Chapter IV.
§ 1. Subject classes in Crete. § 2. In Argos and Epidaurus. § 3. In Corinth and Sicyon. § 4. In Syracuse. § 5. In Byzantium, Heraclea on the Pontus, and Cyrene. § 6. The bond-slaves of Thessaly. § 7. Cities and villages of Arcadia. § 8. The political opposition of city and country.
1. After having thus separately considered the two dependent classes in Sparta, the pattern state of the Dorians, we will now point out the traces of the analogous ranks in several other states of Doric origin.
The Doric customs were first established in Crete, whose fortunate circumstances had given to that race a fertile country, and an undisturbed dominion. Accordingly, the relative rights of the Dorians and natives must at an early period have been fixed on a settled basis in this island; and we may suppose that this settlement was made on equitable terms, since Aristotle was not aware of any insurrection of the slaves in Crete against their masters.[201] The Doric customs required here, as elsewhere, exemption from all agricultural [pg 051] or commercial industry; which is expressed in a lively manner in the song of Hybrias the Cretan, that “with lance and sword and shield he reaped and dressed his vines, and hence was called lord of the Mnoia.”[202] In this island, however, different classes of dependents must have existed. Sosicrates and Dosiadas, both credible authors on the affairs of Crete, speak of three classes, the public bondsmen (κοινὴ δουλεία), called by the Cretans μνοΐα, the slaves of individual citizens, ἀφαμιῶται, and the Periœci, ὑπήκοοι. Now we know that the Aphamiotæ received their name from the cultivation of the lands of private individuals (in Cretan ἀφαμίαι) and accordingly they were agricultural bondsmen.[203] These latter are identical with the Clarotæ, who, for this reason, were not separately mentioned by the writers just quoted: for although they are generally supposed to have taken their name from the lot cast for prisoners of war, the more natural derivation doubtless is from the lots or lands of the citizens, which were called κλῆροι. But whichever explanation we adopt, they were bondsmen belonging to the individual citizens. Both the Clarotæ and Aphamiotæ have therefore been correctly compared with the Helots;[204] and as the latter were entirely distinct from the Laconian Periœci, so were the former from the Cretan, although Aristotle neglects the distinction accurately observed by the Cretan [pg 052] writers.[205] In the second place, the μνοία (or μνῴα) was by more precise historians distinguished as well from the condition of Periœci as from that of private bondage, and it was explained to mean a state of public villenage; whence we may infer that every state in Crete was possessed of public lands, which the Mnotæ cultivated in the same relative situation to the community in which the Aphamiotæ, who cultivated the allotted estates, stood to the several proprietors. This name, however, is sometimes extended to all forced labourers, as in the song of Hybrias noticed above.[206] Finally, the Periœci formed in Crete, as in Laconia, dependent and tributary communities: their tribute was, like the produce of the national lands, partly applied to the public banquets;[207] to which also, according to Dosiadas,[208] every slave in Lyctus contributed in addition one Æginetan stater. Now in this passage we cannot suppose that the Periœci are meant, because the exact author would not have called them [pg 053] slaves: nor yet the slaves purchased in foreign parts (called ἀργυρώνητοι in Crete), since it would have been impossible to reckon with any certainty that persons in this situation possessed anything of their own; nor, lastly, can the Mnotæ be meant, since these were public slaves, having no connexion with individuals, nor consequently with their eating clubs.[209] It remains, therefore, that it was the Clarotæ (or Aphamiotæ), who, in addition to the tax in kind, were also liable to this payment in money, with which utensils for the use of the public table were probably purchased. It may be, moreover, observed that we have no reason to suppose that the bondsmen were admitted to the daily banquets.[210]
Perhaps, however, there was no Grecian state in which the dependent classes were so little oppressed as in Crete. In general, every employment and profession, with the exception of the gymnasia and military service, was permitted to them.[211] Hence also the Periœci held so firmly to the ancient legislation of Minos, that they even then observed it, when it had been neglected by the Dorians of the town of Lyctus;[212] and thus, as was frequently the case elsewhere, in the decline of public manners the ancient customs were retained among the lower classes of society longer than amongst the higher. Upon the whole, Crete was the most fortunate of all the Doric states in this circumstance, that it could follow up its own institutions with [pg 054] energy and in quiet, without any powerful obstacle; although its very tranquillity and far-extended commerce at length occasioned a gradual decline of ancient customs. The reverse took place at Argos, whose Doric inhabitants, pressed on all sides, were at length compelled to renounce the institutions of their race, and adopt those of the natives. In the early history of this state, therefore, the two classes of dependents and bondsmen should be distinguished: this division was, however, very early laid aside, and an entirely different arrangement introduced.
2. There was at Argos a class of bond-slaves, who are compared with the Helots, and were called Gymnesii.[213] The name alone sufficiently proves the correctness of the comparison; these slaves having evidently been the light-armed attendants on their masters (γύμνητες). Hence also the same class of slaves were in Sicyon called κορυνηφύροι; because they only carried a club or staff, and not, like the heavy-armed Dorians, a sword and lance. It is to these Gymnesii that the account of Herodotus refers,[214] that 6000 of the citizens of Argos having been slain in battle by Cleomenes king of Sparta,[215] the slaves got the government [pg 055] into their own hands, and retained possession of it until the sons of those who had fallen were grown to manhood. From this narrative it is plain that the number of Dorians at Argos was nearly exhausted by the death of 6000 of their body; and that none but bondsmen dwelt in the immediate neighbourhood of the city, since otherwise the sovereign power would not have fallen into their hands. It would be absurd to suppose that slaves bought in foreign countries can be here intended, since these could have had no more notion of governing a Grecian state than the bear in the fable of managing the ship.[216] Afterwards, when the young citizens had grown up, the slaves were compelled by them to withdraw to Tiryns; and then, after a long war, as it appears, were either driven from the territory, or again subdued.[217]
The Argives, however, also had Periœci,[218] who were known by the name of Orneatæ. This appellation was properly applied to the inhabitants of Orneæ, a town on the frontiers towards Mantinea, which, having been long independent, was at last, about the year 580 B.C.,[219] reduced by the Argives; and afterwards the whole class of Periœci was so called from that place. These Orneatæ, or Periœci, therefore, like those of Laconia, formed separate communities of their own, which indeed was the case so late as the Persian war. [pg 056] For (as we have shown above) the Argives about this time incorporated the surrounding towns belonging to the Periœci,[220] for the purpose of replenishing and increasing their own numbers, and gave them the rights of citizens. With this period an entirely new era in the history of the constitution of Argos commences, although this state of things has from its greater notoriety often been improperly applied also to earlier times. Thus Isocrates[221] says that the Dorians of Argos, like those of Messene, admitted the native inhabitants into the city (as σύνοικοι), and gave them equal rights of citizenship, with the exception of offices of honour; contrasting with it the conduct of the Spartans, in a manner which every one now perceives to have been entirely groundless. The change in the constitution of Argos then introduced was no less than if the whole body of Periœci in Laconia had declared themselves the sovereign community. For the newly-adopted citizens appear to have soon demanded and obtained the full rights of the old; and hence, ever after the above epoch, democracy seems to have had the upper hand in Argos. And this could never be the case without the disappearance of the Doric character, which showed itself in the diminution of their military skill. For this reason the Argives in after-times were reduced to form a standing army of a thousand citizens, of noble extraction, under the command of generals who possessed great civil power.[222] [pg 057] This body of men, however, immediately endeavoured to set up an oppressive oligarchy, until they at length yielded to the preponderating power of the democracy. But of this more hereafter.[223]
It is not known for what length of time the Epidaurians preserved the distinction between townsmen and countrymen. The name κονίποδες, i.e., dusty-feet, which was applied to the lower classes, is a proof of their agricultural habits,[224] and is probably not merely a term of reproach. That this class, however, as at Argos, furnished citizens who were not originally Dorians, is shown by the occurrence of a fourth tribe, besides the three Doric.[225]
3. Neither in Corinth nor in Sicyon does there appear to have been any complete distinction between the Doric and other races. The inhabitants, especially those of the former state, must have lived on an equality with the aboriginal possessors, and were probably only admitted by a fresh division (ἐπ᾽ ἀναδασμῷ) to a joint possession of the lands. Hence it was that in Corinth there were not only the three Doric tribes (of [pg 058] which we shall speak hereafter), but eight, all of which dwelt in the city.[226] Nor were even the Cypselidæ Dorians; though, before they obtained the tyranny, they had long been distinguished citizens. We may discover a class of Corinthian Helots in the Cynophali,[227] whose name was, as in a former instance, derived from the dog-skin cap of the native Peloponnesians. But regular slavery, as was natural in a commercial state, soon prevailed at Corinth, and probably under very nearly the same form as at Athens.[228] In Sicyon there were bondsmen, of whom the names Corynephori[229] and Catonacophori have been preserved.[230] The first marks them as light-armed attendants in war, the second as a class always inhabiting the country. The citizens of this state were divided into four tribes, of which three were purely Doric, viz., the Hylleans, Dymanes, and Pamphylians; while the fourth tribe, the Ægialeans, derived their name from the country which they had inhabited before the Doric invasion.[231] It is also certain that this fourth tribe possessed not merely some civil privileges, but the complete rights of citizenship; [pg 059] since the family of Cleisthenes raised itself from it to the royal dignity, which could scarcely have taken place had their tribe stood in the same relation to the citizens as the Periœci or Helots did to the Spartans. This Cleisthenes, with the arrogance of a tyrant, gave to his own tribe the name of Archelai, or rulers; while he called the three Doric tribes after the sow, the swine, and the ass (ὑᾶται, ὀνεᾶται, χοιρεᾶται.) We can hardly, however, credit the assertion of Herodotus (who too often seeks for the causes of events in the passions and wishes of individuals, to the disregard of political circumstances) that these were merely terms of abuse;[232] it is more probable that Cleisthenes wished to compel the Dorians to retire into the country, and employ themselves in the care of cattle and in agriculture, thus bidding an entire defiance to all their principles. But so arbitrary a subversion of all ancient customs and habits could not endure for any length of time; and, after the downfall of that tyrannical dynasty, the former constitution was restored in its most essential parts.
4. In the colonies of the Dorians the condition of the conquered peasants and bondsmen was often more oppressed and degraded than in the parent states; since the ruling class were there placed in [pg 060] contact, not with Greeks, but with barbarians. In their settlements the following ranks were generally formed at successive periods of time. A Doric state founded the colony; and its citizens constituted the sole nobility in the new city; these parted amongst themselves the conquered land into lots,[233] and formed the body of citizens, the πολίτευμα strictly so called.[234] These colonists, however, soon endeavoured to strengthen themselves by fresh numbers, and opened their harbours to all exiled or discontented persons. The motley population[235] thus formed, called by the name of Demus, was generally excluded from the body politic (or the πολίτευμα), until it obtained admittance by force; and at the same time constantly pressed for a new division of the territory (ἀναδασμὸς).[236] Besides these, a third rank was formed by the native inhabitants, who were compelled by the new-comers to serve either as bondsmen or public slaves. Thus, for example, the distinction at Syracuse was—first, the Gamori, viz., the old Corinthian colonists, who had taken possession of the large lots, and divided the land;[237] secondly, a Demus; and, [pg 061] thirdly, slaves on the estates of the nobles, whose number became proverbial. These were, without doubt, native Siculians, as is shown by the various forms of their name (Κυλλύριοι, Κιλλικύριοι, Καλλικύριοι,) which cannot be explained from the Greek.[238] The political condition of Syracuse was formed in a manner essentially different from that of the Peloponnesian states, chiefly from the circumstance that the Demus (an unpleasant fellow-lodger, according to the expression of Gelon) was immediately received into the city. Hence also the prodigious size of the Sicilian and Italian towns in comparison with those of Peloponnesus. The Gamori, together with their Cyllyrians, stood in nearly the same relation to the Demus as the patricians with their clients did to the plebeians at Rome. The changes in the constitution also had nearly the same course as at Rome; for the two classes first sought to compromise their pretensions in a moderate timocracy (the πολιτεία of Aristotle), which subsequently passed (as we shall see hereafter) into a complete democracy.
5. In the Megarian colony of Byzantium the native inhabitants, the Bithynians, were in precisely [pg 062] the same condition as the Helots.[239] The same was likewise the fate of the nation of Mariandynians in Heraclea on the Pontus, which city also was founded by the Megarians conjointly with the Bœotians. They submitted under the stipulation that no Mariandynian should be sold beyond the borders,[240] which was a fundamental rule of the ancient system of bondage; and that they should pay a tribute to be settled once for all, this being called by the mild name of presents (δῶρα[241]). The great number of these native slaves, who never suffered the country to want for sailors, was very favourable to the commerce and naval power of Heraclea.[242]
At Cyrene also the several classes were formed in a similar manner. In Thera, the mother-country of Cyrene, the families of the original colony from Laconia had once alone possessed the full rights of citizenship, and held the offices of state.[243] Thus also at Cyrene the families from Thera at first were sole possessors of the governing power, and did not admit the after-comers to a full participation of it. It was the natural course of events, that they who first caused the Grecian name to be respected amongst the savages of Libya should be supposed to have a greater claim [pg 063] to honour and property than those who had flocked together to a town already established and securely defended. But the Cyrenæans having in the reign of Battus the Second proclaimed throughout Greece a new division of their lands[244] (which, however, they had first to gain from the Libyans), and many fresh citizens having collected together, a new constitution became in time necessary: and this, Demonax of Mantinea established for them on democratic principles. He abolished the old tribes, and created in their place three new ones, in which the entire Grecian population of Cyrene was comprehended. The division of the people was into three parts, viz., one consisting of the Theræans and Periœci, the second of Peloponnesians and Cretans, and the third of all the islanders.[245] From this it is evident that the original colonists still continued to keep Periœci under their power, while the other citizens did not enjoy this right; and that the former were a kind of privileged class, who probably were in a great measure relieved from any personal attendance to agriculture: in this manner the wise Demonax respected the institutions of antiquity. Of the origin and condition of these [pg 064] Periœci, not only have we no direct account, but not even an indirect trace.
6. We have now finished our comparison of the different subject classes in the Doric states. It has been clearly proved that a class of Periœci, and also of Helots, was the basis of the Doric form of government, insomuch that the abolition of servitude generally occasioned a subversion of the Doric institutions. Hence the Dorians generally, and above all the Spartans, were distinguished for the obstinacy with which they retained it. But this species of servitude may be said to have existed in ancient times, wherever a warlike nation had obtained a settlement by conquest; for example, in Thessaly, Bœotia, and even among the Ionians of Athens. Now as the distinction of subjects and bond-slaves was kept up for a longer time in Thessaly than in any other state, those of the Dorians alone being excepted, we will include that country in the present inquiry. The following classes may be there distinguished: First, a number of small nations were under the dominion of the Thessalians, to whom they paid a fixed tribute, and were also probably bound to assist in war; but they nevertheless still retained their national divisions, and a certain degree of independence. This must have been the state of the Perrhæbians to the north of Larissa, the Magnesians to the east of mount Pelion, and the Phthiotan Achæans to the south of mount Othrys and the Enipeus. For all these were indeed subject to the Thessalians,[246] but had not ceased to be [pg 065] distinct, nay, even Amphictyonic nations.[247] Their tribute had been accurately fixed by Scopas, prince of Pharsalus. They were also called Periœci.[248] Excluding then this tract of country, we retain for Thessaly Proper the region between the Perrhæbians towards the north, and the Achæans towards the south, in which direction the Enipeus forms the boundary,[249] comprehending the valley of the Peneus (the ancient Pelasgic Argos), and a district towards the Pagasæan bay, called by Herodotus Æolis.[250] The Thessalians, therefore, held this territory under their immediate government, and had the towns of Larissa, Crannon, Pharsalus, Iolcus, and others, in their own possession; the land being cultivated by the Penestæ, who were the early Pelasgico-Æolian inhabitants.[251] For, according to Archemachus,[252] the Æolian Bœotians had in part emigrated from their country, leaving some of their numbers behind, who submitted conditionally, as Penestæ: amongst these Theopompus[253] also includes the Magnesians and Perrhæbians; but this statement can only hold good of a part of these two races, since they were (as has been already shown) dependent, but not entirely subject.[254] The fundamental laws of the [pg 066] ancient Greek bondage applied also to the Penestæ. They could neither be put to death without trial, nor be sold out of the country.[255] Thus they stood in an intermediate position between freemen and purchased slaves,[256] like the Mariandynians of Heraclea, the Clarotæ of Crete, and the Helots of Laconia, with whom they are generally compared.[257] For, like these, they were reduced to servitude by conquest, although they cannot properly be called slaves taken in war.[258] Further, they were not subject to the whole community, but belonged to particular houses and families:[259] hence also they were called Θεσσαλοικέται.[260] They were particularly numerous in the great families of the Aleuadæ and Scopadæ.[261] Their principal employment was agriculture,[262] from the produce of which they paid a rent to the proprietors of the soil.[263] At the same time this did not prevent them from gaining [pg 067] property of their own, and they were frequently richer than their masters.[264] In war they attended their lords, protecting and fighting before them, like knights and their squires; generally, however, contrary to the custom of other Greeks, on horseback.[265] All these accounts respecting the Penestæ agree sufficiently well with one another, and refer to one and the same class; although it is certain that the attempts to obtain civil liberty had much increased amongst the Penestæ at the time of the Peloponnesian war, and were now and then, though not constantly, supported by Athens.[266] The other internal affairs of the Thessalians do not lie within the range of our inquiry. They had little adapted themselves to a quiet course of events, nor indeed did the turbulent and haughty disposition of their race allow of a life of inactivity. In each town of Thessaly we find a constant struggle between the commons and a number of oligarchical families; from these arise several princely races, such as the Aleuadæ, Scopadæ,[267] &c. The states themselves were generally at war with one another: thus their political constitution, as well as the want of steadiness and forbearance in the national character, must be regarded as the chief reasons why Thessaly was of so little importance in Greece. The external means which a wide territory and military power afforded them were here doubtless present in a greater degree than in any [pg 068] other country; the Thessalians were also distinguished for their bravery, and the ancient fame of the country would have supported claims in themselves well founded; how came it then that the history of Thessaly was a blank in the annals of Greece, while Sparta was so long its very soul? The only answer is, that the national character of the Thessalians was altogether different; for wisdom they had only cunning; for rational valour only a restless love of war; for strict self-command only unrestrained passions.
7. It appears, therefore, that foreign conquest universally in Greece gave birth to that political condition, which may be compared with the villenage or serfage of the Germanic nations; and indeed it does not seem that such a state of society could have any other origin. There would accordingly be matter for surprise if we found a class of bondsmen among the Arcadians, a nation which neither gained its territory by conquest,[268] nor was ever conquered itself: and, accordingly, it can scarcely be doubted that the nation described by Theopompus as possessing 300,000 Prospelatæ, whom he compares with the Helots, is not the Arcadians, but the Illyrian Ardiæans.[269] The distinction of ranks, which we find existing in the Arcadian towns, may be satisfactorily explained by the opposition between the city, properly so called (πόλις), and the country villages [pg 069] (δῆμοι, κῶμαι), which in later times most of the Arcadian cities, for example, Mantinea, Tegea, and Heræa, incorporated with themselves. For although it is asserted that these and other towns were made up of separate villages, it must not be supposed that they had no previous existence as cities. The account is to be understood in the same manner as that of the congregating of the people of Attica to Athens, which is stated to have taken place in the time of Theseus. Nearly all the towns of Arcadia possessed citadels of extreme antiquity, in and near which many princely, sacerdotal, and military families had dwelt from an early period. These formed a nobility, with reference to the agricultural classes in the country, which, however, included by far the greater portion of the Arcadians. If then one large town was formed of several villages, the constitution at the same time necessarily became more democratical, which was the result at Argos of the incorporation of the Periœci,[270] and at Megara also of the same measure.[271] For so long as the people inhabited a particular village, they interested themselves in its affairs alone, and the persons in the chief city managed the concerns of the whole community. But from the moment that they began to live together, every person considered himself entitled to a share in the public councils. Hence it was the interest of the head of the Peloponnesian confederacy again to separate the inhabitants of the towns (διοικίζειν); of the Athenians, to keep them together. The Argives first effected the union of the boroughs [pg 070] at Mantinea, doubtless not until they had seen other instances of the same proceeding, that is, after the Persian war. They united four hamlets with the ancient city,[272] which made the fifth; the Lacedæmonians after some time restored the ancient villages, and with them the aristocracy. The territory of Tegea was also divided into eight hamlets, which were afterwards united to make the city, viz., the Gareatæ, Phylaceans, Caryatæ,[273] Corytheans, Botachidæ, Manthyreans, Echeneteans, and Apheidantes: to these were added, as the ninth, the Tegeatans of the ancient town,[274] who had previously been the citizens properly so called, while the former had been the inhabitants of the open country; a distinction, which, upon their union, must either instantly or very soon have disappeared.
8. Since it has been ascertained in the course of these inquiries that the distinction between πόλις and δῆμος, that is, town and country, was of great political importance in the ancient states, we will conclude this chapter with some remarks upon those terms.
The word δῆμος originally signified the ground and soil on which the people lived,[275] and afterwards the [pg 071] whole number of persons inhabiting it. Πόλις, on the contrary, means the city, which in the time of Homer was probably always fortified. Now with the city everything that concerned the government of a state was connected, and those exempt from all personal share in the labours of the field, namely, the military families and the nobles,[276] dwelt in it; hence it is viewed in Homer as a disgrace or a misfortune, for a noble to live among the bondsmen in the country.[277] This is the state of things described by the most ancient poet; and particular accounts of an historical nature present the same picture. When the Achæans settled on the coast of Ægialea, they fortified themselves in the towns and strongholds, and kept entirely aloof from the natives; at least we know this to have been the case at Patræ;[278] so that the same race here inhabited the principal city as conquerors, who in Laconia were scattered about in the country-towns as a conquered people. Hence also the town of Dyme was originally called Stratos;[279] that is, the station of the army, the abode of the male population who had the means and the privilege of bearing arms. It was not till a later period that the Achæan towns, Patræ, Dyme, and Ægium, incorporated their villages.[280] At Athens the Eupatridæ are stated to have had possession of the city;[281] an account which is strikingly [pg 072] confirmed by the circumstance that Cydathenæum, one of the Attic demi, was situated within the city,[282] and it had evidently taken its name from Cydathenæus, i.e., a noble and illustrious Athenian.[283] Hence is explained the distinction between the terms “Athenian,” and “inhabitant of Attica (Ἀττικὸς),” which was still preserved in common language after it had been in fact abolished by the democracy. Thus Plato uses the former, as a more honourable appellation than the latter;[284] and when Dicæarchus, describing the manners of Greece, contrasts the inhabitants of Attica as loquacious, sycophantic, and fickle, with the noble-minded, simple, and honest Athenians, by the latter he means the ancient families, and by the former the Demus, which, since the time of Cleisthenes, had been compounded of the most heterogeneous elements. Thus the πόλις and δῆμος became identical in Athens, and the latter word was used by preference to signify the whole community. But in other states, the πόλις was opposed to the δῆμος, as the ruling aristocratical power.[285] Thus Theognis the Megarian says of his native town, with aristocratical feelings—
Πατρίδα κοσμήσω, λιπαρὴν ΠΟΛΙΝ, οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ ΔΗΜΟΝ τρέψας οὔτ᾽ ἀδίκοις ἀνδράσι πειθόμενος.[286]
Hence, also, states not under a democratical government used the word πόλις in their public documents, to signify the sovereign power; for instance, the Cretan [pg 073] towns, so late as the second century after Christ.[287] The Spartan community, however, deviating from this usage of the word, calls itself δᾶμος in ancient laws;[288] because it never thought of opposing itself as a body to the Periœci.
Democracies then were frequently formed by collecting the inhabitants of the country into the city (when the δῆμος and πόλις coincided), by the union of single villages, and by the admission of the Periœci to the rights of citizenship. At Athens, in order to give the democracy the highest possible antiquity, this change was dated as far back as the mythical age of Theseus. In Peloponnesus, the first movements tending to it had perhaps begun before the time of the tyrants; these very persons, however, though they had in most cases risen from demagogues, still, for the purpose of securing a more tranquil dominion, sought again to remove the common people from the city, and to bind them down to the country. Instead of the town-costume, they forced them to resume their former dress of sheep's skins, as has been remarked above of the tyrants of Sicyon;[289] for this purpose likewise they [pg 074] very prudently encouraged agriculture in all its branches.[290] Trade and commerce, by collecting men together in large towns, promoted the principles of democracy. It was in the wealthy and populous cities of the Greeks in the Ionian territory that a popular government was first established. Where, on the other hand, the courts of justice were at a distance, and there was no other inducement to mechanical industry and internal commerce, the ancient habits of life continued much longer in existence; as for example, among the shepherds of Mænalia and Parrhasia: these, as late as the founding of Megalopolis, lived in villages, amongst which particular boroughs (as Basilis) were distinguished as the abodes of sovereign families; such a state was altogether suited to the interests of the aristocracy or oligarchy. In oligarchical states, as in Elis, the people in later times remained almost constantly in the country; and it frequently happened that grandfathers and grandchildren had never seen the town: there were also country courts of justice, and other regulations, intended to make up for the advantages of a city life.[291] But even in the democratic states, as at Athens, there was among the people a constant struggle of feeling between the turbulent working of the democracy, and the peaceful inclination to their ancient country life.