PERIOECI
PERIOECI (
περίοικοι). This word
primarily denotes the inhabitants of a district lying around some particular
locality, but is generally used to describe a dependent population, living
without the walls or in the country provinces of a dominant city, and,
although personally free, deprived of the enjoyment of citizenship and the
political rights conferred by it. The words
σύνοικοι and
μέτοικοι are in
some degree analogous; like
περίοικοι, they
imply co-residence with a population of higher position and generally of
different nationality. Of the three words, however,
μέτοικοι, meaning “resident aliens,” has the
most definite connotation attached to it, while
σύνοικοι is the most indeterminate [METOECI]. It was probably from the Spartan use of the term
Perioeci that the
[p. 2.370]notion of “subject
population” became so closely attached to it. We have no evidence
to show that this word was employed by any other state than Sparta to denote
its local dependencies, a great deal to show that it was not. But the
Lacedaemonian system of Perioeci was so much the most marked in Greece, that
writers often translated the titles given to other subject populations into
this Lacedaemonian nomenclature.
A political condition such as that of the Perioeci of Greece, in some measure
resembling the vassalage of the Germanic nations, could hardly have
originated in anything else than foreign conquest; and the Perioeci of
Laconia furnish a striking illustration of this. The question of their
origin as a subject population is intimately connected with the question of
their nationality; and as the two main accounts of the origin of the
Perioeci which have come down to us, that of Ephorus and that of Isocrates,
differ both in the description of the causes of their subjection and in the
statements as to their original nationality, we must be content to accept
the modified conclusions which scholars have supposed may be drawn from such
accounts, from other chance notices, and from the probabilities of the case.
Ephorus (ap.
Strab. viii. p.364) states
that they were the original Achaean inhabitants of the territory, which the
Lacedaemonian branch of the Dorians had invaded; that, during the first
generation which followed on the invasion, they not only remained possessed
of all private rights, but even shared the political franchise of the
invaders. In the next generation, however, these political privileges were
taken from them; they were made into a dependent population, and even forced
to pay tribute to the dominant Dorians. Isocrates (
Panath.
§ 177) draws no such distinction of race between the Spartans and
the Perioeci. On the contrary, he represents the Perioeci as in their origin
the
δῆμος of the Spartan state, which,
expelled after a period of
στάσις, was
reduced to the grade of a subject population by the victorious oligarchy,
and scattered through the many small townships of Laconia. These accounts
agree in representing the condition of the Perioeci as having been
originally better than it was in historic times. The different accounts of
their nationality also give us a clue to the fact, which Grote has so
strongly insisted on, that in historic times there was no recognisable
difference between the nationality of the Perioeci and that of the Spartans
themselves. The suggestion, however, that the Perioecic population was in a
large degree tinged with the old Achaean element is more than probable; and
perhaps the safest theory to accept as to the origin of this people is that
stated by E. Curtius in his
History of Greece (bk. ii. ch.
1); namely, that, on the first Dorian immigration into Laconia, the Dorians
mingled with the original Achaean populations, with whom they continued to
live for some time, the original Hexapolis which they established in Laconia
not being peculiarly Dorian. The second stage of Dorian history is marked by
two of the ruling families (the originators of the double Spartan kingship)
“succeeding in gaining over to their side the central body of the
Dorian people, in eliminating it from its intermixture with the rest of
the population, collecting its scattered elements at one point, and,
supported by the power of the Dorians, establishing this point as the
centre of the district and the seat of their government”
(Curtius,
l.c.). With this reaction to pure Dorism
the Perioeci originate, and their nationality would thus be a mixed one,
their civilisation in particular being affected by the strongly impressive
character of Dorian life, precisely in the way in which Herodotus tells us
that the original population of Cynuria, which was Ionian, had been
“Dorised by the Argives and by time” (
Hdt. 8.73). The Perioeci of Laconia in historical times were of
still more varied nationality than this mixture of race implies. Amongst
them we must class the Cynurians, and possibly the Sciritae, the inhabitants
of the mountainous country of South Arcadia (
Hesych.
sub voce
σκείρα: Arnold, in
Thuc. 5.67); and, although the latter are sometimes called
σύμμαχοι of the Spartans, and thus
distinguished from the Perioeci, perhaps they were only distinguishable from
the main body of the Perioecic population as a higher from a lower grade,
and would have been included in the widest meaning of this term, which is a
dependent population, not sharing in the political rights of the state on
which it is dependent.
After this reduction of the larger part of the population of Laconia from
freedom to partial dependence on the central state, we are told that it was
forced to pay tribute to Sparta (Ephorus, ap. Strab.
l.c.,
συντελεῖν τῇ Σπάρτῃ). Of the nature of
this tribute we know nothing: but a reference of Aristotle's to the
εἰσφοραὶ or property taxes of the Spartans,
which, though understood to exist, were not paid by the pure Spartans
themselves, has been interpreted as meaning that the tax which the Perioeci
paid was merely of this nature, a land tax to the state, also understood as
affecting the Spartans but evaded by them, and not therefore a tribute paid
in token of subservience by a dependent population (Arist.
Pol. 2.6, 23). Sir G. C. Lewis, on the other hand,
held that this tax was based on the theory of territorial sovereignty; that
the land was supposed to belong to the Spartans by right of conquest; and
that the Perioeci paid a revenue to them for the right of
possessio (
Phil. Mus. vol. ii.). Other tokens
of dependence were the absence of all civic privileges in the central state,
and the fact that no
jus conubii existed
between them and Spartan citizens. So entirely were they regarded as
something external to the Spartan state, that it is even said that the
Ephors could put Perioeci to death without trial (Isocr.
Panath. § 181). This is on the whole what we should
expect from the characteristic disregard of the Spartans for rights other
than civic, but the statement is rendered improbable from the difficulty of
reconciling it with their general treatment of this subject population. For
it does not appear that the Perioeci (especially in historic times) were
generally an oppressed people, though kept in a state of political
inferiority to their conquerors. They served in the Spartan armies as
heavy-armed soldiers of the line, and not like the helots, as light-armed
only; while at the battle of Plataea we find each of these Perioecic
hoplites furnished with an attendant
[p. 2.371]helot (
Hdt. 8.61). Again, at Sphacteria 292 prisoners were
taken, of whom 120 were Spartans, and the rest in all probability
περίοικοι (
Thuc.
4.38). We also read of
καλοὶ
κἀγαθοί, or “accomplished and well-born” gentlemen,
amongst the Perioeci serving as volunteers in the Spartan service (
Xen. Hell. 5.3,
9). We occasionally find a Perioecus in high command (
Thuc. 8.6), and on one occasion we find one filling
the responsible post of admiral, so highly esteemed by Spartans as a source
of power during the closing years of the Peloponnesian war (Id. 8.22). But
we never find a Perioecus in command of a Spartan; in the above case, for
instance, in which the Perioecus held a high naval command, the fleet he
commanded was not a Spartan but an allied fleet from Chios. But, in spite of
these possibilities of attaining to high position within their own circle,
it was not to be expected that men competent to the discharge of high
functions in a state, and bearing its burdens, should patiently submit to an
exclusion from all political rights. Accordingly we find that on the rising
of the Helots in B.C. 464, some of the Perioeci joined them (
Thuc. 1.101). When the Thebans invaded Laconia
(B.C. 369), the Perioeci were ready to help them (
Xen. Hell. 6.5,
25). In
connexion with the insurrection of Cinadon we are told that the Perioeci
were most bitter against the ruling Spartans (Id. 3.3, 6). From these and
other facts (Clinton,
F. H. Append. 22) it appears that the
Perioeci of Laconia, if not an oppressed, were sometimes a disaffected and
discontented class; though in cases of strong excitement, or of general
danger to the whole of Greece, they identified themselves with their
conquerors. The very relation, indeed, which subsisted between them, was
sufficient to produce in Sparta a jealousy of her subjects, with
corresponding feelings on their part. Nor can we suppose that the Dorians
would willingly permit the Perioeci to acquire strength and opulence, or
even to settle in large towns. In fact, it is stated by Isocrates
(
Panath. § 177) that the Spartan Dorians
intentionally weakened the other inhabitants of Laconia by dispersing them
over a great number of hamlets (
μικροὶ
τόποι) which they called
τόλεις,
though they were less powerful than the country parishes of Attica, and were
situated in the most unproductive parts of Laconia, the best land of which
was reserved for the Spartans. This last statement probably has some
reference to the land distribution of Laconia attributed to Lycurgus (
Plut. Lyc. 8). The 30,000 allotments which, we
are told, were made to the Perioeci, are probably as mythical as the 9,000
equal allotments said to have been made to the Spartans (Grote,
Hist.
Gr. ch. 6); but Isocrates' statement points to the fact that,
while the Spartans possessed the rich plateau of the interior, the lands of
the Perioeci were mostly in the rugged territory that fringed this plain.
Still, the grievances of the Perioeci were not after all intolerable, nor do
they seem to have been treated with wantonness or insolence. The distance at
which many of them lived from Sparta must have rendered it impossible for
them to share in the administration of the state, or to attend the public
assemblies: a circumstance which must in some measure have blunted their
sense of their political inferiority; nor were they subjected to the
restraints and severe discipline which the necessity of maintaining their
political supremacy imposed upon the Spartans (Sosib. ap.
Athen. 15.674). By way of
compensation, too, the Perioeci enjoyed many advantages (though not
considered as privileges) which the Spartans did not. The trade and
manufactures of the country were exclusively in their hands, and carried on
by them with the more facility and profit as they occupied maritime towns.
Similarly the island of Cythera, the nucleus of the maritime trade of
Laconia, and the port at which the merchants trading from Egypt and Libya
usually touched, was a Perioecic settlement (
Thuc.
4.53;
7.57). The cultivation of the arts,
also, as well in the higher as in the lower departments, was confined to the
Perioeci, the Spartans considering it beneath themselves; and many
distinguished artists, such as embossers and brass-founders, were found in
the Laconian schools, all of whom were probably Perioeci (Müller,
Dor. 3.2, 3). Nor is there wanting other
evidence, though not altogether free from doubt, to show that the Spartan
provincials were not in the least checked or shackled in the development of
their intellectual powers (Müller,
l.c.).
Moreover, it seems natural to suppose that they enjoyed civil rights in the
communities to which they belonged, and which otherwise would scarcely have
been called
πόλεις: but whether or no these
cities had the power of electing their own chief magistrate or magistrates,
what was the form of their constitution or whether it was in all cases
uniform, can only be a matter of conjecture. It has been thought possible
that the 20 harmosts mentioned by the Scholiast on Pindar (
Pind. O. 6.154) were Spartan governors sent to
preside over Perioecic districts (Schömann,
Antiq. jur.
publ. Gr. 4.1, 5). [
HARMOSTES] From the single instance of Cythera, to which we know
a magistrate was sent from Sparta with the title
κυθηροδίκης (
Thuc. 4.53), no
general conclusion can be drawn; but in any case it is probable that, if
governors were appointed from Sparta, they were governors, not of the
several
πόλεις, but of districts amongst
which these
πόλεις were distributed for
administrative purposes. Such a theory does not necessarily imply that the
internal administration of each
πόλις was
not in the hands of its Perioecic inhabitants themselves.
The number of Laconian (as they are called) or subject cities is said to have
formerly amounted to 100 (
Λακεδαίμων ἑκατόμπολις,
Strab. viii. p.557; Steph. Byz.
s. vv.
Αἰθαία and
Αἰτωλία). Several of these lay on the coast, as Gythium,
the port of Sparta, whence the whole coast of Laconia is called
ἡ περιοικίς (
Thuc.
3.16). Many, however, lay more inland, as Thyrea, the chief town of
the Thyreatid as it is often called, a part of Cynuria, which was a
comparatively late acquisition of the Spartans, not having been finally
wrested from Argos until about the year 550 B.C. It was a long and fertile
strip of teriitory east of the Eurotas, extending down to Cape Malea, and
including the island of Cythera (
Hdt. 1.82). But
besides the fact, known to historic times, of the late acquisition of
Cynuria, there is a great deal of evidence to show that the possession of
[p. 2.372]the Perioecic territory by Sparta was a slow
and gradual process. It has been noticed that some of the towns mentioned by
Strabo as belonging to the Lacedaemonian
ἑκατόμπολις were in Messenia, and cannot therefore have been
settled until after the conquest of that territory, about 635 B.C.
(Schömann,
l.c.). When we remember further
that it was not until the reign of king Teleclus, about three centuries
after the original foundation of Sparta, that such towns as Amyclae, Pharis,
and Geronthrae on the Eurotas were conquered (
Paus.
3.2,
6), it is impossible to believe that
the distribution of the Perioecic territory was such a rapid and easily
completed process as the statements of Ephorus and Isocrates would lead us
to believe.
Connected with the accounts of the conquest of the Perioecic territory, there
are some statements which would lead us to conjecture that there was some
difference of status amongst the Perioecic towns themselves. Amyclae,
Pharis, and Geronthrae, for instance, are said to have been colonised from
Sparta (
Paus. 3.22,
5). Boeae, which Curtius supposes to have been one of the cities
forming the original Hexapolis of Laconia, was said to have been founded by
a Heracleid chief (
Strabo viii. p.364).
Whether such considerations led to a difference of political status in the
case of such towns, it is impossible to say; but still it seems probable
that a town like Amyclae, in which was the temple of the Hyacinthian Apollo,
and which was one of the great religious centres of Dorian worship (
Thuc. 4.18), would claim a preference, based on
religious sentiment, over other Perioecic towns; and there is some evidence
to show that the inhabitants of such towns received more considerate
treatment than the general mass of Perioeci (
Xen.
Hell. 4.5,
11).
The number of the Perioecic population of Laconia is not known; but an
attempt has been made by Clinton to determinate it approximately at one
stage of its history: namely, at the time of the Persian war (
F.
I. App. 100.22). He says, “At the battle of Plataea in B.C.
479, the Perioeci supplied 10,000 men. If we assume this proportion to
be the same as that which the Spartan force bore to the whole number on
the same occasion, or five-eighths of the whole number of citizens, this
would give 16,000 for the males of full age, and the total population of
this class of the inhabitants of Laconia would amount to about 66,000
persons.” It will be seen, however, that this conclusion,
somewhat doubtful in itself, is based on the supposition that the 10,000
Lacedaemonians who served with the Spartans at Plataea were all Perioeci. It
seems more probable, however, on a comparison of two passages in Herodotus
(
9.11 with 61), that the 5,000 whom it is so
difficult to account for, and who are only mentioned as making up the total
sum, were Helots, and that each Perioecic hoplite was attended by one
lightarmed helot, just as each Spartan hoplite was attended by seven of the
same class.
In the later times of Spartan history, the Perioecic towns of the coast
(
Laconicae orae castella et vici) were
detached from Sparta by T. Quinctius Flaminius, and placed under the
protection of the Achaean league (Müller,
Dor. 3.2, 1;
Liv. 34.29,
30, and 38.31). Subsequently to this the Emperor
Augustus released 24 towns from their subjection to Sparta, and formed them
into separate communities under laws of their own. They were consequently
called Eleuthero-Lacones (
Paus. 3.21,
6). But even in the time of Pausanias some of the
Laconian towns were not
αὐτόνομοι, but
dependent upon Sparta (
συντελοῦσαι εἰς
Σπάρτην).
From the account given above of the probable origin of the Perioeci of Sparta
we should naturally expect to find a subject population of this kind
existing in most Greek states, which are known to have experienced
immigrations not resulting in a total change of population, but in a
combined residence of populations of different nationality. Immigrations of
this kind, which resulted in combined settlements, were in a high degree the
characteristic of Dorian movements; and accordingly we should expect to find
a Perioecic population as the basis of the early Dorian states. This is in
the main verified by facts. In Argos, for instance, we have an undoubted
Perioecic population; and although no true Perioeci can be identified in
cities like Sicyon and Corinth, or most of the later Dorian colonies, this
is easily explained by the fact that these states were created after the
movement of the great Dorian migration was over. The Perioeci of Argos were
called Orneatae from the town of Orneae, apparently the first or the most
important town reduced to this condition by the Argives (
Hdt. 8.73). These Orneatae are called
σύμμαχοι of the Argives by Thucydides (
5.67, and Arnold's note), and with them are classed the
inhabitants of Cleonae; but that they were Perioeci appears from the passage
of Herodotus, in which he is evidently translating the less familiar Argive
term Orneatae into the more familiar Spartan one Perioeci, to show the
status of the Cynurian population he is describing. How large the Perioecic
population of Argolis was we do not know. A large part of it, Cynuria, was
taken by the Spartans (
Hdt. 1.82); and the two
great Achaean townships, Mycenae and Tiryns, were certainly not Perioecic
towns at the time of the Persian war (Id. 7.102, 9.28). After their
destruction by Argos about 468 B.C. (
Diod.
11.65), they may possibly have been reduced to this condition.
Amongst Dorian states outside Greek proper, we find Perioeci on the largest
scale connected with the cities of Crete, which resembled Sparta in having a
large subject population. But whether the so-called “Perioeci”
of Crete were closely analogous to those of Sparta is an open question. [See
COSMI] Amongst the later
Dorian foundations there is some evidence of the existence of Perioeci in
Leucadia and Anactorium (
Thuc. 2.81,
οἱ μετὰ τούτων, Arnold); and in a non-Dorian
country, but one that resembled a Dorian state in its foundation, namely
Elis, we have evidence of a Perioecic population (
Thuc.
2.25).
There were various other classes of dependent communities in Greece, which we
find described as Perioeci; and others that bear a strong resemblance to the
Perioeci of Laconia in being permanent dependencies on other states: but
neither of these are we quite justified in calling “Perioeci”
in the Dorian sense. Of the former class, for instance, are the native
population
[p. 2.373]surrounding Greek colonies like Cyrene
(
Hdt. 4.159); and among dependent
populations of the latter kind we may class many of the states of Thessaly.
These are called
ὑπήκοοι (
Thuc. 4.78; Arist.
Pol. 2.9, 3), and include the populations of what was in
historical times Thessaly, such as the Perrhaebi, Magnetes, and Achaeans (of
Phthiotis), which were subdued after the Thessalian migration.
[References for fuller particulars on this question may be made to Arnold's
Thucydides, vol. i. app. ii., “On the Constitution of Sparta,”
and to a review of this work by Sir G. C. Lewis in the second volume of the
Philological Museum, p. 39. The most exhaustive treatment
of the subject will be found in O. Müller's
History of the
Dorians, bk. iii. See also Schömann,
Antiquit.
Juris Pub. Graec. 4.1.5; A. Kopstadt,
De rerum
Laconicarum Constitutionis Lycurgeae Origine et Indole; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. 1.37. The nationality of the Perioeci is
discussed chiefly in Curtius,
Hist. of Greece, bk. ii. ch. 1,
and Grote,
Hist. of Greece, part ii. ch. 6.]
[
R.W] [
A.H.G]
