KOSTAS VLASSOPOULOS

A THENIAN S LAVE N AMES AND A THENIAN S OCIAL H ISTORY

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 175 (2010) 113–144

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

 113

AT H EN I A N S LAV E N A M ES AND AT H EN I A N S OCI A L H ISTORY*

Greek slave names have been relatively neglected. The only full-scale study dates from as far back as
1907.1 In more recent years scholars have published catalogues of Athenian slave names2 or of the slave
names recorded in Greek manumission inscriptions.3 Unfortunately, these studies saw the light before the
publication of the successive volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (henceforth LGPN) and
the enormous potentials that this tool has opened to research. But the most important problem is that there
has been no dialogue between onomastic studies and the mainstream scholarship on Greek slavery. Slave
names and their implications are largely ignored in the standard general accounts of Greek slavery. Hans
Klees’ few words on the topic in his magisterial work on slave life in ancient Greece are typical:
“For the newly enslaved person getting a new name must have been more keenly felt as an external mark of
the loss of his former existence […] A reference of Plato, as well as the recorded slave names, leaves no doubt
that the renaming of newly purchased slaves was among the rights of the master and was habitually exercised.
Enslaved Greeks, male and female, seem as a rule to have kept the names they had while still free. While this
was also the case with some barbarian slaves, nevertheless it was overall common practice to name slaves
according to the ethnikon of their country of origin or with a typical native name respectively (Καρίων, Σύρα,
Φρύξ), according to specific slave features, primarily those that one wished for (Παρμένων, ᾿Ονήσιμος,
Πίστος), or with any kind of nicknames.”4

And this is all that is said about it, in a book of more than five hundred pages.5 What is the reason that his-
torians of Greek slavery have devoted so little attention to slave names? There has been an implicit standard
view which has been explicitly expressed recently by Bruce Robertson:
“This analysis of names will show that, taken as a whole, slave-names represent their bearers as mere for-
eigners through ethnic adjectives and stereotypical ethnic names, whereas the relatively higher frequency in
citizen-names of name-elements with military and political connotations reflects their status as the important
participants in these institutions.”6

According to this view, slave names reflect an ideology that distinguished clearly between the foreign slaves
on the one hand, and the citizens with political and military roles on the other: naming and ideology moved
in the same direction. Historians who study slave names will find in them nothing more than what they
would have already expected on the basis of Greek discourses about slaves and slavery. But is this view
actually verified by a detailed comparison of slave and citizen names? This article attempts to answer this
question by means of a detailed comparison of Athenian slave names with those of citizens and metics dur-
ing the archaic and classical periods. I will show that the majority of Athenian slaves bore names that were
also shared by citizens and that this finding has important implications. But more than that, this article is
an attempt to demonstrate the importance of onomastic studies for social history. Slave names raise very
important questions about many aspects of the role and function of slavery within Athenian society. Admit-
tedly, the answers to these questions are not and, due to the nature of the sources, cannot be definite; but
the cumulative effect of the evidence, the questions and the range of possible answers open new paths that
future research will have to seriously take into account.

* The author would like to thank Dr. Georgios Kyriakou for his help with statistical analysis.
1 Lambertz 1907. More recent reviews of the evidence in Masson 1988: 147–61; Solin 2001.
2 Fragiadakis 1988.
3 Reilly 1978; but see the review in Masson 1988: 387–8.
4 Klees 1998: 57–8.
5 Similar attitudes: Garlan 1988: 22–3; Andreau and Descat 2006: 19, 31, 86.
6 Robertson 2008: 81.
114 K. Vlassopoulos

Before we move to the presentation and analysis of the data, it is essential to explain the categories and
the classificatory systems that have been used for the creation of the database on which this article is based.
The names included in the database are analysed on the basis of three different criteria: a) according to the
personal status of the bearer, b) according to the frequency of the name, and c) according to the form of the
name. On the basis of the first criterion, the database distinguishes between six categories of personal status:
1) Slaves: Individuals securely attested as slaves from the archaic period to the end of the fourth cen-
tury BC.7
2) Freedmen: Individuals securely attested as freedmen from the archaic period to the end of the
fourth century BC.
3) Possible slaves or freedmen: These are individuals who are probably or likely to have been slaves
or freedmen, but whose status cannot be established with certainty. The criteria on the basis of which indi-
viduals have been included into this category vary. This category mostly includes individuals whose names
are recorded in epitaphs together with one or more of the following features: a) the adjective χρηστός,8 b)
the imperative χαῖρε,9 or c) a noun indicating a profession.10 All of these features are practically absent
from citizen epitaphs and extremely rare for Greek metic epitaphs during the classical period.11 They are
therefore very good indicators of the possible slave or freedman status of the individual involved; but these
indicia are not solid proof and this is the reason that possible slaves or freedmen are recorded separately
in the database. In a more idiosyncratic manner, I have also included in this category individuals who are
attested in two other ways: d) in cases where a name is associated with a foreign, non-Greek, ethnic and is
likely from the context to be a slave or freedman12 e) in cases where there is a very high concentration of
names which are frequently attested for slaves and where the context makes it possible or likely that they
were slaves or freedmen.13
4) Citizens: These are individuals who are attested as citizens from the archaic period to the end of the
fourth century BC. I generally follow the identification of citizens proposed in the second volume of LGPN
under categories i (citizens without attested demotikon) and ii (citizens with attested demotikon),14 with a
few minor modifications in cases where I have thought that there is insufficient evidence for the assignment
of an individual to category i.
5) People of unknown status: This category includes individuals attested between the archaic period
and the end of the fourth century BC, whose status cannot be established or ascertained. This category
includes most individuals classified in LGPN II under categories iii (possible citizens) and iv (residents of
Attica who are unlikely to be citizens, slaves or visitors).15
6) Metics: Individuals attested as metics between the archaic period and the end of the fourth century
BC.16
A name is only inserted in the database when it is born by an individual belonging to categories 1–3
(slave, freedman, possible slave). Once a name is inserted into the database, it is then recorded whether this
name is also attested for individuals belonging to categories 4–6 (citizens, people of unknown status, met-
ics). The names recorded in the database are then divided in five categories, on the basis of the frequency
with which names attested for slaves, freedmen or possible slaves/freedmen are attested for citizens:
7 The main catalogue of Athenian slaves is provided in Fragiadakis 1988: 337–79; a supplement in Solin 2001: 326–30,
which should though to be used with caution.
8 E.g. IG II² 11977: Λυδή χρηστή. On χρηστός, see Bäbler 1998: 65–6.
9 E.g. IG II² 12837: χαῖρε Ὕλα.
10 E.g. IG II² 11688: Θρᾶιττα μύρεψος.
11 Bäbler 1998: 203–4.
12 E.g. IG II² 8897: Ἀγάθων Θρᾶιξ.
13 E.g. the dedication of an ἔρανος in IG II² 2940.
14 See Osborne and Byrne 1994 and the supplements published online at http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/online/downloads/index.html.
15 Osborne and Byrne 1994: x.
16 The main catalogue is Osborne and Byrne 1996.
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 115

i) Very Common: When a name born by a slave, freedman or possible slave/freedman is attested for
10 or more citizens between the archaic period and the end of the fourth century BC.
ii) Common: When a name is attested for 3–9 citizens between the archaic period and the end of the
fourth century BC.
iii) Rare: When a name is attested for 1–2 citizens between the archaic period and the end of the fourth
century BC.
iv) Non-citizen: When a name is not attested for a citizen during the archaic and classical periods but
is attested for either a) people of unknown status, or b) metics. I have also included in this category a few
cases where the name is attested for citizens but only after the classical period.17
v) Slave only: When a name is only attested in Attica for slaves, freedmen or possible slaves/freedmen
(categories 1–3) and never for any individual belonging to categories 4–6 (citizens, people of unknown
status, metics).
Categories i–iii are clearly artificial: it would have been possible to divide them in different ways or
even to amalgamate them into a single category of names born by slaves, freedmen and possible slave/
freedmen which are also attested for citizens. But I believe that there is a real difference between a slave
name which is attested for a citizen only once or twice and a slave name which is attested for scores or hun-
dreds of citizens and the distinction between these three categories tries to highlight this difference. The
distinction between categories iv and v can also be problematic occasionally. This is in particular the case
when a name is included in category iv because it is attested solely for people of unknown status, who could
conceivably be slaves, but where the context does not provide any evidence on which this can be decided.18
An epitaph with just one name makes it impossible to classify the individual mentioned as anything else
than a person of unknown status.19 In many cases therefore it makes sense for the purposes of analysis to
amalgamate categories iv and v into a single group of names which are not attested for citizens and to con-
trast it to the group of citizen-attested names belonging to categories i–iii.20 On the other hand, there are
quite a number of cases where a slave name is not attested for citizens, but it is attested for metics who are
unlikely to be manumitted slaves. These cases raise very interesting questions and it is therefore important
for analytical purposes to maintain the distinction between names which are only attested for slaves and
names which are also attested for metics or for people of unknown status.
Finally, slave names are also classified on the basis of name forms. Scholars who have studied slave
names have proposed a number of different classifications.21 All of them have their own advantages and
disadvantages in terms of consistency and utility. Taking into account these various classifications, I have
devised the following typology which tries to take into account the specific features of Athenian slave and
citizen onomastics of the archaic and classical periods:
A) Composite names: Composite names are the most characteristic form of Greek proper names
constructed by using two different compounds with or without a suffix: ∆ημο-σθέν-ης, Θου-κυδ-ίδης,
Σω-κράτ-ης, ᾿Αριστο-φάν-ης.
All the other categories consist of simple, monothematic names with or without a suffix.

