Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

HOME ABOUT THIS RESOURCE PERSEUS DIGITAL LIBRARY AT TUFTS ARTFL PROJECT CLASSICS AT CHICAGO

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

search help report a problem NA [1890], A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Trustees of Tufts University, Albemarle Street, London) [word count] [antiquities_dico4].

abbreviations Previous Article Next Article

CIVITAS
CIVITAS ( ), citizenship.

1. Greek.
In the third book of the Politics, Aristotle commences his inquiry into the nature of states with the question, What constitutes a citizen? (). He defines a citizen to be one who is a partner in the legislative and judicial power (1, 4, : and 8b ). No definition will equally apply to all the different states of Greece, or to any single state at different times; the above seems to comprehend more or less properly all those whom the common use of language entitled to the name. In the Heroic ages the kings were the commanders in war, offered up certain sacrifices ( ) to the gods, and administered justice (Arist. Pol. 3.9, 7 S. = 14, 12 B.); their authority was however limited by the nobles, to whom sometimes the title of was given (Od. 1.394; 6.54; 8.41. 390) as well as to the monarch himself. Without their advice and assent no important matter was undertaken, and they shared also in the administration of justice, but to what extent cannot be defined. Gladstone (Stud. on Hom. 3. p. 57) thinks that the nobles acted judicially only by an actual or virtual delegation from the king. The freemen assembled only to listen (Arist. Schol. Il. 9.17) and hear the intentions of the king and the nobles announced; Gladstone (p. 126 ff.), however, is of opinion that the function of the people was not so confined: the people was in part a judicial body, and took a real part in the conduct of public affairs. In Attica the power of the chief king was especially limited by the circumstance that the people was divided into several independent communities, each under its own head (in Plut. Thes. 32, these heads are called ). Theseus is said to have united them into a single state and to have made Athens the seat of government and of the administration of justice in all important cases (Thuc. 2.15), and to have forced the Eupatridae of the different communities to settle at Athens (Plut. Thes. 32; cf. Plat. Critias, p. 110 C,

1 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

and Etym. M. s. v. =Bekk. Anecd. 257, 7 ff. In Solon Fragm. 4, 5 ff., = ). Plutarch (ZYYPlut. Thes. 25) ascribes to Theseus the distribution of the population of Attica into , (Poll. 8.111; , Arist. in Schol. Plat. Axioch. p. 371 D: cf. fragm. of lexicon in Bull. de Corresp. hell. 1. p. 152; in Arist. fragm. . ., Berl. Papyrus, 163), and , Etym. M. l. c.; Dion. Halic. 2.8 distinguishes and ). There is a wide difference of opinion as to the relation existing between these three classes and the four Ionic tribes,--, , and ,--each tribe comprising three phratries and each phratry containing thirty . [[ERROR: no link cross:]TRIBUS] Some, like Grote (3.72), see in the Eupatridae the wealthy and powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in all the various gentes, and consider this triple distinction to be disparate and unconnected with the four tribes; others (Hermann, Griech. Staatsalt. 97, 12) identify the Eupatridae with the Geleontes and Hopletes, and the Geomori and Demiurgi with the Aegicoreis and Argadeis respectively; and a third class (Philippi, Beitr. z. e. Gesch. d. att. Brgerrechts, p. 208, n. 56) hold that the tribes originally comprised the Eupatridae only, and that it was Solon who first gave the mass of the people a place in the system of tribes and phratries. In the earliest times the guidance of public affairs in conjunction with the king, the administration of justice, and the priestly functions belonged exclusively to the Eupatridae (Plut. Thes. 25; the three were always of this class, C. I. G. i. No. 765); out of their number the four were taken (Poll. 8.111; hence it follows that others than nobles must have belonged to the tribes; cf. also Draco's law in Dem. c. Macart., p. 1069.57, and C. I. A. i. No. 61, ), and by their side the other two classes were of little political importance, and the Demiurgi perhaps of less even than the Geomoroi (cf. Athen. 23. p. 660 d). The ascendency of the Eupatridae continued after the establishment of the archonship through its various changes down to Solon, who introduced a new principle of classification, the timocratic principle, by distributing all the citizens of the tribes (which he did not abolish, Phot. s. v. ), without any reference to their and phratries, into four classes (Harpocr. s. v. : Plut. Sol. 18), according to the amount of produce from their lands (this was changed after the time of the Pisistratids: cf. Thuc. 4.54, 5-Z1, : Beloch, Herm. 1885, p. 245). It is true that of these four classes only the first three were eligible for public offices (Arist. Pol. 2.9, 4 S. = 12, 6 B), and only the first for the archonship. (Plut. Arist. 1 ; Landwehr, Philologus, Suppl. 5. p. 118 if., whom Busolt, Griech. Gesch. 1. p. 531, n. 1, follows, explains this passage to refer to the Eupatridae, not to the first census class ; yet see the question put in the of the archons, , Poll. 8.85, which was afterwards altered to , Lex. Rhet. Cant. p. 670, 19, and Cratinus in Athen. 11. p. 460 f.). But even the lowest possessed certain important rights and were exempted from military service as hoplites (Harpocr. s. v. , etc.). According to Grote (3.121) and others, They were invested with the right of choosing the annual archons out of the first class, and the archons and the magistrates generally, after their year of office, were made formally accountable to the public assembly sitting in judgment upon their past conduct. In Grote's opinion the institution of Heliastic courts dates from the time of Pericles; Schoemann, however, ascribes it to Solon, and as we think with justice, so far at least as the first beginnings are concerned: the is mentioned in a Solonian law (Lys. 10.16); and as far as our information goes, magistrates, etc. rendered their account always before a court, not before the popular assembly. (See on the whole question Att. Proc., ed. Lipsius, p. 28 ff.) By Solon's reforms a way was opened to every one, if he succeeded in becoming a landed proprietor, to set himself on an equality in point of law with the nobles (Solon is said to have fixed a limit to the acquisition of land, Arist. Pol. 2.4, 4 S.= 7, 6 B., yet see Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 689.208); and, on the other hand, the man of noble birth, if he became poor, ceased to belong to the privileged class. The lost all political importance, but continued to exist. The Berlin Papyrus 163--which, as Bergk (Rh. M. 1881, p. 87 ff.) recognised, contains fragments of Aristotle's --gives us fresh information respecting the archonship. There we learn that after a certain Damasias had been for two years, he was driven from office, and that after this an arrangement was come to according to which four Eupatridae, three , and two Demiurgi should be chosen. The date of this Damasias is variously fixed by scholars: Blass (Herm. 1880, p. 366 ff.; 1881, p. 42 ff.) places him between Eryxias, the last who held the archonship for ten years, and Cleon, the first eponymous of the nine annual archons, but the title of the archon, whether appointed for life or for ten

