Civitas - Smith Dict

7/28/2019 Civitas - Smith Dict

1/15

search

help

report a problem

abbreviations

HOME

ABOUT THIS RESOURCE

PERSEUS DIGITAL LIBRARY AT TUFTS

ARTFL PROJECT

CLASSICS AT CHICAGO

Smith's Dictionary of Greek and RomanAntiquities

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

[word count] [antiquities_dico4].

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 thelegislative and judicial power (1, 4, : and 8b

). No definition will equally apply to all the different states of Greece, or to anysingle 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 howeverlimited by the nobles, to whom sometimes the title ofwas given (Od. 1.394; 6.54; 8.41. 390) aswell 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. onHom. 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 thenobles 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 arecalled). Theseus is said to have united them into a single state and to have made Athens the seatof government and of the administration of justice in all important cases (Thuc. 2.15), and to have forcedthe Eupatridae of the different communities to settle at Athens (Plut. Thes. 32; cf. Plat. Critias, p. 110 C,

th's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:1:258.ant...

15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


2/15


3/15

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 theEupatridae; 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, between590 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 toBusolt, 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 andnext by that of the deme to which he belonged: e. g. Cleistheneslikewise reformed the phratries and increased their number to 360, each of the old becoming thecentre 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 hisnumber 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). Tospeak of the former class first: according to Solon's law (Plut. Sol. 24), citizenship could only be conferredupon two classes of foreigners--

; according to the law quoted in [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375.89, upon those who had rendered thestate eminent services (' ),[ERROR: no link :]

For Sparta, see below; for Megara, cf. Plut. de Monarch. 9, 285; Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 690.212. OtherGreek 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 andTeos, there were official lists of such new citizens (

, , 134: on the Artemision, cf. Newton andHicks, 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 asto 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 hisskill 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 theirtown 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


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


4/15

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, Hypereidesmade, amongst others, the following proposal (fr. 33, Blass), probablyonly 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 theensuing 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 someothers)[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] , etc.Szanto (Rh. M. 1885, p. 507 n.) concludes that it was not introduced before the beginning of the 4thcentury. The decree in C. I. A. 1.59 (Hicks,Manual of Gr. Hist. Inscr. p. 105 ff.) does not help us in thisquestion, for, as Kirchhoff (Ber. d. Berl. Akad., 1861, p. 605) shows, it is merely a former decreeconfirmed. 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 againstApollodorus. 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 aregiven 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. Theyrefer to [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1381.105; yet that was a special occasion, when, owing to the great number ofcandidates and to the peculiar nature of the case, special measures were needed (Att. Proc. p. 255), andBuermann (Jahrb. f. class. Philol. Suppl. x., p. 347 if.) has shown that a did not become aregular 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 theirdescendants , . Sinceon the occasion of the the candidate was asked if he had a share in the worship ofApollo and Zeus (Aristotle inLex. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 670, 17; Poll. 8.85; according toSauppe, de phratr. Att. p. 7 ff. and since Cleisthenes' reform), i. e. in theworship of the phratries, it follows that the children of a new citizen and of an and mustnecessarily 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 thatthis 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 ofphratries 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 statesthey 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 theone usually assigned to them. (Meier, de Gentil. p. 15: curiae suos quaeque mores sequebantur nequeplebis sed suis scitis regebantur. )


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


5/15

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) theywere 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 aon the lines of it. (Plutarch calls it aof 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 thoseforeigners 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, notPsammetichus) sent grain to Athens as a present. At that time measures were taken not against , butagainst those who claimed a share in the grain without being citizens by right (, to the numberof 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, onHerodotus's statement; according to Hansen, Ueb. d. Bevlkerungsdichtigkeit Att. p. 13, the total armedcitizen 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 Vanden 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 theEuboeans 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 herand the ; and in the case of heiresses the on the part of the archon. Childrenborn 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 ofcitizens 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.


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


6/15

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. inLeoch. 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, forsome 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) wassacrificed and distributed (, Dem. in Macart. p. 1078.82; Harpocr.), together with a certainquantity 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 declarationon 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 otherhand 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, specialmeasures were devised. Busolt (Mller'sHandb. d. cl. Altert.-Wiss. 4. p. 145) suggests that the secondvote 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 tothe phrateres, when the grown--up youth was received amongst the by the solemn act of cuttingoff 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 thecalendar 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 themagistrates 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 thelatter 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 onhim ( , 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 speciallyexamined 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 ofthose who had been killed in war had to undergo this , before they received the


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


7/15

(Aesch. 3.154). An Athenian duly enrolled was of age (, Xen.Memor. 2.1, 21); he could enterupon 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 becameresponsible 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 toenrolment in the ., as Voemel (Zeitschr. f. A. W. 1846, p. 122) supposes, especially not inthe 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 alist of all the of each year (Harpocr. s. v. ): this list was differentfrom 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, isnot 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 ofcivic 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 mustlay 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 amust 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). Properlyspeaking, 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 thestate 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 theowners 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


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


8/15

war-time the helots were employed as shield-bearers to the hoplites, as light-armed troops (Hdt. 9.28), andduring the Peloponnesian war they served as marines (Xen. Hell. 7.1, 12-Z1), and sometimes even ashoplites (Thuc. 4.80; 7.19-Z2, etc.). In the war with Thebes those helots were invited to come forwardwho 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 togive 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, adThuc. 5.34, out of the children of such emancipatedhelots,) there grew up a separate class, the(Poll. 3.83; not mentioned before the time of thePeloponnesian 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 statenothing 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.

Theorwere helot children (generally the sons of Spartans by helot women) who hadtogether 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 ofemancipation in the first Messenian war, see [ERROR: no link cross:]PARTHENIAE

The name ofis derived by some from the name of the town of, whose inhabitants were saidto have risen against the Dorians already established in power and to have been reduced by Sparta to this

state of degradation (but the inhabitants ofare called or or ); by others from, therefore prisoners, or from (= , Suid.), low-land (E. Curtius,Pelop. 2.288, explainsthus the name of the town of), therefore the dwellers in the low-land on the banks of the riverEurotas (Gilbert, 1. p. 31, n. 2). Mller (Dorians, 2.31) considers them an aboriginal race subdued by theAchaeans, 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 therefought 5,000 Perioeci as hoplites (Hdt. 9.28), and on one occasion a Perioecos was in command of thefleet (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 exerciseda 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, seeMitth. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. in Athen, 5,231, 239; and about thesent 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 ofpeace 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


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


9/15

(Plut. Lyc. 4); and that their industry was not confined to the mere drudgery of manufactures is shown bythe 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 thesetwo 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 byXenophon (ZYYXen. Hell. 3.3, 6-Z1). In legal rights all were equal, but within them, asSchoemann 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, 15S.=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 thirtyyears and upwards were privileged to attend, elected the Gerontes from the (those abovesixty 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.), treatieswith 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 latertimes to the Ephors (see, however, the story in Aesch. 1.180, 181; andXen. Hell. 6.4, 2-Z1). The peoplesat, as in most Greek states (Thuc. 1.87, 3-Z1; Vischer,Rhein. Mus. 1873, p. 380). A isonly once mentioned byXen. Hell. 3.3, 8-Z1. Lachmann (d. spart. Staatsverf. 216) sees in it a meeting ofthe kings, Ephors, and Gerontes; Schoemann (Gr. Staatsalt. 1. p. 235) an assembly of the whohappened 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 thenaturalisation 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, andaccording 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 ofXen. Hell. 5.3, 9-Z1; cf: Haase adXen. 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 aconsiderable 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 theforeign elements admitted into it, a view from which Busolt (Gr. Gesch. 1. p. 108) dissents. No distinctionof 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 hespeaks of the Aegidae as a . For the in Argos, see an inscription of thethird century B.C., published inBull. de Corresp. Hell. 1885, p. 350). These three tribes were divided intotwenty-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


15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


10/15

subdivisions (cf. the rhetra inPlut. Lyc. 6, , etc.). [[ERROR: no linkcross:]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 lightupon 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 byadministering 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 couldfurnish a military equipment ( --the same qualification was necessary after theoverthrow of the Four Hundred, Thuc. 8.97: , ). This body elected () the more importantmagistrates. 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 hadbesides to be married and to have children more than ten years old; cf. Dinarch. c.Dem. 71:

, , , etc.; the property qualification of the ninearchons 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 ascribedto 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, aor a. No further information is given as to the functions ofand ; 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 (), firstattacked 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, andthe 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: theprohibition 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] --andthe right of appeal to a court of law--[] -- . [-][]. (100.9). As regards Solon'sreconstruction of the constitution, he used the classification of the people according to their property for

political purposes (100.7): offices (archons, , , , ) were filled from thefirst three property classes, some from one, others from another ( [][] [ ], e. g. only Pentacosiomedimnoi were eligible as archons and ,


f 15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


11/15

and it was not until 457 B.C. that were admitted to the archonship (100.26, the must havebecome qualified before that time), whilst the had to be members of the first class--atleast nominally, even in the days of the writer (cc. 8, 47, [-- ] ,-- ' ). To the fourth class, theThetes, 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 topass 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 (fiftyfrom each tribe), and introduced the direct election of the principal magistrates (

, , 100.22) by the popular assembly, which, as far as the nine archons areconcerned, remained in force until 487 B.C., when selection by lot, closely resembling that of Solon, seemsto have been re-introduced. Out of consideration for the new citizens () whom Cleisthenes hadintroduced 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; onescholiast 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 completionof 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 toa court of law, before which the demotae were represented by five elected from amongstthemselves; 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 wasinstituted 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 todisputes 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 ofthe 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


f 15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


12/15

Lysias is referred to by in 100.60, ' ; cf. Lys.pro Oleasacr. 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 ofthe 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 thatthe 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 coetusquehominumjure sociati: cf.Dig. 1, 1-Z1, 9-Z1; ib. 11; 1, 2, 2, 4. (2) ' , the Roman state (e.g. incivitate, 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.), ormerely 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 Romancitizen: 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 differentclasses 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 optimojurc. The first, whether patricians or plebeians, enjoyed the full rights of civitas, which were either publicor 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

ofcommercium and conubium,--commercium expressing capacity to take part in the dispositions, andunder 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 acquirepatriapotestas over its issue. The cives non optimo jure belong to one of these classes: (1) The freedmen of aRoman citizen and their children (Suet. Cl. 24); later (as will be seen), these possessed thejus optimum inmany 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 Romanahad 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 thejus 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 ofthe private rights they stood on the same footing with cives optimo jure.


f 15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


13/15

This distinction of cives into those with and those without the optimum jus will perhaps explain theopposition 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 aLatinus obtains Roman citizenship, heis most usually said to get the jus Quiritium ; when aperegrinus, the term commonly used is civitas. Thefirst expresses the difference between a civis Romanus and other members of the Roman state. Latiniwere such members; but from the termperegrinus, no inference can be drawn as to whether theindividual 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, orperegrini (Ulpian,Reg. 5, 4; 19, 4; 20, 8; 11, 6); and similarly (Gaius, 1.12) a slave might by manumissionbecome a member of any one of these classes, though hisperegrinitas would be a very restricted andunenviable sort of freedom. Civis, according to Ulpian, is he who possesses the complete rights of aRoman citizen, public as well as private. Theperegrinus had none of the rights of civitas: but he couldcontract 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 ofstipulation, 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 ofLatinus was intermediate: he had no conubium,and consequently he could not exercisepatria 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 thepublic 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. Theperegrinitas, in the sense above stated, originated in the conquest of a stateby 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 afoedus with Rome.

Civitas, then, historically viewed, was in brief as follows :--Originally the Romans divided all persons into

cives andperegrini: apart from public rights, the former had conubium and commercium; theperegrini

had neither. But it does not follow that theperegrinus was entirely destitute of rights. He had no legalcapacity according to thejus civile, and it is by thejus civile that civitas is determined; but he had acapacity of acquiring rights under thejus gentium as expounded in the praetor's edict, and these rights theRoman tribunals, being under the praetor's control, gradually recognised and protected. Thus the following

would beperegrini: (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) freedmenwho were dediticiorum numero (Ulpian,Reg. 20, 14; Gaius, 1.13).

Between these two classes ofLatini andperegrini, 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 hadnone of the public rights of civitas, nor had they the conubium; but the commercium was theirs. By theLeges 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, butthe statute expressly withdrew from them the element of the commercium, which would have enabledthem 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 alegitimum matrimonium


f 15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


14/15

(i. e. lawful wedlock between two cives, or between acivis Romanus and aLatina orperegrina uponwhom conubium had been specially conferred: Ulpian,Reg. 5.3, 4) were born cives. If there was notconubium between husband and wife, but the latter was a civis, the issue were cives unless the husbandwas aperegrinus: non interveniente conubio [liberi] matris condicioni accedunt, excepto eo qui experegrino 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 wasnot conubium, being partus sequitur ventrem. Slaves would become cives by being manumitted in one ofthe statutory modes (vindicta, censu, testamento), unless the case was one in which the Lex Aelia Sentiarestricted the libertus to a lower status (Gaius, 1.13, 18, 21, 27). ALatinus could rise to the status ofcivitas in a variety of ways: by filling a magistracy in his own colonia Latina (Gaius, 1.95); by marrying a

civis orLatina before seven witnesses and begetting a child who lived a year, and proving these factsbefore a magistrate (Gaius, 1.66); by marrying aperegrina, believing her to be acivis, and proving hismistake ( 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).

Uponperegrini andLatini (except liberti dediticii, Gaius, 1.26) civitas could always of course beconferred by statute: for examples, seeLiv. 6.4, 34.42-Z2; Cic. pro Balb. 13 Cicero (ib. 8, 21) remarksthat 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 civitatesfoederatae 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 virtueof 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 thefoederatae civitates, and who had a domicile in Italy at that moment, should have theRoman 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 acitizen 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 southernextremities 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) tobestow the civitas on whomsoever he pleased, except dediticii liberti: though as the gift of it to a LatinusJunianus 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 allLatini andperegrini then living under thesway of Rome (Dig. 1, 5-Z1, 17-Z1), though these classes were at once in some measure replenished bymanumission of slaves, the Leges Aelia Sentia and Junia Norbana not having been abrogated. Under the

later emperors, the progressive absorption of thejus civile in thejus gentium, or the substitution of thelatter 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 ofdediticia libertas (practically the onlyform ofperegrinitas in his empire) as extinct before his time (Cod. 7, 5), and the Latina libertas (of whichhe 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 heutigenrmischen Rechts, vol. 2. p. 27, &c.; Puchta,Institutionen, 62-65, 216-218.)

[[ERROR: no link cross:]J.B.M]


f 15 4/4/2013 5:14 PM


15/15

-- 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].


Documents

Civitas - Smith Dict