CI´VITAS
CI´VITAS (
πολιτεία),
citizenship.
1. Greek.
In the third book of the Politics, Aristotle commences his inquiry into
the nature of states with the question, “What constitutes a
citizen?” (
πολίτης). He
defines a citizen to be one who is a partner in the legislative and
judicial power (1, 4,
μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ
ἀρχῆς: and 8b
ἐξουσία κοινωνεῖν ἀρχῆς βουλευτικῆς καὶ
κριτικῆς). No definition will equally apply to all the
different states of Greece, or to any single state at different times;
the above seems to comprehend more or less properly all those whom the
common use of language entitled to the name.
In the Heroic ages the kings were the commanders in war, offered up
certain sacrifices (
ὅσαι μὴ
ἱερατικαί) to the gods, and administered justice (Arist.
Pol. 3.9, 7 S. = 14, 12 B.); their
authority was however limited by the nobles, to whom sometimes the title
of
βασιλῆες was given (
Od. 1.394;
6.54;
8.41. 390) as well as to
the monarch himself. Without their advice and assent no important matter
was undertaken, and they shared also in the administration of justice,
but to what extent cannot be defined. Gladstone (
Stud. on
Hom. iii. p. 57) thinks that the nobles acted judicially only by
an actual or virtual delegation from the king. The freemen assembled
only to listen (Arist. Schol.
Il. 9.17）
and hear the intentions of the king and the nobles announced; Gladstone
(p. 126 ff.), however, is of opinion that the function of the people was
not so confined: the people was in part a judicial body, and took a real
part in the conduct of public affairs.
In Attica the power of the chief king was especially limited by the
circumstance that the people was divided into several independent
communities, each under its own head (in Plut.
[p. 1.442]Thes. 32, these heads are called
βασιλεῖς). Theseus is said to have united
them into a single state and to have made Athens the seat of government
and of the administration of justice in all important cases (
Thuc. 2.15), and to have forced the Eupatridae
of the different communities to settle at Athens (
Plut. Thes. 32; cf. Plat.
Critias, p. 110 C, and
Etym. M.
s. v.
Εὐπατρίδαι=Bekk.
Anecd. 257, 7 ff. In Solon Fragm. 4, 5 ff.,
ἀστοί =
Εὐπατρίδαι). Plutarch (
Plut.
Thes. 25) ascribes to Theseus the distribution of the
population of Attica into
εὐπατρίδαι,
γεωμόροι (Poll. 8.111;
γεωργοί, Arist. in Schol. Plat.
Axioch. p.
371 D: cf. fragm. of lexicon in
Bull. de Corresp. hell.
i. p. 152;
ἄποικοι in Arist. fragm.
Ἀθην. πολιτ., Berl. Papyrus, 163),
and
δημιουργοί ῾ἐπιγεώμοροι τὸ τεχνικὸν
ἔθνος,
Etym. M. l.c.; Dion. Halic. 2.8 distinguishes
εὐπατρίδαι and
ἄγροικοι). There is a wide difference of opinion as to
the relation existing between these three classes and the four Ionic
tribes,--
Αἰγικορεῖς, Ἀργαδεῖς,
Ὅπλητες and
Γελέοντες,--each tribe comprising three phratries and each
phratry containing thirty
γένη. [
TRIBUS] Some, like Grote
(3.72), see in the Eupatridae “the wealthy and powerful men,
belonging to the most distinguished families in all the various
gentes,” and consider this triple distinction to be disparate
and unconnected with the four tribes; others (Hermann,
Griech.
Staatsalt. § 97, 12) identify the Eupatridae with
the Geleontes and Hopletes, and the Geomori and Demiurgi with the
Aegicoreis and Argadeis respectively; and a third class (Philippi,
Beitr. z. e. Gesch. d. att. Bürgerrechts, p.
208, n. 56) hold that the tribes originally comprised the Eupatridae
only, and that it was Solon who first gave the mass of the people a
place in the system of tribes and phratries. In the earliest times the
guidance of public affairs in conjunction with the king, the
administration of justice, and the priestly functions belonged
exclusively to the Eupatridae (
Plut. Thes.
25; the three
ἐξηγηταὶ were
always of this class,
C. I. G. i. No. 765); out of their
number the four
φυλοβασιλεῖς were taken
(Poll. 8.111; hence it follows that others than nobles must have
belonged to the tribes; cf. also Draco's law in Dem.
c.
Macart., p. 1069.57, and
C. I. A. i. No. 61,
ἀριστίνδην), and by their side the
other two classes were of little political importance, and the Demiurgi
perhaps of less even than the Geomoroi (cf.
Athen. 23.660 d). The
ascendency of the Eupatridae continued after the establishment of the
archonship through its various changes down to Solon, who introduced a
new principle of classification, the timocratic principle, by
distributing all the citizens of the tribes (which he did not abolish,
Phot. s. v.
ναυκραρία), without any
reference to their
γένη and phratries,
into four classes (Harpocr. s. v.
ἱππάς:
Plut. Sol. 18),
according to the amount of produce from their lands (this was changed
after the time of the Pisistratids: cf.
Thuc.
4.54,
5,
Ἀθηναίους εἰκοστὴν μόνον πρασσόμενοι τῶν
γιγνομένων: Beloch,
Herm. 1885, p. 245).
It is true that of these four classes only the first three were eligible
for public offices (Arist.
Pol. 2.9, 4 S. =
12, 6 B), and only the first for the archonship. (
Plut. Arist. 1 ; Landwehr,
Philologus, Suppl. v. p. 118 if., whom Busolt,
Griech. Gesch. i. p. 531, n. 1, follows, explains
this passage to refer to the Eupatridae, not to the first census class ;
yet see the question put in the
ἀνάκρισις of the archons,
εἰ τὸ
τίμημα ἔστιν αὐτοῖς, Poll. 8.85, which was afterwards
altered to
εἰ τὰ τέλη τελεῖ, Lex.
Rhet. Cant. p. 670, 19, and Cratinus in
Athen. 11.460 f.). But even the lowest possessed certain
important rights and were exempted from military service as hoplites
(Harpocr. s. v.
θῆτες, etc.). According
to Grote (3.121) and others, “They were invested with the right of
choosing the annual archons out of the first class, and the archons
and the magistrates generally, after their year of office, were made
formally accountable to the public assembly sitting in judgment upon
their past conduct.” In Grote's opinion the institution of
Heliastic courts dates from the time of Pericles; Schoemann, however,
ascribes it to Solon, and as we think with justice, so far at least as
the first beginnings are concerned: the
ἡλιαία is mentioned in a Solonian law (
Lys.
10.16); and as far as our information goes, magistrates, etc. rendered
their account always before a court, not before the popular assembly.
(See on the whole question
Att. Proc., ed. Lipsius, p. 28
ff.) By Solon's reforms a way was opened to every one, if he succeeded
in becoming a landed proprietor, to set himself on an equality in point
of law with the nobles (Solon is said to have fixed a limit to the
acquisition of land, Arist.
Pol. 2.4, 4 S.=
7, 6 B., yet see Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 689.208); and, on
the other hand, the man of noble birth, if he became poor, ceased to
belong to the privileged class. The
γένη lost all political importance, but continued to exist.
The Berlin Papyrus 163--which, as Bergk (
Rh. M. 1881, p.
87 ff.) recognised, contains fragments of Aristotle's
Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία--gives us fresh
information respecting the archonship. There we learn that after a
certain Damasias had been
ἄρχων for
two years, he was driven from office, and that after this an arrangement
was come to according to which four Eupatridae, three
ἄποικοι, and two Demiurgi should be chosen.
The date of this Damasias is variously fixed by scholars: Blass
(
Herm. 1880, p. 366 ff.; 1881, p. 42 ff.) places him
between Eryxias, the last who held the archonship for ten years, and
Cleon, the first eponymous of the nine annual archons, but the title of
the archon, whether appointed for life or for ten years, was
βασιλεύς. Bergk identifies him with the
archon for 639-8 (
Dionys. A. R.
3.36; cf. Gilbert,
Handb. d. gr. Staatsalt. i. p.
124); yet if at that time the
ἄποικοι
and Demiurgi had been admitted to the archonship, the reform of Solon
would have been a reactionary measure, since by it only the first
property class were eligible. Hence Duncker (
Gesch. d.
Alterth. vol. vi. p. 125, n. 2) interprets the passage to mean
that the
ἄποικοι and Demiurgi had the
right of electing three and two archons respectively from amongst the
Eupatridae; yet this can scarcely be the meaning of the passage:
ἐγέ[νετο δὲ μετ᾽] αὐτὸ[ν διὰ] τὸ
στασιάζειν ἄρχοντας* ἑλέσθθι. . .τέτταρ]ας μὲν εὐπατρὶδῶν
τρεῖς δὲ ἀποίκων δύο [δὲ καὶ δημι]ουργῶν (Diels,
Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1885). There is a second archon
Damasias, a contemporary of Thales, between 590 and 580, probably 586-5;
and Diels
[p. 1.443](cf. Landwehr, p. 195 ff., and
Busolt, p. 543) identifies him with the Damasias of the papyrus. By
Solon's reform, members of the first property class alone were eligible
to the archonship; this compromise settled the proportion of archons who
were to be elected from the Eupatridae,
ἄποικοι, and Demiurgi respectively, all however to be of
the first property class (according to Busolt, p. 544, this arrangement
only held good for the year after Damasias), until by Aristeides' reform
the disqualification of the other property classes was removed (
Plut. Arist. 22).
Cleisthenes abolished the old tribes for civil purposes (according to
Philippi, p. 172, they continued to exist as religious bodies), and
introduced the local distribution according to demes (one hundred,
Hdt. 5.69; cf. Diels, pp. 25, 26) as the
foundation of his new ten tribes. Now the deme became the elementary
political division, and a man was described by his own name, followed
first by the name of his father and next by that of the deme to which he
belonged: e. g.
Δημοσθένης Δημοσθένους
Παιανιεύς: Cleisthenes likewise reformed the phratries
and increased their number to 360, each of the old
γένη becoming the centre of a new phratry. (Buermann,
Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. ix. p. 617. Philippi,
ibid. 1879, pp. 418, 419, and Sauppe,
De Phratriis Attic. p. 7, agree with B. as to the
fact of an increase, but do not accept his number of phratries.)
Among the citizens we have to distinguish between the naturalised or new
citizens (
δημοποίητοι, ποιητοὶ,
ποιήσει or
δωρεᾷ πολῖται）
and the old citizens (
φύσει or
γένει πολῖται, Dem.
c.
Steph. i. p. 1125.78). To speak of the former class first:
according to Solon's law (
Plut. Sol. 24),
citizenship could only be conferred upon two classes of
foreigners--
τοῖς φεύγουσιν ἀειφυγίᾳ τὴν
ἑαυτῶν ἢ πανεστίοις Ἀθήναζε μετοικιζομένοις ἐπὶ
τέχνῃ; according to the law quoted in [Dem.]
c.
Neaer. p. 1375.89, upon those who had rendered the state
eminent services (
δι᾽
ἀνδραγαθίαν),
1 such as Thrasybulus (
C. I. A. i. n°. 59)
or Perdiccas, king of Macedonia, Menon the Pharsalian (Dem.
c.
Aristocr. pp. 686, 687, § § 199, 200),
etc. In her better time Athens was chary of bestowing this honour, but
in the days of Isocrates (8.50) and Demosthenes (
c.
Aristocr. p. 687.200) it was given so frequently as to lower its
value. Cotys, king of Thrace, received this honour, and so did Python
and Heracleides, who murdered him (Dem.
c. Aristocr. p.
659.119). Aristonicus was made an Athenian citizen because of his skill
in ball playing (
Ath. 1.34, p. 19 a).
Cleisthenes, for political reasons, conferred citizenship on foreigners
settled in Attica, and on manumitted slaves who had acquired the
position of metoeci. (Bernays,
d. heracl. Briefe, p. 155,
thus explains
πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους
καὶ δούλους μετοίκους, Arist.
Pol. 3.1, 10 S.=2, 3 B.) The Plataeans were admitted to
citizenship after the destruction of their town in the fifth year of the
Peloponnesian war, the Athenians not forgetting that their whole force
had spontaneously joined them at Marathon. When Aristophanes says that
the slaves who had fought at Arginusae (Schol. Arist.
Ran. 706; Andoc. 2.23) became Plataeans, this must be
taken to mean that they were granted land in the territory of Scione
which had been handed over to the Plataeans (
Thuc.
5.32; Isocr. 4.109. Kirchhoff,
Abh. d. Berl.
Akad. 1873, pp. 9, 10.) After the defeat at Chaeroneia,
Hypereides made, amongst others, the following proposal
τοὺς μετοίκους πολίτας ποιήσασθαι (fr.
33, Blass), probably only on condition of their taking their part in the
defence of the country.
Citizenship was conferred by the popular assembly in the following way:
in the first assembly the people bestowed the gift, but it did not
become valid (
κύριος), unless it was
confirmed by a majority in the ensuing assembly, at which at least 6000
must be present and vote (secret voting by ballot). As the second voting
is not mentioned in the oldest inscription bearing on the question (soon
after Eucleides,
ο and
ε being still used for
ου and
ει),
2 Szanto (
Rh.
M. 1885, p. 507 n.) concludes that it was not introduced before
the beginning of the 4th century. The decree in
C. I. A.
1.59 (Hicks,
Manual of Gr. Hist. Inscr. p. 105 ff.) does
not help us in this question, for, as Kirchhoff (
Ber. d. Berl.
Akad., 1861, p. 605) shows, it is merely a former decree
confirmed. It had been proposed to grant civic rights to Thrasybulus and
Apollodorus (Lys. 13.71): a
γραφὴ
παρανόμων was brought against this proposal, and the court
decided for Thrasybulus, but against Apollodorus. Even after the second
vote, it was open to every Athenian who considered the candidate
undeserving of the honour, to bring a
γραφὴ
παρανόμων : and instances of reversal following upon this
are given by [Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1375.91; [Plut.]
Vitt. x.
Oratt. p. 835; Aesch. 3.195.
Fraenkel,
Att. Geschworengerichte, p. 35, and Hartel,
Stud. ü. att. Staatsrecht, p. 271, say that
in every case a
δοκιμασία before a
heliastic court was required, whether a
γραφὴ
παρανόμων was brought or not. They refer to [Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1381.105; yet that was a special
occasion, when, owing to the great number of candidates and to the
peculiar nature of the case, special measures were needed (
Att.
Proc. p. 255), and Buermann (
Jahrb. f. class.
Philol. Suppl. x., p. 347 if.) has shown that a
δοκιμασία did not become a regular
institution until Olymp. 115. Up to that time the formula was (with
slight variations):
εἶναι τὸν δεῖνα
Ἀθηναῖον αὐτὸν καὶ
[p. 1.444]ἐκγόνους (2)
καὶ εἶναι αὐτῷ γράψασθαι φυλῆς καὶ
δήμου καὶ φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούληται κατὰ τὸν
νόμον (3)
τον̀ς δὲ πρυτάνεις τοὺς
τὴν εἰσιοῦσαν πρυτανείαν πρυτανεύοντας δοῦναι περὶ αὐτοῦ
τὴν ψῆφον τῷ δήμῳ εἰς τὴν πρώτην
ἐκκλησίαν--from Olymp. 115 to Olymp. 124 we find in some
instances added (4)
τοὺς δὲ θεσμοθέτας
εὶσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν δοκιμασίαν τῆς δωρεᾶς εὶς τὸ
δικαστήριον ὅταν πρῶτον οἷον τ᾽ ᾖ, and soon after
the Chremonidean war it ran:
δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ
καὶ πολιτείαν κατὰ τὸν νόμον (2)
τοὺς δὲ θεσμοθέτας, ὅταν πληρῶσιν δικαστήριον
εἰς ἕνα καὶ πεντακοσίους δικαστάς, εἰσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν
δοκιμασίαν τῆς πολιτογραφίας (3)
καὶ εἶναι αὐτῷ δοκιμασθέντι γράψασθαι φυλῆς καὶ δήμου
καὶ φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούληται. Since we find in all
such decrees
εἶναι or
γράψασθαι φυλῆς καὶ δήμου καὶ φρατρίας
ἧς (or
ὧν)
ἂν βούληται, it is clearly proved against
the generally received opinion (Philippi, p. 107 ff.) that the
δημοποἰητοι were enrolled in the phratries
as well. Buermann (
Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. ix. p.
597 ff.) points also to other reasons leading to the same conclusion. We
learn from [Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1376.92; p. 1381.106, that
the law expressly declares
μὴ ἐξεῖναι
αὐτοῖς (i.e.
ὅσους ἂν ποιήσηται
ὁ δῆμος πολίτας)
τῶν ἐννέα
ἀρχόντων γενέσθαι μηδὲ ἱερωσύνης μηδεμιᾶς
μετασχεῖν, but that to their descendants
μετέδωκεν ὁ δῆμος ἁπάντων, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐξ
ἀστῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Since
on the occasion of the
ἀρχόντων
ἀνάκρισις the candidate was asked if he had a share in the
worship of Apollo
πατρῷος and Zeus
ἑρκεῖος (Aristotle in
Lex.
Rhet. Cantabr. p. 670, 17; Poll. 8.85; according to Sauppe,
de phratr. Att. p. 7 ff.
