The Doric customs were first established in CRETE, whose fortunate circumstances had given to that race a fertile country, and an undisturbed dominion. Accordingly, the relative rights of the Dorians and natives must at an early period have been fixed on a settled basis in this island; and we may suppose that this settlement was made on equitable terms, since Aristotle was not aware of any insurrection of the slaves in Crete against their masters.(201) The Doric customs required here, as elsewhere, exemption from all agricultural or commercial industry; which is expressed in a lively manner in the song of Hybrias the Cretan, that “with lance and sword and shield he reaped and dressed his vines, and hence was called lord of the Mnoia.”(202) In this island, however, different classes of dependents must have existed. Sosicrates and Dosiadas, both credible authors on the affairs of Crete, speak of three classes, the public bondsmen (κοινὴ δουλεία), called by the Cretans μνοΐα, the slaves of individual citizens, ἀφαμιῶται, and the Periœci, ὑπήκοοι. Now we know that the Aphamiotæ received their name from the cultivation of the lands of private individuals (in Cretan ἀφαμίαι) and accordingly they were agricultural bondsmen.(203) These latter are identical with the Clarotæ, who, for this reason, were not separately mentioned by the writers just quoted: for although they are generally supposed to have taken their name from the lot cast for prisoners of war, the more natural derivation doubtless is from the lots or lands of the citizens, which were called κλῆροι. But whichever explanation we adopt, they were bondsmen belonging to the individual citizens. Both the Clarotæ and Aphamiotæ have therefore been correctly compared with the Helots;(204) and as the latter were entirely distinct from the Laconian Periœci, so were the former from the Cretan, although Aristotle neglects the distinction accurately observed by the Cretan writers.(205) In the second place, the μνοία (or μνῴα) was by more precise historians distinguished as well from the condition of Periœci as from that of private bondage, and it was explained to mean a state of _public villenage_; whence we may infer that every state in Crete was possessed of public lands, which the Mnotæ cultivated in the same relative situation to the community in which the Aphamiotæ, who cultivated the allotted estates, stood to the several proprietors. This name, however, is sometimes extended to all forced labourers, as in the song of Hybrias noticed above.(206) Finally, the Periœci formed in Crete, as in Laconia, dependent and tributary communities: their tribute was, like the produce of the national lands, partly applied to the public banquets;(207) to which also, according to Dosiadas,(208) every slave in Lyctus contributed in addition one Æginetan stater. Now in this passage we cannot suppose that the Periœci are meant, because the exact author would not