Emporoi Kai Nauklēroi: Redefining Commercial Roles in Classical Greece

Page |1 Emporoi Kai Nauklēroi: Redefining Commercial Roles in Classical Greece1 ‘If we are to arrive at any proper appreciation of Greek economic life, and in particular of the attitude adopted by the Greek States towards trade and commerce, we must first of all get some clear understanding of the types 2 of people whom these activities were carried on, and of their precise social and economic significance ’.

The opening statement of Hasebroek’s investigation of trade and politics in ancient Greece neatly encapsulates the need for a more nuanced understanding of the different roles of commercial operatives. In the main, the Greeks are generally thought to have used three words to designate men who engaged in trade or exchange: emporos, nauklēros, and kapēlos but there is little consensus amongst scholars over the precise duties and roles undertaken by each.3 Finley, whose seminal study in 1935 advanced the work of Hasebroek and Knorringa, recognised that each of the three terms had a specific connotation; however, he argued that the ancient usage was so frequently disregarded that it is impossible to draw any sensible deductions by simply undertaking an etymological study. 4 Despite Finley’s caveat against attempting to rigidly classify the status, ethnicity, affluence, and occupation of commercial operatives according to the term used to denote them, subsequent scholarship continued using these criteria in order to identify a narrow set of shared characteristics that could be used to differentiate emporoi, nauklēroi, and kapēloi. Significantly, however, these studies, despite having differing opinions regarding the origin, wealth, and social standing of emporoi and nauklēroi, unanimously agreed that both groups were directly involved in commercial transactions, with the primary distinction being the ownership of a sea-worthy vessel. Therefore, from the late 1930s onwards, it became widely accepted that nauklēroi were merchants who were affluent enough to own their own vessel, whilst emporoi were men who chartered transport space from a third party. In an attempt to curtail this endless cycle of debate Reed, in his 2003 study of maritime traders in the Greek world, adopted a different approach: instead of trying to identify a rigid set of shared characteristics, he attributed a series of primary and secondary traits to each group.5 He defined a primary trait as one shared almost without exception by members of each group, whereas secondary traits were considered to apply in the majority of cases.6 This move away from lexicographical exactitude allowed Reed to progress beyond simply trying to identify one or two shared characteristics and thus enabled a more nuanced picture to emerge. 7 Although Reed’s 1

I would like to acknowledge several debts I have incurred whilst writing this article: Professor Jim Roy and Dr Stephen Lambert for the insightful comments they provided during my viva; Dr Sian Lewis, Dr Louis Rawlings, Dr Ruth Westgate, Dr Jennifer Ingleheart, Dr Andrej Petrovic, Professor Keith Rutter, Dr Clemence Schultze, and Ms Justine Wolfenden for reading various drafts and offering numerous insightful comments; I have also benefitted from the resources of the Durham Centre for the Study of the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East (CAMNE) and discussions with its members. Finally, my largest debt is to Professor Peter Rhodes and Professor Edward Harris, who both read drafts of this article, provided many helpful comments, and offered advice about sources and bibliography. None should be supposed to agree with my arguments, let alone share responsibility for any errors. 2 Hasebroek 1933: 1. 3 Knorringa 1926: 96; Hasebroek 1933: 3; Finley 1935: 320-336; Michell 1940: 230-31; Calhoun 1965: 54-63; Amit 1965: 56-57; Starr 1977: 73; Vélissaropoulos 1980: 48-49; Casson 1991: 102-103. 4 Finley 1935: 322. 5 Reed 2003: 6-13. 6 Reed 2003: 7, states: ‘There can be very few exceptions to a primary characteristic; there can be more to a secondary characteristic but one still must be able to say “usually” or “normally” the secondary characteristic applies’. 7 Reed identifies the primary characteristics shared by the majority of emporoi as: they travel by sea, they hired transport space from a third party, they owned the goods that they traded, they were middlemen not producers, they were professional merchants (i.e. they remained emporoi year-in, year-out), and they primarily sold to

Page |2 approach was sensible, his work has been criticised for the brevity of the analysis and discussion, and for its almost unquestioning acceptance of Finley’s view that the majority of merchants were poor foreigners who were on the fringes of Greek society. 8 Reed’s study also suffered from the same problem as many of the earlier works in that it accepted unquestioningly that both emporoi and nauklēroi were primarily traders whose main source of income was generated by selling or exchanging commodities for profit.9 Reed therefore concluded: ‘Rather than quibble over what constitutes even a secondary characteristic, we should attend instead to the vital point (vital at least for historical if not terminological purposes) that in the classical period nauklēroi undoubtedly carried on emporia more regularly than did any other group of people except emporoi’.10 However, an analysis of the usage of the terms emporos and nauklēros offers little support to Reed’s conclusion; rather, it provides compelling evidence that the distinctions between the primary role of these two occupational groups was far more substantial. This article will therefore challenge previous scholarship on two counts: firstly, that there were only slight differences in the commercial functions of emporoi and nauklēroi and, secondly, that ownership of a vessel was a factor which the Greeks used to distinguish between them. Instead, it will argue that a more reliable way of distinguishing between these two occupational groups is according to the differing roles they fulfilled within the mechanisms of inter-regional exchange. It will therefore be suggested that nauklēroi were not primarily independent-traders but rather haulers or agents who worked for, or in partnership with, someone else - in the few instances when these men were also ship-owners they can always be found transporting the goods of a third party/parties. In contrast, the term emporos should be understood as denoting an independent, professional merchant whose primary form of income was generated by direct trade and who, if wealthy enough to own a vessel, rarely, if ever, acted as a shipping agent. Recognising that both occupational groups comprised a cross-section of society which included poor and wealthy, slaves, freemen and free, and metics, foreigners, and citizens, this article dismisses distinctions based on any of these criteria. The acceptance of a distinction based chiefly on the differing commercial functions of these two groups not only provides greater clarity on their respective roles but also improves our understanding of the mechanisms of interregional trade during the classical period. The idea that there must be some definable difference between emporoi and nauklēroi is easily justifiable as the ancient authors frequently distinguished between the two occupations; retailers. Although suggesting that nauklēroi shared many of these characteristics, he identifies ownership of a vessel as the primary distinction between the two groups. Reed 2003: 8-13. 8 Reed 2003: 6-14; Osborne 2004: 198-99. 9 Knorringa 1926: 96 states: ‘It appears that a trader with a ship of his own was usually called an emporos, and that, if such a trader was called a nauklēros, he was more looked upon as the owner of the ship than as a trader, and that especially the ship was emphasized’. This definition was closely followed by Finkelstein (Finley) 1935: 335 who proposed: ‘The term nauklēros seems to have been limited to the man who owned a trading vessel, who frequently (if not usually) engaged in commerce himself and who, if ever found trading, transported only his own merchandise…..emporoi were normally maritime traders, but not necessarily so.’ (i.e. sometimes they were over-land traders but they were always ‘traders’). Hasebroek 1933: 3 proposed that nauklēroi were merchantship-owners who transported their goods from place to place on a vessel they owned whereas emporoi were traders who, not possessing a ship, travelled on one belonging to a third party. He therefore concluded that, ‘In this wider sense, therefore, the nauklēros is himself an emporos’. 10 Reed 2003: 12-14. Although Reed recognises that it is uncertain whether emporia is a primary or secondary characteristic of nauklēroi, he still concludes: ‘and of no nauklēros in the catalogue can we say with certainty that he did not trade’. See also Reed 2003: 12, n.27 and 28. Reed’s view is in line with that presented by Vèlissarpoulos 1980:40: ‘Si l’on s’en tient a l’exploitation du navire, le nauclère apparait aussi bien comme transporteur de marchandises appartenant a différents chargeurs, que comme transporteur de ses propres biens, agissant ainsi a la fois comme entrepreneur de transport et comme commerçant’.

Page |3 typically this distinction was created through the employment of the phrase ‘emporoi kai nauklēroi’. This discrete juxtaposition of the two terms would seem to indicate that there were significant differences between the commercial roles and functions fulfilled by each: a hypothesis that finds support from the Athenian law court speeches. The forensic orations of Demosthenes for instance, intimate that there were distinct legal provisions for emporoi and nauklēroi due to their differing roles within the mechanisms of inter-regional exchange.11 Although alluding to a number of legal distinctions specifically tailored to the differing roles undertaken by the two groups, none of the forensic orations or extant laws explicitly record what these differing roles or legal provisions were. This lack of clarity led scholars to downplay the differences between the two groups and thus it became widely accepted that both emporoi and nauklēroi were primarily traders whose main form of income came from selling commodities for profit: a conclusion not supported by the classical sources. Of the one hundred and four uses of the term nauklēroi examined by this study,12 only one can be found denoting a subject who was involved in the independent exchange of goods.13 The rest, although found in the context of inter-regional trading ventures, are never used to denote a subject that is unequivocally involved in the direct trading or selling of commodities. Even in the single example where the nauklēros (Parmeniscus) does appear to be trading in an independent manner, it is debatable whether he was directly involved in the autonomous brokering of a deal, or if, in reality, he was following the instructions of his partner (Dionysodorus). Evidence contained in the forensic speech Against Dionysodorus, records that there were three parts to the defendant’s corn importation business: firstly, the men who would assemble a grain shipment in Egypt; secondly, the man responsible for overseeing the transportation of the goods from Egypt to Athens; and, finally, the men who would dispose of the goods when they arrived.14 In this business operation Parmeniscus was the man responsible for overseeing the safe transportation of grain from Egypt to Athens, and it is made clear that he was the nauklēros.15 Therefore, although in this instance Parmeniscus is accused of involving himself in the actual sale of goods, the likelihood – as indicated in a subsequent passage – is that Dionysodorus was in control of an extensive inter-regional trading operation and already had business contacts in Rhodes who would be willing to dispose of any grain they received.16 Thus, when Dionysodorus issued instructions to dispose of the grain in Rhodes it his highly likely that he would have specified a dealer rather than leaving Parmeniscus to broker a deal himself.17 This interpretation is supported by Demosthenes’ switch from the use of singular participles to describe the actions of Parmeniscus in the previous construction, to the use of plural participles when describing the sale of the grain in Rhodes. Carey and Reid posit that this switch occurred because the speaker considers the actions of Parmeniscus to be under the authority of Dionysodorus. Although the speaker is vague on the exact role of nauklēroi, when read in conjunction the two passages indicate that under normal circumstances Parmeniscus was not expected to operate as an independent trader. Further evidence that, from at least the end of the fifth century, emporoi and nauklēroi undertook distinct commercial roles is provided by a passage from Plato’s Republic which 11

Dem. 33.1-3; 33.26; 58.8-12. For a full breakdown of these occurrences see the accompanying table. 13 Dem. 56.10. 14 Dem. 56.7-8. 15 Dem. 56.10. 16 Dem. 56.17. This section of the speech indicates that Dionysodorus had a maritime money-lending business in Rhodes, a fact that offers strong support to the hypothesis that he already had commercial contacts within the city. 17 Carey and Reid 1985: 213-14. 12

Page |4 states explicitly that inter-regional trade was exclusively undertaken by emporoi.18 By excluding nauklēroi from his discussion Plato implies that, in his opinion at least, they were not directly involved in long-distance exchange. This interpretation is reinforced by a subsequent passage which recommends that the role of nauklēroi should be considered as most analogous to that of a ship’s captain or overseer and not to an emporos as might be expected. Plato also omits nauklēroi from his discussion of traders and retailers in the Sophist as does Pollux in his analysis of the importance of inter-regional merchants to the provisioning of the polis.19 That nauklēroi were not primarily traders is given further credence by the later works of the scholiasts and lexicographers who similarly exclude them from their definitions of inter-regional merchants. Although the scholia suffer from many of the same problems as modern commentaries, namely that some authors guess, draw speculative conclusions, or offer incorrect interpretations, the best can provide invaluable insights and information. One of the most comprehensive, a scholion on Aristophanes’ Ploutos, provides a detailed list of mercantile occupations and appears to adopt the in-text explanation of topical or literary references that began in the Alexandrian library during the height of its influence and prestige. This seems to have had a considerable impact on its accuracy as it was edited using a highly critical system of notation and thus it is possible to draw on the definitions it provides with a considerable degree of confidence. The scholion to Aristophanes’ Ploutos therefore offers scholars investigating Greek trade a unique description of the distinct categories of merchant and their respective roles within the commercial infrastructures of fifth and fourth century Athens. The unknown author of the scholion divides traders and merchants into five distinct groups: 1) autopōlēs = someone who sells goods which he has produced himself; 2) kapēlos = someone who buys from the autopōlēs and then distributes these wares in the immediate locality; 3) emporos = someone who trades abroad or at distance from the location where the goods were purchased or produced; 4) paligkepēlos = a trader who buys from the emporos and resells in the immediate vicinity; 5) metaboleus = a retailer or pedlar who sells in very small quantities within a limited region of operation. 20 Within this apparently comprehensive catalogue of the various types of ‘trader’, the omission of the term nauklēros is glaring. One possible explanation is that its contemporary usage was so similar to its original meaning that it needed no further clarification: a view championed by Finley.21 Finley, however, used this alleged oversight to question the validity and completeness of the scholion, arguing that if such obvious terms were overlooked it should not be taken as a reliable source of evidence. This criticism is unfounded as the author demonstrates at least a working knowledge of unusual or infrequently used commercial terms (e.g. paligkepēlos).22 Additionally, other basic definitions presented in the scholion reflect contemporary and classical usage indicating that the author had an appreciation of the diachronic change in meaning for each of the terms discussed. This demonstrable understanding of common and uncommon commercial terms suggests that the omission of nauklēroi was deliberate rather than an oversight. When considered holistically, the various literary sources provide substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that, by the start of the fourth century - if not earlier - the commercial function 18

Pl. Resp. 371d: ‘Or is not kapēloi the name we give to those who, planted in an agora, serve us in buying and selling, while we call those who roam from city to city emporoi?’. 19 Pl. Soph. 223d. Pollux: 1.82-125; 3.124-125. See Brown 1902: 97. 20 Schol. Ar. Plut. 1155. 21 Finley 1935: 331. 22 Although the scholion appears correct in its definition, the phrase was rare on account of the similar function undertaken by kapēloi. Aside from the scholia and lexicons, the term is only used four times in classical literature: Dem. 25.46; Ari. Plut. 1156; Eudemus, Rhet. Folio 170b lines 17 and 38.

Page |5 of these two groups was substantially different, so much so, that nauklēroi were not considered to be traders per se. Previous scholarship, having discounted the evidence indicating that the two groups fulfilled different roles within the mechanisms for inter-regional exchange, sought alternative criteria with which to distinguish them. The most widely accepted was the proposal that a distinction could be drawn according to the ownership of a vessel: in essence nauklēroi were merchants who were affluent enough to own a vessel, whilst emporoi were men who chartered transport space from a third party. Again the evidence does not support this conclusion. Although the term nauklēros has been most frequently translated to mean ship-owner, of the one hundred and three occurrences examined by this study, only four (three individuals) can be indisputably linked with the ownership of a vessel; even then, this is because the men’s backgrounds are well-known and not because the concept of ownership is explicitly indicated when the term is employed.23 All other usages are ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation, a point neatly highlighted by the orations of Demosthenes in which the term is assigned different meanings according to the context in which it is used. For example, in the speech Against Timotheus, the term is used to indicate that the subject (Philip) was a shipowner, whilst in Against Lacritus the implication is that the subject was acting as a hauler.24 The belief that the word nauklēros is intrinsically linked with ownership of a vessel is weakened further by the fact that slaves could be designated as nauklēroi - the most striking example of which is Lampis.25 Although in this instance Dion is known to be the owner of the vessel and its crew (including Lampis who is tasked with overseeing an inter-regional trade venture on behalf of his master), the title nauklēros is conferred on the slave. If the traditional definition for the term nauklēros was to be applied in this instance, it would have to be accepted that Lampis was the ship-owner despite the background details of the case proving this to be incorrect.26 As will be shown, a more persuasive interpretation is that Lampis was overseeing the voyage on behalf of Dion and was therefore responsible for protecting his master’s interests – i.e. the ship, crew, and cargo. Consequently, although the surviving evidence indicates that on rare occasions the term nauklēros could be linked to the concept of ownership, during the fifth and fourth centuries this was not the word’s primary meaning. An analysis of the one hundred and sixteen occurrences of the term emporos also undermines the proposal that ownership of a vessel is an appropriate way of distinguishing between these two groups: of these occurrences, eight are clearly used to denote men who were ship owners.27 Additionally, in the corpus of Athenian honorific inscriptions the sole honorand known indisputably to have been an emporos – Herakleides of Cypriot Salamis – is also recorded as owning a vessel (see below for further details). Viewed holistically, the usage of the terms emporoi and nauklēroi does not justify a distinction simply based on the ownership of a vessel. 23

Dem. 49.14; 49.15 (Philip the nauklēros); Dem. 18.194 (Lampis); Dem. 24.138 (the son of Philip the shipowner). For a full breakdown of these occurrences see the accompanying table. 24 Dem. 49.14-15; Dem. 35.52. 25 Dem. 34.6. 26 Casson 1971: 314-15; Velissaropoulos 1980: 48-49. Reed 2003: 105 states: ‘The case of Lampis is extremely puzzling. Given a commercial world in which there is no surviving evidence for an explicit law of agency, how can a slave be held accountable by his owner for captaining a ship, for lending, and for shipping goods he himself bought … One scarcely knows how to characterise him; perhaps he falls into the “agent” category Bravo posits as the normal role for archaic traders. I therefore resolve to group Lampis and Dion together under one entry as collectively constituting a probable nauklēros’. 27 These passages, which will be discussed in more detail below, are: Dem. 8.25; Xen. Hell. 6.37; Cyr. 6.2.8; Strab. 14.5.2. Diod. Sic. 14.461; Plut. Lyc. 1.55-1.56; Hdt. 4.154.3; Paus. 4.20.8. For a fuller breakdown, see the accompanying table.

