The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 2 of 2

by Karl Otfried Müller

Chapter X.

§ 1. Tenure of land in Laconia. § 2. Partition of the land into lots, and their inalienability. § 3. Law of inalienability of land repealed by Epitadeus. § 4. Lacedæmonian law respecting marriage portions and heiresses. § 5. Similar regulations respecting landed property in other states. § 6. The syssitia of Crete and the phiditia of Sparta. § 7. Contributions to the public tables in Crete and Sparta. § 8. Domestic economy of Sparta. § 9. Money of Sparta. § 10. Regulations respecting the use of money in Sparta. § 11. Changes in these regulations. Taxation of the Spartans. § 12. Trade of Peloponnesus. Monetary system of the Dorians of Italy and Sicily.

1. Having now considered the individuals composing the state in reference to the supreme governing power, we will next view them in reference to property, and investigate the subject of the public economy. It is evident that this latter must have been of great simplicity in the Doric states, as it was the object of their constitution to remove everything accidental and arbitrary; and by preventing property from being an object of free choice and individual exertion, to make it a matter of indifference to persons who were to be trained only in moral excellence; hence the dominant class, the genuine Spartans, were almost entirely interdicted from the labour of trade or agriculture, and excluded both from the cares and pleasures of such occupations.[870] Since then upon this principle it was the object to allow as little freedom as possible to individuals in the use of property, while the state gained what these had lost, it is manifest that under a government of this kind there could not have been any [pg 196] accurate distinction between public and private economy; and therefore no attempt will be made to separate them in the following discussion.

All land in Laconia was either in the immediate possession of the state, or freehold property of the Spartans, or held by the Periœci upon the payment of a tribute. That there were flocks and lands belonging to the state of Sparta, is evident from facts which have been already stated;[871] although perhaps they were not so considerable as in Crete:[872] the large forest, in which every Spartan had a right of hunting, must also have belonged to the community. There can be no doubt that this property of the state was different from the royal lands,[873] which were situated in the territory of the Periœci: it is probable that these (as well as the rest of that district) were cultivated by the Periœci, who only paid a tribute to the king. The rest of the territory of the Periœci was divided into numerous but small portions, of which, as has been already remarked, there were 30,000;[874] a number which was probably arranged at the same time with that of the hundred towns.[875] In each lot (κλῆρος) only one family resided, the members of which subsisted upon its produce, and cultivated it, to the best of our knowledge, without the assistance of Helots. For this reason the 9000 lots of the Spartans, which supported twice as many men as the lots of the Periœci,[876] must upon the whole have been twice as extensive; each lot must therefore have been seven times greater. Now the property of [pg 197] the Spartans was, according to the united testimony of all writers, set out in equal lots; probably according to some general valuation of the produce;[877] for the area could not have been taken as a standard in a country where the land was of such different degrees of goodness. Yet even this method of allotment might not have precluded all inequality: which, on account of the natural changes of the soil, must in the course of time have been much augmented; and to this result the variable number of the slaves, which were strictly connected with the land, necessarily contributed. Nevertheless this fact proves that there existed a principle of equality in the contrivers of the regulation: for, as we remarked above, this division was in strictness only a lower degree of a community of goods, which the Pythagoreans endeavoured to put in practice, on the principle of the possessions of friends being common;[878] and which actually existed among the Spartans in the free use of dogs, horses, servants, and even the furniture of other persons.[879] The whole institution of the public tables in Sparta and Crete was, indeed, only a means of producing an equal distribution of property among the members of them.[880]

