Areopagiticus

First of all as to their conduct towards the gods—for it is right to begin with them[*](This is almost poetic formula. Cf. Alcman fr. 3; Theocr. 17.1; Aratus, Phaenomena 1.)—they were not erratic or irregular in their worship of them or in the celebration of their rites; they did not, for example, drive three hundred oxen in procession to the altar,[*](The reference is, apparently, to special or occasional festivals such as those mentioned in Isoc. 7.10. He may have in mind here the festival held in honor of Chares' victory over Artaxerxes III, since that Athenian general was so generously paid by Artabazus that he could afford to contribute a drove of cattle for the celebration. See Dio. Sic. 16.22.) when it entered their heads to do so,while omitting, when the caprice seized them, the sacrifices instituted by their fathers;[*](Cf. Isoc. 2.20.) neither did they observe on a grand scale the festivals imported from abroad, whenever these were attended by a feast, while contracting with the lowest bidder for the sacrifices demanded by the holiest rites of their religion.

For their only care was not to destroy any institution of their fathers and to introduce nothing which was not approved by custom, believing that reverence consists, not in extravagant expenditures, but in disturbing none of the rites which their ancestors had handed on to them. And so also the gifts of the gods were visited upon them, not fitfully or capriciously, but seasonably both for the ploughing of the land and for the ingathering of its fruits.

In the same manner also they governed their relations with each other. For not only were they of the same mind regarding public affairs, but in their private life as well they showed that degree of consideration for each other which is due from men who are rightminded and partners in a common fatherland.

The less well-to-do among the citizens were so far from envying those of greater means that they were as solicitous for the great estates as for their own, considering that the prosperity of the rich was a guarantee of their own well-being. Those who possessed wealth, on the other hand, did not look down upon those in humbler circumstances, but, regarding poverty among their fellow-citizens as their own disgrace, came to the rescue of the distresses of the poor, handing over lands to some at moderate rentals, sending out some to engage in commerce, and furnishing means to others to enter upon various occupations;