Page |6

Having suggested that nauklēroi were neither traders per se or necessarily ship-owners, it will be shown that a more reasonable interpretation of their commercial role is that of hauler.28 This interpretation is supported by an analysis of the root and constituent parts of the term itself. The term comprises two Greek words, naus - meaning ship - and klēros - which, when blended with naus, has been understood to mean ‘owner’. The result is that term nauklēros has traditionally been rendered as ship-owner, a translation which has already been shown to be inadequate.29 Although there is no doubt that the stem - nau - refers to some kind of vessel, the word klēros has a number of different meanings, the most common of which are: the casting of lots,30 and the assigning of something by lot (for example public offices or plots of land).31 What is immediately striking about these alternate meanings is their intrinsic link to the concept of luck or the winning of something by chance and not necessarily to ownership - in the haulage industry the element of chance was represented by the securing of cargos through the system of bidding for business on the dockside.32 Furthermore, an examination of other words with nau- stems (and alternative usages of the word nauklēros), reveals a strong association with the concept of renting a particular space (frequently aboard some kind of ship). For instance, the terms nauloō (to let one’s ship for hire)33 and naulōtikos (for chartering or hiring of a ship)34 both refer to the temporary hiring of a vessel (or space aboard a vessel) whilst the words nauklōsimos (to be sublet to lodgers) and naulōsimos (for hire), and an alternative meaning of the term nauklēros (one who rents or sublets tenement houses),35 all incorporate the concept of the temporary renting or hiring of a particular space. Significantly, all these terms are more closely connected to the concept of temporary stewardship rather ownership. At its most basic, the function of a hauler (or haulage company) is to rent out space aboard a particular mode of transport and then oversee the shipping of commodities from A to B (i.e. they were temporary stewards of the commodities they transported). Once the transaction has been completed the space was then rented to another party and the process began again. A linguistic analysis therefore supports the suggestion that the primary role of a nauklēros was that of hauler and not ship-owner or independent trader. Further validation for this interpretation can be gleaned from an examination of the Athenian institution of the naucraries, the naukraria.36 Although the function and purpose of this archaic institution has generated a great deal of scholarly discussion, the Suda states: ‘it is probably so named after tên tês nêos krairan’, i.e. ‘being in command of a vessel’.37 28

In the context of this article a hauler should be understood as: a man who rents out space aboard a merchant vessel and who was responsible for ensuring the safe transportation of goods and passengers to an agreed destination. 29 This situation has arisen despite the term klēros rarely being used to denote ownership. 30 Xen. Ath. Pol. 1.2; Plut. Aem. 10. 31 The assigning of land = Hom. Od. 14.64; Hes. OP. 37; 343; Hdt. 1.76; Xen. Ath. Pol. 1.2; Plut. Aem. 10. The assigning of public office = Hom. Il. 7.175; Od. 10.206; Hdt. 3.83; Plt. Rep. 619d. 32 In general, haulers are likely to have gathered in the Piraeus and bid against their rivals in order to secure business, a situation envisaged by Casson 1991: 99-108. 33 Plu. 2.707c. 34 P. Oxy. 643. 35 E.g. Hyp. Fr. 37; Diph. 37, Poll. 1.75. 36 Schol. Ari. AV 1541; Androtion FGrH 324 f 36; Arist. Ath. Pol. 8.3; Photius s.v. naukraria. 37 This etymology was initially endorsed in the late 19th century by Solmsen 1888 and Wilamowitz 1893 before becoming more widely accepted in the 20 th century (see Hommel 1935, Frisk 1960: 70, and Chantraine 1968: 80). However, in the early 1980s Billigmeier and Dusing (1981: 11-16) proposed an entirely different etymology which derived the term not from ‘ship’, naus, but from ‘temple’, naos. Although this revision seemed attractive, the various linguistic and historical problems meant that it has been widely dismissed - even

Page |7 Similarly, the entry for naukraroi in the Lexica Segueriana 1.283.20 reads: ‘naukraroi: the men who fitted out the ships and captained them and were subordinate to the polemarch’. Neither of these definitions is explicitly linked to the concept of ownership, rather both suggest that the naukraroi had a supervisory role which entailed the equipping and provisioning of a ship. Thus, if it is accepted that the term nauklēros ultimately derives from naukraroi, it is reasonable to conclude that logistical details were one of the primary concerns of nauklēroi in a manner reminiscent of modern haulers. This conclusion is proposed with a caveat: although suggesting that nauklēroi were responsible for overseeing the logistics of shipping commodities, they should not be considered as ‘ship’s captains’ in the modern sense - an interpretation favoured by Casson.38 The contemporary term ‘ship’s captain’ has a number of connotations that are not directly applicable to their ancient equivalent. For instance, captains in the present merchant navy are often considered to be the most experienced mariners who make decisions on, and have ultimate responsibility for, navigation and sailing matters: however, on Greek warships and merchant vessels such decisions were left in the hands of the kybernētes (pilot/navigator).39 It is thus preferable to consider the role of nauklēroi as being most analogous to that of the trierarch in the Athenian navy. Rather than being the most qualified seaman or naval commander, Athenian trierarchs were almost always appointed because of their affluence. 40 Thus, although the trierarch was in essence a military commander, his primary duties revolved around the provisioning and upkeep of the vessel and crew. In sailing or navigational matters, his decisions were based on the information and assessments of his pilot, whilst in military matters his actions were frequently under the control of the expeditionary general. Accordingly, rather than being preeminent naval tacticians or the most experienced mariners, trierarchs were representatives of the state whose job it was to safeguard the vessel, crew, and equipment in their charge and to ensure that their ship was always well-provisioned. Likewise, nauklēroi were representatives of their business partners, employers, or owners and their primary duties centred on the logistics of a venture and with ensuring that commodities were shipped safely and quickly to their intended destination. In addition to the etymological evidence, a passage from Demosthenes’ speech Against Zenothemis indicates that the perceived role of nauklēroi was as hauler or shipping agent. The case centres on a law suit brought against Hegestratus and Zenothemis who are alleged to have attempted to defraud a number of maritime money-lenders and bankers. Hegestratus (the nauklēros), having accepted money to transport the wares of a variety of independent merchants (emporoi), went with his associate, Zenothemis, and acquired a number of loans from different money-lenders and bankers operating in Syracuse.41 Both men bore witness to say that the other had procured a large amount of grain which was to be shipped aboard Hegestratus’ vessel to Athens. In the accused’s phoney business model, Zenothemis appears to be present himself as Hegestratus’ commercial agent and is described using the term by scholars seeking to disassociate naukraroi from a maritime context (in particular Gabrielson 1985: 20-26 and Lambert 1993: 253-255). Most recently, van Wees 2013: 44-62, has argued forcibly that the extant evidence means that: ‘we can have no reasonable doubt: naukaroi meant ‘commanders of ships’. 38 Casson 1971: 314-15; 1991: 102-3. 39 It is perhaps unsurprising that pilots should be held in such high regard as their specialist knowledge of local sailing and weather conditions could prevent disaster meaning that even the ship’s owner or master had to bend to the pilot’s will on sailing matters (Xen. Mem. 3.9.10). See also Pl. Legs. 961e; Resp. 1.332e; 6.488a-489a. Thucydides 7.39; 7.62; Xen. Hell. 1.5.11. 40 Gabrielsen 1994: 69, suggests that: ‘To have a well-defined corps of warship commanders, modern practice might lead us to assume, is indeed an indispensable feature of an orderly, organised navy: but once more the evidence points to the inapplicability of this assumption to Classical Athens’. 41 Dem. 32.4-7. See Pearson 1972: 256-58.

Page |8 epibatēs.42 The ploy seems to have relied on the two men convincing potential lenders that Hegestratus was the ship-owner/hauler who would be in charge of the logistics of the venture whilst Zenothemis, operating as his commercial agent, would be responsible for selling the grain once they reached Athens. In order to profit from the scam, Hegestratus intended to scuttle his own vessel mid-voyage thereby ensuring it did not reach its destination and thus reliving the defendants from the obligation of repaying the loans they had acquired.43 Significantly, when preparing their ship neither man loaded any merchandise, an act that does not seem to have aroused the suspicions of the passengers - a further indication that it was neither uncommon nor extraordinary for nauklēroi to transport solely the goods belonging to a third party.44 Attestation that nauklēroi habitually operated as haulers is also found in Demosthenes’ speech Against Lacritus. The case, which concerns a continuing dispute over the repayment of a maritime loan, records that that Androcles of Sphettus and Nausicrates of Carystus lent three thousand drachmae in silver to Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, for a voyage from Athens to Mendê or Scionê. Having stipulated that the interest rate on the loan would increase if the merchants travelled outside of the normal sailing season, the two moneylenders insisted that the voyage had to be undertaken aboard the 20-oared vessel of which Hyblesius was the nauklēros. Although, as is typically the case, the precise meaning of the term is left unspecified, the fact that Hyblesius was expected to be amenable to the proposal supports the suggestion that nauklēroi were principally transport or shipping agents. This hypothesis is further evinced in the legal proceedings brought against the Athenian citizen Timotheus who, immediately prior to departing Athens to serve as a general in the army of the Persian king Artaxerxes, appointed the nauklēros Philondas to collect a cargo of timber that been gifted to him by the Macedonian King Amyntas. Timotheus is alleged to have instructed his banker Pasion to pay Philondas (as his representative) enough money to cover the cost of the freight, but to consider himself as the guarantor for the loan – significantly, this arrangement was made in private.45 When Philondas returned to Athens he followed Timotheus’ instructions and acquired a loan of 1,750 drachmae from Pasion and settled the freight charges. Once this was done, he then delivered the timber to Timotheus’ house in the Piraeus. Until this point the transaction appears to have been a relatively straight forward business arrangement: however, Philondas unexpectedly died before the money had been repaid and thus when Timotheus returned to Athens he refused to settle the debt arguing that Philondas was not his agent and so must have taken out a private loan with Pasion in order to finance an overseas trading venture. Although it is impossible to ascertain the truth, what is significant is that the Athenian legal system appears to have recognised ‘transport agent’ as a form of business arrangement. This case further demonstrates the complex and varied nature of the involvement of wealthy and powerful Athenians in trade: these men could effectively act as traders themselves or, alternatively, they could employ agents to freight goods back to Athens on their behalf.46 Timotheus could therefore argue plausibly to an Athenian jury that Philondas shipped timber for the purpose of trade because it was exceptionally difficult to 42

Although this term is commonly translated as passenger, in a commercial context it can also be understood to mean a merchant on board a ship. 43 For discussions of maritime loans and liability in the event of disaster see: Calhoun 1930: 579-84, de Ste. Croix 1975: 42; Finley 1985: 23, 141; Millett 1983: 36-52; Cohen 1992: 140-150. 44 Pearson 1972: 256. 45 Dem. 49.26; 30. The loan was not secured on the cargo as would have been the case if the contract had been between the banker and a regular emporos. 46 Although Bravo 1974: 111-183, was the first to raise this hypothesis in relation to Archaic Greece, it did not become accepted and was generally ignored, even though he presented a considerable amount of evidence to support his theory. See also, Bravo 1977: 17-29; Wilson 1997-98: 29-53.

Page |9 distinguish between the gift or privilege-freights of Athenian politicians conveyed by agents and the merchandise of emporoi being transported by nauklēroi. A study of known emporoi also supports the hypothesis that the two occupational groups were distinguishable according to their differing commercial roles. Whilst nauklēroi regularly functioned as haulers or transport agents, there is no evidence to suggest that ship-owning emporoi undertook a similar role: rather, they can all be identified as exclusively transporting their own commodities. Of the eight examples of ship owning emporoi recorded in the archaic and classical texts, three are merchants that attached themselves to military ventures in order to purchase any plunder.47 Strikingly, the men in these passages are all depicted as procuring enough plunder to fill their vessel and then transport it back to a home port where it could be more easily converted into liquid assets. The underlying implication is that it was only commodities belonging to the vessel’s owner, who in these examples are explicitly designated as emporoi, that were being transported. The military context is significant as a large number of inter-regional merchants relied on the obtainment of maritime loans in order to fund their operations.48 To obtain this type of finance, the merchant was required to declare, amongst other things, the exact details of the cargo he intended to purchase, the market in which these commodities would be procured, the market in which they would be sold, and whether or not the venture would be undertaken during the normal sailing season.49 This information gave the lender the opportunity to assess the potential hazards of the venture and thus offer an appropriate rate of interest. In the case of merchants who attached themselves to a military campaign, providing this information would prove problematic due to the high number of unknown variables. Moreover, these men, in comparison with their peers, incurred a number of additional risks: firstly, there was no guarantee that the campaign would be successful, secondly, even if it was, the spoils it yielded might prove to be of poor quality or of little intrinsic value, and, thirdly, during times of conflict merchants from, or operating on behalf of, a rival polis became legitimate targets for privateers and military vessels.50 Thus, even if a military campaign was successful, the lender could still face losing the credit they had extended. On the other hand, if it was unsuccessful the threat of financial loss increased substantially. The perils of extending credit on such a risky venture are therefore likely to have acted as a deterrent to even the most foolhardy of maritime financiers.51 In order to undertake this type of venture therefore, a merchant would need to own a vessel and be able to finance the purchase of any spoils from his personal funds, a situation that also appears to be true of the slave trading emporoi recorded in Strabo’s discussion of the slave markets on Delos. Although the passage does not explicitly record that these emporoi were ship-owners, slave-traders were traditionally lone operators who, due to the size of the average merchant vessel and the nature of their cargo, needed all available space when transporting their merchandise and thus they typically owned a ship; it is

47

Dem. 8.25; Xen. Hell. 6.37; Cyr. 6.2.8. Millet 1983: 36-52, 186-189; 2002: 188-207; Cohen 1992: 151-167; Reed 2003: 34-42. 49 Lys. 35.10-13. Cohen 1988: 57-79; Davies 1992: 24; Millett 1992: 162-163; McKechnie 1989: 193-94; Millett 1983: 36-52; Reed 2003: 40-42. 50 Thuc. 2.67.4. 51 Cohen 1992: 144. Lysias 32.25 records that the banker Sōsinomos was subjected to harsh jibes by his fellow money lenders as he was willing to lend money to Aischinēs, a credit risk of such notoriety that ‘in the Piraeus people are of the opinion that it seem less risky to sail to the Adriatic’. The reference to the Adriatic seems to be a proverbial nautical allusion to the dangers of traversing this region and demonstrates the reluctance of bankers and money-lenders to extend credit to those seeking to undertake excessively risky ventures. 48

P a g e | 10 therefore reasonable to conclude that the slave-traders described by Strabo followed this pattern.52 The remaining passages also appear to show ship owning emporoi transporting an entire vessel’s worth of cargo.53 The first, found in Pausanias 4.20.8, depicts an emporos conveying goods to his guest-friend, the Messenian hero Aristomenes, when he is imprisoned by the Spartan commander, Euryalus. As the unnamed merchant was using his own vessel to transport specific goods as a favour to his friend he appears to have travelled without the company or wares of other traders. Although this interpretation fits the facts, few conclusions can be drawn as Pausanias is not seeking to comment on the situation or activities of the merchant but is merely using him as an instrument to explain why Aristomenes had been unable to complete his rounds on the night of the Spartan attack.54 Likewise, Lycurgus depicts Leocrates (1.55-1.56) as using his vessel in a manner reminiscent of a lone trader in order to disguise his defection to Megara, whilst Herodotus 4.154.3 records that the influential Theran trader Themison was so wealthy that he owned a merchant vessel on which he undertook a variety of commercial ventures. The final passage, Diodorus 14.46.1, records that the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius I granted permission for his subjects and allies to plunder the property of the wealthy Phoenician and Carthaginian merchants who had homes and businesses in Syracuse. Diodorus states that one of the most profitable targets was the Carthaginian merchant vessels which were already heavily laden with goods. Although the precise meaning of the word emporoi is again unclear, it appears that these merchants owned both the vessels and the commodities that were plundered.55 Finally, the corpus of Athenian honorific inscriptions, which is generally of limited use when trying to determine the primary and secondary characteristics of emporoi and nauklēroi, indicates that these two occupational groups were distinguished according to their differing commercial roles. Although from the late fifth century the Athenians honoured men for preforming trade related services they rarely recorded the occupation of the recipient preferring instead to highlight the service which had been performed. In fact, of the 31 occasions when the Athenians honour commercial services with the erection of a public stele only one, IG II2 360, records the occupation of the recipient. 56 The inscription, which dates to the second half of fourth century (c.330), contains five separate decrees praising and rewarding the honorand, Herakleides of Cypriot Salamis, for his continued goodwill towards - and services on behalf of – Athens. Despite Herakleides’ ownership of a vessel – evidenced by the Athenian decision to dispatch an envoy to the tyrant ruler of Herakleia to demand the return on the honorand’s confiscated sails – he is twice described as an emporos (line 10 and lines 30-1).57 This designation has led to confusion amongst scholars who, accepting the traditional view that nauklēroi were distinguishable from emporoi on account of their 52

Due to the nature of the cargo, slave traders would not only need space to transport the slaves themselves but would also need to carry the food and water required to sustain them. For further discussions of slave traders see: Pritchett 1971: 81-82; Finley 1981: 161-167 Harris 1980: 129; Reed 2003: 22-24. 53 Pl. Resp. 371a; Plut. Lyc. 1.55-1.56; Hdt. 4.154.3; Paus. 4.20.8. 54 Pausanias records that Aristomenes had been injured whilst rescuing his merchant friend and was thus prevented from undertaking his normal nightly checks on the city’s watchmen. 55 That the majority of Phoenicians and Carthaginian merchants owned the vessel on which they transported their commodities can be ascertained from their extant business record. See Aubet 2001: 115-117 56 IG II2 360 = Syll.3 no.304 = Michel no. 110 = Schwenk no. 68 = Rhodes and Osborne no. 95 = Engen no. 24. For detailed discussions of the Athenian tradition of honouring trade related services see: Engen 2010 and Woolmer forthcoming. 57 As the decree clearly states that the confiscated sails belonged to Herakleides it is reasonable to infer he also owned the vessel from which they were seized.