2. Although similar partitions of land had perhaps been made from the time of the first occupation of Laconia by the Dorians, the later division into 9000 lots cannot have taken place before the end of the [pg 198] first Messenian war.[881] There is something very remarkable in the historical account, that Tyrtæus by means of his poem of Eunomia repressed the desire of many citizens for a redivision of the lands.[882] It may be explained by supposing that the Spartans, who before that time had possessed allotments in Messenia, from which they then obtained no returns, wished that new estates in Laconia should be assigned to them.[883] At the time, however, of that division Sparta must in fact have had about 9000 fathers of families (or, according to the ancient expression, so many οἶκοι), of which each received a lot; for families and lots were necessarily connected.[884] If then we suppose that every family of a Spartan was provided with a lot, the chief object was to keep them together for the future by proper institutions: and to ascertain the means which were employed to attain this end (for they were upon the whole successful) is a problem which has never yet been satisfactorily solved.[885] The first part was the preservation of families, in which the legislator was in ancient times assisted by the sanction of religion. Nothing was more dreaded by the early Greeks than the extinction of [pg 199] the family, and the destruction of the house;[886] by which the dead lost their religious honour, the household gods their sacrifices, the hearth its flame, and the ancestors their name among the living. This was in Sparta provided against by regulations concerning heiresses, adoptions, introductions of mothaces, and other means which will presently be mentioned: those persons also who had not as yet any children were sometimes spared in war.[887] The second means was the prohibition to alienate or divide the family allotment,[888] which necessarily required the existence of only one heir,[889] who probably was always the eldest son.[890] The extent of his rights, however, was perhaps no further than that he was considered master of the house and property; while the other members of the family had an equal right to a share in the enjoyment of it. The head of the family was styled in Doric ἑστιοπάμων, the lord of the hearth;[891] the collective members of the family were called by Epimenides the Cretan ὁμοκάποι, that is, literally, eating from the same crib;[892] and by Charondas ὁμοσίπυοι, or “living [pg 200] upon the same stock;”[893] and by the Spartans perhaps παῶται.[894] The master of the family was therefore obliged to contribute for all these to the syssitia, without which contribution no one was admitted;[895] we shall see presently that he was able to provide this contribution for three men and women besides himself; the other expenses were inconsiderable.[896] If, however, the family contained more than three men, which must frequently have been the case, the means adopted for relieving the excessive number were either to marry them with heiresses, or to send them out as colonists; or the state had recourse to some other means of preventing absolute want. This would have been effected with the greater ease, if it were true, as Plutarch relates, that immediately after the birth of every Spartan boy, the eldest of the tribe, sitting together in a lesche, gave him one of the 9000 lots.[897] For this, however, it must be assumed that the state or the tribes had possession of some lots, of those perhaps in which the families had become extinct; but we know that these lots went in a regular succession to other families,[898] by which means many became exceedingly rich. These elders of the tribe, mentioned by Plutarch, were therefore probably only the eldest of the house or γένος, who might take care that, if several sons and at the same time several lots had fallen together in one family, the younger sons should, [pg 201] as far as was possible, be in the possession of land, without however violating the indivisible unity of an allotment.

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

3. This whole system was entirely broken up by the law of the ephor Epitadeus, which permitted any person to give away his house and lot during his lifetime, and also to leave it as he chose by will.[902] Whence, as might have been expected, the practice of legacy-hunting rose to a great height, in which the rich had always the advantage over the poor. This law, which was directly opposed to the spirit of the Spartan constitution, was passed after the time of Lysander, but a considerable period before Aristotle; since this writer, manifestly confounding the state of things as it existed in his time with the ancient legislation,[903] reckons it as an inconsistency in the constitution of Sparta, that buying and selling of property was attended with dishonour,[904] but that it was permitted to give it away, and bequeath it by will.[905] From that time we find that the number of the Spartans, and particularly of the landed proprietors, continually decreased. The first fact is very remarkable, and can hardly be accounted for by the wars,[906] in which moreover the Spartans lost but few of their number; it was perhaps rather owing to the late marriages, [pg 203] which also frequently took place between members of the same family. After all, it must be confessed that the constitution of Sparta too much restrained the natural inclination of the citizens; and by making every thing too subservient to public ends, checked the free growth of the people, and, like a plant trimmed by an unsparing hand, destroyed its means both of actual strength and future increase. At the time of Aristotle they endeavoured to increase the population by exempting the father of three sons from serving in war, and the father of four sons from all taxes.[907] But even Herodotus only reckons 8000 Spartans in the 9000 families; in the middle of the Peloponnesian war Sparta did not send quite 6000 heavy-armed soldiers into the field.[908] Aristotle states that in his time the whole of Laconia could hardly furnish 1000 heavy-armed men;[909] and at the time of Agis the Third there were only 700 genuine Spartans.[910] Even in 399 B.C. the Spartans who were in possession of lots[911] did not compose a large number in comparison with the people; for the numerous Neodamodes must not be included among them, who it appears could not obtain lots in any other manner than by adoption into a Spartan family, before which time they were provided for by the state. We are entirely uninformed in what manner the loss of Messenia was borne by Sparta; it cannot be supposed [pg 204] that whole families completely lost their landed property; for they would have perished by famine. No writer has, however, preserved a trace of the mode in which these difficulties were met by the state. At the time of Agis the Third we know that of the 700 Spartans, about 100 only were in possession of the district of the city.[912]

4. From this view of the times, which succeeded the innovation of Epitadeus, we will now turn to the original system, which indeed we are scarcely able to ascertain, from the feeble and obscure indications now extant. In the first place, we know with certainty that daughters had originally no dowry (in Doric δωτίνη),[913] and were married with a gift of clothes, &c.;[914] afterwards, however, they were at least provided with money and other moveable property.[915] At the time of Aristotle, after the ephoralty of Epitadeus, they were also endowed with land.[916] This was the regulation in case of the existence of a son; if there [pg 205] was none, the daughter, and if there were several daughters, probably the eldest, became heiress (ἐπίκληρος, in Doric ἐπιπαματίς);[917] that is to say, the possession of her was necessarily connected with that of the inheritance. Regulations concerning heiresses were an object of chief importance in the ancient legislations, on account of their anxiety for the maintenance of families, as in that of Androdamas of Rhegium for the Thracian Chalcideans,[918] and in the code of Solon,[919] with which the Chalcidean laws of Charondas appear to have agreed in all essential points.[920] We will mention the most important of these regulations. The heiress, together with her inheritance, belonged to the kinsmen of the family (ἀγχιστεῖς); so that in early times[921] the father could not dispose of his daughter as he liked without their assent. But, according to the later Athenian law, the father had power either during his life or by will to give his daughter, with her inheritance, in marriage to whomever he wished. If, however, this power was not exercised, the kinsmen had a right of claiming the daughter by a judicial process; and the right to marry her went round in a regular succession.[922] But [pg 206] the unmarried man, to whom of all her kinsmen she was allotted, was not only privileged, but also compelled to marry her.[923] The laws also exercised a further superintendence over him, and enjoined that he should beget children from his wife,[924] which then did not pass into his family, but into that of his wife, and became the successors of their maternal grandfather. Now there is no doubt that in Sparta the family was continued by means of the heiresses; but it is probable that they always chose for their husbands persons who had no lots of their own, such as the descendants of younger brothers, and, first, persons of the same family,[925] if there were any, then persons connected by relationship, and so on. If the father himself had made no disposition concerning his daughters, (in which respect, however, his choice was limited,) it was to be decided by the king's court who among the privileged persons should marry the heiress.[926] It was not until after the time of Epitadeus that the father could betroth his daughter to whom [pg 207] he pleased; and if he had not declared his intention, his heir had equal right to decide concerning her.[927]

If, however, the family was without female issue, and the succession had not been secured during the father's lifetime by adoption in the presence of the king, it is probable that the heads of houses related to the surviving daughter married her to a son of their own, who was then considered as successor of the family into which he was introduced—a means employed at Athens,[928] and probably therefore at Sparta also, for preventing the extinction of families. But there were two customs peculiar to the Lacedæmonians; in the first place, a husband, if he considered that the unfruitfulness of the marriage was owing to himself (for if he considered his wife as barren he had power immediately to put her away),[929] gave his matrimonial rights to a younger and more powerful man, whose child then belonged to the family of the husband, although it was also publicly considered as related to the family of the real father.[930] The second institution was, that to the wives of men, who, for example, had fallen in war before they had begotten any children, other men (probably slaves) were assigned, in order to produce heirs and successors, not to themselves, but to the deceased husband.[931] Both these customs, which appear to us so singular (though similar regulations existed in the constitution of Solon), originated from the superstitious dread of the destruction of a family. When this motive lost its power [pg 208] upon the mind, these ancient institutions were probably also lost, and the population and number of families were continually diminished.

