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.
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]]
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]]
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.
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]]
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]]
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]]
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]]
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.