UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The citizenship law of Perokles, 451/0 B.C. Papageogiou, Antiope P. 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-0461.pdf [ 6.14MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088276.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088276-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088276-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088276-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088276-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088276-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088276-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088276-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088276.ris

Full Text

THE CITIZENSHIP LAW OF PERIKLES, 451/0 B.C by ANTIOPE P. PAPAGEORGIOU B.A., McMaster U n i v e r s i t y , 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f C l a s s i c s We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY'OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 199 7 © A n t i o p e P. Pa p a g e o r g i o u , 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for, financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of LU<2M/C$ ' The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada • a t e a.zrL Mci^r mi. DE-6 (2788) Abstract The idea for thi s paper originated from a seminar given on the restoration of democracy at Athens and the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n agreement of 403/2 B.C.. The re-affirmation of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law i n that year prompted me to explore the reasons for i t s introduction i n 451/0 B.C., and, subsequently, to make i the subject of my Masters thesis. I have divided the paper into three chapters. Chapter One functions as an introduction to the sources on Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law and to the Athenian concept of ci t i z e n s h i p . In Chapter Two, I consider the question whether there was a precedent for the law. Accordingly, I explore the evidence for the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership, most of which i s in d i r e c t and involves an examination of the admission procedures of the phratry and deme. F i n a l l y , Chapter Three i s devoted e n t i r e l y to Pe r i k l e s 1 c i t i z e n s h i p law, to the effects i t must have had on the admission procedures of phratry and deme, and to the reasons behind i t s introduction. Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Abbreviations iv Chapter One Introduction 1 Chapter Two Citizenship Before 451/0 B.C. 19 Chapter Three Perikles ' Citizenship Law •. 86 Bibliography 12 5 - i i i -L i s t of Abbreviations I. Ancient Sources AP [ A r i s t o t l e ] AQHNAIflN ITOAITEIA . M. Chambers, ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner Verlagsgessellschaft, 1986. Aesch. Aeschines And. Andokides Ar. A r i s t o t l e A r i s t . Aristophanes Dem. Demosthenes Eur. Euripides Hdt. Herodotos Horn. Homer Is. Isaios Isok. Isokrates Lys. Lysias Philo. Philochoros Plut. Plutarch Thuc. Thucydides Xen. Xenophon II. Modern Sources ABS A AJAH AJP ATL CA C£ Gomme Essays H Harrison LA Annual of the B r i t i s h School at Athens The American Journal of Ancient History American Journal of Philology B.D. Meritt, H.T. Wade-Gery, & M.F. McGregor The Athenian.Tribute L i s t s , v o l . I I I . Princeton: The American School of C l a s s i c a l Studies at Athens, 1950. Cl a s s i c a l Antiquity C l a s s i c a l Quarterly A.W. Gomme Essays i n Greek History and Literature. Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1937. H i s t o r i a A.H.W. Harrison The Law of Athens. vol I: The Family and Property; v o l . II: Procedure. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968 and 1971. - i v -Hignett HAC Jacoby FGrH C. Hignett A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the F i f t h Century B.C.. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1952. Die Fragmente der griechischen His t o r i k e r . B e r l i n & Leiden, 1923-JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies Lambert Phratries LCM MacDowell LCA S.D. Lambert The Phratries of A t t i c a . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1993. Liverpool C l a s s i c a l Monthly D.M. MacDowell The Law of C l a s s i c a l Athens. London: Thames & Hudson, 1978 Meiggs Empire R. Meiggs The Athenian Empire. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1979. ML R. Meiggs & D.M. Lewis A Selection of Greek H i s t o r i c a l Inscriptions to the End of the F i f t h Century B.C.. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1989. Ogden Greek Bastardy D. Ogden Greek Bastardy i n the C l a s s i c a l and H e l l e n i s t i c Periods. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1996. Osborne Naturalization M.J. Osborne Naturalization i n Athens, v o l . I; v o l . II: Commentaries on the Decrees Granting Citizenship. Brussels Paleis der Academien, 1981 and 1982. Patterson PCL C.B. Patterson P e r i c l e s ' Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.. New York: The Arno Press, 1981 . Rhodes Commentary P.J. Rhodes A Commentary on the A r i s t o t e l i a n Athenaion P o l i t e i a . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1981 Wade-Gery Essays H.T. Wade-Gery Essays i n Greek History, Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1958. Whitehead Demes D. Whitehead The Demes of A t t i c a 508/7-ca. 250 B.C.: A P o l i t i c a l and Social Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. -v-Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik - v i -1 Chapter One: Introduction In 451/0 B.C., Perikles i s said to have introduced a law pertaining to c i t i z e n s h i p . There are only three ancient authors who have made reference to this law, the context and phrasing of which are given somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y . AP 26.4 places the law i n the context of other cons t i t u t i o n a l changes made during the 450's B.C., and phrases i t as follows: ...eni 'AvxiSoxou Sict xb nXrjeoc x<5v noA.tx5v nepucXec-Di; E I J I O V X O I ; ty\(aaa\ u.ri Hexexeiv XT{C itoXewc $c Sv U T | &\i§di\ aaxoTv ij, ytyovmq. Plutarch's account focuses on the story concerning Perikles' return to public l i f e and the exceptional admission into the c i t i z e n body of his voGoc-son by Aspasia, who had once been barred from ci t i z e n s h i p because of the law.^ He also connects the law to the Egyptian grain g i f t of 445/4 B.C., and simply gives what seems to be a paraphrase of i t : otKua^ wv o nepiKXrjc EV xtj noXixeia npo navD noXXav xpov©v Kai nccTSac e'x<»v Stanep eYpnxcti YVTJOIODC, vonov eypotye, novouc, 'A8T|vaio\>c. etvai xotic EK SDETV "AeTrvcuov yeyovoxotc.^  Aelian makes reference to the law three times i n Varia H i s t o r i a and discusses i t i n the context of Perikles' son by Aspasia being granted c i t i z e n s h i p , as Plutarch does. He does not, however, l i n k the law to the Egyptian grain g i f t , and his phrasing of i t i s d i f f e r e n t in a l l three passages. At 6.10, the phraseology of Perikles 37 . 2-5. Plut. Perikles 37.3. 2 the law appears as f o l l o w s : nepucXtv; OTPOITTIYSV 'Aetjvaioic, vojiov eYpayev, lav n?| xifyn. n$ an<|>oiv •onapxov aaxSv, xoiix© ur| uexevvat XTJC, noXtxeiac,. At 13 .24 , A e l i a n w r i t e s : Kai nep\KX,f)Q typayt \ir[ eivai 'AQTjvatov, oc, \ \ au^oiv Y e Y o v e v 3toxo?v. A n d , i n f r . 6 8 (=Suda, s . v . Stiuoitovnxoc,) , the law appears as f o l l o w s : nepucX,f\c, Y«P 5 Sav6initoi), vop.ov ypayac, xov HT| If; a".(J>o7v &a%\>noXhf\\ \ir\ etvai... The p h r a s i n g o f the law i n 6.10 and 13.24 i s c l o s e to t h a t o f AP 26 .4 , but t h a t o f f r . 6 8 does not appear e l s ewhere . The t h r e e sources do, however, agree on the content o f the law: i n o r d e r to be an A t h e n i a n c i t i z e n , one had to be born o f two A t h e n i a n s . The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a law s t i p u l a t i n g what seems to be a q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r c i t i z e n s h i p has r a i s e d s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the reasons b e h i n d i t s enactment i n 451/0 B . C . , s i n c e none o f the s o u r c e s , except AP 26 .4 , o f f e r s a m o t i v e . A P ' s s tatement t h a t the law was enacted 5ia xo nXtjOoc, xov noXvxSv w i l l be examined i n Chapter Three a l o n g w i t h the accounts o f P l u t a r c h and A e l i a n . The chapter w i l l a l s o examine t h e o r i e s o f f e r e d by modern s c h o l a r s h i p , and w i l l at tempt to o f f e r a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e f o r i t s enactment by the A t h e n i a n s at t h i s p o i n t i n t h e i r h i s t o r y . The law, however, a l s o r a i s e s more fundamental q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g A t h e n i a n c i t i z e n s h i p . For example, was t h e r e a p r e c e d e n t f o r such a law? A n d , i f n o t , what was i t p r e c i s e l y t h a t de termined and d i s t i n g u i s h e d an A t h e n i a n from a n o n -3 Athenian? Furthermore, how was ci t i z e n s h i p perceived by, and what did i t mean to, an Athenian? The phrases nexe'xeiv x\\c, KOXEQC, of AP 26.4 and nexeTvou XT|C, rcoXixeiac, of Aelian 6.10 refer to what we would term c i t i z e n s h i p , and reveal something about the Athenian concept. The verbs nexe'xeiv and ".exeivai suggest that c i t i z e n s h i p was perceived as membership i n the polis-community, or in the p o l i t e i a • And, i f we consider c i t i z e n s h i p i n these terms, i t i s important to distinguish between what one needed to become a member of that community, and what one had once one was a member. That i s , one must distinguish between the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for, and the c r i t e r i a of, membership. The phrases n.exexeiv n6Xeo>c, and nexeTvat xtfc, itoXixeiai;, however, do not appear to be synonymous. Thucydides uses p o l i t e i a most often to mean either "form of government" or "control of the state." At 2.37, Perikles c a l l s the Athenian p o l i t e i a a democracy, suggesting that p o l i t e i a denotes "form of government".'1 At 8.74.3, Thucydides uses the phrase e^ eiv XT^V noXixetav of the 400 at Athens, suggesting that p o l i t e i a here i s to be understood as "control of a f f a i r s " or "control of the state."^ Phrases such I have borrowed this d i s t i n c t i o n from Lambert Phratries 26-27 . ''The texts in which jtoA,ixe/a i s used to denote the form of government are too many to examine here. See, for example, Thuc. 1.18.1, 8.97.2; Is.3.15; Ar . Pol. 1275a26-27 , 1289al6; AP 2.2; 9.'2; 28.5. 5cf.Rhodes Commentary 244-245 on his interpretation of AP 20 . 1. 4 as "to give the p o l i t e i a " (XT|V noA,ixeiotv napa5o5vcu) and "to have a share i n the p o l i t e i a " (nexexeiv/uexeTvai xiv; JtoXixetcec) seem to be used i n contexts concerning measures to grant, or take away, ci t i z e n s h i p . For example, i n r e f e r r i n g to the grant of ci t i z e n s h i p to the Plataians i n 427 B.C., Demosthenes asks the Athenians to remember the circumstances i n which they gave the noXixeia to them: xou; otv oiixco <t>avep5c evSe5etYHevoi<; xiyv cSvoiav x5 5TJU©, KCU npc-eu.evoi<; arcavxa xa: a\)X©v KCU nouBac KOU* YVVCUKO:<;, it&Xiv CKOiteixe JI5C p,exe8oxe xfjc noX,ixeia<;.' Mexexeiv/nexeivai xtfc noA,ixeiac, however, i s also used of "those who have p o l i t i c a l rights under a p a r t i c u l a r (especially a non-democratic) regime"^, and does not seem to denote c i t i z e n s h i p i n a s t r i c t sense. At 30.15, Lysias describes those Athenians who were not among the 3000 as ov> nexao/ovxac xtv; itoXixeiac and Xenophon, though using a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t phrase (nexe'xeiv TxpaynaxSv), seems to be describing the same si t u a t i o n : namely, only those among the 3000 are to be f u l l c i t i z e n s with p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s ; those not among them are to be c i t i z e n s without p o l i t i c a l 0 rights. That the same phrase i s used i n one instance to denote ci t i z e n s h i p and i n another to denote p o l i t i c a l rights under a non-democratic regime reveals the reciprocal relationship between 6Dem. 59.104; cf. 105 and 106; Thuc.3.55.3; AP 13.5; 40.2; 42.1; Plut. Perikles. 37.3; and IG II^IO w i l l be discussed l a t e r . See C. Mosse, La f i n de l a democratie athenienne. (Paris: Presses Univer s i t a i r e s de France, 1962) 141-144. ^Rhodes Commentary 158. 8Hell.2.3.8; Rhodes Commentary 448. Cf. Lys. 34.3. p o l i t e i a as ci t i z e n s h i p and p o l i t e i a as form of government. In the Athenian democracy, every male c i t i z e n could say nete'x© ^ jtokueiac, that he participated i n the form of government to some degree. His cit i z e n s h i p was defined by the fact that he was abl to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the decision-making process, and i t was his p a r t i c i p a t i o n that defined the p o l i t e i a as democratic. In contrast to t h i s , during the rule of the 400, only the 400 could say that they p,exexoi>ci XTIC jioXixet'otc, since they were the only ones p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the decision-making process, and i t was thei r p a r t i c i p a t i o n which determined and defined the type of a p o l i t e i a . Thus, those who were not a part of thi s body could not say that they U X X E X O D G I XT|C jioXixeiac, since they did not part i c i p a t e i n that p a r t i c u l a r form of p o l i t e i a . This i s not to say, however, that they were not c i t i z e n s ; they were c i t i z e n s with no p o l i t i c a l power. To summarize, then, we could say that, when uexe'xeiv xffc noXuetctc i s used to denote c i t i z e n s h i p , i t has, p r i n c i p a l l y , a p o l i t i c a l tone and implies p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the decision-making procedures of the state. In other words, i t denotes, above a l l else, the c r i t e r i a of membership. It has been suggested that uexexeiv xtjc noXeoc, may be the older expression for nexexeiv XT[C itoXixei'ac, and i t s cognates. 1" The phrase Q If they had been registered, the 5000 would have, supposedly been able to say this as well. 10Rhodes Commentary 158-159. 6 c e r t a i n l y does appear i n a law attributed to Solon by the AP;11 i t does not, however, seem to carry the same p o l i t i c a l tone as does uexexeiv xrjc, noXixeiac,. Instead, i t i s used i n a wider context, and appears to denote membership i n the community as a whole, i n i t s d a i l y l i f e and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , i n i t s r e l i g i o u s cults and ceremonies. In Demosthenes 57, for example, the speaker, who i s appealing a decision which denied him c i t i z e n status, says he w i l l show that he i s e n t i t l e d to c i t i z e n s h i p , and uses the phrase p,excW XTV; no\ea>c,.^ Later i n the speech, he uses x5 jtpoctfKeiv not xr\c, noXeoc, to refer to c i t i z e n status.^ The speaker i s not f i g h t i n g against a decision to l i m i t his p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s , for which he would have probably used a variant of p.exe'xeiv trie, noXixeicn;; he i s contesting a decision which denied him membership i n the community as a whole. In a speech against Andokides, the speaker attacks him for his attempts to re-enter public l i f e and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , for his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Eleusinian Mysteries: ""AvSoKiStic, 8e otnaG^ c, xoitoov xSv KCHCSV YEVCVEVOC, <o\)8ev cronpaA,oVevoc,> etc xfyv a<Dxrip(av xrj jtaxpiSi, aijioT vuv\ p,exexew xr|c, noXeoc,, ctoepSv Iv awxTJ. ^ Thus , though both uexexeiv xtv; noXecoc, and p,exexeiv xtjc, noXixe/ac. mean ci t i z e n s h i p , the former seems to refer to membership i n the ^AP 8.5, to be discussed below, 12. 12Dem.57.1; cf.39.1. 13Dem. 57 . 2 . ^Lys.6.48. cf.Dem. 59.111 where the speaker, Apollodoros, states that the most prudent of women would be angry i f Neaira and her daughter were acquitted Stem onoioc, onjxcuc, xawtyv Kaxr^iome nexexetv xov xtfc, noXewc; Kca xSv tepwv. community as a whole, whereas the l a t t e r to p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i n the community. To what degree, then, could an inhabitant of archaic A t t i k a say \ktx£xa noA,e©c, and p.exex© ™K rcoXixeictc,? In a society which i s largely decentralized and a r i s t o c r a t i c , as Att i k a of the seventh and early s i x t h centuries B.C. c e r t a i n l y was, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to find anything i n which everyone participated. It i s clear from Drakon's homicide law, however, that the fear of p o l l u t i o n was f e l t by a l l the inhabitants of At t i k a , who shared the same re l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , and that i t was f e l t to such an extent that laws concerning the proper procedures for avenging homicide were written.* 5 Lines 25-30 of the law reveal that the o f f i c i a l name for those who would have been affected by the p o l l u t i o n was ov 'AQrivaibt, and also point towards a c r i t e r i o n of membership i n that group: namely, having the right to have one's murder avenged. 1 6 Furthermore, these same li n e s suggest that there was some way of determining and distinguishing one who was an Athenian from one who was not. Indeed, since the law provides that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for avenging the murder of an Athenian, who had no r e l a t i v e s up to the degree of second cousin, f a l l s only on ten members of the victim's phratry, i t c l e a r l y implies that anyone who was Cf. F.J. Frost, "Aspects of Early Athenian Citizenship." i n Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 48-9. 1 6Text of R. Stroud, Drakon's Law on Homicide. (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1968) 5-6. 8 considered an Athenian belonged to a phratry. One may i n f e r from this that i t was membership in a phratry which determined one's membership in the community as a whole.^ From Drakon's homicide law, i t seems that the phratry occupied that middle ground between i n d i v i d u a l o i k o i and the polis-community, assuming the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the family when necessary. Its role i n early Athenian society and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , i t s admission procedures w i l l be examined i n Chapter Two. As such, the chapter w i l l also investigate the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for membership, and w i l l attempt to determine whether there was a precedent for P e r i k l e s 1 law. AP 2 presents a picture of Athenian society before Solon as one divided between the gnorimoi and the poor, and attests to the existence of a group of individuals known as hektemoroi. But, was the hektemor included as a member of the community or, did he exist outside of i t ? The hektemoroi were most l i k e l y "men in a 18 feudal state of hereditary serfdom," working the land and paying one-sixth of their produce to the l o c a l overlord i n exchange for his protection. They were always at his mercy; i f a hektemor f a i l e d to pay the one-sixth, he and his family could be seized and sold into slavery, his land being at the disposal of ^No other provisions are made by the law, implying that every Athenian at least had phrateres. See Stroud, Ibid 11. 13-20. 18 Rhodes Commentary 94. 9 19 the overlord. AP 2 does, however, imply that hektemoroi were Athenian. Accordingly, they would have belonged to a phratry and, as such, would have been protected under the homicide law, provided that they had not been sold into slavery. For, i f they 20 had, they would have l o s t t h e i r membership i n the phratry. One should emphasize, however, their dependent status and, in fact, the dependent status of other Athenians. If we accept AP 2, i t seems that most Athenians were dependent economically on the gnorimoi, or had actually been enslaved for debt, since loans 21 were taken on the security of the person before Solon. Economic dependency, however, was not the only form of dependency. AP 2.1 describes the p o l i t e i a of Athens before Solon's reforms as being o l i g a r c h i c and, at 2.3, states that no one besides the gnorimoi had a share i n anything, neither i n the wealth of the land, nor i n j u s t i c e . There were no p o l i t i c a l c r i t e r i a of membership i n the community; a l l o f f i c e s were held ' f 11 &PIO-TIV8TVV and jdoirnvSirv, and i t i s doubtful that there was any p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the part of the plethos i n the selection of these magistrates. Indeed, Solon's statement that some Athenians 10 I have accepted the view of Rhodes, Commentary 90-95, contra A. French, "The Economic Background to Solon's Reforms." CQ_ 6 (1956) 11-25. 20 Dem. 57.18-23 provides an i n t e r e s t i n g view of this process. Euxitheos' father, he argues, had been taken prisoner and sold into slavery during the Dekeleian war; when he returned to At t i k a , he was received back into his family, phratry, and deme. 2 1 P l u t . Solon 13 . 4-5 . 22AP 3.1. 10 had been enslaved l e g a l l y , others i l l e g a l l y , indicates that there was no equal share of j u s t i c e for everyone; most Athenians were at the mercy of the gnorimoi. Furthermore, one should emphasize that most Athenians probably f e l t a deeper sense of belonging i n , and l o y a l t y to, the l o c a l i t y where they l i v e d and to t h e i r phratry than to the polis-community as a whole. But even i n these areas the gnorimoi would have played a dominant rol e . 2 4 One would presume that, after Solon's reforms, every Athenian f e l t to a greater extent that he was a part of the polis-community. To be sure, Solon's cancellation of debts probably would have released the hektemor from his obligation and 25 other Athenians who risked enslavement. Furthermore, by forbidding loans to be taken on the security of the person, Solon, e s s e n t i a l l y , prevented Athenians from becoming slaves at the hands of other Athenians, thereby creating a legal boundary between slave and free, and defining to a greater extent the "AP 12.4. This i s suggested by the fact that, i n cases where a homicide vic t i m was to be represented by ten members of his phratry, these members were chosen cepicTiv8r|v (text of R. Stroud, Drakon's Law on Homicide. (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1968) 11. 13-20), implying that there were members who were not a r i s t o i . 25AP 6.1; Plut. Solon 15.2-16.4. On ' the cancellation of debts possibly including the obligation of the hektemoroi to pay a sixth of their produce, see Rhodes Commentary 126. I think that Rhodes must be correct i n t h i s , since we no longer hear of the hektemor after Solon. 11 meaning of being a member of the polis-community. Under Solon, the p o l i t i c a l c r i t e r i a of membership were s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased as well. Athenians were divided into four te l e according to wealth, and each c i t i z e n ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the 27 p o l i t e i a was determined by the telos to which he belonged. Those who belonged to the highest telos, the pentakosiomedimnoi, were e l i g i b l e for the archonship and other high o f f i c e s ; those who belonged to the lowest, the thetes, were, along with everyone 28 else, to partake i n the ekklesia. In addition to these p o l i t i c a l c r i t e r i a , Solon granted the right for any Athenian who wished to bring s u i t on behalf of an injured party i n order to encourage members to sympathize with one another and to regard 29 themselves as a single body. Indeed, this attempt on Solon's part can also be seen i n his law on s t a s i s , which stipulates that anyone who does not take one side or another in times of c i v i l "AP 6.1, 9.1; Plut. Solon 15.2-16.4; P.B. Manville, The Origins of Citizenship i n Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 132-133. 27 It i s probable that the tel e were not a Solonian invention, but had existed before, as AP 7.3 states. R. Sealey, "Regionalism in Archaic Athens," i n Essays i n Greek P o l i t i c s . (New York: Manyland Books, Inc., 1967) 14-15, argues that the importance of Solon was that he wrote down previously e x i s t i n g laws; cf. Rhodes, Commentary 137, who suggests that the pentakosiomedimnoi-class was created by Solon as the richest of the hippeis and that the tele were given "a precise d e f i n i t i o n and a p o l i t i c a l function" (137). 28AP 7.3-8; Plut. Solon 16.5-19. Plut. Solon 18.5 12 s t r i f e i s to be declared an atimos, and xrjc, itoXeac, \ix\ p,exexeiv.3" The purpose of this law seems' to have been to encourage Athenians not to be i n d i f f e r e n t to the problems of the p o l l s , but to take an active role and f i g h t for the side they believed to be best for 31 the community as a whole. The degree to which every Athenian would have taken an active role i n p o l i t i c a l l i f e cannot be known for certain. Solon's admittance of the thetes to the ekklesia i s probably one of the most important co n s t i t u t i o n a l changes he made, and one 32 which was to a l t e r the f a b r i c of society as a whole. But, the tele-system seems to have maintained the same inequality which had existed among Athenians before his reforms, and there seems to have been l i t t l e attempt to a l l e v i a t e the economic dependency 33 f e l t by so many. To be sure, those who were economically dependent before his reforms would have s t i l l been so after and, as such, would have found themselves under obligation to a AP 8.5. If atimia meant exclusion time i n Athenian law, i t confirms the above XTI<; noXeoc, (see 3-7). 3 1 P l u t . Solon 20. 1. 32 There i s only one reference to a meeting of the ekklesia, which dates to the period shortly before P e i s i s t r a t o s ' rule (Hdt.1.59; AP 14). This does not necessarily mean, however, that the ekklesia was not assembled very often. 33 Cf. F.J. Frost, "Aspects of Early Athenian Citizenship." i n Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 50-1. from membership at this i nterpretation of u.exe'xeiv 13 wealthy landowner again. Plutarch, however, states that Solon encouraged Athenians to turn towards tekhnai i n order to stimulate trade and the economy, and i t i s possible that some 35 did. According to Plutarch, he also permitted foreigners, who were either i n permanent e x i l e from th e i r own country, or who had come to Athens epi tekhne, to become Athenian c i t i z e n s , presumably to stimulate trade and the economy. We s h a l l return to these enfranchisements i n Chapter Two. To what extent, then, would an Athenian have considered himself a member of the polis-community aft e r Solon's reforms? The law on stasis and the right of anyone who wished to bring s u i t on behalf of an injured party can be seen as attempts on Solon's part to create a sense of p o l i s - s p i r i t among Athenians. But, there was, e s s e n t i a l l y , no common bond f e l t by a l l ; most probably s t i l l f e l t a stronger sense of belonging i n , and l o y a l t y to, t h e i r phratry and to those individuals who were most i n f l u e n t i a l i n the region i n which they l i v e d . It would not R. Sealey, "Regionalism i n Archaic Athens," i n Essays i n Greek P o l i t i c s . (New York: Manyland Books, Inc., 1967) 17. 3 5 P l u t . Solon 22. 3 6 I b i d 24.4. 37 Cf. F.J. Frost, "Aspects of Early Athenian Citizenship." in Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 50-1. A case i n point would be the factions led by Megakles, Lykourgos, and P e i s i s t r a t o s , which, AP 13.4 states, got th e i r names from the regions i n which they farmed. See R. Sealey, "Regionalism in Archaic Athens," i n Essays on Greek P o l i t i c s . (New York: Manyland Books, Inc., 1967) 16-19; cf. W.R. Connor, "The Problem of Athenian C i v i c Identity." i n Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins 14 be u n t i l the rule of the P e i s i s t r a t i d s that many Athenians f e l t a sense of belonging to the polis-community. Under their rule, the Athenians had enjoyed a period of r e l a t i v e peace, which had l e f t the Solonian law code untouched, and had aided i n the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of the government. The p o l i t i c a l c r i t e r i a of membership granted by Solon would have taken root and probably would have been exercised by more individuals as the s p i r i t of belonging to a p o l i s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y promoted and established by the c u l t i v a t i o n of important r e l i g i o u s f e s t i v a l s , such as the Panathenaia, and by the development of the central space--the 39 agora. The author of the AP informs us that, after the f a l l of the tyranny, the Athenians conducted a diapsephismos because many individuals were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the noXiteiot who should not have been, and i d e n t i f i e s these men as the T © yt\ti U T | Kct6ccpoi i n University Press, 1994) 38-40. 3 8Hdt.l.59.6. 50 Probably one of the most symbolic buildings of the u n i f i c a t i o n of Att i k a under the P e i s i s t r a t i d s i s the A l t a r of the Twelve Gods, from which a l l distances in and around Athens were measured (J.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora: Excavations i n the Heart of C l a s s i c a l Athens. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986) 37-38). The importance of this a l t a r i s not only that i t established the agora as the centre of the p o l i s , but, perhaps, i t also symbolized the u n i f i c a t i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l twelve poleis of early Attika (Philo. 328 F94); cf. Thuc.2.15. Also, Hipparchos was credited with the system of hermai i n the network of roads which radiated from the agora. 15 P e i s i s t r a t o s ' o r i g i n a l following/" There are only two other such reviews of the c i t i z e n body attested i n Athenian history. After the Egyptian grain g i f t in 445/4 B.C., the issue of who was and who was not an Athenian resulted i n some type of scrutiny, though i t s exact procedure i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r . ^ The scrutiny of 346/5 B.C. i s attested to have taken place within the demes to ensure that a l l i t s members s a t i s f i e d the required q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and i s c a l l e d a diapsephisis. AP does not give any indication how and when, pre c i s e l y , the diapsephismos after the f a l l of the tyranny was conducted, and seems to have thought that those deprived of membership were la t e r enfranchised by Kleisthenes. A r i s t o t l e also credits Kleisthenes with the enfranchisement of itoA,X,o\>c ^VODC <a\ SOAODC UETOIKOUC a f t e r the f a l l of the tyranny.^ E f f o r t s to i d e n t i f y these men have come to the conclusion that they must have been the immigrant craftsmen previously enfranchised by Solon, possibly also mercenaries enfranchised by P e i s i s t r a t o s , who had been denied their c i t i z e n status by the diapsephismos•^ AP's statement that Kleisthenes *"AP_ 13.5. This p a r t i c u l a r passage seems to associate the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s with the c r i t e r i a of membership; i t w i l l be discussed i n f u l l i n Chapter Two. 4 1 P h i l o . 328 F119; Plut. Perikles 37.3-4. 4 2Androtion F52; Ath.1.77; Dem.57.26. 4 3 AP 21.4. ^ P o l i t i c s 1275b34-39. For the mercenaries hired during P e i s i s t r a t o s ' rule, Hdt.1.61, 1.64; AP 15.2-3, 19.5. ^Rhodes Commentary 255-256. brought the demos to his side by proposing anoSiSouc, xS nXn,6ei xtyv noTuxieiav has led some to believe that he was proposing to give back the c i t i z e n s h i p to those who had l o s t it.*** But the author of the AP seems to have thought that one of the purposes of Kleisthenes' reforms was to hide those newly-enfranchised. 4 7 Clearly t h i s interpretation i s misguided. That the diapsephismos even had to be a purging of the c i t i z e n l i s t s may be an anachronistic assumption on AP's part; i t could have merely been an account of c i t i z e n numbers i n i t i a t e d by Kleisthenes for his reforms. Rather, Kleisthenes' reforms, based on the p r i n c i p l e of isonomia, that i s , of p o l i t i c a l equality,*'' seem to have been an attempt to ensure the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of more c i t i z e n s i n the decision-making process of the s t a t e / " By dividing the c i t i z e n body into ten t r i b e s , composed of three t r i t t y e s , one from each of the three regions of A t t i k a ( c i t y , inland, coast) and based on the l o c a l unit, the deme, the reforms not only had 46AP 20.1; cf. P.B. Manville, The Origins of Citizenship i n Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 185-190. 47AP 21. A. 10 P. Harding, Androtion and the At t h i s . (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) 177; cf. J. T r a i l , The P o l i t i c a l Organization of A t t i c a . Hesperia 40 (1971) 280-301. 49 M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) 96-173. 5 0Thus, I agree with Rhodes (Commentary 250) i n interpreting AP 21.2^ s p e c i f i c a l l y the words avcc(iei^ ai fiovX6\it\oc„ %n®c, jiexdaxoai itXeicoc xrjc. Bo\txeictc,, to mean that Kleisthenes wanted to mix-up the c i t i z e n s i n order to ensure that more ex i s t i n g c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a ted i n the decision-making process of the state. 17 the e f f e c t of "mixing up" the A t t i c population and countering regionalism,^ but they also brought the p o l i t i c a l l i f e of the p o l i s down to the l o c a l l e v e l . What e f f e c t , then, did Kleisthenes' reforms have on the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for citizenship? In his account of c i t i z e n s h i p i n his own day, the author of AP states that demesmen were responsible for the i n i t i a l scrutiny and admission of new 52 c i t i z e n s i n their deme, suggesting that Kleisthenes made the demes the caretakers of c i t i z e n s h i p . Indeed, AP suggests that, even though Kleisthenes l e f t the p r i v i l e g e s of the phratries intact Kaxct i& * a W 3 deme-membership became all-important. Membership in a phratry, however, seems to have remained important even down to the fourth century.^ In fourth-century speeches having to do with c i t i z e n s h i p , membership i n a phratry i s given as proof of membership i n the p o l i s . ^ In A t t i c decrees granting c i t i z e n s h i p , however, phratry membership i s not On Kleisthenes' reforms having the e f f e c t of "mixing c i t i z e n population of A t t i k a , see AP 21.2, 21.3; on the cutting across older networks of influence, see D.M. "Cleisthenes and A t t i c a " H 12 (1963) 22-40. 52AP 42.1. 53AP 21.6. ^This i s the main thesis of Lambert's Phratries; see, in p a r t i c u l a r , his Chapter One (25-57). -up" the reforms Lewis, For example, Dem. 39, 40, 57, and 59. 18 always given along with membership i n a deme and t r i b e . 5 6 Thus, i t has become necessary to consider the relationship between phratry and deme, and the role each played with regard to Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p . In Chapter Two, therefore, I s h a l l examine the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and procedures for admission into the phratry and compare them with those of the deme. It should be noted that at least one decree granting c i t i z e n s h i p to a man named Thrasyboulos does not mention membership in a deme, though i t does mention membership i n a phratry and tr i b e (decree D2 in Osborne Naturalization vol.11, 21). 19 Chapter Two: Citizenship Before 451/0 B.C. The main objective of this chapter w i l l be to determine whether there was a precedent for Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law of 451/0 B.C., a law which seems to lay down a q u a l i f i c a t i o n for membership in the Athenian community.1 Given the po s i t i o n of the phratry i n Drakon's homicide law, with i t s implication that anyone who was considered to be an Athenian belonged to a phratry, i t w i l l be necessary to examine i t s role in Athenian society and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , i t s admission-procedures and the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s required for membership i n i t . Accordingly, i t w i l l also be necessary to examine the admission procedures of the deme and the requirements necessary for membership after the Kleisthenic reforms. Furthermore, the question of the relationship between these two i n s t i t u t i o n s and the role each played with regard to membership i n the community as a whole w i l l also have to be considered. Evidence for the function of the phratry i n early Athens i s v i r t u a l l y non-existent, but i t i s mentioned once i n the AP and twice i n the I l i a d . AP f r . 3 , probably from the l o s t beginning of the work concerning Ion, i s as follows: (tcuXac, 8e a i x c o v ouvvevenT]o8ai 8", h.no\i\\ir\ca\ii\ia>v T ^ ^ v X 0 ^ ^ v i a' D T 0^ ls ^ P a £ > e"KacTtrv 8e 8iTppTJa9ai eic, xpia u^pti x<5v (JcuXSv, onoc, yevT|xca xa nctvxa SCOSEKCX n^prj, KctGcJitep ot nfjvei; tic, xov evicruxciv, KaXeToGai 8e abxa xptxx5<; K a l (Jxxxpiac/ elc, 8e xrjv Qaxpi'av xpictKovxa yevr | SiccKeKOGufjaGcu, KaGctnep cci See Chapter One 1-2. See Ibid 7-8. 20 T)uepai eic tov nrjva, xo 6e yi\oq elvai xpiaicovxa &v8p©v. Thus, according to the fragment, the phratry was o r i g i n a l l y a subdivision of the four Ionian phylai, and was i d e n t i c a l to the early t r i t t y s . There were three p h r a t r i e s / t r i t t y e s to each phyle, thus twelve i n t o t a l , and each was arranged into t h i r t y gene, which, i n turn, contained t h i r t y men each, r e s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l A t t i c male population of 10 800. In addition, t h i s organization of the male population of A t t i k a was i n imitation of the seasons, months, and days of the year: the four phylai i n simulation of the four seasons; the twelve p h r a t r i e s / t r i t t y e s , of the twelve months; and the t h i r t y gene, of the t h i r t y days i n each month. The content of the fragment has given scholars many reasons to doubt i t s h i s t o r i c a l v a l i d i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the view of the AP that there was a t o t a l male population of 10,800, as well as i t s connection of the early organization of A t t i k a with the processes of nature appear too schematic and t h e o r e t i c a l to be trusted. In addition, l a t e r evidence neither supports the idea that the genos was a subdivision of the phratry, nor that every Athenian belonged to a genos.* A more serious concern, however, is the AP's assertion that the phratry was i d e n t i c a l to the early t r i t t y s and, therefore, that i t was a subdivision of the old Ionian phyle• For, as we s h a l l see, one would never conclude, on Rhodes Commentary 68-73; Lambert Phratries 371-80. Rhodes Commentary 69. 21 the basis of l a t e r evidence, that the phratry was either. Nevertheless, i t i s s t i l l necessary to consider c a r e f u l l y what the AP i s t e l l i n g us about the early history of the i n s t i t u t i o n , instead of simply dismissing i t s author as confused or downright wrong. One of the implications of AP fr.3 i s that the phratry was once part of the p o l i t i c a l organization of Att i k a . Certainly, i n Drakon's homicide law, the phratry appears to have a very important p o s i t i o n within society. And, as stated e a r l i e r , i t appears that anyone who was considered an Athenian belonged to one. But, i s the AP correct i n asserting that i t was o r i g i n a l l y a subdivision of the old Ionian phyle and i d e n t i c a l to the early t r i t t y s ? At 8.3, the author of the AP does not mention the phratry i n his outline of the type of p o l i t e i a which existed i n the time of Solon; he states that there were four phylai, each of which was divided into three t r i t t y e s and twelve naukrariai. And, i n discussing the reforms of 508/7 B.C., he states that, while Kleisthenes re-organized the phylai, t r i t t y e s , and naukrariai, he l e f t the phratries untouched, allowing them to retain t h e i r function Kotxot xct nctxpia.5 If the phratry was i d e n t i c a l to the early t r i t t y s , as AP fr.3 asserts, i t i s highly improbable that i t could have remained unaltered by the Kleisthenic reforms. 6 Unless, of course, i t s function and relationship to AP 21.1; 21.5; and 21.6. Cf. Lambert Phratries 378-9. 22 the other formal d i v i s i o n s of the state had been altered previously, a p o s s i b i l i t y which, unfortunately, remains obscure. Our a b i l i t y to determine the accuracy of AP fr.3 i s hindered further by our incomplete knowledge of the early organization of A t t i k a . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the above observation that the phratry i s not mentioned at AP 8.3 does not, i n i t s e l f , warrant the conclusion that AP f r . 3 i s wrong, since we do not know exactly what the naukrariai were, and, furthermore, what their relationship to the phylai and t r i t t y e s was.7 When we turn to the I l i a d , however, the phratry i s mentioned again i n connection with the phyle, as i t i s i n AP f r . 3 . At 2.362-3, Nestor advises Agamemnon KpTv' olvSpotc K C I T C X (JivXa K a x c t (jjpiytpai;, ?AYau.ep,vov,/(Bc 0piytpil <!>pfapTi<|)iv <|ruX.a 8e (JroXoic. Thus, according to t h i s passage, the context of which i s a m i l i t a r y one, the phylai are envisioned as somehow being able to be organized into phratries. Must one conclude from this that the phratry was, indeed, a subdivision of the phyle and, therefore, that the AP i s correct? Not necessarily. For another interpretation i s f e a s i b l e . It i s possible that the phratries were not, as AP fr.3 states, a part of the o f f i c i a l , state-organization; but, instead, were used i n m i l i t a r y organization as groups outside of the organization of See, for example, Hignett HAC 67-74. Thus, I do not agree with Lambert's v i s i o n of the early organization of A t t i k a (see his f i n a l chapter, e s p e c i a l l y 251-61). 23 0 the state. As such, the marshalling of the army by phylai and by phratries i n I l i a d 2.362-3 could be something similar to the s i t u a t i o n described i n the Great Rhetra at Sparta, where the o Spartans are to be organized by phylai and by obai. The obai, argued by W.G. Forrest to have been v i l l a g e s , were not subdivisions of the phylai, but, nevertheless, they were used i n the organization of the Spartans. 1" This should not be taken to imply that the Spartan oba was the same as the A t t i c phratry, but merely to suggest that i t i s possible, on the basis of the Spartan example, that the phratries were not subdivisions of the phylai, even though they could be used i n m i l i t a r y organization. If i t be permitted to make such a suggestion, the organization by phylai and by phratries envisioned i n I l i a d 2.362-3 need not cause d i f f i c u l t i e s ; and, furthermore, the suggestion does shed some l i g h t on the association of the phratry with the t r i t t y s i n AP f r . 3 . It has recently been proposed that "Andrewes ("Phratries In Homer." Hermes 89 (1961) 129-40) has argued that the occurrence of the phratry i n Homer i s a l a t e r i n s e r t i o n and, therefore, could not have been an i n s t i t u t i o n as early as the I l i a d would have us believe. Instead, he argued that the phratry was a l a t e r creation of the a r i s t o c r a t i c state as a means by which a r i s t o c r a t s could organize t h e i r dependents and retainers (accepted by Rhodes, Commentary 71; rejected by Lambert, Phratries 270-1). It should be noted, however, that Andrewes did not deny that the phratries did have a m i l i t a r y function (140); his main purpose was to show that the phratries were not an extremely ancient i n s t i t u t i o n . Plut. Lykourgos 6.2. UW.G. Forrest, A History of Sparta: 950-192 B.C. (London: Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1980) 42-6. 24 the function of the early t r i t t y s may have been a m i l i t a r y one.11 If this were the case, one could explain the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the phratry with the t r i t t y s i n AP fr.3 as a misunderstanding on the author's part of the phratry's role i n such an organization. If the phratry was ever part of the p o l i t i c a l organization of A t t i k a , we do not hear of i t i n l a t e r evidence. It i s more l i k e l y , as w i l l be seen, that the character of the A t t i c phratries was something similar to the Spartan s y s s i t i a or to the Gortynian h e t a i r e i a i . For, when the phratry is mentioned again i n the I l i a d , i t appears to be understood i n terms quite d i f f e r e n t from those of AP fr.3 and I l i a d 2.362-3. At 9.63-64, Nestor describes a man who loves war among his own kind as being a man who i s a ^ p T y i e i p , aGeuiaxoc,, and ixvzaxioq. For Nestor, a man who loves war among his own kind i s a man who no longer belongs to those i n s t i t u t i o n s of society that define 12 membership in i t : he i s a man who does not belong to the 13 phratry; and, a man who does not belong to the family (oikos). Later evidence for the A t t i c phratry, from Drakon's homicide law Lambert Phratries 256-7. The evidence i s based on the name of the t r i t t y s Leukotanioi, a name which means "white-ribboned" (see text of J.H. Oliver, "Greek Inscriptions." Hesperia 4 (1935) 21 no. 2 31-43, and comments of Rhodes Commentary 68) and may be "a reference to distinguishing marks on spears" (Lambert Phratries 257), which would further suggest a m i l i t a r y function. 1 2In A r i s t o t l e ' s terms, he i s a man who i s 'anoXic,, Pol. 1253a2. 1 3This i s suggested by &ve\moc.; for the importance of the hearth as the centre of the r e l i g i o u s existence of the family, see W. Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and C l a s s i c a l J. Raffan, trans. (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1985) 255. 25 down to the fourth-century orators, suggests that the phratry played a fundamental role i n i n d i v i d u a l o i k o i and i n t h e i r relationship to the polis-community as a whole.1* Indeed, one could argue that the phratry appears to have been the i n s t i t u t i o n which linked i n d i v i d u a l o i k o i to the community of the p o l i s • 1 5 There i s , however, a major d i f f i c u l t y i n examining the role of the phratry i n Athenian society which must be addressed here. As already stated, evidence for the role of the phratry i n early Athenian society i s v i r t u a l l y non-existent; 1 6 and the evidence which does exist dates to the period after the introduction of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law. It i s , therefore, questionable to what extent one may use this l a t e r evidence for an understanding of the role of the phratry before 451/0 B.C.. Drakon's homicide law, however, indicates c l e a r l y that the phratry did ex i s t at that time; that there was a fundamental l i n k between being an Athenian and being a phratry-member;17 and that the phratry did have a relationship to i n d i v i d u a l o i k o i . Furthermore, AP 21.6 Lambert (Phratries) sees the phratry as an extension of the family; Lacey (The Family i n C l a s s i c a l Greece [London: Thames & Hudson, 1968]) discusses the phratry and i t s importance i n r e l a t i o n to the oikos throughout his book; also, cf. Ar. Pol. 1252bl6-1253a7, where the p o l i s i s described as being an amalgamation of a variety of KOIV©VICU, with the oikos being the smallest of those Kowwvuxi. According to Ar. , the growth of these Kotvavicu was team $DCIV and the end (telos) of this growth was the p o l i s i t s e l f . Cf. Pol. 1262a6-13; 1280b29-81al; and EJS. 1241b24-26. 1 5For the role of the deme and i t s relationship to the phratry and to the polis-community, see below 59-71. 1 6See above, 19. 1 7See Chapter One 7-8; cf. 19 above. 26 acknowledges the existence of the phratries before Kleisthenes. No evidence supports the idea that the phratry gained powers after Kleisthenes, rather the process seems to have been quite 18 the reverse. Therefore, I think i t i s j u s t i f i a b l e to use evidence which occurs after 451/0 B.C. for an understanding of what the phratry did before that year, though i t goes without saying that one must proceed with extreme caution. The phratry seems to have been an i n s t i t u t i o n which occupied that middle ground between i n d i v i d u a l o i k o i and the community of the p o l i s . An examination of the l i t e r a r y evidence and of the admission procedures of the phratry suggests that, on the one hand, i t was an i n s t i t u t i o n which recognized and secured one's status (that i s , whether one was Yv1lol°c and could share i n the aYxioxeia) within an ind i v i d u a l oikos, whilst, on the other, i t was an i n s t i t u t i o n which recognized and secured one's status within the polis-community. In other words, membership i n an oikos--and the right to p a r t i c i p a t e i n i t s \epot and i n the byxiaxzia--seems to have been dependent on membership in the phratry; while, at the same time, membership i n the phratry seems to have secured one's right to nex^xElv noXeac. In his account of the l i f e of Perikles, Plutarch states that Perikles wanted to have his son by Aspasia enrolled among the 1 8See below, 59-71 19 / By status, I mean whether one was Yv11olo£ or not. For the posi t i o n of women i n the oikos, phratry and i n the p o l i s , see below, 44-6. 27 phrateres i n order that his name and oikos would not become extinct. This suggests that, once his son had been admitted into the phratry, he would have been able to carry on Perikles' oikos and, thus, preserve i t . In Aristophanes' Birds, lines 1646-70, Herakles' i n a b i l i t y to share i n the cVyxioxeia and, thus, to have a share i n the property and oikos of Zeus, i s d i r e c t l y linked with his lack of membership i n a phratry. At lines 1646-67, Peisthetairos t e l l s Herakles that he w i l l be unable to i n h e r i t because he i s a voGoc,, not yviicnoc,, and, as proof of his i n a b i l i t y to i n h e r i t and of his vc>8oc,-status, Peis thetairos asks him whether a' 6 icaxTjp t\ar\yay' iq xouc, <|>pctxopac,;21 the answer i s negative and, thus, Herakles has no place to share i n the cYYxtoxeict, nor to share i n the oikos of Zeus. Furthermore, i n fourth-century speeches concerning inheritance and/or adoption, membership in a phratry i s often given as proof for belonging to the deceased's oikos and for having the right to share i n the cVjXiaxeict. in [Demosthenes] 43, the speaker, Sositheos, argues that his son, Euboulides III, i s the r i g h t f u l heir to the estate of Euboulides II and, thereby, to that of Hagnias. As proof of t h i s , Sositheos claims that he had Euboulides III introduced into the phratry of Euboulides II as his adopted son i n order that the oikos of Euboulides II (and, thus, the oikos of Hagnias) would not become Perikles 37.5; the context of this passage, that i s Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law, w i l l be discussed i n f u l l i n Chapter Three. 2 1Line 1669. 28 22 extinct. Throughout the speech, Sositheos claims that Euboulides III belongs to the oikos of Euboulides II and of Hagnias, and i s the r i g h t f u l heir to the estate by virtue of the fact that he had been admitted into t h e i r phratry as an adopted 23 son. S i m i l a r l y , i n Isaios 7, Thrasyllos II's membership i n the phratry and genos of Apollodoros i s given as proof of his adoption into, and membership i n , Apollodoros' oikos. And, i n Isaios 8, as evidence for the i r Yv^oioc.-status and for their right to i n h e r i t the property of th e i r maternal grandfather, the speaker states that he and his brother had been introduced into the phratry and had always taken part i n the r e l i g i o u s f e s t i v a l s 25 and s a c r i f i c e s of the oikos of th e i r grandfather. Conversely, the speaker of Isaios 3 argues that, because Phile's father had never introduced her into his phratry, she was not considered to be yvr\aia and, therefore, had no claim to be ejuicA,r|po<;; i f her father had considered her to be yv^a\a, and not vo8ii, the speaker states, he would c e r t a i n l y have introduced her into his phratry, [Dem.] 43.11-14. For other speeches i n preservation/extinction of an oikos i s made, 44.15, 27, 33, 48. 2 3See, for example, 43.12-14; 17; 81-2. 2*Is. 7.13, 26, 43. 25 Is. 8.19; 15-16. The position of women and their relationship to the oikos, phratry, and p o l i s which th i s speech raises w i l l be discussed below, 44-6. which appeal to the see Is. 7 . 3 0 ; Dem. Is. 3.73-6. 29 27 rather than adopt. Thus, i n these passages, membership i n a phratry i s portrayed as the means by which membership i n an oikos and, thereby, the right to share in the hyxiaxtxa, are secured. In cases concerning one's membership i n the polis-community, admission into the phratry i s also emphasized. In Isaios 12, the speaker presents Euphiletos' membership i n the phratry as 28 evidence that he i s an Athenian c i t i z e n . S i m i l a r l y , i n Demosthenes 57, i n order to show that he i s a c i t i z e n , Euxitheos stresses several times the fact that he was introduced and accepted into his father's phratry. The l i n k between membership i n the phratry and membership i n the p o l i s i s also made i n Demosthenes 59. At 59.38, Stephanos i s said to have promised Neaira that he would make her sons c i t i z e n s by introducing them to the members of his phratry as his very own 30 children. Thus, membership i n a phratry not only secured one.' s po s i t i o n i n , and relationship to, the paternal oikos, but 31 i t also secured one's membership i n the polis-community. The passages discussed above also suggest that fundamental "Is . 3.76. 2 8 I s . 12.3; 12.8. 29Dem. 57.23; 57.24; 57.54. 30 Cf. Is. 3.37, where membership i n a phratry i s linked with the phrase p.exe'xeiv xtfc, icoA,e©c,. For the significance of this phrase and i t s cognates, see Chapter One, 2-7. 31 Cf. the language of one's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the family and one's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the p o l i s at Is. 6.25; 6.47; Dem. 39.31-2; 39.35; 43.51; 57.24-5; 57.28. See C.B. Patterson, "Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 56-7. 30 to one's acceptance into, and membership i n , both oikos and phratry was that one be YV^GIOC. The evidence for the admission procedures of the phratry indeed suggests that one of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary--and, in fact, probably the most 32 important q u a l i f i c a t i o n --was that a candidate be recognized and accepted as Yvtfaioc by the members of the phratry. Based on the surviving evidence, i t i s generally agreed that a male candidate for phratry-admission was presented two times to the phratry: the f i r s t time, i n a ceremony known as the meion, usually conducted within the f i r s t few years of a child's l i f e ; and, a second time, i n a ceremony known as the koureion, at some 33 time during adolescence. Part of the d i f f i c u l t y i n reconstructing the exact timing for these ceremonies, and for what exactly took place during each, i s that the evidence for the admission procedures of the phratry from fourth-century speeches does not mention them e x p l i c i t l y , nor do the speakers seem to have been very concerned with the d e t a i l s of what took place at each. What seems to have been most important to the speakers' arguments was simply to show that they had been (or, likewise, their opponents had not been) admitted into the phratry; and, i n order to prove such a point, a l l that was necessary was to Cf. Lambert Phratries Ch. One, esp. 3 1 - 4 3 . 33 For e x p l i c i t reference to the meion and koureion, see IG II' 1237, 1 1 . 5 - 8 ; £ A r i s t . Frogs 798; for the meion, see Harpokration, s.v. p,eiov icon ]it\aya)yoc,; Pollux 3 . 5 2 ; for the koureion, see Pollux 8 . 1 0 7 ; Is. 6. Cf. comments of Lambert Phratries 161 -66 . 31 mention a one-time event (or, i n some cases, the absence thereof). It i s , therefore, necessary to r e l y on hints or things implied i n the speeches where admission into the phratry is mentioned i n order to determine what ceremony i s being referred to as well as to determine what p r e c i s e l y took place at each. IG II 11237, otherwise known as the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees, however, does provide us with the best evidence for the 35 admission procedures of that p a r t i c u l a r phratry; i t w i l l , therefore, be necessary to examine i t s procedures along with those mentioned i n the orators. Introduction of male candidates into the phratry appears to have taken place normally on the t h i r d day (Koureotis) of the annual f e s t i v a l of the phratry, Apatouria. Isaios 7.15 suggests, however, that i t may have been possible to introduce candidates at other phratry-meetings. Thrasyllos II, the speaker, states that he had been introduced into the phratry and 37 genos of Apollodoros during the Thargelia, not the Apatouria. Cf. comments of Lambert Phratries 166-7. 35 As w i l l become clear during the course of examining the evidence for the admission procedures of the phratry, i t seems that, even though every phratry e s s e n t i a l l y conducted the same procedures, the timing of certain elements of the procedures varied from phratry to phratry; see below, 41-2. See I A r i s t . Acharnians 146 for an account of the three-day f e s t i v a l ; IG II 2* 1237, 11. 