2 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

years, was . Bergk identifies him with the archon for 639-8 (Dionys. 3.36; cf. Gilbert, Handb. d. gr. Staatsalt. 1. p. 124); yet if at that time the and Demiurgi had been admitted to the archonship, the reform of Solon would have been a reactionary measure, since by it only the first property class were eligible. Hence Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterth. vol. 6. p. 125, n. 2) interprets the passage to mean that the and Demiurgi had the right of electing three and two archons respectively from amongst the Eupatridae; yet this can scarcely be the meaning of the passage: [ '] [ ] . . .] [ ] (Diels, Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1885). There is a second archon Damasias, a contemporary of Thales, between 590 and 580, probably 586-5; and Diels (cf. Landwehr, p. 195 ff., and Busolt, p. 543) identifies him with the Damasias of the papyrus. By Solon's reform, members of the first property class alone were eligible to the archonship; this compromise settled the proportion of archons who were to be elected from the Eupatridae, , and Demiurgi respectively, all however to be of the first property class (according to Busolt, p. 544, this arrangement only held good for the year after Damasias), until by Aristeides' reform the disqualification of the other property classes was removed (Plut. Arist. 22). Cleisthenes abolished the old tribes for civil purposes (according to Philippi, p. 172, they continued to exist as religious bodies), and introduced the local distribution according to demes (one hundred, Hdt. 5.69; cf. Diels, pp. 25, 26) as the foundation of his new ten tribes. Now the deme became the elementary political division, and a man was described by his own name, followed first by the name of his father and next by that of the deme to which he belonged: e. g. Cleisthenes likewise reformed the phratries and increased their number to 360, each of the old becoming the centre of a new phratry. (Buermann, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 9. p. 617. Philippi, ibid. 1879, pp. 418, 419, and Sauppe, De Phratriis Attic. p. 7, agree with B. as to the fact of an increase, but do not accept his number of phratries.) Among the citizens we have to distinguish between the naturalised or new citizens (, , or ) and the old citizens ( or , Dem. c. Steph. 1. p. 1125.78). To speak of the former class first: according to Solon's law (Plut. Sol. 24), citizenship could only be conferred upon two classes of foreigners-- ; according to the law quoted in [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375.89, upon those who had rendered the state eminent services (' ),[ERROR: no link :] For Sparta, see below; for Megara, cf. Plut. de Monarch. 9, 285; Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 690.212. Other Greek states admitted foreigners to citizenship, usually as a reward for services rendered to the state, as Miletus (' : Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Gr. 314), Dyme ( , 316), Ephesus ( () , etc. 253, 44); in Ephesus and Teos, there were official lists of such new citizens ( , , 134: on the Artemision, cf. Newton and Hicks, Greek Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. iii. n. 448 foll.; , , 165, ll. 29, 30). (Gilbert, Handb. d. griech. Staatsalterth. 2. p. 300, 1, 2). such as Thrasybulus (C. I. A. i. n. 59) or Perdiccas, king of Macedonia, Menon the Pharsalian (Dem. c. Aristocr. pp. 686, 687, 199, 200), etc. In her better time Athens was chary of bestowing this honour, but in the days of Isocrates (8.50) and Demosthenes (c. Aristocr. p. 687.200) it was given so frequently as to lower its value. Cotys, king of Thrace, received this honour, and so did Python and Heracleides, who murdered him (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 659.119). Aristonicus was made an Athenian citizen because of his skill in ball playing (Athen. 1.34, p. 19 a). Cleisthenes, for political reasons, conferred citizenship on foreigners settled in Attica, and on manumitted slaves who had acquired the position of metoeci. (Bernays, d. heracl. Briefe, p. 155, thus explains , Arist. Pol. 3.1, 10 S.=2, 3 B.) The Plataeans were admitted to citizenship after the destruction of their town in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians not forgetting that their whole force had spontaneously joined them at Marathon. When Aristophanes says that the slaves who had fought at Arginusae (Schol. Arist. Ran. 706; Andoc. 2.23) became Plataeans, this must be taken to mean that they

3 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

were granted land in the territory of Scione which had been handed over to the Plataeans (Thuc. 5.32; Isocr. 4.109. Kirchhoff, Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1873, pp. 9, 10.) After the defeat at Chaeroneia, Hypereides made, amongst others, the following proposal (fr. 33, Blass), probably only on condition of their taking their part in the defence of the country. Citizenship was conferred by the popular assembly in the following way: in the first assembly the people bestowed the gift, but it did not become valid (), unless it was confirmed by a majority in the ensuing assembly, at which at least 6000 must be present and vote (secret voting by ballot). As the second voting is not mentioned in the oldest inscription bearing on the question (soon after Eucleides, and being still used for and ),[ERROR: no link :] 1883, pp. 37, 38: (and some others) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] , etc. Szanto (Rh. M. 1885, p. 507 n.) concludes that it was not introduced before the beginning of the 4th century. The decree in C. I. A. 1.59 (Hicks, Manual of Gr. Hist. Inscr. p. 105 ff.) does not help us in this question, for, as Kirchhoff (Ber. d. Berl. Akad., 1861, p. 605) shows, it is merely a former decree confirmed. It had been proposed to grant civic rights to Thrasybulus and Apollodorus (Lys. 13.71): a was brought against this proposal, and the court decided for Thrasybulus, but against Apollodorus. Even after the second vote, it was open to every Athenian who considered the candidate undeserving of the honour, to bring a : and instances of reversal following upon this are given by [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375.91; [Plut.] Vitt. x. Oratt. p. 835; Aesch. 3.195. Fraenkel, Att. Geschworengerichte, p. 35, and Hartel, Stud. . att. Staatsrecht, p. 271, say that in every case a before a heliastic court was required, whether a was brought or not. They refer to [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1381.105; yet that was a special occasion, when, owing to the great number of candidates and to the peculiar nature of the case, special measures were needed (Att. Proc. p. 255), and Buermann (Jahrb. f. class. Philol. Suppl. x., p. 347 if.) has shown that a did not become a regular institution until Olymp. 115. Up to that time the formula was (with slight variations): (2) (3) --from Olymp. 115 to Olymp. 124 we find in some instances added (4) ' , and soon after the Chremonidean war it ran: (2) , , (3) . Since we find in all such decrees or (or ) , it is clearly proved against the generally received opinion (Philippi, p. 107 ff.) that the were enrolled in the phratries as well. Buermann (Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 9. p. 597 ff.) points also to other reasons leading to the same conclusion. We learn from [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1376.92; p. 1381.106, that the law expressly declares (i.e. ) , but that to their descendants , . Since on the occasion of the the candidate was asked if he had a share in the worship of Apollo and Zeus (Aristotle in Lex. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 670, 17; Poll. 8.85; according to Sauppe, de phratr. Att. p. 7 ff. and since Cleisthenes' reform), i. e. in the worship of the phratries, it follows that the children of a new citizen and of an and must necessarily belong to a phratry. The sons of a new citizen, born before citizenship was conferred on him, were excluded from the archonship for the same reason as their father: thus Gilbert (1. p. 178) explains Poll. 8.85, ; whilst Meier (de bon. damn. p. 235) supposes that this statement of Pollux and the above of [Demosthenes] refer to different periods. With this exception, the enjoyed the same privileges with the citizens by birth. In some decrees the choice of phratries is qualified by additions such as , etc., perhaps to prevent too many new citizens being in the same phratry, to the disadvantage of the old citizens: in other Greek states they were distributed by lot (Philippi, p. 113, n. 92; Greek Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. ii. n. 237; cf. [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1380.104). The phratries in Cleisthenes' reform occupied therefore a different position from the one usually assigned to them. (Meier, de Gentil. p. 15: curiae suos quaeque mores sequebantur neque plebis sed suis scitis regebantur. )
4 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

Aristotle (Pol. 3.1, 9 S.=2, 1 B.) gives, as a practical definition of a citizen, , .[ERROR: no link :] For Oreos, cf. Dem. in Aristocr. p. 691.213; for Byzantium, cf. [Arist.] Oecon. 2.2, 3 (Did.), ;; ;;; for Cos, cf. Cauer, Delectus Inscr. Gr. No. 161 (Gilbert, 2. p. 297). The latter class (viz. children of an Athenian father), some maintain, possessed in earlier times civic rights, until by a law of Pericles ( , Plut. Per. 37) they were deprived of them: about 5000 were thus excluded, 14,040 remaining in the enjoyment of citizenship. On the ground that such a law having retrospective effect would be extremely harsh, Westermann (Verh. d. Schs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1849, p. 200 ff.) assigns it to Solon's legislation; and Meier (de bon. damn. p. 78) holds that Pericles simply proposed a on the lines of it. (Plutarch calls it a of Pericles, but cf. Isaeus, 12 argum., and Dem. in Eubul. p. 1298 argum.) Schenkl (Wiener Stud. 1883, p. 52 ff.) believes that Pericles actually passed a new law; to Solon's law (Arist. Av. 1661), he conjectures, was added by Cleisthenes , to provide for the children of those foreigners upon whom he had conferred citizenship, and of non-Athenian mothers (by which provision other classes of likewise profited) ; and Pericles, when there was no longer occasion for such exceptional legislation, passed the law , (Ael. Var. Hist. 6.10; cf. Suid. s. v. ). Duncker (Ber. . d. Sitz. d. Berl. Akad. 1883, p. 935 ff.), on the other hand, argues from the later legislation of Aristophon and Nicomenes, that no such law as is ascribed to Solon against can have existed, and looks upon the law of Pericles against as a mere invention of the rhetors: this fictitious law was joined to the account given by Philochorus (fr. 90, Mller = Schol. Arist. Vesp. 715) of what happened when the king of Egypt (Amyrtaeus, not Psammetichus) sent grain to Athens as a present. At that time measures were taken not against , but against those who claimed a share in the grain without being citizens by right (, to the number of 4760), and 14,240 therefore does not represent the total number of citizens that remained after the lists had been purged, but the number of those who received the grain; such a total would be too low as compared with the 30,000 mentioned by Herodotus ZYZ(Hdt. 5.97; 8.65-Z2), and the 26,000 citizen hoplites and 1200 cavalry for the year 431 (Thuc. 2.13,31, but see Boeckh, Staatsh. 1. p. 50, on Herodotus's statement; according to Hansen, Ueb. d. Bevlkerungsdichtigkeit Att. p. 13, the total armed citizen force, including those below and above the ordinary military age--from the 20th to the 50th year-amounted in 431 to 19,100 only). In B.C. 403 Aristophon proposed a law : it was carried with the amendment of Nicomenes (Caryst. fr. 11 b, Mller = Athen. 13.577 c--Schol. Aesch. 1.39); cf. Isaeus, 8.43, and Dem. in Eubul. p. 1307.30, --i.e. a patre, according to Schmann, Antiq. jur. publ. Gr. p. 197, n. 7, and Philippi, p. 63 ff.; ab altera utra parte, according to Platner, Beitr. p. 108 (but see p. 325), and Van den Es, de jur. fam. pp. 28, 75. This law was still observed in the time of Demosthenes in Eubul. p. 1299.2; the diapsephisis of 346-5 was proposed by Demophilus, Aeschin. 1.86, and Schol. 1.77). But the citizenship of the parents (sometimes the right of intermarriage, , was granted, e. g. to the Euboeans and Plataeans, Lys. 34.3; Isocr. 14.51[ERROR: no link :] See also the treaty between Hierapytna and Priansus (C. I. Gr. 2556), between Olus and Latus (C. I. Gr. 2554), the decree of the Messenians (Dittenberger, 181). (Gilbert, 2. p. 379.) ) was not enough to secure civic rights to their offspring, according to Philippi, p. 79 ff., and Buermann, p. 635 ff. The law, they say, required also certain formalities: the betrothal, , of the bride by her and the ; and in the case of heiresses the on the part of the archon. Children born by an Athenian woman who was living with the father in a connexion not recognised by law were deprived of all the rights of kinship (, Isaeus, 6.47, etc.) and of all political rights. Yet Caillemer (Annuaire de l'Association pour encour. des Etudes Gr. 1878, p. 184 ff.), whom Lipsius follows (Att. Proc. p. 533, n. 143), has ably defended the older view, that citizenship descended to the children of citizens on both sides, even without the legal form of marriage; that such children, without being admitted to the phratries, belonged to a deme, and consequently possessed civic rights (Dem. in Boeot. de nom. p.

5 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

1002.25; p. 1001.23; p. 1002.28), and that by a formal act of recognition of parentage ( , Dem. p. 1003, 29, 30; Andoc. 1, 124) they could be made to share all the rights of those born in wedlock. Without this act of recognition such children could only claim the (Harpocr. s. v.). The registration of a child in the official register of the phratry ( , Dem. in Leoch. p. 1092.41, or . Isaeus, 7.16, 17; Harpocr. etc. ;-- , Isaeus, 6.21, 8.19; Dem. in Boeot. de nom. p. 995.4; in Macart. p. 1054.13; in Eubul. p. 1315.54;-- , Dem. p. 995.4; Isaeus, 7.17), on the third day of the Apaturian festival (), formed a recognition of legitimacy of birth: now the child possessed all the rights of kinship (Suid. s.v. : ). An adopted son (, ) was probably registered on the same day (in the month of Thargelion in Isaeus, 7.15, 16, for some special reason). This registration was connected with certain rites, which were, however, not the same in all the phratries: a sheep or a goat (Poll. 3.52) of a certain weight (Schol. Arist. Ran. 810) was sacrificed and distributed (, Dem. in Macart. p. 1078.82; Harpocr. ), together with a certain quantity of wine among the phrateres;[ERROR: no link :] Cf. the Gortyn Code, 10.38 foll.; Rh. M. Supplem. 1885, pp. 37, 55. and in some phratries and the father had to declare upon oath that the child was (Att. Proc. p. 543, n. 166).[ERROR: no link :] In some inscriptions of Calymna (Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. ii. n. 315-320) the mother made this declaration on oath ( or ). From C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, and Isaeus, 7.16, Szanto (Rh. M. 1885, p. 515 ff.) concludes that the and had a common register, which was kept either by the phratry or by the , e. g. in Andoc. 1.125, the phratry being, however, responsible. Gilbert (Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1887, p. 23 ff.) on the other hand sees in the that portion of the phratry (whose was at Oeon) which was settled at Deceleia; on account of frequent false entries in the on their part, special measures were devised. Busolt (Mller's Handb. d. cl. Altert.-Wiss. 4. p. 145) suggests that the second vote in the year succeeding the entry was a general custom from 396-5 onwards; in his opinion meant the sacrifice for boys, and that for girls. It would seem that there was a second eisegesis to the phrateres, when the grown--up youth was received amongst the by the solemn act of cutting off his hair (Plut. Thes. 5; Theophr. Char. 21) and sacrifice: this was probably called , for from C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, it is evident that and cannot be two names for the same sacrifice; cf. Poll. 8.107, . This was merely a religious ceremony, a survival of the ancient Aryan usage (cf. Leist, Graeco-ital. Rechtsgesch. p. 67); the civil act took place before the demotae. In the beginning of the calendar year, in the course of which the youth reached his eighteenth year, he was entered in the (called . Dem. in Eubul. p. 1317.60; cf. Bekk. Anecd. p. 272, 27 ff.); adopted sons were enrolled later on in the year, probably in. the month of Munychion, at the time of the (C. I. A. ii. No. 416; Dem. in Leoch. p. 1092.39; and Isaeus, 7.27, 28: cf. Lipsius, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 1878, p. 299 ff.); Philippi (Rh. M. 1879, p. 610) refers the to the elections of the magistrates of the deme (not of the state), fixes them early in the year, and thus places the enrolment of adopted. sons at the same time with that of the others. On this occasion the demotae instituted a kind of : they inquired whether the candidates had attained the necessary age, then with regard to the latter class whether they were of civic descent, and whether those of the former had been legally adopted. A had to prove his rights by a reference to the popular decree which conferred citizenship on him ( , Dem. in Nicostr. p. 1252.18). Hence we find used instead of or . (Dem. in Eubul. p. 1318, 61, 62). A special is mentioned in [Xenoph.] de Repub. Athen. 3, 4: Kirchhoff, Ueb. d. Schrift v. Staate d. Ath. p. 23, connects this passage with Aristoph. Vesp. 576. Orphans, it would seem, were specially examined before a. as to their bodily and mental fitness to administer their property, (cf. Lcx. Seguer. p. 235, 13). Wilamowitz-Mllendorff, Philol. Unters. 1. p. 26, thinks that only the orphans of those who had been killed in war had to undergo this , before they received the

6 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

(Aesch. 3.154). An Athenian duly enrolled was of age (, Xen. Memor. 2.1, 21); he could enter upon his patrimony, if an orphan or the son of an (Hyper. fr. 194 Bl.; hence the name : cf. Harpocr. s. v.) and might marry (Dem. in Boeot. de dote, p. 1009.4); he now became responsible to the laws (Aeschin. 1.18) and could bring actions (Lys. 10.31; Dem. in Onet. 1. p. 865.6), and had to take his share in the public burdens (Dem. de Cor. p. 312.257; orphans were the first year, Lys. 32.24). It would seem that enrolment in the did not ipso jure lead to enrolment in the ., as Voemel (Zeitschr. f. A. W. 1846, p. 122) supposes, especially not in the case of adopted sons: cf. the case of Thrasyllus in Isaeus, vii.; and from Dem. in Boeot. de nom. p. 996.5, we learn that a person could be entered under different names in the two registers (Schaefer, Dem. u. s. Zeit, 3.2, p. 26 ff.). At the same time the names of the were (before the days of Aristotle) entered , together with the name of the archon of the year and also of the previous year, thus forming a list of all the of each year (Harpocr. s. v. ): this list was different from the of those actually called out to serve on a particular occasion (Arist. Eq. 1369; Pac. 1179; Lys. 15.5, 16.13: cf. Lange, Leipz. Stud. 1. p. 164 ff.). Whether the young citizens were at the same time entered into the (Dem. in Leoch. p. 1091.35) and allowed to attend the popular assembly, or had to wait until they were twenty years old, is not quite clear. From instances like that of Glaucon ( , Xen. Mem. 3.6, 1-Z1) and Plat. Alc. p. 123 D, it would seem that the law did not prevent it (Schaefer, p. 36). At any rate for one year (Dittenberger, de ephebis Att. p. 12), if not for both (Schaefer, p. 33), they had to serve as in the country. At the age of thirty an Athenian could become (Xen. Mem. 1.2, 35-Z1) and (Poll. 8.122); at the age of fifty, (Bekk. Anecd. 188, 30; Phot. s. v. 2) or (Bekk. Anecd. 186, 1; according to Poll. 8.126, only at the age of sixty). denotes the undiminished possession of civic rights [[ERROR: no link cross:]ATIMIA]. Special privileges were , , [PRYTANEIUM]. (Gilbert, 1. p. 188 ff.) If we would picture to ourselves the true notion which the Greeks embodied in the word , we must lay aside all modern ideas respecting the nature and object of a state. With us practically, if not in theory, the object of a state hardly embraces more than the protection of life and property. The Greeks, on the other hand, had the most vivid conception of the state as a whole, every part of which was to co-operate to some great end to which all other duties were considered as subordinate. Thus the aim of democracy was said to be liberty; wealth, of oligarchy; and education, of aristocracy. In all governments the endeavour was to draw the social union as close as possible, and it seems to have been with this view that Aristotle laid down a principle which answered well enough to the accidental circumstances of the Greek states, that a must be of a certain size (Pol. 4.4, 6 S.=7.4, 9 B.; Nic. Eth. 9.10, ). This unity of purpose was nowhere so fully carried out as in the government of Sparta, and in the other Dorian governments. [ crossCOSMI] The population of the Spartan state consisted of three different classes: the Dorian full citizens, the dependent Perioeci, and the serfs or helots. There seem to have been few slaves in the country acquired either by purchase (cf. Heracl. Pont.; Mller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2.2, 210, 2, 2) or by capture in war (Schoemann, Gr. Alterth. 1. p. 201, but see Bchsenschtz, Besitz u. Erwerb, p. 172, n. 2). Properly speaking, the helots cannot be said to have had any political rights; yet being serfs of the soil ( , Paus. 3.20, 6-Z1), they were not absolutely under the control of their masters (Poll. 3.83, ), and were never sold out of the country, even by the state itself. They cultivated the fields of their Spartan lords, but were bound to surrender only a legally fixed portion of the produce (Plut. Lyc. 8; Athen. 14. p. 657 d); the amount could not be raised by the owners of the soil, so that the helots could acquire a certain amount of private property. When Cleomenes III. offered manumission to every helot who could pay down five minae, 6000 could raise this sum. In

7 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

war-time the helots were employed as shield-bearers to the hoplites, as light-armed troops (Hdt. 9.28), and during the Peloponnesian war they served as marines (Xen. Hell. 7.1, 12-Z1), and sometimes even as hoplites (Thuc. 4.80; 7.19-Z2, etc.). In the war with Thebes those helots were invited to come forward who were willing to serve as hoplites, the promise of emancipation being held out to them as a reward (Xen. Hell. 6.5, 28-Z1); indeed, when they served among the heavy-armed, it seems to have been usual to give them their liberty. Out of the class of helots, emancipated as a reward for military and other services rendered to the state, (according to Arnold, ad Thuc. 5.34, out of the children of such emancipated helots,) there grew up a separate class, the (Poll. 3.83; not mentioned before the time of the Peloponnesian war). Their number increased fast: in 400 about 1,000 Neodamodes served under Thimbron in Asia, and Agesilaus undertook to carry on the war against Persia with thirty Spartiatae, 2,000 Neodamodes, and 6,000 allies. Probably a fixed place of residence was assigned them; for to the helots of Brasidas it was specially granted (Thuc. 5.34). As to their position in the state nothing definite can be said; only so much is certain, that they were not admitted to the rights of Spartan citizenship, as the name might suggest. The or were helot children (generally the sons of Spartans by helot women) who had together with the Spartan children gone through the prescribed course of education and discipline. Some (Hermann, Griech. Antiq. 1.25, says all, but cf. Xen. Hell. 5.3, 8-Z1; Grote, 2. p. 417, calls them citizens with a certain taint of inferiority ) of them enjoyed full civic rights, probably after having been adopted, such as Callicratidas, Lysander, Gylippus (Schoemann, Opusc. 1. p. 127). As to the peculiar case of emancipation in the first Messenian war, see [ERROR: no link cross:]PARTHENIAE The name of is derived by some from the name of the town of , whose inhabitants were said to have risen against the Dorians already established in power and to have been reduced by Sparta to this state of degradation (but the inhabitants of are called or or ); by others from , therefore prisoners, or from (= , Suid.), low-land (E. Curtius, Pelop. 2.288, explains thus the name of the town of ), therefore the dwellers in the low-land on the banks of the river Eurotas (Gilbert, 1. p. 31, n. 2). Mller (Dorians, 2.31) considers them an aboriginal race subdued by the Achaeans, who immediately passed over as slaves to the Doric conquerors; Schoemann (Gr. Alterth. 1. p. 195) dissents from this. The [ERROR: no link :] Perioeci existed also at Argos; the Argives admitted some of them to citizenship (Arist. Polit. 8.3, 8 S.= 5.3, 7 B. and note No. 1518 S.). For the in Crete, cf. crossCOSMI were politically dependent on the Spartans; without having any share in the administration of the state, without even being admitted to the public assemblies of the people, they had to obey the commands of the state and to perform certain services, both with their persons and their properties. They had to pay certain taxes and dues (Strab. 8. p. 365; Plat. Alcib. 123 A, ), and in wartime to serve as light-armed troops and as hoplites: thus, in the battle of Plataeae, by the side of 5,000 Spartiatae there fought 5,000 Perioeci as hoplites (Hdt. 9.28), and on one occasion a Perioecos was in command of the fleet (Thuc. 8.22, cf. 6). They possessed most probably civic rights in the communities ( , Hdt. 7.234; cf. Strab. 8. p. 362 s. fin.) to which they belonged, but Sparta seems to have always exercised a controlling supervision. It would appear that the Perioeci were distributed into twenty districts, each presided over by a harmost (Schoemann, Antiq. Jur. P. Gr. p. 113, 5; Griech. Alterth. 1. p. 205: mentioned in an inscr. from Cythera, see Mitth. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. in Athen, 5, 231, 239; and about the sent annually, cf. Thuc. 4.53); and although Isocrates' account (12.177 ff.) of the position of the Perioeci is probably exaggerated, he may be supposed to state a fact when he says, (cf. Grote, 2. p. 369). Some enjoyed special privileges with regard to military service, as e. g. the Sciritae, who formed a special corps of light infantry which was used exclusively for outpost duty in camp, etc. (Xen. de Rep. Lac. 12, 3, and Haase ad l. l. p. 235), and in battle their place was on the left wing (Thuc. 5.67). In time of peace the Perioeci pursued agriculture (according to Grote, 2. p. 371; they employed helots) and enjoyed the exclusive privilege of engaging in commerce and trades, which were forbidden the Spartans by law

8 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

(Plut. Lyc. 4); and that their industry was not confined to the mere drudgery of manufactures is shown by the schools of Lacedaemonian embossers and brass-founders, to which Chartas, etc. belonged (Mller, Dorians, 2. p. 26). The ruling class of citizens derived their name of from the capital, whilst the name is common to them with the Perioeci. Full civic rights did not depend upon birth alone; only those were full citizens () who had fulfilled all the exigencies of the Lycurgean discipline (Xen. de Rep. Laced. 10, 7), and continued to contribute and to belong to the (Arist. Pol. 2.6, 21 S.= 9, 31 B.; formerly called , as in Crete, then , 7, 3 S. = 10, 5 B.). Those who neglected these two duties were probably excluded from the full civic rights; i. e. they were not eligible to honours or public offices, but enjoyed only personal rights: these are probably the mentioned by Xenophon (ZYYXen. Hell. 3.3, 6-Z1). In legal rights all were equal, but within them, as Schoemann has it (Griech. Altertis. 1. p. 217) there were two distinct classes: the minority of rich, influential, cultured citizens, who to a certain extent claimed a kind of superior nobility (the of Aristotle, from whom the twenty-eight members of the gerousia were taken: Polit. 2.6, 15 S.=9, 22 B.), and a majority of poor and uncultured members, who, though equal to the former in the eye of the law, were in reality in an inferior position, and might be described in opposition to them as the , or mass of the citizens (Schoemann, Opusc. 1. p. 138 ff.). Susemihl (notes 322b and 1264) doubts the existence of a superior nobility among the Spartans, from whom alone the were elected, being simply the fittest, and the office being a reward of virtue (cf. Dem. in Lept. p. 489.107). If this be so, Aristotle cannot refer to their mode of election when he says: , , (Polit. 2.7, 3 S. = 10, 6 B.); for the members of the Cretan were elected from those who had been , and the were chosen . The (Hesych. , etc.; Plut. Lyc. 6, etc.), which all Spartans of thirty years and upwards were privileged to attend, elected the Gerontes from the (those above sixty were eligible ; on the mode of election, Plut. Lyc. 26) and the Ephors ; decided ( , Thuc. 1.87) upon a disputed succession to the throne (Hdt. 6.65, 66-Z1; Xen. Hell. 3.3, 1-Z1), concerning peace and war (Thuc. 1.67; Xen. Hell. 3.2, 23-Z1, 4.6-Z2, 3-Z1, etc., 2.2, 20, etc.), treaties with foreign states (Thuc. 5.77). legislative measures, etc. The right of bringing motions before the assembly, and taking part in the debates, seems to have belonged only to the kings, Gerontes, and in later times to the Ephors (see, however, the story in Aesch. 1.180, 181; and Xen. Hell. 6.4, 2-Z1). The people sat, as in most Greek states (Thuc. 1.87, 3-Z1; Vischer, Rhein. Mus. 1873, p. 380). A is only once mentioned by Xen. Hell. 3.3, 8-Z1. Lachmann (d. spart. Staatsverf. 216) sees in it a meeting of the kings, Ephors, and Gerontes; Schoemann (Gr. Staatsalt. 1. p. 235) an assembly of the who happened to be in town, perhaps only of the more aged. (Cf. Dittenberger, Syll. Inscr. Gr. n. 255, 1. 41 (Gythion), , etc., and footnote.) Admission into this citizen class was so rare an occurrence that Herodotus ZYZ(Hdt. 9.35) declares the naturalisation of two Eleans at the time of the second Persian war to be the only known instance of the kind; but from Plato (Legg. 1. p. 629 A) we learn that Tyrtaeus was admitted to the citizenship, and according to Plutarch (ZYYPlut. Dio 17) Dion was also made a Spartan citizen (cf. also Arist. Polit. 2.6, 12 S. =9, 17 B.). Occasionally those were made citizens who had been sent to Sparta as children to share in the prescribed discipline (the of Xen. Hell. 5.3, 9-Z1; cf: Haase ad Xen. de Rep. Lac. p. 187). The number of Spartans was in historic times continually on the decrease: whilst it amounted to 8,000 in the times of the Persian wars (Hdt. 7.234), it had dwindled down in the days of Aristotle to below 1,000 (Polit. 2.6, 11=9, 16 B.; cf. Plut. Ag. 5). In earlier times the Spartans admitted into their ranks a considerable number of non-Dorians, and a greater exclusiveness showed itself probably only after their power was consolidated. Some even think that the third Dorian tribe, , was so called from the foreign elements admitted into it, a view from which Busolt (Gr. Gesch. 1. p. 108) dissents. No distinction of privileges existed between these three tribes--, and --that are found wherever there were Dorians (O. Mller, Dor. 2. p. 76 ff. Hdt. 4.179 uses probably in a loose sense when he speaks of the Aegidae as a . For the in Argos, see an inscription of the third century B.C., published in Bull. de Corresp. Hell. 1885, p. 350). These three tribes were divided into twenty-seven phratries (Demetrius of Scepsis in Athen. 4. p. 141 e, f). Besides this, there was a local division of the Spartans into five : , , , , and , with as

9 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

subdivisions (cf. the rhetra in Plut. Lyc. 6, , etc.). [[ERROR: no link cross:]RHETRA] This division into was extended at a later period to communities of the Perioeci ( , Mitt. d. arch. Inst. 3. p. 165). [[ERROR: no link cross:]H.H] [ERROR: no link cross:](Appendix). The if right in this matter, throws a new light upon the legislation of Draco: in a less degree, on that of Solon and Cleisthenes. From 100.4 it appears that Draco not merely codified the law (though this is particularly emphasised in the summary of political changes in 100.41, [ERROR: no link :] Mr. Kenyon infers from 100.3, [] , that the thesmothetae received their name not merely from the fact that they made law by administering it, but from being the first to lay it down in written decisions. There was, therefore, some written basis of law before the time of Draco. ), but also gave Athens a constitution. A share in the government ( ) was given to all who could furnish a military equipment ( --the same qualification was necessary after the overthrow of the Four Hundred, Thuc. 8.97: , ). This body elected () the more important magistrates. There were property qualifications of varying amount for the different offices, e. g. of 100 (?: cf. Appendix, s. v. [ERROR: no link cross:]STRATEGUS) minae for and , they had besides to be married and to have children more than ten years old; cf. Dinarch. c. Dem. 71: , , , etc.; the property qualification of the nine archons and the was only 10 minae. Moreover 401 members of this body (over thirty years of age) were elected by lot as senate, and some others were in the same way appointed to some less important magistracies; but as no one could be a member of the senate or hold one of these offices a second time, before all other qualified persons had had their turn, the lot decided merely the order in which such persons should succeed. According to . . the creation of a senate, which has hitherto been ascribed to Solon, was the work of Draco; nor was the property classification Solon's work, for it is incidentally mentioned as existing in the time of Draco, who ordained that for non-attendance at a meeting of the or a senator should pay three, two, or one drachma according as he was a , a or a . No further information is given as to the functions of and ; probably they did not exercise any important powers, the Areopagitic council having still (as before 100.3) control over all the magistrates, and being the guardian of the laws ( cf. Tisamenus' decree in Andoc. Myst. 84, , ); in fact it would seem to have possessed the right of revising decisions ( [ ] [] ) These constitutional changes failed, however, to remove the prevailing distress: they did not touch the large class of people who could not furnish a military equipment, and these remained as before [] (cc. 2, 5). Solon therefore, when he was elected by the contending parties (), first attacked the economic question, as has been described under [ERROR: no link cross:]SEISACHTHEIA (cf. . . cc. 9, 10). Then all the laws of Draco () except those on homicide were repealed, and the new code of laws (, 100.6; , cc. 12, 35) was written on and placed (=Harpocr. s. v. ). The most democratic features of his constitution are said to be: the prohibition of borrowing on the security of a man's person, the right of every one to commence an action for wrong done to him-- [, Mr. Kenyon] --and the right of appeal to a court of law--[] -- . [-] []. (100.9). As regards Solon's reconstruction of the constitution, he used the classification of the people according to their property for political purposes (100.7): offices (archons, , , , ) were filled from the first three property classes, some from one, others from another ( [][] [ ], e. g. only Pentacosiomedimnoi were eligible as archons and ,

10 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

and it was not until 457 B.C. that were admitted to the archonship (100.26, the must have become qualified before that time), whilst the had to be members of the first class--at least nominally, even in the days of the writer (cc. 8, 47, [-- ] ,-- ' ). To the fourth class, the Thetes, Solon also gave a share of political power for the first time: a voice in the assembly and a seat in the law-courts. Solon re-established the senate to the number of 400 (100 from each tribe), and left to the Areiopagitic council the guardianship of the laws () and its other important functions, giving it the right to pass judgment on those who conspired to overthrow the constitution (100.8, [] , []; cf. the law in 100.16). Cleisthenes put an end to the four old tribes with their subdivisions, the trittyes and naucraries, and instituted a new set of tribes, ten in number ( , 100.21), each to contain three trittyes, of which one was taken from the plain, one from the shore, and one from the mountain. See further under [ERROR: no link cross:]DEMUS Cleisthenes left the and and undisturbed, increased the number of the members of the senate to 500 (fifty from each tribe), and introduced the direct election of the principal magistrates ( , , 100.22) by the popular assembly, which, as far as the nine archons are concerned, remained in force until 487 B.C., when selection by lot, closely resembling that of Solon, seems to have been re-introduced. Out of consideration for the new citizens () whom Cleisthenes had introduced in large numbers, Cleisthenes altered the official mode of designation (100.21) [[ERROR: no link cross:]DEMUS]. The account of Cleisthenes' reforms is summed up (100.22), [ ] (cf. 100.41, but see 100.29, Cleitophon's rider) , , . From 100.40 we learn that Thrasybulus proposed to grant citizenship ( ), and that Archinus instituted against him a . This was Thrasybulus , and Archinus won his case (Aeschin. c. Ctes. 195; one scholiast explains that Thrasybulus proposed civic rights for the orator Cephalus, another for Lysias: cf. [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 835 E f). 100.42 deals with the manner of registration of the youths in the , on completion of their eighteenth year, as it existed isted in the writer's own time. The demotae having sworn the customary oath, decided by vote , and secondly . If they were not satisfied on the former point, the particular youth was relegated to the if they found that a youth was not , the latter might appeal to a court of law, before which the demotae were represented by five elected from amongst themselves; and in case the court decided against the youth, he was sold by the state, whilst, on receiving a verdict in his favour, he was of necessity entered in the register of the deme. A second was instituted by the senate; and if it was found that the name of one under eighteen years had been entered, they inflicted a penalty on the demotae who had admitted him. For details how the youths spent the following two years, see [ERROR: no link cross:]EPHEBUS The account continues: . . . (?) , , . (This refers probably to disputes as to who was entitled to the succession in a priestly office: cf. 100.57 and Pollux, 8.90, () . . . ). The second dokimasia on the part of the senate is, it seems, only mentioned here. As regards the , it is evident from Lys. c. Diog. 24, that orphans were at that time released from liturgies only one year: ( ) , . The list of such lawsuits is either not complete--for see the action in Lys. c. Theomn. ( 4, , . . . . 31, [of the brothers] , )--or it applies to the writer's time only. The time of

11 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

Lysias is referred to by in 100.60, ' ; cf. Lys. pro Olea sacr. 2, : but the punishment mentioned there ( 3, 5, 26, 41) was not death (p. 817 a; cf. also App. s. v. [ERROR: no link cross:]STRATEGUS for the date of the election of generals for special duties). It is stated in 100.26 that in 451 B.C., on the proposal of Pericles, it was decreed (cf. 100.13: among the followers of Pisistratus were also . The account goes on: ' [Mr. Kenyon] [Mr. Kenyon, ] ), and that the same law prevailed in the time of the writer is said in 100.42. No mention is made in the treatise of Aristophon's proposal in B.C. 403, , and of Nicomedes' amendment, , and we know that this became law (Isae. Cir. Her. 43). We find in 100.55 the proceedings at the dokimasia of the nine archons fully described. The questions as to descent bear out Pollux's statement (8.85, ); they were: , , , etc.

2. Roman.
Civitas means (1) state, in the sense of an independent political society, or the whole body of cives or members of such a society: civitates are defined by Cicero (Somn. Scip. 3) as concilium coetusque hominum jure sociati: cf. Dig. 1, 1-Z1, 9-Z1; ib. 11; 1, 2, 2, 4. (2) ' , the Roman state (e.g. in civitate, as distinct from apud hostes, esse, decedere, Dig. 28, 6-Z1, 28-Z1). (3) A town within a state, whether regarded as having a corporate existence (Dig. 50, 16-Z1, 15-Z1; ib. 17, pr.; 30, 122, pr. &c.), or merely from the geographical point of view (e.g. theatra, loca sacra in civitate, Dig. 1, 8-Z1, 6-Z1, 1-Z1: in agro vel civitate rem soli possidere, Dig. 2, 8-Z1, 15-Z1, 1-Z1). (4) The condition or status of a Roman citizen: his rights and duties, as distinguished from those of persons who are not Roman citizens; as in the common phrases civitatem dare, civitate donare, civitatem usurpare. In this article it is proposed briefly to examine what these rights and duties are ; how they are shared in greater or less extent by different classes of persons who are members of the Roman state; how they are acquired, and how they are lost. Under the republic, citizens of Rome seem to be divisible into cives optimo jure and cives non optimo jurc. The first, whether patricians or plebeians, enjoyed the full rights of civitas, which were either public or private. The former are those known as suffragium and honores,--the right of voting in the comitia (especially the comitia tributa), whether in elections or on debates, and the capacity to fill the praetorship, consulship, and other Roman magistracies. The private rights of civitas are comprised under the two heads of commercium and conubium,--commercium expressing capacity to take part in the dispositions, and under the protection, of the civil law, whether conveyances, contracts, testamentary matters, or litigation; while conubium denotes capacity to enter into a lawful Roman marriage, and thus to acquire patria potestas over its issue. The cives non optimo jure belong to one of these classes: (1) The freedmen of a Roman citizen and their children (Suet. Cl. 24); later (as will be seen), these possessed the jus optimum in many cases, but under the early republic it was not so. Though excluded from honores and from the comitia of the tribes, they were privileged to vote in the comitia centuriata. (2) Municipes, persons belonging to a city other than and at least originally independent of Rome, upon which the civitas Romana had been bestowed. Whether it retained its independence, or whether it was simply regarded as a portion of the Roman state ( quorum civitas universa in civitatem Romanam venit, Paul. Diacon. ex Festo), the municipes had no share in the jus publicum. Livy ZYZ(Liv. 38.36) says that until B.C. 188 the Formiani, Fundani, and Arpinates had the civitas without the suffragium ; and at an earlier time, the people of Anagnia received the civitas sine suffragii latione (Liv. 9.43). See crossCOLONIA (3) Roman citizens originally optimo jure, on whom loss of suffragium had been inflicted as a punishment. This resulted from [ERROR: no link cross:]INFAMIA or from the action of the censors, who were empowered civem tribu movere et aerarium facere for offences which seemed not considerable enough to entail complete loss of civitas (Gell. 16.13). They were not permitted to share in the honour of military service, but in respect of the private rights they stood on the same footing with cives optimo jure.
12 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

This distinction of cives into those with and those without the optimum jus will perhaps explain the opposition which we sometimes find between the jus Quiritium and the civitas Romana (especially in Pliny: Ep. 10.4, 6, 22, 23, 105, 106; cf. Ulpian, Reg. 3, 2). When a Latinus obtains Roman citizenship, he is most usually said to get the jus Quiritium ; when a peregrinus, the term commonly used is civitas. The first expresses the difference between a civis Romanus and other members of the Roman state. Latini were such members; but from the term peregrinus, no inference can be drawn as to whether the individual is a subject of Rome or not. In the time of the classical jurists, the free subjects of the Roman state might be either cives, Latini, or peregrini (Ulpian, Reg. 5, 4; 19, 4; 20, 8; 11, 6); and similarly (Gaius, 1.12) a slave might by manumission become a member of any one of these classes, though his peregrinitas would be a very restricted and unenviable sort of freedom. Civis, according to Ulpian, is he who possesses the complete rights of a Roman citizen, public as well as private. The peregrinus had none of the rights of civitas: but he could contract a marriage which the law recognised for certain purposes; he had rights of property protected by praetorian remedies; he could make all the contracts of the jus gentium (including the gentile forms of stipulation, Gaius, 3.93), and could even execute a will which the law would sanction if testamentary dispositions were in use in his own state. The condition of Latinus was intermediate: he had no conubium, and consequently he could not exercise patria potestas over his children or found a Roman familia, nor as between his children was the tie of agnation recognised,--they were cognates only; nor had he any of the public rights of civitas. But the commercium (unless he were a Latinus Junianus, of which below) belonged to him in its fullest extent. According to Savigny, the notion of civis and civitas had its origin in the union of the patricians and plebeians as one estate. The peregrinitas, in the sense above stated, originated in the conquest of a state by the Romans, when the conquered state did not obtain the civitas; and he conjectures that the notion of peregrinitas was applied originally to all citizens of foreign states which had a foedus with Rome. Civitas, then, historically viewed, was in brief as follows :--Originally the Romans divided all persons into cives and peregrini: apart from public rights, the former had conubium and commercium; the peregrini had neither. But it does not follow that the peregrinus was entirely destitute of rights. He had no legal capacity according to the jus civile, and it is by the jus civile that civitas is determined; but he had a capacity of acquiring rights under the jus gentium as expounded in the praetor's edict, and these rights the Roman tribunals, being under the praetor's control, gradually recognised and protected. Thus the following would be peregrini: (1) before the time of Caracalla, the inhabitants of almost all the Roman provinces; (2) the citizens of foreign states who were in friendly relation with Rome,--in the language of modern law, alien amis; (3) Romans who had lost the civitas by capitis deminutio minor [ crossCAPUT]; (4) freedmen who were dediticiorum numero (Ulpian, Reg. 20, 14; Gaius, 1.13). Between these two classes of Latini and peregrini, a third (Latini) is interposed in the course of history. Latinitas denotes originally the legal condition of members of the Latin confederation (unless their city had been raised to the rank of a municipium), and of the numerous coloniae Latinae: such persons had none of the public rights of civitas, nor had they the conubium; but the commercium was theirs. By the Leges Julia and Plautia Papiria, following upon the Social War (B.C. 90), the Roman citizenship was extended to all Italy, properly so called, and even to Gallia Cispadana. But Latinitas did not therefore disappear. The practice had perhaps already been instituted by conferring Latinitas or jus Latii on allied or subject towns whom Rome wished to honour or propitiate; at any rate, even after natives of Latium and members of the Latin colonies had become cives under the two statutes mentioned, it was common to make a grant of this semi-citizenship (which conveyed simple commercium) to towns in the provinces. Latinity thus has no longer any ethnic or geographical signification; it means simply a particular legal capacity. After the Lex Junia Norbana (A.D. 19) had provided that slaves manumitted in certain informal ways, or manumitted so as not to become cives, should have Latinitas, they were called Latini Juniani, but the statute expressly withdrew from them the element of the commercium, which would have enabled them to make, witness, or take under a will (Gaius, 1.22-24). [[ERROR: no link cross:]LATINITAS] The commonest way in which civitas was acquired was birth. Children born of a legitimum matrimonium

13 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

(i. e. lawful wedlock between two cives, or between a civis Romanus and a Latina or peregrina upon whom conubium had been specially conferred: Ulpian, Reg. 5.3, 4) were born cives. If there was not conubium between husband and wife, but the latter was a civis, the issue were cives unless the husband was a peregrinus: non interveniente conubio [liberi] matris condicioni accedunt, excepto eo qui ex peregrino et cive Romana nascitur; nam is peregrinus nascitur, quoniam lex Minicia ex alterutro peregrino natum deterioris parentis condicionem sequi jubet (Ulpian, Reg. 5.8, 9); the general rule, where there was not conubium, being partus sequitur ventrem. Slaves would become cives by being manumitted in one of the statutory modes (vindicta, censu, testamento), unless the case was one in which the Lex Aelia Sentia restricted the libertus to a lower status (Gaius, 1.13, 18, 21, 27). A Latinus could rise to the status of civitas in a variety of ways: by filling a magistracy in his own colonia Latina (Gaius, 1.95); by marrying a civis or Latina before seven witnesses and begetting a child who lived a year, and proving these facts before a magistrate (Gaius, 1.66); by marrying a peregrina, believing her to be a civis, and proving his mistake ( erroris causae probatio, Gaius, 1.67); for other modes see the succeeding paragraphs of Gaius (ib. 35; Ulpian, Reg. 3.1-6; Cod. 9, 24, 1, 4). Upon peregrini and Latini (except liberti dediticii, Gaius, 1.26) civitas could always of course be conferred by statute: for examples, see Liv. 6.4, 34.42-Z2; Cic. pro Balb. 13 Cicero (ib. 8, 21) remarks that many of the people of Heracleia and Neapolis made some opposition to accepting the terms offered by the Lex Julia (B.C. 90), and would have preferred their former relation to Rome as civitates foederatae to the Roman civitas. That statute gave the civitas not only to the natives of the Italian towns, but also to natives of towns out of Italy who had become citizens of Italian towns before it was enacted. Thus, L. Manlius (Cic. ad Fam. 13.3. 0), a native of Catina in Sicily, obtained the Roman civitas by virtue of having been enrolled as a citizen of Neapolis (erat enim in id municipium adscriptus) before that date. The Lex Plautia Papiria, passed a year later, contained a provision that persons who had been enrolled as citizens of the foederatae civitates, and who had a domicile in Italy at that moment, should have the Roman civitas if they gave in their names to the praetor within sixty days ( apud praetorem essent professi, Cic. pro Archia, 4, 7). Archias claimed the benefit of this statute as having been enrolled a citizen of Heraclea, and having in the other respects satisfied its conditions. But the relation between the Leges Julia and Plautia Papiria is differently represented by Dr. Merivale (Fall of the Roman Republic, chap. iii.), who thinks that the former gave the civitas only to Umbria, Etruria, and the southern extremities of the Italian peninsula, while the latter extended it to all the other Italian allies and Gallia Cispadana. Under the empire, when the political rights of the citizen had ceased to have any value, and the personal will of the emperor had practically become the sole legislative organ, he was privileged (inter alia) to bestow the civitas on whomsoever he pleased, except dediticii liberti: though as the gift of it to a Latinus Junianus would prejudice the patron, the interests of the latter were guarded by an edict of Trajan (Gaius, 3.72). The extent to which the earlier emperors exercised this power was dwarfed by the edict of Caracalla (A.D. 211-217), which conferred the civitas on all Latini and peregrini then living under the sway of Rome (Dig. 1, 5-Z1, 17-Z1), though these classes were at once in some measure replenished by manumission of slaves, the Leges Aelia Sentia and Junia Norbana not having been abrogated. Under the later emperors, the progressive absorption of the jus civile in the jus gentium, or the substitution of the latter in all departments of private law for the former, tended more and more to minimise the importance of the distinction between cives and non cives. Justinian speaks of dediticia libertas (practically the only form of peregrinitas in his empire) as extinct before his time (Cod. 7, 5), and the Latina libertas (of which he says few examples were to be found: Inst. 1.5, 3) he extinguished with the repeal of the Lex Junia Norbana (Cod. 7, 6), so that in the 6th century the last trace of the distinctions between freemen in respect of civitas had disappeared, and all subjects were either cives or slaves. (Savigny, Zeitschrift, &c. vol. v. Ueber die Entstehung, &c. der Latinitt; vol. ix., Der rmische Volksschluss der Tafel von Heraklea ; vol. xi., Nachtrge zu frheren Arbeiten: System des heutigen rmischen Rechts, vol. 2. p. 27, &c.; Puchta, Institutionen, 62-65, 216-218.) [[ERROR: no link cross:]J.B.M]

14 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

-- 450 -Previous Article Next Article

NA [1890], A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Trustees of Tufts University, Albemarle Street, London) [word count] [antiquities_dico4].

15 of 15

4/4/2013 5:14 PM