P a g e | 11 ownership of a vessel, found the case of Herakleides problematic. For instance, Reed although cognisant of Herakleides’ classification as an emporos, prefers to consider this designation erroneous and therefore categorise him as a nauklēros.58 Whilst Engen, who similarly notes this supposedly counter-intuitive designation, offers no explanation as to why it might have been applicable to Herakleides.59 If the revised definition of emporos is accepted however – i.e. that the term can also be used to denote men who possessed a vessel but who used it to solely transport goods which they owned – the case of Herakleides is no longer problematic. That Herakleides used his vessel in this manner can be ascertained from the honours that he received for selling or gifting grain to Athens. On four separate occasions he is recorded as having either gifted (line 70) or sold at a cheap price (lines 8-9, 54-56, and 65-58) 3,000 medimnoi of grain – a figure which is likely to reflect the carrying capacity of his vessel. Having analysed every gift of grain made to the Athenians during the fifth and fourth centuries, Casson concluded that each represents the maximum carrying capacity of a single merchant vessel.60 Therefore, if Casson’s hypothesis is correct, and the evidence he presents in persuasive, it is reasonable to conclude that on the occasions Herakleides transported grain to Athens he filled his vessel with his own commodities and thus did not convey the wares of others. Although it is unclear whether this was Herakleides standard modus operandi, what is certain is that when he used his ship in this manner the Athenians considered him to be an emporos rather than a nauklēros. In conclusion, heeding Finley’s warning against attempting to rigidly classify the status, ethnicity, affluence, and occupation of commercial operatives according to the term used to denote them, and recognising the merits of Reed’s move away from lexicographical exactitude, this paper has sought to redefine scholarly understanding of the roles and functions of emporoi and nauklēroi within the mechanisms for inter-regional trade. Although dismissing ownership of a vessel as a factor distinguishing between these two occupational groups, the ownership of the commodities being transported does provide an alternative. The small yet significant number of emporoi known to have possessed a vessel and who used it exclusively to transport commodities they themselves would trade coupled with the recognition that nauklēroi were not traders or ship owners per sae but were rather haulers or transport agents, justifies a distinction drawn primarily according to commercial function. Although the final definitions offered for these terms are far less precise than those presented by previous scholarship, the varied ethnicities, affluence, and social standing of the men who operated as emporoi and nauklēroi mean such an approach is fully justified. Accordingly, the only things that can should when any certainty when someone is designated as an emporos is that: they were professional merchants (i.e. their primary income from the venture was generated through trade) who undertook inter-regional trading ventures (whether by land or sea), and that they owned but did not produce the commodities in which they traded. Consequently, information regarding an individual emporos’ ethnicity, affluence, social standing, and ownership of a vessel can only be ascertained on a case by case basis. In those instances when either the context in which the term is found or the background of the individual is well-enough known to prove ownership of a vessel it would be exclusively used 58

Reed 2004: 53,128-129. Engen 2010: 304-306. 60 The Hellenistic harbour regulations from Thasos (Casson 1971: 171 n. 23) divides merchants vessels into three categories (or classes) according to their maximum carrying capacity: small vessels had a capacity of less than 100 tons (2,500 medimnoi), medium sized vessels had a capacity of between 100-150 tons (2,500-3,750 medimnoi), and large vessels had a capacity of between 300-350 tons (7,500 – 8,750 medimnoi). Studying these figures in conjunction with the various quantities of grain gifted to Athens during the classical period - most of which fall in the range of 2,300-4,000 medimnoi - Casson postulated that the average merchant vessel was most likely to have had a carrying capacity of approximately 120 tons (3,000 medimnoi). 59

P a g e | 12 to transport commodities belonging to that individual. The term nauklēros in contrast, should primarily be understood to denote men that were responsible for the transportation of goods from one market place to another. In contrast to the recommendation of previous scholarship, the term should not be understood as denoting men who involved themselves in any form of direct exchange for personal gain or necessarily as ship owners. Rather, they operated as commercial agents on behalf of a third party/parties with possession of a ship a possibility rather than an expectation. In cases where the evidence clearly indicates that an individual nauklēros did possess a ship, he used it exclusively to transport the goods of third party/parties and not to conduct trading ventures. As with emporoi, any further details pertaining to the ethnicity, affluence, and social standing of a particular nauklēros can only be established on an individual basis. Thus, having demonstrated firstly, that emporoi and nauklēroi undertook vastly different commercial roles and, secondly, that the Athenians recognised agency as a legitimate occupation, this article has begun the process of revaluating the mechanism of inter-regional trade during the archaic and classical period. Bibliography Amit, M. (1965) Athens and the Sea; A Study in Athenian Sea Power, Imprimerie Univera, Wetteren: Belgium. Aubet, M.E. (2001) The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Billigmeier, J. and Dusing, M. (1981) ‘The origin and function of the naukraroi at Athens. An etymological and historical explanation’, TAPhA 1981 CXI: 11-16. Bravo, B. (1974) ‘Une lettre sur plomb de Berezan: colonisation et modes de contact dans le Pont’, DHA I: 3-87. Bravo, B. (1977) ‘Remarques sur les assises socials, les formes d’organisation et la terminologie du commerce maritime grec à l’ époque archïque’, DHA 3, 1-59. Calhoun, G. M. (1930) ‘Risk in Sea Loans in Ancient Athens’, Journal of Economic and Business History 2, 562-584. Calhoun, G. M. (1965) The Business Life of Ancient Athens, L’ERMA di Bretschneider: Rome. Carey, C. and Reid, R. A. (eds.) (1985) Demosthenes: Selected Private Speeches, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Casson, L. (1971) Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton University Press: New Jersey. Casson, L. (1991) The Ancient Mariners; Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times, Princeton University Press: New Jersey. Chantraine, P. (1933) La formation des noms en grec ancien, Klincksieck: Paris. Cohen, E. (1973) Ancient Athenian Maritime Courts, Princeton University Press: New Jersey. Cohen, E. (1988) ‘A study in contrast: maritime loans and landed loans at Athens’, Symposion: 57-79. Cohen, E. (1992) Athenian Economy and Society; A Banking Perspective, Princeton University Press: New Jersey.

P a g e | 13 Engen, D. (2010) Honour and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415-307, The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Finley, M. I. (Ed.) (1926) Trade and Politics in the Ancient World, Deuxieme Conference Internationale d’ Histoire Economique: Aix-en-Provence, Volume 1. Finely, M. I. (1935) ‘Emporos, Naukleros and Kapelos: A Prolegomena to the study of Athenian trade’, Classical Philology 30, 320-336. Frisk, F. (1963) Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, C. Winter: Heidelberg. Gabrielsen, V. (1985) ‘The naukrariai and the Athenian navy’, Classica & Medievalia 36, 21-51 Gabrielsen, V. (1994) Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations, Baltimore University Press: London. Hasebroek, J. (1976) Trade and Politics in Ancient Greece, Translated by Farser, L.M. and MacGregor, D.C., G. Bell Sons: London. Hommel, H. (1935) ‘Naukraria. Naukraros’, in Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 32, 1938-1952. Knorringa, H. (1926) Emporos. Data on Trade and Traders in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle, H.J.: Paris. Michell, H. (1963) The Economies of Ancient Greece, Heffer: Cambridge. Millett, P. (1983) ‘Maritime Loans and the Structure of Credit in Fourth-Century Athens’, in Garnsey, P. Hopkins, K. Whittaker, C.R. (eds) Trade in the Ancient Economy, Cambridge Philological Society: Cambridge. Millett, P. (1991) Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Moreno, A. (2007) Feeding the Athenian Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Osborne, R. (2004) ‘Review of Reed, C.M. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World’, JHS, Volume 124, 198-199. Pearson, L. (1972) Demosthenes: Six Private Speeches, University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, Oklahoma. Reed, C. M (1984) ‘Maritime Traders in the Archaic Greek World: A Typology of those Engaged in the Long Distance Transfer of Goods by Sea’, Ancient World 10, 31-44. Reed, C. M, (2003) Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Solmsen, F. (1888) ‘Sigma in Verbindung mit Nasalen und Liquiden im Griechischen’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 29.59-124 Starr, C. G. (1979) The Economic and Social Growth of Early Greece: 800-500 B.C., Oxford University Press: New York. Starr, C. G. (1989) The Influence of Sea Power on Ancient History, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Velissarpoulos-Karakostas, J. (1980) Les Nauclères grecs. Recherches sue les institutions maritimes en Grèce et dans l’Orient Hellénisé, Minard :Paris.

P a g e | 14 Velissarpoulos-Karakostas, J. (1998) ‘Merchants, Prostitutes and the ‘New Poor’: Forms of Contract and Social Status’, in Cartledge, P, Millett, P. & Reden, S.V. Kosmos, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1893) Aristoteles und Athen, Vol. I. Weidmann: Berlin. Wilson, J. P. (1997) ‘The Illiterate Trader?’, BICS 42, 29- 53. Wees, Hans Van (2013) Ships and Silver, Taxes and Tribute: A Fiscal History of Archaic Athens, I.B. Taurus: New York. Woolmer, M. (forthcoming) ‘Forging Links Between Regions: Trade Policy in Classical Athens’, in Harris, E. Lewis, D and Woolmer, M. (eds) Markets, Households and City States in the Ancient Greek Economy, Cambridge University Press: New York, 134-168.

P a g e | 15 Word:

ἔμπορος 

ἐμπορία

ἐπιδάμιος

ἐμπολεύς

ἐπιβα ̆́της

πρακτήρ

Primary Source Agatharchides Aeschines Aeschylus Andocides Antiphon Aristophanes Aristotle Bacchylides Demades Demosthenes Dinarchus Diodorus Euripides Herodotus Hesiod Homer Homeric Hymns Hyperides Isaeus Iscorates Lycurgus Lysias Menander Old Oligarch Pausanias Pindar Plato Plutarch* Pseudo-Appollodorus Scholia# Sophocles Strabo Theophrastus Theognis Thucydides Xenophon

0 1 1 0 0 5 10 1 0 16 0 8 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 4 4 0 0 5 0 18 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 4 18

0 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 8 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 2 0 0 3 0 5 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 4

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Total

116

51

6

2

60

3

* Greek lives; Alcibiades, Aristides, Cimon, Lysander, Nicias, Pericles, Solon, Themistocles, Theseus #

Scolia to Aeschines, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Euripides, Hesiod, Homer Plato, Sophocles, Thucydides, Xenophon.

~ excluded from investigation

P a g e | 16 Word:



ναύκλαρος

ναυκληρέω

ναυκληρία

κάπηλος

κᾰπηλεύω

1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 31 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 9 9 0 16 3 6 0 0 2 10

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 1 6 0 0 0 2

~ 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 1

~ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ~ 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0

103

20

27

26

11

Primary Source Agatharchides Aeschines Aeschylus Andocides Antiphon Aristophanes Aristotle Bacchylides Demades Demosthenes Dinarchus Diodorus Euripides Herodotus Hesiod Homer Homeric Hymns Hyperides Isaeus Iscorates Lycurgus Lysias Menander Old Oligarch Pausanias Pindar Plato Plutarch* Pseudo-Appollodorus Scholia# Sophocles Strabo Theophrastus Theognis Thucydides Xenophon Total

P a g e | 17 

φορτηγός

κᾰπηλικός

Agatharchides Aeschines Aeschylus Andocides Antiphon Aristophanes Aristotle Bacchylides Demades Demosthenes Dinarchus Diodorus Euripides Herodotus Hesiod Homer Homeric Hymns Hyperides Isaeus Iscorates Lycurgus Lysias Menander Old Oligarch Pausanias Pindar Plato Plutarch* Pseudo-Appollodorus Scholia# Sophocles Strabo Theophrastus Theognis Thucydides Xenophon

~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0

~ 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 ~ ~ 0 0

Total

19

10

Primary Source