The two comedies considered here allow us to address the long-standing question regarding the position of the metoikoi within the spectrum of Athenian citizenship—namely, whether they were conceptually associated by the Athenians with the category of the astoi or with that of the xenoi. The first passage to be examined is from the Lysistrata. In outlining her political programme for the institutional and civic recovery of Athens—which, in the year of the comedy’s performance (411 BCE: on the dating see Westlake 1980; Olson 2012; Perusino 2020, XI–XIV), was torn apart by deep divisions within the citizen body, culminating in the oligarchic coup of the Four Hundred shortly after the play’s production—the protagonist employs the metaphor of wool-carding (cf. Pl. Pol. 310e–311c). She enumerates the categories of the population to be brought into harmony once the impurities (i.e., the mochthēroi, “the wicked”) had been removed. In this list, the xenoi and metoikoi are clearly distinguished from one another. What Lysistrata does in this passage is to highlight the legal status of the various groups she mentions, in order to demonstrate that the proposed general reconciliation—intended to remedy Athens’ dire condition—could only be achieved by temporarily disregarding the statutory barriers separating the different categories residing in or otherwise connected to the city (see Azoulay 2014). It follows that the distinction (purely legal) between xenoi and metoikoi is necessary here, and yet nothing suggests that the metoikoi were in any way associated with the astoi.
The same distinction between xenoi and metoikoi is found in the Peace. As Trygaios concludes the prologue and turns to address the chorus in introducing the parodos, he first calls them Hellēnes, and then breaks down the category into various subgroups: farmers, merchants, carpenters, artisans, islanders, metics, and foreigners. The identity and composition of the chorus shifts over the course of the play, oscillating between a Panhellenic and an Athenian dimension (cf. Dover 1972, 138–139; Storey 2019, 32–37). It is nevertheless clear that in mentioning the metics and the islanders, Trygaios adopts an explicitly Athenian perspective. Once again, the distinction between metics and foreigners is necessary, for Aristophanes’ aim is to specify the various subgroups that essentially made up the audience of the Great Dionysia—subgroups that are thereby reflected in the composition of the chorus itself (see Sommerstein 1985, 147; Olson 1998, 130). Yet on closer inspection, the metics, in addition to being differentiated from the xenoi, also seem to be distinguished from the citizens. If Trygaios’ standpoint is that of the average Athenian, and if the xenoi, metics, and islanders are listed after the four professional categories of farmers, artisans, merchants, and carpenters, it is reasonable to suppose that these latter were intended primarily to denote Athenians. For although the absence of adversative particles (men…de) leaves the opposition between citizens and non-citizens implicit, the dichotomy can be inferred both from the inclusion in the second subgroup of islanders (nēsiōtai), who are clearly non-citizens, and from the inclusion in the first subgroup of farmers (geōrgoi), who in Athenian ideology were almost automatically associated with citizenship—by virtue of the right of enktēsis gēs kai oikiou, denied to non-citizens—and who, not coincidentally, are named first (cf. Aristoph. Pl. 903–905; Xenoph. Lac. 1.7; Whitehead 1977, 119). The presence, in the first subgroup, of artisans and merchants does not undermine this interpretation, since banausic occupations were by no means the exclusive preserve of non-citizens (Whitehead 1977, 117–118). As for merchants, it has been plausibly observed that, although non-citizens were undoubtedly overrepresented in this profession, the notion that commerce was largely in the hands of metics and foreigners is far from compelling (Morris 1994, 60; Jansen 2012, 727). The enumeration in the Peace passage is moreover comparable to that found in the aforementioned passage of the Lysistrata, where metics, foreigners, atimoi, and colonists are distinguished from each other and, at the same time—albeit implicitly—from full citizens, who were to implement Lysistrata’s political programme.
If we add to these considerations on the two Aristophanic passages an analysis of the lexical occurrences in other fifth-century dramatic texts (e.g., Aesch. Cho. 683–685; Soph. OT 449–452 cf. 222–223; Eur. Supp. 891–893; Aristoph. Eq. 347–350), in which the term metoikos is not differentiated from xenos but rather associated with it—further specifying its meaning as if to designate a subgroup within the macro-category of the xenoi—we may conclude that, for a fifth-century Athenian, the metics were far more readily associated with the category of xenoi than with that of astoi.
Aristoph. Lys. 574-584
πρῶτον μὲν ἐχρῆν, ὥσπερ πόκον, ἐν βαλανείῳ
ἐκπλύναντας τὴν οἰσπώτην ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ἐπὶ κλίνης 575
ἐκραβδίζειν τοὺς μοχθηροὺς καὶ τοὺς τριβόλους ἀπολέξαι,
καὶ τούς γε συνισταμένους τούτους καὶ τοὺς πιλοῦντας ἑαυτοὺς
ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀρχαῖσι διαξῆναι καὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς ἀποτῖλαι·
εἶτα ξαίνειν εἰς καλαθίσκον κοινὴν εὔνοιαν, ἅπαντας
καταμειγνύντας τούς τε μετοίκους κεἴ τις ξένος ᾖ φίλος ὑμῖν, 580
κεἴ τις ὀφείλῃ τῷ δημοσίῳ, καὶ τούτους ἐγκαταμεῖξαι·
καὶ νὴ Δία τάς γε πόλεις, ὁπόσαι τῆς γῆς τῆσδ’ εἰσὶν ἄποικοι,
διαγιγνώσκειν ὅτι ταῦθ’ ὑμῖν ὥσπερ τὰ κατάγματα κεῖται
Well, first as we wash dirty wool so's to cleanse it,
so with a pitiless zeal we will scrub
Through the whole city for all greasy fellows; burrs
too, the parasites,
off we will rub.
That verminous plague of insensate place-seekers soon
between thumb and
forefinger we'll crack.
All who inside Athens' walls have their dwelling into
one great common
basket we'll pack.
Disenfranchised or citizens, allies or aliens,
pell-mell the lot of them
in we will squeeze.
Till they discover humanity's meaning.... As for
disjointed and far
colonies,
Them you must never from this time imagine as
scattered about just like
lost hanks of wool.
Aristoph. Pax 292-299
νῦν ἐστιν ὑμῖν, ὦνδρες Ἕλληνες, καλὸν
ἀπαλλαγεῖσι πραγμάτων τε καὶ μαχῶν
ἐξελκύσαι τὴν πᾶσιν Εἰρήνην φίλην,
πρὶν ἕτερον αὖ δοίδυκα κωλῦσαί τινα, 295
ἀλλ’, ὦ γεωργοὶ κἄμποροι καὶ τέκτονες
καὶ δημιουργοὶ καὶ μέτοικοι καὶ ξένοι
καὶ νησιῶται, δεῦρ’ ἴτ’, ὦ πάντες λεῴ,
ὡς τάχιστ’ ἄμας λαβόντες καὶ μοχλοὺς καὶ σχοινία.
Now, oh Greeks! is the moment when freed of quarrels and fighting, we should rescue sweet Peace and draw her out of this pit, [295]
before some other pestle prevents us. Come, laborers, merchants, workmen, artisans, strangers, whether you be domiciled or not, islanders— Come here, Greeks of all countries, come hurrying here with picks and levers and ropes!
- V. Azoulay, Repolitiser la cité grecque. Trent ans après, Annales 69.3, 2014, 689-719
- K. J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, Berkeley 1972
- J. Jansen, Strangers Incorporated: Outsiders in Xenophon’s Poroi in F. Hobden – C. Tuplin (eds.), Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, Leiden – Boston 2012, 725–760
- G. Mastromarco, Aristofane. Commedie, vol. 1, Torino 1983
- I. Morris, The community against the market in classical Athens in C. Duncan – D. Tandy (eds.), From Political Economy to Anthropology, Montreal 1994, 52–79.
- S. D. Olson, Aristophanes. Peace, Oxford 1998
- S. D. Olson, Lysistrata’s conspiracy and the politics of 412 BC in C. W. Marshall, G. A. Kovacs (eds.), No laughing matter: studies in Athenian comedy, London 2012, 69-81
- F. Perusino, Lisistrata, Milano 2020
- A. H. Sommerstein, The Comedies of Aristophanes V: Peace, Warminster 1985
- I. C. Storey, Aristophanes. Peace, London – New York 2019
- H. D. Westlake, The Lysistrata and the war, Phoenix 34, 1980, 38-54
- D. Whitehead, The ideology of the Athenian metic, Cambridge 1977