarter of the thtrd cmtury)
habitually UH-s a!m>K,o6:nu,l!o ~~~! .;:: c:u~... '"':; bt:t li<:rodi.;m (writing about the middle of the third
ccntvry) :m.d [~Jli>~ls (f"GrH 'i.\ \~XI. writing rn;unly in th< 260s-270s) regularly call th~
emp.-rc:t fktt/l.ei.r. I..rtirlt!.sJ l) inren-ting :.s Dio UTt U.
21. It is perhaps w<:rth c"-i.iillg ~ rdiH,K\" tQ !C; V. i..S72, !mes 4-5, from Sparta. when Gordian III is
Tillllhl.tAE!.M:tt"<'l' i/Qt:<:-'f,n. .,;..,.wpc;,....,_ ~..,,,,<X,.._ {A P 1.19-44).
22. SceO:;rrogorsky, !WS= Hlf,..7: Av..-rilCim,-r._!l, 'lmJ~o:-~ofauthority(.:tc.)', in Past& Pmcnt84
(1979) 3-35. at i(>~ n.s;;
23. For John Lyo..hr.s :so.:. bndl.}. !-. Mom1ghano, in o-:.::;[)4 630, s.v. 'lydus'; and Jones. SRGL
172-4; L#E !l.!tiJ 1-! t'tC T!w >!~nr.!.1rd (>;liti.:>rt i:qht T ''Lrbner, by R. Wuensch (Leipzig, 1903).
Ther: 1~:1n F.11!_:ltsh trm~hllo:.>r, hy 'f r Cnll<'Y (l..awro:ncc, K~ns~s. 1971).
24. The l<.o!IZ~"11r ~f<"'lnt w~- i~Av: <}i ~h muni.~: <( G1i11> .md tho.: accession of Claudius 1s Jos., IV
XIX .~7-~?3 (.'><'n-,;t'. !l~. !:;!'\_ i6l. 187JJ, 12"-'i. ZZ7-8. 229-33. 235. 249-50, 255, 259-61,
263); ("i. H_l U }1)4. \.: (esp. 205); Sj11-t .. Gr.J..J. !fU--~; Oio Cass. LX.i, csp. 1.4. Jos., IV
XIX 187...jl, ~p-:lk of the Ur;'tll>!i.o: a!. ,, /i.'I'N:..:.~oor (cf. 162, and contrast BJ 1[.205:
CtpiO'iT.ct~"' J!!d lftt:~ trm<ipat. (frllt::: rhc: ;ooint .,f .-icw ofthl"'s<nators) as a -rvpavvi\'andits
opposite :1~ ,.;,.il,....1il.ft-':'>)V. m :.t !:!7-X ~lw CI!?CJN~ -'~.: ..Vpa11..,. and their ru)t' &ov:l.fia, again in
the Senar..-'.;. 'r-rnioro. (Tiw po~:-$~1'<' :h.n tillt.:;w~. -'!: :h(" atritudc of the 11111'-o~. is quoted in the
te-xt (J Snt1.:.on \' cof~ois dl:tJ'tor. jm.t a:kr til, rcit-r~ocr ~on .34.)
25. E.g. 0((/t.fi-<,., hr., ')S (i\1 F.dkt J![); ~...-'.L41.,li11' :;.;...:; (i:o 1'-!ct fi);QpiuNf< (line-s67, 70in Edict IV).
The- .:d" :~ ar.: tr~asi.l.t~-J um. English t-~ I w:.- .mJ Reinhold. RC 11.3(..-42, no. 9.
26. Linc:s U-:.;. d !,1. ...7 (iu Edict I). I mml ~~. r wmJd regard m.:rely a~ another piece of
tactftr):nss. o.:~!o,:)at,-.f ~lat"liy .Iii ITlL"!.l!l>t-!-.(>j Ch< Stt.JtC, th~ Oath taken at thtiracc~ssion by
all (<1%' n.:.trl~ a.ll) t-mpt'T'Jr; frN:l N ... ,.,, tLI 'io.:ptirr:ill' S.:ve-rus. not to pur senators to dtath: se-r
A. R. litrl..-~. "Th,<..!:tlh Jt<ot tc: p..r ~-;tnmrot('Jc.ath', m CR 76 = n.s.12 (1%2) 197-9.
27. See-J(l)";.;,.l.Rl' I. L\2-4. !H. J3L!: IU27-~. 5:.-t-6.
28. SeeJoK~. !.HI:' [.24-3, -18-i. I ll.a\..: n..tl.on'll .abl t" r~~:t L11ka~ de Hloi.~. Th P"liry ~(thr Emprr(.l'(
Gcl/l,~tlll~ (l.tJtn. i'J7fi,
29. Contr.a~: I I W. l'l,k. 'DOJ~rlill.lll. the S.u.alc .m.{the provinces', in Mntm. 14 (1%1) 2%-315,
t.>sp. :11H-:'. JH--15. ,A, J~.,., host ill vi;w or' (ht ~di:u ofDomitian than used to be rustomary has
also !'IC'1."ft t.tkm t-r01th<~ J<'t'l.-tttwnt,~r~.~-t: 1. A. llttr~y. 'Agricola and Don1itian', in G&R 7
(196o)l (,(,..71; 1(.. Chri~t. 'Zur Hcrrsche-rauffassung u. Politik Domitians. Aspekte dc:s
modoa~n D,>nnti;<tll>dd~'. in Srllwti~ct. 7.t!chr. fiir Gt.<ch. [Zurich] 12 (1%2) 1117 -213; B. W.
Jonr., 'Dc,nuuau';; ;tflltudc: h' tit.: :-;~n;r~, 01 .~/1''1-; ( 1'.173) 79-91.
30. Sl'C ~ ._t Jttc~.l.NF.. ln..:l"" .<~'. Jt:fttJ;t1f litJ!I>', l'>op<'(l:tlly I.l-44-5, 279-SO (with Ill.55 n.25).
479-8(J ('ft.-;lh
111:-J~. ~.ji (\1uh
!~It n iO!l}; !1.726-7 {with 111.229 nn.31-2), 758-'l
(witl:t )][ .?4! 1111. iti-L5)
AI)'' nr.- l1nl'tl~, S~t~ill. IIBE l'.i.180 (with ii.512 n.123). 224-5.
376-7. l"hr: llll~t mt~rt..'!.tmg t.xt~ .1rc CJ"h '-"x-i..-. I-lk XI. viii.3: XIII.xt.10; N"" Mt~.jor Ill; C]
IJv.l-l 1. (l"lw 1 illdi.-o mtio~uol\! l-oy 1\n~st.t<uts I pml<ably rcprcsmt a simibr policy.) I must
add tiM I "<IIIII' !ntw bd<m \1 l~uumolll Au I V:al,~ IJ.ll.e the ollie~ of Jtfi,.sor civitatiS a gene-ral
one. Jljo'tf;o>r,, ,m hiUH.i i11 .. mto .:'.LUo.:rn rrt,ir:''"' ~nd \II'~ happen to possess a rcmarkablv
dcta!kd n::(ord ,,,- ~mo. pr;.,-,."'ltttgs lt..1i.>nlh di~ ilvitatis of Arsinoo: in Egypt in A.D. 340:
SB V (:'155} S!41 .. fJ ( :.:. 1~11'. ll11-.t z full In I wirh ;t:J Eng. trans. and notes is given by C.J.
Krartu<1 ;md N.
'A I,-f,m.~ hc:.uiru~ on ownership', in TAPA 68 (1937) 357-87.
31. ThusCar.-h~.-.a. .\DCHH .llt.in I
32. With S:tll HJ -41 ~- .-f c.,., , Jl(; Vl ::'~.~ (th {)cntuns seck to prevent potrntiort's driving
humiii, ji,_.ut lh('lf lAnds) And o~o...- NG TR.'oN .... AND NOTES IS GIVEN BY C. J.
Kr,wmn -IIIli N 1..::-wt.. '.\ n't~rct's lu.umi; u ~'ll'rship', in TAPA (r8 (1937} 357-H7
31. Thus CarJ,...:u ..\PR.IN Till! kEJ(.;N Of Ta!xriu,.); rae.. Ann. XV.20.1 (wt solttJtpraevalidi
m. n
s.-..
!..:",'
33.
provmci;~/Ji,,. t1 'liiou' :imii.- a.t i1iari.:r tt!ill'""' oi,lll); Pliny. Ep.IX.v.2-J {lratia!' patmtium);
Dig, I. 'l(.iii r, ~. tO.>r rhc CJp:l:111(l il'"'l'lbl~ l>fth~ 2.'1)o.-2.10s) attributl-d to Ul;>tan (it should be
a rn.alt'l .:f 'l'll!>;km:~; !tl! tho. rroWII1ri11 ;;oH"IIII>r M !oC.: to irne p()tf'flli()rnViri lrumifior!'.l itril"irs
adfia.Jhf); d. :.!s.oth<- llr.~t,.i i!J ..\rl Ar.~1 . 'li R:.,.Jt .t.?t, and Dio Cass. Ul.37.~7.
One <>I' th, ~1rlt~ ,-;r:-.~k t~'<b ;!tvu~l'lt uiiw~r.-)ly, namely the very end of Xenophon\
x;
Oeco"'"ni,-,._, (X
12). -~~ ~""''" Jli.X'\at.' \'\'lill!lt-: .~l<".:imcc" man must ha vc divin<" qualities:
it is lloi<ll fO't ~...,;,.....,,. np'(tW- wl!il; r' ""''"~"fl>r~l-'<.r,.' nosults in a lifllike that of Tantalus, of
wh(>IJIU \\',\!< ~.~;..i :h.af J!, p.nf, 1nnl~' "' H;,,i,.;_ Jr.lding a second death.
34. Momnt'<~,,. \'1'\\' i w.-11 .;\uluMI'l h Jo>inwia and Nicholas, HJSRL" 342-4, with
630
35.
36.
37.
3K.
39.
40.
41.
42.
references. Constitutional :;;"--;.:~ ;m~ namral/y more 11dJ:o<d ~h~n mo~r historians to take
seriously the prodO&tm""'l J>nndpi,'S of J .:..m~nt~otr.m. h.~w.-.,,., lxgu. thy may be tn practice.
Thus a leading Rc;n:.n];,,\-!'<"r. i'r.tz S.:h,;l<, .-o\Ohi ).\Y ~h;;: the- r.~t.,rJtion by Augustus of'rh
fn-c State, the tiber.;~:: p11io!rr.t {m wn!ra:.hst::ldln:I I<' ~it.- .-b,.-.Jut mmarchy. the 4ominatioJ) ...
was not a foolish attmpt to df'lude the p.oph. '-u:,lJOk~;i l: Juri,::;,.lly. the hteral truth' (PRL
87-8). Accordtng to Schulz. again, 'the l~c:tlll; sut.n:r.ll-r rt:,l~~o:pat was a free communal
body, for the Pril!np.lt~ ,-,~~, :~or .. lJ~'~Il'l;&~, (l'lil_ ;.$1); bu1 tr, support ofthts cla1m Schulz
proceeds to cite isoldtc.J p.t..<.u~~~ :~-"11 Plir ~' s f>.:mr.,j~ici'J (1 ~ l n .2). whil~ noting that 'Pliny in
his letters addres~ r r~!m ~:mply ;u tl'""'''!U .. ~ trrl h :s \:..!dil ~~avoid' m the Panl'gyrirus!
Cf. also Schulz's M;,t,mcn~ :h.u 't.> lun.whr. h;(~ rw fN!in!! f<: jtimtt: distinctions rhe Romans
must l'vc.-r rl'main l:ll')mprdinsil:-1,-; ;)J< Rc,n.ws' ;;os,.:r.:o~l-<, h"K>t enough. but hmitcd to
thl"ir meaning in law, nu.~l c.::;m t.' h~:t' ,_,he nnthmg hut ;.':m~tng hypocrisy' (PRL 144).
Although an c.-x-1-lW)'<'r rcy~df. I ..-.m flc.-1 no sympathy f.>: Shul;',_ ,,utlook.
For those who wish :o rxo~n,:ulatcr monarchical thouglt~ in rh~ L;.:in West there is an amplt:
litc.-rature. A. J. Carl~ir:. :\ ll!.t.-r '.! ,\JcJ!,Jr!': still a mtm'
of usc:-ful informatum. ,\ r.~~nt ixJ,_,).. dealing bneft;- l-u: wdl w ath the early mediaeval pl'riod ts
Walter Ullmann. :\ llirt."}' '1 Pvlitica/ Tlwu_~ht in ~,,,. MadrJ(, Axrs (Pelican Hist. of Pol.
Thought, Vol. 2. i'H>.~. Irnpr,,vt"d rrr :711)
The same is true. a) Urunr lSinb out. or'~h...- :<t>-r:.1ikJ 'T..ial4 H~b.ma' (E/] 2 'J4a), which ralls
itself a 'O.flatio (lin, !.-l t't<".) but IS;~(~,, n~: :1 :h t~rrrn ;,t,;; _,,..:,,lw t'!lilllturn.
Cf. lnst.J. I.1i.S: Ulpian. :u 1\;.:. L:ii.'l l'umpt>nlll- s-1!.-:::n!v ...: witla his tungudn his <"h-ck?
- al~o attribut<.~ the ln.~u:a;ar. ~,!- th~ Priu.-:rar<' ;,,...;f ~ .. t!w .iifficulty th..- Senate h:.td in
attt>nding properly t.-.. ,,u~tlnng: 11.:r1 ,,,,,m,,< "'''' pw'l:lc 'JIIIIt'S tm;~.oi11riaJ probe .~ererr potrrtJt
(Dig. l.ii.2.11).
This raises SOnll' much-di~putc:d qu.:>tlons, on whi<"h see <'.g. JolowiCl ~nd Nicholas, HISRL'
359-63; Zulucta. lnst. 11f Gaius IL20-.,; Bergtr, FDRL 61!1.
InDio Cass. UII. 18.1 the histonan is dearly thinkmg of thr latin words, 'ltgibus solutus est'.
And he adds that th emperor~ hav.:- all things appertammg to kings t'Xl't."pt thl <.'mpty tttlc-.
Dio Cass. LXVIII.2. 1 does not bother to mention any J.-.x.
For the appearanc\' ofh1ppodromes m the Grec.k East, later than is often reabsed, see C::ameron,
CF207-13.
We must notlct", ol (;rurse, rh.. t lla,n,.,. l"<'t.:rs, n~t Iu .-J,..-u,>n' 1-v tlh' ptoplc but only to their
'.1cdamation'. Ht "'""" ho:\WVl'T, speak ut''rh.- }:;~pi'- ho~r.ily .n appropri.ltc term for tht'
insignific;~nt fr;~cU<ll ut' 'the people:' whu rmghr h..- .Ji'<'mbling, in the Cirfu~ perhaps. on a
particular orcasion. lA rw,ntitth-<"nt:ltr'' ntJrlt rc,.,,a"hrr wo>ul.lno>t satisfkd to call them
t'Vt>n a 'random sanJI,: c.[' rht'I"'<'Pk .)
It will be sufficient w rd~r tu Anllll l\.1.1rc XVI llll t.J; XX.n 1-1111; XXV.v. 1..(r; XXVI.i-ii;
XXVII. vi. tO- 16; XXX "-.4-5. ,i XV \'Ill 1-lx~ .1l ..no 1?>-lr. XXVI vi.l2-1~; vsi.17.
'S,ntentiam militum -..;uc.a p.muut nu,uh.a. Ci XJ.J5 i. wh.-rc a so.'naton.tl dtcision
obedif'ntly 'follow.d tbt ,.,,,,,, fllllill''-'.
R. Symc, EmperoJrs .mJ l.b,~I!'<If'')' i I'-'711 ~4~'-.~. rhml..~ thl, ul\ir~un ;1 tlction.
The most plausibk d(<'o>uur swm~ 111m. th:.t ulllur}. HT.HJ:: II lhl!l, followt-d 1n dTect by
JonL'S, LRE 1.267-.'l. s~-c .II;.., St.m,HllF.ll2 !- !It, A >\ Va~!lt,v.justin rhr First (Cambridge.
Mass., 19';0) ~~. Tb, J'''"' ~r i rb, s,n;,r<' at CustdlllllltJ'k had pcrhap~ btgun to tt'vive by
the seventh centur~, _., <~hwrl ,,1.-,~i.llly hv us .!cp~'llln (flkr.tdona~ and Maniua in 641
(sec Ostrogorsky, IIRS 1 114-151. but hy th,,t "''' .&h'm;ar rh, !m:u of this book. It ts worth
mentioning h~re th< "!r,.,.~..ts cui\.&~ :h.-~~"-. th; ,,n.&t.r~ wit ,m thtJ:ccessiou ofjusrin
II, as d.-scribed in c.r:rpus' J!l>nll i:l) rio.<l ..\ll'.)t'i I clll<'lltllll"l t:Crrlu'r )fl In the m.ain lt'Xl abov.
and at rhe b.girmmg fu.7'J bd.. w). II.ll5-J.n . .,.,. th, ,.,..,..)J,rt cummc:nt.1ry in Aveni
C-1meron 'sedition (II. i'll>,J,,") l ~;\.. ii,, Wl!h ftr!l r,i,-r.-11<"\'" n tho n:odtm hteratun.
St'(" f'.g.Jolowicz ard N~dth>. 1-IISIO.' .41~ Th.-r' i r::1ub I:.SL'IIII matl'rialm rhe chapter on
sucression to the l'rin.:IJ'.. I' h~ 1), M;;niu. SCN' IV .1. .JI.~J.j.
Cf. Tac., Hist. II.S~ (Vttdhob}.
Cf. Liban., 0Mt. XXV .:u. wh,rc i/.oa:TI-'tca, although th grl"<ltcstof all ofticcs, iss~tbjtct to law;
and other rassagcs.
Among many uthcr example.. uf tht stock theme: that tht mp.:rof'i havl made th.msclvcs (or
ought to make: rbt'tllst'lw!i) subJect to th.lawsis Claud1an, Dr lVCon.<. HoPior Artg. 296-302,
from a panegyric dehvcrcd in .WR. on which SC<' Cam.ron, Cl11udiatl 3RII ff.
mo
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
4!l.
49.
50.
631
51. Arnone; "~h-~! imperial:v!L~bluti<:>n~ sti)ll:u.usilli: .liscll'l"dience to the impenal will as sdcrilegium
are CT'h Vlv.2 (= CJ XlLvii l); :li~\,4 {""C) XILxvii.l); VU.iv.30 (= C]XU.xxxvii.13);
and .~tho: <"X.>ffii'k-ll ~l'l.'ctl by Jml.'.s. UJE UI.61J" i.
52. Thur; Rub,rt 8rnwiWI)_I. }~<;r;.,;;:,, .mJ '('I;,..;J,,,,. ( 197t) 69, part of a passage (65-9) which IS the
best intr<.du<'ti<n J knuw tr>r 1!...~ or;-Bynutm"' w rhc extraordinary story ofThcodora. But
Gibbu:~ i:. Oil h1~ ll~: u.vnn; IV ..! 1.! ti , :sr. n ...?t. j So:e also now Alan Cameron, 'The hoUSL'
of An.ntl~Ju,.. in C.RBS 1~1 (!'./7g), .tt17L makutg.t:t interesting point about C]V.iv.23, and
refnnn~t !no n ..~l th an llftlc!:' b;; llii\'IJ J>Jub.. <'lnJhasising how \very detail of thtlaw is
tailurl'd r the particular d1:~..mma ofJustinian .m.l
'Odora. 1
53. Dig. Iiii.J!; XXXII.23; lrutJ U .xvi1.8; C) vr l<xiii-23 arc all in the contt"xt of marriage or
testamet'lt.uy law~.
54. Cf. l>dt<'r pan~ th ,..m. .;,:tdt. NH 14..\:?-~ = RP- o2. RO. I am not imprcSSl'd by the reply
madt t j<mt~ l>y (:. li. \'. Su!~l'~h.,d. The imdligibility of Roman Imperial coin types, in
]RS 4c1 (1 115C,j 41~<-55. on which 'l'<' M H. Crawford, mjoncs, RE81 (rhdirst para.).
55. John ofEphl"~;.h. liE UJ. :4, ~: n:, nur.ll'.!rt 4:hr Hal. Hisr. of john, Bishop of Ephesus (Eng.
traus. from th 'SvriM ~,.
11.. \'!1<" Sm!tb, t)I(J_Ij i'i~. and the Latin trans. of the same work.
loalflil 1:'rllt'>lnt Ili~r.l='a!tl . Po~r; r,~,;a ~StriJI. Christ. Oriftlt., Ser. Syri 55, ed. E. W.
Brc)l)ks (lIUv~ill. 19:\h. n:pr. lq5.?) ](i4.
56. P. M. Urulin. "I1ic Rl'm.~t~lmperial c.,,.,'l,.l<.J. C II V. Sutherland and R. A. G. Carson) VII.
n ..
n.
c,.,,
Comtat~tmt ~ndLI<'inns A.D. J1J-3.f7 i1 1.W>).l.l u.J.

57. Sec th c:.,r.!l,,~,.- <!f ,;,,. B)'.r.~ntrlf<' Ci~> in til~ n..lflb.ln.m CMiu Colle(tion "lid in tht Whittm~orr
Coll,:tl'lt: II.:. by Philip Gri,n.o:' ('\l'a~h:n~ti'n.l> C 196!1) 95. The coins are illustrated in the
same CataloJ?ue r r1%6). by A. R Hl"llmt-"<". Pl~t XJJX nos. 1-8b (sel' pp.l98-200), and Plate
LX nos. 2-7.4 (~ pp.266-9) Amnng: n.ri.>u~ littnry pass ..gcs that yidd "vidence of tht
intert'\t nf rull'"~ m antiquity 111 ~t::lmrmi: thl'ir conJ with the~r own nam-s and/or portraits is
Procop .. lMI. VII ( = r..th. nn.llxxilr_.:;~. Prh~ps I should just mmtion a rather nd1culous
passage in tht <:hronidt (C'X'\-1 .. \) ofJohn t~fNikm (till which 5C.'C VIH.iiin.32below). According to
this, some ,;aid th;it th dtadl of the Emperor H.:nthus in 641 was due to h1s havmg stamped
the gold ,omag wnh the- figures t thl" three tmpcrors, himself and his two sons (as in fact he
did), thu~ l<'.lVintt nu n.um for 'tht n~m. ,,fthtlhm;,.n empire'; after th<' death ofHeraclius the
threl' figures Wt!l\': rcmovL'tl I finJ du~ .. hsurJ o~n,l unintelligible: the 'name of the Roman
empire' did n.,t in i:t~t .1ppc:.r on th R"m'111 !"OID.ltt, but thl'rc would have: b.:cn pknty of
room tbnr on tht rtvc~ ..ide ;>fHtr.adiu!i.-om~. rvC'n if the obverse were mtirely used up!
58. St-e- N.J. F.. Austin,'.\ usurper's d;&UiilO lo:gitimacy: Procopius in A.D . .365/6', in Rir. stor. drll'
Ant. 2 (1q72) 11!7-~. at 193, wuh .aU nC"CCSsary rcflrcncn.
59. I cam~)t t::::: a proper bibliography htn Anyoa.:; n": :~!ready acquainted with the subj<.ct could
be(%in with th.arm.nterpiece, A. D. N nd. -. th.. ptl"l'. 'Rdigious developments from the cl()S(' of
tht Rtpublic: tu the death nfNnt . inCA H X i l'J.\4) 465-511, esp. 481-503. The imperial cult
is of cou~ d~..dt with 111 tht \td.lld.ard work~ tn Gn-.:k and Roman religion. c .g. Kun Laue.
Riilfli><hr .Rrli,.\'iomxr..lJj;#,tt'(Muntch. 1'-H~I)JI~-26; M.P. Nilsson, Gmh. dl'rRril'ch. ReliRioniP
(Mum.-b.. J'if,f).~JS. wuh U~5 l>lllht (;rwk background. Then io; a gnat dtalofmaterial
in I.. ( :trt:.u 1!. :uJl.J. l"<>udn.tu, 1.1 tultr J,, ""'' rr<~ins ddns Ia cwilisdtion .flrrct1-romai11f (Toumai,
19:;7) 'lit. must rn"i.1JI w.>rk I\ 1. :1/t, J,, .;>J~:'''irt< darJS l'Empirt romain = Entrflitns sur
l'amiquti- .la:;;i.pt" 11. hm.!~tu f br.!r (Vaud<'ll.'ll\'r,-,./Gcncva, 1973); rf. thl' rl."vitw by T. D.
Ban,., 111 .\IP 'Ill ( 1175) #.\.:;.
60. It mi!lht bt "'ni<'C' pt'iut r.> ,j,r.:rtunt" bow tar tht: 'tJ.nulies' extended for this purpose. s,.,. L'.g.
the pmdnlt .,lin'''(';,."" ll""lt~. SP H1o 111. hns.31-42.
61. Chn~11.111 H.att<'ht. n liltMiffl> fl.~rtlt 1q! 1or..\p .4.l ($~ thn'fld of n.59 abow).
62. I know t)t' no r.xr whkh hrlllt:" ,,111 thl, htti.r'tl\' rropcrly. although J Greek wnrcr may
employ slightly ,bti\fnll tt>rminology wh.:n h'ft'UJug to appeals to the gods and the cmp<rors
fl"Spcctivdy: c.~. Ad. Arist. xrx (Ep. Jr .'illl)'ltJ.i :;, who USl'S ~~8a ofprayl'tS to the gods
and &o~o~E8a of rtqucst" It' th, """"mro <r,\ull"f<r- hut tb,n gOL-s on,., onct to ust 6eia6a1 of
appt..al~ t~H lxwtits fr,,m !t..JJ~ :.ud tru;l) ~, ..,,
63. Tac .. Hi>t. IV .... :. d.!).?, St~,t.. Jl',w 7 ..:'-J; DMC.<> ~-XVL!U.
64. Cf. Nodi.. PJ 11H n ,:'!(
I;RA.JJ' II.!(~ u .!X S.uapis miracks wl"r a cummonplact at
Alt"{andn;t '
65. In Ln<'l.ln.l'll.l,;' II :prl-~hl)' wurrm 111 th. b.r, ltJi~). tht" sick m:m who has been muaculously
heai..J r1~k~ ur h1) r&lk: ..u,l ,-;;r"'~"" ,, ti: rh~> ,,..,. nnmds u~ of the miradcs ofjesus. in Mk
632
Notes on VI. vi (pp.396397)

IL~L~
= Mt. JX2-'7 = U. V. ~il-25 (G:.titll!<'), .!ndj:l V.2-ll1 {t~:nl~..:lem), where in every<.-ase

rb.,. 111~1 who u ll~k! w ~ih r>ii' With hi~ Kpa{Jo:TTO~ /;i'.lllli.avlllwv
66. I W<ml,l .ir.tw attention to ])!,:> l~!~ J. V 10,9, wbn :h~ 'tl~mi:"< (t<')'wv lo~: Strabo V.iv .7,
t.l.u'.i :o~.r UJ' .lt N::-<~r.-:ltS ;t; CJ>llj.~ia in 2 B.C. ('-'r 1\. D. l). i~>ln.otlOUr of Augustus. and hdd
','V('J y four rca~~. :tr: .tr~aib<.d h}' Dto !:S nominally in (;ratJtUd<: [(>;'the fl'Stora!ion of the city
A~t;.n<!<tm ;ct:{'l' A!l e-arthquake. i>m in r&::llity 1><-o\.li:' lhry ....'C[C'. <zymg to C'mulatc. in a way.
Gr<'<'k ni't<>lru. (d LX .6.::!). IJr:nnatic cum;:r!Jt)l'>ls w..-r< incb;.-t~,t Suet . C/11ud. I 1.2 records
tb:.rth Emp-.rm daudiu$ pNthK.-.1 ;o r-k tl:orC". Orl' ;i :h,la.;a il<'ts of Augustus himself was
t.;, p~;Jc ;.-,,e~ :ll<'l'~ G~~~ (Diu C<s.. i.Vt!') 2'. Vdl l'~- ii.123.1; Suet .. .'lux-. 9H.5).
Kt!\W.-1 '"' lT<l~,,.;.. 'J.,.,..u. ~.&.,...ill !ao~..;,.,..... :he-! w.:r~ famous, and tvidcndy very inJlu~llti;ll J;: 'h ~rr~d of ~ud: c-.1s!~\llli r. tbc- W('St: sn- G 'lfJJw\\'a. Rdi~iom u. Kultu.< dtr
Rilll;tt 2 {M:;mch. l'!l:?.j 34t-2 ~~-Hi. 41.>5 :l-1. !{_ M. Cc:~. '!Ju: Greek games at Napks', in
T.H'A fJ6 ( li'IJ5J ~-2.1 (.i;h<-'(ltril:g .\ f<~l'lldat:<~n.blt"i>f .-\ P. 2). l ,;_l,ould also like ro nunrion
!nn th~ ,t.1-! l1'-;.:!~ll rh~J,'t'-.'1', p:-,:,.J!!!~!al<t$\t:uhh~~ ;r. ~hL- ,,.,,,.~~rn prov1nn.s ofthtltornm
Ernpir"' n l.1n,..,t, Rf;(;RJ! !~f-..4. whkh :s :oo L'l':cnJYtrloo!-.rd
67. It sll(ml.i i't' smiin...,ll mtn~y ,,, rcJ<r t\' W. i~r..s,.~iin. in C.tll XII 3S."--'i, whl're r.-ferences will be
ti.und. Ptrlldl"' lulti a!~ mt'11tior. II.:'
111 wbd1 I \:o>elt't'-1:1 ~d Ma.'<imian art addrl"'SS.-d as
'Dti~ ~1'71\hS 1'1: deorum n\~tori~ .~d. uu. '! l.at111 iu>tTtptiOI'!~ ao.i municipal com-legend!>, of
lUI"'-\ som,tim~'S call the- 'tnrcrm Jnl>. utrigiu: rrI s<:n.~ ,-;;rly (''l:"lnpl<'s, s.c c-.g. E/j' 106 ("'
<UJ;), i0'1 (rhr Jkmn ff!tlrl!(irriml ui Srohi/, !li1:.11~ I ".JI oi dt~l~oman colonia ofTarraco).
h'!a .o\ft,r thi~ .-haJ'lr \\.l) iim~h,-d I n:ul th1liwl'\' ;md r;.t.labk dto~pr.-: by Ktith Hopkins. in hs
C:onqucrors and S~u (l'i~; 'flhmr Emperors n;- rh.- ~rroiniic ;muy oftht Roman Empirt'
(pp.l97-242). '11m. ~~ no: ~utliC:l\'11tly wdl lnt'irm.-d .:n.i ~~ m.&rr~-d by sc'\'cral errors and
misconceptions. Hopkins r.-ntrl,itots {p. W) :h.. opl"l<'" I h~v-"l'ressed in thl" rexr abovt': ht'
refers to Millar's article (ICP) bur ;;!!.''" ~ iu"IJ.ilny t< r.:-t;ltdt. ()t, !ht' 1anw page h.,ven quor~s
r ...nulli.m. :lrl. 11). I. dn:r.:b~ hdpmg tu d<'IIHh~.!l hi\ <l.VIO '2'' for the charge Tcrtulhan
Gl<'Jiti<llJ. J:-1111 ,lu,tl~ '''"'"'r'u~d with \m~...fr worship' at ))!; thl" Roman~ are representd
as uym~;: rv the Cht,riocus. 'Yuu J,-., 'i"~ "'">ltif the gods; Y"" <~ not offer satrijitt' for the
c'm~r,>r~ 'Thus Hopkins'~ li'Xr v.~tnJ.:.-1~ .\'""'sequitur. Arad h:s lack of acquaintance with
(ir,'\.k lu~try has led to his pr-s.:.tllint-! ''liiJ'wr worship' om .-,f fv,.,JS, by torgt'lting irs origin
in tltl" .:uh fbenefacrors and .Jiw.. y tlunkm~t :lltrm~ .. t 'ru!t:r ..,tlt'. That Augustus and his
irnnucliat !IUcccssors ... .&Uowed temples .IIIli J>i~b tv j,, .-~t.ailli~hed in their honour, but
only in a~~onation wuh ;111 established deity. usu..Jly H<~m~ \ibid. 20.3-4) reveals a serious
mis.tlnrtptim .11111 <'olnlilSl"i tb.lmtitc-d 11\ltllhrr >t <'ltit~ .1t rntrovmdal !.vel with cults by
.:::itl<~ o~nJ uthtr lo;Ji..'!l. And s.-..uow T. D. llarn<'ll. in t\Jl"K. :1'1751 +B-5.
68. :Jupit<"r'; ~h~t. !V.~.l.!: IX.HIJ.I'; t.! .I:. ~)a: Thum!rwr' V!.l0.9: 'iU.'56.4; cf. IX.39.1; S6. 7.
The pas~;ai~IJI St.uiu~ 1:- Slt. IV 1, 1!-"-'1. f.r ~taUt> "11l l,nuUall, ~.c Kcnueth Scan, 'Slatius'
o~dul.mnn 1f l >..nmri;m', It! 1\11' :H i ! U.\J ;!47. 5'1. Fm rln ;\dul.lli.oull Domitian by both poets,
M.-.:" Fr dill S.autr, l>o11iimiul:l' i'Cti~.,hlt ltr M~"t.ars ,,~ .titi\r-tlt ;atlll\11 t. Domitian after thllarter's
J,.th. s.." ,. ~. M.trt. X. 72 (~1'- ~4. i)
69. Su..r i>.m. U.2.: Uto \:o~s.; LXVII 4,/: 1.~ 4~ cf '-l~rt V " i; IX fll ..'l, l'tc.
70. Ou the ;;r4tiuu;; l Oi Chr~~n~hlll .:onc.m~1i with l,.i.,!"'hit ("1~1 ,,unny), Sl'C n. 17 above. Of
these, the m,>sl mren~ti.l1~ an! .md Ill. fur pt<-,.,:ur 1'1!~5, """ .-.~. 1.36: LXII. I; and 111.50
ff. when Du ,xpn"SSC!' ~n.1t slli~t~. 1i;>:1 With th, J'n""<nt ~ut,:>f.tftilir~. as 'happy and diviu.'
(l'Sp. 61, 85-'J. IiI. !33 l't,;.,L
71. I. A. Richmond, ~11.-II.Jt.l,~)' .m.! rhr A_fttt-l.~it ir~ P,;.g.J'I .mJCirilio~trl>f""'.~ery, a Riddell Memorial
[.,,;tur at the Utuv'l'"IIY fPmhan (( hf<fJ. !J:;.j} lt'-17. Til<' nhl>l n-ccnl public:mun ofthc
'\rch nf Ht-nwntuu with excd)cnt photographs .ll"lloit-h..~r..lphy, is by F. J Has~l. Der
:n Rrtlfl'rtll: ;rn Bauwfrk des riimischm SotUf'' \M.Iill:l. l9f.6): se.:esp. Tafdn 14-15.
ll.&s,...l'~ ,,n.-l~n"'. '""l'-.:i..Uy it: r.'!!llrJ ~'' tla~J;d.-f "l!l'lt:~in I the Arch, arC"discusS<.-d in
.al,,ut: r..-vi,w b~ EA. l'J'JX1. mJN.<; _:,Ol il'Ji'o'l) .'?:;o.-t.l. ,'\n"lo! many othe-r works dealing
\\lth thImography ~>f th,, Ar.-!1. -c.fto.ul R..:,mj.:u. r.t religion ,,,,..,inea l'apD;~:ti J.. I'Empire, I.
l-4l''lt:lo1U' r.-lc,l!to'to<,. Jr> .-\m.ni~> lit,.. 1!11 ~~-In~. 1%5j 71-80 (esr '7.~). 362. 431-7 ("'P 432).
S<>nw tri,ky pwbkJ<ts ln"'-' hr t'xample, is :h, .,.':1~ htt~~~o't'f>l Trajan dnd Jupttcr to be
mtrrr<"t<il.&~ .111 olJtrtdu.. m wbi.:'h case the har.du~ i>wr vi tb tlmd<'rbolt (if that is what it
i:il mu\t )'.' ;.. ~t~r:d ..-.m.-.-,.~i<n ,,f pow.r. or is ~t .at'~iMi,. 111 which twnt thl' thunderbolt
mi~ht rt"rhar h~mh.li~ II<> mor.than military I"'W<'T )\'t~ , .,:,rno~l'barbarians'?
v,:
'i..""'.
n_s
'l'r"'' '"""':l:"'
633
72. Coinll<. ~pially in the thmi '-~utury, vii~n di~l'l;,v some god. most commonly Jupiter,
ham!ins tbe ~mpcror a !(lob~. the symool ufhU.i:'()w~y over the world: set W. Ensslin. in CAH
XII .'Al!).i, with :t..ft.rm{C1i.
72a. It wa\ or.!~ ;\iie; tim ci~3p!.:r W..!~ Vl!:uJl!v t"iui.:shetilr tJS oll'alititoU C.nccpr tiT Rome ("" Paptrs aud MoiiOf!taphs of the
Amir,.;: /u.'tlf,l) m Romr ]h. 1977) h i;;.~ to: clunr.r-d my v1cws. ,xpr~ssccl in the main text
above. i .1:11 ~r:.1~f~1i m P~!~r Jkutl! im ,Jm."i''" ml:' a draft of his n:vicw, whiCh has smct
appC'iltrro iuJRS 69 (197n H~-75. H.- roo:~ utlct.nv.tll<:cd.

73. Cf. t.>\Sstod, F.:r. VJll "in.\ wheu.: TnP,t ~-1Y) 141 >n (lratur. 'Surne dictationem. ~i bonus
fucr~. I''"' re pubhca ~~ n~. d :nollot:;.. I'<'l' pui..!i::. iu rnc.' Cassiodoru~ calls this 'dictum illud
cclebcmmum T!.,hr.f.
74. The .,lfl< m t:ngln:h w:,t; :h~ lTHI$1 ;'m'1>i5mt;-sounding ririe is K. M. Sltton. Clrri.<tian Artit~de
row.:l!$ :!:,. Emptmr i111;1~ F;,.m/, (.',qm'}' I~ Coillmb!!l. Univ. S111d in Hi<t., F:conomus and Public
!AI'"IJ.oi1, !'lo(('w y,,,;., l'~>).l'II~Jio"\'1'1:)' .::1~1\PL">i."lr:r;g; sc~:c.~. thncview by N.H. Baynes.
in]RS J4 {11)4.f) :.;:i-4(l (partl11 r;-!?'T. in BSOF. ~-::..:..5oi't). In particular, as Baynes puts ir. Setton
'trl.ar; Euscbim \'t't}' s<:un"!i,' (lhkl, 139).
75. I cannm giw a btbliogr..?h,- !n-~l' Jt~! ,,~!! n-fcr on.ly to Baron, SRHF I.63-(,, and esp. 91-3
('Att:no.oc..anhJc.:~l trt':'lUJ, ._.i:h !h ""''": ::O!d !(i.lland dr Vaux, Ancirtll Israel, It> Life and
Institutions (Et!!!. tf'Ja~. iyJohr Mdh;tth. t,1) 'loi-J i4 r~sp. 9S-9), with th< bibliography. 525-7.
76. Con~f~:Ulfl~.. k:.:<"! t1 'd~a:i~:.s. ;, p.:.:ticnbdv :rr..-sting document. is prcs<rwd in Optatus.
Ap)'"llii. HI. n!. C b\\".U (C.>;F'!..2t. 1~'1.5). :.--.-c:l h:. C. H. Tum<'r. E<cles O<rid.M~nutntllla
Juri. thttir!. I ;,, I ( i'JI3) :t'/(~S !: i5 11n J.; (p~ i'-:1'} in dll' admir~blc collection of sources for
tht' origin ,,; Dot>.tti<IW lJJ;v~ ~ IJ,i.."UIIIi;" ..-... E""lelrunJls~t'sch. drs D11natisrnusz ( = Kleme
Tcxte fiir r.,tirs;or;.'"'
11.
iJhut~Jim 1~~.!). ~o.i. Halls von Sodrn. 2nd edn by Hans von
Campnhausen (Ikrliu. 115.!)). Then ;U: ~,,n:,l b-t:lish uan~lations, <'.g. by J. Stevenson. A
Nerv Euscbiu> (1<''51) .HS-_?[1, :;~,,_l7~; ami!-' II. c ..k.nan-Nonun, Rt>man Stare a"J Christ1an
Chu ... h 1 ( J','!,f..) 54-<. m. l<J :5-.-: :\.H. M J~a<>. C.mrantineand thr Cotll'l'tsicm~f Ewrope (1 '14!1)
110-1 L who.;H_Iut:Ci\ c:dls t!r: I''"''''~" ~.;Jrt of wlm:h !have quoted in rhc t<'XI abow 'the key lu
Cot~t~lltllll('' ~ whk rt"!rftt u~ posit ton'
77. R~ad;,ll,.a"'f b<~.:h. 'l"r,wk.lllt.l.6; 11.4,6;UI :.t>. '1.'.4; VI.!-2: VU.I.;. X 6,7; Xl.l.XVI H TR..
mo!>r important passagts :tf<' ~!l:.p., 1.")/1.'.: iH i; X.i Ti1c :m.~~ l'ftit:.lti \,c;~ in F.ugli~,
on the subject of the TridJ,o.,,,,,,,=ttr:/i,>,; t' ~"'~'''" R$0[: .;g. h!<-7:? ..1\u,) """' :ht h,r p.r..gnvh
ofV. tit :md 11~ ~u.f-2 .'lalxwa:. h1 ro.: "'"-t :d..,,.,. I IM\'<' ''''":n,u.u.,.J ua, Euscbru. jl""'' no.l h:w.not tno;,! W ,-.,ll;. ~lh<"l nlat,"Tu! ft<'lli th~ ,;.ri:: r(urHh ,.:nl;u ~ whid: h .., 1,~"' .1'-lllua.i in
rC'I.,r,t tim ...,. .:.-< mllu.:u(ing hi, lltlkvk .n oot ,,.,._, ''''~"t;;,g l'"1illkJ., !t) ;~. ~tl.:h :IJ APi11111 .
Ctmtm C.'Tltt: J~. ~-4; -O,J-4 (prob:.bly writt~n o~w ~.'lfiv Js J ll'lj, frttll -.:nidi th~ ~xlo;.tmco; and
nec.-s...:ty ,;j mm:rr;by i~: tht.. .,...,,rJ;!, bringing :ll>moui\'cl;;;.l !1;~.:-.rWit~ (i..., :h Uk ;,f H l'll''
than ,,uc' woul,( b. 'tbc ruk i n,111~1. ii u ...-.t :.s n ;,r,!;UlU"'<>l xbr . ~i10~lc C:utl.&clil \'ic.- ''L"'!n
7H. The ll~llllllll: Dro .ll"''f is printed i1 !!J,sr:mdllll d~':Otl .. t'th' f)i.t:.<l( = C;"" l1'''' l.'ttl:.f
l.ii.!;..',J, II'': \~:rl; tt rh r:onstitutions L:l>ll :;~ C'lttll:fllf: lll "frft'-l-'1 .'\11 "'" wdl translate!( P\'
C. I ( Mn,,r .. , 'l'!o' u.:!"''~')lltJIllll {I oM~) .\iii fi'. ~h ........, WJ~i will ;tplX"I< r.houly in tf...
traushti !'tt,., wbk l.li~!t. ~~-l ;r .'.l:!r. W:a:~"ll. wb:.-1, L<~buur '" i"''l'l:~lishul t>,.rhe
Harnr.i UJi\o"eriliY l'r7"'
:ui~ ,,ftl..: Gr-:.. lmi.< (j,-;la:: r~
mt~ri:;.l!y a,ic.. m::.l
by d .. ~uhJ:c.ttJ~n lii197Jo; vf T''II~ HmlHt:!o i1od1. "fri/rorti.UI
79. Flav11t~ C,,.,~.-,,mas Cm iJ;Il~. flo.~~lon lu.<tm' .il~<r.f.<t: tr:roa:- c,i. ;\ , ..:nl C lm,:,m ( l')7f). Th,
cotunlt'J;t.r:- h;l m11d1 m;~.tcrial ~h:at ~ ,,j ttn;t tn :111\'tmr ,.,,J!.:.:mo:.! Wttt, thr l~ollt.ltl
Pri1Kil':tr.: J!lli i. ;~:,r Ert:l,,..,. i c.ur ualy lll<"ltliu i::r11rly lKt<" "<u~ tt.:r rd~<;tJ>l r~xl!<. '"'h ~
(1) thl!.l:thc.w .... i ..\~l''";~ !l'"r.m IJ'il:il'l ,~lnw:IMiw>j, m ,\.!.l'G I. X XX VI. l 1~>4--J!::i), li.n
wb .:h ,,,.. l.,twi lkar:--. 'A. m;rwr lor )thliti.u. T~.: i:'ti:r.i. 11f .'\;:..1'"~' Ui~wn .. .~o'. iu
GRR.S ~ I ll.ll,i'j ..!S 1-Ji.'>lio; ..u,i bnetly f)o;ur.nk. 1:cml' II (!%t)J 71,.? .. IS; tlllr ;m .-~a::ct n
n"' .
"'-"""
En1~ rr .a:1" h~ l!rn.~~! H:.:.rk:-r.

Pal.*-tltf,~~._. ( j().,.7) 5...&-t.J; .l,l..i
5iocial a,,,! l~td~fri~~! Ph ..,:c~: .: B; .:,l"tiul!C~ !rP~~rf;cHiu,t: lk th' l..tst

(2; rh" :n:r"~'JJJoi~Li! "\'11r.a.. He,;r ::"4..1A, .,..,,.,;,~ :r"~" "' (.fi. )~t'rmi...t
polrti:~H . ....... A rvl.a:. -~frirt~rhllf l'"i~&,,,~,. ~~~&: .,l~r;, .. !! {~t.)t: .... 1~~:7) "'.f.(!!'-J (\\-'l[h .i tK'.'i
fragr;rn:.;;<l C Uhr, 'A. I:."-' lr.a~m~nt,fCit'!'PrrJ>!N:t:l.l'>\f!hl:;lJ974]14!-'~}:ar.d
M~ li.trl;..;r. t1 ~at t"l.)..-7!\ ,;,r .J ~-..:ntth~c; iu J:.r~~hs.h ch~.; :.1:&:rk ~uy or 111).:;.'' ut tr 1!tt ~.111: tc o~s
(a),~;,~ ~""t rr,:.!i~r. C'fr:~ JT.. ~ .. ,..:c"' (,,,. !"!it-~C. :~Pt>A,n;;e), ~U,4 1~tlnla:"d ~y i"h,,r)u... lf!hl ,.;.;, ~1 ~\<fl'f~
Clll h~.), ;.utd/br {:) rh-.~ li,St fr~i.t:!t.t. ne:n ,..... *,.. ~ ,.,-::ttJ:r:.'...n:-,.:. ,,11 1"\"'t':'~ cbt.. t.:ctr l.rtjn.
mf',ltlnl lrllin Su~ot... '-~"-"' """ n;..,..... ' """''''" ~ Mri,......w (.~t A. 1\,lkr. !V r
,.,_,.,I
Notes on VI. vi (pp .400-402)
634
VJMm~.:r~. 'l.t"~ i:E::s polmqms d;~,u~lri f>-a~nh'1tts.mribucs :1 Pkrrc k Patria', in

2 {l'J:O) 35-76 (1.vhc follow.> r"vbl in ~lt=ilmu:;!t th.; d!Knymous work to P<"ll'T,
pr1>ba'!-iv with<w justification); ~n:l bt<diy I J<'tJmk. liCN'P II m~tt-11 I only wish I ould
hJ'''' iout:d !oli!n<' l'llr~l!d tr, :, wc.l. '"''r!tr(':lJU~: ~eli11r t~=- mi,k!ic of the: sixth century by John
tluiop<::m~. D," vpilir. mr:t.'i v:. !6 (l.:~63. t'ti. '11. H,ich.m!:. Ld:nig. I!!Y7): this wry bnl'f
p.lSS~g.: is 11:11]1\t> (s hr ;;.< ! <';i!J dJs~.:>v!~ry 111 :h,. litM'~Imt' h;;~ survivl's from tlw Chrisuan
wnt:or> of th(' l-;a~t l:'.:lj:'::<" ill t.;'ccr!:tg :ho:- 'l>u.ll u~:~\:~;;-.m glnriflcat1on ofkmgshtp and in
tr~atmg it l.'xplicidy ..1~ human ;n orj.,!'Ul !1111i.:u ~'HI,'thing ;l:.ti i' l'ld .f>umKiw bur only 8tufl. Th,
pagan hiStOrian z,,~;mo::;, Wnl!:lg r.r SOl "'t" till\!' ill (it.' I WI) ~j~'{<ldt.'i iollowing 491'! (sec ep. the
Inrrod. to fto~;:~.,i_., P.>!dJ,)u'l'~ H11,!i ~-.iid"ll ::,! !l,~ .k~ I-H. Pil.XI~-XX [c-~p. XVII], 132-.~
!1. U). <:<:t.lluly b~~ m ,m:n~h~ dt'tlllnriation c.f ~lu p,.;,:dp:o:, ii'"m Angustu~ onwards - to
!~;n, .. ,,: (nurs~. un .,tn.t'lht{~: &n<ln:t::-h~ - ~~ a (r.:rrn o,f ~oV"..~~1n~n~ (l. v .2-4); h~o obj{'t.tr, in
Jl~tni,~lar tu !h;.'- :nl!n::-:u.ur.tbh.: .:h....t~';t{ft:: ._.f lb ~l.:thc.r.1ty Cir..s .:;_\...,o~ f{ovuta. 3 fin.). ~1
.-hallt"llf:<' you ~~~ itt.! ...., ;;rW1!t:. rmuinnn.:t;on .::i !'itull<trdw .:as_. nm~rimtional formm itsdfin
! I i): $>:'.. V
ny~.:rl(ii)Pl
.:t~y
,,rhtr
Jn~l,ut
.turher." .. ~r~
l"lh~
f:r.M"ut
H':t-~t-"it!:,
r; . .
F.~dc.... ustitJ.l
Historians and rh-.
P~;;;m H1stono~raphy:
l'r,>\'ltk:acr :.;J Mir:uk;'. ut .'t:/:,"'hl~llo>l n.s.S5 (1Y77) l07-21i. ~sp.

J :S...'-', at 1.20. Th.:b.-s~nccr,trro:-atm,::t~ll.idh:n.'~t:l"'l\>~z.,, ! v,?-4isbyfr. Paschoud. 'La
~'it~~,~~ifn ;\t:,J:notJ.rdnt.p~c. du :~t~~l!n:bn!~ :k l" li;s!''li' -:i:udt..:. u1 C.'ittq ,;twit'~ ..:ar 7.tJsJmt
(l':lfis . )Q1!t) ! -!.~ ll:~ (w;.t '{t'llL-r.\i trl'atmem oi Zcr::ms i.< 'lH\ r!-..t! of Pasdl<md. 'Zosimus
(~ '. m !U:' X.,\ I 1'171) i'./5-liH. ;md in lm lntmd c" V.:.1 I cihr..~ Uud(,-dmon. cited .1bow.
Hn. S.v C-mt.wn. ''Jl. d! (111 1.7'1 .thtv:} !!'-:!.
HI. In wh;u rol!ow. tbr 70l1V'lll\'!l(:0:. 1 ~b~li <;tltllim: ~~~~ :l'ict\'Ti~~$ Ill dlt' l!lain to two pow.-rful
.. ru,k~
!!2.
H3.
!H.
H5.
~-
M7.
~li,bht"<i (wnh ~...-n; ll\il bibhography) lll N7:i A:d 11.<'/'-1, r!w ourlnok of whid1l find
.:ongtui. l .lw,rl C:::,ur~H. 'j'h, Th,..wl..,,,. i:r ,j,rh--.,nc~rv C<':~~:antiuoplt:', 1niTS n.s . .2'J
(1Y7R) 7'}. In'!; ;an.:! tu~r.)o:1."; or .tt:th()ti!V dirt ;md <om~ l!: 1.<~ st)lth....:ntury Byzantium', in
!>;ur t:.['r<'''ll P'l (,\r1gul 197Y) _;._;;
Tilt' Vir~1is nim:oy ~~n;nd u' i A:!l~ll> ''''Hi-'\h" :ot Ath,as m thl.' tifth century B.C.: see
C:\~ll('f"~l. ~rt ,11 (l97lol) fi).~ ,;,.:
"'''' Cua..rm. ;an. cit. (l'lii'!) ""~ 11~ !1~3. ('~-',alt.~ d'l'!.l !I. IS 1.& ~n.7H-3). W-24 .l~-5. Of
\mr,.. :It, Brz.mrin~ ,-mperor :uJ .,:,. . \', h:\'n '~'" 11 :. 1 ~\t"i""' context'; bur ir ha,; bt'<'n
argut-d rh.u rh, reign of .Jusrm II J:-;n;-,;cnts 's.>m.thiu~ ,,f -1 mrnin~-p ..int in impl!'rial
ideology', ,ll"Ji thai frolllltW "I :~ l1r.~lll is <li<'ll Jitfinr!r ,,, >q4r-llC thl 'imp.rial' from thl
'rdittin,. (:hid.l 1'171113 Atultd..J).
Con:r.>,-, art . .:it (l'l/1!) ~<I.! . ..-! Y.J-Ih?>. h~l'i; :,I;. I i'.i'N) 4-5 ..!.~-!'. 3!1-1.
S!'c- A\.:rtl c~IUc'hlJl, ;,rt ,;,, lllll l'<i l,: (llN} ,.;, \\-ith its ,._i)_~.
r\ \'~ri~ ( ~ an~~'r,.,; .. ;~rt. ci.t. {l'J7l'{) ~.):~ .. '~hh ~~ :!-3 {.:f ~HI!'-~;,, iHii
I lll"t trum .m ..IJ.tlyis [u,...~ '"1:.1- m.r~;t:rr..U"- :.sit s.,m~ t., !tuJ hh politial thou~thrur
~~- Au~u~w,.. t,~ N ..rr.tJU H ~~~,!~~. Tihf>,,l;,;,.,! I.:l .;':\t .'\ll;:lilirt', Dr CwrMtr Dl'i (
ll~sh>Tit'Jl .\~>...-11 l':m:phkr 11". ir.t. luilm1. l'.i;t(,'j >. 'h tl..- (r:j!inal mt,ntion ofGoJ man
\\*;&~ nt ,-,~;th""i f(1 i.'X"'f\1~~.: d&~2ubMJi,-.,. ... ,.,., n'"'" t~tt:. :_, dt, ">lartll~ point for Augusrntt hut
:h.at n: igir.al ito:,'ul'loll ~;ul !lc"r., rJa,..<ft.-:1 hy lll.lll, ir, ;, '' rhi ''"'"i(''d l'undition with which
l~&tt J'!i fl{,,(, .tU\i lll.' Ua,<t 'tl!l ..... "-'r,a, ~&.1\'&"ltll,:.n'f h.\~~ !"i~Ct1 ~IS ,d ll!h"C" runitlVl' .&lld rt.:mcdia).
As ;j r-a,t"m .~.niu.r ~'" ''"''II ~it, .~,rr:,h ''~r. lp,; .t rd;.ttv.- institicalion; it b.:anth not th
>\\'(111 in v:tin. lJhilnUd} (,.xf' w.w.,
I <U! uu.lt-rr.uu.lh;t: H, hnoses stu:h rulers
!t>' nt:tll :1~ n;.lll ,k,.,r"''" Tim ,, l';t:mr. mdt :!i Nr... tl<" t.n.iitiontal.x;nupk oftlw worst
!~'!"' ,,, rukr. i~ .1ppui111~'1 1'' ,!;,iue p,,,,.,,,,.,,,,. lk:.u ... ml,rs arc hoso.'ll by divitu
I'J"\'t<knn:. til< .. n~rai.S .,f Clui~r ~ !'id.k I tulcr;ttt .:\,n rh.- wurst au<l must vicicus of
...,~,~t;~. a:tl tiM! dt,y r.&n-11 J.,. o~hiny. tb.\1 t;~.rth th.:r .:lut pilgrims. and that thc.'ir homt'
I' unr ltcrlut ~II II<'.\\,.,, ('lin- ~.,,,...,,,._~ i, rqr. '" lh'!-,1<'~. HSOE 2')<;..6.) lr is.t pity we cannur
d"k Au~:lllll ~~~ <'l!.yla!~o ;;iv11: tl1:11 :livin.: l'rm:,i<lh't' r~llv dt(>S' llitll.'r as a rukr. whcth~r
~h,-r.- l' ;;r"' J"-ill. l:t'rd, rh, 'l'h.-rc '>l rdii.~i<<ll. h:ym,{ whKil r.':<i'tmc to his more vicious
..~rd,~rs. (('. ~- t~r t!tt" ,~r~rrn~1'~3at:n nf :he J--\~) ,,.,,:lt.1 b.; JU .. t:i~t"!
KH. Th, tlt,;t .;~h~~ ,l_,r _.h f~r ,., I kr.~\\' ~ ;-; 1 i!lt~.,..;~ i,4l}""-rt ~r.~:: .;. t~l ~it~ ide. ,,.f j.-~ fJLtlro:\'-x Js an ..-lt.mlnt
;n H..ll,ll'l'' th,~ri,s ,,j !1<>t>lfdt;: \' ''" f. 1~ (;, .... ,,{!rwt,;b. The polincal philosophy of
Hdknbt\: i..utt,tl:lr. 111 \'C~ ! (!oJ~) ;_:,.)0!~ '''i' J.<t.i,! lh ':.'io.~w th<lt tht tr~atis.:s on
Kln.,:.IIII
Diotogt~~-- ;u~:l a mup!~ .. i ..:J,,r !'~h~~"r:;,::.: W;'r,' contpos.d m th, arly
Hd::ui.til r~lud ha~ l:"'" -1(~\'!'IL'd by '''\'<'l"li ~h ,d..>i:tr>. ;,,d;uimg ,. g. l'arn: Frau.i~
D~.:.~-.il... I:Cn!'l'. ;o,; ,..:, ""!' 1.2.:-'>,5:!: 1:1i.l HLrl!J!,r Tkk<:.. 1 iotmdrtri.., to th Prtlt<~~mm
'''b.,-,,:;,
rv
635
Wrl;t!gs r;f !1:.-1-lfllni.<tic i't''""! {A bv. I~'!I I) So) 1!:. ~!Sp ::.5 71 Um I k.n;_,\<' c; o!:l rrrt.:lr' l.'VIh-n<.r
for the C'Xttt~u"' of these tr~atiHn:!;~-~ ~han t.lt~:qu.:>~ltiorl'! froltl !han b~ Sl.:.ba!.'U!. {~>fob;.,Ny
c-ar!~' ~iih <::'1\ttl!y): k n;N~<'ll\'~ <'>n lhi~ .ul._r.ct, !CC: St<)i, . .-\m.lwl. IV.vu.6l (~-d llms.<,
IV ..!t>:.. J.u:;). Ap;m fmm lliu!(t1tW-. ..ind Phlll'ILijustiuan (quor"'! 1111h~ r:rxt.J!lO\'<'), :l1'
mam rdi.n1"~~ u< Muso;ti''" f{ui~b. ~i. 8 Hn~<' ~.1:,,! l..nt;:. Mr IJ. ,.; ho~ ~do its ~n.28.-')1. 'L'
Stub., ,4.tttit!IIIV.vir.n7 (r.i. Ham~. !V.t8.\); Ptm . M,,, 71!1.>-:; Tho:ml;t .. p.,u V CAJJ~i'~ot".}
64l; XV; (t :l~o~riu.) .!:2,1 hit7. Toor--~>!:, ('Jidi$~>1,:1 (S!:rrt~.<rt, ll";1) ~111. n. !;J, J~il!- ...IH:~ r1
(1~1()()) t:??-:0; _.rld 'Zm:- G"-<ch. d1r sp:J~kai't'rl<"it!1d~'! Hr.rr.~ht'rauffa,,ung'. i:; Sa.-.,.lw 7
( 195tl) ).ioi.~ r95 . .1; f ~I} ti" . \\t~ttld dar' J)Jot,g:-nes ~1rlli ~he: ctiu:rs ;iS :;t~l: 35 the: mid-':hud t"lJ~ury,
Loui$ Ddattc. I.~J Tr.:i:.~. ,f, !.: lkj'w~<'t' ,n;."JI!a.:r1:.-. !lf,,:<'l{i!t< .r Sth<',ul<i! (lii:gc, 1'.'41), ia:l<C"i
quire a ,ttoo-i QSC :;,r !h~ ftfit "r P4r'!'ho~p:;. the ..."~.::'-i n:-tt(U?y _ (Fir .,. ~LIJt\'Cl:acnt 5~lmt,l=.:: of
Dclatt<' wndnSJon~ u; b1gf:!.:;. ~..:~ M I Chrl,;w,:.r.h\ ~~.-tt:"'l. :" t :Rid { IM.j !2-.11 ~r
tht~ \.,,.,._. d:.-l !h-:.n.~tJa-,:, of ,.,,,.,t~ iJ.&~.._.O< i~Glf':it.. i'itJf:.O:;~.,t :11 ~uHta(;.\l ~il!'-'IJ~ht, ~.. t(..\ ..m;m,lt.;.
onh in th,- MtJ<H 1\!>~. srt' Art Stciw.v.:n~:r. 'N''""'
Zur ~ ; .,dt .-i:l<:r l",lit
Th~~m~. r:t .-\11;. ,.f.i.o Wi1:, Phil. -h~r. I' Ll:;;s~, ~ {l'o.k; ,~.5U-itll.
89. Thcr is n<>tlmil: r.:>1111!.auloJ, "' rh< ll(~.;: C>lltmsl e.s. thc ~!:;t.:Jllcr>t ,_,(1\b~.::.,,, :~hmu
pr;t~'tnri.an l.tw: 'No~m <'[ il~um 111~ lwnora;ium .,,,._ w'~ ('li! Juns:wrhs' (II. I!}
90. Sc '""t' M1l!a~. LRIJ' !,114-5. ,udm;: .... ,~h r!..- l'.!tlli<;.I"Jl. 'II '' d:df th.tt ><1nc thud p,my lu.l
'"'""'''">:
infi",!':ta.....d hirn ,frlJ~ s.ir;J,\t1oJL Thc-r-.. ar... ~tn~~ ,,!~,n.~!,,:s Jad :rr~:!lr~ UJ A1,)1.ar,s ~:t:r.al],,. ~.~.
he- d,,.,..,. "''' no!!{(' tht wk - hittiJly st~niilc:Jtr. 'lh'l~ - f t!;, llliJ"-'rt~l ,-,,'iinl! Ji,.lutt'l:u~
(pr(suruhly ''-~'''"'.-' ~ffi.~fratt,r./ ~~ da, c:~r,~tr~cd t1fNia~, r. . ,.,. ll,o~! h, 'l :f.lgtturn (dt~c..n~c."I'-''1
onlv 1lm .:c.llt:::y) .tth._ ,\rlJ:> htrr!lc PhihJSCorgius, HE 1.9;.: .1ml itt ~;ty~ :hat '.1 Ntl'.i.t'~
Eu~bnu. (,f~;c,.rr.aJ~Jil .. Th~...=~~ut._ ,.,tN\r~a.;.:' :tnd :h.:u tC,Ho~ov<:u. a~ \\:-Hs Art\"t~ h!!V51.:1t". "\\:r."rt
cxtkJ by llllf't"""' ,:mnm.nd' (E'kW ;:J~<~. wh,r..-.\~ :: : ,.,:ffict~:dy .-lr.ar ,,.~ ~nl;: rrum
Philostorgius illl: I.'J. -~,-. 10) hut ..t.... fr..m t!J, lt-u,r !CmstJmtin ''' d,,. Ni.:..,u~ti~riS tm
Gdas., HE IIJ App. I 1.~ ft'. '"l' tr. ,. Tbl<i.. Ill: I. u. 5 ;i,. '"'P. lfj, :~.1d trcr Tlt'<iur.t tilE
I. vii !5-1'>: 'J;ii.17-1~}. S,)_.,,~u'" (Hf.l r..J. o:f. 5; lll.lci;>..l). ~u.! ,..,.1'11 Som,\~ (HF-1.:'<. .:->j..
4, ay.aitbl viii ..B-4). tlt .. t tlu- ..,.,.ik cf E:~,bns .u>.l -, t>~"'!:tRi'< t~"'k l'l....,. ht;r - probably thr~
mouths lat.-r. J st;~tul by l'hd)~fl)r~~:tu~. Jlf. I. Ill. Tht fan thu Cun~tmt:m did ind~o't'd ,-,.,j,.
tht.'St' bt~hcp~ "'II"' tim Jfi('t th Cuunnl tl'ih:,u-.t, Jt whdrhv h<~.l or-l.:n''"'""'''''l
by iorm.allr "Ui>~<ni>trtt:t to th crc.:d ,,,dL>r~-e-d ly th Cm,al, "" "JIIrtlm;; !il.u :.I!Ur.tlh
di~<<'llllu~no: -som, '<rdu,J,,.;' m~km '"'d('.sJastl<"oll tn~tcri~ts: .,..,,. J;. I. Oru:r. d,tlrhn~.Ji;;t
des C,,.,,il CJ(.urtri'rri.JI"'' (,.t. (~.-r,,IJ~ Dmnt'l!):~). ,\.'rlo't I C.mtolllii>,.Jpl.tl'n;n<b rrn.... , J.ur~.
I'Jt.l'i 1 i,__
91. Cf. th. .... t Jt'IIMtk c.f r;i)).. n. 'Th. Yl~llll" nt C}ril nf Al.-"andti.a is famous in controwrsial
stN~, .l.'ld dot tlt!, <.f ,,i~ is .1 marl. rh.u !11~ -rinims and his party have finally prrvailcd'
(DI'Rl:' V 1117)
9la. Tw ,,duur:~l>l W.>rt.. lo~ 1\!.ut~ M. ( 7i::c~rd.t. whidtl read only afrc-r this chapter was tn proof.
cxpr<ss quitt .a Jrtiir,nt \"leW. whi.-b S.'l'ns wn d<se to my own: 'Katscr Konstantru~ ll. als
"Episcopus Iirtsl'uJ?irnnt"nnd d.&~ J-1.-rJ"SdJLrbiJ.II~-s kirchbcht'll Widcrst.utdt-s'. in llistoria 26
( 1~77) 95-12li; .m.t ~~r- KoJi>t"rl{t'rMIIIIld "''"'~i>,l{~;lu ( = Antiquitas I. 21. l:tonn, 1975).
92. Comtantitlc s.ap hutsdf, i: tl:~ J,rt,r ~c rlt... Ni.-orot,dians n11:1!1iom-d tn n.90 aoov.;. that at
Nic:tl'.l b,-.m;~k.. mmk,!ly jl11'!0U'd th, ~m ,,( <n<tri~ogb,.u>roca for all (Gdas . HE. App. 1.13 =
Th~o.t .. HI: I :\" ;\) n,. .,.. '" mu.-lt ,,t111r ,-v,d.:r~.:.: ro the same toffert, e.g. thl md of
Ctmt..mtin's J,n,r In A.-l.ttiu'\. uf :\1.\.14, mt'lll>ucd in n.711 ~bovt; th<" rud of his letter to
Durnitiu~ c,l.,h. nt' .\15.11 tOrut. 1\pptnd. VII = VED 1 no.23): .and of course many
pasM.-r;<".s thrU:l:lllUI rh, 1.-ttcr tn Hrsbop Akxandcr and Arius (Euseb . Vita Cotmam. 11.64-72)
mcntl,ncJ u thl tc~t Jt>uw.
93. For thos.. who are not .already J.cquaint,d with the source- material. the lxst acl"ount of
Constantine's rdatton' wirh the Chrtsti;an churchts is A. H. M. Jones's book on Constantine
(tor whirh set' n.76 abova;). A fundamental work is Norman H. IJayms's Raleigh lccrun on
History m I~JO. C<>nstanrinethc Grear and thr Christian Cl11mh (I')J t). which can now b, read in
a second edition. with a Pre-face by He-nry Chadwick (1972).

94. Scl B. Altanrr. Patritl".flY (1%0. Eng. trans. from tltc fifth German editton, of 1'J5R) 418:
ODCC' 797, s.v. 'Sr. Ll'O corrl"Ctcd m lhL'S4.'l"OIIQ edition (1970) !o 'his [the Popc's]lcgau:s
spokr first at the Council ofChalcedon' (p.81 t). Cf. G. Hardy, in Hisr.,irr de I'E,(!lis.. ed. A.
Flichc and V. Martin. IV (Paris, 1948) 228 ('On deoda .;nfin qu Pascbasmus d, lilib<-e
prfsiJt'rait lc concrk, aiust qut l'avait d,mand~ le pape'). with 2'1:--J n. I.
r.
636
Notes on VI.vi- VII. i
(pp.404~410)
can~-' im1~.:i lll C.~EJ. ,~;x:-:v u.'l!.">-!o. Thcu ~~ ~n Eng. tr.ms. in CokmanNorton, RSCC IlL '1!'7 .,.<~.. ::"'. 5r, l
96. There is a good Enr,!ish tr;...'"lslation ofrhc work~ of A:h~<ot.u;ill! illNPNF, 2nd Series, IV ( 1892).
cd. Archibald Robuuu:1. wh1rc th:: ktlcr o:' OE!m wtil h ~hmd on pp.2!l5-6.
97. The letterofPopeCd.t~:~l~ I tut'!!t" E:>tp ..mr "ll,;~t.~~i~ i. ~:-f.i 1 .'l, I!' Et XII (seeesp. 2). d. A.
Thiel, Episr. Rom.t;.l'or.t!t Gtm1r T.l ( 1867) .~N:58; ir n l!m .:d. E. Schwanz, PublizistiHhe
Sammlungm ~um A,,,,,,.:m.rilm .vhu'"'' .,. .lblmr~<!l \kr Ny<:r. 1\:-.::d. dcr W1ss .. Philos.-hist.
Abt., n.F. 10 (Mu::it:h. 1!1.!~). wlt,r,; Ep XU 1<. no.il. J,!j; !9-.14 . .<1 2V. For the v1cw that the
lettl'r ofGeb.sius i~ 1:m ~11.-il;:. n:w d<.:t'.lttt"".: .'Is many n~>~kn ~d:.'lars have bdicv~d. see F.
Dvomik, 'Pope G<'i.J~om~ .u!d Fmf"'''or.Anastaiu~ l'. !n.By;44 (1951) 111-ln. Cf. .:~lso
Gaudcmct, EER 4~~-~98. Those who arc dismdmcu t' ~~m! umd; :im.:- >:1 1m-iii.'~ \".'<II fir.d ~useful summary of his
attacks on Const:u,ria.~ lf m Sr;r<>n. op. dt. (inn. ?4.lh:~d '}1-7.
99. See T. D. Baml"S, '\\"hu w,ro: th nobihty <:)l t!t: Roman F..:;!!'ir\' 0 . 111 Phoenix 28 (I'J74) 444-9.
The theory of Gc-~z~r {wht.h pc;,llr.i fm ;;o long), f!)~: i:1 tlt: Principate It was only
descendants of Rlpuh!ir,:; wr:sub whv wn.: lJ...:.! ,;;.~ik .....s ii::~lly refuted by H. Hill.
'Nobilitas m thl Iwpl.'riJl period', ;n Jlio:w!.t t~ (~%~') ~Jt.. su.
100. Thus Dio Cass. Ll\' ..26 ;~; Suer . Ar. 11.! ~w~-,. HS J.:!OO,tl(J.
101. Among the known :X.IIIll-'1,-~ .ll't' T~.- . .'l1: ll.J7-_I.."! (~P Yl :?. wh.rc Augustus gtves HS I
million toM. Horkll:'<!!~ H,rt.;ln~; .. uct .J.l",!1. wln:l( Trb.:::u. ~:lws HS 200.000 to ~ach of the
man'!> four son~}; I 75.5- i (Till;:riu~ .:-i"'~' H\ l1nlh,,,: h' p.,.,,~r!".,; t":der): X111.34.2-3 (Nero
gives a pension of l fS 3'.1..~.0.1 P'' ;:;.,,. t" M V ~~~l"!IL' Mtmll C~trvinus, quibu.< pauperratem
innoxiam sustmta"t .me! wul-'rl~~ ;;:.:.! ;:-mior.s, tl:: amount~ ,'\f which are not stated, to
.Aurelius Cotta and H.n.-nu!' .'\nrn11inus. Ju.A'""'' !I'' I~"""' ""''"; 'ffi :lissipamnt); cf. XV. 53.2.
St.-ealso Vf'll. Pat. II. 1?.~ ..~: ~1w: .. N.~"' 1t1 !, V.sp. 17; DtuCJ"' l.Vl} to.3-4;Hist. Au~ . Hadr.
7.9. Even CaracJ.II.a i~ :>.1i..! to !tlw ~r;.:u Junius P.r:.o!ino. B~ 1 million: Diu Cass.
LXXVU.11.1 2 (cd
.,,~-r::.tin
~'4-5-~,
102. S'-"'-' the texts cited In Vliii n."! .I~Mw. fn~ thol'rm:!r~r;., ,.,,. !J ...;; U 17. where a threc-year-<~ld
deceased is descri~ l>y ht~ !:tth,r in :.:,, fl:llt'f.l~ iiiS.:tilIK>'l .1s ~'l(l<ati) R(omano)'; .md ILS
1318. where a man <"ttmtt up -fhmr:ar!.-"'~nr""'n tn !-n,o "'):> d,'<l:rib~s himself .1s 'narus tquts
Romanus'.
103. See on the whole subject jon~. LRE II.525-30. The statement by Hopkins (S.4C. ed. Finley.
105) that "under Const:mtine ... the cqu~-strian and SL'llatorial orders were fust-d', in a 'new
expanded order (clarissimr)' should have read 'began to be fused'. Certain posts held in the late
third century by ~U,'Strian~ wer~ now madt". it is true. to carry smatorial rank (with the title of
clarissimus), but the principal cqut>strian grade. that of per(mi.<.<imu5. continued to be quite
common until at lt>ast thl.' last decadl or two of the: fourth century (when it was div1dcd into
three gradL-s: C) Xll.xxiii. 7, of 384). For the details. ~e Jonl"S, LRF. 11.32.5-8, with the notes,
~p. 111.150 n. 9 and 151 n.l2.
104. For this date, see Alan Cameron. 'Rurilius Namatianus, St. Augustin.:, and the date oftht' De
mlitu', in}RS 57 (1967) 31-9.
95. The Latin text
zr,,t,,
n.
m..
[VII.i]
I. Set- my ECAPS 16 n.46, r~futing the view of Buckland and others that the slavc:s in such cases
were merely tortured and not executed. It could ev~n be said that slave"$ ought to be punished if
their master committed suicide in thlir presence: and they failed to stop him when they could have
done so (D~. XXIX. v .1.22, Ulpian; cf. Stnt. Pauli III. v .4. speaking only of the tortun of such
slaves). I may add that when Afranius Dexter, a sufft-ct consul of A.D. 105. died in mysterious
circumstances, Pliny describes the debate in the Senate as to what should be don.- with the
.frttdmm of the dead man (Ep. VIU.xiv. 12-25). My n-ading ofthe letter is that the freedmen were
~legated to an island (sec 21 init., 24, 25-6); and I would infer that the slaves wereexerutcd.
2. 5 e.g. Diod. Sic. XXXIV/V.ii.22; XXXVI.ii.6; iii.6: x.2-3. Cf. Symm., Ep. 11.46, for the
mass suicide of 29 Saxon prisoners promi~d to Symmachus by the emperor as gladiators in
393 (sec Jones. LRE 11.560-1).
3. 5 Louis Robert,
gladiateurs dans !'Orient J!ret (Paris, 1940, repr. Amsterdam, 1971), with a
few corrections in REG 53 (1940) 202-3. and considerable supplcmc.nts in a scri~ of articles
us
Notes on VII. i-ii (pp.410-416)
637
entitkd 'MnutW:("Hb k ~d~!i:.t.-u:s dms l'C~~~n: gr.c', in Hdlmira3 (1946) 112-50; 5 (194!!)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
77-99; 7 (1949) LY;-Si: B (195!)~ .N-7,?; ;out! d t!u !"~71 rf'prim ofth~ book, pp.l-2 ofthf'
Prcfac\". Sl't' <II~> (,~..-.r!i~ Vi !It>, 'LL~ JCU do:- gbcliamm1 dans 1\mpirl' chrctitn in MEFR 72
(1%0) .~7J.-'H5_ Th~r- u :;;on;, tintil~'f l.~b:;,_,,;r;ai'hY in J. P_ V. n. Balsdon's article,
'Gladi;,tl)r:s. ixa OCD 2 ~7: .adJ his I.ijt .moi /,..istort~ in :\ncirnt Rome ( 1%9) 248-52. 267-70 .
.2H8-J(l2. part uf a !<~di;i ch;~ptc: ~II dtt jto1t;;:"loo ,., ' A particularly tnte-nsting litt.>rary passage,
rdattr.!!' r, .o\th~:!>. ~ l:l:o (;h~~-s. X..\': XL 12!-! I .hould p..-rhaps have rnmuone-d that tht.>
Sdet<<-:d King Antildam JV F.piph:;>nts ;;xhiht-d glaJi;uorial gam<"S in the: Greek E-!st as early
as 175 H. C. (Lav~ XI.I--10.1 1-:3); hu: this w;u -~ i~l.ttcd occasion (sec Rubrrr's book cited
abOV\". pp.21~W).
My quotJti<ms ;m :"wm p.2id ,,( llth-t's h;_,,--.;. n&t'n(ioned in th prt'cedmg note:, and from
Momm~C1:~ R'in!sl'it G.... ,J;;iot~ r_J37 (t~<'t:- ~he ,r.d of Book II Ch.iv). For a rdi..f from
Hahr-.nnnl'u~ showing two W()mt:~! t:laduwrs. fit;:htu:i4' with swntds and shidd. sec Roh~rt's
book. rp.l!P.C-9, no.IH4; rh.-T<' ~ i11L1'rcoiluqlnJ; ~f til, rdief ID A. H. Smith, A Catalo~.~uc ~f
Smlp11crt 111 ,;,( Htp.Jfltt~o'olt ,]_/ Gr~..k .tl<l Rllt>I.Jrl Ar~:fquities, British Muse11m II (IQ(Jt)) 143.
no.1117, whrr.' the na&r.<-s <>f the gladiators -'<~ j!l\":n: Amazon and Achillia. References ro
ftmal. gladtatun arc> ~l'-'<~!'! b~ Srntth and by l{l"ol>,rt, lnt:r. citt.
Aristox,,m:; tr. :\5, ml-'. W'chrh. ,1r~>l~"~~u ,.,,., l''rtt:~m~ (Sruttgan, 1%7) 11! = fr. 18 in FHG
D.27ti. o~r Sth-, Ed. IV .i.4'J. Cf X'"' .\1.-m. l.ii IH; Cyn1p. IU.i.2H; VIII.ii.4: l:'laro, Plaileb. 58ab.
Sec A. Sp~wtonl!, J'h,slavd'hilnJ<-spnto$'. m Zf'E 17 (1977) 294. b.:IS(.'don IG V.LI47. 16--18;
15331-.2; .md 1iV>-7 {rf. Sli<; Xl ...$1i1)- 11tL''IIIturh 111 Diod. XVII.ll6.5dc..-scribt,-; btmsclfto
Alcxamkr '" ~i~r(& rtw>Mmronx-. l'iu/,1:it.<p.h; is :ii.st!- the tid.: of s,vcr.o~l Attic comedies: ste
LSf. > I' t(>r tbt~ :md t.thc>rexlmplc-s ofth word.
Gcno1..-,-s.. RIJ ;'!!\, an inttrt:sting essay (repr. from .frd t?f Socidl Hi5t. 1.4, 1%8) entitled
'Mattri;alism .tnd td11ism in thl' history nfN.gro )lavery in the Amrr1cds ', which would be
pantrul:trly Jnstm.tav t<> .1nvunr indmc....t ro brlieve that a Marxist approach to hinory
involv~ 'l'<'unom d<'IC'rnum~m.
See e.~ . .-\rJSt. /'1. V. 1. 1.~01".~1-): I.:!. t~h'h-.l: .md esp. VU, BtStS-20 (cited in ll.iv above).
For th Rrpr~bl;.-tln:< J~ ,;o woll kn)Wn ,,~ h~rdly t<> nwd illustration, but 54.'\.' e.g. Rep. II.309br-7k
on dtc.. L:'\>111('0\tUOit<lfthc.. Clli'.lm OOJ~. ;.n,l lll.H2b-15Jon who are to rult (and nothing dse).
In the J..rul, th .ituc.'IL~ have thL'ir own f.anns (worked by sbvt.>s, VII.I!Of'.d) but are forbtdd<:n to
engatt' in ns or rr.1!ts or any other oc:cupanon: SL'c: esp. V.741e, 742a; VII.II06d: Vlll.!142d,
846d-7;a; XI. 919d. hom the involved arguments in the Politicus it is difficult co pick out panicular
passagt.>S, but l\<..'l" ;nttf' t~li4 259cd. 267.!.bc, 267dc-&l, 292b-3c, 2'J4abc, .298b-302a, 302e-3c, and
esp. 289e-90a, !~.llk-'1.1 The ludicrous unrcahty of much oftlwi dialoguf'romt-sout best, perhaps.
tn the Jl<lllllll ,,f tit nue fJauAM Kat mJA&T~ who rult-s with the voluntary aSSlnt of all his
subjt-rn (!7hdt}.
F. D. Harwy. 'Two km.l.,,>tc:quality', in Cl.u.<. a Mtol. Y (1965) 101-46, with th..-rorrection~ and
addrmla tn id. ::!.7 (1'A'111) ji).I(IO. All thl" important "''uno: mafl.riaJ ~~ cit<-d in full.
Elaim l'.mth:.m, .-t(I/JI"Mir.u 111 Ci<\'fO''\ political th.-ory. and the Greek tradition ofproportional
justin', m C() h7 -= u. '!>,.:!.'\ (1<17.'} ~>Jfl .1.1 I' 2HK. c_'I'hi~ .aniclc was evidently written without
knowlto.lge uflfo~rv;'i, ntc"d in 11.10 o~bow.i .-\n<i ,.._,.C. Nicolrt. 'Crdron, Pbton. et It- vote
sead. ml fi~r,.,;., !i) t 19":1)) .~~. c...'lted by l:autbam.
Cf. Pltu. P.lll l'Jl,'-]a; undtr do..m..:raty, 1"0 fl').iJ~ rules ovrr the owners of property either
fJIDimf ~r ~ri<.lf.
[VII.ii]
1. See esp. Plato. Rep. V. 469bc, 470bcd (note woAe~ doU!n): cf. LAws VI. 7T7Cd (V::hcw the advice
to have slave of different nationalities and speaking differmt languages implit:uhat niost ifnot all
will be barbarians); Mnw82ab (whcrr the slave who 'is Greek and speak Gn:ek' is born in the
house, o.lfWl't~ In Polit. 262cde Pbto is nuking the purely theomical point that it is not
profitable to separate off one very s~ll categOry of humans as 'Hellt'nes' and lump togt'ther as
'barbarians' all the rest, who differ gr.-atly from L~ch other: and Schlaifer (GTSHA 170 Finley
[c:d.], SCA 98) goes much too fa' in saying that Plaro here 'revma:l the position he had earlier
taken in the Republic and adopted Antiphon's theory' (denying any diff'erenre in cllloa'&f between
Greeks .and barbarians).
638
Notes on Vll.ii-iii (pp.416-420)
2. Plato, Polit. 309a; ct. J..nn VI. in-8.1 . .t:<! o.>r~t,q.u.'i;tf!C.i. \r..! :il'l" Morrow, PLS 35 etc.
3. Vlastos, SPT. repr. m Fmk-~ ((-d). SC'.-\ l.B..;S, ci. !-1.'!-Y.
4. As Vlastos puts it (SPT 211'1"' SCot 133) ..t, torw,.Jd:scussion Gf>\A\try is nowhere to be found
in Plato. We must r.:<:onuu.-t f!js vi;\tn trmn J. tt" c.&so.J;.) >Ut-.n~<nb. Particularly interesting
is the way in whwh. o~ft~r ,mrh,l!lb111;; :t; 1.~1;11 VI 771/()-7:- th~r sbvcry is a very tricky
problem, Plato sbn-,. .1\\a\' tn>!r. liw <ubjtft :~irt'' ;r,;~lt irrg a t;.,., rather obv1ou~ rt'marks
(777c-8a). And 5<.'\.' \'l;t~tu. 'Dc'lC;. la.-cr~ ,~i>l !~ l'lato"s Republic?". in CP 63 (196!!) 291-5,
who decides that 'tlw <a~.: tor tht .affima:nt mmr N- reckoned conclusive'.
5. See L-sp. Arisr . Pol 12. 1252"."~'-l. I:?Si"S-'1: 4. 1.?:.4"i4-l:i; .~. 1~~17-53; Vll.14 .. 1333h3842. etc. Schlaifer. GTSHA 1% \'"' .'iC.-1 124). lnt-s tCI ~:\'t Antude's view, purged ofirs
inconsistencies. But so.'\' bduw an.i n !l!.
6. Arist., Pol. 1.4, l254J.a..l5: 5. 1.~5.:i72''. l!~~lt.-5'~ (~r l.~!!-l~'l9-21, 12551-3); 6. 12!'1Sb69. 12-14; 111.6, 12711r.-.t'o-4. ~f VII.J4 l.~.B~:\.~-42.
7. Arist., Pol. 1.6, 1255"5-!1, 1l'i5''5 (accepting Suwm1hl's Jrt>e!tillll>f.id).
8. Arist . Pol. 1.5, 1254~!9--:!IJ: 1.2.'i53; 6, 1255h6-7.
9. Arist., Pol. 1.2, 12511-7-9 (citing Eurp . lpir .1ki 1400); 6. 125529-35. (Surely the same view
lies behind Plato, Rep. V .469bc.)
10. Arist., Gtn. An. 1.19, 727b29-JO. s.,.,. m}' AHI'. wh,rc ll::aw dt)i\w;.c.-.1 at length Amtotle's usc
oftht' concept ofro ~ ill'l ,.;,
(au imrcrt:mt ,uJ:.jt. ba.llyllt')!htcd by philosophers) and
have given many cxamp),.,. ,,f m IJSI.'. indu.hu!l d 111\l' JIM m'fltin..d.
11. Arist . Pol. VU.10. l.\)')'25-.U: .:f. .... 13.:?9'~4-t. wh.:r.: n.. rnt:rtnu is expresS<.-d bctWC\.'11 the
two alternatives.
12. George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure ~f Free Society (Richmond. Va., 1854) 1~.
On Fitzhugh, sec Harvey Wish, George Fitzhugh, Propagandist of tht Old South (B:~ton Rouge,
La., 1943). Fitzhugh lived from 1806 to 1881.
13. 'I am sure there was no man born marked of God above another; for none comes into the world
with a saddle on his back, ndther any booted and spurred to ride him' (Richard Rumbold). See
,..,,i
Tht Good Old Cause. Tht English Rtvolution of 1640-1660, Its Cause's, Course and Comqumm.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Extracts from contemporary sources, cd. Christopher Hdl and Edmund Dell, 2nd t-dn. revised
(London. 1969), 474.
Arist., Pol. VII. tO, 1330"32-3; otherwise there is only Ps.Arist . Ouon. 1.5, t344bt4-17. Cf.
Xen., Oecon. V.16.
E.g. Arist., Pol. 1.13, 1260"36-b6.
Arist., Pol. 1.6, 1255a25-6, and other passagt."s.
See my OPW 45. For statements in the more negative fonn, that slawry is 'not according to
nature' (ofiKtrTa~w), see e.g. Chrysippus, Fragm. moral. 351-2. m H. von Amim. Ssoic. Vt.'t.
Fragm. 111.86: the slave is a perpnuus mucennarius (fr. 351. from Seneca, De bm~f. 3.22.1). and
no one is a slave lot~~. but masters should treatthos.:thcy have bought notas slaves but as
~' (fr. 352, from Philo). Probably the Middle as well as the Old Stoa rejected the 'natural
slavcry' thL'Ory: see Griffin, Stneca 257, 45~.
This subject is not directly relevant for my purposes, and it will be sufficient to refer to Guthrie,
HGPIII. 153.
There is a good recent text, with Fnnch translation, of the Contra Symtnachum in Vol. In of the
Bude edition ofPn:adentius, c:d. M. uvarenne (Jrd edn., 1963): sec its p. 186 .and the inrroduction, 85 ff.. esp. 104. No one should feel surprise at the persistence of such an attitude; in
spite ofColoss. 111.11 and Gal. IU.28: s...-c Section iii of this chapter.
Sec Hanke, AAI 14. Hanke is my main source for what follows.
[VII .iii]
1. The distinction between liMn~ and~ in this connection is drawn e.g. by Dion. Hal., Ant.
Rom. IV.23. 1; cf. Dio Chrys. XV. t 1. Larin writers make the samt" distinction, between natura
and fortuna.
2. Cone. Illib . Can. 5, in Ht"fele-Leclercq, HCJ.i.224-5. This Canon was incorporated in Gratian's
Decrttum, as Dist. L, Can. 43: see Corp. /uris Can()fl. P.195, c:d. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879).
3. It will be sufficient to mention one Gallic episcopal synod, that ofNarbo in 589. Canon 15,
dealing with those who refuse to work on a Thursday (for pagans, sacred to Jupiter), sentma:s
Notes on VII. iii (pp.420-424)
4.
5.
the ill,l!'.,lllt.l: .sui ~'\'i<ltltM f(o "'"' yo.or'! ,-,.c,nnnumcat~on. the servus aut ariCilla to a wh1pping
(ffagrili1 f<"''rt~; 'ili;1 C;u:"'l pun is he :mycm, -..h wurks on a Sunday with a fine of6 solid1 if
frl."e or 10:.1 b~h,>= (r,.IIWII_flos.~ella) if a ~l;,w "''' .'- I)_ ~bnsi, Sacr. Con<. nova et arnpl. colt. IX
(176J) i(ll.;;-1:1
Amont '-'tlwr p;r.,-~ag.. Ill .'\:JbtiSIUl<' n:l.ttt:l;.; [,, :<!.l"(';y arc Dr dv. Dei IV.3 (cittd in th< first
parat;r.trh ll th<lll.ii:o: t~,.,t .,idns "f''tton). Q=r,, i1 Ilopl. II. 77 (cited at the end ofth< second
paragr.rh oi th~ .n.uo t<"){tlt th1~ \<'<"tt<r:i .m.i "-"F 1.1:B (b<nh in CSEL XXVIII.iii.3.142 and
80. amJ CCL XXXIII !o'!7 o~lld;'')' E11a ... 1.o P;~;.,, XCIX.7 (tn CCL XXXIX. LW7: Christian
slavf'~ ~huH llo.>t ;;.,~1.: 'll~numi.l.~i,m) n.ICX.'<IV .7 (it CCL Xl.ISID-1); Epist. Cllll.(vi).26
(in CS131~ Xl.IV .4-:!t>-7; T,rct. ml;I' [,.,.,.n aJ !1at:ll;t; VIJI.14 (in MPL XXXV.2044); De serm.
Dom. 1r. m~'"'~ I. !xl:oc.\.5'1 (m MJI. XXXIV ; :!"'"!); Dr mor. mi. catho/. 30.63 (m MPL
XXXII. l.H6). I b;-..r :urd~ tJ<Jh:-J;, i'iw J'.IS!i;IJ!l":S f happt>n to have com.: across; no doubt
ther'' di< m":-oy c>thtn.
St"t' St~mrp; 1'!19!!.\.R).. :O.umr mo~~ (Jl-o~<t dtdt rh,. OM South was Prot.-stant and that in slave
soctttirs wlu b W'n" Hmuar. Catt.olic tbir:g\ were d:fri:rmt. Tht"re is some truth in this (Set" thf'
com,nitnt ~ummary ln S M. f.lkms. Slw'"!'l ~2 :"f.. t-sp. 63-80); but the contrast betwt't"n
North .'\menr;m .md L.1.tlll .Amei'IGUI sl~e~ ~~~ rh>- respect must nor be t'Xaggc:rat<-d: st'l.'
Davis, I'SU'C'~I(Ifl . .'!!_\.#,];and rhn..-~sa~sin (;..wJVt"S<', RB 23-52.73-101, and 158-72. It
is al~o worth nt<.nUo>mnl!' bt'rt" rurt'Jl> ~n,l !mlc-I..nuwn work. Slavtry and the Catholic Church
(sub-urk.l 'fir.- ir~torl ,!; C.Jtlti!li< lro~,hix u:tl{o"r11i'l,~ thr moral lfRilirncuy of the instiiUticm of
slavrry), by .1 Rtman Cuhb rrwst, J F ,\,1J.\wcll (published by Barry RoM: Publishers.
Chichesftrt Lmti<!!l, m .11'~"-'l~t~t>ll w:rh rite ..t,:1tl-Sli1~ry Society forth.: Pror~crion ofHurnan
Right~. 1975. complete wtth 'lmprim.nur'i. whidt ccmsidtrs 'th1 common Catholic tcachmg
on sl.LVI'ry. right down to dl<'tnuc when II 'w'l> fficially corl'\'cted by rhe Second Vatican
Coundl in l'lf,:'i'. to b:tw been" 'JJs..sttT' ;1'-111 ..mJmds by regretfully pointmg out 'how
very ~lmd,r ~ra.l s'~r,c i~ the C.lthulk .. nti..,l.&v<ry dorumt-ruanon ~in~ l!!St! a~ compared
with tlw wry lo~rt:.- volume ni C~thtthc J'H,..o;l.avrrv ,i,,.,:umentatton right up ru the time of the
~con .I VattC.llt Cun ..
1:-!:'i,: Ther ts am,.,. apprc<.1ation ofrhe fact that 'Th few members
ofthc Solcil'ty l>fFri~'ltd~ (Qu.tker..) m tht." early cittht;:.:ntb Cl'ntury who appear to havt' been
open to dt.: dm.-..'tton uf the Holy Spmt <YJ<...:mm.: ~lavery rxc:rct~d an <"'IOrmous inftucncc,
fust on tht'lr tdlow ~uaktJ), .and th<'ll on all North American Prott"stants'. whilt 'On the
othtr hand, th, ttr;kV'I r.:tdv~-d hy moht vf tht i~tht<-mth- and ninctcmrh-cmtury Catholic
laity from the tradm,m.al I.atin pra}cr ~ud liturgy Wt'rl' apparently insufficicnt to awaken
their tun~t1t-n~ ltr. :.2n). Om wond,r;. how the author accounts for rhe fat.'t that the Holy
Spirit preferred to vou.:h~ati.' it~ din'Cttun "' mu~:h mort generously to those his Church
regards as hr:rt"tk~. U! j.lreference ttl c~:hdics 'Glld moves in a mysterious way his wonders to
perfonn', perhaps?
Suet .. Claud. 25.2: C]VII.vi.l..1:J)~. XL\'Jii..:!.llth<r tmperiallegislationin favourof~lavesis
given by Buckland, RLS .~; ( ;riftm. Sr:ri<'Ci,rl. 1.'\'i.l..'?, .md vi 2:
1 R'''" ltR. coli. lll.iii.t-2. cf 5-6. Cf. Oiod.
XXXIV/XXXV! . .\.\; o~lso th passages from ~.'11,-.,~ cttcd by Gnffin, Set~eca 26.1. and those
from 1 1us.-id<II\IU~ mJ S...1t<'Olll ibid. 264-5. [t :1 p.~J above:, first par:.ttraph. J
For rh~ .IJld what f(,Jiuw~ .,n jnnc'!l. LRE II.'J;!(I...:! cwith lll.315 nn.1~.30). mmtioning a
minor ntO(btitauun by Jus timan. Sc!\ ;;tlo;~; ( iaudcrnet, EER 136-40.
Dig. l .. X\'ii ..'\2 i!o ioln c-xuo~urdmiolry ll'XI iitakcn too literally. Slaves arf' considered pro nullis for
the purposes of the iu.r ci~ilr. 'bur not also bv ius ruJIUrale, because, in so far as pcrtaim to ius
Mturale, all men are equal' (ornnt' homines atqualr. >UIIt).
Amon~ ntm}' publications of this tc:J<t. o;~;., T>.>(Umtnts of Amtri(an History 5 ed. H. S. Commiolgcr
(New York, 1949) 37-8, no.26. And o;a Dao,.,~. PSWC 3011-9.
See e.g. thclcttf'rllftheJesuit rms!ou>n:tr)', ham.t~...-1 J...C.;ouveia, to the king of Portugal in 1563,
quoted by Bux.c:'r. PSE 102-J h" as)'rtt-d 'th.u experience had shown that tht"Se Bantu were
barbarous sao,.ag~. who could no1t }>(- 'onven-d by the methods of peaceful persuasion ...
Christianity In Anttola . . must bo: tmposed loy t\m:c of arms.' And Boxer continues, 'This
was, and f.1r ldnt{ ~m:uned. th g'lleral view ~ntc)n.,; Portuguese missionaries and laymm
alike. And dus ~ttu:udc- was by rt<> mf'.m~ p.':uhar ro the Portuguese: 'The vast m~ority of
Europeans, 1fthry thou~htalx>uc thtm;mcr :.tt ~11. ".aw nothing incongruous in simultaneously
baptising .tnd f'nslaving nqz:r.1C'II. th tonu.r prol-dure often being advanced as an excuse for
the latter' (Boxer, PSE 2t\'i).
,r (
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
639
u,...
640
Notes on Vll.iii-iv (pp.424-437)
12. Set> Davis, PSWC 63-4,

