master but also wholly his. It is clear from these considerations then what the nature and the essential quality of a slave are. For anyone who, while being human, is by nature not of himself but of another, is by nature a slave; now, a human being is of another when, while being human, he happens to be a possession.
Property, tool, nature: how does Aristotle use these concepts to characterize slavery?
What does he mean when he claims that the master is just the master of the slave, but the slave belongs to the master completely?
Under what conditions does Aristotle think that slavery would be superfluous?
1.2 Digest, 1.5.3–4: Collection of Latin Juristic Texts (Sixth Century CE)
The Digest is a collection of excerpts from the works of republican and early imperial Roman jurists made during the reign of the emperor Justinian in the sixth century ce.
Literature: Lambertini 1984; Cavallini 1994; Garnsey 1996: 23–34; Welwei 2000; Lenski 2016.
Gaius, Institutes, Book 1: Certainly, the most important division in the law of persons is the following: all men are either free or slave.
Florentinus, Institutes, Book 9: Freedom is one’s natural ability to do what one pleases unless this is prevented by force or by law. Slavery is an institution of the law of nations12 whereby a person is subjected against nature to the ownership (dominium) of another. Slaves (servi) are thus named because commanders tend to sell captives, and thus to preserve them, rather than kill them. They are, indeed, said to be mancipia because they are captured from the enemy by force (manus).
What is freedom according to these passages?
What is the cause of slavery?
What conception of slavery underlies these passages? How does it relate to the view expressed in 1.1?
1.3 Pollux, Onomastikon, 3.83: Greek Thesaurus (Second Century CE)
Literature: Lotze 1959; van Wees 2003; Paradiso 2007; Lewis 2018: 143–6.
Between free men and slaves are the helots of the Lacedaemonians, the penestai of the Thessalians, the klarôtai (i.e. “those belonging to the allotted land”) and mnôitai of the Cretans, the dôrophoroi (i.e. “tribute-bearers”) of the Mariandynoi,13 the gymnêtes (i.e. “unarmed”) of the Argives and the korynêphoroi (i.e. “club-bearers”) of the Sikyonians.14 But those helots who are released to freedom are called neodamôdeis (i.e. “new members of the community”) by the Lacedaemonians.
Which groups are enumerated in this passage? In which parts of the Greek world are they located?
How are these groups characterized? On what grounds?
Do the passages below by Strabo (1.6) and Plutarch (1.7–8) support such a characterization?
Did these groups exist when Pollux was compiling his thesaurus? Cf. 1.6.
1.4 Thucydides, 5.23: Greek Historiography (Late Fifth Century BCE)
Thucydides lists the terms of the alliance agreed between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians in 422/1 BCE, after the signing of the “peace of Nikias,” a peace treaty that ended the first ten years of the Peloponnesian war.
Literature: Vlassopoulos 2011a.
The Lacedaemonians <and the Athenians> will be allies for fifty years under the following terms: If any enemies invade the land of the Lacedaemonians and harm the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians are to help the Lacedaemonians in the most effective way possible, as far as they can. […] And if any enemies invade the land of the Athenians and harm the Athenians, the Lacedaemonians are to help <the Athenians> in the most effective way possible, as far as they can. […] And these things are to be done in a just, prompt and honest manner. Also, if the slaves revolt, the Athenians are to help the Lacedaemonians with all their power, as far as they can.
What is the exception in this list of reciprocal obligations for Athenians and Spartans?
Who are the people referred to as slaves? How does this compare with Pollux’s definition in 1.3?
Why is there no reciprocal obligation for the Spartans to help the Athenians in the case of a slave revolt? What does this imply about differences between the Athenian and Spartan slave systems?
1.5 Thucydides, 8.40.2: Greek Historiography (Late Fifth Century BCE)
In 412/1 BCE, in the course of the Peloponnesian War, the Chians asked for Spartan help to revolt from the Athenians, who then tried to reconquer the island. On the slaves of Chios, cf. 9.24, 11.6.
Literature: Luraghi 2009; Lewis 2018: 139–41.
The Chians had many slaves – a greater percentage than any other city, except that of the Lacedaemonians. And because they were so many, the punishments they used to receive for their offences were harsher. So, when the Athenian forces seemed firmly established with a fortified base, the majority of the slaves immediately deserted to them and, as they knew the land well, it was they who caused the greatest harm.
Who are the slaves in Lacedaemon, who are compared with the slaves in Chios?
Does this description of the servile groups of Sparta differ from the way they are described in 1.3?
What makes possible the description of helots in such divergent ways?
Should we prefer one description to another?
How are Chian slaves treated? Why?
If Athenian chattel slaves were unlikely to revolt (1.4), how do Chian chattel slaves compare? How can we explain such divergence?
1.6 Strabo, Geography, 8.5.4: Greek Geography (End of First Century BCE/Early First Century CE)
Ancient authors tried to account for the origins of the helots. Here Strabo reports the views of Ephorus, a fourth-century BCE historian: according to his account, originally the Spartans were equal with the other communities of Laconia.
Literature: Vidal-Naquet 1986.
Ephorus says that (king) Agis, son of Eurysthenes, withdrew the equality and commanded everyone to pay tribute to the Spartans. All the others obeyed, but the Heleians, who had the city of Helos – and were called Helots – revolted. They were defeated totally in war and were condemned to be slaves on specified terms: namely, that their owner was not allowed to manumit them or to sell them outside the border. And this war was called the war against the Helots. We may almost say that it was those around Agis who established the helot system that persisted until the time of the Roman rule. For the Lacedaemonians held these men in a way as public slaves, having assigned to them some houses to live in and special services to perform.
How
