1.5 Dip Soton ABOLISH Dest-BonDAGE? mei “je CONSTITUTION OF THE ATHENIANS ATTRIBUTED TO ARISTOTLE INFORMS US IN ‘evel places that Solon abolished the practice of “lending onthe [security of he] ody” (Baveigav Eri tos ocbpci).' Several scholars have recen to mean that Solon abolished the practice of debt-bondage. M. I. Finley dage was abolished tow! roura"* Elsewhere Finley asserted “The Solonic revolution in Athens brought an end to debt-bondage” and also interpreted a major fragment of Solon’ (fe 6 [West] as a description of this reform. G. E. M, de Ste disagreed with Finley, but on this point he did not differ: in his opin “forbade for the fature not merely enslavement for debt but also any ndlage by the simple expedient of prohil thas been accepted without que as Obert and by Patterson.’ Tn this article I will argue that Solon did not abolish debt-bondage, but only cnslavement for debe. Section I will analyze the difference between enslavement for debe and debe-bondage. Section I wll examine the terminology used by Aristole to describe Solon's reform and show that the law concerns enslavement for debt, provide evidence to show that debt-bondage ‘Athens long afte Solon. Section IV will show that ae he lawgiver was concerned about enslavement resulting250 LAW AND ECONOMY fiom violence and raids for booty not about debt-bondage that had come about bbecause ofa certain system of land tenure. Section V will place Solon aw inthe context of elas relations in Archaic and Classical Athens important to prefice our discussion by drawing a clear distinction between enslavement for debt and debt-bondage.® In enslavement for debt the debtor becomes the slave of his creditor, who becomes his master and chus gains all the sights of ownership over the debtor. Different societies may place different sestrictions on these rights, bt the basic incidents of ownership remain constant from one society to the next. In all societies ownership is “the greatest possible interest in a thing which a mature system of law recognizes.”” The Romans grouped the rights exercised by an owner under three main headings, che right to suse (us i) absence of term, (ix) prohibition of harmful use, and . The Athenians and the citizens of other Greek clearly recognized that owners exercised these powers over objects that belonged to them and that masters possessed all these rights over ther ‘masters exercised complete physical control over their slaves: they could beat th chain them up, starve them (Xen, Me ‘employ them as prostitutes ((Dem.] 59:18-23), or even castrate them (Hat. 8105) All money earned by slaves belonged to the master ([Dem I contracts made by the slave were the nership athe sgh "todo whateer one wars” For she ight of nmerhip in Athens an other Grek i cK DID SOLOW AROLISH DEBT-BONDAGE? 251 esponsibility of his master (Hyp, Ath pus), IFthe master fll into debe, he could bfler to hand over his slave to the creditor as compensation ([Dem.] 5520-1), oF ifthe master had his property confiscated by the polis the pleat would seize his slaves and sell them? Spi ave Ut .e most important rights for our purposes ae th right ro sell and the absence Se ee neces ee mate by gift ot sale, The master as owner had slave to whomever he pleased and take the price offered by 'e buyer without paying the slave anything, By the terms of the sale, the buyer edallthe pues corneal exercised by the former owner, and ifhe chose to sel, the next buyer acquired these same rights, and so on ad ifritun. This brings us to the incident called “ term.” The owner does his rights for a fixed period of time (“term”); his rights are permane he dies, he has the right to ransfer his possession to his heits, whether by will ot intestate succession. This incident is known as “transmissibility,” and several ‘wills preserved inthe Attic orators reveal thac masters in Athens enjoyed this right ‘over thet slaves (e.g, Dem. 279; Aeschin. 