also Boxer, PSE 265.
97~.
217,316-7, 451-3 (Ham and Canaan); 171,236, 326, 459 (Cain);
[VII.iv]
1. Cf. Cic., Derep. III.22/33, 6th cdn, by K. Ziegler (Leipzig, 1964), pp. %-7.
la. For thC' very different early Christian position at its best, Set> the advic to the rich widow
Olympias by John Chrysostom, ap. Soz., HE Vlll.ix.1-3 (esp. 3).
2. For the history of Palestine in the late Hdlenisric and early Roman period, see the new English
version, by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, The History of the ]rwi1h Peoplt in the A.~t ofjesus
Christ ( 175 B. C. -A.D. 135), of Emil Schilrcr's Cmhichte des jiidiuhm Vollfts im Ztitaltrr ]rsu
Christi (3rd/4th ron, 1901-9), of which Vol. I (Edinburgh, 1973) has already appear~d. The
evmts of63 B.C. to A.D. 44 are dealt with on pp.237-454. [Vol. ll.lppeared in late 1979.]
3. The latest treatmmt I have seen of this question is by J. A. Emerton, 'The problem of vemacul.u
Hebrew in the .first century A.D. and the language ofjesus'. in]TS n.s.24 (1973) 1-23 (with
bibliography, 21-3).
4. To the bibliography in ECAPS 4 n.l! add Shimon Applebaum, 'Hellenistic Cities of]udaea and
its vicinity- some new aspects. in Tht Ancimt Historian and his Matmals (Essays in Honour of
C. E. Stevens), ed. Barbara Levick (1975), 59-73. [SC"enow Schiirer (n.2:above) E.T. II, 1979.]
5. Set> my ECAPS 4n.JO. and add the best modem treatment ofthesubject: V. A. Tcherikover.
'Was Jerusalem a ..Polis''?', in IE] 14 (1964) 61-78.
6. Many attempts have b.:m made to prove that Jesus himsrlfwas in fact a leader of an anti-Roman
political movement. but thC'y all rest almost entirely on guesswork. The Gospels, virtually our
only sourc~'S for the life of Jesus, are most unsatisfartory as historical docum<.'llts (which of
course they were not intended to be); but ifwe suppose Jesus to haw been a political activtst, a
'Zealot', thrn we must convict them of such wholt"salc and deliberate falsification that their
evidence: becomes almost entirely wonhles~: sec my review. in EtW. Hist. R~v. 86 (1971)
149-50. ofS. G. F. Brandon. The Trial ofJesus of Nazarnh (1968). one of the most scholarly of
the recent works which take: thC' line I am criticising. On thl.' other hand. the results ofN.T.
schobrship arc such that the positive value ofth Gospels as historical sources for the life ofjesus
(apart from his teaching} can only be sn as very restricted. The: attempt of Sherwin-White.
RSRLNT 192 n.2 (on p. 193), to adduce the Acta Martyrum as a useful parallel to the Gospds
and as a reason for taking them seriously as historical sourcc."S founders on the fact that all the
best scholars who have dealt with the martyr-acts have begun by rigorously excludmg from
them, as a mark ofhagiographical inauthcnticity. all miraculous demt'Jits -a procedure which,
if applied to the Gospels, would reduce them to something very dilli:rcnt from what SherwinWhite wants to make ofthC'm.
7. Set> Schiirer (V ermes/MiUar), op. cit. (in n.2above) 1.358 and n.22.
7a. Only twice in the Gospels are 'Grtcks' mentioned m conn~'Ciion with jesus- as if contacts with
them were something out of the ordinary. In Mk Vll.26 a 'Syrophomician woman, described as
a 'EU.'IJ.-i~. approaches Jesus when he is within 'the borders (!ip~a) ofTyrc [and Sidon)'; and in Jn
XII.20 an approach is made to him- with what success 1 not clear- through Philip tht' .Aposde by
"E.U1J~ TWEf, who are m fact Hcllerusedjews coming to celebrate tht' Passovt.T atjeru~lcm.
8. Particularly intcn:sring is the article by C. H. Roberts. 'The Kinttdom ofH~':ln'll (lk. X V11.21)',
in HTR41 (1948) 1-8, showtngtharthcmuch-disputedt"xpression~~~~tnlk. XVII.21 is
most likely to m.:an that the kingdom is 'within your power' ('It is a presmt rcahty if you wish
it to be so', p.8} rather than 'within you' or 'among you'.
9. For a different approach from mine, u-ejoscph Vogt, ASIM (in Eng. trans.). ch.viii (pp. 14669): 'Ecce" Ancilla Domini: the social aspects ofth~ ponrayal of the Virgin Mary in antiquity'.
(For the German original, sec ECAPS 14 n.39.)
10. SC'C B. Lifschitz, 'The Greek documents from Nahal Seelim and Nahal Mishmar', in IE) 11
(1961) 53-62. at p.55, Papyrus no. t,linc 7: Tam~q(c'le~~].
11. See, for a brief bibliography, ECAPS 24 n.7R. ThC' most compr~hen~iw work is Paul
Christophe, L'usagc chretien du droit df proprifti dan.< Ncriture ft Ia tradition patri1tiqu<' =
Collt"ction Thfotogir, Pastorale rt Spiritu41itt, no.14 (Paris, 1%4).
12. See csp. ECAPS30n.104, on Ambr .. De offu. minist. 1.1~2 (with Cic-.. Deoffic. 1.20-2).
13. For a brief bibliography on allegory. Set' ECAPS .35 n.128. I will .add here a quotation from thl
Notes on VII.iv-v (pp.437-442)
14.
15.
16.
17.
641
article by Henry Chadwick. 'Origen, Cdsus, and the Stoa'. in]TS 48 (1947) 34-49, at p.43:
'The allegorical method of interpretation was . . . an inht-ritancc from thl Alexandrian
tradition. In p~ssing. it is instructive to nottce how Ongcn, an alk-gorisr par exullence. will not
allow the validity of the method when applied to Homer (C. Crls. 3.23); and Cdsus and
Porphyry dt-ny tht' right of Christians to allegorise the Old Testament, although thty USt' the
method frcdy themselves to interpret Homer.'
See August., Ep. 93.5; 173.10; 185.24; ~.7: C. Gdudmt. l.28. I haVl' dt'alt With this question m the
paper on penecurion by the Christian churches mmtioru:d near the end ofScction v of this duptt-r.
Set' Duncan-Jonn, EREQS 17-32 (csp. !8n.4, 32n.6); andApp. 7 onp.343, whm:Piiny isno.21.
The hymn is 'All things bnght and bcautifur. by Mrs Cecil Frances Alexander (1818-95), nl'e
Humphrl'Ys, who in 1850 marrit'd William Alexander, bishop ofDetry (afterwards of Armagh).
For John Hall, sec Froissan's Chronicles 73-4 (ECAPS 37 n.132). For Torres. see Revolutionary
Priest. The Complete Writin~.< and Mwagfs nj Camil" T onis. ed. John G..rassi (1 ')71, paperback
in Pelican Latin Amfrican Library, 1973).
[VII.v]
l. Woodhull"' / 11.!1-124. ;;i~ ;;mo.(.,rr, tt"11.t fth<' l>d~'tes (followed by the Whitehall Debat-s
and mud1 oth.r Olattn~l}. tr.n th, Cl~rlt.e MSS. Vul. f7 (at WorccstcrCollt-ge, Oxford). first
printd m .m ,-..lill<ll' by C. H. Ftrth. 71,, C!.trka Papers, Vol. I (IAAI), publish-d by the Camden
Socic'IV. Wt'"'tmrmter (Vol 1-n! !54!.,. n,,., -''';.I havl' ~lrt"ady referred to the lcwlkrs in III. vi
abov. .md ih 1111.-18-'J.
2. Cf.
.,Jhou 1'1.~ ~t-...7. 541, :52-5. 57~. t,o:O, 62-3. ''' for further opimons by Ireton on the
all-important ubJ<'ct of property.
3. SeeK. W. Wdwn, Vnfreit im ""lika'fl Kriegsdimst, 1. Athmund Spilrta( = Fl'rs(h. zourant. Skl11reri
5, Wlt"SbaJ.'Tl. )'174). 2D.l\".: not been abk to usr: here Vol. II of this work ( 1977).
4. On th B<><tl ,,fl >~rml, 11 will bl ,utftdo.:nt h rt'ftr to Otro Ei~sfeldt, The Old Tt.<tammt, A11
lntroJtl:ti" (Eng trAIL\,. 1%5. frlm th, third German edn. l%4) 512-29, esp. 520--2. No
honl..,t .mJ reputabl.- scbubr nw .tenr<"S that at least the bulk of Dante! datt'S from the
pcrS<'<"\Itmn of Yah wism iu .JuJa,.t b\ Antl<lchus IV Epiphanes which bt-gan at thl." l."nd of 11\7
B. C '[It, r-nt-.."Utl<lll b.a~ hn .. .lmirabl~ duddatt.-d in the pa~t few decades, ~sp. by thc- work
of E. J. Ht.-k.~:mt;an and V r,hHkuvtr; see Wlll, HP.'HH 11.27::H!9, with the css.:mial
bibliography; a!." rr .l."-14 f!'i.:rn Vdal-N~qud~ useful Introductiou (ofmorl." than 100
pagl"S) to Picm s~"ind':o. Frm.:h ttn~t.. uon, Flaviu;J.m'pht, LlJ(UtTJ'fJr.<]uif. (P.ltts, 1977).1t
i~ an intt>resting .D!J wdl-krM"'" !:wt ~1-11 rh .. ,-,,rn< t .Lting of Daniel was establish,d in Book
XII ufl'tphyr r"~ m;~j,,r work . .'\~o1111.<t r/,. Cl~riitio~n:. writt.:n in Gr~ck .n tht' <'lld of the rhtrd
Cl."ntur~ ''' tlu beginning ofth.: t(lurrh ("'-'C.' till" al-k otrttde by T. D. Bam<-s, 'Porphyry AJ(ainst
tht' Otri lr~rl~: dat<' and the .. tt rr hntl '" uffi-.&~m.-:lt~ m.f TS n. s. 24 [ 1973]424-42, with wry full
bibliography). For Jroru.~\ uu.nmti.rto~bk t<'actmn t<" Porphyry. in his Comml'11t4ryon Dmtid,
pubhshcd in 407, .,..,,_r !"'i.)) K.-llv.Jtrt>m,. llr I.ijt. WritinJ(>, ilrrdConrrovmirs (1975) 298-302.
Then I> .,, ... l"''nl I mul ;nl,l Jr.-.... wludt .:appbt"lo :.lso to murh of the htcratun I h<~.ll be
menlhlllll'~ 111 rh, n:nr.li:~<k:r ,,f rl paragraph in tlw t,xt abovt from whkh this note: comes.
As s.:holar~ b.t\"(' <lfh'JI emphasi'<d, th, Book ofT>:uud, fof all Its imm.-diate appeal tv srmplc
folk. W.l.~ n.-df wry much the proJun t>f th. m ..~t hara.tt'ristic type of Jwish learning:
satur.auuu with dte tt"t~ ,,f rh<' <'.uh.r Jewish Striptur,..... Uanid himself is repre!IC;Iltcd as a man
of wi~J,m anll kuni1~. mJ S .m: ~rtr. rthc othtr authors or hcml"S ofjlwish pseudepigraphw hwr.atut,. U.mtd & t_:,,. rh..n .m.mythmg lur humblt"peasants, but thar would not
prt"\'<"llt thtru thru lt'lllt; ~n mlratim rv ~~h pt.'\rk
5. S.:cc~p P . .'\. Hmnt. 'Joscphu~c>n'i<ln.rl.-unllt,t,.ii\R('lmanJudat'a'inKiio59(1977) 14'.1-53.Cf.
Shimun Applebaum, 'The z,,dot'l- tlt' .::a""' tor r.:\alu.uion', in]RS 61 (1971) 155-70; Heinz
K rf'isslt:;. Die .<ozwlm Zltioii'IP:iYJh;irt:!- ./,.;nul.irs<hcrt 1\.ri,~t's. Kl11ssm u. Klo~<smk.lmpfim Paliistifl4 dr;
1)altrlr r' u Z .,., '>hnitm 111r f~o:h. u. Kulh1r J,r Antlkc. no. I (lkrliu. 1970); wnh VidalNaqu.r. ''I' <'it. (in n.4 ~h.:\'<'} .-.;...;,; .tud .l/ilr: (t>r '}5-109). who givl"' a good up-ro-.Jate
sele<'tl\'l' 11-h<l~r;~ph')'. I h.,,.,. t'dt l>h~~-d h' l'"l' \'lrtll.lllv no attention in this book. either to
c-xtem-41 w.rr> r
mwm.d rd...ll.>u~ wubn: th. cmpitl'. thar rook place ocfon about thl."
middj,. ,n'th..-c:.:clnJ <..:ntun frh,Chri~ti.tn:.ti""'C VIII.iil-iv; cf. rhel~t paragraph ofVIII.ri
and u;; t: ..?4i. I h.tn ~h,~cfr ;..-.,1 Co. :t:n>f< ~l'l ;,n!~ the Jewish revoir nf6t>-70 (or rather.
w,..
642
Notes on VII.v (pp.442-443)
66-73/4), but also the od!~"r tWH\ major Jewish nb.:llt.'n~: in f.~~:ypr. Cyrenaic:uncl Cyprus, and
even to asmalldegndn Pall'!>rine, atthemd ot"Tr.aja."l~ rd~ {!15-17); and theg~atuprising
in Palestine under Hadnan (H2-5). ( ro~n dt' n., more th;an rf'f,.,. to Vol.l.529-57 of the revised
English version ofSduim-'s ~tn-.at work, Lik\1 in 'VII.i; n.2 Jbon:. which has ample bibliography.
6. There is an edition uf o~ll tlw relt-vo~nt papyrikm.-wn m' 1S ycus :&t;Q, with Eng. tr:&ns. and
commentary. by I I. A. Mu~urill. The Acts t!ftlrt p,,ttJtt Jt,m.,.r;. ,\eTa Alt>xandrinorum (1954).
See also C. P.Jud. 11..]54-t)for tbo'lt '""" wuh o~.:lnm bAn,.~unJ,-ws.
7. For these works, s..oe esp. S. K. F.ddy, Tl!t Kirt~ is" IX.21i 5tlblit in tlr.- Nrar F.mtrm ResistJmce to
Htllmism JJ4-31 B.C. (Lincoln, N."bra~a. lY&I}, tnd<''IL, J 1'".: ~150). J. Collins. :Jewish apoca~
lyptic against its Hellcnisn.~ Nr Ea.r"m ''~~''lr...mmmt". in lfASOR 220 (Dec. 1975) 27-36;
Harald Fuchs, DtrJlNiiJle WUit'l'$t4nd,tl'll,.,., R"'" in dtr .tlltikM lt'dt (Ht.'Tim, 1938. repr. 1964); and
MacMullen, ERO. MuMull-n dmn.,. cht< C''I(!Stnan- ui mythm~ hr is prepare-d co call 'class
struggle' ( 199-200 rtr .). b...'C'o~u~ h<"ll~'l' Eht' <'"J'f<"SSit'D in the:' r.amw,-st possible sm!K".limiting ir
to occasions when Eh~ 1~ ronsdou~ cia.'<~ flin~ ;~~~ ~uch: md n: tht' R''-1ew by Oswyn Murray in
JRS59(1%9) 261-5. forw'SibyllineOraciL-s',sceesp. Fuchs, op. cir. 7-8, with30-6;mdfruer,
PA 1.708-13(on Ora,. Sibyll. IU):U.989-1000nn.217-49 (ofwhichn.217givcsafullbibliography
on die Oradts), wid! th~: Add,,tdum on p.1116; i<-'-' ~~ u.8 hdow. f<r the 'Oracle ofthe Poltc:r',
see L. Kamen. 'The prophecies of.1 potkr: a prophecy ofworld renewal becomes an apocalypse,
in Prot. Xll[Michigan] lntt'nlat. Cttt~,tr. !t'Papyrolo~y"' Amn-. StuJ. in Papyrol. 7 (Toronto, 1970)
249-54; for tht' mu~-t nx"Cnt ~Jihuu of thf' Orack-. see Koenm, 'OiL Prophl'Zeiungen dl-s
"Topfers" ',in ZPF.:! ( tJf.li) 178 ff ~ tl t""t ihm pp. 195-1!.~. AnJ ,.,... l'rascr, PA 1.683-4. For me
'Demotic Chronidr'. S4."'<' llr.t.."'l', P.4 I tlil:!: 11.951-2 rud!-4; C C. MlCown, 'Hebrew and
Egyptian apocalyptic lttn-arur~ m li'I'R liH N:!Sj .\57-4 J1. at pp.387-92 (with 50me translation,
pp.388-9). For the 'Oro~ckofH'!-"'t.lspr..'. k".' H. W'lltdl\<:h. Die Orakel tks HyrttUpts (Amsterdam.
1929): McMullen, JiRO 1-47-S. w11h .\29-Jfa.IQ. L.et.mnu~ ,.all~ 11'!-.,:ta~pes 'a most ancient k.ing
of the Medes' and think~ ru~ n.ame wa~ ,h, m.-:m o{ rh.lt lf rh River Hydaspes! (Div. lnsr.
Vll.x.v.19; cf. xvili.:!: lJpir. Dll'. lnst. b'lli3)} l't)rthe 'B;abman "t.uht', sa:' Eddy, op. cit . esp.
15-32. and the tr;UJ<ol~rion m thl" AJ']M.'nWX. pp .l-1~''
8. Thrre is a good, schulariJi [ntth)h tuuslatiun uf'Orac. Sibyll. III-V by II. N. Batl'. Tl!e Sibyllir~t
Oraclt5 &oles 111-V (S.P.C.K . 111111) .md m<rlht to)' H. C. 0 l.all<'hcster. in Apocrypha and
Ps~depigrapha of tho 0.1'. 1'\i R. H. C'!urii'.S,Il (I'll:\) ~i377J-4(l6. The three most recent
editions of the Sibrllmt Orad that I h.lw ~.-..-n :.all wcrth ,onsultmg) are by A. Kurfess,
Sibyllinische Wt>ifSII_(Un~c:rr ( 195 I, with ( rm.-u tr;~n~. i: .J. (kll\klTI, Dracula Sibyllir~a ( GCS
8, 1902); and A. Rl..ach, Oro~rnla Sibyllina (Vr.'lma l'tr .. 114'11). AnJ 'IC.\'.J. Schwartz. 'L 'lustoriographit' imperial Jl~ Oro~. uta Sibyllir~a'. mL>io~l(O_I{IM J'hi:~t. atlt. 1'1'711 1= Cmtre de re('hercht'S
d'hist. anc. 21 = Ann.rir~ lrtt'r.:irrt Ji !'Vrri1. Jr P,,s:;n,,,,: :&;,l';;r;;., ::r/6) 413-20. On the three
'false Ncros', see MacMullen. ERO 14.~. with J2t'-1 Jnn1~17~ l.cvick, RCSAM 166-8; R.
Syme, Tacitus ( 1958) 11.518. 'Ib.-l.U<'!>t pi,:d hn s.-..n on th '(ai!K" Neros' is P. A. Gallivan.
'The false Ncros: a re-cxamiu.allon', mlliHorro~ 12 (N?.I) .~,4-5. Among the Christians who
wrote of'Nero redivivus' is Cmnmo..hau. o~l.;atut ;~.uthur wlturu l ho~vl no occasion to mlntion
elSC"where: in my opinion ]a, w:rs probably o~u AfrkJII ,,ida~ .:u~:.. "' o~litrl,latL'r (his dates have
been much disputc:d). For Ius chiliastic fantas.it"'', n h1s Ctrm . -tp.l 7'H-1060, csp. (for Nero)
823-936, and (for Jt:~a~t~r~ to Rnw) l~fall..~~. i!'l1-'12t (:d. D. l><mabart, in CSEL XV, 1887;
thl're is a less good 'f1'llhner tl'll.l h~ F. Ludwig, 1877). Comm.IC!i..m'~ .Attitude to Rom.- can be
ferociously hostile. nlt nnly tn th Carmtn Apolo~etimm but .a)!oO m the lnstrudillnts: see e.g.
Instruct. I.xh (esp. 1.2~ 'Tunc Dab~l,ln meretnx erit" inom:r:..c.a t.avilla'). Laetantius m:ry well
havl" had Comrnodran m nuud among other~ wh-n in l>t M.rr !>f'""f. :.?.8 he rejeCted thl"nonon
of Nero returning a~ pr,rursor of Antichrist: "l~ th" ..-.btion by J;acqu"' Moreau,Lactance. De Ia
mort dt>s ptrsicutturJ 1"' SC .\'1. P<~ti~. 1~) 11101-t. s~-.: .al'Ml h11<l. MPEC 5(,1, 567-H nn.1~9
(with ~ferences to J. P. Hn5~llll. l~<t<'lri'misrnc d Chi$rio~ni>mt ./4;, !'~(rique romaine, l1aris,
1958). A good gmnl.tn'<>UIIIfConnnodiAn's w.rb .:an 1>..-t'"m'lm P. Monnaux. Hist.litt.
dt>l'tV'riqul'(hrrt.lll (1905: 451-~1.
9. Caes., BG Vll.77. '~P
Q, H-lfl (Critl'j;II-UUS the c;JLIL !\~ 1l C.); Tac., Ann. 1.59.2-7 (th,
German Arminius. A.D. 15}: 11.~ ..>t. tu.~ idiallli_lU Arminiu~ o~nd Flavus. A.D. 16), and
15.2-4 (Armmius); XII.34 1-3. J?. 1-4 ;Co~rt.l,us rh. Uriwn. A.D. 5\J\; XIV .35. and I>io C;ass.
LXII.J-6 (Boudicco~th, Hntvfl, A..D. r-n~ T;~, ,11/;r. IV. H. 17 .12 ;_tht!' Gi.rmanJulius Civilis,
A.D. 69) and 64 (f.:nLtl'n, A.D. 7U1. I u.:ht :.al~<> to l'IMIIIn h.'Io: what has bn:-n call.-d
'perhaps the most t:.m,n> ju~tiii,.ui,>u ti Rvmar; itnl"n.tb>rn' (lill'ley. TCCRE 264): th.-
:is
Notes on Vll.v (pp.444-448)
643
spa.-~.-h
put 1-y Tillcii'.J~ illlo the mouth ofPetilius Cerialis in 70, to the Treveri and Lingones
(Hist. IV.7~J.
10. On Pha.odr.u .and h1~ wmk. M.'C Perry. BP =B. E. Perry's Loeb volume, &brius arul Pllatdnu
(Cambridge. Mass., 1%5) l.'lxiii-<:1111. SIX Perry, BP~e:uv-xl~1. t )urhl.'.anclrn! cullc:..1t<)t>~ooi.-\esopicfables, sec Perry, BPxi-xix; and
on the fable 11' ~mcr.U. IC:XKUi\'. Th..- m('=-1 illunnnring recent treatment ofthe Aesopic fable
that I have'!!<..._..,, i~ by th ltahan !l.taoctsr. !\ntclnti.' La Penna, 'La Morale della favola esopica
rome mor all" ddle da,si subalteme uell" anhchit.a . in Societa 17.2 (1961) 459-537, which I was
not able to rc;.t<! U!lril this ch;&~tl'T '"~~ tir.i~ho..'f.l. f<r Aesop himself, sec Johannes Sarkady,
'Aisop:!S d ..r Stn:.i.:r. Em Beitrag zur uchio;(h'll Gc:Khichte Samos ', in Acta Classic11 (Univ.
Scimt. Dcbnn:n.) 4 (1468) 7-12. Mo..'Uit. HWF. {'ti\'es :m mteresring general survey. with
bibliography (esp. 5 n. 1. < n. 1. 1 t n.1), and mruticms many rdevanr literary passages, e.g.
Hdts 1.141.1-3; Arist . Rltrt. ll 20. 1393b23-42. 13CU2-9; Pol. lll.13. 12841S..l7 (on this last,
S Plrry. BP 51.:!-1:1. nu.45iJ; N.wm.on. P."i 111.1-U). It is intl'l'CSting to find that the earliest
known collertion ,l( Arr.optr ;~bln. w~~ mad!:.' m rhro late fourth century B.C. by Demetrius of
Phalerum: ~'t' DIO(t. laert. V.>H iwith Meuli. 1IWF i 1). Of course, we cannot idL'Iltify any
fabll' as having hL't.'nt'olmpuscd. ':c>y Al'Wp ..r an)om dSl, while still a slave, and the lamo:nt of
Da\Jd Daube i10 perfl'Ctly ct>m.-ct: 'We d. not~ Jsingle work composed by a slave while
12.
13.
14.
15.
in s);a\"t'rv When V(IU lvnor;ider tht n,rmou~ ro~uo uf ~laves m the ancient world and the talent
that must h.avc xi~t-.-.1 .:among thl'P'l, yu~tlx"(ttn t r.:ahse the tragedy. the horror. ofthis datum'
('ThrC't' J'l)(ltllOtt":; on Cn>tllh!itbcc.limnn Anuqmry ,in Huma11ities in Sociity 2 [ 1979]69-82,
at f>''~- For Hd~rtw t:ablt'!', st'C Daub. -ttl(i<11t H,.b,tw Fablts (1'173. Inaugural Lecture" of
Oxfird C-.ntrc for l'o~t.:radu..lttlll"brc-w Snadit-,).
Titis tabl..I:BummariSL'oi in Perry'~ Lucb t-dlll(ln niBabriusand Phao..-drus (SIX n. tO above) 456-7
no.185, whl"r..' rtof.,mtrt:!o .ar.: glVo:n to ,.aritlU~ t~'Xtli. ~pecified at 420-2.
For To~m, Sl'\' his IIC~ 164: mntrast E. V. H.m"'-'11 7'J,r Attalidi ofPtrxamon 2 ("' Comtll SIIIJ. in
CltJi. Phil,,:_ .16. 1'17li 14-1; H. L. Jonc" 111 Vol vu:;t of the Loeb edition of Strabo; Joseph
Fonttnro!lt", 'Tht t:rU:iti~...t Daphidas', in T,\P.-191 I l%0) 83-99, at p.85.
For an mtl"rt'Stintt ttnnl tr;atrn.:nt o:f 'rntinlism'm the Roman world, sec f. W. Walbank,
'Natiloali\m .as fart<lr m Rum~n h~5rur~'. in HSC:P 76 (1972) 145-()8; cf. Walbank 's The
probl,n ufGn-..-k n.&timmcy'. in PhPtni"'; {1951) ~t-60.
S pp.2'14-5- ofJ<>nes'~ ..lrtJrlc. {= Rli :114-!i). and I.RE II.969-70. Cf. W. H. C. frend, Tht
Do~Wtm C:h11rrh (l'l"pr. l'nt). ~r- I 7.2..(,, I'JCI-2, 2li8-W, 222, 226, 233-5, 257..8, 260. 265. Z72,
291-2. :!lm--1, 3.2f>..J::!. Jnm~ ID Ius .anJdC', r.2H2n.l (c RE 310 n.3), says h~ differs 'only in
somt p.mt~ hi mphasi' iltld inr.rrnt.atiun' r'rum l~rend's book. There are also soml' very
intl'rnhn~ r~m.arl.~ (.1!1 ~ht D(>llJt~! ~~ h:tm~ ""1' ir~idl' him 'qudqnt chosl' qm diuir non ?t
I'Empire'. in Coun,ai~. VA t.lf>-5.~ (my quotation is from p.148, which merits special
bt.'SI ~hort sun-.-y ufthc: problem ofr>onarism and thl.' proffered solutions that I
attc.'ntlOII).
haw !><.'1.'11 i~ b~: R. A. !l.t:uk.u.,. 'Chruu.uuty auJ Di~o.enl in Roman North Africa: changing
perspectives m r.'(,tJt W<rk', 111 SC:J/'J !11172) ].1~31
John Barns, SHS ( I'N) t~ hnd l:ur bahbography nn sh,nute, see Otto Bardenhc-wer, Gescla. dtr
altki,.li,ltnl l.Jt. J\': {1'1:!4) Ci8-l((l; Jnd csp. j. Qusten. Patr"lclfty III (1%0) 185-7. The
'standard wutk' mt S)Mtut '" Julunn'< l.e1poldt, S.hm11te Vt)tl Atripe unJ die Efltitl'hun.~ de.<
natio1wl iigyptischm C:hriotmtllm.'"" 1'.-xtt u. Vntersuch. XXV.l n.F. X.t (leipzig, 1903). For
those who do nor r...1d Coptic, tbtrt arc. l.atin tr-..lnslattons by Hermann Wit'Smann of the three
volunu~ in Coptic ro. by ldJI<)ldr and W. E. Crum, CSCO, Scr. C11pt., Sencs. 2, Vol~ ll, IV
and V (.,. Sinuthius 1. iii .md 1\'); rh ..sc: rr.;arL~l.&tt<>tl.~ ;~n (in corresponding order) CSCO 12Q =
S(f'. Copt. If> (l.,atwam. 1)51). ,.,,,,tamin~t thl intl'nsling Life- ofSh..-nutc by his pupil 8~-sa; also
CSCO 96 .1\;r. Copt. H (Pari~. 1'1:\1, tcopr. louvam. 1965}, and CSCO 108 = S(f'. Copr. 12
(Pari;., I'IJft, npr. Louvain, N,";.2), c<lntaming: wrk.s by Shenute. Thl' lette-r of Sht<nute
tran~I.u~'oi by 8.&m~. ~H5 15i'>-'l. c.m 1L"' ht. iuun,l in Winmann's Larin version (almost
comrlctc:) m C:'\CO 'lt. :. Srr. Copt. II I"'-"' :Jboa'\'l'l 43-7. The texts and translations by E.
Am~linco~u. [..,, Otlll'f't'S dr Schrnot~di (2 _.,,b m p.&rts. l'aris, 1907~14), arc S;&id to be much less
reliab),. l ln.: or two thcr ,;;ftu..n~ ,r..nwnriun.-J It} Bams, SHS 152; Quastcn, op. cit. 186.
To Qu.astt11~ bil>livJ!raph)' I rtt-nl,.,l,l.:mly ~tl"in. HRE 12 .298-300; R. R<'mondon, 'l'Egyprc
ella supreme rt:..liit,;am:" 1111 Cbr.,ll:ln11ill10'
.-1.:-.::k'S)', in Bull. de n,ut.Jr~"(<liS d'l!rclu'ol.
orimtale 51 ( l'f':!) fl.l-7ii
I shall hav<' ::tm.h t<
:.1.""111 ria (:.aur;,l,r (:IJ,;akr.tiNt and its conse4uences in my discussion
of p<'r~.-ruflnn ;.,. tbt' l~h~J~IiJn Chur;h.-- rl'icrr.-Jrotcar thl' md of thi~ Sl'C'tion.
nw
16.
cv-vn:
17.
"''Y
644
Notes on Vll.v- VIII.i (pp.448-454)
18. I have preferred thnTr'>iun ufSn.:r. HF: IV.t> .~t<) 7.1 L ~nJ Sor. HFVI.8.3-S(cf. 26.1. 6-7) to
that ofTheod . HE 11.27.-t. ,21'1-l; 2'1.l-ill ~wh,r(" tht rcpJ;u,:!l~nt _-,fEk'Usius by Eunomius
takes place during th~: rdttn nfC:>n~t.:mm:~ II). !>,y ~~~.:. P~k~trg . TIE IX.13.
19. Socr., HE 11.38.2!l (c:<>ntrst HU !..!}, Sl.lif . HE IV-21.1. V.5. ~0. h app..-ars from Soz . HE
V .xv .4-7, that wh("r,.t~ tht" C}ri.-nn- ~ml>assy t<' Juh.m ~~i!.mg t(lr lhe restoration of pagan
temples must hav ''"J~n.ltt-d fnm rho: Cm;"cil n.! tbcrci<r~ fr(>~ lh curial class. EleuslUs
drew support for hi~ ;lldlpiig~u ll\"!:l;s :JI;~Jniy frlll th. l.trt=c rumt:er ofhumblc workers m
the State wool-manutactnJ\' ac.d th c.m1t.
20. Socr . HE 11.38.28; Sct-. /If. IV 2fj,2-.'l. Hm 1:"l&us1u.~ diJ nor J-:<1 m tr tht" mormitie-s described
by Socr . HE II .3tU>- i.~. ~ hl~nrts::, >!' :hi.'
:t~ of MJJonius.
21. The fragmmts oftht" 'flwhu h.J.w bt-.-!1 .:<>11~-td .ond .m!l!y~....-1 by c-;_ H.trdy, Recltmhl'ssur Saint
Lucim d'Antiocht o:t ;,r r'c,tir W.ari~. 1'136) ..!-lh-7~. \'lrlu.oily * rruhhcation ofh1s article, 'La
Thalie d' Arius', in Rr1 Jr plul.ol, :"3 = ~<' ~.:~k I (19:?7) 111-3J l'h.- bt.;.--st treatment I have seen
of the Thalia is by G. C. St&:.ui, 'fiw 11t1111a of .'l.n:~,. .tr.d tlw ,,-,nmOJ:y of Athanasius', inJTS
n.s.29 (1978) 20-52 ..,."lth a p.tni.ll n-.::~mstrutivn in Wn(' i-l>o-~}j: l l.nl"S from Arh.m . Orat. c.
Arian. 1.5, and 421anrl> ir.,m f),- synod. 15, wuh :t>mm..'Titry S;;: ;~lsc Aim~ Pucch, Hist. de Ia
litt. grecqur chrtt. III {1931!) 59-(IJ. The prmnp.ll l!.t!!m,nr;; .1r~ rt-mu .'uhan . Dr synod. 15; Orat.
' Ario:m. 1.5---6, 9 (cf. 2 anJ c'ir. 4): Ep. old r'f'lsc . .-li'RJPl ul.il<. I:!. iTh" bnt text of Dr Jynod. 15
is now that of H. G Opn:t, .-tthaMIUF Wcrllr 11.1 [l'l4tl2.42-.'.)
21a. It appears from Philu~torgtuli. HF. II. 15. that Theogni,, Anan l>1~h<r ,,fNicaea in tht' re1gn of
Constantine and JU~I :1ftcrwarJ~. had h~d ~mtilar thoughts h.llf .: .-.ntury l'arlicr: he tnok the
same view as Marinu~ An,f o: s~r ., Hl:'l. , . , 'J
22. So:z., HE VIII, 1.9 tl'. repc-;t ruu~thlJ.' the same material olS Socrates. Sozom-n too admired
Sisinnius: sec the passagt' jut ,;t,-..1, .lthf Vll.l2.~.
23. Eudoxius, as a major Arian ti,:un. 1~ ,,(,oursc-l."xccrated by Catholic writers, q;. Theod., HE
11.25.1, de~cribing him dl- ravo~~-in~ the Lord's vintyard like a wdd boar during his earlier
tenure of the bishopm oi AnUch.
24. Coli. Avell. J. 7, in CSIII. XXXV.i.J. ,-J, 0. Gurnth,r. 1~15. Tl...- most recrot treatment I
have seen of the Dam.ts< u~-Ur;um~ striJ\ i~ rlt oo~Jmiuble hricf .mich by M. R. Green. 'The
supportt>rs of the Antipope Ursinu,.'.mJ7'Sn-~.11 (1'17\~;i.\!~ Th<reisanEng. trans. of the
rekvanc part of the Coil. Avtll. Pl."'"lt''l->y ' I. c;rtt.'n~lade. Sthmn in the Early Chur11 2 (1%4)
15-16. Greenslade's attitude tc 'th Church' anJ to ~chism and heresy should be compared
with the position adopted here. It is hij!:hly rh.-..llOtttc:d and, in my opimon, d<X~ not takt"
suffiaent account of historical r.tl.ity, in pani,u)Jr dn- f,~,t 1wh11b I have srrcssc:d in rht next
paragraph of the main text abo'l.'t"l that th uly Chmnu> m>nrully denied tht" very name of
Christians to those they regarded as htreti~s or schism.tks.
25. Socrates says that he got the story from a Paphlagoman peasant (agrDilto.1) who daimed to havl
been present at the- b:utle (it wu .t long timt' ago!), and that his account was ron.linned by many
other Paphlagonians (HEII.38.30).
26. Among New Testament passages which nfer to or forl"lhadow the riM ofh..-rL"S'f or schism, 51.'1'
L"Sp. Act. Apost. XX.29-30 (note the Aliw J;lcrpti~!); Rom. XVU7-18 (those causing ,.~
8&XOO'TCIO'Aa~ ""' ra a~eal>liaAa 1rapa "'" 3c&rxiJP); I Cor. i.lO (axia'~)-12; Jii.3-t. XJ.11l
(axia#'QTcr). 19 (uipia-.c'l'); Galat. I.fr9 (a..aBe~&G against anyont> preal'hing iTepo~ ~Awv);
V.20 (&xOO"Tao-lac, olpiucf); Tit. lll.l0-11 (reject th.: olPETUI~ liu.<6pw~T~ after two admonitions); II Pet. ii.1-3 (wa&0.00aKo1t.ot, bringing in otpla-.c~ mrOIAei.a'l'): ltev. 11.6 & 1'i (the
hatefullpya and lllllaxoq of the Nicolaitai). also 14 (the 3c&r)(-/i ofBalaam). Cf. also Act. A post.
XV (<.'Sp. 1-2. 5. 24); II Cor. xi.J-4. 12-13, 14-15;Galat. 11.11-14; I Tim. i.19-20; vi.3-5, 20-1; II
T1m. ii.lfr18: iii.5-9: iv.J-4: Tit.l.9-14 (l--sp. 10-11).
"''tl'
[VIlLi]
1. The stand.trd work on th.: Roman citizenship is Sherwm-Whitt'. RC" (1973). 1twlll be obvious
that my views a~ very different from hi~ in soml' ways.
2. For the position in the Greek citit.-s generally, ~'t' jones. CUE; GCAJ 117-20. 131-2; md V.iii
above, with Appendix IV. 'Freedom' was precanous and could be: taken away for alll-gcd
misconduct: St."C V.iiin.23abovc. and n.ll below.
3. It is here that I find myself in disagreement with Garnsey (SSLPRE and LPRE): S<:l' bdow.
Notes on VIII.i (pp.454-456)
645
.?!~. til: d:.~r: Ulll!>! ~~ 213 (J.S '''"(lo:;&t~'\: hy .E._ UKi;t'tmmn i" 1926, ollld by Z R:1bm. rn
LatUIIf"' ~\4 :W!i} 4Jl'-6l .md 4pp;;Jc'tl:!:: ~rJ,_. Ill r:o;lll --~dr {~ () fu~--illi. ;II.?.,''!: I [!1.olh'71
I~ 1). H:lt Simon.- t-:.:,!lt:t., .'lllit"n~.f _,,,
~iNil.". :'!t,,,.,;,--s dttor,,,JL,,Jli'(I'"H"I posop~J1?raphiquet
4. If not
(Paris . t97f,.j
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
tr t ,r,, ur
r:_..;-.1~. 111aK~ il ~tr(>d LJ.~
G,r
J~J.: tr:Jditlttnl; \i.ch.. "''I !''h1i~~'-n ~t ){.c.a;.L" bctv~~~:n
Mardi ;t!!.l Jnh ;.'!11. The:- principal Slltd~- ,_,f!l:~ CA ~~ 1.>)' Cin, S;o1...-<c, !)if Constituti ..-!.trMniniantl
(Wil'5bil,f,rt, l 1~;.~i. which sets our ~i! ~he:- r.:lr~,u:: r:vt~kr;c, .,,,.1 <"t.mcludC! w:th thrl"'' h:bl~.'
graplw.'!>, tht. thir.lcr' wh:fh a.J,:n,. o_-ontairung "Die Spcziallil"~e<tur' on :h~ CA. fUt1S to !l!o ~w.r
than (1"11 rl~.,_'S "!1J ].05 itt."IllS. ,\ c-.ruin Jllll)l.:r.l '1f rdevanr iil,:nt;:rt: !!lis :Apf<'A!,-..1 m~,,, !Uri!< ui
whid1 i.5 nc:rKd m A N. S!wn,u:-Whm-'s :1tt1ck 'Tiw tabuk; of &tloU.ol ;uld 1h~ r.A . h;JkS f..J
(197.3) ~ ..'~": d Sh::-wi1~-Whi~:. Rc: ;:.:!, :'82, ~r.=i r:)p. ..L~ t;d 39:;..1. (l'o~ :. ~><n:! mmmem
on tlJc" r.l,v-.uJ<"'( .,fth.at ws.-~~p~~.m t<l the G.-\.>\-.: Jiw 8n::1t's :l<lili:,;nl m j<Jaes. RE 5- n. ~ L) kr
full p.trtKtilll!i ui the !J~t'r.i:ur, ::.;- :.> l9t15. 14:t" S.:5~. "I.J:eraruriibt>rsicht 1n Cons~uuu,, Amoniniam'. m.UP !~ !lllf...:!) I~!'J-.49: !5 i19t,)).32'-u, hh>~ll:h.a~.- rll~r I ;;;c.c-.)'lll' 1-;io. --111. r"" 1-t/I;V
1.44S.'). :~.&; =x M Ch 411). m.Ji7. J> ','(T)! ;>n:o:--at>h reprcscntmg lhe I<'H ,,f !It: CA Jh.;,~c
not t-..Tn a\1 t} ~tuotf :h' d!""~~,m>t 53t r:o~e~ m ~w<:~ olmll''S by Hmn:u \\'itT. DJt
Con.tllr<IW A11~>!nini11n" mlli Papyrus C.i:lo'!l:i 411 I (Coln;!::;. !7lfi M;- i;cllwh!~,.llfliy~~t;n('
papyri i;; 'f s11t'ftnmt to enable n:. t. i.-:-orm .1 Jdi~ut .:pt.nin !II :b. C'>'l1=t :o -.v~i..:h l~on:m
impr.n.Jilt,."'l..l;~ri>>n w.\, -"'~~l!y ::h. uw ru L1tc- ~nrn:m JOgyrr., :1 problem .,!mh h;15 b.-M1 !h<'
subj~'\'t .,( muC"h .:ontW\"L'J~Y >ir.o.- Mut.:~. Ru V (l~)l}; :.u.l J shall thcr.:!"<r mrl\:l~ r.iw "
reft:rr."Tlf\' t< on~ rc:o."Tit wrk (w!1i.:h ha' \"r:y l~dl hib;,,~:~~hy;- A A:thm Sdu!l,r, "(l,..- f:orr c.f
hnpr.n.allL)!l<'-lo~tiouJll.oliC 8y7 Jlltme Egypt . i'l L;;:.:li 'l1;.~~~~t "' tl:, u ' " Ut:d.> c ......rt..prtr}'
PrrsSJtrr;, ~i. Jlm N. H.a:ard lhl Wmceslas J. W".I!OI~ (lkuss~~. 1'1/ilJ. 0:: !I:. wi;!,r r.=ti<l
ofthnt";,rr.,m~o"T~Hfl~cmt.r. 1-lw 3J dl\'t'mpii\' ~'"'~r.ill) .. .:f ,,_....- V. N10t:~>u. iu i"'f"1;1lli;"' ''' ,,,,.
Anl. Wt.>U, ,-J. l-' IJ. A. lt.lln!'~ .a11.1 C. R Wh.n,U ., '1'-~J. :1: :1!L'l!lo~r;;L"'<_o..lt, ..l'..;i
Ther( hJs :dwap bL't."Tl .1 dispute wbt!hcr c.-rt:tlu w.ud.. f1' c._,_. oiiJ.l. xcq~ d .. J..tiliui'. II\'
:Ill CX(I'pliull t<> tb, lii"-ID cJauscur f<l 10<' SU}I<>rJ.:noi.l<: d.;I;M' (thl' l;l'llU\\"C ob:i!>lllt<.:) ,;,,,~ i,_,lleWS.
I Jm mdund t< ravC\ur thl' l<dt'r \'li'W. boi.,'!ll![ rcg;ll't.lt. tit: ot ..xg~ fdn r~r;n, :i"; ~.,., .. l,lr~l:.~d
by sa~st:. ~~'(' sh.rv.in-Wiutr. liC' ~\.'112 . .lll<l}'p.'I:'.S .. nu., .nri.-lt <'l!tJ tb,ih"(t.'\i>ltl: IW[:.
Contra$t Hnmt" s addititu m.J;~m-,, R.J: 5n.ll P<:rhaps Wl' 1hnllh! j,._.-,. tirr Jt:!ll:~ ;np.:-a D1t
what<'V<'t ur Jl'nsi'lltti thi~ ptiut. d:l" ./,,liticii willl-r \iUdt" ''''~llt'"''rrrtliH <ofth~ wt:tl
popul.tllllll ,,f thl' empiro: rh 11 itlllllSt ),. .::nnect r...,..,_. 1Jt, C.l ot~ givint: rhc ,;ril!'msloil' (:r.~ I h:,,.,.
put it 111 :h.- mo~.~n 11"%1 ah<v.:i t( .~u. Qr \'ina..ll) iill, tlK ii-,-,. inh;d>ltarrts <ii ~hc mr1r
The vu'~';.,, lilttrt.ltit wJ., another su.h t~x. !>&nth llll' utt inhcri1a1u:,.,., \\'.1~ ur.-h. u:v,t. Ur<"
imJXrt.lut. Sum<' I llllt.lll ofC.u ~..-au~,. Mn,ill ufth~..,... t.t'fo'to-, indu.tiug hhd.mblill~ oftlw
rate h) J(t per cent. VH't c~n'l.llc"<l ""Ill" li\'<' yNri lat<'T hy Ma.-rirw~: see Diu 1~~
LXXVIiiLXXVIilj.h.. o~-5.1-XXVHllLXXlXl- ~~~-!.
S J. I' Gilli:uu. 'll~t mmmmm ~UI'j\-.t 1~ tht:i~iltr.l ltrteditatium', in A)P 73 (1952) 397-405.
The lowrr hnm ,,f HS ltlli,t)I.A) wht<"h 1s oli:m ol~'"m'-d se..ms wildly t"Xaggcrarcd: Gilliam
shOW"> frm thr t\'t.kuc:.: nt"11\fi<h. tl'i + #l th.u dn ux probably W<"flt down below 2.1XJO
drachml~. It ht rs ng!at. to :ooa; rh.at 'It ~ h1.;hly l'rl>able thar hy th time of Caranllus the
majonl)i ,,f rh, ~n;.r i<rlmiN , .- tlt mpm "''''~ .t!r,ady within the fold' (Shrwin-Whire.
RC~ 2M I) is:. Wt~Ji< '<l!=lllll~"TII ,:~"''""r M,,rtill~ DK' "tatcmmt. Gilliam is inclmoo ro lC<"...pt
D1o \, npunnn. ""' sutn' lho.T !t"admg sd:ohrs hdV&" h-..1: Set' rt"n"Dtly Jones. SRGL 140.
Gamsq. SSI-P~E 7~..t,; -IIJlmfRS S6r: l'.ltof) tr.7 ~i. = 18+-5; <"f.JR.'I S8 ( 1'.168) 51-9.
Sec on thi Shn,,\'in-Whit". RSRl.N'l'i--4. f1
Full ret-;.r..,t,,-, ra ,,._.,;~,. Jmi ln~li.;h triln~b!l<>ll~ "r'cln~ famous inscription ar<'giwn in IV .il n.ll
abovdl'/R.-F I. Uo). lr.rJ ,"!,:.). Th~ '1"-'"iti }Jlo.s.agl'S r,f,rted to hcre are col. iii, lin.:s 1-2, !9-20;
and hJI. u, bn.:s U-14
Rhode-. w ...,. J,rrh.:d ,.fit' tr.:-c:,lor>llll .-\ J) . .W lo~- Cl.audaus. for ex,curing Rom~n citizens (Dto
Cass. LX.~4.4~ .. Cy1im~ 111 R.C. :'I hv Au~t.-llt. f.,r the samt nason (Dio Cas~. LIV.?.n).
When CFtmi w;,.~ d.;Jn(:\ n:" in r'r~-;:\l;~m 1\r J ,,,,,n,l tim by Tiberius. on.: of the charges
.1gain~l 11 w.a of:tl4ilrt.arm~ Rum.m nn7.1 (Tt;;, llm.IV.36.2-3; Suet., Tib. 37; PioCii~S.
LVII..?.J.t)j. According to l>iP Ca;~ IX !7__; {.\.D. {3). the reason why Claudius dpriVcd rhe
Ly(:ian~ fthr freedom w1 th.ll :h.-y h.hll,.;.:u ,,..,.,,.,.,.,,uorvrc~ and h~d kilkd some Roma.ts:
but cnntrdl<t Surt C.:l;~u.t 2!1 Ci'. V 1i! ''-~3,.b.."~.
To spr.o~J.. ot famiit.:~ 11: .Ill r!J.-.;, .::a.._.,. i.;;;, tiT'"" ''''''l"lntJ'lification; but I must nor go into detail.
On th whole- I Jt:re. '"~rh (?;om'o'y. _;;s/.i}/;lf: :.!.~:';-51. Membership of the ~natorial order
wenr Jc>\\'11 ''' thr tbar.i !f''ll'f.ltl~ll'ol!_tll.ttr .-1~..\~'llibnts and their wiv..-s (ibtd. 237 and n.2).
646
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
lR.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
2t..
2:1.
21!.
29.
30.
Notes on VIII.i (pp.456-463)
F(>r ,-~t:.;trWl status, see VI. vi above, adfin.: it wa~ nor hereditary in the same smse as that of
Si.';l.tl<!r>: imt >cc CJ IX.xli. 11 .pr. for a specific case of privilege for f'11fitlenli.simi and pt>rfwissimi
('Xtrtl<l!r:s w thl" third gemration. Garnsey may well b< right in saying that cquesrnans of
k>W<'t' ~r-1J wtrc 'ptrhaps protected only to the first generation'. as was the case with curial
t:mulit"-' ilbtJ 242).
Th, JN>sirim: d soldiers is peculiar and disputed: sN. Garnsey, SSLPRE 2~51; Cardascia,
o'\DCfUI J..!S..
CL C.n<l.as.:ya~ m.ww .-,fC.ar:,~c'Y. S51..l'Rli. 1:1 .ltotl.?i 0'!71.\) !'iolko.
s._""('J<th'$. RCS44ff. _.,. SRGL 1t.i ff
Nu.-:1!-!lllS rcCt'l'l<"<l .,,.;(ilo>ti It'~''.."'"'"' irom th..- s,alll; i:: -48 ['t..at' .. ,\,m. XI.J!! .5)' !-'alias praetoria
it~~igr~i.: in ;.z (ib1d- XII. s.;2-5: :!:."' SC. wh:.h o~ls., "mr:nn.:d :~.gift t" Pallas ofHS 15.000,000,
was mo~,.J by ll-4rc-J.Sm.Jl~l~: ::(. i\>!J. XVI ~;.2!).
CarJa.~.:1a, ~p or. 111 a. ~4 J.l>w -:sf 2.:..'>-~
S.v Go~.m~t'}' SSl-PRb 13':>-41. r !JI .mJ 1111.1:>-1 lim Gorr\~11' J......-.: nor make 11 sufficil'nrly
dco~r hnw fh SltUJ~ur. ;1,-Jt;:,:o;!. ;:~ ;t :i1d. ~1ri:1~ :h~ ><WIIf >.-t>lllfl'
Gi!.mll4.'\'. SSL.PRF. W' 141: .-f. i4!-7, lU-!t.. 1',?4 .24l-3.
Ct~ G~m'it'Y :SSL.PR l~. ltll- i:: ,.~l(' lll;'i>ll<' ..-~~11~'1- t ddt"!".- 'nl qua~-stionibus' from Cj
LX. xb-l I.Jir .1.s m t:ttl.'q~<lat>;ltl, I wuuld p.iPr out rh~t d,.. txr fun>~s part of thl' Cj titlt [)(
ofUo~t!l!'l'libt.. nut J....,. 11\t a\Nlut.-1} "'''' uut IUIL-rp<11:.11:>:1. I surrvsc, t>ut ro my mind it make-s ll
lllllild'Y- M.uQ~ l'lllin~ W:b r~~Um.lhly c..k.n ny Dt<),"ktnn Jlll M:~xmian. whn is.~uing thCIJ"
,,,,wnntnun IG.llX <IU' pr. llld lj. a~.,;n UIJ"'Ut\ l>iJpJr.::,...,tt- (1f.i.i 1). ind!.'l.'d Book I th.TI:Of
,.._.... l.>it. Lii.l. :!). Ot' ..:"''"".' w~ OIUI): ::-1:!.- :T.I: the possll>,l.:~ that thry may hav1. mtt"rpolatcd
th.: ""''rd 'vd '-IIUL'Sllonibu~ ': f.ut why r.bonld wr make .In\' uch llnllP.l'L'SS.uy assumption?
Ot'tht.N: t<'ll.ts. 1.>1~ l..u 14wdtn~l"\'t' Pi<~s ruleo.lrh.u.:o Jr<unr WoiS U<l to bt-ronur<-d even ifhl'
b.ad bu ~ond,rrm..-d- to a po.'llalty, c:\l<kutl!>. wlnda im1hd j,,,..,, <fhi~ ~tatus as a dennion.
3S Wculd r.-Mdt "'u fnun rdl',tJtr~' {lllpiat. 1ul>~l{. L.u .~.r .. ,.,,_ 'which did not itwolw loss
,tf cni.r.nslur. 1~ ,lid ,lo!p;'1t.-r;. Th< ~)J-..i s.-r.-,,.-,. oi I.. ii 1-'m.&)' b. Paulus' l"ommmt rather
tltJ.II tho: ,Jeli~tOII ufi>JU~, bnt tor wh.tt ll t'i Wt.'"h It f>r<n"<'!l "<1Jldu~inh that .It !f-ast 10 tht.eyes
<f Paulus. lt was thr .:onJ~mnc:d n.m's timu:r ~t-lht~ .z; "Jm~ri.rr (nut as a cinzen. or a fn-c
nt~n) tb.at pn:vmted bun trom bc:-m~ t<lrtu:.cl.
Prrh.tp) I should mt.'ttllon that b.-f.,r. thcJ'<'f'o<'\,Iti'''' ut 1kdll~ m 251'-1 thcrf' arc few rdiabk
nt\r ..'ln'"' tt the judicial to>rtUJ( Chri,;ti~tb. Stm ct.nstldll l.aw... were: CL'rtai:nly tortured
(,..,.._.<'It- l'liny. Ep. X.%.~. aud ~t.rwuithth,'"" whu .&TL' s,uJ tu hn't" lx-en tortured (st"\'l' .g.
rh.: mi.t-"'-'nd-.:t-nlllr~ Hl.ii.J PtlY'"'f11.1-,;.4; I:us .. I-II: IV,'.- 4-j) will havt' lx-en slaws or
p(regrini I( tht m.ntyrdnm nf C.1rpm. .&tht I'.JI'lh i~o D.ctJn 111 d~t.-. as seems likl.'ly. thm I
thmk thJt nuly nru- ni th' Cbn,ti:i!"l5 a:k}::~d to !J.w, hl'1-n :nrtmnl !lcfon rhc Ikci~n pcr~,;-.uuun can be; ro~ul"d\ jJ,'nuti.-.1 -L" l 1\man "llilm: Att.lus ;, th. pers.:cution all yons m
,. )77 (F.n~ .. Jll;v.,.4."-4. !\1)...1, d. )7, 37) lr willl..u;d\1 tor<Ji.rhtr..roarec<nl book on the
r.,urd" ,,; t.'.trly Chn~tlan n~rtyrJunh wln.-l1 i~ ,,.nruclllIIY wt"!l-mformcd and accurate:
( :iuhana l..tu.&t.t, Cl1 .mi J,., nwrl1ri umr JPcllm~nr-r"''""''f; iMil;tn, 1'173), csp. 113-14, cf. 6ft
n. !IlK 5m ...uh. Chn~tt.an .mth<'h wnlt.' J' tf th, turr:,,,. ,,f.l.-;'\b<'l.l Cltnst1ans wen usual: S<"t'
qt- T ..u .. :\tl. (.-. 1'17 A.D.J 15. [IJ-Ii.IJ. l:O. l'':t\JNt~r (aik1 ;. :.!10)4.2-J:Mmuc. Fd ..
Or..w . .:!)! J. lhcl.tl-111<'1111m'l.! wull;. ~ ,thnn~t .xrtd;IJI~ ''"' }>. Jat,.,IJn rhclatccr part ofthl'
s.,tun p.nud- 'the: tir"'t durJ ufth.- dnrd O:<'OlUI)' .>.I'L'nJdn>tt ll> G. "'. Clarkt.:, Tht Oct<Jvius
o>{ Mat II> Mirrm:iu> hl1x (!'ltw YorJ... 1'174) 5-ll, t ~;I
Cf. q~. (~flll.ll-.cliii.ll; Ma.-.i,.nu. 111 ll(,:. XXXVI.d.
Sc:~ C.ard.tr.,,:!, AllCHH .4l7~11J. prt.f,rahll' 1.: (~.am~v. SSl.PRf. 2'!)-3, .23+-5. 251-2, who
ho~.rdly tal.~ suffi,icnt .l<'<"OIIIIt lth, Cllrtnpuun ,,f thC"' tt'-.ct.fl'.&ulu~. Sent. V .tv. 10.
Card.t~da. AllCIIH .WI, ~7: G~n:s"y. SSI.PRl:: 11!2-5
l'r rhc (ir.'t"k l'a~t ...._.,. June, GC.Y '.!Cil !w:th .'14.! n It,,; and for Italy and north Africa.
Duncan-Jont's. liREQ5 ~1-l. O.tl----44 ~ J:~o HI ,un.htr.3.5ll>o>W
I n-ed only refer tu.J C . .Matm-.. o~rti.-1,. Th. iruntil't'!'o <ftb.: Prinnpatl'', in ANRW ll.i (I<J74)
~-.U11 .; 11- I7 (with tt.. u. )). wbrd1 ::xrl.lln~ t},,. r.a><n t<>t the l"hang:r:.
1"htrc: Wl'r<' ,.,uo:dy rhrt"t.' ;.l.,:r.-n R.mt~n i"W:tnul>m..... u th<' (;n;c:k f.:at J.nd only rhn-c Roman
tll14r:litflol' """ .ln"' R F. (Jlt... ~
Sb,rwm White:. R(:~ Ji.' (m}' lf.l!:,.oi.
lt<>;;tiWII<'ti'. !>F-IIRF;~-1..\-U-5.!. :;"!il-'0 (. ;i. 3,;, l !7 (w&th j( ~..7n !>~), I'll, 192-4. 2(,3 and266
(with U.c.W. { U:' 2il-io\. !'7J.-I$ im f-..:nc) . .1)4, )i!1~~- -'-l.l. BO-t. H7-81l. 303. In mosr of
Notes on VIII. i-ii (pp.464-467)
31.
32.
33.
34.
647
th<."Se passages (and others likt th.-m) Rostovtzeff shows himself wdl aware of the existence of
what I am calling 'the class struggle'. For a good general critique ofRostovtzeffs work. a
biography, and a very full bibliography (of 444items), sc:. 11.1 n.S above.
N. H. Baynes, review of Rostovtzeff, SEHRE', in]RS 19 (1929) 224-35. at 229-33, repr. in
BSOE 307-16; :tnd 'The decline of the Roman power rn Western Europe: some modem
explanations', in]RS .'JJ (1943) 29-3S, npr. in BSOE:'!B-96 (esp. 92-3).
See Baynes, BSOE .309, 93.
V. Gordon Childc. What Happmrd in History (Pelican, 1942 and rtpr.) 250. Childe's c:arlier
work, Man Makes Himself(1936; 3rd ed. 1956 and repr.), has also, deservedly, been read by
many who arc neithcr archaeologists nor htstorians. A derailed descnpuon ofChildc's great
contributions to archaeology and history was announced as I was completing this section:
Bruce G. Tngger, Cordo11 Chi/de: Rfvolutions in Archat'ology(publisht-d 1980].
For the imponant contributiOns ofl ynn Whtte (and ofR. J. Forbes) to the history of mtdiaeval
technology, S ll.i n.14 above, whert" I have mentioned that Whitt'sarticle (TIMA} quoted in
the main text of this section, although \lpc:n to cnticism at some pomts, is still well worth
reading. although it is largely replaced by his chapter m Vol. I ofrhc Fontana Economic History
ojF.uropr.
[VIII.ii]
1. Junes, RE-i 11-l'i (a m~trrly sunun.-.ry <l\'<':Oth, wh,le penod from thdirsrto the sixth century);
RE .\<1f>-4(ij, '"'P .~~11. 401, 41J..l<,. 41!.1; LRJ: II.724-63 (esp. 737-57}, with the notes in
111.2liJ-4.;.md 11thcr passages Csumc ofthm mpurt.mt) given in the Index. s.v. 'decurion
(t:llrilllrJ)'; GCA/ 179-210 (with du t:ut"' 342-i:IJ. tnt entirely superseded by LRE. Among
other r.:c111t arti,I,.,., <.::tmSA'11. Allli,'\E. i.> l';,.mmi,.rly well worth reading and has a useful
bibli!{r.tphy ,J.l the' <'OJ.
2.
Amon~ tlutarly onurrt,I('<'S uftbt" wor.l r1mo~l1 m thJ~; ~en!;<' arc (i) CTh. XII.1.6"' C]V. v .3.1
(dvito~ti .,,.._, 114rillli. tuero~t). prob.ably A.D ..Htl ro~~hr than 319 (if 'Aquileia' is correct); (11)
FIRA J=.4f::!. n1.'.1~ (= .\lt\M.1. VIT :!1:15 =AI) 154). ,ul.i.19. A.D. 325-6; (iit) CTh.Xll.i.l9
(init.). A.D ..\.'\1; (.I\} C'l'h. Xll.t.:!1 i1111t.), probably A.D. 334 rather than .U5. Characteristic
of th neglect 1 attr Rnm.1u ht~tnry by Classical ochul:tr~ until reu.'Ddy is the fact that u:wis and
Short's lAtit 1)i(tilkl'}' (th' <'JK' Ot<"t uscal ir th~ .ny)i~h-speaking world) is most misleading
s.v. curio~lrs. making our th.at rhr w,~rd mcanl 'in 1M l.J.rin, ll<'longin.ll to the impmal court': the
three J'('fl"rt'IICCS which thllnw from Amuu.mu~ all r<'fer quite clearly to local councillors!
Sec licbcnam, Sl.'K Zl\J:ii' ~ud IJ_5, Jones, GC.'\J lit>. with 340 n.40; LRE 11.724-5, with
111.22H n.1t. (nlfncr.....i ~s regards U.4 266 by I lUi'll..n-J.:~nes. EREQS 283 n.7). For tht> West,
set' Duncan-Jones. IJRliQS 2!13-7 .1nd 111 PnSR Jl (l'lf',3) 159-77, at 16741.
IGRR 111.154 = Cll. III.1~2.lin, 4q, Fur paym.m iSIImma honoraria, honorllrium df'turionatus,
on be.-.. ming .a dtnuinnm :.1 Grt..k ,uy. Jot'\" c.~: l'htl', 1-:p. X .xxxix.5 and cxii-xiii: llio Chrys.
XLVIII. II .'\IG' K~ ~ AI) H:\. lim 14; IGDuk IV . .?~63, Jines 9-12. Much morC' is known
about dt~ nrresponding p~yments 111 th Lnu' Wc,.t: ,;cc e.g. Duncan-Jones, ERFQS !12-8
(Afrir.t: ;md 147-55 (Italy}; here tcx .~dln'titu~ .l!'"ti. .trl' recorded (ibid. 1~ and n.2). Cf.
Garnsey.,~, c.ir,-..llt~ Duncan-Jones; ;md Pkl<t. ,,, c;nl''"on 49 (1977) 59-60.
For SB JII.u (l.-127) 7.!61, see H. H. \''Ill Bt:!'CU,.nJ A. C. Johnson, 'A papyrus d ..aling with
liturgiL" '. in)EA l:! !JC)2t.)JlK-1').
St'C'Jones. GC.4J:!.04-5 (with J47n. 'Hi whQ <'nui.J
only three exampl~-s afttr Constantine:
CTh Xll.t.!o,4. 'It. 13."\. (lu Clrd Ph:m~ tr.ansl.lriun ,,fthe CTh thtrc ts a S(.'nou,; rror in
XII. i. %; t'llntust }"n"!>s<omn :r.m~I.. u.m, (-;C:\_1 ,.?it5o.) I would add ibid. 72, 124.
Even ii dtt'l'Arlirit purpoS<' fch.lo~w W:b rn rJ<'VI'Ilt Illiterates who were alrt>ady decurions
from ~;~pm~ o:urial burdt'n~- n sh,,w,. that tlwn.- W<'rtIJ<JW illiterate derurion~. And although
of cour,., "Ollie' Jlht'Tlt<'!l Yihl> bo~J m.ad !UOJuy might be pll-ased to join their ordo, it is at kast
as likd~ that rb, y;-,llt~' illita.t<:!> Ptrktian had in mind had lx:rn obliged to become
decunCins b.,(aust .,f th.:tr tiuaiu'\~1 n>4-f,dn,,.~ I t!a,it ,.,ria; it may have been 01ttemprs on the
part o(,.om~ ,)t' thm h> .-l:mn rh.. t tbtr dhh'r;.q: tu.do the performance of munt"ra impossibk
for th;:m whuh wU,,f ti.rth Di&l\l,r;;~n\ ... tin.
An interesting ,-umrk ~~ P (JJ;y. I 7 J. ;uli I! (1\.fl .li}3): th man had bern duef priest at
Arsinoe and snpc.rintl'tl<l<'ltttitbnunt>~rrh ::-~l.i 2. :=;.. 16).
This is rh. rr.n t~nu ;of tho ro.:u \uit<'ll j:IH11 ~ o\rtmgi): Set' CIL VIII. Suppl. iv (1916),
no.2.3Ul\:'. ~nd r.2J:~
,,f
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
ww
648
Notes on VIIJ.ii (pp.468-471)
10. The best account is lb,JilfJ. f_ (~alimr.. 'Th<" Pb;:u, un:.itr M:l(~=~ .\urdius'. in AJP82 (1961)
225-51. who righrh W.ll'l'IS ~g.un~t exaggerating it~ duncrl..,i<>tl> :u.-1 ns effn:ts- as JS only roo
common with anCimt plagues (:o."l example is the :n-r.t l'<>ok by W H. McNeill, Plagut.'s and
Ptoplt's, 1977). Stl: also A. R. U1rky, M.'\ tl-;;i61 2<).!-3-. 212. 214, 217-!li. Dio Cas~
LXXII[LXXIII].14.3..t 1\ p.;~m~~i.oti}' ir,to:rt"1.rK',;: he nu;nti<'IL" .a. JiMu in abour 189 of which
'2,000 people often J ..,f .tr Rmno m .a single day'; 1r~o.l V1n dr-.<r.h:s this as 'the greatest disease'
he- knew of- yet he ho~d rr<tMbl~ bet.n born m lf~J-t (;t;,. f. Mrll;~r. SCD 13), just bl'fore the
outbreak of the gro::u P~!Zu undrr !\hrro. On, ,}f ~";i:i::ur. ~ ~~1:mmts against exaggerating
the plague of the H.l_i!<. bJ!!<d on the- passage fr,rn D1'' I h;o.v, j:JSt qlll~ed. is rejected by Millar
(ibid. n.4, endorsc.i t>r H1rlr), IJRMA 217 n Si). ,:~n th, t:rounJ t!t~! the infant Dio 'no doubt
failed to notire' when V ...,...,.,' rliljW~trkktn o~nuy t.::umd truull!:lh his home town ofNicat"a
rn 166. But Millar mJ~:r~n~l.ltl"S lJ1o. who) rd,n M tbt' plague "f the 160s as the greatc:st he
'knew of, not the l:!ft'.lt'':(t he: "h.u! experienced'
11. See the very well inl~rm.-.! o.lL"""-"~ion of the ch:'m"l"tW by -\; R. Birley, IIRMA (wilh full
bibliography. ~P- m.:!l..Jnn.l-3!12. Bov~e6.\o& should me:m "herd~mm'. hut tht' n.&mc m'ly ~ Jc~l\,d rather from the district where
the rebels operated. known as m /1aviCOAra !,W. Otr ..'!U. ~'J-21.1). whrr.: there had been a rising
some twenty years earhcr. in th rt1gn oi Antonma~ 11u~ .a.~ ~hn~,. hv W. Chr. 19 = AIJ 175:
Hist. Aug., Ant. P. 5:5; M.1.l.da~ XI, p.280.16-l:'.cd. W. Di.nd.,rf: ,-(_ th~veryfuUdiscussion by
Alexander Schenk. ( ;ra( ve>n Stauffenberg, n,,. riIOIH;Itc l<.;bt_<~t1c1t lu-i Malalas (Stuttgart.
1931) 307-9, 312-B.!S..'t" alS<l Pawl Ohva, P.2not''"'.J .~nJ :ilt (.Mm.~t Crisis i'l tltt Ronu~n Emp.
(Prague. 1962) 119-.20: o~n.!J. C. Sh,IM:. m ""' s,...-. 7 (i9it.) }li'I-U~ which I saw only at'ter
this chapter was fmi~h.:d.l
13.' Hist. Aug., Mar(. 17..1-5: .:!1.9; Eutr,)p. Vlll.l3.2 {th .auction lasted for two months). Cf. the
probabk- fragment otT>10 Ca~tu~ prc-Mrtt-d ~y Z\>nuas Xll.l and the Excerpta Saltri4SiaM 117,
printed in Boisscva1n''l st;mduJ -.-ditlln ,-,.fJ)io, \'tl. III, p.280, and in VoL IX of the Loeb
edition, p.70. See Birk-y. M.4 :!1~19.
14. Contrast, rec~nrly. M. H. Crawford, 'Finance, coinage: and money from the Severans to
Constantine'", in A.~RK.II.ii {1'1'75) 560-93, at 591-2. with Birley. TCCRE 260 n.l, who
rightly points out that 'vast sums would be r~uired during campaigns for equipment (arms,
armour. nu~tirit.'l of all kinds), road and bridge building, repair of enemy damage, remounts
etc. . There is no doubt some truth in Crawford's argument that army units wl."'rc often under
strength in rime of peace: although if that was so, then the increased e1tpmditure in wartime
would have been even greater.
15. There is a convenient brief summary by G. R. Watson, in OCD 1 1014. with bibliography, to
which addM. Speidel, 'The pay ofthe Auxilia', in)RS 63 (1973) 141-7. and othcrworkscited
by Birley. TCCRE 267 and nn.6-7.
16. I am ignoring that famous passage. Pliny, Ep. X.l13, because I think the te1tt is too uneutain to
bear the weight of the argument usually based upon it: naml'ly. that we havC' hrre the earlic:st
evidence of men being compelled to bt:come councillors (see Jones, GCAj 343-4 n.b4; cf.
Garnsey, ADUAE232mdrm.ll-l2; F. A. u.,per. in Gnomon42{1970],at570-l).ltnuywell
be that we should n:ad 'invitati' instead of 'inviri', with Mynors (in the OCT, 1963) and
Sherwin-White, LP 122-4; but I "Bard the question as still open.
17. The distinction between munt.'rtJ prrsj)Mlia (or personae) and ptJtrimonii is not clearly explained by
the Severan lawyers (cf. RostovtzdT. SEHR2 11.714-15 n.t8), although it often appears in
their surviving writings (as in Ulpian. Di.f. L. vi.4, and Papinian, L. v .7); but it is stared in detail
by Hermogenian (Dig. L.iv .1). probably in the late third century. The only formalsratcmenr
about muntra mixta is by Arcadius Charisius. a little latl.'r (probably in the last years of the third
century or the first years oftb~ fourth). in D.g. L.iv.l8, esp. pr. and 26-8. A very useful recent
work is Naphtali Lewis. Inventory of Compulsory Snvicts in Prolmu~ir and R(ml4rl Egypt ( = Amt.'r.
Stud. in Papyrology 3. 1968), an essential supplement to F. Oertel, Dit Limrgir. Studim zur
ptolmrai'schen und Juzistrlichen VtrWtJltung Agyptms (Leipzig, 1917).
18. See the interesting chapter by V. Nutton, 'The beneficial ideology'. in lmptri4lism ;, tht Alllitnt
WIWld, ed. P. D. A. Garnsey md C. R. Whittaker(1978) 209-21. at219-20. with342rm.64-8.
utilising e-sp. L. Robert, 'Epigramme-s relatives 1 cb gouvemeurs', in Htllmita 4 (1948)
35-114.
19. There is a nice example in Symm., Rtl. XXXVIII.2,5: Venantius. a decurion in Apulia, had
managed to obtain the minor post of strtllor in the department of the nu~gistt.'r officitm4m ( 4) -
Notes on VIJI.iii (pp.471-475)
649
illegal!y. sm.,.., h.:: w~ prov.'<! :o be.~ :i<'C'.:tion. Tht possible conflict of duthoriry bctWl'Cn the
provitlri:tl :tm't:mo ~;:J the ;imrild
ll~"'''" r::r. the one hand and the ma.f!ister officiomm on
the Nh~r m:adt Syrnuo.:.ch\1~ tld .r I:IX"I".lllry t11 rctcr 1ht' case to tht' ~"'''lp~Tot himself. See Jones,
"'''i$
LRF.U!i!.
20. In th t'll.t 'imi in th<n<)!CS bdow J have b-:-'1 v~ry 5l1ii!"'.J:g with refcren~:c& to modem works and
haw dtt-..i only Jones !LRE .mJ'It'fullong rcv1.:w, i.n.JRS 47 (I'J57) 236-40, of two important books by
Paul P~tit (tfwhich ~n,. especiaUy. l. VM.4. is mir.c of information), including much that is
rde,;;.m w ct..- nut:ll d~~~. ;:os~C:::.Ily olwu~ oi .o\utioch.
21. Sec E. G. l"un11::r, 'Ettl'Pt .md fhl' Rom.m Emp.: tht' IK~e.WpM'O<', in]EA 22 (1936) 7-19;Joncs.
GC.iJ LW (wid1 .'17 r..R5). 153 {with 333n. 106); R,~t<-vtzeff, SEHRP 1.390-1 (with 11.7U6-7
r.n.45.
-n:. ~7 (~nh 11.715 n. i'l).
22. SeejuuL.,., Uli: Tl.544 . ..ami 7SIJ(wl:h lll.24<ln.li-l!), Mrut inter.-sting is Liban., Orat. XXVIII.4
tT., I:'~P- 21:2 (5l't' .Jlnt'l. l.kf:' !1.750;. St::: JI:WJ !'-- 1nfod. XV.2.1 for some extraordinary
behavmur by .l Jccunon ~f Eml'T.&, who h.lrl ~brain<'<! ch, honorary rank of illustri.s; and note
the '-'<'f)' mild ptmi~!tnnJII ht nrdv.-d.
23. SL'e LI!t.tl'l . Or<lf XI. a~!( fur:hcCouudl. 150 if. ti.r t~dimos. In 150the demos is to follow
the Ccunnl u .- rhorus ihllt>ws rt~ lLa~cr (kP'}'J'h.rit>.s).
24. Stephen L. Dyson. 'N.;&nn revoh~ IU th.- Rvm<~n Empire', in HiJtorU. 20 (1971) 239-74; and
'Native revolt pattern~ 1n th Roman F-mpu.-, in ANRW ll.!ii (1975) 138-75.
[VIII. iii]
1. C. P. Jones, 'The dare of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian oration', in Hist11ria 22 (1973) 302-9.
suggests A.D. 71-2.1n 72 he would emend Koii(Us- to KiiM.II' = L. Peducarus Colon us, Prefect
of Egypt c. 70-2. But J. F. Kindstrand. same title, in HistoriA 27 ( 1978)378-83, agt~-c:s with H.
von Amim, l..tbm und Wtrkt tits Dio VOlt Prum (Berlin, 1898) 435-8, in preferring the rt'ign of
Trajan. I cannot dea.l in this book with several disturbances at Alexandria. recorded in sourcc:s
of very varying value. but I will at least mention the.- article by S. J. Oost, 'The Alexandrian
seditions under Philip and Gallimus', in CP 56 (1961) 1-20, which b:lS very full n-fc.'lt'llces.
2. The Spartan inscription isA(1929)21. first published by A.M. WoodwardinBSA 27(1925-6)
234-6, where line 7 has ltlao~ "''""'" Httn'fPIIT,_,.; cf. perhaps l:!ri [ "'" ')"EPO~I'CII" l s-komrjHO'~I:'
in IG V.i.44.9-10. Some have broughtlurian, ~1ft6rtrPt-rtgr. 19(init.) into rhis contxt. The
two Historia Augusta references are Pius 5.5 and Gallim. 4. 9. (For the Egyptian r<'bellion which
is also mentiont.-d in HA, Pius 5.5, sc.-e VDI.ii n.l2 above.)
3. Cleon is probably tM Medeius of Dio Cass. Ll.ii.3. He is said to haw earned the favour of
Antony by organising resistance to the tax-collectors of Q. labimus (acting as commander of
a Parthian force in 40-39 B.C.) and to haVL' bn:n rewarded first by Anrony with the priesthood
of Zeus Abn:ttcnus in Mysia and a local principality in Morme, and then. when ht changed
sides in the civil war. to have been rewarded by Octavian with the important high priesthood
of Comana in Pontus (Stnbo XII. viii.S-9, pp.S74-5). As for the activirie~ of the ex-slave
Anic;etus and his followers in the Pontic region in A.D. 69 (Tac., Hist. 111.47-8), thLTe is
evidendy no need to take seriously Tacitus' contemptuous dcsaiprion oftheir suppression as a
bellum stn~ilt.
4. This picture is not affetted by mher references to participation in the revolt by the lower classes:
Herodian Vll.iii.b; Hist. Aug., Cord. 7.3-4. Note that the landowners are described as
lleorn6rcn, giving orders to obedient country folk- who are likely to have been mainly their
tenants, with some peasant fredlolders too. Cf. Whittaker's note on Herodian Vll.iv .3. in the
loeb Herodian, Vol. II. I have not been able to digest the long article by Frank Kolb, 'Der
Aufnand der Provinz Africa Proconsularis imJahr 238 n. Chr. Die wirtsch.aftlichm u. soziakn
Hintergriinde', in HistorUI 26 (1977) 440-78. which I saw only after this section had been
completed; but it seems evident from his l:ast paragraph on p.477 that Kolb's main conclusion
is not different from mine.
5. See Downey, HAS254-8, 261,311.587-95 (csp. 590-2). Notecsp. Petr. Patrie. fr. t. discussed
by Downey, HAS 256. Against the view, put forw:~~rd by Jean Gag~. that Mariades was a
leader of a circus faction, see Cameron, CF 200-1.
Notes on Vlll.iii (pp.475-480)
650
n'\'<)1~ ~f
Firm us, sec Thompson. HWAM 90-2, 129-JO. and Frcnd, DC 72-J, 197-9;
F. Matthews. 'Maurttama in Ammianus and the Notit:a', in Asllects of thr Noritia
Dt.ollll~:::um. c;L R. Goodbum and P. Bartholomew ( = British Archaeolo.l(ica/ Reports, Suppl.
Sn1~~ IS. (),;ford, 1976) 157-80. at 177-8. Matthcws is surely right in dt>nying that the
r~hdbur: :fft~mus was in any real sense 'one of the low..r orders of town or ~oumry ~gamst
:h, bakd llri,tocracy of the Roman cltics' Jnd that 'tht Vonatist schism contributed at all
Sl~mtir.mtlr to the rcbdlion . That otho;r Afncan nvolrs were mainly trtb<ll movemtnts se-ems
Ill n tv 1'> tn:c even of such norablt rismg~ as those offarall.-n and the 'Fraxilwnscs' and the
6. Oa :he-
OJI'Itr~~~)
Quinqll!!"m<&ne-i in the late 250s, and of the Quinqut>gentanei in the last dtcadc of the third
.-wtur;, suppressed by Maximian. For these and othtr north Afrkan rt>volts, see Stscon. DT
I l t=>-28; RostovtutT, SEHRP 1.474 (with 11.737 n. 12); Mazza, LSRA' 65'1 ri.4; and the
:tttidt by M.dtht'ws cite-d above.
7. Cf.. :i:r rhck~tncrs. Dio ca~s. LXVIII.x.J: Xt.3; and see Pt"tr. Patrie. fr. 5. Th~ Rom:ms Wt'f('
~.trtll:ularl~ kt-cn to stop th~ desertion of craftsmen: set e.g. for shipbuild,rs CTh IX .xl.24 o:.
qrx.xkii.25 (A.D. 419).
8. s~-.. Gt"za 1\lfcilJy, Noricum (1974) 1~9. with 335 nn.SR-64: Fasti Hispanifnst>; (Wie-sbadm,
l%9) U-5.
9. Grt"g. Thaumarurg . Ept.<t. Canon. 7, m MPG X.I040. The besu:ditton I know is by J. Ora~eke,
D-=r kanomschc: Briefdes Grcgorios von Neodisar~a', in ]11hrb ..fur pror. Theol. 7 ( 181ll) 724-56,
.11 7.2'ki6. Dr.isekc's date: is 254, which may be right. There was an ev<-n biggtr Gothic
mvJsionm ' 256. burl know of no evidence that this penetrate-d so far cast. (Tht chronology
,,f the ( i<lth!< mvas1ons of Asia Minor in the 250s and 260s is notoriously 111 a sute of confusion.)
10. Thu~ is nu t<W>tn to sec a reference 10 the Bacaudae in PalleR. lAt. V.iv.l, L-d. E. Galletier (=
IX(IV).I\'.1. ,d. Oaehrens or Mynors). referring to A.D. 26Q-70: see Thompson, PRLRGS, in
.'iAS (t-d. hu),y) 315 n.41: also 'Britain, A.D. 406-410', in Britannia R (tQn) 303-18. at 312
n.Y,. Tht ~r.1undles.., emt"ndation by lipsius, 'Bagaudicae'. appears in the editions of the
nferrcd to by c .g. Baehrens and Mynon but not Gallcoticr.
lh1 m.tm passage in Ammianus, XXVII .1i. II, ntay bt- compared with Anon . Dr r~bus bt'llid.<
II.J. ,.,{, Thompson, and tht evasive language of Pane,Jl. LAt. ll1v (e-sp. 4): vi. I; III.v ..l;
Vbtii .1, ed. Galletier.
Fur .111 th1 kn''"'ll d.:tails, and the sources, st'l' Thompson, in S.'\S 312-13. 316-1R; and in his
artidt cf 1<)77 (mentiont'd in n.IO above), csp. 31()...13. (Se.. also Thompson's article in JRS
1,15(,, ntetJtiOIII"ti atthe end ofiV .Iii n.29 abow.)
I ba~t <1st'd th1' T\!ubncor edition, Aulularia ~;.,,. Qucrolus, by RudolfPetper (1!175). Much recent
biblm~r.lph}'
be found in the artidt by Luigi Alfonsi, 'Il"Quc:rolo" e il "Vyskolos" '.in
.t:i. H ( l')(..t) ~;o.s, t:Sp. 200 n.l. wh<~ ref~nnctsarcgivm to the Jn()l;Ucc~-nr L-ditionsofthe
~l.&y. b} G. Ranstrand (Gi:it,borg, 1951) and f. Corsaro (Bologna. N65).
In Collingwood and Myn:s, RBES' J(H, cf. 2H4-5, 302; contrast Applt<baum, in AHEW
I. ia.236. Nor do I think thert> is any good ground for supposing (with Applebaum. Joe. cit. and
~2) that an insurrection in Britain soml" e1ghty years earlier. f. 284. in the reign ofCarinus, may
hav imh~-d :1 pc:asanr uprising comparable to that of the Bacaudae (who arc first heard of al
tin. wry tun. in Gaul). cvc:n ifCarinus (A.D. 2113-5) did take the tide 'Brmannicus Maxtmus'
( li.S tit.IK). b1~1-d no doubt upon somt acttviry by OPt' of his gtntrals in Britain. Applebaum
'ot't'lll" (Ibid .\.~ n.2) to have takt.'JI Eutrop. IX .20.3 to lx referring ro Carinus: m fan Eutropiu~
i~ ~pcakintt then." ofDiodetian.
'fhomrson, 'Uritain, A.D. 406-410' (alre;~dy cite-d in nn.IO and 12 above), csp. 3()4-Q on the
chronology.
See e.g. Mommsen, Riim. Str11jr. 981-J:Ostrogorsky, HBS 2 15Q..60.Inibid. l14wearctoldrhat
the nutlnt: otl" of the nose ofHcraclonas in 641 was 'the: first time that th~ onenral custom of
munlati<<n by cutting off the nose is mer with on Byzantine soil'. (The Empress Martina's
h'ntzut. \\'.\~ alscH.'Ut otTat the same: time.) But I havt"nOtietd that in Michael tht Syrian. Chr!ln.
IX..\ (I'd. J. 8. Chabot, 11.412: see n.34 below). the Emp<"ror Heradius is said to have ordered
th:~t anyone: in Syria not accepting Chalccdonian orthodoxy wn to have his nose and ~an cut
'il' and his property confiscated: this was presumably in A.D. 621. when Hcraclius was at
M;abbout:/Hierapolis. I do nor know whether Michael's rcpon is true:, or is simply the
.mn-H.,rJdian propaganda of a Jacobitt.. It is re-peated by Bar Hebraeus, Chron. Eccles. I.
,ol.2i4 {sn n.35 below).
Is this perhaps tht" son of situation referred to by Orienrius. Commonit. 11.173-4 (CSEL
XVI.J.234.
R. Ellis)?
Pal(t:)'tl; JU~t
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
,v;n
oo.
Notes on Vl/I.iii (pp.480-483)

18.
Paulim~ uil'dl;., E:d:dri,t . .'28 tt. . ~:-. i_\j.;o,, m CS!=.L XVI.i .304. td.
II of t!ll' l.c:"'b A~u.m:;:.s., td. II. G. 1:\dyr. Whit.-. with Eng. trans.
651
G. Brandt's; and in Vol.
19. For th.' n;o...!t llll):.ks111~.-. 5~ fl.h;r.-ifu:m; (:0:>111<'<' .-..1 ,\ 41!j, in Chron. Min. !1.73. (Piinta was
consu: iut19,Jl1'rho~p> rr~ly a.~:. rnv.ml tc1r 1\ll'!'r~umg tht' r.:bellion.) For th.:r~volt ofth~e
Nori. St~ l ly<!.;)~::~ '.0. J:; (:lr~""- Miil,li 22.
20. For Al~'l~:tJ~r. ~::tl':'''"P .IJtil VIJ "'Gth lilt .!H..'>.'; XXJ.I4. for Bessas, see ibtd. xvn.I014. l!>-h':; 1Ul<. !J-10:. "" l.IS,.:!'t..
21. Jones. l.JIE []_ !!ifw).J. H', ,J,~ admit th:u 'lvtno.: .. imm of txtortion may have Aed in
desptr.m.m (~n:~ :h~ >tt;!}:<i.tr ,--;~,,:!). Wr '"'' h;~r.Jiy m<:ud~ among Salvim's humbk refugees
the to.\ o s<m~ <~f )~ul:rw~ o l'dl~. '"'"" ~cu: n!'f !(' eUI~ among tht Goths at Hordeaux,
inspir.:d by 'lil><n.l.tls :uu,,r-tl::~odwi!t. -l"P.\-.1~)
22. The comr''"'''O:'Y :.iil-1>111 rh~ ml n~nlr< ut tio, Circ.tm.-,.llion> snll ronunn<s. I am mclincd to
a('et'pl th( !tt"ll:ral \'1<'\\' ,,f W. If. C. f"::l. ~~ .:~ rrnd m his book, Thr Donati5t Church (for
which ~('~' VII ... Jr:d ~Is :J n 4h->W), ~nd ;ll , ......, article': The cella. of the African
Circum.:dh<>Us ', 11~ TTS. n.s.J (1'.1.:,2) ifi.. ()f.~. an,j 'C:t~mct"'lions and monks', in id. 20 (1969)
542-9, where r.-t.r~'Tlet-;o wtll IIC' fo>1;n,l to ot!l :h,- r~-a.ot literature, by Brisson, Calderone,
Diesn.-r, Saum~ttrw. me T.:ngscr<th" s.,,- .~r..-, l\.tu~t..:lkn. ERO 200-3 (with 353-4 n.to).
23. S<-e l".(!:. Procop . JMI. III"'" 1-'o~nJ I.-. 1 IH ln<p. !4); lUX.3 (cni..-s nor frimdly to Bdisarius'
army,l; xxiii 1-6 !p...a~JIIs hosrlk l(l it); o~rl<l IV"' Jl.mJ. ll.in.26and esp. viii.25: cf. Courtois.
VA 2l:!tHJ-1.;, wirla Ul ff. 1-Ufi.
24. I accept th<' int.-rprtaliw (l(th.~ bws given by Stein, HBE 11.558-9, with 321-2 and F (N59)
i.327.
25. s~e.g. A. Dorsh. Ill C:Hli::'I'.:!IJ.t Wllh l:-4.2.
26. Stt e.g. Procop .. Iil'll. VI"" C;..tll. IL'I"t .'Y. Mtl..; \'U '-" Goth.III.x.l9-22, Tibur.
27. See Procop., Bell. VII~ c.;,,h III.III-111, .!'-l.iv 15-ll>,ix.t-4; xd-3;andSthemain tcx!and
n.20 ab<we. My 'perhaps' Jlkw~ tlll tiD J.'i~ihiliry th~t titer~ may bt a Iittk more truth than is
gmerally allowed in the "iciuu~ t'riti<'J~n~ n .,(,. ufUdt~:\rius in Procop .. A,ecd. I. 10 to V.27.
2H. See Procop., fltll VII"' C:ttth Ill vi ); 'liii.l.
29. Ibid. xvi.14-15, .:;.
30. Justinian~ Prt~gm.rti< Sanai,n. of 13 August .i5-t, l""-" be tound in Corp. Iuri5 Ci11il. Ill (No11.
Just.) 7'J'J-Hir.?, ApJ'<'Ddl" 7. It w A\ issued aft.-r dw tullo~ps.: ofrhe Ostrogoduc kingdom in Italy
and tht expulsio11 ,,fth invading Franks and Alaman~. Cf also abid. 803, Appendix 8 (soon
after 554); and !.t...,' Sr.:-~n. HBE 11.613-17; .tl''' on tb. :1~:-arian policy ofTotila. ibid. 569-71.
573-4, 'i7'J. 585--b, t.l,\..14. hll o~bU'iC' ufTtllil~ <;t.-c N,>a Just . Append. 7.2.5,6,7,8,15.17,24
(Torila thr 'Yr''"-'"'' who L~ nifandissimu5. 1l- guilty (J( tyrannica Jerotitas, and is of scelmJtar
mnnoriolt). T<>lila i:. Jls. nrj.~ndi.~imus
m Jn m~nption set up by Narses ncar Rome in
I)'"''"""'
565: Il .'i KJ2

31. Jont'S, LRE: II. 102!, with 111..\.'K n.7f). C:mr.&;.t rhe passages I haw cit<-d in th.: main textand in
nn.2l-4 .!7-."-l,d>c.>Vl', ..m.t in IV.tv, n.7. ~tnl' of the passag,'liJon'~ cites either prove litdeor
tell agaut'-t htm, e.g. Procop., &II V. o: (;,tit I. XI\' 4-5, where the pnncipal reason for the
decision by tht inhabitants ufR<tlll<' ll h:.atJ dMt nty uv,r to D.:lisarius is rh~'lr fear of sharing
the far. of mo~ny ll th.- Nl'<ap.llil.lllll (l'>l.\' ibiJ. ".21) If. f, ., the slaughter that cook place on thl'
capturt of Neapolis. uutil1t W:l) "'torp<.-d hy Bl'li...arius).
32. Thr Chr<>niclr ofjohn, Hi>lrop of Nileiu. tum. trm z.,t,,b.rg's Ethiopir text by R. H. Charles
(Text and Tr.ms. SOt .. l.ondon. 1')1(1} ~xJ.ll; nciii 2: .-xtv.t,3,9.10; cxix. l-2; cxxi.t0-11; cf.
cxi.2: cxviii.3; Cli:X 4, JnJ ('II(!'. <'ltV .'I. whtrt w" an- told that 'When the Moslems saw the
weakness of the Romans .1nd the ht>stibty ,,(the people tu the Emperor Heradius. bccaust" of
th(.' persecution wh""f'-'With h, haJ VISIIM all thl' land of Egypt in regard to the orthodmc faith,
at the insti~tation of Cvrus the: Chaln-donian patriarch [cf. cxxi.2], they bcxame bolder and
stronger in thl W.lr'. See the interesting remarks about John ofNikiu (who 'wrott" his Cllroniclo
to show dut thl Aub conquest was God's judgment un the heresy of the empire in accepting
Chalcedon'} in Hmry Chadwick's article on john Mosl'hu~. inJTSn.5.25 (1974) 41-74, at70-l
(esp. 71 n. G). John wnltc nt.-ar dt md cJfthc: sc\'cnth century. His work, composed originally
in Grttk (partly in C<>pnc). ~un'l~l~ only in an Ethilric version of an Arabic translation.
TherefoR". if w~ r~o~J it in English (<~r in Zotcnberg's Fn'ltch, 1883), we are taking it at fourth
hand. The: C:l11miilr. although a ,-~luahlt< S('IUJCt for th conquest of Egypt by the Arabs,
contain' mulh superstitious mdoth,r rubh1sh .and II n!nbitu hostility to Hypatia (oneofth~
most c:rnmcnt of all the victJmi uf Chri,.tian bl(l()dthirsriness) whlch is unique among the
surviving ..our.~ that rdi:r to the munk"l of' that philosopher (boociv.87-t02, esp. 87-8, 1~3).
652
Notes on Vlll.iii (pp.483-484)
33. Of the whole twenty-five yean' w.: ft.ll~tr(O: RPiflt .Jrtil Ptr!i<~ I know ofno single full and reliable:
account. One of the mmt n~-fulmtlin~"' I ba\'C ..em i;. rh .. r bY I. oms Brehier, in Histoire dt
I'Eglist, ed. A. Flktw.a:d V. M.ut:n. V ;JI..ms. !')4:0) 72-5. !;1.)..5.'~ 101, with much citation of
original sourcn and modem bti:obogr.aphy {fvr thr W\lra.'!- ..rc .....: ~10, 14-16,55-6, 79-88).
For the Persian occupation of Egypt, o; A. J Burl~rs l>ook {in tt~ i!I'OOnd edition, by P.M.
Fraser), cited in n.37 below, 69-92, 49*-'ill7. ~tth parts of tne 'Addirtonal Bibliography', xlv
ff., esp. lviii-ix. For Asia Mmor, Clive- f<>~. 'The Pentans in Asia Minor and the end of
Antiquity', in E~tg. Hist. Rt:. '~i (ll)i5J 721-47. ,,tt-:o the essential modem work by N.H.
Baynes ( 1912-13), A. Strato~ {now J 11ol~\ .and the nurmsmatists and archaeologists. There arc
only very brief accounb oi the PC'I'sl<m w.u5 in ud1 sundard works as Arthur Christensen.
L 'Irtm sous Its Scrssar~idc~: iCorenhoo~ttc:n. l'i#J 447-8. 4"-!JI~ Osm~n.ky. HBS 1 85, 95, 100-4;
and Ch. Diehl. Hist. ~mtra/,,llutilrr..-du "'-'"Y"' .4f1~ ltl I~ ,\.f111111t .vi,...tal4e395a 108P (Paris,
1944) 140-50. I han not come: aCI'l!l> anr ('x.amrlc-s for rht~ J'('rioJ (.:ontrast, for the fourth
century, the main rexr above and nn.4b-7. 49 P..low) ,,f l<o~tstall''' being given to rhc P-rsians
(or of flight to them) except t)D the part oitheJc:ws (M"-' the: 111ain text above and n.39 below).
As for the ex~irtl):ly oh!.ture ~ubjc'ct ufrh~ ,'\rab am-tzot~tJ. then i~ ~gain a useful outline by
Louis Brihier, op. d:. V.12/-.VJ, 134-4i. 151~) Fra!Oc:r~ ~nnd edition of Butler's book
(n.37 below) is es!>Cnnal. wnh it\ 1\ddtuonal Brbl. .
Jxni-1\'. lxviii-lxx, lxxii-iii. For
modem works in fntth~h 011 rh, subject ofth(' Arab conquests Utl!:l'1Wral, see Philip K. Hitti,
Hist. of tht Arabs ft''" thr J::;,riirst Times to the Present'" (1970.1 J.J2-75; franceso Gabrieh,
MuhammatlalfilthtC,J'1411fiU!f b/Jm, 1-:ng. trans. by V. Lulm)'tanJR Iinell (1961!) 103fT., csp.
143-80, with the Bibliography,142..JI.
34. See the very scholarly French tram. by .J. H. Chabot, Chroniqut dt Mirhtllt Syrien, Pattiarlht
ja(obitt d'Aiftiochr dt66-119CJJ, Vul. II ni (Paris, 1904) 412-13. Of all the persecuting
Chalcedonian deriMo. thl' ''"'' wht> w:a~ umembered most birterly by the Syrian Christians was
Dometianus ofMditme, in the last years of the sixth cc:ntury, in the: reign ofMauria: (himSt)f
a zealous Chalcedonian): SI."C e.g. Michael the Syrian, Chr(lfl. X.23. 25 (ed. Chabot, 11.372-3,
379, 381); cf. R. Paret, 'Dometianus de Melitme c:t Ia politique religieuse de l'empcreur
Maurice', in REB 15 (1957} 42-72, who shows that the persecution by Domerianus took plac~
from lak' 598 until well into 601. For what seems to have: been a murderous persecution of
Monophysitc:S (rather than Jews) at Antioch in 608-9, under Phocas, by the comts Orimtis
Bonosus, see Louis Brehier, op. cit. (in n.33 above) V .73-5.
35. Crej!orii Barhtbrati Chrcmil(lfl Ecclrsi4sticvm, ed. J. B. Abbcloos and T. J. Lamy (3 vols. Louvain.
1872/4/7), Vol. I, col.274: Syriac, with Latin trans. This work is Part II of the Chr(lflography of
Bar Hebrac:us. Part I is translated into English by E. A. Wallis Budge. The Chrono.11raphy of
Grege~ry AbU'/ Faraj . .. ~o,.only lmo~~~r~ as Bar Hebraeus I (1932), which also gives a biography
of Bar Hebraeus and a discussion of his works (pp.xv-xxxi, xxxii-vi; and see xliv-lii}. For
Michad as a principal source of Bar Hebraeus. sec ibid. I, p.1. J. Pargoino, L'Eglise byzar~tint dr
527 a 847 (Paris, 1905) 147-9, has a good little section (ch.II, 4) entitled 'Cause politicorcligieuse dL-s succes de !'Islam' citing Bar Hebraeus only, as he was wnting hlfore the'
definitive publication of Michael's Chror~icl,. by Chabot (Sloe the preceding note). For Egypt.
Pargoire uses John ofNikiu.
36. L. Duchesne, L 'Eglise au VI' sitdr (Paris, 1925) 423. Cf. Brihicr, op. ot. (in n.33above) 134-41.
151-5.
37. A. J. Butler. The Arab Ce~nqurst of Egypt alfil the Last Thirty Years of the RomaN Domi~tion, 2nd
edition by P.M. Fraser (1978), is not merely a reprint of the original editionof1902but has in
addition two r.;says published as pamphlets by Butler and a most valuable: 'Additional
Bibliography' of 3CJ pages (xlv-lxxxiii) by Fraser. for Copts assisting the Arabs or failing to
resist them, see esp. 27~9. 285,318-19. 337-8, 355-7, 443. 445-6,471. 474. 478-AA; contrast
211-12, 295-6 n.1. 357, 363-4, 442, 472. Tht> quotation that follows in the main text abow is
from 158 n.2 (on 159). For the persecution of the Copts by Cyrus (AI Mu~u~s), see Buder,
ACP 183-93. 252. 273-4, 317. 443-6 .
.38. Vol. I. col.264-a. in theedihon cited in n.35 above.
39. For a modem account of Heradius' persecution of the Jews which will not be susp.,ctcd of
anti-Christian bias, SC.'\' BrC:hier, op. cit. (in n.33 above:) 108-11 1. I do nor sufficiently know the
sources for Jewish hostility to Byzantine- rule in the first halfof the: seventh C~'lltury; but see (for
the caprurc of]t>rusalem by the Persians in 1114) ibid. Rl-2. ~9; Bull~'l'. ACE" 59-61, 133-4:
and (for Jewish attitudes to the Arabs) Brihic:r, op. cit. 110-11. A particularly fascinating
,..,r.
Notes on VIII. iii (p.485)
653
cont.mr-:}nr-r 5Citr.:.: tint is vcJ<" ro:.,~>:~!ing 0:01 J~t...h attitudt.-s in rhe second quarter of the
seveTJti! (c:nt.:.ry i$ tht Oomh1.1 jacobi ;:!'"' b--.;p:-~~ti. p-Jblished (with an Introduction) by N,
Bonw~:sc:h. ir. tilo!: Gt'.t:ingen, Philot-imJ_ Kb..sc, n.F. XD.3 (Berlin, 1910). Among the
passagn illu~n~mg Jewish hosnlity to me liy-~t:nc empire are IV. 7; V .12. 16-17 (pp.69,
81-2. 86-3) . I Wll~l also mennon :u thi!. point fn:.rth(" ~cution ofthe ~maritans ofPalcstinc
from 'firi '"'""=~:J~ (Cj tv 1~. 13, 17-19). ,;uhuir:.trmg in Justinian's f'dict ordering the
destrul"tion u.f t!Jt-it synagogues, dr-.w& rltr> ~o br'l""~K out into a fierce revolt in 529. soon
merc:!~s~i; .:rushr.d, with the m.n.u:n: :,:)anJs), .:~ftcrwhich a body of survivors, said
tonumberSO,OOO(bi' Ma!ala~. p 4SS.I..S..l5:r.f. Th"lrit .. A. M.602l, p.179.1-4), fled to Pe-rsia
and otii.hi !rdr ''~ Ki..'lg C.:a....Jh liiJ. ~ttlo..:it~-d )>.lk>Unr:-. see Stein, HBEII.287..S, cf. 373-4, on
anothrr
ciSa"!J\art~n~ ia~<~ lrw!) at UC53~ 111 S55.
40. Amm. Marc. XXIX.\~.7. Tn:-;,()t,;ry V.."b r.ll~f-t~"!,.,! iro ..>:-14 on tbt' part ofthrecQther Alamans:
Larinus (MIIIol"$ J;m.-lfi<O:t~tlfl), Agi)Q (triburru. sr.d111if;, an.t Scudilo (commandrr of the Scutarii, a
uhola p.~l.:tit/1< {f tht itp..nal bodyguard); bur r~ui<"t1tly nothing was proved (sec Amm.
XIV .lC. i-li). In tb: whr!t" ~'t" AD1:11hZD<I.\' hisr"''Y i l.mw of no other t'Xamples of treachery by
soldier:> (Jf 'bui:rl1' m~-in, t"'II.'C ~lti!t> lmmbk :>;m, unless they had b~-comc: liabk to
punishm.-~t ior ~tl!ll.e .:ff,nn. Jik~ tin ~::,'Tl m XVl ,a; 2 and XVIII. vi.16. See also perhaps
Evagr . Ill: VI. H. wnt'n' Sitrol.~ i~ "<!it! :o b:~>'t betrayed Martyropolis ro th.: Prsla(ls c. 589.
41. For the tb,r sm~tn... f,): Sitw.&tlll~. S<\"l'Lf;::1:' t R-'t)l
42. A rCetit !>1-;~t.-:cc;r ~J;.,t 't!-..n ~il<' i;~tt tiU<.i century~~~. . . ~h.{"~ s abmadot<t o:...W<~<:t' ir.Jnt ~
,,.,.,,It
ovC'r tho: ~npir,- (r!uu!(h ~'!i;'<"t"i'llly from
~hi:
,astnuprcwances)
,,j~rdia.ur pi:opi<- ;lr!l~l~~
their [(\'\li'Jt~ :J.!td dti~ Jg';ll!J~t inv.Id~f~ Jth11xt!!'"'is' (C;am~l'.)TJ, CF liiJj a,.., ,-,;~w;-r-;tto::. ilS
anyou, will Jis,uv<"t wh~ luoks ''l' all :h !"1":(-rll!ces given by th<."" .lltho:" dl~l<' r;ti:rro:d Ill
There 1~ 'trt;,mly ::h C'\'iJ."Jll"r for rile l:>liMil:.,; ->f walls and ti.rt ilrcatiur,\: lour W<' no.s~ nk ~ 11
that th,-:;l' w~" m;a;uer br liJ, i'udir nf truh::n~ g.ornsm:\ ~wt.l)S.o~ ilU.talllllwn Y,'t)wd ll>l' lll:.m:
likely ill .l r..,.titi..:t t."'-'!IJ, ur ;;urtply ;!;". .l u.ar.:i .k:~u.,,:; '" :tU:fk,-r-s {~(' ~b.r l!llin r,.,., lh01."0:
for 'b.arb.uian' nht(tan.~c: t< .a.s~tll ':\.dkd cili~). Ml r.,.rt'" is rh: ""i,IL'TUT f.r -,{f,r;Jit,J.rr,;!
particip.atiwt lty (or:li,;n~ c.im:.ru Ill eiwtrdt'fr.,a,,. Of 1::)0.1-oi<'l wo~;!J rnt<lni'l/ th:tllhr-.. mu~r
havC' bt-c-h ru;my mor, c:!Co~mplo. M' th~, ... ,~t (\f ,;c~;\itr tla~u rh, ';a'll.'l; fhr '' htdt '""tdt,lre
happens l\'. "''rviv<'; tulllthinl.. It is W<>rtb ,rnph%~i~nr. ~nw ii'w >~mit~~''-~ tb.-r,.,n_ (M~ li~t '-'
as full as l <<llltu.Jk.- ic: I J~re ...a~ it <~ t~r bum C"'-'mrlrt.,) Tho L'Arll<"St r.cr.l~d :,i.!<'ll{<" h,u I
know is fir th, organising of;a ~l"()np "' Jnnr;J m:n .11 f..L" 1 (:;A in P!;o.o(;" (in n'IUal t irt<'\"'C)
by the OlrnoJk viJ.\IC Mol<$lhuitb. :&~;til~ the' c.-..:tub~n wbn l"oliJ.-d (irL't~ 111 l,, ... ; (l'u~.
X.34.5). AnnthJr epi'IOI.It' in the h.'sist~ucc: tn thi~ Cnstd'lo(";ln ta!d is rcn;~ltl hy lll>IISn ir-tidD
from Tl-H:SPrAE iu Boeotia, di,.n~~u ity A. tlo~~~t:crc. m :.:: :awdt r~tn! n V.itl tt !5 11~"'"""
The: inh.ahJio~uts uf .1 f..w nUc<; aro! ~:<hi tc.> h.n'\~ lh'ldt' srUI r~J~l.lll~l' ru Gothk ;;i::.-s dcriTlg
th.- in''"~''''~ t1t" tln' 25('li/2t)llo, (tho }'1\.'ti~ dtrur,olnt;y \s ,.,,ri' ,Joul>tli:l) ir, J:irtkul~l
THESSALONICA. ("'tbr~ in 254 :md (.,..ith c,\SSANllllEJt\.!110'fli>.'\F.A z,,sJ 43 I)

268 (Z'~- L..!Y.l: 4J.l; E~:s.:!> .l'G,Illl A lUI F I o~l pc-rl:o.J"2; .\,om 1\.t;:rc XXXL5.!ri:
Zonar. Xll . ..!.t X: Sym:dl .. J.7l5;: M.\~CII\ NOl"OUS. !"rh~r~ "' ~~.Jle11-~xtpp"~ I'G,Jnl
A 100 f 25~ hut ,-(m!r;&st jutd:at~"~~- c;,~ lt;/1 l~. 111'.14, wll<'t: th. l'!<'"'l' ~r,l:rtl>::;l \i> .!.:p:~r;)
and. wuh T0!'\.11. i" r .1i.i! CL:vs. 1.4? .!), ~l~hutth Marcianopolis nuy la~w },,,.,,,,wko~lly tht<
Goths .1u ::50-1 {j~,. '' \lr<;J,t u r:,ul XII. H:~): PHlliPPOl't ll.l:>, io }_'i(l-1 {l.lc:n;-rus J'
26; but th.- ricr 't'l~i tba <;aplttr,d~ [~~'<'Pl'tl~. f ~: A111!tt. M.trc XXX1.5 0; Z.o~. 1.2-4."!,
Jordan~. ( ;.., It'/ II.!Q .J~. ~m~ J.r<haoly ~ r. .!f," (J)t''"J'I'll" I' ?:1: iit th <bt.-. ~t- Alt'Oidi
CAH XH. 14h,_7. !I!)); SJDF., r<ril.aJ.;~'i(l:i.J<Jppu~.l=:Xi). O~n '"'''"tlurar.,~>luloi
p.:rhap~ b. a<i,lcd NiCOP0l.IS ;n,J ANCHJAI.\.'S m :.'~9 ;Jl.o\. (.'f,,u.! \2--': but ("ntnsr
Amm. M.m;. XXXI_;._ I!,;.Jm;l., (;,r lii/J(Iil-'1}.1nd perhaf"' at ~h, Mmc- tm~ CYliCLIS
(Amm. Mo~n. XX :XI,; 11;: Zo!-.1.43. t; Sptn}l.. p.717;('f fit C;:lln t.'.lil. ll~ ..-,.~wnl
of thest ,Ju~ :it~.. !"oil~~- ;l:.ty.:~~t h; i:~vi.lu>~i .:.:t d~5~in:~ f:, . m 1u:rui~t't ~t a 1~-ll!ris ..,.n s~ i'ar ~r~:n
clear. fr n.:.ut lih'f:atur. ,,.,the ,,h,;dr .otb_r::-i. "'' f_ Mll:.r, mJRS :;,1 {)'"(,91 1.!-:.."'. r~r
24-9, wh\ ;~J,lq '="t:pi ,,i~x;.mpk i:~,tn thd-.a:m W~>-t ~1\.TJ"TlJN. A Jl 2t>lf. ~~~1 \1\J.DA t:
in Africa, p.2'1;. 1l&<:t<' r.vw
to h: ;1 l:V>!t ~:&J'I it, th, n'J<i.-:'1.-. lite Jr:n,i].a! magistrate,_.:
ADRIA:"<()l1t f.i1, ,;:'i rr.::t~~l ;t lor.-, ,,f :I:,IIJw;..,.t :"d-rc.,pl~. wu!: rh: ~urO:.-t> 11: th
impcria~ ~~bt) ia,--:,,~ ~~;,,.,i,~u"'.it 'TJ .:tr\t,~r h ..' ~~x~!'t pt'(.'c,.iu:' on ~b~' \'i~\g.,.~lttot ,,, i~.a't.~,lh~o ,,.~.,
"'"'II!"
with di.-.astr<~lll' r ...mlt,; (t\mJTo M.ir.: XXXJ.i..J..J). hd><). according to Zosimt;i (V ;.;. \'i->.vii,
L"Sp. xv1 . .J). many ,,; th, tt"wro ....Jw:-li:n- N'l'AMl'J IYL!A and PHRYGIA (;,l ,.,:,,...;;"'~"
Notes on VIII. iii (pp.485)
654
;oiorin'lllf-1, xn 4). inspired by ~h .'11'1''''?1-t oi V.\lmunus .,f s,l.;\ (!c)~ wlmm !~ IV.w n.fJ
.Jbrnt;. ott<rt"d armed resisc:u.:: m Tn~igiJ.l til( Cio.1h ;.n..! )),.., :~r.mdmr. ""~); bm th.y w.r~
heiU)'t'ISI~In: (Iiiii' 3]2) to .o\1h~1Uf 4n..i hi~

Visigoths ir> -llt nmrr..ut th<' ~i~r:.rm:oln.~rby \'.A.SA l'ES (lhu K'-' .1bov.- JHl '' l!!) Tf,..
inhabitants of AS EMUS {lfdnt i"l!h.,,rit:htuo~rne) .arv,atJ l>y Pr1$~Us fr.:; tDit">1~rfc Mu,lkr}
ti.l havt tak.rn .:t:'C11VC ;,,titll,.~au~.s: t!t"'r f-luli .rr.,d.;.,r~ m ,_ 4-1.\. \km.'l'II>Pt! tht twl'l~ l)f
_o\11\'c:r~;nc- ~Sid.m . .\~11.. Ep VII." .l}. th, m<Tl "i CU~UMONT HIU!AND !wr!:JJ
.-\rrtrrl,.,um; durtr; the.> Princir.~orc-. 1\~:.~u~t)lll'r.m:). 1pp~r.::ttiy ~~s:sto.-d t-}' ;t ~mall Bur,;anJJ.or.
Jz.u UUIUlJL;.'\lA (llrk.aux) ~mr:..'fld..r.:d
g.;.ni~(lr.,
~lttmpts
hdd cl:t -<toutlv ;tjt"AIIt~l .IIUIU: rlu:uf.-ri11g x;x-.ii!lon~ df!d ~illll"l uh,t h.aJf-hL.arft~j
.u block.a,k b~ b.ar:ol! ,,f VhlltOtbJ> durm~t tlw ..-.~rl":' 47{1,, umtl tile: pl...:c "'~"
ilh.mJnl".! ro EurK ~nd rh~ \'J)it!'<,lth\ toy .t rteaty r.t.ld~ O}' NJ~<-~ i11 115: ~._-Sidon.. .\pull . Er
lll.a-1\; VII vu __::;,.:; ~,,-_, :~~a.l nJt~ th< :d,r~n n fl'. Ill :t.J :o m!<m;.al Jtss,.,u,u,;s (ciai1111~"'
.-,.,, ,;,.,~.) iiai~ .!lrtlMrt qtt.1m if.Jb~rtb: itl~lll$i,nt ~:Z.tt.~:.IHJ) ht thl"' ~~w the R1J1n.Jn ftt'~at.r;,~~I
J::.diL":u~ ?ru\ikd s;;m.- help and c-ncmt.Jg.J1ln (r.....- IV h n_t, :Jbtwc), b111 hi~ !';rr~ ~-,r~
evt.ltnd} ><:fl sm.a!.i. (~t"~ Sidon. Arc,JI. l::p HI ii. C"Sr. 3); 111J p.rhap> Srdnuu~ lumwif. l-"
well .I!> thC'
Cull~[ltn:ius (Fp. IIJ:i), phv~J l
pArt M.al:\- Jo'Uii:l!' lfiL'll f
.o\ N TJ()( :1-f. who ho~tl t..:,u ';j~~u~I(>!'Plnl r,, Jtr ..t;.llnst .:..1.d1 ;;.ri':cr i'l rhtl>rl'li..tr<m('.S . _1umo.:;l
l:tr.a\'c+r willa thl!..!.tm<1'n ill ,, \':J:n d~to':'K\' ,).- th: nt}' ''t:mM Ch~"'-"5 I. th<l.-rstAn lnrjl:, :n
~1 (l>rncor .lk!l. II~ I'm. Jl.;iti. !1. 17. ~JJ.ix .~: ""-"" Al.au C~m.~n. Ci= 1-'!!-. Hr1, i:!S.
ru""t
i-'.",""'"''
!.7.\), W!MI JF.RUS.'\lJ:M t\'Cll tn rh,l'<'l"'l:lll' in;! " W\1:.-r lrNII ~-l"-"<-!~ of'y-m111~ J'<.'UJ'Ir: i
th, .;Jt .... r;..misa:l~i .lit m>>-11<'1.'''-"'MH rc\"olh (Sd.,,.,,,, XXIV. p.~. m t!l~ J'!~"'"h !nn ~i
h..t,'rJ, 1\.t;a..:kr, 1'..!.11~. l'lfl~l- .-\~ C;AtUI"rmJta, sJt<l. t),,..lliJI'~Y oithe }'"tlu~ rmn ui .o\1niodl
may pe>rhar~ suggest rh.u m _J,.-r-uo;.-ol.:m roo thl.' people c-o~>c<-naro w~n n:-.ttS- puti!>Jtu
(CF \i)l)). All too oftm, it se..rrb. ,vcrything dtr!:nded on tht ~Am~un I..:11Sl"''"' rht m f.~,,.,. ~.f
" St""'"' .att.adc wh..n h;r.pJ'<"I'W.i at DAMASCUS 111 (JI> U>.l}' h.ave t-..-..n .it..r..ae"n~tu
.1\b..!.ndlll~..~i ~y :h.- Up~at:r-. !!.-.r:m>a, :h<" ovtlin r~;-ul~n<~l ot'Lb.m;,"'~,;s .:.~Jlll;;,r.:-d' (I'
._.. lllltl.lli>l- ,,;,1,, .irab> 11 ' 1:;1.1}. }\nd ttl bo:-h.nuur.i.1 ;.nri~'l' nn)!'ht "''rt'll.l '11 tht 'IU-iht).
\tl ~~~ .-,mun;~nJ.:r: tjr ~,..tnpJ,. '"'' h.ar frum Z>inau~ iLu-.U.ll th.fr .u l'ITYliS. '"'tit~
(.l~km ~h..r cfth(' Bl.l<'k s.-~. !it;: t;;lrrin tir~t .tr.w tlt!:tC' Goth~ (~tp:.r~'llth- Ill ..!S4) uuJ,r
its capable r;:,ll'l.nund,r Su(O:t..,.st.1tllt<. but ~hurt!y ..ft~rw.L..._wh\."n S1~o.;,~i~~u~ ~-:to' J'r
motld to the practon!ln prct"ctur;. h> V.1t.-n~n. the: garrison -IT,r.~l II<',.. ~,,, ...,,.,. h> A l(1l<''W<'\I
(riJthk Jtt.lck. ,;.n,lrh, tuwn f.-ll .tt n.-.: (Cf the" behaviour \1 Gcr.>niiU~ 11 TOMI, L _\lift, m
Zc" IV. 411 ) l )JIIy '"'osiun-lll~- \\"i.>ul,l tlrl"r, h.aY: !l<':'lt & ~uh-~t.atlti-Aitmmb~rf v..rc:un ""I.Ii(r;
~.ttllll<':trl>v. wlu lJlt)!lt lmn~ tu th ddc'll\' .,f .a thr,-ar"n'~lt.\<'n ..1!> .at .l\UTUN in.'\5tr
!Aml\1 M~r~. ~VI. 2 I) N lt"th! !h.-rC" ~"" th_r 1'1f,JR1i'ks I sbo.}ult! h.w.:- quote<!, b.l thl
~Urt\'~. 111 tht th.-r ::-.a~<'"- I h<~vc IOIJJIJ ...r.: tK 1'4-'"' h\ b.: wutd: 1\>ill!,!- .\ ~,,.,.) """'111'1.- 1>
!';JSIUIS. Whtrt t!J\'IIIb~I>U..!.IIt"' show-d ur b ~r..-..1.1 ,liU~s whl'll lt4r>d,.,{ <'WI h J>,r.w by th
,,~.. rv nu.l<' by dtt' Emperor Jovian ttl-~.; (M't, .am~i! rb<"t ;.ur.-.._., 1\mm. M.arc X XV \'Ill~. ~r \'Ut.IJ .aud i.x.2-8; Zos. IILU.-4) rh~tat ~ ''"' ,l,iti.11lt t b.-!lcve ch.- h.hl r.tl('ll t"lrt
wllh tht' Jl:.rn>'On u .ldi.,l.lmr ~~~ . cuy ,lurluit ~ \,-,.,, "'""' i ,.,,. m;my ~1<'1:'"' rh,y b.ad
,.,,,(nr,.J :sin: b-xona~;; .1 R"'llllll ,,,,.,,.~;~ uudc-1 S,r-r:mu~ ~..-nu> {; 1"5) -111 partiaal.ar thr.-,
"'"un"'!nl s1:1~-r.s by Sk.1rm 11. 11 .H7 o.- 3.)!1, J~(,, ,,,~>~ XSU. T(<> many nflh... ~urvivilll,!
n.arr.att\,-,., <"v<-:1 wh<'ll tbt~ HJh.Ju,-,; "'Ill\" "-'""' m:tt<'M;41. 1111:\; It wrrh credulous rul:tbtsh- ,,,.
~.~- Th.:..Jr.t. HE ILJ.:)_ .-\rut hum" i\w ~naps Jd,,fuli.laa. (),.,, ll.r>-S<: :I b.I\.'C' mt lx'\:n
.tbk t ,,n~uh f..phrmtl \yr.a~). I kw .,fth uscful ,.\.,,,..,.,.'" i~r rh, gmrliJ':litUOrAllon of
duz,cL" itr tht,l,t~"'l<'<'; .1n,l s.-.J- Srurm."' liE X\'II.l: l 11.~h) 7-'1 tt' ,~r "f,..J..f,_ A!t.l.tll. w.- m.1y
,.~~tty I-t uu~J.-.Ily th ,!,.sire ,,j .a wril,r tu t!lnf~ ht" 11:1Uw ;J.,,.. b~- ~~1\'111!! 11> population :
greater ~I .1.-ti."::Jirl)l; t!1.:u nl'!' ti:o~u th(y had JtiLoy,..l m rt:&:ity. l ..nsl"''1 rh~t this is trU<',
for mst.uu'<'. i two l'"~'"~'"' 1r. :hr .2lll<'f11 ("vn,t.aNmurul:t.tn, !h ...-.-l,i.l,tl";;l !u~tclU.ll'
~~r.lf<"i(IIEIV .xsx\'Ul ~5; V i-1-:;: :f Sl .JI.t~VL!<,.:\lx.3. VII-i 1!). ~1\'ltttt tht>p<'ople,:'
Ct )NST .o\NTINOI'l.E ;;,n imporrant ruk Ill r.:.;l~tillj! ch. v.~i;;,ths It the )UOIJUCF of378 th.u
b.J:usin~ i.: Amm M.tr(. XXXI.x1.l. lo.\. ~-7 .111,1 ,,,;.,. '"'"Ill...- ~'t:&i:g~r .r.-.t
L\Ji,' tt:;~~Jc.,lt tl.&l "''"! u,s eu h-t\"!.. l?!:':.'1, uui.rr'-tll~ ~n.-'l"l~'l.! tt: lu:;d,,r:t tn-=t~i.., -d !,-.~~t 'Uti\.
Gibl'->11 (1>1-'lll: I!-"o{'l. I W(>\dJ WIQt'i\l;;t~r~l\' r.:-;::r -l' -t rr<t.d>k fl:-tlin: th.e 'upposed
\"'rJ.tl b\ th<' ddorh ,\:b,,li.ar! ~~~~l<fi<~U tl,,ipr~l Ul }io?. 11 'f~;<lll<illl:! _, .;u.:cessfu] att:1ck
njl\n thal(,t l~~~ (iJft,.,, t'E'l~rr::J h,. tn th~ ~>:al!~~:' .i~ (;l'th~ '" S;.,.-:hl.Zallir. ") :.t~~-: 'h:."~~ bad !11-llll-r.,,d
ATHf.NS. (rlh iull...-..t r.;":t :..-.-..,,:~'. t:.kn,;:u t~r ;cr--tnt.'\l th.Jl ri!, ~tl"l' .,,ru;.;Jly "' mr:-;.\
111 :..llJ
Notes on Vlll.iii (p.486)
655
and 'an~ :dtnbl.:tr.d tu f>..lClpi>\i~. '-~ cil::.t ff. M;ilar, m_IR$ 59 il%')j 12-".?'). ~~p.lt~: d'.
PIR 2 1V .7.:?-.l. H !l4, .::c.; Tb., rr.aums tir my scq,tidsm .li'C -~~ fi>Uowf. (1 :: n~ s~ch. fl(;rJI
II A IOC r: .?&l i-6 (tmn~bc.~ t-y Mill;~. 2"1--fi), ir. romm{'>Jlly .as..>u:c~J r.; b" d:t in~r,r:iw ,
record of i speech oihc~ nwu; .md m 7 De~tcrpu~ nys rho! the ;r-"aktr wu rbt'lt .tr..:~rtc-.! by
the A:ho'"ln.m~ :~'ltbtir l.-.kr. I r~:w.w.'n, .aldcoug! in r: 21!J De'<ll'i'll~ is n~mcd :!i rile $~;ak~~
('to t:ht- Ht-llntc:$ '). ! >:<'no .vidnu::- wh.&ttvcr rn rh... ttgm ...~u (or !!1~ rr.srr~~t~tllid) ofDtxipr~s
or anywhtTI.' dso: w ~ugg~l ..hat th" \p..&kn in F Zll:1 i\ rh bit,rtan ium.;,lt": eh!s h:< ~im;>ly
been ol\;>Umt.J. {2) Tbc: only S<>urn: rq.n~-ntin~ D~X~ppu.\ :u ;h~ ko:l.-! ut.\>t.\rb.,JIIan ior'"~
which ~{"l'ually r,:.vc:~me the I kruh 1s il ''cty lllnch:.biC' r:e: HA, t~lj;,., IJ.S. 'f'ht, <mlr otho=r
refennC\-s h 4 ~:r,.:tssti.l !\thc:n~.lfl .atto~('k or. thC' H,'tuls .an ~y (:1) rir. early-ninth-century
writer< ~lrjtl.' Syn.:dht\, Chronograph., ,J W. I >1'"'''~f. I (Hou-...'1. IS2'i) 7l1.1;..~j. 111 ~~olndt
then: is u w~r.i <'lTk,.iprus. :md (b) tht twdtrb ......'rlnny him..Ur, 7.cnJr:~s. fipit.l:i1t. Xl!.2t,
ed. Dmdort: Ill (11\7~1) 150.23-!;L'i. wh<l h:.c~ _. to!.illy ,!uJ..,cnl st<>rr. again ~t:-"'<n:Jg
Dt-xippus .md .attributuog th n.ut ,,f lh Hmds tu 'Ckodemas ~r: Ad>t.,:tdll. who su.~!ully
attacked the H~:ruls from the sea wtth ~hi~; ct. the C:lrutbtnn~ .md .'\th'"""'l>~. IJ~,antind,
appoirit.-d b'!> G.allicntl$ to tc-!IIC'tC' md fortify rb. <'iti.:~ in th ltalkan .an~. wno <>\'Wi'a:t~ tin
'Scytbi.au~ iu a bolttk 'car-a l'on:um' (HA, G11llin 13.6), apparently lt a!>.lua til s.t~ lmr..- .JS
the naval \'lctol') or 'lft'll~n.ar.u~ (ibM!. D. 7).1111 tht alleged e-xploit oi'Dcxippus (13.8) (3j In
the in~criprion W'l' up ~o Dr-xippu~ r'y hi\ s.ms. I(; lJ'.J(!-11 = FGH 100 T 4 {which,~~ Mill;1r
says, up rir. 21, 'w (".ln b..- Cl.'ltain .. s iU~'<juwa to thl" H ..ulli:~t mv.a~ion ). th.r.ts r.<rth.:o
least hint ut"Dexippus' suppn5<"tf cxploir. \The oprning "'"'''<f. Oo.l-i. appropriately I i"""~'". 1
simply p-.an 11fa description o( rh. t.1m11s men oft he lanJofCccrcps.) (4) l'h, f.,<l rt..llnl'<h:r
Greek wnter mnu\10~ th ~rilli~ur l'xrlun ol'l.lc.xtppa,o ~ extraordinary wk~!o (.b [ i>o.h<'\'.:) t
is a mtldcm myth. dtrivin~ fmtn rh,lftStPritl .'\~~rMn tf,... ,.,~.oaJm 11-tU.,IIuu.
does not rnntitn D(~irpus (hr o11ay Athmi.u-, .xnmttt-OII(.ll\.k); .awl Euu.a1>iu~ {riJ,. :.aiu>~r.urc.:
ofZO!Iimul'' .arli~r t>;,.,J.~,, who1 thought h!ll:h!r .-mu~h ,,f lkJOrrus h begin his ovo.,..Jnsr,-.."1'
at thC' roint wb,re Ilt>~irpli~ kft off(anJ ~f F.untp. !r. I, DJaadnrfnr Mueller), s;"'-h ,,f
Dt"xippus purely.&~ .1 m.an of <Uihn ;anti uut..,m.al ability (Vir;~, S.'f'IIJ..'f IV iii l !~5'1 Piduri.
p.10. 14-16 ed.). (;i;anJ.(randt. Uon~. 1 1~). Nor .foes rhc !~....,,,,~;. h:.\"t' :~chm;t to >.ly .l>o;.ur
Dexippus ,;ocnpr a!>.& /rilrOJP (H ;,H 11.11 ]' 1). Nt)thiug il' 111 b..I{.WI<'d hy hllS.IdtiUj! th.: ,.nur<'\.'
ofF 28: Con5t.annne Porphyru,:~mtu~. F.:~.1J''" llist , ..t. U. I' &Jsscv.>>ll 1:'- IV E~ptll Jt
fmlmt. (l'M:16) 2\4-( (l>l'!!ippn!o.:!4}. ~5) The spc..-.:h iu F ~a n{l.'r~ h Ath..'U>''i' 'no tf,.h,m.lsoi
the mem y' (S 3), .and ~.l.b. .&IUV5tl'rtuu~ rtfc:n.,lo: to 'th,,,... who h:ow t>.-..n t<nn-.1 -'~aut~r rh,ir
will to fight alugsid, tho: ,"11,'1!1)' .i thl.' TrTaiup.a vf ~!u (lty tr1 ~ 5. If rhi! 1~ indC'ed J.t,"J. tht-ta
the Heruls h.a,e .alrcJdy c-.apturt:d Ath,u.... 11t.o~t wnul.l url'l, m~l" L~ ~IPJ'I~' l<Jlnt do; .-vm
morC' rcmarlAbll out"; .-nk~ uli,.hr o;cmtlmC"S drn "thb.-ut>.~t-gt~. hut I knw tofb.1r.lly :"'
occasion \Ill wh1d1 they .Itt' reliably said to lu\T pursued thor :cttarJ..,n; 1.ft1r thtJr w1iuifw ..l
I woul.t nn.-d muth \tt<mgcr evidence: dun w, have. bcfi>r<' ,,.,.,l'IUII! un th: ,.rr.,,:~th .,( rb,
Historiol .l...l!lfSIII -linc....J.uilljt ""'' :ioLI.:(<.'S~tillpnrr <>f u!ilil.tl y "-<'tl\i;y .l~t:tin~ tit'lo<' rrofL'SSiono~l tightrs. !c<l hy :A ~:.tu oi krhl"'> wh :rnt<t b""'' h'"" in j,., i-"'''" .:au.t h:d :~ln..:.,;t
certainlv h.atl1n un"w.~ ''"fC'Ii'T tw:~.rrJ.n.
In IV:n- oo~bo\'~ .lu,i II"''" lluv J!IVt'"ll examples i resistance 10 'barbarians' etc. tn rhc
countrysJ:lc n1c :aruruJ, frh p.a<Jltry. I think. mu'r oft<.n have depended on thar oftht'
.:ity ofwhose to'nll'l')' they tirm,-d part. I tin,f rt easy to brlieve the Arab historian Abu Yusuf.
when hi" s..ays <f the \ilb,~t"" .u~ol runl .. r~.l!' ,,f Edcssa Jnd Hanan (in 637-8) that after the
~urrender tlf' th~ :tilt-s, nu ro-.;i~t:llll'\' wJ,. attmrtnl. 'In every district. once the seat of
govemiiJl"nt hJJ l>~'ll ounqu.r.:d. th ,.owury r:<>J'I~ s.&lf. "We- are the same as the people of
ourtown1mJ llr chi,-f,"' (Kitab af.Kh<Jraj 39-41, tr:moht.-J by Hemard Lt'Wis, in his lslarnjrolll
thl' Pr-IIJht'r .\lnham,..JJ r,rhr Crrruo 1 C.'>~~Jr.mti'l''" J l W74] 230-1).
43. The valuable f'"lt11 "'r'''im .,,- Eugtppius lr-1.~ appc:ared (,;~ue MPL lXU.tl67-1200) in St'wral
modem srhol.arlr cJit.io.lll~. by H. Santrc (MGH, 1877). P. Knocll (CSEL, ~~~). Th.
Momntstu \.~.-r Rmo'l .::;,.,.,..,, , lti'~~. ~~~I r.w;c '~'""'"' R. Noll. Eutippius, D11s Lebm de1
ht'iligflt .'i<l't'ftn (B,~lm. l.rt..;i. with (;,m:;;u tr.at"lolth>n :.nd commlntary. Ther.: an- English
translat>un" h)' 1 u.iwi!l Ut..:l,: ~IL<Ilu:lnull.a kr.sttu (W;,..;,ilington, D.C.. 1965). and by G. W.
Robins.m (H;an.uJ T r..,:~I .a:'' Jbl, C:.m':>rdj.:.-. M.~~ . : <J I~). Geza Alfoldy. Noricu111 (1'J74) 347
n ..36. re~~" t> \'nio:u~ rc;I''Jlt ~u;.t.:'l rT:IJ!.:rr,::~ ~ s.,_ xoverinus, and giv~ much information ah<ut Nt"ln,um 111 th, t~fth .m;l.;i..;th '-'u~tm.,. i:\l;,!. ! 13-27).
656
Notes on
VIII.iii~iv
{pp.486-491)
44. Thompson must be referring to Hydat. 91, noticed in IV.iv n.6 (c) above.
45. My quotation is from Thompson's \977 article [scen.IOabovc) 313-14.
46. Jones, LRE 11.1059. For Arvandus, sex Sidon. Apoll., Ep.l.vii (t-sp. 5, 10-12); Stevens, SAA
103-7. For Seronarus, seC' Sidon. ApoU .. Ep. U.i (t-sp. 3); VII. vii.2; Stevens. SAA 112-13. (For
Sidonius' cxtrC'mc: detesution of Serenatus. see also his Ep. V. xiii.)
47. Amm. Marc XVIII.x.1~3: XIX.ix.3-8; XX.vi.l.
48. This would surely have been illegal after 422. at any ratt' in the W<"st, bccauscofCTh ll.xiii.l ;
CJ Il.xiii.2.
49. Priscus fr. 8 Dindorf (HGM 1.305-9) and Mueller (FHG IV.RM3). There is an English
translation by C. D. Gordon. The A.~t'ofAttila (Ann Arbor. 1%0) 8~9. Sc.l C"sp. Thompson.
HAH 184--7, with ch.v.
50. F/RA"III.Sl0-13. no.l65; andM.dalas XV. p.3R4, ed. Dindorf(CHSB, 183\).
51. Cf. Jones, LRE 1.472-7. 4R+-94, 494-9, 502-4, 5\R--20.
52. FIRAt 1.331-2, no.64. There: is an English translation in ARS 242-3, no.307.
53. At any rate, it would have been the equivalent of9 solidi in thl same departmmr (ab a(tis) in the
praetorian prefecture: of Africa: see CJ l.xxvii.1.26.
[VIII.iv]
l. Tht" full story ofthf plague can never be m:onstructed. A. Alfoldi, m CAHXJI.22!l n.1. givt's
tho:- t'Ssential source: refen.:nccs. Add Zos. 1.46.
2. ThC' VC'ry marked improvement brought ~bout by the victorit-s ofDio('ktian and his colleagues
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
is celebrated in a most remarkablt' documrnt, which no one ~hould miss: rhe Prcfan to the
'Edict on Maximum Pricc:s' issued in 301. For thC' rccmt editions of the Edict as a whole, sec:
l.iii n.J above". The Prefa'C' i~ mort' easily availabk mILS 642, and thlrc is also a text with an
English translation by E. R. Graser m Frank. ESAR V.Jl0-17. Tin P.Jn('xyric of the yc:ars
2~-321 (Pane~.l..At. 11-X. ed. E. Galle!ier. wtth fm1ch rrans.) arC'ottcn ludicrously optimistic.
Amm. Marc XXVI.vi.9, 17-18; vii. t, 7, 14; viii.l4; cf. x.3; Zos. IV.v5; vii.l-2. The latest
treatment of the revolt ofProcopius that I haw seen is by N.J. E. Austtn. in rhc .lrtidc: cited in
VI. vi n.58abovt".
Ht" is Petronius 3 in Jli.RF. J.f>'J(J...l.
Seco B. H. Warmington, '1ht :ueer ofR..,m~nu~. Ctllt'-'i Airk:u'. in Byz. 49 {1956) 55-64.
Stein, HBE F.i.l40. l-k ~~~ .. thl's..~ur.'t'l'l>l ii.4illhd\
A useful rccmt worlc. ~ G. ~. CI.nlv:. 'B . rh~ti.<H 'ii.turi'-:..ncc'lO "' ""' th Africa mthc mid-third
CC'ntury , 111 Antirht!;ur. 4 [l<,'i!)~ 71!-85.
See JonC'S, LRE 1.59-I~J. 'l?-lu); ll.t;7'l.3.l. I~.;,,..,,. oi only.,.,,. \.;,r)~ ;umy ever marshalled by
Rome for a fon:ign ,..,.pe.btlom: th.n 'o\hub A11:t)' ,,,.,J. thr..,.t;h Armenia <~gainst the
Panhians in 36 B.C.. ior wh1du<: Pl11t :h1:. 3'i.<l: W. W. T.m1. i~: CAH X. 73 ff.
For this I shall merely rd.r tu A
Hlrlty. TCCHf.]t.1..S. w!t,rtehdigurcof'sonu400,fXXIor
more in a popularitn of :ch<mt tiiry uliiorr ~ p:..r:tly l>:~~~~l "" tit- utidt." by Eric Birley.
'Scprimius SC'verus :md In lttnwt o~.nuy', iu 1-:r:~ Slu.li;t~ ~ (1-..69) 63-82. Furrhtr bibliography is giVm by A. k. flJricY
What I havC' said m thr uniro 1..-:<1 :~IKW' :.l"'ut ""m..n A!Ja>y u.otiho:~ ts based primarily on
Jones. LRE 11.679~. t<:f. !IJ3..'\-~). with thnMt!"..< m IILi,)'l.. ! 1, ~Jhh<~c 111.379-SO(Tablt' XV).
Of the total cost ofR..,ut.muulu.uy t:r..p.;miuur.nn.!~tt tht Em!'irt tb.rc ts no way of maktng
t'VCTI an informed guc:ss. M H. Cro~wi(>hl. Rllrn.JJ .Rcpul!wm c;,.;,,.,,.,. ( 1~74) ll.6%-7. estimates
the annual cost ofa singk l<y,tntut hiA.J.{~J dt'llo~.r<J<lt.~;:sao l.H II C., l.SOJ.OflO drn. from 123
onwards (contrasr fr~nlc.., I:'S.'l R I .m: : millim;. ,., .., .lo,larl;,;(;( d.-: . J.fter Ca~-sa.r's doubling
of legionary pay; ):our th~.,.. tiJ,'llr..::> "'" onl~ b. r~.mi<-.1 l ' mt.-:!b~eror gUL'$St'S. For the
Principate and Later F.PlJ>ll' .-->ttlli;<~N l'<rum tm;?("'<iNy tb!l;nlb, e-ven apart from thc fact
that auxilia and Olht'T JlUII-IlgJl>ll~T}' ti~r,o IJOW rf:l)'<'d .m I:''I'J !JI~<'f J.trt.
JonC'S, LRE III.34l n 44, h:~.. i !J o. J-"" ll(~ pn,'l<itl.:o~ l>ut )li,. !~
pp.382-9 has 119, and I
belicv~ tharto beth( true figure,tt' W<' til''"' t;, 11n\' _,,. No'< ~rr(t~ i11 the Notitia- fonxamplt-.
thC' dderion by a drrk of rhe Par.<~>t:ioln rf>\'tn<~ ;>IV~l.rl:. mt.:04:! of thr Italian Vakria (see
Jonl-"S, LREIII.351). Ci. ;hdt~rofprovitto:~' in.!- W. f.-.i.di<' J;,,,. 8r:l'll:rium'!{Festus (London,
1967) 15+-71: 126naJu~~n: .:1\':'11, bur w~ I'..,.:rl.--;l,t,;t 7 (lto;;; s. ?J..u.c.2. 7!l, 119. 123).1havc
nor hem able to study rr,,p.rly the wry ~dtol:dl :<'<'lit W<\~k h}' ll:cttich Hoffmann, Da.<
''"
Notes on Vlll.iv (pp.492-496)
657
spiirriimiuhr: fkrt'<'1:f'71)1'1h'rr u . .dlt i\!111 ~~r. = E,t(ttr Stud. 7 (2 vols. Dussddorf, 191\9-70): this
has th~ must uKiuJ map I lu'..-lT' oflb.-l<om:m provinns at the tim< ofth Not. Di.~n.
(loos!l", in Vol. ll), Jnd M.~ rhe tlut"l'nu.ps fof olj~) fall.:.wmg 11.321>-7
12. Jones, UtE !!.1037; ;md ..:r lll.\-t :-2 n.~. ronrludinJot with a tablr:. Jones omits ,\ll 'dom<'stic
palace &ttff(lubitu/4rri
t.tlt,.rmiam)13. Sccjom~!i- U?EJ :wr-...<J: REJ!.l9-l L
14. Se-l' CJ !. '"..;1 1.22-.W., Wt[b Joncs. LRF.Il 9-.~ll. Al. }t,rn.., ~ays. thrc<'-quartcrs oft he ~raffr<nivcd
.ano
not more thln 9 ~ohdi O! t=. equiv~m in kind (I ofll~toma S sohdi. 1 wpitus = 4 sohdi). And the16lowl'5t llfth .. -14klLIks in tht fo\n' fitYnci.ali!li:l n:cl'in-d only 7 solidi each (C..] l.xxvii. I).
15. Sec Jottc~. LR il.3il (r.rj~lrmiorm, with ~r.<dtd &upo:rnutnl'raril'S), 51'!5 (largitira/.s). 5')7-H
(magis:ri.:m), illll.
16. For thl ro/lari,t.~itboll(o . ~tm ('lr_itlfiA.
~ Jotk'~. LRE! till. 219, -131 (with !ll.ltl6-M n.51). -16S.

intwdua-d by fh.;.:.J.Jsi1.1S I in 393 was only 7 sulidi (CTit
Vl.ii. 1:-i). I i;,wc :io diffi,u!t,: i:1 an:c:puugj.mr'ilo tigwr~ of (m dT<ct) c. 4(), 20 and Ill ~oliJJ for
the or:;tud 12to:;> [!_R I -;3l;Jon.-s's :.:tids: on lfw_folfi.o is now rl'pr in his Rf: 330-H: but ~c R.
P. Dli::C:l!rJtlc-3. i.JN'O>[t71f.}li~iSo Wt'f<' Flavius VAirrJu., Se\:~nt.-1 {Augustus Jlll>-7) :111\i Maximin Daia (Augmtus r. 3ll9-13).
both t;<ml lll~rimn . .2 wdi -~~ t; ..-mms. ~ IJa,i:m ofpl':o~anrorigin.
In Anuu. Mo~r;. XXX ....;i.2 h-i:; 'ignobili Mirp. m l~ir J, Ca,s -15.2 'mcdiocri sttrp,..
Marcia;-; ("'5!-7)\'.':!:! ;.prlrntl .'lfhumble)rl~jc,; t\'l" Fvag,r .. HE:' 11.1. leo I (457-74). aDanan
soldu:r, J):;,y wdl iut h<'l.ll ot'l"="~~nt ~r..-.:~-. Z<'ll~ !~7-t-91) was originally an [saurian nAmed
Taraco.;ii:~oS:;: bllt h< 'Um ~.-. i~.w.- ht~ll;:, 1.,,--:~; <'i1il'f.
For <~.~restis. 5<"'' V\c;t<>t', Coif> .;1) 17. oiLY;; f<' ,..,,,,~,!~;,, 39.17 (ofMaximian). For ,uba.O!mtis.
s~'l' Amm M~r. XIV .:i : L .XV ,. if!; XVIII.I1!.6. XXI ~.!l; XXX.iv.:!: XXX1xiv5. th~ last
pass3(tt' reiariu11 r.:. Vak!~' who i~ ~r"~ ml,~rim Ill XXIX .i.ll
Forth, \'i'\\' tb:. ;iw f:l<ltlly .,(Ill~ tlm:.-G .. rdi;ms (;!J,"'..-l.J) onginat,d in Asia Minor. set' Hirky.
TC:Cltf.lj7 .:thlll I Thi< lllIY wdl 1~<: ri~h:. t.t1r t:ur: h nothmg SJl'cifically 'C.rc,k in what
Wl' kn<W ,,ftl>l Grdirnu. I. H .JUoi Hl: thry wrt riJ... r<:!u~hly W<'stcmis.-d.
Michad 1he ~yu.~:. Cl"''" X ... i (:;rir ), "tl CI.:.ol!<t 113\h: :md Uar H ..bracus. Chrcmo~r. I.ix. d.
Charks P"! (Fm ,i._..-.litim:s ''''~WIIh'i!, ~.-,.VIII i:il:rt.34-5 above.)
Acta C011,. Ot't. tn. ,,1. t:. s,J,w~m (Jkrlin, 1'.41i :'H'-1 (.'\.D. 5.16).
Sw~.g.Jm'lo, ua: II 'i.:;l-2, with lll.\t!in.154.
Thl' b<.-:.t rro'olllll<"t>t ,,f rb, wh.-k 'nh_k~: "fC:hurdt ti::;ncc is l>y Jones., LRJ: ll.i!94-'J!H. wtth
111..101-t lr.n:'\1-'15; .cli.I'Chmrh ticWICC iu lite tittlL:Jd ixth nnturit-s'. in)TS u.s. II (l%0}
SilH:t' chc-
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
nnt l'W<"SI :ate
''f l;i'<
1!4-94 = HI: :U"-''J.

26. Very fuli .i\-r.tils .m: ;.:i\'<'1 till~~ Ulto..,.l''lttli;u;,_. E.-.-ff;i,.,. Roma"ar, The most useful ,-dition of
this wcuk. ;,. h l. )Jcl.:h<.':!'llC. l.r u:,,.. l'"llt,ri;.-:/1.;, ~,,-.:ud l'dltiou (Pans) I and II (19:05). lli
(1957); rh li~t edttio!l. m l\1/t> \'ill;, w:.; p~blishtd irt :HI-Ilr-92. Thert is also a h'xt by Th.
Monuu,..r~. i:i M!";ll, c;,st. I'"''if N'"1At>. I ( 1!!911). Ac>.i ~~ u. 21! b..low.
26a. I must ad,l J fd:-rt~!C::- to :< w;,rl I s~w only ~thr ~!u;; ,!laptcr was tinishl.'d. Alan Cameron.
'Paganim: .oltd lir.ut<ll'o~ n. late lo>Uffh'l,IUJ1' l(um.', in Emr.-tirn.< '"' l'allt cla.s. 23
(Fondati"" Htlr. Vau.twn"l-C-n-\'~. i\1'17) ' ti.. at Ur-17. making the puint that
Practl'Xt;atu;; W>t~ cl~ rtal 'b,.nywntth:. :.&nrg l:ttf tt.. n,;~n pa~ans .... leader ofth< pagan
intdlig.:-nt$i;t ofO;.tt iulll!-.-cnto;r\' lttc _ . 1: i~ r"~l' t< S::<' whythl'dcath ofPractextatus was
such a hl.:;w h> the plt::Ju ~.utr. Nt '"''~ w;L' h.- .1 man o>f l-norm,ms authority and
determrttal!< >n: h Wl~ ch,ir nh<' 1n!:k.:tn..: J k w"'"a philusopher.'
27. Jlrome. c: __J.I;.m; H~ml l<~ ~r Amm M11n XXVII.iii.l4-15.
28. The- main ~.,;ncr.. Olllt' tb Ultf> !'l.,trifirali' (><'0 lt2t' ;,\-tow) xxxiv (Stlwstcr. ,,1+-35). xxxv
(Marcu~.
Vol. I,
J.ll\j . .:otx
,,f.
Dudte.r.-~
(1.\:m,.l~us. ~-.;,.sol;. ~Iii (bmnt. -llH-17). xlvi (Xy~tus,
-132-ol(l). all in
ami til. i,tttr> r>t'<~r<';Jl:y du Cr,-a[. as dtcd in IV .iii n.47 a bow (wirh
bd:liog{apl:;.o).
29. The bish'r w1~ Mti>Nnus <>:' 1\okkl": ~-;nu.~ Am . !~ ! .o (with 23). td. E. W. Brooks. The
Sell'cl L.-rtrfS .,; S.-o1.-.:0;i A.tl,,,Jt. H i (1.~1\;.klll. !ilL~) ~'i s~~ Jones, LRI:' ll.Y05-6.
S. Tllt';t,i. S:~. '!'t.: ~,...~ thr cx\0.-cUt:"nt t:u~ IF;&;!~. by Elizabeth D.&wcs and N.H. Uayu(',;.
Thrl'dly.:.mtmr.sm,:: 0''111'} loll (Ci i'J i~ ,, ~1.)
31. Stc tht l.if, t>, ..,,i;: ~lirk fl,w;mJ. r~l. r~ MC:H, ii;r Rrr Lm,l!<>hard 2h5-391. at 319, cd. 0.
Holdl'r-f.~~r f_lii7~. i"r tho: C,.~:;::.::~.r; Fdia !!'I'' Fdix IV. A. D. 526-.3U). also in l\,fPL
LXV.12!i. at 1!\., r,::tlin;,t th.:a ;~ ;J~'~rt.-r ai "'''l"l:rirnonium ofthl Chur,-h ofRawnna
30.
Vii<~
I\1otes on Vlll.iv (pp.496-503)
658
w01s J.lli~l solid! (In lr:t:f. ;L qu;ancr of:I;,- rc,..-~~1:"$ oi:. ctwrch :m:m>tlly went to its btshop; cf.,
l~r 1~;1\':"lll:<.r. Jon<"11, RE J..,_7: ;_R H 'i4.'l. '"1!1.~
32. Tl:~ !i,.~ of s;;l.t~ :t"$ i,; ~-;:;mcpi~m:y :!'pr<~<.!u.:..d in Jom~. LRE liUr.l-'.itl n.65.
33. c:-~rtn.ic 1\hk. 'Tbc dot!" ofJustiman; E.1i.r XIII'.~ Brz ;(, pl-<2-5) US-tl. argues for A.D.
:;:~- bu: I '''tnili :~cn:p: the tradtti;_m:l J;.t.. 'i'riP.I_ ~..: Rogr lUmondon, 'l'Edit XIII de
Jus::Otwn l-r-ilo!t(- pronmlguc ,, 53'J?'. mGt!. tHk 311 (l'l-35) 112-21
34 . .\IGH, Srr P.n. U-:'f<liiH.~. I; :iH. d. li K;<t~:h <o:td w l.:~~'l:tt1 (!.\:51). rhcrc lS Jn c:xcdknt
Et;t; tFAJ!S. ;\: :1:!~ w ... ~; (with .;om;t:.rllo'll!'i hy 0 M n~;: ..tJ,
Hi<r. o{ rhr h.mks by
Gtt'Koty 4Tur~ (2 ,ol~. 1'n7); ~o: thilll~~;"l:,'. ;._"{' II.475. J\c::oro.-ii\1' t<l Grc-llnry (Joe. cit.), the
next hshop.litu;lm. di.std~UI<"<I ~!1~- .:1l,IN~I+ miJCJ ~mot:ll' tl~ t:.:ter
n..-
s.
liiIIIIS. -l-.5. ~d. H. n .. !.-h;;vf. in .~Po~-~ pn7) :,_;... ~~ oS-6. St't' DaWL'S and
nt. (i1111,J!J ;iUcWt') 25t
36. ~ kU-,., .~ 1.: .l~)-1; /_Iii;' il ~'l'j..9(J1
37. S.,:Jnot~. LRE 11.~}8 ...,, with IJI.Ji'-' u.(l4', 1.:1~ li "':17, with Ill.:~ IIi n.20 fin.). The most
lll{<'rt'iorlll!;: pass.-gr IS n"'"'''rr.llE l xi.]-:;, wi:h JV.iv 1-1.
38. I ht<l!o.Hist Tur.-,'ht z,:mm:l XXXVII.IO, J' ..~2'-l 11-1.~. :d V Gr<:-.:-<1 (Hucart"st, 1'68)-"' CHSB,
35. Vie.r
!tl!IP,f;
lt~;'l!"i-
ir.
<'1.1. I }-I,H.~r (Hn;:. Itt'>-') r-~f~- U-!fl. ~:Krn.-.r ;,~,,. ;"f.""' upEfT!i '"!I 11'6.\u cba~<I0.\10"
.8:~<&.\ei~ '[',,.,i'"''"'}; o<<tAitr:J,..>- .\<tu&.ojJ,
Fua ..;. I.wt 1,-,..,~, -l!. ~'-"'' D:\W<'i I'''~ '!J.;v~l.:!. <l~ .-i! (in n .. a~)W) 24ft, 249.
39.
ru
40. f. t' Naphrali I .._.,v,s. 'Mpu-p;o~ w<>K~)(WP"'K;;._6,.., ,;_:E:i ~J (1},17) ,,_;.75, at M-5 and n.6; Bdl.
FAGAC77-.'; M ....--Mullen, RSR 36-7.
41. l'bdo \ Wl>rds ,,:, :>1('1 rt~ ... :..,.,..>;.- -loi>~..~~ n~c tznp' 1,.,;, (~ 151.') The last two words should
IUl'.lU '111 ""' ar.a. M:.''"'1nii,"P ("t r!1<: ;-n:cc,1n,~ "t:) ~.!.,,..-; thi~ tc> be Judata. Certamly th
!r:\t ~wnl'> t:> ,:~.dud 1\i,:"<.,n<'lr..t (lt":' lt.~) Hn I t?tmio. W<"lllU<! t:tk,.. tt that Philo is speaking
clfS(liJW.lC'<t il' r. w.r Eg~'}'l
42 ........ Jonc~. J.Ea; 11.7~!. with 1~?-t;.. It s,,-m, r.-, m <hl"<s rh;~tr n .._.,,tfnot all th<"st' pt:asants
W<'f<' fr.,h.>ldr~. ilf thcrwi.<t !hO:)' ~-'dd no! h;tvl.' b-=-ct: dr lV~!' '''" If their lands. as each of
th liar.\: laws '>-lYS tt,,y W\'1'('

43. .'\ y.J.luabk (.1!1\l. I tbml... uthcr neglected) wcrl .Ill 'rh.-.,cr-('l.lllrt\ll' ..:an be found among the
'Etudt"s d1 dr"tt ~ynnun (:ht" sub-tide '11 a m.:Jitauon on CJ IV .lxv .34)
pubb~hcJ b~ H ,\\,111111< r 111 .\11N11'c'f:,. r.-tlllr hist.ioflf J, Jr.,., Jran(ais ,., olrra~~N 24 (191Ml) tn thr<.'t'
parts. th.: rd<'\'Jrr ,..,.,riun i<r "''r I''"P'"'"' h..!n1~ rp 62-1117 /CI:.vi: 'GCncralites sur 1..-s
Puissanrs': ''ii. 'J)(ll Pnb~:~nt~:. l'cpoque da~stqu.:'; v1i1: 'Qul"iqm ,-wmples dl"S rntr<"prises
.J,, Pnts.,..ants :m li.&s-Emrir; ~n.t ix: 'Le 1-'Jtfl'Cimll potentwmm ') Tloi~ is tht nchcsr culkction
ofUI.-tcnd o>uth, subjl'ct th:1tl hn r~uml.
44. Cf S11rnm .. Ep. Vl.S8, 62. t,..l, otl whidn,-..Jom-s. l.llF.l. ~~:,
45. hn tloc Nowlin question :<>:c:J. ;.r.d 1'. z~pos,Ju.< .::~;~mr:m:m;;ll (~.,.,Is. Athens. I'JJl. rtpr.
1\alt-n. IW\~) 1.240-2. at .242. l'h<' tramlation b th.-: ,,f <; (htr~orsky, 'The peasant's
pre-emption r1;;hr; .an al>o>rtl\'1! nrorm frh M.a.o;lo"i"u o:ttrm-s', tn)RS 37 (1947) 117-26.
at 122. The Gr.-..k is l(no ~, .. .;.~,-~,.;,.,.,!-\ ''"'"" J-'1) ,,,..,... u.......'"l""''"'l'YK1f" KPITaiJ roi~ 06Aiot
fl"&orrojtrfii'<W ..-;I"IJI'I {;~
1}
4ft. Tho conquesr ofSyri.&. M'"'"'P''t.unia, Egypt and nh Mi-l(o& !>y rh: A~tbs wa,; txtraordinarily
rJpid. Parricularly ~rnl..i~<tot is lit- virtual disappt";n.;n'.: li"Chruti:<~i:,- from large parts of that
:tr<'-1. ~p:~~ll~ tlr; hr:.!s w-.'jl fSyna .md EgyJr 'l11"' Jll 1hr '''""~ rcmarkabh: in that. as
.'\ll-''lll'fl"'~"l s.ti.l fi( wnh ~nm <'XJ~~~r:ltl'Ui. "b rh, J,vdopmtnt nf ( ~hristianity Africa plays
tht H'ry tirsr pJrt; if it :.r<~"<' m :'\yn:~. ttW-1."111 .tu.l rhr.>ugh Afnca th.&t it became the rdJgton for
th~ \hriJ' (Provinu. ~I tl1.- R,.,,,,. Empir~ (18Ho )U ..H.l,L
47. In the -~-.. t the Ar.1l> n<!Ut:$1 of Egypt. this 'l!tMh<>h existed also in tbt gnar city of
Al,x.mJria. Sw <'-1{ UIJti,J, .\C:F~ 337--H, f,,r th, now that tn tbl submission of tht
AJ,,_,.,~nJuam h lh~: Ar.d~ ir1 l...l.l th, ''"l"':t~tlon of hghll'T tJlX\Uon may have b"en an
import:mt knll'lU' H. wnt111UI'$. 'l'lu~ rrolllll!ol' ,,, reductd r~x.-tl>ll mJy count for a gr.at deal
in .1!1 tht" Mulun conqul'sts. lntl:;,.- <;.~s. ut,\i,:\.lnJriJ it '"'Y hn.: bten the d,ttrmining factor.
;thhuut:h It'" kn"wn that tbt h"r ftlnitll<'ldl1",.b,l w.ts birr.rl\ disappotnted. (Cf. also ibid.
:11'1. ,\to'>, .t;I.C: t>m ~~,. hc>el<iii.l h,,, :h~t'l:r.-.,d l.l.hur wbkh was also cxactd by tht Arabs
Jar,r. ,.,.,. rhid J.t7....~ .lh.~. I :11Jr ~..tJ that I klt(JW of :u so hv!;~.rh lr.-:.-unent of the problems of
Ar..rb t.oX.ttio>ll 11 rh, l{.nto~n provmc,-.. thq; ronqmred n,r~ r.,-,-nr than D. C. Omnttt.
C;:r,r;;,,., .::J ,;,, lJ:.!1- .,-,,,, i1 E.~rly Islam ["' H-Jrvard Hi;r.,rio.:f Mt~:,wjlh.< 22. 1950); and frl'dc
l--4.'1kk!=JarJ, 1.-I;JIIJ/; 'f.t.-;,!t:."l "' rl: C/.:.;;:r !.-....,; :.::~,r:-rl>~;,:,n. !<J51} I~nmrt i particularly
.;u..--,-,..;i.d in bnnging ":11th., :l;fi',,l~i,--. u: thr. tr.,:tttlr'<ll lw :i" A~:tbs of the \'anou~ .tr<as.
48. s,... IV-! o~h.w~ and its n. ~.
Notes on Appendix IV (pp.518-524)
659
[Appendix IV]
1. A good t-lt;Jrnpi~ ot Magi.:\ ronvc-nrlolr.d u~hr-w:!!g VIC'WS and inability to thmk deeply about
h1s matt"f:"'l i; the passage :n kHAM I I!+ 15. 'ltis true that undn the influenct: ofche Romans,
whos<' getM'al }"'I~ t! w~ m ~11.11111" '',1/'t"lt,o_s/t;loilily by r:nnusting govcnuneut to the wcalihit>r
and m"'~ 1'i$pl"lsihl.- l'itium. dh'!C' w:IS .1 gnl'-"ing f>'f\d<:!n0' to lessen the puwr oft he Assembly
in favoo..! ~1f tbc- G:>unal' (::1y Jl;llie~) Cf l 2' i ~ (those who rcc,ive:-d Mithridates with
l'nthusl:&>:O:l in i!~ \WI~ ~iJ, kss r~pOtUilli~ <'kro:,.nt ;;,mong the ntizms'), MO ('the wealthier
and prc-mnuhlym<'rc- :~.-~~-.onsible da~g '). 1;0(1 tt
2. Sec E.~ Gr:ICll, 'Clan m:aflict and th Thlr:.l Mll=io:ti''" W;t.r', in AJM-11 (iY7ti) ~-4-n) His
attempt to li.;..~cnh: I. ivy t:,m_ hr~t, Ill: lS :ndmcrl t(t lr<::<t L~>"y';. ~l3tC'm~'flU .,::mul divis)uu~ .on
class lin~ m >ondn:mm: Grt:l'1:c ~~~~ in lt:o.!-y :i!ltinv, ti:: s~m"l 1-"umc wur as :~. nwn:
"con1mo~1 l ait, "~i"\'ir.:c (oi1, (1. 3 i] lSuc tit~ rn:nr~:.~:::ot:t ,,:th ~he ~arrativL. nf :ik '.r-cu&Jd
Punic '"'"r -t)tf'(,.. u~r\~ rtl -..veak,..n hi~ o~. !Or ~~."i."-L1n~ ch~: \.'ill be i:.)('.; frotn t!le' ~:nrud~-"tllrV
part of:hts npi:-o:"ndox: Ser>;:::ll), fl<" m~J,.-=:; 10.1 rnu~h nf :toil! or d::To:'IKC'~ wl11cl: U'f"t:.miy n.1~:
bltwc":~ i.i''"r' J;rd IJ!yh;::s- ~-s- lr>:-''<'m ll~":~ XLIJ :-:h\' _"LS x:tll~lyb. XXVH.a.1-9 in r~g;ard
to the ll~Nm .os:11:hly J! Thd,.-. ;;, l i! (~5) l.J 1y'' tri:r; ,)ll\1 '''"/1i:ud<~ ('i. ~: llC<!Ili~n~o:,,r,ti
exptl'SSlf-"r~~ :~~ '\."h;'\, of -:.'"111~)pr.... ~IC'.l'f' nt 1'-~hbiu~ (S .ii}; And I. ~~~y',;. 'c ,n .. ta.ttC!J pr;r.nptA:n
VICta t:;ndoll I:UllliUIIl"' (~ 4) I ;.:IJ;.-. U%~<kn<tar.dr.blo- intf;;: Ji~~l11 af},_,jyi:ius' ;.r.,r~:J:~ne <~t;,
ntaSSlV:" ,~h~Jt~( ~-~ ~h, atttrudt of :h~ ~-\~ ( ~)} - \:y ,,Judi IP.:~!'Y~'d:.'!( rn,h~hh :n("~l"' h!O"h~
simply 'thnn:.Jurt!r Cor,tr;ory to (;~wns str.t;"llh:lt! (ul' nL .;:olio. l.l-ll. (be-n 111-''1' wdl h;av~
been rr~.u.:-b i ...wiy-ht..il:' UJ:it;;or..ti A\";ai!.-h), :,., Llvy wind, J~ ht5-t t.; u .... ("irtlt"'l h.:.!',. ~rt~IL"'t.s. :h..tt \~~
do not ilav(. f.,r t"x.tll'}'l'' tb~ l'ni~I-1~1: ->(lt=u,..l ut Liy X UI.,.liii.i,..lll. fb~dl~. ( irllctl f-.li':>
insufficn'll' r.:g;n,llo ~h ~,;hil'lli:>' nf :.\IJmnro aui~H.m~n ft..-l:nj: .t.: t :>r<>m~ ;.td "-'J>f::~liy
Haliartu~ (l.l''y Xlll xhi_].l(:; h:ii J-!1\, wlndt mu~t l::t'l<' t...,.,, uverwhdming ;,t tb, h:t.r
place. iu \"'k'\\' (.fn~ blru~(' r,~~t.t~t(~ ~l thl" siege h~ I:rt::lth :\ut"~nor l~()n;;n: t:"'n"~- i:; rh.~ h~h1
of wha1 Jrtltolll~ haJ'l'<"ll"'ll.tl<'t, m;y 11 l.i\"y\ :an~uut tf lh~ ~ll\ .n T!,(~~ '''!\~<-~ ;;
rather mnrt ro~l~tJ . pa~w.-. tiJn d:.&t ff'.-l~+m~i I Wlt ~dd. in rply I' !~It: t:-r-.u:mo.~ bv
P. S. Dcrilw, ml'hm;i.>: ~" (1L17]) J07. oil.1 ,.,. XXX VII h. l-4 :1tl J>olyb :\Xi vt l-' tll !I:>'
t'Vt"nts at l'hi>Urollll I'll I. th:tt l.w'!'\ .u.,..mlf .dthuugh usirt: ,btfcr<"hllni~I.I.I 1 ;.- j;.-.u11h." :f
Polybio~. llO:t'd 1111t !,.., \1'~11 'IS :1 JN;orri;h. in I1 ulyhu1~ th.- l'h'""''"l!P~ ;.,...,,..itt(u ( lt ;at<!. a~
distincL fr1>tn ,., ;,,,\,....,.""'is.?.),,,, :r~M .1n r<.; ..-.,...,>ttd "" r;, ",li>tntl"<'<l .umhtrllcm~ .i
faminl' {; 1.'), .a~ wdbs eb, Kthtt''tth "Auri...:ill~l:i', Th,rl;. "'-'lhU:~ h..-.., o mu\i<t
LJvy of .1ny >igulli<.lllt nusrepresentanon, .;,n.l J,:.cm til' subsequent J.,st II'Arr.Utv.- <>i l'lyltll
may wdli1JVC' nmt;lln<"d furtht'r partiwlar.< t rlu: situ.r,._,,, at Phocata. jusnfymg ln-y ~ :utbc:r
more shdrpl~ dr.&WII Jt<tlll'l'. (Pt't'nW. I !IU\" a~ . tdl~ '"'' til.tl hi~ nuolu~i"rb "'" th. 'l'"'stun
of class atlltu,(,-.. Gr.-t~ hw;uJ~ It.lli<' _,,,.. mu<h ,,_.....,., I< thSC" vflinKt"-' mJ l~tk(- j,,,
which sn. tlunl-llllt< ...:t idus AI'PruJix, ~ 2. ,;,/ i1111. -thl<ta '-'' d'""'' . i(;na.1,.)
Only .tfhr \i .ID dllJ dm .'\~'1"-,llltlo. ha.l b."t'll \lflti;~JI} fiousit,-.1 di\ I re.tol J)utuJa M~nJd>.
'Perst"us Jnd th, ~,,,j,.....-uu.mut: '-luc~riu:o '" Ct,-..--e p1;i.l'12! l II C.). A ,~ad~ u; ~~"tu:,
propaganda", 111/\>1;. S,'i oj I:J<I;I"~J 55-n. l'IJjj is~ 1H11.-II ~!t,,-, ,tno11oi< :!t~tl (;ro,)(.1;'s II j,
virtually limu,,i '" pwvlr!i: \:<~it cl<..:" su~,-,..f;ti[}) :!J,l: l'rseu >11''.-.:: Is:; ,,, "i'~ak; ,,J,,v~ rb,
p~tpultaris". Mttllkls r,-,,li,.~.!o, h,_,w,v.:r !"<~' op. hts pp.71.\). rlutl <~II tl:, ,.,., .-.t ch, 'llurJ
Mac-edoma.n w... 'tit<' IIMssc- 111 tht' ti-....-"il~.:~ w;r, inclmed to.>w;u,tl',...u;;'. 1~ wcr --~'1.: i
the lcadm~ m:n kf l:\'V Xllf.""" 1-'!4. '"""P !. 1) . .:.~d .1lrl.cu;h :.r t'ir~t rb,u ~Y'lll"'-'hy for
Pl"rsws r.m.um.t r-u.=(' wh..-u ,,,. \\'<.'ll II b.ouh ~b~' l:>..g.n t h.~v. ht,~h hr\5 .,f hl~ rs.:.Polyh. XX\' III" I; J~:.l,t, nt.d it Ill, tn;uo:cc .,!~w: ~'"' Utoc.,i .XXX.11d ;,.,. Xlli.h.flt 1-.?).
which of ;uub we; ,(J<:IJll"''-'tr<<l.
3. CtcLro al!>n ll!ri~ "'";m:rdroopt.rtw r'ntl"t wlw ot 1>1-' t<'}>!o,mcd as owing their po~itietn ro th
dTorts ot.a ill,!r.ilht .l. wh:-rh:r ;o~ i(<>llJI'I ~IJ!<~r> (Ot oli&. 11.23: [Ca~sar] ipse c~<lplassrt) or as
lllf'mbtr~ ui a prie~tly ._..,u~~ (q:.lJ,,.! I, .Xlll PZlii l~; :loiJnn. IIJ.x.9; Lad. 9t'o).
4. Sec u.2 ag.am. Although (;n:~:r. ~''''" l.hy XLII. '\XX. t ' :!t:l.luotrs phrases from it (op. ctt. 31,
and 49 nr1. l ;. ))) h<' ili!~ I' llt>lil'"l' rh:.r ,,j ~h : .,.,. gr>nps into wh1ch Livy d1vidcs those
taking th, ..:J, vf P.:r;;o;.,J;. rhti: i~ ':!"'~ _.,..,. .tl~r,t>rt! ..r dcspratio rerum suarum, eodem
mant'nt(' ;;ratu. Jraecipites ,,J :'''"''"'!~ '''"'!l.t ;.~!>at (:\.X "'-i; cf. v. 7 on Actnlia. Thcssaly and
Pcrrhacbt.t). H.: would ~hnt.: ,>ft rl:-:- ,,-!)..,.!.- ';t:u<r11;.is ~-ween plrbs and priulipes. tht one
anti~RonJn, tit< 'ltwr t:Ho.~m;;,n'. ;,;; ';, :"->liii!L'II h,ia dcvc': buts,.,. n.2 abov~. And in
rdation I<) l.i\"}' XI II v. 7 h> ,.\'(11 tfl"' :<~<o-b;.;:nr.: iht ~:ui.: o:J;\ss natur'" of indebtedness (np. cit.
660
Notes on Appendix IV (pp.526-536)

;i~'i)- nt fh~ ''':tY th~: U:>"tlt" hr s~ ,.,n:m,m (ll"lim~ dw pi!hlication of Brunt, ALRR) in regard
to dw d~n1.11;d l(t "":r.: r.lt:i:r iu ti;~ C:;,:iilna:~-tn .uT::.ir of {l_j l!.C. In regard to Sherk, RIJGE
~J ( = Sl!':~ ;,.s,} = t=JJ W w 75~. i1::~ 22~;. Gr:li;":J d:mm t!ut ~hr:L' rs no warrant for inslrting.
~ith Col::! ;otad Pum:''". rb:zrA>t~M:v! i!!M;:O,,,Iofi.r>:nU...o(li" ??,,,.B). But the document (an
officia! l~o:mn !i.a.:t t> Dd;hi) d~ h;;.,.: ......-!wi;""~ .,,;_., .,.,..,..,.....'""1'17>[m~] in line 23, [~<lal
l'l!<o.o~t-.. .c>~,.. tiT'...'to !nl:u" 24. ""-:! !JAul ;, to;,.., I ~--P'fU~~Jir.li~ 21: .:md this languagl surdy
suggests artin~ .l!t"..in.~r !olrtlo: rail~ ;.;mur in fa'l.''l:~ "i .. rhrl> who were disfranchtsed or
under-privLh-t:~.!. r.u.",r d:m ;n('r, ~'oJl.'';nr: off..,ti:lll) r>f [limi~~ ~&gainst srmilar factions in
the put\' ~tn:;!~:l~~ wiudt ,.,,~,.,. Trc.tin.!y .-ik ~ th' 'l"'r1Qd n sum4 .m~as ofGrtc:cc, including
Ai:t<>llot '(Wid;~~~ Gntnl. Gj'- i:!t J{. ~d. f-1.> r.t;.~,_7). 1-iv.--:1 ; p.Jt!JI struggll", which Gruen
wuulJ ,h~m!:>~ .a~ u.-h ;mJ nu tnor.- (u b7), mi~h h~..-., strong d:us determinants: the exrrc:m<
hirttl':l:'>!< <.f~hl" iliR' in !ll!:~ti<Jll (i.:.;,y XII ..,,.\.~) :--=tay wrll hH-c i)l;"<n due to its having that
<h~r.l.;1n. (Ht>Wt'Wt. ~lm'i:' ~cading tho .11rtide !:>~ M<:m{d.~ dtl"d ,;: the ~nd of n.2 above, I
W>l.d,i ~!!1'1:\' ~ith hi:P rhn rhr sl.&r.'":.;,l~ l h.J.n qn<l:.-.1 :l:m1> t?:c :nscription must be trcattd
with L'XUc;nt dltrut, ~~)(;;man propagzl'l~l., w!ri.:!; >r.q ~...,.: l::rh vr no basis in facL}
5. 1h<' fui!.-,-r n.ar~JLI'!< in F.11~ll$h i~ still that nf)'.'~llsvr;. i /;\ ~~-!!9: i:!ur rhc rcad<'r should begin
with .t.E tL d;,"Mlli:-in~ :t,, nh;_:ar.-hy 'ltlhi;h p:C':-..;.xkJ. !ht: urrising. See, howewr. Day,
Eli:1RD I~!'J-!0, ~"ir. :d"' ti,r a UII'>Jifi.-.atin ni F..:1gumn';; ~hronology. Cf. also Silvto
,.t,.,.-am~-. li ,;,..,,,,,, FN?f.:fl<' 11 c;,~i- .,.,;f,; ~""''~'<~li,li:.~ ...I Art'~<5t<- (R r:te. 1946) lt>3-71. and the
l11ldt<gro~phy 111 Magie. RH.Ut H.! irl{u: il.. lf,,. prinop~l v.:.t!.:>.'n.r. Poseidoruus. FGrHfl7 F
,36 (:t~' Ath,1:. V. 211d-1.%); A.('J' .. Mr:J. ~ ...;<_}; Plut .. ,'\,,Ji,; I !-11. Other~ourcesarc givt"n in
Greenidge: ;md Cby. :;,.,,rr.,~ llJ'l.'lll. iT.".. IB i 1. it i~ ir!c..-r.-.;i~'f. ~~lind Plutarch singling out
An~ti,>n. wllil N ..t-i .mJ ( ..mlm~. ~ tlt~ ~''"'l J'I'Shk,,u.i! ~I"' ofI" llrteian (P,aec. Kf'T. reip. 809c).
6. For thr d.m...a~t~ dont r" Athr.ns (o~ullll Atriw ~mr . Uy; iy Snll.... ~;; the material convmirm.tly
l"lll~'tc:J l-oy A. J l'.trpoo~la~. ''' E~o\rJvt.c,i- ~ ( 1 1 ~'7=-) 1<1(--~ n~'7. Cf. Josef Dd;e. l.:lltrll11. K.~'lttis Jt'r atlcrirlr"n Antiquitiitrn {I Jt~~ . li.J<.'1, 1950).
8. In F. Bom<r\ ntununc-o~:r.i wort. iu t{ur J'->ns dealing wnlt tlw rc!J~ion of<it<'ck and Roman
~In,-.., UN.o;(;R, rh, r,k\'.tnt i''ttin j, III {1 1.1hl) .J% il~) to 41; (17J). The book by Fr.
C.arr.J.IJ 'l1tnm~~ h.l.J m,iro~ Jr.VI.'''~~ ,- J, '"'K'"' dtlla provincia <>tll.1na d'Asia (Turin. 1968):
M"'t.' tht' nvitw by j<lbt Uri:.<'M. m CJ? !!t."' 11' 1Z (1972) 132-3. J. C. Dumont'~ article. A
rwros J'ArtUOnll"('l!i, IS In Ern'flo' \ !l'lfl) 1~'Jf,, ,IO'>l'ph Vogt's trcatm<.nt of thl subjt"ct
appeared <>ci~rnally m hir- Sttukmr.itrol'ltitto'fi ... J.:Io~r.-nknr,~, ( .. Allh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit.
in Mainz, (~slc."t-u s~l!t.!.lwis\. Kl.!.~,.-. j<),57, nu. H . .md b.J'l bc~n republished in his Slrlavmi
rmJ 1/rr'IWmt.if ; -= Hnttria F.in7tl~hr IC. !')];.!~ . .1.1 .):1-to(l, w.tb the brief paper, 'Pltgamon und
Ari~tuniko~ (t.l-8), tlo.t puhli!dtl'J m tit~ .4.ttJ Jrl trr.' .-.....'l'J i111m:~.:-. di epiflrt~fia.l(teca e latina
(Rum;:. l'J?>'l) 45-;;.1. s.~ um~ Vt:t, .'\SlM li11 En~. tr.au~.;.~'io-r.;L 'J.'I-102 (with 213-14). For
!urthtr J.,,.,,IS!>IOn .md 1-oJl-olit~gr "'l'h~ ~1'\' ~bgu, NJl,.J .\11. I H. HH-:-.4, With II. 1034-42 nn. 2-25;
Will, lll'i\llllU5~ .
9. Thc-M.art' perhaps the sam~ ,.I.!<'Jt<'f)' .J!'t'.t:- (:~) tbl' AaoifSEG XVIl.Hl7 (sc:condquarterofthe
thnd ~mtury B.C.), fr0111 AJ><llrll;t, m,nti<n-.1 1><-st:!, :h~ '""'";~,..,in hne 4ofthe poem (cf.
J~')'l'f' n,ynolds, in Apolltlllol. Suppl. v 1. ui l.iioya :\nrt.p~o~ 1.,77]. !'15-6, no.2); and (b) Til Krmi
7QJ' 'l(ciopG',..llfl>ea lll~"lllh>ntd 111 .o;JI(; XX. i:!li. lint 4. ho.:~Jdl Cyr.nl.' thelf Ka1 TcK aAAa~ ......~.
10. SliG X VI. 9J I ((t. IGNR I. 10241. ,,f th la~t C\.1llnry II.C.. 1~ a dt'f.Tce of the [i'ip~l'ftf and
rroAcTft'llb of th~ Jrwi~b 'Otnmunity .Jt lkr<1ll<<= !lm"" 12-tJ). .nh,r Euhes~rides and now
Benghazi. Somt.' )<'w~ ,vid...-nrly b..,.-:urtc tUII 1.'11:12:<'1~ fCvrm~~ ~ t.g. SEG XX.737 (A.D.
60-1). a list or J'Op.ootAiMICif ,)f Cvr<"ll~' tlm .'i). whll'h in..:luJ..... F.lu:u son ofJason (lineR), and
iJ. 741 (A.D. 3-4), a li:o.t ot <.-phrl.._-.. winch mcluJ.,.,. ~m J'WI~h names. e.g. Elaszar son of
EI;U'lr (a.ll.~i. Jubu!> son ,,tJcs.m:< (~.157; cf 7-lti..a.JI 8); o~.nd ....-e Atkinson. TCEA 24.
I L ThC' DlO'Jt tc:t:;;nt Wt>rk that gives l fuJI diso..u-sion of th.: rrc--Roman constitution i!l the long
article by Monique Clavd-Uvi~.tu... 'Da~ ~tnn:bi~ch~ M:ll's..-iliC'. Entwicklungsstufen u.
Dynamik eincr Handelsmacht', tn Hril.,isrhr P11itis .-d. E. Ch. Weiskopf (Berlin, 1974),
II.MSS-%'1 .at il93, 902-7 iwith '157-J =m.-Ht>-82~. 'J15 (wnh %,\ Pn.555-7}. The anide in
question b~ since been expO&nded into .a mone>fEDph c-1 ~IIJ pag.-s (with maps and plates):
Mt~rstillt grt(qut. lA dynamique d'un unp/r..Jiim 'llllr:h:tnJ :.Mani-ill.-s, 1977). The relevant
portions are 93, 115-24, 128-9 (with 141.). !.1'? (WJih !4"'i S;:-:o .1.l1k> Michel Clerc, MasStJlia I
(Marseilles, 1927) 414-4~; Camille Jullian, Hm .fr 1.. c;,.,~.-!. -'.':\.7: H. G. Wackemagel, in RE
XIV.ii (1930) 2139-&1; Busub, GS 1.357-8.
12. See Clerc, M11sS1Jiia II iJ'J29i 29.2~: Jullio~r.. op. cit. VI.314-19.

Part I lists, usually without the name of an author or editor, works such as periodicals and
collections of inscriptions or papyri, cited in this book normally by the initial letters of
their titles, or by other customary abbreviations.
Part II is a very selective list of works recorded undtr the namts of authors or editors. Many
of these are cited by the initialleuers of their rides (see the Preface, pp.x-xi), books in
italics, articles not; and these are always placed first in each case (and in alphabetical order)
under the names of their respective authors or editors, before works cited without
abbreviation.
Abbreviations of modmr works (including periodicals) not included here are either
obvious or can be easily identified with the aid of such lisrs of abbreviations as tho!re in
LSj9 I.xli-x.lviii, OCD 2 ix-xxii, ODCC2 xix-xxv, or any recent number of L'."\nn~c
philologique.
The identification of ancirnt sources will usually be obvious enough to those able to
profit by consulting them. In case of doubt, reference can be made to LSF I. xvi-xli or (for
Larin authors) to Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary vii-xi. The best available l!ditions arc
used. Those less acquainted with Early Christian sources (cited wherever possibk from
GCS, CSEL or SC editions, otherwise commonly from MPG or MPL). or with Later
Roman ones, will find particularly helpful the lists in Jones, LREIIl.392-406: Stein, HBE
12 .ii.607-20 and 11.847-61; and of course the Patrologit'!i, by B. Altaner.J. Quastcn. and
0. Bardenhewer, given in Part II below.
In a few cases I have cited books not under the author's name but under that of a
reviewer whose opinions seem to ml' valuable. (In all such cases sufficient particulars of
the books concerned arc given.) Books and articles which I bdiew I haw adequardy
noticed above are sometimes not given again her". And I have omitted hl're many works
which seem to me valueless or irrdevant; but the inclusion of a book. or arude 111 this
Bibliography is not necessarily to be taken as a recommendation. Greek titlt.'S are
transliterated here, though not (as a rule) in the Notes above.
I hope that the entries for Karl Marx and Max Weber will be found particularly helpful.
Part 1
(A star indicates that references arc to the numbers of the inscriptions or papyri. rather
than to pages, except where the contrary is stated. References here to papyri ar~ mainly
limited to those cited in the main text rather than the Notes. Standard abbreviations arc
used: all can be identific:d with' the aid of a work of reference such as Orsolina Montt'vecchi, LA Papirologia [Turin, 1973], if not in the convenient short list at the l'lld of Bdl.
EAGAC. for which see Part II below.)
AB
= Analena Bollandian.~
AC (or Atlt. Class.):::: L'Antiquite Classiquc
Acta Ant.
= Acta Antiqua (Budapest)
AE*
= L 'Annet" epigraphique
Aeg.
= Aegyptus
AHEWI.ii
= ThtAgrarianHistoryofEnglandand Wales.l.ii, ed. H. P.R. Finberg
(1972)
AHR
= American Historical RevitW
662
AI}*
L'\JA
AJAH
A]P
A]S
Anc. Soc.
ANRW
= F. f. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, Muni.-ipal Administration in the

Roman Empire (Prince~on, 1926)
= American Joumal <!f Archaeolo.C?Y
= American ]oumal cj Ancimt History
= Amerimn]cumal if Philology
= Amrrican journal of Sociolc~y

==-
Andcnt Sot'icty
= Aufstieg und Niedergan,g der romischm Welt. cd. Hild~gard Tcmporini

(Dt"rlin/N~w
York.
1~72
ff.)
Ant. ClaJJ.; st"c under AC above

Arch. Class.
= Archeolo~ia Classica
Arch.j.Pap.
= Archiv fur Papyrusfor.<chun.~
ARS
= Ancimt Roman Statutes. A Translation, with Introduction. Commentary etc . by A. C. Johnson and others (Austin, Texas. 1%1)
ASNP
= Annali della Scuola Normalc Superillrc: di 1-'isa, Classe di lc:ttere l'
fi los-fia
::. Atl,,.,,.,,.,,:
Athen.
=. Hu!lotJtl of tilt' ,-\mr't'i,-,,, S(#Wtl; .-~fl)r:n:roll N.~;,arch
BASOR
BASP
= Rlcllctil~ftllt' Amc'i-1'1 s,.-fl"t} ;fl'IP)'"~;,\rlim
BCH
= 1~1111.-titlclr C.rrespondance 1,/Uniqur
BEFAR
= Bibliothequr des Ecoles_franfjli.rs d' Atlli't~c'> ct Jf R,me
BGU*
= Bt-rliner Criechischl' Urk1mJn: t,;\~)'J't:s<ln Vrkundm aus den ki>t~iBICS
BlDR
B]S
BSA
Byz.
Byz. Ztschr.
CAF
g!i.-lwl M-'t:''' ;:u n,.,;;,, JHt~.5 ti)

= Br,ifr'lfll ~f tl,, ImtiMI' .>f O.J;,.j,-,Ji Str1dit":', London
= B:~!l,ttit~. :ldl'l~:it~tt. di ;/itfll: rC'~t~arw
= British Journal 4 S<,-;,,[,l~f
= Annual of tht' Britiih s,.,,,,.,J,r: .\tlr<"t.
= If}' loltlliow
= Br:.mtit~i),i't z,.;,_~,/r~!t
= (.-,,,,i.-,mm :\tti.-.mm ftciJl"',.''';r. ed. Thtodon
Kofk. 3 vols
~Leipzig, l~LI4)
Cambri~(!t' Allc"Jrtr Hisrcry. 12\o>l!'

