Wandering Greeks (26 page)

The first economic migrants of whom we have note are the aristocrats who left their homes to marry into wealthy foreign families of similar status. Dynastic marriage is already a feature of life in the
Odyssey
, as we see from the fact that the Phaeacian king Alcinoüs is eager for the stranger Odysseus to become his son-in-law (7.311-15). Whether dynastic marriage was as central to alliance-building in archaic Greece as it has been at other periods of history, is, however, impossible to determine. When suitors travel vast distances to compete for the hand of the daughter of Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, the latter goes out of his way to thank them “for their willingness to marry into my family and leave behind their own homes” (Hdt. 6.126.–130). His complimentary remark seems to suggest that a willingness to relocate was the exception rather than the rule among the élite.

Plutarch reports that it was Solon who first permitted skilled workers to settle in Attica and that he did so on condition that they brought their families with them (
Sol.
24.2). Though he denies that Solon's motivation was to drive undesirable foreigners away, he claims that he
took note of the fact that Athens was “filled with people who were constantly flooding into Attica from elsewhere in order to find security” (22.1). In other words, it is unclear whether the lawgiver intended to implement a pro- or an anti-immigration policy (Whitehead 1977, 141–42). Plutarch, moreover, is writing hundreds of years after the event, and it would be naïve to assume that he had any insight as to what had prompted Solon's legislation.

Though many scholars believe that it was the reforms of Cleisthenes that first granted official recognition to Athens's immigrant population, the word
metoikos
, which most frequently describes an economic migrant to Athens, does not occur in a literary context until 472 (Aes.
Pers.
319). Other data suggest that the
terminus ante quem
for the introduction of metic status was ca. 460.

The Legal Status of the Athenian Metic

Metoikos
means literally either “a person who has changed his
oikos
” or “a person who lives with others of the same standing.” Aristotle defined metics as “citizens only in the sense in which children who are too young to be inscribed in the list and old men who have been removed from the list can be called citizens” (
Pol.
3.1275a 14–16). They would no doubt have been subject to controls and restrictions of the kind Aristotle has in mind in every community, but it is Athens alone that has provided us with a relatively full account of what these controls and restrictions actually amounted to. We learn, for instance, that foreigners seeking permanent immigrant status in Athens were required to record the fact that they were residing in Attica after a statutory period of time. Their chances of escaping detection in a close-knit and self-policed society like Athens were obviously slim. We do not know the length of the statutory period, but it was probably a month at most. Registration meant enlisting in one of Attica's 140-odd demes. Failure to do so meant either immediate expulsion (Lys. 23.2) or enslavement (Sud.
s.v.pôlêtês
). There is no evidence that an immigrant was required to undergo any form of scrutiny to determine his or her worthiness
to reside long-term in Athens. Plato recommended that “any foreigner who pleased” should be permitted to take up residence in his ideal polity, so long as he or she practiced a craft (
Laws
8.850ab).

Metics were required to secure the goodwill of an Athenian citizen, who would act as their
prostatês
(patron, guardian). The role of the
prostatês
is only vaguely understood, but the person so charged probably acted both as their legal representative and as their supervisor. This simple and rather informal arrangement would have guaranteed that most metics were law-abiding, since the reputation of their sponsors would have been seriously compromised otherwise. There is no indication as to whether there was any limit to the number of metics whom a single
prostatês
could sponsor. It is not inconceivable that some had very large numbers under their charge. The close relationship between metic and
prostatês
seems to have remained in effect until around the middle of the fourth century, when much of the power invested in the
prostatês
was transferred to the courts (Gauthier 1972, 133–35; Demetriou 2012, 200–201).

Metics had to pay a regular, presumably monthly, poll tax, known as the
metoikion.
This amounted to one
drachma
for an adult male and half a
drachma
for an adult female living on her own. Though this was a relatively modest fee, it may have been sufficient to induce a substantial proportion of metics to return to their homelands once their working lives were over. Metics also had to pay a market-tax known as
xenika telê
(foreigners' tax) for permission to trade in the agora (Dem. 57.34). Those who performed some special service for the state might be granted
isoteleia
, which meant that they had the right to pay the same taxes as an Athenian citizen. Those who were in the equivalent of the super-tax bracket were required to subsidize important and costly public programs called liturgies, just as wealthy citizens had to do. These programs included the financing of dramatic choruses, triremes, and gymnasia. Like citizens in the same wealth bracket, in times of war and other emergencies they had to pay a property tax known as the
eisphora
(Lys. 12.20). Overall, the financial burden borne by metics would have greatly enriched the state, as Xenophon fully appreciated (
Vect.
2.1), quite aside from the benefits accruing from their skills and their entrepreneurship.

Metics were also required to perform military service, either as hoplites or as rowers. It seems they were not permitted to serve in the cavalry (
Vect.
2.5). Metic hoplites may have numbered as many as 13,000. So far as we know, they did not receive any military training, so their service may have been minimal. They seem to have played little part in the Peloponnesian War. In fact the only occasion that we hear of them serving in the ranks is at the Battle of Delium in 424. Perhaps they mainly functioned as the Greek equivalent of the British Home Guard in World War II. As such, they would have been called upon to defend the city only as a last resort (Duncan-Jones 1980, 103–5). Given the fact that most metics were artisans and small traders, however, most of them probably served as rowers in the fleet, for which they would have received pay. Indeed they may have constituted a very sizable proportion of Athens's rowers, particularly if we take seriously an observation by [Xenophon], the author who goes under the modern name of the Old Oligarch, that Athens needed metics in order to man its fleet (
Ath. Pol.
1.12).

Until the 350s metics were not permitted to own land or property in Attica. From this date onward, however, they occasionally received
gês enktêsis
(“the right of land tenure in a country or district by a person not belonging to it” [
LSJ
⁹
]). One important consequence of this was that metics were now permitted to establish permanent sanctuaries in honor of their gods in Attica. An inscription dated 333/2 granted permission to merchants from Citium, a Phoenician town in Cyprus, to buy land on which to build a sanctuary of Aphrodite (Tod 189 = Harding 111 = Rhodes and Osborne 91). The importance of this measure can hardly be exaggerated. The freedom to worship one's own gods in a permanent sanctuary specifically designated for that purpose would have accorded both migrants and immigrants a wholly new sense of belonging, even though the main motive on the part of the Athenians may well have been economic self-interest. We should note, moreover, that this was a reward for good behavior, if not good service, and not an entitlement. Sanctuaries provided the ideal setting for social and organizational networks. Such networks not only enabled metics to mix freely with others of the same ethnicity, but also to plan joint business ventures.

The inscription relating to the merchants from Citium cites as a precedent a previous grant of
gês enktêsis
, which Egyptians had received to establish a sanctuary in honor of their goddess Isis. The only other metic community known to have been accorded such a right is that of the Thracians—in their case, in honor of the goddess Bendis. However, the fact that none of the many cults that made their entry into Athens from 350 onward alludes to this privilege may simply be due to the fact that within a short space of time
gês enktêsis
was no longer seen as a privilege to be remarked upon. That said, several sanctuaries that served the interests of the metic community were established on land that was leased out by the Athenian state in this same period. It is also striking that a number of inscriptions relating to foreign religious associations were discovered on the outskirts of the residential area, an indication perhaps of their somewhat marginalized status.

Marriage between metics and Athenians seems to have been officially discouraged. A law ascribed to Pericles (dated 451/450) decreed that “a man could not have a share of the
polis
unless he was born from two
astoi
” ([Arist.]
Ath. Pol.
26.4), which meant that if a metic married an
astos
, their offspring was not eligible for citizenship.
¹
Though this law was rescinded during the Peloponnesian War when Athens faced a manpower crisis due in large part to the plague, it was renewed immediately afterward ([Arist.]
Ath. Pol.
26.3; Plu.
Per.
37.3–4). If a metic was killed, the crime would be treated as the equivalent of an unintentional homicide, irrespective of the circumstances (Lape 2010, 48–49). Though this denied metics the full protection of the law, since the maximum penalty for unintentional homicide was exile rather than execution, it may at the time of its passage have signaled an improvement in their legal status, viz from no legal protection at all to at least partial protection. Metics were also incorporated into the religious life of the community, notably by being required to participate in the Panathenaic festival held in honor of Athena. Very likely this was seen as a duty rather than a privilege, intended to remind the metic population
that they were invested in the welfare of the state. They also played a significant role in the affairs of the demes to which they belonged (Cohen 2000, 74).

Once a foreigner had been identified as a metic, he or she was free to reside in Athens indefinitely—much to the displeasure of Plato, who recommended in his imaginary lawcode that the entitlement be limited to twenty years (
Laws
8.850b). It would tell us a great deal about the level of comfort and acceptance enjoyed by metics if we knew what percentage of them remained in Attica till their death. Like productive and hard-working immigrants in general, some at least would have achieved considerable social standing. It is hardly fortuitous that Plato chose the house of the elderly and wealthy metic Cephalus as the setting for the
Republic
. Cephalus had evidently chosen to end his days abroad, like many long-term immigrants.

Incidentally, the Piraeus, which is where Cephalus lives, was particularly popular as a residential center for metics, accounting for about 20 percent of their total number. Fourth-century sepulchral inscriptions that have come to light there testify to the presence of immigrants from at least 60 different
poleis
(Garland 2001, table 1, p. 64;
IG
II
²
7882–10530). The popularity of the Piraeus derived from the fact that it was both a port city and a manufacturing center. We should note, however, that metics settled throughout Attica, many of them in rural areas, and few demes had no metic residents at all (Cohen 2000, 122–23). A substantial number of Athenian citizens internally migrated to the Piraeus as well, attracted by its economic opportunities. The scale of this movement is indicated by the fact that out of 240 funerary inscriptions commemorating Athenian citizens discovered in the region only 8 belong to demesmen of the Piraeus (Garland 2001, 60).

The Composition and Size of Athens's Metic Population

In the contemporary world “migrants are not only employed in jobs that nationals are reluctant to do, but are also engaged in high-value activities that local people lack the skills to do” (Koser 2007, 10). The
same is likely to have been true of Athens's metic population, with the proviso that many of those engaged in high-value activities would have been short-term residents. Certainly some of those who resided in the Piraeus were high-earners, like Lysias and Polemarchus, the sons of Cephalus, who owned a shield factory, three houses, and 120 slaves (Lys. 12.18-19), or Cephisodorus, implicated in the mutilation of the herms, who owned at least 16 slaves (
IG
I
³
421.33-49 =
ML
79A = Fornara 147). Further evidence of the wealth that was in the hands of metics is provided by a sumptuous grave monument, dated ca. 330, that was found at Kallithea and erected in commemoration of Niceratus and his son Polyxenus, metics from Istros.