UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Athenian metic Ritchie, Virginia Joyce 1964

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1964_A8 R57.pdf [ 6.83MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0105489.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105489-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105489-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105489-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105489-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105489-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105489-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE ATHENIAN METIC by Virginia Joyce Ritchie (B.A., Toronto, 1962) A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER 03? ARTS in the Department of Classics We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of Master of Arts The University of British Columbia April, 1964 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. I further agree that per-mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.. It is understood that copying, or publi-cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of C lass ics  The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date 15 A p r i l 1964 i i ABSTRACT T h i s t h e s i s c o n s i d e r s t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e A t h e n i a n m e t i c i n t h e f i f t h and f o u r t h c e n t u r i e s B. C. Ch a p t e r I , t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n , s e t s t h e l i m i t s o f t h e s t u d y . I n C h a p t e r I I t h e s t a t u s o f t h e r e s i d e n t a l i e n i s shown t o have been no a c c i d e n t , h u t a c o n s c i o u s c r e a t i o n , w e l l - d e f i n e d w i t h i n t h e K L e i s t h e n i c democracy. W h i l e t h e r i g h t s o f t h e m e t i c appear s u p e r f i c i a l l y a nalogous t o t h o s e o f t h e c i t i z e n , i n f a c t t h e y d i f f e r e d i n f i v e e s s e n t i a l s : 1) t h e m e t i c was n o t i n d e p e n -dent b u t r e q u i r e d a " p a t r o n " o r p r o s t a t e s ; 2) he p a i d an a n n u a l t a x , t h e metoilcLon; 3) he had no p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s ; 4) he c o u l d n o t marry an A t h e n i a n c i t i z e n ; and 5) he was f o r b i d d e n t o own r e a l p r o p e r t y , e i t h e r l a n d o r houses. C h a p t e r I I I t e s t s t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e a n t i t h e s i s between t h e c i t i z e n o r homo p o l i t i c u s and t h e n o n - c i t i z e n o r homo- economicus. The economic p u r s u i t s o f b o t h m e t i c and c i t i z e n a r e o u t l i n e d , and i t i s t h u s seen t h a t t h e m e t i c ' s r 8 l e i n t h e A t h e n i a n economy was n o t c a s u a l but fun d a m e n t a l : he m o n o p o l i z e d b a n k i n g and t r a d e and was predominant i n i n d u s t r y . By c o n t r a s t t h e c i t i z e n ' s a c t i v i t i e s were t h o s e based on h i s ownership o f l a n d . Because o f t h i s d i v i s i o n , l a n d , i n d u s t r y , and commerce n e v e r became p e r -m a n e n t l y i n t e r r e l a t e d and A t h e n s ' economy remained i n h e r e n t l y weak. Indispensable as the metio was to Athens, Chapter IT points out that he never overcame the citizen's jealous hold on the right to citizenship. In fact, a very high penalty was set for the usurpation of this privilege. The naturaliza-tion of the metic was rare even in the fourth century, when the demos lavished every kind of honour on foreign kings and dig-nitaries whose patronage i t sought. Chapter V concludes that, although the metic was respons-ible for Athens' economic superiority and, indeed, for much of her cultural heritage, his contributions have been underesti-mated, i f not ignored. As a result, our picture of Athenian l i f e i s one-sided. A discussion of two historical problems that concern the metic and a chronological table are appended. AGKNOWLEDGSivIMTS The w r i t e r wishes to express her g r a t i t u d e to P r o f e s s o r 0. W. J . E l i o t f o r h i s advice and encourag ment i n d i r e c t i n g t h i s study and to P r o f e s s o r M. F. McGregor f o r h i s c a r e f u l c r i t i c i s m s of i t . v i i i ' : TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . INTRODUCTION - 1 I I . THE STATUS OF THE METIC 3 A. Deme o f R e s i d e n c e 3 B. The P r o s t a t e s . 7 C. The M e t i c Tax 11 D. The S t a t u s o f t h e M e t i c 14 E. T a x a t i o n 17 F. M i l i t a r y O b l i g a t i o n s 31 G. L e g a l P o s i t i o n 24 H. D i s a b i l i t i e s . , . 28 I . P r i v i l e g e s 30 1. A t e l e i a 30 2. I s o t e l e i a 33 I I I . THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE METIC 43 A. O c c u p a t i o n s i n w h i c h M e t i c s a r e Found. . . 43 B. The R a t i o o f C i t i z e n s t o N o n - c i t i z e n s i n I n d u s t r y 57 C. Economic P u r s u i t s C l o s e d t o t h e M e t i c . . . 64 D. C o n c l u s i o n s about t h e M e t i c ' s R o l e i n t h e Economy. 70 E. Xenophon's Revenues and i t s S i g n i f i c a n c e . 79 IV. CITIZENSHIP AND THE METIC . 83 V. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. 91 CHAPTER PAGE APPENDIX: THE METIC IN ATHENIAN HISTORY 94 A. Two Historical Problems . . . . . . . . 94 1. Kleisthenes' Enfranchisements . . . 94 2. Perikles* Citizenship Law 100 B. A Brief Chronological Table 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY 107 V PREFACE A t h e n i a n w r i t e r s o f t h e c l a s s i c a l e r a s h o w e d o n l y a p a s s i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e n o n - c i t i z e n p o p u l a t i o n . N o n e , f o r e x a m p l e , s a w f i t t o d e s c r i b e t h e l i f e , o r e s t i m a t e t h e i m p o r -t a n c e , o f t h e r e s i d e n t a l i e n . I n d e e d , X e n o p h o n ' s R e v e n u e s i s u n i q u e i n t h a t i t d i s c u s s e s t h e m e t i c s p e c i f i c a l l y a n d a t some l e n g t h . A s a r e s u l t , we a r e f o r c e d t o r e l y f o r e v i d e n c e u p o n a l l u s i o n s s c a t t e r e d , a t t i m e s b y t h e s h e e r e s t a c c i d e n t , t h r o u g h -o u t d i v e r s e w o r k s c o m p o s e d f o r f a r d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s . T h e A t h e n i a n o r a t o r s a r e t h e r i c h e s t l i t e r a r y s o u r c e , a m o n g whom D e m o s t h e n e s i s b y f a r t h e m o s t f r u i t f u l a u t h o r . M u c h t o o c a n b e d e r i v e d f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s A t h e n a i o n P o l i t e i a a n d P o l i t i c s a n d P l a t o ' s L a w s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a l l t h e b e s t a u t h o r -i t i e s a r e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , a s i s m o s t o f t h e e p i g r a p h i c e v i d e n c e , w h i c h i n c l u d e s b u i l d i n g a c c o u n t s , m a n u m i s s i o n i n s c r i p -t i o n s , a n d h o n o r a r y d e c r e e s . O f n e c e s s i t y , t h e n , a s t u d y o f t h e m e t i c i s b a s e d m a i n l y o n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y e v i d e n c e . H o w e v e r , s i n c e I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e m e t i c ' s s t a t u s - h i s l e g a l r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , a n d d i s a b i l i t i e s - d i d n o t c h a n g e s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m i t s i n c e p t i o n a t t h e e n d o f t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , a n a c c o u n t o f t h e m e t i c ' s p o s i t i o n i n A t h e n s i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y w i l l b e v a l i d f o r t h e f i f t h a s w e l l . B y t h e same t o k e n , I h a v e s e e n f i t t o i n c l u d e , w h e r e t h e y e x i s t e d , d e t a i l s d r a w n f r o m f i f t h -c e n t u r y s o u r c e s . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e m e t i c t o A t h e n s v i and his role in the economy was by no means static but fluc-tuated with the prosperity of Athens i t s e l f or, more accur-ately, of the Peiraieus. What these fluctuations were and when they occurred I have pointed out in the conclusions to my chapter on tne economic position of the metic. To simplify the reading and to show each period or event in relationship to others, a chronological table has been appended. Since i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make a clear distinction between the metic and the xenos, there i s a problem of terminology. The word "metic" or "resident alien" refers specifically to the non-citizen who has assumed that status, while alien or xenos, the more general term, embraces a l l "foreigners" in Athens, only part of whom were metics. Unless otherwise indicated, English translations are those published in the Loeb Library editions, even where the Greek text cited may i t s e l f differ. The one exception i s Thucydides, for whom I have used Crawley's translation. v i i . LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AJA American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts  ATL The Athenian Tribute Li s t s  BSA Annual of the Br i t i s h School at Athens  GAH Cambridge Ancient History  CJ Classical Journal  CP Classical Philology D-S Dictionnaire des Antiquites Grecques et Romaines FGrH Die Fragmente der grieohischen Historiker GDI Sammlung der grieohischen Dialekt-Inschriften Hermes Hermes, Zeitschrift fur classische Philologie Hesperia Hesperia, Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens IG Inscriptiones Graecae  JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth edition, 1940. PA Prosopographia Attica RE Paulys Real-Encycldpadie der classischen Altertumswissen-schaft. Edited by G. Wissowa, W. Kr o l l , et a l . Stuttgart 1894-StK Griechische Staatskunde TAPA Transactions of the American Philogical Association CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 In 571/0 Pasion, the Athenian banker, died leaving a for-2 tune of seventy talents. Pasion had not always been wealthy, or a banker. Originally, he had been a slave who was given his 3 freedom by his employers, Antisthenes and Archestratos. Later he became head of their banking house and was eventually granted 4 Athenian citizenship. Pasion's good fortune was not unique: ten years after his death his own former freedman, Phormion, 5 also a successful banker, received a similar g i f t of citizenship. And from Deinarchos we hear briefly of two other bankers, Epigenes and Konon, who became citizens through the efforts of"Demosthenes 6 the orator. Before their naturalization a l l four bankers had possessed the legal status of metics. In Athens the naturalization of metics was rare. Thus i t Is worth asking why four bankers in particular should be chosen for this privilege. In seeking an answer to this question, I have been led to a study of the Athenian economy and of the metic's role in i t . Moreover, before I could view even this in i t s 1 Dem. 46.13. 2 Dem. 36.5. 3 Ibid. 43. 4 Dem. 59.2. 5 Dem. 46.13. 6 1.43. 2 to t a l i t y , I was obliged to consider the metic's legal position. It i s with the latter that we shall begin. CHAPTER II THE STATUS OF THE METIC A. Deme of Residenoe In literature there i s no standard identification of the metic analogous to the citizen's demotic. As an example, Demosthenes' orations show considerable variety. In his speech Against Meidias he introduces rov u-eVoinov rov A I Y U T T T I O V , Hau-cpiXov, but, when summoned as a witness, the same man appears 1 merely as Pamphilos. Elsewhere, he mentions Ktesikles, the * „ , 2 metoikos, and Kephisiades, rov avepawrov u-e-roixov. On the other hand, in a whole series of commercial suits, the principals are almost exclusively metics, yet none i s so designated. They are referred to by their ethnics, as Nausikrates, the Karystian, or 3 Artemon and Apollodoros, the Phaselites. In inscriptions the phrase "residing i n " together with the deme identifies the metic. There are many examples in the building accounts, such as 'AxctO/rei'eEi ep MeXiret otvt ( ouvT t ) in IG I 2 373.103 (409/8) or EuOupiSet ev KoXXurq) oUouvrt in IG I I 2 1672,8 (329/8). In the Catalogi Paterarum Argentearum. where the defendants are freedmen and thus metics, this designation 1. 21.163 and 168. 2 48.20 and 52.9. 3 35.10. Others are 32, 33, 34, and 56. 4 4 i s particularly common. Indeed, a number of the p l a i n t i f f s 2 are themselves metics. A typical example is IG II 1559.55-58, noXuTiuoq EV KoXXu(r$) o u ( f f l v ) O*KUTOTO(U.O$ ) &7tocpuY(a)v) KaXXi'av KaXXiaSou Ilaiavie(a) qnaXUv ) arae (uov ) . Metics also appear in poletai l i s t s . In IG I2329.14 (414/3) the slaves of the Hermokopid KrjquooScopou p.erot 'HOu eu. IIeipa[ieT] are confiscated. This i s a rare instance in which the word metoikos appears in 6 the body of an inscription. It was Wilamowitz who f i r s t suggested that the status of 7 the metic depended on registration in a deme. With acceptance into the deme the alien assumed the rights and duties of the metic. As a legal entity he was at once identifiable by the phrase "residing i n , " an o f f i c i a l designation similar to the 8 . citizen's demotic. Lis t s of-metics are known to have been 4 IG II 1553-1578 (ca. 330). For freedmen, see Harpokra-tion, s.v. i i e r o i K i o v o! SouXoi acpeeevrs^ wo r S v 6£07tOTc5v e-reXouv TO pe-Toi'mov. Cf. G. Busolt (and H. Swoboda in Vol. 2), Grieohisohe Staatskunde, Vol. 1 (Munich 1920) 289-291. 5 See Andokides, On the Mysteries 15. 6 It i s also found in IG II21951.103 (ca. 400) where the vau7rnYoq of a vessel i s named ' Ap,uvav6poq y,e r o % ( HO C, ) . 7 "Demotika der attischen Metoeken," Hermes 22 (1887) 107-128. 8 Gf. M. Clerc, Les -Meteques Atheniens (Paris 1893) 237 f f . ; H. Francotte, L'Industrie dans l a Grece Ancienne (Brussels 1900) 204; Busolt-Swoboda, StK 1.294; and H. Hommel, HE 15 (1932) 1433, s.v. H e r o i K O i . M l accept Wilamowitz' view. They have not, 5 9 kept. Nothing could be more practical than that the individual demarch inscribe such a l i s t together with the XT)£tapxiKov Ypapvp-aTeTov. Following the work begun by Wilamowitz, Clere compiled an 10 extensive l i s t showing the distribution of metics by demes. It i s worthy of careful consideration. Although there were however, accepted his further contention that the metics be-longed to the tribes and were in fact "quasi-citizens." Metics, he pointed out ("Demotika," 214), supplied choruses for the Lenaia and served in the infantry. Since the citizens carried out both these functions by tribes, the metics must have be-longed to the tribes as well. Unfortunately, nothing i s known about how the metics carried out their responsibilities to the Athenian state. But i t i s assuming far too much to include them in the tribes merely to solve a practical problem. Indeed, Ath. Pol. 53.2 and 58.2 indicate the opposite. Lawsuits of aliens, unlike those of citizens, were divided by l o t among the ten tribes, presumably because the aliens had no tribes. 9 Pollux 3.57: 'AStaraKTot be KCXXOUVTCU o i u-ri £YY £YPapiJ<eVoi etc; rouq u-eTot'Koucj. Scholiast to Aristophanes* Birds 1669: TO. bvoixara TCDV ^evcov ypdyerai e 1 q -roue; 7rtvcxxaq. Scholiast to Aristophanes' Frogs 419: vouoc; Y ^ P nv rouq e£ aAXo6a7tr]c; 'A&T\VT\CSI H a T o i n e l v iQekovrac, e i q /toAvVac; evrauGa X P ° V 0 V OAI'YOV d i a T p i t y a v r a c ; eYYPacpEcrGai. 10 Me'teques 450 f f . 6 11 between 170 and 174 demes, metics are found l i s t e d in only 31, these predominantly urban and suburban. Of 263 metics identi-fiable in inscriptions mainly from the f i f t h and fourth centuries, f i f t y reside in Melite alone, 41 in the Peiraieus, and 26 in each 2 of Alopeke and Kollytos. To consider two inscriptions, IG I 373 and 374, the Erechtheion building accounts, of 38 metics fourteen are domic He'd in Melite and seven in Alopeke. The residence of meMes in cit y demes i s not surprising considering their banausic occupations. The Kleisthenic distribution of citizens equally into ten tribes and their hereditary membership in the demes were at the base of the Athenian p o l i t i c a l system. Since the metics had no share in the p o l i t i c a l l i f e of Athens, there was nothing to prevent their concentration in a few demes s t r i c t l y on the basis of occupational advantage. In certain classes of inscriptions the metic's designation never appears. In the Mbnumenta Prlvata Peregrinorum the ethnic i s used, at times along with the patronymic. Yet many, i f not . 12 most, of the aliens in these funeral inscriptions must be metics. Honorary decrees are another group in"which metics are undesig-nated. In IG II 554 (ca. 300) a metic can be identified from the context. Euxenides of Phaselis i s praised among other reasons 11 Strabo 9.1.16. According to C. W. J. El i o t , Coastal  Demes of Attika (Toronto 1962) 3, this was "an accurate count to judge from the number of deme names known today." 12 There are 2,648 inscriptions in a l l , IG II27882-10,530. Since there is no separate group for metics, I assume that they are included in the above. 7 because raq re eiccpopaq a7x{ac]ac, ocaq e t W i C T a i 6 6T}UOC; 13 e [ i JaevEYneTv roue; p,e-roiKOu<; s[u]raHra)q [s ]iaevT}vox£v. Un-fortunately, in these inscriptions metics cannot be identified accurately unless known from other sources. B. The Prostates In the P o l i t i c s Aristotle differentiates the citizen's legal status from that of the metic by pointing to the latter's 14 need of a prostates. According to Isokrates the Athenians 15 judged the metic by his choice of "patron." Only twice, and then fleetingly, does the prostates appear in literature - both times in Demosthenes. In the oration Against Aristogeiton the metic Zobia does not take the stand personally to corroborate her complaints against the defendant. Instead, the speaker 13 CIere, Meteques 243, suggests that the designation of the metic was employed only in o f f i c i a l stsj.te documents in order to distinguish him from other elements of the population. Since the metic probably retained citizenship in his country of origin, in his own eyes he was, e.g., a Earian or Phaselite, not an Athenian, and was proud to refer to himself as such in monuments of his own. Hence the ethnic was also more acceptable to him in honorary inscriptions. This i s true of epidoseis l i s t s , but since examples f a l l later than the fourth century, I have not included them in this study. See, e.g., IG II 2791. 14 1275a 12-13. 15 8.53. 8 16 summons her prostates. Apollodoros, in the famous suit Against Neaira, accuses the courtesan of l i v i n g as the wife of an Athen-" 17 ian citizen, the very man she once chose as her prostates. I f actual references to the prostates are scant, i t i s known, at any rate, that the metic could not be without a "patron" unless 16 25.58. 17 59.37. I have translated prostates as patron in defer-ence to common usage, although there i s no evidence that the word ever had the same implications as the Roman patronus. Both Thucydides (3.75; 4.46) and Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 22.5; 28.2) use prostates as champion or leader, generally of the demos. The word also means protector, as in Aischylos' Suppliants 963-964, where the Argive king promises his protection to the Danaidai: T t p o t f r a r i i c j d'kyai aGrox re navreq, a w r e p T]6E n p a i ' v e r a i tyrjcpoc;. In describing Neaira's choice of a patron Demosthenes employs the verb vp,diara]ia.i uniquely, as far as I know. According to L S J 9 (s.v. /tpoYo'TTiu.i, A II) the expression TtpoiaTacreai rourovt e a u r o u means "to take as one's leader or guardian." Generally, the terminology was TTpoo-TaTTiv veu-Eiv or Y p a c p e c e a i . The former i s found in the l e x i -cographers and Aristotle's P o l i t i c s (cited above). As for the lat t e r , see Sophokles' Qidipous the King 411, where Teiresias declares: o u Kps'ovroqn-poa-Taro'X) Y E Y P a t y o u - a i. Cf. Aristophanes' Peace 684, rov STJIIOV dx©ecreeTo•,on o u r c u rroviipov yrpoara-qnv ETtEYpaVctTO and the scholiast ad locum: T\ iieratpopa axo rcov U-ETOI'KCDV TOUC; npoararac; 7tpOYPaq:>ovTcov s a u r o T q . o f f i c i a l l y freed "by a decree of the demos. It was an offence indictable under a ypacpri aTtpocracn'ou and considered serious 18 enough to warrant punishment by sale into slavery. The role of the prostates remains a problem. If the defini-tions of the lexicographers are to be believed, the metic re-19 quired his assistance in a l l matters, public and private. Yet in the l i t e r a r y sources, no prostates i s found as witness, spokes man, or guarantor for the metic in his legal and financial trans-actions, nor does his name accompany that of the metic in inscrip tions. Wilamowitz came to the conclusion that the prostates had no 20 role whatever in the l i f e of the Athenian metic. It i s no co-incidence, he argued, that, wherever a prostates does appear, i t 18 Dem. 35.48; Ath. Pol. 58.3; and Harpokration, s.v. 7rpotfTaTT )s . Tke punishment i s known from entries in the lexica of Photios and Suidas, s.v. 7 r c a \ T y r a t\ See J. H. Lipsius, Das  attisohe Recht und Rechtsverfahren. (Leipzig 1905-1915) 372-373, and Busolt-Swoboda, StK 1.294 and 2(1926)1095. Both accept the punishment. 19 Harpokration, s.v. TXpoararr\<;r ot TCOV \%&roinojv *AQT)YX\OI 7TpoecTT)KOTec; 7 t p o 0 T a T a i I n a X o u v T O * avayHaTov yap r\v e x r i o " r o v TCDV V t e r o i v u D v TCOXITTJV - o v a ' A Q n v c u c o v vep,eiv rrpoaTarnv . S.v. &7tpoo*Ta0iou • . . . r i v a 7rpoaTT]aop,evov rcept TtavTcov TCDV tSi'cov KCU TCOV HO i VCDV . 20 "Demotika," 223-225. 