Mancipium rusticum sive urbanum: the slave chapter of Diocletian's edict on maximum prices in By the...

MANCIPIVM RVSTICVM SIVE VRBANVM THE SLAVE CHAPTER OF DIOCLETIAN’S

EDICT ON MAXIMUM PRICES*

BENET SALWAY

In AD 301 the emperor Diocletian issued an edict comprising a justificatory preamble and a list of ‘prices for the sale of individual items that it is not lawful for anyone to exceed (quae pretia in singularum rerum venditionibus excedere nemini licitum sit)’, which is now known to contain very nearly 1400 entries, organized into seventy thematic chapters.1 The content of this law, transmitted only in inscribed copies, has been recovered gradually since the eighteenth century.2 For, despite being attested at about forty-five separate sites (the vast majority of them clustered in the Roman provinces of Achaea, Phrygia-Caria, and Crete and Cyrenaica), the entire edict is not preserved complete in any location.3 Although the economic rationality, practical effectiveness, and internal consistency of the edict have been the subject of some debate, the significance of the price data to students of economic history is inescapable.4 Amongst the many prices

* Versions of this paper were delivered before audiences in London, Cambridge, and Athens. For help and fruitful discussions in Aphrodisias, Aezani, and London thanks are owed to Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, Jane Gardner, Chris Ratté, Joyce Reynolds, Ulrike Roth, Bert Smith, and Phil Stinson. 1 See M. H. Crawford et al., The Aphrodisias Copy of Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices (forthcoming), whose numbering will be cited here alongside those of Giacchero [= M. Giacchero, Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium in integrum fere restitutum e Latinis Graecisque fragmentis [Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Storia Antica e Scienze Ausiliarie dell’Università di Genova VIII, 2 vols (vol. I. Edictum, vol. II. Imagines)] (Genoa 1974)], and Lauffer [= S. Lauffer, Diokletians Preisedikt [Texte und Kommentare 5] (Berlin 1971), ch. 31, pp. 190 (Latin), 191 (Greek), 280 (notes)], to facilitate future and retrospective compatibility. On the general context of the edict see S. J. J. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284-324, rev. edn (Oxford 2000), 205-33. 2 M. H. Crawford, ‘Discovery, autopsy and progress: Diocletian’s jigsaw puzzles’, in T. P. Wiseman (ed.), Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome (London 2002), 146-63 and idem, ‘William Sherard and the Prices Edict’, RN 159 (2003), 83-107. 3 Crawford, ‘Diocletian’s jigsaw puzzles’ (n. 2), 147 (note 6), and 156 (note 27), and S. J. J. Corcoran, ‘Galerius’ jigsaw puzzle: the Caesariani dossier’, AntTard 15 (2007), 221-50, at 225. For a distribution map of findspots see Giacchero, Edictum (n. 1), II, Tavv. I and II. 4 See for instance J. W. Ermatinger, The Economic Reforms of Diocletian [Pharos 7] (St. Katharinen 1996) and A. Polichetti, Figure sociali, merci e scambi nell’edictum Diocletiani et collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium [Università degli Studi di Molise, Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridico-Sociali e dell’Amministrazione 7] (Naples 2001), with annotated bibliography at 121-35.

1

Offprint from BICS Supplement-109 Copyright The Institute of Classical Studies University of London 2010

2 BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW

a

in the overall r

part of the modern history of the study of ncient slavery. Readers keen to glean the new reading more quickly are advised to jump

sections of this paper.

Mommsen’s second composite edition of the edict (his first for the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum),6 it reached his attention in time to be included amongst the addenda also

th t the emperor tried to control are those for slaves, a commodity notoriously emblematic of ancient society. Given the importance of slavery to debates about the nature of the society and economy of the ancient world, the testimony of the edict is potentially precious since it affords a rare comprehensive overview of the relative valuation of different categories of slaves. A ruling of Justinian on the valuation of slaves for the buying out of a co-owner is the only comparable instance from Roman antiquity.5 However the edict is unique in also providing a snapshot of the value of slaves compared with other goods and services it covers. For instance, conclusions may be drawn from the value of slaves in terms of the cost of basic staples such as wheat, their relative cost compared with wage rates for casual labourers, and even from the placement of the section on slave prices withst ucture of the edict. In this context slight divergences of reading can have profound implications. Thus it is important to establish as accurate a text as possible. Unfortunately, the chapter on slave prices has not been preserved complete in any copy, either in the original Latin or the Greek translation of the tariff list found throughout Achaea. As with the text of the edict as a whole, the story of the text of the slave chapter is one of incremental improvement. While the text of the only Greek witness of this chapter has been almost entirely worn away, its Latin version has been known for some time in several small fragments from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica and Aphrodisias in Caria, and in a more-or-less complete, but acephalous, state at Aezani in Phrygia. In their publication of the Aezani text, Michael Crawford and Joyce Reynolds considered that eunuchs were mentioned as one of the categories of slaves tariffed. However, thanks to the more recent publication of a fragment from Iasos in Caria and the recognition of another, previously neglected, fragment at Aphrodisias, it is now possible to offer a new reconstruction of this chapter. This reconstruction, more-or-less complete if still not definitive, eliminates the eunuchs and replaces them by categories well known to students of Roman slavery. As background to the new reconstruction, I offer an overview of the modern history of the slave chapter, itself aadirectly to the last two

history of the text The

a. Megara and Ptolemais

The modern history of the slave chapter begins in the 1860s, when a second marble block bearing part of the tariff list came to scholarly attention at ancient Megara in Achaea. Although the discovery came too late to be taken into consideration for Theodor

5 CJ 7.7.1,5-5b (1 Aug. 530), repeated in CJ 6.43.3,1 (1 Sept. 531). 6 Th. Mommsen, ‘Edictum Diocletiani et collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium ann. p. Chr. CCCI’, CIL III.2 (Berlin 1873), pp. 801-41, of which the composite edition occupies pp. 824-41, the ‘Additamenta’, pp. 1055-58.


BENET SALWAY: MANCIPIVM RVSTICVM SIVE VRBANVM 3

published in 1873.7 However, the layout and condition of the text did not facilitate its easy interpretation. So much so that for most of the next century the very existence of a chapter devoted to the sale prices of slaves was doubted. For, not only had the chapter headings and prices been laid out as continuous text in this section in order to make optimum use of the space available, but also the stone has suffered extreme wear in the relevant second column so that all but the first few letters of each line have been completely effaced. Mommsen noted that this section appeared to name ‘slaves’ (ἀνδράπο[δα]) and ‘males’ (ἄρρενα) but its content was not definitively identified. Nevertheless, he reported as ‘probable’ Wilhelm Dittenberger’s conjecture that the traces here could be supplemented to produce price maxima for slaves differentiated by sex and age, reading ‘of slav[es]. Male [slave] up [to 20] y[ears, denarii . . ]; ol[der than 20 years denarii . . .]’. 8 The subsequent discovery of a more legible fragment from Elateia,9 overlapping with the first dozen lines of the tricky second column of the Megara text, clarified the content of this section as chapters on gold (περὶ χρυσοῦ) and silver, qualified in some way (περὶ ἀργύρου τοῦτ’ ἔστιν μα[- - -]). This led Mommsen to conclude that the mention of slaves in the lines beyond where the Elateia fragment runs out related to mining costs associated with the entries on silver and not to a separate section on slave sale prices.10 Accordingly, reinforced by a re-reading of the Megara fragment by Habbo Lolling and Paul Wolters in 1889,11 in his revised consolidated edition of 1893 Mommsen shied away from Dittenberger’s suggestions and printed these fragmentary lines as simply ‘ἀνδράπο[δον - - - | ἄρρενα [- - -]| χρισε[- - -]| την πρ[- - -]’ (i.e. ‘slave . . . males . . .’), treating them as part of his chapter 31 περὶ ἀργύρου κτλ.,12 whose content Hugo Blümner characterised in his commentary as ‘Silberarbeit’.13

7 CIL III.2 pp. 1056-1057; ‘V. Exempli Megarensis fragmentum alterum’, transcribed by U. Köhler and checked by O. Lüders. This stone was moved to the Epigraphical Museum in Athens in 1871, where it is still preserved (inv. No 10063). 8 CIL III.2 p. 1057 (commenting on 1056, col. II, ll. 14 ff.): ‘nominantur v. 14 ἀνδράπο[δα] deinde ἄρρενα. Dittenberger conicit sic haec fuisse: ἀνδραπό[δων] ἄρρενα [οἰκέτην μέ]χρις ἐ[τῶν κ X . .], πρ[εσβύτερον ἐτῶν κ X . . .], probabiliter.’ 9 P. Paris, ‘Fouilles d’Élatée: nouveau fragment de l’édit de Dioclétien’, BCH 9 (1885), 222-39; Th. Mommsen, ‘LL. Fragmentum Elatense’, CIL III. Suppl. 1 (Berlin 1889-1893), p. 1923. 10 Th. Mommsen, ‘Das diocletianische Edict über die Waarenpreise’, Hermes 25 (1890), 17-35, at 21 [= idem, Gesammelte Schriften II. Juristische Schriften II (Berlin 1905), No 22b, 323-40, at 327]: ‘Nur so viel ist klar, dass die folgende Erwähnung der Sklaven nicht auf den Sklavenkauf bezogen werden darf, sondern auf die Bergwerkarbeit geht.’ 11 ‘V. Fragmentum Megarense alterum’, CIL III. Suppl. 1, pp. 1911-12, with slave section at 1911, col. 2, ll. 17 ff. 12 Th. Mommsen, ‘Edictum Diocletiani et collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium ann. p. Chr. CCCI’ in CIL III. Suppl. 1 pp. 1909-1953, with the composite edition at 1928-1953, which text was reprinted separately in Th. Mommsen and H. Blümner, Edictum Diocletiani de pretiis rerum venalium/Der Maximaltarif des Diocletian (Berlin 1893), 6-50. This section = ch. 31, 6-9 at CIL III. Suppl. 1 p. 1951 and Maximaltarif 49. 13 Mommsen/Blümner, Maximaltarif (n. 12), 178.



Mommsen and Blümner’s interpretation held sway for most of the next eighty years. New finds published up to the outbreak of World War II added nothing new. In the next consolidated edition, by Elsa Graser in 1940,14 Mommsen’s text at this point is reproduced but without indication of the extent of restoration (i.e. 31, ll. 6-7: ἀνδράποδον | ἄρρενα), and translated ‘slave (?) . . . . . | male (?)’.15 The absence from the edict of slaves as a commodity for sale did not much trouble the economic historians of the first half of the twentieth century since majority opinion had it that the period from the first to third centuries AD had seen a sharp reduction in the use and number of slaves.16 Their absence also accorded with the views of those who continued to take at face value Lactantius’ obviously hostile characterisation of the edict as concerning ‘tiny and trivial things’ (exigua et vilia),17 despite mounting evidence for luxury goods, notably in the clothing chapters. Consequently, when it was published in 1955, the scholarly world was perhaps not receptive to recognition of a fragment of the Latin version of the slave chapter that had been excavated by the Italians at Ptolemais (Tolmeita) in Libya in 1936:18

De pretiis m[- - -] mancipi[- - -] ABAN[- - -].

At this juncture the letters mancipi in the second line suggested to the editors a reference to res mancipi (types of property subject to the form of purchase under Roman law known as mancipatio)19 or contractors (mancipes). Nor was the first line recognised as the

14 E. R. Graser, ‘The edict of Diocletian on maximum prices’, in T. Frank (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome V. Rome and Italy of the Empire (Baltimore 1940), 305-421 and eadem, ‘The significance of two new fragments of the edict of Diocletian’, TAPhA 71 (1940), 157-74. 15 Graser, ‘Edict of Diocletian’ (n. 14), 413. cf. W. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia 1955), 132, who reckoned that ἀνδραπό[δ ought to represent an adjectival form referring to slave labour. 16 E.g., E. Ciccotti, Il tramonto della schiavitù [Biblioteca di Scienze Moderne 5] (Turin 1899), 304-06 [= 2nd edn (Udine 1940) 424-26]; W. L. Westermann, ‘Sklaverei’, Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Suppl. IV (1935), cols 894-1068, at 1063-1064, and idem, Slave Systems (n. 15), 132-33. On the attitude generally see R. MacMullen, ‘Late Roman slavery’, Historia 36 (1987), 359-82, esp. 377 (note 83), and C. R. Whittaker, ‘Circe’s pigs: from slavery to serfdom in the later Roman world’ in M. I. Finley (ed.), Classical Slavery (London 1987), 88-122, at 89 [reprinted with addendum in Whittaker, Land, City and Trade in the Roman Empire [Variorum Collected Studies 408] (Aldershot 1993), No V]. 17 Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 7.6-7: ‘Idem (sc. Diocletianus) cum variis iniquitatibus immensam faceret caritatem, legem pretiis rerum venalium statuere conatus est; tunc ob exigua et vilia multus sanguis effusus (Since, through various iniquities, he was causing immense inflation, he attempted to establish a law on the prices of goods for sale; and then, for the sake of tiny and trivial things, much blood was spilt)’. 18 G. Caputo and R. Goodchild, ‘Diocletian’s price-edict at Ptolemais (Cyrenaica)’, JRS 45 (1955), 106-15, at 113 (fragment T). 19 Gaius 1.119-22, 2.29; on which see A. Watson, The Roman Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford 1968), 16-18, 181.



opening of a chapter heading.20 Even those such as Jean Bingen, who did express the view that ἀνδραπό[δ in the Megara text belonged to the rubric of a chapter on slaves,21 failed to recognize the possible correspondence between ἀνδράποδον and the similarly neuter mancipium, which impersonal Latin term was regularly used of slaves as one of the principal categories of res mancipi,22 along with beasts of burden and Italic land.23 It remained to Siegfried Lauffer to make the connection during the preparation of his consolidated edition of the edict of 1971.24 It was he who restored the heading of the Ptolemais and Megara fragments as De pretiis m[ancipiorum] / [περὶ τῶν τειμῶν τῶν] ἀνδραπό[δων] and reverted to Dittenberger’s suggestion that the chapter included price maxima for slaves differentiated by sex and age. Extrapolating from the apparently neuter plural ἄρρενα of the Greek, he restored the opening of the second line of the Ptolemais fragment as mancipi[a], perhaps to be qualified as mascula,25 and that of the third line ab an[nis], paralleled in the Greek of the Megara copy by ἀπὸ ἐτ[ῶν] (‘from years . . .’), according to his re-reading from a new photograph. b. Aezani

Lauffer’s instincts received spectacular corroboration with the revelation of extensive new sections of the Latin copy of the edict at Aezani in Phrygia. Here the edict had been inscribed on the outside (convex) surface of the monumental lower portions of the round building (‘der Rundbau’) – by some supposed to have been a macellum – that had until an earthquake in 1970 been encased in the fabric of the mosque of the village of

20 The only heading of this style then attested was in the Greek version, περὶ (τῆς) τειμῆς τῶν σηρικῶν, of De pretiis serici (ch. 53 Crawford [ch. 23 Mommsen/Blümner, Maximaltarif (n. 12), and Graser, ‘Edict of Diocletian’ (n. 14)]). 21 J. Bingen, ‘Le prix de l’or dans l’Édit du Maximum. Note complémentaire’, CdÉ 40 [80] (1965), 431-34, at 431, note 1: ‘Mégare 2, col. II . . . ne contient que des bribes de 30, avant quelques éléments de 31 1-5 (concernant l’argent . . .) et de 31 6 sqq. (concernant les esclaves ; ἀνδραπό[δ… en saillie dans la marge gauche, contrairement à ce que donne CIL, fait sans doute partie d’un titre).’ 22 See, e.g., ‘mancipium 3’, Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxford 1982), 1071. 23 Gaius 1.120: ‘Eo modo et serviles et liberae personae mancipantur; animalia quoque quae mancipi sunt, quo in numero habentur boves, equi, muli, asini; item praedia tam urbana quam rustica quae et ipsa mancipi sunt, qualia sunt Italica, eodem modo solent mancipari (In this way both servile and free persons are mancipated, also animals that are mancipi [mancipable], amongst which are included oxen, horses, mules, and asses; landed properties similarly, whether developed or agricultural, that are also mancipi, such as Italic ones are, are accustomed to be mancipated in the same way).’ 24 S. Lauffer, ‘Ein Slavenkapitel in Diokletians Preisedikt’, Chiron 1 (1971), 376-80; S. Lauffer, Diokletians Preisedikt [Texte und Kommentare 5] (Berlin 1971), ch. 31, pp. 190 (Latin), 191 (Greek), 280 (notes). 25 Lauffer, ‘Slavenkapitel’ (n. 24), 379. The corresponding Greek version of this line varies slightly between article and edition. ‘Slavenkapitel’ (at 380) has simply ‘ἄρρενα [- - -]’, while Preisedikt (n. 24), 191 has ‘[ἀνδράποδα] ἄρρενα [- - -]’.


6 BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW Çavdarhisar.26 Most importantly these blocks revealed for the first time the latter parts of the tariff list in a largely intact state, including, in the second column of text on block 8, an almost completely preserved version of the chapter on slave prices (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Detail of the ‘macellum’ at Aezani, block 8, col. 2 (Photograph: M. H. Crawford). This revealed for the first time the age categories according to which the maxima for slaves were differentiated and the respective price thresholds for males and females within them, as well as a concluding proviso that allowed buyer and seller to negotiate up to double the stated maxima for slaves trained in a skill, depending upon the nature, vintage, and quality of the skill. Having sustained only light damage at the top, corresponding almost exactly to those sections attested in fragmentary form at Ptolemais, the Aezani text neatly complemented the Cyrenaican example, overlap being confined to the phrase ab annis (Ptolemais, l. 3; Aezani, l. 1a). Accordingly, in the first edition of the text by

26 R. and F. Naumann, Der Rundbau in Aezani mit dem Preisedikt des Diokletian und das Gebäude mit dem Edikt in Stratonikeia [Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul, Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 10] (Tübingen 1973).



Friederike Naumann in 1973,27 Lauffer’s Latin version was simply grafted onto the Aezani text (for an English translation see the following section):

From a linguistic point of view the plural retained in the first entry is awkward (but not impossible)28 and still requires some supplement for ‘male’. The nuanced range of vocabulary employed to designate male slaves in particular (homo, puer, vir) is noteworthy. In general, comparison with Justinian’s ruling of the 530s is instructive.29 Both the edict and Justinian’s legislation give valuations that differentiate according to age and training. However, where the edict differentiates by sex, usually valuing men above women, Justinian did not discriminate between masculus and femina but did provide considerable premiums

27 F. Naumann, ‘Das Edikt des Diockletian in Aezani’, in eadem and R. Naumann, Rundbau (n. 26), 28-67, with the slave chapter (No 31) at 58. 28 As the parallel of the first entry under wages (7,1 Crawford [7,1a Lauffer/Giacchero]) in the Aphrodisias copy now shows: ‘[operariis rusticis pasti]s diurni X vigin[ti quinque]’; cf. Stratonicea: ‘ope[rario rustico p]asto diurni X biginti quinque’. 29 CJ 6.43.3,1 and 7.7.1,5-5b lay down values for those under 10 years at 10 solidi., over 10 years at 20 solidi, and up to 30 solidi if skilled. It specifies higher prices for professionally trained slaves, 2.5 to 3 times that for unskilled adults: for secretaries (notarii), 50 solidi; for doctors and midwives (medici and obstetrices), 60 solidi The equivalent prices for eunuchs are 30 solidi for under 10s, 40 solidi for those older, and up to 70 solidi if skilled.


8 BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW for eunuchs. Moreover, where Justinian simply divided between those over and under ten years, Diocletian’s compilers employed five age bands (0-8, 8-16, 16-40, 40-60, and over 60 years), none of which corresponds to Justinian’s threshold, though it is fair to presume that they relate to generally recognizable stages of life (and value).30 In terms of physical development, the perhaps unexpected threshold at eight years roughly corresponds to Pliny the Elder’s account of the timing of the replacement of milk by adult teeth (HN 7.16.68). The overall import of the Diocletianic price data is perhaps most easily appreciated by representing it graphically:

60 M 50 F M price 40 M/F F (000s d.) 30 M M M 25 F M 20 F M/F F F 15 M M 10 F F age: 0-8 years 8-16 years 16-40 years 40-60 years 60+ years

Graph 1: Relative price maxima for skilled (italicized) and unskilled slaves (M = male, F = female).

From this graph the equality of maximum price for boys and girls between the ages of eight and sixteen stands out as anomalous. As Walter Scheidel has observed, this is no doubt to be explained by the fact that a female slave at the upper end of this band might already be performing the valuable task of producing offspring, while their male coevals were still to reach their prime.31 Otherwise the slight but consistent premium for male over female slaves accords with data from the ante-bellum United States, although the opposite phenomenon is documented for other slave systems, which apparently suggests absence in these two systems of differentiated gender roles attested elsewhere.32 The transmission at Aezani of a text more or less complete from this point forwards also revealed the contiguity of the slave chapter to that on working animals (De pretio

30 Ten is identified as the age at which child slaves might be expected to join in productive work by U. Roth, Thinking Tools. Agricultural Slavery between Evidence and Models [BICS Supplement 92] (London 2007), 45; cf. also the Customs Law of Asia (M. Cottier et al., The Customs Law of Asia [Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents] (Oxford 2008)), which similarly employs a simple binary divide between adult slaves, liable to duty, and child slaves, who are exempt, but without explicitly defining the threshold (l. 12, §3). 31 W. Scheidel, ‘Reflections on the differential valuation of slaves in Diocletian’s Price Edict and in the United States’, MBAH 15.2 (1996), 67-79, at 74. 32 Scheidel, ‘Reflections’ (n. 31), 73.



hapters later on.35

iumentorum), until then known only from an incomplete and isolated Greek fragment.33 Their collocation suggests a close conceptual relationship, more so than between the slave and the chapter on silver preceding it, since the animals covered closely correspond to the remainder of the legal writer Gaius’ list of movable res mancipi.34 In the minds of the edict’s compilers slaves, like farm animals, were a pricey but reasonably everyday commodity, not exotic luxuries, such as the wild beasts from Africa and more temperate climes destined for display in the arena, listed a couple of c Naumann’s publication came in time to be exploited by Marta Giacchero in her bilingual edition of the complete edict. She departed from the former in this chapter by substituting for Lauffer’s plural mancipi[a] the singular form mancipi[um], to harmonise with the singular numbers of the subsequent entries, and also used the Latin testimony of Aezani to propose further modest supplements to the Greek version.36 Giacchero’s edition made the new data widely available and, despite divergent opinions on the extent to which the pricing levels reflect the real profile of the marketplace, the slave chapter in this edition has become a standard reference for economic historians. However, new readings and discoveries have continued to emerge since Giacchero’s edition, with the potential to alter the basis of the calculations. c. Aezani again

A more significantly improved edition of the Aezani copy, based on many hours of back-breaking autopsy, was published by Crawford and Reynolds between 1977 and 1979.37 Besides offering slight emendations to the concluding proviso clause,38 most notably in this chapter they discerned traces of more letters in the damaged opening lines. These they interpreted as referring to a eunuch (spado) and possibly a young slave (servulus)39 as subcategories of the opening entry, which, drawing on the ἄρρενα of the Megara copy, they defined as mancipium virile, answering to the mulier of the following entry:

33 M. Guarducci, ‘Il primo frammento scoperto in Italia dell’editto di Diocleziano’, RPAA 16 (1940), 11-24 = AE 1956 No 101; Lauffer, Preisedikt (n. 24), ch. 32. 34 The basic varieties of iumenta comprise equus/a (horse m/f), mula/burdo (mule m/f), camelus (camel), asinus/a (ass/donkey m/f), bos (ox), taurus (bull), vacca (cow), verbex (wether), ovis (sheep), and hircus/capra (goat m/f); cf. Gaius 1.120 (quoted above, note 23). 35 De feris Libycis and De feris herbaticis (chs 63-64 Crawford [34 Lauffer/32 Giacchero]). 36 Giacchero, Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum (n. 1), I, ch. 29, pp. 208 (Latin) and 209 (Greek). 37 M. H. Crawford and J. M. Reynolds, ‘The Aezani copy of the Prices Edict’, ZPE 26 (1977), 125-51 and ZPE 34 (1979), 163-210, with the slave chapter at 177 (text) and 198 (notes). 38 Crawford and Reynolds, ‘Aezani copy’ (n. 37), 177 suggested art<i>b(us) instructo for the arte instructo inscribed in order to correspond to the subsequent plural artium and supplied the missing finite verb as liceat, on the analogy of the proviso in the chapter de lino sive stuppis (56,78 Crawford [26,64-65 Giacchero/Lauffer]): ‘item puri linteaminis . . . quae pretia excedere nemini liceat’. 39 See Glare, OLD (n. 22), 1747, ‘seruolus’.



Although the layout assumed in this reconstruction (with the first entry running-on directly from the title) is awkward, it is, in fact, an idiosyncrasy paralleled in the Aezani copy on at least four other occasions, including the immediately preceding chapter on silver.40 However, this reconstruction of the first entry has more awkward consequences. On the one hand, that the rubric should include price maxima for eunuchs is a priori attractive, given the contemporary prominence of eunuchs at the imperial court,41 the milieu in which the edict would have been drafted, and also the parallel of Justinian’s ruling on slave valuations, which provides for three categories of eunuch corresponding to those for uncastrated slaves (under the age of 10; adult unskilled; adult skilled).42 On the other hand, in comparison with the premium attached to eunuchs in Justinian’s constitution, ‘it is’, as Crawford and Reynolds commented, ‘interesting that a eunuch and a young male slave have the same maxima as an adult male slave’.43 The Justinianic valuation accords a premium to eunuchs that, at between 2.3 and 3 times the price for slaves in their natural state, is equal to or higher than the premium for skilled over unskilled in the Justinianic scale (1.4 to 1.5 times, for basic skills; 2.5 to 3 times for those with specialized professional skills) and comfortably higher than that of the Diocletianic scale (2 times).44 This is intelligible given the greater rarety of eunuchs. This rarety arose from a long-standing ban on the castration of slaves within the Empire that went back at least as far as the emperor Domitian.45 Accordingly any legal trade in eunuchs relied on

40 Chs 24 (De arcis et armariis), 27 (De cupis), 28 (De vimineis), and 59 (De argento) Crawford [12,18, 12,36, 12,39, and 28,9 Giacchero]. 41 Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 15.2: ‘potentissimi quondam eunuchi necati, per quos palatium et ipse constabat (previously supremely powerful eunuchs, on whom the palace and the emperor himself had depended, were slain)’, referring to the persecution of the Christians in AD 303. K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves [Sociological Studies in Roman History 1] (Cambridge 1978), 192-93 speculated that these eunuchs may have been booty from the capture of the Persian king’s harem by Galerius in AD 298; alternatively perhaps a diplomatic gift from the Armenian king Trdat (Tiridates) III? 42 CJ 6.43.3,1 and 7.7.1,5b (see note 29 above) 43 Crawford and Reynolds, ‘Aezani copy’ (n. 37), 198; an observation shared by Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (n. 41), 190, note 50, and R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, 2nd edn (Cambridge 1982), 385. 44 CJ 6.43.3,1 and 7.7.1,5 (see note 29 above). 45 Suetonius, Domitianus 7 and Dig. 48.8.6 (Ven. lib. I De officio proconsulis), citing a senatus consultum of AD 83; Dig. 48.8.4,2 (Ulp. lib. VII De officio proconsulis), quoting a constitution of



exotic sources, typically the Caucasus.46 This, combined with a certain inevitable rate of casualties from the castration process,47 leads to an expectation that eunuchs ought to have commanded a premium in the tetrarchic period also. Therefore, the equation of their price maxima with uncastrated male slaves is not just interesting but surprising. If correct, it suggests that the compilers of the Prices Edict were, in this case at least, engaged in the deliberate distortion of relative open market values. Whatever conclusions were drawn from the interpretation of this revised version of the Aezani copy, its wider impact has largely been through its inclusion in Thomas Wiedemann’s sourcebook on Greek and Roman Slavery from 1981.48 d. Aphrodisias

