Dorians, t. ii. p. 30. Cf. t. i. p. 86, seq. Nevertheless the Scholiast on Thucydides maintains the old derivation:—Ἕλος, πόλις τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ἧς οἱ πολίται ἐκαλοῦντο Εἵλωτες. Οἱ οὖν Λακεδαιμόνιοι, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ διαφόρους εἶναι ἀλλήλοις, τοὺς δούλους αὐτῶν ἐκάλουν Εἵλωτας, κατὰ ἀτιμίαν καὶ ὕβριν. t. v. p. 350. Cf. Clint. Fast. Hellen. ii. 412. Etymol. Mag. 300. 7. 332. 51. They were called also Heliatæ. Athen. vi. 102. Cf. Poll. vii. 83. Ἕλος πόλις Λακονική. οἱ πολίται εἵλωτες καὶ εἱλῶται, καὶ ἕλιοι, καί ἑλεάται. ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ἕλος Αἰγύπτου. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ τὰ ἐθνικὰ γραψας, εἰς τὸ ἕτερον Ἕλος λέγει τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς ὑπὸ τὸν Νέστορα. ἕτεροι δὲ ὅτι οὐ μόνον πόλις τὸ Ἕλος ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς χώραν τινὰ πλατύνεται. ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ ἕιλωτες. οἱ συνελθόντες τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις, ἦν ὅτε καὶ πράγματα παρασχόντες τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις, εἶτα ὑπετάγησαν ὡσεὶ δοῦλοι. καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸ ὄνομα τῶν εἱλώτων εῖς δουλικὴν ἀπλῶν μετελήφθη κλῆσιν. Eustath. ad Il. β. p. 223. 28, sqq. Ἐν γοῦν τοῖς Ἡρωδιανοῦ, εὓρηται ὅτι εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ σάτυροι. Idem, ad Il. β. b. 225, 17. Cf. Capperonier Recherches sur l’Histoire des Hilotes. Mem. de L’Acad. des Inscrip. t. xxiii. p. 272. Footnote 159: Theopomp. l. xvii. ap. Athen. vi. 88. Cf. Strab. viii. 5. t. ii. p. 188. ----- In considering the condition of the Helots, I shall not affect, with the historian of the Doric race,[160] “to range their political rights and personal treatment,” under separate heads; in the first place because, strictly speaking, they had no political rights, and, secondly, because in the treatment they experienced consists whatever is peculiar in their position. Several of this learned historian’s notions on the Lacedæmonian serfs appear to be in direct contradiction with those of the writers from whom all we know concerning the Helots is obtained. Of this he seems to be conscious, and in the following way endeavours to bring discredit on them; assuming as a settled thing, that the Helots must have possessed political rights, he concludes that they “were _doubtless exactly_ defined by law and custom, though the expressions made use of by ancient authors are frequently vague and ambiguous.”[161] Whether this be the case or not we shall presently see. The remark of Ephoros is, that “they were in a certain point of view public slaves. Their possessor could neither liberate them nor sell them beyond the borders.” On this passage which he quotes,[162] the historian raises a superstructure which it will by no means support. “From this,” he says, “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.”[163] ----- Footnote 160: Hist. and Antiq. of the Dorians, t. ii. p. 31. Footnote 161: Dorians, ii. 31. Footnote 162: