You are on page 1of 21

TheJournalofHellenicStudies AdditionalservicesforTheJournalofHellenicStudies: Emailalerts:Clickhere Subscriptions:Clickhere Commercialreprints:Clickhere Termsofuse:Clickhere

DemetriusandDraco:Athens'propertyclassesandpopulationin andbefore317BC
TheJournalofHellenicStudies/Volume131/November2011,pp95114 DOI:10.1017/S0075426911000073,Publishedonline:25November2011

Linktothisarticle: Howtocitethisarticle: HansVanWees(2011).DemetriusandDraco:Athens'propertyclassesandpopulationinandbefore317BC. TheJournalofHellenicStudies,131,pp95114doi:10.1017/S0075426911000073 RequestPermissions:Clickhere


Journal of Hellenic Studies 131 (2011) 95114


HANS VAN WEES University College London*
Abstract: The nature of the census figures produced by Demetrius of Phaleron, crucial evidence for the size of the Athenian population, has been misunderstood. The census categories were not native Athenians, foreign residents and slaves, but citizens above the property qualification, residents without political rights and members of households. The property qualification of 1,000 drachmas associated with Demetrius regime was the requirement for holding the highest offices; the property requirement for citizenship rights was lower, as it was in the spurious constitution of Draco described in Athenaion Politeia 4, which was probably invented and inserted during Demetrius reign. In the light of this reinterpretation of the evidence for the structure of the Athenian population under Demetrius, a reconsideration of the evidence for the size of the Athenian population in 322 BC suggests that there were ca. 30,000 adult male citizens and far fewer metics than generally assumed, probably ca. 5,000. The distribution of property among the citizen population was very uneven, with the richest 30% of the population owning about 80% of the wealth. According to Demetrius census as reinterpreted here, slaves outnumbered free residents by only about 3:1, which still seems an implausibly high figure, but needs to be taken seriously as a government estimate rather than a rhetorical exaggeration.

I. Introduction: going beyond Beloch

Under Demetrius of Phaleron a review took place of the inhabitants of Attica, and 21,000 Athenians, 10,000 metoikoi and 400,000 oiketai were found. 'Aynhsin jetasmn gensyai p Dhmhtrou to Falhrvw tn katoikontvn tn 'Attikn ka ereynai 'Ayhnaouw mn dismurouw prw tow xiloiw, metokouw d murouw, oketn d muridaw m.

So Athenaeus, quoting the Chronicles of a certain Ctesicles, who in turn perhaps found the numbers in The Decade, Demetrius own account of his time as governor of Athens, 317307 BC.1 This evidence for the size of the population of Athens has been endlessly discussed since the 19th century, yet almost nothing has been said about Demetrius numbers that was not already said by Karl Julius Beloch in 1886 and 1923. Ever since Beloch, scholars have rejected the 400,000 oiketai as an impossibly large number of slaves, accepted the 10,000 metoikoi as good evidence for the number of registered aliens living in Athens and argued over whether the 21,000 Athenians self-evidently included all adult male citizens, as Beloch claimed in Die Bevlkerung der griechisch-rmischen Welt, or included only citizen soldiers and implied a total citizen body of ca. 30,000, as Beloch suggested in his Griechische Geschichte.2 Belochs brilliance is beyond question, of course, and is demonstrated by the very fact that it has proved so hard to make a significant advance on his work. But even he sometimes made assumptions or jumped to conclusions which are open to challenge, yet surprisingly have not

* This paper has been much improved by the incisive and helpful comments provided by Riet van Bremen and two anonymous referees for JHS. I am also grateful to Yoshie Sugino for checking some of the calculations. None of the above

bear responsibility for any remaining flaws. 1 Athen. 272c; Ctesicles FGrH 245 F 1; SOD no. 51; cf. Gallo (2002) 34. 2 Beloch (1886) 58; (1923) 40406.



been seriously questioned. Recently, however, Raymond Descat has at last moved the debate forward by offering a different interpretation of the oiketai ((2004) 36870), and the present paper tries to push the discussion still further beyond Beloch by arguing that all three of Demetrius census categories have been misunderstood. Key to a better understanding of the census is a closer look at the political context in which it took place, including the imposition of a timocratic regime which has also been much misunderstood but is illuminated, I will argue, by the spurious Constitution of Draco which was inserted in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. A reinterpretation of the evidence throws new light on the origins of Draco, on the nature of Demetrius regime, on the size and composition of the Athenian population in 317 BC, and by extension also on the population of Athens earlier in the fourth century another subject over which Beloch has cast a long shadow as well as the distribution of wealth in Athenian society. II. The property classes of Demetrius and Draco Caught up in the power play between Macedonian factions, the Athenians in 317 BC finally decided that their best hope was to negotiate terms with Cassander. He agreed to withdraw his garrison and give Athens its independence, on two conditions: the city should have a governor, to be appointed by him, and citizen rights should be restricted. The state was to be governed on the basis of property qualifications as far as ten minae (t polteuma dioikesyai p timsevn xri mnn dka, Diod. 18.74.3). Even before Demetrius was appointed as governor, then, the Athenians had already accepted the terms of a timocratic regime to be imposed upon them. What exactly were these terms? My translation is as literal and neutral as I can make it. The most recent and precise translation of the text, by Stork, van Ophuijsen and Dorandi, renders it as on the basis of property qualifications up to (a minimum of) ten minae (SOD no. 16a), and the assumption that ten minae was the minimum qualification for citizenship is, so far as I can see, shared by all previous translations and scholarly discussions.3 A property qualification of ten minae, or 1,000 drachmas, sounds like a neat compromise between the qualification of 2,000 drachmas imposed on the Athenians in 322 and the full franchise restored in 318 (Diod. 18.18.4, 65.6). Yet if this is what Diodorus meant, he had a strange way of putting it, as is indicated by the translations strained English: up to a minimum, where one would expect either up to a maximum or down to a minimum. Diodorus spoke, not of a single property qualification as most scholars seem to think,4 but of property qualifications in the plural (timseiw), in contrast to the earlier 2,000-drachma property qualification, which he mentioned three times in the singular (timhsiw, 18.18.4 bis, 18.18.5). As far as (xri) could therefore indicate either the lowest or the highest of this set of property thresholds: it might mean up to 1,000 or down to 1,000. The preposition xri is most often used to mean as far as a certain point in space or time, which does not help elucidate its meaning here, but when it is used of measure or degree (LSJ 2.3) it always seems to mean up to on a spectrum from the lesser to the greater. Diodorus says, for instance, that Theompompus covered 50 years of Sicilian history in three books from book 41 to 43 (p ... xri, 16.71.3), and elsewhere we have phrases like we should act in friendship and hatred only up to a point (xri) which does not exceed what is appropriate (Dem. 23.122) and if you go only as far as (xri) uttering shouts of disapproval or praise, i.e. as

The Loeb translation by Russel Geer has the government was to be in the hands of those possessing at least ten minae; the Bud translation by Paul Goukowsky reads on tablirait en outre un rgime censitaire en descendant jusqu dix mines. Similarly Beloch (1886) 58; Martini (1901) col. 2827; Jacoby (1930) 813; Plkidis (1962) 29192; Moss (1973) 10405; Gehrke (1978) 178; Ruschenbusch (1984) 26,

259; Hansen (1986) 29, 32; Sekunda (1992) 320; Habicht (1997) 58, 66; Williams (1997) 330, n.6; Gottschalk (2000) 36970; Shipley (2000) 128; Gallo (2002) 38; Descat (2004) 368; Hansen (2006) 41; Oliver (2006) 80; OSullivan (2009) 10809. 4 Apart from the translation by SOD, of the scholars cited in the previous note only Habicht ((1997) 66) speaks of censuses in the plural, but he gives no further details.



opposed to taking action (Dem. 8.77).5 Its synonym mxri is also commonly used in expressions for age groups up to a certain age or fines up to a certain level.6 I have not been able to find any example of xri being used to mean down to a lower measure, degree or extent.7 Also, if Diodorus meant to say that 1,000 drachmas was the lowest threshold, more natural and less ambiguous prepositions were to hand: he could have spoken of property classes starting from (p) or above (pr) 1,000 drachmas. I would argue, therefore, that what was introduced in 317 BC was not a single property threshold for citizenship, but a set of property qualifications among which 1,000 drachmas was not the minimum, but the threshold for the highest grade. The main reason why this interpretation has not been offered before is no doubt that, as property qualifications go, 1,000 drachmas already constitutes quite a low threshold and it seems hard to believe that there were lower qualifications still. Yet there is a close parallel in the Constitution of Draco as described in the Athenaion Politeia:
The state was placed in the hands of those who provided arms and armour. They elected the nine archons and the treasurers from those who owned unencumbered property of not less than ten minae; the other, lesser, magistracies from those who provided arms and armour; and generals and cavalry commanders from those who were able to show unencumbered property of not less than 100 minae and legitimate children by their wedded wives at least ten years of age. (4.2)

Although somewhat unsystematically described, the scheme is clear: political rights, including the right to hold minor offices, are extended to all those who serve as hoplites; for the highest civilian offices there is an additional property qualification of 1,000 drachmas; for the highest military office the threshold is higher still. The obvious implication is that many hoplites owned less than 1,000 drachmas and that there was a de facto property qualification below 1,000 drachmas which consisted of having enough wealth to own hoplite equipment. A system such as Diodorus describes for Athens in 317, in which the property qualification for citizenship was very low and 1,000 drachmas was the requirement for the highest (civilian) offices, was thus entirely conceivable to whomever invented this spurious Constitution of Draco. The similarity between the constitutions of Draco and Demetrius is probably no coincidence. The former may have been directly modelled on the latter, and inserted into Athenaion Politeia after Demetrius regime was established. It is clear from internal evidence, and generally agreed, that the chapter on Draco in the text as we have it was a later insertion. The only matters of debate are whether the constitution was concocted in the fifth or fourth century, and whether it was a late insertion by the author of Athenaion Politeia himself, or an addition by some later editor.8 The original text was evidently completed in the late 330s and revised in the early 320s to take account of some recent minor changes to Athenian institutions.9 It may seem natural to assume that the new version of the constitution of Draco was added at the same time along with the other identifiable later insertion in the historical part of the treatise, the story of Themistocles and Ephialtes (25.34) in which case it obviously could not have reflected Demetrius regime. But it is one thing to update minor details of an account of the current constitution and quite another
5 LSJ s.v. xri 3.3 also offers Xen. Symp. 4.37 (I can eat up to the point where I am no longer hungry) and Acts 22.4 (Saul persecuting Christians to the death); note also, for example, Dem. 5.17 (not up to the same level); Josephus Ant Jud. 3.196 (from 20 years of age up to 50); Plut. Solon 4.2 (the conflict was pursued up to the point of war). 6 Up to 40 years: Diod. 18.10.2; Aesch. 2.133; up to 45 years: Dem. 3.4; the age class from one archon

and eponym up to another: Ath Pol. 53.7; Up to 5,000 drachmas: Ath. Pol. 67.2. 7 Although xri can mean down to a point in space: Pausanias describes features of statuary down to the shoulders, chest, bottom (5.16.3, 6.23.5, 8.41.6). 8 See especially Fuks (1953) 84101, especially 90; Rhodes (1981) 8687, 112. 9 Rhodes (1981) 5256, pointing out insertions at Ath. Pol. 46.1, 51.3 and especially 54.7.



to make substantial revisions to a historical interpretation of constitutions of the past. Perhaps the new material on Draco and Ephialtes had coincidentally come to light in the few years between the first and second editions of the text, but even then it is not obvious why this material, which stands out for its extreme historical implausibility, should have been substituted for the original version. Unlike the routine updating of contemporary details, the historical revisions need a special explanation and may very well have been made separately. We must reckon with the possibility that Athenaion Politeia saw a third edition. Many of the principles enshrined in Dracos constitution, and especially the notion of confining citizen rights to those who provided hoplite equipment, reflect general patterns of oligarchic thinking and fit the ideas of Athens late fifth-century oligarchs just as well as Aristotles late fourth-century theorizing. But the translation of the hoplite franchise into property qualifications is highly distinctive. In 322 BC, the threshold was set at 2,000 drachmas and 9,000 men qualified, from which it follows that the 5,000 hoplites who qualified in 411 and the 3,000 of 404 BC owned properties of several thousand drachmas at least.10 Yet Draco extends full citizenship to hoplites who own less than 1,000 drachmas. The striking difference from other oligarchic constitutions and the equally striking similarity to the system imposed by the Macedonians in 317 must surely lead one to conclude that it was the establishment of Demetrius regime which inspired the invention of a Draconian constitution modelled on his. A reason for doing so is not hard to find: the oligarchic regime of 322318 had claimed to restore government under the laws of Solon (Diod. 18.18.5), so the new regime went one better and claimed to restore an even older patrios politeia. Demetrius, a notable philosopher, could easily have justified such claims by producing an imaginative reconstruction of Dracos constitution in one of his five books On Lawgiving in Athens or in his two books On the Constitutions of Athens, and either he himself or one of his associates may well have produced a new edition of Athenaion Politeia which publicized this new discovery about Draco.11 Whether the Constitution of Draco was directly modelled on Demetrius or was, after all, added to Athenaion Politeia already in the early 320s and merely reflects very closely a school of political thought which was also behind the system imposed by the Macedonians in 317, it seems safe to conclude that Demetrius minimum property qualification, whatever exactly it was, was meant to represent a hoplite franchise, like Dracos. The implication that a substantial number of hoplites owned less than 1,000 drachmas is at first sight surprising but actually offers us important evidence for the social and economic structure of Athens and a clue to the motivation for the revision of property qualifications in 317. The property qualification of 2,000 drachmas set in 322 BC corresponded to the value of 40 plethra of land (3.6 hectares or nine acres), which is widely and rightly regarded as the minimum one needed to be able to make a living as an independent working farmer and to serve as a hoplite.12 Yet only 9,000 men met this property standard, and Athens in 322 had far more than 9,000 hoplites, just as Athens in 411 had had far more than the 5,000 hoplites to whom the oligarchy intended to confine citizen rights. Calculating the number of hoplites is made somewhat complicated by a major change in hoplite recruitment in 336/335 BC: after this date, young men received hoplite equipment and two years of ephebic training at public expense, whereas previously they had had to pay for their own training and equipment. So the hoplite
411: Thuc. 8.65.3, 97.2; Ath. Pol. 29.5; cf. van Wees (2001) 56; (2004) 81. 322: Diodorus 18.18.44; see further below. 11 For Demetrius works, see Diog. Laertius 5.80 81 (SOD no. 1, especially items 6566). Demetrius may also have added the story claiming that Themistocles was behind the reforms of Ephialtes: although we have no direct evidence that he discussed

it, we do know that he wrote a good deal in praise of Themistocles rival Aristides, both in a work called Aristides and in a book on Socrates (SOD nos 95, 102 05), and he may have given a critical account of Themistocles in his two books On Demagogy (SOD 1.67). 12 Especially Gallant (1991) 8287; Burford (1993) 6772, 11316; already Beloch (1923) 399.



numbers which we have for the Athenian army in 323/322 are inflated by the addition of men who would not have been able to serve in the hoplite militia without state funding. We can, however, estimate the numbers of those who were able to serve as hoplites even without public financial support on the basis of surviving rosters of 19- and 59-year-olds. A complete roster inscribed in 325/324 BC lists 103 men in their 59th and last year of hoplite service who were given the task of acting as diaitetai, arbiters, in private disputes. Another such roster, from 330/329, is incomplete but contained between 100150 names.13 These were men who reached the age of 18 in 366 and 371 BC, when the system of ephebic training already existed but was not yet publicly funded.14 On a plausible demographic model,15 a cohort of 103 59-year-olds corresponds to a cohort of 378 19-year-olds. Bearing in mind that the other roster is, if anything, larger, and also that these men were in their 20s and early 30s at a time when Athens sent out large numbers of colonists to settle in Samos and elsewhere (Cargill (1995) 17 30), this figure is surely a minimum. We may compare this with the rosters of 19-year-olds in each of the ten tribes who, from 334/333 onwards, began to graduate from state-funded ephebic training: the sole figure from 334/333 is 42, and the average for the four tribal rosters which survive from 333/332 is 45, pointing to a cohort of 450. The three rosters from later years, by contrast, have ca. 56, 62 and 65 names, suggesting a cohort of ca. 600 (Hansen (2006) 34). The pattern seems to be that it took a few years for state-funding to have an impact on recruitment, and that initially hoplite numbers went up only slightly. On this basis, one may suggest that the hoplite class proper, i.e. those who could afford to serve at their own expense, produced an average cohort of about 400 new 19-year-old hoplites each year. Assuming that about 10% of young men were physically unfit to train and serve,16 we have a total cohort of ca. 450, which, on the same demographic model, represents a total hoplite class of about 13,500 adult men.17 So, in addition to the 9,000 men who owned at least enough land to live as independent farmer-hoplites, there were about 4,500 men who owned less property but nevertheless equipped and trained themselves as hoplites at their own expense. These must have been men who earned a substantial income without owning much property, i.e. those who owned little land and made most of their living from paid labour or from commerce: craftsmen, retailers, traders and a variety of other specialists. That such men also fought as hoplites is attested in general, and a specific example is none other than Socrates, who is said to have had a property worth only about 500 drachmas, yet enjoyed a sufficiently large income to be able to serve as a hoplite in the siege of Potidaea and the battles of Delium and Amphipolis.18 There will have been small farmers in this
13 IG II2 1926 and IG II2 1924 + 2409; two much earlier rosters, from 371 BC (ZPE 54 (1984) 24752) and from the 360s (IG II2 1927), have many more names, and cannot reflect the same system of appointing arbiters; cf. Sekunda (1992) 34445. 14 That it existed is clear from Aesch. 2.167 (referring to late 370s); that it was not yet funded is clear from Xen. Poroi 4.5152 (in late 350s). 15 The demographic model is that used by Hansen (for example, (1986) 1112): Coale and Demenys Model West, males, mortality level 4 (life expectancy at birth 25.26 years), growth rate 5.00 (0.5% p.a.). It is widely accepted that this is an appropriate model, and that the range of demographic models which are at all appropriate to antiquity is narrow enough to ensure that the margins of error are quite small. 16 Hansen (1986) 19: 815% of young men are unfit for military service in modern Europe. 17 A cohort of 400 p.a. corresponds to 6,600 hoplites aged 2039 and 10,200 hoplites aged 2059.

This fits well enough with partial mobilizations of 6,600 in 394 (Xen. Hell. 4.2.17), 5,500 in 378 (Diod. 15.26.2), 6,000 in 362 (Diod. 15.84.2), 5,400 in 352 (Diod. 16.37.3), and with a full mobilization of 10,000 in 377 (Polybius 2.62.6), if the latter is a paper strength; a full mobilization of 12,000 in 369 (Diod. 15.63.2) is higher than expected, however, and, if accurate, would suggest a rather larger cohort of ephebes; cf. Hansen (1986) 43. For the mobilization in 323/322, see below, n.19. 18 Socrates property: Xen. Oec. 2.3; his hoplite service: Plato, Symp. 219e220e; Apol. 28e; Charm. 153ac; Laches 181ab; Plut. Alc. 7.23; cf. Anderson (2005) 28286. Craftsmen as hoplites: for example, Plut. Ages. 26.45 = Mor. 214a. The interpretation offered here seems more likely than the suggestion of van Wees (2004) 55, n.27, that the hoplites who own less than 1,000 drachmas in Dracos constitution might represent those who became hoplites thanks to public funding via the ephebeia.



category as well, just as there will have been craftsmen among those who owned more than 2,000 drachmas, but assuming that the proportions more or less evened out, about 4,500 of 13,500 hoplites, or one-third, were neither leisured land owners nor working farmers but artisans, shopkeepers and market traders. It was precisely this element of the population which the Greek upper classes held in the greatest contempt witness for instance Xenophons scathing remarks about their alleged physical and psychological unfitness to defend their country (Oec. 4.23, 6.58) and Aristotles blunt statement that the best kind of polis will not make the artisan (banausos) a citizen (Pol. 1278a8), which was based on his view that, while democracies dominated by farmers or shepherds were relatively tolerable,
almost all the other multitudes from which the other kinds of democracy are created are far worse, for their way of life is inferior and there is no excellence in any of the occupations practised by the mass of artisans, market folk and hired labourers; what is more, because they are always whizzing about the market and the city, all persons of this type find it, in a manner of speaking, convenient to attend assemblies... (Pol. 1319a2029)

One can easily see, therefore, why the oligarchic constitution of 322 BC made a point of disenfranchising several thousand such urban hoplites, on the grounds that they were troublemakers and warmongers (Diod. 18.18.4). By the same token, these 4,500 hoplites, reinforced by another 1,500 or so men who would not have been able to serve at their own expense but had been trained and equipped at public expense from 336/335 onwards,19 must have been a significant force in the rather bloody restoration of democracy in 318, and would no doubt have resisted renewed attempts to deprive them of their citizenship. Since in 317 Cassander was facing domestic rivals who promised full democracy to Athens, one can see why he might have compromised on a restoration of political rights to all hoplites.20 We have good grounds, then, for assuming that under Demetrius, as under Draco, citizen rights were granted to those who provided arms and armour, and that this entailed a property qualification of less than 1,000 drachmas. Whereas previous oligarchic regimes which claimed to give the franchise to the hoplites had in fact included only certain classes of property-owning hoplite down to the level of independent working farmers in 322 and, I would argue, only as far down as the level of leisure-class landowners in 411 BC21 the constitutions of Demetrius and Draco included all hoplites. It is possible in theory that there was no formal minimum property threshold and that the only criteria for citizenship were the possession of arms and armour, and willingness to serve. We shall see, however, that the citizen census figure makes best sense if a minimum property value was in fact specified, which seems in any case the more likely scenario. We can only guess what the sum may have been, but one may imagine something in the region of 500 drachmas, the value of Socrates property, or even 300 drachmas, the property value below which adunatoi, invalids, became eligible for public financial support (Ath. Pol. 49.4).
334/333324/323, an average increase of 136 p.a.; if the numbers given for 323/322 are not just paper strengths but actual troops fielded, the increase must have been greater still. 20 For these events, see further below. 21 For the argument that the 5,000 hoplites enfranchised in 411 were the approximate equivalent of the three highest Solonian property classes, including the zeugitai, and were wealthy enough not to have to work their own land, see especially van Wees (2001); (2006).

19 After the introduction of state-funded training for hoplites, Athens in 323/322 had ca. 7,100 hoplites in the 2039 age group (as can be inferred from Diod. 18.10.2, 11.3) and 1,000 cavalry in the same age group (Xen. Hipparchikos 9.3 shows that this was still the establishment strength of citizen cavalry, although it was difficult to raise, contra Spence (1993) 98102; Hansen (1986) 38; (1994) 30810), i.e. a total of 8,100 rather 6,600 (see n.17, above). State funding thus added at least 1,500 men to the hoplite class over the period



If our identification of Demetrius property classes with those of Draco is correct, one obvious question is what other similarities there may have been between the two constitutions. Is it possible, for instance, that the shrinking of the franchise entailed reducing the size of the Council, and that Dracos odd Council of 401 reflects the Council under Demetrius? Did the fines which under Draco were imposed on the three higher property classes for non-attendance at Council and Assembly meetings a practice noted as typically oligarchic by Aristotle (Pol. 1297a1424) reflect a similar institution under Demetrius? Did Demetrius, too, make a single exception to the highest property qualification of 1,000 drachmas by requiring generals and cavalry commanders to own at least 10,000 drachmas? These, however, are not questions which we can pursue here. Instead, we will consider the implications of our new interpretation of the property classes for our understanding of Demetrius census figures. III. Demetrius census and the meaning(s) of metoikoi and oiketai When Demetrius of Phaleron came to power in 317, among the very first things he would have needed to do was to implement the new property-class regime, which, we must remember, was not of his own devising but imposed on him by the terms negotiated between the Athenians and Cassander before he was appointed. Determining who qualified as a citizen under the new regime was made all the more urgent and difficult by the mass migrations which Athens had experienced over the previous five years. When the 2,000-drachma qualification was introduced in 322, disenfranchised citizens were offered the opportunity to start a new life in Thrace, and thousands left Athens. Shortly afterwards, the Macedonians restored Samos to its exiled population, which caused large numbers of Athenians who had lived on confiscated land on Samos to return home. Then, in 318, Cassanders Macedonian rivals sent an army into Attica to help overthrow the oligarchic regime and bring home the Athenians who had left in 322.22 In these circumstances, even if we had not been told about Demetrius census, we would have had to infer that he must have reviewed the citizen body immediately upon his appointment, and that his review could not be simply a matter of counting heads. What was needed was an investigative review23 which established two things: who met the new property qualification and who, among all those who had moved back into the city from Samos in 322 and Thrace in 318, as well as among those who had stayed in Attica but had been deleted from the citizen lists between 322 and 318, was a genuine Athenian by descent on both sides. Such considerations tell strongly against both of the two explanations of the number of 21,000 Athenians offered by Beloch. On his earlier view, these include all adult male Athenians regardless of whether they had citizen rights under the new regime, i.e. the census took account of their legitimacy by descent but not of their property qualification.24 It is hard to see what
22 Migration to Thrace: Diod. 18.18.45; Plut. Phocion 28.7. Samos returned to Samians: Diod. 18.18.6, 9. Restoration of democracy and return of exiles: Diod. 18.55.24, 65.6, 66.4, 6; Plut. Phocion 33.12, 34.2; IG II2 448. 23 Ctesicles/Athenaeus calls it an exetasmos; Hansen ((1986) 33, n.106; (1994) 302, n.21; (2006) 4041) argued that exetasmos and exetasis almost invariably refer to a review of military forces, but conceded that Dion. Hal. Isaeus 16 uses exetasis for the general review of citizens in 346/345. For a detailed investigation of the terms, see Gallo (1991) 372 78). The verb exetazein is used repeatedly to describe the investigative process of determining whether someone is or is not a citizen: for example, Dem. 57.24, 27, 29. That the census must have been taken right at the start of Demetrius reign is rightly argued by OSullivan (2009) 10911; also, for example,

Jacoby (1930) 813; Moss (1973) 105. 24 According to Beloch (1886) 58 and Gehrke (1978) 180, n.163, this is simply selbstverstndlich; cf. Ruschenbusch (1984); Oliver (2006) 80. Sekunda (1992) 320, suggests that those below the property qualification (as well as metics and slaves) were included because they were taxed, which is extremely improbable since people at this low economic level were not taxed even when they did have citizen rights (cf. Hansen (1994) 301). Plkidis (1962) 29192 and Gallo (2002) 38 suggest that Demetrius counted all citizens with a view to determining where to set the property threshold and how many to exclude, which is impossible because the property qualification had already been agreed with Cassander before Demetrius was even appointed (not to mention the unlikelihood of such provisional figures entering the historical record).



purpose such a review might have served. If it took place at the start of Demetrius reign, it would have done only half the job that needed doing. If it took place later, it made no administrative sense to include the disenfranchised under Athenians since they no longer had the same fiscal and military obligations as citizens. On Belochs later view, the 21,000 represented only the Waffenfhigen, those who were able to take an active role in war, again regardless of how much they owned; i.e. the census addressed neither of the two major tasks facing Demetrius at the start of his reign. Here, it is easy to see what the point of such a review would be, and there are plenty of parallels for it, but it would have to have been a second census which took place at some later stage of Demetrius career, when military manpower rather than citizen rights were the most pressing issue. And even then such a military review only makes sense if one assumes that the numbers of metoikoi (probably) and oiketai (certainly), which did not include combatants only, were not counted in Demetrius review at all, but were appended to the citizen figure by Ctesicles, who found them in some other source.25 A far more economical, satisfactory and obvious explanation of the evidence would be that the census reported to us by Ctesicles is indeed the one which circumstances forced Demetrius to undertake at the beginning of his reign, and that its 21,000 Athenians represent only those legitimate citizens who also met the new property requirement, excluding unspecified thousands of poorer men.26 The only problem with this interpretation is that one needs to explain where all the disenfranchised have gone. Beloch found neither this possibility nor the problem worth mentioning, it seems, and all but one of his successors have felt the same way. The honourable exception is Mogens Hansen, who briefly toyed with, but then abruptly abandoned, the suggestion that those with properties of less than 1,000 drachmas might indeed have been excluded from the census group of citizens and have been counted under a separate heading which has not been transmitted to us ((1986) 14, 3233). Positing a lost census category is a rather desperate measure, and Hansen was no doubt right not to want to go down this route, although it strikes me as no worse a hypothesis than either of Belochs theories. But there is, of course, another possible explanation, namely that the disenfranchised citizens were counted as metoikoi. This possibility, too, was countenanced by Hansen, though only insofar as he said that it is impossible to believe that the Athenians deprived of citizenship were registered as metics ((1986) 32). One can see why he was convinced that a registration of ex-citizens as metoikoi was out of the question, because in Classical Athens the bulk of metics were immigrants or people of non-Athenian descent, and it would seem almost as inappropriate to count Athenians by birth as metics as it would be to register them as slaves. Yet the situation is not quite so simple because metic in democratic Athens was a broad legal category which included all people who were neither citizens nor slaves. Emancipated slaves were registered as metoikoi, rather than as citizens or in a separate category of their own as freedmen.27 Even more importantly, illegitimate children of Athenian citizens, i.e. those who had two native Athenian parents but were born out of wedlock, were also registered as metics. This is evident from the review of the citizen lists undertaken in 346/345 BC, during which both alleged aliens and illegitimate children were deprived of citizen rights: as the speaker in a legal case arising from this review says, he would be at risk if I were a bastard (nyow) or a foreigner (jnow) (Dem. 57.53). Both of these two targets of the purge were evidently subject to the same procedure, which is described to us as follows:
25 So Hansen (1986) 3336 (possible dates: 313 or 309/308 BC); (1994) 302; (2006) 3843; also Gomme (1933) 1819. Beloch himself, however, argued that the slaves were also counted for military purposes (in 313 BC) and included adult men only; the number 400,000 was a misreading of an original 40,000 ((1886) 95;

(1923) 405, 41418). 26 Whitby (1998) 109 refers to this interpretation as if it were a commonly held scholarly view, yet, amazingly, I have not found a single study which adopts it. 27 Whitehead (1977) 1617, 11416.



Among the Athenians a law was passed that there was to be an investigation of all those inscribed in the lexiarchic registers to determine whether or not they were legitimate citizens, and that the names of those who were not born of a townsman and townswoman were to be deleted. The demesmen were to vote on all cases, and those who were disenfranchised and accepted the decision of the demesmen were to have their names deleted and become metics (ka enai metokouw) (Hypothesis to Demosthenes 57).

Our other evidence for the episode is much vaguer and speaks only of a loss of citizen rights without spelling out the transfer to metic status.28 Similarly, Athenaion Politeia (42.1) fails to give us the relevant details of the routine procedure for dealing with 18-year-old males who applied for admission to citizenship but were rejected. It seems very likely, however, that demotion to the status of metic was indeed the normal fate of both alleged non-Athenians and native Athenians of illegitimate birth.29 So when Demetrius held his review in 317, he had before him the precedent of the general review of citizens a generation earlier, and very probably also the standard procedure for dealing with rejected applicants for citizenship. I suggest that he simply followed this precedent and extended it also to the new category of persons who did not qualify for citizenship: those who fell below the property qualification. He had few other options. In theory, the disenfranchised could be called atimoi, literally honour-less, but this term was applied to those who had been deprived of their citizen rights as a punishment, and such people suffered a lower status and worse legal position than metoikoi. What formal status native residents without political rights occupied in cities under oligarchic rule in general is obscure to us, and was a conceptual problem already in antiquity. We are told nothing about the legal position of the disenfranchised under the oligarchic regimes which ruled Athens in 411, 404/403 and 322318, except that the poor were encouraged or even forced to leave the city. In Sparta, those who fell below the property qualification were apparently known as inferiors, though it is not clear whether that was an informal label or a formal status.30 Aristotle, who wanted to exclude all artisans, market traders and hired labourers from citizenship, as we have seen, seems stumped by the question of how to classify the disenfranchised. If none of these people is a citizen, in what category is each of them to be reckoned? For he is neither a metoikos nor a slave (Politics 1277b3539). Aristotle did not answer his own question, and confined himself to recommending simply that artisans and others should be excluded from the citizen body without explaining what should happen to them instead. In his ideal state, he got around the problem by insisting that the working classes should consist entirely of slaves or barbarian serfs (Pol. 1329a2527). Demetrius did not have the luxury of being able to ignore the problem or imagine his way out of it, and there is no hint that he tried to expel those who did not meet his property qualification. He therefore had only two options: either create a new legal and census category for the disenfranchised or include them in the existing category of metoikoi. The latter was not as great a conceptual leap as it may seem, since Aristotle, despite asserting that the native disenfranchised were not metics, did concede that he who has no share in political honours is like a metic (sper mtoikow, Pol. 1278a38). The same idea was expressed even more forcefully by Isocrates, who in an oration glorifying Athens stressed how the city always used to oppose oligarchic regimes,

Purge of 346/345: Dion. Hal. Isaeus 1617 (quoting at length from a relevant speech: Isaeus 12); Dem. 57; Aesch. 1.77, 86, 114. 29 So Ogden (1996) 156 (cf. 43): Athenian bastards must by default have belonged to the category of

aliens, i.e. metics. 30 Inferiors: Xen. Hell. 3.3.6. Athenians forced to leave in 404/403: Xen. Hell. 2.4.1; Isoc. 7.67; cf. Diod. 14.32.4; encouraged to leave in 322: above, n.22.



regarding it as a terrible thing for the many to be subject to the few, and for those who are rather short of property but not worse at all in any other respect to be excluded from political office, and for some to be tyrants and others to be metics [tow d metoiken] in a common fatherland, and for those who are citizens by birth to be deprived of political rights by law (4.105).

Again, being excluded by a property qualification turns a citizen into metic, and the primary connotation of the word here is not immigrant but resident without political rights. Metoikos is in fact a fundamentally ambiguous term which can mean both migrant and fellow-resident, i.e. someone who lives in a community but is not fully part of it.31 In democratic Athens, where all native inhabitants enjoyed political rights, the two meanings coincided almost completely: apart from a small category of bastard children, every fellow-resident was also a migrant or descendant of migrants. Dictionaries from antiquity onwards therefore define metoikos in the Athenian democratic sense of immigrant, but its alternative meaning of fellow-resident could easily become the dominant sense under an oligarchic regime. The only serious legal obstacle to categorizing disenfranchised citizens as metoikoi was that metics were not legally entitled to own land or houses, but in practice this is unlikely to have been much of a problem since Demetrius low property qualification meant that very few of the disenfranchised would have owned either land or a house. Any who did possess some tiny plot could presumably be given an exemption from this legal disability, a privilege regularly granted to immigrant metics as well.32 A positive indication that Demetrius did indeed reclassify disenfranchised citizens as metics is the implausibly high number of metoikoi recorded by his census. Our only other evidence for the number of metics in Athens is Thucydides report that, in 431 BC, the first general mobilization of Athenian forces in the Peloponnesian War saw 3,000 metics join the field army as hoplites (2.31.2), when the number of citizens who served in the field army as hoplites and cavalry was 14,000 (2.13.67). Metic hoplites normally served only as part of the home-guard defending the walls of the city, and the fact that on this occasion they took to the field is a sign of Athens determination to do maximum damage by mustering the largest possible number of troops. It follows that the 3,000 constituted all available metic hoplites in the same age group as the citizen hoplite field army,33 and that there were almost five times as many citizens as metics in this age-and-status group.34 One may compare the military forces of Rhodes in which, in 305 BC, citizens outnumbered foreign residents and visitors six to one (Diod. 20.84.2).
31 The verbs okv and okzv mean to settle and to be settled, and the prefix meta- means among but acquires connotations of change when used with a verb of movement: hence a metoikos can be either one who is settled among others or one who settles somewhere else: so Gauthier (1988) 2728; contra Whitehead (1977) 610, 2768 and Lvy (1988) 4753, who argue that in practice the word almost always means migrant. For the meaning fellow-resident, see, for example, mtoikow gw, fellow-resident of this land (rather than migrant of this land) at Aesch. Pers. 319; Suppl. 609; cf. Soph. OC 934; the birds are the gods fellow-residents of the sky (Aesch. Ag. 57); the Eumenides and Heracles offer protection to the Athenians as fellow-residents (Aesch. Eum. 1011, 1018; Eur. Heracl. 103233). 32 Whitehead (1977) 30, 7072. 33 The alternative suggestion that they were a fixed number mobilized to compensate for the absence of 3,000 hoplites in Potidaea is implausible, and is

motivated simply by the assumption that the number of metics must have been higher because Demetrius census gives a larger number: Jones (1957) 16465; Whitehead (1977) 98. 34 The discussion of the number of metic hoplites implied by Thucydides has been bedevilled by another argument of Belochs, namely that the field army must have included all 2050-year-olds (Beloch (1886) 62, 64; Gomme (1933) 5; Hansen (1981) 1924; (1988) 23 25) or even 2060-year-olds (Beloch (1923) 405), because Socrates served at the age of 45 at Delium and 47 at Amphipolis. If so, Thucydides hoplite numbers make no demographic sense, and one is forced to posit large numbers of metic hoplites (or else light-armed citizens) in the home-guard to make the sums add up. If only 2039-year-olds normally took the field, by contrast, Thucydides statement makes perfect grammatical, military and demographic sense (Jones (1957) 16364; van Wees (2004) 24142). Since in the fifth century formal mobilization by year-class did not



