[127] Respecting the word θέμιστες in the Homeric sense, see above, vol. ii, ch. xx.

Both Aristotle (Polit. ii, 9, 9) and Dêmosthenês (contr. Euerg. et Mnêsibul. c. 18, p. 1161) call the ordinances of Drako νόμοι, not θεσμοί. Andokidês distinguishes the θεσμοὶ of Drako and the νόμοι of Solon (De Mysteriis, p. 11). This is the adoption of a phrase comparatively modern; Solon called his own laws θεσμοί. The oath of the περίπολοι ἔφηβοι (the youth who formed the armed police of Attica during the first two years of their military age), as given in Pollux (viii, 106), seems to contain at least many ancient phrases: this phrase,—καὶ τοῖς θεσμοῖς τοῖς ἱδρυμένοις πείσομαι,—is remarkable, as it indicates the ancient association of religious sanction which adhered to the word θεσμοί; for ἱδρύεσθαι is the word employed in reference to the establishment and domiciliation of the gods who protected the country,—θέσθαι νόμους is the later expression for making laws. Compare Stobæus De Republic. xliii, 48, ed. Gaisford, and Dêmosthen. cont. Makartat. c. 13, p. 1069.

[128] Ὅτε θεσμὸς ἐφάνη ὅδε,—such is the exact expression of Solon’s law (Plutarch, Solon, c. 19); the word θεσμὸς is found in Solon’s own poems, θεσμοὺς δ᾽ ὁμοίους τῷ κακῷ τε κἀγαθῷ.

[129] Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 9; Rhetoric. ii. 25, 1; Aulus Gell. N. A. xi, 18; Pausanias, ix, 36, 4; Plutarch, Solon, c. 19; though Pollux (viii, 42) does not agree with him. Taylor, Lectt. Lysiacæ, ch. 10.

Respecting the θεσμοὶ of Drako, see Kuhn. ad Ælian. V. II. viii, 10. The preliminary sentence which Porphyry (De Abstinentiâ, iv, 22) ascribes to Drako can hardly be genuine.

[130] Pausanias, ix, 36, 4. Δράκοντος Ἀθηναίοις θεσμοθετήσαντος ἐκ τῶν ἐκείνου κατέστη νόμων οὓς ἔγραφεν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἄλλων τε ὁπόσων ἄδειαν εἶναι χρή, καὶ δὴ καὶ τιμωρίας μοιχοῦ: compare Dêmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 637; Lysias de Cæde Eratosthen. p. 31.

[131] Harpokration, vv. Ἐφέται, Ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ, Ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ, Ἐν Φρεαττοῖ; Pollux, viii, 119, 124, 125; Photius, v. Ἐφέται; Hesychius, ἐς Φρέατου; Dêmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. c. 15-18, pp. 642-645; cont. Makartat. c. 13, p. 1068. When Pollux speaks of the five courts in which the ephetæ judged, he probably includes the areopagus (see Dêmosth. cont. Aristokrat. c. 14, p. 641).

About the judges ἐν Φρεαττοῖ, see Aristot. Polit. iv, 13, 2. On the general subject of this ancient and obscure criminal procedure, see Matthiæ, De Judiciis Atheniensium (in Miscellan. Philologie, vol. i, p. 143, seq.); also Schömann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. Att. sect. 61, p. 288; Platner, Prozess und Klagen bey den Attikern, b. i, ch. 1; and E. W. Weber, Comment. ad Dêmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. pp. 627, 641; Meier und Schömann, Attisch. Prozess, pp. 14-19.

I cannot consider the ephetæ as judges in appeal, and I agree with those (Schömann, Antiq. Jur. Pub. Gr. p. 171; Meier und Schömann, Attisch. Prozess, p. 16; Platner, Prozess und Klagen, t. i, p. 18) who distrust the etymology which connects this word with ἐφέσιμος. The active sense of the word, akin to ἐφίεμαι (Æsch. Prom. 4) and ἐφετμὴ, meets the case better: see O. Müller, Prolegg. ad Mythol. p. 424 (though there is no reason for believing the ephetæ to be older than Drako): compare, however, K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen Staats Alterthümer, sects. 103, 104, who thinks differently.

The trial, condemnation, and banishment of inanimate objects which had been the cause of death, was founded on feelings widely diffused throughout the Grecian world (see Pausan. vi, 11, 2; and Theokritus, Idyll, xxiii, 60): analogous in principle to the English law respecting deodand, and to the spirit pervading the ancient Germanic codes generally (see Dr. C. Trümmer, Die Lehre von der Zurechnung, c. 28-38. Hamburg, 1845).

The Germanic codes do not content themselves with imposing a general obligation to appease the relatives and gentiles of the slain party, but determine beforehand the sum which shall be sufficient to the purpose, which, in the case of involuntary homicide, is paid to the surviving relatives as a compensation; for the difference between culpable homicide, justifiable homicide, and accidental homicide, see the elaborate treatise of Wilda, Das Deutsche Strafrecht, ch. viii, pp. 544-559, whose doctrine, however, is disputed by Dr. Trümmer, in the treatise above noticed.

At Rome, according to the Twelve Tables, and earlier, involuntary homicide was to be expiated by the sacrifice of a ram (Walter, Geschichte des Römisch. Rechts, sect. 768).

[132] Dêmosthen. cont. Euerg. et Mnêsib. p. 1161.

[133] Dêmosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 647. τοσούτοις δικαστηρίοις, ἃ θεοὶ κατέδειξαν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἄνθρωποι χρῶνται πάντα τὸν χρόνον, p. 643.—οἱ ταῦτ᾽ ἐξαρχῆς τὰ νόμισμα διαθέντες, οἵτινές ποθ᾽ ἦσαν, εἴθ᾽ ἥρωες, εἴτε θεοί. See also the Oration cont. Makartat. p. 1069; Æschin. cont. Ktesiphon. p. 636; Antiph. De Cæde Herodis, c. 14.

The popular dikastery, in the age of Isokratês and Dêmosthenês, held sittings ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ for the trial of charges of unintentional homicide,—a striking evidence of the special holiness of the place for that purpose (see Isokrat. cont. Kallimachum, Or. xviii, p. 381; Dêmosth. cont. Neær. p. 1348).

The statement of Pollux (viii, 125), that the ephetæ became despised, is not confirmed by the language of Dêmosthenês.

[134] Plutarch, Solon, c. 19; Aristot. Polit. ii, 9, 2.

[135] Read on this subject the maxims laid down by Plato (Legg. xii, p. 941). Nevertheless, Plato copies, to a great degree, the arrangements of the ephetic tribunals in his provisions for homicide (Legg. ix. pp. 865-873).

[136] I know no place in which the special aptitude of particular localities consecrated each to its own purpose, is so powerfully set forth, as in the speech of Camillus against the transfer of Rome to Veii (Livy, v, 52).

[137] The narrative is given in Thucyd. i, 126; Herod. v, 71; Plutarch, Solon, 12.

[138] Aristophan. Equit. 445, and the Scholia; Herodot. v, 70.

[139] Plutarch, Solon, c. 12. If the story of the breaking of the cord had been true, Thucydidês could hardly have failed to notice it; but there is no reason to doubt that it was the real defence urged by the Alkmæônids.

When Ephesus was besieged by Crœsus, the inhabitants sought protection to their town by dedicating it to Artemis: they carried a cord from the walls of the town to the shrine of the goddess, which was situated without the walls (Herod. i, 26). The Samian despot Polykratês, when he consecrated to the Delian Apollo the neighboring island of Rhêneia, connected it with the island of Delos by means of a chain (Thucyd. iii, 104).

These analogies illustrate the powerful effect of visible or material continuity on the Grecian imagination.

[140] Herodot. i, 61.

[141] See Thucyd. v, 16, and his language respecting Pleistoanax of Sparta.

[142] Plutarch, Solon, c. 12. Καὶ φόβοι τινὲς ἐκ δεισιδαιμονίας ἅμα καὶ φάσματα κατεῖχε τὴν πόλιν, etc.

[143] Lobeck, Aglaophamus, ii, p. 313; Hoeckh, Kreta, iii, 2, p. 252.

