CHAPTER EIGHT
ON SLAVES AND SLAVERY*

Günter Prinzing

Only rarely is there any mention at all of slavery or even of slaves in the world of the Byzantines, in recent accounts of Byzantine history.¹ Hence the question arises, why is this particular group of the Byzantine population so largely neglected? On the one hand it seems to be due to the fact that to date we do not have a satisfactory, comprehensive monograph on slavery in Byzantium that carefully examines the traces of slavery in the many and varied sources over the whole Byzantine millennium.² There are, notably, very clear references to the existence of slaves in Byzantium in legal texts, documents especially and records, but also in hagiographic texts.³ On the other hand, slaves are rarely mentioned explicitly, and are in general not easy to distinguish from free servants, in historiographical works, chronicles and other narrative sources. The reason for this is ambiguous terminology.⁴ Without a more exact or careful interpretation, as we shall see, we cannot make much headway. Moreover, in certain fields the possibilities for research will always remain restricted by the notorious lack of an adequate number of sources. However, some areas can be approached, for example the extent of the employment of slaves in the sphere of the imperial court or in various “state-controlled” production-workshops in urban or rural regions outside Constantinople, and in the private sector of Byzantine society, which has still not been exhaustively examined; and the living conditions of slaves in the Byzantine empire, which may yet receive adequate treatment.⁵

Basic results of research into slavery in the Byzantine empire between the sixth and fifteenth centuries can be summarized as follows:

1 Byzantine society inherited from the Romans the ancient distinction between free human beings and slaves, which basically continued to exist throughout the whole Byzantine millennium. This distinction was legally regulated and formulated, in all its consequences, by the legislation of Justinian I (527–65), in the Corpus juris civilis (CJC), and of his predecessors since Constantine the Great, which has come down to us largely in the form of the Codex Theodosianus promulgated in 439 by Theodosius II.⁶ Though the legal codes and novels (nearai) of later emperors modified, amended or abolished several of Justinian’s regulations concerning slaves,⁷ many regulations of the CJC did remain in force, since the latter was transformed into the great collection of laws called the Basilika, completed under Emperor Leo VI (886–912),⁸ and were adopted by other lawbooks or legal compilations of the middle and late Byzantine periods.

2 So it is hardly surprising that mention of slaves and slavery is clearest in the collections of imperial codes of laws or in legal texts of the emperors. These are from the seventh century onwards: the Ecloga,⁹ the Basilika and the Prochiron¹⁰ on the one hand; and the novels after Justinian, especially those of Leo VI,¹¹ on the other hand, but also in treaties, such as those with Arabs or the Kievan Rus,¹² or the famous Book of the Eparch of Leo VI, a collection of regulations concerning social and economic life in Constantinople,¹³ and in canon law.¹⁴ Also of great value, alongside the Book of the Eparch,¹⁵ is the so-called Peira (mid-eleventh century), a text containing “a collection of excerpts from the statements of verdict … and special treatises” by the judge Eustathios Rhomaios.¹⁶

3 Fundamental criticism of slavery was expressed very rarely and only to a certain degree (the exceptions are Gregory of Nyssa [d. 395, cf. his Opera V, In ecclesiasten, or. IV] and later Archbishop Eustathios of Thessalonika [d. c.1195]), but it remained without any general consequences in practice.¹⁷ However, the nasty concomitants of slavery or attacks on slaves were repeatedly observed and criticized, most clearly by the Fathers of the Church John Chrysostom (d. 404) and Basil the Great (d. 379).¹⁸

4 The terminology for slaves (or servants respectively) is based on the classical tradition, hence it is diverse and often ambivalent: apart from doulos/doule, we come across the terms therapon/therapaina, oiketes/oiketis, oikogenes, pais, paidiske and threptos/e; but also the neutral forms andrapodon (the only expression, which always clearly designates a slave, cf. also below), paidarion, psycharion, soma and threptarion. However, it has to be repeated that it is often not sufficiently clear whether one of those terms mentioned unambiguously designates a person as being a slave in the legal sense. In this connection, we should bear in mind that there is only documentary evidence for the Greek term sklavos in the sense of slave from the eleventh century onwards.¹⁹

5 Slaves, often including eunuchs, were employed mainly in the imperial palaces and workshops, but also in ecclesiastical properties (monasteries) and in private households of more or less wealthy people.²⁰ If mass slave labour on large estates (whether owned by institutions or by powerful families or people) still existed in the early Byzantine era, it would seem to have greatly diminished (at least in certain regions) already in the sixth century, but generally thereafter.²¹ However, the number of slaves used in this sector would seem to have increased once more between the second half of the eighth century and the early eleventh century, before declining again.²²

6 The supply and also the reproduction of slaves were ensured mostly by prisoners of war,²³ house births (by the slaves themselves)²⁴ and the slave trade.²⁵ The prices to be paid for slaves fluctuated between 20 and 100 nomismata (later hyperpyra) from Justinian’s time until 1453.²⁶ Compared with this, the price of 400 nomismata is wholly incredible: according to the preserved will of the Cappadocian lord and protospatharios Eustathios Boilas (eleventh century), he had paid this price for a certain Zoe, who was seemingly his favourite female slave, since he freed her in his will. In all probability the price mentioned is due to an error by a scribe or copyist who, in my opinion, wrote an ypsilon (as a number = 400) instead of a koppa (= 90).²⁷ The centres of the slave trade were the Crimea and Constantinople, where there was a special slave marketplace, but slaves could also be purchased in provincial cities of the empire.²⁸ The Italian maritime cities also became increasingly involved in the Mediterranean slave trade (from the ninth century on).²⁹

7 Manumission (manumissio/apeleutherosis), that is to say the grant of freedom by the owner of the slaves, continued to be practised, especially in testamentary dispositions (wills). The possibilities for this were expanded at the Church’s instigation. Despite the abolition of all legal disadvantages, the released hardly ever found full social acceptance.³⁰

8 A female slave formally married by her lord received her liberty, and her children were supposed to be regarded as legitimate (since Justinian). However, slaves were not able to contract a fully valid marriage among themselves. Only a blessing of the slaves’ marriage in church was permitted by Alexios I Komnenos at the end of the eleventh century.³¹

The interpretation of narrative texts in the field of historiography in its broader sense (i.e. including chronicles) with the aim of finding any evidence there of slaves, often proves to be difficult, and even frustrating. The reason lies in the fact that we are often confronted with an ambiguity of terms without being able to decide clearly whether we are dealing with a slave or a free servant. With respect to this terminological problem and the fact that up to now we still lack a thorough, comprehensive study of the role slaves play in these kinds of narrative sources,³² it seems appropriate here to present the reader with some selected source passages: they may serve not only to elucidate the problems just mentioned, but also to warn the reader against adopting uncritically traditional, apparently still valid, interpretations.

NIKEPHOROS, SHORT HISTORY

The first text is taken from the Short History of Patriarch Nikephoros (d. 828). Right at the beginning (chapter 3), the author reports the following event. When Eudokia, the first wife of Emperor Herakleios died of epilepsy on 13 August 612 and was to be buried,

it happened that a girl – she was the servant (therapaina) of one of the citizens – leaned out from an upper floor and spat unguardedly into the air. Her expectoration landed on the splendid vestment in which the empress’s corpse was enveloped. Whereupon, those taking part in the funeral became incensed: they apprehended the girl and condemned her to death by fire, in the manner of barbarians, sacrilegious men that they were.

The mistress of the servant girl (= tes oiketidos) was also to be punished in the same manner, but escaped unseen.³³ Now, the suspicion arises that the girl, marked by the terms therapaina or oiketis and sentenced to death by fire (apparently on account of the crime of lèse-majesté), was a slave, but we cannot truly be certain.

Mango’s translation would be fully supported by the secondary literature, since neither P. Speck nor W. Kaegi see the unfortunate girl as a slave.³⁴ Nevertheless, this possibility cannot be ruled out a priori from the context and the terminology, since we also have to bear in mind that the girl was a barbarian (as is attested in L Ms. of the text), who may have been bought by her owners (we only hear of her mistress) at the capital’s slave market. The important point is that terms are used which just as often (and perhaps more frequently than we are inclined to believe) serve as the designation for slaves as can also denote free servant women (see also below).

KEDRENOS (AND OSTROGORSKY)

Turning to the next text,³⁵ it seems, by way of exception, to be more instructive for our purpose first to quote the interpretation of the source by George Ostrogorsky instead of the source itself. There he writes, inter alia, as follows about Emperor Basil II:

His radicalism had the further consequence of leading him to disregard the demands of right and justice. This is illustrated by the case of Eustathios Maleinos, a former comrade in arms of Bardas Phocas, whose hospitality Basil had claimed on his return from his Syrian campaign. The remarkable wealth of this Cappadocian magnate, his enormous estates and, above all, the number of his slaves and other dependants [my italics] who were capable of forming a military contingent of several thousand men, all impressed themselves so much on the emperor that he invited his host to Constantinople and held him there in honourable captivity. His property was confiscated by the state.³⁶

