Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:47:57.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bastards as Athenian Citizens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

P. J. Rhodes
P. J. Rhodes
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A. R. W. Harrison in The Law of Athens, i (O.U.P., 1968), 63–5, argued that the exclusion of bastards from the phratries and the severe restriction of their right of inheritance does not entail their exclusion from Athenian citizenship; and that the form of Pericles' citizenship law, not stating that were to be , and Solon's law restricting the inheritance rights of , both point to the conclusion that bastards were not ipso facto debarred from citizenship. D. M. MacDowell in CQ N.S. 26 (1976), 88–91, rightly finds Harrison's positive arguments inconclusive, but suggests that three texts provide more definite support for this conclusion.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , May 1978 , pp. 89 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I should like to thank Professor MacDowell, Professor M. C. Stokes, and Mrs. S. C. Humphries for their comments on drafts of this reply.

2 Cf. e.g. Gilbert, G., The Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens (London: Sonnenschein, 1895), p.191 n.l.Google Scholar

3 e.g. Gorame, A.W., The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1933), p.ll.Google Scholar

4 The Law of Athens, ii (O.U.P., 1971), 169–76.Google Scholar

5 Atimistraffen i Athen i klassisk tid (Odense U. P., 1973), pp.42–52Google Scholar, cf. English summary, pp.282–3Google Scholar, and Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis…(Odense U. P., 1976), pp.75–82Google Scholar. In the latter book, p.55 n.8, Hansen draws the same conclusion as MacDowell from X. Or. 834 A–B.

6 Texts collected and discussed by Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (O.U.P., 1972), pp.508–12.Google Scholar

7 Against Hansen I believe that also denotes outlawry at any rate in Hesp. 21 (1952), 355–9Google Scholar, no. 5 = SEG xii. 87, 11–22Google Scholar (cf. decree ap. And. 1. Myst. 96,

8 In Hansen's view the weaker, classical sense of still denotes the withdrawal of personal as well as of civic rights, falling scarcely short of outlawry; and although he limits its application to citizens (and indeed many ways of incurring it were open only to citizens) if the weaker was as drastic as that it too could meaningfully be extended to non-citizens.

9 The Speeches of Isaeus (C.U.P., 1904), pp.278–82.Google Scholar

10 Cf.Humphreys, S.C., JHS 94 (1974),CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 It is generally accepted that after Cleisthenes' reforms it was not necessary to belong to a phratry to be a citizen: Harrison considered the strongest argument to be that ‘Ath. Pol. 42.1Google Scholar, which gives in some detail the qualifications for entry on the deme register, does not list membership of a phratry’ (The Law of Athens, i.64 n.l)Google Scholar; as I have shown, I do not trust Ath. Pol. to tell the whole truth, but Cleisthenes' When the registers were revised in 346/5 Euxitheus was expelled from the deme Halimus, apparently on the grounds that he was not . His principal concern in the speech is to show that his father and mother were both ; he also invokes the evidence of phratry membership (§ §23–5, 40, 46, cf. 69)-not, I believe, because phratry membership was required for citizenship, but because the members of phratries were a more exclusive body than the Athenian citizens, to provide an argumentum a fortiori; he also insists that his parents were duly married and that he is their legitimate son (§§40–3, 53, 69). In fourth-century Athens a citizen could not legally marry a non-citizen (cf. on passage (c), above)-, the sceptic could maintain that Euxitheus lays comparatively little stress on this part of his case, and that here as with phratry membership he is not proving something that he has to prove but arguing a fortiori; I should reply that Euxitheus had not been challenged on grounds of legitimacy, and that at any rate his legitimacy seemed important enough to be worth reasserting in his peroration (§ 69). This speech does not prove that Athenian citizens were required to be of legitimate birth, but it does not weaken my belief in that requirement. reforms are more easily explained if in and admission to a deme supplanted, rather than were added to, in and admission to a phratry as the prerequisite of citizenship (see Wade-Gery, H.T., CQ 27 (1933), 26 n.2, 26–7 with 27 n.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cf. CQ 25 (1931), 129–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Essays in Greek History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958), pp.149 n.2, 150–1 with 151 n.2, cf. 116–34). According to Plut. Per. 37.5, after the death of his legitimate sons Pericles was allowed to have his son by Aspasia enrolled in his phratry (whereas according to Suid. ‘’ the young man was made a citizen): but even if Plutarch is right (as he may Well be) this does not prove that membership of a phratry was still required for citizenship.Google Scholar

12 There is another argument which is not conclusive but has some force. There is a tendency in our sources to use of men who were, or were alleged to be, (e.g. Plut. Them, l.i–3; Ael. V.H. 6.10, 13.24, Suid. [A451’;cf. Ath. 13.577B, Lex. Seg. [Bekker, I., Anecdota Graeca, i], 274.21Google Scholar, Suid. [K 2721]): assimilation in this direction would be surprising if (Athenian) were entitled to citizenship but were of lower status and were not so entitled.

13 On the other hand, if bastards were entitled to citizenship, we may wonder who would sponsor a man for admission to a deme, and to which deme, if his father refused to acknowledge him.