17 Names which are only attested after the end of the fourth century BC appear in the tables and the appendix in the form
0/x, where 0 indicates the lack of attestations during the archaic and classical periods and x the number of attestations of the
name after the end of the fourth century.
18 E.g. the name Συρίσκος is not attested for ascertained citizens or metics and only occurs otherwise once in IG II²
12690, which merely records the name without any other details. It is very likely therefore that the name was only used for
slaves, although this cannot be proven since the Συρίσκος of IG II² 12690 could potentially be a metic of free origin or even,
though unlikely, a citizen.
19 See e.g. IG II² 10573: it just records the name ῎Αδα, which could possibly be the name of a slave, but there is no cor-
roborating evidence on which this can be decided.
20 There are just thirty slave names in the database which are attested solely for persons of unknown status. Therefore, it
is unlikely that this issue has affected the overall picture in any significant way.
21 Lamberz 1907; Fragiadakis 1988; Masson 1988: 147–61; Solin 1996. See also the comments of Masson 2000: 225–9
and Hartmann 2002.
116 K. Vlassopoulos

B) Pet names: These are diminutive names, composed of one compound word and a suffix: Πλάτ-ων,
Φαίδ-ων, Νικ-ίας.
C) Theophoric names: Theophoric names are formed on the basis of a god’s or goddess’s name. They
include two different groups: either a god’s name plus a suffix (∆ημήτρ-ιος) or a composite name where
one compound word is the name of a god or goddess (῾Ηρό-δοτος, ∆ιό-δωρος). I have decided to include
all composite names where one compound is a god’s name in this category, as there seems to be little dif-
ference in meaning or use between the two different forms and the category as a whole presents interesting
features of its own.22
The remaining categories are effectively nouns or adjectives used as proper names with or without suffixes.
D) Abstract nouns: This category includes abstract nouns used as proper names, in particular for
females (Εἰρήνη, ᾿Ελπίς).
E) Geographic names: Nouns describing geographic entities used as personal names: Themistokles
famously named both his daughters after geographic names (᾿Ιταλία, ᾿Ασία).23
F) Nicknames: This category includes all the remaining nouns used as personal names (∆ράκων).
Most of the names included in this category describe physical objects, animals and plants.
G) Corporal names: This category includes names describing various features or elements of the
human body (Πύρρος).
H) Character names: These names are effectively adjectives describing a particular feature of a per-
son’s character or disposition (᾿Ονήσιμος).
I) Ethnic names: These names are adjectives describing ethnic origin which are used as proper names
(Λυδός).24
J) Foreign names: These were proper personal names among foreign, non-Greek, people (Μάνης).
K) Historical names: These are names of famous figures of the past in cases where there are good
reasons to assume that they are bestowed on individuals due to the fame of the past holder (῾Ησίοδος).
L) Divine names: This final category includes the actual names of divinities of various sorts (gods,
heroes, nymphs etc) which are bestowed on individuals (῎Αρτεμις). In contrast to later periods when these
names become extremely common for both slaves and freemen, until the classical period they remained
rare and show certain peculiarities of their own.25
These different categories of names exhibit very different patterns of use as slave names, as the follow-
ing table demonstrates.
Categories Composite Pet Theophoric Corporal
Names Cases Names Cases Names Cases Names Cases
Very common 37.7% 40.1% 31.3% 37.5% 17.5% 33.0% 10.3% 8.9%
Common 29.2% 30.7% 18.8% 25.0% 27.5% 38.5% 31.0% 57.1%
Rare 12.3% 10.9% 21.9% 20.1% 20.0% 9.9% 20.7% 12.5%
Non-citizen 9.4% 8.8% 14.1% 11.1% 22.5% 13.2% 17.2% 10.7%
Slave only 11.3% 9.5% 14.1% 6.3% 12.5% 5.5% 20.7% 10.7%

Categories Ethnic Foreign Nickname Character

Names Cases Names Cases Names Cases Names Cases
Very common 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Common 8.0% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 14.6% 21.1% 23.5%

22 Parker 2000.
23 Plutarch, Life of Themistocles, 32.
24 Fraser 2000.
25 Masson 1988: 543–7; Parker 2000: 57–8.
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 117

Rare 14.0% 17.1% 0.0% 0.0% 20.6% 29.2% 23.7% 19.6%

Non-citizen 36.0% 58.6% 36.0% 79.6% 25.4% 20.2% 23.7% 33.3%
Slave only 42.0% 17.1% 64.0% 20.4% 31.7% 23.6% 31.6% 23.5%

Categories Divine Abstract Geographic Historical

Names Cases Names Cases Names Cases Names Cases
Very common 8.3% 26.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Common 8.3% 11.5% 7.7% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rare 33.3% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 46.7% 75.0% 25.0%
Non-citizen 33.3% 26.9% 46.2% 47.1% 40.0% 33.3% 25.0% 75.0%
Slave only 16.7% 19.2% 46.2% 35.3% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Table 1: Frequency of citizen-attested slave names distributed by name form

Table 1 records the frequency with which the different forms of names born by slaves, freedmen and pos-
sible slaves are also attested for citizens, as well as the distribution of the individuals bearing those names. In
the case of composite, pet and theophoric names citizen-attested names account for between 70% and 80%
of the slave names and cases of individual slaves, freedmen and possible slaves bearing these names. On
the other extreme, in the case of ethnic names less than 25% of the names and the individual cases are ever
attested for citizens and in the case of foreign names citizen-attested names drop to 0%. Among the remain-
ing categories, corporal names show a large majority of citizen-attested names and abstract names exactly
the opposite, while nicknames, character and divine names are almost equally divided; geographic and his-
torical names show wide fluctuations between names and cases due to the small number of cases attested.
It is consequently clear that name forms exhibit very different patterns of use. Slaves bearing compos-
ite, pet or theophoric names would be onomastically indistinguishable from citizens; slaves bearing ethnic
or foreign names would be markedly distinguishable from citizens. There was then clearly an option in
onomastic strategies. What was the situation on the ground and can we identify any meaningful patterns
in slave onomastics?
Let us start by having a look at the most popular names attested for slaves, freedmen or possible slaves.
Table 2 presents names attested ten times or more for slaves, freedmen or possible slaves/freedmen:
Name Slaves Citizen Unknown Metic Form
Μάνης 26 0 4 2 Foreign
Σύρος 24 0 3 2 Ethnic
∆ᾶος 22 0 4 4 Foreign
Σωσίας 15 25 8 2 Pet
Καρίων 12 0 1 1 Ethnic
Θρᾶιττα 12 0 3 0/1 Ethnic
Θρᾶιξ 12 0 1 0/1 Ethnic
Παρμένων 12 4 4 1 Pet
᾿Αρτίμας 11 0 0 1 Foreign
῾Ηρακλείδης 11 15 17 15 Theophoric
Τίβειος 10 0 3 1 Foreign

Table 2: Popular slave names with more than 10 attestations

118 K. Vlassopoulos

Out of these eleven names, eight are never attested for a citizen; this is not surprising given that four of the
names are ethnic and another four are foreign, two categories where citizen-attested names are very rare.
This observation can be easily explained by Strabo’s description of how Athenians gave names to their
slaves:
These [the Athenians] were wont either to call their slaves by the same names as those of the nations from
which they were brought (as Λύδος or Σύρος), or addressed them by names that were prevalent in their coun-
tries (as Μάνης or else Μίδας for the Phrygian, or Τίβειος for the Paphlagonian).26

Given that, as current scholarship accepts, most of the Athenian slaves were of non-Greek origin, we should
not be surprised that the most popular slave names were primarily ethnic and foreign. Consequently, if the
list of the most popular slave names is a reliable reflection of the overall trends, we should expect that the
overwhelming majority of slave names would never be attested for citizens and that most slaves would bear
ethnic and foreign names. Is this expectation supported by the evidence? And is it safe to make statements
about slave names in general on the basis of the most popular names?27
Categories Names Cases
Very common 77 16.6% 163 17.8%
Common 86 18.5% 188 20.6%
Rare 80 17.2% 136 14.9%
Non-citizen 101 21.8% 290 31.7%
Slave only 120 25.9% 137 15.0%
464 914

Table 3: Totals of slave names

Table 3 above includes all slave names and all cases of slaves, freedmen or possible slaves attested from
the archaic age to the end of the fourth century BC.28 Only about 47% of slave names and cases are
never attested for citizens; the majority of around 53% of slave names and individual slaves, freedmen and
possible slaves are accounted by names attested for citizens. This is a very different picture from what
the popular slave names would suggest. The same picture also emerges from the classification of names
according to name forms:

Categories Names Cases

Composite 106 23.3% 137 15.2%
Pet 64 14.1% 144 15.9%
Theophoric 40 8.8% 91 10.1%
Nicknames 63 13.9% 89 9.9%
Corporal 29 6.4% 56 6.2%
Character 38 8.4% 51 5.6%
Divine 12 2.6% 26 2.9%
Ethnic 50 11.0% 152 16.8%
Foreign 25 5.5% 113 12.5%

26 Strabo, Geography, 7.3.12 (transl. H. L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass. 1924).

27 For a comparative analysis of Greek and Roman slave names on the basis of the most popular names, see Solin 2001.
Unfortunately, Solin’s figures include attestations from all periods and are thus potentially misleading in many ways.
28 Figures in Table 3 exclude 57 names which are too fragmentarily preserved to be analysed.
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 119

Abstract 13 2.9% 17 1.9%

Geographic 10 2.2% 15 1.7%
Historical 4 0.9% 12 1.3%
454 903
Table 4: Totals of slave names distributed by name forms29

