Page:History of Greece Vol II.djvu/428

 412 HISTORY OF GREECE. insure this object, of a fixed number of lots of land, each repre- eented by one head of a household, this picture is one, of which to sustain an affirmation in itself so improbable, even if there were no evi dcncc on the other side for contradiction. But in this case there is powerful contradictory evidence. First, the assertions of these authors are distinctly in the teeth of Aristotle, whose authority they try to invalidate, by saying that he spoke altogether with reference to his own time at Sparta, and that he misconceived the prim- itive Lykurgean constitution. Now this might form a reasonable ground of presumption against the competency of Aristotle, if the witnesses produced on the other side were older than he. But it so happens, that every one of the witnesses produced by Manso and Miiller, are younger than Aristotle : Herakleides Ponticus, Plutarch, Justin, ^Elian, etc. Nor is it shown that these authors copied from any source earlier than Aristotle, for his testi- mony cannot be contradicted by any inferences drawn from Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Isokrates, or Ephorus. None of these writers, anterior to, or contemporary with, Aristotle, countenance the fancy of equal, indivisible, perpetual lots, or prohibition of dowry. The fact is, that Aristotle is not only our best witness, but also our oldest witness, respecting the laws of property in the Spartan commonwealth. I could have wished, indeed, that earlier testimonies had existed, and I admit that even the most sagacious observer of 340-330 B. c. is liable to mistake when he speaks of one or two centuries before. But if Aristotle is to be discredited on the ground of late date, what are we to say to Plutarch ? To insist on the intellectual eminence of Aristotle would be superfluous : and on this subject he is a witness the more valuable, as he had made care- ful, laborious, and personal inquiries into the Grecian governments generally, and that of Sparta among them, the great point de mire for ancient specu lative politicians. Now the statements of Aristotle, distinctly exclude the idea of equal. indivisible, inalienable, perpetual lots, and prohibition of dowry. He par- ticularly notices the habit of giving very large dowries, and the constant tendency of the lots of land to become consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. He tells us nothing upon the subject which is not perfectly consist ent, intelligible, and uncontradicted by any known statements belonging to his own, or to earlier times. But the reason why men refuse to believe him, and either set aside or explain away his evidence, is, that they sit down to the study with their minds full of the division of landed property ascribed to Lykurgus by Plutarch. I willingly concede that, on this occasion, we have to choose between Plutarch and Aristotle. We cannot reconcile them except by arbitrary suppositions, every one of which breaks up the simplicity, beauty, and symmetry of Plutarch's agrarian idea, and everyone of which still leaves the perpetuity of the original lots unexplained. And I have no hesitation in preferring the authority of Aristotle (which is in perfect conso- nance with what we indirectly gather from other authors, his contemporaries