The quotation is one of the not particularly numerous, but nonetheless sufficiently clear, references in Ostrogorsky’s work to the continued existence of slavery in Byzantium,³⁷ and certainly the most remarkable of these references. The great scholar would here seem to provide us with apparently particularly impressive evidence of the fact that slavery in Byzantium had not only by no means been abolished, but was still being practised on a massive scale even in the tenth century, for instance in the case of large landowners in Anatolia. Despite the surprising fact that Ostrogorsky here – quite contrary to his usual habit – does not provide any further documentary evidence for his statement, it becomes clear³⁸ that his statement is based on a passage from the world chronicle compiled by George Kedrenos.³⁹

With regard to this source, which extends to 1057, it must be taken into account that for the period from 811 on, Kedrenos copied for the most part from the chronicle by John Skylitzes. Hence the passage he dealt with here in fact goes back to Skylitzes, the first edition of which only appeared in 1973. Now, what do we read in Skylitzes in the said passage? Nothing other than these few lines: “The Magistros Eustathios Maleinos received him [the emperor] on his passage through Cappadocia on his [Maleinos’] own estate with his [the emperor’s] whole army (panstrati) …”⁴⁰ But where are the numerous slaves we expect to be mentioned? Unlike Ostrogorsky (and his “disciples”),⁴¹ I can find no direct or indirect clues from the passage in question for the assumption that slaves were employed in large numbers on the estates of Eustathios Maleinos.

Theoretically, one could interpret the expression “en tois oikeios” (which I have translated as “on his own estate” above) in the masculine, deriving it from “hoi oikeioi” (“his own people, including relatives and members of his family”, possibly also: “slaves and servants”). But the expression can just as well – and indeed probably should – be derived from “ta oikeia” (the property, one’s own possession). So it would seem to have been Skylitzes’ intention to show that Maleinos had such a large estate that he could effortlessly entertain the emperor together with his whole army on his land. Of course, it is not to be ruled out that among the certainly numerous domestic staff, that Maleinos must have had at his disposal, there were also many slaves. But any attempt at quantifying, as indicated above, must remain pure speculation for lack of suitable evidence. Since later chroniclers (such as John Zonaras) did not adopt this passage or its entire context, we do not gain any clue from later Byzantine reception for understanding the passage. It is thus hardly surprising that more recent secondary literature is considerably more reserved in its interpretation of the passage from Skylitzes than Ostrogorsky was, dispensing with any concrete, quantifying details about Eustathios Maleinos’ ownership of slaves.⁴²

THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS, VITA BASILII

Already in the discussion on this passage from Skylitzes it is thus to be seen that we are still far removed from a thorough evaluation of the Byzantines’ historiographic and chronicle sources with regard to specific statements on slaves and slavery in the Byzantine empire. In contrast to the passage just discussed, which contains no concrete clue concerning the number of slaves on the estates of the Anatolian magnate Eustathios Maleinos, the information concerning the wealth of the famous old lady (and probably widow) Danielis/Danelis⁴³ from the Peloponnese, who was a strong supporter of Emperor Basil I (867–86), is considerably more concrete.

The stories of her encounter with Basil during his stay near Patras (before he became emperor) and her later visit to Constantinople are contained in the Vita Basilii, the Life of Basil I (namely, book V of Theophanes continuatus), written by Basil’s grandson Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, and also partly in the chronicle of John Skylitzes. These accounts provide the following exact figures:

1 Danielis presented Basil inter alia with thirty “slaves for service” (andrapoda pros hyperesian) before his return to Constantinople.⁴⁴

2 Later invited by order of the emperor Basil to come on a visit to Constantinople, she undertook the long journey transported on a kind of low bed by some 300 strong young men, who were, on her orders, selected from among the oiketai (hence surely slaves from her household) and took turns to carry her.⁴⁵

3 When she was received in imperial audience at the Magnaura she presented Basil with 500 “houseborn” slaves (oiketika … prosopa), including 100 good-looking eunuchs.⁴⁶

4 Finally, after the death of Basil I the long-lived widow came to the capital again, to visit Basil’s son, Emperor Leo VI (886–912), appointing him heir to all her fortune, after which she returned home and died. Since her vast fortune also included innumerable slaves (andrapoda), Leo ordered that 3,000 slaves (somata) be released, settling them in the thema of Langobardia, in Italy, while the rest of her estate, including further slaves (psycharia), was distributed in accordance with her will.⁴⁷

