The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race Volume II Part 4

9. We now return to Peloponnesus. In SICYON the tyrants had, as in other states, been the leaders of a democratic party;(758) but their dominion put an end to the times of disturbance and irregularity, which had occasioned the Pythian priestess to say, that "Sicyon needed a disciplinarian."(759) After their overthrow an early const.i.tution was restored, which remained unshaken during the Peloponnesian war. We are only informed that in 418 B.C. the Lacedaemonians made the const.i.tution more oligarchical;(760) that it had not previously been entirely democratical, is shown by the fidelity with which Sicyon adhered to the head of the Peloponnesian league. After the battle of Leuctra we find that Sicyon possessed an Achaean const.i.tution, _i.e._, one founded on property, in which the rich were supreme;(761) Euphron, in 369 B.C., undertook to change this into a democracy, and thus obtained the tyranny, until the party of the n.o.bles, whom he persecuted, overthrew him.(762) Plutarch states most clearly the changes in this const.i.tution; "after the unmixed and Doric aristocracy(763) had been destroyed, Sicyon fell from one sedition, from one tyranny into another;" until, at the time of Aratus, it adopted the almost purely democratical inst.i.tutions of the Achaeans.

As PHLIUS during the whole Peloponnesian war remained faithful to the interest of Sparta and hostile to Argos, it is evident that the state was under an aristocratic government.(764) In a revolution which took place before 383 B.C. the Lacedaemonian party had been expelled, but were in the same year again received by the people; the government, however, did not become democratical, until Agesilaus, introduced by the former party, conquered the city, and remodelled the const.i.tution(765) (379 B.C.).

Before this period the democratic a.s.sembly consisted of more than 5000 members, those who were inclined to the Lacedaemonians furnished above 1000 heavy-armed soldiers. A very regular system of government is proved to have existed, by the patience and heroism with which the Phliasians, in 372-376 B.C., defended their city and country against the attacks of the Argives, Arcadians, Eleans, and Thebans, until, without breaking their fidelity to Sparta, they concluded a peace with Thebes and Argos (366 B.C.).

10. In MEGARA the tyranny of Theagenes, to which he rose from a demagogue, was overthrown by Sparta, and the early const.i.tution restored, which for a time was administered with moderation,(766) but even during the Persian war it had already been rendered more democratical by the admission of Perici.(767) The elegiac poet Theognis shows himself about this time the zealous friend of aristocracy;(768) he dreads in particular men who stir up the populace to evil, and, as leaders of parties, cause disorder and dissension in the peaceful city; he laments the disappearance of the pride of n.o.bility, the general eagerness for riches, and the increase of a crafty and deceitful disposition.(769) These struggles after popular liberty, promoted by demagogues, soon produced the greatest disturbance; the people no longer paid the interest of their debts, and even required a cession of that which had been already paid (pa???t???a); the houses of the rich, and the very temples, were plundered; many persons were banished for the purpose of confiscating their property.(770) It was perhaps at this time that the Megarians adopted the democratic inst.i.tution of ostracism.(771) The n.o.bles, however, soon returned, conquered the people in a battle, and restored an oligarchy, which was the more oppressive, as the public offices were for a time exclusively filled by persons who had fought against the people.(772) It is probable that the consequence of this return was the revolt of Megara from Athens, in 446 B.C.;(773) in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war the Lacedaemonian party was predominant.

But in the eighth year of the war the aristocratic party of Megara was in banishment at Pegae; and when they were about to be recalled, and restored to their city, the leaders of the people preferred to have the Athenians in the town rather than the citizens whom they had driven from their walls. By the influence of Brasidas, however, they returned, upon a promise of amnesty, which they did not long observe. For having first obtained the supreme offices (to which they must therefore have had a particular claim), they brought a hundred of their chief enemies before the people, and forced them to pa.s.s sentence upon the accused with open votes. The people, terrified by this measure, condemned them to death. At the same time the dominant party established a close and strict oligarchy,(774) which remained in existence for a very long period.(775) In 375 B.C., we again find that democracy was the established const.i.tution, and that the attempts of the oligarchs to change it were defeated.(776) Demosthenes(777) mentions a court of three hundred in this state, sitting in judgment on public offences; and at this time n.o.bility and wealth were frequently united in the same persons. Of the Megarian magistrates we have already mentioned a king,(778) to which may now be added the hieromnamon, an office always held by the priest of Poseidon,(779) and probably having the same duties and privileges as the amphipolus, hierapolus, and hierothytes in the Sicilian states. The antiquity of this office is evident from its occurrence in the colonies of Megara, Byzantium and Chalcedon. In the former a hieromnamon is mentioned in a decree quoted by Demosthenes,(780) who gives his name to the year; in the latter, a decree now extant(781) mentions first a king, then a hieromnamon, then a prophet, together with three nomophylaces, all administering the public affairs (a?s????te?) for the appointed term of a month. The two first we have already seen united in the very same manner at Megara; the third refers to the wors.h.i.+p of Apollo, of the transfer of which from the mother-state to Chalcedon we have already spoken, and pointed out an oracle of Apollo which was delivered there;(782) the nomophylaces also occur at Sparta. The hieromnamon was probably priest also of Poseidon in the colonies, the wors.h.i.+p of which G.o.d, deriving its origin from the Isthmus of Corinth, was at least more prevalent than any other.(783)

11. The const.i.tution of BYZANTIUM was at first royal,(784) afterwards aristocratical,(785) and the oligarchy, which soon succeeded, was, in 390 B.C., changed by Thrasybulus the Athenian into democracy.(786) Equal privileges were at the same time probably granted to the new citizens, who, on account of their demands, had been driven from the city by the ancient colonists.(787) After this, the democracy appears to have continued for a long time;(788) but on account of the duration of this form of government, and the habit of pa.s.sing their time in the market-place and the harbour, which the people had contracted from the situation of the town, a great dissoluteness of manners existed; and this was also transferred to the neighbouring city of Chalcedon, which had adopted the Byzantine democracy, and, together with its ancient const.i.tution, had lost the temperance and regularity for which it had been distinguished. In these times the Byzantians were frequently in great financial difficulties, from which they often endeavoured to extricate themselves by violent measures.(789) In the doc.u.ment quoted by Demosthenes, the senate (???) transfers a decree in its first stage, called ??t?a,(790) to an individual, in order to bring it before the people in the a.s.sembly (???a), nearly in the same manner as was customary at Athens; the existing const.i.tution is called in this doc.u.ment ? p?t????

p???te?a. The office of archon was perhaps introduced together with the democracy;(791) the civil authority of the generals existed in many states in later times. The hundreds (??at?st??) occur apparently as a subdivision of the tribes,(792) and therefore as a species of phratriae;(793) they were probably common to all the colonies of Megara, since we find them in Heraclea on the Pontus. In this city we know to a certainty that the hundreds were divisions of the tribes, of which there were three;(794) the rich (_i.e._, the possessors of the original lots) were all in the same hundred; but the demagogues, intending to destroy the aristocracy, divided the people into sixty new hundreds, independent of the tribes, in which rich and poor were entered without distinction: nearly the same measure as that by which Cleisthenes had so greatly raised the democracy at Athens.

