------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note:
This is the third of three volumes of this work, and contains an Index
that references all three.
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. The single
instance of a superscript is given as 4^{o.}.
The many footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which
they are referenced, and have been renumbered for uniqueness.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.
THE HISTORY
OF THE
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS
OF
ANCIENT GREECE.
BY J. A. ST. JOHN.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
LONDON:
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET,
=Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty.=
1842.
LONDON:
Printed by S. & J. BENTLEY, WILSON, and FLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
CONTENTS
OF THE THIRD VOLUME.
BOOK V.
CHAPTER PAGE
VII. Slaves 1
VIII. Serfs of Sparta, Crete, Thessaly, &c. 36
BOOK VI.
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
I. Condition of the Poor 68
II. Industry: Millers, Bakers, Vintners, Markets, &c. 96
III. Industry: Perfumers, Barbers, Goldsmiths, 131
Lapidaries, &c.
IV. Industry: Smiths, Cutlers, Armourers, the Art of 153
Mining, Charcoal-making, &c.
V. Industry: House-builders, Carpenters, 176
Cabinet-makers, Turners, Musical
Instrument-makers, Potters, Glass-workers, &c.
VI. Industry: Oil and Colourmen, Italian Warehouses, 197
Druggists, Collectors of Simples
VII. Industry: Weavers, Glovers, Sock-makers, 214
Cordwainers, Tanners, Hatters, Dyers of Purple,
&c., Fishermen
VIII. Commerce of Doric States 245
IX. Commerce of Attica 276
X. Navigation 300
XI. Exports and Imports 326
XII. Exports of the Islands, Italy, Gaul, and Spain 355
XIII. Exports from Africa and the East 381
XIV. Funeral Ceremonies 414
THE HISTORY
OF THE
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS
OF
ANCIENT GREECE.
--------------
BOOK V.
CHAPTER VII.
SLAVES.
It will have been remarked, that both in town and country, the mean and
painful drudgery was chiefly performed by slaves,[1] whose origin,
condition, and numbers, in the principal Grecian states, it now becomes
necessary to describe. The greatest writers of antiquity[2] were on this
subject perplexed and undecided. They appear to have comprehended the
full extent of the evil,[3] but to have been too much the slaves
themselves of habit and prejudice to discover, that no form or
modification of servitude is consistent with human happiness or with
justice, without which no happiness can be. This is evident from the
conversation in Crete between Plato and his Gnosian and Spartan
companions. They do not trouble their minds with inquiries respecting
the origin of slavery, which, while some tribes of men are stronger and
more civilised than others, could never be difficult to be conjectured;
but considering its existence easy to be accounted for, they are
concerned to discover by what means may be avoided or mitigated the
mischiefs they everywhere saw accompanying it.
-----
Footnote 1:
On the state of domesticity in modern times, see the interesting work
by Monsieur Grégoire, Sur la Domesticité, p. 3, sqq.
Footnote 2:
Cf. Plat. de Legg. t. viii. p. 38.
Footnote 3:
Thus Metrodoros:—Δοῦλος ἀναγκαῖον μὲν κτῆμα, οὐχ ἡδὺ δὲ. Stob.
Florileg. Tit. 62. 44.
-----
Most perplexing of all,[4] however, was the Laconian Heloteia; because
in that case the comparatively great number of the servile caste
rendered it necessary, in the opinion of some, to break their spirit and
bring them down to their condition by a system of severity which
constitutes the infamy of Sparta.
The discredit, however, of subsisting on slave labour was to a certain
extent shared by all the states of Greece, even by Athens. They appear
to have supposed that no slaves, no body politic.[5] But in the
treatment of those unfortunate men there was as much variation as from
the differences of national character might have been inferred. The
Athenians in this respect, as in most others, being the antipodes of the
Spartans, and falling into the error, if such a thing can be conceived,
of extreme humanity and indulgence.
-----
Footnote 4:
Cf. Plat. de Legg. vi. t. vii. p. 460.
Footnote 5:
Even no house according to Aristot. Polit. i. 3. Stob. Floril. Tit.
62. 44.
-----
It is no doubt possible by kindness to obliterate many of the ugly
features of slavery, so that between the vassal and his lord strong
mutual affection may spring up.[6] We hear, accordingly, of slaves whose
love for their masters exceeded the love of brothers, or of children;[7]
they have toiled, fought, died, for them; nay they have sometimes
surpassed them in courage, and taught them, in situations of imminent
danger, how to die, as in the case of that military attendant, who, when
taken prisoner with his master, and seeing him resolved on death, yet
hesitating about the means, dashed his brains out against the wall to
show him how it might be done. Another example is recorded of a slave
who put on the disguise of his lord, that he might be slain in his
stead. But what then? Do these examples prove that in servitude there is
anything ennobling? On the contrary, the only inference to be drawn from
them is, that in these cases great and worthy souls had been dealt with
unjustly by fortune. However, since none but the incorrigibly base can
now be found to advocate this worst of all human vices, I may spare my
arguments, and proceed at once to trace the history of slavery in
Greece.
-----
Footnote 6:
Herodes Atticus, for instance, lamented the death of his slaves as if
they had been his relations, and erected statues to their memory in
woods, or fields, and beside fountains. Philost. Vit. Soph. ii. 10.
Among respectable slaves it was thought disgraceful to drink when the
family was in trouble. Vict. Var. Lect. viii. 4. A striking example of
the affection produced by good usage is mentioned by Libanius: “Sed,
ut intelligas,” says the sophist, writing to Uranius, “quam fidum
habeas servum, quæsivi ego tunc otiosus, cur, præter ejus generis
hominum, consuetudinem tanta fide res tuas curaret? Is vero mihi
graviter sapientissimèque respondit se novum quoddam fidissimæ
servitutis genus excogitare oportuisse, quoniam herum habeat nomine,
re vero fratrem, cum quo eundem cibum caperet, idem vinum biberet, à
quo non modo vapularet, sed ne malum quidem unquam aliquid audiret,”
Epistol. i. 16. Lat. ed J. C. Wolf. p. 739. a.
Footnote 7:
Plato, de Legg. vi. t. vii. p. 460.
-----
In very remote ages mankind, according to tradition, dispensed with the
labours of domestic slaves,[8] whose place was supplied by the women of
the family,[9] who rose before day to grind corn for the household; and
as they usually sang while thus engaged, the whole village on such
occasions would seem alive with music. As in the East, also, they were
accustomed to draw water from the wells, or seek it at a distance at the
fountains, as I have already, in speaking of the Hellenic women,
observed. But as soon as men began to give quarter in war, and became
possessed of prisoners, the idea of employing them, and rendering their
labours subservient to their maintenance naturally suggested itself. At
the outset, therefore, as a very distinguished historian[10] has
remarked, servitude sprung from feelings of humanity; for when it was
found that advantages could be derived from captured enemies they were
no longer butchered in the field. Hence, from the verb signifying “to be
subdued,” they were denominated Dmöes;[11] for “of whom a man is
overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”[12] Of these constant
mention is made in Homer. Thus Telemachos speaks of the Dmöes whom his
father had left in his charge; and Agamemnon detained in his tent a
number of Lesbian women taken captive in war. In the same condition was
Briseïs: and to this fate Hector fears Andromache may be reserved after
his death.[13]
-----
Footnote 8:
In old times there were neither Manes nor Sekis: the women did
everything. Athen. vi. 83. Cf. Herod. vi. 137. Of these early periods,
however, few records remain, for as soon as the Greeks appear upon the
stage of history they are attended by slaves. On this account Philo
Judæus admires the Argonauts, who on their celebrated expedition
forewent the aid of servile labour: ἄγαμαι καὶ τῶν Ἀργοναυτῶν, οἰ
σύμπαν ἀπέφῃναν ἐλεύθερον τὸ πλήρομα, μηδένα μήτε τᾶς εἰς ἀναγκαίας
ὑπηρεσίας προσέμενοι δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἐλευθερίας αὐτουργίαν ἐν τῷ τότε
ἀσπασαμένων Lib. quisq. virt. Stud. t. ii. p. 467. ed. Mangey.
Footnote 9:
In later times, however, this laborious task devolved upon female
slaves. “Gottlieb Fischer (Disput. Philolog. de Molis Manual. Vet. in
4. Gedani, 1728,) établit, par des preuves multipliées, que chez les
Egyptiens, les Babyloniens, les Perses, les Arabes, les Grecs, les
Romains, ce travail étoit ordinairement le partage des femmes
esclaves. L’invention des moulins à eau fut pour elles l’époque d’une
joie universelle, dont le poète Antipater se rendit l’interprète par
une pièce arrivée jusqu’à nous: Femmes occupées a moudre, ne fatiguez
plus vos bras, dormez la longue matinée ... Cérès a ordonné aux
nymphes de remplacer l’ouvrage de vos mains, etc.” Grégoire de la
Domesticité, p. 7.
Footnote 10:
Mitford, Hist, of Greece, i. 405.$1“$2”$3See on this subject, Grotius
de Jur. Bell. et Pac. iii. 14. Rousseau’s Contrat Social, i. 4.
Footnote 11:
Δμῶες dicti παρὰ δαμᾶσθαι, à domando, Feith. Antiq. Hom. ii. 20. p.
180. Horn. Odyss. ρ. 299.
Footnote 12:
II. Epist. Peter, ch. ii. ver. 19.
Footnote 13:
Odyss. α. 398. Iliad. θ. 128, seq. β. 689, sqq. τ. 193. Virg. Æneid.
iii. 326, seq.
-----
Possibly the practice was borrowed from the East, where the mention of
slaves occurs in the remotest ages. Thus too in later times, Atossa,
queen of Persia, is represented to have urged Darius into the Grecian
war, that she might possess Athenian, Spartan, Argive, and Corinthian
slaves.[14] And the Pythoness foretelling the destruction of Miletus,
exclaims:
“And of a numerous long-haired race thy wives shall wash the
feet.”[15]
-----
Footnote 14:
Herod, iii. 134. Ἐπιθυμέω observes the queen, γὰρ λόγῳ πυνθανομένη,
Λακαίνας τέ μοι γενέσθαι θεράπαινας καὶ Ἀργείας καὶ Ἀττικὰς καὶ
Κορινθίας. The same thing is related by Ælian (De Nat. Animal, xi.
27); but it is probable that Herodotus was the authority on which he
based his narrative.
Footnote 15:
Herod, vi. 19.
-----
The practice was when a number of prisoners had been taken, to make a
division of them among the chiefs, generally by lot, and then to sell
them for slaves.[16] This Achilles boasts he had frequently done, and
old Priam fears will be the destiny of his own sons, as it had been of
Lycaon whom the Thessalian hero had seized[17] in his garden. To the
same purpose is the lament of Hecuba,[18] who accuses him of having
reduced many of her sons to slavery. Examples occur in antiquity of
whole cities and states being at once subjected to servitude: thus the
inhabitants of Judea were a first and a second time carried away captive
to Babylon, where their masters, not perhaps from mockery, required of
them to sing for their entertainment some of their national songs, to
which, as we learn from the prophet, they replied: “How can we sing the
songs of Zion in a strange land?” The citizens likewise of Miletos,
after the unsuccessful revolt of Aristagoras, were transported into
Persia, as were those also of Eretria and Carystos in Eubœa.[19] Like
the Israelites, these Greeks long preserved in captivity their national
manners and language, though surrounded by strangers and urged by every
inducement to assimilate themselves to their conquerors. A similar fate
overtook the inhabitants of Thebes, who were sold into slavery by
Alexander, as were those of Mycene by the Argives, and the Corinthians
by Mummius.[20]
-----
Footnote 16:
Eurip. Troad. 30, sqq.
Footnote 17:
Feith, Antiq. Horn. p. 181.
Footnote 18:
Iliad. φ. 102. ω. 751, seq.
Footnote 19:
Herod, vi. 20, 119.
Footnote 20:
Diod. Sicul. xi. Arrian, Anab. i. p. 11. Plut. Symp. ix. 1. Mitf.
Hist. of Greece, ii. 176.
-----
But the supply produced by war seldom equalled the demand; and in
consequence a race of kidnappers sprung up, who, partly merchants and
partly pirates, roamed about the shores of the Mediterranean, as similar
miscreants do now about the slave-coasts, picking up solitary and
unprotected individuals. Sometimes their boldness rose to the wives or
daughters of the chiefs; as in the case of Paris, who robbed the house,
and carried away the wife of Menelaus; and of those Phœnicians who
having landed at Argos and held, during several days, a fair on the
beach, ended by stealing the king’s daughter.[21] Mitford’s supposition
that both Io and her companions may have been allured on board,[22] is
founded on the apologetical narrative of the pirates themselves. The
practice of kidnapping certainly prevailed widely. Thus Eumæos was, by
the Phœnicians, sold to Laertes, and a similar fate awaited the woman
whom the Taphian pirates stole away at the same time.[23] Odysseus
himself relates how a Phœnician rogue plotted against his liberty when
he was sailing with him towards Libya, and that the Thesprotians had
meditated a like design.[24] To enumerate no other instances, Laomedon
menaces Apollo and Poseidon with servitude, observing that he will have
them bound and shipped to some distant island for sale.[25]
-----
Footnote 21:
Herod, i. 1.
Footnote 22:
History of Greece, i. 32.
Footnote 23:
Odyss. ο. 427. 482.
Footnote 24:
Odyss. ζ. 340.
Footnote 25:
Iliad. φ. 453, seq. Feith observes that the Romans afforded no
encouragement to those low and sordid villains who stole and sold
their fellow-creatures, and kept none as slaves, but such as were
lawfully captured in war. Antiq. Hom. ii. 20.
-----
Neither war, however, nor piracy sufficed at length to furnish that vast
multitude of slaves, which the growing luxury of the times induced the
Greeks to consider necessary. Commerce by degrees conducted them to
Caria and other parts of Asia Minor, particularly the southern coasts of
the Black Sea, those great nurseries of slaves from that time until
now.[26] The first Greeks who engaged in this traffic, which even by the
Pagans was supposed to be attended by a curse, are said to have been the
Chians, and we shall presently see how ill it prospered with them. They
purchased their slaves from the barbarians, among whom the Lydians, the
Phrygians, and the natives of Pontos, with many others were accustomed,
like the modern Circassians, to carry on a trade in their own
people.[27] We find mention made in the Anabasis of a Macronian, who
having been a slave at Athens and obtaining his liberty, afterwards
became a soldier and served the Ten Thousand as an interpreter at a
critical moment during their passage through his native country.[28]
-----
Footnote 26:
Female slaves were obtained from Thrace, Phrygia, and Paphlagonia.
Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 261. Philost. Vit. Apoll. Tyan. viii. 7. 12.
Cf. Plut. Sympos. v. 7. 1.
Footnote 27:
Philost. Vit. Apoll. Tyan. viii. 7. 12. The demoralising effects of
this traffic were never perhaps better illustrated than by Barbot.
This writer, while describing the arts by which men entice their own
children, kindred, or neighbours, to the European factories for the
purpose of selling them, relates an anecdote exhibiting the ne plus
ultra of human depravity: “I was told of one who designed to sell his
own son; but he, understanding French, dissembled for a while, and
then contrived it so cunningly as to persuade the French that the old
man was his slave, and not his father, by which means he delivered him
up into captivity; and thus made good the Italian proverb, a furbo
furbo e mezzo; amounting to as much as ‘set a thief to catch a thief’
or ‘diamond cuts diamond.’” Descr. of Guinea, i. 4. The son
immediately after was relieved of his ill-got gains and himself sold
for a slave.
Footnote 28:
Xenoph. Anab. iv. 8. 4.
-----
Before proceeding, however, with the history of the slave-trade, it may
be proper to describe the power possessed by masters over their
domestics during the heroic ages. Every man appears to have been then a
king in his own house, and to have exercised his authority most regally.
Thus we find the young Telemachos taking pleasure in the idea that he
shall be king over his slaves;[29] and Andromache, with a mother’s
fondness, fears lest her son should become the drudge of an unfeeling
lord.[30] Power generally, when unchecked by law, is fierce and inhuman,
and over their household, gentlemen, in those ages, exercised the
greatest and most awful power, that of life and death, as they
afterwards did at Rome.[31] This is illustrated by an example in the
Odyssey, where the hero being, while in disguise, insulted grossly by
Melanthios, threatens the slave that he will incite Telemachos to cut
him in pieces. Afterwards, when he has recovered his authority, the
terrible menace is remembered and fulfilled. The culprit is seized and
mutilated with savage barbarity, his members, torn from the body, are
thrown to the dogs, and even the poet, upon the whole so humane, does
not seem to consider the punishment too great for the offence.[32] It
has even been supposed that this kind of mutilation was a punishment
peculiar to slaves; for Laomedon, while menacing the gods in the manner
above described, adds, that he will cut off their ears.[33] When
supposed to deserve death they were executed ignominiously by hanging,
as in the case of the domestics of Odysseus, whose offences, though
grave, would scarcely in any free country be visited with capital
punishment.[34] This was regarded as an impure end. To die honourably
was to perish by the sword.[35]
-----
Footnote 29:
Odyss. α. 397.
Footnote 30:
Iliad. ω. 734.
Footnote 31:
See Joach. Hopp. Comment. Succinct. ad Instit. Justin. 1. i. Tit.
viii. § 1. p. 61. Grot. De Jur. Bell. et Pac. ii. 5. 28. iii. 7. 3.
Footnote 32:
Odyss. ρ. 369. χ. 475, sqq. In most parts of the ancient world the
punishments of slaves were to the last degree disproportionate and
unjust: “Cibum enim adurere, mensam evertere, dicto tardius audientem
fuisse, cruce, aut flagellis ad minus expiabantur. (Cf. Plut. De
Cohibend. Irâ. § 13. 15.) Dixisses, omnes penitus dominos professos
fuisse Stoicam sectam, adeò illis altè insederat, omnia servorum
peccata æqualia esse. Quo factum est, ut servi nuper empti non
quærerent an superstitiosum, vel invidum, sed an iracundum herum nacti
essent. Seneca; (de Irâ. iii. 28) quid est, quare ego servi mei
hilarius responsum, et contumaciorem vultum, et non pervenientem usque
ad me murmurationem, flagellis et compedibus expiem.” Pignor. De
Servis, p. 5.
Footnote 33:
Feith. Antiq. Hom. ii. 20.
Footnote 34:
Odyss. χ. 462.
Footnote 35:
Eustath. ad loc. p. 1934. Cf. Virg. xii. 603.
-----
The practice of manumission already in the heroic ages prevailed.[36]
Odysseus promises their freedom to his herdsman and swineherd if by
their aid he should slaughter the suitors; and, according to Plutarch,
Telemachos actually bestowed on Eumæos and his companions both their
liberty and the rights of citizenship, and from them, he adds, the
celebrated families of the Koliades and Bukoli were descended.[37]
-----
Footnote 36:
In later times freedmen accused of ingratitude returned, if convicted,
to slavery. Etym. Mag. 124. 53, seq. This also was the practice under
the Roman law, but among our own ancestors, a bondsman, once
disenthralled, could never again be reduced to servitude. Fortescue de
Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 46. p. 108 b. Under certain circumstances, we
find Athenian emancipated slaves accounted honourable and permitted to
marry free women. Dem. in Steph. i. § 20. Mention occurs in
Demosthenes of a magnificent monument made in honour of the wife of
one of these freedmen. § 22.
Footnote 37:
Plut. Hellen. Problem. 14.
-----
Nor does the illustrious race appear to be yet extinct, Professor
Koliades[38] claiming to be a lineal descendant from Eumæos, which may
very well be since he must be descended from somebody; and there is no
reason why a descendant of Eumæos should not be a professor.
-----
Footnote 38:
See Mr. Nelson Coleridge, Introduction to the Study of the Greek
Poets. Pt. 1. p. 306.
-----
In addition to the slaves there were likewise free labourers who worked
for hire, and were called Thetes.[39] These sometimes seem to have been
placed on the extremities of estates, as the guardians of boundaries, a
post which Eurymachos offers with good wages to Odysseus.[40] And it is
the condition of one of these hinds that Achilles prefers in Hades to
the empire of the shades.[41] The gods also in their sojourn upon earth
sometimes submitted to the hardships of this condition. Thus Phœbos
Apollo kept the flocks of Admetos, king of Thessaly,[42] and the belief
in this humble condition of the gods on earth is objected by Lucian and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus,[43] as blameworthy to the Greeks. Herodotus,
too, relates that the three sons of Temenos—Gavanes, Aëropos, and
Perdiccas—fled from Argos into Illyria and thence into Upper Macedonia
to the city of Lebæa, where they served the king for hire, the first
tending the royal stud, the second the cattle, and the third the sheep
and goats.[44]
-----
Footnote 39:
Odyss. δ. 644. Cf. Clavier, Hist. des Prem. Temps de la Grèce. ii.
315. Suid. v. θῆτες. 1322, who says their hire was called θητώνιον.
Footnote 40:
Odyss. ρ. 356.
Footnote 41:
Odyss. λ. 488.
Footnote 42:
Iliad. υ. 434, seq.
Footnote 43:
Antiq. Rom. ii. 19.
Footnote 44:
Herod. viii. 137.
-----
From the history of Minos, which, whether true or fabulous, still
illustrates the manners of the times, we learn, that the tribute exacted
by a victorious enemy sometimes consisted of slaves. Thus the Cretan
king, having made a successful descent on the Attic coast, was
propitiated (as by our own ancestors were the Danes and other Northern
savages) by an annual offering of fourteen youths and virgins, who,
being conveyed to Crete, were there said to be destroyed by a monster
born of Pasiphaë, daughter of the sun.[45] Theseus, the great hero of
the Ionic race, delivered his country from this obnoxious tax, and on
his return to Athens was received by the people with unbounded
gratitude; sacrifices and processions were instituted in his honour, and
the memory of his noble achievement was religiously preserved as long as
paganism endured.[46]
-----
Footnote 45:
Isocrat. Helen. Encom. § 14.
Footnote 46:
Mitf. Hist. of Greece, i. 70.
-----
And in some such ways as the above, slaves, in early times, must have
been procured; for, as Timæos of Taormina[47] remarks, the Greeks of
those ages obtained none in the regular course of traffic. He further
adds, that Aristotle was generally accused of having misunderstood the
usages of the Locrians, among whom, as among the Phocians,[48] it was
not of old the custom to possess slaves, whether male or female. The
practice, however, prevailed in later times; and the wife of that
Philomelos who took Delphi is said to have been the first who was
attended by two servile handmaids.[49] But when men commence evil
courses, they seldom know where to stop. Mnason, a Phocian, and friend
of Aristotle,[50] ambitious of rivalling Nicias, the son of Niceratos,
purchased for his own service a thousand slaves, for which he was
accused by his countrymen of lavishing upon them what would have
supported an equal number of free persons.[51] In that country,
therefore, it is clear there existed a class of labourers like the
Thetes described by Homer, who were ready to work for hire.[52] In their
domestic economy the simplicity of their manners enabled the Phocians
and Locrians to dispense with the services of slaves, it being the
custom among them, as among the rustics of Eubœa, whom we have described
above, for the younger members of the family to wait on the elder.[53]
-----
Footnote 47:
Ap. Athen. vi. 86. See, however, the testimony of Polybius, xii. 5.
Footnote 48:
Cf. Suid. v. δουλοσύνη. i. 769.
Footnote 49:
Athen. vi. 86.
Footnote 50:
Ælian. Var. Hist. iii. 19.
Footnote 51:
Athen. vi. 86.
Footnote 52:
Odyss. δ. 644.
Footnote 53:
Athen. vi. 86.
-----
The Chians, as I have already observed, are said to have been the first
Grecian people who engaged in a regular slave-trade.[54] For, although
the Thessalians and Spartans possessed, at a period much anterior, their
Penestæ and their Helots, they obtained them by different means: the
latter, by reducing to subjection the ancient Achæan inhabitants of
Peloponnesos;[55] the former, by their conquests over the Magnesians,
Perrhæbians, and Bœotians of Arnè. But the Chians possessed only such
barbarian slaves as they had purchased with money, in which they more
nearly resembled the slave-holding nations of modern times.[56] Other
circumstances, likewise, in the history of slavery among the Chians,[57]
strongly suggest the parallel, and deserve to be studied with more care
than appears to have been bestowed upon them. We have here, perhaps, the
first type of the Maroon wars, though on a smaller scale, and marked by
fewer outbreaks of atrocity. It is not, indeed, stated that the females
were flogged, though throughout Greece the males were so corrected; but,
whatever the nature of the severities practised on them may have
been,[58] the yoke of bondage was found too galling to be borne,[59] and
whole gangs took refuge in the mountains. Fortunately for them, the
interior of the island abounded in fastnesses, and was, in those days,
covered with forest.
-----
Footnote 54:
Steph. Byzant. v. Χῖος. p. 758. b. Arrian. in Indic. p. 529.
Footnote 55:
Cœl. Rhodig. xxv. 19.
Footnote 56:
Athen. vi. 88.
Footnote 57:
The servile wars of Sicily assumed a far more important character, and
resembled rather those civil commotions in states in which one
division of the citizens carries on hostilities against the other; for
the wealth of the islanders increasing rapidly after the expulsion of
the Carthaginians, they purchased great multitudes of slaves, chiefly
from the East, whom they employed in the usual drudgery, and treated
with extraordinary rigour, branding them in the body like
cattle:—Χαρακτῆρα ἐπέβαλλον καὶ στιγμὰς τοῖς σώμασιν. Diodor. Sicul.
34. ap. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 244. p. 384. Bekk.
Footnote 58:
We may probably, however, form some conjecture respecting the injuries
they endured from the description of the atrocities practised by the
Sicilians against their slaves. These unhappy men were compelled, as
history informs us, to forego even the common reward of labour, and,
though they toiled incessantly for their owners, to provide for their
daily subsistence by plunder and murder:—βαρέως δ᾽ αὐτοῖς κατά τε τὰς
ὑπηρεσίας ἐχρῶντο, καὶ ἐπιμελείας παντελῶς ὀλίγης ἠξίουν ὅσα τε
ἐντρέφεσθαι καὶ ὅσα ἐνδύσασθαι· ἐξ ὠν οἱ πλείους ἀπὸ λῃστείας τὸ ζῇν
ἐπορίζοντο, καὶ μεστὰ φόνον ἦν ἅπαντα καθάπερ στρατευμάτων
διεσπαρμένων τῶν λῃστῶν. Diodor. Sicul. ap. Phot. ubi supra.
Footnote 59:
They, as well as the Achæans, had a prison called Zetreion, where
their slaves worked in chains. Etym. Mag. 411. 33.
-----
Here, therefore, the fugitives, erecting themselves dwellings, or taking
possession of caverns among almost inaccessible cliffs, successfully
defended themselves, subsisting on the plunder of their former owners.
Shortly before the time of the writer, to whom we are indebted for these
details, a bondsman, named Drimacos, made his escape from the city and
reached the mountains, where, by valour and conduct, he soon placed
himself at the head of the servile insurgents over whom he ruled like a
king.[60] The Chians led several expeditions against him in vain. He
defeated them in the field with great slaughter; but, at length, to
spare the useless effusion of human blood, invited them to a conference,
wherein he observed, that the slaves, being encouraged in their revolt
by an oracle, would never lay down their arms or submit to the drudgery
of servitude. Nevertheless, the war might be terminated. “For, if my
advice,” said he, “be followed, and we be suffered to enjoy
tranquillity, numerous advantages will thence accrue to the state.”
-----
Footnote 60:
The history of the servile revolt in Sicily offers numerous points of
resemblance to that of Chios, though Eunus, the leader of the Sicilian
slaves, by no means deserves, either for character or abilities, to be
compared with Drimacos. Eunus was an impostor, who, by visions and
pretended prophecies, excited the slaves to insurrection. He obtained
credit for his predictions by concealing a bored walnut-shell, filled
with some fiery substance, in his mouth, and then breathing forth
sparks and flames like a chimera. His mind, however, was capable of
ambition, for, among the other events which he foretold, he was
careful to introduce the fact, that he was one day, by the decrees of
heaven, to be a king. Diodor. Sicul. 34. Ap. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 244.
p. 384. Bekk. The contrivances by which he supported his pretensions
to miraculous powers are thus described by Florus, iii. 19: Syrus
quidam nomine Eunus (magnitudo claudium facit, ut meminerimus)
fanatico furore simulato, dum Syriæ deæ comas, jactat ad libertatem et
arma servos, quasi numinum imperio concitavit idquæ ut divinitus fieri
probaret, in ore abdita nuce quam sulfure, et igne stipaveret, leniter
inspirans flammam inter verba fundebat.
-----
There being little prospect of a satisfactory settlement of the matter
by arms, the Chians consented to enter into a truce as with a public
enemy. Humbled by their losses and defeats, Drimacos found them
submissive to reason. He, therefore, provided himself with weights,
measures, and a signet,[61] and exhibiting them to his former masters,
said, “When, in future, our necessities require that I should supply
myself from your stores, it shall always be by these weights and
measures, and having possessed myself of the necessary quantity of
provisions, I shall be careful to leave your warehouses sealed with this
signet. With respect to such of your slaves as may fly and offer
themselves to me, I will institute a rigid examination into their story,
and if, upon inquiry, they appear to have had just grounds for
complaint, I will protect them—if not, they shall be sent back to their
proprietors.”
-----
Footnote 61:
In illustration of the ancient practice of sealing storehouses and
other places where valuable things were kept, we may cite the
following anecdote from Diogenes Laertius. (iv. 8. 3.) Lacydes, who
succeeded Arcesilaus as principal professor in the New Academy,
having, as it would appear, a set of thievish domestics, was in the
habit of carefully sealing the door of his storeroom; but, in order
not to run any risk of losing the seal, he used, unobserved, as he
thought, to slip it into the chamber through an aperture in the door.
The slaves, however, diligently reconnoitering his movements,
discovered the old gentleman’s secret, and visiting his stores as
often as they thought proper, they escaped detection by sealing the
door again, and placing through the hole the signet where he had left
it.
-----
To these conditions the magistrates readily acceded, upon which the
slaves who still remained with their masters grew more obedient, and
seldom took to flight, dreading the decision of Drimacos.[62] Over his
own followers he exercised a despotic authority. They, in fact, stood
far more in fear of him than when in bondage of their lords, and
performed his bidding without question or murmur, as soldiers obey their
commander. For he was severe in the punishment of the unruly, and
permitted no man to plunder or lay waste the country, or commit any act
of injustice,—in short, to do anything without his order. The public
festivals he was careful to observe, going round and collecting from the
proprietors of the land, who bestowed upon him voluntarily both wine and
the finest victims; but if, on these occasions, he discovered that a
plot was hatching, or any ambush laid for him, he would take speedy
vengeance.
-----
Footnote 62:
The conduct of Eunus and his followers, when, immediately after their
revolt, they took possession of the city of Euna, presented the most
striking contrast with this moderation of the Chian slaves: they
pillaged the houses, and, without distinction of age or sex,
slaughtered the inhabitants, plucking the infants from the breasts,
and dashing them to the ground. Over part of their atrocities the
historian modestly drops a veil: Εἰς δὲ τὰς γυναῖκας observes he, οὐδ᾽
ἔστιν εἰπειν (καὶ τότε βλεπόντων τῶν ἀνδρῶν) ὅσα ἐνύβριζόν τε καὶ
ἐνησέλγαινον, πολλοῦ αὐτοῖς πλήθους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως δούλων
προστεθέντος οἱ καὶ κατὰ τῶν κυρίων πρότερον τὰ ἔσχατα ἐνδεικνύμενοι
οὕτω πρὸς τὸν τῶν ἄλλων φόνον ετρέποντο. Diodor. Sicul. ap. Phot.
Biblioth. p. 385.
-----
So far the affairs of the Chians and their revolted bondsmen proceeded
smoothly. But things continued not always on this footing. Observing old
age to be creeping upon Drimacos, and rendered wanton apparently by
prosperity, the government issued a proclamation, offering a great
reward to any one who should capture him, or bring them his head.[63]
The old general, discerning, perhaps, signals of treachery, or convinced
that, at last, it must come to that, took aside a young man whom he
loved, and said, “I have ever regarded you with a stronger affection
than any other man, and to me you have been, instead of a son, a
brother, and every other tie. But now, the days of my life are at an
end, nor would I have them prolonged. With you, however, it is not so.
Youth and the bloom of youth are yours. What then is to be done? You
must prove yourself to possess valour and greatness of soul; and since
the state offers riches and freedom to whomsoever shall slay me and bear
them my head, let the reward be yours. Strike it off, and be happy!”
-----
Footnote 63:
The Romans, it must be owned, conducted the war against Eunus, who had
adopted the style and title of a king, in a manner more worthy of the
republic. The number of the insurgents amounted at one time to sixty
thousand men, who, armed with axes, slings, stakes, and cooking-spits,
defeated several armies, and carried on hostilities during upwards of
three years. Pursuing them, however, without relaxation, the state
prevailed at length, utterly crushed the insurrection, and carried
Eunus a prisoner to Rome, where, according to Plutarch, he, like the
dictator, Sylla, was devoured by vermin: Εἰ δὲ δεῖ καὶ των ἀπ´ οὐδενὸς
μὲν χρηστοῦ γνωρίμων δ´ ἄλλως ἐπιμνησθῆναι, λέγεται τὸν ἄρξαντα τοῦ
δουλικοῦ πολέμου περὶ Σικελίαν δραπέτην, Εὔνουν ὄνομα μετὰ τὴν ἄλωσιν
εἰς Ῥώμην ἀγόμενον ὑπὸ φθειριάσεως ἀποθανεῖν. Vit. Syl. § 36. Cf.
Diod. Sicul. 34. Ap. Phot. Biblioth. 386. The conclusion of the war by
Perperna is thus related by Florus: Tandem Perperna imperatore
supplicium de eis sumptum est. Hic enim victos et apud Eunam novissimè
obsessos quum fame quasi pestilentia consumpsisset reliquias latronum
compedibus catenis religavit, crucibusque punivit fuitque de servis
ovatione contentus, ne dignitatem triumphi servili inscriptione
violaret. iii. 19.
-----
At first the youth rejected the proposal, but ultimately Drimacos
prevailed. The old man fell, and his friend on presenting his head
received the sum which had been offered by the state, together with his
freedom, and thereupon after burying his benefactor’s remains, he sailed
away to his own country. Now, however, the Chians underwent the just
punishment of their treachery. No longer guided by the wisdom and
authority of Drimacos, the fugitive slaves returned to their original
habits of plunder and devastation; whereupon, remembering the moderation
of the dead, they erected an Heroön upon his grave, and denominated him
the propitious hero. The insurgents, too, holding his memory in no less
veneration, continued for ages to offer up the first-fruits of their
spoil at his tomb. He was, in fact, honoured with a kind of apotheosis,
and canonized among the gods of the island; for it was believed that his
shade often appeared to men in dreams for the purpose of revealing some
servile conspiracy while yet in the bud: and they to whom he vouchsafed
these warning visits, more grateful than when he yet lived, never failed
to proceed to his chapel, and offer sacrifice to his manes.[64]
-----
Footnote 64:
Nymphiodor. ap. Athen. vi. 88, sqq.
-----
In another department of iniquity the Chians would appear to have been
engaged about the period of Xerxes’ expedition into Greece; I mean the
making of eunuchs for the Eastern market. Panionios, a miscreant engaged
in this traffic, who had mutilated and sold into slavery a young man
named Hermotimos, at length expiated his offence against human nature by
being himself, together with his four sons, subjected to the same
operation.[65] His countrymen, also, in process of time, were, in like
manner, compelled to drain the bitter cup of servitude. For, as we find
recorded by Nicolaos the Peripatetic, and Posidonios the Stoic, having
been subjugated by Mithridates of Cappadocia, they were delivered up to
their own slaves to be carried away captive into Colchis, which
Athenæus, a man not overburdened with religion, considers the just
punishment of their wickedness in having been the first who introduced
the slave-trade into Greece, when they might have been better served by
freemen for hire. From this ancient villany of the Chians is supposed to
have arisen the proverb—“the Chian has bought himself a master,” which
Eupolis introduced into his drama called the “Friends.”[66]
-----
Footnote 65:
Herod. viii. 105.
Footnote 66:
Athen. vi. 91.
-----
The servile war which took place among the Samians, had a more fortunate
issue, though but few particulars respecting it have come down to us. It
was related, however, by Malacos, in his annals of the Siphnians, that
Ephesos was first founded by a number of Samian slaves, who having
retired to a mountain on the island to the number of a thousand,
inflicted numerous evils on their former tyrants. These in the sixth
year of the war, having consulted the oracle, came to an understanding
with their slaves, who being permitted to depart in safety from the
island, sailed away, and became the founders of the city and people of
Ephesos.[67]
-----
Footnote 67:
Athen. vi. 92.
-----
In Attica, the institution of slavery,[68] though attended, as it
everywhere must be, by innumerable evils, nevertheless exhibited itself
under the mildest form which it anywhere assumed in the ancient
world.[69] With their characteristic attention to the interests of
humanity, the Athenians enacted a law, in virtue of which slaves could
indict their masters for assault and battery. Hyperides, accordingly,
observed in his oration against Mantitheos, “our laws making no
distinction in this respect between freemen and slaves, grant to all
alike the privilege of bringing an action against those who insult or
injure them.”[70] To the same effect spoke Lycurgus[71] in his first
oration against Lycophron; but Demosthenes has preserved the law which
empowered any Athenian, not labouring under legal disability, to
denounce to the Thesmothetæ the person who offered violence to man,
woman, or boy, whether slave or free. The action was tried before the
court of Heliæa, and numerous were the examples of men who had suffered
death for crimes committed against bondsmen. Not, therefore, without
reason did the orator eulogise the humane spirit of the law, or dwell
upon the beneficial effects which a knowledge of its existence must
produce among those barbarous nations who furnished Greece with servile
labourers.[72] Another privilege enjoyed by the slave class in Attica
was that of purchasing their own freedom, as often as, by the careful
management of the peculium secured them by law, they were enabled to
offer to their owners an equivalent for their services.[73]
-----
Footnote 68:
For the condition of the public slaves δημόσιοι see the notes on
Demosth. Olynth. ii. 7. Orat. Att. t. v. p. 45.
Footnote 69:
Occasionally we find them sleeping with their masters in the same
apartment, which, doubtless, resembled the _chambre de ménage_ of the
old French. Aristoph. Nub. 5, et Schol.
Footnote 70:
Ap. Athen. vi. 92.
Footnote 71:
Lycurg. Frag. xi. Orat. Att. iv. 482. Cf. Meurs. Them. Att. ii. 11.
Petit. Legg. Att. vi. 5. 470. Plato was less just to them than the
laws of his country. If, in his imaginary state, a slave killed a
slave in self-defence he was judged innocent; if a freeman, he was to
be put to death like a parricide. De Legg. t. viii. p. 150.
Footnote 72:
Cont. Mid. § 14.
Footnote 73:
Petit. Legg. Att. ii. 6, p. 179.
-----
Still, even in Attica, the yoke of bondage was a heavy yoke, the law
itself, in other matters, drawing distinctions between freemen and
slaves doubly galling because palpably unnecessary. Legally, for
example, they were not allowed to wear long hair,[74] or a garment with
two sleeves,[75] to drink wine, save at the festival of Pithœgia on the
first day of the month Anthesterion; to anoint themselves as in the
gymnasia, to be present at the procession in honour of the Eumenides, or
in the case of females to enter the temple of Demeter during the
celebration of the Thesmophoria.[76] A similar spirit pervaded the
servile code in other parts of Greece. Thus, in the island of Cos they
were prohibited from joining in the sacrifices to Hera, and from tasting
the victims. They were, likewise, forbidden to be present when offerings
were presented to the Manes of Phorbas. But from the very words of the
law which authorised the temple wardens to exclude them on these
occasions, it is clear that on all others they might freely enter.[77]
At Athens, with the exceptions above mentioned, every temple in the city
appears to have been open to them. Occasionally, moreover, certain of
their number were selected to accompany their masters to consult the
oracle at Delphi, when even they were permitted, like free citizens, to
wear crowns upon their heads, which, for the time conferred upon them
exemption from blows or stripes.[78] Among their more serious
grievances, was their liability to personal chastisement, which, besides
being inflicted as our punishment of the treadmill, or whipping,[79] at
the carts’-tail, by an order of the magistrates,[80] was too much left
to the discretion of their owners, whose mercies in many cases would be
none of the most tender. In time of war, however, this planter’s luxury
could not be enjoyed,[81] since the flogged slaves might go over to the
enemy, as sometimes happened.[82] They are said, besides, to have worked
the mines in fetters; probably, however, only in consequence of the
revolt described by Posidonios, in which they slew the overseers of the
mines, and taking possession of the acropolis of Sunium,[83] laid waste
for a considerable time the whole of the adjacent districts. This took
place simultaneously with the second insurrection of the slaves in
Sicily (there was, perhaps, an understanding between them) in the
quelling of which nearly a million of their number were destroyed.[84]
Other grievances they endured, which will be noticed as we proceed; but
in addition to those that actually existed, a learned modern writer has
imagined another, which, in his opinion, reduces their condition beneath
that of the Helots. “Nearly all the ties of family were broken,” he
says, “among the slaves of Athens;” and further explaining himself in a
note remarks, that the marriage of slaves was there an uncommon
event.[85] We find, however, from contemporary writers, that except in
cases of incorrigible perverseness, slaves were, on the contrary,
encouraged to marry, it being supposed they would thus become more
attached to their masters.[86] The same bold and ingenious writer
endeavours to give a reason for what has been quoted above, by saying,
“it was cheaper to purchase than to bring up slaves.” This was not the
opinion of the ancients, “we,” say they, “prefer and put more trust in
slaves born and brought up in the house, than in such as are
purchased.”[87]
-----
Footnote 74:
Schol. Arist. Vesp. 444. In rainy weather they wore dog-skin caps, id.
ib. δοῦλος ὤν κόμην, ἔχεις, was a proverb applied to persons acting
irrationally. Suid. Port. t. i. p. 769.
Footnote 75:
Etymol. Mag. 90. 55.
Footnote 76:
Meurs. Them. Att. ii. 11. 85, seq. with the authors there cited.
Footnote 77:
Athen. vi. 81.
Footnote 78:
Aristoph. Plut. 21.
Footnote 79:
The thongs of whips used in scourging slaves, had sometimes we find
small pieces of bronze fastened at the end. Caylus, Rec. D’Antiq. ii.
p. 334. Among the Tyrrhenians, slaves were absurdly beaten to the
sound of music. Plut. De Cohibend. Irâ. § 11.
Footnote 80:
Meurs. Them. Att. ii. 11.
Footnote 81:
Xenophon, in fact, complains that they could not be struck:—οὔτε
πατάξαι ἔξεστιν αὐτόθι. De Rep. Athen. i. 10. Cf. Muret. in Arist.
Ethic. v. p. 434, sqq. Elsewhere in Greece the beating of slaves would
appear to have been a matter of every day occurrence. Plut. De
Cohibend. Irâ. § 15.
Footnote 82:
Aristoph. Nub. 6, et Schol. When a slave once ran away from Diogenes
he would not pursue him, but observed, that it would be a frightful
thing if Diogenes could not do without the slave, since the slave
could do without Diogenes. Stob. Florileg. Tit. 62. 47.
Footnote 83:
They would appear to have made every slave who joined them a citizen
of Sunium, whence the proverb, “Slaves to-day, and Sunians to-morrow.”
Athen. vi. 83. On one occasion certain slaves took possession of a
number of galleys, and infested the coast of Italy as pirates. 87.
Footnote 84:
Athen. vi. 104.
Footnote 85:
Müll. Dor. ii. 37. Among the Romans, slaves were thought to be
incapable of contracting marriage, properly so called. Porrò ad
militaris contubernii similitudinem quandam factum est ut, cùm inter
servos jure Romano veræ nuptiæ dici nequeant, servile connubium non
matrimonium, ut inter liberos, sed, uti mera cohabitatio, contubernium
diceretur. Torrent. in Suet. Vesp. p. 362.
Footnote 86:
Xen. Œcon. ix. 5. Aristot. Œcon. i. 5, (who says that slaves were to
be bound by the pledge of children.) Columell. i. 8. 5.
Footnote 87:
Πεφύκαμεν γὰρ καὶ τῶν οἰκετῶν μᾶλλον πιστεύειν τοῖς οἴκοι γεννηθεῖσι
καὶ τραφεῖσιν ἤ οὕς ἄν κτησώμεθα πριάμενοι. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 2.
-----
It has been observed that, from the most grievous insults and contumely,
slaves were protected by the laws; but if, in spite of legal protection,
their masters found means to render their lives a burden, the state
provided them with an asylum in the temples of Theseus and the
Eumenides.[88] Having there taken sanctuary, their oppressors could not
force them thence without incurring the guilt of sacrilege.[89] Thus, in
a fragment of Aristophanes’ Seasons we find a slave deliberating whether
he should not take refuge in the Theseion, and there remain till he
could procure his transfer to a new master;[90] for any one who
conducted himself too harshly towards his slaves was by law compelled to
sell them.[91] Nay and not only so, but the slave could institute an
action against his lord called αἰκιάς δίκη, or against any other citizen
who had behaved unjustly or injuriously towards him. But the right of
sanctuary was no doubt limited, and only extended from the time of the
slave’s flight to the next New Moon, when a periodical slave-auction
appears to have been held.[92]
-----
Footnote 88:
Sch. Aristoph. Eq. 1309.
Footnote 89:
Plut. Thes. § 36. With the commentators on Pollux. t. v. p. 232, seq.
Cf. Phil. Jud. Lib. quisq. virt. Stud. t. ii. p. 467. ed. Mangey.
Grot. Le Droit de la Guerre et de la Paix, l. iii. ch. 7. § 8, with
the notes of Barbeyrac.
Footnote 90:
Pollux. vii. 13. Such as took refuge at the Altar of Hestia or the
domestic hearth were denominated ἑδρῖται. Etymol. Mag. 316, 52.
Footnote 91:
In modern times the Turks claim the credit of superior humanity
towards their slaves who, through marriage with their masters’ sons or
daughters, often rise to the highest degree of opulence and
distinction. Most of the Pashas and great officers of state have
sprung from a servile origin. The same thing may be said of the
Sultanas and principal ladies of the empire; for which reason the
Circassian princes and nobles have always been ambitious to have one
at least of their daughters established in a Turkish harem. Habesci,
State of the Ottoman Empire, chap. 31. p. 396, sqq. A correspondent of
the Malta Times, writing from Turkey, observes: “Should the slave
object to remain with his master, he himself has the power to go to
the market and declare he wishes to be sold. The master never opposes
this, and it proves such a check upon him that he seldom dares even to
scold his slave.” Times, February 28, 1842. All this must be
understood, however, with considerable reserve, since no traveller can
pass through the Ottoman Empire without discovering numerous examples
of the cruelty of masters towards their domestics.
Footnote 92:
Ἐν δὲ ταῖς νουμηνίαις οἱ δοῦλοι ἐπωλούντο. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 43.
The auctioneer or slave-broker (προπάτωρ) was answerable at law for
the quality of the persons whom he sold; that is, that they
corresponded with the description given of them in the catalogue.
Poll. vii. 11. 12. Cf. Casaub. ad Theoph. Charact. p. 257, and
Scaliger on the word Propula ad Virg. Cul. 411. p. 1255, seq. Slaves
were sometimes sold in the temple of Castor and Polydeukes. Dem. in
Steph. i. § 23.
On this occasion the slaves were stationed, as I have seen them in the
bazaars of modern Egypt, in a circle in the market-place, and the one
whose turn it was to be sold mounted a table, which seems to have been
of stone, where he exhibited himself and was knocked down to the best
bidder. Sometimes when the articles were lively they made great sport
for the company, as in the case of Diogenes who bawled aloud “whoever
among you wants a master, let him buy me.”[93]
-----
Footnote 93:
Diogen. Laert. vi. 1. 4.
-----
To the friskiness whether natural or assumed which the young barbarians
often exhibited on this occasion, Menander alludes in the following
fragment of his Ephesian:[94]
I scorn by the gods to be breechesless found,
And for sale tripping briskly the vile circles round.
-----
Footnote 94:
Harpocrat. v. κύκλοι. p. 108. Vales. Cf. Poll. vii. 11.
-----
Slaves of little or no value were contemptuously called “salt-bought,”
from a custom prevalent among the inland Thracians, of bartering their
captives for salt;[95] whence it may be inferred, that domestics from
that part of the world were considered inferior.
-----
Footnote 95:
Poll. vii. 14, seq.
-----
Respecting the price of slaves an important passage occurs in the
Memorabilia, where Socrates, conversing with Antisthenes, on the subject
of friendship, inquires whether friends were to be valued at so much per
head, like slaves, some of whom he says were not worth a demimina, while
others would fetch two, five, or even ten minæ,[96] that is, the price
varied from forty shillings to forty pounds. Nay it is even said that
Nicias, son of Niceratos, bought an overseer for his silver mines at the
price of a talent, or two hundred and forty-one pounds sterling.[97]
This passage is in substance quoted by Boeckh,[98] who observes that,
exclusively of the fluctuations caused by the variations in the supply
and the demand, the market-price of slaves was affected by their age,
health, strength, beauty, natural abilities, mechanical ingenuity, and
moral qualities. The meanest and cheapest class were those who worked in
the mills,[99] where mere bodily strength was required, and therefore by
setting Samson at this labour the Philistines intimated their extreme
contempt for his blind energy. A very low value was set upon such slaves
as worked in the mines, about 150 drachmas in the age of
Demosthenes.[100] Ordinary house-slaves, whether male or female, might
be valued at about the same price. Demosthenes, in fact, considered two
minæ and a half a large sum for a person of this class. Of the
sword-cutlers possessed by the orator’s father some were valued at six
minæ, others at five, while the lowest were worth above three.
Chair-makers sold for about two minæ.
-----
Footnote 96:
Cf. Demosth. adv. Spud. § 3.
Footnote 97:
Xenoph. Mem. ii. 5. 2.
Footnote 98:
Pub. Econ. of Athens, i. 92.
Footnote 99:
Suid. v. ἱμαῖον ᾆσμα, t. i. p. 1239. c. Poll. vii. 180. Of the
mill-houses of the ancients we have the following description in
Apuleius: “Ibi complurium jumentorum multivii circuitus intorquebant
molas ambage varia; nec die tantum, verum perpeti etiam nocte prorsus
instabili machinarum vertigine lucubrabant perviligem farinam.” He
then sketches a frightful picture of the slaves who work there:
“Homunculi vibicibus livedinis totam cutem depicti, dorsumque plagosum
scissili centunculo magis inumbrati, quàm obtecti; nonnulli exiguo
tegili tantummodo pubem injecti, cuncti tamen sic tunicati, ut essent
per pannulos manifesti; frontes literati, et capillum semirasi, et
pedes annulati.” Metamorph. ix. p. 204, seq. Cf. Pignor. De Servis, p.
9, seq.
Footnote 100:
In Pantænet. §§ 2. 5. Barthelémy, however, who had curiously examined
the subject, supposes, that a mina was worth from 300 to 600 drachmæ.
Voy. du J. Anach. v. 35.
-----
In his discussion on this point, Boeckh[101] charges Demosthenes with
intentional falsehood, because, in his oration against Aphobos, he
reckons fourteen sword-cutlers at forty minæ, something less than three
minæ a-piece. But among those possessed by his father at his death some
were reckoned at only three minæ. His guardians made use of them for ten
years, that is, till they were grown old, by which time the best would
have deteriorated, and the others become of no value.[102] This being
the case, I do not see upon what ground Boeckh bases his accusation. The
wages of slaves, when let out by their masters on hire, varied greatly,
as did also the profit derived from them. A miner was supposed to yield
his master an obolos per day, a leather-worker two oboli, and a foreman
or overseer three. Expert manufacturers of fine goods, such as
head-nets, stuffs of Amorgos, and variegated fabrics like our flowered
muslins, must have produced their owners much greater returns.[103]
-----
Footnote 101:
Pub. Econ. of Athens, i. 94.
Footnote 102:
Orat. in Aphob. § 2.
Footnote 103:
Boeckh Pub. Econ. of Athen. i. 92, sqq.
-----
Slaves, at Athens, were divided into two classes, private and public.
The latter, who were the property of the state, performed several kinds
of service supposed to be unworthy of freemen: they were, for example,
employed as vergers, messengers, apparitors, scribes, clerks of public
works,[104] and inferior servants of the gods. Most of the temples of
Greece possessed, in fact, a great number of slaves or serfs, who
cultivated the sacred domains, exercised various humbler offices of
religion, and were, in short, ready on all occasions to execute the
orders of the priests.[105] At Corinth, where the worship of Aphrodite
chiefly prevailed, these slaves consisted almost exclusively of
women,[106] who having, on certain occasions, burnt frankincense, and
offered up public prayers to the goddess, were sumptuously feasted
within the precincts of her fane.
-----
Footnote 104:
Rudig. ad Dem. Olynth. B. § 7. Etymol. Mag. 265. 29, seq.
Footnote 105:
Dissen. ad Fragm. Pind. p. 640.
Footnote 106:
See a representation of sacred female slaves dancing, in Zoëga, Bassi
Relievi. Tav. 20, seq.
-----
Among the Athenians, the slaves of the republic, generally captives
taken in war, received a careful education, and were sometimes entrusted
with important duties. Out of their number were selected the
secretaries,[107] who, in time of war, accompanied the generals and
treasurers of the army, and made exact minutes of their expenditure, in
order that, when on their return these officers should come to render an
account of their proceedings, their books might be compared with those
of the secretaries. In cases of difficulty, moreover, these unfortunate
individuals were subjected to torture, in order to obtain that kind of
evidence which the ancients deemed most satisfactory.[108]
-----
Footnote 107:
Vid. Stock. ad Dem. Olynth. B. § 7. Ulp. ad loc. Harpocrat. v.
δημόσιος. Vales. ad Maussac. p. 374.
Footnote 108:
Lycurg. cont. Leocrat. § 9. Antiph. de Cæd. Herod. § 6. On the extreme
uncertainty of evidence extracted by the torture, see Sir John
Fortescue, de Laud. Leg. Angl. c. 22.
-----
The servile vocabulary was necessarily abundant: διάκονος,[109] a
servant in general; ὑπηρέτης,[110] a personal attendant or valet;
ἀργυρώ-νητης,[111] a slave bought with money; ὤνιος, the same;
οἰκότριψ,[112] οἰκοτραφὴς, a male slave born in the house. The name
given to the female slave in the same condition was σηκὶς, or
οἰκογενὴς.[113] The housekeeper, likewise a slave, received the
appellation of ταμεία[114] from her office. A lady’s maid they called
παιδίσκη,[115] though it be doubtful, according to Pollux, whether the
orator Lysias, who uses the word, does so with reference to the girl’s
youth or condition.[116] A slave born of slaves in the house is called
οἰκοτριβαίος.[117] Chrysippos makes a distinction between οἰκέτης[118]
and δοῦλος,[119] but without much foundation. Clitarchus enumerates
various names by which slaves were known in Greece: ἄζοι,
θεραπόντες,[120] ἀκόλουθοι,[121] πάλμονες, and λάτρεις. Rural slaves
were called ἐρκίται. Hermon, in his Cretan Glossaries, observes, that
slaves, born of free parents (εὐγένεις), were, in the island of Crete,
called μνῶται. Seleucus informs us, that ἄζοι signifies servants male
and female.[122] The latter were also denominated ἀποφράσαι and βολίζαι.
A male slave, born of a slave, was termed σινδρὼν; a female attendant on
a lady, ἀμφίπολος; a slave-girl who walked before her mistress,
πρόπολος. Female slaves were, at Lacedæmon, called χαλκίδες. The term
οἰκέτης was applied to any person employed about a house, whether slave
or free.
-----
Footnote 109:
Etym. Mag. 268. 25.
Footnote 110:
Etym. Mag. 780. 40, sqq.
Footnote 111:
Etym. Mag. 285. 6. Suid. v. ἀργυρώνη. t. i. p. 416. a.
Footnote 112:
Suid. v. οἰκότριψ. t. ii. p. 278. b. Etym. Mag. 598. 15. Ammonius is
more explicit:—οἰκότριψ καὶ οἰκέτης διαφέρει. Οἰκότριψ μὲν γὰρ, ὁ ἐν
τῇ οἰκίᾳ διατρεφόμενος, ὃν ἡμεῖς θρεπτὸν καλοῦμεν· οἰκέτης δὲ, ὁ
δοῦλος ὁ ὠνητός· παρὰ δὲ Σόλωνι ἐν τοῖς ἄξοσιν οἰκεὺς κέκληται ὁ
οἰκότριψ. De Adfin. Vocab. Differ. p. 101, seq. See, also, Valckenaër,
Animadvers. c. iii. p. 172, sqq. Thom. Magist. v. οἰκότριψ. p. 645.
The estimation in which they were held may be learned from
Photius:—οἰκότριβες, οἱ ἐκ δούλων δοῦλοι, οἱ καὶ οἰκογενεῖς λέγονται·
νομίθοντο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀτιμότεροι τῶν οἰκετὼν, ὅτι οἱ μὲν ἐκ δούλων,
οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐλευθέρων ἐγένοντο, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀεὶ δοῦλοι, οἱ δὲ ὕστεροι.
Footnote 113:
Sch. Aristoph. Vesp. 768. Etym. Mag. 590. 14. Suid. v. οἰκογενὴς. t.
ii. p. 278. a.
Footnote 114:
Cf. Etym. Mag. 745. 13, sqq.
Footnote 115:
Suid. v. παιδίσκη. t. ii. p. 472. a.
Footnote 116:
Poll. iii. 76. Annot. t. iv. p. 562, seq. There was over the female
slaves of the household an inspector, called σκοπὸς. Etym. Mag. 718.
51.
Footnote 117:
Cf. Meurs. Cret. p. 192.
Footnote 118:
Οἰκέται οὐ μόνον οἱ δοῦλοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, γυνὴ καὶ
τέκνα. Ἡρόδοτος ἐν τῇ ὀγδόῃ· ἢν κομίσας τοὺς οἰκέτας οἰκέῃ ἐκείνη·
ὥστε ὑποδεξάμενον τοὺς λόγους τὸν Πανιώνιον, κομίσαι τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὴν
γυναῖκα. Thom. Magist. p. 644. Suid. v. οἰκέται. t. ii. p. 276. b.
Footnote 119:
Etym. Mag. 284. 49.
Footnote 120:
Etym. Mag. 446. 41.
Footnote 121:
Dem. cont. Mid. § 44.
Footnote 122:
Athen. vi. 93.
-----
A very pleasant and significant custom prevailed when a slave newly
purchased was first brought into the house. They placed him before the
hearth, where his future master, mistress, and fellow-servants, poured
baskets of ripe fruit, dates, figs, filberts, walnuts, and so on, upon
his head, to intimate that he was come into the abode of plenty.[123]
The occasion was converted by his fellow-slaves into a holiday and a
feast; for custom appropriated to them whatever was thus cast upon the
new-comer, and as there were sweetmeats among the rest, they had
wherewith to make merry.[124]
-----
Footnote 123:
Sch. Aristoph. Plut. 768, with the commentators. Pollux, iii. 77.
Footnote 124:
Cf. Vales. ad Harpocrat. p. 298.
-----
Their food was commonly, as might be expected, inferior to that of their
masters. Thus the dates grown in Greece, which ripened but imperfectly,
were appropriated to their use; and for their drink they had a small
thin wine called Lora,[125] by the Romans made of the husks of grapes,
laid, after they had been pressed, to soak in water,[126] and then
squeezed again, like our _Bunnel_, in the perry country.[127] That they
generally ate barley-bread in Attica was no peculiar hardship,[128]
since the citizens themselves frequently did the same. We find,
moreover, that to give a relish to their coarse meal, plain broth, and
salt fish,[129] they were indulged with pickled gherkins. In the early
ages of the commonwealth they imitated the frugal manner of their lords,
so that no slave who valued his reputation would be seen to enter a
tavern; but in later times they naturally shared largely in the general
depravity of morals, and placed their summum bonum in eating and
drinking. Their whole creed, on this point, has been summed up in a few
words by the poet Sotion.[130] “Wherefore,” exclaims a slave, “dole
forth these absurdities, these ravings of sophists, prating up and down
the Lyceum, the Academy, and the gates of the Odeion? In all these there
is nothing of value. Let us drink, let us drink deeply, O Sicon,
Sicon![131] Let us rejoice, whilst it is yet permitted us to delight our
souls. Enjoy thyself, O Manes! Nothing is sweeter than the belly, which
alone is to thee as thy father and thy mother. Virtues, embassies,
generalships, are vain pomps, resembling the plaudits of a dream.
Heaven, at the fated hour, will deliver thee to the cold grasp of death,
and thou wilt bear with thee nothing but what thou hast drunk and eaten!
All else is dust, like Pericles, Codros, and Cimon.”
-----
Footnote 125:
Varro, De Re Rust. i. 54. Colum. xii. 40. Cato. 25.
Footnote 126:
See Dioscorid. v. 13.
Footnote 127:
A drink precisely similar, and manufactured in the same manner, is
known in the wine districts of France under the name of _piquette_.
Commonly, also, it is there appropriated to the use of the domestics.
Among the ancient Egyptians the poor, and, _à fortiori_, it may be
conjectured, the slaves were condemned to rely upon beer for the
delights of intoxication. Athen. i. 61.
Footnote 128:
Nevertheless, Trygæos considers it a misfortune to be confined to this
kind of food, since he wishes that the armourers, who desire that
their trade may flourish, might fall into the hands of robbers, and be
dieted on barley-bread:—ληφθεὶς ὑπὸ ληστῶν ἐθίοι κριθὰς μόνας. Pac.
Aristoph. 448. Küst. Vid. Schol. 447. But this was to wish them long
life and sharp senses, since the longevity and keen sight of the
Chaldæans, which enabled them, I suppose, to look into futurity, are
chiefly attributed to their bannocks of barley-meal. Luc. Macrob. § 5.
Cf. Poll. ii. 353. Thucyd. iii. 49. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 816. We find,
from the same scholiast, (Eq. 488.) that barley-dough was designated
by a particular term, φύραμα. Cf. Athen. ix. 67.
Footnote 129:
Luc. Quomod. Hist. Sit conscrib. § 20, where the sophist ridicules a
slave who, having inherited his master’s property, neglected the
dainties set before him, such as poultry, pork, and game, and fell to
on the articles of his former diet. Similar traits were exhibited by
the French servants, who made great fortunes during the Mississippi
scheme. For example, a footman who had enriched himself and purchased
a carriage, instead of entering got up behind it. Lord John Russell.
Hist. of Europe, t. ii. p. 217.
Footnote 130:
Athen. viii. 15. Servile names were usually brief, as Mida, Phryx, &c.
Schol. Arist. Vesp. 433. Cf. Strab. l. vii. t. i. p. 467. a. Casaub.
Footnote 131:
Euripides describes in a few verses the two very different views taken
of servitude by the freeman and the slave:
Orest. Δοῦλος ὢν φοβεῖ τὸν Ἄιδην
ὅς σ’ ἀπαλλάξ εκ κακῶν.
Phryx. Πᾶρ’ ἀνὴρ κἂν δοῦλος
ἦι τις ἥδεται τὸ φῶς ὁρῶν.
Orest. 1537, sqq.
The observation of the Phrygian is just; for God, who tempers the wind
to the shorn lamb, mitigates also the misery of the slave, and enables
him to look upon the light with something like joy.
-----
The employment of household slaves necessarily varied according to the
rank and condition of their lords. In the dwellings of the wealthy and
luxurious they were accustomed to fan their masters and mistresses, and
to drive away the flies with branches of myrtle, instead of which, in
the East, they make use of flappers of palm-leaves. Among the Roman
ladies it was customary to retain a female attendant for the sole
purpose of looking after the Melitensian lap-dogs[132] of their
mistresses, in which they were less ambitious than that dame in Lucian,
who kept a philosopher for this purpose.[133] Female cup-bearers filled
the place of our saucy footmen.[134] Ladies’ maids were likewise slaves.
They were initiated in all the arts of the toilette; and it is told of
Julia, whose hair turned prematurely grey, that her ornatrix was
sometimes surprised plucking out the white hairs by the entrance of her
father.[135] The offices of these ornamenters is thus described by
Manilius:
Illis cura sui vultus frontisque decoræ
Semper erit, tortosque in plexum ponere crineis,
Aut nodis revocare, et rursus vertice denso
Fingere et appositis caput emutare capillis.[136]
-----
Footnote 132:
Pignor. De Serv. p. 190. In illustration of the fondness of certain
persons for animals, it is related, that there was an old lady in
Egypt who habitually slept with a crocodile. Plut. Solert. Anim. § 23.
Footnote 133:
De Merced. Conduct. § 34.
Footnote 134:
Pignor. De Serv. p. 190. Athen. i. 20.
Footnote 135:
Macrob. Saturn. ii. 5.
Footnote 136:
Manil. v. p. 117. v. 28. ed. Scalig.
-----
In these arts they were regularly taught under masters, and there would
likewise appear to have been a set of men who earned their subsistence
by initiating slaves in household labours. An example is mentioned at
Syracuse of a person[137] who probably had an establishment of his own,
where he instructed slaves in the whole round of their domestic duties,
such as bread-making, cooking, washing, and so on. In the baker’s
business Anaxarchos, an Eudaimonist philosopher, one of the fitting
companions of Alexander the Great,[138] introduced an improvement by
which modern times may profit,—to preserve his bread pure from the
touch, and even from the breath of the slaves who made it, he caused
them to knead the dough with gloves on their hands, and to wear a
respirator of some gauze-like substance over the mouth.[139] Other
individuals, who grudged their domestics a taste of their delicacies,
obliged them, while employed at the kneading-trough, to wear a broad
collar, like a wheel, which prevented them from bringing their hands to
their mouths.[140] This odious practice, however, could not have been
general, as it is clear, from an expression in Aristophanes[141] and his
scholiast, that slaves employed in making bread used to amuse themselves
by eating the dough. This seems to be one of the principal causes of
disgust to the rogues in the piece employed in preparing the delicacies
with which Trygæos feeds the beetle whereon he is about to mount to the
court of Zeus.
-----
Footnote 137:
Arist. Polit. i. 2. Cf. Dem. adv. Leochar. § 20.
Footnote 138:
Diog. Laert. ix. 10. 60.
Footnote 139:
This Anaxarchos, upon whom complaisant antiquity bestowed the name of
philosopher, was in reality nothing but a libertine courtier, whose
manners and tastes are thus described by Clearchos of Soli: Τῶν
Εὐδαιμονικῶν καλουμένον Ἀναξάρχω διὰ τὴν τῶν χορηγησάντων ἄγνοιαν
περιπεσούσης ἐξουσίας, γυμνὴ μὲν ᾠνοχόει παιδίσκη πρόσηβος, ἡ
προκριθεῖσα διαφέρειν ὥρᾳ τῶν ἄλλων· ἀνασύρουσα πρὸς ἀλήθειαν τὴν τῶν
οὕτως αὐτῇ χρωμένων ἀκρασίαν· ὁ δὲ σιτοποιὸς χειρίδας ἔχων, καὶ περὶ
τῷ στόματι κημὸν, ἔτριβέ τὸ σταῖς, ἵνα μηδὲ ἱδρὼς ἐπιῤῥέῃ, μήτε τοῖς
φυράμασιν ὁ τρίβων ἐμπνέοι. Athen. xii. 70.
Footnote 140:
Poll. vii. 20. x. 112. Suid. v. παυσικάπη. t. ii. p. 467. b. This and
similar practices are noticed by M. Grégoire. “Les anciens mettoient
aux esclaves, (v. Fabretti Inscrip. Antiq. Explic. p. 522,) comme on
met aux chiens, des colliers ou cercles de fer, sur lesquels étoient
gravés les noms, profession et demeure du propriétaire, avec
invitation de les ramener à leurs maîtres en cas de fuite. Dans le
Supplément aux Antiquités Grecques et Romaines de Poleni, on peut lire
diverses inscriptions de ce genre.(Utriusque Thesauri Antiquitatem,
etc., nova supplementa, ab J. Poleno, t. iv. p. 1247.)Les colons
avoient enchéri sur les anciens en inventions, pour torturer leur
semblables: telle est, par example, l’énorme triangle de fer au cou
des nègres, pour les empêcher de fuir. Cependant, la coutume de
museler les esclaves, de leur cadenasser la bouche afin qu’ils ne
puissent se désaltérer en suçant une canne à sucre, n’est qu’une
imitation de l’antiquité, car Suidas et Pollux nous apprennent qu’on
leur mettoit au cou une machine, nommé _pausicape_, en forme de roue,
qui les empêchoit de porter la main à la bouche et de manger de la
farine lorsqu’on les occupoit à tourner la meule.” De la Domesticité
chez les Peuples Anciens et Modernes, p. 6. Cf. Pignor. de Servis, p.
15, seq.
Footnote 141:
Pac. 12. seq.
Ιδού,
Ἑνὸς μὲν, ὦνδρες, ἀπολελῦσθαί μοι δοκῶ.
Οὐδεις γὰρ ἂν φαίη με μάττοντ᾽ ἐσθίειν.
Upon which the Scholiast remarks: εἰώθασι γὰρ ἅμα τῳ μάρτειν, ἐσθίειν.
-----
In the city of Abdera, as we find from an anecdote of Stratonicos,[142]
every private citizen kept a slave who served him in the capacity of
herald, and announced by sound of trumpet the appearance of the new
moon, and the festival by which it was followed. A _bon mot_ worth
repeating is ascribed to this travelling wit. Being one day in the
cemetery of Teicheios, a town of the Milesian territory,[143] inhabited
by a mixed population from all the neighbouring countries, and seeing on
every tomb the name of some foreigner, “Come,” said he to his slave,
“let us depart from this place. Nobody dies here but strangers.”
-----
Footnote 142:
Athen. viii. 41.
Footnote 143:
Athen. viii. 43.
-----
One of the most steady and faithful of the domestics was usually
selected to be the porter.[144] Occasionally, moreover, in the
establishments of opulent and ostentatious persons, as Callias
for example, eunuchs, imported from Asia, were employed as
door-keepers.[145]
-----
Footnote 144:
Mention is also made of female porters. Dem. in Ev. et Mnes. § 10.
Footnote 145:
The scene in which Callias’s eunuch-porter is introduced to us is
painted in Plato’s liveliest manner. This ancient Bababalouk exhibits
all the crabbedness of the keeper of an oriental harem; and as we
listen to him bawling at Socrates through the door, we appear to be
transported to the establishment of the Emir Fakreddin. Δοκεῖ οὖν μοι,
ὁ θυρωρός, εὐνοῦχός τις, κατήκουεν ἡμῶν· κινδυνεύει δὲ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν σοφιστῶν ἄχθεσθαι γοῦν ἐκρούσαμεν τὴν θύραν, ἀνοίξας καὶ ἰδων
ἡμᾶς, Ἔα, ἔφη, σοφισταί τινες· οὐ σχολὴ αὐτῷ. Καὶ ἁμα ἀμφοῖν τοῖν
χεροῖν τὴν θύραν πάνυ προθύμως ὡς οἷός τ᾽ ἦν ἐπήραξε. Καὶ ἡμεῖς πάλιν
ἐκρούομεν. καὶ ὃς ἐγκεκλῃμένης τῆς θύρας ἀποκρινόμενος εἶπεν, Ὦ
ἄνθρωποι, ἔφη, οὐκ ἀκηκόατε ὅτι οὐ σχολὴ αὐτῷ; Ἀλλ᾽ ὠγαθέ, ἔφην ἐγώ,
οὔτε παρὰ Καλλίαν ‘ἀλλ᾽ ὠγαθέ,’ ἥκομεν οὔτε σοφισταί ἐσμεν, ἀλλὰ
θάῤῥει· Πρωταγόραν γάρ τι δεόμενοι ἰδεῖν ἢλθομεν. εἰσάγγειλον οὖν.
Μόγις οὖν ποτὲ ἡμῖν ἄνθρωπος ἀνέωξε τὴν θύραν. Protag. t. i. p. 159,
seq.
-----
The directions, as Mitford justly observes, which Penelope’s housekeeper
gives to the menial servants for the business of the day, might still
serve in the East without variation: “Go quickly,” she said, “some of
you sweep the house, and sprinkle it, and let the crimson carpets be
spread upon the seats; let all the tables be well rubbed with sponges,
and wash carefully the bowls and cups. Some of you go immediately to the
fountain for water.”[146]
-----
Footnote 146:
Odyss. υ. 149. Hist. of Greece, i. 186. Cf. Athen. iii. 73.
-----
Besides working at the mill, and fetching water, both somewhat laborious
employments, we find that female slaves were sometimes engaged in
offices still more unfeminine; that is, in woodcutting upon the
mountains, where the impudent old fellow, in Aristophanes, takes
advantage of Thratta.[147] Events of this kind, however, could only
happen among the peasant girls. In the city both mistresses and maids
were too domestic to meet with adventures in forest or on mountains.
Towards the decline of the commonwealth, it became a mark of wealth and
consequence to be served by black domestics, both male and female, as
was also the fashion among the Romans and the Egyptian Greeks. Thus
Cleopatra[148] had negro boys for torch-bearers; and the shallow
exclusive, in Cicero,[149] is anxious to make it known that he has an
African valet. Juvenal, in his sarcastic style, alludes to this
practice.[150]
Tibi pocula cursor
Gætulus dabit aut nigri manus ossea Mauri.
-----
Footnote 147:
Acharn. 272. The principle on which names were bestowed upon slaves is
thus explained by Helladius: οἱ κωμικοὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας τὸ μὲν πλέον ἀπὸ
τοῦ γένους κάλουν οἷον Σύρον καρίωνα Μίδαν Γέταν καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, ἐκαλουν
δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐξ ἐπιθέτων, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ χρώματος μὲν Πυῤῥιαν καὶ Ξανθίαν ἀπὸ
τοῦ τρόπου δὲ Παρμένωνα καὶ Πιστὸν καὶ Δρόμωνα. ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς
ἡμέρας ἐν ᾗ ὠνήσαντο τὸν οἰκέτην, ἐξ οὗ καὶ τοὺς Νουμηνίας ὠνόμαζον.
Chrestomath. ap. Phot. Bib. 532. b. 36, seq. See also the note of
Meursius. p. 57.
Footnote 148:
Athen. iv. 29.
Footnote 149:
Rhetoric. ad Heren.
Footnote 150:
Sat. v. 52, seq.
-----
The Athenian ladies, like our Indian dames, affected as a foil, perhaps,
to be attended by waiting-maids rendered “by Phœbus’ amorous pinches
black.”[151]
-----
Footnote 151:
Theoph. Char. p. 58, et ad Casaub. loc. p. 329, seq.
-----
Travellers among the higher Alps are almost invariably attended by Swiss
guides who, laden with their employer’s baggage, climb before them up
the rocks, and are less fatigued at the close of the day’s journey than
the rich pedestrians who carry nothing beyond their own weight. This is
an exact image of the style of travelling in antiquity. It was then
common even for opulent men, to “make their own legs their compasses,”
as Scriblerus phrases it; but, not to load their own delicate shoulders
with a knapsack, they were attended, like Bacchos in the Frogs, by a
steady slave, who carried the baggage, mounted on a porter’s knot upon
his shoulders. To employ more than one valet in this service was
esteemed a mark of luxurious habits; and therefore Æschines reproaches
Demosthenes that, during his embassy, he was attended by two domestics
with each a carpet-bag.[152] Both by Theophrastus and Xenophon this
attendant is called an _Acoluthos_, or follower, because it was his duty
to walk behind his master; but this name in general signified a youthful
valet, kept in personal attendance on the great.[153] The simplicity of
republican manners at Athens condemned the habit of maintaining many of
those elegant youths, which, moreover was prohibited by law.[154]
-----
Footnote 152:
Συνηκολούθουν δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἄνθρωποι δύο στρωματόδεσμα φέροντες, ἐν δὲ τῷ
ἑτέρῳ τούτων, ὁς αὐτος ἔφη, τάλαντον ἐνῆν ἀργυρίου. De Fals. Legat.
31.
Footnote 153:
Demosth. cont. Mid. § 44.
Footnote 154:
Οὐκ ἐξῆν παρὰ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ἀργὸν τρέφειν οἰκέτην διόπερ οἱ μὲν
αὐλοποιοὺς, οἱ δὲ μαχαιροποιοὺς εἷχον τοὺς δούλους. Μειδίας δὲ τοὺς
τοσούτους ἀργοὺς περιάγων, τοὺς τυράννους μιμεῖται, δορυφορούμενος ὑπὸ
τῶν οἰκετῶν. Ulp. in Demosth. cont. Mid. § 44. Orat. Att. t. x. p.
225. Here we see the reason why Demosthenes inveighed against Meidias
on account of the number of his followers.
-----
From the severity of manners, however, one evil arose—the single slave
was sometimes condemned by vanity to carry the burden of two; and as
their grumblings were proportioned to their hardship, their case was
soon taken up by the comic poets, not, I fear, so much for the sake of
humanity, as because it often furnished them with a good joke or two. By
degrees, as no writers dwell so constantly on a fruitful topic or so
frankly imitate each other, it became the fashion of the stage to
introduce a miserable devil into every comedy, whose misfortunes, like
those of the clown in our pantomimes, usually kept the theatre in a
roar. The practice, however, had already grown stale in the time of
Aristophanes, who both ridiculed and followed it; for while his sneers
at the grumbling valet are repeated usque ad nauseam, much of the humour
and interest of the Frogs arise out of the tricks and adventures of a
melancholy wag of this description as Casaubon[155] long ago observed.
-----
Footnote 155:
Ad. Theoph. Char. p. 248.
-----
When men have usurped an undue dominion over their fellows, they seldom
know where to stop. The Syrians themselves, enslaved politically, and
often sold into servitude abroad, affected when rich a peculiarly
luxurious manner: female attendants waited on their ladies, who, when
mounting their carriages, required them to crawl on all-fours that they
might make a foot-stool of their backs.[156]
-----
Footnote 156:
Montaigne, Essais, iv. 224. Athen. iii. 72. Plut. De Adulat. et Amic.
§ 3.
-----
CHAPTER VIII.
SERFS OF SPARTA, CRETE, THESSALY, ETC.
If we now pass from the consideration of slavery in the comparatively
mild form which it assumed in Attica to an examination of the state of
the Laconian Helots, we shall discover the spirit which actuated the two
governments to present a still broader contrast in this, the lowest
stage of its influence, than when operating upon the nobler citizens on
the great arena of public life.
Among certain scholars on the continent it appears to be very much the
fashion to oppose an invincible scepticism to the testimony of ancient
writers, as often as that testimony makes against any theory they desire
to establish; and on the subject of the Helots several of the ablest
authors among them have adopted an opinion which cannot be supported
without annihilating several Greek authors, who, in their opinion,
prophesy as awkwardly as Calchas did for the peace of Agamemnon.
Among these the principal is Mr. Müller, from whom I have the misfortune
to differ on many points, but without in the least disparaging his
ability or his learning, for both of which I entertain the highest
respect.[157]
-----
Footnote 157:
When the words in the text were written Mr. Müller was still living,
and there was every reason to expect from him a series of learned and
able works on the history and antiquities of Greece. He has since,
however, fallen a victim to the persevering ardour with which he
pursued his researches into the topography of that illustrious land;
and in common, I believe, with every other admirer of the Hellenic
people and literature I sincerely lament his premature death. My
regret moreover is heightened by the knowledge that Mr. Muller had
projected a history of Greece which his profound investigations and
extensive knowledge of the country would unquestionably have rendered
highly valuable. His ashes repose among those of the most
distinguished men of antiquity. He caught his death among the ruins of
Delphi, and was buried at Athens.
-----
As, however, he has adopted a very peculiar system in the interpretation
of antiquity, which, though plausible and ingenious, seems
ill-calculated to lead to truth, I have found it impossible to
participate on many important points the views which he maintains, more
especially on the subject of the Helots. In fact, with all his talents
and sagacity he has chosen rather to become an advocate than an
historian, and pushes so far his eagerness to defend his favourite
people, as not unfrequently to provoke a smile. In his derivation of the
term Helot, however, he is perhaps correct,[158] it being more probable
that it should have sprung from an ancient word signifying “The
Prisoners” than from the name of the town. In the absence of all
testimony we might likewise entertain the conjecture, “that they were an
aboriginal race subdued at a very early period, and which immediately
passed over as slaves to the Doric conquerors.” But we have the weighty
authority of Theopompos to oppose to this inference, and the words of
this historian[159] attentively considered would lead to the etymology
of the name given by Müller:—“having taken them prisoners,” he says,
“they called them εἵλωτες.” They were, however, Greeks of the Achaian
race, who fell, together with the land, into the power of the
new-comers, so that the excuse of only tyrannising over a foreign and
half-savage race is wanting to the Spartans, which was the object aimed
at by Mr. Müller’s ingenious conjecture.
-----
Footnote 158:
Dorians, t. ii. p. 30. Cf. t. i. p. 86, seq. Nevertheless the
Scholiast on Thucydides maintains the old derivation:—Ἕλος, πόλις τῆς
Λακωνικῆς, ἧς οἱ πολίται ἐκαλοῦντο Εἵλωτες. Οἱ οὖν Λακεδαιμόνιοι, διὰ
τὸ ἀεὶ διαφόρους εἶναι ἀλλήλοις, τοὺς δούλους αὐτῶν ἐκάλουν Εἵλωτας,
κατὰ ἀτιμίαν καὶ ὕβριν. t. v. p. 350. Cf. Clint. Fast. Hellen. ii.
412. Etymol. Mag. 300. 7. 332. 51. They were called also Heliatæ.
Athen. vi. 102. Cf. Poll. vii. 83. Ἕλος πόλις Λακονική. οἱ πολίται
εἵλωτες καὶ εἱλῶται, καὶ ἕλιοι, καί ἑλεάται. ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ἕλος
Αἰγύπτου. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ τὰ ἐθνικὰ γραψας, εἰς τὸ ἕτερον Ἕλος λέγει τὸ ἐν
τοῖς ἐφεξῆς ὑπὸ τὸν Νέστορα. ἕτεροι δὲ ὅτι οὐ μόνον πόλις τὸ Ἕλος ἀλλὰ
καὶ εἰς χώραν τινὰ πλατύνεται. ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ ἕιλωτες. οἱ
συνελθόντες τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις, ἦν ὅτε καὶ πράγματα παρασχόντες τοῖς
Λακεδαιμονίοις, εἶτα ὑπετάγησαν ὡσεὶ δοῦλοι. καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸ ὄνομα τῶν
εἱλώτων εῖς δουλικὴν ἀπλῶν μετελήφθη κλῆσιν. Eustath. ad Il. β. p.
223. 28, sqq. Ἐν γοῦν τοῖς Ἡρωδιανοῦ, εὓρηται ὅτι εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπὶ
Ταινάρῳ σάτυροι. Idem, ad Il. β. b. 225, 17. Cf. Capperonier
Recherches sur l’Histoire des Hilotes. Mem. de L’Acad. des Inscrip. t.
xxiii. p. 272.
Footnote 159:
Theopomp. l. xvii. ap. Athen. vi. 88. Cf. Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p.
188.
-----
In considering the condition of the Helots, I shall not affect, with the
historian of the Doric race,[160] “to range their political rights and
personal treatment,” under separate heads; in the first place because,
strictly speaking, they had no political rights, and, secondly, because
in the treatment they experienced consists whatever is peculiar in their
position. Several of this learned historian’s notions on the
Lacedæmonian serfs appear to be in direct contradiction with those of
the writers from whom all we know concerning the Helots is obtained. Of
this he seems to be conscious, and in the following way endeavours to
bring discredit on them; assuming as a settled thing, that the Helots
must have possessed political rights, he concludes that they “were
_doubtless exactly_ defined by law and custom, though the expressions
made use of by ancient authors are frequently vague and ambiguous.”[161]
Whether this be the case or not we shall presently see. The remark of
Ephoros is, that “they were in a certain point of view public slaves.
Their possessor could neither liberate them nor sell them beyond the
borders.” On this passage which he quotes,[162] the historian raises a
superstructure which it will by no means support. “From this,” he says,
“it is evident, that they were considered as belonging properly to the
state, which, to a certain degree, permitted them to be possessed, and
apportioned them out to individuals, reserving to itself the power of
enfranchising them.”[163]
-----
Footnote 160:
Hist. and Antiq. of the Dorians, t. ii. p. 31.
Footnote 161:
Dorians, ii. 31.
Footnote 162:
Or rather makes up from two or three _disjecta membra_ of Ephoros.
Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p. 188, seq. Cf. Paus. iii. 20. 6.
Footnote 163:
Dorians, t. ii. p. 31. Ubbo Emmius takes the same view of the subject.
iii. 138.
-----
The contrary I think is the inference. They were the property of
individuals, but the state reserved to itself the right of enfranchising
them and preventing their emancipation, lest persons should be found
who, like Marcus Porcius, Cato,[164] and the Dutch at the Cape, would
sell or give them their liberty when too old to labour. “But to sell
them out of the country,” says Mr. Müller, “was not in the power even of
the state.” It is true there was an ancient law prohibiting the
exportation of the Helots,[165] but the same authority which enacted
that law could have abrogated it. Had Sparta then chosen to convert her
Helots into an article of traffic, who or what was to prevent her? Since
she arrogated to herself the right of beating, maiming, and putting them
to death,[166] though completely innocent, is it to be supposed that,
had it suited her policy, she would have hesitated to sell them? And
after all are we quite certain that these unhappy people were not
frequently sold into foreign lands? On the contrary, we find, that a
regular trade was carried on in female Helots, who were exported into
all the neighbouring countries for nurses.[167] Thus it appears that the
state both had and exercised the power to convert its serfs into
merchandise.
-----
Footnote 164:
Καὶ τούτους (sc. δούλους) πρεσβυτέρους γενομένους (observes Plutarch,
Vit. Cat. Maj. § 4.) ᾤετο δεῖν ἀποδίδοσθαι, καὶ μὴ βόσκειν ἀχρήστους.
But what Cato practised he approved of theoretically, and in his works
recommends to others; servum senem, servum morbosum, vendat, De Re
Rustica, 2. He would also have the agriculturist dispose of his old
oxen and everything else that was old. Vendat boves, vetulos,
ferramenta vetera, &c. id. ibid. Upon which Plutarch in a fine spirit
of humanity observes, Ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ βοῦν ἂν ἐργάτην διὰ γῆρας
ἀποδοιμην, μή τί γε πρεσβυτέρον ἄνθρωπον, ἐκ χώρας συντρόφου καὶ
διαίτης συνήθους, ὥσπερ ἐκ πατρίδος, μεθιστάμενον ἀντὶ κερμάτων
μικρῶν, ἄχρηστόν γε τοῖς ὠνουμένοις, ὥσπερ τοῖς πιπράσκουσι,
γεγενημένον. Vit. Cat. Maj. § 5. For what concerns the Dutch we have
the testimony of Le Vallant: “On rencontre des Négresses légitimement
mariées, et des Nègres établis faisant corps avec la bourgeoisie; ce
sont des hommes qui, par leurs services ou d’autres motifs ont été
affranchis; la facilité avec laquelle on leur donnait la liberté était
autrefois sujette à bien des abus, parce que ces gens, devenus vieux
ou infirmes, ou privés de resources pour subsister, finissaient par
être des voleurs ou des vagabonds. Le gouvernement s’est trouvé forcé
d’y mettre ordre; nul maître à présent ne peut affranchir son esclave
qu’en déposant à la chambre des orphelins une somme suffisante pour sa
subsistance.” Voyage dans l’Intérieur de l’Afrique, t. i. p. 112.
Footnote 165:
Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p. 189.
Footnote 166:
Over the Helots, not the state only but even private individuals, and
much more the kings, possessed the power of life and death. Thus a
Helot behaving offensively to Charillos, he said: “I would kill thee
were I not in a passion.” Plut. Apophthegm. Lacon. Charill. 3.
Footnote 167:
Plut. Alcib. § 1. Καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἕνιοι τοῖς τέκνοις Λακωνικὰς ἐωνοῦντο
τιτθάς· καὶ τήν γε τὸν Ἀθηναῖον Ἀλκιβιάδην τιτθεύσασαν Ἀμύκλαν
ἱστοροῦσι γεγονέναι Λάκαινον. Lycurg. § 16. Cf. Ages. § 3.
-----
That the males also were not exported like cattle, than which they were
far worse treated, was owing simply to the calculation, that it would be
more profitable to retain them. For, as the Spartans possessed estates,
which personally they never cultivated, the Helots, who equally belonged
to them, were stationed throughout the country upon those estates, which
it was their business to till for the owners. To live it was of course
necessary that they should eat, and therefore a portion of the produce
was abandoned to them, according to Tyrtæos,[168] the half, a division
which must have borne very hard upon them, since their numbers were five
times greater than those of the Spartans.[169] However, even in this
arrangement, the learned historian discovers something to praise “as
this quantity had been definitively settled at a very early period (to
raise the amount being forbidden under very heavy imprecations) the
Helots were the persons who profited by a good and lost by a bad
harvest, which must have been to them an encouragement to industry and
good husbandry; a motive which would have been wanting if the profit and
loss had merely affected the landlords.”[170] But on the _res rusticæ_
the notions of this writer are somewhat confused. For in another place
he remarks that, owing to the “usurpations of the successive conquerors
of Peloponnesos, agriculture was kept in a constant state of dependence
and obscurity, so that we seldom hear of the improvement of the country,
which is a necessary part of the husbandman’s business.” It therefore
did _not_ flourish in Laconia. No, says the historian, that is not the
conclusion we must come to, for, notwithstanding that we never hear of
any improvements in it, “agriculture was always followed with great
energy and success!”[171]
-----
Footnote 168:
Franck. Callin. et Tyrt. p. 193. In Attica the θῆτες, paid a sixth of
the produce to the Eupatridæ, whose land they rented. Plut. in Sol. §
13. But this it should be remarked was considered one of the
oppressive acts of the aristocracy. Ælian gives precisely the same
account as Tyrtæos, (Var. Hist. vi. 1,) where see the note of
Perizonius. Cf. Crag. De Rep. Laced. l. i. c. 11. p. 71.
Footnote 169:
Herod. ix. 28. They were in fact far more numerous in proportion to
the citizens than anywhere else in Greece, and next to them in number
were the slaves of the Chians. Thucyd. viii. 40. Cf. Clint. Fast.
Hellen. t. ii. p, 411.
Footnote 170:
Dorians, i. 32.
Footnote 171:
Dorians, i. 86.
-----
There appear to have been instances of Helots becoming comparatively
wealthy in spite of the oppressions they endured: but so we have known
peasants growing rich in the worst despotisms of the East, and such too
was in the middle ages the case with the Jews, notwithstanding the
terrible persecutions and cruelties they endured. This fact, therefore,
only proves that no pressure of hardship or ill-usage can entirely
destroy the elasticity of the spirit; and no doubt, like all slaves, the
Helots sought to soften their miseries by the gratification which a
sense of property procures even in bondage to the sordid mind.[172] “By
means of the rich produce of the land, and in part by plunder obtained
in war, they collected a considerable property, to the attainment of
which almost every access was closed to the Spartans.”[173] But of what
value is property to a man who is himself the property of another?
Besides, the expression of the historian in this place seems calculated
to lead to erroneous conclusions respecting the Spartans, who, so far
from being debarred the means of amassing wealth,[174] rose frequently
to extraordinary opulence, insomuch that this self-denying community
came at length to be the richest in Greece.[175] To assume that the
Helots, like the Thessalian Penestæ,[176] enjoyed means of augmenting
their possessions superior to those permitted themselves by their
masters, is to propagate an error which must vitiate our whole
conception of the Lacedæmonian commonwealth.
-----
Footnote 172:
Herod. ix. 80. Plut. Cleom. § 23.
Footnote 173:
Dorians, ii. 32.
Footnote 174:
Cf. Herm. Polit. Antiq. § 47.
Footnote 175:
Χρυσίον δὲ καὶ ἀργύριον οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν ὅσον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι
ἰδία. Plut. Alcib. i. t. v. p. 342.
Footnote 176:
Καὶ ἐκλήθησαν τότε μὲν, μενέσται ὕστερον δὲ πενέσται. καὶ πολλοὶ δὲ
τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν εἰσὶν εὐπορώτεροι. Eustath. ad Il. ν. t. ii. p. 933.
48.
-----
It is confessed that very little intercourse between the Spartans and
the Helots took place, at least in earlier times; for afterwards, when
the masters themselves quitted the capital, resided on their
estates,[177] and took to husbandry, the link must necessarily have been
more closely drawn. And this circumstance renders more probable the
account transmitted to us of Spartan harshness towards them.
Intercommunion would have begotten more humane feelings in the master,
more attachment in the slave. For like other men the Spartans felt the
influence of intimacy, as is proved by their practice of enfranchising
the companions of their childhood. They paid, therefore, an involuntary
compliment to their own hearts when they kept the Helots at a distance,
that they might be able to tyrannise over them. They could not have
resisted the power of close contact, and acted like Messallina, who fled
in tears from the room where a man was pleading for his life, lest she
should forgive him, whispering as she went to her instrument that the
accused must not be suffered to escape nevertheless.[178] However, a
certain number of Helots were retained in the city as personal
attendants on the Spartans, and there waited at the public tables, and
were lent by one person to another,[179] like so many dogs, or oxen;
although it seems probable that all the drudgery of the capital was not
performed by the Helots alone, but that along with them were associated
other classes of domestic slaves,[180] on whose history and condition
antiquity affords us little or no light. But as the Spartans were
constantly making prisoners in their wars with the neighbouring states,
which were occasionally restored at the termination of hostilities, we
appear to be authorized in concluding, that these captives were commonly
reduced to servitude in Laconia, whether employed in household
labours,[181] or dispersed among the Helots in the field.
-----
Footnote 177:
Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3. 5. Arist. Polit. ii. 2. 11. Pollux, upon I
know not what ground, observes, μεταξὺ δὲ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων οἱ
Λακεδαίμονιων Εἵλωτες. iii. 83. Upon which Jungermann observes,
“Ingenue fateor me non satis capere quare Pollux Helotas medios inter
liberos et servos dicat:” in loc. p. 570. Cf. Crag. De Rep. Lac. i.
11. This difficulty Capperonier undertakes to remove, “Les
Lacédémoniens mettoient une différence entre les Hilotes et leurs
esclaves domestiques nommés οἰκέται; quoiqu’ils eussent tous deux une
origine commune, les derniers étoient tombés dans un tel avilissement
qu’ils n’avoient aucune sorte de considération; de la vient que Pollux
dit que les Hilotes tenoient le milieu entre les gens libres et les
esclaves. Les esclaves domestiques avoient un rapport plus particulier
au maître, et n’étoient employés qu’eux choses du ménage, comme leur
nom même l’exprime. C’étoient eux que les Lacédémoniens forçoient de
boire jusqu’à s’enivrer, et qu’ils offroient dans cet état aux yeux
des jeunes gens pour leur inspirer l’horreur d’un vice qui dégrade
l’humanité: peut-être excusera-t-on la conduite des Lacédémoniens par
l’attention particulière qu’ils donnoient à l’éducation de leurs
enfans. Mais comment justifier la cruauté qu’ils avoient de les
obliger à recevoir tous les ans un certain nombre de coups sans les
avoir mérités, seulement afin qu’ils ne desappressent pas à servir?”
Capperonier, Recherches sur l’Histoire et l’Esclavage des Hilotes.
Mem. De l’Acad. Des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 282, seq.
Footnote 178:
Tacit. Annal. xi. 2.
Footnote 179:
Xen. Rep. Lac. vi. 3. Arist. Polit. ii. 2. 5. Plut. Institut. Lac. 23.
Footnote 180:
Their personal attendants for instance were called μοθῶνες , Suid. in
v. ii. 175, and even born in the house like the Oikotribes of the
other Greeks. Etym. Mag. 590. 14. According to Harpocration, (in v. p.
128,) they were slaves educated with the free boys at Sparta. The
conjecture of Maussac, however, is, that they were male nurses like
Phœnix in the Iliad. Similes forte hi fuerint Pappatibus, de quibus
Juvenalis, aut gerulis, quos scholiastes Sophocles in Ajace
Flagellifero βαϊούλους dictos refert id est baiulos: ut hodie Itali
dicunt _balio_ et _balia_. Not. p. 218.
Footnote 181:
To this class probably belonged the θεράποντες of Demaratos, mentioned
by Herodotus, vi. 70, though Mr. Müller conjectures them to have been
Helots. Dorians, t. ii. p. 31.
-----
Another service the Helots performed for their masters, which
necessarily produced some degree of intimacy, I mean the military
service in which they fought and bled by their side.[182] The state was,
no doubt, reluctant to admit them among the Hoplitæ, or heavy-armed,
where the discipline was rigorous, and their weapons would have placed
them on a level with their oppressors. But even this was sometimes
hazarded, as in the reinforcements forwarded to Gyleppus, at
Syracuse,[183] when six hundred Neodomades and picked Helots were
complimented with this dangerous distinction. As light troops, however,
they almost invariably formed the majority of the Lacedæmonian forces.
In other countries, where the subject races were more humanely treated,
no fear was entertained at entrusting them with arms. Among the
Dardanians, for example, where it was not uncommon for a private
individual to possess a thousand slaves, or more, they in time of peace
cultivated the land, and in war filled the ranks of the army, their
masters serving as officers.[184]
-----
Footnote 182:
On this point the remark of Capperonier is ingenious: “On les voit
rarement (les Lacédémoniens) se mettre en campagne sans eux; (les
Hilotes;) la politique l’exigeoit; que n’auroient-ils pas en à
craindre si, les contenant à peine lorsqu’ils étoient chez eux, ils
les y eussent laissés seuls en leur absence?” Recherches sur les
Hilotes, Mem. de l’Acad. Des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 285.
Footnote 183:
Thucyd. vii. 19. Cf. v. 57. 64. iv. 80. They were sometimes entrusted
with important commands on foreign stations, which by the free
confederates of Sparta, however, was regarded as an insult: ἀλλὰ τοὺς
μὲν εἴλωτας ἁρμοστὰς, observes the Theban ambassador at Athens,
καθιστάναι ἀξιοῦσι, τῶν δὲ ξυμμάχων ἐλευθέρων ὄντων, ἐπεὶ εὐτύχησαν,
δεσπόται ἀναπεφῄνασιν. Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 5. 12.
Footnote 184:
Athen. vi. 103.
-----
From this circumstance one of two things must be inferred; either that
the Dardanians considered them in the light of subjects, as we do the
natives of India, where large armies are officered by Englishmen, or
that that people understood better than any other in antiquity the art
of ruling over men.
Plato, Isocrates, Aristotle, Plutarch, and a number of other writers
agree in convicting the Spartans of great barbarity towards their
bondsmen, differing, however, as to the degree of that barbarity. But
their “philanthropic views”[185] are discarded by the historian, who
with the skill of an able pleader, overlooks these great writers, whom
he could not treat with so much want of ceremony, to bring forward the
picture of Myron of Priene, whose history he denominates a romance, and
whose testimony he contumeliously rejects. In order the more completely,
as he thinks, to demolish this humble writer he quotes the following
passage of his work preserved by Athenæus: “The Helots perform for the
Spartans every ignominious service. They are _compelled_ to wear a cap
of dog-skin,[186] to bear a covering of sheep-skin, and are severely
beaten every year without having committed any fault, in order that they
may never forget they are slaves. In addition to this, those amongst
them who, either by their stature or their beauty, raise themselves
above the condition of a slave are condemned to death, and the masters
who do not destroy the most manly of them are liable to
punishment.”[187] The accusation here made is a serious one, and the
apologist naturally feels his indignation kindle against its author. In
this state of mind he employs very harsh language, charges Myron with
“ignorance and partiality,” and altogether speaks as if he were in
possession of facts wherewith to demolish the Prenian’s statement. But
has he any? Not a single one. He misunderstands entirely the gist of
Myron’s words, in the matter of the dog-skin cap, and then, on the
strength of his own error, presumes to accuse him of misrepresentation.
It is at the first blush evident that Myron considered the hardship to
consist, not in the wearing of the cap, but in being compelled to wear
it. Mr. Müller’s examples, consequently, are nothing to the purpose;
they simply prove that other people had endured similar hardships, (the
mention of Laërtes is superfluous,) nevertheless, without having uttered
one syllable to justify his triumph, he proceeds with much
self-satisfaction to remark, that “since Myron _manifestly_
misrepresents this circumstance, _it is very probable_ that his other
objections are founded in error.”[188]
-----
Footnote 185:
Dorians, ii. 38.
Footnote 186:
On this cap see Meursius, Miscell. Lacon. l. i. c. 17. p. 79.
Footnote 187:
Athen. xiv. 74. Cf. Schol. Arist. Nub. 269. In the matter of food the
slaves were in war reduced to live on half the quantity allowed their
masters. Thucyd. iv. 16.
Footnote 188:
Dorians, ii. 39.
-----
But the allegations of Myron, as the reader will perceive, remain not
only untouched, but more confirmed and established than ever by such a
defence. It happens, in fact, that they are true to the letter, and what
is more, are by no means the gravest imputation which can be
substantiated against the Dorian model-state. We shall proceed, however,
step by step examining fairly, and in order, the charges and the
defence. Plutarch,[189] whose testimony, when favourable, is
unhesitatingly accepted, “relates that the Helots were compelled to
intoxicate themselves, and perform indecent dances as a warning to the
Spartan youth.”[190] Shall we credit Plutarch? No we must not; because
“common sense is opposed to so absurd a method of education.” But if
everything in history which we may determine to be opposed to common
sense were on that account to be rejected, we should make sad inroads
upon the domains of antiquity. That which increases the ridicule of the
practice is, that from among those same Helots they selected tutors for
their younger children,[191] as well as companions, so that in the very
article wherein Xenophon[192] discovered the superiority of Lycurgus’s
educational system, it was completely on a level with that of the other
Greeks, habituating the youth to the intimacy and government of
slaves.[193]
-----
Footnote 189:
Lycurg. § 28. To this may be added the testimony of Demetrius
Cydonius: φασὶ καὶ, Λακεδαιμονίους τῇ τῶν Εἱλώτων μέθῃ τοῖς πασὶν
ὑποδεικνύναι τὸ τῆς νήψεως ἀγαθον. ap. Meurs. Miscell. Lacon. 11. 6.
p. 128.
Footnote 190:
Dorians, ii. 39.