Composite, pet and theophoric names account for 46.2% of all slave names and 41.2% of all slaves, freed-
men or possible slaves. On the contrary, ethnic and foreign names account for only 16.5% of slave names
and 29.3% of slaves, freedmen and possible slaves. Consequently, while popular slave names would suggest
that the overwhelming majority of slaves bore ethnic and foreign names that were never used by citizens,
the overall figures reveal that the majority of slaves bore composite, pet and theophoric names which were
common among citizens as well.
In fact, the total figures rather mask a number of very divergent and yet very consistent patterns. Let us
therefore analyse these figures in further detail. The first group to which we shall turn our attention is the
group of real slaves: the figures for this group therefore exclude fictional slaves, primarily from comedy,
freedmen and possible slaves.
Categories Names Cases
Very common 39 17.6% 61 19.1%
Common 46 20.7% 66 20.7%
Rare 44 19.8% 47 14.7%
Non-citizen 42 18.9% 92 28.9%
Slave only 51 23.0% 53 16.6%
Totals 222 319

Table 5: Totals of real slaves distributed by frequency

The figures for real slaves do not significantly differ from the total figures of Table 3: citizen-attested
names account for 54.5% of slaves, while non-citizen and slave-only names account for 45.5% of slaves; the
respective total numbers are 53.4% and 46.6%. There is therefore a rough parity between citizen-attested
names and names never attested for citizens, with a slight majority of citizen-attested names. Things are
also effectively similar to the total patterns in terms of the classification on the basis of name forms.
Categories Names Cases
Composite 50 23.0% 56 17.8%
Pet 31 14.3% 44 14.0%
Theophoric 23 10.6% 38 12.1%
Nicknames 25 11.5% 26 8.3%
Corporal 14 6.5% 21 6.7%
Character 16 7.4% 16 5.1%
Divine 9 4.1% 13 4.1%
Ethnic 28 12.9% 58 18.5%
Foreign 11 5.1% 32 10.2%
Abstract 2 0.9% 2 0.6%

29 Figures in Table 4 diverge from Table 3 in excluding 10 unclassifiable names accounting for 11 slaves.
120 K. Vlassopoulos

Geographic 4 1.8% 4 1.3%

Historical 4 1.8% 4 1.3%
Totals 217 314

Table 6: Totals of real slaves distributed by name forms

Composite, pet and theophoric names account for 47.9% of slave names and 43.9% of slaves, as compared
to 46.2% and 41.2% for totals respectively (Table 4). Ethnic and foreign names account for 18% of slave
names and 28.7% of slaves, as compared to 16.5% and 29.3% for totals respectively.
If we move to the groups of fictional slaves and freedmen, the situation changes significantly. Let us
first examine the freedmen.
Categories Names Cases
Very common 41 24.5% 52 26.8%
Common 36 21.5% 46 23.7%
Rare 30 18.0% 34 17.5%
Non-citizen 32 19.2% 34 17.5%
Slave only 28 16.8% 28 14.5%
Totals 167 194

Table 7: Freedmen names distributed by frequency

In the case of freedmen, citizen-attested names account for 64% of freedmen names and 68% of the freed-
men, while non-citizen names account for as little as 36% of freedmen names and 32% of freedmen respec-
tively. If we move to fictional slaves, the pattern is dramatically reversed.
Categories Names Cases
Very common 1 1.6% 5 3.5%
Common 10 16.4% 24 16.9%
Rare 9 14.8% 19 13.4%
Non-citizen 25 41.0% 77 54.2%
Slave only 16 26.2% 17 12.0%
Totals 61 142

Table 8: Fictional slave names distributed by frequency

Citizen-attested names account for only 33% of names and individuals, while names never attested for
citizens account for 67% respectively. It is also worth pointing out that while very common and common
citizen-attested names account for 46% of freedmen names and 50.5% of freedmen, they drop to l8% of
fictional slave names and 20.4% of fictional slaves. The same contrasting picture is verified by the distribu-
tion according to name forms.
Categories Names Cases
Composite 47 28.5% 50 26.0%
Pet 31 18.8% 41 21.4%
Theophoric 15 9.1% 21 10.9%
Nicknames 14 8.5% 15 7.8%
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 121

Corporal 9 5.5% 10 5.2%

Character 18 10.9% 18 9.4%
Divine 5 3.0% 8 4.2%
Ethnic 9 5.5% 9 4.7%
Foreign 7 4.2% 9 4.7%
Abstract 5 3.0% 5 2.6%
Geographic 4 2.4% 5 2.6%
Historical 1 0.6% 1 0.5%
165 192

Table 9: Freedmen distributed by name forms

Composite, pet and theophoric names account for 56.4% of freedmen names and 58.3% of freedmen, while
ethnic and foreign names account for barely 9.7% of freedmen names and 9.4% of freedmen. In the case of
fictional slaves the pattern is again reversed:

Categories Names Cases

Composite 0 0% 0 0%
Pet 3 5.0% 12 8.5%
Theophoric 2 3.3% 2 1.4%
Nicknames 14 23.3% 18 12.8%
Corporal 6 10.0% 16 11.3%
Character 6 10.0% 8 5.7%
Divine 1 1.7% 1 0.7%
Ethnic 19 31.7% 46 32.6%
Foreign 6 10.0% 34 24.1%
Abstract 1 1.7% 2 1.4%
Geographic 1 1.7% 1 0.7%
Historical 1 1.7% 1 0.7%
60 141
Table 10: Fictional slaves distributed by name forms

Composite, theophoric and pet names account only for 8.3% of fictional slave names and 9.9% of fictional
slaves; in fact, there is not a single composite name attested for fictional slaves, and the two theophoric
names used are never attested for citizens.30 On the contrary, ethnic and foreign names account for 41.7%
of fictional slave names and 56.7% of fictional slaves. In fact, a qualitative analysis of the names of fictional
slaves makes the difference even clearer than plain statistics suggest.31
Name Slave Possible Frd. Cit. Unkn. Met. Form
Fict. Real Fict. Real
Σωσίας 5 1 0 7 2 25 8 2 Pet

30 On Μανόδωρος, see Masson 1988: 327–8; Dunbar 1998: 284; Parker 2000: 76–7.
31 On names of comic slaves, see Photius, Library, 532b35.
122 K. Vlassopoulos

Γλύκη 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 Character
Ξανθίας 8 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 Corporal
᾿Ονήσιμος 1 1 0 1 1 7 4 3 Character
Παρμένων 4 3 4 1 0 4 4 1 Pet
Πυρρίας 3 0 0 0 1 5 4 4 Corporal
Σίκων 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 Ethnic
Σιμίας 1 3 0 0 0 4 7 6 Corporal
Σκύθης 2 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 Ethnic
Στρομβιχίδης 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 Corporal
Φιλίστη 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 Character

Γέτας 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0/1 Ethnic

∆ράκων 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Nickname
∆ωρίς 5 0 0 3 0 1 2 1 Ethnic
Κῶμος 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Nickname
Σπινθήρ 2 0 1 0 1 1 0/3 0 Nickname
Τροχίλος 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 Nickname
Φρυγία 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Ethnic
Χοιρίλος 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nickname

῞Αβρα 1 0 0 0 0 0/1 0 0 Nickname

∆ᾶος 18 1 0 2 1 0 4 4 Foreign
∆όναξ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0/1 1 Nickname
∆ρόμων 3 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 Pet
∆ωριάς 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Θρᾶιξ 1 9 0 2 0 0 1 0/1 Ethnic
Θρᾶιττα 5 4 0 2 1 0 3 0/1 Ethnic
῾Ιέραξ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/1 Nickname
Καρίων 2 7 0 3 0 0 1 1 Ethnic
Λυδός 1 1 0 3 0 0 0/1 0 Ethnic
Μάνης 6 10 0 8 2 0 4 2 Foreign
Μανία 4 0 1 0 2 0/1 4 1 Foreign
Μανόδωρος 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Theophoric
Μίδας 1 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 Historical
Πίστος 2 1 0 3 0 0/13 1 0/5 Character
Σαγγάριος 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0/1 Geographic
Σιμίχη 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Corporal
Σκύθαινα 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Στροβίλος 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nickname
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 123

Σύρα 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0/1 Ethnic

Συρίσκος 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Σύρος 11 8 0 5 0 0 3 2 Ethnic
Σωφρόνη 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Character
Τίβειος 4 2 0 4 0 0 3 1 Foreign
Τρύφη 2 0 0 0 0 0/1 0/2 0/1 Abstract

῾Αβρότονον 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Nickname
∆αρδανίς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
∆ιτύλας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corporal
∆ύσπρατος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
᾿Ιᾶπυξ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Κίλισσα 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Μασυντίας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Παρδόκας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Παφλαγών 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Πυθιονίκη 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Theophoric
Σηκίς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Σκεβλύας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Τερηδών 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
῞Υλας 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Divine
Φρύξ 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Χρῦσος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname

Table 11: Catalogue of names of fictional slaves

Nineteen names of fictional slaves are attested for citizens and these names account for a total of 42 fic-
tional slaves. Eight of these nineteen names are only attested for just one citizen during the whole of the
archaic and classical periods. Five names accounting for 15 fictional slaves are ethnic, and are attested for
a total of nine citizens. Given that we know the names of thousands of citizens of the classical period, but
only of less than a thousand slaves, it is clear that in these cases it is more likely that these slave names have
crept into citizen onomastics, rather than slaves used names common among citizens. Four fictional slave
names describing various bodily aspects (Ξανθίας, Πυρρίας, Σιμίας, Στρομβιχίδης) account for another
thirteen fictional slaves. The names Ξανθίας (blond) and Πυρρίας (redhead) are easily comprehensible
choices for slaves from Thrace and the North: Xenophanes famously described the Thracians as having
blue eyes and red hair.32 One would have expected therefore that these would have been popular names
for slaves. In fact, the name Ξανθίας, a very popular slave name in comedy with eight attestations, never
appears as the name of a real slave or freedman; Πυρρίας appears only once as the name of a freedman.
On the other hand, Greek heroes often had blond hair and Athenians were particularly fond of this colour.33
Although therefore in reality blond hair hardly distinguished slave from free and names like Ξανθίας were
hardly common for slaves, comedy turns, with the help of the mask, blond and red hair into characteristic
slave features and names referring to these features into characteristic slave names. Finally, most of the