10 i s as the representative of a woman. Because the Athenian woman had no legal status unless represented by a kurios;, he concluded that the metic woman required a prostates as her kurios. A l l other references are to non-Athenian institutions. Lysias, for instance, speaks contemptuously of Philon, an Athenian citizen, for l i v i n g i n Oropos km -rcpoararou. Similarly, Lykourgos taunts Leokrates, also an Athenian, for having had a Megarian 22 prostates. Even Aristotle's words, quoted above, do not apply specifically to Athens but 7ro\Aaxou. (Wilamowitz assumed that Athens i s not included.) The role of the Athenian prostates, he continued, was purely ve s t i g i a l , stemming from an archaic client-patron relationship. With the introduction of the metic to the demes, personal clientage disappeared hut the prostates remained. He acted as guarantor, E Y Y U T I T I ^ , for the metic on the occasion of his o f f i c i a l admission into the deme. With that single act his function ended and the metic was independent. Wilamowitz1 conclusions are, in my opinion, unacceptable. By rejecting Aristotle and the lexicographers, he creates new puzzles. Let us consider the passages from Lysias and Lykourgos. Would not the terminology employed by the orators be that most immediately understandable and, therefore, most effective in an Athenian court? It i s doubtful that the speakers or their l i s -teners knew the precise details of metic l i f e in Oropos or Megara. But they did know about Athens and in describing the 21 31.9 and 14 . 22 Against Leokrates 21 and 145 11 status of the metic elsewhere would tend to employ the same term-inology. I believe that at Athens a metic lived kni Trpocrarou or 7 t p o a T c r r n v e'xcov. Isokrates' remarks are pointless i f the relation-ship was not a continuing one. Finally, there i s no purpose in a special YPcuprj a7tpocrTaa'i'ou i f , in effect, the metic had no patron. Implicit in the offence i s the existence of a permanent status of 23 dependant. In view of the size of the alien population and i t s floating character, a precise means of identity would be advantageous to the metic himself who, after a l l , had well-delineated rights, yet, i f challenged, had no phratry to which he might appeal. The Athen-ians, moreover, were always extremely cautious lest non-citizens insinuate themselves into their own ranks. The prostates would serve a very real function in that the character and activ i t i e s of each registered metic would he known to at least one Athenian citizen. C. The Metic Tax The metic paid a special p o l l tax, the metoikion. which amounted to twelve drachmas annually for a man and six for a self-24 supporting woman, and which was farmed out by the poletai. who 23 Cf. Lipsius, Das attische Recht 371-373 and Busolt-Swoboda, StK 2.985-986, who disagree with Wilamowitz in believing that the prostates had a continuing function in the metic's l i f e . Because of the lack of evidence they too are not very definite about his precise role. 24 Harpokration, s.v. u-eroi'vitov. A woman was self-sufficient 12 25 also had jurisdiction over metics in default. The penalty was very harsh. In his speech Against Aristogeiton Demosthenes describes how the defendant dragged Zobia off to the 7ta>XiiTT]pi'ov TOU u-erotvaou. Had her tax not been paid, she would have been . 26 sold into slavery. The tax has been interpreted as registration fee, protection 27 money, or source of revenue. As a method of registration, the metoikion i s cumbersome, i f not superfluous. Admission into an i f she had no husband or adult son who paid the tax. See below (under Occupations in which Metics are Found) for the number of alien women gainfully employed. 25 bee IG II21582.126 (343/2), published by B. D. Meritt in "Greek Inscriptions," Hesperia 5 (1936) 401. 26 25.57. See also Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators 842B, where the orator Lykourgos rescues Zenokrates the philosopher from a tax collector leading him away to the metoikion (sic). Dio-genes Laertios (4.14) t e l l s the same story, changing the hero to Demetrios of Phaleron, who actually purchases Xenokrates from the auction block. 27 Those who interpret i t as registration fee are Wilamowitz, "Deinotika," 233 n. l ; Clere, Meteques 20; and Hommel, 1448. Lipsius Das attische Recht 372, calls i t Schutzgeld and Busolt-Swoboda, StK 2.986, refer to i t as KLassenabgabe, Wohnrechts- und Schutzgeld, J". Hasebroek, Trade and P o l i t i c s in Ancient Greece (London 1933) 159, considers i t revenue as does A. M. Andreades, A History of  Greek Public Finance. Vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass. 1933) 280. 13 o f f i c i a l deme of residence under the aegis of a patron served just this function and provided a "basis for participation in the state similar to that of the citizen. Besides, twelve drach-mas a year was no t r i f l i n g sum or nominal fee, as has been suggested. In the f i f t h century i t was about a day's wage a month, imposed without reference to property or worth in addition 28 to regular taxes. It could have been a serious burden on the lowest classes. On either count I can not consider the metoikion a "mere" registration fee, nor did Plato. In the Laws he states 29 that there w i l l be not even a small metoikion. Yet his concern for supervision of the metics i s even greater than that of the Athenians, for he would expel them after twenty years' residence. He could not have considered the metoikion as a useful form of registration. 28 Admittedly a drachma purchased more in the f i f t h than in the fourth century. In the Erechtheion accounts of 409/6 the standard wage for slave, metic, or citizen i s a drachma a day. In the Eleusinian accounts of 329/6 the average has risen to l i dr. for unskilled and 2g for skilled labour. Bare subsistence costs about three obols, since this i s the amount given the public slaves in the latter inscriptions. Ephebes at the same period received four obols a day for their maintenance (Ath. Pol. 42.3). By these standards in the fourth century a family of four re-quired at least two dr. a day for minimum subsistence. Those who earned below this would have f e l t the metoikion as onerous. 29 850 B. 14 I interpret the metoikion as a common imposition in most 30 Greek states, a "burden on the resident alien in return for the rights and privileges of his status - a kind of Schutzgeld, In addition i t kept the destitute from "becoming metics by setting a minimum financial limit for permanent residence. As a source of revenue, i t was not an enormous sum. Vis-a-vis the citizen, how-ever, the metic did give prosodos and not receive i t , as Xenophon 31 well points out. That the Athenians punished default by slavery i s not surprising, for even citizens who did not pay their taxes were disfranchised. D. The Status of the Metic The xenos, once initiated in the above manner, became a metoikos. Whether the change of status was voluntary or obliga-tory remains in doubt. O f f i c i a l l y , there were two distinct groups. 32 Thucydides distinguishes -roue, ]xeroino\jc, nai ^evcov'ocoi Ttaprjcjav. In the P o l i t i c s Aristotle warns against too populous a state where 30 See Dem. 29.3 for Megara and Lysias 31.9 for Oropos. 31 Revenues 2.1. Cf. Andreades, Public Finance 280: "But even i f we admit that the metoekion produced far less (e.g. 20-30 talents), the importance of the revenues was nevertheless quite exceptional for a third reason; since the indirect taxes, on which the public finance of the Greek c i t i e s was based, had the disadvantage of fluctuating proportionately with consumption, a fixed revenue - as being direct - was very acceptable to those who were charged with the preparation of the budget." 32 4.90.1. 15 i t i s easy for xenoi and metoikoi to usurp the rights of citizen-33 ship. According to Pollux those not inscribed as metics were 34 .. called aSiaTctKToi. Aristophanes of Byzantion names them ^evoi /teepee I 'd r ipo i , stating further that they became metics after a 35 definite lapse of time. That this was the procedure in at least two other Greek states i s shown by a fifth-century Lokrian 36 decree concerning the relations between Ghaleion and Oiantheia. It specifies that their respective citizens are to become metics after one month's residence in the other's territory. A group of Athenian inscriptions can only be explained on the assumption that a similar procedure existed in Athens. These decrees grant exemp-tion from the metoikion to aliens, many of whom intended to re-2 side only temporarily in Athens. IG II 141, for example, grants 33 1326b 21. Cf. P o l i t i c s 1326a 20 and Plato, Laws 920 A. 34 3.57. 35 In Lexeis he defines the metic: p e - r o i i t o c j 6 e e c r r i v , OTTOTCXV TIC; ano c^evrjc; eAGeov evoiHfi rxi TTOXS i TBXOC, TEAODV e tc ; , tWoTETaYP-e'vcxc; Ttvaq x p e i a q TT)C; nokeoic,' ecocj p,ev oZv noocuv rju-epcov 7tapE7tr6r|u.oc; H O X S T T C U n a i axek^c, e c n v e a v 6 e U7tepf$fi r o v oop i c r^e ' vov x p o v o v , pEToinoq f i&ri Y t Y v e r a i x a i W O T EA I I C ; (cited by Hommel, 1413-1414). Wilamowitz, "Demotika," 234 and Hommel, 1414 do not accept this definition as evidence.for the f i f t h and fourth centuries but only for the third, when Aristophanes lived. Lipsius, Das  attische Recht 370, end Busolt-Swoboda, StK 294, on the other hand, base their opinions on i t s acceptance. 36 GDI 1479. 16 this and other exemptions to Sidonians OKOCOI ... e7ri6T}u.axnv nar' epjropt'av ' A O i y v T i c r t. Since i t was assumed that these aliens would pay the metoikion, i t must have been obligatory for a l l after a definite period of time. I .interpret the evidence as follows. No alien could remain in Athens indefinitely without assuming the duties and responsi-b i l i t i e s of a permanent resident. After a stipulated time he presented himself to some public o f f i c i a l , probably the Pole-37 march, and submitted to an examination before becoming a metic. Athens did not accept a l l applicants, only those who were able to support themselves and pay the customary taxes, the metoikion in particular. Better s t i l l , they should have a trade or profession. Broadly speaking, there were three groups of xenoi in Athens: a) transients, 7tctpe7ti6Tip,ouvT£c;, on specific business; b) a l l i e s 39 or subjects whose relations were defined by treaty; c) indiv-iduals like the Sidonian merchants with special privileges and exemptions. For the most part, metics were permanent residents 37 It i s known from the decree of Themistokles that the Pole-march kept a master l i s t of a l l xenoi, including metics. See M. H. Jameson, "The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree of Themistokles," Historia 1£ (1963) 400. Presumably, aliens regis-tered with him immediately on arrival in Attika. 38 Cf. Plato, Laws 850 A-B. 39 E.g., the Phaselis decree, IG I 16, and other treaties which gave rise to 6i'nai CCTTO auu.poA.c5v. 17 40 who had immigrated to Athens with their entire households. Only the very wealthy could maintain a residence and pay taxes in two 41 states. E. Taxation Metics paid taxes other than the metoikion in exactly the same manner as citizens, hy discharging annual liturgies and by contributing to special levies on property. What comprised the liturgies of metics i s unknown, although Demosthenes does dis-42 tinguish them from those of the citizens. It i s certain that metics acted as ohoregoi, since Lysias boasts of having provided 40 Legally freedmen were also metics, as indicated in note 4. 41 This interpretation is provisional and in no way does justice Ibo the related question of the xenos in Athens. A dis-tinction was rarely made by the Athenians. To them metics were xenoi. Leptines' law, for instance, forbids exemption from tax-ation to citizens, isoteleis, and xenoi (Dem. 20.29). The last group includes metics. Similarly, Demosthenes' oration Against  Euboulides (57.55) was written in defence of an Athenian accused of being an alien. He asks, six' eyco ^e'voq; rrou pe-roiniov H a r a r e \ Throughout this speech xenos and metoikos are used interchangeably. Thus i t i s very often d i f f i c u l t to distinguish with certainty the alien from the metic. Indeed, at some point a l l metics (except freedmen) were xenoi. Further research on this aspect of the question might prove f r u i t f u l . 42 20.18. 18 43 choruses himself. For payment of the eisphorai metics were organized l i k e the rest of the population into symmoriai with 44 their own eplmeletai and tamiai. At what rate they were taxed 43 IS.SO. Cf. IG II2141.35. The scholiast to Aristophanes' Ploutos 954 states that the metics were prohibited from taking part in the choruses at the tragic contests ( e v rq3 oto-rtHcp x o p 1 ? ) , but not at the Lenaia because there they also acted as ohoregoi. From an obscure passage in Ulpian (Dindorf's edition 9.468, his reference Dem. S0.46S.13), we also learn that metics feasted one another at public festivals (eto-ri'tov dAXTjAouc,). This may refer to a eariaai% of the metic. There i s no extant reference to triremes provided by metics. The f i r s t known foreign trierarch was Stesileides of Siphnos, IG II21623.204,251,268 (333/2). See below under Isoteleia for more about this man. 44 Lysias, loc. c i t . See also IG II 554, where a metic i s honoured for services which included rdc; re eicrcpopdq a7r[aa]aq ocac; etyricpio'Tat 6 6r)p,o<; e [ i J c e v e y H e T v roue, perot'nouc;. Isokrates 17.41 concerns a metic who boasts that as registrar kixeypa^a TTIV p-eYt'cTTiv e i a c p o p a v . This speech i s dated before 378/7 when the new system of taxation based on symmoriai was introduced (Harpo-kration, s.v. cupp-opTa). Hypereides, fragment 24, mentions a * * 2 u - e T o t n t H T i q cuwiopt'cLc, rapi'd^, as does IG II 244.26, which refers as well to epimeletai. 19 i s a problem. Demosthenes refers to the S H T O V u-s'poc; TCOV 4 5 • _2 VierotKcuv. IG II 244 confirms this rate, at least for the period 46 ca. 335. But what was this "sixth portion"? Boeckh, adhering to his principle of a progressive levy on capital, maintained that, while the citizen's rate of taxation varied from 1/5 to l/lO de-47 pending on his telos, that of the metic was universally l/6. This system would, of course, leave the wealthiest group relatively free and f a l l heavily on those with less capital - quite contrary 48 to the progressive principle. Lecrivain objected to the com-plexity of Boeckh1s system and suggested that the metic's l/6 was actually the sixth part of the entire levy. But in the fourth century the metics did not stand in a ratio of 1:6 to the citizens. 49 In 323 their ratio was 3:8 and in 313 almost 1:2. Even i f we 45 22.61. 46 Line 20, slacpepeiv 6E nat rove, p,£Tot'Kouc; TO E H T O V U-E'[POC;]. 47 A. Boeckh, The Public Economy of Athens (London 1842) 539. 48 D-S 2.1.510 (s.v. eisphora). Busolt-Swoboda, StK 1.296-297 agree with Lecrivain. 49 A. W. Gomme, The Population of Athens in the F i f t h and Fourth Centuries B. C. (Oxford 1933) 26, gives the following figures for metics and citizens (men, women and children): Citizens Metics 431 172,000 28,500 425 116,000 21,000 323 112,000 42,000 313 84,000 35,000 Andreades, Public Finance 288, has pointed out the d i f f i c u l t i e s EO were to concede (and this we do not know) that as a group they were less wealthy than the citizens, being mainly artisans and traders, the very nature of their position gave them the one thing the citizens lacked - l i q u i d assets. A relationship of 1:6 in taxation i s , I believe, unreasonably disproportionate. Furthermore, in the context of Demosthenes' speech Against  Androtion, the sixth portion i s most easily interpreted as an extra burden or higher rate that the metic might hope to avoid by pretending to citizenship. Perhaps Jones is correct in believing that "the eisphora was not a progressive tax,:.... a l l l i a b l e to i t paid the same 50 proportion of their capital, whether they were rich or poor." Within this system, a l l metics had a standard rate of taxation different from that of the citizens. Of one thing we can be convinced. The metic's rate of tax-ation was in some way less favourable than that of the citizen. of estimating the metic population, especially on the basis of the number of hoplites in 431. Earlier conjectures were general-l y higher than Gorame's for the same period (e.g., Francotte, 45,800 and Clerc, 96,000). For a recent view see A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (Oxford 1960) 164-165, who also believes that Gomme's figures are too low. 50 Athenian Democracy S8. Although he makes no mention of the metics, he discusses at length (S3-30) the Athenian system of eisphorai. 21 Otherwise, a grant of isoteleia, the privilege of ei0cpopa<; eiacpepeiv p,era TCDV 'AQi]vaioiv, was meaningless. F. Military Obligations Athens recruited metics for military service, for example, as hoplites during the Second Peloponnesian War. Although 51 nothing i s known of their training or organization, i t appears that they did not serve in the regular t r i b a l taxeis but in 52 their own battalions. Indeed, one of the honours commonly 51 Metics took no part in the ephebeia. According to an anecdote related by Plutarch (Themistokles 1) the Kynosarges was exclusively the gymnasium of nothoi or aliens u n t i l Themistokles did away with discrimination by introducing Athenian citizens there. In Dem. 23.213 nothoi are s t i l l registered in the Kyno-sarges. Perhaps in the fourth century i t was a place of regis-tration for metic or alien children, often called nothoi, and a gymnasium for military exercise. 52 IG I 949 (ca. 424), one of the casualty l i s t s arranges citizens by tribe, followed by the categories e v y p a [cpot ] , T o x c r o r a i , and x^ e ' v o i . The two e v y p a c p o i have occasioned endless concern. To Wilamowitz, "Demotika," 217, they were men of Plataia, Salamis, Eleutherai, or Oropos. Clere, Meteques 45 f f . considered them isoteleis and the xenoi metics. Gertrude Smith, "Athenian Casualty L i s t s , " CP 14 (1919) 359 agreed with Clere. See H. Pope, Non-Athenians in Attic Inscriptions (New York 1935) 79 n. 42 for other opinions. I present these views without feeling i t necessary to choose among them. I do, however, think 22 bestowed on the privileged alien was permission o*Tpare tote; a r p a r e u e a O a i p s r a raW 'AQr\vai<QY. Reviewing Attika's resources in 431, Perikles specifically includes metic hoplites among the 53 16,000 "in the garrisons and on home duty at Athens." I agree with Gomme that reserve duty was probably their primary func-54 tion. although on occasion they joined in campaigns into con-55 tiguous territory, e.g., the Megarid in 431. Wilamowitz i t significant that the three groups are kept quite distinct from the citizens. See also Jameson, "The Decree of Themistokles," 400: "Scholars writing on the metics have assumed that the regis-ters used for their military service were in the hands of the individual demes. The virtua l l y certain restoration of the deoree says that they are to be taken from those registered with the polemarch (lines 30-31)." I presume that the metics were not mobilized through their demes with the citizens because they served in their own taxeis. The most efficient way to enlist them was through the Polemarch*s master l i s t of a l l xenoi. 53 Thuc. 2.13.6-7. 54 A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, Yol. 3 (Oxford 1956), 558. 55 Thuc. 2.31.2. Gomme, Commentary 2(1956)93 believes they replaced 3,000 citizens absent in Chalkidike. Delion was the f i r s t important occasion on which metics are known to have been used for foreign service (Thuc. 4.90.1). 23 believed that metics belonged to the tribes and assumed that for military purposes they were completely assimilated into the ranks 56 of the citizens. But this overlooks the very essence of their position. Since only the wealthier metics could afford heavy armour, hoplites would necessarily be the successful artisans, traders, and "industrialists" whose occupations were most essential to Athens in wartime, and who, i f recruited indiscriminately a long with the citizens, would create a serious gap in Athens' economy. As a reserve force, on the other hand, they could continue to pro-duce armaments and ensure supplies and thus doubly advance the war-effort. Naturally, the lower class of metics would be more expend-able, since slaves could take their place. I assume that they served as light-armed troops along with the xenoi and thetes when-57 ever a levee en masse was decreed. No metic, whatever his financial position, could attain the 58 rank of knight. It was as rowers in the fleet that the poorer metics came increasingly to serve. During the early years of the Second Peloponnesian War, Athens had recruited many foreign sailors but 56 "Demotika," 215-217. He cites Xenophon, Revenues 2.2, ctcpeAoiu-ev be next ro 0 u o * T p a T e u e c r 9 a t OTrAt'rac; u-eTot'itouc; r o i q aaroiq. Xenophon seems to overstate his case for abolishing the metics' m i l i -tary obligations. 'There i s , however, no reason to believe that r e s i -dent aliens were carefully segregated from citizens when on expedi-tion. They merely fought as a group, just as did each of the tribes. 57 ThuC. 4.94.1. 58 Xenophon, Revenues 2.5. 24 in emergencies, Perikles points, out, she could be a match for 59 the Lakedaimonians by enlisting her own citizens and metics. Later, with the defection of the xenoi, she was forced to rely 60 mainly on the resident aliens and thetes. At the end of the century Pseudo-Xenophon could write, 6eTrat f\ nokic, i i e T O i ' K c o v . . . 61 ...6ia TO vauTinov. This continued to be their function. In the "First Philippic Demosthenes describes the manning of the fleet with metics, x^Pi^ oinouvTeq, and citizens. It i s hardly surprising that, in an age of mercenary armies, service in the fleet became a source of employment for the lowest strata 63 of the population. Gr». Legal Position In early times the Polemarch had acted as protector of the alien. Only remnants of this role survived in the f i f t h and fourth centuries. According to Aristotle the Polemarch "did for the resident alien a l l that the archondid for the Athenian oitizen." He also reviewed private suits (i6iat y,6vov) of 64 metics and divided them by lot among the ten tribes. Indeed, the f i r s t step in the prosecution of a metic was to summon him 59 Thuc. 1.143.1; 3.16.1. 60 Thuc. 7.13.2 and 63.3-4. In the lat t e r Nikias addresses the nautai, who from the context must be metics. 61 Constitution of the Athenians 1.12. 62 4.36. 63 Cf. Isokrates 8.48 and Dem. 50.6, 7, and 23, where the latt e r describes the extremely haphazard method of recruiting sailors. 64 Ath. Pol. 58.2-3; Dem. 46.22-25 65 before the Polemarch. There he had to post bai l or remain in 66 j a i l . Neaira, when accused by Phrynion of being his slave, appointed three Athenian citizens as her sureties u n t i l her 67 status was determined. Isokrates records the bai l of a metic 68. as high as six talents. In a l l cases the metic had to produce guarantors because in the eyes of Athens he was apolis and, i f not transient, at least rootless. He had no immovable property or 65 Lysias 23.2 and passim. 66 Dem. 32.29. Protos, the merchant, had disappeared rather than be implicated in the proceedings. The speaker explains what might have been done to hold him: You would "have called him before the Polemarch, and have had him put under b a i l (xa-niYYuac;) ; and, i f he had appointed sureties ( x a T E O T n a e r o u e ; e y Y U T i f a q ) , he would have been forced to remain, or you would have had persons from whom you could recover damages; i f he had not given b a i l , he would have gone to prison (eic, -ro otxtipa). " Lipsius, Das  attlsche Reoht 811, points out that the citizens suffered similar treatment only in certain types of public suits (Dem. 24.144). i'or metics i t was standard procedure in a l l cases, public or private. 67 Dem. 59.40 and 49. Of. Isaios, fragment 18 (published in Forster's edition in the Loeb Classical Library together with a relevant portion of Dionysios of Halikarnassos' de Isaeo). 68 17.12. Other cases give no indication of the amount of b a i l demanded. 26 ancestral ties. Like Protos, the merchant, he could disappear instantly without trace. In theory, at any rate, this course was an unlikely one for the citizen to follow. Aristotle i s silent about the public suits of the metics. Fortunately, many actual cases are extant in the orators. Demos-thenes recounts how Epainetos of Andros Ypacpercu 7tpoc; rouq ©eaytoeeracj ypocpriv against the Athenian Stephanos because he had 69 unlawfully imprisoned him for adultery. In another speech the assembly condemns a citizen for profanation of the Mysteries on 70 the probole of Menippos a Xarian. There i s no hint of inter-vention by the Polemarch in either case. Similarly, in a series o f emporikai dikai metics appear before the Thesmothetai as both 71 " ! defendants and p l a i n t i f f s . By a l l indications, public suits of metics were tried in the same manner as those of citizens, in the court appropriate to the charge. Both Clere and Busolt concluded further that the metic did not have the broad right of indictment that the citizen enjoyed. In Athens the rule was ypatyaaQ® 'Aefivcucov 6 pouAou.evoc,. When exercised publicly, this amounted to a kind of time. The metic, as befitted his non-political role, could indict only in matters of personal concern - never in the 72 interest of a third party or of the state. 69 59.66. 70 21.175. 71 Dem. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 56. 72 Clere, Meteques 91, states: "Pour les actions prive'es, l a jurisdiction depend du statut personnel du de'fendeur, sinon ab-solument de l a presence d'un me'teque dans 1'affaire; pour les 27 Resident aliens were competent to appear in court as wit-nesses. Aischines orders the court-clerk, n a X e t u-oi ' A p t a T o c p a v n v 73 ' O X u v 0 i o v , nat TTJV paprupiav avayiyvcDCHe. In one of Demos-thenes' orations there appear as witnesses a Boiotian, an isoteles, Aratos of Halikarnassos, and a ship's pi l o t called Erasikles. In one respect the metic's legal position did differ con-siderably from that of the citizen. The murder of a resident alien (or foreigner or slave) was tried by the court of the I 75 Palladion along with cases of unintentional homicide. The punishment was correspondingly lighter than that i n f l i c t e d by the Areiopagos. The accused, i f found guilty, was permitted to leave 76 the country without confiscation of goods. The metic's person was not highly valued. His murder was in actions publiques, elle depend de l a nature de l a cause, sans acception de personnes." Lipsius, op_. c i t . 66 and 244, and Busolt-Swoboda, StK 1.298 and 2.1094, have a similar view. 73 2.155. 74 35.13, 14, 20, and 23. See R. J. Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle, Vol. 2 (Chicago 1938), 118. 75 Ath. Pol. 57.3. See also D. M. MacDowell, Athenian Homi-cide Law in the Age of the Orators (Manchester 1963) 69, "... the implication i s that even the deliberate k i l l i n g of such a ^ parson was not considered important enough for t r i a l by the Areopagos.." 76 Dem. 23.45, 71, and 72 and MacDowell, ibid. 19 and 126. 28 the same category as that of a slave. For a number of offences 77 he even faced the punishment of sale into slavery. On the other hand, the metic did enjoy a f u l l y defined legal position. It was both to Athens' credit and to her advantage that within this definition she afforded the alien f u l l protection of his rights. H. Disabilities By Aristotle's definition the metic was 6 rcuv ripxov ]xr\ 78 psre'xcov. For he was excluded from a l l magistracies and priest-79 hoods and could not s i t on the juries or in the assembly. To the individual metic, however, non-participation in public l i f e was probably of far less concern than the economic disability he experienced in being unable to own real property either in land 80 or houses. Unless granted eh:ktesis (eyuTrio'tcj) by popular decree, 77 rpacpou d7rpocTaa,t'ou and ^evictq and non-payment of the metoikion. 78 P o l i t i c s 1278a 38. 79 Dem. 57.48 and 59.73 for offices, priesthoods and sacri-fices; Lysias 13.73 and 76 juries and assembly; Ath. Pol. 42.1 ephebeia; Dem. 21.56 and 60 and Plutarch, Phokion 30 choruses and contests. According to the scholiast to Aristophanes* Ploutos cited above (under Taxation), this refers only to tragic contests. 80 Invariably one finds ekktesis in Proxeny decrees and decrees granting isoteleia (see below), i.e., i t was a concomitant of other privileges. (See IG I 283; II 253, 130, 206, 554, 706, and 732.) In some inscriptions either land or house is specified; in others both are granted. 29 he could invest only in movable property. Even his home and work-81 ing quarters were rented. This prohibition had two serious con-sequences. In the f i r s t place he could not safely invest his capital in mortgages. Phormion, the banker, for instance, being a freedman, could not assume responsibility for certain monies lent out on security of land and houses since legally he could not seize 82 them in the event of default. Secondly, the metic could not in -vest in the mining industry. As Glotz explains, "Inability to own .. 83 the land involved i n a b i l i t y to excavate beneath i t . " Extant 84 mining leases bear out this view. A metic could not marry an Athenian citizen. By the fourth century i t was an indictable offence punishable by sale into 85 slavery. Generally speaking, epigamia was a rare honour. I have not seen a single decree that includes the right of intermarriage 86 among the privileges bestowed on the alien. 81 Xenophon, Revenues 2.6. 82 Dem. 36.6. 83 G-. Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work (London and New York 1926) 182. 84 See below under Isoteleia. 85 Dem. 59.16 and 52. 86 It was occasionally granted to a whole state because of outstanding service to Athens. See Lysias 34.3 (Euboians) and Isokrates 14.51 (Plataians). 30 I. Privileges 1. Ateleia As the word i t s e l f implies, ateleia i s exemption from tax or taxes. It was not specifically a privilege of the alien, since citizens enjoyed i t as well. Aristotle describes the ephebes, 87 for example, as ateleis navxcav during their two years of training, while Demosthenes' oration Against Leptines i s T t e p i rr\c, a r e A e t a c j of both citizens and aliens. Diodoros affirms that Themistokles 88 urged the Athenians to make a l l metics and craftsmen ateleis. The earliest epigraphic reference to ateleia i s IG I 239, the Chalkis decree of 446/5. IG I2106 (ca. 410) exemplifies the formula most commonly applied to aliens. It grants ateleia from the metoikion to three men sojourning in Athens "until they should return home." IG II 211 (348/7) grants the same privilege to Olynthian refugees at Athens. In some cases ateleia involved more than the metoikion. It was complete immunity from a l l l i t u r g i e s . According to Demos-thenes this exemption could be granted to both citizens and metics. In opposing Leptines' law, which was to prohibit ateleia, he states that he does not believe that there are five aliens with exemption in Athens. He f i n a l l y assumes ten as well as five 89 citizens. Even i f we make allowances for rhetorical exagger-87 Ath. Pol. 42.5. 88 11.43.3. 89 20.18-21. 31 ation, the number of actual metics with total exemption must have been very few indeed. It i s of some interest to consider the examples he cites. For Leukon, ruler of the Bosporos, and Epikerdes of Kyrene, neither of whom resided in Athens, ateleia 90 was purely honorific. Two other foreigners who assisted Athens in Byzantion and were exiled on her account subsequently received ' , , , , , * 91 T r p o ^ e v i a v , euepYeciav, areXexav a7cavrcov. A study of the known examples, both l i t e r a r y and epigraphic, leads to conclusions that have been l i t t l e stressed. Ateleia can not be un c r i t i c a l l y described as a privilege of the metic. For foreign kings and dignitaries i t was an honour without prac-t i c a l significance, often a kind of "international" reward for . 92 unusually high financial benefactions. For others, mainly exiles, i t afforded a privileged status below that of actual citizenship while sojourning in Athens. In almost every instance the recipients were proxenoi or exiles who intended to return to their native land and were, properly speaking, not part of the 93 metic population. In my opinion, the reward of ateleia was 9 0 Ibid. 30 and 41-44. 91 Ibid. 60. 92 E.g., in the example cited above, Leukon granted exemp-tion from dues to merchants conveying corn to Athens and even gave corn in a year of shortage (ibid. 31-33). Epikerdes gave money to the defeated Athenians at the time of the Syracusan disaster (41). 95 For proxenoi see P. Monceaux, D-S 4.1.734, who states that 94 usually p o l i t i c a l l y motivated. 32 they -were a group of privileged xenoi above the other aliens. The proxenia, which was originally bestowed only on foreigners resid-ing in their own native lands, was even in the fourth century rarely granted to an Athenian citizen or metic. For further dis-cussion along these lines, see Busolt-Swoboda, StK 1.229 and 2. 1246; Hommel, 1448; and Pope, Non-Athenians 50, where a biblio-graphy i s l i s t e d . For exiles, see Pope, ib i d . 71-74. A typical example i s IG II 211, which granted ateleia to Olynthians and recorded that they were in exile because they had been driven out by Philip. The distinction I make, then, i s between those who won honour as metics, and those who, through service to Athens in some other capacity, generally in their own native lands, won a p r i v i -leged status above that of the metic for the duration of their residence in Athens. The seventeen decrees studied included the Chalkis decree and 2 the Sidonian decree, IG II 141 (cited above under the Status of the Metic). Of the rest six were for exiles, four for proxenoi, one a deme decree, and four too fragmentary to allow identification of the recipients. Among the exiles were the Mantineians and Thasians (IG II 233), the Olynthians (IG II 2211), the Akarnanians (IG II 2237), the Boiotians (IG II 2245), and the Thessalians 2 (IG II 545). In this group and the examples cited by Demosthenes were eight instances in the fourth century of ateleia of liturgies (total exemption). Of the eight recipients six were proxenoi. See especially IG II 141, which provided that Sidonian citizens 33 2. I s o t e l e i a The p r i v i l e g e o f i s o t e l e i a c o n f e r r e d on t h e a l i e n a s t a t u s above t h a t o f t h e o r d i n a r y m e t i c . I t gave him p a r i t y w i t h t h e c i t i z e n i n f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s ( l i t e r a l l y , e q u a l i t y i n t e l e ) . H e s y o h i o s , f o r i n s t a n c e , d e f i n e s i s o t e l e i s as JIETOIHOI "era TOTC; acrToTc, reXr\ 6i6ov.Teq. The f i r s t l i t e r a r y r e f e r e n c e t o i s o t e l e i a comes a t t h e end o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y , s h o r t l y b e f o r e n o r m a l l y r e s i d e n t a t S i d o n s h o u l d , i f t h e y s e t t l e d t e m p o r a r i l y a t A t h ens f o r p u r p o s e s o f t r a d e , be exempt f r o m t h e m e t o i k i o n , e i s p h o r a , and c h o r e g i a . A,s M. N. Tod, A S e l e c t i o n o f Greek  H i s t o r i c a l I n s c r i p t i o n s . V o l . 2 ( O x f o r d 1948) 119, p o i n t s o u t : " T h i s r i d e r extends i n d e f i n i t e l y t h e p e r i o d o f s o j o u r n i n A t t i c a a l l o w e d t o S i d o n i a n merchants w i t h o u t becoming l i a b l e t o t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e m e t i c s t a t u s . " F a r f r o m b e i n g a p r i v i l e g e o f t h e m e t i c i t k e p t c e r t a i n a l i e n s f r o m t h e onus o f t h a t p o s i t i o n . C f . C l e r c , Meteques 197, " S i l ' o n e x c e p t e ces meteques q u i l ' o n p e u t a p p e l e r des meteques d ' o c c a s i o n l ' a t e l i e du m e t o i k i o n e t a i t f o r t r a r e . " 94 One must remember t h a t most e x i l e s honoured were, l i k e t h e O l y n t h i a n s , s u p p o r t e r s o f Athens and might p r o v e u s e f u l i n t h a t c a p a c i t y a g a i n i f t h e o p p o s i n g regime were removed f r o m power. 95 C f . H a r p o k r a t i o n , s.v. tcroTeAric; x a t i c r o r e X e i a * r i p q TIC; 6 i 6 o p , e v n TOTC, a ^ i o t c ; cpaveTcri T5V peToTHcov n a e ' rfv n a i TOU ]xe-T o i n t ' o u acpecrtq auToTc, e y i V v e T O . 34 the overthrow of the Thirty, when i t was promised to a l l non-96 citizens who would support the cause of the democracy. In the 96 Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.25. I do not consider IG II 10 a decree bestowing isoteleia, although many scholars have restored the word in line 9. (See Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions 2 no. 100 for a bibliography. Tod follows Wilhelm in restoring Archinos as the mover of the motion in 401/0 and line 9 as *at enoiovv ra 7tpoaraT[roy,eva, TOUTOICJ sTvat tooreXeiav otnouat 'AenvTicriv nat irtiYa^t'av xat e JYYUtjtfiv naQane^p 'Ajerivat'oiq. ) , New fragments of the decree published by D. Hereward, "New Frag-ments of IG II 210," BSA 47 (1952) 102-117, have increased the number of persons honoured to over 100, a l l of whom are l i s t e d under the name of an Athenian tribe. Thus, there i s no longer any basis on which to divide the recipients into three categories, one of which received isoteleia. Indeed, Wilhelm*s restoration i s without p a r a l l e l . I have found no other instance of a grant of isoteleia together with epigamia. I agree with A. Raubitschek, "The Heroes of Phyle," Hesperia 10 (1941) 286, that IG II 210, including the new fragments, is the original proposal of Thrasyboulos, passed in 404/3, the archon-ship of Pythodoros, immediately after the restoration of the democracy and rescinded in the next year by Archinos (Ath. Pol. 40.2). Archinos later moved another motion granting less spec-tacular honours to about 100 men, the heroes of Phyle (Aischines 3.187), a l l of whom are citizens in the fragments of the decree 35 A t h . P o l . A r i s t o t l e e x p r e s s l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s i s o t e l e i s as a group f r o m b o t h m e t i o s and p r o x e n o i , a l l t h r e e o f whom were under t h e 97 j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e P o l e m a r c h . From 383/2, t h e d a t e o f t h e f i r s t d e c r e e g r a n t i n g i s o t e l e i a , e p i g r a p h i c a l e v i d e n c e i s p l e n t i f u l and has engendered debate about th e p r e c i s e n a t u r e o f t h e s t a t u s . A g a i n and a g a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a e r e c u r t o g e t h e r w i t h i s o t e l e i a : r a c , e i c c p o p a c , e i a c p e p e i v n a t T'a T E X T ) T E X E T V K a 6 a 7 r e p ' A O n v a t o t , rac, arpareiac, arpareUEcyOai U E T ' 'AOnvat'cDv and S i S o v a i Si 'nac, n a i X a p p a v e t v Ka0a7t£p 98 ' A e t y v a T o i . E s p e c i a l l y common w i t h i s o t e l e i a i s e h k t e s i s , t h e g p u b l i s h e d by R a u b i t s c h e k (op_. c i t . ) . IG I I 10, on t h e o t h e r hand, appears t o r e c o r d e n f r a n c h i s e m e n t s a l o n e , among w h i c h a r e many names and o c c u p a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i n t h e manumission i n s c r i p -t i o n s . (Here, however, t h e r e i s n e i t h e r demotic n o r deme o f r e s i d e n c e . ) T h i s may be why A r i s t o t l e thought t h a t some o f them were s l a v e s . 97 A t h . P o l . 58.2. 98 Hommel,1421, i n t e r p r e t s , " " G j e l e g e n t l i c h wurde noch d i e B e f r e i u n g vom G e r i c h t s s t a n d des P o l e m a r c h o s . . . d a z u gewahrt." I n v i e w o f A t h . P o l . 58.2, t h i s i s most u n l i k e l y . P e r h a p s a c l u e may be f o u n d i n IG 11*53, a p r o x e n y d e c r e e c a . 387/6, where (Vac, dtVac.] sTvat auTcp Trpoc, T O V 7 toXsy i . a p x o v [ K a © a 7 t ] e [ p ] T O [ T ] C , a X X o i c , j r p o ^ E v o i q . T h i s must mean d i r e c t a c c e s s t o t h e P o l e m a r c h w i t h o u t m e d i a t i o n o f a p r o s t a t e s . The p r i v i l e g e o f S n t a c . 6 i 6 o v a i HaedcTtEp ' A O T I V C X T O I I i n t e r p r e t s i m i l a r l y . C f . Busolt-Swoboda, 36 right to own real property. Some scholars reached the conclu-sion that some, i f not a l l , of the above privileges were an integral part of the status of isoteleia. Boeckh, for example, believed that the isoteleia were on the same footing as citizens with the exception of p o l i t i c a l rights, while Busolt-Swoboda defined the status as follows: exemption from the metoikion, equality with the citizen in financial and military obligations, freedom from the prostates in dealing with the Polemarch, and the 99 right to own real property. Others, notably Glerc, have 100 pointed out the d i f f i c u l t i e s of such a broad interpretation. F i r s t , decrees usually bestow isoteleia along with other p r i v i -leges. IG II 660 (ca. 350), e.g., grants isoteleia nat efrktesis K a i r a c j crpareiacj arpareueaQai -pter' 'AQnvai'cov. Kai...K<xi indicates a series; the f i r s t nat does not introduce an apposi-101 tional explanation of isoteleia. Secondly, there is a variety StK 2.986, who extend to a l l isoteleis freedom from a prostates. But i t i s not specified in every case and probably only applied when so decreed. 99 Public Economy 654 and StK 2.986. 100 Meteques 202 f f . For a similar view, see V. Thumser, "Untersuchungen uber die attischen Metbken," Wiener Studien 7 (1885) 66-67. 101 K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschrlften (Berlin 1900) 249, points out: "Im allgemeinen jedoch wird nat...nat nur gebraucht in formelhaften Yerbindungen." J". D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (second edition, Oxford 37 of combinations. Is one to assume, f o r example, that, when only i s o t e l e i a and ekktesis are s p e c i f i e d , the others r i g h t s are automatically included? Yet elsewhere they are spelled out. In one instance, IG II^IOQ.SO (ca. 363), i s o t e l e i a - HaGan-ep AGrivaioi i s even found alone. The conclusion Clerc reached was that i s o t e l e i a , as i t s name s i g n i f i e s , r e l a t e d purely to f i n a n c i a l obligations and had no demonstrable p o l i t i c a l or l e g a l overtones. Other p r i v i l e g e s , however, could and usually did accompany i t . I t would be well to elaborate on two assumptions that have been accepted as f a c t on very scant evidence. Almost without v a r i a t i o n historians state that the i s o t e l e i s could own property : 102 and, as a c o r o l l a r y , l e a s e mining concessions from the state. L y s i a s , i t i s argued, was an i s o t e l e s and on his own admission 103. owned three houses. What Lysias says i s that, although he and Polemarchos had three houses between them (rpicBv rjp/Tv O I K I C D V ouaaSv), the T h i r t y did not permit the l a t t e r ' s funeral to be con-ducted from any of them. Lysias may or may not have owned these houses. Even i f he had merely rented them, that was not the issue. But l e t us assume that Lysias did own property. I t i s possible that the r i g h t to ownership was granted to his father 1954) 323-324, c i t e s Meisterhans, adding^ "Normally the f i r s t i s preparatory, the second connective...." 102 E.g., Boeckh, l o c . c i t . ; Busolt-Swoboda, loo, c i t . ; Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work 182. 103 12.18. 38 Kephalos, a wealthy manufacturer of armaments and close friend of Perikles. Ehktesis, for obvious reasons, descended to one's children. Or perhaps Lysias himself received ehktesis along with isoteleia, not an unusual combination. In my opinion, Lysias' oration Against Eratosthenes i s no proof that isoteleia T04 included ownership of land. Xenophon is the source of the second belief about isoteleis and mining. In the Revenues he expatiates on the need for silver, hoping to encourage more men to exploit the mines. He also re-marks with approval that the state has known this a long time, for / t a p e x e t youv in\ taoreXeiq n a i rcov ^e'voov r<5 pouAou-evcp 105 e p r a ^ e c r e a i e v TOTCJ p , e T C X A A O I q . One might well ask what he means. It i s a strange way of saying that isoteleis were en-t i t l e d to enter the mining industry. Gould i t not equally mean 104 The source for Lysias';; status as an isoteles is Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators 836A. 105 4.1. For works on Athenian mining see, e.g., Boeckh, Dissertation on the Silver Mines of Laurion (appended to Public  Economy); G. M. Calhoun, "Ancient Athenian Mining," The Journal  of Economic and Business History 3 (1931) 333-361; M. Crosby, "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesperia 19 (1950) 189-312; R. J. Hopper, "The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century," BSA 48 (1953) 200-254; and M. Crosby, "More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 26 (1957) 1-23. 39 that any alien could "work" the mines on the same basis as the 106 citizens - the payment of a tax to the state? Or perhaps a tax concession was offered to aliens to induce them to work on the mining sites as craftsmen or overseers. (Slaves were employed for the labour underground.) It i s easy to see that the industry might not have attracted sufficient artisans since i t would entail movement to the mining areas. The citizen who leased the mines did not, of course, have to be present at the 107 operations but sent a hired representative, slave, or freedman. These are several possible interpretations. Xenophon's statement i s s t i l l a puzzle to modern scholars. Calhoun comments on the mining leases: "The purchasers of mines in the long inscription, as in those previously discovered, appear in every instance to be Athenian citizens. Consequently Xenophon's statement, that the state granted to aliens the right of exploiting mines upon equal terms with citizens, i s s t i l l without confirmation, and i t becomes increasingly d i f f i c u l t to 106 Suidas, s.v. aypacpou peraXAou S I ' K T J , although the amount of the tax i s by no means certain. Cf. Harpokration, s.v. C W O V O I I T I. According to I»«BJ 9 (s.v, epYa£oyiai, II.3) epyat.eo'Oai V\v means to work the land. In this sense with a direct object i t i s found frequently in the mining leases, e.g., Crosby 18.7 jiETaAAov] k]x Ra-rxaiy o fipyccK,(ero). The verb can also be used absolutely (LSJ 9, s.v. II.6) meaning to work at a trade or busi-ness and as such i s found in the works of Demosthenes. It seems to me that either translation i s possible in Xenophon's use of the word. 107 Dem. 37.22 and Xenophon, Revenues 4.14. 40 108 regard the discrepancy as a mere coincidence." R. J. Hopper, in an ar t i c l e evaluating new epigraphical evidence for mining in the fourth century, states: "Curious i s the absence of aliens, though Xenophon mentions their participation kn* icforeXst'g, which i s generally taken to mean 'on equal terms.' The only persons of foreign origin seem to be Kallaischros and Stesileides of Siphnos, who are property ownBrs (doubtfully mine operators); i f they were citizens they would be described by t h e i r demotic; therefore i t i s to be assumed that they were isoteleis possess-ing Y*fc eynrTicftq One wonders why the two Siphnians are not designated as isoteleis. It commonly replaced the citizen's demotic and the metic's deme of residence in inscriptions and appears to have been a kind of honorary t i t l e . In Demosthenes' orations 110 Theodotos isoteles appears twice. The Catalogi Paterarum 108 Op^ c i t . 561 109 OJD. c i t . 246. 110 Dem. 34.18 and 35.14. In the former Theodotos appears as an arbitrator ( 6 I C U T T I T T I < ; ) to whom is referred xara cruv6tiKa<g a dispute about a bottomry loan. According to Lipsius, Das  attische Recht 782 n.17, mercantile suits of this kind were not subject to public arbitration. He therefore interprets Theo-dotos' role as that of a private arbitrator (Privatsohieds-richter). rather than an o f f i c i a l S IC I ITTITTICJ. Cf. Thumser, op. c i t . 66 and Bonner and Smith, 116, where similar views are to be found. 41 Argentearum provide several examples of isoteleis l i s t e d as 111 p l a i n t i f f s . There i s also a small group of Monumenta Privata of isoteleis distinct from those of citizens and for-112 eigners. Unless then there was some omission in inscribing, Kallaischros and Stesileides were probably not isoteleis but 113. aliens with special privileges. Much effort has been expended in trying to define isoteleia. Meanwhile, another aspect of the question has been v i r t u a l l y ignored - the number and character of i t s recipients. Was i t a realizable goal of the metic, a stepping-stone as i t were toward citizenship? Study of the inscriptions has led to conclusions quite similar to those reached about ateleia. While there are examples of metics receiving isoteleia and other privileges for distinguished service, by far the largest group of recipients were once again exiles and proxenoi, often specifically "until they should return home." The following s t a t i s t i c s , moreover, H I 1 2 II21554.12; 1558.53; and 1565.20. 112 IG II27862-7881. 113 Compare a number of p l a i n t i f f s in the Catalogi Paterarum Argentearum who are designated by ethnic rather than by demotic 2 * * or deme of residence. E.g., IG II 1553.25, Ntm'av 'OAuveiov; 1559.46, ['OXJuvSi; and 1559.5, GriPaTov. In each case the individual belonged to a group which had received special honours from Athens and thus enjoyed some kind of privileged status above that of the metic. 42 appear significant: a) as outlined above, no isoteles i s record-ed in the mining inscriptions; b) among the horoi inscriptions 114 there i s one isoteles; c) in the Monumenta Frivata there are 19 isoteleis compared with 2633 citizens and 2648 foreigners; d) reference has already been made to the isoteleis in the Oatalogi Paterarum Argent earum. It i s not d i f f i c u l t to conclude that the importance of isoteleia in the history and position of the Athenian metic has been over-emphasized. I do not believe that the average metic, unless he became a Pasion or a Phormion, could ever aspire to this status. It was an honour mainly for the transient digni-tary. Numerically, i f the inscriptions are an accurate reflec-tion, i t was of negligible significance. 114 See M. I. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient  Athens, 500-200 B.C. (New Brunswick, N.J. 1951) 77, who states: "There are 99 identifiable names of parties on the available Attic stones. Of these, 87 have demotics and are therefore citizens, 11 have neither patronymic nor demotic, and one (in no. 116) i s labelled an isoteles." There were no isoteleis on the new horoi stones from the Agora published by J. V. A. Fine, The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora. Hesperia. Supplement 9: Horoi: Studies in Mortgage. Real Security, and  Land Tenure in Ancient Athens (Athens) 1951. CHAPTER III .THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE METIC A. Oopupations in which Metics are Found. "In ancient times," wrote Aristotle, "the artisan class in some states consisted of slaves or aliens, owing to which the 1 great mass of artisans are so even now." These few words have been heatedly debated by scholars attempting to c l a r i f y the relationship of citizen to non-citizen in Athenian economic history. Max Weber, the father of modern sociology, put the question most succinctly by postulating two distinct types of individual in Athens, the citizen, homo politicus, l i v i n g mainly 2 as a rentier, and the non-citizen, or homo economicus. Similar, i f less extreme, are the conclusions of Henri Francotte. "L 1Industrie est specialement exercee par des etrangers et par 3 des eselaves." But i t was above a l l Johannes Hasebroek who particularized - even popularized - Weber's generalization. "The fundamental cleavage in the Greek State was between the rentiers who lived at the expense of the State or on the pro-ceeds of their own property and investments and the 'eityless' . 4 mass of aliens (as they are described in the .de Yectigalibus)." 1 Polities'. 1278a 6-7. 2 Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tubingen 1947) Vol. 2, 583. 3 L'Industrie 214. 4 Trade and P o l i t i c s 35. Cf. Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work 166-167, for a somewhat similar approach. For a f u l l b i b l i o -graphy, see Hasebroek, op_. c i t . 41 n.3; Hommel, 1449-1450; and Pope, Non-Athenians 45 n.23. 44 The problem then is integral to a study of the metic. To appreciate his role in Athenian economic history, one must f i r s t establish his relationship to the citizen. No one can deny that Aristotle's statement had a basis in fact outside Athens. In Sparta, the archetype of aristocracy, a Lykourgan law forbade the soldier-citizens to practise a 5 trade. Although this freedom from a l l but military obligations was especially a Lakedaimonian t r a i t , Herodotos t e l l s us that a l l the Greeks except the Korinthians shared this disdain for 6 work and respect for war. In Thebes, for instance, no one was admitted to office who had not kept out of a trade for the pre-7 ceding ten years. How much did Athens reflect this attitude? Certainly, i t had a strong appeal for her philosophers. Sokrates expresses their apprehension about "the manual trades. To paraphrase, a sedentary existence spent indoors not only destroys the body but dulls the mind through excessive preoccupation. Such a l i f e 8 leaves no time for friends, p o l i t i c s , or military training. 5 Xenophon, Constitution of the Lakedaimonians 7.1-2; Plutarch, Agesilaos 26. 6 2.167. 7 Aristotle, P o l i t i c s 1278a 25. 8 Xenophon, Economics 4.2-4. 45 9 Leisure, on the other hand, i s the very s i s t e r of eleutheria. When queried about gentlemanly pursuits, he suggests at once 10 farming and the art of war. Plato, himself an a r i s t o c r a t and admirer of the Spartan system, stresses above a l l the e v i l s of money-making which, he fears, can only lead to the corruption of free men. In the society of the Laws (al b e i t l e s s perfect than that of the Republic) no c i t i z e n may become a r e t a i l trader (KaVnAoq) or merchant (epjropoc,) or act as another man's servant , 1 1 ( S t a H O v i a ) . R e t a i l trade, the most degrading occupation, he leaves to men who, by t h e i r corruption, can be no great l o s s to 12 the state, i . e . , metics and a l i e n s . In Plato's view, p o l i t i c a l 13 a f f a i r s are a f u l l - t i m e occupation f o r the i d e a l c i t i z e n . A r i s t o t l e i s even more e z p l i c i t than P l a t o . In describing the four forms of democracy, he a t t r i b u t e s the progressive de-9 Aelian, Yar. H i s t . 10.14, c i t e d by Francotte 249. 10 Xenophon l o c . c i t . By contrast see Sokrates' advice to Aristarchos (Xenophon, Mem. 2.7). Sokrates' ideas are more ambi-valent than his successors'. Reputedly a sculptor himself, who held h i s dialogues i n the shops of craftsmen, he expresses not so much a r i s t o c r a t i c contempt f o r work as genuine b e l i e f that the banausic l i f e eventually produces an i n f e r i o r man. 11 Laws 741 E and 919 G-D. 12 Ibid. 919 G and 920 A. In turn no a l i e n can reside per-manently as a metic unless he has a trade (850 A-B). 13 I b i d . 846 D. 46 terioration of the system to the admission to citizenship of artisans, market-people, and wage-earners. Such people l i v e a mean existence (pToq cpauXoq) without a shred of arete in their 14 occupations. They cannot lead a l i f e in accordance with virtue or share in government without changing the quality of the con-stitution and so ought not to he admitted to citizenship in the perfect state. There, handicrafts, trade, and even agriculture are to be l e f t to metics and slaves. The citizens w i l l concern 15 themselves exclusively with war and p o l i t i c s . Did these theories correspond to Athenian institutions or were they merely philosophers' visions? In order to establish the metics' role in Athenian l i f e , l e t us f i r s t consider the evidence for their professions. A r i c h source of professions i s the Catalogi Paterarum Argentearum. IG II 1555-1578 (ca. 330). They are a series of dikai a7roaTact'ou, the suit which a master might bring against his ex-slave for failure to carry out obligations agreed upon at manumission. The defendants l i s t e d have been successful and so 16 are now completely independent. In each case, the freedman's 14 P o l i t i c s 1319a 25-29. 15 Ibid. 1328b 37 - 1329a 39. 16 Ath. Pol. 58.3; Harpokration, s.v. 6I'KT) d/roqTacri'ou. The controversy surrounding these inscriptions abated consider-ably with Wilamowitz' publication in Hermes 22 (1887) 110 n.l of 2 IG II 1560, in which he had restored a heading: 7toXep,apxouv ]TOC; 47 name, occupation, deme of residence, and former master are l i s t e d i n a set formula:'6cpeAiW ev KoXXo(rcp) O I K C D ( V ) nkxv07r(otoc,) cc7rocpuYa>v Eu7coXep ,ov Eu7roXe'vio(u) *Aypv(Kr\Qev) q)taX(nv) cfTa6po(v). In studying these i n s c r i p t i o n s I have con-fine d myself to D. M. Lewis* recent pu b l i c a t i o n of IG II 21554-17~"~ 1559, which I consider a representative sampling. On analysis I f i n d the following: 1. No. of ex-slaves: men 45 18 woman 42 ATIPOTEAOUC, TOU 'Avrtpaxou * A [Xa i eooc, • 6i'nai art jotfTacuou. . . . On freedmen see Chapter II (under Deme of Residence n.4). The Athenian who manumitted his slave might demand from him c e r t a i n continuing services i n return f o r h i s freedom. At the same time, although the freedman had the same l e g a l r i g h t s as the metic, he had to accept his ex-master as his prostates. By winning a dike d7CoaTacrt'ou he became free from obligations and able to choose his own patron. For f u l l discussion, mainly on l e g a l aspects, see C. D. Buck, "Inscriptions Found upon the Acropolis," AJA 4 (1888) 149-164; M. N. Tod, "Some Unpublished *Catalogi Paterarum Argen-tearum'," BSA 8 (1901) 197-230; and W. L. Westermann, "Two Studies i n Athenian Manumissions," The Journal of Near Bast  Studies 1 (1949ji 92-104. 17 Hesperia 28 (1959) 208-238. I t includes Agora 13182, a 2 new fragment j o i n i n g IG II 1554 and 1559. 18 I have followed the method of Gomme, Population 41-42. Since, however, he included i n his s t a t i s t i c s the doubtful IG 2 II 10, which i s not a manumission i n s c r i p t i o n , his findings do 48 2. Denies in which they reside: Athens and environs 51 Peiraieus 11 19 Coast and Inland 6 3. Occupations of ex-slaves: Agricul- Manu- Trans- Trade Personal Misc. Total ture facture port Service Men 8 15 4 13 . 1 4 45 Women 0 27 0 1 3 11 42 We are entering the world of Aristophanes. His pages are alive with the v e u p o p p a c p o i c , n a i C T K U T O T O U . O I C , n a t pupcroTrcaXataiv who sat not in the assembly or law-courts but in the tiny work-shops of Kydathenaion. Freedmen's industrial s k i l l s are varied. There are a blacksmith ( x a A n e u c ; ) from the Peiraieus and two gold-smiths (xpucoxooi) from Kydathenaion. Melite i s the home of a not accurately reflect the numerical proportion between male and female. Pope, Non-Athenians 64, has a ratio closer to my own. In a study of a l l the inscriptions she found 89 men and boys and seventy women and g i r l s . My total for females i s slightly higher since, l i k e Tod, I consider 7tai&ia not boys or g i r l s but female servants. In one case the word is employed together with that for nurse (na\b( xxrQi), A.259). IlaTq was a common Greek term for slave (Dem. 34.41). Eleven 7tai6ta have identifiable names; ten are feminine and one is doubtful. 19 In a number of cases the deme has not survived on the stone. 20 Knights 739. 49 p a i r of gem-engravers ( S a K T u X t o Y X u c p o t). Among the leather workers are four saddlers (CTKUTOTOVOI ), a shoemaker (u7ro6ny,aT07roioq), and a tanner (aHuXo&etyoc.). There are also a couch-maker (HXIVOTCOIOC, ), a manufacturer of f l u t e s (auAo7rotoc,), a m i l l e r ( puXcoGpoc ,), and a carpenter (TEKTCOV). Trade i s well represented. The t i t l e s of the despised r e t a i l e r s are long and c o l o u r f u l : cfno^po7tcoXT]c;, sesame dealer 6c7Tpi07rcaXT)q, green-grocer, and Tapix°m&Xf}S» dried f i s h salesman. There are also an ironmonger (cr i6r ip07rcoXi ic .), a baker (apT07rcoXTic; ) , and two dealers i n frankincense ( X t pavcorot),perhaps, the pro-p r i e t o r s of perfume shops. Naturally enough, the two emporoi reside i n the Peiraieus. The p r i m i t i v e character of u-reek transport i s s t r i k i n g l y revealed by our four representatives. There are a c a r r i e r of jars ( dpcpopeacpopoc .), a muleteer (opecDHopoq), and two-donkey-drovers ( o v r i X a r a t ) . A g r i c u l t u r a l workers include two vine-dressers ( d p , 7 t e X o u p Y o t ) , one of whom resides i n the r u r a l deme of Oe, and s i x xeoipyovc,, who are not farmers but farm-hands, since metics could not own land. Only one of t h e i r demes can be i d e n t i f i e d as t r u l y r u r a l , Hagnon i n the Mesogeia. Among the miscellaneous occupations are a barber ( n o u p e u q ) , a cook ( p c t Y e t p o c . ) , a cl e r k from Thorikos (YPccp-paTe uc,), and a hired labourer (VHCTGCOTOC,). 21 Athenian women are rare, indeed, i n i n s c r i p t i o n s . Yet almost h a l f of these metics are women, each with her own 21 Except, of course, i n funeral i n s c r i p t i o n s . 50 occupation. Twenty-five, l i k e Homeric du-cptVroAot, card and spin and weave. There are twenty-four wool-workers ( r a A a c n o u p Y O t ) and a sempstress (dnecrpia). The nurse (r(rQi\) i s also a familiar figure. Demosthenes t e l l s us that "even" free-horn Athenian ladies 22 took up this trade in times of extreme hardship. What the eleven 7rai6t'a did i s unknown. We have assumed that they were female maid-servants. If Lewis' translation i s correct, the ^ H i c r p i a 0 r . 23 female tender of horses i s most unexpected. Elsewhere Tod identified two female cobblers, a sharp contrast to the sheltered l i f e of the gynaikeion. Although only one vendeuse appears, she represents a thriving trade. The xaTt^xCbe? held their own amid the noisy hawkers- in the Agora, and even made the rounds of the building projects. The metic Satyra sells her wares to the workmen on the Erechtheion, while her counterpart Thettale provides f e l t caps for the public 22 57.45. 23 There are good grounds for not accepting Lewis' interpre-* 9 tation. Although tytixtarpia i s not found in LSJ , there are a verb tnx^» "to rut> down or stroke, and a noun tyifxTpa, curry-comb (for horses) or scraper. The latter may also be a s t r i g i l , the instrument used to scrape the skin after a bath. And when one recalls Homer's many descriptions of female slaves bathing guests, i t seems far more probable that the tynxic/Tpta was a bathing attendant and masseuse. 51 24 slaves at Eleusis. In the eyes of the citizen sus-Sh work was degrading, By mingling with the xenoj., one risked being confused 25 with them, as was Euxitheos' mother, the vendor of ribbons. We find only one entertainer, a flute player (Hi0apcp6oq), one of many alien women similarly employed, for musicians, dancers, and courtesans were invariably ex-slaves and foreigners. Neaira, .. 26 for example, began her varied career as a slave in Glorinth, 27 while Aspasia was from Miletos. AeTrai t[ 7toXiq yLeroi'vauv bid re ro TTATJOOCJ reov rexvaW..., 28 wrote Pseudo-Xenophon in 424. But only in the construction industry can an attempt be made to verify the statement s t a t i s t i -cally. Here the building accounts provide a record of the wages, 24 IG II21654.40 and 1672.71. 25 Dem. 57.34. 26 Dem. 59 passim. 27 On the other hand, one cannot help but remark that Aspasia attained a level of independence and intellectual a b i l i t y unknown to the more secluded YuvaTxecj. Cf. A. E. Zimmern, The Greek  Commonwealth ( f i f t h edition, Oxford 1931) 358-342, for r e a l i s t i c comments on the unbridgeable gulf between Athenian and alien women. For a modern view see Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York 1957) 90-91. 2 8 Constitution of the Athenians 1.12. The date i s that suggested to me by Professor M. IF. McGregor. But see also A. W. Gomme, "The Old Oligarch," More Essays in Greek History and L i t e r -ature (Oxford 1962) 68, who suggests a date between 420 and 415. 52 occupations, and demes of metics, as well as their numerical 29 proportion to citizens and slaves. Workmen on the Ereohtheion were hired directly by the state at a common salary, a drachma a day, the architect earning no more than the day-labourer (UTtoupyoc,). The 38 identifiable metics are ski l l e d in every trade and in a l l , except carpentry, 30 outnumber the citizens. As might be expected, stone-masons are the largest group, thirteen in a l l . Seven of them do the rougher jobs, while the other 6 channel column-drums. Since this work i s carried on in groups, several men bring their own slaves. Ameiniades of Koile has one slave, Axiopeithes of Melite has two, while Simias of Alopeke works on a grand scale with a "company" of five. The four day-labourers who do odd jobs stand in contrast to the eight "a r t i s t s " hired to create the frieze. A l l three metal workers, Sisyphos the gilder, Sostratos the dealer in lead, and Adonis who sel l s gold leaf reside in Melite. 29 The Srechtheion building accounts include IG 1^373 (409/ 408) and 374 (408/407-407/406) and II21654 (394/1). The Eleu-sinian accounts are IG II21672 (329/328)and 1673 (327/326). 