Every  one  of  these  marked  circumstances  suggests  that  a
difference  of  economic  interests  underlay  and  was  respon-
sible for  the  divisions  between  classes  and  parties  at  the
time.  In  the  party  history  of  the  Peisistratid  period  the
Paralii  and  the  Diakrii  are  the  political  sections  whose
mutual  opposition  is  most  marked.  The  Pediaki — the
Oligarchs — incline  first  to  one  side  and  then  to  the  other,
and  seem,  moreover,  to  have  been  powerful  enough  to  make
the  political  balance  incline  to  that  side  on  which  they  for

'   Herod,  i.  59.      KaTa(j)povrja-as  tijk  rvpavviSa  fjyfipi  rpiTijv  <TTa(nv.
^  (Arist.)  'A6.  IIoX.  13,  oOTfp  iboKovv  paKurra  dtoiKCd'  Trjv  piirt]v
iroXirelav.
'  (Arist.) 'AS.  rioX.  13.  SriponKaTaTos  eivai  doxav.  The  reference  is,  of
course,  to  Peisistratos  himself,  but  is  obviously  intended  to  apply  also
to  his  party.
ii6  THE  ECONOMIC  BACKGROUND

the  moment  throw  their  weight.  Thus  the  extremes  of
party  do  not  correspond  to  the  extremes  of  political  view.
There  is  more  hostility  between  the  Moderates  and  the
Democrats  than  between  the  latter  and  the  Oligarchs.
That  would  suggest  that  purely  material,  that  is  to  say
economic,  interests  were  at  the  time  of  greater  force  in
Attic  society  than  abstract  or  quasi-abstract  political
interests.  What  were  these  economic  interests?  And
how  far  did  the  policy  of  Peisistratos  affect  them?  The
Pediaki  were  undoubtedly  the  large  landed  proprietors  of
the  plain.  The  Diakrii  were  the  cultivators  of  the  hill-
slopes,  and,  generally  speaking,  of  the  more  mountainous
regions  of  Attica.  But  what  of  the  Paralii?  Their  habitat
would  itself  suggest  a  class  which  made  its  living  from
the  sea.  They  included  the  traders  of  the  period,  a
class  whose  growth  would  be  favoured  by  the  Solonian
legislation.