32 Xenophanes, fr. 16. Headlam 1922: 234.

33 Sommerstein 2009: 146–7.
124 K. Vlassopoulos

remaining citizen-attested names of fictional slaves describe qualities which would be clearly desirable in
slaves and pose no interpretative problems: names like Γλύκη (sweet), Φιλίστη (most pleasant), ᾿Ονήσιμος
(profitable), Παρμένων (the one who stays, trusty) and Σωσίας (saviour). Fictional slaves present therefore
a consistent picture. Two thirds of the names and cases are never attested for citizens and most of these are
ethnic or foreign names. Of the remaining one third, many are ethnic names which have been occasionally
used by citizens, and the rest describe features that are compatible with slave features and characteristics.
It is telling that not a single slave in fiction bears one of the ‘noble’ composite names, so common among
citizens, and which make up a quarter of all slave names.
The Athenians were in a position to use names which would clearly demarcate slaves from citizens.34
When the occasion called for it, they were willing to employ slave onomastics as a means of social distinc-
tion. In comedy it was important to make a distinction between freemen and slaves. The mask, the costume
and also the names served to differentiate between slaves and citizens.35 While it is debatable whether in
New Comedy the names of characters were associated with particular masks and particular features or
roles, it is nevertheless clear that the names used for citizen characters and the names used for slaves never
overlap.36
When Athenians thought of typical slave names, the names that came to mind were clearly those that
separated slaves from freemen. Two examples should be sufficient to indicate the pattern. In the first exam-
ple, Apollodoros tries to instigate the wrath of the Athenian jurors against Phormion, the former slave of
his father:
I will tell you, therefore, how I think you will all best come to know the enormity of the wrongs that have been
done me. You must each of you consider what slave he left at home, and then imagine that you have suffered
from him the same treatment that I have suffered from Phormion. Do not take into consideration that they
are Syros or Manes or what not, while this fellow is Phormion. The thing is the same – they are slaves, and he
was a slave; you are masters, and I was master.37

The typical slave according to Apollodoros would have an ethnic name like Σύρος or a foreign name like
Μάνης; the fact that Phormion did not have such a name, and that he was no longer a slave, should, accord-
ing to Apollodoros, have no bearing on the jurors’ decision. Another characteristic example comes from a
comic fragment which describes a primitive society where slavery did not yet exist:
In those days nobody had a slave, a Manes or a Sekis,
but the women had to toil by themselves over all the housework.
And what is more, they would grind the corn at early dawn,
so that the village rang with the touch of the handmills.38

Again, the typical slave names are a foreign name like Μάνης and a nickname like Σηκίς, which signifies
a female slave born in the household.39 We should therefore conclude that the Athenians were in a position
to use slave names to differentiate slave from free and that the fact that over half the slaves and two thirds
of freedmen had citizen-attested names is an important finding in need of explanation.
The analysis above makes clear an unmistakable pattern. On the one extreme are names of fictional
slaves, which come closest to what is suggested by the popular slave names. Fictional slaves mostly bear
ethnic and foreign names which clearly distinguish them from citizens. On the other extreme are the names
of freedmen, who mostly bear composite, theophoric and pet names which are widely shared by citizens.
In between these two extremes are the names of actual slaves, which are roughly equally divided between
34 See also Robertson 2008.
35 Wiles 1988.
36 McC. Brown 1987; Krieter-Spiro 1997: 55–7.
37 Demosthenes, Against Stephanus, I, 45.86 (transl. A. T. Murray, Cambridge, Mass. 1939)
38 Pherecrates in PCG, fr. 10 (transl. G. B. Gullick, Cambridge, Mass. 1929).
39 Pollux, Onomastikon, 3.76. See also Theophrastus, Characters, 9.4, where the typical slave name is the foreign name
Τίβειος.
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 125

citizen and non-citizen names, and with equally significant proportions of composite, pet and theophoric
names on the one hand, and of ethnic and foreign names on the other.
Is this unexpected result trustworthy?40 One might argue that the picture drawn above is skewed and
therefore not representative of slave names as a whole. There are a number of different ways in which this
might have happened. The first form of bias might be due to decisions about how to construct the database
and how to classify names and individuals. Is it possible that the figures are skewed by the inclusion of
possible slaves as a separate category in the database? Would excluding possible slaves or counting them
together with slaves have any significant effect on the resulting figures?
Table 12 presents the frequency distribution of possible slaves.
Categories Cases As is immediately clear, the distribution of possible slaves is impres-
Very common 44 17.0% sively similar with that of total figures and that of real slaves, where
Common 52 20.1% the distribution is again a 53%–47% split between citizen-attested
and non-citizen attested names (Table 3). Therefore, excluding or
Rare 37 14.3%
amalgamating possible slaves would not have affected the overall
Non-citizen 87 33.6% figures, and the rather more arbitrary criteria that have been used
Slave only 39 15.0% for including individuals in the category of possible slaves have not
Totals 259 skewed the data in any significant way.
Is it possible that the distortion has taken place in the formation
Table 12: Possible slaves
distributed by frequency of the ancient data rather than in modern classification? There is no
doubt that the existing evidence is skewed in two significant ways:
the one parameter is time, the other is social position. The existing evidence is not evenly distributed in
time; therefore, it is conceivable that the phenomenon of citizen-attested slave names have little to do with
slaves per se and more to do with wider onomastic patterns. Table 13 presents the chronological distribution
of attested slaves, freedmen and possible slaves:

Date Slave Freedman Possible Totals

Real Fictional Real Real Fictional
6C 0 0 0 3 0 3
5C 95 42 0 15 1 154
5–4C 0 0 0 4 2 6
5/4C 173 1 1 5 1 181
4C 88 79 211 196 8 581
4–3C 0 1 0 9 1 11
4/3C 0 18 0 14 3 35
Totals 356 141 212 246 16 971
Table 13: Temporal distribution of slaves, freedmen and possible slaves41

As the table clearly shows, there is a significant imbalance in the chronological distribution of our evidence.
In the case of real slaves, the overwhelming proportion of attested individuals comes from the fifth century
(261 out of 356 cases); in the case of freedmen and possible slaves, practically all evidence comes from the
fourth century. It is only in the case of fictional slaves that there is some balance in the distribution of data,
although even there the fourth-century evidence accounts for 98 out of 141 attested cases. Is it possible
therefore that the difference in slave names employed by real slaves and freedmen could be attributed to
onomastic changes from the fifth to the fourth century, rather than to different onomastic practices among
40 For the distinction between slave and citizen names in Rome, see Cheesman 2009.
41 6C: 600–500BC; 5C: 500–400 BC; 5–4C: 500–300 BC; 5/4C: around 400 BC; 4C: 400–300 BC; 4–3C: 400–200 BC;
4/3C: around 300 BC.
126 K. Vlassopoulos

real slaves and freedmen? Is it possible that chronological distribution can explain the significant differ-
ences in naming between fictional slaves and freedmen?42 Solin’s comparison of popular Athenian slave
names, most of which come from the classical period, with the popular slave names of the rest of the Greek
world, most of which come from the Hellenistic period, has clearly shown that time could make a signifi-
cant difference. In the Hellenistic period ethnic and foreign slave names figure rarely among popular slave
names, while theophoric names become the most popular category.43 It is therefore a priori possible that
the differences between name patterns among fictional slaves, real slaves and freedmen are just the result
of the fact that different groups are mainly attested at different points of an onomastic trend.
The other parameter that is perhaps affecting our evidence is social position. Roman historians have
long known that wealthy and urban slaves have a much higher chance of being represented in our mainly
epigraphic record than the most downtrodden and the rural slaves. Is it likely that the citizen-attested slave
names reflect only the realities of a small section of successful or enterprising slaves, while being inappli-
cable to the vast majority of slaves?
One way of answering this question is by focusing at specific sources and exploring the extent to which
they deviate from the patterns established above. We can for example compare the names of fourth-century
freedmen with those of fourth-century fictional slaves.44 Do they both show a trend towards the indiscrimi-
nate use of names by both citizens and slaves?

Categories Names Cases

Compound 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Pet 3 8.6% 10 12.7%
Theophoric 1 2.9% 1 1.3%
Categories Names Cases
Nicknames 7 20.0% 10 12.7%
Very common 1 2.9% 4 5.1%
Corporal 5 14.3% 9 11.4%
Common 7 20.0% 13 16.5%
Character 4 11.4% 5 6.3%
Rare 5 14.3% 12 15.2%
Divine 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Non-citizen 18 51.4% 46 58.2%
Ethnic 10 28.6% 24 30.4%
Slave only 4 11.4% 4 5.1%
Foreign 3 8.6% 18 22.8%
35 79
Abstract 1 2.9% 1 1.3%
Geographic 1 2.9% 1 1.3% Table 15: Fourth-century fictional
slaves distributed by frequency
Historical 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
35 79

Table 14: Fourth-century fictional

slaves distributed by name form

As Tables 14 and 15 show, fourth-century fictional slaves present essentially the same patterns with fifth-
century fictional slaves. On the contrary, fourth-century freedmen present a very different distribution of
names from that evident in contemporary comedy. It is clear from the tables above that there is no overall
fourth-century trend.
Let us examine a different source, which will also allow us to explore whether social position has
affected our data. An excellent opportunity is provided by IG I³ 1032: this is an inscription dating to the

42 For the only overall examination of trends in Greek slave nomenclature, see Lambertz 1907: 73–88; see also briefly
Fragiadakis 1988: 62–6.
43 Solin 2001.
44 MacCary 1969; Treu 1983.
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 127

last years of the fifth century, which records the names of the crews of a number of Athenian triremes.45
This fragmentary inscription records the names of 169 slaves, thus contributing almost half the number of
real slaves attested in our classical sources.46 Chronologically it is ideal, since it is dated in the borderline
between the fifth and the fourth century BC. But the most important advantage is that it is a random sample
of slave names which is unlikely to represent the most successful and enterprising slaves.