Similar proportions among the higher-status group of eisphora payers in Athens are implied by the custom of demanding from the metics a contribution of one-sixth whenever Athens raised an emergency eisphora tax. We hear that a sixth was levied in 355 and 337/336 BC, and that it was regarded as a privilege to be allowed to pay eisphora among the Athenians as opposed to among the metics,35 so that the proportion of eisphora-paying metics at this time must have been well below one-sixth or else metics would have been paying a disproportionately small share of the tax, and paying among the citizens would not have been a privilege at all.36 It is not an entirely straightforward matter to extrapolate from the proportions of metics among hoplites and eisphora payers to the proportion of metics among the free adult male population at large, since we cannot be sure that age and wealth distribution were the same among citizens and metics. But in order to reconcile a proportion of 5:1 hoplites with a proportion of 2:1 free adult males one would have to posit that some 8087% of metics fell below hoplite status, compared with 5067% of citizens, and that metics formed 4045% of the sub-hoplite population of Athens.37 These numbers are not impossible but they are very high, and a number of metics significantly smaller than 10,000 would be much easier to accept, especially since our sources hint at declining numbers of metics in the 350s;38 and even if they recovered with the revival in Athenian prosperity after 338, the upheavals of 322 and 318 must have driven many away again.39 The most plausible explanation for the high proportion of metoikoi in Demetrius census, it seems to me, is that their number was inflated by the transfer of disenfranchised citizens into this category. One may wonder why such a radical extension of the category of metoikoi in Athens did not leave more of a record in our evidence. The answer is simply that Demetrius innovation lasted only ten years, until he was overthrown and democracy restored once again, and that for those ten years our sources are extremely limited. What is more, after Demetrius reign the term metoikos was abandoned altogether in Athens. The latest literary allusions to metoikoi as a contemporary group came in lost comedies by Philemon and Menander which we cannot date precisely but which need not be later than the reign of Demetrius, while the latest epigraphical attestation of the term comes in an inscription of 306/305 BC, in which a resident alien is
yet exist in Athens, a general mobilization would have relied on moral pressure only, and I would argue that there was an informal expectation that only 2039-yearolds would march out, though older men could join them if they were very fit and keen. 35 Dem. 22.61 (355 BC); IG II2 244.20 (337/336 BC); Whitehead (1977) 7880. 36 One of the referees for JHS suggests that metics might have been taxed less heavily than citizens because it would have been more difficult to exact eisphora from them, given that they owned no land or houses which could be seized. This, however, seems incompatible with the evidence that paying eisphora as a citizen rather than metic was seen as a privilege. Whitehead, (1977) 7880, notes the problem but nevertheless insists that metics were never ... as little as one sixth of the free population (78), an assertion based on accepting the census figure of 10,000 as unproblematic (97) and arguing that the number must have been higher in the fifth century (98). 37 The percentages depend on whether one estimates the proportion of hoplites in the citizen-body at one-third or one-half. If half of the citizen-body were hoplites, then a 2:1 proportion of citizens to metics implies that citizen hoplites formed 1/2 x 2/3 = 2/6 and citizen sub-hoplites another 2/6 of the total free adult male population, while a 5:1 proportion citizen hoplites to metic hoplites implies that metic hoplites formed 1/5 x 2/6 = 2/30 of the total male population and metic sub-hoplites therefore made up the remaining 8/30. In other words, metic sub-hoplites would form 8/10 of all adult male metics and 8/18 (44.4%) of all adult male sub-hoplites. If one-third of the citizen-body were hoplites, the proportions are: citizen hoplites 1/3 x 2/3 = 2/9, citizen sub-hoplites 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9 and metic hoplites 1/5 x 2/9 = 2/45 of the total free adult male population; metic sub-hoplites were therefore 13/45 of the total population, 13/15 of all adult male metics (86.7%) and 13/33 of all sub-hoplites (39.4%). 38 Isocrates 8.21; cf. strategies for recruitment of metics in Xen. Poroi 2. Presumably Hyperides proposal in 338/337 to grant citizenship to all metics (and freedom to slaves) willing to serve in the army was not carried out: Plut. Mor. 849a; Hyperides fr. 29 Kenyon; Lyc. Leoc. 41 (cf. Whitehead (1977) 162). 39 Hansen (1988) 11, reports that the ratio between surviving fourth-century citizen and metic funerary inscriptions is about 3:1, but it is entirely possible that metics, forbidden the ownership of land and houses, invested more heavily in funerary monuments than citizens did.



honoured for having paid his taxes among the metoikoi whenever required, i.e. in previous years, during or even before Demetrius rule.40 In other words, Demetrius use of the term metoikos was a short-lived phenomenon of the last few years before the word went out of use, and it is not surprising that Hellenistic scholars trying to define the concept ignored this aberration. Indeed, Demetrius application of the term to disenfranchised citizens may have been instrumental in its demise in Athens while it continued to be used elsewhere in the Greek world: the word had become tarred with an oligarchic brush and was no longer used under the restored democracy.41 In short, I would argue that Demetrius solution to the problem of what to do with the disenfranchised was to reclassify and count them as metoikoi, because there was a precedent for this in existing legal procedure, because he had no real alternative and because the conceptual and legal obstacles to it were not insurmountable. This offers the only plausible explanation for the huge and sudden increase in the proportion of metics versus citizens, as well as an attractive explanation for the non-occurrence of the term metic after his reign. The 21,000 Athenians in Demetrius census therefore include only those citizens by descent who also met the property qualification; the 10,000 metoikoi included thousands of the poorest ex-citizens. This leaves us with the vast census category of oiketai. If all 400,000 were slaves, as is usually assumed, then they must have included slave women and children, not only because of their sheer number (regardless of its accuracy) but also because 20 years earlier the orator Hyperides had said that there were about 150,000 adult male slaves in Attica (fr. 29 Kenyon). And if so, it would be odd for Demetrius to have counted all slaves but only adult male citizens and metics. But just as metoikoi did not quite mean resident aliens, so oiketai did not necessarily mean slaves which brings us to the one recent contribution which has significantly advanced the debate on the census. Raymond Descat has reminded us that oiketai literally means members of the household, and is not infrequently used in the broadest sense to include wives, children and free servants as well. Athenaeus himself reports as common usage that one who lives in a household is an oiketes even if he is free (267e).42 A few examples will help illustrate this usage. Herodotus repeatedly speaks of Greeks evacuating their children and their oiketai as the Persian army approaches (8.4, 41), where, of course, the wives are included under oiketai. Conversely, the Spartans at one point promise that for the duration of the war they will look after the Athenians women and oiketai who are of no use in war (8.142), where surely young children and elderly parents are foremost among the oiketai. Xenophon gives something close to a definition of the term when he claims that in Asia soldiers tend to bring their oiketai on campaign since it is their custom to go to war alongside those with whom they live together (Cyrop. 4.2.2; cf. 4.3.12). He even uses the term for the household excluding slaves and servants, when he refers to servants preparing food for their masters and their oiketai (4.2.37). Plato, finally, repeatedly uses oiketai to distinguish free servants from slaves (Laws 763s, 777a, 853e). With Descat, I would argue that in the context of Demetrius census, it is the widest sense of oiketai which is appropriate. As Ctesicles puts it quite clearly, Demetrius held a review of the inhabitants of Attica (jetasmn ... tn katoikontvn tn 'Attikn); i.e. not just a count of citizens, let alone soldiers, but a full population census. Rather than slaves alone, he would therefore have counted all women, children and other dependents, slaves included.
See Whitehead (1977) 16467; (1986) 14852, citing Philemon (fr. 44 KA) and several fragments of Menander (especially fr. 33 KA); IG II2 554.812. 41 This is a solution to the puzzle faced by Gauthier ((1978) 32123; (1988) 3637), who, while conceding that the term is not attested after 306 in Athens, insisted

against Whitehead (see previous note) that the term must nevertheless have continued in use in Athens, since it certainly does continue to be attested elsewhere in the Greek world. 42 Descat (2004) 36870; noted by Oliver (2006) 86; supported by OSullivan (2009) 111.



If modern scholars have not generally drawn this conclusion it is presumably because Athenaeus cites the passage from Ctesicles as evidence for slave numbers, and in the rest of his discussion repeatedly uses oiketai, as well as douloi, to mean slaves. It is entirely possible, however, that Athenaeus misinterpreted this ambiguous word in his source or indeed deliberately glossed over the ambiguity of the term for the sake of his argument. Ctesicles surely meant that Demetrius census covered all inhabitants of Attica, including all members of households. Such a broad interest in the population at large, rather than adult male citizens alone, fits well with Demetrius creation of the gynaikonomoi, supervisors of women, whose task was to monitor the private life of households in general. Contemporary comedies accordingly cracked jokes about magistrates visiting houses to review the number (jetzein ... tn riymn) of guests at symposia and about new laws coming in which required the drawing up of lists of all the cooks hired for wedding banquets.43 Whether the oiketai were counted as carefully as the other groups or were only roughly (over-) estimated will remain a matter of debate (see below), but at least we now understand the meaning of all the numbers and categories in Demetrius census: 21,000 citizens above the minimum property threshold; 10,000 free adult male residents without political rights; and 400,000 women, children and other dependants. This finally brings us back to the property classes. On the one hand, judging from the Constitution of Draco, the minimum qualification was meant to represent a hoplite franchise; on the other hand, 21,000 men made the qualification when, we have estimated, only about 13,500 could afford to arm as hoplites at their own expense. The discrepancy suggests that there was a fixed property qualification which was set low enough at, say, 500 or 300 drachmas to include all hoplites with little property but a large enough income from selling their skills or products. The effect would have been to include also a large section of the agricultural population whose property, in land, was of the same value but did not provide them with sufficient income to serve as hoplites. A plot of land worth 500 drachmas would be just over two acres, or less than a hectare, in size and could not begin to feed a family, whereas a pottery workshop worth the same amount might well produce a respectable living. By setting a low property qualification, the new regime restored the franchise to the 4,500 urban hoplites who had been excluded in 322 BC, but also extended it to 7,500 rural citizens who could not afford to arm as hoplites at their own expense, though they would and did serve in the hoplite forces if and when the state provided equipment and training.44 IV. The population of Athens in 317 and 322 BC In 317 BC, before the property qualification was imposed, there must have been significantly more than 21,000 but fewer than 31,000 adult male Athenian citizens. How many fewer depends on how many foreign metics lived in the city, and in view of the one-sixth metic contribution to emergency taxes, it seems likely that they formed less than one-sixth of the population, so that Athens had at least 26,000 citizens and at most 5,000 metics on the eve of Demetrius reign. The total of 31,000 adult men implies that among the oiketai were about 77,000 free women and children,45 and 323,000 slaves of both sexes and all ages, so that for every free person in Attica there were three slaves according to Demetrius census, at least.
43 Athenaeus 245ac, quoting Timocles fr. 34 KA; Menander fr. 208 KA; Philochorus FGrH 328 F 65, noted by Gallo (1991) 374. 44 During the state-funded ephebeia the annual cohort seems to have grown to ca. 600 (see above), representing the physically fit 90% of an age cohort of ca. 670, which constituted ca. 3.3% of males over 18:

this gives a total number of just over 20,000 men of 18 and older, i.e. much the same number as met the property qualification in 317. 45 According to the demographic model, males over 18 form 57.5% of all males, so that there are 23,000 under-18s; the number of women is 54,000 (23,000 + 31,000).



These conclusions have implications for the number of citizens in 322 BC, given by Plutarch as above 21,000 (Phocion 28.7) and by Diodorus as more than 31,000 (18.18.5). Once again the common modern view is essentially that of Beloch, who argued that Plutarchs source had simply derived his figure from Demetrius census and that Diodorus figure came from the same source but had been incorrectly copied, evidently a slip of the pen.46 Beloch later changed his mind and argued that Diodorus figure was right, after all ((1923) 404, 406), and some have followed him in this. Hansen takes the cautious view that one cannot tell whether it is Plutarchs or Diodorus figure which is correct.47 The assumption that Diodorus and Plutarch derived their information from the same source is in fact unwarranted. Given how brief their accounts are, they could hardly be more different. Diodorus reports that the Macedonian regent Antipater, after imposing a minimum property qualification of 2,000 drachmas,
expelled from the political community all those below the property qualification ... and gave to those who wanted a territory in Thrace in which to settle. These, numbering more than 22,000, left their fatherland, but those who met the fixed property qualification, about 9,000 men, were put in charge of city and territory and governed according to the laws of Solon (18.18.45).

Plutarch, by contrast, does not specify either the level of the property qualification or the number of those who met it, but merely says that,
of the people who were disenfranchised on account of their poverty, above 12,000 in number, those who stayed were thought to suffer disaster and dishonour, while those who for that reason left the city and migrated to Thrace since Antipater provided them with land and a city seemed like men conquered by siege (Phocion 28.7).

Despite the brevity of these passages, one can discern in them the outline of two historiographical traditions, which are more clearly reflected in the two authors different treatments of the restoration of democracy in 318 BC. Diodorus speaks of the demos in 318 taking decisions and sending embassies (18.65.6, 66.2, 3), and although he has the multitude and the mob shouting down Phocion, he sympathetically explains their reasons: having been expelled from the political community but having achieved a return against all expectation, they felt bitter against those who had deprived Athens of its independence (66.6). A return of the people is reminiscent of the phraseology used by the restored democracy in 403 BC, after the oligarchy of The Thirty.48 Plutarch, by contrast, has the disenfranchised swamping (pixuyntvn) politics under the leadership of demagogues and sycophants on their return (Phocion 32.2); he refers to them as exiles who invade the country and are immediately joined by foreigners and atimoi to form a motley, disorderly assembly (33.2); they later allow even foreigners and slaves to vote (34.3). His outlook here is strongly anti-democratic, as one would expect in a biography of Phocion, a leading figure within the oligarchic regime whom he admires.
Beloch (1886) 5758 (offenbar ein Schreibfehler); cf. Plkidis (1962) 29091; Ruschenbusch (1979) App. 1; Hornblower (1981) 110; Sekunda (1992) 319; Gallo (2002) 39. Gomme (1933) 18 and Jacoby (1930) 813 also argued that Plutarchs figure was derived from Demetrius census but rightly did not conclude that Diodorus figure was wrong. 47 Hansen (1986) 67 (though on 36 he supports Diodorus); (1994) 301. Recently, Hansen ((2006) 39), too, has been converted to Belochs earlier view, as amplified by Gallo (2002). Throughout, he has shared

the common view that both authors used the same source and that the discrepancy is a textual error ((1986) 28). For the view that Diodorus was right, see also Gomme (1933) 18; Rhodes (1980); Whitby (1998) 109; OSullivan (2009) 110. 48 See Wolpert (2002) especially 91. Diodorus in fact shows sympathy for both sides, since his assessment of the Macedonians treatment of Athens in both 322 and 317 is also favourable (18.18.4, 6, 8, 75.2), as Hornblower ((1981) 171) points out.



A close look at the two authors remarks about the events of 322 reveals similar oligarchic and democratic perspectives. Plutarch, despite his vaguely sympathetic remarks about the fate of the disenfranchised, minimises their number and withholds all information that would reveal just how exclusive the new regime was. Since he does not specify the level of the property qualification or the number who qualified, his reader may well think that only a relatively small proportion of very poor citizens lost their rights. Plutarch also stresses that only some of the disenfranchised actually left the country. Diodorus, by contrast, spells out exactly how few and well-off were those who retained their rights, claims that the number of excluded was enormous, and suggests that every single one of them left the country, to return en masse four years later. It is worth noting that Diodorus does not unambiguously say that all the excluded left Athens: strictly speaking, these (otoi) left their fatherland refers only to those who wanted to emigrate to Thrace, not necessarily to everyone expelled from the political community. By suppressing the possibility that some of the disenfranchised chose to stay in Athens, however, Diodorus gives the strong impression that in fact all the disenfranchised wanted to leave rather than suffer disaster and dishonour under an oligarchic regime. Given these differences it comes as no surprise that scholars who have studied our two authors sources in their own right, rather than for the sake of explaining away one or other demographic datum, have concluded that they draw on very different material. Diodorus follows the historical account of Hieronymus of Cardia, while the major source for Plutarchs account of the restoration of the democracy, and probably for the earlier events, too, was none other than Demetrius of Phaleron, who wrote in defence of his friend and fellow-oligarch Phocion both in The Decade and in his Socrates, the philosopher who, like Phocion, was executed by democrats.49 Plutarch thus surely derived his number of disenfranchised not only from Demetrius census, as Beloch rightly suggested, but from the work of Demetrius himself, who arrived at his figure of 12,000 by simply deducting 9,000 from his census figure of 21,000. Aware that these 21,000 excluded the poorest men and recent emigrants who had not returned from Thrace, he concluded that the disenfranchised in 322 had numbered above 12,000.50 The number cited by Diodorus, by contrast, is not a garbled version of Plutarchs, but an independent figure which Hieronymus of Cardia picked because it suited his version of the story, just as Demetrius picked a lower number which better suited his take on events. But where did this number come from? The very fact that Demetrius derived a figure from his own census suggests that there was no contemporary record of how many Athenians were excluded; only the number of the 9,000 who kept their political rights was known. I suggest that Hieronymus resorted to precisely the same method as Demetrius but maximized rather than minimized the number which could be extrapolated from the census. Aware that Demetrius 10,000 metoikoi included large numbers of disenfranchised citizens, he added all 10,000 to the 21,000 to give the total number of citizens and then deducted 9,000 to arrive at more than 22,000 disenfranchised more than because some of those who went to Thrace in 322 did not return in 318. It follows that neither Plutarchs nor Diodorus number has any independent value as evidence for the size of the Athenian population. And if these authors sources could do no better than infer their numbers from Demetrius census, it also follows that no other usable figures from the fourth century were available. The Athenians did keep lists of citizens, but only at the local level of the demes, and although they would in principle have been able to establish the total number of citizens by collating all 139 deme registers, they do not seem to have done so. The only
49 Diodorus, Hieronymus: Hornblower (1981); Plutarch, Demetrius: Tritle (1988) 2933. 50 Alternatively, as OSullivan ((2009) 112) suggests, Demetrius may have boasted that, compared

with the Macedonian regime of 322, he had re-enfranchised 12,000 men, and Plutarch may have drawn the mistaken conclusion that this was the number of all those disenfranchised in 322 BC.



