HELO´TES
HELO´TES or--AE (
Εἵλωτες,
Εἱλῶται:
Ilotae,
Liv. 34.27) were a class of bondsmen subject to
Sparta. The whole of the inhabitants of Laconia were included in the three
classes of Spartans, Perioeci, and Helots, of whom the Helots were the
lowest. They formed the rustic population of the country, dwelling in small
villages or on detached farms, both in the district immediately surrounding
Sparta and around the towns of the Perioeci. We need not regard them as
exclusively or even mainly settled in the low fertile country watered by the
Eurotas, where the estates of the Spartans were mostly situated (Gilbert, p.
31); they were doubtless, as cultivators of the soil, diffused over the
whole country. Their condition was that of serfs attached to the land,
adscripti glebae, and they could not be
sold away from it; they were regarded as the property of the state, which,
while it gave their services to individuals, reserved to itself the power of
emancipating them (Ephorus ap.
Strab. viii.
p.365;
δοῦλοι τοῦ κοινοῦ,
Paus. 3.20.6). Different etymologies are given
of their name. In ancient times it was believed to be derived from the town
of Helos on the coast of Laconia (Hellanicus ap. Harpocrat. s. v.
εἱλωτεύειν: Ephorus ap. Strab.
l.c.; Theopompus ap.
Ath.
6.272 a; Schol. Plat.
ad Alcib. i. p. 122 D [p. 919 a
ed. Turic.]; Apostolius,
Cent. 6.59 = Leutsch,
Paroemiogr. 1.379). But apart from other improbabilities,
it is impossible to form
Εἵλωτες from
Ἕλος, the inhabitants of which are
called
Ἕλειοι or
Ἑλεα̈ται: nor is the difficulty diminished if we treat
ἕλος, not as a proper name but in the
sense of “marsh,” as if “dwellers in the lowlands”
were meant. The explanation of Müller (
Dor. 3.3
init.) as
“prisoners” from the root of
ἑλεῖν,
“to take,” like
δμῶες from the
root of
δαμάω,, is now universally
accepted; and, as he points out, there are traces of it in ancient times by
the side of the other (
οἱ ἐξ αἰχμαλώτων δοῦλοι
γενόμενοι, Schol. Plat., Apostol.,
ll.
cc.;
[p. 1.940]Etym. M. s. v.). Why two classes of
the conquered should have received such different treatment as the Perioeci
and Helots is a question which goes back to pre-historic times and cannot be
satisfactorily answered. The general opinion in the ancient world was that
the former had made terms with their conquerors, whereas the latter had
surrendered at discretion after resistance, perhaps aggravated by rebellion
(Ephor., Theopomp.,
ll. cc.). Müller, as
the avowed apologist for the Dorian race, tried to prove that, on their
arrival in the Peloponnese, they found a class of agricultural serfs in the
land, consisting of the Leleges or other early inhabitants, already deprived
of their freedom by the Achaeans, and made no change in their condition. But
Schömann has well pointed out that this theory, though not
altogether inconceivable, at least contradicts the express statements of
ancient writers (Schömann,
Antiq. 1.194, E. T. ; cf.
Thumser,
Staatsalterth. p. 121, n. 2; Gilbert, p. 32, leaves
the point undecided). Few would attach any importance to the statement of
Pliny, who in a catalogue of inventions (
H. N. 7.200) says,
“servitium invenere Lacedaemonii;” but earlier and better
writers also ascribed the origin of predial slavery in Greece to the
Thessalian and Dorian conquests. (See, besides the passages already referred
to, Theopomp. ap. Ath. vi. p. 265 b, c.) Schömann further argues
that there is no trace of this institution in Homeric descriptions of the
heroic age ; the lowest in the agricultural scale is the
θής, a free labourer working on poor wages for a
small farmer (
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ,
Od. 11.490): others less correctly make the
θὴς a serf or villain (L. and S. s.v.
Merry and Riddell,
ad loc.).
At the end of the second Messenian war (B.C. 668), the conquered Messenians
were reduced to slavery, and included under the denomination of Helots.
Their condition appears to have been the same, with some slight differences,
as that of the other Helots. But, in addition to that remembrance of their
freedom, which made not only them, but through their influence the whole
class of Helots, more and more dangerous to their masters, they preserved
the recollection of their national existence, and were ready to seize any
opportunity for regaining it. Henceforward the danger from the servile
population became much more serious, and the Spartan precautions against a
rising more cruel and unscrupulous; a state of things which in the end was
aggravated by the dwindling numbers of the ruling oligarchy. Epaminondas,
after the battle of Leuctra, restored the main body of these Messenian
Helots to their country, where they no doubt formed the chief part of the
population of the new city of Messene (Thirlwall, 5.104, 105; Grote, ch. 78,
7.197 ff.).
The Helots formed by far the most numerous class of the population.
Schömann, after Müller (
Dor.
3.3.6), reckons them at 224,000 out of a total of 380,000 or at most
400,000; it must be admitted, however, with Büchsenschütz
(
Besitz und Erwerb, p. 139 n.) and Gilbert (
l.c.) that the calculations upon which this estimate
is based are very uncertain. They occupied both the 9,000 larger estates
(
κλῆροι) of the Spartans and the 30,000
smaller lots of the Perioeci. Several families resided in dwellings of their
own upon each
κλή̀ρος: Müller
assumes six or seven, but the
κλῆροι must
have differed greatly in extent and fertility. They cultivated the land and
paid to their masters as rent a fixed measure of corn, the exact amount of
which had been fixed at a very early period, the raising of that amount
being forbidden under heavy imprecations (Plut.
Inst. Lac.
41, p. 239 d). The annual rent paid for each
κλῆρος was eighty-two medimni of barley, and a proportionate
quantity of oil and wine (
Plut. Lyc. 8 and
24). It is impossible to accept Müller's calculation, that this
represented only a fifth of the produce, and that the Helots kept
four-fifths for themselves. Compare the Athenian
HECTEMORII The domestic servants of the Spartans
were mostly Helots. They attended on their masters at the public meal; and
many of them were no doubt employed by the state in public works. Bought
slaves were rare at Sparta, but not altogether unknown: the poet Alcman is
said to have been a Lydian slave from Sardis.
In war the Helots served as light-armed troops (
ψιλοί), a certain number of them attending every heavy-armed
Spartan to the field; at the battle of Plataeae, there were seven Helots to
each Spartan, and one to every hoplite of the Perioeci (
Hdt. 9.10 and 28). These attendants were probably called
ἀμπίτταρες (i. e.
ἀμφιστάντες,
Hesych. sub voce), and one of them in
particular the
θεράπων or orderly (
Hdt. 7.229;
ὑπασπιστής,
Xen. Hell. 4.5,
14); though
θεράπων was also used
by the Dorians as a general name for armed slaves. The
ἐρυκτῆρες, mentioned as emancipated Helots, were probably
Helots serving in war and not yet free, though they generally became so if
they showed distinguished bravery: one of their duties was to carry off the
wounded from the ranks (
ἐρύκειν, akin to
ἐρύειν). The Helots only served as
hoplites in particular emergencies; and it was a universal rule that such
service was followed by the bestowal of freedom. The first instance of this
kind was in the expedition of Brasidas, B.C. 424; others are recorded in the
Peloponnesian and Theban wars (
Thuc. 4.80,
5.34,
7.19;
Xen. Hell. 6.5, § 28). On the other
hand, in the Spartan fleets the general body of the sailors were Helots, and
while serving in this capacity they were called
δεσποσιοναῦται. They may generally have been rewarded with
freedom, but it is probably by a mistake that they are spoken of as free
during their period of service (Schömann,
Antiq.
1.198 n.).
The treatment to which the Helots were subjected, as described by the later
Greek writers, is marked by the most wanton cruelty. Thus Myron states that
“the Spartans impose upon them every ignominious service, for they
compel them to wear a cap of dog-skin, and to be clothed with a garment
of sheep-skin, and to have stripes inflicted upon them every year for no
fault, that they may never forget that they are slaves. And besides all
this, if any rise by their qualities above the condition of a slave,
they appoint death as the penalty, and their masters are liable to
punishment if they do not destroy the most excellent” (
Athen. 14.657 d). And Plutarch
(
Plut. Lyc. 28) states that Helots were
forced to intoxicate themselves, and perform indecent dances as a warning to
the Spartan youth. The general opinion of ancient writers is summed up in
[p. 1.941]the passage of Theopompus already cited (ap.
Ath. 6.272 a):
τὸ δὲ
τῶν εἱλώτων ἔθνος παντάπασιν ὠμῶς διοικεῖτ αι καὶ
πικρῶς. These statements must be received with some caution,
owing to the “rhetorical spirit with which later historians
embellished their philanthropic views” (Müller,
§ 3). Thus Myron, whose work on the Messenian war was a mere
romance, absurdly treats the sheep-skin garment and dog-skin cap,
universally worn by the peasantry in outlying districts, as badges of
insult. The Helots had some at least of the privileges of freemen; their
family rights were respected; and they had a certain power of acquiring
property. Cleomenes, for instance, offered manumission to every Helot who
could pay down five Attic minae; and no fewer than six thousand purchased
their freedom for the considerable sum of £20 each (
Plut. Cleom. 23). In their social relations
with their. masters, the anecdotes of their treatment (e. g. the story of
their drunkenness), as Grote puts it, “betoken less of cruelty than of
ostentatious scorn.” This feeling, it must be remembered,
increased in later times as the Spartans made up by increased arrogance for
their diminishing numbers. But politically a much darker sentiment prevailed
on the part of the Spartan government and the ephors, its leading
representatives, at least from the time of the Messenian wars. The chronic
dread of insurrection overcame every scruple of good faith or humanity, and
the measures of repression described under
CRYPTEIA were had recourse to. Here also we find
exaggerated statements in late and uncritical writers; but there can be no
doubt of the fact related by Thucydides, that on one occasion 2,000 of the
Helots who had rendered the greatest service to the state in war, were
induced to come forward by the offer of emancipation, and then were
mysteriously put to death (
Thuc. 4.80).
The Helots might be emancipated, but in that case, instead of passing into
the class of Perioeci, they formed a distinct body in the state, known at
the time of the Peloponnesian war by the general term of
νεοδαμώδεις (
Thuc.
5.34,
7.19,
58,
8.5), but subdivided into several
classes. Myron of Priene (ap. Ath. vi. p. 271 f) enumerates the following
classes of emancipated Helots:--
ἀφέται, ἀδέσποτοι,
ἐρυκτῆρες, δεσποσιοναῦται, and
νεοδαμώδεις: this, however, is a piece of very careless
writing; the terms
ἀφέται (
“discharged” ) and
ἀδέσποτοι speak for themselves, but the
ἐρυκτῆρες and
δεσποσιοναῦται were probably not emancipated at all (see above),
and
νεοδαμώδεις is the general term which
he here confuses with its subdivisions. Besides these, there were the
μόθωνες or
μόθακες, who were domestic slaves brought up with the young
Spartans, and then emancipated. These were generally or invariably the
illegitimate sons of Spartan lords by Helot mothers, and in many cases they
attained not merely freedom, but civic rights and even high command;
Callicratidas, Lysander, and Gylippus are all said to have been of Mothakic
origin (Phylarch. ap.
Ath. 6.271: e; Aelian,
Ael. VH 12.43; Müller,
Dor. 3.3.5). The
νεοδαμώδεις received permission to dwell where they wished
(
Thuc. 5.34); implying, as Müller
thinks, a grant of land as their own. On the classes of Spartan citizens,
cf.
CIVITAS (Greek), p. 446
ff. (Müller,
Dorians, 3.3;
Thirlwall, 1.309-313; Grote, pt. 2, ch. 6=2.140-145; Schömann,
Antiq. 1.194-201, E. T.; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. 1.31-36; Thumser,
Staatsalterth. § 19, in Hermann-Blümner.)
[
P.S] [
W.W]