Hippeis, not Hippies

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

The informer on Cinadon describes 70 some Spartiates to more than 4,000 others in the spartan market-place, but we have no idea what percentage of these are hypomeiones. What of the non-recently disenfranchised, who made up this body? Presumably those decendants of Spartiates who had long ago lost their rights and indigenes who missed out on the original Kleroi allotment.

It is no surprise that there were so few 'Homioi' in the market-place, other than the King, Ephors and members of Concil plus about 40 others, who were presumably there on 'official business', for Plutarch tells us"
"Life of Lycurgus" 25

Those who were under thirty years of age did not go into the market-place at all, but had their household wants supplied at the hands of their kinsfolk and lovers. And it was disreputable for the elderly men to be continually seen loitering there, instead of spending the greater part of the day in the places of exercise that are called "leschai."

[transl'n courtesy of Bill Thayer's 'Lacus Curtius' site]
Nor did they 'officially' possess money, so one can readily understand that 'Homioi' did not wish to be seen there.
As to the 4,000 in the market, there will have been domestic and visiting foreigners -traders,sailors etc and we don't know if this number includes women and all the slaves, for both would certainly be present in a market.

Then there is the whole problem of how and if you get your spartiate staus back once you come into some money, and what happens to you socially at that point. Exiles come and go with the wind of politics, so presumably there was some way of getting them back into their old phiditia or new ones.

I don't think 'coming into money' would help, since 'kleroi' could not be bought, but were allocated by the state. Mess fees were paid in kind, from the produce of the 'Kleros' so creating an impossible 'catch 22' ....once you failed to be able to pay your mess dues, and presumably your Kleros was allocated to someone else (?)there really was no way back, even if, as a Hypomeione, one became wealthy.

The larger problem is that we don't know how inclusive the concept of Hypomeiones was. Presumably those who could not afford pheiditia dues, but also "tresantes", cowards, and men who for one reason or another did not get picked up by a pheiditia were given this status. Would Xenoi living in Sparta be a subset or a seperate group? What about those exiled? Often they did not go all that far away, up into Arcadia for example. What would the status of a man like Dracontus have been to a Spartiate when they met.

As I said, the free men of Sparta were apparently divided into two - 'Homioi'/Peers/Equals and 'Hypomeiones'/Inferiors i.e. inferior to a 'Homioi' which must have meant EVERYONE else - disenfranchised, the artisans of the city, all free workers etc. The others you refer to would all be sub-groups of 'Hypomeiones' i.e. all non-Homioi.

As to them being labeled in ascending order, I have seen this written many times, but I suggest that perhaps this is not so. He may have written them in the order shown because he started with Helots, perhaps because they are the lowest, but maybe be cause they are the most in number, so it is logical to next mention enfranchised helots.

If in order of numbers, this might amount to the same thing; 'Helots', 'Hypomeiones' and 'Homioi' - the problem with this idea is that there were only a few thousand 'neodamodeis'/ newly freed, and presumably only a few hundred visiting 'perioikoi' gentlemen from neighbouring towns, so number order is unlikely....