Scanned text contains errors.
maternal grandfather. (Isaeus, De Apol. Hered. c. 15.) Still an additional safeguard was provided by the registry of the deme. At the age of sixteen, the son of a citizen was required to devote two years to the exercises of the gymnasia, at the expiration of which term he was enrolled in his deme ; and, after taking the oath of a citizen, was e,rmed in the presence of the assembly. He was then of age, and might marry; but was required to spend two years more as a irspiiroXos in frontier service, before he was admitted to take part in the assembly of the people. The admission into the phratria and deme were alike attended with oaths and other solemn formalities: when a So/a/xacria or general scrutiny of the claims of citizens took place, it was entrusted to both of them; indeed the registry of the deme was the only check upon the naturalised citizen.
These privileges, however, were only enjoyed while the citizen was eTririjuos: in other words, did not incur any sort of arifiia, which was of two sorts, either partial or total, and is spoken of at length elsewhere. [atimia.] -
Recurring then to Aristotle's definition, we find the essential properties of Athenian citizenship to have consisted in the share possessed by every citizen in the legislature, in the election of magistrates, in the SoKt/xacria, and in the courts of justice.
The lowest unity under which the citizen was contained, was the yevos or clan ; its members were termed yej/j/TJrat or ofioyaAa/crey. Thirty yevri formed a typaTpta, which latter division, as was observed above, continued to subsist long after the four tribes, to which the twelve phratries anciently corresponded, had been done away by the constitution of Cleisthenes. There is no reason to suppose that these divisions originated in the common descent of the persons who were included in them, as they certainly did not imply any such idea in later times. Rather they are to be considered as mere political unions, yet formed in imitation of the natural ties of the patriarchal system. .
If we would picture to ourselves the true notion which the Greeks embodied in the word TroAis, we must lay aside all modern ideas respecting the nature and object of a state. With us practically, if not in theory, the object of a state hardly embraces more than the protection of life and property. The Greeks, on the other hand, had the most vivid conception Of the state as a whole, every part of which was to co-operate to some great end to which all other duties were considered as subordinate. Thus the aim of democracy was said to be liberty ; wealth, of oligarchy ; and education, of aristocracy. In all governments the endea.vour was to draw the social union as close as possible, and it seems to have been with this view that Aristotle laid down a principle which answered well enough to the accidental circumstances of the Grecian states, that a TroAis must be of a certain size. (Pol.-vii. 4; nic. J2tk> ix. 10. Oy yap eK Se/ca /mvptdSwy ir6\is en etrTij/.)
This unity of purpose was nowhere so fully carried out as in the government of Sparta ; and, if Sparta is to be looked upon as the model of a Dorian state, we may add, in the other Dorian governments. Whether Spartan institutions in their essential parts were the creation of a single master-mind^ or the result of circumstances modi-
fied only by the genius of Lycurgus, their design was evidently to unite the governing body among themselves against the superior nun bers of the subject population. The division of lands, the syssitia, the education of their youth, all tended to this great object. The most important thing next to union among themselves, was to divide the subject class, and accordingly we find the government conferring some of the rights of citizenship on the helots. Properly speaking, the helots cannot be said to have had any political rights ; yet being serfs of the soil, they were not absolutely under the control of their masters, and were never sold out of the country even by the state itself. Their condition was not one of hopeless servitude ; a legal way was open to them, by which, through many intermediate stages, they might attain to liberty and citizenship. (Muller, Dorians, iii. 3. § 5.) Those who followed their masters to war were deemed worthy of especial confidence ; indeed, when they served among the heavy-armed, it seems to have been usual to give them their liberty. The Seo-irocrtovavTai, by whom the Spartan fleet was almost entirely manned, were freedmen, who were allowed to dwell where they pleased, and probably had a portion of land allotted them by the state. After they had been in possession of their liberty for some time, they appear to have been called *>eo5ajU,coSe:s (Thuc. vii. 58), the number of whom soon came near to that of the citizens. The (JioQwves or poQaKes (as their name implies) were also emancipated helots ; their descendants, too, must have received the rights of citizenship as Callicratidas, Lysander, and Gylip-pus were of Mothacic origin. (MUlier, Dorians, ii. 3. § 6.) We cannot suppose that they passed necessarily and of course into the full Spartan franchise ; it is much more probable that at Sparta, as at Athens, intermarriage with citizens might at last entirely obliterate the badge of former servitude.
The perioeci are not to be considered as a subject class, but rather as a distinct people, separated by their customs as well as by their origin from the genuine Spartans. It seems unlikely that they were admitted to vote in the Spartan assembly ; yet they undoubtedly possessed civil rights in the communities to which they belonged (MUlier, Dorians^ iii. 2. § 4), and which would hardly have been called vrdAeis unless they had been in some sense independent bodies. In the army they commonly served as hoplites, and we find the command at sea intrusted to one of this class. (Thuc. viii. 22.) In respect of political rights, the perioeci were in the same condition with the plebeians in the early history of Rome, although in every other respect far better off, as they participated in the division of lands, and enjoyed the exclusive privilege of engaging in trade and commerce. What confirms the view here taken, is the fact, that, as far as we know, no individual of this class was ever raised to participate in Spartan privileges. Nothing, however, can be more erroneous than to look upon them as an oppressed race. Even their exclusion from the assembly cannot be viewed in this light; for, had they possessed the privilege, their residence in the country would have debarred them from its exercise. It only remains to consider in what the superiority of the genuine Spartan may have consisted. In the first place, besides the right of voting in the assembly and