This HERACLEA PONTICA, a settlement in part of Botians, but chiefly from Megara,(795) had doubtless originally possessed the same const.i.tution as other Doric colonies; and the different cla.s.ses were, first, the possessors of the original lots; secondly, a _demus_, or popular party, who had settled either at the same time or subsequently; and, thirdly, the bondslaves, the Mariandynians.(796) Although we are not able to give any detailed account of the changes in the government of this state, it may be observed, that for a time the citizens alone had political power (the p???te?a); but that the people had the privilege of judging (that is, probably in civil cases), which occasioned a change in the const.i.tution.(797) Before 364 B.C. the popular party demanded with violence an abolition of debts, and a new division of the territory; the senate, which at that time was not a body selected from the people, but from the aristocracy,(798) at length, being unable to act for itself, knew no other means than to call in the a.s.sistance of Clearchus, an exile, who immediately marched with a body of soldiers into the city. But, instead of protecting the dignity of those who had called him in, he became a leader of the people, and, what in fact he is already, who sets the blind fury and physical force of the mult.i.tude in action against justice and good order-a tyrant.(799) Clearchus put to death sixty of the members of the senate, whom he had seized,(800) liberated their slaves, _i.e._, the Mariandynians; and compelled their wives and daughters to marry these bondsmen, unquestionably the best means of extirpating an hereditary aristocracy; but the pride of n.o.ble descent was so strong in the b.r.e.a.s.t.s of these women, that the greater number freed themselves from the disgrace by suicide. It must be supposed, that a tyranny administered in so violent a spirit, and continued through several generations, destroyed every vestige of the ancient const.i.tution.(801)

12. In the Spartan colony of CNIDOS the government was a close aristocracy. At the head of the state was a council of sixty members, who were chosen from among the n.o.bles. Its powers were precisely the same as those of the Spartan gerusia, from which its number is also copied. It debated concerning all public affairs, previously to their being laid before the a.s.sembly of the people, and had the superintendence of manners.

The office lasted for life, and was subject to no responsibility.(802) The members were styled ?????e?, and the president was called ?fest??, who inquired the opinion of each councillor. Only one person from each family was eligible to the council and public offices, younger brothers being excluded. This occasioned dissensions between members of the same family; those who were not admitted joined the popular party, and the oligarchy was overthrown.(803) This event probably took place a short time before the life of Aristotle. Eudoxus the philosopher, and Archias, a person of whom little is known, are mentioned as legislators of the Cnidians.(804)

In the Spartan island of MELOS we find nothing remarkable, except that the power of the magistrates was at least greater than at Athens,(805) Of the ancient const.i.tution of THERA, and of its ephors, we have already spoken.(806)

13. The changes in the government of CYRENE we pointed out when speaking of the Perici. Originally the const.i.tution was perhaps nearly similar to that of Sparta. Afterwards the ancient rights of the colonists came into collision with the claims of the later settlers, and at the same time the kings obtained an unconst.i.tutional and nearly tyrannical power. It appears that they were stimulated by their connexion, both by friends.h.i.+p and marriage, with the sovereigns of Egypt, to change the ancient royalty into an oriental despotism. Hence, in the reign of Battus III., Demonax the Mantinean, who was called in to frame a const.i.tution for this city, restored the supremacy of the community; he likewise gave to the new colonists equal rights of citizens.h.i.+p with the ancient citizens, although the latter doubtless still retained many privileges. The power of the kings was limited within the narrowest bounds; and they were only permitted to enjoy the revenues flowing from the sacerdotal office and their own lands,(807) whereas they had before claimed possession of the whole property of the state;(808) they had, like the Spartan kings, a seat and vote in the council, and probably presided over it, which duties were performed by Pheretime, the mother of Arcesilaus III., during the absence of her son.(809) These restrictions were, however, violently opposed by the princes just mentioned, as well as by their successors, who thus drew upon themselves their own ruin. Arcesilaus also, to whom Pindar addressed an ode, the fourth of the name, ruled with harshness, and protected his power by foreign mercenaries:(810) and the poet doubtless advised him with good reason, although without success, "_not to destroy with sharp axe the branches of the great oak_ (the n.o.bles of the state), _and disfigure its beautiful form; for that, even when deprived of its vigour, it gives proof of its power, when the destructive __ fire of winter_ (of insurrection) _s.n.a.t.c.hes it; or, having left its own place desolate, serves a wretched servitude, supporting with the other columns the roof of the royal palace_" (_i.e._, if the people in despair throws itself under the dominion of a foreign king).(811) But the soothing hand with which the poet advises that the wounds of the state should be treated was not that of Arcesilaus, celebrated only for his boldness and valour. For these reasons he was the last in the line of the princes of Cyrene (after 457 B.C.), and a democratical government succeeded. His son Battus took refuge in the islands of the Hesperides, where he died; and the head of his corpse was thrown by these republicans into the sea.(812) The new form of government obtained stability and duration by an entire change; the number of the tribes and phratrias was increased, the political union of the houses destroyed, the family rites were incorporated in the public wors.h.i.+p,(813) &c. Some element of disturbance and revolution must, however, have been still left in the const.i.tution,(814) if the Cyrenaeans requested Plato to contrive for them a temperate and well-ordered government, which the philosopher is said to have declined, on the ground that they seemed too prosperous to themselves. At a later period, Lucullus the Roman is said to have restored the city to tranquillity, after many wars and tyrannies.(815)

14. In the const.i.tution of the Lacedaemonian colony of TARENTUM there were two chief periods. In the first we must infer, from the a.n.a.logy of the other Doric colonies, that there was the same division of ranks, viz., n.o.ble citizens, governing the state under a king;(816) the people, to whom few and limited powers were allowed; and aboriginal bondsmen, chiefly residing upon the lands of the highest cla.s.s.(817) This const.i.tution must, however, have been gradually relaxed; for Aristotle calls it a _politeia_ in the limited sense, which, as he informs us, lasted over the Persian war, and did not pa.s.s into a democracy until a large part of the n.o.bles had been slain in a b.l.o.o.d.y battle against the Iapygians (474 B.C.)(818) The transition was introduced without any violent revolution, by some measures, in which the aristocracy submitted to the claims of the people.

First of all, according to Aristotle,(819) they divided the public property among the poorer cla.s.ses; but only gave them the use of it; _i.e._, apparently the public lands were apportioned out to them; but at the payment of a small rent, in token that they had not the absolute property in the soil. Besides this popular measure, the number of all the public offices was doubled; and one half was filled by election, the other by lot; in order, by the latter mode of nomination, to open a way to their attainment by the lower orders. This democracy at first promoted to a great degree the prosperity and power of the state,(820) while persons of character and dignity were at the head of the government; for example, one of the first men of the time, Archytas the Pythagorean, a man of singular vigour and wisdom, who, as well as all adherents of the Pythagorean league (of which he could not then have been a member), was of an aristocratical disposition.(821) He was general seven times, although it was prohibited by law that the same person should hold this office more than once,(822) and never suffered a defeat:(823) the people with a n.o.ble confidence entrusted to him for a considerable time the entire management of public affairs.(824) At a subsequent period, however, as there were no longer any men of this stamp to carry on the government, and the corruption of manners, caused by the natural fruitfulness of the country, and restrained by no strict laws, was continually on the increase, the state of Tarentum was so entirely changed, that every trace of the ancient Doric character, and particularly of the mother-country, disappeared; hence, although externally powerful and wealthy, it was from its real internal debility, in the end, necessarily overthrown, particularly when the insolent violence of the people became a fresh source of weakness.(825)

15. On the const.i.tution of the Tarentine colony HERACLEA (433 B.C.) the monuments extant, although important in other respects, afford little information. In the well-known inscription of this city, an ephor gives his name to the year, five chosen surveyors (???sta?) are to value the sacred lands of Bacchus, and to measure it according to the rules of Etruscan _agrimensores_, upon the decree of the public a.s.sembly,(826) in order to ascertain what had been lost in the course of time, and to secure the remainder. After this, the state, two polianomi, and the horistae, let the sacred land according to a decree of the Heracleans, and state the conditions; in which certain officers named s?ta?e?ta? are mentioned as inspectors of the public corn-magazine. The annual polianomi are bound to take care that the contracts of lease shall be observed; they carry on inquiries upon this subject jointly with ten sworn colleagues, elected by the people, in case of any breach of contract, collect the appointed fines, and refer, in cases of singular importance, to the public a.s.sembly, they themselves being subject to the responsibility.

16. To these we may add CROTON, since this city, founded under the authority of Sparta by a Heraclide, and therefore revering Hercules himself as its founder,(827) must be considered as belonging to the Doric race, although at a later period the more numerous Achaean portion of the population appears to have preponderated. Croton was the soil upon which Pythagoras endeavoured to realise his notions of a true aristocracy, an endeavour in which he succeeded. This, however, we cannot comprehend, unless we consider his ideal state as no airy project or phantom of the brain, but rather as founded upon national feelings, and as being even the foundation of the governments of Sparta, Crete, and the cities of Lower Italy, in which Pythagoras first appeared: and for this reason he is described as in part merely to have restored and renewed; for example, to have destroyed tyrannies, quieted the claims of the people, and re-established ancient rights,(828) &c. Croton, however, he selected as the centre of his operations, as being under the protection of Apollo, his household G.o.d;(829) and, secondly, as being the "city of the healthy," an advantage which it owed to its climate, to gymnastic exercises, and to purer morals than were prevalent at least in the neighbouring cities of Tarentum and Sybaris. The government of this city was, when the philosopher came forward, in the hands of the senate of a thousand,(830) which formed a synedrion; the Crotoniats are reported to have offered to Pythagoras the presidency of this senate,(831) probably as prytanis.(832) A similar senate of a thousand existed at Agrigentum in the time of Empedocles; the same number of persons, elected according to their property, were sole governors at Rhegium.(833) This council of a thousand members also existed at Locri.(834) From this we may infer that the thousand of Croton were the most wealthy citizens: who in states of which the power is derived from the possession of land are, before the government is disturbed by revolutions, generally identical with the n.o.ble families. At Croton they had power to decide in most affairs without the ratification of the popular a.s.sembly,(835) and also possessed a judicial authority.(836) Now the council inst.i.tuted by Pythagoras (which appears not to have been formed of members elected according to property, but to have been chosen on purely aristocratical principles) only contained three hundred members,(837) a number which frequently occurs under similar circ.u.mstances;(838) at the head of this council was Pythagoras himself.

One of the most remarkable phenomena in the political history of the Greeks is, that the philosophy of order, of unison, of ??s??, expressing, and consequently enlisting on its side, the combined endeavours of the better part of the people, obtained the management of public affairs, and held possession of it for a considerable time; so that the nature and destination of the political elements in existence being understood, and each having a.s.signed to it its proper place, those who were qualified both by their rank and talents were placed at the head of the state; a strict self-education having in the first place been made one of their chief obligations (as it was of the f??a?e? of Plato), in order by this means to prepare the way for the education of the other members of the community.

At present it is generally acknowledged that the Pythagorean league was in great part of a political nature, that its object was to obtain a formal share in the administration of states, and that its influence upon them was of the most beneficial kind, which continued for many generations in Magna Graecia after the dissolution of the league itself.(839) This dissolution was caused by the natural opposers of an aristocracy of this description, the popular party and its leaders; for in this character alone could Cylon have been the author of the catastrophe which he occasioned; it is recorded, that the opposition of this order to an agrarian law, which referred to the division of the territory of the conquered Sybaris among the people, served to inflame their minds.(840) The opposite party demanded that the whole people should have admittance to the public a.s.semblies and to public offices, that all magistrates at the expiration of their offices should render an account to a tribunal composed of members elected by lot,(841) that all existing debts should be cancelled, and that the lands should be newly divided:(842) from which we must infer, that the highest officers of the Pythagoreans were, according to the Spartan and Cretan principle, irresponsible, and that they considered election by vote as necessary for all such situations. How fatal to the quiet of Lower Italy were the convulsions which followed the destruction of this league (about 500 B.C.), is proved by the large share which the whole of Greece took in their pacification. This was at length effected by the Italian cities entirely giving up the Doric customs, and adopting an Achaean government and inst.i.tutions;(843) which they were afterwards, first by the power of Dionysius of Syracuse, and then of the neighbouring Barbarians, compelled to surrender. Now the Achaean const.i.tution, according to Polybius,(844) had become a democracy immediately after the overthrow of the last king Ogyges; and retained the same general character, though some subordinate parts experienced very great alterations: we also know that it was very unlike the Spartan government.(845) I cannot, however, refrain from doubting whether it could properly be termed democracy at so early a period, since Xenophon states, that in Sicyon, in 368-365 B.C., timocracy was the prevailing form of government, "_according to the laws of the Achaeans_,"(846) which words cannot be referred to a mere transitory condition of that race. There also was always among the Achaeans an equestrian order (?ppe??), of greater consideration and influence on the government than can be reconciled with complete democracy.(847) So also at Croton, in the year of the city 637 (117 B.C.), there was a complete democracy; but (as in all the cities of the Italian Greeks at this period) a senate of n.o.bles existed, which was frequently at open war with the people.(848)

17. Lastly, it is proper to mention the const.i.tution of DELPHI, if our supposition is admitted to be correct, that the most distinguished Delphian families were of Doric origin.(849) It was also shown that these families composed at an early period a close aristocracy; the priests were chosen from among the n.o.bles, to whom the management of the oracle belonged; from their body was taken the Pythian court of justice (which may be compared with the Spartan gerusia, and the Athenian court of the ephetae), as well as the chief magistrates, among whom in early times a king,(850) and afterwards a prytanis, was supreme.(851) At a later period we find mention of archons who gave their name to the year.(852) At the same time a popular party was formed (perhaps from the subjects of the temple), which in a later age at least exercised its authority in a public a.s.sembly.(853) The senate (????) of Delphi was at this period, as in Gela and Rhodes (according to the hypothesis before advanced), renewed every half year; but it appears to have consisted of very few members, for only one senator (???e???), or at most a few, in addition to the archon, are named in the donatory decrees of Delphi.(854) Many particulars which belong to a later date we pa.s.s over, as our only object is to point out the characteristic points of the ancient const.i.tution.

18. From these various accounts it follows, that although there was no one form of government common to the Doric race in historic times, yet in many of these states we find a const.i.tution of nearly the same character, which preceded and caused the subsequent changes and developments; and was of unequal duration in different states. This const.i.tution, which we, with Pindar, consider as most strongly marked in the _Spartan_ form of government, was of a strictly aristocratic character;(855) hence Sparta was the basis and corner-stone of the Greek aristocracies, and in this country alone the n.o.bility ever retained their original dignity and power.

Hence also Sparta, during the flouris.h.i.+ng period of her history, never had a large number of exiles on political grounds, while in the other Grecian states the constant revolutions to which they were subject generally kept one party or other of the citizens in banishment; nor did she ever experience any violent disturbances or changes in her const.i.tution,(856) until the number of the genuine Spartans had nearly become extinct, and the conditions necessary for the permanence of the ancient government had in part been removed. Now I call the Spartan const.i.tution an _aristocracy_, without the least hesitation, on account of its continued and predominant tendency towards governing the community by a few, who were presumed to be the best, and as it inculcated in the citizens far less independent confidence than obedience and fear of those persons whose worth was guaranteed by their family, their education, and the public voice which had called them to the offices of state. The ancients,(857) however, remark, that it might also be called a _democracy_, since the supreme power was always considered as residing in the people, and an entire equality of manners prevailed; that it might be called a _monarchy_ on account of the kings;(858) and that in the power of the ephors there was even an appearance of _tyranny_: so that in this one const.i.tution all forms of government were united.(859) But the animating soul of all these forms was the Doric spirit of fear and respect for ancient and established laws, and the judgment of older men, the spirit of implicit obedience towards the state and the const.i.tuted authorities (pe??a???a);(860) and, lastly, the conviction that strict discipline and a wise restriction of actions are surer guides to safety, than a superabundance of strength and activity directed to no certain end.

The relation which, according to these Doric principles, existed between an inferior and a superior, between the private citizen and the magistrate, also extended to the Spartans and other states, as the former were for a long time considered as aristocrats when compared with the other Greeks. This superiority was not caused by external preponderance and compulsion, but by the internal acknowledgment that strict laws and a well-ordered discipline belonged to them above all. It is often curious to remark how great was the power of a Lacedaemonian cloak and stick (s??t???

?a? t????, as Plutarch says) among the other races of the Greeks:(861) how, as it were by magic, the single Gylippus, although by no means the best of his nation, brings union and stability into the people at Syracuse, and first gives all their undertakings force and effect; on more than one occasion a single Spartan was enough to unite squadrons of aeolians and Ionians of Asia, and make them act in common; and even at the times of the dissolution of the Grecian name, we see Spartans acting as the generals of mercenaries bound by no other law than the firm and decided will of their leaders.

Many of the n.o.blest and best of the Athenians always considered the Spartan state nearly as an ideal theory realised in practice; and, like Cimon and Xenophon (whose decided preference for Sparta, though perhaps sometimes prejudicial to his own country, must not be called folly), joined themselves to this state with zeal and eagerness, even to the prejudice of their own interests. The preference of all the followers of Socrates for Sparta is well known;(862) and Lycurgus, the most just of financiers, united to an aristocratical disposition an admiration for the laws of Lacedaemon.(863) It is singular that men of such eminence, both in a practical and theoretical view, should express their admiration of a state,(864) which modern writers(865) have often represented to us as a horde of half savages. Nor must the judgment of the persons above mentioned, who were without doubt sufficiently acquainted with the object of it, be attributed to a morbid craving after a state of nature which the Athenians had for ever lost.

