Grote and other historians regard with doubt the famous division of property into 9000 equal parts， which， according toPlutarch， was effected by Lycurgus. There may be some doubt with regard to the details， but the division， in itself， is entirelyin harmony with the spirit of ancient politics. A division of property seems to have taken place at the time of the foundationof the state， about the year 1000 B. C.， and after the conquest of Messenia under Polydorus (700 B.C.). However this maybe， Aristotle reproaches Spartan legislators for not having taken efficient steps to maintain equality of condition. Thepopulation， he Bays， was divided into rich and poor： all the wealth was in the hands of a few individuals， possessed ofcolossal fortunes. According to Aristotle this concentration of landed property was carried so far， that in the time of AgisIII.， the whole of Laconia was the property of one hundred persons. The population rapidly decreased. The number of mencapable of bearing arms was reduced from 10，000 to 1，000 even in the time of Aristotle， and was only `704) in the time ofPlutarch. Aristotle saw no other remedy for the decay of the state than a partition of lands， with a view to there-establishment of equality of property. The struggle between the rich and the poor had already begun at the period whenthe Stagyrite wrote. In several towns， he says， the rich had taken this oath： "I swear to be the enemy of the people， and to dothem all the harm in my power." (4) At Sparta， and in many other Greek states， the kings placed themselves at the head of thepeople in opposition to the aristocracy. Caesarism was democratic and socialistic. Agis advocated a division of property， butwas killed. The king Cleomenes (238222 B.C.) carried out the popular programme：the abolition of debts， the partition ofproperty， and the grant of political rights to all who had been deprived of them. Laconia was divided into 15，000 partsallotted to the Periaeci， and 4，500 to the citizens. Cleomenes， overthrown in foreign war， was succeeded by other "tyrants，"who continued to oppress and despoil the rich， to retain the favour of the people. The economic history of Sparta， repeatedin the other Greek states， is very similar to that of Rome. So long as equality was maintained by the families preserving theirpatrimony， political liberty survived. When once the rich usurped the soil， the struggle of classes began， and was only endedby the establishment of despotism and the destruction of the state.
Aristotle， in his Politics ， sums up in a few words the conclusion derived from the economic history of Greece. "For them(the legislators) the crucial point seems to be the organization of property， the one source， in their opinion， of revolutions.
Phileas of Chalcedonia was the first to lay down the principle that equality of fortune was indispensable among the citizens."In fact， when the division of property is too unequal， democracy leads to social revolution； for the man who has the suffrage，seeks also to have property. Democratic institutions have only brought man peace， when， as in Switzerland and in primitivetime， manners are ****** and conditions very equal.
In the other Greek republics we find the same economic evolution as at Sparta，the concentration of landed property， theadvance of inequality， cultivation by slaves， whose number is continually increasing； and finally depopulation. When Greecebecame a Roman province it was transformed into a desert， where the flocks wandered at will， and wild beasts lurked in theruins of temples and cities. At the end of the first century of our era， the population was so reduced-that the whole ofGreece could hardly produce 3，000 fully armed warriors， the number which Megara alone sent to the battle of Platea.
Equality was the basis of Greek democracies； inequality was their ruin. (5)1. Arist. Politics ， iv. 9， 7.
2. Aristotle， Politics ， ii. 4， ？4；II. 3， ？7；II. 4， Ё 1， 2.
3. See Herodotus， VI， 57； Pausanias III. 20； Plato， Laws ， I， The Cretan towns derived from their common lands， cultivatedby a particular class of serfs， sufficient to provide the public repasts. The citizens had therefore at least the means ofsubsistence.
4. Politics ， viii. 7.
5. See the instructive work of Karl Bü；cher， Die Aufstä；nde der unfreien Arbeiter ， 1874， ch. iv.
CHAPTER XII.
PROPERTY AT ROME.
The Romans， after passing the two successive stages of the village community and the family community， were the first toestablish exclusive， individual property in land； and the principles they adopted on this subject still serve as the basis of lawfor continental states. Scarcely， however， was quiritary dominion established， when it threatened the existence of thedemocratic institutions and of the Republic， by its power of encroachment. It was in vain to set limits to it： la grandeproprié；té； consumed la petite . The economic history of Rome is little else than a picture of the struggle against theencroachments of quiritary dominion. (1)