CCL
= Corpus Chri.<ti.tuC'mtl .'>m,., Lrm.r (1935 tT.)
CE (or Chr. d'f.i!.) = CiiMiillltd'E.liYI""
CEHE J2
= Cmrbrid.l!' Erwr.mi Hisr.rr .flir''l'" Vol. I, 2nd edn (1966)
Chr. d'E.i!.: see under Cl;' Jhu,.,.
CIG*
= Cr"JI"' ln.;.-riptl''"'"' Graerarum (1825-77)
CIL*
= C.rpuslnsmptiotlum LAtinamm (1863 ff.)
CIRB*
= Lirp1u ImmJIi'"""' Rri!ni Bosp11rcmi
CAH
C)
C. Ord. Pt,l. *
CP
C.Pjutl.*
= (.'l.r.mc:ll}<~mll
=- M. T. Lt:"ng~r. Corpru dest~rdonnatlces drs Pt~Jlimres (Brussds. 1964)

::: ( :l.usi<al Philolo,c:y
C.rp11s Papyrorum]udaicarum, J vols (1957-64)
CQ
CI;INo.tl Quartaly
CR
= CljJ>i,,l R.:,ir'tc
CRR; s("(' Part II under Slagcr, R. (nl)
CSCA
California Str.J:a ''' C/,:.<.>rmi Amiquity
CSCO
C.rpu! iiaipttJtrltll Chri.tl.m.rum Oriemalium (1903 ff.)
CSEL
= C:.qm. SiriJ'Ic't""'' l'frdr.sia#it,um Lttill<''""' (Vilnna. 1fl66 tT.)
CSHB
Cp11> ''"f''""'~ Hr.wr~.,, IJ):.mti,,,, (Bl,ml. l82l'S-78)
CSSH
Comparative .'im.lw i ,(i,,licr; .md History
DAA *
Dedications Jr,m rh Aril.;r.m .\kropolis, ,d . .A.. E. Raubitschlk.
wtrh th.- \oll.ahrati<ll uf l-. J f. ]!'il~l!'~' (CJmlridgc. Mass., 1949)
DOP
= Dmnb.Jtfi'll c Jak; HIJ'~
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
,on. Hist. Rev.
B::~cmi: lli~IN}'
Roitk'
Biblio~raphy
EIP*
(and Abbreviations)
663
= D~trttm: l/luscratill)? =~ kd.J!I!.I of Augustus and Tibmu.<. colh:ctl'd
by V. Ehn~nb-.;H :or:d A. H. M.Jom:s, 2nd l'dn (1955)

Eng. His/ Rot.
En.~i:sJ: Jht,m;.:l Uc~Jt'll'
ESAR: S.'1: Part II ;n;d.;'r t=r:lllk. T:1t:;v
ESHAG: )t'c Put Iluud~1 Austin. M. ~L ;\nd i'. Vidal-Naquct
FD*
= Fo~iflrs iJ,. Ddpl1i':,
FGrH
= I )io h-~(ttl'flt;oior guuimrloorl lh<toriker, ed. F. Jacoby (192.3 ff.)
FHG
= hZ'(t>:t,/:.: IIut.:nwmt: Gr,:o:"c:t:lm. c; vols (1R41 ff.)
FIR:\2
= f:,,.,r,, J,m. R,.,.:,mi i\itq';li1im.mi, 3 vols, 2nd edn, ed. S. RKcobono
,:tc. (Flo:~:Kc-, l;..:;J.Jj
GCS
l>!r _cri,..-lmchrl d:mtiu!rm S(hriftstdler der ersren drt'i )ahrhu11dertt
(Htrlm. IW17 ff_)
(;r.t., .n11i R. . .,,~{
G.&R.
r;n.,.L. 1/,m,.m .~m! liy-~.:n:w :;tdies
GRBS
= Ht'Jpc'rt,: Oournal oi' dw Au~:.ncan School of Classical Studil'S at
Hesp.
A1h:n,., 1932 ff.)
H:.trii G.~ri Mi;l . :! ..,,lis. t:d. L Dindorf (Ll'ipzig. I R70-l)
HGM
= Hutorr~rho Y..-lblmfr
Hist. Ztschr.
= Jl.Jif',.,,j ,'\tu,lic'> iro CIM: :m! lJIJi./,logy
HSCP
HTR
1l;~r~.m/1'1rtl.~.;:i.-.tl ~ .. ~r=
IE)
f.:rrlrIJ~~;;J';I'Iuli'"' Jcllotli:li
= /n;aitttl'tlt'i' Gtilt"iolc' (lkrlt1. I ~73 ff.)
IG*
= lc.<oriJIio>nes C~.t':.lt" it: /i((.rtl'l 'fptrtae, l'J. G. Mihailov (I'J56 ff.)
lGBu((!.*
= lrmipti.n. .flrlll'-' ,., lo~titlii ,/, ,i.r Syrir. ed. L. Jalabcrt e-tc. ( 11J29 ff.)
IGLS*
lrH;ripti,.,,::; l-;r.lo<lr .tJ res H.mana.< p~rrinmtes l, Ill, IV, l'd. R.
IGRR*
(:agnat l'll'. :l'lllf>-17)
= lt~.riJtl'lff~ l..:lllll;lt' .\dc;t.Jo', ed. H. Dcssau, 3 vols in 5 (lkrlin,
ILS*
IIS'11-191h)
lnscriptiones Antiquae Orae Sf'ptentrionalis Potlli E11xini, cd. 8.
IOSPE*
Latyshev (1885-1901)~ P =Vol. I. 2nd rdn (1916)
IRSH
Internati''"al Rr:l'itll' ,.; S.n~ll-listoJry
lstitulo Ltlmfo,llri' .i.-c,IJo'tlfM ,11 .')dtnu e Letrrre, Rrwlicilllli. Classe di
lstituro L!'mbard<>
Letttre
(Rrnd. Lett.)
= Journal ofE.!!YPtian Archaeolof.?)'
JEA
Journal if Economic Hist(lry
)F.H
= journal oftht Economic and Soda[ HistoJry of the Orrmt
JESHO
= Journal of the Histc,ry of ldt>as
}HI
= Journal of Hellenic Studies
]HS
= }o11rnal ~f)uristi Papywlo,(!y
JJP
= jahreshejtr drs Oesurreich i.<chen archaolo,'(ischeu lnstiiUts in Wim
]OAf
= Journal oj Peasant St11dies
JPS
= journal of Romatr Studies
JRS
= Journal oJj TheoJio,(ical Studies
JTS
P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Voya.~r archrolo,l!iqllr m Grhret
LB/W*
ctt Asie Minrurr: ltmriptiom . .. Ill (Paris. 1870)
Lidddl and Scon. Grt'tk-E::'n.'!lish Lexiwn.<Jth cdn ( 1925 ff.)
LSP
= Mm111menta Asiae Mrnori.> Antiqua. M vols (11)28-62)
MAMA*
= Ludwig Mitte-is, Gnmd~uge und Chmtomathie der Papyncskundl' ll.n
M.l.hr.*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(Llipzig/8erhn, 1912)
MEFR
"" Melanges d'archioloRir rt d'histoire: fcollfraniaise d1' Romr
MGH
MIL*
Monummta Germaniae Historica

= R. Mciggs .md D. M. lt"wis. A Srlertion of' Grerk Hi.<tri(a/ ln.
smptioll.( to thr End of the Fijtlt Cenmry B.C. (l%1J)
= Mnemosynr
= Patrolo.'f1ia Graeca, l'd. J.-P. Migne
Mtlemos.
MPG
664
MPL
NPNF
NRHDFI:.'
OCD 2
OCT
ODCC 2
OG15*
PBA
PB5R
PCPS
P. Hibrh*

= f',ur.i>.~ra /.rtrrl. cod. J.-1'. Mt~n
= '-'uo>t~ .mtl P.;!-J\J'io:l'll F.Jti:,.J

Nmw ..fi,
iliJMi<JU .. :I JroitJar:(.;i; ,t 'tratl.~er
= O.~i<lli Ci:t.;.;;ic.ri Oi:1t,m:t'}. 2nd ~.In 0'J70)
O:if.~rJ U.J:.<i.-;~1 'i"t':Jt:tJ
= Oxfr.mi D::,ll:.:l-..:1 tl1c Clm;,ti::n Cl:k'''' :!nd edn (1974)
= Oril'fltis Gr.tr'fi b:miptictJ("! .St'lt>t.1'.1 ,-,~!:> (1903-5)
= Pmurdmg> oJ..f tire ltriri;;h. -\:ad.-my
h'l'll('
Pt:iedr~~~; ,~_f !i:t' Briris~
:;,;,,,,)1 ,,~ R.m'
= f>rc,..Jrng.; ~f ti:t' Cam!:oridgtl'lril.l,..:ic,,l Society
Tlrr lliil.-1; Papyri, d. w1th trans. and notes by ll. P. Grenfell and
s. Hunt (1906 fn
J>. Iral.: sec Part II, und~r "fj:idc-r.J.-0.
PIR
= Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Sae,uli 1.11, III. cd. E. Klcbs and H.
Dessau (1R97-8); 2nd cdn by E. Groag and A. Stein (1933 ff.)
PLREI
Thr Prosopography !frhc Llrc:r Roman Empire, Vol. I. A.D. 260-395,
by A. H. M.Joncs.J. R M;trtmdalcandj. Morris (1971)
P. Oxy.*
= The 0Jr.]'Tiryrrclrus Papyri (lt!'IB ff)
PSI*
- Papirigreci e Iatini, pubb/. J.-ll.;S"ir~ Iraliana ... (Florence, 1912ff.)
PTGA: see Part II \:ruier Finley, M. I. (ed.)
RAC
Reallexikonfur :\rt,uund Chmtmtr4m (Stuttgart, 1950 ff.)
RBPH
Revur Bdgr Jc Plu1,iCJgil" rt d'llist~Jire
RCHP*
== Royal Co"espondence in the Hellenistll fJrriod. A Study in Greek
Ep~'!raphy, by C. Bradford Welles (1934)
RE
= Pauly-Wissowa. Real-Encydopiidie der classischrn Altertumswissmsrhajt (Stuttgart, 1893 fT.)
REA
Rrvur des hudes anrimnes
REB
Revue des etudes by zanrines
REG
Rrvue drs etudes grrcques
Rev. de phil.
= Revue de philoloxie
RFIC
= Rivisra dijilologia e di istruzione cfassica
RHDFE
= Revue historiqut de droit fran{ais et etranRrr
RIDA
Revue internationale des droits dt> I 'antiquiti
Riv. stor. dell'Ant.: sec under RSA below
RQH
= Revue dt>s qut'Stions historiques
R5A
= Rivista st&Jrica dell'Antichita
RSCC: see Part II under Colcman-Norton, P.R. (ed.)
SAS: see Part II under Finley, M. I. (ed.)
5b
Sirzungsberichte (of various Gcnn.1n-speaking academic institutions)
58*
== Sammelbuch griahischer Urk1mdrn aus At>gypten, cd. F. l'rcisigkc etc.
(1915 fT.)
5C
== Sources chretimnes (Paris, 1940 ff.)
SCA: see Part II under Finley, M.l. (ed.)
SCH
== Studies in Churrh History
Scr. Hierosol.
Scripta Hierosolymitana (Jerusalem)
SDHI
~ Studi11 et Docummta Historiae et Juris
SEG*
== Supplemmtum Epigraphicum Graecum (1923 fT.)
5GDI*
= Sammlung der Rriechischm Dialekt-lnschriftm, ed. H. Collitz etc.
(Gottingen, ltl84-1915)
== M. N. Tod. A Self'Ction oJGrerk Histori(al Inscriptions, II. From 403
SGHIII*
to 323 B.C. (1948)
Syllo~e Inscriptionum Grae(arum, ed. W. Dittenbcrgcr, 4 vols. 3rd
edn by F. Hiller von Gacrtring.:n (Leipzig. 1915-24)
SP*
A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Selt>ct Papyri(Loeb] I (1932). ll (1934)
5RP: see Part II undt!r Finley. M. I. (~o'ii.)
A.
=
=
=
=
=
665
TAPA
Transactions of the American Philological Association
TLS
= Times Littrary Supphment (London)
TRHS
= Transactions of the Royal Historicaf Society
UED 2 : see Part II under Soden, Hans von
VDI
Vt'stnik Drevnei Istorii
W.Chr.*
= Ulrich Wilcken, Grnndzu~e und Chrestomathieder Papyrnskunde l.ii
(Leipzig/Berlin, 1912)
YCS
= Yale Classical Studies
ZNW
= Zeitschrijt for dit> nt'fltestammtliche Wissenschaft
ZPE
= Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
zss
= Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stijtung fiir Rechtsgl'schichte, rumanistische
Abteilung
Part II
(Names beginning with 'de' [though not 'De'], 'van' or 'von' are usually given under the
next word in the name-so, t'.g., my own name appears under 'Ste.' [='Sainte'] but De
Martino under 'De'. 'Me' is treated as 'Mac'.)
Aalders, G. J. D., Die Theorie dtr gemischten Verjassung im Altertum (Amstc.-rdam, 1968)
Accame, Silvio, II dominio romano in Grecia dallaguerra acaicaad Augusto (Rome, 1946)
--.La lega atenit>sedef src. IVa.C. (Rome, 1941)
Adams, Bertrand, Paramont und venvandte Texte. Studim zum Dienstvertrag im Rechte dtr
Papyri(= Neut> KOinermhtswiss. Abhandl. 35, Berlin, 1964)
Alfoldy, Geza, 'The crisis of the third century, as seen by contemporaries', in GRBS 15
(1974) 89-111
- - . Fasti Hispanimsts (Wiesbaden, 1969)
- - , 'Die Freilassung von Sklaven und die Struktur der Sklaverei in der romischen
Kaiscrzcit', in Riv. stor. dtll'Ant. 2 (1972) 97-129
- . Noricum (1974)
Alfonsi, Luigi. 'll "Querolo" e ii"Dyskolos'", in Arg. 44 (1%4) 200-5
Allen, Walter, 'Cicero's hous.and libertas', in TAPA 75 (1944) 1-9
Altamr. fl., Patrology (1%0, F.ng. trans. from the 5th Gennan edn of 1958)
Anden<)ll. J. G. C . 'F1~1ivals '-'f Mt'fl Ashmos in the Roman Colonia at Antioch of
Pisidi.t'. iuJRS J (l'JIJ) 2()7-J(liJ, esp.l!i4-7
Andersou. Ptrry. 1..-\S ~ Lint-ago: ~ftl11 t\b$o>luti;t Srate (1CJ74)
- - , P.4P 1'as>.tge1_{r.,m :\llliquit}' to l;rudali'm ( l 1n4)
Andn,uiL~. A. M . .-\History C?iGrrrk I'ublic Hno~rr.:e I (Eng. trans. by Carroll N. Brown,
C.unbrid~L', Mass., 1933)
Andrt'W(~. A. GT-=- JJ~eGrrck 1'yr.:ut.; (11J5f,& n:pr.)
- - , m (iumml', HC7"1V (q.v.)
- - , 'Th~ opposition to Perikles', in]HS 98 (1978) 141
Andrlyev. V. N., 'Sonw aspects of agrarian conditions in Attica in the 5th to 3rd
l't'Utum'li B.C.. in Hrme 12 (1974) 5-46
Anna!I;.Julia. 'Piatu'.; Republic and t'i-minism', in Philosophy 51 (1976) .307-21
Appl.:haum, Shinwn, 'Hellenistic cities ofjudaea and its vicinity- some new aspects'. in
'l7rr :\nrit'nt lll~~t,,rian 11t1d hi1 Materials (Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens), ed.
Harbanll'vnk (l'J75J 59-7.'\
- - . 'Ronun Brit am". in AHl!}l'l.ii.l-277
- - . 'The Zt>ahlls: thl rilsl'li.1rnvaluannn' ,mJRS 61 (1971) 155-70
D' Arms.j. H.: SCL' uncl~:r ll
Amim, H. \"llfl. l.cltm und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin. 1898)
Ashln.llaviJ. u-;pl): Lt~igmhe sui problema dei debiti (= Stutli Cla>sici rOrimtali 1~.
Pis.1., J%'1)
- - . Di!mbll:r.ni di terre nel'antica Grrci11 (= Mmr. deii'Accadrmia delle Scienzr di Torino.
ser.IV.ltl, 'Turin, 1966)
666
Atkinson [Ch0mes], K. M. T., SGCWAM = 'The Seleucids and the Greek cities of
western Asia Minor', in Antichthcm 2 (1968) 32-57
- - , TCEA ='The third Cyn.'lle edict of Augusrus', in Ancient Society and lnrtitutions.
Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg (1966) 21-36
- - , 'A Hellenistic land conveyance: the estate of Mnesimachus in the plain of Sardis'. in
Historia 21 (1972) 45-74
Audring, Gert, 'Uber den Gutsverwalter (epitropos) in der attischen Landwirtschaft des 5.
unddes 4.Jh. v.u.Z.', in Klio 55 (1973) 109-16
Austin, M. M .. and P. Vidal-Naquet, ESHAG =Economic and Social History of Ancient
Greece. An Introduction (1977), an improved Eng. trans. of the French original,
Economies et sociitis en Greer ancimne (Paris, 1972, 1973). [Sec pp.64-5 aboveJ
--,Austin, N.J. E., 'A usurper's claim to legitimacy: ProcopiusinA.D. 365/6', in Riv.
stor. dell' Ant. 2 (1972) 187-94
Badian, Ernst, PS = Publicans and Sinners. Private enterprise in the service of the Roman
Republic (Dunedin, 1972)
- - , RILR~ =Roman lmpmalism in the LAte Republic, 2nd edn (1968)
- - , TGBRR == 'Tiberius Gracchus and the Beginning of the Roman Revolution', in
ANRWI.i (1972) 668-731
--,Foreign Clientelae 264-70 B.C. (1958)
--,'From the: Gracchi to Sulla (19~59)', in Historia 11 (1962) 197-245
- - . Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Philhellmism atld Realpolitik (Louise Taft Semple: Lecture,
Cincinnati, 1970)
Bailey. A. M., and J. R. Llobcra, 'The Asiatic Modt' uf Production. An annotated
Biliography', in Critique of Anthropology 2 (Autumn, 1974) 95-103 ('I. Principal
writings of Marx and Engels'), and 4/5 (Autumn, 1975) 165-76 ('II. The adventures
of the concept from Plekhanov to Stalin')
Bailey, Cyril, 'Karl Marx on Greek Atomism', in CQ 22 (192M) 20~
Balsdon,J. P. V. Dacre, 'The .. divinity .. of Alexander', in Historia 1 (1950) .363-88
- - . Life and Leisure in Anlient Rome (1969)
- - . 'Panem et circensc:!i'. in Hommagt'S aMarcel Renard II ( = Coli. Latoml4s 102. Brussels,
1969)57-60
Banks,]. A., MSA =Marxist Sociology in Action (1970)
Bardenhewer, Otto, Geschichtt der alckirklicfJen Literatur, 5 vols (Freiburg im Breisgau), 12
(1913), IP1 (1914), III (1912). IV (1924), V (1932)
- - , Patrolol(y (Freiburg im Breisgau. 1908; Eng. trans. from the 2nd German edn)
Barker, Ernest, AC From Alexander to Omstanrine. Pt:usa~es a11d Do<ummts Illustrating the
History of Social and Politiral Ideas J.36B.C. A. D. 337 (1956)
--.Social and Political Thought in Byzl1ntiumfromjustinian I to the LAst Palaeologus (1957)
- - . The Politics '!f Arisrotle (1946 & rc:pr.: Eng. trans., with Introd. and notes)
Barm'S, T. 0., 'The date ofVegrtius', inPh.mix 33 (1979) 254-7
--,'Porphyry Against tht Christians: date and the: attribution of fragments', in]TS n.s.
24 (1973) 424-42
--,'Who were the nobility of the Roman Empire?'. in Phoenix 28 (1974) 444-9
--.Review, in AJP% (1975) 443-5. of Lr Culte dts Souverains dans /'Empire R11main =
Entretiens Hardt 19 (1973)
Barns, John, SHS
'Shenute as a historical source', in Acres duX' Con~rcs International
[Warsaw etc., 1961]de Papyrologues (Warsaw etc., 1%4) 151-9
Baron, S. W., SRflj I' & lf'l A Soda I and Religious History of th Jews I and II, 2nd edn
(1952 & repr.)
Baynes. Norman H .. BSOE = By.:antine Studrts a11d Other Esiays (1955)
- - . Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 2nd edn (1972), with a Preface by
Henry Chadwick
- - . The Poliri.-alldeas of St. Au,11ustine's Dr Civitatt Dt'i (=Historical Assocn Pamphlet
no.104, London, 1936)
667
- - , 'The decline of the Roman power in Western Europe: some modem explanations',
in)RS 33 (1943) 29-35, repr. in BSOE (above} 8~96
- - , Review ofK. M. Setton, Christian Attitude ... (q.v.), in }RS 34 (1944) 135-40, panly
repr. in BSOE (above) 348-56
Beazley, J. D . 'Potter and painter in Ancient Athens', in PBA 30 (1944) 87-125 (also
published separately)
Bedale, Stephen, 'The meaning of kephali in the Pauline Epistles', inJTS n.s. 5 (1954)
211-15
Beesly, E. S.. Catilint, Clodius, and Tibtrius (1878; repr., New York. 1924). [Seepp.621-2
n.5above]
Bell, Harold Idris, EAGAC =:Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (1948)
- - , EVAJ = 'An Egyptian viUage in the age ofjusrinian', in]HS 64 (1944) 21-36
Beninger, A. R.: see under Welles, C. Bradford
Beloch, K.J., GG III 2 = Gritchische Geschichte m:r.i & ii, 2nd edn (1922, 1923)
Bendix, Reinhard, MWJP =Max Weber. An Intellectual Portrait (1959 & repr.)
Bendix, Reinhard, and S. M. Lipset, cspz = Class, Status, and Powt>r. Social Stratification
in Comparative Perspective, 2nd edn (1966/7)
Bendix, Reinhard, and Guenther Roth, Sch(l/arship and Partisanship: Essays on Max Weber
(1971)
Bengtson. H., GG~ Griuhische Ge.uhkhte, 5th cdn (19n)
Beranger,Jean, 'Lc:sjugements de Ciccron sur les Gracques', in ANRW l.i (1972) 732-63.
[See p.6.!.l n. 7 above]
Berchem. Denis van, us distributions de blf et d'argmt a Ia plebe romaine s~>us l'Empire
(Geneva. l'139i
Berger, Adolf: l:'DRL :::: Encydopedic Dicti~>ntJry of Rom.m Law, in Transactions of the
American Philosoplzical Soc., n.s. 43, Pan 2 (1953), pp.333-809
Berve, Helmut, Die Tyrannis bti den Griechen, 2 vols (Munich, 1%7)
Bcteille, Andre (e<i.). Sl =Social Inequality (Penguin Modern Sociology Rt:adings. 1%9
& repr.)
Bickerman. E. J. [.llso ll1kcrm.m. Htd.l.'rmann,l. Al'T
Autonomia. Sur un passage de
Thuqdid" (1, 144.2)'. in RlD.P 5 (N58) .'\J.l-44
--,IS= brstttrfti,,ns Jr: Silruddr! (P.uis, 1'1~}
--,'La mnc,ptiun du mari.1ge l Athi-nc~. in lUDR 78 =sec. IJI.17 (1975) 1-28
- - , 'Love: st.ory in the .HomcrF. Hyrrm tn Aphmtli:~: , in Athenaeum. n.s. 54 (1976) 229-54
- - . 'Some reflections on lrdrly H.m;an hi:o~lll)'. in RFIG 97 ( 1969) 393-408
Bieiunska-Malnwist. lza. F.I:GN I to: II L ,;,lal'll,flr' dans l'Egypte grt!co-romainr (Warsaw
etc.) I. Wn,.J, Ptolinlai~ur (1')74}. ;and 11. J>(rj,,J, romaint (1977). [See p.566 above,
n.31. o~d inir ..J
- - , ENMM .,.. J_,o;. esd.I\'\'.S m:S dans b m:nsun clu mairre (oikoge11eis) er le travail des
cscl;m.'!i ,;n Egypt, rcml.um. u Smdii Cwnu '{Bucharest. 1961) 147...(}2
- - , 'L~s l'!>dJv~ p.ty.n::t J'<Jp'l'h,Jr,Hfan~l'~tzypt<" tz;n"'co-romaine'. inJJP15 ( 1965) 65-72
- - , 'Qudqm-s t(~mi~S. nun rypiques JLl't~d.lu~.: dans lc mondc ancien'. in Antichr~ce
Obslrhc~IJ.'i.' [ ==- .'ltUII'III Society] (Mos-cow. ]1Jh7) )1-6
Birley. Anth.~ny It .IIRMA ='The in\'Jt~oil.)n ullt.tly in the reign of Marcus Aurdius', in
ProimiiiiJa. Festschrift fur Rrui.lf l.riiiRrl.m. ,.,i, Elisab('tb Schmid and oth('rs {Basd/
Stuttgart, 1968) 214-25
- - , MA
= Al:lr"iJI,( Allrclm. (1'1tJ6)
- - . TCCRE
'Th~ third '"mtur} ,:m.i!>- m rh, Roman empire', m Bull. of the John
RylarrJJ Ullw. L:~r:J')' ~f M.mdmrr ;s n~7!1) 25."\-.81
--,'The: <<~lh not w put ;,uawr~ hl d.~th. in (.'R 76 = n.s. 12 (1962) 197-9
- - . 'Rum;m fr<mti,rs and R,ltllJI t"r<>mi.:r rli;y'. :11 Transactions of tht> Architectural and
Ardt;lt\i.gimi S,,:. =!; /)lfrir,m: ,m:l !V:,rlumlori.:'loi. n.s. 3 (1974) I.J-.25
Blavatsk.ljJ. T. V.. t=. S. (;;,[ub(.:l\':0 ;m.l A. I. i':l\lo~skaja, Die Skla1'erei in hellenistischen
StaJle11 im J. ; . .Jl:. . 01r. (\\1 it1>h.:;d~r1. !<J72; (.;,rman trans. from Russian)
668
The Class
Stru~le
in the Ancient Greek World
8i<.lth. M.HL'. l'~r1dal Society 2 (Eng. trans. in 2 vols, by L.A. Manyon, 2nd edn, 1%2, of
L1 $1lrit;tt'ji'PJale, 2 vols, Paris, 1939-40)
---. 'Tht riit' <)f dependent cultivation and srignorial institutions' (Ch. vt), in CEHE 1~
(1':161i) 2.15-90 (repr. from 1st edn, 1941)
modt. Maun('t {cd.). Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology (= ASA Studies 2. 1975)
Blum. JcrJnte, The End'?[ thr Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton, 1978)
Blumenberg. WLmer, Karl Marx (Eng. trans. by Douglas Scott, 1972)
Bodci Giglioni. Gabriella. Lavori pubblici c ocmpazione ne/l'antichita classic a (Bologna, 1974)
Hockh, August, Die Staatshaushaltun,~ der Atllener, 2 vols, 3rd edn (Berlin, 1886. ed. Max
Frankel)
Btlmtt. Fr.m7. URSGR = Untersuchungen iiber die Religion der Sklaven in Griechmland Utld
N .m. I-IV. in Mainz Akad., Abhandlun.~en dc:r geistes- und sozialwiss. Klasse,
Wksb.ldtn. 1957no.7(1), 1960no.l (ll),l%1no.4(111), 1963no.IO(IV)
lh,lkc:~t'lrl. H .. ( :RO =De colonalu romano eiusque ori,(!ine (Diss . Amsterdam. 1906)
Bmlk~'. Bdin)_l. 'Die politische lsonomie'. in Eirene 9 (1971) 5-24
Holten\. J.. 'D~sordrc economique et annulation des dl'ttl-s en Mcsopotamic a l'epoque
paleo-babylonienne', in)ESH04 (1961) 11.3-64
.Hottomore, T. B . Sociolo,~y~ Sociolo_~y. A Guid1 to Problems and Literature, 2nd edn (1971)
ll<ltlt'mur.:. T. U., and Maximilien Rubel. KM = Karl Marx. Sdecred Writin.~s ;, Sodolo.~y
.mJ s.Lial Jllri(osophy (1956 & repr.)
u.~wcr~o::-k. G. W . AGW:. Augustusar1dthe Grrek World (1965)
- - , ':\ rtp~lrt un Arabia provincia'. m]RS 61 (1971) 219-42
- - . Ht'\'icw. m Gnom'm 45 ( 197."\) 576-SO, ofJiirgen Deiningtr, Drr politi>Chc Widmtand
... (q.l' bdow)
UtWUJ.Ul. Alan K . PRIH
'Papyri and Roman Imperial history, 1%0-75'. in]RS M
(llJ7ti: I:U-7.1
Hlxtr. C. R .. PSE-= The Portu.~uese Seaborne Empire 1415-1825 (1969; Pdican. 1973)
Brananu, <;.I.. 'Empire et "Democratie" a ByzanCl. in Byz. Zt.<chr. .17 (1937) B0-111
Brdlitr. L.mil>, ,h. ii-vi (pp.55-179) of Histoire de I'Eglise, ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin. V
iParis. 1?47l
Bnt,;ll'r. Rnhtrt. 'Agrarian class strultur"' and l'~onomic development in pre-industrial
Europe', in Past & Prest>nt10 (1976) 30-75
JJri;~nt, Pierre, DDAHA
'Dorfcr und Dorfgtmeinschaftcn im athamenidischen und
hdltmsu.,.rlwn Asien', in]ahrbuchfur Winsrhajts,l/es,hirhte (1975) 115-.l\
- - , RLER = 'Remarques sur les "laoi" et 1.'Sdaves ruraux en Asie Minc:un hdlcmstiqut', in A.(/es du Colloque 1971 sur l'esclavaxe (=Annates littl'raires de l'Univmitl' de
lit~dtli'" 14(1, Paris, 1972) 93-133
- - . 'Villages <.'t comunautes villageoisc:s d' Asie achcmcnidt l't hdlenistiqu..'. injESHO
18(1975) 1h:l-SH
Briggs. Asa. 'The language of ..class" in ~arly ninc:tecnrh-cc:ntury England', in Essays i11
Labour History I (s~.: the mxt item) 4.3-73
Uriggs. Asa. and John Saville (eds). Essays in Labour History I (rev. l'dn, 1%7)
Hn:<>mt', Julm, 'Rom~. and the class struggll in the: Gn.'t.k states 2<X.l-146 D.C.'. in Past &
Prcmt Jt., (1967) .3-20, rc:pr. in SAS. ed. Finlty (q.v.} 53-73
- - . R.vi..w. in CR H8 = n.s. 24 (I'J74) 258-01, ofJiirgc:n Deininglr. Der politischr
WiJ,r.;t;mJ .. . (q.v.)
Brud... S, P .. 'Syriac sources for snmth-century htstory'. in 8y;!"antine and Modem Grrek
.SII,.Iit'.<! \ 1976) 17-36
Broughton. T. R. S., MRR II=;; Thr Ma_gistraresoftht Romau Republic, II. 99B.C.-J1 B.C.
{1952)
- - , RLAM ='Roman landholding in Asia Minor', in TAPA 65 (1934) 207-39
--,'Roman Asia Minor'= Part IVofESAR (ed. Tenmy Frank) IV (1938) 499-950
Brown. Peter. The World of Late Antiquity (1971)
--.'The rise and function of the.- Holy Man in Latl' Antiquity', in]RS hi (1971) ~101
Browning, Robert,]ustinian and TheodtJra (1971)
669
- - , Revkw, in TLS 3902 (24 December 1976) 1606, of Alan Cameron, Circus Facti()tJS
(q.v.)
Brunt, P. A . Al.IU~ = 'Tht> drDlY :w.i tht !1ud io tl11: Roman revolution', inJRS 52(1%2)
69-&o
- - , ASTDCS =" 'AspectS<llth Su~;d Thnughto;,fDioChrysostom and ofthl' Stoics',
in PCP.S n.~ 19 (1973) 'i-.'\4- - . CPMEP = 'Ch.arges ofprovin,-ill rn.aladtni:li~~rauon under the Early Principate',
in Hi~ccrirl 10 (1%1) 189-227
- - , DIRDS ;; 'Dtd ImpLnal Rmm di~.lnn her <;<Jb_j,cts?', in Ph"cnix 29 (t 975) 260--70
- - , El R "" Th, E.]uit.:s in thLl.Jt<.' Republic'. tn Dtuxieme Corljimlff lnternat. d'hist.
econ. f1\iJt......n-Pron~et. 1%2], Vol. I. Tra.i, .,d Politic~ in tht' Anr. World (Paris,
1965) 117-4<;~. repr. m CRR. ed. St:ttt.::r {of.l'.} ~.\...) 15
- - , IM luli.m Manpower 22J B.C. --l n. 14 ct~71)
- - , Ll -== 'L..us imperii', in lmper:.J/i$m ir; tlrf A.m . JJ-'pr/d. ed. P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R.
Whitt.tkcr (1978) 15~()1, 319-JO
- - , RLRCRE 'ThL' Rnmaiii!;Olttl'ln l'lfthLIural ruhng classes in the Roman empire'. in
Assrmrl.rthtl r'l rhbt.ltr<t.; i.J mllll,r' ~rt:o -r<namo .f,,s le mondr ancim = T ravau.'l: du VI
[Madrid. 1974] Gmtrrs ltltcm,ti.,.:t ci'Etudc: C/.1.! iques (Bucarcst/Paris, 1976) 161-73
- - , SCRH. =Social CuntliLt~ it: tht Roman Republic (1971)
- - , '"Amkitia" !II tht: l.ate R\rntan Republic'. in PCPS n.s. 11 (1965) 1-20, repr .. m
CRR, ;.d. Seager (q 1-' 1199-llioi
- - , 'Conscription .and 'liO]unte<-ring in the Roman Imperial army', in S(ripta Clcmica
Israrlica 1 (1974) 90-115
--.'Free labnurand rublic w~rk~ at Rome:' inJRS 70 (19RO) 81-100
--,'Josephus on sth.'l.ll cunftkb in RomanJudaea', m Kli" 59 (1977) 149-53
--,'lex deintplrio Vespasiani', inJRS f:r7 (1977) 95--116
- - , '1111: UClman mob', in Past & Presl'nt .\5 (I'Jf.n) 3-27, repr. (with an addendum) in
SAS, t."d. Fmky iJ.I') 7'4--10.!
--,'Two t1;reat Ruman l.andowmrs '. iP I...rcmu:: .'H (1975) 619-35
- - , 'Wh.1.tt:; annt'nt history .Jhmtt?', in I>Mo~$k,lf,y 5 (1976) 236-49
- - , Rt'\'t<'W, in (;mrmon 37 (l%5) Jfl!j. ..IJ2, nfD. C. Earl, Tibrrius Gra((hus (1%3)
- - , RLvitw, in}RS 61) (1')79) ll>X-75, ofJ. Rufi1'i f~ars, Pri11ups a diis elrctus [sc-~ p.633
n. 72a above.']
- - , Rcvi~:w . . iii jR..~ 5R (l%i~j 229-32, oiChzNi.m Meier. Res Publi(a Arnissa (1%6)
- - , Rt'vit'w, inJRS 5J (l%J} 170-b, ufH.l>. Meyer, Die Aussmpolitikdr.< Au_~u~tusund
die au~usteische Di.-lrtun,( ( 1961)
- - , Rc-v1c-w. in IRS -UI (1958) 104---70, ofW. L. Westermann. SSGRA (q.v.), and two
oth~...r bl)t)b ;Ill amit'lll slavery
- - , Rt'\'lL'W. injRS t-r.:?. ( tJ72) 153-8, oiK. D Wbm, Roman Farmin~ (1970)
Brunt, P. A,. and J. M M1wn. Rc C;c%U' Vili 1\11.~usti. Tht Ach1rvements tl_{ thc Dwine
.-iU.\!"-'"'~ {1967; indud~...'lri Luin lt>Xt, trans .. mtwJ. and comm.)
Bruun, P. M.,
R.m.m lmpr7ioJl Coinagr [eu. C. H. V. Sutherland and R. A. G.
Carson]. Vll. C.n.<t,mtillr o~nd LILit~ius A.D ....IJ.I-:J37(19M)
Buckland, W. W .. Rl.S 11,. R,rmo~tl l.dl' 4Slavrry (1908)
- - , TRRL.'1 = .-\ r,.'l:tll,r,.k ~i R,,,,.,,, l..dlt'{rom Au~ustus '"justinian, Jrd edn, rev. by
Peter 'itl'in ( 1'Hrj)
Buckler. W. H . l.j)ll:\ = 'l ..al-.,ttr disputes m th.l'ruvince of Asia', in AnatoJ/ian Studies
pre. t(l Sir W. M. Ramsay, t."d . W. H. Bud1.l~rdnd W. M. Calder(1923) 27-50
Burford. A.h"lu, ( :GRS Crqftsmm itt C;trrk .JIIcl Roman Somty ( 1972)
- - , EGTB "" 'Th~ ,t'nn(llllll-s otGr::-..:k temple building', in PCPS n.s. II (1%5) 21-34
- - , GTRE -: l1r, <~tr'ik
Rllird.-rs at Epidaurus (1969)
- - . 'The huildLr. ,,f th, Po~rthLn,,n. 1n Hmlrcll and Parthmon (= Grrece & Rome,
Suppl. tt V()]. W, I'Hr.lJ .l\...\5
Burstein. S. M., 011tpo'.<t ~illt'llt'llis,.,:
r;,,,.,x"ni'( .if Hrraclea (In the Black Sra (= Univ. of
Calif,mliil Pllitli.-.:riow.<: C/;1.. Str1J. 14. itJ7t,j
nw
T,.,,,,..
n,.
670
Bury, J. H., HLRP "" History <>fthe Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius 1to the
Death ofjustinian (A.D. 395to A.D. 565). 2 vols (1923). [I have not used in this book
what is sometimes r~garded as a first edition of the same work: A History of the Later
Romatl Empire from Arcadius to lrt'tte, 395 A.D. to 800 A.D., 2 vols. 1!!89)
Bury.]. B., E. A. Barb~r. Edwyn Bevan, and W. W. Tam, The He/1!-nistic Age (1923)
Busolt, Georg (or Busolt-Swoboda), GS = Griechisch.- Staatslmnde, 2 vols (Munich), I
(1920), and II (1926, ed. H. Swoboda, whose contribution blgins at p.881).
Butler, A. J., ACP = The Arab Conquest i?f Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman
Dominion, 2nd cdn by P.M. Fraser (1978) [Sec p.652 n.37 above)
Buttrey, T.V., 'Dio, Zonaras and the value of the Roman aureus', inJRS 51 (1961) 40-5
Calabi Limmtani, Ida. Studi sulla societa romana~ illavoro artistico (= Hibliotcca srorica
universitaria, St'ric II Monografie, Vol. IX. Milan, lY58)
Caldcrini, Aristide, La manomissione rIa condizione dei Iiberti in Grecia (Milan, 1908)
Cameron, Alan, CF =Circus Factions. Blues .rnd Greens at Rome and Byzantium (1976)
- - , Bread and Circuses: the Roman Emperor and his Pt11plr (Inaugural Lecture, King's
College London, !973)
- - . Claudian. Pcl'lry and Propa.~anda at the Coun of Honorius (1970)
--,'The house-of Anastasius', in GRBS 19 (1978) 259-76
- - . 'Rutilius Namatianus, St. Augustine, and the date of the Dr Reditu', in ]RS 57
(1967) 31-9
Cam('ron, A veri I, Flavius Grr.'lllu.< C11rippus, In laudrm lustini Augusti min11ris (1976: text,
Eng. trans., and mmm.)
- - , 'Images of authority: e-lites and l('Ons in late sixth-century Byzantium', in Past &
Present 84 (Augusr 1979) }..,~::;
- - , 'Neither male nor f~mal~, in Greece & Romez 27 (11)8()) 60-8
- - , 'The Theotokos m sixth-nnrury Constantinople', in JTS n .s. 29 ( 1978) 79-108
- - . 'Early Byzantin~ KaiJrrkritik: Twu~:asc histories', in Byzantine and Modnn Greek
Studies 3 (1977) 1-17
Cardascia, G., ADCHH

L'apparition dans le droit des dasses d'"honestiom" et
d' "humiliores" ', in RHl>FF 27 ( 1950) Jr6-.\7 J.nd 461-85
- - , 'La distinction l'ntrc: hcnr'.'ti.re:. et humil11rt'. l't le droit matrimonial', in Studi in
memoria di Emilio .il~mari. II ! 11151) f>5~7
--.Re-view, in lura :!1 {I'J'i'Oi 25i)..(,, ,,fG,Im!'ly. SSLPRi'i (oJ.I'.)
Carlyle, A.J., A History ofMrdillt'l'oll J>c>litic.rl Theory in tl1c- Wot F (1927)
Cartledge. Paul. 'Hoplites .md herot."li. inJHS 97 (1977) 11-27
--,Sparta and Lakllnr.t. A. Re~ic>nal history H00-.~62 B.C. (11179)
- - , Review, inJHS 11X ( 197~) 193-4, ofR. Se;.~lty, :'1 Hi>M'}' !i tile" Greek City Stt~tes ca.
700-338 B.C. (1977)
Casson, Lionel, Ships o1nd St'amanship in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1971)
--.'Unemployment, the building trade. and Suetonius. Vesp. 18', in BASP 15 (1978)
43-51
Castles, Stephen, and Godula Kosack, Imm(~rant Workm and Class Structure in Western
Europe (1973)
Cawkwell, G. L.. Introduction to 1972 reissue of Penguin Classics Eng. trans. of
Xenophon's Anabasis by Rex Warner, as Xenophon. The Persian Expedition
Cerfaux, L., and ]. Tondriau, Le culte dt's souverains d4ns Ia civilisation greco-romtJine
(Tournai. 1957)
Chabot, J. B., Chronique de Michtlle Syrien, Patriarcht jawbite d'Antioche ( 1166-1199 ), 4
vols (Paris, 1899-1924, repr. Brussels, 1963), esp. II (French trans.)
Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church (Pelican History of the Church. V<?l. I, 1967)
- - , 'John Moschus and his friend Sophronius the sophist', in]TS n.s. 25 (1974) 41-74
- - . 'Origen, Cdsus, and the Stoa', inJTS 48 (1947) 34-49
Chalon, Gerard, ET}A L 'Edit de Tiberius Julius Alext~ndtr. Etude historique et exegetique
(Bibl. Helvet. Romana. Olten/Lausanne, 1964)
671
Chamou:<. Frotn'lois. Crr11r s"m i:l ,...,l,lrdur d.~ li.mi.1des (Paris. 1953)
Chapot. Vi, tor. Lo: f:I<Willir' rvm.:i>11' prw,~mul.:,rr r:':\sit> (Paris, 1904)
Charani~. P.tr. 'Tho:: tr.m~f,r of ropul.1non as a policy in the Byzantine Empire', in
CSSID (1 1 N~.r-~.1) J-41)...5_.
Charleswrrth. M, P _. VR E = 'Tht Virtu~~ <If a Human emperor: propaganda and the
creJtJCIII ofhdi<-f ttlw 1'(\i Raleigh L-:aur<' ''ll History). in PBA 23 ( 1937) 3-31 (also
puhh;;h.:d $Cpautdy;. [~c p.374 abonJ
- - , Rtvi.:w. iu CR h,l (l'J4'1) 22-3, .,i[.(IUJI.I>d.!.tt,. Les Traitis dt> Ia Royautid' Ecphante,
Diotogenr ,., Stiii'PtiJJ> (liO:i! 19(~)
Chastagnol, An.ln.\ IPHR::. l.u FJ.<Wdf !.zl'rijraurede Rome au Bas-Empire (Paris. 1962)
Childe, V. Gur.l<n. What Happened 111 History {Pdi.::an, 1942 & rcpr.}
- - , ,\;/.til .H,,Jt,,; 1-Iimsl'!f (1936; 3rd dn, 1956 & TC:pr .)
Chrimes [.-\tk.insunj. K. M. T.. :\r.irtJI.'il'.m.J ( 1.-14~)
Christem~n. Arthur. l.'lr.11 .clt.>/t> So~H,IItiJes 2 (Copenhagen, 1944}
Christophe, P.ml. l.'Usage chrittffl Ju Jr,tt .1... propriete dans I'Ecriture et Ia tradition patristiqur
( = Collt'<.tion Theologie, P11SI''';, t't Spiritual ice, no. 14. Paris. 1964}
Citti, Vitt<lri(), Tra![edia e Iotta Ji d.u.<t' it Grl'cia (Naples. 1978)
Clarke, G. W .. 'lhrb.ari.tn disturbances in ~orth Africa in the mid-third century, in
Anth'hthc>n 4 (1971_1) 7~:;

Clausing. Uoth. The Roman Ccl,tJJtt'. 'lJ:c Tht"ri''S qf it.s Origin, with an lntrod. by
Vladimir G. Simkbovitch (Sn,JJa Hi.<t,riiol 17, New York, 1925; rcpr. Rome. 1965)
Clavei-Leveque, Moniquc. M;mtillt .~ro~u.:. L.J dynamique d'un irnperialisrne marchand
(Marseilles, 19i'7} .m.xp.msJon of'Da:. griechische Marseille. EntwJcklungsstufen
und Dynamik ~incr H.mdelsmachr'. in Hl'llcttrsche Poleis, ed. E. Ch. Weiskopf
(Berlin, 1974) H.li55-%9
Clerc, M., Les metequt!~ athrr~it-tb (P.ms. IXtl.'\)
Cloche, Paul, LJ rf.'st.turation dhnc(ratiqlle ,; :1tlll'lnt. rn 40) av<Jnt].-C. (Paris. 1915)
Cohen, Benjamin, 'I..1 notiuu d''\mJo'' ,bus Ia Humc antique', in Bulletin dt'l'Association
G. Bude. 4c Serit". 2 (1975) 25~2
Cohen, G. A., Karl Mar.~ s Thr!lry ~iHisll'r)'. :\ Diferrcr( 1978; repr., with corrections, 1979)
- - , 'On some critimms ofhi!itorical rn.1terialism', in Protetdings of thf.' Aristotelian Soc.
(Suppl. Vol) 44 (1970) 121-41
- - , 'Being, ('CmJ;nousnt'M and rnlrs: on th~ f.mndations ofhistorical materialism', in
Est<~ys n 1-l<Jif'''' of E H. C,rw, ~d. C:hmwn Ahramsky (1974) 82-97
Coleman-Norton, P. R . RSCC I-111 -= R'nwn Stat!' and Chrisria11 Church. A Collection of
Le.(alDotummtilo .-i.D ;,f_i, .h-e\)~ (f(Jt'l(,). [11artin.da.rly useful indexes at\.'Ild ofVol. IIi]
Coleman-Norton, P. R. (c:J.), StuJu~s iu Ron1a1 lio(lnomi( anJ S{lcial Hist{lry in Honor {If
A. C. ,Mmson (Princeton, 1951)
Colin. Golston. Rome et Ia Grhrdr 2(1(}J 146 av.j.-C. (Paris, 1905)
Colline'l. P .aul. t, l"Olunilt dans !'Empire rom a in', in Recueils dtla Societti]ean Bodin IP. Lc
sen~(r (2nd rev. edn, Hrussels, 1959) K5-l.!O, with a 'Note complementaire' by M.
Pall.Js:!>t', 121-8
Collingwulld, IL G., and J. N. I.. Myn:li, RBE.S2
Rottllln Britain and the English
Settlrmrnt~. 2nd edn (Oxford Hist(lry <!r"England, Vol. I, 1937 & repr.}
Collins, J. ]., 'Jewish Apocalyptic attaimt its Hellenistic Near Eastern environment', in
BASOR 220 (December, 1975) J:l-.\h
Connor, W. R., Thf.' Nru P.litJtian.~ !lFifih-CI'ntury Atherrs (1971)
Coulbom, Rushton (nl. ). 1-i111Mi$tn "'History ( 1956). [See above, pp. 267 and 596 n. 4]
Courtois. Christian. VA Les V:~ttd.tles l't I'Afrique (Paris, 1955)
Crawford, Dorothy, 'Impcri.tll"Jt'ari."S', in Studies in Ronwn Property, ed. M. I. Finley
(1976)35-70
Crawford, Michael H., Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols (1974)
- - , The Roman Republic (Fontana History of the Ancient World, 1978)
- - , 'Finance, coinage and money from the Severans to Constantine', in ANRW ll.ii
(1975) 560-93
672
- - , 'Republican denarii in Romania: the suppression of piracy and the slaw-trade', in

]RS 67 (1977) 117-24
--,'Rome and the Greek world: economic relariomhips', inEcon. Hist. Rev. 2 30 (1977)
42-52
Crook,]. A., LLR == LawandLife'?{Rome(1967)
Crossland, R. A., 'Hittite society and its economic basis', in BICS 14 (1%7) 106-8
Dahrendorf, Ralf, CCCIS Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959 & repr.), a
revised and expanded version by the author himself of the German original, Soziale
Klassm und Klassenkonjlikt in der industriellm Gtstllsrhaft {1957)
- - , ETS = Essays in the Theory '?{Society (1968), including 'In praise ofThrasymachus',
pp.129-50; and 'On the origin ofinequality among men', pp.151-78, repr. also in
Beteille (ed.), SI (see above) 16-44
Dandamayev, M., 'Achaemenid Babylonia'. in Ancient Mesopotamia, SrJcio-Economic
History. A Collection ofStudies by Soviet scholars, ed. I. M. Diakonoff(Moscow,
1969) 29fr311
Danilova, L. V., 'Controversial problems of the theory of precapitalist societies', in
Soviet Anthropology atul Archaeology 9 (1971) 269-328
D'Arms, J. H., 'Puteoli in the second century of the Roman Empire: a social and
economic study', injRS64(1974) 104-24
Daube, David, Ancimt Hebrew Fables (1973, Inaugural Lecture of Oxford Centre for
Postgraduate Studies)
--,'Biblical landmarks in the struggle for women's rights'. in juridical Review 23 (1978)
tn-97
--.'Fashions and idiosyncrasies in the exposition of the Roman law of property', in
Theories'?{ Prop my, ed. A. Pare! and T. Aanagan (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 1979)
35-50
David, Paul A., and others, Reckoning with Slavtry (1976 & repr.). with an Introduction
by Kenneth M. Stampp ('A humanist perspective', 1-30), and including Gavin
Wright, 'Prosperity, progress, and American slavery', 302-36
Davies, J. K., APF =Athenian Propertied Families 600-JOO B.C. {1971)
--.Democracy atul Classical Gretet (1978). [See p.600 n.3]
Davis. David Brion, PSWC The Problem of Slavery in Westem Culture (Ithaca, N.Y., 1%6)
Davis, P. H., 'The Delos building contracts'. in BCH61 (1937) 109-35
Dawes, Elizabeth, and N.H. Baynes, Three Byzantine Saints (1948: Eng. trans. of the
lives of Daniel the Stylite. Theodore of Sykeon, and John the Almsgiver, of
Alexandria, with Notes)
Day, John, EHARD
An Economic History '?{ Athms unJrr Roman Domination (New
York, 1942)
Debord, Pierre, 'L'esclavagc sacre: Etat de Ia question', in Actrs du Colloque 1971 sur
l'esclavage (=Annates litteraires de l'Univ. de Besanron 140, Paris, 1972) 135-50
Degler. Carl N., 'Starr on slavery', injEH 19 (1959) 271-7
Deininger, Jiirgen, Der politische Widerstand gegm Rom in Griechenland 217-86 v. Chr.
(Berlin, 1971). [See p.523]
Delatte, Louis, Lt's Traites de Ia Roynute d'Ecphantr, Diotogme et Sthenidas (Liege. 1942)
[And see above under Charlesworth]
Delehaye. H., Les Saints Stylites(== Subsidi4 HagioRraphica 14, Brussels/Paris, 1923, repr. 1962)
Delz, Josef, Lukians Kmntnis dtr athenisthen Antiquitiiten (Diss . Basel. 1950)
De Martino, Francesco, SCR 2 Storia della costituzione romann, 2nd edn (Naples, 1972-5):
12 (1972), II"' (1973),1U2 (1973),1V 2 .i (1974) and ii {1975). V 2 (1975)
Dennett, D. C., Conversion anJ the Poll-Tax in Early Islam(= Ha"'ard Historical Monographs22, 1950)
Demougeot, Emilienne, MEFB
'Modalites d'etablissement des fcderes barbares de
Gratien et de Theodose', in Melanges d'histoire andennt olferts a William Seston (Paris,
1974) 143-60
673
--. A propos d.:.s 1.:-tt'.S gA,doi.~ .in IV !iiid', m f;.-itriige zur alten Geschichte und derm
Nachleben. ff>t.>r:llriftfi"ir F. .4./tlr,im (Ikrlin, t970) If. tol-13
- - , 'La~ti tt Gtntilts dans l.a GAuk d;J IV" si~clt'. in Acte.< du Col/oque d'histoire sociale
1970 ("'= .:-\main Utrt'r-Jirrs Jr l't',:ir dr' Ht.;,llftlll ~8. Paris. 1972) 101-12
- - , Dr l'rmtrl ci ;;l Jirt!icm J, fEt>~pir,. ,,,,:.rit~ 3'J5-HO, Essai sur le .!louvernement imperiafe
(Paris. 1951)
De Roberus. F. M., II d:ritw .wri,;ci:,, '''11111rIIJJ.ri. l93fl)
- - , Ilfm~mt'IIC' !l.<!o~d:tti rd m.,.,J,~ '''"''""' i:i rll)~l della Repubblica alii' wrporazioni del
Bas~<} lmprrr :Napl~. N55!
--,La~''''''.: la:--.r.lt,ri ,,,., m,,,d, tcmo~n" ;Ho~u. 196.3)
- - , I rapporti Jtlll'''' 11d Jiritt rt'm;Jth' \Mila:l. 1946)
- - , Storia delle corporazioni c drl ''X'"l4' 4..~:-ci.J:il'O m:l mondo romano, 2 vols (Bari, 1J71)
Derow, P. S., 'Polybios and the t'mha~~y of KJllikrates', in Essays Presented to C. M.
Bowra (19'71JJ t.:!-23
De Visscltl'r. F .. l.rlMit. ri'Auguste decour-rt>cl Cyrene (Lou vain, 1940)
- - , 'Laju~tirl.' wmaine en Cyrena!quc'. u1 RIDA a 11 (1964) 321-33
- - . 'Lt statut JUndlqUl' des tlllUVt'.J.ll~ citoyms r<'mains er l"inscription dl" Rhosos'. in
Ant. Clo~i>. tJ (I'J"-J} l l-35: ;j,nd 14 (1<l45) 29-5-l
DiakonotT. I. M. (ed.,l.
Mr.;,'l"""""'d,
conomic History. A Collection of
Studtt'!- hv Snvict S.:hol.us (Mil>l"llW. l'JUJ)
Dobb, Mauril:e. (htlil<'tlmi.- Thcc'l'}' rlrt:l S,dalism (1955 & rl"pr.)
- - , Politit'Jl J;;,,n.my r2nd ( :.tpitoliJSm C1937 & rc:pr.)
Dover, (Sir) Kenneth]., GPM-= (;r.,k Pc'fll''"' Morality;, the Time "f Plat11 and Aristotle
A,.-,,.,,,
s,,,;,.
(1974)
--,in Gomme, HCTIV (q.v.)
Downey, Glanville, HAS :o- A History ofAt~tioch in Syria from Seleums to tl1e Arab Conqunt
(Princeton. 1961)
- - , 'The economic crisis at Antioch under Julian', in Smdirs in Roman Economic and
Social History ;, Honor~ A. C. ]ohm on, ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton (Princeton. 1951)
312-21
Drake, H. A., 'When was the "de laudibus Constantini" delivered?', in Historia 24 (1975}
345-56
- - , In Praise of Constantine: .-1 Histt>mo~l Study auJ :-.orw Translation of Husrbiu.<' Trkrnnial
Orations ( = Vniv. c1 C.tf!imi.ll'ubltioJii(ltrs: ( ;la.>i. Stud. 15, Uerkdey /London. 1976)
Draseke, J., 'Oer kanoni~~:hc Urid" d\"f> Grq(nru'> von Nlocasarea', in jahrb~rch fur
protrstantischr Theo/ogir 7 ( lAN l) 724-56
Duchesm. Louis, L'Eglise "" VI' .(if</, !l'oaris, 1925)
- - . Lr L1bcr Pontificalis, 2nd edn (P.uis) land II (1955),111 (1957); the tirst edition, in two
voir.. was publislw.J in t~...}:!
Dudden.l-'. Htllllo..'S: S\'\' und,r I lome~~ Dudtlo..'lt, F.
Duff, A.M . rliRI:' FrtcJnrm 111 tltl' F.o~rly R.mata Empire {1928; repr., with corrections
and dd.iiuon,, 19514}

Dumont, l.out~.J/,rr"~ Hifromlnm.<. 1'h, Castr System and its Implication,< ( 1970, Eng. trans.
from tlw Fnnh on~iu:al of 1%6l
Dunbabin. T. J.. Jl'G =- '1111 Jr,,rtrtr Gtnh.
fli.tory ~I Sicily and South Italy from tht'
FounJ,,;,., ?;tltd-;,,,k C.llli ,,, 4110 U C. ~ 1'148)
Duncan-Jones, Rt~h.nd P., l:'REQS ,.,
EIMi}' of the Roma" Empire: Quantitat;,,e
Studies (1974)
- - , 'TW<' polllltbiL indtwso lt thl'- purchasin~ power of monr.:-y in Gr(.'ck and Roman
antiquity'. iu l.a'.< 'Dt:I.Jirl&lti,uJ>' aRome, Epoque tipublicaine t'l impiriale (Collt'<'tion de
I'Eco/efran(liif:k R;mo' 37, H<mt:. 1978) 159-68
--.'The ,-l~cmi.-.:. tlw ;mait.l ;mJ th, ,.,,,Jiu/. m /.PE 21 (197fi} 43-52; and 'The size of the
n,,.
-r;,,.
modru. ~oJ.trm.~. iMJ. :U-t1~

- - , 'Tht pril'\' <lfwhc.&t iu H>mlo~l~ Egyrt 11nJ..-r the Principatc', in Chiron () ( 1976)141-62
- - , 'P.ay Jnd numbt'l"'i 111 Dtoc:kttan's amty". m Ci1iron R (1978) 541-60
674
Dupre, Georges, and Pierre-Philippe Rey, RPTHE = 'Rdiections on the pertinence of a

theory of the history of exchange', in Economy and Society 2 (1973) 131-63 (Eng.
trans. by Elizabeth Hindess from the French original, m Cahiers internationaux de
sociolo~ie 46 [ 1%8] 133-62)
Dvomik, F., ECBPP
Early ChristitJn ar1d Byzantine Political Philosophy: Ori,(ins and
Background, 2 vols (1966)
- - , 'Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasi us I', in Byz. Ztschr. 44 (1951) 111-16
Dyson, Stephen L., 'Natiw revolts in thl' Roman Empire', in Historia 20 (1971) 239-74;
and 'Native revolt patterns in the Roman Empire', in ANRW II .iii (1975) 138-75
Eadie,). W . The Breviarium '-if Festus (1%7)

Eddy, S. K .. The Kin.g is Dead. Studies in thr Near Eastern Resistance to Hellf'l!ism 334-31
B.C. (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1961)
Ehrenberg. Victor, PA 2 =The People of Aristophane.<, 2nd edn (1951)
Eisenstadt, S. N., Max Weber on Charisma and InstitutiOn BuildinR (1968)
Eldridge, J. E. T .. MWISR
Max Weber: 17e Inrerpretation of Social Reality (1971;
paperback repr., 1972)
Emerton, J. A., 'The problem of vernacular Hebrew in the first century A.D. and the
language ofjesus', inJTS n.s. 24 (1973) 1-23
Engels, Donald. 'The problem of female infanticide in the Gr.:co-Roman world', in CP
75 (19HO) 112-20
Tht Origin '!/tile Family, PrivtJtf' Property <lnd the
Engels, Friedrich/Frederick, OFPPS
Stall' (Eng. trans. from Der Ursprung der Familie, drs Privatr(f!enthums und des Staats, of
1884), cited here from pp.449-583 of MESW (see below, under Marx [and Engels])
- - , 'The peasant question in France and Germanf, cited here from MESW 623-40
(Eng. trans. from the German original of1894)
--,Trawl notes, 'From Paris to Berne" (1848, published in German 1898-9), cited here
from MECW {see below, under Marx [and Engels]) VH.507-29 (Eng. trans.)
Enzensberger, Hans Magnus. [Stlectrd] Poems (cited from Penguin Modem European
Poets edn, 196K)
Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Essays in Social At~throp.,lo~y ( 1962; cited from paperback edn, 1969)
Fantham, Elaine, 'Aequ11bilitas in Cicero's political theory, and the Greek tradition of
proportionaljustice', in CQ67 = n.s. 23 (1973) 285-90
Farrington, Benjamin, Diodorns Siculus: Universal Historian (Inaugural lecture, Swansea,
1936. published 1937) = Head and Hand in Ancient Greece ( 1947) 55-87
Faure, Edgar, 'Saint Ambroise er I'expulsion des pfregrins de Rome', in Etudts d'histoire
du droit canoniqurdtdiecs aGabriel Lr Bras, 2 vo1s (Paris, 1965) 1.523-40
Fears, J. Rufus, Princeps a diis t'lrrtus: The Divine Election of thr Emperor as a Political Con<"ept
at Rome('= Papers and Mconoxraphs of the American Academy in R.,me 26, 1977). [Set
p.6.33 n.72a above]
Ferguson, W. S., HA ::::; Hellenistic /\then.< ( 1911)
Fiebig, P., 'Anxareuo', in ZNW tR (1917-18) ~72
Fikhman. l. F., 'On the structure ofthe Egyptian large estate in thl sixth cen rury , in Pro1.
Xlllntemat. Con,(!ressojPapyrolo~y =American Stud. in Papyrolo,(y7 (Toronto, 1970)
127-32
- - . 'Slaves in Byzantine Oxyrhynchus', in Aktm drs XIII (1971] lnternat. Papy
rologrnkonxr., ed. E. Kiessling and H.-A. Rupprecht (1974) l 17-24
- - . 'Quelques donnCt.'S sur Ia genese de Ia grande proprirtc fonCiere a Oxyrhynchus'. in
Le Monde Grt>c. Hommagcs aClaire Preaux, ed. J. Bingen and others (1975) 784-90
Finkelstein [finley). M. 1. 'Emporos, nauklirM and kapelos: a prolt:gomena to the srudy of
Athenian trade', in CP 30 (1935) 320..36
Finley (Sir) Moses I., AE = The Ancient Economy (1973)
- - . BSF =='Between slavery and freedom', in CSSH6 (1%4) 233-49
675
- - , SD.., 'l.a ~~nJtud~.pour;l,ttd.m RHDFP4J(1%5) 159-S4

- - . SS.A.G ='Tin- servile stam.~.-s nf An.-i.:-nt Gnx-n:', in RIDA 3 7 (1960) 165-89
- - , WGCBSL ""'Was Grd.. riilisatiuo ha!O~.-d .u slave labour?', in Historia 8 (1959)
145-lw. r~.-pr. in SCA. ,.d. Finl~ {!iC'l" bd)W~ 5.'- 72
- - . 'Athc:uian dc.-m.agi-1:~. 111 1':1.>! {~ [Jrr'wlt ?I ( 1962) 3-24, rtpr. in SAS, cd. Finl.:y
(sel' hdnw)J-2:;
- - . 'Th, tifth..;,ntury Arht.ru;m Empirl': a balance sheer'. in lmptrialism in tht Ancicm
Wotlol.~.,l.. P. D A. G.uns;y ;tnd C. R. Whitrakl."r (197H) 103-26, 306--10. [See above,
pp.W:!-3 n .24 .:mJ f-l:i-l-5 u.27]
- - , 'T~.~.hnil.'.ll inuuv.stion >~nd l'Ctucmic progress in thl' Anci~.nt World', in Econ. Hist
Rr11. ~ IK (I 1(,;)) 2'J-4'i
- - . 'Prtv.U: t;.m1 tl'll.lll<'Y in Italy lwti:r:: Di,,.-h. ~i;IJI', in Studies in Roman Property, ed.
Finley (sec hdowl103-21. 1AA-'.itl
--,Review. injRS 48 (19;13) 13f><M, ,_,;,\ . f.. H. Boak. ManpawerShortagrandtheFall oj
the R,,,,m Empire Ill tire Jhn (! 'J55}
- - , At~dttlf .'il,wrrr .J11/ M;J,m ldcd:<l)' \1'180) {I dtd not sre this book before mine wa1
fini:tht."d)
Finley, M . I.. ('littr). JI'H ;.-\ .-.: 17,/oilm.-s J,l,l t'rtt ~tt Greu anciennt' (Paris, 1973)
- - . SC.-\ -::: .S/:JI't'ry '" Cl.l.:siral t\tmqully Firw; .rr.i Controvnsirs ( 1960)
- - . SA..'i""' Sm./in i11 .-\r-itlf S..-:rty (JIJ74)
- - , SRP;;;:;: Stu.iir; it1 Rcn.m Jo,,prty (l'Jif,)
Firth, (Str) R.tynltlnJ. 'J1tl.'sccptical anthropologist=-. in PBA 58 (1972) 177-213. repr. in
Mar.-.:i>r An.!ly$r'~ .mel Social Anthropolo~y. cd. Maurice Bloch (1975); also published
separately
Fitzhugh. George, Sociology for tht St!ulh, or Thr Failurt' of Free Society (Richmond.
Virginia. 1854)
Flam-Zuckermann. Le-a. A propos d'unC' inscription de Suisse (CIL X Ill. 5010): etude du
phenomene du brigandage dans I' Empire romain'. in Laromus :N (1970) 4-51-73
Flkhe, A., and V. Martin (editors), Histoire dr 1'1;~/isr (Paris) III (1947). IV (1948), V
(1947)
Flusscr, Oa..td, m~.,~d are th.: poor in spirit', in IE] 10 (1 %0) 1-13
Fogd, R. W .. ;and S. I... Engcrman, TC or TC I= Time on tlrr Crass. Tht Elonomics of
Am.-ri,atl ~t.JZrt .'il.J1rry I (1974)
Folkt. Simonr, ...1,.:/:~:ir.~ :ll If" rt ,m !W ~ii'dt' .. Etudes chronologiqurs et prosopograpl1iques
(Paris. 1976~- - . '1....-ttn' d~. M.uc-Aurd~. au..x Ath.~ni~Jl.s. {EM 13366): nouvelles ltcturcs ct interpret.anous. m Rf:. J.- rlril 5J (1979) 2'J-4.~
Forbes, R .J .. $tr.J,,.c 111 A,,;,.ur lichnalogy II~ (1%51, tsp. 80-130
- - . Ch.lpt~.t "'\'ii iu Hiii''Y ,,,- l""rrhwl...:t If ( I9St,;. ,d. Charles Singer and others
Forni, G .. lntnrttu .tile co:.UIIIliomi ,h cttt.i. "-~r~h, 111 halia c in Sicilia', in Kw~eaA~ 3 (1957)
61-'1
ForrL'St, W G .. EGV =
limt'tgtlh"t !i c-;,,.,.k Dfmocracy. Tire Choractt>r of Grtt>k Politics
8{)(i-4VO n. c. i ,.,,:,,,
- - , 'Th~nnstodl'S aud Ar..:m. in CCJ 5-1~ n.s. to (1960) 221-41
Foss, Chw. 'Th, Ptrsl;m~ n~ A~ta Mm<tr ~dtd the end of Antiquity', in En~. Hisl. Rev. 90
(19i5~ 711-47
Francott~.l f.. /GA ,. I.. 'lml~Ht>i,J,m; 1. 1 C.rh.r .m~imur, 2 vols (Brussels, 1900-1)
- - , 'lrtdusrn. unJ llan.I.-1' [( ~r."\kj . 111 RJ: IX ( l~'!h) 13RI-143ll
Frank. Tlrm.y -.iiror .1.uJ p.An auch.,r ,,f ES.\R I-V== Ewnomic Survey of t\ndelll Rome, 5
n,..
vol" (Jn.{ Indt'l!.)
Fraser, p,.,,-r M .. 1':\ "- Pt.l,-,~oril .-\i,.\,m,lri,l, .\ q)); ( 1972)

Frederiksl'rl. ~t.Jrrin W .. CCPI l >= c-.~"'"' Ci,wr .md the problem of do:br', inJRS 56
(19M) l.:!Ml
- - . 'Thl ,:,mtribuciun iJ[ ~r.haeology w :he agrarian problem m the Gracchan prriod',
in Di.ll~~lli Jr .-\rclr.,/,?_~1:14-5 ( 197()..71) 330-57 (with 35S-67)
676
The Cl!lss Struggle in the Ancient Greek World
Frend, W. H. C., DC= The J),,,t~tit CIJUrdr (1952; mprowd repr., 1971)
- - , EC = The E4rly Church [1%5)
- - . MPEC = Mart}rdc'"' ,mJ Per.,-.,ti;tl i1 tlrt Early Chtmlr (~'1(5)
--.'The cellae ofth .~fric.an Cirrum.dJions', in]TS n.!t. ,\ {1 1)52) 87-90
- - . 'CircumceiJions .md munk~. inJTS ulii. 2fl (1%9) 54:!-9
Friedlander' ludwi~. nmlt'lllltr.~..., .JII.! dfr Slltc'tl~~ch:rlllt: R<1HLi in drr Zrit von August his
zum Ausgang drr .-lntcrtint. 4 vvk '4h/ lOth ....ins (Leipzig, 191'1-21)
Frier, B. W . 'The rental m.uk.etin~-arly Imperial Rome', in]RS67 (1977) 27-37
Fritz, Kurt von. The Theory of tht Mrx~d Constituticlll in .-\rtiquity A Critiral Analysis of
Polybius' Po>litical ldtas (New York, 1954)
- - , 'The reorganisation of the Roman government in 366 B.C. and the so-caUed
Licinio-Sextian l.lw:<~'. in lli.ttria 1 ( 1950) 3-44
Frye. R.N., The Henrag, of Persia, 2nd edn (1976)
Fuchs. Harald. Dergri~t(fr Widrrstand~egen Rom in derantiken Wtlt (Berlin, 1938, repr. 1964)
Fuks, Alexander, ISESG
'J!>ocrat~~ and the social-<conomk situation in Greece', in
Anc. So>t. 3 (1972) 17-44
- - , PSQ = 'Plato and the social question: the problem of poverty and riches in the
Republic', in Anc. s,,,. 8 (1977) 49-83
- - , 'Plato and the ~>Ocial question: the problem of poverty and riches in the Laws', in
Anc. S11c. 10 (197'J)33-78. [See above, p.550 n.4a]
--,'The BeJlum Ach.tic-um and its social aspect', in]HS 90 (1970) 78-89
- - . 'Kolonos misthios: Jabour exchange in Classical Athens', in Eranos 49 (1951) 171-3
--,'Patterns and types ofsocia)-<conomic revolution in Greece from the fourth to the
second century B.C.'. in Anc. Soc. 5 (1974) 51-81
- - . 'Social revolution in Greece in the Hellenistic age'. in La parola drl passato 111 ( 1966)
437-48
- - , 'Social revolution in Dyme in 116-114 B.C. E.', in Srripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972)
21-7
Fustd de Coulanges, 'Le colonat romain , in his Recherches sur quelques problemes d'histoirr
(Paris, 1885) 1-186
Gabba, Emilio, SCSEV = 'Sui senati delle citta sicilianr nell'eta di Verre', in Athenaeum
n.s. 37 (1959) 304-20
Gabridi, Francesco. Muhammad and the Conqursts of Islam, Eng. trans. by V. Luling and R.
linell (196H)
Gage.Jean, Res Gestae Divi A.ugusti, 2nd edn (Paris, 1950)
Gallivan, P. A., 'The false Neros: a re-<xamination', in Historia 22 (1973) 364-5
Ganshof, F. L., SPCBE ; 'Le statut personnel du colon au Bas-Empire. Observations en
marge d'une rheorie nouvelle', in Ant. Class. 14 (1945) 261-77
Garnsey, Peter D. A . ADUAE ='Aspects ofthLdedinc of the urban aristocracy in the
Empire', inANRWII.i (1974) 229-52
- - , DFLP"" 'Descendants of freedmen in local politics: some criteria', in Tht' Ancient
Historian and his Materials (Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens). ed. Barbara Levick
(1975) 167-&l
.
- - , LPRE = 'legal privilege in the Roman Empire'. in Past & Present 41 (196M) 3-24,
repr. in SAS, ed. Finley (1974) 141...{)5
- - . PARS :: 'Peasants in Ancient Roman society'. in jnl ofPtasant Studies 3 (1'176) 22.1-35
- - . SSLPRE So(ial Status ami Legal Privilege in the Romar1 Empire (1970)
- - , 'The criminal jurisdiction of governors', in j RS 58 ( 1968) 51-9
- - , 'The Lex Julia and appeal under the Empire'. in}RS 56 (1966) 167-89
--,'Introduction' (pp.l-5) and 'Non-slave labour in the Roman world' (pp.34-47), in
Non-Slave Labo>ur in thr Greco-Roman World ( Cambridge Philol. Soc., Sup pl. Vol.
6, 1980). cd. Garnsey
- - , 'Rome's African empire under thl." Principate', in Imperialism in thr Anc. World, ed.
Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (1978) 223-54 . .343-54
Bibliography (and Abbreviations}
677
--,'Where did Italian peasants live?', in PCPS n.s. 25 (1979) t-25

- - , 'Why penal laws become harsher: the Roman case', in Natural Law Forum 13
(Indiana, 1968) 141-62
Garnsey, Peter (ed.), Non-Slave LabourintheGreco-Roman World(1980: see under Garnsey
above)
Garnsey, P. D. A . and C. R. Whittaker (editors), Imperialism in the Ancimt World (1978)
Gaudemet, Jean, EER L 'Eglise dans I'empire romtJin (lit'"- II" siecles) (Paris, 1958)
--,'Constantin et les Curies municipales', in lura 2 (1951) 44-75
- - , 'La decision de Callixte en matiere de mariage', in Studi in onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli
(Florence, 1955)333-44
Geagan, Daniel)., ACS = The Athenian Constitution aft" Sulla (:Hesperia Suppl. XII,
1%7)
Gellner, Ernest. 'The Soviet and the savage', in TLS 3789 (18 October 1974) 1166-8
Gelzer. Matthias, SBVA = Studien zur byzanrinischen Vtrwaltung Agyptt'715 (=Leipzig"
historische Abhandlungen XIIl, Leipzig, 1909)
- - , 'Altes und Neues aus der byzantinisch-agyptischen Verwaltungsmiserc', in Archiv
f Pap. 5 (1913)
esp. 370-7; cf. 188-9
- - , The Roman Nobility (1969), Eng. trans. by Robin Seager from Die Nobilitiit der
riimischen Republik (1912), repr. in Gelzer, Kleine Schrijten I (Wiesbaden, 1962) 1-135
Genovese, Eugene D .. PES = The Political Economy of SltJvtry. Studi~s in the Economy 11nd
Society of the Slave South (U.S.A., 1965 & rcpr., cited from the First Vintage .Books
paperback edn, 1967)
- - , RB = In Red and Black: MtJrxian Explllrations in Southern and Ajro-Amrrican History
(U.S.A., 1968& repr., ciu:-d from the First Vintage Books paperback edn, 1972)
- - , R]R = Roll,]ordan, Roll. The World the Slaves Made(U.S.A. 1974; London, 1975)
George, Katherine and C. H., 'Roman Catholic sainthood and social status', in BendixUpset, CSJ>2 (q.v., above) 394-401. a revised repr. from]nl P]Religion 5 (1953-5)33ff.
Gerth, H. H., and C. Wright Mills (editors). FMW
From Max W~b": Essays in
Sociology, trans. and ed. with Introd. by Gerth and MiUs (1946 & rcpr., cited from
theO.U.P. paperbackedn. 1958&repr.)
Giacchero, Marta, Edictum Di"detiani et Collegarnm de pretiis rernm venalium. 2 vols ( =
PubM. ~tdi'Istituto di storia antica e scienze ausiliare dell' Universita di Genova VIII,
Gem\.l, 1974)
Gibbon, E.hva:d, DHUi = Thr DrC:inr a1u! Fall ofthr Roman Empin (1 n6-88). cited from
theoo;rand:ard ~,In m 7 vols by J. B. Bury (1896-1'100 & repr.)
- - . Mrm.ir.c ~{my Lijr, ed. G. A. Bonn.ud (lll(l(,)
Giglioni. G;~bridla Bodei: see under lluJei Gi~lu.mi
Gilliam, J. F . 'The: nummum subject to tht1im1m.t hf'F'tditlltium', in AJP73 (1952)397-105
- - , 'Tht. plateutundtr Marcus Aurelius', in .-1WK2 (1961) 225-51
Gillis, O.und. 'Murdtr lll Mdu1o-, in l.;tilllt Lmb,,J,, Rend. Lftt. 112 (197H) 185-211
- - , 'Th~ 1kvolt ;u !lfhtLil'lll'', in A]P 92 (I'J71) JK.-47
Girardet. Klaus M .. Kdi.wr;flrnht und Bisch.!lwrri."lt 1== Antiquitas 1.21, Bonn, 1975)
- - , 'K.ais,r Kun~t.mtiUl> II . .als "Episcopus Ep1r..:oporum" und das Herrscherbild des
kirchlidwu WiJ,r.;tanJu'. in Historia 2h ( 19771 95-12f!
Glotz. GustJW. GC =: Tht Gllok C!t)r
its lmtit~Mns (Eng. trans . 1929, from La Citt
gmqur. P.m:-.. 1'118) [And,.._.... p.519 n.l4 abowJ
- - . 'L,~ :;Jbirt'!' :& D,~)n,.. in.ft~l Jn S.t1~1r1t.< ll (I'JB) ~15, 251-60
- - , Mrlar~l('; Gusta1d ;t,t.:. :? ,.,,Js {Paris. 1932)
Glatz. Gu~taw. P. R.,us!>d Jlld R. C<hm. 1lG IV .1 = Histoirt>xretque IV .i (Paris, 193fl)
Goddier. ~t,um,,. R/F,,. R.mt'tlllllr}' .mJ Irrationality in Etonomics (1972), trans. Brian
Pear.:~ fn1m R:lti,IIJ;J/itt' or irro~ri;>tlolllto' ,.,, tconomie (Paris, 1966)
Gogh, Vmnnt VJn: "'-"L"lllltkr v.m tAigh
Golubco\'a. E. S.: ~.:.~.. un.t,r 81:1\'at~kaia. T V.
Hi>trl.-.~~ Commentary on Thucydides, by A. W. Gomme,
Gommeo. A. W .. HCT IV
A. Audr,wt..,; :md K.J. n~..n.,r. Vol. IV (Books V.25-VII) (1970)
346-n.
""J
=.'\
678
Gomme, A. W., and F. H. Sandbach, Men<Jnder. A Comment4ry (1973) [See p.571

nn.54-5j
Goodenough, E. R., 'The political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship'. in YCS 1 (1928)
53-102
Gordon, C. D . The Age of Attila (Ann Arbor, 1960)
Gordon, Mary L., 'The freedman's son in municipal life', in]RS 21 (1931) 65-77
Gould, John, 'Law, rustom and myth: aspects of the social position ofwomen in Classical
Athens', in]HS tOO (1980) 38-59
Graham, H. F., 'The significant role ofthe study ofAncient History in rhe Soviet Union',
in The Classical World 61 (1967) 85-97
Graindor, P., Un milliardaire antique, Hirode Atticus et safamille (Cairo, 1930)
Green, Robert W. (ed.), Protestantism and Capitalism. The Weber Thesis and its Critics
(Boston, 1959)
Greene, Jack P., All Men are Created &Jual. Some Reflections on the Charatttr ofthe American
Revolution (Inaugural Lecture as Harmsworth Professor, Oxford, t 976)
Greenidge, A. H.J., and A.M. Clay (editors), SourCtS 2 SourcesforRomanHistory 133-70
B.C., 2nd edn, rev. by E. W. Gray (1960)
Greenidge, C. W. W., Slavery(1958)
Greenslade, S. L., Schism in the Early Church, 2nd edn (1964)
Gregg, Pauline, Free-Born john, A Biography l!flohn Lilbume (1961)
Griffin, Miriam, Seneca (1976)
Griffith, G.T., 'Athens in the fourth century', in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed.
P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (1978) 127-44, 310-14
- - , Pp.201-M6, 675 ff, ofN. G. L. Hammond and Griffith, A History of Macedonia,
Il.550-336 B.C. (1979), on Philip II
- - . 'lsegoria in the Assembly at Athens'. in Anc. Society and Institutions: Studies Pres. to
Victor Ehrenberg (1966) 115-38

- - . The MmmiJries tifthe Hellmistic World (1935)
--.'The union of Corinth and Argos (392-386 B.C.)' in Historia 1 (1950) 236-56
Grote, George, HG =History of Greece, .10 vols (New edn, 1888)
Gruen, E. S., 'Class contiict and the Third Macedonian War', in A]AH 1 (1976) 29-00
[See above, pp.524, 659--60 nn.2.4]
Gsell. Stephane, ERAR 'Esclaves ruraux dans I' Afrique romaine', in Melanges Gustave
Glotz (Paris, 1932) 1.397-415
Gunther, Rigobert, ULGG = 'Einige neue Untersuchungen 'ZU den Laeten und Genrilen
in Gallien im 4. Jahrhundert und zu ihrer historischen Bedeutung', in Klio 58 (1976)
311-21
- - . 'Laeri, foederati und Gentilen in Nord- und Nordostgallien im Zusammenhang mit
der sogenannten Laetenzivilisation', in Ztschr. for Archiiologie 5 (1971) 39-59
- - , 'Die sozialcn Trager der friihen Reihengraberkul turin Belgicn und Nordfrankreich
im 4./S.Jahrhundert'. in Helinium 12 (1972) 26S-72
Guiraud, Paul, LA main-d'oeuvre industrielle datrs l'ancienne Grrce (Paris. t 900)
Gummerus. H., 'lndustrie und Handel' [Roman]. in RE IX (1916) 1439-1535
Guthrie, W. K. C., HGP III = Histvry of Greek Philosophy III (1959)
Habicht. Christian, 'Die herrschl'Dde Gcsellschaft in den hcllenistischcn Monarchien'. in

Vierteljahrschriftfiir Sozial- und Wirtschaftsxeschichtr45 (1958) 1-16
- - , 'Zwei neue Inschriftcn aus Pergamon', in lnstanbuler Mittrilungen 9/10 (Deutsches
Archaologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul. 1960) 109-27
Haldon, John F., Rtcruitment and Conscription in the Byz~ntine Anny c. 550-950. A Study on
the Origins of the Stratiotika Ktemata ( = Sb 357, Osterreichische Akad. dcr Wiss.,
Philos.-hist. Klasse, Vienna, 1979)
Hammond, N. G. L.. and G. T. Griffith: see under Griffith
Hands, A. R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (1968)
Hanke, Lewis, AAI Aristvtle and the American Indians. A Study in Race Prejudice in the
Modem World (1959)
679
Mo~cas 1-kmun. 'Demos, ealesia and dicasterion in Classical Athen!;, in GRBS

19 (l'l7H') 127-:l)
--.'Did tht At!l.ui.ltl o:u!t'si;; kgisiat aft..-r ~1.\/2 RC. ?',in GRBS 20 ( 1~7(}) 27-53
- - , Tht dnr.ori,~~ ol .lmc:ctmg ,fth1: Ath{:liancttlrpa', in CP74 (1979) 43-9
- - , 'H1w ,ltd rh, Ar!wm:m micri.r \'(lt:<?'. m (;R HS :8 ( 1977) 123~37
- - , 'Hcw ~fr.n did (h" A:hc:n::s:t Jir.:Jtt'fi.l mltr:m GRBS 20 (I<J79) 243-t.
- - , 'How ot'rm di.~ ll:.,y!'/,;illlll<'tt?' in GRL'IS 18 {N77) 4~70
Hansen,
--,'How many .'\tbnti:m~ itknd.d the.> ~dm-1:-. in GRBS 17 (197h) 115-34

- - . 'Mistlrt'> t<r fU:J.gmr.m:r- 111 Cla~~\i:'al Ath.-!1;. . m Symbolae Osloeme.< 54 (1979) 5-22
--,'No,,,,; <~lll pj1'1,!lmtlm t;Jurth-.~~aury Athtt-:s'. in GRBS 19 (197R) 315-30
- - . 'Ptr.,uisit.:-s iir :n:lgL~trat<:.> 111 tuurth...:,ntury Athtns', in Classica et Mediaevalia 32
(1980) Ifr5-!:S
- - , 'Se\;cn hundrtd ,m-hoJr in Cbssi,4i Arlwm'. ir1 GRBS 21 (1980) 151-73
- - , Thr Sovereignty of !II<' Pr.plr:< C>lllrt '" .-itlrru.< itr !ir Fourth Cmtury B. C. and the Public
Action a,flainst Unc,.,,mrrm'."'''IJ~ I'''''"~ (-= O,l~~>c Univ. Classical Studies 4. 1974)
Hardy. E. H.. T.r'RE =- Tlr( C..JJgd:.-r.:t.-H1Byzawinc E,flypt ( Columbia Univ. Studies m
History, Et:;-'""'11{1 :mJ J'l,i.afi, 1..-w 1<-.354, New y,,rk. 1931)
Harmand. Lnuis, Ub,IIIIIIJ, D;;c,.,.,~; ,;w {r'!> f'amlrr,r:~c'5 {=Publ. de Ia Faculte des Lettres de
I'Untv. de Ckrm(lnt. 2: s~:nc. FJs.-. I. ll;:m:o. l95.i)
- - , Le P:mrr;rt mr !r. ,,l!lr'.-ri,i!r' publiques d,, ~-:irfs au Bas-Empire(= Pub!. de ...
Clermunt. ~ S&:n. Fa~.:. ~. Paris, 1()57)
Harper, G. M .. 'Vill.t~,- .~.lruini~tr.ltivn in th. Runw1 Jrovincc ofSyria'. in YCS I (1928)
103-l~
Harringum .J.lmc . .,-,,,. HlltiOJI Jl.',.,k.,; ofjames 1-l;rrtirrgtotr, ed.J. G. A. Pocock (1(}77)
- - . Tht 0.-...m.r .~; ]o~m.., ll.rrrirr.(t"' .111d his Oth.-r Jl'.rks. td. John Toland (1700)
Harris, Mo~r\o,n, Thr Rr.r ~f'AIIth~tpllloJ.~i<.rl Theory ( lt.lf9 & rcpr .)
Harris, W. V, . HI: ( f "" R,mr in l:tntri.l '"'J Umbria ! I971)
- - . War OJrrJ lmr'.Jii.'m ''' Rcpublit.m Ri.lmr .17-7tJ R.C. (1979)
--.'On wara.nd~:trwd m th<'!;~'t'und cmtury R.C:. in AHR 76 (1971) 1371-85
Harrison. A. R. W .. 'J1rrl.OJu,~f A.tlrt'rH, I. 1'hr Family and Property (1968)
Harrison, Huvdt'll. 'f.. S lkt-slv .1nd K;&rl M.&rx', in IRSH 4 (1959) 22-5H, 20X-3H
- - . 'Prut\-s~or lt.-,'l'ly .tud the." \v,,rkin}!;-d.t!<s m(W<'Jlllnt'. in Essay.< irr Labour History. cd.
Asa Urig~"' ;md Jc,Jm !'iavilJ, (rv. ,dn. 1%7) I .:-!ili\-41
Harvt>y. F. D;n'td. 'Two kmds of equality'. 111 C/,l$>1ia er -'Wedratvt~lia 26 (1%5) 101-46.
with th~ \"(1rrt'<'ti1Jl;. .m.l addenda in id. ~~ ( l'ltJIJ) '19-100
- - , 'Littury in th~ Atbcman Jcmu~raq',m REG 7'' (19M) 585-635
Hassall, M;trk. Mtdt.Jd CT.Jwt(,rJ. and joyce R.ynn)Js.. 'Rome and the east~rn provinces
at th< 111d ,,, tht o>n."tllhl ~ntury B.C Th, sn-call"d "Piracy Law'' and a new
mscription t'nmt Cu,,J,,s. 111 IRS M {11174; 1'-'.-l--:.?2!1
Hatzfdd, Jean, AI:.~ = .'\#;rllr;r,/. -,:,,,,,. ,,,, /'iri>Mr. .1'.-\tlrene> aIa .fin du V<' srhle. 2nd edn
(Pari,.. I '>51 l
- - , Lestra.fiquant.< ltcrlioll.'
!'Orwur U.llr=mcJ"" (BEFAR I 15, Paris. I919)
Haywood, R. M . TSCIJ "''Snnwtr.lt'\'li<ll~Ttllmn mCictro'sday', inAJP54(1933) 145-53
Hcfdc, C. J.. .111d H. l,d,rq. HC"' HrJh'lti' .los C:.ttciles d'apres les docummts or(J.!inaux
(Paris) l.t ( t107) .m,lJII ,1 ( i 'li l'.l}
Htinen, l-kim. 'N,~ucr s(IWJti..;(h, Mnn!!urhwu :mr Gt-schtchrc tks Altlrtums', in
Hist('tlil 2-' (l975) J71\-l4
- - , 'Ntu,r, ""'\'.itU.ch, Vti'i'l~urhdnm~u zur antikcn Sklaverri', in Hi.<toria 25
(197ft) 5111-.L:md 2~ ( !J7J; 1:!!1-l'i
- - , 'Zur Sk.la\'t'rti in J~r hdltniitisdtt'll Welt I & II', in Am. 5(1c. 7 (11.J7fl) 127-49. and 8
(1977} 1.?1-54___ Rt>vit'W. in Ri:. "''' ,Jd!'.-trr!id :. (i'J75j ??'1-33, ofl. lraci Fedc.-li, Marx f i/ mondo
,J,,,,,
antifl !Mil;an. 1'171i

--,'Sur 1.:- rC:~mr" du tr~\'at! &.:ri rf~yrtptolemalquc auiW sihlc av.J.-C., apropos
d'un )i,r, rtnnt ,!.- N. N. Ptku10'. u Le Monde Grec. Homma.~es a Claire Prrar1x
(Brus.:ds.. 1'175) (>5i-61
680
Heitland, W. E., Agricola (1921)

Held, Wieland, 'Das Ende der progressiven Entwicklung des Kolonates am Ende des 2.
und in der ersten Hilftc des 3. Jahrhunderts im Romischen Imperium', in Klio 53
(1971) 239-79. [I did not see this article until after this book was fmished]
Helen, Tapio. Organisation of Roman Brick Production in the First and Stcond Centuries A.D.
An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps = Annates Acadrmiae Scimtiarum Ftnnicat

Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 5 (Helsinki, 1975)
Henry, Patrick, A mirror for Justinian: the Ekthesis of Agapetus Diaconus', in GRBS 8
(1967) 281-308
Hicks, (Sir} john, TJ:ll .i Theory '?[Economic History (1969). [See pp.83-4above]
Hill, Christopher, and Edmund Dell (editors). Tht> GIXId Old Cause. The English Revolution
.if 1640-1660, Its Co~usc>~. Course and Consequences, 2nd edn, revised (1969)
Hilton, Rodney H., BMAlf:::::; Bond Men Made Free. Medieval Peasant Movl'ments and the
English Rising of 1:J8l (1973)
- - , EPLMA Thr F.n.~lisiJ l'ra~.Jntry in thl' Later Middlr. 4gr.< :. t IJ75)
- - , DSME = The Drdillt oj Serfdom in Medieval England (1969)

- - , TFC = The Tr.m~lti.nfrom Feudalism to Capitalism (Found.ltitlns ofHistory Library,
London, 1976, with lntruducuun bv Rodnc>\" Hilton)

Hilton, Rodney H . .1nd P. H. S.tw)c:~. 'Tc:..:lUu,-,ll dtt.:rnunism: rhe stirrup and the
plough', in Past & l'rf".smt 24 (1~,Jj QIJ-lf)
Hinton, William, Famhm . ..o\ Documentary of RelutJ('rJ in a Chinese Village (1966 & repr.)
Hitti, Philip K., History of the Arabs from the liarlicst Timl's to the Presmt, 10th cdn (1970)
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan ( lfo51; there are several modem editions)
Hobsbawm, E.J., K1WPCliF Ko~rl Marx. Pri'-Capitalist E((momic Fonnations, Eng. trans.
by Jack Cohen, with lntrodU\."tion by Hobsbawm (1964 & repr.)
--.'Karl Marx's contribution to historiography', in Ideology in Soda/ Science, cd. Robin
Blackburn (1972) 265-8.3
- - , 'Class consciousness in history', in Aspects of History and Class Consciousness, cd.
Istvan Meszaros (1971) 5-21. [And see p.624 n.l3 abow]
Hoesen, H. B. van, and A. C. Johnson: see under van Hoescn below
Hoffmann, Dietrich, Das spiitromische Bewe;tungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, 2 vols ( =
Epigraph is chi' Studien 7, Dusseldorf. 1969-70). [See p.657 n.11 above]
Homes Dudden, F., Gregory the Great. His Place in History and Thought. 2 vols (1905)
--,The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, 2 vols (1935)
Hommel, H., 'Metoikoi', in RE XV .ii (1932} 1413-58
Homo, L., Primitive Italy and the Beginnings .ifRoman Impl'rialism (Eng. trans., 1927)
Honore. A.M./Tony, Tribonian (1978)
--.'The Severan lawyers: a preliminary survey', in SDHf28 (1962) 162-232
Hopkins, Keith, EMRE = 'Elite mobility in the Roman Empire', in Past & Prrsent 32
(1965), repr. in (and cited here from) SAS, ed. Finlc:y (1974) 103-20
- - . _P A SRP 'On the probable age structure of the Roman population', in Population
Studies 20 (1966) 245--64
--.Conquerors and Slaves. Sociolo,~ifal Studies in Roman History, Vol. I (1978)
Hopper, R. J., The Basis of the Athenian Drmocracy ( = Inaugural Lecture, Sheffield Univ.,
1957)
Hunt, Richard N., The Political Ideas rif Marx and Engels, [. Marxism and Totalitarian
Democracy, 1818-1850(Pittsburgh, 1974; London, 1975)
Ihering, Rudolf von, Scherz und Ernst in der Jurisprudenz. Rth edn (Leipzig, 1900), esp.
175-232
lnstitut Femand Courby: Indexes to L. and]. Robert's 'Bulletins epigraphiques' in REG
(etc.), from 1938 onwards, 4 vols (Paris, 1972-9)
lnnscher,Joharmes, 'Friedrich Engels studiert Altertumswissenschaft', in Eirene2 (1964) 7-42
Jacynowska. Maria, 'Tht> economic differentiation of the Roman nobility at the end of
the Republic', in Historia 11 (1962) 486-99
681
Jameson. Mkhad H .. -~i!mu!n:r~ dnJ !'l.wc:ry in Classical Athens', in CJ 73 (1977.8)

122-+5. rs.:e p .506 . bun]
Jeffery. 1.. H .. l.SAG"'" 11r.-: Li<a{ ScriptH~tArclr.Ji;: Geece (1961)
--.'The pact ofd;( fir;;;t s.-trkrs at Cyren.:-. m Hin,.ria 10 (1961) 139-47
Johnson ..o\. C . Rln.zr l'Ig~rt = T.SAR (ed. T~nnqlrank) II (1936)
[--.] Stlllir; in R.tn.Jtl E:c>rMIIil .md $;;dai Hi,:,nf it~ Honor rf A. C. Johnson, ed. P. R.
Cokm~u-Nnrtn~ tPriuccrou, 195 B
Johnson, A. C .. and L. C. Wt"it, By:.mtine E~ypt: Economic Studies (Princeton, 1949)

Jolowicz. H. F ...md Barry Nicholas. HISRV = Historical Introduction to the Study of
Rom.m I Au:. ]rd edn {197.::!;
Jones. A. H. M .. ,-\D = 1'11r .-\th,"f;i,mDemocracy (1957)
- - . CERP2 Th.- Citi'.l 4thc Er;;tt-m Roman Provinces, 2nd edn, revised (1971: the 1st
edn w ~ in l'H7)
- - . CUE ='Civitates lih<--ra~ ~rimmunts in rht EJ~t'. in Anatolian Studies pres. to W. H.

Buckler, oo. W. M. Cald~r andJ,>S~fKltl (193'ij 11)3-17
- - , GCA] Til, Greek Cityfrllm :\1,.\orrrJn t'}ll;tmian (1940)
- - , LRE Tl1r L.Jt.-r Rm.rrr Empire 284602 .1 vol~. plus a vol. of maps (1964)
- - . NH:::. 'Numisnldtic!' and History'. utl:~~,r-pr.s. to Harold Mattingly, ed. R. A. G.
Carson ami C. J-1. V. Suth~rland ( 1'151>), r.pr. in jones, RE (see below) 61-81 (with
addendum by M. H. Crawti~rJ)
- - . RC = 'Th~ R(lDl.ln Culon.uc:. in P.m 6/'rrmar 13 (195R) 1-13, rcpr. in jones, RE
(see below) 2'-JJ-307. and in .':i.-\S (ed. finlo.y} 2~303 (with improvements in the
not~ by l>oruthy Crawfi>rd: sw S.iS p.xi
- - . RCS 'Th~ Roman dvll M:rvi.:t (dcriral.and sub-clerical grades)'. inJRS 39 ( 1949)
38-55, repr. inJonL'S, SRGL (!>t't' hclow) 151-75, 201-13
- - . RE :.: The Rt'nwn Econvmy. Studil'1 m .4-rwmt Economic and Administrative History. ed,
P. A. Brunt (1974)
--.SAW= 'Sl.1wry in theAncientWorld',inEcon. Hist. Rrv.:9(1956) 1R5-99, repr. in
SCA (ed. Finley) l-15
- - . SRGL Studies in Roman Governmmt and Law (1960)
- - , 'Ancient empires and the economy; Rome', in Third Internal. Conf. rf Econ. Hist.
[Munich, 1965] III (1969) 81-H>4, rcpr. in jones, RE (see abow) 114-39
- - , 'Church finance in the fifth and sixth cennuies', inJTS n.s. 11 (1%0) 84-94, repr. in
Jones, RE (see abow) 339-49
- - , Constantine atul the Conversion of Europe (1948)
--,'The Greeks under the Roman Empire', in DOP 17 (1963) 3-19, repr. in jones. RE
(see above) ~1 13
- - , 'The Hellenistic Age', in Past & Presmt Z1 (1964) 3-22
--,'Taxation in Antiquity', in RE (see above) 151-85
- - . 'The urbanisation of the lturaean principality', in]RS 21 ( 193 I) 265-75
--,'Were ancient heresies national or social movements in disguise?', inJTS n.s. 10
(1959) 280-98, repr. in Jones, RE (see above) ~29
Jones, A. H. M., P. Grierson andJ. A. Crook. 'The authenticity of the "Testam~ntum S.
Remigii" ', in RBPH 35 (1957) 356-73
Jones. C. P ., PR =Plutarch and Rome (1971)
--,'Towards a chronology of Plutarch's works'. in]RS 56 (1966) 61-74
- - , 'Diodoros Pasparos and the Nikephoria of Pergamon', in Chiron 4 (1974) 183-205
--,'A leading family ofRoman Thespiae', inHSCP74 (1968) 223-55
--.'A new letter of Marcus Aurelius to the Athenians', in ZPES (1971) 161-83
Jones, Philip J., 'Communes and despots: the city state in Late Medieval Italy', in TRHS
=
=
(1965) 71-96
- - . 'l'Italia agraria nell'alto medioevo: problemi di cronologia e di continuita', in
SettinuJne di studio del Cmtro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, Xlll. Agricoltura t mondo
rnralr in Occidentt nell'alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1966) 57-92, cf. 227-9
- - , Chapter VII ('Medieval agrarian society in its prime'), 2 ('Italy'). in CEHE P
(1966) 340-431
682
The Class Stru~le in the Ancient Greek World
Jonge, P. de, 'Scarcity of com and comprices in Ammianus Marcellinus', in Mnemos. 1 t

(1948) 238-45
Jordan. Z. A., KMECSR = Karl Marx: Economics, Class and Social Revolution (1971)
Jullian, Camille, HG = Histoire de Ia Gault (Paris), esp, 11 (1920) and VII (1926)
Kant, Immanud: see under Reiss, Hans
Kaser, Max, RP2 I-II= Das romische Privatrecht (Munich) F (1971) and IP (1975)
- - , RZ = Das romische Zivilproussrecht (Munich, 1966)
- - . 'Die Geschichte der Patronatsgewalt uber Freigdassene', in ZSS 58 (1938) 88-135
- - , 'Partus ancillae', in ZSS 75 (1958) 156-200
Kelly,]. M., Roman Litigation (1966)
Kicchle. Franz, Sklavenarbeit und technischer Fortschritt im riimischen Reich (= Forschunget~
zur ant. Sklaverei 3. Wiesbaden, 1969) [See p.546 n.14 above]
Kock, Theodore, CAF: sec under CAF in Part I of this Bibliography
Koenen, L., 'The prophecies of a potter: a prophecy of world renewal becomes an
apocalypse', in Proceedings, XII [Michigan] lntemat. Congress of Papyrology
American Studies in Papyrology 7 (Toronto. 1970) 249-54
--,'Die: Prophezeiungen des "Topfers" '.in ZPE 2 (1968) 178 ff. (text, 195-200)
Kohns. H. P., Vmorgungskrisen und Hungmevoltm im spatantilun Rom(= Antiquitas 1.6.
Bonn, 1961)
Kolb, Frank, 'Der Aufstand dcr Provinz Africa Proconsularis im Jahr 238 n.Chr. Die
wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Hintergriindc'. in Historia 26 (1977) 440-78 [See p.649
n.4abow]
Kraemer, C.J., and N. Lewis, 'A referee's hearing on ownership', in TAPA 68 (1937)
357-87
'Landed property in the "Hellenistic" Orient', in Eirme 15
Kreissig, Heinz, LPHO
(1977) 5-26
- - , Die sozialm Zusammenhiinge des judai'schm Krieges. Klassm und Klasenkampf im
Pal.iistina des t.)ahrhunderts v.u.Z. (= Schriftm zur Geschichte und Kultur der Anrike 1,
Deutsche Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin, 1970)
- - , 'Zur sozialen Zusammensetzung der fruhchristlichen Gcmeinden im ersten Jahrhundert u.Z.'. in Eirme6 (1967) 91-100
- - , Wirtschaji und Gesellschaft im Seleukidmreich (= Schriftm ... dtr Antike 16, Deutsche
Akad., 1978), giving on p.129 a list of other relevant works ofKreissig, to which
should be added:
- - , 'Zur antiken und zur altorientalischen Komponente im sog. Hellenismus (anstelle
cines Nachworts)', in Klio 60 (1978) 217-19
- - . 'Tempelland, Katoiken, Hierodulen im Seleukidenreich', in Klio 59 (19n) 375-80
Kubler, Bernhard, SCRK = 'Sklaven und colonen in der romischen Kaiserzeit', in
Festschriftjohannts Vahlen (Berlin, 1900) 561-88
Kula, Witold. ETFS An Economic Theory of the Feudal System. Towards a Model of the
Polish Economy (translated by Lawrence Gamer from an Italian translation of the
Polish 1962 original, London, 1976)
Kunkel, W . 'Bericht iiber neuere Arbeiten zur romischen Verfassungsgeschichte, III', in
ZSS 75 (1958) .302-52, a review ofL. Wickert's article, 'Princeps', in RE (see under
Wickert below), and Jean Beranger. Recherches sur I'aspect ideologiqut du Principal,
Basle, 1953)
lambton, Ann K. S., Landlord and Peasant in Persia (1953; enlarged repr., 1959)
Landau, Y. H., 'A Greek inscription foundnearHefzibah', in IE) 16 (1966) ~70
Landtman, Gunnar, The Origin of thr Inequality f!! the Social Classes (1938)
La Penna, Antonio, 'La Morale della favola esopica come morale delle classi subalteme
nell'antichita', in Societa 17.2 (1961) 459-537
Larsen, J. A. 0., RGGRH = Represmtative Government in Greek and Roman History (=
Sather Classical lectures 28, 1955)
683
- - , Grf:',-k Frdtr,rl8tatrJ_ 'Huir ln.timti;)''' .mJ Hi;tilf}' (1968}

- - , 'Rom.m Grt~n.;:;; Part Ill of ESi\R (ed. TL'!IIlty Frank) IV (1938) 259-496
- - , 'P(rJ\likui', m RF XIX.l (i'H7)8l!~.H
- - . 'Rtpn"$t'Dtation and dt:'moa.uy in HdlnlL'>Ii<: frderalism'. in CP 40 (1945) 65-97
Latte, Kurt. R.'lmi~.:he ReligionsgeschiO.r, \Mumdl. i<H.O)
Lattimore. Owrn. 'Feudalism in history'. in P.ur & J>mmt 12 (November 1957) 47-57
Lauffer, Sic.gfril'd. Dif' Bvguc>rlwkl.wm ;wr l..mrt'i"' 1-11 = Abhandlun~etl der Akad. der
Wis~. und dcr J.it. in .M.tin7. Gri~t~'!>- nnd soztalwiss. Klasse, 1955 no.12, pp.llOt1217 = 1-lt7. and I'J=i(, no.11. PF-~-\...l018:md 1*-20* = 119-274
Laum, Bernhard. St!iilg,., i11 dn .~rio-rlri.,lrmmd r~;,,;uhen Amikt, 2 vols (leipzig, 1914)
legon, R. P., '.Phliutan politi<:S and p<lhry 111 the ~.orly fourth century', in Historia 16
( 1967) 324-;\7. [5CL' above, pp.2% and 60!:1 n.49 I
Lepper, Frank. Rr\'itw. in JRS 59 (l%'J) :?50-b I. ofF. J. Hassel, Der Trajansbogm in
Bmc1mr: ritl Bauwrrk de. ,,~.,;,~llf"l Snutes (Mainz, 1966)
--.Review. in Gnt:~mom 4.:! (l'J70) 560-7.:!. of Sherwin-White, LP (see below)
Levick, Harb:tra, RCS:~M = Rtma 0111111".' ''' S.uthem Asi~ Minor (1967)
Levick, Barbar.t {editor). 1hr. .4tuimr Hi.(tcoriar and his Matmals (Essays in Honour of
C. E. Steven~. l9i5}
Levi-Strauss, Claude. SA.:::: Stnuturo~l Anthropolog)'. Eng. trans. by Clairt:Jacobson and
B. G. Schocpf(U.S.A .. 1C}(o..~. <:trtdhere from dw Pmguin University Books t'dn of
1972), from tht Fmuh original of l1)5)J (:1. L'(Uccti<>n of papers written 1944-57)
Levy, Ernst, RPGl ='Vom rom is chen Pnc,arium 7ur germanischen Landleihe', in ZSS
66 (1948) 1-30. [See pp.253-5 abuvt"]
- - , WV: Westromisches Vulga"alrt.l.N. Obligo~ri.mc'llrecht (= Forschungen zum riimischrm
Rtcht, 1. Abhandlung, Weimar. 1');1,). [Scepp.253-5abow]
- - . 'Libertas und Civitas', in ZSS7R 0(1flt:l142-72
Levy ,Isidore, EVMAM ='Etudes sur Ia vie municipale de l'Asie Mineurt'sous lcsAntonins'.
I, in REG 8 (1895) 203-50; II, in 1d. 12 (1899) 255-89; Ill, in id. 14 (1901) 350-71
Lewis, Bernard, Islamfrom thr Prophet Muhamm.1d to the Capture of Constantinople I ( 1974)
Lewis, Naphtali, 'Mtrismosarn~kech6rhrkcJtiin'. in]F.A 23 (1937) 63-75
Lewis, Naphtali, and Meyer Reinhold. RCI-11.::. R<1m11n Civilization. Selectt>d Readings, I.
111e Republic (New York, 1951); and II. J'he limriri' (1955), rd. with Introductions
and notes
Liebenam, W., SRK = Stadtrrverwaltun~ im romiscl1en K4ismeich (Leipzig, 1900)
Licbeschuetz, W .!J. H. W. G., Am. = Antiilch. City ar~d Imperial Administration in tht! Later
Roman Empire (1972)
- - . 'The origin of the office of tht' pagarch', in Ryz. Ztschr. 66 ( 1973) ~
- - , 'The pagarch: city and imperial administration in By:zantine Egypt', injfP 18 (1974)
163-8
Liebesny, H . 'Ein Erlass des Konigs Ptolemaios II Philadt'lphos ubcr die I)ek.laration von
Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phonikien', in Aeg. 16 (1936) 257-91
Lifschitz, B., 'The Greek documc:nts from Nahal Seelim and Nahal Mishmar', in IE] 11
(1961) 53-62
Limentani, I. Calabi: see under Calabi Limentani
Lintott, A. W., Violrnce in Republican Romr (1968)
- - , 'The tradition of violence in the annals ofthe Early Roman Republic'. in Hist~ria 19
(1970) 12-29
Lipset, S.M., 'Elections~ the exprcssion of the democratic class strugglt'. in Bendix and
Lipset, CSPt (see under Bendix above) 413-28
llobera, J. K: see under Bailey, A. M . and Llobcra
L~kkegaard. Frede, Islamic TaxatiiJn in thr Classil P"ioJ (Copenhagen, 1950)
Lot, F 'Du regimcdd'hospitalite', in RBPH1 (1928) 975-1011
Lotz~. Detlef, MED
Mttaxy tltuthmjn kai drJul6n [in Greek]. Studim zur Rtchtsstellun,g
u'!frtier Landbevolkmmgrn in Griechrnland bis zum 4.Jahrhunden v.Chr. (= Deutsche
Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion ftir Altcrtumswiss. 17. Berlin, 1959)
684
Lutz, Cora E., 'Musonius Rufus, "Tht> Roman Socrates.. ', in YCS lO (1947) 3-147 (also
published separately)
(Me is treated as Ma.-]
McCown, C. C., 'Hc.brl.'w anJ E~yptian apocalyptic litcutur.. in HTR It:! (1925) 357-411
Machiavelli, Niccolo), Thrl)u,-.ur.<rs {N the First Decade if/.i~"fl. t:ited here from the Eng.
trans. with Introd. br Blm.a.rJ Cr:ck {Pc:nguin Cl~sk.s. 1'>7i.l)
--,The Discoursts~fNi({oi,\M..zcili~:,:t:. tr~nl> . .tn.hd. h}l.\sili:J. Walker. 2 vols (1950)
- - , Tutte le opere s:,ridl(" ,, iml'rlli.~ 1li .'lim:. \J,ui,;.J,riii. l'd. (;uido Mazzoni and Mario
Casella (Florence.. l'll'li
Mclellan, David, KML r "" 1\.:~rl M,,,,,.Jii.: I.(f~" mri TJ,.,,.gf.: ( l'i'i'J)
MacMullen, Ramsay. ERO "<" f:'tr.-mic, oftile Rvm.:r; Otlirt: Tmu.:, Unrrst, and .'\henarilln
in tht' Empirf' (C.unbndg.. Ma~s .. 1967)
- - , NRS ='A Note. \Ill Roman strikc.s', in C.J 5t< (l'i'hl-3} ~t>'l-7l
- - , RSR =Roman S,,d,ll Rrf.1tll'll.' ;I)H.C. I'/\ .D. 2k.4 (1974)
--,'Barbarian enclJ.ws in th~ nurtltl'rn Rum.tn empire', in Ant. Class. 32 (1%3) 552-M
--,'Roman Imperial building 111 th( provint:~.~. in HSCPf:\4 (IJ59) 207-35
Macpherson, C. B., Thr Jl.liti;.fl ThtWj' ?! I>,,_~!f..'ilrr:lwdll.:l>JJ, Hobbes rll Lockr (1962)
--.Democratic The.ry. E.<~.S}'' ;,, R.-tri,al {1'.17.\j
Maenchen-Helfen,]. 0., '111c w,.,fJ qf the 1/mr.q I'J7.\)
Magie, David, RRAM 1-JI ~ Rotnlll Rulr i11 .i~rol ,\til'' t,, tltt' End ofthr Third Century .ifter
Christ, 2 vols (Prin<'&:tun. 1'150)
Mann.j. C .. 'The frontin'l ufthe Pritwip.u~', in ANRWII.i (1974) 508-33
--,'Spoken Latin in Bntam a~ 1.'\'id,mc.'d in tht inscriptions', in Britannia 2 (1971) 21~24
Mansi,]. D. (ed.), s,,.-r,IIJIIII C.uli.'rnm nola et amplissima cllllectill (1759 11): VI (1761), IX
(1763), XI (1765). XV (1771JI
Mao Tse-tung. Srlectt'ol n-;,,k.. ~fM.il,, Tse-tun.~, 5 vols (Peking): I-III (1%5), IV (1%1), V
(1977)
- - , St'lected Readin~s from thr Works ~f.\1ao Tse-tu11~ (I vol . Peking. 1967)
Markle. Minor M., 'Support of Athenian intellectuals for Philip'. inJHS% ( 1976) 80-99
Markus, R. A.,'Christianity and Dissent in Roman North Africa: changing penpcctivrs
in recent work', in SCHIJ (1972) 21-36
Marshall, A.]., 'Romans under Chiao law'. in GRBS 10 (1969) 255-71
Martindale, J. R., Public Di1ordrrs in the Latt' Romat1 Empirt', their Causes and Character
(Oxford University B.Litt. thesis, 1961)
Martini. Remo, 'Mt'rcennarius'. Cot~tributo allll studio dti rapporti di favorllltl diritro roman,,
(Milan. 1958)
Martino, Francesco De: see under De Martino
Marx, Karl (with F. Engds. where so stated]
--.Cap. I-III= Capital I and II (london. 1970), and III (london, 1972). The German
text, Das Kapital. occasionally cited as such, is that of MEW (set> below) XXIIIXXV. (The German volumes are wdl indexed. Vol. I of the: latest English edition,
cited here, lacks an index. Readers may thenfon somctimc.'S find useful the earlier
English edition, London. 1946, which has quitt good Indexes, pp.863-86.)
- - , Grnndrisse(German text)= Grnndri.stder KritikderpolitiMhen Okonomic (Rohmrwuif;.
published by Dietz Verlag. East Berlin (1953)
- - . Grnndrisst', E. T. = Grnndrissr. Foundations of the Critique q{Political Ewnomy ( Ror1.~11

Draft;, Eng. trans. with a Foreword by Marrin Nicolaus (Pelican Marx Library.
1973). The section on 'Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations' ('Form('n die dcr

kapitalistischcn Produktion vorhergehcn'), on pp.471-514 (German ('dn. 375-413).
is the main part ofHobsbawm, KMPCEF (sec above). when it appears in a diffo:rcnt
translation, with an ~xcellent Introduction. some supplementary tt'Xts, and an Index
- - , MECW (Marx/Engds) = Karl Marx and Fredt'rick Engels, Cortraed Works, an
English edn in SO vols (Moscow/London/New York. 1975 fT.). Vols I-XIV appear~xt
in 1975-80
685
- - , MllGA (Marx/ Engels)= Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Gesamtaus~ab~ (1st cdn),
l.i.l (Frankfurt, 1927); I.i.2-l.vi (Berlin. 1929-32); I.vii (Moscow, 1935): lll.i-1v
(Blrlin, 1929-31). No mot&: publishcd.l haw not bct'n abk to usctht 2ndcdn (Dietz
Verlag, East Berlin. 1975 ff.), now in course of publication
- - , MESC (Marx/Engds) =Karl Marx and Frederick Engds, Sdmed Corrcspondeua
(Moscow and london, 1956). For the German tl'xts etc., sec p.24 aboH'
- - . MESW (Marx/Engcls) =Karl Marx and fr&:dlrick Engels. Sdnted Works, in one
vol. (london. 1'170)
--.MEW (Marx/Engds) =Karl Marx and frildrich Engels. Werkt' I-XXXIX (Dietz
Verlag, East Berlin, 1961-H)
- - , TS VI-III = Karl Marx, Tht'ories of Surplus Valt4e I-III (london, 1969-72). an Eng.
trans. of Theorim uber dm Mehrwerr == Marx-Engds Werke (a bow) XX Vl.i-ii1
- - , WPP Wa~es, Price ar1d Pr~fit (an address givc:n by Marx in English mJunc 18f>5 to
the Gentral Council of the first Intt'rnational). cittd here from MESW (sec above)
185-226
- - . Karl Marx on Colonialism and Moderni.zati.>n, cd. with an lmrod. by Shlomo Avincri
(Anchor Books, Nl'W York. 1969)
- - . The Ethnolo~ifal i\h>tebo,>ks of Karl Marx. cd. Lawnnn Krad&:r (Assm, 1972)
Mason, H. J., Grcek Terms _for Roman lnstztutim1s. A Lrxiwn aud :'\r1aly.-"i.< (= A.mcritan
Stl4dies ill Papyrol&Y 13. Toronto, 1974)
Matthews, John F.. 'Maurctania in Amrn1anus and the Notitill', in Aspew <~f tht' !Votrtia
D(l?llitatum. cd. R. Goodburn and P. llartholomcw (:; Briti,l, Archaeo/o~w1/ Rl'ports.
Suppl. Series 15. Oxford, 1976) 157-86
- - , Wstem Ari~t.,cracics .md Imperial C.urt .4.D. 364-425 (1975)
Maxwell, J. F .. Slavtry ami the Catholi Ch11rth. The Histry o( (.atll<>ll Tra<hiug c>ncm1in.~
tl1e Mral Le,~?ilimafy c>( the /nstituthm tlj Sl,wery (Chichc~tlr/London. 1975: Sl'l' p.MlJ
n.5 above)
Mazza, Mario, LSRA~
Ltlltt: .>.>da/i e rc.<taurazilme autCirit<lria ttel Ill sec. d.C. (rcpuhlio,hed. Rome, 1Q73)
- - , 'MarxJSru~ ~ ~tuua 111tKa. Nott sulla sroriografia marxista in ltalia', in Str4di slaJrid
17.2 Cl'J7(,) 9'\-1.:!4
- - . Prd:l{'l' t(, Juhan rran!i .. l..s Jd1:mmi 11r"II'Italia imperialr 1-1/1 sec. (Ronlt". 1975). of a
book 111 H.u..,sJ.m 111 1971 by E. M. ~ta('rmau .md M. K. Trofimuva
Mazz.arim,, ~~;mm. l-:,.s.w Thr Em{,:;" tF:.- .-lllrim: W,rld, Eng. tr;111s. hy George Holmes
(london. l 1~>h) lr11111 th(" lt.di;m, Ll.fi;r Jd ,.,,,,f,oalftico (JIJS'J)
- - . A,:pttti ~<'llli del quarto ,,.-.ric. R,,-,.,,ht' dllt<n,., r.zrdo-r1Jn11ma (Hom~. 1951)
Ml'ek. RonJld L.. Studies irltiJd .zhorlr Tllrr ,.; I alue, 2nd rdn ( 1973; the 1st tdn was in
1'J5fJ
Mt>ier. Chmtlau. R.:s l~hfi,,z .4,.,,~~1 (Wiesbadm. 1%6). [Sre tht rvi.w by P. A. Bnmr,
giv~a
.thwl
Mciggs. nussdl. A.E"' Tlz, :\thmim1 Empire (1972)

- - , R.mdtl O<ti.4. 2u.l ~-,lu: 197.'\\
Mik.k, s.- u. 'Arisl<ltk .uhl th( ]'llitK.tlL<=Illll\lllY oithcpolis', inJHSlJ'J (19711) 57-73. [I
have unr h.tJ ,,,.laswn t" llll'lltJou rim. art~rk abovt. but It 1~ a v1ry intl'rt'sting
contnl>uthll\ by a M.must phill~~~rho.:rl
M~illassoux. Cl.tu.k. 'Ar, tlwr, ,J~tn m lr1di;e. in liC!mc>my a11d Soliety 2 (l'J73) 89-111
- - , 'E,;~:n d'~t~t.rpr,;t.Ul>ll thl ph~tl4lr:l.:r;.:- .:~,monuqm dans lc~ socictt's tradniondks
d'am,>-,.uhsisran,-,.. m CJilit'l. d','rz,.iu .Jtiz.:o~iu.: ~ (1%0) 3!4-67
- - . 'fwm rquoductiutJ tu pwdu~ti.m. A !\-1.tr'l.tst approach to ~ronomic autluopol.:~tY'. m Erottomy and S.~;~,tr I il972) 'JJ-105
Mellor, R<ltuld. "fhfa RhJme !m (~r,,k] Til( w,.,;llip <?f the Gvddc,; Ro"'u i11 the Greek
W1>r!cl r= II i'l''''';'"'";.:t:l 42. Gl\ttin~n. t 'J73,1
Mlndd:-. I ),,wn. 'P,f'!l.:us illld th, SICi,,...,, UH'Illi.: ~JU<'StJon in Grnrc ( 17'J-172/I B.C.).
A sru,fy iu R.,m.m prop.t~.mJJ , 111 .-\r;.. 5,,,. "J ~ i 97H) 55-73
686
Mmddsohn. Isaac, Slavery in thr Ancint .'\:ear /;.'ast (New York. 1949)
Meuli, Karl, HWF = Herkunft ur1d Wesm der Fabel (Bask. 1954)
Millar, Fergus G. B., ERW = The Emperor i~1 tht' R<Jman World (!977)
- - , ICP = 'The Implrial cult and the persecutions'. m Lt cult<' ds sorweraizs dans /'Empire
r<>main ( Entretim.< sur I'antiq11ite classique l'J. Fondation Hardt. Vandocuvrcs/
Geneva, 1973) 143-1651175
- - . SCD :o; A Study ofCassiu~ Dio (1%4)
- - , 'P. Hcrcnnius Dcxippus: the Grclk world and th~ third-century invasions'. in]RS
59 (1969) 12-29
- - , 'Paul ofSamosata, Zl'nobia ,;md Aurdian: the Church, local culture and political
allegiance in third-century Syria', in]RS 61 (1971) 1-17
--,Set> also undlr Schurcr, Emil, bdow
Mitchell, Stephen, 'Rlquisitiont>d tr:.tnsport in the Roman Empire: a new inscnption
from Pisidia', in}RS 60 (1976) lOfi.-31
Mittlis, Ludwig, Ru v""' Reichsruhr Ulld Volksrrdlt in dm ostlichen Provi~IZ't'n dt'S riimischm
Kaiscrrriths (1891; r~pr .. with a Preface by L. Wenger. Leipzig, 1935)
Mocsy, Andras. PUM = Panncmia and l.Jppn Mo,sia. A History of the Middle D.mubc
Provincrs C!f'thr Roma11 Empire (1974, tram;. from thl German)
Mommsl'n, Th"odor. Rom. Staatsr. = Riimi.;ch<'s Staar.wcht (Leipzig}. 3 vols: 1-11. 3rd cdn
(18H7).111 ( 1888); repr., Tiibingcn (1952)
- - . Rom. Strajr. ; Riimisches Strajrrchr (leipzig, 1899; repr. by Akadcmic-Vnlag.
Berlin, Darmstadt, 1955)
Monceaux. P.. Histt,ire lirthaire de 1'1\friqu<' (hretien1e dcpuis Ie.< '''il!illrs jusqu 'a /'illflasio,
arabe, 7 vol~ (Paris. !CXJt-23. npr. 1966)
Monnicr, H .. 'Etud~s d~ droit byzantin', in NRHDFE 24 (1900), esp. fo2-107 (scc p.fo5~
n.43 .tbove]
Moritz, L. A Grairr Mill.< and FlCJur ill Classicall\uriqllity ( l<JSI'l)
Morris, Roslmary, 'Tht. powerful and the poor in tC'nth-clntury Byzantium: law and
reahty', in Past & Presem 73 (1")76) 3-27
Morrow. Glenn R. PLS - Plato's J.aw ~f Slavery in iu Relatio11 w Grrek La1v ( = IlliPiois
Studies in LanguaJ~ealld I.irerature XXV ..l. Urbana, lllinms, l'J39)
- - . 'Plato and Grt.'t"k slavery', in _\,lind 4M = n.s. 190 (\939) IH0-201
Mouterdr, R . and A. Poidebard, L 'Lime> de Ch,dcis, "'.1/.tllisatioll dt Ia steppe en HaUI.Syric romair1r (Paris, 1945)
Miinz~r, F . Ramische Adrlsparteien mrd Adl'!s{amilirll (Stungart, 1'J20)
Murray, Oswyn. R~vil'W, in]RS 59 (1%9) 2fi1~5. ofMacMulkn. ERO (q.r'. above)
N~edham,Joscph, S'ic"'~'"'''l Citllioatitl i11 Cl11"'' ''"P IV .ti (l%5,i

Nlwman, W. l., PA I-IV -::: '11~rl'tlitio! ,,f .\riit&'tl.-. i \'ol~ (1~7-J<.~ 12)
Nicholas, Uarry, lRL ""' Imr,!J,,,,;,,., t, R,.,,.m /,,,. ( I'Jto.:!~
- - , See also undlr Jolowicz, H. 1-., .tlouw
Nicolet. Claudl, L'Ordrc rquesrrr a l'iJ''r/'1" rrpnlo/i.-.li:( dt.?-H d' J.-C.), I. Dijit~iti.ns
juridiqurs rt stnwmo .,,,i,d.< (l';uts, !11ht,}; II J>r,~''!'~tlr"rlrir Jrs chc1aliers r11marm
(Paris. !974):. BEF'\R .'!lti
Nicbot'r. H.J .. Slaver)'ls.mltlrilt>lri;ll.Sr.''""' (I'Jtlll;
Nilsson, M.P . Gt'Sfltidltr,lrrgtil;i~rl:m Rrli..:MI. ~ vols (Munich): P (1955). IP ( 19fo1)
Nock, A. D . OJ""' 'Dettkatiun andJuh.m', iuJRS 47 (1957) 115-23. rcpr. in Nock..
ERAW(bdow) 11.!\.U-k
- - . EOC ='The t'rnp.r,,r Jnd Ius oll\'iu.: ((lmrs'. inJRS 37 (IY47) 102-110. Tl'pr. in
Nock, ERAW(bcltWi ll.b5J-75
- - . ERAW""' Essays,,., H.-1.1!'"" ,,,,; rl,, .-lr~n.,:t n:,,,f.i, ..::d Zph. St,wart, 2 vol~ (1972)
- - . 'Religious dcvdormnh r'r.:u th;,: \'l;r!\( u:" tb R,i'uHtr h_ thl' dlath ofN,rn', in
CAH X (1934) 465-511
Norr, Dictl'r, SRHFAR ~ zur;;,v::ll\'11 und rl'chtlichn Bwcrtung dr frti~n Arbt.'it in
Rom', in ZSS H2 ( I'JtL.:;) to7 ;u~
687
- - , 'Uic> Evangelien dc.>s Neuen Testaments und die sogenannte hellenistischl.' Rcchtskoine', in ZSS 78 (1961) 92-141
- - , 'Griechisches und orientalisches Recht im Neuen Testament'. in Actes duX! Cot~~res
intcrnat. de Papyrolo,~~es (Warsaw etc., 1964) 109-15
Norman. A. F., GLMS = 'Gradations in later municipal society', in]RS 4S ( 1958) 79-85
- - , LA Libanius' Autobiography (Oration [), ed. with lntrod., trans. and notes (1965)
- - , Review, in}RS 47 (1957) 2.36-40, of Paul Petit, LVMA (q.1. below) and Lrs
Etudiants de Libanius ( 1957)

North, D. C., and R. P. Thomas. 'The rise and fall of the manorial system: a theoretical
model', inJEH 31 (1971) 777-803; and 'An economic theory of the growth of the
western world', in Econ. Hist. Rt'v.~ 23 (1970) 1-17; also Thr Rise of the Wrstrrn World
(1973): sec p.83 above
Nurton, V., 'The beneficial ideology', in Imperialism in the Ancient Wvrlt/. ed. P. D. A.
Garnsl'Y and C. R. Whinaker (1978) 209-21,338-43
Oertd. f .. {);,. l.r:ur.l!i?. Studien z11r ptoll'maischen und kaiserlichetl Verwalt11r1~ ARypttns
(Leipzig. !'117)
Oliva. Pavd. Hm,ri.J J:d rl~t c)om; .:;j Cri:i! :r: rltr u.
Empire (Prague, 19f'J2; from the
Cze,h. l'157i
- - . 'Uk B~tlt"ut~m~ :.lcr .mttkc:1~ Skb.nw'. m .-\;u .1'\111. 8 (1960) 309-19
- - , Sparr.r ,,,/ Ira .\Pci<~l Pr.,bl.-ons ! l'r.l!=ll\', 1971)
Oliv~r. J. H.. Rl'.,.. Thl' R:lim!{ p, ...,,r :\Study '!f tllf Roman Empire in the Secilnd Century
aftrr Glui.~t throu.eh the RcJm.m Or<lti.n of At'lius Aristides (=- Trans. Amer. Philo>. Soc.
n.s. 4J.4. Philaddphia, 1'153) !471-11113. [Set" p.615 n.54above)
.,,:r,
- - , Mar.-u A11rrlius: :1spects j)( C itic ar1J Cultural Policy in the East (:: Hespfria Sup pl. 13,
19701
- - , Th, Saarrd Gt'Pusi.: (;:;
l/(,prrJ.I Suppl. 6. 1941)

--,'The Rorn;m gclWmnr':s ~IIIIl!>Sion for J.olt:~T'~ ,,fthc: polis', in Hesp. 23 (1954) 163-7
- - . 'A new kttt'r ,,{ Antuninu~ Ptuo;'. m .-\)11 7'l ( 1958) 52-6:l
Oilman. lkrtdl, '.\1J.n:s u~~ of''d.ass.... itl Ant'r. Jnl of Sod.,lo~y 73 ( 1968) 573-80
Olmsted. I L. 11~o ( ..'.ttn Ki~<:Jm (I Hill: <'d A.M. Schlesinger, 1953)
--.Jvurney irr till' Sr.rhParJ .';/,no Statr.< (1X56; rt'J<>~ut.t 19:>4. 2 vols)
Oost, S. J, '11w ,1\k:to."l'"~".:l" seditions umb Philip ;md Gallienus', in CP 56 (1%1) 1-20
Ossowskt. St:mt.'il.aw. CSSC "" CI.J<.< Stnlllatre in the .'iodal Consciousness (Eng. trans. by
Shcih Pilttl'hllll, I~IIJ & rcpr.j
- - , 'Leo. dtfti:'r.nr-. .a~p,cts de Ia da!O~t" ,..,tlak rho Marx'. m Cahiers internationar4X de
scciolo.(!it: .24 i IJ5H) r.5-7'J
Ostrogorsky, (~t'<>rg, HBS~"" Hist.t;' frlu li)'lcltlllll<' $tatf, 2nd cdn of the Eng. trans. by
Joan M. J-ht:>sy (i'.lftH. fwm tlw .\rt1 GnuMn edn. Geschichte des byzanti,.ischm
Staat.' l'Hd)
- - , Agr;lrian t:.mdu tm:. in t hl Byzantine Emrtr 111 the Middle Ages' ~ chapter v of
CEHE F (l'll..f./ )J5-.\4. with bibliography. i74-'J
- - , 'Thl ptasilnt's pre-emption rtght', mJR.S ,\71 1')47) 117-26
Ostwald. Martin, Nomo.< and the B.:~irlmg; ~I,,,,. Atitl'lliatJ Democracy (1969)
Otto, W . Hr:J.~r .:1" I lie cltJ~<fi, im 11.-llmi;ti.~rllm A~yptl'll ( = Abhandlu11~1'11, Hayer.
Ak.a.l. d,r Was..... l1 hdos..-hrsr. 1\Ja,;,o;,. Mt~mdt. n.F. 29, 1950)
Padgug, R. A .. 'Sckct bibliogr.1phy on Marxism and the study of Antiquity', in Arethusa

R(1975) 199-225
Page, Denys (l.), SA=- Sapphoand Ala1eus (1955)
Palanquc.J. R . 'Famines .1 Rome aIa fin du IVc sicde', in REA 33 (19.31) .346-56
Pallasse, Maurice. Orit!nt et Occident propos du Colonat Romain au &s-Empire ( = Bib/. de Ia
Famlre Je Droit de l'Ur~it'. d'AI~cr 10, Lyons, IIJSO)
Parain, Charles, 'Les caracens spccifiques de Ia lutte de classes dans I'Antiquitc
classiqu~. tn La Ptmsec 108 (Aprill%3) 3-25
688
Paret, R., 'Domerianus de Melitene et Ia polirique rcligicuse de l'empt"reur Maurice', in

REB 15 (1957) 42-72
Pargoire,J., 'L'Eglise byzantine de527 847 (Paris, 1905)
Parke, H. W., GMS =Greek Mtrt:enary Soldiers from the Earliest Times to the &ttle ojipsus
(1933)
Parkin, Frank, Class Inequality and Political Order (1971 & repr.)
Paschoud. Fran~ois, Cinq etudts sur Zosimt (Paris, 1975), including 'La digrt"Ssion antimonarchique du preambule de l'Histoire nouvelle', pp.1-23
- - , 'Zosimus (8)', in RPX.A (1972) 795-841
Passerini, Alfredo, '[ moti politico-sociali della Grecia e i Romani'. in Athen. n.s. 11
(1933) 309-35
- - , 'Riform'-' sociali e divisioni di beni nella Grecia del IV sec. a.C.', in Athen. n.s. 8
(1930) 273-90
- - . Six articles in Athen. n.s. 9-11 (1931-3) under the general tide, 'Studi di storia
cllenistico-romana': see p.61 1 n.l6 above
Patlagean, Evelyne, Pauvrete economique et pauvrete sociale a Byzanct -t'-7 sifdes (Paris,
1977}. [I did not see this work until my book was finished and in page proot1
Pearka, J . The Formulafor thr Grant ofEnktesis in Attif Inmiptiom (= Acta Univ. Carolinae,
Philos. rt Hist. Mo11ographia XV. Prague, 1966)
--,'land tenure and the development oftht" Ath~nian polis', in G"as [Greek). Studies
pres. to George Thomson, ed. L. Yard and R. F. Willetts (Prague, 1963) 183-201
Pelham, H. F., ERH =Essays (1911} (On the spine: Essays on Romtln History]
Penna, Antonio La: see under La Penna
Percival, John. 'Seigneurial a:;pects oflatC' Roman estate management', in Eng. Hist. Rev.
84 (1969} 449-73
- - , 'P. Ita I. J and Roman t.'State management', in Hommma.~es Marcel Rnard II ( = Coli.
Latomus 102. Brussels, 1969) 607-15
Perlman, S., 'A note on the political implications ofProxenia in the fourth century B.C.',
in CQ 52= n.s. 8 (1958) 185-91
Petit, Paul, L VMA = Libanius rt Ia vir municipale aAntioche au I~ sieclr apres].-C. (Paris. 1956)
- - . 'l'csdavagc antique dans l'historiographie sovietique'. in Acres du Colloqur d'histoire
sodale 1970 (=Annates lirtiraires de l'Univ. de Besan(orr 12R. Paris, 1972) 9-27
Petzold. K. E. 'Romische Revolution oder Krist der romischen Republik?'. in Riv. stor.
dell' Ant. 2 (1972) 229-43
Pharr, Clyde, TC The Theodosian Codrand Novrls and the Sirmon dian Constitutions, Eng.
trans., with commentary etc. (Princeton, 1952)
Piganiol. Andre. EC 2
L'Empire (hrttien (325-J95.1. 2nd edn, by Andre Chastagnol
(Paris, 1972}
Pippidi, D. M .. PMOA 'Le probleme dt" Ia main-d'oeuvrt" agricole dans les colonil'S
grecques de Ia Mer Noire', in PTGA (ed. M. I. Finley) 63-R2
Plekct,H. W . 'TheArchaicTyrannis',in Talanta 1 (1%9) 1~1
- - , 'Collegium iuvenum Nemesiorum. A note on ancient youth-organisations', in
Mnemos. ~ 22 ( 1969) 281-98
- - , 'Domitian, theSl"natc and the provinces', in Mnem. 4 14 (1%1) .296-315
- - . 'Economic history of the ancient world and l'pigraphy: somr introductory
remarks. in Aktrn dts VI Intemationalrn K~Jngmses fur Griechische und Lateinische
Ep(~raphik
Vest(~ia 17 (1972) 243-57
- - . 'Games. prizt"S, athletes and ideology. Some aspt"cts of thl" history of sport m thc:
Grcco-Roman world', in Stadi~>n I (1976) 49419
- - . 'Zur Soziologic dt"S antiken Sports', in Mededelin.~ro van her Nederland.s lnstituur tc
Rome 36 (1974} 57-87
- - . 'Technology in the Greco-Roman world: .a gt'ncral rcporr', in Talanta 5 (1973) 6-47
- - . Revit'w, in Gnomotr49 (19n) 55-63. ofDuncan-Jones, EREQS (a bow)
Plekct, H. W. (editor). Ep(~raphica, I. Texts ()n the Economic History ofthe Gref'k W"rld (:
Text11s Minores 31, Lei den, 1904). and II. Texts on th1 Social History of the Greek World
(= Trxtus Minores41, Leiden, 1969)
=
=
689
Pocock,]. G. A.: s~'L"under H.arring:on,J~m~-s

Polanyi, Karl, P,-4Ml: Primitil'c', .'\rt"h.air ;;.ill Modem Economies. Essays of Kilrl Polanyi,
ed. Grorgc: Daitun (Boston, 1'168)
- - , TMEE = Tr.rJr .mJ M.~rlm in tlr.- l:<Jriy Empir.;. Economies in History and Theory, ed.
K. Pol.m~'l. C. M. Arensberg and H. W. Pe.annu (Glencoe, Illinois, 1957)
Pomeroy. Sarah B.. 'Selected bibliography on w"men in antiquity', in Arethus4 6
(Spring, 197~) 115-57
--,Goddesses, JVh,r~,;, Wirl!j, :mJ .'il.llcs. W~>nrm ir Classical Antiquity (New York, 1975)
Potter,]. M . M. N. DiazandG. M. fostc.T{c.'dltm:~~.Pca...mtSodety: .'\ Reader(Boston, 1%7)
Prawer, S. S. KAHJII. = K.rrl M.tr."< .md 'WI.'Itld LitcToJillre (1976)
Preaux, Cl.lirt. EH.l. = L 'Er.,nonit rr.rl,. drs Lagides (Brussels, 1939)
- - , 'L~ ~tatut de. Ia fl'mmc. a I'epoque hellenistique, principalement en Egyptc', in
Rrrueil." drIll SribfJc.Jtl &din XI: La Femme (1959) 127-75
- - , 'Les villt-s hdlcnistiques, principalement t:n Orient. Leurs institutions administrativL~ ctjudici.1ires', in Recueils de Ia Soc.Jean Bodin VI (1954) 69-134
- - . 'Institutions economiques et sociales des villcs hellenistiques, principalement en
Ori~nt', in Rrcueils drla Soc.Jean Bodin VII (1955) 89-135
- - , 'Sur I~'S ~au.\~s dt: decadence du monde hellenistique', in Atti dell'XI [ 1965] Congresso
lntenr.l.;:i,,nale di PapiroloKia (Milan, 1966) 475-98
- - , 'Sur [;a !<tagnation de Ia pensee scicntifique a l'epoque heUenistique', in Essays in
Hon,,r 4 C. Bra~f,rd Welles = American Studies in P4pyrology 1 ( 1966) 235-50
- - . 'Lt~ modalitt~ de 1'attache aIa glebe dans l':Egypte grecque et romaine', in Recueils
de Ia S,,.: )ran B(IJin 112 Le Servilge (2nd edn, revised and enlarged, Brussels, 1959)
33-65
Preisker, lkrbert, Christentum unJ Eire in dm erstrn drei Jahrhunderten (= Neue Studien zur
Ges,llithtr Jer Theologie und Kirchr 23. Bc.rlin, 1927)
Prinz, Arthur M., 'Background and ulterior motive of Marx's "Preface" of1859', in]Hl
30 (1969) 437-50
Pritchard. R. T., 'Land tenure in Sicily in the first century B.C.', in Historia 18 (1969)
545-56; 'Cicero and the Lrx Hirronicil', in id. 19 (1970) 352~; 'Gaius Verrcs and the
Sicilian farmers', in id. 20 (1971) 224-38; 'Some aspects of first century Sicilian
agriculture', in id. 21 (1972) 646-60
Pritchet-t, W. K., 'The Attic Srelai': I (texts etc.), in Hesperia 22 (1953) 225-99; II
(commentary), inid. 25 (1956) 178-317/328
Quasten,J., P4trology. 3 vols (Utrecht, 1950-ffl)

Rallis. G. A . and M. Potlis, Syntagma ton theion k<~i hieron kanonon ... [in Greek: the
Camnl..lw ulrh. Orthodox Church], esp. IV (Athens, 1854): sec p.557 n.26 above
Randall, 1~. H. 'Tht Erechtheum Workmen', in 1\JA 57 (1Q53) 199-210
Rea,J. R. kdirur), Tht'Oxyrhynchus Papyri [P. Oxy.)XL (1972)
Reinhold. M1:yt'T. 'Hn.torian of the Classic World: a critique of Rostovt:zeff'. in Science
and Svciety 10 (1941) JlI-'.JI
- - . See also Lewis, N.trhtali .mJ R~inhuld
Reiss, Hans. T<.r"''j Political Writings, t>d. H.10s Reiss, and trans. by H. B. Nisbet (1970)
Rcmondm. Roger, 'L'Edict XIII deJu~rnncn a-t-il ete promulgue en 539?', in Chr. d'EJl.
30 (I'J55) 112-21
- - . 'L 'Egyrb' .:rIa supreme rcJ"i<itlK~ Jn Chrt~tl.misme (V"-VII" sil:des)', in Bull. de
l'lnst.jt;rn(ai;cl'archeol. oriem.rldl 0'152)6.'>-71;
Rey. Pierre-Philippe: "'"'' undc:r l lu~re. G..-'''!t"i. :mJ R~y
Reynolds. Joyce M., .1\ ci\'i,
fnmt Htn~ha'l!t' (Berenice], in Fifth Annual Report of
the ,').,.-i,ty for Libyan Strtdrn (1'173-4) !J..24
--,'A nvi< decree from r,,a:a in Cyrt':l.ai;;a. m.-\r;h. Class. 25/26 (1973/74) 622-30
- - , 'Th.: ins.:ript11ut> ,)f :\poU,ma . an. -\p,ll,uri.:. Suppl. Vol. of Libya Antiqu11 (1977)
293-JJ.)
.J,.,., .,.
690
- - , 'Tht' citil'S of Cyrenaica in dn:lmt'', in Theml's de rcchtrchcs sur In vilfes amzques

d'Occidmt ( = Colloques inremationaux du Cemre Xarional de Ia rechmlzc scimrijique. no.
542, Strasbourg. 1971, published at Paris, 1977) 53-8
--,'Roman inscriptions 1971-5', injRS66 (1976) 174-W
- - , 'Aphrod1sias: a free and fl'derar.: city', in Akrm dts VI. lntematicmalerr Kon,(!resses.fiir
Griechische und Lateinische l:;piJ!raphik (Mumch, 1972) = Vesl(f!ia 17 ( 1973) 115-22
Rhodes, P. J., 'Tht: Five Thousand in the Athtnian nvolutions of 411 B.C., inJHS 92
( 1972) 115-27. [ Se.: pp. h05~ nn .30-1 a bow]
R1chmond. I. A., Archaeology and the After-Life in Pa~a11 aud Christian Imagery ( 1950)
--,'Palmyra undtr the aegis ofRome' inJRS 53 (1963) 43-54
--,'The Sarmatac, Brmaetennacum Veteranorum and the R:l!io Bremcrentlacnsz.<'. injRS
35 (1945) 15-29
Robbins, Lionel (lord), An Essay 011 the Nature and S~qnificatrct of Ewwmic Scimce, 2nd tdn
(1935; tht first cdn was in 1932). (Src pp. tW-5 abovl']
Robert. Louis, 'Oivinites C:ponymLs', in Hellmica 2 ( 1946) 51..(~
- - . Lcs .~Iadiateurs dans /'Orient grec (Paris, 1940; rcpr. AmstLrdam. 1971); with
corn:ctions and supplements in the articles in REG and Hellenica giwn in n.3 on
pp.tl36-7 above
- - . 'Nouvdles inscriptions d'Jasos', in REA f!S (1%3) 2'm-J2')
--,Numerous othtr artidt-s (some with). Robert) in Hellt,zica, REG, BCH etc.
Robertis. F. M. De: see under DeRobertis, F. M.
Roberts. C. H., 'The Kingdom ofHeavcn (Lk. XVII.21)', in HTR 41 (IIJ4R) I~
Robinson, Joan, Essay in Marxian Econtltnics, 2ndedn (1966; the first tdn was in 1942)
Robinson, Olivia, 'PrivatL' prisons'. in RIDA'1 15 (I 968) 38'-J-98
Rostovtzeff, M .. NEPPK = 'Nott'S on the economic policy oftht Pt'rgam<ne kings' tn
Anatolian Studies pres. Ill Sir W. !'vi. Ramsay, cd. W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder
( 1923) 359-90
- - . SEHHW-= Social and Economic History t!f tire Helknistic w,,r[d. 3 vols ( \941)
- - , SEHR 2 ~ Social and Economic History ofthe Rtmwl Empire, .2nd l'dn. nv. by P. M.
Fraser, 2 vols (1957; the first edn was in 1926)
- - [Rostowzcw ], SGRK = Studim zur Gmhichte des riinaischm Ko/onatt's (= Beiheft I,
Archiv fiir Papyrndomhun,\!. Leipzig/Berlin. 1910)
- - , 'Angariae'. in Klio 6 (1906) 249-58
- - , Th1 Caravan Cities (1932)
- - , 'Lcs inscriptions caravanierrs dt Palmyn', in M.'l. Gustave Clot~ (Paris, 1932)
11.793-811
Roth, Guenther. 'The historical relationship to Marxtsm', in Scholarship and Partisamhip:
Essays em .\tlax Weber, ed. Rtinhard Bendix and Roth (1971) 227-52
Rothstdn, M., 'Suffragmm', in Fmschrift ?U Otto Hirschfelds fi0rl'ttl Geburtsta,er (1403) 30-J
Rouge, Jean, ROCMM = Rechmhes sur l'(lrgallisatjon du wmmme maritime m Miditerrani'e
.<oils /'empirr romaira (Paris, 1%6)
- - , rdirion of the ExpMitio totius muudi et,erotium (SC 124. P~ris, 1%6)
Rouillard, Germaine, ACEB2 = L 'administratioll civile de l'Egypte byzantmt, 2nd l'dn
(Paris, 11J28)
Rubinsohn, Zccv Wolfgang, 'Saumakos: ancimt history, modem pobtics', m Hi.>t11raa 29
(1980) 50-70
Rudf, George. The Crowd in the Frrnfh Revoluritm ( 1959 & rc-pr. ); Tht Cr,,wd in Hist''Y. A
Study ol Popular Disturbances in France and En.'!lat~d /7l(J..J84H (liJM); and tJaris 11nd
London ;, the E(!!htt'enth Century. Studirs in Popular Prt!tm ( 1970): sec p.fl24 n.13 abow
Ruggini. Leilia Cracco, Ec(lnPmia e soriet.l nrll' "ltali11 annonaria''. Rapporri.fra a.ericoltura e
commmio daliVal VI secolod.C. (Milan, 1961)
- - . The- ecdesiastical historians .md tb\ pagan historioguphy: Providcnct' and
miracles', in Athm. n.s. 55 (11J77) 107-26
Runciman, W. G., RDSJ =Relative Deprivation11nd s,,cilll]llstice (1%6)
Ruppel, W., 'Polittuma', in Phif,,lo,eus tl2:: n.F. 36 (1927) 2(~312, 433-54
691
StC". Croix. C E" M. d::, ,\(;:{MI. = 'Ano.::t Greek and Roman maritime loans', in
Debits, C,dits, riJ.:w..;,ld Pr!tl~> !Euays :11 HonourofW. T. Baxter]. ed. Harold
Edey .m.lll S. \' ;n:;c~ ( i:J7~) IJ!-5<)
- - , AHP = 'Aristork on Histor~ a1:d Portry (Poetics 9, 14S1~b II)', in Tire Ancient
Histori.m m1d Jw M:lin.ti.< I.E~sa~r~ ;n Honour of C. E. Sc.-wns], ed. Barbara Levick
(1975) H-5k
--,CAE= 'Tin: dlar:icta d th.~ Arl:,~~r:.u: Emp1n-". m Hist"ria 3 (195415) 1-41
- - , CFT = fh, rot~ttlltin ofrhc Fn(' Thon!ia:hf. in Historia 5 (1956) 1-23
- - . EC.\PS = 'E:.nly Chns!lall ;trmnJcs to property and slavery". in SCH 12 (1975)
1-3H
- - . GRA = "Gr,-,k anJ Hvm;m .ao.n:n:utin~ . in S!lli.-.s in the History ofArrountill.~. cd. A.
C. Lirrl.-ton ami B.S. Yauuy r!ll5t) l.J-74
- - , KMHC.'\ "'- K~rl MJrx: dnJ th~lllstll'1 ' ur'Classical Antiquity', in Arethusa 8 (1')75)
7-41
- - . NJAE [ .aud II= 'N.:1t.:.s ou_Juns.lt.::!lorlm rh, A1h~nian Empire-', inCQ 55= n.s. 1t
(1961) 'J+-l :2 ;md .:!t~-$0
- - , OPkAW :.= 'Smllt'obstnaticm~ '"' rhcrotr('rt: rights of Athlman women', inCR
84 Jl.l;. 20 ( 1'J'71)j 27J..8; d .l87-'}("J
- - , OPW-= 'J'h .. Or~~in: ~I the l'r/.;wm.si,m Jl',, ( IY72)
- - . PPOA = p,,Jitif;il pay ~<mici'" .'\tlll'm'. m CQt'l n.s. 25 (1975) ~52
- - , RRW
-=
'Th.:rdt~ivn 11ftht Rum.11~ world', in IJiJaska/.>s 4 (1972) 61-74

'Sutr"r.aum: from vote to patron;A~t'. in Briti.1h ]nl oj Sociolo_f(y
- - . SVI' =
5 (1954)
33-48
- - . WWECP "" 'Why were the ..-arly Christians pt.rscruted?'. in Past & Pmmt26 ( 1963)
6-38, r.:pr. in SAS (cd. M. L Finll."y) 2H49; cf 2.56-62
--,'Aspects of the "Grt'at" persecution', in HTR 47 (1954) 75-113
- - , 'Demostht'nes' timhna and the AthL'nian l'isphora in tbt' fourth century B.C.', in
Classica et Mf'diaevalia 14 (1953) 30-70
--,'Herodotus', in Grerce & Rome~ 24 (1977) 131)..48
--,Re-view. in Population St11dits 10 (1956) 1 tl~-20, of A. E. R. Hoak. Manp"wcrShortage
and the Fall of tht Roman Empire in the Wm (1955)
--.Review, in En,l(. Hist. Rtv. 86(1971) 149-50, ofS. G. F. Brandon, The Trialojjrsus
ti{Nazamh (1968)
- - , Rc-vi~w. in CR 7H = n.s. 14 {1%4) 190-2, ofJ]. Buchanan, Thei>rika. A Study of
Monetary Di.(tributions to the Athtnian Citizenry durin.!! the Fifth atul Fourth Cmtr1ries
B. C. (I <II\:?)
- - . Revitw. inCH 81". = us 16 (11Jt.t) 'Jft-l. ofRudi Thomsen, Eisphora . .4 Study of
Direa r:L'i.1fli"l 11:
.-\tl,..,, {l'.lt-1 j
- - , Rev1~.,,. m CN 71 = u.~. 7 ( l.r;; 7) 5i-'l. ofW. L Westl'mJann. Tl1t Slavt S)'stetn.s '!f
Greek a::i U''"'"' .\mi.luit; ( 1'1:'1:))
Salomon. R. (.;., ','\ p.1rymo; twm Con~l.llltuuple (Hamburg lnv. No. 410)', inJEA 34
"'"''i"''
(194H) 'IIC:It.IX
Samuel, A h .. IWCA D .~ 'Tht IIlli ot'PJr;tmt~n. lall!><'S in ancient documt'tlts', inj}P 15

(1965i :?~1-311
Sarkady, Jlh:.mu.s. Ampos In S:nm~l'. bu Hcitrag zur archaischen Geschichtt

Samos". iu.4r:;l Cj;:;i;,J (Uui\' Srimt lkhr.t"t'11.)4 (1%8) 7-12
Sasse, Cht!ooft)ph. J),,. c,.,,ntmi,, A,:.mmi,m:: ~Wit-sh;ul.~n. 1958)
- - . 'Lit.-ramruh>:r~icht ;,wr Cllllslilllric) ,'\or.,lilll:ttl.t'. tn})P 14 (1962) 109-49; 15 ( 1965)
329-flf>
Saumagm. Ch..;,d~~. IK>C -~ 'Du rc'k d. l";'i\':' ,nlu ,-,nsus dans Ia formation du colonat
romain . iu }jj.::;ltitttr \2! JIJ7) 41!-1-~ l
Scarpat. G . /.nrll;.,f:l, Sum:! :1.-! "'"lli'lc'' ~Mt. :., tt~iiJo:ioni in Latino (Brescia, 1'J64)
Schaps, OJ\"ld. E;:nl'llli~ R1:lm ~fli'o!'l i11 _.,,,.,,..1!: t' ;r,we (1 979)
- - . 'Th, W'm.tn k.l..;llll<'l'ltl<'ll~"ii: ~ti,luttl." .mJ wmm:n's names'. in CQ71 n.~. Z7
( 19771 J?..\...~ I
692
Schiller, A. Arthur, 'Th' fate oflmperiallegislarion in !at~ Byzantine Egypt', in LeJ!al

Thllught in the U.S.A. Under Contemporary Prwum. ed. John N. Hazard and
Wence-slasJ. Wagn<:r (Brussels, 1970) 41-60
Schlaif("r, Rob~rt. GTSHA = 'Grlek theories of slavery from Homer to Aristotle'. in
HSCP47 (1936) 165-204. repr. in SCA (ed. Finley) 93-132
Schlatter. Richard, Private Property. Thr History of an Idea ( 1951)
Schneider, Helmuth, Die Entstchung drr riimischen Militiirdiktamr. Krise und Niederganx riner
antikm Repuhlik (Cologne. 1977)
Schiirer, Emil, Geschi,hte des judislhen V11lkes im Zt'italter]em Christi. 3rd/ 4th edn (190 1-9)
--,New English version of the same book, by Gcza Vermes and Fergus Millar, The
History ~the jewish Peoplein the A_l(f '?fjrsus Christ (175 B.C.- A.D. 135). of which
rwo volumes have appeared: I (Edinburgh, 1973), and II (1979)
Schuller, Wolfgang. Die Herrschafr dtr Arhener im Ersrera Allischtn Seehund (Berlin/New
York. 1974); and Die Stadt a/s Tyratt-Athens Herrsch'!ft uber sritJe Bundes,f!enossen
(Konsranz. 1978)
Schulz, Fritz, CRL =Classical Roman Law (1951)
- - , PRL = Principles~~ Roman Law, Eng. trans. by Margueritl' Wolff (1936), from a
tc.'Xt revist:>d and enlarged by the .1uthor from his Prinzipim drs romischen Rechts. 2nd
t:>dn (1934)
Schwartz, Eduard (editor). Acta Cone. 0t'L :: Act<~ Conciliorum Oecumrnic~Jrum, I
[Ephesus, 431] i-v (Leipzig/Berlin, 1921-9); II [Chalctdon. 451] i-vi (l'J32-8)
Scramuzza, Vincent, WVSS = 'Were the Vmerii in Sicily serfs?, in .4JP 57 (1936) 32~30
Scroggs, Robin, 'Paul and the eschatological woman', in jnl of the American A,ad. of
Rel~'?ivn 40 (1972) 283-303: and 'Paul and the eschatological woman nvisited', in id.
42 (1974) 532-7. [Sel' pp.l04. 105-6 abow]
Seager, Robin (l'ditor). CRR = The Crisis t!t"tlle Roman Rrpublic. Studit's in Hliti,al and
Social Hi5tl)ry ( 1969). And see under Gelzer above
Seeck, Otto, GUAW Geschichte des Untrrxan,gs deranrikm Welt, 5 vols (in 10 parts): 11.i-ii
{Stuttgart, 1921-2) m~.i-ii (1921). IV-V (no date), VI. i-ii (l'J20-l)
- - , RKP = Rexesten dtr Kaiser und PapstefUr dic']ahrd 11 bis 476 n.Chr. (Stuttgart. 1919;
repr. Frankfurt, 1964)
- - , 'Colonatus', in RE IV .i ( 1900) 48.3-510
Segal, J. B., Edtssa, 'The Blessed City' (1970)
Segre, Angdo, 'The Oy:untine colonat,', in Traditio5 (1947) 103-33
Seston, William. DJ' I= Dioditim tt Ia Titrarchir I (1946: no more published)
Sc.'tiilii., Paivi, Privatt l>amini in Raman Brick Stamps of the Empire. A Histari(al and Prosopa-
graphical Study ~i Landownm in the Distrirt "f R(lme (= Annales Academiae Scimtiarum
Fennicar Dissm.tti(lnts Humanarum Litterarum 10. Helsinki, 1977)
St"tton, K. M . Chri)ti.tll Attitudr towards thr Emprror in the Fvurth Cmtury ("" Columbia
Univ. Studits in Hi>ttry, Economks and Public Law482, New York, 1941)
Scyrig, Henri, 'Antiquites syriennes 48. Aradu) ~t BactuGlcce', in Syria 28 (1951) 191-206
Shanin, T rodor (cdib\r), PPS = PeasoJnt. ,mJ Pt'dS.tntSoci,.ty (Penguin, 1971)
Sheppard, A. R. R., ClroJroJctrri;lil~ ,~; Paliti.:al LiJi: in tiJt Grrek Cities ca. 70-120 A.D.
(Oxford B.Litt. thl'l>Jll, N75)
Sherk, Robert K . RDGE == Rm1111 D,,.,,mtnts ,-,..,,. rhe Gretk East. Setratus C"nsulta and
Epistulae to thr Agt of Augustu.< (B.lltimnrc. i %9)
Sherwin-White, A. N., LP = Thrl.etttrs ,~;Pliny (19flh)
- - , RC 2 The Roman Citizenship. 2ndtdn (1973)
- - . RSRLNT =Roman Society .rnd Roman L.JII' in the New Testament (1963). [See p.640
n.6above]
--,'The tabula ofBanasa and the Canstitutio Antoniniana', in]RS 63 (1973) 86-98
Sherwin-White, Susan M . Ancient Cas(= Hypomnemata 51. 1978)
Shimron, Benjamin, Latr Sparta. The Spartan Revoluti"n .243-146 B.C. (= Artthusa
Monographs 3, Buffalo, N.Y., 1972)
- - , 'Nabis of Sparta and the Helots', in CP61 (1966) 1-7
693
Small, A.M., Review, in fJhomix 33 (1979) 369-72, ofTapio Hden on !~oman brick
production (see above under Helen, Tapio)
Smelser, NciiJ. (lditor), Sociology. An lntrl'<lucti"' (1%7)
Snodgrass, A.M., 'The hoplite reform and history'. in.fHS HS (l%5) 110-22
Soden, Hans von (editor). UED 2
Urkunden zur F.ntstehunq.<l?esrhichte des Donatismus
Kleine Texrr.fur Vorlesut1gen und Gbun.l!en 122), t:d. Ha~s von Soden, 2nd cdn by
Hans von Campenhausen (Berlin, 1950)
Sorokin, Pitirim, CIJntnnporary Socio/IJgica/ Theories (1928)
Spawforth, A., 'The slave Philodcspotos', in ZPE 27 (1977) 294
Speidel, M., 'The pay of the Auxilia'. in]RS 63 (1973) 141-7
Sperber, 0., 'Angaria in Rabbinic litcratun', in Am. Class. 38 (1%9) 164-8
Staerman, E. M. [Schtajerman]. Die Bliite:uit der Sklavenwirtschqti in der riimischm
Rrpublik, German trans. from Russian (Wiesbaden, 1969)
- - , Die Krise der Sklavenhalrerordnung im Westen des riimischen Reirhrs, German rrans.
from Russian (Berlin, 1%4)
Staerman, E. M., and M. K. Trofimova, La schiavitu ~1ell'Iralia imperiale I-ILI sec. .Italian
trans. from Russian of 1971 (Rome, 1975), with Preface by Mario Mazza (see p.543
n.7above)
Stampp, Kenneth M., PI;;; The Peculiar lmtitutiaiJ. Slavery iiJ the Atrtt-Bdlum South (New
York, 1956; London, l%4)
Starr, Chester G . 'An overdose ofslavery', inJEH IR (19.58) 17-32. [Sec p. 54 above]
--,'The perfect democracy ofthc Roman Empire', in AHR 58 (1952-3) 1-1o
Stauffenberg, Alexander Schenk, Graf von, Dir riimischr Kaisrr:.~mhichrc bri Mala/as
(Stuttgart, 1931)
Stavcley. E. S., Greek and RomaiJ Voting a11d Elections (1972)
Stead, G. C., 'The Thalia of Ariusand the testimony of Athanasius'. injTSn.s. 29 (1978)
20-52
Stein. Ernst. HBE I2 .i-ii and II-= HiJtcir.,. du u,,.f."rnpire I [A.D. 284-476], 2nd edn. in 2
parts, ed. J. R. Palanque (PJ.ri!>, 1959). an improved French version of Stein's
Grschi,llte des spiitromis,hen Rticht'~. I. 284-476 n.Chr. (Vienna, 1928); and Jl [A.D.
47~515]. written in fnu,h and published posthumously by Palanque (Paris, 1949)
Stevens, C. E., .'i.-1:\ = Sidt1t1i11s Apollinaris and his Age (1933)
- - , 'Agriculture and ruralliti. in the L&r.~r HmMn Empire-', in CEHE It (1%6) 92-124,
with bibliography rev. by Juhn Morri~. 75:H>1
--,See also Levick, Barbara !~d.)
Stevenson, J. . .4. Nc>U l:u.rbiab. I>Nummts illustrative ofIhe histiJry af the Church tp A.D. 337
(1957 & repr.)
Stocks,J. l.. 'Sdac>/,'' fin Greek], in CQ 30 (1936) 177~7
Strasburglr. lkrm.um, Concordia Ordinum. Eine Untrrsuchung :ur Politik Cic1ros (Diss.,
Leipzig. l'J.\1}
- - , 'Nohih:s. 111 Rli. XVII.1 il'J.\6) 7H5-'Jl
- - , 'Optimates'. m RF XVIII.i (19.:N) 77.3--98
Strubbe, J., 'A group oflmperial est.lti.'S UI cmtral Phrygia'. in Anc. Soc. 6 (1975) 229-50
Svcncickaja, I. S. [Sventsitskaya ], 'Some problems ofagrarian relations in the province of
Asia', in Firme 15 (1977) 27-54. (And sec p.568n.33 above)
Swoboda, H .. GV =ll'll'chi.fllm Vo/ksb('schliisse. Epigraphischr Untersuchungen
(Leipzig. hNO)
- - . 'Komi'[in Greek]. in RL:Suppl. lV (1924) 950-76
Syme, (Sir) Ronald, RPM = .1 Roman Post-Monttn. An Inquest on the Fall of tht Roman
Rryubiic (= Todd Mt"morial l.tcture no. 3. Sydney, 1950) repr. in Syme's Roman
Papm 0979: ~t-.. below) 1..205-17
- - , R R 1111' Rcm.m Rl'c>lllti('tJ (1 CUt) & repr.)
- - , Danr.bi.m Papers (lluchar.:"'t, 1'171)
- - , Emptror;and Biography (1971}
- - , Romrm P.1pns. 2 vols, ed. E. Badian (1979)
(=
n,,..
694
- - , Tacitus, 2 vols (1958)

- - , 'The Titulus Tiburtinus', in Aktt'n des VI. lnternat. Kongr.fiir Griech. und Latein.
Epi~raphik, Munich 1972 ("" Vesti~ia 17 [1973] 585...6()1)
Taeger, Fritz, Charisma 1-11 (Stuttgart, 1957, 1960)
- - . 'Zur Gcschichtc der spatkaiserzeitlichc:n Hc:rrschcrauffassung'. in Sauulum 7 ( 1Q56)
182-95
Tam, W. W., HC:1 HellrnisticCivilisation, 3rdedn, rev. by the author and G. T. Griffith
(1952 & repr.)
- - , 'The social question in the third century [D.C.]', in 1111 Hellmistic A.~e. by J. B.
Bury and others (1923) 108-40: s('cpp.186 and 57Rn. 18above
Taylor, Lily Ross, 'Forerunners of the Gracchi', inJRS 52 (1962) 19-27
--,Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley etc., 1949, & repr.)
- - , Roman Votin~ Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to thr Dictatorship of Caesar (Ann
Arbor, 1966)
Tchalenko, G., Villages antiques de Ia Syriedu Nord. Le Mass![ du IYlus al'rpoque romaine, 3
vols (Paris, 1953, 1958)
T cherikover, V. [Tscherikower ]. Hellenistic Civilization and the jews (Philadelphia/
Jerusalem. 1959)
- - , 'Wasjt'rusalem a "polis''?', in IE] 14 (1964) 61-78
- - , Die hellenistischrn Stiidtegriindungen von Alexandt'r d~m Grossen his auf der Riimer::eit (=
Philolo,!?US, Suppl. XIX. I, 1927)
- - . 'Prolegomena' [on the position of the Jews in Egypt in the Ptolem4ic, Early
Roman, Late Roman and Byzantine periods] to C.P)ud. I
CClrpus Papymrnm
judaicarum I (1957) 1-1 t 1
Thcsletf, Holger, An Introduction to thr Pytha~orean Writings Clfthe Hellenistic Period (Abo.
1961)
Thomas,). A. C., LO ='Locatio and operae', in BIDR 64 (1961) 231-47
- - , NM 'The nature of merm'. in Aaajuridica (195R) 191-9
Thomas, Keith, 'The LevcUers and the franchist', in The lntrm:~num. The Qucst .for
Settlement 1646-1660, ed. G. E. Aylmer (1972) 57-78
Thompson, E. A .. EG The &rly Germans (1965)
- - , HAH A History of Attila and lhe Huns (1948)
- - , HWAM The Historical W!lrk of Ammianus Marullitius (1947)
- - . PRLRGS = 'Peasant revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain', in Past & l'rrsem 2
(1952) 11-23, repr. in SAS (ed. M. I. Finley) 304-20
- - , RRI =A Roman Reform~r and Inventor, being a new text of the: Treatise Dr Rrbus
Brllicis, with a Translation and Introduction by Thompson and a Latin lnd~.x by
Barbara Flower (1952)
- - , SEG 'Slavery in Early Germany'. in Hermathrna 89 (1957) 17-29, rcpr. in SCA
(cd. M. I. Finley) 191-203
- - , VTU Thr Visigoths in the Time '?f Ulfila (1966)
- - , 'Barbarian invaders and Roman collaborators', in Floril~gium [Carleton Univ.,
Ottawa] 2 (1980) 71-88
- - , 'The barbarian kingdoms in Gaul and Spain', in NortinKham Mediaeval Studies 7
(1963) 3-33
--,'Britain, A.D. 406-410', in Britannia 8 (1977) 303-18
--.,'Christianity and the northern barbarians', in Nottin"!?ham Mrdia~val Studies 1 (1957)
.1-21. rcpr. in The Conflict bi'lween Pa.(/anism and Christianity in the F!lunh Cmt11ry, ed.
A. Momigliano (1963) 56-78
- - . 'Oiympiodorus ofThcbL-s', in CQ 38 (1944) 43-52
- - , 'The settlement of tht> barbarians in southern Gaul', in J RS 4ft ( 1956) 65-75
- - . 'Th\ Visigoths from Fritigem to Euric', in Historia 12 (1963) 105-26
Thompson. Edward P., The Makin~ t!f thr En_elish Working ClaJs (1963 & rcpr., cited from
the Pelican cdn, 1968 & repr.)
=
=
695
Thorner, D~:1id. M:\lMl'

"M:&JX on Jndi:t a:1d the Asiatic mode of production'. in
ContdJ:uimulu f:ofi:lll S11ci<Ji~~~~ ') (19f.t>) JJ.-(,6
- - , 'Peasam eco:1o:n ;' .;:s.; <ato:-g(r} !r. \w:m:rK h:smry', in Druxi:me [ 19(,2] Confemur
internllli(ll:lt J'lli,,r..,it!' h,,.; .mi'i:jt (f-'a;u. l'!t.:;) 11.287-300
- - , 'Peas;-.ntry. m Tt:t~m:iu:~o:! lilll')'dopedia :~{rl:c S,l('!,,/ Scirncr.< 11 (196S) 503-11
Tjad~r, J-0 .. Dit l:ihtirt..r,:usdlm !,;lcllmrll ..t Htf'Y'~ lt:lliens au.< dt'r Zeit 445-700, 2 vols
(Lund. 1<155)
Topolski. Jerzy. 'Lo:\vt-S!~.u:~s .md Marx on history', in History ond Theory 12 (1973)
192-207
Ton.Ui, M .. 'Pmu unlust.ltn' ,f<- l"e.la;:~.gc: tu Etnnil. in Actes du Colloque 1973 sur
l'rsdae;ll(l' "'- lilllltlltJ letttlr.lir.., .It i'L'11i1' :!.- llmll;~" 182 (Paris. 1975) 99-113
[Torres, CJruilo I R.~,lrrti<'''.:'i' Pri,,\t. Fl!( C"mplt't,. Wt'itings and Messa~rs <?Jl.ami/(1 Torres.
ed.John Gcr.as.ii (1'J71 & r~;,r.}
T ouloumako:o. Jh:ilDJ<'S. Df't lii!!iro:.< N,,,l>. ''"fiic $t.J,Itdorm der.!1riechisfhen Stadt.<la<tfen des
Festlaadr~ uuJ Jtr be,;:.-!oa :111 t1'.'!r'tl ,,,./ zweitenjhdt. ~.Chr. (Diss., Gottingen, 1%7)
Toynbee, ArnJidJ . HI.= llollmil:,,l's Legacy. The Hanm'balic Wor's Effms on Roman L!ft, 2
vols (1%5}
- - , Grerk Hi.t,ric.li TJ,,,Ii~hr }''"' ,.,.,.,,,., I<' ,;.,. i\,~, lllrradius ( 1952 & rl'pr.)
Traill,J. S.. lhd 1,,/itiolli Org.,.u.<dticm ~i.-\ttiiol. A Stllll) ~ithe Derne.<, Trittyes a11d Phylai, alld
their Rqmst'ltolticll ;, tltl" ..\tllr'fli.J.I c,.,,,,jl ;~ llr"ip.-ria Sup pl. X IV ( 1975)
T rt'ves, Pi,ru. Dr'llli'.<ll"ll' ( l.s Jil,..,,,; greca (Han, lll33i
Trigger, Druc, G .. G,>rJ,l CJuldt: Revolutions i1 _,>\t.lr:lc'c>/{lxr (1980)
Turner, E. G .. 'E~;ypt.mJ th. Roman Empir.: tht MMprotoi', in]F.A 22 (11J36) 7-19
Ullmann. Walter, A History ofPolitital Thou.~ht in thr .\-Iiddle Agrs (Pelican Hist. of Pol.
Thought, Vol. 2, 1965: improved rcpr., 1970)
Vaiden berg, V . 'L~s idL-c.-s politiques dans les fragmmrs attribues a Pierre k Patrice'. in
By:umtion 2 (1925) 55-76
Vandersleyen, Claude, 'Le mot laos dans Ia langue drs papyrus grccs', in Chr. d'E,(!. 48
(1973) 339-49
Van Gogh, Vmnut. The Complete utters~~ Vi11cmt Van Gogh. 3 vols (london, 1958)
van Hoestn, H. B .. and A. C. johnson, 'A papyrus dealing with liturgi("s', inJEA 12
(1926) ilX-i'J
Varady, Lois-zl6. J.),uftt.:rejahrhundcrt I,amnllitn., 376-4'76 (Amsterdam, 1969)
Vasiliev, A ..4, . }1W111 tl11 First (Cambri.lg<. M.a:o'i . !'lSI))
Vaux., Roland dl. ,4fltl('lltlmnl. lt.< L,fr .mJ lnmtlltioll>. F.ng. trans. by JolDl McHugh (1% 1)
Vavf1nck, Vl.tJimir. 'Aris.runin.J.. uf Ptrganuun. Jr;.r.:ndcr to tht throne or leadt."r of a
slave fl'\'t:~lt~-, in Ettmr 13 ( !'.1'7~) ]I)',I..]'J

- - , La Rb,olr.- J'Ai~''''i.-o.< (l'r:l,;:ll<', 195;')
V crm("S, ( ~.x.l,fru. the Jew. A llt~l''''''''~' Rr.,Ji~r.: .tt;,,. Gosprl.< ( 1973)
- - , Set' .al"'' unJ.r Schiirer, Emil. .tboVt:
Vernant, J.-1' . 'lkm;1rt1u.;~ sur Ia lutt' ,k ,;:bs>: dJ.ns Ia Grec" ancienne'. in Eiretlf 4 ( 1%5)
5-19: Eng. tr~us. by n. Ardt~r and S C.llmnphr.ys. 'Remarks on the dassstruggk
in antinr ( ~rwn. iu Ctitir/111' ,~; Alltl!rl)p,,l,~~) 7 ( 1'176) 67-tH. [Sec p.63 abow)
Vcyne, P .. 'Vit Jt Trimakion'. .i,.:.tl.--' H1 (1}(,1) .:!B-47
- - , Le Jl.i t't 1. ri.-,,,.,. Sofii;lgir' lwr;l!'''' J'rm l'!lm;!i<me P"litiqrlt' (Paris. 1976)
Vidai-NalJUt"l, }Ji,rr UHf;F.; 'I{Nitxio.\11:< sur l'hm .riographic grccque de 1\sclavagt'.
in Aar~ 1Iu C,:.tJ,)<i"~' f!li I iltt l'o.d.rl-'~i.'' ~ Am.Jf,; littrrarrrs dtI'Vni!. de Res~"f"" !40
(Pan!'.
1'17~1
:?5-+l
- - . 'Lt'S .sd.&v.:s. j;r,;.;; .:~r;u.-ut-11 <m, .,l;tss,,!-'. m H.:rison prc'semc 6 (1968) 103-12. [See
pp.6;l-5 ;tbcl\'d
- - , 'lntr.)dLKtilll hl 1'1r:;: Soa,tn.:-1';; htn~h tuusl.uion. Flaviu> ]OSfphr. La .!!um des
Juifs \P.ms. I 977;.

--,Sec al,;;. mtd.-r Austin. M. M., J.nd Vidal-Naqu('t
696
Ville. Georges, 'Les jl'Ux de gladiatcurs dans l'empirl' chrctien', in MEFR 72 (1960)
273-335
Visscher, F. De: sec undf'r De Visscher, F.
Vittinghof, Friedrich, 'Die Bldcucung der Skl.twn fiir den Obergang von der Anrikc ins
abendHindische Mittdalter', in Hist. Ztscllr. 192 (1%1) 265-72
- - , 'Die Theorim des historischen Matcrialismus iiber den antiken "Sklavcuhaltcrstaat". Problcmc dcr Alten Geschichtl' bci den "Klassikern" dl-s Marxismus und
in der modemen sowjetischen Forschung', in Saeculum II (1%0) s<J-131
Vlastos, Gregory, SPT "='Slavery in Plato's thought', in Philosophical Review 50 (1941)
289-304, rcpr. in SCA (ed. M. I. Finley) 133-48; cf. 148-9
--.'Docs slavery exist in Plato's Republic?', in CP63 (196M) 291-5
Vugt, Jost"ph. ASIM = Andem Slavery and the ldral of Man (1974), an Eng. trans. by
Thomas Wiedemann of Sklaverei 1md Humanitiit. Studim rur antiken Sklaverei und ihrtr
I::.rforschun.fl~ = Historia Einzclschrift 8 (1972)
Vogt, Joseph (editor), Biblio.l!raphir zur antiken Sklal'frri (Uochum. t 971)
Walbank. F. W., HCP =A Historical Gm1mentary on Polybius, 3 vols (1957-79)
- - . The Awful Rrvolutio11. The Drcline ~~ftht- Roma11 Empire itl th West (l%9)
--.'Nationalism as a factor in Roman history', in HSCP16 (1972) 145-68
--,The problem of Greek nationaliry', in Phoenix 5 (!951) 41..(,0
--.'Were there Gn.-ek ftderal statl-s?'. in Scripta Classica lsrarlit"a 3 (1~7617) 27-51
Waldmann, Helmut, Die komma~misthen Kultrefonnt-n untcr Kon~~ Mithradates I, Kalli11ik,_,J
u11d seinem Sohne Antiochos I = Etudts Preliminares aux Rel~(ions Orientales dans
/'Empire Romai11 34 (Ldden, J1,17J)
Wallace. S. L., Taxation in E.~?yptjr"m Augmtus '" Di,cleti.m (1938). (For n:views, SC:l' p.581
n.S [on IV.i] abovl)
W J.lton. C. S., 'Oriental senators in the strvi,-c ofRonw: a study of Imperial policy down
to the death ~fMarcus Aurelius'. inJRS 19 (1929) 38-M
Waltzing. J.-P., Etude historiqur sur Irs corp ..ratioms pr~fwiontlelll's chez lcs Romai11s, 4 vols
(Louvain. 1895-1900)
Ward-Perkins,]. B.. The Roman West and the Parthian East', in PBA 51 (1%5) 175-1)1)
Warmington, B. H., 'Thl'<."arecrofRomanus, Comes Africae', inByzantion49 (1956) 55-64
Watson, G. R., 'Stipcndium', in OCD 2 1014 (with bibliography)
Wlawr, P.R. C., Familia Caesaris~ a Scial Study of the Emperor's Fret'dmm and Slaves (1972)
- - , 'Social mobility in the- early Roman Empire: the evidence of the lmp...rial freedmen
and slavl-s', in Past & Pmmt31 (t%7), rcpr. in SAS (ld. M. I. Finl{'y) 121-40
- - . Vicarius and vicariarms in thl Familia Caesaris', in]RS 54 (l%4) I 17-28
Weber, Marianne, Max Wrber. Ein Lebmshild (Tiibingcn, 1926; rt"pr. Heidelberg. 1950)
Wlber, Max. AA = A.~trarverhiiltnisse irn A/unum, from Handwonrrbuch der Staatswi.>st'll
.uhajt!'ll'1 ( 19QIJ), republished in (and ~..itld in this book from) Grsammelte A~/siir.u zur
S"zial- u11d Win.'chajt~~mhichte (Tiibingcn, 1924) 1-288
- - . AS.-'\C = The A.~trarian Se~dology '!f Ancient CiJJilizations, Eng. trans. with In trod. by
R. I. Frank (1976) of {1) AA (above). pp.37-386, and (2) thl German original of
SCOAC (below), pp.389-411
- - , CIB = 011 Charisma and Irwitutioll Buildi11~ (Selected p.apl'TS, cd. with an In trod. by
S. N. Eislnstadt, 196ft)
- - . ES = Ecor1omy a11J Socity. A11 Outline f:!{ llllrrpmivr Soliof,,_fly. 3 vols, cd. Guenther
Roth and Claus Wittich (New York. 1%8), J.n Eng. trans. mainly from WuG~(I956;
cf WuG;; bdow).[Thcm~ is now ;mldn ofESin 2 vols. 1978. with anew Jlrt.'facland
some additional bibliography]
- - . FMW =From Max Wrber. E.<says in Sociolo_(y. trans. and ~.d. with .1nlmrod. by H.
H. Gerth and C. Wright Mtlls (1946; papLrback 195H & rcpr.)
- - , GA.:RS = Grsammrlte A~!_fsiitu zur Rrl(ciolls.<oziolo.(if, 3 vols (Tiibingcn: 12 , 1'.122;
II, 1921; III, 1921)
Biblio~f!raphy
(and Abbreviations)
697
- - , GEH= Grnnll! f':tll,mi; History, trans. by F. H. Knight (New York, 1961. a partial
trans. ofWG, hd,~w)
- - , MSS =
Methodology ofth< S<~il<ll S.-:m.-:.-J. tran!i, and ed. by Edward A. Shils and
Henry A. finch (Nc:w York, ~J49) trom rh:-.-e as:Jys published in 1917, 1904 and
1905, and rtpr. in We-ber\ (;,;,,,,.mtito .illj!,:t.= .. ~: Wissensch;.iftslehrf.' (now in a 3rd
cdn. by Jnh.ltllll'S Wmrkdm.mu. Tiibingen. liM~~
n,..
- - , RA ""- Dit r.'>mi-lr .J..~.ugml~irlrte in ihrer
l~,..l~ulung fur
das Staats Utld Privatrtcht
(StuUJt:trt. !ill.ll)
- - , SCDAC 'S0,'ial Gtustsvfdtt' d(dim<~t.md.-ra civilisation', Eng. rrans. injnl of
General E.lu;atl<m 5 (!ti5i)) 7~, r~pr.m Eldmlg,. MWISR (q.v., above) 254-75 and
dsewhl'I"L with -4 diili:rL'Ilt tJaus. b~ H. I. Funk m ASAC (above) 389-411. The
original r;,rmJn .Jrlldc:. 'Die: ~o:n.tle Griinde des Untergangs der antiken Kultur',
was first published 111 JJi.- Wal,luit m 1~'" .md repr. in Gesammelte Aufsiitzt zur
Sozial- und Wirtsch;.iftsgeschichte (ab<we} .2~'1--.\1 I
- - , TSEO
The Theory oj Ecowmit .mJ .S..,<'iall O~~o~nization, Eng. trans. by A. M.
Henderson and T.dc:urr Parso~ ( I!U7 & rlpr .) utP.llrt I of WuG (below)
--,
WG~
:::::
Wrrr.i,ll::.ft~)lt"ttlu.-hto.
A.l!ri.-_. ,i,-r ,.,;,.,.,,,:/,,
So~ial-
und Wirt.<chaftsgeschichte.
Aus der n..tdtgdas~m~ V<rk.mn~l:. ;:d. S. Hdlmanand M. Palyi, 3rdedn, rcv.J. F.

Winckdmann (DLrhn. 1'J5!i)
- - . WuG$ == H'imd1-!ft1md Gf>ll.<'h'!ft Grnndriss der verstrhenden Soziologie, 5th cdn.
cd. Joh..mm."li Winckdm.mn, J vols (Tiibingen, 1976). This is a later edn of the work
of whkb FS (.al,uw) i~ J tun~.
- - . Grsammdtc .4~i.at:o' zur S,':"i"l"g'~ utrd s.,zialpolitik (Tiibingen. 1924), including
Web"r's IL'<'ture tu the Au~tm-Hungarian officer corps in July 19tH. 'Der
Sozialismus (4':ll-51K): -.cc: pp.87 & 55."\ n.U above
- - , The Pro:cst.mt Etlrii .rrJ tire Spirit of Caprto~liJm, Eng. trans. by Talcott Parsons, 2nd
edn, with lntrod. by Anthony Giddens !l'J7(,)
Wed, Raymond, AH Aristoteet l'histoire. Ess.u mr Ia 'Politiquc' (Paris. 1%0)
Wl'iss, Egon, GP = Griechisches Privatmhtl (Leipzig. 1923)
Wdles. C. Bradford, RCHP: see Part I of this Bibliography
- - . BibliographyofM. Rosrovtzeft: in Histori&J5 (1956) 358-81
--,Biography ofM. Rostovtzeff, in Architrm ,m,f Crtl_ftsmm in History. Ftstschrijtfiir A.
P. Usher (Tubingen, 1956) 55-73
--,'The population of Roman Oura'. in Studies in Roman Economic and Sooal History in
HonCJrC?(A. C. johnson. ed. P.R. Coleman-Norton (Princeton. 1951) 251-74
- - , 'Ill. The Constitution ofEdessa', in A. R. Bellinger and Wdles, 'A third-century
contract of sale from Edessa in Osrhoene', m YCS 5 (1935) 95-154. at 121-42
Weiskopf. E. Ch . Die Produktionsvl'rhiilrnisse im aftm Orimt und in der ~riuhisch-romischen
Antikc (Bt'rlin, 1957). [S('("pp. 23 & 542 n.7 above}
Weiskopf, E.Ch. (editor). Hellcnische Poleis. Krise Wandlun.f! Wirkun~. 4 vols (Berlin,
1974)
Wdwei, K.-W . 'Abhingigc Landbevolkcrungen auf "Tempdtc.'rritorien" im hellen.
istischen Klcinasien und Syrien', in Anc. Soc. 10 (1979) 97-11R
- - , Unfreie im antiketl Krit"Ksdienst, I. Athrn und Sparta (= Forschungt'n zur 11ntiken
Sklavtrl'i 5, Wiesbaden, 1974); and II. Die kleineren und mitlleren gritchischm Staatt'n
und die helltnistischen Reiche(= Forschutrgm zur a11tikm Sklaverei 8, Wiesbaden, 1977)
West, M. L., 'The lif<' and times ofTheognis', ch. iv (pp.65-71) of Studies in Greek Elegy
and Iambus= Untmuchungen zurantiken LiteraturundGtschichte 14.~..-d. H. Dorrit.md
P. Moraux (Berlin/Nlw York. 1974)
WL'St~rmann, W. L.. ASA = 'Athma<.'US and tht slaves of Athens', in Arht>rJian Studies
prcsmtrd to W. S. Fer~11sotr;; HSCP, Suppl. (1940) 451-70, r"pr. in SCA (ed. M. I.
Finley) 73-92
- - . SSGRA = The Sl11ve Systems of Greek and R"man Antiquity (= Memoirs of the
American Philosophical Socitty 40, Philadelphia. 1955)
Whitl', K. D., RF =Roman Farmin.IZ (1970)
698
The Class Struggle in the Anciem Greek World
- - . 'Latifundia', in BICS 14 (1967) 62-79

--,'Roman agricultural writers. I. Varro and his predecessors', in ANRWI.iv (1973)
439-97
White, Lynn, MTSC =Medieval Technology and Social Change (1962)

- - , TIMA ='Technology and invention in the Middle Ages' in Speculum 15 (1940)
141-59
--,'The expansion of technology 500-HOO', ch.4 (pp. 143-74) of The Fontan4 Economic
History of EurrJpe, I. The Middle Ages, ed. C. M. Cipolla (1972)
- - , 'What accelerated technological progress in the Western Middle Ages?', in Scimtific
Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (1963) 272-91, cf. 311-14,327-32
Whitehead, David, Thr Ideology of the Athenian Metic (= Cambridge Philological Soc.,
SuppJ. Vol. 4, 1977)
Whittaker, C. R., 'Rural labour in three Roman provinces'. in Non-Slave LJbour in the
Greco-Roman World, ed. Peter Garnsey(= Cambridge Philol. Soc., Suppl. Vol. 6,
1980) 73-99. [See pp.563-4 n.13a above]
- - , See also under Garnsey, P. D. A., and Whittaker (editors)
Wickert, Lothar, PF = 'Der Prinzipat und die Freiheit', in Symbola Coloniensia Iosepho
Kroll Srxagenario . .. oblata (Cologne, 1949) 111-41
--.'Princeps (civitatis)', in REXXII.ii (1954) 1998-2296; with ANRWII.i (1974) ~76
Wilcken, Ulrich, W. Chr.: see Part I above
- - , Gr. Ostr. .,. Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, 2 vols (Leipzig/Berlin. 1899)
Wilhelm, Adolf, 'Urkundrn aus Messenien', in]OAI 17 (1914) 1-119
Wilke~,J.J., Dalmatia (1969)
Will, Edouard, HPMH o: Histoire politique du morult hellmistique (323-30 av. ].-C.). 2 vols
(Nancy, 1966-1)
- - . Le Moude grtc tt /'Orient, I. Le Jl" sitde, 51()..4()3 (Paris, 1972)
Will, Edouard. Claude Mosse, and Paul Goukowsky, Le Mondr grec et l'Orimt, 11. Le IV'.
sitcle et l'epoque hel!enistique (Paris, 1975)
Willetts, R. F., The Law Code cifGorryn (= Kadmos, Suppl. 1, Berlin, 1967)
--.Aristocratic Socirty in Ancient Cretr (1955)
Williams, Wynne, 'Formal and historical aspects of two new documents of Marcus
Aurelius', in ZPE 17 (1975) 37-56
Windisch, H., Die Orakrl des Hystaspes (Amsterdam, 1929)
Wirszubski, Ch., LPIR ,.. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the lAte Republic and
Early Principatt (1950). [See pp.367-9 above]
--,'Cicero's cum dignitate otium: a reconsideration', in]RS 44 (1954} 1-13
Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C. A.D. 14 (1971}
- - , 'Factions and family trees', in Liverpool Classical Monthly 1 (1976} 1-3
Wol'SS, Friedrich von. 'Personalexekution und cessio bonorum im romischen Reichsrecht', in ZSS 43 (1922) 485-529
Wolff, Hartmut, Di Constitutio AntoniniaiUI und Papyrns Gissrnsi.s 40.1, 2 vols (Diss.,
Cologne, 1976)
Woloch. Michae-l, 'Four leading families in Roman Ath~ns (A.D. 96-161}', in Historia 18
(1969) 50~10
Woodhouse, A. S. P., PL:l =Puritanism and Libtrty, &ing thr Army Drbates (1647-9)jrom
thr Clarkr MSS with Suppltmentary Documents, 2nd ~dn (1950)
Woodward, A.M., 'Inscriptions from Thcssaly and Macedonia', inJHS 33 (1913). at
337~
Wright, Gavin, 'Prosperity, progrt:Ss, and American slavery', Chapter Seven (pp.30236) of Rrckoning with Slavff}'. by PauJ A. David and otht>rs (1976 & repr.)
Yavetz, Zvi, 'Levitas popularis', in Arena Roma n.s. 10 (1%5) 97-110
- - , 'The Jiving conditions of the urban plebs in Republican Rome', in Latomus 17 ( 195H)
500-17, repr. in CRR (cd. Seagt>r) 162-79
--,Plebs at1d Princeps (1969)
699
--,'Plebs sordida', in Athen. n.s. 43 (1965) 295-311

Yeo, C. A . 'Land and sea transportation in Imperial Italy', in TAPA 77 (1946) 221-44
- - . 'The development of Roman plantation and marketing of farm products', in
Finanzarchiv 13 (Tiibingen, 1952) 321-42; and 'The economics of Roman and
Am('rican slavery', in id. 445-85
Yourie, H. C., Scriptiunculae, 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1973)
Zepos,J. and P., Jus Graecoromanum, 8 vols (Athens, 1931; repr. Aalen, 1962)
Zulueta, Francis de, lnst. ofGaius = The Institutes '!fGaius, 2 vols: Part I, Trxt with critical
notes and trans. (1946); Part II, Commentary (1953)
Index
References to passages of special interest or importance are sometimes placed in italics,
and occasionally then by themselves at the beginning of an entry. Greek words are
transJiterated. As a rule, I have not mentioned separately here those passages in the Notes
which can easily be found by consulting the relevant part of the main text (or appendices)
where references are given to the notes concerned.
I had intended to provide an Index of Sources, but the task proved an impossible one,
owing to the vast number and range ofthe sources cited above. I have tried to make up for
this to some extent by giving in this Index, under the names of the authors concerned,
references to passages in which I have written (or mentioned) a discussion ofsome texts of
special interest; and the same applies to some modem works that are either important or
at least well known.
Aaldtr5, G.J. D.: 550n.lJ
A.bdera: 228, 507
Abclitts/Abclonii: 449
Abgar, dynastofEdtssa: 5J7
Abrt'tttnus: S' undtr 'Zeus'
A bthugni: 467
Abulpharagius (Gregory Ab.:.'l Faraj, Syrian Jacobite
historian): sec under 'Bar Hcbratu.'
Abu S1mbel: 182
Abydus: 507
Acamania: 507
Accame, Silvio: tnl n.3S. 6611 n.S
acclamation (rpibolsu, S11CCitllfl4111m tsl, etc.), measum
p2ssc:d by: 533
accountability of magistratn in democracy: .....,. under
'twthyna'
accounting. ancknt; H4, 346 7
Achaca, Achaeans. Achaean League: 163, 230. 304.
'YJ7, 524-5
Achan, fare of: 332
Achilles: 185
Acisiltnr (in Armenia): sc:c under Anai'tis'
Acragas: 280.523. And sec under 'Agrigenrum'
adio doli, or Je tloiD ~r~~~lo: 460
Acrium. bard.. of: 8, 360, 36! .163
actDr CpragwwttultJ): 132

Adaarmanes (Persian): 319
Adam and Eve, myrh of. a. buun:ss of mal<' 'supmoncy': /07
Adams, Bertrand: 572 n.73
<Uicmtlio: 384
Adnanoplo:: 480,653 n.42
aJmplicii (rnapographoi. also ori,tr~t<~rii, origiruzl.,,
rributarir): 148 (with 564-5 n./6), 159. 250, 252-3, 255
Acgcan islands. in Lacer Roman census: 250
Ac:gina: 41, 120, 271. S47 n.6
Argospotam1, b.:atrlc of: 74
Aelafius (vicar of Africa), Conrancine'slcner to: J!19
A.cmilia (district in norm Italy): II
Aemihus Reo:tu: 5<:<' under 'Rcaus
Aowas Tac:ticus: ..?98(with609nn.~7)
at'l'anum mrlitart: 3511. 362
At.oschinn: 2W.Ii04n.27
Anc:hylus: 24; Marx on: 24

Aesop:444
Ai!tlus, AavriiS: 480
Actolians: 525
Aczani. in Phrygia: 538-9 n.J (on l.1ii), i68 n.38
Afr:ic;o, Roman nonh: 6, 97, 120. 125-6. 132. 144-5
(with 5f>3.4 n.IJa), 215-16 and 2111 (wuh 582 n.18),
240, 242. 265. 313. 356, 370, 382, 391. 403, 4~5.
44!).6, 475,482,490,492,496, 502-J. 582n.20
Afrio;anus, Caccilius: ste under 'Caecili.us'
Aga lk-y K6y (villagem Lydia): Z/6
Agag. king of the Amalekirn: 332
Agatharchidos ofCnidus: 150. 562-J n.ll
Agmnius Urbicus: 242
Agtsilaus II, king ofSpana: 190, 295
Agis IV, king of Sparta: 118-19, 215. 60B-9n 55
Agoms ofLilyba.-um: 570 n.48
agwsliJ:494
~gnbusinns': 210
~gncultur.tl wrirns,
Roman
(b~ on Greek
sources)
234-5. Sec- al:so undn: 'Cato'. 'Columo:lla', 'Mago',

'Pliny lhr Elder'
Agngcnrum: 522-3. And see under 'Acragu'
Agrippa, M. V1psamus: 193, .265. 323; speaker in Dio
Caosiu Lll: 265. 323, filS n.56
Agrippa II. king ofjudaea: 192
Agyrrh1um: 523
Ahab. kingof!srac]: 151 (wilh565n.23l;nameuscd~u
term of abuse: 405
Ahcnobarbus, Domiriw: 213
Ai, bnelit<"clim ofmassacreu:J32(wuh617n.IO}
Aigial<" (on Amorgos): 527
Alamanni. Alamans (a major Gtrman pcoplr}: 249.
514, 51? C'l<.
Alans: 476,516, 517
Alaric. Vis1gothic king: 479
Alban.a. ancicnr (AzerbaiJan): 5611 n.37
Albania, modem: 7
Albinus. Clodius: 477
Alcal'\15: 219
Alcib1ades: .291, 415, 562 n.6, 565 n.22, 605 n.29
Alcxand,r 'the: Grear': 10, 12-13, 19. 74, 97. 118, 119.
150. 151, 155. 172, 1!16, 260,270,292. 295 .29\J, 301.
:102, 304-5,325. 477. 525
Index
Alc:xando:r lsim.o;f.o\e~uii;:
Al~xand(."'r.
it.~
Jul~~.:.. ?rt..f,!: ~= ''~li;' ~,_},
Ti
1(.? fwieh
572 n. 68)
Akx~nd,r rh, :.,... ,th,.,,., -11!1!
Alcxnclcr, br<h<;r:oiAlu;o:nini: 411~. ~~
Altxander Sev~rt.is {RPm;ou emro-ro-:) ~~ .I.'!R. 51"!
Alcxandrera ir. tic I ~ud It~
Alexandria: 1.:!-IJ. !.!i'-'l. U~. lf~- ~~;. 3l'i. J4Jr,, -1111,
405, 437, ~- 47:0. "'-.~. 496; popubtw:t oi: ~; u.l !;
nch merch.l!<t' <t l~l>!J: public cQm-.<i<,l:- ;.r !:'.'-'>: it>.
suspension: l'ff.
Alfenus V.aru.ltm'.&rl ~"''r<1 ~t!toJ...r 'Drt.r.J'
Alfoldy, G..>z.a 24!. !\7-l r ..3, 575 .,,II$, 6lli"' !>1. ~.loo.l
n.l!, 65.~ n.4J
Alg<ri.: s.-e u: ..!n 'Nc:mi.tr~

Ali< (woman "iOx~rhynchus) tm
~u...gory: 4J7
Allen, Waber: Qt-. r. .5 I
.llmsgiving. Christi~:: 4.<J.J. "i~. 4'.1(; 1~ ,.,.,.:~'"'"
charact<."r: 4.~ th Jwi.,;, '""'"'*"~.iii; (_>p::u
on: 434-:i: Clo"''''"r .,;;i.'\l~x~nJ:;;. :tn n:.: Aml:>o~
on: 435-6
Alypiu.: Jl:l>..'/
Amalckires. l;udill' m'*&<l'(' of' ,1.\~
Amas<'ia, in J.l<"''"'" I !OJ
Ambracia: 60'1 n 11
Ambros.;, St.; J:!O. 421. 4J.i~
Amcria (part ;il'ntrtKCIIilriro~): 561110.37
American Old Soutt. [:at~t~l>.:llurn S.uth; H-3. l!l..
142, 14.l-4, 1-~t~. J!k).J.
'!.."'-'. ~.\.~-3.'.;-'. "~'
m..
424, 549 n. l!!

slaw~ and tt~(' in:
Jl4. i
Christianitv "'.a moho.J ,,fw.:ial '<Rlr<ltr:.: l..!l

family lil (,;' b.WIh iir>du.:f;::,: lrnk up ot;: H.~
slav~: marriages 11\'Wt !.~~li~ rc..jln.i-.:J in I~
"bre:ak.-.cv~n po~~ \n r.:.-rin;; . . ~..~ .... ~in l.l ..'...4
prict'S of ,.]~"''!s. an: '!27
frC\' hired
in: 127
1~11-ur
in .l.6-l, hin-d labour o( daw~
l'llpanding m.rkct< of. for cotton 2'!7 (with 232&
51!7 n.l!); for tobacco and ugar: 232

amititia and arni<i (of ,mptror ~nd others). 365-6 (wilh
626n.44)
Amisus: 309
AmmianuMarctllinus: tl,41t(wirh347n.5).12H.220.
247, 258, 321. 341. 378-9, 3117-8, 39().1. 394, 451.
478-&), 4115. 48S..7, 489-'.10, 498. ;U-14
regards Christians .Is w~ than wild bo.a.cs to
<"ach oth.-r: 4.'1, n:cords injusliCl' or <rudty to
'barbanans' without disapproval: 4H (with 547 n. 5)
Amorgoo;: 527
Amorires,lsradit\' nus.aCTt'of: 332
Amphipoli: 292
Am phis: 12(). I
3mphichtatr,'S: JIH
Ampliatu~ (slaw of Roman Church) 2311. 254
Arnydar, trmplt of Apollo at: 275
Amyot: 3:.4
"""cllaresrs (mcssio): 21S (with 581n.9)
Anaiti. of Acmlen< and d~whcre m Armni~. 56!1
n.JS; ofZel~ in J.lontus: 134
Anascasiopolis (in G.bt~): 225-6, 496
Anatasiu I (Rom~n ~mpcror): l72, 318-19. 4414-5,
406.445.473,493, 56! n.2l. snn.19
Anax1mcnc~ (=Ps.-Amt., Rhtt. ad Alex.): 191. ~5
Ancbial~>s: 653 n. 42
Anch1 ...~ (inAmtid): 327
Ancyra (Ankara}: 5Jll, 531. 627n.7
And~rson. Perry: 155. 26'1. J44n.15
Andrew.... Antony: Ul9 (with 5711 n.24), 1\13, 21!2
701
Andr...y~v. V. N.:
Andros: (i)4 n.27
58ln.20
Andronon: 604 n.27, 60S n.29

14-16 (with SJ'J-411 n.R). 135. 205-6,
an~or~ar (on~drri111):
227~.2H7
Anrc~lus
(ex-slav" ~nd rc:bd) 649 n.3

Annas. Julia; 557-8 n .lO
Anony'""s. Dr nhus bdlici<: 394, 48'J
All OilY""'-' vllle>illtiUs: 5 t3
Anoup (Egyptian t'flmt): .223
Ant><'Opolis, nome of: 222
Anralcidai, Pc.ace of ('King's Peace'): 295
Anrichmt, a< a krm of abuS<' 405
Anrigonus (E~typuan)~ 223
Antinoopoli.: 17. 196
Antioch. Ptsidun: 11'1 (wth 559 n.IJ), 154. 219. 533,
628n.7
Antioch (in Syria): 12, 15. Ill?. 196. 219-20. 305, 319
J2ll-1 .36~. 4()5, 475, 41!!1, 4%
public com-d.ok at, suspcnd<d after 'riot of the
statues' (Jil7): 196
famine ar (in .362-J): 219-10; Iamme at (in 384-5):
220
rnr<iln treatment of peasants by landownen of:
226
'J.20(X) ~lan~ of som<' Antiochme landownc.(John Chry-~om): 242
Jcwsof:305
capture by Shapur I (c .256) 475; sack by Chosroes
I (541!) 41!6, 654n.42
perso.'CUtion in HJII.IJ of Morsophysucs (Jews?) by
Bonosus. undlr Phocao: 652 n.34
Antiochus I, king ofCommAgcnc:: 1$4
Antiocbus I, Sd<"Ucid king: 157
Antiochus II. Scli'Ucid king. sak of land by. lo ~xQu<-m Laodic~: !52 (with 566 ttn .};.6)
Antiochus Ill. Sdrocid king. 521. 5:\6
Anliochus IV Epiphancs, S..k'llcid king: 5~ n.<J
Antipattr (Mac.:doman general): 292 . .101, .!Of
Antip.tt<r of Sidon: 4H
Anripat.r ofThcsnlonin: Jfl, 24. Jn
'antiquanans .md anliquanan r.scrch: !11-2
anri-Stmil"m and rs bteratur: 442
Ant~>thmes; l.lO
Antirios Rusti~. L.: 119
Antonm" Age/period (A.I>. 131\-193). 13, 174. 236,
323. 454, 4~. 459, -WI-9, 470, 47fi. 491; often
d"Pict.:d u
~Golda.,.
Ag4'. 470
Antoninus (Romn clcf<-ctor to PersQ, A.D. 359}:

486-1, 1211
Antoninus Plus, Roman l'mperor: sec under 'l'iu>
Antonius, C. (ronul wth Crc.-ro.t>J B C.): 354
Anroniu Labeo. M (Roman lawyer): sec under
'labo.-o, M. Antomus
Antony. Mark (M Antomus): 354-5 .'161
Antony, St. (hermit): 408
Anytus: 124-5
Apa.nca/Ccl.ot"tlac. m Phrygia (8i1hyma): 312, 317
(wirh61J n ..:ll!). 532
~pamca in Syna: 568-9 n.Jl!
apartheid, Gibconit as Scriptural juufication for: 332
Apdlcs: 270
Aphrodisaas: 5.30. S31
Aphrodite: 18. t=;.a, 393; 'Kallipygos': 18; tmple of, ar
Eryx in Sioly: 154(with 5mnn.J9..40)
Aphrodito (Egyptian village): 213, 222. 22J-4
Apion f.m1ly al Oxyrhynchus: 169, 223
Apocalyptic literature. Jtwish and Christian. 11, 440,
442.~. for 'The Apocalypst'' = tb..last book of lht
702
N.T., ""' 'H~nluon, Book of. Sre also 'Oanic:l,

Jt~.,.k ,,f. 'Sihyllb" Oracles', 'Orad of th<" Potter',
'Or~d, <~fH~~r<-s'
Ap..llinri ((bu:li.,a: 4511

Ardivni'l> .;of T~.aot.a: 14, 129, 323; his conwrsaton
wilh ~ tal<-n.ll,(tQr at Zcugma: 129
.... rri~o. !-'. ?r:r.t .:!1)1!.. 235, 321. 353. 359. 361. 362. 37!1.
-Ill~;, 511. 521, ;;),, f,J4 nn.49, 51
-'Prro:nticc.< ..:~;!,...runts: 203
Ap~>ldu.- till. :it:;...ln.l3a
Ar:.~iu (dl,..~in ()fRnman Italy): 254
..qualu.:t>, kvllln. 1'13
Aq::itltliC>. Pnm;a[C.:.-!br provmcc): 4llh
Arabta. Ar.Ah (Mu~ms) and their conquest~. 6-7, II.
.,!{.:;, oi(J). -IIJI. ~.i-4 (with 651-1noa.J2-7), 537
i:mlnl by Jacobite and Coptic <.:hristtam as .a
'\L'!iS<"I '"'il' than the pcrscuring Chakc:donian
Cuh.bn: ~4
th.;r poll-t.al\ un Christians: 484
AudOJ> iln Ph,,,rki.a}: 569n.38
.'\r.1.:u hillat:ou Phrygia): 116
.\nm;,i(: 427. J19>t.J1; the language ofjesus' prt'.achrn~: .J27
_..rbthl' (M~~IOM M1Jitum and consul): 4g4..5
Ar.~;liu ;b~t~m Rom~n cmptror): 252. 501
n:.;,~
.'\r::<nh, '<:rtua:.. : J.<$, 483, 517: Roman province:

~,;; Monophyitl<lrl uf: 448
~fllli" (.and fleer.)
~naJitar; t"tTddiC"Y mm"~ime1 l."SM"nttal, in f~cc of
"'"-':n.l: thr,au, r, .j,"Y.l:lCC here of economic, M>dal
mJ l'.olirkal r-:.,"U.o: .!f,(), 161Z; nc~ssity to base
lrr;- <olli!l<lfOUS peasantry 5, 261. 501
li.:lt-:a::nt...! and naval a.:ws r.'Cruitt:d from nonpropertkd: :!SJ1: .U,;-. occasionally used as rowrrs:
207.213
ur.r..1 ~ lt.C., ro~>."'ription applied to Athl'l'lian
T!.c:r.-. (>\ol>-!toipHtc.)l!l<"m<rgcncks only: 207 (w1th
Sill n.S. n !'.'. i)
<irC'C1. hoplir~ ~=i:.' 115. 280

Km~n am1~- .!"1 .1'...30. 261-2, 469.491,501 etc.;
je, 'li''' "'~/. .::>5' <>i maintatning 11. 469, 491;
d:"<:rhnr m R(>rr.~n nn.y unokr Empire: 164-6
\<li.iic:n in Rvman l:.mpire among tht- 'privil<l!c:d
!!!foi>U!"<'; 4~.i, 4/itJ
conscription l..:,.inl~ Roman): l(f7.fl, 4, 6, 44, 20f>,
~I. 335. J73. 5-:"'!l: l\hrx on Rom.an conscription:
.\.'~ And ~... ana...: 'hnplii~'S.
Armr:~A lio (;~ul). 4~')
... rpi: 52!l
.:r<o/111.47'
Arf~t;~,n ~~~
Al(coil4\l itulpruric ,!70

Arcn1n~ (on Amorgos): 511.604 n.T/
....r.-hd~u. king ofCappadoci~: 119
Archd4us. rneo~tofMo~.atPonricComaru: 154
Anh,l.alb tCh.:rsun~-sus: til
.m:htt.:"!o (in:\"k: 511t>-7 n.l
Ar<hird~, iCo>rinthi1n): 1.32
Arch~e.a ~f T.armntm. on 8'"0Rietric nd anrhnun<"al
rrop<lrrio>n: 40 14
ArJi.U,ll' ioflllyri~i' 149
AnlatC' iArl..,.l 1.211 (with 56! n.l9)
.... r."Obindu: ~.4
Ar"IPa!lll'" ...:<" unJ,r Athcn
Art~IIIU!o'.IC' ho~ttl< uf 441
A~<Mo; I.W. It), .:!'*~: 'skytalism()) .ot (in 370): 2%
-~""" 1-. . ..:sr. i\u~w. (includmg S..mi-Arians): 403,
~51 (('Sp. 450). And see under 'Arius'
Arbt~rchus (character in dialogue by Xenophon): ISO. I
AriMdn. Ad:u: .309, J2J (with 615 11.54), 386; his
ti.:tur.. ,,f Run1~ .a rhe ideal dimolrro~ti4 (oamc refs.
\''C(cptlir-tl
Anri<ln (Arb,"nun 'tyrant' c.87B.C.): 526 (wirb660n.,S)
Aritllll, Cb\ldll~ifEphesus): 312
ni>to>..an. lll'ndto~rv: 278-9
AriodidJ,-. uf A .......~ (RCHP 10-IJ): 157 (with 569
,\m~n: 11~. ll!lo, 51:5 n 1'1

"'"""""' kins ir .,f, o~l Ephesus: 164.270.313
rti~n. craftsm~n (Mhnir~i. rlloi,..IMrlfdi Mt'.): .H.
1'1.!4, IY1Y. ;.1JJ5, 269-75. J7Z, 4. 52. 77. 7!1, 114-15.
II~>. 111, 1!1>-7. 1211, 1~1. 133. 186, 190-3. 1'19.
,_.u,
.... rirmcu ofPergmum: .U5. 529

Ariupho~ncs (Atrk comedian): 41, 104. 124-5. 144,
It~'- 1115. :!lit, 1'A ~2. 413,441. 50S
Arisrophanes uf lt~untium: 139
Anstotle (and 1'..-Arist.): 4. 24. 15. 5J. 556, 6980,

10. ll&lf, l..l'I.IIJ. 140, 149, 1825,229,2823,285.
:!Kfl-8. 2&9.911. fl*.;6, 416-18, 412. 6(X)..I nn.-1, 9,
ti01 f n.]4, tm, ll.i. 131. 142. 146. 1411. 150. IH:l,
ll<'l I<.IlL I. 1'17..... Z19. 323, 353. 359. 402, 41.l-14.
4J.l-l, 4.\7, ~. -1-ll, 536, 575 n. I!, 605 n.29
bi> ind11.:n,.,. ,,n (and imtlarity of rhoughr ro)
s.;.,;, ~>9Jf. C.:ip. 74. 71.80)
Jn .ln.ll'l'~lh of hired labour: 1825
h1~ u~tt'l1 <n the nrcnsary minimum of
p..bti.-..1n11hc. i41J
ArnrX'l1U\ tT o~R"nh:am: 411
Anu~ {h(r"irrn). -I(IJ. And s..~ und(r 'Arian h.-rt"Sy",
~hr.\
2\ll.ll.ll.!,
~.t
5".!4. 525
'a<k't>o anJ Crt:dit cmhodi-d in their hands'

(S.allur): r.r .. l'i'.!
b.a... .litmcnun l>ccw~xn skill.od craftsman
~ltolrllur~<t.-.) and himilabounr: 1112-4. 197-9
nri.J,ding tn ~r 'rh~ .a:nrimr Gr.~b dnpi<N
a.a~r'"-.~.174-.S
-'rtit tp.oillt(t ruiptors): 210. 27.11 And '''" under

'l'nl'!t,~o"llur~. 'l'raxite!.'S'. and "'P 'l'hcidias' and
'l'nl't~Jrotll.-
.'\n.mdu :Pro~.::utim l'l'f't~CI): olll6

.'>...:1.-pilld~ <>f(:l~tumm~~:
316
164n.4.!
I,,J,,-n.l)niJ: ;t..?-.1. ""'"55
~Aw.111U.:
Ai.a (n:lt.n'Jtll 11. Iii, 1-47. l'il-3. 160. 172. 299-JOO

A..U (Rum.an prnin,-.;) 'Jm, Jib, 318,347,356. 361). 370
AiA Mmor imodm 'l'urk..-y): II, II. 12, 117-19. 150-8.
l7~.
1>17. I'll. 221-~. 227..S. 250. 211.1. JOO. 345, 365.

'iu~~~. 529-33; w~alth of: 111-19
447. 4i7 .as.~.

Aoi~ri.:IOricrttAI
nuod of production: > und.:r

'rr,odnrnn
.'\i~M il''f<i,JU, farmin11 in 41M> B.C. ncar PTll"mum}. Su7-IJ.. 569oa.424
Ap..~Jus 14 (wllh 5111 11 14)
As~yria [R<rno~.u pruill<".t: 345
\ruriu~. Bnim (MJgiStcr Militum): 478
Arhn..,iu. Sr., bishop of Al~xandri,J: 404-5,-148,449-
1iltA7l.lr5
Arh..:~>ill. rri,-.t vi Ak,mJria: 146

Ath.m.aJu. Fl~\'lU
. . (l'atrician ~nd pr.:frct of
Thcbaid), p<'lition of villag~of Apbrodiro ro: }23-4
Athaulf (Viigothic chit'f) 480
ArhmaC'Us: 1!!, 24, 113, 131, 132, 14(). 146, 202. etc.
.\thmtun i.'\Ch1>i,m'tyrmr' c.!I7B.C.): 526 (with660
or.5)
703
Index
Ath~"Tls,
Athemans, Arria: 70-1.76. 1)7, 141, 147, 163,

174-5. 185-6. 188-90. 196, 206. 227, 157. 284-5, 2899J, 2959, JOI-2, .116. J45-6, 526-7. 562n.8. 576rt.l6.
603-4 n.26. 6/J .,.35. 654-5 ".41. II. 78, 92, 100-3.
117-18. 144. 146, 162, 193-4.201, 212-13.215,231.

271, 275, 289, 309, ]10. 31~. 528-9, 532. 558 n ,; (on
lll.li)
uphold<T of dmocracy in othn ones: 288, 2'~. 2%
why slav<'ry dcvdopc:d most in dcmo"all<
Athens: 141-2
Athenin laws minimising women's prop.,rty
nghts, and their dTecrs: tO 1-2
Athenian 'empire' (In 5th c.): 290 (with 60)4
11.16). 293, 294, J45-6; unique among past cmpir<'in
rdying on support oflowtr class,s: 290
naval imperialism consequenrc of n'<.-d to ~-cur~
supply-routes: 293; d1ffirulty in financing naval
activitics.192-J (w1th 607 n ..J7)
how kading Athc:ruans profited most from die
cmp1rc (Thuc. Vlll.48.6): 604-5 n.Fl
Second Athm1an Confedcucy (in 4th c.): 292-3
(with tJJ7 n.JS)
Arropagus in Roman Princtpare: 174-5. 526 7
And S<'e under 'Aristlon (Atheman)', 'Athnion'
ere.
athlrcics, importance (i 'Y!., I h
AtltinsonJChrimesl. K.. M T.: 3Hn ~1 ;H'A.i!)un.-14-7
Atotu thC' Prhlgol!l~l) \!IIIIICrl:
Atr~ridas (An;oJi~n): l'lt'l-9
Aualcia in Pa:nrh~!l:a. I !'I
Attalids of Pergamum: I !'.. 34!> .&4.~. '>2'.'. Attalus III:
345. 529; Daphiras' cp1gram: 44S
Attires. Tt. Claudio (father ofHerod~s Al!i<Ui- 1.!4
Atticus, T. Po>mr<l!nl\(fri:nJof(:i;.'t'r.l 1.:! . .!::0~.~.
.148-9, 35lo, .1'i(t, hi b!O!.'<tib<om.:-N>m.<l''t>' 1.H
Atticus. b1shop ol(Cn<l~nlin"rk ~IIi .. ~
Anila (tho: fluni: :!1~.1<-5. 4Jt7
auctoratu.: lt.7-l!
~U~ctorrtas (an.l po~tN<~:. J'o'lrfllr~,: t7fl ~. Jlt.1 . ..W:'
Audnng, Gm: ,;.w,
Augustan Bt>toJ~: ....,. U."Jd,r llil'"" ,'\llgw>I.J
Augusta Tr.Uana {ln Ihl: 1:!7
Augusta Tr~wrumm (rri,-r): !2K
Augustine, St.. JM.:. 41-.!t .fl7,12r. ~5-H .44.1. -4(>7.
409. 434, t:lf. 44'1 467, Jr.', 4IU
Augustus/0.-uviau CRum.Ul emperor): ~. !.:!Ill, 1()(.,
175. 181. 1'14 .
Jl:l .'54, 356. JMJ..!. tfo~-4. ,lilY..
ro-t
..!!."'
7f, 381, 31i'i Wl-2, 3'1.1.

30. 534, SJ5
.}95-(o,
494, !i!C>, 5.:'.1.
'i~-
his R" c-;"'"': .312.. J7b, )."i:;', .Yil,lw 'mh!O~fl"n

of tho.> Rtpul>lir': J.fllcV~irh 6.!111 1). J?;., ct"..11!1l. hi~
n:lnark quot~-d by Mam1>111s. JtiU.liV~'IIh .I;';); hi~
atutudr hrJulrus CJcsar: ~~~~ 10

Aurclian (Ro>man mtp<'Mr). 1211, 129.'IIIII, 'Wb. 4'l0
Aurelius. M.ut'U~ ~.. under 'Mar.:u Aurhll.Aun:hus Vi(tnr: >~.Y und.'l 'Vit't<r. Aur.-hu,
Ausonius: 12. ;U1. -'>14
Ausp<'X, Julm> (>i th{ Rmll)c 5.?4
auspica (auspiria): 34.\-1
Austin, M. M. (with P V,d..J-.......o.tut): .?3. ,..,__;, 17-11
autoltrlltir. ~ GJ\..-k 1<-rm ;.,. tm)'el'<lr. ,orrrspo.ndi:>i!'
to Larin '"'fl'41.Jr:
J'J.:!
automarior.. th.: urJ)' inn~Pnbk alternative: m
slavery in .,ltlotUIIJi' f!J, I-Ii
:n.s.
IJNI<JIIOIIIIll ('~UIO!lOM1-'1:
.3<1)
1111topr11gUI: J:!'!
Au run: 6S3 8o f>S4 n.4.:'
Auxentius ilC\l~bn wnt~~: 5!4

(Romilll} nd lla.'r -1(.1. 4111; Jtllicwry of esri-
o~u:~rili11
mating s1zc: 491; gift of Roman otizcnship to

members on dischargt' (and th< change A.D. 140): 461
Avars: 410-1
Avidius Cass1us 537
Avitu (W<'Stem Roman emperor): 407
Axonn (village in Cyrenaica): 595 n .6
8abriu.: Ill
Bacaudac (pc:sant rebels in Gaul and Spain): 478-!l(csp.
41K), 481, 476, 487, 503. 650 nn.to. 14
Bcon. Franns: 594 n.4<1 (Bacon quoted by Marx)
Badian. Ernst: 42. 165, 339, 345-6. 351. 359. 5~1.
619-20n.1
Bacti,a, Roman provinn- of: .300. 468
Bactocaece (in tt"rritory of Aradus in Phot"nida): ..,._.
undcr'Z'Il
'Dahman Y ashr': 443 (wirh 642 n. 7)
Bailey. A.M., andj. R Uob.:ra: 544n.H
Bailey, Cyril: 23
Bak.-r, Derek, 585 n.4J

bakers, bakmes: 17{1, Z73
Balbinu (Rom~n t'mperor): 388
Balbura (in lycia) 531
Balfour. Lord: J7.S
Balkans (Grk and Roman): 6. 242, 5112-3. 523-9
Ball,Jobn: 440
Balsdon.J. P. V. Dacr.:: 371 (with617n.J8),610n.5
bandirs, banditry: >.cc under 'brigands or bandit'
Bank~.j.
A.: S48-9 n.11
baptism of sbvt. n-fusal of, widlout master's conserw
410
'barbarians':
'barbarian' and HeUmc or Roman: 17; Gr<!eks and
nativn m Egypt: 17
'barbarians' a~ 'natural slaves': 416-17
mjustia or cruelty to, record! Without c:lillapproval by Ammianus: 411 (with 547 n.S}
desertion to, hdp to, ere.: 7. -174. 47fHJ4, 486-1
settlement of (much more exrrnsivr in Wnt ctun
East), widun Roman empir<", .-conornicand military
conscqu~TIC<'S of: 243-4,247-9, 509-18. 5, 7; two main
ryp<-s d1stmguished: 247-8 [Mny ofthr parrirolars
are nOl rccord~-d in this Index. The S<:Riemc:nts an.
litc:d in chronologll:al ordc:r J
Bardy, G.: 325
Bar Hebracu~ (Syrian Jacobite historian = Abulpharagius or Gregory Abu'l Faraj ): 48J...4 (with 652
... J5). 4Y4

Bart.cr, Emcst: 160.402. 549n. I. ;5zrt.3t
Bama~s. St.: 16
&frldbaJ. Eputlt of: 4t9-.ZO
Barnes, T. 0.: 351.632n.67a,636n.99.Ml n.4
Buns,John: 441;7
Baron, S. W.: 106, 555n.9, 633n.75
Barthcs, Roland: 20
Basil'thr Great', St.: 435
Basil II 'thr Bulgar-Siayer' (B)'2antine empc:ror): 262-3
louiltw (king). as Greek term for Roman emperor:
m-s
Nlililtoi: 158. And sec- under 'King's land'

'Buis and Superstruccun: in Marx: 211-9 (with S43n.l3)
baths, dislilce of, by Christian .asceriQ: ~7
Batilfol, Pime: 574 n.JJ

Bamae (in Osrhocnr): 561 n.21
Baynes, Norman H.: 386,400,402,464, 538nn ..).4 (on
l.ii), 608 n.53, 6J4 n.87, 635 n.93. And see under
'Dawes, Elizabeth. and Baynes'
Beazley,]. 0.: 598n.17
Hebel, Augll$t, Marx's kt1cr to: 41
Bcdale, Sto:phm; IOS-6 (with 556 111!1.1721)
704
n..,.ty. E.~-
6J1b.5
~~J.!~U (.on~l ;,pprmiccs and servants): 203
sn
lkli~~mu: 21.3 .!1'1. 4110-2.

n. !9,
H~rolo! l:fri~' lilt,, 22J-4, 4989,
Dell,
651 n.27
584 nn.3S-9
Bd.:..,.;, Hil"'r'>: Jl,

Bdh:~n~r. l.i"~ t>!' Babylon, name
~l>ur: oil}~
us<:d as a tenn of
lJ_,llltl<.l(tirahr,l 31, 87-R, 550n. 12

brn:f.&~c,.n~. "to)ur.d;.rions': 18, 196-7, 221. 426, 470,
4<J;: 'Jooud..:.on> nor 'charitable': 196-7 (with 579
11 JJ). 4~'6; to Chmtian Church: 495
'!~ncri,ium (~ fawur): 342
lkr..v.-n::m .-\rdt .,( (Trajan's): 3'17
fkr.t;t~,n.ll~nnrm f:AF.l n.56
Jkrch~nt. n~n \'.u:: 579 n.34
R..T~r. A. 57;\ n.7:,. 573-4 nn.J-4
u.Tiir.: "" 4ft
Umwd llf Ch~rtm.. ni
Derv...
H~lmut ~'1\i
n.t7
lk"" ljustim.o1:\ oommandcr in Rome): 221.481

'Bt:\\"<l<>b<in.-trukturm': 'f.JJ n.2J<J
lktbdc tin M.-,.,pao:.&mia): 486

'Bihk". Tb.. ~en..ution of by Early Christians, as
'n~ptrt-d': !<J.l, t.lfl. And undc:r 'Daniel, Book
ot". 'Gusp.:~. '!IO<.'W Testament', 'Old Testamt'lll'.
'l'aul>le. ofjesus'. 'R~velarion, Book uf', ere
Bl.:lmnan(n)/Bikerman. E. J.: JOJ. JJJ-4 (with 618
n. i. on Vl.1l), 55511.4, 557n.30, 55Hn.9, 6l11.JJ
Ulo:.i:U.U.u-~Af<>wsr. lz~: 152 (with 566 nn.27-8). 563
u " .rfllt. 7 rr .JJ, 571 nn.57-8
hiDt'lln~ 'OiaiJt!s. 1~ Cyprus in Lar~ Rtpublic and in
C}'r<"nalr~ nl ~IC' Empire: .u6
Buk-y, A R. J5?. 511-12, 6.10n.6, 6f81111.1t.l4,n56n.9
8tth~tna (~nd 811hyn~a-Pon1US): 157,309,312, 319-:.Jl,
IJral'l:.,l':or"'IR': 15X.~n.26. 568n.33, 569n.41

htkit. btklr..-ramp. hrirkyards, and the conclusions
.,f 'I Hrlm and P. !lc:tila on nami.'S of own...s of
praedia or ji1;11r.Jt ~1'1'<"~:-ing on Roman bock-stamps:
126 (with J5c';.-. !1)
brigandage", !>[email protected] ~r t>andits (latrones): 26$, J1718,
475-80. 48'<. And><~ under 'rutplorts'
nr1w.o\~ !L'~d): 54JI .. 1
Briscoe, john: 52.~4
Briwn. Roman, .&Jti Uri~totas: 6, 97, 1.20, 229, 4?8-9, 502
llnwn .m.i Brirish (modnn): 331, J47-8; .Bnnsh assumption imoral supcnority: 331; Mar11 on British
rul~ in lndt...47-Ji
8roclc. S 11.. 4il4
Brou,;htn. T R. S.: 197, 216, 345, 583n.33, 597 n.9,

t-3~n.~
Brown, Elin!:-o:th.-. R 267 (wirh595n.3)

Drown. P,"ttr. 441, $M. ~J ~t.24. 58511.42. 600 n.8
Brommtt Rob.'f( M411 4la, 631 n.S2

Bruuditoull'!. 47i
Hrunr. P .-..:J1. 4t-.Z iwith 547n.2l}. 122, JJt, JJ~7.
JJ9. _fJI-:!. JJJ . .l~'l.X, J70, J/15, 540 n.9, 572 n.65,
594>~ I. !1. 193. !-.5.~'14.236,24t,264-5.541n.15,
35l\n.i.57:i n. !, '>:'II :'1.:!9, ~n.6. 625 n.Z7, fJ41 n.S
Bruttium: .!.'i-1. 2fJ,;
Bruru\. M.Junaus: .\7il
Bubnn \P Lycia): 531
Buckl.md. W. W..:.121. 57l-3nn.6l,65, 75,57J-4nn.t,
J.!>7Sn.t'l
Jtucldn-. W II.: 17.f

Buljt~'l'l- ;, li, Xi!. J!4. 528. And scr under 'Panhio:ttp<~h\
Bulg.ar:a:SI7
BuU~NI'ebll!'h"g:ud'l. 318,
4n
Bunyan, John. hi c;:hririn and th~ piO\Il pagan: 34-5
:.~.Ill
,.,4111;~:498
Bithynians \Ul<J'11u Byzanuum: 139, 149

'Black De-ath' .2111,117
DIAk<'. Rtbt.'n (lord): 212. ~I. J75; his ddinition of'
Brin.<h ( :on...,v.. tivo:: 375 (with J60. t)
Dhl<lt. M~rc: 15. Ill. 138,238,267-8.591 n.J7. 596~t.2
bu,.mic:>M
'Biut..,. .ond (;tCC'Il$': ~under 'arcus factioru'

1\bti'II,J<'Itllll\' 545 II J4
Burgurtdtm'<l :>t~. !ilh. 517

Hur::47C>
Blumenberg.
549 n.21
Bocchons (Pharaoh): 162
Bodn Giglioni, <>~bneUa: 5n n.20
OUckh, August: :';III-I n.l
Dur~IC'in. !-. M., rQI n.Si

Bury.J. JI.,H.fUiln.-16
Bu.,.,h, (;n,'ll :..,.J Bu,..,lt-Swoboda): 41. 138, 57tH
".fJ, (l(lln()
Butlc:r. A. J: 41t4. 6f.! 11 .f7, & 33
Buttt'C'v. T \' !'Kf>n 1
Byzannum (aryl: K. 1311.lt.ndsce undl"l' 'Consuntinoplc'
ByDrttmt empire: 2621, -40}, 497: ByJantines caUed
thnnoc-lvn 'Rhomaioi': 400; succnses against mmy
art.ackn~ from 7th to llth .: 162-J
wcm.T
Do..vria: 278
Bolkcsrcin, H.: 591 n.37
Bolt", F., Marx's l~ttcr ro: 62
Blu. 'D,mt..:nru' .:of Mendes: 2J4
B(tnJia~ VIII. Pope. his Bull, U1141t1 ftiiU14111: 404
Btlnirus (Fr.onk), fathc:rofSi1vanus: 485
&nos~U ({.;(>nJn Onentis): 652 n.J4
Bntphoru\. 4711
Btlttno,J.. i7.1n 7tJ
8uctom<>re, T.
21. 4J. Ill, 547 n.22
Bonum<>~. T. B . .uodM. Rube:!: 544n.J. 548n.8
bouomry: -c"<' under 'maritime loans'
B,>uklllui -!toll, Mil n 12
l<.'141~<~ph"' at .-....,.ra and Nicaea: SJO...t
'hoWttC>mc-'; f.ll-1, 4i>J
n_
Dowmock. G. W : J4, 526. 561 n.21

Bnwr:11.m, AI..,. 1.:!'1
Boxer. C R.: ~24, 11}9.40mt.liIZ
'br~mw.aslun~~:': -~It
'brC"ad .md .-ir~'ll~' _171-2

Bmhr. Dc:rtnlt 43.\
Bu:bier, 1-<>w\: ll.f.2 ,.,,JJ (rwo scpararc:refs), J4, 36, 39
HrmnlT. Rnhtn: BJ
Bwdtg:&U (Bordeaux): 41lt, 654 n.42

Burt;,rd. Alison, 171. Z70, m 1t11 20, 2Z, 578 nn.24-5,
596n l (on IV. vi), S97-lln. U
Cabcira (in Pan IUS): 568 n.J7

Cxcilian, duovir ofAbthup: 467
Cao:cilius Africanus, SexiUS (Roman lawyc:r): 165
Cao:cilius Cla.ssiaiS: see urut..r 'Classicus, Cao:cilius'
Caiii1111sidorus, C.:-~ 'lsidorus, C. Cacc:ilius'
Caesar, C. Julius: 166, 213. 230, JSJ-4, 358, 361, 362,
363, 369-70, 371; his mass mslavcmmts in Gaul: 230;
attitude of Augusrus rowards his memory: 62J 11. tO
Caesarea Paneas (Caewu Philippi): 428-JO
'Cac:saro-Pap~Sm': .fOJ
Cain, nC"gro .u mltc:ri10r of God's cune on: 424
CairnC's,J. E.:S46n.14
Calabi Limmtani. Ida: 5'J8 n. It
Calaris (Cagli.ari): 405. And sec: under 'Lucifer'
Caldcrini, A.: 175
Calestrius Tiro: 309
705
Index
Calgacus (Urirish chieftain). spcch of, in Tacitus: 443
Caligula (Roman rmpcror): sec under 'Gaius'
Calixtus Ill, Pope: 424
Callicrates ofloonnum: 611 n.13
Calbsthmes, Pythtan vtctor-lt'it of Aristotk and: 69
Callistrat~U (Roman fn:c:dman. m Mmial): 17H
Callistratu~. Roman lawy~r: sc.-e und~ 'Dig.-st'
Callistus (Roman Imperial frl't-dm.1n) 176-7
Calpumius Flac~s (Roman rhetonCian): 167
Calvisius Taurus: sec: under 'Taurus'
Cameron, Alan: JIB (with 613-14 n 4ta). 371-2. 392.
401. 515
Cameron. Averil: 107 (with 556 n.22a). J99, 6JJ-4
nn.79-86
Camillus SO'iM:u.lnu L. Arruntius:
'Scribonianu.'
Campama, C.a"rar.w:.: 4if}, ;:J
under
Canaan. negr~) .l.. 1,.lbtri!~~ :fNCJ,.b. ~ Ojf!..::" on: ..1~.S

Candidus. Ti. OuJtu> (li..S ! l.lo'J1. l77
capital. a 'sooa( production l'drin iM.r.:-.1: it.,, 541
n.1; filtcd/orculating md cr.>t.a:tti,ri~ll: 5-'!, :>~>1-5-
capitalism, an
.iJ\,n:.t:'"~ ir~ :;,...;tnt:'L't w1th c.arii:~t ~~~t~-:t'""
of unfrcx- lab.1Ur: lll; drvclopmcm of. iToi.a f<'...-1~1

r('gims: 2511, IWII'mcnt in England: h.'
capiull.-vi<'S ("J'r<l:"' trilllllllm): 114
<apilt ctmi at lt,orrhc .............t.r r~J.tJrir'
Capitoltnus, M. Mo~ubt;\, ).f'." (w1do filii.: .: >~' Vl.ii)
Cappo~doaa: 11'1. lSi. 1:?1
Capua (in Camr~r;t.&i: !'~. :;19
Caracalla (Rom.&n emperor: M Aurelius Antoninus):
JAA .389, 3<11;. 4J4.J
Cardascia, G .. i~ .Jo;'>. 4:07~. ~
Carinus (Ron.an ,nar--:<>,1 4"1K
Carpi: 512. 51.\
Carthag<': 19'1. IW. :rrn-1 .1t.l. .J~- l'f'. :;;>~. :;n . 1~
Cartledg~. P. A : !il.!, ~lit n 4/<l, J5Z.. !A
Cnystus (on l!ub<>e.<l .~E
taurrir (and servi .-~.-.ui) .!:ill
Cassander. ,.," ui AnliJt (Mc<'donian gmeral):
JOt, J04
Cassandrl'ia (l'uill: h.~.lu. ~~
ca~siodoru~: Jill~
?21. .l5t ~~ .. ,........
~11~
,.,. ~~ ... ~ .
593 n.SI
Cassius. C. (R,m.&n 1olr ~,,J '""'"' ): lu
Cassius Dio: wun,lrr 'llh(._.,_.,..,
Cassiu~. Spunu~;3l7fvntht-l:ou.;,,,a,
VI
.1:
Casson,liond: ~IJI" li"' r 11ii. '>il<'~n 1:.?

cast.: 42, 547 u ~-
Casrinu>, C. Juhus &primius lii-'> II G..\) ~77
Casd<'S, sr,ph~n. and Godula k"'".-k: .H. f-7~~ ("'it!!
549n.2Z)
.-astrrnse petuli11...: ~ UndT 'pcculi11m .a~"""'r"
catcgones: ,,._. und<'f 'conn'Pts. and 'Hi>tomo~l

Materialin
Catiline (l. So<J.."lll' ClulJ,~): !l'i, "' .5;'.}. "'" Hll.
6212rl.5.tl!.!-.h 7,'1>!,., ..
Cato ('th<' Ct11><r'): Jl!. 1&;.. D5, ..!Jt !-' .~. 5."-'
n.5'l
Cawkwdl, G. L.: 551 n ..27. 5'i9n.2
Cda<'l13(' (in PhrygtJ): sec under 'Ap"nca'
""'"'rs = limtt~i: 522. 530. 531. 5.'-1
census rl'cord~: 257

Cephisodorus, wn ofPraxitd~: 270
CC'ramon (Ath('nJan): IHO
Ccrctdas ofMq~alopolis: Ill
Ccnu. Pubhdus (Roman smaror). J/12
Ccrvidiu~ Sca.,vola. Q.: ~,... undl'r 'Di~ll
Chabot. J B.: .-ditor o(Mtcha.-1 the Syri~n. q. v
Chadwick, Ht'llfY: 405.430. 6.l'it1 93. fS40.1t~. 1.!. 65lu.3]
Chacronc-a, bmlc of(3J!IIi.C ): 292, 29!1

Chakcdon, Counnl of sc<' under 'Councils of 1hc
Christian Churches'
Chalc.-doruans, Chalo.-donwt 'Onhudo, or 'Cathohc':
483-4
Chakh (on Eubo:a): 53.\

Ch~ld (in Syna): 2211
Chalon, G<-r;lfd: 572 n.l>ll
Charnadt-on ofHcrad,a Pontic.!. 'i62 ... 6
Chamavi (~German pcopl.,): 2411.513
Chamoux. f.: 534
Chapot, Vicror: !'>IH
Charanis. Peter 517
Charaxus, son of Scamandronymus (anJ brothr of
Sappho). oflcsbos. t.:ll
choanry: ..... under 'alm>giVing' Jnd 'b,n,ta,tio~~>'
Charlrma~'Oe: 23!1
Charles V, Em prror: 411?
Charl.-sworth, M.P .. 374. 3<J2. }Q7
Charon (in Anstophlnc) 441
Chasragnol. A : SIU nn ~ere.
Chayanov. A. V : 9!!
Cher.ont.,Js (Gndc city m Crimea) Sf>4n.l5
Childt. V. Gordon. 21,464-5 (with 647., 33). 5~Sn.l4
China (modem), P-opl's Repubhr of. 1ts Agrarian
Reform law: 212; p<'asanrs of. 212; m<,ting of
peasants ~~ li Villag Gulch: 212: Chin,s Communisu calk-d 'Nndir~ 3111: wh..-lbarrnw in: 311
Chios: 131, 506, f-29, SSJ n.9(wilh !!5), 61.?1.1 ,J!
chons oiltpu~rlfs (slaves and fr.:.-dm.:n) 142 (with 56.!
n. 9). 17 I. lllll. 54'1 n.24
ChosrO<-s l,lm~ ofPtr.ta: 411(>; wei< Antioch (5-ltJ). -lli6
ChosrO<.,. II, king of P.rsia: ~; ha rokration of
Syrian Jacobitt'!i, P<"""'CUted by Donll'ttanu ofMdi-
tm...: ~~under 'Oomdi-lUUs'

Chrcm~ tchar.:tC"ler in Com<'<ly):
122
Chr...mvlu. (charact<'r in Arislophn<'>. f'llllll>)' 144

Christianit), Chruuan ChufC'h<-s. Chri,llan. 4. fl. 209.
396-405. 419-25. 41541. -145-52. 47i. #1-2. 483-4.
495-7;
'th <.:hristian Churchtchurch<'>': 420, 6, 495
'Pauline Chrutianity': 105. 43.3, 43'1. 4-lll
Chritian id<'OI<>gy reinforcing lmp..'l'ial aurhoriry:
J96-41Jl; and procurin~ subnussivm<'SS of sla\'~s and
lowr clo>S<'S. 209, J98. 4012, 41920 (.:tnd sec under
'Paul. St .. doctrint-')
roltofCatholic Church in nonh Afnca 4112
d<-rgy/derics. 2Y. 4'15: bio;hop and pn<'>t< 30~.
474 & 493. 495-6: larg.- salark-s of some biShop<; 496:
deacons nd minor cl.:rgy: 495
monks and monasrk mowm<-nt: 365. 495; 'Holy
M<n'. 446-7. 3(,5
attitud..,ro slavery: 419-2J; to propeny ownership.
of Jcsu.: 43 11; of Euly Church,.: 4JJ./i
oanitudc ro wom<-n. marrial(<'. sex. vtrginity etc.:
IOJ-10
Rom.:. Church of: 495-t.. 4'17; Consrantinoplt.
Gr<at Church of: 495-6. 4\17; vst w~lth ofth,..,. and
othr churdu.: 4956, rhurch,s as bndlord>. 225-6,
.liO, 4'>'56
hrcsy nd 'chim 4455:? (<'>P ~52). 497 . .1113-5;
new Chri>lian ph,numnon 452; N.T hcginnmgs
of: 644 11.26
ptr.ccu!lon of Chri>tian.: 17(1 ..1%. ~50. pns<'rullon by Chn>tian (of ch other. pagans. Jews.
Mam,hc"s etc.): 40.!5. 44.)6. 448-.j2 (tp. 451)
And ""' under ,. g '.'\lmgivin!1;'. '/\nan hr,sv'
and Arius. councils of rh Christian Churches'.
'Don~ttsnt'. :Jesus Christ'. 'ParJbl..., nf Jc,us . 'I' au!.
Sr. , dotrinc'. 'women etc.
Clrromca .'ltlrrroM (c'<l Mommsl'Tl, MGH). mrludm~

C.ttu. C.Hoila,.t.; Hydatius; ls1d., Hisr. Goth.; Mllrl"'""Jirlrl' .11. D; ~ .;],o is rapitdl: 547"
706
ccnilll~ Cum"'; l'rospcrTiro. ~tc. ~13. 'i14, 516

Nn)'-"''.\'Y'I"'' ,.,.. U'!'ld,r 'taxation .... rollaria l11str./i;'
Chry.cr(Uo (Gn:mi Ch~mbtrlain ofTh,odosJu II) 177
(with .'14".1.1)
Ch:11-p;n: 4 fJ
Clur-o.<tt'dl. Sr. John: 226, 242, J20, 555 n. tJ, 585
n..ll, I'Mr..fr~
Church. ch~:rdu:-.: !k:c undtt 'Christionit~
Ci.iwrJ 31)7~. 3.1-.l. 533
GOO.:., M. -r.,u;,,;.; 12, 71. 74. 7~ (with .<;5() n.17).
f!1:!, :.w~i. !U. Iff. I<J!>-<1, 134, 235, 241. 2116,
JO'I, Jill. j~~. j;~. 322. 324, .1~7. JJT, .B5. ~37-49
(!:Sp .if~. -~~~-7). 352-7, 359, 36h, J6S-70. 372. 376.

4H. ~17-l,i, J:Y., 440, 460, 5213, 53<1-1. 534. 531'.
,,; : 11. !(,, !>:,.;." 3 (on Vl.ii), 62J 7;
'"' f>;.,.knuic ll:venue (ap. Strab.): 5-10 n. II
r.
!,;, Lo.rln C'iltl. ofXcnophou. Ot<Mwmirus; 234

ha. bdio:i l'n.~ St~l<>s l'l<is~ prin1ar.ly 10 protrct
l':iv~:~
pruptrcy i~~:hrs: 186
?:i ;;i-a: ;;rl ;m:k Asrnblics. in Pro FT.ur,,;.! IQ

hi~ ... ,,. ,u:-n.:q G-f rhl lbu'l'' of Ruu13nlnlpcrtalisnt:
)JI(w!th6;.'~H.tl')
~~
Ci.,:intl.1tb,l. Qt;incrius. 121 (w11h 5W n.S)

Cittm.-lii;:.,, f).ktuJr,.r.): 4111-2 (wrth 651 11.21)
ri:-o:: {~il'l'l''"'''""'' Jtll-19 . .
4JI: ., Rom,: -1.11
iru futiun ["'!' 'Diut>' and 'Gretns') Jill (with
...s.l-'ot.-11~)- _,,,
nu.
ciciz<n~hlp
(ofCr,,k citks Jlld ofllont<').

'Rcchtsstdltm;:' as a fJ.-tur that may lwlp Ill
rl.-~;l:im ch:;s
42. -IJ-5. 611

citizenship of Gn,k rirytciric.,. lll. 13. l\1, 1>4--5,
~'-5, 141. IH'I-<}{1 tc.: includ.cl "du<iw ocC\.-o;' to
it-~,-f:.,l:l1~.:1 'Wwrship. but broad.,.,-J in Hcll.'flistic
)'-<"r;1t{: <~~-3. ,!)i!t-'1: <'f'l'r ofcitiznsltip on 'da>S ': \15
j.;-v..dlrfi~. w idt prnnl~Ui.'llt tncn t..cronunp; dnzc:ns
""''''"''-'" .:omodllors ol othtr ritit's in Rontan penoo
(au Hmtr~tl~ulation.,nthis): '15
I:OlL-tk.. (r'-sidcnt for~o.ignc.~rs: mtttik,,;. P1,,.;J,:,1i.
t.:tc.i; 'IJ-6 ;,\ilil :.!i4 n.~). 2H9. 79. <f.!. 141. IPl'J-'~+.
F-7. !.'1'~. 551,. :!J; al Atht'tl' (and prc,umably mc>!Ol
<tho'J ,-i!io) rk~ ,;oulcllt3\\0 land: 1"1-3 . .21\IJ
Rmwt ,;.tizchip: (,f, 95. %. J~J. 4~. 461-2;
i!u..
ikh,iv.-1 a.. .1 ~upcrftuous d~tinc(ion which
Wlllt! it~UJI!Iy ( dli:<l) Jis.J.PP'.Ir: 41i:?
n,.
J-48-9; 'lil,;za, .:int
.~!(frtJflit'':
:W'I
inr(o/.rr: _;.,.,).!'I. H. )54 L.lf)

-dlil~i: ;..a~>- I t.!S
,\nl :;or&. \ln~k: pll,tlilti'

Cir~i. \'iUNi.~ J-IJ tt. 7
't.:i\;1 ~riq~. lkm~n lmpcril:
.?9-}0. 49!-2: 101.1l

it, lat~ Ruman Empirt: 4~1-.Z, npr''-~''"''' :, (l,,,d:rr \Ill !he Uoman ._-mnomy out of pm-
"'l"'"'-t> N~
J11l!"~l\tn r,~ J.ts w.~Jub..rs;
4Y2-J
'r:.larir.t' !>t:r~.IUX of; -NJ. ~~~~- 5()1!

:i.! w.:r> !1' Gt~!'Cv-ltonun world.1f>:H'. 4156, 4/11151; in J.!J c., ,-.:,m,srs for Imperil! throtJ<' wtr, nor
d;m uu~~~ .;.75-6. -189. cf :16~

Chlii. C:.. j;;li:.. r:volr of(69-70): -11'111
Cl!1tL-..til<o (= ;,f r, ~l.lw of rh< nonnn C.hurch): 1.14
l/...i.>).,.._ ... ~. -~73

C~t.rf:.:'.
G, \'\1
,,t... ''"'~~..::!~ uro i,!<ulol!ical plan,: -#!9-52, (,, h6

l>rh.~YI<\IIT (:ar:l r:mrJiiry) of cla'"'' comp.urd
wk!1l:'t,,.,_. ;md ~~<linduaJ,; -17-9
;il'po.1f1.:~:.,. ui .-u~:ttol of tht Sut~ in d.IS< strug!!lc:
._,-,.7, ;'1\l.~l, 333, .Ho, t'IC)
~"""(~f.
d:.,.~ ~nd ,.ttlfU~
!>i~ ;.rlitud" '"' ch~: Gracc:hi: 62J 11.7

C.:U::ro, Q:i.;~u TulliLL' (brol!ur of Marnas); Yi<!
(.:ilid.J ("~IIIU~upt~\inct). 12. 170. J 16. J-1(;. 7. .156. -lXII,
~.t.:..~ ~ c."'~1z~:r; "hip':
;,JhtuktiDf'lt bct,'<n.'tl historical .u1d SOCJlllogic.1l
pr->blomJ Ill d~f..,til~> of da.sc~: 40-2

''llpmvr:ncs nf the con~cpt of d.,.,, ~nd it
'rh~.-.rni~ n~<utc: JJ. 45. cf. 22
mo.'!llhtrship of tn!lre rhan om cl.l~s: 4-l- 5
<LWI."A"" c. cbs" 6..'1--5. womtn (or m>rr,..d wom,n)
a> ~ rl~~ 'li'- iiJJ
Mc'll\ i.a.1a~~ ~o rompieru ~lfliat.'llof ~~: 3.1, 59
..-t.y :i:c t ~5 1 1 [>;~Jour conrains no reie~el!cr 10 elm
>lru(llo-k M-7
l"lnergeuCI: ~f
concept nf class srrug~le in
MJrx's thii".Jf!!lt: _.;_;. 7
.:h"' t<"'rrli~>'l'<; not ~ nrsury ~lcmrnt in class:
.;;4 J.S'1.fll-J
dm >ITI'f:il"- ..,_,, k on pobtic.tl plar>e or nut: 44,
}, .r;._ 57 ....,
:'~4ft 11.22. 656 n. 7
d't... rl:~:. ~ :rug~(c/conllin. do.- >.:>ntty. d-1"
OOtinrtl01b conrrastt'd. tS.j6. ~6-
tlt !l1~ 1\fl... ~"'lmr.tim~ confibt'd. ~.v~u by M4rx and

Dtgd,-'16
M>r. " '""''q'~ of, never di\CU\\cd by Max
Wcl-:r: !'..<;-.
Cl.u..itw. Cocci!i.11l~uv~mor ofUa~tka): J82
\:1..-uJ::. H~~: 132
c:,;..,~;,.
(J..t hrin po;-l): 377. SIS
Cl.%tt<liu. (!J. """""'' t'r.tpcror: 143, 171\, J22, ,)(,2, 372.

.~,,~
(:l..\udl~,,. {!J] G-Jlbi-':at". ~~~unan L'tnptrur: JtB

O.mt1!~'- "'f.~:u"~ ~l.S.
ct.n.~i~t:o>
...
I,
~ber.
c .. ~12
Claming. H.. rh: :?-lo,_ !H. :\Ill. 591 n 37

Cl~vcl-L'~qu.. M;m;Jll<': I\Oitn II
(:t.-1.Y,t',t"la:.!: )~1-. -11''Y
Ck-:4:dt~, tvr.u~t :.:~ot'Hr-r.tdt..A Po11h..-a: 1%-H
Clri.~b~ll<-.. { .\tl:ni>h t.\wgiver): 2X9
Cim:l'it. Epmlc.>i("' JC/,mo"r): 1~0
drn&m: of A.k\:.1,tJ,.~ Q1ii.~ diPn ,r/rrrH' nf: -U.S. BS.
,,~7
t'loU>t,.mlll. kmg uf Sparta: 21-11-1

Cknn,io. tyr.u~r ufMyrikne. ~97
a ..,r. ,,,,.,.....!:;.,, 'd,-,,.,.,!t''!l"'-.. ): ~1'
1:!4.~. 2!/(J
(with
a,tf1,,.~~!. ".f~h\2~
t_:~lt:"..~\i "f (~Wit.~i,-...~.:111 475

Cl"'litun (r\<liwi.m ".~tma~ogue');
1:!4.~.
W3 n.25
o~ i\ld~l: 'l':i"-2'1
Clcretllt L'rtlr,.~: SW :t.t>. fl~ nA:!
.-1,-.n.-\ti..... ,.;l: .. ~: ~U~ 2(wirh51'1n.6, on IV.ii),]f,K,
~"11t.~
cli~ttl.t. rlimto.(Rmt.111),andpJir<>na)!.-: 17:;, H~. J4J.

.~. ,it~- .~.;. 7, lr!: i.:duJ td311<Jmhlp nf fr,<dnlln
~"' l~'':ltt."r tn..t.:t~~: .-'U: il1C'tl'3.-K'd in impntr..tun in
J::udt...,t,: ..U.!. _fi..fd: H<Jt11Jtl 'dif..'nt ~t.n-.!'1: ]41-:!.
;';_\/,
', IZtt~: ~~~~~:duua _ltuU.An: 22!i

Ci'<h: l',:11!. l!ll ~ irh folf> nn.3~)
C,-.d;.: fl'. C!.:dino ;'!dch,r): 344,351-4, J6H-9
co_r~niti11 (o:J,,:.mi.:0..1ri.t): .l21\-9
Coh<n. Jt,,,P,r::l;" :W? u.21
\-:tihl~t.
A.: . . ~. fJ..IJ
.-..k...,:l lli>'.W.,i; l14. 49J
~!l~l,-p..,. (inld k~~'T.oq,t: 3tJ2-4
Co:.!u . s:r.ll. :>3.~ (<orb MJ "A I)
u.
rttiUt.:Y. ,qll~/f, tp\'lllii~: "'' :-: und~r cax.aciun
,,,:r.,ri,t IJ.;.,,.,.!it
,~,. ih~.i.-r 'tax~uon
707
Index
C>lhtill !lvl'llaora: 404. 644 n.l4 (wnh 451)
rolltgia ('guilds'): 273 (with 597 nn.H-9)
Collinct, Paul: 591 n.37
C(l!lin),!wood. R G.: 47H-9
colonatc a11d (scrt) ,.,,[om oflawr Roman Empire
wlt1mu, difTcrcnt mcanings ofthc word. 159
tht later Rom.111 (olon.u,: 15H-60. 149-55. 173,
~7.3-4; .form ofscrfdom: 5. !i3. 131>, 1411. 155
l.l!l't Rom.111 ''''"";bound uher to a villag<: or to a
particular plot of l.!nd: 151!-9: but wctc always ttchnically frL'<.': 159. 251-J; although thcy (or "'""'of
th<m) could be 'rq!'ud,d .1~ sbvt:s of tht bnd' (et<.)'
159-60, 173. 251
po>~tion nflartt Homan ,,,fMi diff.:r<:d in different
.uca.: 150
t<nn 'r<>{,m.rwi from setond quartr:r of 4th c.:
251-l. 159, 173
<oio>U' h<>ml1i<wi: 251: d.<criptirii (mP'gplwi. alo
"(~iorani. ori,~?inalt.. trib1<taru): 148 (with SlW-5 n. 16).
1'>9. ~'ill, .!">2-3. 255
rol.mia partiaria: srt undr 'shJtt-rropptr~

Colonm (plaet in Arrir.1): l'J I (with liOS rdO)
Cnlophnn: 5511 n 9
Columdla: 1:?2, 142, 1~7. 2.!4.]35-6.239. 241. 2.16, 5YJ
II_;~
Comana in Cappad(){."ia~ ,;..;, ':1 a~~-m!lJS: !S4
Comma~en<: 15.14 (wirl: -'>8 Jt;]

comnlt"rCt.": Sl'r .~~~t."":' "tr-:\:tr.r
coJllUll'rd.tl d~i:o'! lioor-c.li~ld): ~. .: \.oi;h-it:r .-.! .undti4~.
Ardatt . .\ ~u!'r .t 'I t~'\'t'C'I'''' .

'Narb<,. ~<f..:t,.'. '}"yf,'"t.t', 'l'io~tn'
lu~~~bh11Uti
~commlrdar .;ri~~>i1Ui.c~ ~:t..:- ,,. \:rOtn: Gmce, a

misconr..rti..:ta.f
Conunodin U\ftk;nJ Ch!i.(ott:n~ ., fih::~~ ~-"''~ ,,_"'
Commodus(ll"'"'""'nl"'t~l LN.~I:-. ::>.1-l, i-l'll .l'l"
46!-1. -l76. AnJ ""' altk 'M.or:<.> -\Ill din'
"cornn)Ul1i~tn. (j.O]-C.Uk&) uf AJ~fli:"-:.:.:.{ c-..~:r~f'~~l'!;,:- .;J_\
compulsioJ1, t1lr.n<Lij!di.ob .-.~.1.d ,\J.-i'X~ ..,,7../1.
.:ouc,pr- and '"''~"ri.-.. Aa.lrht~r u ...~ j)._;, .J.-r-. And
;ol't.'
under
..
u~ t~'~ ~1d~.ria!h.tt1-
lLJtU ,,rdia ,mlirtlfhf: .~til\
Connor. W. ~ ro;_;.,._l;
Cons,rvausm u~,tih !7. Jcfi.,itim> of, by Lorr.ls
Ualfour 3nd JJb-.~- 17.'
Constans? wn ._,('u:;J!t~r l.Aror~t.i:id,h. ~.J~
Conu3ntln~. I Ulo.)\1'1~~ ~.~np~.'rr .~. i.:r_... i;i.. l11i. t~.
2:?4, 2~0-1. 31. :!7:1. 313. J~- Jb'. !7\, .1'1.>. i!'li-9,
-IIJJ-4. 4tl7 . .;.....
t.;.s, ~~- .v.:. J~.~. l!iJ, ~r:.
5U.l, :;.iHn ~ 100 tit), ~t.. a-:;;.r.. lf ~;(i.,.r.:'!
hiS letter !.' Adr.liu Jl>l_ hn 1~>1'=1 '" Bishop
Akxand,r nf .\J~,Jm!,ir..r.ot l'lri"' #i
J.'
,.,.J.
bh Ul..W
t~Xl~- ~~}
Constantin Xl!l.b H~~rtrbt.: '"'I"-'"'): ~.,7

C.onsrautin~. nsurpc.:( 5~5n.f~
Cnnu.anrinnpk (Uy:w;tium). ~. ), 1.!1. 117. 13.!. ?'::!,
273. Jl)j, ~~~~~. 44~ . .1-L~-''t -4'1!. -t~~- :.1:. ~~"!."..; fl.4~,
5:;9 II. if,
Su.atnf l:~t ._1,-; I, .511.-... 11)7
publir fond .tnl.- r> (lnu '-'1): 11!_;; 11sp..-,illt>t> fli:
l%
4
'Ot,umtnirJI' Church Cunmil of, in 3!11. .1nd

'Quip.ist:xf Council 'in Trullo' in h92. ~..t.~ under
'Council> (lftlll' Christillo Church'"
Con.ranriu. I (H<>nun tmptror): 24M. 4'J.1
Coll<t.lnhu< II (Honun t'ltiP<'ror): 177. 247 . .:?51!. 37\l.
.lH7, )'Jil, -lll.l-5, 451 . .fl'!5. 4'JO, ~5 n.lli
h1 t'ntry urto Rumc. d,scnbtd by Arnntianu': 37'J
his i<'ttr to l'crsian Kill~ Shapur II .~7')
Constituuo AntonmiJn.t (A.D. 212): 3211.-154-62
contionn.' o1t RomL". tn1purtanc\ of: JJj.~

'contral'tur>: lHX-9 (with <;7!4 n 23). IY.l. 1\l~. 273:
other rrm for (ap21r from misth6rl) mdudr
c~eolah<Js'. '(r(?O!It.< {tu C.nt.k ): UiX-lJ; :1nd 'rtdmrptan',
'mn'p.<': I'H. 194
contT.ldktiorJS role of. in rdauon to ,:l,t).s Jnd clac;,
truggit" 49-511: somttirncs \ontlict'. 'opposiuou' .
'anra~uni>m' prl'f~r J~le: 50, d
Sn: Jitkrcn(c
b<twt'L'II Frmch and English usage: fJ.l
convict labour ('forrtd \~hour' in Slawry Convcmion>
of1~26and l'J5o): 134-5. 1711
ct~iiptar,. rm)pracio. 52.!
Coptic Chur,h (Egyptian. Monorhy<irt) ~XJ-4 (wtth
65:/tt.Ji)
Corro< (in E~ypr): ll<J
Corax (ch.1r cta:r in Petwniusl: 1'1')
Cor.-vra (Corfu): 12. ~. 51~7. 547n.(>. 55;; ~1.9 (..,.it~
115)
Corinth: 41. 120, 132, 154. 1911, 2~K. 2'154>. 29'1. 3~.
524. 525. 553 n.'i (with !15)
Corippu,, Flavin Ctt.,conius (lat. Latin poet), hi\
poem m prai ofJutm II: 399--11)(}
CorniftciuCi (RomJrt rh"'rtlririanj. u11 /iuuu,, .l~ -r:quiv:tlcnt of Grc.-lr. paorlu'<id; JIS/1
Corsir.t (Roman provinte), Com.-.ans. J5fl, 4XJ. ~'Jh
Co.: 2116, 305. hI~ n.23
1
Costoboci: 46K,
6~.> n.42
Conm: ~10. Sll

Cotta MAximus, M. Aurdius (mnsul, .... IJ 20) liH
Coulb<>rn. Ru>htou ted.). 5%n..4
Coun<ils of the Christian ( :hunh,.: -10 I. ~)i
[fvJr,t (llliberis,l;ot ~rd or arly ~th c.). CJuon V:
420
NK.Il'l (.l2';): 401, -IU.I
C:onst,mtinork (JKI): 4111
Eph<>w.l (431): 177 (with 574 .I.IJ. 4!1. ~-'tl
Eph,..,., II (-H9, 'l.urodnium '): 4!11
Chalnd"n (.f51): 145-6, 41JI.-It);l4. -H/!-'). 51J.?n ~I
Curmantinopl (n~2. 'Quirrisnt' Counril ;,
'l'nll<>): W9
Aott'J1C~ (14.W): ~'!7
Norbo (51!'1): ~.IX-911 .I
Ju~rhu.llJ ~ivt~ fore~.: '->flJ\\ to Canon!O of th'-' 'Four
Gcn,ral l.ouncob': -lfl/
Only the l'"'P'-'l'Of rould 31UilUHOtl .\ Gt'I.H. "tJI
.
Cnun('JI of rh, l.hnrch and dtcid, who sh,,u(d
pr~>idc (lwr it: 40J
Courby .. ln3otitut h:-rna.nd: ~l.. undl' 'lmitituf .. :
Courtors. Chritian: 4X2
Cra~sr1>, M liciniu" 171. (with57-l.li). 1'.1~
CIJ!ts (Attir rooncdin): II'
Ct>ll~tasrus ofNisibis: -l~
Cawf'ord. D<~rothy: 2'i7
Crawfnrd, MichJd H : ~.1(1, .1-+5, SS4n.:!K. t.l I n. 14.
611111.5, fHii n.l~. 65r,,,_ 10
Cm,, Cm.>m: 13'!, 1511. lW (witn 570t~.51) . .1~5. 5.35
Cumca (l'ontk km)ldom): 13ll, !92. !'J4, (!07 n. l6
Cromwdl. Obv,r: -HI
Cr<>tlk.Jobn: 19i.S71-.Inn.nl,f>5, 73,57.. n .1.617n./
Cw.. (Th 'Tnl<' Cros>'J. r.lptLlrcd by l'tnian' .tnd
cap~m~d by H.uditrs' .am. 4!!4
Cm"land. R A.: 269
Cror.m 41. 51'.1
Crusad<-'. Fnurth: 'J
Cllhimlarii: 14.l, 176- i (wirh J74 .lJ). 4Y2
nrlts ofthtli\'inj!: 74. J4H: the <'Jt!k.t nrtatn onn thm<"
of Lys.mdtr at Samo< (-II 14 Ji r:.) and Akxander t h,
(jr~at. 74, ofHdknistir kin~ nd <~thtr btn,f.lctor,;
]4H: ofrh City ofltorn, .r Smyrna from N5 B.C
70R
onw~rds: 34!1; of individual Romn gt"flcrals nd
:kilt bondaj:l' ,!din,J. and distmguishcd frorn
proconsuls. from Flamminus onwards. 341!; of

Vcrres at SyraniS<' (the v,"ia): J48
cunrifonn docum,nrs 170 (with ~73 n. 76)
curlals. curial dass/ord.:r. d~curion (city cuuncillor.):
7. 126 7, 197. ]57, .JOH. 454, 456 7. 457-60, 530.3,
and .:sp. 466-71 & 473-4 (with493), 254, 313-14. Y.5.
4h2. 561 n.21. 592 n.46, 1'>44 n l'l, 647n.2
siZ<' and nnsu~ of: 466
lilir<rates not cxdudro: 46 7
prc:surc on cunals from Anronuw p<uod: 467.[{.;
dss rruttj:lc within curial order: 471
mahrearmcnt of. by provinnal gowmors ~tc.:
472-J: lloggmg of (and <'Xemptiom): 47Z-J
rcnJwd larg<r share from mny bn<'l~ctions. 197
~\unllJ by Collstannnc to have both urban and
ruul sla .,.,~; 157
forb1ddcu by Justinian ro becomt bishQp$ or
pncsts, bccaUS<' 'roo wiclc.t-d': 474. 4'13
CunusDenrarus. M.: 121
'"''"' publim,: ""' und,r 'post, imp..rial'publk'
Cylon (Ath<nian). 21!:!
Cyprian. Sr.: 24H
Cyprus (Roman provi!JC<'). 345.l46. 35h, 5J4
Cvnbu (Ath<.,nan): 11411
Cyr<'lll', Cyrenaica: 7, K, 1W,165. 3tl4. ]If>. 345. 346.
:\49, J!il, 4'.1(1, 523, 5.'45, i95n 6.1JI0n.2; Simon of;
~:t,!.t\"ir::~,t ta~ "'''~t: 11ft, Ath,ns txceptioual in

..b:Ji>~;,.;: tw,.rl, {'>olon. 594/3): 137. 1623, 182:
H
Cyril, Sr (bishop of Aln~ndria). 177. 44H. (llh n.M
(with 326); lavish<'S bribo:s on court offici~ls of
Throdosius II: /71 (with 574 11 13): Gibbon'
mmmcnr on his samtity: 6.\5 11. ')I
Cyrrhu (in Syria): 491\
\.yru' (1'<'1<1311 pnncc): 121
Cyzkus 44H (wnh li44 n 19), 4'il'. :t!J7. !>53n.42
I>uia. Da<,.ns. 476. 5141-12

llacdalu.: IIJ. 141l
l>ahrndori, R~lf: 5'1-62. 96-7.31
(with~ n.l). H2.

544 n It. 0,54 u.JI. nn fim.:tJonahm>, And Pl.ro'
Socrr asth first functionalist: 112
Dalmalld (Rom:m pronuce); ~42. Y.2. 4'!6
D.tmNus: 1>54 n 42
Oama~u.
J>opc. 451. 49S
Oanub,. Rtvcr (.tnd tts bnin). II, 2111. 249, 2SII. 2H>.
,f7'.1, 4111>. 4117; Republican wm-hoatJs in nom.mi.t
t'tc::no
Danid, Book of J25 (wrth li/6,.,61), .UI-2(wJth641t.4)

Danilova, L V .. .111
Daos (ch.orartcr in M<1>and<r. H,,.). 16.1
Daphit .. (Daphida>) ofT dm,..,us 445
Daphne. neat Antioch 551! n 9
n..ua (An.lSI.l,iopolrs). ill Mcwpt>tamia: sn 11.1'1
Dudamans (nt'lllyri and Thrae<): 1511
Dardanus (in Troad) II!!
Oariu> I, kint: ofPtr.i :!117
I>'Arms. J. H.: 574 n 6
Daub<.'. Dav1d 555 " 14. <;!Ill n 14a. IWJ .,,(/
David. Paul A : 51!7 n.K
Davl<'>. J G .. it',,:! n.K
D~vi~. J. K. 174. 270. .~511 "'(on III,i). ~'lh n.1. 6IKI
n.l. 601111.5.1
Davio;. P. H.: 577 n . .21l
Daw,'S, Elilabttlt. 1nd N.H. Bayne, -W>-7, ~'in U
'Dead ~~a S.cr': 4.~2
th<>uJ.;h :l~b; l>r-r:.l.a;:c rcviwd m Attira after fall of
Jr.,.,<: a~ (itt J.1:!/t). 163

d"'bt h~~!~hi! !~t~dy supc.'r~l'dc.d L'Wibvcmc.nt for
.~d:.:: ~n. i lcU("tJi-..ti.:. ~iti,s: 1f1S
,,e"t:.....:~ l-}' '!<hti:>al t'Xc.""C"ution as well as legal
r'~i"""~ IJ7~ H.t ~h4, Ub
iolV~ r~:;?!i:r:>l<Jj;~ sumctinws appli,d lo: 16.1
~t.:, ~.;,b:ur':.dtildtcn. 163

r:t.-dh~tlltl ,,fJ~bt. (lhrtJ., opokopc'. wt>a< rahulat'):
l~7. 1~;:~...\. !,oo.!. ~15. 2!114. 29M (wllh60S-9n.55)
l:c:<! ll"'-" l~w of dl'bt 16J 70; oba.Mrii.

...,,.,,_.,;. ff,"i ("';1;'1 ;;n nn.H>-7), 1!17. a4di<II4J. aoldiaio
1!).::0. I~.!<. U~. !'i.'l. 2441; iudualus, .uM IUdiCati I~
" ;-.:.:1, ~-oi;
r'!ifffiO' 1(,5, 166; crcduor '"iting
.,.IIi.,
,f:!avr 111i~n1 ~..:1 111akc him work. cv<'D withou1

\'Jf..jt~l.;~: ~'~ r.~:t:- 168~ bono~Uttl vtndino/u.uiol
Ji.:'t'J(~iv: ~r::.t,. A~d '"-'under pan~rttont
n.~~pu!l>(in J'~lt'>hl:.j 4}.9
nc...-.:iur .... (Jl,;;u. di(tain): 4711

l>t'<'l.l: U7. !'1:, _;r:;.;
J.:~mprt...:!! '~~m~ ,k..:-unon' in l[ali.1n
~nd Sicilian
l!W<t>, (n>m [ U' !t~public); 471: dislinguihd from
iol<l drmnpritt" .Mri~ks (probably = pri11apaln; 4''
bd.w) of 4th, ..,1wuds: 471,472

Lk:ms !R<IIWI mpcror): 24U
H.-dut< td r-,l[ ofth~ Roman Empin:'. tht: 497.j0,!;
(,.."J,
~y)
~t-.nlri'"'u' ~ \,!!der mrtttrt.r:'
J,f,.tb& 1 (."i:~rt.fli1J,r pJ"II~ ..; eltdilurs, syrtdikM): 3l7. 3H3

[lc~kr. (;;rl N . Sl
1
r>.:~ni1Jli"t~ J,.r~, ~..!..\
I '-~n~r:l<" ,>tlUtr.J.;~ IZ-IJ

l ..,. ,,':"l~). ~ang i(.AJ-11!.:1: 119
k.,rrPtai
~rifllj.Jrr,,~l~.
;crtulituJZi"'
d\'Curiou'i rC"Spunsihk Cor
tr''"' 1st to ~rly 4th c : 471
J'l,lo>-. [!.lim: 1~. 15~. fl!lj, 22H. 233. 3'15

I ldf!lli. 2!-1. l\2. )J.~: rnanumi!~,.ion-i~lriptioll!l of
iitn1 ."11111 LJ ..'~"l fwidt ;s7 mr ..Z & }a)
IJ,~Jr.~olc"> l ... llt .,;Ai: :,~ n.2f. 'Ill n.2: on thlhnlrilla
rbo >!111< vlf,Jh<racy ' 578 2f>
.l~"'!:!_tw:<
1:.'. !"'J (with 603 n 25). 2'16
tJ.-rr..,, m. ,>eil....! l..int: .,fSparta: 117

D~...n~.~r."r;~t....
).l.t
1,)(
Mtni,~L. ft.tiLi"'~i'u:
'<!.-,.., ,,, l"litiJl .:..ir
iH5 n.l, bl5 n.S.J

c~p. al Ath<'lls: liJ9 (w1th 6fJl
n . ..'.J&
1.,.!,,...:""' t.-~ch~..ui.:..tt) 1~,u
'J..,l'h.'-U"~ l..~~'l,f. ft,tHt" r..rnt': .21M. cf. 1:;,1
I m,t:;a, nt...!.-r,~n: Jill
I >.~utnor,. lr<uin:4" o~ti'UmJ"'y: 176

l )~,.. ,,~triuc. IQil'u"a'r.:c. ~74
l ),~u(...:,,,t~ ..)ft-:r.tvn (~O<tur) J.7T
J:lu ._,.,. ,IIi.f.; (With !~M~ I UIJ.II.:!). 5-f>. 44, ]rl-1.
7:!_. ;, '9 . Jot~ 7. Ill. ~I; origmlity of: 1114
""",.~:,rl,.l.;!l.Jr.l\"t,rhci~ ~nd m'titudons of! JX45~
m i,'1,r drtlnirl(lQ:- .:_f fa) .4
in~..... ~.JJlt h'lll, i~ r."hJtt."C. ting poor a~.ainst cxplotra:h-: ,.,J oppns.wn: U. 71-.l. %-7. 14/, 2011, 213.
!~{ :.~711, 2'JH, 312. <15, .f17
Ji'\"~a...i..,r.t ;.t~un.N) its gn~at :~im 284 (wuh 6lMJ
.fc; iud.loli:t:" f~;.-.j;m nf sp<'<'Ch, pdmr'<ia: 2114 .~.
ci. ;:!l; ir~ r~.~.;~~..,;:.. :md j~,:~oria. ]8; (wilh fltH
'drl>t-llart urrbo<' 3178
lh:.."-' {I lt 1 .~t ,:t_.?~;
Dd>ord. Pll:rr<: ';I'll! n.34

J,bt. Jnd J.,br bondJ!l<': 136 7, 1.111-9. 162-70, 2H2, 4,
),;, :!211, .247. 25'1. 211s..'>. 21!7, 335
iUuJ.;.'!.~h't~r i ~~~~~..-rfann: of rwtlrytJ,t in; 75, .185

('' i:h r;il: ! I~ , .,.,,,,,.t f71). ih bdJ~ftn rul~ oflaw:
.,,._;
~w~rh e~n
1: !.o-'l
Index
.1ppointnn;nt b: l~t k !).tJ!HJ: llfiit."t~ o:~~y- 1..1f.5o
p~lrion oiwo:u,~~ an'! ~!t. -u
. tn ..!~.t. ilVl
dcstructior.of: J00-26. "'-ith .~!'. n.~~ .!''>-..~:01
d,valuati!ln of t<rm
J;..,..ic~ll'" in
lkil-m!tk
~,:,!
Roman pc:ri .. H.I1. } ..'~;.,.;. 1!f..

dhnok,..atia ~ t~at ""$tirur~on ot cht Roman
Rt>public; f!~' ' pid1 1.1+ i "" >t-.i;)
th Rom.&n Prinoro~t .., ;; .t...,-.~ro.,tiJ }lJ
dnnoltratiti tb.~ll~ ~.. nk'!:! Vtukr~.;o .. ~,,,t, "~'t:::'
tion: JZJ-6 iwrh 'il,_t;., ~4}
~~ ..,, 1.\
tfo..""t4..r :.i thr-..:ti.
on Dtmocnm~ .11\:1 F.J'i.-'fu: 2.~

dimos (the worJ): 1.' ~idt::lil. n. 7i.
283,.28h.6()1n ~
n. :!i'J . .l'IV)-1.
Dcmocritu!lo: 2.\..-4. Zl
\ct~
.'J4;:
Demosthns \il>d P.. -1 '-'m ): l ~. 1~. )jj~,, ;ot~l. ~

192 (with 607 L~l. JW (with !lil'i 11..5.;;), .lU.!. !!o)r,..t,,
tiJ7 n.37
"Demotic Chromcle': 443 (w>t!r f,.f2 n i
Dtmougeot. Em1henne: 3!4-15. 5'J!Jr,.:."l
Dennen, D. C .. '~n 4";

Ik Robertts. F. M..:5i5 : ;, S~1odl
Do:row, P. S.: lolt !LJ3.1_,-;<ln.!
'detcrminisni. "in~tnm;...-~ .all,-.,.,...~ 11) ~1.:..t.w:; ~fi.-1!
De Viss('ber. F.. 53;
Dcxippus: 6'i~~ n 4.!~ ht- "'PI"...,..i ~pi,n agamst th~
Hnuls in 2f>.7. nmmur.l~ acccptc:d, ''" .mthority l'l'
Hi<lftria Au.~u/4 oal~c !154- '>tt.42
Diatus: ZJO (",1!1 ;87to. )) ..5117
Dtd11cll~: 419-llj
Didymus (n:latiw v( h Emperor Honoriu>): 595 n.6
Difi'SI (of Jut:111a11): 144. 239-40. !iW>-7 n.l. ctc.,
induding (ann.,:utlwn) the: followin~~: lawy<n:
709
234. 245. 249, 250. 251, 253. Zt.l. 264. 31J. 360. J7J,
381, 384, 3111>, 407, 463. 4M, 467, 475, 489. 4<KI, 491,
493.503
Pricc-.:dict of: 538-9 11 .J (with ~), ornd ~56 r..2;
58.'>-7n.l
Diodoros Paparos ofPcrgmum: 529
Diodorus (Siculus). 79. 162. 301 . .155-6.609-1011:2,24.
119, 151. 165. 191-2.2211. 27~1. 296-7,302
on ~quality of prop.:rcy: 79
on Solon\ dcbt-legislarion: 162
on lu<'4th...:. rl.'5trictions on Athmin connturion
(322/1 and 317 D.C.): J(JI
cri1ical atlllude to Italians and Romans: JSS-6
on population of late Prolmair Egypt:~~ n II;
on Prolcm.1ic n:vcnuc: 540 n.ll; on low cost ofliving
in Egypt: 561! n.l2; on wir.,,. ~u'll"d authonty oVL<r
husband in Egypt; 556 n.22

on Etruscan S<rfoerc.: 51'2 u.4
on 1st Sioltan slav war. gold min~ in Egypt and
sdwr mines in Spain: 562 lf.8
on public works at Syta(l(sc: llJI-2. 27U-1
on sptar-won t.-rritory': lSI
Diodorus (Athm1;on sp.-.ak~r 1n Thucydiclcs) 604 tL26
Diogcn<S La.-rrius: IJO, 131
Diogcn ofOrnoanda: 123 (with 5(,() n.8)
Dionysius. bishop of AlelWidria: 109 (wllh 557 n.26)
Dionys1us I, tyr~nl o(Syranut": 117. ll<l. 1912. Z71>-l
Uiony"us ofHaliramssu 14. 139. /?5. 324-5. }36.7,
Flor.-n nnu> 421

Gaiu.: 161. 217
Hcnnogniam:.>. ~4.!. \lh
Javoknu Jri'~' 5-::'
Labto. M .lmrnlllu. .?. \7
.'141
Dionysius, slavr ofCic~ro: 146-7
Dionysiu~. sc(Ttt~ry of Anriotbus IV: 55!1 n. 9
Diophantu (SIG 700): 564 n.l5
Dioscorus, bishop of Al<-xandria: 146. 404. 448
Dioscorus. pry14ttis ofOxyrbynchus: Jl4
Di~orus, G"'"k poxr 111 Egypt: 223-4
Uio.curi: 396
~ (lmpt'rial$b...~): 14J(WJth5l.ln.13). And.,.~.
1UW 'Mu.;i<us ScuiTanu.<: and 'ltotundus
Disral'li. Bmjamin, his Sybil: 70
di11jr41m (Roman rmpcrors Marcus .ond Vru. lt.l-9):
Manr. A<"tmlu: 4'>11

Ma<cianu. .fll!
469ctr.
Dobb. Maunn. 21,115
Marcianu\. Adiu 237, 244-7 (,.nb 5119-911
Uobru.Jja: 5211
docron. 27!, 597 n 3; 'public physians' (of cities and
royal C'OU""): 271, Artlri<flroi: 271: Dcmoc.-.ies. Galen:
A.lf<'IIUS V .nu. }.37

Arcadiu Ch.lli>IU' 45'
Calllstratu.. l."!il. !.?il. !lol!,.!-11:. ..a;..-.. ~w
Drusilli...,,..'
nn.26a-28), 4,'i7 ~
Mod~tinu . ~I n 1:lo
Paulus: !loll. l..V. ,!n. .>Jic.
:.v. _~o-..
271
D<ri~t<~.f.,chinuJk"bapliz<fli:
P~-gasus . .!'fl'
Pompomu.: .'tl!>. 5..J
I~
wh .5~ .,_'Ill
Proculus:hl~n 13
Salvius Juhan us: lf,>i, !..."ii>. :!_17
Scatvola. Q. Cervt.il<;. ,2)7
notion:lH
Dontitlan (Rom>ntmpcror): IS.. lb. 124. 369.3~1. Jill
..an
Tryphott'"u"
Ulp1att: llPI 13:1. h.l!o. I'll!!. 2!3. 2.11.. ~.17.!-~. .liM,
3111. 385, (th~ ,...~ :-:o~ ..., ). 4.~t 451. -1511' 477, ~
n.8,
~I
n.111.f..tl. u
~I
V"nnlciu s.tumuou.. 11o11

'digniiQJ: 36J....l. Ji<
'dignity of lab.m'. il h><flt iu lllliJmty: ~H
Dio Cnsius (Ca"'"" l.lia
!h:;, I'J~, I"".
265 . .3011, 31'11!!. J~. _'It,~, .~t.] . .\i<.' .....1 ..
~IIi(..
444, 4)4..5, .w.!.i-.. t11..1, Ht-l.l
5~1;, ~14-15
nn J 12. and
tol: '' ;.,
ll1o Chrysoh!Jo, .,j l'r<~
Jflr). ,;t:! (w:ll: f.l2
11.21), JZO, 17!, iTT. :,irh ~li "" !~i!J~. -#J'I, 111.
I"
39-4o. 106. l4t.
c,.,.,-;,...,).
..:o:.
'n
_u,
~~ . ~,...,,
IKii.
~.
6521tt JSI
Oorn.-rianu. bihop of Melltcnc: 484 (with 652 " J4)

'Oomtnar.- oppos.'d 10 'Pnncipatt', nor a 11seful
!JI.
w;_.Jt~ ..'17
(with 613 n Jioi). JN. JH. Ji', -'?:lo. ').\t-J, 5W ,,_7,

6111! n.55. t.U" ...... >~11! "' b~" '"""' our).,,,l<(ot 1-l
Mu..ouius R1i~:. ~;;-.,, 7

Diocltian (R::~I' ~lJ"1:rl. II, 11-12, 16!1. 224,
.Z.392.WT
Dom1rius Ali:r (.mdlh<" Domirii): 116 (with 56011" 10.11)
Domuius Ah<'nobarbu cr und<,. Ahcnobarbu
Donari>m, Donatl5t 240. 403, 445-e (with 641 ~ H).
471, 481-l
I>m1~tists ingmiously rumcd by <.:atholics from
schimatics into ttcrctic.: 446
coiDrJi ronvcrtcd bv ch<;r landlords from Donatbm
to Catholicism or vi~c V<Tsa 240
And""' under 'Lircumcdlions
Donatus. b1shop of Euror.a 111 Epir..,, hi miracl,: 40!!
Uoncha (Rh~>dopi>): 131
()()rotht'll,., Arian rhrol~>iar.: ~50

Douglass, Frtd,ritk (Am<tlcn cx-\law): 143. 410
dDI/IDl (standard word for 'slow') used m lat~r Romm
Egypt by humble free m<'11 ofth<'ItBdw In addn-.ing supo.rio~. 502
Dovtr, (Sir) K<nhcth: '1, 5()6 (on Thu Vll.27.5)
710
Downey. Glanville: 583 nn .23, '1J

dowri:!: 10 l. 103
'dnmagt' m~tphor, for distribution of w("alth m later
Roman Emptre: 503
Drak,. H. A.: 616 nn.62-3
Dr~sden, bombing of 411
'droms', 'hiw~ o.lf'. Rostovtz..-ff's dt-scription of the
upper classes of the Gracco-Rom.m ririe.: 46.1
'dual citiunship': sec undr 'citircnshtp'
'du>l p.-nalty system': 457-60; its emergence in
An to nine (:md S.:veran) as 458
Ducas (Lallo.' Byzantine historian): 497
Duch,sn,. Louis: 4114 (with 652 n, .31\), 657 n. 2f>
Duff. A. M.: 574 n.4
Dumont. Louis: 547 n.22
DunbU.in. T.J.: 562n.3
Ouncan-Jonts. R. P.: 65, 92, 17(,, 53ll n 2 (on I. iii), 5J!I
rr.3. 575 n.lfl. 579 n.JS. 5856 11.1
l>upr~. G., and P.-P. Rcy: 21-2. 37
Dura Europus: 3411 (with 62011. 12)
Durkheim, E.: 22. 43, !!2
Jwc, d1~ers: 224
Dvomik. Francis: J74, 3W. 633-4n.79
Dymt: J07, 344-5. 525, 611 n.14
dyttasltJa: ,,., undtr 'obgarchy'
'dynasrs' of th<1 Magnificat and Thnm~ Hardy; 432-J.
tlnnnl ('S,mtAw bishop of Cyzi'""): 44!!; a pcra.e-n.ror n! l''tt"'::,.~ Nov~rian' ~nd Cacholio: 44S
,-ff'M~lol, d.-,~,;,,-..u: J:U5 (with 0Ulnn.4, 7), 312. 31'1,
titJoJ.iuD ir.
Lho :><'Ci~1 SL'tl$1."
of 'th gentleman'.
n, ..ing tn cam h1s own living (Aristotle):
1rd IT''m
11~-r:
.a.,,,,
-.n under 'freedom, libcny', '/ibtrr.u',
J~1~1l~li.'!C}.
Eli>.
fJ_.(J, ~;..-7. ~~'~ ol
e'o2
r1:1.,t'HfiH't- ""~-.; ...!'A
""l';r:nulo. .:14("'l:JIJ8l.,.7, on IV.ii), 247. 593n.50

E..-~i)::-i..;.u,. s,1C!"::!. ""<'~ undtT 'Stxtus Empiricus
'.::nployment' er 'u.rr.mploymt-nr' in ~nttqwty: 1119-'Al,
19H-I, 1'12, -''-~ r :!', :memploymtnr in Engl~nd in
11>ll: <,; }!>.'
,ac:~', ...,ur'-VJo uf{~rim" mov"rs '): -"8 (anintal pow.:r.
'':u-.r. wnd)
fo.ngt.!,, nHfl~~.~ ;;~ 0 7
},,.~;,,I ri.:-.i.O,~:i!ro.iorick [~part from MnJ: ZO, 25,
,:~ . 111 .;.,, '"- .._ lIJ, 162.211. 41H. 543 nn.9. 13.
_c.,,, h. 3li-.IJ h. Hl!n I. 549n.20. And'<"Cund,r
'M:,... K.r!'
J:u,:wnm. Sr~r>lc L; see under "Fogel, R. W .. and
lill~1nt;u:'
lu;;hr>l lllll\{~ .t.-;or;~wn of p.:asanrry by 16th c.

(W~h. f\ .!f!: ll~r,>rnliltion in: ::t:T<J
Engyum (in Skii1o1: i:f
'mkekrimr"~;, ~ Pnoi.as ad Hypium in Bithynia: \8
44()
'dy>Jaroi': !><'\' undtr 'powo:rful'
Dyrrhachium (Eplci.lmnu. Durazzo): 7

()y,un, Sr,pht'll L.: 474
f.nt!~tu. t~J
Eadie. J. W : 656 n. 11
Entlnd1a Compmy: 347
Ehnhard. Wolfum: 2fJII-'1
Et"dc'lasm"Us. Book ot' 41J. 435
Ecdtciu (rclatiw ofSidoniu Apollmaris): !'>95 n.6
\conomtc dltcrminisn.', '<-conomism'
unJ.:r
da:cc:rmtnism. c'"onon1ic
s.-.
Edl"Ssa: 220. 264. 272, 3411. H7, 56\ n.2\: famimos
At
(c373 and 500-l): Z:ZO; chrysar~yrotJ 11 (in !at<' 5th c.):

272: cornspondcncc (bogus) b.-tw('('n its dynat and
]<-sus: 517
'Ediclum Tht.>dori<i'. :!4fl. 'if>-' 11.16
El'tiomia (in Atura): 60(, IJ.34l
~~'t:fii: 4'.16. 457
E!IYP" f>, H. W. 17. 11-l, 1111, 1\9, 129. 13U. I.H. 15J
(with 566-H rr ..J2), 15-'. IM, 165, llt7. 169, 17(1, 1117.
21~. 2211. 221, 222-4. 2211. :!42. 2511. 2~1. 257, :!')9,
321. J4S, .UMI. 442, 44fl-7, 44!1-9. -Wl. 4H3-4. 4911,
495, 4%, .f<J9, 5113, 57t.-7 n 19
us Monophysihm. 44!1-9
rrlativdy small rol of slan'l'y in production 2211.
257 ere.
l'tokmaic rewnue of 540 n. I I. popubtion of
II
Ptol~maic and Roman E~typt: 54UtJ.

lo\\ cost oflivin~ in: 5N! n.32
J<ws in: 442

pyr.111nds o(, srom,d by Frontimh !9J
EiS<.nhowr, Pr,sid,ut: 42C >
EiS<'!ISUdt. s. N.: Ill'
ei<plrora: 114 (with 558 rJ.J, on lll.i). Jl)(,, ~~
tkk/t'Si45141 (r/rk/t'lidZII/fS). 197, 5~7. 52M. 532
Elagabalu. (HdiogabaiU>, Roman <'mp.:ror): 41J-'
Elaua in J>hori.: I>">. I n.42
Eldndgt, J. E. T: 43
Elcrra (as charart\T in Euripitk~): 1~. 1115
Eku;is. butlding-inscnptlon (lftmplc .11 (in late 4th c.
H.C.). /Hii (wirh J77-llr,. 211), 171. 111~ ..201. 5'J7
~;
umque val\U." ofrh,-.c inscriptions: Ill/!
En:'liiu zL.cr Lti'l \'\ritcr): 516

En7nbtrgcr, H.;,. ~gnus: 31
rh'""' 'Phi'hid: .~r. '.D

f:.p!::~'"
IN_ 11>1- 1'JI. !70. 273, 312. 313, 3fl5. 531,

'lll. O:>ltd c.,,,.,"ls of (A_O_ 431 md 44'1): ""'
urnf(r 'C n"'n~!i, ,,r rJt Chrisli3n Churchr..,
l.ilu~lt..... (!\ch.'tlilnr Jll9. 291
Fph!'~rmlu.
1-ihnp ,,j Antioch~ 4Hfl

''rri:,., Holy M:m) 221J
l:}'i,t.1tl' iSti philosoph<'l'. ex....,J.w): l.lf, 142, I'J'I, 42.1
l.::r-uu: ~'-1. 25: Mux's doctoral thci. on Otmo,\,~ru....uJJ li:'H"UTU, ..'!.J......t.
t:?i,fc.urr1!'PI_ ::,n 11.:'11. son n.2
r.;-ikiirr.-: ;o.'\' , ..n4.t" 'w,tnr."ft"
1:;-hra;m. "''
Erirh~trill. ~rdd,...-ctt of Akx~ndtia, hilrtrtr
to th
!oi.:'lnr .,f c :.:.mritwpl..-. detailing th bnb.-. p:>.id
I-\ ~~ C"nl I' ,of}idlut the court ofTh<-odooius ll:
t17 (with .1 11 ,;.1.)
f.ppo!at (S)n, trl Nl
Epirus, Epir"-' " 1;\}. !J5. 344. J60; ~laVl'> from . .s
: ..,;;,. IIIli"'. ir:l ...roltl.'publk: 235
'J'l!>pi< ni .l:ow JuJ fr.-.dmcn c Jl. of Nuis.u.
14 iii"'' .o~ Vnafrum: 174. and of Zoimu.
llt>'ir:n-. ..-,:~,u-.liM. Aurdiu> Cotta: t1H
"''iiiJ!ih ;;,..,;'- ... .~~'iM). 211.5 {with 601 rr.!l). #!9, JZJ;
'J">:!Ji.,,! m"" m,'ojoal than <qualiry' (Pliny rhc
y,.-,Urt;:_:,.r'l
'luil'
t 1'll
,~W
of".t ,.,J.
.HS.40. JIJI. -#Jffi-7. 41-2. 9(,, 129,
!"~. wo..!. Jn . 4~ ff . 473

~~~tt J~:-l';t'!'~r. ..-:::-t"i: 41-2. 3Jt).....l0
"'"'""'f
j[jf,, I!'J, 171'. 3fl2
,.,.,..,; ;,,,,.,:o<l.ll!ls: Mil n.2 (on Vl.ili). 63fln.102
i!; ...--bnt:r~ , ~,.-~,.,..; :-~r"~rin~: J7)'1
J-..;"n\!.lo~~ti&(: ... t t:~,,~ks inro:%
.;~ ~j~h.tt .... ,-c.--~~~~ "ifh S..nat,. in
~u
,::
t~tl
"'th and early
~;-
r'~a''"'' L . r:lt-"<tcd himstlf as a son of Ti.

C,r.,;..:ht!~ ~~.f.,,,._
Index
(mutual hcr.rli: 54>\KI\nj: -'21.'
Erastus, L. (pr-.'f(;~ or'lh-Jnn, .: E;.-l: ...n,): .~.>I
Eratyra/Erm: {ln Macedonia) 5:S.
Erechtheum (lit ,<\tbm), hU:ld:r.i inscriptio:" vf (late
5th c. B.C.): ~ii-I<~ ~H. til, {189).201. !i-Jt,_7rd
Eretria: fi.Y'l n. t:?
Eryx (in Sidlvl. temple of .<\rhnl<l;r, ~~= H4. 5lJJu ..W
Esau, to d.mlt-:..1'1 to Jacob (i.~ I. XX Grui): .J!~
"~"oi
711
rxploitarion: 37J-4, 6
Roman tribute likely to increase rate of: 22!1
exports from Gra-1. and Roman world: 232. 293-4;
outflow rn rsh, c:op. gold, in Roman period: ZJ2
subsidieoro 'barbarian chins: 232
Expositio l<>liUJ ,.wlflli t! gmtium: 258
~posurc of infants: IU3; more common m theca><" of
g1rls than boys: 103, 555 n.7
'cschatolog~e~l"r.:m~n. ~h.-' lt14 (""i:h 5;:5 n l ~~
E"~upmus
Esscnc.: 422. 4:!3; m Ph!k 41:>

Etruria, Etr\l!oC~$ {l::so.ny .. l:.~s;:~r.s). l.;<i. 138. J.3i!..
9, 519; pmt~.:: (Vi~n. H~!.) <>r: U.:
Eubiotus Lc:uu.. ~1 Ulp1us (Athenian]. -'53. :i.!t.
Euboea. Eut>....-am. 1~. 605 n.r., ift) n.t.!
Eubulus (of A.mu.ch) .~21
Eudoxn.1s, Ari..tt biJi.h,p tfCurJ,c..anri.!J'~';,.:.. :.i!t "'1!.1!i
h1 jol.l.': 451),.1
Eudol<ius (dort.,r): 41<7
EuL-spcrides, lkn~""' (lln:.:l:~zt!: ... 15, 515:,1~'" or! 31J;
ru~mri": ..:c un.!T 'nobol:{}'
Eugipptus, lul-!i.- ":f. !\tl'"'i"'s: -1>41,.
Eunapius: Jb.<,, 4'P.< :' U
Eunomius, A.ri&n 1-thupofCvticu +IJI
.-unuchs, lmp.-rial: S lolr.d~ 'I'IIH::;/";1'
Eupatnds (Athenian ~rit<>.."T:.r.:~). ~
Euphrar<-s, R:vn" !I
Euphron ofSI<"Y"" (tb~ f.!d.rl; ."t7./i
Euphron ofSiqn [j:r.&I>J"Mn nrtht lor.:ll-in~;- 2'1<
Euric (VisigothJc ctt~tl ~.
Euripid.-s: 18. 7J.lll;o, .1111. r.-lla I.Z, .-\;,,.-o: _ll'i
Eurymrdon, Rive.,., b.&nk oi: ,\ li
E.usebia (Ronun ~mprc'Ss. wil< ,,f Co>rl>l:nlUb Ill: l7i
Euwbius (Chr:.sti&n hJScorian .lnd bishop): J25.f. iwir!o
616 'ln.62-3) and ;t~ (h,. Tnaltonraererikos) .,,15.17.
170, 195-6,393, -i<f.! . .!i.\, 4"'-UU
Eusc:btus (<unu.-h, lmP<ril ti.-.-.Jno~u of Consr.mtiw
HJ: 1n. -10'5
Euthcrus (char.lctc:r in dialogu" ofXenophon): 1/tl .184

l'lllhytW (.lnd accountability; also hypr"thy11o>. a"
hypeuthylfD<I; 75, ~S5 .17.? .f:I.?
Euthyphro ('h.ar.l<10:r ilol'l~t;,}; Ill~
Eutrop1us (law l J.tiu ~pit.>m3tor): !J J.l
Eutychianus, NoiV4ti.lt 'liutv n~o<~t' .M
Evagriu' (Chr:<ll.l:l hi~W<i.lto) I'' ;.!.~. ~?.!, ll'J, fl.>;
517. 614n 5(, t:3,hi-4<Z
Evngdus(slaveofPericb): 1.3:'
Ev.-: ...., undl.'r'Adammd Er'
cvid'll' . .-vah,Atiun vi. .c~ordtng ro property: #!lj
ex..~ution. J"r~uni". ~.... under personalt."-t~ur'-'''
~ll:p"tation or' lUi; in ~11tiquity: ~ ua,kr r"""llrr'
\xplanarion' .aroJ "Jo.:scriptlon': .-5
<'xploiration: _;,4, ~7. 1:~15. 42~~-' ~.-.r. -'3-l. 5-J...!,
53), 203-4. ~(;..{ ~1 11~ JI'I.JI.Do, .!,H.11;;..71.
305, 317. J:O.. Ww ,lB...~. 153"'- ..'13, -1'~7-:.0.U.
andpQ.<Ji'"
ddinirior: ,,f H. J, J7
Exup.-rantius: 478
'dn'l."ct ihh\Hllt~ ;.nJ ~~~lf4"=t n,lk~4 ti\c ~~

ploitation: 4<1. ~"J:Ul, I..>J. !..\!-, .~.u. 1 B. J!fr. :h
dt'itinction 1',-:-,~e,b.c.C ~..,.. ,\f.tt ' i~~

s.-al< of, r t>- t,,l,,n inr., ~~:ru i ""'"'oing da'~
116
origin in control of condition' of production ~
mctaphoN runreahng: 51JJ
'Aubcutung' and 'Exploirrion' in Mnx: H
Wol\'S of o.:l<tr..cting ~urplus: 5J, 20.l-4
,bang in iomrs of. duuntc tir.t rhr.-.. cr <.- f..
2~59 (.-.p. 2.11)
all<-gt.! change from 'Ptinc!pacc' to 'Dominae~:'
wa <-snti~lly .tn tnl<'llstfication of rhr forms of
(ofToulousr): 595 n.6
Fabius Maximus, Q. (proconsul of Acb;oca): 307,525

fabii.'S: .f44.-5, 6, 1!1, 186; a kind of slave cryptography
(Phacdrus): 444
ofPhaedrus: 444: ofBabrius: 18, 444; of Mencnius
Agrippa: 444-5; FQIIN/"' Avia"i: 444
dcspicd by Quinriban: 444
Fabnaus Lu~cinus; 342
'facts', histoncoh H. 34; A..O Nockon:JI
'Fall of Man, grtatcr responSibility ofrb, woman for:
107; role of. in Christi;m sotcriology: 107
family rnponsibibry for crime:, in Jewish Scriptures:
108-9
famtncs: see und...r 'food supply'
hntham. Elaine: 414

Farrington, Bmjamin :'SIJ.:! n.ll
Faure. Edgar~ 583 n.:h.
Favorinusof Ark: Y!O

Ft'ars.J- Rufus: 6~ .:.'!'.!;.
Fdt"- =- Bulla: sa: un.!n Ullll..
Fchx (procuraror ofJIIt..-... int!';'U) fr=lll~n): U'i!r
Felix. Pope (or Ann-Pope): 4~\
Jcminism, ft'minisls: 105. Ill
Ftrguson, W. S.: ~1( ..;! !-vitlltof.o.J;iuu. 2-J).'.J(oiJo\.5
F.."tugaerc:; A.J.: ~,.;, ''
F..-stu~
(procurawr <J!,luoloo(a):
-l:O;
F.-.ms (Lat<' Larirl epitomacor) 5 t!i, 'lo'n n i

fo:udalism. 5, 1J6. 267-9; Sovic:t Jnti 1J1,..,11.'ntlu"" '-".'""
r:c.rm: 268; fr"oqan.-r~ rn"'u'";o 1(thc t~n.a s~ h.htlt-=: r.-.
Gr...-k and Ronn,;._-.;l,r.lfii';"'iJo ~(<tin !.~ IV..-)
'feudal modr ui;-r. ..luc;i<~ 5. :-r.1. 5U 1 H
'fc'lldalism' a11<l ;'"~ldt)IH l>l Up.;[Ji;l; l)li, !Jo7
Marx on ja~n~... '1'"~:-iy kn:!il "l;lS>Ii,.-;rinn 01!
land~d propcrt; ': ~
frudalism as~ 'r-ilkl i<#m (M '' ~ w.:!. t.:~'<N '!Ill
'feudalism" ...,~n n JJ''" Chir,:o ..\nr'"" M.,.,._
por.mra and lr:.u, .\r.;i~&tt E~"J" (IIdiA, u,n,.lln~
empire and Ru<ll: '!fl-.7 i with :>'1(. n.41
Hirt1rr frucbii"'' ;'t. ('"'til !r.i!J n.ll~
f,.u~rbach, Lud\1.~1): 3(.
Fikhmn.l. F.: S....,.tt.ll

Finkd''"'" {Filllt-d. M I.: :;..-~ ,,;
Finll.'y, (Sir) M"'"' I :5.'1.11. .Wi(icbJs;.,_Jli),.~. 91-4.
117(with 558"'' #-!J. J.lil, ,,. ~,(.,.lll''llJo ..J-1.
~-5 ...27). 4&;:._a, _;_,_.
~. '':!t.ir-7, 1.H..
162. tM. t'ill,
~l5. ~....,,. 1~. St.:! u.J, :,-m
s.
m.
.,u.,_
rn
n.49. 5H8-9nn ;..l, ~~. l(j' ..,..,_J.., ~._.

ni~und("r!tt.1r .. 4~n~ ,,f dcs.;. it" ~t.r.. 5'-'' "'~
his specrrurniJI,C1:!Uu1tt. uf ..,,_.=o~b:s (:u;,JOJ..t.,;hf;
5!1, 9.\, 94, 137.,;.; y:1,~,,.. ronc<'ptofst.I!'J<; ''-'
Jilcnma "l>ll~;rnill,: l'l=c of slawry ir. (;r.-;0;
civilisation: 94. 141-2
'lltwu.. r...msstruktunr:' :.l1a. l''llofd~J-.llh:n:

55Jn lJa
firl.'-brigad..-s. forbidd'll by Trajar> i~ Grt'l'k E:bt: J/9-ZO

Firmu' (nbd Afri"3n chi.-1}: 475. 490
Firmu (alltgd ~piunt to lmpo:nal rhront): 121!--'l
F~rth, (S1r) Haymond 12. 45
liscu.<. tb.: bdly of tho: body politic, in Corippu.: -101
fitzhugh, Go.-orlt<' (Virginian apoW.,'Kilor slawry): tl.'i. 417
712
f',~t I"it<u~:uf.
Th<'.
'k'<'
under 'Four Hundnd nd
fl.;t Th<>un:t:t'
F!xcll>. Calpumao. S<'~ und<r 'Calpurniu Flarru
1'1'""' 1.. Valiu; (!,lowrnor of A>~a): .>10
J'l:.Uilllir>l" 'f'. l~UIU<"tiu<: .1417, 525
l'hlnZo:dc~rll'JllJJ, L<'a: 3Hl
~.:J;ing ~.U-i-.
471. 472-J. 4<JH-':1. so~
~fr:n r .-;;kin& in d<'alh. 473; US<' ofpluml>aW 47:!-3
<f n-ri.:la; '72-3. S02; of r.>/"~i. 471
St. l'~ul' ..v ...r.litK<' of: 4'\5~
f!<r~r."' Cv.l"L~! ~>f(f43'J): sec und<r 'Cmlllclls ufthr
.sa-9.
Chr:~:i~:: Cl:urt'IIL'S.
f k:,~a:ilt> IJ'r<"ro.m prefect): 272
F!t:>"<.'!'- D~"o'it! HJ
ifflvint#l J41, 513. S'ifln.Jf

'Ful(d j;_ ~ .. ~u! ~ l. Enjlerm~n 132,4111. 5~'1 n. II!
S~:n-th: '\~f. M5n.4
~)fl'.! r::-avpl:-- .ni~~ r:,,.~nu:s.
<U;';>I~ .-.i om f 1. 13-14. 15-16. 130. 1.'.2. Hill,
!:~ 'JI,.;ot. ~"1. ~5 ..113, 320 . .'201; ohvh,at:
h::-ii.rt,
I!. l!!!o. >U, ,,; brlcy: !1!1!; prKC of wh<'dt and

i;.&:rk1--: ;i!.!l, :~!~'. 5J9tJ.J. c:f. ~5u.l
pubhc to:;-.--,d ,fak'S m llt< Republic JnJ .-.uly
Principt (fn<mmrariatr>): 352; undr Roman Em pin.
;.r Jt,-.m~ .uui Cumtmrmop!t- and some orh,r citin:
J~j.~~ re"':.:U(4~ c: ..cusprndt.~d owing bl d.,turh.1.nns
!io,: unr Jl'"'"' ir "rum for labour 193. llJ4
f:uuir~< !!11. 21'1-ll (with ~tl3 rm.23-JI). Jl.f:
l'<'l~nr' r!x-n ;;!>WJ mro cirit-s: 14. 119-21
J.,rl~' M 1. ~-lin. 1;
~r.,r.-..~j tsl~)ur~ b& rr,.--.Jctn Mn~: 1.14
fcrni. C;_ ~.!,;
'i'miC"-'tim1'. Chri-.:111 dUitud< tu: IH-'. I<~J.Ifj
f:r<l, w c..-..r,::570u.51.599n.l7
f<lr.-u::Jt:.lu&l' \lhhlolll rhctoridan). his .o\1! rlt,-r,rila: 167
Fe. Clic tb2 n ..>~
idund..t'''u~ ~iY ~~nd~r 'b..nc.:factions
r.mr llurdrf'. 111<. 3nd the 'Fiw Thouund' _.,
Acl1~ ;Jill lu It C.) 1912 (wirh60;.1\ nor.l9.14)
frlrh', nd '"'' f'l\'n.:":
tiJith.111': <>i M.,r\:'s study ofrht fn'llch Rtvolurion
"'' :!t~ .kwlrn>L111 of his thought: ~5; indut'llc on
~.~:;:-x . . "~,- ~~.: f;,-..ri~ w~rking-cl~s.s mcl\'c:ml'ftC:. 56

J\.1~,, n fl,u;l; pta~anrry: 511-9. 60-1
Ft-..11::-0ih'. H,~.,., I>!!!. 5'.16 n I (on IV. vi)
fran!... "f,.,...,.,.. 1~, ~~ n. 10. t.24n.l6. (>56 n.lfl
Funk.. -1-'1.'>, .i1~_ 51~-17; thL-ir Attitudt to Silvauus (in

~>): -:t<!'>: ~~~ u,.J bv Syriac bJS!onans for
G'lT1Uan
,.,,s.
l''"'"~l',r.-r
M . 3o-1<1" II. SOJ n.~.l\lilu.\1

l'r4'ill fl:niu> (<"-h. Magitcr M1lirum) -'llll
lr.,,l.:ri~ ..-... M '11' : '~-71-2 nn.f>ll-5
th~ltli"ll" l;f.'l.
2.
1-t\. 144-5. 158. 176-7. 1'12.

341, 351\. 3f.t. .~n. 4511. 5~7
(;r.-.:i<. r.nJ R<~ll disnugua.h,-d: 17-1-5, 95
"'i~ lht,.. .rf. !'ir h gl"'lCUiiou on),.. liJ, 179. 45K;
ir,!ut;1l'' 11,-s. ,..,,t~nt~ in municipal lire: 1756 (wilh
4,
l'lf>.i, ~B. 25!!.
~;-.,.,
nu.
f}!
bn!'i.:&l fr,,,iu,.n :!'J,IJ2, IB. 17f>-7. Jill. 4n

;\,,.j ,...,. uulif n...,icrrl.mi', 'ntJIIlltni>>inn'
fh.'<'".lt!1:. ltl"'fly: fl.$, 111\-17, Z/14-5. 303-4. 312.313.
_.,. _ _\!;!, J.~J. 3:!~. -~4;t 34~. -~2. _166-70. 31!4. 44.J
tf.:,lvtu ;. .. "tl~,~ ~-nd..:ot~ndtng of ntrt..-ssity' 27-H;
~t.u-.: !'.!!
.\u~r.,,:,. '"'';" 4 >ptcaal S\'nsc). I 16-17
l'~oh <,:-taa.r ,!ii4; l'lut.uch on ..ll2; Sallu\1 ou
h: t..>t . u...l2
!{,>:no-n rr~ t.;:1J f<-derat<'J Sur (<wirarr, liMa
f;r_;,o,-.i.Mqrjl. Ji3.l..l, 312. -~'-'. 322.349. J73 ere.
~:IJ.l.i\'V
And St'<' und<r 'dr~tiJtritl', 'libtrt.u'

French Rno!ulion, workinR..cJ:ass movenlct~r etc.: see
under 'France'
Fr<nd. W. H C. .1()4, 1>43 n.IS, 651 n.22
Fricdland,r. ludwig 5311 n.l (on I,Jii)
Fncr. H. W . 57H n 27
f-ri~ians 24!1, 513
hit1gna (Viigothir chid) HlJ-!10, 4!!5~

Fritz. Kurt voll" 5511 nn.IJ. 15. 61H n 2 (on Vl.ii)
frontmus, s,xtus Julius: 1'!3. 242, 3:!7
Front<>. M. Conadms: 31H, j59 n.4
'{ru<lr<s' ofan <'>tlt<. in Roman law 2.16
fryc.l{. N. 5<J4n.2
Fuks. Akxandn: 7tJ. 79, 186 (with 576 n 15). 524, 151)
n 4a. 1108 H. 611 tJ.I4. 617r~.65
tuncllon~liMn: B.Z (with
I). 1!.3
Fustd d<' Coul.tngc.: :ZJII--401. 24t> (with S~lJ-'!11 n 2!1,
;n,,
~H'J n.21i.a)
<'f.
1 ; ..,'lr>.~. F.milir
(.;~,i.r;, [i:t rill' I
c;.~itv~~o'r:":
i~ 2-~
ltY-;ol;,): 429
SJI
c..;j.:.. (llo!tt:ll"'I'<JX'f"t- 'l.aligul..') 12, 3~2. 3'12

(",.;, .. {1\an!ilf l.aw;'f). />lslillll<'' of: l3H. )b7-!l, }1!5
A.-.,1 J..~ m"'k' ~Di(a!"
Gl~tt:l' l)'i. !.5>7, ~;.'5
t>.Ji~ CRm~n ,-,:~'"t<>rJ. 1117. ~22. Jnl. 3H'l: hi 'P"cch
~Lr.
1' Kit-.;.'k,
dJ.1'1't;~tt:
IJ!io
jHt}
c:.t,'l1 t-:~{w:ri:.:..Wn.6), ~19.142, ~71 (wrrb597 .. _4)

(f,.lki.1. !li;;.ii-t~~,a~ .~.n norrh-wt~t Sp.lin): 48fl
(~\lik.. ! ..l. 4.!7-.~J; rut af. 'clirnt kingdom' inj<.. th'
dn ..._"i
(;,J)~, (lt mrt-~nr"n) !%. 3!11. 475
(~.d!u.,. (C:.t!"-"'~! 4~~'
1~ ~ ( '''ith ~\5; nn 16-17)
Garnor.,i .. ~;s.,.-::-.,~. ;"; _:.;,5
,-;..,~'}~. l.Jd .rJ. !-ft l!
G~>l>if l ~<J1n3i.')%n.2(uniV.vi)
,;~"''"''V, 1,-~cr D . .'\.: :.u. 12!1, 217.434.455-61 (wuh
gam L"l):
,.,; ; IK). """ 5-\~i. 571u.fi9 (with 1117), 574 n.C. 1>47
Jl.l
l;,.,,dtlm'' J:r.:l.
~:!~.
nn.ll(with421)
1'-'-t:l. lt:nn": ' 1.!. 'fl 1211, 144. lf3. 17f>. J70, ~74,
J,it... ~7)' .'"J ..... l.' ~ ~%. ~911. 502. 503
G.lttl,.~ ).t~ti.'ltarfe:r: ~47.
( :.,~tt~~. r. l'iaii~l': :t;.l..-.

'-""-lt~.."~ U.
250
l'J
J . ~Jt~i
{ ;.-lLiU I.''"?'''
!."'. !."-'. 4(14-5. 422
(;.-llitt., ;\..,lu: -IM-'' h~- I~

\.i<dl~qa}:;.,..,.t, ~
(i.-Jtn. M.J:thias ~; .l\'1. ~ n.Jit, 5'JI n.J7

G.-.uulm \l..tr, U~'(do:io .., Prrur.h ofl.on.raminoplt
{m:n I ~fH). -1'17
~~,u.. :i.~:
rr ....riif..l,! ~
C. ,,r...,.n. ,,,-,,r. .lm~~

dh kw.
4
'l,._... 11
~~.. J"raditl''S in thrir conqu~st of

~.,their
own tr.tJcion:
3112~
nf
'''""''i ;,,' th lncnd uf Antiochu VII:
I ..:lin\'~" b:t:"1W ~I. >I. l-'11. 2UI.t lJ:'}, 410

k'";/,;1(;,...,;:,-,;
:?,-1:. 515. 5'1fln.Z9, 4115; G.-.rri/os A>
;.u.
" (I lfl- r-.;.:lh.h'~tt: .l.'-;;~
.-m..,;,.,,,. .,;~,.,ol.,,.,:,
!~n.-.-h,<.
<.i~''t:''
t:,.
S E~ .tzr,.tilo a!i "-quivalt'flr

ofpaia11i: :at5
""rt~tim'\
iN.n<Jn nibun): 6 1H n. 5 (on Vl.ii)
K l~b.-.!~r> . ,.i~~ H .. 54}" 11 (with 271

i,1Hn 3 (on l.ii)
~<fj;( ;,t1'-.-idl.l (ll;-t!>litwpOt.t): 402.
(;,-~ r111 rhll.:'r~li): .Jlll
...... 161'~
,,-.,~lt:,
1;.-,~;.
(oni.: I ~~'j)_ tl"
(;,-rn.~.~~ ..
,l. ~th.'";'h:-w ..:t!~! ;..dnptf.d s.;m nfrht.. Emperor
Index
T1bcriu~):
713
Ciriffin, Mirim 371>, 41l\l. 419
327-X
Gcrm.>ns in antiquity: 2~!1. 249, 2110. ".127-ll, #JI!, 477.
4RI. 4114-5. 491l

 very among .:arly Gtrm~ns: 238. 249 (T.>citu):
incrcas of slavery ~mong Alam~nni. Marcom.>nnt
and Quadi: 249

tr.>dirional Anamsm of: ~H
artirud< 10 Roman Empire of tho-. who cnr~rcd
Moman .ervtce: 484-5
And S<'<' under 'Aiamann1', 'Chamavi', 'friians'.
'Goths. 'Marcomnni'. 'Ouogoths'. 'Qu4d1'.
'Usipi'. 'Vi-.gorhs'
(',.rmantown (Pennsylvania), Mmnomi<'S of: 423
~f'Tousia ofGret-k ClUe~ in the Romn ptT~od: 314-15; of
Sputa in rho: Roman ptriod: 527
Gtrrh, H. H .. and C. Wright Mill~. il6-9
J(is o'nktisis: '14-5, 2811-9
Gibhnn. Edw.>rd: H. 209, 372, 377, 4ZQ..1. 4!;3, 470,
50J, 515,6J5n.91,654n 42
Gibeonit<', ustd ;as Scriptural justification of apartltid:
332
glftcxchan,:-r. 132
Gildo (rcbd Air""'' duGJ). l":mi\ .,f. in ,\Ji~:., l}'J7):
265. 501-l
Gilham, J. F.. lf-1-.l !># Ill

Gillis. Danid tll4 'l. ,!i,
Gtrardcr. K! ..m M.: 6,1_1 " .., 1.:
gladiarors, ,.,p..rt<"G '' ctr.-.1. rrnm Rome. 411J (with
(>36-7n.~i
Ciriff1th. G. T .. b01 nn.10, 16. 60?11 35.60811.4 7

Grote, Gtorge: fi'fl n.2
Gruc'tl. E. S.: 521 (witho59.fflnn.2, 4), 524
Gsdl, Stc.'phan~: 144-5
(iiinrh,r. Rtgobl'fl: 512,515.517, 590n.29
gut-rnllas (mod~rn): 477
Guiuud,Paul:5%n1 (onlV.d)
Guizot, f.; 541! n.l

Gumm,rus, H .. 596 n 1 (oulV v1)
Gymnctcs of Argo.: 139
Hab1rht. Chrisrhn II~ ..fW.. ~ 11 'I
h~"ilator.
slv".. ,;{,; !,;..-~~: !37
Hadrian (Roman~mro"'r~. i7, ll't. 11)&, ?.Vl..!..'V, lllo.

370. J'.M)~ -tt.a, oiH.i. ;.~}1. ;,~;. "'i3.1. hi!: h"'" oo :\~u'"
olive oil. 257llt,, !-2t
H~cmimonrus (rltr~ci.ir. !""''ir.~):
!li.H
Hala.. (in Sicily): 3:?2}

Haldon. John F: ,;oM 11 :0
Haliartus. 524
H~licam~sus XI!
Halonn~u.i: 3a?
H.nds. A. R .. :H'.'11.J,_
Hnkc. Lt-wis. 1/il
Hann1bal S1'J..l1
Han"'n. Mug-.'"' tl, ...,,.,,_ ",; (w:' J(1}. : "".IIi!.!).

fi02t~.2J. (,(),:>-J ... ~~
Hardy. E. R 1~-, SIU:ort .\!l--'1
45\1
Harma11d, Lom.-: :'-(.1-.1 n.!IIJ, Wlll :>l'-1-5 u I.Z
Glaucta. C s~t\-lliob. J5.3

Gl~ucon (111l'l'\ Rrpulolr.) 147
,(!lorioJiS>ilfli: 4/J
l~armarius;
Glort, Gu,:~.: .!Kl. ;;; u ..)r_ 3'JIu I ie>u IV.il

Goddi<'r. M~ur:< 11-.:!. ~7
Gogh, ViP~"'It n .,.,. uol<f,., v n f"o(~h
Gontm.,, A W J,H, ;r: "";;.a.:;
Gongylids. I 1!1
'GOQd' .anJ JI.ad' in .,.,.j.a! "'"' :~~~J. lio.~. .U,(:
Thw~ni> "II: .!7". t<rmin,\lr~ in c;n.-1.. af~lr,
Harpocras (l'lir:~-~ l:t!~l:n.."'''...~~~r): ~1

Harringron.Jart(, .
Harris. Marvib 2~
Harris. W. V ~ .4:\. ~!'~. ;,.~''"l-'.! 1.'a ;J, u';!trn5
H.1niwn. A. R Vf".: ~~ n ~- 553 n~ ~~
Huwy. f. Da~id: 414. _i}v., 4.t)5,;.21'
Harper. G. M :;..~"" .1.<.E
.!''-'
Hasra (in Spaill): 57hn.-a.\
/w/rmoi, r~iltm. ~""'i"'i. lto~l,lr.ll(Jih>i 1'' .. ~.,:..in,t
~tzfdd . .Jrn: _;,21, ""''n.l~
ltdlloi.l'''lt-t,Jnli,c,
Hauran: 19
Haywood. R M
Roman~. }~5
;c;..,..,
:!i"'J~ ~\.551,n.hr, ~~~~rthe
.anJ S.l!lrN). 11)11 wuh J7J
.~I>. ~;.,., ~!!
(Augusn .... 'l""h'd i~ M-1'""~'~'-'!. -4~w7 ,.,,

Gordian I (Roman 'nt('l'nri 47~. !>~7u. ~I
Hazor (m
(Rom~", mpnr): .:!J(., !il7, ,_.,-; n. .!l

Gordon, M~n l . S74 "II
Gorgias ofl.,~ntiui: ~..,~ (,.irh NJ7" -II)
Gospds: It>. 4.'7- ~'
Gorhs: 258. 4i7-M. :iL~. :.;1-4, :51'1_ .o\r.ul ""'"(_""lr,D~cth"
'Vrs1goth,
Gould. Jolm .t51i >I .ff.l
Gracchi. Tlb.riuc md r_~~1us "'rnrr>auu..: ..B7.. ~1-'.
359-{,1), 31lH. J7t,, 1..?.! ...... 7-li
Gratian(Rm~ncml'..,."") 1?!1. llil,15!.JIII<
Gr.ay. Th~ R,v. C.at:tnJ"''PI.Jt,,,,_. i'J'"'l'l i~-\
Hcbr,w. Hcitl'l.,.-, 170, 427, 640 n.J; Hebrew

pmphto: 4-11,
Hcfcl<-. C. J., '"J U h..-l:t<"q: Sb} '' .!!>. L111 11 ~ \.,.,,
Gordian Ill
Grt..-.:c. P'~(rr~ .,; CM.a~~~l.anJ;.. 117-IK
Gr<'<'nidgc. C W' W !.W. 1.&7

Grl"gory I '!ho r;,,....r'. l'~ Sr i:}~. :t.>l-~ (wirh ...!
nn.4744). .!.>W .J!J. -1-'7. tit.!. -1!'>-<.. ~\IS. 31~. lti>
;ildnuni.rr .rio>!> ..,f 11:.: patrimc><[..,.,l\;.. in (e.l-;. s... -a\'.
G"ul ~~ . '!1.~ .!54-5. 495(. 31i. h1, ;.r~P'-"' rbr
convc:rh~ . kw~ ~ r~ari..tiAt'Y ~,. 'IJii.:nllfi: ,.;.ci,,,,._~~-:
ofrmrs: !;-1
Gngory <>:' N ~:~'''"'' 1!. ~.JS
Gr~gory ciNr,.. : 4.il, -lliJ
Gregory fbu111~tur.:,. ('tht' \i'<tt"I""W<:>rir.:r'), ,.j

NL.-ocat~r;;. ,., J,,,,,r-.4'\, lt~"' {;j,.J .... :,J! 1...:~:~,~ 111, J1-.t
Gregory ,,,-f,uro. "'"' ;,!'!~" .34
Gwuthunrn ;r ~-51~
Palr,rn~L ir.ra.d1.r.~ d~.i1"!:.
of p-.,n~trr :;.t .Ul
(wich bl7n.lh)
VII .iii)
Htfzibah (in Palt"ltlnc): sl.'c under ~rychopnlrs
Hcgd, G. W. F h1Sdtalcrtic '<tandin~oni"hcad': 26:
Marx'. .cudyuf 55,56
Ht-gm1on of Thaso. (5th..-. parodiot): 561r~.6
Hdt'l'l, T apio: 56() " ll
Hdiogabolu (Roman emptwr): ..,.. undt-r 'Elagabalu
Hdor. Spartan. of laconia and Mc....,nia: 4/t. 9.f, 13940. 14f>, 147, 1-18-Q. 149-50, 153-4, lW. 173. 227,2116.
568 n.J5. ~ 'State ~II;, ': 149; Laronian and
M.-,......; ., Hdots: 14'J.50 (wrh W n Ill)
cphnr nnual ddararion of wu upon: 149
verb h<il~t"""" (<-rn appli<-d to oth<t serf p~opl.-.
139. 1~'). t!il
Hdvid.uo (Christi4n wrir-r): lO'J.IO
Hdv1d1us Pnscu (Roman Sco~r): 370
tlt'phadtu.: t JJ. 140
Hcr.cl~a Minoa (in S1cily): S22-J
Hcradca Puncira (on ~udtcm hortofDl;iid; Sta): 136.
150. 156, 160. ~- 50!1 And sec undr
Mariandynui'
Ht-raddd"" Ponricu.: 115
714
lkurktdo ~(f,tm;~.~S: 163

lk.ad~~- l.37
H.-r~riil"' ;ll<.>utllhyz~ntinr mpror. tJl0-41): X
(wir~, .US t ~. ""'' ii), Jill. 37M, -llMJ-1. 484. J94 n 4,
l~o.il-3i. t..5l'lod(o.f:l51 n.J2, f>52n ..l\l
~;~ ~'t~n.-t~n ~,.f thl" jtws. and irs constquc.nn!t.
484 {wi"l: !>Sl ~ 1 .t:')
H.-r~i,u Tci,b,>o. g)7.,_ 36
Hom,ti<<"\1' (Ab,,an.~ri~n): ~.2
fi,rn.irr:~ (Udk::~ck biograph,r): 130
1:" f:Jfl:'lls (in Ck.:ro): 163
I l~m~g~ni;n:;~ (Rl)man !.wycr); ""' und<r 'ViJit'St'
Hcnnopolis (in t;,':yp:): 1%
Herod. kinf!, o>(juJ...-~. and his dynary. 119, 1M. 427:
Htr,>J Al:lJl>!, th( 'tetrarrh': 4Z7. 4.311
lfrrnurru
H,r.~J~ -\u:,,._, !24

fi,..,.-"Jnp (Gt<-:-k. hi.rmian): 323, Jl/7. .f92. 477. 512.
':''15 nA A'.J n..t
H,rud<tlb: ..!-'. 7:\, !!7 (with 293). 129-.~. 163, 271,
.?fl.\ .'15-.ui. 6M" 11
ll~rulc ~I (0
flt:<ll"<l: !4. 1~1. 1115.221, 2JJ.178

fb,Jc,, (Sir)John: ~-'-"
Hl<'r r<>li (in Syri~; .!20
h:,urt-hv, ir~ l ~<r R<ntan Empin. projt'ettd into th
d.-.ria! ~n;l ~-r>t<llli; <plur~-s: 4{178
Httr.. rvr.&nt fS,r""'"' 132
hien>d;:j,.,. (tempi~ -.Tvants}; 15J-7 (wtth 56!!-9 nn.J4-11Jj-. ,,:'rm s~rf~. nr .Jaw: !53. 154
Hittll<'tt. C.: (oilln l~
Hil~:ion (Egypri~n): I<J
I hi!, Christoph<r: 21: ~nd Edmund 0.:11:444. 63811. tJ
(...-uh 417.
I hlwrt. RvJn.-): .:!1. 159, 210.11. lbl>, 2fo9
I ltnton. WilliAm .! I.:!, "2,!14
llirr.arrhus, grnndfather ofHerod<-s Atrlua" 124
111ppri ('knight.'): 2!iiJ (wirh 599 n.2J)
Hirri..s of Elb. his allt'l!'~~ 01 ym pir victor list: f9
llii'J-""-'TAI<"- ui Chio(mathcm~tinan}: 131
hippodrom~: "'"" ur.J,r 'arcus'
Hippolytus, l'ni'<' {ur "nti-Popc): 325; on tho: t<X'S of
Damd-. image..,. 'dt'ltlocraci<-s': J25 (with 616 11.61)
Hippomru (Athenian): 1U!
hired (wagt) labo.ur: 4, 25, 29. 40, 45. 5J, 58-9, 68. 77.
II.? I.'. 117. 1.!7. 110, 145, lio. m. 179-104. 211.
;!7,1, .!HI, 41". 441, ,\;!, 6.5, 103.~. 212,278. 211;, 287
terminology: in (;!ttk, m"lllfiroo or llli/,;: 179, 182,
lwith .575 nn.S-6); .,~rai: 188; nitlloi: 200. 5711 n.l2;
iul.atm. ,.....,.,....,rii: 179, 197-9; for hin:llabour: 575
ttl. i-tt
"" ruMi.: Wrk. in Classic>.! pc:riod: 18fi-92: in

Ro.~m.&n J'l'l"l:od: 19.!-5
~hr" .m rtlt'r;:nouy s.rvice a. ~arhl~t known
lr~....c~l, hired Iat-our: 24- J, 182; his contrast
b.tw..-.'11 lur.-;1 Lr.l>..ur and slavery and St'rfdom:
(llhUr (;.r.lW)tl;l:) ;;.-,.!~Jildmg (irregular): 1!17, 192-5

Hir'i!Ulllll3. Ill
Hi;r~i.l
9;.:;
ti".{...U.:
1~';. 1~5.
31!6.
47~.
476, -t9o. 512.
ra.t., 6$1- ,_ ~z
11r.>Jtnr,; ~..r 12')

H!:iw~:!.-.11 rn~;boo: ]I<, .ll--5. S'i-1>, H12, 91--t
of~l;;n :!1-1 (<.. it!> S-5 n. 12): hismrkal nudic and
L~~4..-ti:rQcj ~,f 1\!ii; ~.
f-' 1
Dfn-rgus r-.~~1:.;~~: ~'I . ;.:

-.:( ti~u-ci-.:!.;;~its. ,,nd
~conomic
;rJ.r>r.c ~\:.1,,! ":hod 1125

"f Ml'
W.-b~rc s.>lll;
of M I. Finley:
historians
~1-4
(csp.
51Jrr.J.~)
r.or.~t<t
bt"tw-.;n lti.lorian. and soriologut: 33-5
(<";>-.l-')
t~fw~! c._f :lU~~~ b;~torian~
,croe,pb ~~.: cuo:-,;~ri<' 3~
tO
examine 1bcir
Hi:<:111:. _''!1'""~r'-t"'" of: 2/i. 260: 'on rho:- side
,':':
.. ~)
litrilin tiw !)<~rJJa): ~21>-9. 532

H,.,~Jlis. Tt:,n:-11~ :.~. l~J
lloi>;ht<Ul, l:ti< J . :;, lB. 46. 62-3. 355. 544 n.l5

ll.''l{bm urJ I.~io.-;,._,,.,;~.t":: /612. 570.1 or.5J
J-l.,t]ir:n. p:,r~i:~" 5':"-:. 29. 656-7n, 11
Ho>ll,-.-.,.,.,1\1 .;r<)
"hulr .,,_~t- ""'.: ur:d.~"'r "C.rir:sri.1nity'
H"n!.N.113, ili5(witb57ftn.l2).4!3
! l"~lnl~o.! .. l [ ~ .;~ n 1'1
:,,.,,.,,;,.,., (-tr.) .._,,J l:o""i/io"J (ric.). 4j6-62
~.mMi. J.riin,'\1. 4:>"
Ho,nr~tu (Com.--. l):'\1111<): 321
II"''"''' A. !\t !Tmtv. 5.-t'i<rrrr 26, ZfMJ,IoJJ .78
ll..t:drim. IWo:.l<"'l "'''''"'' "mpcrm): 127. 471, 5111
H'rldn. K.-itl> ;!\.! (wltl:5117 n.9), .lRO, S74 n. 12. !>117
'' .11.. ~~2 r. 6'7~. .n,lf.:d onflict
'th
~mrcrm' ~~~.: the ...-...c.rial .. rinocr..cy: JSIJ- I
itrii~ Z~J. :!Hf;. Ji!:J. ll5-ltJ. 207, 2\11-2 (wirh IJIJS-6
J>rtw,....,
u:,.;lr). !)
rolt ,,(, 111 supporting .-arly ryr..nts: 281

1,~'!'14 f"'rte/o.,_i (hoplir.-. with cavalry. hippri)
l-'<"rhr- 1, ~o 11, of all cirtzm~ in Schl41h .-.-.: 2113
l-l<>ri'\T. R J : fJI.J.! n.;!.!
Hnu"'' 12L i24, 2'id, :!41, 391, 3112n 19
1-f,>nni-<IJ., r.-....-, )\Nini~1l \ )~ncr ro: 4Q4
ho~-balt'r... anotmt: .ilr
Hon_.r (,-\lam~nk chid): 4115
HtNu<. bi.hr: .,..... und.:r '( ks111
llritafit.,., hospitium: J9 t ... 1441
'huanm naruro. in Th~~Ji.ks: 27
hktffiiiJir.~ {,:r( .;: ..,.:( IJ,.-..r.fi.,rrs'
Hurl>. U'l, 41l-~7, 4'11, !)!(.,!7
Hunt. Ruhrd II; . :::,7
Hydati~o~IL;,~r~ J...rirt hnmrlcr): 4116
Hl'prrh<oha.~ ltlt;:\n .:!S ("'ttb.290l
Hyt~~p::i: .....-under'( )r,.,)c ofHyscaspc.-s'
1U-1.\
\h>rkinj:: :as htr-.1 man (~ven in responsible

position, . t! bailiff) COII5Jden:d 'slavish': 181. 1114,
185, 198.11, hts rondirion generally dnpiSt-d: 185--6,
187-M:
br Solon: 185, and <'Xpt m <"rvtce of
,.,.,,.rt
Stato" 1117
Ansr.,dt' ollJal\'\t ofhir~ labour: 1112-5. cf 197ii: 111 Plt Jnd A.;u,tle. hin:d mm ~rt' ar bottom of
~uk :&mng .U fr<'C' m~n: IBJ-4, 188
luml laNilt generally unskall~: 1!12-J, 184, l99.2m: low pav 185-6, 186-8
1ft AthL-nl.an agn;ulrure tn Classical period~ 576
11.16
in Roman penod, evidence is mainly f'or agri-
""''.1
lanouarios (anistant sculpaor): 274-5

lasw (in Caria): 315 (w1th 602 n.21J), 508
IU}'ftt'S (Sann~tian): 468, 471J, 511
lbc:na (modem Ge-orgia): 147, 154
Iconoclast roncrov~rsy 4<Yl
'1dnl types' (Wcbt-r}: 4J, 74. 811
td~ology:
5. 6, 34. 125; of Athenian d~mocracy: 184-5;

of the Roman Pnnciparc: J7Z-408; of the vi<rims of
the cl~ss struggle-: 44152; conscious and
uncon'IClous: J4
1gnanu~. Sr .. h~ Eplltltlo P.,lyarp 42fJ
1h-nng. Rudolfvon: 617 n.4
illit-racy mmtiquity: 13 (wllh S39 n.4)
Index
illllslm;473
lllyna: 496
lllyriLum (large Balkan area) 187, 188, 250, Sot, 572
n.6f>
immigr~nr workers (modem): 57. 674!
impartiality:.,.,. under 'objectivity'
'l~pcrator' as impcn.U title: 3<J2. And >CC 'autokraltir'
tmp.nal ~ulr: )94-8
1mp.rialism: 44,442-4,6, 53.417, 463; protest~ against:
4424; modern Wcstent: 417
imports into Gra('ro-Roman world: 232. annual dnin
of cash to India, China .and Arabia (Pliny the Elder):
ZJ2
ttuolae: sa. ~m,ttr 'r~tir.:.'1ah;r
on Prolerw.U: !c1o'<n:h~ ~4-J n i I

his xegt:;i!. of th<' !I.J~ t:f D;mid inferior 10
Porphyry',._ .f/.i. :.41 n. J
Jerusalem: 1'1.' .'!.~.
-l>W. d 1 n l.i. 6-1'0 ~s. ro~
nA2; buildin~ c.fS.'('ll<l T ~ml'le ;c I'll
.
Jc.-su Christ~~. 1~. ~t..._,. HOi I. ;1,.t, Jklt, Jl.}.~. J.~~~
42?-H. 537
rht: country!lii;!..: .1;. ti'... !oc-~" ~( bCo; ptt'~dun.,;. tno
~vdmcc oflilJL C"A.'! '!.--:t-::"111g ~ ff'..-1 ptJJ11); .l;J?l ~
Cc:"ntrl f'C',tu.f\"" of ;ru. ;~r-=-c&<f..mr;: .i l1UJ~:
"Kingdom ;!! Gct.ii!Jc... .tr.:, b.h .,,:hl~t r..,:r.;Jciti::~ .t.~
N.lzarl'lb: 4;,\1
'li'.
bti Parlt!..,.: ~\.""r. Ul"!,izr 'l"'r .tbl('S .:~!_,t~~u,;'
India: 89, 'I!'-:. N7-li; l\bt1o. un Brim'! mid:!! ;n.I<

mdividuak. ~i" m:J;,~.1\l~l' 4i, .IW
in~nta ofL,,I population iu M<;fl!~:l '"!!IJi:.-. i1~ i~aof
'Nrbar;,.., incur<tons: .21..< ("kh S'l.'i, :. f,). -1~;\ tT
(wiihl>.'l.\..!in 42),5!Z.l.c:.inllation oi ~rJHtb <:> 4"!
inhcricanc ..'. Jn.:r.. ~i~u~ (o: n~s} .a.:"'h.iv'i!t,p ~;r:t;t h<-~r278

lniun. l>i-hr .:fT,~otu: 4'1{
i"tp4ilini: :!.U..7 (tlu:- ~(".' ~J" _.,..._), !~.'
lnsntut Fcrn~t,;,l (.:..,uri-\' 319
irtstnlmmtwun i.~f 1 tun.. }J(.,. ~ i. 2-at.. !St:~ Rim
inllnllrua..~ o~nJ 1 it:str:4U:~ 157....; fwuh ,fl&';' tJ .52}
lotap.a (in C.li,ia!: ~31
Iran (mod~m) t.X'" I
lrena<'Us, St.: .l,J!,
Ireton. H.-::1"}: 441
Isaac rdl~ r..~ .. '" J,.,.;,r.d; to J.ac;ob (in LXX
is);
em...
423
lsac:u: 1115
isigond: ....-, und~r J,m~>;:u.:r'

lsrdore (AJ.--.c~ndn~n~ -14]
lsidorus, c c~~'l.-diu~ lrkh fn..-dut~li) 1'17 (wirb ;;7-5
n.lS)
lsocrar....- /ill, 1~~- .-><n.Jt with tiflh .fJ;, 1:'19, _!1}1!, )IJI
(wrrh 'If~ n 1]. fJtll! " IJt. ]4, 11!', 1::!4. 1N. 1111.
1115. Ill{!, 1'11 . .2116, l'lo. 413. !i"l"l n.'i3
isortomill,
mrdT 'dcmu.'t~()"'; ..,;ld 1,15 n.56
isotis.; 285 '~tb titlin 9;. _liJE;~ .ill. {,1~ 11-~l
lsnd, lsr~dirrs. ~numt: l.fll !"Allh ~17-IK ntJ.Y-12),
}51. /.nd "'": ~ndc:r_ J~ru...Jnn'. Jcu C:hri~r.
jc."WS .Jttda.;a p.aJ,,Uil( 1~.
''""''ill"'- . .-.
lssachar;4.l7
Italian M ..nisr work on ;mciem history. 543 n.7, 643
n.11<'11.
lt.alka (in Sp.uro~ .1'1\;
Italy. Ront.Ul- 6. Iii. 52. ~.,-r
l~l. t~~ ;t.. ; . .!f]li';. ::1~ !.;~~~.

,!,1~ .!.~4 1, .!41 .:'4~. !..'i4 .:'51<.
230, 231 . .!.U .:?..\4,

263, 2fo4. ~. ~14. ''" .J51, .\51\, 31: 1-~ .17Co. "'
480-1. 5112-.1. 51 1.1-~l
ti<S ci11ilf, J:(,,m..n _I}Jt._f(J, ~~.
And !oct' undc:r
'.Jurisdtcttnu. 'l.tw. la"A'I. lawyer.". '/,cilt!lr1'
Ills gmtiMm ~nd Ill.> wt.. r.zl,:
715
42!
jacob (lsrac:litc: J>atnarch): 437

Jacobite Church (Syrian. Monophysirr): 483-4
James, Epistle of: 188, 204, 580 n.52
Jamrson. Mrchael H.: 5QS
Jeffrey. L. H.: 534
Jericho, lsrarlirc dairn of massacre at; JJ2 (with 617-18
n./0)
Jerome, St.: 109-10. J25, 4j(J, 434, 480,495, S40 n.ll,
557 n.27, 595 n.6, 641 n.4
.aversion ro SClt of: 109-10 (with 557 n.27- which
shows Mar:~t knew his Ep 22)
hi~ mir~c:r.,. ''"'

th: f,.t-.;;. .~t.t~rJ.:~ ,,fhri.tg :1 p~s:JS.t~tt.
kad\'1"': 43(; '''itif~J a.! I
minimal i;L~lt.i,~~ ~itt. ( ,:'\-..:.... ii~J Grrck qJitur~
4JOl (wnl; .;oH,I 11. iJ)
anituck rn w.-.l!h: 411.: u,,. "11,.,, h",:lllfl) :-:nil'
4JI; tbe "B~n-~Jr>', Jitf~"''""" 1>.-n~"TI '5<-llou
on the Mount''"' M!.J nod' ,,n thd'i=' iitt U.,) 4.i2
problem' ...-ch.,.;,.tiv ''nt:an 4.".1
Jcws.judaisn:: l(t..\..9. :--~~. !~. ~~5.Jtl5._i3t~. -ti"~ ..
423, 442. 4'i;. 4Jf4 !with!~'-' ....\'1;. 5C'Il\. 5.'-, .:,.,;.,!
.. 5, 652-h ~-J
~x~cutcd ftt
rcvolh uf.
-'.ll.. U~t l(,!Ut".
1'1::! .. !~. J-11. h.J~-;! s&. 5
Jowi~h m!tUdr r" ,.. ...,n.,.. ,,.~ mil rn~rru~r

(compared witn C!.ri>ti.an): J(!Y;; u,lt!.:JI'<rs.< b"
conract with ttt,:t'lllil:U~rin.,: "-'' "',..11... l!Pi-~
anempr
In' 1,.,,.
(.~IT'",;vry l::O ,-ou~-:n hv.;~ ..h
rcnarns to Chri1:i~ruty . ..!54

p<rsecuuon ofJ~ws "~ C!niIM..: ~ twit!51-.\
n.39);JCW!o forbiddn t" '"''n C.hti"t:n sl,...; :..~;;
suppon gi\'cn by Jws t .'\r..1l"'''' "!tb .: .. 4.1
ferocity attributed by Jews l' Yahweh !_!;-.!
And st't' Utodlr 'lsradilcs', J.-r.a....ltilt', 'W.m<n',
Yahweh'
J-zebd, queen (>f(n.,,~: 1:,1

John VIII (Byzanune emperor. 15th,.); 497
John th Alm5giver (Almoner), St., bihop of
Alcxandri;o: t%. 411A
John Chry505t<>tlt. Sr. : <oa m<dt.-r 'Citr ys."l'!'t.n"
Jolm of Epheus CM<><inj'i>yom ~co:ktimi<:al htIDnlU)
393-4,517
John LydusJvhn rh.-1.\'dl~":l. Late G""k writc.T): 378,
406. 445, ~. ~). -''11

John of Nikau (Monophysite b"t:mc. 111 Gr~k and
Copaic); 4liJ (with 651 n.J2)
Johne. K. P.: ~"'" 1-'
Jolowicz. H.
lf.lrt)' N ..t~<>l' :~:S, J?S. -12:!. o:;~;
nn.S'J, 61, S7.~ u.1.6
Jones, A. H M .: .~. Y, H. W IIIII. l.llo, .'11. ;:.'2 IIO'tth.
.,,J
51134 mJ .IJ/o). J4"~-Ji
!wrh !YI n.J'I'J, ..!51,
l!~'-1,
254,257, ;:~.1, ,lM.i, .102--1. .1211, ~.fll, f.f6.7, .f1LL4t;

.ff., JB9, 3~.1.4. US-6. #~9. lbfo. 4&!1 71, 4111. 410.
49/J (with !Ht> w Ill. 411<> . .fi5. !.'2 ' .u~. ~-'~d.
580,..1. 611.111..!. M7 1.
.:?S, .an,lp.r"""
Jonc:s, C. P. .II>~. :i~. 5".!'1. &I I mr 17, ~'t!, b-4'1,1.1
Jones, Phibp J.: :~. 56:.'., /ft. ~'-', JJ
Jonk.crs, E. J.: ~
,;_n,.
Jordan,Z.
A.:~rd
Jordan valle~: !'I

Jordanes (Latc-l-o~bn'll~r'-'noll!l ~~7. ~13. 51~. r,1,.,
Josep~us: l~. :.-.... 1'11. .>..'>2. IC. ,\77, 5;,\.1; on
popubaion ,,f NQmm f~rc- !>10 n 11: (lh rhc:
bllilding oi rh.- S.:<<>nd ]'.,n,rlc< .at}'N~m. 1'1:!
Joshua (nadmurul bracht<' le~"r), .&llqt.-.1 rna'"''""
by: JJ2 (With 6~'1'-IH r:. 111)
'Joshua rhc litvhtc<': .',/(), :!M. 27:!. 4'1~. !}..li', :if,], n.24
716
Judaca: 119,186,192.215,427-JJ. And5ccundcrjesus

Christ', 'Jews'. 'Palestine'
Judaism: sec: under 'Jews'
Julia Soaemias: ~under 'Soaemias'
Julian (Roman emperor): II. 127. 128.
219-ZO.
J20-l. 365, 3'79, 387, 3~1. 434,448.451, 41!1, 488.
tn.
490,493,494,498
Julian, bishop of Cingulum: 238
Julianus, Salvius (Roman lawyer):""' under 'DiJest'
Julius Caesar, C.: see undtr 'Caesar'
Jupiccr: 322, 397; Capitolint: 322
jurisdiction, courts oilaw.judgs Cit.: 96-7. 286-B,2B9.
290, ~1. 306,315-17, 366-7.487-8. 525. 1t.. 311.
321.338-9, 364, 523. 526-7, 535
control of courts gtv."s Jimos conrrol of onsnturion (Aristotle): Z90; md prorccnon: 286-90
transfer of cases 10 coun ofprovinaal governor or
emptror: 316-17, 535. etc.
And sec undo:-r 'law, laws, lawy,rs', 'pay,
political'. 'property qualificanons'
Justin I (Roman emperor): 3811, 494
Justin 11: 399-400, 319,393,494
Justin (Latin histonan): 291.196-7
Justinian! (Romancmptror):8,11.12, 138. 147-8.1~9.
166. 169, 173, 124. 233. 252-J, 261. 263, 264. 319,
321, J91. J99, 402, 404, 409, 480-J, 492, 494. 4%.
501. 503, 516-17, 559 n.16; has IIISIIIIIIt.< (A.D. 533):
138, 328-9; his 'Pragmatic Sanction' (A.D. 554): 482-3
Justin Martyr, St.: 433
Just War' and bellum iustum. doctnncs of' 439-40
Juwnal: 141, 371,382. 460
Kallikyriot/Killikyrioi ofSyra.:u"": scc under 'KUiyrioi'
'Kallipygoi' of Syracuse: 18
kalos kap:arhos: 121, 297
K~nt. lmmanud: 203
Kapiron, sculptor at P<rinthu~: 274-5
Kaser, Max: 253-4. 57.Jn.75 &n.2, 617n.J
ltG/oilwi, ltt~loiltMlltttJ: 157-H, 564 n. 13a. And sec
m~tia'. 'paroikoi'
katonakophorm: sec under 'lwryt~;ph~m~i'
Kelly.J. M.: 626n.41
Kelly,]. N.D.: 55111.11
ltrplr41i (Pauline mt'tlphor, appli'<i ro husband/wifr
relationship): 105-6
Kio:-chk, Franz: 54611.14. S47 nn.l6, Ill
Killyrioi/Kyllyriot of Syracuse:: 139, 305
'Kingdom ofGod/Heaven', tht cmtr~ fcarureofJ<-sus'
preaching: 4.JI (wuh 64011.8)
'King's friends': 119 (with 5511-9 nn. 9-lfl). 151.-7. And
see Aristodicid<-s'
'King's land': 151 ~tc
ltlarott~i ( ofCret): 139. 150
'knights': SC<' under 'hipptii (Greek) and 'rquit.-s'
(Roman)
Kolakowski, L.: xi
Kolonos Agoratos (at Athens): 186
korynrphoroi/llat6tllllwph"'oi of Sicyon: 139
Kosack, Godula: stt under 'Castl<-s. Stcph<n'
Kotrtgun (a Hunnk prople): 249, 517
Knissig. Ht'lnz; 151, 155-6, 158. 541n.7, .f68ti.J4. 569
1111.38,44
'Krcuznach~:r E>;zrrpt~
(by M;ux): 5.f

Kroebcr. A. L.: 98
Kubler, llcmltard: 240. 586-7 n. I
Kugdmann, L.: Marx'slettc:rro: 68
Kula, W1told: 269, 278. 59811.7
Labco, M. Antomus(Romanl~wyer): S<'\'undtr'DJ~,.
~ .. t.d~lr V.(~'iU.'l..
r~rr,1d/tnvolunu.ry labour labour

""1!:1: .1-1,;. ~. 'i~. I:~. 135, 206-7. 213. 22!1. 287.446
i.>ittnr tt!:r3. ~t!! (Wilh582 nn. \6-19. esp. 18). 5.3.
11:!. i~l. l!f.\.1,]15-llt
J_"tct;~,~titl': U,!..
5t.?. 31~
l.arlra, C.. ,a, <peakcrin Ck. Dt Rep .. 71. 331

l.:m: HJ. ::!.'/, 513, 515, !'o~~J n.29
S"<i., id.-nr.riolhm of Marcu.-s 1nquilinr (Dig.
XXX l !:!.;-) "'-:;!!> bn:: 244-7, with 5B9n 26a
tt !"".1f f.J~:i,;;;.--. 2~.. .51 i
I. ~1,1-tt:n ..>\nn K !I : fi).J
Comur. ,....,.r l!1i . .It I ("'irll609-/0ot.2)
(f:..-.-Jrn~!! or !~v.-J: 563 n.9
lr..lp.n o~:- ..aa.ln.ln)- 4-12
I lnlf-<o.a:U: ~.It
La"l.at\... tiJt~:u;~. ~~.~1
l11dau. H 51:'i. n ..W
hmr'
!.n.J.M>"r~:
ll~""'rta:r<.: nf l~n'! as a prinCipal means or
Frodu;uon 111 ntiq~:.ily. -10, 112, cf. 120-33

wa~' i bc.iuir,~ surplus from land: .SJ
trrd:uld;._- S. ~!1--9. 136. ISS, 213, 214-15, 250:
'""'hold own.-r.bar f land in Grn'k orin at tirn
.:t!J.ti.:-:.r~r.t ~n :.tnz"''' ~<'under lcirizenshtp'
lc;o...-r,,,JJ,.,.. rr::~b. :.-......... 5, 44. 172. 212-18.
~4-1>. l.)t!, 13'~.!. JY.t; IYI"" of 213-14; 'had
1.-..c.-... (lott.IJm,,..,, wh< often u~lcr to col<n1i): 250,
2.'1..'\.'l
powerful landlor.l mtght give protection (not
oth<rwisc available) Ctl tenant: 215.216
rnu :!1.f.19: Mn on: 219 (with 582-J tr.2 I);
;mvrr~ ~;o; ..,r1.:<> ,.t t11t: 225-6; l01bour rents: 218
(with :;,lt2 nu lf.. 1'1. , ...., 111), 53. 113. 151. J(a,_ I.
~H: am- vi mol trrli.,..~): 239-40, 247, 257:
unple>sant '""'"'IU'n<'C!' oJf default 240-1
slaves oft..: mvolwd wht'n land lrasc.-d to tcnanto:
~J-..<~
l...a.,in): likd~ ~'' ~'ldd malkr urplus rhan direct

o1lti\tivlt v. irb
53. 113. Ill\, 256 ff; bur
l...,,ing invl\lv.-.:1 J.,, twublc 10 landowner than
dir,-ct rulriuri<n 241. b8; and wiws mighr dislikr
villmtt Ct>unny ~'"''"' !41
J..t" lkam
form of -.rfdom): .l4'lfl..
,,/,....,,., frum miJ-&Ih r.: 251-2; carhc.-t usc. nf
.,fo~~~W't\)r iKe t'll.ant: 5. 213, 215-11\. 217
,Jl"~ ''\uui ,,,),onu:!J7-8. 44-5, 137. 210. 211.
$!...-,.,,
,,,,.,.,,:"(;a
:>."'. }4.\
allo Lno R,pubh&, rich landowner> ntat<"S
rrhl>l~ nwr, nJ '""'''>C.lll<'l'ro' 241
th 'pleasure' ;.t'(..m:.it~g: 1212

forming a. a ..rcii<lum pus': 122
Jitribunvn ~~~I r.-.bmibution of land ~i
,...,.w.,....,,i' l'ol .. l. ~. ~'t!li. 298-9 (wtth61'114.9n.55).
1.~5. 3"2- 3~7-11
[ au.hman. c;urut.~r ~~ n. 7
languages ocht:r th.m Corwlo. nd Larin (t'.g. Aramaic
Armenian. l!t~~rrw ..'Cuptic. lycauman. Syriac).
I<.!. 1.\, l~>(v.irh .M/1" If). 17, 197. 2211, 31XI. 3414.446.
5.17. H..,~ .li
n~ti\'clny,ua!:t..., usually pnuilcd in rhiJra: Ill, 13.
1to.IIKI
l;atoit~l.l iR,,,,,.r. o~tl:i~r .,ffrankih dn"llt): 4/lj
l.lo~Jj~,. :\t:l;a.iJ ~"'~"'l""'"'!. ,;air ofland to, by King
1\nt:~!,u II H.' :w1rh S(ll> N.26, S69 ro.44)
!,..... ~,i~. 1J;, '5t.l
;,..... l<lit.! t~l-i r..irh ;;,oh-Jl nn. 26-33). 157-8, 54fl
1. 0 . >r...t n I >.a~ ":.;. ,!jit,i /,.,,;; 151 (cf. lwlikoi flt'Or~<Ji:
lD."'IIb....,._l',,.J,?)
,,,"'~'" :"''" ,.,,...,;,._.r,-:.,,,lr.,a (SB V. W'OH): 152.!
Index
Laos (modem Stall"): 4!1
La Penna, A.: M3n.ll
Lard us Mando: ,,.,.under 'Mac,-do'
Larmum (in Iraly), Martiab of 570 n.4!1
laris. (in Thtssaly): 174
hnen,J. A. 0.: 570n.50, 576n.lll, 6!4t~.47
Las Casas. Bntolomc de: 4111
hscurani (ac Hasla in Spain) 570 n.4!1
lassalk. f.: .!4, 47

lassus.J: 593 n.SO
Lasr. Hugh M.: J09, 357
l<~tifundra: 142 (with 5!!9 n.23)
Lann America: 2l4
Lann Panegyrics: 245. 241!. 5!2, 513, 515
latcrmorc. ow.,n; 5% n.4
Lautfc:r, Siegfried: 5311 o.3 (on l.iii), 562 n 8
Lum. B<mhard: 470
Lurium. Arhcn1an silwr min,s at: 2'!4. 562u 8
law, laws. lawyers: 76. 285 (with 601 n. 12), 3211-JO,
366. 334-S
in Aristotk. 'cl!htr ohgnchic or democutlc' 76
Marx o~nd Engds on history oflaw: .HII
rcspo:<1 of Greek dtmocrats for laws: 2H5 (wirh ('J()I

n.12)
Romans did not hvc 'rule of law' rn our sense:
J28'f, Roman t.wy<rs: 3~30; Rurnan law of
sucnssron and kgacits: 329-~l; Roman 'Law and
Order': J66; first publicatron oflo~w o11 Romt: 334-5
And sc.-e under 'C""slrlrdro Aotl<>nir~iat~a', 'ius rirA/,...
'ius ,i!ttlliurr1 and iHs natur~lt, )urisdioion, '/r.xl/exr>
laz.arus, Parable of: Ill~ II
Lccha<'Urn (port of Corinrh): 132
Legan, R. P.: 296 (wuh6l.lllra.49)
Lribe~~ensdut/t: ,..., und<'t 'Hori)tltrit'
kiure (uholl): 11617, 122-J. 183-4 (with S,?S, n.7),
36-7. 79, 115. 124-S,, 22b
lrnin, V. I.: 46, 50.359
lmo (procurer, broth~l-lr.pcr): 272-3
L.,ntulus, Cossus Comrhus (proconsul of Africa): .191
L<'lltulus Sura. P. Comdius: .l72
Leo I (Easrem Roman cmpt"ror): 143. 272, foS7 n.l9
L{'() l'rhc Gn:at', Pope Sr.: 421-2; on 's:TVik \'llL'Il'"''
pollutmg th< Christian pric&~hood: 422
Lt'O XIII. Pope, hi Encydic.al. Rm"'' Mvancm (1931)!
440
loocrarcs (Arhmian) 132

Leonriadas (Thtb.an): 2%
Lc:pch Magna (in Africa): 370, 3'1 I
l<:ucas: 132
h-ucna. banlc: of (37 I D C.): 103
L,vdl,rs, English: ZOJ, 441
lvick, Uarb.ar.a; 51!ol-lY. 533.559 n. tJ

l<'vr-SrrJus., Claude: 22. 32. 36, 542 n.5
L<'vy. Em5t: 253-4
Levy. l5idorc: 5111, 5J2-J
Lewis, Naphuli: 65!! n.40
Lo:wi5, Naphtah. and Meyer R~mhold: 17-l. 216
lcx!l~i"" l~ts Arl1<utF~Iia (2nd c. U C.) J44(wirhM<J
n.l!l); lu Hortensia (287 B.C.): 333; lox dr iml""'io

V~pa;iam: ~<'t' under vcsp.aSJan'; lrxJulia (of C.csar.
59 IJ.C.): 34(,; lu Jrdia (of Augustus): 456. 45H; /c"
Ponrlia (326 DC.): 16S-6, 572 n.65; lr:o; Po>trptld (6]/
59 B.C.) 529-30: h Rupilia (131 B.C.): 522-3: 1~11"'
ta/tellande (B9 tf. IJ C.): 624>1 Z6
lrx aHimata: ...,.under 'm>mo> ""'P>Yclto,
Libanius: tll.l. 15-16, 114. 132, /4.! & 14.;, 220. 224,
272. 321 J(,S, 39(1, 472, 47J, 488.494.514,541 n 16
libenus. Popc;: .J51
Liber Pcmt!li<ali>: 49S-6 (wirh 657 nn.2#1. 211)
717
/ihmos: j6610 (with f>26 nn.4!!, 51 & tsp 52); J 'th~

rul~ of a class' (Symc): J6R; drffer~nt kinds of 368
And set under ~kurhtria'. 'frtcdom'
liberty;'<'<' under 'ekurheri3. 'freedom', 'hbtrta;
/u..,.lio: J66 . .3611 (with 61111 16). 369
Lirhthtim. Gc'Orgc. 20
'Ltcinio-Scxrian rogations. tribunes Licinius and
s.,xrius: JJ6. 7
Lretnus (Augusru protur~tor in Gaul): 176 (with 574 n.7)
Lrd>cnam. W. 5HI, 533
Lrcbeschuttz, W.IJ H. W. G. 15, 1.'2. 1%, 365. Stl4
n.39, 592 n. m. (,14 n.44
li~blr.nechr. Wlht'lrn. Marx's ktrtr ro 47
liguria, Lagurians: 187-11. 221. 509
lrlyba~um: flee und<"r 'Agoni
Lrmiganrt"S: S14
limitartd: .S 18
Linguct, S. N. H.:548n I
Lintott. A. W.: 337 (with t.IH n 5, on Vl.ri)
Lipscr. S.M.: 31, 550n.J2
literacy in anliqulty: sec under 'ilbteu.y'
Lrtrlctot. A C. (ed.): 114
lnurgits (1.-itc>llr.~iai, pubbc SL'rvict-s); 311:H>, 467 74;
.. sinulatron of magiStracit'S to: 305-6; rmposition of.
on god or ht'l'o; 306; burd<'ll> imposed on mrialn:
467-74
Li Villagt Gulch: 211.114
livius Drusus. M. f>l') n. 17
Livy (T. lrvius): 167. JOJ, 304, 301, 335, .116 7, 342,
343.363, 50'.1, 519-ZI. SZ4-J.~72>t.6~
Loanc. HcknJ .. S78 n ..211
lo><tllio <>nduttio. IMal''. <o>ttllf<tor:
/<l(atio toou/u(lio rci: 19K-'I, 2JR, ~."1-IU, 250. 254-5
(with 592 n.49), 330
l<r<alio t<mdu<lio >Ni: 1')11
lc>tati" <<J>tdu<ti oprri.<lopmmcm 189, 198-9 (with
t;79nu.J'l-IO), 203
Lock". John: 2ti6
Locri !>20
1 ocris, East. 139
locusiS: 220
Lombard 4113. 5lf>

long Huw villag<'. 212, H4
longmus (or l's.-Longinu). o,, tltr Swblim<" j2.l-5
(with t>l5-lh nn. 57a..(rt))
Lotze, Dcd~f. I.Jt., IJR-9. 14!1. 14'J. Sf>2 n 3, 565 n 21J,
5711n.jl
Luc.ania (district ofRoman Italy): !fi<J, 254. 2(.3, 4112.

Lucian ofSamoata: 24, 197. 196. 527
lucif<'t. bishop ofCat.ri-: ~I~
ludlius ('t<tlo 11/rt'rarn'): 266
'Lucius', ..duor of Muwmusltufu.: llll
Lu~r,riu.: 4lH
lucullu. L Llciniu.: 27U. -l HI, SUI!
Lugdunum (lyons): 1211 (with S!',l n.I'J)
luke chc Stylit<': 221
luna (in Erruria). 255
Lupicinus (Roman nfficial): 25~
Lusllamans . .36fl
51~
Lutz, Cora E.: 110

Lycaoma ~nd it> languag~: If>
lyda,lycian. Lycian Lc<gut: 322. 531
Lycurgu !Ath<"man) 132,414

Lydia :!16. 41!11
Lydus. slave ~nd vac pamrer at Athens: 17-' (wirh :;73

n.79)
Lydus,John: ...... und"r 'John Lydu

lysander and 'l V"'lldrcra' 74. 121. 1'!(1. ::!'J!. (wrth foil()
n.JZ), :W5
718
l ysias (A me ouror): 92. 295 (with W7 n .U:.). fi.J7 n.J7

l ysia, Claudius (miliwy trihum dl Jcrusaltm). 455
Lyma: 16
~Md-trcarcd
a M.:J
M=> ot' Ccm.u in Cappadona. and Ma (Enyu) of

C4'lUU':'~olii ~u l'o=-n,s: 154
M~.::dn> (mi~~"r ofConstJn< to Alrica iu.'47): 4~5
Mb~ul.l~. [o~d: $4.~ n.1
M 1n!:-..., I ~nJ ll 5011
Mc1...:rgar. n ,J.- 711-llfl

M'Culloch. l ;~. !ih
M~.-~Jo. L>r'<ilb (lf\t-dman's son and proctor) 409
M.::~.l,:a. M.,a;;J.or,ians: 5. II, 97. 151. 2foll. 2'il. 2'i2.
2'.i.>. ;!'1;, ;:_...,., ~)'1, 301. 31J9, 314, .144-5. 349..\61.
iiii ' ;.?;~;. Y->1 1: !6; rise of. from erly 3511s, with
1'!-il:!' il: "!'i~
Moi.:~.i<>::iu.. S:
t,iArian bishop <>f Coll<tanrmopk:
~~.4:\t
l\.hrbi,l'lli. N:-.oib: 122.1. J6.i. Jl/2, S'i. 5111; his

~:trl!,, ..,.,,.,; ,!,"titcd: 122-J: conn;ut htwcn his
~~~IIU! .~:i rh;n of a rich Grcck or Rornn: 12J
MacJ<mnon. W ..... 54l!n.l
McLdln. Dr:i.t .5~.fl. 347
M.afll.tulkt. Ibm.,;;: 1117. 273, 3111, 5J9 .... 5. 7, 562
rd. 57111 l'l. _(7\l.r.J.f. 6/Jrr.40. 6141.4.f
M lrl'.r~in: 1.;tJ.1 {with 37i)
MAn.&:. mscription from (ILS 7457): 187
M.i'll~s: 340; spt.ler Ill Din C.t>ms Lll: 165. JOB,
I!J.Iil;'l Jli
Mllu. !.rnriu-: ;7(withlillln.S. un VIii)
M~t:k. Dav.J i"'r7. 3112, 5111 (with 659 n.ll. 52'1. 5t>'J
u )li.~.Ju_H
Ma,:nmnu< :ltono 'usurp<"r'): .\117, 4'1(1
M. 1~m"i" "II
rh, M~.-.nd,.,. 3115
M..~tnric.at'. 4 J.J.f, 440
M4'.lll)(:"';rr""'~
M~f:.-11~>.". M :lih~ {co IV. ~10 B.C.) 342

o\1,,:cdlt.!", M, Ch\ld\ill (dictatm 327 13 C ) t> !'In. 16
M.1n~a11 (f-"l~n l():n:m <'ntpnor). 404, 4'.13. 6;7 n.l\1
~..t~rcUrtoJ)Cl!~s. t.SJ ::.~1
M~:d.!ut:~.....,.!;ill.. .!~7. wi:h 5119 n.26.1. And ~
111nkr 't '(f<rl'
Muc:o:tun:l: }.;:;,, !49, lf~l. 46H. 47f>. 512.

Mu,.,m.at'>i< "'''" oi M.1rcus Autdius: :w>. 468, 476
MII ,'\\lr.-!i:o:o (R::r:~n cmp<ror): 13. 121, 126. 12M,
17~5. ~.w..~. 21:~1. 91, 323. 37~ ..'IH9. 459. 4lJIS-'!,
iol!.--7: hh .'ol~-.!r:.:tl.-i&. JlJ
M~:r.u~ AurcliiU :.atli I. v~rus (jomt mp<:rors) 12!1.
:7~';
t.t..mu .4.:ordh"
..:'!.4. 5!7
~nd Commudus
:\t..ar~1.1,. l'':~ thtll~r~i~).

t:i.l:.~: .Js~
t.-1A::.4,k~ uf.~hrwd~. -f.75
ll.hri~mh.,lolilk::;k;ol'onricaIJ'I.
11'< ~(,.:it!: ;71 .,,5!). "'llj
~briw.;.w.. Cir..-tiJ:.&HUC" .t5~

,\lr;,.k.Mi~>u"M
M ..uthk'): ~._,~iuJ.;r 1 ..ar1~11un

1\.!&rt~n.t.l..!. n..:~~l.!n.14
M.artn~t. R,"P.J: .lt-'~!
M~:>. 1\.ul (\lti~n WJI" I' En!lls)
lif: :B-5. 55~
~i.ditl'''\~li,
M.tkt ~~
B __
~~
M..nur.n..A
?"If~.
34q
~t.o11tiJl<un iul~rhf,,"oni.a -'51
JU.j, 13'o, )(,9, 233. 2.\11, 25~. 417

R,m,.a <'omp.ul'<i; 1745: Dtony>iu uf
I bli.'lm-.<> "r' whv Romans !l~VC riti7,nship to
III.<UIIRUINl:
(;r.-.1..
JIIJ
..
t:r..-,~J ).l\"~ro~ li~
:\rilltl, t-
-.:r\'>,,0.
~~ ';
"'''~<~o"il
nunusnis.son by tht city, for

174; t~p. for military M'rViCL'
in ,...,,,r.:~n.:v. lN. 4-11 (with Ml n ..,): Ol'lphir

~iJ.tf'Uitll..;;i .1, ...t~: "'~ripttons M."\" und~r J)tlphi"
,.,.,t~t 1o\ t!l \ta.,rican Old

.'\.,{ .,.,. o.~n;l,~ 'tr<cdmm
\outh. 411!. 549 n.IH
\b I';;.-tUF: ,!f, ~\\irh ;.u n.IU), 5U (with~ n.3) ..\31)

ll.t.r.ul;o:. ltrl.- ,,f 115, 2m. ~Ho ..H 1
~nd
thought:
o;cparatt' heading
hllll'~"'ti.~r,hll't.!,,w
.. thct r~i~r..-,,.~, ' ~- 5. 19-31U>II,II7, 351'>-i

'Mr ,;,.. , .ol<l 'Mar\ist~' (fl<'nuinc or not): 211. 41.
;7. i'le. '"'. 1!'5. ~W !I~'J. 541\ n.14. ~'J n.lt>
A.tni ~J.n1t'f "l:n~.rl~. f.'
Mn, Karl i"'"'~IJIII" wirh F ln!lds). writing and
1:,\l~:hc. ;!I;, .!.~. 24-.1' 16. 27. ~:lll (with 54}...1
''" i.3-1~.'. ,\;, .l'-7. (with 5-15 nn.f>-7. 10). 3!1-9. 43,
45,
Maltlru. T It ~
M~mrrluo:c.s. c~ .:;ir.J (La!< LAtin orator): 4111
nJ~tl;.;"-"'~ ~,,- UUll.:r tOI.t\t.~. ~),a\'tr)"'
\t;a,i . wioluw .,jz,is (lfDrdnu.,, 1/H, 565 n.24
M&m.J C.: ~.Un " <S20u.6, 646n.27
?\btu"' th; l't>r-,:i>t> \W<Il><kuttcr): 274
'mlrW'l '"rtll'': 244 (wuh 51!9n.25)
M;;N.J. I).: ...\11 u5. :i57 n.:!fo, .i7-' n.IJ. f,J\1 n.3
.!','i.iiiRn.H
r..t.rla. h.ILt.4h.P
'"ani~.:~. "''" .,.,,kr 'Chrimanity'. ']<'"' Jud~im .
'M,\_.... m.:.I!JJo I~Ufd,. ...PatJl. St.'. 'Wom-.-nt
Mmlul!.A .J.!>L1 '1 ..i.l
Mmil' ~ 1!1 .!.lS .\'J7. 41J6
writill!l'
;,,h,i .~i),..-:lu'.inl~ hktori2n): 616-17 n.64

MJl~ri.-11 icumm~nJr ofGcnttks): 41/5
mlr 'up.;-nurity : ..-~under 'Ad.tm and Eve'
15~.
:rn.&f~!;~'l"'' !,~,.'~- 1U
:.tAm:. C .. 3lil. :l.ii, .Hi./1, J71
M~.; iC.artb~trir>i~n writC'r on agriculturr). 235

uai:n it<>u: ..rn ~xccptson to all rul<-s: -1611
M;Uorian '"'~.,.hru Roman <mp,ror): ~n. 3113. 3!17.
473, 4111. 4""~5(0. his ~''('()lld Nnwl 499-j()(J
~t.cL~~~.
149. 150,
,\.1Ar.n''"" ..o\ricti tlt.,T.It.e:un: 450

M.orlll' rh-~~1'\;.r,. (!;~~torian pnftcr). Jl!i-l'i
,,..\,..,!lirlllti:-fomr 4i.~
Ma!achs (l >ld h ..<t.ouacnt propht); IH6
(joint emprron):
bl'uayed ro thl Huns by if'i
~.
7,
~1 .
.l"-3.',
,;.'1-~.
55-7. ;11, 5'M'o!, 63-4, 1-.t..
17-~<':, "" !!'J .,J. 1J<J, 102. 112. 112-13. 121.

ITI. I ~-...1, 155. l.f9. 160-l. 181, 111J. _'iJ6,ZOfJ.
'itt. N.
!15,
.1:1 (wit~.
'll..'-'" .'fr. J.,;9, 2!1.l. 2117. JJ(I, .H5, J47S.
nt. 5'-4-~. 'iH~o.l5 .~461.14, 547n.21 andnn.ll.
4,5411" I, S4'!i.l,..,,'i3f'n27,594,.4a.62l-2tr . .'i
M.tY. V1rgin: ll'J !I, -1-l, 41111: oJirof, as Tltr~t~k<s:

4<.1.1; church <t: ~~ lllrhcrn;~< (ConstantinopJ,l:
.-..~j ,\rnl -"'-'1:' 'M~.trriiJ,,U
M-"1"''' J.: ,;,-.. '' .t(
M~ll~l..o..ill {M~r...;llc) 131. !'>JS-(,
'Mt.:ri:.lbm'. lOJJ 'ltil<tkal Matcrialim ': Z<S
Mat.tnus (J,a.!t <l" '"''<It c.lll7): 476
matrilinc.lliry '"'"~'"'r:lu). 111:!3
.\tm!uw,J J' ro;t., !.
!\l~ur.(~'" ip.trl.:ri M1m..r. mrrth 1\liicJ) 251!
M.a.,;.~ (f..al..:m Jl,or,;~n >mp.ror). H. 517, (>52n.34
M :.~iuaiJr< (R;na<OI ''"'l"'llr) IAA. 47H, 513
MJ,iJn:~n- bashop of Coustminoplc, r.cipknt of a
!rt!l'r it>>n Epiph.1niu> af Akxandria. d<tailing St
C~~il'lrii-;. 'urr ,>ffinals: 1n (wth 574 n. IJ)
M.,in .. ,; d E~hcn {Grc~k ps~udo-philo>oph<'%)'
~;, .H'
Index
Maximus (Rorn.ut ui!ici.ol. c.r1~~1): ~
Mxwdl.J !=. iL'9:1.~
Malla, Mari::t. HJu.7, !>SI:n.r
Ma~1arino. S..mo1: ~t.'IMek. RonaM L. ;J, ;7, )~~ <>.1
M<-g~c!.'S (oi M~,.:il-.~<): 2N
Megalopolis (i.., ;\r.-.-J,.) :,; ;;
Mo:g..ra. Mc~.tri:: 13?, tK:. Iii<!, ~1!1
Me1dias (sor:-::,.J,.,, i M~m~ ,,f n~nl.tm,.J. Iii~ grr~t
tr.:asur ar ( ;,r-.;i>: Ill!
Meiggs. Rowdi: ll'i9 (.,..-itl! S?l!r:.1~J. 5!.1 ,1.1~. !'.<1:..1 n.:!;,
Mcillassoux. Cl;b:io ~r-.;, ~.I.J a J
Mda. M Amu~us: .\o~l
Mdania !he Y<"l!n,:~r. St. .~515
"MdkJ!t-s': 4>'4
Mdlor. Ron:j t>~l ll:;, 7~
M~:nlnliUs,
(MC\~~ 1.11~~ ~r'ltU!h')- j.
r:. ,.:..J.....;.
Memnon, ofHM,-J~I':;,;ri,;" (Grm !ti'""~n) -"""';

Mcuand<'r (Athim"' l'mt)~ 12.1. !63
Mt:n.lnd(."f oi :.-4&,..Ji..::"; cr.r.:-,~ ,.1dur1.-i.l.1Jt_ !a.Mliu ir:.
322-~
Mt"ndt'ls. f>tr--.m t!5~,_.,~,:,,~~ .I

s;_," 7ro
Mennonjccs ,,f (~n~~t;WJJ, 41'
Mnasu11 ofPhocis: 201
Mcnddsohn. J...., _
M~no (A!h~.,;~.,). l~'
M.-nodora of Sillyum f~
l'i~i.!.t) 17il, ;;,~;, S~. S1!

m<rnnane-.: 2+-5, llti. IS.t J.K~ (with :>~l !1 ..11). t'!i'.
211!!. 295. ;.;,.,.,. 'i'. ollill.J:, M.or'< "" N--~. IIQ
mlrchants: s.t-:- un.lt<' !l~J~r--.

Mtrob..ud,s ;M.tt:'-'''t Militt;,.;), .~11;
Merton, R. K ".'
mt.<oi, ntm of modlint-: "'"1hh: 71-4. And ~ under
'mixed t:'onstotution
Msoporam1.1 (lr~"li- ~. 1~ . .!.'!J, .14:i, 4IJ!, ;!.~~. po,.,.
7, 5!1.3. 5)(..7. kunun provmn.,f: 1~ .~!0Ms.nt'. Mo....,nin..: 93, 149. lfll. ~ !"'7. !".''And
'<'<' uud.r 'lid"" :O.rtn'
m.:r~yagc. st., ur:.~kr ,:!,tr,"rc-ppc.r-s.
Mctdlus. L. e;,.,,Jtil: ~go~nr i S:rih~, bi.; '""'"k"
to CiC'l'IO l~\; .~:.. ~ ,!";~ :t;, <:'.~nn.-iJ.~.f s,,~..~~~ .h
Gn..-k. J49
Mo!dlus Cclor. Q Co~.,nliu t o,;; II C.). ]7~t

Ulh.'u \"'iltK~'b ._1'1,!
~lli!iot.. :-rf~- .. 1 rr,.d,...,r ..
.: ..,~ ...k~'tin."'.
N.:..... l:rc:;o-.
nornic Hist, ..r~. '!otr,u-rur.li-..tu"

Ml'ycr, Eduar,t-'tl
M&.'ycr~ S. (n,ilJi'Ul-t.- k.n~ f~,,11h .\h.r_,J: t.....,
MoccJ.)us ofC!:uilm~ru: lilt
Mi<had Ill (14}':t~nlitn ,u:t":;, to.frr. t.Llil t '
b.lrbarous Scydt>Ail ~~Ill!:~~.. itt wri1in1: IC' 1'"1"'
NJ<hol.l~l:.,
Mi.th~clrhl' s,ri.a~
\\v,;:ar. J.;u"'(hit~- hi"it..:-iiln, l1irri.-.r.-J.

of Amioch: i~~ IJrh.: ) #.q (,.,itll fo.5.'., .U;, 4'14.
517. 657n ..!1
'rniddk cla>s'. II'' :c Jl:'""ltunlation of'loai "''"';': 71;
thr d,.vcl,.lmoth in Rontan Empir,. 29-JQ.
moJ..-rn rn:d'l~t,n..l !'

locr:t,lrlr uo~~~~"~ ,,f
Midian11c. r..,:~J lo l'h~n, ~-''
Midian\fC\,
Mign~t.
F.
A.,,,.,~
JJ2:
Cozbt,
M1lc:1us: 131. 1~7

'mili!ny-inJl>rri;,l c;t!ll'k" ;,, l! ~-A .. l,!JJ
mills: s&.''-' und"~ "w;tr,'tf!Jo'J, "'wiu.~~trni"
Mtii,Jam.s: ~,
Millar. Fergu~(; It If/-;?, :lt..i.. ,. !~'! . .&lll"irlo 6_;;
n.90). 537.H\111,.17,
Mill<-rt.J. F.: 1i'
~-!5r; .;~o. 6.!~ <!
Milo. T. Anniu.: 154

Molls. C. Wngbt ,,.,. undl.'r c;,rth, H H ..md Mills'
Milton,John: .'h<J
min<"S (ndquun<>): 134.169, 1Y7. 562-Jn K, 564n.15;
condtmnauon to: 1:\4, 16<J, 573 n.7!1: ftt, hired
labour 111: 197; IA\'t'S in. 134. lf.9, 562-.l n.8; lave
r,volr. in: 5()4 11. IS
miracle;: 225-6. 3%. of V,spasian, and of Jus: 3%
(wirh f>3l-2 n.65)
,\-fi<hwrh. Th<, tratatr Niddoh 109
""'thJmat": I K9
mi.<tho.< (p:tV. salary, nnttrc.) ]RIJ, 273, cf. 2H<J-'JIIand
602-.~ n.24. And ..,,. undcr 'hired (wage) labour',
'pay. p<>linral'
rni;thiltai (contractors): 1111/.9, 5711 n.2.'
mi,rlootoi (htrcd bbourc,.). ,,.,. und,r 'hir<d (w.tge)
(abnur'
Mithridotc VI Eupator. king of Pomus (and the
'Mirhridaric war.'): 345, 356, 5UH. 52.'HJ, 5.N--"l;
kttl'r of. ro ArsaC<">, i11 ~allusr: 35fl. 443
Mirto'" L : J(,6..Cj, ~JJrd. 571 n (,ll, S72 n.71

'mo:ortd .:on>l>!urnm': 74-6, 2'-JI (with 605-6 tm.29-31),
M4n.50
McnJs. pg,h. 1.:!4

Men l\'4t'nilo. ;.r Pl;.iJ,: ,._.,,;,~;, 1;4
ntc.rhodoJug}--: ~"'<
'fuuccionalbru.
719
I, f,Jh Ji'
Mm.,.imarhus. inscription of: l.'iJ (wirh 51;6 n.J I)

Mnoit (ofCr.-rc): 13<J, 1511
M6c.y, A.: 510-B
'Mod<'fat<s'. 74
Mod,osrinu (Rom.ut bwycr): St'<' un.!<r Di_~t<r'
Moci (Roman provin~c). ~111. 51l
Mu<">ia lnf.:rior/S..'CIInda (Roman pro,incc): 127 (worh
5r~lll.l~.).
501,514, ;1(,.17
MO<.'Sia Superior/Prima (Roman !"'OVir"'') 514. 517,

51~111, t3
Momigliano, A.. 341. '';!. 167-11. 6B n.40. 621 n. h
Mommscn. Thodor: :!.4, 329. .36!1, .184. J87, 41H (with
637, nA). 573 n 77 (with 17H), 651! n.-k>: his
connption ofrh" Roman l'rincipa!t': J84
monrchy nd 'tyranny'
Arisll'dl.' on monarchy (b.uilril and tyranny
(lyratrtPi>): 2M.2-J
monarchy (booiltia) II. 2112-.1. 371-MI ere., Dio
Chrysostom on boilr~a (numly of th< Romn
'll'l"'rors); )72, 628 q,J7. 614 nA9; th Roman
Prin1pat<' a basilria: 37Z ff
tyranny and tyran!s: 179-83. 196-H. 5. 71. JJ-1.
191-2; tyun~<o not 'mr~hant prin< 2M!J; 'moo;!
tvunls lotgn as dcrnago~U<'>' (Arisr ) 2112-3: why
tyranny ~ n~cc.-,;S>ry tag< in Grwk political
dvdopmcnt lilt; tyratuliltyra"'"'i ~ UllsUcccsslid
u~urpcrs of rhc Rornan lmpc.UI throne: "'"' unda
usurper
M<>nnier, H b5Hn.4.1
MollophysH<'S. Monopltvsuism: ollll, ~~- 4-111. _.HJ-4.
And"''' undor '(;optk Church', 'Ja<ohit.: Church'
Mon!L"<(Uk'U, C.: s:;
morality. Chntian, <<>he<TtJ<-d oldy wirh r.ltious
bt:tw~<TI man .lnd mn '" n1.m nJ God. 419-41
M<>rctti, l.: 535
Motintw (m C.appdocia); !54
Mom. R.,..mary. 594 u, 4
Morit~.l A 57S n.J
nwrt~lity in antiqollly, hi!(h rato'S of 2:\1. 2J2- J, 2411:
low hfc expectancy and high lltfant mnrt>hty- 132
Moschus, john. 1117. I!!!C. 651 d2
'Mu.,.s and the prophot>': 11(1.11
"''" mai<~nm (anron ' cu;rom): 37S
MO\~. Claudc: :!.'U, (~1:\ n 25. fA'fJ u.2
Morya(inSinh): 11'J
720
Mousnif'r, Roland: 69
Mouterde, R .. .and A. Poidebard: 593 n.50
Munzer, F.: 351
Mummaus, L.. 307.344.525
Mundus (6th c. military command~r): 319
munrr.s pns0114/ialp11frimorttilmixtG: 470
Murray, Oswyn: 551 n.27. 642 n 7
Mun~. battl of: 490
Musicus Scurranus (Imperial slave:): 44, 65. 14.1
Muslims: ~>rt undfT 'Arabia, Arabs'
Musonius, bishop of Mt'loc in 15.1una. 657 n . .29
Musonius Rufus (Roman equestrian, Stok plulosoph,;-r); 110(with .S.f7nn.28-9). 123. 402; hasatritudl'
ro sex. marngc. and rh ~ucation of girls: 110 (with
H7 11.29); his vaews on cxposun of children as
dcsagm:d 10 preserve a single inheriranc<': 5911 ~ 6;
influmc,;-d Dio Chrysostom: 560 n. 7
mutilation as a punashmmt: 4.l9. 419 (with 650 n.l6);
rare- bcfon: Constantine and more frequent in
Christian Empue: 479
Mylu: 531, 533
Myrina (in l yda). 174
Myrinus (ofZelc:~a an Phrygia): 132 (wuh 561 n.24)
Myro.48
Myrikru;: \19, 279. 297. 60J-4 n.26
Nabis (Spanan king): 149-50 (with 565 n.19), 307. 660
n.S(fin.)
Naboth and has vancyard: 151
N.agas.aka:48
Nahal Slim (m Palrsrine), Jewish 50'ctrian
community .at: 433
N.amicr,l.cwis: 351 (with 621 11.l11)
Npi4'S (Neapolis): 523. 632 n.66
Narbo (Narbonne): 12!1 (with 561 n.19)
Narctssus (Roman Impe-rial freedman): 176. 177
Narcissus (slavf' at Vmafrum): 174
Naristao:-: 511-12
'narnrivr history', Brunt on: J1
Nal"i('S (eunuchandgmc:ralofjnstinian): 177
'narionabsm', nataonaliry. Grc.-k and Romn: 445-6,
64Jn.14
1141Urll/jortutw = natur.. lfonune ~ pltysisltytlti: 4111
(withh38n.l)
Nature: 5<'<' under 'human nature'
Naucrati.: 17. 131
Nausicydes (Ath<'llian): 180
MVicularii: 127-8 (wirh 561 n.16). 132-3
Naxos: 185
Nuareth: 428-J I
Nazarius (Latin orator): 407
Nratra (Ps.-Drm. LIX): 100
naogotilllo,.,s: 127 (with 560 n. 12). 132. 272 (with 5W
n.7). 493
Nehemiah (Hebrew prophtr): t64. 215
Ncocacs.arra in PontU5: 477
ntoi. 315
Ntpos, Comehus: 197.235,3411, 5(6, n 22
Nc:ro (Roman emperor): 176,370,376.380. 387, 392.
443, 475; thr 'false Nc:ros': 443
N<'rva (Roman <'111pc:ror): 386. 3811
Nt'Storius, the herntuch: 177. 574n.13
'New Economic History', The: 83
Newman,]. H. (Cardinal): 424
Newman. W. L.: 160, 549n. 1. 550 n.ll
'new men' (novi homines etc.): 2':10. 364 (with 625 n.J7)
Nt'W Tntammt (g<'Tl<'ral): ~(with 580 n.52). 377.
451 (with644n.26). AndS<'<"undcrpartirularbooks.
alo "i 'Jnus Chnst', 'Puablcs ofjcsus', 'Paul. St.'
Newton, Isaac: 911

Nicara (in Birhynia): SJO; Church Council of: sn: under
'Councils of the Chrisrian Churches'
N1canor (Selrucid gener.al): 508
Ntcholas I. Pope: 9
Nichr;llas V. Pope: 424
Ntcholas, Barry: 168, 329, 617 n. l And sec under
'jolowJCz, H. F., and Nacholas'
Nicia ofEngyum (in Sicily): 520
Nicodromus. A<'glftttan: S41n.6
Nicolau. Martin: 183
Nicol<-t, Claud..: 41-2 (with 547 n.21), 340
Ntromcdes Ill, king ofBithyni.a: 165
Ntcomedia (an Bnhynia): 319
Nicopobs (in Thrcc:): 480, 653 n.42
Ni~bocr. H.J.: 562n.7
Niebuhr. B. G.: 24
Niger, Pescmmus (ronrmder for lmpc:n.althrone): 477
Nimrud Dagh (in south-eastern Turkey), in$CI'lption
of Antiochus I ofCommagcn<' at: 154
Nisibis (in Mesopotamia): 486. 654 n.42
Noah. negro as inheritor ofhi1 cune on Canaan: 424
nobility (tllgm.-ia. NobillldS), GK'<!k idea of(eugmeia): 71
(with 550 n.5), 411: 'n~tbilitiiS' tn Roman Republic:
338: in Roman Empire: 40b
Nock, Arthur Darby: Jl. 395-6, 3911, 399, 6Jl n.59
Norr, Dieter: 'i71 1111.56, 58. 512-J 11.1J
Nola; 519-20
11o11111s empsycho (ltx ani...,ta): 402 (with ~5 nn.ll8-9)
Nomus (Magister Officiorum): 146
Nori, Noncans: 480,486
Noricum (Roman provin~): 242, 4n, 486
Norman. A. F.: 16. 4112, 583 n.27. 649 n.~
North, D. C., and R. P. Thomas: IIJ-4
Nonh. Thomas, translatorofPiutarclt. 354
tlipitGifllll: 247, 491, 517
Nova Carthago (in Spain): 563 n.8
Novatians (Christian sr): 448, 450, 451
novi homines; 5 under 'n.-w mm'
Numidia (modem Algcna): 403, 449, 482, 488
Nunon, V.: 645 n.4. 648 n. Ill
N..,,,;,
objectivity and imparttality: 31

(with 614n.50), 611 n.l6. 614n.50
oclros. Assembly of -1 viUage: 222 (with 5B4 n.J5). <.i'.
535
Ocravtan: ...... undc:r Augustus/Ocravian'
Odnuthu ofPalmyra: 595 n.6
Odysc:us: 2'79, 413
Ota (in Tripoluania): 563n.Ba, 595n.6
Omoand.a: ~I. And sec und<:r 'Diogcn"" of Ot'lloanda'
Ocntl. F.: 398
OfeUu (co/onus tn Horace): 241
'offirium' (n favour}: 342
O'Hagan, Timothy: 50, 62
oiltrtai (11~till, "ilttliltrr): 152-3 (with 566 n.27), 153
(with 566 nn.29-31l
Oionias, son ofOinO("har~ (Athmian): 60511.17
Olba (m Cilicia): sec: undtr 'Zeus'
'Old Oligarch': sc:c under 'Xcnophon' (sub-headmg.
'i's.-Xmophon')
Old South:...._. under 'Amcnan Old South'
Old Trstammr: 164. 186, 398, 405. 419. 423. 431-2.
And_. under particular books. also e.g. 'l.radit<~.
'Jc:ws', 'Yahweh'
oligarchy, Grc.....: 72-J, 2/IJ, 5, 45, 7{), 72. 77, 95, 213,
227, ~. 281,1Jfl. 2118. 291, 304. ~9; hereditary
oligarchy .. dytwster.s: 283, 3lJ
dcpcndcne< of oligarchy on a propnty qualifi~~tltl~tltralia: 322
Index
cation: .!iiJ. J.;, 7?-}. "2il'l
oligar;;;h:c
ofJustlcc:
~
Spmis rol.: m upholding: 2S2\. :"'f.
Ohva. p,."~i ;:m n SO, 590n.29, t...;.s ,.,!,?
Ohver. J. ]-1 :..Ji._. 7. S.}..). t:S. n ..;:
Olmsted, r. r.: 11,' (wnl! SbJ ,~ l1), !14&r..l4
'''r'
:zs;..
OlympiodJr.~~ :.o:~l F-1--ryr'br Tt.r~~. G:~l hl.-.c,m:.&o:J)~
120 (wit!! ~OW n_l7)

Olympu~. M;;s1.;.;, M<:~!l::t
Olynthus:~
Omphak 1~7
.3t>!t. ~~~
opcrar Iii:.< !lie'. i 'lll

Ophdlas:
r J
Opp1amct.:J.: 5-:t:J r,_J!\
Opramoa>. dlti:.,..J;t'~!.. in L;ci"< ill
Optatinu Porphyrius, i'oh::li" 51.3
Opt.1.tus, St. (Afncan C!tri>rin 0\'!:r;:_t: .r.~.i. ttoJ, ~
cit<"S Pbin,,.< (~ ., b::l..w) "' illt:f<~-'lr: !C.'
HI
pCI'SCCUl\UU ~! iJ I;
r:!
oplorratts ar J(,.,n,~ .\5~-:\, ._:..;}. "''-"-1.4.
J7t~. 4lf~~ ~t:.frr-:~i
by Cicer< .U.~
'Oudc of 1-I~~U~f'''.'. 4-H (wit!: A~ 11.7)
'Orack of th~ l'ult'' +$,1
1.;~ 11 i)
i"'''"
Ath'J)t~ !>i; -.1.:

Orestc'< (cht~r,tJ!\ [uririd)-
orators ..
!)4!'
Oreu~ (iu f ol>c...--1: '" r, n i-..2

'Onfnt;ol/ A,,.\11< luo..t~ .-i production'. S und<r
'pruductun"
'Ori~'llt;oli~l:in' ofth<' Graco-Romn world: 'I (with
538n.4)
Origen: WI, .t.!..'
tJri}linaln. ri_?it~Jrir ~"' \lo~J~r .,.;.r,,rn. it..
Oros1us (l .t,l ~nr. Cloli>ll~r J.i,tun.lu;: -1-~1. -'l'-' :\II.
513, 511>. 5'1~" I,
Osi:SIO
Orhoo.on<.' iMm~ll rronn,(): >&:1. 'I(> I., ..!!
0SSIUS (H,,_iu~). bishop of C(Ohl<\~: Jll4
Ossowski. !i .. -Ito, 71. 544n.!, "--llu lfl
Ostia: 128 (with ~I 11 1~. 41""
Ostrogorsky, (".,,,.~, .!(>! (wirl, i'fk :.4:]. 4-Jo#. ;.;\11 to J
(on l.ii),/1511 4~
O~rrogotb~: -~::.1. -~~'>
!M. 4Hll-3. '>11~. 3!5-lfo
..!"''
And s~-c .m,t.r "Th"'"ir;.: , .,r.r
Ostwald. Mo~mn ""'' ,._IIJ

Orranto: I~
Ouo, W.5Mn.\;
ovt~~n. :~Jnili:~-:~ r~' ''"''~~ .-,d ''!'~ ~rrpll~t'f ..vdiCt~ dct.~r., ~t: .J l,,. J;~~.~t-;" '4:.' .:n, 'J....v~
Ovtd:4Z5
oxyrhyn,!:u~ h~lliPttn.n:' i.~. ~'~.A..;1J':"
Oxyrhynd11"' t~oJ 1!> papyn: :i. !!l.f, !JI. ~~~~- J'lo!. ;::;_
(with 51!4" 41) . f/4 (with .;._l.~i. 5o;.'
Pachomius (Egyptian abbot), Rul~ ot: 495

pagJnism, pag;ms: 9. Ill rc.; pagan a> 'Ht'llrn<.. . 9
'Pagan Mutyrs' (of Akxandria), Arb ufth 442. 441"
p.lgJrchs: 224. 51>4 n.39 tfin.); M,.,._, and Th,"Oda.iu.
of Antacopoli.: 224
Pag, Ocnys L : 131
Pagek Elilm<' H.: 555 n.l~
parda.~O.(<>>:
!99. 2m
PalallqU<', J. R.: !ii!J n.15

Palatuu Hill al Rom. (;i,ero , hou-. un- Jt,!l-9
Paksrim: 119, 152, 11>4. 170, 250, 251, 427-33, 442,
41!11, 4M3 And ,.... under 'Occapolis', 'Galilc<.
'jcru>alcm', Jew>. 'Judac.~.
Paley. F. A .. <mdJ. E. SJndys: 563 n.9
l'lladiU> (GrL-.:k Chrisun wnl<'r): 220. 25H, -18
l'lla> (Romanlmp<nal freedman): 17t.-7
721
Pallas.c, Maurice: 591 n.37

Palmyra: IZ9 (with 56 I n.l(}J, 467. 595 n.fl
Pamphylia: 595 n.6. 653-4 n.42
Panartius of Rhodes (Stoic philosopher): 122, 198
Pantgyni Latmi: sec under 'Latin Pancgynrs'
'pa"em et cirttnst>s': SC{' undt"r 'br~ad and arruscs
Pngacum, Mount (Thracr): 51>2 n.l!
Panglos>, Dr.: 1!3
Pannonra (parr of Roman Balkans). and Pannonrans:
258.266. 480. 510.14, 516
Pannoukome (or village ofPannoo): 152
l'anop>us (in Phoci>): 9-10
Pantalro, norry on Siclian estate of Roman Church,
rl'buktd for uomg Jn excessive- modius-measurc: 215
Paphlgonia !57
Papiman (Roman lawyer and practonan prcfc<'t), hts
interrogation of the rebel Uulla: 417. And sec unde-r
'Digpt'
Ppirius Carbo, Cn. 346
papyn: 166,251, andptUsi,., e.g. 539n.4, ~Jn. 13.591
n.40, 592n.44 AndS<.."C 'Oxyrhynchus andr~papyn'
Pquius Scaeva,l:'. (proconsul ofCypru) 534
Parabks of Jesus: IM, 181>, 444; of th Great Supp<:r:
437: of Lazarus: 11~11. 431-2. 436; of rh
Unmerciful Servant: 164; of the Vimyard: !Hi>. 204
l'uactonmm: 17
l'uam, (;biJrlcs: f>3
paramono' (pararrurrtin): 135. 169. 170
Panr. R: 652n.34
Pargoin. J: b52 n.35
Parke, H. W.: 601 n.l6. 607n.41
Parkin, Frank.: ~ n.32
paroiltoi: 95 (with 5J4 n.JO and 544\.1 n.15), 157-8,
178-9, 197, 564 n.l3a
Paros: 601-2 n.lH
patrhtsia: }lf4-5(with 600rr 8), JZJ (with 6/1 nY7). 161,
3611
P.rlinn<, Taklltr: 43,!12, 8!>-6
Parthmon: 193; huilding-arrount> of: sn n.22
Parthians: 2NJ.I. 348, ~. 4n. 49!. 536, 62!1n. 1.!
?Janhtcopoll (in Roman province of Maccdoni~; now
Sandansli m Bulgaria). 4-uer of Antouinus 1'1us to
(U;&(~. IV.2263): 314. 521!
l'o~~ion (Arh<nian . cx-slavc): 174, 558 11.J (on lll.ii)
Pascrim. Alfredo: btl n.ll\
Patavium (in v.,cti): 520
parrifamilias: 556 n.23 (with lUI!)
Patus: 12
parriw pof.rlll>. 108 (with 55b n 2J)
parri,.,oni!l>n Prtri: sec under 'R.:~man Church'
Patron, Egyptian pobet <up.nntmdcnr: 223
patronage and drcnrship: "'" undt'1' "rlio'llola'
patronage. rural. in Llt<r Roman Empire: 214-5, 343:
dJff,u,r ryp<'S of. u..-d as~ form of ds struggle by
peasant ft<cho!d,-... or 1<"11ants: Z24- 5; J,~ISbtion
again I, lh East but not Wc~t: 224-5
Paul, St., dO<tnnc: 104-8 (with 55!H> nn.'J-12, 14-IH,
21). J9R with 400and4JZ-J. and419-ZV. 16. %. 1119.
176 .lD, 4111, 439. 440. +17
'PauhruChritianity': IllS. 433
Paulim and 'd<"Ut~m-l'oulmc" cpisri<'S. Hl~
Paul\ in.,st<'I\C<' on his o~n inspu~rion by God
lfJ5 (with 5H6 ... 15)
'the powers that b.ar< ordain<d ofGod': .l98. 4W.
432-3. 439 . .WI, 447. 452
Coloss.lll.lhlldGal 111.2Jlcompared: 1117-8.41'1
atritud< ro -.x, vi'lltlllty, marnagc. s..cond
pa""d With Musonius Hufu.:
marrig: 1114-
110
m. '""'
722
.. tm\lek to 1l~crv 419-20

l'tul. Sr (;-;.,: 45.~41 .i5.1!. 462, 49H
Pul tb< !'t~lplr (r:arlr h~mit): 4011
l'~ulim <>fN<>t;;.,
!ir.: .~5
Pub.a. <f Pella '-"'-t. 651 n.21. 654 n.42; his

F-.ti-..m~i;;>l (A I> 4;9): 480, 654 n.42
i'41ilru$.l.. 1\,;mii~ 3~. 360
Pau1tJ\ (kam~n la""-y~r): s..~ und~r 'Di.~m. (Th~
~~,.,:;~, PG..ii, nr.~.: in this book as 'Smt. Pa11/i' or
'l'aulu,, S:!.' 1r< n:mpllanon of around A.D. ~)
Jo'~lllu.~. wr. uf Vib1ama: 406
l'~<>~.ulils: f'th~ Gl't'l:lr. Htcdck.,r'): 9-10, 3\Jl, 525, 527
l'cni~ ond l't<>:l= !n.\l,.:.,phann: 431

Pcnt'"~l"~'.-d!nm<11: .T iODdet" 'Solon'
l1cr.tlr.-lid ,,fMYlik!w. Z.19

'pmuria cololt..,;.., .217 :10.1111 582 n.15), 257
P.rccnnms ~~olc:r ..i mUCitl}): 266, 443
l:'w:~,.d.J<oh!l.; .::~
'l'>&:o: Augusta': 2.."!'i, 33"'
ptrft<tissimr: Jt[li 4;9

Pergamum (Pergamon)': ll'.i, 151, 158. 178, 219, 242,
345, 529-30, 531
a .. mp:t<:r: nf iS~ B.C improving eivoc status of
.,....o:..o~ nr<:;.-ton,.: :.$!!.. t7i-9
(~-.k, oJll rnambr. <>f t'itizen,, with wives and
!J.&V(''\7J.f:
;>..rid.. l..!:!, 4:.;
FolY. po!iticai]~Y (will: ~2 11.13) . .l89-90and J15 (with

lif2 n.2B); not ITr.!in<:J to Atb<-ns: 18990 (with 601-J
p,'fioiitoi: l!oli,
,rr.
.. 24)
;-.o:.
r~:"
c>f t'ptrn-rt<ll' and 'tmc:-rac-.'): 1!19. 199,
.M
1'.-4'" !mj:u~~~n:
SL"<
:mdrr 'Pax August'
Ptar<>: C::ornm:'""t' (Rh,d.sia. 1972): 212

l'rs~. II W . J7 (:..u!-1545 n.lll
p~-as~ntry. LS, 9-19. .JJ, l.OB-16. 261-6 (.-sp.
1,;.rr . .JO(), 49M. 44 .a;. s2. 54. ~9. 98. 11~15. 133.
lJ:\. 2115, ~)7-il. !.'.\, ~~2. 243. ~I. 349, 357. 372,
.;~ .. -11.:~. -4h?->!, J<il, 497-503: 'ptasant society'.
1"-'ilS,I'IIS,
'J.'OI!".&QIII o{C(oJI(o!U~~ ~~<)
,!_,t-~ .!;3
~:,
.,,.. 11111kt
'm~oho>rL'SIS',
'Bacauda,. 'villag<'S'
J,tirl. I '"4u.!:
(:.,,,,m;(~. 2~ (ro~.>tto>li<': Marx), 44. 254
Ptdaniu' Sl-I'Ut:Ju>. (>.o:rurion of all hi5 41) urban
$l.ow" (in A lJ. r.l): .17~. 40'1
).,,!:,;, (>fl"'iot:.). !.'Ito :with 569 n.42l
1~:,.,1< lklll411l4WYr); <t'e und<r 'Di~,r"
l1tlr.a..-u": !.:!
f,i,.mJ,r; Atll<':riAtr;: !~'illon.29-.30
p,j~,_:n:<b. l\'r~IU uf ... rtMls: I'll I, 271, 2!12. 21!3. 35.1
1 1.-l~~iu I, PoP.,.. 2311. ~~.;
Pd.-1l:~. hcrc:siarch l.&lld 1'-.:iagian wntings): 4J(). 7
pdatrs (d.;o:llJ.;.,r. di.'lot). 11!5
Pdham. H- f .. ~''!"-'
p.-.ulillm
ild:arc-,rJiti.'i.aa "'.~r.
n .l=
SUllid prriod: 1211. 251. 260-1, 319, 341!. 400,

.&i"i. 4S3-4(wirh 652 n.33), 4116-7.490,512,517,
;;,;;, ,; n !.o; def,..-ton/J.~n~rs to Sassanid Persi~:
UK, 4111>- ~; p,.,..;,.n~ ;., Sn,anid period n<"Vcr cali....I
'bub~uto~
\1tr" oon Ill t.~rh 11- ): 60-l; and (citing Bacon)

f'J4 11 4.J. F:nttds \>t>: .!:t; Gibbon on: 209; Hinton on:
::I.J
,,(,.&li>tiull 'i (&rming: 9. 122, 21l'l
'tlo~l.&llol~nd-J><;.&.u;t Ystcm' (Hick- <"tc.)~ 11.1-4
r<lll> r~c.-o\'tllj[ huk 1>4.'1'1<-fit from rity ,omaruutrkA: ~: .:'
inscriptions '"'"'i"ll: plittht of pcasan~ under
Roman Empiro:: .!l.flt'o
m1pmun;: .,f;,,.allabour 5ituation: 217
J"~ur.. .l(tmg hin-d labounrs: 1!16, 217
rr..hlo:o t>f rd.nivc llurdL'tl~ of rt'tlt, compuloorr
!il": de~ (-:;~rl1.,.=t ct\. i iild 1~xation: 243
'l.iu 1~\ r<a~~ru~ !bt<ililtoi ~oK<>r): 215
t"il.tory 1'\'\ruitrnt'l!r mainly from: 25~7 (.:sp.
.'IllH)
'll>"''lith'tll f worlc;'lg p.asants (incl. fn-.holdcrs)
fr,>m .~td Jr.! ,. 149-,fl
r.vults !>~: 47411
h"'bl~th';.,, IArh~riu (r~r<:): 264 (with ';95 nn.6.~nJ
534;of
W:l(.,..lrh5i\r>3l)
S.: f1.'l 1! .!7
P~ro:n. :~~: :itV.: "
P<"N:""'. lung of M.r..-e:t.or>: 321 and 524 (with 659-(,0
nn. 2. 4), 525
l'..z'ilia. Pc~,:..ru: .\I!Co&t:t
Acham'lltd period: ! IIi, 119, 151. 2ro, 280, 282.
:!iii .!91, ~'i. 298. 332. 56.'>-6 n.24, 601 n.ll, 604-5
~rma
l>t-rlm~"-
,..,~.,
!lc!inil">r. of peasantry as a cl.ass: 21~ I I

.-.u.-gorio: of (includin~ frn:holder.): 213-14, 250,
7).
1'-.~.du:.~ 27.;.....~ . ..,.l

II)O(,..:!i:~7Unn.49-52). 41~17.
~,1:,1 df;
291
v~:~.:to~l <~iTb......ivl~ ;.Ill, 1<16, 1511 (with 5f>'i n ..lll).

1~-l (wi'b .;r.'l -';), 112. '12.7: 1cnn appli.-d also co
-.~'t: fmu:;;: U\.1
Amrni"''"" .!M
.-\n.l fn.."und.:r P~rrhtan'

J:',~i~ .io:b"''' . (i11 ll.lrlll ~'): 601 n. 11, 627 n.l
l:',.,.,i~n Gulf IM
'J'<"<>rtal:.. <'<lllioll. lto4, !t,'\.9, 24H-t
P~rrina-.. p_ H.:lm~ lKomliHmpcror): 175
p,~,,nniu Ntgl'r: sec ut~t..r 'N igcr. Pnco.'t1Dills
p,~,;,,.,. (in Galatia): 51o1i 1<..1!1
!"'tilenccs. s" under 'plagues'
P.ro:r nami.at. St. !11th c.): 4114
l''ll'l'. ub-JcacM in Sidl~. ,mkr....I by Pope Gngory
"' u<e mudius-m.-~~urc <~t 1101 mon th~n I !I srxtarii
fcr ,.,ati of rmb ufRomn Church: 155
i'l'r'Jill (;,'1c~li (Roman g<neral): 4119-90
P,Pit l'aul: 54.~ n.7, 5113 n.23. 614 nu.-44-5
P~-tr~. l;!lilt""ith!ibl n.:m
Ptu...-.a. (t"In, ....ah;: 5Zfo, :U.l
l'o:tromu lRuom utiritJ. 1'77-8, 199, 2M>. 5'17 n.ti
l'rrrouiu~ ~t~lh-~r-iul~w ,,f tho: Emperor Vn'Ds): 49fl
l',roni"~ l'r.ol>u\, S."IU> (rntor:ian pr.-f..e~): 341
l'.u,. M;,~~ineiliu (1 ..-vcUtlc :oltJ
l'h"'-d"'" (Ltill)....-t. nl i.dln-.1 444
Ph-~~,,;;, !in l'.olo:sli,.), '"I'Jln min<'S at. 170
t~lari>. tyrlll ,.; Acragas: ~I
l'h.I,.... fChln:Jon: 79
l'h~nt~b.uor. l.l.:nun ~nr:. 118,t\U5 n.29
Pilnr. Ch .Jo:, 1!7. -''"'
l'h~>c:li' !Ill ,...tiil): ...,.
l'lt,idi" (Atbcui~n ...,lrturl' .!7-4; Zfu of,~~ Olympia:
274. 'liu vouns tMtdcrnaro l'<uld w.nu to be Phidia..
nI..-):!H
Phibiun (Egyptian .nJic.or' l"i
Philadelphia (in lydia): llrt
PitiYI;N\: ..._~ undtT V<"rnius l'hilagrus. Q
l'hilip IRn,.u ('M!''IN. M ju!ius So:nru~ Pbibppus)
.!!r., ~.fiLl. 4').a
Phil:p If. k1ng ofMae<-Jon: : ~'~. 1611, 26!1, 292.298. J01;
II!;. 'Fifth Column~ in Grnl scares: 29R-9 (wttb ~
n.';t.): hi 'League of Ctltittth': l'J9; his professed
i~i,:>Jiin~... for Athen.,._,.
Index
Phlip V. ku~ ofM.s.cro.oa: 174
Philippopnti~ (I'Jtr..Lv): 1'1, ro.l nA!
PhihstJ (orTri..;>ttJj,, in d,,. rA')'~lln): lli
Philo jud;u;.,, tui Al~:.ur>4ltu): 1111\.1. 1741. J!9. -Ill!.
422-J. 4);. -~. ~!4-IJ II. H
piJilt>drspt>lt>fil'/li/wln)l<Wi ('ru-r-iuvinl(') as .adjec-
tiVt... 'rJ<I4 a.t:~ t'~r ~""rn.;m-:.Sil

Philopt>tltii,Jx~n; .~: " 7
Phtlostor.:h~ (.'m~n c-,cko;~ticrj hi;tl,i.ul); ~.W. 'il.
51f>,fiJ.~tl.Wl
PhilostraM [1;'"-'K l'tiCJ[~ph~"t). 14. 1~. f~P. loS i, 11'1,

323. JIJ(i, !il4~t.J!)
Phin.as (tCrm.b<'!l r:l ,o\arun).lo>mtlrllr.~ ?ill'wnl b)
YJhwch, .lt>l "(''l; 1'1. M.:.! U..:W

Phodon (,A,rhuian): M'l. IOrr.:i.'
Ph<l<'IS. Pl:.tc:i ..tl>! 2HZ
Pho,bidJ, (SpJ.rt:\): .!'il't
l'hocniciJ 15~. I !If. 3:51 J)<JI
Phormio 11\r!knt.... fum""' l:w~ n-1 hiP11]. 174 . .f!rH
r ..l(on[J; i)
PhrV!(la. i>lll~'!..;:.,,,_ li~\ .!h x;:. 4.'14l.u5.)4 ... u
Phylorchur tt-:rw~ 1-tiU..'fi-.lli i-'"
1:.
l'irmum [l{~li~r1 .ti.~tna):

!Jf. :4ho
l'igamol, A :..!Jr-. oll'i~. ;u. 51'
P~itt:. Po;1t1n": 1t.l~ l&'t".~
..s. :-. :~,.tu~ ~,; 'h''""': Ji i;
'"'".:>
in\'ui,iu~ ktdtJappin~ ~:ti
prs.d b, I'"'P~Y (1>7 B.C.i:

PiH'Itn". II;;Ni! !0
pi!tdn.trii"
.~
-,.h,,.r.u.::it:t:.
!."'
,nr-
r,,
Pi~idia: J1.~. AuJ ,.,. ':\:Jti'i:h.I"L<i,li>q'

Pi-.>, Juli~'' l.,f >\uihl~). ltf9.11!
l>itan.:: !;!
l'iLtarus ofl\f~uirmt. korl:<p..trid' n, Ak~L'II&: :!7';
Pityu> (<>I> ".1>1 ,,,,.,, ofBlark ~l ~:> ..J:!
Pius. Anrmim [U"lll'""''"l'''"''lt 1.!:

~~.473,52f,,i4~ll
!:>. .'\ll, -!!i.
l..!
Piu XI, l'lt<. hi f..n<.wii."OI), Quadra~<".imo """''
(l'J.\1) ~~
Pizu (Thr;~i;!l: l"o:;;:o.:.orinm}; i17

placcDI~~J:;, in tl<'lltn'<.loc.my: P". r;
plagws.J'I"'jf,;,'u:s ~17 .\U .-.,~. 4:.!1!-'. 511
Pbtaca. l'ht.''lrs: ,;;- ra ~5; 1-~uk .,i[4'}' 11.1.::.~: 115.
26U. ~!!!!, ], I I
Plato: illl.
fH, IJ<i.1. ;W4, j.o(l, o~rJ-IJ . .;IO.fi.
551-8 rL'll. 72.--4. 1rt, '1'1. ]ill, IJ(I, 141. ,.:1, l>!~
I'JI'-1.
NT .!;;3, !'i'i, ~n..
3.5-l, .U.l.
.l.rch-~tll'flll1 uf ,~:'\"l.'rlo:n .am.t ..'h-rno,~,;,-'". 2~-.a (wnh
sz.
:m.
4"''
74)..1).-ll?
.
hi 'htl:l-l!n.!.."'! lirtl~ tinl,r ': .S 17 (Willi 71)
and tin:it,L,,,,._ 35'!iii.J(J
Plc.hc.'1:tnti., l'J~., ,,.,;.,..,,.t ,(( ~.r:-11r.- ..k1 ~ccJI'd"'. J~"'u'ii.fiJ

Pld<~t. H W
1l2. :52i1'i, :14">.t. " 11, ~ " 1 (1,>11
IlLli). ;,,: ,,.;!J, 1;91;:,.lL;Wn r:,loi2n.!7)
l'kkhatll'\'.1; :?r. W.:, 6
Plirtt.l (Ma~istcr Mlint.tu): ~Hoi
Pliny tho Elder: 1:!11, !-1.\. p;..~_JF.J.I? . .!Jii.JhJ. ~I,
33!1. 5il. ~".~~=it
Pliny the ''onr,~~:r. -..;. 11-it..
;'.f~. JJ4J....IIJ. 1-'.:.l.S7.
J09-I(i. Jfl, 1!'1, :l-~: . .1-.J lli-<, .rn, .iit.c. tiJ'J, ..~)I.
4ll9. 438. .+;.f. ..;..;c,, .ab?. ~-:..!'- ;:1, ;.:;;. ~ ~~. U.; lsi.,.
!' '
Pol~nd. 27M
Pokn' Jtchus (broth,r of ur J.tor L pi"'}. '12

Poklll<>. king ofl'ontu<. IW
polo'tai (Atn.niln offi<"ills): 1!!'1
'po/i," .mci 'rlui~. 3. n. 9./9(<-sp. 9-W). 42i-.IV
rolirir~l pav ......,. un.kr 'py. polmcal'
politi<al rhoul!h!, Grcdc., in Hdknitir ""d Ronun
pcriorl>.IJU. 5S2dl
Plor~~rp~t>i' 532
Pollock. Fm\t-nck .mrlf. W. Maitbnd: 21o7-l!
I'ullull. Juliu> (of Nlt1<T3ti,). 111;; hi< o.. .,,,loJ!IIo~l
Ill 83: 13H. I.I'J-411, \5\1;
Oos<lk~>linn
n.2
Polyhtu.: 7-t. liS. Ill:, h'.3, l11. l'l+. 2J(I,
VIII. t:lH Mil

~IJ.
1ff', )It
(with 51it~.71 ..!'l.L~V. :;.1:. 'i::!o+-5. 5JI.:itt3 n,l'i,!M

n 17. 611.,.1.;,;i(t
Pimnlisa iilll'-~tbl~!: iJ, :luid...ih<'l'

.1t: .s.;.: "-~
l'iuau (in !.yci.;J: :'iJl
l'ind.ar 2-t.:?!'
Pini.anu. hu>h;or..l .., sr ~ld:.~,i~ rh. \'t."u'l-'~. !').
Pipphfi, U M.: 5-ilr:. :1.:.""
pirlC\.
723
c!Ot<'' >!Jvcs and trnant.: Z 17. 1J9-4U. ~41. 25'

5811-9 r. 19; lm <l.lVl'> nor fctt<'red: ]38; ht' ><'t tlcmc':t
on his old nur<c: 1711; his Patr<:~)'tt< on Trajan: .lt-:.
)!',9, 377. 389: t~xt of hi> Ep X. 11.1: fi48" /6
l'lotinu 123-4
l'lut.urh (!. M,,mus l'lurarrhus): ~4. 34-;. 4-X-9. W.
I I~IIJ. 130, IJI. IJ2, /49. MH, 189 (witn 5:5
... 24), 1'13-4. 194, 1'15. 199-200, 2.35, 2'H . .)01. ~,;
J 10-13. J II!, 322. 324. 34.l ..W;, .IH-4. 3~~ . .3611. -II''
414, 5C.O. 53.1. :)3fo. 555 n.14. 61/8-9 tt. 5.1.609 WJ.!.
611 '"' I7-2U. f>/4 ttA9, 660n.5
l'ogla (.n P1sidi.1). 52!!--9. 532. n13 n.JO
l'oiticr<. hatth or ( l.~';/,): 26(1
l'ol~dcitus oi .!art-~~ l"'~tlptQI'): ~~H. 'no ~""n~ jCQII~

ntAtl (Otdd 'NJM M (,- l'uh'1'ld na' iPI rn t. ~74
) 1olvcn.cc.-~. tvrtn[ ~:.t~.;,nu:..-1~,t ~71.
Pol yg11otu' (ut'T hao:u nl !lbt;lls. Jll i nrrr] cJ...x~or.m:l
Stod Plikih <( lulKII '"'"'" 27~
l'olyperchon (M.a:-r:i.-..illliJ.""''II'l'lll. \It I, 141'1 n 2

l'om,roy. S..r..lall.; .'\o7 n-~'
l'ornpdopoli, in l'pllb;to>niL 5~tl ""
l'ompcy (Cn. ltu"'""'u"' M-llli'JI..\01. 5, li-4, 17r .3l_
31-J-30; ch ridnt ~ouwn R..,.Jtllo ol' tlw R.,..b:::..
176 (\Vllh r,;~ /'0 111)
Po111ponius (ltlr.n:J ..,..,cr/: ,...._. UJ~Irr :N),...sl'
Pomus lin mml-<~~r./ui& Mlra.,.l 3-'l. II~ !:i1. r. ..
And ,.., ,.,,.....,, 'l!idr~.,U (....,ol ltnh),...-l'l'lllllul' _
alo (for tb< J>,.mrir ~b~t') 11nd~:r Trim..,
'poor' .111J 'rid>' J~htsl~r- ~.'1-6; ~,.,~ uuJ 'l'"<i-;::5.\. 1+1~ rOt,c:a~1t I t..:hr'C"W -tugc a3:-2
P'PIia'" (lt"oftil.'>'~) ,IJ J <em~ 1'1~ .1.WJI. :UJ-4, .l'l'l :;;;
,ontmon fr;~run: oi rtw;r pJii<=i<>: JS1: r<>&
'd<mo..rar: J!'>J; <kfu.-,1 l;o~ Con.'<n ~S~; 'iiln-::.
n v.nd aftn olc.l!h lr; ""'I'll"'' p:'JII .lr .1--1
p,,rnus Lonr4".:o! $ ~
Pmphyrii!S.
l't!l.lil,... Oplalianus: ICC "''c
'OptJtiann<'
Purphyry (F~ll;o' ,.t..,J~tl' g:;; hi in:.t~ott"'" IIWrl."P"'t.ttton,idllriiL....t.. ufil:utl~:.t,'IS. r'iiiJr.of
l1ol'!u)."ll<"><. !IJ<kt. ;am{ e~ttp<lr. :arll~"IW)' -121
I'O>l'idippu> (Ad\cl>ii'llU:JlUICIIr~nUI&I' Ill~ (ci. p.':>5

11.7j
PoLidonhh of Rhodr' (Hdleni$ric philosopher md
hi.roriau) 1117-11. S.lh
pH,nsio. in Rcuuan law, ka.~dtold r~..-nanfdd noc })J~;e_-:
172
po Uts 'on.;. l'ntpLrnrs' connrn f{ >r ~ 4V9- 501
pmt. lnlp<rial/public: 11. 339-ltr n.tl. Ao~ s.:: :j<.; T
aJJ~ariJ.c 'tt<inipurt"
t>mtar.. M. M.: K3. ~6!!
pmtlilllilliiiiW 47!1
I'O\tumiu> Tcr<'flti~lu>e .32~
E~t,rs'. Th,.. ,.,. under Vm Gollh
.,,.,,.!ll
724
polt~llit>rrr, l''t""~" ~~" ud.:r 'Powerful"

Pondaca: >ff t::J;:
andr~ia
'Pwriul', Th.- [!., tlr.~dt. dt'laroi: in lann.
7tt. 11l. it~~~.~~.

lt<>111c gtncully i';o~~-'<l, and WJ> fvourcd by.
c....
poremia,.s.
,.r.~a ~.::r.): 1:!7 .!!J-6, 26.l. 367, J/13 (with 629

.: ..fZ), ~!17, .J!i'l, 50\!, 5tll. 51>2n.5, 583 n.24. 5')4n.~.
!>!\~' n. '": nt:~r \-.I'
prardia. urhant< .;t!d ,....,/;..: 244

Praetcxratus. V~ttiY> Ajr<~nus: 495 (with 657 n.26a)
pra,~nMtt.utfs: .s..:'\,nnd~r "1.i:tor'
pr4ktores (ra:.. .:nUt::>) ~91l

Prawer. !.. S .25
1':;,.,.-irclc (Ath<'!Ji~" I.";Jiltor): ~71l
1-'~.lnx. C\o~ir.-: .lli,\. 3.'i~u.5. SKI n.S. 5\11 n.37.l>Wn.7.
f:;\7" f,5
pndrctabiliry: ''' un.~rr ';orobabilitylc.:rrainty'

Pre-1shr. Hcrl:crr :05.5 :u;
p,.;m.-: 155, l51>. !5o~ Anof -...: undtr 'l'dici_.
Jl~:imitivt.~ l..-d"-.:"
Jt,
'prm..-p.'. i..: R.;r:w~ <:llpcror: 350. 315-8

ri:<ip.;fr;; t-== .lt:tl'lf'"""!' lart'r~ensc): 471.472
l'rin<'ll,.t.lto>man: .t72-Vl8. also 350-72 (<'<p. 3511. 3611,
~~ Y>1.Jf._.._._ :~.}.1f1); contrast btrw~..-nattitud~ of
;,:,.o~m> ~ml Jitttv lt>' .f62: rclation>hip b..-rw'''"
emp<ror ~nd ~!'"''~ MO.l; uppos<'d change from
'Prinopatc' t r~,rnintc' . ..:~ undt'r 'J>omJn.rt':
~un.ssion tu l'rildJWf' 384-7, 381-11. 3889. 3110; th~
-nro-r>r .&\ ~ 'milirr} Jicrator: 392; id.-ology oft he
l'rimlp-~ot _J1;: 4, .a:~d its th<"Oiogy: pagan 394-7,
Chnti.an _i'Jit-4112 And Sl'\" undr 'D~<tolrratiir'.
'l\l;il'fl.'. 'l:rrttc.Jtor', 'Imperial cult'. .,._,'
l':int, .'\. M . J';'
J:lritl !l.u.: t~r.,J. IIJ"<ri~n): 2t>5. 468 7
l'ris(<l>. M.ui~ (pr"u.>n>ul of Africa) Jill
prison (RomJ.n ro-ri.'l\l). -41, 41111
Pntchard. R T _ 511".!
Prl:,:b;.u, W. K.:5-11Su :.~15n.27
"J~ik'lt-..1 ,:ru.,p{ !in Noman pt'riod. as ddinrd on p.
l5fo)' 15#.1>1
ptt>babillt)l.:trtaiut\'
(fhucydid~
and
Marx
nmr.ar.-d)'l7
1'rub11 {Nom.&n ,mp..roJ). 490
l't'""' ~'"'ttl l'trtmiu- ...... under 'l'tronius
r~nro,,iu-: 1i. -l8J;.,:;, -~>It,, ~14, 516. 517, 577n.1'J. 5tl3
,..z-;
nn.l'J-:1(>. :;qs n,l.

Pn...-apius !'UUrJ"'I'. :1(&~1): 394, 475-6, 4119. 490
pru.-ur.unno. r><Nrali:. \!7
P''"iu,til'n. Jl'linrd- .tc. , t 112-14: (OCial) rdations
117fnrl" nt' .~. 35 iwllh S45 n.7). JK-9, 40)..511. 511.
~'h1 ! I. ,,,uJni.u' "" 4, 43; .-ontrol of renditions
t, .1> i(l<IIJ.loti>n ni '"l'lnitation: 4J-4; ownership of
m. "'Ill .,( rKiu;:i.u ...... mmont'St foundation; 44
!witb:io47nA)
llh'~"' ui. in ~nti.;u1tv., ~p.land and unti-.'\'l.abour:
-Ill, II.!
'thm~ll indtptndrot produnr': 4. 33, 52.205 ff.
'nl<><{.., ,.i production'; 29, 155-7; distinguish<od
.tl>tw ,)1 m1htoJ> f<-"ploitarion. JO.J
'A>iatodOrh'IU.ilm-..1 of production', 2'1 (with
~41>1 15). IJ57iwith5ti911.4la)
,,,_,j,..,.,iu~l' "'"''~'-. (.:i 'sophists'. philosopher.
J(lctor.- t<A,h.-r>. mwvrs) 197. 1911-'J
rrlct~ri..t iji,,lll,_.!
pro/,tariil!-apil' :, ...; >~ lto>JllO:: 357
"y
Promtth<"'a>~:
.N
l''''l"l'Cllo.:J .-l~--<. rh,

qualification lo>l rn.mbtrship . .and charact<'nmcs:
I, 114 17. 5Q. 2H. 270. 3119, 41112. 414-15 t'IC.
ul>.fl,it<'ll' ''' It,_
~r:lnnun ..,n.n:kJ wealth mong: 4, 121J..J.f.
:!\~
nr.:tk propc-r:io:wl<l..-..: J(lh-12. 31~-21. 344-5,

H'J-.D.ll..._..,
A:trl ~''C' nrht....: ..pn,;.:r~-:r qualifu:at&ons
...,.,~r.l ..-151!
,;!J,
;l!i>J-.-rt')' ~1Uiiflo"";JI100J (1\>' titil~n>hop. m~gistrari.:>.

.tttendtng t'.;s~~~!h!~. t\lUTI1, <:ouncil orS4'1'1Jt'e t.tc.).
114 (with $5ii "J), I:Y~ !71!. :2119, Jl)f. JM-6. JOX.
}J..~.9.32J.
5JO, !31, 535; 60Zn Zl
r:c;r~'~t.ion'. .ll:r:!hrn~r~.:-..,.r and ~gt.omc.rrir'. polirical
;r..
m: ~ m.url:c-r 41.~1-1. Yl9

:~r~~"'~t ~w. ~ i
.,r.r,tit-..:r.--., lrrr.Ji"'" lfiil. WI. 102. 129. 131, 154, 179-
en. 27!. :;n, ""'' ~L.;;I: , .....,..c~, 1s-1
l!\,C-:ric.-,.,
C(J~IC\.~'''~'""'~
~i!:ri.uch
of Alcx.mdna.
trongly nsist~ti !"""- ;:1.! C:V<'Tltu~lly murdertd: 448

l'rolis, foundtr ,_,fJ\,1._,-..J!i~. IJI
... : "JQ]
~--id.-r:
pru"Jla~;T!oo
.,r R~rrrAu -rntrj:~~ total nun1M app.ucndy
1~-m>u.-;.\ .IU! ,A..I 1 .I'll
provotali<: ~l
Prudt'Yltius {i.ar~ ltill Ch'-tian J>Ot'l): 417
Pmn t;r. Hith~li>J: .H1. :I!"' 516, 5311
l':'l'i"~ ;o.:l H~purn (Bilhp:i;;): Ill. 5311
r.. mt:~ II. Egyptian l'r...r~vh, cmploym<'llt ofGn't'k
ll!~fi't:;lh-s by: 1112
'P,.ctlt~rian>
(,t,li.n-.:'1') Hll
l'td. Adt1li.an J,nh-: lij

Ptukomi< l:otYI'~ (.Jnd th<l'rokrniro): 17. 119, 2!17, .104.
!io'IIJo (l, ..lld!tm~hinll.h ~tdiV.ni
Ptt;l<'!ll.<l\ (tJr.-..-lr. dly 1:0 ;:\<J'Il: 17,304. 315

Plolt'llty I Sot<"r (f..in;: 1>i E~ooJipt): 31)4. 534; Ptolmy II
Philaddphus: 152, !57: l1tnl...my Ill Euergctcs: 223;
Pt.,),-..,~ IV Phi1opator: .!'!3. Pto!.-my Ap10n: 534
l'obli. """'"' 11!8-95 (witl: 577-9 nn.20..33). 2m. 2111;
"' Rnllll pr~in.-~ t;; l\\<th 57'1 n ..13)
l'ubliliu '~-ru~ (Lat~ Republican wntrr): 342
Pud'"" (friend nf Sidonius Apollinano) 253
Pudenrilla (wif.,<>t'Apuldus): 51\l-4 n.IJ~
l 1udnlliU .,fl ).: {in Tripolitana)~ 595 n.6
l'ul,l!:~- !or. (R-'""'" mpnss, ist<'r ofThcod"iu II
mdwif<:>iMt<i<u): 1n. 404
run1hm~nr. n.uuu ~:;. ,...-r~a.ing harshn,..s ot: in
( ~hri>ri;;n Empirl': ~.\II A11d SA.-.: 'dual po:nllty
-.\':'t~P:.-. 'tloj!ging\ ntut114tion. rorturt~
l'urknu iR"'''"" ''fl'J':'"'' ~. 39l
l'ntr<>IJ: l'.lfo, ~'6~- '"'Ill 1M
'I.. IID'V M.ot~. (?1~7) ~'1.1.( 4~1
I'~ rl:~,::""""~" .; I. -1! :, ,\,:.! ....-.. "'rrhyt ofTanmum
l')'th"" l Ai ..kt<r
5<)~:
.!.."'-
Quadi: 24Q, Uri I, 4illl, 5111.511

Quo-r411w (l~r.- Lttin rmntdy); 4711 (wi1h 650 n. B)
Quintilian (.and Ps.-Quintil ): 165. 1117, 3611. ~
Rachd lnd th n1andrk.... (Gc11 XXX): 437
Radagaisus (\.othic chrt'l): 2511
Radchffc-Brown. A. It: 22.1!~
Rainborough. (;ol. Thorn (English Lvdlcr): 441
Ralbs. G. A . and M. Potlis 557 n.21>
Rams.ly. Gt:orge. 505
~muy, (Sir) .Wilham. 15.~
Randall. R. H.: sn nn.21-2
nrt-s of pay. sn: und~r 'pay. Ul~ of
R4V<,na 21!!. 247. 254, 41!1. 496. 657-11 n.31; La1in
papyn from: 21K. ].47, Z.'i4
Rawwn, Elinbtth: :!<Ill
Rca.J. R.: 196. 57'J n 34
Index
Rehu . htlltc i<, Vr: see under Annnvmus
re<rptorr;, in th<"stnsc ofthose wh<; as.i"
Greek city oulr of Roma: 34!!

'bngand.-. 477
Rccrus, Aemilius (governor of Egypt): 363

Rcdftdd. Robtrt: 9!!
'ReformatiOn', in England and dsewhtn 279
Regulus. M Atilius: 5flll n 5
'Rcihcngr:iberkuhur': 247 (with ;;<Jtl n.2<J), 517
Reinhold. M~yer: ~45 n.S. And set 'Lewis. Nphtali.
Jnd Reinhold'
rdig10n m th.: strvice of pohttrs: 2ll'l. J4J-4, 196-402.
452. f>l9 n.15. And see 'Paul. St.'
rdigion, great nnport~nrc m annq1my: 445- 5Z
Rtmigius, St . bishop ofRhe1ms, w11l of. 259
rtproduction. bumn: 9~9
'Rtsistancliu-raturc' (Books ofDanid lnd RevcbttOn
l'[f .. If''):" 325. 442-.f
rtsp<>n<a prud.-ntium (opinions oflqpltxptrts) 3H5
Rev dation. Hook of ("Th, ApocJ!vpst'): 325. 442. (, 16
n.61
x (king), "'!' as applied ru the R<~m>ll ~tllfiCro:. 37t~
7; as Gr-.1. word ri'x: 37~

Rey' p .-P: ~~- ;,ru1t: :; )n;.(:. f . :l.IJ;! r~~y'
1'.
Rty-CoquJ:~,J
~-l n.2(1
Rynolds. J"y<v: ~4- ;, ;,\-; -~ ;
Rh.,gom
(n< ..:~uh,rn ~~~~). ~~
Rhnm~:
2:0'i
Rhin.:, Riv..:r ,.,a:f ir" r~\is~h~:.~n, . . .t.t!.- ll-: ~. ~'l!~t
RhodL'!i: 17~. 1~. ;!!i'J.IJO, ........ J;3o. :Jili. Jfi. JCJ2. ;,;.,.,
507. 531. bkJ! J,.!4. t,S~ .-:3.\. ~,..a.:; rt II; t:""?-o--"'1lituri_:i.:-..
u: 196;J'(,Jiti.'..Jp.~,~r:~lt(l.~( ....'ili>(>l'i,! ... 1.,), l!i
Rhodts, P J.:.~u.l-l,Uf:'.,_,,:t" ..lt:'-1
Rhodi~poli
(in L~;\: :;,~
<
Rhodopis: ,.,.:r ,,.,.kr '1 ){-,.;.:h

Rh.;lfl4ior. t!: ,..;,, (., "bi.-!1 th~ Bytnrints c~J!t-d
thcmlWh,,.'l.
-k
Rhosus: 3JI,
'Rk~rdo.
u .....i.J .!'. ~~- :;,..
'rich' ~nd 'poor'
,.,.,_,1-ll:l'Y "'' ,;o,J.r 'r-'-r' ~nd 'rich'
Richmond.!. A. 3'11,
~11. ;,,1
"11:
Rienzi, Cul Jt .~w:;

riot> in cirn-.: .11.4. _;1"-l.L .i!>7; thr 'Nih riot' (A.D.
532): 3!1.1
l.iu..l (1..,"'11) li-';
Robbtn~.
Rob.:rt, L.-.uis (""111-.tllm'" w111t
636-7n 3).
~hl-i'l."1i
.1
Rolm) ll!r
c..ith
m;.ll-1:. ,.,..
n~
Robinsun .. J"r:
::1
Robinson, O!i.1a: 57.2 n. 70

Roman Clnucll: s;.ill{]ii oL l:J. r:!l-..~'tUftt !~...."'~'; ~~..;. -1\olf;,
e-sur"' .~;.:in h.aty .155~ ~n s . . nl)': ~.:.:"'. 1~-'i i~ G}~1i:
254; in J;l'l'lt.,.Ji -'''15.1..!. _5\.)2 n ,,-;
Romania (~~~-~l! ''"") ~~r..
Rommia (mu:t1-r1r Sl:.:.). 2.~1
Ron1ns r,-::illltftr 1n r.:..~l ,-.,,;l"'ti~] '' ,;;t,, S:J~. "-~.!. ~~~}
Romano I L,O)"<'""' (1Gih ~ lly7-lNil' ,,.,.,,..,....): ~'
Rom anus II f 11)'.1' Ahrm, 0111''1'-') Sil!
Romanus lo'""' ."Vti<~i): .J.Ir<
Rom<', R"..:~ll. Rho!nwii: 3.?'1-IOi! I'. ii
gt~niu~ .at: n~ ruU':'lJ:( -1'7-ii tll~ i:;, ~r~~~ ..,_,,itt- Ji':...."-.JfJ
plrlr; ,.oioJ<i,, ..i. 19': C"mh .57~ i ..!.7), >S1~. J:;::;.
3~7. _,.;i<, Joi.l. J.i;1 .IU'J; ~bcu;..,i v~ (:;.-.r;.: .U~:
Pkb\'ian :1>1<'-rh~, il: 'C:.nlti;< ~i ;;>..(.,.;.' UJ-S, r(
JJh: se( ...1.n:tt,,~ J.U!
J'IVPI1(111,1: j_G ,*1:~ .. 1. i;-itl"~;,..

Scxtian h't!~~~,,r~~ .f.it""..!, :r.:~:.a,~..~:rl\1 :h::r ~\\'rr;-:
33.3-6 . \:.?. Jl't!~ "T,\d; T Ji>1to.' . .u.a..;t.. ,;.a:
co,..iti.J Pr:l!i H.~""'u ..:~J ,!.,;iti:;oO: ri,.Y.;J: .lH,
u'.
340 (wid: 11111- 1'1 ,:.!\), .l;d.,m:;>l'!:.:.:; of-n;Lf.-r
3J5-6
'r<'<IOr.tion of rh~ Rtpubhc': 3SO ff. (with f>21 n 1)

And stc undcr Rham.;,,;. 'Rom (city)' tc.
Rome (city): 127. 132. 1~2-6, 220, 477. 479,4111 ot<.

~xpulsion of pmgrini from, during fa mint (A. 0.
3~4): 220
Churth of:"'"' under 'Chmti>nity'
att<~ck<d as 'Babvlon ' ~2
And S<<' under 'Snltt ofRomo ... Sonar, Hou"
Rosoius, s~xlus: 241
Rosrovtzdl. M .. 10. 17, 34,115,124. 125-6.152-.3, !St.,
157. 1711, 1!!6. :!()6, 2(17, 239, 294-5, 50'. 5011-9.
52~.
540-1 n.IS. 54!i n. 'i, 555 n.7. ~~8-1,1 ntL'l-10. St. I

nn.l9-21. 24. 561! n ..34. 51\9 nn.42. ~5. 'i76 n 17.
57~7n.l~. 5!!3n.33. 5~1 n.37. 5')Hn.11: hi> thoory of
tht 'Declin< a11d hll': 463 5
Rothstein. M.: 619 n.10
Rotundus Drusillianus (lmpcnal slave) 6S, 143
Roug~.J~an: 251!. 5f() n.l2. 561 n.lf>
Rouillard. (;ermaint: 5il4n 3!!
Rouswau, J. J.: 55
Rubinsoh11. Z. W .: 564 n./5

ltudf. Georg< 21. 355
Rufinus, of P<rgamum: 132
Rui!l. Rugiaus: -W>. !i16
ruicoflaw': ,.,. und<T 'law, laws'
Rumbold, Richud (E.ngbsh radical): 417

Rupilaus.l' .: 52:!-3
Russdl, D. A.: 324
Ru.,a. Sooth (in annqutcy): 294
Rusticu. l. Antisti11s: sec undor Anrisuus'
Rutiiius Namatianus (late l.llin pot'l)' 407. 471!
Sabins. Sabm~ .If('>. itl lr:<l~ frj7

sarrilrgiNIIt' ..... <iis.oh\~li.rr,lo hnr.r.;,! will .bi,l (w"
6.11 n.51)
Satcalassus (in Pis1dia): SJ<)..II;.,,"'
saints, ofRom.an Catholic Chur.::lt. :.07
Saint-Simon, f l~rl. >'!o "-'
Salamis, bauk ,,j_ ~>to I
Salam in Cyprus: "--4
Sald<>o (in north Afnu!: ~" "~
Salisbury. R. f H; u.'I
Sallust: 271. 3J7, .13!<. ,_,,, J5J . .IJJ.o;. .17?. 4!!J.
1~.<
Salomon. All>.r: lli\

Salomon. R. (; 50<4" :,>.
Robm>. (: II.: ~"' S
Roberr.., IUw.
725
salru; Bu"'nir..~: (~tttl d-ltl.,m) .

un 10, 1I. 1!<). '""-:A ~1;il)
~~lvian: 216,11.~ .J1}, ~I
.!1~
(with
Sl'!-~
S.al\"I.U!t Julianlll.., (Jt,,ncP\ l:<t"-'Yr:t) 1 ~(":"" w.~,kt i)'l.~st ~

s~nt2ria (S.:b-"ld '"'' ~-l:t ...l\'ili.: t..''T.-'1
Satnauranrt irdtt!J_-..fn "td). ?rll'l"I!UI~o of, by
Ju~rinian.
ar.,t ll4i. ltJo""ttu"~~l-"=':"" "~~J ~. ~~

Sannuum: :u;>. 'ii'R
74, 271. ::<I . .l',i, 'Jn:~ ,;n.c.
Samnir~.
~rno.:
Samooat.l: 197
Samud, A. E.
Sappho: 131
-II~
t'f.: U
f.n
Sarapis:3%
Sardinia: 356. l'lt

Sardis: 121. J~ .!iJ, J.tl~. ~mllit-ti .,.,,; .;.tt.f~&h' ,n.,-.,.
mrnpact witll mr ,~lil!Lr. :~iJ. ~7(, '' !'i
Sarmatrans: :z;~~o. I'll;, ~ :.;.. 3 1-l, 3 ''-1\r:.i sec ondLT
'luytJ;cs'
Saun (1n Milt~:1). Ci-:.:!':.tlw.~;.n ..:i:w~.:-(4 "''' lt.t-n;~ ::.ti-~

Satununos,l. AppuiC1Ll!: 35!-1
Satununus. Vcnukius: "C"'l"llrtt~..., -v~.,!~~.t~
S:aul. king oflu!!. "" , ~'r.' oi.<i.L~>.- .an;
Sau.rnilCus, tt"Vi.Jlt o.Jf- 364,. :.;
. .
726
S""l.l!;::~.
Char!,s: 246 (with 5111 n ..l7, a11d see 589
S~t.~!~,
t
;ord'rr3hk
Q Ccrvidius (Roman
l~wycr):
see under
I ;i,t_'fl~
~r...arnandronyr;tut: J_~l
G.:
N~)ll.~:;
Srh;.;u.. f),"i.i. nt (wi:h ~4o.la)

S:h:~l.. A ,O.rti:o.:r: f,45 n 4
r-:s
~<:~ ,~t1."ft>ll)'
C:OII!IIII"'.iO!> b,IWC<'n
s.rfdom and
[ol}.',.:
s~~im,~. Ricil:.td: Wt~t.15

Sdu:t!d:, ~.mr::.d. kt:r >(Engels to: 20
Srh:nl!r:. Jf~i.,:101: J:"5
Srlmllo. Wolfgh~. rxl~n.26
~~rti!l:t.l'r.lz: ICJI!. 1!-<J, .~"/--.30, 571 n.61l, 572nn.6~.
S~hw.am:. Eo!~:;a:~- l.;t . S7" n.\3. t>J( n.97
s.df'i
!;;tnilv !ik:
d,.;,:.ngu.md !rom. and (for 1h~ serf)

ln..-:v 1-n.s; t1p. in ability to nave
~.
:cu.Mhm !&11;rl-); lti.!, r;;f. 136: obj<:crions to

"pplymg tcrrr.a 'nr:'J;m,. 'Hori_~lmr' etc. outside
Europc.m f<"Ud~f._..,, ~:~:r .ruitous. 1JH
M.~r" u:o..,rf -~~~~ 1'td ,.-~gc-labour,r: I !2-13; on
~1l~U.:t!~rJt nf ~tSt4iJr,;. C!'t.\.~ ;.t'i lsctf: T5Y: on st.rfdont:
Sr.att.::l.t<!> (SbJ.'It' H,l.!(: 562 n.K

s-~~:'pm.l\ili:ag;: "' rr.r..cc): 216
Scoo:p~L
o.Ww1tklt! uf s.-tii.I<Jiu- ! !~; tmnino!!lg'!f oi: 147-3

!lll'rffl.:n~.
n..l!a:.l
S.-y.J IL 5:1
""""' ni m! ofu:lo .1 rL-w.lt ofcc.nqu-sl; 136: ofrll'll

un~ ~rHJU~ IOU:~' ;~i
"" n<'~~<"!:il (r-otl, ~1 f<'rminology for s.rfs,

culonart.:: tJti-9.
(~t4!e~ ~r P.oJ1".l:)~ 'wr:ll.~t~ Ron1an
72
uttt!.z ..;.~,-~il(''
Srrmuu.... V.: );lt.i\1:.~.39. 4ll
.t:!~t. t!'lurt' b..-.:;t:r-:.~ 4'fl\lng Grc.~ks. con\id&.Tc..d mT..
~...,....;by rt.,m.:u (N~r-<IS), t'XCqt Miba. P"bli(j; 197
Sniluuill':l>. { :\r:.:n:ills Canullus (gowrn<>r of
Jl... tm.~tiAJ, ,,..,..._,.~, ~~f: Y-.1
!>;r,Y,;t:~.ll..otiu: H.'..f.ll!.ll. 18.21 (with WUi)
Oliff
H?-~. tSti.
~.,_,,-.f.....,t
,.f !:lo:at p>:'l' of working agriOlltural

;oopulatio" o((~r-lo:.'<>-Rontv world from ~ndJrd c.:
?~9--~:
r:.... "xpn:w'''' ;,-''"'" slav and frco:' (Poll.
III :om in dude-. !bun
,.r ~iJom: 1.38, l.l9. 15(1
''-f~~-4\:i.;..~rf/. ~ 1 !,!f,. !7.:~ ~50,.255.
Sr!l'l;dd ;lu~l'< l !'1, 5,\r,
26 t
"xampk' i .wlkr \.:.-:J,. ~nd Rom~n ..-rfs: sw
q;. undtr 'Ar:liu;.i (vi lll)i~)'. 'BirbyninHubJ<"<t
r.... Jl;m""'"'"" r~,..h;i>n. {oflllyria and Tbun)'.
'Hdo:, 1i;';u,...(. 'lrl~ol~ (dCrct<)'. 'Manandynoi
~i ll"":IN l'<>u:i:'A', 'Mn.i~i (ofCr.-rt)', 'P,rnt.ll
(of'l il'>lly)
u.., ,.i(;>'l_\'k word pmosko1, some-rim-,; of sc:'rf.: 160
<rt;!,.rr: ir Hdknistic Asra l'tr.: 150-1: in Sicily
anJ Nn:oollt u.~ 13.!! (with S70 n 411)
f<'fl.-lcnn ,,f~rt~i'-'!.!tlo.! ,fiappcaron lands "wn,-d
"' d<>n:in~r.~ h Grcd,.. hdl.:nis.:d narivo:s, or
n.....,n. IS-4-i, t5td. 17.?: onsc:qU<'fl~ of tbi
V!'!"'"rs~: I~(..J!
~rmo>n <11< du." M<>W>r' b. 4 i.!; 'on rh< Pl~in': 412
S.r<>na ivi.;or or rw!n.'i.J ,owmor): 4116
s..'f\"-Mlh ;~nd I;'Jr,,ath.'"io... '4.'\' undu apprcnticc."s and
j.tflh-~(t.J.I~-.
<~<"-ant.'
l'~ivi. !fd:,.. I I
~td..nl(lll ui 'l.rNri~
sq.r'~<'(Silrii: 515-tt.
Scyrhopolis (jqJ''!:-<!lJ:~) :169 n.-44
S.aky. R: 55l r. ?i<
~.51
~-"'"' lArm.roi.ln hi<trun) 517. 6!14 n
St.a'J" E...:.n,)r.
',,1,._.;,,-
(in
l~rh
4:?
ltotu.:.n Rt"Public): fJ5 (with biM
t\1:11 :!. ' ,,.. \~) u:

S,:und'l (unolrl~-~hiMusitll Snuranus): 14]
s,,"J..,l)ur. ~'.JJ. :?4,).e,l:i2. 510.11, 51~15, 517
S..-;:-'1. I U .53::, ~~r. 11

~l:~st~ lit: l'.annnmi' ,..... ~ndcr 'Sicia'
Stgre. Ant=.:!: $;; n..\'1
Sdeuceia n dr, l'i;:ri.: Jrn. 53f>.7;J<-w of 3t6
~d.'U ilth,;..\1:<; Jt6
Sd!:.: [Ia l'ir.bd;Pmih~li~): 507, 595 n.6
S.:U!i,
-f1J4
s...~ ,,f km J.f,t. J.1J1.4Q, 362-4, )81, 4()6.7, 355.

:IR.'i. .vr. .J>, :Y'll;-li).l, i:-. i& ll:), 471' 472-J, -~~. 501-2
,., rr;,oiuly "'" rJ:r rr..y be trtat<-d ~ a class: 42
"''
,J.a~, ru!(l:l ~IW<'Cil St-narc and Equires:

41-.::. JW-If!
penetration fGr.d into: 96. I t9
Olymptodorus ""' walrh of 120; Wt:~~Mn
"<ttators the wtalrhi..r 119-20

,-,n~u"' u: I "!'J. ~-.i.
gifts hr ~111po:ru1' rv 'i:npowrih-d' "-'fl~lors: -IIW.
(with f>Jfn.llll ~
s.,,u, Ho:.s hum: .J.. wn on de~uh ofClodius (52
H C.): J..;,
s......
,~ ~,((_:.,,,.untilanpl 124. 3111. Jlllj

St-r~<.-:&. L Ann.&"
;~. 242, 343, .37:!, .!76- 7, ~19.
.IJ... -l:tl
eli'.
~.,,c<".a, L Anu.c.-u~. 'rh. Elder': 425

S.1)o.. luhtb~ :11
!>.:r-rh;i ~i" c;~Jil....l -1.!7. 129
s,p!;.~> I'Iu\imi-t. {uiGIll): 4116
S,-pnotaU ~.-..ru~ IJ(>~n.n cmprror): see und<"r
~\".....U,
S:-r:~~~l:lf il.X:Xj: !il~ (wirh 556n.111),
.,.n
42.1, 431.616
~rw,.:~. Jun Gin<-.. J:.: 4 IS

oio'rt4li>!'fl. ,.rb: KJ I. HJ }f. (<'Sp. US-6, H1-40, 146,
147~1- :2::!i, ~. ~. t.. -~~. -~<~. 4823 <'K; and .....undc:r
'c.>l>nolt .anJ ~wrt) t:tl.,., <If Later Roman Empir~:'
in P.mran <:mpin: .._.,_. under

'hrbui"""'' . . l"'lttl~lllt'llf ,,,.
J,-.;,,.j' (A Ll. II}....U)): 1911. 236. 31!1, 4~,
4:.0o, 4.'olc, 4~9, 4f;S. olt~i. -41.11, 470. 475l'!c
"li;\~r.ou
s..,,rin,,.. .Sr
.l
S...\-.'td, Alt.-<a~
iRonaan nnpcror):
undt't'
Aio>..m,-1,: S.r\'I'I'U.'
.;.,,,uh. S.J'Iilll0 (k..m:.n rmpcror): 216, 370, 38\1.
.Hl,l'll
...... Cluiti.ot nd J-wlh .. uirud..-s ro: see under

t:lni"ll.hit~ . J"""'"Ju,ht,nt". ~womL'Tl.
'io-..tu F.mriri.:u.: ;:'4
"-yriy..H ~il-411
Shu~p..r,. wirn-~m: :!.)-1-!'>, 414
Sluniu, Tnodor ~. :!':IJ
Shapou I. king oil'."'' ;!hi, P:'i
Shapur 11. king ,,j P.-ni&: 17'1. 41!6, 4117; his l~tter to
Con5t llltiull: Jj'o)
har.,...cropptr< (ro/ons paniarii): !14, 216-17. 257
Shmu~c: (Egypuan abbot): 446--i
Shcppdrd, A. R. R.: Sill
Sherk, R. K 5l\
~in'lllhit~. A N. !.0:>, ,Uii. J412. J4S, 461 (with
f>-11,,, 2'1), $,!(;, :>K<n.lo, t.l4n.42, 640n.6
iiil"r"'in.Witi:l'. Su...n~t: h!!n.2.'
Shintl\>n. B '510 n. t\1.
n.~S
S!I'\'Uin. (lf,:!..,; . .W1--~ (...nb b.J.2 nn. 7..g)
Si,'il>- II. " t.it. l V. 11':1. :.\2, 1~, IS4, 233, 242, 254.
r.u.
~.210'1to. "'"' .\46, 347, 349. 356. 4%.
tl.._.,
m ..
727
Index
498, 521-J, 31i9 u.J'i
Sicinnius Cl~:...r, Q. (1~~~ utThn<"<'): 117
Sicyon (on Co:iudwn Gulf) 1.1'1
Sid<': 653 n ..;2
Sidon: 427-'J
Sidonius Apoll!,~ri~ (br~ l.uti" Chrtstun wri~ 10
:,.<J:, !1.6. 6-54 11.-4:1:
btshop): ).o-1. 2J.i, 31;.
intcrcstins r..-rmmolos:; ofl<'l'tl!r ro 1\uh:m: ?JJ
Sidyma (in trc.h); ).;;, Sl3
Silcsia (in Etll t: ). lit2
Silius ltalic\.ls: .;.~-,
Sillyum (ic Piir.it~}: 179. rf6.;, iJii-'J, 5.11
Silvanus. 'l'n pf n...-.irw. (A:ml) ar.<l MasistnP.,diturn: -lt5
m.
Simon ofCl'f~'nl'' H
Siphnos: 601" :;;
Siscia (Scg<"SU) ir. P~mlonu: S11

S1sinnius, ~w~~~ l>ilwr ui Constantinople:, his
witricisn~.;.. 4;.~
Sismondi, .1- C L ~int;J<:d~ J:- ~~ oll

slavt'ry, slave J-.4. !!. !J, .!IJ--10, -'i?. 91, :oi~. II!- r.t.
116. UJ 1f \'}F n-~. L'lll--17. ;7; .;), Zf!J. :ur;, w,
If. (c:sp :!}.t--4}, .55-l), M-11, 41":tJ. W, 5ii'J-,_
(Only~ fo:w ~uicul.u ;,.,li,:s- ~I'\' 'l('k-n~.J 1\'fr j
slave :(~!;.t.~~JE:"C,~b."~n"r- 3--1. '51-J. lil'f... !!f.:
'din:kt~ Lw~ngutl'-d:' ri'.: k"T;li!J~,:~,,. uf 11>..- Mltir:tt
world (M~:,. (;,.,,,.,i~t} S:l. :.;.,, lJ3; olavN~ thr
dominant fin; !( ir itt Gn\:~ ,. cJrlJ. 17l-J
absc-n- nfi.'VW,..,1.:~ ttl -.;J..,,-,rr :1-.-:.:~ ru-~41:it.~ ~. . ~
b< tak"'- ' ''\"iciJt<~ f.r .Ji:l'<.-;;~, ,j '!"..,-:" l Y-4.
144S~ ,a(~'\lr~: . . ~f :;H:r a;oy nntp.-it=H D_.~ tll .. s.1ntv
source ofni,kll" (,,, ur.1: d-""''J'\' 17:, 5i!W
autont-~iou the :t~~~ itu-t.U.ir~b:'!" ... lt'~tJl;rtbJL~ to
~Iawry: IH
slaves I&":. d.;ill."': ~.:t..5~ . . ~A""c,Jfr,"C""" .._,. .~ .:e;i,:tnc~i:.,.~ f
st4illflf sJ.,~.,..,r,.;,n . .-...:"A n.. ~ ,il"~~t;~-:;,titn ,,f ..E.-,.~: .a.:J. ,..,~,
66,91
~xrra<r,!in..r~ chcapno:s~ of ancient slaves: 'ZZl
(with 511~711.1)
slavl' ,--.uhnhrv: 1..'!1-1
si.Jvt'1. Jh'u..,.~rti~ t!)l. 5:rcit :m.~it.ril)l "j ,.:;,~1-t~'b
I
oV~'I.'JM
\:pitnrpr.-. ,llrtftrr:utn<r<~i,
ri(i;i,
pron1rat~h'i, .trr~olt~~): !Jt.i. i4f 5 (wi:h ~;4 r~:l :3~.
14). 17.!, IJJ. 111!-.J .?~. 15'1~. :51~7: '14\'t-
and
driwrs' (prarf.-cti), ~i" l:.-.-.:
laws in
?."""
~griCIIlh<l<' il"'"'~ll~. J.l4,
wirio 5115-ft
(A!h.m)~!.'f..-~'i(drwho:r.-).
14'1<'1o (l"''~' &.tprrt')

mt-rd)r tr,,.l!r.JI'flf \l'"l.Ai'l"...s: -":''-t~)>. rta1~nt~."~lC
(esp. ftogging): ~,_.
slave rtvolrs
m Hdf<..,ilrr pniod): 146
(with5Cl-4u.ISJ
sale ol' ,~J~r-Jr" tr .:tttL....1i :-{,.~!,fr,1~ ~ub., .t-': 11 ~ ~~~.
169-70; ,-;i Xll~('"rtl\lo-.11;. 1'11)
slaves lair.-.\...m 17~. !'!.*. ,!l_li.. l. ."!1.!. ;,f,)l' 'J
slav .pw forluho-l...j7,~ .a.;..~, H'r, ::W. :tll. ,l;;<,
r:inl.,.
24.\
.ognrulmral slave cwmually buund to 1hc la11d:
148 (wirh 564---5 n.lf>). 246,255
slave as cmp<y<IMr orK"o";
voralr: 549 n. 12; cf. 563 n. 11
511:
al irlltiVIIIMIUm
planned h<r,rog<mous charJ<"t<'l of slav<' houholds: 146. 65-6, <JJ

public lave (d<'otwsror): 158. Hl6, 205. 307: mm<'
slaves: 134; und.-r-sbv,s (vitarii). 44. (,5, 14J. 237
brt"Cding of slaHs (oiko.~mri,, rorn4<'). 229-.W, 23142. ~ <'!(.; inrrc.-cin: 229. 230; r.:x-r..tios 211. n4
(wllh 5117-H n.l4); abortion and infamicid< by s1ovc
women: 236.137
larg"
~law
ho11sc:holds on ourns. e.g 202, 22H.
242, 251!. 551!" ?, 56..'-~ n.IJD

,t~.,~,fj
And sec uulk:
rt:hunrtn'~
'fref'blm',
"n1::mum1ssiaa' ill
Slavery (and Supp~tn.::nl~:yJ ConY4'nttono: Sl.aio'~

C:onvent1un I !'.7.?6) at' ln(lue o( N~ttr>mc ll-4. Suvplcm<-ntary Comvrnntm (l<JSI,f QfUllrtl.d l"l;ui"~
on ~bolition o( du: ,.,..., !r:>d~. Jnd m.Onniom :.mi
pucticcs sim1lrrr fn d3n't,- I~
Small. A.M.: 560n.11
Smrkyrh, !Athrni:m w-Dhrrwon-,.mj . .!74
Smrth, Adam: l!>. Y., 5ll5
Smuh.lan; 21.?
Smyma: 341!. ::032. n~
Srmdgrass, A. M
Soaemis.Juh3 4'*S
Socratc. as dwA"r'l m !'lat<;>' H:Z. 147, 179, 1111:1; in
X.-nophon lZ.'. 1~1
Socrar (Chrmbn .,.;Tinl.l>l~o.l hilltPri;ur); :1'1!. 1%,
450-1. 514etc
'Sogdtan rock', tft.,_ ll'l

Soli (m Cypru.). 5.3-!
SolonofAth<'ll~:4l.711,9.J. II~,
i]:Lj/, (.li. lir;t, lfr~
1115, 1H. 21! I.'. !:1!!-. -llt. s.; I, 5:sfh 7

not .1 "nlc.""IlfJ.dll'
fr-,_J;
hi> poems. ~ill (.itl: 59';1 '' l.i); lli~ nnr tmf~v-our
able tr<:atm-.rt < rhc ~ttl":lm!-11 bb~r<>frr. Ul.;
hi <.i<d<hlh.i,o ~tit.tt on <kbt: l.rT.
1(>2. 164.11!. )8/.j
his Pt'fll.l(<,.jum.-limr. i ~J "'Iter ~' 114, ,(1 111.!
i1 principalnuu!i foot :-t-''-fUUinK 'I':~P~Ify IUrt!iio..::l.tton for \OTik.' m..:.tr.1t:~~-
(,[)},1~:
<Ottldla (Iii .. 'b<t~l;.o'J 1(,~.~. !1~\ r.lt.o&.'fLM
j,,,:,,. .,;As1i~l
,1,,.rhmt (SE:!\', 1111!!}. 151-.l< '-"~''it"''tl' lm1.h

wotkill!t wir~~ rh, "'-"J.o:": I H!
Sophia. Sr (C..rn"'b 1\ <>i CuiWJntmn:hJ; l'il'/o r
SophorZ.:s: 24
Sorokim,l'iriri.,,- S-l--1a i
Souk d-khmi> riu Tltthi) ~l~umk 'wir~o lkm"rit""'"'
South Africa (tt<-d.."fn) fo1
'South, Old' ,,-,. <t~<.l~ ',,,,.,..,.,on Old 'lonutl!
Sovkt worl. (:'~ .1111:.'-"'Jt Lb:nt;". 541-J ~\.7. ~~ n.~.
566-llnn.J2~'. ~n.1ll
SozonMa (Chtt>-1;.., ~~ic;,.i;..oolK..I ltu!''"'"n': 1Wo.
36], 4541-1.
nu
~H . .116<14.
Spain, Rnmu: lr, 1]. <n. l:.!:U, ~. J(lr, &71. 471\ l'l7.
47k, 4Hl. -111(,, !iM. ~n.). 5!6
Spaan(l6chr:.l u~
SpAn (l~ccd~oenon): 4~. :11!. 1 1?. 1<~7, 14'1.j1J,
195-6, 517. 6flil II . .J7u, rn.; n.61 ("'lrh :!'-'J). 7S.
:>~.
(I MI.
117. 11!1-[9, L\lr, 291, lY.2.-Ii-l,ll!\,-07"i

annu~l J<q..nt<= <>1- ,,.~, b1' ~pbur; oulft-!at\ '"
4H, 149
th~ !lr<':tl upholder of "hgarchy: 2!!1!. 296
dadim in nunabcr of ciriz.o" >I: 102
!(<'roui t: 527
IJ4Urorchos (cnrrt:~pon4.hn~ to At:h~nian t]'iJdt1w.) ar:
tu2
Aml ,...,. und~r 'Helots'. 'h'tioikoi'
Sparta,us. lave r~volt in ltolly (73-1 ll C.) k-d by: 25.
230. 41~!: nsulted rn ma.s killings of l.wc.: 230. -109
'>pr-won l<'rrttory': 151

sp.-ctabilrs: 473
Speer. Albrr!: xi
Sp<rb..-r, D. 5:l'Jn.H
>portula ('hnd-outs'). I%. 4iltl. 4811. 500. ul''
oflicial. illicit (sportlllat) and aurhori-.d: 41111. i(KJ
Sraff, Pi<w: 21
10
Stalin: SoU n. 15
sr~~npp. kenrn:tb: 3'1. 55, 122. HJ-4. 141'1, 227.424. S4'1
n.IH
728
s~~n. Ch,.,.:~r c; : S4
Jld>O> (qv;{ commotion),
and da,;s s!ruggk 4\1,
7~CJ
St;oti:.:,-: 397
"rh&. 'St~:-.:
S:ar~:,.,
n~'!l~ '"'~ Ni~ cf'rht Srate': ZH~-7. 205~ tc.

:1:~ ,..o.tit.-i.l 'rh ~uul of the )l<.llis'. :?llf,, rh, Stat<' the
Uit-:n:r.t,,lr Q.f P"t.~

rh ..,r r"'"'''l>~l ur
p~litt'lmt~:
::!87; rulers \Viii ru]._. 1n

mtr<st (Ari.rorlc). 21!6-7;
ro.!ltrhl <f rit. St~h tht grcar prize of polmral cla<s
~rn:t:tt~,: Zft7, 2-tt-1. -.'tc.
I:F!t.&lin ~c.! bt.'>o~.oiour of a Srrc: 47-8. '27
,.t4!t.~ (.;aL.,o ~rrdt'f3. l.ll..i 'ca~tr'):
,!;.ti::ni>r;~ lf $l.>las. compand wuh das> dificr.:o,~~L (:'-f-..~=- '1-1; "ur sometimes confu!.e.d (""Vl'T1 by
M.;,rx M~J E::.:l~}: l...oi
5tJIIJ,. ~r.uu ~1'\,~IJ:.s: H:k>
;r.<~i\> ~s.-maily J ... rriprnc and 1101 (likt d.~o) a
d!:1;,nu~ ''~ ~"'Pl:mory cl.1>sificauon: 90-1. 9)-4,
! '~ trr
,o.tJ.-tiiit-ui!,:il' accordmg en statu~: 4. 45. 5H.
in M.<'< We~r: if..;.,t; in M. !. Fm),y. 5H.9. 91-4;
.-!
s;,.,,,.,:
~1.u:o.. \ll!).ril~r.. -.:t..J UL
"iocial ~~r~t1fic.uit,n': Hfl
"'<1.U ~r. tu.' 1.-r.,i! t~d~rivt from da-. po!oilron: 45,
d 4f>t.z
"lu.*t~.,u!"' t:.b:~")
(w1th
.;1!"
4!- l~r("cl cquvalL'nt of'j.u.tus": H0
1(1}
F1nl~ , rrrum (comiruum) of tru ...s (aud

,,f\~('1:'/- ~" :-J
'trJ.h: 4.! (d..\.11 for Larin
~tdo. nd .l~:!
tT. for
rh,. '( '<>nlli~r r.!ll OrJns' in early Rutn). 4, 7
u ..... ,. *'" .J
Sen-d. 1: S.: h\"
'"~!.-:
:rr4 ''H. ,;.oc3n .~I .,,,-
\tr.&lllllli'.t. .'l~l
Strcpsiades (do~nH<'r Ill \riloph~n): '>4<1 n.I.J

'srrikts' in .lt;ll'iiJ.~C\ .!7f
Srwbb.:,J. 51>4: l.h
Stru.:-ruralisni, ~uiJ,'tl~raJi,.rs. 21. 31.
~11\'""'::. ki""~ m.hr~, .. lky: .29~. 31~
''4~0:''"~'0 Jt.J
tL 13
Su,r.. ui~>: IH7, 1'14-5 .lo.u, 313, J81-2. 5111

~t:\:\L
-IH'. 5~u. 51' :W.'J5n l't

'"it~""" fp;~rwruj:,). 114 .J41-J (with !1'1 n.lll). JM
(>\ill! .lirt--7!. Ji:!. ~Ql; 'mtal(fra,~:iomo': .'-'~. 3#>5

.'\"1 r.c ;,ndu 'di,ntla'
Sugamhri f'\y 1;.utohri): !>H. 51'>
Sulla. L C.!rndlu lo)~. ,\45. J51!. ~.?n (with f>W n f)
Sulpicius G~llo1, "''1\'iU' ,WI
Sulpnus Rui'\4,, I' .. .i.~_!....;
Sulprnus
CL,rioo t::hnsrin writr). 377: his uc
,,f ?ti,:r.,.. ~'"J ..?.;tHt .tnJ Pt'.~ in a ~inglt '\'-'!\ftncc for
!):"-"'''
rh.. llnw .:mp"r ..1n
,,.,.,.,.,:,"i>.J"i (lS oppo~cd lol ;talloti). 492-3

-li-l
<:!o~.:d!u. t)l,,l:l~" ,-;;,lperor): 3~6. 1W!'C

~:..:r.,diu (l!hol,;,r.nt.tn). 191. !1'1. 2JX, 24'1,
'~T-14 . .H~ ~~ . .H~. ,l/;/, .f~J. J6J ..l6f. 70. ..l72.

ti'' .'~..-... .:.:w. ~l)..l. 4H9-90. 5(()..1 1. ='24. ~36.
!M...
ttt5-.1i ~~-::.~~~ ,.,~,
.c:!~,.-rr
lllt1vng th~o G..nJlan~: 1~8. 249
r.it:'l!i ;u.,;11
ac: Nalul
.fJJ
'l>h11Cllll. S.,"11
,,,,...t.Jtl.(l:o} . '""l'lh''"): :'i!Xl

\tubA.:. llll
Stoch,J.l.:'N
Strabo: 1:!. :.!4. }'<, 1JI. 147. 149. 151J. 15J-4. !5(,, 15K,
hc';'-oc. l'lllo. !1H . .;..;, )~2-3. 4lfJ, 445. Sill, 514, 5.13.
.),II,, _\~lYor.:i. '>~In Jl, .i62.h f1
\lnbur.:r. tl '>11<-1" rm 1. 7. 12
str.mti.:o~ll<ll, >~u<i~l. .._...., nndtr 'srarn
ul"r,tni.,, (dt'isidatmoniA.
I ~~lie.
r'ittL
~,pdi.-h
Sc~w.mi, Auun. 14'\A

Srili.h... ,I.~ I. 5!ll
,,.,.,.,,,,.,.,-. 4-'-'
nd xploitauon: 37
AnJ <ec under 'exploltJtlon'
survcyon {mt'I1Sllrt's.~rufft'nsort"..:} IYH
Swnrirk.lJ.I (Svcnl>ifsi..Jya),l. S. ;;r~ n.13
Swoboda, H SIR, 527.535. 3K31l ..l3
Sygambri. ><'e und,,. 'Sugarnbri'
Sym. (Sir) Runald: 34 . .f501, .WI, Jh/.J. J6~ . .16H.
.170. 51!1. 6JJ u.IO. fo211 n./4, f>.\lln.45
Symmarhus, Q. i\urcbu (cos. 3'11. the ~nar orator/:
120. 19h. nl. 254, 2fd. 11171i .J'IIJ. -107,1i4fl-911.19
Symmachus, L. i\urdiu> 1\vianius (fatlwr of the foregoing): .3211
Syncs1us ofCyrcm. bishop ofPtokmai>. :!65. }41> n~.
515, 595tr.li. 615n.57
Syran1..-: 117. 119. 132, I<JI-2. 27'0, .1115 ..'14CJ. 5:111,52.2-.3
Syna. Syriau.:IUI. 12, l'l. 11'1. 15[1, 151. !52, 172, 1~.
2:"1-2. 224. 227~. 2<J~. :1111. 3-J~. m. -147. 4!1.3-4
(with 652 nu ..H-5). 4'.1-1. 4%. 4'/ll. 5fl3, St.l to.~IJ:
Syrian 'born for >hwty' (Cil'ro) . .Jl/
L1P4-inc~. ~'l~:r.hn iJ!. J ~ r:..~ri:m conununlty
1-"". ~I !1.37. 59:; 11.6
.~ultJrJIIitJu,r.,,- j.5~
2m.
:!13.2:!1>
JA7.
SMn. f.nor l'~ . ;!;.,;, L'-11. 311,1, 4!11. 4'111. 49'J, 51~-17.
St.-wrL. C F.
'suptnrructun (and 'ba<is'): 5ee under 'Bais and

Sup<'I'Stmctun in Marx'
supplida: """'"a supp/ifi,, (delined)I'1.'5CTVoo ror lower
dJ.ses. 45H
>urplus. 3i-7 (with ';45 r>. \11), 43-4,51. 52-J, .aud many
othtr pa<o;.l~ts. inrludl!l!~ 133, 172, 1?.3. 2115,
superttiti~):
!111'1-'J. 343,
Tmu<Rufu,. 1.; 1.!1<

'Tn1. 'll'. W. 11. ;~;""
/.~,;.I<J6,.19.;,
+15. 56<Jn.H
f;oud::a (:n SpAin): 1'*

1:,;> {iP Cihri>). lloi,, Jl~, 455, 41>2. 4%, 511. J.ll: it.
littt"1r-W-.,~l,-~ .. ~.!!' :-iru.:u;.. 455. 5)2: women vcilld
j,,; 11/.6; ll<lll<: :o:J\'.'>1 :>! St l.;ul. lfl(,, 455. ~fi2
f.ld~U'II. <~!,;!sha .. u;.. q
::;;;,; tC:.n ~l . .,1('/'tr ;- [w;ai' i/llJo.l tm.l 7), ! 17 IN. 212.
.'0:-l 5. !fl . .f']ol;.. U..r;. llOi. J7.J. -171-4. ~HI. 4H7, lHH.
-#.,9.~i 4YJ,l'f7,;!l( ~. !i. 1.1. 51. <J7, I !H. 2:!H. 21-4.
J-ll'. :.~ ji.~ .tr. J...:'. -~:3. 47;-tt
tl\'\''-'; b .~ ...r~IW.~ ~1.1 UH'"""'Y iuconll': Il-l
tl,dri~ ji!Jt~,.i' 5.11~
,,!~ott. lleJt,,tJ;~I(ilr}r,l:('fnw;
1~7. !71. 493,

~!~~o.;:_-1: ... ~:--'"i h -''"" I~ Eibl. lti. I he vtlJd .u Edcs!l:a: .l 16
....u
:,l!,tti..\'ll~etli
{1\!.'i,): ....,.~
p.uu.ll tJX ,.,,~,J.U"ll i,,,. \'d4.'JJn!'l:
1~ 7.. 1H
inhc:rttanc(; U'll (ir~~ lltrtJitatitm): 3hL 3f't2,

4.i.,.._, 1w1rh ~.;; ,,,:_ '> 7)
. u. . . lottitrtlr:~: ..' ri-1~
;,~,,
ft."4Ub.lt1Un~
iJ'II ~ihd (it-Jitl;,~f6 t."h" ) :!.14

tril,utwn, trrh"t:.~tt ..!ilt,~pit~': 114. 2.f4
(.\lrit"'''Jntt.'f.J ;tr,-,...-,1, lflf-n~t.lrttirii trtuli: 5()
;'ar..,~J;IW .,k.,i iru lrttlictM: 1)4 (wtrh 5H7rr, 131
:~, ... f'tt1:1!it~, .,~Jlt1ot.,. (:,-l,l,wi, rr,b/i(diH)' 1/4. f2H,
H1. 1-.. )iii.. nr<, ?~H. ).~>:9. J4fi. ~30; otb<t ux~-!k''l"" 1.!'.. no~. r13, OOi, ~97-11. 4':195m
J\tt~l ""~'t' .~u~~-r 'L~phora ~
!:..,.:;.;,.ri f,1i!alr~a~uJ: 474~ -19.f
l.wl'" u:, k;~~... :"",; "'" Vl.ii), n.H (on VJ.iii)

T:h~~,-n~:>. (._... : -~:(t! ..;;n
r;:h.;ri.._.,Vi.., f[..~~u:ni;,hv..r i \' .. 4-#Z. 5f{J 11A.~. 6.\.f u. ~
Index
Tcchn'arc-ho!O .2i:.
tcchr>ofogy: 1/.' ("'!~!; i-t~'
oliJ.il
JJfl ,\c,.:l
~r~ U!lder
'~urornatic,n
Ttgt',l, Ttgc~h'l: _llJ,!

rcli' (Solunia10 ...s Athmsl: -'' ,m,Jc-r 'Sd..,u'
Ttmnus )I)~. i31
t<:mpk cstal<' ~'" Asi1): ISJ-7. And ~ under
'hitrodult
tc..mph.~-sc..rv;;~it~: s~...,~ td~~:,r 'h.iC'J(J&:iL!k"'!'"..
Ttnnyson, Aiiit-:i (1.-:>r.!) .Qj
T ~nnc<." 103. l!~; lllf;,.. (1\t.kl>~' '~.Vii- S.~!'r .. N
Tcrm~:,su~ ~tin<_,:_ ~1
trrr~Je latfil~t: H.~ ~nd-:r ~l,ittr
1" crray, Emru;.at:l::!
.~ 1 ~
rmit(lriwn (ch.h,;), i!l. j i
T ~rtullian: I.S . .1~. H3

'TtrruiJianlSt\' ~: C.,r:hJ>:<")- U'.
'Tcuarchy' (.". n. ::s~ ff ): ~'!,;, ,:-;.;
Thagam (1n ..... lru;.t) Y~
Thalas..uo ui Amiuch: ;;!4
Thab of Milot .. .- I\!
Thalrt1 of Ariu, _,.,,,, -''' ;w::h M- ;-, ~'II
Thamugadt ( J'i;a,:..d) -~'
lhtatrt'S' 31!1-l'i, X~!
Th,bcs: ~'J~ .
511f<. c~rtmc-.o t1l. gar'"<lln": 1>1
Sp4rta (]H~;7'i}: :~ . 1\r.,:, . .-c dt!J~% "Rot"(ti.'
Thcmistius: -11?. -l><l, 4'~~. !-14,.~:;;
Thtmi.tod-" Iilii
Thtoct"tus '!'-'~tlty<r'''' (.\tL.:-_1 . .<j,.J
ThL-oduhad {O>tno;"th!t kih,~ 1 Ir~!v) . .:.'!U
:!'".
Tht.'Odora {ll. . :!.t~!~

(with 631 .5~;
ThrodorL'. St {Jt
t~rr"~""
\\it\ ,~f )tc.~m~~u-l .J91
~'Y~'I111, )-.~,tlu~~
,,f 1'\u.,.._r~...:laJ;o'i"');
ll5-fJ, 446-7. I'H.
Tht'Odorc:t of C\:rhu~ ,:( ~!l'rrl
~~o.. .-)\,i~4."rL;-.,.t
hi .. t-ri.lr.'i
451.4911
Th,'Odortc I C'tilt
o.n.,:oll.ic kil:,~: ~!('/--,!\ 'i''.:'
Tht,ldorrc II. l )~cr,~ ..rhk kiul~- ~"' u jr.
Th<'Odoru. ftth' l'lcu:.,., 1.'1
ThL'OdosiU> I (Roman 'r.lJ"o'r"r;. Iff. 159, 1711, 251,
152, 3'.111, 4'13. 494. 541.\
(,,.,,f.
Thl"Odo~ius
H (~~o.~~tnh Rur.l.ulo""hl"'.:'+:) l4h, 177 . .!..."!.

272.3/tl
Tht'Odosrus. c,.m,r (1\t-s-i:~ Equ1tum. t:rl i tb~
Emperor l'h-..""~.-.;..,:.t.;~ (}; P"J, S 14: lus :.~roLl:h~ l:.Afric.: .$4';' ,,_;
Th..'Odo-,lUS (!tot'-: "- r!d.'h . . . ( Aut:.t~~o"{.~po.:.:h:to lrl F-~o;~ fl,,
224.321
Thtodo>IUS f Al-h.t;~~~i. (admimtrror of
Church lu.L-;) o'.!-'>-J
Th<odrn.n.s. h~.--;.J k~s~,.... ...:.f !.tu~l tf lf,,atou ~!:;:hh i!
Sioly: 49H
Thlodotc.: (h"M .a: At~!."'t~!oo ~~14:--.,:n JU L!i....f:,:;h.' . ,,x,nophofl): IU o I '''/>t.
Thtognl~ ..,nt.t rlu~ Tlb,'."m.t.,.~. iPt . .-'1~ .. ~;.\"'!tlJ f~~''~
411
Th<-ophanc' (DyzatlUm hiwna11) 617" ~4
Th<-ophilus, govcrnorofSn~a: .111
Th<ophraslus; 70. 140
Thtophylacl StmorJlt.l (7th c. Hyzantim histori.m):
517, 5JS, f (on!.ii)
Th,opompus (Gr<'l'k h!Stori.m) 13.2. 14'J
'Th~rapcuna' (in Philo) -t22
Thtrsirts. !lirtor' m Hom,r: 279. 413
Thl'S<.'Us (in Euripid<s. Suppl ) 7J
Liii!{IIQ(' Latilla.-: 252
Thcspa (in Hotona). 309. 6ll '' H.
n 42
Th<.,alnmca: (,5) t>.41
Th<"Ssaly: 136. 13'!. WI, 162. 4~i0. 525. 521i. And sec
n.,..."''
r,s_,
729
under 'l'cmst.<i'
Thcle< (plur.1l ofrh.s). as Solonian rrl~s .It Ath<m. 207,
281, 291, 606 rr.JI; conocriptiun of: 207 And set'
und,r 'hmd (wagt') labour' for r~i'lt"S = misrhor.i
Th!t'rry. Augustin. 'th<' father of thl' "cla" struggl" m
Frtnch hitolloguphy' (Marx): 548 n I
'Thmy (tyunts)'. The (Athc'lls, 404--3) H:IU. 291 (witfr
6(1(, Jl). 536; the Athtnan dernocratir rcsirance
w. in 403:191 (wnh 606 JJ)
Thomas. J- 1\. C.: 240, 597n.3
Thomas. lt. I' _,,.,. und,r 'North. D C . nd Thomas'
Thompson. E. A .. 2JR. 249. 474. 476-9. 4!16. 4119, 541
" I. 590t:.2'HJi11 ). 59/n.J4a
Thompson. E. P: 21,62
Thomsen. Rud1: 55H rd (on ltl.i)
Thomson. r,...orgt: 41
Thoramus. C: 175
Thorax, Mount (rwn Magntsh on tbt Matndtr): 445
Thom~r. Oanicl 'JI:I, 1J5. 2UH; 544" 15. Slit n 2
Thucc. Thucians: lZ7, 163, 216. 217, 250. 294. 4711.
479-Sll (with 477). St:!-15. Sl7. hill n.2; providt-d
hrg<: proportion ofGrctk <laves in Cl.mkal period:
163.227
'Thranan Ch<:I'Mlmsc.-': ?/2
Thraoca Pactus (Homan Stoic) 37l)
Tlmsybulu (Atht'rlian): frM rr 2~
Thrasymarhus (of Chak<-don). as oppomnr (Oahr.ndorf) of'timctionalir' posllion oiPiatn's SU<-ratts 82
rl,.proi, ddin~: 23~: rulmgs of kll''' Vi(~ctho"'"' "''d
ofJustinian on: 233
thrushf:' (turdi), Rom.tn. fe<ding of: 1!17
Thuqdtdt-s.17. 47. 74. 5tJ6. frOJ-6 "" 26- i & 29- JI, .'\_
24, 73, HO. 93. 132, 147. 171. 11~.'1. 2Pl..l. 2911-1,2%,
.l2.'. 346. 3h2. 51~7, 5UH
fhurii (in south haly): 2117
Tbtnas (in Galil<'\') 427, 429
Tibtriu (RoTtUn mptror): 143. 194, 22!!. 2M. 3'};1,
3511, :\61. :Vo3, ~7. 3711, 374, 3115. 3!1K. 392. 499,
51fl, 531'>: mutini.-s of Danube and !thin<' arrnic; ot
bqi:inningofhisrt-ign(ll l>. 14) 266
Tib:riu; ConstanUnt (lat<' Ronun mtpttor) . .W.'-4.
494-5, '>17
Ttli.mum Tib<-rmum. Pliuv's tal<' at 231!
Ttgris, Rivl'r M\45
.
Timat'US (SKiliatl Greek historian): 202
Timarchus tllthc'tllan): 604 n.27
rim< (Gre.:k word for 'honour. 'offi.' rc )!Ill (with
~51 n.311)
tttrliftJI: ~"C UUdlT et.'tlSOrL':!t.
Timgad: sec under 'Thamur:adi'

Timothy. bishop of Al,xandu.a I<~J (with H7 ".26)
trmc,..cl~t>i. at M~ss.ah.a: 53ft
'tinkd. Plato's 'b>ld-h<adcd 1inlt' 412. 7!
Tmdatl'S (Parthian Pr<'Mldtr) s:;r.
Tissaphern~ (Pnian .atr>p) (~!511.2'1
Tinus. Sxtus (Rnman tribune): 619tr. 11
Titu (Rnnml ,.n,f'L'ror): Jll!
Tobit. !look of 4J.'i
Toc-ra (Tauchl'ira. Tcurh,ir>) = Arsinoe in Cyr('naica:
535
Toulouse (Tolos): 5'!5 n.l)
Tolstoy. his l'rinc. llndrty rn War arrd Ptace on viis of
'IO'rfdom: 42~
Tomi: t.5J ~nd ll54n.42
roparchs: I 27
Tordli. M: 51!2n.4
Torm. Can11lo: .WJ
T .:rrturc, Roman 4J9, 454. 4J9-6(}, more prevalent in
Chr1stian Emp111:. 43'1; torturing slaves ro procure
730
&'\'iJffiCt. agJiru.t thdr masters: 459-61l. And sec

uu:.!c~ 'J.o~ Fr.;k! yst"m . 'lloggin~t". 'mLltilat&oiJ .
'punishmt"nt, ""'~'an'
:orii.l, Omogor!.il kmg of Italy: 221. 264 (wuh 595
roT),
-I.J~,i.~(,..,thliS111 ..1(1)
r ;:,nk:.lo!l., ......
kl . .nn... : 52.l. 525

f '!"" (flt"'l>;~l: n: . und,r '( ;rcgory <lf Tour> and
llnL!IJU.:.t.~ ~1t t.:SU!~
Toynb.. A::oJd. 'l",...., S:\Msd (unl.ii), 5b2n.4, 5Mn.l5

'J J;.~ho;~r,tt!)l; .1"-t-t
T~;.c'. 11-t~.liir::: '~\": 5h
tr.;,j,;,.,_ tn\""~h.:u::,. <hopk<'<'pt"rs. 4. JJ, 41. 7711, (with
(!i i r. .'il "~' f/0. lOS. MJ. 52. 7!>, 114-15, 116,
Ll-h'<, l.?H-~. lN-31. 1'19. 270, 271. 272, i53 n.'l
(\ll'l:bt!!o), :;;,1 !"r. ~1-.2
,.,;p,,,.,itlt~l','ltrih:.~ultli'ro
r .. J.l)
.
384. J87, 3K9, 489, 4IJO, 4911
!'...ll'm llJTMll ~:npcror): 38/J. 448, 479, 481,

4:<1). j !-1 Ar.d s t:rtd<'t valcnriman I and Valcn
V~l.-r.tir.ir. I (Roman cmpt"ror). 3118.4111.485,493,514
\'Q!o:t:til::~,; and Valen (Romn cmp<T<>f'). 127, JIIJ,
.!lA>; ;(.
V,drt;:"'l-'~ II JWo:'"' l{nm.on<'mpror). 388
V.lr,"i"i.lU IH ('IJ"'r.-rn Roman t'nlp<'ror): 2.t;2, .190,
Vlol~
.::.)ill
distin,tions: 77 (with 551
ttr,l:l> m:~ 'mc:~h~nl prinets' 2110

;,,,.._.:ii'~'Y 'l!lt'r<'antk ansrocr.lci&.,> of Aegina,
C-.:b~ill'lr. H. :;w, 5.H11.9(wlth115)
c;.... ,., n.;.:!c fit.\: 1 lar~tly in rhc h.md~ of ttl!.'tics':
v_;.!>. ~ 5 I ,. 17 (w:~h 7l!)
<:>r .--.. .r~h .:-~nplt of n Arh~ni~n (Phormio)
O\\ ,.;,,~ :::n~ rb "' on< nwtcbant ,hip 55H " ,f (on
IIJ.:i)
i"'!'.UlLJ. ~-: ,t_~ n ?~

(l!,m._.n ..-mpcror): Jt)')..IO. 31920. 34.l JM,
Tr~''
jl,'-,
Ursicinus (Magister Equitum and P&dilum): 48i

Ur.inus (Popt: or Anti-Pope): 451
Uipi. mutmy nd fare of those serving in Roman
auxiliry cohort (A.D. 83): 229
'usurp <lf rht Roman lmp.rial throne ( = 'ryran>~i').
.l'/<1, J/-1. .182. Jl/9. 397, 398, 4(>1!. 529-30. <;,U
.:.f. .u Jku"~,~nturn: J97

>.::' 1111J~~ 'Pliny th Young~r' for tht'
l'>lh~~ri< ..;Tqi-.:. by Pliny
rransport. lfi1'. l3.:!. J'll-2. l'l'I.1Ul, H'f..#OII.H
by w,<ll'f (ri,.,., r>t'a) mu<h IIIOtl' ch,aply than by
Ard~
.'\u.t
hr..t: 1!-1.'
.\nJ ,.,-,; :;><!,! r,caria', 'J'O't. Impo:rilipublic'
J'r;H!L "4.1
Til-i~ii.l {Ot>trthj:
4!111, 59;; n.f>

tnl>:u:., tttihr1r1i plebi,) ,,.,. un.J,r '!\orne. Rosnans'
t~ik:,to~ii ""'.:' uudn "aditiptidr
1' .!J4
rn.t,to:.tann; ~~ t
I ritH4khil iir..-J:'n Ill thara.:t.-r in P~rroniu<): 17i-l/
"i""'""' :
(\\ilh5ii:.IM
Tripnbuna (Iln~'' rr.wincc) 595n.t>

Tsch~rikow..-r. V.: ~...unJtr'Tchcrikowr. V.'
rlllii . no: (ln .Jroi<.:; h::dowmr) ~1!2
rurk, (r,....... t,n:i: ~
T;:trk~ .. (.)ttuu.l.t~~- ~- ). J.97
~] urrn,. !1,-~&~~d ..r "ftruria'
'I \WIW l>hJ,f>. {.,,.,.- ui th lt>S, 33-4-5

l'v,"!"HJt.. t~-. (4lt_~t ...i.,tJ .\13-14
eyt;.~J~~. :~r;ttJ!i: ~r o:.n.lcr 'n1on.trchy and tyranny"
... ,.h'! ..J17'' "'.... \~'-3
Ubu: ~~~~
Ulfila: 514
UlpiJn. "'' und~r 'D\c.-.<t': for Epil. Ulp . "-.: 5116n.l
Umbria 1!17
'undunn.s; of women: Sl.'<' unJ~r 'Jws. Judaism.
wnm<.n
ummploymcnr' sec under 'employment or un,mployrutnt'
Unittd Sc.ott'> nf Anurira, Am<"riran 57. !>3, .Hl. 420
d~ial of da >t rug~tl in: 57
asumprion of mou1 suptriorirv: 3.11
'msliury-indutria1 comrkx' in. 4211
Urbit-u. Agcnniu~. S<'<'lln.lr Agnnius Urb~eus
Ur,. Andnw. 25
Un. Percy N .?110 (with 599 n.22)
m,
\' .,:.1lt.n~:~t ~~f Sdh~

ti
V.Urn:i'lm. Juli.:< {t'i r!le Treveri): speech of, bt
J.,-:r::~ .t.I.J
Va\r;_,,l (P.<l:r-lll'l''!"'ro;o~): 261. 475
V,\r:iu< M11:..irru' llAi:; histuriral compil&r. A.D.
.V."') .:-11. J!l'7. !1,'6,3;~ n.65. 621 n l
V,lldolr.i. rm:i~rw.:: ~~ (J\.D. 1550): 4111
\'.lll'~'iH: t.u t.;,t:.r..pPur~ J!..d
\'11t:..il>.. .fir.' (wir!J;H ''" Z.J-4), ~Ill. 511-13. 51~17.
5J;:1.'
V ,~.:::h:bi~-r-:n, (],;~~.:. ;.flln.1J
\ian Gogh, Vi>c:,~:t: fruurispkcc, 209-10 (with 581
nn.J-.4. on IV ii) ~7/.
\' d~...-.
i'tthi.m>.in~~: ~16
\'~:"' M T,.,,,,cin~- t4!. 146, lt>5, 1117. 1118, ZJ5. 242 .
..~i~'
~~J..
5i. :~ !l.r.:' s...h:. 59
""'"'-h. A..!.:~tu-t-.: .;;\;o.,!nJ;.'rAlfcnus Vrus

\',,..,,..., ~ll.r.''t: ~:. (._'4 n.42
V1riniowU7
V~vtlr,..r.,, Vlaiitr~ir ~."'
1-'.JiI'J>,ol/i,.P.: Hll
Vc.,:lit'"- 2'' .lllf.J, hi d.ttc .2t3: on poverty of
p<asant >H 'll~lho 11i11~ hi' milir..ry quahti<.-s. 2M; on
1hc militn- ,.,,,_,..,,,,,,or. 401-2
,.,J,j;,.l.ltio:!\N-1111.11
~J~-iU!'Io l 1 tt'~uu;u~. _V.t
Vn~~mi:' l_d.nJti('n ih -'l'lia ): 6411-'1 n,19
Vt..,~, . .,. 'n 1\t,~rihh:n~ {f-~?l,'d(K'i.J.); Sl'\' undtr 'Zt:u~
v,n<rii'. t<"mplc-scrvants of Aphrudirr >I Eryx 111
~i;jl,- V.9 n 39. 5711n.4!1
v.
Vcn.~ci'-~l
\',~,,,tldu"' 5.'~tunliltl"' ~lf:ur.l11JI:1WVl"f): Sc."l~ und4.'t n.~rst'
..
v~ ~'u P:,-.t,:or.;!t~: ~-':.
\'l'r>i: Pl>!bt:N 1) (ufCibyra): 307-11. 533
\'i''!;'t _t.."'i
\'.oili~<
,_.,l..:i,...- ofEmpror Honoriu): 5'15 n ll
V.rn'"'- Gu.1, his !>auk]<'"" tltJ')ow: 430

P .,.,_,
,.-,.,.,,_ C. \t:"'"m'"' ,,j ~icil~): J46. J4((, 3411. 354.
:'.?.!-.~. bi ,ub. til' v,rti....st SyracuS<": J4B
Vcm~<t.J.
(Rom~n ~mrcror jointly with Mar~u

161-9). 173, 537
Vcspa.>ian (Hom"" ,.,., ... : ..r) 187. 194-5,32.1. 32!1, 370,
Vtru<, I
.~w~::-.b.
.l74. 385-6, JW:. 4tYi
'( "" ..!onnp~ri" V<~~iani': 385-6

Jllir ..), nf. .lt Al.:'\~llli!;~: .J%
\''M>r iJ:.,h~~-:1 "'l:il'ls): 217-18. 45611, 461-Z;
Ill'""~,. ll the 'privil~~cd !lifOUJI'. in th Rnm~n
f-trtir HI>-~ (with 645-6 nn.\2-13)
\1 L-ttt~ A;:~~~~~U) Pr~t".'Jt.t.t:,:-,: SCl' under 'Prad(,;xraru~
"'"',.n'" P- I.,U_ .;7.; '~ 1'
\'i,IM. o\,:dJU> (1.~:~ J.:in :pilomatur). 494, ~12, 513
\'iil41-N.to;a.-~.l'k::.;: ,!J. ,t,f, 17-8. 138. 140. 562n3.
{141 11 4 .o\1rJ ..,. llll!~r ',o\utin, M M .. ~nd Vidal~aq;.~r'
Index
Vi<'ttlam (mod.:m): 48
Vigtlantius (Christt~n pmst. attrkt-d by Sr. J<'f<llll<'):
IO'J..IO
viliCII> (md rilita): 145 (witb 56Jn.IJa). 234. 235. 257-8
villag.s (kJmai): 10-11. 19. 221-5. JOO. 5. 13S. lSI"
157~ (with 569 n.43). 211>. 250. 251; rypts of: 221
dnnocr.tic Ol'jlanis.tion in. 2212: including
Asstmbl; (ltoinort. dimo;, rJeltl''"' syJI,,go,, ynod'''
ochlo>): 222; no Council (boul~1 in. 222 (w!thSA4n.J6.
5Mn.L'a)
l:orna" hos of: 222; ,e-rousitJ. of. 222
auroprarr villag<'>= 222
grovdhng arrnud.: oflaro: Runt an villJg< in Egypt
to powerful man: 22.1-4
villajtc markctsand fairs: 19 (with 'i41 n.f>)
And ...,. undtr 'pgarrhs
Virninacium: 4li7
virginity (fcmak and mak). Chri>ttan ;ottitudc to: !OJ.
4. 1()9.111
Vtrgm Mary.''''' under 'Mary. Virgin'
virtu< of Roman~ .'30-1
Vtstgoth~: 233. 249, 25/i. 47'J-M!l. ~5-6. 514-lf>. 595
11.6; lungdom in Spain nd south-west Gaul: 2.1~; it>
L~~ .. , Vu(~othoturn 233
Yirdhus (Roman tmptror): .l22

Virruvius: 12-IJ. 621 n. I
Vlstos, Gngory 416 (with h.\I! nn 3-4)
Vogt.A :f>ll
Vogt. Jo.,.ph: 14(,, 5h4n.IS
Volsmit (in Etruria) Sl'l
Vulci. 174
Woiki~tai of E;at
Plutu!'.. h,J ,~f \\''l!ll-, in Th'-c't:Uh . .r-"'
And >ec under 'propertied clas-.s' ,t~

Wo:av.:c. P. R. C.: 143. 5h3 n.IJ, S7J u J. 57~ n.ll
(with 17f>)
Weber. Mari.,.u.- .>~!u.'>
WdxT. Mall: ,o!IJ ;\\lth '>51'' .ll).IL'"!. 2fto. /6-.', ~. ?.!.
41, 43. 74. ~'.. !J3, !.\J. ~.-;~..-,. ,f .,.,_~ ,, .;tl
artitudt h !\tor': ~~~~ 7. wn<pArb-:ul with 11.1:J/'191; failur~: r~ Jb"u'"' l\ltr.\. ~ . : .. 'th.,rl . . ~f ,.,& s1. Jil'
AA-J~
"c"'knil.""!'to !liEh:-s;.:
~;
ofSt,;u:l -A~tJ !'t-~~:..t,,... h-. L.-;< ~"'~~ ~r ... ~:., hb

..~smtta1 catq:lr\ Jf;.x
!tlavt.-,., fe-r hlu, ll''' -l ''.:Jo.. . ..,_ur -, . . r.u~ group:~.,,~~
U)l.4
la("k ofori!ttt.: d .. t1.~~~-.h~p ~ ..:""" ~:. hi~da~~-:to..f.!'d

bt:t\\"~'11 hi~ ... r.~tu-. groups: '-\A.:; l:.t"J)(, bJ-. ).l~t~l!'\' r.:.
l'xplain so<~~~ lt.mJr: 90- 1
obsrurir\ ,,f >6
And S<'<: .:u,k: :.t,.ai I) r<'

;n ,, 511
Wets. Egun:
566n 26. ;69-70nn.44-6. 62011.12

Wl'IW<'I, K. -W.: 568n.34, 570n 51
W<st, M. L .: 599,.9
w,,tcrmann. W. L.: 299-30, 553 n.26, 562 n.7. 572
nn.f>S. 73, 574 n.l5. 585 n.l, 5!17 nn.2-5
WcstJ.k,. H. D.: 603-4 n.26
whcdbrrow: 38
Whcdtr. Mucus: 80
Whnby. Mtchacl: 517. 614n.41
Whit<. K. D.: 577n.t9. 5!!9n.23, 593-4 n59
Whit,. lyn11: 10-11.14.465. 546n.l4
Whiteh,ad. David: 554 n.21J
Whin~k,r, C. R.: 563-4n. no. M'!n.4
Wilcko:n. Ulrich: 55~ n.2 (on IJI.i). 5!11 n.S (on IV.i)
Wilhelm. Adolf 525
Wtlkcs. J J.. 242. 512
Will. tdouard: 6(/()n.2, 609n.2<t<.
Will<trs.lt F.: 571 n.S!!
Wilbam>. Gordon: 61S n.57a
Willi~ms. Wynne: 526
wmd (and ><e wtdcr 'windmill): 3ll
wmdmill: 31!
Winst:mlt-y. Gtrrard: 444
WiiJtorbotrom, Mirha,l: 167
Wi,..zub,kt. Ch.: 1668. 626 n.54
Wis.ntan. T. P.: 625nn.27, 37
Wocss. frinlrich vun: 16JII, JJO. 572 nn. 634. 611
luai.: IJ'J
Woloch. Micha.:l: 109(with611 n.IS)

wornm (~nd sex, marriage, divorn. virgimty etc):
91ftll. 4. t7-1H. 45. t-Ill. t~7. 234. :m. 236-7.
W ad. John: ."4h n l

W;1lbank,f W ..\ 1ifn 1.~.!>7H: "1i'-!,M3n.l4
w~ldm~nn, tldn:ht o;,-,jl;,, _~t.
Wallace. S. L ""I u 5
Walton. C. S .. 5;l<J n.l.:!
Waltzing.J- -1' 5Wn.lj
Warmington. Jl If. r,;>t. 1 5
W.uon, Marg::mc 0. 41
watt>r-mill 24. JS.rJ
w.;oillth in anti"iuity. -+. '!ti. ; 12-J..!.. !ii .. ~ ~~,,~,;.;fL.!,
nn.J0-17). 120-33. AnJmn'r tlwrp.1ssagc
primarilv ud~J,J. Ill u. -1. -~~~- 112. 114-21i
quantift.-.1 ntit~l. r"tu<'mn \,xr.rt ;,, hnJ,-.1
produc.-in kind~ 114
of IIOUVNU r:;/lf,- 1;5 ..;
of Asia II< ( ;1\ok. ln. -''" H C. /17. 11'. lo
Hdlcnitic ;,t,.i Rm;ur l"llo.J. I I"-.~' iwnh :;:,~
nn. 10-17)
ddinitiot"' :~t\11,~
731
WdJ,.,. C Bradford: 152, 157-ll. 537,54511.5, 554n.30,
2;;(>..7, 362
Marx 3nd Engds on wom,n 'H; on J~t<'tlt :>laver\'
in cbt (~rnily': 99: on divi>ion oflabour b:tW<'<:n men
and wonwu: 'H; ~xploilariou uf: ul
WOIII<"Il (or m>rri<-d wom<-n) u a 'cia>>: 4. 45.
9/t- toZ; but mmbcrship of the cla.s wtll vary in
itnronann': 101-1
ustrittion of prop<"rty nghts of wom,n (ot
marrit-d wom.n): 101-3; othtr disabtlit11s of Gn-..k
wnm<11: 1012: th~ kyrio, hll. rpiklh"' patrv11d1os.
JIH-2
gtrl babM; 10 .mtiqutty. 1.-.s <:hanCL of urvi val of
103 (with H5n. 7)
m~trilin-ality (Mulll.,.<rht): 1113
humanistic .hara<"!<T of Roman Ia"' of husband
~ndwik 108
Chri.tian nd Jwsh altltud<'S to womn. sc~.
nurriag<' and virginity: IOJ- W; >ubjcrtion of "'omen
m Chntian and J"'"h maniat."'' 104 7: contr3>1
attitud. of Mu~niulo Rufu.: I tO
irrational ide:as about 'wtdl'annc:M' of wunt<11 m
pagantsm. and "P in Judaism and Orthodox
Chrostianity 1011-fl; olh<'t uptr.citious tdea> ahout
wontt-n (m Columdla and Bolus 'lkmocritus'): :ZJ4
slave 'marriag(.-s' nc.~v.,.-r recog:nistd tYt1l in
Chrtsin Roman Empm (or m North Amrrir:m
r.bv,StaM): 1411. 2Jf>-7. 2~7
m~rriag<.,. bctwe<'tl city 111<11 nd p<asant girls rar<!:
17-1!!; Aphrodllt' Kallipygu>: I!I; V.-nus Pastoralis: 235
p..nal tmpoctann of u:bgion to women in
~miqutty: 107
women' work in the hom~: 1~1. 2.\4
th..-y rnighr rrniw ),..,, from b<'Ocfactions/
fimnda1iuns: tw,.7
special taxation uf wom~'O. 362
And '""' und<'t 'Ad~m ~nd Evl''. 'Christianity',
fomicati<m'. '.Jrumc, St ', "J.:w,, Jud:usm', 'Paul.
St.'. 'virgmity'
732
Woodhous.-. A. S. P.:ZOJ, 441

Woodward, A.M.: 528. 5.13
Wrtght, G~vm: 5117 n.ll
Wright Mdls. C.: <Xund~r 'Gerth. H. H.'
Zda in Pont us: se under Anaitts'

Zem ofDardanu~: 118
z..,.o (Lat Roman emperor), edict of, forbidding
monopoly: 273
Zcno (foundrr of Stoicism): 423
Xanrhus: 531
X<"nophon (and P.-X.-u.): 9. 24. 66, 73. 118 (with H8

n. 7), t.Z1. 123, 147, !50, 171. 179-82. 1!!5, !911. 1'11.
22:2. 2Jt, 234, 2t,J, 295-R (esp. 296). 402, 4!2, 414-15.
419.505-6, 5lJ6-1. f\07n.37
hts bnlliant and anri-d~mocranc ptrcc in Mt""
414-15
Ctc..,ro's Latin trans of his Ot.o ... : 234
Ps.-X<n .. Ath. Pol ('Old Olil!arth'): 7.1 (w1rh 550
n.tl)
Xtphtlinus: 195
f~ronry of: JJt-2 (with 617-18 nn.\1-12);
Chmrian comphciry in ignoring thts: JJ t-2
Yawrz.Zvi:JJ5,57lln.27.624n 14
Yahweh,
Younc. H. C.: 539t~.-l

Yugolavia: 7, II
Ztnodorus (honorary consul): -11!6

Zrugna (on Euphrat<'<): 129
Zcu>: 154, 5f,ij..\l n.3!1
Zeus Abr.-ttmu in Mys~a: 568 n.JII. 64\1 n.3
Zeus (Baal) of Batticaen m northern Phoenicia
(IGLSVII.402!1): ~<ln.3tl
Zeus ofOiba in Cilloa: 56M n.3!1
Ztus ofVt'Jlasa in Monrncn<: 154
ZI.'UlUs. Flavu (ofPhrygwt Hurapolis): Sf> I n.24
Zintbabwe: 212
Zosmus (late Gr.-.,k hitorian) 1112. 247, 272. 4711HO. 41<9-'liJ. ;!2-15, 5'J5 n.6. <'tc.
Zoirnu (fr,edrnan of M. Aurdius Cotta Maximus).
178
Zoucus (p~torian pr.fct): 4111!
Zulucra, F. de. 572 nn. td. f>5
Errata
p. vi1i :for lndcx<-s n'44lndu.
p. 37, pan .!,line 3\: {or producer< rtd4produnrs'
p W. para .1, line 5 : rrad pre-revolutionary
p. ll.!.lim IS rt.Jd >UntmariS<.d
p 163. pua J.lin 3 -_(orT<mnos rradT<mnus
p. 31J9. lim 20 ._r.,, Cad,strtus rrad Caltmius
p. 317. pu~ 2.lino Ill :.forciVi14tum r.-.ul civitalium

p. 404, para !,lin< 'J :for 11loscurus rrad Dioscuro.
p. 51)6, para l, bnc 2 :.f"r o.c.-l.~a ,...aJ Occdta
p. 521. pua 2.lincl>, first word :forthc rtodth<n
p. 526.lintll :for Athmian rrad Ath<-nion
p. 535, pau l.lind .for Euhespcnd<'S rtad Eu<-spcrid<'S
p. 568. n.33,line8 readp<'1'iod
p IJI6. n.M 'for CHSB l't'ad CSHB
pp f>22-.lrunnin~t hc~ds .f<>r pp mzJ p.
p 6~4. runnmg had .for IV rrad VI
p. fl24, n 26.linc 1 ;f~ U! r~ad I ':I
p. 1>211. n.17. hnc 4. """ lixrtrfp
p. 1>41. n 4 4.U[And sec p. 32"> abllvc)
p. t.54.linc 16 'for Sidnn, rradSidon.

De Ste. Croix-The Class Struggle in The Ancient

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Ste. Croix-The Class Struggle in The Ancient

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Ste. Croix-The Class Struggle in The Ancient

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What corrections are listed?

What corrections are listed?

THE

Cornell University Press

De Aardappeleters (The Potato &ters)

e 1981 by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix

I' 'MJ1;0. J!J

~A~~ i?SMJwrI' ~ P~=f-W t~ J' J9ffl

gr lq ,&J, aJ""p ll!ro

CLASS STRUGGLE in the ANCrENT GREEK WORLD

II Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle

III Property and the Propertied

The conditions of production: land and unfree labour

IV Forms of Exploitation in the Ancient Greek World, and

'Direct individual' and 'indirect collective' exploitation

The Class Struggle in Greek History on the Political

Rome the Suzerain

'The queen and mistress of the world'

VII The Class Struggle on the Ideological Plane

VIII The 'Decline and Fall' of the Roman Empire: an

Bibliography (and Abbreviations)

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

Polis and chora

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

civilisation (etymologically 'citification') on an ocean of rural primitivism. They were

Actually, as we shall see in lV.ii below, the opinion expressed in thatlast

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

produce from them cannot grow, or maintain a large population. Alexandria,

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

infliction on working peasants of burdens of the type of angaria is likely to result

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

To conclude this section, I cannot do better than quote two summaries by A.

And in a note later in the book Jones adds,

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

1 see you betrayed

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

That last word is particularly significant. (I shall return to the 'threatening'

covers (as I am trying to do here), if the new start that I am advocating is to be

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

easy to discredit Marx's analysis of society by presenting it in a distorted form,

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

The Class Strnggle in the Ancient Greek World

the Greeks themselves recognise their existence? And is it profitable to conduct

II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (i)

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

philosophy ofhistory, which is something we prefer to abandon with disdain to

and Class Struggle (i)

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

II. Class, Exploitation, and Class Struggle (i)

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World

If I were asked to name the fundamental features of ancient Greek society