little influence on the English, supposing the latter to be poor and proud as the Spartans. The fact of the Periœci being tributary, which seems to be offered as a reason, is no reason at all. It were far better to confess our ignorance at once, than by a series of groundless conjectures, put forward with confidence, to create a semblance of knowledge. There does not appear to be any foundation for the statement, that none but iron money was used in the Spartan market, where the landlords and their serfs disposed of the produce of their lands. On the contrary, it seems probable, that as, in many cases, it must have been sold to the Periœci for exportation, (foreigners being excluded,) the landlords would receive gold and silver unminted, perhaps, to evade the law in return. Again, the kings of Sparta, it is evident, could possess gold and silver. This, history proves so clearly that Mr. Müller is constrained to confess it. And if the kings and the Periœci, nay, even the very Helots could amass and enjoy the precious metals, and the luxuries they purchase, it is too much to suppose that the masters of the kings, of the Periœci and all, would have dwelt in ascetic forbearance in the midst of so many temptations. Besides, we constantly find the Spartans in situations in which their iron money could be of no service to them. What, for example, could it have availed them at Olympia? Yet there they were, the men in person, the women by proxy, with their horses and their chariots, and every mark and indication of wealth. ----- Footnote 1533: Müller, iii. ch. x. § 10. ----- But to men travelling beyond the borders money was allowed. This sum they might expend, or they might not. If they did not, were they searched on their return, and the surplus taken from them? Otherwise men would make journeys and accumulate cash in that way. Again, we are told, that great obstacles were placed in the way of foreign travel by the necessity of obtaining a passport along with the travelling expenses (ἐφόδια) from the magistrates or the king, and reference is made to Herodotus. But that historian in the passage referred to is speaking of king Demaratos, who being driven from the country by his mother’s bad character, takes what money he needs for his journey, and departs without asking leave of any one.[1534] ----- Footnote 1534: Herod. vi. 70. ----- However, when straitened in circumstances individuals had sometimes recourse to the kings or to the state as to a bank; and that the thing was customary appears from the fact, that princes, in order to start with a popular measure, always upon their accession remitted the debts of the citizens both to themselves and to the state.[1535] On this occasion they destroyed all the bonds or instruments of mortgage (κλάρια), bringing them into the agora, and there piling them up into a heap and setting them on fire.[1536] ----- Footnote 1535: Id. vi. 69. Footnote 1536: