civitas

timore perculsa erat civitas
the state had been overcome by fear toti Italiae civitatem pollicitus est
He promised citizenship to all of Italy

cīvĭtas, ātis (gen. plur. civitatium, Cic. Rep. 1, 34, 51; id. Leg. 2, 4, 9; Caes. B. G. 4, 3; 5, 22; Sall. C. 40, 2; Liv. 1, 17, 4; 2, 6, 5; 33, 20, 11 Drak.; 42, 30, 6; 42, 44, 1; 45, 34, 1; Vell. 2, 42, 2; Quint. 2, 16, 4 N. cr.; Suet. Tit. 8 Oud.; Cornut. ap. Charis. p. 100 P.; cf. Varr. L. L. 8, § 66; Prisc. p. 771 P.; Neue, Formenl. 1, 268), f. [civis].

• I Abstr., the condition or privileges of a (Roman) citizen, citizenship, freedom of the city (upon its conditions, v. Zimmern, Rechtsgesch. 2, § 123 sq.; Dict. of Antiq. p. 260 sqq.): Cato, cum esset Tusculi natus, in populi romani civitatem susceptus est: ita, cum ortu Tusculanus esset, civitate Romanus, etc., Cic. Leg. 2, 2, 5: donare aliquem civitate, id. Balb. 13, 20; Suet. Caes. 24; 42; 76; id. Aug. 47; id. Tib. 51; id. Ner. 24: dare civitatem alicui, Cic. Arch. 4, 7; 5, 10; Liv. 1, 28, 7; 8, 14, 8; Suet. Aug. 40; id. Galb. 14: accipere aliquem in civitatem, Cic. Off. 1, 11, 35: adsciscere in civitatem, Liv. 6, 40, 4: ascribere aliquem in civitatem, Cic. Arch. 4, 6: aliquem foederatis civitatibus ascribere, id. ib. 4, 7: in aliis civitatibus ascriptus, id. ib. 5, 10: assequi, Tac. A. 11, 23: consequi, Cic. Balb. 13, 31: deponere, id. Caecin. 34, 100: decedere de civitate, id. Balb. 5, 11: dicare se civitati, id. ib. 11, 28: in civitatem, id. ib. 12, 30: eripere, id. Caecin. 34, 99: habere, id. Balb. 13, 31: impertiri civitatem, id. Arch. 5, 10: furari civitatem, id. Balb. 2, 5: petere, Suet. Caes. 8: Romanam assequi, Tac. A. 11, 23: adipisci, Suet. Aug. 40: Romanam usurpare, id. Calig. 38; id. Claud. 25: amittere civitatem, Cic. Caecin. 34, 98: adimere, id. ib.; Suet. Caes. 28: petere, id. ib. 8: negare, id. Aug. 40: jus civitatis, Cic. Caecin. 34, 98; id. Arch. 5, 11: recipere aliquem in civitatem, id. Caecin. 34, 100; id. Arch. 10,22; id. Balb. 13, 31: relinquere, id. Caecin. 34, 100: retinere civitatem, id. Balb. 12, 30: retinere aliquem in civitate, id. Lig. 11, 33: ademptio civitatis, id. Dom. 30, 78: commemoratio, id. Verr. 2, 5, 62, § 162: nomen, id. ib.: ereptor, id. Dom. 30, 81.—
• • B Trop.: ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata, Quint. 8, 1, 3; cf.: civitate Romanā donare agricolationem, Col. 1, 1, 12: verbum hoc a te civitate donatum, naturalized, Gell. 19, 3, 3; Sen. Ep. 120, 4; id. Q. N. 5, 16, 4.—More freq.,
• II Concr., the citizens united in a community, the body - politic, the state, and as this consists of one city and its territory, or of several cities, it differs from urbs, i.e. the compass of the dwellings of the collected citizens; but sometimes meton., = urbs, v. B.: concilia coetusque hominum jure sociati, quae civitates appellantur, Cic. Rep. 6, 13, 13: tum conventicula hominum, quae postea civitates nominatae sunt, tum domicilia conjuncta, quas urbes dicimus, etc., id. Sest. 42, 91; cf.: omnis populus, qui est talis coetus multitudinis, qualem exposui; omnis civitas, quae est constitutio populi; omnis res publica, quae populi res est, etc., id. Rep. 1, 26, 41: quia sapiens non sum, nec haec urbs nec in eā civitas ... non dubitavisset, quin et Roma urbs (esset), et eam civitas incoleret, id. Ac. 2 (Luc.), 45, 137: aucta civitate magnitudine urbis, Liv. 1, 45, 1: Orgetorix civitati persuasit, ut de finibus suis cum omnibus copiis exirent, Caes. B. G. 1, 2 Oud.; so id. ib. 1, 4; 1, 19; 1, 31; cf. Sisenn. ap. Non. p. 429, 15: civitates aut nationes devictae, Cic. Off. 1, 11, 35; Sall. C. 31, 1; Liv. 21, 1, 2: io triumphe non semel dicemus civitas omnis, Hor. C. 4, 2, 51; cf. id. Epod. 16, 36 and 18: cum civitas in foro exspectatione erecta staret, Liv. 3, 47, 1; so id. 2, 37, 5; 26, 18, 6; 34, 41, 1; Tac. A. 3, 11; Suet. Calig. 6; id. Tib. 17; 42: civitates aut condere novas aut conservare jam conditas, Cic. Rep. 1, 7, 12; id. Sull. 9, 28; id. Rep. 1, 8, 13; 1, 3, 5: omnis civitas Helvetia in quattuor pagos divisa est, Caes. B. G. 1, 12: quae pars civitatis Helvetiae, etc., id. ib.: non longe a Tolosatium finibus, quae civitas est in provinciā, id. ib. 1, 10: Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, id. ib. 4, 3: Rhodiorum civitas, magna atque magnifica, Sall. C. 51, 5; cf. id. J. 69, 3: Heraclea quae est civitas aequissimo jure ac foedere, Cic. Arch. 4, 6 et saep.: administrare civitatem, id. Off. 1, 25, 88: mutari civitatum status, id. Leg. 3, 14, 32; so, civitatis status, Quint. 6, 1, 16; 11, 1, 85: (legibus) solutis stare ipsa (civitas) non possit, id. 11, 1, 85: lege civitatis, id. 12, 10, 26; cf. id. 5, 10, 25: mos civitatis, id. 10, 1, 107; 12, 3, 7; 1, 2, 2.—Of Plato's ideal republic: si in illā commenticiā Platonis civitate res ageretur, Cic. de Or. 1, 53, 230.—
• • • 2 Trop.: civitas caelitum, Plaut. Rud. prol. 2: ut jam universus hic mundus una civitas sit communis deorum atque hominum existimanda, Cic. Leg. 1, 7, 23.—
  • B Meton., = urbs, a city (rare and mostly post-Aug.; not in Cic. or Caes.): civitatem incendere, Enn. ap. Non. p. 429, 5 (Trag. 382 Vahl.): cum errarem per totam civitatem, Petr. 8, 2; cf. id. 8, 141 fin.: Lingonum, Tac. H. 1, 54; 1, 64: ab excidio civitatis, id. ib. 1, 63; 1, 69: circumjectae civitates, id. ib. 3, 43: muri civitatis, id. ib. 4, 65; id. A. 6, 42: pererrata nocturnis conversationibus, Sen. Ben. 6, 32, 1: expugnare civitatem, Quint. 8, 3, 67; cf.: expugnandae civitates, id. 12, 9, 2: plurimas per totum orbem civitates, terrae motu aut incendio afflictas restituit in melius, Suet. Vesp. 17; cf. id. Tit. 8; id. Tib. 84 fin.; Lact. 2, 7, 19.—
  • • 2 Esp., the city, i. e. Rome and its inhabitants, Tac. H. 1, 19; 2, 92; 4, 2.

cīvitās, ātis, f. (civis), I) abstr., der Zustand-, die Rechte eines (röm.) Bürgers, das Bürgerrecht, der Bürgerverband, ius civitatis, Cic. u.a.: civitatem petere, Suet.: alqm civitate donare, Cic.: alci civitatem dare, Cic.: civitatem alci negare, Suet.: alqm in civitatem asciscere, Liv., accipere, ascribere, Cic.: in populi Romani civitatem suscipi, Cic.: civitatem adipisci, Cic.: civitatem assequi, Tac.: civitatem consequi beneficio alcis, Cic.: civitatem impetrare, Cic.: civitatem habere, Cic.: civitate carēre, Auct. b. Afr.: civitate mutari (Ggstz. in civitate manere), Cic.: civitatem amittere, Cic.: civitatem adimere, Cic.: non adimitur his civitas, sed relinquitur et deponitur, Cic. – übtr., oratio civitate donata, Quint.: verbo civitatem dare, Suet. – II) concr.: A) die zu einer Gemeinde vereinigte Bürgerschaft und, insofern sie den Staat bildet, der Staat, die Gemeinde, das Volk (er bestehe nun aus einer Stadt u. deren Gebiete od. aus mehreren Städten, versch. von urbs, d.i. dem Inbegriff der Wohnungen sämtlicher Bürger; nur zuw. meton. = urbs. s. no. B), status civitatis, Cic.: civitates aut nationes, Cic.: Tyndaritana nobilissima c., Cic.: c. Helvetia, Caes.: c. Ubiorum, Caes.: c. bene morata et bene constituta, Cic.: c. bellica, Vell.: c. foederata, Cic.: c. maritima, Caes.: civitas potentissima, Nep.: civitates valentiores opibus, Liv.: administratio civitatis, Cic.: civitatem administrare, Cic.: civitates condere novas aut conservare iam conditas, Cic.: civitatem instituere, Cic.: civitatem liberare, Nep.: alqm e civitate eicere, Cic.: civitatem bello persequi, Caes. – übtr., una c. communis deorum atque hominum, Cic.: c. Stoicorum, Tac. – B) meton. = urbs, die Stadt, 1) übh. (s. Heräus Tac. hist. 1, 54, 1. Bünem. Lact. 2, 7, 19), Athenae aut alia quieta civitas, Dolabell. in Cic. ep. 9, 9, 3: c. Lingonum, Tac.: muri civitatis, Tac.: munita c., Iustin.: civitatem incendere, Enn. fr.: civitatem expugnare, Quint.: errare per totam civitatem, Petr. – 2) insbes., wie urbs, die Stadt = Rom u. seine Einwohner, Sen. de ben. 6, 32, 1. Tac. hist. 1, 19, 2; 2, 92, 4; 4, 2, 2. – ➳ Der Genet. Plur. gew. civitatium bei Cic.; vgl. Neue-Wagener Formenl.³ Bd. 1. S. 408. – arch. auch ceivitas, Corp. inscr. Lat. 1, 198, 12. 76. 79. 81 (Abl. ceivitate).

civitas [CL] , city, major town (esp. episcopal see). b (w. emendatio) burhbote. c (w. Dei or Christi) the Church. d (w. superna or sim.) Heaven. e (w. diaboli) company of the damned. hanc veteranam ~atem [Bizantium] ‥ in juvenculam suscitabis Aldh. VirgP 25; in ~ate Venta Bede HE III 7; in ~ate Eburaci Ib. IV 12; ad ~atis Ventanae ‥ parrochiam Ib. V 18; 901 acta est ista chartula ‥ in ~ate Scrobbensis CS 587; ubi vendis pisces tuos? in ~ate [AS: on ceastre] Ælf. Coll. 94; 10‥ ~as, ceaster WW (cf. ib. urbs: burh); in ~ate Cantuariensi DB I 9b; ~as de Ledecestre [Leicester] DB I 230; nullus emat aliquid extra ~atem [v. l. portum; AS: porte] (Quad.) GAS 157; 1167 de veteri firma ~atis [Wint’] Pipe 192; Rofecestria et Cicestria viculi sunt et cur ~ates dici debeant preter sedes flaminum nichil obtendunt Devizes 39v; 1199 dedimus ‥ iiij burg[agia] extra ~atem de Limeric’ ‥ et duo in insula versus civict[atem] RChart 20a; 1276 in Wigorniensi ~ate et diocesi Val. Norw. 620; 1294 precipimus ‥ quod statutum illud in pleno comitatu tuo [Linc’] et in ~atibus, burgis, villis mercatoriis et aliis locis publicis et solemnibus in balliva tua ‥ publice proclamari ‥ facias (Breve Regis) MGL II 204; 1321 quod habeant ‥ forum in ~ate Brechenensi Reg. Brechin II 6; 1431 ~atem Wellensem Aids IV 418 (cf. ib. 326: burgus Wellensis); villas, sub quarum appellacione continentur et burgi atque ~ates Fortescue LLA 24.  b si quis neglexerit emendationem ~atis (Inst. Cnuti) GAS 353 (cf. (Quad.) ib.: burhbotam, ‥ id est burgi ‥ emendationem).  c fundamenta gloriosae ~atis Dei, quae psalmista in montibus sanctis structa commemorat [Psalm. lxxxvi 1], canonicis septem epistularum rivulis ‥ nascentis ecclesiae praecordia ‥ satiarunt Aldh. Met. 2 p. 66; sic sunt cherubim supra propitiatorium positi quo modo ~as Christi, id est sancta ecclesia, super montem, id est super ipsum Christum, esse constituta dicitur Bede Tab. 407.  d beatam caeli familiam et almae ~atis municipes ‥ conturbavit Aldh. VirgP 12; animas ad supernae ~atis gaudia perfecto agone miserunt Bede HE I 7; mihi videtur quia in angelis non fuit ille perfectus numerus quo ~as illa superna perficietur. ‥ palam est quia, etiam si angelus nullus perisset, homines tamen in caelesti ~ate suum locum habuissent Anselm (CurD I 18) II 77–8.  e tunc ‥ [Christus] totum regnum suum—quod ibi accipitur pro congregacione electorum, exclusis illis qui spectant ad ~atem diaboli—perducet ad visionem divinitatis Ockham Pol. III 238.

cīvĭtās, (5) ātis, f. (civis), ¶ 1 ensemble des citoyens qui constituent une ville, un État ; cité, État : conventicula hominum quæ postea civitates nominatæ sunt, domicilia conjuncta quas urbes dicimus... Cic. Sest. 91, ces petites réunions dʼhommes [à leur début], qui plus tard prirent le nom de cités, les groupements de demeures que nous appelons villes ; Syracusana civitas Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 145, la cité de Syracuse ; omnis civitas Helvetia Cæs. G. 1, 12, 4, lʼÉtat helvète dans son ensemble ; Ubiorum civitas Cæs. G. 4, 3, 3, lʼÉtat formé par les Ubiens ; de optimo civitatis statu Cic. Rep. 1, 70, sur le meilleur gouvernement dʼun État ; de civitatibus instituendis Cic. de Or. 1, 86, sur lʼorganisation des États || [au sens de urbs, rare] : muri civitatis Tac. H. 4, 65, les murs de la ville ; expugnare civitatem Quint. 8, 3, 67, prendre dʼassaut une ville || [au sens de Urbs = Roma ] la ville [et ses habitants] : Sen. Ben. 6, 32, 1 ; Tac. H. 1, 19, 2 ; 2, 92, 4 ; 4, 2, 2 ¶ 2 droits des citoyens, droit de cité : ortu Tusculanus, civitate Romanus Cic. Leg. 2, 5, Tusculan par la naissance, Romain par les droits de citoyen ; in civitatem aliquem recipere Cic. Arch. 22, accueillir qqn comme citoyen [romain] ; aliquem civitate donare Cic. Balbo 20, gratifier qqn du droit de cité ; dare civitatem alicui Cic. Balbo 21, accorder le droit de cité à qqn ; civitatem amittere Cic. Cæc. 100, perdre les droits de citoyen ; retinere aliquem in civitate, ex civitate aliquem exterminare Cic. Lig. 33, maintenir qqn dans ses droits de citoyen, lʼexiler || [fig.] verbum civitate donare, donner droit de cité à un mot : Sen. Ep. 120, 4 ; Nat. 5, 16, 4 ; Gell. 19, 13, 3 ; Quint. 8, 1, 3.

➳ gén. plur. civitatium et civitatum ; arch. ceivitas CIL.

civitas , atis. f.
城。府。州。城中人。小國。 In largiunda civitate parcus 陞搢紳不多人。Civitate donare 陞搢紳。Omnis civitas Helvetiae 舉某國。

Suggest a Translation
See an image

cīvitās ātis (genplur. -ātium or -ātum), f

• civis, the condition of a citizen, citizenship, freedom of the city, membership in the community: populiR.: donare alqm civitate: asciscere in civitatem, L.: recipere in civitatem: relinquere atque deponere: retinere: eripere nobis civitatem, obtain by force: quibus civitas erepta sit, wrested: furari: ius civitatis: communio.—A community of citizens, body-politic, state: auctā civitate magnitudine urbis, L.: civitati persuasit, ut, etc., Cs.: permota, S.: io triumphe dicemus civitas omnis, H.: civitates condere: Helvetia, Cs.: aequissimo iure: administrare civitatem: comitia tot civitatum.—Fig.: ut iam mundus una sit.

CIVITAS

CI´VITAS(πολιτεία), citizenship.

1. Greek.

In the third book of the Politics, Aristotle commences his inquiry into the nature of states with the question, What constitutes a citizen? (πολίτης). He defines a citizen to be one who is a partner in the legislative and judicial power (1, 4, μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς: and 8b ἐξουσία κοινωνεῖν ἀρχῆς βουλευτικῆς καὶ κριτικῆς). No definition will equally apply to all the different states of Greece, or to any single state at different times; the above seems to comprehend more or less properly all those whom the common use of language entitled to the name.

In the Heroic ages the kings were the commanders in war, offered up certain sacrifices (ὅσαι μὴ ἱερατικαί) to the gods, and administered justice (Arist. Pol. 3.9, 7 S. = 14, 12 B.); their authority was however limited by the nobles, to whom sometimes the title of βασιλῆες was given (Od. 1.394; 6.54; 8.41. 390) as well as to the monarch himself. Without their advice and assent no important matter was undertaken, and they shared also in the administration of justice, but to what extent cannot be defined. Gladstone (Stud. on Hom. 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 βασιλεῖς). Theseus is said to have united them into a single state and to have made Athens the seat of government and of the administration of justice in all important cases (Thuc. 2.15), and to have forced the Eupatridae of the different communities to settle at Athens (Plut. Thes. 32; cf. Plat. Critias, p. 110 C, and Etym. M. s. v. Εὐπατρίδαι =Bekk. Anecd. 257, 7 ff. In Solon Fragm. 4, 5 ff., ἀστοί = Εὐπατρίδαι). Plutarch (Plut. Thes. 25) ascribes to Theseus the distribution of the population of Attica into εὐπατρίδαι, γεωμόροι (Poll. 8.111; γεωργοί, Arist. in Schol. Plat. Axioch. p. 371 D: cf. fragm. of lexicon in Bull. de Corresp. hell. 1. p. 152; ἄποικοι in Arist. fragm. Ἀθην. πολιτ., Berl. Papyrus, 163), and δημιουργοί ἐπιγεώμοροι τὸ τεχνικὸν ἔθνος, Etym. M. l. c.; Dion. Halic. 2.8 distinguishes εὐπατρίδαι and ἄγροικοι). There is a wide difference of opinion as to the relation existing between these three classes and the four Ionic tribes,--Αἰγικορεῖς, Ἀργαδεῖς, Ὅπλητες and Γελέοντες, --each tribe comprising three phratries and each phratry containing thirty γένη. [TRIBUS] Some, like Grote (3.72), see in the Eupatridae the wealthy and powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in all the various gentes, and consider this triple distinction to be disparate and unconnected with the four tribes; others (Hermann, Griech. Staatsalt. § 97, 12) identify the Eupatridae with the Geleontes and Hopletes, and the Geomori and Demiurgi with the Aegicoreis and Argadeis respectively; and a third class (Philippi, Beitr. z. e. Gesch. d. att. Bürgerrechts, p. 208, n. 56) hold that the tribes originally comprised the Eupatridae only, and that it was Solon who first gave the mass of the people a place in the system of tribes and phratries. In the earliest times the guidance of public affairs in conjunction with the king, the administration of justice, and the priestly functions belonged exclusively to the Eupatridae (Plut. Thes. 25; the three ἐξηγηταὶ were always of this class, C. I. G. i. No. 765); out of their number the four φυλοβασιλεῖς were taken (Poll. 8.111; hence it follows that others than nobles must have belonged to the tribes; cf. also Draco's law in Dem. c. Macart., p. 1069.57, and C. I. A. i. No. 61, ἀριστίνδην), and by their side the other two classes were of little political importance, and the Demiurgi perhaps of less even than the Geomoroi (cf. Athen. 23. 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. ναυκραρία), without any reference to their γένη and phratries, into four classes (Harpocr. s. v. ἱππάς: Plut. Sol. 18), according to the amount of produce from their lands (this was changed after the time of the Pisistratids: cf. Thuc. 4.54, 5, Ἀθηναίους εἰκοστὴν μόνον πρασσόμενοι τῶν γιγνομένων: Beloch, Herm. 1885, p. 245).