30 My findings are identical with those of Pope, op_. c i t . 52-54. The distribution of the 38 by industry i s : seven masons, six channellers, four carpenters, eight sculptors, three metal-workers, four day-labourers, one vendor, one painting contractor, and four undesignated. A comparison of metic, ©iitizen, and slave w i l l be made in the next chapter. 53 At Eleusis the entire system has changed. F i r s t , the mode of payment i s different. While certain workmen are s t i l l paid by the day, their wages are now graded. They receive from nine to fifteen obols a day depending on their s k i l l . A large body of state slaves receives only subsistence, three obols a day each. None of the workmen i s recorded by name. Those who are identified are mainly entrepreneurs and contractors paid by the piece. In this inscription there are 37 metics varying in 31 craft from shoemaker to demolitions contractor. As an example, in one prytany Agathon of Alopeke contracts to quarry, transport, and lay stones at three drachmas, one obol each. He earns 831 drachmas - a large business. Obviously he did not complete the job himself. Yet his assistants are unrecorded. By contrast another masonry contractor, Daos of Kydathenaion, earns only eighteen drachmas in the same prytany. Perhaps he worked alone. At the other extreme, Tibeios the metic receives only four drachmas for. carrying sand. Nikon of Eleusis has the distaste-f u l task of carting away a corpse. One hopes i t is only the remains of the young pig purchased for sacrifice from Motion of Melite. The profession monopolized by the metic was that of emporos, 31 There are nineteen contractors (four stone, three brick, four metal, three painting, four wood, one demolition), four cartage agents, two rope dealers, one shoemaker, two locksmiths, two sawyers, one mason, one marble-worker, three miscellaneous entrepreneurs. and two undesignated. 54 32 overseas merchant. Demosthenes' private orations present a 33 vivid tableau of "that gang of scoundrels in the Peiraieus." In five speeches about bottomry-loans every merchant i s an alien. In fact, a l l the ship-owners and most of the money-lenders are non-citizens. Consider the speech composed for his 34 uncle Demon. The latter lends money to the merchant Protos to purchase S i c i l i a n corn for the Athenian market. While Protos i s en route with his cargo, the ship-owner, Hegestratos, and his 32 Hesychios defined emporos as metoikos. See Franeotte, op. c i t . 192, "...le commerce (maritime) parait etre surtout dans les mains des etrangers." Cf. Glotz, op_. c i t . 183-185 and especially Hasebroek, op_. c i t . 1T43. 33 32.10: eariv epyaarr\ptov \y,oxQr\pwv dvGpcwtcov auveo-rfixo-TCDV ev rep Eel pate?. 3 4 3 2 passim. A word of explanation about bottomry loans i s in order. There were three distinct persons involved: 1) the merchant who borrowed money, generally on security of his cargo, and accompanied i t to i t s destination; 2) the ship-owner; 3) the money-lender. For the merchant i t was a kind of insurance because in the event of loss (through shipwreck, pirates, war, etc.) the lender had no redress. Demosthenes has recorded an actual agreement of this type (35.10). See Hase-broek, loc. c i t . , and for a popular account G. M. Calhoun, The Business L i f e of Ancient Athens (Chicago 1926) 43-77. 55 underling, z.enothemis, both Massaliotes, attempt to sink the ship. They too, i t seems, have secretly borrowed money on i t s cargo. In the fracas which ensues, Hegestratos leaps overboard and i s drowned. By the time the c§se reaches court, Protos himself has disappeared, suggesting complicity, such were the risks of bottomry loans, but as an investment they were very 35 profitable, paying up to 36^. The oration Against Lakritos i s based on a similar incident The Athenian Androkles lends 3,000 drachmas to two Phaselites, Artemon and Apollodoros, for the transport of wine to the Pontos Later, when payment f a l l s due, the pair alleg© that their ship has been wrecked. Involved in the a f f a i r are also Nausikrates of Karystos, Androkles' Euboian partner in the loan, Hyblesios, the ship-owner, and Hippias of Halikarnassos, the officer in charge of the cargo. Theodotos, an isoteles, and Kephisodotos of Boiotia were present when the loan was made. Before the case i s over, i t i s discovered that Aratos of Halikarnassos and Anti-patros of Eition had also lent money to the fraudulent pair. But l e t us not dwell on the complexities of maritime loans. Needless to say, the other orations are just as bewildering, and 35 The interest agreed upon was due at the termination of the voyage; so that, in actual fact, bottomry loans usually pro-duced a return higher than 36$ per annum. Interest rates for other types of loans found throughout this paper have been cal-culated annually. 36 35 passim. 56 just as exaggerated in their portrayal of the deeds and mis-37 deeds of the merchant class. Banking too attracted metics. It was quite l i t e r a l l y a servile profession. The l i f e of Pasion w i l l serve as an i l l u s -tration. Originally the slave of the hankers Antisthenes and Archestratos, he won his freedom hy his honesty and a b i l i t y , eventually rising to the head of the firm. In turn he trained and freed his slave Phormion, who, on his death, not only 38 succeeded to the business but married his former master's wife. Apparently this was a common practice. Sokrates, the banker, also gave his wife to his freedman, Satyros, as did Sokles to 39 Timodemos. Naturally enough, the bankers' own children often resented this. For example, Isaios i s known to have defended the banker, Eumathes, when the son of his ex-master, Epigenes, 40 claimed him as his own slave. 37 The other three speeches of this class are 33, 34, and 56. They concern respectively Apatourios, a Byzantine merchant; three metics, Chrysippos and his brother and Theodoros, the Phoenician, who advance money to the metic Phormionfor a voyage to BospOros;;. and two Egyptian metics, Dareios and Pamphilos, who lend money to Parmeniskos and Dionysodoros, also Egyptians. 38 Dem. 36.30 and 43. 39 Ibid. 28-29. 40 Fragment 18 (Forster's edition in the Loeb Classical Library). Cf. Dem. 36, a defence against Pasion's son, Apollo-doros, who claimed that Phormion had misappropriated 20 talents. 57 Wealthy metics often invested their capital in industry. The ramifications of Pasion's bank were wide. Among the properties revealed in his w i l l was a shield-factory with a yearly income of 41 one talent. The manufacture of shields had also proved lucrative to'Kephalos and his sons, Lysias and Polemarchos, the most i l l u s -42 trious family of metics of the f i f t h century. The posts of foreman, manager, or representative were usually f i l l e d by metics. Nikias, son of Nikeratos, l e t out his 1,000 45 mining slaves to Sosias the Thracian at an obol a day a man. Similarly, when Demosthenes1 guardians shunned the task of manag-ing the sword-factory l e f t by his father, they made Milyas the 44 freedman foreman. It was a metic, too, Philondas the Megarian, whom the general Timotheos sent to Macedon to receive King Amyntas' 45 g i f t of timber on his behalf. B. Ratio of Citizens to Non-citizens in Industry Our study of professions would be incomplete, i f we did not return to the building accounts in order to compare the proportion of citizens to non-citizens in industry. A study of those clearly designated as citizen:,' metic, or slave in the Erechtheion accounts 41 Dem. 56.11. 42 Lysias 12.19. 45 Plutarch, Nikias 4, and Xenophon, Revenues 4.14. 44 Dem. 27.19. 45 Dem. 49.26. Cf. the Egyptian metic Bamphilos in'Dem. 21 165. 58 46 has produced the following figures: Metics Citizens Slaves Total 16 38 EE 76 S9% 50% 100% Complete s t a t i s t i c a l accuracy i s , unfortunately, impossible because of the recurrence of certain names without identifying 47 formula. Some of them are properly identified elsewhere and are invariably the names of metics or slaves. There is no record of a citizen without demotic. Thus, I suggest that the following workmen are metics or slaves: Spodias, Timpkrates, Kleon, Mam-manos, Ikaros, and Nikostratos. Since this i s only a surmise, they are not included in my analysis, nor i s the occasional un-identified synergos serving as assistant to one of the artisans. 46 In spite of inevitable variations both in restoration and in subjective appraisal, the s t a t i s t i c s drawn by a number of scholars are encouragingly similar. Cf. Francotte, L'Industrie S03, S4 citizens, 40 metics, and 17 slaves; Gomme, Population 39, EE citizens and 40 metics; Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work 179, SO citizens, 35 metics, and 16 slaves. My own findings accord with those of Pope, Non-Athenians 5S-54. 47 Normally the citizen's demotic accompanies his name. In one case only the patronymic also occurs, in IG I2373.109 ( fAu J c r t cu 'AAKITCTTOU Kecpier . ) . The metic's designation i s his deme of residence and the slave's the name of his owner, e.g. KpoTooq $ tAoKAeouc , . 59 Hot only do a l l workmen receive the same wages, hut there i s , in my opinion, no truly significant pattern of occupations by class. Among the 22 citizens are two architects, Philokles in 409/8 and Archilochos in 408/7, three sculptors, and seventeen artisans. The latter are a l l s k i l l e d . In the largest single group, 34 stone-masons, there are ten citizens, eight of them employed channelling columns, a work which required both pre-cision and experience. Generally speaking, metics and citizens 48.. perform the same work. Interpretations of the JUleusinian accounts vary greatly for 48 I have restricted myself to numerical comparisons of the three, groups, considering i t beyond the scope of my investigations to follow Glotz into a detailed analysis of each man's wages and share of the work. On page 174 he points out: "It even happens,, and that in the wood industries, in which they are relatively numerous, that the citizens do less work and obtain less remuner-ation than their r i v a l s . Three of them are employed, with two Metics, on shaping beams at so much a foot. They take things easily and do 9, 47, and 68 feet respectively, earning a total of 31 drachmas for the three, while one of the two Metics dis-poses of 84 feet and the other of 180, making 66 drachmas between them." I do not question the accuracy of this account, only the f e a s i b i l i t y of drawing too far-reaching conclusions from an isolated inscription. 60 49 two main reasons. F i r s t , they do not record individual artisans, hut contractors with their own assistants whose number and status cannot be determined. Secondly, names without identifying form-ula are far more common than in the earlier inscriptions. Despite these d i f f i c u l t i e s , the following figures are reasonably accurate: Citizens 34 25% Metics 37) 27%) 50 )50 ) Aliens 13) 9%) 51 Slaves 54 39% Total 138 100% 49 Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth 264, finds two slaves. Gomme, op_. c i t . 40 n.2, estimates their number as "at least 71." I myself identified f i f t y . 50 Aliens are designated by ethnics: three Boiotians, one Samian, one Knidian, two Troizenians, one Korinthian, and five Megarians. For s t a t i s t i c a l purposes I have included them with the metics. Other totals are: Francotte 207, 36 citizens, 36 metics, 12 aliens, and 47 slaves; Gomme 40, 36 citizens and 71 slaves; Glotz 174 and 180, 20 citizens, 45 metics, 9 aliens, and 20 slaves. Pope's figures, 54-56, I have confirmed and record above. 51 They are mainly public slaves, 6r|u-oc;iot, receiving subsis-2 tence (three obols a day), and number seventeen in IG II 1672.70 and 28 in 1673.28. Although I myself identified only five others, private slaves (the 7taTc;of Kephisodoros in line 100, Agathon in line 63, Artemas in line 74, Soteris in line 184, and Karios in line 196, a l l in IG II 21672),I have accepted Pope's figure of 54 as extremely conservative. Many others must be concealed among the unidentified workman. 61 As an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the problems involved here, the four dealers, Herakleides, Ameinias, Kallikrates, and Philon are described by the epithet EH TOU ©qcretou. Two of them Pope classes as citizens because "Ameinias, lin e 66, se l l s baskets l i k e the citizen Ameinias in line 168, and there i s another Herakleides, a citizen, in line 94: another Kallikrates, likewise a dealer in metal in 1673.16, has "no identifying epithet. But * t W E H TOU GTjCEt'ou in lines 30, 123, 167, 192, the <Dt'\cov in 97, 102, 194, 52 208, and the metic Philon in 174 are, I think, the same man." This is economical but not conclusive. Wilamowitz believed they were slaves (^ coptc, OIXOUVTEC.) described as E H TOU Sqcrst'ou because they sold their wares from booths erected in a part of 53 the market-place near the Theseion. I too believe that they were slaves, but that I K TOU encrei'ou indicated their place not of work but of residence. Like most Greek temples, the Theseion had more than one function. It was not only a shrine of the hero Theseus, but a place of refuge for slaves. I suggest that such slaves resided in the precincts of the Theseion and actually worked there at their s k i l l s . Some of them were even allowed 54 to s e l l these products in the market or on building sites. 5 2 Ibid. 55. A l l four E H TOU Gfjaet'ou are found in IG II 21672, Herakleides originally in line 10 and Kallikrates in line 237. 53 "Demotika," 119 n . l . 54 This interpretation was suggested to me by Professor C. W. J. E l i o t . See the l i t e r a r y and epigraphical testimonia for the Theseion assembled by R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, Vol. 3 (Princeton 1957) 113-119. They include the scholiast to 62 Throughout the two i n s c r i p t i o n s workmen are recorded i n ' ' 2 » groups. In IG II 1672.27 three TSHTOVECJ receive f i f t e e n obols a day, an extremely high wage i n d i c a t i n g s k i l l e d a r t i s a n s . In the next l i n e are six u . i 0 e a r r o i ' paid at the average rate of nine obols a day (rep a v 6 p i o ixocnTcp) . An even more mysterious group of misthotoi are those |y M.eydpcx>v i n IG II 21673.28. In a l l , there are over s i x t y of these u n i d e n t i f i a b l e i n d i v i d u a l s . Among the c i t i z e n s there i s again no consistent occupational pattern. A l l are contractors or dealers, with enterprises both large and small, providing mainly building materials. One of the Aristophanes' Knights 1312, eiq TO Qj\oeiov; ' E v r a u e a oi x c t T a i p e u Y o v T e c ; T<£V oixercov a c r u A i ' a v etxov; Plutarch, Theseus 36 and De E x i l i o 17; and d e f i n i t i o n s i n the l e x i c a of Hesychios and Photios (s.v. enaeTov). The four slaves s e l l a v a r i e t y of wares, baskets, bronze jars, n a i l s , and sundry equipment fo r doors. They may not, of course, have been manufactured i n the Theseion. Possibly the slaves granted asylum worked outside by the day i n order to pay t h e i r expenses or even to amass money to purchase t h e i r freedom. Vfycherley, on the other hand, i s quite wrong i n hi s reference to t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n . He writes (119) that " i n l i s t s of materials f o r construction various items come en TOU 6T)0£t'ou." In the building accounts i t i s the men who are given some form of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , generally t h e i r place of residence. The o r i g i n of materials i s never indicated i n t h i s way. 63 most extensive businesses i s the k i l n of Lykourgos of Melite, •which turns out 26,000 bricks in one prytany. Their transport alone costs 390 drachmas. While we do not know what amount Lykourgos himself earns, his r i v a l Euthias of Eleusis receives 360 drachmas for a similar order of 9,000 bricks. At the other extreme, Ergasos of Ikaros delivers two small bundles of reeds, receiving eight and two drachmas respectively. So varied are the citizens 1 pursuits. What conclusions are to be drawn from a study of the two accounts? F i r s t , i t i s obvious that no real comparisons can be made between them. Each records a different type of detail. The contractors who, provide building materials for the Erechtheion are unknown, while at Eleusis the workmen are largely anonymous. Citizens constitute from 25% to 29% of both groups. In the earlier inscriptions metics are 50% of craftsmen and labourers, almost double the citizens. But, among contractors and dealers at Eleusis, they are only 25%, l i t t l e more than the citizens. I accept these figures as generally reflective of industrial occupa-tions and also suggest that the noticeable increase in slave-labour in the later inscriptions indicates a displacement of free labour, especially citizens. Historians of the metic have invariably been content to stop here. The facts are revealing enough. Metics have a virtual monopoly of trade, commerce, and finance, while in industry they predominate. Aristotle's statement, therefore, does find v e r i -fication in the facts of Athenian l i f e . However, not only has 64 our sphere of comparison - the building industry - been extremely limited, but we have made no attempt to define the activities that do engross the citizens. In my opinion, no one has suf f i c -iently appreciated the significance of the metics' i n a b i l i t y to 55 hold land. Starting from this prohibition, then, l e t us out-line the economic pursuits forbidden to the metic - those that necessarily constitute the domain of the citizen. C. Economic Pursuits Closed to the Metic, Throughout the classical period land was the basis of the Athenian economy. And, since the alien was denied real property, agriculture remained the exclusive sphere of the citizen. U n t i l the Second Peloponnesian War, Thucydides writes, "most Athenians s t i l l lived in the country with their families and households, 56 and were consequently not at a l l inclined to move...." Even 55 Clerc, whose work suffers from a general lack of per-spective, merely includes this prohibition in a l i s t of disabil-i t i e s in his chapter on c i v i l law. Hommel, who follows Glerc closely, and is himself even more concerned with legal and terminological problems, relegates the question of ehktesis to a preliminary chapter of definitions, and disposes of the metic's i n a b i l i t y to hold land in half a sentence. Typically, the space he devotes to the economic role of the metic is two columns as compared to 32 for the legal and historical aspects of the question. 56 2.16.1-2. 65 in 403, in spite of the losses of war, Lysias estimates that 57 3/4 of the citizens s t i l l owned land. Two anecdotes of Xenophon exemplify the plight of many at this time. They con-cern Aristarchos and Eutheros, two Athenians reduced to poverty. Their losses are revealing, Eutheros, now a reluctant manual labourer, previously lived off foreign holdings ((ret Iv rx\ u;repopi'a HTiip-ara) , while Aristarchos complains: "We get nothing from our land because our enemies have seized i t , and nothing from our house property now there are so few residents 59 in the c i t y . " The latter, i t i s to be noted, despite his plaints, s t i l l has slaves and houses. A cursory reading of the private orations of Demosthenes and Isaios i s enough to convince us that in the fourth century too the typical citizen was a landowner. Aphobos, one of Demos-thenes' guardians, both owned and worked his own land (re^pYouvra rt]v Y?iv) . Elsewhere a p l a i n t i f f describes how two of his creditors forced their way onto his farm and tried to carry off 61 the household slaves. Apollodoros, the son of the banker Phormion, lived off his property, disdaining his father's old calling. He owned real estate in three demes and was rich enough 57 Against Hippotherses, cited by Busolt-Swoboda 1.178 n.5. 58 Mem. 2.8.1 59 Ibid. 2.7.2. 60 30.26, 61 Dem. 47.52 and 53. 66 62 to serve as trierarch. So great were the expenses of office that the general Timotheos was required to mortgage a l l his 63 property, even giving up his farm as security. Indeed, the demands of public l i f e forced three of the above to be absent from Attika for lengthy periods. Like Xenophon's ideal farmer, Ischomachos, they probably l e f t their estates in the care of a 64 trusted b a i l i f f . "Time i s money," said Benjamin Franklin. In Athens his dictum might well have been, "Land is money." We hear of a client of Lysias who leased his farm to four different men in a 65 period of only seven years. The father of Ischomachos in-dulged in a kind of land speculation, buying up uncultivated 66 land for improvement and resale at a p r o f i t . When the banker Nausiterates died, leaving a l l his property (in outstanding 62 Dem. 50.8. 63 Dem. 49.11. See also, for comparison, the following orations where land-owners of varied worth appear: Dem. 42.22 and 28; 43.69-70; Isaios 2.29, 34, and 35; 3.80; 5.29; 7.31; 11.41-43. 64 Economics 12.2-3. 65 7.9-10. One of the lessees i s a freedman (akekevQepoc). This i s one of the few references to the leasing of land owned by a private individual, although there are a number of extant decrees on the leasing of public land. See Finley, Land and  Credit 216 n.68. 66 Economics 20.22-24. 67 debts) to his two young sons, their guardians collected the money 67 and invested i t in land and lodging houses. Scant information 68 prevents our knowing how common these practices were. For the citizen ownership of land opened the way to hypoth-ecation. Even orphans' estates could be administered through a 69 mortgage (vucr©coatc, otnou) . Presumably, some estates were profitable enough to produce not only a fixed rent for the child but a satisfactory profit for the administrator or lessee. When the child reached his majority, the estate was returned, i t was hoped, in a flourishing state. Meanwhile, the lessee had to 67 Dem. 38.7. 