Categories Names Cases

Very common 22 21.8% 32 20.5%
Common 29 28.7% 39 26.3%
Rare 15 14.9% 15 9.6%
Non-citizen 18 17.8% 51 32.7%
Slave only 19 16.8% 19 10.9%
Totals 103 156
Table 16: The slave names of IG I³ 1032 distributed by frequency

The distribution of slave names according to the frequency with which they are attested for citizens is very
similar to the distribution of the total figures for real slaves (Table 5). If we recalculate the total figures for
real slaves excluding those of IG I³ 1032, to avoid the double counting of IG I³ 1032, we arrive at the fol-
lowing numbers:

Categories Names Cases

Very common 20 14.6% 29 17.8%
Common 25 18.2% 27 16.6%
Rare 31 22.6% 32 19.6%
Non-citizen 29 21.2% 41 25.2%
Slave only 32 23.4% 34 20.8%
Totals 137 163
Table 17: Slave names distributed by frequency minus IG I³ 1032

We observe that citizen-attested names have a slightly higher frequency in IG I³ 1032 (65.4%) compared to
the names of real slaves attested elsewhere, as shown in Table 17 (54.6%), but the overall number of cases
is impressively similar: 43.6% in IG I³ 1032 compared to 46% in the remaining cases. Similar conclusions
emerge in the case of the distribution according to name form:

Categories Names Cases Categories Names Cases

Composite 23 23.2% 27 17.5% Composite 27 20.0% 29 18.1%
Pet 14 14.1% 17 11.0% Pet 20 14.8% 27 16.9%
Theophoric 13 13.1% 25 16.2% Theophoric 11 8.1% 13 8.1%
Nicknames 11 11.1% 11 7.1% Nicknames 14 10.4% 15 9.4%
Corporal 7 7.1% 10 6.5% Corporal 11 8.1% 11 6.9%

45 For a detailed analysis, see Robertson 2008.

46 Only 156 of these are sufficiently preserved for the purposes of detailed analysis. For a list, see Robertson 2008:
109–16. My own list includes a number of names omitted by Robertson: [Γ]ῆρυς (l. 265); Γῆ[ρυς] (l. 325); Εὐέμπ[ολος] (l.
330); ῾Ηγέστρα[τος] (l. 351); ῾Ηρακλεί[δης] (l. 336); Καλλίας (l. 394); Καρίων (l. 344); [Λ]υδις (l. 133); Πάταικος (l. 339);
Σιδάριχ[ος] (l. 335); Τράλις (l. 127). I have omitted ∆εξίθε[ος] (l. 377) who is likely to be the name of the master of Εὐξέ[] in
l. 376, rather than a slave.
128 K. Vlassopoulos

Character 3 3.0% 3 1.9% Character 13 9.6% 13 8.1%

Divine 6 6.1% 6 3.9% Divine 5 3.7% 7 4.4%
Ethnic 14 14.1% 30 19.5% Ethnic 19 14.1% 28 17.5%
Foreign 6 6.1% 23 14.9% Foreign 7 5.2% 9 5.6%
Abstract 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Abstract 2 1.5% 2 1.3%
Geographic 1 1.0% 1 0.6% Geographic 3 2.2% 3 1.9%
Historical 1 1.0% 1 0.6% Historical 3 2.2% 3 1.9%
99 154 Totals 135 160

Table 18: The slave names of IG I³ Table 19: Slave names distributed
1032 distributed by name forms by name forms minus IG I³ 1032

Composite, pet and theophoric names account for 50.4% of slave names and 44.7% of slaves in IG I³ 1032,
as opposed to 42.9% and 43.1% for real slaves attested elsewhere respectively. It is clear therefore that high
percentages of citizen-attested slave names and high proportions of composite, pet and theophoric names
are not merely a mirage of time or social position.
Nevertheless, there are still reasons to believe that the argument that the distribution of recorded slave
names is not completely representative of the situation as a whole has some value. One should note the
fact that both theophoric and foreign names have a much higher frequency in IG I³ 1032 (16.2% and 14.9%
respectively, Table 18) than in real slaves attested elsewhere (8.1% and 5.6% respectively, Table 19). Exam-
ining those slave names that appear more than once in IG I³ 1032 is a good way of showing what is at issue.

Name Cases Form Name Cases Form

Μάνης 9 Foreign ῾Ερμαῖος 2 Theophoric
῾Ηρακλείδης 7 Theophoric ᾿Απολλώνιος 2 Theophoric
Σύρος 6 Ethnic Εὔαινος 2 Composite
Θρᾶιξ 6 Ethnic Εὔαρχος 2 Composite
Γῆρυς 6 Foreign Εὔφρων 2 Composite
Καρίων 5 Ethnic Καλλίστρατος 2 Composite
᾿Αρτίμας 5 Foreign Γέλων 2 Ethnic
῞Ερμων 3 Theophoric Φοῖνιξ 2 Ethnic
Σῖμος 3 Corporal Καλλίας 2 Pet
Νουμήνιος 3 Theophoric Παρμένων 2 Pet
᾿Αγάθων 2 Pet Τίβειος 2 Foreign
Σιμίας 2 Corporal
Table 20: Popular slave names in IG I³ 1032

As it becomes immediately clear, with the exception of one theophoric name (῾Ηρακλείδης), all the other
names that appear more than three times are either ethnic (3) or foreign (3). This clearly confirms the origi-
nal impression created by popular slave names with a clear preponderance of ethnic and foreign names.
Our picture seems to be deeply contradictory: if one would judge on the basis of popular names, one would
have expected that ethnic and foreign names, rarely attested for citizens, would account for the vast major-
ity of slave names. When though one looks at the figures as a total, composite, pet and theophoric names
account for almost half of slave names and for many more slave individuals on aggregate than ethnic and
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 129

foreign names. The disjunction appears clearer if we calculate the ratio of slave individuals per slave names:
in other words the average number of slave individuals attested for every slave name.

Categories Names Cases Ratio

Foreign 25 5.5% 113 12.5% 4.5
Ethnic 50 11.0% 152 16.8% 3.0
Historical 4 0.9% 12 1.3% 3.0
Pet 64 14.1% 144 15.9% 2.3
Theophoric 40 8.8% 91 10.1% 2.3
Divine 12 2.6% 26 2.9% 2.2
Corporal 29 6.4% 56 6.2% 1.9
Geographic 10 2.2% 15 1.7% 1.5
Nicknames 63 13.9% 89 9.9% 1.4
Character 38 8.4% 51 5.6% 1.3
Abstract 13 2.9% 17 1.9% 1.3
Composite 106 23.3% 137 15.2% 1.3
454 903 2.0
Table 21: Average attestations of slave names distributed by name form

The total average is two slaves attested for every slave name. But the average masks very significant dif-
ferences. Foreign and ethnic names top the list with an average of 4.5 and 3.0 attestations per slave name
respectively. On the other extreme, although composite names form the most popular category of slave
names with 23.3% of all slave names, they account for only 15.2% of attested slaves with an average of just
1.3 attestations per name. In other words, while composite names are very common for slaves, we rarely
find more than one slave named after the same composite name; on the other extreme, while foreign names
are rare and account for only 5.5% of all slave names, they are very commonly used for an average of more
than four slaves per name. A detailed distribution of the different forms of names according to their fre-
quency of use confirms the same picture:

Categories Attestations
1 2 3–5 6–9 10+ Totals
Composite 84 79.2% 16 15.1% 6 5.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 106
Pet 42 65.6% 9 14.1% 7 10.9% 4 6.3% 2 3.1% 64
Theophoric 25 62.5% 5 12.5% 6 15.0% 3 7.5% 1 2.5% 40
Nicknames 49 77.8% 7 11.1% 6 9.5% 1 1.6% 0 0.0% 63
Corporal 19 65.5% 4 13.8% 4 13.8% 2 6.9% 0 0.0% 29
Character 31 81.6% 5 13.2% 1 2.6% 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 38
Divine 8 66.7% 0 0.0% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 0 0.0% 12
Ethnic 28 56.0% 8 16.0% 7 14.0% 3 6.0% 4 8.0% 50
Foreign 16 64.0% 0 0.0% 3 12.0% 2 8.0% 4 16.0% 25
Abstract 10 76.9% 2 15.4% 1 7.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13
Geographic 7 70.0% 1 10.0% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10
130 K. Vlassopoulos

Historical 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 4

Total names 322 70.9% 57 12.6% 46 10.1% 18 4.0% 11 2.4% 454
Total
Attestations 322 35.7% 114 12.6% 167 18.5% 133 14.7% 167 18.5% 903
Table 22: Average attestations of slave names distributed by name form

70.9% of all slave names are only attested once, but they account for just 35.7% of all attested slaves; on the
other extreme, just 11 slave names (2.4% of all slave names) are attested ten times or more, but these names
account for 18.5% of all slaves attested. No composite name is ever attested for more than four slaves.
We can therefore reach a conclusion. Ethnic and foreign names are used commonly to name slaves;
there is a rather limited supply of such names, but there is repeated recourse to them.47 This is nicely illus-
trated in a passage of Sextus Empiricus:
For example, if somebody who has servants of the same name were to order a slave to have Μάνης, say, sum-
moned (suppose say this to be the common name among the servants) the slave will ask which one.48

Μάνης would be the sort of name that would come to mind if somebody was thinking of a household with
many slaves bearing the same name. On the contrary, composite names exist in very large numbers, but we
rarely find more than one slave been called after the same name. It looks as if ethnic and foreign names are
for mass use, while composite names are almost always selected individually. It is obvious therefore that the
distribution of names is not random, but follows different rules for different forms of names.
It is impossible to provide a full explanation of this phenomenon in the limited space of this article. I
would like nevertheless to outline briefly six possible explanations, which I hope to examine in detail in a
forthcoming article. These are the following:
a) There was a higher percentage of slaves of Greek origin in Athens than we tend to assume.
b) The high frequency of citizen-attested slave names is evidence of the significant role of slave repro-
duction in replenishing the slave population of Athens. Second-generation slaves would be less likely to
receive ethnic or foreign names, and more likely to receive composite, pet or theophoric names.
c) The high frequency of citizen-attested names is evidence of slave autonomy in choosing names.
d) The use of citizen-attested names was a conscious strategy employed by both masters and slaves and
related to social position: the nobler and more skilled the profession of a slave, the more likely that the slave
would bear a citizen-attested name.
e) The use of citizen-attested slave names was a conscious strategy of slaves and freedmen to avoid
detection as slaves and enhance their condition.
f) The high frequency of citizen-attested names among slaves is evidence of the infiltration of the citi-
zen body by slaves or former slaves.
As I hope to show in the future, these different hypotheses are not incompatible with each other and
they can cumulatively account for the phenomenon as a whole.
For the time being though let us summarize the findings of this article. In contrast to what one might
expect on the basis of popular or fictional slave names, most attested Athenian slaves bore composite,
theophoric and pet names which little distinguished them from Athenian citizens. This is not a random
phenomenon created by the unevenness of our sources, since we have established clear patterns in slave
onomastics. As historians of slavery we have to explain why the Athenians did not usually choose to dif-
ferentiate themselves from their slaves on the basis of names, despite the fact that they possessed the means
to do so. Explaining this important phenomenon can raise and even answer some very important questions
about the role and development of ancient slavery. Were there more slaves of Greek origin than we tend to
assume? Did reproduction play a more important role in Athenian slavery than we think? Did Athenian
slaves have a higher rate of autonomy in their social life than we believe? Do slave names reflect the social
47 See the comments of Robertson 2008: 86–8.
48 Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 2.257.
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 131

strategies of masters and slaves? Was there a higher penetration of slaves in the Athenian citizen body than
in other Greek cities? These are questions to which no Greek historian can be indifferent; and onomastic
studies have a lot to offer in this respect. Let us then embrace the unbelievable opportunities provided by
the publication of the LGPN.

Bibliography

Andreau, J. and R. Descat (2006) Esclave en Grèce et à Rome, Paris.

Bäbler, B. (1998) Fleißige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen. Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre
archäologische Hinterlassenschaft, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Cheesman, C. (2009) Names in -por and slave naming in republican Rome, CQ, 59, 511–31.
Dunbar, N. (1998) Aristophanes: Birds, Oxford.
Fragiadakis, C. (1988) Die attischen Sklavennamen von der spätarchaischen Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit.
Eine historische und soziologische Untersuchung, Athens.
Fraser, P. M. (2000) Ethnics as personal names, in S. Hornblower and E. Matthews, eds, Greek Personal Names:
Their Value as Evidence, Oxford, 149–57.
Garlan, Y. (1988) Slavery in Ancient Greece, Ithaca.
Hartmann, I. J. (2002) ‘What name? What parentage?’ The classification of Greek names and the Elean corpus,
Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, 7, 55–81.
Headlam, W. (1922) Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments, Cambridge.
Klees, H. (1998) Sklavenleben im klassischen Griechenland, Stuttgart.
Krieter-Spiro, M. (1997) Sklaven, Köche und Hetären. Das Dienstpersonal bei Menander: Stellung, Rolle, Komik
und Sprache, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Lambertz, M. (1907) Die griechischen Sklavennamen, Vienna.
Masson, O. (1988) Onomastica Graeca Selecta, I–II, Paris.
–– (2000) Onomastica Graeca Selecta, III, Geneva.
MacCary, W. T. (1969) Menander’s slaves: their names, roles, and masks, TAPA, 100, 277–94.
McC. Brown, P. G. (1987) Masks, names and characters in New Comedy, Hermes, 115, 181–202.
Osborne, M. J. and S. G. Byrne (1994) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica, Oxford.
–– (1996) The Foreign Residents of Athens: An Annex to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica, Louvain.
Parker, R. (2000) Theophoric names and the history of Greek religion, in S. Hornblower and E. Matthews, eds,
Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence, Oxford, 53–79.
Reilly, L. C. (1978) Slaves in Ancient Greece: Slaves from Greek Manumission Inscriptions, Chicago.
Robertson, B. (2008) The slave names of IG I³ 1032 and the ideology of slavery at Athens, in C. Cooper, ed.,
Epigraphy and the Greek Historian, Toronto, 79–116.
Solin, H. (1996) Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch, Stuttgart.
–– (2001) Griechische und römische Sklavennamen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung, in H. Bellen and H. Heinen,
eds, Fünfzig Jahre Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei an der Mainzer Akademie 1950–2000. Miscellanea zum
Jubilaeum, Stuttgart, 307–30.
Sommerstein, A. H. (2009) Slave and citizen in Aristophanic comedy, in Talking about Laughter and Other Studies
in Greek Comedy, Oxford, 136–54.
Treu, K. (1983) Zu den Sklavennamen bei Menander, Eirene, 20, 39–42.
Wiles, D. (1988) Greek theatre and the legitimation of slavery, in L. J. Archer, ed., Slavery and Other Forms of
Unfree Labour, London, 53–67.

Kostas Vlassopoulos, University of Nottingham

Konstantinos.Vlassopoulos@nottingham.ac.uk
132 K. Vlassopoulos

Appendix: A List of Athenian Slave names

Name Slave Freed. Possible Cit. Unkn. Metic Form
Real Fict. Real Fict.
῞Αβρα 0 1 0 0 0 0/1 0 0 Nickname
῾Αβροσύνη 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Abstract
῾Αβρότονον 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Nickname
᾿Αγάπιον 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
᾿Αγαθοκλῆς 0 0 2 2 0 7 5 4 Composite
᾿Αγάθων 4 0 0 4 0 7 10 5 Pet
᾿Αγόρατος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pet
῎Αδα 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 Foreign
᾿Αδούσιος 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Pet
Αἰγυπτία 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 Ethnic
Αἴθων 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Body
Αἰνησιδίκη 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
Αἰσχρίων 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 Body
Αἰσχύλος 0 0 1 0 0 31 6 1 Pet name
Αἴσωπος 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Historical
᾿Αλεξίτιμος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
᾿Αλκή 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Abstract
᾿Αλκίας 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 Pet
᾿Αλύπητος 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Character
᾿Αμβρακίς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Ἀμπελι[ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
᾿Αμύκλα 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geographic
᾿Αμυμώνη 0 0 1 0 0 0/1 0 0 Divine
᾿Ανδρόμαχος 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0/1 Composite
᾿Ανθηρίς 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Nickname
᾿Αντιγένης 2 0 0 0 0 43 1 2 Composite
᾿Αντίγων[ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Pet name
᾿Αντίδοτος 1 0 0 0 0 17 2 1 Composite
᾿Αντιφάνης 1 0 0 1 0 63 9 1 Composite
᾿Αντιφάτης 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 Composite
᾿Απολλόδωρος 0 0 1 2 0 79 16 16 Theophoric
᾿Απολλωνιάδης 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Theophoric
᾿Απολλωνίδης 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 6 Theophoric
᾿Απολλώνιος 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 Theophoric
᾿Απολλωνοφάνης 1 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 Theophoric
᾿Αρέτη 1 0 0 0 0 0/1 2 0/4 Abstract
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 133

᾿Αρισταγόρα 0 0 1 0 0 5 14 1 Composite
᾿Αρίσταρχος 1 0 0 0 0 32 2 1 Composite
᾿Αρίστη 0 0 1 0 0 0/1 1 0 Character
᾿Αριστιππίδης 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
᾿Αριστίων 1 0 0 0 0 39 4 5 Pet
᾿Αριστοβούλη 1 0 0 1 0 4 2 0/1 Composite
᾿Αριστόβουλος 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 Composite
᾿Αριστόδημος 1 0 0 0 0 36 5 3 Composite
᾿Αριστόμαχος 1 0 1 0 0 30 4 2 Composite
᾿Αριστομένης 0 0 1 0 0 26 1 0/5 Composite
᾿Αριστονίκη 0 0 1 0 0 9 8 1 Composite
᾿Αριστονόη 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Composite
᾿Αρίστων 0 0 0 1 0 40 8 13 Pet
᾿Αρκαδίων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
᾿Αρκάς 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0/1 Ethnic
᾿Αρκέσας 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Pet
᾿Αρμένιος 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
᾿Αρτεμίδωρος 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 Theophoric
῎Αρτεμις 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 Divine
᾿Αρτεμισία 0 0 0 3 0 0/8 4 2 Theophoric
᾿Αρτέμων 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 Theophoric
᾿Αρτίμας 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 Foreign
᾿Αρτινίων 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign?
᾿Αρχέφιλος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
᾿Ασθ[ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
᾿Ασία 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0/8 Geographic
᾿Ασσύριος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
᾿Αταρβίων 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 Character
Ἄττας 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Foreign
᾿Ατώτας 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Foreign
῎Αττις 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Foreign
᾿Αφροδισία 0 0 0 1 0 4 8 2 Theophoric
᾿Αχυρίων 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Βακχίς 0 0 0 2 0 0/2 0 0/4 Theophoric
Βελτίων 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Character
Βίκτας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Βίων 1 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 Pet
Βρεττία 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Γάστρων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0/1 0 Body
134 K. Vlassopoulos

Γέλων 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0/1 Ethnic

Γέτας 1 5 0 1 0 1 0 0/1 Ethnic
Γῆρυς 8 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Foreign
Γλαυκίας 2 0 1 0 0 10 6 4 Body
Γλύκη 0 1 0 0 0 7 4 0 Character
Γλυκέρα 0 0 1 0 0 7 18 2 Character
Γλύκη 00 10 01 00 00 77 418 02 Character
Γνώμη 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0/1 Abstract
Γοργώ 1 0 0 0 0 1 0/1 0 Pet
Γρίσων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Γρυλλίων 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nickname
∆άδος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
∆άμων 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 Pet
∆αναΐς 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0/1 Divine
∆ᾶος 1 18 1 2 0 0 4 4 Foreign
∆αρδανίς 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
∆έξιος 0 0 1 0 0 2 6 3 Character
∆έξιππος 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Composite
∆ευκαλίων 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Divine
∆ημέας 0 0 2 0 0 26 6 0/1 Pet
∆ημητρία 0 0 5 4 0 6 15 4 Theophoric
∆ημήτριος 1 0 1 3 0 71 33 14 Theophoric
∆ίαυλος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Nickname
∆ιονύσιος 3 0 1 1 0 80 16 14 Theophoric
∆ιτύλας 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Body
∆ίων 0 0 1 1 0 38 8 4 Theophoric
∆όκιμος 0 0 1 0 0 6 0/1 0 Character
∆όναξ 0 3 0 0 0 0 0/1 1 Nickname
∆όρκιον 0 0 0 1 0 0 0/2 0 Nickname
∆ράκων 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Nickname
∆ρόμων 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 2 Pet
∆ροσίς 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nickname
∆ύσπρατος 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
∆ωριάς 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
∆ωρίς 0 5 0 3 0 1 2 1 Ethnic
∆ωρόθεος 0 0 1 0 0 39 3 1 Composite
Εἰρήνη 0 0 0 3 0 4 2 1 Abstract
῾Εκατώνυμος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Theophoric
῾Ελλάς 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0/1 Geographic
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 135

᾿Ελπίνικος 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0/1 Composite

᾿Ελπίς 0 0 1 0 0 0 0/2 0/4 Abstract
῎Εμπορος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
᾿Επιγένης 1 0 0 0 0 41 4 2 Composite
᾿Επίγονος 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0/2 Composite
᾿Επιείκης 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
᾿Επικέρδης 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Composite
᾿Επικράτης 0 0 1 0 0 81 5 1 Composite
᾿Επιμέλης 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
῎Επορος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ?
᾿Εργασίων 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 2 Pet
᾿Εργόφιλος 1 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 Composite
῾Ερμαῖος 2 0 1 4 1 3 7 1 Theophoric
῾Ερμαΐσκος 0 0 0 1 0 2 0/3 1 Theophoric
῾Ερμάφιλος 1 0 0 0 0 0/5 2 0 Theophoric
῾Ερμογένης 0 0 0 1 0 10 2 4 Theophoric
῾Ερμοκράτης 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0/2 Theophoric
῞Ερμος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Geographic
῞Ερμων 3 0 1 2 0 4 8 0/4 Theophoric
῾Εστιαῖος 0 0 1 0 0 6 2 2 Theophoric
Εὐάγγελος 1 0 0 0 0 17 1 0/1 Composite
Εὔαινος 2 0 0 0 0 0/1 0 0 Composite
Εὐαρχίδης 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0/1 Composite
Εὔαρχος 2 0 0 1 0 7 1 2 Composite
Εὔβιος 1 0 0 0 0 19 3 0/2 Composite
Εὐβούλη 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 Composite
Εὐβουλίδης 1 0 0 0 0 17 4 3 Composite
Εὔδημος 0 0 1 0 0 28 2 2 Composite
Εὐέμπ[ολος] 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 Character
Εὐκλῆς 2 0 1 1 0 46 6 4 Composite
Εὐκόλη 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Εὐκράτης 0 0 1 0 0 35 3 0/1 Composite
Εὐκρίνης 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
Εὐμάρης 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Character
Εὐμάθης 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 0/1 Composite
Εὐμάρης 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Character
Εὐνοΐς 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Composite
Εὔξενος 1 0 0 0 0 11 3 1 Composite
Εὐπείθη 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
136 K. Vlassopoulos

Εὔπραξις 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Composite
Εὐτυχίδης 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 Pet
Εὐτυχίς 0 0 2 1 0 1 6 0/6 Pet
Εὔτυχος 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0/6 Pet
Εὔφρων 2 0 0 1 0 8 0 2 Composite
᾿Εφιάλτης 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 ?
Ζωπυρίων 1 0 0 0 0 0/1 2 1 Body
Ζώπυρος 2 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 Body
῾Ηγέστρατος 1 0 0 0 0 11 1 1 Composite
῾Ηγίας 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0/1 Pet
῾Ηδίστη 0 0 1 0 0 7 7 1 Character
῾Ηδύλιον 0 0 1 0 0 0 0/1 0 Character
῾Ηραῖος 1 0 0 0 0 0/8 0/1 1 Theophoric
῾Ηρακλείδης 7 0 3 1 0 15 17 15 Theophoric
῾Ηρακλεόδωρος 0 0 1 0 0 0/10 0 0 Theophoric
῾Ησίοδος 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Historical
῾Ηφαιστίων 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 Theophoric
῾Ηφαιστόδωρος 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 Theophoric
᾿Ηχώ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Abstract
Θαλλίς 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Nickname
Θάλλος 0 0 0 2 0 7 3 0/2 Nickname
Θαργήλιος 1 0 0 0 0 0/2 0 0 Theophoric
Θεόκριτος 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0/1 Composite
Θεολύτη 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Composite
Θεοξένη 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 Composite
Θεοφίλη 0 0 0 2 0 3 6 1 Composite
Θετταλή 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Θραικυλίων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Θρᾶιξ 9 1 0 2 0 0 1 0/1 Ethnic
Θρᾶιττα 4 5 1 2 0 0 3 0/1 Ethnic
Θραϊττίς 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Θρασύλας 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Pet
᾿Ιᾶπυξ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
᾿Ιάς 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Composite
᾿Ιατροκλῆς 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 Composite
῾Ιέραξ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0/1 Nickname
῾Ιερόμβροτος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
῾Ικέσιος 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Character
᾿Ιλλύριος 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 137

῾Ιμέρα 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Geographic
῾Ιππόλοχος 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 Composite
῾Ιστορία 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Abstract
᾿Ιτάμη 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Character
Κάδους 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Κακίνος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ?
Κάλλαρος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Καλλίας 4 0 1 4 0 156 19 6 Pet
Καλλιστομάχη 1 0 0 0 0 8 11 0 Composite
Καλλίστρατος 2 0 0 2 0 72 14 2 Composite
Καλλιφῶν 0 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 Composite
Κάρ 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Καρικόν 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Καρίων 7 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 Ethnic
Κάρπος 0/1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0/5 Nickname
Κεφαλῖνος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Κέρδων 2 0 0 0 0 2 0/3 0/3 Pet
Κερκίς 0 0 1 0 0 0 0/1 0 Nickname
Κίλισσα 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Κίττος 2 0 1 4 0 2 4 1 Nickname
Κοκκαλίνη 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Κολχίς 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ethnic
Κολχός 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Κόνων 0 0 1 3 0 26 1 4 Pet
Κορδύπη 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 Character
Κότυς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0/1 1 Foreign
Κράτεια 0 0 1 0 0 0/3 3 0/2 Pet
Κρίτων 0/1 0 0 1 0 11 1 1 Pet
Κροῖσος 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 Historical
Κτησικλῆς 0 0 1 0 0 21 1 2 Composite
Κτήσιον 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Pet
Κτίτας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Κυδίμαχος 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Composite
Κυλίκων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Κύρσας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
Κῶμος 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Nickname
Λάκων 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 Ethnic
Λάμπις 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
Λαμπρίς 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
138 K. Vlassopoulos

Λεπτίνης 0 0 1 0 0 10 5 1 Body
Λεύκη 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Nickname
Λέων 1 0 0 0 0 26 4 3 Nickname
Λῆσις 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pet name
Λίβυς 0 0 0 0 1 0/1 1 0 Ethnic
ΛΟΡΙΛΛΙΛ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Λυδή 1 0 1 1 0 0/1 0 0 Ethnic
[Λ]υδις 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Λυδός 1 1 0 3 0 0 0/1 0 Ethnic
Λυκίδας 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0/1 Pet
Λυκῖνος 0 0 1 0 0 24 2 2 Pet
Λύκιος 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 Ethnic
Λυσανίας 1 0 0 1 0 54 6 1 Composite
Λῦσις 0 0 1 0 0 12 3 0 Pet
Μάης 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Μακεδών 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Μαλθάκη 0 0 2 4 0 7 9 0 Body
Μαμμάνος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Μανδίων 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Μάνης 10 6 2 8 0 0 4 2 Foreign
Μανία 0 4 2 0 1 0/1 4 1 Foreign
Μανόδωρος 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Theophoric
Μάρων 1 0 0 0 0 0/10 0/1 0/2 Nickname
Μασυντίας 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Μελαινίς 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Body
Μέλιττα 0 0 1 2 0 9 6 1 Nickname
Μελιττ[ηνός]
or [-ηνή] 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Μενεκλῆς 0 0 1 0 0 26 3 1 Composite
Μενεστράτη 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 Composite
Μένιος 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 Pet
Μενίππη 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Composite
Μένων 0 0 1 0 0 39 9 4 Pet
Μεσώ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
Μεσσήνιος 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ethnic
Μεσώ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
Μητρόβιος 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Theophoric
Μητρόδ[οτος]
or [-ωρος] 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Theophoric
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 139

Μίδας 1 1 1 6 0 0 1 1 Historical
Μίκα 1 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 Body
Μικίας 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Body
Μικίων 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 Body
Μίκος 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 Body
Μιλύας 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Μνάσων 0 0 1 0 0 0/6 1 1 Pet
Μνησιθέα 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Composite
Μοσχίων 1 0 1 0 0 17 8 2 Nickname
Μόσχος 0 0 1 2 0 16 5 2 Nickname
Μουσαῖος 1 0 0 0 0 0/41 0/1 2 Theophoric
Μύρμηξ 1 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 Nickname
Μυρρίνη 0 0 0 1 0 27 14 1 Nickname
Μυρωνίδης 0 0 1 0 0 9 1 0 Nickname
Μῦς 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 Nickname
Μῶμος 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Abstract
Νάδος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Ναΐς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/1 Divine
Ναύσων 1 0 0 0 0 3 0/1 0 Pet
Νεαρά 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Character
Νίκανδρος 0 0 2 0 0 14 4 2 Composite
Νικαρέτη 0 0 1 0 0 7 11 2 Composite
Νικαρίστη 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Composite
Νικίας 0 0 1 0 0 58 5 4 Pet
Νικίππη 0 0 0 1 0 2 0/1 0 Composite
Νίκιππος 0 0 1 0 0 9 2 1 Composite
Νικοβούλη 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 Composite
Νίκων 0 0 2 0 0 39 14 8 Pet
Νιτα[ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Νουμήνιος 3 0 0 0 0 10 12 4 Theophoric
Ξανθίας 0 8 0 0 0 3 4 0 Body
Ξάνθιππος 1 0 0 0 0 14 2 2 Composite
Ξαξανοῦς 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Ξεννίς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
Ξενοκράτης 0 0 0 1 0 12 1 1 Composite
῎Ολας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Geographic
᾿Ολυμπιάς 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 Theophoric
᾿Ολύμπιος 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Theophoric
᾿Ολύμπις 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0/1 Theophoric
140 K. Vlassopoulos

῎Ολυμπος 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 Geographic
᾿Ονησίμη 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0/1 Character
᾿Ονήσιμος 1 1 1 1 0 7 4 3 Character
᾿Οψίγονος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Παγκλέων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
Παίδευσις 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Abstract
Παμφίλη 0 0 1 1 0 6 10 1 Composite
Πάμφιλος 0 0 1 0 0 39 11 1 Composite
Παντάρκης 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Composite
Παρδόκας 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Παρμένων 3 4 0 1 4 4 4 1 Pet
Παρθένιον 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0/2 Nickname
Παρθενίς 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0/1 Nickname
Παρμένων 3 4 0 1 4 4 4 1 Pet
Πασίων 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0/3 Pet
Πάταικος 1 0 2 0 0 6 3 1 Divine
Παυσανίας 1 0 0 1 0 21 7 1 Composite
Παύσιλλα 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Pet
Παφλαγών 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Πεισίστρατος 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Composite
Περιθείδης 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
Περσίς 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 Ethnic
Πίθηκος 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nickname
Πιστοκλῆς 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 Composite
Πίστος 1 2 0 3 0 0/13 1 0/5 Character
Πιστύρας 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pet
Πιττάλακος 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Πλαγγών 0 0 2 1 0 9 7 4 Nickname
Πλαθάνη 0 0 0 1 0 4 13 1 Nickname
Πλίννα 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Πολύτιμος 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 Character
Πολυξένη 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 Composite
Πολύτιμος 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 Character
Ποσειδώνιος 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 Theophoric
Ποσίδεος 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0/1 Theophoric
Ποταίνιος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Πριάνθη 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Πρόθυμος 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Character
Πρῶτος 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0/5 Character
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 141

Πυθιονίκη 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Theophoric
Πύθιος 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Theophoric
Πυνέτη 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ?
Πυραίχμη 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Πυρραῖος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Body
Πυρρίας 0 3 1 0 0 5 4 4 Body
Πυρρίχη 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Body
Πύρρος 1 0 0 0 0 20 2 1 Body
Ῥοδία 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Ῥύνδαξ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nickname
Σαγγάριος 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0/1 Geographic
Σαννίων 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 Character
Σαρματίς 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Σαρπηδών 1 0 0 0 0 0/3 0 0 Divine
Σατυρίων 0 0 1 0 0 1 0/1 0/1 Divine
Σάτυρος 4 0 3 0 0 35 6 5 Divine
Σηκὶς 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Σιδάριχ[ος] 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Σίκιννος 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nickname
Σίκων 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 3 Ethnic
Σιμάλη 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Body
Σίμαλον 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Body
Σιμίας 3 1 0 0 0 4 7 6 Body
Σιμίχη 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Body
Σῖμον 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0/1 Body
Σῖμος 4 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 Body
Σιμύλος 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 0/1 Body
Σίνδρων 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Character
Σκάμανδρος 0 0 1 0 0 0 0/1 0/1 Geographic
Σκεβλύας 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Σκίπων 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Σκύθαινα 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Σκύθης 2 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 Ethnic
Σκῶνυς 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Σμικύθη 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Nickname
Σόφων 0 0 0 1 0 1 0/1 0/2 Pet
Σπίνθαρος 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 Nickname
Σπινθήρ 0 2 1 0 1 1 0/3 0 Nickname
Στέφανος 0 0 0 3 0 31 1 5 Nickname
142 K. Vlassopoulos

Στρατονίκη 0 0 1 0 0 3 0/4 1 Composite

Στροβίλος 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nickname
Στρογγυλίων 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 Body
Στρομβιχίδης 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 Body
Συνέτη 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0/2 Character
Σύρα 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0/1 Ethnic
Συρίσκος 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Σύρος 8 11 0 5 0 0 3 2 Ethnic
Σφραγίς 0 0 0 1 0 0 0/1 0 Nickname
Σωκλῆς 1 0 1 0 0 22 2 2 Composite
Σωκράτης 1 0 1 0 0 46 10 0/8 Composite
Σωμένης 1 0 0 0 0 0/1 1 0 Composite
Σώσανδρος 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 Composite
Σωσίας 1 5 2 7 0 25 8 2 Pet
Σωσιβία 0 0 0 1 0 0/1 0 0/1 Composite
Σωσίβιος 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0/10 Composite
Σωσιγένης 0 0 0 1 0 21 1 0/5 Composite
Σωσιμένης 1 0 0 0 0 2 0/1 0/1 Composite
Σωσίστρατος 0 0 0 1 0 24 1 1 Composite
Σωστράτη 0 0 2 0 0 22 9 0 Composite
Σώστρατος 0 0 1 0 0 67 7 5 Composite
Σωτηρίδης 1 0 3 1 0 3 2 3 Pet
Σωτηρίς 1 0 3 3 0 1 3 1 Pet
Σωφρόνη 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Character
Ταυροσθένης 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nickname
Ταχίστη 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Τέλεσις 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Abstract
Τερηδών 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
Τεῦκρος 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Divine
Τηλόφιλος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
Τίβειος 2 4 0 4 0 0 3 1 Foreign
Τιμαγόρας 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Composite
Τιμόδημος 0 0 1 0 0 22 1 0 Composite
Τιμόθεος 0 0 0 1 0 44 3 3 Composite
Τιμοξένη 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Composite
Τιμώ 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 Pet
Τίμων 1 0 0 1 0 10 1 3 Pet
Τιριβ[ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
Τιτυρᾶς 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign
 Athenian Slave Names and Athenian Social History 143

Τράλις 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Geographic
Τριβαλλός 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Ethnic
Τρίτυ[λλος] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Τροχίλος 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 Nickname
Τρόμης 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Τροχίλος 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 Nickname
Τρύφη 0 2 0 0 0 0/1 0/2 0/1 Abstract
Τυρήν 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Τύχων 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0/1 Pet
῞Υλας 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Divine
Φανῆς 1 0 0 0 0 3 0/1 1 Pet
Φανίας 0 0 0 1 0 28 5 1 Pet
Φανόκλεια 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 Composite
Φέγγος 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Abstract
Φειδέστρατος 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 Composite
Φιλαινίς 0 0 1 0 0 0/1 3 0 Pet
Φίλιννα 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 Pet
Φίλιος 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 Pet
Φιλίστη 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 Character
Φιλόθηρος 0 0 1 0 0 7 2 0 Composite
Φιλοκράτης 0 0 1 0 0 68 9 3 Composite
Φιλονίκη 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Composite
Φίλος 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Character
Φιλόστρατος 1 0 0 0 0 35 5 0/1 Composite
Φιλουμένη 0 0 2 0 0 18 14 0/1 Pet
Φιλοῦργος 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Composite
Φίλων 2 0 2 1 0 86 20 5 Pet
Φοῖνιξ 2 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 Ethnic
Φορμίων 2 0 0 0 0 19 2 3 Pet
Φρυγία 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Ethnic
Φρύξ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ethnic
Χαιρεστ[ρατ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Composite
Χαιρεφάνης 0 0 1 0 0 22 0/1 1 Composite
Χαρίας 1 0 0 0 0 64 12 1 Pet
Χαρίων 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Pet
Χάρων 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Divine
Χιωνίδης 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Ethnic
Χλῶρος 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Body
Χοιρίλος 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nickname
144 K. Vlassopoulos

Χοιρίνη 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 Nickname
Χρήσιμος 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0/3 Character
Χρύσιον 0 0 1 0 0 0/3 3 0/1 Nickname
Χρυσίς 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 Nickname
Χρῦσος 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickname
῎Ωκιμον 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Nickname
᾿Ωφελίων 1 0 1 2 0 2 4 0/1 Pet