Footnote 279: Aristid. Panath. i. 190. Jebb. Μόνοι δὲ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων τρία ταῦτα ἐνομίσατε· τῶν μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως τελευτησάντων αὐτῶν μὲν ἐπαίνους ἐπὶ ταῖς ταφαῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἔτος λέγειν· τούς δέ παῖδας δημοσίᾳ τρέφειν ἄχρις ἥβης, καὶ τηνικαῦτα ἀποπέμπειν ἐπὶ τοὺς πατρῴους οἴκους μετὰ τῶν πανοπλιῶν· τοὺς δὲ ἀδυνάτους τῶν πολιτῶν δημοσίᾳ τρέφειν. ----- With whom this humane institution originated is not agreed. In the case of disabled soldiers the honour has, by some, been attributed to Peisistratos, by others to Solon. Bœckh, though he acknowledges that the latter “certainly gave the example to Peisistratos,” considers it not improbable that, for the benefit of this important lesson, humanity is indebted to the tyrant, who, he observes, “was of a mild disposition; and usurpers are generally glad to seize every opportunity of conferring a benefit, with a view to make themselves popular; nor would the Athenians, with their hatred to tyranny, have attributed this honour to him if he had not deserved it.”[280] ----- Footnote 280: Publ. Econ. of Athen. i. 324. ----- Of this I am not sure. Peisistratos, a consummate politician, having unjustly rendered himself master of the state, was, no doubt, careful to appropriate to himself as many as possible of the honours due to Solon, the mildest of all legislators; and, if he abstained from abrogating such a law, might contrive to pass for its author. Certain, at all events, it is, that a tradition long existed among the ancients which attributed the institution to Solon;[281] and however mild and popular in manners the tyrant may have been, it will still, perhaps, be acknowledged that in those qualities he was excelled by the great legislator. ----- Footnote 281: Schol. ined. ad Æschin. cont. Timarch. p. 14. 40. ap. Taylor, ad Lys. Orat. Att. t. ii. p. 537. Dobs.—Diog. Laert. i. 2. 8. ----- By what steps the law, originally instituted with reference solely to citizens disabled in war, came afterwards to embrace the aged, the sick, the blind, and infirm of every description, is not known. It did not, however, require them to be absolutely destitute before they could receive relief. Any citizen whose property did not exceed three minæ, or twelve pounds sterling,[282] was entitled to the allowance; to eke out which he might keep a small shop, or apply himself to any other branch of industry within his competence. The laws, in fact, were on this point exceedingly liberal, justly considering it to be the duty of society to make up as far as possible for the injuries of fortune. There was little danger of the state’s humanity being abused. The people themselves examined into every case, which in a community so limited they could easily do, and afterwards it was still in the power of any citizen, who suspected imposition, to bring an action against the offender before the Senate of Five Hundred. ----- Footnote 282: