§ 1. Subject classes in Crete. § 2. In Argos and Epidaurus. § 3.
In Corinth and Sicyon. § 4. In Syracuse. § 5. In Byzantium,
Heraclea on the Pontus, and Cyrene. § 6. The bond-slaves of
Thessaly. § 7. Cities and villages of Arcadia. § 8. The political
opposition of city and country.
1. After having thus separately considered the two dependent classes in
Sparta, the pattern state of the Dorians, we will now point out the traces
of the analogous ranks in several other states of Doric origin.
The Doric customs were first established in CRETE, whose fortunate
circumstances had given to that race a fertile country, and an undisturbed
dominion. Accordingly, the relative rights of the Dorians and natives must
at an early period have been fixed on a settled basis in this island; and
we may suppose that this settlement was made on equitable terms, since
Aristotle was not aware of any insurrection of the slaves in Crete against
their masters.(201) The Doric customs required here, as elsewhere,
exemption from all agricultural or commercial industry; which is expressed
in a lively manner in the song of Hybrias the Cretan, that “with lance and
sword and shield he reaped and dressed his vines, and hence was called
lord of the Mnoia.”(202) In this island, however, different classes of
dependents must have existed. Sosicrates and Dosiadas, both credible
authors on the affairs of Crete, speak of three classes, the public
bondsmen (κοινὴ δουλεία), called by the Cretans μνοΐα, the slaves of
individual citizens, ἀφαμιῶται, and the Periœci, ὑπήκοοι. Now we know that
the Aphamiotæ received their name from the cultivation of the lands of
private individuals (in Cretan ἀφαμίαι) and accordingly they were
agricultural bondsmen.(203) These latter are identical with the Clarotæ,
who, for this reason, were not separately mentioned by the writers just
quoted: for although they are generally supposed to have taken their name
from the lot cast for prisoners of war, the more natural derivation
doubtless is from the lots or lands of the citizens, which were called
κλῆροι. But whichever explanation we adopt, they were bondsmen belonging
to the individual citizens. Both the Clarotæ and Aphamiotæ have therefore
been correctly compared with the Helots;(204) and as the latter were
entirely distinct from the Laconian Periœci, so were the former from the
Cretan, although Aristotle neglects the distinction accurately observed by
the Cretan writers.(205) In the second place, the μνοία (or μνῴα) was by
more precise historians distinguished as well from the condition of
Periœci as from that of private bondage, and it was explained to mean a
state of _public villenage_; whence we may infer that every state in Crete
was possessed of public lands, which the Mnotæ cultivated in the same
relative situation to the community in which the Aphamiotæ, who cultivated
the allotted estates, stood to the several proprietors. This name,
however, is sometimes extended to all forced labourers, as in the song of
Hybrias noticed above.(206) Finally, the Periœci formed in Crete, as in
Laconia, dependent and tributary communities: their tribute was, like the
produce of the national lands, partly applied to the public banquets;(207)
to which also, according to Dosiadas,(208) every slave in Lyctus
contributed in addition one Æginetan stater. Now in this passage we cannot
suppose that the Periœci are meant, because the exact author would not
have called them slaves: nor yet the slaves purchased in foreign parts
(called ἀργυρώνητοι in Crete), since it would have been impossible to
reckon with any certainty that persons in this situation possessed
anything of their own; nor, lastly, can the Mnotæ be meant, since these
were public slaves, having no connexion with individuals, nor consequently
with their eating clubs.(209) It remains, therefore, that it was the
Clarotæ (or Aphamiotæ), who, in addition to the tax in kind, were also
liable to this payment in money, with which utensils for the use of the
public table were probably purchased. It may be, moreover, observed that
we have no reason to suppose that the bondsmen were admitted to the daily
banquets.(210)
Perhaps, however, there was no Grecian state in which the dependent
classes were so little oppressed as in Crete. In general, every employment
and profession, with the exception of the gymnasia and military service,
was permitted to them.(211) Hence also the Periœci held so firmly to the
ancient legislation of Minos, that they even then observed it, when it had
been neglected by the Dorians of the town of Lyctus;(212) and thus, as was
frequently the case elsewhere, in the decline of public manners the
ancient customs were retained among the lower classes of society longer
than amongst the higher. Upon the whole, Crete was the most fortunate of
all the Doric states in this circumstance, that it could follow up its own
institutions with energy and in quiet, without any powerful obstacle;
although its very tranquillity and far-extended commerce at length
occasioned a gradual decline of ancient customs. The reverse took place at
Argos, whose Doric inhabitants, pressed on all sides, were at length
compelled to renounce the institutions of their race, and adopt those of
the natives. In the early history of this state, therefore, the two
classes of dependents and bondsmen should be distinguished: this division
was, however, very early laid aside, and an entirely different arrangement
introduced.
