Education. Land-question 69 



training, on the same principle as he gives equal land-lots. To Aristotle 

 this seems crude nonsense : the problem to him is the discovery of the 

 appropriate training, whether the same for all or not. This insistence 

 on training as the main thing in citizen-making is, as we shall see, 

 a common feature of Greek political speculation. But in the artistic 

 desire to produce the Complete citizen/ and thereby make possible a 

 model state, the specializing mania outruns the humbler considerations 

 of everyday human society, and agriculture, for all its confessed im- 

 portance, is apt to be treated with something very like contempt. The 

 tendency to regard farmer and warrior as distinct classes is unmistake- 

 able. The peasant-soldier of Roman tradition is not an ordinary Greek 

 figure. How far the small scale of Greek states may have favoured this 

 differentiation is very hard to say. But Greek admiration for the 

 athlete type had probably something to do with the growth of military 

 professionalism. |i 



The recognition of a land-question and attempts to find a solution 

 were probably stimulated by observation of contemporary phenomena, 

 especially in the two leading states of the fifth century. Sparta had 

 long held the first place, and even the rise of Athens had not utterly 

 destroyed her ancient prestige. That her military system was effective, 

 seemed proved by the inviolability of Laconian territory and the suc- 

 cesses of her armies in external wars. That it was supported by the 

 labour of a Greek population reduced to serfdom, was perhaps a weak 

 point in her institutions; but that Greek opinion was seriously shocked 

 by the fact can hardly be maintained. It was now and then convenient 

 to use it as a passing reproach, but even Athens did not refuse to aid 

 in putting down Helot rebellions. And this weak point was set off by 

 a strong one. Whatever the reasons 1 for her policy, she interfered very 

 little in the internal affairs of her allies and did not tax them. To be 

 content with the leadership of confederates, and not to convert it into 

 an empire of subjects, assured to her a certain amount of respectful 

 sympathy in the jealous Greek world. Thus she afforded an object- 

 lesson in the advantages of rigid specialization. She provided her own 

 food in time of peace, and took her opponents' food in time of war. 

 The disadvantages of her system were yet to appear. Athens on the 

 other hand was becoming more and more dependent on imported food. 

 She was the leader of the maritime states and islands: she had become 

 their imperial mistress. However easy her yoke might be in practice, 

 it left no room for independent action on the part of her subject allies: 

 what had been contributions from members of a league had become 

 virtually imperial taxation, and to Greek prejudices such taxation 

 appeared tyranny. Nor was this prejudice allowed to die out. The 



1 See the valuable discussion in Grundy op cit chapter vm. 



