§ 1. Tenure of land in Laconia. § 2. Partition of the land into
lots, and their inalienability. § 3. Law of inalienability of land
repealed by Epitadeus. § 4. Lacedæmonian 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 constitution 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 class, 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 Periœci 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 Periœci: it is probable that
these (as well as the rest of that district) were cultivated by the
Periœci, who only paid a tribute to the king. The rest of the territory of
the Periœci 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
(κλῆρος) only one family resided, the members of which subsisted upon its
produce, and cultivated it, to the best of our knowledge, without the
assistance of Helots. For this reason the 9000 lots of the Spartans, which
supported twice as many men as the lots of the Periœci,(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 institution 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 partitions 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 Tyrtæus 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 assigned 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 οἶκοι), 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 institutions: 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 assisted 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 gods 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 ἑστιοπάμων, _the lord of the hearth_;(891) the collective members
of the family were called by Epimenides the Cretan ὁμοκάποι, that is,
literally, _eating from the same crib_;(892) and by Charondas ὁμοσίπυοι,
or “_living __ upon the same stock_;”(893) and by the Spartans perhaps
παῶται.(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 assumed 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 γένος, 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 institutions 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 institution 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 institution 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
constitution, was passed 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 constitution 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 constitution 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 δωτίνη),(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 (ἐπίκληρος, in Doric ἐπιπαματίς);(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 (ἀγχιστεῖς); so that in early times(921) the father could not
dispose of his daughter as he liked without their assent. 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 pass 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 relationship, 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 Lacedæmonians; 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 institution 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 assigned, 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 constitution of Solon), originated from the superstitious
dread of the destruction of a family. When this motive lost its power upon
the mind, these ancient institutions 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 quantity of
land, appears to have been a remnant of a former equality in the lots of
the nobles.(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 circumstances. 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 (νοθεῖα). 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 ships, 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 institution 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 institution 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 choëis of wine,(948) five minas of cheese,
with half the same quantity of figs, together with dates,(949) and ten
Æginetan oboli for meat.(950) The approximate statement of one Attic
medimnus and a half is probably meant as an equivalent to one Æginetan
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 chœnices,
and one cotyla of wine (although the latter is an extremely small
quantity),(953) this contribution would give rather more than two
chœnices, 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 institution of the
ἐπάϊκλα, which were additions to the regular meal or αἶκλον. 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, μᾶζαι), with young cattle from their flocks, birds prepared
as ματτύα, 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 institution, 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 Periœci, 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 (ἑταιρία) 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 Æginetan stater for his
master.(960)
Although the meaning and object of this institution is quite intelligible,
it is not easy to obtain a clear notion of the Lacedæmonian system. The
produce of a lot amounted for the Spartans, according to a passage above
quoted, to 82 medimni. If we suppose these to be Attic medimni, as was
there assumed 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 Æginetan, 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 assumed
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 Lacedæmon 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 (ταμιεῖα) 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 quantities.(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, πέλανορ, _the cake used in sacrifices_; its
value was equal to four chalcûs, that is, to a half obolus, or the twelfth
of a drachma(970) (manifestly of the Æginetan standard, as the Spartan
coinage must necessarily have been adapted to this measure), and weighed
an Æginetan 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 quantity of iron found in Laconia, and the high price of silver
in early times. Ten Æginetan 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 space
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
ambassadors to foreign states, to maintain troops in another country, or
to take foreign, for instance Cretan, mercenaries into pay. We also know
that the Lacedæmonians sent sacred offerings to Delphi, as for example,
the golden stars of the Dioscuri dedicated by Lysander;(975) and
Lacedæmonian 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 Periœci. We must
therefore suppose that the possession of silver coin was allowed to this
class of persons; in general, indeed the Spartan customs did not without
exception extend to the Periœci. Nor could this have had much influence
upon the Spartans, since they had not any personal connexion with the
Periœci, the latter being only tributary to the state. In the market of
Sparta in which the Spartans and Helots sold their corn and the products
of native industry were exposed, all foreigners being entirely
excluded,(982) doubtless none but the iron coin was used; and so also in
the whole of Laconia it was current at its fixed value; but those
Lacedæmonians who were not of Doric origin must have possessed a currency
of their own, probably under certain restrictions. And the tributes of
these persons were doubtless the chief source from which the state derived
its silver and gold coins. Besides this, the kings must also have been
privileged to possess silver and gold. If some permission of this kind had
not existed, Pausanias (who was in strictness only guardian of the king)
would not have been able to receive among other spoils ten talents from
the plunder of Platæa;(983) and Pleistonax and Agis the First could not
have been fined in the sums of fifteen talents, and 100,000 drachmas:(984)
at a later time also, as has been already remarked, Agis the Third was
possessed of six hundred talents.(985) The estates of the kings were also
situated in the territory of the Periœci, in which silver money was in
circulation, and it is at least possible that the payments may have been
made to them in this coinage. Herodotus states that every king at the
beginning of his reign remitted all the debts of the citizens both to the
state and to the kings:(986) they therefore cancelled all certificates of
debt, which in Sparta were called κλάρια, or mortgages, probably because
the land (and in early times the produce of the land only) was assigned as
security.(987) This was a wise institution, by which those persons in
particular were relieved who had, for a particular object, received from
the kings or the state, gold or silver, which on account of the small
value of the iron coinage they were seldom able to repay. Now gold and
silver were, for example, necessary to all persons who had to undertake a
journey out of Laconia, and these they could not obtain otherwise than
from the magistrates or the king,(988) a measure which must have placed
great obstacles in the way of foreign travel.
11. It is, however, well known that in this respect the ancient severity
of custom was gradually relaxed. Even in the third generation before the
Persian war, the just Glaucus was tempted to defraud a Milesian of a sum
of money deposited with him. The Persian war only increased the public
wealth, and the Persian subsidies were confined to the payment of national
expenses. When at length Lysander brought vast sums of money into Sparta,
and made this state the most wealthy in Greece,(989) the citizens are
reported still to have maintained the same proud indigence. But was it
possible for individuals to despise what the state esteemed so highly, and
would they not naturally endeavour to found their fame upon that on which
the power of the nation depended? Even Lysander, who, with all the
artfulness and versatility of his manners, had a considerable severity of
character, was still unwilling to enrich himself;(990) a credible
witness(991) indeed relates, that he had deposited a talent and fifty-two
minas of silver, together with eleven staters, probably in case he should
have occasion for them when out of the country; but how small is this sum
when compared with the acquisitions of others in similar situations!
It appears, however, to have been at that time customary to deposit money
without the boundaries, especially in Arcadia, and this was the first
means adopted for evading the law.(992) Lysander, however, was far
exceeded by Gylippus in love for money, in whose family avarice appears to
have been hereditary; for his father Cleandridas had been condemned for
taking bribes.(993) Lastly, after the death of Lysander, the possession of
precious metals must have been allowed to private individuals, under
certain conditions with which we are unacquainted. At least some
supposition of this kind must be adopted, to enable us to account for the
fact, that Phœbidas was fined 100,000 drachmas for the taking of the
Cadmea, and Lysanoridas an equally large sum for his weak defence of the
same citadel.(994)
No regular taxation of the citizens of Sparta existed in any shape.(995)
Extraordinary contributions and taxes were, however, raised for the
purposes of war, which, on account of their unusual and irregular
occurrence, were collected with difficulty.(996) This will serve to
explain the exemption from duties (ἀτέλεια) that is sometimes
mentioned.(997) When in the time of Agis the Third the ephor Agesilaus
extended the annual period of his office for a month, in order to increase
his receipts,(998) it is probable that he reckoned upon large fines;(999)
of which he, as it seems, would receive a part. There was no public
treasure at Sparta up to the time of the Peloponnesian war;(1000) the
revenue and expenditure were therefore nearly equal; and the Spartans were
honest enough to require from the allies only the sums which were
necessary,(1001) The altered state of these circumstances in later times
lies without the sphere of our inquiries.
