If we now pass from the consideration of slavery in the comparatively mild form which it assumed in Attica to an examination of the state of the Laconian Helots, we shall discover the spirit which actuated the two governments to present a still broader contrast in this, the lowest stage of its influence, than when operating upon the nobler citizens on the great arena of public life.

Among certain scholars on the continent it appears to be very much the fashion to oppose an invincible scepticism to the testimony of ancient writers, as often as that testimony makes against any theory they desire to establish; and on the subject of the Helots several of the ablest authors among them have adopted an opinion which cannot be supported without annihilating several Greek authors, who, in their opinion, prophesy as awkwardly as Calchas did for the peace of Agamemnon.

Among these the principal is Mr. Müller, from whom I have the misfortune to differ on many points, but without in the least disparaging his ability or his learning, for both of which I entertain the highest respect.^[157]

As, however, he has adopted a very peculiar system in the interpretation of antiquity, which, though plausible and ingenious, seems ill-calculated to lead to truth, I have found it impossible to participate on many important points the views which he maintains, more especially on the subject of the Helots. In fact, with all his talents and sagacity he has chosen rather to become an advocate than an historian, and pushes so far his eagerness to defend his favourite people, as not unfrequently to provoke a smile. In his derivation of the term Helot, however, he is perhaps correct,^[158] it being more probable that it should have sprung from an ancient word signifying “The Prisoners” than from the name of the town. In the absence of all testimony we might likewise entertain the conjecture, “that they were an aboriginal race subdued at a very early period, and which immediately passed over as slaves to the Doric conquerors.” But we have the weighty authority of Theopompos to oppose to this inference, and the words of this historian^[159] attentively considered would lead to the etymology of the name given by Müller:—“having taken them prisoners,” he says, “they called them εἵλωτες.” They were, however, Greeks of the Achaian race, who fell, together with the land, into the power of the new-comers, so that the excuse of only tyrannising over a foreign and half-savage race is wanting to the Spartans, which was the object aimed at by Mr. Müller’s ingenious conjecture.

In considering the condition of the Helots, I shall not affect, with the historian of the Doric race,^[160] “to range their political rights and personal treatment,” under separate heads; in the first place because, strictly speaking, they had no political rights, and, secondly, because in the treatment they experienced consists whatever is peculiar in their position. Several of this learned historian’s notions on the Lacedæmonian serfs appear to be in direct contradiction with those of the writers from whom all we know concerning the Helots is obtained. Of this he seems to be conscious, and in the following way endeavours to bring discredit on them; assuming as a settled thing, that the Helots must have possessed political rights, he concludes that they “were doubtless exactly defined by law and custom, though the expressions made use of by ancient authors are frequently vague and ambiguous.”^[161] Whether this be the case or not we shall presently see. The remark of Ephoros is, that “they were in a certain point of view public slaves. Their possessor could neither liberate them nor sell them beyond the borders.” On this passage which he quotes,^[162] the historian raises a superstructure which it will by no means support. “From this,” he says, “it is evident, that they were considered as belonging properly to the state, which, to a certain degree, permitted them to be possessed, and apportioned them out to individuals, reserving to itself the power of enfranchising them.”^[163]

The contrary I think is the inference. They were the property of individuals, but the state reserved to itself the right of enfranchising them and preventing their emancipation, lest persons should be found who, like Marcus Porcius, Cato,^[164] and the Dutch at the Cape, would sell or give them their liberty when too old to labour. “But to sell them out of the country,” says Mr. Müller, “was not in the power even of the state.” It is true there was an ancient law prohibiting the exportation of the Helots,^[165] but the same authority which enacted that law could have abrogated it. Had Sparta then chosen to convert her Helots into an article of traffic, who or what was to prevent her? Since she arrogated to herself the right of beating, maiming, and putting them to death,^[166] though completely innocent, is it to be supposed that, had it suited her policy, she would have hesitated to sell them? And after all are we quite certain that these unhappy people were not frequently sold into foreign lands? On the contrary, we find, that a regular trade was carried on in female Helots, who were exported into all the neighbouring countries for nurses.^[167] Thus it appears that the state both had and exercised the power to convert its serfs into merchandise.

That the males also were not exported like cattle, than which they were far worse treated, was owing simply to the calculation, that it would be more profitable to retain them. For, as the Spartans possessed estates, which personally they never cultivated, the Helots, who equally belonged to them, were stationed throughout the country upon those estates, which it was their business to till for the owners. To live it was of course necessary that they should eat, and therefore a portion of the produce was abandoned to them, according to Tyrtæos,^[168] the half, a division which must have borne very hard upon them, since their numbers were five times greater than those of the Spartans.^[169] However, even in this arrangement, the learned historian discovers something to praise “as this quantity had been definitively settled at a very early period (to raise the amount being forbidden under very heavy imprecations) the Helots were the persons who profited by a good and lost by a bad harvest, which must have been to them an encouragement to industry and good husbandry; a motive which would have been wanting if the profit and loss had merely affected the landlords.”^[170] But on the res rusticæ the notions of this writer are somewhat confused. For in another place he remarks that, owing to the “usurpations of the successive conquerors of Peloponnesos, agriculture was kept in a constant state of dependence and obscurity, so that we seldom hear of the improvement of the country, which is a necessary part of the husbandman’s business.” It therefore did not flourish in Laconia. No, says the historian, that is not the conclusion we must come to, for, notwithstanding that we never hear of any improvements in it, “agriculture was always followed with great energy and success!”^[171]

There appear to have been instances of Helots becoming comparatively wealthy in spite of the oppressions they endured: but so we have known peasants growing rich in the worst despotisms of the East, and such too was in the middle ages the case with the Jews, notwithstanding the terrible persecutions and cruelties they endured. This fact, therefore, only proves that no pressure of hardship or ill-usage can entirely destroy the elasticity of the spirit; and no doubt, like all slaves, the Helots sought to soften their miseries by the gratification which a sense of property procures even in bondage to the sordid mind.^[172] “By means of the rich produce of the land, and in part by plunder obtained in war, they collected a considerable property, to the attainment of which almost every access was closed to the Spartans.”^[173] But of what value is property to a man who is himself the property of another? Besides, the expressionexpression of the historian in this place seems calculated to lead to erroneous conclusions respecting the Spartans, who, so far from being debarred the means of amassing wealth,^[174] rose frequently to extraordinary opulence, insomuch that this self-denying community came at length to be the richest in Greece.^[175] To assume that the Helots, like the Thessalian Penestæ,^[176] enjoyed means of augmenting their possessions superior to those permitted themselves by their masters, is to propagate an error which must vitiate our whole conception of the Lacedæmonian commonwealth.

It is confessed that very little intercourse between the Spartans and the Helots took place, at least in earlier times; for afterwards, when the masters themselves quitted the capital, resided on their estates,^[177] and took to husbandry, the link must necessarily have been more closely drawn. And this circumstance renders more probable the account transmitted to us of Spartan harshness towards them. Intercommunion would have begotten more humane feelings in the master, more attachment in the slave. For like other men the Spartans felt the influence of intimacy, as is proved by their practice of enfranchising the companions of their childhood. They paid, therefore, an involuntary compliment to their own hearts when they kept the Helots at a distance, that they might be able to tyrannise over them. They could not have resisted the power of close contact, and acted like Messallina, who fled in tears from the room where a man was pleading for his life, lest she should forgive him, whispering as she went to her instrument that the accused must not be suffered to escape nevertheless.^[178] However, a certain number of Helots were retained in the city as personal attendants on the Spartans, and there waited at the public tables, and were lent by one person to another,^[179] like so many dogs, or oxen; although it seems probable that all the drudgery of the capital was not performed by the Helots alone, but that along with them were associated other classes of domestic slaves,^[180] on whose history and condition antiquity affords us little or no light. But as the Spartans were constantly making prisoners in their wars with the neighbouring states, which were occasionally restored at the termination of hostilities, we appear to be authorized in concluding, that these captives were commonly reduced to servitude in Laconia, whether employed in household labours,^[181] or dispersed among the Helots in the field.

Another service the Helots performed for their masters, which necessarily produced some degree of intimacy, I mean the military service in which they fought and bled by their side.^[182] The state was, no doubt, reluctant to admit them among the Hoplitæ, or heavy-armed, where the discipline was rigorous, and their weapons would have placed them on a level with their oppressors. But even this was sometimes hazarded, as in the reinforcements forwarded to Gyleppus, at Syracuse,^[183] when six hundred Neodomades and picked Helots were complimented with this dangerous distinction. As light troops, however, they almost invariably formed the majority of the Lacedæmonian forces. In other countries, where the subject races were more humanely treated, no fear was entertained at entrusting them with arms. Among the Dardanians, for example, where it was not uncommon for a private individual to possess a thousand slaves, or more, they in time of peace cultivated the land, and in war filled the ranks of the army, their masters serving as officers.^[184]

From this circumstance one of two things must be inferred; either that the Dardanians considered them in the light of subjects, as we do the natives of India, where large armies are officered by Englishmen, or that that people understood better than any other in antiquity the art of ruling over men.

Plato, Isocrates, Aristotle, Plutarch, and a number of other writers agree in convicting the Spartans of great barbarity towards their bondsmen, differing, however, as to the degree of that barbarity. But their “philanthropic views”^[185] are discarded by the historian, who with the skill of an able pleader, overlooks these great writers, whom he could not treat with so much want of ceremony, to bring forward the picture of Myron of Priene, whose history he denominates a romance, and whose testimony he contumeliously rejects. In order the more completely, as he thinks, to demolish this humble writer he quotes the following passage of his work preserved by Athenæus: “The Helots perform for the Spartans every ignominious service. They are compelled to wear a cap of dog-skin,^[186] to bear a covering of sheep-skin, and are severely beaten every year without having committed any fault, in order that they may never forget they are slaves. In addition to this, those amongstamongst them who, either by their stature or their beauty, raise themselves above the condition of a slave are condemned to death, and the masters who do not destroy the most manly of them are liable to punishment.”^[187] The accusation here made is a serious one, and the apologist naturally feels his indignation kindle against its author. In this state of mind he employs very harsh language, charges Myron with “ignorance and partiality,” and altogether speaks as if he were in possession of facts wherewith to demolish the Prenian’s statement. But has he any? Not a single one. He misunderstands entirely the gist of Myron’s words, in the matter of the dog-skin cap, and then, on the strength of his own error, presumes to accuse him of misrepresentation. It is at the first blush evident that Myron considered the hardship to consist, not in the wearing of the cap, but in being compelled to wear it. Mr. Müller’s examples, consequently, are nothing to the purpose; they simply prove that other people had endured similar hardships, (the mention of Laërtes is superfluous,) nevertheless, without having uttered one syllable to justify his triumph, he proceeds with much self-satisfaction to remark, that “since Myron manifestly misrepresents this circumstance, it is very probable that his other objections are founded in error.”^[188]

But the allegations of Myron, as the reader will perceive, remain not only untouched, but more confirmed and established than ever by such a defence. It happens, in fact, that they are true to the letter, and what is more, are by no means the gravest imputation which can be substantiated against the Dorian model-state. We shall proceed, however, step by step examining fairly, and in order, the charges and the defence. Plutarch,^[189] whose testimony, when favourable, is unhesitatingly accepted, “relates that the Helots were compelled to intoxicate themselves, and perform indecent dances as a warning to the Spartan youth.”^[190] Shall we credit Plutarch? No we must not; because “common sense is opposed to so absurd a method of education.” But if everything in history which we may determine to be opposed to common sense were on that account to be rejected, we should make sad inroads upon the domains of antiquity. That which increases the ridicule of the practice is, that from among those same Helots they selected tutors for their younger children,^[191] as well as companions, so that in the very article wherein Xenophon^[192] discovered the superiority of Lycurgus’s educational system, it was completely on a level with that of the other Greeks, habituating the youth to the intimacy and government of slaves.^[193]

If, however, the relation of Plutarch stood alone, its force would be less, though with no face could we reject it while admitting in other respects his favourable testimony. But from many authors, besides him, it is clear, that to demoralise the Helots was the constant policy of Sparta. Thus when the Thasians brought a number of useless dainties to Agesilaos and his army: “Give them,” said he, “to those Helots, whom it is better to corrupt than ourselves.”^[194] Consistently with the same system, and the more completely to debase their minds, they were commanded to sing obscene songs and perform indecent jigs, while the Pyrrhic dance and every warlike lay was forbidden them. In proof of this, it is related, that when the Thebans, under Epaminondas, invaded Laconia, and made prisoners a number of the Helots, they commanded them to sing them some of the songs of Sparta, of Spendon, for example, or Alcman, or Terpander. But the Helots^[195] professed their inability, observing, that the acquisition of those lays was forbidden them. In short, to adopt the words of Theopompos, they were at all times cruelly and bitterly treated;^[196] deluded, sometimes, from the protection of sanctuary by perjury, and then coolly assassinated in contempt of religion and oaths, as in the case of those suppliants who took refuge in the temple of Poseidon at Tænaros.^[197]

But all this harsh usage was mild compared with other injuries which the laws of Sparta inflicted on them. The reader will perceive that I am about to speak of the Crypteia, not one feature of which, to my mind, has been softened or explained away, or rendered doubtful by the ingenious but very useless special pleading of some distinguished scholars among our contemporaries.^[198] Mr. Müller, with much intrepidity, leads the van of Sparta’s defenders, and, by an artifice not unfamiliar to rhetoricians, seeks to beat down the authorities on which belief in the Crypteia rests. He affects to think slightingly of their means of obtaining information, though certainly, in this respect, at least, the very meanest of them possessed incalculable advantages over himself. However, of Isocrates he thus unceremoniously disposes: “Isocrates speaks of this institution in a very confused manner and from mere report.”^[199] On the contrary, this “old man eloquent,” as Milton affectionately terms him, luminously, (would that Mr. Müller and I possessed equal art!) and upon the best authorities,^[200] sketches the history of the Lacedæmonian government, its injustice, its oppressions; and concludes by describing the annual massacre of the Helots. It is worthy of remark, that, with Aristotle,^[201] he attributes to the Ephori the direction of this servile war, in which the reins of slaughter were loosed or tightened by their authority.

The relation, however, of Isocrates, who probably descended to particulars, appears not to have come down to us entire. Plutarch, though he be the panegyrist, rather than the faithful historian, of Sparta, has supplied the deficiency. He does so, indeed, reluctantly; trumpets in the narration with epic flourishes, seeking, by all the art he is master of, to shield his beloved Lycurgus from the stern but deserved rebuke of Plato.^[202] Too honest, however, was the old Bœotian entirely to suppress the truth. So that, at length, after much preparation, the massacre is described hurriedly, briefly, with vehement unwillingness, but, for that very reason, with the more terrible effect.

Having enumerated the regulations affecting the free citizens, “In these,” he says, “there is no trace of that injustice and griping ambition which some object to the institutions of Lycurgus, considering them well adapted to beget bravery though not honest principles. It was probably the institution of the Crypteia (if as Aristotle contends, it proceeded from Lycurgus) that inspired Plato with such an opinion of the legislator and his laws. According to this ordinance the rulers, selecting from among the youths those most distinguished for ability, sent them forth armed with daggers and furnished with the necessary provisions, to scour the country, separating and concealing themselves in unfrequented places by day, but issuing out at night and slaughtering all such of the Helots as they found abroad. Sometimes, indeed, they fell upon them while engaged in their rural labours in the fields, and there cut off the best and bravest of the race.”^[203] Plutarch felt that connected with this system, as flowing from the same principle of policy and designed to effect the same purpose, were those extensive massacres recorded in history, by one of which more than two thousand of those unhappy men, having been insidiously deluded into the assertion of sentiments conformable to the gallant actions they had performed in the service of the state,^[204] were removed in a day. Lulled by the gift of freedom, crowned, smiled upon, they were conducted to the temples, as if to implicate the very gods in the treachery:—and then suddenly they disappeared; nor to this hour has the fate which overtook them been revealed.^[205] Compared with this the slaughter of the Janisaries appears less culpable.

But had Sparta no apology to offer, for these actions, to humanity? Her rulers discovered one which appears to have satisfied their own consciences. Every year, on taking office, the Ephori, formally, in their good city of Sparta, declared war against their unarmed and unhappy vassals, “that they might be massacred under pretence of law.”^[206] Mr. Müller overwhelmed with the weight of these testimonies, does not yet yield up the point: “Were not these Helots, who in many districts lived entirely alone, united by despair for the sake of common protection; and did they not every year kindle a most bloody and determined war throughout the whole of Laconia?” The historian is pleasant upon the Helots. Kindle a war! How happens it that the Chinese, who, at many periods of their history, have rivalled the Helots in suffering, and like them, too, have rebelled occasionally, yet make annually no “bloody and determined war” against the Mantchoo Tartars? The answer is written on every page of the history of the world, and was put in form by Alexander when he inquired whether one butcher were afraid of many sheep? Nevertheless, even the spirit of slavery itself did sometimes revolt against oppression and cruelty, and kindled such “bloody and determined wars” as Sparta, without foreign aid, was unable to terminate. They were, in fact, during many years, prevented from disputing with the Athenians the supremacy in Greece, by contests with their own vassals.^[207] And on the occasion of the great earthquake when nearly every house in Sparta was shaken to the ground,^[208] did not the Helots rejoice at the calamity, and come flocking to the environs of the city from the whole country round, in order to put an end to their tyrants as they were escaping in terror from their tottering habitations? Revolt, then, was not unfamiliar to the Helots—again and again was the standard of freedom unfurled^[209]—and the day, though late, at length came, when the Spartan saw his slave placed on a level with himself.^[210]

To render credible this sketch of cruelty, the character and education of the Spartans must be kept in view: