previous next


COSMI (κόσμοι), the chief magistrates of Crete. It is proposed under this head to give a brief account of the Cretan constitution.

Different opinions are held by scholars as to the time when Crete, where the Phoenicians had settlements, was first colonised by the Greeks. O. Müller (Dorians, i. p. 36 ff.) believes in Andron's account (Strab. x. p.475, fin.; Steph. Byz. s. v. Δώριον; Diod. 5.80), according to which Dorians came to Crete, before the time of Minos, from Hestiaeotis, at that time called Doris, together with some Achaeans and Pelasgi who had remained in Thessaly, and looks upon [p. 1.554]Cnosus (Κνωσός on coins and inscriptions; in MSS. mostly Κνωσσός as the first Greek settlement in the island. This view is opposed by Hoeck (Kreta, ii. p. 15 ff.) and Grote (Hist. of Gr. ii. p. 311, n. 3). Duncker (Hist. of Gr. i. p. 321 f.) likewise considers Cnosus to have been the first settlement of the Greeks; but according to him, Dorians from Argos, under their leader Althaemenes, succeeded in reducing Karath (in Greek legend the abode of Minos), which now received the name of Cnosus (Strab. p. 479, 653; Conon, Narr. 47). At least a century later (p. 421 ff.) Achaeans, with Pollis as their leader, landed on the island, built Lyctus (Gortyn, according to Conon, Narr. 36; Plato, Legg. iv. p. 708 A, says, Gortyn was founded ἐξ Ἄργους), and subjugated many other cities (Plut. de Mulier. Virt. p. 247 d.; Quaest. Gr. p. 296 b.). Hoeck (ii. p. 445 ff.) adduces strong reasons against the opinion that Cnosus was the oldest Greek settlement in Crete, and it is now more generally believed that Argives and Lacedaemonians settled in the island subsequent to the return of the Heracleidae (Diod. 5.80), and that Lyctus (Λύκτος in MSS., Λύττος on coins and inscriptions), a colony of the Lacedaemonians (Arist. Pol. 2.7, 1 S.=10, 2 B.), was the oldest Greek town there (Plb. 4.54). This question as to the time of the earliest settlement is closely connected with that of the relation existing between the Cretan and Spartan constitutions. The social and political institutions of Crete appeared to be so similar to the Spartan, that it was a disputed point amongst the ancients whether the Spartan constitution had its origin in Crete, or whether the Cretan constitution was transferred from Laconia thither. Ephorus argues at length that the Spartan institutions originally existed in Crete, but were perfected in Sparta; and Aristotle agrees in the general view that the Cretan institutions were older than the Spartan. Hoeck (3.8 ff.), however, shows that this is an untenable position (cf. Trieber, Forschungen z. spart. Verfassungsgesch. p. 95 ff.). In O. Müller's opinion, “at a very remote period the principles of the Doric constitution were systematised and established in Crete, so that they afterwards became the model and standard for other states of that race;” he considers Minos of Cnosus to have been a Dorian, and takes the name of Minos to indicate “a period in which the Doric invaders united a part of the island into one state, and by extending their power over the Cyclades and many maritime districts obtained, according to the expression of Herodotus, Thucydides and Aristotle, the dominion of the sea” (Dor. i. p. 36; cf. Curtius, Griech. Gesch. i.4 p. 157). According to Duncker, on the other hand, the tradition of the Greeks had personified and expressed in the form of Minos the dominion of the Phoenicians in the Aegean Sea, in his laws the well-ordered life of the cities of Crete which the Phoenicians had occupied (Karath = Καίρατος, the old name of Cnosus; Ethanath = Ἰτανός Lebana =Λεβήν, Arvad = Ἄραδος, etc.). He holds (p. 371) that the Spartan laws were asserted to have come from Crete (Arist. l.c.; [Plat.] Minos, p. 318 C), “because it was supposed that the laws of the Cretan cities came from Minos, and that Minos received them from Zeus (Odyss. 