1.97). For the slave, this means that is ction to his master ot masters has no limit; he is a slave for life. There is no prospect of release from his status unless the master agrees to emancipate the slave. Bur nothing compels his free him. ‘Debt-bondage on the other hand is the “status or condition arising from a pledge by a debcor of his personal services or those of a third person under his Control as security for a debt."" Unlike slavery, debt-bondage is not a permanent status the debt-bondsman remains under the control of the creditor only until his deb is paid off. The creditor does not have all the rights exercised by an owner, just the right to his services fora certain petiod of time.* There is evidence for “The diingeshing ‘yt dings hen.252 LAW AND ECONOMY debe-bondage in many ancient societies. In early Rome the Twelve Tables (VI) contained a lause about nexwm, the Roman form of debt-bondage: cam mexio fait manip i lng nurcnpss was dispute between the jurists Mi “aro (De Lingus Latina 7305) reports there and Mucius about how to classify nex. Marilius believed nexun referred ro all acts conducted by the formal procedure per ses Kiran, including mancpain. For Mucius necwn was different from mancpati. ‘Varro uses a dubious etymology co support Mucius' view: since nexum comes from neque suum, he Feasons that the person subject to necwum did not become the property of the creditor, which made it transferred ownership. Whatever the value of Varro’ etymology, his explanation reveals that the debtor in nexun did not fall into the position of a slave under the dominiars of master. In fat, Varro continues by defining the noctsas “a feee man svho [gives] his labor into servitude for money which he owes until he pays it off” (liber gu es ees in serviate pro pecn guam db du sole). The status of the exe was thus temporary and granted the cteditor only a right to the debtor's labor. Ie was better ‘of he aids and the fdiatus, who could be put in chains and, if their obligation was not paid off sold across the Tibet’ Since che 1, he was stil eligible for military service (Livy 2.24.6) “Though ner contained several advantages fr each party, it was subject ro abuse by creditors and was finally abolished by the lex ela in 315 BCI Debt-bondage was not a Roman innovation: it was a common institution in ies both before and after the Classical period in Greece. Several of ions from the Ancient Near East contain provisions about debt- ion 117 of the laws of Hammurabi (reigned 1792-50 BCE) places years for a person given in debt-bondage: Dip SOLON ABOLISH DEBT-RONDAGE? 253, a buyer or ofthe one who holds them in debt service for ehree shal be eecured in the fourth yet. “The following provision, ection 8, sets forth a diferent rule for slaves: [fhe should give a male or females ‘extend the term [beyonel thre years] he m fora chim. 1 deb-servic, the merchant may ell him cher are no grounds ‘Hammurabi makes a strict distinction between the treatment of free persons who are turned over for a debt and slaves in the same position: che latter can be sold, bu the former can serve for only three yeas. Debecbondage is also well attested in the Hebrew Seriptures. Several Laws y fall into debt-bondage and must be released ), fa six years and must go fee in the sevench year. Let (2525-55) states that the Hebrew who is sold must not serve as a slave but like a hired servant and should only verve until che Jubilee. Before the jubilee, he can be redeemed by a relative or may redeem himself (48-9). From the Greek world, there is evidence of the practice of debr-bondage in the laws of Goreyn. In an inscription dated co the early fifth century, chere are we about the kxtekmmos or debt-bondsman (Invites Crete The first sats that ifthe debt-bondsman causes damage on the arhets of the person with whom he resides, he is not lable (lines 4-7: off BE] narxehopévo Slt xa raph EpyaBElnTat A wépnt, Erracrov | funy). On the ther hand, if his creditor denies the damage was done on his orders, the judge “Should decide on oath ifchere is no witness to support his denial (lines 7-11 of lt xehoudvo, Tov BiklagoTav SuvivTa xlpiver, a wh érrov! tuatrups). If debt-bondsman damages another’ property he should pay the penaley himself (lines 1-14: GAASIpIov 8 al 11x GBicléoe & werronelvevlos, {GorBv &AGan). The protasis ofthe next clause and the subjects of the apodosis te preserved, bt the rest ofthe claus isnot preserved (ines 14—r7 all BE Ke id Bem Or8 erralotact’, 6 vidas! x & Koreafiuevos), This clause dealt vith the eventuality that che debt-bondsman caused damage but did not have guarantee that Hebrews can after a certain period. Acc jal © For dete analy with fees > eae discsons, see Kae (195) 4-9254 LAW AND ECONOMY cnough money to pay the plaintiff. The preserved par of the stone mentions the successful plaintiff and the creditor, and Koerner was probably right to suggest that in such a case the law encouraged the two men to work out an agreement whereby the debt-bondsman could pay off both men either simultaneously or in ‘The next column (vi) coves the case where someone harms the debt-bondsman (lines 2-12). In tis case the creditor will bring the case and collect the payment of damages (al B€ vil [7]ov Kerroxelyevlov BBixt}oe! 8 kertloBéuev0s voAnoelt aii mparofiran tlés iuéus & EAeuBélpo), half of which he will retain and half of which will go co the debr-bondsman (81 EeTrpéxclerox tev Hulvow ev Tay Karroxeiulevoy, Tév BE Tov KarralBEuevov). If the creditor does not wish to bring an action against the defendant, the debt-bondsman may bring an 6: al BE K 6 KatTOBELEVOS [LF 165 uot}IT0). These provisions are valuable becasse they illasteate how the debt-bondsman held status somewhere 1m. The debt-bondsman was unlike any damage he caused and could poss ld pay damages. The slave had no money of caused damage, his master was liable. But the debt-b slave to the extent that he could not bring an action on his own behalf until he paid off his debt. IPhis creditor broughe the action, half of the award went co him and halfto the debe-bondsman. Ifsomeone harmed a slave, the ine award went cted the damages A provision fiom the lawcode of Gortyn (Lrsriptons Creat 4.7 also shows how the debt-bondsman was in a special position. The very fst clause n about a free man or a 01 uae SvlriHORe, mn, however, provides an umably failed to pay the bv BE veviapévov Kafl ‘Tov xollraxeuevov &yovn érrertov | Ee). ° For the iterpettion of heat las, se Mal (9) sand Gagarin (958). ID SOLON AROLISH DEBT-BONDAGE? 255 “The term for debt-bondsman at Gortyn was xe-roxelpevos. Greek world, Pollux (582) informs us the term Bf/Te5 was a : suo because of poverty served for [the repayment of] money” (Bfjres EAevOépeav Joti 6véperra Bi& rreviay Ex épyuplea BoUAevevTeny)Isocrates (14.48) also draws a catefal distinction between debt-bondage (Grrela) and outright slavery Iyhen describing the fate of the children of the Plataean ir children had fallen into slavery because conquest of thei city, Hesays many of d ‘of small debts (1roAAOUS LEV BKpa>v ‘chers were in a state of deb-bondage (@nrela) Since these exiles went Miferene pki, Isocrates cleat implies thar debt-bondage was widespread inthe Greek world, not a phenomenon confined to few unusual communities 1 Inthe previous scion we anlar the ifrencs Berween ‘outright slavery and lebe-bon. svo institutions existed side by side in many socie ae eee and in Rome during the early Republic ‘And when Isoerates used the term in his Plata, he clearly expected his Athenian Joe- bondage. But modern scholacs din Athens at the time since Solon had id Solon really abolish debt-bondage? gon [the security Bavelgerv Ere + cutity as opposed to the proce- inthis arrangement the for a loan. If the debtor if reclempti acquired by the creditor were protected by the die ouls and the law cited at256 LAW AND ECONOMY Dem, 417-102 Thus, a loan on the security ofthe body would grant the exedicor incur a permanent loss of status. Analysis of the phrase Bavel ld i of the phrase Baveigaty err okra Sd i ga ar ea ms pp Seater y se So reform men contracted debts on the security of their bodies avo “15 im ois osu!) and thus co be seed byd Pee fi Tols SavelZovoww faa). Some of these became saves (BovAEUOVTES others were sold abroad (ol 6 Emi tiv Ely tarpaaxduevot) matter, ral pieces of evidence that show si aioe acces ee reece yea ths ase theo les Dan esl of Lace snd Mythn) and Gers 1ow he has fallen in love with a young gil named asks if she isa slave (20: BoiAn ‘o71m). Daos He then ‘ID SOLON ABOLISH DEBI-BONDAGE? 