Chapter 2

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.

People commonly define a citizen as someone whose parents are both citizens, not just the father or the mother. Others go further and ask how many ancestors were citizens, such as a grandfather or great-grandfather. But some have questioned how the first members of a family could establish their citizenship under this common, careless definition. Gorgias of Leontium raises a similar doubt, partly seriously and partly in jest. He says that just as a mortar is made by a mortar-maker, a citizen is made by a citizen-maker. In the same way, a Larisssean is made by a Larisssean-maker. This is indeed a very simple account of the matter. For if citizenship depends on this definition, the definition cannot apply to a state's founders or first inhabitants. They cannot possibly claim citizenship through either their father or their mother. Determining the citizenship rights of people admitted as citizens after a revolution is probably even more difficult. At Athens, for example, after the tyrants were expelled, Clisthenes enrolled many foreigners and city-slaves among the tribes. The question was not whether these people were citizens, but whether they were citizens legally. Some people may indeed have a further [1276a] doubt: can someone made a citizen illegally really be a citizen? This treats an illegal citizen as if he were in the same position as someone who is not a citizen. Yet we recognize that some people govern, even though they govern unjustly. And we have defined a citizen as someone who holds certain offices. So clearly, someone made a citizen illegally is still a citizen. But whether that citizenship is just or unjust belongs to the earlier inquiry.