We moderns, on the other hand, on account of our preconceived notions with respect to the advancement of civilization, do not read without partiality the lessons which history affords us; we refuse to recognise the most profound political wisdom in an age which we believe to have been occupied in rude attempts after the formation of a settled form of government. Far otherwise the political speculators of antiquity, such as the Pythagoreans and Plato, who considered the Spartan and Cretan form of government, _i.e._, the ancient Dorian, as a general model of all governments; and, in fact, the ideal const.i.tution which was realized in Sparta approaches most nearly to that which Pythagoras attempted to establish in Lower Italy, and which Plato brought forward as capable of being put in practice, viz., a close communion, nearly similar to that of a family, having for its object mutual instruction. For the regulations of Pythagoras have many things besides their aristocratic spirit in common with the Spartan form of government, such as the public tables, and in general the perpetual living in public, with the number of laws for the maintenance of public morality (_disciplina morum_); and the community of goods, which existed among the Pythagoreans, is nearly allied to the Doric system of equalizing the landed estates. And Plato, although he at times criticises the Spartan and Cretan const.i.tution in a somewhat unfair manner, has evidently derived his political notions, mediately or immediately, from the consideration of that form of government:(866) for it is hardly possible that any person should speculate upon government, without proceeding upon some chosen historical basis, however he may endeavour to conceal it. But the Athenian and Ionic democracy he altogether despises, because that appeared on his principles to be an annihilation of government rather than a government, in which every person, striving to act as much as possible for himself, destroyed that unison and harmony in which each individual exists only as a part of the whole.

It would be interesting to know what were the opinions and judgments of Spartans of the better time concerning these relaxed forms of government.

We may well suppose that they did not view them in a favourable light. The people of Athens must indeed have appeared to them in general, as a Lacedaemonian in Aristophanes(867) expresses himself, as a lawless and turbulent rabble. For this reason they refused in the Peloponnesian war to negociate with the whole community; and would only treat with a few selected individuals.(868) Upon the whole, the state of Sparta, being, in comparison with the general mutability of the Greeks after the Persian war, like the magnet, which always pointed to the pole of ancient national customs, became dissimilar, both in political and domestic usages, to the rest of Greece;(869) and for this reason the Spartans who were sent into foreign parts either gave affront by their strangeness and peculiarity, or, by their want of consistency and firmness, forfeited that confidence with which they were everywhere met.

Chapter X.

-- 1. Tenure of land in Laconia. -- 2. Part.i.tion of the land into lots, and their inalienability. -- 3. Law of inalienability of land repealed by Epitadeus. -- 4. Lacedaemonian law respecting marriage portions and heiresses. -- 5. Similar regulations respecting landed property in other states. -- 6. The syssitia of Crete and the phiditia of Sparta. -- 7. Contributions to the public tables in Crete and Sparta. -- 8. Domestic economy of Sparta. -- 9. Money of Sparta. -- 10. Regulations respecting the use of money in Sparta. -- 11. Changes in these regulations. Taxation of the Spartans. -- 12.

Trade of Peloponnesus. Monetary system of the Dorians of Italy and Sicily.

1. Having now considered the individuals composing the state in reference to the supreme governing power, we will next view them in reference to property, and investigate the subject of the public economy. It is evident that this latter must have been of great simplicity in the Doric states, as it was the object of their const.i.tution to remove everything accidental and arbitrary; and by preventing property from being an object of free choice and individual exertion, to make it a matter of indifference to persons who were to be trained only in moral excellence; hence the dominant cla.s.s, the genuine Spartans, were almost entirely interdicted from the labour of trade or agriculture, and excluded both from the cares and pleasures of such occupations.(870) Since then upon this principle it was the object to allow as little freedom as possible to individuals in the use of property, while the state gained what these had lost, it is manifest that under a government of this kind there could not have been any accurate distinction between public and private economy; and therefore no attempt will be made to separate them in the following discussion.

All land in Laconia was either in the immediate possession of the state, or freehold property of the Spartans, or held by the Perici upon the payment of a tribute. That there were flocks and lands belonging to the state of Sparta, is evident from facts which have been already stated;(871) although perhaps they were not so considerable as in Crete:(872) the large forest, in which every Spartan had a right of hunting, must also have belonged to the community. There can be no doubt that this property of the state was different from the royal lands,(873) which were situated in the territory of the Perici: it is probable that these (as well as the rest of that district) were cultivated by the Perici, who only paid a tribute to the king. The rest of the territory of the Perici was divided into numerous but small portions, of which, as has been already remarked, there were 30,000;(874) a number which was probably arranged at the same time with that of the hundred towns.(875) In each lot (??????) only one family resided, the members of which subsisted upon its produce, and cultivated it, to the best of our knowledge, without the a.s.sistance of Helots. For this reason the 9000 lots of the Spartans, which supported twice as many men as the lots of the Perici,(876) must upon the whole have been twice as extensive; each lot must therefore have been seven times greater. Now the property of the Spartans was, according to the united testimony of all writers, set out in equal lots; probably according to some general valuation of the produce;(877) for the area could not have been taken as a standard in a country where the land was of such different degrees of goodness. Yet even this method of allotment might not have precluded all inequality: which, on account of the natural changes of the soil, must in the course of time have been much augmented; and to this result the variable number of the slaves, which were strictly connected with the land, necessarily contributed. Nevertheless this fact proves that there existed a principle of equality in the contrivers of the regulation: for, as we remarked above, this division was in strictness only a lower degree of a community of goods, which the Pythagoreans endeavoured to put in practice, on the principle of the possessions of friends being common;(878) and which actually existed among the Spartans in the free use of dogs, horses, servants, and even the furniture of other persons.(879) The whole inst.i.tution of the public tables in Sparta and Crete was, indeed, only a means of producing an equal distribution of property among the members of them.(880)

2. Although similar part.i.tions of land had perhaps been made from the time of the first occupation of Laconia by the Dorians, the later division into 9000 lots cannot have taken place before the end of the first Messenian war.(881) There is something very remarkable in the historical account, that Tyrtaeus by means of his poem of Eunomia repressed the desire of many citizens for a redivision of the lands.(882) It may be explained by supposing that the Spartans, who before that time had possessed allotments in Messenia, from which they then obtained no returns, wished that new estates in Laconia should be a.s.signed to them.(883) At the time, however, of that division Sparta must in fact have had about 9000 fathers of families (or, according to the ancient expression, so many ?????), of which each received a lot; for families and lots were necessarily connected.(884) If then we suppose that every family of a Spartan was provided with a lot, the chief object was to keep them together for the future by proper inst.i.tutions: and to ascertain the means which were employed to attain this end (for they were upon the whole successful) is a problem which has never yet been satisfactorily solved.(885) The first part was the preservation of families, in which the legislator was in ancient times a.s.sisted by the sanction of religion. Nothing was more dreaded by the early Greeks than the extinction of the family, and the destruction of the house;(886) by which the dead lost their religious honour, the household G.o.ds their sacrifices, the hearth its flame, and the ancestors their name among the living. This was in Sparta provided against by regulations concerning heiresses, adoptions, introductions of mothaces, and other means which will presently be mentioned: those persons also who had not as yet any children were sometimes spared in war.(887) The second means was the prohibition to alienate or divide the family allotment,(888) which necessarily required the existence of only one heir,(889) who probably was always the eldest son.(890) The extent of his rights, however, was perhaps no further than that he was considered master of the house and property; while the other members of the family had an equal right to a share in the enjoyment of it. The head of the family was styled in Doric ?st??p???, _the lord of the hearth_;(891) the collective members of the family were called by Epimenides the Cretan ????p??, that is, literally, _eating from the same crib_;(892) and by Charondas ??s?p???, or "_living __ upon the same stock_;"(893) and by the Spartans perhaps pa?ta?.(894) The master of the family was therefore obliged to contribute for all these to the syssitia, without which contribution no one was admitted;(895) we shall see presently that he was able to provide this contribution for three men and women besides himself; the other expenses were inconsiderable.(896) If, however, the family contained more than three men, which must frequently have been the case, the means adopted for relieving the excessive number were either to marry them with heiresses, or to send them out as colonists; or the state had recourse to some other means of preventing absolute want. This would have been effected with the greater ease, if it were true, as Plutarch relates, that immediately after the birth of every Spartan boy, the eldest of the tribe, sitting together in a lesche, gave him one of the 9000 lots.(897) For this, however, it must be a.s.sumed that the state or the tribes had possession of some lots, of those perhaps in which the families had become extinct; but we know that these lots went in a regular succession to other families,(898) by which means many became exceedingly rich. These elders of the tribe, mentioned by Plutarch, were therefore probably only the eldest of the _house_ or ?????, who might take care that, if several sons and at the same time several lots had fallen together in one family, the younger sons should, as far as was possible, be in the possession of land, without however violating the indivisible unity of an allotment.

In this manner at Sparta the family, together with the estate, formed an undivided whole, under the control of one head, who was privileged by his birth. But if the number of persons to be fed was too great, as compared with the means of feeding them, the natural consequence was, that the privileged eldest brother could afford to marry, while the younger brothers remained without wives or children. This natural inference from the above account is strikingly confirmed by a most singular statement of Polybius,(899) which has lately been brought to light, viz., that "in Sparta several brothers had often one wife, and that the children were brought up in common." If we may here infer a misrepresentation, to which the Spartan inst.i.tutions were particularly liable, it is seen how the custom just described might cause _several_ men to dwell in one house, upon the same estate, of whom _one_ only had a wife. But it must be confessed that the Spartan inst.i.tution was very likely to lead to the terrible abuse which Polybius mentions, particularly as the Spartan laws, as we shall see presently,(900) did not absolutely prohibit the husband from allowing the procreation of children from his wife by strangers. It is therefore possible that the Hebrew inst.i.tution of the Levirate-marriage (viz., that if a man died without leaving children, his widow became the wife of her former husband's brother, who was to raise up seed to his brother)(901) was extended in Sparta to the lifetime of the childless elder brother.

3. This whole system was entirely broken up by the law of the ephor Epitadeus, which permitted any person to give away his house and lot during his lifetime, and also to leave it as he chose by will.(902) Whence, as might have been expected, the practice of legacy-hunting rose to a great height, in which the rich had always the advantage over the poor. This law, which was directly opposed to the spirit of the Spartan const.i.tution, was pa.s.sed after the time of Lysander, but a considerable period before Aristotle; since this writer, manifestly confounding the state of things as it existed in his time with the ancient legislation,(903) reckons it as an inconsistency in the const.i.tution of Sparta, that buying and selling of property was attended with dishonour,(904) but that it was permitted to give it away, and bequeath it by will.(905) From that time we find that the number of the Spartans, and particularly of the landed proprietors, continually decreased. The first fact is very remarkable, and can hardly be accounted for by the wars,(906) in which moreover the Spartans lost but few of their number; it was perhaps rather owing to the late marriages, which also frequently took place between members of the same family. After all, it must be confessed that the const.i.tution of Sparta too much restrained the natural inclination of the citizens; and by making every thing too subservient to public ends, checked the free growth of the people, and, like a plant trimmed by an unsparing hand, destroyed its means both of actual strength and future increase. At the time of Aristotle they endeavoured to increase the population by exempting the father of three sons from serving in war, and the father of four sons from all taxes.(907) But even Herodotus only reckons 8000 Spartans in the 9000 families; in the middle of the Peloponnesian war Sparta did not send quite 6000 heavy-armed soldiers into the field.(908) Aristotle states that in his time the whole of Laconia could hardly furnish 1000 heavy-armed men;(909) and at the time of Agis the Third there were only 700 genuine Spartans.(910) Even in 399 B.C. the Spartans who were in possession of lots(911) did not compose a large number in comparison with the people; for the numerous Neodamodes must not be included among them, who it appears could not obtain lots in any other manner than by adoption into a Spartan family, before which time they were provided for by the state. We are entirely uninformed in what manner the loss of Messenia was borne by Sparta; it cannot be supposed that whole families completely lost their landed property; for they would have perished by famine. No writer has, however, preserved a trace of the mode in which these difficulties were met by the state. At the time of Agis the Third we know that of the 700 Spartans, about 100 only were in possession of the district of the city.(912)

