Meyer2010 no. 1 List of manumissions in court and dedicatory bowls

List of manumissions in court and dedicatory bowls

Meyer, Metics, no. 1 Date: ca. 336/5 - 322/1 BC

col. 1

^[1] . . . ; libation bowl (phialē), weight: 100 drachmas. - living in Kollytos, acquitted in a prosecution by (apophug-) Eteokles -; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Sosias (5) living in Alopeke, acquitted in a prosecution by Sostratos of Hermos and Timarchides of Euonymon; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Pers[is?] living in -, acquitted in a prosecution by - of Rhamnous and the (10) friendly society (koinon erani);^[2] libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Herakle[ides?] living in Piraeus, acquitted in a prosecution by M- living in Piraeus; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Soteris living in Alopeke, shopkeeper (kapēlis), acquitted in a prosecution by Sostratos of Hermos (15) and Timarchides of Euonymon; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Eutychis, shopkeeper (kapēlis), acquitted in a prosecution by Sostratos and Mnesistratos of Alopeke;^[3] libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Plinna living in Piraeus, acquitted in a prosecution by Astynomos (20) of Oion; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Synete living in Keiriadai, acquitted in a prosecution by Nikodemos of Leukonoion and the friendly society (koinon eranistōn); libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Manes living in Phaleron, farmer (geōrgos), acquitted in a prosecution by (25) Nikias of Olynthos;^[4] libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. Pyrrhias living in Melite, shopkeeper (kapēlos), acquitted in a prosecution by Agath- living in [Melite?]; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. -os living in Skambonidai, (30) . . . acquitted in a prosecution by S- living in . . .

col. 2

. . . . . . ; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. -, (35) textile worker (talasiourgos), acquitted in a prosecution by -doros; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. -, worker of -, living in -, acquitted in a prosecution by -; (40) libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. -ion living in K-, acquitted in a prosecution by Thrasy-; libation bowl, weight: 100 drachmas. - living in Ko-, acquitted in a prosecution by (45) Ther- . . .

References:

Meyer, Metics, no. 1 (Translated text)

IG II² 1553 (PHI)

McArthur, Kittos, 263-291

Translation by: Mills McArthur

Images: Aleshire - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: List

Findspot: Acropolis (EM 7941)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This stele belongs to a set of inscribed records from Athens, known variously in scholarship as phialai inscriptions, phialai exeleutherikai inscriptions, Attic manumissions, or catalogi paterarum argentearum. These documents are probably lists of slave manumissions performed in Athenian courtrooms, with each entry naming what appears to be a freed slave and a manumitter. Most of the entries in these texts adopt the language of trial verdicts, recording the manumissions as follows: [name of freed slave], acquitted (apophugōn) from the prosecution of [name of manumitter]. Some of the inscriptions employ a “reversed formula,” which does not use the verdict language, but instead provides only names: “[name of manumitter], [name of freed slave].” For more on these formulas, see Meyer, Metics, nos. 2-9, note 10. To conclude each entry, most — but not all — of the stelai record the dedication of a 100-drachma libation bowl (phialē), probably a tax or fee on manumission. Stelai lacking phialai seem to include Meyer, Metics, no. 26, Meyer, Metics, no. 27, Meyer, Metics, no. 28 (possibly), and IG II² 1578. On the artisanal professions recorded in these texts cf. those listed in the decree honouring foreigners who had resisted the Thirty, AIO 1191.

For the other manumission inscriptions, all of which are translated on AIO, see IG II² 1560, IG II² 1578, Malouchou, Two Overlooked Attic Inscriptions, no. 1 + add, Meyer, Metics, nos. 2-9, 11-28, 30-33, CID 534.

Judging by letter forms and prosopographical evidence, the corpus of phialai exeleutherikai inscriptions dates roughly to the Lykourgan period, and the heading of Meyer, Metics, no. 25 may even mention Lykourgos by name (-ούργου is preserved at line 2). Moreover, the opposite face of the same stele contains a catalogue of phialai dedications by liturgists, dating to ca. 331/0 (for another inscription in this family, see IG II³ 1 550).

Since the late 19th century, most scholars have recognized that these documents pertain in some way to slave manumission, but this consensus position has taken roughly two different forms. One view has held that the stelai record verdicts of dikē apostasiou trials, lawsuits brought by slave-owners alleging that their freed slaves have neglected to fulfill certain obligations (on this type of trial, see Harpocration, s.v. apostasiou). Such an interpretation is based on the broken word -stasiou in IG II² 1578 and the appearance of formulaic legal terminology throughout the inscriptions (chiefly the word apophugōn, referring to acquittal). A separate but related interpretation argues that a form of collusive litigation lies behind the phialai inscriptions: dikē apostasiou trials have been repurposed as a way to free slaves in court, or to release already-freed slaves from any lingering legal obligations. Supporters of this position stress Harpocration’s statement that apostasiou results in freedom for those acquitted of the charges; moreover, acquittal is the only verdict stated in the phialai inscriptions.

Despite minor variations of interpretation, the basic connection between the phialai inscriptions and manumission had rarely been challenged prior to Elizabeth Meyer’s (Metics) detailed study of the texts. Meyer rejects any connection between the phialai inscriptions and manumission, arguing that -stasiou in IG II² 1578 should be restored as a reference to graphē aprostasiou trials rather than to dikē apostasiou. The stelai would thus involve prosecutions against metics (including but not limited to freed slaves) for lacking a prostatēs or failing to pay the metic tax. In addition to exploring these interpretive issues, Meyer also supplies thorough literature review and a full edition of the inscriptions based on autopsy (one additional fragment, published in Malouchou, Two Overlooked Attic Inscriptions, has come to light subsequently). Meyer's work has stimulated renewed scholarly interest in these inscriptions. E. M. Harris, in M. Faraguna ed., Archives and Archival Documents in Ancient Societies (2013), 143-62, at 158-59 n. 60, tentatively suggests that we should reject both the traditional interpretation and Meyer's new one.

However, there is much to suggest that the long-suspected connection between the phialai inscriptions and slave manumission is indeed correct. It is certain that manumission in court was practised in fourth-century Athens; Isaios attests to the practice (fr. 18 Loeb = Dion. Hal., Isaios 5). Acropolis inventory inscriptions speak of phialai exeleutherikai (“freedmen’s bowls”) contemporary to the phialai inscriptions (IG II² 1469, lines 3-27; IG II² 1480, lines 8-11). Within the phialai inscriptions themselves, prosopographical and onomastic evidence suggests that the non-citizens appearing in these documents are of servile origins (McArthur, Kittos, pp. 267-79; for a striking new item of evidence see Meyer, Metics, nos. 2-9, A ll. 100-103 with note). Especially noteworthy are instances of separated families — parents separated from their children, residing in separate demes — something easily explained in a context of slavery and manumission, but difficult to account for otherwise (McArthur, Kittos, pp. 269-71, 285-89). Moreover, the heading of IG II² 1560, line 2, appears to refer explicitly to manumission. Thus, evidence both internal and external to the phialai inscriptions paints a reasonably clear picture that we are dealing with manumission lists. In the end, the use of apostasiou proceedings as a form of manumission may not be as surprising as it seems: Aristotle speaks of slaves choosing their own patron upon manumission (Rhetoric 3.8.1) — exactly what one would expect in the context of apostasiou acquittal, which left slave owners without any means to compel their freedmen to retain them as prostatai.

Textual note AIO's translation of this stele follows Meyer's text, which differs significantly from the IG text only in 40-41, where IG prints παιδ]ίον and Meyer interprets -ίον as the end of a name, and 45, where IG prints Θ[ρασυ- and Meyer reads ΘΗ̣Ρ̣[-. [2] Friendly societies (koina eranistōn, cf. Agora XIX H84) appear several times in the phialai inscriptions, always acting as co-manumitters. Perhaps they have extended loans to the slaves in these cases, allowing them to purchase their freedom or pay for the phialē dedication. [3] It is unclear if the demotic Alōpekēthen (“from Alopeke”) applies to both Sostratos and Mnesistratos, or if Sostratos is identical to Sostratos of Hermos in the previous entry. [4] Olynthian refugees came to Athens after Philip II destroyed Olynthos in 348 BC. See further M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens (1983) vol. 3, X12.

Added: 9 Apr 2020
Updated: 7 Jan 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_1267