Book 5 — CHAPTER II.

HISTORY OF POPULATION.

SECTION CCXLIV.

HISTORY OF POPULATION.—UNCIVILIZED TIMES.

In the case of those wild tribes which can only use the forces of nature by way of occupation, the small extent of the field of food is filled up by even a very sparse population. And the principal means by which population is there limited are the following: the overburthening and ill treatment of the women,[244-1] by which the simultaneous rearing of several small children is rendered impossible;[244-2] the inordinately long time that children are kept at the breast;[244-3] the wide-spread practice of abortion;[244-4] numerous cases of murder, especially of the old and weak;[244-5] everlasting war carried on by hunting nations to extend their hunting territory, found in conjunction with cannibalism in many tribes.[244-6] Besides, nations of hunters are frequently decimated by famine and pestilence, the latter generally a consequence of never-ending alternation between gluttony and famine.[244-7]

Most negro nations live in such a state of legal insecurity that it is impossible for a higher civilization with its attendant increase of the means of subsistence to take root among them. At the same time, their sexual impulses are very strong.[244-8] Here the slave-trade constituted the chief preventive of over-population. If this traffic were suppressed simply and no care taken through the instrumentality of commerce and of missions to improve the moral and economical condition of the negroes, the only probable but questionable gain would be that the prisoners made in the numberless wars generated by famine would be murdered instead of being sold.

Nomadic races, with their universal chivalry, are wont to treat their women well enough to enable them bear children without any great hardship.[244-9] But the mere use of natural pasturage can never be carried to great intensity. The transition to agriculture with its greater yield of food but with the diminished freedom by which it is accompanied is a thing to which these warlike men are so averse that it directs the surplus population by the way of emigration into neighboring civilized countries, where they either obtain victory, booty and supremacy, or are rapidly subjugated. Such migrations are a standing chapter in the history of all Asiatic kingdoms; they for a long time disturb declining civilized states, finally conquering them, and begin the same cycle in the new kingdom.[244-10] Where nomadic races see themselves cut off from such migrations their marriages are wont to be unfruitful.[244-11]

SECTION CCXLV.

INFLUENCE OF A COMMUNITY OF WOMEN AND POLYGAMY.

Most barbarous nations live very unchaste;[245-1] so that, as Tacitus observes, the ancient Germans were a brilliant exception to the rule.[245-2] Vices of unchastity always limit the otherwise natural increase of population. Premature enjoyment exhausts the sources of fruitfulness in the case of many.[245-3] The life of the child conceived in sin is generally little valued by its parents. Hence the numerous instances of exposure and infanticide.[245-4] We have already seen how closely, psychologically speaking, a community of goods is allied to a community of women. (§ 85.) And, indeed, in the lower stages of civilization, we find as close an approximation to the latter as to the former; and it is difficult to believe that, among men living in a state of nudity, the marriage of one man to one woman could properly exist.[245-5] But it is as little possible to reconcile a community of women with density of population as great national wealth with a community of goods. Any one acquainted with the condition and capacities of new born children knows that the weak little flame easily goes out when not nursed by family care.[245-6]

Polygamy also is a hinderance to the increase of population. Abstract physiology must, indeed, admit that a man may, even without any danger to his health, generate more children than a woman can bear.[245-7] But, in reality, the simultaneous enjoyment of several women leads to excess and early exhaustion;[245-8] and if one of them is married after the other, the older who might still bear children for a long time are neglected by the man.[245-9] Monogamy is, doubtless, the Creator's law, since only in monogamous countries can we expect to find the intimate union of family life, the beauties of social intercourse and free citizenship.[245-10] "God made them male and female."[245-11] And yet in all countries with which we are statistically acquainted, there is a somewhat larger number of boys than of girls born;[245-12] but this excess is removed by the time that puberty sets in, by reason of the greater mortality of boys. Only extraordinary conditions which thin the ranks of males, such as war and emigration, leave a preponderance of the number of women.[245-13] Hence, among barbarous nations, who live in everlasting strife (§§ 67, 70), polygamy is very generally established. Men are seldom deterred therefrom by a solicitude concerning what they shall eat, since the women are treated as slaves, and rather support the men than are supported by them.[245-14] But in the civilized countries of the east, the polygamy of the great may actually lead to the compulsory singleness of many of the lower classes, as a species of compensation.[245-15] The monstrous institution of eunuchism, which has existed time out of mind in the east, is a consequence of this condition of things as well as of the natural jealousy of the harem.[245-16]

SECTION CCXLVI.

HISTORY OF POPULATION.—IN HIGHLY CIVILIZED TIMES.

The conditions of population among mature and flourishing nations is characterized by this, that the moral and rational preventive tendencies counter to over-population decidedly preponderate. Here so much value is attached to the life, and to the healthy and comfortable life of human beings already in existence that even the majority of the lower classes take care to bring no more children into the world than can be properly supported, nor to bring them into being in advance of food. Here, too, mortality is relatively small, which when population is stationary is found in connection with a higher average duration of human life.[246-1] While among savage and semi-savage nations, travelers are struck by no phenomenon as much as by the total absence of old men,[246-2] in most European nations the average duration of life has, during the last centuries, seemed to noticeably increase. In France, for instance, between 1771 and 1780, on a population of 29,000,000 at most, there were as many deaths as on 35,000,000 between 1844 and 1853.[246-3] In Sweden, the classic land of statistics relating to population, mortality from 1749 to 1855 had diminished 0.107 per cent. per annum.[246-4] [246-5]

No reasonable man considers mere living the highest good; but, from an average prolongation of life, we may with great probability infer an improvement in the means of subsistence, in hygienic measures, etc., even for the lower classes, who everywhere constitute the great majority of the population. Aisance est vitalité!—at least on the supposition that morality remains the same.[246-6] How great may not have been the effect, for instance, of the healthier mode of the building of modern cities, of the disappearance of the greater number of fortifications etc., the more rational character of the healing art, the extension of vaccination,[246-7] the hygienic measures adopted by governments,[246-8] the better care of the poor and especially the asylums for small children! The modern system of agriculture and of the corn trade make famines less destructive of life.[246-9] (§ 115). The modern quarantine-system has protected us entirely against a number of plagues; and the worst epidemics of our day cannot be compared with those of earlier periods or in less civilized countries. In the second half of the 17th century, it was estimated in London that a plague would occur once in every 20 years, each of which swept away one-fifth of the entire population.[246-10] And in that very city the annual mortality between 1740 and 1750 varied three-fifths, during the second half of the 18th century only one-third, during the 19th century only one-fifth in the same decade; a clear proof of the diminished fatality of epidemics.[246-11] [246-12]

SECTION CCXLVII.

HISTORY OF POPULATION.—NUMBER OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.

There is found to be in most states, where a decrease in mortality has been observed, a diminished number of births likewise.[247-1] This, indeed, happens necessarily only in the case in which the means of subsistence either do not increase at all, or in a less degree than mortality has decreased. Thus, towards the end of the 18th century, Norway was the country where the increase and decrease of the population were most remarkable for their smallness. There was only one death between 1775 and 1784 for every 48 living persons; but, at the same time, only one marriage for every 130 living.[247-2] The organization of labor was so little developed among the Norwegians, especially in the absence of important cities, the industries of which might have been able to absorb the surplus population, that almost every one of its inhabitants was in a condition to calculate in advance whether or not he would have enough to support a family. A person born in the country remained generally in his native village all his life. To found a family he had either to own a peasant's estate himself or wait until one of the day laborer's huts (Kathe), of which there were several attached to each such estate, was vacant. A too large family would certainly have died of hunger in the winter time. The clear sober sense of the people recognized this fact, and all the farm houses of the peasants were without any appreciable injury to morality filled with unmarried servants of both sexes who were, indeed, supplied with clothes and food but who at the same time were indolent and incapable of advancement.[247-3] Where a nation's economy is rapidly advancing, there is no necessity why the most natural and when properly directed the most beneficent human impulse should be sacrificed to a higher average duration of life. But if this must be, when the distribution of the national resources is pretty nearly equal, it is not so much the number of marriages as the average fruitfulness of marriages that will diminish; that is as many persons as before may enter the married state but most of them are obliged either to postpone doing so until a later age, which places a greater interval between generation and generation, and causes the number of those living at any one time to decrease; or they cease to procreate children at an earlier period in their married life. The latter is found especially in France.[247-4] [247-5] But, on the other hand, where the distribution of the national resources is very unequal, the rich may afterwards as well as before continue to follow out their inclination to marry at as early a day and age as they wish; but the less fortunate must remain unmarried through life. Here, therefore, the average number of children to a marriage does not diminish; but the aggregate number of marriages does.[247-6] If the relative frequency of marriages in most European countries has diminished during the last century, the cause has been in part directly the long duration of life of married couples. Hence, we are not always warranted in consequence, to infer a diminished number of existing marriages.[247-7]

In many countries, it has been recently observed that the average number of persons to a family is a decreasing one. Thus for, instance, in 1840, in Holland, there were to every hundred families 497 persons, in 1850, only 481; in Saxony, in 1832, 460; in 1840, only 443; in Bavaria, in 1827, 480, in 1846, only 448. In cities also the average size of families is usually smaller than in the country.[247-8] This is intimately connected with this other fact that in the higher stages of civilization a larger number of independent households consists of single persons in contradistinction to married couples.[247-9] [247-10]

on every

In 1801-1805,30.9 living.

In 1806-1810, 31.6 "

In 1811-1815, 41.5 "

In 1816-1820, 31.6 "

In 1821-1825, 32.1 "

In 1826-1830, 33.0 "

In 1831-1836, 34.0 "

In 1846-1850, 37.8 "

In 1851-1854, 37.88 "

In 1860-1864, 37.56 "

AB CD

per 1,000per 1,000per 1,000

Before their 21st year56 3274⎧359 per 1,000 males.

From 22 to 25 years219 181259⎩463 per 1,000 females.

From 26 to 35 years503 511490458 males, 387 females, per 1,000.

From 36 to 45 years161 191129 ⎧183 per 1,000 males.

After their 45th year61 7548⎩150 per 1,000 females.

InYearly per 100 inhabitants.Women who marry before their 25th year.

Marriages. Births.per cent.

Brittany,7.0 29.842.7

Adour,6.9 25.047.3

Lower Garonne,8.3 22.059.7

Upper Seine8.0 23.760.0

SECTION CCXLVIII.

HISTORY OF POPULATION.—NUMBER OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.

So far as the mere number of the population is concerned, it is obviously a matter of indifference whether there are annually 1,000 births and 800 deaths, or 2,000 births and 1,800 deaths. But we see in the former an element of higher civilization,[248-1] especially, on account of the conditions which determine it. It can occur only where even the most numerous, that is the lower class, feel other wants than those of the mere means of existence and of the satisfaction of the sexual instinct: wants, duties which probably could not be satisfied in a state of marriage thoughtlessly entered into; where the virtues both of foresight and self-control are very generally practiced.

And then let us consider the consequences. The efficacy of the repressive hinderances to over-population either consists in immoral acts or easily leads to immorality. Until a "surplus" child has died, what a series of troubles for good parents, and what a chain of evil deeds for bad ones, to say nothing of the poor child itself.

Further, every man, no matter how short or long his life, requires a large advance of capital and trouble which he has later to return to society through the activity of his riper years. If he dies before his maturity, this advance has been made in vain. The more, therefore, the population of a country, in order to maintain itself within the bounds of its field of food, has to calculate on the death of children, the greater is this loss.[248-2] Hence, from a national-economic point of view, it is to be considered a great advance, that in England in 1780, there was one death among its people under 20 years of age in every 76 of the population, in 1801, in every 96, in 1830, in every 124, in 1833, one only in every 137. (Porter.) Lastly, the longer the average duration of life of a child the greater, other circumstances remaining the same, the number of grown people as compared with that of the children; but grown people are, as a rule, independent, capable of self-defense, economically productive, competent to discharge all the rights and duties of citizenship, while children are dependent, incapable of self-defense, unproductive, immature. Only he who knows the relative numbers of the different age-classes of a nation can draw fruitful conclusions from the data per capita relating to taxation, from the statistics of crime, suicides, illegitimate births, of school-children, etc., or judge correctly of a locality's military contingent.[248-3] [248-4] Here, indeed, it should not be overlooked that in the highest age-classes, human beings return in many respects to the helplessness of childhood. Yet, as a rule, to reach a good old age is generally considered a personal good fortune; and the existence of a great many aged persons in a country, if not in itself an advantageous element in its economy, may, nevertheless, be called a pleasing symptom.[248-5] On an average there is only one person over sixty to every twelve under fifteen years of age. (J. G. Hoffmann.) We may, hence, readily measure what an advantage France possesses in this, that in 1861, in every 1,000 inhabitants, only 273 were under fifteen years of age, 524 between sixteen and fifty, the most vigorous years of life, and 203 over fifty years old. The average age of the French population was 31.06 years against 27.22 in Sardinia and 25.32 in Ireland.

However, a positively unfavorable conclusion from a relatively large number of children in a nation should not be drawn except in the case of a people the limits of whose field of food cannot be extended. (§ 239.) Where the nation's economy has a rapid growth, as for instance in young colonies, the comparatively easy rearing of children which there obtains, without any corresponding mortality, is not so much considered a burthen[248-6] as a symptom of their good fortune and even a positive good.[248-7] On the other hand, of the Belgian provinces, for instance, suffering Flanders had relatively the smallest number of children, because it had the largest child-mortality.[248-8]

Almost all the signs which, according to the above paragraphs, distinguish a higher stage of civilization from a lower, may be shown within the limits of the same age and nation to characterize the upper classes as compared with the lower. We may even claim that the greater foresight and self-control of the former in the matter of marriage and in the procreation of children, since the abolition of the greater number of legal advantages of class, are by far the most important of the elements constituting their superiority over the latter. The word proletariat, from proles, means first of all, having many children (Vielkinderei)!

Years. From 0 to 15 years of age.From 16 to 50 years of age.Over 50 years of age.

Per 1,000 of the pop. Per 1,000 of the pop. Per 1,000 of the pop.

Belgium,1846 323509 168

Prussia,1849 370504 126

Great Britain,1851 354504 142

Holland,1849 333509 158

Saxony,1840 339505 156

Sweden,1850 328511 161

Per English square mile.Relative number of children under ten years.

18001840 18001840

per cent. per cent.

New England,19.2 34.863.5 51.1

The Middle States,15.3 43.670.7 55.7

The Southern States,18.915.9 73.067.8

The Southwestern States, 11.313.7 77.675.5

The Northwestern States, 12.325.5 84.973.8

SECTION CCXLIX.

HISTORY OF POPULATION.—IN PERIODS OF DECLINE.

Nations involved in political and religious decline are wont to lose the moral foundation of the situation last described. Here, therefore, again, both the repressive (which are almost always immoral) tendencies counter to over-population, and the viciously preventive occupy the most prominent place. We may most completely observe this spectacle among the heathen nations of later antiquity. But, unfortunately, even among modern nations, we find some analogies to the ancient, to which the political economist may point with the finger of warning. "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." This universally applicable truth explains the fact that all successive acts of immorality, the more frequently they occur the less severely are they branded by public opinion.

A. We are not warranted, from the relative[249-1] number of illegitimate births, to draw too direct an inference in relation to the morality of a people. Where, for instance, as in the kingdom of Saxony, the annual frequency of marriage was 0.017 of the population, every illegitimate birth bears evidence of a greater absence of self control than in Bavaria, where, on every one thousand living, there were only thirteen marriages a year.[249-2] In many quarters, where the economic relations are very stable, and where peasant estates (geschlossene Bauergüter) are subject to a species of entailing, where consequently the son can engage in marriage only after the death of the father, illegitimate children are in great part legitimatized by subsequent marriage at a later time, and meanwhile brought up in the family of the mother like legitimate children.[249-3] Evidently the guilty inconstancy creative of ephemeral liaisons, and the neglect of the children born of them, do not here produce the sad effects which they are wont to in the large cities, where illegitimate relations are made and dissolved with shocking rapidity. However, births are seldom heard of in the case of ruined debauchees.

At the same time, the frequency of illegitimate births is always an evidence that the rightful founding of a home is made difficult[249-4] by the economic condition of the police provisions of a country; and that the moral force of the people does not suffice to resist the temptation[249-5] which such condition and provisions suppose. In the latter respect, this phenomenon may be considered, not only as a symptom but also as a cause: since bastards are generally very badly brought up. A large parthenic population is always an element of great danger in a state.[249-6] The frequency of illegitimate children must, however, be designated as a tendency counter to over-population, for the reason that still-born births and early deaths occur much more frequently among them than among legitimate children.[249-7]

B. The trade of the women of the town is indeed an exceedingly old one.[249-8] But this evil assumes large dimensions only where a large class of men and women have no prospect to marry at all, or only late in life; especially when, at the same time, families have become unaccustomed to keeping together for life.[249-9] Prostitution may be considered a counterpoise to over-population, not only because of the polyandry it involves, but also of the infecundity of its victims.[249-10] Even the diseases which it propagates are not without importance in this regard. The love of change and impatience of restraint which it produces keeps many a man who, economically considered, might very well engage in marriage, in a state of criminal celibacy.[249-11] This moral poisoning of the nation's blood is more pernicious in proportion as vice is decked with the charms of intellect,[249-12] and reflected in literature and art.[249-13] When Phryne had wealth enough to project the rebuilding of Thebes, and boldness enough to ask to be allowed to put this inscription on its walls: "Alexander destroyed them, but Phryne, the hetæra, rebuilt them," not only the dignity but the nationality of Greece was gasping for the last time for breath.[249-14] [249-15]

C. I know no sadder picture in all history than the wide diffusion and even sovereignty which unnatural vice possessed among the declining nations of antiquity. Egypt and Syria seem to have been the original seat of this moral plague.[249-16] In Greece, there was a time noted for the brilliancy of its literature and art, when the poetic fancy, in its dreams of love, pictured to itself only the forms of beautiful boys; and that this love was generally an impure one, there is, unfortunately, no room to doubt.[249-17] In more ancient Rome, it was most severely punished;[249-18] but afterwards, again, it seemed reprehensible to a Tibullus only when it was bought with money.[249-19] Even under Cæsar, a censor could threaten an ædile with a charge of sodomy; the latter reciprocate the threat, and think it witty to invite a man like Cicero to assist at the curious argument which such a case might call forth, before a pretor with a reputation of being guilty of the same vice.[249-20] When the horrible deeds of which Tiberius was guilty are known, we cannot consider them capable of exaggeration. But Tiberius, at least, sought secrecy, while Nero, Commodus and Heliogabalus felt a special delight in the publicity of their shame.[249-21] [249-22] [249-23]

1841. on every 1850. on every

On domanial lands,137 of population.149 of population.

On manorial lands,145 " 269 "

On monastery lands,163 " 175 "

In the cities lands,115 " 104 "

SECTION CCL.

INFLUENCE OF THE PROFANATION OF MARRIAGE ON POPULATION.

D. In the preceding paragraphs, we treated of the wild shoots of the tree of population. But the roots of the tree are still more directly attacked by all those influences which diminish the sacredness of the marriage bond. It is obvious how heartless marriages de convenance,[250-1] inconsiderate divorces and frequent adulteries mutually promote one another. And the period of Roman decline also is the classic period of this evil. I need only cite the political speculation in which Caesar gave his only daughter to the much older Pompey, or the case of Octavia, who when pregnant was compelled to marry the libertine Antonius.[250-2] Instead of the Lucretias and Virginias of older and better times, we now find women of whom it was said: non consulum numero, sed maritorum annos suos computant.[250-3] In the numerous class of young people who live without the prospect of any married happiness of their own, we find a multitude of dangerous persons who ruin the married happiness of others, especially where marriage has been contracted between persons too widely separated by years. Corrumpere et corrumpi sæculum vocatur. (Tacitus).[250-4] It is easy to understand how all this must have diminished the desire of men to marry. Even Metellus Macedonicus (131 before Christ) had declared marriage to be a necessary evil.[250-5] [250-6]

In such ages young girls are kept subject to a convent-like discipline, that their reputation may be protected and that they may be able to get husbands; but once married they are wont to be all the more lawless. In a pure moral atmosphere, precisely the opposite course obtains.[250-7]

And so it has been frequently observed, that among declining nations the social differences between the two sexes are first obliterated and afterwards even the intellectual differences. The more masculine the women become, the more effeminate become the men. It is no good symptom when there are almost as many female writers and female rulers as there are male. Such was the case, for instance, in the Hellenistic kingdoms, and in the age of the Cæsars.[250-8] What to-day is called by many the emancipation of woman would ultimately end in the dissolution of the family, and, if carried out, render poor service to the majority of women. If man and woman were placed entirely on the same level, and if in the competition between the two sexes nothing but an actual superiority should decide, it is to be feared that woman would soon be relegated to a condition as hard as that in which she is found among all barbarous nations. It is precisely family life and higher civilization that have emancipated woman. Those theorizers who, led astray by the dark side of higher civilization, preach a community of goods, generally contemplate in their simultaneous recommendation of the emancipation of woman a more or less developed form of a community of wives. The grounds of the two institutions are very similar. The use of property and marriage is condemned because there is evidence of so much abuse of both. Men despair of making the advantages that accompany them accessible to all, and hence would refuse them to every one; they would improve the world without asking men to make a sacrifice of their evil desires. The result, also, would be about the same in both cases. (§ 81.) So far would prostitution and illegitimacy be from disappearing that every woman would be a woman of the town and every child a bastard. There would, indeed, be a frightful hinderance under such circumstances to the increase of population. The whole world would be, so to speak, one vast foundling asylum.[250-9]

But there is another sense to the expression emancipation of woman. It should not be ignored that, in fully peopled countries, there is urgent need of a certain reform in the social condition of woman. The less the probability of marriage for a large part of the young women of a country becomes, the more uncertain the refuge which home with its slackened bonds offers them for old age, the more readily should the legal or traditional barriers which exclude women from so many callings to which they are naturally adapted be done away with.[250-10] This is only a continuation of the course of things which has led to the abolition of the old guardianship of the sex. It may be unavoidable not to go much farther sometimes; but such a necessity is a lamentable one. [250-11] The best division of labor is that which makes the woman the glory of her household, only it is unfortunately frequently impossible.

SECTION CCLI.

POLYANDRY.—EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN.

In some of the countries of farther Asia, the immoral tendencies counter to over-population which with us take the direction of illegitimate births and acts of adultery, assume the guise of formal institutions established by law. I need only cite the polyandry[TN 100] of East India, Thibet and other mountainous regions of Asia, which is indeed modified somewhat by the fact that, as a rule, only several brothers have one wife in common.[251-1]

That unnatural institution is, in many localities, based on this, that a great many of the newly born female children are killed or at least sold in foreign parts after they have grown.[251-2] In addition to this, we have the very great encouragement given to celibacy in the Himalayas, so that only monks can attain to a higher education and to the higher honors.[251-3] In many parts of the East Indies, we find a legally recognized community of wives, which is but slightly modified[251-4] by the difference of caste; and almost everywhere, that looseness of general morality which usually characterizes declining nations.[251-5]

China is, as a rule, considered the classic land of child-exposure. And a writer of the country, who is considered one of the principal authorities against the exposure of children, actually claims that it is reprehensible only when one has property enough to support them. The murder of daughters he especially reprobates as "a struggle against the harmony of nature; the more a father performs this act, the more daughters are born to him; and no one has ever heard that the birth of sons was promoted in this way."[251-6] Moreover, the exposure of children in the later periods of antiquity played an important part. In Athens, the right of a father to expose his child was recognized by law. Even a Socrates accounts it one of the occasional duties of midwives to expose children.[251-7] Considered from a moral point of view, Aristotle has nothing to say against abortion.[251-8] In Rome, a very ancient law, which was still in existence in 475 before Christ, made it the duty of every citizen to have and to bring up children.[251-9] It was very different in the time of the emperors,[251-10] and until Christianity, made the religion of the state, caused a legal prohibition against the exposure of children to be passed.[251-11] [251-12]

SECTION CCLII.

POSITIVE DECREASE OF POPULATION.

The way of vice is steep. Where the aversion to the sacrifices and to the limitations of liberty imposed by marriage, has permeated the great body of the people; where, indeed, the immoral tendencies counter to population described in § 249 ff. have been largely developed, they very readily cease to be mere checks, and population may positively decline. While in the case of fresh and vigorous nations, the mere loss of men caused by wars, pestilence, etc., is very easily made up;[252-1] that reproductive power may here be too much enfeebled to fill up the gap again. It has happened more than once that the decline of a period has been frightfully promoted by great plagues, which have swept away in whole masses the remnants of a former and better generation.[252-2] The return of the relatively small population of its childhood to a nation in its senility cannot be ascribed exclusively to a decrease in its means of subsistence and to a less advantageous distribution of them.[252-3] [252-4] The depopulation, however, of Greece and Rome in their decline might be hard to understand were it not for the slavery of the lower class.[252-5]