12. I shall equally abstain from collecting the various accounts
respecting the finance and trade of other Doric states; since the inland
countries, in which many peculiarities may perhaps have existed, are
little known; and the commercial cities, such as Ægina, Corinth, Rhodes,
and Cyrene, gave up their national customs for the sake of trade. In
Peloponnesus, however, the cities on the coast of Argolis were adapted by
nature for exchanging the products of the agricultural nations of the
interior for foreign commodities;(1002) and thus they established a
connexion and intercourse between Laconia and Arcadia, and other
countries.(1003) In these cities also there were many commercial
establishments, which did not manufacture only for the interior.(1004) In
Corinth, the duties from the harbour and market had in the time of
Periander become so considerable, that the tyrant limited his receipts to
that one branch of revenue;(1005) although, according to a fabulous
tradition, the golden colossus of Cypselus at Olympia was consecrated from
a tax of a tenth upon all property continued for ten years.(1006)
The strongest proof of the ancient commerce of Peloponnesus, and of its
great extent, is the Æginetan money; the standard of which was in early
times prevalent in Peloponnesus, in Crete, in Italy,(1007) and even in the
north of Greece, since the early Bœotian, Thessalian, and Macedonian coins
were before the time of Philip adapted to it.(1008) In Italy the monetary
system was arranged in a peculiar manner, for the convenience of
intercourse with the natives; and as this subject is of much importance in
a historical point of view, we will now examine it briefly, without
attempting a complete investigation. If we consider the names of the coins
in use among the Dorians of Italy and Sicily, for example, at Syracuse and
Tarentum (as they had been collected by Aristotle in his Constitution of
the Himeræans from Doric Poets),(1009) viz., λίτρα for an obolus,
ἠμίλιτρον for six, πεντόγκίον for five, τετρᾶς for four, τριᾶς for
three,(1010) ἑξᾶς for two, ὀγχία for a twelfth; it is at once evident that
these Greeks had adopted the Italian and Roman duodenary system, in which
the libra, the pound of brass, was the unit;(1011) a system which was
originally unknown to the Greeks, and accordingly the word λίτρα has no
root in their language. Now, together with these coins in the Greek
states, the νόμος,(1012) among the Latins _numus_, occurs; manifestly, as
Varro says, a word belonging to the former people, and signifying a coin
current by law; whence it is evident that the Italians, in the regulations
of their monetary system, did not merely give to the Greeks of Italy, but
that they also received something in return, and that one standard was
compounded, partaking in some measure of both methods of computation. If
we, then, consider the form and value of these coins, it is plain that the
Greek colonies retained the system of money which they brought with them
from Peloponnesus; and that they did not till subsequently adapt their
coinage to the native standard. They then made the litra equal to the
obolus, _i.e._, to the Æginetan, which was also the Corinthian;(1013) so
that a Corinthian stater of ten oboli was called in Syracuse a δεχάλιτρον,
or piece of ten litras. At the time, therefore, when this system was
formed, the lb. of copper must have really been equal in value to a silver
obolus. Now since the former weighed 6048,(1014) the latter nearly 23
French grains,(1015) the ratio of silver to copper must at the time of
this arrangement have been as 1 to 263; the commerce of these regions
having in early times determined this proportion. But as more silver was
gradually introduced by the trade with the west of Europe, and probably at
the same time some native copper-mines were exhausted, copper, which was
the circulating medium of Italy, rose in comparison with silver, the
circulating medium of Greece; and this was the principal cause of the
constant diminution in the weight of the as in Etruria and Rome. But a
detailed examination of this subject, so important in the history of the
commerce of Greece and Italy, does not fall within the plan of the present
work.(1016)
What was the value of the νόμος of the Sicilian Greeks we are not informed
by any decisive testimony: the name, however, proves that it was a current
coin, and not of very inconsiderable value. For this reason I cannot
assume that it was equal to a litra;(1017) Aristotle(1018) also states
that the impression of the Tarentine coins was Taras sitting upon the
dolphin; now, in the first place, this device does not occur on any litras
or oboli of Tarentum; and, secondly, the coin would not be of sufficient
size to contain it: for which reason the Greeks, whenever they stamped so
small a coin of silver, always made use of the simplest devices. If,
however, the Tarentine numus had the same ratio to the litra as the Roman
numus sestertius to the as,(1019) the former would have been a large coin;
and we are also on the same supposition enabled to explain how it came
that in Sicily an amount of 24, and afterwards of 12 numi, was called a
talent;(1020) for in that case 24 numi would be equal to 60 lbs. of
copper, which was the same number of minas that the Æginetan talent of
silver contained. It is also confirmed by the fact mentioned by Festus,
that this talent in Neapolis amounted to six, and in Syracuse to three
denarii, by which he means decalitra.(1021) And therefore, although other
circumstances tend to shake the certainty of this supposition,(1022) it
will be better to acquiesce in these arguments, on account of the harmony
of the different statements.