§ 1. Helots of Sparta. Their political condition. § 2. Their service in war. § 3. Treatment of the helots. § 4. The crypteia. § 5. Various degrees of helotism. § 6. Number of the helots. § 7. The phylæ of Pitana, Limnæ, Mesoa, and Cynosura. 1. The condition of the Periœci and that of the Helots must be carefully distinguished from each other; the latter state may be termed “villenage,” or “bondage,” to which that of the Periœci had not the slightest resemblance.(105) The common account of the origin of this class is, that the inhabitants of the maritime town Helos were reduced by Sparta to this state of degradation, after an insurrection against the Dorians already established in power.(106) This explanation, however, rests merely on an etymology, and that by no means a probable one; since such a Gentile name as Εἵλως (which seems to be the more ancient form) cannot by any method of formation have been derived from Ἕλος. The word Εἵλως is probably a derivative from Ἕλω; in a passive sense, and consequently means _the prisoners_.(107) Perhaps it signifies those who were taken after having resisted to the uttermost, whereas the Periœci had surrendered upon conditions; at least Theopompus(108) calls them Achæans as well as the others. It appears, however, more probable that they were an aboriginal race, which was subdued at a very early period, and which immediately passed over as slaves to the Doric conquerors.(109) In speaking of the condition of the Helots, we will consider their political rights and their personal treatment under separate heads, though in fact the two subjects are very nearly connected. The first were doubtless exactly defined by law and custom, though the expressions made use of by ancient authors are frequently vague and ambiguous. “They were,” says Ephorus,(110) “in a certain point of view public slaves. Their possessor could neither liberate them, nor sell them beyond the borders.” From this it is evident that they were considered as belonging properly to the state, which to a certain degree permitted them to be possessed, and apportioned them out to individuals, reserving to itself the power of enfranchising them. But to sell them out of the country was not in the power even of the state; and, to the best of our knowledge, such an event never occurred. It is, upon the whole, most probable that individuals had no power to sell them at all; since they were, for the most part, attached to the land, which was inalienable. On these lands they had certain fixed dwellings of their own, and particular services and payments were prescribed to them.(111) They paid as rent a fixed measure of corn; not, however, like the Periœci, to the state, but to their masters. As this quantity had been definitively settled at a very early period (to raise the amount being forbidden under heavy imprecations),(112) the Helots were the persons who profited by a good, and lost by a bad harvest; which must