28-9 for an e x p l i c i t reference to Koureotis; Dem. 39.4, And. 1.126 for an e x p l i c i t reference to the f e s t i v a l Apatouria during which introduction into the phratry took place. Is. 7.15-7. It i s clear from the speech that the opponents of Thrasyllos II had contested his adoption; but, what i s not clear i s whether the contestation s p e c i f i c a l l y involved his admission into the phratry and Renos during the Thargelia. If i t had, one would expect Thrasyllos II to have given a s p e c i f i c explanation for i t . Lambert has recently suggested that the phratry of 38 Apollodoros held a regular meeting at the Thargelia, during which i t was possible to conduct admissions, which could not be 39 postponed u n t i l the Apatouria for special reasons. He suggests that the sense of urgency Apollodoros f e l t to adopt, as Thrasyllos II describes i t , i s a possible explanation for his admission to have taken place at that time/" Indeed, th i s would make sense, i f one considers that Apollodoros' only son had died i n the month Maimakterion/* the month following Pyanopsion during which the Apatouria was held, and that he did not want his other r e l a t i v e s to i n h e r i t his estate because of a long-standing enmity. It i s not possible, however, to conclude from Isaios 7 that an arrangement such as the one envisioned by 38 Following the suggestion of Wilamowitz, Lambert has suggested that Apollodoros' phratry was the Achniadai, who appear to have had a cu l t of Apollo Hebdomeios (Phratries 283; IG II 4974) and, thus, would have met during the Thargelia. "Phratries 217. 4 0 I b i d 217. 4 1 I s . 7.14. / 9 Cf. comments of Wyse 558. Lambert was conducted i n other phratries, since there i s no evidence for i t . It would be best, therefore, to assume that, given the n a t i o n a l i s t i c character of the Apatouria, i t was most common (and, probably, most desirable in order to avoid possible contestations) to introduce a candidate for phratry-admission during i t , rather than at other phratry-meetings. Evidence from the orators suggests that, under normal circumstances, a candidate for phratry membership was introduced by his own father, who was himself a member of that phratry. In Isaios 8, for example, the speaker states b1 xe nctxr|p tftiSv, SneiSri eYEvdp.e6a, ei<; xohc, <t>pctxopa<; fjncTc, eio^Yayev.^ But, this does not appear to have always been the case. In Andokides 1, i t i s the r e l a t i v e s of the mother of the alleged c h i l d by K a l l i a s who introduce the c h i l d to his phratry, and i t i s not even clear from the speech whether they themselves were members of that p a r t i c u l a r phratry. 4 5 In cases of adoption i n t e r vivos, the adoptee would be introduced by the adoptive father into his phratry; 4 6 and, i n cases of adoption by w i l l , either the adoptee would arrange to ""Is. 8.19; cf. Dem. 57.54; 59.59; and Is. 6.21. 4 5And. 1.126; cf. Dem. 57.54, where Euxitheos begins by stating that his r e l a t i v e s took him to the phratry (n'eiOeac, f|YOv tie, xoic, (|>paxepa<;) , but ends by stating that his father introduced him and swore the customary oath (aX,X,a u,r|v o naxrip afcxoc, £5v onocac, xov vdu,tu,ov xoTc, (J>paxepoiv OVKOV tlar[yayt \it) . On the oath sworn at phratry-introductions , see below, 35-6. 4 6 I s . 2.14-17, 44-5; 7.13-17, 24-7; 9.33; Dem. 39.4, 20-1, 29-30; 40.11; 59.55-9. It seems that Is. 6.21-6 and Dem. 59.59 may be cases of adoption inter vivos as well, though the speakers do not e x p l i c i t l y say so. 34 have himself introduced into the phratry of his adoptive father or, i f he were a minor, his guardian would do s o / 7 In Demosthenes 43, a case of posthumous adoption, i t i s Sositheos, the natural father of Euboulides I I I , who introduces him into the phratry of Euboulides II as an adopted son, though he himself was not a member of that phratry. Whether i t was a case where the natural father introduced his son into his own phratry or a case of adoption, the procedures for admission into a phratry which follow appear to have been the same. Andokides describes the steps by which the introducer, i n t h i s case, the r e l a t i v e s of the mother of the alleged c h i l d by K a l l i a s , introduces the c h i l d into K a l l i a s ' phratry/" At 1.126, he states, A,afJ<5vcec, 8e 01 rcpoai'iKovxec TTJ ywaiKV TO naiSiov f|KOv Ini TOV Boauov ,Anato'Dpi'oi<;, £xovxe<; tepevbv, Is. 4.10ff; 5.6; and comments of Harrison, LA 1:90. *8Dem. 43.11-15, 81-3. Cf. the complicated case of Dem. 44, also a case of posthumous adoption, where Leokrates had himself adopted into the oikos of Archiades (19-20) and l a t e r introduced his own son, Leostratos, into the phratry (and deme) of Archiades as an adopted son, himself returning to his o r i g i n a l oikos (21). The speaker, Aristodemos* son, alleges that Leostratos did the same with his own son, Leokrates II (22). When Leokrates II died without issue, the speaker claims that Leostratos t r i e d to have himself adopted back into the oikos of Archiades (39-40); when this f a i l e d , he then t r i e d to have his younger son, Leochares, entered onto the deme register as the adopted son of Archiades (41; 44). Cf. the comments of Thrasyllos II at Is. 7.16. 5 0The ceremony described at 1.126 appears to be the meion. This i s suggested by the fact that the c h i l d i s referred to as TO BCUSI'OV i n 125 (soon after birth) and 126 (at the ceremony proper), but, l a t e r , when K a l l i a s receives the mother back and accepts paternity, the son i s described as TOV naita ueyav <Svxct (127). 35 where they are received by the phratriarch, 5 1 K a l l i a s , who asks them the id e n t i t y of the candidate. When the r e l a t i v e s reply that K a l l i a s himself i s the father of the c h i l d , K a l l i a s immediately takes hold of the.altar and, on oath, denies 52 paternity. In most speeches, however, i t i s the introducer himself who swears an oath at t h i s point i n the procedures. In Isaios 8, 53 possibly describing the meion, the speaker states that his father, o\i6aac, K a r a IOUC, vop.o'ui; xovc, Keinevo-ut; f\ nrjv z\ &oxy\c, KCU eYY'uiTtite * ? / 54 YwaiKOc, eicaYEiv. S i m i l a r l y , i n Demosthenes 57, which also appears to be an account of the meion,55 Euxitheos claims, b jtaxTjp crfixoc, £5v 6|idacic, T6V vdniu,ov xoic, (jipaxepcw opKov t\ar\yayE u,e, aoxov ei; aaxr\q I Y Y 1 1 1 ! 1 ^ <*&XS YeYevim^vov eiStoc,. 6 In IG II l1237, both phratriarch and p r i e s t are mentioned, but i t i s not clear for what duties each was responsible. For other speeches where a s a c r i f i c e and/or the phratry a l t a r i s mentioned, see Is. 7.15, Dem. 43.14-15, 81-3, 57.54. 521 . 126 . 53 That the ceremony i s possibly the meion i s suggested by the speaker's own comments at 19 that his father introduced his brother and him when they were born (Site9ST\ 6Yev6ne9a) . "^8.19; cf. the oath K a l l i a s swore when he introduced his son into the genos, Kerykes (And. 1.127). The s t i p u l a t i o n i n this and the following two oaths, quoted i n the above text, that the c h i l d being introduced be born e£ acsxr\q cannot, of course, pre-date Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law. ^Like And. 1.126, Euxitheos refers to himself as xd ncctSiov when he was introduced into the phratry of his father (57.54). 5 6 5 7 . 54 . 36 In Isaios 7, a case of adult adoption, Thrasyllos II claims that, when Apollodoros introduced him into his phratry as an adopted son, he enm8e'vcu nioxiv KCXX& xSv tepcSv \ \ dioxfjc, eTcaYeiv K e n Yeyovoxa o p e S ; . 5 7 In the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees, i t appears that the introducer was to swear an oath at the preliminary scrutiny, or CO anakrisis, which possibly occurred at the koureion. In addition, this p a r t i c u l a r phratry required three witnesses to give evidence on the questions asked of them during the anakrisis and to swear the following oath to Zeus Phratrios: HapTup© lov elccryei ea / t i xS i tidv evai xoxov yvrjaiov ey ya\itx/r\c, TaXrjeri xawta \i\ x6v ACa xbv <f>paxpio/v eLopKO<v>xi p.ev p,oi noXXa KCU or/aSc* T v / [ [ a t , tl 8']] IniopKornv, xavavxlfa. ' From the speeches i n which the admission procedures of the phratry are described, i t appears that, af t e r the introducer swore- the oath, any phrater had the right to object openly to the introduction of a candidate. In Isaios 6, the only e x p l i c i t J'16; cf. 17. That an oath was sworn by the introducer i s implied by the one sworn by the three witnesses (11. 108-13). It i s unclear when preci s e l y the anakrisis took place; a l l that i s indicated i s that i t i s to happen eitl xffi e?oaY<a/YeT x©v nat8<ov (11. 108-9), which could refer to either meion or koureion. Since, however, under Menexenos' proposal, the d e t a i l s about a candidate's parentage were to be posted i n the f i r s t year following that i n which the koureion was s a c r i f i c e d (11.116-21), and, under Hierokles' proposal, the regular diadikasia (scrutiny-examination) of candidates was to take place a year after the koureion was s a c r i f i c e d , i t seems most probable that the anakrisis occurred at the time of the koureion. See Lambert Phratries 132. 11. 108-113. 37 evidence from the orators for the koureion, Philoktemon objects to the introduction by his father, Euktemon, of Alke's elder son into the phratry by removing the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m from the a l t a r , an act which put an end to the proceedings and which was, e f f e c t i v e l y , a declaration that what was sworn i n the oath by his father was not, i n his opinion, true. 6" There i s evidence, however, that phratry members voted on the admission of candidates into the phratry, but i t i s not e n t i r e l y clear whether the p o s s i b i l i t y for a member to object took place i n the context of the vote by a l l phrateres; whether i t was a separate part of the procedures for admission; or, whether a vote was conducted only i f there was an objection. 6 1 In Isaios 6, there i s no mention of a vote by a l l the phrateres, either before or afte r Philoktemon objected to the introduction of Alke's elder son. Instead, the entire admissions procedure was stopped when he made the objection, and the matter was resolved p r i v a t e l y by Philoktemon and Euktemon, the result of which was the admission of the son into the phratry at a subsequent meeting. In Isaios 8, the speaker claims that, since none of the phrateres objected or disagreed with t h e i r introduction into their father's phratry, they were, i n e f f e c t , accepting the oath sworn by the i r father as true. As i n 60 Is. 6.22; cf. 8.19, and 20. 61 This l a s t p o s s i b i l i t y i s suggested by Lambert Phratries 173. 62 Is. 6.22-5. 63 8.19, cf.20. 38 Isaios 6, there i s no mention of a vote, but the speaker does state that the members of the phratry "examined such things (that i s , the oath sworn by the introducer) e x a c t l y , s u g g e s t i n g that there was some type of formal method whereby the e l i g i b i l i t y of a candidate for admission was examined and assessed. What the precise nature of the procedure was, and whether i t was followed only i f there was an objection by a phratry member,^ cannot be determined by the text. In contrast to the speaker of Isaios 8, Thrasyllos II, i n Isaios 7, stresses the fact that every member of the phratry (and genos) of Apollodoros had voted on whether to admit him or not, and he describes the voting process as part of the regular procedures for the admission of candidates into that p a r t i c u l a r phratry (and g e n o s ) n o t as a result of an o b j e c t i o n / 7 In Andokides 1, a l b e i t an account of an admission into the genos Kerykes, i t i s not e n t i r e l y clear whether the vote was conducted as a re s u l t of Kalliades' objection to the introduction of K a l l i a s ' son, or whether i t was part of the regular procedures, as i n Isaios 7. Sositheos' account of the admission of his son, Euboulides III, into the phratry of Euboulides II, however, suggests that i t was possible for a phratry member to object " I s . 8.19. ^This seems to be hinted at by the speaker's equally vague comments on procedure at 8.20. 6 6 I s . 7.16, 17. 6 7Cf. Dem. 59.59. 39 openly to the introduction of a candidate while the whole phratry was i n the process of conducting a vote on the matter. At 43.82, Sositheos states that ...oxe [EvfJo'uX/SriCj] eTotfyeto, oi p,ev aXXoi fypaxtpzq, Kp^Sriv Ifyepov xtyv \j/f|<|)ov, otixooi 5\ MaKCtpxaxoc, <j>avepa \\fr\$<n eyti^ioaxo dpQiac, zladytaQax ESPODXISTJ indv x6v naiSa xouxovi, owe IdtX^oac, "clyaGQax xo\> lepeiou o&>' anayayevv ajto xov ftouov •onc^8,ovov aoxov jtoiifcac,, suggesting that the vote was a normal part of the admissions procedures of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r phratry, during which objections could be made openly by any member. It i s possible, therefore, that such a procedure may have been conducted i n the Renos of K a l l i a s , since Andokides does not stress that the vote was taken as a resu l t of Kalliades' objection. What procedure would have been conducted had Makartatos objected openly to the introduction of Euboulides III i s not clear. As i n Isaios 6, the way to object was to seize, or 69 remove, the victim from the a l t a r , an act, which brought an end to the admissions-procedures i n Isaios 6. It seems that such an act would have brought an end to the voting process i n Demosthenes 43 as well and, from the language of 43.82, s p e c i f i c a l l y Sositheos' statement that Makartatos would have become wteu9t>voc,  i t appears that he would have been obliged to j u s t i f y his objection. The decrees of the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis off e r more de t a i l s for the way the phratry voted on the admission of a CO Cf. Sositheos' comments at 43.14-15. HQ "Cf. Dem. 43.82, quoted above. 40 candidate. Unlike the introductions into the phratry described in the orators, which portray the entire procedure as a single event, the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis appear to have waited a year after the koureion was s a c r i f i c e d (during which, I suggested, the anakrisis was held) before conducting a vote concerning admission. Prior to a l l of the phrateres voting, i t i s stipulated i n the second of the decrees that the members of the introducer's own thiasos are to vote secretly on the admission of a candidate. 7" Once they have voted, the phratriarch i s to count the b a l l o t s i n the presence of a l l the phrateres and i s to make the decision of the thiasos known.71 It i s stipulated that, when the other phrateres vote on the admission of a candidate, the members of the introducer's thiasos are not to 72 vote again. If the thiasos votes for admission, but the rest of the phrateres vote against i t , the members of the thiasos are fined one hundred drachmas, except for those who spoke against admission, or who appeared to be against i t , during the diadikasia, which suggests that there was some form of debate i n 73 such circumstances. In cases where the thiasos votes against 7 011. 78-84. Cf. Dem. 43.82 quoted above (39), where Sositheos states that the members of Apollodoros' phratry were to vote secretly. 7 111. 84-8. 7 211. 103-6. 73 11. 88-94. The decree does not e x p l i c i t l y state that there i s to be some form of debate i f the thiasos votes for, but the other phrateres vote against, admission. The text merely states that the th i a s o t a i are to be fined, JIXT)V 8'OOV ofv x5v/9iac©x©v Kaxtfjopoi ri 41 admission," the introducer i s permitted to make an appeal to the whole phratry; i f he chooses not to, the negative decision of the thiasos stands and the candidate i s denied admission. 7 4 If the introducer decides to appeal and the phratry as a whole votes i n favour of admission, the candidate's name i s inscribed on the phratry register. 7~* If , however, the phratry casts a negative vote, the introducer i s to pay a fine of one hundred drachmas.7*" There i s no evidence i n other accounts of the admissions procedures of the phratry that the voting process was organized in such a way as that found i n the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees. As a re s u l t , we do not hear of cases i n which an introducer could make an appeal to the whole phratry against a negative decision of a subgroup. Rather, there i s evidence which indicates that a dike could be brought against a phratry or genos for refusing to admit a candidate. 7 7 In such circumstances, one would presume, i f a candidate was found to be denied admission wrongfully, the phratry would have been compelled to admit lvavucfnevoi/(t)aiv©VTai ev xffi SiaStKaoioti (92-4). It i s i m p l i c i t that there was some method whereby t h i a s o t a i , who disagreed with the vote for admission cast by other members of their group, could make their objections known. The only sensible solution seems to be some form of a debate. 7 411. 94-5; 100-3. 7 511. 96 - 8. 7 611. 98-100. Dem. 59.59-60. 42 78 him. Otherwise, the negative decision of the phratry was 79 upheld by the court. As indicated i n the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees, a candidate's name was inscribed on the phratry reg i s t e r a f t e r successful completion of the diadikasia, which, as noted above, took place a year after the koureion ceremony. In Demosthenes 39, Mantitheos merely states that he was "enrolled among the 80 phrateres as Mantitheos." But, Thrasyllos I I , i n Isaios 7, stresses the fact that his name was entered onto the phratry registers only after the phrateres had voted to admit him, not 81 before. Conversely, Phano's son was not enrolled into the phratry of Phrastor because of the negative vote of the 82 phrateres. The picture of the admissions-procedures that emerges i s one 83 of va r i e t y from phratry to phratry. On the one hand, a l l phratries seem to have conducted th e i r admissions procedures 0 1 • during the Apatouria, and, though the accounts of the orators suggest that there was only one ceremony for admission, the 78 Cf. admission procedures of the deme. 79 Cf. Dem. 59.60, where Phrastor's refusal to swear that the son was indeed his own e s s e n t i a l l y upheld the decision of his genos 80Dem.. 39.3-4. 8 1 I s . 7.15-17. 82Dem. 59.59. 83 A conclusion reached by Lambert as well (Phratries 161-85). 8 4The one exception i s Is. 8, discussed above, 31-3. Demotionidai/Dekeleis show that there could be two. On the other hand, however, i t seems to have been l e f t up to the ind i v i d u a l phratries to determine the d e t a i l s themselves. That i s , whether there would have been an anakrisis, a diadikasia; whether witnesses were required to swear an oath i n corroboration with that sworn by an introducer; whether there was a preliminary vote by a subgroup of a phratry, seem to have been issues which indi v i d u a l phratries decided and arranged independently. Thus, we have evidence that one phratry held an anakrisis and waited a year for a candidate to be admitted into the phratry upon successful completion of the diadikasia, a procedure which does not appear to have been followed by other phratries as described in the orators. One aspect of the procedures for admission into the phratry that remains constant i n the evidence and which appears to have been common to a l l phratries, however, i s the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership. The oath sworn by the introducer for the admission of a candidate into the phratry reveals these most c l e a r l y . F i r s t and foremost, a l l of the examples ci t e d so far suggest that a 0 c q u a l i f i c a t i o n necessary was that one be male. This immediately raises the question of the female's relationship to the phratry. Whilst i t i s true that the arguments of the speaker at Isaios 3.73-6--particularly his comment that, had Phile been This i s esp e c i a l l y evidenced by the oath of the three witnesses i n the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees (11. 108-13); see also the cases discussed above, 33-40. 44 Yviyjia, her father would have introduced her to his phratry since O f this was their law --indicate that g i r l s could be introduced into the phratry of the i r father, there i s no evidence that they ever became ve r i t a b l e phrateres. In Demosthenes 57, for example, Euxitheos c a l l s the phrateres of his mother's r e l a t i v e s to bear witness to the fact that she was an aste; nowhere does he give 87 any i n d i c a t i o n that she herself was a phratry-member. Furthermore, i t i s not e n t i r e l y clear from the speaker's arguments i n Isaios 3 whether th i s phratry required that only daughters whom their father intended to be e p i k l e r o i be / 88 introduced, or whether a l l yvnoiai daughters were to be. Moreover, whether a l l phratries required that intended e p i k l e r o i or a l l Yv1Wl0[l daughters be introduced as a rule i s uncertain. It seems most probable, however, that, given the importance of a woman's c i t i z e n descent af t e r the passage of Perikles' law, i n most phratries, i f not i n a l l , g i r l s would have been received and recognized as YVifciai as part of regular phratry-procedure, 89 whether they were to be e p i k l e r o i , or not. G i r l s would not have become members of their father's phratry; but their status 0 0 I s . 3.76; cf. also 3.79. 87Dem. 57.40; 60. 88 See Lambert's presentation of the problem (Phratries 178-81). 89 The question of whether g i r l s were received by their father's phratry before 451/0 B.C., or whether th i s practice was i n s t i t u t e d at the passage of the law, w i l l be considered i n Chapter Three (90-1) • 45 as Yvtfcnai would have been recognized and accepted by the members of the phratry. Thus, i n Demosthenes 57, the phrateres of Euxitheos 1 mother's r e l a t i v e s were able to give testimony that she was an aste, though she herself was not a member. The relationship g i r l s had to th e i r father's phratry i s revealed further by a consideration of the one women had to the phratry of the i r husband. Evidence from the orators indicates that women were received, and their status as yvfaxai (and, thus, th e i r a b i l i t y to bear children, who would also be considered to be Y v^ 0 1 0 1)> was recognized by their husband's phrateres at the ceremony known as the gamelia. The gamelia, given by the groom to the members of his phratry i n honour of the bride, marked the on f i n a l stage i n the marriage-process at Athens. Again, as i n the relationship g i r l s had to their father's phratry, women are not spoken of as becoming members of the i r husband's phratry i n the cases where the gamelia i s attested. Rather, the fact that the ceremony was celebrated i s , i n Isaios 8, given as proof by the speaker that his mother was considered to be yvilcna and, i n Demosthenes 57, i t i s given as proof by Euxitheos that his mother For the procedures followed for marriage, see Harrison, LA 1.3-9, though I believe he rather underestimates the significance of the gamelia. Whether the gamelia was celebrated before the passage of Perikles' law or was celebrated by the phratry as a result of the law i s d i f f i c u l t to determine based on current evidence. I w i l l consider t h i s question i n Chapter Three (90-1) i n conjunction with the effects the law must have had on the practices of the phratry. Is. 8.18; 20. 46 92 was an aste. Conversely, at Isaios 3.79-80, the speaker uses the fact that his uncle, Pyrrhos, never gave the gamelia to the members of his phratry i n honour of Phile's mother as evidence that Pyrrhos had never been married to her and, thereby, that Phile herself was not v v i f o i a. In none of these speeches, however, i s i t even hinted that the gamelia bestowed phratry-membership upon the woman. In addition to being male, the oath sworn by the introducer points towards another q u a l i f i c a t i o n required for membership i n the phratry. In Isaios 8, the speaker's father swore that the son he was introducing into the phratry was born l\ doxffc KOI lyifOTixfic 93 Y U V C U K O C . S i m i l a r l y , Euxitheos claims that, when he was introduced into his paternal phratry, his father swore that he feoxov ftoxlfc £yY' U T l x f lc. . .YeYevTiuxvov. The oath sworn by K a l l i a s , as transmitted by Andokides, takes a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t form: K a l l i a s swore that xov nca8a ecauotJ elvai Y v i ( o i o v » *K XpiKJiXXnc, Y E Y O V O X C C . " This oath r e c a l l s the one sworn by the three witnesses at the anakrisis i n the second of the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees, which stipulates that the one being introduced into the phratry la/DxSi \>b\ evoti xoxov YVTIOIOV EY Y aH e i ; /Tfc -^ Dem. 57.43; 68-9. Is. 8.19. Dem. 57.54. And. 1.127. IG II L1237, 11. 109-11. 47 In cases where the candidate was adopted, the oath sworn was s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from those of Andokides 1 and the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees with respect to the fact that the candidate was not the natural son of the introducer. The q u a l i f i c a t i o n indicated, however, i s the same. In Isaios 7, Thrasyllos II states that Apollodoros swore that he 1% cWrjc, eioctYEtv Ken YEYovdta op6©c;.^  The oath sworn at the phratry admissions-procedures, therefore, points towards two q u a l i f i c a t i o n s required for membership. Namely, that a candidate be male and that he be Yvifenoc,, defined i n these passages as one born from a c i t i z e n 98 mother, who was married. One must also add to thi s d e f i n i t i o n what i s i m p l i c i t i n the oath sworn by the introducer: namely, that the father, or adoptive father, had to be a c i t i z e n as well. rvTictoTTic,, therefore, appears to have been the key issue i n determining admission into the phratry. Such a d e f i n i t i o n of YVTiendVnc, as the one described above cannot, however, be assumed to have been i n place before the passage of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law i n 451/0 B.C.. For, the evidence indicates that the terms Yvi{enoc,/a and \o%o$/i\ had e a r l i e r meanings quite d i f f e r e n t from those that pertained a f t e r the passage of the law i n that year. Before 451/0 B.C., i t was not the case that both parents had to be Athenian c i t i z e n s i n order for the i r children to be 97 Is. 7.16. 98 Cf. Dem. 46.18: tyvocv eYYi>i{on. eiti 8iKaio<; Sdtp.apxa etvat ?f itatrip ^  aSeX<J>oc, r\ nannoc, b rcpoc, norcpo't, IK %afax\c, evvcu itcuSac, Yvncio'oc,. oiioitatrap 48 considered yvifoioi, not v^8oi. Kimon, for example, whose father, Stesagoras, was an Athenian, but whose mother, Hegesipyle, was Thracian, i s not lab e l l e d i n the t r a d i t i o n as having been a vo'eoc.^  S i m i l a r l y , Kleisthenes was not considered a voBoc,, though his mother, Agariste, was Sikyonian. Rather, as has often been remarked by modern scholars, i t was quite common for families, p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent ones, to create a l l i a n c e s with those from other c i t y - s t a t e s through marriage, the offspring of which were considered y v 1 i 0 1 0 1 At 46.18, Demosthenes quotes an early Athenian law, which, e s s e n t i a l l y , indicates who was considered Yvncioc: tvHv 2iv lyy\>^ar\ IKX StKcuoti; 5ap.apta elvat fy itaxi'lp ^ a6eX<J>oc ononaxop ^\ itairjioc 6 npoc, nottpc^ , EK xatt'tTic slvai naiSac yvTiaio-Dc.^ 2 Thus, according to the law, y\r\oiox are those children born by a woman betrothed by her father, her brother of the same father, or "Hdt. 6.39; Plut. Kimon 4.1. 1 0 0Hdt. 6.130. *"*W.K. Lacey, The Family in C l a s s i c a l Greece. (London: The Camelot Press, 1968) 66; 103; J-P. Vernant, "Marriage" i n Myth and Society i n Ancient Greece. J. Lloyd, trans. (New York: Zone Books, 1990) 68-70. See also Patterson PCL 11-12. Themistokles i s said to have been a vo8oc because his mother was a foreigner (see Plut. Them. 1.1-2; cf. Nepos Them. 1.1-2; J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families: 600-300 B.C. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971) 212-4), but this can only be i n a post-451/0 B.C. sense. See the comments of S.C. Humphreys "The Nothoi of Kynosarges." JHS 94 (1974) 94; F.J. Frost Plutarch's Themistokles: A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980) 61-3; Patterson PCL 15 and 29 n . l ; and Rhodes Commentary 344-5. ^ 2The occurrence of the word Sap.cep suggests that this i s an early law (See Ogden Greek Bastardy 37-8). 