5. In Sparta, however, the principle of community of goods was carried to a further extent than in any other nation, although it was the principle on which the legislation of many other Grecian states was founded. Phaleas the Chalcedonian had made it the basis of his laws.[932] The prohibition of Solon, that no citizen should possess more than a certain quantity of land, appears to have been a remnant of a former equality in the lots of the nobles.[933] In cases, however, in which the restoration or introduction of equality was not possible, the legislators endeavoured to make the landed estates inalienable. For this reason the mortgaging of land was prohibited in Elis;[934] and among the Locrians land could not be alienated without proof of absolute necessity.[935] We have already spoken of the inalienability of the lots at Leucas.[936] The ancient Corinthian lawgiver, Phidon, made no alteration in the unequal size of landed estates, but he wished to restrict their extent, as well as the number of the landed proprietors, who were all citizens.[937] Philolaus the Corinthian, who gave laws to Thebes in the 13th Olympiad, went still further;[938] since he not only endeavoured to retain the same number of lots, by laws [pg 209] concerning the procreation and adoption of children,[939] but endeavoured to restore the original equality from time to time, perhaps in a manner similar to the jubilee-year of the Hebrews:[940] this was in fact most simply effected by the Illyrian Dalmatians, who made a new division of the tillage-land every seven years.[941] If the Doric legislation of Crete had originally a tendency of this kind, its adoption in practice had evidently been hindered by peculiar circumstances. For Polybius[942] at least knew of no Cretan laws which laid any restriction upon the purchase of land, nor indeed upon gain in general:[943] the landed estates were divided among the brothers, the sisters receiving half a brother's share.[944] In this manner, in the narration of Ulysses,[945] the sons of Castor, the son of Hylacus, made a division of their patrimony; the illegitimate son receiving only a small share (νοθεῖα). But the poor frequently, by marriage with wealthy wives, attained to riches, together with personal distinction. In addition to this, privateering expeditions, sometimes as far as Egypt, for which individual adventurers frequently equipped whole flotillas, gave an opportunity for a more rapid acquisition of wealth. This habit of living in ships, [pg 210] and at the same time the variable condition of the different states, necessarily produced a frequent change of property, and soon put an end to all firmness and equality wherever they existed.

6. But the Cretan institution of the syssitia was, at least according to the judgment of Aristotle, founded more upon the principle of community of goods than the same establishment in Sparta, since in the former country the expenses of it were defrayed by the state, and not by the contributions of the citizens.[946] This institution of the ancient Dorians, or rather of the ancient Greeks in general, we will consider in a subsequent part of this work, with reference to manners and taste; here it must be viewed as affecting the public economy. In Sparta every member of the phiditia contributed to them, as has been already stated, from his own stock;[947] the amount required was about one Attic medimnus and a half of barley-meal, eleven or twelve choëis of wine,[948] five minas of cheese, with half the same quantity of figs, together with dates,[949] and ten Æginetan oboli for meat.[950] The approximate statement of one Attic medimnus and a half is probably meant as an equivalent to one Æginetan medimnus;[951] the ten oboli are equal to a Corinthian stater, or a Syracusan decalitre; the whole is doubtless the monthly contribution of an individual,[952] and is amply sufficient for the consumption of one person. For the daily allowance being elsewhere [pg 211] reckoned at two chœnices, and one cotyla of wine (although the latter is an extremely small quantity),[953] this contribution would give rather more than two chœnices, and five cotylas for each day. There appears to have been only a small allowance for meat, but the want of it was partly supplied by the frequent sacrifices, and partly by the excellent institution of the ἐπάϊκλα, which were additions to the regular meal or αἶκλον. The poorer members of the syssition furnished these from the proceeds of the chase, while wealthier persons supplied wheaten bread (the common provision being barley cakes, μᾶζαι), with young cattle from their flocks, birds prepared as ματτύα, and the fruits of the season from their lands.[954] Voluntary gifts of this kind were probably seldom wanting, so long as the spirit of community influenced their minds; it was also natural that they should contribute largely, in order to give variety and grace to their otherwise uniform banquet.

7. In the Cretan institution, however, the state provided for all the citizens and their wives.[955] The revenues received by the community from the public lands, and from the tributes of the Periœci, were divided according to the months of the year into twelve parts;[956] and also into two according to the purpose to which it was appropriated; so that one half defrayed the sacrifices and the expenses of the government, the other [pg 212] went to the public banquets.[957] Now this latter half was divided among the different families, and each gave his share into the company of syssitia (ἑταιρία) to which he belonged.[958] It may be asked why the state did not allot these sums directly among the syssitia, instead of making the payment indirectly through the members: it is, however, probable that these companies were formed at will by the several messmates. The division of the public revenue is in some measure similar to the proceeding of the Athenians with respect to the Laurian silver-mines.[959] In addition to this, every citizen furnished a tenth of the produce of his lands, and every Clarotes an Æginetan stater for his master.[960]

Although the meaning and object of this institution is quite intelligible, it is not easy to obtain a clear notion of the Lacedæmonian system. The produce of a lot amounted for the Spartans, according to a passage above quoted, to 82 medimni. If we suppose these to be Attic medimni, as was there assumed upon a mere approximate calculation, each lot would have enabled three men to contribute to the syssitia (54 medimni), and would also have furnished a scanty subsistence at home to three women. But this would leave a surplus, in addition to whatever money was [pg 213] required as a subscription to the syssitia, for all other household expenses. Now it is true that among the poorer citizens these could not have been considerable, since the younger children went with their fathers to the public tables, and the elder were educated and maintained by the state; to which might be added the produce of the chase, and the charity of other persons. But after making all allowance for these causes, the expenses for dwellings, clothing, furniture, and partly for food not provided by the syssitia, still remain undefrayed. It is, however, evident that there would have been sufficient income to meet these demands, if we suppose that the 82 medimni were not Attic, but Æginetan, which were considerably larger.[961] But even upon this supposition one lot could not have maintained more than six persons, unless the rent of the Helots is assumed higher: and it might also be the case (which however, according to Aristotle, appears to have been of rare occurrence), that they were not able to pay their contributions.

8. Of the domestic economy of Lacedæmon we have little knowledge; although Aristotle, or rather Theophrastus (who is now known to be the author of the first book of the Economics), gives it a separate place in treating of this subject. Every master of a family, if he received his share of the produce of the soil, laid by a portion sufficient for the year's consumption, and sold the rest in the market of Sparta:[962] the exchange being probably effected by barter, and not [pg 214] by the intervention of money.[963] It should be observed, that the system of keeping the fruits in store had something peculiar,[964] and the regularity was celebrated, by which every thing could be easily found and made use of.[965] We are also informed that the Spartans had granaries (ταμιεῖα) upon their estates, which, according to ancient custom, they kept under a seal; it was however permitted to any poor person, who for example had remained too long in the chase, to open the granary, take out what he wanted, and then put his own seal, his iron ring, upon the door.[966]

9. In the market of Sparta, money was employed more often as a medium of comparison than of exchange; small coins were chiefly used, and no value was attributed to the possession of large quantities.[967] This usage Lycurgus had established, by permitting only the use of iron coin, which had been made useless for common purposes, by cooling in vinegar, or by some other process.[968] In early times iron spits or bars had been really used as money,[969] which after the time of Phidon the Argive were replaced by coined metal. The chief coin was called from its shape, and perhaps [pg 215] also from its size, πέλανορ, the cake used in sacrifices; its value was equal to four chalcûs, that is, to a half obolus, or the twelfth of a drachma[970] (manifestly of the Æginetan standard, as the Spartan coinage must necessarily have been adapted to this measure), and weighed an Æginetan mina.[971] Now as a mina of silver contained 1200 half oboli, the price of silver must have been to that of iron as 1200 to one; an excessive cheapness of the latter metal, which can only be explained by the large quantity of iron found in Laconia, and the high price of silver in early times. Ten Æginetan minas of money were, according to this calculation, equal in weight to 1200 minas, and it is easy to see that it would have required large carriages for transport, and an extensive space when kept in store.[972]

10. That, however, the possession of gold and silver money was expressly interdicted to the citizens of Sparta, is abundantly proved by the prohibition renewed at the time of Lysander by Sciraphidas or Phlogidas:[973] and how strong was the hold of this ancient custom is seen from the punishment of death which was threatened to those who secretly transgressed it. The possession of wrought precious metals does not appear to have been illegal. This decree, however, expressly permitted to the state the possession of gold and silver:[974] which enactment was also doubtless a [pg 216] restoration of ancient custom. Without the possession of a coin of general currency, Sparta would have been unable to send ambassadors to foreign states, to maintain troops in another country, or to take foreign, for instance Cretan, mercenaries into pay. We also know that the Lacedæmonians sent sacred offerings to Delphi, as for example, the golden stars of the Dioscuri dedicated by Lysander;[975] and Lacedæmonian artists made for the state statues of gold and ivory.[976] This took place about the time of the Persian war. A century indeed earlier, Sparta had not enough gold to gild the face of the statue of Apollo at Thornax, and endeavoured to buy it in Lydia, probably in exchange for silver.[977] It follows from this, that in Sparta the state was sole possessor of the precious metals, at least in the shape of coin (though it did not coin any money of its own before the time of Alexander),[978] which it used in the intercourse with foreign nations. The individual citizens however, who were without the pale of this intercourse, only required and possessed iron coin;[979] in a manner precisely similar to that proposed by Plato in the Laws, viz., that the money [pg 217] generally current should be at the disposal of the state, and should be given out by the magistrates for the purposes of war and foreign travel, and that within the country should be circulated a coinage in itself worthless, deriving its value from public ordinance.[980]

Still however, some difficult questions remain to be considered. In the first place, it is evident that whatever commerce was carried on by Laconia,[981] could not have existed without a coinage of universal currency. Now it is impossible that this trade could have been carried on by the state, since it would have required a proportionate number of public officers; consequently it was in the hands of the Periœci. We must therefore suppose that the possession of silver coin was allowed to this class of persons; in general, indeed the Spartan customs did not without exception extend to the Periœci. Nor could this have had much influence upon the Spartans, since they had not any personal connexion with the Periœci, the latter being only tributary to the state. In the market of Sparta in which the Spartans and Helots sold their corn and the products of native industry were exposed, all foreigners being entirely excluded,[982] doubtless none but the iron coin was used; and so also in the whole of Laconia it was current at its fixed value; but those Lacedæmonians who were not of Doric origin must have possessed a currency of their own, probably under [pg 218] certain restrictions. And the tributes of these persons were doubtless the chief source from which the state derived its silver and gold coins. Besides this, the kings must also have been privileged to possess silver and gold. If some permission of this kind had not existed, Pausanias (who was in strictness only guardian of the king) would not have been able to receive among other spoils ten talents from the plunder of Platæa;[983] and Pleistonax and Agis the First could not have been fined in the sums of fifteen talents, and 100,000 drachmas:[984] at a later time also, as has been already remarked, Agis the Third was possessed of six hundred talents.[985] The estates of the kings were also situated in the territory of the Periœci, in which silver money was in circulation, and it is at least possible that the payments may have been made to them in this coinage. Herodotus states that every king at the beginning of his reign remitted all the debts of the citizens both to the state and to the kings:[986] they therefore cancelled all certificates of debt, which in Sparta were called κλάρια, or mortgages, probably because the land (and in early times the produce of the land only) was assigned as security.[987] This was a wise institution, by [pg 219] which those persons in particular were relieved who had, for a particular object, received from the kings or the state, gold or silver, which on account of the small value of the iron coinage they were seldom able to repay. Now gold and silver were, for example, necessary to all persons who had to undertake a journey out of Laconia, and these they could not obtain otherwise than from the magistrates or the king,[988] a measure which must have placed great obstacles in the way of foreign travel.

11. It is, however, well known that in this respect the ancient severity of custom was gradually relaxed. Even in the third generation before the Persian war, the just Glaucus was tempted to defraud a Milesian of a sum of money deposited with him. The Persian war only increased the public wealth, and the Persian subsidies were confined to the payment of national expenses. When at length Lysander brought vast sums of money into Sparta, and made this state the most wealthy in Greece,[989] the citizens are reported still to have maintained the same proud indigence. But was it possible for individuals to despise what the state esteemed so highly, and would they not naturally endeavour to found their fame upon that on which the power of the nation depended? Even Lysander, who, with all the artfulness and versatility of his manners, had a considerable severity of character, was still unwilling to enrich himself;[990] a credible witness[991] indeed [pg 220] relates, that he had deposited a talent and fifty-two minas of silver, together with eleven staters, probably in case he should have occasion for them when out of the country; but how small is this sum when compared with the acquisitions of others in similar situations!

It appears, however, to have been at that time customary to deposit money without the boundaries, especially in Arcadia, and this was the first means adopted for evading the law.[992] Lysander, however, was far exceeded by Gylippus in love for money, in whose family avarice appears to have been hereditary; for his father Cleandridas had been condemned for taking bribes.[993] Lastly, after the death of Lysander, the possession of precious metals must have been allowed to private individuals, under certain conditions with which we are unacquainted. At least some supposition of this kind must be adopted, to enable us to account for the fact, that Phœbidas was fined 100,000 [pg 221] drachmas for the taking of the Cadmea, and Lysanoridas an equally large sum for his weak defence of the same citadel.[994]

No regular taxation of the citizens of Sparta existed in any shape.[995] Extraordinary contributions and taxes were, however, raised for the purposes of war, which, on account of their unusual and irregular occurrence, were collected with difficulty.[996] This will serve to explain the exemption from duties (ἀτέλεια) that is sometimes mentioned.[997] When in the time of Agis the Third the ephor Agesilaus extended the annual period of his office for a month, in order to increase his receipts,[998] it is probable that he reckoned upon large fines;[999] of which he, as it seems, would receive a part. There was no public treasure at Sparta up to the time of the Peloponnesian war;[1000] the revenue and expenditure were therefore nearly equal; and the Spartans were honest enough to require from the allies only the sums which were necessary,[1001] The altered state of these circumstances in later times lies without the sphere of our inquiries.

12. I shall equally abstain from collecting the [pg 222] various accounts respecting the finance and trade of other Doric states; since the inland countries, in which many peculiarities may perhaps have existed, are little known; and the commercial cities, such as Ægina, Corinth, Rhodes, and Cyrene, gave up their national customs for the sake of trade. In Peloponnesus, however, the cities on the coast of Argolis were adapted by nature for exchanging the products of the agricultural nations of the interior for foreign commodities;[1002] and thus they established a connexion and intercourse between Laconia and Arcadia, and other countries.[1003] In these cities also there were many commercial establishments, which did not manufacture only for the interior.[1004] In Corinth, the duties from the harbour and market had in the time of Periander become so considerable, that the tyrant limited his receipts to that one branch of revenue;[1005] although, according to a fabulous tradition, the golden colossus of Cypselus at Olympia was consecrated from a tax of a tenth upon all property continued for ten years.[1006]

The strongest proof of the ancient commerce of Peloponnesus, and of its great extent, is the Æginetan money; the standard of which was in early times prevalent in Peloponnesus, in Crete, in Italy,[1007] and even [pg 223] in the north of Greece, since the early Bœotian, Thessalian, and Macedonian coins were before the time of Philip adapted to it.[1008] In Italy the monetary system was arranged in a peculiar manner, for the convenience of intercourse with the natives; and as this subject is of much importance in a historical point of view, we will now examine it briefly, without attempting a complete investigation. If we consider the names of the coins in use among the Dorians of Italy and Sicily, for example, at Syracuse and Tarentum (as they had been collected by Aristotle in his Constitution of the Himeræans from Doric Poets),[1009] viz., λίτρα for an obolus, ἠμίλιτρον for six, πεντόγκίον for five, τετρᾶς for four, τριᾶς for three,[1010] ἑξᾶς for two, [pg 224] ὀγχία for a twelfth; it is at once evident that these Greeks had adopted the Italian and Roman duodenary system, in which the libra, the pound of brass, was the unit;[1011] a system which was originally unknown to the Greeks, and accordingly the word λίτρα has no root in their language. Now, together with these coins in the Greek states, the νόμος,[1012] among the Latins numus, occurs; manifestly, as Varro says, a word belonging to the former people, and signifying a coin current by law; whence it is evident that the Italians, in the regulations of their monetary system, did not merely give to the Greeks of Italy, but that they also received something in return, and that one standard was compounded, partaking in some measure of both methods of computation. If we, then, consider the form and value of these coins, it is plain that the Greek colonies retained the system of money which they brought with them from Peloponnesus; and that they did not till subsequently adapt their coinage to the native standard. They then made the litra equal to the obolus, i.e., to the Æginetan, which was also the Corinthian;[1013] so that a Corinthian stater of ten oboli was called in Syracuse a δεχάλιτρον, or piece of ten litras. At the time, therefore, when this system was [pg 225] formed, the lb. of copper must have really been equal in value to a silver obolus. Now since the former weighed 6048,[1014] the latter nearly 23 French grains,[1015] the ratio of silver to copper must at the time of this arrangement have been as 1 to 263; the commerce of these regions having in early times determined this proportion. But as more silver was gradually introduced by the trade with the west of Europe, and probably at the same time some native copper-mines were exhausted, copper, which was the circulating medium of Italy, rose in comparison with silver, the circulating medium of Greece; and this was the principal cause of the constant diminution in the weight of the as in Etruria and Rome. But a detailed examination of this subject, so important in the history of the commerce of Greece and Italy, does not fall within the plan of the present work.[1016]

What was the value of the νόμος of the Sicilian Greeks we are not informed by any decisive testimony: the name, however, proves that it was a current coin, and not of very inconsiderable value. For this reason I cannot assume that it was equal to a litra;[1017] Aristotle[1018] also states that the impression of the Tarentine coins was Taras sitting upon the dolphin; now, in the first place, this device does not occur on any litras or oboli of Tarentum; and, secondly, the coin would not be of sufficient size to contain it: for which reason the Greeks, whenever they stamped so small a coin of silver, always made use of the simplest devices. If, however, the Tarentine numus [pg 226] had the same ratio to the litra as the Roman numus sestertius to the as,[1019] the former would have been a large coin; and we are also on the same supposition enabled to explain how it came that in Sicily an amount of 24, and afterwards of 12 numi, was called a talent;[1020] for in that case 24 numi would be equal to 60 lbs. of copper, which was the same number of minas that the Æginetan talent of silver contained. It is also confirmed by the fact mentioned by Festus, that this talent in Neapolis amounted to six, and in Syracuse to three denarii, by which he means decalitra.[1021] And therefore, although other circumstances tend to shake the certainty of this supposition,[1022] it will be better to acquiesce in these arguments, on account of the harmony of the different statements.

---