68 Historians generally note a steady decline from the time of the Peloponnesian War and throughout the ensuing period of war-fare. For the f i r s t time, complaints are heard of the accumula-tion of large estates on the part of a few wealthy citizens in contrast to the equality of the past (Dem. 13.30; 23.208). It i s the later period to which the horoi are dated (363/2-259/8), indicating to some an increase in mortgages. This is not con-clusive, however. Some other means of proclaiming a l i e n might have been employed earlier. See Fine, Horoi 48-50 and chapter eight, where the whole problem i s discussed. For earlier views, cf. Boeckh, Public Economy 62-64, 486, and passim; Busolt-swoboda, StK 1.178-181; E. Orth, RE 12 (1925) 635-642, s.v. "Landwirtschaft." 69 See Finley, 38-44 and % r o i , nos. 116-129 and Fine, chap-ter five and appropriate inscriptions. They cite the l i t e r a r y sources. 68 70 put up evaluated real property as security (&7roTiu-TiP.a). This requirement at once excluded non-citizens. The Athenians' attitude to their estates, and especially to landed property, is clear in Lysias' Against Diogeiton, a speech suing a guardian for dissipation of an estate: "But yet, had he wished to act justly by the children, he was free to act in accordance with the laws which deal with orphans for the guidance of incapable as well as capable guardians; he might have farmed out the estate and so got r i d of a load of cares, or have purchased land 71 and used the income for the children's support." There were, of course, ordinary types of mortgages (rcpaciq 72 e7Ti Xuaei and U 7 t o e i i H T i ) . Normally they paid 12% per annum. Pasion's bank, for example, had loaned out eleven talents on 73 security of land and lodging houses. The amount is high con-sidering that the largest sum recorded on an extant horos stone 74 i s 8,000 drachmas. For one who was a citizen - and had the cash - such an investment was both profitable and secure. A seldom discussed, yet obvious, source of revenue for the 70 Harpokration, s. v. arcort'u-i'iua. 71 32.23. 72 See Finley, chapter three, and Fine, chapters four and seven and the corresponding horoi. 73 Dem. 36.5-6. 74 See Finley, 30 and Appendix 1. Mortgages for higher amounts are found in the lite r a r y sources. 69 citizen was house-rent. The metic population alone fluctuated. between a low of 21,000 in 425 and a high of 42,000 in 323, figures which do not include xenoi and x^PiS OIKOUVTSC,, whose 75 numbers are impossible to calculate. A l l required housing; many of the wealthier needed working quarters. Yet none could own property. One cannot over-estimate the amount of income that citizen-landlords must have derived from the alien and slave populations alone. How many l i k e Kiron owned two buildings, 76 a dwelling of their own and a second house l e t out to tenants? For the poorer classes there were c f u v o i K t a t , like the Roman 77 f 78 insulae. We even hear of speculators'1" ( v a u f t A n p o t) ^  sub-l e t tenements at a return doubtless much higher than the normal 79 per annum. The lat t e r i s low compared to the average Athenian interest rates and probably fluctuated with general economic conditions. Citizens, as we have shown, also monopolized the mining industry. Actually, mines remained state property and were 80 leased out, subject to a tax, by the poletai. Slaves laboured 75 Gomme, Population 26. 76 Isaios 8.35. 77 Dem. 36.34; 45.28; 53.13 and Isaios 6.19-20 where the freedwoman of the citizen ISuktemon manages his synoikia in the Peiraieus and runs a brothel there as well. 78 Harpokration, s.v. vaunXripo^. 79 Isaios 11.42. 80 Ath. Pol. 47.2. For many details of mining procedures see Dem. 37 and 42. Inscriptions include IG II21582-1589 and 70 underground and, according to Xenophon, were highly profitable to their owners. The a7tocpopa system, as i t was known, was a source of wealth for several fifth-century "millionaires," i n -81 . :: eluding Nikias and Hipponikos. In Xenophon's own day the industry's condition was unhealthy and had been so since the 82 escape of 20,000 mining slaves to the Spartans at Dekeleia. Althouth extant poletai l i s t s date from 367/6, the mines did not actually flourish again u n t i l ca. 345, during Suboulos' administration. Thus, except for the gap caused by war, mining was a source of income for f i f t h - and fourth-century Athenians, but not for metics. D. Conclusions about the Metic's Role in the Economy. Whatever i t s faults as a generalization, Weber's antithesis between homo politicus and homo economicus has validity. The second category, the economic one, was always flexible, in early times including citizen as well as alien and only gradually becom-ing synonymous with the metic. The reasons for this are histor-i c a l l y determinable and may be adumbrated as follows. In the sixth and early f i f t h centuries many rural Athenians, impelled perhaps by debt or poverty, l e f t their land and found Miss Crosby's recent publications of those found in the Agora. Eor works on mining, see Chapter II under Isoteleia n.105. 81 Xenophon, Revenues 4.14-18, and Andokides 1.38. 82 Thuc. 7.27.5, 71 urban employment, readily acquiring trades or becoming small 83 businessmen. If contempt for ro pavauaov existed at this time, i t was due primarily to that prejudice common in a l l ages to 84 landed aristocrat and small peasant alike. For some, however, there was no alternative. It was not u n t i l the middle of the f i f t h century, when Athens found herself the mistress of a maritime empire, that a transformation began to take place in the l i f e and ethos of her citizens. A l l i e d tribute had become a part of her annual revenues. Simultaneously, the democracy acquired a new complexity. In addition to powers recently taken 85 from the Areiopagos, the Heliastic court found i t s e l f respons-ible for a mass of new legal suits, including some from the 86 87 subject states. Aside from any personal motives, Perikles' 83 Cf. Isokrates 7.32 and 44. 84 See Plutarch, Solon 2, for the early respect for trade and commerce. Solon himself was reputedly a merchant. The Alkmeonidai, who derived part of their wealth from Lydia (Herod-otos 6.125), are generally believed to have had trading connec-tions in Asia Minor. 85 Ath. Pol. 25.2 ca. 462. 86 IG I 16, e.g., the Phaselis decree, dated by Gomme, Com-mentary 1.239, and Tod, Greek Inscriptions 1.58, ca. 450, concerns suits 0.7X0 auu^ oAcov But see H. T. Wade-Gery, "The Judicial Treaty with Phaselis and the History of the Athenian Courts," Essays in Greek History (Oxford 1958) 180-200, where the decree i s dated 469-462, before Ephialtes* reforms. For other kinds of eases see Gomme, ibid. 1.236-243 and Pseudo-Xenophon, Constitution of 72 introduction of pay for jurors can be explained simply as a means of attracting increased attendance. The assembly too must have met more frequently now that military, even "international," decisions were taken daily. Quite l i t e r a l l y , the duties of citizen-ship became a full-time occupation. By 424 jurors received a salary of three obols a day, while the same amount was paid to those who 38 attended the assembly by 393. Again and again Aristotle stresses the pernicious effects of payment for office, which he likens to 89 the sieve of the Danaides.. His bitterness cannot be explained entirely by his p o l i t i c a l theories. In my opinion, he did not exaggerate the very real changes in the democracy after 450. There were, of course, other reasons for this transformation. Constant warfare i s always demanding and leaves l i t t l e time for other a c t i v i t i e s . This i s especially true of a hoplite army. the Athenians 1.16-18. 8 7 Ath. Pol. 27.3-4. 88 Jury-pay of three obols is mentioned by Aristophanes in the Knights 51 and 255, dated to 424, and assembly-pay in the Ekklesia-zousai 301 and 392, dated to 393. For the whole question of dis-tributions and salaries and an estimate of the amount of revenue expended in this manner, see Boeckh, Public Economy 216-246; Andreades, Public Finance 238-267; and the recent study by J. J. Buchanan, Theorika -(New York 1962) passim. 89 P o l i t i c s 1320a 32. 73 Military exercises and manoeuvres are a continuous preoccupation. In fact, i t i s hardly an exaggeration to estimate that Athenian hoplites spent some part of every day in gymnasia. The war i t s e l f , then, meant constant training and expeditions abroad for a large section of the populace. Thousands more were needed to man the fle e t . Perikles' policy, which made Athens a fortress behind city-walls, promised, and actually did assume, responsi-b i l i t y for a l l , even the inactive. One might c a l l these only the exigencies of war. But in 400 the demos showed no great eagerness to return to i t s mundane pre-war tasks. Under the extreme democrats state-support through salaries and distributions had so increased that Boeckh could write that " i t was by this means that the Athenians delivered 90 themselves to the power of Macedon." The Theorio Fund also drained revenues. Originally introduced by Agyrrhios at the beginning of the fourth century to subsidize poorer citizens' enjoyment of the Dionysiac Festival, under Euboulos i t was extended to other occasions, particularly religious festivals, 90 0jp_. c i t . 2 2 4 . Andreades 259 states in a similar vein that " . . . a l l the misfortunes of the fourth century took their rise from the fact that military preparations were sacrificed to the distribution of money to the citizens." In Aristophanes' Knights 797 ELeon's aim i s a dicast's pay of five obols a day. By Aristotle's time a f u l l drachma was paid for attendance at ordinary meetings of the assembly and nine obols for extra-ordinary (Ath. Pol. 6 2 . 2 ) . 74 91 and distributed quite indiscriminately. Demosthenes attacks 92 i t b i t t e r l y as a source of ruin. More than once a sum as 93 high as five drachmas was given to every claimant. Buchanan, following Boeckh, estimates that distributions were made 25 to 94 30 days a year - a total expenditure of 30 talents. In the fourth century taxes and confiscations became so common that the rich concealed their property in fear, endeavouring to invest i t 95 at interest and thus render i t "invisible." The results were twofold. The poorer citizens, those who had once worked through lack of landed property or other estates, ceased to be productive. Only out of extreme necessity did they accept employment, and then of a temporary nature, a supplement, as i t were, to their state subsidies. To work for another was the mark of a slave, as trade was the stigma of an alien and 91 Harpokration, s.v. eecoptna. See Buchanan's arguments for accepting Harpokration's evidence (48-53). 92 Dem. 1.20; 3.31-33; 13 passim. 93 Hypereides 5.26 and Deinarchos 1.56. 94 In prosperous years this might be trebled. In actual fact, Buchanan quotes Boeckh, stating (88) that "with this range from 25 to 90 talents I see no cause to quarrel." 95 Isokrates 7.24-25 and 35; 15.159-160. Of. Dem. 45.66 where money deposited with a banker i s concealed. Houses, slaves, and furniture were cpocvepct oucrt'a and money lent out at interest dcpav^ q oucft'a. See Hasebroek, Trade and P o l i t i c s 88-89, and particularly the same scholar's a r t i c l e "Zum grieohischen Bankwesen der klas-sischen Z,eit," Hermes 55 (1920) 156-158. 75 96 lamp-making of a barbarian. Euxitheos pleads with the Athen-ians: "Many are the servile tasks which free men are compelled by poverty to perform, and for these they should be pitied, men 97 of Athens, rather than be brought also to utter ruin." That Euxitheos and his mother even faced the loss of citizenship i s significant. From every point of view the conclusions are inescapable. The metic did not merely participate in a casual way in the Athenian economy, but assumed the productive role gladly r e l i n -quished by the citizens. Freedmen, as befits their origin, under-took the lowliest work. Metics predominated as skil l e d craftsmen. Banking and trade they monopolized. The former required money, the latter mobility. The citizens possessed neither. Both required that kind of i n i t i a t i v e worshipped as a virtue in the nineteenth century A.D. but distinctly an anathema in the f i f t h B.C. As suggested above, the typical citizen of means was a land-owner with a well-defined range of economic acti v i t i e s open to him - ac t i v i t i e s from which the metic was excluded. One might retort, of course, that i t was this very prohibition that forced wealthy metics to become merchants and bankers and seek out fiel d s of investment. This i s true. But the prohibition also caused an inherent weakness, since i t divided the economy into two distinct 96 Xenophon, Mem. 2.8.4; Dem. 57.30-31 and the scholiast to Aristophanes' Wasps 1001, who quotes Andokides' characteriza-tion of lamp-making as the work of an alien or barbarian. 97 Dem. 57.45. 76 parts. As a result, the partnership between Athenians and metics was not a permanent one. The wealth and enterprise of the latter never served to create an economy in which land, industry, and commerce were closely interrelated. If the metic could not bridge this gulf, the citizen would not. While he might invest money in trading ventures or even deposit his sur-plus cash in one of Athens' banking houses, he made no attempt 98 to deprive the metic of his function. 98 The citizens were never so averse to industry as to trade. See Dem. 48.12 where the property of Konon includes two houses, each with slaves employed respectively at weaving sack-cloth and grinding eolours. Demosthenes' father was exceptional in that his estate consisted entirely of money loaned out at interest and factories. Even one of the factories was not his own but given as security for a debt. See Dem. 27.9-11 for the interesting items that constitute his fortune. In Dem. 32 and 35 Demon and Androkles invest in bottomry loans. On the other hand, mort-gages were rarely used for productive purposes. S'inley, Land  and Credit, cites the l i t e r a r y references and finds only one mortgage so employed. Citizens usually borrowed for personal needs, taxes, liturgies, or dowries. Finley, ibid.85 and 272 n.56, writes: "The speaker in [Demosthenes], Against Boiotos II 40,52, went into debt for 1,000 drachmas to meet the cost of his father's funeral, a sum to be compared with the 2,000 drachmas he and his father together had borrowed for a mining venture, one of the few genuinely productive loans, apart from bottomry, to be found in the entire literature." 77 So long as Athens enjoyed prosperity as the commercial centre of the Aegean, the partnership was a felicitous one. 99 Aristophanes once compared citizen to metic as wheat to bran. His metaphor proved doubly apt, for they were just as separable. The f i r s t quarter of the fourth century gave early signs of an incipient economic as well as military decline. With i t the metic population shrank. Isokrates, speaking On the Peace in 355, prophesies: "...we shall advance day by day in prosperity, relieved of paying war-taxes, of f i t t i n g out triremes, and of discharging the other burdens which are imposed by war, without fear cultivating our lands and sailing the seas and engaging in those other occupations which now, because of the war, have entirely come to an end. Nay, we shall see our city enjoying twice the revenues which she now receives, and thronged with merchants and foreigners and resident aliens, by whom she i s now 100 deserted." Another work of the same year, Xenophon's Revenues, advocates offering incentives to encourage immigration, for "... a l l without a city would covet the right of settling in Athens, 101 and would increase our revenues." He becomes more explicit: "The rise in the number of residents and visitors would of course 99 A c h a r n j a n s 5 0 g . : . 100 8.£0-21: otyop.£©a 6 E T T ) V 7roXtv 6i7cXaat'aq u.ev f] vuv rac, 7 rpoao6ouq Aap-pavouoav, p,eaxr\v 6 s Y*Yvou.£vnv epjroptw vtai e^VCDV Hal lAETOtHCOV CDV V\9V £ pi^lT) KCL© 6 CJTT) H£ V. 101 2.7. ...Travraq av ot (WxiSeq rr\<; 'Ae^Qev u-eroixraq opeYotv-ro xai rac, 7 r p o c r o 6 o u q av au^otev. 78 lead to a corresponding expansion of our imports and exports, 102 of sales, rents and customs." Here, surely, i s reasoning worthy of boards of trade of every age. Andreades sums up his work on Greek public finance by decry-ing Athens' financial system "as in a l l probability the real cause of the destruction of the noblest of a l l states known to 103 history." Perhaps this i s so, but one must remember that the continued dichotomy between metic and citizen insured that their partnership was transitory and thus the soundness of Athens' economy illusory. Indeed, in later years when commercial hegemony shifted to Rhodes and Delos, merchants - and among them Athenian metics - flocked to these new centres, leaving the 102 3.5. 103 365. He also quotes Leon Say (391), "Ce sont les bonnes finances qui font l a bonne politique." He then points out: "It i s of course true that a good financial policy presupposes a good government." As my starting point I have taken Finley's brief remarks (77-78): "However one may explain the jealous insistence upon the citizen's monopoly of real property, the fact remains that in large measure land and money remained two separate spheres. A citizen could mediate between them, a non-citizen could not. Throughout the period of Greek independence, the economy did not demand that the wall be torn down. ... The economic history of Athens might well be written with this as the point of departure." 79 Peiraieus a desert. E. Xenophon *s Revenues and i t s Significance. The Revenues appeared in 355, the year in which the "Social War" ended and with i t A t h e n s ' Second Confederacy. Henceforth, foreign revenues were cut off and statesmen began to project schemes for self-suffiency based on internal resources. In his treatise Xenophon concentrates on two main sources of revenue, 104 mines and metics; only the latter need concern us here. Xeno-phon1 s f i r s t and most immediate goal being to increase the number of metics, he proposes the following concessions as an induce-ment to immigration: 1) that metics no longer be obligated to serve as hoplites along with citizens - a duty injurious both 105 to their trades and their private affairs; 2) that every effort be made to increase their loyalty by the granting of 106 honours, as, for example, the right to serve in the cavalry; 3) that suitable applicants be allowed to hold land and build 107 homes on the many vacant sites within the city walls; 4) that 104 Since Boeckh's Dissertation on the Silver Mines of Laurion (appended to The Public Economy) historians have generally con-sidered Xenophon's proposals on mining completely fanciful. On the other hand, Euboulos' successful economic programme, which resulted in a renaissance of the mining industry and an increase in the number of metics, is thought to have been inspired by the Revenues. 105 Revenues 2.2-4. 106 Ibid. 2.5. 107 Ibid. 2.6. 80 a board of guardians for metics {p,eroiHocpuXanec; ) be appointed 108 in order to create good w i l l . The concessions themselves are not so startling as Xeno-phon' s ultimate goal, that the r i c h no longer be burdened with 1 109 the costs of war and especially that "every Athenian may 110 receive sufficient maintenance at public expense." Where do the resident aliens f i t into this scheme? According to Xenophon, they are one of the "best sources of revenue" because they are completely self-supporting and, while they receive no payments 111 (u-taeocj), they pay the metoikion. But, more important, unlike the mines, immigration of metics requires no i n i t i a l outlay of capital on the part of Athenians, but merely the creation of "honours" by the simple expedient of votes by the assembly 112 (\J/T}cpio'p,a.Ta c p t X a v © p a w t a ) . Xenophon has given us a clue. To our economic arguments may be added an appendix, as i t were, on the metics' contribu-tions to Athens' revenues, for they contributed both directly and indirectly. As merchants, they paid on a l l imports and exports 2$ customs-dues ( f a kXKi\xevta) , which in 399/8, a year 108 Ibid. 2.7. 109 Ibid. 6.1. 110 Ibid. 4.33: t K a v q v a v 7taciv 'A0T ]vatotcj Tpocprjv drro HOIVOU yeveaQai. 111 Ibid. 2.1 112 Ibid. 3.6. 81 113 of extreme hardship, totalled 36 talents. Although i t i s impossible to calculate the total, Andreades believes i t improbable that i t ever sank in a prosperous year below forty 114 talents. It i s sufficient to point out that by paying the metoikion every 10,000 metics increased the revenues by twenty talents. This was no t r i f l i n g amount in a system where regular taxes consisted of liturgies and thus never afforded a cash sur-plus. In addition, wealthy metics could no more avoid voluntary contributions, epidoseis, than c i t i z e n s . Pasion. alone gave 115 1,000 shields and five completely manned triremes. The metic Chrysippos appealed to the sympathy of the courts in his suit Against Phormion by reminding the Athenians how he and his brother had made them a g i f t of one talent in cash and later, in a year of shortage, had imported wheat for public sale at abnormally 116 low prices. Whether metics resorted to epidoseis in order to stave off the ravages of sycophants and confiscations, or simply to create good w i l l as an avenue to citizenship, we do not know. Zenophon has made his point, however. The resident aliens, though they contributed more as individuals than the citizens, could expect no tangible return. For the rich metic this matter-ed l i t t l e . But for the average metic, there were definite dis-advantages. He received no assistance in times of famine or 113 Andokides 1.133. 114 298. 115 Dem. 45.85. 116 Dem. 34.38-39. 