help them over their difficulties, and they therefore chose him, nominally, as archon along with Philombrotus, but with power in substance dictatorial. [168] See the Fragment περὶ τῆς Ἀθηναίων πολιτείας, No. 2, Schneidewin. Δήμου θ᾽ ἡγεμόνων ἄδικος νόος, οἶσιν ἕτοιμος Ὕβριος ἐκ μεγάλης ἄλγεα πολλὰ παθεῖν. ... Οὔθ᾽ ἱερῶν κτεάνων οὔτε τι δημοσίων Φειδόμενοι, κλέπτουσιν ἐφ᾽ ἁρπαγῇ ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος, Οὐδὲ φυλάσσονται σεμνὰ δίκης θέμεθλα. ... Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν δήμῳ στρέφεται κακά· τῶν δὲ πενιχρῶν Ἱκνεῦνται πολλοὶ γαῖαν ἐς ἀλλοδαπὴν Πραθέντες, δεσμοῖσι τ᾽ ἀεικελίοισι δεθέντες. [169] Aristot. Polit. γίγνονται δὲ αἱ στάσεις οὐ περὶ μικρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ μικρῶν. [170] Livy, ii, 23; Dionys. Hal. A. R. vi, 26: compare Livy, vi, 34-36. “An placeret, fœnore circumventam plebem, potius quam sorte creditum solvat, corpus in nervum ac supplicia dare? et gregatim quotidie de foro addictos duci, et repleri vinctis nobiles domos? et ubicumque patricius habitet, ibi carcerem privatum esse?” The exposition of Niebuhr, respecting the old Roman law of debtor and creditor (Röm. Gesch. i, p. 602, _seq._; Arnold’s Roman Hist., ch. viii, vol. i, p. 135), and the explanation which he there gives of the nexi, as distinguished from the addicti, have been shown to be incorrect by M. von Savigny, in an excellent Dissertation Über das Altrömische Schuldrecht (Abhandlungen Berlin Academ. 1833, pp. 70-73), an abstract of which will be found in an Appendix, at the close of this chapter.