Freedmen in Rome and Italy were heavily involved in industrial and commercial activities and were also owners of property, both rural and urban, on a considerable scale. These facts are relatively well-known, although the evidence has not been systematically collected and analysed. The surveys of Kühn and Gummerus were concerned basically with artisans and drew only on the inscriptions of Rome and other Italian centres; they need to be broadened, corrected and brought up to date. Meanwhile one must bear in mind that such surveys have serious limitations, which prevent us from arriving at an accurate assessment of how the work-force was divided according to status. These limitations include the frequent absence of explicit status-indications, and the unrepresentativeness of the surviving sample of inscriptions, which is biassed towards those with a special reason for having themselves commemorated, namely freedmen, and in general towards better-off artisans and traders.

My present purpose is not to establish the active involvement or numerical dominance of freedmen in this or that sector of the economy, but to try to understand the phenomenon of the successful freedman, the possessor of moderate or substantial means, in the context of the economy and society of Italy in the period of the Principate. Examples of wealthy freedmen abound in the sources. For example, a metric inscription from the age of Augustus records how the noble Aurelius Cotta gave his II freedman Zosimus an equestrian fortune several times over, while a contemporary of his, the freedman Isidorus, left according to the elder Pliny 4,116 slaves, 3,600 teams of oxen, 257,000 other animals and sixty million sesterces in cash.

INTRODUCTION

The perspective of this paper is historical rather than ethnological. This is necessarily the case given my area of specialization (antiquity and early Middle Ages) and the relative paucity of information bearing on Mediterranean mountain societies before documentary evidence becomes available, in the Middle Ages or later. (This is not to say that medieval documents, consisting typically of the records of large, ecclesiastical landholdings (e.g. Wickham (1982); Rowland (1982)), are of the stuff to produce studies comparable with E. Le Roy Ladurie's ‘Montaillou’). However, students of antiquity no longer passively accept the deficiencies of the conventional source material, which is for the most part literary and city-oriented, issuing from a civilization centred on the lowlands, coasts and islands of the Mediterranean region. Archaeology, through the utilization of new techniques such as carbon-dating, pollen analysis, zoo-archaeology and dendrochronology (Bottema (1974); Kuniholm and Striker (1983); Payne (1985)), improved methods of field survey and excavation (Barker, Lloyd and Webley (1978), Lloyd and Barker (1981)), and, not least, methods, theories and information gleaned from the social and life sciences (cf. Halstead (1984)), can now establish a firmer outline of the chronology and changing character of human and environmental development in the Mediterranean. In addition, historians and archaeologists are now learning to use modern or recent quantitative data for climatic behaviour and agricultural performance to construct agroclimatological models of past Mediterranean societies (Garnsey, Gallant and Rathbone (1984)).

Up to this point, we have concentrated mainly on Greek relations with other Greeks, but, despite their deeply entrenched insularity, the Greeks did live in a world peopled by non-Greeks as well, and were often brought face to face with cultures with quite different cultural assumptions from their own. This often complicated political relations as the Greeks were forced to grapple, with limited success, with new kinds of relations based as they were on different types of exchange, and different exchange repertoires from their own.

In this chapter we shall look specifically at relations between Greeks and Persians, to consider why they were successful when they were, but more particularly why they so often failed, and the role of different repertoires of exchange in contributing to this failure.

Persian gift-giving

Diplomatic activity between Greece and Persia in the hundred or so years we are considering was dominated by the interaction of individuals, and not just any individuals, but men who were in a personal relationship with each other. Persia was a monarchy in which the King, although not divine, ranked far above his subjects.

Philip brought himself from being a petty prince with a questionable claim to the throne of a semi-barbarian kingdom to become the most influential man in the Greek world. His growth in strength and influence was dependent not only upon his reforms (both in Macedonian institutions and in the army) and successful conquests in northern and central Greece, but also to a large degree upon his diplomatic tactics and the manner in which he dealt with the Greek states, particularly Athens. Supposedly of Argive descent, he certainly spent three years of his adolescence as a hostage in Thebes. There he may well have learned military skills from Epameinondas; he certainly learned a great deal about the way the sophisticated and educated southern Greeks thought – not only their philosophy, but also the subtleties of their codes of friendship.

SPARTAN MAGISTRATES

Spartan ambassadors

I have consulted Kienast's list of Spartan ambassadors (RE Supp. 13 col. 619–27), but because of difficulties and irregularities with this list, I have compiled my own. I have only included references where these cannot be found in Poralla (PL).

433/2

?Polyalces (PL 623)

Probably to be dated soon after the Megarian decress (on the date of the decree, see Kagan (1969) 257–60).

432/1

Ramphias (PL 654)

Melesippus son of Diacritas (PL 522)

Agesander (PL 6 =? Hegesander)

Summer 431

Melesippus son of Diacritas (PL 522)

Summer 430

Aneristus son of Sperthias (PL 95)

Nicolaus son of Bulis (PL 562)

Pratodamus (PL 639)

Summer 428

Meleas (PL 519)

Summer 423

Athenaeus son of Pericleidas (PL 32)

Winter 422/1 -spring 421

?Daïthus (PL 202)

?Ischagoras (PL 400)

?Philocharidas son of Eryxilaïdas (PL 731)

?Zeuxidas (PL 346)

?Antippus (PL 346)

?Tellis (PL 690)

?Alcinadas (PL 65)

?Empedias (PL 262)

?Menas (PL 534)

?Laphilus (PL 478)

For the suggestion that these ten men were the negotiators for the Peace of Nicias and alliance with Athens, see Andrewes and Lewis (1957) 177–80. See also under ‘Athenian Ambassadors’ below.

Ischagoras (PL 400)

Menas (PL 534)

Philocharidas son of Eryxilaïdas (PL 731)

Summer 421

Ampelidas (PL 74)

Lichas son of Arcesilaus (PL 492)

Spring 420

Andromenes (PL 92 = Andromedes)

Phaedimus (PL 714)

Antimenidas (PL 101)

The values and principles of any given society as we are all aware (in the sense that we are all ‘specialists’ at living within our own society) are both multifarious and mutable. And yet in open contradiction to this we often make generalisations about our own society and the societies of others, simplifying complex behaviours into basic and sometimes apparently simplistic principles in order to try to understand and interpret them.

This book has been about friendship, philia, and interstate relations. It has been suggested that the models of friendship in classical Greece were based at least in part upon patterns of exchange which were themselves governed by the status of individuals as ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’, friends or enemies, creating expectations of the way relationships should work. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that this was true both for personal and inter-polis relations, and that in fact the models for one sphere were copied and adapted for the other.

Many of the types of exchange-relationships current in the classical period grew out of and were inextricably linked with the relationships of an older age, and were modernised by the polis into forms which could be used for and by the polis.

Ambassadorial appointments

At Sparta, as we have just seen, personal connections were one of the factors which could influence magisterial appointments. If we turn now to Athens, we can also see that there were clearly instances (although by no means all) where selection seems to have been influenced by an individual's connections, and I have set out below some of the best examples.

Nicias son of Niceratus

Nicias was one of the three generals who swore to the armistice with Sparta in 423. The Spartans also conducted their negotiations for peace in 421 through Nicias and Laches, to the disgust of Alcibiades, and Nicias is known to have had a xenia with the family of the Spartan king Pausanias son of Pleistoanax. In addition, when the Spartan envoys tried to prevent the Argive–Athenian alliance supported by Alcibiades in 420, Thucydides' narrative makes it clear that the Spartans again were working primarily through Nicias. What is more, after the earthquake prevented the Athenians making the alliance with the Argives, Nicias persuaded the Athenians to send ambassadors to Sparta with Nicias himself as one of them. Given his recent relations with Sparta, it was a suitable choice.

Aristophanes son of Nicophemus

Aristophanes had connections with Cyprus through his father Nicophemus (who lived there with his Cypriot wife and their children), and eagerly supported the interests of Cyprus and Euagoras king of Salamis in Athens.

There were a number of factors which could influence selection for magisterial appointments. At Athens selection for military and diplomatic posts was by popular election, a process which automatically favoured those prominent in the community, and therefore the upper classes, a fact reflected in how many important politicians were ambassadors and generals. Similarly at Sparta magistrates were chosen from among the families that formed a privileged subset of the Spartiates.

On diplomatic missions, there was the expectation that a city would be represented by men of repute. Isocrates wrote that ‘the Athenians sent to the more factionalised [of the cities] those of the citizens with the greatest repute among them’. Herodotus says that Megabazus sent as messengers the seven Persians who were most notable after himself, and Diodorus that the Spartans sent as ambassadors to Athens in 369 the most illustrious men.

Wealth was also a desirable attribute in ambassadors: for example, Tellias, ambassador to Centoripa, was the richest man in Acragas, and Sperthias and Bulis, Spartan envoys to Persia, were from families of noble birth and great wealth. Ability was also important: Plutarch advises that one should take a good orator as one's colleague on an embassy; Gorgias the rhetorician was sent on a mission to Athens on the grounds that he was the most able of all the Leontines; and Philomelus of Phocis chose the best qualified (euthetotaton) of his friends for embassies to Athens, Sparta and Thebes.

This book is based upon my doctoral dissertation which I completed at Durham University. I wish to thank most warmly the Department of Classics at Durham for their support during my time there, as well as the Association of Commonwealth Universities and the British Council for their financial support. I am most grateful to all those who helped me with the thesis, and hope they will accept collectively my sincerest thanks. In particular, I owe much to Professor P. J. Rhodes, who supervised the thesis, and who has been an unfailing source of help and encouragement. I would also like to thank Associate Professor G. R. Stanton and Associate Professor P. G. Toohey, both of the University of New England, Australia, who started me thinking about philia.

The preparation of the book for publication has been completed while I have been a British Academy Post-doctoral Fellow at Oriel College, Oxford, and I would like to thank the British Academy for sponsoring this project, and also the Provost and Fellows of Oriel College for hosting the award. The staff of the Bodleian and Ashmolean libraries have also dealt sympathetically and patiently with my many requests.

A large number of people have also discussed my work with me, and have provided me with many valuable insights into problems and ways forward. Warmest thanks must go to the many friends and colleagues with whom I have had many interesting and enlightening discussions.

During the fifth and fourth centuries, the Athenians were greatly concerned with events in the Thraceward region and the Thracian Chersonese. This led them to follow a policy of trying to form close links with members of the Thracian royal households through gifts of citizenship. However, the awarding of such honours did not always produce the desired results, and even placed the Athenians in the embarrassing situation of being openly at war with their own honorands. On the whole, the manner in which the Athenians dealt with the Thracian kings was clumsy and highlighted their own weaknesses and insecurities, and it particularly points to their lack of sensitivity to a culture not like their own.

The Thracians and gift-receiving

Like the Persians', the Thracians' was a gift-giving culture. Just as there was an up-and-down flow of gifts from King to subjects and subjects to King in the Persian kingdom, so it was among the Thracians. But despite general similarities between the two cultures, gift-giving as an institution among the Thracians differed in significant ways from gift-giving in Persia, and this affected the way in which relationships flowed from the exchange and expectations were created by the exchange. In a digression describing the extent of the territory and customs of the Thracians, Thucydides says:

Just as people relate to each other in different ways, there were also a number of ways in which states could relate to each other: for example, as mother-city and colony, bilateral allies, members of a federation of states like the fourth-century Arcadian Federation, members of a league with a hegemon such as the Peloponnesian League, or even members of an empire such as the fifth-century Athenian empire. Each of these relationships were different from each other and the partners in the relationship were expected to relate to each other and interact with each other on a variety of levels.

In fact, in many ways interstate relations reflected personal relations, and states qua states copied relationships found in the private sphere, so that the repertoire of exchanges in both public and private relationships were in many cases very similar, if not the same. This mirroring of private models and repertoires in the interstate sphere is reflected in the terminology of some early alliances. For example, in the middle of the sixth century Sybaris and the Serdaei formed a friendship (philotes) with each other, and in about 550 Croesus of Lydia formed a xenia and alliance with the Spartans against Persia, complete with an exchange of gifts.

Even as Philip lay dead, Alexander was acclaimed as Philip's heir and as successor to the Macedonian throne. It is a commonplace that this marked the beginning of a new era, as Alexander became the conqueror of his new empire and set himself down in history as Alexander the Great. Alexander's reign is interesting not least because here we capture a moment of change, and from this point on there is a new range of questions to ask. Although many of the patterns we have seen in his father's reign are repeated in Alexander's own (perhaps practised with less subtlety and finesse), from Alexander's conquest of Asia we are dealing less with Macedonian–Greek relations, and more with relations between a Greco-Macedonian elite and their Asiatic subjects. As a result Alexander's reign in many ways foreshadows the new tensions and difficulties that were to present themselves to the Hellenistic world. In this chapter we shall consider Alexander's career, his failing relationship with his Macedonian troops and his new relationships with those within his empire, both looking backwards as well as forwards, and picking up old themes and presenting them in a new light.

Alexander and gift-giving

Like his father, Alexander was well known for his gift-giving, and showed great respect for the institutions of friendship.

SPARTAN MAGISTRATES

Spartan ambassadors

Agesilaus son of Archidamus (PL 9)

Sent as ambassador to Mantineia in 371 because he seemed to be a patrikos phifos (Xen., Hell. 6.5.4): see especially ch. 3.

Aneristus son of Sperthias (PL 95)

See discussion in ch. 4.

Antalcidas son of Leon

See discussion in ch. 6.

Aristomenidas (PL 134 = Aristomelidas)

See discussion in ch. 4.

Athenaeus son of Pericleidas (PL 32)

Apart from his suggestive name (see HCT 3.604; compare Lacedaemonius, the son of Cimon, who was named for his father's philo-Laconian persuasion (Plut., Cim. 16.1); cf. Kagan (1969) 267–8), Athenaeus son of Pericleidas had other links with Athens as his father had been the ambassador sent to Athens in the third Messenian war to ask for help (Plut., Cim. 16.8; Ar., Lysis. 1138–41). Then in 423 Athenaeus appeared himself as an oath-taker (Th. 4.119.2), and was the Spartan representative sent to Brasidas in Thrace with the terms of the agreement (Th. 4.122.1).

Endius son of Alcibiades (PL 264)

See discussion in ch. 4.

Etymocles (PL 287)

Ambassador to Athens in 378/7 (Xen., Hell. 5.4.22) and in 370/69 (Xen., Hell. 6.5.33).

Euthycles (PL 301 =? 302)

He was ambassador to Persia in 367 (Xen., Hell. 7.1.33) and is perhaps the same man who went to Persia again in 333 (Arrian, Anab. 2.15.2).

Aristotle wrote that the polis is a koinonia (association) which aims at achieving the common good. Implicit in this is the belief that citizenship, or membership of the polis, is participatory and that it is the duty of the good citizen to take his part in seeking the common benefit and security of the state. But what was best for the state could be variously interpreted and was a point on which citizens could disagree. Public policy – and the popular perception of the common good – could change swiftly and erratically according to the fortunes of the political leaders and their political groups.

The common concern to achieve what is best for the state, Aristotle argues, is grounded in philia, ‘for philia is the motive for social life’, and political relationships were embedded within social relationships. Not only were philia relationships based on utility naturally suited to political contexts, but other more personal relationships, such as kinship and comradeship, could also become politicised.