In Philip Manville’s influential model on Greek citizenship studies, Athenian citizenship emerged under Solon, evolved under tyranny, and became fully formalised under Clisthenes.
The continuist approach to the study of Athenian citizenship emphasises the early constitution’s open and inclusive nature, a feature well attested in tradition. This is a topos cherished by democratic rhetoric (Th. 2.39.2), portraying Athens as an open city, as well as a safe haven for the oppressed (e.g. the treatment of the myth of the return of the Heraclides in the epitaphioi logoi, Lys. 2.11-16; Gorg. fr. 6.3DK; Demosth. 60.7-8; Pl. Mx. 639b), and a common refuge for the Greeks (Aeschin. 3.134; Demosth. 20.55; Isoc. 4.41), an outlook so ancient that it predates the Ionian migration (Th. 1.2.6).
Plutarch’s passage is part of this representation of Athens. Moreover, the naturalisation law is part of a broader legislation on citizenship attributed to Solon that includes the definition of citizenship rights via census identification (Arst. Ath. Pol. 7.3-4; Pol. 2.1274a 15-21; Plut. Sol. 18.1-2) and criteria for access to institutions and magistracies (Arst. Ath. Pol. 8.1, 8.4, 47.1; Plut. Sol. 19.1-2), the amnestial measure against the atimoi (Plut. Sol. 19.4 to which Solon himself seems to allude in elegy 30 G.-P.2), and the legislation on betrothal (engyesis) and legitimacy of offspring ([Demosth.] 46.18).
While reporting on the law regarding the naturalisation of foreigners (ὁ τῶν δημοποιήτων νόμος), not otherwise attested, Plutarch found this law challenging to explain (παρέχει δ’ ἀπορίαν), likely due to the particular categories benefiting from the granting of citizenship, such as lifelong exiles and foreigners relocating to Athens with their families for trade. The open nature of Athens during Solon’s age towards elements outside the ethnic group was subordinated to the logic of utility, as evident at least in the inclusion of economic migrants; full citizenship for these individuals was contingent upon the migration of their entire household, as illustrated by the hapax πανέστιος. Similarly, lifelong exiles – who benefited from the ἀειφυγία measure – were included under the reason that those who had definitively severed ties with their homeland could settle permanently in the new reality and would not risk depriving the host community of wealth accumulated.
The concept of ‘Solonian’ law raises the questions about a law not being genuine but motivated by the habit of attributing later measures to famous legislators to enhance their dignity and authority. There is no reason, however, to doubt the authenticity of this law. Plutarch’s modernising language in reporting its content should not be seen as a barrier to recognising the law’s genuine character, since his wording betrays at most an exegetical effort to actualise it. Demopoietos is a later term, although lexicographical sources attest its presence in a lost speech by Hyperides, For the naturalised citizen (Harp. s.v. ἕρκειος Ζεύς). Similarly, τοῖς μετοικιζομένοις is a clear anachronism for Solon’s age, but it can be explained by the fact that Plutarch interprets the law in the light of the practice of metoikia to the Classical period. It is safe to assume that the naturalisation of this category of individuals can be motivated by the attempt to provide Athenians with a viable alternative to agriculture, thereby attracting specialised foreign workers, especially craftsmen (Plut. Sol. 22.1; Vitr. 6.3-4; Gal. Adhort. 8.1).
The law does not specify the rights associated with citizenship. According to a recent hypothesis, naturalised citizens became part of the legal community of politai under Solon, sharing legal rights but lacking political rights (Dmitriev). Based on some Cretan inscriptions (Nomima I.8, I.16), it has also been suggested that archaic citizenship provided security of property and person rather than political rights, and the guarantee of being able to enjoy the fruits of property (Ruzé). However, as regards Athenian citizenship, it has been emphasised that the granting of citizenship ensured not only the right to personal freedom and possession of property (Sol. G.-P.2 29b, ll. 9-10; Arst. Ath. Pol. 56.2 with Faraguna), but also the exercise of minimal political rights, such as participation in assemblies and courts, election of magistrates, and oversight of magistracies (Arst. Pol. 2.1273b 35-1274a 17; 3.1281b 25-34).
What is the rationale behind the law? Does it seek to limit the benefit of naturalisation to specifically listed categories, thereby discouraging temporary residency and restricting employment opportunities for transient foreigners (Papachrysostomou)? Or does it aim to facilitate the return of indebted Athenians who had been sold into slavery to Attica (Pagliara)? Both hypotheses seem unlikely. In addition to the general consideration that further ad personam naturalisation measures cannot be ruled out a priori, there is Solon’s well-documented effort to regulate the presence of transient foreigners working in the agora (Demosth. 57.32). Moreover, the reintegration of the atimoi was achieved through a general amnesty which reinstated their epitimia. This rule rather indicates a desire to attract specific categories of migrants deemed more advantageous for the city’s economic growth by precisely outlining their rights and duties.
παρέχει δ’ ἀπορίαν καὶ ὁ τῶν δημοποιήτων νόμος, ὅτι γενέσθαι πολίταις οὐ δίδωσι πλὴν τοῖς φεύγουσιν ἀειφυγίᾳ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἢ πανεστίοις Ἀθήναζε μετοικιζομένοις ἐπὶ τέχνῃ. τοῦτο δὲ ποιῆσαί φασιν αὐτὸν οὐχ οὕτως ἀπελαύνοντα τοὺς ἄλλους, ὡς κατακαλούμενον Ἀθήναζε τούτους ἐπὶ βεβαίῳ τῷ μεθέξειν τῆς πολιτείας, καὶ ἅμα πιστοὺς νομίζοντα τοὺς μὲν ἀποβεβληκότας τὴν ἑαυτῶν διὰ τὴν ἀνάγκην, τοὺς δ ̓ ἀπολελοιπότας διὰ τὴν γνώμην.
But the law concerning naturalized citizens is of doubtful character. He permitted only those to be made citizens who were permanently exiled from their own country, or who removed to Athens with their entire families to ply a trade. This he did, as we are told, not so much to drive away other foreigners, as to invite these particular ones to Athens with the full assurance of becoming citizens; he also thought that reliance could be placed both on those who had been forced to abandon their own country, and on those who had left it with a fixed purpose (Loeb translation).
- J.K. Davies, Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives, CJ 73, 1977–1978, 105-121
- S. Dmitriev, The Birth of the Athenian Community: From Solon to Cleisthenes, London 2017
- M. Faraguna, Citizenship in the Greek Polis: An Institutional Approach, in M. Barbato, M. Canevaro, A. Esu (eds.), New Approaches to Greek Institutional History, Edinburgh (in c.d.s)
- P. Ismard, La cité des réseaux: Athènes et ses associations, VIe-Ier siècle av. J.-C., Paris 2010
- P. Ismard, Associations and Citizenship in Attica from Solon to Cleisthenes, in A. Duplouy, R. Brock (eds.), Defining Citizenship in Archaic Greece, Oxford 2018, 145-159
- D. Leão, P.J. Rhodes, The Laws of Solon: A New Edition with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, London, New York
- L. Loddo, La legge ateniese sull’interdizione degli stranieri dal mercato: da Solone ad Aristofonte di Azenia, Klio 100.3, 2018, 667-687
- L. Loddo, Solone demotikotatos. Il legislatore e il politico nella cultura democratica ateniese, Milano 2018
- M. Manfredini, L. Piccirilli, La Vita di Solone, Milano 1977
- P.B. Manville, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens, Princeton 1990
- A. Pagliara, II nomos ton demopoieton di Solone, Annali dell’Università di Lecce, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia e di Magistero 2, 1964-65, 5-19
- A Papachrysostomou, Solon’s Citizenship Law (Plu. Sol. 24.4), Historia 68.1, 2019, 2-10