In the meantime the crucial evidence of the Aezani copy allowed Reynolds to assemble the edition of the edict as preserved at Aphrodisias that appeared as chapter 12 of Charlotte Roueché’s Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity in 1989.49 She matched the testimony of the Aezani text to three small pieces of medium grained grey-white marble excavated by the team led by İbrahim Çavuş in July and August 1970 from the area of the Hadrianic Baths at the west end of the city’s south agora and a fourth discovered by the same team the following August in the south-west corner of the so-called ‘Portico of Tiberius’ that runs around the same square.50 In addition, Reynolds was also able to integrate these fragments with another long known but unallocated fragment, collected by the expedition of Wilhelm Kubitschek and Wolfgang Reichel in 1893 and preserved in the antiquities

Hadrian. In the post-Diocletianic period, the continued ban on castration and restriction of trade to that in barbarian slaves castrated outside the empire is attested by a constitution of Constantine to Ursinus dux Mesopotamiae (CJ 4.42.1 of AD 324/337) and one of the emperor Leo (CJ 4.42.2 of c. AD 460). 46 Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (n. 41), 172, note 4; S. F. Tougher, ‘Byzantine eunuchs: an overview, with special reference to their creation and origin’, in L. James (ed.), Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium (London 1997), 168-84, at 177-78, and S. F. Tougher, ‘In or out? Origins of court eunuchs’, in S. F. Tougher (ed.), Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond (London 2002), 143-59, at 144, for full references. 47 Just. Nov. 142pr. (17 Nov. 558) cites the, presumably extreme, example of a survival rate as low as 3 out of 90 operations (i.e. 3.33%). 48 T. E. J. Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (London 1981), 105 (No 100). 49 J. M. Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’, in C. M. Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: The Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions including texts from the excavations at Aphrodisias conducted by Kenan T. Erim [JRS Monographs 5] (London 1989), ch. XII, 252-318, esp. 265-318 (No. 231. The Prices Edict), Pls xlvii-viii. The slave chapter (No XXIX [XXXI]) appears at 298-99. 50 Inventory Nos [with location of current preservation], original find number, and dated excavation record: 70.263 [Stoa Depot, shelf 70 B] (Baths B 70.19), J. Stephens Crawford, Notebook I (Notebook 82), p. 25 (7 Jul. 1970); 70.362 [SD 70 A] (Baths B 70.119), Crawford, Notebook II (Notebook 83), p. 49; and 70.393 [SD 70 B] (Baths B 70.118), Crawford, Notebook II (Notebook 83), p. 47 (both 5 Jul. 1970); 71.487 [SD 70 B] (Portico of Tiberius P.T. 71-74), Crawford, Notebook III (Notebook 102), p. 180 (24 Aug. 1971). The latter two pieces have since been glued together.


12 BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.51 This had already been registered in the second Supplement to the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum volume III,52 in the editions of Graser (where it was left unallocated) and Lauffer (where it was tentatively attributed to the clothing chapters).53 It had also been duly noted in the previous publications by Reynolds and Kenan Erim of the fragments of the edict that had turned up since the beginning of the New York University excavations at Aphrodisias in 1961, at which stage, however, it had been rather too confidently attributed to the then newly discovered currency decree(s).54 Reunited, these five associable fragments preserve a swathe of the chapter from the first price in the top right to near the beginning of the last line of the concluding proviso in the bottom left corner. This new edition of the chapter diverged from the Aezani copy in a number of respects. In the first entry, in place of servulus, as a stronger contrast to spado, the term masculus was tentatively proposed,55 and the price printed as 35,000, rather than 30,000, denarii.56 Another significant variation, highlighted in the commentary, was in the maximum price for boys and girls aged eight to sixteen, read from one of the recently excavated fragments as 15,000 d.,57 in contrast to the 20,000 d. at Aezani.58 The wording of the concluding proviso also contained a couple of revisions and one divergence from the Aezani text. In retrospect, both on grounds of sense and by analogy with similar phrasing in the proviso clause at the end of the nearby section De blattosemis (Purple-striped garments),59 the vel in the phrase ‘inter emptorem vel venditorem’ (i.e. ‘between buyer or seller’) seemed most likely to be an error for et, which had perhaps been misread as a shorthand form of vel (ul) by the drafter of the Aezani inscription. More significantly, the testimony of the Vienna fragment confirmed one reading (arte) of the Aezani copy that had been doubted

51 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, inv. No III 869; see R. Noll, Griechische und lateinische Inschriften der Wiener Antikensammlung (Vienna 1962), 37, No 68. Photograph in Lauffer, Preisedikt (n. 24), Taf. V.1. 52 CIL III Suppl. 2 (Berlin 1902), p. 2209, ‘QQ. Fragmenta Aphrodisiensia’ VII. 53 Graser, ‘Edict of Diocletian’ (n. 14), 308; Lauffer, Preisedikt (n. 24), 208, Aphrod. VII: ‘[- - -]unis sex [- - -|- - - quali]t atis suprạ [- - -|- - - p]arte instr[- - -|- - -]remo e[- - -|- - -]umi[- - -]. 54 K. T. Erim and J. M. Reynolds, ‘The copy of Diocletian’s edict on maximum prices from Aphrodisias in Caria’, JRS 60 (1970), 120-41, at 139 and 141, and iidem, ‘The Aphrodisias copy of Diocletian’s edict on maximum prices’, JRS 63 (1973), 99-110, at 100-01. Cf. Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’ (n. 49), 298. 55 For masculus as a noun see Glare, OLD (n. 22), 1082, ‘masculus2’. 56 Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’ (n. 49), 298, ch. XXIX, l. 1a: ‘[mancipium virile sive spado sive ?masculus ab annis sedecim ad annos quadraginta (vac.) X tri]ginta quinque m[ilibus]’. 57 Inv. No 70.362. Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’ (n. 49), 298, ch. XXIX, l. 5: ‘[puer ab annis octo us]que ad annos sedec[im et pu]ella aetatis [(vac.) supra scriptae (vac.)] (vac.) X qu[indecim milibus]’. 58 Crawford and Reynolds, ‘Aezani copy’ (n. 37), 177; cf. Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’ (n. 49), 299. 59 57,35 Crawford [27,34 Giacchero]: ‘inter emptore<m> et venditore<m>‘. Note also ‘inter venditores . . . emptoresque’ in the preamble (Praef. II.13 Mommsen/17 Lauffer/122 Giacchero).