It is true that of these four classes only the first three were eligible for public offices (Arist. Pol. 2.9, 4 S. = 12, 6 B), and only the first for the archonship. (Plut. Arist. 1; Landwehr, Philologus, Suppl. 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 ἀνάκρισις of the archons, εἰ τὸ τίμημα ἔστιν αὐτοῖς, Poll. 8.85, which was afterwards altered to εἰ τὰ τέλη τελεῖ, Lex. Rhet. Cant. p. 670, 19, and Cratinus in Athen. 11. p. 460 f.). But even the lowest possessed certain important rights and were exempted from military service as hoplites (Harpocr. s. v. θῆτες, etc.). According to Grote (3.121) and others, They were invested with the right of choosing the annual archons out of the first class, and the archons and the magistrates generally, after their year of office, were made formally accountable to the public assembly sitting in judgment upon their past conduct. In Grote's opinion the institution of Heliastic courts dates from the time of Pericles; Schoemann, however, ascribes it to Solon, and as we think with justice, so far at least as the first beginnings are concerned: the ἡλιαία is mentioned in a Solonian law (Lys. 10.16); and as far as our information goes, magistrates, etc. rendered their account always before a court, not before the popular assembly. (See on the whole question Att. Proc., ed. Lipsius, p. 28 ff.) By Solon's reforms a way was opened to every one, if he succeeded in becoming a landed proprietor, to set himself on an equality in point of law with the nobles (Solon is said to have fixed a limit to the acquisition of land, Arist. Pol. 2.4, 4 S.= 7, 6 B., yet see Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 689.208); and, on the other hand, the man of noble birth, if he became poor, ceased to belong to the privileged class. The γένη lost all political importance, but continued to exist.

The Berlin Papyrus 163--which, as Bergk (Rh. M. 1881, p. 87 ff.) recognised, contains fragments of Aristotle's Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία --gives us fresh information respecting the archonship. There we learn that after a certain Damasias had been ἄρχων for two years, he was driven from office, and that after this an arrangement was come to according to which four Eupatridae, three ἄποικοι, and two Demiurgi should be chosen. The date of this Damasias is variously fixed by scholars: Blass (Herm. 1880, p. 366 ff.; 1881, p. 42 ff.) places him between Eryxias, the last who held the archonship for ten years, and Cleon, the first eponymous of the nine annual archons, but the title of the archon, whether appointed for life or for ten years, was βασιλεύς. Bergk identifies him with the archon for 639-8 (Dionys. 3.36; cf. Gilbert, Handb. d. gr. Staatsalt. 1. p. 124); yet if at that time the ἄποικοι and Demiurgi had been admitted to the archonship, the reform of Solon would have been a reactionary measure, since by it only the first property class were eligible. Hence Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterth. vol. 6. p. 125, n. 2) interprets the passage to mean that the ἄποικοι and Demiurgi had the right of electing three and two archons respectively from amongst the Eupatridae; yet this can scarcely be the meaning of the passage: ἐγέ[νετο δὲ μετ'] αὐτὸ[ν διὰ] τὸ στασιάζειν ἄρχοντας ἑλέσθθι. . .τέτταρ]ας μὲν εὐπατρὶδῶν τρεῖς δὲ ἀποίκων δύο [δὲ καὶ δημι]ουργῶν (Diels, Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1885). There is a second archon Damasias, a contemporary of Thales, between 590 and 580, probably 586-5; and Diels (cf. Landwehr, p. 195 ff., and Busolt, p. 543) identifies him with the Damasias of the papyrus. By Solon's reform, members of the first property class alone were eligible to the archonship; this compromise settled the proportion of archons who were to be elected from the Eupatridae, ἄποικοι, and Demiurgi respectively, all however to be of the first property class (according to Busolt, p. 544, this arrangement only held good for the year after Damasias), until by Aristeides' reform the disqualification of the other property classes was removed (Plut. Arist. 22).

Cleisthenes abolished the old tribes for civil purposes (according to Philippi, p. 172, they continued to exist as religious bodies), and introduced the local distribution according to demes (one hundred, Hdt. 5.69; cf. Diels, pp. 25, 26) as the foundation of his new ten tribes. Now the deme became the elementary political division, and a man was described by his own name, followed first by the name of his father and next by that of the deme to which he belonged: e. g. Δημοσθένης Δημοσθένους Παιανιεύς· Cleisthenes likewise reformed the phratries and increased their number to 360, each of the old γένη becoming the centre of a new phratry. (Buermann, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 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 (δημοποίητοι, ποιητοὶ, ποιήσει or δωρεᾷ πολῖται) and the old citizens (φύσει or γένει πολῖται, 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--τοῖς φεύγουσιν ἀειφυγίᾳ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἢ πανεστίοις Ἀθήναζε μετοικιζομένοις ἐπὶ τέχνῃ; according to the law quoted in [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375.89, upon those who had rendered the state eminent services (δι' ἀνδραγαθίαν),

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 (κατ' εὐεργεσίαν: Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Gr. 314), Dyme (συμπολεμήσαντες τὸμ πόλεμον καὶ τὰμ πόλιν συνδιασώισαντες, 316), Ephesus (ὅσοι (ἂν) ἀναλάβωσιν τα ὅπλα, etc. 253, 44); in Ephesus and Teos, there were official lists of such new citizens (ἀναγράψαι δὲ αὐτῶι τὴμ πολιτείαν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος, οὗ καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ πολιτεῖαι ἀναγεγραμμέναι εἰσίν, 134: on the Artemision, cf. Newton and Hicks, Greek Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. iii. n°. 448 foll.; τὸν δὲ ἐπιμήνιον τῶν ταμιῶν ἐπιδοῦναι ὅπως άναγραφῆι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ πατρόθεν ἐν τῆι στἡληι, ἐν ἧι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πρόξενοι καὶ εὐεργέται καὶ πεπολιτογραφημένοι εἰσὶν ἀναγεγραμμένοι, 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 πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους, Arist. Pol. 3.1, 10 S.=2, 3 B.) The Plataeans were admitted to citizenship after the destruction of their town in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians not forgetting that their whole force had spontaneously joined them at Marathon. When Aristophanes says that the slaves who had fought at Arginusae (Schol. Arist. Ran. 706; Andoc. 2.23) became Plataeans, this must be taken to mean that they were granted land in the territory of Scione which had been handed over to the Plataeans (Thuc. 5.32; Isocr. 4.109. Kirchhoff, Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1873, pp. 9, 10.) After the defeat at Chaeroneia, Hypereides made, amongst others, the following proposal τοὺς μετοίκους πολίτας ποιήσασθαι (fr. 33, Blass), probably only on condition of their taking their part in the defence of the country.

Citizenship was conferred by the popular assembly in the following way: in the first assembly the people bestowed the gift, but it did not become valid (κύριος), unless it was confirmed by a majority in the ensuing assembly, at which at least 6000 must be present and vote (secret voting by ballot). As the second voting is not mentioned in the oldest inscription bearing on the question (soon after Eucleides, ο and ε being still used for ου and ει),Ἐφνμ· ἀρχαιολ· 1883, pp. 37, 38: Ἵππαρχον (and some others) Ἀθ[ηναίος ἔν]αι ἀνδραγαθ[ίας ἕνεκα] τῆς ἐς Ἀθηνα[ίος καὶ φυ]λὴν καὶ δῆμο[ν καὶ φρατ]ρίαν ἑλέσθα[ι ἥν περ ἂν] βόλωνται κα[ὶ ἀναγράψ]αι αὐτὸς ἐστ[ήληι λιθί]νηι τὸγ γραμ[ματέα τῆς] βολῆς, 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 γραφὴ παρανόμων was brought against this proposal, and the court decided for Thrasybulus, but against Apollodorus. Even after the second vote, it was open to every Athenian who considered the candidate undeserving of the honour, to bring a γραφὴ παρανόμων: and instances of reversal following upon this are given by [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375.91; [Plut.] Vitt. x. Oratt. p. 835; Aesch. 3.195. Fraenkel, Att. Geschworengerichte, p. 35, and Hartel, Stud. ü. att. Staatsrecht, p. 271, say that in every case a δοκιμασία before a heliastic court was required, whether a γραφὴ παρανόμων was brought or not. They refer to [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1381.105; yet that was a special occasion, when, owing to the great number of candidates and to the peculiar nature of the case, special measures were needed (Att. Proc. p. 255), and Buermann (Jahrb. f. class. Philol. Suppl. x., p. 347 if.) has shown that a δοκιμασία did not become a regular institution until Olymp. 115. Up to that time the formula was (with slight variations): εἶναι τὸν δεῖνα Ἀθηναῖον αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκγόνους (2) καὶ εἶναι αὐτῷ γράψασθαι φυλῆς καὶ δήμου καὶ φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούληται κατὰ τὸν νόμον (3) τονς δὲ πρυτάνεις τοὺς τὴν εἰσιοῦσαν πρυτανείαν πρυτανεύοντας δοῦναι περὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν ψῆφον τῷ δήμῳ εἰς τὴν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν --from Olymp. 115 to Olymp. 124 we find in some instances added (4) τοὺς δὲ θεσμοθέτας εὶσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν δοκιμασίαν τῆς δωρεᾶς εὶς τὸ δικαστήριον ὅταν πρῶτον οἷον τ' ᾖ, and soon after the Chremonidean war it ran: δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ πολιτείαν κατὰ τὸν νόμον (2) τοὺς δὲ θεσμοθέτας, ὅταν πληρῶσιν δικαστήριον εἰς ἕνα καὶ πεντακοσίους δικαστάς, εἰσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν δοκιμασίαν τῆς πολιτογραφίας (3) καὶ εἶναι αὐτῷ δοκιμασθέντι γράψασθαι φυλῆς καὶ δήμου καὶ φρατρίας ἧς ἂν βούληται. Since we find in all such decrees εἶναι or γράψασθαι φυλῆς καὶ δήμου καὶ φρατρίας ἧς (or ὧν) ἂν βούληται, it is clearly proved against the generally received opinion (Philippi, p. 107 ff.) that the δημοποἰητοι were enrolled in the phratries as well. Buermann (Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 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 μὴ ἐξεῖναι αὐτοῖς (i.e. ὅσους ἂν ποιήσηται ὁ δῆμος πολίτας) τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων γενέσθαι μηδὲ ἱερωσύνης μηδεμιᾶς μετασχεῖν, but that to their descendants μετέδωκεν ὁ δῆμος ἁπάντων, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐξ ἀστῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Since on the occasion of the ἀρχόντων ἀνάκρισις the candidate was asked if he had a share in the worship of Apollo πατρῷος and Zeus ἑρκεῖος (Aristotle in Lex. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 670, 17; Poll. 8.85; according to Sauppe, de phratr. Att. p. 7 ff. Ζεὺς φράτριος and Ἀθηναίη φρατρία since Cleisthenes' reform), i. e. in the worship of the phratries, it follows that the children of a new citizen and of an ἀστὴ and ἐγγυητὴ must necessarily belong to a phratry. The sons of a new citizen, born before citizenship was conferred on him, were excluded from the archonship for the same reason as their father: thus Gilbert (1. p. 178) explains Poll. 8.85, εἰ Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσιν ἑκατέρωθεν ἐκ τριγονίας; whilst Meier (de bon. damn. p. 235) supposes that this statement of Pollux and the above of [Demosthenes] refer to different periods. With this exception, the δημοποίητοι enjoyed the same privileges with the citizens by birth. In some decrees the choice of phratries is qualified by additions such as πλὴν ὧν οἱ νόμοι ἀπαγορεύουσιν, etc., perhaps to prevent too many new citizens being in the same phratry, to the disadvantage of the old citizens: in other Greek states they were distributed by lot (Philippi, p. 113, n. 92; Greek Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. ii. n°. 237; cf. [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1380.104). The phratries in Cleisthenes' reform occupied therefore a different position from the one usually assigned to them. (Meier, de Gentil. p. 15: curiae suos quaeque mores sequebantur neque plebis sed suis scitis regebantur.)

Aristotle (Pol. 3.1, 9 S.=2, 1 B.) gives, as a practical definition of a citizen, ὁ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων πολιτῶν καὶ μὴ θατέρου μόνον, οἷον πατρὸς ἢ μητρός.

For Oreos, cf. Dem. in Aristocr. p. 691.213; for Byzantium, cf. [Arist.] Oecon. 2.2, 3 (Did.), ὄντος δὲ νόμου αὐτοῖς μὴ ειλτ;γτ;ναι πολίτην ὂς ἂν μὴ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀμφοτέρων ηλτ;γτ;; 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 (μόνους Ἀθηναίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐκ δυεῖν Ἀθηναίων γεγονότας, Plut. Per. 37) they were deprived of them: about 5000 were thus excluded, 14,040 remaining in the enjoyment of citizenship. On the ground that such a law having retrospective effect would be extremely harsh, Westermann (Verh. d. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1849, p. 200 ff.) assigns it to Solon's legislation; and Meier (de bon. damn. p. 78) holds that Pericles simply proposed a διαψήφισις on the lines of it. (Plutarch calls it a νόμος of Pericles, but cf. Isaeus, 12 argum., and Dem. in Eubul. p. 1298 argum.) Schenkl (Wiener Stud. 1883, p. 52 ff.) believes that Pericles actually passed a new law; to Solon's law νόθῳ μὴ εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν (Arist. Av. 1661), he conjectures, was added by Cleisthenes εἶναι δὲ αὐτῷ πολιτείαν, to provide for the children of those foreigners upon whom he had conferred citizenship, and of non-Athenian mothers (by which provision other classes of νόθοι likewise profited) ; and Pericles, when there was no longer occasion for such exceptional legislation, passed the law ἐὰν μὴ τύχῃ τις ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὑπάρχων ἀστῶν, τούτῳ μὴ μετεῖναι τῆς πολιτείας (Ael. Var. Hist. 6.10; cf. Suid. s. v. δημοποίητος). Duncker (Ber. ü. d. Sitz. d. Berl. Akad. 1883, p. 935 ff.), on the other hand, argues from the later legislation of Aristophon and Nicomenes, that no such law as is ascribed to Solon against μητρόξενοι can have existed, and looks upon the law of Pericles against νόθοι as a mere invention of the rhetors: this fictitious law was joined to the account given by Philochorus (fr. 90, Müller = Schol. Arist. Vesp. 715) of what happened when the king of Egypt (Amyrtaeus, not Psammetichus) sent grain to Athens as a present. At that time measures were taken not against νόθοι, but against those who claimed a share in the grain without being citizens by right (παρέγγραφοι, to the number of 4760), and 14,240 therefore does not represent the total number of citizens that remained after the lists had been purged, but the number of those who received the grain; such a total would be too low as compared with the 30,000 mentioned by Herodotus (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. Bevölkerungsdichtigkeit Att. p. 13, the total armed citizen force, including those below and above the ordinary military age--from the 20th to the 50th year--amounted in 431 to 19,100 only). In B.C. 403 Aristophon proposed a law ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον εἶναι: it was carried with the amendment of Nicomenes τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου ἀνεξετάστους ἀφεῖσθαι (Caryst. fr. 11 b, Müller = Athen. 13.577 c--Schol. Aesch. 1.39); cf. Isaeus, 8.43, and Dem. in Eubul. p. 1307.30, εἰ καὶ κατὰ θάτερα ἀστὸς ἦν --i.e. a patre, according to Schömann, Antiq. jur. publ. Gr. p. 197, n. 7, and Philippi, p. 63 ff.; ab altera utra parte, according to Platner, Beitr. p. 108 (but see p. 325), and Van den Es, de jur. fam. pp. 28, 75. This law was still observed in the time of Demosthenes (in Eubul. p. 1299.2; the diapsephisis of 346-5 was proposed by Demophilus, Aeschin. 1.86, and Schol. 1.77).

But the citizenship of the parents (sometimes the right of intermarriage, ἐπιγαμία, was granted, e. g. to the Euboeans and Plataeans, Lys. 34.3; Isocr. 14.51

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, ἐγγύησις, of the bride by her κύριος and the γαμηλία; and in the case of heiresses the ἐπιδικασία on the part of the archon. Children born by an Athenian woman who was living with the father in a connexion not recognised by law were deprived of all the rights of kinship (ἀψχιστεία, Isaeus, 6.47, etc.) and of all political rights. Yet Caillemer (Annuaire de l'Association pour encour. des Etudes Gr. 1878, p. 184 ff.), whom Lipsius follows (Att. Proc. p. 533, n. 143), has ably defended the older view, that citizenship descended to the children of citizens on both sides, even without the legal form of marriage; that such children, without being admitted to the phratries, belonged to a deme, and consequently possessed civic rights (Dem. in Boeot. de nom. p. 1002.25; p. 1001.23; p. 1002.28), and that by a formal act of recognition of parentage (ποιεῖαθαι παῖδας, Dem. p. 1003, § § 29, 30; Andoc. 1, 124) they could be made to share all the rights of those born in wedlock. Without this act of recognition such children could only claim the νόθεια (Harpocr. s. v.).

The registration of a child in the official register of the phratry (τὸ φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον, Dem. in Leoch. p. 1092.41, or τὸ κοινὸν γρ. Isaeus, 7.16, 17; Harpocr. etc. ;--εἰσάγειν εἲς τοὺς φράτερας, Isaeus, 6.21, 8.19; Dem. in Boeot. de nom. p. 995.4; in Macart. p. 1054.13; in Eubul. p. 1315.54;--ἐγγράφειν εἰς τοὺς φράτερας, Dem. p. 995.4; Isaeus, 7.17), on the third day of the Apaturian festival (κουρεῶτις), formed a recognition of legitimacy of birth: now the child possessed all the rights of kinship (Suid. s.v. φράτορες: τὸ δὲ γράφεσθαι εἰς τοὺς φράτορας σύμβολον εἶχον τῆς συγγενείας). An adopted son (ποιητὸς, θετὸς ϝἱός) was probably registered on the same day (in the month of Thargelion in Isaeus, 7.15, 16, for some special reason). This registration was connected with certain rites, which were, however, not the same in all the phratries: a sheep or a goat (Poll. 3.52) of a certain weight (Schol. Arist. Ran. 810) was sacrificed and distributed (μερίδες, Dem. in Macart. p. 1078.82; Harpocr. μεῖον), together with a certain quantity of wine among the phrateres;

Cf. the Gortyn Code, 10.38 foll.; Rh. M. Supplem. 1885, pp. 37, 55.

and in some phratries and γένη the father had to declare upon oath that the child was ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς γυναικός (Att. Proc. p. 543, n. 166).

In some inscriptions of Calymna (Inscr. of the Brit. Mus. ii. n°. 315-320) the mother made this declaration on oath (ἐξ ὁρκάτου μητρός or ἐξορκάτου ματρός).

From C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, and Isaeus, 7.16, Szanto (Rh. M. 1885, p. 515 ff.) concludes that the γεννῆται and φράτερες had a common register, which was kept either by the phratry or by the γένος, e. g. in Andoc. 1.125, the phratry being, however, responsible. Gilbert (Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1887, p. 23 ff.) on the other hand sees in the οἶκος Δεκελειῶν that portion of the phratry Δημοτιωνίδαι (whose φράτριον was at Oeon) which was settled at Deceleia; on account of frequent false entries in the φρατερικόν on their part, special measures were devised. Busolt (Müller's Handb. d. cl. Altert.-Wiss. 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 κούρειον meant the sacrifice for boys, and μεῖον that for girls. It would seem that there was a second eisegesis to the phrateres, when the grown--up youth was received amongst the ἔφηβοι by the solemn act of cutting off his hair (Plut. Thes. 5; Theophr. Char. 21) and sacrifice: this was probably called κούρειον, for from C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, it is evident that μεῖον and κούρειον cannot be two names for the same sacrifice; cf. Poll. 8.107, καὶ εἰς ἡλικίαν προελθόντων ἐν τῇ καλουμένη κουρεώτιδι ἡμέρα ὑπὲρ μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων τὸ κούρειον ἔθυον. This was merely a religious ceremony, a survival of the ancient Aryan usage (cf. Leist, Graeco-ital. Rechtsgesch. p. 67); the civil act took place before the demotae. In the beginning of the calendar year, in the course of which the youth reached his eighteenth year, he was entered in the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον (called κοινὸν γρ. Dem. in Eubul. p. 1317.60; cf. Bekk. Anecd. p. 272, 27 ff.); adopted sons were enrolled later on in the year, probably in. the month of Munychion, at the time of the ἀρχαιρεσίαι (C. I. A. ii. No. 416; Dem. in Leoch. p. 1092.39; and Isaeus, 7.27, 28: cf. Lipsius, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 1878, p. 299 ff.); Philippi (Rh. M. 1879, p. 610) refers the ἀρχαιρεσίαι to the elections of the magistrates of the deme (not of the state), fixes them early in the year, and thus places the enrolment of adopted. sons at the same time with that of the others. On this occasion the demotae instituted a kind of δοκιμασία: they inquired whether the candidates had attained the necessary age, then with regard to the latter class whether they were of civic descent, and whether those of the former had been legally adopted. A δημοποίητος had to prove his rights by a reference to the popular decree which conferred citizenship on him (κατὰ ψήφισμα πολίτης, Dem. in Nicostr. p. 1252.18). Hence we find δοκιμασθῆναι used instead of ἐγγραφῆναι εἰς τοὺς δημότας or εἰς τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γρ. (Dem. in Eubul. p. 1318, § § 61, 62). A special δοκιμασία ὀρφανῶν is mentioned in [Xenoph.] de Repub. Athen. 3, 4: Kirchhoff, Ueb. d. Schrift v. Staate d. Ath. p. 23, connects this passage with Aristoph. Vesp. 576. Orphans, it would seem, were specially examined before a. δικαστήριον as to their bodily and mental fitness to administer their property, (cf. Lcx. Seguer. p. 235, 13). Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, Philol. Unters. 1. p. 26, thinks that only the orphans of those who had been killed in war had to undergo this δοκιμασία, before they received the πανοπλία (Aesch. 3.154). An Athenian duly enrolled was of age (αὐτοκράτωρ, Xen. Memor. 2.1, 21); he could enter upon his patrimony, if an orphan or the son of an ἐπίκληρος (Hyper. fr. 194 Bl.; hence the name ληξιαρχικόν: cf. Harpocr. s. v.) and might marry (Dem. in Boeot. de dote, p. 1009.4); he now became responsible to the laws (Aeschin. 1.18) and could bring actions (Lys. 10.31; Dem. in Onet. 1. p. 865.6), and had to take his share in the public burdens (Dem. de Cor. p. 312.257; orphans were ἀτελεῖς the first year, Lys. 32.24). It would seem that enrolment in the φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον did not ipso jure lead to enrolment in the ληξιαρχικὸν γρ., as Voemel (Zeitschr. f. A. W. 1846, p. 122) supposes, especially not in the case of adopted sons: cf. the case of Thrasyllus in Isaeus, vii.; and from Dem. in Boeot. de nom. p. 996.5, we learn that a person could be entered under different names in the two registers (Schaefer, Dem. u. s. Zeit, 3.2, p. 26 ff.).

At the same time the names of the ἔφηβοι were (before the days of Aristotle) entered εἰς λελευκωμένα γραμματεῖα, together with the name of the archon of the year and also of the previous year, thus forming a list of all the στρατεύσιμοι of each year (Harpocr. s. v. στρατεία ἐν τοῖς ἐπωνύμοις): this list was different from the κατάλογος of those actually called out to serve on a particular occasion (Arist. Eq. 1369; Pac. 1179; Lys. 15.5, 16.13: cf. Lange, Leipz. Stud. 1. p. 164 ff.).

Whether the young citizens were at the same time entered into the πίναξ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς (Dem. in Leoch. p. 1091.35) and allowed to attend the popular assembly, or had to wait until they were twenty years old, is not quite clear. From instances like that of Glaucon (οὐδέπω εἴκοσιν ἔτη γεγονώς, Xen. Mem. 3.6, 1) and Plat. Alc. p. 123 D, it would seem that the law did not prevent it (Schaefer, p. 36). At any rate for one year (Dittenberger, de ephebis Att. p. 12), if not for both (Schaefer, p. 33), they had to serve as περίπολοι in the country.

At the age of thirty an Athenian could become βουλευτής (Xen. Mem. 1.2, 35) and ἡλιαστής (Poll. 8.122); at the age of fifty, ἐφέτης (Bekk. Anecd. 188, 30; Phot. s. v. ἐφέται 2) or διαιτητής (Bekk. Anecd. 186, 1; according to Poll. 8.126, only at the age of sixty). Ἐπιτιμία denotes the undiminished possession of civic rights [ATIMIA]. Special privileges were ἀτέλεια, προεδρία, σίτησις ἐν Πρυτανείῳ [PRYTANEIUM ]. (Gilbert, 1. p. 188 ff.)

If we would picture to ourselves the true notion which the Greeks embodied in the word πόλις, we must lay aside all modern ideas respecting the nature and object of a state. With us practically, if not in theory, the object of a state hardly embraces more than the protection of life and property. The Greeks, on the other hand, had the most vivid conception of the state as a whole, every part of which was to co-operate to some great end to which all other duties were considered as subordinate. Thus the aim of democracy was said to be liberty; wealth, of oligarchy; and education, of aristocracy. In all governments the endeavour was to draw the social union as close as possible, and it seems to have been with this view that Aristotle laid down a principle which answered well enough to the accidental circumstances of the Greek states, that a πόλις must be of a certain size (Pol. 4.4, 6 S.=7.4, 9 B.; Nic. Eth. 9.10, Οὐ γὰρ ἐκ δέκα μυριάδων πόλις ἔτι ἐστίν).

This unity of purpose was nowhere so fully carried out as in the government of Sparta, and in the other Dorian governments. [COSMI]

The population of the Spartan state consisted of three different classes: the Dorian full citizens, the dependent Perioeci, and the serfs or helots. There seem to have been few slaves in the country acquired either by purchase (cf. Heracl. Pont.; Müller, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2.2, 210, 2, 2) or by capture in war (Schoemann, Gr. Alterth. 1. p. 201, but see Büchsenschütz, Besitz u. Erwerb, p. 172, n. 2). Properly speaking, the helots cannot be said to have had any political rights; yet being serfs of the soil (δοῦλοι τοῦ κοινοῦ, Paus. 3.20, 6), they were not absolutely under the control of their masters (Poll. 3.83, μεταξὺ δὲ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων οἱ Λακεδαιμονίων εἵλωτες), and were never sold out of the country, even by the state itself. They cultivated the fields of their Spartan lords, but were bound to surrender only a legally fixed portion of the produce (Plut. Lyc. 8; Athen. 14. 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 war-time the helots were employed as shield-bearers to the hoplites, as light-armed troops (Hdt. 9.28), and during the Peloponnesian war they served as marines (Xen. Hell. 7.1, 12), and sometimes even as hoplites (Thuc. 4.80; 7.19-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); indeed, when they served among the heavy-armed, it seems to have been usual to give them their liberty. Out of the class of helots, emancipated as a reward for military and other services rendered to the state, (according to Arnold, ad Thuc. 5.34, out of the children of such emancipated helots,) there grew up a separate class, the ϝεοδαμώδεις (Poll. 3.83; not mentioned before the time of the Peloponnesian war). Their number increased fast: in 400 about 1,000 Neodamodes served under Thimbron in Asia, and Agesilaus undertook to carry on the war against Persia with thirty Spartiatae, 2,000 Neodamodes, and 6,000 allies. Probably a fixed place of residence was assigned them; for to the helots of Brasidas it was specially granted οἰκεῖν ὅπου ἂν βούλωιται (Thuc. 5.34). As to their position in the state nothing definite can be said; only so much is certain, that they were not admitted to the rights of Spartan citizenship, as the name might suggest.

The μόθακες or μόθωνες were helot children (generally the sons of Spartans by helot women) who had together with the Spartan children gone through the prescribed course of education and discipline. Some (Hermann, Griech. Antiq. 1.25, says all, but cf. Xen. Hell. 5.3, 8; Grote, 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 PARTHENIAE

The name of Εἵλωτες is derived by some from the name of the town of Ἕλος, whose inhabitants were said to have risen against the Dorians already established in power and to have been reduced by Sparta to this state of degradation (but the inhabitants of Ἕλος are called Ἕλειοι or Ἑλεᾶται or Ἑλεῖται); by others from ἙΛ, therefore prisoners, or from ἕλος (= δίνλον δάσος, Suid.), low-land (E. Curtius, Pelop. 2.288, explains thus the name of the town of Ἕλος), therefore the dwellers in the low-land on the banks of the river Eurotas (Gilbert, 1. p. 31, n. 2). Müller (Dorians, 2.31) considers them an aboriginal race subdued by the Achaeans, who immediately passed over as slaves to the Doric conquerors; Schoemann (Gr. Alterth. 1. p. 195) dissents from this.

The Πειοικοι

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 ὑπήκοοι in Crete, cf. COSMI

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, ὁ βασιλικὸς φόρος), and in wartime to serve as light-armed troops and as hoplites: thus, in the battle of Plataeae, by the side of 5,000 Spartiatae there fought 5,000 Perioeci as hoplites (Hdt. 9.28), and on one occasion a Perioecos was in command of the fleet (Thuc. 8.22, cf. 6). They possessed most probably civic rights in the communities (πόλιες πολλαί, Hdt. 7.234; cf. Strab. 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: Μένανδρος ἁρμοστὴρ mentioned in an inscr. from Cythera, see Mitth. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. in Athen, 5, 231, 239; and about the Κυθηροδίκης sent annually, cf. Thuc. 4.53); and although Isocrates' account (12.177 ff.) of the position of the Perioeci is probably exaggerated, he may be supposed to state a fact when he says, ἔξεστι τοῖς ἐφόροις ἀκρίτους ἀποκτεῖναι τοσούτους ὁπόσους ἂν βουληθῶσιν (cf. Grote, 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 (Plut. Lyc. 4); and that their industry was not confined to the mere drudgery of manufactures is shown by the schools of Lacedaemonian embossers and brass-founders, to which Chartas, etc. belonged (Müller, Dorians, 2. p. 26).

The ruling class of citizens derived their name of Σπαρτιᾶται from the capital, whilst the name Λακεδαιμόνιοι is common to them with the Perioeci. Full civic rights did not depend upon birth alone; only those were full citizens (ὅμοιοι) who had fulfilled all the exigencies of the Lycurgean discipline (Xen. de Rep. Laced. 10, 7), and continued to contribute and to belong to the συσσίτια (Arist. Pol. 2.6, 21 S.= 9, 31 B.; formerly called ἀνδρεῖα, as in Crete, then φιδίτια, 7, 3 S. = 10, 5 B.). Those who neglected these two duties were probably excluded from the full civic rights; i. e. they were not eligible to honours or public offices, but enjoyed only personal rights: these are probably the ὑπομείουες mentioned by Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 3.3, 6). In legal rights all ὅμοιοι 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 καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ of Aristotle, from whom the twenty-eight members of the gerousia were taken: Polit. 2.6, 15 S.=9, 22 B.), and a majority of poor and uncultured members, who, though equal to the former in the eye of the law, were in reality in an inferior position, and might be described in opposition to them as the δῆμος, or mass of the citizens (Schoemann, Opusc. 1. p. 138 ff.). Susemihl (notes 322b and 1264) doubts the existence of a superior nobility among the Spartans, from whom alone the γέροντες were elected, οἱ καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ being simply the fittest, and the office being a reward of virtue (cf. Dem. in Lept. p. 489.107). If this be so, Aristotle cannot refer to their mode of election when he says: οἱ δὲ γέροντες τοῖς γέρουσιν, οὒς καλοῦσιν οἱ Κρῆτες βουλήν, ἴσοι (Polit. 2.7, 3 S. = 10, 6 B.); for the members of the Cretan βουλῆ were elected from those who had been κόσμοι, and the κόσμοι were chosen ἐκ τινῶν γενῶν. The Ἀπέλλα (Hesych. ἀπελλάζειν· ἐκκλησιάζειν Λάκωνες, etc.; Plut. Lyc. 6, etc.), which all Spartans of thirty years and upwards were privileged to attend, elected the Gerontes from the καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ (those above sixty were eligible ; on the mode of election, Plut. Lyc. 26) and the Ephors ἐξ ἁπάντων; decided (βοῇ καὶ οὐ ψήφῳ, Thuc. 1.87) upon a disputed succession to the throne (Hdt. 6.65, 66; Xen. Hell. 3.3, 1), concerning peace and war (Thuc. 1.67; Xen. Hell. 3.2, 23, 4.6-Z2, 3, etc., 2.2, 20, etc.), treaties with foreign states (Thuc. 5.77). legislative measures, etc. The right of bringing motions before the assembly, and taking part in the debates, seems to have belonged only to the kings, Gerontes, and in later times to the Ephors (see, however, the story in Aesch. 1.180, 181; and Xen. Hell. 6.4, 2). The people sat, as in most Greek states (Thuc. 1.87, 3; Vischer, Rhein. Mus. 1873, p. 380). A μικρὰ ἐκκλησία is only once mentioned by Xen. Hell. 3.3, 8. Lachmann (d. spart. Staatsverf. 216) sees in it a meeting of the kings, Ephors, and Gerontes; Schoemann (Gr. Staatsalt. 1. p. 235) an assembly of the ὅμοιοι who happened to be in town, perhaps only of the more aged. (Cf. Dittenberger, Syll. Inscr. Gr. n°. 255, 1. 41 (Gythion), ἔδοξε τῷ δάμῳ ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις ἀπέλλαις, etc., and footnote.)

Admission into this citizen class was so rare an occurrence that Herodotus (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 (Plut. Dio 17) Dion was also made a Spartan citizen (cf. also Arist. Polit. 2.6, 12 S. =9, 17 B.). Occasionally those were made citizens who had been sent to Sparta as children to share in the prescribed discipline (the τρόφιμοι of Xen. Hell. 5.3, 9; cf: Haase ad Xen. de Rep. Lac. p. 187). The number of Spartans was in historic times continually on the decrease: whilst it amounted to 8,000 in the times of the Persian wars (Hdt. 7.234), it had dwindled down in the days of Aristotle to below 1,000 (Polit. 2.6, 11=9, 16 B.; cf. Plut. Ag. 5). In earlier times the Spartans admitted into their ranks a considerable number of non-Dorians, and a greater exclusiveness showed itself probably only after their power was consolidated. Some even think that the third Dorian tribe, Πάμφυλοι, was so called from the foreign elements admitted into it, a view from which Busolt (Gr. Gesch. 1. p. 108) dissents. No distinction of privileges existed between these three tribes--Ὑλλεῖς, Δυμᾶνες and Πάμφυλοι --that are found wherever there were Dorians (O. Müller, Dor. 2. p. 76 ff. Hdt. 4.179uses probably φυλὴ in a loose sense when he speaks of the Aegidae as a φυλὴ μεγάλη ἐν Σπάρτῃ. For the Ὑρνάθιοι in Argos, see an inscription of the third century B.C., published in Bull. de Corresp. Hell. 1885, p. 350). These three tribes were divided into twenty-seven phratries (Demetrius of Scepsis in Athen. 4. p. 141 e, f). Besides this, there was a local division of the Spartans into five φυλαί: Πιτάνη, Μεσόα, Λίμναι, Κονόουρα, and Δύμη, with ὠβαί as subdivisions (cf. the rhetra in Plut. Lyc. 6, φυλὰς φυλάξαντα καὶ ὠβὰς ὠβάξαντα, etc.). [RHETRA] This division into ὠβαὶ was extended at a later period to communities of the Perioeci (ὠβὰ τῶν Ἀμυκλαιέων, Mitt. d. arch. Inst. 3. p. 165). [H.H]

(Appendix). The Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία if right in this matter, throws a new light upon the legislation of Draco: in a less degree, on that of Solon and Cleisthenes. From 100.4 it appears that Draco not merely codified the law (though this is particularly emphasised in the summary of political changes in 100.41, ἡ ἐπὶ Δράκοντος ἐν ᾗ καὶ νόμους ἀνέγραψαν πρῶτον