Ζεὺς
φράτριος and
Ἀθηναίη
φρατρία since Cleisthenes' reform), i. e. in the worship of
the phratries, it follows that the children of a new citizen and of an
ἀστὴ and
ἐγγυητὴ must necessarily belong to a phratry. The sons
of a new citizen, born before citizenship was conferred on him, were
excluded from the archonship for the same reason as their father: thus
Gilbert (i. p. 178) explains Poll. 8.85,
εἰ
Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσιν ἑκατέρωθεν ἐκ τριγονίας; whilst
Meier (
de bon. damn. p. 235) supposes that this
statement of Pollux and the above of [Demosthenes] refer to different
periods. With this exception, the
δημοποίητοι enjoyed the same privileges with the citizens by
birth. In some decrees the choice of phratries is qualified by additions
such as
πλὴν ὧν οἱ νόμοι
ἀπαγορεύουσιν, etc., perhaps to prevent too many new
citizens being in the same phratry, to the disadvantage of the old
citizens: in other Greek states they were distributed by lot (Philippi,
p. 113, n. 92;
Greek Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. ii.
n°. 237; cf. [Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1380.104). The
phratries in Cleisthenes' reform occupied therefore a different position
from the one usually assigned to them. (Meier,
de Gentil.
p. 15: “curiae suos quaeque mores sequebantur neque plebis sed
suis scitis regebantur.” )
Aristotle (
Aristot. Pol. 3.1, 9
S.=2, 1 B.) gives, as a practical definition of a citizen,
ὁ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν καὶ μὴ θατέρου μόνον,
οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός.3 The latter class (viz. children of an Athenian father), some
maintain, possessed in earlier times civic rights, until by a law of
Pericles (
μόνους Ἀθηναίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐκ
δυεῖν Ἀθηναίων γεγονότας,
Plut. Per. 37) they were deprived of
them: about 5000 were thus excluded, 14,040 remaining in the enjoyment
of citizenship. On the ground that such a law having retrospective
effect would be extremely harsh, Westermann (
Verh. d.
Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1849, p. 200 ff.) assigns it
to Solon's legislation; and Meier (
de bon. damn.
p. 78) holds that Pericles simply proposed a
διαψήφισις on the lines of it. (Plutarch calls it a
νόμος of Pericles, but cf. Isaeus,
12 argum., and Dem.
in Eubul. p. 1298 argum.) Schenkl
(
Wiener Stud. 1883, p. 52 ff.) believes that Pericles
actually passed a new law; to Solon's law
νόθῳ
μὴ εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν (Arist.
Av. 1661),
he conjectures, was added by Cleisthenes
εἶναι
δὲ αὐτῷ πολιτείαν, to provide for the children of
those foreigners upon whom he had conferred citizenship, and of
non-Athenian mothers (by which provision other classes of
νόθοι likewise profited) ; and Pericles,
when there was no longer occasion for such exceptional legislation,
passed the law
ἐὰν μὴ τύχῃ τις ἐξ ἀμφοῖν
ὑπάρχων ἀστῶν, τούτῳ μὴ μετεῖναι τῆς πολιτείας
(Ael.
Var. Hist. 6.10; cf. Suid. s. v.
δημοποίητος). Duncker (
Ber.
ü. d. Sitz. d. Berl. Akad. 1883, p. 935 ff.), on
the other hand, argues from the later legislation of Aristophon and
Nicomenes, that no such law as is ascribed to Solon against
μητρόξενοι can have existed, and looks upon
the law of Pericles against
νόθοι as a
mere invention of the rhetors: this fictitious law was joined to the
account given by Philochorus (fr. 90, Müller = Schol. Arist.
Vesp. 715) of what happened when the king of Egypt
(Amyrtaeus, not Psammetichus) sent grain to Athens as a present. At that
time measures were taken not against
νόθοι, but against those who claimed a share in the grain
without being citizens by right (
παρέγγραφοι, to the number of 4760), and 14,240 therefore
does not represent the total number of citizens that remained after the
lists had been purged, but the number of those who received the grain;
such a total would be too low as compared with the 30,000 mentioned by
Herodotus (
5.97;
8.65), and the 26,000 citizen hoplites and 1200 cavalry for the
year 431 (
Thuc. 2.13,31, but see Boeckh,
Staatsh. i. p. 50, on Herodotus's statement;
according to Hansen,
Ueb. d. Bevölkerungsdichtigkeit
Att. p. 13, the total armed citizen force, including those
below and above the ordinary military age--from the 20th to the 50th
year--amounted in 431 to 19,100 only). In B.C. 403 Aristophon proposed a
law
ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον
εἶναι: it was carried with the amendment of Nicomenes
τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου ἀνεξετάστους
ἀφεῖσθαι (Caryst. fr. 11 b, Müller =
Ath. 13.577 c--Schol. Aesch. 1.39); cf.
Isaeus, 8.43, and Dem.
in Eubul. p. 1307.30,
εἰ καὶ κατὰ θάτερα ἀστὸς ἦν--i.e.
a patre, according to
Schömann,
Antiq. jur. publ. Gr. p. 197, n. 7,
and Philippi, p. 63 ff.;
ab altera utra
parte, according to Platner,
Beitr. p. 108 (but
see p. 325), and Van den Es,
de jur. fam. pp.
28, 75. This law was still observed in the time of Demosthenes
[p. 1.445]（
in Eubul. p. 1299.2; the
diapsephisis of 346-5 was proposed by Demophilus, Aeschin. 1.86, and
Schol. 1.77).
But the citizenship of the parents (sometimes the right of intermarriage,
ἐπιγαμία, was granted, e. g. to
the Euboeans and Plataeans, Lys. 34.3; Isocr. 14.51
4) was not enough to secure civic rights to their offspring,
according to Philippi, p. 79 ff., and Buermann, p. 635 ff. The law, they
say, required also certain formalities: the betrothal,
ἐγγύησις, of the bride by her
κύριος and the
γαμηλία; and in the case of heiresses the
ἐπιδικασία on the part of the archon.
Children born by an Athenian woman who was living with the father in a
connexion not recognised by law were deprived of all the rights of
kinship (
ἀψχιστεία, Isaeus, 6.47,
etc.) and of all political rights. Yet Caillemer (
Annuaire de
l'Association pour encour. des Etudes Gr. 1878, p. 184 ff.),
whom Lipsius follows (
Att. Proc. p. 533, n. 143), has
ably defended the older view, that citizenship descended to the children
of citizens on both sides, even without the legal form of marriage; that
such children, without being admitted to the phratries, belonged to a
deme, and consequently possessed civic rights (Dem.
in Boeot. de
nom. p. 1002.25; p. 1001.23; p. 1002.28), and that by a
formal act of recognition of parentage (
ποιεῖαθαι
παῖδας, Dem. p. 1003, § § 29, 30;
Andoc. 1, 124) they could be made to share all the rights of those born
in wedlock. Without this act of recognition such children could only
claim the
νόθεια (Harpocr. s. v.).
The registration of a child in the official register of the phratry
(
τὸ φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον, Dem.
in Leoch. p. 1092.41, or
τὸ
κοινὸν γρ. Isaeus, 7.16, 17; Harpocr. etc. ;--
εἰσάγειν εἲς τοὺς φράτερας, Isaeus,
6.21, 8.19; Dem.
in Boeot. de nom. p. 995.4;
in
Macart. p. 1054.13;
in Eubul. p.
1315.54;--
ἐγγράφειν εἰς τοὺς
φράτερας, Dem. p. 995.4; Isaeus, 7.17), on the third day of
the Apaturian festival (
κουρεῶτις),
formed a recognition of legitimacy of birth: now the child possessed all
the rights of kinship (Suid. s.v.
φράτορες:
τὸ δὲ γράφεσθαι εἰς
τοὺς φράτορας σύμβολον εἶχον τῆς συγγενείας). An
adopted son (
ποιητὸς, θετὸς ϝἱός）
was probably registered on the same day (in the month of Thargelion in
Isaeus, 7.15, 16, for some special reason). This registration was
connected with certain rites, which were, however, not the same in all
the phratries: a sheep or a goat (Poll. 3.52) of a certain weight
(Schol. Arist.
Ran. 810) was sacrificed and distributed
(
μερίδες, Dem.
in
Macart. p. 1078.82; Harpocr.
μεῖον), together with a certain quantity of wine among the
phrateres;
5 and in some phratries and
γένη
the father had to declare upon oath that the child was
ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς γυναικός
(
Att. Proc. p. 543, n. 166).
6 From
C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, and Isaeus, 7.16,
Szanto (
Rh. M. 1885, p. 515 ff.) concludes that the
γεννῆται and
φράτερες had a common register, which was kept either by
the phratry or by the
γένος, e. g. in
Andoc. 1.125, the phratry being, however, responsible. Gilbert
(
Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1887, p. 23 ff.) on the other
hand sees in the
οἶκος Δεκελειῶν
that portion of the phratry
Δημοτιωνίδαι (whose
φράτριον was at Oeon) which was settled at Deceleia; on
account of frequent false entries in the
φρατερικόν on their part, special measures were devised.
Busolt (Müller's
Handb. d. cl. Altert.-Wiss. iv.
p. 145) suggests that the second vote in the year succeeding the entry
was a general custom from 396-5 onwards; in his opinion
κούρειον meant the sacrifice for boys, and
μεῖον that for girls. It would seem
that there was a second eisegesis to the phrateres, when the grown--up
youth was received amongst the
ἔφηβοι
by the solemn act of cutting off his hair (
Plut.
Thes. 5; Theophr.
Char. 21) and sacrifice:
this was probably called
κούρειον, for
from
C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, it is evident that
μεῖον and
κούρειον cannot be two names for the same sacrifice; cf.
Poll. 8.107,
καὶ εἰς ἡλικίαν προελθόντων ἐν
τῇ καλουμένη κουρεώτιδι ἡμέρα ὑπὲρ μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων τὸ
κούρειον ἔθυον. This was merely a religious ceremony, a
survival of the ancient Aryan usage (cf. Leist,
Graeco-ital.
Rechtsgesch. p. 67); the civil act took place before the
demotae. In the beginning of the calendar year, in the course of which
the youth reached his eighteenth year, he was entered in the
ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον (called
κοινὸν γρ. Dem.
in Eubul. p.
1317.60; cf. Bekk.
Anecd. p. 272, 27 ff.); adopted sons
were enrolled later on in the year, probably in. the month of Munychion,
at the time of the
ἀρχαιρεσίαι
(
C. I. A. ii. No. 416; Dem.
in Leoch.
p. 1092.39; and Isaeus, 7.27, 28: cf. Lipsius,
Jahrb. f. class.
Phil. 1878, p. 299 ff.); Philippi (
Rh. M.
1879, p. 610) refers the
ἀρχαιρεσίαι
to the elections of the magistrates of the deme (not of the state),
fixes them early in the year, and thus places the enrolment of adopted.
sons at the same time with that of the others. On this occasion the
demotae instituted a kind of
δοκιμασία:
they inquired whether the candidates had attained the necessary age,
then with regard to the latter class whether they were of civic descent,
and whether those of the former had been legally adopted. A
δημοποίητος had to prove his rights by a
reference to the popular decree which conferred citizenship on him
(
κατὰ ψήφισμα πολίτης, Dem.
in Nicostr. p. 1252.18). Hence we find
δοκιμασθῆναι used instead of
ἐγγραφῆναι εἰς τοὺς δημότας or
εἰς τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γρ. (Dem.
in
Eubul. p. 1318, § § 61, 62). A special
δοκιμασία ὀρφανῶν is mentioned in
[Xenoph.]
de Repub. Athen. 3, 4: Kirchhoff,
Ueb.
d. Schrift v. Staate d. Ath. p. 23, connects this passage
with
Aristoph. Wasps 576. Orphans,
it would seem, were specially examined before a.
δικαστήριον as to their bodily and mental fitness to
administer their property, (cf.
Lcx. Seguer. p. 235, 13).
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff,
Philol. Unters. i. p.
26, thinks that only the orphans of those who had been killed in war had
to undergo this
δοκιμασία, before they
received the
πανοπλία (Aesch. 3.154).
An Athenian duly enrolled was of age (
αὐτοκράτωρ, Xen.
Memor.
2.1, 21); he could enter upon his patrimony, if an orphan or the son of
an
ἐπίκληρος (Hyper. fr. 194 Bl.;
hence
[p. 1.446]the name
ληξιαρχικόν: cf. Harpocr. s. v.) and might marry (Dem.
in Boeot. de dote, p. 1009.4); he now became
responsible to the laws (Aeschin. 1.18) and could bring actions (Lys.
10.31; Dem.
in Onet. i. p. 865.6), and had to take his
share in the public burdens (Dem.
de Cor.
p. 312.257; orphans were
ἀτελεῖς the
first year, Lys. 32.24). It would seem that enrolment in the
φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον did not
ipso jure lead to enrolment in the
ληξιαρχικὸν γρ., as Voemel (
Zeitschr.
f. A. W. 1846, p. 122) supposes, especially not in the case
of adopted sons: cf. the case of Thrasyllus in Isaeus, vii.; and from
Dem.
in Boeot. de nom. p. 996.5, we learn that a person
could be entered under different names in the two registers (Schaefer,
Dem. u. s. Zeit, 3.2, p. 26 ff.).
At the same time the names of the
ἔφηβοι were (before the days of Aristotle) entered
εἰς λελευκωμένα γραμματεῖα, together with
the name of the archon of the year and also of the previous year, thus
forming a list of all the
στρατεύσιμοι
of each year (Harpocr. s. v.
στρατεία ἐν τοῖς
ἐπωνύμοις): this list was different from the
κατάλογος of those actually called out to
serve on a particular occasion (Arist.
Eq. 1369;
Pac. 1179;
Lys. 15.5, 16.13: cf.
Lange,
Leipz. Stud. i. p. 164 ff.).
Whether the young citizens were at the same time entered into the
πίναξ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς (Dem.
in Leoch. p. 1091.35) and allowed to attend the
popular assembly, or had to wait until they were twenty years old, is
not quite clear. From instances like that of Glaucon (
οὐδέπω εἴκοσιν ἔτη γεγονώς,
Xen. Mem. 3.6,
1) and Plat.
Alc. p. 123 D, it would seem that
the law did not prevent it (Schaefer, p. 36). At any rate for one year
(Dittenberger,
de ephebis Att. p. 12), if not for both
(Schaefer, p. 33), they had to serve as
περίπολοι in the country.
At the age of thirty an Athenian could become
βουλευτής (
Xen. Mem. 1.2,
35) and
ἡλιαστής (Poll. 8.122); at the age of fifty,
ἐφέτης (Bekk.
Anecd. 188,
30; Phot. s. v.
ἐφέται 2) or
διαιτητής (Bekk.
Anecd. 186,
1; according to Poll. 8.126, only at the age of sixty).
Ἐπιτιμία denotes the undiminished
possession of civic rights [
ATIMIA]. Special privileges were
ἀτέλεια,
προεδρία, σίτησις ἐν Πρυτανείῳ [PRYTANEIUM]. (Gilbert, i. p. 188 ff.)
If we would picture to ourselves the true notion which the Greeks
embodied in the word
πόλις, we must lay
aside all modern ideas respecting the nature and object of a state. With
us practically, if not in theory, the object of a state hardly embraces
more than the protection of life and property. The Greeks, on the other
hand, had the most vivid conception of the state as a whole, every part
of which was to co-operate to some great end to which all other duties
were considered as subordinate. Thus the aim of democracy was said to be
liberty; wealth, of oligarchy; and education, of aristocracy. In all
governments the endeavour was to draw the social union as close as
possible, and it seems to have been with this view that Aristotle laid
down a principle which answered well enough to the accidental
circumstances of the Greek states, that a
πόλις must be of a certain size (
Pol. 4.4, 6 S.=7.4, 9 B.;
Nic. Eth. 9.10,
Οὐ γὰρ ἐκ δέκα μυριάδων πόλις ἔτι
ἐστίν).
This unity of purpose was nowhere so fully carried out as in the
government of Sparta, and in the other Dorian governments. [
COSMI]
The population of the Spartan state consisted of three different classes:
the Dorian full citizens, the dependent Perioeci, and the serfs or
helots. There seem to have been few slaves in the country acquired
either by purchase (cf. Heracl. Pont.; Müller,
Fr. Hist.
Gr. 2.2, 210, 2, 2) or by capture in war (Schoemann,
Gr. Alterth. i. p. 201, but see
Büchsenschütz,
Besitz u. Erwerb, p.
172, n. 2). Properly speaking, the helots cannot be said to have had any
political rights; yet being serfs of the soil (
δοῦλοι τοῦ κοινοῦ,
Paus. 3.20,
6),
they were not absolutely under the control of their masters (Poll. 3.83,
μεταξὺ δὲ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων οἱ
Λακεδαιμονίων εἵλωτες), and were never sold out of the
country, even by the state itself. They cultivated the fields of their
Spartan lords, but were bound to surrender only a legally fixed portion
of the produce (
Plut. Lyc. 8;
Athen. 14.657 d); the amount
could not be raised by the owners of the soil, so that the helots could
acquire a certain amount of private property. When Cleomenes III.
offered manumission to every helot who could pay down five minae, 6000
could raise this sum. In war-time the helots were employed as
shield-bearers to the hoplites, as light-armed troops (
Hdt. 9.28), and during the Peloponnesian war
they served as marines (
Xen. Hell. 7.1,
12), and sometimes even as hoplites
(
Thuc. 4.80;
7.19, etc.). In the war with Thebes those helots were invited to
come forward who were willing to serve as hoplites, the promise of
emancipation being held out to them as a reward (
Xen. Hell. 6.5,
28); indeed, when they served among the heavy-armed, it
seems to have been usual to give them their liberty. Out of the class of
helots, emancipated as a reward for military and other services rendered
to the state, (according to Arnold,
ad
Thuc. 5.34, out of the children of such
emancipated helots,) there grew up a separate class, the
ϝεοδαμώδεις (Poll. 3.83; not mentioned
before the time of the Peloponnesian war). Their number increased fast:
in 400 about 1,000 Neodamodes served under Thimbron in Asia, and
Agesilaus undertook to carry on the war against Persia with thirty
Spartiatae, 2,000 Neodamodes, and 6,000 allies. Probably a fixed place
of residence was assigned them; for to the helots of Brasidas it was
specially granted
οἰκεῖν ὅπου ἂν
βούλωιται (
Thuc. 5.34). As to
their position in the state nothing definite can be said; only so much
is certain, that they were not admitted to the rights of Spartan
citizenship, as the name might suggest.
The
μόθακες or
μόθωνες were helot children (generally the sons of
Spartans by helot women) who had together with the Spartan children gone
through the prescribed course of education and discipline. Some
(Hermann,
Griech. Antiq. 1.25, says all, but cf.
Xen. Hell. 5.3,
8; Grote, ii. p. 417, calls them “citizens with a certain
taint of inferiority” ) of them enjoyed full civic rights,
probably after having been adopted, such as Callicratidas, Lysander,
Gylippus (Schoemann,
Opusc. i. p. 127). As to the
peculiar case of emancipation in the first Messenian war, see
PARTHENIAE
[p. 1.447]
The name of
Εἵλωτες is derived by some
from the name of the town of
Ἕλος,
whose inhabitants were said to have risen against the Dorians already
established in power and to have been reduced by Sparta to this state of
degradation (but the inhabitants of
Ἕλος are called
Ἕλειοι
or
Ἑλεᾶται or
Ἑλεῖται); by others from
ἙΛ, therefore “prisoners,” or from
ἕλος (=
δίνλον
δάσος, Suid.), “low-land” (E. Curtius,
Pelop. 2.288, explains thus the name of the town of
Ἕλος), therefore “the
dwellers in the low-land on the banks of the river Eurotas”
(Gilbert, i. p. 31, n. 2). Müller (
Dorians,
2.31) considers them an aboriginal race subdued by the Achaeans,
“who immediately passed over as slaves to the Doric
conquerors;” Schoemann (
Gr. Alterth. i. p.
195) dissents from this.
The
Περ́ιοικοι7 were politically dependent on the Spartans; without having any
share in the administration of the state, without even being admitted to
the public assemblies of the people, they had to obey the commands of
the state and to perform certain services, both with their persons and
their properties. They had to pay certain taxes and dues (
Strab. viii. p.365; Plat.
Alcib. 123 A,
ὁ βασιλικὸς
φόρος), and in wartime to serve as light-armed troops and as
hoplites: thus, in the battle of Plataeae, by the side of 5,000
Spartiatae there fought 5,000 Perioeci as hoplites (
Hdt. 9.28), and on one occasion a Perioecos was in command
of the fleet (
Thuc. 8.22, cf. 6). They
possessed most probably civic rights in the communities (
πόλιες πολλαί,
Hdt. 7.234; cf.
Strab. viii. p.362
s. fin.) to which they belonged, but Sparta
seems to have always exercised a controlling supervision. It would
appear that the Perioeci were distributed into twenty districts, each
presided over by a harmost (Schoemann,
Antiq. Jur. P. Gr.
p. 113, 5;
Griech. Alterth. i. p. 205:
Μένανδρος ἁρμοστὴρ mentioned in an inscr.
from Cythera, see
Mitth. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. in
Athen, 5, 231, 239; and about the
Κυθηροδίκης sent annually, cf.
Thuc. 4.53); and although Isocrates' account (12.177 ff.) of
the position of the Perioeci is probably exaggerated, he may be supposed
to state a fact when he says,
ἔξεστι τοῖς
ἐφόροις ἀκρίτους ἀποκτεῖναι τοσούτους ὁπόσους ἂν
βουληθῶσιν (cf. Grote, ii. p. 369). Some enjoyed special
privileges with regard to military service, as e. g. the Sciritae, who
formed a special corps of light infantry which was used exclusively for
outpost duty in camp, etc. (
Xen. de
Rep. Lac. 12, 3, and Haase
ad
l. l. p. 235), and in battle their place was on the left wing
(
Thuc. 5.67). In time of peace the
Perioeci pursued agriculture (according to Grote, ii. p. 371; they
employed helots) and enjoyed the exclusive privilege of engaging in
commerce and trades, which were forbidden the Spartans by law (
Plut. Lyc. 4); and “that their
industry was not confined to the mere drudgery of manufactures is
shown by the schools of Lacedaemonian embossers and brass-founders,
to which Chartas, etc. belonged” (Müller,
Dorians, ii. p. 26).
The ruling class of citizens derived their name of
Σπαρτιᾶται from the capital, whilst the name
Λακεδαιμόνιοι is common to them with the
Perioeci. Full civic rights did not depend upon birth alone; only those
were full citizens (
ὅμοιοι) who had
fulfilled all the exigencies of the Lycurgean discipline (
Xen. de Rep. Laced.
10, 7), and continued to contribute and to belong to the
συσσίτια (Arist.
Pol. 2.6, 21 S.= 9, 31 B.; formerly called
ἀνδρεῖα, as in Crete, then
φιδίτια, 7, 3 S. = 10, 5 B.). Those who
neglected these two duties were probably excluded from the full civic
rights; i. e. they were not eligible to honours or public offices, but
enjoyed only personal rights: these are probably the
ὑπομείουες mentioned by Xenophon (
Xenoph. Hell. 3.3,
6). In legal rights all
ὅμοιοι were equal, but within them, as
Schoemann has it (
Griech. Altertis. i. p. 217) there were
two distinct classes: the minority of rich, influential, cultured
citizens, who to a certain extent claimed a kind of superior nobility
(the
καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ of Aristotle, from
whom the twenty-eight members of the gerousia were taken:
Polit. 2.6, 15 S.=9, 22 B.), and a majority of
poor and uncultured members, who, though equal to the former in the eye
of the law, were in reality in an inferior position, and might be
described in opposition to them as the
δῆμος, or mass of the citizens (Schoemann,
Opusc. i. p. 138 ff.). Susemihl (notes 322b and 1264) doubts the existence of a superior nobility among
the Spartans, from whom alone the
γέροντες were elected,
οἱ καλοὶ
κἀγαθοὶ being simply the fittest, and the office being
“a reward of virtue” (cf. Dem.
in Lept.
p. 489.107). If this be so, Aristotle cannot refer to their mode of
election when he says:
οἱ δὲ γέροντες τοῖς
γέρουσιν, οὒς καλοῦσιν οἱ Κρῆτες βουλήν, ἴσοι
(
Polit. 2.7, 3 S. = 10, 6 B.); for the
members of the Cretan
βουλῆ were
elected from those who had been
κόσμοι,
and the
κόσμοι were chosen
ἐκ τινῶν γενῶν. The
Ἀπέλλα (Hesych.
ἀπελλάζειν:
ἐκκλησιάζειν Λάκωνες, etc.;
Plut. Lyc. 6, etc.), which all Spartans of thirty years and
upwards were privileged to attend, elected the Gerontes from the
καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ (those above sixty
were eligible ; on the mode of election,
Plut.
Lyc. 26) and the Ephors
ἐξ
ἁπάντων; decided (
βοῇ καὶ οὐ
ψήφῳ,
Thuc. 1.87) upon a disputed succession to
the throne (
Hdt. 6.65,
66;
Xen. Hell. 3.3,
1), concerning peace and war (
Thuc. 1.67;
Xen.
Hell. 3.2,
23,
4.6,
3,
etc., 2.2, 20, etc.), treaties with foreign states (
Thuc. 5.77). legislative measures, etc. The right of
bringing motions before the assembly, and taking part in the debates,
seems to have belonged only to the kings, Gerontes, and in later times
to the Ephors (see, however, the story in Aesch. 1.180, 181; and
Xen. Hell. 6.4,
2). The people sat, as in most Greek states (
Thuc. 1.87,
3;
Vischer,
Rhein. Mus. 1873, p. 380). A
μικρὰ ἐκκλησία is only once
mentioned by
Xen. Hell. 3.3,
8. Lachmann (
d. spart.
Staatsverf. 216) sees in it a meeting of the kings, Ephors, and
Gerontes; Schoemann (
Gr. Staatsalt. i. p. 235) an
assembly of the
ὅμοιοι who happened to
be in town, perhaps only of the more aged. (Cf. Dittenberger,
Syll. Inscr. Gr. n°. 255, 1. 41 (Gythion),
ἔδοξε τῷ δάμῳ ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις
ἀπέλλαις, etc., and footnote.)
Admission into this citizen class was so rare an occurrence that
Herodotus （
9.35)
[p. 1.448]declares the naturalisation of two Eleans at the time of the second
Persian war to be the only known instance of the kind; but from Plato
(
Legg. i. p. 629 A) we learn that Tyrtaeus was
admitted to the citizenship, and according to Plutarch (
Plut. Dio 17) Dion was also made a Spartan
citizen (cf. also Arist.
Polit. 2.6, 12 S.
=9, 17 B.). Occasionally those were made citizens who had been sent to
Sparta as children to share in the prescribed discipline (the
τρόφιμοι of
Xen.
Hell. 5.3,
9; cf: Haase
ad Xen.
de Rep. Lac. p.
187). The number of Spartans was in historic times continually on the
decrease: whilst it amounted to 8,000 in the times of the Persian wars
(
Hdt. 7.234), it had dwindled down in
the days of Aristotle to below 1,000 (
Polit. 2.6, 11=9, 16 B.; cf. Plut.
Ag. 5). In
earlier times the Spartans admitted into their ranks a considerable
number of non-Dorians, and a greater exclusiveness showed itself
probably only after their power was consolidated. Some even think that
the third Dorian tribe,
Πάμφυλοι, was
so called from the foreign elements admitted into it, a view from which
Busolt (
Gr. Gesch. i. p. 108) dissents. No distinction of
privileges existed between these three tribes--
Ὑλλεῖς, Δυμᾶνες and
Πάμφυλοι--that are found “wherever there were
Dorians” (O. Müller,
Dor.
ii. p. 76 ff.
Hdt. 4.179 uses probably
φυλὴ in a loose sense when he
speaks of the Aegidae as a
φυλὴ μεγάλη ἐν
Σπάρτῃ. For the
Ὑρνάθιοι in Argos, see an inscription of the third century
B.C., published in
Bull. de
Corresp. Hell. 1885, p. 350). These three tribes were
divided into twenty-seven phratries (Demetrius of Scepsis in
Athen. 4.141 e, f). Besides this, there was a
local division of the Spartans into five
φυλαί:
Πιτάνη, Μεσόα, Λίμναι,
Κονόουρα, and
Δύμη,
with
ὠβαί as subdivisions (cf. the
rhetra in
Plut. Lyc. 6,
φυλὰς φυλάξαντα καὶ ὠβὰς ὠβάξαντα,
etc.). [
RHETRA] This
division into
ὠβαὶ was extended at a
later period to communities of the Perioeci (
ὠβὰ
τῶν Ἀμυκλαιέων,
Mitt. d. arch. Inst. iii. p. 165). [
H.H]
(Appendix). The
Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία if right in this
matter, throws a new light upon the legislation of Draco: in a less
degree, on that of Solon and Cleisthenes. From 100.4 it appears that
Draco not merely codified the law (though this is particularly
emphasised in the summary of political changes in 100.41,
ἡ ἐπὶ Δράκοντος ἐν ᾗ καὶ νόμους ἀνέγραψαν
πρῶτον8), but also gave Athens a constitution. A share in the government
(
ἡ πολιτεία) was given to all who
could furnish a military equipment (
τοῖς ὅπλα
παρεχομένοις--the same qualification was necessary after
the overthrow of the Four Hundred,
Thuc.
8.97:
τοῖς πεντακισχιλίοις ἐψηφίσαντο
τὰ πράγματα παραδοῦναι, εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶν ὁπόσοι καὶ ὅπλα
παρέχονται). This body elected (
αἱρεῖσθαι) the more important magistrates. There were
property qualifications of varying amount for the different offices, e.
g. of 100 (?: cf. Appendix, s. v.
STRATEGUS) minae for
στρατηγοὶ and
ἵππαρχοι, they had besides to be married and to have
children more than ten years old; cf. Dinarch. c.
Dem. § 71:
καὶ τοὺς μὲν
νόμους προλέγειν τῷ ῥήτορι καὶ τῷ στρατηγῷ τὴν παρὰ
τοῦ δήμου πίστιν ἀξιοῦντι λαμβάνειν, παιδοποιεῖσθαι κατὰ
τοὺς νόμους, γῆν ἐντὸς ὅρων κεκτῆσθαι, etc.; the
property qualification of the nine archons and the
ταμίαι was only 10 minae. Moreover 401 members of this
body (over thirty years of age) were elected by lot as senate, and some
others were in the same way appointed to some less important
magistracies; but as no one could be a member of the senate or hold one
of these offices a second time, before all other qualified persons had
had their turn, the lot decided merely the order in which such persons
should succeed. According to
Ἀθ. πολ.
the creation of a senate, which has hitherto been ascribed to Solon, was
the work of Draco; nor was the property classification Solon's work, for
it is incidentally mentioned as existing in the time of Draco, who
ordained that for non-attendance at a meeting of the
βουλὴ or
ἐκκλησία a senator should pay three, two, or one drachma
according as he was a
πεντακοσιομέδιμνος, a
ἱππεὺς or a
ζευγίτης. No
further information is given as to the functions of
βουλὴ and
ἐκκλησία; probably they did not exercise any important
powers, the Areopagitic council having still (as before 100.3) control
over all the magistrates, and being the guardian of the laws (
ἡ δὲ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου φύλαξ ἦν τῶν
νόμων καὶ διετήρει τὰς ἀρχὰς ὅπως κατὰ τοὺς νόμους
ἄρχωσιν: cf. Tisamenus' decree in Andoc.
Myst. § 84,
ἐπιμελείσθω
ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου τῶν νόμων, ὅπως ἂν αἱ
ἀρχαὶ τοῖς κειμένοις νόμοις χρῶνται); in fact it
would seem to have possessed the right of revising decisions (
ἐξῆν δὲ τῷ ἀδικουμένῳ πρὸ[ς τὴν τῶν]
Ἀρεοπαγειτ[ῶν] βουλὴν εἰσαγγέλλειν ἀποφαινοντι παῤ δ̔̀ν
ἀδικεῖται νόμον) These constitutional changes failed,
however, to remove the prevailing distress: they did not touch the large
class of people who could not furnish a military equipment, and these
remained as before
ἐπὶ τοῖς σώ[μα]σι
δεδεμένοι (cc. 2, 5).
Solon therefore, when he was elected
διαλλακτὴς
καὶ ἄρχων by the contending parties (
κοινῇ), first attacked the economic
question, as has been described under
SEISACHTHEIA (cf.
Ἀθ.
πολ. cc. 9, 10). Then all the laws of Draco (
θεθμοὶ) except those on homicide were
repealed, and the new code of laws (
νόμοι, 100.6;
θεθμοί, cc.
12, 35) was written on
κύρβεις and
placed
ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τῇ βασιλείῳ
(=Harpocr. s. v.
κύρβεις). The most
democratic features of his constitution are said to be: the prohibition
of borrowing on the security of a man's person, the right of every one
to commence an action for wrong done to him--
τὸ
ἐξεῖναι τῷ βουλομένῳ [γράφεσθαι, Mr. Kenyon]
ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδικουμένων--and the
right of appeal to a court of law--
[ᾗ]
μάλιστά φασιν ἰθχυκέναι τὸ πλῆθοσ--ἡ εἰς τὸ.
δικ[α-στήριον] ἔφ[εσι]ς. κύριος γὰρ ὢν ὁ δῆμος τῆς ψήφου
κύριος γίνεται τῆς πολιτείας (100.9). As regards
Solon's reconstruction of the constitution, he used the classification
of the people according to their property for political purposes
(100.7): offices (archons,
ταμίαι, πωληταί, οἱ
ἕνδεκα, κωλακρέται) were filled from the first three
property classes, some from one, others from another (
ἑκάστοις ἀνἀλογον τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ τιμ[ή]μ[ατο]ς
ἀποδιδοὺς τ[ὴν ἀρ]χήν, e. g. only Pentacosiomedimnoi
were eligible as archons and
ταμίαι,
and it was not until 457 B.C. that
ζευγῖται were admitted to the archonship (100.26, the
ἱππεῖς must have become qualified
before that time), whilst the
ταμίαι τῆς
Ἀθηνᾶς had to be members of the first class--at least
nominally, even in the days of the writer (cc. 8, 47,
ἐκ πεντακοσιομεδίμνων κατὰ τὸν Σόλωνος
νόμ[ον--ἔτι γὰρ ὁ ν]όμος κύριός ἐστιν,--ἄρχει δ᾽ ὁ
λαχὼν κἂν πάνυ πένης ᾗ). To the fourth class, the
Thetes, Solon also gave a share of political power for the first time: a
voice in the assembly and a seat in the law-courts.
Solon re-established the senate to the number of 400 (100 from each
tribe), and left to the Areiopagitic council the guardianship of the
laws (
νομοφυλακεῖν) and its other
important functions, giving it the right to pass judgment on those who
conspired to overthrow the constitution (100.8,
καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου συν[ι]σταμένους ἔκρινεν,
Σόλωνος θεν[τός]; cf. the law in 100.16).
Cleisthenes put an end to the four old tribes with their subdivisions,
the trittyes and naucraries, and instituted a new set of tribes, ten in
number (
ἀναμῖξαι βουλόμενος ὅπως μετασχῶσι
πλείους τῆς πολιτείας, 100.21), each to contain three
trittyes, of which one was taken from the plain, one from the shore, and
one from the mountain. See further under
DEMUS Cleisthenes left the
γένη and
φρατρίαι and
ἱερωσύναι undisturbed, increased
the number of the members of the senate to 500 (fifty from each tribe),
and introduced the direct election of the principal magistrates
(
τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ῃροῦντο κατὰ φυλάς, ἐξ
ἑκαστης φυλῆς ἕνα, 100.22) by the
[p. 1.1066]popular assembly, which, as far as the nine archons are
concerned, remained in force until 487 B.C.,
when selection by lot, closely resembling that of Solon, seems to have
been re-introduced. Out of consideration for the new citizens (
νεοπολῖται) whom Cleisthenes had introduced
in large numbers, Cleisthenes altered the official mode of designation
(100.21) [
DEMUS]. The account
of Cleisthenes' reforms is summed up (100.22),
τούτων δὲ γενομένων δημοτικωτέρα πολ[ὺ τῆς Σ]όλωνος
ἐγένετο ἡ πολιτεία (cf. 100.41, but see 100.29,
Cleitophon's rider)
καὶ γὰρ συνέβη τοὺς μὲν
Σόλωνος νόμους ἀφανίσαι τὴν τυραννίδα διὰ τὸ μὴ χρῆσθαι,
τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους θεῖναι τὸν Κλεισθένην στοχαζόμενον τοὺ
πλήθους, ἐν οἷς ἐτέθη καὶ ὁ περὶ τοῦ ὀστρακισμοῦ
νόμος.
From 100.40 we learn that Thrasybulus proposed to grant citizenship
πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκ Πειραιέως
συγκατελθοῦσι (
ὧν ἔνιοι φανερῶς
ἦσαν δοῦλοι), and that Archinus instituted against him
a
ψραφὴ παρανόμων. This was
Thrasybulus
ὁ Στειριεύς, and Archinus
won his case (Aeschin.
c. Ctes. § 195; one
scholiast explains that Thrasybulus proposed civic rights for the orator
Cephalus, another for Lysias: cf. [Plut.]
Vitt. X.
Oratt. p. 835 E f).
100.42 deals with the manner of registration of the youths in the
ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον, on
completion of their eighteenth year, as it existed isted in the writer's
own time. The demotae having sworn the customary oath, decided by vote
εἰ δοκοῦσι γεγονέναι τὴν ἡλικίαν τὴν
ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, and secondly
εἰ
ἐλεύθερός ἐστι καὶ γέγονε κατὰ τοὺς νόμους. If
they were not satisfied on the former point, the particular youth was
relegated to the
παῖδες: if they found
that a youth was not
ἐλεύθερος, the
latter might appeal to a court of law, before which the demotae were
represented by five
κατήγοροι elected
from amongst themselves; and in case the court decided against the
youth, he was sold by the state, whilst, on receiving a verdict in his
favour, he was of necessity entered in the register of the deme. A
second
δοκιμασία was instituted by the
senate; and if it was found that the name of one under eighteen years
had been entered, they inflicted a penalty on the demotae who had
admitted him. For details how the youths spent the following two years,
see
EPHEBUS The account
continues:
φρουροῦσι δὲ τὰ δύο ἔτη . . .
καὶ ἀτελεῖς εἰσὶ πάντων καὶ δίκην οὔτε διδόασιν οὔτε
λαμβάνουσιν ἵνα μὴ πράγμασι συμμιγεῖεν (?)
τι, πλὴν περὶ κλήρον καὶ ἐπικλήρου, κἄν τινι
κατὰ τὸ γένος ἱερωσύνη γένηται. (This refers
probably to disputes as to who was entitled to the succession in a
priestly office: cf. 100.57 and Pollux, 8.90,
δίκαι δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν (
βασιλέα)
λαγχάνονται . . .
ἱερωσύνης ἀμφισβητήσεως). The second dokimasia on the
part of the senate is, it seems, only mentioned here. As regards the
ἀτέλεια, it is evident from Lys.
c. Diog. § 24, that orphans were at that
time released from liturgies only one year:
οὒς (
τοὺς ὀρφανοὺς）
ἣ πόλις οὐ μόνον παῖδας ὄντας
ἀτελεῖς ἐποίησεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπειδὰν δοκιμασθῶσιν, ἐνιαυτὸν
ἀφῆκεν ἁπασῶν τῶν λειτουργιῶν. The list of such
lawsuits is either not complete--for see the action in Lys.
c.
Theomn. ( § 4,
φαίνομαι
οὖν τρισκαιδεκαέτης ὤν, ὅτε ὁ πατὴρ ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα
ἀπέθνησκε: ταύτην δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἡλικίαν οὔτε . . . οὔτε
ἐκείνῳ ἀδικουμένῳ ἠδυνάμην βοηθῆσαι. §
31,
ὃς μόνος [of the brothers]
ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα ἐδοκιμάσθην, ἐπεξῆλθον
τοῖς τριάκοντα ἐν Ἀρείῳ Πάγῳ)--or it applies to
the writer's time only. The time of Lysias is referred to by
πρότερον in 100.60,
πρότερον δ᾽ ἐπώλει τὸν κάρπον ἡ πόλις; cf. Lys.
pro Olea sacr. § 2,
πρὸς τοὺς ἐωνημένους τοὺς κάρπους τῶς μοριῶν: but
the punishment mentioned there ( § § 3, 5, 26, 41) was
not death (p. 817
a; cf. also App. s. v.
STRATEGUS for the
date of the election of generals for special duties).
It is stated in 100.26 that in 451 B.C., on the
proposal of Pericles, it was decreed
μὴ μετέχειν
τῆς πόλεως ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστοῖν ᾖ
γεγονώς (cf. 100.13: among the followers of Pisistratus were
also
οἱ τῷ γένει μὴ καθαροί. The
account goes on:
σημεῖον δ᾽ ὅτι μετὰ τὴν τῶν
τυράννων κατάλυσιν [Mr. Kenyon]
ἐποίησαν διαφημισμὸν [Mr. Kenyon,
διαψηφισμὸν̣] ὡς πολλῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς
πολιτείας οὐ προσῆκον), and that the same law prevailed
in the time of the writer is said in 100.42. No mention is made in the
treatise of Aristophon's proposal in B.C. 403,
ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον εἶναι, and of
Nicomedes' amendment,
τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου
ἀνεξετάστους ἀφεῖσθαι, and we know that this became
law (Isae.
Cir. Her. § 43).
We find in 100.55 the proceedings at the dokimasia of the nine archons
fully described. The questions as to descent bear out Pollux's statement
(8.85,
εἰ Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσιν ἑκατέρωθεν ἐκ
τριγονίας); they were:
τίς σοι
πατὴρ καὶ πόθεν τῶν δήμων, καὶ τίς πατρὸς πατὴρ καὶ τίς
μήτηρ, καὶ τίς μητρὸς πατὴρ καὶ πόθεν τῶν δήμων: μετὰ δὲ
ταῦτα εἰ ἔστιν αὐτῷ Ἀπόλλων πατρῷος καὶ Ζεὺς
ἑρκεῖος καὶ ποῦ ταῦτα τὰ ἱερά ἐστιν, etc.
2. Roman.
Civitas means (1) “state,” in the sense of an independent
political society, or the whole body of cives or members of such a
society: civitates are defined by Cicero (
Somn. Scip. 3)
as “concilium coetusque hominum
jure
sociati:” cf.
Dig. 1,
1,
9; ib. 11; 1, 2, 2, 4.
(2)
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the Roman state (e.g.
in civitate, as distinct from
apud hostes, esse, decedere,
Dig. 28,
6,
28). (3) A
town within a
state, whether regarded as having a corporate existence (
Dig. 50,
16,
15; ib. 17, pr.; 30, 122, pr. &c.), or
merely from the geographical point of view (e.g.
theatra, loca sacra in civitate,
Dig. 1,
8,
6,
1:
in agro vel civitate rem soli possidere,
Dig. 2,
8,
15,
1). (4) The condition
or status of a Roman citizen: his rights and duties, as distinguished
from those of persons who are not Roman citizens; as in the common
phrases
civitatem dare, civitate donare, civitatem
usurpare. In this article it is proposed briefly to
examine what these rights and duties are ; how they are shared in
greater or less extent by different classes of persons who are members
of the Roman state; how they are acquired, and how they are lost.
Under the republic, citizens of Rome seem to be divisible into
“cives
optimo jure” and
“cives
non optimo jurc.” The
first, whether patricians or plebeians, enjoyed the full rights of
civitas, which were either public or private. The former are those known
as
suffragium and
honores,--the right of voting in the comitia (especially
the comitia tributa), whether in elections or on debates, and the
capacity to fill the praetorship, consulship, and other Roman
magistracies. The private rights of civitas are comprised under the two
heads of
commercium and
conubium,--commercium expressing capacity to take part in
the dispositions, and under the protection, of the civil law, whether
conveyances, contracts, testamentary matters, or litigation; while
conubium denotes capacity to enter into
a lawful Roman marriage, and thus to acquire
patria
potestas over its issue. The
cives non
optimo jure belong to one of these classes: (1) The
freedmen of a Roman citizen and their children (
Suet. Cl. 24); later (as will be seen), these possessed the
jus optimum in many cases, but under
the early republic it was not so. Though excluded from honores and from
the comitia of the tribes, they were privileged to vote in the comitia
centuriata. (2) Municipes, persons belonging to a city other than and at
least originally independent of Rome, upon which the
civitas Romana had been bestowed. Whether it retained its
independence, or whether it was simply regarded as a portion of the
Roman state ( “quorum civitas universa in civitatem Romanam
venit,” Paul. Diacon. ex Festo), the municipes had no share in
the
jus publicum. Livy (
38.36) says that until B.C. 188 the Formiani,
Fundani, and Arpinates had the civitas without the suffragium ; and at
an earlier time, the people of Anagnia received the “civitas sine
suffragii latione” (
Liv. 9.43).
See
COLONIA (3) Roman
citizens originally
optimo jure, on whom
loss of suffragium had been inflicted as a punishment. This resulted
from
INFAMIA or from the
action of the censors, who were empowered “civem tribu movere et
aerarium facere” for offences which seemed not considerable
enough to entail complete loss of civitas (
Gel.
16.13). They were not permitted to share in the honour of
military service, but in respect of the private rights they stood on the
same footing with
cives optimo jure.
This distinction of cives into those with and those without the
optimum jus will perhaps explain the opposition
which we sometimes find between the jus Quiritium and the civitas Romana
(especially in Pliny:
Ep. 10.4, 6, 22, 23, 105, 106; cf.
Ulpian,
Reg. 3, 2). When a
Latinus obtains Roman citizenship, he is most usually said to
get the jus Quiritium ; when a
peregrinus,
the term commonly used is civitas. The first expresses the difference
between a civis Romanus and other members of the Roman state.
Latini were such members; but from the term
peregrinus, no inference can be drawn
as to whether the individual is a subject of Rome or not.
In the time of the classical jurists, the free subjects of the Roman
state might be either
cives, Latini, or
peregrini (Ulpian,
Reg.
5, 4; 19, 4; 20, 8; 11, 6); and similarly (Gaius, 1.12) a slave might by
manumission become a member of any one of these classes, though his
peregrinitas would be a very restricted
and unenviable sort of freedom.
Civis,
according to Ulpian, is he who possesses the complete rights of a Roman
citizen, public as well as private. The
peregrinus
[p. 1.449]had none of the rights of civitas: but he
could contract a marriage which the law recognised for certain purposes;
he had rights of property protected by praetorian remedies; he could
make all the contracts of the
jus gentium
(including the “gentile” forms of stipulation, Gaius,
3.93), and could even execute a will which the law would sanction if
testamentary dispositions were in use in his own state. The condition of
Latinus was intermediate: he had no
conubium, and consequently he could not
exercise
patria potestas over his children
or found a Roman familia, nor as between his children was the tie of
agnation recognised,--they were cognates only; nor had he any of the
public rights of civitas. But the
commercium (unless he were a Latinus Junianus, of which
below) belonged to him in its fullest extent.
According to Savigny, the notion of civis and civitas had its origin in
the union of the patricians and plebeians as one estate. The
peregrinitas, in the sense above stated,
originated in the conquest of a state by the Romans, when the conquered
state did not obtain the civitas; and he conjectures that the notion of
peregrinitas was applied originally to
all citizens of foreign states which had a
foedus with Rome.
Civitas, then, historically viewed, was in brief as follows :--Originally
the Romans divided all persons into
cives
and
peregrini: apart from public rights,
the former had
conubium and
commercium; the
peregrini had neither. But it does not follow that the
peregrinus was entirely destitute of
rights. He had no legal capacity according to the
jus
civile, and it is by the
jus
civile that civitas is determined; but he had a capacity of
acquiring rights under the
jus gentium as
expounded in the praetor's edict, and these rights the Roman tribunals,
being under the praetor's control, gradually recognised and protected.
Thus the following would be
peregrini: (1)
before the time of Caracalla, the inhabitants of almost all the Roman
provinces; (2) the citizens of foreign states who were in friendly
relation with Rome,--in the language of modern law, “alien
amis;” (3) Romans who had lost the civitas by
capitis deminutio minor [
CAPUT]; (4) freedmen who were
dediticiorum numero (Ulpian,
Reg. 20, 14;
Gaius, 1.13).
Between these two classes of
Latini and
peregrini, a third (
Latini) is interposed in the course of history. Latinitas
denotes originally the legal condition of members of the Latin
confederation (unless their city had been raised to the rank of a
municipium), and of the numerous
coloniae
Latinae: such persons had none of the public rights of
civitas, nor had they the
conubium; but the
commercium was theirs. By the Leges
Julia and Plautia Papiria, following upon the Social War (B.C. 90), the
Roman citizenship was extended to all Italy, properly so called, and
even to Gallia Cispadana. But Latinitas did not therefore disappear. The
practice had perhaps already been instituted by conferring Latinitas or
jus Latii on allied or subject towns whom Rome wished to honour or
propitiate; at any rate, even after natives of Latium and members of the
Latin colonies had become cives under the two statutes mentioned, it was
common to make a grant of this semi-citizenship (which conveyed simple
commercium) to towns in the provinces.
Latinity thus has no longer any ethnic or geographical signification; it
means simply a particular legal capacity. After the Lex Junia Norbana
(A.D. 19) had provided that slaves manumitted in certain informal ways,
or manumitted so as not to become cives, should have Latinitas, they
were called Latini Juniani, but the statute expressly withdrew from them
the element of the
commercium, which would
have enabled them to make, witness, or take under a will (Gaius,
1.22-24). [
LATINITAS]
The commonest way in which civitas was acquired was birth. Children born
of a
legitimum matrimonium (i. e. lawful
wedlock between two cives, or between a
civis
Romanus and a
Latina or
peregrina upon whom
conubium had been specially conferred: Ulpian,
Reg. 5.3, 4) were born cives. If there was not
conubium between husband and wife, but the
latter was a civis, the issue were cives unless the husband was a
peregrinus:
“non interveniente conubio [liberi] matris condicioni accedunt,
excepto eo qui ex peregrino et cive Romana nascitur; nam is
peregrinus nascitur, quoniam lex Minicia ex alterutro peregrino
natum deterioris parentis condicionem sequi jubet” (Ulpian,
Reg. 5.8, 9); the general rule, where there was not
conubium, being “partus sequitur
ventrem.” Slaves would become cives by being manumitted in
one of the statutory modes (
vindicta, censu,
testamento), unless the case was one in which the Lex
Aelia Sentia restricted the
libertus to a
lower status (Gaius, 1.13, 18, 21, 27). A
Latinus could rise to the status of civitas in a variety of
ways: by filling a magistracy in his own colonia Latina (Gaius, 1.95);
by marrying a
civis or
Latina before seven witnesses and begetting a child who
lived a year, and proving these facts before a magistrate (Gaius, 1.66);
by marrying a
peregrina, believing her to
be a
civis, and proving his mistake (
“erroris causae probatio,” Gaius, 1.67); for other
modes see the succeeding paragraphs of Gaius (ib. 35; Ulpian,
Reg. 3.1-6; Cod. 9, 24, 1, 4).
Upon
peregrini and
Latini (except
liberti
dediticii, Gaius, 1.26) civitas could always of course be
conferred by statute: for examples, see
Liv.
6.4,
34.42;
Cic. pro Balb. 13 Cicero (ib. 8, 21) remarks
that many of the people of Heracleia and Neapolis made some opposition
to accepting the terms offered by the Lex Julia (B.C. 90), and would
have preferred their former relation to Rome as
civitates foederatae to the Roman civitas. That statute
gave the civitas not only to the natives of the Italian towns, but also
to natives of towns out of Italy who had become citizens of Italian
towns before it was enacted. Thus, L. Manlius (
Cic. Fam. 13.3. 0), a native of Catina
in Sicily, obtained the Roman civitas by virtue of having been enrolled
as a citizen of Neapolis (
erat enim in id municipium
adscriptus) before that date. The Lex Plautia Papiria,
passed a year later, contained a provision that persons who had been
enrolled as citizens of the
foederatae
civitates, and who had a domicile in Italy at that moment,
should have the Roman civitas if they gave in their names to the praetor
within sixty days ( “apud praetorem essent professi,” Cic.
pro Archia, 4, 7). Archias claimed the
benefit of this statute as having been enrolled a citizen of Heraclea,
and having in the other respects satisfied its conditions. But the
relation between the Leges Julia and Plautia
[p. 1.450]Papiria is differently represented by Dr. Merivale (
Fall of the
Roman Republic, chap. iii.), who thinks that the former gave
the civitas only to Umbria, Etruria, and the southern extremities of the
Italian peninsula, while the latter extended it to all the other Italian
allies and Gallia Cispadana.
Under the empire, when the political rights of the citizen had ceased to
have any value, and the personal will of the emperor had practically
become the sole legislative organ, he was privileged (
inter alia) to bestow the civitas on whomsoever he
pleased, except
dediticii liberti: though
as the gift of it to a Latinus Junianus would prejudice the patron, the
interests of the latter were guarded by an edict of Trajan (Gaius,
3.72). The extent to which the earlier emperors exercised this power was
dwarfed by the edict of Caracalla (A.D. 211-217), which conferred the
civitas on all
Latini and
peregrini then living under the sway of Rome
(
Dig. 1,
5,
17), though these classes were at once in some
measure replenished by manumission of slaves, the Leges Aelia Sentia and
Junia Norbana not having been abrogated. Under the later emperors, the
progressive absorption of the
jus civile in
the
jus gentium, or the substitution of the
latter in all departments of private law for the former, tended more and
more to minimise the importance of the distinction between
cives and
non
cives. Justinian speaks of
dediticia
libertas (practically the only form of
peregrinitas in his empire) as extinct before his time
(Cod. 7, 5), and the Latina libertas (of which he says few examples were
to be found:
Inst. 1.5, 3) he extinguished with the
repeal of the Lex Junia Norbana (Cod. 7, 6), so that in the 6th century
the last trace of the distinctions between freemen in respect of civitas
had disappeared, and all subjects were either cives or slaves.
(Savigny,
Zeitschrift, &c. vol. v. “Ueber
die Entstehung, &c. der Latinität;” vol.
ix., “Der römische Volksschluss der Tafel von Heraklea
;” vol. xi., “Nachträge zu früheren
Arbeiten:
System des heutigen römischen
Rechts,” vol. ii. p. 27, &c.; Puchta,
Institutionen, § § 62-65,
216-218.)
[
J.B.M]