and, combined with another of the newly excavated fragments,60 elsewhere suggested an alternative reading (in singulis for in mancipium) that, while stylistically superior, did not affect the overall sense.61 The revised edition offered in Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity has had little impact. However, its divergences from the generally cited Aezani text are potentially very significant (raising the maximum for males in their prime by 16.6% and depressing that for boys and girls between eight and sixteen by 25%), especially because of the greater authority that may be attributed a priori to the Aphrodisias text of the Prices Edict over the testimony of other copies from within the contemporary province of Phrygia-Caria (e.g. Aezani and Stratonicea). Located at the seat of the governor, not only would the carvers at Aphrodisias have been working under his gaze but they would moreover have the advantage of working directly from the papyrus version of the edict issued from the imperial court or at least from a copy that could be checked against it. Those working at Aezani and elsewhere would inevitably have been working from secondary copies, made from the papyrus original in the governor’s scrinium at Aphrodisias, and without the advantage of access to that text as a control. Certainly in technical respects the Aphrodisias text is superior. While both Aphrodisias and Aezani copies share a tendency to over-correct orthography (e.g. AE for E in praetium), the former is free from the banal error of the mistakenly restored M before a following vowel at the end of puella,62 and is likely to be faithful to the original in employing a struckthrough X (X) to denote the denarius, as witnessed in all other versions (Latin and Greek) except Aezani, which is idiosyncratic in using D. Hence, where the Aphrodisias copy diverges from the text transmitted via other Phrygian-Carian sites, its version ought to be considered as more likely to be closer to the archetype composed in Antioch or Alexandria.63 e. Iasos

In fact, while Reynolds had been reassessing the Aphrodisian evidence, another small fragment of yet another Carian copy of the slave chapter of the edict, this time from the coastal city of Iasos, had been published by Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli.64 This fragmentary marble slab, which had been excavated from the eastern stoa of the agora in 1973, is broken on all sides. It bears a section of the first half of only six lines, most of

60 Inv. No 70.393. 61 Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’ (n. 49), 298, ch. XXIX, ll. 8-10, with comments at 299: ‘[Pro mancipio] arte instrụ[cto pro g]enere ẹ[t aetate et qualitate artium inter emptorem | et vendit]orem de p[raeti]o placere convẹ[niet ita ut duplum praeti|um statut]um in sị[nguli]s minime ex[cedere liceat]’. 62 On final M in this position see G. Galdi, Grammatica delle iscrizioni latine dell’impero (province orientali): morfosintasi nominale [Università degli Studi di Bologna, Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale, Papers on Grammar, Monographs 3] (Rome 2004), 1-2. 63 On the location of the composition and/or promulgation of the Prices Edict see Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs (n. 1), 206. 64 G. Pugliese Carratelli, ‘Nuovo frammento dell’Edictum de Pretiis da Iasos’, Parola del Passato 40 (1985), 381-83, with photograph at 382.



which overlaps with the Aezanitan text and further accords with it in its general tendency to prefer numerals for the age categories over writing out the numbers in full.65 Most importantly, the first surviving line of the Iasian stone preserves nine letters belonging to the first entry not attested elsewhere, or at least not entirely or sufficiently clearly: ‘[- - -]RILISSEXV[- - -]’. Using Giacchero’s edition as his basis, Pugliese Caratelli provided the following supplement ‘[mancipium vi]rilis sexu[s ab annis xvi (vac.) | ad a]nnos xxxx (vac.)’. This reading he declared corresponded ‘perfettamente’ with the [ἀνδράποδα] ἄρρενα of the Greek version printed by Lauffer and Giacchero,66 which is a slight overstatement given the difference in number (singular in the Latin, plural in the Greek). Having made no recourse to Crawford and Reynolds’ edition of the Aezani copy, he failed to appreciate the possible consequences of this new information for their reconstruction of this entry. In fact it provides no decisive verification or falsification. On the one hand, the phrase virilis sexus (‘of the masculine sex’) could simply supplant Crawford and Reynolds’ plain virile and the rest of their wording might still be comfortably accommodated at the end of the first line. On the other hand, the termination of sexus provides an attractive alternative resolution of the traces at Aezani tentatively interpreted as their awkward servulus or Reynolds’ later masculus. From Iasos via Aphrodisias to a new composite edition

As it happens, the realisation by Charlotte Roueché in the 1990s that at Aphrodisias the Prices Edict had been engraved not on a free-standing balustrade as previously supposed but directly onto the north façade of the civic basilica of the Flavian period,67 stimulated a new campaign of study of all the unallocated fragments in the hope of being able to place them on the basis of their physical characteristics. This effort has enabled Crawford to be confident that we now possess a complete sequence of the chapters of the edict, which provides a secure basis to propose a renumbering of the chapters to supersede the various other schemes that ultimately derive from that of Mommsen’s first edition of 1851, when only about half the tariff list was known.68 Within the overall sequence the slave chapter is revealed to be sixtieth out of seventy. In terms of the physical layout of the edict on the basilica, this chapter’s fragments proved to belong to the bottom of the panel in the second register of moulded panels immediately to the left of the right-hand doorway, their

65 Pugliese Carratelli, ‘Nuovo frammento’ (n. 64), 382: ‘[- - - | mancipium vi]rilis sexu[s ab annis xvi (vac.) | ad a]nnos · xxxx (vac.) [- - - | mulie]r aetatis s s (vac.) [- - - | item] vir ab annis (vac.) x[xxx ad annos lx - - - | muli]er aetatis · s s · (vac.) [- - - | puer ab a]nnis octo us [que ad - - - | - - -]’. 66 Pugliese Carratelli, ‘Nuovo frammento’ (n. 64), 383. 67 Crawford, ‘Diocletian’s jigsaw puzzles’ (n. 2), 157; P. Stinson, ‘The Civil Basilica: urban context, design, and significance’, in C. Ratté and R. R. R. Smith (eds.), Aphrodisias Papers 4: New Research on the City and its Monuments [JRA Supplementary Series 70] (Portsmouth/RI 2008), 79-106, esp. 91-96, with figs 17 and 22. 68 Th. Mommsen, ‘Über das Edict Diocletians de pretiis rerum venalium vom Jahre 301’ and ‘Nachtrag zu dem Edict Diocletians de pretiis rerum venalium’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig [Philologisch-historische Classe 3] (1851), 1-41, 383-90.



exiguous size resulting from the shattering of this relatively slim (9 cm) panel when it fell from that height (see Figure 3). It was as part of this operation of virtual reconstruction that I was given the task in 2000 of tracking down one small fragment (13 cm high x 14 cm wide x 9 cm thick) of medium grained grey-white marble that had been found along with most of the other Aphrodisias fragments of the slave chapter in the clearance of the Hadrianic Baths.69 Although photographed along with other then recent finds by Mossman Roueché in 1972 (negative No 72 K 10 A), it had received no further attention.70 The inventory record showed that it bore parts of five lines (the first blank) with text in letters between 1.2 and 1.5 cm in height: ‘(vac.) | NIS (vac.) | PIORVM | TICVM | Ị (vac.) SEDẸ’. Autopsy largely confirmed these readings (see photograph and diplomatic text, Fig. 2). In terms of appearance and letter size this fragment matches the other fragments from the slave chapter assembled by Reynolds. It was simple enough to match the first, second, and last lines bearing letters to sections of the established text of the end of the silver and beginning of the slave chapter: ‘[in (sc. argento) operis commu]nis (vac.)’, ‘[De pretiis manci]piorum’ and ‘[ab annis] sedẹ[cim], but it was not possible to reconcile the intervening -ticu- with any text yet transmitted or proposed.

] vac. [ ]NIS vac. [ ]PIORVM [ ]TICVM[ ] SEDẸ[

a. Photograph of fragment

b.Diplomatic transcription

Fig. 2: Fragment of the Prices Edict, Inventory No 70.388 (Photograph: M. Roueché)

69 Inv. No 70.388 (Baths B 70.120), of which the find is recorded in J. Stephens Crawford, Notebook II (Notebook 83), p. 51 (6 Aug. 1970). It is currently conserved at Stoa Depot, shelf 70 A. 70 70.388 does not feature in the round-up of unallocated fragments from the excavations of 1970-72 at J. M. Reynolds, ‘Imperial regulations’ (n. 49).



However, in the context of slaves the most obvious supplement is ‘[rus]ticum’. Rusticus is found regularly in agricultural and legal writers contrasted with urbanus, often qualifying praedium (estate) or instrumentum (equipment) as well as servus or mancipium.71 It also occurs nearly twenty times elsewhere in the edict, on sixteen of those occasions in the linen chapter in the phrase defining the lowest quality for each type of garment: ex lino grosso ad usus rusticorum vel familiaricorum or similar (i.e. ‘of coarse linen for the use of peasants or members of slave households’).72 Given its position (between the end of the chapter heading and before the price of the first entry) and its morphology (-um), there can be little doubt that ‘rusticum’ here must qualify mancipium, finally confirming Giacchero’s neuter singular.73 Moreover, as in the case of the linen chapter, it seems most likely that rusticus ought to be paired with a balancing adjective; that is, for the purposes of establishing their value, two potentially distinguishable categories of slaves are to be equated. Although familiaricus is so often paired with rusticus in the edict, its meaning (‘pertaining to a familia’, taking familia in the sense of ‘slave household’)74 does not suit this context; mancipium familiaricum is somewhat pleonastic and does not really work as a satisfactory contrast to mancipium rusticum since both agricultural and domestic slaves were equally members of a familia. On the other hand, mancipia urbana and rustica do define recognizable sub-categories of the slave population that, according to the jurists Labeo and Pomponius, were to be distinguished not by their physical location (urban or rural) but by the type of work in which they were employed (i.e. household/administrative as opposed to agricultural).75

71 E.g. ‘urbanae res . . . rusticae’: Col. 1.pr.18; ‘urbanum quam rusticum larem . . .; . . . urbanum domicilium, rustico praedio’: Mago in Col. 1.1.18; ‘praedia tam urbana quam rustica’: Gaius 1.120; ‘praediorum tam rusticorum quam urbanorum’: Dig. 33.2.37 (Scaev. lib. XXXIII Digestorum); ‘Dotale praedium accipere debemus tam urbanum quam rusticum’: Dig. 23.5.13,pr. (Ulp. lib. V De adulteriis); ‘instrumentum urbanum et rusticum’: Dig. 33.7.27,4 (Scaev. lib. VI Digestorum); ‘omni instrumento rustico et urbano’: Dig. 33.7.18,9 (Scaev. in Paul. lib. II Ad Vitellium) and Dig. 33.7.22,1 (Paul. lib. III Sententiarum); ‘urbanus servus et rusticus’: Dig. 33.10.12 (Labeo, lib IV Pithanon a Paulo epitomatorum); ‘familia urbana et rustica’: Dig. 50.16.166 (Pompon. lib. VI Ad Sabinum); ‘mancipiis . . . urbanis et rusticis’: Dig. 33.7.18,13 (Sab. in Paul. lib. II Ad Vitellium). Note also Col. 1.6.1: ‘tres partes: urbanam, rusticam, fructuariam’; Isidorus, Etymologiae 20.13.4: ‘Fundus autem et urbanum aedificium et rusticum intellegendum est.’ 72 Ch. 56 Crawford [26 Giacchero],12, 38-39, 83, 91, 117, 143, 169, 194, 220, 246, 258, 284, 296, 307, 311, and 333. Elsewhere a labourer (operarius), boots (caligae), and a ladder (scala) are described as ‘rustic’ (chs 7,1; 12,1; and 30,6 Crawford [7,1a; 9,1a; and 14,6 Lauffer/Giacchero] respectively). Note also rusticanus, used of sandals (soleae Gallicae): 13,1 Crawford [9,12 Lauffer/Giacchero]; and a sieve (cribrum): 35,4 Crawford [15,63 Giacchero]. Both terms are translated throughout the Greek version by forms of ἰδιωτικός (‘of the ordinary person’, i.e. ‘basic’). 73 Suggesting that the corresponding text from Megara (CIL III. Suppl. p. 1911, col. II, l. 18) should also be interpreted as a singular: ‘ἄρρεν Α[- - -]’. 74 See the relevant entry in Glare, OLD (n. 22), 675; cf. Westermann, Slave Systems (n. 15), 132, note 35, and Crawford and Reynolds, ‘Aezani copy’ (n. 37), 195, who prefer a more general meaning as to do with household servants. 75 Dig. 33.10.12 (Labeo, lib IV Pithanon a Paulo epitomatorum): ‘urbanus servus et rusticus distinguitur non loco, sed genere usus (an urban and rural slave are distinguished not by their place of work but by the type of their use)’; Dig. 50.16.166 (Pompon. lib. VI Ad Sabinum): ‘familia urbana et rustica non loco sed