2. There was at ARGOS a class of bond-slaves, who are compared with the
Helots, and were called _Gymnesii_.(213) The name alone sufficiently
proves the correctness of the comparison; these slaves having evidently
been the light-armed attendants on their masters (γύμνητες). Hence also
the same class of slaves were in Sicyon called κορυνηφύροι; because they
only carried a club or staff, and not, like the heavy-armed Dorians, a
sword and lance. It is to these Gymnesii that the account of Herodotus
refers,(214) that 6000 of the citizens of Argos having been slain in
battle by Cleomenes king of Sparta,(215) the slaves got the government
into their own hands, and retained possession of it until the sons of
those who had fallen were grown to manhood. From this narrative it is
plain that the number of Dorians at Argos was nearly exhausted by the
death of 6000 of their body; and that none but bondsmen dwelt in the
immediate neighbourhood of the city, since otherwise the sovereign power
would not have fallen into their hands. It would be absurd to suppose that
slaves bought in foreign countries can be here intended, since these could
have had no more notion of governing a Grecian state than the bear in the
fable of managing the ship.(216) Afterwards, when the young citizens had
grown up, the slaves were compelled by them to withdraw to Tiryns; and
then, after a long war, as it appears, were either driven from the
territory, or again subdued.(217)
The Argives, however, also had Periœci,(218) who were known by the name of
_Orneatæ_. This appellation was properly applied to the inhabitants of
Orneæ, a town on the frontiers towards Mantinea, which, having been long
independent, was at last, about the year 580 B.C.,(219) reduced by the
Argives; and afterwards the whole class of Periœci was so called from that
place. These Orneatæ, or Periœci, therefore, like those of Laconia, formed
separate communities of their own, which indeed was the case so late as
the Persian war. For (as we have shown above) the Argives about this time
incorporated the surrounding towns belonging to the Periœci,(220) for the
purpose of replenishing and increasing their own numbers, and gave them
the rights of citizens. With this period an entirely new era in the
history of the constitution of Argos commences, although this state of
things has from its greater notoriety often been improperly applied also
to earlier times. Thus Isocrates(221) says that the Dorians of Argos, like
those of Messene, admitted the native inhabitants into the city (as
σύνοικοι), and gave them equal rights of citizenship, with the exception
of offices of honour; contrasting with it the conduct of the Spartans, in
a manner which every one now perceives to have been entirely groundless.
The change in the constitution of Argos then introduced was no less than
if the whole body of Periœci in Laconia had declared themselves the
sovereign community. For the newly-adopted citizens appear to have soon
demanded and obtained the full rights of the old; and hence, ever after
the above epoch, democracy seems to have had the upper hand in Argos. And
this could never be the case without the disappearance of the Doric
character, which showed itself in the diminution of their military skill.
For this reason the Argives in after-times were reduced to form a standing
army of a thousand citizens, of noble extraction, under the command of
generals who possessed great civil power.(222) This body of men, however,
immediately endeavoured to set up an oppressive oligarchy, until they at
length yielded to the preponderating power of the democracy. But of this
more hereafter.(223)
It is not known for what length of time the EPIDAURIANS preserved the
distinction between townsmen and countrymen. The name κονίποδες, _i.e._,
_dusty-feet_, which was applied to the lower classes, is a proof of their
agricultural habits,(224) and is probably not merely a term of reproach.
That this class, however, as at Argos, furnished citizens who were not
originally Dorians, is shown by the occurrence of a fourth tribe, besides
the three Doric.(225)
3. Neither in CORINTH nor in SICYON does there appear to have been any
complete distinction between the Doric and other races. The inhabitants,
especially those of the former state, must have lived on an equality with
the aboriginal possessors, and were probably only admitted by a fresh
division (ἐπ᾽ ἀναδασμῷ) to a joint possession of the lands. Hence it was
that in Corinth there were not only the three Doric tribes (of which we
shall speak hereafter), but eight, all of which dwelt in the city.(226)
Nor were even the Cypselidæ Dorians; though, before they obtained the
tyranny, they had long been distinguished citizens. We may discover a
class of Corinthian Helots in the Cynophali,(227) whose name was, as in a
former instance, derived from the dog-skin cap of the native
Peloponnesians. But regular slavery, as was natural in a commercial state,
soon prevailed at Corinth, and probably under very nearly the same form as
at Athens.(228) In Sicyon there were bondsmen, of whom the names
Corynephori(229) and Catonacophori have been preserved.(230) The first
marks them as light-armed attendants in war, the second as a class always
inhabiting the country. The citizens of this state were divided into four
tribes, of which three were purely Doric, viz., the Hylleans, Dymanes, and
Pamphylians; while the fourth tribe, the Ægialeans, derived their name
from the country which they had inhabited before the Doric invasion.(231)
It is also certain that this fourth tribe possessed not merely some civil
privileges, but the complete rights of citizenship; since the family of
Cleisthenes raised itself from it to the royal dignity, which could
scarcely have taken place had their tribe stood in the same relation to
the citizens as the Periœci or Helots did to the Spartans. This
Cleisthenes, with the arrogance of a tyrant, gave to his own tribe the
name of Archelai, or rulers; while he called the three Doric tribes after
the sow, the swine, and the ass (ὑᾶται, ὀνεᾶται, χοιρεᾶται.) We can
hardly, however, credit the assertion of Herodotus (who too often seeks
for the causes of events in the passions and wishes of individuals, to the
disregard of political circumstances) that these were merely terms of
abuse;(232) it is more probable that Cleisthenes wished to compel the
Dorians to retire into the country, and employ themselves in the care of
cattle and in agriculture, thus bidding an entire defiance to all their
principles. But so arbitrary a subversion of all ancient customs and
habits could not endure for any length of time; and, after the downfall of
that tyrannical dynasty, the former constitution was restored in its most
essential parts.
4. In the colonies of the Dorians the condition of the conquered peasants
and bondsmen was often more oppressed and degraded than in the parent
states; since the ruling class were there placed in contact, not with
Greeks, but with barbarians. In their settlements the following ranks were
generally formed at successive periods of time. A Doric state founded the
colony; and its citizens constituted the sole nobility in the new city;
these parted amongst themselves the conquered land into lots,(233) and
formed the body of citizens, the πολίτευμα strictly so called.(234) These
colonists, however, soon endeavoured to strengthen themselves by fresh
numbers, and opened their harbours to all exiled or discontented persons.
The motley population(235) thus formed, called by the name of _Demus_, was
generally excluded from the body politic (or the πολίτευμα), until it
obtained admittance by force; and at the same time constantly pressed for
a new division of the territory (ἀναδασμὸς).(236) Besides these, a third
rank was formed by the native inhabitants, who were compelled by the
new-comers to serve either as bondsmen or public slaves. Thus, for
example, the distinction at SYRACUSE was—first, the Gamori, viz., the old
Corinthian colonists, who had taken possession of the large lots, and
divided the land;(237) secondly, a Demus; and, thirdly, slaves on the
estates of the nobles, whose number became proverbial. These were, without
doubt, native Siculians, as is shown by the various forms of their name
(Κυλλύριοι, Κιλλικύριοι, Καλλικύριοι,) which cannot be explained from the
Greek.(238) The political condition of Syracuse was formed in a manner
essentially different from that of the Peloponnesian states, chiefly from
the circumstance that the Demus (an _unpleasant fellow-lodger_, according
to the expression of Gelon) was immediately received into the city. Hence
also the prodigious size of the Sicilian and Italian towns in comparison
with those of Peloponnesus. The Gamori, together with their Cyllyrians,
stood in nearly the same relation to the Demus as the patricians with
their clients did to the plebeians at Rome. The changes in the
constitution also had nearly the same course as at Rome; for the two
classes first sought to compromise their pretensions in a moderate
timocracy (the πολιτεία of Aristotle), which subsequently passed (as we
shall see hereafter) into a complete democracy.
5. In the Megarian colony of BYZANTIUM the native inhabitants, the
Bithynians, were in precisely the same condition as the Helots.(239) The
same was likewise the fate of the nation of Mariandynians in HERACLEA ON
THE PONTUS, which city also was founded by the Megarians conjointly with
the Bœotians. They submitted under the stipulation that no Mariandynian
should be sold beyond the borders,(240) which was a fundamental rule of
the ancient system of bondage; and that they should pay a tribute to be
settled once for all, this being called by the mild name of _presents_
(δῶρα(241)). The great number of these native slaves, who never suffered
the country to want for sailors, was very favourable to the commerce and
naval power of Heraclea.(242)
At CYRENE also the several classes were formed in a similar manner. In
Thera, the mother-country of Cyrene, the families of the original colony
from Laconia had once alone possessed the full rights of citizenship, and
held the offices of state.(243) Thus also at Cyrene the families from
Thera at first were sole possessors of the governing power, and did not
admit the after-comers to a full participation of it. It was the natural
course of events, that they who first caused the Grecian name to be
respected amongst the savages of Libya should be supposed to have a
greater claim to honour and property than those who had flocked together
to a town already established and securely defended. But the Cyrenæans
having in the reign of Battus the Second proclaimed throughout Greece a
new division of their lands(244) (which, however, they had first to gain
from the Libyans), and many fresh citizens having collected together, a
new constitution became in time necessary: and this, Demonax of Mantinea
established for them on democratic principles. He abolished the old
tribes, and created in their place three new ones, in which the entire
Grecian population of Cyrene was comprehended. The division of the people
was into three parts, viz., one consisting of the Theræans and Periœci,
the second of Peloponnesians and Cretans, and the third of all the
islanders.(245) From this it is evident that the original colonists still
continued to keep Periœci under their power, while the other citizens did
not enjoy this right; and that the former were a kind of privileged class,
who probably were in a great measure relieved from any personal attendance
to agriculture: in this manner the wise Demonax respected the institutions
of antiquity. Of the origin and condition of these Periœci, not only have
we no direct account, but not even an indirect trace.
6. We have now finished our comparison of the different subject classes in
the Doric states. It has been clearly proved that a class of Periœci, and
also of Helots, was the basis of the Doric form of government, insomuch
that the abolition of servitude generally occasioned a subversion of the
Doric institutions. Hence the Dorians generally, and above all the
Spartans, were distinguished for the obstinacy with which they retained
it. But this species of servitude may be said to have existed in ancient
times, wherever a warlike nation had obtained a settlement by conquest;
for example, in Thessaly, Bœotia, and even among the Ionians of Athens.
Now as the distinction of subjects and bond-slaves was kept up for a
longer time in Thessaly than in any other state, those of the Dorians
alone being excepted, we will include that country in the present inquiry.
The following classes may be there distinguished: First, a number of small
nations were under the dominion of the Thessalians, to whom they paid a
fixed tribute, and were also probably bound to assist in war; but they
nevertheless still retained their national divisions, and a certain degree
of independence. This must have been the state of the Perrhæbians to the
north of Larissa, the Magnesians to the east of mount Pelion, and the
Phthiotan Achæans to the south of mount Othrys and the Enipeus. For all
these were indeed subject to the Thessalians,(246) but had not ceased to
be distinct, nay, even Amphictyonic nations.(247) Their tribute had been
accurately fixed by Scopas, prince of Pharsalus. They were also called
Periœci.(248) Excluding then this tract of country, we retain for Thessaly
Proper the region between the Perrhæbians towards the north, and the
Achæans towards the south, in which direction the Enipeus forms the
boundary,(249) comprehending the valley of the Peneus (the ancient
Pelasgic Argos), and a district towards the Pagasæan bay, called by
Herodotus Æolis.(250) The Thessalians, therefore, held this territory
under their immediate government, and had the towns of Larissa, Crannon,
Pharsalus, Iolcus, and others, in their own possession; the land being
cultivated by the Penestæ, who were the early Pelasgico-Æolian
inhabitants.(251) For, according to Archemachus,(252) the Æolian Bœotians
had in part emigrated from their country, leaving some of their numbers
behind, who submitted conditionally, as Penestæ: amongst these
Theopompus(253) also includes the Magnesians and Perrhæbians; but this
statement can only hold good of a part of these two races, since they were
(as has been already shown) dependent, but not entirely subject.(254) The
fundamental laws of the ancient Greek bondage applied also to the Penestæ.
They could neither be put to death without trial, nor be sold out of the
country.(255) Thus they stood in an intermediate position between freemen
and purchased slaves,(256) like the Mariandynians of Heraclea, the Clarotæ
of Crete, and the Helots of Laconia, with whom they are generally
compared.(257) For, like these, they were reduced to servitude by
conquest, although they cannot properly be called slaves taken in
war.(258) Further, they were not subject to the whole community, but
belonged to particular houses and families:(259) hence also they were
called Θεσσαλοικέται.(260) They were particularly numerous in the great
families of the Aleuadæ and Scopadæ.(261) Their principal employment was
agriculture,(262) from the produce of which they paid a rent to the
proprietors of the soil.(263) At the same time this did not prevent them
from gaining property of their own, and they were frequently richer than
their masters.(264) In war they attended their lords, protecting and
fighting before them, like knights and their squires; generally, however,
contrary to the custom of other Greeks, on horseback.(265) All these
accounts respecting the Penestæ agree sufficiently well with one another,
and refer to one and the same class; although it is certain that the
attempts to obtain civil liberty had much increased amongst the Penestæ at
the time of the Peloponnesian war, and were now and then, though not
constantly, supported by Athens.(266) The other internal affairs of the
Thessalians do not lie within the range of our inquiry. They had little
adapted themselves to a quiet course of events, nor indeed did the
turbulent and haughty disposition of their race allow of a life of
inactivity. In each town of Thessaly we find a constant struggle between
the commons and a number of oligarchical families; from these arise
several princely races, such as the Aleuadæ, Scopadæ,(267) &c. The states
themselves were generally at war with one another: thus their political
constitution, as well as the want of steadiness and forbearance in the
national character, must be regarded as the chief reasons why Thessaly was
of so little importance in Greece. The external means which a wide
territory and military power afforded them were here doubtless present in
a greater degree than in any other country; the Thessalians were also
distinguished for their bravery, and the ancient fame of the country would
have supported claims in themselves well founded; how came it then that
the history of Thessaly was a blank in the annals of Greece, while Sparta
was so long its very soul? The only answer is, that the national character
of the Thessalians was altogether different; for wisdom they had only
cunning; for rational valour only a restless love of war; for strict
self-command only unrestrained passions.
7. It appears, therefore, that foreign conquest universally in Greece gave
birth to that political condition, which may be compared with the
villenage or serfage of the Germanic nations; and indeed it does not seem
that such a state of society could have any other origin. There would
accordingly be matter for surprise if we found a class of bondsmen among
the Arcadians, a nation which neither gained its territory by
conquest,(268) nor was ever conquered itself: and, accordingly, it can
scarcely be doubted that the nation described by Theopompus as possessing
300,000 Prospelatæ, whom he compares with the Helots, is not the
Arcadians, but the Illyrian Ardiæans.(269) The distinction of ranks, which
we find existing in the Arcadian towns, may be satisfactorily explained by
the opposition between the city, properly so called (πόλις), and the
country villages (δῆμοι, κῶμαι), which in later times most of the Arcadian
cities, for example, Mantinea, Tegea, and Heræa, incorporated with
themselves. For although it is asserted that these and other towns were
made up of separate villages, it must not be supposed that they had no
previous existence as cities. The account is to be understood in the same
manner as that of the congregating of the people of Attica to Athens,
which is stated to have taken place in the time of Theseus. Nearly all the
towns of Arcadia possessed citadels of extreme antiquity, in and near
which many princely, sacerdotal, and military families had dwelt from an
early period. These formed a nobility, with reference to the agricultural
classes in the country, which, however, included by far the greater
portion of the Arcadians. If then one large town was formed of several
villages, the constitution at the same time necessarily became more
democratical, which was the result at Argos of the incorporation of the
Periœci,(270) and at Megara also of the same measure.(271) For so long as
the people inhabited a particular village, they interested themselves in
its affairs alone, and the persons in the chief city managed the concerns
of the whole community. But from the moment that they began to live
together, every person considered himself entitled to a share in the
public councils. Hence it was the interest of the head of the
Peloponnesian confederacy again to separate the inhabitants of the towns
(διοικίζειν); of the Athenians, to keep them together. The Argives first
effected the union of the boroughs at Mantinea, doubtless not until they
had seen other instances of the same proceeding, that is, after the
Persian war. They united four hamlets with the ancient city,(272) which
made the fifth; the Lacedæmonians after some time restored the ancient
villages, and with them the aristocracy. The territory of Tegea was also
divided into eight hamlets, which were afterwards united to make the city,
viz., the Gareatæ, Phylaceans, Caryatæ,(273) Corytheans, Botachidæ,
Manthyreans, Echeneteans, and Apheidantes: to these were added, as the
ninth, the Tegeatans of the ancient town,(274) who had previously been the
citizens properly so called, while the former had been the inhabitants of
the open country; a distinction, which, upon their union, must either
instantly or very soon have disappeared.
8. Since it has been ascertained in the course of these inquiries that the
distinction between πόλις and δῆμος, that is, town and country, was of
great political importance in the ancient states, we will conclude this
chapter with some remarks upon those terms.
The word δῆμος originally signified the ground and soil on which the
people lived,(275) and afterwards the whole number of persons inhabiting
it. Πόλις, on the contrary, means the city, which in the time of Homer was
probably always fortified. Now with the city everything that concerned the
government of a state was connected, and those exempt from all personal
share in the labours of the field, namely, the military families and the
nobles,(276) dwelt in it; hence it is viewed in Homer as a disgrace or a
misfortune, for a noble to live among the bondsmen in the country.(277)
This is the state of things described by the most ancient poet; and
particular accounts of an historical nature present the same picture. When
the Achæans settled on the coast of Ægialea, they fortified themselves in
the towns and strongholds, and kept entirely aloof from the natives; at
least we know this to have been the case at Patræ;(278) so that the same
race here inhabited the principal city as conquerors, who in Laconia were
scattered about in the country-towns as a conquered people. Hence also the
town of Dyme was originally called _Stratos_;(279) that is, the station of
the army, the abode of the male population who had the means and the
privilege of bearing arms. It was not till a later period that the Achæan
towns, Patræ, Dyme, and Ægium, incorporated their villages.(280) At Athens
the Eupatridæ are stated to have had possession of the city;(281) an
account which is strikingly confirmed by the circumstance that
Cydathenæum, one of the Attic demi, was situated within the city,(282) and
it had evidently taken its name from Cydathenæus, _i.e._, _a noble and
illustrious Athenian_.(283) Hence is explained the distinction between the
terms “Athenian,” and “inhabitant of Attica (Ἀττικὸς),” which was still
preserved in common language after it had been in fact abolished by the
democracy. Thus Plato uses the former, as a more honourable appellation
than the latter;(284) and when Dicæarchus, describing the manners of
Greece, contrasts the inhabitants of Attica as loquacious, sycophantic,
and fickle, with the noble-minded, simple, and honest Athenians, by the
latter he means the ancient families, and by the former the Demus, which,
since the time of Cleisthenes, had been compounded of the most
heterogeneous elements. Thus the πόλις and δῆμος became identical in
Athens, and the latter word was used by preference to signify the whole
community. But in other states, the πόλις was opposed to the δῆμος, as the
ruling aristocratical power.(285) Thus Theognis the Megarian says of his
native town, with aristocratical feelings—
Πατρίδα κοσμήσω, λιπαρὴν ΠΟΛΙΝ, οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ ΔΗΜΟΝ τρέψας οὔτ᾽ ἀδίκοις
ἀνδράσι πειθόμενος.(286)
Hence, also, states not under a democratical government used the word
πόλις in their public documents, to signify the sovereign power; for
instance, the Cretan towns, so late as the second century after
Christ.(287) The Spartan community, however, deviating from this usage of
the word, calls itself δᾶμος in ancient laws;(288) because it never
thought of opposing itself as a body to the Periœci.
Democracies then were frequently formed by collecting the inhabitants of
the country into the city (when the δῆμος and πόλις coincided), by the
union of single villages, and by the admission of the Periœci to the
rights of citizenship. At Athens, in order to give the democracy the
highest possible antiquity, this change was dated as far back as the
mythical age of Theseus. In Peloponnesus, the first movements tending to
it had perhaps begun before the time of the tyrants; these very persons,
however, though they had in most cases risen from demagogues, still, for
the purpose of securing a more tranquil dominion, sought again to remove
the common people from the city, and to bind them down to the country.
Instead of the town-costume, they forced them to resume their former dress
of sheep’s skins, as has been remarked above of the tyrants of
Sicyon;(289) for this purpose likewise they very prudently encouraged
agriculture in all its branches.(290) Trade and commerce, by collecting
men together in large towns, promoted the principles of democracy. It was
in the wealthy and populous cities of the Greeks in the Ionian territory
that a popular government was first established. Where, on the other hand,
the courts of justice were at a distance, and there was no other
inducement to mechanical industry and internal commerce, the ancient
habits of life continued much longer in existence; as for example, among
the shepherds of Mænalia and Parrhasia: these, as late as the founding of
Megalopolis, lived in villages, amongst which particular boroughs (as
Basilis) were distinguished as the abodes of sovereign families; such a
state was altogether suited to the interests of the aristocracy or
oligarchy. In oligarchical states, as in Elis, the people in later times
remained almost constantly in the country; and it frequently happened that
grandfathers and grandchildren had never seen the town: there were also
country courts of justice, and other regulations, intended to make up for
the advantages of a city life.(291) But even in the democratic states, as
at Athens, there was among the people a constant struggle of feeling
between the turbulent working of the democracy, and the peaceful
inclination to their ancient country life.