In common use they define a citizen
to be one who is sprung from citizens on both sides,
not on the father’s or the mother’s only.
Others carry the matter still further, and inquire
how many of his ancestors have been citizens, as his
grandfather, great-grandfather, etc., but some
persons have questioned how the first of the family
could prove themselves citizens, according to this
popular and careless definition. Gorgias of Leontium,
partly entertaining the same doubt, and partly in
jest, says, that as a mortar is made by a mortar-maker,
so a citizen is made by a citizen-maker, and a Larisssean
by a Larisssean-maker. This is indeed a very simple
account of the matter; for if citizens are so, according
to this definition, it will be impossible to apply
it to the first founders or first inhabitants of states,
who cannot possibly claim in right either of their
father or mother. It is probably a matter of still
more difficulty to determine their rights as citizens
who are admitted to their freedom after any revolution
in the state. As, for instance, at Athens, after
the expulsion of the tyrants, when Clisthenes enrolled
many foreigners and city-slaves amongst the tribes;
and the doubt with respect to them was, not whether
they were citizens or no, but whether they were legally
so or not. Though indeed some persons may have
this further [1276a] doubt, whether a citizen can
be a citizen when he is illegally made; as if an illegal
citizen, and one who is no citizen at all, were in
the same predicament: but since we see some persons
govern unjustly, whom yet we admit to govern, though
not justly, and the definition of a citizen is one
who exercises certain offices, for such a one we have
defined a citizen to be, it is evident, that a citizen
illegally created yet continues to be a citizen, but
whether justly or unjustly so belongs to the former
inquiry.
|