Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece. Vol III., by J.A. St. John

was not their maxim.^[211] They loved to trample on the fallen. Even in boyhood and among themselves, they practised gouging as an accomplishment, and as an Athenian did music—as a necessary consequence, even the writers most favourable to their state, confess them to have been brutal, inhuman, perfidious.^[212] Nor among a people so ignorant, so prejudiced, so narrow-minded, whose understandings were possibly incapable of comprehending the idea of justice or liberality, can we altogether wonder at such an outbreak of barbarism. Men have been known in modern times to shoot slaves for their amusement; a king of France has been known from the same motive to shoot his subjects, and a learned professor,^[213] not very remarkable for cruelty, has pronounced the panegyric of that king. There is nothing, therefore, at all incredible in the Spartan Crypteia, which exactly harmonizes with all we know of the nation.

An attempt, however, has been made to explain the whole away, by the unauthorized inference, that in the casual glance which Megillos, in the laws of Plato, makes at this institution, we have a complete description of it in all its features. But very far is this from being the case. The Spartan interlocutor is there making out a defence of his own country, and consequently alludes only to such points as appear capable of a favourable interpretation. Of course he is careful to keep the massacre of the Helots in the back-ground; and merely says, “There is also amongst us what is called the Crypteia, the pain of undergoing which is scarcely credible. It consists in going barefoot in storms, in enduring the privations of the camp, performing menial offices without a servant, and wandering night and day through the whole country.”^[214] This is the picture of a Spartan, dwelling on his own hardships; which, however, must have been endured for some purpose, and what was that? If exercise and military seasoning were alone aimed at, where was the necessity for that concealment, that lying in ambush, which the word itself signifies? It is well known that the Helots were a constant terror to their masters—that whenever occasion offered, they revolted—whenever any enemy to the state presented himself, they joined him—that they fled whenever flight was possible—and were, it is confessed, so numerous and so bold, that Sparta was compelled, in treaties with foreign states, to stipulate “for aid against her own subjects.”^[215] What more probable, therefore, under the circumstances, than the institution of the Crypteia? What more in harmony with the genius of the people?

There can be no doubt that on certain extraordinary occasions these chief of slaves obtained their freedom from the state; but that any “legal way to liberty and citizenship stood open to them,”^[216] does not appear.^[217] The chain of “probabilities” by which this conclusion is attempted to be arrived at is perfectly unique, and would lead with equal force to any other whatever. “The many intermediate steps, it is said, seem to prove the existence of a regular mode of transition from the one rank to the other.” It has not, however, been proved that there were any intermediate steps; and the very attempt is based almost wholly on a fragment of that Myron of Priene, whose Messenian History Mr. Müller denominates a romance, and whose “partiality and ignorance” he considers so self-evident but a few passages back.

1. The Helots who were esteemed worthy of an “especial confidence were called ἀργεῖοι.”^[218] This however, is no intermediate step, as it is not said that their being thus called was necessarily followed by any result.

2. The ἐρυκτῆρες enjoyed the same “(especial confidence) in war.”^[219] On points of this kind it is necessary to rely on some authority, and the historian adduces none.^[220] It has, indeed, been conjectured, from the derivation of their name, that this class of freedmen served as a body-guard to their former masters. Positively, however, nothing whatever is known of their condition.

3. The ἀφέται were, probably, released from “all service.” The expression of Eustathius ^[221] is, “being made free, they were called aphetæ.”

4. “The δεσποσιοναύται,^[222] who served in the fleet, resembled, probably, the freedmen of Attica, who were called the out-dwellers.”^[223] This phrase is calculated to convey an erroneous impression, as though these freedmen necessarily took up their quarters in the country, whereas οἱ χωρὶς οἰκούντες merely signifies persons who have establishments of their own. With respect to the Desposionautæ, they would appear to have been slaves brought up in their masters’ houses, and afterwards enfranchised, and ordered to be employed about the fleet.

5. “When they (the Helots) received their liberty, they also obtained permission to dwell where they wished, and, probably, at the same time, a a portion of land was granted to them without the lot of their former masters.” This is drawing a general inference from a particular case. Thucydides,^[224] the authority relied on, speaks only of those Helots who having served in Thrace under Brasidas, obtained enfranchisement on their return, together with a portion of the lands recently taken from the Lepreatæ. On other occasions, as the whole of Laconia and Messenia had been divided among the citizens, it is difficult to understand whence the state could have obtained lands to bestow. The probability, therefore, is, that they bestowed none.

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,

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.

Besides these, there was another class of the Cretan population which must by no means be confounded with the slaves or serfs,—I mean, the Hypekooi.^[258] These were the inhabitants of the smaller towns who had lost their political independence, but were permitted the use of arms, and allowed to frequent the public places of exercise, like the nobler citizens.^[259]

In the city of Cydonia, during certain festivals of Hermes, the slaves were left masters of the place, into which no free citizen had permission to enter; and if he infringed this regulation it was in their power to chastise him with whips.^[260] In other parts of Crete customs similar to those of the Roman Saturnalia prevailed; for, while the slaves in the Hermæan festival were carousing and taking their ease, their lords, travestied into domestics, waited upon them at table, and performed, in their stead, all other menial offices. Something of the same kind took place during the month Gerœstion, at Trœzen, where the citizens feasted their slaves on one day of the great annual festival, and played at dice with them.^[261] Among the Babylonians, moreover, we find a similar custom; for, during the Sacæan festival, which lasted five days, and was celebrated in the month of August,^[262] the owners waited on their slaves, one of whom, habited in a royal robe, enacted the part of king.

Upon the whole it may be inferred, that the treatment and condition of the Cretan serfs were milder than in any other Doric state, though it would be incorrect to decide,^[263] that they were less oppressed than in any other state in all Greece, since we discover in the song of Hybrias traces not to be mistaken of their abject state:

The Periœci of Crete are said never to have revolted against their masters; but this arose, as Aristotle observes, from the circumstance that every state having serfs of the same kind, it was not for the interest of any one in their wars to set their bondsmen a bad example by enticing any to join in those struggles.^[265]. The Penestæ of Thessaly, and the Helots, often joined the enemy, because the neighbouring states possessed no similar serfs. But, in the case of the Cretan Periœci, the circumstance already noticed of their not being allowed to frequent the gymnasia,^[266] or possess arms, will account satisfactorily for their perseverance in the ancient manners, without supposing in them any preference for those manners, which, as they were deprived of all the privileges of citizens, they could scarcely have felt.^[267]

Respecting the servile classes in other Grecian states our information is very scanty: we simply know that the serfs of the Syracusans were denominated Killicyrii,^[268] and exceedingly numerous, so that “more in number than the Killicyrii,” became a proverb. They would seem to have dwelt chiefly in the country like the Cretan Mnotæ. In process of time, however, their multitude inspired them with courage; they assaulted and drove out their masters, and, fortune favouring their enterprise, retained possession of Syracuse. Among several of the Italian states, the subject classes were known by the name of Pelasgi. The people of Rhodes reduced and kept in bondage the inhabitants of Caunos, and the celebrated painter Protogenes ^[269] was the son of one of these bondsmen.

In the same relation stood the Bithynians to the people of Byzantium; the Leleges to the Carians, and the Katanocophori to the people of Sicyon.^[270] These last would seem to have been originally ^[271] merely the rustic population deprived of their freedom by the tyrants, who compelled them to affect a mean and squalid appearance, and to wear sheepskin cloaks,^[272] that they might be ashamed to frequent the city, where they would have been exposed to the laughter and insults of the rabble.

The corresponding class among the Arcadians, denominated Prospelatæ ^[273] were said to have amounted to three hundred thousand in number. Their treatment was probably more lenient than in many other parts of Greece, as we find them on public festivals sitting down at table with their masters, like our old farm-servants, eating of the same food, and drinking from the same cup.^[274]

157. When the words in the text were written Mr. Müller was still living, and there was every reason to expect from him a series of learned and able works on the history and antiquities of Greece. He has since, however, fallen a victim to the persevering ardour with which he pursued his researches into the topography of that illustrious land; and in common, I believe, with every other admirer of the Hellenic people and literature I sincerely lament his premature death. My regret moreover is heightened by the knowledge that Mr. Muller had projected a history of Greece which his profound investigations and extensive knowledge of the country would unquestionably have rendered highly valuable. His ashes repose among those of the most distinguished men of antiquity. He caught his death among the ruins of Delphi, and was buried at Athens.

158. Dorians, t. ii. p. 30. Cf. t. i. p. 86, seq. Nevertheless the Scholiast on Thucydides maintains the old derivation:—Ἕλος, πόλις τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ἧς οἱ πολίται ἐκαλοῦντο Εἵλωτες. Οἱ οὖν Λακεδαιμόνιοι, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ διαφόρους εἶναι ἀλλήλοις, τοὺς δούλους αὐτῶν ἐκάλουν Εἵλωτας, κατὰ ἀτιμίαν καὶ ὕβριν. t. v. p. 350. Cf. Clint. Fast. Hellen. ii. 412. Etymol. Mag. 300. 7. 332. 51. They were called also Heliatæ. Athen. vi. 102. Cf. Poll. vii. 83. Ἕλος πόλις Λακονική. οἱ πολίται εἵλωτες καὶ εἱλῶται, καὶ ἕλιοι, καί ἑλεάται. ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ἕλος Αἰγύπτου. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ τὰ ἐθνικὰ γραψας, εἰς τὸ ἕτερον Ἕλος λέγει τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς ὑπὸ τὸν Νέστορα. ἕτεροι δὲ ὅτι οὐ μόνον πόλις τὸ Ἕλος ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς χώραν τινὰ πλατύνεται. ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ ἕιλωτες. οἱ συνελθόντες τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις, ἦν ὅτε καὶ πράγματα παρασχόντες τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις, εἶτα ὑπετάγησαν ὡσεὶ δοῦλοι. καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸ ὄνομα τῶν εἱλώτων εῖς δουλικὴν ἀπλῶν μετελήφθη κλῆσιν. Eustath. ad Il. β. p. 223. 28, sqq. Ἐν γοῦν τοῖς Ἡρωδιανοῦ, εὓρηται ὅτι εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ σάτυροι. Idem, ad Il. β. b. 225, 17. Cf. Capperonier Recherches sur l’Histoire des Hilotes. Mem. de L’Acad. des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 272.

159. Theopomp. l. xvii. ap. Athen. vi. 88. Cf. Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p. 188.

160. Hist. and Antiq. of the Dorians, t. ii. p. 31.

161. Dorians, ii. 31.

162. Or rather makes up from two or three disjecta membra of Ephoros. Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p. 188, seq. Cf. Paus. iii. 20. 6.

163. Dorians, t. ii. p. 31. Ubbo Emmius takes the same view of the subject. iii. 138.

164. Καὶ τούτους (sc. δούλους) πρεσβυτέρους γενομένους (observes Plutarch, Vit. Cat. Maj. § 4.) ᾤετο δεῖν ἀποδίδοσθαι, καὶ μὴ βόσκειν ἀχρήστους. But what Cato practised he approved of theoretically, and in his works recommends to others; servum senem, servum morbosum, vendat, De Re Rustica, 2. He would also have the agriculturist dispose of his old oxen and everything else that was old. Vendat boves, vetulos, ferramenta vetera, &c. id. ibid. Upon which Plutarch in a fine spirit of humanity observes, Ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ βοῦν ἂν ἐργάτην διὰ γῆρας ἀποδοιμην, μή τί γε πρεσβυτέρον ἄνθρωπον, ἐκ χώρας συντρόφου καὶ διαίτης συνήθους, ὥσπερ ἐκ πατρίδος, μεθιστάμενον ἀντὶ κερμάτων μικρῶν, ἄχρηστόν γε τοῖς ὠνουμένοις, ὥσπερ τοῖς πιπράσκουσι, γεγενημένον. Vit. Cat. Maj. § 5. For what concerns the Dutch we have the testimony of Le Vallant: “On rencontre des Négresses légitimement mariées, et des Nègres établis faisant corps avec la bourgeoisie; ce sont des hommes qui, par leurs services ou d’autres motifs ont été affranchis; la facilité avec laquelle on leur donnait la liberté était autrefois sujette à bien des abus, parce que ces gens, devenus vieux ou infirmes, ou privés de resources pour subsister, finissaient par être des voleurs ou des vagabonds. Le gouvernement s’est trouvé forcé d’y mettre ordre; nul maître à présent ne peut affranchir son esclave qu’en déposant à la chambre des orphelins une somme suffisante pour sa subsistance.” Voyage dans l’Intérieur de l’Afrique, t. i. p. 112.

165. Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p. 189.

166. Over the Helots, not the state only but even private individuals, and much more the kings, possessed the power of life and death. Thus a Helot behaving offensively to Charillos, he said: “I would kill thee were I not in a passion.” Plut. Apophthegm. Lacon. Charill. 3.

167. Plut. Alcib. § 1. Καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἕνιοι τοῖς τέκνοις Λακωνικὰς ἐωνοῦντο τιτθάς· καὶ τήν γε τὸν Ἀθηναῖον Ἀλκιβιάδην τιτθεύσασαν Ἀμύκλαν ἱστοροῦσι γεγονέναι Λάκαινον. Lycurg. § 16. Cf. Ages. § 3.

168. Franck. Callin. et Tyrt. p. 193. In Attica the θῆτες, paid a sixth of the produce to the Eupatridæ, whose land they rented. Plut. in Sol. § 13. But this it should be remarked was considered one of the oppressive acts of the aristocracy. Ælian gives precisely the same account as Tyrtæos, (Var. Hist. vi. 1,) where see the note of Perizonius. Cf. Crag. De Rep. Laced. l. i. c. 11. p. 71.

169. Herod. ix. 28. They were in fact far more numerous in proportion to the citizens than anywhere else in Greece, and next to them in number were the slaves of the Chians. Thucyd. viii. 40. Cf. Clint. Fast. Hellen. t. ii. p, 411.

170. Dorians, i. 32.

171. Dorians, i. 86.

172. Herod. ix. 80. Plut. Cleom. § 23.

173. Dorians, ii. 32.

174. Cf. Herm. Polit. Antiq. § 47.

175. Χρυσίον δὲ καὶ ἀργύριον οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν ὅσον ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ἰδία. Plut. Alcib. i. t. v. p. 342.

176. Καὶ ἐκλήθησαν τότε μὲν, μενέσται ὕστερον δὲ πενέσται. καὶ πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν εἰσὶν εὐπορώτεροι. Eustath. ad Il. ν. t. ii. p. 933. 48.

177. Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3. 5. Arist. Polit. ii. 2. 11. Pollux, upon I know not what ground, observes, μεταξὺ δὲ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων οἱ Λακεδαίμονιων Εἵλωτες. iii. 83. Upon which Jungermann observes, “Ingenue fateor me non satis capere quare Pollux Helotas medios inter liberos et servos dicat:” in loc. p. 570. Cf. Crag. De Rep. Lac. i. 11. This difficulty Capperonier undertakes to remove, “Les Lacédémoniens mettoient une différence entre les Hilotes et leurs esclaves domestiques nommés οἰκέται; quoiqu’ils eussent tous deux une origine commune, les derniers étoient tombés dans un tel avilissement qu’ils n’avoient aucune sorte de considération; de la vient que Pollux dit que les Hilotes tenoient le milieu entre les gens libres et les esclaves. Les esclaves domestiques avoient un rapport plus particulier au maître, et n’étoient employés qu’eux choses du ménage, comme leur nom même l’exprime. C’étoient eux que les Lacédémoniens forçoient de boire jusqu’à s’enivrer, et qu’ils offroient dans cet état aux yeux des jeunes gens pour leur inspirer l’horreur d’un vice qui dégrade l’humanité: peut-être excusera-t-on la conduite des Lacédémoniens par l’attention particulière qu’ils donnoient à l’éducation de leurs enfans. Mais comment justifier la cruauté qu’ils avoient de les obliger à recevoir tous les ans un certain nombre de coups sans les avoir mérités, seulement afin qu’ils ne desappressent pas à servir?” Capperonier, Recherches sur l’Histoire et l’Esclavage des Hilotes. Mem. De l’Acad. Des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 282, seq.

178. Tacit. Annal. xi. 2.

179. Xen. Rep. Lac. vi. 3. Arist. Polit. ii. 2. 5. Plut. Institut. Lac. 23.

180. Their personal attendants for instance were called μοθῶνες , Suid. in v. ii. 175, and even born in the house like the Oikotribes of the other Greeks. Etym. Mag. 590. 14. According to Harpocration, (in v. p. 128,) they were slaves educated with the free boys at Sparta. The conjecture of Maussac, however, is, that they were male nurses like Phœnix in the Iliad. Similes forte hi fuerint Pappatibus, de quibus Juvenalis, aut gerulis, quos scholiastes Sophocles in Ajace Flagellifero βαϊούλους dictos refert id est baiulos: ut hodie Itali dicunt balio et balia. Not. p. 218.

181. To this class probably belonged the θεράποντες of Demaratos, mentioned by Herodotus, vi. 70, though Mr. Müller conjectures them to have been Helots. Dorians, t. ii. p. 31.

182. On this point the remark of Capperonier is ingenious: “On les voit rarement (les Lacédémoniens) se mettre en campagne sans eux; (les Hilotes;) la politique l’exigeoit; que n’auroient-ils pas en à craindre si, les contenant à peine lorsqu’ils étoient chez eux, ils les y eussent laissés seuls en leur absence?” Recherches sur les Hilotes, Mem. de l’Acad. Des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 285.

183. Thucyd. vii. 19. Cf. v. 57. 64. iv. 80. They were sometimes entrusted with important commands on foreign stations, which by the free confederates of Sparta, however, was regarded as an insult: ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν εἴλωτας ἁρμοστὰς, observes the Theban ambassador at Athens, καθιστάναι ἀξιοῦσι, τῶν δὲ ξυμμάχων ἐλευθέρων ὄντων, ἐπεὶ εὐτύχησαν, δεσπόται ἀναπεφῄνασιν. Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 5. 12.