Footnote 191:
Mr. Müller’s argument is put in the form of a question: “Is it
possible that the Spartans should have so degraded the men whom they
appointed as tutors over their young children?” Dorians, ii. 39.
Footnote 192:
De Rep. Laced. ii. 1.
Footnote 193:
Plut. Vit. Ages. § 3. The evils of this intercourse are constantly
dwelt upon by the ancients: ὅπου οἰκέτης ἐστιν, εὐθὺς διαφθείρονται οἱ
γεγνόμενοι παῖδες. Dion Chrysost. Orat. t. i. p. 299. Cf. Orat. 41. t.
ii. p. 261. Though it be most true that domestic slaves are generally
corrupt in manners and ignoble in sentiments, yet we may be sure from
an attentive observation, of human nature, that, even were it not so,
their masters would inevitably seek to justify their own cruelty and
injustice by depreciating the moral character of their dependents.
Thus the ablest of Spanish writers, actuated less perhaps by theory
than by instinct, strives to extenuate the conduct of their countrymen
towards the natives of America by attributing to them the most odious
and repulsive qualities: “Les Indiens,” observes Ulloa, “sont moins à
craindre par leur valeur que par leur perfidie, et par la ruse avec
laquelle ils commettent leur attentats. Victorieux par surprise, ils
sont cruels à l’excès, ne connaissent aucun sentiment de compassion.
Leur cruauté est toujours accompagnée de sang froid, leur plaisir est
le carnage; mais vaincus ce sont les gens le plus lâches les plus
pusillanimes qu’on puisse voir. Dans le premier cas ils ont un
souverain plaisir à répandre le sang des malheureux qu’ils surprennent
au dépourvu, dans le second ils cherchent à se disculper s’humilient
jusqu’à la dernière bassesse, condamnent euxmêmes leur furie, prient,
supplient, et se montrent dans toute leur conduite les plus lâches des
hommes. Ce contraste est celui qui doit résulter de la lâcheté et de
la perfidie qui font le charactère de ces barbares.” Mémoires
Philosophiques. Discours. xvii. t. ii. p. 21, et seq.
-----
If, however, the relation of Plutarch stood alone, its force would be
less, though with no face could we reject it while admitting in other
respects his favourable testimony. But from many authors, besides him,
it is clear, that to demoralise the Helots was the constant policy of
Sparta. Thus when the Thasians brought a number of useless dainties to
Agesilaos and his army: “Give them,” said he, “to those Helots, whom it
is better to corrupt than ourselves.”[194] Consistently with the same
system, and the more completely to debase their minds, they were
commanded to sing obscene songs and perform indecent jigs, while the
Pyrrhic dance and every warlike lay was forbidden them. In proof of
this, it is related, that when the Thebans, under Epaminondas, invaded
Laconia, and made prisoners a number of the Helots, they commanded them
to sing them some of the songs of Sparta, of Spendon, for example, or
Alcman, or Terpander. But the Helots[195] professed their inability,
observing, that the acquisition of those lays was forbidden them. In
short, to adopt the words of Theopompos, they were at all times cruelly
and bitterly treated;[196] deluded, sometimes, from the protection of
sanctuary by perjury, and then coolly assassinated in contempt of
religion and oaths, as in the case of those suppliants who took refuge
in the temple of Poseidon at Tænaros.[197]
-----
Footnote 194:
Theopomp. ap. Athen. xiv. 74.
Footnote 195:
Plut. Vit. Lycurg. § 28. On their cruelty and perfidy towards the same
unhappy men see Ælian. Var. Hist. vi. 1. Polyæn. i. 41. 3.
Footnote 196:
Critias, in fact, observes, that, as the freemen of Sparta were of all
men the most free, so were the serfs of Sparta of all slaves the most
slavish. Liban. Declam. xxiv. t. ii. p. 83, seq. Reiske.
Footnote 197:
Theopomp. ap. Athen. vi. 102 Ὅτε οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοὺς ἐκ Ταινάρου
ἱκέτας παρασπονδήσαντες ἀνέστησαν καὶ ἀπέκτειναν, (ἦσαν δὲ οἰκέται τῶν
Εἱλώτων) κατὰ μῆνιν τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος σεισμὸς ἐπιπεσὼν τῇ Σπάρτη, τὴν
πόλιν ἀνδρειότατα κατέσεισεν, ὡς πέντε μόνας ἀπολειφθῆναι οἰκίας ἐξ
ἁπάσης τῆς πόλεως. Æl. Var. Hist. vi. 7. Thucyd. i. 128. Suid. v.
Ταινάριον. t. ii. p. 874, F. Pausanias, however, relates, that the
suppliants in question were not Helots but Lacedæmonians. iv. 24. 5.
vii. 25. 3. Cf. Capperonier, Recherches sur les Hilotes, Mem. de
l’Acad. des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 275.
-----
But all this harsh usage was mild compared with other injuries which the
laws of Sparta inflicted on them. The reader will perceive that I am
about to speak of the Crypteia, not one feature of which, to my mind,
has been softened or explained away, or rendered doubtful by the
ingenious but very useless special pleading of some distinguished
scholars among our contemporaries.[198] Mr. Müller, with much
intrepidity, leads the van of Sparta’s defenders, and, by an artifice
not unfamiliar to rhetoricians, seeks to beat down the authorities on
which belief in the Crypteia rests. He affects to think slightingly of
their means of obtaining information, though certainly, in this respect,
at least, the very meanest of them possessed incalculable advantages
over himself. However, of Isocrates he thus unceremoniously disposes:
“Isocrates speaks of this institution in a very confused manner and from
mere report.”[199] On the contrary, this “old man eloquent,” as Milton
affectionately terms him, luminously, (would that Mr. Müller and I
possessed equal art!) and upon the best authorities,[200] sketches the
history of the Lacedæmonian government, its injustice, its oppressions;
and concludes by describing the annual massacre of the Helots. It is
worthy of remark, that, with Aristotle,[201] he attributes to the Ephori
the direction of this servile war, in which the reins of slaughter were
loosed or tightened by their authority.
-----
Footnote 198:
Capperonier, in the last century, entertained something like
scepticism on the point, though he could not deny that the moral
temperament of the Spartans rendered the existence of the institution
probable. “Le défaut de preuves m’empêche, malgré la ferocité connue
des Lacédémoniens, de rien décider sur l’usage de la Cryptie.” Mem.
&c. p. 284.
Footnote 199:
Dorians, ii. 40, seq.
Footnote 200:
Οἱ τἀκείνων ἀκριβοῦντες. Panathen. § 73.
Footnote 201:
Ap. Plut. Lycurg. § 28.
-----
The relation, however, of Isocrates, who probably descended to
particulars, appears not to have come down to us entire. Plutarch,
though he be the panegyrist, rather than the faithful historian, of
Sparta, has supplied the deficiency. He does so, indeed, reluctantly;
trumpets in the narration with epic flourishes, seeking, by all the art
he is master of, to shield his beloved Lycurgus from the stern but
deserved rebuke of Plato.[202] Too honest, however, was the old Bœotian
entirely to suppress the truth. So that, at length, after much
preparation, the massacre is described hurriedly, briefly, with vehement
unwillingness, but, for that very reason, with the more terrible effect.
-----
Footnote 202:
See the conversation with Megillos in the First Book of the Laws
throughout. Opp. t. vii. p. 201, sqq. And, again, in Book vi. p. 460.
Σχεδὸν γὰρ πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων εἱλωτεία πλείστην
ἀπορίαν παράσχοιτ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἔριν τοῖς μὲν ὡς εὖ, τοῖς δ᾽ ὡς οὐκ εὖ
γεγονυῖα ἐστιν. ἐλάττω δὲ ἥ τε Ἡρακλεωτῶν δουλεία τῆς τῶν Μαριανδυνῶν
καταδουλώσεως ἔριν ἂν ἔχοι, τὸ Θετταλῶν τ᾽ αὖ πενεστικὸν ἔθνος.
-----
Having enumerated the regulations affecting the free citizens, “In
these,” he says, “there is no trace of that injustice and griping
ambition which some object to the institutions of Lycurgus, considering
them well adapted to beget bravery though not honest principles. It was
probably the institution of the Crypteia (if as Aristotle contends, it
proceeded from Lycurgus) that inspired Plato with such an opinion of the
legislator and his laws. According to this ordinance the rulers,
selecting from among the youths those most distinguished for ability,
sent them forth armed with daggers and furnished with the necessary
provisions, to scour the country, separating and concealing themselves
in unfrequented places by day, but issuing out at night and slaughtering
all such of the Helots as they found abroad. Sometimes, indeed, they
fell upon them while engaged in their rural labours in the fields, and
there cut off the best and bravest of the race.”[203] Plutarch felt that
connected with this system, as flowing from the same principle of policy
and designed to effect the same purpose, were those extensive massacres
recorded in history, by one of which more than two thousand of those
unhappy men, having been insidiously deluded into the assertion of
sentiments conformable to the gallant actions they had performed in the
service of the state,[204] were removed in a day. Lulled by the gift of
freedom, crowned, smiled upon, they were conducted to the temples, as if
to implicate the very gods in the treachery:—and then suddenly they
disappeared; nor to this hour has the fate which overtook them been
revealed.[205] Compared with this the slaughter of the Janisaries
appears less culpable.
-----
Footnote 203:
Plut. Vit. Lycur. § 28. Vid. Ubb. Emmium, iii. 127, seq. et Crag. de
Rep. Laced. b. i. c. xi. p. 68.
Footnote 204:
Among other nations where servitude was rendered less offensive, both
by law and manners, men were enabled to place a more generous
confidence in their slaves. Sarmatæ Limigantes Gotthorum vicinorum
suorum armis oppressi, cum justas ad resistendum liberorum hominum
copias non haberent, tanquam in extremo periculo servos suos armarunt,
atque eos contra Gotthos duxerunt. Mox autem, cum à servis
deficientibus appetiti, ac sedibus ejecti patriis essent auxilii ac
consilii inopes ad Constantinum subsidium imploratum, et sedes tutas
petitum se contulerunt. Carol. Sigon. De Occident. Imper. l. iv. p.
67.
Footnote 205:
Thucyd. iv. 80.
-----
But had Sparta no apology to offer, for these actions, to humanity? Her
rulers discovered one which appears to have satisfied their own
consciences. Every year, on taking office, the Ephori, formally, in
their good city of Sparta, declared war against their unarmed and
unhappy vassals, “that they might be massacred under pretence of
law.”[206] Mr. Müller overwhelmed with the weight of these testimonies,
does not yet yield up the point: “Were not these Helots, who in many
districts lived entirely alone, united by despair for the sake of common
protection; and did they not every year kindle a most bloody and
determined war throughout the whole of Laconia?” The historian is
pleasant upon the Helots. Kindle a war! How happens it that the Chinese,
who, at many periods of their history, have rivalled the Helots in
suffering, and like them, too, have rebelled occasionally, yet make
annually no “bloody and determined war” against the Mantchoo Tartars?
The answer is written on every page of the history of the world, and was
put in form by Alexander when he inquired whether one butcher were
afraid of many sheep? Nevertheless, even the spirit of slavery itself
did sometimes revolt against oppression and cruelty, and kindled such
“bloody and determined wars” as Sparta, without foreign aid, was unable
to terminate. They were, in fact, during many years, prevented from
disputing with the Athenians the supremacy in Greece, by contests with
their own vassals.[207] And on the occasion of the great earthquake when
nearly every house in Sparta was shaken to the ground,[208] did not the
Helots rejoice at the calamity, and come flocking to the environs of the
city from the whole country round, in order to put an end to their
tyrants as they were escaping in terror from their tottering
habitations? Revolt, then, was not unfamiliar to the Helots—again and
again was the standard of freedom unfurled[209]—and the day, though
late, at length came, when the Spartan saw his slave placed on a level
with himself.[210]
-----
Footnote 206:
Plut. Lycurg. § 28.
Footnote 207:
Πολέμοις οἰκείοις ἐξειργόμενοι. Thucyd. i. 118.
Footnote 208:
Plut. Cim. § 16. Diod. Sic. xi. 63.
Footnote 209:
Athen. vi. 87.
Footnote 210:
Strab. viii. t. c. 6. t. ii. p. 190.
-----
To render credible this sketch of cruelty, the character and education
of the Spartans must be kept in view:
Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos,
was not their maxim.[211] They loved to trample on the fallen. Even in
boyhood and among themselves, they practised _gouging_ as an
accomplishment, and as an Athenian did music—as a necessary consequence,
even the writers most favourable to their state, confess them to have
been brutal, inhuman, perfidious.[212] Nor among a people so ignorant,
so prejudiced, so narrow-minded, whose understandings were possibly
incapable of comprehending the idea of justice or liberality, can we
altogether wonder at such an outbreak of barbarism. Men have been known
in modern times to shoot slaves for their amusement; a king of France
has been known from the same motive to shoot his subjects, and a learned
professor,[213] not very remarkable for cruelty, has pronounced the
panegyric of that king. There is nothing, therefore, at all incredible
in the Spartan Crypteia, which exactly harmonizes with all we know of
the nation.
-----
Footnote 211:
Ælian. vi. i.
Footnote 212:
In justification of this harsh view of the Spartan character, numerous
ancient authorities of the greatest weight may be cited. On their
extreme licentiousness see the testimony of Agnon. Athen. xiii. 79.
Plato de Legg. viii. t. viii. p. 90. On their tolerance of adultery,
Plut. Paral. Num. § 3. On their inhospitality and sordid avarice,
Aristoph. Pac. 623. Οἱ δ᾽ ἅτ᾽ αἰσχροκερδεῖς καὶ διειρωνόξενοι, κ. τ.
λ. On the avarice of Gylippos, see Max. Tyr. Dissert. p. 133. In the
Acharnes (v. 306, seq.) Aristophanes, again, briefly but energetically
describes the character which the Spartans enjoyed in Greece:
Πῶς δὲ γ᾽ ἂν καλῶς λέγοις ἂν,
εἴπερ ἐσπείσω γ᾽ ἅπαξ,
Οἷσιν οὔτε βωμὸς, οὔτε πίστις,
οὔθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει.
On which the scholiast remarks: ἐπὶ ἀπιστίᾳ γὰρ διεβάλλοντο οἱ
Λακεδαιμόνιοι· καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐν Ἀνδρομάχῃ·
Σπάρτης ἔνοικοι, δόλια βουλευτήρια.
Τρία δὲ ἐγκλήματα παραβασίας προσέθηκεν αὐτοῖς· αἱ γὰρ συνθῆκαι διὰ
τριῶν τελοῦνται, λόγων, ἔργων, χειρῶν, λόγων μὲν, οἱον δι’ ὅρκων,
ἔργων δὲ, διὰ τῶν ἐν βωμοῖς θυσιῶν, χειρῶν δὲ, ἐπειδὴ αἱ πίστεις διὰ
τῶν δεξιῶν γίνονται. καὶ Ὅμηρος·
Δεξιαὶ, ᾖς ἐπέπιθμεν.
The passage in the Andromachè referred to by the scholiast occurs at
v. 445, sqq. Cf. Thucyd. i. 101. v. 35. See above, Book i. chapter ii.
Book ii. chapter viii.
Footnote 213:
M. Ant. Muret. Orat. xvii. p. 153. The achievement of the king is thus
related by honest Mezeray: Numbers of Huguenots having collected
together on the banks of the Seine his most Christian Majesty, from an
apartment of the Louvre “taschoit de les canarder avec sa grande
arquebuse à giboyer.” Abrégé Chronologique, iii. 1083.
-----
An attempt, however, has been made to explain the whole away, by the
unauthorized inference, that in the casual glance which Megillos, in the
laws of Plato, makes at this institution, we have a complete description
of it in all its features. But very far is this from being the case. The
Spartan interlocutor is there making out a defence of his own country,
and consequently alludes only to such points as appear capable of a
favourable interpretation. Of course he is careful to keep the massacre
of the Helots in the back-ground; and merely says, “There is also
amongst us what is called the Crypteia, the pain of undergoing which is
scarcely credible. It consists in going barefoot in storms, in enduring
the privations of the camp, performing menial offices without a servant,
and wandering night and day through the whole country.”[214] This is the
picture of a Spartan, dwelling on his own hardships; which, however,
must have been endured for some purpose, and what was that? If exercise
and military seasoning were alone aimed at, where was the necessity for
that concealment, that lying in ambush, which the word itself signifies?
It is well known that the Helots were a constant terror to their
masters—that whenever occasion offered, they revolted—whenever any enemy
to the state presented himself, they joined him—that they fled whenever
flight was possible—and were, it is confessed, so numerous and so bold,
that Sparta was compelled, in treaties with foreign states, to stipulate
“for aid against her own subjects.”[215] What more probable, therefore,
under the circumstances, than the institution of the Crypteia? What more
in harmony with the genius of the people?
-----
Footnote 214:
Plat, de Legg. i. t. vii. p. 196. Bekk. Cf. Müller, Hist. of the
Dorians, ii. 41.
Footnote 215:
Dorians, ii. 43. Thucyd. i. 118. v. 14. 23.
-----
There can be no doubt that on certain extraordinary occasions these
chief of slaves obtained their freedom from the state; but that any
“legal way to liberty and citizenship stood open to them,”[216] does not
appear.[217] The chain of “probabilities” by which this conclusion is
attempted to be arrived at is perfectly unique, and would lead with
equal force to any other whatever. “The many intermediate steps, it is
said, _seem to prove_ the existence of a regular mode of transition from
the one rank to the other.” It has not, however, been proved that there
were any intermediate steps; and the very attempt is based almost wholly
on a fragment of that Myron of Priene, whose Messenian History Mr.
Müller denominates a romance, and whose “partiality and ignorance” he
considers so self-evident but a few passages back.
1. The Helots who were esteemed worthy of an “especial confidence were
called ἀργεῖοι.”[218] This however, is no intermediate step, as it is
not said that their being thus called was necessarily followed by any
result.
2. The ἐρυκτῆρες enjoyed the same “(especial confidence) in war.”[219]
On points of this kind it is necessary to rely on some authority, and
the historian adduces none.[220] It has, indeed, been conjectured, from
the derivation of their name, that this class of freedmen served as a
body-guard to their former masters. Positively, however, nothing
whatever is known of their condition.
-----
Footnote 216:
Müll. Dorians, ii. 43.
Footnote 217:
In fact Dion Chrysostom states most distinctly, that there was no such
way: Οὐδὲ ὑπάρχει τοῖς Εἵλωσιν γενέσθαι Σπαρτιάταις, ὅθεν δὴ καὶ
διατελοῦσιν ἐπιβουλεύοντες τῇ Σπάρτη. Orat. xxxvi. t. ii. p. 92.
Reisk.
Footnote 218:
Dorians. ii. 43. Hesych. in v. Ἀργεῖο ... ἐκ τῶν Εἱλώτων οἱ
πιστευόμενοι οὕτως ἐλέγοντο. t. i. p. 514, seq. Albert. This has
previously been remarked by Capperonier: “On lit dans Hesychius, qu’on
donnoit le nom d’Argiens à ceux qui se distinguoient par leur
fidelité.” Recherches sur les Hilotes, Mem. de l’Acad. des Inscript.
t. xxiii. p. 285. Cf. Crag. de Rep. Laced. l. i. c. xi. p. 70.
Footnote 219:
Cf. Anim. ad Athen. t. viii. p. 603.
Footnote 220:
Cf. Athen. vi. 102.
-----
3. The ἀφέται were, _probably_, released from “all service.” The
expression of Eustathius[221] is, “being made free, they were called
aphetæ.”
-----
Footnote 221:
Ad Iliad, ο. p. 1031. 10. Cf. ν. p. 933. 51.
-----
4. “The δεσποσιοναύται,[222] who served in the fleet, resembled,
_probably_, the freedmen of Attica, who were called the
_out-dwellers_.”[223] This phrase is calculated to convey an erroneous
impression, as though these freedmen necessarily took up their quarters
in the country, whereas οἱ χωρὶς οἰκούντες merely signifies persons who
have establishments of their own. With respect to the Desposionautæ,
they would appear to have been slaves brought up in their masters’
houses, and afterwards enfranchised, and ordered to be employed about
the fleet.
-----
Footnote 222:
Cf. Eustath. ad Il. λ. 784. 15.
Footnote 223:
See Bœckh. Pub. Econ. of Ath. i. 349.
-----
5. “When they (the Helots) received their liberty, they also obtained
permission _to dwell where they wished_, and, _probably_, at the same
time, a portion of land was granted to them without the lot of their
former masters.” This is drawing a general inference from a particular
case. Thucydides,[224] the authority relied on, speaks only of those
Helots who having served in Thrace under Brasidas, obtained
enfranchisement on their return, together with a portion of the lands
recently taken from the Lepreatæ. On other occasions, as the whole of
Laconia and Messenia had been divided among the citizens, it is
difficult to understand whence the state could have obtained lands to
bestow. The _probability_, therefore, is, that they bestowed none.
-----
Footnote 224:
l. v. § 34.
-----
Of the Neodamodes or “new citizens,” our knowledge is little less scanty
than of the other classes of freedmen. That they were enfranchised
Helots is confidently maintained by several learned writers, though
others suppose them to have been the sons of enfranchised Helots.[225]
This latter supposition, however, is inconsistent with the testimony of
Myron, who observes, that “the Lacedæmonians often emancipated their
slaves, some of whom were then called _aphetæ_, others _adespotæ_,
others _eructeres_, others _desposionautæ_; there were others whom they
denominated _neodamodes_, different from the Helots.”[226] Of those
modern writers who have treated of the Spartan institutions, some elude
the discussion altogether, while others acquiescing in the commonly
received opinion contend, that the Neodamodes were those Helots who,
having conducted themselves gallantly in war, had for some time enjoyed
their freedom. But this decision, however plausible it may seem, is by
no means satisfactory. For, wherever Thucydides, or any other historian
of authority, has occasion to mention this class of freedmen, they
appear to be carefully distinguished from the enfranchised Helots. Thus,
when the companions of Brasidas, before spoken of, had received their
freedom, and were sent as settlers into the Lepreatis, it is added, that
they were accompanied by a number of Neodamodes.[227] But if this term
signified nothing more than Helots who had been rewarded with liberty,
in what did they differ from the other Helots who had likewise been made
free? One learned commentator,[228] not without ingenuity, infers that
they were a class of tributary subjects inhabiting the neighbourhood of
the capital, on whom the right of citizenship had been conferred, though
they did not enjoy perfect equality with the elder citizens. But, as it
is distinctly stated, that they were enfranchised slaves, we are
compelled to abandon even this hypothesis, and seek to discover some
other clue to the truth.
-----
Footnote 225:
Dr. Arnold, in Thucyd. v. 34. Hudson, in Var. Lect. on the same
passage observes, that “Neodamodes fuisse Helotas, contra quam censet
Cragius (de Rep. Lac. i. 12,) clare ostendit Meursius in Miscell.
Lacon. ii. 7.” Thucyd. t. iii. p. 492. Bip. Cf. Diod. Sic. xii.
Footnote 226:
Athen. vi. 102. Cf. Herm. Polit. Antiq. §§ 24. 48. et Valckenaar ad
Herod. ix. 11, where the condition of the Periœci is sought to be
explained. Suid. v. νεοδαμ. ii. 215. Animad. in Athen. t. viii. p.
603. Ubbo Emmius, iii. 138.
Footnote 227:
Thucyd. v. 34. 67. vii. 58. Xenoph. Helen. i. 3. 17. iii. 1. 4. iii.
36. 6. v. 2. 24. vi. 1. 4. I cannot discern the force of Schneider’s
argument in his remark on Thucyd. vii. 58: “Sed locus Thucydidis
clarissimus est: δύναται δὲ τὸ νεοδαμῶδες ἐλεύθερον ἤδη εἶναι. i. e.
significat vocabulum νεοδαμῶδεις homines _nuper_ libertate donatos.”
Not to insist on the opinion of Æmilius Portus, that the above words
have crept from the margin into the text, the _recently_ enfranchised
Helots were as much “homines _nuper_ libertate donatos,” as the
Neodamodes. And yet, when sent together to Lepreon they are carefully
distinguished. See Hudson. Var. Lect. Thucyd. iv. 460. Bip.
Footnote 228:
Morus. ap. Schneid. Ind. Græc. ad Xen. Hellen. p. 468. Cf. Perizon. ad
Ælian. xii. 43.
-----
It has already been observed, that the Spartans appear to have possessed
numbers of slaves properly so called, besides their oppressed and
miserable bondsmen, with whom they seem often to have been confounded.
These, by being more constantly about their masters, were, doubtless,
able to gain more upon their affections, and could not possibly be
viewed with equal dread, since they were necessarily brought together
from various countries, and connected consequently by no bond of union.
As often, therefore, as the state required a fresh supply of citizens,
it is from among these that they appear to have been selected; and that,
too, in numbers so considerable, that Agesilaos, on one occasion, was
enabled to select two thousand to attend him on an expedition wherein he
was accompanied by only thirty Spartans.[229]
-----
Footnote 229:
Plut. Agesil. § 6. Cf. Xenoph. Hellen. i. 3. 15. iii. 1. 3. v. 2. 24.
Diod. Sicul. xv. 20.
-----
Another class of persons[230] commonly ranked among the Laconian slaves
were the Mothaces,[231] to determine whose origin, rank, and condition,
appears to be a matter of no small difficulty. That they never, during
the flourishing ages of the commonwealth, formed any part of the servile
caste may be regarded as certain, whatever may be found to the contrary
in the grammarians of later times. For the Mothaces, observes Athenæus,
though not Lacedæmonians, were _free_. And to the same purpose speaks
Philarchos, whose words are: “The Mothaces were the brotherlike
companions of the Lacedæmonians. For every youthful citizen, according
to his means, chose one, two, or more of these to be brought up along
with him; and, notwithstanding that they enjoyed not the rank of
citizens, they were _free_, and participated in all the advantages of
the national education. It is even said that Lysander, who defeated the
Athenians at sea, was one of this class of men, but raised to the rank
of citizen for his valour.”[232] To the same section of the Laconian
population belonged also Callicratidas and Gylippos,[233] a circumstance
which of itself appears completely to overthrow the hypothesis of those
who derive the Mothaces directly from the Helots; for Cleandridas, the
father of Gylippos,[234] was chosen to accompany King Pleistoanax, as
chief of his councillors, during an expedition into Attica, an honour
which would not, I imagine, have been conferred upon a Helot. Again,
Lysander, whom by one authority we are taught to regard as a Mothax, is
by another spoken of not barely as a Spartan, but as descended from the
Heracleidæ.[235]
-----
Footnote 230:
See Book ii. chapter vii.
Footnote 231:
Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 632. Ubbo. Emm. iii. 132, seq. Mention is
made in Plutarch of two Syntrophoi of Cleomenes, who were called
Mothaces, and these we find at the head of a party of soldiers. Vit.
Cleom. § 8. Cf. Valck. Diatrib. p. 231.
Footnote 232:
Athen. vi. 102. Müller, alluding to this passage, says, “In Athenæus
they are called _free_ in reference to their _future_, not their
_past_, condition.” Dor. ii. 44. n. b. By the same rule, the vicious
man who is one day to be virtuous, might, in the midst of his crimes,
be pronounced a pattern of morality.
Footnote 233:
Ælian. Var. Hist. xii. 43. Perizon.
Footnote 234:
Cf. Diod. Sicul. xiii. 106, who calls the father Clearchos.
Footnote 235:
Plut. Vit. Lysand. § 2.
-----
How then are we to reconcile these seeming contradictions? Probably by
supposing, that the Mothaces consisted, first of the sons of such
Spartans as were too poor to defray the expenses of their maintenance
and education,[236] which seems to have been the case with Aristocritos,
the father of Lysander, whose early indigence is celebrated; secondly of
bastard Spartans, who it is well known shared the education of their
legitimate brethren; and thirdly, of the sons of persons of rank and
distinction among the Periœci. To these perhaps, in very late times, the
sons of favourite slaves born in the house may have been added, though
there is no ground for believing that this was habitually the case in
the earlier ages. Be this, however, as it may, it seems to be quite
evident, that Lycurgus laid much less stress on “birth and blood” than
on that steadiness and patience of toil which are the first qualities of
a soldier. Whoever from childhood upward gave proof of these, by
submitting unmurmuringly to the rigorous trial he enjoined the youth of
Sparta, was elevated in the end to the rank of a citizen, while they who
shrunk from the severity of his discipline, according to some even
though they had descended from the blood royal, sunk into a state of
degradation or were even confounded with the Helots.[237] Foreigners who
enjoyed the privileges of this system of instruction received among the
Lacedæmonians the name of Trophimoi.
-----
Footnote 236:
Cf. Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 2. 15, where the regulations of the Persian
system are evidently mere copies of those which prevailed, at least in
earlier ages, at Sparta. Plut. Institut. Lac. § 21, seq. Müller, Dor.
ii. 314, seq.
Footnote 237:
Teles, ap. Stob. Florileg. Tit. 40. 8. Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ οὐδὲν τῶν
τοιούτων ὄνειδος ἡγοῦνται· ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν μετασχόντα τῆς ἀγωγῆς καὶ
ἐμμείναντα, κἂν ξένος, κἂν ἐξ εἵλωτας, ὁμοίως τοῖς ἀριστοῖς τιμῶσι·
τὸν δὲ μὴ ἐμμείναντα, κἂν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς τοὺς εἵλωτας
ἀποστέλλουσι, καὶ τῆς πολιτείας ὁ τοιοῦτος οὐ μετέχει. The testimony
of Dion Chrysostom (Orat. xxxvi. t. ii. p. 92), as we have seen above,
is in direct contradiction with this of Teles; but if we suppose them
to speak of different periods of Spartan history, they may both be
right.
-----
Of the Epeunactæ, a peculiar class of freedmen, we have the following
curious account: Having in the Messenian war lost a number of Spartans,
the government began to apprehend that the enemy might discover its
weakness; to conceal which a Helot was substituted in the place of every
fallen warrior. Shortly afterwards these men were raised to the rank of
citizens and denominated Epeunactæ, because they occupied the beds
(εὐναι) of other men.[238]
-----
Footnote 238:
Athen. vi. 101.
-----
But wherever men are base-minded there will be slaves; and accordingly
we find that, in all other parts of Greece, no less than at Sparta, this
miserable class existed for the performance of servile drudgery.
Posidonios, the Stoic,[239] observes, that persons lacking sense to
provide for themselves, voluntarily became the slaves of any who would
take care of them. Thus the Maryandinians submitted to the citizens of
Heraclea,[240] to be their perpetual serfs, stipulating only that they
should always be furnished with the necessaries of life, and on no
account be sold out of the country. They were in fact simply
tributaries, as is implied in the verse of Euphorion, the epic poet,
“Gift-bearers called, who cower before their chiefs.”[241]
-----
Footnote 239:
Ποσειδώνιος δέ φησιν ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, πολλούς τινας, ἑαυτῶν οὐ
δυναμένους προΐστασθαι διὰ τὸ τῆς διανοίας ἀσθενὲς, ἐπιδουναι ἑαυτους
εἰς τὴν τῶν συνετωτέρων ὑπηρεσίαν, ὅπως, παρ’ ἐκείνων τυγχάνοντες τῆς
εἰς τὰ ἀναγκαῖα ἐπιμελείας, αὐτοὶ πάλιν ἀποδιδῶσιν ἐκείνοις δι’ αὐτῶν
ἅπερ ἂν ὦσιν ὑπηρετεῖν δυνατοί. Athen vi. 84. Cf. Grot. de Jur. Bell.
et Pac. ii. v. 27.
Footnote 240:
Eustath. ad Il. β. t. i. p. 223. 38.
Footnote 241:
Δωροφόροι καλεοίαθ᾽ ὑποφρίσσοντες ἄνακτας. Athen. vi. 84.
-----
This appellation of Gift-bearers—though their gifts, like the royal
benevolences of our ancestors, were extorted from them—was no doubt
however invented, as Callicratos[242] observes, to disguise the true
nature of their condition. Besides engaging in agricultural labours,
they likewise served on board ship, and consequently contributed greatly
to increase the commerce and naval power of Heraclea.[243]
-----
Footnote 242:
Athen. vi. 84.
Footnote 243:
Aristot. Polit. vii. 5. 7. Müller, ii. 62.
-----
The Thessalians denominated Penestæ,[244] not those who were born in
servitude, but persons who were made captive in war. They were sometimes
also known by the name of Thettaloiketes. Archemachos, in his History of
Eubœa, affords illustration of a very curious point of ancient history
mentioned briefly but with some variation, by Thucydides.[245] According
to him, certain Bœotians migrating northward, founded Arnæa in Thessaly;
after which some returned to Bœotia, while, delighted with the land,
others remained, and became the voluntary villains of the Thessalians.
Here, however, as elsewhere in like cases, it was stipulated that they
should neither be put to death nor sold beyond the borders; while on
their part they agreed to cultivate the land and pay the requisite
tribute.[246] On this account they were called Menestæ,[247] that is
“those who remain,” which appellation was by degrees corrupted into
Penestæ. Of these serfs many were richer than their masters.
Euripides,[248] in his “Phryxas,” observes, moreover, that they were
sometimes of very ancient families. Thucydides, on the other hand,
represents them to have been the original inhabitants of Arnè, driven
thence by the Thessalians sixty years after the Trojan war, though a
portion of the nation had long before settled in Bœotia and joined in
the expedition against Troy.[249]
-----
Footnote 244:
Valcken. Diatrib. in Perd. Dram. Eurip. p. 216. b. Ruhnk. ad Tim. Lex.
v. πενεστικόν. Eustath. ad Il. β. p. 223. ν. p. 933. π. p. 1120.
Ammonius. v. πελάτης. Valcken. Animad. iii. 8. p. 192. Schol,
Aristoph. Vesp. 1264. Suid. v. πενέσται. t. ii. p. 479. Strab. l. xii.
t. ii. p. 817. Casaub.—Hesych. v. πενέσται. t. ii. p. 910. Albert.
Footnote 245:
See Poppo. Proleg. in Thucyd. ii. 306. 308. Cf. Aristot. Pol. ii. 9.
28.
Footnote 246:
Athen. vi. 85.
Footnote 247:
“But,” says Hermann, “was the name derived from μένειν, Athen. vi. 88
(Cf. Welcker ad Theogn. p. xx.) or from πένεσθαι, Dionys. Hal. ii. 9.
p. 255, or were they a distinct race? On this resemblance to the
Italian clients, see Niebuhr. vol. i. p. 318.” (1. 277. Engl. Trans.)
Niebuhr, however, remarks, that “the same relation which, in Thessaly,
was rude and revolting, might, at Rome, be refined by different
manners and a better spirit.”
Footnote 248:
Valcken. Diatrib. p. 216. b. Athen. vi. 85.
Footnote 249:
Thucyd. i. 12. Steph. Byzant. v. Ἄρνη.
-----
A state of things not greatly dissimilar[250] prevailed in Crete, where
the servile caste was divided into several classes: first, those of the
cities, called Chrysonetæ, or “bought with gold,” who were doubtless
barbarians; second, those of the country, who received the name of
Aphamiotæ,[251] from their being bound to the Aphamiæ, or estates of the
landed gentry. These were the aboriginal tribes of the island reduced to
servitude by a nation of foreign conquerors. They were sometimes
likewise denominated Clarotæ,[252] from their having been divided among
the conquerors by κλᾶρος, or lot; or, according to others, from their
being located on the lots of the citizens which were called κλᾶροι.[253]
In condition, the Aphamiotæ resembled the Helots,[254] and differed from
the peasantry, or Hypekooi,[255] in much the same degree as the
purchased private slaves of the Turks differ from their _rayahs_, or
subjects. These are habitually protected from being sold out of the
country; though in cases of revolt the captives are reduced to the level
of the common slaves, and sold like cattle. Thus the markets of Egypt
were crowded with Cretans after the late revolt against Mohammed Ali.
Third, there existed in every state in Crete a class of public bondsmen
denominated Mnoia or Mnoa, because reduced to that condition by
Minos.[256] These serfs cultivated the public lands, upon what
conditions is not exactly known: it merely appears that they were
compelled to furnish the body of the citizens a certain sum of money,
together with a part of their flocks and herds and agricultural
produce.[257] That they were sufficiently numerous and powerful to
inspire their masters with dread, is evident from the regulation by
which they were excluded from the gymnasia, and prohibited the use of
arms.
-----
Footnote 250:
See on the subject Classes of Crete, Gœttling. Excurs. ad Aristot.
Pol. p. 473, sqq. Müller. Dor. ii. The undertaker’s business in this
country was entrusted to slaves, who obtained the name of Ergatones.
Hesych. ap. Meurs. Cret. ii. 13. p. 190.
Footnote 251:
Hesych. in voce. t. ii. p. 635. Albert.—Strab. l. xv. t. ii. p. 1027.
l. xii. t. ii. p. 817. Casaub.
Footnote 252:
Suid. in v. i. 1461.
Footnote 253:
Cf. Müll. Dor. ii. 51.
Footnote 254:
Cf. Eustath. ad Iliad, ο. p. 1031.
Footnote 255:
Polyb. iv. 53. The Periœci of Crete bore the same relation to their
lords as the agricultural caste did in Egypt to the nobility. Arist.
Pol. vii. 9.
Footnote 256:
Vid. Ilgen. De Scol. Poës. p. 108.
Footnote 257:
Athen. iv. 22. Cf. Gœttling. ad Arist. Pol. Excurs. ii. p. 473.
-----
Besides these, there was another class of the Cretan population which
must by no means be confounded with the slaves or serfs,—I mean, the
Hypekooi.[258] These were the inhabitants of the smaller towns who had
lost their political independence, but were permitted the use of arms,
and allowed to frequent the public places of exercise, like the nobler
citizens.[259]
-----
Footnote 258:
Athen. vi. 84.
Footnote 259:
Gœttling. Excurs. ii. De Rep. Cretens. p. 474.
-----
In the city of Cydonia, during certain festivals of Hermes, the slaves
were left masters of the place, into which no free citizen had
permission to enter; and if he infringed this regulation it was in their
power to chastise him with whips.[260] In other parts of Crete customs
similar to those of the Roman Saturnalia prevailed; for, while the
slaves in the Hermæan festival were carousing and taking their ease,
their lords, travestied into domestics, waited upon them at table, and
performed, in their stead, all other menial offices. Something of the
same kind took place during the month Gerœstion, at Trœzen, where the
citizens feasted their slaves on one day of the great annual festival,
and played at dice with them.[261] Among the Babylonians, moreover, we
find a similar custom; for, during the Sacæan festival, which lasted
five days, and was celebrated in the month of August,[262] the owners
waited on their slaves, one of whom, habited in a royal robe, enacted
the part of king.
-----
Footnote 260:
Athen. vi. 84.
Footnote 261:
Athen. xiv. 44.
Footnote 262:
Λῷος among the Macedonians. Suid. ii. 60. Anim. ad Athen. xiv. 44.
-----
Upon the whole it may be inferred, that the treatment and condition of
the Cretan serfs were milder than in any other Doric state, though it
would be incorrect to decide,[263] that they were less oppressed than in
any other state in all Greece, since we discover in the song of Hybrias
traces not to be mistaken of their abject state:
Great riches have I in my spear and sword,
And hairy shield, like a rampart thrown
Before me in war; for by these I am lord
Of the fields where the golden harvests are grown;
And by these I press forth the red red wine,
While the Mnotæ around salute me king;
Approaching, trembling, these knees of mine,
With the dread which the spear and the faulchion bring.[264]
-----
Footnote 263:
Müll. Dor. ii. 53.
Footnote 264:
Athen. xv. 50. Cf. Ilgen. de Scol. Poës. xxvi. p. 102, sqq.
-----
The Periœci of Crete are said never to have revolted against their
masters; but this arose, as Aristotle observes, from the circumstance
that every state having serfs of the same kind, it was not for the
interest of any one in their wars to set their bondsmen a bad example by
enticing any to join in those struggles.[265]. The Penestæ of Thessaly,
and the Helots, often joined the enemy, because the neighbouring states
possessed no similar serfs. But, in the case of the Cretan Periœci, the
circumstance already noticed of their not being allowed to frequent the
gymnasia,[266] or possess arms, will account satisfactorily for their
perseverance in the ancient manners, without supposing in them any
preference for those manners, which, as they were deprived of all the
privileges of citizens, they could scarcely have felt.[267]
-----
Footnote 265:
Aristot. Pol. ii. 9. 28.
Footnote 266:
Cf. Arist. Pol. ii. 5. 20.
Footnote 267:
Cf. Müll. Dorians, ii. 54.
-----
Respecting the servile classes in other Grecian states our information
is very scanty: we simply know that the serfs of the Syracusans were
denominated Killicyrii,[268] and exceedingly numerous, so that “more in
number than the Killicyrii,” became a proverb. They would seem to have
dwelt chiefly in the country like the Cretan Mnotæ. In process of time,
however, their multitude inspired them with courage; they assaulted and
drove out their masters, and, fortune favouring their enterprise,
retained possession of Syracuse. Among several of the Italian states,
the subject classes were known by the name of Pelasgi. The people of
Rhodes reduced and kept in bondage the inhabitants of Caunos, and the
celebrated painter Protogenes[269] was the son of one of these bondsmen.
-----
Footnote 268:
Herod. vii. 155. Plat. De Legg. t. vii. p. 205. Suid. in v.
καλλικυρίοι, i. 1359. Eustathius, however, places the Killicyrii in
Crete, and the Ἀρότται (μνῷται?) in Syracuse, ad Il. β. t. i. p. 223.
37.
Footnote 269:
Plin. Nat. Hist. xxxv. 36. Meurs. Rhod. p. 35.
-----
In the same relation stood the Bithynians to the people of Byzantium;
the Leleges to the Carians, and the Katanocophori to the people of
Sicyon.[270] These last would seem to have been originally[271] merely
the rustic population deprived of their freedom by the tyrants, who
compelled them to affect a mean and squalid appearance, and to wear
sheepskin cloaks,[272] that they might be ashamed to frequent the city,
where they would have been exposed to the laughter and insults of the
rabble.
-----
Footnote 270:
Eustath. ad Il. π. p. 1120. Athen. vi. 101. The institution of slavery
among the Argives was denominated ἄβουτον, (Hesych. in v.) because
their serfs originally, I suppose, were too poor to possess oxen.
Footnote 271:
Sch. Aristoph. Concion. 719. Poll. vii. 68. Cf. Steph. Byzant. v.
Χῖος. p. 758. b.
Footnote 272:
The Peisistratidæ pursued the same policy in Attica. Aristoph. Lysist.
18, sqq. Suid. v. κατωνάκαι, i. 1421.
-----
The corresponding class among the Arcadians, denominated Prospelatæ[273]
were said to have amounted to three hundred thousand in number. Their
treatment was probably more lenient than in many other parts of Greece,
as we find them on public festivals sitting down at table with their
masters, like our old farm-servants, eating of the same food, and
drinking from the same cup.[274]
-----
Footnote 273:
Eustath. ad Il. π. p. 1120. Philost. Vit. Apoll. Tyan. viii. 7. 12,
who observes that, in later times, the Arcadians though more attached
to liberty than any other Greeks, yet maintained a great number of
slaves, standing in need of husbandmen, goatherds, swineherds,
herdsmen, and drove-keepers, and expert woodsmen. The Corinthians had
forty-six myriads of slaves, for which reason the Pythian oracle
called them Chœnix-measurers, probably because they allowed their
slaves a chœnix of corn per day. Athen. vi. 103. Under the tyranny of
Athenion the citizens of Athens were at one time reduced to the fourth
part of a chœnix of barley per diem, which, observes the sophist, was
rather a cock’s food than a man’s. Athen. v. 53.
Footnote 274:
Theopomp. ap. Athen. iv. 31. This historian speaks in another passage
of people who in the present text of Athenæus are denominated Ariæi,
who possessing three hundred thousand slaves, (a favourite number with
Theopompos,) were enabled to spend their whole lives in mirth and
jollity: Ἀριαῖοι δὲ φησὶ, κέκτηνται προσπελατῶν, ὥσπερ εἱλώτων,
τριάκοντα μυριάδασ· καθ᾽ ἑκάστην δὲ ἡμέραν μεθύουσι, καὶ ποιοῦνται
συνουσίας, καὶ διάκεινται πρὸς ἐδωδὴν καὶ πόσιν ἀκρατέστερον. Athen.
x. 60. Cf. vi. 101.
-----
BOOK VI.
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
CHAPTER I.
CONDITION OF THE POOR.
Respecting the condition of the poor, in ancient nations, very little is
commonly known, the great historians, the tragic poets, and the other
classic writers who enjoy what may be termed popularity, not having
bestowed their attention on the subject; and to mine, for this species
of knowledge, amid the speculations of philosophers, or the dusky
rubbish of scholiasts and lexicographers, being a task for which few
have patience. Even those writers who might have been expected to enter
fully into this matter, supply but slight and unsatisfactory
information, either because they attached little importance to the
question, or because it did not enter into their design to examine in
all their details the poor-laws of Athens, or the numerous sources of
private and public charity which circumscribed the operation of those
laws. To the best of my ability I shall endeavour to supply the
deficiency.
In the earlier ages of the commonwealth there existed no class of
citizens so necessitous as to require the aid of charity.[275] The
democracy was not disgraced by the beggary of one of its members; for,
though many, compared with their neighbours, might be poor, none were
reduced to sordid indigence, or so lacked credit as to be unable to
command the means of engaging in some profitable branch of industry.
Afterwards, however, through the calamitous events of war, and that
deterioration seemingly inherent in all forms of government, the number
of the indigent exceeded that of the wealthy,[276] (as in every modern
country it does,) and distress and destitution occupying entirely the
thoughts of the sufferers, corroded to the core that spirit of
patriotism which had distinguished their ancestors. But the institutions
of Athens, having been truly designed to promote the happiness and
provide for the wants of the people, the attention of the legislature
was immediately directed to the evil.
-----
Footnote 275:
Before the establishment, however, of the Athenian commonwealth, when
Greece had not yet emerged from the period of barbarism, piratical
expeditions were, by many of the smaller states, undertaken for the
sake of providing for the poor. Thucyd. i. 5.
Footnote 276:
Τότε μὲν οὐδεὶς ἦν τῶν πολιτῶν ἐνδεὴς τῶν ἀναγκαίων οὐδὲ προσαιτῶν
τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τὴν πόλιν κατῄσχυνε, νῦν δὲ πλείους εἰσὶν οἱ
σπανίζοντες τῶν ἐχόντων. Isocrat. Areop. § 38.
-----
As this was the first developement of the spirit of charity, it
naturally appeared feeble at the outset, and only acquired strength and
volume by degrees. A beginning was made in the case of those who had
been disabled in war,[277] and of the children left behind by citizens
who fell in defence of their country.
-----
Footnote 277:
Καὶ νόμους αὐτὸς ἑτέρους ἔγραψεν, ᾧν ἐστι καὶ ὁ τοὺς πηρωθέντας ἐν
πολέμῳ δημοσίᾳ τρέφεσθαι κελεύων. Plut. Solon. § 31. See the other
authorities collected by Meursius. Them. Att. i. 10. p. 27. Cf. Petit,
Legg. Att. viii. 3. p. 559. Aristotle, in a passage of his Politics,
(ii. 5. 4,) has been supposed to attribute the honour of this idea to
Hippodamos, who, he says, proposed public rewards for useful
inventions, and maintenance and education for the children of slain
warriors. But St. Hilaire, who translates him in this sense, seems to
be mistaken. Aristotle says, that Hippodamos proposed such a law, as
if it were new:—“Now such a law,” he says, “existed at Athens, and in
other states.” Cf. Gœttling. ad loc. p. 327, sqq. St. Hil. i. 147.
-----
To the former a pension, in early times of one obolos a-day, was
allowed: the latter[278] may be said to have been adopted by the state
which maintained and educated them till the age of eighteen, when,
having been taught some trade or business, they were considered able to
provide for themselves.[279]
-----
Footnote 278:
Poll. viii. 91. Gœttlieb. ad Plat. Menex. p. 62, seq.
Footnote 279:
Aristid. Panath. i. 190. Jebb. Μόνοι δὲ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων τρία ταῦτα
ἐνομίσατε· τῶν μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως τελευτησάντων αὐτῶν μὲν ἐπαίνους
ἐπὶ ταῖς ταφαῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἔτος λέγειν· τούς δέ παῖδας δημοσίᾳ
τρέφειν ἄχρις ἥβης, καὶ τηνικαῦτα ἀποπέμπειν ἐπὶ τοὺς πατρῴους οἴκους
μετὰ τῶν πανοπλιῶν· τοὺς δὲ ἀδυνάτους τῶν πολιτῶν δημοσίᾳ τρέφειν.
-----
With whom this humane institution originated is not agreed. In the case
of disabled soldiers the honour has, by some, been attributed to
Peisistratos, by others to Solon. Bœckh, though he acknowledges that the
latter “certainly gave the example to Peisistratos,” considers it not
improbable that, for the benefit of this important lesson, humanity is
indebted to the tyrant, who, he observes, “was of a mild disposition;
and usurpers are generally glad to seize every opportunity of conferring
a benefit, with a view to make themselves popular; nor would the
Athenians, with their hatred to tyranny, have attributed this honour to
him if he had not deserved it.”[280]
-----
Footnote 280:
Publ. Econ. of Athen. i. 324.
-----
Of this I am not sure. Peisistratos, a consummate politician, having
unjustly rendered himself master of the state, was, no doubt, careful to
appropriate to himself as many as possible of the honours due to Solon,
the mildest of all legislators; and, if he abstained from abrogating
such a law, might contrive to pass for its author. Certain, at all
events, it is, that a tradition long existed among the ancients which
attributed the institution to Solon;[281] and however mild and popular
in manners the tyrant may have been, it will still, perhaps, be
acknowledged that in those qualities he was excelled by the great
legislator.
-----
Footnote 281:
Schol. ined. ad Æschin. cont. Timarch. p. 14. 40. ap. Taylor, ad Lys.
Orat. Att. t. ii. p. 537. Dobs.—Diog. Laert. i. 2. 8.
-----
By what steps the law, originally instituted with reference solely to
citizens disabled in war, came afterwards to embrace the aged, the sick,
the blind, and infirm of every description, is not known. It did not,
however, require them to be absolutely destitute before they could
receive relief. Any citizen whose property did not exceed three minæ, or
twelve pounds sterling,[282] was entitled to the allowance; to eke out
which he might keep a small shop, or apply himself to any other branch
of industry within his competence. The laws, in fact, were on this point
exceedingly liberal, justly considering it to be the duty of society to
make up as far as possible for the injuries of fortune. There was little
danger of the state’s humanity being abused. The people themselves
examined into every case, which in a community so limited they could
easily do, and afterwards it was still in the power of any citizen, who
suspected imposition, to bring an action against the offender before the
Senate of Five Hundred.
-----
Footnote 282:
Harpocrat, v. ἀδύνατοι. Cf. not. Vales. et Suid. v. t. i. p. 89, b.
-----
The speech of a defendant in a cause of this kind has come down to us.
It was written for the unfortunate citizen by Lysias; and I own I can
discover in it nothing of that “jesting tone,” which, in the opinion of
some writers, proves it to be a mere rhetorical exercise.[283] On the
contrary, it breathes of that manly confidence, which it became the
citizen, however poor, of a republican state, to feel. We must not
conceive of him as a miserable pauper whining to a board of guardians.
He understood the intent and meaning of the law, and certain that his
case entitled him to the relief it was designed to afford, he spoke
before the Senate like a man claiming no more than was equitably due to
him; and too well assured of the humanity and justice of his countrymen
to be under much apprehension. He kept a small shop, it appears, in the
vicinity of the agora, and one of the principal points dwelt on by the
prosecutor was, that he there drew together a number of saunterers and
newsmongers, such as usually at Athens frequented the shops of barbers,
perfumers, &c., in that fashionable part of the town.[284] Another point
was, that he sometimes rode on horseback, which, in the opinion of the
accusers, a man receiving aid from the state should not have done. But,
to this part of the accusation, he replies, that, being so lame as to be
compelled to make use of crutches, he was wholly unable to answer the
more distant calls of business without hiring a horse, the expense of
which only augmented his difficulties.
-----
Footnote 283:
Bœckh. Pub. Econ. of Athens, vol. i. p. 325. It should here, perhaps,
be remarked, that they who failed to be present on the day of
examination, lost their allowance for a whole Prytaneia. Schol. ad
Æschin. cont. Tim. § 21. At times it would appear a man required some
skill and eloquence to plead his own cause; or a friend to speak in
his behalf, perhaps, when the number of applicants was very great. We
may gather thus much from the accusation of Æschines against
Timarchos, who, though a rich man, suffered, we are told, his old
blind uncle to inscribe his name on the list of the destitute. On one
occasion, moreover, when the uncle had omitted to attend on the proper
day, and had addressed a petition to the Senate to be allowed his pay
notwithstanding, Timarchos, who happened to be then in court, refused
to support his application, by which means he lost his allowance for
that Prytaneia. Æschin. cont. Tim. § 21. The Scholiast on this passage
adds, that they who petitioned the Senate appeared in person, bearing
in their hand an olive branch wreathed with wool.
-----
-----
Footnote 284:
Andocid. de Myst. § 9. Plut. Timol. § 14.
-----
From these circumstances we may learn, that the Athenian government was
by no means penurious in its appropriation of those funds which the
contributions of the wealthier citizens placed at its disposal.
On the amount of the daily allowance writers are not agreed, some
pretending it was three oboli, others two, and others an obolos. The
truth, probably, is, that, originally, it exceeded not a single obolos,
but that, as prices augmented, or, rather, as the coin deteriorated in
value, it was found necessary to double the amount.[285] Whether it was
ever raised to three oboli seems doubtful; the affirmation of the
Scholiast on Æschines[286] may be a mistake; but the mere fact that this
was the pay of the dicasts is no reason at all for calling the testimony
of the grammarian in question.[287] Be this, however, as it may, in the
time of Lysias,[288] one obolos only was bestowed, and Bœckh has
attempted, with much ingenuity, to determine the date of the increased
allowance. It had not taken place, according to Harpocration, in the
time of Aristotle; but Philochoros, the next writer who touches on the
subject, observes, that it was nine drachmæ a month, or fifty-four
oboli,[289] which, omitting the fractions, is equal to two oboli a day.
The year in which Aristotle composed his treatise on the Athenian
government is not exactly known; it was probably, however, after his
return from Macedon, 334 B.C. Philochoros was Hieroscopos at Athens in
the year of Corœbos, 306 B.C. He did not, however, publish his Atthis
till about the year 260 B.C., at which time the poor allowance had been
raised to two oboli. The date of the increase, therefore, falls
somewhere within the preceding seventy years.[290]
-----
Footnote 285:
That this allowance was not very scanty may be inferred from the fact,
that when the people of Trœzen publicly received the wives and parents
of the Athenians on their retreat from the city during the Persian
invasion, they allowed each individual only two oboli a day. Plut.
Themist. § 10.
Footnote 286:
Ap. Taylor ad Lys. Orat. Att. t. ii. p. 537. Dobs.
Footnote 287:
Bœckh’s over-acuteness has, probably, misled him on this point. i.
325.
Footnote 288:
Pro Impot. §§ 4. 8.
Footnote 289:
Philoch. Fragm. p. 44, seq. with the notes of Lenz and Siebelis. Conf.
Harpocrat. v. ἀδύνατ. cum not. Gronov. et Vales. Petit, Legg. Att.
558, seq.
Footnote 290:
Cf. Clinton Fast. Hellen. ii. p. 175. Siebel. ad Philoch. Fragm. p. 3.
Bœckh. Publ. Econ. of of Ath. i. 327, falls into an extraordinary
error respecting the age of Philochoros, “who was a youth,” he says,
“when Eratosthenes was an old man.” This he states on the authority of
Suidas. But, as Siebelis has already remarked, in exposing the
erroneous imputations of Vossius and Corsini, Suidas was himself
mistaken, or his text is corrupt; for Philochoros, to have obtained
the important office of Hieroscopos in 306, B.C., must have been then
at least twenty years old. Now Eratosthenes was born B.C. 275, Clint.
Fast. Hellen. iii. 5, so that it seems he was a youth when Philochoros
was an old man.
-----
With respect to the number of persons blind, old, sick, maimed, or
otherwise disabled, who received maintenance from the state, no exact
computation can be made. Bœckh,[291] imagining that Meursius had
reckoned them at five hundred, after remarking that the assumption is
founded on a false reading in Suidas, accepts the number as the least
that can be adopted. But Meursius,[292] in the passage referred to,
assumes nothing; he does not even allude to the number at all. And, in
fact, it will be evident, at the first glance, that no conjecture can
hope to approach the truth where circumstances were constantly varying,
adding to, or taking from, the number of those who required relief. This
was chiefly affected by the general poverty of the state, which
augmented rapidly towards its decline, when the number of the aged and
infirm, not possessing three minæ, or twelve pounds sterling, per annum,
must, no doubt, have been considerable. On the other hand, having no
longer to defend its freedom, which was gone for ever, the children of
citizens falling in battle were comparatively few, and, accordingly, the
gain on this item went to balance the loss on the other.
-----
Footnote 291:
Pub. Econ. of Athens, i. 327.
Footnote 292:
Lect. Att. vi. 5.
-----
The offspring of citizens thus bequeathed to the care of the state were
at one time exceedingly numerous, and highly exemplary and honourable
was the attention they received.[293] To the females a maintenance,
education, and a portion, were given; and the males having also been
supported and educated until manhood, received in the public theatre a
complete suit of armour, as a memento of their fathers’ valour, to
incite them to follow their example. The whole audience being assembled,
the herald introduced the orphan youths clothed in panoply of “complete
steel,” and then, with a loud voice, proclaimed what Æschines rightly
regarded as a most glorious and valour-inspiring proclamation, viz.,
that the fathers of those youths, like brave and good men, had fallen in
their country’s battles, on which account the state had undertaken the
charge of their bringing up, and now, on the verge of manhood, having
adorned them with an entire suit of armour, dismissed them under happy
auspices to watch over their own affairs, granting them, likewise, for
the day, the most honourable seats in the theatre.[294]
-----
Footnote 293:
Isocrat. de Pac. § 29. To complete the humanity of the laws, the
parents, also, of such as fell in war were placed under the special
protection of the Archons. Petit, Legg. Att. p. 559.
Footnote 294:
Æschin. cont. Ctesiph. § 48, with the notes of the Scholiast, p. 395.
Conf. Plat. Menex. § 21. p. 61. ed. Gœttlieb. The προεδρία which the
Scholiast to Æschines supposes them to have enjoyed during the day on
which they received the panoply, Lesbonax seems to have regarded as
perpetual. They were honoured, moreover, with particular marks of
public favour in the sacred choruses and in the gymnasia. Protrept. i.
§ 5. Conf. Menag. in D. Laert. t. ii. p. 20. c. d.
-----
Petit[295] supposes this to have taken place on their attaining the age
of twenty, before which they could not legally assume the management of
their inheritance, or encounter the fatigue and peril of regular
warfare; but, others, perhaps, with more probability, fix upon the age
of eighteen.
-----
Footnote 295:
Legg. Att. p. 560.
-----
The above legal provision, however, does not appear to have sufficed,
and there sometimes occurred cases of distress which it could not reach.
Many, too, would submit to great privation rather than have recourse to
public aid. Such persons, where numbers were in similar circumstances,
usually united and formed, what may very properly be denominated a
Benefit Club (ἔρανος[296]), to which they contributed when in their
power, that, should misfortune overtake them, they might still be sure
of support. This description, however, of Eranos constituted only one
branch of the numerous Clubs, Companies, Associations, Trades-unions,
&c., which, like the Clubs of the Civil Wars[297] and Associations of a
still later date, occasionally assumed a political character and impeded
the movements of the machinery of the state.[298] These societies were
instituted with various objects. In the first place they were
established to defray by subscription the expense of certain sacrifices,
offered up in behalf of their members who were called Eranistæ and
Thiasotæ. But under cover of this pretext combinations of an evil
tendency were sometimes formed,—among the aristocracy, for example, who
established the tyranny of the Four Hundred,—and these obnoxious clubs,
varying in character with the period, espoused the cause of freedom in
Roman times, and were of course watched jealously by the
conquerors.[299]
-----
Footnote 296:
Sch. Aristoph. Acharn. 1171. Poll. iii. 129. vi. 7. viii. 144. 157.
Footnote 297:
See Locke, Memoirs of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, Works, folio. vol.
iii.
Footnote 298:
Van Holst, de Eranis. c. ii. p. 35.
Footnote 299:
Casaub. ad Theoph. Charact. p. 284.
-----
With respect to those associations which bore a legal character, they
were by the laws of Solon permitted to enact whatever rules and
regulations they judged proper for their own government and advantage,
provided no public ordinance prevented.[300] Sometimes the citizens of a
whole Demos, or borough, formed themselves into a club, or a ship’s
crew,[301] or an eating society, or persons having a right to the same
burial-ground, or the partners in a mercantile expedition. Thus we find
three several motives,—religion, gain, and pleasure,—impelling men into
unions of this kind, all recognised by law. The curious and intricate
internal structure of Athenian society lent itself readily to the
formation of such clubs; the whole population having originally been
divided into four tribes, each tribe into three phratriæ,[302] each
phratria into thirty clans (γενη), each clan containing thirty houses,
among whom the honours of the priesthood were distributed by lot.[303]
-----
Footnote 300:
Gaius. lib. iv. ad leg. xii. Tabul. in f. 4. d. Petit, Legg. Att. v.
7. 427. Potter, i. 200.
Footnote 301:
The words ἤ ναῦται omitted by some, converted into something else by
others, are judiciously retained by Van Holst, de Eranis, c. ii. p 36,
since they are in exact conformity with what Aristotle remarks. Ethic.
Nicom. viii. 11. p. 470, seq. Victor.
Footnote 302:
Vandale having cited a passage from Pollux, iii. 52, stating that the
temple in which the phratriæ assembled was denominated φράτριον,
adds:—“quas φρατρίας Athenis duodecim numero existentes, ibi tum
ulterius describit atque inter alia notat, illorum ad illos introitu
virum (procul dubio ab ipsorum parentibus) distributum cæteris
φράτορσιν fuisse. Huic οἰνηστήρια sicut et Themistius, Orat. xiii.
notat, illos ante introitum, convocata concione probatos et publico
annulo signatos fuisse.” Dissert. 9. p. 729.
Footnote 303:
Harpocrat. v. v. γεννῆται et τριττὺς. Herm. Polit. Antiq. § 98, seq.
Schöm. Comit. p. 360.
-----
In these Attic associations we discover the germs of those companies of
merchants, guilds, &c.,[304] so familiar to the modern world; or rather
similar wants in both cases gave rise to similar institutions. But with
the trading companies we have, in this place, nothing to do; and if
incidentally the other associations are noticed, it is simply for the
purpose of more fully developing a system of which the Benefit Clubs
formed a part. These evidently rose out of the Eranæ established
originally for purposes of pleasure: that is, a number of individuals
desirous of enjoying a more splendid entertainment than they could
generally afford at home,[305] together with the society of their
intimate friends, entered into a subscription[306] for the purpose of
getting up a public dinner during the celebration of the great national
festivals. In some cases the associations thus formed, pro tempore, did
not outlast the occasion, while in others the taste for social
pleasures, or the accidental meeting of congenial tempers, led to the
establishment of a permanent club, the members of which grew naturally
among a warm-hearted people to take an interest in each other’s welfare.
The expenses of the sacrifices during these festivals were in part
defrayed from the revenues of the sacred lands, but these not sufficing,
it was generally necessary to raise a common fund by subscription.[307]
-----
Footnote 304:
A corresponding distribution of the humbler classes was effected at
Rome by Numa: Ἠν δὲ ἡ διανομὴ κατὰ τὰς τέχνας, αὐλητῶν, χρυσοχόων,
τεκτόνων, βαφέων, σκυτοτόμων, σκυτοδεψῶν, χαλκέων, κεραμέων. Τὰς δὲ
λοιπὰς τέχνας εἰς ταὐτὸ συναγαγῶν, ἓν αὐτῶν ἐκ πασῶν ἀπέδειξε σύστημα
Plut. Num. § 17. Cf. Schol. Nub. Aristoph. 179.
Footnote 305:
The Thebans of Bœotia, intoxicated by the military glory they gained
at the battle of Leuctra, shortly afterwards gave themselves up almost
entirely to the pleasures of the table, which they appear chiefly to
have enjoyed at their clubs. To support these establishments,
therefore, numerous individuals were found who, notwithstanding that
they had children, bestowed the greater portion of their fortunes upon
them, thus manifesting, perhaps, the greatest enthusiasm ever
exhibited in the cause of good-eating. Athen. x. 11.
Footnote 306:
Sch. Æsch. Tim. p. 380. a.
Footnote 307:
Cf. Bergmann and Coray ad Isocrat. Areop. § 11. Van Holst, de Eranis.
c. ii. p. 37.
-----
Of all these clubs, whether temporary or permanent, whose object was the
providing of funds for sacrifice, or to enjoy the pleasures of society,
the generic name was _Erani_, though such as partook of a religious
character received besides the appellation of _Thiasi_.[308] Their
members were called Eranistæ and Thiasotæ. It was common among the
Greeks to indulge in feasting immediately at the close of harvest, both
on account of the plenty which then prevailed, and, because the great
business of the year being finished, they had more leisure to devote to
enjoyment.[309] That these associations tended to generate and promote
friendship and affection among their members was well understood;
wherefore in the ancient tyrannies they were rigidly prohibited,
together with all common tables, educational establishments, and
whatever else, to adopt the expression of Aristotle, promotes reflection
and mutual confidence.[310] It was supposed to be their interest to keep
men as far as possible in ignorance and distrust of each other. Hence
all religions with a tendency to beget mutual love were proscribed (as
among the Romans Christianity) as of an antimonarchical character. Thus
Mæcenas, as ardent a patron of tyranny as of literature, urged Augustus
to persecute and proscribe all attempts at introducing new creeds, as
favourable to innovation or, at least, to change; to sworn brotherhoods,
associations, clubs, things in their nature hostile to monarchy.[311]
-----
Footnote 308:
Etym. Mag. 449. 53. Lucian introduces Pan calling himself the θιασώτης
of Bacchos. Deor. Dial. xxii. Another name bestowed on these societies
was Ὀργεῶνες which appellation however, according to Pollux, was
synonymous with φράτορες· ἐκαλοῦντο δ᾽ οὗτοι καὶ ὀμογάλακτες καὶ
ὀργεῶνες. iii. 52. Cf. viii. 107. Vandale, Dissert. ix. p. 734.
Footnote 309:
Aristot. Ethic. viii. 11.
Footnote 310:
Arist. Polit. v. 11.
Footnote 311:
Dion Cass. l. ii. p. 490. e.
-----
The conjecture is probable, that the conversion of the Erani into
charitable institutions was matter of accident. At first it seems clear,
as I have observed already, that their object was sacrifice, feasting,
and pleasure. But it sometimes happened that, of the funds subscribed,
some portion would, after their objects had been fulfilled, remain; and
if, when this was the case, any member of the club happened to fall into
distress, it was perfectly natural to think of applying this surplus to
his benefit.[312] From this the step was easy to subscribing expressly
for the purpose of relieving indigent members, which, at length, was the
practice, though the gradations by which they arrived at it have not
been accurately marked.[313] Arrian has left a curious account of a
Celtic eranos established by a Hunting Club in honour of Artemis,[314]
to whom solemn sacrifice was annually offered up. A fund was created by
the members of the club in the following manner: every one who caught a
hare paid into the treasury two oboli: the capturer or destroyer of a
fox a drachma, the fox being a mischievous animal and fatal to the hare;
they therefore considered his destruction in the light of a triumph over
an enemy. The sportsman who took a roebuck (δορκὰς), which among them
was the noblest game, and the largest animal hunted, paid four drachmæ.
On the birth-day of the goddess the treasury was opened, and a victim,
whether a sheep, a she-goat, or a calf, according to their means, was
purchased. Sacrifice was then offered, after which both men and dogs
regaled themselves with a banquet. Bitches were on this day crowned with
flowers, to show that the feast was celebrated in their behalf.[315]
-----
Footnote 312:
Salmas. de Usur. c. iii. p. 50.
Footnote 313:
Cf. Plin. Epist. x. 93, seq. Van Holst, de Eran. p. 43.
Footnote 314:
The Thiasi, &c., among the Greeks, appear all to have had their patron
divinities, of whom the most common were Heracles, Phœbos-Apollo, and
Dionysos. This circumstance has been noticed by Vandale: Plerumque,
(sicut ὀργεώνων collegia) cœtus ac fraternitates Baccho, Herculi,
Apollini, aliisve Diis consecratæ: quibus Diis ab harum fratriarum
membris, ut peculiaribus patronis sacrificabatur: atque hinc convivia
inter φράτορας celebrabantur: ad quæ communes illi sumptus sive
impensas pariter conferebant. Dissert. ix. p. 730.
Footnote 315:
Arrian de Venat. c. xxxiii. p. 383. Schneid.
-----
In all these clubs the chest was the soul of everything; for this being
removed the whole society fell to pieces.[316] Accordingly, to become a
member it was necessary to subscribe a certain amount to the fund, and
all payments were made monthly.[317] As these clubs, moreover, were
legal, the person who neglected such payments could be prosecuted at
law, as for any other debt; and what shows the importance of these
institutions at Athens, the ordinances referring to them formed a
separate branch of jurisprudence,[318] to enter into which, however,
does not belong to my present inquiry. The president or chairman of the
club was likewise treasurer, whether chosen by lot or elected by the
members of the club, whose expenses and behaviour, while assembled, he
appears to have regulated.[319] It has been seen that the meetings of
these societies took place during religious festivals; but whenever they
were called together, whether by business or piety, it was customary, as
in all similar cases among ourselves, for the members to dine together.
They do not appear, however, to have possessed club-houses; but, like
our literary men of the last century, to have dined at taverns or
alternately at each others’ dwellings.[320] On these occasions it was
customary to restrain their expenses within moderate limits, the object
being rather the enjoyment of each others’ society than the indulgence
of a passion for luxury.[321]
-----
Footnote 316:
Van Holst, c. ii. p. 46.
Footnote 317:
Harpocrat. p. 85. Bekk. It would, however, appear that payment might
be avoided by pleading poverty: speaking of the hypocrite, πρὸς τοὺς
δανειζομένους, says Theophrastus, καὶ ἐρανίζοντας, ὡς οὐ πωλείφήσεν.
Charact. c. i. p. 5.
Footnote 318:
Poll. viii. 37, 101, 144.
Footnote 319:
Harpocrat. v. πληρωτὴς; where doubtless we must read with Salmasius
(Miscell. Defens. C. ii. p. 27) ᾑρημένοις, for ἐωνημένοις, though
Bekker retains the old lection, p. 155. Cf. Van Holst, p. 56.—Athenæus
describes a festival called Phagesiposia in which every one who passed
by was compelled to repeat a rhapsody in honour of Bacchos. (vii. 1.)
There was also at Alexandria a curious festival called Lagenephoria,
in which every person brought his own portion, and his own bottle, and
reclined on a couch of grass or reeds. (2.)
Footnote 320:
Athen. vi. 35. Van Holst, de Eranis, pp. 30, 59.
Footnote 321:
Arist. Ethic. viii. 11.
-----
On those occasions, when a member received the club at his house, he
himself, it has been conjectured, took the chair,[322] not, however,
necessarily and by rule; for it has been seen that the president was
sometimes chosen by lot, sometimes by vote. But this supposition is,
probably, ill-founded; for, as the same individual was at once eranarch
and treasurer, it appears exceedingly improbable that he should be
changed every time the club dined together. It seems to me more
likely,—and we are left to conjecture,—that an annual chairman was
chosen to transact the general business of the society, while another
individual might be selected to fill the office of chairman for any
particular evening. Towards the close of the republic, when the worship
of Serapis had been introduced, women would seem to have been received
as members of Erani established in honour of that foreign divinity.[323]
-----
Footnote 322:
Van Holst, de Eranis, p. 60.
Footnote 323:
Bœckh, Corp. Inscrip. pt. ii. p. 162.
-----
But as these clubs were only accidentally connected with charity and the
condition of the poor, I proceed to consider another species of Eranæ,
conceived almost in the spirit of Christianity. Van Holst,[324] whose
researches on the subject of the Hellenic clubs, though pedantic and
confused, are not without value, denies that any permanent charitable
associations existed among the Greeks, though among the Romans, he
conceives, they did. At the same time, he confesses what it were
difficult to deny, that the friendly subscription called Eranos derived
its name and being from the clubs above-described. He contends that no
club existed with permanent funds for the relief of distressed friends,
and that the relief actually afforded was the spontaneous effort of
beneficence and humanity. On this point he is at issue with
Casaubon,[325] whom he appears, in some respects, to misunderstand.
Salmasius, he conceives, comes nearer the mark where he says, that when
any person was overwhelmed with debt or poverty, he found a ready refuge
in his friends, who subscribed what they could, both to satisfy his
creditors and provide for his future subsistence. It was in the
discharge of debts, however, that men found most aid from their
friends;[326] though such subscriptions were set on foot on many other
occasions, to redeem a man from captivity, for example, or to portion a
friendless girl, as was the practice also at Thebes.[327]
-----
Footnote 324:
De Eranis, c. iii. p. 73, sqq.
Footnote 325:
Ad Theoph. Char. p. 280, sqq.
Footnote 326:
Salmas. de Usur. c. iii. p. 38.
Footnote 327:
Corn. Nep. Vit. Epaminond. § 3.
-----
The mode in which this subscription was collected, and the principle on
which the transaction was based, had something characteristic about
them. In the first place, the money resembled a loan (which, strictly
speaking, it was not), because, if the receiver afterwards became
fortunate, he was bound to make repayment,[328] though while in
unfavourable circumstances his mind was not oppressed by the
consciousness of being in debt, since no one regarded himself as a
creditor, or could ask him for an obolos. Salmasius observes very
justly, that the greatest proof of generosity is to give without any
desire of a return, which the Greeks called eleëmosynè, or eranos of
strict charity. The second grade is, where money is lent to be repaid
without interest, which our Saviour calls τὰ ἶσα ἀπολαβεῖν.[329] The
lowest, where you lend, but on condition of receiving interest.[330]
-----
Footnote 328:
It ought, moreover, to be remarked, that these eranistic loans were
sometimes returned even to the children of those who advanced them.
Isæus, De Hagn. Hered. § 10.
Footnote 329:
Cf. Cicer. pro Rosc. Amer. § 7.
Footnote 330:
Salmas. de Usur. p. 672.
-----
For the repayment of money collected by eranistic subscription, no exact
time, it has been observed, was fixed. It appears to have depended
entirely on the recipient’s sense of honour or feelings of gratitude.
But Petit,[331] whose researches on this part of his subject were not
sufficiently exact, confounds the monthly subscription paid by members
of a trading company or ordinary club, with the money which a man, aided
by his friends, might be supposed to owe them, and says, that such-a-one
was required to pay it back by monthly instalments, or all at once
within a month. The former would be the case were we to understand
Harpocration to speak of this kind of eranos at all; the latter, if we
accept his interpretation. But Van Holst[332] is right in remarking that
Petit here apprehends the sense of the grammarian “minus recte”; that
is, he mistakes it altogether. However, that the money was at some time
to be repaid appears from a variety of passages. Theophrastus, for
example, in his Chapter on Grumbling, observes, that the querulous man,
to whom a collection made for him by his friends is brought, will reply
to the person who bids him to be of good cheer,—“Wherefore? when I must
return as much to each of them, and be grateful, moreover, for the
favour?”[333]
-----
Footnote 331:
Legg. Att. v. 7. 429.
Footnote 332:
De Eranis, t. iii. p. 75.
Footnote 333:
Theoph. Charact. xvii. Casaub. p. 308. Cf. Ter. Phorm. iv. 4. 22.
Plaut. Asinar. i. 3. 92, sqq. Van Holst, p. 77.
-----
Among the other peculiarities in the construction of Athenian society
which tended to better the condition of the poor, were the
entertainments given by rich citizens to their tribes, on certain
festivals or days of public rejoicing.[334] And this was a matter by no
means left to the caprice of individuals, for if some one came not
forward voluntarily to undergo the expense, the members of the tribe
proceeded to cast lots,[335] and the citizen to whose chance it fell
could not escape the performance of this duty, unless he pleaded, as his
excuse, some cause deemed satisfactory by the public. Of course, the
character of the entertainment depended on the wealth or munificence of
the Hestiator.[336] Necessary, it was not, that he should regale his
fellow-tribesmen sumptuously, as frugality was one of the
characteristics of the nation; but, at the same time, it is quite
evident that on many occasions[337] the Feast of the Tribe was a
magnificent banquet.[338]
-----
Footnote 334:
Athen. v. 2.
Footnote 335:
Harpocrat. in v. ἑστιάτωρ. Dem. cont. Mid. § 44. adv. Lept. § 7. adv.
Bœot. § 3. Cf. Herald. Anim. in Salm. Obs. ad Jus. Athen. et Rom. l.
ii. c. i. § 12.
Footnote 336:
Ἑστιάτωρ, ὁ εἰς εὐφροσυνην καὶ εὐωχίαν καλων· δαιτυμόνες δὲ οἱ
ἀριστηταὶ, οἱ εὐωχούμενοι. Suid. v. t. i. p. 1052. d.
Footnote 337:
There occurred, however, but few holydays on which artisans abstained
altogether from labour. Lucian. Parasit. § 15.
Footnote 338:
Poll. vi. 27. iii. 67. Bœckh, therefore, appears to be wrong in
supposing that delicacies were never used on these occasions. Pub.
Econ. of Athens, vol. ii. p. 222. Cf. Wolf. Proleg. ad Lept. in Orat.
Att. t. vi. p. 372.
-----
Of the state of the poor at Sparta,[339] our information is exceedingly
scanty. We only know that, when they were unable to contribute their
share to the maintenance of the public tables, they lost the privilege
of being present, and had to provide for themselves at home in the best
manner they were able.[340] It would thus appear that their Phiditia
differred very little, except in being more general, from the Erani of
the Athenians. As Laconia abounded with game, it may be conjectured that
the more indigent citizens frequently relied greatly for support on the
chase,[341] to which may be added the charity of their wealthier
neighbours, in whatever way bestowed. In Crete, the citizens being
placed more upon an equality, there was little room for extreme
poverty.[342] The population, moreover, by artificial restraints, was
kept within due bounds; consequently, most persons lived plentifully,
and possessed wherewith to exercise the most generous hospitality. But
even here they multiplied in later times more rapidly than the means of
subsistence, so that numbers of Cretans were fain to serve as mercenary
archers in the intestine wars of Greece. The same remark will apply to
the Arcadians, and several other people whose poorer members earned a
subsistence by their hereditary valour.[343]
-----
Footnote 339:
Vid. Plat. De Leg. t. vii. p. 181. 201. seq. t. viii. p. 101. seq. De
Rep. t. vi. p. 233. The institution of the Phiditia commenced in
Italy. Arist. Pol. vii. 9. The members of these messes were balloted
for. Plut. Lycurg. § 12. Even the relations of Agesilaos, by the
mother’s side, were poor. Agesil. § 4.
Footnote 340:
Aristot. Polit. ii. 9.
Footnote 341:
Cf. Athen. iv. 9.
Footnote 342:
Aristot. Polit. ii. 9.
Footnote 343:
Id. Polit. ii. 10.
-----
At Athens, when persons in easy circumstances made a feast, as on all
occasions of sacrificing they did, the custom was to send some small
presents, as parts of the victim, to their friends, more especially when
poor.[344] But most joyful for the indigent was the period of the
Athenian jubilee, the Panathenaia,[345] on which occasion the state
received presents of oxen from all the colonies founded by Athenians, so
that the whole city overflowed with meat and soup, of which every person
might take his share. Sometimes, however, if not generally, the meat
fell into the hands of those who least needed it, while the poor got
nothing but a little soup with a scanty slice of bread.[346] In times of
great scarcity corn was distributed to the indigent in the Odeion,
where, on ordinary occasions, it was sold.[347] A similar distribution
took place at the Peiræeus in the arsenal, where loaves were given out
at an obolos each. On extraordinary occasions, as when a famine raged in
the country, the state applied for corn to its foreign allies, and, on
receiving any, distributed it equally among the citizens. This was the
case when Psammitichos made the Athenians a present of a vast quantity
of wheat, of which every citizen received five medimni.[348] A peculiar
kind of windfall is commemorated by Athenæus, who relates, that when
Ion, the dramatic poet of Chios, won the prize of tragedy, he was so
overjoyed at his success, that he presented every Athenian with a jar of
the best Chian. No doubt, foreign tragedians were not every day winning
prizes, or, when they won, so rich and generous as Ion; but advantages
of various kinds were enjoyed by the Athenian people not anywhere else
known.[349]
-----
Footnote 344:
Theoph. Char. c. 17. Casaub. p. 259.
Footnote 345:
Meursius (in Panath. c. xv. p. 22) is very unsatisfactory.
Footnote 346:
Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 385.
Footnote 347:
Demosth. cont. Phorm. § 13. Cf. Meurs. Rhod. p. 127.
Footnote 348:
Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 718.
Footnote 349:
Athen. i. 5.
-----
Sometimes, when generals obtained any remarkable quantity of plunder,
instead of laying it up to meet the serious exigencies of the state they
lavished it in feasting the people. Thus, Chares is said to have
expended more than sixty talents, or near 15,000_l._ sterling in
entertaining his fellow-citizens,[350] when the public tables were laid
out in the agora; and Conon,[351] having obtained a great naval victory
over the Lacedæmonians at Cnidos, and surrounded the Peiræeus with
fortifications, offered a real hecatomb in sacrifice, and feasted the
whole body of people. Of these thoughtless donations the poor, of
course, obtained their share. Cimon acted more judiciously and more
nobly towards the unfortunate among his countrymen. Looking upon wealth
only as a means of recommending himself and obtaining friends, he set no
guard upon his lands or gardens, from which every Athenian who chose
might freely take what he needed. His house, likewise, in the city was
open to all; a plain table being constantly laid for a number of men, so
that whosoever was at a loss for a dinner might dine there. He willingly
obliged those who came daily to demand some favour of him; and is said
always to have gone abroad accompanied by two or three domestics bearing
money, who were instructed to give to any citizen who approached him
with a request. He contributed also to the interment of many; and,
often, if he observed a poor Athenian meanly clad, ordered one of his
attendants to change raiment with him. By these means, as may be
supposed, he acquired marvellous popularity, and stood first among his
rivals in public estimation.[352]
-----
Footnote 350:
Athen. xii. 43. Money itself was sometimes distributed. Dem. adv.
Leochar. § 12.
Footnote 351:
Athen. i. 5.
Footnote 352:
Theopomp. ap. Athen. xii. 44.
-----
But persons thus subsisting on the bounty of the opulent soon lost of
necessity the dignity of sentiment which should belong to the citizens
of a free state. Many, therefore, when reduced by misfortune, to a
choice of evils, preferred the bread obtained by honest labour,[353]
however mean or ill paid, to so humiliating a dependance on charity;
and, unable to obtain more favourable conditions, actually worked for
their food.[354] To labour for hire they scarcely accounted a hardship.
A large class of citizens, including women,[355] appear by this means to
have gained their livelihood, some as cooks, others as reapers, mowers,
or any other description of labour which happened to offer itself.[356]
Poverty sometimes drove the unprincipled poor to keep houses of ill
fame. Others became itinerant flower-sellers, and cried “roses so many
bunches the obolos;” or hawked radishes, lupines, or olive-dregs about
the streets.[357] And, after their death, the daughters of poor men
sometimes joined the Hetairæ, not having been able to earn their
livelihood by needlework, weaving, and spinning.[358]
-----
Footnote 353:
Alluding to the necessity of labour to the poor, Plato says:—If an
artisan happen to fall sick, he demands a rapid cure of his physician
by emetics or aperients, or cautery, or surgical operation. But if he
be recommended a long and careful attention to regimen, to tie up his
head and such things, he speedily replies, that he has no leisure to
play the valetudinarian, and that it is of no advantage to him to
preserve his life by such continual nursings, while his affairs are
going to ruin. Thus dismissing his physician, and returning to his
ordinary diet, if he recover he pursues his calling, if not he is
delivered from all his troubles at once. De Repub. t. vi. l. iii. p.
145.
Footnote 354:
Ἐπισίτιοι. Plat. Rep. iv. § 1. t. i. p. 263. Stallb. Athen. vi. 50.
Cf. Bœckh. Pub. Econ. i. 156, on the lowness of wages. On the Pelatæ
see the note of Rünkh. ad Tim. Lex. in v. Meris, p. 208. Bekk.—Plat.
Euthyph. t.i. p. 356. Poll. iii. 82. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
entertained a strange notion of the θῆτες and πελάται of the
Athenians, whose condition he supposes to have been inferior to that
of the Roman clients. He pretends, indeed, that clientship arose in
Greece, and was only established by imitation at Rome: ἔθος Ἑλληνικὸν
καὶ Ἀρχαῖον, he says, ὧ Θετταλοί τε μέχρι πολλοῦ χρώμενοι διετέλεσαν
καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι καταρχὰς. ἐκεῖνοι μὲν γὰρ ἐπιτάττοντες οὐ προσήκοντα
ἐλευθέροις, καὶ ὁπότε μὴ πράξειάν τι τῶν κελευρομένων, πληγὰς
ἐντείνοντες, καὶ τἄλλα ὥσπερ ἀργυρωνήτοις χρώμενοι. ἐκάλουν δὲ
Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν Θῆτας τοὺς Πελάτας, ἐπὶ τῆς λατρείας Θετταλοὶ δὲ,
Πενέστας, ὀνειδίζοντες αὐτοῖς εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ κλήσει τὴν τύχην. Antiq.
Rom. ii. 9. Reiske very justly remarks on this passage, that he does
not see with what propriety the Thetes of Attica are classed with the
Thessalian Penestæ, in comparing them with the Roman Clients. For it
is most certain (as H. Stephens shows in his Schediasm. v. 15, seq.),
that the condition of the Penestæ bore little resemblance to that of
the Roman Clients. And as to the Attic Thetes and Pelatæ they were
completely free, though inferior in rank to the artisans (οἱ βαναυσοὶ,
Steph. Thes. v. θῆς); nor did they serve as slaves serve their masters
(ut δοῦλοι δεσπόταις); but, as appears from the Scholiast on Odyss. δ.
644, as poor and debt-oppressed persons hire their services to the
rich or to their creditors, who were denominated χρήστας, not
προστάτας, or δεσπότας. The condition of the Thessalian Penestæ was
different: for they were nearly slaves, μεταξὺ δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων,
as the ancients called them. (Pollux, iii. 83.) Those among them who
served in families were named θετταλοικέται. (Reiske, ad Dion. Hal. t.
i. p. 255.)
Footnote 355:
Demosth. adv. Eubul.
Footnote 356:
Demosth. de Coron. § 16. Cf. Plat. Rep. ii. 12. Stallb.
Footnote 357:
Diphilos ap. Athen. ii. 45.
Footnote 358:
Luc. Dial. Meret. vi. § 1. Plut. Arat. § 54.
-----
In many respects the poor of southern climates have the advantage of
those of the north.[359] The atmosphere itself forms their clothing, and
during a great part of the year it is immaterial to them where they
sleep. But at Athens, however temperate the climate, a shelter from the
cold in winter is desirable, and here, therefore, as in every other part
of Greece, the practice was to erect houses where, as in the
Caravanserais of the East, any man, native or stranger, might enter and
obtain shelter for the night. These buildings were called Leschæ,
erected without doors, to intimate that all were welcome; and in them,
accordingly, beggars and wanderers of every description congregated
round great fires in winter and bad weather, both to sleep and
converse.[360] Even the citizens, particularly at Sparta, met in the
Leschæ, to enjoy the delights of gossiping; whence any idle assemblage
was called a Leschè.[361] In a fragment of the lost oration of Antiphon
against Nicoles, mention is made of these edifices, which served as a
refuge for the destitute. They were erected by the state; and, to cast
over them an air of sanctity, dedicated to Apollo, who thence obtained
the surname of Leschenorios.[362] Nowhere were these humane institutions
so numerous as at Athens, where, according to Proclus,[363] there
existed no fewer than three hundred and sixty, in which the indigent,
who had no home, might congregate together and keep themselves warm at
the nation’s expense.
-----
Footnote 359:
Beggars sometimes sat down on the ground to eat what was given them at
the doors of the charitable. Thus in Antiphanes one says,—“What dost
thou say? Bring me hither to the door something to eat; and then, like
the beggars, I will despatch it, seated on the ground, and who will
see?” Athen. ii. 87.
Footnote 360:
Etym. Mag. 18. 1, seq. 561. 11. Odyss. σ. 328, et Eustath. ad loc. Cf.
Hesiod. Opp. et Dies, 493, et 500, seq. with Bœckh. Inscript. i. p.
133. Horat. Serm. i. vii. 3.
Footnote 361:
Pausan. iii. 14. 2. 15. 8. x. 25. 1. Siebel. ad loc.
Footnote 362:
Harpocrat. in v. λέσχαι. Suid. in v. ii. 27, seq. Etymol. Mag. p. 18,
v. ἀδολεσχία.
Footnote 363:
Ap. Meurs. Athen. Att. iii. vi. 158.
-----
In addition to these the public baths served as an asylum to such of the
poor as had no home, or were unable to provide themselves with fuel in
their own dwellings. Here they would seem to have pressed so eagerly
about the furnaces as to be sometimes scorched and blistered;[364] and
the crowd of poor wretches in this necessitous condition would appear to
have been occasionally so great as to deteriorate the state of the
atmosphere by their breath,[365] on which account they were exposed to
be driven forth by the bath-keepers.
-----
Footnote 364:
Πλὴν φώδων ἐκ βαλανέιου. Aristoph. Plut. 535: φλυκταινῶν· ἐκ βαλανείου
δὲ διὰ τὸ τοὺς πένητας ἀποροῦντας ἐνδυμάτων διὰ τὸ ψύχος ἐν βαλανείοις
καθεύδειν, καὶ ἐκ θέρμης ἢ ἀέρος αὐτοὺς ἐξιόντας παραχρῆμα
προσβάλλοντος φλυκτόινας ποιεῖν· Απολλαδωρος τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς
ἐρυθήματα, ἢ ἐκ ψύχους, ἢ τοὺς τύλους, καὶ τὰ ἐπικαύματα τὰ ἐκ τοῦ
πυρὸς, ὡς τῶν πενήτων διὰ τὸ αὐτουργεῖν τοῦτο πασχόντων. Schol. in
loc.
Footnote 365:
Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 956.
-----
In Homeric times, beggars and all other sorts of vagrants took refuge
from the nightly cold in smiths’ forges,[366] just as in former ages
they did in the glass-houses of London. These fathers of sacrilege, as
Plato[367] calls them, when properly equipped for the road, presented a
tolerably picturesque aspect with their close Mysian bonnet,[368] ragged
cloak, and bottle strapped to the thigh,[369] and supporting themselves
as they walked on a huge staff. To this worshipful society Dionysios,
once tyrant of Syracuse, belonged in his old age.[370]
-----
Footnote 366:
Οὐδ᾽ ἐθέλεις εὕδειν, χαλκήϊον ἐς δόμον ἐλθὼν,
Ἠὲ που ἐς λέσχην.
Odyss. σ. 327, seq.
Χαλκήϊος δὲ δόμος τὸ τῶν χαλκέων ἐργαστήριον, ἔνθα εἰσιόντες ἀκωλύτως
οἱ πτωχοὶ, ἐκοιμῶντο παρὰ τῷ πυρί. Eustath. in loc. p. 672. 28. Basil.
Πὰρ δ᾽ ἴθι χάλκειον θῶκον καὶ ἔπ’ ἀλέα λέσχην
Ὥρῃ χειμερίῃ, ὁπότε κρύος ἀνέρας ἔργων
Ἰσχάνει, κ. τ. λ.
Hesiod. Opp. et Dies, 493, sqq.
Footnote 367:
De Repub. t. vi. p. 393. Among the nations of antiquity I remember
none who looked upon poverty in so venerable a light as the
inhabitants of Gadeira, now Cadiz. For these worthy people erected, we
are told, an altar in its honour, probably supposing it to be near
akin to death, whose praises they also sang in pæans. Philost. Vit.
Apoll. Tyan. v. 4, p. 190. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 241, p. 328, b.
Footnote 368:
Aristoph. Acharn. 440.
Footnote 369:
Lucian. Dial. Mort. i. § 2. Vict. Var. Lect. i. 24. Schol. Aristoph.
Acharn. 410.
Footnote 370:
Ἀυτὸς δὲ Διονύσιος τέλος μητραγυρτῶν καὶ τύμπανο φορούμενος, οἰκτρῶς
τὸν βίον κατέστρεψεν. Clearch. ap. Athen xii. 58. Every just and
upright man would probably rejoice to behold all tyrants in the same
condition. Cf. Tim. Lex. Platon. v. ἀγείρουσαν, with the note of
Rühnken. p. 16, who has collected several passages illustrating the
life and manners of the begging priests of Cybelè.
-----
There was at Athens, in later times, a class of men who resembled the
bone-grubbers and dung-hill scrapers of London and Paris. These were the
grain-pickers of the Deigma and Agora, who hovering about where the
farmers and corn-chandlers meted their grain, and collecting what
dropped from the sacks,[371] or was spilled in measuring, thus earned a
miserable subsistence. Persons of this description might eke out their
livelihood by appropriating to themselves the coarse brown bread which
pious and charitable persons placed in the propylæa of temples for their
use.[372] Here Diogenes, the Cynic, who, carrying about provisions in
his wallet, was independent of these offerings, sometimes dined; and,
for the sake of uttering a _bon mot_, threw out the loaves that might
have been useful to others; observing, that nothing coarse[373] should
be allowed to enter the temples of the gods.
-----
Footnote 371:
Eustath. ap. Casaub. Char. p. 197. In the Acts of the Apostles the
Epicureans and Stoics contemptuously denominate St. Paul a
σπερμολόγος, xvii. 18.
Footnote 372:
The Alexandrians placed loaves in the temple of Chronos for the poor.
Athen. iii. 74. Among the Ethiopians there was an institution called
the Table of the Sun, which we may suppose to have been designed to
supply the poor with food. In a meadow close to the suburbs of the
capital a plentiful entertainment was laid out during the night, which
as soon as day broke every person had permission to partake of. This
feast the natives affected to regard as a gift bestowed upon them
incessantly by the earth. Herod. iii. 18. Cf. Pausan. i. 33. 4. vi.
26. 2.
Footnote 373:
Diog. Laert. vi. 2. § 64. Ῥυπαρὸς, alone, signifies as the French
translator has rendered it, “mal-propres,” t. i. p. 358. But ῥυπαρὸς
ἁρτὸς, means _du pain bis_, as Menage long ago observed, ad loc. ii.
146. b. c. Diogenes, as the reader will perceive, meant to pun upon
the word ῥυπαρὸς.
-----
Religion has everywhere been favourable to the poor. On the festival of
the new moon, when the great and opulent offered up costly sacrifices to
the gods, as to Hecatè, for example, on cross-roads,[374] their more
indigent brethren seized the occasion when their hearts were thus
softened, to ask them for something. Thus Homer, according to the legend
attributed to Herodotus, went in Samos to the houses of the wealthy,
chanting his Eiresione, for which he received a consideration.[375]
-----
Footnote 374:
These suppers were eaten by the poor, together with the eggs and other
small offerings used in purifying places. Luc. Dial. Mort. i. § 1.
Catapl. § 7. Lomeier, de Lustrat. c. xxi. p. 258, seq. Cakes called
Amphiphontes were offered to Artemis within a circle of burning
torches. These offerings were made in the temples, and on cross-roads,
at the full moon, when the sun, rising ere the moon sets, there is
constant light throughout the twenty-four hours, which was signified
by the ring of torches; the whole round of the day being filled with
light. In the island of Hecatè, on the coast of Delos, the Delians
used to dedicate offerings to Iris, of cakes called Basynias, made
with wheaten flour and honey, the offering called cokkora, a dried
fig, and three walnuts. Athen. xiv. 53. The Athenians, when
sacrificing to the Seasons, offered up boiled meat, and not roasted,
as on other occasions; praying to be protected from the heats which
dry up and destroy everything, and to be blessed with moderate warmth,
to ripen and bring everything to perfection. Id. xiv. 72.
Footnote 375:
Herod. Vit. Hom. § 33. t. ii. p. 362. Schweigh.—Meurs. Gr. Fer. p.
213, seq.
-----
There was a class of beggars who went about the country begging for the
crow,[376] holding, apparently, a tame bird of that species like a
falcon on their wrist, and chanting the following ditty:—
SONG OF THE CROW.
Good people, a handful of barley bestow
On the bearers about of the sable crow—
Apollo’s daughter she—
But if the barley heap wax low,
Still kindly let your bounty flow,
And of the yellow grains that grow
On the wheaten stalk be free.
Or a well-kneaded loaf or an obolos give,
Or what you will, for the crow must live.
If the gods have been bountiful to you to-day,
Oh say not to her for whom we sing,
Say not, we implore you, nay,
To the bird of the cloudy wing.
A grain of salt will please her well,
And whoso this day that bestows,
May next day give (for who can tell?)
A comb from which the honey flows.
But come, come, what need we say more?
Open the door, boy, open the door,
For Plutos has heard our prayers.
And see, through the porch a damsel, as sweet
As the winds that play round the flowery feet
Of Ida, comes the crow to meet,
And a basket of figs she bears.
Oh may this maiden happy be,
And from care and sorrow free;
Let her all good fortune find,
And a husband rich and kind.
And when her parents have grown old,
Let her in her father’s arms
Place a boy as fair as she,
With the ringlets all of gold,
And, upon her mother’s knee,
A maiden decked with all her charms.
But I from house to house must go,
And wherever my eyes by my feet are borne,
To the muse at night and morn
For those who do or don’t bestow,
The mellow words of song shall flow.
Come then, good folks, your plenty share,
O give, my prince! and maiden fair,
Be bountiful to-day.
Sooth, custom bids ye all to throw
Whole handfulls to the begging crow;
At least give something; say not, no,
And we will go our way.
-----
Footnote 376:
Athen. viii. 59.
-----
In Rhodes another kind of begging, which usually took place in the month
of March, was denominated Chelidonizein;[377] or, to sing the
SONG OF THE SWALLOW.
The swallow is come, and with her brings
A year with plenty overflowing;
Freely its rich gifts bestowing,
The loveliest of lovely springs.
She is come, she is come,
To her sunny home.
And white is her breast as a beam of light,
But her back and her wings are as black as night;
Then bring forth your store,
Bring it out to the door,
A mass of figs, or a stoop of wine,
Cheese, or meal, or what you will,
Whate’er it be we’ll not take it ill:
Even an egg will not come amiss,
For the swallow’s not nice
When she wishes to dine.
Come, what shall we have? Say, what shall it be?
For we will not go,
Though time doth flee,
Till thou answerest Yes, or answerest No.
But if thou art churlish we’ll break down the gate,
And thy pretty wife we’ll bear away;
She is small, and of no great weight.
Open, open, then we say.
Not old men but boys are we,
And the swallow says,—“Open to me.”
-----
Footnote 377:
Athen. viii. 60. In the warmer atmosphere of the volcanic islands of
Lipari, the swallow has, by modern naturalists, been found stationary.
Spallanzani, Travels in the Two Sicilies, i. Introd. p. 32.
-----
It was seldom, however, that the indigent in Greece could enjoy the
luxuries here enumerated. Antiphanes[378] describes a poor man’s meal as
consisting of a cake (μαζα),[379] bristling with bran for the sake of
economy, with an onion, and, for a relish, a dish of sow-thistle, or of
mushrooms, or some such wretched produce of the soil, a diet producing
neither fever nor phlegm. However, where meat is to be got, no man, he
thought, would be contented with thyme, though he might pretend to rival
the Pythagoreans.[380] Mention, nevertheless, is made of two
philosophers who voluntarily subsisted all their lives on water and
figs, and grew very healthy and robust upon this fare, though their
perspiration had so ill an odour, that every one avoided them when they
entered the public baths. Pythagoras forbade his abstemious followers
the use of the mallows, upon which the humbler classes in Greece were
accustomed to feed, together with the roots of the day-lily, the nymphea
nelumbo, the nettle,[381] and various other wild plants. The
Kapparis,[382] plentiful in Athens, was very commonly eaten by the
indigent, and hence “to gather kapparis” was at length considered
synonymous with “to be in want.”[383] Alexis furnishes us with a curious
account of a poor Athenian family’s provisions.[384]
Mean my husband is, and poor,
And my blooming days are o’er.
Children have we two,—a boy,
Papa’s pet and mamma’s joy;
And a girl, so tight and small,
With her nurse;—that’s five in all:
Yet, alas! alas! have we
Belly timber but for three!
Two must, therefore, often make
Scanty meal on barley-cake;
And sometimes, when nought appears
On the board, we sup on tears.
My good man, once so strong and hale,
On this fare grows very pale;
For our best and daintiest cheer,
Through the bright half of the year,
Is but acorns, onions, peas,[385]
Ochros, lupines,[386] radishes,
Vetches, wild pears nine or ten,[387]
With a locust[388] now and then.
As to figs, the Phrygian treat,
Fit for Jove’s own guests to eat,
They, when happier moments shine,—
They, the Attic figs, are mine.
-----
Footnote 378:
Athen. ii. 56.
Footnote 379:
Cf. Foës. Œconom. Hippoc. v. μαζα. This bread, we find, was sometimes
leavened. Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 557. Athen. xiv. 83.
Footnote 380:
Mention is made of some poor philosophers of this sect, who used to
chew the plant called ἄλιμα to allay hunger, and might be seen
wandering about torrent beds, collecting this and similar herbs in
their wallets. Athen. iv. 52. According to the comic poets, the
Pythagorean sect allowed its disciples a loaf of pure bread and a cup
of water per diem, which constituted the ordinary prison allowance.
Id. ibid.
Footnote 381:
Aristoph. Equit. 420.
Footnote 382:
Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 445.
Footnote 383:
Athen. xiii. 22.
Footnote 384:
Id. ii. 44.
Footnote 385:
Lucian. Amor. § 33.
Footnote 386:
Athen. x. 17.
Footnote 387:
Aristophanes, Vesp. 1260, enumerates apples and pomegranates among the
ordinary articles of food used by the poor.
Footnote 388:
Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Ach. 1081. Athen. iv. 7. 10. Phot. Bib. 453. a.
32. Herod. iv. 172.
-----