257, seveas thar Plangon an her brother Gorgias are he cildren of poor shephert wet eedman named Tibeios (21-5 Touhy yp Ay TiPeos obey éx0081/ reentoon, yeyoveds kts vios av Tore/ Eyivevo ToUrep BiB ara Terbla), Gets next asks if tis Gorgias is che same man who is now looking (ae). Das says he is and proceeds co explain why Gorgas ” Dating a famine, Tibeios borrowed first one ‘dren but died before he could pay off the loan a errhp els pogtv yeAauBével/ roUroIs Trapé TOUvOY oN rou uu xl wey / (NES ya Hiv) pw, er dotéox hn). To pay for the expenses of his fate’ funeral, Gorgias borrowed anther ma. Sines hhe was ob co repay this oan and the debts he inherited from Tibeius, Gorgias took reer ae igo residing with Dace’ master (Emutve) while woking ff she “Tb xplos Smrepyazuevos).As pac ofthe arrangement Plangon «29 svorking with Daos’ mistss making wool and performing other meni tasks 7-8: Epyaigeren Epic Biowovel Te) Gorges and hs sister Pangon are clety in a clationip of br bongs f° Daoe aster and mistress. They ae not slaves in the fll sense since they were aoe deo Laches or capearedin wat. Nor are they like hired laborers since they erty and are not fice to come and go 38th in tesponse to Getas’ question abous their status Daos replies “have only “in a certain way.” Plangon and Gorgias are working to payoff eeie debt to Laches, who has aright 0 thes bor only ‘until the debe is paid off gush Sob lw was epee bythe ogc. Th we do nt ko the dato 0258 LAW AND EcoNoMY (One might object that Menander doesnot depict real life or that Solon's law was abolished daring the regime of Demetrias of Phalern, But the word apa (working off] used to describe the relationship of debt-bondage is also found ina fragment of Isaus preserved by Harpocration (ex. &m=pyaouev05), who alosses the term as “paying back a loan from one’s labor” (érmepycioduevos, vt 108 érroBois tk Taw Epyeov EF elpydcrto. obfreas loaios bv 13 TIpbs “AmoMASB.op00) ion very close to Varro's definition of neon. This was familiar to the men who heard the ease presented fourth century BCE, that bondage comes from Teren der the democracy. Heautortinorumses, Inthe play the slave 00 drachmas (600-1), dled, her daughter was left as a pledge for the debt ( pst dtr The depiction of debt-bondage in che play cannot be the result of| nce debt-bonlage was abolished in Rome by the lox File in che fourth century BCE, In Attic tragedy there isan allusion to debt-bondage in Euripides’ Alesis (1-9) In the prologue to the play, Apollo explains how he came to work for Admetus, is son Asklepius with his thundeebolt, Apollo grew angry and in retaliation killed the Cyelopes who forged the thunderbolt. In compensation for the murder; Zeus ordered Apollo to work in the house of Admetus (6-7: Kai be Brrevew marhp/ Bunt Trop évBpl rév8 érrowy hudryxcoev.). Apoll relationship with Admecus is similar to that of Gorgias with Laches: the pod is serving in the house of Admetus on a temporary basis as a means of repayment Gorgias and his sister are paying off loan incurred by thei father and themsel Apollo is working to pay offthe debt incurred through blood-guilt:! The passage ‘ID SOLON ANOLISH DEBT-BONDAGE? 259 verb OnyTevetw (6. “ served as slaves ‘word 87765 was used co referto “free men who because of poverty served he repayment of ] money” (B¥\es &heuBépev tovly Svbparra Bié wreviow JSvToov), Alchough the passage in the Alsts comes from “The form of servitude imposed on Apol libshanon attested in the Lancode of Hammurabi. In Babyle century BCE, any vietim who suffered an a oF ransom. As Westbrooke note, "Ifthe cup cold nor pay the ransom (Fad or negated acording 0 the cumstances of dhe cs the he culprit or members of his family or possibly one o ” Those given for kikanom had to be released after three i prstophanes appears to alle to debe-bondage at 147-8, where one of the ; ‘of money since Tam characters says “have become a slave because of alt y not rich’ (Eyeay£-ro1 SiS uixpav Bpyupibiov/ Bates yeyéonur, Bie TO wh ‘hae fua) Bat thes words ar spoken by Caron who ehoughout the st ofthe ply isealed a slave In the prologue Carion refers to his master who has acquired him and bought xeacpévea 7 Tov beovmpévov). He does ‘not owe his master only his labor, bu is under his complete control. When he icctates his master, the latter threatens to beat him (21-3). Later he calls him his most rusted dave and his ost chsh 267) The mane Caron lo appears 0 bea foreign name; Thave foun no case where an Athenian citizn bears this mame The pens ce ig cons Fs IG 5 ine 22), but appears to identify someone who is not an Athenian 7 tse he does ot ave 2 demote other men econded in the inscription. This would seem o indicate that Carion was a foreigner who fll into debe in his own country wheve there were no laws against enslaving debtors, then Aplloand Adm Note also hr Apollos seo ad Cc20 LAW AND ECONOMY sold abroad to his master, Like many other slave names (eg. Thrax, Thrass Shy) inde the ein a ch cee cane he Ati aad other Greeks no doubt thought hae barbarians wete capable of such behavior Herodonis (3) believed che ‘Thracins sold their chillsen as eaves fox export The passage thus not evidence for enslavement fr debt in At a oF Aten tia or he ain “Oa seis beter evidence for debt-bondage in Athens in Aristophanes’ Cus (je SSPE lel ters ag ak ERE See pasion for expensive horses, His debts have grown tothe point where he cnnot repay his creditors who are threatening to take him to cour and other measures, Tn one passage Seepsiades describes ro Socrates the threat hanging ore ish reflect vex uedtouen) but also sein gépoucn). Strepsiades’ use line 2), the person who has not take him into debt-bondage. Imprisonment for debt appears th the dike emporio case involving foreigners, wh might crs by escaping abroad (Dem. qualifications applies to Serepsad ey for trade and thus does not fill under che terms of the di The best nay of explaining the source of Strepsiades fei ets eee ie him gee a iyperides' speech AgsinstAthngynes also indicates that a credi- tor could seize a defaulting debtor. Epicrates, the plaintiff in the suit, has bought three slaves from Athenogenes and agreed to assume their debts on the under~ standing that they were not very large (5-9). When the creditors came forward and demanded payment, it curmed out that the debts in fact amounted to five talents 19 comments only om the meaning ofthe webs ye and ppv bu doesn bse wr Gory, DID SOLOW ABOLISH DERT-3ONDAGE? 261 (9) Bpicrtes then confronted Athenogenes, who dened he had any knowledge (2 pes debts (12), Several of the bystanders unged Epicrates to have Athenogenes Sgrested as an “enslaver” (SvBpamoBio Hv. CE [Ast] Ath Pol 52). Epicrates “hid not follow their advice, and these bystanders were obviously {peaning ofthe term “enslaver,” but their suggestion only makes sense if eal have been seized and reduced to debt-bondage, oF “slavery in a way” to use aos’ expression. ‘Our final example of debt-bondage comes from Plato’ Fuihbo (4c) In the dialogue Euthyphro tells Socrates how a pelts of his, who was serving in debr- bpondage 26fyreve), recently died. The ts had become drunk and angry atone cof their slaves and killed him, Note how Euthyphro carefully distinguishes between the status of the ulas and the slave, just as Isocrates (1448) does. Euthyphro's father then bound the plas’ hands and feet and theew him in a ditch, where he left his while he waited to hear from the Exegetes how to proceed. While waiting for the answer, the plas died of hunger, the cold, and his bonds, “The ambiguous status ofthe pela between freedom and slavery woul help to explain the bewilderment about how to prossed agnnst him. Euthyphro's father terats him like a slave after the murder by having him bound, which was not appropriate fora free man (see Dem, 5, of I. 8.41). Instead of going 0 the “Archon Basileus and bringing a charge against him, the normal procedure against free men in homicide cases ([Arist] Ath PoL 572-4) the father takes him into private custody. Ye he is genuinely uncertain about what to do since he sends fan to consult the Exegetes. And after the pas dies, Euthyphros father claims hh should not be prosecuted because he acted justy. This explanation makes sense only if he regarded him as a slave. If the plats had