4. From this view of the times, which succeeded the innovation of Epitadeus, we will now turn to the original system, which indeed we are scarcely able to ascertain, from the feeble and obscure indications now extant. In the first place, we know with certainty that daughters had originally no dowry (in Doric d?t???),(913) and were married with a gift of clothes, &c.;(914) afterwards, however, they were at least provided with money and other moveable property.(915) At the time of Aristotle, after the ephoralty of Epitadeus, they were also endowed with land.(916) This was the regulation in case of the existence of a son; if there was none, the daughter, and if there were several daughters, probably the eldest, became heiress (?p???????, in Doric ?p?paat??);(917) that is to say, the possession of her was necessarily connected with that of the inheritance. Regulations concerning heiresses were an object of chief importance in the ancient legislations, on account of their anxiety for the maintenance of families, as in that of Androdamas of Rhegium for the Thracian Chalcideans,(918) and in the code of Solon,(919) with which the Chalcidean laws of Charondas appear to have agreed in all essential points.(920) We will mention the most important of these regulations. The heiress, together with her inheritance, belonged to the kinsmen of the family (????ste??); so that in early times(921) the father could not dispose of his daughter as he liked without their a.s.sent. But, according to the later Athenian law, the father had power either during his life or by will to give his daughter, with her inheritance, in marriage to whomever he wished. If, however, this power was not exercised, the kinsmen had a right of claiming the daughter by a judicial process; and the right to marry her went round in a regular succession.(922) But the unmarried man, to whom of all her kinsmen she was allotted, was not only privileged, but also compelled to marry her.(923) The laws also exercised a further superintendence over him, and enjoined that he should beget children from his wife,(924) which then did not pa.s.s into his family, but into that of his wife, and became the successors of their maternal grandfather. Now there is no doubt that in Sparta the family was continued by means of the heiresses; but it is probable that they always chose for their husbands persons who had no lots of their own, such as the descendants of younger brothers, and, first, persons of the same family,(925) if there were any, then persons connected by relations.h.i.+p, and so on. If the father himself had made no disposition concerning his daughters, (in which respect, however, his choice was limited,) it was to be decided by the king's court who among the privileged persons should marry the heiress.(926) It was not until after the time of Epitadeus that the father could betroth his daughter to whom he pleased; and if he had not declared his intention, his heir had equal right to decide concerning her.(927)

If, however, the family was without female issue, and the succession had not been secured during the father's lifetime by adoption in the presence of the king, it is probable that the heads of houses related to the surviving daughter married her to a son of their own, who was then considered as successor of the family into which he was introduced-a means employed at Athens,(928) and probably therefore at Sparta also, for preventing the extinction of families. But there were two customs peculiar to the Lacedaemonians; in the first place, a husband, if he considered that the unfruitfulness of the marriage was owing to himself (for if he considered his wife as barren he had power immediately to put her away),(929) gave his matrimonial rights to a younger and more powerful man, whose child then belonged to the family of the husband, although it was also publicly considered as related to the family of the real father.(930) The second inst.i.tution was, that to the wives of men, who, for example, had fallen in war before they had begotten any children, other men (probably slaves) were a.s.signed, in order to produce heirs and successors, not to themselves, but to the deceased husband.(931) Both these customs, which appear to us so singular (though similar regulations existed in the const.i.tution of Solon), originated from the superst.i.tious dread of the destruction of a family. When this motive lost its power upon the mind, these ancient inst.i.tutions were probably also lost, and the population and number of families were continually diminished.

5. In Sparta, however, the principle of community of goods was carried to a further extent than in any other nation, although it was the principle on which the legislation of many other Grecian states was founded. Phaleas the Chalcedonian had made it the basis of his laws.(932) The prohibition of Solon, that no citizen should possess more than a certain quant.i.ty of land, appears to have been a remnant of a former equality in the lots of the n.o.bles.(933) In cases, however, in which the restoration or introduction of equality was not possible, the legislators endeavoured to make the landed estates inalienable. For this reason the mortgaging of land was prohibited in Elis;(934) and among the Locrians land could not be alienated without proof of absolute necessity.(935) We have already spoken of the inalienability of the lots at Leucas.(936) The ancient Corinthian lawgiver, Phidon, made no alteration in the unequal size of landed estates, but he wished to restrict their extent, as well as the number of the landed proprietors, who were all citizens.(937) Philolaus the Corinthian, who gave laws to Thebes in the 13th Olympiad, went still further;(938) since he not only endeavoured to retain the same number of lots, by laws concerning the procreation and adoption of children,(939) but endeavoured to restore the original equality from time to time, perhaps in a manner similar to the jubilee-year of the Hebrews:(940) this was in fact most simply effected by the Illyrian Dalmatians, who made a new division of the tillage-land every seven years.(941) If the Doric legislation of Crete had originally a tendency of this kind, its adoption in practice had evidently been hindered by peculiar circ.u.mstances. For Polybius(942) at least knew of no Cretan laws which laid any restriction upon the purchase of land, nor indeed upon gain in general:(943) the landed estates were divided among the brothers, the sisters receiving half a brother's share.(944) In this manner, in the narration of Ulysses,(945) the sons of Castor, the son of Hylacus, made a division of their patrimony; the illegitimate son receiving only a small share (???e?a). But the poor frequently, by marriage with wealthy wives, attained to riches, together with personal distinction. In addition to this, privateering expeditions, sometimes as far as Egypt, for which individual adventurers frequently equipped whole flotillas, gave an opportunity for a more rapid acquisition of wealth. This habit of living in s.h.i.+ps, and at the same time the variable condition of the different states, necessarily produced a frequent change of property, and soon put an end to all firmness and equality wherever they existed.

6. But the Cretan inst.i.tution of the syssitia was, at least according to the judgment of Aristotle, founded more upon the principle of community of goods than the same establishment in Sparta, since in the former country the expenses of it were defrayed by the state, and not by the contributions of the citizens.(946) This inst.i.tution of the ancient Dorians, or rather of the ancient Greeks in general, we will consider in a subsequent part of this work, with reference to manners and taste; here it must be viewed as affecting the public economy. In Sparta every member of the phiditia contributed to them, as has been already stated, from his own stock;(947) the amount required was about one Attic medimnus and a half of barley-meal, eleven or twelve choeis of wine,(948) five minas of cheese, with half the same quant.i.ty of figs, together with dates,(949) and ten aeginetan oboli for meat.(950) The approximate statement of one Attic medimnus and a half is probably meant as an equivalent to one aeginetan medimnus;(951) the ten oboli are equal to a Corinthian stater, or a Syracusan decalitre; the whole is doubtless the monthly contribution of an individual,(952) and is amply sufficient for the consumption of one person. For the daily allowance being elsewhere reckoned at two chnices, and one cotyla of wine (although the latter is an extremely small quant.i.ty),(953) this contribution would give rather more than two chnices, and five cotylas for each day. There appears to have been only a small allowance for meat, but the want of it was partly supplied by the frequent sacrifices, and partly by the excellent inst.i.tution of the ?p????a, which were additions to the regular meal or a?????. The poorer members of the syssition furnished these from the proceeds of the chase, while wealthier persons supplied wheaten bread (the common provision being barley cakes, ??a?), with young cattle from their flocks, birds prepared as att?a, and the fruits of the season from their lands.(954) Voluntary gifts of this kind were probably seldom wanting, so long as the spirit of community influenced their minds; it was also natural that they should contribute largely, in order to give variety and grace to their otherwise uniform banquet.

7. In the Cretan inst.i.tution, however, the state provided for all the citizens and their wives.(955) The revenues received by the community from the public lands, and from the tributes of the Perici, were divided according to the months of the year into twelve parts;(956) and also into two according to the purpose to which it was appropriated; so that one half defrayed the sacrifices and the expenses of the government, the other went to the public banquets.(957) Now this latter half was divided among the different families, and each gave his share into the company of syssitia (?ta???a) to which he belonged.(958) It may be asked why the state did not allot these sums directly among the syssitia, instead of making the payment indirectly through the members: it is, however, probable that these companies were formed at will by the several messmates. The division of the public revenue is in some measure similar to the proceeding of the Athenians with respect to the Laurian silver-mines.(959) In addition to this, every citizen furnished a tenth of the produce of his lands, and every Clarotes an aeginetan stater for his master.(960)

Although the meaning and object of this inst.i.tution is quite intelligible, it is not easy to obtain a clear notion of the Lacedaemonian system. The produce of a lot amounted for the Spartans, according to a pa.s.sage above quoted, to 82 medimni. If we suppose these to be Attic medimni, as was there a.s.sumed upon a mere approximate calculation, each lot would have enabled three men to contribute to the syssitia (54 medimni), and would also have furnished a scanty subsistence at home to three women. But this would leave a surplus, in addition to whatever money was required as a subscription to the syssitia, for all other household expenses. Now it is true that among the poorer citizens these could not have been considerable, since the younger children went with their fathers to the public tables, and the elder were educated and maintained by the state; to which might be added the produce of the chase, and the charity of other persons. But after making all allowance for these causes, the expenses for dwellings, clothing, furniture, and partly for food not provided by the syssitia, still remain undefrayed. It is, however, evident that there would have been sufficient income to meet these demands, if we suppose that the 82 medimni were not Attic, but aeginetan, which were considerably larger.(961) But even upon this supposition one lot could not have maintained more than six persons, unless the rent of the Helots is a.s.sumed higher: and it might also be the case (which however, according to Aristotle, appears to have been of rare occurrence), that they were not able to pay their contributions.

8. Of the domestic economy of Lacedaemon we have little knowledge; although Aristotle, or rather Theophrastus (who is now known to be the author of the first book of the Economics), gives it a separate place in treating of this subject. Every master of a family, if he received his share of the produce of the soil, laid by a portion sufficient for the year's consumption, and sold the rest in the market of Sparta:(962) the exchange being probably effected by barter, and not by the intervention of money.(963) It should be observed, that the system of keeping the fruits in store had something peculiar,(964) and the regularity was celebrated, by which every thing could be easily found and made use of.(965) We are also informed that the Spartans had granaries (ta?e?a) upon their estates, which, according to ancient custom, they kept under a seal; it was however permitted to any poor person, who for example had remained too long in the chase, to open the granary, take out what he wanted, and then put his own seal, his iron ring, upon the door.(966)

9. In the market of Sparta, money was employed more often as a medium of comparison than of exchange; small coins were chiefly used, and no value was attributed to the possession of large quant.i.ties.(967) This usage Lycurgus had established, by permitting only the use of iron coin, which had been made useless for common purposes, by cooling in vinegar, or by some other process.(968) In early times iron spits or bars had been really used as money,(969) which after the time of Phidon the Argive were replaced by coined metal. The chief coin was called from its shape, and perhaps also from its size, p??a???, _the cake used in sacrifices_; its value was equal to four chalcus, that is, to a half obolus, or the twelfth of a drachma(970) (manifestly of the aeginetan standard, as the Spartan coinage must necessarily have been adapted to this measure), and weighed an aeginetan mina.(971) Now as a mina of silver contained 1200 half oboli, the price of silver must have been to that of iron as 1200 to one; an excessive cheapness of the latter metal, which can only be explained by the large quant.i.ty of iron found in Laconia, and the high price of silver in early times. Ten aeginetan minas of money were, according to this calculation, equal in weight to 1200 minas, and it is easy to see that it would have required large carriages for transport, and an extensive s.p.a.ce when kept in store.(972)

10. That, however, the possession of gold and silver money was expressly interdicted to the citizens of Sparta, is abundantly proved by the prohibition renewed at the time of Lysander by Sciraphidas or Phlogidas:(973) and how strong was the hold of this ancient custom is seen from the punishment of death which was threatened to those who secretly transgressed it. The possession of wrought precious metals does not appear to have been illegal. This decree, however, expressly permitted to the state the possession of gold and silver:(974) which enactment was also doubtless a restoration of ancient custom. Without the possession of a coin of general currency, Sparta would have been unable to send amba.s.sadors to foreign states, to maintain troops in another country, or to take foreign, for instance Cretan, mercenaries into pay. We also know that the Lacedaemonians sent sacred offerings to Delphi, as for example, the golden stars of the Dioscuri dedicated by Lysander;(975) and Lacedaemonian artists made for the state statues of gold and ivory.(976) This took place about the time of the Persian war. A century indeed earlier, Sparta had not enough gold to gild the face of the statue of Apollo at Thornax, and endeavoured to buy it in Lydia, probably in exchange for silver.(977) It follows from this, that in Sparta the state was sole possessor of the precious metals, at least in the shape of coin (though it did not coin any money of its own before the time of Alexander),(978) which it used in the intercourse with foreign nations.

The individual citizens however, who were without the pale of this intercourse, only required and possessed iron coin;(979) in a manner precisely similar to that proposed by Plato in the Laws, viz., that the money generally current should be at the disposal of the state, and should be given out by the magistrates for the purposes of war and foreign travel, and that within the country should be circulated a coinage in itself worthless, deriving its value from public ordinance.(980)

Still however, some difficult questions remain to be considered. In the first place, it is evident that whatever commerce was carried on by Laconia,(981) could not have existed without a coinage of universal currency. Now it is impossible that this trade could have been carried on by the state, since it would have required a proportionate number of public officers; consequently it was in the hands of the Perici. We must therefore suppose that the possession of silver coin was allowed to this cla.s.s of persons; in general, indeed the Spartan customs did not without exception extend to the Perici. Nor could this have had much influence upon the Spartans, since they had not any personal connexion with the Perici, the latter being only tributary to the state. In the market of Sparta in which the Spartans and Helots sold their corn and t