PROPERTY IN GREECE.
The Roman idea of a right of absolute property was always foreign to Greece. The territory of the state was regarded asbelonging to it alone; the citizens had merely an enjoyment of it, subordinate to the general interest, hence the frequentpartitions of the soil and the constant intervention of the law to regulate the distribution of property. The philosophers, thepoliticians, and the legislators of antiquity, all evinced the same desire; that every citizen should have a portion of landedproperty, and that the law should prevent excessive inequality. In the Republic of Plato the land is divided in equal partsamong all the citizens. In order that all might be interested in the defence of the country, Aristotle would have every onehold two plots of land, assigned by lot, one near the city, the other near the frontier. (1) In the majority of Greek states wefind measures intended to maintain equality in landed property. In Leucadia the sale of hereditary property was absolutelyforbidden; among the Locrians it was only allowed to meet a necessity on proof of such necessity. At Corinth, the legislatorPhidon, to maintain the equality of the lots, endeavours to make the number of citizens invariable. Phiolaus, a Corinthian bybirth, who gave laws to Thebes, endeavoured to attain the same end by regulating adoptions, and Phileas of Chalcedoniahoped to re-establish the equality of property by enacting that the rich should give portions to their daughters, but shouldnot receive them; while the poor should receive them, but not give them. (2)Sparta, at the time when it appears in history, had already discontinued the system of primitive community. It had,apparently, arrived at the system of collective property in the gens, or clan. The elementary unit of society was the ,the same word as the Roman gens , and corresponding to the lignées and geschlächter of the towns of the middle ages. Itwas a group of families, connected by traditional descent from a common ancestor, whom they worshipped in common, theirreligious ceremonies being celebrated at the same altar. The patrimony was inalienable. There, as among the Jews, the objectof all land legislation was the preservation of the family. When a daughter was the only heir of a family, the nearest relationwas obliged to marry her, and even to divorce his existing wife for the purpose. He might also claim her, even against herwill. In theory, every inheritor succeeded by individual title; but the community was generally maintained between brothers.
There was no partition. "All the children remained grouped round the same hearth," M. Jannet tells us; "one of the brothers,the most capable, and, as a rule, the eldest, by reason of the sacred privilege of his birth, regulated the community and borethe expressive name of -? the preserver of the hearth. Plutarch, in his Treatise on Paternal Affection , shewsthat these communities played a very important part in the ancient social condition of Greek nations. They were probably thepivot of the family organization. Partition among the children was only effected in exceptional cases. In course of time thiswas reversed; but then the principle of compulsory partition was at variance with the other institutions, all of which had inview the preservation of the patrimony in the family. Hence arose the incoherence of the Greek law, which Cicero notices, incomparison with the Roman system based on the testamentary institution of an heir."The Sons and their male descendants completely excluded the daughters, as at Athens and in other Greek states. Thetestament here, as in all primitive Greece, was unknown. Right and the interests of society, not the arbitrary will of theindividual, fixed the succession. The constitution of property was, therefore, the same at Sparta, as among the SouthernSlays of the present day, or in the rural districts of France in the middle ages.
The primitive community left deep traces on the social organization of Sparta. Plutarch, in his Life of Lycurgus , c. xvi., tellsus that, at the birth of each child, the elders of the tribe assigned to it one of the 9000 lots of land in the territory of the state.
The truth of this statement is denied, because it would follow that there was no right of succession, and that the earth wascommon, which is contrary to established facts. But, side by side with the family patrimonies, there may very well haveexisted a collective domain, like the Germanic Allmend , in which every one obtained his share.
Sparta had a communal domain of great extent, the produce of which served in some measure to maintain the public repasts.
There, as in the majority of the other Greek states, it comprised forests and mountain. (3) The public repasts, Syssities , whichwere arranged in messes of fifteen persons, were the basis of the military and political organization, under the name of Phidities and Andries . A similar institution existed in almost all of the Greek states. Its economic importance was noteverywhere the same, but depended on the common revenue. At Sparta every one had to contribute towards it a certainnumber of measures of oil and barley. In Crete, according to Aristotle, the Phidities contributed most to the maintenance ofequality.
