[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.
[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.
[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.
[278]. Poll. viii. 91. Gœttlieb. ad Plat. Menex. p. 62, seq.
[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.
[280]. Publ. Econ. of Athen. i. 324.
[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.
[282]. Harpocrat, v. ἀδύνατοι. Cf. not. Vales. et Suid. v. t. i. p. 89, b.
[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.