Slavery, Freedom and Citizenship in Classical Athens: Beyond a Legalistic Approach

Slavery, Freedom and Citizenship in Classical Athens: Beyond a Legalistic Approach Kostas Vlassopoulos* In a seminal article written over four decades ago M. I. Finley made the memo- rable statement that ‘one aspect of Greek history is the advance, hand in hand, of freedom and slavery’.1 Finley explained that Greek communities, and in par- ticular places like Athens, passed during the archaic period through a process whose endpoint was a social division into two exclusive categories, the slave and the free. It was not that the distinction between slave and free did not exist in earlier periods or in other, earlier or contemporary, societies. But earlier Greek communities, and the older civilisations of the Near East, usually incorporated this distinction within a wider spectrum of statuses, with varying degrees of freedom and dependence from the monarch at the top to the lowest slave at the bottom. It was only in certain Greek communities that the interme- diate statuses were abolished and the social body divided into two polar oppo- sites. Finley offered his own interpretation for this unique development. It was the result of a struggle between the aristocracy and the peasantry during the archaic period, in which the lower classes were victorious and destroyed the bonds of dependency on the aristocracy by political means: the lower classes were incorporated into the body politic as citizens with equal rights. Athens was, for Finley, the case par excellence in this development. The leg- islation of Solon in the early sixth century bc cancelled previous debts and prohibited the enslavement of Athenian citizens for debts incurred.2 This cre- ated a significant manpower problem for the elite, which could no longer count on exploiting the peasants to produce the necessary surplus. The solution was quickly discovered. Chattel slavery existed in archaic societies, but it played a rather marginal role, mainly that of personal attendance and service. But in the aftermath of these political struggles there emerged a massive importa- tion of chattel slaves, who now took the role of providing the elite with labour Source: Vassopoulos, Kostas, “Slavery, Freedom and Citizenship in Classical Athens: Beyond a Legalistic Approach,” European Review of History/Revue européenne d’histoire, 16 (2009): 347–363. © Taylor & Francis Ltd, reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, www.tandfonline.com. * Email: [email protected]. 1 Finley, Economy and Society, 115. 2 But not debt bondage: see Harris, “Did Solon abolish debt bondage?” © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��8 | doi ��.��63/97890043466��_0�4 Slavery, Freedom and Citizenship in Classical Athens 335 and surplus. Thus, the political gains of the lower classes and the creation of an egalitarian political field could be safeguarded through the exploitation of thousands of chattel slaves. In truth freedom and slavery had progressed hand to hand through the expansion of citizenship.3 Finley’s view that the growing importance of freedom and citizenship had as its corollary the growth of chattel slavery has been widely accepted by ancient historians in the last few decades.4 There is no denying that there is a significant element of truth in it. But there are many elements of the social and political history of classical Greece that this analysis leaves without ac- count. I shall confine myself in the present context to a re-examination of the relationship between slavery and citizenship in classical Athens. My argument, briefly, can be summarised as follows. While there was a categorical and simple division between slave and free in Athenian law, in social practice the situation was very complicated. In many cases it is simply impossible to tell whether the individual involved was free or slave; even more, there are cases in which citizens are accused of being slaves or the children of slaves. This blurring of identities was recognised by contemporaries themselves as a significant phe- nomenon, as we shall see. The explanation of this bifurcation between law and reality should be sought in the function of the Athenian economy and the social content of Athenian citizenship. In Athenian democracy the privileges of citizenship extended to the lower classes of peasants, artisans, shopkeep- ers and wage labourers. Slave and free exercised the same professions and this meant that it was often necessary to accord slaves an extensive freedom of movement and initiative. At the same time, this overlap made it impossible to differentiate status solely on the basis of profession or living conditions. Thus, a number of slaves were in a position to take advantage of this blurring of identities to escape detection, avoid maltreatment and create better conditions for themselves. From a legal perspective the distinction between slave and free was mani- fested in a number of ways.5 To start with, there were activities which were per- mitted only to freemen, while strictly prohibited to slaves. For example, only freemen had the right to own property, while the law categorically denied this right to slaves.6 Activities that were essential to the Greek sense of identity, like participation in gymnastic activities, were strictly forbidden to slaves: 3 Finley, Ancient Slavery, 67–92. 4 But see the modifications suggested by Rihll, “Origins and establishment.” 5 Hunter, “Introduction,” 5–15; Todd, Shape of Athenian Law, 167–200. 6 Harrison, Law of Athens, 236..

Load more