[144] The statements respecting Epimenidês are collected and discussed in the treatise of Heinrich, Epimenides aus Kreta. Leipsic, 1801.

[145] Diogen. Laërt. i, 114, 115.

[146] Plutarch, Solon, c. 12; Diogen. Laërt. i, 109-115; Pliny, H. N. vii, 52. θεοφιλὴς καὶ σοφὸς περὶ τὰ θεῖα τὴν ἐνθουσιαστικὴν καὶ τελεστικὴν σοφίαν, etc. Maxim. Tyrius, xxxviii, 3, δεινὸς τὰ θεῖα, οὐ μαθὼν ἀλλ᾽ ὕπνον αὐτῷ διηγεῖτο μακρὸν καὶ ὄνειρον διδάσκαλον.

Ἰατρόμαντις, Æschyl. Supplic. 277; Καθαρτὴς, Iamblichus, Vit. Pythagor. c. 28.

Plutarch (Sept. Sapient. Conviv. p. 157) treats Epimenidês simply as having lived up to the precepts of the Orphic life, or vegetable diet: to this circumstance, I presume, Plato (Legg. iii, p. 677) must be understood to refer, though it is not very clear. See the Fragment of the lost Krêtes of Euripides, p. 98, ed. Dindorf.

Karmanor of Tarrha in Krete had purified Apollo himself for the slaughter of Pytho (Pausan. ii, 30, 3).

[147] Plutarch, De Musicâ, pp. 1134-1146; Pausanias, i, 14, 3.

[148] Cicero (Legg. ii, 11) states that Epimenidês directed a temple to be erected at Athens to Ὕβρις and Ἀναίδεια (Violence and Impudence): Clemens said that he had erected altars to the same two goddesses (Protrepticon, p. 22): Theophrastus said that there were altars at Athens (without mentioning Epimenidês) to these same (ap. Zenobium, Proverb. Cent. iv, 36). Ister spoke of a ἱερὸν Ἀναιδείας at Athens (Istri Fragm. ed. Siebelis, p. 62). I question whether this story has any other foundation than the fact stated by Pausanias, that the stones which were placed before the tribunal of areopagus, for the accuser and the accused to stand upon, were called by these names,—Ὕβρεως, that of the accused; Ἀναιδείας, that of the accuser (i, 28, 5). The confusion between stones and altars is not difficult to be understood. The other story, told by Neanthês of Kyzikus, respecting Epimenidês, that he had offered two young men as human sacrifices, was distinctly pronounced to be untrue by Polemo: and it reads completely like a romance (Athenæus, xiii, p. 602).

[149] Plutarch. Præcept. Reipubl. Gerend. c. 27, p. 820.

[150] Diogen. Laërt. l. c.

[151] Plato, Legg. i, p. 642; Cicero, De Divinat. i, 18; Aristot. Rhet. iii, 17.

Plato places Epimenidês ten years before the Persian invasion of Greece, whereas his real date is near upon 600 B. C.; a remarkable example of carelessness as to chronology.

[152] Respecting the characteristics of this age, see the second chapter of the treatise of Heinrich, above alluded to, Kreta und Griechenland in Hinsicht auf Wunderglauben.

[153] Plato, Kratylus, p. 405; Phædr. p. 244.

[154] Eurip. Hippolyt. 957; Plato, Republ. ii, p. 364; Theophrast. Charact. c. 16.

[155] Herodot. i, 60.

[156] Plutarch, Solon, i; Diogen. Laërt. iii, 1; Aristot. Polit. iv, 9, 10.

[157] Plutarch, Solon, v.

[158] Plutarch, Solon, viii. It was a poem of one hundred lines, χαριέντως πάνυ πεποιημένων.

Diogenês tells us, that “Solon read the verses to the people through the medium of the herald,”—a statement not less deficient in taste than in accuracy, and which spoils the whole effect of the vigorous exordium, Ἀυτὸς κήρυξ ἦλθον ἀφ᾽ ἱμερτῆς Σαλαμῖνος, etc.

[159] Plutarch, l. c.; Diogen. Laërt. i, 47. Both Herodotus (i, 59) and some authors read by Plutarch ascribed to Peisistratus an active part in the war against the Megarians, and even the capture of Nisæa, the port of Megara. Now the first usurpation of Peisistratus was in 560 B. C., and we can hardly believe that he can have been prominent and renowned in a war no less than forty years before.

It will be seen hereafter—see the note on the interview between Solon and Krœsus, towards the end of this chapter—that Herodotus, and perhaps other authors also, conceived the Solonian legislation to date at a period later than it really does; instead of 594 B. C., they placed it nearer to the usurpation of Peisistratus.

[160] Plutarch, Solon, κυρίους εἶναι τοῦ πολιτεύματος. The strict meaning of these words refers only to the government of the island; but it seems almost certainly implied that they would be established in it as klêruchs, or proprietors of land, not meaning necessarily that all the preëxisting proprietors would be expelled.

[161] Plutarch, Solon, 8, 9, 10. Daïmachus of Platæa, however, denied to Solon any personal share in the Salaminian war (Plutarch, comp. Solon and Public. c. 4).

Polyænus (i, 20) ascribes a different stratagem to Solon: compare Ælian, V. H. vii, 19. It is hardly necessary to say that the account which the Megarians gave of the way in which they lost the island was totally different: they imputed it to the treachery of some exiles (Pausan. i, 40, 4): compare Justin, ii, 7.

[162] Aristot. Rhet. i, 16, 3.

[163] Plutarch, Solon, 10: compare Aristot. Rhet. i, 16. Alkibiadês traced up his γένος to Eurysakês (Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 1); Miltiadês traced up his to Philæus (Herodot. vi, 35).

According to the statement of Hêreas the Megarian, both his countrymen and the Athenians had the same way of interment: both interred the dead with their faces towards the west. This statement, therefore, affords no proof of any peculiarity of Athenian custom in burial.

The Eurysakeium, or precinct sacred to the hero Eurysakês, stood in the deme of Melitê (Harpokrat. ad v), which formed a portion of the city of Athens.

[164] Æschin. Fals. Legat. p. 250, c. 14.

[165] Plutarch, Solon, c. 13. The language of Plutarch, in which he talks of the pedieis as representing the oligarchical tendency, and the diakrii as representing the democratical, is not quite accurate when applied to the days of Solon. Democratical pretensions, as such, can hardly be said to have then existed.

[166] Plutarch, Solon, 13. Ἅπας μὲν γὰρ ὁ δῆμος ἦν ὑπόχρεως τῶν πλουσίων· ἢ γὰρ ἐγεώργουν ἐκείνοις ἕκτα τῶν γινομένων τελοῦντες, ἑκτημόριοι προσαγορευόμενοι καὶ θῆτες· ἢ χρέα λαμβάνοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν, ἀγώγιμοι τοῖς δανείζουσιν ἦσαν· οἱ μὲν αὐτοῦ δουλεύοντες, οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ ξένῃ πιπρασκόμενοι. Πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ παῖδας ἰδίους ἠναγκάζοντο πωλεῖν, καὶ τὴν πόλιν φεύγειν διὰ τὴν χαλεπότητα τῶν δανειστῶν. Οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι καὶ ῥωμαλεώτατοι συνίσταντο καὶ παρεκάλουν ἀλλήλους μὴ περιορᾷν, etc.

Respecting these hektêmori, “tenants paying one-sixth portion,” we find little or no information: they are just noticed in Hesychius (v. Ἑκτήμοροι, Ἐπίμορτος) and in Pollux, vii, 151; from whom we learn that ἐπίμορτος γῆ was an expression which occurred in one of the Solonian laws. Whether they paid to the landlord one-sixth, or retained for themselves only one-sixth, has been doubted (see Photius, Πελάται).

Dionysius Hal. (A. R. ii, 9) compares the thêtes in Attica to the Roman clients: that both agreed in being relations of personal and proprietary dependence is certain; but we can hardly carry the comparison farther, nor is there any evidence in Attica of that sanctity of obligation which is said to have bound the Roman patron to his client.