been a fiee man, Euthyphro's fcher would not have had the righ 10 use self-help since his offense didnot fi one of the categories of just killing (or killing according co the laws) The did not kill him as a result of ignorance in batle to steal or enslave another (60-2), or while saping cor sedacing 2 female 6) On the other hand, masters had the right ir slaves without fear of prosecution (Antiphon 6.4). Yet Euthyphro262 Law AND ECONOMY dloes not share his point of view and thinks he should prosecute his father for homicide by bringing a charge before the King-Archom as ifthe victim were a free tman. This disagreement could have occurted onl if cere was some ambiguity about the status of the plats Asa debt-bondsman, the plas, ike the hateimenoy Gortyn, was somewhere between slavery and freedom, and for Euthyphro and his father about how to deal with the legal violene death, Harrison argued that the law cited about the release of captives taken in provided for enslavement for deb.** This law isknown from Demosthenes’ speech Aginst Nic Nicostratus was taken prisoner bya titeme while pursuing. ‘one of his own slaves who had ran away. Hs captors brought him to Aegina and sold him there. Apollodorus, who delivered the speech, gave Deinon, Nicostratus! brother, money to cael to Aegina and recover his brother. Nicostratus was ransomed for twenty-six nna and returned home. He then asked Apollodorus for ‘money to pay those who had ransomed him, Apollodorus borrowed 1,000 drashna gon the security of some personal items and gave this to Nicostratus as a gift ‘When Nicostratus was unable to come up with the rest of the money, he made another appeal to Apollodorus.IFhe did not repay those who had ransomed him, hhe would be liable to seizure (€rychyijios) At this point Nicostratus reminded him the the laws stipulate thatthe man who has been ransomed from the enemy shall belong to the person who ransomed him ifhe does not repay the ransom money (ir of vouot KeAs¥oust TOU AuaaEvou & TéSv TroAeieay elvan Tay Avéivr, kav wi éero6i6™ T& AdTpA). There is a similar provision in the Iawcode of Gortyn.” The situ tthe law deals with has nothing co do with enslavement for debt. ins only to the prisoner who has been captured by the enemy or by pirates. Ie was generally recognized since the Homeric period that DID SOLON ABOLISH DEBT-BONDAGE? 263 recognized in the fourth century: Plato (R. 5-468a-b) assumes that soldiers Caer eet ea at a pe Arle wg to those who take them (8 yéxp vbnos duodoyia Ts éovw, tv fh Te ra e6Aeuov KparroUpsve: Tév xperratvresy elval paav). Xenophon (Gyr smiversl a that when a ciy is capture all the persons and belong to the conquerors (véH0s yap Ev mot évEporrois ev nhs dh, cv vray rear yh WE « cra). The person who was captured in war therefore became the a Ape alain jae: paid ransom for the captive, he had cwo options: back." Ifthe lates the former captive remained a slave man pa rans the ransom was paid. The Athenian law about the repayment of ransom and its counterpart at Gortyn therefore do not relate to craves, bf ela fm dey. In rien fe fe pein becomes a slave through a failure to pay a debt. But Nicostratus became a slave when he was captured by the enemy: His enslavement was the result of warfare, not debt. The law states that he will remain in the power of those who paid his ransom until he repays the money they spent to buy him from his captors. In the man who has become a slave through capture in war will remain a alae until a certain condition is fulfilled. The law does noc authorize a creditor to enslave a ree man for failure to pay a deb. It does not ‘therefore form an exception to the rule forbidding loans made on the security of the body, WV Ss cates he outlawed So far we have found that the wording, of Solon’s law indi the enslavement of debtors and thatthe Athenians practiced debt-bondage long, after Solon legislation. A careful examination of the fragments of Solon’s poetry confirms these conclusions. In his poetey Solon describes in general terms the "The honorary dere repoymenc of rns, 1op4) wee probably sanded tren who did no a for264 LAW AND Economy Problems conftonting Antica befor his reforms, but he clety pins the blame {Er contemporay troubles on violence and the breakdown of lay and orden the & is Doria, the chaos brought about by contempt for law ence mhelova: née Avovouin mopéxe), The remedy for F iaton i ens respect for law and justice, which brings order, makes ings right, and punishes the un ol Gpric: mév? érrogatvel), The men who have ica inco serie do not honor Justice and steal the property belonging tothe gods and to the People by ther sade for booty (Ez 412-14 [ Wes} 008 lepev eredvoy ote Pip tueTkav/ gerBéueverxhérovoww by Sprrayij SAAodeY Eder coe uAsaaovTen ceyves Aikns SéueEAa) Many scholas have speculated that the main eause of the crisis confronting felon 2s economic: For instance, Andrewes believed that the reidene op tszin to reli land abandoned inthe Dark Age ding the inch century, but “ihe process nas not evenly continued or rapidly completed” en Seatuty BCE when “the pattern of village settlement charcteri Athens” caine into existence, ed land, me-sixth of the produce co thee lords, tried to extort a greater percentage from abroad. A. French had a different view led farmers to shfe from fon, and to plane crops in Grain imports from mers na precarious position. “An decreasing feciley, mounting cared by the strain of foreign farmers fll into debt and became lant claims co take an approach different from that of economic situation re shortages and rising ps AROUSH DENT-BONDAGE? 265, a ere Wat F re ete eterna tt tag i font ee wach aed pecs fame fo eed it wcll land” Ths te fame hen alle por ‘emo te ice rnin gage eas pe dlows the sions berwen rch and poo gre ise bby the peaceful means of laws about Deo sport the view that Iand tenure.” Second, the archaeological evidence does not pete ‘overpopulation in Attica in particular or in Greece in general eee F head thse each Clete fenton erat pe eeee a cone by Lohmann show that there was no expansion ee areas of Atica ding the seventh or sixth ce aoe eae fifth and fourth centuries. Evidence from field surveys it Sere reinforce this picture. As Foxhall observes, intensive ae the southern Argolid reveal “no evidence for ene ees :s and most sites seem to be situated near areas of ee Sten Kn Man le sd ne fot coma "Ths en ay eet eepplasin lcge i its its carrying capacity in the Archaic period. leit pecan ofSolon’s ee nor the results of archaeological mas e ceva oe becigit entae adh eagle cee ‘What Solon (fr. 4.23-5 [West]) actually ee Pea violence where powerful men seize poor men and sell them éperan kad. Tv BF reUIyoY 5 Soba266 Law AND ECONOMY ‘The fact tha these men ate sold abroad demonstrates that Solon is not seen ring to debt-bondage bu utright enslavement, There is no need to invent some. glaborte system of land tenure and dependent labor to understand these veces Sach a system is without parallel in contemporary sources forthe Archaic period; of hypothesis isto explain inti per ign The threat £0 the poor resulted from the breakdown of lw and order, which led to warfare and booty one finds throughout the Had and the sin each poem. In the story he tells of his travels, Dihsseus (Od 559-43) recall how he and his companions stopped on their way back from Troy to plunder the Ciconans, kill het men and take their women 2 slaves, When laonises comes to sell the Achaans wine, the buy it wth reves tells Hector how Achilles sacked her city of Thebe, ied her fathers, took then ‘and took her mother — had she not been freed by payment of ransoon Her husband predicts that she too will become ‘once Troy falls and there willbe no one to buy her out When attempting to convince him to return to battle, sive Achilles seven Lesbian women whom he picked out Achilles captured theis city (IL 9128-51, 270-3), Agamemnon * thom the old man reesived as a prize when Achilles sacked Tenedos 3 63640) In fact: one ofthe most effective ways of male bonding iB epic isto join in raids co seize women and take them home: after Parrochce death the port seminds us of happier days when Achilles anh companion sere fn saids for women together (Il 18.28—u:8.38-4a; happy for the men but nat for the women 19.0:~2). Achilles capeured Bist in an attack on Lyrnessus 1 i562) where he slaughtered her husband and thee rode (it 1922-302). Achilles caprured Lycaon om the batlefeld and sold hin Tason on Lemnos (2135-44, ef. 23.746-9). Both Priam (Ul 22.44-5) and Hecuba (2.24:759-3) complain hat Achilles has sold many of theirchdsen dead Toe ‘ids for slaves and plunder remained a constant thcat inthe Greck world right fhrough the Classical period. Thucydides (15) noted thatthe kind of raids ea occur throughout the Homeric poems were sill common in less setled parts of Greece curing his own time, Apolodorus tells us that his neighbor Nicenratee Dip SOLON ABOLISH DEBT-BONDAGE? 267 would have remained a slave if he could not repay Fogo HA DRE Nese SU areas Seer oni parts and he Jeostratus went on arid to eapare st he (Men A 3 ch) Thus, there is no need to invent an ec ld merit of poor Athena lig into debt. The station dees Solon wan already familie to the audience that heard the Paes pens ct consant three whenever ss plagued a commenity and turn {pels nto enemies lei) who could be eezed and sold ico se Uae as Ae calla leas Gelaal set fad en sine by wilnce, not by dbe-bondae, during the brakiowa of [Wes], Solon lists his accomplishments was exptured wh enshaved by order In ft. 36 weits 8 Reos non dumyayov mpaterres EXov BI, mrov ncios rig Beoeyacing ind xpeiots guySvros. yA@ooay aim Arch livras, 5 8h roAAaXfl Tavonlvous ‘Tots 5 B48 airs Bouniny deme Byovras, Aq Beororéeow rpouEOLEVOUS, evdlpous nwa: Bes yt Ace “has bough back wo Aen eo the ey Sunded by the gods, many men who have been sold one unjustly no hah Saal hea eet des area el ee Tangunge since they have wandered farand wide, thes, who suffered language, since they! aoe > We Sintered Sl tion feo iene he any hs ram a rg ke tov before, cet could no sl deb bondamen ous sas sone captured and sold sr ae rac oyna beso re one he Gri Code (ted naa 0)é 268 Law avo sconome had a right to theit labor not use the noun to describe thei men who have power over them ds viel deinen tf aes nt ahoohe forall on, he won that designates eters who have accrped lebrors in lieu of repayment, Finally, these men have been st fi one reess (hi) de-omanen fom an ligation (Aniphon 54 ol note hem ie Bch a not completely lars and hae not sll of thei fem, oso ryhing one do cm ni about he sats fh scued shows they are slaves seized and sold as a result of raids, not debt-bondsmen.®) Pre Fil with debt-bondage or its abolition ice. Li v ‘The comin xitence of db-bondag in Classical Athen repented pr even wo pox concn cei Aen aw an sc ce The nis ied rhe cl ne ha arties entered into willingly provided they did mn ‘yp. Ak ee ly pa ae ers aa Private property was s0 de i il eaeiae me ade ic illegal to propose any redisti Bacon oF propery [Ant] At B56) Tha should come a 0 saa _ ‘iD SOLON ABOLISH DEST-BONDAGE? 269 ppt). On the other hand, the snere most citizens owned land (L} also recognized the though they practiced sav vad co protect the liberty of all fi ‘harsh penalties for ctiminals pols) In fact, Dinar refers to two cases where Athenian courts put gen to death for attempting to hold foreigners a slaves Tondage provided the Atherians witha cde way of econlling the ighs vied debtors, The law granted creditors the right to seize borrowers ied co repay thee Toans and 0 hold them until hey were ale work ich Yor atthe same time, the law protected the freedom of debrors ty denying cxeicors the ability to sll them into slavery as way of rESTAD 1 ie teas. By providing lenders with a strong form of security, howetes ddebe- bondage also made i easier for borrowers to gain credit To citizens ‘of modern ibeal laws al 0 may seem harsh, sent notions about ‘Athenians lal freedom, and thet form of government had very’ ArreRTHOUGHTS this essay was publi came across Mafl (1999), who does not diseuss dRbcbondage, bo inerpes the phrase Sovegav Et Tes otua7 in the ss say tha do (the defaing debtor “devient done slave da extanci peat Ie garder a son service ou le ver anger”). Mafli also has good critic of Bielman's analysis of the law For an excellen cdebe-bondage at Gortyn, see Kristen clearly differentiated from slaver terion of his say wee i Gg ig Dsl "05