SKYLITZES

Close study of John Skylitzes may show how rewarding it is to examine chronographic and historiographic texts more closely. In one passage Skylitzes relates in detail how a lunatic “houseborn” (paidiske oikogenes) predicted to Emperor Michael I Rangabe (811–13) the early loss of his rule, a story which is also to be found in several other sources of that time. It begins: “Emperor Michael had a certain [young?] houseborn slave [or servant] (paidiske tis oikogenes).”⁴⁸ In Thurn’s German translation the short sentence reads: “Kaiser Michael hatte in seiner unmittelbaren Umgebung eine junge Dienerin,” while the French translation runs: “Il [= Michael] avait une servante, née dans sa maison.”⁴⁹ Contrary to the French translation, Thurn erroneously translated the term oikogenes, which may very well indicate the girl’s birth to a slave mother living in the palace. Hence I am inclined to interpret the expression paidiske oikogenes as “a houseborn (girl-)slave.”⁵⁰ With regard to this quotation, it is, by the way, important to compare the entry in the PmbZ, which registers the girl among the Anonyma as a maidservant (“Dienerin”).⁵¹ This neutral term shows that the PmbZ is in principle very cautious in assigning the term slave to a certain person. Rather it prefers not to differentiate between servants and (maid)servants or slaves, a position which is also shown by the catchwords in the index “Titel und Berufe” (Titles and Professions) with their catchwords “Diener (auch Sklave)” = “servant (also slave),” or “Dienerin (auch Sklavin)” = “maidservant (also slave).” Since every prosopographical entry cites all sources serving to denote a person’s position, the PmbZ in general leaves the interpretation to the reader.

Another passage in Skylitzes concerns Emperor Theophilos (829–43), who committed adultery when captivated by the beauty of a servant (or slave) in the service of the empress (therapainidos … hyperetouses te basilidi).⁵² The German translation (perhaps a little too freely) renders the term therapainis by “Zofe” (lady-in-waiting), the French one by “servante.”⁵³ The PmbZ registers this person under no. 10099 as: “Dienerin – therapainis.”⁵⁴ There is no different term from other sources relating this story which might help us to denote the status of the therapainis more precisely. Since it remains unclear whether she was a slave or a free servant of the empress, the slave status is by no means to be ruled out a priori. In any case, we should bear in mind the variety of terms (e.g. therapainis) which had been used since antiquity to denote (free) servants and/or slaves.⁵⁵

Three further passages contain interesting insights into the reign of Emperor Leo VI (the Wise or Philosopher). In one, Skylitzes relates that Mousikos, the eunuch and slave (doulos) of the powerful courtier Stylianos Zautzes (the Basileiopator), utilized his position in order to gain an advantage for some profit-seeking merchants and traders who were his (Mousikos’) friends. The intention was namely to shift the flow of Bulgarian goods from the capital Constantinople to Thessalonika and put the right to levy high customs duties on the merchandise in the way of the said merchants. With this measure, Mousikos, and thus also his lord and master Stylianos Zautzes, are said to have laid the foundations for the Bulgaro-Byzantine war of 894.⁵⁶ Without doubt, Mousikos, as eunuch and doulos of Stylianos Zautzes, was a court slave.⁵⁷ Not only does his being a eunuch – as indicated by the designation doulos – point to this fact, but also the fact that his name occurs so rarely in Byzantine sources. Special treatises on slave names in Byzantium, comparable, for instance, to the works of H. Solin,⁵⁸ do not yet exist and will probably never be produced on any large scale for Byzantium because of the paucity of sources. It is, however, significant that the PmbZ does not currently include any other entry for this name. Whether this name is to be interpreted as a reference to the person’s musical or poetic skills or is – in an ironic sense – more of a reference to the fact that he completely lacked these talents, may be left open.

Admittedly, it does appear that Skylitzes (or his source used in this section, the so-called Theophanes continuatus) has intentionally sought to present the events in an unfavourable light for Zautzes in order to cover up Leo VI’s own share in the outbreak of the war. The emphasis on the apparently central role of the slave Mousikos and his companions could thus have been intended to contribute, in Leo’s interest, to depriving Zautzes of power and reducing him in status, something that appears quite plausible.⁵⁹ But, whatever the case may have been, it was at all events in keeping with the facts that Mousikos, as slave and eunuch of Zautzes and as his lord’s confidant, had no little influence at court, before the emperor – at a time when he did not trust Zautzes either – banished him to the Stoudios monastery.

The fourth passage from Skylitzes concerns the attempt by Samonas to ingratiate himself with Zoe (Karbonopsina), Leo VI’s fourth wife.⁶⁰ Samonas was a former Byzantine prisoner-of-war and eunuch of (high) Arab origin, who had risen from being a slave and cup-bearer in the house of Stylianos Zautzes – probably after he had been released – to the post of koubikoularios around 900, then to protospatharios in 905(?), further to patrikios and in 907 to parakoimomenos. He was, therefore, the closest confidant of the emperor (until his fall in 908). In order to make Zoe well disposed towards him, he made her a present of his own servant who came from the Paphlagonia region (hyperetes), Constantine – a castrate (ektomias).⁶¹

This story in Skylitzes also goes back in its core, just like the passage dealt with above (but without the reference to the origin from Paphlagonia), to the history of Theophanes continuatus in which Constantine is, however, neutrally designated as “his (man-)servant” (anthropos autou) and former slave or servant (douleusas) of the magistros and epi tou kanikleiou Basileios.⁶² On the basis of this text version, Tougher speaks of Constantine as a “eunuch servant,”⁶³ but in my opinion the diverging terminology in Skylitzes’ text indicates that the anthropos Constantine was most probably also an emancipated slave.⁶⁴ This interpretation would seem to be supported by the fact that it is quite clearly to be seen from both text versions that Samonas presented the empress with “his” Constantine. Samonas could probably have only done that if he was the lord and owner of this man, whom he had received from the former property of the magistros Basileios, but now passed on for his part to the empress.⁶⁵ If that was indeed the case, then Constantine, when he was placed in the service of the empress, would also have initially taken up the position of a slave with her. Looking ahead, it may just be noted here that he then rose in a similar manner as Samonas had done before.⁶⁶

A fifth passage from Skylitzes, the third from the reign of Leo VI, consists of a short section of a longer story⁶⁷ concerning the flight of an early representative of the Doukas lineage, Andronikos Doux, to the Arabs in the year 905 or 906. Skylitzes here relates that Andronikos undertook his flight with “his relatives and servants” (doulois), hence his slaves and/or servants.⁶⁸ The sense “slaves” for douloi here is widely accepted in secondary works up to now,⁶⁹ but both the German and the French translations do not make this clear.⁷⁰

A sixth passage from Skylitzes supplies important proof of the fact that prisoners-of-war were a main source of slaves in Byzantium. The general Leo Phokas, brother of Nikephoros (later emperor), fought successfully in the eastern regions of the empire, gaining victory in the battle of Adrassos (962) against his Syrian foe. Afterwards he was able to send so many prisoners-of-war to Constantinople that they filled the mansions and rural regions of the capital with slaves (douloi).⁷¹ It is generally accepted that the douloi mentioned here were slaves.⁷²

The seventh passage from Skylitzes, the last one to be discussed here, is of a quite different character in its content in comparison to the former texts. It relates the following. When Basil II, after his final victory over the Bulgarians in 1018, passed the fortress of Serbia among other places on his march back from Kastoria towards Athens, “he came to Stagoi where also Elimagos, the [Bulgarian] archon of Belegrada [today Berat in Albania], met him in a subservient attitude (meta doulikou tou schematos), together with his fellow archontes.”⁷³

Now, the translation proposed here diverges completely from all the previous translations and interpretations of the passage since that by Gustave Schlumberger, who interpreted the passage to mean that Elimagos and his companions appeared before the emperor “dans de sordides vetements d’esclaves” (thus in dirty slaves’ clothes), meaning in this case “shaven-headed, bare-footed, with a rope around their necks, in shirts.”⁷⁴ However, in my opinion, this interpretation of the passage is untenable, as here meta … schematos is interpreted misleadingly, namely in concrete, factual terms (as slaves’ clothing), although such an interpretation is improbable already from the context. Here the author is talking as it were of enemy officers who now, at this first encounter, revealed themselves to the emperor by their attitude and appearance (deportment) as people well disposed (and thus no longer hostile) towards him, thus as devoted people. In other words: doulikon schema is by no means “slave’s clothing” in concrete terms – these military men will quite certainly have worn their appropriate “uniform” – but rather means “servile” in a figurative sense: a servile habit of mind, or servile disposition. Elimagos and his followers showed themselves at this encounter with Basil II, their new lord, as his servants and subjects.

It is possible to support the interpretation presented here with a very similar passage from the history of Michael Attaleiates, who, in his report of the rebellion by Nikephoros Botaneiates⁷⁵ against the reigning emperor Michael VII (1071–8), mentions a troop of mercenaries who had been entrusted with the protection of the Bithynian city of Nicaea but had joined the usurper. Three days after leaving the city, the mercenary troops then “encountered the latter [Nikephoros Botaneiates], who was just approaching Kotyaion, both with a submissive troop and attitude (misthophorikon … katalipon to epitagma … meta doulikou kai syntagmatos kai schematos, apentese touto). And soon after they immediately proved the devotion they had promised to him, Botaneiates (ten douleian homologesan), by appropriate fighting …”⁷⁶

This “gallop” through some passages, mainly in Skylitzes, has not led in every case to clear, indubitable findings, but I do hope that the following has become clear. An exact recording and analysis of certain suspicious passages, or even of passages that one imagines have already clearly been interpreted, drawn from historical works is indispensable in order to begin to measure the scale and nature of slavery in Byzantium. And this is but the first stage.