19.178). If Sparta's laws came from Crete, they came from Zeus.” In Duncker's opinion, the similarity of institutions in Crete and Sparta is due to their resting on the same foundations, viz. an armed immigration and a long period of war; and Schoemann (Griech. Alterth. i. p. 297) expresses a like opinion: “This similarity may be explained, without intentional imitation, by the community of nationality, which under like conditions must produce like institutions.” This then, and especially the fact that colonists from Sparta transplanted Spartan institutions to Cretan soil, accounts for this similarity (cf. Busolt, Griech. Gesch. i. pp. 128, 191), limited as it is (Plb. 6.45, speaking of his own time only, denies it altogether); and this view agrees with the statement of Ephorus (Strab. p. 481), that the political system of Lyctus, Gortyn, and some smaller towns maintained itself more primitive than that of Cnosus, the ancient residence of Minos. Gilbert (Handb. ii. p. 216 f., n.) gives the names of forty-three independent towns (there were also dependent cities; cf. Strab. p. 478, 479); and Strabo (p. 476) names Cnosus, Gortyn, and Cydonia as the most powerful among them: “When Cnosus and Gortyn acted in harmony, they held sway over all the other towns; when they quarrelled, the whole island was divided into two parties.” Discord seems to have been the normal condition in Crete; only when it was necessary to keep off an invader, were the towns united (Συγκρητισμός, Plut. de Frat. Amor. p. 490 b.; Etym. M. s. v. συγκρητίσαι: see also Plb. 29.4). Individual towns were at different times bound to one another by special treaties (φιλία καὶ συμμαχία καὶ ἰσοπολιτεία): cf. C. I. G. No. 2554, 50.186 and 1. 214=Cauer, del.2 No. 119; C. I. G. No. 2555=C. No. 116; C. No. 117, etc.

In an inscription belonging (according to Boeckh) to the end of the 3rd century B.C. (C. I. G. No. 2556, treaty between Hierapytna and Priansium), the κοινοδίκιον, a kind of supreme court, in which matters in dispute between different cities were settled, is mentioned as suspended (it was again in existence in B.C. 184, Plb. 23.15), and arrangements are made in this treaty as to the manner in which disputes which had arisen (since the suspension) between the inhabitants of the two towns in question should be settled, viz. before a δικαστήριον (probably of a third city), on which the two cities had agreed, and which was presided over by the Cosmi of the two cities (Hoeck, iii. p. 88, identifies the διεξαγωγά/un> with the ἡγεμονία δικαστηρίου of Attic law); for the future such disputes were to be referred to an arbitrator (πρόδικος), from whose decision an appeal might be made to a court (ἐπικριτήριον), consisting of inhabitants of a third city, on which both cities should agree ; or, according to Boeckh, to a joint court of the two cities with inhabitants of a third city added ( “ἐπικριτήριον optime dicebatur numerus iudicum additicius” ), the same with the κοινὸν δικαστήριον (50.48), before which Cosmus or private individual was to be accused who endeavoured to upset this treaty.

Our information as regards the constitution of the Cretan cities (in all essential points the same, for Plb. 6.46 speaks of Κρητικὴ πολιτεία),--which is derived from Ephorus and Aristotle, [p. 1.555]between whose accounts there is great resemblance, and from later writers, as Dosiades, Sosicrates, who wrote Κρητικά, etc.--has been considerably increased by the discovery of the Gortyn Code (probably B.C. 450-350), of which H. J. Roby (Law Quarterly Rev., April 1886) has published a translation, with notes, giving also an account of other translations and commentaries. (We shall refer especially to Joh. and Theod. Baunack (B.); Comparetti in Mus. Ital. di Antich. Class. i. (C.); Jac. Simon (S.); and E. Zitelmann in Rh. M. Suppl. vol. 40 (Z.).)

The population of the island was divided into three classes: slaves, ὑπήκοοι, and freemen. The slaves were of three kinds: (a) slaves of the state ( κοινὴ δουλεία), called by a collective term μνοία, or μνῷται; these cultivated the land which the state had reserved to itself as domain land, whilst (b) the ἀφαμιῶται or κλαρῶται cultivated the estates of individuals ( ἰδία δουλεία: Sosicrates in Ath. 6.263 f.); these are the Ϝοικέες of the Gortyn Code, “householders,” who had their own goods, whose marriages were recognised, and who, in default of kin, succeeded to the inheritance of their lord (Z., p. 63 f., p. 144; yet this explanation of κλᾶρος has been called in question by S. p. 85 ff., and Schaube, Herm. 1886, p. 222, in whose opinion κλᾶρος is the estate itself, and τὰ κρέματα went with the κλᾶρος, of which the state had to dispose). These two classes of slaves were probably the ancient inhabitants of the island conquered in war (μνῷται οἱ ἐγγενεῖς οἰκέται, Athen. 6.267 c.; ἀφαμιῶται οἱ κατ᾽ ἀγρόν, ἐγχώριοι μὲν ὄντες, δουλωθέντες δὲ κατὰ πόλεμον, p. 263 e.), and are thus distinguished from (c) the purchased slaves (οἱ κατὰ πόλιν οἰκέται χρυσώνητοι; perhaps ἐνδοθιδία δώλα in Gortyn Code, 2.11). The treatment of slaves in Crete was not harsh; for “the Cretans gave them the same institutions as their own, but forbade them gymnastic exercises and the possession of arms” (Arist. Pol. 2.2, 12 S.=5, 19 B.: cf. Hybrias in Athen. 15.695 e.); when therefore Eustathius (Il. 1.321, p. 110, 9; and Dionys. Perieg. 5, 533) says that the Cretans obtained armed attendants (θεράποντες) from among their slaves, the third class (c) must probably be understood.

Aristotle says, “The Helots are the husbandmen of the Lacedaemonians, and the Perioeci of the Cretans” (Pol. 2.7, 3 S. = 10, 5 B. In 4.9, 1b S.=7.10, 1 B. he distinguishes τὸ μάχιμον and τὸ γεωργοῦν); but from this the conclusion should not be drawn (which Grote, ii. p. 365 n., draws), that there was not in Crete also another class of subject population corresponding more closely to the περίοικοι of Laconia, the name of which Sosicrates has preserved. This writer clearly distinguishes from the μνῷται and ἀφαμιῶται a third class, to whom he applies a term clearly intended to recall the Laconian institution of Perioeci: τοὺς δὲ περιοίκους (οἱ Κρῆτες καλοῦσι) ὑπηκόους (Athen. 6. 263 f.), whilst other writers identify the Helots with the κλαρῶται, e. g. Photius, s. v. Καλλικύριοι: . . . ὅμοιοι τοῖς παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις εἵλωσι καὶ παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς πενέσταις καὶ παρὰ Κρησὶ κλαρώταις: cf. Bekk. Anecd. i. p. 292, 7. Aristotle, who does not mention the Lacedaemonian περίοικοι at all, must be supposed to understand by περίοικοι in Crete the ἀφαμιῶται (or κλαρῶται), who may fitly be called so as dwellers in the open country (cf. Hesych. ἀφαμιῶται: οἰκέται ἀγροῖκοι, πάροικοι); and among them the laws of Minos, he says, were still in force (cf. Plat. Min. 16, p. 321 B.). To the ὑπήκοοι Hoeck (iii. p. 24 ff.) refers Aristotle's remark about “the tribute which is paid by the περίοικοι” (Pol. 2.7, S.=46, 10, 8 B.), and he connects with this Dosiades' statement in Athen. 4.143 b: τῶν δούλων ἕκαστος Αἰγιναῖον φέρει στατῆρα κατὰ κεφαλήν, δοῦλοι being used in his opinion as a general term for those who were not free citizens; he bases this view mainly on the assumption that the μνῷται and ἀφαμιῶται had no property of their own. Since, however, we learn from the Gortyn Code, 4.42, that with regard to the latter the contrary was the case, it seems advisable to accept O. Müller's view (ii. p. 53), according to which δοῦλοι meant the ἀφαμιῶται. These ὑπήκοοι were probably the inhabitants of non-Dorian cities, which were dependent on one or other of the autonomous Dorian cities. Z. identifies with them the ἀπέταιροι of the Gortyn Code; in his opinion the ἑταιρεῖαι were originally subdivisions of the φυλαί, and corresponded to the Attic phratries, inasmuch as the adopter had to give to his own ἑταιρεία a victim and a pitcher of wine (Gortyn Code, 10.38), and only at a later period they became “common messes” (Dosiades in Athen. 4.143 b, διῄρηνται δ᾽οἱ πολῖται πάντες καθ᾽ ἑταιρίας, καλοῦσι δὲ ταύτας ἀνδρεῖα). C. explains ἀφέταιροι to mean those who, as a kind of punishment, were excluded from the common mess (Poll. 3.58 puts ἀφέταιροι together with ἀπολῖται and ἀπαθηναῖοι); Roby suggests, “they are perhaps freedmen or other unprivileged persons;” and Wachsmuth (Nachr. d. kgl. Ges. d. W. in Göttingen, 1885, p. 202 foll.) sees in it a name for ξένοι. So much is certain, that the ἀφέταιροι occupied a position between the freemen and the slaves, as is indicated by the scale of fines for certain offences.

The freemen, the ruling class, were probably divided into the three Dorian φυλαί: the Gortyn Code mentions φυλαί (7.51; 8.6, 11, etc.), but without giving their names, yet Ὑλλεῖς (cf. Hesych. sub voce Ὕλεες), Δυμᾶνες, and Πάμφυλοι occur in inscriptions which will be quoted below in connexion with the κόσμοι. Whilst the Gortyn Code speaks of πολιαταί simply (10.35; 11.14), without any mention of privileged classes among them, we learn from Aristotle that there were such; for the κόσμοι were not chosen ἐξ ἁπάντων, but ἐκ τινῶν γενῶν (Polit. 2.7, 5b S.=10, 10 B.). The office of κόσμοι (κοσμίοντες, Gort. Code, 1.51; Cauer,2 No. 121; κόσμιοι, C. I. G. No. 3047; κόρμοι, Bull. de Corr. Hell. ix. No. 13 (1886, p. 19), and 1. 2 ἐκόρμιον, but 1. 5 κόσμοι)--ten in number (Strab. x. p.484, ἄρχοντας δὲ δέκα αἱροῦνται)--is identified by Aristotle and Ephorus in Strab. x. p.482 (cf. Cic. de Rep. 2.33) with that of the ephors of Laconia; yet the resemblance is but slight. In the first place, at Sparta the kingly rule lasted on; and the kings being ἀΐδιοι στρατηγοί (Arist. Pol. 2.6, 22 S.=9, 33 B.), the ephors never acquired the military command; whilst in Crete the kingly power, if it ever existed, had long since been abolished (only Herodotus, 4.154, mentions [p. 1.556]a βασιλεὺς Etearchus at Axus, yet it is impossible to draw any inference from this; he may have been a sacerdotal functionary, such as we find under the title of king in many places, or Herodotus may have used the term inaccurately for the Protokosmos), and command in war was so much the prime function of the κόσμοι that Hesychius explains κόσμος: στρατηγὸς κεκοσμημένος. In the second place, the number and the mode of election is different; the five ephors being chosen out of all the Spartans. With respect to the domestic government of the state, the κόσμοι appear to have exercised a joint authority with the members of the βουλή, as they are said to have consulted with them on the most important matters (Strab. x. p.484); besides this, they had the administration of justice, for, as Aristotle says (Pol. 2.7, 7 S.=10, 14 B.), “the suspension of their office (ἀκοσμία) was a device to which the nobles often had recourse when they would not submit to justice.” In the Gort. Code (5.5) the phrase occurs, ὅκ᾽ αἰθαλεύσταρτὸς (sic) ἐκόσμιον οἱ σὺν Κύλλοι, i. e. when Cyllus was κόσμος ἐπώνυμος (in late inscriptions called πρωτόκοσμος). Hesychius explains σταρτοί: αἱ τάξεις τοῦ πλήθους; probably the old γένη, from whom according to Aristotle the κόσμοι were elected, were divided into a number of τάξεις, who in turn held the government, and out of the τάξις or σταρτός a board of ten were chosen as an executive. Two other inscriptions date by the rule of the Αἰθαλεῖς: Cauer,2 No. 121 (Drerus), ἐπὶ τῶν Αἰθαλέων κοσμιόντων τῶν σὺγ Κυίᾳ καὶ Κεφάλῳ, etc., and Haussoullier, Bull. de Corr. Hell. ix. (1886), No. 11, p. 15, ἐπὶ τῶν Αἰθαλέων κοσμιόντων, Τύχωνος τῶ Πειθία, etc.; other inscriptions, which C. quotes, are headed ἐπὶ τῶν Ἐχανορέων κοσμιόντων, [ἐπὶ τῶν . . . ]σχέων κοσμιόντων (Latus or Camara), ἐπὶ τῶν Παμφύλων κ. (Messeleri), ἐπὶ τῶν Ὑλλέων κ. (Latus or Camara), ἐπὶ τῶν Συμάνων κ. (Hierapytna). The relation of the σταρτοί to the φυλαί is not clear. Haussoullier (l.c. p. 18) publishes an inscription from Gortyn, in which the names of six κόσμοι are given, and the one after the protokosmus is ἱεροργός. From the Gort. Code, 1.52, Z. concludes that a κόσμος could only be proceeded against after having resigned his office, this resignation being, however, not spoken of as a certainty, but as an eventuality, “if he resign;” but B. (p. 123), quoting Cauer,2 No. 121, 100.18 (τὸγ κόσμον. . .ἐμβαλεῖν ἐς τὰν βωλάν, αἴ κα ἀποστᾶντι, τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ Κ. τοῦ .: δὲ βωλὰ πραξάντων ἕκαστον τὸν κοσμίοντα στατήρας πεντακοσίους, etc.), explains the phrase correctly as referring to time, “when he resigns.” The Cosmi probably held office only for a year (Plb. 6.46; cf. also the phrases οἱ ἀεὶ κοσμίοντες, οἱ τόκα κοσμίοντες in inscriptions, especially in Cauer,2 No. 119=C. I. G. No. 2556, 5.66, οἱ ἐπιστάμενοι κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν κόσμοι); they cannot have held office for life, for “the γέροντες were elected out of those who had been Cosmi” (Arist.; Strab., p. 484, οἱ τῆς τῶν κόσμων ἀρχῆς ἠξιωμένοι καὶ τἄλλα δόκιμοι κρινόμενοι). this council of the Elders, called βουλὴ by Aristotle (βωλὰ inscr.), is compared by him to the Spartan Gerousia; we are not informed what was their number (Rangabé, Antiq. Hell. ii. p. 1032, supposes that, all ex-Cosmi finding their way into the βουλή, their number was not fixed) and what was the mode of their appointment, but we are told that they retained their office for life, that they were subject to no responsibility, and that they gave decisions according to their own judgment, dispensing with written law. In some inscriptions (C. I. G. 2561; 2562, 23) a πρείγιστος (i. e. πρέσβιστος) βουλῆς is mentioned. From the inscription (Cauer,2 No. 121) quoted above we learn that the βουλή exercised a kind of authority over the Cosmi (cf. in the treaty between Lyctos and Malla, Bull. de Corr. ix. (1886), No. 10, pp. 11, 12, αἰ δὲ μὴ ναωσαίεν τὰν ἀγέλαν ἀποτεισ[άντων ὁ] κόσμος ἑκατὸν στατήρας; Buecheler in Rh. M. 1886, p. 311, explains ναοῦν “cause to assemble in the temple,” as causative to ναεύειν in Gort. Code, 1.39; cf. also Cauer,2 No. 119, 44 ff.), and that the βουλή in their turn, if they did not enforce the payment of the fine from the Cosmi, had to pay a fine themselves to the οἱ πρεγευταί (Bursian, Rangabé; ἐφεῦται ἐφέται, Dethier, Cauer) τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, probably high officials of the treasury (Rang. ii. p. 1035). Ephorus (Strab. x. p.481) mentions by the side of τῶν γερόντων ἀρχή also that τῶν ἱππέων; of their duties, etc. we know nothing (Hoeck, iii. p. 58). Caillemer (Dict. des Antiq. s. v. Crete) sees in them a distinct class of the population. We find also