ROMAN LAW OF DKDTOR AND CREDITOR. 159 incident, if not as the expression of a public vote, at least as a piece of affectionate vanity on the part of his surviving friends. 1 We Lave now reached the period of the usurpation of Peisis- tratus (B. c. 560), whose dynasty governed Athens with two temporary interruptions during the life of Peisistratus himself for fifty years. The history of this despotism, milder than Gre- cian despotism generally, and productive of important conse- quences to Athens, will be reserved for a succeeding chapter. APPENDIX. THE explanation -which M. von Savigny gives of the Ncxi and Addicti under the old Koman law of debtor and creditor (after he has refuted the elucidation of Niebuhr on the same subject), while it throw* ^reat light on the historical changes in Roman legislation on that impo-'::it subject, sets forth at the same time the marked difference made in the procedure of Rome, between the demand of the creditor for repayment of principal, and the demand for payment of interest. The primitive Roman law distinguished a debt arising from money lent (pecunia certa credita) from debts arising out of contract, delict, sale, etc., or any other source : the creditor on the former ground had a quick and easy process, by which he acquired the fullest power over the person and property of his debtor. After the debt on loan was either confessed or proved before the magistrate, thirty days were allowed to the debtor for payment: if pay- ment was not made within that time, the creditor laid hold of him (manus injectio) and carried him before the magistrate again. The debtor was now again required either to pay or to find a surety (vindex) ; if neither of theso demands were complied with, the creditor took possession of him and car ried him home, where he kept him in chains for two months; during which interval he brought him before the praetor publicly on three successive nnn- dina?. If the debt was not paid within these two months, the sentence of addiction was pronounced, and the creditor became empowered either to put his debtor to death, or to sell him for a slave (p. 81 ), or to keep him at forced work, without any restriction as to the degree of ill usage which might be inflicted upon him. The judgment of the magistrate authorized him, be- sides, to seize the property of his debtor wherever he could find any, within 1 Aristides, in noticing this story of the spreading of the ashes of Solon in Salamis, treats him as 'ApxijycTijf of the island (Orat. xlvi, 'T-rrep ruv Ttrru- poH 1 , p. 172 ; p. 230, Dindorf ). . The inscription on his statue, which describes aim as born in Salamis. can hardly have been literally true ; for when he was bora, Salamis was not incorporated in Attica ; but it may have been true by a sort of adoption (see Diogen. Lafirt. i, 62). The statue seems to have been erected by the Salaminians t'uinselves, a long time after Solon tee Menage ml Diogen. Laert /. c.