82 shortage, shared in none of the distributions when foreign princes were generous, and was ineligible for state funds, such as the Theorika. The metoikion, moreover, made i t impossible for destitute non-citizens to remain in the state without risk-ing sale into slavery. It i s no wonder that in times of economic distress the metic population quickly abandoned i t s adopted home. In my opinion, by the fourth century citizenship was no longer restricted out of mere sentiment or pride. Its tangible benefits were obvious, as were the advantages of a large and active non-citizen population. In prosperity the two complemented one another. CHAPTER IV CITIZENSHIP AND THE METIC In 355 the Athenians, not content with their previous grant of citizenship to Charidemos, the Euhoian leader of mercenaries, seriously considered making his person inviolable. Demosthenes' oration Against Aristokrates opposed this extension of privilege in the following terms: "The truth i s that in those days to be made a citizen of Athens was an honour so precious in the eyes of the world that, to earn that favour alone, men were ready to render to you those memorable services. To-day i t i s so worth-less that not a few men who have already received i t have wrought 1 worse mischief to you than your declared enemies." The senti-ments echo those of Isokrates, who in 355 had also severely 2 chided his countrymen for bestowing citizenship too freely. Against a background of such complaints, we might expect that metics would be among the f i r s t to benefit from any relax-ation of the restrictions on citizenship. But just the opposite i s the case. Only six years later in 346/5 the Athenians decided to act upon their suspicion that metics had i n f i l t r a t e d the demes and phratries. A wide-spread Siatyticptcric, was held and every demesman forced to undergo scrutiny to prove that he was a 3 genuine citizen either by birth or by decree of the demos. 1 Dem. 23.200. 2 8.50 and 88. 3 Aischines 1.77 and 86; Harpokration, ssv. '6ia^qcptotq. On this scrutiny and i t s legal implications, see A. D i l l e r , "The 84: Even the graphe {jeviac;, the punishment for which was slavery, had been insufficient to prevent metics and xenoi from pretend-ing to citizenship. For Euxitheos, one of the accused, t e l l s 4 us that many aliens were expelled from a l l the denies. Despite his own plight, however, he feels l i t t l e sympathy for the ejected: "In my opinion, i t i s your duty to treat with severity those who are proved to be aliens, who without having either won your consent or asked for i t , have by stealth and violence come to participate in your religious rites and your common p r i v i -5 leges." Decree of Demophilus, 346/345 B .C . , " TAPA 63 (1932) 193-205. Di l l e r believes that this decree "introduced a great change in the scrutinies in the demes. It made them universal, uniform, and compulsory. A l l existing members were to be scrutinized at once, and a l l future members at the time of their admission." He concludes (205) that i t was only with this decree that appel-lants from the decisions of individual demes became subject to the graphe ^eviaq. Gomme argues against this, disturbed by the harshness of the punishment meted out (slavery), i f an appeal were unsuccessful. See "The Law of Citizenship at Athens," Essays in Greek History 67-86. 4 Dem. 57.2. 5 Ibid. 3. Other orations which concern aliens' attempts to become citizens are: Lysias 13.73-76, in which Agoratos claims to have been made an Athenian citizen for his part in 2 the assassination of Phrynichos (cf. IG I i 1 0 ) . Lysias 23, 85 Demosthenes reveals why the alien was forced to employ "bribery and stealth in order to gain the rights of a citizen. So stringent were the rules l a i d down for the demos that -except for a very few - i t was legally impossible to win the status openly and honestly. In the f i r s t place, citizenship could be granted only to one who deserved i t through distinguish-ed service to the Athenian people ( 6 t * avSpayaOiav e i c j rov 6?5p,ov rov 'AQrivai'cov). And even when bestowed by the demos, the g i f t did not become valid u n t i l confirmed at the next session of the 6 assembly by a secret vote of more than 6,000 citizens. In addition, any Athenian who so desired might then prefer an indict-ment for i l l e g a l i t y . On more than one occasion, Demosthenes con-7 tinues, the courts had resoinded a grant of citizenship. How then are we to interpret Demosthenes' socusation that citizenship as well as a l l other honours had been "dragged through the mire and made contemptible by those execrable and god-forsaken 8 politicians"? At f i r s t glance the facts of Athenian l i f e seem Against Pankleon, who claimed to be a Plataian and thus to have the rights of a citizen; Aisohines 1,114 and passim; Dem. 59 passim; Isaios 12 passim; and Hypereides 4.3, where Agasikles i s impeached for having bribed his way into the deme of Halimous (cf. Deinarchos, fragment 7, and Harpokration, s.v. ' A Y a c r t x A T i q ) . 6 Dem. 59.89. 7 Ibid. 90-91. 8 Dem. 23.201. 86 to contradict i t . But the paradox soon vanishes with a study of the evidence for citizenship. Demosthenes l i s t s a number of recipients. Their names read l i k e a "who's who" of the fourth . . . 9 . century. They include Kotys, king of Thrace, Simon and Bianor, 10 , sons of Berisades, king of Thrace, Ariobarzanes, satrap of Phrygia, Philiskos, leader of mercenaries and viceroy in the 11 Hellespont, Leukon, ruler of the Bosporos, and his sons, 18 Spartokos, Peirisades, and Apollonios. Extant inscriptions 13 award citizenship to Dionysios I of S i c i l y and his sons, to 14 Evagoras, king of Kyprian Salamis, and Arrybas, exiled king of 15 the Molossians. Other categories of new citizens are ambassa-16 17 dors and exiles. Search as we may we are inevitably forced 9 Ibid. 118. 10 Ibid. 18. 1 1 Ibid. 141-142. 12 Dem. 20.30. 13 IG II 2103 (368). 14 IG I2113 (ca. .410). Cf. Dem. 12.10. 15 IG II 2226 (ca. 342). 16 IG II 2394 and 566. 17 IG II 217, 24, and 25, Sthorys, Archippos, and Hipparchos, 2 Thasian exiles; IG II 237, Phormion and Karphinas, Akarnanians. Eor further discussion on exiles, see Pope, Non-Athenians 71-74, as well as her general chapter on non-Athenians naturalized and honoured (47-50). Most of the examples cited in this chapter are from the fourth century. Earlier naturalizations were even more rare. It was; only as a result of prolonged loyalty and service 87 to admit that in most of the known examples, both l i t e r a r y and epigraphic, the recipients of Athenian citizenship were not metics, who could well have used the privilege, but an assem-blage of foreign rulers, dignitaries, and exiles, whose support was essential in a century of international intrigue and whose patronage was a l l but purchased in this way. Even though the privilege was often purely honorific," i t could at times bring that the Plataians (Dem. 59.94-104) and Samians (IG I 2126 and II 1) were awarded this honour. During the latter part of the Second Peloponnesian War, Perikles' citizenship law of 451/0 (see below, under Appendix A) seems to have been ignored and '•'Mixed marriages" were allowed. Perhaps this was due to the active participation of the metics in the war or even - a more practical reason - the loss of Athenian manpower. At any rate, i t became necessary to reenaet Perikles' law in 403. Once again both parents had to be citizens (Dem. 57.30). This i s not the only sign of a conservative reaction at this time. See also Lysias' Against Hippotherses (cited from Dionysios of Hali-karnassos. in Lamb's edition of Lysias p. 891 in the Loeb Classical Library), written in opposition to the proposal of Phormisios that citizenship be restricted to those who owned land; Ath. Pol. 40.2, where Archinos rescinds the grant of citizenship to metics and slaves who had helped to restore the democracy in 403 (see above, under Isoteleia n.96); and Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators 835 F, for Lysias' frustrated efforts to become an Athenian citizen. 88 tangible results - gift s of food, and money or trading conces-18 sions. We do, of course, know of four metics who became citizens -four who were a l l of one profession - the bankers, Pasion, 19 Phormion, Epigenes, and Konon. We have yet to offer some explanation for this. According to Pasion*s son Apollodoros the Athenians awarded citizenship to his father because of his a b i l -20 i t y to make money.. Pasion, as we know, was very generous and, on one occasion alone, gave Athens 1,000 shields. Yet, several years earlier when Lysias gave similar gifts of shields and money, 21 he was not made a citizen. Indeed, so few metics were ever naturalized that the choice of four bankers can be no mere coin-cidence. Citizens often needed cash and willingly mortgaged their property. What better way was there to make available the accumulated reserves of a wealthy metic banker than to grant him citizenship? Expediency, then, not mere generosity, explains the naturalization of the four bankers. Certainly, the example i s 18 Leukon, e.g., who controlled the Black Sea trade routes so important to Athens, had given exemption from dues and prior-i t y in lading (Dem. 20.31). See Tod, Creek Inscriptions 2.104 for Athenian efforts to win the alliance of Dionysios I. 19 See above, under Introduction. 20 Dem. 36.30: ano TOU xP^P-a^'cctcrQai * a i eTepcuv nkeia> H T q a a c r e a i . 89 isolated. A l l the evidence indicates that the attitude of the 22 Athenians toward the resident alien never changed. Through-out the classical period citizenship was jealously guarded against the slightest encroachment. Thus, the legal status of 22 The l i t e r a r y sources are very clear, with one exception. Deinarchos (1.43) t e l l s us that Demosthenes conferred citizen-ship on Chairephilos, Pheidon, Pamphilos, and Pheidippos. Phei-dippos of Paiania i s a trierarch in IG II21631.622 (323/2), while Pamphilos, son of Chairephilos, also a Paianian, appears in a l i s t of donors of epidoseis, IG II 417.14 (ca. 330). According to Pope 28 a l l four received Athenian citizenship for generosity during the food shortage of 330/326. They seem to have been a family of metics. Unfortunately, in dealing with the epigraphic evidence we can base our conclusions on only a few of the extant inscriptions that award citizenship. The majority of them do not make i t clear who are receiving the privilege. Unless they appear elsewhere they cannot be identified. Even PA offers l i t t l e help, often merely recording that "so and so" received Athenian citizen-ship. One inscription probably concerns a metic. IG II 2391 records the grant of citizenship to Alkimachos of Apollonia who [ e i c j THV a c u T T i p i a v T]T}C, 7roXecuq e7te6to[Kev ]. He had given an epidosis. If we accept both these examples, neither of which i s without d i f f i c u l t i e s , there i s some precedent for the awarding of citizenship to metics in return for gifts of money. Personally, I cannot see why this would not have been the case in times of extreme shortage. Certainly, though, i t was the exception, not the rule. 90 the Ind iv idua l metic v is-a-v is the c i t i z e n was as l a s t i n g as the a l i e n ' s residence i n A t t i k a , even i f i t were prolonged fo r severa l generat ions. CHAPTER V GENERAL CONCLUSIONS E. H. Carr, i n hi s series of lectures e n t i t l e d What i s History, i l l u s t r a t e s how "int e r p r e t a t i o n enters into every f a c t of h i s t o r y " with the following observation: "Our picture of Greece i n the f i f t h century B.C. i s defective not pr i m a r i l y because so many of the b i t s have been ac c i d e n t a l l y l o s t , but because i t i s , by and large, the picture formed by a t i n y group of people i n the c i t y of Athens. We know a l o t about what f i f t h -century Greece looked l i k e to an Athenian c i t i z e n ; but hardly anything about what i t looked l i k e to a Spartan, a Corinthian or a Theban - not to mention a Persian, or a slave or other non-1 c i t i z e n resident i n Athens." The metic i s among those outside r e a l "history." In the text-book he receives at best a footnote. In true nineteenth-century t r a d i t i o n we i d e n t i f y ourselves with the Athenian c i t i z e n s , a minority i n what was r e a l l y a more diverse world. In the present empiric and very c r i t i c a l age, i t would be surp r i s i n g i f some broader picture did not emerge. I believe that we can state, without detracting even s l i g h t l y from the accomplishments of the past, that i n Athens there were not "qu a s i - c i t i z e n s , " as Wilam-owitz phrases i t , but second-class c i t i z e n s . These were^the 1 E. H. Carr, What i s History (London 1961) 7-8. 92 metics. And l i k e Carr we might f i n d i t f r u i t f u l to leave aside the g l o r i f i c a t i o n of "democracy" long enough to ask about t h e i r l i f e i n Athens. I t i s unfortunate that, f o r the most part, they do not speak fo r themselves; and i n the face of t h e i r s i l e n c e we are forced to r e l y on the works of others who make only the b r i e f e s t a l l u s i o n s to the non-citizens. We can, however, draw a sketch, part of which has been presented here. We should know much more i f only one of the comedies c a l l e d Metoikos (and there were several) had survived. For, s u r p r i s i n g l y , nearly a l l the writers of the New Comedy were metics - as were most of Athens' 2 sculptors and a r t i s t s . In t h i s study we have r e s t r i c t e d ourselves to the economic p o s i t i o n of the metic, a side of Athenian l i f e u sually ignored, but necessary to balance the more spectacular p o l i t i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l achievements. As a r e s u l t we have l e f t untouched another part of the metic's h i s t o r y . I t i s always s t a r t l i n g to 2 E.g., Antiphanes, A l e x i s , Anaxandrides, and Philemon, fourth- and early third-century poets of the Middle and New Comedy; Mys, the sculptor of the r e l i e f s on the s h i e l d of Athena Promachos, and Agorakritos, p u p i l of Pheidias; Polygnotos of Thasos, Zeuxis of Herakleia, and Parrhasios of Ephesos, famous f i f t h - and early fourth-century painters; Hippodamos of Miletos, the architect of the Peiraieus; and, of the ten orators, Lysias, Isaios, and Deinarchos. 93 d i s c o v e r f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s , a p a r t f r o m S o k r a t e s a n d P l a t o , w e r e n o n - A t h e n i a n s . T h o s e who came t o A t h e n s t o f o u n d s c h o o l s , a s m a n y d i d , came a s m e t i c s . A r i s t o t l e , t h e m e t i c , may s t r i k e u s a s n o v e l , B u t t h e r e i s a m p l e e v i d e n c e t o s h o w t h a t A t h e n i a n m e t i c s w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e n o t o n l y f o r t h e e c o n o m i c s u p e r i o r i t y o f A t h e n s b u t a l s o f o r m u c h o f h e r a r t i s t i c a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l h e r i t a g e . To s t a t e t h i s d o e s n o t d e t r a c t f r o m A t h e n s ' g l o r y ; r a t h e r i t u n d e r s c o r e s t h e r i c h n e s s o f t h e H e l l e n i c w o r l d . APPENDIX THE METIC IN ATHENIAN HISTORY A. Two Historical Problems 1. Kleisthenes' Enfranchisements .. ,KXe tcr6evqc; u-sra T T ) V T C U V rupavvcov enPoXiyv* noXKouq yap, ecpuXereuae ^evouq nai SouAouq u-eroixouq (Aristotle, P o l i t i c s 1275b 1 36-37). Historians generally have been suspicious of these enfran-2 chisements, although in the Ath. Pol. Aristotle i s unambiguous in his reference to new citizens (v£07toXTrat ) . in fact, he t e l l s us that Kleisthenes instituted demotics for their protection. "He made those who lived in a common deme fellow-demesmen in order that men should not be called by their patronymics and thereby 3 disclose who were the new citizens." Adhering closely to their 1 The text cited i s that edited by W. D. Ross (Oxford 1957). 2 See, e.g., H. T. Wade-G-ery, "The Laws of KLeisthenes," Essays in Greek History 148-150; J. Day and M. Chambers, Aris-totle's History of Athenian Democracy (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1962) 117 and n.60 ad locum, where others are cited. Among those who accept the enfranchisements are Clere, Meteques 339; C. Hignett, 4 , History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the F i f t h Century B.C. (Oxford 1952) 132-134; and R. Sealey, "Regionalism in Archaic Athens," Historia 9 (1960) 172. 3 Ath. Pol. 21.4 (my translation). 95 own theories about Aristotle's method of writing history, James Day and Mortimer Chambers, the co-authors of Aristotle's History of Athenian Democracy, have attempted a new explanation of these 4 two d i f f i c u l t passages. Aristotle's teleological outlook, they assert, led him not only to prejudice but to manipulation of sources and facts in order to f i t them to his preconceived theory of the four stages of democracy. Believing that more citizens mean more democracy, he saw in the details of ELeisthenes' re-forms only an attempt to admit more citizens. Day and Chambers base this application of their thesis on their own translation of the clause orcox; yxeraoxcaai 7cAeiouc. rrjq ^ o X i - r e i a c ; , "that more might share in the citizenship." However, they admit that i t can be construed equally well as "that more might share in the administration of the government." F i r s t , i t i s obvious that we can not accept Aristotle's explanation for the need of demotics. Modern research refutes i t . The deme, the smallest administrative unit in the new t r i b a l system, was integral to KLeisthenic democracy, which created a more broadly based Council truly representative of every region of Attika. Through the deme and the demotic new ties replaced 6 former clan loyalties. Demotics would have served no purpose in 4 111-120. 5 £2i« 21.2. Day and Chambers 111. 6 See E l i o t , Coastal Demes of Attika 3-4. 96 concealing the origins of new citizens since Athenians continued 7 both to belong to phratries and to use patronymics. This was guesswork on Aristotle's part. On the other hand, there i s no reason to impute to Aristotle the belief that the whole Kleis-thenic system was merely a screen for new citizens. When he i s being most precise, he defines a citizen as one who has a 8 right to participate in judicial functions and in office. If we adopt this definition, then Kleisthenes' purpose was "to mix a l l the citizens together in order that more might have a share in the running of government." This is an accurate description of what Kleisthenes did, without reference to new citizens at a l l . The inclusion of the latter need not have motivated Aris-totle any more than i t did Kleisthenes himself. They are not integral to the reforms but a possible concomitant of them. 7 See Wade-Gary, op_. c i t . 150-152, for a discussion of this problem including a fragment of Philochoros (FGrH 3b, 328 3?35) that states that the phratries are to admit opyecovec. as well as dpoYaActHTEc, . Although the fragment i s undatable, i t has often been adduced as evidence that Kleisthenes forced new citizens into the phratries. Wade-Gery himself considers i t a Solonian law. Of. Day and Chambers 113-114. i'or a recent discussion, including relevant bibliography, see A. Andrewes, "Philochoros on Phratries," JHS 81 (1961) .1T15. 8 P o l i t i c s 1275a 22-24: T C O A I ' T T ] C . 6 ' dTrAcoc; o u 6 e v i T C O V aXXcov o p t ' ^ E T c u p a X X o v f] T4> p ,£Te'xsiv Hpt'oEcoc, Hat d p x n ? * 97 Having attempted to rescue Aristotle from the accusation 9 of "alleged" enfranchisements in order to "control" history, we s t i l l have the facts to deal with. I believe that there were no admissions to citizenship at this time - or none at any rate that we know of -, that Aristotle did not fabricate these facts but found them in his sources, and that the enigma has a plaus-ible explanation. Elsewhere we have considered the legal position of the metic. It was no mere series of fortuitous accretions but a scrupu-lously defined status. Deme-membership, choice of a demesman for patron, rights similar to those of the citizen, a l l reveal an intimate connection between the metic and KLeisthenic democ-racy. Chronologically the word metoikos appears for the f i r s t 10 time in Aischylos 1 Suppliants. Since we know of no constitu-tional reforms after those of Kleisthenes that changed the basic 9 Day and Chambers 115. 10 Now dated by some to 466 or 463. See H. J. Matte, Per  Yerlorene Aischylos (Berlin 1963) 50. At 609 is the verb u-efoineTv and at 994 p e r o t H o q (?raq 6 ' sv u-ero iW yX&caav euTUKTOv c pepe i naKtyv). At 963 the king declares himself 7rpoc-raTr)cj (protector) of the Danaides. The reference must reflect con-temporary Athenian usage. The earliest epigraphic reference to the metic i s IG I 188 (ca. 460), a decree of the deme of Skam-bonidai. According to Wilamowitz* restoration ("Demotika," 254), after the sacrifice to the hero Leon every demesman and every metic is to receive a part of the sacred meat. 98 nature of the democracy or expl i c i t l y concerned the metic, i t is logical to date his status to 508. Reputedly Solon and 11 Peisistratos had both encouraged immigration, so that by 510 the alien population might have been considerable. I believe that Kleisthenes then gave the former xenoi a definite place in his constitution. Why should this tradition not have been echoed, even recorded in one of Aristotle's sources? Let us consider the peculiar wording of the quoted portion 12 of the P o l i t i c s , which has invited frequent emendation. Kleis-thenes, we are told, ecpuXereuoe many aliens and 6ouXouq IIETOI'KOUC,. If Aristotle meant freedmen, he knew a perfectly good word (aneXevQepoc.) I well authenticated in the orators and found in 13 the P o l i t i c s i t s e l f . "Slave metics" i s a contradiction in 11 Plutarch, Solon 24 and Ath. Pol. 13.5. The former states that Solon offered citizenship to certain classes of aliens. But both references have occasioned considerable dispute. See, e.g., the discussion in Hignett 111-112 on the biatynquo-poc,. I accept the tradition that both Solon and the Peisistratidai encouraged immigration for the sake of trade, industry, and, in the case of the latter, public works. 12 E.g., Day and Chambers 117 omit u-eTot'nouc.altogether and translate, "Kleisthenes enfranchised many foreigners and slaves." 9 , , 13 LSJ (s.v. a7teAeueep*a,ii) . i t i s found for the f i r s t time in this sense in Pseudo-Xenophon, Constitution of the  Athenians 1.10, and frequently in Plato's Laws. Aristotle uses i t in the P o l i t i c s 1278a 2. 99 terms. <X>uXeTsuo), moreover, i s u n i q u e . Need i t r e f e r t o t h e t r i b e s ? One s c h o l a r has r e c e n t l y s u g g e s t e d a more g e n e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n , " t o f o r m i n t o a s e p a r a t e p h y l e ( c l a s s o r category)." W h i l e I do n o t a c c e p t O l i v e r ' s main argument, w h i c h depends on a l a c u n a i n t h e P o l i t i c s , I f i n d h i s t r e a t m e n t o f cpuXereuo) 14 i n t r i g u i n g . A r i s t o t l e , i n my o p i n i o n , c o p i e d t h i s u n u s u a l e x p r e s s i o n f r o m a s o u r c e t h a t had r e c o r d e d t h a t " K l e i s t h e n e s e n r o l l e d a l i e n s and s l a v e s as m e t i c s i n t h e t r i b a l groups ( i . e . , t h e demes)." The s l a v e s were, p e r h a p s , dree Xe u0 e po i , t h e l e g a l t e r m f o r w h i c h i s l a t e , o n l y i n c r e a s i n g l y common f r o m t h e end o f t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y , when manumissions were r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t . I n s t e a d o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e word p.eTot'nouq as a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h c a t e g o r i e s , A r i s t o t l e a c c e p t e d i t as p r o o f o f e n f r a n c h i s e m e n t s . We need n o t be s u r p r i s e d a t A r i s t o t l e ' s c l o s e adherence t o h i s s o u r c e s on o c c a s i o n . B o t h Wade-Gery and Day and Chambers have 15 d i s c u s s e d h i s s i m i l a r u se o f A n d r o t i o n and H e r o d o t o s . Thus, A r i s t o t l e ' s c o n f u s i o n o f c i t i z e n s h i p w i t h t h e enrolment o f m e t i c s i n t h e deme s t r u c t u r e i s a t t h e h e a r t o f t h i s s e e m i n g l y i n s o l u b l e 16 problem. 14 J". H. O l i v e r , "The Reforms o f K l e i s t h e n e s , " H i s t o r i a 9 (1960) 504-505. He does n o t b e l i e v e t h a t A r i s t o t l e i n t e n d e d e i t h e r passage t o r e f e r t o e n f r a n c h i s e m e n t s . The tr o u b l e s o m e "new c i t i -z e n s " he t r a n s l a t e s as " c i t i z e n s o f t h e new community." T h i s i n -v o l v e s a semantic q u i b b l e q u i t e f o r e i g n t o A r i s t o t l e . 15 Wade-Gery 136-139 and Day and Chambers 8. 16 F o r t h e a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n t h i s A ppendix I am i n d e b t e d t o P r o f e s s o r C. W. J". E l i o t , I t i s based i n i t s e n t i r e t y on 100 2. Perikles* Citizenship Law. ...6ia r o 7TXT}6OCJ ra>v T r o X i r S v I l e p i K A S O U C ; e i T r o v r o q sYveot fav u-T] u - e r e x e i v rqc j rroAecDc; oc; a v p,rj eJ; ap,cpo?v dcroTv f) yeYOvooc; (Ath. Pol. 26.4). Perikles' citizenship law was passed in 451/0. Five years later, Plutarch t e l l s us, when Psammetichos, king of Egypt, pre-sented Athens with a g i f t of 40,000 measures of corn for public distribution, a scrutiny was held and nearly 5,000 persons pro-secuted as nothoi were sold into slavery. Those who retained 17 their citizenship, he continues, numbered 14,040. The figures are, of course, absurd. It i s inconceivable that 25% of the Athenian populace was sold into slavery on this one occasion. Possibly Plutarch derived the punishment from known fourth-century examples of the graphe ^eviac,. Unrealistic as are the details of his account, however, the tradition of a scrutiny and certain disbarments from the c i t i z e n - l i s t s at this time does 18 ring true and cannot be rejected. suggestions which he made during a discussion of Aristotle's Ath. Pol. at a graduate seminar in Greek History. 17 Plutarch, Perikles 37 and Philochoros (FGrH 3b, 328 F119). 18 F. Jacoby, FGrH 3b (Supplement) 1.470 writes: "fhe facts which alone remain (apart from the tradition about the Egyptian gift) are the law of 451/0 B.C., the usage of the demes (and phratries) conforming with i t s new regulations about determining the ^quality of citizenship, and perhaps a number of y p a c p a t ^ e v i a c , brought on the basis of the law during those years." 101 A more important question is why the Athenians chose this • occasion to pass a law restricting citizenship. Before 450 a number of their most prominent leaders had been the children of "mixed marriages," among them Kleisthenes, Themistokles, and Kimon. In the briefest of preambles Aristotle explains the law as "due to the number of the citizens." Modern authorities have generally accepted this reason, since there i s ample evidence that Athens did experience a problem of excess population in the 440's as witnessed by the cleruchies and colonies sent out after 19 450. Other motives have been suggested. E. M. Walker, for instance, states that "the real motive of the measures was to enhance the value of the lucrative privileges attaching to the franchise, by limiting the number of those entitled to share in 20 them." Gomme attributes i t to fear lest a continuing increase in population should eventually "make the constitution unwork-21 able." Others have seen i t as an appeal to prejudice aimed at Cf. E. M. Walker, CAH 5, 102-103; F. E. Adcock, ibid. 167-168; and A. W. Gomme, Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford 1937) 86-88. A l l accept the law and general tradition. 19 Plutarch, Perikles 11. For a discussion of colonies and cleruchies and, in particular, the epigraphic evidence for them, see B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, Vol. 3 (Princeton 1950) 282-297. There were, of course, other reasons besides overpopulation. 20 102. 21 87. 102 22 preserving racial purity. While each of the above explanations may well contain an element of truth, I prefer to link the citizenship law very closely with contemporary events. In 454 the treasury of the Delian League was transferred to Athens. Confident of Athens' hegemony, Perikles convoked the Panhellenic Congress and, despite i t s failure, by 447 had begun work on the Parthenon. These same years saw a period of truce between Athens and the Peloponnese and with i t the return of thousands of sailors and 23 hoplites after ten years of continual campaigning. If once again we are to believe Plutarch, the object of Perikles* pro-jects during this decade - the public works, cleruchies, naval reserve training - was to keep* these citizens from idleness in 24 Athens. Thus, whether or not there was an absolute increase in population, Athens did face a very real problem of numbers, which, I suggest, the restrictions of 451 were designed to face. It goes deeper, however. A question of principle was bound 22 E.ip., Hignett, Athenian Constitution 343-347. For others, see Day and Chambers 31. Again the two authors devote consider-able effort to proving that Aristotle's account is mainly sur-mise based on p o l i t i c a l theory. Surmise or not, in the end they are themselves forced to admit that population was a problem in the mid-fifth century. 23 The chronology i s that proposed by ATL 3.298-300. In actual fact, military campaigns had never ceased since 479, the end of the Persian Wars. 24 Plutarch, loo, c i t . 103 to arise with the "responsibilities of empire." Was Athens to continue her relative laxity towards intermarriage? The alien population was increasing, with foreign sailors and subject a l l i e s constantly in the Peiraieus, many perhaps hoping to remain as permanent residents. What of the Athenian cleruchs? Were they to integrate themselves with the natives of their respective settlements? Unlike Rome in the f i r s t century B.C., Athens decided against sharing her hegemony.. Perhaps i t i s for this reason that Adcock terms the law "a menace to Athens' 25 future." Although we shall not go so far as to say that "lucrative privileges" inspired the law, by 445 exclusiveness was already beginning to unite with the motive of material gain. For in that year Athens established, or perhaps tested, her s t r i c t define i t i o n of citizenship by refusing i t s privileges to those of impure descent. B. A Brief Chronological Table. 508/7 Kleisthenes* reforms. The beginning of the status of metic. 466/3 Aischylos' Suppliants. The f i r s t l i t e r a r y refer-ence to metoikos. ca. 460 IG I2188. The f i r s t epigraphic reference to metoikos. 25 168. 104 454 Treasury of the Delian Confederacy transferred from Delos to Athens. 451/0 Pericles' citizenship law. 449 Convocation of the Panhellenic Congress. Perikles institutes a plan to make Athens the cultural and religious centre of the Greek world. It includes the attraction of aliens (intellectuals, artists, craftsmen, and "businessmen") such as 26 . • Kephalos of Syracuse. 447 Building of Parthenon begun. 443 Foundation of Thourioi. 431 F i r s t year of the Second Peloponnesian War. Perikles' funeral oration. Metic hoplites employed as a reserve garrison and as part of the invading force into the Megarid. 424 Battle of Delion. The f i r s t important campaign in which metic hoplites are employed abroad. Aristophanes' Knights, which mentions for the f i r s t time jury-pay of three obols. ca. 424 Pseudo-Xenophon's Constitution of the Athenians. 415/3 Athenian expeditions to S i c i l y . 413 Nikias' speech to metic sailors. 409-406 Building accounts for the Erechtheion. 404 Surrender of Athens. Rule of the Thirty. Perse-27 cution of metics. 26 Lysias 12.4 27 Lysias 12.6. 105 403 Thrasyboulos' promise of isoteleia to metics and aliens. Seizure of Peiraieus. IG II 210, enfran-chisements of aliens and slaves who had helped restore the democracy. Lysias' oration Against  Eratosthenes (12). 403/2 Archonship of Eukleides. Archinos rescinds Thrasy-boulos' motion of enfranchisement. Lysias is deprived of citizenship. Lysias' Against  Hippotherses. Reenactment of Perikles' citizen-ship law. . 400 Agyrrhios institutes the Theorikon. 393 Aristophanes' Ekklesiazousai. Pay of three obols for attendance at the assembly. 378/7 Archonship of Nausinikos. Second Athenian Con-federacy. Beginning of the new taxation system based on symmoriai with a separate group for metics. 371/0 Death of Pasion the banker. 361/0 Naturalization of Phormion the banker. Metics desert Athens during period of incessant warfare. 355 Isokrates' On the Peace (8). Xenophon's Revenues. 354 End of the Second Athenian Confederacy. Beginning of Euboulos' administration. Extension of the Theoric Fund. Demosthenes' Against Leptines (20). a, 351 Demosthenes' On Organization (13). 106 346/5 Decree of Demoplailos. Removal of aliens from demes. Reverberations in Aischines' Against Timarchos (1) and Demosthenes' Against i&iboulides (57). 340 Demosthenes! Against Meaira (59). 338 Battle of Ghaironeia. Proposal of Hypereides to enfranchise slaves and metics in order that they 28 might defend Athens. Beginning of Lykourgos' administration during which the mines flourish, revenues increase, and the metic population grows. 330 Manumission inscriptions. 329-326 Sleusinian building accounts. ca.325 Aristotle's Ath. Pol. 322 Change in the Athenian constitution imposed by Antipatros. With the decline of Athens and Peiraieus the metics move to other more prosperous centres. 28 Hypereides, Against Aristogeiton (fragment 18); Lykour gos, Against Leokrates 41; Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators 849 A. According to the latter Hypereides was prosecuted for his proposal by Aristogeiton but acquitted. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Ancient Authors and Texts Cited Aischines. Orationes. Edited by F. Blass after F. Frank. Second edition. Leipzig 1908. Aischylos. Tragoediae. Edited by G. Murray, second edition. Oxford 1955. Andokides. Minor Attic Orators. Translated by K. J. Maidment. Vol. 1. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1941. Aristophanes. Comedies. Edited by V. Coulon. 5 vols. Paris 1948-1954. Scholia to Ploutos, Frogs, Birds, Wasps, and Peace. Comoediae. Edited by G. Dindorf. Vol. 4, 3 parts. Oxford 1838. Aristotle. Atheniensium Respublica. Edited by F. G. Kenyon. Oxford 1920. P o l i t i c a . Edited by W. D. Ross. Oxford 1957. Deinarchos. Minor Attic Orators. Translated by J. 0. Burtt. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1954. Demosthenes. Orationes. Edited by S. H. Butcher and W. Rennie. 3 vols. Oxford 1903-1931. Scholia to Oration 20. Orationes. Edited by G. Dindorf. Vol.. 9. Oxford 1851. Diodoros. Diodorus of S i c i l y . Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Vol. 4. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1956. 108 Diogenes Laertios. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Toi. 1. Loeb Classical Library. London and Hew York 1925. Harpokration. Harpokration et Moeris. Edited by I. Bekker. Berlin 1833. Herodotos. Historiae. Edited by C. Hude. Third edition. 2 vols. Oxford 1927. Hesychios. Lexicon. Edited by M. Schmidt. Second edition. Jena 1867. Hypereides. Minor Attic Orators. Translated by J. 0. Burtt. "Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1954. Isaios. The Speeches of Isaeus. (1) Edited by W. Wyse. Cambridge 1904. (2) Translated by E. S. Eorster. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1957. Isokrates. Orations. Translated by G. Norlin and L. Van Hook. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London and New York 1928 and 1929, London and Cambridge, Mass. 1945. Lykourgos. Minor Attic Orators. Translated by J. 0. Burtt. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1954. Lysias. Orations. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1960. Philochoros. FGrH 3b, No. 328. Edited by E. Jacoby. Leiden 1954. Plato. The Laws. Translated by R. G. Bury. Vol. 2. Loeb Class-i c a l Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1961. Plutarch. Vitae Parallelae. Edited by C. Lindskog and K. Ziegler. 3 vols. Leipzig 1914-1935. 109 Mo r a i l a . Translated by H. N. Fowler, "vol. 10. Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, Mass. 1936. Pollux. Onomasticon. Edited by E. Bethe. Vol. 1. Leipzig 1900. Sophokles. Fabulae. Edited by A. C. Pearson. Oxford 1924. Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Translated by H. L. Jones. Vol. 4. Loeb Classical Library. London and New York 1927. Suidas. Lexicon. Edited by A . Adler,- Vol. 1. Leipzig 1928. Thucydides. Historiae. Edited by H. S . Jones. Revised and aug-mented by J. E. Powell. Second edition. 2 vols. Oxford 1942. Xenophon. Opera Omnia. Edited by E. C. Marchant. 5 vols. Oxford 1900-1920. [Xenophon.] Constitution of the Athenians. Edited by H. Frisch. Copenhagen 1942. 110 2. Modem Authors Adcock, F. E. "The Breakdown of the Thirty Years' Peace," CAH 5: Athens, 478*401 B.C. (Camhridge 1935) 165-192. Andreades, A. M. A History of Greek Public Finance. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass. 1933. Boeckh, A. The Public Economy of Athens. London 1842. Bolkestein, H. Economic L i f e in Greece's Golden Age. Leiden 1958. Bonner, R. J. Lawyers and Litigants in Ancient Athens. Chicago 1927. and Smith, G. The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle. Vol. 2. Chicago 1938. Buchanan, J. J. Theorika. New York 1962. Buck, C. D. "Inscriptions Found upon the Acropolis," AJA 4 (1888) 149-164. Busolt, G. Griechische Staatskunde. 2 vols. (Vol. 2 edited by H. Swoboda). Munich 1920-1926. Calhoun, G. M. The Ancient Greeks and the Evolution of Standards in Business. Cambridge, Mass. 1926. The Business L i f e of A n c i e n t Athens. Chicago 1926. "Ancient Athenian Mining," The Journal of Economic and Business History 3 (1931) 333-361. Carr, E. H. What is History? London 1961. Caskey, L. D.; Fowler, H. N.; Paton, J. M.; and Stevens, G. P. The Erechtheum. Cambridge, Mass. 1927. Chambers, M. See Day. Dlerc, M. Les Meteques Athe'hiens. Paris 1893. C o l l i t z , H. Sammlung der grieohischen Dialekt-Inschriften. Vol. 2. Gottingen 1899. I l l Crosby, M. "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesperia 19 (1950)' 189-312. "More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 26 (1957) 1-23. Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E. Dictionnaire des Antiquite's Grecques et Romaines. Toi. 2, Part 1 and Vol. 4, Part 1. Paris 1892. Day, J". and Chambers, M. Aristotle's History of Athenian Democ-racy. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1962. Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles. Second edition. Oxford 1954 Di l l e r , A. "The Decree of Demophilus," TAPA 63 (1932) 193-205. Elio t , 0. W. J". Coastal Demes of Attika. Toronto 1962. Fine, J. V. A. The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora,  Hesperia Supplement 9: Horoi: Studies in Mortgagef Real  Security, and Land Tenure in Ancient Athens (Athens) 1951. Finley, M. I . Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500-200 B.C. New Brunswick, N. J. 1951. Fowler, H. N. See Caskey. Francotte, H. L'Industrie dans l a Grece Ancienne. Brussels 1900. Gilbert, G. The Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens. London and New York 1895. Glotz, G. Ancient Greece at Work. London and New York 1926. Gomme, A. W. The Population of Athens in the F i f t h and Fourth Centuries B. C. Oxford 1933. Essays in Greek History and Literature. Oxford 1937. . A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. 3-vols. Oxford 1945-1956. 112 More Essays in Greek History and Literature. Oxford 1962. Hasebroek, J. "Zum grieohischen Bankwesen der klassischen Zeit," Hermes 55 (1920) 113-173. Trade and P o l i t i c s in Ancient Greece. London 1933. Hereward, D. "New Fragments of IG II 210," BSA 47 (1952) 102-117. Hignett, C. A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the F i f t h Century B.C. Oxford 1952. H i l l e r von Gartringen, F. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores (IG I editio minor). Berlin 1924. Hommel, H. "Meroivtoi ," RE 15 (1932) 1413-1458. Hopper, R. J. "The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century," BSA 48 (1953) 200-254. "The Mines and Miners of Ancient Athens," Greece and Rome 8 (1961) 138-151. Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der grieohischen Historiker. 3b (Supplement). Vo\. 1. Leiden 1954. Jameson, M. H. "The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree of Themistokles," Historia 12 (1963) 385-404* Jevons, F. B. "Work and Wages in Athens," JHS 15 (1895) 239-247. Jones, A. H. M. Athenian Democracy. Oxford 1960. Kirchner, J. Prosopographia Attica. 2 vols. Berlin 1901-1903. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores (IG II-III editio minor). Berlin 1913-1940. Lewis, D. M. "Attic Manumissions," Hesperia 28 (1959) 208-238. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth edition revised and augmented by H. S. Jones assisted by R. McKenzie. 2 vols. Oxford 1940. 115 Lipsius, J. H, Das attische Reoht und Rechtsverfahren. 5 vols. Leipzig 1905-1915. MacDowell, D. M. Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators. Manchester 1965. McGregor, M. F. See Meritt. Meisterhans, K. Grammatik der attischen Inschriften. Berlin 1900. Meritt, B. D. "Greek Inscriptions," Hesperia 5 (1936) 555-450. Wade-Gery, H. T. and McGregor, M. F. The Athenian Tribute L i s t s , Toi. 5. Princeton 1950. Mette, H. J. Djr Verlorene Aischylos. Berlin 1965. Michel, C. Reoueil d* Inscriptions Grecques. Brussels 1900. Michell, H. The Economics of Ancient Greece. Cambridge 1940. Newman, W. L. The P o l i t i c s of Aristotle. Vol. 1. Oxford 1887. Oliver, J. H. "The Reforms of Kleisthenes," Historia 9 (1960) 503-507. Orth, E. "Landwirtschaft," RE 12 (1925) 624-676. Paton, J. M. See Caskey. Pickard-Cambridge, Sir A r t h u r . The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. Oxford 1953. Pope, H. Non-Athenians in Attic' Inscriptions. New York 1935. Raubitschek, A. "The Heroes of Phyle," Hesperia 10 (1941) 284-295. Saglio, E. See Daremberg. Scott, R. See Li d d e l l . Sealey, R. "Regionalism in Archaic Athens," Historia 9 (1960) 155-180. 1 1 4 Smith, G. "Athenian Casualty L i s t s , CP 1 4 ( 1 9 1 9 ) 3 5 1 - 3 6 4 . See Bonner. Stevens, G. P. See Caskey. Swoboda, H. See Busolt. Thalheim, T. ""EYHTTIO' IC, ," RE 5 ( 1 9 0 5 ) 2 5 8 4 - 2 5 8 5 . Io-oreAeic. ," RE 9 ( 1 9 1 6 ) 2 2 3 1 - 2 2 3 3 . Thumser, V. "Untersuchungen uber die attischen Met'oken," Wiener Studien 7 ( 1 8 8 5 ) 4 5 - 6 8 . Tod, M. N. "Some Unpublished 'Catalogi Paterarum Argentearum'," BSA 8 ( 1 9 0 1 ) 1 9 7 - 2 3 0 . A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. 2 vols. (Yol. 1 , second edition). Oxford 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 4 8 . Yan Hook, L . "?fes Athens in the Age of Perikles Aristocratic?" CJ 1 4 ( 1 9 1 9 ) 4 7 2 - 4 9 7 . Wade-Gery, H. T. Essays in Greek History. Oxford 1 9 5 8 . See Meritt. Walker, E. M. "The Periklean Democracy," CAE 5: Athens 4 7 8 - 4 0 1 B.C. (Cambridge 1 9 3 5 ) 9 8 - 1 1 2 . Weber, M. Wirtschaft und c-'Sesellschaft. Yol. 2. Tubingen 1 9 4 7 . Westermann,.W. L. "Two Studies in Athenian Manumissions," The Journal of Near East Studies 5 ( 1 9 4 6 ) 9 2 - 1 0 4 . Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. "Demotika der attischen Metoeken," Hermes 2 2 ( 1 8 8 7 ) 1 0 7 - 1 2 8 and 2 1 1 - 2 5 9 . Wycherley, R. E. The Athenian Agora. Yol. 3: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia. Princeton 1 9 5 7 . Zimmern, A. E. The Greek Commonvjealth. F i f t h edition. Oxford 1 9 3 1 . 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items