[167] So the Frisii, when unable to pay the tribute imposed by the Roman empire, “primo boves ipsos, mox agros, postremo corpora conjugum et liberorum, servitio tradebant.” (Tacit. Annal. iv, 72.) About the selling of children by parents, to pay the taxes, in the later times of the Roman empire see Zosimus, ii, 38; Libanius, t. ii, p. 427, ed. Paris, 1627.

[168] See the Fragment περὶ τῆς Ἀθηναίων πολιτείας, No. 2, Schneidewin.

[169] Aristot. Polit. γίγνονται δὲ αἱ στάσεις οὐ περὶ μικρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ μικρῶν.

[170] Livy, ii, 23; Dionys. Hal. A. R. vi, 26: compare Livy, vi, 34-36.

“An placeret, fœnore circumventam plebem, potius quam sorte creditum solvat, corpus in nervum ac supplicia dare? et gregatim quotidie de foro addictos duci, et repleri vinctis nobiles domos? et ubicumque patricius habitet, ibi carcerem privatum esse?”

The exposition of Niebuhr, respecting the old Roman law of debtor and creditor (Röm. Gesch. i, p. 602, seq.; Arnold’s Roman Hist., ch. viii, vol. i, p. 135), and the explanation which he there gives of the nexi, as distinguished from the addicti, have been shown to be incorrect by M. von Savigny, in an excellent Dissertation Über das Altrömische Schuldrecht (Abhandlungen Berlin Academ. 1833, pp. 70-73), an abstract of which will be found in an Appendix, at the close of this chapter.

[171] See Plutarch, Solon, 14; and above all the Trochaic tetrameters of Solon himself, addressed to Phôkus, Fr. 24-26, Schneidewin:—

[172] Aristides, Περὶ τοῦ Παραφθέγματος, ii, p. 397; and Fragm. 29, Schn. of the Iambics of Solon:—

[173] See the valuable fragment of his Iambics, preserved by Plutarch and Aristidês, the expression of which is rendered more emphatic by the appeal to the personal Earth, as having passed by his measures from slavery into freedom (compare Plato, Legg. v, pp. 740-741):—

also Plutarch, Solon, c. 15.

[174] Plutarch, Solon, c. 23: compare c. 13. The statement in Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrhon. Hypot. iii, 24, 211), that Solon enacted a law permitting fathers to kill (φονεύειν) their children, cannot be true, and must be copied from some untrustworthy authority: compare Dionys. Hal. A. R. ii, 26, where he contrasts the prodigious extent of the patria potestas among the early Romans, with the restrictions which all the Greek legislators alike,—Solon, Pittakus, Charondas,—either found or introduced: he says, however, that the Athenian father was permitted to disinherit legitimate male children, which does not seem to be correct.

Meier (Der Attische Prozess, iii, 2, p. 427) rejects the above-mentioned statement of Sextus Empiricus, and farther contends that the exposure of new-born infants was not only rare, but discountenanced as well by law as by opinion; the evidence in the Latin comedies to the contrary, he considers as manifestations of Roman, and not of Athenian, manners. In this latter opinion I do not think that he is borne out, and I agree in the statement of Schömann (Ant. J. P. Græc. sect. 82), that the practice and feeling of Athens as well as of Greece generally, left it to the discretion of the father whether he would consent, or refuse, to bring up a new-born child.

[175] Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. See the full exposition given of this debasement of the coinage, in Boeckh’s Metrologie, ch. ix, p. 115.

M. Boeckh thinks (ch. xv, s. 2) that Solon not only debased the coin, but also altered the weights and measures. I dissent from his opinion on this latter point, and have given my reasons for so doing, in a review of his valuable treatise in the Classical Museum, No. 1.

[176] Plutarch, Solon, c. 19. In the general restoration of exiles throughout the Greek cities, proclaimed first by order of Alexander the Great, afterwards by Polysperchon, exception is made of men exiled for sacrilege or homicide (Diodor. xvii, 109; xviii, 8-46).

[177] Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. οὐδὲ μαλακῶς, οὐδ᾽ ὑπείκων τοῖς δυναμένοις, οὐδὲ πρὸς ἡδονὴν τῶν ἑλομένων, ἔθετο τοὺς νόμους, etc.

[178] Plutarch, Solon, c. 16.

[179] See above, vol. ii, part ii, ch. vi.

[180] Plutarch, l. c. ἔθυσάν τε κοινῇ, Σεισάχθειαν τὴν θυσίαν ὀνομάζοντες, etc.

[181] The anecdote is again noticed, but without specification of the names of the friends, in Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. Præcep. p. 807.

[182] Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. The statement of Dionysius of Hal., in regard to the bearing of the seisachtheia, is in the main accurate,—χρεῶν ἄφεσιν ψηφισαμένην τοῖς ἀπόροις (v, 65),—to the debtors who were liable on the security of their bodies and their lands, and who were chiefly poor,—not to all debtors.

Herakleidês Pontic. (Πολιτ. c. 1) and Dio Chrysostom (Or. xxxi, p. 331) express themselves loosely.

Both Wachsmuth (Hell. Alterth. v. i, p. 249) and K. F. Hermann (Gr. Staats Alter. c. s. 106) quote the heliastic oath, and its energetic protest against repudiation, as evidence of the bearing of the Solonian seisachtheia. But that oath is referable only to a later period; it cannot be produced in proof of any matter applicable to the time of Solon; the mere mention of the senate of Five Hundred in it, shows that it belongs to times subsequent to the Kleisthenean revolution. Nor does the passage from Plato (Legg. iii, p. 684) apply to the case.

Both Wachsmuth and Hermann appear to me to narrow too much the extent of Solon’s measure in reference to the clearing of debtors. But on the other hand, they enlarge the effect of his measures in another way, without any sufficient evidence,—they think that he raised the villein tenants into free proprietors. Of this I see no proof, and think it improbable. A large proportion of the small debtors whom Solon exonerated were probably free proprietors before; the existence of the ὅροι, or mortgage pillars, upon their land proves this.

[183] That which Solon did for the Athenian people in regard to debts, is less than what was promised to the Roman plebs (at the time of its secession to the Mons Sacer in 491 B. C.) by Menenius Agrippa, the envoy of the senate, to appease them, but which does not seem to have been ever realized (Dionys. Hal. vi, 83). He promised an abrogation of all the debts of debtors unable to pay, without exception,—if the language of Dionysius is to be trusted, which probably it cannot be.

Dr. Thirlwall justly observes respecting Solon, “He must be considered as an arbitrator, to whom all the parties interested submitted their claims, with the avowed intent that they should be decided by him, not upon the footing of legal right, but according to his own view of the public interest. It was in this light that he himself regarded his office, and he appears to have discharged it faithfully and discreetly.” (History of Greece, ch. xi. vol. ii, p. 42.)

[184] Dêmosthen. cont. Timokrat. p. 746. οὐδὲ τῶν χρεῶν τῶν ἰδίων ἀποκοπὰς, οὐδὲ γῆς ἀναδασμὸν τῆς Ἀθηναίων, οὐδ᾽ οἰκιῶν (ψηφιοῦμαι): compare Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxi, p. 332, who also dwells upon the anxiety of various Grecian cities to fix a curse upon all propositions for χρεῶν ἀποκοπὴ and γῆς ἀναδασμός. What is not less remarkable is, that Dio seems not to be aware of any one well-authenticated case in Grecian history, in which a redivision of lands had ever actually taken place—ὃ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ἴσμεν εἴ ποτε συνέβη. (l. c.)

For the law of debtor and creditor, as it stood during the times of the Orators at Athens, see Heraldus, Animadv. ad Salmasium, pp. 174-286; Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, b. iii, c. 2, p. 497, seqq. (though I doubt the distinction which they there draw between χρέος and δανεῖον); Platner, Prozess und Klagen, b. ii, absch. 11, pp. 349, 361.

There was one exceptional case, in which the Attic law always continued to the creditor that power over the person of the insolvent debtor which all creditors had possessed originally,—it was when the creditor had lent money for the express purpose of ransoming the debtor from captivity (Dêmosthen. cont. Nikostr. p. 1249),—analogous to the actio depensi in the old Roman law.

Any citizen who owed money to the public treasury, and whose debt became overdue, was deprived for the time of all civil rights until he had cleared it off.

Diodorus (i, 79) gives us an alleged law of the Egyptian king Bocchoris, releasing the persons of debtors and rendering their properties only liable, which is affirmed to have served as an example for Solon to copy. If we can trust this historian, lawgivers in other parts of Greece still retained the old severe law enslaving the debtor’s person: compare a passage in Isokratês (Orat. xiv, Plataicus, p. 305; p. 414, Bek.)

[185] Aristot. Polit. i, 4, 23; Cato ap. Cicero. de Offic. ii, 25. Plato, in his Treatise de Legg. (v, p. 742) forbids all lending on interest: indeed, he forbids any private citizen to possess either gold or silver.

To illustrate the marked difference made in the early Roman law, between the claim for the principal and that for the interest, I insert in an Appendix, at the end of this chapter, the explanation given by M. von Savigny, of the treatment of the nexi and addicti,—connected as it is by analogy with the Solonian seisachtheia.

[186] Aristot. Polit. i, 4, 23. Τὴς δὲ μεταβλητικῆς ψεγομένης διακίως (οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἔστιν), εὐλογώτατα μισεῖται ἡ ὀβολοστατική, etc. Compare Ethic. Nikom. iv, 1.

Plutarch borrows from Aristotle the quibble derived from the word τόκος (the Greek expression for interest), which has given birth to the well-known dictum of Aristotle,—that money being naturally barren, to extract offspring from it must necessarily be contrary to nature (see Plutarch, De Vit. Ær. Al. p. 829).

[187] Tacit. Germ. 26. “Fœnus agitare et in usuras extendere, ignotum: ideoque magis servatur quam si vetitum esset,” (c. 21.) “Gaudent muneribus: sed nec data imputant, nec acceptis obligantur.”

[188] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 647, 404. Βούληαι χρέα τε προφυγεῖν, καὶ λιμὸν ἀτερπῆ. Some good observations on this subject are to be found in the excellent treatise of M. Turgot, written in 1763, “Mémoire sur les Prêts d’Argent:”—

“Les causes qui avoient autrefois rendu odieux le prêt à intérêt, ont cessé d’agir avec tant de force.... De toutes ces circonstances réunies, il est résulté que les emprunts faits par le pauvre pour subsister ne sont plus qu’un objet à peine sensible dans la somme totale d’emprunts: que la plus grande partie des prêts se font à l’homme riche, ou du moins à l’homme industrieux, qui espère se procurer de grands profits par l’emploi de l’argent qu’il emprunte.... Les prêteurs sur gage à gros intérêt, les seuls qui prêtent véritablement au pauvre pour ses besoins journaliers et non pour le mettre en état de gagner, ne font point le même mal que les anciens usuriers qui conduisoient par degrés à la misère et à l’esclavage les pauvres citoyens auxquels ils avoient procuré des secours funestes.... Le créancier qui pouvait réduire son débiteur en esclavage y trouvait un profit: c’étoit un esclave qu’il acquérait: mais aujourd’hui le créancier sait qu’en privant son débiteur de la liberté, il n’y gagnera autre chose que d’être obligé de le nourrir en prison: aussi ne s’avise-t-on pas de faire contracter à un homme qui n’a rien, et qui est réduit à emprunter pour vivre, des engagemens qui emportent la contrainte par corps. La seule sûreté vraiment solide contre l’homme pauvre est le gage: et l’homme pauvre s’estime heureux de trouver un secours pour le moment sans autre danger que de perdre ce gage. Aussi le peuple a-t-il plutôt de la reconnoissance pour ces petits usuriers qui le secourent dans son besoin, quoiqu’ils lui vendent assez cher ce secours.” (Mémoire sur les Prêts d’Argent, in the collection of Œuvres de Turgot, by Dupont de Nemours, vol. v, sects. xxx, xxxi, pp. 326, 327, 329, written in 1763.)

[189] “In Bengal (observes Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, b. i, ch. 9, p. 143, ed. 1812) money is frequently lent to the farmers at 40, 50, and 60 per cent., and the succeeding crop is mortgaged for the payment.”

Respecting this commerce at Florence in the Middle Ages, M. Depping observes: “Il semblait que l’esprit commercial fût inné chez les Florentins: déjà aux 12^me et 13^me siècles, on les voit tenir des banques et prêter de l’argent aux princes. Ils ouvrirent partout des maisons de prêt, marchèrent de pair avec les Lombards, et, il faut le dire, ils furent souvent maudits, comme ceux-ci, par leurs débiteurs, à cause de leur rapacité. Vingt pour cent par an était le taux ordinaire des prêteurs Florentins: et il n’était pas rare qu’ils en prissent trente et quarante.” Depping, Histoire du Commerce entre le Levant et l’Europe, vol. i, p. 235.

Boeckh (Public Economy of Athens, book i, ch. 22) gives from 12 to 18 per cent. per annum as the common rate of interest at Athens in the time of the orators.

The valuable Inscription (No. 1845, in his Corpus Inser. Pars viii, p. 23, sect. 3) proves, that at Korkyra a rate of 2 per cent. per month, or 24 per cent. per annum, might be obtained from perfectly solvent and responsible borrowers. For this is a decree of the Korkyræan government, prescribing what shall be done with a sum of money given to the state for the Dionysiac festivals,—placing that money under the care of certain men of property and character, and directing them to lend it out exactly at 2 per cent. per month, neither more nor less, until a given sum shall be accumulated. This Inscription dates about the third or second century B. C., according to Boeckh’s conjecture.

The Orchomenian Inscription, No. 1569, to which Boeckh refers in the passage above alluded to, is unfortunately defective in the words determining the rate of interest payable to Eubulus: but there is another, the Theræan Inscription (No. 2446), containing the Testament of Epiktêta, wherein the annual sum payable in lieu of a principal sum bequeathed, is calculated at 7 per cent.; a rate which Boeckh justly regards as moderate considered in reference to ancient Greece.

[190] Cæsar, B. G. i, 4, respecting the Gallic chiefs and plebs: “Die constitutâ causæ dictionis, Orgetorix ad judicium omnem suam familiam, ad hominum millia decem, undique coëgit: et omnes clientes, obœratosque suos, quorum magnum numerum habebat, eodem conduxit: per eos, ne caussam diceret, se eripuit.” Ibid. vi, 13: “Plerique, cum aut ære alieno, aut magnitudine tributorum, aut injuriâ potentiorum, premuntur, sese in servitutem dicant nobilibus. In hos eadem omnia sunt jura, quæ dominis in servos.” The wealthy Romans cultivated their large possessions partly by the hands of adjudged debtors, in the time of Columella (i, 3, 14): “More præpotentium, qui possident fines gentium, quos ... aut occupatos nexu civium, aut ergastulis, tenent.”

According to the Teutonic codes also, drawn up several centuries subsequently to Tacitus, it seems that the insolvent debtor falls under the power of his creditor and is subject to personal fetters and chastisement (Grimm, Deutsche Rechts Alterthümer, pp. 612-615): both he and Von Savigny assimilate it to the terrible process of personal execution and addiction in the old law of Rome, against the insolvent debtor on loan. King Alfred exhorts the creditor to lenity (Laws of King Alfred, Thorpe, Ancient Laws of England, vol. i, p. 53, law 35).

A striking evidence of the alteration of the character and circumstances of debtors, between the age of Solon and that of Plutarch, is afforded by the treatise of the latter, “De Vitando Ære Alieno,” wherein he sets forth in the most vehement manner the miserable consequences of getting into debt. “The poor” he says, “do not get into debt, for no one will lend them money (τοῖς γὰρ ἀπόροις οὐ δανείζουσιν, ἀλλὰ βουλομένοις εὐπορίαν τινα ἑαυτοῖς κτᾶσθαι καὶ μάρτυρα δίδωσι καὶ βεβαιώτην ἄξιον, ὅτι ἔχει πιστεύεσθαι): the borrowers are men who have still some property and some security to offer, but who wish to keep up a rate of expenditure beyond what they can afford, and become utterly ruined by contracting debts.” (Plut. pp. 827, 830.) This shows how intimately the multiplication of poor debtors was connected with the liability of their persons to enslavement. Compare Plutarch, De Cupidine Divitiarum, c. 2, p. 523.