NOTES

* I would like to thank John M. Deasy, Mainz, for his painstaking translation of my chapter and Paul Stephenson for his various thoughtful suggestions.

1 For example, the general index of Laiou 2002b does not even mention the terms slave and slavery. In general see Verlinden 1977: 978–98 (but note the critical remarks by Rotman 2004: 34–3); ODB: 659, 1915–16; Prinzing 1995; Prinzing 2001a; Rautman 2006: 21–3, 50 and 137; Déroche et al. 2007: 529–35; and most recently Haldon 2009: 3 and passim (see index). For a comprehensive bibliography on ancient slavery, see Bellen and Heinen 2003, I, 275–81 (nos. 4505–85, with further references), which relates to Byzantium. For current bibliographical research see the (often annotated) entries of the current bibliography in BZ. See also the very instructive section (III.3.a) on slavery in Hunger 1965: 161–70.

2 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950 was for a long time the only relatively comprehensive study on slavery in Byzantium, covering the period from Constantine I until 1204. The most recent monograph in this field is Rotman 2004. Though important and fundamental in many respects, it is again not sufficiently comprehensive and exhaustive, since it is chronologically limited (sixth to eleventh centuries) and its focus is on the Mediterranean world as a whole. For the late Byzantine era see especially Köpstein 1966.

3 Cf. Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950, 21–8; Browning 1958: 39–40 (and the hagiographic sources mentioned at pp. 42–3); Rotman 2004: 185–229, 253–9 (Appendice des sources juridiques), and below.

4 Cf. Köpstein 1966: 31–55; Verlinden 1977: 990–1; and Rotman 2004: 124–38 (ch. 3.1: La langue de l’esclavage) and 247–52 (Appendice terminologique).

5 On this topic see Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 70–84; Patlagean 1987: 531–42; Rotman 2004: 141–71.

6 Cf. Demandt 2007: 197–8 on the Codex Theodosianus, 237–8 on the Corpus juris civilis, and 343–51 on slaves in the whole period of late antiquity (with further references). Useful aids for details about the regulations on slaves by the emperors from Zenon to Justinian I (or about the respective novellas of Justinian I) are Lounghis et al. 2005: no. 114 passim, and van der Wal 1998.

7 Cf. the useful table 5.2 (Les régulations imperiales traitant de l’esclavage) in Rotman 2004: 253–9, listing laws and novels concerning slaves from 535 to 1095. Cf. in addition Dölger and Müller 2003: nos. 563, 679, 728a, 754 (novels are underlined), Dölger and Wirth: 1995, no. 1476, and Dölger-Wirth: 1977, no. 2054b. Concerning the treatment of slaves in Byzantine criminal law cf. Troianos 1992: passim.

8 ODB: 265; Dölger and Müller 2003: no. 514a.

9 ODB: 671–2; and Burgmann 1983, especially its titles 8 and 17.

10 ODB: 1725; Dölger and Müller 2003: no. 549a.

11 Cf. Noailles and Dain 1944; Dölger and Müller 2003: no. 513a (without a detailed list, but cf. Rotman 2004: 257–8, listing novels 9, 10, 11, 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 49, 59, 60, 66, 67, 100 and 101).

12 Cf. Dölger 1976: nos. 230, 239 and 253; Dölger and Müller 2003: nos. 549, 556, 647.

13 Koder 1991b. Cf. also Dagron 2002: 409, 418–21, 431, 436, 440 (these pages speak of slavery or slaves in connection with the regulations of the Book of the Eparch).

14 On canon law generally see ODB: 372–4, and especially about slaves in canon law Papagianne 1991.

15 Cf. Koder 1991a; and Rotman 2004: 141–50.

16 ODB: 1617; Burgmann 1995; and on slaves in the Peira: Köpstein 1993.

17 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 19–21; Klein 2000a: 205–15; Klein 2000b: 380; and Rotman 2004: 185–8 (which ignores Klein’s book and article). On Eusthathios see Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 53–4; Kazhdan 1984b: 142, 149, 164–7; and Kazhdan 1985: 223, but above all Kolovou 2006: 132*–134* (with the text of letter no. 27, the so-called testament of Eustathios, 79–80).

18 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 12–18; Klein 2000a; Klein 2000b.

19 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 115–18; Köpstein 1966: 31–55; Köpstein 1979; Klein 2000b; Rotman 2004: 48, 50–1, 97–8, 124–36 and 252 (here modifying the results of Köpstein 1979), but on sklabos cf. also the largely ignored article by Korth 1970.

20 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 32–8, 42–52; Browning 1958: 43–6; Köpstein 1966: 103–13; Rotman 2004: 141–56; Déroche et al. 2007: 532–4. On eunuchs cf. most recently Tougher in this volume, and his comprehensive study, Tougher 2008, which contains also a useful “Select prosopography of late Roman and Byzantine eunuchs” (appendix 2, 133–71) and further bibliography.

21 Browning 1958: 46–7; Kaplan 1992: 273–7; ODB: 1915; Brandes 2002: 360.

22 Browning 1958: 43–7; Kazhdan 1985: 222; ODB: 1915; Kaplan 1992: 332–4; Köpstein 1993: 2; Morris 1996: 140–1; Lefort 2002: 241; Rotman 2004: 156–60 (NB read always horia instead of horioi in table 3.4.1).

23 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 86–9; Browning 1958: 48–50; Köpstein 1966: 56–75; Rotman 2004: 55–94. Concerning the thorny, and recently much discussed, problem of the function of the andrapoda seals cf. Rotman 2004: 107–8; but now (critical) Brandes 2002: 351–65.

24 Browning 1958: 48; Köpstein 1966: 100; Rotman 2004: 54.

25 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 89–94; Köpstein 1966: 84–100; Verlinden 1977: 107 and passim; Browning 1958: 50–2; Rotman 2004: 94–112.

26 Cf. Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 90; Browning 1958: 53–4; Köpstein 1993: 18; Morrisson and Cheynet 2002: 847–50 (table 14: price from tenth to fifteenth centuries); Rotman 2004: 259–61 (fifth to eleventh centuries).

27 Vryonis 1957: 272 and 277; Lemerle 1979b: 33–4; Kaplan 1992: 334–6, 342–3, 347–9, 367; Köpstein 1993: 24–6; Rotman 2004: 154–5, 170, 175–7, 179, 212, 259–61, here 261 (with endnote 22, where he says that the enormous price can only be explained by an error: “soit du copiste, de l’écrivain ou du testateur,” but does not try to offer a possible solution such as the one given above).

28 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 91; Browning 1958: 52; Hunger 1965: 170. Xyngopoulos 1965b, though important for the topography of the slave market in Constantinople, this article is generally disregarded, except by Bouras 2002: 515. Cf. Verlinden 1977: 984; Berger 1988: 316–18; Ferluga 1987: 639; Köpstein 1993: 17; Rotman: 2004, 108 (with 299, n. 250), 118–20 and 293.

29 Browning 1958: 50; Köpstein 1966: 85–94; Verlinden 1977: 114 and passim; Rotman 2004: 120–2. But cf. the restrictive and sceptical remarks by Lilie 1984: 273 about the role slaves may have played as merchandise in the commercial relations of the Italian maritime cities with Byzantium before 1204.

30 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 101–13; Morris 1996: 135–9; Rotman 2004: 171–84, 189–91, 202–3, 206.

31 Dölger and Wirth 1995: no. 1177 (from 1095); cf. Rotman 2004: 199–201.

32 Cf. Browning 1958: 39; and Rotman 2004: 136–8 (La language de la littérature historiographique) and 251 (table 5.1.3 concerning the “littérature historiographique”), where he only touches on the problem of how slaves (or slavery) are mentioned in narrative historical sources in general terms.

33 Nikephoros 1990: 40–1.

34 Kaegi 2003: 61 commenting upon the passage, speaks of “a maidservant of a resident of the city” and calls her a “servant,” too, while Speck 1988: 241 speaks of a “Magd” (maid servant).

35 For the following sections, see Prinzing 2001b.

36 Ostrogorsky 1963: 254.

37 Ostrogorsky 1963: 63, 113, 158, 254, 325.

38 Prinzing 2001b: 353.

39 Cedrenus 1839: 448, 9–11.

40 Skylitzes 1973: 340, 88–9; cf. also the recent French translation by Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 284.

41 Hadjinicolaou-Marava 1950: 51; and (though only indirectly) Browning 1958: 46; Prinzing 2001b: 354.

42 Cf. Cheynet 1990: 214–15 and 328 (n. 41); Kaplan 1992: 328, 366 and 276. But with regard to the interpretation of the expression “panstrati” cf. also the erroneous rendering of the passage quoted above by Patlagean 1987: 568: “When Basil II stopped at the country seat of one of the great magnates of his day, Eustathius Maleinus, the emperor took his sumptuous welcome, with his host’s private army massed nearby [sic], as a sign of subversive intentions.”

43 Cf. ODB: 583; PmbZ: no. 1215 (with bibliography); Koutava-Delivoria 2001: 98–100 (who defends the previously disputed credibility of the historical account about Danielis); Cheynet et al. 2007: 53

44 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 228, ll. 3–5; cf. also the French translation in Cheynet et al. 2007: 55 (“esclaves domestiques”).

45 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 317, ll. 17–24; and Skylitzes 1973: 161, ll. 85–9. Cf. the recent French translation in Cheynet et al. 2007: 55 (“serviteurs”), adopting the rendering of earlier translations (German: Thurn 1983: 197; French: Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 134). But in my opinion the context requires the term oiketai to be translated as slaves.

46 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 318, ll. 5–7; cf. the French translation by Cheynet et al. 2007: 55, “esclaves”. Since the expression oiketika … prosopa is equivalent to the former oiketai in paragraph 2, the difference made in the French translation is inconceivable to me.

47 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 320, l. 23, 321, l. 10. Cf. Cheynet et al. 2007: 56–7; Dölger and Müller 2003: no. 563; Lefort 2002: 241; Rotman 2004: 182 and 307, n. 100.

48 Skylitzes 1973: 11, l. 69–12, l. 91. Cf. Thurn 1983: 37–8; Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 11–12.

49 Thurn 1983: 37; Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 11.

50 Though the girl or young woman is also denoted by some other terms in the context of the story, these do not allow one definitely to specify her status as a slave or free servant. The same is true for the other sources containing the story cited by the PmbZ, for which see the next note.

51 PmbZ: 10035.

52 Skylitzes 1973: 55, l. 77–56, l. 85.

53 Thurn 1983: 86–7, here 87; Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 52.

54 PmbZ: 10099.

55 Cf. Kästner 1981. Based on the ancient Greek terms, her article is nevertheless useful for the study of Byzantine texts in classicizing or atticizing Greek.

56 Skylitzes 1973: 175, l. 77–176, l. 88. Cf. Thurn 1983: 212–13, and the translation by Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 147–8, with useful commentary.

57 Cf. now Tougher 2008: 157.

58 Solin 1996 contains six source-entries for the name Musicus.

59 Cf. Magdalino 1990.

60 Skylitzes 1973: 189, l. 53–190, l. 56. Cf. the translations of Thurn 1983: 226–7; and Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 160.

61 On both men see Tougher 2008: 55, 142, 164 and Tougher’s index.

62 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 375, ll. 10–13.

63 Tougher 1997b: 200.

64 On the sense of anthropos (emancipated slave, hence free servant in the group of a lord’s servants, consisting of slaves and (free) servants, cf. Rotman 2004: 153–6, 178–81.

65 Cf. Tougher 1997b: 184, n. 75: “Note that the chronicle indicates that Constantine was a piece of property that could be passed from one owner to another.” Tougher here seems to interpret the passage in the sense that Constantine was passed as a slave to the empress.

66 But cf. Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 160–1: “Samonas, qui travaillait à s’attirer la bienveillance de l’impératrice, lui donna, pour qu’il la servit, son serviteur Constantin, un eunuque originaire de Paphlagonie.” (Registered in their index as Constantin, parakoimomène, it probably would have been better to say: “slave, after his emancipation parakoimomenos”).

67 Skylitzes 1973: 186, l. 48–188, l. 9.

68 Skylitzes 1973: 186, ll. 58–61.

69 ODB: 657.

70 Thurn 1983: 223–5, here: “zog er mit seinen Verwandten und Dienern los.” Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 157–9, here 158 (“avec ses parents et ses serviteurs”).

71 Skylitzes 1973: 250, ll. 47–61, here l. 56. Cf. Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 211. Rotman 2004 ignores the passage.

72 McCormick 2001: 745; and Lefort 2002: 242.

73 Skylitzes 1973: 364, ll. 68–73. Cf. Flusin and Cheynet 2003: 302, who offer a translation which follows the interpretation of Schlumberger (see next footnote).

74 Schlumberger 1900: 398. Similar interpretations of the text are to be found in Vizantijksi izvori 1966: 134–5 (J. Ferluga); Pirivatric 1997: 178, 182, 196; and (though with a question mark) Bozilov 1995: 307, no. 343.

75 Cf. Cheynet 1990: 84–5, no. 105.

76 Attaleiates 1835: 265. Cf. also the new edition: Attaleiates 2002: 190