One of the ways that Greek and Roman slavery differed is that some Greeks justified their subjugation of groups of people in a very particular way: they told stories of how their ancestors had defeated a local population and as a result that local population now served them. Examples of these kinds of people include the penestae in Thessaly, the klerotoi in Crete and most famously the helots in Sparta. By the Imperial Period, all of these practices had either radically changed or had been abolished, how or why was not always clear to the Greeks in the Imperial Period. What is clear from these later writers is that they thought that people like the penestae and the klerotoi were very similar to each other, even though the Thessalians and the Cretans had very different histories.
Unfortunately, those Imperial Greeks had access to a lot of texts that are now lost. Thankfully, the Imperial Greeks would often cite their sources for this information, so it is possible to do some interesting work reconstructing the original materials that they used. Nonetheless it is important to keep in mind the original intentions of these authors who cite the sources, as it explains what kind of information they were selecting from the sources and therefore what kind of information or perspectives they may be leaving out.
For example, much of our information on the penestae comes from the proto-encyclopediast Athenaeus, whom I’ve written about before. Athenaeus’ work, the Deipnosophists, is like an encyclopedia because it is work that is the result of reading a lot of different materials and summarizing them. It is unlike an encyclopedia in that Athenaeus does not articulate how he has organized these materials. The Deipnosophists is also a dialogue rather than a treatise, and so there are characters, such as our friend Masurius, who gives us the following information:
When Cynulcus had lapsed into silence, Masurius spoke: "Since there remain some points connected with the discussion of slaves, ‘I too will contribute a poem addressed to love’ for the benefit of the wise and very dear Democritus. Philip of Theangela, in his treatise On the Carians and Leleges, after giving an account of the Lacedaemonian helots and the Thessalian penestae, says that the Carians have used the Leleges as slaves both in times past and to‑day. Phylarchus, in the sixth book of the Histories, says also that the Byzantians exercised mastery over the Bithynians as the Spartans did over the helots. Concerning the men in Lacedaemon called epeunacti (these, too, were slaves), Theopompus gives a clear account in the course of the thirty-second book of his Histories, as follows: ‘Since my Spartans had been killed in the war with the Messenians, the survivors feared that it might become known to the enemy that they had become depopulated; so they made some of the helots mount the bed of every man who had died. These helots, later made citizens, became known as epeunacti because they had been assigned to the nuptial bed to take the place of the dead.’ Theopompus also records, in the thirty-third book of his Histories, that among the Sicyonians there are certain slaves, called catonacophori, who are analogous to the epeunacti. A like account is given by Menaechmus in his History of Sicyon. Again, Theopompus, in the second book of his History of Philip, says that the people of Ardia own 300,000 bondmen who are like helots. The mothaces, as they are called among the Spartans, are free, to be sure, but they are not Spartans. Phylarchus says of them in the twenty-fifth book of the Histories: ‘The mothaces are foster-brothers of the Spartans; for all the sons of the citizen class, according as their private means suffice, choose their own foster-brothers, some one, some two, and some again more. Hence the mothaces are free, to be sure, yet not altogether Spartans, though they share the training of the boys at all points. They say that Lysander, who defeated the Athenians in the naval battle, as one of these, but was made a citizen in recognition of his merit.’ And Myron of Priene, in the second book of his Messenian History, says that ‘the Spartans often freed their slaves, calling some “released,” some “masterless,” some “curbers,” others again “master-seamen”; the last they assigned to the sea forces. Others still they called “newly-enfranchised,” all being different from the helots.’ Theopompus, speaking of the helots in the seventh book of his Hellenica, in which he says that some were called heleats, writes as follows: ‘The helot class is in a condition altogether cruel and bitter. They are the people who have been a very long time subjected to the slavery of the Spartiates, some of them being from Messenia, while the heleats formerly dwelt in what is called Helos (Marsh), in Laconia.’ (Deipnosophists, 271 B ff., trans. CB Gulick)
There is a lot of information here. It quickly becomes clear though that Athenaeus wants to find a lot of parallels in the texts that he has read and then use either summaries or direct quotes to explain these parallels to his readers. So for example he jumps from Philip of Theangela to Phylarchus because both of those writers explained how Greeks treated a group of people by referencing how the Spartans treated the helots. Since that relationship is in turn rather mysterious, Athenaeus has to explain how exactly the Spartans treated the helots. The problem that Athenaeus runs into is that older authors did not provide a consistent portrait of the helots. Instead, the ancient authors provide a lot of names, whether these names refer to social, ethnic or legal groups is not always clear.
Importantly for me though, is that Athenaeus cites Myron of Priene who asserts that the Spartans freed the helots, indicating that there was something analogous to manumission for the helots.
Unfortunately, those Imperial Greeks had access to a lot of texts that are now lost. Thankfully, the Imperial Greeks would often cite their sources for this information, so it is possible to do some interesting work reconstructing the original materials that they used. Nonetheless it is important to keep in mind the original intentions of these authors who cite the sources, as it explains what kind of information they were selecting from the sources and therefore what kind of information or perspectives they may be leaving out.
For example, much of our information on the penestae comes from the proto-encyclopediast Athenaeus, whom I’ve written about before. Athenaeus’ work, the Deipnosophists, is like an encyclopedia because it is work that is the result of reading a lot of different materials and summarizing them. It is unlike an encyclopedia in that Athenaeus does not articulate how he has organized these materials. The Deipnosophists is also a dialogue rather than a treatise, and so there are characters, such as our friend Masurius, who gives us the following information:
When Cynulcus had lapsed into silence, Masurius spoke: "Since there remain some points connected with the discussion of slaves, ‘I too will contribute a poem addressed to love’ for the benefit of the wise and very dear Democritus. Philip of Theangela, in his treatise On the Carians and Leleges, after giving an account of the Lacedaemonian helots and the Thessalian penestae, says that the Carians have used the Leleges as slaves both in times past and to‑day. Phylarchus, in the sixth book of the Histories, says also that the Byzantians exercised mastery over the Bithynians as the Spartans did over the helots. Concerning the men in Lacedaemon called epeunacti (these, too, were slaves), Theopompus gives a clear account in the course of the thirty-second book of his Histories, as follows: ‘Since my Spartans had been killed in the war with the Messenians, the survivors feared that it might become known to the enemy that they had become depopulated; so they made some of the helots mount the bed of every man who had died. These helots, later made citizens, became known as epeunacti because they had been assigned to the nuptial bed to take the place of the dead.’ Theopompus also records, in the thirty-third book of his Histories, that among the Sicyonians there are certain slaves, called catonacophori, who are analogous to the epeunacti. A like account is given by Menaechmus in his History of Sicyon. Again, Theopompus, in the second book of his History of Philip, says that the people of Ardia own 300,000 bondmen who are like helots. The mothaces, as they are called among the Spartans, are free, to be sure, but they are not Spartans. Phylarchus says of them in the twenty-fifth book of the Histories: ‘The mothaces are foster-brothers of the Spartans; for all the sons of the citizen class, according as their private means suffice, choose their own foster-brothers, some one, some two, and some again more. Hence the mothaces are free, to be sure, yet not altogether Spartans, though they share the training of the boys at all points. They say that Lysander, who defeated the Athenians in the naval battle, as one of these, but was made a citizen in recognition of his merit.’ And Myron of Priene, in the second book of his Messenian History, says that ‘the Spartans often freed their slaves, calling some “released,” some “masterless,” some “curbers,” others again “master-seamen”; the last they assigned to the sea forces. Others still they called “newly-enfranchised,” all being different from the helots.’ Theopompus, speaking of the helots in the seventh book of his Hellenica, in which he says that some were called heleats, writes as follows: ‘The helot class is in a condition altogether cruel and bitter. They are the people who have been a very long time subjected to the slavery of the Spartiates, some of them being from Messenia, while the heleats formerly dwelt in what is called Helos (Marsh), in Laconia.’ (Deipnosophists, 271 B ff., trans. CB Gulick)
There is a lot of information here. It quickly becomes clear though that Athenaeus wants to find a lot of parallels in the texts that he has read and then use either summaries or direct quotes to explain these parallels to his readers. So for example he jumps from Philip of Theangela to Phylarchus because both of those writers explained how Greeks treated a group of people by referencing how the Spartans treated the helots. Since that relationship is in turn rather mysterious, Athenaeus has to explain how exactly the Spartans treated the helots. The problem that Athenaeus runs into is that older authors did not provide a consistent portrait of the helots. Instead, the ancient authors provide a lot of names, whether these names refer to social, ethnic or legal groups is not always clear.
Importantly for me though, is that Athenaeus cites Myron of Priene who asserts that the Spartans freed the helots, indicating that there was something analogous to manumission for the helots.