records which were kept centrally were the lists of hoplites available for military service.51 Accordingly, our sources are able to give fairly exact numbers of hoplites and cavalry, but not of citizens below hoplite status. On the very rare occasions when they attempt to indicate how many non-hoplite citizens took part in a general mobilization, they merely suggest that these lightarmed men roughly matched, or significantly outnumbered, the hoplites.52 The literary sources which speak variously of 20,000 or 30,000 citizens in total, or in the assembly or in the theatre, therefore represent at best vague extrapolations from the number of hoplites or else mere guesses, and have no real value either.53 In short, the only independent and reliable total number of Athenian citizens reported in our sources is Demetrius census figure which unfortunately excluded those who fell below an unknown property qualification as well as those who had emigrated in 322 and not returned in 318 BC. What this figure tells us is that in 318/317, before the new property qualification came into force, there were several thousand citizens more than 21,000 and fewer than 31,000, perhaps some 26,00028,000, while in 323/322, assuming a net loss of people in the mass migrations of the following year, there had been another several thousand more, perhaps about 28,00032,000. Our only check on this approximate figure apart from the fact that a citizen body of well over 20,000 men was needed in order to fill the Council of Five Hundred according to constitutional rules54 is our own extrapolation from the number of hoplites.55 Since the surviving rosters of ephebes and diaitetai, as we have seen, point to a total of 13,500 men whose economic status enabled them to equip themselves as hoplites at their own expense in the years before 336 BC, we may infer a total citizen population of 27,000, if we assume that the non-hoplites matched the hoplites; if we assume that the hoplites amounted to only one-third of the population, the number of citizens would be just over 40,000.56 This range suggests that Athens before 322 BC did indeed have much nearer 30,000 than 20,000 adult male citizens. The number of registered aliens, however, was lower than has been generally assumed, around 5,000. The free population reached about 120,000 in total. In 317, the total may have been about 10% lower as a result of migration, and the citizen to metic balance was changed by turning many poor citizens into metoikoi.

51 Hansen (1986) 1316; in the (late) fourth century, the central records consisted of the lists of hoplites in each of the year-groups 1859 (Ath. Pol. 53.45). Previously, there was probably a single central list (katalogos) of hoplites, although Hansen ((1986) 83 89) is right to argue that most of the supposed references to this list in fact refer to lists of men mobilized for specific campaigns. 52 Herodotus gives exact number of hoplites at Plataea (9.28) but can only estimate the number of light-armed as roughly the same: on the assumption that there was one for each man (9.29); Thucydides gives the actual number of light-armed on the Boeotian side at Delium as more than 10,000, compared to 8,000 hoplites and cavalry, but on the Athenian side says only that the light-armed were very much more numerous than the hoplites (4.93.394.1); cf. Thuc. 3.87.3: exact numbers of hoplites and cavalry who died of the plague; number of the mob ... impossible to find out. 53 As rightly stressed by Hansen (1986) 2627, n.82,

listing the sources. I also share his view that public distributions were on a first-come-first-served basis and that Lycurgus distribution of 160 talents of confiscated property to the citizens at either 50 or 100 drachmas each (Plut. Mor. 843d) therefore gives a minimum figure only ((1986) 4547). 54 Especially Osborne (1985) 4245; Hansen (1986) 5164; (2006) 2233, an important line of argument, but one which produces only a minimum. 55 It is impossible to extrapolate from numbers of naval personnel: we do not know what proportion consisted of citizens (so, rightly, Hansen (1986) 2124, 4345). 56 In 431 BC, hoplites must have constituted about 40% of the citizen population of 60,000 (as calculated by Hansen (1981); (1988) 1428), since Thucydides (2.13.68) implies that citizen hoplites and cavalry numbered ca. 25,000 (30,000, including metics who were outnumbered about 5:1 see above). If the percentage of hoplites was the same in 322 BC, the citizen population would have been ca. 33,000.



V. Conclusion: an unequal society This paper has tried to show, first, that Demetrius system of property classes set the qualification for citizenship significantly lower than 1,000 drachmas to include even the poorest nonlandowning hoplites as reflected in the spurious Constitution of Draco quite possibly concocted by Demetrius himself and, second, that the categories of Demetrius census were not native Athenians, foreigners and slaves, but citizens above the property qualification, residents without political rights and members of households. This reinterpretation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the number of native Athenians, including those who had lost their rights, was far above 21,000 in 317 and higher still in 322. The direct literary evidence for citizen numbers in 322, we have seen, has no independent value as evidence. The number of metics was much lower than 10,000 and slaves (allegedly) numbered nearer 300,000 than 400,000. If we use for the purposes of calculation the middle of our estimated ranges of population figures, we find that in 317 BC the 9,000 men who owned 2,000 drachmas or more, i.e. those who owned at least enough land to make an independent living as a working farmer, constituted 33% of a citizen population of 27,000. The 12,000 who owned less than 2,000 drachmas but more than the new minimum qualification of, say, 500 drachmas amounted to 45% of the citizen population, and the poorest 6,000 men to 22%. In 322 BC, the top 9,000 amounted to only 30% of a citizen body of 30,000, and if we assume that the subsequent losses to emigration were equally split between the lower two groups, 13,500 men (45%) owned between 500 and 2,000 drachmas. Of these about one-third, 4,500, earned a sufficiently good income from selling their products or labour to be able to serve as hoplites, bringing the total hoplite class to 45%. The remaining 7,500 men (25%) owned less than 500 drachmas. The implications for the distribution of wealth in late fourth-century Athens are set out in Tables 1 and 2. At the top of the scale, we know that those who were rich enough to be liable to eisphora taxation collectively owned 6,000 talents and that was only the property which they saw fit to declare for tax purposes.57 Unfortunately, the number of eisphora payers and their property threshold are a matter of debate. It is most commonly assumed that there were 1,500 2,000 tax payers with a minimum property of one talent, and this is the premise adopted in Table 1.58 Alternatively, the eisphora-paying lite may have consisted of 1,200 men with a minimum property of three talents, and this is the assumption made in Table 2.59 The key results are that the richest 47% owned between 2743% of all wealth and that the richest 30% owned as much as 7786%. This is a highly unequal distribution of wealth although still less unequal than, say, in the modern USA, where in 19892001 the share of wealth owned by the richest 5% steadily rose from 54.4 to 57.7 % and the richer half of the population owned around 97% of all wealth.60 Finally, whether the ca. 320,000 slaves included in Demetrius census of members of households was an accurate figure remains uncertain, because he had less need of a precise count of slaves than of carefully sorting out the citizens from the metoikoi. It may be that the number was
Demosthenes 14.19 (354 BC); cf. Polybius 2.62.7 (5,750 drachmas in 378 BC). 58 For this view, see Davies (1984) especially 34; cf. Christ (2007) 63 (1,500). On the basis of these figures, Foxhall (1992) and Osborne (1992) in different ways calculate the minimum proportion of land owned/controlled by the eisphora-paying lite: Foxhalls figure of 45% (15758) is almost identical to the result of the calculations offered in Table 1. 59 This view on the number of eisphora payers is based on the argument of MacDowell (1986) that the 1,200 liturgists are identical with the eisphora payers, and the argument of Gabrielsen ((1995) 4553, 17682) that 1,200 men with properties of ca. three talents are

needed to fill all the liturgies, allowing for exemptions. For the sake of completeness, we should mention the view of Jones ((1957) 2829) that there were 6,000 eisphora payers, with a minimum property of 2,500 drachmas. The evidence for this is flimsy, but if correct it would mean that there were 3,000 citizens with properties between 2,000 and 2,500 drachmas, collectively owning 6,750,000 drachmas, and that the total amount of property owned in Attica was 61,500,000 drachmas, of which the richest 9,000 citizens (30%) owned 69.5%, and the poorest 21,000 (70%) owned 30.5%. 60 Kennickell (2003) 9, table 5; cf. Hanson (1995) 479, on Foxhall (1992); Osborne (1992).

112 Number of citizens 2,000 7,000 13,500 7,500 Total: 30,000 % 7 23 45 25 100

VAN WEES Average (and range) of property values 18,000 dr (> 6,000 dr) 4,000 dr (2,000 6,000 dr) 1,250 dr (500 2,000 dr) 250 dr (< 500 dr) Total property value 36,000,000 dr 28,000,000 dr 16,875,000 dr 1,875,000 dr 82,750,000 dr % 43.5 34.0 20.4 2.2 100.1

Table 1. Distribution of wealth, 322 BC (assuming 2,000 eisphora payers) Number of citizens 1,200 7,800 13,500 7,500 % 4 26 45 25 Average (and range) of property values 30,000 dr (> 18,000 dr) 10,000 dr (2,000 18,000 dr) 1,250 dr (500 2,000 dr) 250 dr (< 500 dr) Total property value 36,000,000 dr 78,000,000 dr 16,875,000 dr 1,875,000 dr % 27.00 59.0 12.7 1.4 100.1

Total: 30,000 100 132,750,000 dr Table 2. Distribution of wealth, 322 BC (assuming 1,200 eisphora payers)

arrived at by simply assuming three slaves per free resident. Certainly the proportion seems unfeasibly high 75% of the population, compared to, for example, 57% in South Carolina in 1860, the highest proportion of slaves of any southern American state. But even if it was based on nothing more than an assumed proportion, the assumption was made by people who were involved in a serious, government-led estimate of the size of their own population, and therefore the figure is not of the same kind as the propagandistically or fantastically inflated numbers from ancient literature with which it is often lumped together in order to be dismissed.61 Demetrius and his census-takers may well have overestimated the number of slaves in Attica, but it is hard to believe that they got it so far wrong as virtually to invert the actual proportions, which according to most modern guesses were that free residents outnumbered slaves by at least 2:1. Demetrius census figure deserves more serious consideration than most ancient numbers, and we should take seriously the possibility that in fourth-century Attica the slaves really outnumbered the free by some margin.62
61 A favourite, but misleading, comparandum is Herodotus 1.7 million men in the army of Xerxes: Hansen (1988) 1112; Sallares (1991) 5860. We cannot even compare Demetrius 400,000 with the similar slave figures quoted in Athenaeus 272c for Aegina (470,000; Aristotle fr. 427 Rose) and Corinth (460,000; Timaeus FGrH 566 F 5), because we do not know what kind of information Aristotle and Timaeus had to go on. 62 Cf. Descat (2004) 36870; Oliver (2006) 8486. Gomme ((1933) 18, 2024) estimates a maximum of ca. 100,000 slaves, almost as many as the free population; similarly, Whitby (1998) 11314. A free to slave ratio of 2:1 is suggested by Hansen (1988) 12; (2006) 56, n.137; Scheidel (1995) 208; cf. Jameson (2002) 171 (50,000 slaves minimum). Slave numbers 2030,000: Sallares (1991) 5460; Jones (1957) 7879. Cf. Fisher (1993) 3457.



Bibliography Anderson, M. (2005) Socrates as hoplite, Ancient Philosophy 25, 27389 Beloch, K.J. (1886) Die Bevlkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt (Leipzig) (1923) Griechische Geschichte, Vol. III.2 (Berlin and Leipzig) Burford, A. (1993) Land and Labor in Ancient Greece (Baltimore) Cargill, J. (1995) Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC (Leiden) Christ, M. (2007) The evolution of the eisphora in classical Athens, CQ 57, 5369 Davies, J.K. (1984) Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens (Salem) Descat, R. (2004) Lconomie, in P. Brul, R. Descat, J.L. Lamboley, S. Le Bohec and J. Oulhen, Le monde grec aux temps classiques, tome 2: le IVe sicle (Paris) 353411 Fisher, N.R.E (1993) Slavery in Ancient Greece (London) Foxhall, L. (1992) The control of the Attic landscape, in B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece (Stockholm) 15559 Fuks, A. (1953) The Ancestral Constitution (London) Gabrielsen, V. (1995) Financing the Athenian Fleet (Baltimore) Gallant, T. (1991) Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece (Stanford) Gallo, L. (1991) Appunti per un lessico demografico greco, in P.R. Colace and M.R. Caltabiano (eds), Atti del I seminario di studi sui lessici tecnici greci i latini (Messina) 36581 (2002) Il numero dei cittadini ateniesi, in W. Suder (ed.), tudes de dmographie du monde grecoromain (Antiquitas 26) (Wroclaw) 3342 Gauthier, P. (1978) Epigraphie et institutions grecques, Annuaire cole Pratique des Hautes tudes (IVe section) 1978/1979, 32128 (1988) Mtques, priques, paroikoi: bilan et points d interrogation, in R. Lonis (ed.), Ltranger dans le monde grec (Nancy) 2346 Gehrke, H.-J. (1978) Das Verhltnis von Politik und Philosophie im Wirken des Demetrios von Phaleron, Chiron 8, 14993 Gomme, A.W. (1933) The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC (Oxford) Gottschalk, H.B. (2000) Demetrius of Phalerum: a politician among philosophers and a philosopher among politicians, in W.W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schtrumpf (eds), Demetrius of Phalerum. Text, Translation and Discussion (New Brunswick and London) 36780 Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge MA) Hansen, M.H. (1981) The number of Athenian hoplites in 431 BC, SO 56, 1932 (1986) Demography and Democracy. The Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century BC. (Herning) (1988) Three Studies in Athenian Demography (Copenhagen) (1994) The number of Athenian citizens secundum Sekunda, EMC 13, 299310 (2006) Studies in the Population of Aigina, Athens and Eretria (Copenhagen) Hanson, V.D. (1995) The Other Greeks. The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilzation (New York) Hornblower, J. (1981) Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford) Jacoby, F. (1930) Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Vol. 2D (Berlin) Jameson, M.H. (2002) On Paul Cartledge, The political economy of Greek slavery, in P. Cartledge, E.E. Cohen and L. Foxhall (eds.), Money, Labour and Land: Approaches to the Economies of Ancient Greece (London) 16774 Jones, A.H.M. (1957) Athenian Democracy (Oxford) Kennickell, A.B. (2003) A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the US, 19892001 ( Lvy, E. (1988) Mtques et droit de rsidence, in R. Lonis (ed.), Ltranger dans le monde grec (Nancy) 4767 MacDowell, M. (1986) The law of Periandros about symmories, CQ 36, 43849 Martini, F. (1901) Demetrios von Phaleron (Demetrios 85), RE 4/2 cols 281741 Moss, C. (1973) Athens in Decline 40486 BC (London and Boston) Ogden, D. (1996) Greek Bastardy (Oxford) Oliver, G.J. (2006) War, Food and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens (Oxford)



Osborne, R. (1985) Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge) (1992) Is it a farm? The definition of agricultural sites and settlements in ancient Greece, in B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece (Stockholm) 2127 OSullivan, L. (2009) The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens 317307 BCE (Leiden and Boston) Plkidis, C. (1962) Histoire de lphebie attique des origines 31 avant J-C (Paris) Rhodes, P.J. (1980) Ephebi, bouleutae and the population of Athens, ZPE 38, 191201 (1981) A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford) Ruschenbusch, E. (1979) Athenische Innenpolitik im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr (Bamberg) (1984) Zum letzten Mal: die Brgerzahl Athens im 4. Jh. v. Chr., ZPE 54, 25369 Sallares, R. (1991) The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca) Scheidel, W. (1995) The most silent women of Greece and Rome: rural labour and womens life in the ancient world, part 1, G&R 42, 20217 Sekunda, N.V. (1992) Athenian demography and military strength, 338322 BC, ABSA 87, 31155 Shipley, G. (2000) The Greek World After Alexander, 32330 BC (London) SOD: Stork, P., van Ophuijsen, J.M. and Dorando, T. (eds) (2000) Demetrius of Phalerum: the sources, text and translation, in W.W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schtrumpf (eds), Demetrius of Phalerum. Text, Translation and Discussion (New Brunswick and London) 1310 Spence, I. (1993) The Cavalry of Classical Greece (Oxford) Tritle, L. (1988) Phocion the Good (London) van Wees, H. (2001) The myth of the middle-class army: military and social status in ancient Athens, in T. Bekker-Nielsen and L. Hannestad (eds), War as a Cultural and Social Force. Essays on Warfare in Antiquity (Copenhagen) 4571 (2004) Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities (London) (2006) Mass and elite in Solons Athens: the property classes revisited, in J.H. Blok and A.P.M.H. Lardinois (eds), Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches (Leiden) 35189 Whitby, M. (1998) The grain trade of Athens in the fourth century BC, in H. Parkins and C. Smith (eds), Trade, Traders and the Ancient City (London) 10228 Whitehead, D. (1977) The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (PCPhS Supplement 4) (Cambridge) (1986) The ideology of the Athenian metic: some pendants and a reappraisal, PCPhS 212, 14558 Williams, J. (1997) Ideology and the constitution of Demetrius of Phalerum, in C.D. Hamilton and P. Krentz (eds), Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War and History in Honor of Donald Kagan (Claremont) 32746 Wolpert, A. (2002) Remembering Defeat (Baltimore)