18 BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW Alternatively, domesticus might seem an attractive option either to supplement the surviving traces, as ‘manicipium domes]ticum [sive rusticum’, or to fill the lacuna in place of urbanus. However, by usage domesticus contrasts more naturally with publicus than rusticus,76 and, although the jurist Pomponius does talk of the familia domestica, he does so in the sense of a wife’s own personal household slaves and not as a synonym for the entire familia urbana.77 On balance it seems preferable to reconstruct the first entry in the list of slave prices thus: mancipium rusticum sive urbanum virilis sexus etc.78 The test of the plausibility of this reconstruction is whether it can be accommodated by the surviving traces of Latin copies elsewhere. The Ptolemais and Iasos examples present no problems in this respect and, if the traces of the second line at Aezani that were read SP Ạ are interpreted as SỊV, it can be made to fit here too.79 Gathering together all the fragments of the chapter still preserved at Aphrodisias also afforded an opportunity for checking their reading (see Fig. 4). The resulting revisions remove the discrepancies with the Aezani copy in the prices for male slaves between sixteen and forty and for boys and girls between eight and sixteen. The reading of the top line of fragment 70.263, in the top right-hand corner of the section, is confirmed as ‘trig]inta mil[ibus’. Towards the centre the blank line previously reported on fragment 71.487 between ‘us]que ad annos sedec[im’ and ‘sexagint]ạ superius et ọct[o inferius]’ is shown to be imaginary, while the adjoining fragment to the right, 70.362, bears elements of only four lines ( ‘] sexaginta X [ | ] vacat X vi[ | ]ẹlla aetatis [ | ] X qu[‘ ), not five, so that a second quindecim is not attested. As elsewhere in the Aphrodisias text, the drafter of the inscribed version has attempted as far as possible to keep each entry to a single line. As a result the entry for ‘man over sixty and under eight’ aligns with the only 15,000 denarii price attested, leaving no obstacle to restoring in the lacuna at the right-hand end the viginti milibus attested at Aezani for the price of older boys and girls.

genere distinguitur (the urban and rural familia are distinguished not by location but by type)’. For the familia urbana as a self-conscious entity see CIL VI 1747 = 41426a. 76 Glare, OLD (n. 22), 570: ‘domesticus 2’. 77 Dig. 24.1.31 (Pompon. lib. XIV Ad Sabinum), 10: ‘familiam domesticam uxoris’; Glare, OLD (n. 22), 570: ‘domesticus 4’. 78 As a parallel for a single sive joining two adjectives elsewhere in the edict, see ch. 12,1 Crawford [9,5a Lauffer/Giacchero]: ‘caligae primae formae mulionicae sive rusticae par sine clavi(bu)s (a pair of boots of the first grade without hobnails as for mule-drivers or peasants)’. 79 I.e. ‘[De praetiis (!) mancipiorum.] M[ancipium rusticum]| sịv[e urbanum virilis s]ẹxus ab annis seid[ecim (!) ]| ad annos quadraginta’ etc.



Fig. 4: Fragments of the slave chapter recovered by the NYU Aphrodisias excavations (Photograph: U. Roth). The new composite edition

Taking into account all extra testimony from Iasos and Aphrodisias, as well as the new readings, the consolidated text of the slave chapter, as laid out at Aphrodisias, may be reconstructed as follows (where underlining indicates letters not yet attested in any Latin version):

[De praetiis (!) manci]piorum [ (vac.) ] [ mancipium rus]ticum [sive urbanum virilis (vac.) ] [ sexus ab annis ]sedẹ[cim ad annos quadraginta (vac.) X trig]inta mil[ibus] [ mulier aetatis suprascriptae (vac.) (vac.) X vi]gintiquinque m[ilibus] [ Item uir ab annis q]uadraginta usqu[e ad annos] sexaginta X vigintiquinque m[ilibus] [ mulier aetatis supr]ascrptae (!) (vac.) (vac.) X viginti mil[ibus] [ puer ab annis octo us]que ad annos sedec[im et pu]ẹlla aetatis [s. s. X viginti milibus] [ homo ab an]nis sex[agint]ạ superius et ọct[o inferius ] X qu[indecim milibus] [ mulier aet]atis suprạ[scriptae] (vac.) [ (vac.) X decem milibus] [Pro mancipio] arte instrụ[cto pro g]enere ẹ[t aetate et qualitate artium inter emptorem] [ et vendit]orem de p[raeti]o (!) placere conve[niet ita ut duplum praetium (!)] [ statut]um in sị[nguli]s minime ex[cedere liceat.]



Translation:

[title] On the prices of slaves: [01] Slave, rural or urban, of the masculine sex from sixteen years to forty years: 30,000 d. [02] Woman of the above-written age: 25,000 d. [03] Similarly male from forty years to sixty years: 25,000 d. [04] Woman of the above-written age: 20,000 d. [05] Boy from eight years up to sixteen years and girl of the above-written age: 20,000 d. [06] Man from above sixty years and below eight: 15,000 d. [07] Woman of the above-written age: 10,000 d. [08] For a slave trained in a skill, according to their sex and age, and the quality of their skills, it shall be proper to agree the price between the buyer and seller as long as double the price established for a single one should not in the least be exceeded.

Although the lacuna proposed at the end of the second line could still accommodate reference to eunuchs, it is hard to imagine a convincing formulation. Conclusions

The integration of the Iasos and Aphrodisias fragments with the text transmitted from Aezani enables the reconstruction of almost the entirety of the slave chapter of Diocletian’s edict on maximum prices in its original Latin version. This in turn will provide a reliable basis on which to reconstruct its poorly preserved Greek translation. The improved version of the Aphrodisias text no longer challenges the prices attested at Aezani, establishing that, whatever view one takes of their interpretation, the calculations carried out by Richard Duncan-Jones, Walter Scheidel, and others over the last few decades on the basis of Diocletian’s Prices Edict have used the correct figures for slave prices.80 It also enables the kind of comparative analysis carried out by Michael Crawford in his contribution to this volume. On the other hand, the new evidence seems to preclude the explicit mention of eunuchs that was once imagined to be present. Even though it is clear that the Prices Edict was far from restricted to trivial goods, in 301 at least, eunuchs were too rare a commodity on the open market to justify their specific inclusion amongst the categories of slaves. In their stead, it now seems, most significantly, that the edict laid down the same price maxima for slaves according to age and sex irrespective of their employment in either of their traditional roles: agricultural production or household service and administration.

80 In addition to the studies already mentioned see esp. R. P. Duncan-Jones, ‘Two possible indices of the purchasing power of money in Greek and Roman antiquity’ in Les «dévaluations» à Rome: époque républicaine et impériale (Rome, 13-15 novembre 1975) [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 37] (Rome 1978), 159-68; idem, ‘Demographic change and economic progress under the Roman empire’ in E. Gabba (ed.), Tecnologia, economia e società nel mondo romano. Atti del convegno di Como 27/28/29 settembre 1979 (Como 1980), 67-80; F. Grosso, ‘Pretium servi ex forma censoria’ in J. Bibauw (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard [Collection Latomus 103-05] (Brussels 1969), II: 302-10; W. Scheidel, ‘Real slave prices and the relative cost of slave labour’, AncSoc 35 (2005), 1-17.


Mancipium rusticum sive urbanum: the slave chapter of Diocletian's edict on maximum prices in By the...

Documents

Transcript of Mancipium rusticum sive urbanum: the slave chapter of Diocletian's edict on maximum prices in By the...