Mr. Kenyon infers from 100.3, ὅπως ἀναγράψαντες τὰ θέσμια φυλάττωσι πρὸς τὴν τῶν [παρανομού]ντων κρίσιν, 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 (ἡ πολιτεία) was given to all who could furnish a military equipment (τοῖς ὅπλα παρεχομένοις --the same qualification was necessary after the overthrow of the Four Hundred, Thuc. 8.97: τοῖς πεντακισχιλίοις ἐψηφίσαντο τὰ πράγματα παραδοῦναι, εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶν ὁπόσοι καὶ ὅπλα παρέχονται). This body elected (αἱρεῖσθαι) the more important magistrates. There were property qualifications of varying amount for the different offices, e. g. of 100 (?: cf. Appendix, s. v. STRATEGUS) minae for στρατηγοὶ and ἵππαρχοι, they had besides to be married and to have children more than ten years old; cf. Dinarch. c. Dem. § 71: καὶ τοὺς μὲν νόμους προλέγειν τῷ ῥήτορι καὶ τῷ στρατηγῷ τὴν παρὰ τοῦ δήμου πίστιν ἀξιοῦντι λαμβάνειν, παιδοποιεῖσθαι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, γῆν ἐντὸς ὅρων κεκτῆσθαι, etc.; the property qualification of the nine archons and the ταμίαι was only 10 minae. Moreover 401 members of this body (over thirty years of age) were elected by lot as senate, and some others were in the same way appointed to some less important magistracies; but as no one could be a member of the senate or hold one of these offices a second time, before all other qualified persons had had their turn, the lot decided merely the order in which such persons should succeed. According to Ἀθ. πολ. the creation of a senate, which has hitherto been ascribed to Solon, was the work of Draco; nor was the property classification Solon's work, for it is incidentally mentioned as existing in the time of Draco, who ordained that for non-attendance at a meeting of the βουλὴ or ἐκκλησία a senator should pay three, two, or one drachma according as he was a πεντακοσιομέδιμνος, a ἱππεὺς or a ζευγίτης. No further information is given as to the functions of βουλὴ and ἐκκλησία; probably they did not exercise any important powers, the Areopagitic council having still (as before 100.3) control over all the magistrates, and being the guardian of the laws (ἡ δὲ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου φύλαξ ἦν τῶν νόμων καὶ διετήρει τὰς ἀρχὰς ὅπως κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἄρχωσιν· cf. Tisamenus' decree in Andoc. Myst. § 84, ἐπιμελείσθω ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου τῶν νόμων, ὅπως ἂν αἱ ἀρχαὶ τοῖς κειμένοις νόμοις χρῶνται); in fact it would seem to have possessed the right of revising decisions (ἐξῆν δὲ τῷ ἀδικουμένῳ πρὸ[ς τὴν τῶν] Ἀρεοπαγειτ[ῶν] βουλὴν εἰσαγγέλλειν ἀποφαινοντι παῤ δν ἀδικεῖται νόμον) These constitutional changes failed, however, to remove the prevailing distress: they did not touch the large class of people who could not furnish a military equipment, and these remained as before ἐπὶ τοῖς σώ[μα]σι δεδεμένοι (cc. 2, 5).

Solon therefore, when he was elected διαλλακτὴς καὶ ἄρχων by the contending parties (κοινῇ), first attacked the economic question, as has been described under SEISACHTHEIA(cf. Ἀθ. πολ. cc. 9, 10). Then all the laws of Draco (θεθμοὶ) except those on homicide were repealed, and the new code of laws (νόμοι, 100.6; θεθμοί, cc. 12, 35) was written on κύρβεις and placed ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τῇ βασιλείῳ (=Harpocr. s. v. κύρβεις). The most democratic features of his constitution are said to be: the prohibition of borrowing on the security of a man's person, the right of every one to commence an action for wrong done to him--τὸ ἐξεῖναι τῷ βουλομένῳ [γράφεσθαι, Mr. Kenyon] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδικουμένων --and the right of appeal to a court of law--[ᾗ] μάλιστά φασιν ἰθχυκέναι τὸ πλῆθος--ἡ εἰς τὸ. δικ[α-στήριον] ἔφ[εσι]ς. κύριος γὰρ ὢν ὁ δῆμος τῆς ψήφου κύριος γίνεται τῆς πολιτείας (100.9). As regards Solon's reconstruction of the constitution, he used the classification of the people according to their property for political purposes (100.7): offices (archons, ταμίαι, πωληταί, οἱ ἕνδεκα, κωλακρέται) were filled from the first three property classes, some from one, others from another (ἑκάστοις ἀνἀλογον τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ τιμ[ή]μ[ατο]ς ἀποδιδοὺς τ[ὴν ἀρ]χήν, e. g. only Pentacosiomedimnoi were eligible as archons and ταμίαι, and it was not until 457 B.C. that ζευγῖται were admitted to the archonship (100.26, the ἱππεῖς must have become qualified before that time), whilst the ταμίαι τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς had to be members of the first class--at least nominally, even in the days of the writer (cc. 8, 47, ἐκ πεντακοσιομεδίμνων κατὰ τὸν Σόλωνος νόμ[ον--ἔτι γὰρ ὁ ν]όμος κύριός ἐστιν,--ἄρχει δ' ὁ λαχὼν κἂν πάνυ πένης ᾗ). To the fourth class, the Thetes, Solon also gave a share of political power for the first time: a voice in the assembly and a seat in the law-courts.

Solon re-established the senate to the number of 400 (100 from each tribe), and left to the Areiopagitic council the guardianship of the laws (νομοφυλακεῖν) and its other important functions, giving it the right to pass judgment on those who conspired to overthrow the constitution (100.8, καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δήμου συν[ι]σταμένους ἔκρινεν, Σόλωνος θεν[τός]; cf. the law in 100.16).

Cleisthenes put an end to the four old tribes with their subdivisions, the trittyes and naucraries, and instituted a new set of tribes, ten in number (ἀναμῖξαι βουλόμενος ὅπως μετασχῶσι πλείους τῆς πολιτείας, 100.21), each to contain three trittyes, of which one was taken from the plain, one from the shore, and one from the mountain. See further under DEMUSCleisthenes left the γένη and φρατρίαι and ἱερωσύναι undisturbed, increased the number of the members of the senate to 500 (fifty from each tribe), and introduced the direct election of the principal magistrates (τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ῃροῦντο κατὰ φυλάς, ἐξ ἑκαστης φυλῆς ἕνα, 100.22) by the popular assembly, which, as far as the nine archons are concerned, remained in force until 487 B.C., when selection by lot, closely resembling that of Solon, seems to have been re-introduced. Out of consideration for the new citizens (νεοπολῖται) whom Cleisthenes had introduced in large numbers, Cleisthenes altered the official mode of designation (100.21) [DEMUS]. The account of Cleisthenes' reforms is summed up (100.22), τούτων δὲ γενομένων δημοτικωτέρα πολ[ὺ τῆς Σ]όλωνος ἐγένετο ἡ πολιτεία (cf. 100.41, but see 100.29, Cleitophon's rider) καὶ γὰρ συνέβη τοὺς μὲν Σόλωνος νόμους ἀφανίσαι τὴν τυραννίδα διὰ τὸ μὴ χρῆσθαι, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους θεῖναι τὸν Κλεισθένην στοχαζόμενον τοὺ πλήθους, ἐν οἷς ἐτέθη καὶ ὁ περὶ τοῦ ὀστρακισμοῦ νόμος.

From 100.40 we learn that Thrasybulus proposed to grant citizenship πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκ Πειραιέως συγκατελθοῦσι (ὧν ἔνιοι φανερῶς ἦσαν δοῦλοι), and that Archinus instituted against him a ψραφὴ παρανόμων. This was Thrasybulus ὁ Στειριεύς, and Archinus won his case (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 195; one scholiast explains that Thrasybulus proposed civic rights for the orator Cephalus, another for Lysias: cf. [Plut.] Vitt. X.Oratt. p. 835 E f).

100.42 deals with the manner of registration of the youths in the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον, on completion of their eighteenth year, as it existed isted in the writer's own time. The demotae having sworn the customary oath, decided by vote εἰ δοκοῦσι γεγονέναι τὴν ἡλικίαν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, and secondly εἰ ἐλεύθερός ἐστι καὶ γέγονε κατὰ τοὺς νόμους. If they were not satisfied on the former point, the particular youth was relegated to the παῖδες· if they found that a youth was not ἐλεύθερος, the latter might appeal to a court of law, before which the demotae were represented by five κατήγοροι elected from amongst themselves; and in case the court decided against the youth, he was sold by the state, whilst, on receiving a verdict in his favour, he was of necessity entered in the register of the deme. A second δοκιμασία was instituted by the senate; and if it was found that the name of one under eighteen years had been entered, they inflicted a penalty on the demotae who had admitted him. For details how the youths spent the following two years, see EPHEBUSThe account continues: φρουροῦσι δὲ τὰ δύο ἔτη . . . καὶ ἀτελεῖς εἰσὶ πάντων καὶ δίκην οὔτε διδόασιν οὔτε λαμβάνουσιν ἵνα μὴ πράγμασι συμμιγεῖεν (?) τι, πλὴν περὶ κλήρον καὶ ἐπικλήρου, κἄν τινι κατὰ τὸ γένος ἱερωσύνη γένηται. (This refers probably to disputes as to who was entitled to the succession in a priestly office: cf. 100.57 and Pollux, 8.90, δίκαι δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν (βασιλέα) λαγχάνονται . . . ἱερωσύνης ἀμφισβητήσεως). The second dokimasia on the part of the senate is, it seems, only mentioned here. As regards the ἀτέλεια, it is evident from Lys. c. Diog. § 24, that orphans were at that time released from liturgies only one year: οὒς (τοὺς ὀρφανοὺς) ἣ πόλις οὐ μόνον παῖδας ὄντας ἀτελεῖς ἐποίησεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπειδὰν δοκιμασθῶσιν, ἐνιαυτὸν ἀφῆκεν ἁπασῶν τῶν λειτουργιῶν. The list of such lawsuits is either not complete--for see the action in Lys. c. Theomn.( § 4, φαίνομαι οὖν τρισκαιδεκαέτης ὤν, ὅτε ὁ πατὴρ ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα ἀπέθνησκε· ταύτην δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἡλικίαν οὔτε . . . οὔτε ἐκείνῳ ἀδικουμένῳ ἠδυνάμην βοηθῆσαι. § 31, ὃς μόνος [of the brothers] ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα ἐδοκιμάσθην, ἐπεξῆλθον τοῖς τριάκοντα ἐν Ἀρείῳ Πάγῳ)--or it applies to the writer's time only. The time of Lysias is referred to by πρότερον in 100.60, πρότερον δ' ἐπώλει τὸν κάρπον ἡ πόλις; cf. Lys. pro Olea sacr. § 2, πρὸς τοὺς ἐωνημένους τοὺς κάρπους τῶς μοριῶν: but the punishment mentioned there ( § § 3, 5, 26, 41) was not death (p. 817 a; cf. also App. s. v. STRATEGUSfor the date of the election of generals for special duties).

It is stated in 100.26 that in 451 B.C., on the proposal of Pericles, it was decreed μὴ μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστοῖν ᾖ γεγονώς (cf. 100.13: among the followers of Pisistratus were also οἱ τῷ γένει μὴ καθαροί. The account goes on: σημεῖον δ' ὅτι μετὰ τὴν τῶν τυράννων κατάλυσιν [Mr. Kenyon] ἐποίησαν διαφημισμὸν [Mr. Kenyon, διαψηφισμὸν] ὡς πολλῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς πολιτείας οὐ προσῆκον), and that the same law prevailed in the time of the writer is said in 100.42. No mention is made in the treatise of Aristophon's proposal in B.C. 403, ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον εἶναι, and of Nicomedes' amendment, τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου ἀνεξετάστους ἀφεῖσθαι, and we know that this became law (Isae. Cir. Her. § 43).

We find in 100.55 the proceedings at the dokimasia of the nine archons fully described. The questions as to descent bear out Pollux's statement (8.85, εἰ Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσιν ἑκατέρωθεν ἐκ τριγονίας); they were: τίς σοι πατὴρ καὶ πόθεν τῶν δήμων, καὶ τίς πατρὸς πατὴρ καὶ τίς μήτηρ, καὶ τίς μητρὸς πατὴρ καὶ πόθεν τῶν δήμων· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα εἰ ἔστιν αὐτῷ Ἀπόλλων πατρῷος καὶ Ζεὺς ἑρκεῖος καὶ ποῦ ταῦτα τὰ ἱερά ἐστιν, etc.

2. Roman.

Civitas means (1) state, in the sense of an independent political society, or the whole body of cives or members of such a society: civitates are defined by Cicero (Somn. Scip. 3) as concilium coetusque hominum jure sociati: cf. Dig. 1, 1, 9; ib. 11; 1, 2, 2, 4. (2) κατ' ἐξοχήν, the Roman state (e.g. in civitate, as distinct from apud hostes, esse, decedere, Dig. 28, 6, 28). (3) A town within a state, whether regarded as having a corporate existence (Dig. 50, 16, 15; ib. 17, pr.; 30, 122, pr. &c.), or merely from the geographical point of view (e.g. theatra, loca sacra in civitate, Dig. 1, 8, 6, 1: in agro vel civitate rem soli possidere, Dig. 2, 8, 15, 1). (4) The condition or status of a Roman citizen: his rights and duties, as distinguished from those of persons who are not Roman citizens; as in the common phrases civitatem dare, civitate donare, civitatem usurpare. In this article it is proposed briefly to examine what these rights and duties are ; how they are shared in greater or less extent by different classes of persons who are members of the Roman state; how they are acquired, and how they are lost.

Under the republic, citizens of Rome seem to be divisible into cives optimo jure and cives non optimo jurc. The first, whether patricians or plebeians, enjoyed the full rights of civitas, which were either public or private. The former are those known as suffragium and honores, --the right of voting in the comitia (especially the comitia tributa), whether in elections or on debates, and the capacity to fill the praetorship, consulship, and other Roman magistracies. The private rights of civitas are comprised under the two heads of commercium and conubium,--commercium expressing capacity to take part in the dispositions, and under the protection, of the civil law, whether conveyances, contracts, testamentary matters, or litigation; while conubium denotes capacity to enter into a lawful Roman marriage, and thus to acquire patria potestas over its issue. The cives non optimo jure belong to one of these classes: (1) The freedmen of a Roman citizen and their children (Suet. Cl. 24); later (as will be seen), these possessed the jus optimum in many cases, but under the early republic it was not so. Though excluded from honores and from the comitia of the tribes, they were privileged to vote in the comitia centuriata. (2) Municipes, persons belonging to a city other than and at least originally independent of Rome, upon which the civitas Romana had been bestowed. Whether it retained its independence, or whether it was simply regarded as a portion of the Roman state ( quorum civitas universa in civitatem Romanam venit, Paul. Diacon. ex Festo), the municipes had no share in the jus publicum. Livy (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 COLONIA(3) Roman citizens originally optimo jure, on whom loss of suffragium had been inflicted as a punishment. This resulted from INFAMIAor 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.

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 [CAPUT]; (4) freedmen who were dediticiorum numero (Ulpian, Reg. 20, 14; Gaius, 1.13).

Between these two classes of Latini and peregrini, a third (Latini) is interposed in the course of history. Latinitas denotes originally the legal condition of members of the Latin confederation (unless their city had been raised to the rank of a municipium), and of the numerous coloniae Latinae: such persons had none of the public rights of civitas, nor had they the conubium; but the commercium was theirs. By the Leges Julia and Plautia Papiria, following upon the Social War (B.C. 90), the Roman citizenship was extended to all Italy, properly so called, and even to Gallia Cispadana. But Latinitas did not therefore disappear. The practice had perhaps already been instituted by conferring Latinitas or jus Latii on allied or subject towns whom Rome wished to honour or propitiate; at any rate, even after natives of Latium and members of the Latin colonies had become cives under the two statutes mentioned, it was common to make a grant of this semi-citizenship (which conveyed simple commercium) to towns in the provinces. Latinity thus has no longer any ethnic or geographical signification; it means simply a particular legal capacity. After the Lex Junia Norbana (A.D. 19) had provided that slaves manumitted in certain informal ways, or manumitted so as not to become cives, should have Latinitas, they were called Latini Juniani, but the statute expressly withdrew from them the element of the commercium, which would have enabled them to make, witness, or take under a will (Gaius, 1.22-24). [LATINITAS]

The commonest way in which civitas was acquired was birth. Children born of a legitimum matrimonium (i. e. lawful wedlock between two cives, or between a civis Romanus and a Latina or peregrina upon whom conubium had been specially conferred: Ulpian, Reg. 5.3, 4) were born cives. If there was not conubium between husband and wife, but the latter was a civis, the issue were cives unless the husband was a peregrinus: non interveniente conubio [liberi] matris condicioni accedunt, excepto eo qui ex peregrino et cive Romana nascitur; nam is peregrinus nascitur, quoniam lex Minicia ex alterutro peregrino natum deterioris parentis condicionem sequi jubet (Ulpian, Reg. 5.8, 9); the general rule, where there was not conubium, being partus sequitur ventrem. Slaves would become cives by being manumitted in one of the statutory modes (vindicta, censu, testamento), unless the case was one in which the Lex Aelia Sentia restricted the libertus to a lower status (Gaius, 1.13, 18, 21, 27). A Latinus could rise to the status of civitas in a variety of ways: by filling a magistracy in his own colonia Latina (Gaius, 1.95); by marrying a civis or Latina before seven witnesses and begetting a child who lived a year, and proving these facts before a magistrate (Gaius, 1.66); by marrying a peregrina, believing her to be a civis, and proving his mistake ( erroris causae probatio, Gaius, 1.67); for other modes see the succeeding paragraphs of Gaius (ib. 35; Ulpian, Reg. 3.1-6; Cod. 9, 24, 1, 4).

Upon peregrini and Latini (except liberti dediticii, Gaius, 1.26) civitas could always of course be conferred by statute: for examples, see Liv. 6.4, 34.42-Z2; Cic. pro Balb. 13Cicero (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, 17), though these classes were at once in some measure replenished by manumission of slaves, the Leges Aelia Sentia and Junia Norbana not having been abrogated. Under the later emperors, the progressive absorption of the jus civile in the jus gentium, or the substitution of the latter in all departments of private law for the former, tended more and more to minimise the importance of the distinction between cives and non cives. Justinian speaks of dediticia libertas (practically the only form of peregrinitas in his empire) as extinct before his time (Cod. 7, 5), and the Latina libertas (of which he says few examples were to be found: Inst. 1.5, 3) he extinguished with the repeal of the Lex Junia Norbana (Cod. 7, 6), so that in the 6th century the last trace of the distinctions between freemen in respect of civitas had disappeared, and all subjects were either cives or slaves.

(Savigny, Zeitschrift, &c. vol. v. Ueber die Entstehung, &c. der Latinität; vol. ix., Der römische Volksschluss der Tafel von Heraklea ; vol. xi., Nachträge zu früheren Arbeiten: System des heutigen römischen Rechts, vol. 2. p. 27, &c.; Puchta, Institutionen, § § 62-65, 216-218.)

[J.B.M]

Civĭtas

The technical Latin word for the right of citizenship. This was originally possessed, at Rome, by the patricians only. The plebeians were not admitted to share it at all until the time of Servius Tullius, and not to full civic rights until B.C. 337. In its fullest comprehension the civitas included: (1) the ius suffragii, or right of voting for magistrates;

(2) the ius honorum, or right of being elected to a magistracy;

(3) the ius provocationis, or right of appeal to the people, and in later times to the emperor, against the sentences passed by magistrates affecting life or property;

(4) the ius connubii, or right to contract a legal marriage;

(5) the ius commercii, or right to hold property in the Roman community. The civitas was obtained either by birth from Roman parents, or by manumission (see Manumissio), or by presentation. The right of presentation belonged originally to the kings, afterwards to the popular assemblies, and particularly to the comitia tributa, and last of all to the emperors. The civitas could be lost by deminutio capitis. (See Deminutio Capitis.) The aerarii, so called, had an imperfect civitas, without the ius suffragii and ius honorum. Outside the circle of the civitas stood the slaves and the foreigners, or peregrini. (See Peregrini.) The latter included: (1) strangers who stood in no international relations with Rome;

(2) the allies, or socii, among whom the Latini (q. v.) held a privileged place;

(3) the dediticii, or those who belonged to nations conquered in war. See Ius.

Though the Roman citizenship was conferred upon all the free inhabitants of the Empire in A.D. 212 by the emperor Caracalla, the grades of it were not all equalized, nor was it until the time of Justinian that civitas and libertas became convertible terms. See politeia.