49 1(15 by her paternal grandfather. Nothing i s said here of the orig i n s of the mother (that i s , whether she i s Athenian or not); one would presume, therefore, that non-Athenian women married to Athenian men by engye could bear children, who would be regarded as Yvifoiot. U n t i l recently, i t was held that the term VO8OC/TI was simply the exact opposite of Yvifcioc/a and, therefore, that i t applied only to those children born out of wedlock.1"4 Patterson has, however, challenged this view. She argues that the term has a very s p e c i f i c , almost technical, meaning r e f e r r i n g , i n Homer at least, to "the recognized children of a man, t y p i c a l l y a hero or king, and a woman other than his wife, t y p i c a l l y a bought or captured pallake l i v i n g within the household. The voGoc i s part of his father's household, although generally with an i n f e r i o r status r e f l e c t i n g the i n f e r i o r status of his mother." 1^ As examples of this phenomenon, Patterson refers to Teukros, the vo8o<; son of Telamon; Medon, "vo8oc son of Oileos, whom Rhene bore;" and to the many voljc-t of Priam, who l i v e d i n his household along with his yvqaiox}^ She also suggests that Odysseus' 103 See the comments of Ogden on epidikasia (Greek Bastardy 38). '"4See comments of C.B Patterson, "Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 41-2. 1 5 5Patterson Ibid 47; cf H.J. Wolff, "Marriage Law and Family Organization i n Ancient Athens." T r a d i t i o 2 (1944) 88. 1 0 6Patterson Idem; I I . 8. 281-4; 2. 727-8; 4. 499-500; 16. 738; and, for Priam's VO6T|, see 13. 173-6. 50 f i c t i t i o u s i d e n t i t y i n Book 14 of the Odyssey i s a description of who a V<4GO<; was. At 14.203-10, the disguised Odysseus relates that his f i c t i t i o u s father had many y\\\oioi sons born to him by his wife, but that he himself was born by a pallake. Though reared and cared for by his father, he says, he did not receive the same inheritance as his Yvli°i°l half-brothers. Patterson suggests that, even though Odysseus does not use the term vc»6oc, to describe himself, he should be understood to be one.1"7 Children born to a woman as a result of adultery, rape, incest, or otherwise, Patterson argues, are not v()9oi. Rather, they are a d i f f e r e n t class of i l l e g i t i m a t e s altogether, with no paternal recognition. 1" 8 In contrast to them, the vfjBoc, was "a paternally 109 recognized c h i l d with a place i n the father's household." When considering the application of the term VO6O<;/TI i n Archaic and early C l a s s i c a l Athens, Patterson maintains that i t was s t i l l Homeric. Thus, one can f i n d traces, she suggests, of the old system i n a clause of Drakon's homicide law, recorded at Demosthenes 23.53: ""Eav xiCj ajioKteivi) ev fieXoii; &K©V, \ Iv 08© Ka6eX,©\r, *f\ ev ito^ ep.©, cVyvoT|aac, *x\ em Sctuapxi em p.T|xpt ^  en' &6eX0^  'i^ Ini 9t>Yaxp\, M" £nv . ^Patterson Ibid 47-8. She also suggests that Megapenthes was voGoc,, since he was the recognized o f f s p r i n g of Menelaos and a slave. Since, however, he was Menelaos' only son, he was considered Y v t1 0 1 0?- (Patterson Ibid 48). On the p o s i t i o n of the vo9o<; i n the paternal oikos when there were no Yvifoiot, see below 55-9. 1 0 8Patterson Ibid 50. 109Idem. 51 TtaXXaicf} rjv Sv en' eXeuGepotc, itaioiv t\r\, xouxav eveKa \ir\ tyzvyzix i 1 « Kxeivavxa. According to Patterson's theory on the meaning of voGeia, the pallake kept "for the purpose of free children" i n the passage above i s the producer of free (as opposed to slave), voGot children, l i v i n g within the paternal oikos. 1 1" Support for Patterson's argument can perhaps be found at Herodotos 3.1-2, where Herodotos relates that the Egyptians believed the Persian Cambyses to be the voGo^  son of Cyros, born to him by his pallake, N i t e t i s . 1 1 1 In Euripides' Andromache, not only i s the son of Neoptolemos and Andromache often referred to as voGoc,, but also the position of Andromache as the captured pallake, who begets VO'GOI children, i s contrasted with that of Hermione, the lawful / 112 wife of Neoptolemos, and pot e n t i a l producer of vvt|o-ioi. Although Patterson's argument does fi n d support in the evidence discussed thus far, there i s some evidence to suggest that the term VOGOC/TI could, indeed, refer simply to children born out of wedlock, as e a r l i e r scholarship believed. In Euripides' '"Patterson Ibid 54. '^Patterson (Ibid 52 n.50) suggests "that Herodotos i s [here] applying Greek terminology--and also perhaps a t t r i b u t i n g Greek custom--to the Persian court." For other occurrences of voGoc in Herodotos, see 5.94 and 8.103. 112 For the references to the son of Neoptolemos and Andromache, see 11. 634-40 and 1. 912; for the comparison between the statuses of Hermione and Andromache, see 11. 154-225; see also Hermione's words at 11. 927-8 and, e s p e c i a l l y , 11. 940-1. Cf. C.B. Patterson, "Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 66. 52 Ion, for example, when Ion believes he i s the son of Xuthos and / 113 an unknown woman, he laments his status as Xuthos' vo8oc,, suggesting that the term could apply to children born out of wedlock, not s p e c i f i c a l l y to those born to a pallake, as Patterson argues. Also, when Ion learns that he i s , i n fa c t , Kreusa's son, he says that he i s a vo8oc, of a parthenios (unwed) woman.114 The Ion, therefore, does show that children born out of wedlock could be referred to as vcfeoi.115 But, perhaps, i n i t s early usage, the term did only s i g n i f y children born by a pallake. At any rate, Patterson i s correct, I believe, i n asserting that the vo8o<;/ri was a paternally recognized c h i l d , with a p o s i t i o n i n the paternal oikos. The s o c i a l and legal p o s i t i o n of the voBoc, i n the paternal oikos, phratry (and, afte r Kleisthenes, the deme), and i n the p o l i s before 451/0 B.C. i s a d i f f i c u l t and controversial question. Was he a f u l l member i n these i n s t i t u t i o n s , or not? Though one cannot r e a l l y speak of the legal p o s i t i o n of the Homeric vo8oc, i n the phratry, deme, and p o l i s , the poems do shed some l i g h t on his pos i t i o n within the paternal oikos and i n the society the poems portray. In Homer, the voSoc, i s portrayed as 1 1 3Ion 11. 589ff. 1 U I o n 1.1473. Cf. Ogden (Greek Bastardy 15-17), who c i t e s other examples as well. In dealing with the Ion and other plays by Euripides (such as the Hippolytos, where Hippolytos i s the v66o^  of Theseus), Patterson suggests that Euripides extended the meaning of the term. ("Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 51; 47-8). 53 free (as opposed to slave)' 1' and a member of his father's oikos , 1 1 7 but, i n comparison to his YVTJOIOI h a l f - s i b l i n g s , his membership i s an i n f e r i o r one. Thus, i n the I l i a d , we see vo6oi ' 118 being charioteers for t h e i r VVTIOIOI half-brothers, or spearmen 119 i n scenes of warfare. But, i t i s i n the issue of inheritance, i n p a r t i c u l a r , that the vo8o<; appears to have been treated as an i n f e r i o r member of the paternal oikos. In Book 14 of the Odyssey,'the disguised Odysseus states that, a f t e r the death of his f i c t i t i o u s father, his YV^O-IOI h a l f -brothers gave him less of a share i n their father's estate than they received, suggesting that he was not regarded as an equal 120 shareholder. In contrast to this s i t u a t i o n , Megapenthes' position within the oikos of Menelaos i s i n d i c a t i v e of cases i n which YVT]OIOI did not e x i s t . For Megapenthes, the son of Menelaos by a slave, but his only son, i s treated as though he were YVTJOICX;, receiving a wedding-feast and being sole heir to his 121 ' father's estate. Thus, i t appears that, when YVTJOIOI existed, 1 1 6Cf. [Dem.] 23.53 (quoted above, 51) 1 1 7For example, Priam's voGot l i v e d i n his household, and Teukros l i v e d i n that of Telamon (50 and n. 106, above). 1 1 8 n . 10.101-4; 16.737-9. 1 1 9I1. 5. 69-74, 15.333-6; cf Teukros, who was a bowman (8.283-4) . . 120Od- H.208-10. 121 Od. 4.11-2. It should be noted, however, that Megapenthes i s never referred to as a vo8oc, but his origins (that i s , as the recognized son of a slave and king) are comparable to those 54 vo8oi were considered to be i n f e r i o r members of the paternal oikos, but, when there were no yvifcnot, they were regarded as 122 though they were t h e i r equals. This same p r i n c i p l e appears i n Herodotos' account of a Persian nomimon,1^ which stipulates that a vo'eoc, son of a king does not proceed to the throne i f a Yvliolc,c, e x i s t s , and i n a fifth-century i n s c r i p t i o n from Tegea, which outlines the order of succession to a temple deposit, beginning f i r s t with Xuthias, then to his Y v r10 1 0 1 and Yvtfoioti, to his voBot, and, l a s t of a l l , to HI his c o l l a t e r a l r e l a t i v e s . Thus, i n both of these instances as well, the voGoc, i s excluded only by a YV 11C I 0£-The position of the vdecu; at Athens i s more complex and d i f f i c u l t to determine since what l i t t l e evidence exists i s often inconclusive and, therefore, open to interpretation. There i s , however, general consensus among modern scholars who have dealt with this issue that, before Solon, the po s i t i o n of the v&Qoc, within the paternal oikos was e s s e n t i a l l y Homeric, but that, situations i n the I l i a d i n which vc>6oi are referred to. 122 I hesitate to agree with C.B. Patterson's conclusion from these two passages that "against gnesioi, nothoi have no inheritance claim" ("Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 50) i n Homeric society simply because the case of Odysseus i n Book 14 suggests otherwise. Cf. the po s i t i o n of the adopted son i n cases of inheritance i n the law code at Gortyn (Col. 10, 11. 39-52. Text of R.F. W i l l e t s , The Law Code of Gortyn. (B e r l i n : Walter de Gruyter & Go., 1967 ) ) . 1 2 3Hdt. 3.2.2. 1 2 4IG 5* 159. 55 either during or after Solon's nomothesia, his position was alt e r e d . 1 2 5 We know that by 403/2 B.C. at the l a t e s t vo'e© Se unSe VO6T| UTJ eivm Svxioxeiav UT|8' fepSv uq6' oauov;12*1 whether th i s law was i n ef f e c t only from th i s time onwards, or was a reenactment of a previous one, w i l l be considered below. In Aristophanes' Birds, Peisthetairos claims to be quoting a law of Solon, which stipulates that vo8© 6e eivou ayxioxeiav naiScov o'vxov Yvnot<»v* eav 5e natSec ©at vvrfaioi, xotc evYDxaxcD vevo'oc - / 127 liexewou XQV xp'llio'xojv. Thus, according to the law, the vo8oc has no claim to the anchisteia, even i f there are no Yvrfoiot, and, therefore, i s excluded completely from sharing in the paternal oikos. The law, as presented i n the Birds, appears to be an amalgamation of two d i s t i n c t laws: one which permitted vo8ot to i n h e r i t and, thus, share i n the paternal oikos (11. 1661-2); and the other, which 128 barred them from p a r t i c i p a t i o n (11.1663-5). It i s d i f f i c u l t to determine which part of the law i s Solonian, i f , indeed, '"Patterson ("Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 54-7) argues for a post-Solonian change i n the treatment of voGoi at Athens; Humphreys ("The Nothoi of Kynosarges." JHS 94 (1974) 90) argues that i t was the work of Solon. Dem. 43.51; cf. the phrasing of the law i n Is. 6.47. 1 2 7L1. 1661-5. l i 0See Ogden Greek Bastardy 35-6; cf S.C. Humphreys, "The Nothoi of Kynosarges." JHS 94 (1974) 89 n.5. 56 either can be genuinely attributed to him. H.J. Wolff argued that the f i r s t part (11. 1661-2), which i s i d e n t i c a l to the posi t i o n of the vo8oc, i n Homer and the i n s c r i p t i o n from Tegea discussed above, i s a genuine Solonian law and, i f read on i t s own, implies that there was "a provision giving vo8oi preference / no to c o l l a t e r a l s i f there [were] no yvx\aioi; the second part was added, he believes, to create a comic e f f e c t . Thus, i n Wolff's opinion, Solon maintained the Homeric pattern, now confirmed by law, allowing vo8oi to share i n the paternal oikos and to i n h e r i t when no yvfoxoi existed. Though the interpretation offered by Wolff i s plausible, i t does not f i t i n well with another piece of l e g i s l a t i o n attributed to Solon by Plutarch. This i s the law which relieved the voBoi; of 130 his obligation to support his parents i n the i r old age. Wolff, and, most recently, Vernant, interpreted this law as confirming the i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n of the vdeoc, i n the paternal 131 oikos. But the law, as transmitted by Plutarch, does not make the provision that the vd8oc, i s relieved of his obligation only i f there are yvrlenoi sons. If there were such a provision, the law would correspond with the f i r s t part of the law of Solon, 129 "Marriage Law and Family Organization i n Ancient Athens." T r a d i t i o 2 (1944) 88-9. 1 3 0Plut. Solon 22.4. 131 H.J. Wolff, "Marriage Law and Family Organization i n Ancient Athens." T r a d i t i o 2 (1944) 87-8; J.P. Vernant, "Marriage" i n Myth and Society in Ancient Greece. (New York: Zone Books, 1990) 61. quoted i n the Birds, which, as Wolff argued, implies that VO'GOI did share i n the anchisteia i n the absence of yv\\oioi, and which, as mentioned above, i s i d e n t i c a l to th e i r p o s i t i o n i n Homer and fifth-century Tegea. Since, however, there does not appear to have been any such provision, the law suggests that any t i e s the voGoc, had to the paternal oikos were severed at t h i s time, even i n the absence of Y v i\° 1 0 1- Thus, I suggest that the second part of the law i n the passage of Aristophanes' Birds, not the f i r s t , i s 132 Solonian. It appears, therefore, that i t was Solon who altered the relationship of the voGoc, to the paternal oikos, not only denying him p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the anchisteia, but also 131 r e l i e v i n g him of his obligations to i t . Thus, from the time of Solon, vo8© 8c v o 8 n JIT} eTvcu aYX1*"6^ i£p©v u^ G' 6 a u » v . 1 3 4 This brings us to the question of the membership of the voGoc, i n both phratry and p o l i s at thi s point i n Athenian history. Given the i n f e r i o r status of the voGoc, i n the paternal oikos and, given the close relationship between oikos membership and membership in the phratry discussed e a r l i e r i n thi s chapter and the phratry's insistence upon yviiotdrnc,» i t follows that the voGoc, would not have been accepted into the phratry. He, therefore, 132 Cf. the comments of Ogden Greek Bastardy 36 and 39. 1 3 3 Cf. Ogden Ibid 39j43. Ogden also suggests that i t was at thi s time that the voGeux (the portion given to the vdeoc,) was established (Ibid 38-9). 134Dem. 43.51; cf. Is. 6.47. 58 would not have been a member of the polis-community, since membership i n the p o l i s was dependent on membership i n the 135 phratry at this time. Before Solon severed the relationship between the voOoc and the paternal oikos completely, however, i t may have been possible that, i n cases where an oikos had no yvtioioi or YVT|cioti and the vo9oc became successor, he was admitted into the paternal phratry, thereby being, e f f e c t i v e l y legitimated. If th i s was the case, i t follows that he became a full-member of both the paternal oikos and the polis-community. After Solon, however, this was no longer possible, even i n the absence of Yviimoi/ai. In such cases, as Birds 1663-5 makes clear, the estate f e l l to the c o l l a t e r a l r e l a t i v e s . Opinion among modern scholars concerning the membership of the voGoc, i n the polis-community after the introduction of the deme-system i n 508/7 B.C. i s further divided, with some believing n5 Cf. Rhodes Commentary 496-7; Ogden Greek Bastardy 41-3; and C.B. Patterson, "Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 56-7, who, however, believes that Kleisthenes was responsible for the complete exclusion of the voGoc i n the oikos, phratry, and p o l i s (cf. H.J. Wolff, "Marriage Law and Family Organization i n Ancient Athens." T r a d i t i o 2 (1944) 90-1). '^Compare the account of Perikles' v^ Boc son, who was admitted into the phratry by special request because both of Perikles' Y v 1f° 1 0 1 sons had died (Plutarch Perikles 37.5; and 26-7 above). There i s no mention i n the passage, however, that t h i s son was then admitted into the deme and accepted as a full-member of the p o l i s . But we know from elsewhere that he was one of the generals at Arginusai and, therefore, must have been a member of the deme. 59 137 that he did become a member, others that he did not. The essential question one must ask i s whether Kleisthenes made the requirements for membership i n the deme d i f f e r e n t from those of the phratry, thereby changing the requirements for membership in the polis-community. At 42.1, the author of the AP describes the procedure for admission into the deme and the c i t i z e n body i n his own day: Hexexowiv uev xr\c, noA,txeiot<; oi 1% an,<|>oxe'p(»v YCYOVOXEC &CXSV, £YYpa<!>ovxai 5' e?c XOIJC 8tip,oxac OKXOKaiSeica exr\ Y£Yovoxec. oxav 8' eYYP«0©vxai, 5ta\(/ii(j)i^ ovxat nepi ahxm ouo'oavxec oi Sruidxai, npSxov uev ei 8OKOIJOI YeYovevai xiyv ^XiKiav xrjv IK XOTJ VOJIO[I>], KO!V 8o^ ©ot, oine'pxovxai jtciXiv eii; naT8ac, 8eixepov 8' e' eXevBepoi; eoxt Kai Y£Y<>ve Kotxa x[o]vc vc^ uouc,. The absence of YVTJOI^TTIC. as a requirement for admission into the deme has been the source of the modern argument that the deme did not require i t s members to be Y V 1 1 0 1 0 1 - MacDowell, for example, points out that, apart from the s t i p u l a t i o n that those who are to share i n the p o l i t e i a are those whose parents are both Athenian, there i s only mention of the requirements that a candidate be eighteen years of age and that he be eXe-uGepo'c.-.iccu yzyoxz Kaxa x[o]ic Harrison (LA 1.61-8), MacDowell ("Bastards as Athenian Ci t i z e n s " CQ_ 26 ( 1976) 88-91 (repeated i n LCA 67-70; 84-108)), Walters ("Perikles' Citizenship Law" CA 2.2 (1983) 314-36), and Sealey ("On Lawful Concubinage i n Athens" CA 3.1 (1984) 111-33) are among those modern scholars who believe that the voBoc was a member of both deme and p o l i s ; Wolff ("Marriage Law and Family Organization i n Ancient Athens." T r a d i t i o 89-91), Lacey (The Family in C l a s s i c a l Greece (London: Thames & Hudson, 1968) 282 n.15), Humphreys ("The Nothoi of Kynosarees." JHS 94 (1974) 89-90), Rhodes ("Bastards As Athenian Cit i z e n s " CQ 28 (1978) 89-92), and Patterson ("Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 40-73) are among those who believe that he was not. 60 vduoDC,. 1 3 8 MacDowell argues that Yvtlol,:>xr|c, cannot be assumed i n the phrase yiyovt <axit x[o]i)<; vdu,ovc,, which he takes to refer back to 139 the requirement of Athenian b i r t h on both sides. He concludes from the AP's silence i n this matter that the deme, unlike the phratry, did not require i t s members to be y\x\aioi and that, therefore, the vdeoc, was not excluded from membership.14" MacDowell's argument, however, i s faulty. As indicated i n the examination of the requirements for membership i n the phratry, y\i\ai6ff\q, at least after 451/0 B.C., meant, by d e f i n i t i o n , b i r t h from two Athenian parents. This s t i p u l a t i o n i s i t s e l f mentioned in AP's description of the requirements for membership i n the deme, quoted above. One can only conclude from this that the deme did require yvnoioTrici on the part of i t s prospective members and, therefore, that the vdeoc, was not permitted admission, at least after the passage of the Periklean 138D.M. MacDowell, "Bastards As Athenian Ci t i z e n s " CO. 26 (1976) 89. See also Sealey ("On Lawful Concubinage i n Athens." CA 3.1 (1984) 114-16) who accepts this argument. 1 3 9 Idem. 14"ldem. Cf. the argument of Sealey ("On Lawful Concubinage i n Athens." CA 3.1 (1984) 114-6), who argues that the word eXe-oeepdc, i n AP 42.1 i s the equivalent of " c i t i z e n . " He then cites [Dem.] 23.53, i n which the children of a pallake are described as JXcoGepoi, and argues that, since the word i s used i n AP as " c i t i z e n " , and, since the children of a pallake are IXeiJeepoi as well, such children were c i t i z e n s . I believe, however, that such arguments are misleading and incorrect. (Cf. the view of Patterson on Sealey's interpretation of ?A,ei>6epdc, ("Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 54. ) 61 c i t i z e n s h i p law. 1 4 1 For the s i t u a t i o n before 451/0 B.C., dir e c t evidence i s non-existent. One i s forced, therefore, to consider what the intentions of Kleisthenes were i n introducing the new p o l i t i c a l organization of A t t i k a . In other words, was Kleisthenes concerned with the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership i n the polis-community and did he, therefore, a l t e r them? In his account of the reforms of Kleisthenes, the author of the AP seems to have thought that one of the purposes of the reforms was the extension of c i t i z e n s h i p . This i s most evident in his statement that Kleisthenes introduced the use of the 142 demotic i n order to hide those newly enfranchised. One finds Kleisthenes credited with mass enfranchisement i n A r i s t o t l e ' s P o l i t i c s as well: aXX' Yococ, EKEVVO naXXov ?xoi>oiv ctnopiav Scot H.E'TEOXOV nExapoXrjc, Y£vop,EVTt<; nokixeiac,, oiov lnoiT)oe KXEIOOEVTIC, nexa xrjv XSV XDpdvvov eKpoXiyv * jtoXAoiic, Y&p E^DXE'XEDOE ^evcoc, KCU SO'DA.OUC, HEXOIKOUC,. XO 5' an^taPrixTHia Rpoi XO'UXO'DC, eoxiv 0$ xi'c, 7toXixT|c,, aXXa jtoxEpov aSucoc, fj 8VKCU©C,. 1 3 Some of those who accept this t r a d i t i o n regard c i t i z e n s h i p (that i s , who should and who should not belong) as the main issue *4*He says that the AP's "silence [on the requirement of YVTiaioxtv;] must be s i g n i f i c a n t " (CQ 26 ( 1976) 89). See the counter-arguments of P.J. Rhodes, "Bastards As Athenian C i t i z e n s . " CQ_ 28 (1978) 89; and cf. his remarks i n Commentary 496-7, 499-500. U 2AP 21.4. U 3 A r . Pol. 1275b34-9; cf. 1319b21-2, where Ar. states that more phratries are created when enfranchisements occur. It i s not clear, however, that he i s r e f e r r i n g to Athens. 62 behind the Kleisthenic reforms. 1 4 4 As support for this view, i t s proponents turn to the diapsephismos conducted at the end of the P e i s i s t r a t i d rule, a scrutiny which, AP states, arose because many were sharing i n the p o l i t e i a who should not have been and, which, i t s author implies, caused many to lose t h e i r c i t i z e n s h i p ; 1 4 5 and to the AP's statement that Kleisthenes proposed amoSiSowc xS nXr(8ei ujv itoXvtef'av, a statement which they interpret to mean that he proposed to give back the c i t i z e n s h i p to those who had l o s t i t on account of the diapsephismos. 1 4 6 I think one must concede that i t i s e n t i r e l y possible, given the t r a d i t i o n , that some £evoi, 8oi)\oi, or even, vo9oi "may have been registered as deme members i n the canvassing of Att i k a necessary for the empanelling of Kleisthenes* new t r i b a l c o u n c i l . " 1 4 7 But, to argue from this that the main issue behind the reforms was c i t i z e n s h i p appears to me to be misguided. F i r s t of a l l , as indicated i n Chapter One, i t has recently been proposed that the diapsephismos need not have been a purging of the c i t i z e n l i s t s , as AP seems to have thought. Rather, i t may have been merely an accounting of c i t i z e n numbers required for the i n s t i t u t i o n of 1 4 4For example, P.B. Manville, The Origins of Citizenship i n Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 185-90. 145AP 13.5; cf. Chapter One 14-15. 146AP 20.2. (cf. Chapter One 15-17.) For such an interpretation, see P.B. Manville, The Origins of Citizenship i n Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 185-90. 147C.B. Patterson, "Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 59. 63 Kleisthenes' deme-system; the AP's suggestion that i t was not as such may be an inference informed by la t e r p r a c t i c e . 1 4 8 Secondly, the AP's statement that Kleisthenes proposed ctnoSiScmc, nX,Ti9ei irjv noXueiav suggests, rather, that he proposed to give p o l i t i c a l power (that i s , control of the state) to the plethos, not that he proposed to hand over c i t i z e n s h i p , which, I suggest, 149 was not at issue. Such a reading of this phrase conforms with the AP's la t e r account of Kleisthenes' reorganization of the citizen-body and i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s (that i s , deme/trittys/phyle and boule). 1 5" More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t conforms with his statement that Kleisthenes oYvanev^ ai poi)A.du,evoc,, O'JKBC, iitxdcxoxxsi nXeiouc, trjc, jtoXiietac,--a statement which I would translate as Kleisthenes "wished to mix up [the c i t i z e n s ] i n order that more [existing c i t i z e n s ] should have a share i n the running of the sta t e . " 1 5 1 It also suits the h i s t o r i c a l context of the reforms, a context which Herodotos c e r t a i n l y suggests was marked by the struggle for p o l i t i c a l control of the state. P. Harding, Androtion and the At t h i s . (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1994) 177; cf. Chapter One 15. 149 Thus, I am in agreement with Rhodes (Commentary 244-5); cf. Wade-Gery Essays 139 n.2, 147-8, 149 n . l ; and Chapter One (3-5) on the meaning of p o l i t e i a here. 150AP 21. 151AP 21.2; cf. Ar. Pol. 6; Rhodes' commentary to this chapter (Commentary 249-60, p a r t i c u l a r l y 250, where he deals with this phrase); contra Manville's t r a n s l a t i o n (The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 185-90). 64 Tied into the question of the purpose of Kleisthenes' reforms i s the issue of the relationship between phratry and deme. For, underlying the arguments of those who believe that Kleisthenes altered the requirements of membership i s the assumption that membership i n a phratry was no longer a necessary requirement for membership i n the p o l i s . One must consider, therefore, whether Kleisthenes intended to replace the function of the phratry v i s - a - v i s membership i n the p o l i s with the deme. Stated otherwise, after the Kleisthenic reforms, was i t only necessary to belong to a deme to be considered a member of the polis-community? The question i s , indeed, a perplexing one. For, i n his account of the procedure for ncxe'xeiv trj^ noXtxetac, the author of the AP only describes the procedure for admission into the deme; he 152 does not say anything about membership i n the phratry. In addition, from the o r a t o r i c a l evidence for the admission procedures of the deme, i t does not appear that a candidate had to prove membership i n a phratry in order to qual i f y for membership i n the deme. Rather, the process was separate. As with the admission procedures of the phratry, candidates for membership i n the deme were introduced by the i r father to his 153 demesmen; and, in cases of adoption, a candidate was 152 AP 42.1. 153 See, for example, Dem. 39.21 65 introduced by his adoptive father to his own deme. Unlike the phratry's two ceremonies for admission (the meion and koureion), there appears to have been only one ceremony i n the deme, and t h i s did not take place u n t i l the age of eighteen. 1 5 5 Demesmen, as was the case for phrateres, appear to have been required to take an oath and vote on a candidate's e l i g i b i l i t y for admission.15*1 Upon successful completion, a candidate's name was inscribed on the lexiarchikon grammateion. And, as AP indicates, those whom the deme voted to reject as not having the i J See, for example, Is. 7.27; and Dem. 44.36-40. It i s unclear when the deme held i t s admissions ceremony. Some have taken Lys. 31.1 as proof that a l l demes performed an annual ceremony early i n the new year (Rhodes Commentary 497; The Athenian Boule. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) 172; Macdowell LCA 69). Whitehead does not regard t h i s as s u f f i c i e n t proof (Demes 100). It i s most l i k e l y , however, that, as with the phratries, which celebrated the Apatouria, a l l A t t i c demes held an annual ceremony for admissions at the same time. 155AP 42.1 indicates that introduction to, and r e g i s t r a t i o n i n , the deme took place when a candidate was eighteen years old. It i s unclear whether this means that a candidate had to have already celebrated his eighteenth birthday, or i f introduction took place in one's eighteenth year (that i s , after his seventeenth birthday). Rhodes, however, has shown that i t must be the former (Commentary 497-8). Cf. Whitehead Demes 101 n.78. No evidence from the orators or other l i t e r a r y sources can confirm the AP's statement (on Lys. 31.1 and Dem. 27.5, see previous note); a l l that can be said from t h i s evidence i s that introduction to the deme took place normally soon after introduction to the phratry. See, for example, Is. 7.13-17, 27-8; Dem. 39.3-5. One of the ways i n which the speaker of Dem. 44 attempts to prove that his opponent i s not the proper heir to the estate of Archiades i s the i r r e g u l a r i t y with which Leochares was introduced to both phratry and deme. At 44.41-3 (repeated at 44), the speaker stresses the fact that Leochares was introduced to the demesmen of Archiades as his adopted son before he was introduced to his phratry. The implication here i s that Leochares' adoption i s suspect because he should have been introduced to the phratry before he was to the deme. 156AP 42.1; Is. 7.27 (part of the deme oath); Dem. 57.26, 61, 64, which also records part of the oath. 66 proper q u a l i f i c a t i o n , could appeal to a jury court. 1 5 7 Unlike those newly enrolled i n a phratry, new demesmen had to undergo review by the Boule to ensure that each met the proper 158 requirements, and, i f any were found to be improperly enrolled, the demesmen were fined. The very fact that a central organ of the p o l i s was responsible for confirming one's legitimacy for belonging to a deme, combined with the fact that one's admission into a deme was not dependent on p r i o r admission into a phratry, would suggest that the state did not consider membership in a phratry a requirement for belonging to the p o l i s . In his account of the reforms of 508/7 B.C., however, the author of the AP states s p e c i f i c a l l y that Kleisthenes xct Se yevrj Ken x&C <t>pottpiac KCXI tac fepocuvac eVaoev 2^eiv eKaatouc. Kaxol xci naxpva--a statement which can only indicate that the phratry retained i t s function, including i t s function i n regard to membership i n the p o l i s -159 community. In addition to this evidence, there i s also that found i n the orators, i n which membership i n both phratry and deme i s linked to one's membership in the p o l i s and i n which the absence of membership i n either i n s t i t u t i o n gives reason to doubt 157AP 42.1. Dem. 57.61 confirms AP's statement. Cf. A r i s t . Wasps 1. 578 and the comments of P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952) 171; Commentary 500; and Whitehead Demes 100-1. 158 — AP 42.1 suggests that the Boule considered only the age-requirement. As Rhodes argues, however, both Boule and jury court must have considered a l l of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s (The Athenian Boule. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) 171-74; Commentary 500; 502) . 159AP 21.6; cf. Ar. P o l i t i c s 6. 1319bl9-27. 67 the legitimacy of one's claim to belonging to the state; and that found i n c i t i z e n s h i p grants where, for the most part, membership i n a phratry i s given along with membership i n deme, t r i t t y e s , and phyle. 1 6 0 How i s this apparently c o n f l i c t i n g evidence to be reconciled? Should one follow the example of such scholars as MacDowell and Harrison by simply explaining the p o s i t i v e evidence for the phratry away as an example of Athenian conservatism, and suggest that membership i n a phratry "was the normal thing, [but i t was not] indispensable?" 1 6 1 Or, i s Lambert's argument, that membership i n both phratry and deme were required, since each was conceptually linked to being an Athenian, the more accurate one? According to Lambert, i t was through admission into both phratry and deme that one became an Athenian c i t i z e n . He argues that each i n s t i t u t i o n performed d i f f e r e n t functions i n belonging to the p o l i s ; the phratry, with i t s two admissions ceremonies, was I say for the most part because there are three decrees i n which phratry membership i s not given and one i n which the deme i s not given. (See Osborne Naturalization 2.21) Along with the above evidence should be mentioned AP 55.3, where, during the archontic scrutiny, prospective archons are asked, among other things, whether they have a c u l t of Apollo Patroos. This c u l t was associated p a r t i c u l a r l y with the genos and phratry. The implication here i s not only that one had to be a member of a phratry i n order to become an archon (see Rhodes Commentary 618), but also, I suggest, that one had to be a phrater i n order to be an Athenian as well. 1 6 1Harrison LA 1.64 n . l ; MacDowell LCA 68. Views comparable to that of Harrison and MacDowell can be found i n the works of Wade-Gery (Essays 151 n.2); Gomme (Essays 81); Andrewes ("Philochoros On Phratries" JHS 81 (1961) 13); Osborne (Naturalization 3/4 171); Whitehead (Demes 97 n.55); and Manville (The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) 24 n.79, 63). 68 concerned primarily with matters of descent (that i s , with ensuring that the proper q u a l i f i c a t i o n s be met, and with issues of inheritance and adoption); while the deme, though i t too examined the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of i t s candidates, was the i n s t i t u t i o n through which most of the p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l 1 C 0 c r i t e r i a of membership were acquired. For Lambert, i t was through membership i n a phratry and through membership in a deme that one became an Athenian c i t i z e n . Lambert's view, at any rate, describes the r e a l i t y of the way i n which ci t i z e n s h i p was conceived i n c l a s s i c a l Athens. In the face of the l i t e r a r y and epigraphic evidence, i n which membership i n both i n s t i t u t i o n s i s attested for belonging to the p o l i s , i t i s l o g i c a l to accept that both were required. It i s most l i k e l y , however, that Kleisthenes did intend that membership in the deme replace membership in phratry i n regard to ci t i z e n s h i p , just as the four Ionian tribes and the early t r i t t y e s were supplanted over time by the new. It i s necessary to consider, however, how much of the system of admission to the deme and review by the Boule, well attested in the fourth century, can be attributed to Kleisthenes. In her study of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law, Patterson has argued that " i t i s not j u s t i f i a b l e to assume that the system of deme scrutiny, r e g i s t r a t i o n , review by the Boule, and possible appeal 1 6 2Lambert Phratries 31-43. 163 Cf. AP's explanation for the use of the demotic over the patronymic. 69 to a dikasterion emerged full-blown from the head of Kleisthenes." 1^ In her opinion, the admission procedure of the deme was most l i k e l y modelled i n i t i a l l y on that of the phratry, developing eventually, during the f i f t h century, into that described by AP and the orators, as the p o l i s became more centralized. Thus, for Patterson, demesmen were l e f t to determine th e i r own procedures for admission into t h e i r group, just as, she believes, was the case for i n d i v i d u a l phratries. In considering the view of Patterson, Whitehead has objected that "the uniform procedures well documented i n the second half of the fourth century must surely have had t h e i r roots i n some basic regulations l a i d down, with the same end i n view, by Kleisthenes. Thus,...we may-indeed we must-envisage from the s t a r t the two fundamental elements of scrutiny-examination (dokimasia) and registration-enrolment." For Whitehead, Kleisthenes was responsible, at least, for the establishment of regularized deme admission procedure, as well as review by the Boule.^ It i s necessary to recognize that the arguments of both scholars are from silence. For, there i s no direct evidence to support either. Patterson's objection that i t 1 U HPatterson PCL 27. ^Patterson Ibid 27-8. Patterson also believes that the requirements for membership i n the deme would have varied from deme to deme, just as, she believes, was the case for the phratries (PCL 22; 28). On the question of whether there was any p o l i s -l e g i s l a t i o n on membership, see below 72-80. 166Demes 35. Cf. P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) 173, i n whose opinion the dokimasia by the Boule was established by Kleisthenes. 70 i s d i f f i c u l t to accept that the system of admission to the deme, possible appeal to a central jury court, and review by the Boule could have "emerged full-blown from the head of Kleisthenes" i s , however, unconvincing. Admittedly, one must concede that some of the system attested i n the fourth century was due to new 169 developments and changes during the f i f t h . But, surely, the re-organization of the population of Attika into ten new t r i b e s , each divided into three t r i t t y e s , and based on the l o c a l unit, the deme, was i t s e l f revolutionary and the work of genius. It i s not u n r e a l i s t i c , i n my mind at least, to envision that Kleisthenes gave j u r i s d i c t i o n to the Boule to review those newly admitted to the deme. If this was, indeed, the case, i t becomes clear that Kleisthenes intended membership i n the deme to be the sole basis for c i t i z e n s h i p . The role of the phratry, however, i n matters of the family (that i s , i n descent, adoption, and inheritance) was, c u l t u r a l l y , so entrenched i n the very essence of being an Athenian, that i t s importance persisted well into the fourth century. 1 7 0 The very fact that, i n grants of c i t i z e n s h i p by Athens to foreigners, membership i n a phratry was given suggests that the state recognized the importance membership i n 1 6 8Patterson PCL 27 . 169 This may have been the case p a r t i c u l a r l y for the right to appeal to a central jury court. The ephebeia, as a national m i l i t a r y service, was, I believe, a fourth-century i n s t i t u t i o n . Cf. Rhodes Commentary 70. 71 that i n s t i t u t i o n played for belonging to the p o l i s , 1 7 1 If t h i s i s a correct interpretation of the evidence, i t becomes clear that, though Kleisthenes did intend to make membership in the deme the sole basis for c i t i z e n s h i p , he did not a l t e r the requirements themselves for admission into the c i t i z e n -body. It follows, therefore, that the deme did require YVTJOICHTIC, on the part of i t s prospective members and, subsequently, that the vciBoi; was not admitted into the c i t i z e n body after the Kleisthenic reforms. I would l i k e to conclude this chapter by considering whether there was a precedent for Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law of 451/0 B.C.. That i s , was there a law of the p o l i s , imposed by the centre onto phratry and, after 508/7 B.C., deme, on who could, and who could not, belong to the Athenian state? In her recent study of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law, Patterson has argued that there was no law of the Athenian p o l i s before 451/0 B.C. defining who could and who could not belong. Membership in the p o l i s before that year was, she suggests, the business of in d i v i d u a l phratries and, after the Kleisthenic 172 reforms, the demes. In. her view, the importance of Perikles' 1 7 1 I t would be a mistake, however, to follow Lambert and suggest that the role each i n s t i t u t i o n played was as clear-cut and d i s t i n c t as he proposes (that i s , that the phratry was important for matters of the family, whereas the deme was the vehicle for access to the p o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l c r i t e r i a of membership). For, there i s evidence that the deme was also concerned with matters of the family, p a r t i c u l a r l y in matters of b u r i a l ([Dem]. 43.57-8; cf. comments of Whitehead Demes 137-8). 172PCL 8-28, espe c i a l l y 8. 72 ci t i z e n s h i p law l i e s i n that i t set down a standard q u a l i f i c a t i o n necessary for membership in Athens. Thus, before 451/0 B.C., i t was the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of in d i v i d u a l phratries and demes to determine what q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were necessary for membership i n them and, thereby, i n the p o l i s as a whole. Accordingly, the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for admission into phratry and deme would have 173 varied before the introduction of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law. In our examination of the admissions procedures of the phratry, we saw that, indeed, i n d i v i d u a l phratries handled th e i r admissions d i f f e r e n t l y . In other words, we saw that the d e t a i l s of procedure varied from phratry to phratry. Can the same be said, however, of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership? Did the phratries and demes determine by themselves who should be admitted and who should not? 1 7 4 It would be useful here to follow Patterson's example and examine the evidence concerning s t a t e - l e g i s l a t i o n on membership, beginning f i r s t with Solon and then proceeding to Pe i s i s t r a t o s and, f i n a l l y , to Kleisthenes. The following law i s quoted i n the Justinian Digest and i s 'most evident at Patterson PCL 113. Her suggestion (PCL 29 n.l) that, before 451/0 B.C., some Athenian phratries and demes were requiring b i r t h from two Athenian parents seems to me farfetched. Cf. Whitehead Demes 99 n.63. Ogden (Greek Bastardy 47-53) makes an argument similar to that of Patterson, proposing that there were competing requirements for ci t i z e n s h i p between the phratries and gene. " 4 I t should be emphasized that one of the implications of Patterson's argument that i n d i v i d u a l phratries and demes were l e f t to determine what q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were necessary for membership in them i s that the si t u a t i o n could ari s e where an in d i v i d u a l was accepted into the phratry, but not into the deme. What would th i s individual's status have been? Would he have been an Athenian? 73 attributed to Solon: lav 5e ST^IOC, (t>pc£xopec, ^ i?|p<M>v opYC<Sve<; f|N yevvTJxcu ^ cDOcnot 'T\ 6p.c>xot<j>oi ^ GiaoSxai ^ ent Xetav oixo'nevoi f|v e?c, Snjiopiav, ft xv 'av xolixoov StaGaJvxcn itpbc, 'aXXrfXoDc;, KiSpiov etvai, £av u,^  aTiaYopcuoiri S^noaxa ypaunaxa. 1 7 5 As Whitehead has remarked, we have in this passage several "associations," which are here permitted "to issue sovereign enactments insofar as they do not contravene public law." 1 7 6 The authenticity of the law as presented i n the Digest i s i n doubt because of the reference to demes, which did not exis t as o f f i c i a l groups before Kleisthenes, and to other associations, such as s y s s i t o i , which are not believed to have been an Athenian i n s t i t u t i o n . 1 7 7 Andrewes noted that "the law as here presented 178 may contain l a t e r accretions," but did not doubt the at t r i b u t i o n of the law to Solon. Patterson, on the other hand, has suggested that the law belongs to a period much la t e r than Solon, and that i t has been i n c o r r e c t l y "attributed to him as the 179 founder of Athenian law." It should be made clear that Patterson's proposal that the law i s not Solonian suits, her main argument that there was no law of the p o l i s on membership. For, i f we accept that i t i s the work of Solon, the law suggests that there may have been a law of the p o l i s before 451/0 B.C. on who 1 7 5 4 7 . 22 . 4. 176Demes 13. 177A. Andrewes, "Philochoros On Phratries. " JHS 81 (1961) 12 n.40; Patterson PCL 17-8; Whitehead Demes 13. 1 7 8 I b i d 12 n.40. 1 7 9Patterson PCL 18. 7 4 could, and who could not, belong. The law, however, only suggests t h i s ; i t does not confirm i t , since i t does not state s p e c i f i c a l l y that there were 8 t i i i o c i a ypoenpiaxa on polis-membership. The law as presented here, then, cannot stand on i t s own as an indic a t i o n that Solon l e g i s l a t e d on who was to belong to the pol i s over and above the decision of indi v i d u a l phratries. At Chapter 24 of his l i f e of Solon, Plutarch credits him with the enfranchisement of foreigners: nctpe'xex 8' a j top iav teat o x©v STjuonoirfxav voiioc,, ox i yeveoai noA-ixaic ox> 8i8©ai nXiyv xoT<; (tie'u'YO'oatv aeitttvYta xrjv ecn)X©v ^ navecxtoK; 'AGrfva^e LtcxoiKi£op.evoi<; en i xe%vT|. Plutarch goes on to explain that Solon did not r e s t r i c t c i t i z e n s h i p to foreigners who were i n e x i l e and to those who came to Athens to practice a trade i n order to discourage others from coming to Athens, but simply to permit such foreigners to come with the assurance of becoming members of the p o l i s . If the law 180 is genuinely Solonian, i t does appear to place r e s t r i c t i o n s on the decisions of the phratry on whom they could, and could not, accept. The law, however, sounds more l i k e a one-time offe r of asylum than a general p o l i c y , or law, on membership i n the 181 polis-community. I would suggest that the thrust of this law i s similar to that of the amnesty law also attributed to Solon, and discussed below. In a poem by Solon, quoted at AP 12.4, the law-giver claims 180 Patterson prefers to date the law to the early f i f t h century (PCL 19) . 1 8 1See Patterson (PCL 18-19) on the d i f f i c u l t i e s of l o g i s t i c s . 75 to have restored the cit i z e n - s t a t u s of those Athenians who had 182 been sold into slavery both at home and abroad. In addition to t h i s , Plutarch purports to be quoting the eighth of Solon's laws from the axones when he writes: 'Ax/u.©v <><*oi &Txtp,ot ficctv npiv ^ IoA,©vct SpJjat, ejnxt'noBC, e lva i nXty $001 \% 'Apeic^) itavorj Tr\ flcoi IK XSV l$exSv 2K npuxavetou KOtxaSiKaaeevxec, hito xSv 8acnA,e©v \ni 0OV<D ^ o0aYa7oiv *f} In^ xupavviSi ifyeuYov foe S 9eau.bc, e<t>avii ^J5e.18 Both of these acts of Solon must have, in e f f e c t , compelled the phratries to re-admit those who had been sold into slavery and those who had previously been deemed atimoi. Like the law on the enfranchisement of foreigners attributed to Solon, however, neither of these acts can be said to set up a general law on who i s to belong to the polis-community. Rather, each re-confers a status upon such i n d i v i d u a l s , a status which they had previously held and which they had held by v i r t u e of th e i r p r i o r acceptance into a phratry. None of the laws ci t e d so far, then, indicate that Solon l e g i s l a t e d on who could, and who could not, belong to the p o l i s -community. As we have seen, he i s credited with having offered asylum to foreigners and with having re-conferred membership to those who had lo s t i t because of slavery or atimia. But, these laws appear to have been one-time enactments and do not set up a general p o l i c y , or standard q u a l i f i c a t i o n , on membership. The law of Solon, quoted at Aristophanes' Birds and cf. Plut. Solon 15.5. Plut. Solon 19.3. 76 discussed e a r l i e r , however, does suggest that Solon l e g i s l a t e d on passage, Patterson argues that the law i s only i n d i r e c t l y concerned with c i t i z e n s h i p ; i t s main concern i s "with the 185 property holding system of A t t i c a . " And more important, the clearest evidence of legitimacy w i l l have been membership i n the (paternal) phratry. A son whom the phratry admits i s gnesios. E s s e n t i a l l y , Solon, by denying the nothos a share of his father's estate, prohibited a father from ignoring the decision of the phratry and from giving ta chremata to an i l l e g i t i m a t e son....The t r a d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the phratry were reinforced by s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n drawing a d i s t i n c t l i n e between the position of legitimate and i l l e g i t i m a t e members of Athenian families. Patterson i s c e r t a i n l y correct in her statement that the law i s i n d i r e c t l y on membership i n the p o l i s . But, by excluding the vo8oc from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the cVjxioxei'ot, Solon, i n turn, excluded 187 him from belonging to the p o l i s • Accordingly, the phratries were compelled to observe th i s law and deny vo9oi admission, even f 1 0 0 i n cases where no yvrioioi existed. Furthermore, Patterson's analysis begs the question "How did the phratries determine who was Y v 11 o l 0c and was, therefore, to be admitted into their group?" In her view, i t was the phratries themselves who were to decide who was to be a member of the p o l i s . In dealing with th i s above, 55-8 1660-66; for f u l l discussion of this passage, see 185 Patterson PCL 17. 186 Idem. 187 Cf Ogden Greek Bastardy 42. 188 Cf. Ogden Ibid 43. 77 t h i s . I would suggest, however, that Solon's l e g i s l a t i o n on voOoi included a clear and uniform d e f i n i t i o n of YVTjoto'ttis» to be followed by the phratries i n t h e i r examination of candidates for admission into their group and, consequently, into the c i t i z e n body.189 That a law of the p o l i s concerning membership existed i s also assumed i n a passage of the AP, where i t s author states that a diapsephismos was held after the f a l l of the tyranny, noXXov KOIVG>VOI>VT©V XT{<; noXtxeictc oi itpootjicov.19" As stated i n Chapter One, this statement associates the c r i t e r i a of membership with the 191 — q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary. Even i f the diapsephismos were not a purging of the c i t i z e n - l i s t s as the author of the AP seems to 192 have thought, but an account of c i t i z e n numbers required for the establishment of the Kleisthenic system, the association of the c r i t e r i a of membership with the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s s t i l l implies that there were uniform standards set by the p o l i s . P e i s i s t r a t o s i s not believed to have changed the requirements of membership, and i t i s controversial whether he a c t u a l l y admitted foreigners 105 into the citizen-body. If he did grant some foreigners 1 8 9Cf. Ogden Idem. 190AP 13.5. 1 9 1Chapter One 14 n. 40. 1 9 2See Chapter One 15-16 and 62-3 above. 193AP 13.5 states that P e i s i s t r a t o s was supported by the xSt yt\ti U T | <a6apoi. It i s unclear who these people were prec i s e l y . Rhodes (Commentary 255-6) believes they were either those Solon i s said to 78 membership, I agree with Patterson that he probably put ""extra-l e g a l " pressure upon the phratries" rather than i n s t i t u t e any new laws. For, both Herodotos and Thucydides state c l e a r l y that 195 he did not a l t e r the laws of Athens during his rule. When we turn to the reforms i n s t i t u t e d by Kleisthenes, the issue of whether there was a law of the p o l i s on membership becomes more complicated. I have already discussed the e f f e c t deme-membership had on the status of the voGoc, , and concluded that there i s no evidence to suggest that Kleisthenes altered the YVT|OIO'XTI(; requirement to admit him into the citizen-body. 1 9 6 I have also suggested that the view of the AP that Kleisthenes' system was a means to admit more people into the citizen-body i s 197 misguided. Rather, the reforms appear to have been i n s t i t u t e d to ensure the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of more ex i s t i n g c i t i z e n s in the p o l i t i c a l c r i t e r i a of membership. Thus, I do not believe that the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for c i t i z e n s h i p were at issue at t h i s time. But, does the Kleisthenic deme-system i t s e l f imply that there were uniform q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership already established by the polis? The answer to this question l i e s i n how much of the system have enfranchised (Plut. Solon 24) or mercenaries who supported P e i s i s t r a t o s . 1 9 4Patterson PCL 23. 1 9 5Hdt. 1.59.6; Thuc. 6.54.6. 1 9 6See 59-72 above. 1 q 7 "See Chapter One 15-16 and 61-4 above. 79 for admission into the deme and citizen-body, described at AP 42.1-2, can be attributed to Kleisthenes. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i f Kleisthenes was responsible for establishing the practice of review by the Boule of those newly admitted into the deme, one must assume that there were uniform standards, which the demes were compelled to observe, and which the Boule was to ensure were met. I suggested e a r l i e r i n thi s chapter that the view of Whitehead that the system of review by the Boule was the work of 198 Kleisthenes i s probably correct. It follows, therefore, that there was a law of the p o l i s on membership. Since I do not believe that Kleisthenes altered the requirements, I propose that 199 a law of the p o l i s was already i n e f f e c t before 508/7 B.C.. That a law on membership existed i s also implied by the uniform practice of the phratry of denying the vciGoc, membership. It i s , admittedly, conceivable that this practice was simply a r e f l e c t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l standards set by the polis-community, and not the result of l e g i s l a t i o n . The evidence, however, that Solon excluded the voOoc, completely from the paternal oikos, even in cases i n which no yvtioioi existed, not only suggests that the n oSee above, 69-71. 199 It should be made clear, however, that, by making membership in a deme a compulsory component of membership i n the p o l i s , Kleisthenes did, i n a sense, a l t e r the requirements for ci t i z e n s h i p . In other words, the very fact that af t e r 508/7 B.C. one had to be a member of both deme and phratry in order to be considered an Athenian r e f l e c t s a change i n the requirements for membership in the polis-community. The requirement, however, i s not i n the same vein as the requirement of yvtiotoxrn; or as that of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law. 80 phratries were now compelled to refuse vo8oi admission under any circumstances, but i t also suggests that Solon established, perhaps for the f i r s t time, a uniform d e f i n i t i o n of yvr\aioit\q to be followed by the phratries i n their examination of candidates for membership. If thi s was the case, then Solon did l e g i s l a t e on who could belong to the polis-community, and, therefore, there was a law concerning membership at Athens before 451/0 B.C.. Before proceeding to the next chapter, a few words ought to be said about some odd b i t s of evidence concerning the phratry. In the fourth book of his A t t h i s , Philochoros quotes the following law: TOIIC Se (Jjpofxopac e^iavctYKec 5e'xea8at KCU XOIJC ZpytSxac, KCU IOVC, onoyctXaKxac, o^ Jc Yevvtfcac, Kodoiiiiev. (FGrH 328 f r . 35a) According to the law, the phratries are compelled to receive into t h e i r group both the orgeones and the homogalaktes/gennetai.^ I have taken gennetai as re f e r r i n g to homogalaktes only, as Philo. Fgrh 328 f r . 35b makes clear. On the id e n t i t y of the orgeones and homogalaktes/gennetai, see Lambert Phratries 59-77, who argues that both were normally sub-groups of the phratry. I do not accept the arguments of e a r l i e r scholarship that both orgeones and homogalaktes/gennetai formed the entire body of phrateres, the former being the commoners, the l a t t e r the a r i s t o c r a t i c minority. Nor do I agree with th e i r interpretation that the purpose of the law was to protect and ensure the admission of the orgeones into the phratry against the discrimination of the e l i t e gennetai. (See, for example, Wade-Gery Essays 86-134; Hignett HAC 61-2; 390-1; and the objections of Andrewes "Philochoros On Phratries." JHS 81 (1961) 1-2). That phratries had members who were a r i s t o i i s implied i n Drakon's homicide law (see text of R. Stroud, Drakon's Law On Homicide. (Berkeley: The University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1968) 11. 19-20.). It i s not clear, however, that they were gennetai. Hammond (in "Land Tenure i n A t t i c a and Solon's Seisachtheia." JHS 81 (1961) 76-82) offers a view markedly d i f f e r e n t . He argues that both orgeones and gennetai homogalaktes (note that he does not take homogalaktes as a synonym of gennetai; rather, he understands gennetai homogalaktes to be a di f f e r e n t 81 The precise date and context of the law are unknown. We know from other fragments of Philochoros' work that Book Three covered the year 464 B.C., and that Book Five covered 395/4 B.C.. It i s believed, therefore, that the l i m i t s of Book Four, from which the 201 above fragment comes, may have been 462/1-403 B.C.. Andrewes, and, most recently, Lambert, argue against e a r l i e r scholars, who believed that the law was part of a digression to the Archaic period, and propose that the law belongs to the Periklean era, when, they suggest, l e g i s l a t i o n concerning the phratries 202 arose. Andrewes believed that fr.35a was part of the same law as Krateros f r . 4, another piece of l e g i s l a t i o n concerning the phratries, which deals with those born from two xenoi who are members of a phratry, and which he dated to the mid-430's 203 B.C.. He argued that l e g i s l a t i o n pertaining to admission to the phratries occurred i n the mid-430's because i t was at t h i s time that those born just before the i n s t i t u t i o n of Perikles' category of gennetai) were groups into the c i t i z e n body v i a the therefore, a law which protected groups into the phratry. of foreigners being enfranchised phratry. Philo. fr.35a i s , the admission of both of these '"'See Jacoby Intro, to Philo. 328 FGrH 252-4. 202Andrewes "Philochoros On Phratries." JHS 81 (1961) 13-14; Lambert Phratries 46-9. Wade-Gery (Essays 86-134) and Jacoby (commentary to f r . 35) argued that the law was the work of Solon; Hignett (HAC 61-2; 390-1), that i t was the work of Kleisthenes. Cf. Patterson on Philo. 328 FGrH fr.35 and Krateros fr.4 (PCL 107-14; cf. 19-22), who believes that both laws were i n s t i t u t e d i n the 440's as a direct result of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law (see below, 83-5). ?fl3 UJA. Andrewes, "Philochoros On Phratries." JHS 81 (1961) 13-14. For the text of Krateros f r . 4, see Chapter Three 109. 82 c i t i z e n s h i p law would have attempted to gain membership in the O A I deme. Lambert, l i k e Andrewes, also connects Philochoros fr.35a to Krateros fr.A, but argues that both laws "are c l o s e l y associated with [Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law] and may be extracts from i t , " 2 0 5 dating the law, therefore, to 451/0 B.C.. He suggests that Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law "not only d i r e c t l y affected phratries, but also made detailed provisions concerning access to them, including specifying the form of action to be taken against unqualified members and providing for automatic entry into phratries for gennetai and orgeones." In Chapter Three, I discuss the effects Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law must have had on the admission procedures of the phratry (and deme). I also discuss the association of Krateros fr.4 with the c i t i z e n s h i p law more f u l l y , and argue against such a connection. It i s s u f f i c i e n t for our purposes here to make the observation that the c i t i z e n s h i p law, as i t i s preserved i n the sources, says nothing s p e c i f i c a l l y about l e g i s l a t i o n concerning admission into the phratry, or about the procedure to be followed against unqualified members. Rather, a l l three sources suggest that Perikles' law established a new q u a l i f i c a t i o n for membership 207 i n the Athenian p o l i s only. 2 0*Ibid 13. 2 0 5Lambert Phratries 49; 45-9. 2 0 6 I b i d 49. 207 It should be emphasized that, i f Lambert's argument i s accepted, one must acknowledge that our sources ( p a r t i c u l a r l y AP) are misleading and incorrect, a step I am not w i l l i n g to make. 83 Patterson, following the example of Andrewes, takes a more moderate stance on Philochoros f r . 35a than Lambert, suggesting that the law dates to the 440's B.C., and may be a r e f l e c t i o n of 208 procedural innovations caused by the c i t i z e n s h i p law. "The law," she observes, " i s apparently a grant of p r i v i l e g e to these groups; they are not required to undergo the normal phratry 209 enrolment procedure." Patterson suggests that the admission procedures of both orgeones and homogalaktes/gennetai were considered rigorous enough to exclude a second examination by the 210 phratry, and she goes on to hypothesize that, even before 451/0 B.C., "some gene i n s i s t e d on Athenian parentage on both 211 sides." Philochoros fr.35a i s , therefore, i n her opinion, a recognition, by the state, that the gene (and orgeones) required their members to possess q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , which were more exclusive than those of the phratry, and which the state i t s e l f 212 now required. It should be clear by now, on the basis of e a r l i e r discussion, that I disagree with Patterson's idea of competing d e f i n i t i o n s of YVTJCUCVETIC, and, hence, of competing q u a l i f i c a t i o n s 2 0 8Patterson PCL 113-4 2 0 9Patterson PCL 113. 2 1 0 Idem. 211Idem. 2 l 2 I b i d 113-14. 84 213 between various groups. I, therefore, also disagree with the idea that the gene (and orgeones) were more s t r i c t i n t h e i r ? 1 / admissions than the phratries. If the law recorded at Philochoros f r . 35a does, indeed, provide the orgeones and 215 gennetai with automatic admission into the phratry, i t may be an indica t i o n that the state recognized that orgeones and gennetai demanded the same requirements of th e i r members as the phratry, not that both groups were more rigorous. 11 0 Her suggestion that [Dem.] 59.104-106 ( s p e c i f i c a l l y the s t i p u l a t i o n that the children of Plataians, who were granted c i t i z e n s h i p , w i l l be e l i g i b l e for the archonship and priesthoods, which are ek genous, only i f they are born from a married Athenian wife) i s an indica t i o n that the gene were more exclusive i n their admission of candidates, and that some even required double c i v i c ascendance before 451/0 B.C. (PCL 114), i s unconvincing. The requirement placed on the children of the Plataians i s , I suggest, a r e f l e c t i o n of the rules of Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p , not the rules of gene. Any person holding the o f f i c e of archon, or a priesthood, had to be an Athenian, defined after 451/0 as one born from two married c i t i z e n s . 71/ Cf. the comments of Ogden (Greek Bastardy 52; 115-17), who, however, makes the complete opposite argument of Patterson, suggesting that the gene were more careless i n their admissions than the phratries. 215 It i s not e n t i r e l y clear, I believe, that the law allows the orgeones and gennetai to forego examination by the phratry, as a l l scholars have argued up to this point. 2 | k See, for example, the comments of the speaker at Is. 7.16 to the e f f e c t that the gene and phratries have the same laws for admission. I am not convinced by Ogden's argument that the admission procedures of the gene were more lax than those of the phratry (Greek Bastardy 115-17). He bases his argument on the evidence provided by forensic speeches, where, most often, the speaker glosses over the d e t a i l s of admission into the gene" (and, I might add, the phratry). These speeches, I believe, must be treated with caution. As noted e a r l i e r i n this chapter, the speakers, for the most part, only had to mention admission (or the denial of admission) into the phratry; the d e t a i l s were usually not necessary (see 30-1 above). 85 When would the Athenians have i n s t i t u t e d such a law? The argument that the law i s from the 440's or 430's seems to be made on the basis of the l i m i t s of Book Four of Philochoros' A t t h i s , 217 which, as noted above, appear to have been 462/1-403 B.C.. Unfortunately, the context of the law i s unknown; equally unfortunate i s the fact that there i s no independent evidence for any similar l e g i s l a t i o n concerning the phratries. The law may have been i n s t i t u t e d , as Patterson believes, a decade after the c i t i z e n s h i p law was passed and, therefore, may be part of modernizations i n procedure caused by the c i t i z e n s h i p law. But, i t i s also possible that i t was i n s t i t u t e d much e a r l i e r and, accordingly, may be part of a digression i n Philochoros' 218 work. At any rate, whatever one makes of the date and h i s t o r i c a l context of Philochoros f r . 35a, the law, as argued above, should not be regarded as part of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law of 451/0 B.C., as.Lambert maintains. Patterson's argument for dating the law to the 440's i s a b i t more complex than that (see above 83-5). 218 This i s the view of e a r l i e r scholars, such as Hignett (HAC 390-1) and Wade-Gery (Essays 86-134). 86 Chapter Three: Perikles' Citizenship Lav The examination of the previous chapter revealed that there was a precedent for Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law. In other words, i t showed that, before 451/0 B.C., a law of the p o l i s on who could, and could not, belong was i n place. Such a law, I suggested, i s implied i n the uniform practice of the phratry of denying the vo9oc membership and of requiring vvnoioTTic. on the part of i t s prospective members, a practice I believe to have been the result of p o l i s - l e g i s l a t i o n . I also suggested that AP 13.5 and the Kleisthenic deme-system i t s e l f both assume that there was a law of the p o l i s on the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership. In addition to t h i s , the examination further indicated that, p r i o r to the implementation of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law, the offs p r i n g of marriages between an Athenian man and a foreign woman were considered Y v 11 0 1 0 1 and could netexetv TTI<; noXeooc. What, then, do the conclusions of Chapter Two i n i t i a l l y t e l l us about Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law and i t s effects? F i r s t of a l l , they indicate that, contrary to Patterson's main argument, the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law was nothing new i n that the p o l i s had l e g i s l a t e d previously on i t s membership. More importantly, however, the conclusions also show that the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for membership i n the p o l i s were altered by the law of 451/0 B.C.. Under the terms of the new law, descent from two Athenian parents had to be proven i n order to be a c i t i z e n . This is clear not 1only from a l l three sources which mention Perikles' 87 ci t i z e n s h i p law, but also from AP 42.1 and from the oath sworn by the introducer at the phratry admission ceremony.1 The law, as transmitted by the sources, does not appear to have been an exhaustive d e f i n i t i o n of the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s necessary for Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p . For, as i s clear from the admission procedures of the phratry and deme, examined i n Chapter Two, there were other q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , such as b i r t h from parents who were married, which were also required before, and aft e r , 451/0 B.C.. The law, therefore, should not be regarded as defining c i t i z e n s h i p , but, rather, as laying down a further q u a l i f i c a t i o n necessary for c i t i z e n s h i p . The Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law, then, stipulated that those whose parents were not both Athenian were not c i t i z e n s . Accordingly, along with this new q u a l i f i c a t i o n came a new d e f i n i t i o n of YVT|OIC)XT|<; and, i t seems, of vo6e(a. As stated i n Chapter Two, YVTi'cuoc/a, after 451/0 B.C., meant one born from two Athenian parents, who were married; while \6Qoc,/r\ s i g n i f i e d a c h i l d who had a non-Athenian parent, most frequently, one whose 'see Chapter One 1-2; Chapter Two 34-6, 44-7, and 59-60. That b i r t h from two people who were married continued to be a q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s evident from the oath sworn at phratry introductions (Chapter Two 34-6 and 44-7). Thus, the argument put forth by MacDowell ("Bastards As Athenian C i t i z e n s . " CO. 26 (1976) 88-91) and Harrison (LA 1.63-5) that children born from two unmarried Athenians were YV^CIOI and, therefore, c i t i z e n s , must be fals e . (Other scholars, who argue for the ci t i z e n s h i p of v6eoi born of two Athenian parents, include Hignett HAC 343-5 and K.R. Walters, "Pericles' Citizenship Law." CA 2 (1983) 317-20) Cf. Patterson PCL 31 n.20; "Those Athenian Bastards." CA 9.1 (1990) 39-73; and Ogden Greek Bastardy 151-6. mother was a foreigner. This i s most evident in Aristophanes' Birds, where Herakles i s considered a vo9oc because his mother i s a foreigner (that i s , a mortal in r e l a t i o n to the gods), and i n Aristophon's decree, which states that "whoever i s not born of a c i t i z e n woman i s a vo'Ooc."4 No9eiot, however, seems to have retained i t s e a r l i e r meaning of "born out of wedlock." 5 Thus, for example, the son of Perikles and Aspasia seems to have been a voGoc, not only because his mother was non-Athenian, but also because his parents were not married/ I s h a l l discuss l a t e r i n this chapter the question of whether the cit i z e n s h i p law made marriage between an Athenian man and a foreign woman i l l e g a l , or not. For now i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to make the observation that the term vo9oc/ii referred to children with a foreign mother either because mixed marriage had, i n fact, been made i l l e g a l and, therefore, such children were born out of wedlock, or simply because such marriages were no longer recognized as productive of yvi^oioi children. The ci t i z e n s h i p law would have also affected the admission procedures of both the phratry and the deme. Henceforth, both groups were compelled to examine the origins of a candidate's See Chapter Two 47-8. *Arist. Birds 1651-2; Athen. 577b-c. 5See Chapter Two 49-52. ^This may, i n fact, be the case of Herakles i n the Birds. Cf. remarks of Ogden Greek Bastardy 35. 89 mother i n order to determine that she was an Athenian, and to deny admission to those who did not meet the requirements. 7 In the Demotionidai/Dekeleieis Decrees, this was done e f f e c t i v e l y by posting the name of a candidate for admission, the name of his father and his father's deme, as well as the name of his mother, Q her father's name and deme. The phratry and the deme probably would have examined the origins of the mother even before 451/0 B.C. to ensure that she herself was not born out of wedlock, and that the candidate for admission was not either. After the passage of the law, however, both groups would have been required to make sure that she was an Athenian, or SCOT^ , not a ^evti. 9 Thus, the focus of the inquiry was altered by P e r i k l e s 1 law. Another way i n which the phratry may have been affected by the c i t i z e n s h i p law i s i n the frequency of the introduction of g i r l s , and i n the celebration of the gamelia. As discussed i n Chapter Two, i t i s unclear whether phratries required a l l g i r l s to be introduced to i t s members, or only those intended to be The question of the application of the law (that i s , whether i t was applied r e t r o a c t i v e l y or was to take immediate effect) w i l l be considered l a t e r i n this chapter (104-108). 8IG II L1237 11. 116-21. In other phratries, as described i n the orators, i t i s the oath sworn by the introducer that reveals the e f f e c t the ci t i z e n s h i p law had on the examination procedures of the phratry. In Is. 8, for example, the introducer was required to swear that the candidate for admission was born teat iyyvi\%r\]c, yuvaiKoc (8.19). Cf. Is. 7.22; And. 1.127; Dem. 57.54; and IG l II 1237, 11.108-13. q See Patterson (PCL Appendix 1 151-75) for the significance of these terms. 90 e p i k l e r o i . ^ It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that, aft e r 451/0 B.C., most, i f not a l l , phratries, would have at least recognized the b i r t h of a g i r l to one of i t s members, thereby, e s s e n t i a l l y , accepting (or, i n some circumstances, rejecting) her Athenian descent." The celebration of the gamelia was most l i k e l y an early i n s t i t u t i o n ; even before 451/0 B.C., i t was essential i n proving marriage. But, i t may have become p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t (and more frequent) after that year as a method of accepting the Athenian origins of one's wife (and any offspring) by the members of the phratry. This attention paid to the origins of women i n the phratry and deme marked a new, i f not r a d i c a l , approach and attitude towards women, i n general, aft e r 451/0 B.C.. Before that year, the d i s t i n c t i o n between women was probably that between free and unfree, Y v 1 l o i a and V O 6 T I. After the passage of the ci t i z e n s h i p law, however, a further d i s t i n c t i o n was made: namely, that between Athenian and non-Athenian, or aoxt] and £evr | . It was a consequence of the law, whether intentional or not, that the c r i t e r i a of belonging to the p o l i s were defined for Athenian women, probably for the f i r s t time. In most studies of Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p , the inequality of p r i v i l e g e between men and women i s usually emphasized. Women, i t i s most often stated, did Chapter Two 44-5. Thus, the phrateres of Euxitheos' maternal r e l a t i v e s were able to t e s t i f y that she was Athenian ([Dem] 57.30-9). 91 12 not enjoy c i t i z e n s h i p ; they were rather dependent on a male. Whilst i t i s undeniable that women i n Athens did not, by any means, enjoy the same p r i v i l e g e s as men ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the p o l i t i c a l l i f e of the p o l i s and i n terms of ownership of property), i t would be fa l s e to claim that they did not belong, both l e g a l l y and conceptually, to the community, or that they themselves did not have a sense of belonging. Certainly, after 451/0 B.C., to be an Athenian woman carried s p e c i f i c p r i v i l e g e s not open to non-Athenian women. Among these were p a r t i c i p a t i o n 13 i n p a r t i c u l a r r e l i g i o u s c u l t s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n an Athenian oikos, and, more importantly, the capacity to bear children who themselves would be c i t i z e n s . 1 4 These p r i v i l e g e s should not be diminished by emphasizing what Athenian women could not do, or by comparing them to the position of women i n modern society. Rather, they should be regarded as the c r i t e r i a of belonging to the polis-community, c r i t e r i a which non-Athenian women could not enjoy by law. The Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law, then, prohibited those not born from a c i t i z e n father and a c i t i z e n mother from becoming a c i t i z e n . Why would the Athenians have i n s t i t u t e d such a law at this point i n the i r history? Neither Plutarch, nor Aelian, gives See, for example, Manville (The Origins of Citizenship i n Ancient Athens. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)) who devotes two pages to women (12-13). 13 See, for example, the case against Neaira and her daughter, Phano (Dem. 59, es p e c i a l l y 59.111.). 1 4Cf. A r i s t . Lysis. 1. 63. a reason for the enactment of the law; t h e i r accounts, rather, centre on the irony involved in Perikles' request that his voOoc son be permitted to be enrolled i n his phratry and, thus, to be legitimized. 1 5 The author of the AP, however, offers us what appears to be his own inference: he states the law was introduced 8ia TO nXff8oc TCJV noXuSv. ^  This statement i s usually interpreted to mean that the size of the c i t i z e n population at Athens had become too large, and immediately raises the question of the number of Athenian c i t i z e n s i n 451/0 B.C.. In her study of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law, Patterson argues that the reason offered by the AP i s correct, and that the size of the c i t i z e n body at Athens had perhaps doubled during the period from 480 to 450, due primarily to the enfranchisement of foreigners. 1 7 She estimates that the number of adult male c i t i z e n s had grown from about 25 000-30 000 i n the 480's to 40 1R 000-50 000 by the 450's. Her calculations for the approximate size of the male c i t i z e n population i n 480 and i n the m i d - f i f t h century, and her argument for the cause of i t s growth, are 19 generally accepted by modern scholarship. It would be useful 1 5 P l u t . Per. 37.2-5; Aelian Varia H i s t o r i a 6.10; 13.24; and f r . 68 (=Suda, s.v. STIUOWTITOC) • 16AP 26.4. "Patterson PCL Ch. 2 (40-81). 1 8 I b i d 69-71. 19 Hansen, who agrees with her argument that the c i t i z e n population had doubled due to the enfranchisement of foreigners, actually argues that there were approximately 60 000 Athenian 93 here to outline her calculations. For her cal c u l a t i o n of the size of the Athenian c i t i z e n population i n the 480's, Patterson turns to the m i l i t a r y figures offered by Herodotos for the battles at Artemision, Salamis, and 20 P l a t a i a , and to the Themistokles Decree. Herodotos reports that the Athenians provided 127 ships at Artemision, 180 at 21 Salamis, and 8000 hoplites at P l a t a i a . Patterson suggests that, of these three battles, Salamis was the only one which 22 involved " v i r t u a l l y a l l f i t Athenians of m i l i t a r y age," since Athens had been evacuated at the time of the b a t t l e , and since the whole Athenian f l e e t was not at Artemision and a Hellenic force of 110 ships was at Mykale when the battle of Pl a t a i a took ci t i z e n s at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War ("Three Studies in Ancient Demography." 14-28); see his "Demographic Reflections on the Number of Athenian Citizens 451-309 B.C." AJAH 7.2 (1982) 172-89 (esp. 184); Boegehold i s also i n agreement with Patterson ("Perikles' Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.." in Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 57-66. It i s generally accepted that Hansen's calculations have superseded those of Gomme (The Population of Athens in the F i f t h and Fourth Centuries B.C.. (Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1933)). For a dissenting view, see the arguments of Ruschenbusch ("Epheben, Buleuten und die Burgerzahl von Athen um 330 v. Chr." ZPE 41 (1981) 103-5.; "Noch einmal die Burgerzahl Athens um 330 v. Chr." ZPE 44 (1981) 110-12; and "Zum letzen Mai: Die Burgerzahl Athens im 4. Jh. v. Chr." ZPE 54 (1984) 253-69) . 20 For the Themistokles Decree, see M.H Themistokles from Troizen." Hesperia 29 Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree (1963) 385-404; and ML 23. 2 1Hdt. 8.1; 8.43; and 9. 28. Patterson PCL 47. . Jameson, "A Decree of (1960) 198-223; "The of Themistokles." H 12 94 21 place. She assumes, however, that the 8000 hoplites at Pla t a i a probably represent most of the Athenian hoplite force, since Athens would have reserved as many as possible for that p a r t i c u l a r b a t t l e , but suggests that there may have been as many as 9000.24 She then proceeds to calculate the number of Athenians of m i l i t a r y age on the basis of the 180 ships Athens had provided at Salamis. She suggests that, even though Herodotos reports 25 elsewhere that there were 200 men on board a trireme, he probably did not know the precise number and, therefore, simply applied the standard figure for the late f i f t h - c e n t u r y to the early f i f t h . Instead, Patterson suggests that Athens could have employed only 150 men per ship at Salamis, and of these not a l l would have been Athenian; there could have been metics, " I b i d 47-8. 9 A The p o s s i b i l i t y of more Athenian hoplites exists because Athenian ships were engaged i n the b a t t l e of Mykale, which Herodotos states, occurred on the same day as the battle of P l a t a i a (Hdt. 9.90-100). There probably were, therefore, some hoplites on board those ships. Precisely how many ships Athens had sent i s uncertain. Patterson suggests that they could have numbered sixty and, therefore, that the number of hoplites could have been approximately 600 (PCL 47-8), r e s u l t i n g i n an estimated t o t a l Athenian hoplite force of 8600. She believes, however, that, since l a t e r sources for the b a t t l e of Marathon state that there were 9000 Athenian hoplites, there could have been that many (PCL 48). For the l a t e r sources on the b a t t l e of Marathon, to which Patterson refers, see her n.25 (74). Hdt. 7.184 (number of men on board the Persian ships at Artemision); 8.17 (number of men on K l e i n i a s ' ship at the same b a t t l e ) . Patterson PCL 48. slaves, or anyone else available. She therefore estimates that, i f there were 150 Athenians per ship, there would have been 27 000 f i t Athenians of m i l i t a r y age i n 480 B.C., but, i f there 28 were only 125 per ship, there would have been 22 500. These low figures are given some support by the Themistokles Decree, which purports to outline the provisions for the 29 mobilization and manning of the Athenian f l e e t i n 480 B.C.. Though the authenticity of the decree as a whole i s questionable, i t i s possible that the number of men to be on "Idem. 2 8 I b i d 49. 29 See texts of M.H. Jameson, "A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen." Hesperia 29 (1960) 198-223; "The Provisions for Mobilization i n the Themistokles Decree." H 12 (1963) 385-404; and ML 23. 30 See the comments of V. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 37; and J.B. Bury and R. Meiggs A History Of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great, Fourth ed. (London: Macmillan Education Ltd, 1988) 172, 529 n.3. The decree d i f f e r s from Herodotos' account concerning the timing of the evacuation of Att i k a , and the stationing of the Athenian f l e e t . In Herodotos, Attika i s evacuated with urgency aft e r the battle of Thermopylai; while, i n the decree, the evacuation i s provided for with foresight before the b a t t l e . Herodotos states that f i f t y -three ships joined the rest of the Athenian f l e e t , which was stationed at Artemision; but the decree provides for 100 ships to s a i l to Artemision, while the other 100 are to be stationed o f f the coast of A t t i k a , near Salamis (11. 35-45). Another difference between the decree and other sources i s the treatment of those r e c a l l e d from ostracism (11. 45ff; cf. AP 22.8; Plut. Them. 11.1). In the decree, the re c a l l e d are sent to Salamis pending a decision of the Athenians, whereas AP and Plutarch suggest they were permitted to f i g h t i n the ba t t l e with other Athenians. board each ship represents the figures of the o r i g i n a l decree. In this document, i t i s stated that to each of the 200 ships, there are to be 115 men, r e s u l t i n g i n 23 000 men i n t o t a l , including foreigners resident at Athens. Even i f one does not accept the figures offered by the Themistokles Decree as authentic, the inclusion of foreigners i n the manning of the Athenian f l e e t (evidenced both by the Themistokles Decree and by the b a t t l e of Artemision, i n which the Athenians were helped i n manning the 127 ships by the Plataians and had given twenty ships to the Chalkidians to use) suggests that Athens did not have enough male c i t i z e n s of m i l i t a r y age and, therefore, supports 32 Patterson's estimates. In trying to determine how many Athenian c i t i z e n s there were i n the 450's B.C., Patterson turns to Thucydides. She suggests that the high number of m i l i t a r y events described i n his Book One 33 implies a great number of Athenians. In an attempt to See the comments of ML 23, who argue for the restoration of a[v]a eKorcov i n 1. 32, and ask whether i t i s " r e a l l y credible that a forger's desire for v e r i s i m i l i t u d e would be so strong as to reconstruct a procedure calculated to put as many ships to sea as possible rather than simply use the normal number?" (23.51). 3 2See Patterson PCL 48-9. 55 These events include the aid Athens sent to the Libyans i n 460 or 459 B.C., when they revolted from Persia (1.104); the battle at H a l i e i s against the Corinthians (1.105.1); the battle between Athens and Aegina, where Athens captured 70 Aeginetan ships (1.105.2; 1.108.4); the battle at Megara (1.105.3-6); the building of the long walls (1.107.1; 1.108.3); the battle of Tanagra (1.107.5-7); the battle at Oenophyta (1.108.2-3); the disaster at Egypt (1.109); the restoration of the exiled Thessalian king, Orestes, to Pharsalos (1.111.1); and the expedition of Perikles to Sikyon and Oeniadai (1.111.2-3). I have given here the order of 97 quantify the estimated size of the c i t i z e n population, Patterson uses the figures reported by Thucydides for the expedition to Egypt, the battle between Athens and Aegina, and the ba t t l e of 34 Tanagra. Thucydides reports that Athens sent 200 ships to Egypt and was aided by her a l l i e s . Patterson assumes that at least one t h i r d of the men on board these ships were Athenian and that, i f there were 175 men on each, there would have been some 11 700 35 Athenians involved. Though Thucydides does not state how many Athenian ships were involved i n the battle with Aegina, Patterson suggests that there could have been 100. If there were this many, assuming again that the Athenians were one t h i r d of the t o t a l number involved and that there were 175 men on board each ship, there would have been approximately 5 800 Athenians. The forces at the battle of Tanagra, Thucydides reports, numbered 14 000, including 1 000 Argives and an indeterminate number of other a l l i e s . Patterson suggests that the other a l l i e s could have numbered 1 000, thus, r e s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l Athenian contingent of events according to Patterson's outline (PCL 62-4). 3 4PCL 65. Patterson PCL 65. She suggests that the Athenians numbered one t h i r d of the t o t a l based on the assumption that Athenian a l l i e s preferred to pay tribute rather than fight (PCL 64; Thuc. 1.99). Patterson does not explain, however, her reasons for assuming that there were 175 men on board each ship. For her cal c u l a t i o n of the estimated number of Athenian c i t i z e n s i n 480 B.C., she assumed that there were 150, or as few as 125, men on board each ship. She proposes this number of Athenian ships because Athens was able to capture 70 Aeginetan ships (PCL 65). 98 37 12 000. Adding these three figures together, Patterson arrives at 29 500 as an approximate number of Athenians engaged in m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s a l l at the same time i n the 450's. She suggests, however, that, to t h i s figure, should be added any light-armed troops involved at Tanagra, and other Athenians, who remained at Athens, either as magistrates or employed i n the 38 building of the long walls. She proposes, therefore, that 40 000 Athenians would be a minimum number for the t o t a l male 39 c i t i z e n population i n the 450's. A comparison of the approximate figures for the Athenian c i t i z e n population of 480 and the 450's B.C. suggests that there was a growth of almost f i f t y percent over a period of about twenty years; a growth of 100%, Patterson suggests, i s also possible. 4" Patterson considers how such an increase could have occurred so quickly, and proposes that a possible explanation i s "the admission or entry of non-Athenians into the demes and phratries, r e s u l t i n g i n the creation of new Athenians" 4 1 i n the years following the battle of Salamis. Although her calculations for the size of the c i t i z e n population during the period from 480 to 450 are acceptable as a rough estimate, Patterson's argument for the cause of the increase i n c i t i z e n numbers i s groundless. 3 71 dem. 3 81 dem. 39Idem. 4 Q I b i d 68. 4 1 I b i d 70. 99 Recognizing that there i s absolutely no evidence for such 4 2 enfranchisements i n any ancient text or extant document, Patterson considers the grant of Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p to the Plataians and Samians i n , respectively, 429 and 405 B.C., the enfranchisement of the rowers at Arginusai i n 406, and the possible grant to those who helped restore the democracy i n 403 as indications of the p o s s i b i l i t y that "Athenian demes, phratries, and tribes were w i l l i n g to admit those who fought with Athenians i n defence of Athens." But, as Osborne points out, the mass enfranchisements of the Plataians and Samians were made under extraordinary circumstances (both were threatened with the loss of th e i r c i t y ) and, i n the Plataians' case i n p a r t i c u l a r , there was no intention of t h e i r staying on i n Athens and exercising their newly-found citizenship. 4' 1 The case of the rowers at Arginusai was, likewise, an emergency measure, enacted because of a lack of Athenian manpower. And, as Osborne makes clear, these men (mostly foreigners and slaves) were offered The scholion to Thucydides 1.2 cannot, contrary to Patterson's b e l i e f (PCL 80 n. 98), be used as a reference to such enfranchisements since, as Ogden observes, Thucydides i s r e f e r r i n g to "the remote p r e - h i s t o r i c a l period." (Greek Bastardy 68) I can find only one instance of a foreigner being granted Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p for his aid to Athens before the m i d - f i f t h century. This i s the case of Menon of Pharsalos, who was given the franchise i n c. 476 B.C. for his support to Athens during the seige of Eion. (See Osborne Naturalization 3.20-3) I do not think that, from this one instance, we can espouse a theory that such enfranchisements were so widespread as to lead to a population c r i s i s i n the 450's. 43PCL 70. Naturalization 2.11-16 and 25-6. Though some Plataians and Samians did remain i n Athens, the majority did not. 100 c i t i z e n s h i p as an incentive to f i g h t i n the ba t t l e , not because of any past display of aid to Athens. 4 5 The honours granted to those who helped restore democracy to Athens i n 403 B.C. i s a controversial subject, with modern scholarship divided between (1) those who believe that ci t i z e n s h i p was given to a l l three groups of recipients l i s t e d i n the decree IG II 10; (2) those who believe that i s o t e l e i a was granted to a l l ; 4 7 and (3) those who believe that the f i r s t group was granted c i t i z e n s h i p , the other two i s o t e l e i a . The crux of the matter l i e s i n the restoration of lines 5-6 and 9. That i s , proponents of (1) restore p o l i t e i a i n lines 5-6 and 9; those of (2) restore i s o t e l e i a ; and those who uphold the view of (3) restore p o l i t e i a i n lines 5-6 and i s o t e l e i a i n l i n e 9. It seems strange that c i t i z e n s h i p ( p o l i t e i a ) should even be considered a possible candidate for the honours granted to some or a l l of the men l i s t e d i n IG II^IO. For, as i s remarked by the proponents of (2), the recipients (at least those of the l a s t two groups) are distributed among the ten tr i b e s , but are not /A assigned to a deme. The absence of deme assignation should, I think, be regarded as decisive against the opinion that p o l i t e i a 4 5 N a t u r a l i z a t i o n 2.35. 46D. Whitehead, "A Thousand New Athenians." LCM 9 (1984) 8-10. 4 7P. Krentz, "Foreigners Against the Thirty: IG II^IO." Phoenix 34 (1980) 298-206; and "The Rewards for Thrasyboulos 1 Supporters." ZPE 62 (1986) 201-4. 4 80sborne Naturalization 2.32-35. 4 9See text of IG II l10 i n Osborne Naturalization 1.37-41. 101 was granted. But, i t has not been. This absence has led Osborne to suggest that the l a s t two groups of recipients received an honour less than c i t i z e n s h i p (that i s , i s o t e l e i a ) , but that the f i r s t group did receive i t . He defends his argument on the following two grounds: the fact that the f i r s t group i s set apart from the other two;5" and the pleonasm of l i n e 6, which, he argues, "makes sense only i f c i t i z e n s h i p i s being granted." 5 1 I f i n d both of these arguments d i f f i c u l t to accept. The fact that the f i r s t group i s set apart from the others does not necessitate the inference that they must have received c i t i z e n s h i p ; they could have merely received greater honour than the others for 52 being the nucleus of Thrasyboulos' support. Likewise, Osborne's insistence concerning the pleonasm of l i n e 6 i s odd; quite frankly, I do not agree that i t i s synonymous with 53 c i t i z e n s h i p . At any rate, even Osborne cannot argue that restoration of the deme-assignation for the f i r s t group of recipients i s possible simply because there i s no room on the decree. This, as stated above, should be decisive. In addition to t h i s , the AP states quite c l e a r l y that This i s i n the main text of the decree (lines 4-6). 5 1Naturalization 2.33. 52 Cf. the comments of D. Whitehead, "A Thousand New Athenians." LCM 9.1 (1984) 10, who, however, argues that there was no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of awards between a l l three groups l i s t e d i n the decree. Rather, he believes, as noted above, that a l l three groups received the same awards. 51 Whitehead (Ibid) 8 accepts Osborne's interpretation of l i n e 6. 102 Thrasyboulos 1 proposal to grant c i t i z e n s h i p to those who helped restore the democracy f a i l e d because i t was unconstitutional, 5 4 and there i s no evidence i n the l i t e r a r y sources to suggest that he t r i e d to have i t passed a second time. 5 5 What were, then, the honours granted to these men? In his account of the events, Xenophon states that Thrasyboulos promised i s o t e l e i a to those xenoi who would help i n the battle for democracy.5*" Given this statement and the fact that i s o t e l e i a would f i t , both p h y s i c a l l y and contextually, i n IG II 10, i t seems most probable that this i s what was granted. And, since one of the duties of the i s o t e l e i s was m i l i t a r y service, the assignation of the honourands to t r i b e s , but not demes, makes sense. 5 7 Was something more given to the men of the f i r s t group, since they do appear to be set apart from the rest? Most l i k e l y , yes. But this would not have been p o l i t e i a • Rather, i t 58 would have been i s o t e l e i a and some other honours. Patterson's attempt, therefore, to in f e r from l a t e r practice what occurred immediately aft e r the Persian wars fades away when 5iAP 40.2; cf. Plut. Moralia 835f-836a. 5 5Cf. P. Harding, "Metics, Foreigners or Slaves? The Recipients of Honours in IG II^IO." ZPE 67 (1987) 177 n.8. 5 6Hellenika 2.4.25. 5 7Cf. the comments of Osborne Naturalization 2.33. 58 Harding ("Metics, Foreigners or Slaves? The Recipients of Honours i n IG II^IO." 67 (1987) ZPE 180; cf. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, v o l . 2: From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) no. 3, p.9) suggests these other honours were the right to own land and a house i n Athens. 103 one examines what these supposed grants of c i t i z e n s h i p r e a l l y were. It i s possible that there was the occasional grant of c i t i z e n s h i p to a non-Athenian i n the f i r s t half of the f i f t h century; there i s no evidence, however, that these were as extensive as Patterson suggests. The rapid growth in the number of Athenian c i t i z e n s from 480 to the 450's could be attributable simply to long periods of good health. Certainly, even after heavy losses i n Egypt and other expeditions during the m i d - f i f t h century, Athens was able to replace such losses, and maintain approximately the same number of Athenians by natural, not unnatural, increase. 6" It i s conceivable, therefore, that the increase i n the number of Athenian c i t i z e n s was not caused by the mass enfranchisement of foreigners (for which, as stated above, there i s no evidence), but, rather, by natural increase. 6 1 See n.42 above. 6 0That Athens had approximately the same number of c i t i z e n s in 431 as i n the 450's i s Patterson's own argument (see PCL 66-8). On the basis of her own calculations for Athenian losses at Egypt alone (PCL 79 n.85), by 431 B.C., Athens was able to replace 5 700 men. There were, however, other Athenian losses during the course of the m i d - f i f t h century (cf. ML 33), such as those at Tanagra (PCL 66) , which were also replaced, according to Patterson, by 431 B.C. . It i s an inconsistency i n Patterson's argument (in my opinion) that, while such losses were able to be replaced over the course of a l i t t l e over twenty years (that i s , from the 450's to 431 B.C.) by natural growth, i t was not possible from 480 to the 450's. 6 1 I f one compares Patterson's upper estimate for the size of the c i t i z e n population i n 480 B.C. (30 000) with her lower estimate for the number of Athenians i n the 450's (40 000), the difference i s only approximately 10 000 c i t i z e n s . If the losses at Egypt alone numbered approximately 5 700 (see n. 58 above), i t i s not inconceivable that Athens had l o s t close to 10 000 of i t s c i t i z e n s in b attle during the course of the m i d - f i f t h century. If Patterson i s correct i n her calculations for the size of the c i t i z e n population in 431 B.C. (Hansen actually argues that there were 60 104 Despite the fact that the Athenian c i t i z e n population does appear to have grown s i g n i f i c a n t l y during the course of the f i r s t h alf of the f i f t h century, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to accept the argument that the c i t i z e n s h i p law was aimed at reducing the number of e x i s t i n g Athenian c i t i z e n s , when one considers that the law does not appear to have been enforced r e t r o a c t i v e l y . No ancient author t e l l s us s p e c i f i c a l l y how the law was enforced i n 451/0 B.C.. In 403 B.C., when the ci t i z e n s h i p law was re-enacted or re-affirmed, a clause was attached excluding those born before that year. But this does not, i n e f f e c t , inform us as to how the law was enforced i n 451/0; there i s no such clause i n the law, as i t i s transmitted by the sources. In his account of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law, Plutarch links the effects of the law with the Egyptian g i f t of grain i n CO 445/4 B.C.. He reports that the g i f t of grain caused some type of scrutiny, r e s u l t i n g i n the conviction of a l i t t l e less than 5 000 voBoi.^ If Plutarch's account i s accepted, i t 000 i n 431 B.C.), then Athens was able to replace 10 000 c i t i z e n s in a l i t t l e over twenty years. 62Eumelos FGrH 77 f r . 2 (=scholion to Aeschines 1.39); Dem. 43.51; 57.30; Is. 6.47. 6 3 P l u t . Per. 37.3-4. ^ I b i d 37.4. Plutarch states s p e c i f i c a l l y that the scrutiny was caused by men, considered vo'eoi under the c i t i z e n s h i p law, who had escaped notice up to that time (Ibid 37.3). I agree with Patterson's argument concerning the figures offered by Plutarch. His statement that there were 14 040 men judged to be Athenian after the scrutiny does not necessarily mean that he thought there were only this many Athenians i n 445/4 B.C.. It could mean that, of those who underwent examination, 14 040 were found to be 105 suggests that the law may have, indeed, been enforced r e t r o a c t i v e l y . Philochoros, however, in dealing with the scrutiny of 445/4 B.C., does not refer to those who were convicted as vo8oi; rather, he states that they were xenoi pareggrammenoi, suggesting that the events of that year may not have had anything at a l l to do with the c i t i z e n s h i p law and, therefore, that the law was not r e t r o a c t i v e . 6 5 In addition, neither Plutarch, nor Philochoros, refers to the event of 445/4 B.C. as a diapsgphismos or diapsephisis, the terms normally used for a f u l l - s c a l e scrutiny of the c i t i z e n body. 6 6 Furthermore, the case of Kimon's status i s usually c i t e d against the idea that the law was to apply to those who were already c i t i z e n s . For, Kimon, although his mother was a foreigner, remained a c i t i z e n even aft e r the introduction of Perikles' law. The case of Kimon, as pointed out by Whitehead, can hardly be decisive i n determining how the law was applied; an exception could have been made against the rule for him. 6 7 But, given the fact that there is no evidence that Athens conducted a scrutiny of the c i t i z e n -body i n 451/0 B.C., or soon thereafter, I accept the Athenian (PCL 122-3 n. 63). 6 5 P h i l o . FGrH 328 f r. 119; cf. the remarks of Jacoby (commentary ad loc) . 6 6Cf. Chapter One 14-15. 67D. Whitehead, The ideology of the Athenian Metic. (Cambridge: Cambridge P h i l o l o g i c a l Society, Supplement 4, 1977) 149. 106 preponderance of modern opinion that the law was not re t r o a c t i v e . ^ How was the law, then, enforced? A plausible theory has been proposed most recently by Patterson. Following the example of Humphreys, Patterson suggests that the law was to take immediate e f f e c t i n the phratries (and demes?) and was, f.q therefore, to exclude those not yet enrolled. A d i f f i c u l t y of this theory i s whether an in d i v i d u a l with a foreign mother, who was a member of the phratry i n 451/0, but not yet of the deme, would have been excluded from ci t i z e n s h i p . 7 " The solution to this problem depends largely on the question whether the phratry, or the deme, was the basis for ci t i z e n s h i p i n the m i d - f i f t h century. 7 1 I argued i n Chapter Two that membership in both 72 groups constituted Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p . I also t r i e d to show, however, that an individual's acceptance in the deme did not depend on p r i o r admission into the phratry. Rather, the two 73 processes appear to have been independent. In view of these See, for example, Hignett HAC 345; D. Whitehead, Ideology of the Athenian Metic. (Cambridge: Cambridge P h i l o l o g i c a l Society, Supplement 4, 1977) 149-51; Patterson PCL 95-6; and Rhodes Commentary 332-3. Lambert (Phratries 43-4 n. 81) believes the matter cannot be resolved on the basis of current evidence. 6 9PCL 96; cf. S.C. Humphreys, "The Nothoi of Kynosarges." JHS 94 (1974) 92. 7 0Cf. S.C. Humphreys, Ibid 92 n. 12. ^Patterson (PCL 122 n. 62) believes membership in the phratry was s t i l l the basis for c i t i z e n s h i p . 7 2Chapter Two 64-71. 7 3 I b i d 62-9. 107 considerations, I venture the suggestion that an i n d i v i d u a l not yet enrolled i n the deme in 451/0 B.C., though already a member of a phratry, may have been denied admission and, therefore, c i t i z e n s h i p . 7 4 Accordingly, i n order for there to have been a substantial cut i n the number of Athenians, there would have had to have been a s i g n i f i c a n t number of metroxenoi at Athens, either reaching the age of admission i n 451/0 B.C., or not having reached i t yet, a factor, which, unfortunately, remains uncertain. At any rate, whether one agrees with Patterson's estimates for the size of the c i t i z e n population aft e r the Persian Wars and for the cause of i t s growth or not, the reason adduced by the AP for the introduction of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law (and argued for by Patterson) does not, at bottom, explain why the law took the form i t did. 7 5 S t i l l less does i t explain the re-enactment or re-affirmation of the law i n 403 B.C., when Athens had suffered great losses during the Peloponnesian War.76 Indeed, Patterson i s forced to argue that Krateros f r . 4--the law which e s s e n t i a l l y denies the offspring of two xenoi membership i n a phratry--is If any part of Plutarch's account concerning the g i f t of grain i n 445/4 B.C. can be salvaged, i t may be that cases against individuals believed to be voQoi arose because, though members of a phratry i n 451/0 B.C., they had not been enrolled i n the deme in that year. 7 5For example, i f indeed there were too many p o l i t a i , why did the Athenians not send out more colonies--the t r a d i t i o n a l method employed i n antiquity to reduce population? 7 6A point made by Rhodes (Commentary 333-4). 108 part of, or akin to, the c i t i z e n s h i p law of P e r i k l e s . 7 7 It i s true, as Patterson remarks, that the formulation of Krateros f r . 4 i s s t r i k i n g l y similar to that of the c i t i z e n s h i p law as i t appears i n the AP and Plutarch. Is this enough, however, to warrant the suggestion that i t belongs to the Periklean l e g i s l a t i o n on citizenship? What, in fact, does Krateros f r . 4 t e l l us? The law, recorded i n Krateros' fourth book, i s as follows: 'Ectv 5e uc au,(t>oiv i^evoiv Y E Y 0 V ^C (ttpctTpii^i, 5i($Keiv eivai TSI PotiXouevon 'AGTyvouov, oic 8iKai t\a(" \ay%a.vziv 5e TT|I 1?VT|I KCU vea npoc TO^ C vauToStKac.( =Harpokration s.v. VCOJTOSIKCU ) Simply put, the law recorded here permits any of the Athenians who wishes to prosecute someone born from two xenoi who belongs to a phratry. The period covered by Book Four i s d i f f i c u l t to determine. Most scholars believe that i t included the year 451/0 78 B.C.. This dating, however, i s largely based on the assumption that the law i s somehow related to Perikles' 79 citizenship law. Surely, this i s c i r c u l a r l o g i c . It i s odd that this law should even be associated with the citizenship law of 451/0 B.C.. For, as Ogden indicates, i t " e x p l i c i t l y debars those born of two aliens from the phratries, PCL 108-115; cf. Lambert (Phratries 45-6), who believes that Krateros f r . 4 i s actually part of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law (see Chapter Two 81-2, above). 7 8ATL 3.9-12; A. Andrewes, "Philochoros On Phratries." JHS 81 (1961) 13; Patterson PCL 108; Lambert Phratries 45. 79 Ogden Greek Bastardy 50; see, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the arguments of the authors of ATL 3.9-12. 109 which implies that those born of a single a l i e n may indeed belong 80 to a phratry--in certain circumstances at any rate." Krateros f r . 4, i n short, must be e a r l i e r than 451/0 and, therefore, i s 81 not part of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p l e g i s l a t i o n . The p r i n c i p a l question, then, s t i l l remains--why did the law r e s t r i c t c i t i z e n s h i p to the offspring of two Athenian parents? Hignett, having recognized the inherent problem with AP's explanation, argued that the law was enacted because of the 82 Athenians' desire to preserve th e i r r a c i a l purity. He believed that, with the expansion of empire and the i n f l u x of foreigners into Attika, many Athenians became alarmed either at the increasing number of their group marrying foreigners, or at 83 the p o s s i b i l i t y of such marriages taking place. As preposterous and anachronistic (one i s reminded of Nazi Germany) as this may sound, Hignett i s not without his adherents. Both Loraux and, most recently, Ogden argue that the law was motivated Ogden Greek Bastardy 50. 81 If one accepts Patterson's argument regarding Krateros f r . 4 and i t s relationship to the c i t i z e n s h i p law, one would have to conclude that the account of the AP v i s - a - v i s the provisions of ci t i z e n s h i p law i s incorrect, a conclusion not j u s t i f i e d by the evidence. See the remarks of Ogden Greek Bastardy 68. 82HAC 345. 83 Cf. Gomme (Essays 86), who suggests the law was enacted to restore what was regarded as normal. That i s , that Athenians did not marry foreigners. Also, cf. Rhodes Commentary 334. 8 4Patterson PCL 97-8; A.L. Boegehold, "Perikles' Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.." in Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 58. 110 by the Athenians' b e l i e f i n their autochthony; by th e i r b e l i e f that they, the same people, generation after generation, had always inhabited the same land. The Periklean citizenship' law, according to t h i s view, i s simply an extension of t h i s Athenian myth and c o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t y , and was i n s t i t u t e d i n order to maintain, and preserve, the body of autochthons. In other words, Perikles' l e g i s l a t i o n on c i t i z e n s h i p i s ideology made into law. On the surface, the myth of autochthony i s probably the most powerful explanation for the reasons behind the enactment of the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law. Not only does i t explain the form the law took--no one i s to ".exe'xeiv TT{$ noXetoc, unless he i s born from two Athenians--, but i t also appears to o f f e r a plausible solution to the question why the Athenians would have limited their c i t i z e n s h i p i n such a way. There i s , however, a gaping hole, so to speak, i n this argument, and i t i s namely for the following reason that i t becomes unconvincing. The reason i s , quite simply, that autochthony, as a part of the Athenian i d e n t i t y and ideology, i s not attested p r i o r to 451/0 B.C.. From about the 420's down to the time of Isokrates N. Loraux, Children of Athena. C. Levine, trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 66, 214, 219; Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration i n the C l a s s i c a l City. A. Sheridan, trans. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986) 150; Ogden Greek Bastardy 166. Cf. W.R. Connor, "The Problem of Athenian C i v i c Identity." i n Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. (London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 37-8. I l l and Demosthenes, autochthony appears i n i t s i d e o l o g i c a l form. 87 As such, i t i s ine x t r i c a b l y linked to c i t i z e n s h i p and to 88 democracy. But, there i s no evidence of autochthony i n i t s ide o l o g i c a l sense i n the l i t e r a t u r e that has survived from before 451/0 B.C.. Ogden, recognizing the lateness of the evidence for the ideology of autochthony and, therefore, the problem with pushing i t a l l the way back to the 450's, argues that, by the 420's, "the ideology [sc. of autochthony] i s already i n such a r i c h l y developed form that i t must have been around for some 89 time." As support for his argument, Ogden appeals to the epitaphios (the genre i n which the idea of the autochthonous Athenians i s most often found expressed) and suggests that, even though none of the epitaphioi before that of Perikles has survived, they, too, would have presented the myth of 90 autochthony. The argument, however, i s one from silence; Euripides Ion, Erechtheos f r . 360N; A r i s t . Wasps 438, 1076; Hdt. 5.65.3, 7.161; Thuc. 2.36.1, 6.17; Lys. 2.17-20, 2.18, 2.4.3; Plato Menex. 237b, 237e4, 239al-2, 245d2-4, 238e; Isok. 4.24-5, Panes. 24, 12.124; Dem. 60.4, 60.6, 19.261. 8 7Plato Menex. 244al-3; Lys. 2.17; Dem. 60.3; Isok. 4.23, 4.25; cf. A r i s t . Wasps 1075-80; cf. N. Loraux, Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration i n the C l a s s i c a l City. A. Sheridan, trans. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986) 193-4; Children of Athena. C. Levine, trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 278. 8 8Plato Menex 239a; Lys. 2.18-20; cf. N. Loraux, Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration i n the C l a s s i c a l City. A. Sheridan, trans. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986) 50; Children of Athena. C. Levine, trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 193-4, 301-2. "Greek Bastardy 170. See remarks of Ogden Greek Bastardy 169-70. there i s no v e r i f i c a t i o n for i t . We cannot be certain, therefore, that the ideology of autochthony was present i n early examples of the funeral oration. A counter-suggestion to the relationship between Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law and the myth of the autochthonous Athenians i s , however, possible. Though equally an argument from silence, I suggest that the myth, i n i t s f u l l e s t i d e o l o g i c a l sense and as a breed of Athenian nationalism, i s the res u l t of the c i t i z e n s h i p law rather than the other way around, as both Loraux and Ogden argue. One of the effects of the c i t i z e n s h i p law was "to create an endogamous c i t y - s t a t e , an enclosed community whose members 91 [could] be produced only by other members." I propose that xt i s , i n part, because of this e f f e c t of the law on the c i t i z e n -body that we fi n d autochthony a component of Athenian consciousness and c o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t y i n the late f i f t h and fourth centuries B.C.. The myth may have been appealed to shortly after A51/0 B.C. as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the introduction and implementation of the c i t i z e n s h i p law; I do not think, however, that i t i s correct to adduce the Athenians' b e l i e f i n the i r autochthonous origins as the cause of i t . Furthermore, i t is possible that the myth of the autochthonous Athenians played a s i g n i f i c a n t role i n 403/2 B.C., at which time the c i t i z e n s h i p law was re-introduced. None of the extant l i t e r a r y sources t e l l s us why pre c i s e l y R. Seaford, Reciprocity and Rit u a l : Homer and Tragedy i n the Developing City-State. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1994) 214. 113 the law was re-affirmed i n 403/2 B.C.. There i s evidence, however, that, i n the restored democracy, there was some discussion about c i t i z e n s h i p and who should, and who should not, belong. Lysias, for instance, informs us that i n that year Phormisios proposed that the jtoXixeta should be limited to those who owned land, a measure which, Dionysios of Halicarnassos 92 states, would have disfranchised 5000 Athenians. At the same time, the author of AP reports that Thrasyboulos t r i e d to have those who helped i n the restoration of the democracy enfranchised, an attempt which was successfully attacked as unconstitutional by Archinos. Both of these proposals indicate that the question of who should, and who should not, belong to the Athenian p o l i s became a heated issue i n the restored democracy. In the end, the Athenians chose to re-introduce Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law. Whether they chose to do so because of t h e i r b e l i e f i n the i r autochthonous o r i g i n s , or because Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law was regarded as defining the t r a d i t i o n a l requirements for c i t i z e n s h i p , i s unclear. It i s more credible, however, given the abundance of references to autochthony i n the l i t e r a t u r e of the late f i f t h and fourth centuries, that i t was appealed to i n 403/2 rather than i n 451/0 Lys. 34 with hypothesis of Dionysios of Halicarnassos. Cf. the decree of Theozotides with Lysias' fragmentary speech, Against Theozotides, and R. Stroud, "Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans." Hesperia. 40 (1971) 280-301. 93AP 40.2; cf. IG II^IO, which, as discussed above (100-02), remains controversial. 114 B.C. . Hignett's argument, discussed e a r l i e r i n this chapter, that the cause of the movement towards r a c i a l purity was due to Athenians' marrying foreigners or metics at Athens, needs further consideration. For, many scholars have followed this as th e i r main premise, but have developed d i f f e r e n t theories as to why i t was a problem for Athenians. Gomme, for example, argued that the law was an e f f o r t to restore what was regarded as normal since, 94 in his opinion, " i t was i n accord with average sentiment." Humphreys saw in the law an attempt to stop the a r i s t o c r a t i c practice of creating a l l i a n c e s with families from other c i t y -states through marriage, since such unions "created sympathies and l o y a l t i e s which might obstruct r a t i o n a l p o l i c y both towards 95 Athens' subjects and towards her r i v a l s . " Lacey, on the other hand, suggested that the law was enacted on behalf of Athenian marriageable women, who found themselves unable to wed because their Athenian male counterparts were contracting marriages with 96 foreign women; while Sealey and Rhodes believe that the law was aimed at stopping the practice of Athenian women marrying 97 metics. As stated above, what a l l of these theories have i n common 94 Gomme Essays 86. 9 5"The Nothoi of Kynosarges." JHS 94 (1974) 93-4. 96 W.K. Lacey, The Family in C l a s s i c a l Greece. (London: The Camelot Press, 1968) 100-1; cf. Gomme Essays 87 n. 1. 57R. Sealey, "On Lawful Concubinage at Athens." CA 3 (1984) 130-1; Rhodes Commentary 334. 115 i s the idea that Athenians were marrying foreigners. This immediately raise several questions. Did the law have anything at a l l to do with marriage? Was i t primarily aimed at mixed marriages? Were they made i l l e g a l under the law? What was the frequency of Athenians marrying foreigners? In dealing with such questions, Patterson denies any direc t relationship between the law and marriage on the basis of there being nothing about the 98 i n s t i t u t i o n i n the law as transmitted by the ancient sources. Rather, she argues that the ci t i z e n s h i p law was only i n d i r e c t l y concerned with marriage ( i n the sense that i t would have made mixed marriages less desirable since any offspring would not have been e l i g i b l e for ci t i z e n s h i p under i t s terms) and, therefore, 99 that they were not made i l l e g a l . In addition to t h i s , Patterson questions the frequency of marriages between foreigners and Athenians i n the m i d - f i f t h century and suggests that "Athenians usually married other Athenians." 1"" I think i t i s unquestionable that the Periklean c i t i z e n s h i p law was concerned with marriage d i r e c t l y . For, given the formulation of the law as evidenced by the AP, i t seems to me that one can only assume two things: (1) there was a s i g n i f i c a n t number of offspring with one Athenian parent; 1" 1 and, "PCL 95. 99PCL 29 n.3; cf. 130. 1 0 0PCL 106; cf. Gomme Essays 86. 1 0 1 I t should be noted that i t i s only on the basis of this assumption that Patterson's main argument--that the law was an attempt to reduce the number of c i t i z e n s - - i s v i a b le. 116 consequently, (2) marriages between foreigners and Athenians were 102 more frequent than Patterson i s w i l l i n g to admit. Unfortunately, i t i s impossible to gauge at what rate Athenians and foreigners were marrying. Nor i s i t possible to say with any certainty whether such marriages were made i l l e g a l under the law, since the two laws quoted at [Dem] 59.16 and 52 concerning unions 103 between foreigners and Athenians cannot be dated. But, perhaps, to ask whether the law made inter-marriage i l l e g a l or not i s to approach the relationship between the citizenship law and marriage in the wrong way. It i s without a doubt, as mentioned e a r l i e r , that one of the e f f e c t s of the law was "to create an endogamous c i t y - s t a t e , an enclosed community whose members [could] be created only by other members."1"4 Approached from this perspective, the law would have brought an end to inter-marriage, whether i t made i t outright i l l e g a l or not. The i n s t i t u t i o n of epigamia would help illuminate further the relationship between the c i t i z e n s h i p law and marriage. At some point between 446 and 403 B.C., Athens granted epigamia (the right of inter-marriage) to select c i t i e s i n 102 I f i n d Patterson's argument awkward. Why formulate a law c a l l i n g for two Athenian parents i f the main cause of the growth of the c i t i z e n population i s the admission of foreigners into the c i t i z e n body? Her response--that Krateros f r . 4 should be regarded as part of or akin to the c i t i z e n s h i p law--is, i n my mind, false and misleading. See above 108-109. 103 Patterson suggests they were a fourth-century measure (PCL 129-30; cf. Harrison LA 1.26; Lambert Phratries 182 with n. 209. '"4R. Seaford, Reciprocity and Ri t u a l : Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1994) 214. 117 Euboia. 1" 5 In essence, what this grant did was to recognize the offspring of marriages between Athenians and Euboians as vviiaioi and Athenian by i n i t i a l l y recognizing the marriages themselves.^ Stated otherwise, the Athenian grant of epigamia to the Euboians recognized marriages between Athenians and Euboians as productive of c i t i z e n o f f spring. As such, i t does not necessarily follow from t h i s that inter-marriage had been hitherto prohibited by law. What i t indicates i s that, under the terms of the c i t i z e n s h i p law, marriages between Athenians and foreigners would not have been recognized as productive of c i t i z e n o f f spring and, i n t h i s way, would have eventually put an end to the practice. Was the law, then, i n s t i t u t e d , as Hignett and Gomme argued, because Athenians did not want other Athenians to marry metics or foreigners, because most Athenians simply did not l i k e such unions? Was the law i n s t i t u t e d because there was a plethora of unwed Athenian women, as Lacey believed? Or, was i t because inter-marriage caused divisions i n loyalty? A l l of these are plausible theories, but they f a l l short of explaining f u l l y the enactment of the law. This l a s t theory, for example, proposed by Humphreys, f a i l s to take into account the i n s t i t u t i o n of Lys. 34.3. The exact date of this grant i s unknown, but, since an Athenian klerouchy was established there i n about 450 B.C., a date closer to 446 i s favoured by scholars. See, for example, Hignett HAC 343; ATL 3.294-7; Meiggs Empire 121-3; Harrison LA 1.29; and Ogden Greek Bastardy 69-71. ^ C f . Xuthos' position i n Euripides' Ion. 118 proxenia, which persisted well into the fourth century. As Hermann makes clear i n his study, proxenia was just as important as marriage i n forging bonds of friendship and l o y a l t y between indi v i d u a l Athenians and. members of other c i t y - s t a t e s . 1 " 7 It i s d i f f i c u l t , therefore, to accept the argument that the purpose of the c i t i z e n s h i p law was to stop Athenians from making such bonds with foreigners through marriage when there was a method, just as e f f e c t i v e and s t i l l i n place, whereby such bonds could be forged. 1 0 8 A f i n a l theory concerning the reasons behind the enactment of the law needs to be addressed before proceeding any further. This i s the theory of Jacoby, who argued that the law was introduced by Perikles as a p o l i t i c a l weapon to be used against his adversaries, p r i n c i p a l l y Kimon and Thucydides, son of 109 Melesias. According to Jacoby, despite the fact that the law was not enforced r e t r o a c t i v e l y , i t nevertheless posed a threat of potential graphai xenias. Although this i s a possible conjecture, there i s no evidence i n the surviving l i t e r a t u r e to support the idea that the law was ever used for p o l i t i c a l purposes. In fact, when Plutarch recounts the story about Perikles's request to have his vo8oc.-son admitted into his phratry, he does not say anything about his adversaries employing 107G. Hermann, Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) esp. 36. 1 0 8Cf. Patterson PCL 100. 1 0 9Jacoby FGrH 477-81. the request against him. Rather, as noted e a r l i e r , Plutarch focuses on the inherent irony of the request, which suggests that the law was not t i e d into Athenian p o l i t i c s at a l l . " " Most discussions concerning the causes which led to the introduction of the c i t i z e n s h i p law regard the issue as a domestic one. That i s , i n trying to determine why the law was enacted, most scholars turn to what was happening at Athens i t s e l f . Thus, for example, Hignett argued that the introduction of the law was due to Athenians marrying metics, while Patterson regarded i t as caused primarily by a population problem due to the admission of foreigners into the c i t i z e n ranks. Whilst i t i s undeniable that c i t i z e n s h i p i t s e l f i s a domestic issue, i t i s s t i l l possible that the events which culminated i n the citizenship law of 451/0 B.C. were not events happening solely at Athens. In other words, i t i s my b e l i e f that the introduction of the Periklean citizenship law was precipitated by external events, events having to do with the increasing power and position of Athens as an empire. It i s a well-known and often observed fact that one of the methods employed by Athens to control trouble spots of the empire was to s e t t l e Athenians i n those parts, either i n the form of a garrison, klerouchy, or colony." 1 Since colonists "were sent 112 to land either wholly or p a r t i a l l y dispossessed" and, i n so 1 1 0 P l u t . Perikles 37.2-5; cf above 91-2. 1 USee Meiggs Empire 205-19; and comments of ATL 3.284. 1 1 2ATL 3 . 289 . 120 doing, gave up t h e i r Athenian status, i t i s the garrisons and klerouchies that are of i n t e r e s t here. As early as 453/2 B.C., Athens had established a garrison i n Erythraia to ensure the protection of l o y a l Erythraians after a revolt against Athens had 113 been successfully quashed. It i s to be expected that the Athenians stationed there would have interacted with the l o c a l Erythraians, some, perhaps, even contracting marriages with l o c a l women."4 Since, unlike colonists, the Athenians stationed i n garrisons remained, as did klerouchs, Athenian c i t i z e n s , any children born from such unions would have been considered Athenian. Accordingly, such children would have to be accepted and enrolled into the relevant groups, namely the paternal phratry and deme. The d i f f i c u l t y i n determining and accepting the v a l i d i t y of such marriages, and, subsequently, any offspring born from them, back at Athens would have been enormous. I t , therefore, does not seem to be mere coincidence that the ci t i z e n s h i p law--with i t s s t i p u l a t i o n that an Athenian i s one born from two Athenians—was introduced i n 451/0 B.C.. The s i t u a t i o n at Erythraia serves only as an example of the possible d i f f i c u l t i e s involved i n monitoring the relations between Athenians and members of the empire and, thus, i n 113ML 40; Meiggs Empire 112-15, 117; ATL 3.254-55. " 4 I t i s important to compare here the Athenian grant of epigamia to c i t i e s i n Euboia at some point between 446 and 403 B.C. after the establishment of an Athenian klerouchy. This grant was made to benefit the klerouchs rather than the Euboians. (See Ogden Greek Bastardy 70). It i s probable, therefore, that Athens made the grant on the basis of the experience of Athenian klerouchs marrying l o c a l women before the year 451/0 B.C.. 121 monitoring who was, and who was not, an Athenian. It i s without a doubt, i n my mind at least, that the increasing contact of Athenians with members of other c i t y - s t a t e s , due to the position of Athens as leader of an empire, contributed to the d i f f i c u l t i e s . At any rate, whether th i s was an e x i s t i n g problem with which Athenian phratries and demes were faced, or one which was foreseen by Athens, i s an impossible question to answer. The connection, however, between the c i t i z e n s h i p law and the stationing of Athenians i n foreign parts of the empire cannot be e a s i l y dismissed when one considers that, i n A50 and during the 440's B.C., Athens began to send out klerouchies with more frequency than ever known before. In 450 B.C., for example, Athens established klerouchies i n Andros and, probably, Naxos; and, between 450 and 446, klerouchs were se t t l e d i n select c i t i e s of Euboia, i n the Chersonese, Lemnos, and Imbros."5 It i s important to emphasize once again that these people did not give up t h e i r Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p by going abroad; they remained Athenians even though they did not l i v e i n Athens. If the choice of a wife for these Athenians l i v i n g abroad was not limited to Athenian women, i t would have resulted i n the expansion of Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p i n small pockets of the Mediterranean w o r l d . B y l i m i t i n g c i t i z e n s h i p to the 1 1 5Meiggs Empire 121-24, 160, 424f; ATL 3.286-97. '^For example, the male offspring of Athenian family (A), l i v i n g i n Andros as klerouchs, marries into Andrian family (X) , instead of marrying the female offspring of Athenian family (B), also l i v i n g as klerouchs i n Andros. The male offspring of Athenian family (B) also marries into Andrian family (Y). Assuming that the 122 offspring of two Athenian parents and, thus, i n essence, l i m i t i n g an Athenian's choice of a wife, Athens, i n e f f e c t , contained the number of people e l i g i b l e to share i n Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p . I believe that i t i s i n this sense that AP 26.4 must be understood. It i s not necessary, as Patterson has done, to argue that the size of the c i t i z e n population at Athens had doubled due to the enfranchisement of foreigners and that Athens was teeming with metroxenoi. For, even as Patterson herself recognizes, the law does not appear to have been retroactive. What the citi z e n s h i p law did was to contain for the future the number of Athenian c i t i z e n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t prevented the expansion of Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p i n parts of the empire, as more and more Athenians were sent to l i v e abroad as klerouchs, members of garrisons, or as p o l i t i c a l representatives. Such an interpretation also hints at a possible reason as to why the cit i z e n s h i p law was not aimed s p e c i f i c a l l y at metics residing i n Athens, as Hignett believed, and why i t was l a i d down as a general p r i n c i p l e . " 7 If Athens had wanted only to stop the practice of metics marrying Athenians, i t would have been necessary merely to amend the rights and obligations of the metic status. As a p r a c t i c a l measure and general p r i n c i p l e , the citi z e n s h i p law, therefore, was not i n s t i t u t e d because of Athenian female offspring of families (A) and (B) marry other Athenian klerouchs, the resu l t would be a doubling i n any offspring from such marriages and, thus, a doubling i n the number of Athenian c i t i z e n s . " 7 I am thinking here of the formulation of the law as i t appears at AP 26.4. 123 Athenian racism, nor was i t i n s t i t u t e d to remedy an exi s t i n g population problem at Athens. Rather, as suggested above, the law was enacted as a means to prevent the p o s s i b i l i t y of a si g n i f i c a n t increase in the number of people sharing i n Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p . A possible d i f f i c u l t y with the theory proposed above, however, needs to be addressed before concluding. It might be objected that the Periklean ci t i z e n s h i p law had nothing at a l l to do with Athenian klerouchs marrying l o c a l women. Epigamia, i t could be argued, was created because Athens had not foreseen the problem klerouchs and other Athenians l i v i n g abroad would face i n getting married. In other words, one might contend, the grant of epigamia was devised as a means to bypass the cit i z e n s h i p law altogether. A l o g i c a l consequence of this argument i s that the introduction of the law was not caused by, or targeted against, Athenian klerouchs, or members of a garrison, marrying l o c a l foreign women, and, therefore, that the ci t i z e n s h i p law was established for some other reason. Against such an objection, I would point out that we do not know for certain when, precisely, epigamia was granted by the Athenians for the f i r s t time. If the i n i t i a l grant occurred years after the establishment of the cit i z e n s h i p law, one could s t i l l contend that the law was introduced o r i g i n a l l y to prevent Athenians l i v i n g abroad from contracting marriages with l o c a l women. But, even i f epigamia was granted for the f i r s t time shortly after the introduction of the citi z e n s h i p law, the connection between Perikles' law and Athenian klerouchies and garrisons i s s t i l l tenable. For, i t i s conceivable that epigamia was created as a means to control the relations between foreigners and Athenians l i v i n g abroad. That i s , Athens would i t s e l f decide when i t s c i t i z e n s l i v i n g abroad could marry l o c a l women and, therefore, when any children born from such unions would be Athenian, by awarding epigamia. The Athenian practice of granting the right of inter-marriage to some of i t s klerouchs i s , therefore, not at odds with the theory concerning the citiz e n s h i p law proposed above. To summarize, then, I suggest that the introduction of Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law was prompted by the need to control the inte r a c t i o n and relationships between Athenians, stationed i n foreign parts of the empire, and the l o c a l inhabitants of those areas. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the law appears to have been an attempt to stop such Athenians from marrying l o c a l foreign women, an attempt which may, I propose, have been instigated by the circumstances at Erythraia, where an Athenian garrison was established i n 453/2 B.C.. The law was also an e f f o r t by the Athenians to prevent the expansion of the i r c i t i z e n s h i p i n parts of the empire as more Athenians were sent to l i v e abroad with increasing frequency. Accordingly, Perikles' c i t i z e n s h i p law was not an attempt to reduce the number of exi s t i n g c i t i z e n s . Rather, i t was, as AP seems to have thought, an attempt to preclude a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the number of people sharing in Athenian c i t i z e n s h i p . 125 Bibliography Aelianus. Varia H i s t o r i a . M.R. D i l t s , ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, 1974. Andreades, A.M. A History of Greek Public Finance, v o l . I. C.N. Brown, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. Andrewes, A. "Philochoros On Phratries." Journal of Hellenic Studies 81 (1961) 1-15. . "Phratries In Homer." Hermes 89 (1961) 129-40. [ A r i s t o t l e ] . A9HNAIQN IIOAITEIA. M. Chambers, ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986. Beringer, W. "Freedom, Family, and Citizenship i n Early Greece." i n The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays i n Honor of Chester G. Starr. J.W. Eadie & J. Ober, eds. New York: University Press of America, 1985. Boegehold, A.L. "Perikles' Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.." in Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. 55-66. Burkert, W. Greek Religion: Archaic and C l a s s i c a l . J. Raffan, trans. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1985. Bury, J.B. and Meiggs, R. A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great. 4th ed. New York: St Martin's Press, 1975. Camp, J.M. The Athenian Agora: Excavations i n the Heart of C l a s s i c a l Athens. London: Thames & Hudson, 1986. Cohen, E.E. Ancient Athenian Maritime Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973. Connor, W.R. "The Problem of Athenian C i v i c Identity." i n Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. A.L. Boegehold & A.C. Scafuro, eds. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. 34-44 Davies, J.K. Athenian Propertied Families: 600-300 B.C.. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971. . "Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and Its Alternatives." C l a s s i c a l Journal 73 (1978) 105-21. 126 Demosthenes. Orationes, v o l . II: XX-XL; v o l . I l l : XLI-LXI. G. D i n d o r f i i , ed. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1895-1898. Edmonds, J.M. The Fragments of A t t i c Comedy, v o l . I. Leiden: E.J. B r i l l , 1957. Ehrenberg, V. "The Foundation of T h u r i i . " American Journal of Philology 69 (1948) 149-70. . The Greek State. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1969. Forrest, W.G. A History of Sparta: 950-192 B.C.. London: Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1980. French, A. "The Economic Background to Solon's Reforms." C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 6 (1956) 11-25. . "Pe r i c l e s ' Citizenship Law." American History B u l l e t i n 8.3 (1994) 71-75. Frost, F.J. Plutarch's Themistokles: A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. "Aspects of Early Athenian Citizenship." i n Athenian Identity and C i v i c Ideology. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. 45-56. Gabrielsen, V. Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Gomme, A.W. Essays i n Greek History and Litera t u r e . Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1937. . The Population of Athens i n the F i f t h and Fourth Centuries B.C.. Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1933. Hammond, N.G.L. "Land Tenure i n A t t i c a and Solon's Seisachtheia." Journal of Hellenic Studies 81 (1961) 76-89. Hansen, M.H. "Demographic Reflections On the Number of Athenian Citizens, 451-309 B.C." American Journal of Ancient History. 7.2 (1982) 172-89. . "Three Studies in Ancient Demography." His t o r i s k -f i l o s o f i s k e Meddelelser 56 (1988) 1-28. Harding, P. "Metics, Foreigners, or Slaves? The Recipients of Honours i n IG II^IO." Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 67 (1987) . , ed. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, vol 2: 127 From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. . Androtion and the Att h i s . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1994 . Harrison, A.H.W. The Law of Athens. vol I: The Family and Property; v o l . II: Procedure. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968 and 1971. Hermann, G. Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Hignett, C. A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth-Century B.C.. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1952. Humphreys, S.C. "The Nothoi of Kynosarges." Journal of Hellenic Studies. 94 (1974) 88-95. Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der griechischen Hist o r i k e r . B e r l i n & Leiden, 1923-. Jameson, M.H. "A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen." Hesperia 29 (1960) 198-223. . "The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree of Themistokles." H i s t o r i a 12.(1963) 385-404. Krentz, P. "Foreigners Against the Thirty: IG I l H . O . " Phoenix 34 (1980) 298-306. . "The Rewards for Thrasyboulos' Supporters." Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62 (1986) 201-4. Lacey, W.K. The Family in C l a s s i c a l Greece. London: The Camelot Press, 1968. Lambert, S.D. The Phratries of A t t i c a . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1993. Lewis, D.M. "Cleisthenes and A t t i c a . " H i s t o r i a 12 (1963) 22-40. Loening, T.C. The Reconciliation Agreement of 403/402 B.C. i n Athens. Hermes E i n z e l s c h r i f t e n 53, 1987. Loraux, N. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration i n the Cl a s s i c a l City. A. Sheridan, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. The Children of Athena. C. Levine, trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. 128 MacDowell, D.M. The Law i n C l a s s i c a l Athens. London: Thames & Hudson, 1978. . "Bastards As Athenian C i t i z e n s . " C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 26 (1976) 88-91. McGregor, M.F. "Athenian Policy At Home and Abroad." i n Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple, Second Series, 1966-70. Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 1973. Manville, P.B. The Origins of Citizenship i n Ancient Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Meiggs, R. The Athenian Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979 . Meiggs, R. & D.M. Lewis. A Selection of Greek H i s t o r i c a l Inscriptions to the End of the F i f t h Century B.C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Meritt, B.D., H.T. Wade-Gery, M.F. McGregor. The Athenian Tribute L i s t s , v o l . III. Princeton: The American School of C l a s s i c a l Studies at Athens, 1950. Meyer, E.A. "Epitaphs and Citizenship i n C l a s s i c a l Athens." Journal of Hellenic Studies 113 (1993) 99-121. Mosse, C. La f i n de l a democratie athenienne. Paris: Presses Univer s i t a i r e s de France, 1962. Ogden, D. Greek Bastardy i n the C l a s s i c a l and H e l l e n i s t i c Periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Oliver, J.H. "Greek Inscriptions." Hesperia 4 (1935) 21 no. 2, 31-43. Osborne, M.J. " A t t i c Citizenship Decrees: A Note." Annual of the B r i t i s h School at Athens 67 (1972) 129-58. . Naturalization i n Athens (4 v o l s ) . Brussels: Paleis der Academien, 1981-1983. Ostwald, M. Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian Democracy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969. Patterson, C.B. Pericles' Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C. New York: The Arno Press, 1981. . "Those Athenian Bastards." C l a s s i c a l Antiquity 9.1 (1990) 39-73. Pr i t c h e t t , W.K. Ancient Greek M i l i t a r y Practices, Part 1. 129 Berkeley: The University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1971. Raubitschek, A.E. "The Heroes of Phyle." Hesperia 10 (1941) 284-95. Rhodes, P.J. The Athenian Boule. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. . "Bastards As Athenian C i t i z e n s . " C l a s s i c a l Quarterly 28 (1978) 89-92. . A Commentary On the A r i s t o t e l i a n Athenaion P o l i t e i a . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1981. Ruschenbusch, E. "Epheben, Buleuten und die Burgerzahl von Athen um 330 v. Chr." Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 41 (1981) 103-5. . "Noch einmal die Burgerzahl Athens um 330 v. Chr." Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 44 (1981) 110-12. . "Zum letzen Mai: Die Burgerzahl Athens im 4. Jh. v. Chr." Z e i t s c h r i f t fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 54 (1984) 253-69 . Seaford, R. Reciprocity and R i t u a l : Homer and Tragedy i n the Developing City-State. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1994. Sealey, R. "Regionalism i n Archaic Athens." i n Essays i n Greek P o l i t i c s . New York: Manyland Books, Inc., 1967. . "On Lawful Concubinage at Athens.' C l a s s i c a l Antiquity 3.1 (1984) 111-33. S i n c l a i r , R.K. Democracy and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Stroud, R. Drakon's Law On Homicide. Berkeley: The University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1968. . "Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans." Hesperia 40 (1971) 280-301. T r a i l , J. The P o l i t i c a l Organization of A t t i c a . Hesperia Supplement 15, 1975. Vernant, J.P. "Marriage." i n Myth and Society i n Ancient Greece. J. Lloyd, trans. New York: Zone Books, 1990. Wade-Gery, H.T. Essays i n Greek History. Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1958 . 130 Walters, K.R. "Pericles' Citizenship Law." C l a s s i c a l Antiquity 2.2 (1983) 314-36. Whitehead, D. The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge: Cambridge P h i l o l o g i c a l Society Supplement 4, 1977. . "A Thousand New Athenians." Liverpool C l a s s i c a l Monthly 9 (1984) 8-10. . The Demes of A t t i c a : 508/7-ca.-250 B.C.: A P o l i t i c a l and Social Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986 . Wi l l e t s , R.F. The Law Code of Gortyn. B e r l i n : Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1967. Wolff, H.J. "Marriage Law and Family Organization in Ancient Athens." T r a d i t i o 2 (1944) 43-95. Wyse, W. The Speeches of Isaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088276/manifest

Comment

Related Items