mention of δικαστὰς and μνάμων (Gort. Code, 1.12, etc.); Haussoullier (Bull. ix. p. 15) publishes an inscription--not necessarily from Drerus, “because the κόσμοι were chosen from the Αἰθαλεῖς” ; cf. Gort. Code, 5.5--from which we learn that the inhabitants of one Cretan city had asked for δικασταί from two other towns, one from Cnosus and two from Lyctus, to settle their disputes, etc. The μνάμων acts alone in the event of the renunciation of adoption (Gort. Code, 11.16); he and the δικαστάς are the proper authority, before whom the husband who seeks a divorce has to lay whatever he imputes to his wife, the fourth day before the trial (Gort. Code, 11.53); and the same persons have to give evidence as to the fact of an alleged judgment having been really given (Gort. Code, 9.32). The functions of the μνάμων are practically the same as those of the μνήμονες in Arist. Pol. 7.5, 4c S.=6.8, 7 B., “another officer registers all private contracts. .. and also all preliminary proceedings;” he had not the charge of religious matters (as in C. I. G. iii. p. 584), and must likewise be distinguished from the κόσμων μνάμων and the μνάμων ἱεροργῶ (Bull. de Corr. ix. (1886), p. 19), i. e. γραμματεύς (Schol. Arist. Nub. 623). Ὀρπανοδικασταί are mentioned in Gort. Code, 12.21, 25, as an extraordinary magistracy, who would exercise the control over heiresses previously given to kinsmen.1 An inscription belonging perhaps to the 3rd century speaks of πρέγιστοι ἐπ᾽ εὐνομίας, “elders for the preservation of good order,” whom Boeckh compares to the Spartan σύνδικοἰ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθη and σύνδικοι ἐπι τοὺς νόμους (C. I. g. [p. 1.557]ii. p. 407b). All classes of freemen shared in the assembly (ἀγορά, Gort. Code, 10.34, 11.12; Bekk. Anecd. i. p. 210, 9), but it could only ratify the decrees of the elders and the Cosmi (Arist. Pol. 2.7, 4 S. = 10, 7 B.: cf. Plat. Legg. i. p. 634); according to the Gortyn Code, adoption and renunciation of adoption took place before the popular assembly (in Sparta βασιλέων ἐναντίον, Hdt. 6.57, 3).

About the middle of the 3rd century B.C. the aristocratic character of the constitution had given way to democratic institutions (cf. Cauer,2 No. 181, 66 ff.: τὰν καθεστακυῖαν δαμοκρατίαν παρὰ Ἱεραπυτνίοις). Polybius (6.46) speaks of the annual election of the ἀρχαί, which, Gilbert (p. 227,, n. 2) suggests, referred also to the βουλή, and points to this as a democratic feature in the constitution. As we learn from inscriptions, the power of the freemen in assembly ( πόλις δᾶμος, ἐκκλησία, C. I. G. 2556, 33 ff.=Cauer,2 No. 119, etc.) was supreme, and the name of the Cosmi is given in the heading of decrees merely to fix the year; only in case of treaties with foreign states do the Cosmi act as a kind of executive, conducting the business of their city with the foreign ambassadors. The βουλή continued to exist, but its constitution had necessarily undergone changes and its power must have been curtailed (Hoeck, iii. p. 75 foll.).

Public education began in Crete with the completion of the seventeenth year (in Sparta as early as the completion of the seventh). Up to that time boys were left in their parents' houses, and were called σκότιοι (Schol. Eur. Alc. 989, and Aristoph. Byz. p. 431, in Miller, Mélanges de la Litt. Gr.), or ἁπάγελοι (Hesych. sub voce), from the circumstance of their not yet belonging to the ἀγέλαι or divisions; they were, however, taken to the common mess by their fathers (Strab. x. p.483). With their eighteenth year they entered the ἀγέλαι: they were not, as in Sparta, assigned by the Paedonomus to this or that ἀγέλη, but banded themselves together, of their own choice, under one of the most prominent of the young men, whose father was usually the leader of the ἀγέλη (Heracl. Pont. iii. and Schneidewin‘s note on p. 57, ὃν (sc. the leader) καλοῦσιν ἀγελάτην). From that time the youths were called ἀγελάστοι (Hesychius, ἀγελάστους: τοὺς ἐφήβους, which Cohn, de Arist. Byz. p. 300, alters to ἀγελάτας, and Baunack, Studien, 1.1, p. 40, to ἀγελάστανς; ἀγελάοι, Cauer,2 No. 121, 1. 10) or δρομεῖς (Gort. Code), from being admitted to the gymnasia (Suid.: δρόμοις: τοῖς γυμνασίοις, κατὰ Κρῆτας: cf. the Spartan σφαιρεῖς, Paus. 3.14, 6; C. I. G. 1386, 1432). They probably remained ten years in the ἀγέλαι (Hesych. sub voce δεκάδρομοι); and it is usually supposed, on the authority of Ephorus (Strab. x. p.482), that they were compelled by law to marry on their release from the ἀγέλαι; yet Gilbert (ii. p. 224, n. 1) doubts that ἀγέλη is used in this passage in its technical sense, and points to Gort. Code, 7.40 ff., from which we learn that a relative, if a δρομεύς, lost his right to marry an heiress if he did not do so “within two months:” hence he concludes that the Cretan youth was allowed to marry, when he was admitted to the δρόμοι: that the wives, however, remained under the roof of their fathers or brothers for some time longer (see Gort. Code, 2.20 ff., 8.20 ff.), “until they were fit to manage their own households” (Strab. p. 482 c.). Girls were deemed marriageable at twelve years of age (Gort. Code, 12.31 ff.). In Gort. Code, 7.35, there occurs the term ἀπόδρομος, by which some definite age must be meant (Wachsmuth, p. 201, “the sixteenth year ;” Gilbert, p. 222, “the seventeenth year” ); for we find there three distinctions of age recognised: ἄνωροσ--ἀπόδρομος ἡβίων--δρομεύς. It is very probable that those who had been united in an Agela as youths remained united as men in the ἑταιρεῖαι, which messed together (ἀνδρεῖα, Athen. 4.143 b, and Strab.). According to Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 2.7, 4b S.= 10, 7 B.: cf. 6, 21 S. =9, 31 B.), these common meals were better managed in Crete than in Lacedaemon, being provided at the public cost. Dosiades (Athen. 4.143) gives a full description of the Syssitia of Lyctus, and his account as to the manner of raising the funds differs somewhat from that given by Aristotle. Some further details are to be found in Heracl. Pont. iii.: e. g. that four portions were given to the ἄρχων, that strangers were served first, that the Cretans continued to sit at meals, whilst the Spartans departed from the ancient custom and reclined at table (cf. O. Müller, ii. p. 290 m, and p. 291 n).

[R.W] [H.H]

1 Cf. Dittenberger, i. No. 344, 50.29 (Ephesus 100.84 B.C.), καὶ ἐπίτροπον ὑπὲρ ὀρφανοῦ καὶ τοὺς συνορφανιστὰς, οὒς ὰν παραλαμβάνωσιν (see Thalheim, Hermann's Gr. Antiq. 2.2, p. 140 n.); Xenophon. de Redit. 2, 7, speaks of ὀρφανοφύλακες (cf. Schol. to Soph. Aiax, 512, ὀρφανισταί, τὰ τῶν ὀρφανῶν κρίνουσα ἀρχή, and Phot. s. v.). Lipsius, Att. Proc. p. 554 n., denies that there ever were such at Athens; perhaps there was such a magistracy just at that time, i. e. 355 B.C.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: