Atimoi and agogimoi. Reflections on debt slavery in archaic Athens

Debt enslavement of Athenians before Solon’s Seisachtheia is well documented. The main sources are Solon (fr. 4 and 36 W), Aristotle ([Arist.] Ath . Pol. 2.2.) and Plutarch ( Sol . 13.2-3), among others. However, there are discrepancies between the sources and many doubts about this topic. Solon ’ s law of amnesty (Plut. Sol . 19.4) was probably part of the measures aimed at eliminating debt slavery. The intention here is to shed further light on this issue by analysing the meaning of atimos and agogimos in relation to the situation of debtors at the time.


-Introduction
In Antiquity, debt was one of the main ways of being reduced to slavery in many places, including ancient Greece. 2 In Athens, this situation occurred on a massive scale during * This research has been aided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Project PID2020-112790GB-I00. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this text for their corrections and suggestions.
the crisis preceding Solon's reforms, at the end of the 7th and at the beginning of the 6th century. Solon himself broaches this subject in his poems, 3 mentioning how he freed the people from their slavery, while pointing out that some were sold abroad, other indebted citizens fled and yet others "suffered shameful servitude (δουλίην) at home" (in Attica): ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν μὲν οὕνεκα ξυνήγαγον δῆμον, τί τούτων πρὶν τυχεῖ̣ ν̣ ἐ̣ παυσάμην; συμμαρτυροίη ταῦτ' ἂν ἐν δίκηι Χρόνου μήτηρ μεγίστη δαιμόνων Ὀλυμπίων ἄριστα, Γῆ μέλαινα, τῆς ἐγώ ποτε ὅρους ἀνεῖλον πολλαχῆι πεπηγότας, πρόσθεν δὲ δουλεύουσα, νῦν ἐλευθέρη. πολλοὺς δ' Ἀθήνας πατρίδ' ἐς θεόκτιτον ἀνήγαγον πραθέντας, ἄλλον ἐκδίκως, ἄλλον δικαίως, τοὺς δ' ἀναγκαίης ὑπὸ χρειοῦς φυγόντας, γλῶσσαν οὐκέτ' Ἀττικὴν ἱέντας, ὡς δὴ πολλαχῆι πλανωμένους· τοὺς δ' ἐνθάδ' αὐτοῦ δουλίην ἀεικέα ἔχοντας, ἤθη δεσποτέων τρομεομένους, ἐλευθέρους ἔθηκα. ταῦτα μὲν κράτει ὁμοῦ βίην τε καὶ δίκην ξυναρμόσας ἔρεξα, καὶ διῆλθον ὡς ὑπεσχόμην· θεσμοὺς δ' ὁμοίως τῶι κακῶι τε κἀγαθῶι εὐθεῖαν εἰς ἕκαστον ἁρμόσας δίκην ἔγραψα. […] But as for me, why did I stay me ere I had won that for which I gathered the commons? Right good witness shall I have in the court of Time, to wit the Great Mother of the Olympian Gods, dark Earth, whose so many fixed landmarks I once removed, and have made her free that was once a slave. Aye, many brought I back to their God-built birthplace, many that had been sold, some justly, some unjustly, and others that had been exiled through urgent penury, men that no longer spake the Attic speech because they had wandered so far and wide; and those that suffered shameful servitude at home, trembling before the whims of their owners, these made I free men. By fitting close together right and might I made these things prevail, and accomplished them even as I said I would. And ordinances I wrote, that made straight justice for each man, good and bad alike. […] 4 In addition to Solon himself, 5 the main sources describing the situation at the time are
[2] For the Athenian constitution was in all respects oligarchical, and in fact the poor themselves and also their wives and children were actually in slavery to the rich; and they were called Clients, and Sixth-part-tenants (for that was the rent they paid for the rich men's land which they farmed, and the whole of the country was in few hands), and if they ever failed to pay their rents, they themselves and their children were liable to arrest; and all borrowing was on the security of the debtors' persons down to the time of Solon: it was he who first became head of the People. 6 [2] τότε δὲ τῆς τῶν πενήτων πρὸς τοὺς πλουσίους ἀνωμαλίας ὥσπερ ἀκμὴν λαβούσης παντά πασιν ἐπισφαλῶς ἡ πόλις διέκειτο, καὶ μόνως ἂν ἐδόκει καταστῆναι καὶ παύσασθαι ταραττομένη τυραννίδος γενομένης. ἅπας μὲν γὰρ ὁ δῆμος ἦν ὑπόχρεως τῶν πλουσίων. ἢ γὰρ ἐγεώργουν ἐκείνοις ἕκτα τῶν γινομένων τελοῦντες, ἑκτημόριοι προσαγορευόμενοι καὶ θῆτες, ἢ χρέα λαμβάνοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν ἀγώγιμοι τοῖς δανείζουσιν ἦσαν, οἱ μὲν αὐτοῦ δουλεύοντες, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ξένην πιπρασκόμενοι.
[2] At that time, too, the disparity between the rich and the poor had culminated, as it were, and the city was in an altogether perilous condition; it seemed as if the only way to settle its disorders and stop its turmoils was to establish a tyranny. All the common people were in debt to the rich. For they either tilled their lands for them, paying them a sixth of the increase (whence they were called Hectemoiroi and Thetes), or else they pledged their persons for debts and could be seized by their creditors, some becoming slaves at home, and others being sold into foreign countries.
[3] Many, too, were forced to sell their own children (for there was no law against it), or go into exile, because of the cruelty of the money-lenders. But the most and sturdiest of them began to band together and exhort one another not to submit to their wrongs, but to choose a trusty man as their leader, set free the condemned debtors, divide the land anew, and make an entire change in the form of government So, there were two initial situations: thetes/hektemoroi or sharecroppers "without land" and indebted landowners who had failed to repay their debts. Many small and medium landowners at the time ran up debts and ended up becoming "debt slaves". 12 The focus will be placed here on the latter, although the situation of thetes/hektemoroi will also be covered.
Before continuing, however, it is necessary to distinguish, following Harris, 13 between being reduced to "slavery by debts", in the literal and legal sense (being sold, generally abroad, as a slave) and "debt bondage". At that time (the 7th and early 6th century), however, barriers and citizenship would have been in the process of being defined. 14 According to Harris, debt slavery in Athens ceased with Solon's reforms, but not "debt bondage" which was not regulated by Athenian law. Be that as it may, in the laws of Gortyn the figure of the "debt bondsman" did indeed exist, viz. the katakeimenos. 15 In ancient Greece there was no word for "serf", legally free but subjugated to a certain type of servitude (o bondage), but the Greeks themselves defined this type of slavery, of wage-earner or labourer) begins. From then on, the thetes as a census class would also include those with small landholdings that allowed self-sufficiency (probably under 3.6 hectares or 40 plethra approx., and therefore do not produce up to 200 Faraguna 2012, 180). At the other extreme, some authors believe that all ploughmen in Attica were only considered to be landless labourers, sharecroppers, tenants or, at best, with some land of their own, but not enough to survive independently: Foxhall 1997, 128-129;van Wees 1999, esp. 18-24;2006, 360-367. For the importance of indebtedness in the pre-Solonian crisis: Roubineau 2007, 205-207;Welwei 2005  as "between slavery and freedom". 16 In any case, as Finley pointed out, "debt bondage" was a way of creating a massive, cheap labour force for mainly working the land. 17 The intention here is to show how this system worked in Athens before Solon. I will also examine the situation of the "slaves and/or debt bondsmen" in relation to that of the thetes/hektemoroi appearing in the sources. 18 This makes it necessary to examine Solon's Amnesty Law which, in my opinion, has an important bearing on this issue and on the Solonian Seisachtheia.
A few years ago, I argued that, in archaic Athens before Solon, debtors who did not pay up found themselves in that legal situation, atimia, 19 which consequently led to their "loss of citizenship rights". Atimia was also the penalty for public debtors in classical times. 20 Thus, it is interesting to explore the possibility, suggested by Humphreys, that pre-Solonian debtors, both public and private, who did not repay their debts in the prescribed time were declared atimoi, as with their families and also their properties. This type of slavery is what Garlan calls "communal internal dependencies" (communal slaves or serfs), as opposed to "chattel slavery" (Garlan 1995(Garlan [1982, 93ff.; also in Finley 1981, 116 ff.;Lotze 1959;Vidal-Naquet 1992, 46-56), although the Greeks themselves could call both douloi (Vlassopoulos 2011, 120). For a critique of Finley's claim that it was not until the 6th century that a distinction was drawn between free people and slaves in ancient Greece, whereas before that a "hierarchy of statuses" (also with criticism of this concept) would have been in force, as in the Near East: Lewis 2018, esp. 72-76, 82  There has been much debate on Solon's Amnesty Law, which several authors believe formed part of the Seisachtheia, literally the "shaking-off of burdens". 22 In these pages, I try to reinforce this view. Let us begin by examining the law.
2. -Solon's Amnesty Law and the atimia penalty In Plutarch, the law states the following: "ἀτίμων ὅσοι ἄτιμοι ἦσαν πρὶν ἢ Σόλωνα ἄρξαι, ἐπιτίμους εἶναι πλὴν ὅσοι ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου ἢ ὅσοι ἐκ τῶν ἐφετῶν ἢ ἐκ πρυτανείου καταδικασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων ἐπὶ φόνῳ ἢ σφαγαῖσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τυραννίδι ἔφευγον ὅτε ὁ θεσμὸς ἐφάνη ὅδε." 'As many of the disfranchised as were made such before the archonship of Solon, shall be restored to their rights and franchises, except such as were condemned by the Areiopagus, or by the ephetai, or in the prytaneium by the kings, on charges of murder or homicide, or of seeking to establish a tyranny, and were in exile when this law was published.' 23 There is also an important ongoing debate on the meaning of atimos at the time. Swoboda (1893) points out that atimos as a legal term in archaic times originally meant "with impunity" or "without any compensatory fine", "he is one for the murder of whom no fine shall be paid". See Hansen 1976, 75. the meaning of atimia, including Dmitriev who considers that it continued to signify "outlaw" in classical times, although without questioning the slighter or attenuated meaning of "deprived of citizenship rights", also valid at the time. 27 For her part, Maria Youni, following A. Maffi, has vindicated the double moral and legal meaning of atimos. 28 Youni points out that, legally speaking, there was no change in its meaning between archaism and classicism, always being that of "deprived of citizenship rights" 29 , although she has recognised, in a previous work, the probable difference between the expressions "ἄτιμος ἔστω (εἶναι)" and "ἄτιμος τεθνάτω", as Swoboda and Hansen had already shown 30 . The second case would be equal to "outlaw" and, therefore, liable to be killed by anyone with impunity. 31 According to Youni, in order to refer to such a case (outlawry), the prescription that an outlaw could be killed by anyone with impunity, must have been added to "atimos". 32 In these cases, flight was generally the only alternative to death. 33 According to Youni, therefore, in both archaic and classical times the expression "ἄτιμος ἔστω (εἶναι)" alone would not have only been employed to designate an outlaw, but also exile or flight (ἄτιμος εἶναι + φεύγειν), plus the hereditary character of both penalties or the prescription that he could be killed with impunity. 34 The meaning of atimos as an outlaw can be found outside classical Athens.
attempting to establish a tyranny -would have fled from Attica. Even so, in these cases the situation would not have been the same for all, as L. Loddo has recently shown. All of them could be killed with impunity if they returned to Attica or if they entered some specific public or sacred places. A distinction ought to be drawn, however, between the "unlawful" flight of those who had been sentenced to death as outlaws (in eisangelia or cases of attempted tyranny), the "lawful" flight allowed in cases of intentional homicide ("to leave the country after making the first of their two defence speeches" in the interpreted by some as "sold as a slave", 49 as observed in Demosthenes' Against Aristocrates. 50 As will be seen below, being sold into slavery was indeed the fate reserved for those condemned to atimia for debts who had lost their properties. So, being sold as a slave would seem to have been related to whether or not the convict retained his property. The intention here is not to resolve this legal issue of atimia, but, from a socio-economic perspective, to inquire into who the atimoi eligible to be granted epitimia (namely, therehabilitation of rights), most of whom seem to have remained in Attica, were in the time of Solon and why they were atimoi. The distinction established by Solon himself in the Amnesty law between those atimoi to whom he granted epitimia, the majority of whom would have remained in Attica, and others -who were exiled from Attica: ἔφευγον -to whom he did not, is certainly significant. It would in effect point to the fact that atimos, in a technical or legal sense, might have referred, from the start, to two situations (albeit with some nuances): those who had to flee (lawfully or unlawfully), because they could be killed by anyone with impunity if they remained in the community (ἄτιμος plus "τεθνάτω" and/or φεύγειν) and those who "lost their citizenship rights" (ἄτιμος ἔστω /εἶναι) but who generally remained (with exceptions) in Attica and they could not be killed by anyone with impunity.
Notwithstanding this, it is essential to consider that, as Hansen observed, from a legal point of view the "loss of citizenship rights" could not have had the same consequences in the 7th century as in classical times. 51 In this first case, atimoi, although they cannot be considered literally as "outlaws" -at least in the sense of running the risk of being killed by anyone with impunity -were in a more helpless and vulnerable situation than in classical times and they were agogimoi (to be sold into slavery) under certain conditions, as will be seen below.
3. -Being "deprived of rights" in 7th-century Athens and the status of pre-Solonian

thetes
The "loss of citizenship rights" was different in both periods (the 7th century BC and classical times), insofar as citizenship was in the process of being defined in the 7th century. 52 Furthermore, being without "rights" in 7th century BC meant not only being vulnerable and legally unprotected, 53 but even liable, as will be seen, to being reduced to slavery and mutilated. "Deprived of rights" in the 7th century would not, in reality, have derived so much from the status of "outlaw", even though, as a rule, it would not have entailed death, reserved for those described in Solon's law as in exile and not covered by the amnesty. So as to understand what rights were forfeited, it is first necessary to determine the rights of the demos (understood here as the "lower classes"), 54 that is, of those who did not form part of the aristoi who held public offices, 51 Hansen 1976 7th century, being in such a situation was almost like being an "outlaw", although generally without entailing death. His situation was very similar to that which Homer referred to as "ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός" 63 : without phratry membership (and, as a result, without access to the assembly), without access to justice (i.e., to a trial), without a home/oikos (and, consequently, landless) and, therefore, without a polis (it should be recalled that Hestia was located in the heart of the city, in the Prytaneum, in the old agora). In light of the foregoing, the status of an atimos, was very similar and can be compared with that of the Homeric and Hesiodic thes. The thes was an "ἄοικος" and "ἄκληρος" (generally landless) 64 , liable not only to being beaten (like Thersites), 65 but also threatened with mutilation (Hom.  Bravo 1991/1993. Scheid-Tissinier 2002, 7-8. Finley 1964[1954, 59-61. 70 Thetes served (θητευέμεν) even those without land (ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ: Hom. Od. 11.489-90), for which reason they were also landless, although sometimes they would have possessed small plots that were not enough for subsistence (see note 10). in Homer -and were even sold into slavery or mutilated, 72 like the ptochoi who were potential thetes (in the sense that they could be hired for a salary) 73 and who could also be threatened, attacked (Hom. Od. 19.69) or mutilated , as well as being sold as slaves without a trial . The status of thetes and ptochoi was very similar to that of the dmoes, or sometimes even worse due to the uncertainty of their fate. 74 Although they had the status of "free men", their situation in the archaic period was not to be envied. Their poverty 75 made them dependent on those for whom they worked. Sometimes, they were even incapable of maintaining their freedom and were therefore prone to being reduced to slavery. The dividing line between free (poor) men and slaves was not as clear in those times as it was afterwards, in the sense that the poor who served as thetes were "like slaves" and were sometimes even sold as such with no apparent justification, as is the aforementioned case of Poseidon and Apollo, in Homer, when they were working as thetes (θητεύσαμεν) for Laomedon in the construction of Troy's city walls. 76 There were no institutional, judicial or civic mechanisms to protect the landless poor from servitude, permanent dependency or slavery. In this sense, thetes were "like slaves", as defined in later lexicons, 77 or like those "between freedom and slavery". 78 72 Poseidon and Apollo under the command of Laomedon were building the walls of Ilion. After completing their work, not only were they not paid their dues, but were also threatened with being disabled and sold into slavery: Hom. Il. 21. 441-455. In another passage from Homer (Od. 18.358), the fact that the salary (misthos) was said to be guaranteed (arkios) indicates that it may not have been so in all cases. Thetes normally received food, clothing and footwear, apart from the misthos: Hom. Il. 18.357-464 (day labourers who received food, clothing and footwear); Hom. Il. 18.560 (day labourers or erithoi who received food). Hdt. 8.137.2-5: thetes in Macedon who did not receive their dues either. Descat 1986, 297-302. Plácido, 1989 Hom., Od., As to the situation of thetes being similar to that of dmoai, see:  Plácido 1989, 65-66. 78 See note 16. Servitude in Euripide, Ciclops, 23-24: τούτον ἑνὸς ληφθέντες ἐσμὲν ἐν δόμοις δοῦλοι· καλοῦσι δ'αὐτὸν ᾧ λατρεύομεν Πολύφημον: "We are slaves of one of them, who captured us; Polyphemus is the name of the one we serve." The verbs theteuo and latreuo might signify "to serve as a doulos" : Plácido 1989, 66. Aristotle considered that banausoi (craftsmen normally included in the class of thetes) undertook similar tasks to those of slaves (douloi): Arist. Pol. 3.1277a-b excludes manual workers from the citizenry, who "in ancient times and in some places were slaves or foreigners": Arist. Pol. 3.1277b-1278a. Therefore, according to Aristotle, citizens could not undertake manual or menial tasks (which were performed by banausoi, who could have been slaves or thetes: Arist. Pol.3.1278a, lin. 12-13), especially in aristocratic and oligarchic regimes (Arist. Pol. 3.1278a, lin., 21-22); see Bravo 1991/1992-Thus, in the 7th century thetes and atimoi who lived in Attica and had not fled must have lived in similar conditions: excluded from assemblies, without legal protection against possible attacks and/or mutilation, or being sold into slavery.
The atimoi of Attica -undoubtedly a significant number and without land (which had been confiscated) 79 -had therefore fallen into a situation similar to that of thetes/hektemoroi (without oikos or kleros). As Diogenes Laertius notes, the Athenians were falling into a "theteia". 80 In that situation, although free without rights, atimoi could be susceptible, like thetes, to being beaten, mutilated or injured and sold immediately, without a trial, as chattel slaves. 81 They were, as will now be seen, In this section I review the meaning of the term "agogimos", which in classical times generally means "liable to being arrested" but seems to have a harsher meaning in pre-Solonian Athens. I consider that agogimos has a double meaning at the time: that of being taken and carried away to work as debt bondsmen and that of being literally sold abroad into slavery. According to the sources, this second meaning can apply to debt bondsmen (atimoi) as well as to thetes/hektemoroi. I consider, also, the impact of This author (1.45) points out that Solon "rescued people and properties", alluding to the fact that "loans were made on people and many, due to poverty, had to serve as thetes (ἐθήτευον)". In another passage (1. 66), he writes that Solon complained to the demos saying, "It was in vain that I tried to free the poor from their theteia": ἦ μάτην ἔσπευδον ἀπαλλάξαι τοὺς πένητας αὐτῶν τῆς θητείας.

Seisactheia.
In classical times, agogimos meant "liable to seizure"; in other words, someone who could be arrested. In this period, an agogimos debtor was described as a free person liable to being arrested and/or detained in order to secure the repayment of his debts. 82 In the 4th century BC, the term was employed above all for exiles who were extradited from all the allied cities. 83 In the archaic sense, an agogimos could be akin to "one without recourse to law", so, with a meaning very similar or close to "outlaw". 84 According to Bailly's dictionary, the term "agogimos" in pre-Solonian times meant someone "who can be apprehended in the body, speaking of an insolvent debtor that his creditor was 'taking' away to employ him as a slave or sell him". 85 This meaning (someone who can be arrested and reduced to slavery) is also recorded in the DGE dictionary, especially for debtors, not only in pre-Solonian Athens, but also in other places at later dates. 86 In the words of Aristotle ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 2.2), for whom the term agogimos seems to refer to the hektemoroi or pelatai (which Plutarch calls thetes), "[…] if they ever failed to pay their rents (μισθώσεις), they themselves and their children were liable to arrest" (καὶ εἰ μὴ τὰς μισθώσεις ἀποδιδοῖεν, ἀγώγιμοι καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ παῖδες ἐγίγνοντο).
Plutarch (Sol. 13.2), however, points out that those who were agogimoi were debtors: "[…] they pledged their persons for debts and could be seized by their creditors" 82 LSJ s.v. ἀγώγιμος II: "of person, liable to seizure". In DGE: "que puede ser llevado ante un tribunal" (Xen. Hell. 7.3.11, Dem. 23.11), ἔστωσαν ἐντὸς] τῆς Εὐβοίας ἀγώγιμοι: IG 12(9).207.44 (Eretria III BC). In Nicostratos' case, he was liable to being seized as a slave: Dem. 53.11. See Sosin 2017, 6, n. 29. Property could also be agogima (liable to confiscation): Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.69 (seizing the assets of debtors, but not their bodies); εἶν[αι τὰ χρήματα αὐτοῦ] ἀγώγιμα in IG II 2 125.14 (4th century BC). 83 Xen. Hell. 7.3.11; Dem. 23.16; Diod. 14.6.1; see Youni 2001, 134-135 (liable to arrest); Harris 2019, 17: in Demosthenes' Against Aristocrates 23, Euthycles interprets the word agogimos as whoever catches the person who kills Charidemus can do anything to him he wishes: "He passes over the legally designated court and hands him over without trial to his accusers for them to do whatever they want to him, even if his guilt is not obvious. Those who catch him have the right to torture, maim, and collect money": Dem. 23.27-28. Just as ἀγώγιμος could be used in internal state matters, so too could it be used externally in international relations, in treaties or alliances between multiple states : Wallace 2016: 249. S.v. ἀγώγιμος, in RE 1 (1894, col. 835 (Thalheim); Usteri 1903, 17-19, 59. 84 Hansen 1976, 76. With important nuances: Youni 2001. 85 My translation: "à Athenes, avant les réformes de Solon, qui peut être appréhendé au corps, en parlant d'un débiteur insolvable que son créancier 'emmenait' pour l'employer comme esclave ou le vendre". (ἀγώγιμοι τοῖς δανείζουσιν ἦσαν), before adding, "some becoming slaves at home, and others being sold into foreign countries". Thus, it seems that agogimos applies here to debtors. In my opinion, nevertheless, there is no contradiction between these two passages, considering, as seen above, that the situation of atimoi was similar to that of thetes and that those who did not repay their debts became atimoi. According to Aristotle, those who did not pay the "misthoseis" were agogimoi, while for Plutarch debtors were also apparently agogimoi. Assuming that those with public or private debts who failed to repay them on time became atimoi 87 automatically or by sentence, 88 and since in Athens there would have been many atimoi who were granted the epitimia with Solon, it would not be too farfetched to conjecture that these numerous atimoi, who had lost their properties, remained by and large in Attica tilling the land (sometimes their own confiscated properties or that of others). They were "agogimoi" in two senses: 1. Seized to work their former land or that of others as debt bondsmen; and 2. Seized to be sold abroad if they did not pay the rents due (misthoseis). They remained in Attica as aoikoi and akleroi, that is, similar to thetes, but even worse off owing to their status of convicts with the dishonour that this entailed. 89 In this situation, those who did not pay the rents due or imposed (misthoseis) could be physically detained and literally sold abroad as slaves (agogimoi in the second sense), both thetes/hektemoroi (landless sharecroppers) and atimoi, namely, in most cases debtors who had been declared atimoi for non-payment, whose property had been confiscated and who were working to "redeem their debt" (debt bondsmen). 90 Therefore, it seems that being "liable to seizure" (agogimos), in the sense of being sold abroad as a slave, 87 Without excluding other causes of atimia (such as fines or minor offences, etc.: cf. Welwei 2005). However, the most pressing problem in Attica during that period, according to the sources, were fundamentally debts, for which reason atimia for debts must have been very widespread as a reason for being sold into slavery (servitude, both in the literal and figurative sense). 88 The procedure of becoming atimos is not known: perhaps public debtors became atimoi automatically (after a fine -Aristotle talks about the Areopagus punishing and imposing fines without the right of appeal: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 3.6; 4.4 -or for not paying the rents of public lands leased or devoted to sharecropping, etc.) while private debtors did so, after a trial. Perhaps the lawsuit for private debts entailed a cost or fine to be paid -in kind: Davis 2012 -not only to the plaintiff, but also to the state (for this possibility in the Classical Age: Hansen 1982). In this case, if the fine was not paid, the debtor incurred atimia (in classical times, if a dike exoules was brought against a private debtor, he also had to pay the state). For automatic atimia and atimia by sentence: Hansen 1976, 55-98;Kamen 2013, 75, n. 5; Humphreys believes that debtors were declared "atimoi" by their creditors, but it seems more likely that debts and atimia were regulated in the Draconian legislation (see note 22). Many situations would have been abusive, which is why Solon refers to unjust and just enslavement (fr. 36 W, lin. 9-10). 89 Hansen 1976, 61. 90 Possibly through the slave market at Aigina: Valdés 2002b. would have occurred in a second phase, after atimia, 91 and would have resulted from the non-payment of the rents due to repay the debt as a debt-serf or the rents due as a thes/hektemoros working as a sharecropper on someone else's land or on public land.
In the normal course of events, these men, whose situation could be regarded as being "between freedom and slavery" or, in Diogenes Laertius' words, "theteia", were not sold into slavery, but were exploited as manpower in Attica.
There were two initial situations: on the one hand, thetes/hektemoroi or sharecroppers "without land" and, on the other, indebted landowners who had failed to repay their debts and, accordingly, were condemned to legal atimia which entailed the confiscation of their property (which then went to the state in the case of public debts or to the creditor in that of private ones). As indicated by Solon himself and also Plutarch, these groups had three options: 1-working in Attica in "humiliating slavery" (debt bondage and/or theteia); 92 2-being -both thetes/hektemoroi and people who were already atimoi, generally after non-payment (perhaps repeatedly) of the rents owed to their "masters" -sold into slavery, without a trial (agogimoi in the sense of being seized to be sold abroad); 3-flight from Attica, especially in the case of debtors who were already atimoi, in order to avoid debt bondage and/or debt slavery. 93 In my view, the most frequent situation was that atimoi continued to farm their former lands (or others) in Attica in "humiliating slavery", forming a broad dependent Attic population base "between freedom and slavery", together with thetes and hektemoroi. Those who fled and those who were sold abroad would have been less numerous. 94 If the debtors (atimoi) were liable to work as debt bondsmen and, moreover, to seizure to be sold abroad (agogimoi) in case of non-payment of the stipulated rents (like thetes/hektemoroi), it can be assumed that, although the penalty of atimia for debts did not necessarily entail death or flight, it was a harsher penalty than the "loss of citizenship rights" in the classical era. Being disfranchised at that time implied being an outcast, without access to the full protection of justice, without bodily protection against mutilation (or physical assault) 91 Plutarch notes that "some becoming slaves at home, and others being sold into foreign countries", while Solon adds that "many had been sold" and other suffered "shameful servitude at home".

92
Here the term is δουλίην ( or sale into slavery, and without participating in the civic community or politics, like the Homeric and Hesiodic thetes and ptochoi. Solon cancelled private and public debts, alike, 95 and legally rehabilitated the atimoi, making them epitimoi. The Solonian Amnesty Law probably formed part of the Seisachtheia. 96 This is so because insolvent debtors, who would often be working on their former properties or others as atimoi, similar to slaves -in a "shameful servitude at home" (debt bondsmen) -and with the threat of being taken away to be sold abroad (agogimoi in the second sense formulated above) if they did not pay the stipulated rents, became full citizens and were rehabilitated (although they would not have always recuperated their land). 97 Many, according to Solon's own testimony, were rescued abroad. 98 Thenceforth, Athenians could no longer be enslaved and were protected (also against physical assault). 99 Neither would private debtors have been atimoi, nor would they have immediately lost their properties, 100 and surely could not be forced to work someone else's land to pay off their debt (although this could be stipulated in "private contracts"). 101 Although private debtors could, of course, be brought to trial for debts, and public debt continued to carry atimia, perhaps the meaning of atimos gradually changed, not so much because of a new definition of the term, which would continue to signify being "deprived of rights" (and without the protection of the law as "ἀθέμιστος"), but because of a new definition of citizenship, or, rather, of being Athenian. They could not be enslaved even though they lost their political and legal rights. Athenians were thus physically protected and distance put between them and slaves. 102  Some would recover it: Valdés 2019; Blok-Krul 2017 (for situations in the Near East). Solon did not distribute the land fairly (isomoiria: Sol. Fr. 34 W, lin. 9), but there was an "Anadasmos" performed by him: Plut. Sol. 13.6. Rosivach 1992; Isager & Skydsgaard 1992: 128 (also maybe with the privatisation of public land). 98 According to his poems, Solon rescued them: Fr. 36 W, lin. 9. See previous note. 99 Solon forbade the enslavement of Athenians and protected them from mistreatment by means of the graphe hybreos (also for slaves): Valdés 2019d. The body of the citizen was "sacrosanct" : Halperin 1990, 96;Hunter 1992. Athenian citizens could not be tortured, since the Archon Scamandrius (510-509): And. 1.43;Lys. 4.14;Lys. 13.27 and 59;Hunter 1992, 278;exceptions: Halm-Tisserant 2013, 117. The difference between being a slave and a free person in the protection of the body (soma): Dem. 22.55. 100 Although they could lose them through trial and, in the case of dike exoules, could even end up being atimoi as public debtors if they failed to pay up: Harrison 1971, 206-227. 101 See infra note 107. In a sort of indentured servitude. In this respect: Forsdyke 2021, 41. 102 Similarly, see Manville 1980. See note 14. Valdés 2019d. Atimoi or adulterous women could expansion in political participation and rights, as well as the very concept of being Athenian (with the ideology of autochthony that began to spread at the time), 103 and with the physical protection of the citizenry (against slavery), led to the abolishment of atimia as a penalty for private debt. At the same time, the term agogimos would have also evolved to signify "liable to be arrested". In Solon's time, the penalty of atimia might have been restricted to major offences, especially against the state.

-Conclusions
In short, atimos already had two senses in the pre-Solonian period, both of which appear in Solon's law: atimos tethnato (or atimos esto + pheugein) and atimos esto/einai. The former could be killed summarily by anyone, which is why they always fled abroad.
In this he improved upon an ancient Greek custom that was in use among the Thessalians for a long time and among the Athenians in the beginning. For the former treated their clients with haughtiness, imposing on them duties unbecoming to free men; and whenever they disobeyed any of their commands, they beat them and misused them in all other respects as if they had been slaves they had purchased. The Athenians called their clients thetes or "hirelings," because they served for hire, and the Thessalians called theirs penestai or "toilers," by the very name reproaching them with their condition (italics mine). 105 only be attacked -maimed or even killed -if they refused to comply with the established rules. Atimoi who did not comply with the rules of atimia could be "prosecuted" by endeixis or apagoge. 103 Valdés 2008. 104 Debt slaves could suffer physical abuse of all kinds: beatings, mistreatment, violence, starvation and so forth : Finley 1983: Finley [1953, 158. See Valdés 2019d.