Xenophon. Athenian Constitution. de Gruyter.

Michael Lipka
XENOPHON'S
SPARTAN CONSTITUTION
WDE
G
TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE
Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe
Herausgegeben von
Siegmar Döpp, Adolf Köhnken, Ruth Scodel
Band 24
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

2002
XENOPHON'S
SPARTAN CONSTITUTION
INTRODUCTION. TEXT. COMMENTARY
by
Michael Lipka
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

2002
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI
to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress - Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the

Library of Congress
Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging in Publication Data
Lipka, Michael:
Xenophon's Spartan constitution : introduction, text, commen-
tary / by Michael Lipka. - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter,
2002
(Texte und Kommentare ; Bd. 24)
ISBN 3-11-017466-9
© Copyright 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of
this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany.
Umschlaggestaltung: Christopher Schneider, Berlin
To my parents, and Elena (again)
PREFACE
X(enophon)'s S(partan) C(onstitution) is a major source for the historian of

classical Sparta. It is of interest to the philologist due to its peculiar literary
form and language. The aim of this book is to assist both the historian and the
philologist in their attempt to make some sense of it.
I have tried to include all relevant material that reached me before October
2001. Though the bibliography on X. and Sparta is huge and completeness far
beyond reach, a missing reference does not necessarily indicate ignorance on my
part. Relevance remains a debatable matter.
Greek authors are abbreviated according to LSJM or in easily recognizable
form, Roman authors according to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Where a
reference is not specified, I refer to the SC. Some further points should be
noted:
• Plutarch's Lives are referred to according to Ziegler's Teubner edition.
• The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia are quoted according to Chambers's Teubner
edition, first the page number, then the line number.
• Hippocrates is referred to according to Littré's edition. After the title of the
work and the work numbering, the volume and the page number appear in
square brackets.
• Galen is quoted according to Kühn's edition, first the volume, then the
page number.
Bibliographical references are found in the text in an abbreviated form. The
full reference is given in the bibliography at the end of the book. Periodicals are
abbreviated according to L'Année philologique or in easily recognizable form.
Works which are particularly or exclusively important for the restitution of the
Greek text (editions, commentaries, indices) are mentioned on pp. 59-61.
Cross-references to the introduction are by page numbers. Where I refer to
the commentary, I give the number of the passage commented on, with the
square brackets indicating the relevant section of the commentary (e.g. 1.1 [1]).
A word about spelling: Greek personal names are normally rendered in their
Latin or anglicized form, Greek place names or adjectives derived from Greek
place names in their Greek or anglicized form. Thus I write Agesilaus,
Lycurgus, Homer, but Lakedaimon, Lakonian, Athens etc. I transcribe Greek
words with Roman characters, where I am not concerned with philological
aspects and where the underlying Greek term remains easily recognizable. It
goes without saying that consistency is impossible.
All dates are BC, unless specified otherwise.
This book is the translated and largely revised version of a German D.Phil,
thesis, which was submitted to the Free University of Berlin in 1997. Over the
years I incurred many debts: to the supervisors of the thesis, Bernd Seiden-
vili Preface
sticker (Berlin) and Manfred Clauss (Frankfurt / Main), furthermore to Ewen

Bowie (Oxford), Paul Cartledge (Cambridge), Menelaos Christopoulos (Patras),
James Diggle (Cambridge), Stephen Harrison (Oxford), Stephen Hodkinson
(Manchester), Neil Hopkinson (Cambridge), Noreen Humble (Cork), Stefan
Link (Paderborn), Andreas Panagopoulos (Patras), Anton Powell (Swansea),
Michael Sharp (Cambridge) and many others. I am especially grateful to the
editors of TuK for accepting this book into their series, most notably to Ruth
Scodel for a large number of penetrating suggestions on the translation of the
Greek text. Last but not least, I can only express my deepest gratitude to Sarah
Newton, who proofread this book several times and improved it in countless
ways.
Some institutions supported this project substantially. The Studienstiftung
des Deutschen Volkes was benevolent and unbureaucratic in offering a three-
year doctoral scholarship, the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst covered
expenses and fees for two years in Oxford. A one-year grant from the Fritz
Thyssen Foundation and a two-year scholarship from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, though not awarded for this purpose in the first place,
gave me leisure to put the book into shape. Finally, the splendid facilities of
the American School of Classical Studies at Athens made writing this book a
pleasant task.
I dedicate this book to my parents and to Elena, my wife; to the former for
encouraging and supporting me over the years, to the latter for all that and
-much more than anything- the gift of four wonderful children.
Patras, April 2002 M. L.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
I Xenophon's Life 3
Π Authorship 5
ΙΠ Date 9
IV Predecessors and Influences 13
a.) Lakonophilia 13
b.) Socrates 18
c.) Critias 19
d.) Herodotus 20
e.) Thucydides (Epitaphios) 21
f.) Thibron 22
g.) Lysander 23
h.) Pausanias 23
i.) Plato 24
j.) Rhetra 24
V Composition 27
VI Purpose and audience 31
VII Historicity 32
a.) In general 32
b.) Lycurgus 35
V m Reception 37
IX Structure 44
X Language 46
a.) Spartan terminology 46
b.) Xenophontic diction 47
c.) Dialect, poeticism, archaism, neologism 51
d.) Prepositions 52
XI Style 53
ΧΠ Text 56
a.) Transmission 56
b.) Editions, commentaries, indexes 59
SIGLORUM CONSPECTUS 63
TEXT AND TRANSLATION 64
COMMENTARY 97
APPENDIXES 253
Appendix I: Spartan marriage 253
Appendix II: The seizure of cheese from the altar of Orthia in
Xenophon and the 'diamastigosis' of the later sources 255
Appendix III: The structure of the Spartan army according to
Xenophon and Thucydides 257
FIGURES 265
BIBLIOGRAPHY 269
INDEXES 285
INTRODUCTION
I Xenophon's Life
The main sources for X.'s life are his own writings and the biography of
Diogenes Laertius (2.48-59), dating from the third century AD. Biographical
information offered by Diogenes, which is not collected from X.'s writings
directly, mainly derives from the biography of Demetrius of Magnesia (1st
century BC), who himself exploited a court speech by Dinarchus written in the
last third of the fourth century BC.1
According to Diogenes X. was the son of Gryllus and came - like Isocrates -
from the Attic deme of Erchia.2 He was born around 430. His acquaintance
with Socrates dated from the last years of the fifth century.3 In 401-399 he
participated in the campaign of the Ten Thousand in Asia Minor. When
Thibron took over the Ten Thousand in Pergamon in spring 399, 4 X. stayed
with the army and later became acquainted with Agesilaus, who followed
Thibron's successor Dercylidas as supreme commander in Asia Minor in 396.5
X. followed Agesilaus when the latter was recalled to Greece in 394. He
took part in the battle of Koroneia on Agesilaus' side against his fellow
Athenian citizens (summer 394).6 After his victory Agesilaus dedicated a tithe
of the booty to the Delphic Apollo. 7 On this occasion X. himself may have
visited Delphi and offered a dedication, thus commemorating his safe return
from Asia Minor. 8 Presumably in 394 X. was banished from Athens, most
likely because of his participation in the battle of Koroneia or more generally
1
The interrelation between the different sources was plausibly reconstructed by Wilamowitz
1881, 330-335, cf. Mejer 1978, 38f. Diogenes himself mentions Demetrius as a source at
2.52 and 56. Dinarchus started his career as a speech writer in the forties of the fourth
century and reached the climax of his career after the death of Alexander the Great, D.H.
Din. 2. It is quite possible that he was personally acquainted with X., especially since he
came from Corinth (D.H. Din. 2) and X. died there according to Demetrius (D.L. 2.56),
who again might reflect Dinarchus here; for Dinarchus' life cf. Worthington 1992, 3-12.
2
D.L. 2.55, based on Apollodorus, places X.'s ακ ή in 401/400; cf. FGrH 244 F 343 with
Jacoby's note and Mejer 1978, 34. ακ ή indicates an age around 30, cf. 1.6[1]. By the time
of the campaign of the Ten Thousand X. was 30 years old or younger, cf. X. An. 6.4.25,
3.2.37. An. 2.1.13 possibly belongs here, if X. is to be understood as the νεανίσκος
mentioned there.
3
X. An. 3.1.5-7, cf. D.L. 2.49f.
4
X.An. 7.8.23f.,//G 3.1.6.
5
X. probably stayed with the army between 399 and 394 throughout, part of this time in
command of the remnant of the Ten Thousand. Hence he is ό των Κυρείων προεστηκώς
mentioned at HG 3.2.7 in 398. He was replaced by Herippidas around 395, cf. HG 3.4.20.
6
X. An. 5.3.6, Ages. 2.11; cf. D.L. 2.51, Plu. Ages. 18.2.
7
X.HG 4.3.21.
8
X. An. 5.3.5.
4 Introduction
his devotion to Sparta, so strongly reflected in the SC, which was written
around this time (see below pp. 9-13). 9
Not much later X. received as a gift from the Spartans his famous estate at
Skillous in Triphylia, a few kilometres from Olympia. 10 X.'s marriage to
Philesia may fall in the first decade of the fourth century. She bore him two
sons, Gryllus and Diodorus.11 After the battle of Leuktra in 371 X. had to
abandon his estate when Skillous was taken by the Eleans. His sons fled to
Lepreon, while X. himself went to Elis for unknown reasons (restitution of his
estate?) and only afterwards joined his sons in Lepreon. Finally, together with
his sons he settled at Corinth. 12 Not much later he was rehabilitated at
Athens, 13 where his sons seem to have lived afterwards. Gryllus died as an
Athenian soldier in a cavalry engagement shortly before the battle of Mantineia
9
The dating of the banishment is controversial, cf. in general Tuplin 1987, Green 1994. Even
if X. An. 7.7.S7 gives the impression that in 399 the banishment was already impending,
nothing explicit is mentioned in the text (cf. Higgins 1977, 23 and 150 n. 17; Rahn 1981,
118). From An. 5.3.7 one can deduce that X. lived in Skillous after the banishment (no
matter whether one reads έπειδή δ' εφευγεν or έπειδή δ' εφυγε, pace Green 1994,
217f.). Finally the statement of Istrus (3rd century BC) ap. D.L. 2.59 = FGrH 334 F 32
αύτόν φυγείν κατά ψήφισ α Έυβούλου does not lead us beyond speculations (cf.
Green 1994, 218f.). Those sources that represent the banishment as a result of the
participation in Cyrus' campaign are interpretations of X.'s own remarks made in the
Anabasis and as such worthless, cf. Paus. 6.5.5; D.Chr. 8.1; D.L. 2.58 (differently 2.51).
Nevertheless the dating of 399 is followed by recent scholars (cf. the bibliography
mentioned by Rahn 1981, 103 n. 1 and more recently e.g. Green 1994; Gray 1996, 163). To
me a date around 394/393, as proposed by Rahn 1981, Humble 1997, 13, and others, seems
more likely. The question of chronology is, however, not so essential for the understanding
of X.'s writings as is sometimes claimed. X.'s admiration of Sparta was genuine, his
attachment to Agesilaus therefore natural, whether as an exile or not. The banishment left
no traces in X.'s writings; he remained the Athenian who admired Sparta but did not reject
Athens.
10
X. An. 5.3.7, Paus. 5.6.5, D.L. 2.52; on the doubtful location cf. Pritchett 1989, 67 n. 151; for
a map cf. Lendle 1995, 316. When he received this estate is difficult to determine. From X.
An. 5.3.7 one might conclude that he moved in shortly before the arrival of the Persian
Megabyzus who had kept part of Artemis' share of the booty of the Ten Thousand
(therefore ήδη). X. remarks that Megabyzus came on the occasion of the Olympic Games.
Which games are meant is not clear: the Olympiads of 392 or 388 seem to me the most
likely on the following grounds: X. had left to Megabyzus only Artemis' share, not Apollo's.
Apparendy X. intended to return to Asia in 394 and to make himself a dedication to Artemis
after the solution of the internal Greek problems. At least Agesilaus was allegedly thinking
of a quick return on his departure from Asia Minor, X. HG 4.2.3. In 388 at the latest,
however, i.e. with the rapprochement of Persia and Sparta that led to the King's Peace, it
became evident that Agesilaus was not to lead a campaign again to Asia Minor in the near
future. Accordingly at this point at the latest X. might have asked Megabyzus for the
goddess's share entrusted to the latter. With this X. purchased a small estate and built a small
replica of the temple of Artemis of Ephesos near Skillous, X. An. 5.3.7-13.
11
Cf. D.L. 2.52 who refers to Demetrius and Dinarchus. The wording of Diogenes suggests
that he did not find Philesia's name in Dinarchus but in Demetrius only. The names of X.'s
sons appear in Attic orators in another speech by Dinarchus and a speech by Hyperides, cf.
Harp. s. vv. Γρύλλος, Κηφισώδορος. The children were born after 399, cf. X. An. 7.6.34.
12
D.L. 2.53.
13
Istrus ap. D.L. 2.59 = FGrH 334 F 32. According to Istrus the same Eubulus (cf. n. 9) who
had proposed his banishment recalled him.
II Authorship 5
(362). 14 When Aristotle remarks that many encomia were written on his death,
not least to please his father, he indicates that X. enjoyed a high reputation in
Athens, too, by that time. 15
The date of X.'s death can be inferred only from Vect. 5.9: 16 the passage
presupposes the independence of Delphi during the third Sacred War, which
broke out between autumn 356 and spring 355. 17 Hence X. died after 356/355,
presumably in Corinth18 or - l e s s probably- in Skillous. 19
II Authorship
The first modern scholar to doubt the authenticity of the SC was Valckenaer
(died 1785) in his posthumously published notes on the New Testament.20 He
was succeded e.g. by Manso, 21 Bernhardy,22 and most importantly Dindorf.
Dindorf accepted the SC as authentic in his 1824 Teubner edition (only chapter
14 was spurious according to this edition). 23 It was not until his Oxford edition
of 1866 that he advanced numerous arguments why the S C (apart from chapter
14, which allegedly belonged to the time immediately after the Peloponnesian
War) should belong to a later period (ibid. pp. vii-xv).
Another course of argument was taken by Lehmann in 1853. He claimed
that the SC was written by the pupil of Isocrates to whom Isoc. 12.200
refers.24 This theory was extended by Beckhaus in an article from 1872, 25
which tried to identify this pupil with the younger X., the grandson of the
writer. Both Lehmann and Beckhaus were refuted by Erler and others whose
central argument was that the style of the SC, notably its use of hiatus, would
14
Ephor. ap. D.L. 2.54 = FGrH 70 F 85, according to which Gryllus fell during the battle, cf.
also Paus. 8.11.6. But it seems that X.'s praise of those who fell in an encounter shortly
before the actual battle refers to Gryllus among others, X. HG 7.5.16f.
15
Arist. ap. D.L. 2.55 = Arist. fr. 68 [R.] with Tuplin 1993, 32.
16
The dates of X.'s death as transmitted by the ancient authorities are unreliable, cf. Lucianus
Macr. 21 [X. died older than 90]; D.S. 15.76.4 [X. died έσχατογήρως 366/365]; Stesiclides
ap. D.L. 2.56 = FGrH 245 F 3 (according to Wilamowitz 1881, 335 n. 20 Ctesicles is to be
read; cf. Jacoby's introductory note on FGrH 245) [X. died 360/359].
17
Cf. Buckler 1989,28; on the intricate chronology of the outbreak of the war cf. ibid. 148-
181.
18
Demetrius Magnes ap. D.L. 2.56.
19
Paus. 5.6.6, for doubts on the veracity of this information cf. Hirt 1878, 37f.
20
Cf. Valckenaer 1815, 168: "Adiect. εγαλείος, frequentatum Xenophonti in Socraticis, in
libello quoq. de Rep. Lacedaem. legitur, qui tribuitur quidem Xenophonti, sed potius illius est
Sophistae recentrons, qui laudem Agesilai nobis conflavit, hactenus etiam lectam sub
nomine Xenophontis, sed ab ingenio hoc castissimo, praeterquam in illis, quae ad verbum
descripta sunt e Xenophonteis, remotam."
21
Cf. Manso 1800, 74-76 ['Beylagen'].
22
Cf. Bernhardy 1829, 223, 357,453.
23
In this edition he refers to the SC as Χενοφώντος Λακεδαι ονίων πολιτεία, but brackets
chapter 14. In his second Teubner edition from 1853 he gives chapter 14 without brackets
and calls the SC Λακεδαι ονίων πολιτεία [without ascription],
24
Cf. Lehmann 1853, 76-121.
25
Cf. Beckhaus 1872, 242-253.
6 Introduction
not permit an author of the Isocratean circle.26 In 1889 Hartman launched an

attack against Cobet's recent defence of authenticity. Apart from repeating older
arguments he underlined the different position of women in the SC and in the
Xenophontic Oeconomicus, thus anticipating one of the arguments of Chrimes
against genuineness.27 The last and perhaps most vehement attack against the
genuineness of the SC was launched by Chrimes in 1948. She assumed that
chapter 14 originally stood at the beginning of the treatise. She claimed that it
attained its present position by disintegration of the codex and misplacing of
the relevant leaf. 28 She followed Hartmann in establishing differences between
the SC and the Oeconomicus in terms of content, especially as to the picture of
women, 29 and ascribed the work to the sophist Antisthenes.30 In a recent study
Lana attempted to prove the spuriousness of the work by means of an extensive
computer analysis of the style.31
Despite these doubts, the majority of scholars of the nineteenth and

twentieth centuries regarded the SC as genuine. Weiske in his introduction to
his edition of the SC (in 1804, reprinted by Schneider in his edition of the SC
in 1815),32 defended its authenticity, regarding only chapter 14 as an
interpolation. 33 Goette, 34 and Haase35 in his magisterial commentary, defended
authenticity, as did Fuchs, 36 Cobet (arguing that the SC was an epitomized
version of an originally Xenophontic work),37 Erler,38 Naumann, 39 Stein, 40
Wulff, 41 Bazin,42 Köhler,43 and the majority of scholars in the twentieth
century.44
Antiquity already questioned the genuineness of the work. Diogenes Laertius

at the end of the catalogue of X.'s writings points out: 45
26
Cf. Erler 1874, 23-25; Stein 1878, 12-14.
27
Cf. Hartman 1889, especially 279-282; Chrimes 1948, 23f.
28
Cf. Chrimes 1948,16f.
29
Cf. Chrimes 1948, 23f.
30
Cf. Chrimes 1948,40-48.
31
Cf. Lana 1992.
32
Cf. Schneider, vol. vi, 1-10 (for editions of the SC see pp. 60-62).
33
Cf. Weiske, vol. vi, 1-12.
34
Cf. Goette 1830.
35
Cf. Haase 1833.
36
Cf. Fuchs 1838.
37
Cf. Cobet 1858,705-738.
38
Cf. Erler 1874.
39
Cf. Naumann 1876.
40
Cf. Stein 1878.
41
Cf. Wulff 1884.
42
Cf. Bazin 1885.
43
Cf. Köhler 1896.
44
Recently e.g. Rebenich 1998, 14f.; Humble 1999, 347 η. 9; Cartledge 1999, 320; Hodkinson
2000, 61 η. 4.
45
D.L. 2.57.
II Authorship 7
'Αθηναίων καί Λακεδαι ονίων π ολιτείαν, ήν φησιν ούκ είναι

Ξενοφώντος ό Μάγνης η ήτριος.
Many arguments could be put forward to explain why Demetrius doubted

X.'s authorship, starting from the work's stylistic simplicity, unevenness, and
linguistic obscurity (cf. pp. 53-55). 4 6 But these arguments did not convince
any other surviving ancient writer. On the contrary, the passage just quoted
shows clearly that already in Demetrius' day (1st century B C ) the SC was
regarded as a Xenophontic work (for Demetrius clearly rejects this widespread
view). Hence, Demetrius provides indirectly the first evidence for the
authenticity of the SC.47
Two arguments have been repeatedly put forward to prove the spuriousness
o f the SC:
1. Polybius (6.45.1) reports that X . along with Plato and other authors
stresses the resemblance of the Cretan and the Spartan constitutions. In the
surviving Xenophontic writings, however, there is no evidence to support this;
indeed, SC 1.2 claims the opposite, that the Spartan constitution was
unprecedented when Lycurgus created it (cf. pp. 35f.). In this statement one
might see with Chrimes 4 8 an indication that X . wrote a treatise on the Spartan
constitution but that this treatise is not identical with the one that has come
down to us under X.'s name. One might, however, argue with equal plausibility
that Polybius was wrong, or that in Polybius' day works were circulating under
X.'s name that were actually not Xenophontic and that Polybius refers to one of
these. 49
2. Arr. tact. 6.3 remarks that X . nowhere says how many enomoties make
up a lochos, although at 11.4 X . is very clear on this issue: according to this
passage a lochos contains four enomoties. Again one might side with
46 The wording is suspicious because the Athenaion Politeia is in all likelihood not
Xenophontic; cf. Treu 1967, coll. 1930-1932 on this passage and the relationship between
Diogenes and Demetrius.
A longer quotation from Demetrius preserved in D.H. Din. 1 shows that he was quite
capable of a verdict on stylistic grounds: in his opinion the speech 'Against Demosthenes'
circulating under Dinarchus' name was not by Dinarchus, because it was 'much different
from his style' (πολύ γαρ απέχει τοΰ χαρακτηρος).
47 The SC is regarded as Xenophontic by Plu. Lyc. 1.5; Harp. s.v. όραν; Poll. 6.142; de subi.
4.4; Stob. IV 2.23. An even older witness than Demetrius is possibly the scholion on Od.
4.6S, according to which X. remarks that the Spartan kings claimed a double ration of food
(δι οιρία). The scholion might well go back to the learned criticism of a Homeric scholar
of the hellenistic age. X. mentions the double ration at SC 1S.4 and Ages. 5.1. The general
wording suggests the SC as a source rather than Ages. 5.1; so also Fuchs 1838, 4.
48 Chrimes 1948, 24f.
49 Cf. also Hodkinson 2000, 29f. The catalogue of D.L. 2.57 contains all the works that are
generally ascribed to X. nowadays, and no further items except the Athenaion Politeia. It
follows that in Diogenes' day there existed a fixed Xenophontic canon. Ath. XI 506 C makes
clear, however, that this had not always been the case: according to this passage the
pseudo-Platonic dialogue Alcibiades lì was actually a Xenophontic work. Hence it is
conceivable that Polybius regarded, say, the pseudo-Platonic Minos as Xenophontic. That
dialogue indeed deduces the Spartan constitution from Crete (cf. [Pl.] Min. 320 A - Β).
8 Introduction
Chrimes 50 and argue that the SC circulated under a different name in Arrian's
day, or that Arrian did not know it, or that the passage at 11.4 is a gloss that
entered the text after Arrian. There are, however, no indications that we are
dealing with a gloss; quite the opposite, since the character of the whole
passage, full of details about the Spartan army, suggests originality. Besides,
the curious and specific pieces of information it conveys cannot stem from any
other surviving author.51 Presumably the passage and perhaps all the military
part of the SC were unknown to Arrian. 52 This does not exclude the possibility
(but does not prove either) that the SC circulated under the name of a different
author in Arrian's time - cf. the above-mentioned doubts of Demetrius on
authenticity- but even if it did, it is unlikely that this hypothetical work under
a different name would have been known to Arrian.53
In favour of authenticity further arguments can be produced. First, there are

conceptual similarities. The sympathy towards Sparta so characteristic of the
SC (even chapter 14 confirms this, criticizing, as it does, the abandonment of
the 'true' Spartan way of life) runs through the whole work of X. The Socratic
way of life as reflected in other Xenophontic works plays an important role in
representing the ideal Spartan education in chapters 1-10 (cf. pp. 18f., 33f.).
The notion of unconditional obedience is found in the SC as elsewhere in X.
(see 2.2[6] and 8.2[2]), as is the idea that war is a full-time profession that
should be practised as such by all citizens (see 7.2[3]). 54
Cogent evidence for Xenophontic authorship seems to me to be afforded by
the linguistic particularities that link the SC with other authentic Xenophontic
writings. One can summarize the more detailed study below (cf. pp. 46-53) by
stating that the use of particles in the SC coincides in great detail with that in
the other Xenophontic works. Furthermore, various words can be found in the
SC that in classical times are restricted almost exclusively to X. The prologue
of the SC is composed according to a scheme that can be found frequently at the
beginning of Xenophontic works (see 1.1 [2]). This suggests at the same time
that the work started with chapter 1 as transmitted and not with chapter 14 as
Chrimes thought. 55 Besides, if the dating of the SC between 395 and 394 is
50
Chrimes 1948,28.
51
At least since Harpocration the passage was part of the SC, cf. Harp. s.v. όραν.
52
Conceivably the title of the treatise and the different beginning induced Arrian to think the
work would not contain any military information. At any rate, X.'s name does not appear in
the (admittedly fragmentarily preserved) preface.
53
Arr. Tact. 6.2 and Ael. Tact. 5.2 know of writers who mention a lochos of four enomoties,
but these authors called two enomoties a dimoiria as pointed out by Arrian and Aelian ibid.
This information is not found in the SC. Asel. 2.2 remarks that δι οιρία is a later tactical
term. If that is correct, it follows that the source of Arrian and Aelian was also later.
Köchly/Rüstow 1855, 90 seem to assume nevertheless that Aelian here refers to the SC.
54
As a conceptual difference one may point to the representation of Agesilaus in terms of
money-making elsewhere and of the Spartans in the SC, see commentary on 7.1-4.
55
Chrimes 1948, 1-8. Also the fact that in the imperial period speeches could start with ά λ λ ά
following the Xenophontic pattern shows that chapter 1 was the first chapter, if the later
orators were not influenced only by the Xenophontic Symposium (cf. 1.1[1]).
III Date 9
correct (for the arguments see below), no other candidate apart from X. has
survived even by name. 56 Furthermore, possible differences in style as pointed
out by Lana 57 would be explained by the timespan of 30 years or more between
the composition of the SC and that of most (all?) other Xenophontic writings
(apart from the fact that the topic of the SC is unparalleled in X.'s other
writings).
There are two more indications that the work was regarded as Xenophontic
from a relatively early stage. On the one hand, such a work of very mediocre
quality would hardly have survived if it had not been protected by X.'s name.
On the other hand, the Athenaion Politela (which I believe to be wrongly
ascribed to X.) would hardly have been transmitted at all if it had not been
linked with the SC from very early on. Both arguments carry all the more
weight since the SC is the only surviving Spartan constitution and the
Athenaion Politeia the only surviving pamphlet of the classical period, and
their survival cannot therefore be explained by a specific interest in the
respective literary genres.58
Ill Date
The few established dates of composition for Xenophontic works may be

summarized briefly. The treatise de Vectigalibus was written after 356. 59 The
second part of the Historia Graeca (2.3.11-end) came into being after 357, if one
assumes - as I do - that this part was written in one piece.60 The year 357 is
the terminus ante quem of the Anabasis, because HG 3.1.2 refers to this work.
The Agesilaus was finished after the death of the king, i.e. not before 360. 61
The last chapter of the Cyropaedia mentions the Satraps' revolt of 362/361
(Cyr. 8.8.4). 62 In short, literary production is attested only for the end of X.'s
life, roughly after 365.
Only chapter 14 provides some indications of the date of composition of the
SC. The position of this chapter as well as its chronological relationship to the
remainder of the text have long been controversial. The position of the chapter
is doubtful because it intervenes quite unexpectedly between chapter 13 and
chapter 15. The chronological relation to the remainder is controversial since
the critical remarks on the contemporary state of affairs in chapter 14 patently
56
According to the surviving fragments it can hardly be a work of Critias (cf. pp. 20f.), nor
can it be the Spartan constitution composed by Thibron as mentioned by Arist. Pol. VII
1333b 18f. because of the Attic dialect (cf. p. 23).
57
Lana 1992.
58
Both writings were perhaps found among the unpublished works of X. after his death; as to
the Athenaion Politeia Ms was already suggested by Diels 1894, 298, as to the SC e.g. by
Moore 1983, 72f.
59
Cf. p. 5.
60
Dillery 1995, 257 n. 32.
61
Ages. 10.3; 11.15.
62
Cf. Gera 1993, 23-25.
10 Introduction
contradict the effusive praise of Sparta in the rest of the work. 63 Hence, two
particular questions have concerned scholars - whether chapter 14 stood
originally after chapter 15 and whether chapter 14 is a later addition to an earlier
draft. The latter assumption would necessarily entail reversing the order of
chapter 14 and chapter 15.64 I leave aside these intricate questions for a moment
and propose to approach the problem from a slightly different angle,
concentrating on chapter 14 alone.
Various reasons support the view that chapter 14 was written before the
battle of Leuktra (371): 65
1. At 14.2 X. says of certain Spartans that they did duty as harmosts èv

ταΐς πόλεσι. The context - X. is talking about the corruption of all the
Spartans - and also the unspecific εν ταΐς πόλεσι suggest that X. imagined
here a significant number of cities and harmosts. By contrast, immediately
before the battle of Leuktra Sparta withdrew, as it seems, all garrisons and their
harmosts (apart from the army standing in Phocis under Cleombrotus) and there
is no mention of their reinstatement before the battle of Leuktra, and apparently
not much opportunity of such a reinstatement afterwards (cf. HG 6.4.1
Λακεδαι όνιοι έντοι έκ εν τών άλλων πόλεων τους τε άρ οστάς κ α ι
τους φρουρούς άπήγαγον...).
2. Χ. remarks at 14.2 και κολακευο ένους διαφθείρεσΟαι. It seems
unthinkable that the Spartan harmosts were courted or even corrupted by flattery
after the battle of Leuktra. This kind of ingratiation fits much better into the
main period of the Asian harmostships during the first decade of the fourth
century, cf. e.g. X. HG 2.3.14; An. 3.1.5; 6.6.12.
3. X. remarks at 14.4 νυν δ' έπίστα αι τους δοκοΰντας πρώτους είναι
έσπουδακότας ώς ηδέποτε παύωνται αρ όζοντες έπί ξένης. Such a
continuance of one's office is not attested immediately before or after Leuktra.
However, there are earlier examples of long-term harmosts, especially
Dercylidas,66 who was possibly in charge of the Ten Thousand after their return
and thus personally acquainted with X. (cf. note on 14.4[3]), or Clearchus67 or
Thibron. 68
4. X. remarks on the Spartans at 14.5 πραγ ατεύονται &πως άρξουσι and
on the Spartan enemies at 14.6 παρακαλοΰσιν αλλήλους έπί το
διακωλύειν ¿χρξαι πάλιν αυτούς. Both passages show how close to άρχή
Sparta was, or, in other words, that the Spartan assumption of άρχή was a
63
For a discussion cf. pp. 28-32.
64
An extensive survey of the different approaches to these questions and the chronology of
chapter 14 is given by Tigerstedt 1965, 462-464, n. 530. A more recent and thorough
discussion is offered by Carlier 1984, 252-254; cf. also MacDowell 1986, 8-14; Meulder
1989; Bianco 1996; Rebenich 1998, 25-31.
65
So already Haase 1833, 26 and recently e.g. Bianco 1996, 23; Rebenich 1998, 30f.
66
First harmost in 411, last in 394, cf. Bockisch 1965,237.
67
First harmost in 411, last in 403, cf. Bockisch 1965,238.
68
First harmost in 400/399, last in 392, cf. Bockisch 1965, 239.
III Date 11
realistic prospect if not a fact already. The tone is hardly compatible with the
situation after the battle of Leuktra.
5. In chapter 14 X. criticizes only certain aspects that he had expounded in
chapters 1-10 which concern the internal condition of Sparta (see p. 30). The
army as well as the kingship are omitted, although the battle at Leuktra
provided sufficient reason for criticism of both. So elsewhere X. rebukes the
Spartan cavalry before the battle, cf. HG 6.4.11 των δ' αυ στρατιωτών οι
τοις σώ ασιν άδυνατώτατοι και ηκιστα φιλότι οι επί των ίππων ήσαν.
Moreover he admits strategic failures by Cleombrotus (cf. HG 6.4.12, depth of
the phalanx), which he tries to explain away elsewhere by lack of experience on
the part of the king (HG 5.4.14, the ephors sent Κλεό βροτον πρώτον τότε
ήγοΰ ενον). A direct or indirect comment on the defeat of the Spartan army,
which appears to have been organized at Leuktra as described in chapters 11-12,
would have been necessary lest the credibility of chapters 11-12 be
questioned.69
Hence 371 as the terminus ante quern of the composition of chapter 14 can
be regarded as most likely. Chapter 14, however, provides further hints as to
the date of composition. At 14.6 X. writes νυν δέ πολλοί παρακαλοΰσιν
αλλήλους έπί το διακωλύειν ¿χρξαι πάλιν αυτούς. This passage is
undoubtedly to be interpreted in the sense that the Spartans did not have the
hegemony during the composition of chapter 14 and that the unspecified 'many'
are trying to impede the Spartans from taking the lead once again, see 14.6[3].
One has to conclude that Sparta no longer exercised the άρχή in Greece when
chapter 14 was composed. This conclusion must be combined with another
piece of information in chapter 14. According to 14.2 and 4 the harmostships
were so influential at the time chapter 14 was composed that the harmosts were
courted by many, and the old customs were thus corrupted. If X. does not
contradict himself in chapter 14, here the harmostships of Asia Minor must be
meant, not those of the Greek mainland. For at 14.6 X. points out the decline
69
Another argument in favour of a date of composition of chapters 1-13 before the battle of
Leuktra is found at 12.3, where X. remarks νύκτωρ (δέ) εξω της φάλαγγος ένό ισεν
ύπό Σκιριτών προφυλάττεσθαν νΰν δ' ήδη και ύπό ξένων (...) αύτών τίνες
συ παρόντες, cf. 13.6. Despite the lacuna (see note ad loc.) it is clear that the Skiritai
formed an integral part of the army. The task of this unit could be fulfilled also (και) by
ξένοι at the time of the composition of the SC (νΰν). The Skiritai used to be deployed on the
left wing of the army (cf. Th. 5.67.1) and were as such presumably not entirely destroyed in
the battle of Leuktra (it was mainly the right wing with the position of the king which was
wiped out, X. HG 6.4.14). But their losses were so considerable that the Arcadians launched
a successful attack on Oion, the capital of the Skiritis, in the wake of the defeat. In 369 Oion
possibly joined the synoicism of Megalopolis which was clearly directed against Sparta,
although the city does not appear in the list of the unified poleis at Paus. 8.27.3-8, cf. D.S.
15.72.4. Then in 364 the Skiritis appears as hostile towards Sparta, X. HG 7.4.21. Hence it is
rather unlikely that a Spartan unit of the Skiritai existed after Leuktra. Nor does it seem
possible to argue that X. meant by Σκιριτών an army unit that was only originally made up
of native Skiritai, but later on of mercenary soldiers of other provenance: X. himself
distinguishes at 12.3 explicitly between Skiritai and other mercenaries.
12 Introduction
of Spartan power on the mainland, as shown by the meaning of π ά λ ι ν just

mentioned. Chapter 14 was composed at a time when the harmostships of Asia
Minor were at the peak of their power, whereas the hegemony on the Greek
mainland had passed to the unspecified many (14.6 πολλοί). 70
The harmostships of Asia Minor were almost completely abolished after the
devastating defeat of the Spartan fleet off Knidos in 394,71 This date is thus the
terminus ante quern for the composition of chapter 14 given the aforementioned
considerations. What is the terminus post quem! The first serious opposition to
Spartan rule after the Peloponnesian War was stirred up in 395/394. Lysander
died in late summer 395 in a skirmish at Haliartos by Lake Kopais. 72 As a
consequence the Boiotian League, Athens, Corinth, Argos, major parts of
Thessaly, and other cities joined an alliance against Sparta.73 It is tempting to
see in those allies the many who had seized the αρχή from Sparta according to
14.6. In other words, the composition of chapter 14 falls between the defeat at
Haliartos (late summer 395) and the expulsion of the harmosts from Asia
Minor after the Knidian defeat (late summer 394).74 X. might have composed it
on Agesilaus' return from Asia Minor to Greece.75
This chronological approach fits well with the following observations:
• X. cautiously avoids blaming his benefactor Agesilaus for any failure. His
criticism is restricted - in marked opposition to the similar critical chapter of
the Cyropaedia 8.8 - to the commonplaces of chapters 1-10 (see p. 30) and to
the mismanagement and avarice of the harmosts appointed by Agesilaus'
predecessors, not Agesilaus (for a comparison of the two concluding chapters
Cyr. 8.8 and SC 14 see Gera 1993, 299f.; Tuplin 1994, 139-141).
• At least since Lysander had fallen out of favour with Agesilaus, criticism
of the former and his favourites was legitimate in the king's circle.76 Hence it
is hardly coincidental that Lysander and his followers personify what X.
criticizes so markedly in chapter 14, i.e. the godless opportunist.
• The sharply derogatory remark that the would-be leading Spartans (14.4
τους δοκοΰντας πρώτους είναι) competed to stay abroad for an unlimited
70
Hence, the hypothesis of Oilier 1934, xv that the harmostships of the Greek mainland
(mentioned at Plb. 4.27.5 after the King's Peace) are here referred to is refuted.
71
Cf. X.HG 4.3.10-12.
72
Cf. X. HG 3.5.18f.; Plu. Lys. 28.9.
73
Cf. D.S. 14.82.1-4.
74
Bazin 1885, 106-109 argues for the same dating along different lines; Chrimes 1948, 18-22
places the composition into the same period, but denies X.'s authorship; similarly Cawkwell
1983, 395 n. 38, who elsewhere (Cawkwell 1976, 83) dates the work to the 370s and
regards it as genuine.
75
MacDowell 1986, 14 thought that the use of the local particle εκεί for Sparta at 7.6 and 9.6
would indicate that X. was not in Sparta when he composed the treatise. This is hardly
convincing. X. speaks as an Athenian to an Athenian audience and from an Athenian
standpoint Sparta was, of course, έκεΐ.
76
Cf. X. HG 3.4.7-10.
period is an overt attack on Lysander's system of favouritism. Perhaps the

remark is chosen in deliberate opposition to Agesilaus' 'selfless' abandonment
of the Asian campaign. 77 This hypothesis would presuppose that the
abandonment was known to X. in chapter 14, i.e. that chapter 14 was written
after spring 394.
If one places the composition of chapter 14 between autumn 395 and

autumn 394, one must assume that at least chapters 1-10 and presumably the
whole SC were written during this period (cf. pp. 29-31). More general
observations confirm this dating:
• The early dating explains the linguistic simplicity of the SC, unsurpassed
by any other Xenophontic work. If the dating is correct, the SC is presumably
the earliest Xenophontic work. Stylistic features different from other
Xenophontic works could be explained by different dates of composition (cf.
pp. 53f.).
• The early dating makes plain why the SC addresses a non-Spartan, mainly
Athenian readership. A treatise praising Sparta and at the same time addressed to
an Athenian audience is conceivable only before the battle of Koroneia in 394,
i.e. before X.'s exile. On the other hand, X.'s unconditional devotion to the
Spartan cause as testified by this work might well have been one of the reasons
for his banishment. 78
IV Predecessors and Influences
a.) Lakonophilia
Since it is in the context of lakonophilia that the SC must be understood, it

may be useful to give a general survey of the phenomenon, before discussing
the influence of individual sources on the SC.79 The first Athenian known to
77
This abandonment is praised by X. Ages. 1.36; cf. HG 4.2.1-8; D.S. 14.83.1-3; Plu. Ages.
4.2-6. The description, however, of the extraordinary obedience of the Spartans, as
mentioned at 8.1f., is hardly a hidden allusion to Agesilaus' compliance in returning after his
successful expedition in Asia Minor.
78
The fact that X. does not mention maritime affairs in the SC cannot be brought into play for
the dating. Seafaring had never been a characteristic of the Spartans (Th. 1.142.4-9). The
Spartan upbringing dealt with in chapters 1-10 served to train hoplites, not marines, and the
percentage of Spartans among the crews was presumably very small anyway. Besides, X.
was not so well acquainted with maritime affairs as with the mainland army for which his
first-hand experience and his friend Agesilaus served as constant and reliable sources.
79
Fundamental for the history of the idealization of Sparta and the different forms of
lakonophilia in antiquity are Oilier 1933/1943; Tigerstedt 1965/1974; Rawson 1969 and the
essays collected in Powell/Hodkinson 1994 and Cartledge 1999. Important too is Hodkinson
2000, 19-64.
14 Introduction
have been a notorious lakonizer was Cimon, the son of Miltiades.80 He seems
to have been one of a relatively small circle of admirers of Sparta, to which
among others Ion of Chios belonged.81 By the end of the fifth century the
number of lakonizers had increased and they became a favourite target of the
comedians.82 Socrates' pupil Critias, a member of the Thirty, was one of
Sparta's most fervent admirers. He is the first writer from whom considerable
fragments of pro-Spartan literature are preserved. In terms of both scope and
concept his two treatises on Sparta (one in prose, one in verse) may be regarded
as the immediate predecessors of the SC (see pp. 19f.). Simultaneously he
inaugurates a long literary tradition which praised single-mindedly the one-sided
orientation towards military efficiency of the Lycurgan constitution, criticized
already by Aristotle. 83
Of course, one did not need to be a full-blooded lakonizer to admire one or
more aspects of Spartan society. To take just the most conspicuous examples:
Herodotus on occasion expressed his admiration of the Spartans and most
notably for the heroic death of their king Leonidas and his band;84 even the
otherwise highly restrained Thucydides shows a remarkable sympathy for a
Spartan figure like Brasidas (though Thucydides' own failure to save
Amphipolis from Brasidas' grip may play a part).85 Socrates shared at least
some characteristics with the (ideal) Spartan (see pp. 18f.),86 and his most
influential student, Plato, was heavily influenced by the (idealized) Sparta.87
Others -Isocrates, for example- followed suit. 88
It has correctly been observed most recently that X. was not the stout,
simple-minded lakonist that he was supposed to be by previous scholarship.
Among others Humble in her 1997 dissertation has reminded us of the
importance of nuancing and questioning this old cliché.89 Since the problem
80
E.g. Plu. Ci m. 15.3f., 16.1-3.
81
Cf. Ion 63 [TGF\ and 27 [¡EG] with Fisher 1989, 34f. for the context of the latter fragment.
82
E.g. Ar. Av. 1281-1283; Pl.Com. fr. 132 [PCG]; Epil. fr. 4 [PCG]; cf. also PI. Prt. 342 B-C,
Grg. 515 E. For Sparta in Aristophanes cf. Ollier 1933, 159-164; Tigerstedt 1965, 122-127;
Rawson 1969, 25f.; Harvey 1994.
83
Cf. Arist. Pol. VII 1333b 12-21. For Aristotle on Sparta cf. Ollier 1933, 294-326; Tigerstedt
1965, 280-304; Rawson 1969, 72-80; Schiitrumpf 1994; Herrmann-Otto 1998; Hodkinson
2000, 33-35.
84
Hdt. 7.220-233, for his positive picture of Sparta cf. also 7.102-104 al.; in general Oilier
1933, 122-132; Tigerstedt 1965, 81-107; Rawson 1969, 19f.; Bradford 1994, 59-66,
especially 64-66 [on Leonidas].
85
For Thucydides on Sparta see Oilier 1933, 149-159; Tigerstedt 1965, 127-148; Rawson
1969, 20-24; Bradford 1994, 66-78; for Brasidas in Thucydides cf. Connor 1984, 126-140;
Bradford 1994, 74-76; Hornblower 1996, 38-61.
86
Cf. Tigerstedt 1965, 241-244; Rawson 1969, 28; Cartledge 1999, 316f.
87
Cf. Oilier 1933,217-290; Tigerstedt 1965, 244-276; Rawson 1969, 61-72; David 1981, 59-
65; Powell 1994; Cartledge 1999, 321-323; Hodkinson 2000, 31f.
88
For Isocrates cf. Ollier 1933, 327-369; Tigerstedt 1965, 179-206; Rawson 1969, 37-49;
on
David 1981, 54f.; Gray 1994; Hodkinson 2000, 26f.
J
For X. as a stout lakonist cf. e.g. Schepens 1993, 184f. ; contra e.g. Tuplin 1993 [on the
Historia Graeca]; Tuplin 1994 [on the Cyropaedia]·, Humble 1997.
has some bearing on the evaluation of the SC, I shall state my own position
more extensively.
It seems sensible to divide the discussion into X.'s stance towards Agesilaus
and towards the Spartans.
1. Agesilaus. X. spent a substantial period of his life on his estate in

Skillous in Elis, hardly without Agesilaus' consent, if not at his prompting (cf.
An. 5.3.4-13). Besides, it may be assumed with reasonable certainty that a
number of details involving Agesilaus' private life found in X.'s writings (e.g.
the Sphodrias episode at HG 5.4.25-33) were derived either directly from the
Spartan king or from his confidants. In short, the position of X. both as a
protégé of Agesilaus and as someone with immediate access to Agesilaus or his
confidants precludes, I believe, a critical stance towards Agesilaus, at least in
the 390s, when, as argued above, the SC was probably written.
Now, it may be objected that the date of composition of the SC is not
beyond doubt and that, if X. had written it in, say, the 350s, he would no
longer have reason to bias the picture in favour of Agesilaus, who by then was
dead. Nevertheless in the 350s X. was still an unstinting adherent of Agesilaus
(or rather the ideals the latter stood for in X.'s mind), as becomes strikingly
clear in the Agesilaus, finished after 360. Again one may object, as is done
with emphasis by Humble, 90 that X. follows the 'encomiastic genre' in the
Agesilaus, and that for this reason his praise of the king does not reflect his
own opinion. But this argument is weak; encomiastic passages are, of course,
as old as Homer - though the earliest prose encomium, Isocrates' Euagoras,
predates the Agesilaus by a mere ten years. Attempts to prove an earlier
tradition of such encomia are doomed to fail due to lack of evidence; and it is
worth remembering that Isocrates explicitly regards himself as a pioneer of the
prose encomium (cf. Isoc. 9.8). But even if we grant that such an encomiastic
tradition with a fixed canon of topoi existed already in X.'s day, one may
wonder whether X. was the kind of author to stick to literary theory rather than
to his own convictions and practical experience. At most I would grant that
both the encomiastic topoi (if already existent as such) and the personal traits of
Agesilaus may have coincided in X.'s eyes, but I would find it very hard to
credit that X. (and especially X.) embarked upon such an effusive praise of
Agesilaus without, in practice, regarding him praiseworthy. Besides, if he was
not praiseworthy in X.'s eyes, why was it he whom X. chose as the subject of
his encomium?
Given that the Agesilaus reflects X.'s admiration of the king, I am not quite
as optimistic as Tuplin and Humble 91 that X.'s picture of Agesilaus in the HG
is balanced. To mention three examples: I find the stress on Agesilaus'
obedience (a classical Xenophontic theme, cf. 2.2[6] and 8.2[2]) to the
magistrates on his return from Asia Minor (HG 4.2.3), the suppression of his
involvement in the Kadmeia episode (as opposed to the description by
90
Cf. Humble 1997,247-253.
91
Cf. Tuplin 1993, passim; Humble 1997, 126-158.
16 Introduction
Ephorus), 92 and the absence of the Theban general Epameinondas from the
Xenophontic description of the battle of Leuktra still easiest to explain by X.'s
sympathy for Agesilaus (and his anti-Theban policy).
2. Spartans. "Bias towards Agesilaos is of course not the same as bias

towards Sparta", as Hodkinson aptly remarked.93 So how much, if at all, does
X. distort his material in favour of Sparta? It is the merit of Tuplin and
Humble to have shown that X.'s account is more balanced than generally
thought (which is not to imply, I believe, that it was actually balanced). X.
does not give us much information about internal affairs in the HG or the
Agesilaus (deliberately in order to avoid criticism?), and where he does (as in
the case of the conspiracy of Cinadon or the trial of Sphodrias) he is even
prepared to admit extreme social tensions, the infringement of human and
divine rights in Sparta (in which no less a person than Agesilaus is involved),
and the selfish exploitation of a military force of non-Spartans by the Spartans
for particularly dangerous enterprises.94 X. is well aware of the personal
deficiencies of a number of Spartans, who do not conform to the 'Spartan
ideal'.95 Fleeting laudatory remarks about Sparta appear occasionally,96 but
they are clearly not as frequent as one would expect from a stout lakonizer. In
short, in his later writings X. endeavours (with varying success) to give a
balanced picture of Sparta, which, however, may occasionally merge with and
be overshadowed by his admiration of Agesilaus.
What of the Spartans of the SC? A number of scholars has argued that the
SC does not have a deliberately pro-Spartan character. The interpretations here
waver between reading the whole treatise as a persiflage or, at least, as a critical
unbiased account. The former approach is too extravagant to need much
refutation. 97 It is the latter, recently expounded by Humble with much
persuasion,98 that I shall be concerned with here.
Humble's general approach is to compare statements in the SC with those of
other Xenophontic writings and to claim criticism of Sparta where the S C
differs from the general (ideal) concept as represented by X.'s other writings. I
would object that X.'s idealistic conceptions do not have to be consistent in his
whole oeuvre, especially in the case of the SC, the bulk of which may have
been written some 30 years or more before his other works. Besides, where
evaluations of Sparta as found in the SC are not in line with the picture of the
'ideal state' as represented in the remainder of X.'s work, this may be often
92
Cf. David 1981, 29f.
93
Cf. Hodkinson 2000,25.
94
Cf. HG 3.3.6 with Tuplin 1993, 52; Humble 1997, 224 [social tensions]; HG 5.4.1 with
Tuplin 1993, 99f. [divine laws]; HG 5.4.24 [human laws]; Cyr. 4.2.1 [exploitation of non-
Spartans],
95
E.g. An. 2.6.6-15 [obituary of Clearchus]; HG 4.8.22 [on Thibron],
96
E.g. Mem. 3.5.15f„ 4.4.15.
97
So Strauss 1939; Proietti 1987,44-79; sympathetic Carlier 1978,137 n. 12, 160 n. 64.; contra
e.g. Delebecque 1957, 194; Tigerstedt 1965, 464 n. 530; Cartledge 1999, 320.
98
Cf. Higgins 1977,65-75, Humble 1997,187-240.
explained as an attempt in the SC to account for a widely known and criticized

fact in an apologetic manner.
But not only is X. apologetic in the SC, he is, I believe, also overtly pro-
Spartan, especially in the first part (chapters 1-10). Though the SC is the only
source for most of the information it provides, X.'s pro-Spartan bias appears
clearly at a number of points:
(i) At 2.13 X. insists that Spartan pederasty was chaste. The idea of chaste
pederasty is similarly found in connection with Socrates in the Symposium99
and ascribed to Agesilaus in X.'s encomium (5.7). Was it historical when
applied to Sparta? There is plenty of evidence that it was not (cf. 2.13[1] and
[3]). Rather, X. here tried to explain the paramount importance of Spartan
homosexuality in an apologetic, sublimated manner, which is in accordance
with his later idealizing concept of chaste pederasty elsewhere.
(ii) At 10.7 X. claims that financial weakness would not exclude a Spartan
from exercising his civic rights, as long as he was a worthy citizen. This
statement appears to be a topos of classical state panegyric (cf. Th. 2.37.1), but
is it also historical as Humble claims? 100 All the external evidence belies the
Xenophontic statement (cf. 10.7[5]). It seems unavoidable to assume that X.
deliberately interpolated a panegyrical topos here to create the desirable picture
of a 'state of the best', not a 'state of the richest'.
(iii) A number of Spartan traits as represented in the SC coincide arrestingly
with the picture of the Xenophontic Socrates (see pp. 18f.), and though it may
often remain debatable whether these traits were historical or not, the very fact
that X. chose to single them out as typical of Spartan education makes the
latter seem an ideal-philosophical fabrication.
(iv) Finally a general consideration. What reason could a member of the
Athenian upper class possibly have to write a treatise on the Spartan (not the
Athenian) constitution if not admiration of the Spartan system? I would argue
that it would be most natural to parallel the SC with Critias' two Spartan
constitutions, the pro-Spartan tendency of which is beyond doubt.
In short, in my view X. is likely to have been a fervent and biased admirer

of Agesilaus for most of his life (though perhaps not to the extent earlier
scholarship took for granted). In all his historical and semi-historical works X.
was, to put it cautiously, certainly more inclined to distort the picture in the
king's favour than against him. On the other hand, X.s evaluation of the
Spartan system may have differed according to the political situation: so actions
for which Agesilaus' internal political enemies were liable are more likely to
appear in X.'s writings as Spartan blunders. Starting from admiration in his
presumably earliest work, the SC, X.'s evaluation of Sparta turned into plain
sympathy, largely due to an affection for Agesilaus. In a sense the composition
of the Cyropaedia, written at the other end of X.'s life, is a confession that the
99
Cf. Symp. 8 with Huß 1999, 32-37.
100
Cf. Humble 1997, 216f.
18 Introduction
ideal as proposed in the SC can be put into practice only in the realm of
fiction. 101
b.) Socrates
The main task of literature on the ideal state is to outline a constitutional

framework within which εΰδαι νονία of the citizens can be achieved. The
term εΰδαι νονία seems to belong "peculiarly to Socratic thought". 102 In the
SC it plays a particularly important role: it is the unique Spartan ευδαι ονία,
which forms the starting point of our treatise (1.2).
Nowhere does X. give a clear definition of the term ευδαι ονία, and it
seems that the word is not fixed terminologically in X.; it denotes a 'good' state
of things, while X. does not assess this state always in the same manner. 103
Mem. 1.6.1-10 is illuminating for the meaning of the word in connection with
the SC. Socrates contrasts his concept of ευδαι ονία with that of the sophist
Antiphon: Socrates concludes at the end of the passage with rhetorical
exaggeration that according to Antiphon ευδαι ονία denotes softness and
extravagance, according to his own definition restraint and self-control.
The Spartans of the SC correspond to the definition of Socrates.104 They are
restrained (εγκρατέστεροι, 2.14) as to their sexual conduct towards women
(1.5) or their male lover (2.13). The life of the boys is modest: they walk
around barefooted (2.3), dress with only one garment in all seasons (2.4), and
eat frugally (2.5); the older men do likewise (5.3-4). Even the representation of
royal power in the SC corresponds to the ideal of the Memorabilia (2.1.17-19),
according to which the 'royal art' (βασιλική τέχνη) is identical with
ευδαι ονία, provided it consists of restraint and self-control. Hence X.
underlines in the SC that the wealth (15.3) and honours (15.8) of the Spartan
kings do not exceed the ordinary.
By making restraint and self-control the main Spartan characteristics, X.
presents an ideal picture of a Spartan that does not differ from that of Socrates,
as painted in the Memorabilia. Socrates shows himself restrained as to physical
love (Mem. 1.2.1), and his way of life corresponds in great detail to the
representation of the Spartan youth in the SC. He is barefooted, dressed in one
garment only and modest in consumption of food and drink (Mem. 1.6.2;
1.6.5-8). Restraint and self-control are not innate; they must be acquired
(¿χσκησις, 2.3, 4.5) by privations and pains (πόνοι, 3.2, 7.4). This opinion,
which is already expressed by Critias D/K Β 9, is found also in the
101
Cf. Ollier 1933, 434-439; Rawson 1969, 50f. [highlightening the similarities between the
Cyropaedia and the SC]; Tuplin 1994 [highlightening the differences],
102
Gigon 1953,153.
103
When Herakles confronts the evil and the good in the guise of two women, the evil (κακία)
claims of itself that some call it ευδαι ονία , cf. X. Mem. 2.1.26. From Mem. 4.2.34-36 it
follows that it included beauty, strength, wealth and fame.
104
They also correspond - via Socrates - to other Xenophontic characters, cf. Huß 1999, 25-
30, 274f.
Memorabilia·, due to his training Socrates endures tribulations better than

anyone else {Mem. 1.2.1, 1.6.6f.). It is especially the term σωφρονεΐν ('to
control oneself) at SC 3.4 that marks the SC as typically Socratic (cf. 3.4[7]).
The concept of 'privation/pain' (πόνοι) elucidates more than anything else
the degree to which idealistic evaluation and historical reality are blurred in the
SC. It is certainly a historical fact that Spartan training was more austere than
that of other cities (cf. e.g. Th. 2.39.1, X. HG 5.1.16, PI. Lg. 633 B-C). In the
SC these πόνοι are transfigured idealistically (though other writers did not
necessarily approve of them, cf. Th. 2.39.2, Arist. Pol. VIII 1338b 12-14). The
almost dictatorial punishing rights of the superiors, and more specifically of the
paidonomoi (1.2), of the scourge-bearers (2.2), of older men in general (6.2),
and the ephors in particular (4.6, 8.4, cf. 10.5), besides the flogging at the altar
of Orthia (2.9), the mock battles between the young (4.4) resulting in
mutilations ridiculed by Plato (Pl. Prt. 342B, Grg. 515E) - all these 'customs'
were praised unreservedly by X. as exemplary. 105
c.) Critias
Critias wrote among others a work on the Spartan constitution in elegiac

couplets and a work on the same topic in prose. 106 Both may have suggested to
X. the idea of an encomium on Sparta.
If X. adopted the theme from Critias, his work nevertheless has an
independent character as far as the few fragments of the Critian work allow a
comparison. No literal or direct thematic adaptations of the two Critian
constitutions are traceable. Common to both Critias and X. is the belief that
the Spartan constitution is the ideal constitution par excellence, cf. X. HG
2.3.24 [speech of Critias] and l . l f . Possibly the structure of the SC and the
prose work of Critias showed similarities: both start with the procreation of
healthy children and in both the basic concept is that the offspring may be
strengthened by proper food and physical exertion, cf. Critias D/K Β 32. Critias
(in his prose as well as poetic version) and X. underline the effectiveness of the
Spartan institutions in opposition to other cities. But while Critias refers to the
other cities by name (Lydia D/K Β 6.6; Chios, Thasos, Attica, Thessaly D/K Β
105
Finally in the Cynegeticus a direct connection is established between pain (πόνος) and
virtue (αρετή) (Cyn. 12.9, cf. 3.2[3]).
106
Cf. D/K Β 6-9 and 32-37. Apart from these, Critias wrote a treatise on the constitution of the
Thessalians (D/K Β 31) and possibly of the Athenians. Alexander of Aphrodisias (3rd
century AD) ap. Phlp. in de An. 89.8 claimed that only the metrical works were by the
politician. The relation of Critias to Socrates is not clear. Critias appears in several Platonic
dialogues, namely the homonymous Critias, as an interlocutor of Socrates, and according to
X. Mem. 1.2.12 his acquaintance with Critias and Alcibiades was produced as a charge
against Socrates. According to Mem. 1.2.29 Socrates blamed Critias for his passion for
Euthydemus (cf. Hindley 1999, 77f.). But the assertion that Critias 'hated' Socrates because
of a scolding remark made then (Mem. 1.2.31) has a strongly anecdotal character. At any
rate, Critias left his teacher unmolested during the rule of the Thirty, cf. also Aeschin. 1.173,
Ael. VH 2.13.
20 Introduction
33; Miletos, Chios, Rheneion D/K Β 35) and generalizes nowhere, in the SC
X. exclusively talks of the 'other cities' (1.2 τάς άλλας πόλεις; 1.3 οί εν
άλλοι ... οί άλλοι "Ελληνες etc.). Actually the detailed report is typical of
Critias, the generalization of X.: one may compare the extensive poetic passage
on modest drinking in Sparta (Critias D/K Β 6) or the meticulous prose
representation of drinking customs elsewhere (Critias D/K Β 33) with the short
Xenophontic note on Spartan self-restraint in drinking (5.4); or the precautions
for protection against the helots in the Critian prose version (removal of the
handle of the shield, permanent carrying of the spear in the field, special locks,
cf. Critias D/K Β 37) with the lapidary Xenophontic statement that the
Spartans used to patrol in the field with their weapons for fear of the helots and
did not move away from them more than was necessary (12.4); one may
compare, too, the minute Critian prose description of the appearance and
purpose of the drinking vessel called κώθων (Critias D/K Β 34) or ibid, the
exact description of the Spartan 'tongs-dance' (Critias D/K Β 36). The sparse
material available for comparison renders likely the assumption that both
Critian constitutions centred mainly on the question of daily Spartan life with
emphasis on the aspects of simplicity and practical needs, and that these
characteristics were compared with other cities. Nothing indicates that the
Spartan upbringing or military organization were dealt with in depth as in the
SC. Finally, an important difference is that Lycurgus, who in the SC plays the
crucial part as a founder and guarantor of the Spartan state, does not even appear
by name in the preserved Critian fragments. 107
In short, it seems that the SC supplemented the two Critian works on the
Spartan constitution rather than imitating them: the focus of the two Critian
constitutions was on daily life; the focus of the Xenophontic SC on outlining
the Spartan education, the Spartan character, and - i n notable detail- the Spartan
military organization.
d.) Herodotus
Herodotus does not say much about the Spartan education. Like X.
Herodotus knew the age classes that stood in the field, i.e. the eirenes (cf. p.
131 n. 13). He was familiar with the elite troops of the hippeis (Hdt. 1.67.5,
8.124.3 al.) that according to 4.3 consisted of the eirenes (= hebontes, cf.
commentary 2.11 [3]). At the same time the mention of the hippeis by
Herodotus and X. shows the different perspective of each writer: while in
Herodotus the hippeis appear exclusively as elite troops in action, subject
directly to the royal command, X. 4.3f. affords some insight into their selection
and (competitive) relation to their fellow contenders without naming the
hippeis explicitly (instead their leaders are named, the hippagretai (4.3), who
conversely are not mentioned by Herodotus), let alone their function. In other
words, by mentioning the hippeis X. focuses on the ideal-philosophical
107
Cf. Köhler 1896, 371.
question of the best education, i.e. the permanent competition of the young
with each other (cf. 4.2 ερις περί αρετής); Herodotus, however, concentrates
on the historical role of the hippeis at the side of the king, mainly in the
struggle against the Persians. It remains unclear why X. does not mention the
hippeis again in the detailed military part of the SC (chapters 11-13).
X. gives more detail on Spartan education than Herodotus, with one
exception: Hdt. 1.67.5 mentions the agathourgoi. These are the five oldest
members of the annually changing hippeis who were employed as
messengers. 108 They were known to Herodotus because they habitually
travelled outside Sparta keeping contact with friendly cities (Hdt. 1.67.5-
1.68.1). For this very reason X. deemed them not worth mentioning: they did
not have educational or military importance. In short, as to the Spartan
education the account of the SC is largely supported by Herodotus, but
comparison reveals more about the different perspective of the two authors than
about their (common?) sources. For a common source of parts of chapters 13
and 15 of the SC and Hdt. 6.56-58 cf. pp. 24-27.
e.) Thucydides (Epitaphios)
The SC may be compared with the Thucydidean Epitaphios (Th. 2.34-46).

In this speech Pericles (Thucydides) views Athens as compared to Sparta.
Similarly in the SC X. considers the Spartan state against the foil of 'other
cities' (cf. e.g. 1.2 al.). The following examples may elucidate how differently
Pericles (Thucydides) and X. interpret partly identical historical facts:
1. Pericles praises the fact that the Athenians do not begrudge each other's
freedom to do whatever they please (Th. 2.37.2). Conversely, X. praises the
control of one citizen by another (5.2, 7.5f.).
2. Pericles praises the fact that in Athens people enjoy products from all
over the world (Th. 2.38.2), while X. praises in Sparta the restrictive way of
life, especially in terms of nutrition (2.5, 5.3).
3. Pericles criticizes the fact that the Spartans screen off all internal affairs
(Th. 2.39.1), while X. regrets that such expulsions have ceased to exist and that
Sparta is liable to foreign influence (14.4).
4. According to Pericles the Spartan training is characterized by 'pain'
(επίπονος ¿χσκησις), while the Athenians are fitter for action than others (Th.
2.39.1-4, 2.41.3f.; cf. 2.38.1). Conversely, it is the aspect of 'pain' that X.
puts forward as one of Sparta's major advantages (e.g. 3.2). According to X. the
Spartan training leads to superiority in military matters, while all the others are
'amateurs' (13.5).
Frequently Pericles claims for Athens what X. mentions in Sparta: Pericles
praises the Athenian constitution for not imitating others, but serving as a
model for others (Th. 2.37.1, 2.41.1 with 1.2[5]); the same is said by X. about
Sparta (1.2). Pericles states that it is not descent or wealth that qualifies one in
108
Cf. p. 145 n. 21.
22 Introduction
Athens for a political office, but personal suitability (Th. 2.37.1); X. says
exactly the same about Sparta (10.3,7). According to Pericles 'fear' (δέος) leads
in Athens to obedience to the state officers and the law (Th. 2.37.3), just as the
Spartan obedience results from 'awe' (αιδώς, 2.2).
All in all the differences between the representation of Sparta in the SC and
in the Epitaphios are noteworthy, even if one takes into account that the SC is
an encomium on Sparta, the Epitaphios an encomium on Athens. The
Epitaphios provides support for several historical facts about Sparta; however,
it turns them completely into the negative. Those cases in which the
Epitaphios and the SC praise the same historical circumstances are mainly
topoi of state panegyric. X. and Thucydides apparently follow here the same
panegyrical tradition.
f.) Thibron
At Pol. VII 1333b 12-21 Aristotle mentions a number of works which

praise Lycurgus for focusing on military efficiency in his legislation. As an
example of such works he mentions a treatise by Thibron. 109 The writer may
be confidently identified with the commander of that name in Asia Minor who
took over the remainder of the Cyreans at the Hellespont in 399 (cf. X. An.
7.8.24, HG 3.1.6; D.S. 14.37.2). 110 Immediately after that he went home,
where he was exiled after an accusation brought by the Spartan allies against
him (X. HG 3.1.8; D.S. 14.38.2). He returned to Sparta before 391, since in
this year he appears again as commander-in-chief in Asia Minor (X. HG 4.8.17;
D.S. 14.99.1). It is a reasonable guess that Thibron's treatise was written
during his absence from Sparta (after 399 and before 391). If so, it comes
chronologically close to the SC. From Aristotle's wording it appears that
Lycurgus was a central figure in this treatise (in apparent contradiction to, say,
Critias' Spartan constitutions), that the work centred on military education, and
that its tone was laudatory. All this coincides more or less with the content of
the SC. X. may have been influenced by or even have responded to this work
by writing the SC.
Oncken's idea that X. published the SC under the pseudonym Thibron 111
cannot be proved to be wrong, but is unlikely on two grounds: first, the SC
may well not have been published by X. himself in its present form: note a
number of inconsistencies and the addition of chapter 14 (cf. pp. 29-31);
second, if publishing under a pseudonym, why did X. choose the name of the
Spartan general or the name of a Spartan at all? X. does not betray a particular
fondness for Thibron, but characterizes him as debauched (cf. X. HG 4.8.22)
and militarily inept (cf. X. HG 3.1.10, 3.2.1, 4.8.22).
109
Cf. FGrH 581 with Boring 1979, 54f.
110
For the identification see Jacoby ad FGrH 581.
111
Cf. Oncken 1875, 179.
g.) Lysander
Lysander and/or Cleon of Halikarnassos-a client (rhetor?) commissioned by

Lysander- wrote a speech in which he demanded the opening of the kingship to
the most competent (Plu. Lys. 30.3 τήν αϊρεσιν έκ των αρίστων). 1 1 2 This
speech, of which nothing else is known, is, if not a viciously circulated anti-
Lysandrean rumour, to be dated after Lysander demitted the position of the de
facto commander-in-chief of the Spartan fleet in 404 and his death in 395 (for
he was supposed to manifest his continued claim to power by this speech). It
appears to have questioned the legal foundations of Spartan kingship, very
likely by denying its Lycurgan origin. Even if Lysander never delivered the
speech, its existence would show that it was - a t least theoretically- possible to
contest the Spartan kingship on such grounds around 400. Hence such a speech
would bear on X.'s attempt in the SC (unprecedented in the sources) to make
the Spartan kingship a Lycurgan institution (see p. 36).
h. ) Pausanias
King Pausanias wrote a treatise on Sparta after his expulsion in 395 or

slightly later (cf. X. HG 3.5.25), as recorded by Ephor. ap. Str. 8.5.5 = FGrH
582 Τ 3. Since the following words of Strabo's text are corrupt, the content of
the treatise is uncertain. In particular it remains doubtful whether the work
simply dealt with the Lycurgan laws or whether it was directed against
them. 1 1 3 In the latter, more probable, case one could assume at a first glance
that the SC reacts against the Pausanian pamphlet. 114 To this opinion one may
object, however, that nowhere in the SC is the fact that Lycurgus was the
creator of the Spartan institutions or their excellence discussed or even
questioned. This also applies to the only point at which a direct comparison
between the Pausanian treatise and the SC may be possible: Pausanias had tried
to abolish the ephorate, as is reported by Arist. Pol. V 1301b 19-21 adducing
an unnamed Spartan source. 115 It is a plausible hypothesis that this hostile
stance towards the ephorate was reflected by the fact that Pausanias may not
have regarded the ephorate as a Lycurgan institution in his treatise, as attested
by other earlier authors (e.g. Hdt. 1.65.5), but as a post-Lycurgan, i.e. royal
institution. The latter version is found in Aristotle and Plato from the middle of
112
Cf. FGrH 583 with Boring 1979, 52-54. All sources apparently go back to Ephorus.
113
For an extensive and cautious discussion of the treatise cf. Richer 1998a, 25-43. For the
view that the treatise supported the Lycurgan laws cf. David 1979 followed by Hodkinson
1994,200f.; Hodkinson 2000,28f. But though David argues extensively for what Pausanias
could have written (i.e. a pro-Lycurgan treatise), he does not make clear why he could not
have written what appears to be (despite all deficiencies) the preserved reading of the text,
i.e. κατά, in other words a treatise against the Lycurgan laws (banished, as he was, by the
Spartans).
114
E.g. Bianco 1996, 24; van Wees 1999, 18.
115
Cf. Richer 1998a, 24-35.
24 Introduction
the fourth century (for references cf. 8.3[1]). But X. does not seem to have
known this version. Otherwise he would not have employed a wording which
was - at least on the surface - ambiguous when he talks about the creation of
the ephorate (cf. 8.3[1]), but would have either unequivocally accepted or
rejected this view.
i.) Plato
There are a number of similarities between the SC and the early Platonic
dialogues written before the conjectured date of the SC. Both 2.1 and PI. Prt.
325 C-D stress with similar wording that in Athens children are entrusted to
pedagogues as soon as they learn to speak, cf. commentary 2.1 [4]. Apart from
2.1 this practice is criticized by PI. Ly. 208 C. In the Protagoras Plato shows
himself informed about the Spartan fist fights, the special training of Spartan
women and the xenelasiai (cf. Pl. Prt. 342 B-D with 1.4, 4.4-6, 14.4). Fist
fights are also alluded to at Grg. 515 E. Like Plato at La. 179 A X. censures at
3.1 the fact that the young men ( ειράκια) in Athens are not subject to any
control (cf. 3.1 [3]). The hoplomachoi seem to have been a special topic of
discussion in the first decade of the fourth century: Plato's Laches and the SC
refer to them, cf. 11.8 and La. 179 E - 184 C and also Euthd. 271 Β - 273 C.
Possibly the second part of the SC (chapters 11-13) was originally conceived as
an answer to the Athenian hoplomachoi (cf. pp. 30f. n. 135).
These and other passages show that X. in the SC and Plato had a similar
picture of Sparta in mind. Nowhere, however, can a dependence of the one
author on the other be shown or at least made plausible: the existence of
written sources on Sparta on which Plato based his information remains
unprovable and is altogether unlikely, given the nature of the supposedly
realistic setting of his dialogues (which of course must have reflected common
knowledge). It remains more than doubtful that X., who stayed in Asia Minor
until 395, knew anything about the Platonic dialogues when composing the
SC, and such an Athenian influence on X.'s work, where the latter had Spartan
life literally before his eyes, is virtually unthinkable. Conversely, where the
SC coincides with the later Plato, notably the Republic and the Laws, no direct
influence of the SC on Plato is traceable. 116
j.) Rhetra
The subject of chapter 15 is, as X. stresses at 15.1, how Lycurgus regulated

the relation between king and city: ας βασιλεΐ προς την πόλιν συνθήκας ό
Λυκούργος έποίησε. The term συνθήκαι is noteworthy: the word, which
appears only here in the SC, elsewhere in X. denotes a paragraphed, written
116
Such cases are e.g. the description of the excesses of timocracy (cf. chapter 14 and Pl. R.
548 Α-C), or of the seizure of cheese (cf. 2.9 and PI. Lg. 633 B).
'contract' between two parties. 117 In the context of chapter 15 these parties can
hardly be other than the king and the Spartan damos. Hence, it is plausible to
assume a written 'contract' between the king and the damos behind (some)
information in chapter 15. It cannot be decided whether this 'contract' underlies
all or only some of the details in chapter 15, nor whether X. knew the written
version at all rather than having an oral source, e.g. Agesilaus.
The text of a treaty between the Lakedaimonians and the Aitolians, which
was made in the first half of the fifth century and the details of which are
heavily disputed, may give an idea of such a Lakonian document. I quote the
beginning according to M/L p. 312:
[συνθ?κ]αι Αίτολοίς: κ[αττάδ€]
[φιλία]ν καί hipávav ε[ εν ποτ]
[Αίτο]λο? και σ υ ν α [ χ ί α ν ... 3-4 ...]
(a number of infinitives follows)

The existence of the document shows that treaties could be written down as
early as the first half of the fifth century even in Sparta. 118 The quoted passage
makes it clear that such treaties were officially called συνθήκαι. 1 1 9 It shows
too the grammatical structure of such συνθήκαι: as in treaties of the classical
period the introductory section is followed by a series of infinitive
constructions in which the individual points of the treaty are listed. Some
surprising formal similarities are offered by the much discussed 'Lycurgan'
Rhetra, Plu. Lye. 6.1-4: 120
Οΰτα> δ έ περί ταΰτην έσπούδασε τήν ά ρ χ ή ν ό Λυκούργος ώστε α ν τ ε ί α ν
έκ ελφών κ ο ί σ α ι περί αΰτής, ην ρήτραν κ α λ ο ΰ σ ι ν . εχει δ έ οΰτως· ιός
Συλλανίου καί Άθανάς Συλλανίας ιερόν ίδρυσά ενον, φυλάς
φ υ λ ά ξ α ν τ α κ α ί ώβάς ώ β ά ξ α ν τ α , τ ρ ι ά κ ο ν τ α γ ε ρ ο υ σ ί α ν σ υ ν ά ρ χ α γ έ τ α ι ς
κ α τ α σ τ ή σ α ν τ α ώραις έξ ώράν ά π ε λ λ ά ζ ε ι ν ε τ α ξ ύ Β α β ύ κ α ς τε κ α ί
Κ ν α κ ι ώ ν ο ς , οΰτως είσφέρειν τε κ α ί ά φ ί σ τ α σ θ α ι · ί ϊ « · ω δ α ν γ ο ρ ι α ν η η ν
κ α ί κράτος.
Similarities are that the text as transmitted by Plutarch is a Lakonian prose

text, with the infinitives so characteristic of συνθήκαι, 1 2 1 and that the
regulations of the internal organization of the Spartan state are simply listed.
117
E.g. X. HG 1.5.5, 2.2.11,4.8.15.
118
The dating of the treaty is, of course, much debated. At any rate, it is very likely to belong to
the fifth century (cf. Thommen 1996, 59 n. 28). The treaty between Sparta and Tegea (cf.
Arist. fr. 592 [R.]), of which the latest dating is to the first half of the fifth century
(Cawkwell 1993, 368-370), clearly indicates that written treaties are quite conceivable in
fifth-century Sparta.
119
The supplement [συνθ€κ]αι, which is my main concern here, is generally accepted.
120
For its post-Tyrtaean dating cf. van Wees 1999, 24f., 35f. n. 70.
121
Cf. e.g. the beginning of the treaty between Athens and Sparta as concluded in 421, quoted
by Th. 5.18.If.: σπονδάς έποιήσαντο 'Αθηναίοι καί Λακεδαι όνιοι καί οί
ξύ αχοι κατά τάδε, καί ώ οσαν κατά πόλεις, περί έν των ιερών των κοινών,
θύειν καί ίέναι καί αντεύεσθαι καί θεωρεΐν κατά τά πάτρια τον βουλό ενον
καί κατά γην καί κατά θάλασσαν άδεώς.
26 Introduction
Hence, one may claim with some confidence that in quoting the Rhetra
Plutarch, i.e. Aristotle in his Spartan Constitution, used a text which was very
similar to that of the συνθήκαι between the Lakedaimonians and Aitolians (and
quite unlike an ordinary oracle).122 It is at least conceivable that these
συνθήκαι were only subdivisions of an agreement between the king and the
damos, called ρήτρα. It should be stressed that the word ρήτρα in Homer, in
archaic inscriptions, and in X. normally denotes 'agreement' rather than 'law',
which would firmly support this hypothesis. 123 If this is the case, these
συνθήκαι may underlie chapter 15 of the SC, especially where the oaths
exchanged between the king and the ephors (as representatives of the damos) are
mentioned (15.7). Such a scenario is all the more likely if we consider the
following. Since X. and Plutarch deal with the same theme (position of the
king in relation to the damos), 124 either both authors go back ultimately to a
common source or Plutarch was ignorant of X.'s source or X. of the text that
underlies Plutarch channelled through Aristotle. The last two scenarios are
highly unlikely, for Plutarch frequently refers to the SC as a source and even
notes differences,125 and X.'s source is very likely to be authentic, i.e. either
Agesilaus himself or a written copy of the συνθήκαι provided by him.
Finally two more points support X.'s knowledge of a text similar to the
Plutarchan/Aristotelian Rhetra:
• According to 13.2, after sacrificing to Zeus and Athena the Spartan king
crosses the frontier. In other words, Zeus and Athena are regarded here as
boundary deities. The ritual union of Zeus and Athena is not frequently attested
in Sparta and nowhere can both gods be found together as boundary deities (cf.
13.2[5]). The Rhetra knows the ritual community of the Syllanian Zeus and the
Syllanian Athena. 126 The epithet συλλάνιος is unexplained and the
responsibilities of both deities unknown. If we assume that they were the
boundary deities to which X. refers at 13.2, the immediately following
instruction of the Rhetra that the territory should be divided into phylai and
obai would make perfect sense.
• The second major classical source for the Spartan kingship apart from X.'s
account in the Spartan Constitution is Herodotus' famous section on the
Spartan kingship at 6.56-58. I begin with a structural parallel between
Herodotus 6.57f. and the Rhetra: like the Rhetra Herodotus gives an
enumeration of a number of royal privileges. In doing so he uses infinitive
122
Cf. van Wees 1999, 34 n. 63.
123
On the meaning of ρητραι in general cf. Huxley 1962, 120f. n. 283; van Wees 1999, 22f.
However, it remains conceivable that at 15.1 X. deliberately - but inaccurately - adopted
the word συνθήκαι from Athenian/Lakonian treaties, either because he did not know the
source underlying chapter 15 as ρ η τ ρ α ι , or because he considered the term ρήτρα as
unsuitable for the ears of his Athenian public.
124
This is especially true if we read δά φ δε τάν κυρίαν η εν for the corrupt
γα ωδανγοριανη ην, as proposed by Sintenis and Müller. But in the well preserved part
too a relation between gerousia, kings, and damos is clearly established, which must be
reflected in some way also in the oaths at 15.7 and in other details of chapter 15.
125
Cf. Plu. Lye. 1.5 and p. 41f. n. 186.
126
Cf. in general Thommen 1996, 41.
V Composition 27
constructions, so typical of both the Rhetra and the συνθήκαι, as shown

above. Far from being a means of stylistic variation, these appear more than 20
times in the two Herodotean paragraphs (6.56f.). Furthermore, there are striking
resemblances between Herodotus 6.56-58 and chapter 15 of X.'s Spartan
Constitution.
Both X. and Herodotus know of the right of the king to the hides and chines
of the sacrificed animal (Hdt. 6.56, 6.57.1 / 15.3), the double ration (δι οιρία)
at the common meal (Hdt. 6.57.1,3 / 15.4), the Pythioi as royal messmates
(Hdt. 6.57.2,4 / 15.5), and the splendid funerals of the Spartan kings (6.58 /
15.8f.). Striking first of all is the identity of these pieces of information as
such, then the fact that they occur in exactly the same order in the two authors,
as already noted by Carlier. 127
Hdt. X. SC
1. right of the king to the hides and chines of the 6.56 15.3
sacrificed animal
2. the double ration (δι οιρία) at the common 6.57.1,3 15.4
meal
3. Pythioi as royal messmates 6.57.2,4 15.5
4. funeral of the Spartan king 6.58 15.8f.
Since X. has certain details that are not found in Herodotus, Herodotus
cannot be the (sole) source of X. 1 2 8 One may suspect that the common source
of the similarities is a written document, namely the συνθήκαι mentioned by
X. in chapter 15.
V Composition
For the understanding of the different stages of composition of the SC the

position of chapter 14 is important. 129 Three fundamentally different
approaches have been prominent in the past. Either one regards the transmitted
sequence as authentic or chapter 15 is placed immediately after chapter 13 with
chapter 14 being placed elsewhere or chapter 14 and 15 are both considered to be
additions to the bulk of chapters 1-13 at a later stage.
1. Those who claim that the transmitted sequence of the chapters was
intended by X. (for whatever reason) have one strong point in their favour and
127
Cf. Carlier 1984, 256.
128
The royal estates in the perioikic regions (15.3), the tribute of a piglet after each farrowing
(15.5), the position of the royal syssition at a lake (15.6), and the oaths between the kings
and the ephors (15.7) cannot be traced in Herodotus and certainly go back to another
source. Presumably this source, which must have had intimate knowledge of the royal
privileges and possibly even knew the official text of the oaths of the kings (see 15.7[2]),
was no one else than Agesilaus.
129
For chapter 14 in general in previous scholarship cf. p. 10 n. 64.
28 Introduction
three major difficulties. 130 Their supporting point is the fact that chapter 15
ends with an hexameter and thus indicates a special caesura very appropriate for
the end of the whole treatise (see 15.9[3]).
On the other hand, it is hard to deny that chapter 13 deals predominantly
with the privileges and duties of the king in the field, while chapter 15 is
predominantly concerned with these aspects at home; in other words chapters 13
and 15 operate to some extent complementarily in terms of content. Now,
whatever the deficiencies of the work, chapters 1-13 are thematically clearly
structured. It is thus surprising, to say the least, to find the section on kings
cut in half by a thematically unconnected part, i.e. chapter 14. This leads to the
second difficulty. Chapter 14 is not just an apparently unconnected part
intruding into a seeming contextual whole, it is also written from a different
point of view from both chapters 13 and 15 (and the rest of the SC). This shift
of viewpoint consists mainly of two characteristics apart from the general
critical tone so often referred to by scholars, i.e. the omission of any reference
to Lycurgus, and the insistence on contemporary conditions (e.g. the temporal
particle νυν is used five times in chapter 14 as opposed to four times in the rest
of the SC). The third difficulty is this: a critical chapter at the end of a
Xenophontic teatise could be paralleled by Cyr. 8.8, while a comparable chapter
in the midst of a Xenophontic treatise is unparalleled. In this connection it is
worth pointing out that the address of an interlocutor by εΐ + τις + verb as
found at 14.1 can be paralleled elsewhere in X., but predominantly at the end of
a work (cf. 14.1[1]). In short, the different tone and subject of chapter 14 as
compared to both chapter 13 and 15, along with the fact that in the Cyropaedia
a similar critical chapter is found at the very end of the work, are cumulative
arguments against the transmitted order of chapters 13-15.
2. Scholars who believe that chapters 13 and 15 originally belonged together

must explain the transposition of chapter 14.
(i) The most popular assumption among supporters of this solution is that
X. first wrote chapters 1-13 and chapter 15 and added chapter 14 in the margin
after some disillusioning experiences, and it was later inserted by a copyist at
the wrong place. 131 This assumption is doubtful for three reasons:
• It does not account for the bipartite division of the SC (chapters 1-10 / 11-
13, 15 [see below]) nor for the fact that chapter 14 is much more closely
connected with the first than with the second part (see below p. 30).
• It implies that X.'s manuscript left no room after chapter 15. Only under
this assumption is it explicable why X. placed chapter 14 in the margin of his
130
This approach was first taken by Köhler 1896, 367, then adopted by Momigliano 1966 and
lately for instance by David 1981, 53 (with 204 n. 32); Meulder 1989, 84f.; Bianco 1996,
17f.; Rebenich 1998, 29f.
131
This opinion was first held by Bazin 1885, 268-271 ; he was followed by Ollier 1934, xviii n.
1; Delebecque 1957, 329-331, 341 n. 18; Luccioni 1947, 168 n. 179. The theory was slightly
modified by Moore 1983, 72f., who believed that X. wrote chapter 14 on a piece of papyrus
at a later stage, which was then inserted at the wrong place in the SC by a later editor.
V Composition 29
manuscript. Still, it would be an extraordinary coincidence -almost a miracle - ,

if X.'s manuscript was exactly as long as chapters 1-13 and 15 to the very
word, so that there was no space for even one single word by which the order of
the chapters would have become apparent. It should be added that chapter 14, a
passage of some 150 words, could not easily be fitted in the margin of a
manuscript.
• It would suggest that an editor, who in opposition to a later scribe is
likely to have acted very deliberately, added chapter 14 before chapter 15
without any compelling reason. This is to disregard the fact that - whatever X.
himself may have thought about chapter 1 4 - the natural position of chapter 14
to an unbiased reader and editor would be after chapter 15.
(ii) Chrimes 1948, 3-17 considered chapter 14 as originally the first chapter,
which was misplaced after disintegration of the first sheet of a codex (a similar
theory of change of the order of leaves was already advanced by Wulff 1884, 44-
49, 53f., 59f.). But any theory that presupposes such a change of the order of
leaves as the cause of the current situation of the text has against it the sheer
impossibility that one leaf contained not more and not less than exactly one
chapter, i.e. chapter 14. Normally one would expect the text to continue
directly before the first and after the last words of chapter 14 and thus a change
of leaves would not have remained unnoticed by a subsequent scribe copying
the flawed text. Besides, Chrimes's assumption that chapter 14 originally
formed the first chapter may be rejected due to several linguistic features linking
the beginning of chapter 1 with other beginnings of Xenophontic works (cf.
1.1[2]).
3. Marchant in his Loeb edition of Xenophon's Scripta Minora (London

1925, xxif.), followed by MacDowell 1986, lOf. and Manes 1988, 19-26,
regarded chapters 14 and 15 as later postscripts, each written some time after
completion of chapters 1-13. But in this case one may wonder why and how,
after the disillusionment indicated by chapter 14, X. finally returned to his old
enthusiasm for Sparta apparent in chapter 15, and, most importantly, why, if
he returned to it, he did not delete chapter 14 before chapter 15.
The scenario I shall now propose is no less speculative than the ones just
mentioned, but it may possibly help to explain more satisfactorily some
observations made in the text. I start with some general remarks.
There is a strong shift of emphasis in the two central parts of the SC
(chapters 1-10 / 11-13, 15). In the first part, which is devoted to the Spartan
training and ordinary way of life, the encomiastic character prevails, while the
main Spartan virtues such as άρετή, πειθώ, and α ι δ ώ ς are repeatedly
emphasized. The second part, which is concerned with military affairs and the
Spartan kingship, has predominantly a technical and descriptive character. This
shift of emphasis from the encomiastic to the descriptive becomes manifest
thematically: in the first part many Socratic ideas are reflected, since the
30 Introduction
Spartan way of life as described in the first part resembles the Socratic one (see
pp. 18f.), while in the second Socrates completely disappears from sight.
A further oddity may be added. Chapter 14 is much more closely tied to the
first part (chapters 1-10) than to the second (chapters 11-13, 15). 132 For, if the
selfish aspiration to wealth, luxury, and power of Spartans outside Sparta and
disobedience to the Lycurgan laws is rebuked in chapter 14, this mainly refers
to the central themes of chapters 5-8: chapter 5 deals with Spartan self-restraint
at the common meal, chapter 6 with common exploitation of property and
common responsibility, chapter 7 with the interdiction of privately owned
money, chapter 8 with Spartan obedience to the Lycurgan laws which had been
sanctioned by Delphi. Conversely, there is no aspect of chapter 14 which refers
to the second part of the SC.
I believe that X. first intended to depict the Spartan επιτηδεύ ατα, i.e. the
Spartan way of life at home, possibly because his friend and benefactor
Agesilaus - exceptionally for a Spartan king - had passed through the Spartan
upbringing, or because X. had in mind an improvement of the Athenian
educational system or at least the training of his own children (if already born,
cf. p. 31 n. 138). It is hardly coincidence that the term έπιτηδεύ ατα, which
renders what chapters 1-10 is all about, occurs programmatically, as it were, at
1.1, then in the middle at 5.1 and finally at the end of this section at 10.8. It is
no coincidence, either, that the expression νό ι ον εποίησεν is found only in
chapters I-IO. 133 X. wrote a critical chapter (= chapter 14) as the final chapter
of this original version of the SC. 1 3 4 Immediately afterwards X. decided to add
the second part -chapters 11-13, at this stage without chapter 15 - to the small
treatise, possibly under the influence of Agesilaus' military successes in Asia
Minor. Possibly this second part consisted of notes that were originally
intended for a different context. 135 At any rate, X. continued his manuscript
132
This was already noticed by Weiske in the preface of his edition of the SC in 1804 (vol. VI,
1-12). But Weiske regarded chapter 14 as a later interpolation. Contrarily, Erler 1874, 4-7
draw the - I trust - correct conclusion that chapter 14 originally formed the end of the first
part (chapters 1-10).
133
Cf. 1.7[1],
134
R. Scodel pointed out to me that after writing chapter 14 X. could not have supported Sparta
at Koroneia. I would, however, argue that by the time X. wrote chapters 1-10 and 14 he
was addressing an Athenian not a Spartan audience and possibly tried to ingratiate himself
with the Athenians again. Furthermore, since X. was a personal friend of Agesilaus and
supporter of the latter's conservative policy, naturally he did not turn against all Spartans in
chapter 14 (which, by the way, would be inconceivable at any stage of his career, even so
late as 360 [after which his Agesilaus was written]), but only against those Spartans
belonging to a hostile political camp (e.g. Lysander's henchmen).
135
This may be suggested by 13.2 where X. seems to say that he is going to repeat
( έ π α ν α λ ή ψ ο α ι ) how the king departs with the army, though he does not mention it
anywhere else in his work (for other interpretations of the word cf. 13.2[1]). Possibly this
work, that had never been published, was a response to the Athenian hoplomachoi, who
may have been wrongly informed about Spartan military matters in X.'s eyes, cf. 11.5, 11.8.
Yet, no treatises of the hoplomachoi are preserved, and the first existing work that shows an
influence by the hoplomachoi is the tactical treatise transmitted under the name of Aeneas
VI Purpose and Audience 31
where he had stopped writing, i.e. after his criticism of the contemporary state
of things (chapter 14). X. noted in the margin that in the final version chapter
14 should be transposed to the end (i.e. after chapter 13), so that it would not
suddenly appear in the middle of the treatise. When X. learned about the
συνθήκαι between the Spartan king and the damos (cf. pp. 24-27), he finally
added a section devoted to this topic as a postscript at the end of the parts
already completed (= chapter 15). 136 An indication that chapter 15 is a
postscript is the fact that X. announces at 11.1 that he will now deal with
military affairs and that he puts this announcement into effect in chapters 11-
13, while chapter 15 is predominantly concerned with the king in times of
peace. 137 When editing the SC after X.'s death, the editor closely followed the
instructions given by X.'s manuscript. He deleted the critical chapter after
chapter 10 and inserted it where X. had noted it, i.e. after chapter 13.
VI Purpos e and A u d i e n c e
X. begins the SC with the statement that in the past he had wondered about
Sparta's paramount power and reputation given its shortage of manpower. It
was only his acquaintance with the Lycurgan laws that removed his
astonishment.
This beginning of the SC can only be interpreted to mean that X.
presupposes a similar astonishment on the part of his readers and intends to
offer the necessary information through the SC, be this a pretext or the actual
reason. Hence, according to X. the composition of the S C has no historical or
political causes (though, of course, it does have historical and political
elements). Its purpose is instruction and it thus belongs - alongside the two
Spartan constitutions by Critias and in opposition to the pseudo-Xenophontic
Athenaion Politela - to the group of works on the ideal state. Its general
purpose is didactic. 138
As to the representation of this didactic message, one should possibly think
of a written treatise. But a didactic speech which was actually delivered would
also be conceivable: if so, the partly careless style, the introductory ά λ λ ά and
and written around 350. The latter may also be influenced by Xenophontic writings, cf.
Whitehead 1990, 34-37.
136
It seems to me very improbable that X. composed chapter 15 immediately after chapters 11-
13 and afterwards noted the insertion of the critical chapter 14 after chapter 15 in the
margin. For the insertion of chapter 14 between chapter 13 and 15 can only be accounted
for, I believe, if the editor was prompted to do so by X.'s own remarks. This again, is only
possible, if chapter 15 had not been written by the time X. noted the insertion of chapter 14
after chapter 13.
137
Cf. MacDowell 1986, 10. Also Carlier 1984, 253 observes that chapter 15 is independent
from chapter 13.
138
It remains debatable how far the work was connected with the training of X.'s own sons, as
suggested by Stein 1878, 5, followed by Bazin 1885, 112f. and Delebecque 1957, 196. The
didactic aspect is rightly stressed by Jaeger 1945, 166-172.
32 Introduction
έπαναλήψο αι at 13.2 may point to an outline that could be changed and

supplemented by some extemporized remarks. 139
The SC contains much detailed information, especially in the second part
(chapters 11-13, 15). Normally this is not discussed by X. with reasons for and
against, but listed without any discussion, as if their excellence is beyond
doubt. Besides, the question of the ideal state as well as the presence of the
Socrates of the Memorabilia, so palpable in chapters 1-10 (see pp. 18f., 33f.),
provide the SC with a heavily philosophical tinge. Hence the SC combines
historical, encomiastic, and ideal-philosophical elements: in other words, the
treatise combines the three dimensions that were later extended by X. in single
works, the historical in the Historia Graeca, the encomiastic in the Agesilaus,
and the philosophical in the Memorabilia. In order to account for the particular
purpose of the SC, one has to account for all three dimensions.
An audience that was equally keen on historical details about Sparta, praise
of the city, and philosophical reflections in the manner of Socrates, was the
Athenian aristocratic youth. It may have seen in the old Sparta, i.e. the Sparta
before the Peloponnesian War, a realization of the ideal Socratic way of life. X.
tried to reinforce these pro-Spartan currents within the Athenian society in view
of the impending conflicts after Agesilaus' return from Asia Minor. Chapter 14
served to bridge the gap between the ideal, as propagated by X., and the bitter
reality of Lysandrean harmostships that were so painfully present especially in
Athenian minds. At the same time the SC was a self-justification by its author,
a declaration of why X. would side with Sparta in the impending frictions. But,
apparently, X. was taken by surprise. Before he was able to revise his work, he
was banished from Athens, presumably for his support of Sparta at the battle of
Koroneia. The SC thus lost both its purpose and its audience. It remained a
draft.
VII Historicity
a.) In general
In the SC X. does not describe historical events like Herodotus or

Thucydides (τά γενό ενα, τά εργα Hdt. prologue; Th. 1.22), but he sketches
facets of Spartan life in a subjective manner and apparently very hurriedly. How
idealized are these facets? Or to put it differently, how historically trustworthy
139
Cobet 18S8,705f. assumed that the transmitted text constituted an epitomized version of the
original Xenophontic SC. Yet, it would hardly be apparent according to which criteria this
epitomization was conducted, given the heterogeneous character of chapters 1-10 on the
one hand and chapters 11-15 with the critical chapter 14 on the other. Besides, the
secondary transmission, which begins in the first century AD, attests to the text in its present
shape (cf. Harp. s.v. όραν; de subi. 4.4; Stob. IV 2.23). An earlier epitomization is
conceivable, but not very likely. Besides, how could an epitomizer possibly write δτι δ è
πολλά γράφω, ού δει θαυ άζειν ... (12.7)?
VII Historicity 33
is the picture as painted by X. in the SC? In order to answer this question it is

advisable to deal with the two major parts of the SC separately.
The first part (chapters 1-10) combines historical, ideal-philosophical and
encomiastic elements which are frequently inextricably linked. Hence, it is
difficult to decide whether the information about the frugal Spartan food (2.5,
5.3) is ultimately historical, ideal-philosophical (it completely coincides with
X.'s remarks on Socrates' diet, see commentary 2.3-5 and 2.5[3], and with the
philosophical ideal of 'modesty', see 5.3[1]), or encomiastic (Spartan self-
restraint was a literary topos from the time of Herodotus, see 5.3[1]) or - m o s t
likely- a deliberate combination of these. Comparable aspects of the SC are the
special importance of the hunt (4.7), the common usage of private property
(chapter 6), the prohibition of acquisition and possession of precious metals
(chapter 7), or the particularly severe punishment of cowards (chapter 9). Often
the fact itself is historically trustworthy, but X.'s interpretation is subject to
idealistic or encomiastic transfiguration, e.g. the lending of wives for the
purpose of procreation (1.7-9), the seizure of cheese (cf. 2.9), homosexual
practices (cf. 2.13), sham fights of the young (cf. 4.4), the powers of the
ephors (8.4f.), or the election to the gerousia (10.1-3). In the first part X. is
trustworthy where he - rather in passing - provides information that can be
cross-checked with other sources. This applies e.g. to the tripartite division of
boys into paides-paidiskoi-hebontes (cf. 3.1 [2]), the existence of the
paidonomoi (cf. 2.2), of the mastigophoroi (cf. 2.2), and the eirenes (cf. 2.5,
2.11). As a general rule, in the first part, only those details that cannot be
interpreted encomiastically or ideal-philosophically deserve historical
credibility.
In the second part (chapters 11-13, 15) X. describes the Spartan army and
kingship. The numerous details and the virtual absence of ideal-philosophical
and encomiastic elements show that X. here reflects the historical situation, as
it stood before his eyes, without much exaggeration. This part becomes
especially trustworthy through the corroboration of other writings, especially
the Historia Graeca. I mention some central aspects: the call-up of those liable
to military service by the ephors is confirmed by the Historia Graeca (see
11.2[1]) as well as the organization of the army (11.4, cf. app. ΙΠ), the order of
sacrifices when crossing the border (cf. 13.2[5]), the 'public tent' (δα οσία)
provided for the king and his messmates (cf. 13.7[2]), the sacrifice of a goat and
the playing of the aulos immediately before battle engagement (cf. 13.7[5],
13.8[3]), and the names of the particular Spartan officers, who support the king
in the field, are similarly found in the Historia Graeca (cf. 13.11[1], [3], [4],
[6]). The passage on the circular shape of the Spartan camp is repeated in the
Agesilaus almost word for word (cf. commentary on 12.1); Pausanias confirms
that numerous sacrificial animals followed the king on campaign (cf. 13.3[3]);
several sources mention the ephors accompanying the king in the field (cf.
13.5[1]); finally the bronze shields and the long hair of the young men are also
attested archaeologically (cf. 11.3[3] and [4]). Chapter 14 as a whole is a
discussion about the contemporary Sparta that deserves a high degree of
34 Introduction
credibility, if only due to its unexpected criticism of Spartan affairs. Even

though chapter 15 is possibly motivated and/or based on a special source (cf.
pp. 24-27), the regular royal sacrifices (cf. 15.2[1]) can be compared with
information from the Historia Graeca\ the continuity of the Spartan kingship
appears as a central concept also in the Agesilaus (cf. 15.1 [3]); the Pythioi are
mentioned already by Herodotus as royal confidants (cf. 15.5[2]); the splendid
funeral of the Spartan kings is referred to by a number of sources (cf. 15.9[3]).
Thus, the second part of the SC offers a list of facts rather than Xenophontic
comments. Interpretative passages are rare and restricted to the praise of the
organization of the Spartan army (cf. 12.7, 13.5). This increases its historical
credibility.
The picture of the historical Sparta in the SC is biased mainly by the
mediated or immediate influence of two personalities, Socrates and Agesilaus:
The Socratic influences on the SC are dealt with elsewhere (cf. pp. 18f.); in
our context one should note that undoubtedly X. intended to present the
Socratic ideal-philosophical way of life, as it appears in the Socratic writings,
as realizable or even realized (cf. Plu. Lyc. 31.3). This interpretation of the
Spartan life as a realization of the Socratic, or, more generally, the ideal-
philosophical way of life explains the numerous historical inaccuracies and the
partiality in the first part of the SC.
As much as the first part is a representation of the Spartan upbringing and
the modest life of the average Spartan citizen, this part is also a biography of
the early years of Agesilaus, who in opposition to other Spartan kings had
himself undergone the rigours of the Spartan education (Plu. Ages. 1.2-5). It is
not coincidental that those civic virtues, to which the Spartan upbringing was
said to lead according to the SC, appear again as Agesilaus' virtues in the
homonymous Xenophontic encomium: piety (ευσέβεια, Ages. 3), justice in
financial matters (ή εις χρή ατα δικαιοσύνη, Ages. 4), self-restraint
( ε γ κ ρ ά τ ε ι α , Ages. 5), manly spirit (ανδρεία, Ages. 6.1-3) and wisdom
(σοφία, Ages. 6.4-8), commitment to the city (φιλόπολις ην, Ages. 7),
urbanity (το εΰχαρι, Ages. 8), and approachability (τφ άεί έ φανής είναι
ήγάλλετο, Ages. 9). One receives the impression that X. presupposes the first
part of the SC in the Agesilaus. For it is exactly Agesilaus' youth that
is omitted in the Agesilaus (cf. the beginning of the genuine encomiastic part
at Ages. 1.6 δσα γε ήν έν τη βασιλείς διεπράξατο νΰν ήδη
διηγήσο αι... ).
But in the second part of the SC X.'s acquaintance with Agesilaus also left
its traces: X.'s detailed account of the kingship is only partly explicable by the
main theme of this part, the organization of the army. The information on the
privileges of the Spartan king at home (chapter 15) is at least motivated by
Agesilaus, if the latter is not the only source, anyway. The unexpressed
presence of Agesilaus in the SC in general accounts for the encomiastic
element of the SC, regardless of X.'s unstinting admiration of all Spartan
affairs.
VII Historicity 35
b.) Lycurgus
Here is not the place to discuss the historicity of the Spartan law-giver
Lycurgus. 140 My aim is rather to raise certain issues relevant to his character as
presented in the SC.
Apart from the SC Lycurgus appears only once again in X., at Mem. 4.4.15
where he is praised for his achievement in enforcing full obedience to his laws.
Both in this passage and in the SC he is unreservedly regarded as the Spartan
legislator par excellence, who arranged the Spartan way of life once and for
all. 141
X. is not the first to ascribe the Spartan constitution to Lycurgus, but he is
the first to do it with such exclusiveness and emphasis. 142 Herodotus (1.65.4)
refers to two versions: according to the first the Pythia had shown (φράσαι)
Lycurgus the legislation, according to the second, the Spartan version, he
brought it from Crete. In either case Lycurgus had a mediating function rather
than being actively involved or even being ultimately reponsible for the
Spartan laws. If X. is so heavily concerned with the Lycurgan authenticity of
all aspects of Spartan life, it is because he responds, I believe, to certain
contemporary tendencies to ascribe a part or the whole of Spartan legislation to
law-givers other than Lycurgus 143 - e.g. to Theopompus (especially the
ephorate), 144 Aegimius, 145 the kings Eurysthenes and Proeles. 146 Although
one would press the evidence too far by claiming that the raison d'être of our
treatise is to silence those who in written or spoken word supported another
authorship of (parts of) the Spartan constitution, one may possibly consider
whether the introductory ά λ λ ά replies to such (a) view(s) in one way or
another. 147
Apart from the emphasis on the system's Lycurgan authorship another
aspect is noteworthy: Herodotus remarks that in the pre-Lycurgan period Sparta
had bad laws (κακονο ώτατοι ησαν, 1.65.2). 148 Furthermore, according to
Herodotus (1.65.4), the Spartan laws were either given by the Pythia or adapted
from Crete (according to Isoc. 12.152-155 [cf. 4.39f.] from Athens). Again,
according to Herodotus, the Spartans themselves believed in the Cretan origin
140
For the question cf. e.g. Meier 1998, 222-226 and the literature listed by Hölkeskamp 1999,
22f. n. 17.; for older literature cf. Tigerstedt 1965,70-73; Oliva 1971, 63-70.
141
Cf. Bordes 1982, 169f. Even outside chapter 14 X. did not ignore later developments, cf. the
employment of mercenaries at 12.3.
142
Cf. Arist. fr. 534 [R.] τήν Λακεδαι ονίων πολιτείαν τινές Λυκούργ<ρ προσάπτουσι
πάσαν, referring perhaps most of all to the SC.
143
Cf. in general Hölkeskamp 1999, 53-55.
144
E.g. PI. Lg. 692 A with Arist. Pol. V 1313a 25-28.
145
Cf. Pi. P. 1.64f.
146
Cf. Hellanic. ap. Str. 8.5.5 = FGrH 4 F 116.
147
The ascription of the legislation as a whole to one single character is itself not an
unparalleled phenomenon, as neatly shown by Hölkeskamp 1999, 53-56.
148
He thus followed a general tendency of the sources to stress the legislative progress
achieved by the law-giver, cf. Hölkeskamp 1999, 48f.
36 Introduction
of their laws, and this view was later endorsed by both Aristotle and
Ephorus. 149
The SC gives a rather different picture. First, there was no room in X.'s
chronology for a pre-Lycurgan (ill-governed) Sparta, for according to X.
Lycurgus lived at the very beginning of the Spartan state, at the time of the
Heraclids (10.8). 150 Second, X. states (notably against the Spartan version) that
the Spartan laws were entirely Lycurgus' invention, not imitating anyone (1.2)
and not imitated by anyone so far (10.8).
The reason for these divergences appears to be X.'s intention to make
Lycurgus the creator of the Spartan kingship. Hdt. 1.65.5 (apparently reflecting
the Spartan version) attributes the military organization, the syssitia, the
ephors, and the gerousia to Lycurgus, as does X. in the SC. But in Herodotus
the kingship is well-established by the time of Lycurgus and the latter
(according to the Spartan version) is even a member of the royal house, whereas
in the SC it is Lycurgus who establishes the rights and position of the Spartan
kings (cf. also 15.1 and X. Ages. 1.4, according to which these rights did not
change from the beginning of the Spartan kingship). As a consequence X. had
to presuppose that Lycurgus lived at the earliest possible date according to the
Spartan king-lists, i.e. at the time of the Heraclids. Now, such an early dating
entailed that Sparta could not have been ill-governed before Lycurgus introduced
his legislation (because there was no Spartan state before the Heraclids), but it
would not necessarily mean that the Spartan institutions were unique. Rather, it
was the Spartan double kingship as created (according to X.) by Lycurgus that
could not be paralleled elsewhere in the Greek world, 151 most strikingly not in
Crete (or Athens).
One may ask why X. supported the connection of the Spartan kingship with
Lycurgus. Possibly X.'s view is simply adopted from some undefinable source
(Agesilaus?) without any ulterior motive. Alternatively one may regard it as a
reaction to other writings circulating at that time, trying to redefine the
position of the kingship (see pp. 23f.). At any rate, it is wholly in line with
the general tendency of the fifth and fourth centuries increasingly to condense
and concentrate the various stories upon one all-reforming legislator. 152
149
Cf. Ephor. FGrH 70 F 149 (= Str. 10.4.19); Arist. Pol. II 1271b 24-27; cf. Arist. Pol. II
1274a 25-30; [Pl.] Min. 318 C-D. Both divine connection and inspiration by foreign laws
were common topoi of the literary tradition on law-givers, cf. Hölkeskamp 1999, 45-48.
150
X.'s view of the pre-Lycurgan stage (slightly inconsistently, given that Lycurgus lived at the
beginning) seems to have been that Sparta did not differ from other Greek states, cf. e.g. 3.2
[young Spartans allowed to live according to their own laws], 5.2 [Spartans ate at home like
the other Greeks] etc.
151
For the doubtful cases of some Ionian cities according to Hdt. 1.147.1 and Skepsis in the
Troad cf. Carlier 1984, 432 n. 361 and 465f.
152
Cf. Hölkeskamp 1999, 54-58. Another solution for X.'s early dating of Lycurgus has been
suggested by Wade-Gery 1958, 60: X. knew of the Rhetra as referred to by Tyrtaeus (fr. 2
[IEG]). Since he considered Lycurgus as its author, X. had to date Lycurgus at least to the
eighth century, i.e. according to conventional chronology to the earliest Spartan kings,
because the dating of Tyrtaeus was fixed somewhere in the seventh century. Another
V i l i Reception 37
V i l i Reception 1 5 3
The SC is, as I have tried to show, a draft and was published as such from
X.'s literary estate after his death, i.e. around 350. The first firm evidence for
the use of the SC is found in the Aristotelian Politica and his Spartan
Constitution,154 Aristotle may have our work in mind, when he talks of
laudatory treatises on the Spartan constitution, praising Lycurgus' one-sided
focus on military efficiency (Arist. Pol. VII 1333b 12-21). The influence of the
SC becomes apparent especially at Arist. Pol. Π 1263a 35-39, where Aristotle
talks about the common use of slaves, horses, dogs, and provisions in Sparta.
Common use of these - in the slightly different order of slaves, dogs, horses,
and provisions - is mentioned by X. at 6.2-4 (see commentary on 6.1-5).
Likewise the influence of the SC becomes clear when X. and Aristotle observe
with a very similar wording that the task of the Spartan king is exclusively the
military command and the priestly office, 155 when according to Arisi. Pol. ΙΠ
1285a 3-8 and 13.11 the king is in charge merely of divine and military affairs,
when Arist. Pol. VII 1335b 5-10 answers 10.4 by underlining that the
seemingly best law-givers (i.e. among others Lycurgus) did not establish their
laws and education with respect to all virtues (cf. Aristotle's οΰτε προς π ά σ α ς
τάς άρετάς against X.'s πάντας πάσας άσκειν τάς άρετάς). The
Aristotelian work on the Spartan constitution is preserved only fragmentarily,
but Aristotle may have the SC in mind when he speaks of writers who ascribe
the whole Spartan constitution (i.e. including the kingship) to Lycurgus. 156
The account of the Spartan boys stealing to provide for their maintenance with
the intention of rendering them alert and hardened by insomnia and also the
punishment of those caught when stealing (2.6-8) are found equally in Aristotle
(fr. 611.13 [R.]). 157 The mention of the crimson garment at Arist. fr. 542 [R.]
may be a rational explanation of the similar account at 11.3. 158 At any rate,
the topic of the military uniform is not self-evident in a constitutional context.
Apparently Aristotle added a section to his constitution which corresponded to
the military part of the SC (chapters 11-13, 15). 159
Starting from Aristotle the SC presumably had a thriving afterlife in
Peripatetic circles, though there is no firm evidence for this assumption.
solution, followed by Hellenic. FGrH 4 F 116 was to ignore the figure of Lycurgus
completely in this context. For the problem cf. also van Wees 1999, 13.
153
Fundamental for the reception of X. in antiquity is Miinscher 1920. Commentaries and Latin
translations of the SC down to 1600 are listed by Marsh 1992, 158-164, translations into
other languages during the same period ibid. 83-85. Major editions are dealt with by Bazin
1885, 20-36. For a general overview on X.'s writings in modem times Morrison 1988 is
helpful (though without a section on the SC).
154
For the relation of both cf. Schütrumpf 1991,296-298; Hodkinson 2000, 36.
155
Cf. Arist. Pol. Ill 1285a 3-8 and 13.11 (cf. 13.11[7]).
156
Cf. Arist. fr. 534 [R.].
157
Cf. also the parallels in vocabulary, so αγρυπνεί ν 2.7 / Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.] or
ύ π α ν ί σ τ α ν τ α ι 15.6 / έπανίστανται (or ύ π α ν ί σ τ α ν τ α ι ? ) Arist. fr. 611.12 [R.].
158
Cf. 11.3[2],
159
Cf. Arist. fr. 540f. [R.].
38 Introduction
Dicaearchus, a pupil of Aristotle, is likely to have based his treatise on the

Spartan constitution on that of his teacher. The few preserved fragments160 do
not show any influence of the SC, 1 6 1 even though Dicaearchus was well
acquainted with the remainder of X.'s work.
The last work by Isocrates, the Panathenaicus, written between 342 and 339,
betrays the influence of the SC, 1 6 2 The central topic especially of the second
part (Isoc. 12.200-265) is the Spartan έ π ι τ η δ ε ύ α τ α , just as in the first part
of the SC (chapters 1-10, cf. p. 44). At 12.180 the Spartans are criticized
because they employ non-Spartans (i.e. presumably the Skiritai) in the front
line under the royal command, while they themselves crowd together in a
cowardly way, and they send these non-Spartans on dangerous missions, so that
they risk their life rather than the Spartans themselves. This may well be
malicious distortion of the statements in the SC that the Skiritai form the
vanguard, if the enemy is far away (13.6), and that the night guards outside the
camp are selected from the Skiritai (12.3). 163 Perhaps the passages of the
Panathenaicus on the Spartan lack of education 164 or on the habit of stealing
by Spartan boys 165 are a direct retort to the SC. However, some resemblances
like the stealing by the boys are possibly already a topos of Spartan literature
by the time of Isocrates.
Ephorus describes the Spartan next to the Cretan constitution in the fourth
book of his history. 166 In doing so, he irritatingly employed the same
terminology for both, as noticed already by Polybius. 167 Ephorus compiled
extensively from other sources, not least with regard to Spartan terminology. A
likely source for the latter are the Spartan constitutions by Critias, the detailed
nature of which I pointed out above (cf. p. 19f.), and the SC, especially as to
the Spartan upbringing and military affairs. At least as to the Spartan
upbringing no other possible source of Ephorus besides the SC is known. The
account of Ephorus may have affected the representation of the Spartan
constitution in Polybius' sixth book. 168 The SC may also have influenced the
Sicilian historian Timaeus, if the statement at de subi. 4.4 is correct that
160
Cf. Dicaearch. fr. 67-72 [W.].
161
Cf. Münscher 1920, 44f.
162
The similarities were first pointed out by Lehmann 1853 and Münscher 1920, 21-24, and,
based on Münscher, Breitenbach 1967, col. 1902. The relation of the Panathenaicus not to
the SC, but to Sparta, is elucidated by Gray 1994.
163
Cf. Lehmann 1853, 105f. One should point out that Isocrates referred to a state of things as
it had been 30 years before the composition of the Panathenaicus, for after the battle of
Leuktra in 371 there were hardly many Skiritai left in the Spartan army (cf. 12.3 [2] and p.
11 n. 69). It is thus quite conceivable that Isocrates bases himself on a written model. Still,
the passage could have been inspired also by X. Cyr. 4.2.1.
164
Cf. 2.1 / Isoc. 12.209; Lehmann 1853, 113.
165
Cf. 2.6 / Isoc. 12.211; Lehmann 1853, 114-117.
166
FGrH 70 F 149.
167
Cf. Plb. 6.46.10.
168
Cf. Münscher 1920, 27f.
Vili Reception 39
Timaeus appropriated clumsily the Xenophontic expression έν τοις όφθαλ οίς

παρθένων.169
The Cynics and the Stoa exercised a considerable influence on the diffusion
of the SC. 1 7 0 Zeno of Kition is said to have been turned into a philosopher on
his reading of the Memorabilia.111 According to a catalogue of Zenonic
writings, drawn up by Diogenes Laertius, Zeno composed a constitution that
supported the sharing of women, prohibited the coinage of money, and
approved of pederasty, as did X.'s SC.112 Plu. Lye. 31.2f. stresses similarities
between the Lycurgan laws and Zeno's treatise, but he leaves unexplained the
nature and degree of the resemblances. Furthermore, a connection is possible
between the treatise περί της 'Ελληνικής π α ι δ ε ί α ς , mentioned in Diogenes'
catalogue, and the first part of the SC (chapters 1-10). Zeno's successors did not
lose interest in Sparta and thus not in the SC. Persaeus, Zeno's favourite pupil,
dealt with the Spartan training extensively in his πολιτεία Λ α κ ω ν ι κ ή , 1 7 3
similarly Sphaerus, the adviser of Cleomenes ΠΙ, 174 in his Spartan
constitution. 175 The scanty fragments of the Spartan constitution by
Dioscurides show no connection with the SC.176 Other Spartan constitutions
of which excerpts can be found mainly in Athenaeus, are less easily classified
as to their nature, chronology, and relation to the SC.177 Presumably, they
belong to the second and first centuries BC, and describe, where they are at all
historical, Sparta as it represented itself after the reforms of Agis and
Cleomenes in the later third century. In these cases consultation of the SC is
likely only on a small scale, if at all. Didymus, the grammarian of the first
century, who uses a great number of these authors in his treatise on Spartan
customs (Ath. III 139C-141F), is more likely to have been acquainted directly
with the SC. For the sake of completeness one may refer to Polybius, who,
however, was much more interested in the constitutional aspect of Sparta and
thus is more likely to follow Aristotle and his successors, where he uses pre-
hellenistic sources at all. 178
169
Miinscher 1920, 62 n. 2 regards the passage as insufficient to prove Timaeus' knowledge of
the SC.
170
Cf. Miinscher 1920, 45-56.
171
Fr. If. [SVF].
172
Cf. Zeno fr. 247-250; 268f. [SVF] and 1.7-9, 7.5f„ 2.13.
173
FGrH 584 F If., cf. Kenneil 1995,101.
174
Plu. Agis-Cleom. 23.2-6; 32.4.
175
FGrH 585 F If. The theory by Kennell 1995, 101-107 that Plu. inst. lac. 1-17 (apophth. lac.
236F-240B) is an epitomized version of Sphaerus' constitution remains speculative as are all
similar attempts to ascribe the source(s?) of the epitomes to a specific author. The only
thematically possible comparison, the one of Plu. inst. lac. 2 = apophth. lac. 236F-237A and
Sphaerus FGrH 585 F 1, renders such an ascription rather unlikely; cf. also Hodkinson
2000,48-50.
176
Cf. FGrH 594 F 1-4. The ascription of the work to the philosopher of Tarsos is not certain,
cf. Jacoby's notes 1-6 on FGrH 594.
177
Cf. Nicocles, FGrH 587 F If.; Polycrates, FGrH 588 F 1; Molpis, FGrH 590 F If.;
Aristocrates, FGrH 591 F 1 -4; Proxenus FGrH 703 F 5.
178
Cf. Hodkinson 2000, 50-52.
40 Introduction
Nicolaus of Damascus, a follower and friend of Augustus, excerpted the S C

through an intermediate source, both the first part on the Spartan training
(chapters 1-10) and the second on military affairs (chapters 11-13, 15). 1 7 9
Again in the Augustan period Pompeius Trogus wrote his Historiae
Philippicae, which were later epitomized by Justin. The section of the epitome
on Sparta is short (3.2f.), but betrays at least some influence of Xenophontic
themes (most probably through hellenistic mediation) like the prohibition of
gold and silver, the establishment of common messes, and the youths wearing
only one garment throughout the year. 180 The SC was known to Demetrius of
Magnesia under the name of X., although he doubted its genuineness. 181 A
passage of a certain Lucius, who recorded dialogues of the Stoic C. Musonius
Rufus in a manner close to X.'s way of recording Socratic dialogues, is
reminiscent of 2.3-5. 1 8 2 Likewise Philo Judaeus, who lived in Alexandria and
died in the middle of the first century AD, at de congressu eruditionis gratia 82
(III p. 88 [W.]) may be influenced by one passage of the SC (cf. 3.1 [2]): two
linguistic peculiarities (έκ βαίνω with genitive / employment of the rare and
mainly late ειρακιοΰσθαχ) make coincidence unlikely here.
Presumably in the first century A D the Plutarchan apophthegmata laconica
(mor. 208 A - 242 D), which according to the majority of scholars predate his
Lives of famous Spartans, draw - heavily in part, but not necessarily d i r e c t i -
on the S C . 1 8 3 Furthermore, Plutarch refers frequently to the SC in his
Lycurgus.184 Besides, there are a few scattered references to the SC. 1 8 5
179
FGrH 90 F 103 ζ with Jacoby's commentary.
180
Cf. Hodkinson 2000, 52f.
181
Cf. D.L. 2.57 and above pp. 6f.
182
Cf. FDS 1066 A line 46-64; on Lucius' Xenophontic manner cf. Lutz 1947, 12, especially η.
33 [verbal parallels between the Memorabilia and Lucius], and 26, especially n. 108
[influence of Atticist movement on Lucius],
183
For the apophthegmata laconica in general and their relation to similar material used in
Plutarch's vitae cf. Hodkinson 2000,38-43. For the so-called instituía laconica (Plu. mor. 236
F - 240 Β), that seem to have been particularly close to the SC. cf. Hodkinson 2000, 48-50,
esp. 49f.: one may here compare Plu. inst. lac. 237 Β (5) and 2.4; 237 Β (7) and 2.12-14; 237
D (11) and 6.2 al. Outside the instituto one may compare Plu. apopth. lac. 228 D (24) and
12.5; 228 E (29) and 11.3, al.
184
For a fundamental discussion of Plutarch's sources in the Lycurgus cf. Hodkinson 2000, 53-
60.1 mention some striking similarities between the Lycurgus and the SC, further examples
are found in the commentary: at Plu. Lyc. 17.6f. the increase of body height is mentioned as
one advantage of the scanty food of the boys apart from the incentive to secure one's supply
by ingenuity. This pseudo-scientific interpretation appears already at 2.5. At Plu. Lyc. 26.2
the competition for the election to the gerousia is called 'the greatest and most disputed
contest'. This expression is repeated almost literally in the same context at 10.3. The
statement at Plu. Lyc. 1.5 according to which Lycurgus was bom at the time of the Heraclids
can only refer to 10.8, the statement at Plu. Lyc. 12.14 (and similarly apophth. lac. 237A)
that in Sparta one used to return home after the syssition without the light of torches, only to
5.7. Also the second part of the SC is known to Plutarch: the description of the hairstyle of
the young men in battle at Plu. Lyc. 22.2 derives from the similar description at 11.3 and the
phrase καί τών πολε ίων όρώντων ό βασιλεύς α α την τε χί αιραν έσφαγιάζετο
at Plu. Lyc. 22.4 as well as the content of the whole passage coincide almost completely with
Vili Reception 41
To the second century AD X. constitutes the representative of the 'simple

style' (λόγος αφελής) par excellence.186 By 'simple style' one conventionally
understood the style of the major Xenophontic works. Conversely, the SC with
its stylistic shortcomings naturally could not serve as a stylistic model. This
may be the main reason why despite some resemblances187 a direct connection
of Dio Chrysostom with X. can nowhere be established. Only one possible
reference can be traced in Arrian though the latter was particularly attached to
X., as becomes apparent by his nickname 'second X.' according to the Suda.iss
Possibly Favorinus used the SC in his treatise περί παίδων τροφής.189 The
author of the treatise de subi., who possibly belongs to the third century (or
earlier),190 referred to a passage of the SC with the full title and the name of
the author. 191 Diogenes Laertius knew the SC at least by name, though no
indications of the use of the work can be found in his Xenophontic Life.192
The emperor Julian refers to the oath at 15.7 in his panegyric in honour of
Constantius (or. 1.14 D). Of Roman authors only Jerome appears to know the
SC: according to Hier. adv. Iovianum 2.13 X. mentions the frugality of
Spartan food; the passage may refer to 2.4, but more probably to a (hellenistic)
source based on it.
X. entered the léxica of the Atticists at an early stage: Harpocration refers
several times to the SC in his λέξεις των δέκα ρητόρων. 193 Pollux refers to
the SC occasionally, although he possibly draws on intermediate sources, not
upon X. directly.194 Finally, there is Stobaeus, who compiled an extensive
'Ανθολόγων in the fifth century and excerpted the first part of the SC (chapters
1-10) with some alterations and omissions. 195
In the later imperial period interest in the SC decreased together with the
interest in Sparta. During the Byzantine period it was known almost
exclusively via intermediate sources. The lexicon by Photius and the
Etymologicum Magnum mention the word άγη α, but since they connect the
word with the Macedonian phalanx, they certainly draw on Arrian or a source
based on the latter, not the SC. Photius knows the adjective άξιάγαστος,
13.8, especially the phrase δταν γαρ όρώντων ηδη τών πολε ίων χί αιρα
σφαγιάζηται.
185
Cf. 8.2 and Plu. prec. gerendae reipublicae 817 A; Plu. Pel. 23.3f. may be combined from
13.5 and 11.7.
186
Cf. Rutherford 1998, 64-79.
187
These are collected by Wegehaupt 1896, 2-26.
188
Cf. Sud. s.v. Άρριανός (α 3868). The word in question is δ γ η α for a part of the army,
cf. Arr. An. 1.1.11,1.8.3 al. and SC 11.9,13.6, besides Renz 1879, 20.
189
Cf. Münscher 1920, 131.
190
Cf. Heath 1999.
191
Cf. de subi. 4.4 and έν τοις όφθαλ οίς π α ρ θ έ ν ω ν 3.5 with Münscher 1920, 109,
who - like Persson 1915, 62f. and others - assumes that the writer of de subi. 4.4 reflected
Caecilius here, the Augustan rhetor and literary critic. Such an assumption is not verifiable
(cf. Russell 1964, 58f.).
192
Cf. D.L. 2.57.
193
Cf. Persson 1915, 89-91.
194
Cf. Persson 1915, 91-93.
195
Cf. Stob. IV 2.23 with p. 59.
42 Introduction
which is first - but not exclusively - attested in the SC; only in case of
άνυποδησία does he explicitly refer to X.'s SC. The word όρα, as found in
the Etymologicum Magnum and in Photius, may well be taken from X., but
more likely from the Historia Graeca than from the SC. 1 9 6 According to an
anonymous commentator on the Aristotelian Nicomachean Ethics X. refers to
the plain dress of the Spartans in an unspecified passage.197 Presumably the
anonymous author has in mind 2.4. The Suda knows the SC from older lexical
literature. 198 Michael Apostolius, who compiled a collection of proverbs in the
second half of the fifteenth century, mentions explicitly the SC and quotes
10.5. 199 Nevertheless, he presumably did not consult the SC directly. 200
In the Renaissance period a number of Latin translations of the SC - m o s t
importantly the one by Franciscus Philelphus from 1432 - made the work
accessible to a wider public in western Europe.201 In particular, the pedagogic
aspect, which was emphasized already in Philelphus' preface of his translation,
rendered the work attractive.202 However, in general the influence of the SC on
the humanists was slight. Erasmus possessed the Xenophon edition by Aldus
from 1525, which contained the SC, 203 but in the preface to his edition of the
Plutarchan apophthegmata he contrasts the sharpness of the characters of the
apophthegmata with X.'s 'blurring style', by which he may allude not least to
the SC. Melanchthon prefaced the reprint of the Iuntina, issued in Hall
(Würtemberg, Germany) in 1540, without mentioning the SC specifically.
Cardano knew of X.'s admiration of Sparta and once appears to adopt a phrase
of the SC when remarking on the Spartans 204 adeo dura domi forisque vitae
conditio ut mortem vitae potiorem ducerent205 One may compare 9.6 ε γ ώ
έν δή τοιαύτης τοις κακοΐς ατι ίας έπικει ένης οΰδεν θαυ άζω το
προαιρείσθαι έκεΐ θάνατον άντί του οΰτως άτι ου τε και έπονειδίστου
βίου. The edition by Stephanus in 1561 (second edition 1581) formed a major
step in Xenophontic studies. In his preface Stephanus surveyed the
contemporary state of Xenophontic studies, dealing with questions of
biography, style, and authenticity. In addition, in his annotationes he compiled
196
Cf. 2.3, 10.2, 11.9, 13.6 with Etym. Mag. s.w. ά γ η α (10.36); όρα (599.33); Phot. lex.
s . w . δ γ η α (α 165); άνυποδησία (α 2155); άξιάγαστος (α 2179) [Theodoridis]; όρα
(ρ. 427) [Naber].
197
Anonym, ad Arist. EN 4M [1127b 15] CAG 20.2001.13.
198
Cf. Münscher 1920, 221.
199
Cf. Paroemiographi Graeci, vol. II, ed. E. Leutsch (Göttingen 1851), XIII 10 k (p. 573).
200
Cf. Marsh 1992, 80.
201
Cf. Marsh 1992, 158-161 for a detailed enumeration and description of the translations, also
ibid. 80f. and Marsh 1991.
202
Cf. Marsh 1992, 159.
203
At least he ordered the Aldina, cf. the order list in Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterdami,
vol. VII, edd. P. S. Allen et al. (Oxford 1928), 547. Possibly, however, Erasmus refers to the
Aldina from 1503, which did not contain the SC.
204
Cf. Hieronymus Cardanus. Opera omnia, vol. I (Stuttgart / Bad Canstatt 1966), 157 col. I
(first Lyon 1663).
205
Hieronymus Cardanus. Opera omnia, vol. II (Stuttgart / Bad Canstatt 1966), 359 col. II (first
Lyon 1663).
Vili Reception 43
the first substantial critical apparatus, giving variant readings of manuscripts

and (mainly) of other contemporary scholars.
In the sixteenth century the first commentaries on the SC were published. In
the preface of his commentary, which first appeared in 1543, Joachim
Camerarius touched on the question of authenticity and pointed out ego neque
in argumento neque elocutione quicquam reperio, non dico indignum hoc
auctore, sed alienum rationibus ac voluntati illius. Apart from that, a
commentary was written by Franciscus Portus. 206 Finally, translations of the
SC in other European languages appeared in the sixteenth century: in 1547 in
Italian by Lodovico Domenichi 207, in 1552 in Spanish by Diego Gracián,208
in 1579 in French by Claude Pinard.209 It is not before 1758 that the first
German translation appeared,210 and not before 1831 that the first English
translation came out. 211
The period until the second half of the eighteenth century shows only a
mediocre interest in the SC. Niels Krag (Nicolaus Cragius) was well acquainted
with it. He regarded the work as authentic.212 In 1661 Jan de Meurs (Johannes
Meursius) ascribed the SC reluctantly to X., remarking without further
elaboration extat id opus, inter caetera, quae supersunt: quanquam, eius illud
esse, a Demetrio Magnesio negatum fuerit.llì Johann Philipp Pfeiffer,
however, quotes the SC as a source on Sparta only occasionally in his
voluminous work published in 1689; his main source is Plutarch. 214 In 1691
Edward Wells in his Oxford edition divides the SC into chapters and paragraphs,
206 Francisci Porti Cretensis commentarti, in varia Xenophontis opuscula ... Excudebat Joannes
le Preux. MD.LXXXVI.
207
L'opere morali di Xenophonte tradotte per M. Lodovico Domenichi, in Vinegia appresso
Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari. MDXLV1I, 5-18 (Marsh 1992, 83 gives wrongly 1558 as the
publication year).
20
® Las obras de Xenophon trasladadas de Griego en Castellano por el secretario Diego
Gradan, divididas en tres partes, dirigidas ais serenissimo principe don Philippe nuestro
señor (Salamanca 1552), 205-211
209
De la republique des Lacedemoniens et des Atheniens, traduction de grecque en française,
(Paris [F. Morel] 1579; non vidi, source: Chavy 1988, 1468).
210
Republik der Lakedämonier (Frankfurt / Main 1758 = Neue Sammlung der merkwürdigsten
Reisen, vol. 11).
211
The Whole Works of Xenophon, Translated by Ashley Cooper, Spelman, Smith, Fielding, and
others. Complete in one volume (London 1831), 705-714.
212
Cf. Nie. Cragii Ripensis de república Lacedaemoniorum libri IV (Leiden 16702); I have not
seen the first edition from 1593). He mentions the SC on different occasions, cf. for
example pp. 44 [morai], 150-153 [paidonomoi], 158 [hippagretai, hippeis], 213 [xenelasiai]
al.
213
Joannis Meursi Miscellanea Lakonica, sive variarum antiquitatum Lakonicarum libri IV,
nunc primum editi cura Samuelis Puffendoifii (Amsterdam 1661), 335. He is familiar with
the SC, presumably on the basis of Krag's work, cf. pp. 51 [syskenia], 118 [hippagretai,
hippeis] al.
214
J. P. Pfeiffer, Libri TV antiquitatum graecarum gentilium, sacrarum, politicarum, militarium
et oeconomicarum (Königsberg / Leipzig 1689). The SC is mentioned (as a work by X.) in
connection with the Spartan education on p. 372, but in connection with the mock battles of
Spartan boys (p. 388f.), the frugal Spartan nutrition (p. 691), and the tactical movements of
the army (pp. 504-513) the SC is completely overlooked.
44 Introduction
adopted by all later editors. The eighteenth century also takes notice of the S C
only in passing: it is characteristic that the name of the SC appears in the entry
of Zedler's dictionary without any further specification. 215
In general, from antiquity the reception of the SC depended largely on the

conception of the (idealized) Spartan way of life, which was changing over the
centuries. In philosophical, pedagogic and stylistic terms the treatise was
outshone by other Xenophontic writings and by Plutarch, especially by his
Lycurgus. Though the SC was read throughout antiquity, it was normally
considered as an appendix to the Historia Graeca in historical, and to the
Memorabilia in philosophical terms (as a representation of the ideal-
philosophical way of life). Only modern scholarship, starting from the
nineteenth century with Sturz's index (1801-1804) and notably with Haase's
magisterial commentary in 1833, began to appreciate the treatise in its own
right.
I X Structure
The SC describes the differences which, according to X., existed between

Sparta and the other Greeks (especially of course, though not mentioned
explicitly, the Athenians). X. frequently refers to these differences in the SC, in
particular at the beginning of sense units as a kind of prefatory note, so at
2.1,12, 3.1, 5.2,5, 6.1, 7.1, 8.2, 10.4, 11.1, 13.5, 15.1. Explicitly or
implicitly, almost every chapter of the SC is characterized by this contrast. As
to the structure of larger sections, X. normally enumerates different aspects
without preannouncement. An exception can be found at 6.1, where he offers a
preview of chapter 6 (see commentary 6.1-5). The macrostructure of the SC is
clearer than the microstructure. As a whole the SC deals with the Spartan
νό οι. The word and its derivatives are scattered over the SC, which begins and
ends with it (1.2, 15.8). Within this framework chapters 1-10 form a unit. 2 1 6
At 11.1 X. points out explicitly the beginning of something new: he has
previously mentioned institutions and customs useful both in peace and in war,
now he will deal with military matters only. Also in linguistic terms chapters
1-10 form a unit: the central theme are the Spartan έ π ι τ η δ ε ύ α τ α which X.
refers to at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of this section (1.1, 5.1,
10.8). At the beginning and the end the 'amazement' of the author is expressed
(cf. 10.8[3]). Chapters 1-10 are clearly structured - a f t e r a prologue at l . l f . -
with a first part devoted to procreation (1.3-10), a second part to Spartan
education (chapters 2-4), and a third dealing with different aspects of the adult
way of life (chapters 5-10). Again X. preannounces the structure by 'signal'
words, so at the beginning of the first part τεκνοποιία (1.3), of the second part
215
Cf. Großes vollständiges Universallexikon aller Wissenschaften und Künste, vol. LX, edited
by J. H. Zedier (Leipzig / Halle 1749), coll. 666-674.
216
This has already been noticed by Erler 1874, 4-7.
IX Structure 45
π α ι δ ε ί α (2.1), and of the third part δίαιτα (5.1). Chapters 11-15 are not
structured quite so clearly: possibly chapter 14 originally concluded chapters 1-
10 and in that case chapter 15 may have formed a postscript (cf. pp. 29-31).
Chapters 11-13 have military affairs as their common topic, chapters 13 and 15
the king. Chapters 11-12 form an inseparable unit: chapter 11 describes the
equipment and appearance of the hoplites, the army structure and organization
on the march, chapter 12 the army in the camp.
SECTION THEMES STRUCTURE

I .If. prologue PROLOGUE
1.3-6 on the physical state of future parents, especially the PROCREATION
women (τεκνοποιία)
I.7-10 regulations of extramarital procreation, conclusions of
chapter 1
2.1 education of boys outside Sparta EDUCATION
2.2 educators in Sparta: the paidonomos and the mastigophoroi (παιδεία)
2.3f. dress of the Spartan boys and young men
2.5-8 food of the Spartan boys and young men, theft of victuals
2.9 seizure of cheese from the altar of Orthia
2.10f. educators in Sparta: the citizens and ilarchs
2.12-14 pederasty elsewhereand in Sparta, conclusions of chapter 2
3.1-5 characterization of the education of the older boys
(meirakia/paidiskoi)
4.If. importance of 'competition' for the education of the young
men (hebontes)
4.3f. election of the hippagretai and the 'Three Hundred'
4.5f. competition of the young men (hebontes), settlement by the
adults
4.7 training of the adults by hunting
5.1-4 common meals in the syssitia WAY OF LIFE
5.5f. education of the boys at the syssitia (δίαιτα)
5.7 return from the syssitia at night
5.8f. training and food
6. If. supervision of the boys by the fathers collectively
6.3-5 common use of private property
7.1-4 prohibition of striving after possession of money
7.5f. Spartan iron currency
8.If. concord and obedience of the powerful in Sparta
8.3f. establishment and penal authority of the ephors
8.5 sanction of the Lycurgan laws by the Delphic oracle
9.1-3 the heroic death in Sparta
9.4-6 punishment of cowards elsewhere and in Sparta
10.1-3 the council of Elders
10.4-7 'virtue'in Sparta
10.8 age and uniqueness of the Lycurgan laws
II .If. conscription and departure on campaign THE ARMY ON
II.3 equipment and hairstyle of the soldier THE MARCH
11.4 units of the Spartan army and march formation
11.5-7 formation of the enomoty
11.8-10 tactical movements of the phalanx
46 Introduction
12.1-4 setting up and guarding the camp THE ARMY IN

12.5-7 camp life THE CAMP
13.1-5 religious functions of the king in the field THE KING IN

13.6-9 precautions in battle THE FIELD
13.10f. non-religious tasks of the king in the field
14.1-7 decline of Spartan institutions CRITICISM
15.1-8 privileges of the living king THE KING AT

15.9 royal burial HOME
X Language
Gautier 1911 is the fullest investigation of the Xenophontic style and

language. 217 As to the SC, Naumann 1876, 30-52 and Richards 1897 had
already convincingly shown that by and large the SC coincides with other
Xenophontic writings in language and style. But Gautier's work is concerned
with the whole Xenophontic oeuvre and Naumann and Richards are partly
incomplete, partly outdated. Besides, recently Lana claimed the spuriousness of
the work by means of computer analysis. 218 Hence, in what follows, I shall try
to give an updated survey of the linguistic and stylistic particularities of the S C
and of its coincidences with and differences from other Xenophontic works.
a.) Spartan terminology
The author of the SC shows himself well acquainted with Spartan

terminology. Occasionally the line cannot safely be drawn between Spartan and
other terminology.
1. Spartan terms, found outside the SC in X. and in works earlier or

contemporary with the SC\ έφορος (4.3, 4.6, 8.3f„ 11.2, 13.5, 13.7; cf. HG
2.2.13; Hdt. 1.65.5 al.); κ α λ ο κ α γ α θ ί α (10.1); ένω οτία (11.4, 11.8, 13.9;
cf. Hdt. 1.65.5; Th. 5.66.3; X. HG 6.4.12 al.); ένω οτάρχης (11.6, 11.8,
13.9 [bis]; cf. Th. 5.66.3 al.); πολέ αρχος (11.4, 12.6, 13.1, 13.4, 13.6, 13.9
cf. Hdt. 7.173.2; Th. 5.66.3; X. HG 4.4.7 al.); πεντηκοστήρ [= πεντηκοντήρ]
(11.4, 13.4; cf. Th. 5.66.3; X. HG 3.5.22 al.); φ ά λ α γ ξ (11.6, 11.9, 12.3, cf.
II. 11.90, Tyrt. 12.21 [IEG] with Gautier 1911, 40f.).
2. Spartan terms, found outside the SC in X., but in no work earlier or
contemporary with the SC: τα καλά ['civic rights / duties'] (3.3, 4.4, cf. HG
5.3.9, 5.4.32f. with Gautier 1911, 37), φιλίτιον (3.5, 5.6, cf. HG 5.4.28);
ίππαγρέτης (4.3, cf. HG 3.3.9; at Th. 4.38.1 it is presumably a personal
name); ό οιοι (cf. 10.7[6]); φρουρά ['body of men destined for service'](13.1,
217
On stylistic matters cf. also Schacht 1890; Bigalke 1933.
218
Cf. Lana 1992.
X Language 47
11, cf. HG 3.2.23 al.); δα οσία [13.7, cf. HG 4.5.8, 4.7.4, 6.4.14]; όρα
(11.4, cf. HG 2.4.31 al.).
3. Spartan terms, not found outside the SC in X., but in works earlier or
contemporary with the SC: ά'ρην (2.5,11, cf. Hdt. 9.85.1f.); έφορεία (8.3,
Lysias ap. Poll. 2.55 [Thalheim p. 370]); ξενηλασία (14.4, cf. Th. 1.144.2);
Πύθιοι (15.5, cf. Hdt. 6.57.2,4).
4. Spartan terms, found neither outside the SC in X. nor in works earlier or
contemporary with the SC: παιδονό ος (2.2,10, 4.6); ΐλη (2.11); συσκήνια
(5.2); άντισφαιρίζω (9.5); γερόντια (10.1,3); κοινοβουλεΐν (13.1);
έλλανοδίκης (13.11); αρ όζω ['to act as harmost'] (14.2).
The author of the SC displays a sound knowledge of Spartan terminology far

beyond those terms which are also found in earlier or contemporary writers
(notably Herodotus and Thucydides, cf. 1. and 3.) and may thus be regarded as
common knowledge to some degree (i.e. do not indicate necessarily a first-hand
experience of Sparta). Those Spartan terms, which the SC shares exclusively
with other Xenophontic writings (2.), especially the terminology of 'internal'
institutions (ίππαγρέτης, φιλίτιον, δα οσία), strongly suggest a
Xenophontic authorship of the SC. Particularly indicative of the deep
acquaintance of the author of the SC with Sparta are those terms which are first
attested in the SC and without another Xenophontic parallel (4.). It should be
pointed out that most of these terms reflect 'internal' affairs in Sparta, that are
barely touched upon elsewhere in Χ. (παιδονό ος, ΐλη, συσκήνια,
άντισφαιρίζω, γερόντια, κοινοβουλεΐν).
b.) Xenophontic diction
The remainder of the vocabulary of the SC may be categorized as follows:
1. Words found outside the SC in X., but in no work contemporary with or

earlier than the SC: sometimes a word is first attested in the SC and the rest of
X., but other formations from the same root are found frequently in
contemporary or earlier literature. In this case the non-appearance of the word in
question in contemporary or earlier literature is likely to be due to chance, so in
the case of σω ασκείν (1.4, X. Mem. 3.9.11 al., but σω ασκία at PI. Lg.
646D, Phlb. 30B al.) and ηχανικός (2.8, Mem. 3.1.6, 4.3.1, but ηχανή at
Hes. Th. 146, Hdt. 2.125.2-4 al.).
Frequently, X. is the first to employ a compound in the SC and elsewhere,
the components of which are attested earlier, so όλιγάνθρωπος (1.1, Oec.
4.8,10), τεκνοποιία and derivatives (1.3f., 1.7, 1.9f„ Mem. 1.4.7, 2.2.5, but
τεκνοποιός already at Hdt. 1.59.2, 5.40.2), έριουργείν (1.3, HG 5.4.7, but cf.
Dialex. 2.17 (= dissoi logoi, D/K II p. 408) <ερια> έργάζεσθαι, also X.
Oec. 7.22 ή της έσθήτος έκ των έρίων έργασία), ραδιουργεω and
derivatives (2.2, 4.4, 5.2, 14.4, Oec. 20.17 al., cf. Gautier 1911, 71f.),
48 Introduction
προσεθίζεσθαι (2.4, Αρ. 25, Cyr. 8.1.18 al.), ύπερπληρούσθαι (5.3, Cyr.
8.2.22), διασκηνείν (5.3, HG 4.8.18, Cyr. 3.1.38), εταστρατοπεδεύεσθαι
(12.5, Cyr. 3.3.23, Ages. 1.21, 2.18 [always middle]), λαφυροπώλης and
derivatives (13.11, cf. HG 4.1.26, An. 7.7.56, Ages. 1.18).
Often X. introduces a new formation from a well-known stem, so
intransitive ήρε ίζειν (1.3, transitive at Eq. 7.18, cf. An. 7.1.22,24) for
ήρε έω (Hp. Fract. 6 [ΙΠ 436], Smp. 9.3, Eq. 7.8 al.), κ λ ω π ε ύ ω (2.7, An.
6.1.1, cf. also κλώψ at An. 4.6.17, Cyr. 2.4.24) for κλέπτω (//. 5.268, Χ.
HG 3.1.27 al.), αΐδή ων (2.10, 2.14, 3.5, Smp. 4.58, 8.16 al.) for αΐδοιος
(never in Χ., but e.g. Od. 17.578), διασαφηνίζω (4.3, Mem. 3.1.11, Αρ. 1)
for διασαφέω (never in X., but e.g. E. Ph. 398, Pl. Prt. 348B al.),
σκευοφορικός (13.4, Cyr. 6.1.54) for σκευοφόρος (Hdt. 1.80, X. HG 4.1.24
al.), the adjective εθελούσιος (13.7, HG 4.8.10, Cyr. 4.2.11, Hier. 11.12 al.)
for the participle (έ)θέλων (Od. 3. 272, X. Cyr. 4.1.21 al.).
Certain expressions in the SC are restricted to other works of X. and later
authors, so είς τά έσχατα (1.2, HG 5.4.33), ή δυνατόν + superi. (1.3, HG
6.3.6 al., cf. commentary 1.3[5]) and local έκ πλείστου (12.2, Eq.Mag. 7.6).
2. Phrases found outside the SC in X. : These are several longer expressions

which the SC shares with other Xenophontic works.
(i) 2.2 έξ ωνπερ a i έγισται άρχαί καθίστανται (the phrase is repeated

word for word at 4.7), cf. Cyr. 1.2.13 και αί άρχαί δε πάσαι έκ τούτων
καθίστανται πλήν οί των παίδων διδάσκαλοι.
(ii) 5.4 τάς [ούκ] αναγκαίας πόσεις, αϊ σφάλλουσι εν σώ ατα,
σφάλλουσι δε γνώ ας, cf. Cyr. 1.3.10 και ταΐ£ γνώ αις και τοις σώ ασι
σφαλλο ένους, Cyr. 8.8.10 τό ή ΰπερπίνειν ήττον αν τά σώ ατα κ α ι
γνώ ας σφάλλειν.
(iii) 5.6 ώστ' έκεΐ ήκιστα εν ΰβριν, ήκιστα δε παροινίαν, ήκιστα δέ
αίσχρουργίαν καί αίσχρολογίαν έγγίγνεσθαι, cf. Cyr. 5.2.18 ώς πολύ
εν ύβρεως άπήν, πολύ δέ τού αΐσχρόν τι ποιεΐν, πολύ δέ τού
χαλεπαίνεσθαι προς αλλήλους.
(iv) 5.7 τη οΐκαδε άφόδψ, cf. Eq. 3.4 προς τάς οΐκαδε άφόδους.
(ν) 5.7 καί τη δρφνη δσα ή έρςι χρηστέον, cf. Ages. 6.6 καί γαρ νυκτί
έν δσαπερ ή έρςε έχρήτο (similarly HG 6.1.15, Cyr. 1.5.12).
3. Words not found outside the SC in X. : the number of words and phrases
not found elsewhere in X. is astonishing (for a more detailed analysis of the
usage of each word cf. the commentary).
(i) Medical terms: in chapters 1-5 a number of medical terms are found that
are unattested elsewhere in X., so ύδαρής (1.3); δ ι ά γ ω (transitive) (1.3);
έδραίος (1.3); βλαστάνω (referring to procreation) (1.5); διάκορος (1.5);
εύγονία (1.6); άνυποδησία (2.3); κρατύνειν (2.3); άσιτέω (2.5); ευχερής
(2.5); ραδινός (2.5); δ ι α π λ α τ ύ νω (2.5); παρθένος (in the sense of 'pupil')
X Language 49
(3.5); σίτησις (5.7). Their absence outside the SC in X. is hardly surprising,

for X. does not touch elsewhere on comparable medical topics.
(ii) Military terms: much more surprising than the absence of many medical
terms outside the SC is the absence of a number of military terms. 219 But
where X. does not use a term outside the SC, he normally employs a cognate
word elsewhere, so παρεγγύησις (11.4) and παρεγγυάω (the normal term in
X.'s day is π α ρ ά γ γ ε λ σ ι ς , cf. 11.4[6]); όπλο άχος (11.8) and όπλο αχία;
γωνία (12.1), τετράγωνος (12.1) and εύγώνιος; αυτοσχεδιαστής (13.5)
and αΰτοσχεδιάζειν; προερευνάσθαι (13.6) and προδιερευνάσθαι; εις
άχην συνιέναι (13.9) and εις άχην ΐέναι. In these cases one may consider
the word of the SC an analogous form and thus essentially not un-
Xenophontic. A different and unique formation of an otherwise well attested
word is στρατίαρχος (13.4) for στράταρχος. Most remarkable are the two
military terms, of which no cognate formation is found in Χ., προκηρυχτείν
(11.2) and αραιός (11.6).
(iii) General terms: occasionally chance may be involved in the absence of
some general terms outside the SC in X., so perhaps in the case of επίκλησις
(9.4), ρυπαίνειν (11.3), εθη ερινός (12.2).
Some words, not attested outside the SC, may still have a terminological
colour, so αστιγοφόρος (2.2), ναυκληρείν (7.1), χρη ατισ ός (7.2),
έκπράττειν (8.4), πυθόχρηστος (8.5). Their unique appearance in the SC may
thus be explained by the special context. The unique employment of
έ πεδορκεΐν and άστυφέλικτος may be due to an underlying source (see
commentary 15.7[2] and pp. 24-27).
Occasionally a simple form is found in the SC where X. elsewhere uses a
compound in a closely related sense, so πυκτεύειν (4.6) and διαπυκτεύειν,
or άντιπαραβάλλειν (5.3) and π α ρ α β ά λ λ ε ι ν . A compound, occurring only
in the SC, may be found split into its components elsewhere in X., cf.
άξιάγαστος (10.2) and άξιον ¿ίγασθαι, άξιοσπούδαστος (10.3) and σπουδής
άξιος.
In other cases X. employs at least a cognate word outside the SC. In this
case the unique appearance in the SC may be explained by analogy, so
αισχρολογία (5.6) and αισχρά λ έ γ ε ι ν , αχώριστος (9.5) and χωρίζω,
άνανδρία and άνανδρος, κνεφαίος (13.3) and κνέφας, άπρόσκεπτος (13.7)
and προσκοπέω, έπίψογος (14.7) and ψέγω.
Occasionally the avoidance of another, ordinary Xenophontic word may be
explained by emphasis on a special aspect, though it frequently remains
indiscernible exactly which aspect is stressed, cf. the use of τορός (2.11) instead
of the normal ισχυρός or a similar word, πλείστον ρέπειν επί το αγαθόν τή
πόλει (4.1) for πλείστα αγαθά ποιείν/παρασκευάζειν τη πόλει or a
similar expression, παράλογος (5.3) for περιττός or a similar word,
πολύπλοκος (11.5) for δύσκολος or a similar word. X. may vary a frequent
word or phrase by a synonymous uncommon one, so f| άνυστόν in the phrase
219
Already Portus 1586, 181 pointed to the detailed and obscure military terminology of the SC.
50 Introduction
σίτψ άνυστόν ετριωτάτφ τρέφουσι και δψφ fi δυνατόν ικροτάτψ

(1.3), άναθορειν in the phrase πηδήσαι δέ και άναθορείν (2.3).
Most remarkable are those cases where the SC offers unique variations of
common Xenophontic words or expressions without any apparent reason, so
π ρ ά γ α τ α λ α β ά ν ε ι (2.9) for π ρ ά γ α τ α εχει, δταν ... τ η ν ι κ α ΰ τ α (3.1)
for δταν ... τότε, ειρακιοΰσθαι (3.1) for ειράκιον γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι , δρφνη (5.7)
for νύξ, άποκαθιστάνα ι (6.3) for άποδιδόναι, τ ά νό ι α έ κ τ ε λ ε ί ν (10.7)
for τ ά νό ι α έπιτελεΐν.
4. Particles: Very important for the question of how far the SC reflects
Xenophontic wording is the use of particles, for the latter is largely independent
of any thematic considerations, which can be subject to pure accident.
(i) γ ε ην is particularly common in X. and most notably in his minor

works (cf. Denniston 1954, 347). In the SC (23 pages in the Oxford edition)
this particle combination appears 26 (sic!) times, while it is lacking in
Thucydides and is attested only 72 times in the whole of Plato and 23 times in
the whole of Aristotle.
(ii) According to Denniston 1954, 201 the combination και ... δέ is
particularly frequent in X. Also in the SC the combination is prominent, e.g.
twice at 15.6f. alone, cf. also 2.3, 6.3, 15.3.
(iii) X. employs τοιγαροΰν throughout, never τοιγάρτοι. This predilection
is confirmed by the SC, cf. 6.5, 14.6. By contrast, Thucydides avoids
τοιγαροΰν throughout and only once uses τοιγάρτοι (6.38.3), Plato has both,
Aristotle only τοιγαροΰν, cf. Denniston 1954, 566-568.
(iv) Denniston 1954, 573 noted: "τοίνυν at the opening of an account or
narration announced in advance by the speaker or writer ('Well') is particularly
common in the minor works of Xenophon." In the SC τοίνυν appears six
times, always in this function, cf. 2.1,12, 4.3, 5.2, 9.3, 11.2. 220
For the evaluation of the authenticity of the treatise the general terms, rather
than the technical terms, are important, for the appearance of the former is
possible in any context, while the employment of the latter is tied to the
context rather than the author. If one considers the employment of general
terms in the SC, the picture is hardly clear-cut. So the author of the SC shares
some very characteristic Xenophontic words (e.g. αΐδή ων, διασαφηνίζω ,
κλωπεύω) where earlier and contemporary authors use another formation from
the same stem (αίδοΐος, δ ι α σ α φ έ ω , κ λ έ π τ ω ) . On the other hand, the author
of the SC uses some markedly un-Xenophontic expressions (e.g.
ε ι ρ α κ ι ο ΰ σ θ α ι , δταν ... τηνικαΰτα, πράγ ατα λα βάνει). However, these
un-Xenophontic expressions could be accounted for by the 30 odd years that
may have intervened between the composition of the SC in 395/394 and the
other Xenophontic works in the 360s and 350s (cf. pp. 9-13).
220
At 2.1, 2.12 and 11.2 the combination of particles εν τοίνυν is found, though no
difference in meaning is discernible, cf. Denniston 1954, 579.
X Language 51
What clearly points to Xenophontic authorship of the SC is the use of

particles. The SC shares no less than four main characteristics of such
Xenophontic use.
c.) Dialect, poeticism, archaism, neologism
1. Dialect: (i) Ionisms: Compounds of θρφσκω are Ionic in origin and are
thus common in Homer and Herodotus (cf. II. 7.182, Hdt 2.66, 3.64 al.).
Starting from Homer they became normal in poetry (cf. A. Ch. 846, Pers. 457;
E. IT 1250 al.) but were avoided in Attic prose. A form of θρφσκω appears in
X. only once, in the phrase πηδήσαι δε καί άναθορεΐν at 2.3.
Another Ionic word, found in the SC, is σίνεσθαι at 12.5. Like θρφσκω it
is predominantly attested in Homer, Herodotus, the Corpus Hippocraticum and
X. (cf. Od. 6.6, Hdt. 1.17.3, 8.31, Hp. VC 14 [ΠΙ 236], Fract. 19f. [ΠΙ 482,
486], X. Cyr. 3.3.15, 5.5.4 al.). Unlike θρφσκω it is never attested in tragedy.
Apart from X. it is very rare in Attic prose: it is found only once in Plato (Lg.
936E) and once in Hellanicus (FGrH 4 F 71 C). Isocrates has the cognate noun
σίνος (ep. 4.11), which again is almost exclusively Ionic (its use in a letter of
Isocrates may show that it belonged to the colloquial sphere), cf. Gautier 1911,
56.
Compounds in Ionic -άρχης instead of Attic -άρχος are found in Herodotus
(cf. νο άρχης at Hdt. 2.177.2, 4.66 instead of νό αρχος, στρατάρχης at Hdt.
3.157.4 instead of στράταρχος), though he employs formations in -άρχος
more frequently (cf. στεγαρχος at Hdt. 1.133.4, ύπαρχος at 3.70.3, δή αρχος
at 3.6.2 al.). In classical Attic prose formations in -άρχης are avoided, with the
exception of the technical term βοιωτάρχης (Th. 4.91, 5.37.4 al.). 221 In the
SC a formation in -άρχης is clearly preserved in ένω οτάρχης at 11.8, 13.9
and with uncertain reading at 11.4, cf. Gautier 1911, 80f.
(ii) Dorisms: δα οσία ('public tent1) at 13.7 is apparently a technical term,
which explains its Doric form. The same form is found at X. HG 4.5.8, 4.7.2
and 6.4.14; besides as a Spartan term the word is virtually absent from Greek
literature. To the same category of Spartan technical terms belongs γερόντια
(cf. 10.1 [2]).
2. Poeticism: A considerable number of words in the SC are found earlier,

mainly or exclusively in poetry (for details see commentary), so εΰτεκνος
(1.8), άναθρφσκω (2.3), ραδινός (2.5), τορός (2.11), δρφνη (5.7),
έκπράττειν (8.4), πυθόχρηστος (8.5), γοργός (11.3), άσσω (12.5
[conjecture]), κνεφαίος (13.3), φαιδρός (13.9), άστυφέλικτος (15.7). The
sheer number of these cases is surprising, given the shortness of the treatise. In
some cases one has to allow for a Xenophontic idiosyncrasy, especially where
221
The gen. plural ταξιαρχών, as accentuated by Burnet at PI. Lg. 755E and 760A, must be
wrong, for in Plato the word is consistently ταξίαρχος, not τ α ξ ι ά ρ χ η ς , cf. Pl. Lg. 755C-E,
880D, 953B).
52 Introduction
there are other references to the same or a cognate word outside the SC in X.,
so in case of δρφνη, γοργός, κνεφαίος, and φαιδρός. The word άστυφέλικτος
may be a quotation from a different context, as shown on pp. 24-27. In the case
of the other poetic words the reason for their employment remains obscure:
occasionally one may consider sheer playfulness, so perhaps the pleonastic
πηδήσαι δε και άναθορείν (2.3) or the phrase και XT¡ δρφνη όσα ή ερφ
χρηστέον (5.7) varying the Xenophontic phrase καί γαρ νυκτί εν δσαπερ
ή έρςι έχρήτο (Ages. 6.6), or a terminological component not covered by
another prosaic term (τορός, ε κ π ρ ά τ τ ε ι ν , πυθόχρηστος) or finally stylistic
neutrality, not reflected in previous occurrences ( άσσω). A further example of
poetic language is the metaphor at 3.5, where X. remarks about the young men
αίδη ονεστέρους δ' αν αυτούς ήγήσαιο καί αύτών των εν τοις
όφθαλ οίς π α ρ θ έ ν ω ν . Poetic, too, is the use of the verb β λ α σ τ ά ν ε ιν for
humans at 1.5 and of κ α ί at 9.2 in the sense of 'actually' (which meaning
seems to be particularly common in drama, see commentary on 9.2).
3. Archaism, neologism: The archaizing ξυν- instead of the contemporary

συν- is found at 2.1 (ξυνιώσιν), cf. Gautier 1911, 79. Frequently the tradition
has normalized the archaizing reading. In X. it is attested e.g. at An. 2.4.9,
2.5.3, Ap. 16.
The accusative in -εις in βασιλείς at 15.9 is remarkable. This accusative
form of nouns in -εύς is not attested epigraphically before the last decade of the
fourth century but it becomes normal in the third. 222 Nevertheless, a number of
references in X. render it unlikely that we are here dealing with a blunder by a
scribe (cf. Gautier 1911, 81 and the explanation at Phot. Bibl. 533b 23-29).
d.) Prepositions
Occasionally the use of prepositions in the SC differs from normal Attic

use: so διαφέροντας καί κ α τ ά έγεθος καί κ α τ ' ΐσχύν (1.10), ταΐς προς
τους π α ΐ δ α ς έπιθυ ίαις (2.14), παύουσι εν άπό π α ι δ α γ ω γ ώ ν , παύουσι
δε άπό δ ι δ α σ κ ά λ ω ν (3.1), or άπό τε των σκελών καί άπό χειρών κ α ί
άπό τραχήλου γ υ ν ά ζ ο ν τ α ι (5.9), cf. the commentary. The prepositional
phrase αΰτοΰ πρόσθεν at 13.6 is striking. The anastrophe of the preposition in
the local sense is attested only here and at Cyr. 5.2.1 according to Sturz's
index. 223 Besides, the normal preposition for local 'before' in X. is πρό +
genitive, cf. HG 1.5.15, 2.4.33f. al.; πρόσθεν is normally temporal.
Characteristic of X. is the use of σύν. Gautier 1911, 49 remarked:
"Xénophon est le dernier auteur chez lequel σύν soit fréquent. Il a, comme
Euripide, deux fois plus souvent σύν que ετά." This relation is confirmed by
222
Threatte 1996, 247.
223
Sturz III, 718.
XI Style 53
the SC; συν + dative appears four times (8.5, 13.1 and 13.2 [twice]), ετά +
genitive only twice (5.5 and 11.7).224
The lack of a preposition at 12.1 (κύκλον έστρατοπεδεύσατο) is
remarkable. If this is the correct reading, possibly X. uses military jargon here.
XI Style
The style of the SC shows a bewildering number of oddities and

inconsistencies. On the one hand we find carefully balanced and purposefully
employed stylistic features, on the other striking carelessness and indifference
even towards the most basic stylistic conventions of X.'s day.
X. is rarely more explicit than necessary, cf. των τάς τέχνας έχόντων
(1.3) for δη ιουργοί; τους έκ δη οσίου (3.3) for τους άρχοντας; the
apparently pleonastic πηδήσαι δε και άναθορείν (2.3) and των κακών κ α ι
άνανδρων (10.6). Occasionally there may be a reason for explicitness, so ό èv
οπλοις άγων (13.8) for άχη, where, however, the agonal element of the
battle is stressed (cf. 13.8[2]).
In contrast, a shortened expression is frequently found, e.g. έποίησεν instead
of νό ι ον έποίησεν (1.7[1]). On occasion expressions are awkward and require
supplementation from the context, so oi εν άλλοι τάς έλλουσας τ ί κ τ ε ιν
και καλώς δοκούσας κόρας παιδεύεσθαι ... τρεφουσι (1.3) or αϊ τε γ α ρ
γυναίκες διττούς οίκους βούλονται κ α τ έ χ ε ι ν (1.9), cf. the commentary.
This sketchiness is underlined by recurring sentence structure. So the
expression αί έγισται άρχαί κ α θ ί σ τ α ν τ α ι is found word for word at 2.2
and 4.7. One may also compare the almost identical sentence structure in:
• 2.14 τό έντοι ταύτα άπιστεΐσθαι ύπό τίνων ού θαυ άζω.

• 11.7 το έντοι καν ταραχθώσι ετά τού παρατυχόντος ο οίως
άχεσθαι, ταύτην τήν τάξιν ούκέτι ρφδιόν έστι αθεΐν.
• 12.4 το δε έχοντας τά δόρατα άεί περιιέναι, ευ καί τούτο δει
είδέναι, δτι τού αυτού ενεκά έστιν οίπερ καί τους δούλους έιργουσιν άπό
των δπλων.
• 13.10 το έντοι πρεσβείας άποπέ πεσθαι καί φιλίας καί πολέ ιας,
τούτ' οΰ βασιλέως.
A tedious syntax of enumeration is characteristic of the SC. At 9.5 X. gives

a series of nine (sic!) verbal adjectives in -έος. Equally jejune is the sentence
structure at 11.8-10: èàv δ' έν τφ τοιούτψ ... ήν γε ήν ... εί γάρ τίνες ...
•ην δέ ποτε ... ήν δ' αυ ... ην γε ήν or at 13.lOf., which may be paraphrased
as 'it is the task of the king to do this and that, it is not the task of the Icing to
do this and that, everything starts from the king; if someone ..., then ...; if
someone ..., then ...; if someone ..., then ...; accordingly ...'. Besides, the
latter passage displays a certain restriction in vocabulary (the word βασιλεύς
224
Cf. Simon 1889.
54 Introduction
appears here five times). Finally, chapter 15 provides a prime example of

limitation in the use of particles (δε καί, καί ... δε): 15.1 βούλο αι δέ καί, 3
εδωκε δέ καί, 4 δπως δε καί, 5 εδωκε δ' αΰ καί, εδωκε δε κ α ί , 6 κ α ί
προς τη οίκίψ δε, δτι δε καί τούτο, καί Εδρας δέ, 7 καί δρκους δέ.
Occasionally X.'s syntax is not only tedious, but careless. Sometimes one
may assume textual corruption (as normally done by editors): so at 13.8 (αφ'
εκάστου ένω οτάρχου εξω). One passage which hitherto has been regarded
by editors to be corrupt is better explained by an unconventional omission of a
form of είναι: 11.5 είσί... άρχοντες, καί ό στίχος Εκαστος πάντ' 'έχων
(sc. έστίν) δσα δεί παρέχεσθαι.
One may add some possible omissions in the treatise (omissions, that can,
however, partly be explained otherwise). After mentioning the habits of eating
and drinking of women outside Sparta at 1.3, he leaves unmentioned the
comparable habits of Spartan women at 1.4. At 13.2 he claims that he will
'repeat' (έπαναλήψο αι) how the king sets off with the army, without having
mentioned it before (for possible explanations see 13.2[1]). The sketchiness of
the SC does not serve to inform the reader briefly and clearly, for in this case
one would rather expect a balance of style and thought as offered, for instance,
in comparable descriptive passages of the Anabasis, cf. e.g. An. 1.2.10-14.
Rather the SC has never been revised properly, as I have tried to show above
(pp. 29-32).
In contrast to the simplicity and carelessness of expression a relatively large
number of figures of style and thought are found in the SC. This observation is
in line with the evidence from other minor Xenophontic works (with which the
SC also shares the non-avoidance of hiatus, cf. 1.1 ά λ λ ' έγώ εννοήσας ποτέ
ώς ...): 225
1. variation: 1.3 - 2.1 περί τεκνοποιίας ... περί γενέσεως; 1.3 ή άνυστόν
ετριωτάτφ ... δυνατόν ικροτάτφ; 2.3 πηδήσαι δέ καί άναβορείν; 3.2
έγιστον ... έ φυό ενον, άλιστα ... έπιπολάζουσαν, ίσχυροτάτας ...
παριστα ένας; 3.4 τό άρρεν φΰλον ... της θηλείας φύσεως; 3.5 ό ατα ...
όφθαλ οίς; 7.3f. χρη ατιστέον... χρή ατα άθροιστέον; 7.4 τους συσκήνους
... τους συνόντας; 8.If. τους κρατίστους ... οί δυνατώτεροι ... οί κράτιστοι;
14.4f. έσπουδακότας ώς ... έπε ελούντο δπως ... πραγ ατεύονται δπως.
2. parallelism with variation: 3.2 πλείστους εν πόνους αΰτοίς έπέβαλε,
πλείστην δέ άσχολίαν έ ηχανήσατο; 5.8 οί έν διαπονού ενοι εδχροι .„
είσιν, οί δ' άπονοι πεφυση ένοι... αναφαίνονται; 11.8-10 έάν δ' εν τ φ
225
Cf. Norden 1909, 101-103; Bigalke 1933, 27: "Xenophons Lehrschriften sind sämtlich von
der Rhetorik beeinflußt. Besonders die Klangfiguren sind reichlich angewandt, während die
Periodisierung abnimmt. Es ist sicher durch den Zweck und die lehrhafte Absicht dieser
Schriften bedingt, daß in ihnen das rhetorische Element so stark ist. Denn eist durch die
Anwendung wirkungsvoller Stilmittel werden die Ansprüche auf eindringliche und
übersichtliche Darstellung des Gegenstandes, die der Leser an eine Lehrschrift stellt,
zufriedengestellt. Nicht umsonst ist diese Gattung der Lehrschriften zuerst von den
Sophisten ausgebildet worden". For an extensive list of similar stylistic figures in X. (but
outside the SC) cf. Wissmann 1888.
XI Style 55
τοιούτψ ... ήν γε ήν ... εί γάρ τίνες ... ήν δέ ποτ ε... ήν δ' αυ ... ήν γε ην;
15.8 τοις βασιλεύσι τυραννικόν φρόνη α παραστήσαι ... τοις πολίταις
φθόνον έ ποιήσαι.
3. parallelism with anaphora: 1.5 αίδεϊσθαι εν είσιόντα όφθηναι,
αίδεϊσθαι δ' έξιόντα; 2.2 ώστε πολλήν εν αίδώ, πολλήν δε πειθώ...;
3.1 παύουσι εν άπό παιδαγωγών, παύουσι δέ άπό διδασκάλων; 3.2
πλείστους εν πόνους ... πλείστην δέ άσχολίαν; 3.5 ήττον εν αν φωνήν
άκούσαις ή τών λιθίνων, ήττον δ' αν ό ατα [ ετα]στρέψαις ή τών
χαλκών; 5.4 σφάλλουσι εν σώ ατα, σφάλλουσι δέ γνώ ας; 5.6 ώ σ τ '
έκεϊ ήκιστα έν υβριν, ήκιστα δέ παροινίαν, ήκιστα δέ αίσχρουργίαν
και αίσχρολογίαν έγγίγνεσθαι; 9.3 τοις έν άγαθοϊς εύδαι ονίαν, τοις
δέ κακοίς κακοδαι ονίαν.
4. alliteration and /or homoioptoton: 4.2 και χορούς άξιακροατοτάτους ...
αγώνας άξιοθεατοτάτους; 5.6 αίσχρουργίαν και αίσχρολογίαν; 5.8 οί
έν διαπονού ενοι ευχροί τε και εΰσαρκοι καί εύρωστοι ... οί δ' άπονοι
αισχροί καί ασθενείς αναφαίνονται; 9.5 παραχωρητέον
ύπαναστατέον ... θρεπτέον ... ΰφεκτέον ... περιοπτέον ... άποτειστέον ..
πλανητέον ... ι ητέον ... ληπτέον; 10.7 άνυπόστατον ανάγκην άσκείν
άπασαν πολιτικήν άρετήν.
5. repetition of similar sounding syllables (at the beginning and end of a
word; alliteration, homoioteleuton, homoioptoton): 10.4 πάντας πάσας
άσκείν τάς άρετάς.
6. paronomasia: 7.6 ενθα ή κτησις πλείους λύπας η ή χρησις
εύφροσύνας παρέχει; 10.4 πάντας πάσας; 15.1 τάς δέ άλλας πολιτείας
εύροι τις ετακεκινη ένας καί ετι καί νυν ετακινού ενος; 11.10
προσίωσιν... προσιοΰσιν.
7. antithesis: 7.6 λΰπας ... εύφροσύνας; 10.8 οΰτω δέ παλαιοί δντες ετι
καί νυν τοις άλλοις καινότατοι είσι.
8. metaphor: 3.5 αίδη ονεστέρους δ' αν αυτούς ήγήσαιο καί αύτών
τών έν τοις όφθαλ οίς παρθένων.
9. rhetorical questions: 7.3 καί γαρ δή τί πλούτος έκεϊ γ ε σπουδαστέος
... όρέγεσθαι; 7.6 τί ουν αν έκεϊ χρη ατισ ός σπουδάζοιτο, ενθα ή κτησις
πλείους λύπας η ή χρησις εύφροσύνας παρέχει; 10.4 τόδε γε ήν του
Λυκούργου πώς ού εγάλως άξιον άγασθήναι; al.
10. A special feature is X.'s fondness for clusters of superlatives, not only in
the SC (1.1, 1.3, 4.2, 4.5), but also elsewhere (e.g. Ages. 1.3, 6.7f., HG
2.4.22, 7.3.6, Mem. 3.7.5, 3.10.3, Vect. 3.10).
11. In three passages X. may be ironic, cf. 1.2[4], 10.8[2] and 12.2[4], But
the attempt of Strauss 1939 and others to detect everywhere ironic dissociation
from Spartan reality, is unfounded (cf. p. 16 with n. 97).
The different natures of chapters 1-10 and 11-15 in terms of content

correspond to the unequal distribution of stylistic devices in each section: far
more devices are found in the more narrative first part, far fewer in the more
technical second part.
56 Introduction
XII Text
a.) Transmission
A considerable number of manuscripts containing the SC remains

unexplored so far. 226 But even the value of those already collated is far from
clear.227 As for the SC, Marchant in his Oxford edition singles out four (all
datings according to Pierleoni):
A = Vatican Gr. 1335 (10th/l 1th century)
B = Vatican Gr. 1950 (14th century)
C = Modena Gr. 145 (15th century)
M = Venice, Marc. Gr. Ζ. (13th/14th century)
511 (=590)
Pierleoni in his 1933 edition of the SC adds Florence, Laur. lxxx 13 (F,
14th century).
It is beyond doubt that A is by far the most important manuscript for the
SC as well as other Xenophontic works. It offers the text of the SC to 15.5 dt
δή. A second hand of the fifteenth century added the missing part from 15.5
και Πύθιοι on. Before a corrector altered the text at a number of places, Vatican
Gr. 1950 (Β) was copied from A, so that, where A is corrected, Β preserves the
original reading of A. 2 2 8 As for the other manuscripts, the main question is
their relation to A as accepted e.g. by the two most recent editors, Pierleoni and
Marchant.229
a.) Relation between F, M and A:
In a fair number of cases M and F share the same errors as compared to

A. 2 3 0 Furthermore, M and F have individual errors as compared to A. 2 3 1 These
226
The most extensive use of available manuscripts was made by Pierleoni in his 1905 and
1933 editions (for the history of the text cf. also Pierleoni/Vecchietti 1903-1904). More
specifically, Pierleoni drew on 28 manuscripts (cf. the sigla in Pierleoni's 1905 edition and
Pierleoni 1933, x-xii). Some of them (but not all) are included in the 38 manuscripts
containing the SC as listed by Sinkewicz (Sinkewicz 1990, microfiche 6).
227
E.g. criticism of several editions of the Hiero [including Pierleoni's] has been voiced by
Haltinner/Schmoll 1980, 231 ["contain many errors"].
228
The dates of the two hands are not uncontested, cf. Haltinner/Schmoll 1980,232 with n. 1.
229
In what follows I rely upon photocopies made from microfilms of A, B, C and M in my
possession. For other manuscripts (notably F) I rely upon the readings given by Pierleoni in
his 1905 edition (with a full apparatus criticus and a valuable variorum lectionum appendix),
his abbreviated and partly modified 1933 version and Marchant's Oxford text. I have
checked all readings of A, B, C and M mentioned below.
23
" Cf. 1.7 πρεσβυτάτφ F, Μ (πρεσβύτη A), 2.2 εδωκεν F, M (εδωκε δ' A), 2.3 π η δ ή σ α ι
(δέ om. F, M) (πηδήσαι δέ A), 2.6 δέω(ο)νται F, M (προσδέωνται A), 2.9 δε δ η λ ώ σ α ι
F, M (δέ om. A), 3.2 υπέβαλε F, M (έπέβαλε A), 3.4 έ φυωσαι F, M (έ φυσιώσαι A),
3.4 ηδα ή F, M ( ηδα οΰ A, correct ηδα οι), 4.2 συ βάλοι F, M (συ βάλλον A),
12.4 άλλήλοις F, M (αλλήλους A), 12.7 δει F, M (δεΐται A).
XII Text 57
individual errors s h o w that M and F are not directly related to each other but via
a . Where M and F differ, M is normally closer to a . 2 3 2
A s for the relation between A and a , the nature and large number o f identical
errors found in M and F on the one hand, and A on the other demonstrate that α
is a direct descendant from A . 2 3 3 The f e w cases in whic h α g i v e s the right
reading against A are easily explained by scribal conjectures. 2 3 4
b.) Relation between C and A:
C and A share a number of clear errors unlikely to occur independently 2 3 5

T h e question is whether both g o back to a hyparchetype or whether C is copied
from A . The latter solution is much more likely, because almost always A
offers better readings where it differs from C . 2 3 6 Even where C is preferable, its
readings may easily be scribal conjectures. 2 3 7 In short C is very likely to
descend directly from A (before correction), not from a common
hyparchetype. 2 3 8
The stemmatic relation between A, B, C, F and M appears to be as follows :
231
Corruptions peculiar to F: 1.8 τούτψ F (τούτο A), 5.6 τις om. F (τις A), 6.3 τι (τις Α), 7.4
(lèv γαρ ψυχής F ( εν ψυχής Α), 11.9 8τε F (οτι Α), 11.10 δέ F (δ' αυ A). Corruptions
peculiar to M: 1.5 τούτους M (τούτοις M2) (τούτου A), 1.8 τούτφ M (τοΰτο A), 2.5
οΰποτε M ( ήποτε A), 10.3 κρείττον M (κρείττων A), 14.2 πόλεσιν M (πόλεσι A),
15.7 βασιλεύειν M (βασιλεύσειν A).
232
Cf. 5.6 τις M (τις om. F), 6.3 τις M (τι F), 7.4 έν M ( εν γάρ F), 11.9 δτι M (δτε F),
11.10 δ' αυ M (δε F).
233
Cf. 2.5 συ βουλεύειν, 2.13 αν Λακεδαί ονι (A ante COÏT.), 4.4 τοις ή (instead of τε),
4.7 πεπράκοσιν, 5.2 πλείστους, 5.4 ποτού, 5.8 τι (instead of τις) 6.2 αλλήλους, 7.2
αύτών, 8.2 ούτε, 8.3 ήγήσατο, 9.5 ανδρείας, 11.1 στατιάς (-άς F), 11.10 αλλ"
άποθούσιν Α (άλλ' άπωθοΰσιν F, Μ), 12.5 οσψπερ, 13.5 προκαλέσας, 13.6
συστρεψας, 13.10 λυκούργος, 14.2 έκόντας.
234
Cf. 2.2 έκαστον F, Μ (έκάστοις Α [έκαστος ante corr.]), 4.4 άνθ' F, Μ (ά φ* A). At 6.2 F
(των εαυτού) offers a better reading against both M and Α (τον εαυτού), but the change
is obvious and may easily be attributed to the scribe of F.
23
' 1.5 βλάπτοιεν (βλάστοι Haase), 1.7 έπαγο ένφ (έπαγαγο ένψ Dindorf), 1.8 νό ον
(νό ι ον), 2.4 παρασκευάσασθαι (παρεσκευάσθαι Cobet), 2.5 τον &ρρενα (τον
εϊρενα Schneider), 2.11 αρρένων (είρένων Cragius) al., especially also 13.10 λυκούργος
(κύριος).
1.4 άγώνα C (-ώνας Α), 1.6 εύγενεία C (εύγονίςι Α), 2.8 έπέβαλε C (έπέβαλλε Α), 5.6
αίσχουργίαν C (αίσχρουργίαν Α), 5.7 τή δε ορφντ) ώσπερ C (και τη δρφνη οσα Α),
7.5 αλλήλων C (άδικων Α), 8.4 δ* είσπράττειν C (δ' έκπράττειν Α), 13.8 τάδε καί C
(τάδε A). Some errors of C may best be explained on the basis of errors of A: 2.5
συ βολεύειν C (συ βουλεύειν A), 8.3 ήγήσαντο C (ήγήσατο A). 11.10 άλλα
προθέουσιν C (άλλ' άποθούσιν Α), 11.10 τοις άντιπάλοις C (άντιπάλους Α).
237
5.4 αύτόν C (αύτόν Α), 5.8 αύτούς C (αύτοί Α), 11.6 ούδεν ούδ' C (δ' ούδ' Α), 13.7
άπρόσκεπτόν C (άπροσκεπτέον Α), 15.3 των περιοίκων C (ων περιοίκων Α).
238
C, like Β, was copied from A before A was corrected by a second hand. This becomes
clear from 2.2 όποτε (Β, C), where A offers δτε after correction. Besides, C is unlikely to
derive from Β (direct descendant of A), because at Hier. 2.4 Β omits καί τό
κακοδαι ονείν, which, however, is given by both A and C.
58 Introduction
century
A
11.
12.
13.
14. Β F
15. C
Apart from these manuscripts one should single out Florence, Laur. 69,25:
it is the only manuscript that offers the (doubtless) correct κύριος at 13.10
(against λυκοΰργος), the correct έχοντας at 14.2 (against έκόντας) and which
adds the very attractive άφθονίαν at 15.6. Nevertheless, these readings must be
considered fortunate conjectures given the general mediocrity of other readings
of the manuscript.
The secondary tradition does not offer much. Plutarch adopts the meaning,
not the wording. The historians Nicolaus of Damascus and Sphaerus are of
limited though not completely negligible value. 239 There remain a few
scattered references to the SC in ancient scholarly literature (Harpocration and
Pollux). 240 Finally, there is Stobaeus. 241 His excerpt begins with 1.4-11.4,
followed by 8.3-8.5. In other words, major parts in his copy were possibly
missing or misplaced. Furthermore, his selection is uneven: while chapters 1-4
and 10 aroused his interest and are thus given at some length, chapters 6-9
appear to have appealed much less to him and, hence, are heavily truncated.
Stobaeus adds words in order to smooth out unwanted fractures and does not
refrain from altering the text at pleasure. But even where he seems to follow his
model faithfully, his text is often inferior to A. 242
As a result of these observations, I constitute the text of the SC on the basis

of A (and where A is corrected, B) alone. I mention differences from Stobaeus
or single Stobaean manuscripts in the apparatus criticus, since their bearing on
the Xenophontic text can never be completely excluded (though their relevance
should not be overstressed either). All better readings in manuscripts other than
A I consider to be scribal corrections.
Most conjectures by modern scholars, mentioned in the apparatus, have been
checked. However, the reader should bear in mind that this was sometimes
impossible due to the lack of further bibliographical information. In these cases
239
Cf. Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 ζ and Sphaerus FGrH 585 F 1.
240
Harp. s.v. όραν, Poll. 6.142.
241
Stob, r v 2.23 [Hense pp. 140-149] with Pierleoni 1933, lxxii-lxxv.
242
A notable exception is found at 3.5: both Stobaeus and de subi. 4.4 preserve the correct
όφθαλ οίς against A's θαλά οις.
XII Text 59
I have taken on trust the pieces of information offered by earlier editions. A

new critical edition from scratch remains a desideratum.
b.) Editions, commentaries, indexes
The following list is a compilation of the most important editions,

commentaries and indexes of the SC to date. Some entries of especially
important works are repeated in the bibliography at the end of this book. I
normally quote only the first edition:243
1516: Edition printed by Philippus Iunta, edited by Euphrosynus Boninus

[without title, without Agesilaus, Apologia, de Vectigalibus and without the
last part of the Athenaion Politeia\ dedication by Euphrosynus Boninus to
Laurentius Salviatus],
1525: Ξενοφώντος άπαντα τά ευρισκό ενα. Xenophontis omnia, quae
extant. Venetiis, in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Asulani soc., Apr. MDXXV.
1540: Ξενοφώντος άπαντα. Xenophontis opera omnia, in tres partes
distincta, quarum quaeque suos libros ostendet, Halae Suevorum anno MDXL
[vol. I with a dedicatory letter of (not 'to', pace Marsh 1992, 82) Philipp
Melanchthon],
1545: Xenophontis philosophi ac historici excellentissimi opera, quae
quidem extant, omnia, tarn graeca quam latina hominum doctissimorum
diligentia, partim nunc primum latinitate donata, ac multo accuratius quam
antea recognita, Basiliae apud Nicolaum Brylingerum anno MDXLV.
1561: Ξενοφώντος Άπαντα τά σωζό ενα βιβλία. Xenophontis omnia
quae extant opera. Multorum veterum exemplarium ope (quorum bonam partem
bibliotheca viri illustris Huldrici Fuggeri suppeditavit) a multis mendorum
sordibus ita purgata, ut longe maiore cum fructu legi multoque facilius quam
antea intelligi possint. An. M. D. LXI, excudebat Henricus Stephanus, illustris
viri Huldrici Fuggeri typographus; second edition 1581.
1569: Ξενοφώντος Άπαντα τα σωζό ενα βιβλία. Xenophontis et
imperatoris et philosophi clarissimi omnia, quae exstant, opera, loarme
Leuuenklaio interprete: cum annotationibus eiusdem et indice copioso, Basiliae
MDLXIX apud T. Guarinum.
1586: Francisci Porti Cretensis commentarli, in varia Xenophontis
opuscula, quorum nomina sequenti pagina declarantur. Excudebat Joannes le
Preux. MD.LXXXVI.
1691: Ξενοφώντος απαντα τά σωζό ενα. Xenophontis opera quae
extant omnia, vol. V, ed. E. Wells (Oxford 1691).
243
A more extensive list of older editions is offered by Bazin 1885, 20-24; older editions as
well as translations into various languages are mentioned by Morrison 1988, 21-33;
translations and commentaries of the SC until 1600 are surveyed by Marsh 1992, 80-91,
158-164.
60 Introduction
1754: Ξενοφώντος λόγος εις Άγησίλαον, Ίερων, η τυραννικός,

Λακεδαι ονίων πολιτεία, 'Αθηναίων πολιτεία, και Πόροι, ί\ Περί
προσόδων. Recensuit Bolton Simpson, Α. Μ. Coll. Reg. Oxon. Socius
(Oxford 1754).
1778: Xenophontis opuscula politica, equestria et venatica cum Anioni
libello de venatione, recensuit et explicavit Io. Car. Zeunius (Leipzig 1778).
1797: Œuvres complètes de Xénophon, traduites en François, et
accompagnées du texte Grec, de la version latine, et de notes critiques, par J. B.
Gail, vol. I (Paris 1797, critical apparatus in vol. VII [1808]).
1801-1804: F. G. Sturz, Lexikon Xenophonteum, vol. I-IV (Leipzig
1801-1804).
1804: Xenophontis Atheniensis scripta in usum lectorum graecis litteris
tinctorum commentariis ad rerum et verborum intelligentiam illustrata a
Beniamin Weiske. Vol. VI (Leipzig 1804).
1815: Ξενοφώντος τά σωζό ενα. Xenophontis quae extant. Vol. VI:
Xenophontis opuscula politica, equestria et venatica cum Arriani libello de
venatione. Ex librorum scriptorum fide et virorum doctorum coniecturis
recensuit et interpretatus est Io. Gottlob Schneider Saxo (Leipzig 1815).
1818: Xenophontis Opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edidit Gotofredus
Henricus Schaefer. Tomus VI. Opuscula politica, equestria et venatica (Leipzig
1818).
1824: Xenophontis Scripta Minora. Cum brevi annotatione crìtica edidit
Ludovicus Dindorfius (Leipzig 1824).
1833: F. Haase, Xenophon. De república Lacedaemoniorum (Berlin 1833).
1838: Ξενοφώντος τά σωζό ενα Xenophontis scripta quae supersunt, ed
W. F. Dübner (Paris 1838).
1855: Η. Köchly / W. Rüstow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, vol. II.l
(Leipzig 1855), 104-113 [SC chapters 11-12, 13.6],
1866: Xenophontis opuscula politica, equestria et venatica cum Arriani
libello de venatione, ed. L. Dindorf (Oxford 1866).
1866: Xenophontis opera, vol. V, ed. G. Sauppe (Leipzig 1866).
1869: G. Sauppe, Lexilogus Xenophonteus sive index Xenophontis
grammaticus (Leipzig 1869).
1905: Xenophontis Respublica Lacedaemoniorum, ed G. Pierleoni (Berlin
1905).
1909: F. Habben, De Xenophontis libello, qui Λακεδαι ονίων Πολιτεία
inscribitur (Anklam 1909).
1912: Xenophontis scripta minora. Fasciculus posterior. Opuscula politica,
equestria venatica continens, post Ludovicum Dindorf ed. Franciscus Ruehl
(Leipzig 1912).
1920: Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. V, ed. E. C. Marchant (Oxford
1920).
1933: Xenophontis opuscula, ed. G. Pierleoni (Rome 1933).
1934: Xénophon. La République des Lacédémoniens. Texte et traduction
avec une introduction et un commentaire par François Ollier (Lyon / Paris
XII Text 61
1934) = D. Colas (ed.), Xenophon. Constitution de Sparte. Aristote.

Constitution d'Athènes (Paris 1985 = 1996).
1957: M. R. Gomez / M. F. Galiano, Jenofonte. La República de los
Lacedemonios. Edición, traducción y notas, con estudio preliminar (Madrid
1957).
1975: J. M. Moore, Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy
(London 1975; 19832).
1988: E. Luppino Manes, Un progetto di riforma per Sparta. La 'politela' di
Senofonte (Milano 1988).
1990: Senofonte. L'ordinamento politico degli Spartani. A. cura di G. F.
Gianotti, con una nota di L. Canfora. Testo greco afronte, traduzione latina di
Francesco Filelfo (Palermo 1990).
1994: A. Róspide López / F. Martín García, Index Xenophontis
opusculorum (Hildesheim 1994).
1998: S. Rebenich, Xenophon. Die Verfassung der Spartaner (Darmstadt
1998).244
244
I have not seen Β. Λεντάκης, Ξενοφώντος Λακεδαι ονίων Πολιτεία: Εισαγωγή
Ερ ηνευτικό Υπό νη α (diss. Leukosia 1997).
SIGLORUM CONSPECTUS
Codices Xenophontei
A = Vaticanus gr. 1335, s. X vel XI

Β = Vaticanus gr. 1950, s. XIV
δ = ceterorum vel singuli vel plures
Codices Stobaeani
Stob. = consensus codicum Stobaeanorum

Stob. A = Parisinus 1984, s. XIV
Stob.L = Laurentianus VIII22, s. XIV
Stob. M = Escurialensis XC, s. XII in.
Stob. s = Vindobonensis LXVI, s. XI in.
ΛΑΚΕ ΑΙΜΟΝΙ Ν ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ
I 1 Ά λ λ ' έγώ εννοήσας ποτέ ώς ή Σπάρτη των όλιγανθρω-

ποτάτων πόλεων ούσα δυνατωτάτη τε και όνο αστοτάτη εν τή
Ελλάδι έφάνη, έθαύ ασα οτ<ρ ποτέ τρόπφ τούτ' έγένετο· έπεί
έντοι κατενόησα τα έπιτηδεύ ατα των Σπαρτιατών, ούκέτι
2 έθαύ αζον. Λυκούργον έντοι τον θέντα αΰτοίς τους νό ους, οις 5
πειθό ενοι ηύδαι όνησαν, τούτον και θαυ άζω και είς τά έσχατα
[ άλα] σοφόν ήγού αι. εκείνος γαρ ού ι ησά ενος τάς ¿ίλλας
πόλεις, άλλα και εναντία γνούς ταΐς πλείσταις, προέχουσαν
ευδαι ονία τήν πατρίδα έπέδειξεν.
3 Αΰτίκα γαρ περί τεκνοποιίας, ινα εξ άρχής άρξω αι, οί έν 10
άλλοι τάς έλλουσας τίκτειν καί καλώς δοκούσας κόρας
παιδεύεσθαι καί σίτψ ή άνυστόν ετριωτάτφ τρέφουσι καί δψφ η
δυνατόν ικροτάτψ· οίνου γε ήν ή πά παν άπεχο ένας η ύδαρεί
χρω ένας διάγουσιν. ώσπερ δέ οί πολλοί τών τάς τέχνας έχόντων
εδραίοι είσιν, οΰτω καί τάς κόρα^ οί άλλοι "Ελληνες ήρε ιζούσας 15
έριουργείν άξιούσι. τάς έν ουν οΰτω τρεφο ένας πώς χρή
4 προσδοκήσαι εγαλειον ¿¡tv τι γεννήσαι: ό δέ Λυκούργος έσθήτας
εν καί δούλας παρέχειν ίκανάς ήγήσατο είναι, ταΐς δ '
έλευθέραις έγιστον νο ίσας είναι τήν τεκνοποιίαν πρώτον έν
σω ασκείν εταξεν ούδέν ήττον το θήλυ τού άρρενος φύλου- επειτα20
δέ δρό ου καί ισχύος, ώσπερ καί τοις άνδράσιν, οΰτω καί ταΐς
θηλείαις άγώνας προς άλλήλας έποίησε, νο ίζων εξ α φοτέρων
5 ισχυρών καί τά εκγονα έρρω ενέστερα γίγνεσθαι, έπεί γε ήν
γυνή προς άνδρα ελθοι, όρών τους άλλους τον πρώτον τού χρόνου
ά έτρως ταΐς γυναιξί συνόντας, καί τούτου τάναντία εγνω- 25
εθηκε γαρ αΐδείσθαι έν είσιόντα όφθήναι, αίδείσθαι δ' έξιόντα.
οΰτω δέ συνόντων ποθεινοτέρως έν άνάγκη σφών αύτών εχειν,
έρρω ενέστερα δέ γίγνεσθαι, εί τι βλάστοι οΰτω, άλλον ή εί
6 διάκοροι αλλήλων ειεν. προς δέ τούτοις καί άποπαύσας τού όποτε
βούλοιντο έκαστοι γυναίκα άγεσθαι, εταξεν έν άκ αΐς τών30
σω άτων τους γά ους ποιείσθαι, καί τούτο συ φέρον τή εύγονίφ
Tit: Λακεδαι ονίων πολιτεία A, de subi 4.4 : Λακώνων πολιτεία Poll. 6.142,
Harp. s.v. όραν, Stob. IV 2.23.
7 άλα om. δ 9 άπέδειξεν δ 18 (τάς) δούλας Cobet 20 ούδ' ήττον Stob.SAL,
ούδήττον Stob.M 21 καί post ωσπερ om. Stob. 22 αγώνα δ I έξ] ώς Stob. 23 τά om.
Stob. I (αν) γίγνεσθαι Cobet 24 έίνδρας Stob. I τον (sic) προ τον, χρόνον in marg.
A 27 προθυ οτέρως Stob.A 28 βλάστοι Haase : βλάπτοιεν A : βλαστάνοιεν Stob. I
οΰτω άλλον del. Cobet I post οΰτω distinxi, alii post βλάστοι 30 βούλοιτο Εκαστος
Cobet I γυναίκας Stob. 31 συ φέρειν Cobet I εύγενεία δ, Stob.
THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION
Once when I was pondering on the fact that Sparta, though having one 1 I
of the smallest populations, became the most powerful and famous city
in Greece, I wondered how this could have happened. However, once I had
studied the institutions of the Spartans, I wondered no more. Indeed I 2
admire Lycurgus, who gave the Spartans the laws in obedience to which
they were outstandingly successful, and I regard him as an extremely wise
man. For, not only did he not imitate the other cities, but by adopting
customs quite different from most, he made his own native city
exceedingly prosperous.
I shall start right at the beginning with the begetting of children. 3
Others rear their daughters, who are destined to become mothers and aie
brought up in the approved manner, on as little bread as possible and a
minimum of other food. They make them either refrain from drinking
wine altogether or drink it well diluted with water. Just as most craftsmen
are sedentary, so the other Greeks expect their daughters to work in wool
quietly. How then could one expect women brought up in such a way to
produce strong and sturdy offspring? By contrast, Lycurgus believed that 4
slave-women were quite competent to produce clothes, but that the most
important task for freeborn women was to bear children. First, therefore
he ordered that the female sex should exercise their bodies no less than the
male. Second, he established running and fighting competitions for
women just as for men, thinking that the offspring of two strong partners
would also be more vigorous. When he saw that the others used to spend 5
an excessive amount of time with their wives just after they were married,
he adopted a quite different custom; he laid down that a man should be
ashamed to be seen entering or leaving [sc. his wife's room]. Inevitably,
then, they long for each other more intensely, when their contact is
limited in this way; and if a child is thus begotten it is stronger than if
they were surfeited with each other. In addition to these measures he 6
abolished the practice allowing men and women to marry when they
wanted, and decreed that the wedding should take place when they were in
their prime, because he thought this too would help produce good
Text
7 νο ίζων. d' γε έντοι συ βαίη γεραιφ νέαν εχειν, όρων τους

τηλικούτους φυλάττοντας άλιστα τάς γυναίκας, τάναντία καί
τούτου ένό ισε· τψ γάρ πρεσβύτη έποίησεν, όποίου ανδρός σώ ά
τε καί ψυχήν άγασθείη, τούτον έπαγαγο ένφ τεκνοποιήσασθαι.
8 εΐ δέ τις αυ γυναικί εν συνοικειν ή βούλοιτο, τέκνων δε 5
άξιολόγων έπιθυ οίη, καί τούτο νό ι ον έποίησεν, ήντινα α ν
ευτεκνον καί γενναίαν όρφη, πείσαντα τον έχοντα έκ ταύτης
9 τεκνοποιείσθαι. καί πολλά εν τοιαύτα συνεχώρει. αϊ τε γαρ
γυναίκες διττούς οίκους βούλονται κατέχειν, οΐ τε άνδρες
αδελφούς τοις παισί προσλα βάνειν, οΐ τού έν γένους καί της 10
10 δυνά εως κοινωνούσι, των δέ χρη άτων ούκ αντιποιούνται, περί
έν δή τεκνοποιίας ούτω τάναντία γνούς τοις άλλοις εϊ τι
διαφέροντας καί κατά έγεθος καί κατ' ίσχύν άνδρας τη
Σπάρτη άπετέλεσεν, ό βουλό ενος έπισκοπείτω.
1 Έγώ έντοι, έπεί καί περί γενέσεως έξήγη αι, βούλο αι καί 15
τήν παιδείαν έκατέρων σαφηνίσαι. των εν τοίνυν ά λ λ ω ν
Ελλήνων οΐ φάσκοντες κάλλιστα τούς υίεΐς παιδεύειν, έπειδάν
τάχιστα αύτοίς οί παίδες τα λεγό ενα ξυνιώσιν, εύθύς έν έ π '
αύτοΐς παιδαγωγούς θεράποντας έφιστάσιν, εύθύς δέ πέ πουσιν
εις διδασκάλων αθησο ένους καί γρά ατα καί ουσικήν καί 20
τά έν παλαίστρα προς δέ τούτοις των παίδων πόδας έν
ύποδή ασιν άπαλύνουσι, σώ ατα δέ Ι ατίων εταβολαΐς
2 διαθρύπτουσι- σίτου γ ε ήν αύτοίς γαστέρα έτρον νο ίζουσιν. ό
δέ Λυκούργος, άντί έν τού ίδίςι εκαστον παιδαγωγούς δούλους
έφιστάναι, άνδρα έπέστησε κρατείν αύτών έξ ωνπερ αϊ 25
έγισται άρχαί καθίστανται, δς δή καί παιδονό ος καλείται,
τούτον δέ κύριον έποίησε καί άθροίζειν τούς παΐδας, καί
έπισκοπούντα, ΕΪ τις ρφδιουργοίη, ισχυρώς κολάζειν. εδωκε δ '
αύτφ καί των ήβώντων αστιγοφόρους, δπως τι ωροΐεν όπότε
3 δέοι, ώστε πολλή ν έν αίδώ, πολλήν δέ πειθώ έκεΐ συ παρ είναι. 30
άντί γ ε ήν τού άπαλύνειν τούς πόδας ύποδή ασιν εταξεν
άνυποδησίψ κρατύνειν, νο ίζων, εί τούτ' άσκήσειαν, πολύ έν
ρφον αν όρθια εύ βαίνειν, άσφαλέστερον δέ πρανή καταβαίνειν,
3 τούτοις Stob.A I πρεσβυτάτφ δ 3-4 καν σώ α καί ψυχήν Stob. 4 τούτου Stob. I
έπαγαγο ενφ Dindorf : έπαγο ενφ Α : άπαγαγο ένφ (έπ- Hense) Stob. 5 έν om.
Stob.Α 6 νό ι ον Stob. : νό ονΑ I αν om. Stob. 8 ποιεΐσθαι Stob. : παιδοποείσθαι
Hense I τε] έν Stob. 9 τε] δέ Stob. 10 λα βάνειν Stob. I του om. Stob. 11
κοινωνήσουσι Stob. 13 καί έγεθος καί ίσχύν Stob. 14 σκοπείτω Stob. 15 εγώ -
έξήγη αι om. Stob. I βούλο αι δέ καί Stob. (cf. 15.1) 16 έκατέρων om. Stob. 24 δέ]
δέ γε δ : γάρ Stob. I Κκαστον δ : έκάστοις Α (Εκαστος ante corr.), Β, Stob. 25
άνδρας Stob. 26 δς] δ Stob. 27 καθίζειν Stob. 28 ισχυρώς om. Stob. I εδωκε δ']
εδωκεν δ 29-30 όπότε δέοι Β : δτε δέοι A (post corr.) : δτι δέοι Stob.SAL : δτι δέ οι
Stob.M 30ώστε] ώς Stob. 32 τούτο άσκήσαιεν Stob. 33 αν δρθια ευ βαίνειν] αν
δρθια δέ (δή ευ post, corr.) βαίνειν Α : αν δρθια δή ευ βαίνειν Β : άνορθία
έκβαίνειν Stob, (αν δρθια έκβαίνειν Hense) : άν" δρθια έκβαίνειν Pierleoni : αν
όρθιάδε έκβαίνειν Schneider I άσφαλέστερον - καταβαίνειν om. Stob.
1.6-2.3 67
progeny. Seeing that old men watch over their wives most jealously, 7
when they happen to be married to a young woman, he decreed something
quite contrary to this practice too; he made the old man bring in a [sc.
younger] man, whose body and soul he admired, to father a child for
himself. On the other hand he made it legal for someone who did not 8
wish to cohabit with a woman, but desired worthy children, to beget
children with a woman whom he saw to be rich in offspring and noble,
provided that he had her husband's consent. And he made many such 9
concessions. For the women want to possess two households; while for
their children the men want to obtain brothers who are members of the
clan and participate in its power, but do not lay claim to the property. In
these ways his decrees regarding procreation were quite different from
those of others; and anyone may judge for himself whether he managed to
make the Spartans superior in terms of stature and strength.
Having discussed the topic of procreation, I wish to elucidate the 1 II
educational systems of both [Sparta and other cities]. Those of the other
Greeks who claim that they bring up their sons best, place them in the
care of pedagogues (paidagogoi) from the moment they understand what is
said to them; they immediately send them to teachers to learn their letters,
music, and the sports practised in the palaestra. And besides they soften
their children's feet with sandals, and spoil their bodies with changes of
cloaks; they reckon the amount of their food by their appetite. On the 2
other hand Lycurgus, rather than permitting the private appointment of
slave-pedagogues, chose a man to be in charge of them from those
eligible for election to the highest offices of state; he was called the
supervisor (paidonomos). He was empowered to convene the boys and to
punish severely anyone whom he noticed was negligent. He also provided
him with youths (hebontes) carrying whips so that they could mete out
punishment when it was necessary. Consequently the children are both
respectful and obedient. Instead of softening their feet with sandals he 3
ordered that they should harden them by going barefoot, because he
thought that if they practised this it would be easier for them to climb
uphill and much safer for them clambering downhill. He was also of the
68 Text
και πηδήσαι δέ και άναθορείν και δρα είν θάττον άνυπόδητον, ει

4 ήσκηκώς εΐη τους πόδας, η ύποδεδε ένον. και άντί γε τοΰ ί ατίοις
διαθρύπτεσθαι ένό ιζεν ένί ΐ ατίφ δι' έτους προσεθίζεσθαι,
νο ίζων οΰτως και προς ψύχη και προς θάλπη ¿¿ εινον α ν
5 παρεσκευάσθαι. σΐτόν γε ήν εταξε τοσούτον [έχοντα] 5
συ βάλλειν τον ά'ρενα ώς υπό πλησ ονής εν ήποτε βαρύνεσθαι,
τοΰ δε ένδεεστέρως διάγειν ή απείρως εχειν, νο ίζων τους οΰτω
παιδευο ένους άλλον εν αν δύνασθαι, εί δεήσειεν, άσιτήσαντας
έπιπονήσαι, άλλον δ' ¿xv, εί παραγγελθείη, άπό τοΰ αΰτοΰ σίτου
πλείω χρόνον έπιταθήναι, ήττον δ' αν δψου δεισθαι, εύχερέστερον 10
δε προς πάν εχειν βρώ α, και ύγιεινοτέρως δ' αν διάγειν και εις
ήκος δ' αν [αύξάνεσθαι] τήν ραδινά τά σώ ατα ποιοΰσαν
τροφήν άλλον συλλα βάνειν ήγήσατο ή τήν διαπλατύνουσαν τ φ
6 σίτφ. ώς δε ή ΰπό λι οΰ έίγαν αυ πιέζοιντο, άπραγ όνως εν
αύτοις ουκ εδωκε λα βάνειν ων αν προσδέωνται, κλεπτειν δ'15
7 έφήκεν εστίν α τφ λι φ επικουροΰντας. και ώς εν οΰκ άπορων 8
τι δοίη έφήκεν αΰτοίς γ ε ηχανάσθαι τήν τροφήν, οΰδενα οι αι
τούτο άγνοεΐν δήλον δ' δτι τόν έλλοντα κλωπεύειν και νυκτός
άγρυπνειν δει και εθ' ή έραν άπατάν και ένεδρεύειν, καί
κατασκόπους δε έτοι άζειν τον έλλοντά τι λήψεσθαι. ταύτα ο·δν 20
δή πάντα δήλον δτι ηχανικωτέρους των επιτηδείων βουλό ενος
8 τους παΐδας ποιεΐν καί πολε ικωτερους οΰτως έπαίδευσεν. εϊποι
δ' αν ουν τις, τί δήτα, εΐπερ το κλεπτειν άγαθόν ένό ιζε, πολλάς
πληγάς επέβαλλε τφ άλισκο ένφ; δτι, φη ί έγώ, καί ταλλα, δσα
άνθρωποι διδάσκουσι, κολάζουσι τόν ή καλώς υπηρετούντα. 25
κάκεΐνοι ουν τους άλισκο ένους ώς κακώς κλέπτοντας
9 τι ωρούνται, καί ώς πλείστους δή άρπάσαι τυρούς παρ' Όρθιας
1 δε om. δ I άναθορείν δ, Stob. : άνθορείν Α (α suprascr. A1) I θάττον <αν

δύνασθαι> Marchant I <τόν> άνυπόδητον Cobet : άνυπόδητον <τινα> Κ. Schenkl
1-2 άνυπόδητον - ύποδεδε ένον om. Stob. I εί - πόδας del. Schneider 2 <τόν>
ύποδεδε ένον Cobet I καί - γε] άντί δέ Stob. 3 ένό ιζεν Α : ένό ισε(ν) δ, Stob. I ένί
ΐ ατίφ] δερ ατίφ Stob. 5 παρεσκευάσθαι Cobet : παρασκευάσασθαι A I εταξε om.
Stob. I [έχοντα] Lipka, vel έκόντα?: εχειν Stob. : έσθίειν Sommerfeldt 6 συ βάλλειν
Lipka : συ βουλεύειν A : συ βολεύειν δ : συνεβούλευεν Stob. : συ βολατεύειν
Dindorf I τον εϊρενα Schneider : τόν άρρενα Α, om. Stob. : an τον έχοντα?, cf. 1. 5 I
οΰποτε δ, Stob.A 10 έπιταθήναι] άποτραφήναι Herwerden I δέ] δ' αν Marchant 11
πάν <äv> Cobet I <τοΰ> εις Schneider : εις <τό εϊς> Weiske 12 δ' äv Stob, (y' &\
Morus) : αν A I αύξάνεσθαι del. Weiske I post αύξάνεσθαι distinxit Pierleoni I τήν
ante αύξάνεσθαι transp. Marchant I <πρός γαρ ρώ ην τε καί τάχος> vel <είς γαρ
ίσχύν τε καί τάχος> τήν ραδινά Cobet 13 ήγησά ενος Stob. I διαπλάττουσαν
Stob. 15 αύτοίς post εδωκε Stob. I αν om. Stob. I προσδέωνται A : δέω(ο)νται δ :
προσδέονται Stob. 17 αύτοίς γε (αυτούς) Pierleoni I γε] το Weiske 18 τούτ' δ 20
κατασκοπάς Herwerden I τόν (γε) Schneider 20 τόν - λήψεσθαι susp. Pierleoni 21
δή om. Stob. I πάντα post δτι Stob. I δήλον δτι del. Diels 22 έπαίδευεν Stob. 23
πολλάς δέ Stob. 24 έπέβαλλε Α, Stob. : επέβαλε δ.
2.3-2.9 69
view that the barefooted would leap, jump, and run more quickly than those
wearing footwear, provided their feet had been trained to it. Instead of 4
spoiling them with changes of cloaks, he ordained that they should become
used to wearing the same cloak throughout the year, because he thought
that they would thus better endure both cold and heat. He decided that each 5
young man (eiren) should contribute to the common meal such an amount
of food that he was never weighed down by repletion, nor, conversely,
without experience of the pangs of hunger. For he thought that those who
were trained in this way, would be better able, if the need arose, to carry on
without food supplies, and, if ordered, to live on the same ration for a
longer period; they would need less meat, would be able to eat all kinds of
food with indifference, and would lead a healthier life. And he believed that
a diet which kept bodies slim would contribute to an increase in height
rather than one that turned food to fat. On the other hand, he did not want 6
them to suffer too much from hunger: so, although he did not permit them
to take what they needed without going to some trouble, he allowed them
to steal food to alleviate hunger. No one can fail to see, I think, that he did 7
not lack the resources to feed them in permitting them to procure their food
by guile; for it is obvious that anyone intending to steal must stay awake
at night and practise deception and lie in wait by day, and anyone intent on
thieving must set his spies. Hence, generally speaking, it is obvious that
he wanted to make the boys more resourceful in their efforts to procure
food, and at the same time he managed to fit them better for war. One could 8
ask, "So why if he considered stealing a virtue, did he inflict many lashes
on those who were caught?" Because, I answer, teachers always punish
those who carry out their instructions badly; accordingly, they chastise
those who are caught for stealing badly. And although he considered it a 9
noble deed to steal as many cheeses as possible from Orthia, he ordered
70 Text
καλόν θείς, αστιγούν τούτους άλλοις έπέταξε, τούτο δηλώσαι

και έν τούτψ βουλό ενος δτι εστίν ολίγον χρόνον άλγήσαντα
πολύν χρόνον εύδοκι ούντα εύφραίνεσθαι. δηλούται δε έν τούτφ
δτι και δπου τάχους δει ό βλακεύων έλάχιστα εν ωφελείται,
10 πλείστα δε πράγ ατα λα βάνει, δπως δέ ηδ' εί ό παιδονό ος 5
άπέλθοι, ερη οί ποτε οί παίδες ειεν άρχοντος, έποίησε τον άεί
παρόντα των πολιτών κύριον είναι καί έπιτάττειν τοις παισίν δ
τι αν αγαθόν δοκοίη είναι, καί κολάζειν, εί τι ά αρτάνοιεν.
τούτο δε ποιήσας διέπραξε καί αίδη ονεστέρους είναι τους
παΐδας· ούδέν γαρ ούτως αιδούνται ούτε παίδες ούτε άνδρες ώς 10
11 τους άρχοντας, ώς δε καί εϊ ποτε ηδείς τύχοι άνήρ παρών, ηδ'
ώς έρη οι οί παίδες άρχοντος ειεν, εθηκε της ΐλης έκάστης τον
τορώτατον τών εΐρένων άρχειν ώστε ουδέποτε εκεί οί παίδες
έρη οι άρχοντος είσι.
12 Λεκτέον δέ οι δοκεΐ είναι καί περί τών παιδικών έρώτων 15
εστι γάρ τι καί τούτο πρός παιδείαν. οί εν τοίνυν άλλοι
"Ελληνες η ώσπερ Βοιωτοί άνήρ καί παις συζυγέντες ό ιλούσιν,
η ώσπερ 'Ηλείοι δια χαρίτων τη ώρςι χρώνταν είσί δε καί cK
παντάπασι τού διαλέγεσθαι τους έραστάς είργουσιν άπό τ ώ ν
13 παίδων, ό δέ Λυκούργος έναντία καί τούτοις πάσι γνούς, εί έν20
τις αυτός ων οίον δει άγασθείς ψυχήν παιδός πειρφτο ά ε πτον
φίλον άποτελέσασθαι καί συνεΐναι, έπη ν ει καί καλλίστην
παιδείαν ταύτην ένό ιζεν· εί δέ τις παιδός σώ ατος όρεγό ενος
(£ανείη, αΐσχιστον τούτο θείς έποίησεν έν Λακεδαί ονι ηδέν
ήττον έραστάς παιδικών άπέχεσθαι ή γονείς παίδων ή καί 25
αδελφοί άδελφών εις αφροδίσια άπέχονται. τό έν τοιαύτα
14 άπιστεΐσθαι ΰπό τίνων ου θαυ άζω - έν πολλαΐς γάρ τ ώ ν
πόλεων οί νό οι ούκ έναντιούνται ταΐς πρός τους παΐδας
έπιθυ ίαις. ή έν δή παιδεία εΐρηται ή τε Λακωνική καί ή τ ώ ν
άλλων 'Ελλήνων- έ^ όποτέρας δ' αύτών καί εύπειθέστεροι καί 30
αίδη ονέστεροι καί ων δεί έγκρατέστεροι άνδρες αποτελούνται,
ό βουλό ενος καί ταύτα έπισκοπείσθω.
III 1 "Οταν γε ήν έκ παίδων εις τό ειρακιούσθαι έκβαίνωσι,
τηνικαύτα οί έν άλλοι παύουσι εν άπό παιδαγωγών, παύουσι
δέ άπό διδασκάλων, άρχουσι δέ ούδένες ετι αύτών, άλλ'35
αύτονό ους άφιάσιν ό δέ Λυκούργος καί τούτων τάναντία εγνω.
2 κατα αθών γάρ τοις τηλικούτοις έγιστον έν φρόνη α
έ φυό ενον, άλιστα δέ ύβριν έπιπολάζουσαν, ίσχυροτάτας δέ
έπιθυ ίας τών ήδονών παριστα ένας, τηνικαύτα πλείστους έν
1 δέ (γε Leunclavius, δή Castalio) δήλωσαν δ 4 καί del. Leunclavius 5 ηδ' εί]

ή έάν Stob, ( ή έάν .... άπέλθτ] Hense) 6 ποτε post εί (2.10, 1. 5) transp. Cobet I
αίεί Stob. 7-8 δ τι] α τι Stob. 8 αν om. δ, Stob. 13 εΐρένων Cragius : αρρένων Α 16
τι] τοι δ. 19 άπό (hue ex ead. 1.) τού Schneider I άπό del. Gemoll 20 καί] κάν
Hertlein 24 έν] öv A ante COÏT. 25 παιδίσκων Haase I η 2 del. Schaefer 26 έν
τοιαύτα] έν ταΰτα δ 33 εις τό ειρακιούσθαι del. Cob. 35 δέ 1 ] δέ καί δ.
2.9-3.2 71
others to beat those who stole, because he wanted to show that one can
enjoy lasting fame by suffering for a short time. This practice also
revealed that where speed is needed, the lazy benefit the least, but rather
incur the most trouble. So that the boys were never left without someone 10
in charge, if the supervisor (paidonomos) went away, he laid it down that
any citizen who happened to be present was to be in authority and could
order the boys to do whatever seemed appropriate, and could punish them
if they did anything wrong. In this way he made the boys more respectful;
for neither boys nor men respect anyone so much as those who are in
charge. In order that the boys might not be without someone in charge 11
even when no adult was present, he decreed that [sc. in this case] the
cleverest of the young men (eirenes) of each group (ile) should be in
charge. Accordingly they are never left unsupervised.
I think I also have to talk about pederastie love, because this also to a 12
certain extent pertains to their education. The other Greeks either have a
relationship like the Boiotians whereby a man and a boy are paired off, or
like the Eleans enjoy the services of young men in return for favours.
There are also some [sc. Greeks] who stop lovers even talking to their
sons. Yet again Lycurgus decreed something quite different from these 13
practices. If a worthy citizen admired the character of a boy and tried to
establish a blameless relationship with him and to spend time with him,
he praised that man and made this an ideal education for the boy.
However, if someone appeared to be attracted by the body of a boy, he
considered this to be most shameful, with the result that in Lakedaimon
lovers keep away from their beloved no less than fathers keep away from
their sons and brothers from their brothers as regards sexual intercourse. 1 1 4
am not surprised, however, that these facts are not generally believed, for
in many cities the laws are not opposed to sexual relations with boys. So
far, I have dealt with the educational systems of Lakonia and of the other
Greeks. Again, anyone may judge for himself which of these produces
men who are more obedient, respectful, and self-controlled with regard to
their needs.
When they cease to be children and attain puberty, the other Greeks 1 III
release them from the pedagogues, set them free from their teachers; no
one is in charge of them anymore, but they are allowed to live as they
like. Lycurgus, however, instituted quite different customs from these
too. Realizing that men of this age are very high-spirited, that insolence 2
predominates, and that the most intense physical desires beset them, he
72 Text
πόνους αύτοίς επέβαλε, πλείστην δε άσχολίαν έ ηχανήσατο.

3 έπιθείς δε καί ά' τις ταύτα φύγοι, ηδενός ετι των κ α λ ώ ν
τυγχάνειν, έποίησε ή όνον τους εκ δη οσίου άλλά καί τους
κηδο ένους εκάστων έπι ελεΐσθαι, ώς ή άποδειλιάσαντες
4 αδόκι οι παντάπασιν εν τή πόλει γενοιντο. προς δε τούτοις τό 5
αΐδείσθαι ισχυρώς έ φυσιώσαι βουλό ενος αΰτοίς καί εν ταΐς
όδοίς έπέταξεν έντός εν του ι ατίου τώ χειρε εχειν, σιγή δε
πορεύεσθαι, περιβλέπειν δε ηδα οί, άλλ' αυτά τα προ τ ώ ν
ποδών όράν. ενθα δή καί δήλον γεγένηται οτι το άρρεν φύλον
καί εις τό σωφρονείν ΐσχυρότερόν έστι της τών θηλειών φύσεως. 10
5 εκείνων γούν ήττον εν αν φωνήν άκούσαις ή τών λιθίνων,
ήττον δ' αν ό ατα [ ετα]στρεψαις ή τών χαλκών,
αΐδη ονεστέρους δ' αν αυτούς ήγήσαιο καί αύτών τών έν τοις
όφθαλ οίς παρθένων, καί έπειδάν είς τό φιλίτιόν γ ε
άφίκωνται, άγαπητόν αύτών καί τό έρωτηθεν άκοΰσαι. καί 15
τών εν αύ παιδίσκων οΰτως έπε ελήθη.
IV 1 Περί γ ε ήν τών ήβώντων πολύ άλιστα έσπούδασε,
νο ίζων τούτους, εΐ γενοιντο οίους δει, πλείστον ρεπειν έπί τό
2 άγαθόν τή πόλει. όρών ουν, οις αν άλιστα φιλονικία
έγγένηται, τούτων καί χορούς άξιακροατοτάτους γιγνο ένους 20
καί γυ νικούς αγώνας άξιοθεατοτάτους, ένό ιζεν, εί καί τούς
ήβώντας συ βάλλοι εις εριν περί αρετής, οΰτως αν καί τούτους
επί πλείστον άφικνεΐσθαι άνδραγαθίας. ώς ουν τούτους αυ
3 συνεβαλεν, έξηγήσο αι. αίρούνται τοίνυν αύτών οΐ apopoi è κ
τών ακ αζόντων τρεις άνδρας· ούτοι δε ίππαγρεται25
καλούνται, τούτων δ* έκαστος άνδρας εκατόν καταλέγει,
διασαφηνίζων δτου Ενεκα τούς εν προτι φ, τούς δε
4 αποδοκι άζει, οί ούν ή τυγχάνοντες τών καλών πολε ούσι
τοις τε άποστείλασιν αύτούς καί τοις αίρεθείσιν άνθ' αύτών
καί παραφυλάττουσιν άλλήλους, έάν τι παρά τα καλά30
5 νο ιζό ενα ρφδιουργώσι. Καί αύτη δή γίγνεται ή
θεοφιλεστάτη τε καί πολιτικωτάτη ερις, έν ή άποδέδεικται
εν α δει ποιειν τον άγαθόν, χωρίς δ' έκάτεροι άσκούσιν δπως
1 υπέβαλε δ 3-4 τούς <ίδί<ρ> κηδο ενους Dindorf 5 τό] τό τε Stob. 6

έ φυσιώσαι Α : έ φυωσαι δ : έ φϋσαι Stob. 7 έπέδειξεν Stob. 8 περιόπτειν Stob,
(περιωπείν Diels) I ηδα οί vel ηδα η δ : ηδα οΰ Α : ηδα ώς Stob. I τών
om. Stob. 10 σώφρον Stob. I της τών Stob. : τών της Α : τών del. Heindorf I
θηλειών Stob. : θηλείας A 11 έν γοΰν de subi. 4.4 I άκοΰσαις] ην (ην Stob.L)
άκοΰσαι Stob. 12 αν om. Stob. I στρέψαις de subi. 4.4 : στρεψάντων Stob,
(στρέψαις [αύτών] Hense) : εταστρέψαις Α 14 όφθαλ οίς de subi. 4.4, Stob. :
θαλά οις A I φιλίτιον A : φιδίτιον δ I γε om. Stob. 15-16 καί τών - έπε ελήθη
om. Stob., susp. Dindorf 16 παιδίσκων Haase : παιδικών A 17 τών ηδη Stob. 18
πλείστον <αν> Richards 22 συ βάλοι δ 24 συνέβαλλεν δ, Stob. I αύτών post
έφοροι Stob. 25 ΐππαγρίται Stob. 26 &νδρα ϋκαστον Stob. 29 τε δ, Stob. : ή A I
άνθ' δ : ά φ' Α : άντ' Stob. I αύτών Α, Stob. 31 ή del. Hertlein.
3.2-4.5 73
imposed on them much labour and contrived that they should have very
little leisure. In addition, he laid it down that if anyone shirked these 3
duties, he no longer had a share in civic rights. He ensured that not only
the magistrates but also each one's relatives took care that the youths
did not completely ruin their reputation in the city by their cowardice.
Futhermore, since he wanted them to be imbued with a strong sense of 4
respect, he ordered that even in the streets they should keep their hands
under their cloaks, walk silently, turn around nowhere, and keep their
eyes fixed [sc. on the ground] in front of their feet. In this way it was
manifest that the male sex had greater powers of self-control than the
female sex. To put it another way, you would be more likely to hear a 5
stone statue speak than them, you would be more likely to see a bronze
statue turn its eyes than them, you would consider them to be shyer
than the very pupils in their own eyes. And when they attend the
common mess (philition), you would have to be content to hear them
speak only when spoken to. This was the way he took care of the boys
(paidiskoi).
It was to the young men (hebontes) that he paid by far the most 1 IV
attention, because he thought that these, if they were as they should be,
would constitute the city's biggest asset. Seeing that the choruses most 2
worth hearing and the athletic contests most worth watching were those
in which the competitive spirit among the participants was most
intense, he thought that if he could bring the young men (hebontes)
together in competitions of virtue, they too would attain the highest
degree of manly excellence thereby. I shall therefore explain how he in
fact organized competitions among them. The ephors choose from 3
among men in the prime of life three who are called hippagretai. Each
of these officers picks one hundred men, giving his reasons for
preferring some and rejecting others. Those who are not chosen to be 4
part of this privileged group fight those who rejected them and those
who were chosen instead of them, and they keep a careful watch on each
other lest they should make less effort than is considered honorable.
This rivalry is the dearest to the gods and the most beneficial to the 5
city. It serves to make apparent what the good man has to do, and both
parties separately try to be the best and, if necessary, will work
Text
αεί κράτιστοι έσονται, έάν δε τι δέη, καθ' ίνα άρήξουσι τη πόλει

6 παντί σθένει [&ν]. ανάγκη δ' αύτοις και ευεξίας έπι ελεΐσθαι.
και γαρ πυκτεύουσι δια τήν εριν δπου αν συ βάλωσν διαλύειν
έντοι τους αχο ένους πάς ό παραγενό ενος κύριος, ην δε τις
άπειθή τφ διαλύοντι, ¿χγει αυτόν ό παιδονό ος έπί τους εφόρους· 5
οί δε ζη ιούσι εγαλείως, καθιστάναι βουλό ενοι εις το ήποτε
7 όργήν τού ή πείθεσθαι τοις νό οις κρατήσαι. τοίς γε ήν τήν
ήβητικήν ήλικίαν πεπερακόσιν, εξ ων ήδη και αί έγισται άρχαί
καθίστανται, οί εν άλλοι "Ελληνες άφελόντες αΰτών το ισχύος
ετι έπι ελεΐσθαι στρατεύεσθαι δ ως αΰτοίς έπιτάττουσιν, ό δε 10
Λυκούργος τοις τηλικούτοις νό ι ον έποίησε κάλλιστον είναι τό
θηράν, εί ή τι δη όσιον κωλύοι, δπως δύναιντο και οίτοι ηδέν
ήττον των ήβώντων στρατιωτικούς πόνους ύποφέρειν.
1 "Α εν ουν έκαστη ήλικίςι ένο οθέτησεν ό Λυκούργος
έπιτηδεύ ατα σχεδόν εϊρηταν οΐαν δέ καί πάσι δίαιταν 15
2 κατεσκεύασε, νύν πειράσο αι διηγείσθαι. Λυκούργος τοίνυν
παραλαβών τους Σπαρτιάτας ώσπερ τους άλλους "Ελληνας
οίκοι σκηνούντας, γνούς èv τούτοις πλείστα ρφδιουργείσθαι, είς
τό φανερόν εξήγαγε τα συσκήνια, ούτως ήγού ενος ήκιστ' α ν
3 παραβαίνεσθαι τα προσταττό ενα. καί σΐτόν γε εταξεν αύτοΐς 20
ώς ήτε ύπερπληρούσθαι ήτε ενδεείς γίγνεσθαι, πολλά δε κ α ί
παράλογα γίγνεται άπό των άγρευο ένων οί δε πλούσιοι εστίν
δτε καί έίρτον άντιπαραβάλλουσιν ώστε ούτε ερη ός ποτε ή
τράπεζα βρωτών γίγνεται, εστ' αν διασκηνώσιν, ούτε
4 πολυδάπανος, καί ήν τού πότου άποπαύσας τάς [ούκ] 25
αναγκαίας πόσεις, αϊ σφάλλουσι έν σώ ατα, σφάλλουσι δε
γνώ ας, έφήκεν όπότε διψφη έκαστος πίνειν, ούτω νο ίζων
άβλαβεστατόν τε καί ήδιστον (τον) πότον γίγνεσθαι, ούτω γ ε
ήν συσκηνούντων πώς ¿χν τις ή ύπό λιχνείας ή οίνοφλυγίας ή
5 αύτον ή οίκον διαφθείρειεν; καί γαρ δή έν εν ταΐς ¿χλλαις 30
πόλεσιν ώς τό πολύ οί ήλικες άλλήλοις σύνεισι, εθ' ωνπερ καί
έλαχίστη αιδώς παραγίγνεται· ό δε Λυκούργος έν τή Σπάρτη
άνέ ειξε (...) παιδεύεσθαι τά πολλά τους νεωτέρους ύπό της
6 των γεραιτέρων έ πειρίας. καί γαρ δή έπιχώριον έν τοις
φιλιτίοις λέγεσθαι δ τι ίχν καλώς τις έν τή πόλει ποίηση· ώστ'
1 άρήξουσιν A ante corr. 2 [&ν] Stephanus 3 συ βάλλωσι δ I διαλύειν δ, Α 2 :

διαλύει Α 4 παραγιγνό ενος Stob. 6 εγάλος δ I είς del. Weiske 7 τοΰ] τό
Hennann 8 πεπεράκοσιν δ, Stob. : πεπράκοσιν Α 10 δέ om. Stob. 11 τοίς
τηλικούτοις om. Stob. 12 δύνωνται Stob. I καί οίτοι ante δύνωνται Stob. 18
τούτφ (sc. τφ οίκοι σκηνείν) Cobet I πλείστα δ : πλείστους Α 20 γε Stephanus : τε
Α : δέ Heindorf 21 ώς] (τοσούτον) άστε Cobet 22 άγρευο ένων Stephanus (cf.
Sphaerum FGrH 585 F 1) : άργευο ένων A 23 &ρτον Canter : άργόν A 24
συσκηνώσιν Marchant 25 πότου δ : ποτού A I ούκ del. Müller-Strübing 28 ( τ ο ν )
Wilhelm 30 αύτον δ : αύτόν Α33 άνέ ειξε ( . . . ) Schneider I παιδεύεσθαι ( γ α ρ )
Gemoll I τά πολλά susp. Pierleoni.
4.5-5.6 75
individually with all their might to help the city. They must also keep 6
themselves physically fit, for on account of the rivalry they fight with
their fists whenever they meet. However, any passer-by is entitled to
separate the fighting parties. And if anyone disobeys this arbitrator, the
supervisor (paidonomos) takes him to the ephors. And the ephors mete
out severe punishment because they want to ensure that hostile feelings
never prevail over obedience to the law. Those who are past the age of 7
young men (hebontes) and who are now eligible for the highest offices are
let off physical training by the other Greeks, but are still conscripted to
military service. Lycurgus, by contrast, made hunting the customary and
noble pastime for men of this age group, unless public duty prevented it.
In this way they too could endure the hardships of military service no less
than the young men {hebontes).
I have more or less described the educational practices which Lycurgus 1V
laid down for each age group. Now I shall try to describe the common
regimen which he established for them all. Before Lycurgus' day the 2
Spartans used to mess at home like the other Greeks. Realizing that under
these conditions they became extremely negligent, he brought the messes
into the public domain in the belief that in this way the laws given [sc.
by him] would be infringed the least. And he specified the rations for the 3
messmates, so that they should neither have too much food nor too little.
In addition many extra portions are to be had from game caught by
hunting; occasionally, the rich contribute wheat bread instead. In short,
during the mess the table is never without food nor is the fare
extravagant. And at the drinking sessions he banned forced drinking, 4
which unbalances the body and unbalances the mind, and he allowed them
to drink whenever they were thirsty. For he thought that in this way the
symposium would do least harm and give most pleasure. Yet, since they
mess together as I have described, how could anyone ruin either
themselves or their house by gluttony or drunkenness [sc. as in the rest of
Greece]? For in other cities for the most part men of the same age 5
associate with each other, and not the least sense of respect is to be found.
Lycurgus, by contrast, in Sparta mixed <....> so that the young men
learn from the experience of their elders. For it is customary in the 6
common messes (philitia) to discuss what noble deeds people do in the
76 Text
εκεί ήκιστα εν ΰβριν, ήκιστα δέ παροινίαν, ήκιστα δε

7 αίσχρουργίαν και αίσχρολογίαν έγγίγνεσθαι. άγαθά γε ήν
απεργάζεται καί τάδε ή εξω σίτησις· περιπατείν τε γαρ
αναγκάζονται έν τη οΐκαδε άφόδφ, καί ήν τού ύπό οίίνου ή
σφάλλεσθαι έπι ελεΐσθαι, εΐδότες δτι ούκ ενθαπερ έδείπνουν 5
κατα ενοΰσι καί τη δρφνη δσα ή έρψ χρηστέον ούδέ γαρ ύπό
φανού τον ετι ε φρουρον εξεστι πορεύεσθαι.
8 Κατα αθών γε ήν ό Λυκούργος καί δτι άπο των σίτων οί εν
διαπονού ενοι εοχροί τε καί ευσαρκοι καί εύρωστοι είσιν, οί δ '
άπονοι πεφυση ένοι τε καί αισχροί καί ασθενείς άναφαίνονται, 10
ούδέ τούτου ή έλησεν, άλλ' έννοών δτι καί δταν αυτός τις τή
εαυτού γνώ η φιλοπονή, αρκούντως τό σώ α εχων αναφαίνεται,
έπέταξε τον άεί πρεσβύτατον έν τφ γυ νασίφ εκάστων
έπι ελεΐσθαι ώς ήποτε αυτούς έλάττους των σιτίων γίγνεσθαι.
9 καί έ οί εν ούδ' έν τούτφ σφαλήναι δοκεΐ. ούκ αν ουν ρςιδίως 15
γέ τις εύροι Σπαρτιατών οΰτε ύγιεινοτέρους ούτε τοις σώ ασι
χρησι ωτέρους· ο οίως γαρ άπό τε τών σκελών καί άπο χειρών
καί άπο τραχήλου γυ νάζονται.
VI 1 Εναντία γε ήν εγνω καί τάδε τοις πλείστοις. έν εν γαρ
ταΐς άλλαις πόλεσι τών έαυτού έκαστος καί παίδων καί 20
οίκετών καί χρη άτων άρχουσιν ό δε Λυκούργος, κατασκευάσαι
βουλό ενος ώς αν ηδέν βλάπτοντες άπολαύοιέν τι οί πολίται
αλλήλων άγαθόν, έποίησε παίδων έκαστο ν ό οίως τών έαυτού
2 καί τών άλλοτρίων άρχειν. δταν δέ τις είδη δτι ο·δτοι πατέρες
είσί τών παίδων ων αύτός άρχει, ανάγκη ούτως ¿ςρχειν ώσπερ 25
αν καί τους έαυτού άρχεσθαι βούλοιτο. ήν δέ τις παις ποτε
πληγάς λαβών ύπ' άλλου κατείπη προς τον πατέρα, αΐσχρόν
έστι ή ούκ αλλας πληγάς έ βάλλειν τφ υίεΐ. ούτω πιστεύουσιν
3 άλλήλοις ηδέν αίσχρόν προστάττειν τοις παισίν. έποίησε δε καί
οίκέταις, εί τις δεηθείη, χρήσθαι καί τοις άλλοτρίοις. καί κυνών 30
δέ θηρευτικών συνήψε κοινωνίαν ώστε οί εν δεό ενοι
παρακαλούσιν έπί θήραν, ό δέ ή αύτός σχολάζων ήδέως
έκπέ πει. καί Υπποις δέ ωσαύτως χρώνταν ό γαρ άσθενήσας ή
δεηθείς οχή ατος ή ταχύ ποι βουληθείς άφικέσθαι, ήν που ΐδη
4 ΐππον δντα, λαβών καί χρησά ενος καλώς άποκαθίστησιν. ού
4 ήν t ™ Riihl I ήν om. δ I τοΰ Marchant : τό A I καί ή ύπό τοΰ οίνου [ ή]

Herwerden S είδότες Weiske: είδότας Α 6 κατα ένουσι A I οσα Α : ώσπερ δ :
οσαπερ Pierleoni 8 (αύτών) σίτων (cf. 2.5) Dobree 9 εοχροί Cobet : εΰχροοί Α 11
τις δ : τι Α 12 (ούκ) αρκούντως Κ. Schenkl I αρκούν δ 13 έκαστων δ : έκάστφ
Α 14 ήποτε αύτούς δ : ήποτε αύτοί A I γίγνεσθαι Α : γίγνωνται Schneider 25
παίδων (...) Morus I οΰτως post δρχειν Stob. 26 τούς δ : τον Α, Stob. 28
έπε βάλλειν Cobet 29 άλλήλοις δ : αλλήλους A I ηδέν (αν) Cobet 30 οίκέταις
(ώς ιδίοις) Brodaeus I τι δ I καί 1 del. Pierleoni I άλλοτρίοις (ώς ιδίοις) Pierleoni
33 άσθενήσας] άπορήσας Gemoll I ή] καί Castiglioni : del. Köhler 34 ποι
Heindorf. : που A I που] τιρ Dindorf I είδη Schneider.
5.6-6.4 77
city. Accordingly, there is very little insolence, very little drunkenness,

and very little shameless conduct and shameless speech. The custom of 7
dining away from home also leads to the following advantage: they are
compelled to walk home and thus have to take care not to stumble under
the influence of drink, for they know that they cannot stay where they
have dined and they must find their way by night just as by day; for
those still liable for military service are not even allowed to walk with a
torch.
Furthermore, once Lycurgus realized that those who keep in training 8
develop good skin, firm flesh, and good health from their food, whereas
the lazy look bloated, ugly, and weak, he did not overlook this matter
either. But although he saw that anyone who trained hard of his own
free will appeared to give his body sufficient exercise, he ordered that in
the gymnasium the oldest man present should take care of everything,
so that they never exercised less than the food they consumed required.
And it seems to me that he was not wrong about this. Accordingly it 9
would be hard to find healthier and more able-bodied men than the
Spartans. For they subject their legs, arms, and necks to fitness
training.
Furthermore, his decrees were quite different from most with regard IVI
to the following matters. For in other cities everybody exercises control
over his own children, servants, and property. But Lycurgus wanted to
bring it about that the citizens should somehow benefit from each other,
without doing [sc. each other] harm. He laid down that everybody was
in charge equally of his own and other people's children. If someone 2
knows that these are the fathers of the children who are under his
control, he is forced to control them as he would wish his own children
to be controlled. And if a boy is ever beaten by someone else and tells
his father, it is considered disgraceful for the father not to inflict another
beating on his son. To this extent they trust each other not to orda·
their children to do anything that would incur disgrace. He also allowed 3
them to make use of each others' slaves, if need be. And he created a
system of sharing hounds. As a result, when men need to call together
the hunt, those who lack [hounds] invite [others] to the hunt. And they
make common use of horses in the same way. For if someone is taken
ill or needs a carriage or wants to get somewhere quickly, he takes any
horse available, uses it, and thereafter restores it properly to its place.
Besides he also instituted the following practice which is not found 4
78 Text
ήν οΰδ' έκεΐνό γε παρά τοις άλλοις είθισ ένον έποίησεν

έπιτηδεύεσθαι. οπου γαρ αν υπό θήρας όψισθέντες δεηθώσι τ ω ν
επιτηδείων, ήν ή συνεσκευασ ένοι τύχωσι, και ένταύθα
εθηκε τους εν πεπαυ ένους καταλείπειν τά πεποιη ένα, τους
δε δεο ένους άνοίξαντας τά σή αντρα, λαβόντας δσων α ν 5
5 δέωνται ση ηνα ένους καταλιπείν. τοιγαροΰν ούτως
εταδίδοντες άλλήλοις και οί τά ικρά εχοντες ετέχουσι
πάντων των έν τή χώρςι, όπόταν τινός δεηθώσιν.
VII 1 'Εναντία γε ήν και τάδε τοις άλλοις "Ελλησι κατέστησεν
ό Λυκούργος έν τή Σπάρτη νό ι α, έν εν γαρ δήπου ταΐς 10
άλλαις πόλεσι πάντες χρη ατίζονται δσον δύνανται· ό εν γαρ
γεωργεί, ό δε ναυκληρεί, ό δ' ε πορεύεται, οί δε καί άπό
2 τεχνών τρέφονταν έν δε τή Σπάρτη ό Λυκούργος τοις [ εν]
έλευθέροις των εν ά φί χρη ατισ όν άπείπε ηδενός
απτεσθαι, δσα δε έλευθερίαν ταΐς πόλεσι παρασκευάζει, 15
3 ταύτα εταξε όνα εργα αύτών νο ίζειν. καί γαρ δή τί
πλούτος έκεΐ γε σπουδαστέος, ενθα ίσα εν φέρειν είς τ à
έπιτήδεια, ό οίως δε διαιτάσθαι τάξας έποίησε ή ήδυπαθείας
ενεκα χρη άτων όρέγεσθαι; άλλα ήν ούδ' ι ατίων γε Ενεκα
χρη ατιστέον ού γαρ έσθήτος πολυτελείς άλλα σώ ατος 20
4 εύεξίςι κοσ ούνται, ούδέ ήν τού γ ε εις τους συσκήνους Ενεκα
εχειν δαπανάν χρή ατα άθροιστέον, έπεί τό τφ σώ ατι
πονούντα ώφελειν τους συνόντας εύδοξότερον έΐΐοίησεν ή τό
5 δαπανώντα, έπιδείξας τό εν ψυχής, τό δε πλούτου έργον, τό
γε ήν έξ άδικων χρη ατίζεσθαι καί έν τοις τοιούτοις25
διεκώλυσε. πρώτον εν γαρ νό ισ α τοιούτον κατεστήσατο, δ
δέκα νών όνον αν εις οΐκίαν είσελθόν οϋποτε δέσποτας ούτε
οίκέτας λάθον καί γαρ χώρας εγάλης καί α άξης άγωγής
6 δέοιτ' ¿XV. χρυσίον γε ήν καί άργύριον έρευνάται, καί &ν τί
που φανή, ό εχων ζη ιούται. τί ουν αν έκεΐ χρη ατισ ός 30
σπουδάζοιτο, ενθα ή κτήσις πλείους λύπας ή ή χρήσις
εύφροσύνας παρέχει;
VIII 1 Ά λ λ α γαρ δτι εν έν Σπάρτη άλιστα πείθονται ταΐς
άρχαΐς τε καί τοις νό οις ΐσ εν απαντες. έγώ έντοι ούδ'
έγχειρήσαι οι αι πρότερον τόν Λυκούργον ταύτην τήν εύταξίαν 35
καθιστάναι πριν ό ογνώ ονας έποιήσατο τους κρατίστους των
1 έκεΐνό γε Weiske : εκείνο τά Α : έκεΐ τό Pierleoni 4 πεπα ένους Zeune 6

καταλείπειν Dindorf 13 [ εν] om. Stob. 14 των δ, Stob.MAL : τον (sic) Α : τον
Stob.s 15 έν ταΐς Stob. 16 αύτών δ : έαυτών Stob. : αύτών A I καί] ού Stob. I τί]
τι Stob. 17 έσπούδασται Stob. 19 [Κνεκα] Morus 22 τό om. δ 23 ένδοξότερον
Morus I το] τφ Brodaeus 24 δαπανώντα Morus : δαπανώντας A I εν γαρ δ 27
δεκά νων Dindorf I οϋποτε Α : οΰτε δ : οΰποτε (otite) Η. Schenk] I οΰτε Α :
ούδέ Κ. Schenkl 28 άγούσης Cobet 29 καν Dindorf 30 θανάτψ ζη ιούται
Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 z 8 35 εύταξίαν Dindorf : εύεξίαν Α.
6.4-8.1 79
among others. For when they are delayed whilst out hunting and need
provisions (if they have not prepared something for themselves), he
laid down that those who had finished should leave what had been
prepared, and those in need should open the seals [sc. of these
provisions], take what they needed, and then re-sealing it leave it
behind. Accordingly, by sharing with each other in this way even the 5
poor have a share in the produce of the land, whenever they are in
want.
Lycurgus also established the following customs in Sparta that are 1 VII
at variance to those of the other Greeks. For, I think, in other cities
everyone makes as much money as he can. One man farms, another is
a shipowner, yet another is a merchant, and others make their living
as craftsmen. In Sparta, however, Lycurgus prohibited free men from 2
having anything to do with the acquisition of wealth; he ordered them
to consider that their only appropriate activities were those that
promote freedom for cities. Besides, why should wealth be pursued in 3
a place, where he had laid down a fixed contribution to the food supply
[sc. to the syssitia] and a uniform way of life and thus abolished
striving for money for the sake of luxury? They do not need to make
money even for cloaks. For they adorn themselves not with costly
dress but with the fine condition of their bodies. Nor, indeed, is it 4
necessary to amass money in order to spend it on one's messmates, for
he made it more glorious to help one's fellows by personal effort than
by spending money on them, demonstrating that the former is a
matter of character, the latter a matter of wealth. He prohibited the 5
illicit acquisition of wealth also through measures of the following
kind. First he introduced coins such that even a sum of 10 minas
could never be brought into the house without being noticed by
master or servants, for it would take up much space and require a
wagon to get it there. Searches are made for gold and silver, and if any 6
should be found, the owner is punished. So, why should the
acquisition of wealth be eagerly pursued, where its possession causes
more pain than its use pleasure?
We all know that in Sparta they obey the magistrates and are most 1 VIII
law-abiding. For my part, however, I believe that Lycurgus did not
even try to enforce this splendid system before he had brought about a
80 Text
2 èv τη πόλει. τεκ αίρο αι δε ταύτα δτι εν εν ταΐς άλλαις

πόλεσιν οΐ δυνατώτεροι ούδέ βούλονται δοκείν τάς άρχάς
φοβείσβοα, άλλα νο ίζουσι τούτο άνελεύθερον είναι· εν δε τη
Σπάρτη οΐ κράτιστοι και ύπέρχονται άλιστα τάς άρχάς κ α ι
τφ ταπεινοί είναι εγαλύνονται και τφ δταν κ α λ ώ ν τ α ι 5
τρέχοντες άλλα ή βαδίζοντες ύπακοΰειν, νο ίζοντες, ήν αυτοί
κατάρχωσι τού σφόδρα πείθεσθαι, εψεσθαι και τους άλλους·
3 δπερ καί γεγένηται. εικός δε και τήν της έφορείας δΰνα ιν
τους αύτούς τούτους συγκατασκευάσαι, έπείπερ έγνωσαν το
πείθεσθαι έγιστον άγαθόν είναι καί έν πόλει καί έν στρατιφ 10
καί έν οΐκφ· δσφ γαρ είζω δΰνα ιν εχει ή άρχή, τοσούτψ
άλλον αν ήγήσαιο αυτήν καί καταπλήξειν τους πολίτας το
4 ύπακοΰειν. έφοροι ουν ικανοί εν είσι ζη ιοΰν δν αν βούλωνται,
κύριοι δ' έκπράττειν παραχρή α, κύριοι δέ καί άρχοντας
εταξύ καί καταπαύσαι καί είρξαί γε καί περί της ψυχής είς 15
άγώνα καταστήσαι. τοσαύτην δέ εχοντες δΰνα ιν ούχ ώσπερ
αί άλλαι πόλεις έώσι τους αίρεθέντας άεί άρχειν τό ετος όπως
αν βούλωνται, άλλ' ωσπερ οι τύραννοι καί οι έν τοις γυ νικοίς
άγώσιν έπιστάται, ήν τινα αίσθάνωνται παρανο οΰντά τι,
5 ευθύς παραχρή α κολάζουσι. πολλών δέ καί άλλων όντων 20
ηχανη άτων καλών τφ Λυκούργψ είς τό πείθεσθαι τοις
νό οις έθέλειν τους πολίτας, έν τοις καλλίστοις καί τοΰτό οι
δοκεΐ είναι, ότι ού πρότερον άπέδωκε τφ πλήθει τους νό ους
πριν έλθών σύν τοις κρατίστοις είς ελφούς έπήρετο τον θεόν εί
λφον καί ά εινον εϊη τή Σπάρτη πειθο ένη οίς αύτός εθηκε25
νό οις. έπεί δέ άνείλε τώ παντί ά εινον είναι, τότε άπέδωκεν,
ού όνον άνο ον άλλα καί άνόσιον θείς τό πυθοχρήστοις νό οις
ή πείθεσθαι.
IX 1 "Αξιον δέ τού Λυκούργου καί τόδε άγασθήναι, τό
κατεργάσασθαι έν τή πόλει αίρετώτερον είναι τόν καλόν 30
θάνατον άντί τοΰ αισχρού βίου· καί γαρ δή έπισκοπών τις α ν
εύροι είους αποθνήσκοντας τούτων (ή) τών εκ τού φοβερού
2 άποχωρειν αίρου ένων. ώς τάληθές ειπείν καί έπεται τή άρετή
1 ταύτα susp. Dindorf qui olim ταύτη 2 ούδέ δ : ούτε Α 5 τφ ταπεινούς

αύτούς παρέχειν Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 z 9 8 γίγνεται Wulff 9-11 έπεί δε
εγνω τό πείθεσθαι εγ. άγαθ. ειν., έν στρατιφ καί tit' οΐκφ τήν της
έφορείας (έφορίας Stob.M) δύνα ιν κατεσκεύασεν Stob. 11 εχοι Dindorf 12 αν
om. δ I ήγήσαιο Pierleoni : ήγήσατο Α : ήγήσαντο δ I τό Lipka : τού Α : {είς)
τό Cobet 12-13 τό ύπακοΰειν del. Schneider 13 ( ο ί ) έφοροι Richards I ικανοί]
δυνατοί Stob. : κύριοι Cobet 14 δ' είσπράττειν δ : δέ πράττειν Stob. 15 καί 1 ] om.
Stob. I γε] τε Stob. : δέ Schneider 16 τοιαύτην Köhler I έχοντας Morus 17 άεί
&ρχειν] διάρχειν Cobet 20-21 καί - καλών] όντων κάλων ηχανη άτων
Stob. 22 τοΰτο] τό Stob.SMA : τόδε ('fort, recte' Hense) Stob.L 27 άλλα - θείς]
δείξας άλλα καί άνόσιον Stob. 30 κατεργάζεσθαι Stob. 32 ( η ) Heindorf 33
ώστε τάληθες Heindorf I καί] έκεΐ Thalheim.
8.1-9.2
consensus among the most powerful citizens. I infer this from the fact 2
that in other cities the most powerful citizens do not want to give even
the slightest impression that they fear the authorities, but consider such
behaviour a sign of servility. In Sparta, by contrast, the most powerful
citizens are most deferential to the authorities and pride themselves on
being humble and on running not walking in answer to a summons.
For they believe that if they take the lead in practising unconditional
obedience, the others will surely follow. And this is in fact what
happens. It was probably these very same people who established the 3
power of the ephorate together with Lycurgus, because they were
convinced that obedience was the greatest asset in a city, in an army,
and in the home. For you might think that the more powerful an office
the more strictly it can frighten the citizens into obedience. And indeed, 4
the ephors are competent to fine whomsoever they want and they are
entitled to exact the penalty immediately; they are entitled to depose
magistrates whilst they are still in office, to imprison them, and to
prefer a capital charge against them. On the basis of their extraordinary
powers they do not allow the elected magistrates to rule throughout the
year just as they wish, as is the case in other cities, but, like tyrants and
judges at athletics contests, they punish there and then anyone whom
they perceive to be violating the law in any way. Among many other 5
ingenious means which Lycurgus came up with to encourage citizens to
obey the laws voluntarily, the following seems to me to be one of the
best: he did not announce the laws to the masses until he had been to
Delphi with the most powerful citizens and asked the god whether it
would be more desirable and better for Sparta to obey the laws which he
himself had laid down. When the god replied that it would be altogether
a better thing, he delivered them, and thus not only made it illegal but
also impious to disobey the laws endorsed by the Pythia.
This too is one of Lycurgus' admirable institutions: he brought it 1
about that an honourable death was preferable to a life of disgrace in the
city. For, investigation would reveal that fewer of these [sc. who prefer
an honourable death] die than those who prefer to retreat from danger.
Truly, in the long run, courage rather than cowardice leads to salvation; 2
Text
(το) σώζεσθαι εις τον πλείω χρόνον άλλον η τη κακίςι· και

γαρ ρ4ων καί ήδίων καί εΰπορωτέρα καί Ισχυρότερα, δήλον δ è
δτι καί εΰκλεια άλιστα επεται τη αρετή- καί γαρ συ αχείν
3 πως πάντες τοις άγαθοις βούλονται. η έντοι ώστε τ α ΰ τ α
γίγνεσθαι έ ηχανήσατο, καί τούτο καλόν ή παραλιπείν. 5
έκεΐνος τοίνυν σαφώς παρεσκεύασε τοις εν άγαθοίς
4 εΰδαι ονίαν, τοις δε κακοΐς κακοδαι ονίαν. έν εν γαρ ταΐς
άλλαις πόλεσιν, όπόταν τις κακός γένηται, έπίκλησιν όνον εχει
κακός είναι, άγοράζει δε έν τ φ αΰτφ ό κακός τάγαθφ καί
κάβηται καί γυ νάζεται, εάν βούληται· έν δέ τή Λακεδαί ονι 1(
πάς εν ¿tv τις αίσχυνθείη τον κακόν σύσκηνον παραλαβειν, πάς
5 δ' αν έν παλαίσ ατι συγγυ ναστήν. πολλάκις δ' ό τοιούτος καί
διαιρου ένων τους άντισφαιριούντας άχώριστος περιγίγνεται,
καί έν χοροίς δ' εις τάς έπονειδίστους χώρας απελαύνεται, καί
ήν έν όδοίς παραχωρητέον αύτφ καί έν θάκοις καί [έν] τοΐς 1!
νεωτέροις ΰπαναστατέον, καί τάς έν προσήκουσας κόρας οίκοι
θρεπτέον, καί ταύτας της άνανδρίας αίτίαν ύφεκτέον, γυναικός
δέ κενήν έστίαν ουσαν περιοπτέον καί α α τούτου ζη ίαν
άποτειστέον, λιπαρόν δε ού πλανητέον οΰδέ ι ητέον τους
6 άνεγκλήτους, η πληγάς ύπό των ά εινόνων ληπτέον. έγώ έν δή 2(
τοιαύτης τοις κακοίς ατι ίας έπικει ένης ούδεν θαυ άζω το
προαιρείσθαι έκει θάνατον άντί του οΰτως άτι ου τε καί
έπονειδίστου βίου.
1 Καλώς δέ οι δοκεΐ ό Λυκούργος νο οθετήσαι καί έχρι
γήρως άσκοΐτ' αν άρετή. έπί γαρ τφ τέρ ατι τού βίου τήν κρίσιν 2'.
της γεροντίας προσθείς έποίησε ηδέ έν τφ γήρςι ά ελεΐσθαι τήν
2 καλοκάγαθίαν. άξιάγαστον δ' αύτοΰ καί τό έπικουρήσαι τ φ
τών αγαθών γήρ<ρ θείς γαρ τους γέροντας κυρίους τού περί της
ψυχής αγώνος διέπραξεν έντι ότερον είναι τό γήρας τής τ ώ ν
3 άκ αζόντων ρώ ης, είκότως δέ τοι καί σπουδάζεται ο·δτος ¿3(
άγων άλιστα τών άνθρώπων. καλοί εν γαρ καί οί γυ νικοί"
άλλ' οίτοι έν σω άτων είσίν ό δέ περί τής γεροντίας άγων
ψυχών άγαθών κρίσιν παρέχει, δσφ ουν κρείττων ψυχή σώ ατος,
τοσούτψ καί οί άγώνες οί τών ψυχών ή οί τών σω άτων
άξιοσπουδαστότεροι.
1 ( τ ο ) Morus 2 ρφων (έστί) Weiske 11 π α λ α ί σ α σ ι Stephanus 15 έν del.
Stephanus 15-16 τοις νεωτεροις post ήν (1. 15) Herwerden, post ΰ π α ν α σ τ α τ έ ο ν
Heindorf 17 άνανδρίας Camerarius : ανδρείας Α : άνανδρείας δ 18 ουσαν Haa-
se : ού A, del. Dindorf 19 λιπαρώς Morus 24 ό om. Stob. I ί A : εί δ, Stob. 25 ή
άρετή Stob. 25-26 κρίσις δέ ταΐς γεροντίαις [της γεροντίας Müller] έπί τφ
τέρ ατι του βίου προτίθεται [προστίθεται Müller] Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 z 13
26 προσθείς A, Stob. A : προβείς Stob. SM : πϋθείς Stob. L 31 άλιστα τών ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν
A, Stob.A : άλιστα τών άνθρωπίνων Stob. SML : άλιστα πάντων ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν
Hense : άλιστ' άνθρώπων Schaefer I καί om. Stob. 32 είσίν om. Stob. 33 κρείττων
A : κρείττον δ : κρεΐσον Stob. s (sed o ex ω corr.) : κρείσσον S t o b . ^ : κρείσσω
Stob. L
9.2-10.3
for it is easier, more pleasant, more rewarding, and stronger. And clearly
fame above all is the consequence of courage; all want some kind of
alliance with the brave. It is worthwhile not to omit how he contrived 3
that this should happen. He made it clear that happiness was the reward
of the brave, misery the reward of cowards. For whenever someone 4
proves a coward in other cities, he has only the bad reputation of being
a coward, but the coward goes to the same public places as the brave and
takes his seat and joins in physical exercise, as he likes. But in
Lakedaimon everyone would be ashamed to accept a coward as a
messmate or as an opponent in a wrestling bout. Frequently such a man 5
is not picked when they select teams for ballgames, and in choruses he
is relegated to the most ignominious positions. He must give way in
the streets and rise from his seat even for younger men. He must bring
up young female relatives in his home, and while they must suffer the
accusation of his unmanliness, he must endure having no wife at the
heart of his home and at the same time pay a fine for this; he may not
stroll about anointed with oil, nor behave like the blameless, or else he
has to submit to a beating from braver men. Speaking for myself, I am 6
not in the least surprised that, since such dishonour is laid on cowards,
there death is preferred to such a dishonourable and shameful life.
In my view, Lycurgus also regulated well the way in which old men 1
should practise virtue: he placed the election to the Council of Elders
(gerontia) near the end of life, and thus ensured that good conduct was
not neglected even in old age. His care for good men in their old age is 2
also worthy of admiration. For he ruled that the Elders were to be in
charge of trials for capital offences and thus brought it about that old
age was honoured more highly than the physical strength of men in
their prime. And, indeed, it is natural that this contest [sc. for the 3
gerontia] between men is most zealously pursued. For good as the
physical contests are, they relate to the body; by contrast the contest for
the Council of Elders (gerontia) is concerned with the selection of good
minds. As much then as the mind is superior to the body, so much
more worthy of endeavour are contests of the mind than contests of
physical strength.
84 Text
4 Τόδε γε ήν τοΰ Λυκούργου πώς οΰ εγάλως άξιον

άγασθήναι; δς επειδή κατέ αθεν ότι ίδίςι οΐ βουλό ενοι
έπι ελεΐσθαι της άρετης οΰχ ικανοί είσι τάς πατρίδας αΰξειν,
έκεΐνος έν τη Σπάρτη ήνάγκασε δη οσίςι πάντας πάσας
άσκείν τάς άρετάς. ώσπερ ουν οί ίδιώται των ιδιωτών 5
διαφέρουσιν άρετη οί ασκούντες τών ά ελούντων, οΰτως και ή
Σπάρτη είκότως πασών τών πόλεων άρετη διαφέρει, όνη
5 δη οσίςι έπιτηδεύουσα τήν καλοκάγαθίαν. οΰ γαρ κάκεΐνο
καλόν, το τών άλλων πόλεων κολαζουσών ην τίς τι Ετερος
ετερον άδικη, έκεΐνον ζη ίας ή έλάττους έπιθεΐναι έί τις 10
6 φανερός εϊη α ελών τοΰ ώς βέλτιστος είναι; ένό ιζε γάρ, ώς
εοικεν, ύπό εν τών άνδραποδιζο ένων τινάς ή άποστερούντων
τι ή κλεπτόντων τους βλαπτο ένους όνον άδικείσβαι, ύπό δε
τών κακών και άνάνδρων δλας τάς πόλεις προδίδοσθαι. ώστε
7 είκότως ε οιγε. δοκεΐ τούτοις εγίστας ζη ίας έπιθεΐναι. 15
έπέθηκε δε και τήν άνυπόστατον ανάγκην άσκείν ά π α σ α ν
πολιτικήν άρετήν. τοις εν γάρ τά νό ι α έκτελοΰσιν ό οίως
άπασι τήν πόλιν οίκείαν έποίησε, και ούδεν ύπελογίσατο οΰτε
σω άτων οΰτε χρη άτων άσθένειαν εί δέ τις άποδειλιάσειε
τοΰ τα νό ι α διαπονεΐσθαι, τοΰτον έκει άπέδειξε ηδέ 20
8 νο ίζεσθαι ετι τών ό οιων είναι, άλλα γαρ δτι εν
παλαιότατοι ο·δτοι οί νό οι είσί, σαφές· ό γάρ Λυκούργος κ α τ ά
τους Ήρακλείδας λέγεται γενέσθαι· οΰτω δέ παλαιοί δντες
ετι και νΰν τοις άλλοις καινότατοι είσι· και γάρ τό π ά ν τ ω ν
θαυ αστότατον έπαινοΰσι εν πάντες τά τοιαύτα 25
επιτηδεύ ατα, ι εΐσθαι δε αύτά ούδε ία πόλις εθέλει.
XI 1 Και ταύτα εν δή κοινά άγαθά και εν ειρήνη και έν

πολέ φ· εί δέ τις βούλεται κατα αθείν δ τι και εις τάς
στρατείας βέλτιον τών άλλων έ ηχανήσατο, εξεστι και 30
2 τούτων άκούειν. πρώτον εν τοίνυν οί έφοροι προκηρύττουσι τ ά
ετη εις α δει στρατεύεσθαι και ίππεΰσι και όπλίταις, επειτα
δέ και τοις χειροτέχναις· ώστε δσοισπερ έπί πόλεως χρώνται
άνθρωποι, πάντων τούτων και έπί στρατιάς οί Λακεδαι όνιοι
εύποροΰσν και δσων δε οργάνων ή στρατιά κοινή δεηθείη &ν, 35
άπαντα τά εν ά άξη προστέτακται παρέχειν, τά δε
3 ύποζυγίφ· οΰτω γάρ ήκιστ' αν τό έλλείπον διαλάθοι. ΕΪς γ ε
ήν τόν έν τοις δπλοις άγώνα τοιάδ' έ ηχανήσατο, στολήν εν
2 δς] ώς Pierleoni I δτι <εστιν> δπου Pierleoni I ίδίςι oi] Erbse : δπου οί A I
βουλό ενοι <οί> Madvig 3 επι ελούνται Haase 4 έκεϊνος del. Pierleoni : έκεΐνο
δ 5 οί om. δ I τών] om. δ 20 έκεΐ] : εκείνος Jacobs : del. Castiglioni I ηδέ Zeune :
ήτε A 30 στρατείας δ : στατιάς A I βελτίω Morus 35 δσων Haase : δσα Α 36
απαντα Haase : απάντων A I παράγειν Dindorf 37 έλλείπον Schneider :
έκλείπον Α 38 τοίς om. Stob.
10.4-11.3 85
Again, how can the following regulation of Lycurgus fail to be 4

admired greatly? Since he realized that when [sc. only] volunteers
practice virtue in private, they are not sufficient of themselves to
promote the good of the state, he made it compulsory in Sparta for
everyone to practise all virtues in public. As those who pursue virtue in
their private lives differ from those who neglect it in their private lives,
so Sparta naturally differs from all cities in terms of virtue, because she
is the only one to make the pursuit of good conduct a public issue. For 5
was the following regulation not good too? While other cities punish
someone if he wrongs another, he decreed no lesser punishment, if
someone publicly neglected [sc. his responsibility] to become as good
as possible. For he thought, it seems, that only the victims directly 6
affected are harmed by those who enslave others, or rob, or steal
something, while entire cities are destroyed by the wicked and cowards.
Accordingly, I believe, he was right to impose the severest punishment
on the latter. And in addition he made it compulsory to practise every 7
civic virtue without excuse. Thus he made the city belong to all those
who performed their legal duties, and took no account of their lack of
wealth or their physical strength. But if someone out of fear refrained
from practising his legal obligations, he made it clear that the latter
should no longer be regarded as one of the full citizens (homoioi). It is 8
clear that these laws are ancient, because Lycurgus is said to have lived
at the time of the Heraclids. But although they are old, even now others
find them novel. For what is most surprising of all is the fact that all
praise these customs and institutions, but no city wants to imitate
them.
These measures are blessings common to both times of peace and 1 XI

times of war. But if anyone is interested, it is also possible to learn
about the way in which their military practices are better than those of
other cities. First the ephors proclaim which year groups are to serve as 2
horsemen and hoplites, and then those which are to serve as artisans
(icheirotechnai). As a result the Lakedaimonians on campaign have an
abundance of all the things which people normally use in the city. And
so all the equipment the army as a whole might need is ordered to be
supplied: some [sc. is brought] on wagons, some on baggage-animals.
For in this way anything that is missing is unlikely to be overlooked.
For battle he established the following: they should have a crimson 3
86 Text
εχειν φοινικίδα, ταύτην νο ίζων ήκιστα εν γυναικεία κοινωνείν,

πολε ικωτάτην δ' είναι, καί χαλκήν ασπίδα· και γαρ τάχιστα
λα πρύνεται καί σχολαιότοτα ρυπαίνεται, έφήκε δε καί κο άν
τοις ύπέρ την ήβητικήν ήλικίαν, νο ίζων οΰτω καί είζους αν καί
έλευθεριωτέρους καί γοργοτέρους φαίνεσθαι. οΰτω γε ήν 5
4 κατεσκευασ ένων όρας εν διείλεν εξ καί ιππέων καί όπλιτών.
εκάστη δε τών πολιτικών ορών εχει πολέ αρχον £να, λοχαγούς
τέτταρας, πεντηκοστηρας όκτω, ενω οτάρχας εκκαίδεκα. εκ δε
τούτων τών ορών δια παρεγγυήσεως καθίστανται τοτε εν είς
5 ένω οτίας, τοτε δε εις τρεις, τοτε δέ είς £ξ. δ δε οί πλείστοι 10
οΐονται, πολυπλοκωτάτην είναι τήν εν δπλοις Λακωνική ν τάξιν,
το έναντιώτατον ύπειλήφασι τού δντος- είσί εν γαρ εν τη
Λακωνική τάξει οί πρωτοστάται άρχοντες, καί ό στίχος έκαστος
6 πάντ' εχων δσα δει παρέχεσθαι. οΰτω δε ρςώιον ταύτην τήν
τάξιν αθείν ώς δστις τους ανθρώπους δύναται γιγνώσκειν ούδείς 15
αν ά άρτον τοις εν γαρ ήγείσθαι δεδοται, τοις δέ Κπεσθαι
τέτακται. αϊ δέ παραγωγαί ώσπερ ύπό κήρυκος ύπό τού
ένω οτάρχου λόγω δηλοΰνται, (...) άραιαί τε καί βαθύτεραι αί
φάλαγγες γίγνονταν ων ούδέν ούδ' όπωστιοΰν χαλεπόν αθεΐν.
7 το εντοι καν ταραχθώσι ετά τοΰ παρατυχόντος ό οίως 20
άχεσθαι, ταύτην τήν τάξιν ούκέτι ράδιόν έστι αθείν πλήν τοις
8 ύπό τών τοΰ Λυκούργου νό ων πεπαιδευ ένοις. εύπορώτατα δέ
καί εκείνα Λακεδαι όνιοι ποιοΰσι τα τοις όπλο άχοις πάνυ
δοκοΰντα χαλεπά είναι· δταν έν γαρ έπί κέρως πορεύωνται,
κατ' ούράν δήπου ένω οτία επεταν εάν δ' έν τφ τοιούτψ έκ τοΰ 25
έναντίου πολε ία φάλαγξ επιφανή, τφ ένω οτάρχη
παρεγγυάται είς ετωπον παρ' άσπίδα καθίστασθαι, καί διά
παντός οΰτως, εστ' αν ή φάλαγξ εναντία καταστή. ην γε ήν
οΰτως εχόντων έκ τού όπισθεν οί πολέ ιοι έπιφανώσιν,
έξελίττεται έκαστος ό στίχος, ϊνα οί κράτιστοι έναντίοι άεί τοις 30
9 πολε ίοις ωσιν. δτι δέ ό άρχων ευώνυ ος γίγνεται, ούδ' έν τούτψ
ειονεκτείν ήγοΰνται, άλλ' εστίν δτε καί πλεονεκτειν. εί γάρ
τίνες κυκλοΰσθαι έπιχειροΐεν, ούκ αν κατά τά γυ νά, ά λ λ α
κατά τά ώπλισ ένα περιβάλλοιεν άν. ην δέ ποτε Ενεκά τίνος
2 καί - ασπίδα] hic Wulff, del. Haase, post φοινικίδα (1. 1) A, Stob. 5 καί
γοργοτέρους om. Stob. 6 όρας εν διείλεν] οίρας εδειξεν Stob. 7 πολιτικών Α,
Harp. s.v. όραν : όπλιτικών Stob. I ορών εχει Harp. s.v. όραν : εχει ορών
( οιρών δ, Stob.) Α 8 πεντηκοστηρας Α, Stob. (cf. 13.4) : πεντεκοστύας Harp. s.v.
όραν I ένω οτάρχας δ. Harp. s.v. όραν : ένω οτάρχους Α, Stob. 9 ερών Stob. 9-
10 τοτε ter Α : τότε δ 17 ύπό 2 del. Cobet 18 (...) Dindorf 19 ούδέν ούδ' vel δή ούδ*
δ : δ' ούδ' Α : δή (ούδέν) ούδ' Weiske : γ' (ούδέν) ούδ' Pierleoni 20 το δ : τόν Α
21 comma post άχεσθαι sublatum post τάξιν posuit Pierleoni | ταύτην] καί κατ'
αύτήν Madvig | ταύτην - τάξιν del. Herwerden | τάξιν (έχοντας) Κ. Schenkl 25
ένω οτία vel -οτεί<ρ vel -ότια δ : ένω οτεία Α | ένω οτία (ένω οτίςι) Dobree 26
ένω οτάρχφ Dindorf (cf. ad 11.4) 31 8τε δ.
11.3-11.9 87
cloak, because he thought that this colour would have least in common
with any feminine apparel, but would be most warlike; and they should
have a shield of bronze, for bronze is polished to a shine very quickly and
tarnishes very slowly. He also allowed those who were past the age of
young men (hebontes) to wear their hair long, since he thought that they
would thus seem taller, nobler, and fiercer. He divided the men thus 4
equipped into six battalions (morai) of cavalry and infantry. Each of the
civic battalions (mora) has one general (polemarchos), four colonels
(lochagoi), eight majors (pentekosteres), and sixteen captains
(enomotarchoi). These battalions are lined up sometimes with one platoon
(enomotia) at the front, sometimes with three, sometimes with six. Most 5
people think that the Lakonian military formation is very complicated, but
their belief is the exact opposite of the reality. For in the Lakonian
formation the men of the first row lead, and every file is self-sufficient. It 6
is so easy to learn this formation that no man who knows how to
distinguish one man from another can possibly fail. For leadership is
granted to some, others are [sc. simply] ordered to follow. The
deployments are verbally annouced by the captain as if by a herald ( . . . )
The battle-lines are then drawn up thinner or deeper. Nothing whatever of 7
these movements is difficult to learn. By contrast, to learn how to fight
equally effectively side by side with whoever is at hand after the line has
been thrown into disorder, that is, in contrast, not an easy thing to learn,
except for those brought up under the laws of Lycurgus. The 8
Lakedaimonians easily carry out even those manoeuvres which drill-
sergeants (hoplomachoi) consider very difficult. For when they march in a
column, one platoon (enomotia) naturally follows behind the other. When
they are in this formation and a hostile battle-line appears in front of them,
the word is passed to the platoon to deploy into line to the shield-side (i.e.,
left) and the order is passed along the whole column, until a battle-line is
formed facing the enemy. But if in a similar situation, the enemy appears
in the rear, each file counter-marches so that the strongest always face the
enemy. The fact that the leader now stands on the left is no disadvantage in 9
their opinion, but occasionally even an advantage. For if someone tried to
outflank them, he would encircle them not on their exposed side, but on
the side that was protected. However, if it ever seems advantageous for the
Text
δοκή συ φέρειν τον ήγε όνα δ εξ ιόν κέρας εχειν, στρέψαντες το

άγη α έπί κέρας έξελίττουσι τήν φάλαγγα, εστ' αν ό εν
10 ήγε ών δεξιός τ), ή δε ουρά εύώνυ ος γένηται. ήν δ' αυ έκ τ ω ν
δεξιών πολε ίων τάξις έπιφαίνηται επί κ έρως πορευο ενων,
ουδέν άλλο πραγ ατεύονται η τον λόχον βκαστον ώσπερ τριήρη 5
άντίπρψρον τοις έναντίοις στρέφουσι, και ούτως αί> γίγνεται ό
κατ' ούράν λόχος παρά δόρυ. ήν γε ήν κατά τα ευώνυ α
πολέ ιοι προσίωσιν, ούδε τούτ' έώσιν, άλλα προσιούσιν [ή]
έναντίους [αντιπάλους] τους λόχους στρέφουσι· και οΰτως αυ ό
κατ' ούράν λόχος παρ' ασπίδα καθίσταται. 10
1 Έρώ δε και η στρατοπεδεύεσθαι ενό ισε χρήναι Λυκούργος,
δια εν γαρ το τάς γωνίας τοΰ τετραγώνου άχρηστους εΐναι
κύκλον έστρατοπεδεύσατο, εί ή δρος άσφαλές ά'η ή τείχος ή
2 ποτα όν όπισθεν εχοιεν. φυλακάς γε ήν έποίησε εθη ερινάς
τάς εν παρά τα δπλα εΐσω βλεπούσας· οϋ γαρ πολε ίων 15
ενεκα άλλα φίλων αύται καθίστανται· τους γε ήν πολε ίους
ιππείς φυλάττουσιν άπό χωρίων ων αν έκ πλείστου προορφεν
3 εΐ [δέ] τις προσίοι. νύκτωρ (δέ) εξω της φάλαγγος ένό ισεν
ύπό Σκιριτών προφυλάττεσθαν νυν δ' ήδη και ύπό ξένων ( . . . )
4 αύτών τίνες συ παρόντες. τό δε έχοντας τα δόρατα άει20
περιιέναι, εδ και τούτο δει εΐδέναι, δτι τοΰ αύτού ενεκά έστιν
οίπερ καί τους δούλους εΐργουσιν άπό των δπλων, καί τους έπί
τά άναγκαΐα άπιόντας ού δει θαυ άζειν δτι οΰτε άλλήλων
οΰτε των δπλων πλέον ή δσον ή λυπειν άλλήλους άπέρχονταν
καί γαρ ταύτα άσφαλείας ενεκα ποιοΰσιν. εταστρα-25
5 τοπεδεύονταί γ ε ήν πυκνά καί τού σίνεσθαι τους πολε ίους
ενεκα καί τού ώφελείν τους φίλους, καί γυ νάζεσθαι δέ
προαγορεύεται ύπό τού νό ου ίίπασι Λακεδαι ονίοις, εωσπερ
αν στρατεύωνται. ώστε εγαλοπρεπεστέρους εν αυτούς έφ'
έαυτοίς γίγνεσθαι, έλευθεριωτέρους δε των άλλων φαίνεσθαι. 30
δει δέ οΰτε περίπατον ούτε δρό ον άσσω ποιείσθαι ή δσον αν ή
όρα έφήκη, δπως ηδείς τών αύτοΰ δπλων πόρρω γίγνηται.
6 ετά δέ τά γυ νάσια καθίζειν εν ό πρώτος πολέ αρχος
κηρύττει· εστι δε τοΰτο ώσπερ έξέτασις· έκ τούτου δέ
άριστοποιείσθαι καί ταχύ τόν πρόσκοπον άπολΰεσθαι· έκ τούτου 35
1 δοκεΐ A I <τό> δεξιόν Schneider 3 δ' αυ] δέ δ 8 (o i ) πολέ ιοι Pierleoni I

ά λ λ α προσιούσιν Lipka : άλλ' άποθούσιν Α : άλλ' άπωθοΰσιν vel ά λ λ α
προθέουσιν δ : &πωθεν ουσιν Jebb I [η] Jebb 9 έναντίους del. Marchant :
(τοις) έναντίοις Köchly et Riistow I [αντιπάλους] Lipka : άντιπάλοις
Stephanus 11 χρήναι del. Dindorf 13 εις κύκλον δ 17 ων αν] άφ' ων Morus 18
[δέ] Bahrdt I προσίοι Madvig : προίοι A I (δέ ) Marchant : <δ'> Bahrdt 19 ξένων
( . . . ) Dindorf 24 άλλήλοις δ 25 ϊνεκα del. Herwerden 28 Εωσπερ Dindorf :
δσωπερ (sic) A : 8σοι(σ)περ δ 29 εγαλοφρονεστέρους Dindorf 31 άσσω
Jacobs : έλάσσω Α 32 αύτοΰ Stephanus : αύτοΰ Α 35 πρόσκοπον] πρότερον
κόπον Camerarius I άπολύεσθαι Victorius : ύπολύεσβαι Α.
11.9-12.6 89
commander to hold the right wing, they wheel their battle-line by

turning the leading unit into a column formation, until the commander
is on the right and the rearguard on the left. If, on the other hand, the 10
enemy formation appears on the right while they are in column
formation, they simply turn each company (lochos) like a trireme with
its prow towards the enemy, and thus, once again, the company at the
rear of the column comes to stand on the spear-side. But if the enemy
attacks from the left, they do not allow this either, but turn the
companies to face the attackers. And thus the last company of the
column stands on the shield-side again.
I shall also explain how one should encamp according to Lycurgus. 1 XII
For since the corners of a square are useless, he made them encamp in a
circle, if they did not have a safe mountain, or a wall, or a river behind
them. And he stationed daytime sentries: one group protecting the arms, 2
looking inwards. For they are posted not on account of the enemy, but
on account of friendly troops. Horsemen observe the enemy from
positions where they can see from a very great distance if anyone
attacks. He decreed that at night the guard was to be kept by the Skiritai 3
in forward positions outside the camp; now also by mercenaries (...) if
any are present. As to the fact that they always go around with their 4
spears in their hand, one should be well aware that they do this for the
very same reason that they also keep their slaves away from the
weapons. And one need not be surprised that those who go to relieve
themselves do not go further away from the weapons or from each other
than is necessary so as not to offend. This again they do for reasons of
security. They shift their camp frequently in order both to harm the 5
enemy and help their friends. All Lakedaimonians are ordered by law to
take exercise, while they are on campaign. As a result, they are prouder
of themselves and have a nobler appearance than others. No one is
allowed to go for a walk or run that takes him beyond the boundaries of
the battalion (mora), so that no one strays too far from his arms. After 6
the physical exercises the first polemarch has a herald give the order to
sit down - this is like an inspection. Then they prepare breakfast and
Text
δ' αυ διατριβαί καί αναπαύσεις προ τών εσπερινών

7 γυ νασίων, ετά γε ην ταύτα δειπνοποιείσθαι κηρύττεται,
καί έπειδάν $σωσιν εις τους θεούς οίς αν κεκαλλιερηκότες
ωσιν, έπί τών δπλων άναπαύεσθαι. δτι δε πολλά γράφω ού
δει θαυ άζειν· ήκιστα γαρ Λακεδαι ονίοις εύροι άν τις 5
παραλελει ένα έν τοις στρατιωτικούς δσα δείται επι ελείας.
1 ιηγήσο αι δε καί ην έπί στρατιάς ό Λυκούργος βασιλεΐ
δύνα ιν καί τι ήν κατεσκεύασε. πρώτον εν γάρ έπί φρουράς
τρέφει ή πόλις βασιλέα καί τους σύν αύτφ· συσκηνούσι δέ
αύτψ οι πολέ αρχοι, δπως άεί συνόντες άλλον καί 10
κοινοβουλώσιν, ήν τι δέωνταν συσκηνούσι δέ καί άλλοι τρεις
άνδρες τών ό οιων ο·δτοι τούτοις έπι ελοΰνται πάντων τ ώ ν
έπιτηδείων, ώς ηδε ία ασχολία -η αύτοίς τών πολε ικών
2 έπι ελεΐσθαι. έπαναλήψο αι δέ ώς έξορ άται σύν στρατιφ ό
βασιλεύς, θύει έν γαρ πρώτον οίκοι ών ιί Άγήτορι καί τοις 15
σύν αύτφ ην δέ ένταύθα καλλιερήση, λαβών ό πυρφόρος πύρ
άπό τού βω ού προηγείται έπί τα δρια της χώρας· ό δέ
3 βασιλεύς εκεί αυ θύεται ιί καί Άθηνφ. δταν δέ ά φοΐν
τούτοιν τοΐν θεοΐν καλλιερηθη, τότε διαβαίνει τά δρια της
χώρας· καί το πύρ έν άπό τούτων τών ίερών προηγείται 20
οΰποτε άποσβεννύ ενον, σφάγια δέ παντοία έπεται, άεί δέ
δταν θύηται, άρχεται έν τούτου τού έργου ετι κνεφαΐος,
4 προλα βάνειν βουλό ενος τήν τού θεού εΰνοιαν. πάρεισι δέ περί
τήν θυσίαν πολέ αρχοι, λοχαγοί, πεντηκοστηρες, ξένων
στρατίαρχοι, στρατού σκευοφορικού άρχοντες καί τών άπό τών25
5 πόλεων δέ στρατηγών ό βουλό ενος· πάρεισι δέ καί τ ώ ν
έφόρων δύο, οι πολυπραγ ονούσι έν ούδέν, ήν ή ό βασιλεύς
προσκαλη· όρώντες δέ δ τι ποιεί Εκαστος πάντας
σωφρονίζουσιν, ώς τό εικός, δταν δέ τελεσθή τά ίερά, ό
βασιλεύς προσκαλέσας πάντας παραγγέλλει τά ποιητέα. 30
ώστε όρών ταύτα ήγήσαιο αν τούς έν άλλους
αύτοσχεδιαστάς είναι τών στρατιωτικών, Λακεδαι ονίους δέ
6 όνους τφ δντι τεχνίτας τών πολε ικών, έπειδάν γε ήν
ήγήται βασιλεύς, ήν έν ηδείς έναντίος φαίνηται, ούδείς
αύτού πρόσθεν πορεύεται, πλήν Σκιρίται καί οί προερευνώ ενοι 35
ιππείς· ήν δέ ποτε άχην οΐωνται εσεσθαι, λαβών τό άγη α
της πρώτης όρας ό βασιλεύς άγει στρέψας έπί δόρυ, εστ' α ν
7 γένηται έν έσφ δυοιν όραιν καί δυοιν πολε άρχοιν. ους δέ δει
έπί τούτοις τετάχθαι, ό πρεσβύτατος τών περί δα οσίαν
συντάττεν είσί δέ ούτοι δσοι αν σύσκηνοι ωσι τών ό οιων, 40
καί άντεις καί ιατροί καί αύληταί (καί) οί τού στρατού
1 <αί> δ ι α τ ρ ι β α ί Heindorf 6 δει δ 8 παρεσκεύασε δ I φρουράς Leunclavius :

φρουρά Α 25 στρατοΰ] οί τοΰ Cobet 30 προσκαλέσας δ : προκαλέσας Α 34
(ό) β α σ ι λ ε ύ ς Juntina 37 στρέψας δ : συστρέψας Α 41 (καί) Zeune I στρατο ΰ
(σκευοφορικοΰ) Leunclavius 41-ρ. s. 1 οί - άρχοντες del. Castiglioni.
12.6-13.7 91
quickly relieve the outpost. After that there are pastimes and
recreations until the evening exercises. Then they are ordered to 7
prepare dinner and to rest by their arms, once they have sung the
praise of the gods to whom they have offered a propitious sacrifice.
You should not be surprised that I write at length. For you would find
that the Lakedaimonians have not overlooked in the least anything
concerning military matters that requires attention.
I shall also expound what power and honour Lycurgus gave to the 1 XIII
king on campaign. First, the city maintains the king and his retinue
in the field. The polemarchs camp with him, so that they may always
be at hand and hold counsel more readily, if need be. Besides three
other men from the full citizens (homoioi) share a tent with them:
these take care of all the needs of the others, so that they have no
other occupation than to take care of the affairs of war. I shall repeat 2
how the king sets out with the army. First, while he is still at home,
he sacrifices to Zeus Agetor and those associated with him. If he
sacrifices there with good omens, the fire-bearer takes fire from the
altar and leads the way to the borders of the country. There again the
king sacrifices to Zeus and Athena. When he has sacrificed to both 3
these gods with good omens, he crosses the borders of the country.
And the fire from these sacrifices leads the way and is never
extinguished, and sacrificial animals of all kinds follow. Whenever he
sacrifices, he starts this duty while it is still dark, because he wants to
attract the favour of the god in advance. Also present at the sacrifices 4
are the generals (polemarchoi), colonels (lochagoi), majors
(pentekosteres), the leaders of mercenaries, commanders of the
baggage-train and any commanders (strategoi) from the cities who
want to be there. In addition two ephors are present who do not 5
interfere unless they are summoned by the king. By observing what
everyone does, they restrain them all, as might be expected. When the
sacrifice is over, the king summons everyone and orders what has to
be done. Consequently, if you were to see this you might consider
others amateurs in military matters, and think the Lakedaimonians
alone the real experts in warfare. Whenever the king leads, provided no 6
enemy appears, no one marches in front of him except the Skiritai and
the cavalry scouts. Whenever they think an encounter will take place,
the king wheels to the spear-side with the leading unit of the first
battalion (mora) until he is stationed between two battalions (morai)
and two generals {polemarchoi). The senior man among the king's 7
retainers organizes those who have to be deployed behind these. These
are those among the full citizens (homoioi) who are messmates, seers,
Text
άρχοντες, και εθελούσιοι ήν τίνες παρώσιν. ώστε τ ω ν

δεο ένων γίγνεσθαι ούδέν άπορείταν ούδέν γαρ άπρόσκεπτόν
8 έστι. άλα δε και τάδε ωφέλι α, ώς έ οί δοκεΐ, έ ηχανήσατο
Λυκούργος είς τον έν οπλοις αγώνα, όταν γαρ όρώντων ήδη
των πολε ίων χί αιρα σφαγιάζηται, αΰλείν τε πάντας τους 5
παρόντας αύλι^τάς νό ος καί ηδένα Λακεδαι ονίων
άστεφάνωτον ειναν καί δπλα δε λα πρύνεσθαι προαγο-
9 ρεύεται, εξεστι δέ τφ νεφ καί κεχρι ένφ εις άχην συνιέναι
καί φαιδρόν είναι καί εύδοκι εΐν. καί παρακελεύονται δε τ φ
ένω οτάρχη· ούδ' ακούεται γαρ εις έκάστην πάσαν τήν 10
ένω οτίαν άφ' έκαστου ένω οτάρχου εξω· δ πως δέ καλώς
10 γίγνηται πολε άρχψ δει έλειν. δταν γε ήν καιρός δοκή είναι
στρατοπεδεύεσθαι, τούτου έν κύριος βασιλεύς καί τού δείξαί
γε οπου δεν το έντοι πρεσβείας άποπέ πεσθαι καί φιλίας καί
πολέ ιας, τούτ' ού βασιλέως, καί άρχονται |ΐέν πάντες άπό 15
11 βασιλέως, δταν βούλωνται πράξαί τι. ην δ' ουν δίκης δεό ενός
τις ελθη, προς έλλανοδίκ<*ς τούτον ό βασιλεύς αποπέ πει, ήν δε
χρη άτων, προς τα ίας, ην δέ ληίδα &γων, προς λαφυροπώλας.
ούτω δέ πραττο ένων βασιλεΐ ούδέν άλλο έργον κ α τ α -
λείπεται έπί φρουράς η ίερεί έν τά προς τούς θεούς είναι, 20
στρατηγώ δέ τά προς τούς άνθρώπους.
'1 Εί δέ τίς ε εροιτο εί καί νύν ετι οι δοκούσιν οί Λυκούργου

νό οι ακίνητοι δια ένειν, τούτο α ία ούκ αν ετι θρασέως
2 εϊποι ι. οιδα γαρ πρότερον έν Λακεδαι ονίους αίρου ένους 25
οίκοι τά έτρια έχοντας άλλήλοις συνεΐναι άλλον η
αρ όζοντας έν ταΐς πόλεσι καί κολακευο ένους διαφθείρεσθαι.
3 καί πρόσθεν έν οιδα αύτούς φοβου ένους χρυσίον έχοντας
φαίνεσθαι· νύν δ' εστίν ους καί καλλωπιζο ένους επί τ φ
4 κεκτησθαι. έπίστα αι δέ καί πρόσθεν τούτου &νεκα30
ξενηλασίας γιγνο ένας καί άποδη είν ούκ έξόν, δ πως ή
ραδιουργίας οί πολίται άπό τών ξένων έ πίπλαιντο· νύν δ '
έπίστα αι τούς δοκούντας πρώτους είναι έσπουδακότας ώς
5 ηδέποτε παύωνται αρ όζοντες έπί ξένης, καί ήν έν δτε
1 lac. post παρώσιν Thalheim 2 άπροσκεπτέον Α 3 άλα Castalio : καλ ά Α 4

όρώντων] παρόντων Plu. Lyc. 22.4 cod. L 8 lac. post προαγορεύεται Rühl I
κεχρι ενφ Lösch : κεκρι ενφ A I ίέναι Cobet 9 καί 1 ] καί (τούτο ν ο ί ζ ο ν τ ε ς )
Rühl I εύδοκι είν Lipka : εύδόκι ον A I lac. post εΰδοκι είν Schneider I
παρακελεύεσθαι Zeune : παραγγέλλεται Η. Schenkl 10 ένω οτάρχψ Dindorf
(cf. 11.4, 11.8) 11 έκαστου τοΰ εξω ένω . Weiske 13 κύριος δ : λυκοϋργος Α :
δή κύριος Marchant 14 γε] δέ Zeune 15 ού Weiske : α ί A I βασιλέως] εφόρων
Dindorf : τούτ' ού βασιλέως (αλλ' έφόρων) Weiske 23-ρ. s. 8 cap. XIV del.
Weiske 26 έχοντας δ : έκόντας Α 27 καί del. Herwerden 29 τφ] το Α 30
πρόσθεν ( έν) Cobet 32 έ πίπλαιντο Α έ πί πλαιντο Dindorf
άναπί πλαιντο Ruhnken.
13.7-14.5 93
doctors, flute-players, army commanders, and volunteers (if any are

present). So no one is in any doubt about what should be done,
because everything is thought of in advance. Lycurgus also introduced 8
the following practices concerning warfare which seem very useful to
me. Whenever a goat is sacrificed whilst the enemies are already
looking on, it is the custom that all flute-players who are present play
and no Spartan is without a garland. And it is announced that weapons
should be polished. The young man is even allowed to go into battle 9
anointed, to be cheerful and famous. They pass on the order to the
captain (enomotarches), for it cannot be heard across the whole
company (enomotia) by each captain (enomotarches), who is stationed
on the outside. It is the duty of the general (polemarchos) to make
sure that everything goes well. When it seems time to encamp, the 10
king takes charge of this and shows where the camp should be struck.
As to the dispatch of embassies, however, be they to friend or foe,
this is not the task of the king. But all start with the king, if they
want something done. When someone comes and asks for justice, the 11
king refers him to the court martial (hellanodikai), when for money to
the treasurers, when with booty to the booty-sellers. With things
being done in this way, there is no other duty for the king in the field
but to be a priest in religious affairs and a general in human affairs.
If anyone asked me, whether I believe that the laws of Lycurgus 1 XIV
still remain unchanged today, by Zeus, I could not state this with
confidence any more. For I know that previously the Lakedaimonians 2
preferred to live with each other at home with modest resources rather
than to suffer corruption by flattery as harmosts in the cities. And I 3
know that formerly they were afraid of being seen with money, while
now some even pride themselves on its possession. I am aware that in 4
the old days foreigners were expelled and living abroad was not
permitted so that the citizens would not be led into self-indulgent
ways by foreigners. By contrast, nowadays I know that those who are
reputed to be the leading men are doing their best to continue to serve
as harmosts abroad for the rest of their lives. There was a time when 5
94 Text
έπε ελούντο δπως άξιοι ειεν ήγείσθαι - νύν δε πολύ άλλον

πραγ ατεύονται δπως άρξουσιν ή όπως άξιοι τούτου έσονται.
6 τοιγαρούν οι "Ελληνες πρότερον εν ίόντες εις Λακεδαί ονα
έδέοντο αύτών ήγείσθαι επί τούς δοκούντας άδικειν· νύν δε
πολλοί παρακαλούσιν αλλήλους επί το διακωλύειν άρξαι 5
7 πάλιν αύτούς. ούδέν εντοι δει θαυ άζειν τούτων [των]
έπιψόγων αύτοίς γιγνο ένων, επειδή φανεροί είσιν οΰτε τ φ
θεψ πειθό ενοι οΰτε τοις Λυκούργου νό οις.
XV 1 Βούλο αι δε και ας βασιλεΐ προς τήν πόλιν συνθήκας ô 10

Λυκούργος έποίησε διηγήσασθαν όνη γαρ δή αύτη <ή> άρχή
διατελεί οϊαπερ έξ αρχής κατεστάθη· τοις δε άλλ ας πολιτείας
εύροι άν τις ετακεκινη ενας και ετι και νύν ετακι -
2 νου ένας. εθηκε γαρ θύειν εν βασιλέα προ της πόλεως τ α
δη όσια άπαντα, ώς άπό τού θεού δντα, και στρατιάν δποι α ν 15
3 ή πόλις έκπέ πη ήγείσθαι. εδωκε δέ καί γέρα άπό τ ω ν
θυο ένων λα βάνειν, καί γήν δέ èv πολλαΐς των περιοίκων
πόλεων άπεδειξεν έξαίρετον τοσαύτην ώστε ήτε δεΐσθαι τ ω ν
4 ετρίων ήτε πλούτφ ύπερφέρειν. δπως δε καί οΐ βασιλείς εξω
σκηνοΐεν, σκηνήν αύτοίς δη οσίαν άπέδειξε, καί δι οιρίςι γε έπι20
τψ δείπνφ έτί ησεν, ούχ ίνα διπλάσια καταφάγοιεν, άλλ' ινα
5 καί άπό τούδε τι ήσαι εχοιεν ä τινα βούλοιντο. εδωκε δ' αυ
καί συσκήνους δύο έκατέρψ προσελεσθαι, ο'ί δή καί Πύθιοι
καλούνται, εδωκε δε καί πασών των συων άπό τόκου χοΐρον
λα βάνειν, ώς ήποτε άπορήσαι βασιλεύς ιερών, ήν τι δεηθή 25
6 θεοΐς συ βουλεύσασθαι. καί προς τή οίκίφ δε λί νη ύδατος
παρεχει· δτι δε καί τούτο προς πολλά χρήσι ον, οί ή εχοντες
αύτό άλλον γιγνώσκουσι. καί έδρας δέ πάντες ύπανίστανται
7 βασιλεΐ, πλήν ούκ έφοροι άπό τών έφορικών δίφρων, καί δρκους
δέ άλλήλοις κατά ήνα ποιούνται, έφοροι εν ύπέρ τής πόλεως, 30
βασιλεύς δέ ύπέρ έαυτού. ό δέ δρκος εστί τώ εν βασιλεΐ κ α τ ά
τούς τής πόλεως κεί ενους νό ους βασιλεύσειν, τή δέ πόλει
έ πεδορκούντος έκείνου άστυφέλικτον τήν βασιλείαν παρέξειν.
8 αίται έν ουν αΐ τι αί οίκοι ζώντι βασιλεΐ δέδονται, ούδέν τι
πολύ ύπερφέρουσαι τών ιδιωτικών· ού γάρ έβουλήθη οΰτε τοις 35
βασιλεύσι τυραννικόν φρόνη α παραστήσαι οΰτε τοις πολίταις
9 φθόνον έ ποιήσαι τής δυνά εως, αϊ δέ τελευτήσαντι τι αί
βασιλεΐ δέδονται, τήδε βούλονται δηλούν οί Λυκούργου νό οι δτι
ούχ ώς άνθρώπους άλλ' ώς ήρωας τούς Λακεδαι ονίων
βασιλείς προτετι ήκασι. 40
2 τούτου Stephanus : τούτων Α 6 [τών] Pierleoni 11 αϋτη {ή) Weiske 15 τοΰ
del. Dindorf 17 δέ Weiske : τε A I τών δ : ων A 18 ήτ' ένδείσθοι Dindorf 23
post δή deficit A 25 ιερειών Cobet 26 ΰδατος άφθονίαν Laur. lxix 25 : 'aquae
copiant' Philelphus 28 άλιστα Richards 28·29 ύπανίστανται δέ τφ βασιλεΐ
πάντες πλήν εφόρων Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 z 17 32 βασιλεύειν δ, Nic.Dam.
FGrH 90 F 103 ζ 17 34 οίκοι del. Cobet.
14.5-15.9 95
they cared to be worthy of leadership, now they take much more trouble
to be rulers than to be worthy to rule. As a consequence, whilst in the 6
past the Greeks used to go to Lakedaimon and ask them to take the lead
against those they thought were doing wrong, now many call on each
other to help prevent them from taking the lead again. So it is no 7
surprise that they blame the Spartans for their blatant disobedience
towards the god and the Lycurgan laws.
I also want to explain the contract Lycurgus made between the king 1ΧV
and the city. For this is the only office which continues just as it was
originally established; whereas one would find the constitutions of
others to have changed and still to be changing even now. He made the 2
king perform all public sacrifices on behalf of the city because of his
divine descent, and lead the army wherever the city sent it. He granted 3
them the choice parts of the sacrificed animals and in many perioikic
cities assigned them so much of the selected (i.e., best) land that they
would neither lack modest resources nor stand out on account of their
wealth. In order that the kings also should mess away from their home, 4
he established a public tent for them, and honoured them with a double
portion at dinner, not so that they might dine twice, but so that they
might have something with which to honour someone if they so
wished. On the other hand, he granted each of them permission to 5
choose two extra messmates, who were called Pythioi. Furthermore, he
let them take a piglet from every litter of pigs, so that the king never
lacked sacrificial victims, when he wished to consult the gods about
anything. And close to the house a lake provides water. And this has 6
many advantages, as those who do not have such know only too well.
All rise to their feet in the presence of the king, except for the ephors
who remain seated on their official thrones. Furthermore, they exchange 7
oaths monthly: the ephors on behalf of the city, the kings on their own
behalf. The king swears to abide by the established laws of the city, the
city to maintain the kingship unshaken as long as the king keeps his
oath. These are the honours granted to the king in his own country 8
during his lifetime. They do not exceed by much those of private
citizens. For he did not want to foster a tyrannical attitude in the kings,
nor arouse envy of their power in the citizens. But, it is by the honours 9
granted to the king at his death, that the Lycurgan laws demonstrate
their intention to honour the kings of he Lakedaimonians not as men,
but as heroes.
COMMENTARY
Title
Λακεδαι ονίων Π ο λ ι τ ε ί α . The reading Λ α κ ε δ α ι ο ν ί ω ν π. (against

Λ α κ ώ ν ω ν π.) is supported by the fact that nowhere in the SC does X. speak
of Λ ά κ ω ν ε ς , always of Λακεδαι όνιοι (a tendency shared by other classical
historians, cf. F. Bölte, RE III A (1929), 1284). It is only at 2.14 and 11.5 that
the adjective Λ α κ ω ν ι κ ή appears. Generally the term Λ ά κ ω ν ε ς and its
derivatives are rare in X. in relation to Λακεδαι όνιοι and its derivatives (ratio
- 1:8).
The title Λ α κ ε δ α ι ο ν ί ω ν π ο λ ι τ ε ί α is surprising; given the content of the
SC πολιτεί α is to be taken here in the very loose sense of 'public affairs' (cf.
Ollier 1934, viiif. n. 6; Bordes 1982, 166f.); the title may not be Xenophontic,
but given by a later editor, perhaps on the analogy of the Athenaion Politeia,
which -again hypothetically- may have survived together with the SC among
the unpublished Xenophontic works (see p. 9 n. 58). Similar discrepancies
between the work's title and content are found in the Anabasis, which from the
second book onwards is a Katabasis, and in the Cyropaedia, which might better
be called 'praise of Cyrus' (D.L. 6.84 έγκώ ιον Κύρου). 1
1.1 f.: Prologue. Although Sparta is short of citizens, it is the most

powerful Greek city - the reason is the Lycurgan legislation.
1.1[1]: Ά λ λ ' . The word at the beginning of speeches and sense units is
attested after X. (An. 2.1.10; Ap. 11; HG 2.3.35, further references in
Denniston 1954, 21) mainly in the imperial period, frequently in imitations of
X. (at the beginning of speeches: Aristid. 35.1, 40.1; D.Chr. 12.1 al.; at the
beginning of sense units: Lib. Or. 2.33, 11.76 al.). The introductory ά λ λ ά at
the beginning of X.'s Symposium is comparable to our case, though equally
obscure (cf. Huß 1999, 6If.). One might also compare the (apparently
superfluous) use of δε at the beginning of the Xenophontic Apologia,
Oeconomicus and the pseudo-Xenophontic Athenaion Politeia as well as of
Xenophontic (and Herodotean) speeches (cf. Kalinka 1913, 84-88 [on the
Athenaion Politeia with older literature also on our passage]; Denniston 1954,
172 [Xenophontic and Herodotean speeches]; Pomeroy 1994, 216
[Oeconomicus]), and the use of τοίνυν at the beginning of some Xenophontic
speeches (cf. Denniston 1954, 573). T w o explanations of ά λ λ ά are
conceivable:
1 For the literary genre of the πολιτεία cf. also Treu 1967; Bordes 1982, especially 165-203.
98 Commentary
(a) The author wants to link the treatise with another work by himself or
another author. In this case άλλά must be understood as answer to a preceding
real or fictitious statement or treatise, comparable to the introductory ά λ λ ά of
court speeches responding to preceding allegations (cf. Hyp. 3.1 [J.]). If so, it
would not become clear which other work should be linked with the SC:
apparently, the SC is not - in opposition to, say, the Historia Gtaeca - a
continuation of an earlier work, for it differs from the remainder of X.'s oeuvre
not only by its occasionally careless style (cf. pp. 53f.), but also by its theme.
Likewise, a relation to the work of another author is improbable, for X. does
not mention or even hint at such an author. In contrast, where X. wants to
establish a link to other works, he says so (cf. Αρ. 1.1 [on Socrates]
γεγράφασι εν ουν περί τούτου και άλλοι ..., Eq. 1.1 συνέγραψε εν ουν
και Σί ων περί ιππικής ... ), and where Χ. disagrees, he names his opponents
at least in general (cf. Mem. 1.1.1 oi γραψά ενοι Σωκράτην ...).
(b) The author shows 'naïveté, real or assumed' (Denniston 1954, 21).
However, the expression 'naïveté' does not do justice to the fact that X. is
likely to have chosen the introductory words of his treatise rather carefully.
Possibly X. wrote ά λ λ ά because the SC - o r at least part of i t - was originally
conceived not for publication but for another public context (lecture?, cf. pp.
29-32). In this case one would have to assume that X. first improvised some
introductory remarks, before he embarked upon the main (written) text with
'but' in the sense of 'be that as it may'. This may equally apply to Smp. 1.1 ?
1.1[2]: έγώ έ ν ν ο ή σ ας π ο τ ε ... έ θ α ύ α σ α ... έ θ α ύ α ζ ο ν . The
beginning of the treatise shows some remarkable linguistic similarities to the
beginning of other Xenophontic writings.
(a) X. speaks of himself in the first person here and at Ages. 1.1, Vect. 1.1,
Eq. 1.1, Mem. 1.1.1, Oec. 1.1, Smp. 1.1 ¡mdAp. 1.1.
(b) Derivatives from νοείν link the beginning of the S C most notably with
Cyr. 1.1.1 εννοιά ποθ' ή ΐν έγένετο (cf. ibid. 1.1.3), but also with Vect. 1.2
and Eq.Mag. 1.1.
(c) Indefinite ποτέ is a typical Xenophontic introductory particle, so here and
at Hier. 1.1, Vect. 1.1, Cyr. 1.1.1, Mem. 1.1, Oec. 1.1.
(d) The verb θαυ άζειν is found frequently at the beginning both of works
as here (twice), so especially at Mem. 1.1.1 and Cyn. 1.3 (cf. also Cyr. 1.1.1,
1.1.6), and of new thoughts, e.g. Mem. 1.1.20, 1.2.1, 1.4.2, 2.3.2, 3.5.19,
Hier. 8.1. The 'amazement' at the beginning of an argument is Platonic (e.g.
PI. Prm. 129 C, Lg. 962 D) and -since represented in both Plato and X. alike -
presumably also Socratic. At the beginning of a work or a speech it may also
be a rhetoric device, cf. Isoc. 4.1.
2
Similarly already Portus 1586, 181: "Partícula ista [sc. ά λ λ ά ] servit moratae orationi: &
opponitur sententiae quae deest, id est, caeteri mortales fortasse non notarunt, non
observarunt hoc in Sparta, at ego diligenter observavi."
1.1[1]-1.1[4] 99
These similarities in diction and style of most Socratic and pedagogic-ethic

writings (in contrast to the Historia Graeca, which has no proem, and the
Anabasis) may be summarized as follows: the author justifies his topic by its
importance and the amazement (θαυ άζειν) which it arouses in himself (1st
person) or in others (only Cyn. 1.3) after considering it (έννοια). The
Hipparchicus, Oeconomicus and Hiero do not have a proem, but nevertheless
they take up parts of the diction found in other proems. Another proem, more
appropriate to the content of a constitutional treatise, is offered by [X.] Ath.
1.1. For some thematic parallels of our passage to the beginning of the
Cyropaedia cf. Humble 1999, 341.
1.1[3]: ή Σ π ά ρ τ η . In the SC X. distinguishes rigorously between
Σπάρτη and Λακεδαί ων. Originally both had been independent communities
(II. 2.58If.). Most recently Spyropoulos 1998, 37f. has made a plausible case
for the identification of later Pellana with (Mycenaean) Lakedaimon (cf. also
Hall 2000, 85-87).
In the SC Σπάρτη denotes the city and full citizens of the city,
Λ α κ ε δ α ί ω ν the Spartan territory and its free inhabitants (i.e. Spartans and
perioikoi). This explains the distribution of the two terms in the SC: Σπάρτη
occurs only in the first (chapters 1-10, i.e. at 1.1, 1.10, 5.5, 7.If., 8.If., 8.5,
10.4), while Λακεδαί ων and Λακεδαι όνιοι appear throughout the treatise
(2.13, 9.4, 11.2, 11.8, 12.5, 12.7, 13.5, 13.8, 14.2, 14.6, 15.9, with the adj.
Λακωνικός at 2.14, 11.5): for in the first part X. is mainly concerned with
education, which, of course, was an internal Spartan affair. In the second part he
deals with the army, which concerned the state of Lakedaimon and consisted
only in part of Spartans.
The Λ on the Spartan shields (cf. Anderson 1970, 18f.) and the mention of
the name in international treaties (cf. Th. 5.18.1 al.) attests that the
Lakedaimonians actually referred to themselves in this way. But one should be
cautious not to overstress or generalize the terminological difference between
Σπάρτη and Λακεδαί ων: in a number of sources they overlap semantically
(cf. Hall 2000, 78-80).
1.1[4]: των ό λ ι γ α ν θ ρ ω π ο τ ά τ ω ν π ό λ ε ω ν o W The adjective
όλιγάνθρωπος is first attested in X., cf. p. 47. The expression here contrasts
Sparta with Athens, which according to HG 2.3.24 was πολυανθρωποτάτη
των Ελληνίδων (sc. πόλεων), cf. also Th. 1.80.3.
Although X. was aware of the small number of Spartan citizens
(ολιγανθρωπία) as is shown by our passage and HG 3.3.15, he never thought
of ολιγανθρωπία as a threat to Spartan power.3 Rather, he laid the blame of
subsequent misfortunes on the loss of awe of the gods (cf. HG 5.4.1). Aristotle
was the first to consider ολιγανθρωπία one of the main reasons for Sparta's
decline (cf. Arist. Pol. Π 1270a 33f. άλλ' άπώλετο δια τήν
όλιγανθρωπίαν). For further reasons for the Spartan decline according to
3
Both πολυανθρωπία and ολιγανθρωπία depend mainly on favourable economic, not
legal conditions according to X.: at HG 5.2.16 a connection is established between wealth of
grain and πολυανθρωπία, at Vect. 4.49 between silver mines and πολυανθρωπία.
100 Commentary
ancient sources cf. Cartledge 1987,400-405, for modern scholarship on Spartan

ολιγανθρωπία cf. Cartledge 1987, 37f.; Hodkinson 1989, 94f.; Link 1991,
85-88; Hodkinson 2000, 416-423.
1.1[5]: δ υ ν α τ ω τ ά τ η τ ε κ α ΐ ό ν ο α σ τ ο τ ά τ η έν τη ' Ε λ λ ά δ ι .
ForX.'s fondness for clusters of superlatives see p. 55. Isoc. 6.81 also points
to the disproportion between the Spartan citizen number and its power. The idea
that the greatness of a city is not to be evaluated by the number of citizens is
found again at Pl. R. 423 A. Arist. Pol. VII 1326a 8-27 even remarks that an
excessive number of citizens renders ευδαι ονία and ευνο ία virtually
impossible.
1.1[6]: έ φ ά ν η . It remains doubtful whether the aorist (cf. also 1.2
ηύδαι όνησαν, έπέδειξεν) is to be taken as ingressive (= 'came into being
and is still') or resultative (= 'became and is no more'). Chapter 14, however,
makes clear that the έπιτηδεύ ατα mentioned in the following sentence have
ceased to exist by the time of the composition of the latter chapter (which I
consider as contemporaneous with chapters 1-10, see p. 29-31).
1.1[7]: κ α τ ε ν ό η σ α . The word is chosen in contrast to έννοήσας. It
denotes deep acquaintance in opposition to casual notice (cf. also Cyr. 7.1.6).
The verb κατανοεί ν in connection with έπιτηδεύ ατα is found at Th.
1.138.1, referring to Themistocles, who 'got deeply acquainted' with the Persian
institutions (έπιτηδεύ ατα).
1.1[8]: έ π ι τ η δ ε ύ α τ α . The word denotes state institutions in general
(cf. Andrewes 1966, 17: "social institutions"), in contrast to the more specific
νό οι, the way of life sanctioned by tradition (cf. 1.2[2]). More specifically, in
the singular the word denotes good behaviour (εύταξία, Mem. 3.9.14, cf.
8.1), good order (εύθη οσύνη, Cyr. 8.5.7), and in special cases keeping of
racehorses (Hier. 11.5) and hunting (Cyn. 2.1).
In the plural the word comes close to the Aristotelian το ηθος της
πολιτείας, cf. Arist. Pol. VIII 1337a 14-18 with Schütrumpf 1970, 25f. n. 6.
A key passage for the exact understanding of έπιτήδευ α in X. is Mem.
3.9.14. According to this passage the best occupation (έπιτήδευ α) is good
action (εύπραξία). Action (πράξις) is facilitated by learning ( ανθάνειν) and
practising ( ελετάν). Hence, the term έπιτήδευ α denotes the practical
application of something previously learned. This may be either a skill (τέχνη,
so the breeding of racehorses, hunting) or the laws (νό οι) created by Lycurgus.
The Spartan έπιτηδεύ ατα were admired not only by X., but also by many
of his contemporaries (cf. Isoc. 12.202); for criticism cf. Th. 1.71.2. For the
έπιτηδεύ ατα as the major theme of the first part of the SC cf. pp. 30, 44.
1.2[1]: Λ υ κ ο ΰ ρ γ ο ν . On the appearance of the law-giver in the SC and

earlier sources cf. introduction pp. 35f.
1.2[2]: ν ό ο υ ς . "The Spartan word for law was rhetra, and Nomos
represented the force of tradition which was so particularly strong in Sparta. It
might include law...." (Ehrenberg 1946, 79), cf. also Bordes 1982, 169-171. By
his choice of words X. makes plain that his main concern is not that Lycurgus
1.1[4]-1.2[6] 101
created excellent laws, but that fulfilling these laws had become second nature
to the Spartans. For X. Lycurgus was not only a law-giver - like e.g. Solon -
but the creator of a new way of life.
1.2[3]: η ύ δ α ι ό ν η σ α ν . On ευδαι ονία see p. 18. On the temporal
force of the verb see 1.1 [6].
1.2[4]: είς τά έσχατα [ ά λ α ] σοφόν ή γ ο ΰ α ι . It is quite
conceivable that άλα originally glossed (and subsequently was wrongly
inserted after) είς τα έσχατα, for the latter expression is uncommon, though
not without parallel (cf. HG 5.4.33 and p. 48). Perhaps X. formed the
expression on the analogy of είς τά άλιστα (= 'in the highest degree'), which
occurs more frequently (cf. Hdt. 1.20, Th. 6.104 al.). The solution proposed by
Strauss 1939, 512 n. 4, "very wise with regard to the extremes", is
grammatically possible (for σοφόν εις τι cf. Oec. 20.5, for είς έσχατα 'to
extremes' Pl. Lg. 835 E), but one would have to take the passage as ironical
(cf. p. 55), not a very likely meaning after all.
Lycurgus is called δόκι ος at Hdt. 1.65.2 and σοφός at PI. Ep. 354 Α-B (cf.
Plu. Lyc. 31.3). These are typical attributes of law-givers (see Szegedy-Maszak
1978, 202). Despite his overwhelming importance Lycurgus is not reckoned
among the Seven Sages. Instead, the legendary Spartan ephor Chilon entered
the prestigious group; for Chilon see PI. Prt. 343 A [according to whom all
seven sages και έρασταί και αθηταί ήσαν της Λακεδαι ονίων
παιδείας]; D.L. 1.40-42 [on seven sages], 1.68-73 [on Chilon]; Thommen
1996, 76-78 and Richer 1998a, 117-134 [on Chilon's historical importance],
1.2[5]: έκεΐνος γαρ οϋ ι ησά ενος τάς &λλας πόλεις,
ά λ λ α καΐ έναντία γ νους ταΐς π λ ε ί σ τ α ι ς . The Athenians also
claimed to have a constitution that did not imitate others, but was imitated by
others (cf. Th. 2.37.1, 2.41.1; Isoc. 4.39f., 12.152-155 with p. 21). Thus one
may argue that our passage does not necessarily mean that X. really believed in
the originality of the Spartan nomoi. He may have employed a customary
topos of state panegyric. But if so, one wonders why, given that according to
Hdt. 1.65.4 the Spartans themselves considered their constitution as ultimately
derived from Crete. For another explanation cf. p. 36.
1.2[6]: προέχουσαν εύδατ ονίφ τήν πατρίδα έπέδειξεν. On
ευδαι ονία see p. 18. On the temporal aspect of έπέδειξεν see 1.1[6]. The
latter in the sense "make, render" is lectio difficilior, άπέδειξεν would be
normal and is thus offered by a number of inferior manuscripts and preferred by
Weiske, cf. LSJM s.v. άποδείκνυ ι, II, 1 + 2 .
102 Commentary
1.3-6: On the physical condition of future parents, especially women - in

the rest of Greece consumption of food and wine as well as physical exercise is
restricted for women - in Sparta women take physical exercise alongside men -
marriage customs and marriage age in Sparta.
1.3[1]: αύτίκα γάρ. αύτίκα at the beginning of a sense unit is found

also at D. 19.17. γάρ explains εναντία γνούς ταΐς πλείσταις.
1.3[2]: τ ε κ ν ο π ο ι ί α ς . On the word see introduction p. 47, for the
general concept also 1.4[3]. Procreation issues, especially the uniting of fitting
partners, should be taken care of by the legislator according to Arist. Pol. VII
1334b 29-38.
As to the importance of the male and female partner in the act of
procreation: Anaxag. D/K A 107 remarks that the man is the active, forming
part, the women only the place (τόπος) of procreation. Anaxagoras may have
influenced A. Eu. 657-666; Hippon. D/K A 14 and Diog.Apoll. D/K A 27.
The passivity of the woman in the act of procreation is adopted by Arist. HA I
729a 9-14 and Plu. Lyc. 15.12f. A more detailed picture regarding heredity is
found in Plato. People are different by birth (Pl. R. 370 Α-B), some have a
good, some a bad φύσις (εύφυης - άφυης, so Pl. R. 455 Β and especially R.
409 E - 410 Β). Their φύσις depends on the φύσις of the creator (PI. Cra. 394 A
καί εξ αγαθού αγαθός, καί èie καλού καλός, with the restrictions of Pl.
R. 415 Α-B). According to Pl. Ti. 91 D the woman is the passive part
(άρουρα), but as such her good physical condition is as important as that of the
male partner (see Pl. R. 459A-460B).
Another view was that the woman contributed to procreation on an equal
level with men. Before X. this view is attested at Emp. D/K Β 65; Democr.
D/K A 143 and Hp. Vict. 1, 27-29 [VI 500-504], Crit. D/K Β 32 and E. fr. 525
[TGF]. X. points to it occasionally (so here, see also Mem. 2.2.5, Smp. 2.9).
After X. this point of view is taken e.g. by Philostr. Gym. 27f.
1.3[3]: ίνα έξ άρχής ¿κρξω αι. Similarly Critias began his SC
with the birth of the Spartan (see Crit. D/K Β 32: άρχο αι δε τοι άπό
γενετής ανθρώπου, see also Plu. Lyc. 14.1 [on marriage and birth] πόρρωθεν
αρχό ενος).
This beginning indicates that X.'s treatise is not structured according to
themes (see, in contrast, Vect., Eq.Mag., Eq„ Cyn. and partly Ages.), but
according to chronology, comparable to Ag. 1.6-2.31. Hence, the SC comes
close to the literary genre of biography. Indeed, the first part (chapters 1-10)
describes the way of life of an ordinary Spartan. It is hardly coincidence that in
doing so it reflects the early years of Agesilaus (not covered in X.'s encomium
of the king), see p. 34.
1.3[4]: oi έν &λλοι τάς έλλουσας τίκτειν καί κ α λ ώ ς
δοκούσας κόρας παιδεύεσθαι ... τρέφουσι. The wording is
awkward, the meaning can only be that the citizens of other cities rear their
daughters, i.e. future mothers, with scanty food. However, one would expect a
different wording, e.g. οί εν άλλοι τάς κόρας τάς ελλούσας τίκτειν
1.3[1]-1.3[6] 103
καλώς δοκοΰντες παιδεύεσθαι ... τρέφουσι. A comparable word order is

found at 2.1 οί φάσκοντες κάλλιστα τους υίείς παιδεύειν.
1.3[5]: σίτφ ^ άνυστόν ετριωτάτφ καΐ δψφ { δυνατόν
ιτροτάτφ. Χ. varies the comparative formula (ζ άνυστόν / ή δυνατόν) as
well as the adjective ( ετριωτάτφ / ικροτάτφ). For X.'s fondness for
clusters of superlatives see p. 55.
The expression ώς άνυστόν + superlative is attested in the fifth century at
Diog.Apoll. D/K Β 3. X. An. 1.8.11 has σιγή ώς άνυστόν = 'in as much
silence as possible'. I cannot find a parallel to the construction ή ά/άνυστόν +
superlative in the classical period. Apparently the expression is formed by
analogy with δυνατόν + superlative, which is found only in X. in the
classical period (see HG 6.3.6, Mem. 1.4.6, An. 1.3.15, similarly PI. Ti. 65
C). Besides, in X. the expression ώς δυνατόν + superlative is also found (see
Mem. 4.5.5).
Bread (σίτος) in contrast to other food (δψον) is found already in Homer (Od.
3.479-480, see X. Mem. 3.14.2: έσθίουσι εν γαρ δή πάντες έπί τ φ σ ί τ φ
δψον, δταν παρη). At Mem. 3.14.2-4 the consumption of δψον without σίτος
is blamed as greed (for όψοφαγία see Davidson 1995). Similarly at Pl. R. 559
Β the consumption of δψον is only permitted, if it fosters good physical
condition (ευεξία), cf. commentary on 5.9.
Not much is known about the nutrition of women in classical times, but
some exceptions provided (see below) frugality was normal: X. Oec. 7.6 praises
self-control towards food as a cardinal virtue in men and women and in
particular in young girls, both within Sparta and elsewhere. Arist. HA IX 608b
14f. points out that women in general needed less food than men. Though
cooking was women's work in ordinary households (9.5, Th. 2.78.3 with
Herfst 1922, 24-32), their access to food may have been restricted (Demand
1994, 8 for modern parallels). The ideal of female self-restraint in terms of
nutrition is primarily ethical-philosophical (concept of έ γ κ ρ ά τ ε ι α ) , though
antiquity knew of the aesthetic dimension of slimness as well, cf. Ter. Eu. 313-
315.
Only a few ancient sources stress the importance of sufficient nutrition for
women: according to the Hippocratic corpus sufficient food was one of the
preconditions of menstruation (cf. Dean-Jones 1994, 47f.). Aristotle rejects
scarce food for pregnant women (Pol. VII 1335b 12-14, cf. Hp. Vict. 27 [VI
500]). Even Pl. R. 451 E advises the same food for men and women (though
talking of quality rather than quantity).
1.3[6]: οίνου γε ήν η πά παν άπεχο ένας ή ύδαρεί
χρω ένας διάγουσιν. The adjective υδαρής is found only here in X., cf.
also A. A. 798. Since diluted wine was normally drunk by men, too, the
implication of the word here is rather 'diluted more than it would be for
boys/men' than simply 'diluted', cf. Arnott 1996, 651. On δ ι ά γ ε ι ν with an
object that is not a temporal term see e.g. S. El. 782, Isoc. 3.41 (?), D. 18.89,
similarly Posidon. ap. Ath. VI 275 A = FGrH 87 F 59 oí σφόδρα
104 Commentary
εΰκαιρού ενοι τοις βίοις ηγον (Usener διήγον) τους υιούς ΰδωρ εν ώς τό
πολύ πίνοντας, έσθίοντας δ' δτι αν τύχη.
Hp. Salubr. 6 [VI 82] recommends undiluted drinks (wine?) for pregnant
women: καί τά άκρητέστερα πό ατα ά είνω προς τάς υστέρας καί τ ά ς
κυοτροφίας.
Restrictions of wine consumption change in different places and periods. In
Italian Locri consumption of undiluted wine was allegedly punished by death
(for the historicity of this law cf. Hölkeskamp 1999, 190f.), in Massilia and
Miletos women were allowed to drink water only and in Rome slaves, freeborn
women and men until the age of 30 (according to Ael. VH 2.38 until the age of
35) were prohibited from drinking wine, cf. Ath. X 429 Α-B4 (for Rome cf.
also Plin. nat. 14.90; Val. Max. 6.3.9; Serv. Aen. 1.737 al.). According to
Arist. fr. 611.28 [R.] children and unmarried women from Keos were allowed to
drink only water, similarly to Plato's ideal state, where the consumption of
wine was completely prohibited for children under 18 and restricted for those
between 18 and 30 (cf. Pl. Lg. 666 A). Finally, an archaic inscription from
Crete forbids (or restricts at least) the consumption of wine outside religious
gatherings (cf. SEG 41.739).
However, D.S. 12.21.1 mentions drunk women in Locris. In the classical
period female slaves are attested as drinking wine in Athens (X. Oec. 8.11).
Naturally, hetaerae used to drink wine (cf. D. 59.33, Phal. ap. Ath. X 440 D)
and according to the comedians female citizens too (Ath. X 441 Β - 442 A). On
the drinking habits of women and children in ancient Greece see Villard 1988,
812-864 [women]; 894-899 [children],
1.3[7]: o i π ο λ λ ο ί τών τάς τ έ χ ν α ς έ χ ό ν τ ω ν . The expression is
periphrastic for δη ιουργός, βάναυσος etc., cf. X. Mem. 3.10.1, Cyn. 12.7,
13.4, Pl. Grg. 511 E.
1 . 3 [ 8 ] : ε δ ρ α ί ο ι . The word is attested only here in X. It does not only
denote an occupation performed when seated but also an occupation always
performed at one place; thus shoemaking and working in metal are called
έδραΐον έργον at Hp. Art. 53 [IV 232],
X. remarks at Oec. 6.6f. that such a lifestyle is typical of craftsmen, using,
however, the word καθήσθαι. Crit. D/K Β 32 implies that pregnant women
should do physical exercise, and it is explicitly said by PI. Lg. 789 E, Arist.
HA VII 587a 2-4, GA 775a 30-37. Nevertheless the ideal woman stayed
indoors: according to Plu. aetia Romana et Graeca 288 D she should sit at
home immovable like a 'cube' (καθάπερ τον κύβον έδραΐον), cf. E. Tr. 648-
650 al.
1.3[9]: ή ρ ε ι ζ ο ύ σ α ς . For the word see p. 48. Only here is ήρε ίζειν
intransitive, in opposition to the normal meaning of verbs in -ίζω. On the
4
παρά δέ Λοκροίς τοις Έπιζε^υρίοις ά' τις &κρατον επιε ή προστάξαντος ιατρού
θεραπείας ενεκα, θάνατος ην ή ζη ία Ζαλεύκου τον νό ον θέντος. παρά δε
Μασσαλιήταις £λλος νό ος τάς γυναίκας ύδροποτεΐν. έν δέ Μιλήτφ ετι καί νυν
φησι Θεόφραστος τοΰτ' είναι τό νό ι ον. παρά δέ 'Ρω αίοις οΰτε οίκέτης οινον
επινεν οΰτε γυνή έλευθέρα οΰτε τών ελευθέρων οί έφηβοι έχρι τριάκοντα έτών.
1.3[6]-1.4[2] 105
secluded way of life of Greek women see Th. 2.45.2, Pl. R. 579 B-C, Lg. 781
C al. with Schnurr-Redford 1996; Millender 1999, 373f.
1.3[10]: έ ρ ι ο υ ρ γ ε ι ν ά ξ ι ο ύ σ ι . On έριουργεΐν see p. 47. At PI. Lg.
805 D-Ε an Athenian remarks that in Thrace and elsewhere women work in the
fields like slaves, while in Athens women administer the household and do the
wool work. Wool work also appears as characteristic of Greek (in opposition to
Egyptian) women in the anonymous author of Dialex. 2.17 (= dissoi logoi,
D/K II p. 408f.), a contemporary of X.
At Oec. 7.6 (see Pomeroy 1994, 270f.) the landlord Ischomachus points out
that his wife knew only how to make clothes and prepare food, when he manied
her at the age of 15 (on cooking see 1.3[5]), cf. Oec. 7.41, 10.10. Textile work
is typical of women from Homer on (e.g. Od. 6.305-307), later in Hesiod (Op.
64), Plato (Lg. 806 A), X. (HG 5.4.7), and elsewhere, cf. Herfst 1922, 18-24;
Pomeroy 1994, 61-63; on vase depictions of spinning women see Williams
1993, 94-97.
X. seems to imply here -relying on his own privileged circumstances - that
slaves looked after the housework, so that the freebom women could devote
their time exclusively to wool work. Of course, in Athens and elsewhere such
conditions applied only to the rich (cf. Millender 1999, 374f.).
1.3[11]: πώς χ ρ ή π ρ ο σ δ ο κ ή σ α ι ε γ α λ ε ί ο ν &ν τ ι γ ε ν ν ή σ α ι ;
In a similiar vain Calonice complains at Ar. Lys. 42f. τί δ' αν γυναίκες
φρόνι ον έργασαίατο η λα πρόν, αϊ καθή εθ' έξηνθισ έναι ... On
εγαλείον see 4.6[5].
1.4[1]: ό δ έ Λυκούργος έ σ θ ή τ α ς εν κ α ΐ δ ο ύ λ α ς π α ρ έ χ ε τ ν
ί κ α ν ά ς ή γ ή σ α τ ο ε ί ν α ι . PI. Lg. 806 A attests that Spartan women were
exempted from wool work. But the contrast postulated by X. between Spartan
and non-Spartan women is overdrawn. X. Oec. 7.41 and 10.10 indicate that
wool work in Athens was performed not only by free women, but also by
slaves (as in Sparta). In hellenistic times it was conceivable that free Spartan
women worked at the loom (as in Athens) and this may hold true, at least
partly, of the classical age too (cf. Theoc. 18.32-35; Thommen 1999, 144f.).
By δοΰλαι X. points to the female personal servants. Normally these
performed menial services like spinning or nursing (cf. Plu. Ale. 1.3, Lyc.
16.5). Plu. Ages. 3.2 (referring to Duris, cf. FGrH 76 F 69) speaks of nurses
of the queen Timaia, the spouse of Agis, where Plutarch employs the word
είλωτίδες. One may thus assume that the δοΰλαι were at least partly helots
(cf. Ducat 1990, 54f.; Hodkinson 1997a, 47f.; 12.4[2]).
1.4[2]: τ α ι ς δ ' έ λ ε υ θ έ ρ α ι ς . The complementary terms δοΰλαι and
έλεύθεραι were possibly adopted by X. from Athenian legal practice (e.g. Sol.
fr. 36.13-15 [IEG\)\ for their complementary character cf. Gschnitzer 1963,
1286-1292. Their application to Spartan conditions may have been inaccurate.
A free Spartan citizen was possibly called simply πολίτης (cf. app. ΠΙ, p. 261
n. 17) or Σπαρτιάτης / Σπαρτιάτις.
106 Commentary
Several terms for parts of the unfree population existed. Its gradation
remains controversial (e.g. Link 1994, 1-9, 14-27; Hodkinson 1997a). TTie
term δοΰλοι may have been adopted from Athens to denote their totality (so
already atTh. 1.103.1; cf. 12.4[2]). The fact that X. here and elsewhere in the
SC avoids the term 'helots' hardly implies ignorance on his part: X. was not so
much concerned with historical specification of social conditions as with the
philosophical problem of the position of the free citizen towards the unfree (cf.
6.3 [1], Bordes 1982, 185f.).
1.4[3]: έ γ ι σ τ ο ν ν ο ί σ α ς ε ί ν α ι τ ή ν τ ε κ ν ο π ο ι ί α ν . For the word
τεκνοποιία see p. 47. X. Mem. 2.2.4 stresses that in selecting one's wife the
aspect of procreation was crucial. However, the task of Spartan women was
only giving birth itself. After that the newborn were entrusted to the care of the
famous Spartan nurses (Plu. Ale. 1.3, Lyc. 16.5), very similar to the ideal state
of Plato (Pl. R. 460 D).
1.4[4]: πρώτον έν σ ω α σ κ ε ΐ ν ί τ α ξ ε ν ουδέν ή τ τ ο ν τ ό
θ ή λ υ του άρρενος φύλου* έ π ε ι τ α δέ δρό ου κ α ί Ισχύος,
ώσπερ κ α ί τοις ά ν δ ρ ά σ ι ν , οΰτω κ α ι τ α ΐ ς θ η λ ε ί α ι ς αγώνας
πρός ά λ λ ή λ α ς έποίησε. On the verb σω ασκειν see p. 47. The idea that
physical training and healthy food influenced the physical condition of the
offspring is found also at Crit. D/K Β 32, E. fr. 525.4f. [TGF], cf. 1.3[2],
Female Spartans used to spend their youth no differently from women
elsewhere in Greece, i.e. at home (e.g. Hes. Op. 520-525). According to our
passage they were urged to practise physical exercise from an unspecified age
(cf. Ar. Lys. 82, 1308; E. Andr. 595-600; Pl. Lg. 806 A with Scanion 1988;
Hodkinson 1999, 150-152; Thommen 1999, 137f.; Hodkinson 2000, 227f.).
Adult women could possibly choose, but they were presumably bound to
devote themselves to the household, notably the bringing up of children, as
they were growing older (PI. Lg. 806 A, but Ar. Lys. 78-84 refers to the well-
trained, though married, Spartan woman Lampito). Arist. VII Pol. 1335b 12-16
recommends that pregnant women should practise physical exercise, and Pl. R.
452 Α-C that older women should also do some sport (cf. Pl. Lg. 833 C-D).
Elsewhere, too, women took part in sporting activities, so e.g. in Brauron (cf.
Scanion 1988, 186), on Chios (Ath. XIII 566 E), in Olympia (Paus. 5.26.2-4)
and in Persia (Ctes. FGrH 688 F 15 (54)).
At Theoc. 18.24 four groups of 60 young Spartan women are mentioned at a
race. Unfortunately the passage remains obscure in detail (cf. Gow II, 354 [ad
loc.]), but it indicates at least that young women may have been organized in
Sparta during the hellenistic period in some way (for classical and pre-classical,
but less compelling evidence cf. Scanlon 1988, 187). If such a form of
organization goes back to X.'s time, one may possibly consider the
γυναικονό οι as their supervisors, if it is admissible to regard the appearance
of this office in Sparta in the Augustan age as a reflection of the classical
situation (elsewhere the office is attested already at Arist. pol. IV 1299a 23 al.,
cf. extensively on γυναικονό οι Ogden 1996, 364-375; Schnurr-Redford 1996,
189-212; see also 9.5[4] [on public education of women]).
1.4[2]-1.5[4] 107
1.4[5]: ώ σ π ε ρ κ α ί ... ο ΰ τ ω χ a i . Double κ α ί in a comparison is

common, cf. X. Cyr. 8.1.8, Mem. 1.6.3, Oec. 9.19 al.
1.5[1]: γ υ ν ή π ρ ό ς &νδρα <5λθοι. For the expression in the sense 'to

marry' see X. Oec. 7.5.
1.5[2]: τ ό ν κρώτο ν τ ο υ χ ρ ό ν ο υ . The construction is common, cf. Pl.
R. 416B τήν εγίστην της εΰλαβείας or with the adjective in the positive X.
Cyr. 3.2.2 πολλήν της χώρας.
1.5[3]: έθηκε γάρ αίδεΐσθαι έν είσιόντα όφθήναι,
α ί δ ε ΐ σ θ α ι δ ' έ ξ ι ό ν τ α . The verbs είσιέναι and έξιέναι refer to the
Spartan entering/leaving his wife's bedroom. Outside Sparta, too, it was
considered disgraceful for men and women to appear together (cf. already Od.
6.273-288 with Cairns 1993, 121). Especially, any kind of sexual acts in
public were regarded as αίσχρόν (cf. e.g. X. An. 5.4.33f. and the references in
Halperin 1990, 91 with 182 n. 28; also Parker 1985, 76); only among the
barbarians were they conceivable as a νό ος (cf. Hdt. 3.101.1 [customs of the
Indians]; 4.180.5 [customs of the Machlyes and Ausees]; X. An. 5.5.33
[customs of the Mossynoeci]). The topos of the special αίδώς of Spartan
couples is known to Plu. Lyc. 15.8-11, too.
Αιδώς is closely related to the concept of 'being seen' in X. and elsewhere.
This becomes manifest at Cyr. 8.1.31: (sc. Cyrus) διήρει δε αιδώ κ α ί
σακρροσύνην τη δ ε, ώς τους εν αίδου ένους τά έν τφ φανερφ αισχρά
φεύγοντας, τους δε σώφρονος καί τά έν τφ άφανεΐ (some editors regard
this passage as an interpolation), cf. Cyr. 2.1.25, Ages. 9.1, PI. Lg. 841 Β
[erotic acts should take place in privacy, the Spartan model?]. The fact that
according to 5.7 the Spartans often returned home from their meals late and
without a torch -i.e. seemingly secretly-may have adduced X. to (deliberately)
misinterpret this as αιδώς. For αίδώς between the sexes cf. also Cairns 1993,
index s.v. aidôs. On αιδώς in X. see also 2.2[6].
1.5[4]: έ ρ ρ ο ε ν έ σ τ ε ρ α δ έ γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι , εΐ τ ι β λ ά σ τ ο ι ο ΰ τ ω ,
ά λ λ ο ν ή εί δ ι ά κ ο poi α λ λ ή λ ω ν ε ί ε ν . There was the view that the
physical condition of the parents affected the fitness of the offspring. It is this
assumption that made the author of Hp. Genit. 9 [VE 482] attempt to explain
why strong parents occasionally begot weak children.
The notion that temporary separation of the parents before the sexual act
might influence the physical condition of the forthcoming children can be
paralleled by E. Med. 665-681 (with Plu. Thes. 3.5): the Delphic oracle advised
the childless Aegeus, who wanted a son, to avoid sexual acts for a fixed period
of time (until his return). Possibly it is this idea that underlies the separation of
the couple for a night (day?) before the wedding, as mentioned by Poll. 3.39
(so-called ά π α ύ λ ι α ) and still customary in modern Greece (for a different
explanation cf. Vérilhac/Vial 1998, 361f.). According to the Pythagoreans
restricted sexual intercourse improved the parents' (not the children's) physical
condition (ευεξία), cf. Aristox. fr. 39 [W.]. Similarly, according to PI. Lg.
108 Commentary
839 E - 840 Β athletes abstained from sex for the training period to increase
their physical fitness.
1.5[5]: εϊ τι βλάστοι οΰτω. A's reading, βλάπτοιεν, hardly makes
sense. Plu. Lyc. 14.3 and Stob. IV 2.23 read either βλαστάνοιεν,
βλαστάνοι, or βλάστοι. It remains doubtful which of these was the original
reading, but the verb βλαστάνειν and the sense of the passage are certain,
βλαστάνειν appears in X. only at Oec. 19.2-10 and Vect. 1.3, always
referring to plants. The employment of the word for human procreation is
poetic (cf. Pi. N. 8.7). It is better to punctuate after οΰτω than before.
1.5[6]: διάκο pot. The word is attested only here in X. In a similar
meaning it appears at Hdt. 3.117.6 ('saturated' with water).
1.6[1]: èv άκ αΐς των σω άτων. At Mem. 4.4.23 X. stresses the

importance not only of the character of future parents, but also of their
'blooming' (ακ άζοντας τοις σώ ασιν) for procreational purposes. The
Pythagoreans, too, recommended begetting of children at a 'mature' age (not
below 20), cf. Aristox. fr. 39 [W.].
A man reached his άκ ή at 28 according to Solon (Sol. 27.7f. [IEG\, not
mentioning the word), at 30 (woman 20) according to Pl. R. 460E; according
to Arist. Rh. II 1390b 9-11 a man's physical άκ ή was between 30 and 35, his
mental peak lasted until 49 (on the age of procreation for both men and women
cf. HA VII 582a 15-20, 27-33).
E. fr. 914 [TGF] recommends marriage at a later age, claiming that thus no
partner would be enticed into adultery. A later marriage was not unusual for
men outside Sparta (cf. Hes. Op. 695-697). The recommendations of the
ancients waver between 30 and 37 (cf. West 1978, 327 [ad v. 696]). Marriage at
the age of 18 was the exception for men (so at D. 40.4; Ach.Tat. 1.3.3; Plu.
Agis-Cleom. 22.1 [=18]). The Xenophontic remark that in Sparta men marry at
a 'mature' age, i.e. around 30 (see above), is confirmed by Plu. Lyc. 25.1, for
30 as the minimum age of civil and military offices cf. 4.7[1].
Women should be married according to Hesiod, Plato, and Aristotle between
16 and 20. In practice women married in Greece from 12 (references in West
1978, 327 [ad v. 698], also Ar. Lys. 595-597). The marriage of a young
woman enabled the man to instruct the woman as he wished (cf. Hes. Op. 699,
X. Oec. 7.7). As in Greece, in Rome women married young - normally above
12 (cf. D.C. 54.16.7 [discussing Augustan legislation] al.) but according to
Plu. Num. 26.2 even under 12-, in order to remain pure and undefiled before
marriage. Marriage at a higher age is attested - apart from our passage- at Plu.
Lyc. 15.4, Num. 26.If., both possibly (also) influenced by X. The miminum
marital age for Spartan women is not attested; Plu. Num. 26. If. suggests
around 20. It was regarded as disadvantageous when a man married an older
woman (cf. Ar. Ec. 323-326, but positively Plu. amatorius 754 D-Ε). On δίκη
όψνγα ίου and κακογα ίου see 9.5[7].
1.6[2]: τους γά ους π ο ι ε ΐ σ θ α ι . In Sparta the 'marriage by capture'
was customary. The bridegroom seized the bride, normally after having assured
1.5[4]-1.7[1] 109
himself of the consent of the bride's father (on the 'marriage by capture' cf.
extensively app. I). It was allowed in Sparta to marry one's niece (Hdt. 5.39.1,
7.239.4), likewise in Athens (Lys. 32.4, D. 44.10). In Sparta uterine siblings
could marry (Philo de specialibus legibus III 22 [V 155]; doubts on this
passage are rightly confuted by Cartledge 1981, 98 n. 87), in contrast to
Athens, where only non-uterine siblings could marry (D. 57.20, Plu. Them.
32.2). On the δίκη όψιγα ίου and κακογα ίου see 9.5[7],
1.7-10: Regulations for extramarital procreation of children - an older man

could ask a young man to sire children on his behalf with his wife - vice versa
a man could ask another man to give him his wife for procreation — advantage
of this procedure for men and women - final remarks about the physical
superiority of the Spartans due to these regulations.
1 . 7 - 1 0 : It is worth pointing out that in these paragraphs X. does not

address the shortage of full citizens as the reason for the existence of eugenic
regulations (though in practice it certainly mattered). He is exclusively
concerned with the procreation of physically superior citizens (1.10), pointing
to the increase of power of those involved (1.9), and indirectly acknowledging
the advantage of wife-sharing in a partible inheritance system, as Sparta had (cf.
1.9 των δε χρη άτων οΰκ αντιποιούνται with Hodkinson 2000, 81f.).
The regulations mentioned at 1.7f. have been frequently understood as an
expression of sexual licence, for which Spartan women were famous (e.g. PI.
Lg. 637 C; Arist. Pol. II 1269b 12-23; Plu. Lyc. 15.16 and Hsch., Phot., Sud.
s.v. Λακωνικόν τρόπον το παρέχειν έαυτάς τοις ξένους· ήκιστα γ α ρ
φυλάττουσι Λάκωνες τάς γ υ ν α ί κ α ς ; cf. Thommen 1999, 131-135, 142f.;
Millender 1999, 356-363). Arist. Pol. Π 1270a 6-8 underlines that the
wantonness of Spartan women results from Lycurgus' failure to impose strict
laws upon them (cf. 3.4[6] ; for the bias of Athenian sources as to Spartan
women cf. Millender 1999, 373-378). By contrast, X.'s verdict about this
situation is positive (for a possible concealed criticism cf. 3.4[6]) - and it is
hardly coincidence that he does not mention the alleged wantonness of Spartan
women in chapter 14, where he criticizes current conditions.5
1.7[1]: τ φ γ ά ρ κ ρ ε σ β ύ τ η έποίησεν, ¿ π ο ί ο υ άνδρός σ ώ ά τ e

καί ψυχήν άγασθείη, τοΰτον έπαγαγο ένφ τεκνο-
π ο ι ή σ α σ θ α ι . έποίησεν is short for νό ι ο ν έποίησεν (the latter at 1.8, 4.7,
and actually printed here by Stephanus). The verb έποίησεν is found in this
sense also at 2.10, 2.13, 3.3, 6.1, 6.3f„ 7.3, and 10.1, see pp. 30, 53. It is
5
Possibly the regulations of 1,7f. may point to a general shortage of women in classical
Sparta. Its causes may be (a) the exposure especially of female newborn and other kinds of
infant death especially afflicting females (Cartledge 1981, 90 especially n. 36), (b) the
mortality of women in childbed, (c) the earthquake of 464 (for the latter cf. Wierschowski
1996, especially 300-306).
110 Commentary
noteworthy that the expression is found only in the first part of the SC
(chapters 1-10). έπαγαγο ένφ is Dindorfs conjecture of έπαγο ένφ given
by A, cf. Plu. Lyc. 15.12 (έξήν ... είσαγαγείν).
The case, as described here by X., is possibly found also in Athens, see Isoc.
2.7-9, who may draw on a Solonian law (cf. Plu. Sol. 20.2). Both Isocrates and
Plutarch presuppose that the man is not capable of begetting children and that
he and his wife consent to the change of partners. Besides, Solon ruled that the
new partner should be a close relative, so that the inheritance remained within
the same family (οπως οίκεΐον η καί ετέχον του γένους τό τικτό ενον).
Marriage at a young age was not compulsory in Sparta, despite the alleged
existence of a δίκη όψιγα ίου (see 9.5[7]). Love (Plu. Pyrrh. 26.17f., see ibid.
28.5f.), premature death of one's first wife, notably in childbed (Cartledge 1981,
103 n. 116), or the marriage of the heiress to the closest unmarried male
relative (Hodkinson 1986, 395; Hodkinson 2000, 95) were among the reasons
for a marriage at an older age. The offspring from the liaison of the woman
with the younger man could be adopted by the woman's husband at pleasure (cf.
Plu. Lyc. 15.12, who may draw on X.). Only in the case of the two royal
houses was the blood-relationship of the heir of importance, for the claim to
kingship was based on descent alone (cf. Hdt. 6.68.3, 6.69.5 and 15.9[3]).
Ethnological parallels for an impotent man arranging for the impregnation of
his wife by another man are mentioned by Westermarck III, 144, 153, 194.
Neither here nor in the following paragraphs is there any indication that two
fathers could father a child on a woman at the same time ('parallel
insemination'; pace Ogden 1996, 234f.).
1.7[2]: σώ ά τε καί ψυχήν. Normal complementary expressions of
Xenophontic philosophical jargon, cf. 10.3[3], Mem. 1.3.5, 1.4.14 al.
1.7[3]: τ ε κ ν ο π ο ι ή σ α σ θ α ι . See p. 47.
1.8[1]: εί δε τις αδ γυναικί εν συνοικείν ή βούλοιτο,

τέκνων δέ άξιολόγων έπιθυ οίη, καί τοΰτο νό ι ον
έποίησεν, ήντινα αν εΰτεκνον καί γενναίαν όρφη,
πείσαντα τον έχοντα έκ ταύτης τ ε κ ν ο κ ο ι ε ί σ θ α ι . By γυναικί
we have to understand 'any woman', not only the wife of the man who asks for
the liaison with another woman. Otherwise, the word would need to have the
article. The transmitted is to be retained at 1.8 and at 2.10. As shown by
other examples, ¿tv is found occasionally in relative clauses with a hypothetic
and iterative notion (cf. X. Mem. 1.5.1, 4.4.17, An. 1.3.17, 2.4.26, 2.6.25).
Instead of deleting &v in all these passages (following Kiihner/Gerth 2.431) one
should rather acknowledge a Xenophontic idiosyncrasy (but see also PI. Prt.
345 Β and textually doubtful Pl. Lys. 218 D). On the word τεκνοποιείσθαι
see p. 47.
The passage resembles Plu. Lyc. 15.13 (cf. Num. 25.3, apophth. lac. 242
B), who draws on X. here: έξήν δέ πάλιν άνδρί χρηστφ, των εύτέκνων
τινά καί σωφρόνων θαυ άσαντι γυναικών έτέρψ γεγα η ένην,
πείσαντι τον άνδρα συνελθείν ... ποιού ενον παΐδας αγαθούς α γ α θ ώ ν
1.7[1]-1.9[2] 111
ό αί ους καί συγγενείς έσο ένους. Plutarch omits that a precondition of the
liaison with the wife of another man is that the man who asks for the liaison
does not live with another woman, but desires offspring (in Χ. εί δε τις αυ
γυναικί εν συνοικείν ή βούλοιτο, τέκνων δε άξιολόγων έπιθυ οίη).
This omission may be explained by the fact that in his opinion being
unmarried at an older age was punishable, i.e. that no one lived alone
voluntarily at an older age, and thus that X.'s remark was wrong. Plutarch does
not consider the possibility that a childless father might lose his wife at a later,
but still fertile, age and long for an heir despite his unwillingness to many
again (cf. Cartledge 1981, 103). Apart from that, Plutarch seems to be
convinced that in Sparta marriage was compulsory, while according to our
passage X. concedes the man free choice to marry. X. leaves the impression
that it is not the marriage but the number of children - regardless of the kind of
relationship with the mother - that led to full citizen rights. Marriage was one
means among others to beget children.
In connection with our passage one has to consider Plb. 12.6b.8, according
to which several brothers [seven according to AP 7.435] were allowed to have a
common wife in Sparta. Historically the passage may suggest that the sharing
of wives described at 1.7f. was predominantly practised among brothers - or
relatives at least - mainly to retain the inheritance undivided (cf. Hodkinson
2000, 82, 108 n. 34). Apart from this, the Polybian passage seems to be a free
paraphrase of 1.7f., while at the same time Polybius adapts the rumour of
Spartan sexual licence widely spread in his day (see commentary on 1.7-10). In
all likelihood the woman was legally married only to one man, who left her to
his brothers for the sake of procreation, just as described by X.6
1.8[2]: εΰτεκνον καί γενναίαν. The expression points to the two
essential aspects of the ideal mother in X.'s eyes: she must be blameless as to
body and mind (γενναίος) and be able to pass on these characteristics, as
demonstrated by her children (ευτεκνος). The adjective εϋτεκνος and similar
derivatives starting with εΰτεκν- are virtually restricted to tragedy in the
classical period, cf. LSJM s.v. X. here appears to offer the first reference in
prose literature. Plu. Lye. 15.13 adopted ευτεκνος from our passage.
1.9[1]: καί πολλά έν τοιαύτα σ υ ν ε χ ώ ρ ε ι . It remains obscure

what X. alludes to. Possibly he has in mind the cohabitation of several brothers
with one women or the sharing of one woman with others, as recounted by
Plb. 12.6b.8, cf. Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 ζ 6 and 1.8[1]. At any rate,
συνεχώρει forms a contrast to the aforementioned νό ι ον έποίησεν, i.e. some
acts were regulated by law, others were 'tolerated'.
1.9[2]: αϊ τε γαρ γυναίκες διττούς οίκους β ο ύ λ ο ν τ α ι
κατέχειv. The expression is short, γάρ explains an unexpressed clause that
6
Exceptionally, polygamy was admitted in Sparta, cf. Hdt. 5.40 (with Ogden 1996, 239).
Even the Romans did not regard it as outrageous if a young man asked an older one for a
night with his wife to beget children, cf. Plu. Cat.Mi. 25. Parallels for polygamy among
brothers are found e.g. in India, cf. Westermarck III, 116-132.
112 Commentary
may be paraphrased 'men and women agreed to this practice, because ... etc.'
Like others before him X. may use the plural of διττός as an equivalent of δυο
(cf. e.g. Hdt. 2.44.5; X. Ages. 2.30). οίκος here denotes the household in the
broader sense, that was not restricted to the residence (οικία), cf. 15.6[1]. I
understand βούλονται κατ έχει ν (= 'want to possess') to mean that women
'want to have some influence' in both households.
The children of the man (for the sake of clarity he may be termed [A]) who
had asked another man (termed [B]) for his wife to beget children, remained in
the οίκος of the former (i.e. [A]). He could recognize them or refuse
recognition. One may suggest that in the latter case the physical father [B]
would have the right of adoption. At any rate, children begotten in this way
would be uterine siblings of the same γένος (i.e. the γένος of their mother) in
relation to already existing sons of either man ([A] and [B], cf. Plu. Lyc. 15.13
αγαθών ό αί ους καί συγγενείς έσο ένους, cf. 1.8[1]).
Regardless of the recognition of her children the mother was now partially
integrated into two households, that of her husband and that of the one with
whom she had begotten children at her husband's request. To her applied what
mutatis mutandis applied to king Anaxandridas, γυναίκας εχων δυο διξάς
ίστίας οΐκεε (Hdt. 5.40.2).
Beyond this, the question how far the woman's influence reached ('influence
in two households' or 'administration of two klaroi' at the other end of the
scale) can hardly be answered categorically. It certainly differed according to
circumstances. But legally she almost certainly participated in the wealth of the
men with whom she had begotten extramarital children only through their
common offspring, not in her own right. It is the administrative function of
Spartan women (on behalf of children begotten with her extramarital partner)
that Arist. Pol. II 1269b 3If. may refer to by the words δu> παρά τοις
Λάκωσι τοΰθ' ύπήρχεν, καί πολλά διφκείτο υπό των γυναικών επί της
αρχής αυτών. For the influence of married Spartan women in the household in
general cf. Hodkinson 2000, 439f.
As in other Greek poleis, polygamy was not institutionalized in Sparta (cf.
Hdt. 5.40.2, 6.63.1), in marked contrast to the barbarians (at least according to
Herodotus), cf. Hdt. 1. 216.1 [Massagetae]; 4.104 [Agathyrsi]; 4.172.2
[Nasamones] al.
1.9[3]: οϊ τε &νδρες αδελφούς τοις παισί π ρ ο σ λ α β ά ν ε ι ν ,
οΐ του έν γένους καί τής δυνά εως κοινωνοΰσι, τών δ έ
χρη άτων ουκ α ν τ ι π ο ι ο ύ ν τ α ι. Fathers begetting sons with a woman
other than their wife (οϊ τ ε άνδρες) wished to increase the numbers of foster-
brothers of their sons. The nature of this foster-brothership remains obscure in
detail. From X. it appears that the foster-brothers did not have a share in the
inheritance (which, as implied, was partible, cf. Hodkinson 2000, 81f.) and
thus their position resembled clients dependent on the goodwill of their patron,
on the other hand they seem to have had certain rights or at least customary
benefits, described by the vague του έν γένους καί της δυνά εως
κοινωνοΰσι. In general, this phrase indicates that they were, in a sense,
1.9[2]-1.9[4] 113
protected by the γένος. Possibly this included certain privileges like having a
share in the food supply or participating in the Spartan education. Very likely
these foster-brothers were called (or at least included) όθακες/ όθωνες. 7
There were two main reasons why the members of a γένος would want non-
inheriting brothers for their sons:
(a) Self-representation: in X.'s day certain γένη were more influential than
others, be it due to their lineage (cf. 10.8[1]) or to their wealth (cf. 5.3[4]), and
normally due to both. But the means of self-representation were restricted, the
adoption of non-inheriting sons (i.e. the number of adherents) - like the
distribution of food (cf. 5.3[4])- was a means to pride oneself on one's superior
social position. In a similar way, i.e. for the prestige, sons of xenoi and
possibly perioikoi were sponsored through the Spartan education (cf.
Hodkinson 1997a, 66f.; Hodkinson 2000, 342, 353).
(b) Political support: in a magisterial chapter on the 'informal' power of
Spartan kings Cartledge 1987, 139-159 analysed extensively X. Ages. 11.13.
This passage specifies the judgement of those in contact with Agesilaus:
εκείνον oi εν συγγενείς φιλοκηδε όνα έκάλουν, οι δε χρώ ενοι
άπροφάσιστον, οι δ' ΰπουργήσαντές τι νή ονα ... Especially the latter
category of 'servants' was convincingly related by Cartledge to the mothakes
(ibid. 155; cf. also Hodkinson 2000, 364). In return for benefits granted by
Agesilaus this group doubtless lent its political support to Agesilaus, e.g. to
secure the vote of the citizen assembly, support in political trials etc.
The Spartan system as described by X. strongly resembles Cretan conditions
as depicted by Ephor. ap. Str. 10.4.20. = FGrH 70 F 149: according to Ephorus
the most conspicuous and influential boys assembled as many followers as
possible to form a 'troop' (άγέλη). In charge of the 'troop' was the father of the
assembling boy. As highlighted by Link 1999, 10-12, 23f. (who, however,
overstresses the differences from Sparta), the followers were a matter of prestige
for the Cretan father, and a means of future support for the assembling son.
It is noteworthy that X. refers exclusively to the case where a father has sons
already. He ignores the possibility that an older man without an heir might
have intended to beget a successor (as, by contrast, apparently envisaged by
Plu. Lyc. 15.12). This omission may be due to negligence, but it is equally
possible that in X.'s (and a Spartan's?) mind in the latter case marriage to the
woman who bore the child was a precondition for inheritance by the newborn
(cf. Hdt. 5.39f.).
1.9[4]: των ôè χρη άτων ούκ α ν τ ι π ο ι ο ύ ν τ α ι . The wording
implies that 'legitimate' sons could contend with their like for the χρή ατα of
7
Cf. Ogden 1996, 218-224. They are first attested at Phylarch. FGrH 81 F 43, subsequently at
Ael. VH 12.43; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 29.1 and occasionally in the lexicographers. For a possible
difference between όθακες and όθωνες cf. Hodkinson 1997a, 50f., 55-62; Hodkinson
2000, 336f„ 355f„ reluctant Paradiso 1997, 79-83. Ogden 1996, 222, following earlier
scholars, believed that όθων was a licentious dance. Furthermore, X. HG 5.3.9 points to
the existence of bastards in the Spartan oikos: νόθοι των Σπαρτιατών, όλα εύειδεΐς τε
καί των έν τή πόλει καλών ούκ άπειροι (cf. Ogden 1996, 217-224; Hodkinson 1997a,
53-55, 60; Paradiso 1997, 78f.).
114 Commentary
their father after the latter's death. X. is tantalizingly brief. Though Link 1994,
120 n. 157 and Hodkinson 2000, 107 n. 31 pointed out against MacDowell
1986, 95 that χρή ατα could also denote the land lot here, this use would be
- i f linguistically admissible - at least highly exceptional. As a rule χρή ατα
denotes movable property (LSJM s.v. I), κτή ατα (LSJM s.v. 2), or more
normally κλήρος, the 'landed property'.
1.9[5]: τοΰ εν γ έ ν ο υ ς . By γένος X. apparently denotes any kinship
group of Spartan citizens. Though the influence of the Spartan γ ένη may have
decreased in post-Homeric Spartan society (Thommen 1996, 48f.), in the
religious sphere it is still traceable in classical times (Parker 1989, 144f.) and
may have gained power again after the end of the Peloponnesian War (cf.
Jeanmaire 1939, 468f.). For benefits conferred by Agesilaus on his kin
(συγγενείς) cf. X. Ages. 11.13 έκεΐνον oí εν συγγενείς φιλοκηδε όνα
εκάλουν with 1.9[3] and Cartledge 1987, 143f.
1.10[1] : δ ι α φ έ ρ ο ν τ α ς κ α ΐ κ α τ ά έγεθος κ α ί κ α τ ' ι σ χ ύ ν

ά ν δ ρ α ς τη Σ π ά ρ τ η ά π ε τ έ λ ε σ ε ν . The construction διαφέρειν +
κατά + acc. here is noteworthy. A similar construction is found in Hp. VM 1
[I 572]; 20 [1624] al. (contemporary with the SC or earlier), but never in X.,
though the latter knows the construction διαφέρειν + εις + acc. (cf. Hier. 1.2,
Oec. 20.19). Stob. IV 2.23 transmits the passage -possibly correctly - without
κατά.8
1.10[2]: ά π ε τ έ λ ε σ ε ν . The word in the meaning 'to render' is found at
PI. Lg. 718 B, in the middle voice at 2.13, cf. LSJM s.v. I 5.
1.10[3]: έ π ι σ κ ο π ε ί τ ω . Stobaeus has σκοπείτω, but cf. έπισκοπείσ-
θω at 2.14.
2.1: Education of boys outside Sparta - the other Greeks leave their children
to slaves and pedagogues — things taught to the young among the other Greeks
- outside Sparta youths are pampered by wearing sandals and plenty of
clothing, and enjoying luxurious nutrition.
2 . 1 [ 1 ] : γ ε ν έ σ ε ω ς . Strictly speaking X. had employed τεκνοποιία and

its derivatives in chapter 1.3. Here he uses a similar word for variation.
2.1 [2]: τ ή ν π α ι δ ε ί α ν έ κ α τ έ ρ ω ν . Chapter 2 of the SC is entirely
devoted to παιδεία. The word denotes education from the age of seven (cf. Plu.
Lyc. 16.7), while the time before that was called τροφή (at least in Athenian
8
At Cyn. 1.5 Dindorf prints πολύ διενεγκόντες κατά τήν άρετήν έθαυ άσθησαν in his
edition of the Scripta Minora without any further comment. Marchant and Pierleoni read τά
κατά τήν άρετήν instead. Even if Dindorfs reading is correct, the phrase κατά τ ή ν
ά ρ ε τ ή ν does not necessarily refer to διενεγκόντες. Besides, the authenticity of the
Cynegeticus, and especially of the first chapter, is doubtful. In short, Cyn. 1.5 can hardly be
adduced as evidence for the Xenophontic construction of διαφέρω + κ α τ ά .
1.9[4]-2.1[4] 115
usage, cf. X. Mem. 3.5.10 [as opposed to γένεσις]; Pl. Ale. I 122 Β, Lg. 783
Β, Crito 50 D).
The term ά γ ω γή in the sense of Spartan π α ι δ ε ί α appears for the first
time in the third century (Kennell 1995, 113-116, but cf. Pl. Lg. 659 D
παιδεία εν έσθ' ή παίδων όλκή τε καί άγωγή προς τον υπό τοΰ νό ου
λόγον). In the sense of 'Spartan education' X. refers to παιδεία twice (here and
2.12f., taken up by Plu. Lyc. 16.10; cf. Plu. Lyc. 24.1), similarly PI. Prt. 343
A. Later sources on Spartan education, especially chapters 16 and 17 of
Plutarch's Lycurgus, mostly reflect post-classical conditions (cf. Hodkinson
1997, 97f.).
By έκατέρων X. proposes to compare Spartan and non-Spartan education
(as already in chapter 1). Some interpreters, however, believed that X. intends
to deal with the education of both boys and girls. But the education of girls
does not play a role in what follows. Furthermore, the beginning of the
subsequent sentence (των εν τοίνυν άλλων Ελλήνων ... ) clearly shows
that the contrast is between Spartan and non-Spartan institutions, not between
the sexes within the Spartan system.
Spartan education was not genuinely different from other educational
systems (cf. Hodkinson 1997, 98) though it laid special emphasis on certain
aspects: most notably the austerity characterized predominantly by 'toil'
(πόνος). Hence Th. 2.39.1 remarks on the difference between Athens and others
(notably Sparta): καί εν ταΐς παιδείαις oí εν έπιπόνφ ασκήσει ευθύς
νέοι δντες το άνδρείον ετέρχονται, ή είς δε άνει ένως διαιτώ ενοι
ούδεν ήσσον επί τους ϊσοπαλείς κινδύνους χωρού εν. On Teferring to this
austerity Simonides already called Sparta 'tamer of mortals' (δα ασί βροτος,
Plu. Ages. 1.3 = fr. I l l (616) [ΡMG]).
2.1[3]: τοίνυν. For the word see p. 50.
2.1[4]: έπειδάν τάχιστα αύτοίς oí παίδες τά λ ε γ ό ε ν α
ξυνιωσιν, ευθύς έν έπ' αύτοίς παιδαγωγούς θεράποντος
έ φ ι σ τ ά σ ι ν . Very similar is the expression Pl. Prt. 325 C-D έπειδάν
θάττον συνιή τις τά λεγό ενα, καί τροφός καί ήτηρ καί π α ι δ α γ ω γ ό ς
καί αύτος ό πατήρ περί τούτο δια άχονται, ο πως [ώς] βέλτιστος εσται ό
παις etc. Similar in terms of wording is also X. Ap. 16 έξ δτουπερ ξυνιέναι
τά λεγό ενα ήρξά ην. But the direction of the adaptation (if it is one) is
hardly clear (pace e.g. Oilier 1934, 25f. who argues for X. answering Plato).
After their birth children of well-off Athenians were committed to the care of
a nurse (Pl. Ale. I 121 D). After completing their fifth year children were
admitted as visitors at school, after finishing their seventh year, as pupils
(Arist. Pol. VII 1336b 35-40, [Pl.] Ax. 366 D-Ε and similarly PI. Lg. 794 C,
according to whom children were taught separated by sex from the age of
seven). Children of the wealthy started school earlier and finished it later (PI.
Prt. 326 C), a fact apparently approved of by X. (Cyr. 1.2.15). Arist. Pol. VII
1336b 37 - 1337a 3 divides the παιδεία into two periods, the first from the
seventh year to puberty (ήβη), the second from puberty to the age of twenty-
one. This division almost coincides with the classification of the Spartan youth
116 Commentary
into παίδες - παιδίσκοι - ήβώντες (cf. 3.1[2]). However, Arist. loc. cit.
rejects rigid division irrespective of the physical development of the child, as
done e.g. by Sol. fr. 27 [IEG], Hp. Hebd. 5 [VIII 636] and Pl. Ale. I 121 E (on
the Persian kings).
Not uncommon is the term θεράποντες for παιδαγωγοί. Already where a
παιδαγωγός is mentioned for the first time (Hdt. 8.75.1), he appears as an
οίκέτης, i.e. an unfree man. Frequently he enjoyed the life-long trust of his
pupil (S. El. 25-28). Hence, not unexpectedly Pl. Lys. 208 C criticized the fact
that the παιδαγωγός was a servant that ruled over his master. Arist. Pol. VII
1336a 39-41 distinguishes a παιδαγωγός from a slave and recommended that
children should be kept apart from the latter as much as possible.
2.1 [5]: έπειδάν τ ά χ ι σ τ α . The expression is also attested elsewhere
in X. (cf. Cyr. 1.3.14, 5.4.21), so already Hdt. 8.144.5 (Bredow's conjecture
έπεάν against the unanimously transmitted έπειδάν is arbitrary).
2.1 [6]: ξυνιώσιν. On the archaizing ξυν- for the contemporary συν- see
introduction p. 52.
2.1[7]: εΰθύς δε πέ πουσιν είς διδασκάλων αθησο ένους
καΐ γρά ατα καί ουσικήν καί τα έν η α λ α ί σ τ ρ φ . Similarly
Pl. Prt. 325 D ετά δε ταΰτα εις διδασκάλων πέ ποντες. The expression
είς διδασκάλων sc. οίκίαν (cf. also PL Ale. I 110 Β έν διδασκάλων)
besides the technical term διδασκαλείον, which emerges in the fifth century,
may indicate that at this time learning was still not restricted to a certain place
or building. The Lakonian equivalent to διδασκαλείον may have been
φωλεός in hellenistic (and earlier?) times, cf. Call. fr. 68 [Pf.] with Pfeiffer's
note ad loc.
It is only in the early fourth century that music and sports (τα έν
παλαίστρα) as taught subjects were joined by literacy (γρά ατα), which
finally became the dominant part of Athenian education (cf. Pl. Ale. I 106 E;
Crito 50 D-Ε; Thg. 122 E with Morgan 1999, 49-53). The Platonic Socrates
considered such an education insufficient (Pl. Clit. 407 C), the Xenophontic
appears to have accepted it more readily (X. Mem. 2.2.6). Strauss 1939, 507
rightly points out that X. does not touch again upon the question of what the
Spartans were taught about literacy and music (γρά ατα καί ουσικήν). His
conclusion, that X. wanted to suggest that they did not learn anything in these
subjects, rather misses the point. Undoubtedly music played an important role
in Spartan education (cf. 4.2[3]) and most Spartans were at least partly literate
(cf. Plu. Lye. 16.10, apophth. lac. 237 A with Cartledge 1978; Whitley 1997,
645-649). X. is concerned with the contrast with Athens rather than with
criticism of Sparta. In his eyes Spartan education compares favourably with the
excessively intellectual Athenian education, which was not abandoned even at
the moment of utmost peril (see Plu. Them. 10.5 [during the Persian invasion
the Troizenians welcome the Athenian women and children and hire teachers for
them], cf. also Pl. R. 373 C).
2.1[8]: προς δε τούτοις των παίδων πόδας έν ύποδή ασι ν
άχαλύνουσι, σώ ατα δέ Ι ατίων εταβολαις διαθρύπτουσι.
2.1[4]-2.2[1] 117
X. has Athens in mind, which according to an opinion widely held introduced

luxury to Greece (cf. Th. 1.6.3). X.'s picture is one-sided in order to render the
contrast with Sparta as clear-cut as possible. Similarly biased is X.'s account at
Mem. 1.6.5-8, where he compares Socrates' habits, moulded on the Spartan
way of life, with those of the sophist Antiphon.
Presumably only the children of the rich used to wear footgear from their
early youth, in order to avoid injuries and cold (X. Mem. 1.6.6, similarly in
Persia according to X. Cyr. 8.8.17). Such footgear is attested in winter (PI.
Smp. 220 B); in summer one walked barefoot (Pl. R. 372 A). More
specifically, X. may have in mind here the so-called κρηπίδες, the standard
footgear of Athenian ephebes (cf. Erbacher 1914, 40; M. Bieber, RE 11 (1922),
1711-1714; Morrow 1985, 62f„ 180). Also the frequent change of clothes
according to weather conditions, as blamed by X. Mem. 1.6.6, and generally
luxury in dressing, as criticized by Ar. Nu. 987, only applied to the rich;
craftsmen and ordinary people used to work 'for the most part unclad', at least in
Plato's ideal state (Pl. R. 372 Α: τα πολλά γυ νοί with Dover 1968, 163,
but also West 1978, 257f.). Their most usual dress in Greek art is the έξω ίς,
cf. Geddes 1987, 312. For the himation cf. W. Amelung, RE 8 (1913), 1609-
1613; Sekunda 1998, 21f.
2.1 [9]: ά π α λ ύ ν ο υ σ ι . The word is a medical term, cf. Hp. Art. 50 [IV
220]; Off. 13 [III 318] al. In X. it occurs also at 2.3, Eq. 4.5, 5.5.
2.1[10]: διαθρύπτουσι. X. Mem. 4.2.35: πολλοί ôè δια τον πλοΰτον
διαθρυπτό ενοι, cf. Α. Pr. 891.
2.1[11]: σίτου γε ήν αύτοΐς γαστέρα έτρον νο ίζουσιν.
For έτρον in the sense of'guideline' cf. X. Cyr. 1.3.18.
At X. Smp. 2.19 Socrates asks his laughing audience with a similar
wording: ή τόδε γελάτε, εί είζω τοΰ καιρού τήν γαστέρα εχων
ετριωτέραν βούλο αι ποιήσαι αυτήν; gluttony is frequently criticized by
X. (cf. Mem. 1.6.5, 1.6.8, 3.14.2, Cyr. 8.8.9), conversely, self-restraint in
food is praised (cf. e.g. X. HG 5.3.21), for Spartan self-restraint in food see
5.3[1],
2.2: Pedagogues in Sparta - the paidonomos and the mastigophoroi - the

paidonomos is elected from the citizens — he has unlimited educational
competence - his assistants are the mastigophoroi.
2.2[1]: αντί εν τοΰ ίδίςι βκαστον παιδαγωγούς δούλους

έ φ ι σ τ ά ν α ι . On παιδαγωγός see 2.1 [4], The theoretical argument as to
why education should be collective, not individual, is provided by Arist. Pol.
VIII 1337a 21-32 έπεί δ' εν τό τέλος τη πόλει πάση, φανερόν δτι καί τήν
παιδείαν ίαν καί τήν αυτήν αναγκαίο ν είναι πάντων, καί ταύτης
τήν έπι έλειαν είναι κοινήν καί ή κατ' ιδίαν, δν τρόπον νυν έκαστος
επι ελείται των αΰτοΰ τέκνων ίδία τε καί άθησιν ιδίαν, ήν αν δόξη,
διδάσκων, δει δε των κοινών κοινήν ποιείσθαι καί τήν άσκησιν. α α δε
118 Commentary
ούδε χρή νο ίζειν αύτόν αύτοΰ τινα είναι των πολιτών, άλλα πάντας
της πόλεως, όρων γαρ έκαστος της πόλεως· ή δ' έπι έλεια πέφυκεν
εκάστου ορίου βλέπειν προς τήν του όλου έπι ελειαν. έπαινέσειε δ' &ν
τις κατά τούτο Λακεδαι ονίους· και γαρ πλείστη ν ποιούνται σπουδήν
περί τους παΐδας και κοινή ταύτην, cf. Pl. Lg. 804 D. The education of the
young should be regulated, cf. Arist. EN X 1179b 32-35 and especially 1180a
24-29: τό γαρ σωφρόνως και καρτερικώς ζην οΰχ ήδύ τοις πολλοίς,
άλλως τε και νέοις. διό νό οις δει τετάχθαι τήν τροφήν και τ α
επιτηδεύ ατα ... èv όνη δε τη Λακεδαι ονίων πόλει (η) ετ' ολίγων ό
νο οθέτης έπι ελειαν δοκει πεποιήσθαι τροφής τε και επιτηδευ άτων
έν δέ ταΐς πλείσταις των πόλεων έξη έληται περί των τοιούτων, και
ζη έκαστος ώς βούλεται, κυκλωπικώς θε ιστεύων παίδων ήδ' άλόχου
[Od. 9.114f.]. κράτιστον εν ουν τό γίγνεσθαι κοινήν έπι έλειαν και
όρθην. Similar to the Spartan education system is the way in which each age
class in the ideal Persian state as depicted in the Cyropaedia had an officially
appointed supervisor (cf. Cyr. 1.2.5).
2.2[2]: άνδρα έπέστησε κρατείν αΰτών έξ ωνπερ ai
έγισται άρχαί καθίστανται, δς δή καΐ παιδονό ος
καλείται. The relative clause έξ ωνπερ αΐ έγισται άρχαί καθίστανται
occurs word for word at 4.7. Strikingly similar is the wording at Cyr. 1.2.13;
for these similarities see introduction p. 48. For the word combination δς δή
καί see Denniston 1954, 219.
X. here refers to men over 30 as eligible for the office of the παιδονό ος
(for their age cf. 4.7[1]). The word παιδονό ος is first attested here (also 2.10,
4.6). Our passage as well as the parallel passage Plu. Lyc. 17.2 suggest that
there was only one paidonomos in Sparta.9 He was assisted by the
αστιγοφόροι (cf. 2.2[5]). The paidonomos was in charge of the education of
the young apart from the eirenes, who were supervised by the ephors (4.6; Plu.
Lyc. 18.6f.). We do not know anything else about the institution of the
paidonomos in Sparta; MacDowell's suggestion (1986, 55) that he was elected
annually is attractive.
Paidonomoi - like the gynaikonomoi (cf. 1.4[4])- are also attested outside
Sparta. In Crete the paidonomos appears as a head of an andreion (Ephor. ap.
Str. 10.4.20 = FGrH 70 F 149); in Asia Minor paidonomoi are attested in
9
Accordingly the & παιδες, who are defined by Hsch. s.v. (a 3769) as oi τών π α ί δ ω ν
έπι ελού ενοι παρά Λάκωσιν (i.e. plural), cannot be identical with the π α ι δ ο ν ό ο ς ,
ά παιδες were presumably the whole body of state officials in charge of educational
matters rather than assistants of the paidonomos supervising the young men {pace
MacDowell 1986, 58). It remains dubious how far the βίδυοι, which we find on inscriptions
and in one passage in Pausanias (IG V (1) 41; 136; 137 al.; Paus. 3.11.2), were actually
counted among the ¿ί παιδες. Paus. loc. cit. informs us that annually five βίδυοι were
elected who were responsible for the organization of boys' competitions. But their
installation may well not go back beyond the reign of Cleomenes III, cf.
Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 201. Even more dubious is the role of the δ ι α β έ τ η ς , who may
have been a sponsor for the organization of ball games, or may at least have held a liturgy,
as the epithet αυτεπάγγελτος on inscriptions (IG V (1) 677; 680 al.) shows, see Tod 1903-
1904, 74f.; Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 210f.
2.2[l]-2.2[6] 119
inscriptions of the hellenistic period (references in LSJM s.v.). In Athens a

comparable institution is found in the κοσ ητής, the supervisor of the ephebes
(cf. Arist. Ath. 42.2f.). His minimum age was presumably 40; he was elected
for one year (two years?) from all Athenian citizens (cf. Rhodes 1993 ad loc.).
2.2[3]: κύριον έποίησε καΐ άθροίζειν ... καΐ ... κ ο λ ά ζ ε ι ν .
The expression κύριος εί ι + inf. is well attested in prose and poetry since A.
A. 104, in X. at HG 2.3.51; An. 5.7.27 al. It is particularly common in the
SC (2.10, 4.6, 8.4). Besides, in the SC the more common construction with
the genitive is found (10.2; 13.10, cf. HG 2.2.18 al). Instead of άθροίζειν
Riihl suggested καταλοχίζειν comparing Plu. Lyc. 16.7, while Pierleoni
conjectured άλίζειν with An. 2.4.3, 6.3.3, but άθροίζειν is sound and
Xenophontic, cf. HG 1.6.25 al.
2.2[4]: ρφδιουργοίη. For the word use see p. 47.
2.2[5]: έδωκε δ' αύτφ κ at των ήβώντων αστιγοφόρους,
δπως τι ωροΐεν δτε δ έ ο ι . For the term hebontes see 4.1[1]. Possibly
the αστιγοφόροι were the leaders of groups called ilai (cf. 2.11[1]). Plu. Lyc.
16.8 (using the term άρχοντα) informs us that the αστιγοφόροι were aged
between 20 and 30 and excelled in prudence and courage.
Possibly the αστιγοφόροι are comparable to the Athenian σωφρονισταί, of
whom each phyle elected one annually (or every two years?) from those over 40
to supervise the education of the ephebes (Arist. Ath. 42.2 with Rhodes 1993
ad loc.). On a relief of the second century AD they are pictured with a withe (cf.
IG2 II (2) 2122 with photograph in Graindor 1924, pi. LXm 79). In imperial
inscriptions αστιγοφόροι, ραβδοφόροι and αστιγονό οι appear in various
public functions (cf. Robert 1979, 161f.).
Punishment through whipping or beating was widely practised (cf. e.g. Ar.
Nu. 972; X. An. 5.8.18, Cyr. 1.3.17, 2.2.14, Mem. 2.1.16f.; Plaut. Bacch.
434). In the hellenistic period the 'punishing teacher' became a literary topos,
cf. Herondas ΠΙ (especially 59-97) and Horace's Orbilius plagosus (epist.
2.1.70f.). Commonly the punitive powers of the instructors led to abuse (cf.
Quint, inst. 1.3.17). As a peculiar (Spartan?) punishment Plu. Lyc. 18.5
mentions biting the thumb.
2.2[6]: ώστε πολλήν έν αίδω, πολλήν δέ πειθώ έκε ΐ
σ υ π α ρ ε ί ν α ι . πειθώ meaning 'obedience' (= πειθαρχία) is a typically
Xenophontic usage (cf. Cyr. 2.3.19; 3.3.8).
Αιδώς and πειθώ counterbalance the rhetorical, literary, and musical
education of the other Greeks, as mentioned at 2.1. As here, X. holds up a
mirror to his Athenian fellow citizens at Mem. 3.5.15f., where he lets Pericles
say: πότε γαρ οΰτως 'Αθηναίοι ώσπερ Λακεδαι όνιοι ή πρεσβυτέρους
αίδέσονται, ο'ί άπό τών πάτερων άρχονται καταφρονείν τ ω ν
γεραιτερων ... πότε δε οΰτω πείσονται τοις ¿¿ρχουσιν, οΐ και ά γ ά λ λ ο ν τ α ι
έπί τφ καταφρονείν τών αρχόντων; the same virtues, αιδώς and πειθώ,
characterized Cyrus (Χ. Cyr. 1.5.1).
From early on the Spartan αιδώς became a topos of literature on the ideal
state. As a typical Spartan trait it appears first in Tyrtaeus (fr. 10.12, 12.40
120 Commentary
[IEG]; cf. also Th. 1.84.3). Not least, in Χ. αιδώς is a characteristic of the
good soldier (An. 2.6.19; Cyr. 1.6.10). In Sparta αιδώς was almost divine (X.
Smp. 8.36; cf. Richer 1999). A cult of Fear (Φόβος), which was closely
connected with αιδώς (X. Mem. 3.7.5; An. 2.6.19; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 14.3;
30.5f.), is attested in later times (Plu. Agis-Cleom. 30.7 with 8.2[1]), cf. also
S. Aj. 1073-1076 [as the laws of a city can be enforced only by 'fear of
punishment' (δέος), an army can be led (άρχεσθαι) only by 'fear' (φόβος) and
'respect' (αιδώς)]. On αιδώς between the sexes see 1.5[3].
Typical of the ideal state is also the notion of the Spartan πειθώ. According
to X. (Mem. 3.5.9) people tend to obey the 'best', by which he means those
who know how to rule (X. Mem. 3.9.10; Cyr. 1.6.20f.). Obeying the law
(νό ος) or those enforcing the law (άρχοντες) is one of the major Spartan
characteristics from days of old (cf. Hdt. 7.104.4 επεστι γάρ σφι (sc. the
Spartans) δεσπότης νό ος; 7.228.2 [epigram on the dead of Thermopylai); Th.
5.9; X. HG 3.4.18, 5.2.6; 7.1.8 al.). At X. Mem. 4.4.15 Socrates points out
to Hippias: Λυκοΰργον δε τον Λακεδαι όνιο ν, εφη ό Σωκράτης,
κατα ε άθηκας, δτι ούδεν αν διάφορον των άλλων πόλεων τήν
Σπάρτην έποίησεν, εί ή τό πείθεσθαι τοις νό οις άλιστα ένειργάσατο
αύτη; των δε άρχόντων εν ταΐς πόλεσιν ουκ οίσθα δτι, οϊτινες αν τοις
πολίταις αίτιώτατοι ωσι τοΰ τοις νό οις πείθεσθαι, οΐϋτοι άριστοι είσι,
καί πόλις, έν ί) άλιστα οΐ πολΐται τοις νό ονς πείθονται, έν ειρήνη τ ε
άριστα διάγει καί εν πολέ φ άνυπόστατός έστι; Again, in the ideal state
of X.'s Cyropaedia and Plato, education directed towards πειθώ plays an
important role (X. Cyr. 1.2.8; PI. Lg. 762 E). The πειθώ of Agesilaus is
praised by X. unhesitatingly (X. Ages. 1.27, 1.36, 6.4, 7.2; cf. Plu. Ages.
15.5), but also that of the other Spartans (cf. e.g. X. HG 1.5.8 [Callicratidas]);
on obedience in the SC see also Bordes 1982, 182-184.
This unconditional obedience was directly linked with the profound Spartan
religiosity. Just as a Spartan eventually complied with an almost completely
regimented environment out of fear of punishment (πειθώ), so he tried to fulfil
his religious duties through fear of divine discontent (δεισιδαι ονία). It was
the fear of punishment that linked obedience in the religious and political
spheres. Hence, it hardly comes as a surprise that in Sparta (but also elsewhere,
cf. Wide 1893,275f.) Fear (Φόβος) was revered as a major and divine principle
guaranteeing political order and stability, predominantly connected with the
ephors (cf. 8.2[1]).
2.3f.: The dress of Spartan boys and young men - barefootedness of the
young Spartans - the latter wear only one garment throughout the year.
2.3-5: All the characteristics mentioned below are also attributed by X. to

the Xenophontic Socrates (cf. especially X. Mem. 1.6.5-8). Whether the picture
of the Spartans or of Socrates may claim historical credibility is not verifiable.
Besides, there are other initiatory aspects difficult to pin down (cf. Kennell
2.2[6]-2.3[2] 121
1995, 123f.). The appearance of the Spartans, as described here, is ridiculed by

Pl.Com. 132 [PCG], their appearance is identified with Socrates' and again
ridiculed by Ar. Av. 1281-1283.
In the following X. leaves unmentioned the peculiar Spartan hairstyle and
beard which are dealt with later (11.3). Plu. Lyc. 16.1 If. and apophth. lac. 237
Β seem to be drawn predominantly from this passage.
2.3[1]: άνυποδησίφ κ ρ α τ ύ ν ε ι ν . The noun appears only here in X.

(cf. Pl. Lg. 633 C), but X. has occasionally ανυπόδητος, so here and below
(cf. HG 2.1.1; Mem. 1.6.2). κρατύνειν, too, is only attested here in X. The
grammatical object to κρατύνειν is τους πόδας.
The mention here and at PI. Lg. 633 C of barefootedness as a characteristic
of Spartan education suggests that Spartan (and other) soldiers normally wore
shoes (pace Sekunda 1998, 22). Thus, young Spartans who passed the krypteia
used to spend the winter without shoes (PI. Lg. 633 C).
Spartan adults wore άπλαΐ 'single ones' (= 'single-soled shoes', cf. D. 54.34
with Harp. s.v. άπλας; Sud. s.v. άπλας [α 3223]), another form of which
were ά υκλφδες (Theoc. 10.35; Poll. 7.88; Hsch. s.v.; Phot. s.v.). Besides,
there existed Spartan boots called Λακωνικαί (cf. e.g. Ar. V. 1158; Th. 142;
Ec. 74). According to Poll. 7.88 these were crimson, as was the Spartan
martial dress, with which they may have been connected (cf. 11.3[2]). The
quality of Spartan footgear in general is praised by Critias D/K Β 34.
In practice, the aim of barefootedness was hardly the increase of mobility in
the open country (in hilly country even shepherds used shoes, cf. Theocr.
4.56f.; Long. 1.30.3). Quite the opposite: a special kind of footgear, the
κρηπΐδες, is constantly associated with the most mobile part of the army, the
light-armed (cf. Erbacher 1914, 40f.; Morrow 1985, 180). The importance of
footgear for the military efficiency of the light-armed may be gathered from the
fact that when Iphicrates established a new military unit of light-armed, the
peltasts, in 393, he appears to have created a new kind of sandal henceforth
called Ίφικρατίδες (cf. Erbacher 1914, 9, 43; Morrow 1985, 179).
Consequently, it is more likely that barefootedness as mentioned here by X.
belonged to a number of other measures to increase readiness for endurance
without any apparent practical purpose (as rightly seen by Plu. Lyc. 16.11),
possibly embedded in an initiatory context (for religious implications of
barefootedness cf. Kenneil 1995, 123). At most one may grant with Paul
Cartledge (private communication) that "the toughening of the soles would
have been useful (i) to prevent or minimize damage through marching long
distances (blisters!) and (ii) if for any reason one lost one's footgear or had it
destroyed in the fighting". Finally, X. may have Socrates in mind: like the
Spartan boys Socrates and his pupils used to walk barefoot (cf. Ar. Nu. 103f.;
X. Mem. 1.6.2; Pl. Smp. 173 Β; 220 Β; Pl. Phdr. 229 A; Plu. Phoc. 4.4).
2.3[2]: α ν δρθια ε£ βαίνειν ... πρανή κ α τ α β α ί ν ε ι ν . For a
horse galloping downhill and uphill X. says at Eq. 8.1 καί π^ανή και όρθια
... τρέχειν, cf. ibid. 8.6. At an early stage the reading of ευ was corrupted,
122 Commentary
already Stobaeus offers έκ βαίνειν instead, A and Venice, Marc. Gr. Ζ. 511
have δε βαίνειν. A 2 , Β and Modena Gr. 145 preserved the right ευ βαίνειν,
but 'corrected' A's δε to δή instead of deleting it.
2.3[3]: π η δ ή σ α ι δ έ κ α ί ά ν α θ ο ρ ε ί ν . For the Ionic origin and poetic
note of άναθορείν see p. 51. The unexpected employment of άναθορείν here
may have caused the gloss πηδήσαι, which would then have been inserted by a
careless scribe. At any rate, there is no apparent semantic difference between
πηδήσαι and άναθορείν.
2.3[4]: ύ π ο δ ε δ ε έ ν ο ν . Used absolutely the word also appears at X.
An. 4.5.14.
2.4[1]: évi Ι α τ ί φ δ ι ' Ετους π ρ ο σ ε θ ί ζ ε σ θ α ι . For the verb

προσεθίζεσθαι see p. 48. Approximately when they reached the age of 12, the
Spartans changed their chiton for a himation, which from now on was their
usual dress throughout the year (Plu. inst. lac. 237 Β (5); Plu. Lyc. 16.12;
Pomp. Trog. 3.3.5; cf. Hodkinson 2000, 215). This himation appears in the
sources also as τρίβων (D. 54.34; Duris FGrH 76 F 14; cf. Pl.Com. 132
[.PCG]; Plu. Phoc. 10.1 al.), βραχεία άναβολή (Pl. Prt. 342 C) or
δα οφανής (Hsch. s.v. [δ 209]), without an apparent difference from the
ί άτιον (cf. Geddes 1987, 320; Sekunda 1998, 22; Hodkinson 2000, 219f.).
The fact that the Spartans looked dirty (apparently since they never changed
their clothes) had been ridiculed already by Αγ. Λ v. 1282 (cf. the description of
a lakonophile as ρυποκόνδυλον = 'with dirty knuckles' at Pl.Com. 132 [PCG])
but praised by Diogenes the philosopher at Ael. VH 9.34. The eirenes woe
allowed ornament on their dresses only in battle (Plu. Lyc. 22.1, for the
expression τοις νεοις in this Plutarchan passage cf. 13.9[1], contradicted by
Ael. VH 14.7?). In general, Spartan adult dress was modest and the well-off did
not differ from the poor in appearance (cf. Th. 1.6.4; Arist. Pol. IV 1294b 27-
29; David 1989 with Hodkinson 2000, 219f.); notorious for his plain dress was
Agesilaus (Plu. Ages. 14.4). Helots, however, were singled out by a special
dress (cf. Ducat 1990, 110-115; Vernant 1991, 232 n. 26; David 1992, 17-19).
Similar to the Spartans the Cretan boys were dressed εν φαύλοις τριβωνίοις
(Ephor. FGrH 70 F 149). Finally, Socrates' appearance resembled that of a
Spartan: in summer and winter he used to wear the same tattered himation and
no chiton (X. Mem. 1.6.2; PL Smp. 220 B; cf. Ar. Av. 1282f.). For the
himation in Athens see Geddes 1987, 312f. Like the Spartans some Athenians
used to possess only one himation in the old days (Geddes 1987, 314).
It is hard to estimate how far a literary topos lingered behind the simplicity
of Spartan dress already here - as it certainly did later (cf. Ael. VH 7.13).
Critias D/K Β 34 praises the convenience and usefulness of the Spartan
himatia, unless that passage constitutes rather a general eulogy on plain dress.
By contrast, Aristotle criticizes the excessive simplicity of the Spartan dress as
boastfulness (αλαζονεία, Arist. EN IV 1127b 26-29). For the crimson attire
of the Spartans in the field see 11.3[2], For the Spartan clothing during the
imperial period see Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 200.
2.3[2]-2.5[3] 123
2.4[2]: πρός ψύχη κ α ΐ πρός θ ά λ π η . Almost a fixed formulaic

phrase in X. (cf. Cyr. 1.2.10, also Oec. 7.23; Cyn. 5.9).
2.5-8: Food of the Spartan boys and young men - theft of food - frugal
nutrition at the syssition and its advantages for the growth of the body -
stealing for maintenance and for accustoming oneself to a warlike way of life -
beatings for those caught in theft.
2.5[1] : σχτόν γ ε ήν ε τ α ξ ε τοσούτον [έχοντα] σ υ β ά λ λ ε τ ν

τον ε ΐ ρ ε ν α ώς ... ή ά π ε ι ρ ο ς ε χ ε ι ν . έχοντα is incomprehensible,
the best solution deletion. Originally the word may have been written in the
margin as an alternative to εΐρενα (see below, 2.5[2]). Besides, one may
consider the conjecture έκόντα (cf. 14.2 where the correct reading is
undoubtedly έχοντας, while A has έκόντας). I conjecture συ βάλλειν,
because it exactly meets the sense, and handwritten α could be easily mistaken
for ου. Riihl defended Stobaeus' συνεβούλευεν comparing Pomp. Trog. 3.4.10
parcimoniam omnibus suasit. But -leaving aside the fact that parcimonia is an
abstract noun while σίτος is not - the mild συ βουλεύειν next to the decisive
τάττω would be odd. The only thing Stobaeus proves is that the corruption
and attempts to remedy it are old.
Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.] is likely to draw on X.: [sc. the Spartans] τρέφουσι δέ
τά τέκνα ώστε ηδέποτε πληρούν, ινα έθίζωνται δύνασθαι πεινην (cj.
Schneider, codd. πίνειν). Frequently the contribution of the eirenes may have
been paid by their fathers or other relatives. The two passages that give detailed
information on the contributions in a syssition (Plu. Lyc. 12.3f.;
Dicaearch.Hist. fr. 72 [W.]) do not differentiate between eirenes and other
members of a syssition. This may suggest that an eiren had to pay (or had to be
paid for) as much as the other members. One may compare public maintenance
of the young in Crete (cf. Str. 10.4.20 = Ephor. FGrH 70 F 149).
2 . 5 [ 2 ] : ε ΐ ρ ε ν α . For the reading εΐρενα here and eirenes in general cf.
2.11 [3]. Possibly the inserted [έχοντα] preserves an alternative reading to
εΐρενα here (cf. 2.5[1]).
2.5[3]: ¿ ς ύπό πλησ ονής έν ήποτε β α ρ ύ ν ε σ θ α ι , τοΰ δ è
ένδεεστέρως διάγειν ή απείρως £ χ ε ι ν . Spartan restraint in food
consumption was proverbial (cf. e.g. Ar. Av. 1282). TTie information that the
nutrition of the boys was controlled by the ephors is idealistically coloured (so
Agatharch. ap. Ath. ΧΠ 550 C-D = FGrH 86 F lOf.; Ael. VH 14.7, pace
Richer 1998a, 456f.). For further discussion on Spartan food and drink cf.
5.3[1] and 5.4[1].
The right measure of food and drink was a common topic of philosophical
literature on the ideal state: Socrates endures hunger (PI. Smp. 219 E - 220 A)
and eats frugally (X. Mem. 1.3.5-8; Smp. 2.19) and only plain food (X. Mem.
1.6.2), as do the citizens in Plato's ideal state (cf. Pl. R. 372 Β) and
philosophers in general (X. Hier. 2.1). The frugal food of the Persians is
124 Commentary
mentioned by X. repeatedly (X. Cyr. 1.2.8, 1.2.16, 5.2.17 al.), especially of

Cyrus {Cyr. 1.6.17 al.; with Gera 1993, 156). In the latter case the idealistic
element becomes apparent by comparison with Hdt. 1.133 where - again
idealistically (cf. Cartledge 1993, 6 1 ) - the Persian fondness for food and drink
is opposed to Greek frugality. By contrast, the medical literature of the classical
period recommends neither 'too much' nor -like Xenophon- 'too little' (cf. e.g.
Hp. Aph. 2, 4 [IV 470] οΰ πλησ ονή, οΰ λι ός οΰδ' άλλο ούδεν αγαθόν, δτι
αν άλλον της φύσιος η.). Excessive or insufficient food harms not only the
body, but also the mind (Arist. Phgn. 810b 22f.). Large quantities of food
should be balanced by exercise (πόνος, cf. Hp. Flat. 7 [VI 98], Vict. 1.2 [VI
468-470], 3.67 [VI 592] al.)
2.5[4]: ά σ ι τ ή σ α ν τ α ς . The verb does not appear elsewhere in X. (but
cf. Pl. Smp. 220 A). X. employs occasionally the adjective &σιτος (HG
5.1.14; An. 2.2.16).
2.5[5]: άπό του αυτού σίτου κλείω χρόνο ν έητταθήνατ. One
would expect an expression like 'to live longer on the same ration', since X.
apparently imagines a situation similar to that described at Cyr. 1.2.11: while
hunting the Persians renounced one of the two customary meals and could thus
live longer on a daily ration. This sense of επιτείνω here seems to be unique.
Presumably the preposition έπι- stands for 'more than the others [sc. non-
Spartans]', similar to the verb έπιπονήσαι (cf. X. HG 6.1.15) close by. One
might consider changing έπιταθήναι to έπιτραφήναι (Herwerden
άποτραφήναι) but έπιταθήναι deserves preference as the lectio difficilior. For
the importance of living on reduced food portions in times of crisis cf. X. HG
5.3.21 [Agesilaus besieging Phlius].
2.5[6]: ε υ χ ε ρ έ σ τ ε ρ ο v. The word stem εύχερ- is attested only here in
X. Elsewhere, also, it denotes the indifference towards food, cf. e.g.
Alexand.Com. 268.8 [PCG\, Aristophon 12.5 [CAF]\ Arist. Pol. Vffl 1338b
21 (with the same construction).
2.5[7]: καΐ είς ήκος δ' äv [αύξάνεσθαι] ... ήγήσατο ή
τήν δ ι α π λ α τ ύ ν ο υ σ α ν τφ σ ί τ φ . Weiske convincingly suggested
deletion of αύξάνεσθαι. If one wants to retain it, most likely is an insertion
of τό (with grammatical parallels at Hdt. 7.6.1; X. Mem. 2.6.28), i.e. είς
(το) ήκος δ' αν αύξάνεσθαι. But the latter solution has against it (a)
passive αύξάνεσθαι, where one would expect the active, (b) &v modifying
αύξάνεσθαι, while it should modify συλλα βάνειν.
Either change brings the passage in harmony with Plu. Lyc. 17.7 και τούτο
εν έργον τής όλιγοσιτίας· πάρεργον δέ φασι τήν των σω άτων αΰξησιν.
φέρεται γάρ είς ήκος, δταν το πνεύ α ή πολλήν σχή διατριβήν κ α ι
άσχολίαν ύπό πλήθους τροφής είς βάθος και πλάτος πιεζό ενον, ά λ λ '
άνω βαδίζη δια κουφότητα, τοΰ σώ ατος έκλύτως και ρψδίως
έπιδιδόντος. το δ' αύτό τούτο και καλούς δοκεΐ ποιείν· αί γαρ ίσχναί κ α ί
διάκενοι άλλον εξ εις ύπακούουσι προς τήν διάρθρωσιν, αί δε ογκώδεις
καί πολύτροφοι δια βάρος άντιβαίνουσιν ... ; cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 237 E-F.
It seems quite clear that Plutarch in his extensive and semi-scientific
2.5[3]-2.7[4] 125
explanation does not draw on X.'s terse account but on an (otherwise unknown)
medical source.
2.5[8]: ρ α δ ι ν ά . Apart from this passage the word is found exclusively
in poetry until the hellenistic age, cf. LSJM s.v. 2.
2.5[9]: δ ι α π λ α τ ύ ν ο υ σ α ν . To my knowledge the word appears only
here in the classical period; for later cf. Chrysipp.Tyan. ap. Ath. XIV 648 A
(1st century AD).
2.6: κλέπτειν δ' έφήκεν £στιν ä τφ λι φ έπικουροΰντας.

Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.] appears to be directly influenced by our passage (cf.
2.8[1]), pace Hodkinson 2000, 204. At An. 4.6.14 X. remarks that the Spartan
citizens (δσοι έστέ των ό οιων) practised stealing from infancy with the
exception of those things that were forbidden by law. As becomes apparent
from Isoc. 12.21 If. and Plu. Lyc. 17.4-6 (cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 234 A-B; 237
D-Ε), they used to steal foodstuffs for daily sustenance, both from the syssitia
and the fields. Besides, if Plutarch is trustworthy, they used to steal only on the
order of the eiren (cf. 2.8 υπηρετούντα). 1 0 Accordingly the αστιγοφόροι
chastise a boy caught in the act (cf. 2.8; Plu. Lyc. 17.5).
The statement by Isoc. 12.212 (cf. 218f.) that stealing qualifies for the
highest offices at Sparta only distorts maliciously the fact that those who excel
in the Spartan education, i.e. among other things in stealing, were appointed
ίππαγρέται (cf. 4.3[1]). Allegedly, in the ideal Persian state as well as among
the Greeks 'deceit' was originally part of normal education; only the 'abuse' of
this skill led to its banishment from education (X. Cyr. 1.6.31-33). It remains
doubtful whether daily stealing in Sparta was historical, and if historical,
whether it was connected with the seizure of cheese mentioned at 2.9.
2.7[1]: ουκ άπορων δ τι δοίη. The expression may be taken both as

'not lacking the resources to feed them' and 'not ignorant of what he granted'. In
the latter case the phrase would be directed towards the other Greeks, who
clearly saw the task of a law-giver as preventing theft, not permitting it.
2.7[2]: κ λ ω π ε ύ ε ι ν. For the occurrence of the verb see p. 48.
2.7[3]: νυκτός ... εβ' ή έ ρ α ν . The same wording is found already
at Hdt. 2.150.4
2.7[4]: ηχανικωτέρους των ε π ι τ η δ ε ί ω ν . For the adjective
ηχανικός cf. p. 47. Aristotle's interpretation of the purpose of stealing by the
young is (fr. 611.13 [R.]) iV έκ τούτου πονείν και άγρυπνείν δ ύ ν ω ν τ α ι
έν τοις πολε ίοις. According to Χ. to be ηχανικός or ηχανητικός is a
martial virtue (see X. Mem. 3.1.6 και γαρ παρασκευαστικόν των εις τον
πόλε ον τόν στρατηγόν είναι χρή, και γαρ ποριστικόν των ε π ι τ η δ ε ί ων
τοις στρατιώταις, κ α ι ηχανικόν ... και έπίβουλον, και φυλακτικόν τ ε
κ α ί κλέπτη ν...; cf. Χ. Eq.Mag. 5.2). Notoriously ingenious ( ηχανητικός,
10
It is not very likely that the theft was restricted to a specific season of the year, as
concluded by Link 1994, 113 n. 41 from Plu. apophth. lac. 234 Α-B. The expression ènei
παρην ό καιρός refers to the boys' age, not the season.
126 Commentary
some manuscripts have ηχανικός) was the Spartan harmost Dercylidas (cf. X.
HG 3.1.8).
2.8[1]: εΐποτ δ' αν οδν τις ... ¿ ς κακώς κλέπτοντας

τι ωρούνται. Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.] changes the wording but gives the same
sense: και τον άλόντα κολάζουσι πληγαΐς. Not always does X. give such
strong support for chastising for educational reasons. For example, at Eq. 11.6
he remarks that the performance deteriorates under pressure; instead, one should
use persuasion (cf. X. Mem. 1.2.10; Hier. 9.2; Cyr. 2.2.14-17).
2.8[2]: εϊποι δ' <*v οδν τ ι ς . The reading is surprising for three
reasons. First the combination of particles δ* ο·δν is only very rarely separated
(cf. Denniston 1954, 460), secondly one would rather expect άλλά vel sim.
(Denniston loc. cit.), thirdly Stobaeus omits the words εϊποι ... ένό ιζε. One
may argue that the combination δ'... ουν should not be taken together here but
that δέ replaces ά λ λ ά and that ουν functions independently as a connecting
particle (Denniston 1954, 425: "... anything between post hoc and (more
frequently) propter hoc...").
2.8[3]: τί δήτα. Denniston 1954, 269: "δήτα denotes that the question
springs out of something which another person (or, more rarely, the speaker
himself) has just said." X. uses the expression τί δήτα + verb occasionally
(Smp. 4.22; Cyr. 5.4.35 al.); the elliptical form (i.e. without verb) as here does
not occur elsewhere in his work (but cf. Ar. Nu. 1105, 1290).
2.8[4]: κολάζουσι ... τ ι ω ρ ο ύ ν τ α ι. Arist. Rh. I 1369b 12-14
διαφέρει δε τι ωρία και κόλασις· ή έν γάρ κόλασις τοΰ πάσχοντος
ενεκά έστιν, ή δε τι ωρία τοΰ ποιοΰντος, ίνα αποπληρωθώ. It remains
doubtful how far X. follows the Aristotelian definition and does not simply use
variation; variation is the case at Cyr. 1.2.6f.
2.9: Theft of cheese from the altar of Orthia.
2.9[1]: καΐ ώς πλείστους δή άρπάσαι τυρούς nap'

Όρθιας καλόν θείς, αστιγοΰν τούτους ¿κλλοις έ π έ τ α ξ ε ,
τοΰτο δηλώσαι κ αϊ. έν τουτφ βουλό ενος δτι έστιν ό λ ί γ ο ν
χρόνον άλγήσαντα πολύν χρόνον εύδοκι ούντ α
ε ύ φ ρ α ί ν ε σ θ α ι . Pierleoni is right to print the transmitted text. Marchant's
deletion of the passage is arbitrary; Camerarius' transposition of παρ' Όρθιας
before αστιγοΰν, and similar suggestions, draw on the unproven assumption
that the passage is connected with the whipping of the boys at the altar of
Orthia (cf. app. Π). For the different spellings of the name in antiquity and
etymologies proposed by previous scholars cf. Λυπουρλής 1968, 366-373, who
interprets the name as a Lakonian form of Όρθ(ρ)ία, i.e. as the 'goddess of the
rising sun' (ibid. 385-399).
The identification of Artemis with the goddess Orthia may go back to the
sixth century (cf. Kennell 1995, 136), even though the combined name is
2.7[4]-2.9[l] 127
attested not earlier than the imperial period (e.g. Paus. 3.16.7; but at 3.16.9 and
11 only Όρθια). Apart from the heavily stylized, upright female figures from
the sanctuary of Orthia, some of which may reflect the cult image
iconographically, no representation of Orthia has been identified positively (for
attempts at identification see Pipili 1987, 41-44). The cult of (Artemis) Orthia
is also attested at a sanctuary situated at the road from Argos to Tegea (cf.
Fossey 1987, 80f.).
The seizure of cheese as described here is the only information in classical
literature on cult practices in the sanctuary of Orthia. It is supported indirectly
by PI. Lg. 633 B, where Spartan boys are said to be hardened by certain
robberies that were performed under a hail of blows on each occasion:
άρπαγαΐς τισι δια πολλών πληγών εκάστοτε γιγνο ένων. The plural
ά ρ π α γ α ΐ ς and έκάστοτε suggest that Plato is talking about a regularly
-possibly annually- recurring rite. Whether each boy had to pass it only once
is not clear. In my view, X.'s general καλόν θείς rather suggests that the rite
was performed repeatedly -perhaps even an unlimited number of times.
According to X. a beating could not be avoided when seizing the cheese;
speed was a precondition (όπου τάχους δει). Thus, one has to assume that we
are not dealing with a secret theft for which - given sufficient skill -
punishment could be avoided altogether, but robbery in front of the eyes of
everyone. Punishment was an integral part of the whole procedure. This
explains the use of άρπάζει ν instead of κλεπτειν . It is very likely that the
seizure of cheese was a Spartan initiation rite.11 As such it is not automatically
to be connected with the later attested diamastigosis, as is normally done (cf.
app. II). For the earlier history of the Xenophontic rite it is important that in a
(homoerotic?) copulation scene on an archaic cup found at the shrine of Orthia
the penetrating partner possibly whips the penetrated while performing the
sexual act (cf. Powell 1998, 130-134). If the interpretation of this depiction is
correct (I find it at least conceivable), it may well be connected with the
whipping at the shrine of Orthia and thus represent an early stage of the rite.
For a number of connections between theft and cult cf. Meier 1998, 165f.
Possibly the boys dedicated the cheese to Artemis before performing the rite.
Cheese offerings to Zeus, Demeter, and Kore are presumably attested in a
fragmentary inscription from Lakonia in the first century AD (cf. IG V (1)
363.12). The notion of a dedication to Artemis may be supported by the fact
that in X.'s description no altar is mentioned and that the expression π α ρ '
11
Apart from our passage the masks found in the sanctuary of the goddess suggest that Orthia
was closely linked with initiation rites, cf. AO, 163-86. According to Boardman 1963, 6 they
are to be dated not before the sixth century. Normally they are identified with the masks
mentioned by Hsch. s.v. βρυαλίκται, βρυδάλιχα, βρυλλιχισταί (β 1226, 1243, 1245),
cf. Poll. 4.104f. [especially ι ητικήν έκάλουν δι' ης έ ι οΰντο τους έπί xf¡ κ λ ο π ή
των εώλων κρεών άλισκο ένους], with Pickard-Cambridge 1927, 257f. Further
identifications are mentioned by Parker 1989, 168 n. 47, see also Graf 1985, 88-89 and
Vernant 1991, 226-231. Less likely is the interpretation that unfree men, especially helots,
should be made the object of scorn by wearing the masks (cf. Thommen 1996, 52 n. 173).
Eastern influence of the masks is conceivable, but hardly provable (pace Carter 1987).
128 Commentary
Όρθιας suggests that the cheese belonged to the goddess (i.e. that it was
dedicated to her beforehand) rather than indicates the locality only (i.e. the
sanctuary of Orthia). Furthermore, a special connection of Artemis with cheese
offerings may be indicated by Alcm. fr. 56 [PMGF] which, - pace Aristid.
49.7- certainly referred to the goddess, not to Dionysus (cf. Den Boer 1954,
264f.; Cartledge 1979, 172). Furthermore, cheese may have been closely
connected with warrior subsistence: it was an easily portable, nutritious
foodstuff; cheese-grating is mentioned in connection with 'Nestor's cup' in the
Iliad (11.639) and, most importantly, recently a number of bronze devices have
been unearthed in three ninth-century warrior burials from Euboea (they also
appear in seventh-century Italy and later) that can hardly be interpreted as
anything other than cheese-graters (cf. Ridgway 1997). If so, the Spartan
initiatory rite of seizing cheese from Orthia may indicate in one way or another
the participation or even the integration of the young Spartan in the warrior
community. Finally, one should consider the connection of cheese with fertility
rites, the cult of the dead, purification, and last but not least - also outside the
S C - initiation (cf. Losfeld 1977, 261-270, especially 268f.).
X. mentions the seizure of cheese as an example of how important theft as
an educational means was. He disregards the fact that the theft of foodstuffs (as
mentioned at 2.7f.) and the seizure of cheese serve different ends. The aim of the
theft is to make the boys as inventive ( ηχανικός) as possible (cf. 2.7[4]), the
aim of the seizure of cheese (entailing blows) to make them more self-
controlled (εγκρατέστεροι). In contrast to the theft the seizure of cheese is not
justified by shortage of foodstuffs (cf. 2.6) and the whipping is not an
indispensable part of the theft, but of the seizure of cheese (cf. Parker 1989,
167 n. 33). Finally, living on stolen food appears to have been a longer lasting
state, whereas the seizure of cheese was the deed of a moment. In other words,
X.'s mention of the seizure of cheese is hardly well chosen to illustrate the
advantage of living on theft in Sparta. It seems that X. was at a loss for an
explanation of the obscure rite and ended up with a makeshift explanation.
2.9[2]: ό β λ α κ ε ύ ω ν . The verb occurs at An. 2.3.11, 5.8.15. X. is
especially fond of derivatives from βλακ-, cf. e.g. Mem. 3.13.4, 4.2.40, Oec.
8.16f.
2.9[3]: πράγ ατα λ α β ά ν ε ι . The normal expression for 'to
have/get trouble' is πράγ ατα εχειν, cf. X. HG 5.1.29, Cyr. 1.3.4, Oec.
13.7. I do not know of a parallel for πράγ ατα λα βάνειν, for similar
expressions cf. LSJM s.v. πράγ α III. 5.
2.1 Of.: Education at Sparta, the citizens and the ilarchs - when the
paidonomos is absent, every adult is entitled to teach and punish - if no adult is
present, the ilarch exercises these rights.
2.10[ 1 ]: έποίησε τόν άεί παρόντα των πολιτών ... ει τ ι

ά α ρ τ ά ν ο ι ε ν . Cf. 6.If. Χ. seems to be strongly influenced by Socratic
2.9[1]-2.11[1] 129
ideas here, as also reflected at PI. Lg. 808 E - 809 A (about children in the
Platonic ideal state) πάς ό προστυγχάνων των ελευθέρων ανδρών
κολάζ έτω τόν τε παιδα αυτόν και τον παιδαγωγόν και τον
διδάσκαλον, εάν έξα αρτάνη τίς τι τούτων, αν δ' αυ προστυγχάνων
τις ή κολάζη τη δίκη, όνείδει εν ένεχέσθω πρώτον τφ εγίστφ, ό δε
των νο οφυλάκων έπί τήν των παίδων άρχήν ή ρη ένος έπισ κοπεί τω
τούτον τον έντυγχάνοντα οις λέγο εν και ή κολάζοντα, δέον κολάζειν,
η κολάζοντα κατά τρόπον, βλέπων δέ ή ίν όξύ και διαφερόντως
έπι ελού ενος της των παίδων τροφής κατευθυνέτω τάς φύσεις αΰτών,
άεί τρέπων προς τάγαθόν κατά νό ους. Χ. like Plato reacts to Athenian
lack of self-discipline, which - at least according to the idealizing sources - was
a mark of the Athenian past (cf. Ar. Nu. 962-1022; Isoc. 7.48-50).
2.10[2]: κύριον είναι ... έπιτάττειν ... κολάζειν. See 2.2[3].
2.10[3]: δτι αν αγαθόν δοκοίη είναι. For άν see 1.8[1],
2 . 1 0 [ 4 ] : α ί δ η ο ν ε σ τ έ ρ ο υ ς . For the word see p. 48. For the Spartan
αιδώς see 1.5[3], 2.2[6], A connection between the capacity for
άρχειν/άρχεσθαι and αιδώς is also found at X. An. 1.9.4f.: in being taught
'to rule and to be ruled' (άρχειν/άρχεσθαι) Cyrus the Younger presented
himself as αίδη ονέστατος (An. 1.9.5, cf. Cyr. 1.6.20).
2.10[5]: τους ά ρ χ ο ν τ α ς . The expression has two nuances, the
'magistrates' and 'those in charge, rulers', here perhaps with special regard to the
ephors (cf. Richer 1998a, 265f.). The term τους άρχοντας used of the Spartan
magistrates occurs frequently (in X. also at HG 1.6.8, but already at Hdt.
3.46.1, 6.106.1; Thucydides at 1.90.5 has αϊ άρχαί). This may be a
transference of an Athenian term to Spartan institutions. More common in a
Spartan context is τα τέλη (cf. HG 3.2.6, 3.2.23 al., also at Th. 1.58.1,
4.86.1 al. with Richer 1998a, 267-270). This may well be the technical term
for Spartan authorities (cf. the scholia on Th. 1.58 with 'etymologizing'
explanation: οΐ Λακεδαι όνιοι τους άρχοντας τέλη έκάλουν δια το τέλος
τοις πράγ ασι τιθέναι), though in this sense it is found elsewhere (so in Elis
according to Th. 5.47.9).
Besides, τους άρχοντας here denotes the 'those in charge, rulers'. The
essence of Spartan education -similar to the Persian (cf. X. An. 1.9.4) and the
Platonic (cf. Pl. Lg. 762 E ) - is to learn 'to rule and to be ruled', see X. Ages.
2.16, An. 1.3.15; Plu. Lyc. 30.3f„ Ages. 20.2 (cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 211 C;
215 D; Hodkinson 1983, 247f.). According to Aristotle (Pol. m 1277a 25-27;
ΙΠ 1277b 13-16) these are central civic virtues. It is no coincidence that the
Spartan education, as expounded here by X., resembles the education of the
'rulers' (άρχοντες) in the ideal state of both the Cyropaedia (cf. Gera 1993,
59f.) and Plato (cf. Pl. R. 413 C-E).
2.11[1]: τής ΐλης έ κ ά σ τ η ς . The ile is a group of young men.

Presumably there were three ilai: paides - paidiskoi - hebontes (= eirenes = τ à
δέκα άφ' ήβης), cf. 2.11[3], Besides, according to Plu. Lyc. 16.13 (cf. Plu.
apophth. lac. 237 B) there was the ágele. But this may well be a wrong
130 Commentary
transference of a Cretan term, not applicable to classical Sparta (cf. Kenneil

1995, 108). 12 If there had really been proper age classes in classical Sparta like
those mentioned in hellenistic sources (cf. 2.11 [3]), the term for an age class
may have been βοΰα and a leader of such an age class would then be a
βουαγόρ, cf. Hsch. s.v. βοΰα (β 865), βουαγόρ (β 867). Presumably, however,
the βοΰα, too, was a hellenistic institution (cf. Kennell 1995, 38, 107).
2 . 1 1 [ 2 ] : τόν τ ο ρ ώ τ α τ ο ν . The adverb (literally 'piercing') is
considerably more frequent than the adjective in classical times (but cf. A. Ag.
254 al.). Apart from PI. Tht. 175 E the word seems to be restricted to poetry
(cf. E. Rh. 77, Ar. Ra. 1102 al.). In the hellenistic period the word disappears
almost completely, but cf. Call. fr. 398 [Pf.] (archaism?).
The meaning of the word in X. can hardly be much different from ισχυρός
(applied to the physical condition e.g. at 1.4, cf. Mem. 1.6.7), Plu. Lyc. 16.7
seems to paraphrase the expression as τον τφ φρονεΐν διαφέροντα κ α ι
θυ οειδέστατον èv τφ άχεσθαι.
2.11[3]: τών ε ί ρ έ ν ω ν . Vatican Gr. 1335 offers των αρρένων and,
connected therewith, τον αρρενα at 2.5. The most elegant solution, adopted by
most later editors, remains Cragius' τών είρένων here and Schneider's τον
¿ίρενα3ΐ2.5 (Haase reads είρένων here, άρρενα at 2.5). It remains possible
that X. used originally the Lakonian form ΐρανα in both cases (cf. Hsch. s.v.
ιρανές [ι 872]).
Kennell 1995,16f. has defended the transmitted reading in both passages. He
argued that the mention of the eirenes especially at 2.5 would come rather
surprisingly, because in chapter 2 X. is dealing with the education of boys.
Besides, according to Kennell X. would have never left unexplained such an
unusual term as eiren.
Indeed, the occurrence of εΐρενα at 2.5 is surprising, but even more
surprising would be the reading άρρενα. For what would be the correspondence
to the 'male'? Does X. really want to indicate that women too had a share in the
syssition, but only men had to pay the contribution to the syssition? This is
hard to credit. And, if it was meant, why not employ άνδρα? As to Kennell's
second argument one can object that X. does not normally explain technical
12
Cf. Ephor. ap. Str. 10.4.20 = FGrH 70 F 149 and LSJM s.v. The fact that in Crete we are
dealing with a fixed term may be concluded from Arist. fr. 611.15 [R.]. According to this
passage the leader of an αγέλη was called άγ ελάτη ς (possibly inaccurately taken up by
Hsch. s.v. άγελάους (α 432; Cohn conjectures άγελάτας- τούς)· έφηβους· Κρήτες), cf.
also Hsch. s.v. άπάγελος (α 5702). To my knowledge, nowhere does άγέλη appear in
connection with Sparta with the exception of Plutarch and sources based on him. The
argument of Link 1999, 4 n. 6 that the boys of the Cretan agelai were older than 17
according to Hsch. s.v. άπάγελος (α 5702), while the boys in Plutarch's Spartan agelai
were younger, is hardly convincing. The Spartan boys that were divided into agelai by
Plutarch may well have been aged from seven (Plu. Lyc. 16.7) to 20 (Plu. Lyc. 17.1-3).
There is no cogent reason to assume that according to Plutarch the divisions of agelai ended
with the seventeenth year of their members. Presumably Plutarch, who knew the Spartan
age classes predominantly as they represented themselves in the hellenistic period and later,
could not find an adequate expression for them in the classical writers. He adopted the
Cretan terminology as a makeshift solution.
2.11[1]-2.11[3] 131
terms just introduced. One does not have to point to the work's occasional
stylistic shortcomings (see pp. 53f.); it suffices to consider the expression της
ΐλης εκάστης τον τορώτατον των είρένων. Does Χ. explain what he means
by ΐλη or τον τορώτατον? Both terms are found only here, perhaps as
Lakonian technical terms, certainly without an explanation. Again, the fact that
X. does not mention other age classes apart from the eirenes does not support
the transmitted reading against eiren. X. is likely to have accompanied
Agesilaus' army when writing the SC (see pp. 12, 32) and for this reason to
have been familiar predominantly with the combat unit of the youth (i.e. the
eirenes), not the younger age classes.13
The conjecture is supported by Plu. Lyc. 17.2 και κατ' άγέλας αύτοί
(sc. οί παιδονό οι) προίσταντο των λεγο ένων είρένων άεί τον
σωφρονέστατον και αχι ώτατον. If one assumes, as I do, that 2.11 and
Plu. Lyc. 17.2 reflect the same state of affairs and that αγέλη is a non-
Lakonian expression for ΐλη (for the argument see p. 130 n. 12), one has to
conclude either that (if X. was not Plutarch's source) another of Plutarch's
sources made the eirenes leaders of the ilai/agelai, or that (if X. was Plutarch's
source) it was X. who in Plutarch's eyes made the eirenes leaders of the
ilai/agelai. In either case we have an argument suggesting that εΐρενες, not
άρρενες, stood in the Xenophontic original. For in the former case the reading
των είρένων would be supported by a second independent source, in the latter
it would be clear that already Plutarch read των είρένων, not των αρρένων in
X.'s text.
The eirenes were Spartans between their twentieth and thirtieth birthday,
alternatively appearing in military contexts as τά δέκα άφ' ήβης (cf. Tazelaar
1967, 141-143 and 4.1[1]). Apart from the eirenes, other age classes are attested
in Aristophanes of Byzantium that, however, are likely to reflect the situation
in the hellenistic rather than the classical period (cf. Diller 1941; Kenneil 1995,
28-39; 107-110). In the classical period there may have existed a threefold
division in paides - paidiskoi - hebontes (= eirenes = τά δέκα άφ' ήβης), cf.
3.1[2];4.1[1],
13
As a combat unit the eirenes also appear at Hdt. 9.85.1f. Kennell 1995, 14f„ Toher 1999,
119-121, Hodkinson 2000, 258 following ultimately Den Boer 1954, 288-298 in defending
the transmitted reading ίρέες viz. ίρέας ignore completely the central argument for the
conjecture, that in the tomb of the (according to Kennell) ίρέες no priests were buried, but
the 'bravest' (Hdt. 9.71.2 ήρίστευσαν), by which expression only hoplites can be meant, as
shown by the context (an argument also against the reading ίππέες). Alleged Indo-
European parallels, as afforded by Kennell loc. cit., are pointless here (and their relevance
for Greek material may be debatable anyway). The eirenes had their own tomb according
to Herodotus, because as δέκα άφ' τίβης they were deployed in the front line and, hence,
suffered the greatest losses. As the δέκα άφ' Ήβης formed a separate unit in battle (cf.
4.1[1]), so, quite naturally, they were buried together. Possibly already Stephanus of
Byzantium read εΐρενες here, if the relevant gloss preserved in fourteenth-century
manuscripts is his and actually refers to Hdt. 9.85.If. But even without this gloss the above
argument makes ίρένες a likely conjecture in Herodotus.
132 Commentary
2.12-14: Pederasty elsewhere and in Sparta.
2.12[1]: Λεκτέον δέ οι δοκεΐ είναι καΐ περί των

παιδικών έρώτων ... των π α ί δ ω ν . For X.'s stance toward
homosexuality in general cf. Tigerstedt 1965, 459f. n. 502; Hindley 1994 and
1999; Huß 1999, 32-34.
The Spartan peculiarity according to X. is that among the other Greeks,
notably the Boiotians and Eleans, the physical aspect of pederasty was
predominant, while in Sparta it was the educational/spiritual aspect. Besides, at
2.12 X. subdivides the physical aspect into those cases where the consent of the
boy was necessary (Elis), and those where it was not (Boiotia). By contrast, PI.
Smp. 182 Β (for the correct, i.e. the transmitted, reading cf. Dover 1978, 81 n.
37 against Oilier 1934, 30 and others) and Cie. rep. 4.4 mention Elis and
Boiotia as examples where the eromenos had to comply with any wishes of the
erastes. For Elean conditions cf. Buffière 1980, 89-91; for Boiotian (esp.
Theban) ibid. 95-101; for both Dover 1978, 190-192.
The mention of Boiotia and Elis and the omission of Athens here are not as
intriguing as Hindley 1999, 74 n. 4 thought: in X.'s day it was widely held that
the Boiotian (Theban) Laius, the father of Oedipous, was the inventor of
pederasty (cf. Dover 1978, 199f.). Besides, although the Athenian conditions
are present in almost every single line of the SC, X. manifestly avoids
addressing his home city directly, most likely to avoid hostility by his fellow
citizens (cf. p. 32). Finally, X. omits at least one other major state besides
Athens where pederasty was prominent and proverbial: Crete. This ties in with
the fact that X. generally avoids drawing parallels between Crete and Sparta, and
most notably that he does not mention the supposed Cretan authorship of the
Spartan laws (cf. pp. 35f.).
2.12[2]: ol έν τοίνυν &λλοι "Ελληνες fl ώσπερ Βοιωτοί
άνήρ και παις συζυγεντες ό ιλοΰσιν, ή ώσπερ 'Ηλείοι δ ι α
χ α ρ ί τ ω ν τ^ ΰ ρ φ χ ρ ώ ν τ α τ . For τοίνυν see ρ. 50. The opposition
between Boiotians and Eleans, as indicated by the η ... ή construction, centres
on the difficult expression δια χαρίτων. At X. Hier. 9.If. the expression
means 'with marks of favour [sc. of the other party]' = 'with the consent [sc. of
the other party]', cf. Hier. 1.34, 7.6 (cf. Plu. amatorìus 751 D χάρις γαρ ... ή
τοΰ θήλεος ΰπειξις τφ άρρενι κέκληται προς των π α λ α ι ώ ν ) . If one
applies this meaning to our passage, the difference which X. wanted to point
out is that among the Boiotians the consent of the eromenoi was of no
importance (possibly explaining the expression συζυγέντες, literally = 'to be
yoke-fellows'), in other words that an erastes was allocated by law to any boy
from a certain age on (cf. also Plu. Pel. 19.1), while among the Eleans the
erastes tried to gain the affection of the boy by offering favours.
In Elis and Boiotia homosexual pairs were deployed together in battle (cf. X.
Smp. 8.34 with Huß 1999, 420). The 'sacred band' of the Thebans allegedly
consisted of homosexual pairs (Plu. Pel. 18.2; Ath. XIII 602 A); the eromenos
was presented with a panoplia by the erastes, as soon as his name was entered
2.12[1]-2.12[5] 133
in the citizen list (Plu. amatorius 761 B).14 Similarly, among the Eleans there
was a beauty contest for men, the winner of which received weapons as prizes
dedicated to Athena (an initiatory context?; cf. Ath. ΧΠΙ609 F = Thphr. fr. I l l
[W.]). In Sparta too it was held that joining homosexual pairs meant increasing
the fighting spirit (cf. X. Smp. 8.32); nevertheless one did not always station
them together (X. Smp. 8.35; HG 4.8.39). Sosicrates (2nd century) at FGrH
461 F 7 attests to a sacrifice to Eros before the deployment of the army for
battle, thus clearly underlining the importance of homosexual relationships for
the fighting spirit. Plu. amatorius 761 C comes to the conclusion τ α
αχι ώτατα τών εθνών έρωτικώτατα, cf. Pl. Smp. 178 E - 179 Β; Χ.
Cyn. 12.20 and extensively Richer 1998b, 12-16.
2.12(3]: σ υ ζ υ γ έ ν τ ε ς . The verb, referring to marital or extramarital
union, is common in X., cf. X. Oec. 7.30, 9.5; also E. Ale. 165f. al.
2.12[4]: τή ώρα χ ρ ώ ν τ α ι . ή ώρα stands here (as at X. Smp. 8.14,
cf. 8.21) for oi έν ώρςι = 'those in the "spring-time" of life', as found
occasionally elsewhere (Pl. R. 474 D; Plu. Ages. 20.9 al.), χρησθαι indicating
sexual intercourse is normally construed with the dative (cf. Aeschin. 1.40; X.
Mem. 2.1.30).
The approximate age of an eromenos was normally between 12 and 18 (cf.
AP XII 4. 228 [Strato, 2nd century AD], also X. Cyr. 1.6.34). The upper age
limit was approximately 18 (cf. Luc. VH 2.14.28), certainly the beginning of
the growth of beard. Exceptions to this rule, stated explicitly as such, are found
at PI. Prt. 309 A [Socrates' passion for the bearded Alcibiades] and X. An.
2.6.28 [the beardless Menon as erastes (sic!) of the bearded Tharypas],
2.12[5]: εΐσΐ δέ καί οΐ π α ν τ ά π α σ ι του δ ι α λ έ γ ε σ θ α ι τους
έραστάς εΐργουσιν από τών παίδων. The transmitted text is flawed.
Possibly a gloss has entered the text, either άπό των παίδων or more likely
(cf. the corresponding construction at X. Smp. 8.19) του διαλέγεσθαι.
Haase's suggestion to consider του διαλέγεσθαι ... εΐργουσιν άπό τ ώ ν
παίδων simply an abundant expression (like e.g. PI. Phd. 78 D αυτή ή
ουσία, ής λόγον δίδο εν του είναι) is doubtful, because in none of the cases
drawn on by him for parallels do we demonstrably have two different
constructions (του διαλέγεσθαι = gen. separ. / άπό τών π α ί δ ω ν
prepositional expression). For παις in the sense of π α ι δ ι κ ά see X. An.
4.1.14.
Whatever the correct reading of the passage, the meaning can only be that
some cities prevented the erastes from having contact with his eromenos. This
may apply to Athenian conditions in particular, for PI. Smp. 183 C-D remarks
that fathers attempted to separate sons from the erastes and Arist. Pol. II 1262a
32-36 - presumably referring to Athenian conditions - states that it does not
suffice to separate the erastes from the eromenos. The passage implies that
keeping them separate was normal practice.
14
I am not convinced by Fehling 1985, 119 who claimed that the 'sacred band' was a
'historisches Märchen' ultimately going back to PI. Smp. 178 E.
134 Commentary
2.13[1]: ό δε Λυκούργος ... κ α λ λ ί σ τ η ν π α ι δ ε ί α ν ταύτην

έ ν ό ι ζ ε ν . Pederasty was not institutionalized in Sparta (cf. Link 1999, 13-
22; pace e.g. Hodkinson 1997, 90), but was still a normal phenomenon of
Spartan society, cf. in general Buffière 1980, 67-88. In Lakonian the erastes is
called εΐσπνήλας (presumably to be connected with είσπνείν 'to breathe
upon', cf. the expression το ιερόν πυρ φυσάν for homosexual fellation at
Arched, fr. 4 [PCG] with Dover 1978, 99), the eromenos άίτας (fem.: άΐτις
(?), cf. Alcm. fr. 34 [PMGF]). The latter is to be related to άίω 'to listen' (cf.
Ael. VH 3.12 with Plu. Agis-Cleom. 24.2); similarly in Thessaly (Theoc.
12.14 with the scholia ad loc.; further references in Cartledge 1981a, 31 n. 18).
The inscription of a bronze bowl from Aigai in southern Lakonia dating from
the end of the sixth or the beginning of the fifth century with the reading of
Gallavotti 1978 possibly shows that Hyacinthus received special worship in
Sparta as άίτας of Apollo. Linguistically, however, it is equally possible that
we are dealing with a dedication of a group of άΐτα ι to Apollo [Hyakinthios]
(cf. Parker 1989, 164 n. 6).
2.13[2]: Λ ε πτον φίλο ν ά π ο τ ε λ έ σ α σ θ α ι . Χ. Strip. 8.27
έγιστον δ' αγαθόν τφ όρεγο ενφ έκ παιδικών φίλον αγαθόν
ποιήσασθαι... The middle άποτελέσασθαι is found here and at 2.14 meaning
'to render something for oneself and is formed by analogy with ποιήσασθαι.
The meaning 'to render' is normal (cf. 1.10, Pl. Lg. 718 Β, 823 D al.). But in
X. the verb is nowhere else found in this sense.
2.13[3]: εί δέ ... ά π έ χ ο ν τ α ι . The fact that X.'s 'chaste pederasty' is
in fact a philosophical and more specifically Socratic ideal, becomes apparent
e.g. at X. Smp. 8.12-36 (cf. Mem. 1.3.8-11, 4.1.2) and Pl. R. 403 Β (cf. also
Pl. Smp. 210 B-D) with Huß 1999, 422. According to the ideal of 'chaste
pederasty', love of the soul (ψυχή) should dominate affection for the body (for
further references see Hindley 1999, 79f.; for ψυχή ibid. 84).
The Spartan public controlled this 'chaste pederasty' (X. Ages. 5.7). But X.'s
information becomes suspicious since elsewhere he praises Agesilaus' self-
control towards a beloved boy (Ages. 5.4-7), while a parallel source (Hell. Oxy.
46f., 705-710 [Ch.]) depicts Agesilaus as much less self-controlled. Plato
emphasizes civic self-control as typical of Spartan affairs (Lg. 636 E - 637 Β),
but the erotic sphere seems to be exempted therefrom (ibid. 836 B - D with
Dover 1978, 165-168). Κυσολάκων, a nickname of Clinias, the father of
Alcibiades (itself a Spartan name) hardly points to a chaste partnership
associated with Lakonian homosexuality (κυσός = 'female vagina/buttocks'; cf.
Phot. s.v. κυσολάκων [= Hsch. s.v. κυσολάκων]). Attic comedy shows that
Spartan homosexual practices were infamous in Athens (cf. Cartledge 1981a,
31 n. 16), though homosexuality in general was a welcome and very popular
topic on the stage, irrespective of any Spartan connection (cf. Dover 1978, 135-
153).
Later Arist. Pol. II 1262a 32-36 remarks that pederasty involves actions ας
πατρί πρός υίόν είναι πάντων έστίν απρεπέστατο ν και άδελφφ προς
άδελφόν (for a more extensive discussion of Aristotle on homosexuality see
2.13[1]-3.1[2] 135
Dover 1978, 168-170). Intercrural sex was normal (cf. Dover 1978, 98f.;
Reinsberg 1989, 194-198). As to Sparta, vase depictions show that anal
sex/intercrural sex was not unknown at least in the archaic age (cf. Pipili 1987,
65f„ cat. nos. 179f., fig. 95f.; Nafissi 1991, 186-189; Powell 1998, 130-134).
In so far as one considers the Spartan precept of chastity as historical, one
will be willing to consider the sanctions on its infringement as credible. X.
does not mention such sanctions and he is likely to have referred to them
- supporting, as it would, his argument of chastity - if he had known them.
Plu. apophth. lac. 237 B-C mentions the loss of civic rights, Ael. VH 3.10.12
exile or death of both partners. Of course, both sources are late and tinged
ideologically; from the classical period no evidence is known to me according
to which 'physical pederasty' was punishable in Sparta.
2.13[4]: εις αφροδίσια ά π έ χ ο ν τ α ι . The preposition is normal in
the sense 'in regard to', cf. X. HG 7.4.30 εις τά πολε ικά καταφρονού ενοι,
An. 2.6.30 εις φιλίαν αυτούς έ έ φετο, Cyr. 5.4.25 εις τήν τού καρπού
κο ιδήν ... καρπώσεται.
2.14[1]: ταΐς πρός τούς παΐδας έπιθυ ίαις. έπιθυ ία + πρός is

attested again only in the post-classical period, cf. Thphr. CP 6.5.1, Plb.
3.63.3.
2.14[2]: π α ι δ ε ί α . See 2.1[2],
2.14[3]: α ί δ η ο ν έ σ τ ε ρ ο ι . See 2.10[4],
2.14[4]: έ γ κ ρ α τ έ σ τ ε ρ ο ι . Self-restraint is necessary according to X. to
tame one's sexual desires (cf. extensively Hindley 1994, 349); at the same time
it is a central philosophical ideal in X. Thus Socrates is called αφροδισίων κ α ι
γαστρός πάντων ανθρώπων εγκρατέστατος at Mem. 1.2.1 (cf. p. 18f.).
2.14[5]: Α π ο τ ε λ ο ύ ν τ α ι . See 2.13[2].
3.1-5: Characterization of the education of the young (meirakia/paidiskoi)

outside and inside Sparta - elsewhere the young are not subject to supervision -
only the participation in the Spartan education and the toils connected with it
entitle to full citizenship - modesty of the young.
3.1[1]: "Οταν ... τ η ν ι κ α ΰ τ α .... The word combination is rare in

the classical period, cf. Ar. Pax 338, D. 26.17, Thphr. HP 3.9.5. In X. it is
not otherwise attested. He normally uses δταν without a corresponding
temporal particle; occasionally δταν... τότε is found (e.g. HG 2.4.17, 5.1.15,
Mem. 2.10.4), for ήνίκα ... τ η ν ι κ α ΰ τ α cf. An. 4.1.1, Cyr. 7.1.9. The
expression δταν ... τηνικαΰτα becomes frequent in the Roman period,
extremely common it is in Galen.
3.1[2]: έκ παίδων είς τό ειρακιοΰσθαι έκβαίνωσι.
έκ βαίν ω in this sense is normally construed with the plain accusative, cf.
LSJM s.v. I 3 b; Philo de congressu eruditionis gratia 82 (ΠΙ p. 88 [W.])
employs the genitive in a very similar passage δταν έκβαίνοντες της
136 Commentary
παιδικής ήλικίας ειρακιούσθαι έλλω εν ... The words εις το

ειρακιοΰσθαι were deleted by Cobet. 15 In terms of language the deletion is
supported by the fact that the verb is otherwise late and rare (cf. Philo loc. cit.,
Ael. VH 12.1), as is the parallel type ειρακιεύο αι. Normal for X. would be
ειράκιον γίγνεσθαι (Ari. 2.6.16, Cyr. 8.3.37). One may object to the
deletion that in the following section X. is indeed dealing with the stage of life
which was labelled in Athens by the term ειράκιον (cf. Pl. La. 179 A, quoted
at 3.1 [3]). Since there is no contextual reason for the deletion, one should rather
stick to the preserved text (cf. Kennell 1995, 32-35).
Chapter 2 deals with παίδες (cf. 2.1). If one followed Haase in changing
των π α ι δ ι κ ώ ν to των π α ι δ ί σ κ ω ν (cf. 3.5[8]), this would naturally suggest
that chapter 3 deals with the παιδίσκοι. Chapter 4 is, as shown by 4.1, devoted
to the ήβώντες. Now, if one accepts this reasoning, chapters 2-4 deal with the
age groups παίδες - παιδίσκοι - ήβώντες. It is remarkable that these terms
are mentioned at HG 5.4.32 in the same sequence, as already noted by Haase
1833, 66 and 102 (overlooked by Hodkinson 1983, 250; for παιδίσκοι cf. Le
Roy 1961, 223-227 [appearance of the word on an inscription from the
second/first century]). TTie assumption that this is not just a similar
enumeration, but fixed Spartan terminology is supported by the observation
that the term παιδίσκος appears only in these two (Sparta-related) passages in
X. (at X. An. 4.3.11 παιδίσκη is not a technical term) and by the fact that it
would be pointless to mention the παιδίσκοι (i.e. the diminutive) after the
παίδες (cf. also Hsch. s.v. παιδίσκος (π 67)· oí έκ παίδων εϊς άνδρας
εταβαίνοντας). 1 6 The παιδίσκοι may include boys from 19 to 20 (so
Kukofka 1993, who wrongly attributes other age classes to the classical period,
cf. 2.11[3]), o r a longer period, possibly from 12 to 20 (cf. Plu. Lyc. 16.12).
Possibly the Aristotelian bipartition of the paideia into the period between
seven and puberty and from then to 21 (Pol. 1336b 37-40) reflects the phases
παίδες (seven till puberty) - παιδίσκοι (puberty till 21) - ήβώντες (after 21,
cf. Kennell 1995, 117f. and 2.1 [4]).
3.1[3]: o l έν ά λ λ ο ι π α ύ ο υ σ ι εν άπό παιδαγωγών,
π α ύ ο υ σ ι δ έ άπό δ ι δ α σ κ ά λ ω ν . The expression displays two linguistic
particularities, the stylistic figure of anaphora and π α ύ ω construed with άπό.
The latter construction is found in the classical period also at Cratin. fr. 199
[PCG], cf. Hp. Int. 24 [VII 228], similarly S. El. 987 (παΰσον έκ κ α κ ώ ν
έ έ).
Χ. mainly refers here to the Athenian practice, also mentioned by Pl. La.
179 Α: ή ίν οΰν τούτων δεδοκται έπι εληθήναι ώς οϊόν τε άλιστα, κ α ι
ή ποιήσαι δπερ οί πολλοί, έπειδή ειράκια γέγονεν, άνεΐναι αυτούς δτι
15
The deletion was adopted by Bazin 1885, 86f.; Tazelaar 1967, 147; Hodkinson 1983, 249f.;
contra e.g. Cartledge 1987, 30.
16
The age groups, as occurring in the SC, resemble roughly the age groups of the ideal
Persian state, as represented by X. Cyr. 1.2.8-14. The age group of παίδες reached until
the age of 16/17 (cf. Cyr. 1.2.8), the one of έφηβοι to the age of 26/27 (cf. Cyr. 1.2.9), the
one of τέλειοι &νδρες until the age of 51/52 (cf. Cyr. 1.2.13); men older than that were
called γεραίτεροι (cf. Cyr. 1.2.14); cf. Tuplin 1994, 152, who points out differences to X.
3.1[2]-3.3[2] 137
βούλονται ποιείν, άλλα νΰν δή καί αρχεσθαι αύτων έπι ελείσθαι κ α θ '
όσον οίοι τ' έσ έν, very similar is Plu. de liberis educandis 12 Α-B. X. and
other writers stress that young men of this age need supervision (cf. Pl. Ale. I
122 Β, R. 497 E - 498 A, X. Cyr. 1.2.2, Plu. de liberis educandis 12 Α-B). X.
Mem. 2.1.21 confirms the information that the Athenian were not subject to
any sort of supervision by the time of their ήβη. In a quite different vein Isoc.
12.215 laments the 'independence' of the Spartan youth (της των π α ί δ ω ν
αυτονο ίας).
3.2[1]: κατα αθών γαρ ... πλειστήν δέ άσχολίαν

έ η χ α ν ή σ α τ ο . It was almost a literary topos that this age group needed
special care; thus X. remarks at Cyr. 1.2.9 about Persian ephebes (aged from
16/17 to 26/27) δοκεΐ γαρ αΰτη ή ήλικία άλιστα επι ελείας δείσθαι,
similarly Arist. HA 581b 1 If., Isoc. 7.43, Cie. o f f . 1.122.
3.2[2]: έγιστον ... έ φυό ενον, άλιστα
έκτκολάζουσαν, ίσχυροτάτας ... παριστα ένας . The desire to
vary leads X. to employ the unusual verb έπιπολάζειν alongside the normal
έ φύεσθαι and παρίστασθαι. The former appears in X. only at Oec. 16.14
again [in its literal sense, in its metaphorical sense also at [Pl.] Ax. 369 D]. In
a similar way X. varies at Mem. 3.7.5 έ φυτα with παριστά ενα.
3.2[3]: τηνικαΰτα πλείστους έν πόνους αύτοΐς έπέβαλε,
π λ ε ί σ τ η ν δε ά σ χ ο λ ί α ν έ η χ α ν ή σ α τ ο . The importance of 'toil' for
the education towards the good (άγαθόν) is well expressed at Cyn. 12.9 ω ν
γαρ oí πόνοι τά εν αισχρά καί υβριστικά έκ της ψυχής καί τοΰ
σώ ατος άφαιροΰνται, έπιθυ ίαν δ' άρετής ένηύξησαν, o w n άριστοι, 17
possibly drawing on Heraclitus D/K Β 43. Whether Χ. generally refers here to
the education of boys until their twentieth year of life (as Plu. Lyc. 24.1) or
more specifically to the educational period called krypteia, as described by PI.
Lg. 633 B-C and Plu. Lyc. 28.3-5, is not verifiable given the brevity of the
expression. 18 For the importance of πόνος as an aristocratic virtue in X.'s
works cf. Johnstone 1994 with introduction pp. 18f.
3.3[1]: εΐ τις ταΰτα φ ύ γ ο ι . For criticism of compulsion in

educational matters see 2.8[1].
3.3[2]: ηδενός Ετι τών καλών τ υ γ χ ά ν ε ι ν . In Lakonian terms
τά καλά denoted presumably 'civic rights/duties' (cf. 4.4, HG 5.3.9, 5.4.32f.,
Plu. Agis-Cleom. 5.5, cf. Gautier 1911, 37; Bourriot 1996, 132 n. 7). If we
take it in this specific sense here, the passage may well be a criticism of
Athenian conditions, most notably the election of the commanders: for
according to X. Mem. 3.5.21 the latter happened irrespectively of
qualifications. For the establishment of the Spartan education as a precondition
of civic privileges cf. Thommen 1996, 130.
17
Cf. X. Cyn. 12.15-17. Already PI. Lg. 835 D-Ε remarked that toils extinguish hybris: πόνων
τε σφοδρών καί άνελευθέρων, οϊ άλιστα ΰβριν σβεννύασιν.
18
For the krypteia cf. Cartledge 1987, 30-32.
138 Commentary
3.3[3]: τους èie δη οσίο υ ... τούς κηδο ένους έ κ ά σ τ ω ν . The

expression τούς èie δη οσίου is not much different from τους άρχοντας vel
sim.
According to PI. Smp. 210 C it is the task of the erastes έράν κ α ι
κήδεσθαι. Thus one may assume mainly the erastai behind the κηδο ένους
here. However, this interpretation is far from cogent; the opposition to τούς έκ
δη οσίου renders it more likely that all those are meant by κηδο ένους who
were not officially in charge, mainly the relatives (cf. Cartledge 1987, 144 for
the characterization of Agesilaus as φιλοκηδε ών at X. Ages. 11.13). Besides,
2.10 and 6.If. (cf. Plu. Lyc. 18.6f.) demonstrate that the circle of those entitled
to punish the boys included more than just the erastai. Presumably the parents
did not totally lose control of their children even during their education. Such a
view seems to be confirmed by Plu. apophth. lac. 233 F (cf. Ducat 1999, 46f.;
pace e.g. Link 1994, 31 and 112 n. 32; id. 1999, 4-8.).
3.3[4]: ά π ο δ ε ι λ ι ά σ α ν τ ε ς . In X. the verb denotes mainly the
'avoidance of toil [πόνος]', cf. 10.7, Mem. 3.12.2, Pl. Prt. 326 C, al.
3.4[1]: τό α ΐ δ ε ΐ σ θ α ι . For αιδώς cf. 1.5[3] and 2.2[6].

3.4[2]: έ φ υ σ ι ώ σ α ι . Following Stobaeus, Marchant and Pierleoni
printed έ φΰσαι. But A's έ φυσιώσαι [= 'instill'], being lectio difficilior, was
rightly defended by Schenkl 1908, 3f.
3.4[3]: έντός ε ν τοΰ Ι α τ ί ο υ τώ χ ε ι ρ ε Ι χ ε ι ν . For the
himation see 2.4[1], To keep one's hands hidden in one's clothes showed
decency, cf. Aeschin. 1.25f.; Plu. Ρhoc. 4.3; cf. [Chilon] ap. Stob. ΠΙ 1.172 γ
[Hense p. 117f.] = D / K I , p. 63.
3 . 4 [ 4 ] : σ ι γ ή δ έ π ο ρ ε ύ ε σ θ α ι . For silence as a characteristic of decent
behaviour cf. Ar. Nu. 963, cf. Pl. Chrm. 159 B; [Chilon] ap. Stob. III 1.172 γ
[Hense p. 117] = D/K I, p. 63, for 'educational silence1 in Sparta cf. David
1999, 118-121.
3.4[5]: τ ά «pò των « ο δ ώ ν . The same expression at X. An. 4.6.12,
Aen.Tact. 26.3, cf. X. Eq. 1.8. For the lowering of the young's eyes as a sign
of 'deference', cf. [Lucian] 49.44; Cairns 1993, 312.
3.4[6]: £νθα δή κ α ΐ ... φ ύ σ ε ω ς . Arguing against the Platonic
Socrates, Arist. Pol. I 1260a 20-23 confirms that there is a crucial difference
between male and female σωφροσύνη. At X. Smp. 2.9 the performance of a
dancer makes the Xenophontic Socrates remark δτι ή γυναικεία φύσις ούδέν
χείρων της τοΰ ανδρός ο·δσα τυγχάνει, γνώ ης δε και ισχύος δείται, cf.
Oec. 7.27f.; Pl. Lg. 781 Β. Possibly our passage criticizes in a concealed
manner the notorious wantonness of Spartan women as mentioned repeatedly in
the sources, cf. commentary on 1.7-10.
3.4[7]: εις το σ ω φ ρ ο ν ε ΐ ν . Decent behaviour in public, especially
taciturnity, was considered as a mark of σωφροσύνη also by Aristophanes and
Plato (cf. Ar. Nu. 961-965, Pl. Chrm. 159 Β). The idea that σωφροσύνη should
play a crucial role in the upbringing of children is a postulate of the
Xenophontic Socrates (cf. X. Mem. 1.2.17f.; 1.2.26; 4.3.If. al., cf. Cyr.
3.3[3]-3.5[4] 139
1.2.8), and it is as such, i.e. as a virtue of the Xenophontic Socrates, not as a

topos of the idealized Sparta (as claimed e.g. by North 1966, 122), that it enters
X.'s treatise here (convincingly Humble 1999, cf. Tuplin 1994, 156).
3.5[1]: εκείνων ... των έν τοις όφθαλ οτς π α ρ θ έ ν ω ν . Χ.

expresses himself in a tortuous and brief manner. One should supply
α γ α λ ά τ ω ν vel sim. to τ ω ν λ ι θ ί ν ω ν and τ ω ν χ α λ κ ώ ν . I cannot see why
X. here differentiates between 'of stone' and 'of bronze' while omitting the
decisive comparative term 'statue'. Furthermore, the following expression,
according to which the pupil of the eye stands for the highest purity, is an
almost Pindaric metaphor and at any rate very remarkable in X.'s otherwise
rather jejune prose. The whole passage is suspicious.
3.5[2]: δ α τ α ... ό φ θ α λ ο ΐ ς . Both words are common in X., here
they are employed for variation.
3.5[3]: [ ε τ α ] σ τ ρ έ ψ α ι ς . The reading εταστρέψαις given by A
stands against στρέψαις as offered by de subi. 4.4. Both are possible, but the
latter more likely, first because de subi, preserves the better reading against all
manuscripts also in the case of οφθαλ οί; in the same passage (see below),
second because elsewhere in Χ. εταστρέφειν is attested only in the medio-
passive, never with an object. Cf. also Ar. Th. 902 στρεψον ά ν τ α υ γ ε ί ς
κόρας.
3.5[4]: κ α ι αύτών των έν τοις όφθαλ οίς π α ρ θ έ ν ω ν . This
reading as offered by de subi. 4.4 and Stob. IV 2.23 is to be preferred as the
lectio difficilior to τ ω ν έν τοις θαλά οις παρθένων of Α . If Timaeus indeed
plagiarizes the Xenophontic passage as claimed by de subi. 4.4 = FGrH 566 F
122 ( = Plu. de vitioso pudore 528 E), we would have a further strong argument
for the correctness of the reading (the Xenophontic reading would thus be
indirectly attested already in the fourth/third century). As a medical term for
'pupil' παρθένος occurs at Aret. SD 3.7.7 [Hude; 2nd century AD], ή έν τοίσι
όφθαλ οίσι παρθένος). D.L. 6.68 seems to play with the ambiguity of both
παρθένος and κόρη as Timaeus loc. cit. plays with the ambiguity of κόρη. The
references in Aretaeus and Diogenes show that in our passage κόραι in the
sense of 'pupils' is not simply replaced by a synonym of κόραι in the sense of
'maidens' (pace Russell 1979, 14f.), but that παρθένος by itself must have
carried the sense 'pupil'.
X. apparently thinks of the 'pupils' as covered by the eyelids and therefore as
very 'bashful' (cf. αίδη ονεστέρους). A similar notion is found at Prud. ham.
308-311 : idcircone, rogo, speculatrix pupula molli / subdita palpebrae est, ut
turpia semivirorum / membra theatrali spectet vertigine ferri / incestans miseros
foedo oblectamine visus? On the other hand, as already pointed out by de subi.
4.4 referring to II. 1.225, eyes may equally well indicate shamelessness, cf. II.
1.158f. [ ω έγ' αναιδές ... / ... κ υ ν ώ π α ] , Sappho fr. 137.5f. [ P L F ] ; Arist.
Phgn. 807b 28f.; Ar. V. 447; E. Hec. 970-972 al. If the pupils were bashful,
X. might have a wordplay in mind. For apart from 'pupils' also 'maidens' were
proverbial for their 'decency', cf. X. Ages. 6.7 (Agesilaus' army marched
140 Commentary
ήσύχως δ', ώσπερ αν παρθένος ή σωφρονεστάτη προβαίνοι). In other

words, the common denominator between the meaning 'pupil' and 'maiden' for
παρθένος was decency or bashfulness and this exactly was X.'s point here. Cf.
on this passage in general Spina 1985.
3.5[5]: εις το φ ι λ ί τ ι ο ν γ ε ά φ ί κ ω ν τ α ι . For the participation of the
young men in the syssition cf. 5.5[2],
3.5[6]: φ ι λ ί τ ι ο ν . The word, as attested by Vatican Gr. 1335 and other
Xenophontic passages (5.6, HG 5.4.28), appears in X. for the first time.
Hence, as far as X. is concerned one should not alter φιλίτιον to φιδίτιον, as
done by Bielschowsky 1869, 10-12. For one could easily invert Bielschowsky's
argument that a scribe who could not explain the word φιδίτιον altered φιδίτια
to φιλίτια under the influence of Plu. Lyc. 12.If. [explaining both forms
etymologically] and connected it with φιλία: a scribe could equally well have
connected φιλίτια with φειδώ at a time when the iotacism had effaced the
difference between ι and ει. Plu. Lyc. 12.If. and the inscriptions (φειδείτιον at
IG V (1) 128.13; 150.1; 155.6) demonstrate that this change could already have
happened in the early imperial period. For further approaches to the ultimately
obscure etymology cf. Lavrencic 1993, 13f.
The word here denotes a fixed locality (cf. HG 5.4.28). By contrast, at 5.2 it
denotes the institution of the common meal (cf. 5.2[5]). The nature of the
locality called φ ι λ ί τ ι α is unknown. SC 15.4 speaks of a σκηνή. This hardly
implies a firm building of brick or stone; it may refer to wood constructions
similar to geometric hearth houses, which served as a shelter for social and
religious gatherings (cf. Drerup 1969, 123-128; for possible tent-like
constructions cf. Lavrencic 1993, 104-106). Such a connection of cult and
syssition is attested at least for the syssition of the ephors and the cult of Fear
and possibly is to be presupposed for other syssitia as well (cf. Plu. Agis-
Cleom. 29.3; 30.7). In the hellenistic period mess buildings were made of
stone. These buildings still existed in Pausanias' day (Paus. 7.1.8), cf. Nafissi
1991, 180f. n. 21. They are commonly located along the so-called Hyacinthian
Way, cf. Lavrencic 1993, 103f. Inside the messmates lay down on couches, as
shown by archaic vase depictions and written sources (cf. Ale. ft. 19 [PMGF]
with Nafissi 1991, 178f.; Murray 1991, 92; Lavrencic 1993, 106-108).
3.5[7]: α γ α π η τ ό ν α υ τ ώ ν κ α ι το έ ρ ω τ η θ ε ν ά κ ο ΰ σ α ι . κ α ί can
hardly be taken as anything but intensifying; the emphasis seems to be: '... one
should be satisfied to hear something from them at all, even if it is only the
response to a question'. Plu. Lyc. 19.2 gives as Lycurgus' reason for
institutionalizing such behaviour: τη πολλή σιωπή τους π α ΐ δ α ς
αποφθεγ ατικούς καί πεπαιδευ ένους προς τάς αποκρίσεις
ηχανώ ενος. Taciturnity of the young is an Athenian ideal, cf. 3.4[4] and
[7].
3.5[8]: π α ι δ ί σ κ ω ν . Thus Haase conjectured rightly from the
transmitted παιδικών: the term is directly related to the following ή β ώ ν τ ω ν
and thus indicates a stage of life; a reference to the π α ι δ ι κ ά as 'beloved boy'
(only this sense is attested for the neuter plural used absolutely in X.) would
3.5[4]-4.2[l] 141
clearly be out of place, especially, since chapter 3 has no more references to

pederasty (cf. 3.1 [2]). For the participation of the paidiskoi in the syssitia see
5.5[2],
4. If.: The importance of the 'spirit of rivalry'for the education of the young
men (hebontes) - as in choral and athletic competitions in Sparta one vies for
the supreme virtue in mutual rivalry.
4.1[1]: τών ή β ώ ν τ ω ν . ήβη denotes the moment at which the young

man becomes liable to military service (ε φρουρος, cf. 5.7[6]). This meaning
explains expressions like δέκα αφ' ήβης etc. (cf. 11.2[1]). The Spartan ήβη
begins around the twentieth birthday, cf. Kukofka 1993, 198f. The expressions
ήβώντες and ήβητική ήλικία (4.7, 11.3) stand for δέκα άφ' ήβης, i.e. young
men between 20 and 30 who formed a closed unit in the Spartan army. 19 At X.
HG 4.4.16 the hebontes are called οι νεώτεροι τών Λακεδαι ονίων.
It is only after having passed through the ήβητική ήλικία that one was
eligible for a public office (cf. 4.7[1]). If Schwartz 1976 is correct in his
conjecture on the Damonon stele, ήβών is attested inependently as a Spartan
term at the time of the composition of the SC or even earlier.
4.1[2]: πολύ ά λ ι σ τ α . In the classical period the expression is
particularly common in X. and Plato, cf. X. Mem. 4.6.15, Cyr. 4.1.14, PI.
Tht. 127 E, Prt. 361 E.
4.1[3]: ρέπειν. The verb occurs only here in X., but is attested with this
construction already in classical prose, cf. Isoc. 15.4; especially as a medical
term it appears in Hippocrates, cf. Ε ρ id. 1.3.11 [II 674], 2.1.6 [V 76], Fract. 1
[ΠΙ 412], The normal Xenophontic construction would have been π λ ε ί σ τ α
άγαθά ποιεΐν/παρασκευάζειν τη πόλει (see Χ. Cyr. 5.5.12, Ages. 7.2,
Cyn. 12.7 [παρασκευάζειν here is apparently variation, because four words
later ποιείν appears]).
4.2[1]: φ ι λ ο ν ι κ ί α . The notion of 'competition' as a crucial factor in

improving existing good characteristics is typically Xenophontic, cf. Cyr.
2.1.22 ετι δε προς τούτοις έννοήσας (sc. Cyrus) δτι περί όπόσων α ν
έγγένωνται άνθρώποις φιλονικίαι, πολύ άλλον έθέλουσι ταΰτ' άσκείν,
άγώνάς τε αΰτοίς προείπεν απάντων όπόσα έγίγνωσκεν άσκεΐσθαι
αγαθόν είναι ΰπό στρατιωτών, Ages. 2.8 ετι δέ φιλονικίαν έ ν έ β α λ λ ε
προς αλλήλους τοις ετ' αυτού δπως έκαστοι αύτών ¿χριστοί φαίνοιντο,
cf. Cyr. 7.1.18, 8.2.26f., Oec. 21.10. Frequently, X. connects φιλονικία with
choral performances (Mem. 3.4.3, Hier. 9.6f., Eq.Mag. 1.26, cf. X. Smp.
19
X. mentions them frequently as a separate unit, cf. HG 3.4.23, 4.5.14 al. with Billheimer
1946. As an age class they are more or less identical with the eirenes (cf. 2.11 [3]). The
assumption that they were considered as a separate unit is confirmed by the fact that the
fallen eirenes were buried separately from the other Spartans and helots after the battle of
Plataia, cf. Hdt. 9.85.1f. with p. 131 n. 13.
142 Commentary
2.12, with Plb. 4.20.9). Spartan φιλονικία and φιλοτι ία were proverbial (PI.
Ale. I 122 C, R. 545 A). The best example of both characteristics is possibly
Lysander (Plu. Lys. 2.2). But X.'s positive judgement about both traits did not
remain uncontested in antiquity: Plato (R. 548 C - 549 C) criticizes excessive
φιλοτι ίαι and φιλονικίαι, followed by Arist. Pol. II 1271a 11-18 and Plu.
Ages. 5.4 αΐ γαρ ύπερβολαί των φιλονεικιών χ α λ ε π α ι ταΐς πόλεσι κ α ι
εγάλους κινδύνους εχουσιν. φιλονικία was, as rightly seen by Finley
1975, 165, the root of 'inequality ... that followed from inequality of
performance', cf. also Hodkinson 1983, 248f.
4.2[2]: άξιακροατοτάτους ... άξιοθεατοτάτους. For X.'s
fondness for clusters of superlatives see p. 55. The adjective άξιακρόατος is
attested only here in the classical period. Frequently X. is the first witness of
adjective compounds starting with άξιο-, cf. άξιάγαστός (10.2), άξιο-
σπούδαστος (10.3), besides άξιάκουστος (Smp. 4.44 al.), αξιέπαινος (Cyr.
4.4.6 al.), άξιέραστος (Cyr. 5.2.9 al.), αξιοθαύ αστος (Mem. 1.4.4) al.
4.2[3]: χ ο ρ ο ύ ς . Spartan choruses are attested as early as the seventh
century (Alcm. fr. 1, 10 b al. [ΡMGF], cf. later Pi. fr. 112, 199 [M.], Ar. Lys.
1247-1270, 1296-1321). Two Spartan festivals were famous for their choral
presentations, the Gymnopaidiai and the Hyakinthiai [choruses of adults and
boys, cf. e.g. X. HG 4.5.11, 6.4.16, Plu. Lyc. 21.3 al.], which existed until
late antiquity (cf. Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 193f.). Plu. Lyc. 21.3 gives
examples of choral songs performed on these occasions. According to
Demetrius Byzantius ap. Ath. XIV 633 Α-B [3rd/2nd century ?] a choregos in
Sparta was not someone who hired the chorus, but only the person who led it.
This is in line with the Spartan principle not to display one's wealth. For the
same reason praising individual victors of athletic contests and chariot races by
epinikia was inconceivable in Sparta, in marked opposition to the practice in
other Greek cities (cf. Hodkinson 1999, 170-173; Hodkinson 2000, 317-319).
From early childhood the Spartans were familiar with music. From their
fifth year boys learned the Pyrrhic, a war dance (cf. Ath. XIV 631 A and
Pritchett 1974, 216-218); for the connection of choral dance and war dance cf.
Wheeler 1982, 233. Similarly in Arcadia the participation in choruses was
compulsory from early childhood (cf. Plb. 4.20.4-12). In Crete the boys learned
dances and songs prescribed by law (Ephor. ap. Str. 10.4.16 = FGrH 70 F 149).
For X.'s claim that position in the chorus reflects social status see 9.5[2].
4.2[4]: γ υ ν ι κ ο ύ ς ά γ ω ν α ς . The popularity of athletic competitions
in Sparta as early as the fifth century is shown by the Damonon inscription (IG
V (1) 213) as well as other votive offerings (cf. Hodkinson 1999, 152-156;
Hodkinson 2000, 303-307). The Damonon inscription mentions a conspicuous
number of competitions of which most are likely to have been annual
(otherwise the numerous victories of Damonon and his son are hardly
explicable).
In the first half of the fourth century the honorific inscriptions of the victors
of the Spartan boys' competitions begin, starting with the inscription of
Arexippus (IG V (1) 255), cf. Moretti 1953, 45-48. The large number of
4.2[1]-4.3[1] 143
Spartan victories in the Olympic Games may also be explained mainly by the
Spartan φιλονικία. But in Aristotle's day Sparta had lost its predominance in
athletic contests (cf. Arist. Pol. V m 1338b 24-27 with Hodkinson 1999, 160-
165).
Religious festivals in Sparta, which were naturally connected with the
physical contests and musical competitions, are dealt with by Parker 1989,
146-147 and η ητριάδης 1994. X. here may have thought in particular of the
festivals and accompanying contests of Orthia (cf. 2.9), of which three are
known by name: καθθηρατόριον, κελοΐα, and ώα. The former was
presumably an athletic, the latter two musical competitions (cf.
Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 205).
4.2[5]: τούς ήβώντας συ βάλλοι είς Ιρτν περί άρετή ς. For
ερις as a decisive factor in war and a major incentive in peace cf. already Hes.
Op. 11-24. According to X. Mem. 2.6.21 ερις is a martial element
(πολε ικόν) in men, resulting from considering the same things as good and
pleasant (τά τε γαρ αύτά καλά καί ήδέα νο ίζοντες). άρετή is here, as
already at Tyrt. fr. 12, 11-14 [IEG] (and thereafter frequently in Spartan
contexts), 'willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of the city'. Plu. Ages.
5.5f. (drawing at least partly on X.) expounds the importance of νείκος and
ερις for the acquisition of virtue (άρετή) in Sparta, trying to explain both as
major principles of the physical world as a whole.
X. presupposes silently that the strife for virtue needed an incentive, in this
case the social recognition as a hippeus (cf. 4.3). Such need of an incentive is
explicitly mentioned at Th. 2.46.1 αθλα γαρ οις κείται άρετης έγιστα,
τοίς δε καί άνδρες άριστοι πολιτευουσιν. But already Arist. Pol. VID 1338b
9-36 sharply criticized this form of education that rendered the young 'beast-like'
(1338b 12f. θηριώδεις): in his view only the martial aspect of άρετή was
cultivated in Sparta and thus the Spartans knew only how to win, not how to
rule (Arist. Pol. II 1271b 2-6).
4.3f.: The election of the Three Hundred - the ephors select three
hippagretai, each hippagretes selects one hundred hippeis - constant antagonism
between those chosen and those rejected.
4.3[1]: αίροΰνται τοίνυν αυτών ol άφοροι έκ των

ακ αζόντων τρεις &νδρας- ούτοι δέ Ιπκαγρέται κ α λ ο ύ ν τ α ι .
For τοίνυν see ρ. 50.
Chapter 4 deals with hebontes (4.1). Since the hebontes are men from 20 to
30 (= δέκα άφ' ήβης, cf. 4.1[1]) and ακ άζοντες denotes those around 30 (cf.
1.6[1]), the latter term does not reiterate pleonastically the age definition. X.
refers to the oldest and thus most experienced soldiers of the toughest combat
unit, the δέκα άφ' ήβης. This age definition is in line with Aristophanes of
Byzantium (LGM, p. 275 = Eust. ad II. 8.727 [Van der Valk, p. 630, line
1 If.], who mentions hippeis and hippagretai after the meirakion (= paidiskos,
144 Commentary
cf. 3.1 [2]) as an equivalent of είραξ, νεανίσκος, and ν ε α ν ί α ς . For their

function cf. also Hsch. s.v. ΐππαγρέτας.
Since the election of the hippagretai was not so much an educational as a
military matter, the ephors, not the paidonomos chose the hippagretai (cf. the
conscription carried out by the ephors according to 11.2). Similarly according
to 4.6 the paidonomos had to refer the disobedient to the ephors, who decided
on his punishment. It remains doubtful whether the three hippagretai had
originally been the commanders of élite troups of the three Doric tribes
(Jeanmaire 1939, 543; cf. Singor 1999, 72). In the historical period they were
the commanders of the Three Hundred and were elected - like the former -
according to suitability only (at least if one follows the idealizing sources).
They are first attested explicitly in our passage and at X. HG 3.3.9 (Th. 4.38.1
is presumably a personal name), but as commanders of the Three Hundred we
have to take them into account at least from the time of the Persian Wars (e.g.
Hdt. 8.124.3, cf. 6.56). X. HG 3.3.9 proves that they could be of different
ages; the fact that X. speaks of an election in our passage, not the filling of a
vacant position, makes clear that the hippagretai were elected annually by the
ephors, presumably after the inauguration of the latter (for the exact date of the
inauguration of the ephors at or shortly after the autumnal equinox cf. Richer
1998a, 301-304).
4.3[2]: τούτων δ' Εκαστος &νδρας έκατόν καταλέγει.
These formed the élite unit of the Three Hundred, which were also called
hippeis in the fifth century (cf. Hdt. 8.124.3, Th. 5.72.4). These hippeis are to
be distinguished from the later cavalry unit. 20 It was reckoned as the highest
honour to be counted among them (cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 231 Β ήτις èv τή
πόλει πρωτεύουσα τι ή τη τάξει ην; Plu. Lyc. 25.6). Apart from excellence
in Spartan education athletic victories may also have qualified for this position
(Plu. Lyc. 22.7f.; quaestiones convivales 639 E). Possibly Lacrates, an
Olympic champion, who was buried in the Spartan tomb in the Kerameikos in
403, fell as one of the Three Hundred (cf. X. HG 2.4.33 with Hodkinson 1999,
169f.; Hodkinson 2000, 259).
Pointing to X.'s use of the verb κ α τ α λ έ γ ε ι here Singor 1999, 84 n. 10
suggested that two κατάλογοι were drawn up, one of hippeis and one of non-
hippeis. But X.'s description suggests a more fluctuating situation with
constant antagonism and opportunities to enter - or danger of being dropped
20
Normally the Three Hundred are interpreted as former cavalrymen, e.g. Spence 1993, 2.
But in the classical period the Three Hundred did not fight on horseback, cf. Ephor. ap. Str.
10.4.18 = FGrH 70 F 149; Hsch. s.v. ίππαγρέτας (ι 776)· αρχή έπί τών επίλεκτων
όπλιτάν, s.v. ίππαρχος (ι 784)· ό τών νέων έπι ελητής παρά Λάκωσι; for their
transformation t o a non-cavalry unit see Nafissi 1991, 153-162; Powell 1998, 141. This
coincides with the fact that it was only in 424 that a cavalry unit was established in Sparta
παρά το είωθός (Th. 4.55.2). The information of D.H. Ant. 2.13.4 that three hundred
guardians (φύλακες) served with the Spartans as paraspistai on foot or on horseback may
be explained by Dionysius' attempt to parallel the Roman celeres, which were indeed used
for this purpose, with the Spartan Three Hundred (D.H. Ant. 2.13.1-3). An older designation
of the Three Hundred was possibly κούροι, cf. IG V (1) 457 (6th century with Bourguet
1927, 35).
4.3[l]-4.4[2] 145
from- the ranks of the Three Hundred. Hence, the existence of a fixed catalogue
is unlikely.
The Three Hundred are attested as bodyguard of the kings, either with 100
men (Hdt. 6.56) or in full strength with 300 (Th. 5.72.4, X. HG 6.4.13f. (?),
D.H. Ant. 2.13.4, cf. Isoc. Ep. 2.6). They had - a t least occasionally- police
duties (cf. X. HG 3.3.8f.; against a generalization of the police task from the
Xenophontic passage cf. Cartledge 1979, 275; Cozzoli 1979, 96f.). The fact
that their functions are called τα καλά at 4.4 (for the expression cf. 3.3[2])
suggests that their position was considered a public office. 21 For the
importance of the Three Hundred in the Spartan army cf. Cozzoli 1979, 84-97.
Hdt. 6.56 as well as our passage suggest that the Three Hundred were
organized in centuriae, each of which was commanded by one hippagretes.
Philostephanus ap. Plu. Lyc. 23.1 = FHG III 33 fr. 30 records units of 50 men
called ούλα οί (but this possibly refers to the cavalry unit, not the Tliree
Hundred, see app. Ill pp. 259f., n. 13).
4.4[1]: ol ο ί ν ή τυγχάνοντες των καλών ... παρά τ à

καλά νο ιζό ενα ρφδιουργώσι. For τά καλά as a Lakonian term
see 3.3[2], Such mistrust and mock fights amongst young men were in patent
opposition to Athens, where the citizens - at least idealistically - did not
encroach on each others' private life (Th. 2.37.2). The physical mutilations that
resulted from these Spartan fights were a popular object of Athenian ridicule
(PI. Prt. 342 B-C, Grg. 515 E). One such fight is described by Paus. 3.14.8-
10, according to whom two parties struggled to capture Platanistai, an island-
like piece of land surrounded by a moat (PI. Lg. 633, Lucían 37.38). Plato
adapted the concept of mock fights in his ideal state (Lg. 830 D - 831 A).
Mock fights in an initiatiory context are a frequent phenomenon in other
cultures, cf. Woronoff/Fouet 1974, 38 n. 76 and 78. In the archaic period
depictions of such fights may be found on Lakonian vases (cf. Pipili 1987, 24
and cat. nos. 75f.).
4.4[2]: ρφδιουργώσι. S e e p. 47.
21
At 1.67.5 Herodotus writes about the office of the agathourgoi (with Hude's punctuation) o i
δέ αγαθοεργοί είσι των άστών, έξιόντες έκ των ιππέων αίεΙ οί πρεσβΰτατοι, πέντε
ετεος εκάστου. Modern scholarship sees here a contradiction to X., since hippeis and
hippagretai were elected annually according to Χ. (αίροϋνται ... καταλέγει), and thus
not only the πρεσβΰτατοι, but also other hippeis could be replaced, cf. e.g. Nafissi 1991,
153 n. 2. However, if one interprets Herodotus (against Hude's punctuation) to the effect
that the agathourgoi were the five oldest citizens of each year (των άστών αίεί οί
πρεσβΰτατοι πέντε ετεος έκαστου) by the time they left the hippeis (έξιόντες έκ των
ιππέων), the sense of the Herodotean passage would be that of those who left the hippeis
each year (according to Singor 1999, 68 30 men each year), the five oldest took up the
office of an agathourgos.
146 Commentary
4.5f.: Competition of the young men (hebontes), arbitration by the older.
4.5[1]: ή θ ε ο φ ι λ ε σ τ ά τ η τ ε v a l π ο λ ι τ ι κ ω τ ά τ η £ ρ ι ς . For X.'s

fondness for clusters of superlatives see p. 55, for ερις 4.2[5],
4.5[2]: χωρίς ... κ α θ ' Ενα. The expression καθ' ϊνα also appears at
An. 4.7.8 (in opposition to αθρόοι), intensified to καθ' ενα βκαστον at HG
1.7.19, Cyr. 8.3.20 = 'man by man', in other words, καθ' ενα varies χωρίς.
4.5[3]: π α ν τ ί σ θ έ ν ε ι . σθένος appears in X., as in Thucydides and
normally Plato (but cf. Phdr. 267 C), only in this phrase, cf. X. HG 6.5.2,
Cyr. 6.1.42, 8.5.25.
4.6[1]: ε υ ε ξ ί α ς . See commentary on 5.9.

4.6[2]: καί γαρ πυκτεύουσι δ ι α τήν 2ριν δπου äv
σ υ β ά λ ω σ ι . The verb πυκτεύειν appears only here in X., but cf.
διαπυκτεΰειν at Cyr. 7.5.53. Even if άντισφαιριοΰντας at 9.5 refers to fist
fights with gloves, X. here rather thinks of the mock battles as mentioned at
4.4. Physical exercise to improve one's military fitness is supported by X.
Mem. 3.12 and Pl. R. 404 B.
4.6[3]: διαλύειν έντοι τους αχο ένους πάς ό
π α ρ α γ ε ν ό ε ν ο ς κ ύ ρ ι ο ς . Adults in Sparta showed an unusual interest in
the education of the young if the (idealizing?) sources are to be trusted (cf. e.g.
2.10, Plu. Lyc. 18.6f.). Anyway, it is hardly credible that the adults frequently
settled the fights, if we believe Plu. Lyc. 16.9 that it was they who initiated
them.
4.6[4]: ¿χγει α υ τ ό ν ό π α ι δ ο ν ό ο ς έπΐ τους εφόρους. The
eirenes were supervised by the paidonomos, but the power to punish lay
already, as in the case of the full citizens (cf. 8.4[4]), with the ephors (cf.
4.3[1]). For this ambivalent status of the eirenes cf. Link 1994, 113 n. 46.
4.6[5]: ε γ α λ ε ί ω ς . The adjective εγαλεΐος enjoys special popularity
with X. (cf. 1.3, HG 4.1.9, Ages. 11.16 al.). Elsewhere it is rare in the
classical period (cf. e.g. PI. Hp.Ma. 291 E).
4.6[6]: είς τό ή π ο τ ε όργήν του ή π ε ί θ ε σ θ α ι τοις νό οις
κ ρ α τ ή σ α ι . Of course, φιλονικία and ερις, which were just mentioned so
favourably by Χ. (4.2, 4.5), are closely connected with οργή; all three are
martial characteristics (X. Mem. 2.6.21; Plu. Phil. 3.1).
4.7: Positive effect of hunting on the physical condition of the adults —

Spartan and non-Spartan practice.
4.7[1]: Τοις γ ε ήν τήν ή β η τ ι κ ή ν ή λ ι κ ί α ν π ε π ε ρ α κ ό σ ι ν , έ ξ

¿ ν ήδη κ α ΐ α ϊ έ γ ι σ τ α ι ά ρ χ α ΐ κ α θ ί σ τ α ν τ α ι . Χ. quotes himself
in the second part of the sentence (cf. 2.2). According to 4.1[1] the ήβητική
ήλικία extended from 20 to 30 years. Additionally, Plu. Lyc. 25.1 [prohibition
of frequenting the market] attests that men under 30 were liable to certain
4.5[l]-4.7[3] 147
restrictions. Similar restrictions until 30 are found among the Arcadians (cf.
Plb. 4.20.7). The special military training of the hebontes, as referred to by X.
here, did not leave room for public office. Already in the Peloponnesian War
the hebontes were apparently excluded from public office (Th. 4.132.3, but
Bockisch 1965, 149 η. 1 explains the passage differently), for the age in which
it was permitted to take up public office cf. Hodkinson 1983, 251 n. 28. It is
plausible to assume a minimum age of 30 for all civil and some military
offices in Sparta, as presumably in Athens (cf. Busolt/Swoboda 1926, 1070).
Similarly all officers in Cyrus' (ideal) state were appointed from τέλειοι
άνδρες (i.e. men from the age of 26/27) with the exception of those 'in charge
of the boys' who were recruited from the γεραίτεροι (i.e. men from the age of
51/52, cf. p. 136 η. 16). 22
4.7[2]: ol εν ¿χλλοι "Ελληνες άφελόντες αυτών το Ισχύος
ετι έπι ελεΐσθαι στρατεύεσθαι δ ως αύτοις έπιτάττουσιν.
At Cyr. 1.2.2 Χ. criticizes the fact that in many Greek cities adults could
conduct their lives at their own discretion. Th. 2.39.1 and 4 stresses this fact as
one of the major differences between Athens and Sparta by pointing out that in
Athens people did not engage in painful exercise (έπιπόνψ ασκήσει) from
early childhood, but that this did not affect their military strength. X. Mem.
3.12.5 confirms that the Athenian authorities did not pay much attention to the
military training of their citizens, although in X.'s eyes constant exercise was
indispensable at least in the case of the cavalry (X. Eq.Mag. 1.19). In Athens
there is no evidence for military training at public expense until approximately
335 BC; before that it ran on a private basis and was taught by the so-called
hoplomachoi (cf. 11.8[1]).
To Athens may also apply what was said of Thebes: some citizens were so
fat that some needed three or four shields to protect their bellies (Plu. reg. et
imp. apophth. 192 C-D). According to an anecdote recounted by Agatharch. ap.
Ath. ΧΠ 550 D = FGrH 86 F 11 and Ael. VH 14.7 obesity was known in
Sparta as well.
4.7[3]: κ ά λ λ ι σ τ ο ν ε ί ν α ι το θ η ρ ά ν . For the difference between
θήρα and κυνηγεσία cf. Schnapp 1997, 158; for hunting in Sparta cf. David
1993. Written and archaeological evidence confirm that hunting was cultivated
in Sparta as early as the archaic period. For the written evidence one may
compare Od. 6.102-104 [Artemis hunting on the Taygetos], for the
archaeological evidence the depictions of hare-, boar- and fox-hunts (cf. Droop
1910, 12, fig. 4; Lane 1933-1934, 157f.; Christou 1964, 199f.; Stibbe 1972,
index s.v. 'Hund', 'Jäger'). For relief-depictions of Lakonian hounds cf. 6.3[2].
22
It remains uncertain whether the Spartans were allowed to attend the ekklesia from their
thirtieth year or earlier. Since some of them may have played a substantial part in the
education as ilarchs (cf. 2.2[5] and 2.11 [3]), they may have been admitted as a link
between boys and adults, pace MacDowell 1986, 66. In favour of a (restricted?) admittance
may also be the fact that they - as the strongest and most important military unit - were
particularly affected by all decisions of the civic assembly on peace and war.
148 Commentary
X. attributed great importance to hunting within the framework of physical

training, especially training to achieve military fitness (cf. Schnapp 1997, 144-
171, esp. 144f., 154, 169). As such - i . e . as an επιτήδευ α της ανδρείας -
hunting was practised in Sparta (PI. Lg. 633 B). It was an object of discussion
in the syssition (X. HG 5.3.20) and constituted a bond of friendship (X. Cyr.
3.1.7, 3.1.14, 3.1.38), also and perhaps foremost among homosexual lovers
(cf. David 1993, 401f.).
The close connection of hunting and warfare in Sparta is elucidated too by
the fact that Artemis the Huntress (Άγροτέρα, cf. Cyn. 6.13) was offered a
sacrifice before a field battle (cf. 13.8[3]). The hunt was άριστη άσκησις
πολε ικών according to X. Cyr. 8.1.34, and it led to 'a sound mind'
(σωφροσύνη Cyn. 13.15) and 'self-control' (έγκράτεια Cyr. 8.1.36), two
central virtues in X.'s oeuvre. In the form of the καθθηρατόριον it may have
played an initiatory role in Sparta (as similarly in Crete, cf. Anderson 1985,
26), whether this was a hunting game (so Brelich 1969, 175) or dance (so
Chrimes 1952, 123f.; undecided David 1993, 398f.).
Apart from being a means to foster military prowess the hunt was also the
aristocratic pastime par excellence. In the Cynegeticus it clearly serves for self-
representation of the aristocrats (cf. Johnstone 1994, 226-229 and the literature
ibid. 223 n. 23). A sign of decline of the Persian Empire was in X.'s eyes the
fact that adults had given up hunting (Cyr. 8.8.12). Hunting was restricted to
men in classical Sparta (Anderson 1985, 28f.; David 1993, 404), despite
contrary statements of later Roman poets (e.g. Prop. 3.14.15f.).
The Taygetos displayed rich hunting-grounds (Paus. 3.20.4), especially the
region around Therai, as already indicated by its name (= 'hunts'). The hunting-
grounds may have been under the direction of an άκρινό ος, cf. Hsch. s.v. (α
2573). X. Cyn. 2.1 and 3 recommend approximately 20 as the minimum age
for hunting, having presumably Athenian conditions in mind (τον ήδη έκ
παιδός άλλάττοντα τήν ήλικίαν, τήν δέ ήλικίαν περί ετη είκοσι), but
this may also have been the minimum age in Sparta.
5.1-4: Food at the syssitia - the other Greeks luxuriate in their private
banquets - at the Spartan syssitia everybody eats and drinks to the same degree
- advantages of this way of life.
5.1: έπττηδεύ ατα. Cf. 1.1[8],
5.2[1] : τοίνυν. See p. 50.

5.2[2]: π α ρ α λ α β ώ ν τους Σπαρτιάτας. παραλα βάνειν
normally occurs with an inanimate object. It seems best to interpret the passage
as a brief form of π α ρ α λ α β ώ ν τον νό ον τών Σπαρτιατών καθ' ον ....
έσκήνουν, cf. Th. 5.105.2 και ή είς οΰτε θέντες τον νό ον ... όντα δε
παραλαβόντες.
4.7[3]-5.2[5] 149
5.2[3]: ώσπερ τους άλλους "Ελληνας οίκοι σκηνοΰντας.

σκηνούν/σκηνή in the sense 'to mess' / 'mess(-tent)' is found elsewhere in X.
cf. Cyr. 4.2.34, 6.1.49 al., for the Spartan σκηνή δα οσία see 13.7[2],
5.2[4] : ρ ς ι δ ι ο υ ρ γ ε ι σ θ α ι . For the word cf. p. 47. It appears in a very
similar context at X. Cyr. 2.1.35, where X. remarks about the soldiers of
Cyrus ώφελεΐσθαι δ' έδόκουν αϋτψ [sc. Cyrus] κ α ι προς το γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ε ι ν
αλλήλους ό οΰ σκηνοΰντες. εν δε τφ γιγνώσκεσθαι και το αίσχύνεσθαι
π ά σ ι δοκεΐ άλλον έγγίγνεσθαι, οί δε αγνοού ενοι ρφδιουργείν π ω ς
άλλον δοκοϋσιν, ώσπερ èv σκότει δντες. For the public control of chaste
behaviour see also 1.5[3].
5.2[5]: είς το φανερόν εξήγαγε τά συσκήνια. The noun
συσκήνια is found only here in the classical period. Derivatives from συσκην-,
however, are frequent in X. (thus in the SC συσκηνέω at 5.4, 13.1 al.,
σύσκηνος at 7.4, 9.4, 13.7 al., besides Ar. Th. 624, Lys. 13.79). Also outside
the SC X. uses such compounds mainly of Spartan syssitia, cf. HG 3.2.8,
5.3.20 [twice]). Even where such a compound does not refer to Sparta (HG
7.1.38, An. 5.7.15 al.), the aspect of σκηνή is never lost. Conversely, where
we are dealing with a 'public mess' without reference to a specific locality, X.
usually employs the general term συσσίτιον (thus at HG 5.3.17, cf. συσσίτια
at Oec. 8.12 and σΰσσιτος at Cyr. 5.2.17; 8.7.14). Interestingly, the latter term
and its derivatives do not appear anywhere in X. as a Spartan form of social
organization (cf. also Gautier 1911, 39-40; Nafissi 1991, 320 n. 198). 23
Approximately 15 persons messed together in a Spartan syssition (Plu. Lye.
12.3, against schol. ad PI. Lg. 633 A [10 participants]); for the election of a
new member of the syssition the vote for which had to be unanimous
(idealizing exaggeration?) cf. Plu. Lyc. 12.9-11; apophth. lac. 226 D-Ε; schol.
ad PI. Lg. 633 A; for reasonable doubts about the procedure as described by the
sources cf. Singor 1999, 82. Family bonds may have played a role in the
election of a new member (although X. HG 4.5.10 suggests that relatives did
not necessarily mess together in one syssition). This is all the more likely,
because no superior institution is mentioned in the sources that could have
allocated new members to vacancies in the syssitia, and boys already
participated in the syssitia (presumably normally their fathers' syssitia), cf.
5.5[2]. 24 The ephors messed together, likewise the kings, cf. 15.6[1]. The
gerontes could not dine together in one syssition due to their large number (28
members). Accordingly, the sources do not speak of syssitia established for
gerontes (neither does Plu. Lyc. 26.8). All this suggests that the syssitia were
in fact not as public as X. wants us to believe (είς τό φανερόν έ ξ ή γ α γ ε ) , but
23
A number of ancient authors attest that the syskenion (= syssition, phid/lition) was formerly
called άνδρείον (so Arist. Pol. II 1272a 2-4; Alcm. fr. 98 [PMGF]; Piu. apophth. lac. 218
C); the assumption of Jeanmaire (1939, 483) that the ανδρεία originally constituted a larger
unit than the συσσίτια is doubtful because Arist. loc. cit. mentions the συσσίτια as a term
comprising both phid/lita and andreia. Additionally Alcm. fr. 95a [PMGF] has the term
συναικλία.
24
Already II. 22.492-498 demonstrates how important the position of the father could be for
the son in a syssition.
150 Commentary
rather exclusive, mutually competing communities within Spartan society (cf.

Link 1998, 95-97). 25
The daily common mess had parallels e.g. in Italy (Arist. Pol. VII 1329b 5-
8, 14-24), Carthage (Arist. Pol. Π 1272b 33-34), on Lipara, the largest of the
Aiolian islands, where allegedly Knidians and Rhodians had settled (D.S. 5.9.1-
4), in Megara (Thgn. 309 [IEG]), according to PI. Lg. 636 Β in Boiotia
(especially Thebes, cf. Polyaen. 2.3.11), Miletos (cf. also Hdt. 1.146.3), and
Thurii.
An Athenian law, presumably introduced by Solon, mentions syssitia as
institutionalized associations with their own statutes (Sol. Test. 342a [M.]).
An institution very similar to the Spartan syssitia is found in Persia according
to X. Cyr. 2.1.25-28, and among the guardians in the Platonic ideal state (cf.
Pl. R. 416 E).
For the building in which the syssition was held cf. 3.5[6], for the
messmates of the king cf. 13.1 [4], for compulsory participation in the messes
cf. 15.4[1] with 10.7[5], for the contributions to the syssitia cf. Hodkinson
2000, 191-193, for the syssitia as the smallest military unit cf. p. 259 n. 11.
5.2[6]: οΰτως ήγού ενος ή κ ι σ τ ' άν π α ρ α β α ί ν ε σ θ α ι τ à
π ρ ο σ τ α τ τ ό ε ν α . Χ. expounds the advantages of the Persian syssition at
Cyr. 2.1.25-28: it creates the sense of equality and unanimity towards the
enemy, the order in battle is practised in the syssition (where, as in the field,
the officers preside over their units), the coherence of the unit is enhanced (cf.
D.H. ant. 2.23.3). However, the Spartan syssition in the classical period is not
as clearly connected with the army as the Persian (cf. p. 259 n. 11). Merely
historical reasons for the establishment of the Spartan syssitia are given by PI.
Lg. 780 B-C.
5.3[1]: καί σΐτόν γε εταξεν αύτοίς ώς ήτε

ΰπερπληρούσθαι ήτε ένδεείς γίγνεσθαι. πολλά δέ καί
π α ρ ά λ ο γ α γ ί γ ν ε τ α ι άπό τ ω ν ά γ ρ ε υ ο έ ν ω ν . The underlying idea
is expressed concisely by Chilon's saying ηδέν άγαν (cf. Crit. D/K Β 7; Pl.
Lg 691 C, ridiculed by Antiph. 46.5 [PCG] ή καταφρονεί, ηδ' ε τ ε ρ '
έπιζήτει κ α λ ά ; with similar exaggeration Ar. Av. 1282 claims that the
Spartans were 'starving'). The frugality of the Spartan meal was a topos at least
since Hdt. 9.82 (cf. Fisher 1989, 31; Nafissi 1991, 176). Critias ascribed
modest consumption of food and wine to the Spartans (cf. D/K Β 6, especially
lines 1-4, 25-29); later authors followed suit (cf. e.g. Phylarch. ap. Ath. IV
142 E = FGrH 81 F 44). Several sources ascribe to Agesilaus, together with
many other Spartan virtues, the austere control of his own nutrition and that of
25
I agree with Murray 1991, 94, Nafissi 1991, 175 and Meier 1998, 216f. that the Spartan
syssition developed to its specific form from the seventh century onwards. Of course, it was
subject to constant changes. D.C. 54.7.2 attests the existence of Spartan syssitia until the
Augustan age. Presumably these were not much more than public meals of the magistrates
of the city, cf. Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 199f.
5.2[5]-5.3[3] 151
his soldiers (cf. Theopomp.Hist. ap. Ath. XIV 657 B-C = FGrH 115 F 22,
Plu. Ages. 36.10, apophth. lac. 210 B-C).
The Spartan meal divided into regular (Lakonian ¿ακλον, here σίτος) and
irregular dishes (Lakonian έ π ά ι κ λ α or αττύη, here π α ρ ά λ ο γ α 'the
unexpected, over-portion'), cf. Ath. IV 140 C. Dicaearchus (fr. 72 [W.]),
Sphaerus (FGrH 585 F 1) and Molpis (FGrH 590 F 2) at Ath. IV 141 A-E
mention the components of the meal in detail: according to Dicaearchus each
messmate received as much barley-cake and drink as he wished, in addition there
was always the same dish (οψον) in the form of boiled pork and a broth made
thereof (ζω ός), which may have been consumed mainly by poorer Spartans
(cf. Link 1998, lOOf.);26 occasionally olives, cheese, or figs were added
Special dishes were fish, hare, pigeon etc. As additional dishes Sphaerus
mentions game (άγρευό ενα) and, though only as a special contribution of the
rich, wheat-bread (άρτος, see 5.3[5]) and field produce (similarly Epich. ap.
Ath. IV 139 C speaks of wheat-bread in wicker baskets and meat). Presumably
the epaikla of the boys were more frugal (cf. Ath. 4.140 D). Hodkinson 2000,
195 comes to the conclusion that the normal mess ration was one Lakonian
choinix of barley (άλφιτα, here (included in?) σίτος) and one Lakonian kotyle
of wine, for the kings twice as much (cf. 15.4[2]). Though these figures are
roughly what one would expect on nutritional grounds, their deduction from
Hdt. 6.57.1-3 is open to doubt. 27
Not only does Molpis mention further different epaikla, he also like
Epicharmus loc. cit. highlights the increase in prestige for the contributor in
the eyes of his messmates by the proclamation of his name and thus the
creation of a hierarchy within the syssition (for this cf. also Persaeus ap. Ath.
140 E-F = FGrH 584 F 2 referring to a special seating arrangement). In other
words, while the aiklon consisted of the contributions of all Spartans, the
epaiklon consisted of extra contributions from the hunt and private property.
Thus the aiklon denoted the equality, as it were, of all Spartans, the epaiklon
the inequality. Besides, apart from the broth, the Spartan aiklon did not differ
essentially from the frugal meal of the citizens of Plato's ideal state (Pl. R. 372
B-C; vgl. Nafissi 1991, 181-183).
5.3[2]: ύ π ε ρ π λ η ρ ο ΰ σ θ α ι . See p. 48.
5.3[3]: π α ρ ά λ ο γ α . The adjective occurs only here in X., but is well
attested in the classical period, cf. Hp. Epid. 2.3.18 [V 120]; Prorrh. 1.57 [V
26
For the broth cf. also Antiph. 46.4 [PCG]; Plu. Lyc. 12.12f„ inst. lac. 236 F - 237 A; Poll.
6.57; Hsch. s.v. βαφά. The only ingredients apart from different parts of the slaughtered
animal were vinegar and salt (cf. Plu. de tuenda sanitate praecepta 128 C); for the
preparation cf. also Lavrencic 1993, 66-69; according to Ael. VH 14.7 and Agatharch. ap.
Ath. XII 515 D = FGrH 86 F 10 the cooks were only allowed to prepare meat.
27
Especially the calculation of the amount of wine may be contested (Hodkinson 2000, 195f.).
For if one follows Hodkinson's interpretation of διπλήσια πάντα at Hdt. 6.57.3 (which one
may plausibly do), one has to take all figures in the previous part as indicating the double
portion (otherwise Herodotus' formulation as interpreted by Hodkinson would be rather
awkward), that includes the one kotyle wine given by Herodotus. But, as Hodkinson himself
admits, such a portion of wine is incredibly low. It is rather arbitrary to supplement the
ration of wine from Th. 4.16.1, as Hodkinson does. For the ration of wine cf. 5.4[1].
152 Commentary
524] al. Nowhere, however, does the word appear in the specific sense here
required, i.e. 'more food than reckoned with = epaiklon1. Still there may be a
shift of emphasis in relation to the otherwise synonymous περιττός (cf. HG
1.6.10 al.), notably the aspect of the fixed measure (= λόγος) of each ration.
5 . 3 [ 4 ] : o i δ έ π λ ο ύ σ ι ο ι . Sphaerus and Molpis (and, apparently drawing
on both, Ath. IV 140 E) mention various contributions of the rich to the
syssition, cf. Sphaer. ap. Ath. IV 141 C (= FGrH 585 F 1 ) and Molpis ap.
Ath. IV 141 D - E (= FGrH 590 F 2c). It is conceivable that Molpis took his
information from Sphaerus or both from a common source / common sources
(among others Dicaearchus?). Given Sphaerus' learning, his account deserves
some credibility as far as the conditions during the classical period are
concerned. Besides, although the rich may have contributed the same quantity of
food as the other members of a syssition, their contribution may have been of a
better quality (cf. Link 1998, 9If.).
Already Alcm. fr. 17 [PMGF] (with Bringmann 1980, 467 η. 4; Thommen
1996, 45) points to differently distributed wealth. 28 The financial strength of an
exclusive circle of citizens became manifest by horse breeding (X. HG 6.4.11
al.), horse racing (X. Ages. 9.6 al.), entertaining foreigners (X. Mem. 1.2.61),
furnishing of the country mansions, 29 provisions for festive occasions (cf.
Link 1994, 52), and by bonds of friendship with noble families of other Greek
cities (cf. Hodkinson 1983, 243f. n. 14).
X. himself knew and approved of the fact that there were rich and poor in
Sparta: so Lichas had the means to feed foreigners attending the Gymnopaidiai
(X. Mem. 1.2.61) and one outstanding trait of Agesilaus1 character was that he
enriched his friends and his house (cf. X. Ages. 1.17-19, 4.1, 4.5f. [friends],
9.6 [his house], also Plu. Ages. 4.1 with Cartledge 1987, 115).
Hodkinson 1983, 253f. and Link 1998, 90-95 bring out convincingly the
hierarchization within a syssition, at which wealth was an important factor.
Persaeus ap. Ath. IV 140 F = FGrH 584 F 2 alludes to this hierarchization
when he talks of the syssition as a πολίτευ α τχ. The so-called πρώτοι in
Sparta (cf. Hdt. 4.146.3, Th. 1.6.4, 4.108.7 al.) defined themselves mainly by
wealth, which, self-evidently, was often connected with descent. Spartan
equality as mentioned by a number of sources (Th. 1.6.4, Isoc. 7.61, Arist.
Pol. IV 1294b 22-29; Plu. apophth. lac. 226 E al.) referred only to some
aspects of Spartan life like dressing, food, and burial.
28
Cf. also Hdt. 6.61.3 [¿χνθρωποι ολβιοι in Sparta]; 7.134.2 [Sperthias and Boulis χ ρ ή α σ ι
ανήκοντες ές τα πρώτα]; Th. 1.6.4 [the wealthy live like the poor], Sphaerus ap. Ath. IV
141 C-D = FGrH 585 F 1 [bread and field products offered by the rich], Molpis ap. Ath. IV
141 E = FGrH 590 F 2c [newborn cattle offered to the mess by the owner], cf. Plu. Lyc.
10.2, 12.4, Dicaearchus fr. 72 [W.; generally extra ration], Plu. Agis-Cleom. 5.6 [only 100
land-owning Spartans].
The tithe of the booty captured by the Arcadians in the environs of Sparta in 369 facilitated
the erection of a group of statues in Delphi, cf. X. HG 6.5.30, Paus. 10.9.5f. This indicates
the wealth in which some Spartan country houses must have abounded (cf. Hodkinson 2000,
154).
5.3[3]-5.4[l] 153
The difference in wealth, together with noble descent (for noble families cf.
10.8[1]), certainly indicates that the rich and old nobility had not completely
lost its influence in the political arena of the day (cf. Bringmann 1980, 472 and
Hdt. 7.173.2, who implies that the Spartan polemarchs were normally chosen
from the royal families). Frequently the well-off, most notably the king, may
have made voluntary contributions, for such behaviour secured social peace and
votes in the citizen assembly.
5.3[5]: ¿¿ρτον. Vatican Gr. 1335 has άργόν changed rightly by Canter to
άρτον on the evidence of Sphaerus ap. Ath. IV 141 C = FGrH 585 F 1. Barley
remained the Greek staple food at least until the hellenistic age. This is fully in
line with the observation made by Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.] that wheat was
unknown in Sparta and that the Spartans consumed exclusively barley products.
But already at Alcm. fr. 19 [PMGF] wheat-bread appears as food at the
syssition. By the time of Solon wheat-bread was considered as a side dish for
special occasions in Athens (cf. Ath. IV 137 E). In the fourth century wheat
appears on a par with barley at least outside Sparta (Hp. Salubr. 1 [VI 73]; PI.
R. 372 B). In Sparta wheat-bread is mentioned on festive occasions (apparently
as characteristic of such) in the classical period by Epil. 4.3 [PCG]. For the
relation of wheat versus barley in Greek food see further Braun 1995, 32-34.
5.3[6]: ά ν τ ι π α ρ α β ά λ λ ο υ σ ι ν . The word appears only here in X.
(similarly παραβάλλω at Cyn. 11.2), but is attested elsewhere in the classical
period, however in the different sense 'placed side by side so as to compare' (cf.
Pl. Hp.Mi. 369 C al.).
5.3[7]: διασκηνώσιν. See introduction p. 48.
5.4[1]: του πότου άποπαύσας τάς [ούκ] αναγκαίας

πόσεις. Whether ούκ should be retained or deleted is not easy to decide. True,
the word is transmitted by A, but a better contrast with the following έφήκεν
όπότε διψψη έκαστος πίνειν would be afforded by the reading without ουκ.
Besides, the combination ούκ + adjective for negating an attributive adjective is
rare and poetic (e.g. E. fr. 362.34 [TGF]\ γυναχκόφρων θυ ός ανδρός σύ
σοφού, cf. Kühner/Gerth II, 2, 182f.).
If one keeps ούκ with Pierleoni, the phrase άναγκαΐαι πόσεις denotes the
'drinking necessary to quench one's thirst', comparable to Th. 1.2.2 ή κ α θ '
ή έραν αναγκαίος τροφή, cf. Arist. Metaph. V 1015a 20-22. If one athetizes
ούκ, άναγκαΐαι πόσεις denotes some sort of drinking competition at which
the drinker was 'forced' to drink by his comrades. In the former case Lycurgus
prohibits excessive drinking, in the latter drinking by force. In either case the
result is that the Spartans drink with restraint, just as they mess with restraint
according to 5.3. The basic difference between die Spartan way of drinking, that
did not include proposeis and the passing on of the drinking cup - in other
words that did not include drinking by force - , and the other Greeks is
mentioned first at Critias D/K Β 6, who also refers to the negative
consequences of such uncontrolled consumption. According to X. Smp. 2.25f.
154 Commentary
(Socrates speaking) it is healthy to drink only as much as one enjoys, i.e. not
under compulsion.
X.'s idealized Persians were moderate drinkers (cf. Gera 1993, 150, 152f.,
158), and thus X.'s picture of the ideal Spartans as distinctly sober does not
surprise. Still, it remains difficult to estimate how far (and, if at all, by what
time) Spartan self-control in drinking was historical and not a topos of the
literature on the ideal state. From early on the sources are ambiguous:
Archaic period: Alcm. fr. 92f. [PMGF] mentions viticulture in Sparta in the
seventh century. From the archaic period there are numerous Lakonian vase
depictions of symposia and komoi (cf. Pipili 1987, 71-75; Nafíssi 1991, 219-
222; Powell 1998, 121, 128-130; Smith 1998). Though, surprisingly, none of
them has come to light in Lakonia itself (cf. Pipili 1998, 90), lead figurines
from the Orthia sanctuary representing komast figures (Smith 1998, 79)
suggest that the vase depictions are not mere fantasy of the Lakonian artist. On
the other hand, a sixth-century vase inscription running έτριος έγώ άλκ[
may suggest that self-control at a symposium was considered as desirable
already at this early stage (cf. Nafissi 1991, 184f.).
Classical period: Ion of Chios fr. 27 [IEG, 5th century] (cf. Fisher 1989,
34f.) centres on the φιλοφροσύνη (1. 8) at the symposium. Since food is not
mentioned, it appears that in Ion's day there were drinking bouts comparable to
those common in Athens. King Cleomenes is even said to have died of the
consumption of undiluted wine (cf. Hdt. 6.84). Besides, against restricted wine
consumption one may refer to Critias D/K Β 33 and Dicaearch. fr. 72 [W.],
who state that one could drink in Sparta at one's own discretion. Furthermore,
the Spartans used to drink wine before battle (X. HG 6.4.8) and in captivity
they were granted the quite substantial amount of two Attic kotylai (0.54 litre)
per day (Th. 4.16.1 with Hanson 1989, 126-131; Hodkinson 2000, 196). When
Pl. R. 548 Α-B criticizes the fact that members of an oligarchy party did not
practise at home what they were bound to do publicly this observation may be
motivated among other things by the Spartan drinking habits in private.
Spartan restraint in drinking is supported by PI. Lg. 637 Α-B and [Pl.] Min.
320 Α-B, according to which Minos followed by the Spartans enacted a law ή
συ πίνειν άλλήλοις εις έθην. Χ. does not attack Spartan drinking habits in
his otherwise critical chapter 14 (differently at Cyr. 8.8.10, cf. Gera 1993,
158). Besides, Hodkinson 2000, 195f. calculates an average wine consumption
at home of one Lakonian kotyle (0.39 litre) per day (cf. 5.3[1]), which, if
correct, would support a relatively modest Spartan drinking behaviour. Finally,
it is hard to see how drunkenness could be accepted in the syssition, if one
ridiculed helots for their drunkenness (cf. Plu. Lyc. 28.8f. with Ducat 1990,
115f.). Later numerous anecdotes on Spartan modesty in drinking circulated (cf.
Plu. apophth. lac. 218 C = 240 D, 232 F = Ael. VH 2.15; Ath. X 431 D).
In short, it seems most likely that drinking in the syssition became
increasingly limited in the course of time. Excessive wine consumption - of
course a flexible term- was prohibited in classical Sparta. Exceptions were the
5.4[l]-5.5[2] 155
consumption of wine before battle (X. HG 6.4.8) or in situations that required

constant readiness (Th. 4.16.1).
5.4[2]: πόσεις. The word appears twice again in X. Here it is used as the
opposite of βρωτά (cf. 5.3); as the opposite of βρώ α it appears at Cyr.
5.2.17, of βρώσις at Mem. 1.3.15.
5.4[3]: σφάλλουσι έν σώ ατα, σφάλλουσι δέ γνώ ας.
Anaphora and parallelism; similar is the expression at Cyr. 8.8.10 νο ίζοντες
το ή ύπερπίνειν ήττον αν και σώ ατα καί γνώ ας σφάλλειν.
σφάλλειν is frequently used in connection with intoxication, cf. Cyr. 1.3.10,
Smp. 2.26, Pl. R. 396 D.
5.5f.: Education of the boys at the syssition - elsewhere the boys converse
only with their peers - in Sparta the young participate in the syssitia for
educational purposes.
5.5[1]: ό ôè Λυκούργος èv τη Σπάρτη άνέ ειξε (...)

παιδεύεσθαι τα πολλά τους νεωτέρους ύηά τής των
γεραιτέρων ε πειρίας. The lacuna must be after άνέ ειξε, not before it
as suggested by some editors, since the infinitive can hardly be connected
logically or grammatically with άνέ ειξε. The sense of the passage, though
not the exact wording, is rendered by Plu. Lyc. 12.6: εις δε τά συσσίτια κ α ί
oí παίδες έφοίτων, ώσπερ είς διδασκαλεία σωφροσύνης άγό ενοι, κ α ί
λόγων ήκροώντο πολιτικών καί παιδιάς έλευθερίους έώρων etc. One
may consider the reading ó δέ Λυκούργος έν τη Σπάρτη άνέ ειξε τους
νεωτέρους [sc. τοις γεραιτέροις] ώς παιδεύεσθαι τά πολλά ύπό της τ ώ ν
γεραιτέρων ε πειρίας vel sim. This solution presupposes both a
transposition (τους νεωτέρους) and an omission (ώς) on the part of the
copyist, but these changes are comparatively small (first ώς may have been
dropped by a scribe after -ους, then others may have transposed τους νεωτέρους
to remedy the syntax) and the resulting version is flawless in terms of both
grammar and content (as reflected by Plutarch).
5.5[2]: τούς νεωτέρους. The employment of the term νεώτεροι here
instead of one of the specific terms paides, paidiskoi, eirenes, or hebontes
(2.11[3], 3.1[2], 4.1[1]) is not coincidence. The unspecific term νεώτεροι
denotes all younger age groups together, i.e. the syssitia were not restricted to a
specific age group or bound to a minimum age (cf. also 13.9[1] for a more
technical use of the term). This is confirmed by 3.5, according to which young
men attended the messes, and by the wording of 5.1 οϊαν δε καί πάσι
δίαιταν κατεσκεύασε, νύν πειράσο αι διηγείσθαι. In other words, Χ.
seems to presuppose that the syssitia were accessible to all age groups. The fact
that the syssitia were open to boys is confirmed by Ath. IV 140 D or his
underlying source, according to which the desserts of boys (παίδες) and adults
differed at the syssition. Plutarch overlooked the Xenophontic linguistic detail
and turned νεώτεροι into παίδες. For the participation of non-adults at the
156 Commentary
syssition cf. Hodkinson 1983, 252f.; Lavrencic 1993, 31-33. For their
maintenance by the surplus of the mess contributions cf. Hodkinson 2000,
198.
5.6[1]: καί γαρ δή έπιχώριον έν τοις φιλιτίοις λ έ γ ε σ θ α ι 6

τι Äv καλώς τις έν τη πόλει ποίηση. According to Χ. HG 5.3.20
one talked in the syssition e.g. about the army (ήβητικοί λόγοι, for ήβη cf.
4.7[1]) or hunting (θηρευτικοί λ., cf. 4.7 [3]), horses (ιππικοί λ., cf. 6.3[5]) or
pederastie love (παιδικοί λ., for this interpretation cf. Cartledge 1981a, 29; cf.
2.12-14), i.e. about issues all dealt with in extenso in the SC and partly also in
other Xenophontic works as being very serious matters. Plu. Lyc. 12.6
inaccurately altered this list by referring only to public affairs (πολιτικοί
λόγοι) and banter without malice. If we follow X., the apparently serious and
educational character of the Spartan syssitia contrasts with the
σπουδαιογέλοιον so characteristic of the Platonic and Xenophontic
Symposium and the symposia as described in the Cyropaedia (cf. Gera 1993,
136f„ 139f.).
To the syssitia applied the principle of seniority (cf. HG loc. cit. with
15.6[2]). Possibly the difference in status between boys and adults was
indicated, as in Crete, first by a separate seat on the ground (for the seating
arrangements in the syssition cf. 15.6[2]), second by smaller rations, and third
by serving the adults, especially by presenting the wine (cf. Schmitt Pantel
1992, 76f.). The remark of Persaeus ap. Ath. IV 140 F = FGrH 584 F 2 that
the whole resembled a small community (πολίτευ α τι ικρόν) is easy to
credit. The common meal had educational functions also in the ideal state of
Cyrus (X. Cyr. 2.2.1, 5.2.18), in Athens and elsewhere (cf. extensively
Bremmer 1990).
5.6[2]: ώστ' εκεί ήκιστα έν ΰβριν, ήκιστα δέ π α ρ ο ι ν ί α ν ,
ήκιστα 5è αίσχρουργίαν καΐ α ί σ χ ρ ο λ ο γ ί α ν έγγίγνεσθαι.
Gera 1993, 172 n. 115 compares Χ. Cyr. 5.2.18 with a similar anaphora in a
similar context: ώς πολύ εν ύβρεως άπήν, πολύ δε τοΰ αίσχρόν τι ποιείν,
πολύ δε τοΰ χαλεπαίνεσθαι προς αλλήλους.
The passage hints at what happened at symposia outside Sparta - especially
in Athens, which imported luxury goods from all over the ancient world ([X.]
Ath. 2.7). Spartan conditions, as described here, are equally found among the
Persians in the Cyropaedia (5.2.16-20 with 8.1.33 and Gera 1993, 171f.). They
are compared with those in other cities at PI. Lg. 637 Α-B (with Fisher 1989,
28f.); some literary witnesses of exuberance at symposia outside Sparta are e.g.
D. 54.3f. and 59.33; one may add the vase depictions (cf. Lissarague 1990).
5.6[3]: αίσχρουργίαν καί αίσχρολογίαν . The noun αισχρο-
λογία appears first here, then at Arist. Pol. W 1336b 4 al. Pl. R. 395 E has
the verb αίσχρολογέω. The use of the noun here is necessitated by its being
the complementary term to αΐσχρουργία. The two terms αΐσχρουργία and
αισχρολογία reflect the verbal expression αισχρά ποιεΐν και λέγειν, cf. Χ.
Cyr. 5.4.31, Cyn. 12.20.
5.5[2]-5.7[6] 157
5.7: Return after the syssitia.
5.7[1]: σ ί τ η σ ι ς . The word occurs only here in X., but is attested

elsewhere in the classical period, cf. Hdt. 4.17.2 al.
5.7[2]: π ε ρ ι π α τ ε ί ν τ ε γ α ρ ά ν α γ κ ά ζ ο ν τ α ι έν τη ο ΐ κ α δ ε
ά φ ό δ φ . The older men returned to their homes, the boys and young men
presumably to their night quarters (Plu. Lyc. 15.7). The return used to be long
due to the scattered settlement structure (cf. Th. 1, 10, 2: (της) πόλεως ...
κ α τ ά κώ ας δε τφ π α λ α ι φ της 'Ελλάδος τρόπψ οίκισθείσης). Our
passage influenced Plu. Lyc. 12.14 and apophth. lac. 237 A.
5.7[3]: τ η ο ΐ κ α δ ε ά φ ό δ φ . A similar expression is found at X. Eq.
3.4, see p. 48.
5.7[4]: τ η δ ρ φ ν η . The poetic word (cf. Thgn. 1077, Pi. O. 1.71 al.)
appears here for the first and - to my knowledge - last time in classical prose,
but cf. X. Cyr. 8.3.3 [δρφνινος] and for the noun later e.g. Plb. 18.19.7; see
also the normal word νυξ in the otherwise identical phrase at X. Ages. 6.6 with
p. 48.
For messing in the evening cf. Lavrencic 1993, 10If. Walking in darkness
without light is represented here as a measure of military training. Indeed, in
hostile country the Spartans marched without torches, as can be inferred from
X. HG 4.5.3f. Apart from our passage, Plu. Lyc. 12.14 (drawing on X.?)
confirms that this also applied to marches inside Spartan borders, cf. also
Aen.Tact. 26.3 [patrolling without light]. At X. Cyr. 1.5.12 Cyrus praises the
ability of the Persians to find their way at night (ΰ είς δε νυκτί εν δηπου
δσαπερ οι άλλοι ή έρφ δύναισθ' αν χρήσθαι), though Cyrus1 army used to
set up camp-fires (X. Cyr. 3.3.33, 4.5.13). An amusing illustration of a night
walk in Athens with only scarce light is given by Ar. V. 246-272.
5.7[5]: δ σ α . Pierleoni suggested δσαπερ on the grounds of Cyr. 1.5.12
ΰ είς δε νυκτί εν δήπου δσαπερ οί άλλοι ή ερα δύναισθ' αν χρήσθαι,
similar HG 6.1.15, Ag. 6.6.
5.7[6]: ε φ ρ ο υ ρ ο ν . A technical Spartan term meaning 'liable to military
service'; the opposite άφρουρος is attested at Arist. Pol. II 1270b 4, cf. Ael.
VH 6.6 (άτέλεια φρουράς). The Spartan φρουρά denoted 'military service', cf.
11.2[1] and 13.11 [7]; besides, in Thessaly and possibly also in Sparta there was
the term τ α γ ά (cf. ταγός at X. HG 6.1.18 al.), cf. Chadwick 1969, 234. Isoc.
11.18 uses the untechnical term άχι οι. All men are liable to military service
until their sixtieth year, i.e. until their fortieth year of service, cf. 11.2[1].
ε φρουρος appears not as a Spartan term at X. HG 1.6.1; E. fr. 1132.23 [TGF],
D. 18.182.
158 Commentary
5.8f: Training and food - in Sparta the oldest man present ensures that the
training relates to the food ration - the Spartans are outstandingly fit.
5.8[1]: Κατα αθών ... γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι t · The end of this passage

bears a number of textual difficulties (possible omission of <οΰκ> before
αρκούντως, èv τφ γυ νασίφ εκάστων and έλάττους των σιτίων
γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι , see below), which may indicate that the text, from which A was
copied, was damaged here.
The passage criticizes the Athenians who according to X. Mem. 3.5.15 not
only neglected their physical condition, but also jeered at those training. It was
a commonplace of fifth-century medicine that physical exertion and food
consumption should be balanced evenly (cf. Hp. Vict. 1.2 [VI 468-472], X.
Mem. 1.2.4, Oec. 11.12, Cyr. 1.6.17, Eq.Mag. 8.4 [horses]; cf. X. Ages.
1.28, Pl. R. 566 B-C, besides 2.5[3]). But the notion that there existed a law in
Sparta forbidding hypertrophy (Ael. VH 14.7, Agatharch. Ath. ΧΠ 550 C-D =
FGrH 86 F 10) is rooted rather in the philosophical concept of the ideal state.
5.8[2]: έννοών δ τ ι κ α ί δ τ α ν ... φ ι λ ο π ο ν η , ά ρ κ ο ύ ν τ ω ς ...
ά ν α φ α ί ν ε τ α ι . Schenkl here added <ούκ> before αρκούντως, and this
would certainly render the train of thought smoother: even people training by
their own free will would have no sufficient exercise, so supervision is
necessary. But given the occasional sloppy diction of the SC one better accepts
the reading of A. In this case έννοών should be taken as a concessive
participle: although people training by their own free will would have sufficient
exercise, in order to ensure exercise of those unwilling supervision is needed.
5.8[3]: έπέταξε τον άεί π ρ ε σ β ύ τ α τ ο ν έν τ φ γυ νασίφ
έ κ α σ τ ω ν έ π ι ε λ ε ΐ σ θ α ι ώ ς . The reading εκάστων offered by some
manuscripts (against A's έκάστω, accepted by Marchant and Pierleoni 1933
[in opposition to his 1905 edition which has εκάστων]) is preferable in terms
of content (to be connected with έπι ελεΐσθαι, cf. 3.3).
One has to postulate a place called γυ νάσιον in Sparta, even though the
evidence for such a locality is scarce and late: Plu. Cim. 17.5 reports a story by
hearsay, according to which there was a gymnasium (a stoa?) for the youths in
classical Sparta. The passage has a strongly anecdotal character, but in addition
other sources mention a δρό ος for physical exercise, close to which (or in
which?) there stood gymnasia in Pausanias' day (cf. Theoc. 18.39, Paus.
3.14.6, Liv 34.27.4, for their location cf. Stibbe 1989, 82). Besides, Agesilaus
prepared his troops for the impending war in gymnasia in Ephesos (cf. X.
Ages. 1.25), as the gymnasia served elsewhere for training under arms (cf.
Pritchett 1985, 63f., 194). Finally, it cannot be doubted that there was a
training quarter for the tactical manoeuvres described at 11.6-10 and a
gymnasium would make a drill ground as good as any. For exercises performed
in the gymnasium one may compare PI. Lg. 633 A (the Athenian addressing
the Spartan) τά συσσίτιά φα εν και τά γυ νάσια προς τον πόλε ον
έξηυρήσθαι τφ νο οθέτη; (the Spartan answers) vai.
5.8[l]-5.9 159
5.8[4]: ¿ς ήποτε αυτούς έλάττους των σιτίων

γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι . It is easier to follow the scribe of Modena Gr. 145 in
conjecturing αυτούς (instead of αύτοί) than to follow Schneider in reading
γ ί γ ν ω ν τ α ι . For the expression έλάττους των σιτίων there are later
parallels, cf. Plu. Cor. 34.3 γενό ενος δε τον πάθους έλάττων = 'becoming
subservient to his impulse', X.Eph. 3.2.7 έλάττονα χρη άτων = 'subservient
to money1, Hid. 5.4.5 έρωτος εν έλάττων ήδονης δε κρείττων γινό ενος
= 'while his love diminished and his lust increased'. In the classical period one
would rather expect ήττους instead of έλάττους, cf. X. Mem. 1.5.1 α ρ '
δντινα αΐσθανοί εθα ήττω γαστρός ή οίνου ή αφροδισίων ή πόνου η
ύπνου, τούτον αν αίροί εθα; Cyr. 8.8.12; Democr. D/K Β 50 ό
χρη άτων παντελώς ήσσων ούκ αν ποτε είη δίκαιος, also later, cf. Plu.
de liberis educandis 13 Ε των ήδονών ηττους; the use of the explicative
genitive in such cases is not rare (cf. Th. 2.65.8 [of Pericles] χρη άτων ...
άδωρότατος).
5.9: ονκ αν οίν ρφδίως ... άπό τε των σκελών κ ai άπό

χ ε ι ρ ώ ν κ α ΐ άπό τ ρ α χ ή λ ο υ γ υ ν ά ζ ο ν τ α ι . The construction with
άπό is unusual; comparable is Theoc. 24.80 (άπό στέρνων πλατύς ήρως) and
Α. Α. 1302 (τλή ων ... άπ' εύτόλ ου φρενός).
Socrates characterizes a dancer at Smp. 2.16 in a similar way, singling out
legs, hands, and neck as characteristic of the harmony of the movement of the
body δτι ούδεν άργόν του σώ ατος έν τή όρχήσει ην, ά λ λ ' ά α κ α ι
τράχηλος κ α ι σκέλη και χείρες έγυ νάζοντο. Good physical condition,
εύεξία (cf. 4.6, 7.3), was particularly important for military service (cf. X.
Mem. 3.12, cf. Pl. Lg. 796 A, 832 E - 833 A). One should practise military
training, even if the city did not require it by law (X. Mem. 3.12.5). A shining
example of εύεξία were the Spartans among whom not only men but also
women were physically fit (cf. 1.4[4]). In the seventh and sixth centuries the
Spartan εύεξία was reflected in the lists of Olympian victors, where Spartans
appear more frequently than participants of any other city (cf. Powell 1998,
138-140); in the classical period the compulsory large-scale training of the
Spartans differed markedly from the occasional training of a small number of
citizens in other cities (X. HG 6.1.5). Later other cities too started training
their youth systematically and thus began rivalling the Spartans in physical
fitness (Arist. Pol. VIII 1338b 24-29).
X.'s stress on Spartan fitness here clearly implies that in his eyes other
cities, notably Athens, fall short of the necessary measures.
160 Commentary
6. If.: Common supervision of the older men over the boys - in other cities
everyone takes care only of his own sons - in Sparta all fathers together control
the boys.
6.1: καΐ παίδων «al ο ικετών και χρη άτων. For the
meaning of οίκέτης cf. 6.3[1]; for χρή ατα cf. 1.9[4], The words anticipate
the structure of the chapter: boys (6.2), slaves (6.3), and (hunting-)goods (6.3-
5; as 'money' χρή ατα appears in chapter 7). The notion of a 'common share
in everything' in Sparta, as found quite often (1.7f., 10.4 πάντας π ά σ α ς
άσκείν τάς άρετάς, Plu. Lyc. 17.1 [with apophth. lac. 237 C-D, adapted
from our passage?]) is an ideal: the more hierarchical structures there were
within the Spartan society, the less likely was the realization of this ideal. For
instance, when according to X. HG 5.4.25 the partisans of Cleombrotus 'feared'
Agesilaus and his friends, punishment of the boys belonging to the hostile
party or a share in their property was hardly to be expected.
At Arist. Pol. II 1263a 35-39 we read οίον και εν Λακεδαί ονι τοις τ ε
δοΰλοις χρώνται τοις αλλήλων ώς ειπείν ιδίοις, ετι δε ΐπποις καί κυσίν,
καν δεηθώσιν έφοδίων έν τοις άγροίς κατά τήν χώραν. φανερόν τοίνυν
δτι βέλτιον είναι εν ιδίας τάς κτήσεις, xfj δε χρήσει ποιείν κοινάς, cf.
Plu. inst. lac. 238 E (23). This passage is based on X., as indicated by the
almost identical sequence slaves - dogs - horses - provisions (for the hunt) at
6.2-4. It demonstrates that X.'s statement that in Sparta all shared in everything
was accepted by Aristotle (though doubted in its general application by some
modern scholars, e.g. Hodkinson 2000, 200). If historical, Aristotle's passage
also shows that there was no proprietary community, but rather the common
use of private property to some unverifiable extent. The proprietary
community, in a sense an amplification of the Spartan conditions, is found
wil >1. R. 416 D).
πατέρες ... των έαυτοΰ
Λρχεσθαι βούλοιτο. The pronoun ο·δτοι or its environment may well be
corrupt, but at least in grammatical terms the passage is flawless (for a
demonstrative pronoun + noun without an article cf. 15.1 αΰτη άρχή).
Besides, the meaning cannot be doubted: the words ο·δτοι πατέρες refer to the
fathers standing close by, whose presence encourages the father, who is in
charge of supervising the boys, to behave properly towards all (not only his
own) children. It may be debatable whether one relates ων αύτός ¿ίρχει to the
preceding temporal clause - as I prefer - or to the following main clause.
Plutarch confirms in passing that the children's education lay in the hands of all
fathers alike (Plu. Lyc. 15.8, 17.1, apophth. lac. 237 D [the latter adapted from
X.]). Whether this information is historical, and if so, specific to Sparta,
remains doubtful; at any rate the common education by the senior is a
characteristic, too, of the Platonic ideal state (cf. Pl. R. 465 A [on the
guardians] πρεσβυτέρφ ην νεωτέρων πάντων &ρχειν τε καί κολάζειν
προστετάξεται); for the importance of the elderly in Spartan education cf.
David 1991, 39-45.
6.1[l]-6.3[5] 161
6.3-5: Common use of property - slaves, hounds, and horses may be

borrowed from anyone - especially on the hunt the participants share in food
provisions - conclusions: all benefit from the existing goods.
6.3[1]: ο ΐ κ έ τ α ι ς . For the meaning of οίκέτης in general see Gschnitzer

1963, 1296-1304. If not exclusively, the word here denotes helots at least in
part, for helots serving in the Spartan house were not rare (cf. Ducat 1990,
46f., 54f.; Hodkinson 1997a, 47f.). Our passage suggests that these 'house-
servants' were the private property of their Spartan master like the hounds,
horses, and wagons mentioned in what follows. For such domestic servants in
general cf. Hodkinson 1997a, 46-53.
Apart from practical aspects, the common use of slaves had a psychological
reason. By the custom according to which each member of the subjugated class
was at the disposal of each member of the ruling class, the personal ties
between master and servant, which would otherwise constitute a corrective
against too much autocracy, were undermined (cf. Ducat, 1990, 21, who relates
the passage without discussion to the helots). Cf. 1.4[2], 12.4[2].
6.3[2]: κ υ ν ώ ν Sè θ η ρ ε υ τ ι κ ώ ν . For the social prestige connected
with the possession of hounds cf. David 1993, 402-404; Link 1998, 93.
Lakonian hounds are known as the hounds par excellence since Pi. fr. 106 [M.],
extensively Keller 1905, 251-258; id. 1909, 118-123; for references in ancient
literature cf. Aymard 1951, 254 n. 3; Σακελλαρίου 1996 and 1998. Lakonian
hounds occur on several relief depictions (Freyer-Schauenburg 1970; cf. Aymard
1951, 256), on vases (Stibbe 1972, index s.v. 'Hund'), and in ivory carvings
(Marangou 1969, 61, 63). Until late antiquity they remained proverbial, cf. e.g.
Claud. 24.300. The breeding of hounds was time-consuming, and thus, like the
breeding of horses, a privilege of the rich (cf. X. Ages. 9.6).
6.3[3]: σ υ ν ή ψ ε κ ο ι ν ω ν ί α ν . The expression is not attested to my
knowledge in the classical period, later e.g. at Plu. de defectu oraculorum 415
A; Iambi. Comm. Math. 28.
6.3[4]: έπί θήραν. For hunting see 4.7[3].
6.3[5]: ΐ π π ο ι ς . The horse is mentioned as a means of transport only; X.
does not mention the horse in connection with hunting or warfare. The former
omission corresponds to the Spartan practice of hunting on foot (cf. Anderson
1985, 27f.), which on this point did not differ essentially from the Athenian
practice (cf. Anderson 1985, 22f.). The latter omission may be due to
Xenophontic inadvertence. Private breeding of horses for martial purposes is
supported by X. Ages. 9.6 and HG 6.4.11 (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 213, 31 If.).
It remains doubtful whether every Spartan was capable of riding. According
to X. HG 6.4.11 there was no professional training in horsemanship in Sparta
(although it was especially the cavalry that needed constant exercise to be
effective [cf. e.g. X. Eq.Mag. 1.5f., 1.18-20 al.]). One may conclude that the
horsemen of the cavalry were recruited mainly from the perioikoi, who may
have had more opportunities to practise riding privately. Cf. in general 11.2[2],
162 Commentary
Alemán already refers to different horse breeds in Sparta (fr. 1.51, 59

[PMGF]). For the archaic (?) period horse sacrifices are attested as gifts to the
dead (Christou 1964, 140; 148); besides, we have vase representations with the
enigmatic 'Lakonian Rider' (Pipili 1987, 76) or other scenes with mounted
(Stibbe 1994, 121, pi. 2.3; 1972, 119, 246f., catal. no. 205 a-b, pi. 68) or
unmounted horses (Lane 1933-1934, 169; cf. also Stibbe 1972, index s.v.
'Pferd'), finally lead and bronze figurines of horses (cf. AO, pl. CLXXXIX 16f.;
Zimmermann 1989, 123-175, especially 173-175) as well as ivory carvings
(Marangou 1969, index s.v. 'Pferde').
The breeding of horses remained a pastime of the rich (X. HG 6.4.11
ετρεφον εν γαρ τους ίππους oí πλουσιώτατοι, cf. Χ. Ages. 9.6, Pl. Ly.
205 C, Plu. Ages. 20.1), inside as well as outside Sparta (Arist. Pol. IV 1289a
35f.). Until the fifth century Spartans were dominant in Olympian chariot
races, even though Agesilaus was not unreservedly fond of them and Spartan
kings did not normally participate in them (X. Ages. 9.6, Plu. Ages. 20.1
[presumably adapted from X.], cf. 4.2[4], Powell 1998, 140-142; Hodkinson
2000, 307-312, 325-328). After the Persian Wars Sparta became famous for its
horse breeding (cf. Paus. 6.1.6f., 6.2.1). A possible increase of Spartan
personal names formed with the element 'ίππο' (horse) or 'πωλο' (foal) after
432 may indicate a special appreciation of the horse or associations connected
with it by the time of the SC (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 312). Pl. Ale. I 122 D
stresses the abundance of horses in Lakonia and Messenia. By the time of king
Cleomenes exports of horses to Egypt are attested (Plu. Agis-Cleom. 56.3).
6.3[6]: π ο κ α θ ί σ τ η σ ι ν . Only here does the verb occur in X., who
prefers to use άποδιδόνοα (HG 1.3.9, 2.4.17 al.), άποκαθιστάναι is rare in
the classical period; it appears mainly as a medical term, cf. Hp. Aph. 6.49 [IV
576]; VM 18 [I 616]; Epid. 7.1.46 [V 414] al.
6.4: ϋπου γαρ αν ΰπό θήρας όψτσθέντες δεηθώσι τ ω ν

έπιτηδείων, ήν ή συνεσκευασ ένοι τύχωσι, κ αϊ έ ν τ α ΰ θ α
εθηκε τους έν πεπαυ ένους καταλείπει ν τα πεποιη ένα,
τους δε δεο ένους άνοίξαντας τά σή αντρα, λαβόντας δσων
äv δέωνται ση ηνα ένους κ α τ α λ ι π ε ΐ ν . Zeune conjectured τους
εν πεπα ένους. This reading was adopted by most editors. But the reading of
Vatican Gr. 1335 makes sense and thus remains preferable. Furthermore,
Dindorf conjectured καταλείπειν comparing Plu. inst. lac. 238 E (23).
It was usual on extensive hunts to leave prepared food (τά πεποιη ένα, at
Cyr. 4.2.34 X. speaks of έπιτήδεια παρεσκευασ ένα) at storage places in
the countryside in case one was late and could not attend the common mess
(δπου... τύχωσι). Those who had finished hunting and turned home (τους εν
πεπαυ ένους, X. Mem. 3.14.2 του έν σίτου πεπαυ ένον; or according to
Zeune's τους έν πεπα ένους = 'those who possessed food'), left their
provisions for their comrades still in the field. In order to remove the
provisions from the reach of the accompanying servants, the Spartan who
opened the sealed food container (in the parallel version at Plu. apophth. lac.
6.3[5] - 7.1-4 163
238 Ε τα τα ιεία) sealed it again afterwards with a signet-ring, until the

resources were exhausted (τους δέ ... κ α τ α λ ι π ε ί ν ) , cf. also Arist. Pol. Π
1263a 33-37. Whether each seal was individual or there existed a kind of
δη οσία σφραγίς for all Spartans, remains doubtful (for public seals in Greek
cities cf. Lacroix 1955-1956, 105-109). When Plu. Lyc. 12.4f. mentions the
hunt as an acceptable reason for exemption from the participation in a
syssition, he may have thought of our passage (cf. the rare verb όψίζειν in
both cases).
6.5[1]: τ ο ι γ α ρ ο ΰ ν . See p. 50.

6.5[2]: οί τ α ι κ ρ ά Εχοντες ε τ έ χ ο υ σ ι π ά ν τ ω ν των εν τ ή
χώρφ, ό π ό τ α ν τ ι ν ό ς δ ε η θ ω σ ι ν . The expression οί τά ικρά εχοντες
stands euphemistically for πένητες. Χ. shuns the word, because it implies not
only economic but also social differentiation and thus contravenes the notion of
social equality (cf. ό οιοι at 10.7[6]). Aristotle stuck more to the historical
truth when he called the property less citizens πένητες (Arist. Pol. II 1270b 6;
1271a 30; 1294b 23; 24; 26; 29 al.); for rich and poor in Sparta see 5.3[4] and
7.6[1]. In the same vein the expression πάντων των έν τη χώρφ is
exaggerated, to say the least. Its existence together with the choice of πένητες
clearly shows that X. is not naive here, as claimed by some scholars (e.g.
Hodkinson 2000, 23), but deliberately manipulating.
Similar to Sparta in Tarentum - a Spartan colony - the poor shared in the
property of the rich to some extent (cf. Arist. Pol. VI 1320b 9-11). Another
means of rendering economic weakness bearable for the poor citizens was to
maintain all, or at least the needy, at public expense (cf. Arist. Pol. Π 1272a
13-21 [Crete, citizens maintained at least partly at public expense, cf. Gehrke
1997, 39], Str. 14.2.5 [Rhodes, the poor maintained by the rich]).
7.1-4: Prohibition of strife for money - elsewhere citizens pursue a craft or

trade, in Sparta they do not.
7 . 1 - 4 : X.'s point is not that in other cities the citizens pursue a craft or
trade, but not in Sparta, but that in Sparta the craftsmen and traders
(perioikoi/helots) did not wield any power (άρχή). Not everywhere is X.'s
verdict about craftsmen and traders so negative. According to X. Eq.Mag. 8.8
there is need of 'productive' occupations (η ... έργαστέον η άπό τ ω ν
είργασ ένων θρεπτέον), at Χ. Oec. 11.9f. the self-enrichment of
Ischomachus is judged positively, for it serves his friends and the city, at X.
Oec. 20.26-29 trade is not counted as negative, but crafts are so viewed at X.
Oec. 4.2. In the ideal Platonic state agriculture, craft, and trade, and the
acquisition of money connected with these occupations are allowed (Pl. R. 369
D - 371 E; more restrictive PI. Lg. 741 E - 742 A); but these 'producers' were
ruled by the άρχοντες, who themselves did not practise menial work or trade
(Pl. R. 590 C-D; cf. 547 D). According to Arist. Pol. ΠΙ 1277b 1-3 in ancient
164 Commentary
times craftsmen (δη ιουργοί) were excluded from public offices (άρχαί), a
measure approved by Aristotle (Arist. Pol. Ill 1278a 8 ή δε βέλτιστη πόλις ού
ποιήσει βάναυσον πολίτην). Similar conditions prevailed allegedly in Egypt,
which led to the assumption that the Spartan condition derived therefrom (Plu.
Lyc. 4.7). Hodkinson 1994, 193f. rightly remarks that the following passage
contains several striking contradictions to other Xenophontic passages outside
the SC in terms of acquisition and distribution of money, especially the
characterization of Agesilaus. By the time of Aristotle (Pol. Π 1264a 9f.) the
Spartan attitude towards menial work may have changed, but this interpretation
of the Aristotelian passage is contestable (cf. Hodkinson 1996, 99f. n. 47).
7.1[1]: χ ρ η α τ ί ζ ο ν τ α ι δ σ ο ν δ ύ ν α ν τ α ι . Most of all X. may have

in mind Athens and Corinth. In Athens, where a major part of the population
worked in crafts, agriculture, and trade (X. Mem. 3.7.6), it was not so much
disgraceful to acknowledge poverty but rather to acquiesce in it (Th. 2.40.1).
Ischomachus, the idealized Athenian landowner, seeks wealth for the sake of his
friends and the city (X. Oec. 11.9f.). In Corinth the 'utilitarian' professions
were esteemed higher than anywhere else in Greece (Hdt. 2.167.2).
7.1[2]: ν α υ κ λ η ρ ε ΐ . The verb occurs only here in X., but is attested
already in the fifth century, cf. Ar. Av. 598, Hermippus fr. 63 [PCG\ al.
7.2[1]: έν δε τη Σπάρτη ό Λυκούργος τοις [ έν] έλευθέροις

των εν ά φΐ χρη ατισ όν άπείπε ηδενός α π τ ε σ θ α ι . For
έλεύθερος as referring to a full Spartan citizen see 1.4[2], If X. uses the term
here accurately (one may rather doubt it), he would suggest that he considers the
perioikoi, who certainly included traders and craftsmen, as being 'unfree'.
The explanation of the Lycurgan prohibition is offered by X. Oec. 4.2f.,
according to which the handicrafts entail sitting still and indoors, debilitating
both mind and military fitness. It is for this reason that, especially in cities of
military strength, the citizen did not pursue crafts, cf. ibid: και έν ένίαις έν
των πόλεων, άλιστα δε έν ταΐς εύπολέ οις δοκοΰσαις είναι, ούδ'
εξεστι των πολιτών οΰδενί βαναυσικάς τέχνας έ ρ γ ά ζ ε σ θ α ι , and very
similarly Arist. Pol. VIII 1337b 5-15. Hdt. 2.167.2 makes clear that in Sparta
the βαναυσική τέχνη was subjected to disdain, while later authors made the
avoidance of a βαναυσική τέχνη an injunction for Spartan citizens (Isoc.
11.18, Plu. Lyc. 24.2, 25.3, Num. 24.6f., apophth. lac. 239 D-Ε; Ael. VH
6.6, 14.4 al.). In my view it is clear that the civil professions of herald, aulos-
player, and cook are relicts of an initially much broader range of civil
occupations, (cf. Cartledge 1976, 115; Berthiaume 1976; Nafissi 1991, 230 n.
17; 13.7[5]). Apart from the admittedly ambiguous epigraphical material (cf.
Cartledge 1976, 117f.) one could refer to the burial of a potter (or at least owner
of a kiln) and his family of possibly archaic date (but cf. Σταινχάουερ 1972,
244 n. 15 for a more recent dating). The place of the burial, in the area of the
former kome Mesoa, and the conditions of the burial, e.g. a late-seventh-
century terracotta relief amphora decorated with a hunting scene to mark the
7.1-4 - 7.3[2] 165
grave, suggest that we are dealing with a Spartan citizen (Christou 1964, 156-
158). Still Hdt. 1.153.1 does not seem to know a prohibition of Spartans
pursuing a trade in the market, if the passage indeed refers to full citizens, as
suggested by the context (at 2.167.2 Herodotus speaks of depreciation of
craftsmanship). According to Th. 5.34.2 the Spartans were also allowed
economic transactions, in principle in the classical period (cf. Finley 1975, 168;
Hodkinson 2000, 83-85, 180f.). It is thus plausible that at least until the
beginning of the fifth century Spartan citizens could follow certain professions.
The more rigid the Spartan mode of life became, the less time naturally
remained for pursuing such professions; a special law was hardly necessary to
obviate such activities. But still in the fourth century not all full Spartan
citizens may have been without a profession (cf. Arist. Pol. II 1264a 10f.).
7.2[2]: χ ρ η α τ ι σ ό ν . The word is attested in X. only here and at 7.6.
In Plato it is frequent in the sense 'money-making', cf. e.g. PI. Ap. 36 B; R.
357 C al.
7.2[3]: δσα δε έλευθερίαν ταΐς πόλεσι π α ρ α σ κ ε υ ά ζ ε ι ,
ταΰτα εταξε όνα εργα αυτών νο ίζειν. A similar concept is
found at Pl. R. 374 Α-D; 395 C, according to which the guardians were
exempted from all 'productive crafts' (δη ιουργία»,) to be purely 'craftsmen of
freedom' (δη ιουργοί ελευθερίας), i.e. to defend exclusively the freedom of the
city. The idea that one can better focus on warfare if exempted from daily
business is frequent in X. (13.1[7], 13.5[3]; Cyr. 2.1.21, 5.1.30; Oec. 4.3).
7.3[1]: vat γαρ δή τί πλούτος έκεΐ γε σπουδαστέος, ...

χρη άτων όρέγεσθαι. A certain superficial equality of the way of life (cf.
10.7[6]) cannot conceal the individual striving for wealth in Sparta. Avarice in
Sparta is mentioned frequently (14.3; Isoc. 11.20; 12.241; Pl. Ale. I 122 E -
123 A; Arist. Pol. Π 1269b 23f. al.). Also Pl. R. 547 C - 548 C seems to
have in mind Spartan conditions in defining the timocratic state: the timocratic
state suppresses - l i ke Sparta- perioikoi and slaves (547 C), establishes syssitia
and provides for gymnastic and military training (547 D); its major drawback is
secret avarice (548 Α-C), cf. David 1981, 60-63; Hodkinson 2000, 3 If. Similar
is the criticism of Arist. Pol. II 1271b 16f. τήν εν γαρ πόλιν (sc. Lycurgus)
πεποίηκεν άχρή ατον, τους δ' ίδιώτας φιλοχρή ατους. Χ. knew about
wealth in Sparta and accepted it (cf. 5.3[4]). But to strive for wealth was
pointless in X.'s eyes and prohibited, if it served debauchery (ήδυπαθείας
ενεκα). This viewpoint is ambivalent: on the one hand there is X. the land-
owning aristocrat, who appreciates wealth and considers it as an indicator of an
honourable life (this 'aristocratic' stance is attested early in Sparta (Ale. fr. 360
[PLF], cf. Pi. /. 2.11); on the other hand X., the disciple of Socrates, who
considers wealth and the strife for it superfluous (X. Mem. 4.1.5, 4.2.35-39;
Cyr. 4.2.25).
7.3[2]: ί σ α εν φερειν εις τα ε π ι τ ή δ ε ι α . Apart from this there
were extra contributions by the rich; X. himself mentions wheat-bread (cf.
5.3[5]). Historically, (almost) equal contributions did not abolish a creation of
166 Commentary
hierarchy in the syssition (cf. 5.3[4]). According to Arist. Pol. Π 1271a 32-37
the contribution to the syssition was the financial touchstone for membership
in the citizen community. But this applied presumably only from the post-eiren
age onwards (after 30?, cf. 2.11 [3]).
7.3[3]: ά λ λ α ήν ο·ύδ' Ι ατίων γε Ενεκα χρη ατιστέον.
For Spartan dress see 2.4[1]. X. may refer especially to Spartan women, who
though strongly sharing in Spartan wealth (Arist. Pol. Π 1270a 23f.) were
presumably not allowed to display it (cf. Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.], also Plu.
apophth. lac. 241 C-D; Serenus ap. Stob. IV 24.11).
7.3[4]: εύεξίφ. See commentary on 5.9.
7.4[1]: ουδέ ήν του γε είς τούς συσκήνους Ενεκα Ι χ ε ι ν

δαπ ανάν χρή ατα άθροιστέον ... ή τό δ α π α ν ώ ν τ α . X.'s claim
that wealth in the syssition did not serve self-representation is hardly historical.
X. himself remarks that the rich provided wheat-bread for the syssition, and it
was they who contributed extras from hunted game (cf. 5.3[3]-[5]). Such
donations are - although in a concealed manner- forms of self-representation,
especially if, as said by Epicharmus ap. Ath. 139 C and Mopsus ap. Ath. 141
E = FGrH 590 F 2c, the name of the contributor of aikla and epaikla was
publicly announced and, as claimed by Persaeus ap. Ath. 140 E-F = FGrH 584
F 2, the seating arrangement was drawn up accordingly. Still, it is difficult here
to draw a line between hellenistic invention and traditions dating back to the
classical period or earlier.
7 . 4 [ 2 ] : έπ ιδείξας τό έν ψυχής, τό δέ π λούτου Εργον. In a
similar vein X. praises Agesilaus1 stance towards his sister's victory in the
Olympian chariot race at Ages. 9.6 πώς ού καλόν ... τό έπιδείξαι νικώσης
αυτής 8τι τό θρέ α τούτο ουκ άνδραγαθίας άλλα πλούτου έπ ίδειγ ά
έστιν; cf. Plu. Ages. 20.1.
7.5f.: The Spartan iron currency - houses are searched for gold and silver -
conclusion: under such conditions the possession of money is pointless.
7 . 5 [ 1 ] : νό ισ α τοιούτον κατεστήσατο, δ δέκα νών όνον

αν είς οίκταν είσελθόν οΰπ οτε δεσπ ότας ουδέ ο ί κ έ τ α ς
λάθοι* καΐ γάρ χώρας εγάλης καΐ ά άξης άγωγής δ έ ο ι τ '
&ν. For δέκα νών as a genitive of value cf. Lys. 30.20 ιερά τριών
ταλάντων, D. 55.25 χιλίων δραχ ών δίκη.
Plu. Lyc. 9.If. (cf. apophth. lac. 226 B-D) draws at least partly on X. But in
X. we do not find the Plutarchan information that the Spartan currency was of
iron nor that before the iron currency Sparta possessed a gold and silver
currency (Plu. Lyc. 9.2, cf. Agis-Cleom. 10.4 [but differently Plu. Lys. 17.5,
making the iron or bronze obeliskoi the earliest currency]; Paus. 3.12.3; Pomp.
Trog. ap. lust. 3.2.12). An iron currency in Sparta is also attested by [Pl.] Erx.
400 B; Arist. fr. 481 [R.]; Plu. Cat.Ma. 30.1, Lys. 17.4; Poll. 7.105, 9.79
7.3[2]-7.5[2] 167
(the interdependence of the sources can hardly be disentangled satisfactorily,

pace Gansiniec 1956, 410). Furthermore, according to some - suspiciously
late- sources (Sen. benef. 5.14.4; Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 ζ 8) early Sparta
possessed a leather currency. An iron currency is said to have existed also at
Byzantion (e.g. Aristid. or. 3.104 [B./L.] al.), a leather currency at Rome and
Carthage (cf. Hieron. chron. 1303 [Helm p. 91b] on Rome; Aristid. or. 3.104
[B./L.] on Carthage). It is not clear how far these pieces of information may
reflect the ideal of a simple lifestyle rather than a premonetary historical stage
(cf. Nenci 1974, 644-646, 650 [for leather currency]; Hodkinson 2000, 160-165
[for iron currency]).
Lakonia had its own iron resources (capes Tainaron, Malea; cf. Cartledge
1979, 90). Archaeologically, the iron currency is attested in the form of iron
spits that were found at the sanctuary of Orthia and at other Greek sanctuaries
(cf. Str0m 1992, esp. 46; Melville Jones 1993, nos. 35-45). The ones found at
the sanctuary of Orthia, like most of those found elsewhere, date mainly from
the geometric and archaic period (cf. AO, 391-393); specimens from the fourth
and third centuries may be attributed to archaism, not practical use, cf. Dawkins
1930, 299. The production of such iron spits is described at Plu. Lyc. 9.3 and
Lys. 17.4. Plu. Lyc. 9.3 points to an earlier source of this information (ώς
λέγεται), possibly Aristotle. Both this source and Plutarch seem to have been
misinformed about the actual technical procedure (cf. Blümner 1884, 359f.).
Not earlier than around 265 did Sparta strike its own coinage (cf. Grunauer-von
Hoerschelmann 1978, 1-4; Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 35; M0rkholm 1991,
149f.), a fact which may not be explained so much by conservatism but by
Sparta's peculiar socio-economic structure (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 159f.).
One may ask how much iron X. is talking about here. Hodkinson 2000, 164
reckons with an iron:silver value ratio of 1:1800. In this case, as Hodkinson
calculates, X. would speak of at least some 11,000 kg. Now, as Hodkinson
admits, there are indications that a cart-load drawn by a pair of oxen had a
capacity of some 1000 kg. This fact is hardly reconcilable with Hodkinson's
calculation, even if one grants inaccuracy on the part of X. and occasional
revaluation of the Spartan currency. One may thus go back to an approach
chosen by Seltman 1955, 37: on the basis of iron spits from the Argive
Heraion Seltman calculated that Pheidon fixed his silver unit as one
fourhundredth of the corresponding iron unit. Though this ratio may be only an
approximation due to corrosion of the Heraion spits, it would bring us much
closer to plausible numbers in X. Given that an Aiginetan mina was around
630 g, X. would then be talking about some 2520 kg here. This would be in
the range of plausibility, given X.'s occasional inaccuracy and the approximate
character of the calculation.
7.5[2]: ά γ ω γ ή ς . Cobet (followed by others) conjectured άγοΰσης on the
basis of Plut. Lyc. 9.2 (ζεύγους άγοντος).
168 Commentary
7.6[1]: χρυσίον γε ήν καί άργύριον ερευνάται, καΐ &ν τ ί

«ου φανη, ό Εχων ζ η ι ο ΰ τ α ι . Cf. commentary on 14.3. Hodkinson
2000, 166 pointed out the change from past tense to present tense of the verb
(διεκώλυσε ... κατεστήσατο ... ερευνάται), clearly indicating (a) that the
search of houses was not a Lycurgan institution and implying (b) that it was
not necessary in the past.
The prohibition of gold and silver in private hands, as mentioned here (cf.
commentary on 14.3) and elsewhere, led to a conviction only once to my
knowledge, as a pretext in the case of Thorax, cf. Plu. Lyc. 19.7 with David
1981, 8f. Plato adapted it in his model state: Pl. R. 416 E - 417 A precludes
the guardians from the possession of silver and gold, PI. Lg. 742 Α-C all
private citizens. Herodotus and Thucydides were not acquainted with such a
prohibition and many private citizens possessed - both before and during the
Peloponnesian War- foreign money, i.e. especially silver and gold (Hodkinson
1996, 86-89; Hodkinson 2000, 19-21, 165-176). The later prominent idea that
it was this private possession of money that ruined Sparta may well go back to
our treatise here and 14.3, for avarice in Sparta cf. 7.3[1], for wealth in general
5.3[4],
7.6[2]: χρη ατισ ός. See 7.2[1] and [2].
8. I f . : Unanimity and obedience of the powerful in Sparta - Lycurgus first

established concord among the powerful before introducing his laws - in
contrast to other cities, in Sparta the powerful readily obey the law.
8.1[1]: άλιστα πείθονται ταις άρχαΐς τε καί τοις νό οις.

For Spartan obedience see extensively 2.2[6]. Famous for his obedience was
Agesilaus (cf. X. Ages. 7.2, Plu. Ages. 17.2), especially because of his
- according to X. - selfless abandonment of the campaign in Asia Minor (X.
HG 4.2.3, Ages. 1.36; cf. Plu. Ages. 15.5). Nothing supports the notion that
our passage alludes to Agesilaus' return from Asia in 394, as suggested by
several interpreters (first Naumann 1876, 27; Stein 1878, 8, 11).
8.1[2]: ε ύ τ α ξ ί α ν . Vatican Gr. 1335 has εΰεξίαν. But in X. and
contemporary writers the word normally means 'physical fitness', cf. 4.6, 7.3
al. None of the passages of the classical period adduced by Haase shows ευεξία
describing the situation of a state. The only parallel known to me (Plb. 20.4.1
ευεξία της πολιτείας) is late. Also Haase's assumption that ευεξία is a
dorism is doubtful. At 4.6 and 7.3 it appears in its normal Attic sense. It is
therefore better to follow Dindorf in reading εΰταξίαν, although the latter
word is attested nowhere else in the SC. ευταξία is - as is the obedience here
connected with it - most crucial in the army (X. Ages. 6.4, Cyr. 8.1.1-4;
Pritchett 1974, 236-238); for the importance of τάξις cf. X. Oec. 8f.
8.1[3]: π ρ ί ν ό ογνώ ονας έ π ο ι ή σ α τ ο τους κρατίστους τ ω ν
εν τη π ό λ ε ι . Spartan unanimity is stressed by X. also at Mem. 3.5.16 in
contrast to Athenian conditions. By κράτιστοι the well-off are meant as well as
7.6[1]-8.3[1] 169
the descendants of noble families (cf. 5.3[4] and 10.8[1]). For the question of
how unanimity can exist in a society as competitive as the Spartan cf. X.'s
representation of the behaviour between the καλοί κάγαθοί at Mem. 2.6.22f.
8.2[1]: ο υ δ έ β ο ύ λ ο ν τ α ι δ ο κ ε ί ν τ ά ς α ρ χ ά ς φ ο β ε ΐ σ θ α ι . In
Athens one used to pride oneself on refusing adequate respect to the authorities
(X. Mem. 3.5.16); as for military matters, such disobedience is also mentioned
- a s exceptional- in the army of Cyrus (Cyr. 8.3.21). It might be provoked by
the incompetence of an officer (X. Oec. 21.4f.).
All this was inconceivable in Sparta, where Φόβος (cf. φοβέΐσθαι in X.'s
text) was a divine power associated with obedience to the law as represented by
the ephors and manifesting itself in a sanctuary of Fear next to their syssition
(Plu. Agis-Cleom. 29.3, cf. Epps 1933, 24-26; Richer 1998a, 219-224).
Richer 1998a, 232 dates the cult of Fear to the first half of the sixth century,
which is hardly more than a (plausible) guess.
8.2[2]: έν δε τη Σ π ά ρ τ η ... ή β α δ ί ζ ο ν τ ε ς ΰ η α ν ο ύ ε ι ν . Plu.
Ages. 4.5 ό δ' 'Αγησίλαος ... πάσης εν άπ' εκείνων (sc. the ephors and
gerontes) πράξεως άρχό ενος, εί δε κληθείη, θάττον η βάδην έπειγό ενος,
cf. Χ. Cyr. 2.2.30 [similar expression]. As in Plutarch, by τάς άρχάς the
ephorate and the gerousia are meant. Both institutions are mentioned more
explicitly in what follows (cf. 8.3f. [ephors], 10.1-3 [gerontes]). For Spartan
obedience cf. 2.2[6].
8.2[3]: ΰ π έ ρ χ ο ν τ α ι . In a similar sense the word appears at [X.] Ath.
2.14; PI. Cri. 53 E al., cf. Kaiinka 1913, 226 especially n. 1.
8.2[4]: δπερ κ α ι γ ε γ έ ν η τ α ι . For the perfect see 15.9[2],
8.3f.: Establishment and power of the ephorate.
8.3[1]: εΙκός δ έ κ a i τήν τής έφορείας δ ύ ν α ι ν τούς

α υ τ ο ύ ς τούτους σ υ γ κ α τ α σ κ ε υ ά σ α ι . The expression εικός δέ is
controversial. The interpretations incline in two directions:
First, εικός δε indicates doubts as to whether Lycurgus and the κράτιστοι

των έν τη πόλει (8.1) created the ephorate. The creation of the ephorate at the
time of Lycurgus and the κράτιστοι is in doubt (so first Meyer 1892, 248f.,
contra already Köhler 1896, 371 n. 1).
Secondly, εικός δέ indicates doubts as to whether apart from Lycurgus the
κράτιστοι των έν τή πόλει also had a share in the creation of the ephorate.
The participation of the κράτιστοι in the creation of the ephorate is in doubt.
In my view only the second interpretation is acceptable for the following
reasons (cf. Richer 1998a, 22-24):
170 Commentary
(a) The close context:
At 8.5 X. remarks after the mention of the ephorate πολλών δε κ α ι

άλλων όντων ηχανη άτων καλών τψ Λυκούργφ εις το πείθεσθαι τοις
νό οις έθέλειν τους π ο λ ί τ α ς . In other words, at 8.5 X. relates Lycurgus to
the ephorate unreservedly. This contradicts (a).
(b) The broader context:
(i) All the circumstances of chapters 1-10 are connected unreservedly with
Lycurgus.
(ii) X. admires Λυκοΰργον ... τον θέντα αύτοίς τους νό ους, οίς
πειθό ενοι ηύδαι όνησαν (1.2). It is hardly credible that X. doubts the
Lycurgan sanction of that very authority which ensures the major virtue, i.e.
the obedience to the law and thus the ευδαι ονία of the state (cf. 13.5).
(iii) The ephors are inextricably connected with the Spartan state model
sketched by X. (cf. Richer 1998a, 24): the establishment of the hippagretai as
well as of the Three Hundred (4.3f.) is explicitly attributed to Lycurgus, but the
actual election is made by the ephors. Besides, the ephors call up the age
classes for military service. This again is said explicitly to be a Lycurgan
institution (11.If.).
(iv) Lycurgus established the gerousia (10.1) and defined the power of the
kings in the field (13.1) and at home (15.1). It was impossible to define the
power of these two institutions as described by X. without defining the power
of the ephorate at the same time.
(c) Wording:
The expression τους αυτούς τούτους 'these same [people]' refers to what is
mentioned immediately before. The mention of Lycurgus stands too far away in
the text to be relevant here.
In his view that it was Lycurgus who established the ephorate X. follows
Hdt. 1.65.5 τους εφόρους και γέροντας εστησε Λυκούργος, similarly Ephor.
ap. Str. 10.4.18 = FGrH 70 F 149 al. with Richer 1998a, 21-43. Another more
recent tradition traces the ephorate to Theopompus, cf. Pl. Lg. 691 D - 692 A
(?); Arist. Pol. V 1313a 25-33 [but also 1270b 18-26, where the establishment
of the ephorate by Lycurgus is possibly implied], al. with Richer 1998a, 45-
65.
X.'s slightly ambiguous wording here (είκός δε) suggests, if anything, that
X. knew of the Lycurgus and Theopompus versions and tried to express himself
as diplomatically as possible in favour of the former. For, if he had intended a
roundabout refutation of Theopompus' version, he would have sided more
outspokenly with the version which made Lycurgus creator of the ephorate (cf.
introduction pp. 23f.).
8.3[l]-8.4[4] 171
The actual introduction of the ephorate has been recently dated to the second
half of the seventh century (cf. Richer 1998a, 147, 149) or alternatively the
middle of the sixth century (cf. Shaw 1999, 278 and 296 n. 19).
8.3[2]: έ φ ο ρ ε ί α ς . The word occurs only here in X., besides in Lys. fr.
p. 370 [Th.] and occasionally in Aristotle.
8.3[3]: έγνωσαν τό πείθεσθαι έγιστον άγαθόν είναι κ α ΐ
έν π ό λ ε ι κ α ί έν σ τ ρ α τ ι φ καί èv ο ΐ κ φ . For the Spartan πειθώ see
2.2[6].
8.3[4]: Äv ή γ ή σ α ι ο . A has ήγήσατο. Pierleoni's conjecture based on
parallels at 3.5 and 13.5 is convincing: ι could have easily been mistaken for τ
by a scribe.
8.3[5]: καταπλήξειν τούς πολίτας τό ΰπακούειν. Vatican
Gr. 1335 offers κ α τ α π λ ή ξ ε ι ν τους πολίτας τοΰ ΰπακούειν. But this
construction of κ α τ α π λ ή τ τ ε ι ν + accusative + genitive is so unusual that
Schneider deleted τοΰ ΰπακούειν as a gloss and thus brought the passage in
line with X. Cyr. 3.1.25 ούτω πάντων των δεινών ό φόβος ά λ ι σ τ α
κ α τ α π λ ή τ τ ε ι τάς ψυχάς. On the other hand, Cobet suggested (εις) τό
instead of τοΰ, which would be somehow paralleled by Th. 2.65.9 [sc. Pericles]
κατέπλησσεν επί τό φοβεΐσθαι. By contrast, I print τό instead of τοΰ and
take τό ΰ π α κ ο ύ ε ι ν as an accusative of respect. This less drastic alteration
essentially renders the same sense as Cobet's solution: "frightens in terms of
obedience ~ frightens into obedience".
8.4[1]: έ φ ο ρ ο ι. X. refers to the annually elected panel of five ephors (cf.

Richer 1998a). The latter may have divided certain responsibilities like the
Cretan kosmoi (cf. Gehrke 1997, 56f.; for resemblances and differences of both
institutions cf. Richer 1998a, 491-495). If so, not all competences may have
entailed the same prestige (cf. the Foreign Secretary in relation to other
ministers in the British cabinet). Thus it is conceivable that there may have
been hierarchical structures even among them (cf. Plu. Lys. 30.5 προεστώτα
των εφόρων). At any rate, one ephor gave the year its name (e.g. Th. 5.19.1
with Richer 1998a, 311-322). The (name of the) institution was not restricted
to Sparta (cf. Kennell 1999, 196).
8.4[2]: κύριοι ... έκπράττειν ... κύριοι ... καταπαΰσαι κ al
ε ί ρ ξ α ι . Cf. 2.2[3].
8.4[3]: έ κ π ρ ά τ τ ε ι ν . έκπράττειν is mainly poetic (e.g. A. Supp. All,
A. 582 al., E. Med. 1305), in X. it appears only here, but is attested ¿ready in
classical prose (cf. Th. 8.108.2; Pl. Lg. 774 Β, E al.). In terms of wording two
meanings are conceivable: one may supply έκπράττειν δίκην = 'exact a
penalty', as e.g. at E. HF 43 al., or έκπράττειν δν αν βούλωνται = 'kill
whom they want', as e.g. at E. Hec. 515 al.
8.4[4]: κύριοι δέ καί άρχοντας εταξύ καί καταπαΰσαι
καί ειρξαί γε καί περί της ψυχής εις άγ&να καταστήσαι.
The right of prosecution extended to both officials and private persons (X. HG
3.3.5-11 [Cinadon]; Plu. amatoriae narrationes 773 E, 774 A, 775 C; D.S.
172 Commentary
8.21.1). The ephors had the right among others to imprison a king temporarily
even without an investigation (Th. 1.131.2, 1.134.1 [Pausanias]; Plu. Agis-
Cleom. 11.5 [deposition after celestial observation]). Accusations against the
kings were directed to the ephors (Hdt. 6.82.1 [Cleomenes], Th. 1.133
[Pausanias], D.S. 11.44.2 [Pausanias], Plu. Cim. 6.3 [Pausanias]). They could
summon officers to the court and prefer capital charges (X. HG 5.4.24
[Sphodrias]; An. 2.6.3f. [Clearchus]). Since they could call the officers to
account at any time, an annual account of the officers subordinate to the ephors
was unnecessary (convincingly argued by Link 1994, 64f. commenting on
Arist. Pol. II 1271a 6-8; cf. Richer 1998a, 442-444). It is conceivable,
however, that the resigning ephors were answerable to their successors at the
end of their tenure of office (Arist. Rh. III 1419a 31f.; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 12.1).
Capital crimes were judged by the gerousia (cf. Arist. Pol. ΠΙ 1275b 9-11,
the initial investigation was run by the ephors (cf. Richer 1998a, 436-441). It
was only in the later period that responsibilities were blurred: according to Plu.
apophth. lac. 221 F Thectamenes was sentenced to death by the ephors and
according to Lib. 25.64 the ephors could even pass the death sentence on the
king.
According to Isoc. 12.181 the ephors could put to death the perioikoi at their
discretion without a trial, but the passage is tinged in an anti-Spartan way,
possibly confusing deliberately the legal status of perioikoi and helots. Also X.
HG 3.3.8 [Cinadon conspiracy] is no argument in favour of such a legalized
despotism, for the passage concerns only the arrest, not the execution of
perioikoi and helots, besides it is a only pretext in an emergency case (pace
Richer 1998a, 452f.). An exceptional case is Paus. 3.5.2 (cf. Plu. Agis-Cleom.
19.5), where the gerontes, ephors, and one king pass judgement on the other
king.
On top of that the ephors were in charge of civil affairs (Arist. Pol. ΙΠ
1275b 9f. έν Λακεδαί ονι τάς των συ βολαίων δικάζει τών έφόρων
άλλος ά λ λ α ς ; Pol. Π 1273a 20; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 31.3; apophth. lac. 221
Α-B; cf. Plu. Lyc. 13.3). Their responsibility for the Spartan market (άγορά;
cf. Richer 1998a, 447) may lie at the root of a number of competences in the
civil sector.
Normally the ephors are likely to have passed a verdict as a corporation, not
each by himself; for since they did not rule according to written laws, but
αΰτογνώ νονες (Arist. Pol. II 1270b 28-31, cf. 1272a 35-39), a majority vote
was the only means to avoid excessive arbitrariness.
8.4[5]: έώσι τους α ΐ ρ ε θ έ ν τ α ς. Haase 1833, ad loc. assumed that the
subject was 'the Spartans' and took αίρεθέντας as referring to the ephors. This
interpretation is untenable. The subject of the preceding clause is 'the ephors'
and I can see no reason why one should surmise a change of subject. Besides,
only the power of the ephors, not that of the Spartan damos can reasonably be
termed 'tyrannical', cf. 8.4[7].
8.4[6]: α ί ρ ε θ έ ν τ α ς ά ε ί Λρχειν το £ τ ο ς . άεί in this position is
odd, a fact which led some editors to conjecture διάρχειν. Marchant thought
8.4[4]-8.5[l] 173
that άεί should be connected with αίρεθέντας, Pierleoni with το ετος,

pointing to Cyr. 8.2.1. Pierleoni's interpretation is the most likely, because
X.'s point seems to be that other magistrates did not necessarily hold their
offices 'without interruption during the whole year1.
8.4[7]: ώσπερ o i τ ύ ρ α ν ν ο ι . It is a widespread view that the ephors
constitute the 'tyrannical' element of the Spartan constitution (PI. Lg. 712 D;
Arist. Pol. II 1265b 40; 1270b 13-16 with Richer 1998a, 496-501). Although
the office had in part tyrannical powers, as a whole it was democratic according
to Aristotle, cf. Arist. Pol. II 1270b 7-9 ή γαρ άρχή κυρία εν αύτή τ ω ν
εγίστων αΰτοΐς εστίν, γίνονται έκ του δή ου π ά ν τ ε ς , cf. Pol. II 1272a
31-33 with Rhodes 1981 (but Plu. Lyc. 29.11 says exactly the opposite!).
The expression 'tyrannical' applied to the ephorate does not do justice to the
fact that the latter necessarily needed great power to counterbalance the royal
might. For X.'s conception of the tyranny cf. X. Mem. 4.6.12: according to
this passage tyranny was - in marked contrast to the kingship - government at
the discretion of a single ruler, not according to the laws of the city (cf. Gera
1993, 76f.). The - according to X . - 'tyrannical' power of the ephors found its
visible expression in the sanctuary of Fear next to the syssition of the ephors
(cf. 8.2[1]).
8.4[8]: o i èv τ ο ι ς γ υ ν ι κ ο ΐ ς ά γ ώ σ ι ν έ π ι σ τ ά τ α ι . Pl. Lg. 949 A
differentiates as follows: καί κριτήν αΰ χορών και πάσης ουσικής κ α ι
γυ νικών τε καί ιππικών άθλων έπιστάτας καί βραβέας ... For judges
at sport competitions in detail cf. Decker 1995, 120-126.
It remains doubtful whether X. refers to the Spartan festival of the
Gymnopaidiai by the words γυ νικοίς άγώσιν. One may want to argue that
the specification γυ νικοίς would be redundant if X. did not have in mind the
latter. However, the main characteristics of the Gymnopaidiai were not 'naked
competitions', but the performance of choruses of different age groups (cf.
Pettersson 1992, 42-56; Kennell 1995, 67-69). Besides, it remains to be shown
that the term έπιστάται would be appropriate in non-athletic contests.
8.5: Confirmation of the Lycurgan laws by the Delphic Oracle.
8.5[1] : π ρ ι ν έλθώ ν συν τοις κ ρ α τ ί σ τ ο ι ς είς ελφούς

έκήρετο τόν θεό ν εί λ φ ο ν κ α ί ά ε ι ν ο ν εΐη τη Σ π ά ρ τ η
π ε ι θ ο έ ν η οις αυτός ε θ η κ ε ν ό ο ι ς . The expression εί λφον κ α ί
ά εινον εΐη is conventional when consulting the gods, so already at Od.
1.376, 2.141 and occasionally in X. (Vect. 6.2; An. 6.2.15 al.).
In the SC X. ignores the version which circulated in Sparta (Hdt. 1.65.4),
according to which the Spartan laws derived from Crete, for three reasons: first,
X. was concerned to stress the uniqueness of the Spartan laws (cf. 1.2[5]),
secondly he lays emphasis on the fact that the Lycurgan laws were closely
connected with Delphi, i.e. that an infringement of them was a sacrilege.
Thirdly, X.'s version favoured the kings, if Toynbee 1969, 242 n. 9 is right in
174 Commentary
his political interpretation of the two versions: while X.'s version makes
Delphi, with which the kings entertained special relations (cf. 15.5[2]), patron
of the Spartan constitution, Herodotus' version plays down the importance of
Delphi and implicitly of the kings - perhaps in support of some anti-monarchic
political groups.
It is noteworthy that in X.'s eyes it was Lycurgus who established the
Spartan laws (οις αυτός εθηχε νό οις). The latter were only sanctioned by
Apollo. X. stresses the latter point because he thus turns his back on a
venerable tradition according to which it was Apollo himself who gave the
laws, cf. Tyrt. fr. 4 [IEG]; Hdt. 1.65.4 (cf. Hdt. 6.52.5 [establishment of the
double kingship by the Pythia]); PI. Lg. 624 A, 632 D; Ephor. ap. Str.
10.4.19 = FGrH 70 F 149; Clem.Al. Stom. I 170.3 [p. 106 St.] = FGrH 70 F
174. Although the line between sanctioning and giving the laws should not be
overstressed, X.'s emphasis on Lycurgus' own participation serves to enhance
Lycurgus' performance as a law-giver, i.e. it is fully in line with the general
tendency of the rest of the SC (cf. pp. 35f.).
Most remarkable is the fact that according to X. Lycurgus went to Delphi
accompanied by the most powerful (τοις κρατίστοις). X. may have found this
detail in an otherwise unknown version of the Lycurgus myth. It is more
likely, however, that we are dealing with a purely Xenophontic addition: by
demonstrating the participation of the most powerful Spartans X. wanted to
exemplify the Spartan homonoia (for the concept cf. also the Spartan term
ό οιοι with 10.7[6]). He stressed this point either because he was aware of the
fact that in daily life the establishment of new laws frequently caused friction
with the formerly privileged (cf. e.g. Sol. fr. 34.4f. [IEG]), or in order to falsify
other versions which knew of an initial resistance of the rich to the
implementation of the Lycurgan laws (cf. Plu. Lyc. 11.If., apophth. lac. 227
Α-B al.).
8.5[2]: ου όνον &νο ον ά λ λ α καΐ άνόσιον θείς τό
πυθοχρήστοις νό οις ή πείθεσθαι. It is a common topos that a law-
giver was assisted by a god in establishing his laws. The connection clearly
served to enhance the authority of the legislation, cf. Szegedy-Maszak 1978,
204f.
8.5[3]: πυθοχρήστοις. The word is found mainly in poetry before the
SC, cf. A. Ch. 901, 940, E. Ion 1218, but also Hellanic. FGrH 4 F 51. In X.
it appears only here.
9.1-3: Heroic death in Sparta - those preferring heroic death to disgraceful

life live longer — virtue is more advantageous than cowardice.
9.1[1]: "Αξιον δέ τοΰ Λυκούργου καΐ τόδε άγασθήναι, τό

κ α τ ε ρ γ ά σ α σ θ α ι έν τή πόλει αίρετώτερον είναι τόν κ α λ ό ν
θάνατον άντί τοΰ αίσχροΰ βίου. Aristotle's definition at ΕΝ ΠΙ 1115a
32-35 is pertinent: κυρίως δή λέγοιτ' αν ανδρείος ό περί τόν καλόν
8.5[1]-9.3[1] 175
θάνατον άδεής, και δσα θάνατον επιφέρει ΰπόγυια δντα· τοιαύτα δ à

άλιστα τά κατά πόλε ον. Tyrt. fr. 10 [IEG] mentions the advantage of the
heroic death, i.e. the disciplined death on behalf of the city (cf. Loraux 1977,
108; Thommen 1996, 49). According to Plato one task of the ideal law-giver
was to teach proper behaviour in matters of anger and fear (έν όργαΐς τε α υ
και εν φόβοις), resulting among other reasons from war (PI. Lg. 632 A-B).
X. here adopts the literary topos of Spartan discipline even in the face of
death, which was widely known already in the fifth century, cf. Th. 4.40.1 (for
the Spartan obedience cf. 2.2[6]). But X. himself implies at 9.5f. (similarly
Hdt. 7.104.4f„ 7.23If., 9.71.2-4) that the Spartans sacrificed their lives rather
out of fear of social degradation at home than voluntarily; cf. Pl. Phd. 68 D
according to which courage was normally -with the exception of philosophers -
attained through fear.
9.1[2]: έπισκοπών τις αν εΰροι είους αποθνήσκοντας
τούτων (ή) των έκ του φοβερού άποχωρειν αίρου ένων.
Either one takes το φοβερόν in the sense of ό κίνδυνος, or τό φοβερόν means
something like 'fearfulness'. The use of το φοβερόν for ό κίνδυνος vel sim.
would be idiosyncratic and unparalleled to my knowledge; the meaning
'fearfulness' would find at least limited support by the passive meaning of
φοβερός and similar passages in X. (cf. LSJM 1.2). One may suspect a flawed
reading; the original may have had τών έκ φόβου άποχωρεΐν αίρου ένων.
Χ. repeatedly expresses the view that fear and flight in battle are more likely
to cause death than courage and steadfastness (An. 3.1.43; Cyr. 3.3.45, 4.1.5;
similarly already//. 5.531f.; Tyrt. fr. 11.11-13 [IEG] al.). By contrast, others
maintained that it was the cowards who saved their lives, cf. S. Ph. 436f.; Pl.
Lg. 944 C al.
9.2: ώς τάληθες ειπείν καί έπεται. The expression ώς τάληθες

ειπείν appears only here in the classical period; it apparently belongs to the
number of absolute infinitives as e.g. ώς (επος) ειπείν (cf. Kühner/Gerth
2.508f.).
I cannot explain the καί. If we accept that nothing has dropped out before
καί and that the word has been transmitted in the right place, one should
perhaps take is as meaning'actually' (cf. Denniston 1954, 316, who, however,
gives only references from drama). Since the asyndeton is odd one may consider
transposing καί before ώς.
9.3[1]: εκείνος τοίνυν σαφώς παρεσκεύασε τοις εν

άγαθοΐς εϋδαι ονίαν, τοις δέ κακοίς κακοδαι ονίαν . αγαθός
here denotes the brave soldier (as e.g at Th. 4.40.2), κακός the coward. At Cyr.
3.3.5If. X. remarks that a precondition of the bravery of soldiers is laws that
guarantee the 'brave' (άγαθοίς) an honourable existence, but the 'cowards'
(κακοίς) a miserable life (cf. also Arist. EN ΠΙ 1116a 18-21). According to
Aristotle the fear of sanctions at home is the reason why citizen armies prefer
their own death to flight, in marked opposition to professional soldiers (Arist.
176 Commentary
EN 1116b 15-24). The Lakonian term for 'coward' was τρέσας (cf. Tyrt. fr.
11.14 [IEG] τρεσσάντων δ' ανδρών πάσ' άπόλωλ' άρετή, Plu. Ages.
30.2). Cowards were not exempted from military service (Hdt. 7.231 with
9.71.2; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 5.7[?]), and it cannot be proved that they were
deprived of their citizen rights. Plu. Ages. 34.11 reports that not only
cowardice but also excessive courage were punished by the ephors.
Cowardice in battle was punished not by death (as claimed by Lycurg. Leocr.
129 to illustrate the appropriate punishment for Leocrates, similarly also D.S.
12.62.5), but by lesser penalties (Plu. Ages. 30.2 τάς έκ των νό ων
ατι ίας), of which some are mentioned by X. at 9.5 (drawn upon by Plu.
Ages. 30.3f.; similar penalties at Hdt. 7.231 [cf. also Hdt. 7.104.4f.; Isoc.
8.143, Ep. 2.6; Plu. Lyc. 21.2-7]). Frequently the penalties were not applied
with their full severity: the Spartans on Sphakteria who had surrendered to the
Athenians were declared to be disenfranchised and legally incapacitated only
temporarily (Th. 5.34.2; D.S. 12.76.1 with Loraux 1977, 112), and those
returning from Leuktra were even granted full amnesty (Plu. Ages. 30.6;
Pomp. 82.3; apophth. lac. 191 B-C; 214 B; Polyaen. 2.1.13). Soon after the
battle of Megalopolis (circa 331) the atimia of the survivors was revoked; when
Acrotatus, son of Cleomenes III, opposed the decree, he incurred the wrath of
the citizens (D.S. 19.70.5). In 222 the women took to the streets after the
defeat in at Sellasia to welcome those returning (Plu. Agis-Cleom. 50.2).
9.3[2]: τοίνυν. See introduction p. 50.
9.4-6: Punishment of cowards elsewhere and in Sparta - elsewhere cowardice

is without practical consequences in daily life - in Sparta cowards are punished
in various humilating ways.
9.4[1]: έν εν γαρ ταΐς ϋ λ λ α ι ς πόλεσιν, όπόταν τις

κακός γένηται, έηίκλησιν όνον ίχει κακός είναι,
αγοράζει δέ έν τφ αύτφ ό κακός τάγαβφ καΐ κάβηται κ a t
γ υ ν ά ζ ε τ α ι , èàv β ο ύ λ η τ α ι . Aeschin. Ctes. 175f. represents the legal
situation in Athens quite differently: if someone defied conscription (τον
άστράτευτον) or deserted (τόν λελοιπότα τήν τάξιν) or behaved in a
cowardly manner (τον δειλόν), he was punished by being forbidden to enter the
market, to be wreathed and to attend public sacrifices. A disgraceful life, high
fines and exclusion from the army community are the penalties proposed by
Plato for cowards (PI. Lg. 944 E - 945 A). As elsewhere, in Athens treason
was punished with death, cf. Lys. 13.67 with Pritchett 1974, 238 n. 41;
Lycurg. Leocr. 127).
9.4[2]: έ π ί κ λ η σ ι ν . The word appears only here in X., but is current
from Homer on, cf. II. 22.506 al.
9.5[1]: πολλάκις δ' ό τοιούτος καί διαιρου ένων τους

άντισφαιριοϋντας άχώριστος π ε ρ ι γ ί γ ν ε τ α ι . άντισφαιριοΰντας is
9.3[l]-9.5[2] 177
the future participle of an otherwise unattested verb άντισφαιρίζω (though

σφαιρίζω is found at PI. Tht. 146 A and elsewhere), αχώριστος appears only
here in X., but is attested in classical prose (Pl. R. 524 C al.). But X. uses
χ ω ρ ί ζ ω (cf. Oec. 9.8, An. 5.4.34).
As to the 'ball-players' cf. Paus. 13.14.6 εστι δε ¿χγαλ α άρχαΐον
'Ηρακλέους, φ θύουσιν οι αφαιρείς- οΐ δέ εΐσιν εκ των έφηβων ές ανδρας
αρχό ενοι συντελεΐν. An article (oí) added by many editors after είσιν, later
Lakonian inscriptions mentioning an age group called σφαιρεΐς (IG V (1) 674-
688), and finally a similar age group called δρο είς in Crete (cf. Vidal-Naquet
1981, 167) lead to the assumption that σφαιρείς were all boys, who had
reached a certain age, and thus made σφαιρεΐς an age class. Whatever the truth
in Pausanias (contra already Kührstedt 1922, 343 n. 4; but pro still
Busolt/Swoboda 1926, 697; Tazelaar 1967, 149f.; Pettersson 1992, 46;
Kennell 1995, 39 al.), our Xenophontic passage seems to refer only to a
physical contest, not to an age class.
The contest was either a ball game or a boxing match (σφαΐραι = 'boxing
gloves', cf. Pl. Lg. 830 Β and Poll. 3.150 with Doblhofer/Mauritsch 1995,
274-277). The oldest inscription mentioning a competition of σφαιρείς is dated
by Woodward to 70-75 AD (cf. Woodward 1951, 193, also Cartledge/Spawforth
1989, 207), i.e. with little or no relevance for the classical period.
A ball game, a kind of rugby, is attested in Sparta in the classical period and
later: apparently a ball was thrown among the players. The player who caught
(and kept) the ball, won. The technical term for this game seems to have been
τ ά σφαιρο άχια (cf. Pl. Lg. 830 E; Lucianus 37.38; schol. ad PI. Lg. 633 B;
Eusth. ad Od. 8.376 [p. 304 St.]). Ball games seem to have been prominent in
Sparta; some even supposed Sparta to be the inventor of ball games in general
(cf. Hippasus ap. Ath. I 14 D-E = FHG IV 430). By contrast, formal boxing
contests (in opposition to informal scuffles, cf. 4.6) were, if at all permitted,
not very prominent (cf. Hodkinson 1999, 157-159).
Furthermore, other ball games are attested in ancient Greece: e.g. one player
threw the ball in the air and the other caught it by jumping (ή ούρανία), or one
player hurled the ball to the ground and the other tried to catch the bouncing
ball (ή άπόρραξις), or the players tried to drive away their competitors by
hurling the ball to the ground covered with stone chippings (ή έπίσκυρος), or a
game, at which one player stood in the middle and tried to catch the ball, while
the others held out the ball deceptively, before passing it to the others (ή (?)
φαινίνδα), cf. schol. ad Pl. Tht. 146 A; Eust. loc. cit. (drawing on the
Platonic scholia in part). A slightly different description of these ball games is
given by Poll. 9.103-106, who at 9.107 claims that the έπίσκυρος π α ι δ ί α
could be called σφαιρο αχία. At any rate, some of these ball games may have
been common in classical Sparta, too.
9.5[2]: έν χοροίς δ' είς τάς έπονειδίστους χώρας
α π ε λ α ύ ν ε τ α ι . For Spartan choruses cf. 4.3[3]. According to our passage
the position in the chorus reflects the social position. The χοροποιός (X. Ages.
2.17) could administer honour or reproach by assigning a position in the
178 Commentary
chorus; apparently objections to the assigned position were not possible (cf.
Plu. reg. et imp. apophth. 191 F [with Nachstädt's testimonia]). Besides,
exclusion from the chorus does not seem to have been a viable option, for even
in the case of the cowards it was not practised. Conversely, it was through their
position in the chorus that their disgraceful behaviour became apparent, and one
may thus infer that it was especially they who were compelled to participate in
the chorus. Furthermore, PI. Lg. 666 D demonstrates that the participation of
all citizens in the choruses was, if not a duty, at least the rule: (the Cretan
remarks) ή είς γοΰν, ω ξένε, και οΐδε [sc. the Spartans] οΰκ ¿ίλλην &ν τ ί ν α
δυναί εθα φδήν η ην έν τοις χοροίς έ άθο εν ξυνήθεις ςίδειν γενό ενοι.
Through his task of assigning the position in the chorus the choropoios held
an important post. Possibly he was directly appointed by the ephors, who were
(partially?) responsible for the conduct of public festivals (X. HG 6.4.16).
Conceivably he was identical with the choregos, who led the choir, but - a
Spartan idiosyncrasy - did not hire it (cf. Demetrius ap. Ath. XIV 633 A-B).
For the locality, where choruses performed music and dance, cf. Stibbe 1989,
65f., 81. In Crete too there were honorable positions in the chorus (Ephor. ap.
Str. 10.4.21 = FGrH 70 F 149).
9.5[3]: καΐ ήν έν όδοτς παραχωρητέον αύτφ καί έ ν
θάκοις καί [έν] τοις νεωτέροις ύ π α ν α σ τ α τ έ ο ν . It was a normal
honorific gesture in Sparta and elsewhere that the young rose before the old, cf.
15.6[2],
9.5[4]: τάς εν προσηκούσας κόρας οίκοι θρεπτέον. I
understand the passage to mean that the daughters of the coward stayed in their
father's house, as long as they remained unmarried. This was the rule for
women in Greece; the fact that X. mentions it as a punitive measure here
implies that it was not customary in Sparta. If X.'s wording is accurate (but
one may doubt that it is), one has to conclude that women were not normally
brought up at home (οίκοι), but in one sense or another away from home,
perhaps in connection with female training (cf. 1.4[4]).
9.5[5]: καί ταΰταις της άνανδρίας αΐτίαν ΰφεκτέον. The
noun ά ν α ν δ ρ ί α occurs only here in X., although it is attested elsewhere in
classical prose (cf. Th. 1.83.1 al.). It is to be understood as 'unmanliness,
cowardice'. The phrase αΐτίαν ύπέχειν means 'to suffer the accusation of (cf.
X. Cyr. 6.3.16; also Antipho 5.67, PI. Ap. 33 B). Noteworthily, the passage
points to guardianship (κυριεία) over close female relatives in Sparta. Such a
guardianship is supported by Arist. Pol. II 1270a 26-29, according to which the
father or his heir may marry the heiress to anyone at his discretion (cf.
Millender 1999, 364f.; Hodkinson 2000, 95f.). According to X., with a coward
as a father/guardian the daughter/ward could hardly hope for a prosperous
marriage, if at all. Also outside Sparta daughters of socially discredited parents
had limited marriage prospects (cf. Parker 1985, 205).
9.5[6]: γυναικός δέ κενήν έστίαν οίσαν περιοπτέον. Since
περιοράν is normally construed with the participle (for exceptions see LSJM
s.v.), Haase rightly considered changing οΰ to ουσαν. From this passage it does
9.5[2]-9.5[7] 179
not follow that cowards lost their right to marry, but that it was disgraceful to
give one's daughter to a coward (Plu. Ages. 30.3).
9.5[7] ά α τούτου ζη ίαν άποτειστέον. It is strange that X.
seems to presuppose a fine, for at 7.6 he had stressed that money did not play a
role in Sparta. But though Hodkinson 2000, 185 n. 32 is right that ζη ιόω in
the SC indicates punishment in general, not necessarily a fine, the expression
ζη ίαν άποτειστέον is rather more specific (cf. Pl. Lg. 882 A with 880 D;
941 D τί χρή παθείν η τίνα ζη ίαν άποτίνειν αύτόν;). Furthermore, it is
remarkable that X. seems to presuppose a δίκη άγα ίου, for τούτου can hardly
refer to anything else but the aforementioned issue, i.e. the fact that there is not
a wife at his hearth. 30
This evidence of a δίκη άγα ίου which is supported by Plu. Lyc. 15.1-3
(no fine mentioned!), Clearchus ap. Ath. XIII555 C-D = fr. 73 [W.] and Cretan
conditions according to Ephor. ap. Str. 10.4.20 = FGrtì 70 F 149, is
independent of a second chain of information, which is based on (or mediated
by) the Stoic Aristón ap. Stob. IV 22.16 = fr. 400 [SVF] Σπαρτιατών νό ος
τάττει ζη ίας, τήν εν πρώτην άγα ίου, τήν δευτέραν όψιγα ίου, τήν δ έ
τρίτην καί εγίστην κακογα ίου. Plu. Lys. 30.7 adopted the information,
qualifying it by ώς εοικεν. Directly dependent on Plutarch or Aristón is Poll.
3.48, 8.40. The inference that all these sources ultimately draw on a single
source, namely Aristón or the source behind him, is confirmed most of all by
the same choice and sequence of words. Also the marital rite as described at
Hermippus ap. Ath. XIII555 B-C = fr. 87 [W.] belongs here [on the latter cf.
more extensively app. I]: it is fully in line with the principles of the Stoic (and
other philosophical schools) which consider beauty and wealth as irrelevant and
even harmful.
Accordingly, we have two independent sources to support a δίκη άγα ίου,
only one (Stoic) sources of a δίκη όψιγα ίου and κακογα ίου. The latter are
quite certainly philosophical speculations of Aristón and his successors (cf.
1.7[1]). Α δίκη άγα ίου, if historical, no longer existed by the time of X., for
an αγα ος like Dercylidas could be appointed general (Plu. Lyc. 15.3,
apophth. lac. 227 E-F). 31 Besides, 1.8 may suggest that someone could remain
unmarried and still unpunished on the condition that he begot children. It would
be hard to see what the purpose of the δίκη άγα ίου could possibly have been
in X.'s day, as long as the procreation of offspring was ensured according to 1.8
even without marriage. Hence, if not a philosophical speculation, the δίκη
άγα ίου would belong to an age in which procreation only within the conjugal
community, not the kind of procreation as described at 1.8, was legally
sanctioned (around 450[?], cf. e.g. Hodkinson 2000, 422f.).
3
" Possibly one could read, as suggested already by Haase, α α τούτψ or α α τούτοις
instead of the transmitted α α τούτου. In this case ζ η ί α would denote a fine for the
aforementioned cowardice ( ά ν α ν δ ρ ί α ) as in the Platonic ideal state, cf. Pl. Lg. 945 Β.
31
Link 1994,114 n. 61 is right that Dercylidas is nowhere mentioned explicitly as a bachelor,
but Plu. Lyc. 15.3 clearly implies that Plutarch regarded Dercylidas as such, for he recounts
the Dercylidas episode to illustrate - and legitimate- the punishment of the unmarried status.
180 Commentary
Severe marital legislation, that forbade being unmarried or late marriage with
the threat of penalty, never ceased to be both a practical as well as a
philosophical theme, cf. Pl. Lg. 721 B-D; 774 Α-B; Cie. leg. 3.7; Val. Max.
2.9.1; D.C. 54.16 (on Augustan legislation) τοις τε άγά οις και ταις
άνάνδροις βαρύτερα τά έπιτί ια έπέταξε, καί ε παλιν του τε γά ου
και της παιδοποιίας άθλα εθηκεν al.
9.5[8]: λ ι π α ρ ό ν . One would expect a dative λ ι π α ρ φ (cf. above
παραχωρητεον αύτφ). Morus' conjecture λιπαρώς is conceivable. Marchant
translates the word with 'cheerful', presumably basing himself on LSJM s.v.
Ill, but the normal meaning would be 'anointed' and there is no reason to discard
this sense here.
9.6: έγώ ... έ π ο ν ε ι δ ί σ τ ο υ β ί ο υ . It is a commonplace that the

punishment of cowards increases the readiness of soldiers for death, cf. 9.3[1],
However, in Sparta death on the battlefield - at least in X.'s mind - was
considered as especially desirable, conversely, returning alive after a defeat
especially disgraceful, cf. X. HG 4.5.10 [defeat at Lechaion], 6.4.16 [defeat at
Leuktra]; for further references see 9.3[1],
10.1-3: The council of Elders — in Sparta a virtuous life is practised until old
age and rewarded by election to the gerousia - the gerousia judges capital crimes
- election to the gerousia entails competition for the best character and thus is
superior to sporting competitions.
10.1[1]: έπί γ α ρ τ φ τ έ ρ α τ ι του β ί ο υ . For the minimum age of

the Elders see 10.2[2],
1 0 . 1 [ 2 ] : γ ε ρ ο ν τ ί α ς . The word γερόντια, the Lakonian equivalent of
γερουσία, is attested only here (adopted by Nie.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 ζ 13;
Hsch. s.v. γερωα, γερόντια [γ 437, 449]), cf. IG V (1) 1317 1. 2 [from
Thalamai/Lakonia, 4th-3rd century] γεροντεύω. One should compare Ar. Lys.
980 where a Spartan messenger asks nq. τάν Ά σ α ν ά ν έστιν ά γερωχία...;
(γερωχία may be seen here as the unsuccessful attempt of a Spartan to
pronounce the Athenian γερουσία, cf. Colvin 1999, 171-173, 235f.). Kahrstedt
1922, 246 believed that γερόντια denoted the 'office of Elders', γ ε ρ ω χ ί α the
'council of Elders'; Hsch. s.v. γερώα (γ 437) and γερωνία (γ 449) equates
both terms.
1 0 . 1 [ 3 ] : ά ε λ ε ΐ σ θ α ι τήν κ α λ ο κ ά γ α θ ί α ν . According to X. the
older citizens led a particularly virtuous life, which brought them - in implicit
opposition to Athens - high esteem among the young (cf. X. Mem. 3.5.15
with Powell 1994, 276).
For the particularly Spartan meaning of κ α λ ο κ α γ α θ ί α cf. Bourriot 1996,
132 (after discussing X. HG 5.3.8f.): "Xénophon nous confirme donc qu'à
Sparte la qualité de kaloi kagathoi était un titre purement militaire, la
reconnaissance d'un courage exceptionel, prouvé sur le champ de bataille. Cette
9.5[7]-10.2[3] 181
qualification élogieuse était indépendante du statut politique ...", cf. also ibid.
135f. In the second half of the fifth century the term was introduced in Athens,
where it acquired a whole range of connotations overshadowing occasionally the
original Spartan notion (cf. Bourriot 1996, 137). In X. both the Spartan and
Athenian nuances play a role. For example, as both a military and a civic virtue
καλοκαγαθία is a key term for the kingship of Agesilaus (X. Ages. 11.6).
As to the Elders, the aspect of 'aristocratic virtue' = 'aristocratic position' can
hardly be separated from καλοκαγαθία, and defacto, if not de iure, the Elders
were certainly recruited mainly from the aristocratic upper class (cf. 10.3[2]).
10.2f. : The passage lacks a concise structure. The train of thought is

approximately as follows: Lycurgus honoured the Elders by granting them
judicial power in capital crimes (κυρίους τοΰ περί της ψυχής αγώνος). The
election to a seat in the council was a competition in virtue (ό δε περί της
γεροντίας άγων ψυχών αγαθών κρίσιν παρέχει). Not only are statements
unconnected, but the employment of άγών in two different senses causes
difficulties.
10.2[1]: ά ξ ι ά γ α σ τ ο ν . The word appears only here in the classical

period, cf. 4.2[2], Normally X. prefers the verbal expression άξιον - ¿χγασθαι
(cf. 9.1, 10.4; Ages. 1.36).
10.2[2]: τους γέροντας. The gerousia, the council of Elders, consisted
of 28 Elders and the two kings (Plu. Lyc. 5.11-14, 6.2). Plu. Lyc. 26.1
remarks that the minimum age for the office of an Elder was 60; in the imperial
period it may have been 40 (Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 192).
In opposition to the ephorate (cf. 8.3[1]) the gerousia was regarded as
certainly a Lycurgan institution. Its venerable age is suggested by the fact that
it - or a predecessor - occurs already in the Rhetra (Plu. Lyc. 6.8). The
importance of the gerousia lay -according to the sources biasing the material in
favour of the mixed constitution theory (cf. Cartledge 1987, 118f.) — in its
moderating influence (PI. Lg. 692 A, Arist. Pol. II 1265b 35 - 1266 a 5, Plb.
6.10.6-11, Plu. Lyc. 5.11, Ages. 4.3, with Cie. Cato 20 temeritas est videlicet
florentis aetatis, prudentia senescentis). To ensure this function as the ultimate
moderating body the Elders were not accountable to anyone (ανεύθυνοι Arist.
Pol. Π 1271a 5f.; cf. ibid. Π 1272a 36-38). Cf. in general MacDowell 1986,
126-129; Nafissi 1991, 108-114; Link 1994, 76f.
10.2[3]: κυρίους τοΰ περί της ψυχής α γ ώ ν ο ς . The Elders
presided over trials on death and banishment (Arist. Pol. IV 1294b 33f. with Π
1270b 38-40; Plu. Lyc. 26.2, Pel. 13.3, cf. Plu. de genio Socratis 598 F),
especially capital crimes (Arist. Pol. III 1275b lOf.; Plu. apophth. lac. 217 A-
B with Richer 1998a, 432-441), but presumably only against Spartans (for
trials against perioikoi cf. 8.4[4]). Further powers (Isoc. 12.154 [supervision of
public affairs], D. 20.107 [Elder is δεσπότης of the mass of citizens], Plb.
6.45.5 [Elders and kings conduct administration], D.H. Ant. 2.14.2 [complete
control of public affairs] are commonplaces and seem to be in part motivated by
182 Commentary
wrong analogies with the Athenian Areopagus or the Roman senate.

Occasionally the gerousia occurs in connection with internal decisions (Hdt.
5.40.1 [consultation together with the ephors on a remarriage of king
Anaxandridas], X. HG 3.3.5, 3.3.8 [conspiracy of Cinadon], D.S. 11.50.2-7
[consultation on war with Athens; confusion with Roman Senate?], Plu. Agis-
Cleom. 11.1 [decision on presenting motions to the civic assembly]. Further
-certainly mainly internal- functions of the gerousia remain speculative due to
the lack of evidence. Even more than in Sparta in the ideal state of the
Cyropaedia all judicial power, especially in the case of capital crimes, as well
as the appointment of officers, lay with the Elders (X. Cyr. 1.2.14).
10.2[4]: διέπραξεν εντι ότερο ν είναι τό γήρας τής τ ω ν
άκ αζόντων ρώ ης. The elderly were revered not only in Sparta (cf. Hdt.
2.80.1, X. Mem. 3.5.15, Plu. apophth. lac. 237 C-D al.), but also elsewhere
(X. Mem. 2.3.16 [generally], Cyr. 8.7.10 [Persia], Ar. Nu. 992, 998f.
[Athens]). At Ages. 11.14 X. summarizes aptly the notion of the wisdom of
old age underlying our passage: ή εν του σώ ατος ισχύς γηράσκει, ή δε της
ψυχής ρώ η των αγαθών ανδρών άγήρατός έστιν. But already Arist. Pol.
Π 1270b 40 - 1271a 1 objected: εστι γάρ, ώσπερ και σώ ατος, και
διανοίας γήρας.
10.3[1]: σπουδάζεται οίτος ό ά γ ώ ν άλιστα των

α ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν . A's reading deserves preference over Stobaeus' άλιστα τ ώ ν
ανθρωπίνων. For in the former case τών ανθρώπων relates to ό άγών in
the sense of 'the competition of men [sc. between each other]', in the latter we
would have 'human [sc. competitions'], whereby it would remain obscure what
the complementary term to 'human' could possibly be ('divine competitions'
hardly makes sense). Furthermore, the following sentence shows that οΰτος ό
άγών is essentially an άγών ψυχών άγαθών as against an ά γ ώ ν
σω άτων, i.e. no trace of a contrast between divine and human.
10.3[2]: ό δέ περί τής γεροντίας άγών ψυχών ά γ α θ ω ν
κρίσιν παρέχει. The agonistic aspect of election to the gerousia is stressed
by numerous authors (Aeschin. Tim. 180; Isoc. 12.154, Arist. Pol. Π 1270b
24f., D. 20.107, Plu. Lyc. 26.2). The idea of an agon in virtue occurs
elsewhere in X., e.g. at Ages. 9.7 [Agesilaus victor in the agons 'benefit' and
'punishment'], Hier. 11.7f. [agon of the rulers in the ευδαι ονία of their
cities]. In the imperial period the agonistic concept of election to the gerousia
was possibly adopted in the άριστοπολιτείας άγών (cf. Cartledge/Spawforth
1989, 198f.).
The election mode was unusual (and apparently old), whereby the intensity
of the supportive shouts was crucial (Plu. Lyc. 26.3-5, Arist. Pol. II 1271a 10
calls it παιδαριώδης; cf. also Ste. Croix 1972, 348f.). Arist. Pol. Π 1270b
24f. reports that the Elders were elected from the καλοί κάγαθοί, an
expression which refers to noble birth rather than personal merit (cf. Toynbee
1969, 267f.). Other sources are more idealistic: according to Aeschin. Tim. 180
the Elders were chosen from the 'sound-minded' (σωφρόνων), according to Plu.
10.2[3]-10.3[4] 183
Lyc. 26.1 and Plb. 6.10.9 from the 'virtuous' (άρετη/άριστίνδην). However,
the fact that the descent of the candidates played a decisive role lies behind
Arist. Pol. V 1306a 18f. where the election is called δυναστευτική. 3 2
Furthermore, Aristotle's remark ετι τφ δύο τάς εγίστας άρχάς τήν εν
αίρείσθαι τόν δη ον, της δε ετέχειν τους εν γαρ γέροντας αίροΰνται,
της δ' εφορείας ετέχουσιν (Arist. Pol. IV 1294b 29-31) suggests that de
facto not all citizens alike were eligible (cf. Richer 1998a, 293-296). Apart
from the social status of the parents (Hetoemaridas, the only councillor known
by name was allegedly a Heraclid, cf. D.S. 11.50.6!) wealth too was a crucial
factor for a prospective candidature (cf. 5.3[4], also Ste. Croix 1972, 353f.;
Finley 1975, 169f.; Bringmann 1980, 472f.; Cartledge 1987, 121f.; David
1991, 15). Holding the ephorate is not attested as a prerequisite for entering the
council as in Crete (as kosmos, with Arist. Pol. Π 1272a 34f.); nevertheless it
is natural to assume that the Spartan Elders had normally served and
distinguished themselves in high positions before their election to the council.
Besides, Pericles remarked in the Epitaphios with similar exaggeration that in
Athens personal merit, not wealth or descent qualified for a public office (Th.
2.37.1). In other words, one should not overestimate the historical validity of
the panegyrical topos, according to which all citizens were freely eligible for all
public offices according to merit.
10.3[3]: ¿>σφ o i v κ ρ ε ί τ τ ω ν ψ υ χ ή σ ώ α τ ο ς , τ ο σ ο ύ τ φ κ α ΐ o l
αγώνες ol των ψυχών ή οι τών σω άτων άξιοσπου-
δ α σ τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι . Praise of mental qualities over physical strength is found
already at Xenoph. fr. 2, especially 11. 11-19 [IEG]. X. Oec. 21.8 repeats the
idea: κ α ί έγας τ φ οντι οίτος άνήρ δς αν ε γ ά λ α δΰνηται γ ν ώ η
διαπράξασθαι άλλον η ρώ η, similarly Isoc. 1.40 έγιστον γαρ εν
έλαχίστψ νους άγαθός εν άνθρώπου σώ ατι.
10.3[4]: ά ξ ι ο σ π ο υ δ α σ τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι . The word is attested only here in the
classical period, cf. 4.2[2], At Smp. 1.6 X. prefers the expression σπουδής
άξιον.
32
Although modern scholarship, as far as I can see, relates the passage to Spartan conditions
throughout, the expression (referring to the conditions in Elis) τήν δ' αΐρεσιν
δυναστευτικήν είναι καί ό οίαν xfj τών έν Λακεδαί ονι γερόντων may possibly be
taken as meaning 'that the election is a dynastic one and [apart from that] similar to the
election of the Elders in Lakedaimon'. In this case δυναστευτικήν would not refer to
Sparta. For the term δυναστεία cf. Arist. Pol. II 1272a 40 - b 11, IV 1292a 39 - b 10; also
Th. 3.62.3.
184 Commentary
10.4-7: Virtue in Sparta - in Sparta the citizens are stimulated by law to

practise all virtues publicly - other cities disregard the punishment of those
without virtue - Spartans who show themselves virtuous, are recognized as
citizens irrespective of their financial situation - those neglecting virtue are
punished.
10.4[1]: ίδίφ oi βουλό ενοι ε π ι ε λ ε ΐ σ θ α ι τής ά ρ ε τ ή ς .

Erbse's correction (RhM 103 [1960], 154f.) of δπου to ίδίφ has the advantage
of creating the desired contrast between ίδίφ oí βουλό ενοι and δη οσίφ
πάντας πάσας.
10.4[2]: δ η ο σ ί φ. Arist. Pol. V m 1337a 21-32 (quoted at 2.2[1])
approves of the idea that in Sparta education is regulated by the state.
10.4[3]: πάντας πάσας άσκείν τάς ά ρ ε τ ά ς . Stylistically
remarkable is the paronomasia πάντας πάσας combined with the
homoioteleuton/homoioptoton πάσας άσκείν τάς άρετάς (see p. 55). The
stylistic figure serves to stress the key terms, cf. 10.7[1].
The Spartans were notorious for their δόξα άρετής (cf. Th. 6.11.6). The
notion typical of the ideal state that all citizens lead a virtuous life occurs
similarly at X. Ages. 10.2, according to which Agesilaus1 αρετή led to his
fellow citizens' virtue. X. does not expound what he considers to be αρετή; to
supplement the chain of reasoning one may draw on Plato and Aristotle. Plato
distinguishes civic virtue (πολιτική άρετή, cf. 10.7[1]) from public virtue
(δη οτική άρετή). Ingredients of both are - or should be - moderation
(σωφροσύνη) and justice (δικαιοσύνη), cf. Pl. Phd. 82 Α-B. On the other hand,
Aristotle knew not one, but two, civic virtues (άρεταί), i.e. the ability to rule
and to be ruled (cf. 2.10[5]). Good citizens shared in both (Arist. Pol. m 1277b
11-20).
10.4[4]: oi ίδιώται των ί δ ι ω τ ώ ν . The phrase is syntactically
difficult and superfluous in terms of content (next to οί άσκοΰντες τ ω ν
ά ελούντων). Several solutions have been proposed: the words may well be a
gloss (cf. iôiqt slightly earlier), so may be oi άσκοΰντες των ά ελούντων
(thus Weiske); the latter phrase may have to be transposed before διαφέρουσιν
(thus Schneider), alii aliter.
10.4[5]: κ α λ ο κ ά γ α θ ί α ν . See 10.1[3],
10.6[1]: των άνδραποδιζο ένων. For the verb cf. Gschnitzer 1963,
1293.
10.6[2]: ύπό δε των κακών καί ά ν α ν δ ρ ω ν . The expression is
pleonastic. For άνανδρία cf. 9.5[5].
10.7[1]: έπέθηκε δε καί τ ή ν άνυπόστατον άνάγκην

άσκείν ά π α σ α ν πολιτική ν ά ρ ε τ ή v. For alliteration to underline the
content see introduction p. 55 and 10.4[3]. For Spartan άρετή see 4.2[5] and
10.4[3],
10.4[1]-10.7[5] 185
10.7[2]: τοις έν γαρ τά νό ι α έκτελοΰσιν. The verb

έκτελείν is found only here in X., but it is well attested elsewhere in classical
prose, cf. Hdt. 1.32.6 al. The expression is reminiscent of Socrates' definition
of aristocracy και δπου εν έκ των τά νό ι α έπιτελούντων αί ά^χαί
καθίστανται, ταύτην εν τήν πολιτείαν άριστοκρατίαν ένό ιζεν είναι
(Χ. Mem. 4.6.12). Apart from τά νό ι α επιτελειν the expressions τ à
νό ι α ποιείν (Cyr. 1.2.15, 8.1.7) and τά νό ι α πράττειν (Cyr. 8.1.8,
apparently for variation, cf. ibid. 8.1.7) are attested in X.
10.7[3]: ό ο ί ω ς . The word clearly relates to the following των ο οίων
(cf. 10.7[6]).
10.7[4]: καΐ ούδέν ύπελογίσατο οΰτε σω άτων οΰτε
χρη άτων ά σ θ έ ν ε ι α ν . The information is idealized and historically
untenable. True, it is unlikely that a boy was excluded from the Spartan
education due to physical defects, once he was accepted as healthy (cf. Plu. Lyc.
16.1; does ibid. 16.3 imply a possible exclusion?), but poverty quite certainly
led to the loss of citizen rights, cf. 10.7[5].
10.7[5]: εί δε τις άκοδειλιάσειε του τά νό ι α
διακονεΐσθαι, τούτον έκεΐ άπ έδειξε ηδέ νο ίζεσθαι Κτι
των ό οίων είναι. For άποδειλιάν see 3.3[4], The fact that the Spartan
education (here τά νό ι α) was a prerequisite for citizenship may be inferred
from 3.3 in connection with Plu. apophth. lac. 238 Ε των πολιτών δς αν ή
ύπο ένη τήν των παίδων άγωγήν οϋ ετείχε των της πόλεως δικαίων,
cf. apophth. lac. 235 Β [on the importance of the Spartan education]. Only the
heir apparent formed an exception to this rule, being normally exempted from
the Spartan education (Plu. Ages. 1.2-4).
Whether τά νό ι α here also points to participation in the syssitia, as Plu.
Lyc. 12.4f. (followed by others, e.g. Teles ap. Stob. ΠΙ 40.8) concluded from
Arist. Pol. II 1271a 34-37 or the corresponding passage of the Aristotelian SC
(?), remains contestable (cf. 15.4[1]): citizenship was rather linked - in
opposition to Crete (cf. Schmitt Pantel 1992, 70 n. 55) - to the payment
(Arist. loc. cit. τέλος) of the mess contribution or -more generally- a piece of
land securing the maintenance of the citizen and his family by helot labour.
Whether citizenship depended on status of birth remains doubtful: true,
foreigners only exceptionally received Spartan citizenship in the classical period
(cf. Hdt. 9.35.1, Arist. Pol. II 1270a 34f., D. 23.212, D.H. Ant. 2.17.1f„ Plu.
Dio 17.8), but this does not say much about the conferment of Spartan
citizenship on certain groups within Spartan society. One may think of adopted
sons, of whom only one parent possessed citizenship, or of conferment of civic
rights on helots in times of crisis. Thus, verifiable prerequisites for Spartan
citizenship are merely passing through the Spartan education and sufficient
landed property.
Citizenship could be withdrawn under certain conditions, namely poverty
(Arist. Pol. Π 1270a 15 - b6, 1271a 34-37, 1272a 13-16, Plu. Agis-Cleom.
5.5-7 with MacDowell 1986, 112f.). Besides, a reason for disenfranchisement
- a t least according to the letter of the law, if not in practice- was cowardice in
186 Commentary
war (cf. 9.3[1]). Spartans who had thus lost their citizenship were called
hypomeiones, but X. does not mention them explicitly in the SC (cf. X. HG
3.3.6; Bordes 1982, 186f.; Link 1994, 21-25).
A possible exclusion from education with subsequent loss of civic rights is
mentioned at 3.3, presumably, however, rather as an idealistic foil to Athenian
conditions (where education was irrelevant to the question of citizenship) than
referring to the historical truth: no case of an exclusion from education is
attested and, besides, not very likely in itself, for the education was not so
much regarded as compulsory but as a privilege which the young Spartan was
keen to exercise.
Similarly in the ideal state of the Cyropaedia those who did not live up to
their legal obligations (τα νό ι α) lost their citizenship (X. Cyr. 1.2.14); in
the Platonic ideal state only those were appointed guardians and rulers who had
shown themselves 'undefiled' (Pl. R. 413 E - 414 A; 503 A).
10.7[6]: των ό ο ί ω ν . The word is technical for 'full citizen' in
opposition to the perioikoi and the unfree. Another Spartan expression for 'full
citizens' was possibly δα ώδεις, cf. Hsch. s.v. (δ 214) with Ehrenberg 1965,
218f. Though ό οιοι in the merely political sense are not attested before X.
(apart from our passage only at 13.1, 13.7, HG 3.3.5, An. 4.6.14; Arist. Pol.
V 1306b 30), puns in Herodotus and Thucydides show that the word was
known to them already in its technical sense (cf. Loraux 1977, 107; Shimron
1979), and the notion of it (though not the word) may already be found in
Tyrtaeus (cf. Lazenby 1985, 75f.; Link 1998, 105-107; contra Ehrenberg 1965,
218f.; Thommen 1996, 51, 135-137).
In X.'s day the term reflects a political programme rather than historical
reality, for there existed perceptible gradations in terms of economic strength
and competitiveness among the homoioi, too, cf. Arist. Pol. V 1316b 9f.,
4.2[5] [competitiveness]; 5.3[4] [economic strength]; also Cartledge 2001, 73f.
Whatever the exact origin of the term, I find it most plausible that it was not
created of a sudden and that its raison d'être is self-demarcation from another
social group or groups. Given these two factors, one may look to the uniform
hoplite equipment and training for its origin (cf. Cartledge 1977, 27 and
Lazenby 1985, 75). If so, the term may have originally drawn a line between
the 'Spartan citizens' and the perioikoi. Later on, when the perioikic hoplites
were no longer to be distinguished from the Spartan hoplites by equipment (and
training?), the term lost its basic sense and thus disappeared after Aristotle. For
other, mainly political explanations of the term cf. e.g. Ehrenberg 1965, 218f.;
David 1981, 44f.; Thommen 1996, 135-137; Link 1998, 105f.; Meier 1998,
68f. At any rate, X.'s central point is that the homoioi administered the city 'as
equals' (cf. ό οίως at 10.7[3]).
On the analogy of the homoioi X. seems to have coined the term
homotimoi for the ruling class in his (ideal) Persian empire (Cyr. 1.5.5,
2.1.2f., with Tuplin 1994, 142f.).
10.7[5]-10.8[3] 187
10.8: Age and uniqueness of the Lycurgan laws - knowledge of them in

other cities.
10.8[1]: ά λ λ α γαρ δτι εν π α λ α ι ό τ α τ ο ι ούτοι ol νό οι

είσί, σαφές* ό γαρ Λυκούργος κατά τους Ήρακλείδας
λ έ γ ε τ α ι γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι . Herodotus knew the Spartan king lists, according to
which Spartan kings traced themselves back to Heracles (Hdt. 7.204 [pedigree
of the Agiads], 8.131.2f. [pedigree of the Eurypontids]) and thus indirectly to
Zeus (cf. Ion fr. 27 [IEG]\ Th. 5.16.2); X., too, knew these lists (X. Ages. 1.2)
and shows himself familiar with the story of the return of the Heraclids (Mem.
3.5.10 al.); for the Spartan delight in genealogizing see PI. Hp.Ma. 285 D.
The myth of the Heraclids, i.e. the return of the descendants of Heracles to
the Peloponnese, which is here referred to by κατά τους Ήρακλείδας (as
already noted by Plu. Lyc. 1.3), is first mentioned by Tyrt. fr. 2.12-15 [IEG],
cf. Isoc. 6.16-25; Ephor. FGrH 70 F 15-18, 115-118; Apollod. 2.8.1-5; D.S.
4.57. For the reasons for this early dating of Lycurgus see introduction pp. 35f.
The Heraclids were only one - but apparently the most - noble family in
Sparta (for such noble families cf. Hdt. 4.149.1 [Aegidae], 5.72.3 [Cleomenes
not Dorian, but Achaean], 7.134.1 [Talthybiads], 7.173.2 [Spartan polemarchs
normally elected from royal stock?], 8.114.2 [Heraclids mentioned separately
from Lakedaimonians], D.S. 11.50.6 [Hetoemaridas non-royal Heraclid], Plu.
Lys. 2.1 [Aristocles, Lysander's father, non-royal Heraclid]). Plu. Lys. 24.3-6
shows that a number of families bore the name Heraclids (cf. Ogden 1996,
226f.). When Tyrt. fr. 11.If. [IEG] addresses the Spartans with the words άλλ',
Ήρακλήος γαρ άνικήτου γένος έστέ,/θαρσεΐτ', he may be thinking of the
Spartan aristocracy as a whole (so Clauss 1983, 96; Meier 1998, 22; cf. Plu.
apophth. lac. 226 A - B). Even in the Roman period members of the leading
Spartan family of the Euryclids traced their origin back to Heracles (cf.
Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 110). For Heracles in archaic Lakonian art cf.
Boardman 1992.
10.8[2]: π α λ α ι ο ί ... κ α ι ν ό τ α τ ο ι . A joking antithesis, perhaps
ironical, for X. himself did not know of these laws at the beginning according
to 1.1, for irony in the SC see p. 55.
10.8[3]: καΐ γαρ τό πάντων θαυ αστότατον έπαινοΰσι
εν πάντες τα τοιαύτα επιτηδεύ ατα, ι εΐσθαι δέ α υ τ ά
ούδε ία πόλις έθέλει. A similar wording is found at Eq.Mag. 4.5 ΐσασι
εν ούν ταύτα σχεδόν απαντες, καρτερείν δ' έπι ελού ενοι ού πολλοί
έθελουσι.
Many Athenians admired the Spartan constitution and imitated it in outward
appearance (e.g. Ar. Av. 1281-1283), looking on Sparta as a 'pedagogue and
teacher' (παιδαγωγόν η διδάσκαλον, Plu. Lyc. 30.5). This admiration must
be seen in the larger context of lakonophilia, as it became particularly popular
at the end of the fifth and beginning of the fourth centuries (see pp. 13f.).
As the SC started with 'amazement' (cf. έθαύ ασα at 1.1), its first part
here ends with 'amazement'. As the subject of the Spartan έπιτηδεύ ατα was
188 Commentary
announced at the beginning of the first part (cf. 1.1 [8] and 5.1), here the author
refers back to it. In short, X. attempts to round off this part (chapters 1-10) and
to make it look uniform (cf. p. 30).
11. If.: Conscription and departure for campaign - war equipment is stowed
on wagons.
11.1: Kat ταύτα έν δή κ ο ι ν ά ά γ α θ ά v a t έν εΙρήνη κ a l

èv π ο λ έ φ . Up to this point X. has dealt with internal Spartan affairs. The
transition to Spartan military institutions is not unprepared: the link between
the first and second part of the SC is the topic of 'punishment of cowards', as
discussed extensively in chapter 9 and touched upon again at 10.6, besides the
- aimed - reoccupation of the Peloponnese by the Heraclids, as pointed out at
10.8.
Nevertheless, in introducing the bipartition 'at home - in the field1 X. adds a
new structural aspect not suggested earlier. This and the fact that X. deliberately
referred to the key term έπιτηδεύ ατα at structurally important positions in
the first part of the treatise only (1.1, 5.1, 10.8) leads to the impression that it
was originally conceived as a unit. In short, there are indications that X.
regarded chapters 1-10 as a self-contained unit and at the same time as a part of
the whole. For a possible solution see p. 30.
The statement that the Lycurgan measures of chapters 1-10 were useful in
times of peace and war alike (καί èv ειρήνη και έν πολέ φ) is rather
tendentious. In fact, the preponderance of the warlike element was known to
X.'s contemporaries, who compare the Spartan constitution to regulations of a
military camp (cf. Pl. Lg. 666 E: [the Athenian to the Cretan and Spartan]
στρατοπέδου γαρ πολιτείαν εχετε; Isoc. 6.81; Plu. Lyc. 24.1). The one-
sidedness of the Spartan constitution was already criticized extensively by Plato
and Aristotle (cf. Pl. Lg. 628 E - 630 D; Pol. VII 1324b 2 - 1325a 14, 1333b
12- 1334a 10, 1338b 9 - 3 9 ) .
11.2[1]: πρώτον έν τ ο ί ν υ ν o í Εφοροι π ρ ο κ η ρ ΰ τ τ ο υ σ ι τ ά 2 τ η

εις ä δ ε ι σ τ ρ α τ ε ύ ε σ θ α ι x a l ί π π ε ΰ σ ι κ α ί ό π λ ί τ α ι ς . For τοίνυν
see introduction p. 50. The verb προκηρύττειν does not occur elsewhere in X.,
but it appears at Isoc. 6.37 and in poetry already at S. Ant. 461. Only in our
passage is it a technical term for 'call up'.
The Spartan word for 'liable to military duty' is ε φρουρος (cf. 5.7[6]). A
Spartan was liable to military service until his sixtieth year (cf. X. HG 5.4.13;
Plu. Ages. 24.3). Already by the time of the Persian Wars it was the ephors
who called up the army (cf. Hdt. 9.10.1); X. mentions the practice frequently
(term, techn. φρουράν φαίνειν, e.g. 3.2.23, 3.2.25, cf. 2.4.29 φρουράν
εξάγειν). By contrast, the commander-in-chief was not normally appointed by
the ephors, but by the citizen assembly (cf. Richer 1998a, 324-336). Plutarch
10.8[3]-11.2[2] 189
idealizes when he records the voluntary enlisting of all Spartans at Ages. 17.3.
For the role of the ephors in the army conscription cf. Richer 1998a, 479f.
All those liable to military duty - i.e. Spartans and perioikoi - were
organized in eight five-year classes. Accordingly, in X. we encounter only
multiples of five-year classes, e.g. δέκα αφ' ήβης (HG 3.4.23, 4.5.14; Ages.
1.31), ΰπερ τετταράκοντα άφ' ήβης (HG 5.4.13), έχρι τ ω ν
τετταράκοντα άφ' ήβης, έχρι των πέντε και τριάκοντα άφ' ήβης (HG
6.4.17) al. This was different before the army reform (cf. app. ΠΙ): Th. 5.64.2
pointed out that the Spartans marched out with the full army (πανδη εί), i.e.
with 40 year classes. Then (5.64.3) one sixth of the army was sent home, the
oldest and youngest. Six is not a divisor of 40; approximately seven year
classes were dismissed. For the call-up of an army containing only
neodamodeis, perioikoi, and Skiritai - and hence not organized according to age
classes - cf. X. HG 5.2.24.
In Athens lists with the names of those called up (as in Sparta according to
age classes, cf. D. 3.4) were displayed by the statues of the Eponymoi on the
Agora (Ar. Pax 1179-1184, Eq. 1369-1371), perhaps in connection with the
lists of ephebes (Arist. Ath. 53.4,7; Harpocration s.v. στρατεία èv τοις
έπωνύ οις al.). In Sparta there was no need for a call-up by name, since full
five-year classes were summoned. Within the syssitia it was well known to
which age class each member belonged; to avoid conscription was thus
impossible.
11.2[2]: ί π π ε ΰ σ ι . Spartan cavalry is first attested at Th. 4.55.2.
According to this passage the situation of the Spartans after the Athenian
capture of Kythera in 424 was so desperate that ώστε παρά τό είωθός ι π π έ α ς
τετρακοσίους κατεστήσαντο και τοξότας. Before the battle of Leuktra the
condition of the Spartan cavalry is described by X. as follows (HG 6.4.11):
ετρεφον εν γαρ τους ίππους οϊ πλουσιώτατον έπεί δε φρουρά φανθείη,
τότε ηκεν ό συντεταγ ένος· λ α β ώ ν δ' αν τόν ϊππον καί δπλα όποια
δοθείη α ύ τ φ έκ τοΰ παραχρή α αν έστρατευετο - τών δ' α υ
στρατιωτών οι τοις σώ ασιν άδυνατώτατοι κ α ι ήκιστα φιλότι οι έπί
τών ίππων ησαν. Though tantalizingly brief, this passage - in combination
with the passage of the SC - permits some insight into how the Spartan
cavalry operated:
(a) The rich kept horses for public use at their own expense (ετρεφον ...
πλουσιώτατοι).
(b) The cavalrymen were called up as normal hoplites, i.e. in year classes
(έπεί δε φρουρά φανθείη, τότε ήκεν ό συντεταγ ένος; cf. SC 11.2 τ α ετη
είς α δει στρατεύεσθαι καί ίππεΰσι καί όπλίταις).
(c) The cavalrymen were not trained on horseback, but as hoplites (... έκ
τοΰ παραχρή α αν έστρατευετο; cf. Χ. HG 4.4.10 where Spartan
cavalrymen under Pasimachus choose to fight the Argives on foot).
(d) The 'qualification' for the cavalry was poor performance as a hoplite (oí
τοις σώ ασιν άδυνατώτατοι καί ήκιστα φιλότι οι). The fact that Χ. does
190 Commentary
not mention old age as a 'qualification' may suggest that only the younger age
classes were eligible for the cavalry anyway.
(e) The equipment of the horseman was paid for either by the state, or by the
owner of the horse, not by the horseman (λαβών δ' αν τον ΐππον κ α ι δ π λ α
όποια δοθείη αΰτψ). This may point to peroikic horsemen (cf. also 6.3[5] and
HG 5.4.39).
This makeshift Spartan cavalry was put to flight at the battle of Leuktra (cf.
HG 6.4.13). It was not before the integration of mercenaries that the Spartan
cavalry became effective (Eq.Mag. 9.4). For the Spartan cavalry in general cf.
Spence 1993,2-4. For horse breeding and riding capabilities of the Spartans cf.
6.3[5]; for the structure of the Spartan cavalry cf. app. Ill, esp. pp. 259f.
11.2[3]: χ ε ι ρ ο τ έ χ ν α ι ς . Among the χειροτέχναι the perioikoi,
possibly the hypomeiones and less likely some Spartans were counted, since
the latter were - contrary to 7 . 2 - presumably not wholly excluded from trade
(cf. 7.2[1]). The components of this unit are obscure. X.'s wording would
suggest that they were organized in year classes, like horsemen and hoplites.
The cheirotechnai were the technical unit of the army. Presumably they did
not include the seers, physicians, and aulos-players mentioned at 13.7 who
occupied more important and inheritable positions in the army (though at [Hp.]
VM 1 [I 570] the physicians are explicitly called cheirotechnai). The
cheirotechnai marched in the train; when X. speaks of the lochoi of 'citizens' at
X. HG 7.4.20 and shortly after (at 7.4.27) of perioikoi beside Spartans, the
perioikoi may well be the cheirotechnai accompanying the lochoi. Tlie
commanders of the cheirotechnai were possibly οΐ τοΰ στρατού σκευοφορικοΰ
άρχοντες (see 13.4[3]). In Cyrus' ideal army the cheirotechnai were explicitly
not a normal part of the army, apparently in implicit contrast to Sparta (cf. X.
Cyr. 6.2.34).
11.2[4]: ώστε δσοισπερ έκΐ πόλεως χρώνται άνθρωποι, ...
τά έν ά άξη προστέτακται πα ρ έχει ν, τά δέ ΰ π ο ζ υ γ ί φ . Th.
6.22 and Χ. Cyr. 6.2.25-41 (cf. Χ. Eq.Mag. 8.4 [on cavalry]) give an insight
into what was needed by the army on campaign. The accompanying helots 33
presumably saw to the supplies and the provision of military equipment,
similarly the servants in Cyrus' army at Cyr. 2.1.31.
Whether the Spartan state provided the food supplies for its soldiers remains
doubtful, but at HG 3.4.3 it grants grain for six months and HG 4.5.4 shows
that provisions were not carried by the individual soldier, i.e. there was a
somehow centralized food supply. In the army of Cyrus as well as in Athens
provisioning was left to the discretion of the soldier (X. Cyr. 6.2.25; Ar. Pax.
312, 1181 f.; Ach. 197, 1097-1106). Asses as baggage-animals are mentioned at
X. HG 5.4.17, wagons at Th. 5.72.3. For tradesmen joining the army see
33
The Spartan hoplite was accompanied by helots: Hdt. 9.10.1, 9.28.2, 9.29.2 mentions
(exaggeratingly?) seven helots per Spartan who served as light-armed (cf. Anderson 1970,
287 n. 97), Th. 4.16.1 presumably one helot; Theopomp.Hist. ap. Ath. XIV 657 B-C = FGrH
115 F 22 does not mention a number. For the servants of the hoplite in general see Pritchett
1971,49-51.
11.2[2]-11.3[2] 191
Anderson 1970, 51-54, for the baggage-train 13.4[3], for the flock of sacrificial
animals following the army 13.3[3],
11.2[5]: έηΐ π ό λ ε ω ς ... έηΐ σ τ ρ α τ ι ά ς . The expressions are to be
taken temporally. If meant locally, X. would write έν τή πόλει, cf. 3.3, 5.6,
8.2; HG 1.3.17 al.
11.2[6]: οΰτω γ ά ρ ή κ ι σ τ ' Άν τό έ λ λ ε ΐ κ ο ν δ ι α λ ά θ ο ι . It is
easier to check the completeness of equipment if everything is packed on
wagons and baggage-animals than if everybody carries on him what he regards
as necessary. In Cyrus' army the completeness of the equipment stowed on the
baggage-animals was checked by οι των σκευοφόρων άρχοντες (Cyr. 6.2.35),
cf. 13.4[3]. Possibly the first day one marched only a small distance, in order to
be able to send back for missing items (cf. Cyr. 6.3.1).
11.3: Equipment and hairstyle of the soldiers - in the field the Spartans wear
a crimson cloak and a bronze shield - men above 30 wear their hair long.
11.3[1]: σ τ ο λ ή ν ... ά σ π ί δ α . A uniform dress and equipment suggest a

centrally regulated production and distribution (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 22If.).
11.3[2]: σ τ ο λ ή ν εν ¡ίχειν φ ο ι ν ι κ ί δ α , τ α ύ τ η ν νο ίζων
ήκιστα έν γ υ ν α ι κ ε ί α κ ο ι ν ω ν ε ΐ ν , π ο λ ε ι κ ω τ ά τ η ν δ ' ε ί ν α ι .
Though the red cloak of the Spartans is frequently referred to in ancient
literature, to my knowledge there are only two mutually independent witnesses
for it, our passage and Ar. Lys. 1140. It cannot be decided with certainty how
far Arist. 542 [R.] is based on autopsy or a rationalistic explanation of our
Xenophontic passage. But clearly Aristotle is the source of most other
witnesses (Moeris s.v. φοινικίς, Plu. apophth. lac. 238 F; Ael. VH 6.6, Val.
Max. 2.6.2, besides Sud. s.v. καταξαίνειν εις φοινικίδα). The red cloak was
possibly called πυτόν in Lakonian, cf. Hsch. s.v. (π 4483).
The lustre of the weapons and the red colour of the cloaks (here στολή) are
characteristic of the Spartan phalanx also according to X. Ages. 2.7. The στολή
denotes in X. mainly the Persian garment (HG 4.1.30; An. 1.2.27, Cyr. 1.3.3).
At X. Eq.Mag. 1.23 it denotes the accoutrements of the Athenian cavalry.
Presumably both the tunic worn under the armour, and the cloak worn above
it (here called στολή) were red (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 233 n. 30). Aristotle loc.
cit. apparently mentioned two reasons for wearing the red cloak: first because
the red colour was supposed to be manly (deduced from X.'s ταΰτην νο ίζων
ήκιστα εν γυναικείςι κοινωνεΐν?), secondly because the red colour would
leave blood undetected. The red colour should frighten the enemy, cf. Plu. inst,
lac. 238 F πλείονα τοις άπείροις φόβον παρέχειν and Ael. VH 6.6 ετι
άλλον εκπλήττειν τους αντιπάλους. A similarly apotropaic function was
the reason for painting the bow of the ships red, i.e. warding off evil from the
sea (cf. Hdt. 3.58.2 τό δέ παλαιόν ¿¿πασαι αί νέες ήσαν ιλτηλιφέες; for
evidence for the apotropaic function of crimson cf. Gow II, 36f. [on Theoc.
2.2]). According to Plu. Lyc. 27.2 all Spartans were buried dressed in their
192 Commentary
crimson cloak, according to Ael. VH only the bravest. The former is more
likely (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 247f.). For the connection of crimson with
chthonic cults cf. Rhode 1925, 192 n. 61.
Purple was allowed in Sparta for dyeing war cloaks, but not for private use
(cf. Plu. Lyc. 13.6, apophth. lac. 228 B; de esu carnium Π 997 D, also B.
encomia fr. 21 [S./M.j, if this passage is to be related to Sparta, with Nafissi
1991, 229). Crimson clothes, however, were not restricted to Sparta, they
appear in epic (Reinhold 1970, 16), among the Phokians (Hdt. 1.152.1),
Kolophonians (Xenoph. D/K Β 3.3), Athenian officers (Ar. Pax 303, 1172-
1176), magistrates of Kroton (Timae. ap. Ath. ΧΠ 522 A = FGrH 566 F 44)
and elsewhere in Greece (cf. Reinhold 1970, 22-28 with further references). The
Ten Thousand wore red chitons for festive occasions (An. 1.2.16), similarly the
perioikoi and the allies of the Spartans in battle so that they were
indistinguishable in terms of dress (cf. Th. 4.38.5 [the Athenians can only
guess the number of Spartans killed on the island of Sphakteria]), Plu. reg. et
imp. apophth. 193 Β; Paus. 9.13.1 If.). The Spartan purple was of local
production, cf. Paus. 3.21.6 κόχλους δέ ές βαφήν πορφύρας παρέχεται τ à
έπιθαλάσσια της Λακωνικής έπιτηδειοτάτας ετά γε τήν Φοινίκων
θάλασσαν. Cf. also the discussion about various Spartan crimson clothes in
Nafissi 1991, 292 n. 68 with 229 n. 9.
11.3[3]: ταύτην νο ίζων ... πολε ικωτάτην δ' είναι κ α ΐ
χαλκήν ασπίδα - και γαρ τάχιστα λα πρύνεται κ ai
σ χ ο λ α ι ό τ ο τ α ρ υ π α ί ν ε τ α ι. Pace Haase and others I cannot see how and
why the expression και χαλκήν ασπίδα should have entered the text, if it did
not stand in the original (cf. Anderson 1970, 260 n. 13). Besides, the words
καί γαρ τάχιστα λα πρύνεται και σχολαιότοτα ρυπαίνεται would be in
the air, and one would have to delete them as well. But the lustre of the arms is
taken up at 13.8 and the expression λα πρύνεσθαι τάς ασπίδας is
Xenophontic, cf. HG 7.5.20. Only the position of καί χαλκήν ασπίδα seems
doubtful. The expression ταύτην νο ίζων ... είναι forms a syntactical unit,
which refers to στολήν φοινικίδα (as possibly shown also by Aristotle, who
may have been influenced by this passage, cf. 11.3[2]). Hence, I am inclined
with Wulff to transpose καί χαλκήν άσπίδα after πολε ικωτάτην δ '
είναι. The verb ρυπαίνειν is attested only here in X.
The shield was the 'hoplite accoutrement par excellence' (Cartledge 1977,
20). For its special importance cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 220 A. Famous were
Spartan proverbs in connection with the shield (cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 241 F
with Nachstädt's testimonia, 234 C-D with Hammond 1979-1980; for
rhipsaspides see Tyrt. fr. 11.28 [IEG]; Plu. apophth. lac. 239 B, Pel. 1.10,
D.S. 12.64.4f.).
For the general appearance of the Spartan shield cf. Cartledge 1977, 12f. and
Snodgrass 1999, 53-55; for the Λ on the Lakonian shields and similar devices
cf. Lacroix 1955-1956, 104 and Cartledge 1977, 13 n. 19. A Spartan shield
captured by the Athenians on Sphakteria in 425 was found on the Athenian
Agora and clearly identified by the inscription (cf. Shear 1937; id. 1937a, 347f. ;
11.3[2]-11.3[4] 193
Sekunda 1998, 27): the shield (measuring ca. 95 by 83 cm) consisted of a

bronze layer strengthened by other materials (leather, light wood?). This shield
type had already been in use for centuries by X.'s time and thus constitutes, like
the crimson cloak, no Spartan peculiarity (cf. Snodgrass 1964, 63-65). 34 One
may also compare a miniature terracotta shield from Sparta (cf. Sekunda 1998,
53). For further archaeological evidence for the Spartan shield cf. Hodkinson
2000, 222.
11.3[4]: έ φ ή κ ε δ ε κ α ΐ κ ο ά ν τ ο ις υ π έ ρ τ ή ν ήβητικήν
ή λ ι κ ί α ν , νο ίζων οΰτω καΐ ε ί ζ ο υ ς Äv κ α ΐ έ λ ε υ θ ε ρ ι ω τ έ ρ ο υ ς
κ α ΐ γ ο ρ γ ο τ έ ρ ο υ ς φ α ί ν ε σ θ α ι . For the identity of the ήβητική ή λ ι κ ί α
and the δέκα άφ' ήβης (Spartans between 20 and 30) see 4.1[1] and 4.7[1].
The word γοργός and its derivatives seem not to be attested before the classical
period, where it and its derivatives are exclusively poetic (cf. A. Th. 537, E.
Andr. 458, 1123) with the sole exception of X. (cf. Smp. 1.10, Cyr. 4.4.4,
γοργόο αι at Eq. 10.4). A wording generally similar to this passage is found at
Cyr. 4.4.3, 6.4.4.
Around the age of 12 the hair of Spartan boys was closely cropped (Plu.
Lyc. 16.11; Nie. 19.4f.; for archaeological evidence see David 1992, 12 n. 7)
and seems to have remained thus until the age of active military service, i.e.
20, when long hair became compulsory. Alcm. fr. 10(b). 16-18 [PMGF]
suggests that before 20 one did not only cut one's hair, but also one's
beard/moustache. For a Lakonian depiction of a bearded warrior cf. e.g. Sekunda
1998, 12, 18.
Hdt. 1.82.8 attributed the long hair of Spartan warriors to the war with
Argos over the Thyreatis. Though, of course, invented, the episode shows that
the long Spartan hair was customary and proverbial already in Herodotus' day.
According to Plu. Lyc. 22.2 the Spartans let their hair grow long from the
ephebic age on, since according to a Lycurgan saying it made the brave look
more comely and cowards more frightening, with Plu. reg. et imp. apophth.
189 D-Ε). The long Spartan hair is ridiculed by Aristophanes (Av. 1282), beard
and hair by Plato the comedian (fr. 132 [PCG]), the Spartan moustache by
Antiph. 46.4 [PCG]\ for the long Spartan hair see also Plu. Ale. 23.3; Nie.
19.4; apophth. lac. 228 E, 230 Β and 232 D. Besides, Hdt. 7.209.3 remarks
that the Spartans dressed their hair before battle (έπεάν έλλωσι κινδυνεύειν
τή ψυχή, τότε τάς κεφαλάς κοσ έονται) as did the German Suebi according
to Tac. Germ. 38.4, for possible explanations cf. David 1992, 15f.
Long hair was still common in Sparta in Aristotle's day (Arist. Rh. I 1367a
29-31). In the second half of the second century AD short hair had prevailed, if
one follows the probable conjecture κούρας at Paus. 7.14.2. Accordingly Plu.
Lys. 1.1 and Philostr. VA 3.15 [p. 94, K.], 8.7 [p. 309, K.] mention long hair
among the Spartans only in the past. Until the fourth century AD the
traditional long Spartan hair was remembered (cf. Cartledge/Spawforth 1989,
34
Possibly it was already known by the time of Tyrtaeus, who mentions 'hollow' shields
(κοίληις άσπίσι) at 19.7 [¡EG] and round ones ibid. 19.15 (ασπίδας εύκΰκλους).
194 Commentary
123f.).35 For different hairstyles cf. Sekunda 1998, 24f. (including the
depiction of a Spartan comb).
The long hair was retained from the archaic age as a sign of the free
man/aristocrat (cf. Arist. Rh. I 1367a 29-31 with Sekunda 1998, 24). It
symbolized virility (cf. David 1992, 15f.). Cartledge 1981, 101 stressed the
remarkable fact that in Sparta the boys cut their hair short and the adult male
warrior kept it long, while girls had their hair long and married women short
(for the haircut of Spartan women see Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.], Plu. Lyc. 15.5,
app. I).
Lakonian statues of the archaic period depict hoplites with long hair (cf.
Bioesch 1959, 253 fig. 4; Ducat 1971, 342 and pi. cxi; Sekunda 1998, 5, 8-11,
58, 63). Long-haired hoplites are depicted on Lakonian vases (cf. Stibbe 1972,
cat. no. 214 and pi. 71.1; Stibbe 1994, 122 and pi. 2.6; Sekunda 1998, 18f.);
for further representations see David 1992, 14f. However, depictions of long-
haired hoplites are attested also from elsewhere (cf. e.g. Hampe/Simon 1981,
254 with fig. 402-404 [Athenian hoplite]).
11.4: Units of the Spartan army and march formation - there are six morai
of horsemen and hoplites - each citizen mora has one polemarch, four lochagoi,
eight pentekosteres and sixteen enomotarchs - the enomoties form a column
with one, three or six enomoties in the front.
11.4[1]: οΰτω γ ε ήν κ α τ ε σ κ ε υ α σ έ ν ω ν ... έ ν ω ο τ ά ρ χ ο υ ς

έκκαίδεκα. For the army structure according to this paragraph see app. III.
11.4[2]: οΰτω γε ήν κ α τ ε σ κ ευ our έ ν ω ν όρας έν
δ ι ε ί λ ε ν εξ κ α ΐ Ιππέων κ α ΐ ό π λ ι τ ώ ν . Of cavalry and infantry there
were altogether six morai in the reformed Spartan army, as becomes clear from
HG 6.1.1 [Cleombrotus sets forth for Thebes with four morai] in combination
with 6.4.17 [after the battle of Leuktra the 'two remaining morai' marched out],
cf. Arist. fr. 540 [R.], Spence 1993, 2. Accordingly in antiquity we always hear
of six, not twelve morai. Nevertheless, the passage is interpreted differently by
Toynbee 1969, 374, Sekunda 1998, 47 and others who understand it as six
morai of cavalry and six morai of hoplites.
11.4[3]: των π ο λ ι τ ι κ ώ ν ό ρ ω ν . I read πολιτικών ορών with
Vatican Gr. 1335 and Harpocration, not όπλιτικών with Stobaeus.
Presumably the aforementioned expression ιππέων και όπλιτών led a copyist
to alter the text (cf. Bazin 1885, 125-127). A mora is the largest unit of the
Spartan army, named πολιτική όρα when consisting of citizens (in
opposition to morai consisting of both citizens and perioikoi, see app. ΠΙ p.
261 with n. 17), for the expression cf. also Hier. 9.5.
11.4[4]: π ε ν τ η κ ο σ τ ή ρ α ς . I read πεντηκοστήρας for two reasons: (a)
the word is unanimously transmitted at 13.4; (b) the military unit denoted by
35
Luc. 56.27 does not prove that short hair was normal in imperial Sparta. The passage refers
to the hair of women and may well go back to Plu. Lyc. 15.5, cf. also X.Eph. 5.1.7.
11.3[4]-11.4[7] 195
the word presumably never consisted of 50 men (pace e.g. Cozzoli 1979, 109),
but formed (approximately?) one fiftieth of the army (cf. Wade-Gery 1958, 82).
Thus the underlying numeral is rather πεντηκοστός than πεντήκοντα.
11.4[5]: έ ν ω ο τ ά ρ χ α ς . For the reading see p. 51.
11.4[6]: π α ρ ε γ γ υ ή σ ε ω ς . The noun is not attested elsewhere in the
classical period. But the corresponding verb π α ρ ε γ γ υ ά ω is frequent in X., cf.
Cyr. 3.3.42 al. The word here appears to denote the passing on of the command
within the mora marching in a column, cf. Cyr. 3.3.42. The noun normally
used of this procedure in the classical period seems to have been
π α ρ ά γ γ ε λ σ ι ς , cf. Th. 5.66.4 [Spartan context], X. An. 4.1.5, Eq.Mag. 4.3
(twice) al.
11.4[7]: τ ο τ έ έ ν ε ί ς έ ν ω ο τ ί α ς , τ ο τ έ δ έ είς τ ρ ε ι ς , τ ο τ έ
δ έ είς Εξ . Marchant and others assumed a lacuna and conjectured είς < β '
εχοντες τ ά ς > ένω οτίας, based on Χ. Cyr. 6.3.21. Köchly and Riistow
joined by Riihl read είς 'ένα αί ένω οτίαι. These and similar conjectures are
groundless: they are founded on the wrong assumption, hitherto accepted by
almost all scholars, that τοτέ δε είς τρεις, τοτέ δε είς Εξ refers to the depth
of the enomoty. But in this case τοτε έν before ένω οτίας - clearly
corresponding to the two following two τοτέ δέ and showing these to
introduce equivalent parts of the sentence - would remain unexplained. As to
content it would not be clear why the hoplites could be deployed only in three
or six files, since the ordinary depth of a phalanx was eight (which given a
number of some 32 hoplites in an enomoty would give four files, cf. 11.6[4]).
I believe, the sense is different: the army is imagined as forming a column from
any formation of morai (έκ δέ τούτων των ορών), while either one enomoty
was deployed behind the other (είς ένω οτίας, cf. the march έπί κ έρως at
11.8), i.e. the column consisted of one file of enomoties, or three or six
enomoties were placed next to each other (τοτέ δέ είς τρείς, τοτέ δέ είς Εξ),
i.e. the column consisted of three or six files of enomoties. Now, the full army
consisted of six morai (cf. 11.4[2]). Thus, if the army was lined up in three
files of enomoties, each file consisted of two morai, if in six files, each file
equalled one mora. It remains obscure why X. did not mention the case of the
army marching είς δύο ένω οτίας, i.e. with three morai in each file of
enomoties. At any rate, a front line of four enomoties (είς τ έ τ τ α ρ α ς
ένω οτίας) would have been impossible: such a formation would have meant
that in each file of enomoties there were one and a half morai (given that each
line was intended to be equally strong), i.e. that some morai would have had to
be split in two.
X. does not tell us how many men marched in the first line of each
enomoty. The minimum may have been two, as is apparent from X. himself
(HG 3.1.22, 7.4.22) and plausible given the narrowness of many roads (cf.
Pritchett 1982, x).
196 Commentary
11.5-7: Formation of an enomoty - people think that the Lakonian battle

order is complicated - in reality each hoplite only has to follow the movements
of the man in front of him - only to fight side by side with the firstcomer
requires a special training.
11.5[1]: π ο λ υ π λ ο κ ω τ ά τ η ν . In X. the word occurs only here, but it is

attested in other prose authors of the fifth century, cf. Pl. Phdr. 230 A al. At
Oec. 15.10 X. uses δύσκολος in a similar context.
11.5[2]: ύ π ε ι λ ή φ α σ ι . For the perfect see 15.9[2],
11.5[3]: είσί εν γ α ρ èv τη Λακωνική τάξει ol
π ρ ω τ ο σ τ ά τ α ι ά ρ χ ο ν τ ε ς . The leaders of a file (πρωτοστάται) appear in
different military contexts, so in X. at HG 2.4.16, X. Cyr. 3.3.41, 3.3.57. At
Th. 5.71.1 the word denotes the first man on the right flank.
The Spartan leaders of a file are hardly different from the δέκα αφ" ήβης, cf.
4.1[1]. 36 Apart from the protostatai the men in the last line of a file are
important: thus according to X. Mem. 3.1.8 the best men should be placed in
the first and last line (cf. X. Cyr. 3.3.41, 3.3.57; in the cavalry the last line
should be formed by the oldest and most experienced men according to X.
Eq.Mag. 2.3,5). Since the hoplite units formed the first battle-line (behind
which other units like spearmen, bowmen etc. could be deployed, cf. X. Cyr.
6.3.24), the protostatai carried the brunt of the attack.
11.5[4]: κ α ι ό σ τ ί χ ο ς Εκαστος πάντ' εχων δσα δει
π α ρ έ χ ε σ θ α ι . The transmitted παρέχεσθαι is explicable (despite all modem
editors), if one assumes that X. had in mind the construction είσί ... άρχοντες
... (sc. εστίν) εχων with the present participle + είναι replacing the verb (cf.
Kühner/Gerth 1, 38-40; for a similar omission cf. 13.9[4]). The sense is that
each file formed an independent tactical unit, with a leader in front who
commanded the file behind him. Thus, if the enomoty broke up during the
fight, the file could act independently, if necessary.
11.6[1]: δ σ τ ι ς τους α ν θ ρ ώ π ο υς δ ύ ν α τ α ι γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ε ι ν . τους

ανθρώπους for the normal τ ι ν ά is strange (colloquial?). Again at Cyr. 2.2.8
X. recommends that one should pay attention only to the man in front to avoid
confusion.
11.6[2]: δ έ δ ο τ α ι ... τ έ τ α κ τ α ι . For the perfect see 15.9[2],
11.6[3]: αϊ δέ π α ρ α γ ω γ ο ί ώσπερ ύπό κήρυκος ύπό τ ο ΰ
έ ν ω ο τ ά ρ χ ο υ λ ό γ φ δ η λ ο ΰ ν τ α ι . παρεγγύησις at 11.4 was the passing
on of the command by the soldiers of a mora, when marching in a column,
δήλωσις here is the issuing of orders by the enomotarchs in front of the
deployed unit (similarly δήλωσις is found in the sense of 'order' at PI. Lg. 942
C). A third form of communicating orders in battle over a greater distance is the
giving of signals, cf. X. Cyr. 7.1.23.
The fact that the protostatai belonged to this age class is possibly supported by X. Eq.Mag.
2.2, according to which the protostatai of the Athenian calvalry (dekadarchoi) should be έκ
των ακ αζόντων τε και φιλοτι οτάτων, while ακ άζοντες are around 30, see 4.3[1].
11.5[1]-11.7 197
11.6[4]: ( . . . ) άραιαί τε καΐ βαθύτεραι a i φάλαγγες

γ ί γ ν ο ν τ α ι . Apparently something has dropped out before άραιαί. Additions
are as numerous as arbitrary: ( κ α ι ) by Zeune, (και ούτως) by Morus,
(αίς) by Schneider, alii aliter.
The adjective αραιός is frequent in epic writers. In the fifth century it does
not appear in the tragedians, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato, but frequently
in Hippocrates. As referring to the depth of a phalanx it is found in the
tacticians, cf. e.g. Asel. 4.1 with Chadwick 1996, 48, 52. βαθύς denotes
regularly the depth of the phalanx in X. (cf. HG 2.4.34 al.). The word φ ά λ α γ ξ
in the sense 'battle-line' occurs in early poetry but neither in Herodotus nor in
Thucydides. The plural of the word referring only to the line of one army is
remarkable and reminiscent of Homer (cf. Gautier 1911, 40f.). Possibly X. used
the singular of troops deployed in one straight line. If so, where the wings of
the battle-line of one party formed an angle towards the central battle-line, the
plural would be appropriate (cf. Cyr. 7.1.24 with Cyr. 6.3.22 and HG 4.2.13).
When the enomoties had moved up from a column formation to a phalanx, the
depth and breadth of the enomoty were adjusted by moving up and drawing off
files. This practice was called παραγωγή (cf. HG 7.5.22 al.). In the battle of
Leuktra the Spartans were organized in enomoties of three files, cf. X. HG
6.4.12 της δε φάλαγγος τους εν Λακεδαι ονίους εφασαν εις τρεις τήν
ένω οτίαν άγειν· τοΰτο δε συ βαίνειν αύτοίς οΰ πλέον η εις δώδεκα το
βάθος. Normally the enomoties were lined up in four files of eight men each,
so e.g. at Mantineia Th. 5.68.3 with Pritchett 1971, 134-143, especially table
4.
11.6[5]: ων ο υ δ έ ν ο ύ δ ' ό π ω σ τ ι ο ΰ ν . ούδ' όπωστιοΰν is stereotype
(cf. LSJM s.v. όπωστιοΰν). The reading ούδεν (given by Modena Gr. 145) is
necessary, otherwise ων would be in the air.
1 1 . 7 : τό ε ν τ οι κ ά ν τ α ρ α χ θ ώ σ ι ετά του π α ρ α τ υ χ ό ν τ ο ς
ό οίως ά χ ε σ θ α ι ... π λ ή ν τοις ύπό τών τ ο υ Λυκούργου ν ό ω ν
π ε π α ι δ ε υ έ ν ο ι ς . Cf. Plu. Pel. 23.3f. ... καίτοι πάντων άκροι τ ε χ ν ί τ α ι
καί σοφισταί τών πολε ικών δντες οι Σπαρτιάται προς ούδεν οΰτως
έπαίδευον αύτούς καί συνείθιζον, ώς το ή πλανάσθαι ηδε
ταράττεσθαι τάξεως διαλυθείσης, άλλα χρώ ενοι πάσι π ά ν τ ε ς
επιστάταις καί ζευγίταις, δ που ποτε καί συν οιστισιν ό κίνδυνος
καταλα βάνοι, καί συναρ όττειν καί άχεσθαι παραπλησίως.
198 Commentary
11.8-10: Tactical manoeuvring of the phalanx - (a) formation of a phalanx

from a column, when the enemy appears at the front - (b) exeligmos, when the
enemy appears at the rear of the phalanx - (c) formation of the phalanx from a
column when the enemy appears on the right -(d) formation of the phalanx
from a column, when the enemy appears on the left.
11.8-10: The tactical movements mentioned in the following sections are

only a part of what an army should practise in X.'s eyes; for more see X. Cyr.
8.5.15. But the defeat of Mnasippus on Kerkyra in 374/3, in which the Spartan
αναστροφή (= έξελιγ ός, cf. 11.8) ended in disaster (cf. X. HG 6.2.20-23),
demonstrates that the Spartans did not always execute these tactical movements
as successfully as X. wants us to believe. The only thorough discussion of the
following tactical movements is Boucher 1912, 305-311, slightly modified by
Anderson 1964 and id. 1970, 105-110.
11.8[1]: εύπορώτατα δέ καΐ έκεΐνα Λακεδαι όνιοι

ποιοΰσι τά τοις όπλο άχοις πάνυ δοκοΰντα χ α λ ε π ά είναι.
The word όπλο άχος is attested only here in X., at X. An. 2.1.7 the woid
οπλο αχία occurs. The compound and its derivatives are not attested before the
fourth century.
Fundamental for the hoplomachoi, the professional teachers of warfare, is
Wheeler 1983, 2-6. Both X. and Plato are sceptical as to their competence;
central passages in X. are Mem. 3.1 and Cyr. 1.6.12-14 (for the relation of
both passages cf. Gera 1993, 61-64), more references in Wheeler loc. cit. Our
passage may be related to the representation of Dionysodorus, the
hoplomachos, at Mem. 3.1 and especially Plato (Euthd. 271 Β - 272 A), where
he appears as a teacher of hoplomachia and rhetoric, logographos and forensic
orator. X. may have attempted here to respond to the latter's opinions about
hoplomachia, possibly laid down also in written form (cf. Cyr. 1.6.12-15; pp.
30f. n. 135).
In Sparta hoplomachoi are not attested as teachers of hoplite warfare, but
there were possibly teachers in cavalry warfare called ήνιοχαράτης, cf. Hsch.
s.v. [η 604].
11.8[2]: δταν έν γαρ έπί κ έρως πορεύωνται, κατ' ο ύ ρ ά ν
δήπου ένω οτία έπεται· έάν δ' έν τφ τοιούτφ έκ τ ο ΰ
έναντίου πολε ία φάλαγξ έπιφανη, τφ ένω οτάρχη
παρ ε γ γ υ ά τ α ι εις έτωπον παρ' ασπίδα κ α θ ί σ τ α σ θ α ι , κ α ΐ
δια παντός ούτως, Ιστ* öv ή φ ά λ α γ ξ εναντία καταστή. The
Spartans marched in a column (έπί κ έρως; opp. έπί φάλαγγος, cf. Χ.
Eq.Mag. 4.3). At the end (κατ' ούράν) of an enomoty the next followed (cf.
fig. 1 a). If the line of the hostile troops (φάλαγξ, cf. 11.6[4]) appeared in
front of the column, the command was passed on (παρ εγγυάται, cf. 11.4[6])
to the enomotarchs to lead their units up to the shield hand (παρ' ασπίδα
καθίστασθαι), i.e. to the left, until they formed one line with the first
enomoty (είς έτωπον) and faced the enemy (cf. fig. 1 b).
11.8-10 - 11.9[1] 199
This manoeuvre was quite normal and is mentioned repeatedly in the sources
(X. An. 4.3.26; Cyr. 2.4.3f.; Th. 2.90.4 [of ships] al.).
11.8[3]: κ α τ ' ο ύ ρ ά ν δήπου έ ν ω ο τ ί α έ π ε τ α ι , δήπου indicates
a self-evident fact, cf. 7.1. There is no need for Dobree's addition of ένω οτίςι
after ένω οτία; the dative can easily be supplied from the context, so at 13.3:
σ φ ά γ ι α δέ παντοία [sc. τφ πυρί] 'έπεται. Similar in wording and
construction is Cyr. 2.4.3 a i δ' ά λ λ α ι χιλιοστύες κ α τ ' ούράν έκαστη της
ε προσθεν εΐποντο.
11.8[4]: τφ ένω οτάρχη. For the reading see p. 51.
11.8[5]: ήν γ ε ήν οΰτως εχόντων è« τοΰ δπισθεν o i
πολέ ιοι έπιφανώσιν, έξελίττεται Εκαστος ό στίχος, ίνα oi
κ ρ ά τ ι σ τ ο ι έναντίο ι άεΐ τοις πολε ίοις ά σ ι ν . If the army was lined
up in a phalanx, i.e. one enomoty next to the other (οΰτως εχόντων), and the
enemy attacked from the rear, each file of an enomoty (στίχος) performed a
countermarch, i.e. the men in the first line turned 180 degrees and moved up to
the position of the last line, while the other hoplites of the file followed suit.
The whole procedure was called έξελιγ ός. The advantage of this tactical
manoeuvre was that the order of the hoplites within each file remained
unchanged, the strongest always stood in the first rank (cf. fig. 2 a-c [for
simplification the enomoty is presented here and in the following figures with
16, not, as usual, 32 hoplites]).
When Agesilaus was informed after the battle of Koroneia that the enemy
had attacked his baggage-train in the rear, he performed this manoeuvre to
encounter the enemy (cf. X. HG 4.3.18). For the countermarch in later tactical
manuals see Asel. 10.13-15, Ael. Tact. 27.1-3, Arr. Tact. 1.3, further
references in Wheeler 1983, 19 n. 93.
11.9[1]: δτι δέ ό άρχων ευώνυ ος γίγνεται, οΰδ' è ν

τούτφ ειονεκτείν ήγοΰνται, άλλ' εστίν ¿>τε και
πλεονεκτεΐν. εΐ γάρ τίνες κυκλοΰσθαι έπιχειροΐεν, ουκ â v
κατά τά γυ νά, άλλα κατά τά ώπλισ ένα π ε ρ ι β ά λ λ ο ι ε ν
&ν. The officers, who normally stood on the right of their unit, were naturally
on the left of it after the exeligmos (ό &ρχων ευώνυ ος γ ί γ ν ε τ α ι ) . The
disadvantage of this position was that the soldier had to look left, i.e. to the
shield hand, in order to catch the orders of the officer. If he was attacked from
the right, i.e. his unprotected side, the soldier could not pay attention to the
advancing enemy and his commanding officer at the same time, for he had to
stretch the left arm far to the right for protection and automatically turn away
from the officer. The advantage, however, of the position of the officer on the
left was: if an enemy made an attempt to outflank the unit from the left (εϊ
γάρ τίνες κυκλοΰσθαι έπιχειροΐεν), the officer was the first to be exposed to
the enemy. Besides, he was protected by his shield (κατά τ ά ώ π λ ι σ έ ν α
περιβάλλοιεν ¿¿ν) and could still pay attention to his unit on his right (cf.
Anderson 1970, 107).
200 Commentary
11.9[2]: flv δέ ποτε £νεκά τίνος δοκη συ φέρειν τ ό ν

ήγε όνα δεξιόν κέρας εχειν, στρέψαντες το άγη α έπΐ
κέρας έξελίττουσι τήν φάλαγγα, 8στ' άν ό έν ή γ ε ώ ν
δεξιός ή δέ οΰρά ευώνυ ος γένηται. According to Boucher 1912,
308f. this passage describes the countermarch of an enomoty. This
interpretation is contestable for three reasons. First, X. does not mention the
enomotarchs, but leaders more generally (twice ήγε ών!); secondly, he does
not use the term ένω οτία, but άγη α; thirdly, the position of the higher-
ranking officers constitutes a problem which would not be solved, if X. referred
to the enomoties only. For if the enomoties wheeled 180 degrees, though the
enomotarchs would stand again on the right of their unit, the higher-ranking
officers would not stand on the right of their unit, but on the right of the
enomoty, which was furthest left in their unit. Fig. 3 a-c exemplifies this by
the position of the pentekoster: after the exeligmos the latter is found in the
middle of his two enomoties.
In my view X. has in mind a different manoeuvre (fig. 4 a-c): the Spartan
army deployed in battle formation (i.e. with the leaders on the right of each
unit) is attacked from the rear. Now the first enomoty (άγη α), followed by
the second etc. turns right, so that the tactical unit (normally presumably the
lochos, less likely the whole mora, since this would take much longer)37 in
battle formation (φάλαγξ) eventually forms a marching column and thus
wheels around (στρέψαντες το άγη α έπί κέρας έξελίττουσι τήν
φ ά λ α γ γ α ) . The last enomoty of the tactical unit in marching formation is
now (again) on the left of the respective unit. All commanders of the tactical
unit that performed this manoeuvre are again on the right of their unit.
11.10[1]: fiv δ' αΰ έκ των δεξιών πολε ίων τάξις

έπιφαίνηται έπί κ έρως ηορευο ένων, ουδέν άλλο
πραγ ατεύονται fi τόν λόχον Εκαστον ώσπερ τριήρη
άντίπρφρον τοις έναντίοις στρέφουσι, καΐ ούτως αυ
γίγνεται ό κατ' ούράν λόχος παρά δόρυ. The expression recurs
almost literally at X. HG 7.5.23 where it is said of Epameinondas ό δέ τό
στράτευ α άντίπρφρον ώσπερ τριήρη προσήγε.
Some possible solutions of this difficult passage have been discussed by
Anderson 1964 (cf. Anderson 1970, 108-110). Generally scholars agree on the
following movement: the mora is marching in a column (έπί κέρως
πορευο ένων). The enemy appears on the right (έκ τών δεξιών). The lochoi
of the mora wheel to the right (τον λόχον εκαστον ώσπερ τριήρη
άντίπρφρον τοις έναντίοις στρέφουσι), so that the last lochos in the column
is now furthest on the right (ό κατ' ούράν λόχος παρά δόρυ), cf. fig. 5 a.
Subsequently, two basic solutions are conceivable: either one joins the
majority of scholars (listed by Anderson 1964) in assuming that the enomoties
37
Besides, in the following section X. speaks explicitly of lochoi and at 11.10 (καί ούτως αυ
γίγνεται ό κατ' ούράν λόχος παρά δόρυ) he seems to refer to 11.9 (ή δέ ούρα
ευώνυ ος γένηται).
11.9[2]-11.10[2] 201
lined up at some stage to form a phalanx (a manoeuvre not mentioned by X.),

or one assumes with Anderson that the lochoi remained independent units (so
called δρθιοι λόχοι). In the latter case X. would switch from manoeuvres
executed when the column was attacked by an army in phalanx formation on
even ground (as in the previous paragraphs) to those executed when the column
encountered enemy skirmishers on broken ground. Either case is possible, and
in either case X. is guilty of omitting some crucial details.
Still, I believe that Anderson's solution is unacceptable. In the previous
paragraph X. speaks of the Spartan exeligmos, a tactical manoeuvre only
conceivable on even ground. He continues the following section with ην δ '
αυ. The particle αυ links 11.9 closely to 11.10, and it is hard to justify if
Anderson's interpretation is right. Besides, Anderson ignores the general chain
of reasoning of 11.8-10: X. simply enumerates a number of tactical
movements, whereby the difficulty of the Spartan manoeuvre (not the ground or
enemy formation) is the main issue (cf. 11.8 εύπορώτατα δέ καί εκείνα
Λακεδαι όνιοι ποιοΰσι τά τοις όπλο άχοις πάνυ δοκοΰντα χ α λ ε π ά
είναι). In typically Xenophontic manner a number of options are given: èàv
δ' èv τφ τοιούτψ ... ην γε ήν ... εί γάρ τίνες ... ην δέ ποτε ... ην δ' αυ.
Anderson's solution would be very surprising in such a purely enumerative
context, to say the least.
I hold that after wheeling the lochoi the enomoties line up as described at
11.8, i.e. to the shield hand, as represented in fig. lb. Thus the lochagoi,
pentekosteres and enomotarchs are again on the right of their unit.
11.10[2]: Ijv γε ήν κατά τά ευώνυ α πολέ ιοι
προσίωσιν, ουδέ τοΰτ' έώσιν, άλλα προσιοΰσιν [ή] ε ν α ν τ ί ο υ ς
[αντιπάλους] τους λόχους στρέφουσν v a i οΰτως a i ό κ α τ '
οϋράν λόχος παρ' ασπίδα κ α θ ί σ τ α τ α ι . Even if my conjecture
προσιοΰσιν is wrong (one would prefer the participle here having an article), it
renders the sense adequately (after προσίωσιν). The major problem is ή
εναντίους αντιπάλους as transmitted by Vatican Gr. 1335. Köchly and
Rüstow read τοις έναντίοις (Modena Gr. 145 has τοις άντιπάλοις), Marchant
and Pierleoni athetized έναντίους (but kept η in the text).
A better explanation is that the words ή έναντίους originally stood above
the line or in the margin of a manuscript and referred to an alternative reading of
αντιπάλους. However, the word αντίπαλος is used almost always in X. as a
noun, and besides, its meaning 'hostile' would not give much sense. If so, the
original reading was άλλα προσιοΰσιν έναντίους τους λόχους στρέφουσι.
By analogy with this case (enemy from the right) the lochoi wheel to the
left, if the enemy appears on the left. Hence, the rear of the column (οΰρά) ends
up at the left flank (παρ' άσπίδα), cf. fig. 5 b.
202 Commentary
12.1-4: Pitching and protecting the camp - normally the Spartans camp in a
circle - during the day sentries watch the movements both inside and outside
the camp - at night the Skiritai hold watch outside the camp, occasionally also
mercenaries - the Spartans almost always carry their weapons.
12.1: δια έν γαρ τό τάς γωνίας του τ ε τ ρ α γ ώ ν ο υ

άχρηστους είναι κΰκλον έστρατοπεδεύσατο, εΐ ή δρος
ασφαλές εΐη ή τείχος ή κοτα όν δπισΟεν 2χοιεν. Possibly (εις)
κύκλον is preferable, but one always has to reckon in this passage with
military jargon not paralleled elsewhere. X. explains the (almost) circular shape
of the camp (of course, outside the parade-ground the camp was rarely exactly
circular): 'corners' of a rectangular camp, especially an unfortified one, are hard
to defend, for the aggressor can attack these salients, as it were, from two sides
simultaneously. As a rule the Spartan camp was not fortified: in Pritchett's
(1974, 136-138) catalogue of fortifications of military facilities between 480
and 197 only a small number (five out of 55) refer to Spartan fortifications.
Each of these cases can be explained by special circumstances.38 In other
words, Spartan fortifications are attested only exceptionally, only after 390, and
predominantly only when the encampment was expected to be of a more
permanent nature. By contrast, unfortified camps - especially when the army
was on the march- were the rule in Sparta as well as elsewhere in the classical
period (cf. Anderson 1974, 60, 63-66). The special importance which the
Greeks attached to the natural setting of the camp instead of fortifications - in
marked contrast to the Roman camp- is stressed by Plb. 6.42.2-5. Besides, the
claim that the Spartans did not fortify their camp gains credibility from the fact
that the city of Sparta itself remained unfortified until 317 (X. Ages. 2.24, HG
6.5.28, for the date cf. Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 26f., also 71f.). This is
blamed by Arist. Pol. VII 1330b 32-35 as anachronistic (λίαν άρχαίως). In
opposition to the Greeks the Persians fortified their camp by a trench in X.'s
day (cf. Cyr. 3.3.26).
12.2[1]: φύλακας ... ε θ η ε ρ ι ν ά ς . The adjective εθη ερινός is

rare in the fifth and fourth centuries, in X. it is attested only here, cf. PI. Ti. 45
C, Sph. 220 D. High officers were exempted from standing sentry, thus
The first mention of such a fortification is the σταύρω α at Amphipolis in 422 (Th. 5.10.6),
the localization and function of which remain obscure (cf. HCT III 648-6S0), but which was
certainly not connected with a camp. The second mention of a fortification within the walls
that connected Corinth with the Lechaion (X. HG 4.4.9) in 390 is to be explained by the
special geographical situation, namely the fact that both Corinth and the Lechaion were in
the hands of the enemy. The third mention, the camp of the nauarch Mnasippus at the city of
Kerkyra (X. HG 6.2.7, 23) is explained by the fact that Mnasippus stood with his army only
five stades away from the city and that a sally would have to be expected at any time. In the
fourth case, the camp of Cleombrotus at Leuktra in 371 (X. HG 6.4.14), we are dealing with
a natural ditch, not an artificial fortification. The fifth case, the fortifications erected before
the battle of Sellasia in 222 (Plb. 2.65.9f.), were actually entrenchments at strategically
important spots against a numerically far superior enemy.
12.1-12.3[2] 203
Lysander could punish the harmost Dercylidas for disobedience by making him
keep watch armed (cf. X. HG 3.1.9).
12.2[2]: τάς έ ν . εν without corresponding particle is odd, though
not unparalleled (cf. Denniston 1954, 380f.).
12.2[3]: π α ρ ά τα δ π λ α . Whether τ α δ π λ α here denotes the whole
camp (as e.g. at Lys. 13.12, Th. 1.111.1, X. Cyr. 7.2.5) or a place within the
camp where the arms were stored is not clear. In the latter case τ α δ π λ α would
presumably denote only light arms, for the Spartan soldier always carried his
heavy arms with him (cf. 12.4[1]). Furthermore, the 'iron store' (ό σίδηρος) in
the city of Sparta, which may well correspond to such a storage place in the
field, appears to have contained only light weapons (cf. X. HG 3.3.7 with
Cartledge 1979, 314).
12.2[4]: ου γαρ πολε ίων βνεκα άλλα φίλων αύται
κ α θ ί σ τ α ν τ α ι . Whether φίλοι denotes the allies, as at 12.5, or the helots,
who appear at 12.4, is hard to determine. If X. talks of helots, the expression
φίλοι would be strongly ironic (it is noteworthy that the helots appear in
connection with the δ π λ α [again?] at 12.4). Since the same word clearly
denotes the allies at 12.5, the latter are a more likely choice here.
12.2[5]: τούς γε ήν πολε ίους Ιππείς φυλάττουσιν. On
difficult ground and at night the sentries patrolled on foot, as similarly the
Skiritai, cf. e.g. X. HG 2.4.4 [Λακωνικοί φρουροί for the night guard as
opposed to ιππέων φυλαί for the day guard], for the Skiritai see 12.3[2],
12.2[6]: ων αν è* πλείστου προορφεν eí [δέ] τις προσίοι.
ν ύ κ τ ω ρ { ô è) ... Modern editiors rightly punctuate after προσίοι, not after
προορφεν. This entails a transposition of δέ.
The expression έκ πλείστου appears in X. in the local sense and a similar
context also at Eq.Mag. 4.5 το γαρ ώς έκ πλείστου προαισθάνεσθαι
πολε ίων χρησι ον κ α ι προς τό έπιθέσθαι καί προς το φ υ λ ά ξ α σ θ α ι , for
the modal sense cf. Eq.Mag. 7.6. In the fifth century it occurs only in the
temporal sense for the more frequent έκ πολλού - thus at Th. 8.68.1 and
8.90.1. In the fourth century I know - apart from X. - of only three references,
all Demosthenic and in a modal sense (cf. D. 9.51, 21.220, 60.4).
12.3[1]: νύκτωρ (δε) έξω τής φ ά λ α γ γ ο ς . For δέ see 12.2[6],

The word φ ά λ α γ ξ in the sense of 'camp' seems to be restricted to X. (cf. Ages.
2.15, Eq. 8.12); the word is used differently at 11.6 and 11.8 (cf. 11.6[4]).
1 2 . 3 [ 2 ] : υπό Σ κ ι ρ ι τ ώ ν . For the localization of the Skiritis
(presumably connected with σκίρος = 'hard land overgrown with bushes' cf.
HCT IV, 33f.) north-west of Sparta see the map in Shipley 2000, 370 and his
discussion ibid. 373f.
The Skiritis did not always belong to the Spartan territory (for a connection
with the dating of the SC cf. p. 11 n. 69): Th. 5.33.1 speaks of the Σκιρίτις
της Λακωνικής in 421, while X. HG 6.5.24-26 describes the Arcadian attack
against Oion immediately after the battle of Leuktra and thus implies that at
least part of the Skiritis was still in Spartan hands by then (cf. D.S. 15.64.3).
204 Commentary
In 364 X. HG 7.4.21 mentions the Skiritis as land hostile to Sparta.

Subsequently the Spartans led a number of campaigns against Karyai and
possibly the Skiritis (X. HG 7.1.28, Polyaen. 1.41.5). Philip rearranged the
political map of the region (Plb. 9.28.6f., 18.14.7); cf. generally Shipley
2000, 373-375.
The Skiritai formed a unit of 600 men (Th. 5.68.3, according to D.S.
15.32.1 [from Ephorus?] a lochos); on the march they constituted the vanguard
(cf. 13.6[2]), in battle they were deployed on the extreme left wing (Th. 5.67.1,
5.71.2). They were infantrymen and presumably light-armed, comparable to the
Boiotian α ιπποι (HG 5.4.52f. with Sekunda 1998, 49). 39 X. Cyr. 4.2.1 (cf.
Isoc. 12.180) implies that they were employed especially for dangerous
missions.
According to D.S. 15.32.1 they formed an élite unit close to the king, but
Diodorus may simply confuse the Skiritai with the Three Hundred (cf. 4.3 [2]).
In contrast to the perioikoi they were considered allies according to X. HG
6.5.26, cf. ibid. 5.2.24. Micheli 1952, 250 η. 7 rightly stresses that at a later
period perhaps not all the so-called Skiritai hailed from the actual Skiritis
region.
12.3[3]: π ρ ο φ υ λ ά τ τ ε σ θ α ι . προφυλάττειν is the normal technical
term for 'to keep night-guard in forward positions', for these προφυλακές
'night-guards in forward positions' cf. Th. 3.112.4 and X. An. 2.4.15, also
12.6[3].
1 2 . 3 [ 4 ] : ν ΰ ν δ ' ή δ η κ α ΐ ΰπό ξ έ ν ω ν (...) αυτών τίνες
σ υ π α ρ ό ν τ ε ς . The most likely solution seems to be Weiske's insertion of
έάν τυγχάνωσιν or Riihl's ην τύχωσιν. At any rate, whatever the conjecture,
the second part of the sentence αΰτών τίνες συ παρόντες should remain
unaltered, because it is clearly unconnected with the rest of the text and for this
reason alone deserves credibility.
ξένοι here denotes either the Spartan allies (σύ αχοι, thus interpreted by
LSJM ad loc. s.v. ξένος), or mercenaries. The use of ξένος for σύ αχος
would be unparalleled to my knowledge (LSJM does not offer a parallel) and
thus becomes improbable (cf. 13.4[2]). If X. thinks of mercenaries he may
visualize especially Arcadian and Thracian mercenaries (peltasts). 40
(a) The Arcadians were the mercenaries par excellence (cf. Wheeler 1983, 7);
besides Arcadia was a recruiting source very close to Sparta, see X. HG
7.1.23f., where Lycomedes praises the Arcadians as the mercenaries fittest for
military service.
39
The assumption that they were infrantrymen is further supported by the information that
they guarded the camp at night (cf. 12.3) and that they are mentioned separately from the
cavalry (cf. 13.6).
40
Mercenaries employed by Sparta are mentioned first at Th. 3.109.2, cf. 4.80.5, 5.6.4. Apart
from serving as hoplites and light-armed troops they especially strengthened the cavalry, for
the latter cf. X. Eq.Mag. 9.3f.
12.3[2]-12.4[1] 205
(b) The light-armed peltasts, who originated from Thrace, were especially
suitable for the night-watch due to their flexibility (for the connection of light-
armed troops and scouting see Pritchett 1971, 132f.). In Spartan service they
appear first under Brasidas (Th. 5.6.4), and after the march of the Ten Thousand
they are frequently mentioned (cf. e.g. X. An. 1.2.9, HG 3.2.2, further
references in Best 1969, 79-85; 97-101 with Sekunda 1998, 49-51).
12.4[1]: τό δ έ έ χ ο ν τ α ς τά δόρατα άεΐ περιιέναι

άσφαλείας ένεκα π ο ι ο ΰ σ ι ν . Always carrying one's arms was a
soldierly virtue (X. Cyr. 7.5.79). It was practised apart from the Spartans (X.
HG 2.4.6) also by the Ten Thousand (X. An. 7.4.14-16). According to Plu.
apophth. lac. 226 D-Ε the Spartans even messed under arms. The reason was,
of course, not only a potential internal threat, but also and most predominantly
protection against an external attack, especially in enemy country.
Herodotus does not seem to know of the Spartan fear of helots (though he
knows of tensions with the Messenians, cf. Hdt. 9.64.2), while Thucydides is
well acquainted with it. This becomes clear in his description of the helot revolt
(Th. 1.102.3), theTainaron sacrilege (Th. 1.128.1), the Pausanias episode (Th.
1.132.4), and especially the dispatch of the Brasideioi (Th. 4.80), where he
writes α ΐ ε ί γαρ τ ά πολλά Λακεδαι ονίους προς τους Είλωτας της
φυλακής περι άλιστ α καθειστήκει, and finally the treaty of 421 (Th.
5.23.3). Also Crit. D/K Β 37 mentions the fear of helots. Additionally, X.
touches on the Spartan fear of helots outside the SC (cf. X. HG 3.3.6,
6.5.28f.). Later sources give an even more lurid picture: e.g. according to Arist.
fr. 538 [R.] young Spartans passing the krypteia used to kill any helot they
met at night and the ephors annually declared war on the helots (cf. Richer
1998a, 249-251).
How far is the Spartan fear of helots historical? The opinion frequently
pronounced in antiquity and modern times, that there had been numerous helot
revolts threatening the very existence of the Spartan state, was rightly rejected
by Ducat 1990, 129-144, similarly the assumption that the relationship
between Spartans and helots was characterized by a constant excessive mistrust
on both sides (cf. Ducat 1990, 145-153). The evidence of early sources for the
fear of helots gives throughout reasons for doubt of such a threat (cf. Ducat
1990, 80-83 [Herodotus], 145-151 [Critias and X.]; Whitby 1994, 95-100
[Thucydides]). It is particularly difficult to harmonize the alleged fear of helots
with the partial integration of helots into the Spartan army. For, most likely,
helots could perform almost all tasks in the army, they served their master for
attendance and provisioning, as squire and light-armed soldier and even hoplite
warrior (cf. Ducat 1990, 157-166; for the helot weapons cf. Vernant 1991, 234
especially n. 28).
The fiction of a constant hostility between Spartans and helots - according to
Cartledge 1987, 13 even a class struggle - may be due partly to Athenian
propaganda. Such a propaganda may have confused the difference between the
Messenian and the Lakonian helots out of ignorance or deliberately for
206 Commentary
rhetorical effect (for the difference see Ducat 1990, 13-18; especially in the case
of the so-called 'helot' revolts it is often not clear from the sources whether we
are dealing with the Messenian or Lakonian helots or both, cf. especially Ducat
1990, 131-135 with Hodkinson 2000, 128f. [against overstressing the
difference]). Furthermore, Athenian propaganda did not grow tired of stressing
helotic suppression in order to highlight the despotic aspect of the Spartan
regime (cf. Isoc. 4.111, Arist. Pol. Π 1269a 38f. with Welwei 1974, 110 n.
10).
It is worth pointing out that X. does not regard it as necessary to defend the
Spartan stance towards helots (as he does e.g. in the case of pederasty at 2.12-
14), perhaps because he wanted to pass over such a disagreeable subject in
silence (but why mention it here?) or more likely because he was - in
opposition to the majority of his Athenian readership - sympathetic to the
Spartan behaviour.
12.4[2]: τούς δ ο ύ λ ο υ ς . It is remarkable that X., in contrast to Critias,
does not talk anywhere in the SC of είλωτες, though he is well acquainted
with the term (cf. HG 3.3.8, 3.5.12 al.). A number of passages, partly
mentioned by Ducat 1990, 46, confirm that δούλοι (if referring to Sparta) and
είλωτες can be identical in X. I give a slightly fuller list than Ducat:
1.) At X. Ages. 2.24 the helots are called δούλοι.
2.) At X. HG 3.3.6, where X. lists the unprivileged parts of the population,
the helots are mentioned and accordingly the δούλοι omitted.
3.) At HG 7.1.12f. the two terms appear as synonyms. The context,
however, allows for the explanation that we are dealing with a rhetorical
equalization.
4.) Once X. quotes himself and changes δούλος for εϊλως, cf. X. Ages.
2.24 άφεστηκότων των δούλων with HG 7.2.2 άποστάντων πάντων τ ω ν
ειλώτων.
For the equation of δούλος and εϊλως outside X. cf. also Lotze 1959, 27f.
For the complementary terms δούλαι and έλεύθεραι in Spartan contexts cf.
1.4[2],
1 2 . 4 [ 3 ] : η δσον ή λ υ π ε ί ν α λ λ ή λ ο υ ς . A similarly effective
adverbial clause with an infinitive is found at X. An. 4.8.12 (cf. Kühner/Gerth
2.509f.).
One left one's arms to defecate. Hence, this moment - normally the time
after rising in the morning- offered the opportunity for a hostile attack (cf. X.
HG 2.4.6, 7.1.16, Cyr. 1.6.36). For the same reason - i.e. fear of a sudden
attack- it was prohibited among the Persians to defecate on the march (X. Cyr.
8.8.11).
12.4[1]-12.5[5] 207
12.5-7: Life in the camp - the Spartans often change campsites - daily
training - austere precautions on leaving the camp - the daily programme is:
training, breakfast, relief of the outposts, recreation, training, dinner, sleep -
justification of the detailed description of Spartan military practice.
12.5[1]: ε τ α σ τ ρ α τ ο π ε δ ε ύ ο ν τ α τ . For the word see p. 48. Cyrus

changed campsites frequently to secure abundant provision supply and harass
the enemy (X. Cyr. 3.3.23). Naturally the frequent change did not necessarily
entail an advantage for the allied cities, for each time wood had to be cut from
the surroundings to provide for accommodation (σκηναί), cf. Polyaen. 2.1.21.
Apart from tactical considerations hygienic reasons (fouling of the ground) also
favoured a frequent change of campsite (Onos. 9.1, Veg. mil. 3.2.12).
12.5[2]: σ ί ν ε σ θ α ι . See introduction p. 51.
12.5[3]: κ α ΐ γ υ ν ά ζ ε σ θ α ι δέ προαγορεύεταχ ύπό τ ο ΰ
νό ου α π α σ ι Λ α κ ε δ α ι ο ν ί ο ι ς . Daily Spartan exercises outside the
camp, normally in the morning and evening (cf. Veg. mil. 2.23 mane ac post
meridiem, besides 12.6), are mentioned already by Hdt. 7.208.2f. Their
importance for the disposition of the army is stressed by Onos. 9.3, 10.5 and
Veg. mil. 2.23. As a major merit of Agesilaus X. praises the fact that he
trained the combined forces of Spartans and allies in preparation for war (X.
Ages. 1.25, HG 3.4.16, cf. also Cyrus at Cyr. 1.6.17, 2.1.21-25 al.; Iason of
Pherai at X. HG 6.1.6; generally Pritchett 1974, 219-221). By contrast, the
information at Plu. Lyc. 22.2 that the Spartan drill on campaign was less
tough than at home merely conceals the idealizing message that the sole
Spartan recreation was serving in the army.
12.5[4]: ώστε εγαλοπρεπεστέρους έν αυτούς έφ'
έαυτοίς γίγνεσθαι, έλευθεριωτέρους δέ των &λλα>ν
φ α ί ν ε σ β α ι . Possibly the phrase εγαλοπρεπείς έφ' έαυτοίς is best
understood as 'proud of oneself by analogy with the construction
εγαλύνο αι έπί (cf. X. Hier. 2.17). At Mem. 3.10.5 X. stresses that
'magnificence' (το εγαλόπρεπες) and 'free spirit' (το έλευθέριον) manifest
themselves predominantly in the physical appearance (mentioning also the
opposites of these terms, the 'dejectedness' [το ταπεινό ν] and 'unfree spirit' [to
άνελεύθερον]).
12.5[5]: δει δ έ οΰτε π ε ρ ί π α τ ο ν οΰτε δρό ον άσσω
π ο ι ε ι σ β α ι ή δσον &ν ή όρα έφηκη, δποος ηδείς των α ύ τ ο ΰ
δ π λ ω ν πόρρω γ ί γ ν η τ α ι . The phrase ή δσον αν ή όρα άρήκη is
suspicious first because of the employment of the term όρα, where one would
expect ήγε ών or a more specific rank of an officer, second by the unique
sense of έφήκω as 'to reach' (cf. LSJM s.v.). One might conjecture έπέχη ('to
have under control', cf. Th. 2.101.5 al.). Possibly a gloss on the foregoing
comparative άσσω entered the text. If the phrase is authentic, this may
suggest that each mora had its own store of arms (τα δπλα), cf. 12.2[3].
Jacob's conjecture άσσω for έλάσσω is supported by X. Cyr. 2.4.27
(where some manuscripts offer έλάσσων, but άσσων is found apart from A
208 Commentary
in Sud. s.v. άσσων [ 253]), even though elsewhere άσσω is exclusively

poetic, cf. Od. 8.203, Pi. O. 13.113 al.
According to X. Cyr. 2.3.22 and Veg. mil. 1.27 [ambitus] περίπατος (and
δρό ος?) can denote a kind of physical drill of the army (Ael. VH 2.5, however,
does not necessarily belong here). But is seems more likely that X. by
περίπατος here refers simply to the evening walk, as mentioned by him
elsewhere (cf. X. An. 2.4.15, Smp. 9.1). If so, δρό ος denotes the opposite,
i.e. running for the purpose of drill (perhaps in connection with hunting).
12.6[1]: γ υ ν ά σ ι ο . See 12.5[3].

12.6[2]: ό πρώτος πολέ αρχος. The first polemarch possibly led the
first mora of the army marching in a column. This position, possibly the
highest rank in the army after the king (cf. X. HG 4.2.22), was perhaps held by
Deinon in the army of Cleombrotus at the battle of Leuktra. This would
explain why X. gives prominence to the death of Deinon (HG 5.4.33, 6.4.14).
Hdt. 7.173.2 seems to assume that the Spartan polemarchs were normally
appointed from the royal family.
12.6[3]: &ιτι δέ τοΰτο ώσπερ έξέτασις. Χ. apparently means the
roll-call after exercise in the morning. The actual muster of the army of the
Peloponnesian League took place at different sites, most notably Phleious, at
the beginning of a campaign (references in Pritchett 1969, 96 n. 5).
12.6[4]: καΐ τ α χ ύ τον πρόσκοπον ά π ο λ ύ ε σ θ α ι . The technical
term is απολύειν (cf. Hdt. 2.30.3), not the transmitted ύπολύεσθαι. Besides,
άπό/ύπό are easily confused in the manuscripts.
X. here refers to the night-guards, posted in front of the camp, i.e. the
Skiritai (cf. 12.3). The Skiritai were relieved by cavalry guards (cf. 12.2). The
times of meals and of rising in the morning were especially propitious for an
attack (X. Eq.Mag. 7.12, cf. Cyr. 1.6.36). Surprise attacks in the morning are
not rare (cf. 12.4[3]). This explains why the relief of the guards had to happen
quickly (ταχύ).
12.6[5]: διατριβαΐ κ αϊ α ν α π α ύ σ ε ι ς . From midday until early
evening military training was made impossible by the summer heat.
12.6[6]: πρό τών έσπερινών γυ νασίων. See 12.5[3].
12.7[1]: έπειδάν «ρσωσιν είς τούς θεούς. At home too the

Spartans were accustomed to participate in choruses and songs more than other
Greeks (4.2[3]). In the field they used to sing either in praise of the gods, as
here, or when the army suffered something unforeseen. It was perhaps always οι
άπό δα οσίας who began the singing (cf. X. HG 4.7.4, possibly they also
begun the paean sung in the syssitia, cf. Alcm. fr. 98 [PMGF]). It was a
positive trait of Agesilaus that he did not stop praising the gods in songs (X.
Ages. 11.2). Philoch. ap. Ath. XIV 630 F = FGrH 328 F 216 relates
(exaggeratedly, of course) that additionally every evening each soldier had to
sing a piece by Tyrtaeus, while the polemarchs awarded prizes for the best
performance.
12.5[5]-13.1[2] 209
12.7[2]: δ τ ι δέ π ο λ λ ά γράφ ω ού δει θ α υ ά ζ ε ι ν . For

θαυ άζειν see also 10.8[3]. Such a justification at the end of the relevant
passage is paralleled by X. Eq.Mag. 9.8.
13.1-5: Religious tasks of the king in the field. In the field the city
maintains the king and his comrades - on his departure from home the king
sacrifices to Zeus Agetor and 'those associated with him' - thefire-bearercarries
the fire to the frontier where sacrifices to Zeus and Athena are performed - the
fire is carried in front of the army, a herd of sacrificial animals follows - during
the sacrifice various officers and two ephors are present - the Spartans alone are
truly expert in warfare.
13.1 [ 1]: ènt σ τ ρ α τ ι ά ς ... έπί φ ρ ο υ ρ ά ς . The Athenian and the

Lakonian terms appear indiscriminately alongside each other, cf. on επί
στρατιάς 11.2[5], on φρουρά 5.7[6].
13.1[2]: ΐ\ν èitl σ τ ρ α τ ι ά ς ό Λυκούργος β α σ ι λ ε ΐ δύνα ιν
r a t τι ήν κατεσκεύασε. According to Hdt. 5.75 after a quarrel between
the two kings on campaign in circa 507 a law was passed that only one king
should lead an army into the field. Pace Carlier 1984, 259, Thommen 1996,
90-92, and others one may doubt the historicity of this story as it stands, for
the presence of one king in Sparta may have been necessary for the performance
of sacrifices (cf. 15.2[1]), and some institutional (cf. 15.7[2]) and legal (as
member of the council, cf. 10.2[3]) matters. The possibility that the avoidance
of the dispatch of two kings on campaign was a practical rather than a legal
issue is supported by X. HG 5.3.10-17, according to which both Agesipolis
and Agesilaus could -exceptionally- lead an army in the field at the same time,
though not the same army. Besides, X. either does not know the Herodotean
story or he deliberately suppresses it (to give a more impressive picture of the
royal powers in the field?), for at 15.1 he points to the unchangeability of the
royal privileges since the foundation of kingship (cf. Ages. 1.4). It is because
normally only one king set out with an army and chapter 13 deals exclusively
with matters of warfare, that X. here refers to one king (cf. the singular
βασιλεΐ), in contrast to chapter 15 (cf. 15.4 βασιλείς). For the privileged
position of the Spartan king on campaign cf. also Isoc. 5.79f. and id. Ep. 2.6;
for his military powers cf. Arist. Pol. Ill 1285a 3-6 with id. II 1271a 39-41 and
Isoc. 3.24.
The descent of the Spartan kings from Heracles was common knowledge to
ancient readers and did not have to be stressed explicitly. It legitimizes the royal
privileges and tasks referred to below by X. (cf. 10.8[1]). X. mentions the
τι αί of the Spartan kings again at 15.8f. (cf. Th. 1.132.1); the γέρα appear at
15.3; Ages. 1.5 (cf. Hdt. 6.56; 7.104.2).
The distinction between γέρα and τι ή is not clear-cut. Generally γέρα
were granted to express τι ή: hence at Hdt. 7.104.2 Demaratus says about the
Spartans οϊ ε τι ήν τε και γέρεα άπελό ενοι πατρώια άπολίν τε κ α ί
210 Commentary
φυγάδα πεποιήκασι. At Th. 1.132.2 τι ή comes very close to a technical

term. Pausanias is called king for the time being, έν τψ παρόντι τι ήν εχων,
because his nephew is not yet of age. Hence τι ή can denote the position of the
king in general, γέρα the privileges resulting therefrom. On the parallel
structure of X. and Herodotus in their chapters on Spartan kingship cf. p. 27.
13.1[3]: πρώτον έν γαρ έπΐ φρουράς τρέφει ή π ό λ ι ς
βασιλέα καί τους συν α ύ τ φ . Already Hdt. 6.56 mentions the
maintenance of the king in the field at public expense, i.e. at least partly by the
surplus of the mess contributions as reckoned by Hodkinson 2000, 197. When
Herodotus loc. cit. says that the king receives chines and hides from the
sacrifice, he implies that the rest of the meat goes to his messmates, as
normally the case in times of peace (cf. Hdt. 6.57.2, to the Pythioi). Herodotus
ibid, recounts that on campaign the king was entitled to perform as many
sacrifices as he wished. The allowance of meat resulting from the sacrifice
might have been a further contribution of the city to the maintenance of the
king and his messmates.
13.1 [4]: συσκηνοΰσι δέ αύτφ ol πολέ αρχοι ... συσκηνοΰσι
δέ καί &λλοι τρεις άνδρες των ό οίων. TTie polemarchs, the three
stewards (άλλοι τρεις άνδρες τών ό οίων), who were possibly δαιτροί (Plu.
quaestiones convivales 644 A), and presumably the ephors (cf. 13.5[1]) are
normally the messmates (σύσκηνοι) of the king and thus constitute the council
of war. The polemarchs had attendants, συ φορείς, who fought on their side (X.
HG 6.4.14) and presumably kept up contact with the mora when the
polemarchs consulted with the king. In times of peace the polemarchs (Plu.
Lyc. 12.5 with apophth. lac. 226 F - 111 A), both kings (X. HG 5.3.20; Plu.
Ages. 20.8 (based on X.?), the four Pythioi (15.5), and an uncertain number of
stewards messed together in one syssition. Either the king or one of the
polemarchs fulfilled the duty of the 'distributor of meat1 (κρεωδαίτης, cf. Poll.
6.34 εστι δε καί παρά Λακεδαι ονίοις άρχή τις ό κρεωδαίτης; Plu. Lyc.
12.5; Ages. 8.1; Lys. 23.11; quaestiones convivales 644 Β; Philoch. ap. Ath.
XIV 630 F = FGrH 328 F 216 with Lavrencic 1993, 96-98). The κρεωδαίτης
performed daily sacrifices before the syssitia, distributed the meat, and
proclaimed the name of those who contributed επάικλα to the common meal
(Molpis ap. Athen. IV 141 E = FGrH 590 F 2c, cf. Epicharm. ap. Athen. IV
139 C), on the έπάικλα cf. 5.3[5].
13.1[5]: τών ό οίων. See 10.7[6],
13.1[6]: κοινοβουλώσιν. The verb is attested only here in classical
times. X. might have created it by analogy with κοινολογείσθαι (cf. HG
3.1.9; 5.4.6 and Bazin 1885, 81) or it may be a Spartan technical term (cf. p.
47).
13.1[7]: ώς ηδε ία ασχολία ή αύτοις τών π ο λ ε ι κ ώ ν
έ π ι ε λ ε ΐ σ θ α ι . Similar is Χ. Cyr. 2.1.21, according to which Cyrus
believes "that those are the most proficient in all areas who are exempted from
13.1[2]-13.2[2] 211
taking care of various things and thus turn their mind to one thing only." 41 Cf.
Cyr. 5.1.30 and 7.2[3] and 13.5[3],
13.2[1]: έ π α ν α λ ή ψ ο α ι . Four explanations should be considered:

(a) In his Loeb translation Marchant renders the word by "I will go back to
the beginning", taken up recently by Rebenich 1998, 79 "ich will nun zum
Anfang zurückkehren". This translation is inadmissible. First, I know of no
parallel for such a use of έ π α ν α λ α β ά ν ε ι ν , secondly I do not understand the
meaning of this translation in our context (if X. means ϊ ν α έξ άρχής
άρξω αι as at 1.3, why did he not write it and what would be this άρχή,
anyway?).
(b) X. does not refer to a repetition within the SC but to another work. One
could object: though details overlap with various Xenophontic passages outside
the SC, a comparably comprehensive record cannot be found elsewhere.
Furthermore X.'s remark would be incomprehensible to the ancient reader if the
latter had not read through and memorized all Xenophontic writings, a rather
unlikely event even in X.'s day. It remains, however, conceivable that the
second part of the SC (chapter 11-13) was originally composed on a different
occasion for a purpose different from the rest (against the hoplomachoi?) and
that X. omitted polishing the inconsistencies out of sloppiness (cf. 11.8[1]
with pp. 3Of. n. 135).
(c) The word stands for άναλήψο αι in the meaning of 'to take up for the
purpose of examining' (LSJM s.v. I l.c). This meaning of ά ν α λ α β ά ν ε ι ν is
found frequently in Plato and possibly reflects Socratic language. However, the
use of έ π α ν α λ α β ά ν ε ι ν instead of άναλα βάνειν in this sense is not
attested elsewhere to my knowledge.
(d) έπαναλήψο αι is used rhetorically. In fact X. does not repeat himself
but points to a widely known fact, as in English Ί shall repeat', in the sense of
'as we all know', Ί may remind you of etc. This solution seems to me
preferable. It suggests - a s does άλλά at 1.1- that the SC is rather a draft than
finished (see pp. 29-31).
13.2[2]: θ ύ ε ι εν γ ά ρ πρώτον ο ί κ ο ι ών ιΙ Ά γ ή τ ο ρ ι . Gautier
1911, 42 discusses linguistic aspects of the epithet άγήτωρ. The actual
sacrifice was not performed by the king, but by the mantis (cf. Pritchett 1979,
67f.). According to 13.7 the mantis belonged to the staff of the king. However,
a general himself such as Cyrus (Cyr. 1.6.2 with Gera 1993, 55f.) and X. (An.
5.6.29) was supposed to be familiar with divination, for ό νό ος οΰτω τάττει,
ή τον άντιν τοΰ στρατηγού ¿ίρχειν, άλλά τον στρατηγόν τοΰ άντεως
(Pl. La. 199 A).
The concept of Zeus leading the army is common in Greece (cf. X. Cyr.
3.3.21, 7.1.1; Terp. fr. 2 (698) [PMG] calls upon Ζεΰ πάντων άρχά,
πάντων άγήτωρ). However, the Spartan Zeus Agetor is a rather elusive deity.
Theopomp.Hist. ap. schol. Theoc. 5.83 b = FGrH 115 F 357 relates him to the
41
οτι ούτοι κράτιστοι έκαστα γίγνονται οϊ Äv άφέ ενοι τοΰ πολλοίς προσέχειν τον
νοΰν επί εν έργον τράπωνται.
212 Commentary
hero Carnus, seer of the Heraclids, who lent his name to the Carnea. The reason
might simply be that Zeus as well as his seer preceded the army on the march,
cf. also the password Ζευς σύ αχος και ήγε ών (Χ. Cyr. 3.3.58). Perhaps
Zeus Agetor forms a Spartan pendant to Artemis Hegemone who was
worshipped in many parts of Greece (K. Wernicke, 'Artemis', in RE II (1896),
col. 1386). The epithet suggests a similar function.
13.2[3]: κ α ΐ τοις συν α ύ τ φ . This reading of A is easily
comprehensible in terms of grammar and content and should not be altered
despite various conjectures of modern scholars.
The expression refers to a shrine in the precincts of the Spartan city (οίκοι)
where Zeus was worshipped among other deities (τοις συν α ύ τ φ ) . It remains
doubtful which other deities or heroes X. meant. Zeus' sons, the Dioskouroi,
frequently referred to in this context by scholars (Marchant even proposed κ α ι
τοίν σιοΐν with deletion of α ΰ τ φ ) are a reasonable guess, though in X. and
more specifically the SC one would perhaps expect the dual for a self-contained
unit consisting of two constituents (as at 3.4, 13.3, 13.7, but no dual form in
the case of των εφόρων δύο at 13.5 and συσκήνους δύο at 15.5). One might
therefore think of the Dioskouroi in combination with Menelaus here (cf.
Simon, fr. 11.29-32 [IEG]).
Various deities could be invoked at the beginning of an expedition, among
them perhaps the Dioskouroi, though I know of no reference (cf. X. Cyr. 1.6.1
[sacrifice to Hestia Patroa, Zeus Patroos and 'the other gods' before departure],
3.3.21 [sacrifice to Zeus Basileus and 'the other gods' before departure]). At any
rate, in the field the Dioskouroi and Menelaus appear to have been of
paramount importance for the Spartans (cf. Simon, fr. 11.29-32 [IEG]\ Hdt.
5.75.2; Paus. 4.27.2 with Parker 1989, 147).
13.2[4]: λ α β ώ ν ό πυρφόρος πυρ άπό του βω ού π ρ ο η γ ε ί τ α ι
έπί τ ά δ ρ ι α της χ ώ ρ α ς . A fire-bearer appears at Hdt. 8.6.2 for the first
time in the field. According to this passage the fire was in a sense equivalent to
the Roman standard: in the battle it was abandoned last. Hence the expression
εδει δε ηδέπυρφόρον... έκφυγόντα περιγενέσθαι denotes 'total defeat', cf.
Hdt. loc. cit. For the importance of the fire carried with the army cf. 13.3 [2],
13.2[5]: ό δέ β α σ ι λ ε ύ ς έκεΐ a i θ ύ ε τ α ι Ait κ α ί Ά θ η ν φ .
The sacrifice to Zeus and Athena is identical with the sacrifice performed before
crossing the border, elsewhere called diabateria. X. HG 3.4.3 remarks of
Agesilaus θυσά ενος δσα εδει και τ α λ λ α και τά διαβατήρια έξήλθε.
The 'other sacrifices' of this passage (και ταλλα) are those to Zeus Agetor and
τοις συν α ύ τ φ , cf. 13.2[2] and [3], the diabateria those to Zeus and Athena
also mentioned here (cf. Polyaen. 1.10 Ήρακλείδαι εν δή εθυον τη Ά θ η ν φ
των ορίων ύπερβατήρια). Diabateria in the strict sense are apparently
restricted to Sparta (cf. Popp 1957, 42-46), even if omens were observed in the
Persian empire on crossing the frontier {Cyr. 3.1.22, cf. ibid. 1.6.1; X.
transferring the Spartan practice to Persia?) and are conceivable elsewhere. The
king was the first to cross the border as he was the last to leave the hostile
country, cf. Hdt. 6.56 στρατευο ένων δέ πρώτους ίέναι τους βασιλέας,
13.2[2]-13.2[5] 213
ύστατους δέ ά π ι έ ν α ι . However, even after the diabateria the deity could be

consulted on the legitimacy of an expedition (cf. X. HG 4.7.2). The verb
expressing the performance of the diabateria is the middle Ούεσθαι (Th. 5.54.2;
HG 3.4.3, 5.1.33 (?), 5.4.47, 6.4.19; cf. Casabona 1966, 88 η. 37). 42
A joint cult of Zeus and Athena is attested in Sparta three times: according
to Paus. 3.11.11 the cult statue of Zeus Xenios was worshipped together with a
statue of Athena Xenia. According to Paus. 3.13.6 Zeus Amboulios shared an
altar with Athena Amboulia and the Dioskouroi. 43 The Rhetra (Plu. Lyc. 6.2)
mentions Zeus Syllanios and Athena Syllania, both otherwise unknown.
Zeus Xenios can be related to a campaign only very remotely (for his
function cf. Richer 1998a, 242f.), and the meaning of the epithet - and hence
the function of - Zeus Amboulios is highly obscure. If, however, X. alludes
here to the Syllanian Zeus and the Syllanian Athena, it would support the
outstanding importance of both these deities for the Spartan community, as
already reflected in the Rhetra. Furthermore if one assumed that the Syllanian
Zeus and the Syllanian Athena had been protectors of the Spartan borders, this
would fit neatly into the context of the Rhetra: the establishment of a cult of
Zeus and Athena mentioned there would implicitly refer to the establishment
and integrity of the Spartan borders and the immediately following provision
for the subdivision of the Spartan territory into φυλαί and ώβαί would be very
appropriate. 44
The existence of Zeus Horios in Athens and elsewhere shows that the
concept of Zeus protecting the borders was common in Greece (cf. Pl. Lg. 842
E; D. 7.39; Sokolowski 1969, no. 18 E 28 [first half of the 4th century], no.
20 A 11 [4th century]). In this connection a sanctuary recently discovered four
kilometres north of Sparta is noteworthy. Its position may well have marked
the border of perioikic and Spartan civic land. It is currently without major
doubt ascribed to Zeus Messapeus (cf. Cartledge 1998, 44).
As to Athena as a border goddess the evidence is scarce: Polyaen. 1.10
mentions an 'Αθηνά τών όρίων in Sparta (ultimately drawing on the SCI) and
42
The sacrifices to the river gods are hardly identical with the Spartan diabateria, as
mentioned at A. Tk 377-379, Hdt. 6.76.1, X. An. 4.3.17, pace Pritchett 1979, 68f„ even
though later (cf. Plu. Luc. 24.5; D.C. 40.18.5) the term diabateria occurs in this sense,
presumably by false analogy. With good reasons Jameson 1991, 202 is very cautious on this
issue. For on the one hand the sacrifices before crossing the river are not offered to Zeus
and Athena, but to the relevant river god (the bull frequently mentioned in this context points
rather to a connection with Dionysus and Poseidon, cf. Hdt. 6.76.2; Plu. Luc. 24.5 with Weiss
1984, 71f.); on the other hand the terminology is different (A. Th. 379 σφάγια; Hdt. 6.76.1
έσφαγιάζετο; X. An. 4.3.17 έσφαγιάζοντο εις τον ποτα όν, cf. Hdt. 7.113.2
σφύζοντες; Plu. Luc. 24.5 εθυσε; Paus. 4.3.10 θύειν).
43
Pace L. Ziehen, 'Sparta. Kulte', in: RE, III A (1929), col. 1487, who postulates a separate
altar for the Dioskouroi; Paus. 3.17.6 suggests only local closeness of Zeus Hypatos and
Athena Chalkioikos, not a joint cult.
44
Rather arbitrarily Meier 1998, 192f. argues that the epithet συλλάνιος is a compound
(συν- and *-λανιος). If so, one wonders whether in early Lakonian the word would not
have remained *συνλανιος, cf. e.g. M/L p. 312 line 3 σ υ ν α χ ί α ν [Sparta, 5th century],
al.). Equally doubtful is Meier's conclusion that in the Rhetra and our Xenophontic passage
the two deities serve the formation of a 'collective identity'.
214 Commentary
an Athenian decree found in Eleusis and dating from the end of the first century
mentions an Athena Horia together with Zeus Horios. Some scholars have tried
to connect this Athena with the so-called Contemplative Athena on an early
classical votive relief from the Athenian Acropolis (cf. Jung 1995, 103 with n.
27).
13.3[1]: τ ό τ ε δ ι α β α ί ν ε ι τ α δ p i a τ ή ς χ ώ ρ α ς . Either the

offerings were made at the frontier separating Lakedaimon from foreign
territory, or the one between the Spartan city and the perioikis. In either case
the boundaries were not everywhere well defined, cf. Vidal-Naquet 1981, 156;
Hodkinson 2000, 139. It may be claimed with some confidence that Sellasia
was situated in the perioikis at the border of the Spartan city territory (cf. HG
2.2.13; for its location north of Sparta cf. Shipley 2000, 370, 379f.); whether
the diabateria were performed at certain shrines built for this purpose or
anywhere in the landscape, is not clear (cf. Mosley 1973, 162).
13.3[2]: καΐ το πυρ εν άπ ό τούτων τών Ιερών
π ρ ο η γ ε ί τ α ι ο ΰ π ο τ ε ά π ο σ β ε ν ν ύ ε ν ο ν . The fire carried along with the
army possibly represents the hearth of one's home that is temporarily moved to
the hostile country. Neither fire was allowed to go out. The fire in the field had
to be taken from home, for the fire of the hostile country was regarded as
impure: for that reason after the Persian invasion the Pythia ordered that all
fires in Greece should be extinguished and a new one should be lit from the
common hearth at Delphi (άπό της κοινής εστίας, Plu. Arisi. 20.4 with
Parker 1985, 23; on our passage also Stengel 1920, 98). Besides, fire was
indispensable to animal sacrifice and hence had to be to hand in order to consult
the gods at any time, especially since in a hostile environment something
unexpected could easily happen. On the πυρφόρος cf. 13.2[4],
13.3[3]: σφάγια δέ π α ν τ ο ί α Επεται, σ φ ά γ ι α meaning
'sacrificial animals' is used by X. indiscriminately for ίερεΐα (cf. An. 6.4.25
and on the terminology Jameson 1991, 200f.). A flock of sacrificial animals
was not characteristic of Sparta alone (X. loc. cit.); one may compare the
'sacred herds' of Greek sanctuaries (cf. Jameson 1988, 104). As to Spartan herds
accompanying the army, Paus. 9.13.4 gives a more detailed account: "... on
campaigns sheep and goats accompany the Spartan kings to serve as sacrifices
to the gods and to give good omens before battles: the flocks had she-goats
leading the way; the shepherds call them κατοιάδες." 4 5
Normally sheep and goats were sacrificed, only exceptionally cattle and pigs
(cf. Pritchett 1979, 81-83). It was up to the king how many sheep and goats he
sacrificed (cf. Hdt. 6.56).
13.3[4]: κ ν ε φ α ί ο ς . The adjective is first attested in the fifth century. It
is found almost exclusively in poetry, e.g. Hippon. 16.2 [IEG], A. Pr. 1029;
τοις βασιλεΰσιν αϋτών ές τάς έξόδους πρόβατα είπετο θεοίς τε είναι θυσίας και
προ τών αγώνων καλλιερείν ταΐς δε ποί ναις ήγε όνες της πορείας ησαν αίγες,
κατοιάδας οί ποι ένες όνο άζουσιν αϋτάς.
13.2[5]-13.4[2] 215
Ar. V. 124. The cognate noun κνέφας is common in X. (cf. HG 7.1.15, An.
4.5.9).
Apparently the gods were thought to be in a better mood in the morning.
Perhaps for that reason Agesipolis did not sacrifice in the evening after an
earthquake, but waited until the following morning (HG 4.7.5). Another
explanation is that X. imagines the sacrifice before a pitched battle (which
normally began in the morning or around midday). If so, the sacrifice so early
in the day would serve to attract the goodwill of the gods before the enemy
could do so.
13.4[1]: π ά ρ ε ι σ ι δέ ... β ο υ λ ό ε ν ο ς . It is no coincidence that the

enomotarchs are omitted. Without the two ephors, the ξένων στρατίαρχοι and
the στρατού σκευοφορικοΰ άρχοντες, whose numbers we do not know, there
were 78 officers gathered around the king, a number that could hardly find space
around the altar. Perhaps these constituted an extended council of war that could
be consulted by the king after the performance of the sacrifice (cf. X. HG
3.5.22 [Pausanias consults the polemarchs and pentekosteres after Lysander's
death]; HG 4.5.7 [Agesilaus convenes the council of war after the defeat at the
LechaionJ; Cyr. 3.3.11 [Cyrus1 council of war]). The orders were given to them
all together, not along the hierarchical chain as in battle (cf. Th. 5.66.3).
13.4[2]: ξένων στρατίαρχοι ... καΐ των άπό των πόλεων
δε σ τ ρ α τ η γ ώ ν ό β ο υ λ ό ε ν ο ς . στρατίαρχος appears also as
στρατάρχος (e.g. Pi. P. 6.31) or στρατάρχης (e.g Hdt. 3.157.4, where some
important manuscripts have στρατιάρχης).
The commanders called by Χ. τών άπό των πόλεων ... στρατηγών ό
βουλό ενος cannot denote the generals of the perioikic towns, since the
perioikoi were integrated into the Spartan army and probably did not have their
own commanders (cf. app. III). Hence the only alternative is that των άπό τ ώ ν
πόλεων δε στρατηγών ό βουλό ενος stands for the generals appointed by the
allies.
That leaves us with two possibilities for ξένων στρατίαρχοι. Either we
take it in the particular sense of ξεναγοί, Spartan officials supervising the levy
of allies and commanding their contingents (cf. H. Schäfer, RE IX A (1967),
1417-1419; Cozzoli 1979, 116f.), or mercenary leaders (cf. Pritchett 1974, 59-
116). The former term seems to be specifically Spartan and it is hard to see
why X. should have avoided it here, if meant, for he does not refrain from other
technical terms in this passage. On the other hand, if we analyse the apparently
less technical expression ξένων στρατίαρχοι properly, we find that although
ξένος denotes either the 'non-Spartan' or - according to particular Spartan
usage - the 'non-Greek', i.e. the barbarian (Hdt. 9.11.2, 9.55.2), it never
denotes 'allies'; these are rather called σύ αχοι, ξένοι on the other hand always
denotes 'mercenaries' (An. 1.1.10 al.), as ξενικόν denotes the 'mercenary army'
(An. 1.2.1, HG 4.3.15), cf. 12.3[4], This observation swings the balance in
favour of 'mercenary leaders' for ξένων στρατίαρχοι.
216 Commentary
13.4[3]: στρατού σκευοφορικοΰ ά ρ χ ο ν τ ε ς . On the adjective

σκευοφορικός see p. 48. The Spartan baggage-train (σκευοφόροι HG 4.3.18;
6.4.9 or ακόλουθοι HG 3.4.22) consisted of equipment and food (unless one
lived off the country) transported either on wagons or on pack animals (cf.
11.2[4]; Th. 5.72.3, 6.7.1). Before the departure of the army the leaders of the
baggage-train checked that nothing was missing, cf. 11.2[6], At Ages. 1.30 and
HG 3.4.22 X. mentions one άρχων των σκευοφόρων, while in our passage
and in Cyrus' army (X. Cyr. 6.2.35) there are many of them. Their number
presumably varied according to circumstances.
13.5[1]: πάρεισι δέ καί ... ώς τό εικός. Ephors in the field aie

first attested at Hdt. 9.76.3. These are men of trust to whom the king entrusted
the daughter of a guest-friend after the battle of Plataia. Again the ephors
mentioned by X. HG 2.4.35f. as accompanying king Pausanias are Pausanias'
adherents.46 The question whether the ephors in the field should supervise the
troops (e.g. Chrimes 1952, 403 n. 6; Clauss 1983, 134) or the king (e.g. Link
1994, 130 n. 47) is clarified unambiguously by X.: they represented the
Spartan state in the face of both king and troops alike. The trials of Cleomenes
(Hdt. 6.82) or Pausanias (Th. 1.131.1 - 1.134.3) might have been based on the
testimony of the ephors, yet this is only an assumption (cf. Bonner/Smith
1942, 123f. al.).
Another hypothesis should be discarded, according to which the two kings
were originally accompanied by two ephors, i.e. each king by one ephor. As far
as our evidence goes, one king was followed by two ephors. It remains
uncertain how much other σύ βουλοι limited the royal decisions after Agis'
failure in Argos in 418 (Th. 5.63.4), but their influence should not be overrated
(cf. Thommen 1996, 131-134; Richer 1998a, 414-420).47 Arbitrary decisions
by the commander are explicitly justified by Agesilaus on the occasion of the
illegal occupation of the Kadmeia in 382 (HG 5.2.32 άρχαΐον είναι νό ι ον
έξείναι τα τοιαύτα αΰτοσχεδιάζειν with Dillery 1995, 217f.).48
13.5[2]: παραγγέλλει τά ποιητέα. Cf. 13.4[1],
13.5[3]: άστε όρων ταΰτα ήγήσαιο äv τους έν ά λ λ ο υ ς
αυτοσχεδιαστής είναι των στρατιωτικών, Λακεδαι ονίους
δέ όνους τφ δντι τεχνίτας των π ο λ ε ι κ ώ ν . TTie noun
αυτοσχεδιαστής is first attested here, and it is found only here in X. The
corresponding verb αΰτοσχεδιάζειν appears already atTh. 1.138.4, then at X.
HG 5.3.32, Mem. 3.5.21. Similar in wording and content is X. Eq.Mag. 8.1
(cf. Th. 6.72.3; X. Cyr. 1.5.11, Mem. 3.7.7; Plu. Pel. 23.3f.). It is not clear
how far back the demonstrative pronoun ταΰτα extends, i.e. whether it refers
46
According to Arist. Pol. II 1271a 24f. enemies follow the Spartan king in the field. Nothing,
however, proves that ephors are meant to police the king here.
47
Agesilaus was accompanied by 30 men (X. HG 3.4.2,4.1.5, 4.1.30), so also Agesipolis (HG
5.3.8). Of these we know not much more than their existence.
48
Cyrus' followers mentioned at Cyr. 4.5.17 (όπτηρες, φραστήρες) are hardly comparable to
the ephors in the field, cf. Tuplin 1994, 149.
13.4[3]-13.5[4] 217
only to the briefing after the sacrifice or to all the provisions mentioned in
13.1-5.
According to X. Ages. 1.27 military success was founded on three factors,
awe of the gods, military training, and obedience: δπου γαρ άνδρες θεούς εν
σέβοιεν, πολε ικά δε άσκοιεν, πειθαρχίαν δε ελετψεν, πώς ούκ εικός
ενταύθα π ά ν τ α εστά ελπίδων αγαθών είναι; Χ. here refers
predominantly to military training (as described in chapters 11-13) and awe of
the gods (as implied by the detailed description of several sacrificial regulations
shortly before our passage [12.7, 13.2-4]). Obedience is dealt with in earlier
parts of the SC (cf. 2.2[6]).
X.'s verdict on the military expertise of the Spartans is not unique. X.'s
Socrates calls the Athenian generals amateurs at Mem. 3.5.21 (cf. Ar. Ach.
1078). According to X. the Spartans are the hoplites par excellence (Mem.
3.9.2). Plu. Pel. 23.4 (quoted in commentary on 11.7) calls the Spartans
πάντων άκροι τ ε χ ν ΐ τ α ι και σοφισταί τών πολε ικών. 4 9 Already Th.
3.15.2 (cf. Plu. Ages. 26.7-9) remarked that the Spartans could train much
better than their allies because they did not have to care about their daily
maintenance, provided for by the helots. Pl. R. 374 Α-D and 395 C also
recommends specialization and thus the establishment of a class of warriors to
increase military expertise, in marked opposition to the traditional Greek citizen
army (cf. 7.2[3], 13.1[7]).
In view of the unrestrained life in Athenian camps (cf. D. 54.3-5) and the
general lack of discipline in other citizen armies (cf. Pritchett 1974, 243-245)
the mainly positive verdict of X.'s contemporaries and later authors on the
Spartan training is not surprising. However, the Spartan army was not exempt
from criticism: when Finley 1975, 171f. remarked that Sparta was a military
rather than militaristic regime, for which the military way of life always
remained a means to achieve its goal and never became an end in itself, he had
already been contradicted by Plu. Num. 24.6.
13.5[4]: τών στρατιωτικών ... των ηολε ικων. Both
adjectives are commonly used as nouns in X., e.g Cyr. 2.1.22, HG 3.4.18. For
the simple τ α πολε ικά X. occasionally uses τ ά προς τον πόλε ον (cf. e.g.
Mem. 3.12.5, Cyr. 1.2.10).
49
As masters of warfare they appear also at Hdt. 7.211.3, 9.62.3; Th. 5.66.4; Lys. 33.7; Pl. La.
182 E - 1 8 3 A; Arist. Pol. Vili 1338b 24f.
218 Commentary
13. 6-9: Provisions before the battle. When the enemy is at a distance, the
king leads the army - tactical movements on approach of an enemy -
immediately before the battle a goat is sacrificed, the aulos-players play, the
soldiers adorn themselves with a garland, the weapons are polished - the young
soldier marches into the battle anointed - passing on of orders during the battle.
13.6[1]: αύτοΰ πρόσθεν. Cf. p. 52.

13.6[2]: πλήν Σκιριται καΐ oi προερευνώ ενοι Ι π π ε ί ς . On
the Skiritai cf. 12.3[2]. The verb προερευνάσθαι is attested only here in the
classical period (later Onos. 6.8). But X. has προδιερευνάσθαι at Cyr. 5.4.4,
and Aen.Tact. προεξερευνάν at 15.5, both in a similar context.
Onos. 6.7, too, recommends that one should send ahead a cavalry unit for
scouting, cf. Aen.Tact. 15.5 [cavalry and light armed troops in the front].
Cyrus placed a unit of scouts, διερευνητάς καΐ σκοπούς (X. Cyr. 6.3.2), in
front of the Ιππείς. Quite possibly the formation of the marching Spartan army
resembled that described in the Cyropaedia, i.e. (a) διερευνητες και σκοποί,
(b) ιππείς, (c) σκευοφόρα, (d) φάλαγξ (term as at 11.8, cf. 11.6[2]). At HG
5.4.52 cavalry and Skiritai cooperate (admittedly, however, while occupying a
hillside, not for scouting). On scouts in the army cf. Pritchett 1971, 127-133;
id. 1974, 188f.
13.6[3]: fiv δέ ποτ ε άχην οΐωνται 2σεσθαι, λαβών τό
άγη α της πρώτης όρας ό βασιλεύς άγει στρέψας έπΐ δόρυ,
εστ' äv γενηται èv έσφ δυοϊν όρατν καί δυοιν
π ο λ ε ά ρ χ ο ι ν . On the άγη α cf. 11.9[2], Later the word denotes the élite
troops around the Macedonian king (cf. Hsch. and Sud. s.v.; Plb. 5.82.4
βασιλικό ν άγη α). Presumably the Macedonians adopted the term from the
Spartans, although it is unclear what it denotes in the Spartan army. It is
probably not a particular part of the army which is meant, but - as indicated by
the underlying verb ά γ ω - the leading unit of a march column, be it an
enomoty (as at 11.9) or the Three Hundred (cf. 4.3[2]) as perhaps here.50
X. imagines the army arranged in a marching column. After the appearance
of the enemy the king turns to the right (στρέψας επί δόρυ). At the same time
the troops march up to the spear-side, i.e. to the right. X. does not specify
between which mora the king comes to stand. His position presumably depends
on the deployment of the troops. Hence occasionally he is found in the centre,
as at the battle of Mantineia in 418 (Th. 5.72.4; this being the normal position
of the Persian commander, cf. X. An. 1.8.21-23). But the Spartan king as a
rule used to fight on the right wing, so e.g. at Leuktra in 371 (X. HG 6.4.13f.;
cf. Pritchett 1974, 190f.).
50
Kührstedt 1922, 307 n. 2 does not explain the passage. He sees in ά γ η α the mora on the
far right wing, i.e. the first in a march column. This would leave unexplained how the king
could get between two morai by wheeling to the right (στρέψας επί δόρυ).
13.6[1]-13.7[3] 219
13.7[1] : έπί τούτοις, επί is to be taken locally as at Cyr. 8.3.13, 16-

18; τούτοις is constructio ad sensum for the plural inherent in ά γ η α : 'behind
these (sc. men of the agema)'. For the άγη α cf. 13.6[3].
13.7[2]: οΰς δέ δει έπί τούτοις τετάχθαι, ό πρεσβύτατος
των περί δα οσίαν συντάττει- είσί δέ ούτοι δσοι ti ν
σύσκηνοι ¿ σ ι των ό οίων, καΐ άντεις καί Ιατροί κ α ΐ
αύληταΐ (καί) οί του στρατού άρχοντες, καί έθελούσιοι ην
τίνες π α ρ ώ σ ι ν . The expression ό πρεσβύτατος τών περί δα οσίαν is a
technical term. It represents a military rank (the πρώτος πολέ αρχος of
12.6(7), cf. Ehrenberg 1965, 208) rather than an indication of age.
The picture X. offers here is highly confusing. The first ambiguity is
whether ο·δτοι refers to οΰς δε of the preceding sentence or whether it glosses
the preceding technical term οι περί δα οσίαν (so HG 4.5.8, 6.4.14, ot άπό
δα οσίας, HG 4.7.4). This problem cannot be solved satisfactorily.
The second ambiguity is whether the phrase και άντεις ... παρώσιν adds
further people to the σύσκηνοι... τών ό οίων, or whether the phrase explains,
what kind of messmates are meant, and is thus a gloss to the preceding
σύσκηνοι... τών ό οίων.
In this case only the first solution seems admissible. For, if the words κ α ι
άντεις ... παρώσιν were indeed an explanatory apposition, this apposition
would be incomplete: even if we grant that the polemarchs who appear at 13.1
as σύσκηνοι of the king could be meant by οί τοΰ στρατού άρχοντες, the three
stewards (13.1) and the two ephors, who certainly belonged to the close circle
of the king (13.5), would not appear in the apposition at all. 51 Furthermore,
according to 13.1 the main task of the royal syssition is to take care of military
matters. If seers, doctors, and aulos-players were ordinary members, too many
and mainly inexperienced people would take part in the coucil of war. This does
not mean that especially the aulos-player could not occasionally join the mess
of the commander, cf. 13.7[5].52
13.7[3]: ά ν τ ε ι ς . Although no seer is mentioned in connection with
the priestly duties of the king, the remark at Cie. div. 1.95 deserves credibility:
Lacedaemonii regibus suis augurem adsessorem dederunt. A seer is found at the
usual sacrifices of the king in Sparta (X. HG 3.3.4) and at the extraordinary
ones like the one in Aulis before Agesilaus' Asian campaign (Plu. Ages. 9.6).
Also the nauarchs were accompanied by a seer (D.S. 13.98.1; Plu. Pel. 2.2).
The seers were certainly a part of those deployed behind the Three Hundred close
to the king, since it was they who performed the sacrifice of a goat on his
behalf immediately before battle (cf. 13.8); on their social position cf. Carlier
1984, 266 n. 15.
51
It remains uncertain whether the Pythioi who had their meal together with the kings at home
(cf. 15.5; Hdt. 6.57.2) did so also in the field.
52
oi περί δα οσίαν mentioned at HG 4.5.8 do not include the polemarchs, because these
followed behind Agesilaus together with their units rather than preceding their units and
joining Agesilaus. Of course, they did not march out unprotected, but were accompanied by
the Three Hundred, although X. does not mention it.
220 Commentary
13.7[4]: Ιατροί. Greek military doctors are first attested in the Iliad
(2.73If. al. with Laser 1983, 96-101). To provide for medical care was
considered as a major virtue of a military leader: at X. Cyr. 1.6.12, 15 doctors
are mentioned as a vital part of the ideal Persian army and according to X. Cyr.
8.2.24 Cyrus established a board of health with a fully equipped medical
apparatus (cf. Gera 1993, 65). To increase the fighting spirit Iason of Pherai
guaranteed among other incentives medical care for his mercenaries (cf. X. HG
6.1.5), likewise Cyrus (X. Cyr. 5.4.17f., 8.2.25).53
In our passage X. falsifies the later (idealistically tinged) view that the
Spartans of the classical age ignored any kind of medical care (cf. the sayings at
Plu. apophth. lac. 231 A). As to the effectiveness of the physicians it is hardly
coincidence that here in X. the ιατροί are found next to the άντεις (as already
at Od. 17.384; A. Pr. 483f.). The scope of both professions may have
overlapped considerably. On the other hand, there are strong tendencies in X.'s
day and earlier to establish medicine as an objective 'science' (τέχνη,
έπιστή η), cf. A. Pr. 478-483; [Hp.] VM If. [I 570-74], X. Oec. 1.1 al.; Plato
accepted medicine as a means to discover the 'true' condition of the body (cf.
Grg. 464 Β - 465 D al.). For the unstable position of medicine between science
and religion cf. Parker 1985, 207-224.
A succesful physician could count on an enormous reputation (cf. Plu.
Ages. 21.10 [a doctor receives the surname of Zeus]). In Roman times Spartan
physicians enjoyed considerable fame (cf. Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 183f.).
13.7[5]: α ΰ λ η τ α ί . The locus classicus on Spartan aulos-players is Th.
5.70. According to this passage the Spartans marched into battle slowly to the
tune of the aulos (υπό αυλητών πολλών ό ού (lect. dub.) έγκαθεστώτων).
According to Thucydides the regular rhythm allowed the army to proceed evenly
and the line to remain unbroken. The unusual explicitness of Thucydides'
statement may be accounted for by various different interpretations of this
practice which Thucydides wanted to clarify.
It can be concluded from Thucydides and our passage that the aulos-players
formed a fixed unit behind the Three Hundred and were not scattered among the
various Spartan units. Thus they did not march in the front, unarmed as they
were. A fixed unit enabled them to keep up the rhythm among each other and to
observe the king's pace. Furthermore the fact that the number of aulos-players
could vary according to 13.8 (τους παρόντας αύλητάς), but not the number
of tactical units, suggests that no fixed number of aulos-players was assigned to
the tactical units.
According to Plu. Lyc. 22.4 the aulos-players played the Καστόρειον έλος
on the attack and simultaneously the έ βατήριος παιάν began. Both tunes are
presumably identical with the έ βατήριοι ρυθ οί mentioned by Plu. Lyc. 21.4
and inst. lac. 238 Β (and the έ βατήρια or ένόπλια έλη mentioned by
53
Besides, from Od. 17.383f. it becomes clear that there existed travelling physicians already
in the Archaic Age. Also later travelling physicians are attested, so Democedes (Hdt. 3.125-
137) or the authors of the Epidemics of the Hippocratean corpus [presumably end of the 5th
century], cf. in general Cohn-Haft 1956, 21, 26, 46f., 53.
13.7[4]-13.7[7] 221
Aristox. fr. 103 [W.] or the έλη πολε ιστήρια as composed by Tyrtaeus
according to Sud. s.v. [1205]?), i.e music to anapaestic verses (cf. Cie. Tuse.
2.37). In addition Plu. Lyc. 22.5f. rightly emphasizes the psychological aspect
of regular, slow movement apart from the technical aspect of coherence of the
phalanx.
Ephor. ap. Plb. 4.20.5f. = FGrH 70 F 8 reports that the Spartans had
introduced the aulos instead of the trumpet (salpinx) long ago (elsewhere the
trumpet was quite popular in the army in X.'s day, cf. e.g. X. An. 7.4.16).
This might explain a dedicatory statue of a trumpeter from the sanctuary of
Athena Chalkioikos from the middle of the fifth century (cf. Dickins 1906-
1907, 146f.). Later Polyaen. 1.10 considers that marching to the sound of the
aulos was invented by the Heraclids and that the absence of aulos-players led to
the defeat at Leuktra (revealing how characteristic of Sparta the aulos was
considered by the later idealizing tradition).
The office of aulos-player was an honorary post and hereditary already in our
earliest witness (Hdt. 6.60). According to this passage aulos-players enjoyed a
high reputation in Sparta. Hence at HG 4.8.18 the aulos-player Thersander is
mentioned as a messmate of the general Thibron (though X.'s wording suggests
that Thersander [described as λακωνίζων] is not a native Spartan).
Aulos-players appear frequently in literature after Herodotus (cf. apart from
the passages referred to above e.g. X. HG 4.3.21; Plu. Ages. 19.3; apophth.
lac. 238 Β al.). In a military context they are not restricted to Sparta: amongst
representations in vase-painting they are found in Corinth on the so-called
Chigi vase (cf. Simon 1981, pi. vii) and on an aryballos from Perachora (cf.
Lorimer 1947, 93 fig. 7); they appear in the Theban army (Polyaen. 1.10; cf.
Plu. Pel. 19.1) and in Crete (Ephor. ap. Str. 10.4.20 = FGrH 70 F 149); in
classical Athens they were employed to give the time to the rowers
(τριηραύλης, references in LSJM s.v.).
13.7[6]: ( κ α ί ) ol τοΰ στρατού ά ρ χ ο ν τ ε ς . Zeune's addition of
καί is necessary, because oi τοΰ στρατού άρχοντες denotes the officers
mentioned at 13.11. Otherwise the latter expression would be in apposition to
the aforementioned civil professions or alternatively the αύληταί only, while
the officials of 13.11 would remain unexpressed.
It is unclear why X. does not mention the heralds. Their office was
hereditary like that of the aulos-players (Hdt. 6.60, 7.134.1) and was important
still in X.'s day (HG 7.1.32 al.). If one supports the addition of ( κ α ί ) after
αΰληταί, one might postulate a larger lacuna originally referring to the
heralds.
13.7[7]: έθελούσιοι ήν τίνες παρωστν. On the word εθελούσιος
see p. 48. The έθελούσιοι were guest-friends (ξένοι), accompanying the army
on the invitation of the commander. One major incentive for accepting such
invitations seems to have been to make new ξενίαι: when the Boiotian
mercenary general Proxenus joined his guest-friend Cyrus (X. An. 1.1.11) in
the hope of fame, power and wealth (cf. An. 2.6.17), he asked his guest-friend
Xenophon (ξένος ών αρχαίος) to join him and to make the acquaintance of,
222 Commentary
i.e. to conclude a ξενία with, Cyrus (An. 3.1.4f.). Besides, it was undoubtedly
due to his ξενία with Agesilaus, possibly mediated through X.'s ξενία with
the Spartan general Cleandrus (cf. An. 6.6.35, 7.1.8), that X. joined the
'voluntary' followers of Agesilaus after his abandonment of the supreme
command of the Ten Thousand (cf. Cartledge 1987, 59). Agesilaus in particular
was very successful in establishing such bonds of friendship (cf. Ages. 6.4,
9.7, 9.11; cf. Plu. Lyc. 15.8; for Agesilaus' guest-friends according to X. see
Herman 1987, 170); for Spartan ξενία in general cf. Hodkinson 2000, 341-
352.
13.7[8]: ώ σ τ ε των δ ε ο έ ν ω ν γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι ουδέν ά π ο ρ ε ΐ τ α ι .
The expression των δεο ένων γίγνεσθαι is paralleled by Χ. Cyr. 2.3.3 τ ω ν
πράττεσθαι δεο ένων, cf. Pl. R. 392 D.
13.7[9]: ά π ρ ό σ κ ε π τ ο ν . The word is not found elsewhere in X., who,
however, uses προσκοπέω at Cyr. 1.6.42 al. (cf. also πρόσκοπος at 12.6).
13.8[1]: ά λ α δέ κ α ι τ ά δ ε ω φ έ λ ι α . Ollier defended κ α λ ά . I

prefer Castalio's conjecture ά λ α , following most editors. I would object to
Ollier's reading that it entails the reading of Modena Gr. 145 for the following
words, i.e. καλά καί τάδε καί ωφέλι α ... If however this was the original
reading, it is not evident why a scribe should rephrase the expression καί τ ά δ ε
κ α ί deliberately; but he must have done so, because not only did he omit a
word (καί), he also changed κ α λ ά to ά λ α and added δέ, i.e. he made three
changes at the same time.
If, however, άλα δέ καί τάδε is the original reading, one could postulate
that the first step was a simple mistake of a scribe transcribing a majuscule
codex ( άλα for καλά). By changing the following words a later scribe tried
to remove the difficulties but only increased them.
Besides, the following details on religious provisions are certainly 'good',
but this is already expressed by the certain ωφέλι α. I find it rather more
plausible that ωφέλι α is intensified by ά λ α than anticipated in a sense by
καλά.
13.8[2]: είς τόν εν δπλοις ά γ ώ ν α . In X.'s time great battles were
always hoplite battles. The periphrastic expression for the simple word άχη
here and at 11.3 is remarkable (but cf. Paus. 5.5.4).
13.8[3]: χ ί α ι ρ α σ φ α γ ι ά ζ η τ α ι . Fundamental for the battlefield
sacrifice is Jameson 1991, 209-212. From HG 4.2.20 it follows that the
beneficiary of the sacrifice was Artemis Agrotera and that it was performed
when both armies were at a distance of one stade only (for goat sacrifices to
Artemis in other contexts cf. W. Richter, RE X A (1972) s.v. 'Ziege', col.
426f.; Jameson 1988, 99-103).
Artemis Agrotera is predominantly a goddess of hunting. Hunting, however,
was closely connected with warfare (cf. 4.7[3]). In Athens too sacrifices to
Artemis Agrotera were not unknown in connection with warfare. Before the
battle of Marathon the Athenians vowed a sacrifice of a goat to Artemis
13.7[7]-13.9[1] 223
Agrotera for each Persian slain, which was still performed in Aristotle's day (X.
An. 3.2.12; Arist. Ath. 58.1 with Rhodes 1993 ad loc.).
Plutarch knows of sphagia to the Muses in times of danger apart from the
sacrifices of goats (apophth. lac. 221 A), especially as a sacrifice before battle
(Plu. Lyc. 21.7; apophth. lac. 238 B, cf. de cohibenda ira 458 E). Sosicr.Hist.
(2nd century) ap. Ath. ΧΠΙ561 E-F = FGrH 461 F 7 also mentions a sacrifice
to Eros in Sparta and Crete, a detail presumably invented by Sosicrates to
illustrate the importance of homosexuality for performance in battle in both
societies (cf. Jameson 1991, 224 n. 26). Apart from the Spartans (for references
see above and add Hdt. 9.61.2-9, 9.62.1; X. HG 3.4.23; Plu. Lyc. 22.4) other
Greeks, too, practised battlefield sacrifice as did the Eleans (X. HG 7.4.30) and
the Ten Thousand (X. An. 4.3.18-20). The technical terms for the battlefield
sacrifice are σφάγια/σφαγιάζειν (normally middle), cf. Casabona 1966, 180-
191.
13.8[4]: α ϋ λ ε ί ν τ ε η ή ν τ α ς τούς π α ρ ό ν τ α ς α ύ λ η τ ά ς νό ος
vat ηδένα Λακεδαι ονίων άστεφάνωτον ε ί ν α ι . On the
playing of the aulos in battle cf. 13.7[5], Hdt. 7.209.3 reports that the Spartans
adorned (κοσ έοντο) their heads whenever they risked their lives, alluding to the
wreath mentioned here. Sosicr.Hist. ap. Ath. 674 Β = FGrH 595 F 4 may
imply that only those who had finished the Spartan education were allowed to
wear wreaths. Our passage provides the model for Plu. Lyc. 22.4.
The Celts, too, fought their battles wearing wreaths according to Ael. VH
12.23, and perhaps also the Ten Thousand (X. An. 4.3.17 [wording
ambiguous]). The use of the wreath in battle could be explained by its
apotropaic function (cf. Eitrem 1915, 66). In this context one may compare
Justin ap. Pomp. Trog. 8.2.3, according to which the soldiers of Philip II wore
laurel wreaths during the Battle of the Crocus Field in 352 against
Onomarchus, the occupier of Delphi, thus clearly underlining their claim to
defend the just cause of the gods against the usurper.
However, as to the Spartans the best explanation seems to me that the
Spartan soldier put on the wreath at the battlefield sacrifice only for a moment,
as was customary at the normal sacrificial procedure (X. An. 7.1.40, Cyr.
3.3.34). The sacrifice by which the priest asked the god for victory on behalf of
the army thus became a sacrifice symbolically performed by each soldier.
13.9[1]: τ φ ν έ φ . The word νέος is possibly a technical term denoting

men between 20 and 44 (cf. Wade-Gery 1958, 73, 82). However, I prefer to
think that the word refers to the ήβώντες (= δέκα άφ' ήβης) as clearly at Plu.
apophth. lac. 215 C (cf. the alternating ήβώντας - νέους) and possibly Th.
4.125.3 (differently at 5.5[2]), i.e. to those aged between 20 and 30 (cf. 4.1[1]).
This would dovetail with X. Mem. 1.2.35 and PI. Lg. 760 C according to
which the age limit of the νέοι lies around 30. Besides, it would illuminate
X.'s statement here: the δέκα άφ' ήβης (= ήβώντες = νέοι) stood in the first
rank of the army and their appearance was thus of particular importance to
terrify the enemy.
224 Commentary
13.9[2]: κ ε χ ρ ι έ ν φ . Plu. Lyc. 22.2 reports of young men in the same

context (X. being the source?) έθεράπευον κό ην λιπαράν τε φαίνεσθαι
και διακεκρι ένην. The unanimously transmitted κεκρι ένφ is normally
taken as a short version of Plutarch's κό ην... διακεκρι ένην, but there is no
parallel for such a usage of κρίνω. It is easier to conjecture κεχρι ένφ (sc.
έλαίφ) with Lösch and to assume that Plutarch paraphrased this word by the
expression κό ην λιπαράν.
13.9[3]: είς άχην σ υ ν ι έ ν α ι . The expression is unique in X.
Comparable is Cyr. 3.3.54 ίέναι είς άχην.
13.9[4]: καί φαιδρόν είναι * a t ε ύ δ ο κ ι ε ι ν . φαιδρός means
'cheerful' (cf. Χ. HG 3.4.11, 6.4.16; Ages. 1.13 al.); for the word in a battle
context as here cf. X. An. 2.6.11 ; the word and its derivatives are mainly poetic
(cf. Pi. fr. 109 [M.], A. Eu. 926, E. Med. 1043, Or. 894, but φαιδρύνω also
Pl. Lg. 718 Β, 769 C al., φαιδρότης at Isoc. 15.133).
I change εΰδόκι ον to εύδοκι ειν. The triple κ α ί thus coordinates three
syntactically equal parts of the sentence (infinitives). Another solution would
be to read [καί] εΰδόκι ον (sc. εστίν; for a similar omission cf. 11.5[4]). In
this case X. omits έστίν, because there are already two forms of the same verb
in the sentence (εξεστι/ειναι). One would have to delete the third καί.
13.9[5]: καί π α ρ α κ ε λ ε ύ ο ν τ α ι δε τφ έ ν ω ο τ ά ρ χ η- ο ΰ δ '
άκοΰεται γαρ είς έκάστην π ά σ α ν τήν ένω οτίαν άφ'
εκάστου ένω οτάρχου Εξω. On the reading of ενω οτάρχη/-ου cf. p.
51. I cannot convince myself that παρακελεύονται here has its normal
meaning of 'to cheer up' (pace e.g. Anderson 1970, 78f.). Such a meaning
would make the whole passage incomprehensible both intrinsically and in
terms of the larger context. The verb should, I believe, be taken as 'to pass on
orders' (~ παρεγγυάω, cf. 11.4), though I cannot find a parallel for this usage.
Close comes παρακελεύεσθαι (pass.) meaning 'to be given orders' at Hdt.
8.93. The text remains odd; possibly we are dealing with a colloquialism and/or
sloppiness, or a textual corruption.
The subject inherent in παρακελεύονται is to be found in τφ ν έ φ by
which probably the δέκα άφ' ήβης are meant (cf. 13.9[1]). X. has the
following situation in mind: the pentekoster stood on the right of his unit as
normally, i.e. on the right of the two enomoties he commanded. When he gave
an order, it did not easily reach the enomotarch of the outer left enomoty
because in each pentekostys it had to pass a distance of a whole enomoty (είς
εκάστην πάσαν τήν ένω οτίαν) before reaching the second enomotarch. For
that reason the order was passed on by the δέκα άφ' ήβης who stood in the
front line of the enomoty immediately to the left of the pentekoster. Thus it
reached the second enomotarch who stood 'outside' from the viewpoint of the
pentekoster (άφ' έκαστου ένω οτάρχου εξω), cf. fig. 6.
13.9[2]-13.10[2] 225
13. lOf.: Non-religious duties of the king in the field. The king decides on
when and where the camp shall be pitched, also on the daily exchange of
embassies - officials in charge of civil affairs: hellanodikai, treasurers, and
booty-sellers - summary of chapter 13.
13.10[1]: τούτου έν κύριος βασιλεύς. For the reading κύριος see

p. 58. The king is responsible for the choice of the campsite and the well-being
of his soldiers according to other sources, too (cf. X. HG 4.5.3, 4.6.7 al.)
13.10[2]: τό έντοι πρεσβείας άποπέ πεσθαι καΐ φιλίας
και π ο λ έ ι α ς, τοΰτ' ού β α σ ι λ έ ω ς . Most editors follow Weiske in
reading ού for the transmitted αυ. This conjecture gives a more natural sequence
of thought after the preceding έντοι. But the question is intricate.
The reading αυ may be supported by a number of linguistic arguments apart
from the manuscript tradition. First, κ α ί at the beginning of the following
sentence suggests that two ideas similar in content are connected. Since the
following clause claims direct and active involvement by the king, one would
expect this to be expressed also in the preceding sentence. Second, X. never
uses the word combination τοΰτ' ού (for euphonic reasons?), and τοΰτ' ούκέτι
occurs only at Cyr. 1.5.8. In marked opposition the combination τοΰτ' αυ is
common in X., cf. Mem. 3.5.8, Cyr. 4.4.6, 5.5.20; Mag.Eq. 1.21. Third, an
introductory έντοι - especially in X. - may well be enumerative without the
notion of contrast (cf. Denniston 1954, 407) and the combination έν... έντοι
(i.e. τούτου εν κύριος ... τό έντοι πρεσβείας άποπέ πεσθαι ...) does not
automatically imply an opposition. 54 But even if it did, one could argue that
here the contrast between the two sentences is between a manifestly military
matter (choice of camp in the preceding sentence) and a diplomatic one (sending
of embassies), not between something the king was allowed to do and
something he was not (as in the case ού).
Against α υ one may argue that the sentence structure τό έντοι + inf.
occurs twice elsewhere in the SC and in both cases it anticipates a negation or
limitation of the action of the subject in the preceding sentence (cf. 2.14 and
especially 11.7 with p. 53). Elsewhere, too, X. avails himself of this
construction and again έντοι always foreshadows negation or limitation of the
action mentioned before (cf. HG 2.3.48, 7.5.19, An. 6.1.26, Cyr. 5.5.11
[twice], 8.8.13).
The historical evidence on the issue is divided. There are various references
to the king sending and receiving embassies: at Hdt. 5.49-51 Cleomenes
negotiates with Aristagoras about the liberation from the Persian yoke; at Th.
2.12.1 Archidamus dispatches the Spartan Melesippus to negotiate a last-
minute agreement before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War; at Th.
5.69.5 - 5.60.1 Agis receives two Argives (δεξά ενος τους λόγους αύτός)
and concludes an armistice after consulting only one anonymous official (ένί
άνδρί κοινώσας των εν τέλει συστρατευο ένων); at Th. 8.5. If. Agis not
54
Cf. X. Ages. 2.12 ένταϋβα δή Άγησίλαον άνδρείον έν εξεστιν ειπείν
άνα φιλόγως, ον έντοι ε'ίλετο τά ασφαλέστατα, besides Χ. HG 3.5.25; 5.4.34.
226 Commentary
only welcomes envoys, but also effects the levy of a Spartan contingent; at X.
HG 2.4.31 Pausanias sends envoys to the rebels in Piraeus, at HG 3.4.11
Agesilaus envoys to Tissaphernes, at HG 3.4.25 Tithraustes envoys to
Agesilaus; at HG 4.5.6 Agesilaus declines to receive embassies.
However, at Hdt. 9.7-11 the ephors negotiate with the Athenian envoys
about support against the Persians, at HG 2.2.12 Agis refers the Athenian
envoys who ask for peace (συνθήκοα) to the ephors in Sparta (but the fact that
the envoys were first dispatched to Agis implies that Agis was thought to be
responsible), likewise at HG 2.2.17; at HG 3.4.25f. Agesilaus waits for the
orders of the Spartan home administration when Persian envoys demand his
retreat from Asia Minor; from HG 2.4.35 one can conclude that the word of the
ephors who accompanied the king in the field carried much weight. The ephors
were responsible for routine diplomatic work (HG 3.1.1); at HG 5.2.11 they
send, at HG 5.2.9 they receive envoys explicitly.
After this survey it is hard to draw a line between the diplomatic competence
of the kings and the ephors. In general the sources give the impression that the
king as the commander-in-chief dealt with affairs that concerned the army
directly, i.e. questions of payment, provisioning, recruitment including
armistice (see above Th. 5.59.5-5.60.1). These diplomatic issues belonged
strictly speaking to the military sphere. Such decisions had to be taken
instantly and normally did not affect the Spartan community in the long run.
All questions, however, that went beyond that, i.e. affected the Spartan
community permanently as a whole, were dealt with by the ephors and the
people's assembly respectively.
The discussion in this chapter is about πρεσβείας ... και φιλίας κ a i
πολέ ιας, i.e. about essential matters. Given the latter expression one gets the
strong feeling that X. is not talking about unspectacular daily trivialities like
e.g. provisioning, complaints by neighbouring cities etc. I am thus rather
inclined to follow most editors and to read οϋ. For a well argued defence of α υ
cf. e.g. Carlier 1984, 264f.; Mitchell 1997, 79 n. 38.
13.10[3]: π ρ ε σ β ε ί α ς ... κ α ΐ φ ι λ ί α ς « a l π ο λ ε ί α ς . For the
complementary expression φιλίας καί πολε ίας cf. Lys. 2.38 συ πιπτόντων
και φιλίων καί πολε ίων ν α υ α γ ί ω ν ; Th. 3.65.3 φιλίους, οΰ πολε ίους;
Mitchell 1997, 14-16. The expression can be interpreted in two ways: either X.
means that the king was not entitled to send foreign embassies with a peaceful
or hostile answer back home, or X. suggests that the Spartan king was not
allowed to appoint Spartan ambassadors for a peaceful or hostile mission. X.'s
unclarity may be explained by the fact that he focuses on the question of how
far the king was controlled by the domestic authorities, i.e. most of all the
ephors, not the question of how much the king influenced Spartan diplomacy.
13.10[4]: v a l άρχονται εν π ά ν τ ε ς άπό β α σ ι λ έ ω ς . The
construction άρχεσθαι άπό being used in a non-temporal sense is found e.g. at
X. An. 6.3.18 ή άς δέ τους άπό των θεών άρχο ενους, cf. also Mem.
3.5.15.
13.10[2]-13.11[5] 227
13.11[1]: flv δ ' ο ί ν ... πρός λ α φ υ ρ ο π ώ λ α ς . The passage is a

good example of X.'s acquaintance with Spartan institutions and terminology.
According to Ages. 1.18 the booty-sellers - and thus presumably the
hellanodikai and treasurers as w e l l - were instructed by the king directly, i.e.
were under his command and not that of the ephors.
13.11[2]: fiv δ ' οδν. The word combination is to be analysed as ήν δ έ
(repeated twice) and connecting o w , not in ήν and δ' ουν (pace Denniston
1954, 466).
13.11[3]: έ λ λ α ν ο δ ί κ α ς . In X. the word occurs only here. The
hellanodikai in the Spartan army presumably judged trials in which exclusively
(or partly) non-Spartans were involved. As to their function, they presumably
resembled the kytherodikes, the official annually dispatched to the island of
Kythera (Th. 4.53.2), where the isolated geographic position necessitated the
permanent presence of an official with judicial power. Similarly on campaign,
especially in Asia Minor, it was impossible to ensure that each trial be judged
in Sparta. Despite the generalization in the SC, it was presumably not the
hellanodikai who were in charge of trials between Spartan citizens, but the king
(Plu. Ages. 7.6f.; Arist. Pol. Ill 1285a 7-10 with MacDowell 1986, 124-126).
In detail the distinction between the competence of the king and the
hellanodikai (and the ephors, cf. 13.5?) remains obscure.
The hellanodikai mentioned here are presumably directly connected with the
homonymous judges of the Olympic Games who were first named διαιτητή ρ ες
(cf. Decker 1995, 126) and appear as hellanodikai in inscriptions from the
beginning of the sixth century (cf. Insch. v. Ol. no. 2 [according to Kirchhoff
before 580]). The name implied an impartial, almost international institution
and was adopted by the Peloponnesian League possibly at a time when Spartan
predominance was not yet very palpable, but already a symbol of pan-hellenic
unity, i.e. perhaps in the second half of the sixth century (cf. Thommen 1996,
67). One should mention here that according to Arist. fr. 533 [R.] a Lycurgus,
whom Aristotle identified with the Spartan law-giver, was mentioned on an
Olympian discus. Regardless of whether Aristotle's identification is historically
sound or not, the latter obviously regarded a connection of the Spartan
legislator with the Olympic Games as plausible.
13.11[4]: τ α ί α ς . Illese were in charge of the war chest in Sparta as in
Persia (HG 3.1.17; Cyr. 4.5.20) and Athens (Pritchett 1971, 37). For domestic
affairs Sparta did not have τα ίαι until the hellenistic period, cf. W. Schwahn,
RE IVA (1932), 2120f.
13.11[5]: λ η ί δ α . The word is poetic. In X. it appears only here.
Normally λ ε ί α is used, cf. e.g. X. HG 1.2.4, 1.3.2. Pritchett 1991, 82: 'The
ληίς in this passage is plunder taken from the enemy by individual soldiers or
groups of individuals that is turned over to the booty-dealers. One is reminded
of Xenophon's phrase for scattered bands seeking plunder: έσπαρ ενοι κ α θ '
(εις) άρπαγήν πολλοί, Ages. 1.30; Hell. 3.4.22. Cf. 6.2.17.'
In the Anabasis part of the plunder was public property and was sold as such
(cf. An. 6.6.38; 7.7.56), while part remained private and could be sold by the
228 Commentary
individual soldier, cf. e.g. An. 6.1.17, similarly already II. 7.472-475. This
procedure is reflected by X. An. 6.6.2. According to this passage one retained
the plunder if one pillaged alone. If one went with the army, the booty was
common property.
Contrary to this practice, in Sparta booty was normally regarded as property
of the treasury in any case, because this procedure alone secured the -fictitious -
equality of the homoioi (cf. Pritchett 1971, 87-90 and 1991, 404-416). Hence
the Spartan laphyropolai were state officials and sold state property. 55 This,
however, did not prevent arbitrariness: characteristic is the account of X. Ages.
1.16-18. According to this passage Agesilaus made rich booty from a raid in
Phrygia, which was sold cheaply because of the plethora of goods offered.
Agesilaus advised his closest Mends to buy on credit, then turned to the sea
where the goods could be sold at much higher prices (cf. Pritchett 1971, 88f.;
id. 1991, 410f.). For a special share of the Spartan commanders cf. Pritchett
1991, 398f.
The raids presupposed in our passage were indispensable for the provisioning
of the soldiers (e.g. HG 4.1.26; cf. Ages. 4.6); in the Anabasis they are on the
daily agenda, cf. Perlman 1976-1977, 260 n. 72).
13.11[6]: λ α φ υ ρ ο π ώ λ α ς . For the word cf. p. 48. λάφυρα is booty in
general, cf. Pritchett 1991, 147.
Asia Minor and Thrace were especially suitable for the activity of the booty-
sellers, because there many Greek trading centres were scattered along the coast
line with an often hostile inland that invited profitable raids. Where there were
no such trade stations, it was occasionally advisable to leave the booty behind
(X. An. 4.1.12-14, cf. 3.3.1). Thus laphyropolai are mainly active in Asian and
Thracian coastal areas (HG 1.6.15 [Methymna, Lesbos], 4.1.26 [a village,
Kaua, 160 stadia from Daskyleion], Ages. 1.18 [Phrygia], An. 6.6.38
[Kalchedonian Chrysopolis], 7.4.2 [Perinthos, Thrace], 7.7.56 [Thrace]), but
are also found on the Greek mainland (HG 4.6.6 [Akarnania], 5.1.24 [Aigina];
cf. Pritchett 1971, 90-92). Sparta seems to have been the only Greek state to
employ official booty-sellers (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 169f.).
13.11[7]: οΰτω δέ πραττο ένων ... τ ά πρός τους
άνθρώπους. On έπί φρουράς cf. 5.7[6] and 13.1[1]. 13.11 refers to 13.1: the
description of δΰνα ις and τι ή of the king announced there is here
summarized.
The religious and military functions of the king are stressed also by Arist.
Pol. ΠΙ 1285a 3-8 ή γαρ έν τη Λακωνική πολιτείφ δοκεΐ εν είναι
βασιλεία άλιστα των κατά νό ον, ουκ εστι δε κυρία πάντων, ά λ λ '
δταν έξελθη τήν χώραν, ήγε ών έστι των προς τον πόλε ον· ετι δέ τ à
προς τους θεούς άποδέδοται τοις βασιλεΰσιν (cf. Parker 1989, 143f.).
55
It is unclear when this office was created. Herodotus does not seem to know them as is
shown by the anecdote at Hdt. 9.80 where the laphyropolai have been replaced by the
helots.
13.11[5]-14.2[2] 229
However, the Aristotelian expressions των προς τον πόλε ον and τά προς
τους θεούς might indicate that this passage is modelled on the SC.56
14.1-7: Decline of Spartan customs - formerly the Spartans stayed at home,

now they are eager to go abroad - formerly they concealed their wealth, now
they boast about it - formerly foreigners were expelled, now the Spartans are
keen to stay abroad as harmosts - formerly the Spartans were worthy of their
power, but no longer - religious indifference and disobedience to the Lycurgan
laws cause decline.
14.1[1]: εί δέ τίς ε ëpovto εΐ .... The form of addressing an

imagined interlocutor by εί + τίς + verb is not infrequent in X., particularly
towards the end of a work, cf. Cyr. 8.8.27, Eq.Mag. 8.5, 8.8; Eq. 11.1; Ap.
34; Mem. 4.8.11 with Tatum 1989, 224 and 272f. n. 10.
14.1[2]: ol Λυκούργου νό οι α κ ί ν η τ ο ι . Prosperity (ευδαι ονία)
of the city was guaranteed when the citizens obeyed the laws without
attempting to change the existing order (ήρε ούντες, Ages. 7.3). The
proverbial unchangeability of the Spartan laws, however, was not always seen
positively, see e.g. the remark of the Corinthians about the Spartans at Th.
1.71.3 και ήσυχαζούση εν πόλει τα ακίνητα νό ι α άριστα, προς
πολλά δε άναγκαζο ένοις ίέναι πολλής και της έπιτεχνήσεως δει.
Being cautious in changing the laws is recommended by Arist. Pol. II 1269a 7-
28.
14.2[1]: τά έτρια έ χ ο ν τ α ς . 'Moderate' is a key term of the

Xenophontic Socrates. X. characterizes Socrates at Mem. 1.2.1 as πρός το
ετρίων δεΐσθαι πεπαιδευ ένος οΰτως, ώστε πάνυ ικρά κεκτη ένος
πάνυ ρψδίως εχειν άρκοΰντα, and at Mem. 2.6.22 he remarks of the truly
virtuous (καλούς κ αγαθούς) that they prefer to possess 'moderate things'
without trouble (άνευ πόνου τά έτρια κεκτήσθαι) than to rule everything
by war (cf. pp. 18f.).
14.2[2]: αρ όζοντας èv ταΐς π ό λ ε σ ι . The technical term αρ όζω
for the activity of the harmost occurs here and at 14.4 for the first time in
classical literature. X. employs the word frequently in a different sense, but
always the Attic form άρ όττω.
The phrase here is inaccurate: harmosts were not only appointed over cities
but also over whole areas; so already Brasidas over Thrace (cf. Bockisch 1965,
144-150), later e.g. Dercylidas over Aiolis (Isoc. 4.144, D.S. 14.38.2, cf. X.
HG 3.1.16). For Dercylidas and harmosts in general see 14.4[3].
56
The responsibility of the king for the road network which Hdt. 6.57.4 mentions among the
royal duties at home seems to me to be related to his military command: a functioning road
network facilitated a quick advance towards the periphery, whether in defence/attack
against external foes or to suppress internal disturbances.
230 Commentary
The harmosts' government was severe; a Theban orator remarks at HG

3.5.13 with regard to the Spartan allies ... υπό τ ε γαρ των αρ οστών
τυραννούνται (cf. HG 6.3.8 with p. 10 and 14.4[3]).
14.3: καί πρόσθεν εν οΪδα αυτούς φοβου ένους χρυσίον

έχοντας φαίνεσθαν νυν δ' £στιν οΰς καί καλλωπιζο ένους
επί τ φ κεκτήσθαι. One may read this passage in two ways depending on
how one interprets «ραίνεσθαι. Either, previously the Spartans feared to appear
to possess money (without a special stress on the notion of φαίνεσθαι). Or,
previously the Spartans feared to exhibit publicly the possession of money
(with 'publicly' versus 'secretly'). According to the former interpretation the
possession, according to the latter only the display, of money was forbidden in
Sparta. Despite recent attempts to defend the latter interpretation (so e.g.
Humble 1997, 233f.; Hodkinson 2000, 25), the former is preferable, because it
is only thus that the phrase χρυσίον γε ήν καί άργύριον έρευνάται, καί &ν
τί που φανη, ό εχων ζη ιοΰται at 7.6 can be explained: the verb έρευνάν at
7.6 undoubtedly implies illegal possession and hiding of money, not open
display. X.'s picture here is, of course, idealistically tinged, for Spartans
possessed money privately from the earliest times (cf. 7.6[1]), as X. himself
admits elsewhere, e.g. at HG 5.4.20 [Sphodrias], After the SC, and perhaps
starting herefrom, the idea that Sparta's decline was caused by the influx of
foreign wealth at the end of the Peloponnesian War became almost a literary
topos (Hodkinson 1993, 150-152; Hodkinson 1996, 86f.; Hodkinson 2000, 26-
30, 165-167, 426-432). It is worth pointing out that ancient sources blame the
influx of foreign wealth for the decline of a number of other Greek cities (cf.
Hodkinson 1996, 90f.).
Less convincing is Stein's (1878, 7; similarly Bianco 1996, 20f.)
suggestion that the greed for money here refers only to those harmosts or
Spartans who lived abroad. True, the verb άρ όζειν is found shortly before and
after this passage (14.2, 14.4), but the subject of chapter 14 is clearly the
unspecified Λακεδαι όνιοι as mentioned at 14.2.
14.4[1]: έπίστα αι δέ καί πρόσθεν τούτου £νεκα

ξενηλασίας γιγνο ένας καί άποδη είν ούκ έξόν. For the term
ξένος see 13.4[2], The word ξ ε ν η λ α σ ί α is not attested elsewhere in X., but
attested in prose since Th. 1.144.2.
It can be inferred from Arist. Pol. II 1270a 34-36, if reliable, that there was
a phase in Spartan history ('under the ancient kings'), at which no xenelasiai
('expulsion of foreigners') took place. According to Plu. Lyc. 9.4f. it was
Lycurgus who banished the 'unnecessary and superfluous arts'. Then-
banishment led to a perfection of the 'necessary arts', cf. ibid. 9.9. Xenelasiai
are attested in Sparta in the sixth and fifth centuries (cf. Hdt. 3.148, also Th.
1.144.2, 2.39.1, Ar. Av. 1012f„ Pl. Prt. 342 C, Theopomp.Hist. FGrH 115 F
178; Plu. apophth. lac. 224 Α-B, cf. Nafissi 1990, 267-271; Rebenich 1998a,
347-349). From Hdt. 3.148 one may deduce that the ephors, not the kings,
14.2[2]-14.4[2] 231
initiated the expulsions. However, one should not overestimate the number of
foreigners; it was probably mainly tradesmen who were affected by the
expulsions. By contrast, contacts within the framework of xenia ('guest
friendship') were entertained only by comparatively few noble Spartan families
with their likes in other states (cf. 13.7[7]; Cartledge 1987, 243-245;
Thommen 1996, 145f.). Apart from this, foreigners came to Sparta mainly for
the celebration of festivals (X. Mem. 1.2.61, Plu. Cim. 10.6, Ages. 29.3). For
a full discussion with comparative material see Rebenich 1998a.
14.4[2]: άποδη ειν ουκ έξόν, δπως ή ραδιουργίας ol
π ο λ ί τ α ι ά«ό τών ξ έ ν ω ν έ π ί π λ α ι ν τ ο . It is uncertain whether we
should read έ πί πλαιντο or έ πίπλαιντο. In several passages of X.'s work
the forms are attested - as here - without by the most important or all
manuscripts (cf. Mem. 2.1.30, Smp. 4.37.4, An. 1.7.8 al.).
A Spartan prohibition of travel abroad is attested by several sources. X. is
supported in the view of the general application of such a law by Arist. fr. 543
[R.]. Later authors draw on both X. and Aristotle (cf. Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F
103 ζ 5; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 11.2, inst. lac. 238 D - E). On the other hand, Isoc.
11.18 claims that the law applies only to those liable to military service
( ηδένα τών αχί ων άνευ της τών αρχόντων γνώ ης άποδη ειν), and
Pl. Prt. 342 C - D that it applies only to the 'young Spartans' (οΰδένα έώσι
τών νέων εις τάς άλλας πόλεις έξιέναι), cf. Rebenich 1998a, 350f. n. 92.
[supporting the view that the Spartan 'Reiseverbot' was a construction by later
Athenian sources].
Th. 2.39.1 explains the xenelasiai by reference to Spartan secrecy in military
matters (cf. Th. 5.68.2). This ties in well with the constant Spartan fear of
military exploitation (cf. the aphorisms ascribed to Lycurgus collected by
Wheeler 1983, 17 n. 84). Travel abroad was prohibited in order to avoid spread
of classified information outside Sparta, possibly also in order not to weaken
the military manpower (cf. Isoc. 11.18). This explains why the citizens were
forbidden on pain of death to settle in another city (Plu. Agis-Cleom. 11.2):
when a citizen moved, the city lost a soldier and incurred the danger of
disclosure of military information. 57
Besides, xenelasiai aimed at warding off the corrupting influx of foreign
customs. Such an intention is mentioned already at Hdt. 3.148 and implied also
at Th. 1.77.6 (Athenians addressing the Spartans) ¿ί εικτα γαρ τά τε κ α θ '
ύ άς αυτούς νό ι α τοις άλλοις ε χ ε τ ε (cf. Arist. fr. 543 [R.], Plu. Lyc.
27.6-9 with Ziegler's testimonia, apophth. lac. 238 D with Nachstädt's
testimonia). Fear of foreigners was also the reason why in Sparta the proxenoi
were not appointed by their own city, as elsewhere, but by the Spartan king
(Hdt. 6.57.2 with Cartledge 1987, 245f.). In Plato's ideal state too it was
57
But Plutarch's passage seems in paît to presuppose Roman conditions with Roman citizenship
irrespective of place of residence; by contrast, no Spartan could have seriously
contemplated settling elsewhere as a perioikos or with a similar inferior status, unless
expelled.
232 Commentary
permitted to stay in foreign cities only under severe injunctions (PI. Lg. 742 B;
951 C - 952 D).
14.4[3]: νυν δ' έπίστα αι τους δοκοΰντας πρώτους ε ί ν α ι
έσπουδακότας ώς ηδέποτε παύωνται αρ όζοντες επί
ξ έ ν η ς . Like other sources Χ. understands by πρώτοι the noble upper class.
Conversely, by τους δοκοΰντας πρώτους είναι he scornfully describes those
who ascended to harmostic power by patronage, not virtuous behaviour. This
may have been a concealed hit against Lysander (cf. pp. 12f.). For Spartan
commanders abroad cf. in general Hodkinson 1993, 152-157 and 14.2[2],
In practice, rarely were the harmosts appointed for reasons of virtue, but for
domestic or external political connections or family bonds (cf. Hodkinson
1983, 261-263; id. 1993, 157-161; Mitchell 1997, 79-85) at the prompting
either of the king (cf. e.g. Plu. Ages. 20.6) or the commander-in-chief (cf. e.g.
X. HG 2.2.2). On the spot the harmost had almost unlimited powers (cf. X.
An. 6.6.12, HG 3.5.13; but cf. Hodkinson 1993, 162-164), occasionally
supported by the dekarchies and triakontarchies (cf. HG 3.5.13, 6.3.8, Isoc.
4.111; Parke 1930, 51-54; Cartledge 1987, 90f.). The election to a harmosty
-especially at a young a g e - may frequently have been regarded as the first step
of a military career (cf. Hodkinson 1983, 251 n. 28 [on the minimum age for
holding a military office]). The scarce evidence strongly suggests that foreign
commands were generally in the hands of the leading Spartan families (cf.
Hodkinson 1993, 157-159); connections abroad were an important factor for
receiving a magistracy outside Sparta (cf. Mitchell 1997, 79-85).
Possibly the passage is a concealed criticism of Dercylidas, who is called
φιλαπόδη ος by X. at HG 4.3.2. Between 411 and 394 Dercylidas held several
harmostships in Thrace and in Asia Minor apparently without major
interruptions (cf. Bockisch 1965,237). I suggested above that between 399 and
394 X. followed Agesilaus in Asia Minor (see p. 3 n. 5); if so, he certainly got
personally acquainted with Dercylidas. Immediate contact of the two is all the
more likely, since in 395 a military unit called the Derkylideioi appears under
the command of Agesilaus (Hell.Oxy. 45.674 [Ch.]), which consisted possibly
of the remainder of the Ten Thousand (Cartledge 1987, 322).
Apart from his continuous harmostships X. may have resented another
famous characteristic of Dercylidas: if an anecdote of Plutarch is historical (Plu.
Lyc. 15.3, apophth. lac. 227 F), Dercylidas was childless, a fact contrary to
X.'s notion of the ideal Spartan (cf. 1.7-9). 58
14.5[1]: η ν έν δτε. More common is εστίν δτε. The verb in the past
is also found at X. HG 4.7.6.
14.5[2]: π ο λ ύ άλλον πραγ ατεύονται δπως άρξουσιν. The
attempt to vary the expressions by keeping the construction (14.4f.
έσπουδακότας ώς ... έπε ελοΰντο δπως ... πραγ ατεύονται δπως) leads Χ.
to construe πραγ ατεύεσθαι with δπως on the analogy of έπι ελεΐσθαι,
58
X. HG 3.1.8 does not give an indication of the nature of the relationship between X. and
Dercylidas.
14.4[2]-14.6[3] 233
although π ρ α γ α τ ε ύ ε σ θ α ι in X. is normally not followed by a secondaiy

clause. For the future αρξουσιν cf. also 14.6[3],
14.6[1]: τοιγαροΰν. See p. 50.

14.6[2]: έδέοντο αυτών ήγείσθαι έκΐ τους δοκοΰντας
ά δ ι κ ε ί ν . Several concrete occasions come to mind: X. may think of the
Athenian embassy dispatched to the Spartans for support against the Persians in
490 (Hdt. 6.106). But the qualifying words έπί τους δοκοΰντας άδικεί ν
(instead of έπί τους άδικοΰντας) make this scenario unlikely. For the
Persians were the άδικοΰντες par excellence in Greek eyes and doubts about
this view, as indicated by δοκείν, would have exposed X. to the charge of
medism. Furthermore, it is possible that X. here refers to the call for help of
the Greeks of Asia Minor against the Persians in 400, which the Spartans
followed eventually (cf. X. HG 3.1.3). However, the expression τους
δοκοΰντας άδικείν would remain somehow unexplained. Finally, the notion
of Athens as a 'seeming wrongdoer' out of the mouth of an Athenian, who
sympathized with Sparta, would be conceivable. Some concrete cases could
easily be found, particularly at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (cf. e.g.
Th. 1.67-1.71 [speech of the Corinthians]).
14.6[3]: έπί τό δ ι α κ ω λ ύ ε ι ν & ρ ξ αι π ά λ ι ν α υ τ ο ύ ς . Hie
passage has been interpreted in the past in two different ways:
(a) π ά λ ι ν means 'on the contrary' and refers to δ ι α κ ω λ ύ ε ι ν . The sense is
that the Spartans have the hegemony at the time of the composition of chapter
14: 'on the contrary many encourage each other in their efforts to prevent them
(sc. the Spartans) from taking the lead'. 59
(b) π ά λ ι ν means 'again, once more' and refers to ά ρ ξ α ι . The sense is that
the Spartans did not have the hegemony during the composition of chapter 14
and 'now many encourage each other in their efforts to prevent them (sc. the
Spartans) from taking the lead again.'
π ά λ ι ν appears only here in the SC. In order to establish its meaning one
has to compare its use here with other Xenophontic works.
As a rule where πάλιν is combined with a verb denoting moving or sending
it normally indicates return (meaning 'back', cf. LSJM s.v. I. 1, cf. e.g. HG
1.6.33, 36, 2.1.23, An. 1.1.4 al.), where it is not (i.e. in the majority of
cases), it indicates repetition (meaning 'again', cf. LSJM s.v. II, cf. e.g. HG
1.7.13, 34, Mem. 1.6.11, Ages. 1.29, 2.22). In a few cases the word indicates
a different aspect to what precedes (meaning 'in turn' LSJM s.v. Ill, cf. e.g.
Eq.Mag. 3.2, 5.2; Cyn. 10.16), normally accompanied by a
connecting/contrasting δε. Out of some 280 Xenophontic appearances I cannot
find one, where an absolute π ά λ ι ν denotes a contrast to the preceding as
59
This view was first taken by Fuchs 1838, 45 who, however, read διακωλύειν π ά λ ι ν
&ρξαι following Paris Gr. 1774 (the same reading is attested by Vatican Gr. 1334 and
Vatican Gr. 1337 as Fuchs could not know). The interpretation of πάλιν, though not the
inversion πάλιν ά ρ ξ α ι , was taken up e.g. by Chrimes 1948, 18. MacDowell 1986, 1 If.
regarded both interpretations of πάλιν as possible.
234 Commentary
necessary in (a). Besides - a n d most importantly- π ά λ ι ν always stands next to

the word it refers to (divided from it by a particle at most, notably δέ or αυ). 6 0
The result is unambiguous: only option (b) is reconcilable with the
Xenophontic usage of π ά λ ι ν . This also fits much better the construction at
14.5 πραγ ατεύονται δπως ¿¿ρξουσιν pointing rather to a future άρχή.
14.7[1]: ουδέν έντο ι δει θαυ άζειν τούτων [των]

έ π ι ψ ό γ ω ν α ΰ τ ο ί ς γ ι γ ν ο έ ν ω ν . Apart from here the word έπίψογος
appears in the classical period only at A. Ag. 611, and the corresponding verb
έπιψέγω does not seem to be attested at all in ancient Greek literature (though
X. frequently has ψέγω). LSJM s.v. interprets the word here passively as
'exposed to blame, blameworthy'. This is unlikely for two reasons: first, the
word appears at A. Ag. 611 in the active sense 'blaming', secondly the
construction θαυ άζειν + gen. participle requires a personal object (cf. Th.
3.38.1, Pl. Prt. 329 C). If so, one can take τούτων των έπιψόγων only as a
personal object, i.e. presumably the πολλοί at 14.6, not as ταύτα τ α
επίψογα. It follows that only the active sense 'blaming (sc. people)' is
feasible. Pierleoni's deletion of των - whereby έπιψόγων becomes a
predicative noun - is an unavoidable consequence.
14.7[2]: ε ί σ ι ν ο ΰ τ ε τ φ θ ε φ π ε ι θ ό ε ν ο ι . The unnamed god is
most likely Apollo, for the passage appears to be a reference to 8.5 (sc.
Lycurgus) άνόσιον θείς τό πυθοχρήστοις νό οις ή πείθεσθαι. Less likely, Χ.
here refers to 'the divine' in general (as e.g. Oec. 7.25, 27, 29; however, the
plural would be more common in this case). Similarly, disregard for the divine
is mentioned as one of the major reasons for the decline of the Persian empire
at X. Cyr. 8.8.2f.
15.1: Spartan kingship has not changed since its foundation.
15.1[1]: Βούλο αι δ έ κ α ί . For the style see p. 54.

15.1[2]: ας β α σ ι λ ε ΐ προς τ ή ν π ά λ ι ν σ υ ν θ ή κ α ς ό Λ υ κ ο ύ ρ γ ο ς
έ π ο ί η σ ε δ ι η γ ή σ α σ θ α ι . The employment of the word συνθήκαι is
remarkable, since elsewhere in the SC X. speaks of έπιτηδεύ ατα or νό οι
(cf. 1.1 [8], 1.2[2]). This choice of words is not coincidence: συνθήκαι
presuppose the rivalry of two parties, i.e. in our case the king and the damos
(X. inaccurately πόλις), while έπιτηδεύ ατα or νό οι are based on
convention, irrespective of any existing parties. For a connection of the
συνθήκαι with the Rhetra see pp. 24-27.
60
Chrimes 1948, 18 referred to PI. Grg. 482 D to support the meaning 'on the contrary' in the
passage of the SC. However, πάλιν there stands with δέ. Apart from that, it is found next to
the word it specifies: καί σου καταγελάν ... νυν δε πάλιν ούτος ταϋτόν τοϋτο
επαθεν. Thus the passage confirms exactly the use of π ά λ ι ν as established above and
shows - against Chrimes - that πάλιν can hardly mean 'on the contrary' in the SC.
14.6[3]-15.2[1] 235
15.1[3]: όνη γ ά ρ δή αΰτη < ή > ά ρ χ ή δ ι α τ ε λ ε ί ο ΐ α π ε ρ è ξ

α ρ χ ή ς κ α τ ε σ τ ά θ η · τ ά ς δ έ &λλας π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ς εΰροι &ν τ ι ς
ε τ α κ ε κ ι ν η έ ν α ς x a t ϊτι κ α ΐ ν υ ν ε τ α κ ι ν ο υ έ ν α ς . Χ. Ages.
1.4 remarks about the Spartan kingship τοιγαροΰν άλλη εν ουδε ία άρχή
φανερά έστι διαγεγενη ένη αδιάσπαστος οΰτε δη οκρατία οΰτε
ολιγαρχία οΰτε τυραννίς ουτε βασιλεία· αΰτη δε όνη δια ένει συνεχής
βασιλεία. Our passage refers to 10.8 where the old age of the Spartan nomoi
is underlined. Since αΰτη <ή> άρχή here can only refer to the Spartan
kingship (differently e.g. at 8.2 'public authority'), it follows that X. here, as in
the Agesilaus, regarded the Spartan institution mainly as a kingship. 61 X.'s
decision to stress strongly the 'royal' aspect of the Spartan institution may be
motivated by his close relationship to Agesilaus, see pp. 15f., 34; for the
definition of kingship cf. X. Mem. 4.6.12.
The continuity of the Spartan state and especially of the kingship, the first
Spartan institution, is to be explained by the favourable mixture of three
constituents (kingship, gerousia, ephorate) according to PI. Lg. 691 D - 692 C,
the long duration of the kingship by the limitation of its powers according to
Arist. Pol. V 1313a 17-33. According to Th. 1.18.1 the Spartans left their
constitution unchanged for 'about four hundred years or a little more' counting
from the end of the Peloponnesian War, according to Isoc. 12.204 (speech
finished in 339 BC) for not more than 700 years, according to Cie. Flacc. 63
(speech delivered in 59 BC) for more than 700 years, cf. Lys. 33.7. These
statements reflect an ideal rather than the truth: in the historical period the
rights of the king changed perceptibly, e.g. the fact that the king was deprived
of his privilege to decide on peace or war (cf. 15.2[3]). The question of the
continuity of state institutions was a central philosophical concern (cf. e.g.
Cyr. 1.1.1).
15.2-6: Royal privileges at home - offering of public sacrifices, leadership

of the army - honorific parts of the sacrificed animal - estates in the perioikic
cities - maintenance of the king at public expense - double ration - election of
two Pythioi - right to one piglet of every litter of pigs - the royal syssition
next to a lake — all apart from the ephors rise in front of the king.
15.2[1]: Κθηκε γ ά ρ θ ύ ε ι ν έν β α σ ι λ έ α πρό τής π ό λ ε ω ς τ à

δ η ό σ ι α α η α ν τ α . The two kings were priests of Zeus Lakedaimon and
Zeus Uranios according to Hdt. 6.56, presumably as colleagues (cf. Carlier
1984, 256). From Hdt. 6.57.2 it may be deduced that they were also the priests
of (the Amyklaian?) Apollo. The priesthoods are likely to have been connected
with regular ritual practices, especially sacrifices, in contrast to the
extraordinary sacrifices before a campaign (cf. 13.2), or before battle (cf. 13.8).
HG 3.3.4 is illuminating as to the regular sacrifices: οΰπω δ' ένιαυτόν δντος
έν τή βασιλείς Αγησιλάου, θύοντος αύτοΰ των τεταγ ένων τ ι ν ά
61
According to Isoc. 3.24 Sparta was an oligarchy at home, a kingship in the field.
236 Commentary
θυσιών ύπερ της πόλεως ειπεν ό άντις δτι έπιβουλήν τινα τ ω ν

δεινότατων φαίνοιεν οί θεοί. έπεί δε πάλιν εθυεν, ετι δεινότερα εφη τ α
ιερά φαίνεσθαι. τό τρίτον δε θύοντος, ειπεν· Τ Άγησίλαε, ώσπερ εί έν
αύτοίς ειη εν τοις πολε ίοις, οΰτω οι ση αίνεται, έκ δε τούτου θύοντες
και τοις άποτροπαίοις και τοις σωτήρσι, και όλις καλλιερήσαντες,
επαύσαντο. 6 2 The expression τεταγ ένων θυσιών clearly indicates that the
king did not perform the sacrifices at his own free will. They were his official
duty; hence, Agis is punished at Plu. Lyc. 12.5, ή θύσαντος ην εδει θυσίαν
(cf. 15.4[1]). The number of sacrifices seems to have been at the discretion of
the king; he sacrificed until the sacrifice was favourable. The number three may
often reflect literary convention rather than historical truth (cf. Gray 1989,
40f.). The presence of the mantis and the fact that Agesilaus sacrificed 'on
behalf of the state' suggest that we are dealing with a supplicatory sacrifice, in
opposition to the expiatory sacrifice to 'the gods that ward off evil and bring
help'. Besides, it seems that Agesilaus performed the sacrifice on his own; the
indefinite expression 'a king' may indicate that it was not fixed which king did
the job.
Possibly the δη όσια - like the routine sacrifices in the field (13.3)- were
performed before sunrise. Besides the public sacrifices, that were performed only
by the king, every Spartan could make private offerings (cf. Hdt. 6.67.3
[Demaratus makes a sacrifice to Zeus Herkeios after his dethronement]; Plu.
Lyc. 12.4 [sacrifice of first fruits]), as in Athens (cf. X. Mem. 1.3.2f.; for the
distinction between private and public offerings in Athens also Parker 1996, 5f.
n. 17). Public sacrifices, perhaps on behalf of the state, could be performed by
members of the Persian royal house according to X. Cyr. 8.5.26, cf. ibid.
8.7.1.
Arist. Pol. ΙΠ 1285b 13-19 remarks that the sacrifice was the kings' only
privilege remaining from their former absolute power, apart from leadership in
war (cf. Arist. Pol. ΠΙ 1285a 5f.; b 28f.). When Arist. Pol. Ill 1285a 6f. points
out ετι δε τα προς τους θεούς άποδέδοται τοις βασιλεΰσιν, he may suggest
that there did not exist various, mutually independent cult societies with their
own priests in Sparta as in other Greek cities, but a priestly hierarchy similar
to the military hierarchy, at the top of which - as in the army - stood the king
(for ιεροί in Sparta cf. Le Roy 1961, 228-234; Richer 1994, 52-55). The
Pythioi (cf. 15.5[2]) may have played a special role in this hierarchy.
15.2[2]: ώς άπό τοΰ θεοΰ δ ν τ α . The deletion of τοΰ by Dindorf is
arbitrary; by τού θεοΰ only Zeus can be meant. True, Hdt. 7.204, 7.220.4,
8.131.2 and Th. 5.16.2 relate the Spartan kings to Heracles, but Heracles is
Zeus' son and thus a direct genealogical link with Zeus is established,
disregarding the fact that already in Homer and Hesiod Zeus is the god of kings
(cf. the expression διοτρεφεές βασιλήες [//. 2.196 al.]). Besides the Spartan
62
The αποτρόπαιοι are not identifiable, the σωτήρες are the Dioskouroi, who are thus
mentioned also on Imperial inscriptions, cf. IG V (1) 101 ; 233; 658.
15.2[1]-15.2[3] 237
kings are called explicitly the priests of Zeus (cf. 15.2[1]).63 It is hardly
coincidence that the first known Spartan coins (dating from the beginning of
the third century) show Zeus on the reverse, not Heracles (cf. Grunauer-von
Hoerschelmann 1978, 1 and pl. I group 1). It should be noted that apart from
the Spartan kings X. made Cyrus a descendant of Perseus and thus of divine
origin (Cyr. 1.2.1, 4.1.24, 7.2.24), perhaps deliberately countering other
historians (cf. Gera 1993, 275f.).
At Ages. 1.2 X. remarked explicitly that Agesilaus descended from the
Heraclids, but whether the passage reflects X.'s conviction or an encomiastic
topos is hardly discernible. It remains remarkable that X. mentions the
Heraclids at 10.8, but does not connect them explicitly with the kings. Besides,
the employment of ώς instead of α τ ε here suggests the restricted sense 'since
he descended allegedly - as supported by the Spartans - from Zeus'. In other
words, X. here appears to dissociate himself from the customary Spartan view
that the kings descended from Heracles or Zeus. Simultaneously our passage
implies that in the eyes of the Spartans, in opposition to X., the king
descended indeed from the Heraclids or Zeus. The divine descent of the Spartan
kings may also be reflected in their close connection with the Dioskouroi (cf.
Carlier 1984, 298-301; Parker 1989, 147). This, however, does not necessarily
mean that the kings received heroic worship (cf. 15.9[3]).
15.2[3]: σ τ ρ α τ ι ά ν δποι ä v ή π ό λ ι ς έ κ π έ π ^ ή γ ε ί σ θ α ι . The
king traditionally commanded the land forces; there may have been 'a kind of
tabu against the king going to sea' (Lewis 1977, 45), i.e. against holding a
nauarchy.
Our passage seemingly contradicts Herodotus' remark at 6.56 that it was a
privilege of the kings πόλε ον γ' έκφέρεχν έπ' ην αν βούλωνται χώρην,
τούτου δε ηδένα είναι Σπαρτιητέων διακωλυτήν, εί δε ή, αυτόν έν
τφ άγει ένεχεσθαι. The Herodotean passage can hardly be interpreted other
than that it is the king who decides on peace and war. This contradicts
strikingly X.'s information according to which it is the city that declared war.
Carlier 1984, 257f. and others tried to solve this contradiction by postulating
that πόλε ον έκφέρειν could denote both attack from Spartan territory against
hostile territory and the attack from non-Spartan (e.g. allied) territory against
hostile territory. Four arguments may be put forward against such a view:
(a) The expression πόλε ον έκφερειν occurs not only in Herodotus, but
also at X. HG 3.5.1 and Hell.Oxy. 38.505 [Ch.], In these cases it clearly
denotes carrying the war from one's home city to the enemy. Even more
frequently - and possibly as a technical term - εκπέ πειν is used for the
dispatch of a Spartan officer from Sparta. Besides, the preposition έκ- 'from
[sc. Sparta]' is meaningful (cf. e.g. X. HG 4.6.3, 5.1.6, 5.1.13). Why should
Herodotus use εκφέρειν instead of φερειν, if his message was not 'carrying the
war out of Spartan territory'?
63
In fr. 27 [IEG] of Ion of Chios, which addresses a Spartan king (cf. West 1985, 74),
libations are made to Spartan heroes 'starting from Zeus' (v. 6).
238 Commentary
(b) It would remain obscure which Spartan outside the Spartan borders could
have possibly hindered a king from waging war.
(c) The following sentence in Herodotus presumably also refers to the
departure from and return to Sparta (cf. 13.2[5]).
(d) Early Spartan wars were hardly much more than wars with their
neighbours. The situation in which the king marched from one hostile territory
to another was certainly rare. Hence legal arrangements for this exceptional
case, in opposition to the question who led the army out of Sparta, were
secondary (cf. Th. 1.80.3).
It therefore seems to me beyond doubt that according to Herodotus it was at

the discretion of the kings to declare war and lead the army out of Sparta, while
according to X. it was the city which dispatched the king. Since X. is unlikely
to be wrong -given that he was an eye-witness of the Spartan a r m y - and since,
besides, his statements are confirmed by other testimonies (e.g. Th. 1.87; X.
HG 1.6.1, cf. Andrewes 1966, 10-12), it remains open to discussion whether
Herodotus was right and depicted a different, earlier state of affairs, or whether
he expressed himself carelessly and the situation as depicted in X. held true
already in Herodotus' time.
In my view it is most likely that Herodotus here - as in other passages, e.g.
7.206.1- chose his words sloppily. In fact, the civic assembly declared war and
thus formally sanctioned the dispatch of the army, but after the call-up by the
ephors (cf. 11.2[1]) the king was in charge of all military details, including the
time, duration, and execution of the campaign. Hdt. 5.74.1 (cf. 5.64.1) gives
the impression that outside Sparta the king could levy an army without the
support of the ephors.
15.3[1]: έδωκε δε καΐ γέρα άπό των θυο ένων

λ α β ά ν ε ι ν . For the term γέρας see 13.1 [2]. According to Herodotus, on
campaign the king was entitled to the hides and chines of the sacrificed animals,
at home only to the hides (cf. Hdt. 6.56, 6.57.1). The sacrificial animals of the
public sacrifices did not come from the royal estates (cf. 15.3[2]), but from
public land (cf. Hdt. 6.57.1 έκ του δη οσίου). The Spartan king presided over
the sacrificial meal (Hdt. 6.57.1 σπονδαρχίας είναι τούτων) and distributed
the sacrificial meat (X. HG 4.3.14, Plu. Ages. 17.5; for the κρεωδαίτης cf.
13.1 [4]).
15.3[2]: κ α ί γ η ν δ ε èv π ο λ λ α ΐ ς τ ω ν π ε ρ ι ο ί κ ω ν πόλεων
άπέδειξεν ε ξ α ί ρ ε τ ο v. The expression τέ ενος άποδείκνυ ι is
employed by Hdt. 5.89.2 (twice). X.'s expression is adopted from legal
language (cf. M/L no. 49, lines 9-11 [Athenian foundation decree of the
Thracian Brea, middle of the 5th century], Hdt. 4.161 with Carlier 1984, 475 n.
696). Although τέ ενος is not mentioned here, it is meant (cf. Carlier 1984,
158 n. 188). At HG 3.3.5 the estates of the Spartans are called χ ω ρ ί α
Σ π α ρ τ ι α τ ώ ν ; for their position among peroikic settlements cf. Hodkinson
2000, 139.
15.2[3]-15.3[3] 239
X.'s formulation implies:
(a) Only in some, not in all, perioikic cities did the king possess land. The
criteria for the distribution of this land are not discernible.
(b) In X.'s mind Lycurgus had performed a land distribution in the case of
the kings. X. thus presupposes that Lycurgus could rule on the cession of
perioikic territory, in other words, there was a time when Sparta interfered with
the distribution of landed property in perioikic cities.
(c) The perioikic cities possessed not only a certain financial and legal
autonomy in the classical period, they also had a geographically well-defined
city territory in which, apart from the kings, only the perioikoi were entitled to
the ownership of land. By contrast, Spartan citizens, as is implied by X., did
not possess land in the perioikic cities.
A certain autonomy of the perioikic territory may be suggested by the term
πόλις for perioikic settlements (thus already Hdt. 7.234.2; Th. 5.54.1; Isoc.
12.179 with Toynbee 1969, 205f. and Hall 2000, 75-78, but also ibid. 81; for
the scattered position of perioikic poleis within Lakonia and Messenia cf.
Hodkinson 2000, 139-145). But perhaps as early as the fifth century Sparta
claimed the right to settle refugees on perioikic territory (cf. Th. 2.27.2,
4.56.2; D.S. 12.44.3 [settlement of the Aiginetans in Thyrea]). Apart from
this, interference with perioikic landed property is not attested before the third
century (cf. Plu. Agis-Cleom. 8. If.).
The royal piece of land is έξαίρετος γή, a 'chosen' piece of land, in contrast
to the 'alloted piece of land' (κλήρος; cf. e.g. εξαίρετα τε ένη Pl. Lg. 738
D). Besides, the passage implies that the king received a revenue from certain
domains, but it follows from (a) that this revenue did not come from all
perioikic cities, in other words, we are not dealing with a tribute. Possibly PI.
Ale. I 123 A refers to this revenue: ετι δε και ό βασιλικός φόρος ουκ ολίγος
γίγνεται, δν τελοΰσιν οί Λακεδαι όνιοι τοις βασιλεΰσιν, see also Ephor.
ap. Str. 8.5.4 = FGrH 70 F 117 with Link 1994, 10; very doubtful is Hsch.
s.v. καλά η (κ 398)· το τέλος φέρειν τους πάροικους.
Presumably the king gave his estates to perioikoi or cultivated them through
slaves or helots. 64 He may have received a fixed rent or a fixed part of the
overall yield. Peasants working on the royal estates may have been called
ε πασέντας(?), cf. Hsch. s.v. (ε 2420), if the word indeed belongs to
ε πασις (LSJM refers to εγκτησις as a synonym and explains the latter as
'tenure of land in a country or district by a person not belonging to it', cf. X.
HG 5.2.19).
15.3[3]: ήτε δ ε ί σ θ α ι των ε τ ρ ί ω ν . Dindorf, followed by others,
conjectured ήτ' ένδείσθαι (cf. 5.3 ένδείς γ ί γ ν ε σ θ α ι ) . But the reading of
Vatican Gr. 1335 can be paralleled by 6.4 δεηθώσι των επιτηδείων. For
των ετρίων see 14.2[1]. The phrase implies that the revenue of the royal
estates served at least partly to cover the personal needs of the king.
64
In my view it is unlikely that perioikoi themselves had helots (cf. e.g. Toynbee 1969, 204 n.
4), but likely that they had slaves (cf. Cartledge 1979, 179f.).
240 Commentary
15.4[1]: £πα>ς δ έ κ α ι o í β α σ ι λ ε ί ς έξω σ κ η ν ο ΐ ε ν , σ κ η ν ή ν

α ύ τ ο ι ς δ η ο σ ί α ν α π έ δ ε ι ξ ε . For the temi σκηνή cf. 3.5[6] and 5.2[5].
The expression σκηνή δη οσία is Attic for the Lakonian term δα οσία as
found at 13.7. This is the first time that X. speaks of the kings in the plural.
The fact that X. employs a final instead of an iterative clause may suggest that
in his day the participation of the king in the syssitia was compulsory. But this
assumption, frequently made by scholars (e.g. Carlier 1984, 267), remains
doubtful. Plu. Lyc. 12.5 recounts: "Αγιδος γοΰν τοΰ βασιλέως, ώ ς
έπανήλθεν άπό της στρατείας καταπεπολε ηκώς 'Αθηναίους,
βουλο ένου παρά τη γυναικί δειπνείν και εταπε πο ένου τάς ερίδας,
ουκ επε ψαν οί πολέ αρχοι, τοΰ δε εθ' ή έραν υπ' όργής ή θύσαντος
ήν εδει θυσίαν, έζη ίωσαν αυτόν. 6 5 This passage shows that the
polemarchs expected the king to eat in the syssition. But the fact that Agis
apparently considered it self-evidently his right to have dinner at home shows
that he did not know of any regulation that required his presence at the
syssition. Furthermore, Hdt. 6.57.3 remarks that the Spartans send their kings
a portion of barley-meal and wine, but when they mess with their messmates, a
double share. Herodotus continues that they also received a double share when
'invited by private citizens' (προς ίδιωτέων κληθέντας). Thus according to
Herodotus the presence of the king at the syssitia was not compulsory (neither
was that of 'private citizens'?). Besides, the king, like other Spartans, may
occasionally have been prevented from attending the syssitia by visits to his
estates in the perioikic cities or Messenia. Finally, festivals and other religious
events may have caused absence from the syssition, cf. Hsch. s.v. άφείδιτος (α
8581)· ή ερα παρά Λάκωσιν έν θύουσιν.
Still, it was in the interest of the king to participate in the royal syssition,
for this was not only a community of messmates, but also the place of self-
representation and war council (cf. 13.1[4]). Presumably the idea that the
Spartan king had to take part in the syssition is based on the idealistic - but
historically oversimplified- notion that in Sparta all citizens and even the king
were summoned to a uniform way of life.
15.4[2]: κ α ι δ ι ο ι ρ ί φ 7ε επί τ φ δ ε ί π ν φ ε τ ί η σ ε ν , ο ύ χ ί ν α
διπλάσια καταφάγοιεν, ά λ λ ' ί ν α κ α ΐ άπό τοΰδε τ ι ή σ α ι
ε χ ο ι ε ν εΐ τ ι ν α β ο ύ λ ο ι ν τ ο . Χ. passes over in silence the fact that the
king received a double portion only in the syssition, at home he got only a
single ration (cf. Hdt. 6.57.3). For he wants to give the impression that the
king was always present at the syssition (cf. 15.4[1]). At Ages. 5.1 X. says
δι οιρίαν γε ήν λα βάνων èv ταΐς θοίναις ούχ δπως ά φοτέραις έχρήτο,
ά λ λ α διαπέ πων ούδετέραν αΰτφ κατέλειπε, νο ίζων βασιλεΐ τοΰτο
διπλασιασθήναι ουχί πλησ ονής ενεκα, ά λ λ ' δπως εχοι και τ ο ΰ τ ψ
τι άν εΐ τινα βούλοιτο. According to the SC the dimoiria for the king and its
distribution are a Lycurgan institution, i.e. all kings are liable to it. According
to X. Ages. 5.1, however, the dimoiria was not explicitly Lycurgan and its
65
But not the polemarchs, as claimed by Plutarch, but only the ephors had the power to punish
the king (cf. 8.4[4], corrected in the parallel version at Plu. apophth. lac. 226 F - 227 A).
15.4[1]-15.5[2] 241
distribution was at the discretion of Agesilaus. In fact, each passage interprets

the same historical fact according to a literary genre, on the one hand
encomiastically, on the other theoretically/philosophically. The historical
essence seems to be that the kings normally were entitled to a dimoiria, which
they could distribute at their discretion, and that Agesilaus had the reputation of
distributing it. For the size of the dimoiria see 5.3[1].
The chines which the king received from the public sacrifice in the field (cf.
Hdt. 6.56) presumably belonged to him also in time of peace (although not
mentioned explicitly); according to Hdt. 6.57.1 it was custom ήν θυσίη τις
δη οτελής ποιήται, πρώτους έπί τό δειπνον ΐζει ν τους βασιλέας και άπό
τούτων πρώτων ¿ίρχεσθαι, cf. 15.6.
An exceptional dimoiria on the election of the Elders is mentioned at Plu.
Lyc. 26.8. Also elsewhere a double ration was an honorific gesture (cf. e.g. X.
HG 6.1.6 [Thessaly]). The scholia on Od. 4.65 (see p. 7 n. 47) relate the
Spartan custom of an extra portion to Homeric practice.
15.5[1]: ε δ ω κ ε δ ' a i κ α ι . In simplistic paratactic style X. begins

this and the following sentence with εδωκε, for stylistic simplicity in the S C
see pp. 53f.
15.5[2]: ο ι δή κ a t Π ύ θ ι ο ι κ α λ ο ύ ν τ α ι . A relative clause with the
particles δή καί is found also elsewhere, e.g. at PI. Tht. 169 D. In our case the
δή suggests that the preceding main clause is stressed, κ α ί that a further piece
of information is added (cf. Denniston 1954, 218f., 294f.). The Pythioi appear
explicitly at Hdt. 6.57.2 (therefrom Tim. Lex. s.v. Πύθιοι; Sud. s.v. Ποίθιοι),
then here in X. At 1.67.2 Herodotus paraphrases the term by θεόπροποι (a
fragmentary θεοπρο[π appears already at Tyrt. 2.2 [IEG] in a Spartan context),
possibly 111. 5.16.2 by θεωροί.
Hdt. 6.57.2 claims that it is the right of the kings κ α ί Πυθίους αιρέεσθαι
δύο έκάτερον· oí δέ Πύθιοι είσι θεοπρόποι ές ελφούς, σιτεό ενοι ε τ ά
των βασιλέων τ α δη όσια. He also remarks at 6.57.4 that it was the custom
τάς αντηίας τάς γινο ένας τούτους (sc. the kings) φυλάσσειν,
συνειδέναι δε καί τους Πυθίους.
The resemblance of the expression δύο έκατέρφ προσελέσθαι (Χ.) and
αιρέεσθαι δύο έκάτερον (Hdt.) is coincidence, I believe, and, hence, does not
point to any dependence of X. on Herodotus. From Herodotus it may be
concluded that the Pythioi held a public office, since they were maintained at
public expense. They were assigned to the kings, because the latter were official
priests (cf. 15.2[1]). The assumption that the ephors occupied a similar
position towards the oracle of Pasiphaë at Thalamai as the Pythioi towards the
Delphic sanctuary (cf. e.g. Richer 1998a, 193-198, 208-212) remains highly
hypothetical due to lack of evidence.
Following Hdt. 6.57.2 we have to conclude that there were archives in
Sparta in which the oracles were collected and which were presided over by the
kings; for written versions of such oracles see also Plu. adversus Colotem 1116
F (Λακεδαι όνιοι τον περί Λυκούργου χρησ όν έν ταΐς π α λ α ι ο τ ά τ α ι ς
242 Commentary
άναγραφαΐς Εχοντες). The Herodotean formulation suggests that access to

these archives was restricted to the kings and the Pythioi. Some Spartan oracles
transmitted by different ancient sources may go back to this collection (cf.
Carlier 1984, 268 n. 164; cf. Cartledge 1978, 30 for possible further functions
of the Pythioi connected with the archives). Similar oracular archives are
attested in other Greek cities; so in Athens (Hdt. 5.90), Thebes (Paus. 9.26.3,
historical?) and possibly Argos (E. fr. 627 [TGF]), cf. Pritchett 1979, 296f.
Since both X. and Herodotus speak of an unrestricted choice of the king,
hereditary holding of the office, as suggested by Cartledge 1987, 111, 246, is
unlikely. Especially if the previous king had been at feud with the public
authorities or his fellow king (as Demaratus or Pausanias), on his abandonment
of the throne or death the person or the family holding the office of Pythioi
certainly changed under his successors.
The Delphic Oracle was consulted only occasionally on the initiative of the
kings (Hdt. 6.76.1; X. HG 4.7.2, generally Cie. div. 1.95), normally after
public consultation of the citizens (Parker 1989, 170 n. 62). Thus it was
practically impossible to keep the divine answer a secret for long (cf. Carlier
1984, 268f.). But the Pythioi could influence the moment of the public
announcement of the oracle and were possibly the only ones besides the king to
have access to the oracular archives (see above). Besides, occasionally they
served to negotiate unofficially with the Pythia, thus perhaps when Cleomenes
brought the Delphic promantis over to his side through a mediator named
Cobon and thus secured the oracle from the Pythia according to which
Demaratus was not the son of Aristón and, hence, could not claim the kingship
(Hdt. 6.66; cf. Zeilhofer 1959, 17-19). At Th. 5.16.2 Pleistoanax or rather his
brother Aristocles 'convinces' the Delphic promantis, thus bringing about the
return of Pleistoanax. Possibly Aristocles was Pleistoanax's Pythios before the
latter's expulsion. In general the Pythioi may have exerted a key function in the
frequent manipulations of Spartan oracles (for the latter cf. Robinson 1992).
Otherwise no Pythioi are known as such by name. 66
The origin and age of the institution of the Pythioi, who are known only
from Sparta, are obscure. Possibly the Pythioi played a role as mediators in the
diffusion of the alphabet in Sparta as early as the seventh century (cf. Cartledge
1978, 26; cf. also Whitley 1997, 645-649 for early writing in Sparta). A
bronze lebes dedicated by the Spartans at Olympia and perhaps to be dated to the
first half of the sixth century may well be a dedication of a Pythios (Jeffery
1990, 190; 199 no. 11; plate xxxv). The last Spartan θεόπροπος appears in the
third century AD (Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 197).
66
Possibly Pythioi are also behind the φαύλοι τοΰ ύθου συναγωνισταί at Plu. Lys. 26.2f.,
who supported Agesilaus' claim on the throne by the rumour of the birth of a son of Apollo.
The following Spartans brought money to Delphi, partly perhaps in their function as Pythioi:
Andokos (Poralla no. 90), Antileon (Poralla no. 100), Echeteles (Poralla no. 339), Menon
(Poralla no. 532), Timeas (Poralla no. 697). Philolaos (Poralla no. 728) brought money to
Sparta and later became naopoios; as naopoioi - and partly perhaps earlier Pythioi - are
attested Therikyon (Poralla no. 369), Koloiadas (Poralla no. 458), Pei[si]stratos (Poralla no.
606), Polypeithes (Poralla no. 632), and Pratonikos (Poralla no. 640).
15.5[2]-15.6[1] 243
15.5[3]: έ δ ω κ ε δ έ κ α ι π α σ ώ ν τ ω ν σ υ ώ ν ά π ό τ ό κ ο υ χ ο ι ρ ο ν
λα βάνειν, ώς ήποτε άπορήσαι βασιλεύς Ιερών, ήν τ ι
δ ε η θ η θ ε ο ί ς σ υ β ο υ λ ε ύ σ α σ θ α ι . Presumably the piglets were called
βορθαγορίσκοι or όρθαγορίσκοι in Lakonian, cf. Hsch. s . w . βορθαγορίσκια,
όρθαγορίσκος (β 822; o 1176). Ath. IV 140 Β (referring to 139 Β) remarks that
the name was not, as claimed by Polemon (and Hesychius), όρθαγορίσκοι, but,
as stated by Persaeus, Dioscurides, and Aristocles όρθραγορίσκοι, though his
etymological explanation is clearly a makeshift (i.e. έπεί προς τον δρθρον
πιπράσκονται).
The actual etymology of the word is obscure, despite Pisani 1958 (whether
the tyrant Orthagoras gave his name, as supposed by Pisani, or rather, as I find
much more plausible, received his name from the beast, is undecidable). It is
remarkable that Herodotus does not mention the tribute of a piglet (but perhaps
he refers to it by the unspecified full-grown victim, ίρήιον τέλεον, for Apollo's
temple to which each king was entitled (among other items) periodically [Hdt.
6.57.2]). Sacrifices (of piglets?) to cover the need of meat in the syssitia are
attested at Plu. de tuenda sanitate praecepta 128 C (with 5.3[1]), cf. in general
lameson 1988, 87-89.
It is noticeable that among the normal contributions to a syssition, which
are mentioned at Plu. Lyc. 12.3f. and Dicaearch. fr. 72 [W.], a certain amount
of money is mentioned instead of pork, with which apparently meat was
bought (cf. Lavrencic 1993, 44f.).
X. does not make clear to which deity the piglets were sacrificed, for the
archaeological evidence for pig sacrifices in Greece cf. Parker 1985, 30 n. 66;
Jameson 1988, 98f.; Forstenpointner/Krachler/Schildorfer 1999, 229f.
15.6[1]: κ α ΐ πρός τ η ο ΐ κ ί φ δ έ λ ί ν η ύ δ α τ ο ς π α ρ έ χ ε ι * # τ ι
δ έ κ α ΐ τ ο ΰ τ ο πρός π ο λ λ ά χ ρ ή σ ι ο ν , ο ί ή εχοντες αυτό
ά λ λ ο ν γ ι γ ν ώ σ κ ο υ σ ι . Very attractive is the reading ύδατος άφθονίαν of
Florence, Laur. 69,25 (cf. p. 58). However, the genitive alone can denote a part
of a whole, cf. Kühner/Gerth 1, 345.
In general οικία denotes the 'house', οίκος the house and what one possesses
connected with it (cf. Pomeroy 1994, 214). According to this definition we are
dealing here with a λί νη next to the 'house', not, say, the estate. Two
questions pose themselves:
(a) Why does X. speak of one 'house' in the case of two kings?
(b) What is the meaning of λί νη?
(a) Each king had a private residence, so Demaratus (Hdt. 6.67.3),
Leutychidas (Hdt. 6.72.2), Agis (Th. 5.63.2), Agesilaus (X. Ages. 8.7, Nep.
Ages, 7.4, Plu. Ages. 19.6), Cleonymus (Plu. Pyrrh. 27.3), Cleomenes (Plu.
Agis-Cleom. 50.2), Lycurgus (Plb. 5.29.9), Polydoros (Paus. 3.12.3). Stibbe
1989, 69 suggests that the Europontids were resident in the village Mesoa, the
Agiads in Pitane; but one should consider the fact that X.'s word λί νη here is
strongly reminiscent of the region called Λί ναι, where king Aristón at least
had his private residence (cf. Hdt. 6.69.3 with Stibbe 1989, 87-89). Possibly
244 Commentary
the private residences of the kings may at times have been quite remote from
each other (cf. Carlier 1984, 266 n. 154).
It is not even certain whether X. here refers to the private houses of the
kings. The context seems to indicate that X. has a specific locality in mind,
generally associated with the activities of the kings. Besides, in this chapter X.
speaks exclusively of the public honours of the king, and thus the mention of
the kings' private mansions would come most unexpectedly. The only solution
seems to be that X. here talks about the building in which the syssition of the
kings took place.
The kings participated in one syssition (X. HG 5.3.20, Plu. Ages. 20.8), as
did the ephors, at least at a later period (Plu. Agis-Cleom. 29.1 and 30.7, Ael.
ΝA 11.19). At an early stage perhaps kings and ephors messed together (cf.
Hdt. 6.63.2). Hence, one may presuppose a common building where the
syssition of the kings (and ephors?) was held and to which X. refers here (that
explains τη οίκίςΟ. This building, I believe, may well have been called (or at
least operated as) δα οσία (cf. 15.4[1]). Since X. mentions a λί νη close by,
this syssition is likely to have been inside or close to the area called Λί ναι,
unless X.'s reasoning here is due to misinterpretation (of information like 'the
οικία is situated in Limnai').
(b) If the οικία here denotes the building where the royal syssition was held,
X.'s stress on the importance of the lake close by is comprehensible: it served
for purification, possibly also for fishing purposes. It is conceivable that
formerly it had religious functions. In X.'s day these had disappeared, for X.
would not have given a secular explanation where a religious one was close at
hand.
15.6[2]: καΐ Εδρας δε πάντες ύπανίστανται βασιλεΐ. Το
concede one's seat or to step aside was considered a mark of esteem (cf. II.
1.533-535; X. Hier. 7.2, 7.9; Smp. 4.31; Pl. R. 425 Β al.). Normally the
young rose before their elder (Plu. Lyc. 15.3, 20.15, apophth. lac. 227 E-F,
232 F, 237 D; cf. 9.5). According to Hdt. 2.80 (cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 235 C-
D) among the Greeks only the Spartans (together with the Egyptians)
maintained this custom (but not before those who had infringed Spartan law, cf.
9.5, Plu. Lyc. 15.3). The principle of seniority possibly also applied to
conduct between kings (X. HG 5.3.20, cf. Cartledge 1987, 102f.). However,
already in Homer it was acceptable for the gerontes to yield their place to the
royal son {Od. 2.14), and according to Tyrt. fr. 12.4If. [IEG\ older men in
Sparta granted younger men a seat when the latter excelled in battle.
If X. here thinks of the situation in the syssition, his statement indicates
that at the end of fourth century the Spartans - like the Cretans (cf. Pyrgio ap.
Ath. IV 143 E = FGrH 467 F l ) - used to mess seated, not reclining (cf. X.'s
use of the word εδραι, not κλίναι). This would be in line with a remark by
VaiTO (preserved by Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 7.176), but contradicts a number of
other sources (Alcm. fr. 19 [PMGF] (?); Phylarch. ap. Ath. IV 142 A = FGrH
81 F 44, Ath. XII 518 E; Cie. Mur. 76; Sud. s.v. Λυκούργος, φιλίτια) as well
as vase depictions (e.g. Pipili 1987, 71-74) that attest benches/couches also in
15.6[1]-15.7[2] 245
the archaic and hellenistic period in Sparta. One needs to conclude that only
during a relatively short period in the fifth/fourth century did the Spartans mess
seated (cf. Meier 1998, 220). For lion-footed thrones typical of Sparta and
possibly reflecting the style of royal furniture cf. Kyrieleis 1969, 182f. Such a
throne may be referred to by Hdt. 6.63.2 by the term θώκος (cf. Richer 1998a,
392 n. 16).
Whether the classical Spartan syssition knew sophisticated seating
arrangements, as claimed by Persaeus and Dioscurides at Ath. I V 1 4 0 F - 1 4 1 A
(FGrH 584 F 2 and 594 F 3), may be open to doubt. At any rate, in the
classical period the kings were entitled to a special seat at the banquet (Hdt.
6.57.2), likewise presumably the ephors. Similarly, in the Cyropaedia Cyrus'
messmates did not sit at random, but according to merit with the most
honoured next to the king, and X. adds that this still applied to contemporary
Persia (X. Cyr. 8.4.3-5; cf. X. An. 7.3.29).
15.6[3]: πλήν ουκ Εφοροι άπό των έφορινων δίφρων. For the
seemingly pleonastic οΰκ (omitted by the excerpt of Nie.Dam. FGrH 90 F
103z 17) cf. Kühner/Gerth 2.219. X.'s statement is supported by Arist. fr.
611.10 [R.]; Plu. apophth. lac. 217 B-C; praec. gerendae reipublicae 817 A al.
Plu. Ages. 4.5 mentions that it was Agesilaus who rose when the ephors paid
him a visit, apparently presupposing that such behaviour was not the rule.
The diphroi of the ephors stood where the ephors administered their office,
i.e. in the έφορέϊον (X. Ages. 1.36, Plu. apophth. lac. 232 F; Agis-Cleom.
29.3 οίκη α, cf. Plu. Agis-Cleom. 12.4 with Richer 1998a, 235-243). In 227
Cleomenes ΠΙ removed the diphroi apart from one for himself (Plu. Agis-
Cleom. 31.1). For the function of the diphroi as a symbol of supreme power
cf. Richer 1998a, 392f.; for their actual appearance cf. Laser 1968, 36-38.
15. 7: Exchange of oaths between the kings and the ephors.
15.7[1]: έφοροι εν ύπέρ της πόλεως, βασιλεύς δέ υπέρ

έαυτοΰ. The construction with ύπέρ is attested elsewhere in X. and belongs
to contractual language, cf. HG 5.1.31 oí δε Θηβαίοι ήξίουν ΰπερ π ά ν τ ω ν
Βοιοτών ό νύναι.
15.7[2]: ό δέ δρκος εστί τφ εν βασιλεΐ κατά τους τής
πόλεως κει ένους νό ους βασιλεύσειν, τη δέ πόλει
έ πεδορκοΰντος εκείνου άστυφέλικτον τήν βασιλείαν
π α ρ έ ξ ε ι ν . The verb έ πεδορκείν [= 'abide by one's oath'] is attested in the
classical period at Hdt. 4.201.3, in poetry at Ar. fr. 813 [PCG]. An Athenian
decree of 363/362 (/G 2 Π (1) 111 line 79, solemn archaism?) attests that the
word belonged to the legal language of the fourth century. Hesychius knew the
word from Aristophanes, the Suda from Herodotus.
Άστυφέλικτος is here attested for the first time, στυφελίζω and its
derivatives are predominantly poetic (e.g. II. 5.437, Od. 17.234, A. Pers. 79,
but cf. Hp. Fract. 31 [ΙΠ 524]). The word may suggest that X. paraphrases the
246 Commentary
original text of the oath or the paraphrase of another author, possibly the poetic
version of Critias' Spartan Constitution. For a possible connection with the
Rhetra see pp. 24-27.
The ephors take the oath on behalf of the citizens, the king on his own
behalf (cf. Richer 1998a, 394-396). As rightly pointed out by Carlier 1984,
276 n. 214, the passage does not imply that the kingship itself is abolished
when a king infringes the law, but that the ephors could depose a king bending
the law (replacing him by his legal heir). The oath is taken monthly (not, as
Nic.Dam. FGrH 90 F 103 ζ 18 wrongly states [misreading X.?], only at the
beginning of the kingship [προ της άρχής], cf. Link 1994, 130 n. 51),
presumably either at new or full moon (Richer 1998a, 395 n. 40). Hence, the
passage shows that the ephors may be considered de iure as representatives of
the people before the king (what else could υπέρ της πόλεως mean?). But this
does not suggest much about the institutionalization and political orientation of
the ephorate defacto (pace e.g. Kiechle 1963, 243f.; Toynbee 1969, 241f.). The
purpose of the oaths was to demonstrate subordination of the royal powers to
the power of the Spartan nomos, and to protect oneself against tyranny on the
part of the kings (cf. Pl. Lg. 692 Β and 8.4[7]). The oath operated as a means
of control, as did the observation of the heavens by the ephors every eight years
according to Plu. Agis-Cleom. 11.4f. (cf. Carlier 1984, 294-296; Richer
1998a, 193-196). It expressed the essential Spartan idea of 'to rule and be ruled'
(cf. 2.10[4]) and as such, i.e. as an issue of vital importance for the Spartan
political system, it was interpreted later too (cf. Plu. apophth. lac. 239 F). The
restriction of the royal powers, which it implied, ensured that only both kings
together could form an effective counterweight against the ephors (cf. Plu.
Agis-Cleom. 26.2). On the other hand, according to Arist. Pol. V 1313a 18-33
this restriction was the reason for the long duration of the Spartan kingship.
Since Hdt. 5.39f. [Anaxandridas made to accept a second wife] shows that
the ephors could interfere with the private life of the king apparently at their
discretion and since the introduction of the oaths must be the result of events
where this was not the case (otherwise why the oaths?), the introduction of the
oaths must be dated before the reign of Anaxandridas (pace e.g. Cartledge 1987,
107). The old-fashioned wording of the oaths (see above) and the fact that PI.
Lg. 684 A, 692 Β and Isoc. 6.2If. attribute them to the age of the Heraclids
also support an early date; Richer 1998a, 396 (quoting a number of different
suggestions) proposes the seventh century, a not unlikely guess; for a possible
connection with the Rhetra see pp. 24-27.
A partly comparable exchange of oaths between the king and his subjects is
found in Persia (X. Cyr. 8.5.22-27, cf. Gera 1993, 290 n. 41; Tuplin 1994,
142), and in Epirus (Plu. Pyrrh. 5.5 with Nilsson 1912, 337-339). One may
add the oath by which the citizens in all Greek cities pledged ό όνοια according
to X. Mem. 4.4.16.
15.7[2]-15.9[3] 247
15.8f.: The privileges of the kings do not differ much from those of private
citizens; it is is only after their death that special honours are paid to them.
15.8[1]: α ύ τ α ι έν o i v a i τ ι α ΐ οίκοι ζ ώ ν τ ι βασιλεΐ

δ έ δ ο ν τ α ι , ο ΰ δ έ ν τι π ο λ ύ ύ π ε ρ φ έ ρ ο υ σ α ι των Ι δ ι ω τ ι κ ω ν . I
cannot see why οίκοι should be deleted with Cobet. The word takes up προς
τήν πόλχν at 15.1. Chapter 15 mainly deals with the honours of the king when
he is in the city and only secondarily with the honours of the dead and living
king. If one deletes οίκοι nevertheless, one has to place chapter 14 after chapter
15. For chapter 13 and chapter 15 together deal with the honours of the king
when alive. If one left chapter 14 in its present position, our passage would be
a very inaccurate summary of what precedes it.
X. is arguing in an idealizing Socratic vein (cf. Pl. Lg. 696 A - Β). In
practice, the public honours mentioned by X. in the preceding paragraphs are
not as negligible as X. wants us to believe. They seem so only in relation to
the ceremonial at the court of the Persian king, which X. may envisage here.
The power of the Spartan king at home lay in the religious sphere, in his
authority as the highest priest. His special relation with the gods entailed - at
least at a later period - sacrosanctity (cf. Th. 1.134; Plu. Agis-Cleom. 19.9,
21.3f.; Cartledge 2001, 62-64).
15.8[2]: τοις β α σ ι λ ε ΰ σ ι τ υ ρ α ν ν ι κ ό ν φρόνη α η α ρ α σ τ ή σ α ι
... τοις πολίται ς φθόνον έ π ο ι ή σ α ι . Parallelism with variation of the
verb. For the relation of kingship and tyranny in X. cf. Gera 1993, 76f.
1 5 . 9 [ 1 ] : α ϊ δέ τ ε λ ε υ τ ή σ α ν τ ι τι αΐ βασιλεΐ δέδονται,
τ η δ ε β ο ύ λ ο ν τ α ι δ η λ ο ΰ ν . The anacoluthon αϊ δέ ... τήδε ... is very
unusual. The sense is apparently ταΐς δέ τι αΐς, α'ί βασιλεΐ δέδονται,
βούλονται δηλοΰν etc. Possibly a part of the sentence has dropped out after
δέδονται, e.g. α'ί δέ τελευτήσαντι τι αΐ βασιλεΐ δέδονται, < ε γ ά λ α ι
είσίν>; τη δ ε... (in contrast to ουδέν τι πολύ ύπερφέρουσαι των ι δ ι ω τ ι κ ώ ν ,
cf. 15.8[1]).
15.9[2]: δέδονται ... προτετι ήκασι. The perfect forms of the verb
are present in sense as at 8.2 γ ε γ έ ν η τ α ι , 11.5 ύπειλήφασι, 11.6 δέδοται ...
τ έ τ α κ τ α ι ; cf. Hdt. 6.58.1 δέδοται, X. Ages. 1.4 προτετι ήσθαι, Χ. Cyr.
8.6.14 προτετί ηνται. Χ. has a remarkable predilection for the perfect form
with a present meaning in the case of the verb προτι άω.
15.9[3]: ούχ ώς ανθρώπους άλλ' ώς ήρωας τους
Λ α κ ε δ α ι ο ν ί ω ν β α σ ι λ ε ί ς π ρ ο τ ε τ ι ή κ α σ ι . For the accusative form
βασιλείς see introduction p. 52. This form may be chosen partly also for
metrical reasons. For the last part of the sentence - and of the SC - has the
metrical structure of a hexameter as already noticed by Naumann 1876, 17f.:
τους Λακεδαι ονίων βασιλείς προτετι ήκασι
- uu - uu - uu - uu
248 Commentary
Whether X. alluded to a predecessor (Critias?) or attempted to mark the last

sentence of his work by a certain solemnity, or whether this metrical pattern is
simply coincidence (for such coincidences in prose cf. Page 1959, 21 If.),
remains uncertain. Similarly Thucydides employs a hexameter at a comparably
prominent position in his proem (cf. Th. 1.21.2 with Tsakmakis 1995, 53), so
do Roman historians (cf. Goodyear 1972, 89-91). The full title
Λακεδαι ονίων βασιλείς may also point to a certain deliberate solemnity
(cf. Toynbee 1913, 248). Hdt. 6.58.3 uses the same full title when he talks of
the funeral of the kings, although he also knows the word combination
βασιλεύς Σπαρτιητέων (cf. ibid. 6.51).
It is remarkable that X. here stresses the grandeur of the funeral of Spartan
kings as a positive point, while at Cyr. 8.7.25 his hero Cyrus insists on a
simple burial without silver or gold (quite unhistorically, cf. Gera 1993, 127-
129).
A number of sources attest that the funeral of a Spartan king was an
exceptional spectacle.67 Our Xenophontic passage led to two different
interpretations, one promoted by Cartledge (1987, 335f. and id., 1988),
followed by Nafissi 1991, 288, the other by Parker (1988 and 1989, 169 n.
51). According to Cartledge and Nafissi the passage is to be interpreted to the
effect that X. regarded the Spartan kings as human beings who formally
received a heroic status after their death. Accordingly Cartledge presupposes a
posthumous heroic cult of the kings in one way or the other, qua their office as
king, as it were. Cartledge 1987, 339 drew on two kinds of posthumous
heroization as evidence, first the heroization of historical persons - like e.g. of
the ephor Chilon - on the 'hero-reliefs' (cf. Thommen 1996, 73), secondly the
cult of mythical heroes like Orestes, whose remains were allegedly translated
from Tegea to a Spartan shrine in the middle of the sixth century (Hdt. 1.67f.,
Paus. 3.3.6, 8.54.4, cf. Boedeker 1993). According to Cartledge the translation
of Orestes' remains was a procedure analogous to the translation of the corpse
of a king who had died abroad.
The link between these two forms of heroic worship is the fact that they
depend on a person, not an office: 68 Chilon was not venerated as ephor and
67
Tyrt. fr. 7 [IEG, but the word δυνάστης used there may suggest that Tyrtaeus did not refer
(exclusively?) to Spartan kings, cf. Ducat 1990, 60]; Hdt. 6.58f.; cf. X. HG 3.3.1 [Agis];
5.8.1 [Agesipolis]; Ages. 11.16 [Agesilaus]; Plu. Ages. 40.3f. [Agesilaus]; Paus. 4.14.4; Ael.
VH 6.1 [the last two passages perhaps based on Tyrtaeus]; Nep. Ages. 8.7 [Agesilaus],
fundamental is Cartledge 1987, 332-342; for funerals in Sparta in general see Nafissi 1991,
277-341 [for royal funerals ibid. 286-290],
68
The worship of humans as heroes is frequently attested in Sparta: Hdt. 1.66.1 [Lycurgus],
Paus. 3.12.9 [Alphius and Maron who fought at Thermopylae, cf. Hdt. 7.227], 3.14.1
[Brasidas, Pausanias and Leonidas], 3.15.1 [Cynisca], 3.16.4 [Athenodorus]; for the worship
of private citizens in the Imperial period cf. Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 11 If., the worship
of heroic kings is attested in the Imperial period too, see IG V (1) 660 and others with
Pritchett 1985, 242. For the scarcity of archaeological evidence for pre-classical heroic
cults in Lakonia cf. Antonaccio 1995, 69f. The first human being heroized to my knowledge
is Philip of Egesta, cf. Hdt. 5.47.2.
15.9[3] 249
Orestes not as king, 69 and, one may add, Brasidas not as commander-in-chief
(cf. Th. 5.11.1). In other words, the heroization of Orestes, Chilon, and
Brasidas was not caused by the office they held but by exceptional - historical
or mythical - deeds during their life-time, behind which an exceptional divine
favour was assumed. Heroization of humans on the grounds of their behaviour
was recommended by Pl. R. 468 E - 469 Β, too. It points in the same direction
when 'good' Spartans were praised as 'divine' (cf. Pl. Men. 99 D, Arist. EN VII
1145a 27-29 with Cartledge 1987, 83). These criteria are not compatible with a
heroization of all Spartan kings.
Furthermore, one cannot explain the heroization of the Spartan kings by

their fictitious descent from the Heraclids. The Spartan king could be removed
from office, cf. 8.4[4], 15.7[2]. With his dethronement he lost the right of a
'royal' funeral. Thus Pausanias, who was both Heraclid and in the possession of
the royal τι ή (cf. Th. 1.132.1), after some weighty allegations had to flee to
the sanctuary of Athena Chalkioikos, where the Spartans starved him to death
(cf. Th. 1.134). Subsequently the Spartans first intended to dump his body in
the Kaiadas cleft, the burial place for criminals, but eventually changed their
mind for unknown reasons and buried him 'somewhere close by'. Finally, a
Delphic oracle gave orders to translate his remains to the sanctuary of Athena
Chalkioikos. One may point out that Pausanias exercised royal power only on
behalf of his nephew Pleistarchus, but a similar misfortune happened to king
Pausanias in 395: he managed to anticipate an impending conviction by his
timely escape to Tegea, where he died. Apparently no steps were taken to
translate the corpse to Sparta or arrange for a royal funeral (cf. X. HG 3.5.25).
Finally, the example of Cyrus shows that a 'divine' origin did not necessarily
entail a heroization post mortem. Although Cyrus was of 'divine' descent (cf.
15.2[2]), nowhere is a heroization mentioned (cf. Tuplin 1994, 141). This is all
the more surprising because Cyrus - a s presented by X . - carries a good number
of heroic characteristics (courage, strength, divine favour).
All in all it can be stated with certainty that the Spartan kings were not
heroized because of their supposedly 'divine' descent or their royal office.
Additionally Pausanias mentioned the tombs of Spartan kings as τάφοι
(3.12.8; 3.14.2) or ν ή α τ α (3.14.3), not as ή ρ φ α , as correctly pointed out
by Parker 1988, 10; even where Pausanias speaks of ή ρ φ α in the city of
Sparta, he may frequently refer only to the typically Spartan two-storey tombs,
not necessarily connected with any kind of worship (cf. Raftopoulou 1998,
134f.; but for the existence of burial cults cf. Stibbe 1989, 89-93).
What else suggests a heroization? A central reason why Cartledge assumed a
heroization of the kings was the fact that the corpse of a king who had died
abroad-in opposition to that of other Spartans (cf. Hodkinson 2000, 2 5 1 f . ) -
was translated to Sparta. Plu. Ages. 40.4 remarks: εθους δ' δντος
69
The translation of Orestes was due to propagandists rather than religious reasons, as
suggested by parallel 'repatriations', cf. Thommen 1996, 56f.
250 Commentary
Λακωνικού, των εν άλλων επί ξένης αποθανόντων αυτού τ ά σ ώ α τ α

κηδεύειν κ α ι άπολείπειν, τ ά δε των βασιλέων ο ΐ κ α δ ε κο ίζειν.
Cartledge 1987, 337 refers to supporting archaeological material. In my view,
however, this 'repatriation' of the corpse and the sumptuous funeral ceremony
were not founded on religiosity (so Cartledge 1987, 340), nor on the idea that
the king represented the unity of the conqueror state (so Nafissi 1991, 289f.),
but on the concept of continuity: the official legitimation of a new king was
his blood relationship with his predecessor; at the beginning of the new
kingship stood the funeral of the dead king as a bridge, as it were, between old
and new. Originally the many thousands of Spartans, perioikoi and helots
gathered at the funeral of the dead king not only to bid farewell, but also and
predominantly to hail the new king (cf. Hdt. 6.58.2f.). The dances and sacrifices
mentioned at Th. 5.16.3 may well belong to this context. The splendid funeral
was, of course, more important for the new king than the dead one, for the
official legitimation of the new king was - regardless of the reasons for his
election (cf. X. HG 3.3.1-4)- the fact that a blood relative, normally his father,
had already been king. 70 It was this fact that was made visible by the royal
funeral. This is also the reason why all other Spartans, whose successors had
no need to justify their position by affiliation, even the polemarchs, were
buried where they had died. One may compare the two polemarchs in the grave
of the Lakedaimonians on the Athenian Kerameikos, apart from the explicit
testimony of this practice at Plu. Ages. 40.4. 71 This, of course, does not
exclude the possibility that certain kings were worshipped like heroes and their
remains brought home after a long time; cf. apart from the mythical Orestes
(see above) especially Leonidas, whose corpse was brought to Sparta no less
than 40 years after his heroic death (cf. Paus. 3.14.1 with Nafissi 1991, 309-
313; Richer 1994, 73-77; Thommen 1996, 143f.). But still in those cases
where the corpse of a dead king could not be buried at home an image
(είδωλοv) was buried (Hdt. 6.58.3), in order to symbolize the unbroken chain
of royal power at home.
It follows that the Spartan king was not heroized after his death qua office.
Likewise Herodotus does not mention a heroization of the Spartan kings as
their privilege. Does this mean that our passage is the only evidence for a
heroization of the Spartan kings? The answer is that our passage does not
indicate a posthumous heroization of the Spartan kings either: ώς in the
expression ούχ ώς ανθρώπους άλλ' ώς ήρωας is used in its normal sense as
a comparative particle. One could possibly argue that a passage like Cyr.
3.2.25 (συνδείπνους ελαβεν ά φοτερους προς εαυτόν ώς φίλους ήδη ['... as
70
For the 'porphyrogenesis' of Spartan kings cf. Ogden 1996, 238.
71
Cf. Willemsen 1977, 128-130 with Hodkinson 2000, 257-259. A survey of known Spartan
graves is given by Nafissi 1991, 327-331. It is not impossible that occasionally one
tranferred a fallen warrior to the city and buried him individually, as Nafissi 1991, 292-301
attempts to demonstrate. But the evidence for this is late and far from unambiguous.
Hodkinson 2000,253-255 argues cogently that this was hardly, if ever, the rule.
15.9[3] 251
if they were friends already']) suggests that the comparative notion could be
diminished (but still not abolished).72 If we are not dealing with an equation
'king = hero' in our passage (otherwise one would expect an expression like ουκ
ανθρώπ ους ά λ λ ' ήρωας όντας vel sim.) but indeed with a comparison, this
suggests that in X.'s eyes the cult of the kings resembled that of heroes, but
was not identical with it; Taeger 1957, 258 is instructive for this employment
of ώς on honorary inscriptions from the hellenistic period. In other words, X .
interprets the Lycurgan laws to the effect that the Spartan king was worshipped
after his death like a hero, not as a hero.
72 Cf. Th. 5.11.1 ώς ήρβη ... ώς οικιστή ... ('as if he was a hero / an oikist') where
Thucydides suggests that Brasidas was actually not a hero and oikist, but had received such
honours only for political reasons.
APPENDIXES
Appendix I: Spartan marriage
The procedure of Spartan marriage can be inferred from two passages:
(a) Hdt. 6.65.2: "Leotychidas had come to hate Demaratus exceedingly on

account of the deed that I now narrate. Although Leotychidas had been engaged
to marry Percalus, the daughter of Chilon, the son of Demarmenus, Demaratus
plotted to rob Leotychidas of the marriage, by seizing Percalus himself
beforehand, and keeping her as his wife."1
(b) Plu. Lyc. 15.4f.: "They used to marry by capturing the bride - not
taking immature girls who were not ready for marriage, but seizing young
women who were ripe for marriage and blooming. The so-called bridesmaid
received the woman who had been seized and cut her hair very short, dressed her
in a man's cloak and sandals, and laid her down on a bed of rushes, alone and
without light. The bridegroom comes in secretly, neither drunk nor surfeited
with food, but sober, as usual after his dinner in the phiditia, loosed his [her?]
girdle, lifted her up and carried her to the bed. After staying but a short time
with her, he went away, as was proper, to where he used to sleep before with
the other young men. From then on he continued to spend his days and to take
his rest with his companions, whilst he took great care that his visits to his
bride should be secret. For he was ashamed and feared that someone from inside
might notice him. His bride also played her part in contriving that they could
have intercourse with each other unseen and at the right time. And this practice
they continued not just for a short period, but for such a length of time that
children had even been born to some before they saw their wives by daylight."2
' ό δέ Λευτυχίδης ην έχθρός τφ η αρήτψ άλιστα γεγονώς διά πρηγ α τοιόνδε-

άρ οσα ένου Λευτυχίδεω Πέρκαλον τήν Χίλωνος τοΰ η αρ ένου θυγατέρα ό
η άρητος έπιβουλεύσας αποστερεί Λευτυχίδεα τοΰ γά ου, φθάσας αύτός τ ή ν
Πέρκαλον άρπάσας καί σχών γυναίκα.
2
εγα ον δε δι' αρπαγής, οΰ ικρός ούδ" αώρους προς γά ον. αλλ' [καί]
άκ αζοΰσας καί πεπείρους. τήν δ' άρπασθεΐσαν ή νυ φεύτρια καλου ένη
παραλαβοΰσα, τήν εν κεφαλήν εν χρφ περιέκειρεν, Ι ατίφ δ' άνδρείφ καί
ύποδή ασιν ένσκευάσασα, κατέκλινεν έπί στιβάδα όνη ν άνευ φωτός, ό δ ε
νυ φίος ού εθύων οϋδέ θρυπτό ενος, άλλα νήφων ώσπερ άεί δεδειπνηκώς έν
τοις φιδιτίοις. παρεισελθών ελυσε τήν ζώνην καί ετήνεγκεν άρά ενος έπί τ ή ν
κλίνην. συνδιατρίψας δέ χρόνον οΰ πολύν, άπήει κοσ ίως ούπερ είώθει το
πρότερον καθευδήσων ετά των άλλων νέων· καί το λοιπόν οδτως επραττε, τοις
έν ήλικιώταις συνδιη ερεύων καί συναναπαυό ενος, προς δέ τήν νύ φην
κρύφα καί ετ' εύλαβείας φοιτών, αίσχυνό ενος καί δεδοικώς η τις α'ίσθοιτο
τών ένδον, α α καί της νύ φης έπιτεχνω ένης καί συνευπορούσης δπως αν έν
καιρφ καί λανθάνοντες άλλήλοις συ πορεύοιντο. καί τοΰτ' επραττον ούκ ολίγο ν
254 Appendixes
The sequence of the Herodotean passage is:
(i) Leotychidas betrothes Percalus to himself (άρ οσά ενος = 'arranges for
himself here = έγγυάσθαι , for the meaning see also Cartledge 1981, 100 n.
95).
(ii) Demaratus anticipates the marriage (φθάσας) and seizes Percalus (sc.
from her father's house).
(iii) Demaratus marries Percalus (σχών γυναίκα).
The seizure (ii) and marriage (iii) are here mingled inextricably. The reason
for this entanglement is offered by the Plutarchan passage which expounds (iii),
i.e. the description of the marital rite: after the seizure the bride's hair - possibly
as the seat of the personality (cf. Den Boer 1954, 228) - is cut off by a
bridesmaid (νυ φεύτρια), possibly a relative of the groom. Besides, she is
dressed in men's (her husband's?) clothes. The transition of the girl/virgin to the
woman/wife (cf. Cartledge 1981, 101) is manifest to all; the married woman
does not wear her hair long any more (cf. Arist. fr. 611.13 [R.], further
references in Cartledge loc. cit. η. 102; for doubts cf. Thommen 1999, 139,
who points to archaeological evidence for long-haired Spartan women). The
seizure of Percalus is irreversible, since the cut hair and the manly dress mark
the woman as 'given'. Being in the 'possession' of Demaratus she cannot be
claimed by Leotychidas any more.
The Spartan institution of 'marriage by capture' is confirmed indirectly by
two independent pieces of information: first by the statement that theft - and as
such the 'marriage by capture' can be interpreted - was not necessarily regarded
as evil in Sparta (cf. commentary on 2.6), secondly by the claim that no dowry
had existed in Sparta in former times (Plu. apophth. lac. 227 F - 228 A, Ael.
VH 6.6, Pomp. Trog. ap. lust. 3.3.8); this is a direct consequence of the
'marriage by capture'. When the importance of the dowry increased in the
classical period, previous arrangements between the father of the bride and the
bridegroom became unavoidable (cf. MacDowell 1986, 80f., for the dowry cf.
also Arist. Pol. Π 1270a 23-25, who mentions explicitly προίκας ε γ ά λ α ς ,
and Plu. amatoriae narrationes 775 C). A 'trial marriage', as advocated by
Cartledge 1981, 102 (with literature), Link 1994, 115 n. 73 (with literature)
and others, is difficult to reconcile with this picture in general and the
Herodotean passage (pointing to the irreversibility of the marriage) in particular
and cannot be supported by the sources. It is based on the mistaken notion that
the Spartan marriage was secret in a sense (according to Plutarch only the
sexual intercourse was secret). The female haircut alone, visible to all, made
such secretiveness impossible.
Hardly credible is the form of marriage as described by Hermipp. ap. Ath.
ΧΙΠ 555 B-C = fr. 87 [W.]: in a dark building unmarried men and women are
χρόνον, άλλ' ωστε καί παΐδας ένίοις γενέσθαι πριν ές ή έραν θεάσασθαι τάς
εαυτών γυναίκας. Cf. additionally Sosib. ap. Ath. XIV 646 A = FGrH 595 F 6 for a kind
of 'wedding cake'.
Appendixes 255
locked up together. Whichever girl each man lays hold of, becomes his wife.
Apart from the inconsistency with earlier sources the huge importance of the
dowry in the later period clearly undermines the credibility of this passage.
Besides, it is hard to credit that such a form of 'marriage at random' could
coexist together with 'marriage by capture'. It would only be conceivable in the
case of older unmarried women (but Hermippus speaks of κόραι and
νεανίσκοι!), for the origin of this story cf. Hodkinson 2000, 98.
It remains unclear where the Spartan woman stayed after her marriage,
whether in her father's house or her husband's house (her husband still slept in
common dormitories, see Plutarch above). In Crete, where the 'marriage by
capture' was customary too, she lived in her father's house for some time after
her marriage (cf. Ephor. ap. Str. 10.4.20 = FGrH 70 F 149).
Appendix II: The seizure of cheese from the altar of Orthia in

Xenophon and the 'diamastigosis' of the later sources
2.9: "And although he considered it a noble deed to steal as many cheeses as

possible from Orthia, he ordered others to beat those who stole, because he
wanted to show that one can enjoy lasting fame by suffering for a short time." 3
At PI. Lg. 633 Β the Spartan remarks: "Besides I shall try to expound the
fourth point, about enduring pain, which is a common part of our life because
of the fist fights that are the custom among ourselves and a certain practice of
stealing under a rain of blows." 4
Later sources mention a rite that is traditionally connected with the 'stealing
under blows' as described by X. and Plato. 5 Cie. Tuse. 2.34 refers to the
whipping of boys at the altar of Orthia; similarly Plu. Lyc. 18.2 and Plu.
Arist. 17.10; Plu. apophth. lac. 239 C-D, who adds that the diamastigosis took
the whole day and was repeated once a year; Paus. 3.16.1 Of. who reports that
the priestess stood by the altar with the cult image in her hands and checked
that the scourger lashed the lad hard enough. An important indication of the age
of the 'whipping' is given by Charikles ap. Ath. V m 350 B-C = FGrH 367 F
1, if Tigerstedt 1974, 454 n. 50 is right that the passage, which implies
αστιγώσεις in Sparta, refers to conditions at the beginning of the fourth
century (?). The inscriptions of the Antonine and Severan period together with
Hyg. fab. 261 show that the boy who endured the diamastigosis longest was
3
καί ώς πλείστους δή άρπάσαι τυρούς παρ' Όρθίας καλόν βείς, αστιγούν
τούτους άλλοις έπέταξε, τούτο δηλώσαι καί έν τοΰτφ βουλό ενος δτι εστίν
όλίγον χρόνον άλγήσαντα πολύν χρόνον εύδοκι ούντα εύφραίνεσθαι.
4
ετι τοίνυν καί το τέταρτον εγωγε πειρφ ην αν λέγειν, το περί τοις καρτερήσεις
των άλγηδόνων πολύ παρ' ή ίν γιγνο ένων, εν τε ταΐς προς αλλήλους ταΐς χερσί
άχαις καί έν άρπαγαΐς τισιν δια πολλών πληγών έκάστοτε γιγνο ένων ...
5
I mention some important sources; a fuller list of references (with English translation) is
given by Kennel 1995, 149-161 (app. I).
256 Appendixes
awarded the title βω ονίκης for the rest of his life (cf. Chrimes 1952, 131, 264
n. 1; Cartledge/Spawforth 1989, 205); they thus support the other sources.
Modern scholarship in general has interpreted the event as described by X.
and Plato more or less as a precursor of the later whipping at the altar of
Orthia, as referred to by other sources.6 Kennel 1995, 79 rightly draws a sharp
line between the seizure of cheese in X. and the later whipping at the altar of
Orthia. There are two major differences between the rite mentioned by X. and
Plato and the one referred to by later sources:
(a) No later passage mentions the seizure of objects.

(b) All later passages refer to a rite perceptibly more brutal than the one
described by X. Crucial in X. is the stealing, while in the later rite it seems to
be the blood on or around the altar.
Besides, a careful distinction between the two rites is suggested by the

following consideration. The origin of the diamastigosis, as performed in
Roman Sparta, is recounted by two ancient sources. Paus. 3.16.9f. refers to a
human sacrifice ordered by the goddess after a bloody quarrel among the
Spartans. The sacrifice was later changed by Lycurgus to the scourging of boys.
On the other hand, Plu. Arisi. 17.10 recounts how some Lydians attacked the
regent Pausanias, who was performing a sacrifice, just before the battle of
Plataia. The Lydians seized and threw about (άρπάζειν και διαρρίπτειν) the
sacrificial apparatus, before the Spartans drove off the intruders with rods and
whips. Apart from details the two versions differ in the following structural
points:
(a) According to Pausanias a human sacrifice occurred at the beginning,

while Plutarch does not know of a human sacrifice.
(b) According to Pausanias we are dealing with a Lycurgan rite from time
immemorial, while according to Plutarch the rite dates to the time of the regent
Pausanias.
(c) According to Pausanias the crucial point is not - as in Plutarch - two
groups facing each other as enemies, but merely the blood as an expiatory
sacrifice. To put it differently: in Pausanias men face the goddess seeking
satisfaction, in Plutarch men face men.
(d) In Pausanias those whipped are ephebes, in Plutarch - presumably - adult
men.
6
Cf. e.g. Chrimes 1952, 130f.; Jones 1967, 35; Toynbee 1969, 326; Clauss 1983, 148; Graf
1985, 87 n. 84; Parker 1989, 167 n. 32; Hughes 1991, 79f.; Vernant 1991, 236f. Bonnechere
1994, 52-54 is rightly cautious. In their interpretations of the meaning of the stealing of
cheese the moderns follow in part the speculations of the ancients, cf. the list in Graf 1985,
86 n. 79. Modem scholars normally reject the information of Paus. 3.16.9f„ Sud. s.v.
Λυκούργος and Philostr. VA 6.20, according to which the rite originated in a human
sacrifice (cf. Hughes 1991, 79; Bonnechere 1994, 55).
Appendixes 257
These differences show that already in the Roman period the origin of the
diamastigosis was obscure. The question remains whether one of the two aetia
- o r both- can be related to the description of the 'stealing under blows' in X.
and Plato. Graf 1985, 87f„ like others (cf. e.g. Chrimes 1952, 262f.; Tigerstedt
1974,453 n. 49), referred the Plutarchan aetion to X. and identified the whipped
boys with the Plutarchan Lydians. His principal argument is (c), i.e. that in
both Plutarch and X. two parties face each other as enemies, and one may add
(a), for X. does not know of human sacrifices at an earlier stage, since the rite
described by him is presented far less brutal in the later authors. On the other
hand, as far as (b) is concerned X. clearly follows Pausanias or a similar source,
for in his mind the stealing of cheese is a Lycurgan institution (καλόν θείς sc.
Λυκούργος); besides, in (d) X. is closer to Pausanias, because he talks of boys
not adults. These observations demonstrate that both aetia can be partially
related to Plutarch's and Pausanias' description, partially not. Accordingly, in
its present form neither can underlie the rite described by X. and presumably
referred to by Plato.
Appendix III: The structure of the Spartan army according to

Xenophon and Thucydides
1. Army structure in general according to X. and Thucydides
(a) 11.4: "He (sc. Lycurgus) divided the men thus equipped into six
battalions (morai) of cavalry and infantry. Each of the civic battalions {mora)
has one general (polemarchos), four colonels (lochagoi), eight majors
(pentkosteres), and sixteen captains (enomotarchoi)."7
(b) At Th. 5.66.3 the structure of the Spartan army is described: "For when
the king leads everything is ordered by him, and he himself tells the polemarchs
what is necessary, they the lochagoi, they the pentekonteres, they again the
enomotarchs and they the enomoty."8
(c) AtTh. 5.68.3 Thucydides calculates the strength of the Spartan army at
the battle of Mantineia in 418: "For seven lochoi fought without the Skiritai,
who numbered 600; in each lochos were four pentekostyes, and in the
pentekostys four enomoties. In the first rank of each enomoty fought four; in
depth they were not deployed alike, but as each lochagos preferred; on the whole
they stood eight deep. Along the whole front (without the Skiritai) the first
rank was 448 men."9
7
ο-οτω γε ήν κατεσκευασ ένων όρας εν διείλεν εξ καί ιππέων καί όπλιτών.
εκάστη δέ τών πολιτικών ορών εχει πολέ αρχον ενα, λοχαγούς τέτταρας,
πεντηκοστηρας οκτώ, ένω οτάρχους έκκαίδεκα.
8
βασιλέως γαρ άγοντος ύπ' έκείνου πάντα άρχεται, καί τοις εν πολε άρ^οις
αύτός φράζει το δέον, οι δέ τοις λοχαγοίς, εκείνοι δέ τοις πεντηκοντήρσιν, αύθις
δ' ούτοι τοις ένω οτάρχοις καί ούτοι τή ένω οτίφ.
9
λόχοι έν γαρ έ άχοντο έπτά άνευ Σκιριτών όντων εξακοσίων, έν δέ έκάστφ
λόχφ πεντηκοστύες ήσαν τέσσαρες, καί έν tv¡ πεντηκοστύι ένω οτίαι τέσσαρες.
258 Appendixes
According to these passages the structure of the Spartan army was as

follows:
11.4:
1 polemarch =>4 lochagoi =»8 pentekosteres =>16 enomotarchs
Th. 5.66.3:
polemarch => lochagoi => pentekonteies => enomotarch
Th. 5.68.3:
1 lochos =>4 pentekostyes=>16 enomoties
Six morai of hoplites lead us to 96 enomoties according to X.'s structure.

According to Thucydides there were seven lochoi in the Spartan army at
Mantineia without the 600 Skiritai (5.68.3). One lochos was formed by the
Brasideioi and neodamodeis (5.67.1). That leaves us with six lochoi of
Lakedaimonians (Th. 5.67.1 Λακεδαι όνιοι αυτοί). This was the whole
Spartan army (Th. 5.64.2). Six lochoi add up again to 96 enomoties. This
coincidence of the number of enomoties is fundamental: since X. and
Thucydides clearly do not draw on each other and since, besides, the
manuscripts do not leave room for doubt as to the numbers, two preliminary
statements can be securely made:
(a) The Spartan army consisted of 96 enomoties at the end of the fifth or
beginning of the fourth century.
(b) The numbers at Th. 5.68.3 and 11.4 are mutually supportive and are thus
transmitted correctly.
If one considers the army structure according to X. and Thucydides in detail,

some essential differences become visible. In X. the lochos has two
pentekostyes and four enomoties, in Thucydides four pentekostyes and 16
enomoties. All modem attempts to harmonize Th. 5.68.3 with 11.4 arc to my
knowledge based on altering the text at one or more points. 10 But the
interpreter who ignores the 96 enomoties and thus the numbers in both
passages deprives himself of the only firm evidence available. We have to
assume that the text offers what both authors knew and that they knew it quite
well (cf. the many details in both passages and the coincidence of 96
enomoties). Thus, the first conclusion must be that X. and Thucydides describe
two different structures consisting of the same basic elements, i.e. 96
enomoties. This leads necessarily to the second conclusion, that a
της τε ένω οτίας έ άχοντο èv τφ πρώτφ ζυγφ τέσσαρες· ènì δέ βάθος έτάξαντο
εν ού πάντες ό οίως, αλλ' ώς λοχαγός Εκαστος έβούλετο, έπί πάν δέ
κατέστησαν έπί όκτώ. παρά δέ απαν πλήν Σκιριτών τετρακόσιοι και δυοίν
δέοντες πεντήκοντα ¿ίνδρες ή πρώτη τάξις ην.
10
I mention as influential opinions Toynbee 1913, 265 n. 78; id. 1969,378f„ 392-401; Lazenby
1985, 7f.
Appendixes 259
reorganization of the Spartan army took place between 418 and the time when
the SC was written. 11
Is it possible to visualize an army structure that explains both Th. 5.68.3
and 11.4 satisfactorily-i.e. without alteration of the t e x t - and simultaneously
ties in with the other pieces of information on the Spartan army structure? In
my view this is possible under the assumption that the army reform consisted
mainly of integrating perioikoi into the Spartan lochoi. According to this
assumption, after the reform there were no longer six lochoi of Spartan hoplites
and-separately- six (?) lochoi of perioikic hoplites, but Spartan and perioikic
hoplites served together in 12 hoplite lochoi.
But how did the composition of the lochos change in detail? A crucial
moment of the army reform was the modification of the pentekostys. Before the
reform there was one pentekoster commanding four perioikic or four Spartan
enomoties, after the reform the pentekoster led two Spartan and two perioikic
enomoties. The result was that the number of lochoi and pentekostyes did not
differ even if not all perioikoi were present. Besides, there were now 48
militarily equivalent pentekostyes, i.e. pentekostyes consisting of Spartans and
perioikoi. TTie army was thus more homogeneous. Only the number of men in
the pentekostyes changed if the perioikoi were absent, not the army structure.
Numerically the reorganization was hardly perceptible: as previously there were
four enomoties in a pentekostys and altogether 48 pentekostyes.
According to these considerations before and after the reform there were 12
hoplite lochoi. How, then, can one explain that X. at 11.3 talks of four lochoi
per mora, i.e. -given the six morai- of 24 lochoi in the whole Spartan army? I
believe that also in X.'s day there were only 12 hoplite lochoi. There were,
however, 12 cavalry lochoi to be added.12
These 12 cavalry lochoi formed the smallest unit of the cavalry.13 Two
cavalry lochoi and two hoplite lochoi, but occasionally also four cavalry lochoi
11
I cannot discuss here the early forms of organization of the Spartan army. Possibly at some
stage the syssition made up the smallest military unit, cf. Hdt. 1.6S.S with Polyaen. 2.1.15,
2.3.11; Plu. apophth. lac. 226 D-Ε, accepted e.g. by Murray 1991, 93f.; Lavrencic 1993,
109-114. In my view there is no reason to doubt Herodotus' statement, but the impact of the
syssition on the structure of the enomoty remains obscure (two syssitia form a full
enomoty?).
12
Two reasons speak in favour of the assumption that X. in mentioning the lochoi refers to
both hoplite and cavalry lochoi: first such an assumption helps to harmonize the
Xenophontic and Thucydidean pieces of information, secondly it helps to explain some
details in the Historia Graeca. According to X. HG 6.1.1 there were four morai at Leuktra,
but only 700 Spartans (HG 6.4.15). One may assume that in fact there were 24 Spartan
hoplite enomoties (24 χ 32 [for this strength of an enomoty see 11.6(4]] = 768 men) and
more or less the same number of perioikic enomoties. Together they constituted three
Lakedaimonian (= Spartan and perioikic) morai of hoplites. Besides, there may have been
one mora of cavalrymen (= 4 lochoi of cavalrymen = approximately 100 men), consisting
mainly or exclusively of perioikoi (a Spartan cavalry organized in morai is first attested at
X. HG 3.3.10 [Cinadon-episode]). The only alternative would be to follow Forrest 1968, 134
and to assume that the number 700 is wrong.
13
At Cyr. 6.3.21 X. gives 24 men as the size of a lochos. If one adopts this number for the
'civic' cavalry lochos without lochagos, 12 lochoi make 288 horsemen, i.e. together with the
260 Appendixes
or four hoplite lochoi formed a mora. 14 I represent the reform of the army by
the following diagram:
army units before the army reform (Th. 5.68.3) after the army reform (11.4)
enomoties 96 [Spartans]* 96 [perioikoi] 192 [Spartans, perioikoi]
pentekostyes 24 [Spartans]-)- 24 [perioikoi] 48 [Spartans, perioikoi]
lochoi 6 [Spartans]+ 6 [perioikoi] 12 [Spartans, perioikoi] + 12 [horsemen]
morai ? ? 6 [hoplites (S., p.), horsemen (S., p.)]
The mora is first attested in 403 (cf. HG 2.4.31). Consequently the army
reform took place before this date. The fact that Thucydides does not mention
the mora indicates that it was introduced after 411, the date when the
Thucydidean work breaks off. Certainly it took place after 418, i.e. later than
the army structure as described at Th. 5.68.3. 15
The strength of the hoplite morai follows from the strength of the hoplite
enomoties, which varied according to the age classes called up. Plu. Pel. 17.4
mentions different authors who fix the manpower of a mora between 500 and
900 and accordingly the manpower of an enomoty between 31 and 56 (cf. X.
HG 6.4.12 [36 men]). This tallies with the 32 hoplites, which Th. 5.68.3
gives as the overall number of an enomoty. The similar numbers in Thucydides
and later authors indicate that the enomoty as the basic military unit remained
unchanged in number and structure even after the reform.
2. On the army structure according to X.
According to X. the whole Spartan levy was structured as follows:
Enomoty: there were 192 Spartan and perioikic enomoties altogether, in

which the hoplites were grouped.
lochagoi 300 men. Besides, if one assumes that the Spartans and the perioikoi were
represented in the cavalry in roughly the same ratio as in the hoplite army, i.e. roughly 1:1
or with an insignificant preponderance of the perioikoi, one ends up with some 600
horsemen for the whole Spartan cavalry, i.e. exactly the number that is mentioned by X. at
HG 4.2.16 as accompanying the almost complete Spartan army of 6000 men (for the
participation of the perioikoi in the cavalry cf. X. HG 5.4.39). Furthermore, exactly this
structure of the Spartan cavalry is found at Philostephanus ap. Plu. Lyc. 23.1 = FHG III 33,
fr. 30, with the exception that Philostephanus calls two Spartan cavalry lochoi with lochagoi
(= 50 men) by the (Lakonian?) term ούλα ός. The hipparch was presumably commander
of a cavalry lochos, the hipparmost of a cavalry mora, cf. HG 4.2.5, 4.4.10, 4.5.12, 5.2.41.
14
A mora of four cavalry lochoi is mentioned at X. HG 4.5.11.
15
At HCT IV, 114 Andrewes argued that it would be most unlikely that X. attributed so recent
an army reform to Lycurgus. But one may object that in the preceding sentence Lycurgus is
said to have established the division of six morai of horsemen and hoplites (διείλεν), while
we know from Th. 4.55.2 that the Spartan cavalry came into being not earlier than 424.
Conclusion: X.'s ascription of a Spartan institution to Lycurgus may occasionally be simply a
rhetorical device.
Appendixes 261
Pentekostys: there were 48 pentekostyes, in which the hoplites were

grouped. Each pentekostys normally consisted of two Spartan hoplite
enomoties and two perioikic hoplite enomoties.
Lochos: There were 24 lochoi, 12 hoplite lochoi and 12 cavalry lochoi. The
hoplite lochoi consisted, as in the previous army structure, of four
pentekostyes. The cavalry lochoi were the smallest unit of the cavalry.
Mora: There were altogether six morai. A mora consisted of two hoplite
lochoi and two cavalry lochoi or occasionally four hoplite lochoi / four cavalry
lochoi. Each mora was under the command of a polemarch.16
This form of the Spartan army was in X.'s mind at 11.4. But he does not
give a description of the whole army, i.e. of the six morai, but only of a
πολιτική όρα. The expression needs an explanation: in the SC X. uses the
word πολίτης always of Spartan citizens, but never of the perioikoi (cf. 2.10,
4.5 [adjective], 6.1, 8.3, 8.5, 10.7 [adjective], 14.4, 15.8). Furthermore,
immediately before and after 11.4 X. speaks exclusively of full Spartan
citizens. Besides, the words οΰτω γε ην κατεσκευασ ένων connect the
previous section with the description of the structure of the Spartan army
syntactically. Hence, in my view the expression πολιτική όρα can denote
only the Spartan component of a mora, not the perioikic one. 17 This
assumption is confirmed by the ratio of the different army units as presented by
X.: a civic mora (πολιτική όρα) had four lochagoi (two lochagoi of cavalry
lochoi, two of hoplite lochoi), eight hoplite pentekosteres, 16 hoplite
enomotarchs of enomoties consisting of Spartans. The complementary 16
hoplite enomoties of perioikoi are ignored by X., since they belonged to a
mora, but not a 'civic' mora. Here as everywhere in the SC X.'s interest is
focused only on the Spartans.
16
There existed mere cavalry morai that were commanded by a hipparmost. The latter was
subordinate to the polemarch, cf. X. HG 4.5.12.
17
'Citizenship' was called πολιτεία also with reference to Sparta (cf. Arist. Pol. II 1271a 35).
At Plb. 6.45.3 the expression πολιτική χ ώ ρ ο denotes the land of the Spartans in opposition
to that of the perioikoi. When the πολιτικόν (στράτευ α) at X. HG 4.4.19, 5.3.25, 5.4.41,
6.4.26 and 7.1.28 denotes both Spartans and perioikoi, this happens because X. wants to
contrast it with allies (σύ αχοι), cf. Toynbee 1969, 392f. The name is, of course, given
from the Spartan point of view and does not indicate that the perioikoi were full citizens
- which would be factually wrong - but that the essential and permanent part of the
Lakedaimonian army were the Spartans. Even if X. counts some perioikoi among the
πολίται at HG 7.4.20, 24 this shows only that the πολίται prevailed numerically (pace e.g.
Cozzoli 1979, 102f.). At Arist. EN III 1116b 18 τά πολιτικά unambiguously denotes the
citizen army in contrast to professional soldiers (στρατιώται). Possibly the perioikoi were
only the accompanying unit of the cheirotechnai (cf. 11.2[3]). D. 9.48, where Demosthenes
divides the Spartan army into όπλΐται and πολιτικά στρατεύ ατα, remains
incomprehensible to me.
262 Appendixes
3. On the army structure according to Thucydides
At 5.68.3 Thucydides calculates the manpower of the levied army on the

basis of 96, not 192 enomoties at 3840 men. Apparently he does not take
account of the perioikic part of the army. Two explanations are conceivable:
(a) No perioikoi were present in the army.

(b) Perioikoi were present in the army, but Thucydides' informant referred to
the numbers of the lochoi of full citizens alone (πολιτικός λόχος?), as X. at
11.4 mentions only the structure of the πολιτική όρα, not the mora as a
whole.
In favour of (a) may count the fact that the army was levied quickly (èv
τάχει at Th. 5.64.1, κατά τάχος at Th. 5.64.4). Naturally the call-up of the
perioikoi took more time than that of the Spartans, who were always ready for
war. Possibly the perioikoi had not arrived yet. In 479 the perioikoi set out
after the Spartans and helots (Hdt. 9.10.1 with 9.11.3), similarly in 395 (X.
HG 3.5.6f.). But since the Arcadians, the Brasideioi, and neodamodeis, who
were settling in Triphylia, arrived in time (cf. Th. 5.64.3, 5.67.1), the time
factor cannot explain satisfactorily the absence of the perioikoi (thus correctly
Toynbee 1969, 397). Only if one believes that the perioikoi were not called up
deliberately is (a) defensible. The expression πανδη εί at Th. 5.64.2 may
support this assumption. The expression clearly refers to all age groups of the
Spartans, for if all age classes of the perioikoi were levied, the latter would
have constituted an army of 10,000 or more men, even without the Spartans. 18
Presumably they set out on campaign from Sparta πανδη εί, since it was
unclear at first whether the allies, Brasideioi, and neodamodeis would reach
Mantineia in time. When it became clear that they would, the Spartans
dismissed one sixth of the army (Th. 5.64.3) and also the perioikoi. Still,
according to Th. 5.68.1 even after the dismissal the Spartan army was bigger
than the hostile one.
In favour of (b) one could argue that the Spartan informant would naturally
tend to reduce the Spartan manpower, for this would throw a particularly
favourable light on the Spartan victory at Mantineia.
A possibility of combining (a) and (b) would be as follows: if the perioikoi
were first called up, but then dismissed together with the youngest and oldest
age classes, the informant may have known only what happened in front of his
eyes in Sparta, i.e. the return of the youngest and oldest age classes. Whether
(a) or (b) or a combined solution is correct, is not discernible with certainty. At
any rate, I consider it as certain that Thucydides' figures do not include the
perioikic enomoties.
18
At Hdt. 9.11.3 a corps d'élite (λογάδες) of the perioikoi is mentioned with 5000 men. There
is no reason to suspect a major decrease in the perioikic population in later years.
Appendixes 263
The number of Spartans captured or killed on the island of Sphakteria is

drawn upon frequently by modern scholarship to compute the ratio between
perioikoi and Spartans in the Lakedaimonian army (cf. Th. 4.8.9 and 4.38.5).
In greater detail, the Spartan military unit on Sphakteria was chosen by lot
from all lochoi according to Th. 4.8.9 άποκληρώσαντες άπό πάντων τ ω ν
λόχων. It amounted to 420 men (cf. Th. 4.38.5). This number in connection
with the army structure, as expounded above (I), suggests that one enomoty
was chosen from each lochos. If so, 12 enomoties were stationed on the island,
six Spartan and six perioikic. The perioikic ones were possibly numerically
slightly stronger than the Spartan ones. As to their ratio, one should consider
the following: according to Th. 4.38.5, 292 Spartans out of 420 hoplites who
had crossed to the island survived. Thucydides adds that 120 of these were
Spartans. That leaves us with 172 surviving perioikoi. Furthermore, it is
normally held that according to Th. 4.40.2 an equal percentage of Spartans and
perioikoi survived, in other words that the ratio between Spartans and perioikoi
in the army was 120:172 = 5:7. One may object that the anecdote at Th. 4.40.2
is referred to without connection to Th. 4.38.5 and its point is not the
numerical aspect but the fact that even Spartans are not invincible. Even if one
assumes that there were fewer Spartans than perioikoi in the Lakedaimonian
army in Thucydides' day,19 this may have led only to a difference of the
strength of the Spartan and perioikic enomoties, which were thus lined up with
a different depth. Although the creation of numerically identical military units
would be conceivable in itself, while Spartans and perioikoi fought in the same
enomoty (as suggested by Toynbee loc. cit. and id. 1969, 383-384), this
scenario is not very likely, for it was hardly advisable to mix the well-trained
Spartan professional hoplites with casual soldiers as the perioikoi were. For the
latter could hardly execute all military commands without the training of the
Spartan education (cf. 11.7 and Cartledge 1987, 42). Besides, it is highly
unlikely that perioikoi too passed through the Spartan education at public
expense, as suggested by Toynbee 1913, 268 n. 84. For in the SC X.
apparently presupposes that only the Spartans went through the Spartan
education, or, conversely, that whoever passed through the Spartan training was
a Spartan citizen. Furthermore, a difference between perioikoi who had passed
through the education and served as hoplites, and others who pursued their
ordinary profession (e.g. trades etc.) is nowhere attested in the sources.
4. Consequences
(a) Thucydides1 and X.'s text should not be altered.

(b) The supposed army reform did not entail a change of the numerical ratio
between the different units. Only the composition of the enomoties that formed
19
Busolt 1905,408f. and 414f. suggests a ratio of 2:3 (Spaitans/perioikoi); Toynbee 1913, 267
one of 4:10 (Spartans/perioikoi).
264 Appendixes
a pentekostys was modified. Besides, the cavalry was added as elsewhere in

Greece at the end of the fifth century.
(c) The full manpower of the army consisted of 192 hoplite enomoties. If we
reckon with approximately 32 men per enomoty, the whole army was 7680
men strong. A comparable number was present at the Nemea River in 394
according to X. HG 4.2.16, i.e. 6000 Lakedaimonian hoplites and 600
horsemen.
(d) When X. talks twice of the 12 lochoi of the army (HG 7.4.20, 7.5.10),
he does not indicate another reorganization of the army after the defeat at
Leuktra, but the hoplite army without the cavalry (which again was organized
in 12 lochoi). This becomes apparent from HG 7.5.10, where the number of
Spartans called up against the invading Epameinondas is mentioned: και ά λ α
ολίγοι δντες· οΐ τε γαρ Ιππείς αύτοίς πάντες έν Άρκαδίψ άπησαν και το
ξενικόν και τών λόχων δώδεκα όντων οι τρεις.
(e) The Spartans and the perioikoi were represented in the Lakedaimonian
army with a ratio of approximately 1:1 at the time of Thucydides. Normally
both groups were deployed in different enomoties. Mixed enomoties, in which
case a Spartan enomoty was complemented by some perioikoi, may have
occurred, but were hardly the rule.
Bibliography: Kahrstedt 1922, 299-304; Busolt/Swoboda 1926, 709-713; Micheli 1952, 238-
247; Toynbee 1969, 364-404; HCT IV, 110-117 (Andrewes); Anderson 1970, 225-251; Welwei
1974, 128-130; Cozzoli 1979, 102-106; Lazenby 1985, 5-10, 41-44; Cartledge 1987, 427-431;
Sekunda 1998,13-15,47.
FIGURES
key
+ direction of march | Te | enomotarch
î hoplite |?pe | pentekoster
Π enomoty 1 t i | lochagos
|| 1 || lochos I îpol polemarch
enem^ enemy
m o
* *
CZ] * * e2
i m
fig. 1 a fig. 1 b
w Ά * "A * Ά
i i t • t i t +
i T i ι +
Τ t τ τ u n t + î
Î t î î i
Î î î t i X X X
î î î î i X X X
fig. 2 a flg. 2 b
266 Figures
4 I I 4
i i i i
i i i i
i I i i ΊΓ
«g. 2 c
a.) original position

enomoty 1 enomoty 2
t t î t 1 te 1 t î t î Ψ.
Î î î î t î î î
t t t î î î t î
Î t t t t î t î
fig. 3 a
b.) exeligmos of single enomotia
enomoty 1 enomoty 2
—> —> -»pe
— » — »
— »
* * —> — »
*
*
*
*
— » V * —> —> —> —>
— » —>
V
* ++*
A
+++
* * *
< - <- <r-
<r- «- * * y
» A
<— <— * *
< - v *
*
<-e 4-e <r- <- <- <-
pe
fig. 3 b
Figures 267
c.) position after exeligmos

enomoty 1 enomoty 2
i i i 4 4 4 4 4
1 i 1 4 4 4 4 4
4 i 4 4 4 4 4 4
ΓΕΠΙ 4 4 4 4e 4 4 4 4
fig. 3 c Ipe
a.) original deployment of lochos

enomoties 4,3,2,1
(enomoty 4) (enomoty 1) "ΤΓ
Î t t t Π71 t î t î
Î t t t t t t î
î î t î t î t î
î î î î î î î t
fig. 4 a
b.) exeligmos of lochos

enomoties 4,3,2,1
(enomoty 4) ·· • (enomoty 1) -»1
— » — » —> >· ->pe
-> ->
->e
* a
— » — » — * — » —> 4 «
* * *
— » —> —> — » *· * — » —> * 4 *
* * * 4
* * * *
* * * y
«a «
t t
enomoties 1,2,3,4
(enomoty 1) (enomoty 4)
<— < - < - <— < -4 < <— 4-
+Ï
<r- < < < < - « - « -
* M * •
* M * *
* * 0 *
<-e < <-e M M M
M * M *M
<-pe *» M *
<r-l fig. 4 b
268 Figures
c.) deployment of lochos after exeligmos

enomoty 1, 2, 3, 4
(enomoty 1) (enomotie 4)
i i i
i i i 1 1 1 1
4 i i
17 i i i I le I 1 1 i 1
4p
ΊΓ fig. 4 c
11 11 <<
A η
S3
A A
I
11 >N 11
ie
ω
r » 12 12 « r
A A
A A
0¡3
12 1 12
i» 13 13 « r
A t> A
A c«
13 13
fig. 5 a fig. 5 b
direction of command
(enomotarch 'outside')
ψ-
t t Τ t Î Τ Τ le
t t î î t t î î
τ t t î î î t î
τ î î î t î î t
fig. 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AH F. Matz / H.-G. Buchholz (edd.), Archaeologia Homérica (Göttingen

1967-1990).
Anderson 1964 J. K. Anderson, 'Xenophon Respublica Lacedaemoniorum 11.10', CPh
59 (1964), 175-178.
id. 1970 id., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (Berkeley /
Los Angeles 1970).
id. 1974 id., Xenophon (London 1974).
id 1985 id., Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley et al. 1985).
Andrewes 1966 A. Andrewes, 'The Government of Classical Sparta', in: Ancient
Society and Institutions. Studies presented to V. Ehrenberg on his 75th
birthday (Oxford 1966), 1-20.
Antonaccio 1995 C. M. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero
Cult in Early Greece (Boston Way 1995).
AO R. M. Dawkins (ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (London 1929 =
JHS suppl. 5).
Arnott 1996 G. Arnott, Alexis. The Fragments (Cambridge 1996).
Aymard 1951 J. Aymard, Essai sur les chasses romaines. Des origines à la fin du
siècle des Antonins (Paris 1951).
Bazin 1885 H. Bazin, La République des Lacédémoniens de Xénophon. Étude sur
la situation intérieure de Sparte (Paris 1885).
Beckhaus 1872 H. Beckhaus, 'Der jüngere Xenophon und Isokrates', ZG (1872), 225-
267.
Bernhardy 1829 G. Bernhardy, Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache
(Berlin 1829).
Berthiaume 1976 G. Berthiaume, 'Citoyens spécialistes à Sparte', Mnemosyne 29 (1976),
360-364.
Best 1969 J. G. P. Best, Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare
(Groningen 1969).
Bianco 1996 E. Bianco, 'Il capitolo XIV della Lakedaimonion Politela attribuita a
Senofonte', MH 53 (1996), 12-24.
Bielschowsky 1869 A. Bielschowsky, De Spartanorum syssitiis (Berlin 1869).
Bigalke 1933 J. Bigalke, Der Einfluß der Rhetorik aufXenophons Stil (Bottrop 1933).
Billheimer 1946 A. Billheimer, Ί α δέκα άφ' ήβης ', TAPhA 77 (1946), 214-220.
Birgalias 1999 Ν. Birgalias, L'odyssée de l'éducation spartiate (Athens 1999).
Bioesch 1959 H. Bioesch, 'Spartanischer Krieger', MH 16 (1959), 249-256.
Blümner 1884 H. Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste
bei Griechen und Römern, vol. IV (Leipzig 1884).
Boardman 1963 J. Boardman, 'Artemis Orthia and Chronology', BSA 58 (1963), 1-7.
id. 1992 id., Voi YOU are the Progeny of Unconquered Heracles', in: Catling
1992, 25-29.
Bockisch 1965 G. Bockisch, Άρ οσταί (431-387)', Klio 46 (1965), 129-239.
Boedeker 1993 D. Boedeker, 'Hero Cult and Politics in Herodotus. The Bones of
Orestes', in: C. Dougherty / L. Kurke (edd.), Cultural Poetics in
Archaic Greece (Cambridge 1993), 164-177.
270 Bibliography
Bonnechere 1994 P. Bonnechere, Le sacrifice humain en Grèce ancienne (Athens/Liège

1994).
Bonner/Smith 1942 R. J. Bonner / G. Smith, 'Administration of Justice in Sparta', CPh 37
(1942), 113-129.
Bordes 1982 J. Bordes, Politela dans la pensée grecque jusqu'à Aristote (Paris
1982).
Boring 1979 T. A. Boring, Literacy in Ancient Sparta (Leiden 1979).
Boucher 1912 A. Boucher, 'La tactique grecque à l'origine de l'histoire militaire', REG
25 (1912), 300-317.
Bourguet 1927 E. Bourguet, Le dialecte laconien (Paris 1927).
Bourriot 1996 F. Bourriot, 'Kaloi Kagathoi, Kalokagathia à Sparte aux époques
archaïque et classique', Historia 46 (1996), 129-140.
Bradford 1994 A. S. Bradford, 'The Duplicitous Spartan' in: Powell/Hodkinson 1994,
59-85.
Braun 1995 T. Braun, 'Barley Cakes and Emmer Bread', in Wilkins/Harvey/Dobson
1995, 25-37.
Breitenbach 1967 H. R. Breitenbach, 'Xenophon', in: RE, IX A (1967), 1569-1928.
Brelich 1969 A. Brelich, Paides e parthenoi, vol. I (Rome 1969).
Bremmer 1990 J. Bremmer, 'Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty', in: Murray 1990,
135-148.
Bringmann 1980 Κ. Bringmann, 'Die soziale und politische Verfassung Spartas - ein
Sonderfall der griechischen Verfassungs-geschichte?', Gymnasium 87
(1980), 465-484 (according to which I quote) = Christ 1986, 448-467.
Buckler 1989 J. Buckler, Philip and the Sacred War (Leiden 1989).
Buffière 1980 F. Buffière, Eros adolescent. La pédérastie dans la Grèce antique
(Paris 1980).
Busolt 1905 G. Busolt, 'Spartas Heer und Leuktra', Hermes 40 (1905), 387-449.
Busolt/Swoboda 1926 G. Busolt / H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, vol. II (Munich
19263).
CAF Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, ed. Th. Kock (Leipzig 1880-1888).
CAG Commentario in Aristotelem Graeca, ed. Academia Regia Borussica
(Berlin 1891 ff.).
Cairns 1993 D. L. Cairns, Aidôs. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame
in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford 1993).
Carlier 1978 P. Carlier, 'L'idée de monarchie impériale dans la Cyropédie de
Xénophon', Ktema 3 (1978), 133-163.
id. 1984 id., La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg 1984).
Carter 1987 J. B. Carter, 'The Masks of Ortheia', AJA 91 (1987), 355-383.
Cartledge 1976 P. Cartledge, 'Did Spartan citizens ever practise a manual tekhnê?'
LCM 1 (1976), 115-119.
id. 1977 id., 'Hoplites and Heroes: Sparta's Contribution to the Technique of
Ancient Warfare', JHS 97 (1977), 11-27 (according to which I quote)
= Christ 1986, 387-425,470.
id. 1978 id., 'Literacy in the Spartan Oligarchy', JHS 98 (1978), 25-37 =
Cartledge 2001, 39-54.
id. 1979 id., Sparta and Lakonia (London 1979).
id. 1981 id., 'Spartan Wives: Liberation or Licence?' CQ n.s. 31 (1981), 84-105
= Cartledge 2001, 106-126.
id. 1981a id.,'The Politics of Spartan Pederasty', PCPhS n.s. 27 (1981), 17-36 =
Cartledge 2001, 91-105.
Bibliography 271
id. 1987 id., Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London 1987).
id. 1988 id., 'Yes, Spartan kings were heroized' LCM 13.3 (March 1988), 43f.
id. 1993 id., The Greeks. A Portrait of Self and Others (Oxford 1993).
id. 1998 id., 'City and chora in Sparta: Archaic to Hellenistic', in:
Cavanagh/Walker 1998, 39-47 = Cartledge 2001, 9-20.
id. 1999 id., 'The Socratic's Sparta and Rousseau's' in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999,
311-337.
id. 2001 id., Spartan Reflections (London 2001).
Cartledge/Spawforth P. A. Cartledge / A. J. S. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A
1989 Tale of two Cities (London/New York 1989).
Casabona 1966 J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec.
Des origines à la fin de l'époque classique (Aix-en-Provence 1966).
Catling 1992 J. M. Sanders (ed.), ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚ Ν. Lakonian Studies in Honour of
Hector Catling (London 1992).
Cavanagh/Walker W. G. Cavanagh / S. E. C. Walker (eds.), Sparta in Laconia (London
1998 1998).
Cawkwell 1976 G. L. Cawkwell, 'Agesilaos and Sparta', CQ n.s. 26 (1976), 62-84.
id. 1983 id., The Decline of Sparta', CQ n.s. 33 (1983), 385-400.
id. 1993 id., 'Sparta and her Allies in the Sixth Century', CQ n.s. 43 (1993), 364-
376.
Chadwick 1969 J. Chadwick, 'ταγά and άταγία', in: Studi linguistici in onore di V.
Pisani / (Brescia 1969), 231-234.
id. 1996 id., Lexicographica Graeca. Contributions to the Lexicography of
Ancient Greek (Oxford 1996).
Chavy 1988 P. Chavy, Traducteurs d'autrefois. Moyen âge et renaissance, vol. II
(Paris 1988).
Chrimes 1948 K. M. T. Chrimes, The Respublica Lacedaemoniorum ascribed to
Xenophon (Manchester 1948).
ead. 1952 ead., Ancient Sparta. A Re-Examination of the Evidence (Manchester
19522).
Christ 1986 K. Christ (ed.), Sparta (Darmstadt 1986).
Christou 1964 Xp. Χρήστου, Ά ' Σπαρτιατικοί αρχαϊκοί τάφοι και επιτάφιος
ετ' άναγλύφων ά φορεύς του λ α κ ω ν ι κ ο ί έργαστηρίου. Β' Ό
νέος ά φορεύς της Σπάρτης. Οί &λλοι ετ' άναγλύφων
α φορείς του λακωνικού έργαστηρίου', AD 19 Α (1964), 123-265.
Clauss 1983 Μ. Clauss, Sparta. Eine Einfuhrung in seine Geschichte und Zivilisation
(Munich 1983).
Cobet 1858 C. G. Cobet, Novae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae
in scriptores Graecos (Leiden 1858).
Cohn-Haft 1956 L. Cohn-Haft, The Public Physicians of Ancient Greece (Northampton,
Mass. 1956).
Colvin 1999 S. Colvin, Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of Language in
Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford 1999).
Connor 1984 W. R. Connor, Thucydides (Princeton 1984).
Cozzoli 1979 U. Cozzoli, Proprietà fondiaria et esercito nello stato Spartano dell'età
classica (Rome 1979).
David 1979 E. David, 'The Pamphlet of Pausanias', PP 34 (1979), 94-116.
id. 1981 id., Sparta between Empire and Revolution (404-243 B.C.). Internai
Problems and Their Impact on Contemporary Greek Consciousness
(New York 1981).
272 Bibliography
id. 1989 id., 'Dress in Spartan Society', AncW 19 (1989), 3-13.

id. 1991 id., Old Age in Sparta (Amsterdam 1991).
id. 1992 id., 'Sparta's Social Hair', Eranos 90 (1992), 11-21.
id. 1993 id., 'Hunting in Spartan Society and Consciousness', EMC 12 (1993),
393-413.
id. 1999 id., 'Sparta's Kosmos of Silence', in Hodkinson/Powell 1999,117-146.
Davidson 1995 J. Davidson, 'Opsophagia. Revolutionary Eating at Athens', in:
Wilkins/Harvey/Dobson 1995, 204-213).
Dawkins 1930 R. M. Dawkins, 'Artemis Orthia, Some Additions and a Correction',
JHS 50 (1930), 298f.
Dean-Jones 1994 L. Dean-Jones, Women's Bodies in Classical Greek Science (Oxford
1994).
Decker 1995 W. Decker, Sport in der griechischen Antike (Munich 1995).
Delebecque 1957 E. Delebecque, Essai sur la vie de Xénophon (Paris 1957).
Demand 1994 N. Demand, Birth, Death and Motherhood in Classical Greece
(Baltimore/London 1994).
Den Boer 1954 W. Den Boer, Laconian Studies (Amsterdam 1954).
Denniston 1954 J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford 19542).
η ητριάδης 1994 Γ.-Μ. η ητριάδης, Θρησκευτικές εορτές και ά θ λ η τ ι κ ο ί
αγώνες στην αρχαία Λακωνία, ΛακωνΣπ 12 (1994), 373-394.
Dickins 1906-1907 G. Dickins, 'Laconia. Excavations at Sparta, 1907. The Hieron of
Athena Chalkioikos', BSA 13 (1906-1907), 137-154.
Diels 1894 H. Diels, 'G. Kaibel, Stil und Text der Πολιτεία 'Αθηναίων' GGA
1894, no. 4, 293-307.
Diller 1941 Α. Diller, Ά New Source on the Spartan Ephebia', AJPh 62 (1941),
499-501.
Dillery 1995 J. Dillery, Xenophon and the History of his Times (London / New York
1995).
D/K Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, edd. Η. Diels / W. Kranz (Berlin
1960-1961 10 ).
Doblhofer/Mauritsch G. Doblhofer/P. Mauritsch, Boxen. Texte. Übersetzungen. Kommentar
1995 (Wien/Köln/Weimar 1995).
Dover 1968 K. J. Dover, Aristophanes. Clouds (Oxford 1968).
id. 1978 id., Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass. 1978).
Droop 1910 J. P. Droop, 'The Dates of the Vases called "Cyrenaic"', JHS 30
(1910), 1-34.
Drerup 1969 H. Drerup, 'Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit', in: AH,
chapter O (1969).
Ducat 1971 J. Ducat, Les couroi de Ptoion (Paris 1971).
id. 1990 id., Les hilotes (Athens 1990).
id. 1999 id., 'Perspectives on Spartan Education in the Classical Period', in:
Hodkinson/Powell 1999,43-66.
Ehrenberg 1946 V. Ehrenberg, 'Eunomia', in: Aspects of the Ancient World. Essays and
Reviews by Victor Ehrenberg (Oxford 1946), 70-93.
id. 1965 id., Polis und Imperium. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte (Zürich 1965).
Eitrem 1915 S. Eitrem, Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer,
(Kristiania 1915).
Epps1933 P. H. Epps, "Fear in Spartan Character', CPh 28 (1933), 12-29.
Erbacher 1914 Κ. Erbacher, Griechisches Schuhwerk. Eine antiquarische
Untersuchung (Würzburg 1914).
Bibliography 273
Erler 1874 G. Erler, Quaestiones de Xenophonteo libro de república

Lacedaemoniorum, (Leipzig 1874).
FDS Κ. Η. Hülser, Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. Neue
Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentar, 4
vols. (Würzburg 1987-1988).
Fehling 1985 D. Fehling, Ή. Patzer, Die griechische Knabenliebe (Wiesbaden
1982)', Gnomon 57 (1985), 116-120.
FGrH Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby et al.
(Berlin/Leiden 1923ff.).
FHG Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, edd. K. Müller / T. Müller, 5
vols. (Paris 1868-1878).
Figueira 1984 T. Figueira, 'Mess Contributions and Subsistence in Sparta', TAPhA 114
(1984), 87-109.
Finley 1975 Μ. I. Finley, Sparta, in: J.-P. Vernant (ed.), Problèmes de la guerre en
Grèce ancienne (Paris 1968), 143-160 = id., The Use and Abuse of
History (London 1975), 161-177 (according to which I quote) = id.,
Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (London 1981), 24-40 =
Christ 1986, 327-350.
Fisher 1989 N. R. E. Fisher, 'Drink, Hybris and the Promotion of Harmony in
Sparta', in: Powell 1989, 26-50.
Fisher/Wees 1998 N. Fisher/H. v. Wees (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and
New Evidence (London 1998).
Forstenpointner/Krach G. Forstenpointner / R. Krachler / Β . Schildorfer, 'Archäozoologische
ler/Schildorfer 1999 Untersuchungen zu den Formen des Tieropfers im Artemision von
Ephesos' in: H. Friesinger / F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre
Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien
1995. Textband (Wien 1999), 225-232.
Forrest 1968 W. G. Forrest, A History of Sparta 950-192 B.C. (London 1968).
Fossey 1987 J. M. Fossey, 'The Cults of Artemis in Argolis', Euphrosyne 15 (1987),
71-88.
Freyer-Schauenburg B. Freyer-Schauenburg, 'K.YÛN ΛΑΚ ΝΟΙ-Κ.Υ Ν ΛΑΚΑΙΝΑ',
1970 AK 13 (1970), 95-100.
A. Fuchs, Quaestiones de libris Xenophonteis. De república
Fuchs 1838 Lacedaemoniorum et de república Atheniensium (Leipzig 1838).
C. Gallavotti, 'Alcmane, Teocrito e un' iscrizione laconica', QUCC 27
Gallavotti 1978 (1978), 183-185.
Z. Gansiniec, 'The Iron Money of the Spartans and the Origin of the
Gansiniec 1956 Obolos Currency', Archeologia 8 (1956), 410-413 [Polish with English
summary].
Gautier 1911 L. Gautier, La langue de Xénophon (Geneva 1911).
Geddes 1987 A. G. Geddes, 'Rags and Riches: The Costume of Athenian Men in the
Fifth Century', CQ 37 (1987), 307-331.
Gehrke 1997 H.-J. Gehrke, 'Gewalt und Gesetz. Die soziale und politische Ordnung
Kretas in der Archaischen und Klassischen Zeit', Klio 79 (1997), 23-
68.
Gera 1993 D. L. Gera, Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary
Technique (Oxford 1993).
Gigon 1953 O. Gigon, Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien
(Basel 1953).
Goette 1830 G. Goette, Animadversiones in Xenophontis librum (Göttingen 1830).
274 Bi b l i o g r a p h y
Good year 1972 F. R. D. Good year, The A nnals of Tacitus, Books 1-6, vol. I: A nnals 1.1-
54 (Cam brid ge 1972).
Gow I / I I A. S. F. Gow , Theocritus. Edited with a Translation and Commentary, 2
vols. (Cam brid ge 1952).
Gr af 1985 F. Graf, N ordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und
epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai,
Klazomenai und Phokaia (Rom e 1985).
Graind or 1924 P. Graind or, A lbum d' inscriptions attiques d' époques impériale (Paris
1924).
Gray 1989 V. Gray, The Character ofX enophon' s Hellenica (Lond on 1989).
Gray 1994 V. Gray, 'Im ages o f Sp arta: Writer and Au d ience in Isocrates'
Panathenaicus' , in: Pow ell/Hodkinson 1994,223-271.
Gray 1996 V. J. Gray, 'S. B. Pom eroy, X enophon. Oeconomicus. A Social and
Historical Commentary' , A ncPhil 16 (1996), 162-166.
Green 1994 P. M. Green, 'Text and Context in the matter of Xenop hon's Exile', in: I.
Worthington (ed .), Ventures into Greek History (Oxford 1994), 215-
227.
Gronau er - von H oer- S. Gronau er - von H oerschelm ann, Die M ünzprägung der
schelm ann 1978 Lakedaimonier (Berlin 1978).
Gschnitzer 1963 F. Gschnitzer, 'Studien zur griechischen Term inologie und Sklaverei.
1. Grund züge des vorhellenistischen Sp rachgebrau chs', in: A kademie
der W issenschaften und der Literatur, M ainz. A bhandlungen der
Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1963, no. 13,1283-1310.
Gschnitzer 1978 F. Gschnitzer, Ein neuer spartanischer Staatsvertrag und die
Verfassung des Peloponnesischen Bundes (Meisenheim 1978).
H aase 1833 F. H aase, Xenop hon. De república Lacedaemoniorum (Berlin 1833).
H all 2000 J. M. H all, 'Sparta, Laked aim on and the Nature o f Perioikic
Dep end ency', in: P. Flensted -Jensen (ed .), Further Studies in the
A ncient Greek Polis (Stu ttgart 2000), 73-89.
H alperin 1990 D. M. H alp erin, One Hundred Y ears of Homosexuality and other
Essays on Greek Love (N ew York/Lon d on 1990).
H altinner/Schm oll D. O. H altin n er/E. A. Schm oll, 'The Old er Manu scripts of Xenop hons
1980 H iero', RHT 10 (1980), 231-236.
Hammond 1979-1980 M. Hammond, Fam ou s Exem p lu m o f Spartan Tou ghness', CJ 85
(1979-1980), 97-109.
H am pe/Sim on 1981 R. H am p e/E. Sim on, The Birth of Greek A rt. From the M ycenaean to
the A rchaic Period (Lond on 1981).
Hanson 1989 V. D. H anson, The W estern W ay of W ar. Infantry Battle in Classical
Greece (Lond on 1989).
Hartman 1889 1.1. H artman, A nalecta X enophontea N ova (Leid en 1889).
H arvey 1994 D. H arvey, 'Lacom ica: Aristophanes and the Sp artans', in:
Pow ell/Hod kinson 1994, 35-58.
HCT A. W. Gom m e et al., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols.
(Oxford 1945-1981).
H eath 1999 M. H eath, 'Longinu s, On Sublimity·, PCPhS 45 (1999), 43-74.
H erfst 1922 P. H erfst, Le travail de la femme dans la Grèce ancienne (Utrech t
1922).
Herman 1987 G. H erman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cam brid ge
1987).
Bibliography 275
Herrmann-Otto 1998 E. Herrmann-Otto, 'Verfassung und Gesellschaft Spartas in der Kritik

des Aristoteles', Historia 47 (1998), 18-40.
Higgins 1977 W. E. Higgins, Xenophon the Athenian (Albany 1977).
Hindley 1994 C. Hindley, Bros and Military Command in Xenophon', CQ n.s. 44
(1994), 347-366.
id. 1999 id., 'Xenophon on Male Love', CQ n.s. 49 (1999), 74-99.
Hiit 1878 P. Hirt, Defontibus Pausaniae in eliacis (Greifswald 1878).
Hodkinson 1983 S. Hodkinson, 'Social Order and the Conflict of Values in Classical
Sparta', Chiron 13 (1983), 239-281.
id. 1986 id., 'Land Tenure and Inheritance in Classical Sparta', CQ n.s. 36
(1986), 378-406.
id. 1989 id., 'Inheritance, Marriage and Demography: Perspectives upon the
Success and Decline of Classical Sparta', in: Powell 1989, 122-141.
id. 1992 id., 'Sharecropping and Sparta's Economic Exploitation of the Helots',
in: Catling 1992,123-134.
id. 1993 id., 'Warfare, Wealth, and the Crisis of Spartiate Society', in: J. Rich /
G. Shipley (edd.), War and Society in the Greek World (London / New
York 1993), 146-176.
id. 1994 id., "'Blind Ploutos"? Contemporary images of the role of wealth in
classical Sparta', in: Powell/Hodkinson 1994,183-222.
id. 1996 id., 'Spartan Society in the Fourth Century: Crisis and Continuity', in: P.
Carlier (ed.), Le ¡Ve siècle av. J.-C. Approches historiographiques
(Paris 1996), 85-101.
id. 1997 id., 'The Development of Spartan Society and Institutions in the
Archaic Period', in: L. G. Mitchell / P. J. Rhodes (edd.), The
Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece (London / New York
1997), 83-102.
id. 1997a id., 'Servile and Free Dependants of the Classical Spartan "oikos"', in:
Moggi/Cordiano 1997,45-71.
id. 1999 id. 'An Agonistic Culture? Athletic Competition in Archaic and
Classical Spartan Society', in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999, 147-187.
id. 2000 id., Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta (London 2000).
Hodkinson/Powell S. Hodkinson / A. Powell (eds.), Sparta. New Perspectives (London
1999 1999).
Hölkeskamp 1999 K.-J. Hölkeskamp, Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im
Archaischen Griechenland (Stuttgart 1999).
Hornblower S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, 2 vols. (Oxford 1991,
1991,1996 1996).
Hughes 1991 D. D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London / New
York 1991).
Humble 1997 N. Humble, Xenophon's View of Sparta: A Study of the Anabasis,
Hellenica and Respublica Lacedaemoniorum (Diss. Hamilton 1997).
ead. 1999 ead., 'Sôphrosynê and the Spartans', in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999, 339-
353.
Huß 1999 B. Huß, Xenophons Symposion. Ein Kommentar (Stuttgart / Leipzig
1999).
Huxley 1962 G. L. Huxley, Early Sparta (London 1962).
¡EG Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. M. L. West
(Oxford 19922).
276 Bibliography
IG ¡nscriptiones Graecae, edd. Academiae Regia Bonissica, Berolinensis

et Brandenburgensis (Berlin 1873ff.).
Insch. v. Ol. W. Dittenberger / K. Purgold (eds.), Die Inschriften von Olympia
(Berlin 1896).
Jaeger 1945 W. Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, vol. Ill (Oxford
1945).
Jameson 1988 M. H. Jameson, 'Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece',
in: C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity
(Cambridge 1988), 87-119.
id. 1991 id., 'Sacrifice before Battle', in: V. D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The
Classical Greek Battle Experience (London/New York 1991), 197-
227.
Jeanmaire 1939 H. Jeanmaire, Couroi et Courites. Essai sur l'éducation spartiate et sur
les rites d'adolescence dans l'antiquité hellénique (Lille 1939).
Jeffery 1990 L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 19902).
Johnstone 1994 S. Johnstone, 'Virtuous Toil, Vicious Work: Xenophon on Aristocratic
Style', CPh 89 (1994), 219-240.
Jones 1967 A. H. M. Jones, Sparta (Oxford 1967).
Jung 1995 H. Jung, 'Die Sinnende Athena', Jdl 110 (1995), 95-147.
Kahrstedt 1922 U. Kahrstedt, Griechisches Staatsrecht I: Sparta und seine Symmachie
(Göttingen 1922).
Kaiinka 1913 E. Kaiinka, Die pseudoxenophontische 'Αθηναίων πολιτεία.
Einleitung, Übersetzung, Erklärung (Leipzig/Berlin 1913).
Keller 1905 O. Keller, 'Hunderassen im Altertum', ÖJh 8 (1905), 242-269.
Kenneil 1995 Ν. M. Kennell, The Gymnasium of Virtue. Education and Culture in
Ancient Sparta (Chapel Hill/London 1995).
id. 1999 id., 'From Perioikoi to Poleis. The Laconian Cities in the Late
Hellenistic Period', in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999,189-210.
Kiechle 1963 B. F. Kiechle, Lakonien und Sparta. Untersuchungen zur ethnischen
Struktur und zur politischen Entwicklung Lakoniens und Spartas bis zum
Ende der archaischen Zeit (Munich/Berlin 1963).
Köchly/Rüstow 1855 Η. Köchly / W. Riistow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, vol. II. 1
(Leipzig 1855).
Köhler 1896 U. Köhler, 'Über die Πολιτεία Λακεδαι ονίων Xenophons',
Sitzungs-berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1896), 361-377.
Kühner/Gerth 1, 2 R. Kühner / B. Gerth, Ausßhrliche Grammatik der griechischen
Sprache, part II, vol. 1 and 2 (Hannover 19554).
Kukofka 1993 D.-A. Kukofka, 'Die παιδίσκοι im System der spartanischen
Altersklassen', Philologus 137 (1993), 197-205.
Kyrieleis 1969 H. Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen. Studien zur Formengeschichte
altorientalischer und griechischer Sitz- und Liegemöbel
vorhellenistischer Zeit (Berlin 1969 = Jdl suppl. 24).
Lacroix 1955-1956 L. Lacroix, 'Les "blasons" des villes grecques', Études d'archéologie
classique 1 (1955-1956), 89-115.
Lana 1992 M. Lana, 'Xenophon's Athenaion Politela', a Study by Correspondence
Analysis', Literary & Linguistic Computing 7 (1992), 17-26.
Lane 1933-1934 E. A. Lane, 'Lakonian Vase-Painting', BSA 34 (1933-1934), 99-189.
Laser 1968 S. Laser, 'Hausrat', in: AH chapter Ρ (1968).
id. 1983 id., 'Medizin und Körperpflege' in: AH chapter S (1983).
Bibliography 277
Lavrencic 1993 M. Lavrencic, Spartanische Küche. Das Gemeinschaftsmahl der

Männer in Sparta, (Wien al. 1993).
Lazenby 1985 J. F. Lazenby, The Spartan Army (Warminster 1985).
Lehmann 1853 R. Lehmann, Die unter Xenophons Namen überlieferte Schrift vom
Staate der Lacedämonier und die Panathenaische Rede des Isokrates
in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis (Greifswald 1853).
Lendle 1995 O. Lendle, Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis (Darmstadt 1995).
Λεντάκης 1997 Β. Λεντάκης, Ξενοφώντος Λακεδαι ονίων Πολιτεία:
Εισαγωγή • Ερ ηνευτικό yjró//v7j/ia(diss.Leukosial997;/io/i vidi).
Le Roy 1961 C. Le Roy, 'Λακωνικά', BCH 85 (1961), 206-235.
Lewis 1977 D. M. Lewis, Sparta and Persia (Leiden 1977).
LGM K. Latte/H. Erbse, Léxica Graeca Minora (Hildesheim 1965).
Link 1991 S. Link, Landverteilung und sozialer Frieden im archaischen
Griechenland (Stuttgart 1991).
id. 1994 id., Der Kosmos Sparta (Darmstadt 1994).
id. 1998 id., '"Durch diese Tür geht kein Wort hinaus" (Plu. Lyk. 12,8).
Bürgergemeinschaft und Syssitien in Sparta', Laverna 9 (1998), 82-
112.
id. 1999 id. 'Der geliebte Bürger. Paideia und paidika in Sparta und auf Kreta',
Philologus 143 (1999), 3-25.
Lissarrague 1990 F. Lissarrague, 'Around the Krater: An Aspect of Banquet Imaginary',
in: Murray 1990, 196-209.
Loraux 1977 N. Loraux, 'La "belle mort" spartiate, Ktema 2 (1977), 105-120.
Lorimer 1947 H. L. Lorimer, 'The Hoplite Phalanx with special reference to the
Poems of Archilochus and Tyrtaeus', BSA 42 (1947), 76-138.
Losfeld 1977 G. Losfeld, 'Tyrofagie religieuse et mystique', BAGB 1977, 257-277.
Lotze 1959 D. Lotze, ΜΕΤΑΞΥ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡ Ν ΚΑΙ ΟΥΛ Ν. Studien zur
Rechtsstellung unfreier Landbevölkerungen in Griechenland bis zum 4.
Jhdt. v. Chr. (Berlin 1959).
LSJM H. G. Liddell / R. Scott et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford
19929).
Luccioni 1947 J. Luccioni, Les idées politiques et sociales de Xénophon (Paris 1947).
Lutz 1947 C. E. Lutz, 'Musonius Rufiis. "The Roman Socrates'", YCIS 10 (1947),
3-147.
Λυπουρλής 1968 . Λυπουρλής, "Άρτε ις Ό ρ θ ρ ί α : ' , EEThess 10(1968), 363^t01.
MacDowell 1986 D. M. MacDowell, Spartan Law (Edinburgh 1986).
Manso 1800 J. C. F. Manso, Sparta, ein Versuch zur Aufklärung der Geschichte und
Verfassung dieses Staates, vol. I, part II (Leipzig 1800).
Marangou 1969 E.-L. Marangou, Lakonische Elfenbein- und Beinschnitzereien
(Tübingen 1969).
Marsh 1991 D. Marsh, 'Sparta and Quattrocento Humanism: Lilius Tifemas'
Translation of Xenophon's Spartan Constitution', BiblH&R 53 (1991),
91-103.
id. 1992 D. Marsh, 'Xenophon', in: V. Brown et al. (ed.), Catalogus
translationum et commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin
Translations and Commentaries. Annotated Lists and Guides, vol. VII
(Washington 1992), 75-196.
Meier 1998 M. Meier, Aristokraten und Damoden. Untersuchungen zur inneren
Entwicklung Spartas im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. und zur politischen
Funktion der Dichtung des Tyrtaios (Stuttgart 1998).
278 Bibliography
Mejer 1978 J. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background

(Wiesbaden 1978).
Melville Jones 1993 J. R. Melville Jones, Testimonia Numaria. Greek and Latin Texts
concerning Ancient Greek Coinage, vol. I: Text and Translations
(London 1993).
Meulder 1989 M. Meulder, 'La date et la cohérence de la République des
Lacédémoniens de Xénophon', AC 58 (1989), 71-87.
Meyer 1892 E. Meyer, Forschungen zur Alten Geschichte, vol. I (Halle 1892).
Micheli 1952 H. Micheli, Sparta, το κρυπτόν της πολιτείας τών
Λακεδαι ονίων (Cambridge 1952).
Millender 1999 Ε. Millender, 'Athenian Ideology and the Empowered Spartan
Woman', in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999, 355-391.
Mitchell 1997 L. G. Mitchell, Greeks Bearing Gifts. The Public Use of Private
Relationships in the Greek World, 435-323 B.C. (Cambridge 1997).
M/L R. Meiggs / D. Lewis (eds.), A Selection of Greek Historical
Inscriptions (Oxford 19882).
Moggi/Cordiano 1997 M. Moggi / G. Cordiano, Schiavi e dipendenti nell'ambito dell'oikos e
della familia (Pisa 1997).
Momigliano 1936 A. Momigliano, 'Per l'unità logica della Lakedaimonion Politela di
Senofonte', RFIC 14 (1936), 170-172 = id.. Terzo Contributo alla storia
degli studi classici del mondo antico (Rome 1966), 341-345 (according
to which I quote).
Moore 1983 J. M. Moore, Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy
(London 19832).
Moretti 1953 L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome 1953).
Morgan 1999 T. J. Morgan, 'Literate Education in Classical Athens', CQ n.s. 49
(1999), 46-61.
M0rkholm 1991 O. M0rkholm, Early Hellenistic Coingage (Cambridge 1991).
Morrison 1988 D. R. Morrison, Bibliography of Editions, Translations and Commentary
on Xenophon's Socratic Writings, 1600-Present (Pittsburgh 1988).
Morrow 1985 K. Dohan Morrow, Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture
(Wisconsin 1985).
Mosley 1973 D. J. Mosley, 'Crossing Greek Frontiers under Aims', RIDA 20 (1973),
161-169.
Miinscher 1920 Κ. Miinscher, Xenophon in der griechisch - römischen Literatur
(Leipzig 1920).
Murray 1990 O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposion on the Symposion (Oxford
1990).
id. 1991 O. Murray, 'War and the Symposium', in: W. J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a
Classical Context (Ann Arbor 1991), 83-103.
Nafissi 1991 M. Nafissi, La nascità del kosmos. Studi sulla storia e la società di
Sparta (Naples 1991).
Naumann 1876 E. Naumann, De Xenophontis libro qui Λακεδαι ονίων Πολιτεία
inscribitur (Berlin 1876).
Nenci 1974 G. Nenci, 'Considerazioni sulle monete di cuoio e di ferro nel bacino
del mediterraneo e sulla convenzionalita' de loro valore', ASNP series
III, vol. IV.3 (1974), 639-657.
Nilsson 1912 M. P. Nilsson, 'Grundlagen des spartanischen Lebens', Klio 12 (1912),
308-340 (according to which I quote) = Opuscula Selecta (Lund
1952), 826-871 = Christ 1986,104-143.
Bibliography 279
Norden 1909 E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa. Vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die
Zeit der Renaissance (Leipzig/Berlin 1909).
North 1966 H. North, Sophrosyne. Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek
Literature (Ithaca 1966).
Ogden 1996 D. Ogden, Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods
(Oxford 1996).
Oliva 1971 P. Oliva, Sparta and Her Social Problems (Prague 1971).
Ollier 1933, 1943 F. Oilier, Le mirage spartiate, 2 vols. (Paris 1933,1943).
id. 1934 id., Xénophon. La République des Lacédémoniens (Lyon/Paris 1934).
Oncken 1875 W. Oncken, Die Staatslehre des Aristoteles in historisch-politischen
Umrissen, vol. II (Leipzig 1875).
Page 1959 D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Oxford 1959).
Panagopoulos 1978 A. Panagopoulos, Captives and Hostages in the Peloponnesian War
(Athens 1978).
Paradiso 1997 A. Paradiso, 'Gli iloti e r'oikos"', in: Moggi/Cordiano 1997,73-90.
Parke 1930 H. W. Parke, 'The Development of the Second Spartan Empire (405-
371 B.C.)', JHS 50 (1930), 37-79.
Parker 1985 R. Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion
(Oxford 1985).
id. 1988 id., 'Were Spartan kings heroized?' LCM 13. 1 (Jan. 1988).
id. 1989 id., 'Spartan Religion', in: Powell 1989,142-172.
id. 1996 id, Athenian Religion. A History (Oxford 1996).
PCG R. Kassel / C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin / New York
1983ff.).
Persson 1915 A. W. Persson, Zur Textgeschichte Xenophons (Lund 1915).
Perlman 1976-1977 S. Perlman, 'The Ten Thousand. A Chapter in the Military, Social and
Economic History of the Fourth Century', RSA 6-7 (1976-1977), 241-
284.
Pettersson 1992 M. Pettersson, Cults of Apollo at Sparta. The Hyakinthia, the
Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia (Stockholm 1992).
Pickard-Cambridge A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (Oxford
1927 1927).
Pierleoni 1933 Xenophontis opuscula, ed. G. Pierleoni (Rome 1933).
Pierleoni/Vecchietti G. Pierleoni / Ν. Vecchietti, 'Prolegomena ad Xenophontis Rem-
1903-1904 publicam Lacedaemoniorum', BFC 10 (1903-1904), 251-256, 279-282.
Pipili 1987 M. Pipili, Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century B.C. (Oxford
1987).
ead. 1998 ead., 'Archaic Laconian Vase-Painting: Some Iconographie
Considerations', in: Cavanagh/Walker 1998, 82-96.
Pisani 1958 V. Pisani, "Ορθαγορίσκοι', Paideia 13 (1958), 143.
PLF Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, edd. E. Lobel / D. L. Page (Oxford
1955).
PMG Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. Page (Oxford 1962).
PMGF Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies (Oxford
1991).
Pomeroy 1994 S. B. Pomeroy, Xenophon. Oeconomicus. A Social and Historical
Commentary (Oxford 1994).
Popp 1957 H. Popp, Die Einwirkung von Vorzeichen, Opfern und Festen auf die
Kriegführung der Griechen im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Erlangen
1957).
280 Bibliography
Poralla P. Poralla, Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier bis auf die Zeit

Alexanders des Großen (Breslau 1913; repr. with additions by A. S.
Bradford, Chicago 1985).
Portus 1586 Francisci Porti Cretensis commentarli, in varia Xenophontis opuscula,
quorum nomina sequenti pagina declarantur. Excudebat Joannes le
Preux. MD.LXXXVI.
Powell 1989 A. Powell (ed.), Classical Sparta: Techniques behind her Success
(London 1989).
id. 1994 id., 'Plato and Sparta: Modes of Rule and of Non-Rational Persuasion in
the Laws', in: Powell/Hodkinson 1994,273-321.
id. 1998 id., 'Sixth-Century Lakonian Vase-Painting: Continuities and
Discontinuities with the "Lykourgan" Ethos', in: Fisher/Wees 1998,
119-146.
Powell/Hodkinson A. Powell/S. Hodkinson (eds.), The Shadow of Sparta (London/New
1994 York 1994).
Pritchett 1969 W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, part II
(Berkeley al. 1969).
id. 1971 W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek Military Practices, part I (Berkeley al.
1971).
id. 1974 id., The Greek State at War, part II (Berkeley al. 1974).
id. 1979 id., The Greek State at War, paît III (Berkeley al. 1979)
id. 1982 id., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, part IV (Berkeley al. 1982).
id. 1985 id., The Greek State at War, part IV (Berkeley al. 1985).
id. 1989 id., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, part VI (Berkeley al. 1989).
id. 1991 id., The Greek State at War, part V (Berkeley al. 1991).
Proietti 1987 G. Proietti, Xenophon's Sparta (Leiden 1987).
Raftopoulou 1998 S. Raftopoulou, 'New Finds from Sparta', in: Cavanagh/Walker 1998,
125-140.
Rahn 1981 P. J. Rahn, 'The Date of Xenophon's Exile', in: G. S. Shrimpton / D. J.
McCargar (edd.), Classical Contributions. Studies in honour of
Malcolm Francis McGregor (New York 1981), 103-119.
Rawson 1969 E. Rawson, The Spartan Tradition in European Thought (Oxford 1969).
RE G. Wissowa et al. (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1894-1978).
Rebenich 1998 S. Rebenich, Xenophon. Die Verfassung der Spartaner (Darmstadt
1998).
id. 1998a id., 'Fremdenfeindlichkeit in Sparta? Überlegungen zur Tradition der
spartanischen Xenelasie', Klio 80 (1998), 336-359.
Reinhold 1970 M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity
(Brussels 1970).
Reinsberg 1989 C. Reinsberg, Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken
Griechenland (Munich 1989).
Renz 1879 C. Renz, Arrianus quatenus Xenophontis imitator sit (Rostock 1879).
Rhode 1925 E. Rhode, Psyche. The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among
the Greeks (London 1925).
Rhodes 1981 P. J. Rhodes, 'The Selection of Ephors at Sparta', Historia 30 (1981),
498-502.
Rhodes 1993 P. J. Rhodes, A. Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politela
(Oxford 1993).
Bibliography 281
Richards 1897 Η. Richards, 'The Minor Works of Xenophon', CK 11 (1897), 133-136;

236f.
Richer 1994 N. Richer, 'Aspects des funérailles à Sparte', CCG 5 (1994), 51-96.
id. 1998a id., Les Éphores. Etudes sur l'histoire et sur l'image de Sparte,
VlIIe-IIle siècle avant Jésus-Christ (Paris 1998).
id. 1998b id., 'Des citoyens maîtres d'eux-mêmes: l'eukosmon de Sparte
archaïque et classique', CCG 9 (1998), 7-36.
id. 1999 id., 'Aidôs at Sparta', in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999,91-115.
Ridgway 1997 D. Ridgway, 'Nestor's Cup and Etruscans', OxlA 16 (1997), 325-344.
Robert 1979 L. Robert, 'Deux inscriptions de l'epoque imperiale en Attique', AJPh
100(1979), 153-165.
Robinson 1992 E. W. Robinson, 'Oracles and Spartan Religious Scruples', LCM 17
(1992), 131f.
Russell 1964 D. A. Russell, 'Longinus'. On the Sublime (Oxford 1964).
id. 1979 D. A. Russell, 'De imitatione', in: D. West / T. Woodman, Creative
Imitation and Latin Literature (Cambridge 1979), 1-16.
Rutherford 1998 I. Rutherford, Canons of Style in the Antonine Age. Idea-Theory in its
Literary Context (Oxford 1998).
Ste. Croix 1972 G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London
1972).
Σακελλαρίου 1996 Α. Σακελλαρίου, Ό ι Λάκωνες κΰνες στην αρχαία γρα ατεία',
ΛακωνΣπ 13 (1996), 357-372.
id. 1998 Α. Σακελλαρίου, 'Λάκωνες κύνες, πλους δεύτερος', ΛακωνΣπ 14
(1998), 71-76.
Scanion 1988 Τ. F. Scanion, 'Virgineum Gymnasium. Spartan Females and Early
Greek Athletics' in: W. J. Raschke (ed.), The Archaeology of the
Olympics. The Olympics and Other Festivals in Antiquity (London /
Madison 1988), 185-216.
Schacht 1890 H. Schacht, De Xenophontis studiis rhetoricis (Berlin 1890).
Schenkt 1908 H. Schenkt, 'Xenophontis Respublica Lacedaemoniorum, ree. G.
Pierleoni', BPhWli (1908), coll. 1-11.
Schepens 1993 G. Schepens, 'L'apogée de l'archè Spartiate comme époque historique
dans l'historiographie Grecque du début du IVe s. av. J.-C.', AncSoc 24
(1993), 169-204.
Schmitt Pantel 1992 P. Schmitt Pantel, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans
les cités grecques (Rome 1992).
Schnapp 1997 A. Schnapp, Le chasseur et la cité. Chasse et érotique en Grèce
ancienne (Paris 1997).
Schnurr-Redford 1996 C. Schnurr-Redford, Frauen im klassischen Athen. Sozialer Raum und
reale Bewegungsfreiheit (Berlin 1996).
Schütrumpf 1970 E. Schütrumpf, Die Bedeutung des Wortes ethos in der Poetik des
Aristoteles (Munich 1970).
id. 1991 id., Aristoteles. Politik Buch II, III (Berlin 1991).
id. 1994 id., 'Aristotle on Sparta', in: Powell/Hodkinson 1994, 323-345.
Schwartz 1976 G. S. Schartz, 'LG. V 1 213: The Damonon Stele - A New Restoration
for Line 39', ZPE 22 (1976), 177f.
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, ed. H. W. Pieket/R. Stroud et
al. (Leiden et al. 1923ff.).
Sekunda 1998 N. Sekunda, The Spartans (London 1998).
282 Bibliography
Seltman 1955 C. Seltman, Greek Coins. A History of Metallic Currency and Coinage
down to the Fall of the Hellenistic Kingdom (London 19552).
Shaw 1999 P.-J. Shaw, Olympiad Chronography and Early' Spartan History1, in:
Shear 1937 T. L. Shear, Ά Spartan Shield from Pylos', AE 100 (1937), 140-143.
id. 1937a T. L. Shear, 'The Campaign of 1936', Hesperia 6 (1937), 333-381.
Shimron 1979 Β. Shimron, "Ein Wortspiel mit Homoioi bei Herodot', RhM 122 (1979),
131-133.
Shipley 2000 G. Shipley, 'The Extent of Spartan Territory in the Late Classical and
Hellenistic Periods', BSA 95 (2000), 367-390.
Simon 1889 J. A. Simon, 'Xenophon-Studien. Vierter Teil: Die Praepositionen σύν
und ετά c. Gen. bei Xenophon', Programm des Gymnasiums zu
Düren über das Schuljahr 1888-1889 (Düren 1889), 5-24.
Simon 1981 E. Simon, Die griechischen Vasen (Munich 1981).
Singor 1999 H. W. Singor, 'Admission to the Syssitia in Fifth-Century Sparta' in:
Sinkewicz 1990 R. E. Sinkewicz, Manuscript Listings for the Authors of Classical and
Late Antiquity (Toronto 1990).
Smith 1998 T. J. Smith, 'Dances, Drinks and Dedications: the Archaic Komos in
Laconia', in: Cavanagh/Walter 1998, 75-81.
Snodgrass 1964 A. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the
Bronze Age to 600 B.C. (Edinburgh 1964).
id. 1999 A. M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armor of the Greeks (Baltimore / London
19992).
Sokolowski 1969 F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969).
Spence 1993 I. G. Spence, The Cavalry of Classical Greece. A Social and Military
History with Particular Reference to Athens (Oxford 1993).
Spina 1985 L. Spina, 'L'incomparabile pudore dei giovani Spartani (Senofonte,
Costituzione degli Spartani, III 5)', QUCC 48 (1985), 167-181.
Spyropoulos 1998 T. G. Spyropoulos, 'Pellana, the Administrative Centre of Prehistoric
Laconia', in: CavanaghAValker 1998, 28-38.
Σταινχάουερ 1972 Γ. Σταινχάουερ, "Αρχαιότητες και νη εία Λακωνίας' AD 27
(1972) Β 242-251.
Stein 1878 Η. Κ. Stein, 'Bemerkungen zu Xenophons Schrift "Vom Staate der
Lacedaemonier'", Beilage zum Michaelis - Programm 1878 des
Königlichen katholischen Gymnasiums zu Glatz (Glatz 1878).
Stengel 1920 P. Stengel, Die Griechischen Kultusaltertümer (= Handb. der
Altertumsw. 5.3, Munich 19203)
Stibbe 1972 C. M. Stibbe, Lakonische Vasenmaler des 6. Jhs. v. Chr. (Amsterdam /
London 1972).
id. 1989 id., 'Beobachtungen zur Topographie des antiken Sparta', BABesch 64
(1989), 61-99.
id. 1994 id., Laconian Drinking Vessels and other Open Shapes (Amsterdam
1994).
id. 1996 id., Das andere Sparta (Mainz 1996).
Strauss 1939 L. Strauss, 'The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon', Social
Research 6 (1939), 502-536.
Str0m 1992 I. Str0m, 'Obeloi of Pre- and Proto-Monetary Value in Greek
Sanctuaries' in: T. Linders/B. Alroth, Economics of Cult in the Ancient
Greek World (Uppsala 1992), 41-51.
Bibliography 283
Sturz I-IV F. G. Sturz, Lexikon Xenophonteum, 4 vols. (Leipzig 1801-1804).

SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. H. v. Arnim (Stuttgart 1905-1924).
Syll.3 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger (Leipzig 1915-
19213).
Szegedy-Maszak A. Szegedy-Maszak, 'Legends of the Greek Lawgivers', GRBS 19
1978 (1978), 199-209.
F. Taeger, Charisma. Studien zur Geschichte des antiken
Taeger 1957 Herrscherkultes, vol. I (Stuttgart 1957).
C. M. Tazelaar, 'ΠΑΙ ΕΣ KAI ΕΦΗΒΟΙ. Some Notes on the Spartan
Tazelaar 1967 Stages of Youth', Mnemosyne 20 (1967), 127-153.
Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck (Leipzig 1889).
TGF L. Thommen, Lakedaimonion politeia. Die Entstehung der
Thommen 1996
spartanischen Verfassung (Stuttgart 1996).
id. 1999 id., 'Spartanische Frauen', MH 56 (1999), 129-149.
Threatte 1996 L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions II. Morphology (Berlin /
New York 1996).
Tigerstedt 1965, 1974 Ε. N. Tigerstedt, The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, 2 vols.
(Stockholm al. 1965, 1974).
Tod 1903-1904 Μ. Ν. Tod, 'Teams of Ball-Players at Sparta', BSA 10 (1903-1904), 63-
77.
Toher1999 M. Toher, 'On the είδωλο ν of a Spartan King', RhM 142 (1999), 113-
127.
Toynbee 1913 A. Toynbee, 'The Growth of Sparta', JHS 33 (1913), 246-275.
id. 1969 id., Some Problems of Greek History (Oxford 1969).
Treu 1967 M. Treu, 'Ps.-Xenophon Πολιτεία ' Α θ η ν α ί ω ν ' , in: RE IX A (1967),
coll. 1928-1982.
TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edd. Β. Snell/R. Kannicht/S. Radt
(Göttingen 1971ff.).
Tsakmakis 1995 A. Tsakmakis, Thukydides über die Vergangenheit (Tübingen 1995).
Tuplin 1987 C. Tuplin, 'Xenophon's Exile again', in: M. Whitby al. (edd.), Homo
Viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol 1987), 59-68.
id. 1993. id., The Failings of Empire (Stuttgart 1993).
id. 1994 id., 'Xenophon, Sparta and the Cyropaedia', in: Powell/Hodkinson 1994,
127-181.
Valckenaer 1815 Selecta e Scholis Lud. Casp. Valckenarii in libros quosdam novi
testamenti. Editore discípulo Εν. Wassenbergh, qui dissertationem
praemisit de glossis novi testamenti, vol. I (Amsterdam 1815).
van Wees 1999 H. van Wees, 'Tyrtaeus Eunomia. Nothing to do with the Great Rhetra',
in: Hodkinson/Powell 1999,1-41.
Vérilhac/Vial 1998 A.-M. Vérilhac/C. Vial, Le mariage grec. Du Vie siècle av. J.-C. à
l'époque d'Auguste (Athens 1998).
Vernant 1991 J.-P. Vemant, 'Between Shame and Glory: The Identity of the young
Spartan Warrior', in: id., Mortals and Immortals. Collected Essays
(Princeton 1991), 220-243.
Vidal-Naquet 1981 P. Vidal-Naquet, Le chasseur noir. Formes de pensée et formes de
société dans la monde grec (Paris 1981).
Villard 1988 P. Villard, L'ivresse dans le monde grec (Aix-en-Provence 1988)
[microfiches],
Wade-Gery 1958 H. T. Wade-Gery, 'The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch, Lycurgus VI', in:
id., Essays in Greek History (Oxford 1958), 37-85.
284 Bibliography
Wegehaupt 1896 I. Wegehaupt, De Dione Chysostomo Xenophontis sedatore (Gotha

1896).
Weiss 1974 C. Weiss, Griechische Flußgottheiten in vorhellenistischer Zeit.
Ikonographie und Bedeutung (Würzburg 1984).
Welwei 1974 K.-W. Welwei, Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst. Erster Teil: Athen und
Sparta (Wiesbaden 1974).
West 1978 M. L. West, Hesiod. Works and Days (Oxford 1978).
id. 1985 id., 'Ion of Chios', BICS 32 (1985), 71-78.
Westermarck III E. Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, vol. III (London
1921).
Wheeler 1982 E. L. Wheeler, 'Hoplomachia and Greek Dances in Arms', GRBS 23
(1982), 223-233.
id. 1983 id., 'The Hoplomachoi and Vegetius' Spartan Drillmasters', Chiron 13
(1983), 1-20.
Whitby 1994 M. Whitby, 'Two Shadows: Images of Spartans and Helots', in:
Powell/Hodkinson 1994, 87-126.
Whitehead 1990 D. Whitehead, Aineias the Tactician. How to Survive under Siege
(Oxford 1990).
Whitley 1997 J. Whitley, 'Cretan Laws and Cretan Literacy', AJA 101 (1997), 635-
661.
Wide 1893 S. Wide, Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig 1893).
Wierschowski 1996 L. Wierschowski, 'Die demographisch-politischen Auswirkungen des
Erdbebens von 464 v. Chr. in Sparta', in: E. Olshausen / H. Sonnabend
(eds.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des
Altertums 6, 1996. Naturkatastrophen in der antiken Welt (Stuttgart
1998), 291-306.
Wilamowitz 1881 U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin 1881).
Wilkins/Harvey/Dobs J. Wilkins / D. Harvey / M. Dobson (edd.), Food in Antiquity (Exeter
on 1995 1995).
F. Willemsen, 'Zu den Lakedämoniergräbern im Kerameikos', AM 92
Willemsen 1977 (1977), 117-157.
D. Williams, 'Women on Athenian Vases: Problems of Interpretation',
Williams 1993 in: A. Cameron/A. Kuhrt, Images of Women in Antiquity (London
19932), 92-106.
Wissmann 1888 F. O. Wissmann, De genere dicendi Xenophonteo deque prioris
Hellenicorum partis condicione quaestiones selectae (Gießen 1888).
Woodward 1951 A. M. Woodward, 'Some Notes on the Spartan σφαιρεΐς', BSA 46
(1951), 191-199.
Woronoff/Fouet 1974 M. Woronoff/F. Fouet, 'Parallelismes et convergences des structures
initiatiques dans les civilisations traditionelles de l'Afrique noire et de
la Grèce antique', Études Africaines 4 (1974), 17-43.
Worthington 1992 I. Worthington, A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus. Rhetoric and
Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens (Michigan 1992).
Wulff 1884 Α. Wulff, Quaestiones in Xenophontis de República Lacedaemoniorum
libello institutae (Münster 1884).
Zeilhofer 1959 G. Zeilhofer, Sparta, Delphoi und die Amphiktyonen im 5. Jahrhundert
vor Christus (Erlangen 1959).
Zimmermann 1989 J.-L. Zimmermann, Les chevaux de bronze dans l'art géométrique grec
(Mainz 1989).
INDEXES
I General Index
In the case of Greek words both the general index and the index verborum
should be consulted. For the rules of transcribing Greek words see the preface.
Acrotatus 176 Anabasis

Aegeus 107 — date of composition 9
Aegimius 35 Anaxandridas 112, 182, 246
Aeneas (the Tactician) 30f. n. 135 Anonymous on Aristotle
agathourgoi 21, 145 n. 21 — reception of SC 42
age classes / groups 20, 118, 129-131, 136, 141 Antalcidas
n. 19, 136,155,170, 177, 189f. — Peace of, see King's Peace
agele 129-131 Antiphon 18,117
Agesilaus 32, 34 Apollo 3 , 4 n. 10, 134,174, 234f., 242 n. 66
— date of composition 9 — Hyakinthios 134
— relation to the encomiastic genre 15 Apostolius, Michael
Agesilaus 25f., 27 n. 128, 30, 34, 113, 209, 216 — reception of SC 42
n. 47 Arcadians 11 n. 69, 147, 152 n. 29
— Asian campaign 219, 233 — as mercenaries 204
— descent 237,242 n. 66 — war dances 142
— dress 122 Archidamus II 225
— enriches his friends and his house 152, archives of oracles 241 f.
228 Arexippus 142
— guest-friendship 222 Argos 12, 127,167,216
— justifies occupation of Kadmeia 216 — oracular archives 242
— καλοκαγαθία 181 — war with 193
— money-making 8 n. 54, 164 Aristagoras 225
— not blamed in chapter 14 12 aristocracy (see also descent, Xenophon —»
— obedience 15, 120, 168 aristocratic attitude) 181-183, 185-187,
— pederasty 17, 134 232
— praises the gods 208 — long hair sign of 194
— return from Asia 3, 4 n. 10, 12f., 15, 32 Aristón (Spartan king) 242f.
— rises before the ephors 245 Aristón (Stoic philosopher)
— self-control 134, 150 — on Spartan marriage 179
— sends and receives embassies 226 Aristotle
— stance towards Olympic victories 166 — reception of SC 37, 160
— trains his army 158 army
Agesipolis 209, 215, 216 n. 47 — age classes 188-190, 260
Agiads — baggage-train 190f., 199, 216
— pedigree of 187 — call-up 33, 170, 188f„ 238
Agis II216, 225f. — call-up of allies 215
Aigai 134 — call-up of perioikoi 262
Aiginetan mina 167 — camp, see camp
aikla 151,166 — cheirotechnai 190, 261 n. 17
Aiolis 229 — dress and equipment 186, 190f., 216
Aitolians 25f. — food supplies 190, 207,216
alphabet, see literacy — guards 38, 204,208
Amphipolis 14,202 n. 38 — light-armed / peltasts 121, 190 n. 33,
204f.
286 Indexes
— officers 33, 219-221, 257-264 ball games / players 118 n. 9, 177

— organization 33, 36, 257-264 barefootedness 18, 121
— roll-call 208 barley 151, 240
— subject of discussion in the syssition 156 — cake 151
— tactical manoeuvres 198-201, 265-268 — Greek staple food 153
— training (see also exercise) 147, 157- beard / moustache 121, 133, 193
159, 165, 186, 207f„ 217, 263 Boiotìa (see also Kadmeia, Thebes) 150, 204,
— vanguard 38, 204 221
Arrian — homosexuality 132f.
— reception of SC 41 Boiotian League 12
Artemis booty 3 , 4 n. 10, 152 n. 29, 227f.
— Agrotera 148, 222f. booty-sellers / laphyropolai 227f.
— Ephesia4n. 10 boundaries 33
— Hegemone 212 — of perioikic cities 239
— Orthia, see Orthia — of Spartan territory 212-214
assembly of citizens, see ekklesia boundary deities 26, 212-214
Athena 26, 133,212 boxing (see also fist fights, mock / sham fights)
— Amboulia 213 177
— as boundary goddess 26, 213f. Brasidas 14,205, 229,249,251 n. 72
— Chalkioikos 213 n. 42,221, 249 Brasideioi 205, 258,262
— Horia214 Brauron 106
— Syllania 26,213 bravery 131 n. 13, 174-180, 192f.
— Xenia213 burial / funeral 152
Athenaion Politela 9,31 — of kings 27, 34,247-251
— authenticity of 7 n. 46 and 49 — of potter 164f.
Athens passim, esp. 4f„ 12f., 21, 26 n. 123, 30, Byzantion
35, 44, 104 — iron currency 167
— Areopagus 182 Caecilius
— aulos-players 221 — reception of SC 41 η. 191
— common messes 150 Camerarius, Joachim 43
— compared to Sparta in the Epitaphios 21 camp 208, 225
— crafts 164 — Athenian 217
— crimson dress of officers 192 — change of site 207
— education 115f., 136f. — fires 157
— education irrelevant to the question of — Roman 202
citizenship 186 — shape of 33, 202f.
— esteem of old citizens 180,182 Carnus 212
— housework of women 105 Carthage
— marriage regulations 108f. — daily messes 150
— minimum age for offices 147 — leather currency 167
— model for others 21 cattle
— neglect of physical condition of citizens — sacrifice of 214
158 cavalry / horsemen (see also horses) 144, 147,
— oracular archives 242 161, 189f„ 194, 196, 204 n. 39, 259-
— pederasty 132-135 261,264
— private life 145,147 — different from hippeis 144
— sacrifices to Artemis Agrotera 222f. — guards 208
— statues of Eponymoi 189 — scouting 218
— supervisors of the ephebes 119 — teachers of 198
— unrestrained life in camps 217 celeres 144 n. 20
atimia 176 Celts
Aulis 219 — wear wreaths 223
aulos-players 33, 164, 190, 219-221 cheese 151
avarice (see also self-control / self-restraint / — graters 128
modesty) 12, 165 — seizure of 24 n. 116, 33, 125-128, 255-
awe, religious 99, 217, 234 257
Indexes 287
Chigi vase 221 — dress of boys 122

Chilon (ephor) 101, 150 — δρο είς 177
— heroic worship of 248f. — gerousia 183
Chilon (father-in-law of king Demaratus) — homosexuality 132
253f. — kosmoi 171,183
Chios 19f„ 106 — 'marriage by capture' 255
chiton 122,192 — music 142
choregos 142, 178 — position in the chorus 178
chorus (see also music) 141f., 173 , 208 — public maintenance 123
— position in 177f. — punishment of bachelors 179
Cimon 14 — resemblance with Spartan constitution 7,
Cinadon 16, 171f„ 182 38,113
citizenship / civic rights 135, 137, 185f., 261 n. — sacrifice to Eros 223
17 — Spartan laws derived from 173f.
— Roman 231 n. 57 crimson cloak 37, 121f„ 191-193
city walls, see fortifications Cridas 9 n. 56, 17-20, 31, 38, 102, 121f„ 150
civic rights, see citizenship — helots 20, 206
Cleandrus 222 — influence on SC 246, 248
Clearchus 10, 172 — lakonizer 14, 17
Cleombrotus 10f., 160,202 n. 38,208 — Lycurgus not central figure 22
Cleomenes I 154, 172, 216, 225, 242f. — Spartan drinking customs 20, 153f.
Cleomenes III 38f., 118 n. 9, 162, 245 Crocus Field, battle of the 223
Cleon of Halikarnassos 23 Cynegeticus
Clinias (father of Alcibiades) 134 — authenticity of 114 n. 8
Cobon 242 — hunting as means of self-representation
coinage 39, 167, 237 148
competitions, see contests — toil 137
Contemplative Athena 214 Cyropaedia (see also Cyrus, Persia/Persian)
contests / competitions (see also festivals, 17f.
Gymnopaidiai, Hyakinthiai) — critical chapter (8.8) 9, 12, 28
— athletic 142f„ 173, 177 — date of composition 9
— beauty 133 — title 97
— boys'118n. 9 Cyrus (see also Cyropaedia, Persia/Persian)
— drinking 153 119, 123f„ 129, 147, 149, 156f„ 169,
— in virtue 181f. 190f., 207, 210f„ 216,218,220f„ 245
— musical 143 — αιδώς and πειθώ 119
— of Orthia 143 — divine descent / worship of 237, 249
cooks / cooking 103, 105,151 n. 26, 164 — familiar with divination 211
Corinth 3 n. 1,4f., 12,202 n. 38 — guest-friendship 22If.
— aulos-players 221 — provides for medical care 220
— crafts 164 — self-control 123f.
council — simple funeral 248
— of Elders, see gerontes / gerousia — supported by Xenophon 4 n. 9
— of war 210, 215, 240 Damonon stele 141f.
countermarch, see exeligmos damos 25f„ 31, 172, 234
cowards 33, 174-180, 185, 188, 193 damosia/ 'public tent' 33, 51,149,219,240
— daughters of 178 death
crafts / craftsmen 103, 117, 163-165 — penalty 104, 135, 172, 176, 181, 231,
Crete 35f„ 101, 104, 113, 118, 148 249
— agele 129f. — premature 109 n. 3, 110
— aulos-players 221 — stance towards 174f„ 180
— citizens maintained at public expense — worship after 247-251
163 defecation
— citizenship 185 — in the field 206
— common messes 156, 244 Deinon 208
— δίκη άγα ίου 179 Delphi / Pythia (see also oracles) 3, 5, 30, 35,
288 Indexes
107, 152 η. 59, 173f„ 214, 223, 241f„ — wool work 105
249 eirenes 20, 33, 118, 129-131, 141 n. 19, 155,
Demaratus 209, 236, 242f„ 253f. 166
Demarmenus 253f. — dress 122
Demeter 127 — mess contributions 123
Demetrius (of Magnesia) 3, 4 η. 11, 7f., 40 — order stealing 125
de Meurs, Jan 43 — ornaments in battle 122
Democedes 220 η. 53 — supervision by paidonomoi 146
Dercylidas 3, 10,126, 179, 202f„ 229,232 ekklesia 147 n. 22, 182, 188f.
Derkylideioi 232 Elders, see gerontes / gerousia
descent (see also aristocracy) 21 Eleusis 214
— and wealth 152f. Elis / Elean 4, 15, 129, 183 η. 32
— Athens 183 — battlefield sacrifice 223
— important for the election to the — homsosexuality 132f.
gerousia 183 encomium (see abo Spartan Constitution —>
— royal 110, 187, 209, 237, 249f. encomiastic character) 5, 22, 29, 32-34
de sublimitate — genre of 15, 241
— reception of SC 38,41, 139 — topoi237
de vectigalibus enomoty 7, 8 n. 53,195-201,218,224, 257-264
— date of composition 9 — depth and strength of 195
diabateria (see also sacrifice) 212-214 — files of 195f.
diamastigosis / whipping 119, 126-128, 255- — passing on of command within 196
257 epaikla 151f„ 166
Dicaearchus — of boys 151
— reception of SC 38 Epameinondas 16, 200, 264
Didymus ephebes (Athenian)
— reception of SC 39 — footgear of 117
dimoiria / double ration 7 n. 47, 8 n. 53, 27, 151 — lists of 189
n. 27, 240f. — supervision of 119
Dinarchus 3, 7 n. 46 ephebes (Persian) 137
Dindorf, Ludwig Ephesos 4 n. 10,158
— editions of SC 5 ephorate / ephors 11, 23f„ 33, 35f., 101, 118,
Dio Chrysostom 120,129, 140, 169-173, 219, 227,248f.
— reception of SC 41 — answerable to their successors 172
Diodorus (X.'s son) 4 — appoint the choropoios 178
Diogenes Laertius 3, 6f., 39 — call up the army 33, 144, 170, 188f„ 238
— reception of SC 41 — civil affairs 172
Dionysodorus 198 — connected with Fear 120, 140, 169, 173
Dionysus 128, 213 n. 42 — control food consumption 123
Dioscurides — declare war on the helots 205
— reception of SC 39 — diphroi of 245
Dioskouroi 212f., 236f. — establishment and powers 23f., 169-173
diphroi 245 — give the year its name 171
doctors, see physicians — hierarchical structure among 171
double ration, see dimoiria — inauguration of 144
dowry 254f. — initiate the expulsion of foreigners 230f.
dress 18, 42, 117, 121f„ 138, 152, 166, 191f„ — interfere with the private life of the
254 kings 246
drinking (see also wine) 18, 20, 54, 103f., — in the field 33, 210,215f„ 219,225-227
123f„ 151, 153f. — kings rises before 245
— vessel 20 — Lycurgan institution 23f., 35f., 170f.,
Egypt 181
— craftsmen excluded from public offices — mess together 149, 244
164 — oaths 26,27 n. 128,245f.
— horse exports to 162 — outside Sparta 171
— younger rise before their elders 244 — part of mixed constitution 235
Indexes 289
— political orientation 246 fist fights (see also boxing, mock / sham fights)
— office prerequisite for election to 24, 146
gerousia 183 food (see also nutrition) 18-20, 33, 40 n. 184,
— punitive powers 19, 146, 171f„ 176, 240 41,102f„ 105f„ 113, 117, 123-125, 128,
n. 65, 246 150-154, 158, 162f.
—- relation to the oracle of Pasiphaë 241 — contribution of 123, 152, 165f.
— select the hippagretai 144, 170 — stealing of 125-128
— send and receive embassies 225f. — supplies in the army 190, 216
— special seats 245 — women and 102f.
— supervise the youth 118, 123, 144 footgear / shoes 104, 117, 121f.
•— tyrannical powers 173 foreigners (see also xenelasia / expulsion of
Ephorus foreigners)
— reception of SC 38 — entertainment of 152
epinikia — in Sparta 230f.
— inconceivable in Sparta 142 — Spartan citizenship 185
Epinjs fortifications / city walls 202
— exchange of oaths 246 funeral, see burial
equality / inequality / homoioi 142, 150-152, gerontes / gerousia / (council of) Elders 33, 36,
163,165, 186,228 40 n. 184, 149,169f„ 180-183
equipment, see army —> dress and equipment — dimoiria on election 241
Erasmus (of Rotterdam) 42 —judicial powers 172, 181f.
erastai 132f„ 134, 138 — moderating influence of 181
Erchia (Attic deme) 3 — part of mixed constitution 235
eromenos 132f., 134 — yield their place to the royal son 244
Eros goat 214
— sacrifice to 133, 223 — sacrificed before battle 33, 219, 222f.
estates, see king / kingship —> estates gold
Etymologicum Magnum — prohibition of 40, 166, 168
— reception of SC 41 f. Gryllus (X.'s father) 3
Eubulus 4 η. 9 and η. 13 Gryllus (X.'s son) 4
Euryclids 187 guest-friendship, see xenia
Eurypontids Gymnopaidiai (see also contests/competitions,
— pedigree of 187 festivals, Hyakinthiai) 142, 152,173
Eurysthenes 35 gynaikonomoi 106,118
Euthydemus 19 n. 106 hair / hairstyle 33,40 n. 184, 121, 193f.
exeligmos / countermarch 198-201, 266-268 — of the bride 253f.
exercise (see also army —> training) Haliartos 12
— of cavalry 161 harmosts 10-12, 32, 126, 203, 229f„ 232
— physical 19, 104,106, 124, 146-148, 158 Harpocration
expulsion of foreigners, see xenelasia — reception of SC 41
eyes — text witness of SC 58
— sign of bashfulness 138-140 hebontes 20, 33, 129-131, 141, 143f., 147, 155
Favorinus hellanodikai 227
— reception of SC 41 Hellespont 22
Fear 120, 140, 169, 173 helots (see also servants / slaves) 105f., 141 n.
festivals (see also contests / competitions, 19,162f„ 185,203, 228 n. 55, 250,262
Gymnopaidiai, Hyakinthiai) 142f., 173, — avoidance of the term 106
240 — conferment of civic rights on 185
— choruses 142 — confused with perioikoi 172
— ephors responsible for 178 — cultivate royal estates 239
— participation of foreigners 231 — dress 122
fire — fear of 20, 205f.
— carried along with the army 212-214 — house-servants 105, 161
— in the camp 157 — in the Spartan army 190
fire-bearer (see also ind. verb, πυρφόρος) — masks 127 n. 11
212 — of perioikoi 239 n. 64
290 Indexes
— provide maintenance for Spartans 185, Hyacinthus

217 — worshipped as άίτας of Apollo 134
— ridiculed for drunkenness 154 Hyakinthiai see also contests/competitions,
Heracles 187, 209, 236f. festivals, Gymnopaidiai) 142
Heraclids 36, 40 n. 185, 183, 187f„ 212, 221, hypomeiones
237,246, 249 — cheirotechnai 190
heralds 164, 221 — not mentioned explicitly 186
Herippidas 3 n. 5 Iason (of Pherai) 207, 220
Herodotus 20f„ 26f„ 32 ilai / ilarchs 119, 129-131, 147 n. 22
— picture of Lycurgus 35 imitation of Spartan customs / constitution 19-
— stance towards Sparta 14 21,36, 101,187
— use of dialect forms 51 inequality, see equality / homoioi
heroes 21 If. inheritance 109-114
— death 175 initiation rites 120f„ 127f., 133,145,148
— worship of 212, 237, 248-251 intercrural sex 135
'hero-reliefs' 248 Ion (of Chios) 14,154
Hestia Patroa 212 Iphicrates 121
hetaerae iron
— drinking wine 104 — currency 166-168
Hetoemaridas 183 — spits 167
hexameter 28, 247f. Isocratean circle 5f.
himation 117,122 Isocrates 3, 14f.
hippagretai 20, 143-145, 170 — use of dialect forms 51
hipparch 260 n. 13 — reception of SC 38
hipparmost 260 n. 13, 261 n. 16 Italy
hippeis / The Three Hundred 20f„ 143-145, — cheese-graters 128
170, 204, 218-220 — common messes 150
Historia Graeca 32, 44 Jerome
— corroborates information offered by the — reception of SC 41
SC 33f. Julian
— criticism of Sparta 16 — reception of SC 41
— date of composition 9 Justin, see Pompeius Trogus
homoioi, see equality / inequality Kadmeia (see also Boiotia, Thebes)
homonoia 174 — occupation of 15f., 216
homosexuality / pederasty 33, 39, 132-135, Kaiadas cleft 249
141,156, 206 Karyai 204
— and hunting 148 Keos
— and performance in battle 133, 223 — wine consumption of children and
— 'chaste' 17, 134 women 104
homotimoi 186 Kerameikos
hoplomachoi 24, 30f. n. 135,147, 198, 211 — grave of the Lakedaimonians 144, 250
horsemen, see cavalry Kerkyra 198, 202 n. 38
horses (see also cavalry / horsemen) 37, 100, king / kingship 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33f., 110,
121, 152, 156,160-162 145, 172-174, 204, 209-229 passim,
— kept by the rich 152, 161f„ 189f. 234-264 passim
— racing 100,152, 162 — accompanied by ephors in the field 216,
— sacrifice of 162 219
hounds 161 — chariot races 162
hunting 33,100,147f„ 151, 156, 160-164, 166, — choice of campsite 225
208, 222f. — choice of Pythioi 24If.
— and homosexuality 148 — continuity of 34,209, 235
— and warfare 148 — decide on peace and war 237f.
— food provisions 162 — different from tyranny 173
— in Persia 124 — double ration 7 n. 47, 151, 240f.
— minimum age 148 — establishment of 174,235
Hyacinthian Way 140 — estates 27 n. 128, 238f.
I ndexes 291
— first to cross border 212f., 237f. 189f„ 194, 197, 202 n. 38, 203, 208,
— funeral 34, 247-251 218,221,259 n. 12,264
— Heraclids 209, 236, 249 Lichas 152
— heroic worship 237, 248-251 light-armed, see army —» light-armed / peltasts
— 'informal power' 113, 153,232,240 Lipara (Aiolian island) 150
—judicial powers 172, 227 literacy / alphabet 116, 242
— lists 187 lochoi / lochagoi 7, 8 n. 53, 190, 200f„ 204,
— maintenance at public expense 210 257-264
— mess together 149, 244 locks 20
— messmates of 210, 219 Locri 104
— oaths 245f. Locris 104
— offer sacrifices 210f., 214, 219, 235f. Lucius, see Musonius
— only one king leads the army in the field Lycomedes 204
209 Lycurgus passim, esp. 22f., 28, 35f.
— participation in the gerousia 181 — chronology 36, 260 n. 15
— participation in the syssitia 240 — creator of Spartan kingship 23, 36
— part of mixed constitution 235 — creator of the ephorate 23, 169-171
— 'porphyrogenesis' 250 n. 70 — Delphi 35, 173f.
— position during battle 218 — mentioned on an Olympian discus 227
— priesthoods 219,235-237, 241, 247 — not counted among the Seven Sages 101
— residence of 243f. — not mentioned in chapter 14 28
— responsible for road network 229 n. 56 — not mentioned in Critias 20
— sacrosanctity 247 Lysander 12f„ 23, 30 n. 134, 32, 142, 187,
— send and receive embassies 225f. 202f„ 215, 232
— seniority 244 Malea 167
— special seat at syssition 245 Mantineia
— subordinate to the Spartan nomos 246 — battle of 4, 197, 218,257f„ 262
— tabu against the king holding a nauarchy mantis / seer 190,21 If., 219, 236
237 Marathon
King's Peace 4 n. 10, 12 n. 70 — battle of 222
Knidos marriage 108-111, 113, 178-180
— battle of 12 — 'by capture' 108f., 253-255
Kolophonians 192 Massilia 104
Kopais (Lake) 12 mastigophoroi / scourge-bearers 19,33, 118f.,
Kore 127 125
Koroneia medicine (see also Spartan Constitution —>
— battle of 3, 13, 30 n. 134, 32, 199 medical terms) 124f„ 158, 220
Krag, Niels 43 Megabyzus 4 n. 10
Kroton 192 Megalopolis
krypteia 121, 137, 205 — battle of 176
Kythera 227 — synoicism of 11 n. 69
— capture of 189 Megara 150
kytherodikes 227 meirakion 135f., 143f.
Lacrates 144 Melanchthon, Philipp 42, 59
'Lakonian Rider' 162 Melesippus 225
lakonophilia 13-15, 187 Memorabilia (see also Socrates) 18f., 32, 39,
laphyropolai, see booty-sellers 40 n. 182,44
Lechaion 202 n. 38 Menelaus 212
— battle at 180,215 mercenaries 204f„ 215, 220f.
Leonidas — integrated into cavalry 190
— heroic death of 14 — leaders of 215
— heroic worship of 250 Mesoa 164, 243
Leotychidas 253f. mess, see syskenion / syssition
Lepreon 4 Messenia
Leuktra — abundance of horses 162
— battle at 4, 10f„ 16, 38 n. 168, 176, 180, — helots 205
292 Indexes
— perioikic cities 239f. Orthagoras 243

Miletos 20,104,150 Orthia 19, 126-128, 143, 154, 167, 255-257
Miltiades 14 paean 208
mixed constitution 181,235 paides / paidiskoi 33, 129-131, 143f., 155
Mnasippus 198,202 n. 38 paidonomoi 19, 33,118,144,146
mock / sham fights (see also boxing, fist fights) pain / toil (see also ind. verb, πόνος) 18f., 21,
19, 33,145f. 115, 137f., 147
— mutilations resulting from 19,145 paraspistai 144 n. 20
modesty, see self-control / self-restraint Pasimachus 189
money 160, 163-165,179,242 n. 66, 243 Pasiphaë
— display / possession of 168, 230 — oracle of 241
— leads to decline 230 Pausanias (king) 23, 216, 226, 249
morai 194-201, 207f„ 218,257-264 Pausanias (regent) 172, 205, 210, 216, 242,
— altogether six 194 249, 256f.
— civic 261 pedagogues 24, 116-118
— passing on of command within 195 pederasty, see homosexuality
— store of arms 207 Peloponnesian
moustache, see beard — League 208, 227
music (see also chorus) 116, 119, 142f., 178, — War 5, 12, 32, 114, 147, 168, 225, 230,
221 233,235
Musonius / Lucius peltasts, see army —> light-armed
— reception of SC 40 pentekostys / pentekosteres 200f„ 215, 224,
naopoioi 242 n. 66 257-264
nauarchs 219, 202 n. 38, 237 Perachora 221
Nemea River Percalus 253f.
— battle of the 264 Pergamon 3
neodamodeis 189, 258, 262 Pericles 21f„ 119, 159,171, 183
'Nestor's cup' 128 perioikoi / perioikis 27 n. 128, 99, 163-165,
Nicolaus (of Damascus) 172,186,189f., 204,240, 250
— reception of SC 40 — as cheirotechnai 190
— text witness of SC 58 — as horsemen 161,190
nurses 105f., 115 •— borders of 213f.
nutrition (see also food) 21, 102-104, 123, 128, — call-up of 262
150f. — crimson dress of 192
oath — cultivate royal land 239
•— between the king and the ephors 26f., — have helots 239 n. 64
41, 245f. — integrated into Spartan army 186, 189,
obai 26 192,194, 204, 215, 257-264
obedience 8, 15, 22, 30, 35, 119f., 144, 168- — receive Spartan education 113, 263
171,203,217 — settlements 238f.
— of Agesilaus 13 n. 77, 15, 168 — trials against 172, 181
Oion 11 n. 69, 203 Persaeus
old age 19, 180-182, 244 — reception of SC 39
Olympia 4,106,227,242 Perseus 237
Olympic Games 4 n. 10, 106f., 143f., 227 Persia / Persian (see also Cyrus, Cyropaedia) 4
— chariot races 162, 166 n. 10, 100, 233
— judges of Games 227 — age classes / groups 118, 136 n. 16
— lists of victors 159 •— camps 202
Onomarchus 223 — ceremonial at the royal court 247
oracles (see also Delphi / Pythia) 26, 241f., — cheirotechnai 190
249 — 'deceit' part of education 125
— archives of 241f. — defecation on the march 206
orders — dress 117, 191
— passing on of 196, 199,215,224 — drinking customs 123f., 154
Orestes — education of youth 118, 129, 137
— heroic worship 248-250 — envoys 226
Indexes 293
— esteem of old citizens 182 — medicine as science 220

— food 123f. — resemblance between Sparta and Crete
— fortifications 202 7
— homotimoi 186 — timocracy 24 n. 116, 165
— hunting 148 — σπουδαιογέλοιον 156
— marching at night 157 — σωφροσύνη 138
— medical care 220 Plato, ideal state 175
— messes 150, 156 — acquisition of money 163, 165
— oaths 246 — age of marriage 108
— position of commanders in battle 218 — criticism of excessive ambition 142
— religion 212,234,236 — dress 117
— seating arrangements at messes 245 — education of the youth 129, 160
— war chest 227 — food/drink 104, 123f„ 151
— women take physical exercise 106 — guardians exempted from all 'productive
Persian Wars 21, 144, 188, 214, 222f„ 225f„ crafts' 165
233 — legal obligations 186
Pfeiffer, Johann Philipp 43 — infringement of law 176, 186
phalanx 197-201 — mock fights 19,145
— coherence of 221 — nurses 106
— depth of 11, 195,197 — obedience 222
— Macedonian 41 — penalties for cowards 176
Pheidon 167 — prohibition of gold and silver 168
phidition / philition (see also syskenion / — proprietary community 160
syssition / mess —» building of) 140, 149 — syssitia 150
n. 23 — travel abroad 23If.
Philelphus 42 Pleistarchus 249
Philesia 4 Pleistoanax 242
Philip II202,223 Plutarch
Philip (of Egesta) 248 n. 68 — presupposes Roman conditions 231 n. 57
philition, see phidition — reception of SC 40f.
Philo Judaeus — text witness of SC 58
— reception of SC 40, 135f. polemarchs 208, 210, 215, 219, 240, 250, 257-
Phleious 208 264
Phokians 192 — election from noble families 153, 187,
Photìus 208
— reception of SC 4If. — 'first polemarch' 208
Phrygia 228 — royal messmates 210
phylai 26, 119 Pollux
physicians / doctors 190, 219f. — reception of SC 41
pigs 27 n. 128 — text witness of SC 58
— sacrifices of 214, 243 Polybius 7
Piraeus 226 — reception of SC 38f.
Pitane 243 polygamy 11 If.
Plataia Pompeius Tragus / Justin
— battle of 141 n. 19,216,256 — reception of SC 40
Platanistai 145 Portus, Francisais 43
Plato (see also Socrates) 24 Poseidon 213 n. 42
— 'amazement' at the beginning of an poverty (see also property, wealth / well-off)
argument 98 163,185
— civic / public virtue 184 prestige, see self-representation
— criticism of Athenian education 116 priests 37, 131 n. 13, 219, 223, 235-237, 241,
— criticism of hoplomachoi 198 247,255
— criticism of Spartan constitution 188 Proeles, Spartan lawgiver 35
— ephorate 23f. procreation 19, 33, 44, 102-109, 111, 179
— heredity of human characteristics 102 property (see also poverty, wealth / well-off)
— lakonophilia 14 30, 33, 114,151,160-163, 227f., 239
294 Indexes
proposeis 153f. — to the Muses 223

proxenoi — to the river gods 213 n. 42
— appointed by the kings 231 — to Zeus 26,212,236
Proxenus 221 sacrificial animals 33, 162, 214
'public tent', see damosia scourge-bearers, see mastigophoroi
punishment 104, 111, 120, 127, 138, 144, 146, scouts (see also sentries) 205, 218
160,203,236, seafaring 13 n. 78, 237
— kinds of 119 seals 162f.
— of cowards 175-180, 188 seats 244f.
purple 191f. — arrangement of 151, 156, 166, 245
Pyrrhic (war dance) 142 — rising from one's 244
Pythagoreans seer, see mantis
— on procreation 107f. self-control / self-restraint / modesty (see also
Pythia, see Delphi avarice) 18, 20, 30, 33f., 103, 107f„
Pythioi 27, 34,210,219 n. 51,236,241f„ 210 117, 122f„ 128f„ 134f„ 147f„ 150,
rhetra 100 153f.
Rhetra 24-27, 36 n. 152, 100, 181, 213 self-representation / prestige (see also
rhipsaspides 192 syskenion / syssition / mess -> self-
Rhodes / Rhodian 150 representation in) 113, 148, 151, 161,
— citizens maintained at public expense 166,171,240
163 Sellasia
river gods — at the border of the Spartan city
— sacrifices to 213 n. 42 territory 214
Rome / Roman — battle of 176,202 η. 38
— camp 202 sentries (see also scouts) 202f.
— citizenship 231 n. 57 servants / slaves (see also helots) 37, 104f.,
— drinking of wine 104 113, 116, 160-162,165, 190,239
— historians employing hexameters 248 sham fights, see mock fights
— leather currency 167 sheep
— lending of wives 111 n. 6 — sacrifice of 214
— military standard 212 shield (see also spear, weapons) 147, 192f.
— minimum age of marriage 108 — archaeological evidence 33, 192f.
— poets on hunting 148 — Λ on 99, 192
— senate 182 — protection by 199
'sacred band', see Thebes —> 'sacred band' — removal of handle 20
Sacred War III 5 shoes, see footgear
sacrifice (see also diabateria) 26f., 33f., 209, shortage of citizens 31, 99f„ 109
210f„ 214f„ 217, 219, 235f„ 238, 241, signals (military) 196
250 silence, see taciturnity
— battlefield 219, 222f. silver
— expiatory 256 — iron :silver value 167
— human 256f. — prohibition of 40,166, 168
— of cattle 214 'simple style' 41
— of goats 33, 214 Skillous 4f., 15
— of horses 162 Skiritai / Skiritis 11 n. 69, 38, 203f., 208, 218,
— of pigs 214, 243 257f.
— of sheep 214 Socrates (see also Plato, Memorabilia) 8, 14,
— performed by mantis 211, 219 17-19, 29-34, 98, 116f„ 120f., 128f„
— private 236 134,138, 159, 165, 247
— royal 34, 176, 209f„ 235f„ 238, 241 — absent in second part of SC 30
— to Artemis the Huntress 148 — acquaintance with X. 3
— to Athena 26, 212 — definition of aristocracy 185
— to Dionysus 213 n. 42 — diet/nutrition 33,123
— to Eros 133,223 — dress 18, 122
— to Hestia Patroa 212 — endurance 18f., 123
— to Poseidon 213 n. 42 — ευδαι ονία 18
Indexes 295
— language of 98f„ 211 — omissions 54

— Lycurgus 120 — parallelism 54f„ 155, 247
— moderation / restraint 18, 33, 117, 153f., — paronomasia 55, 184
229, 135 — particles 8,43, 50f„ 54
— on Athenian education 116, 128f. — perfect, used for the present tense 247
— pederasty 17f„ 18, 19 n. 106, 133-135 — periphrasis 104, 222
— relation to Critias 19 n. 106 — philosophical jargon 110
— σοκρ ροσύνη 13 8f. — pleonasm 52f„ 143, 184, 245
— walks barefoot 18, 121 — poeticism 51f„ 108, 122, 153, 157, 171,
Spartan Constitution 193,208,224,227,245
— (accusative in) -εις 52 — prepositions 52f.
— adjectives in -έος 53 — published under pseudonym 22
— alliteration 55, 184 — purpose and audience 3If.
— anacoluthon 247 — reception of 37-44
— anaphora 55, 136, 155f. — recurring sentence structure 53
— antithesis 55, 187 — relation to Athenaion Politela 9
— archaism 52, 130, 245 — rhetorical questions 55
— asyndeton 175 — scheme of prologue 8
— authorship 5-9 — sketchiness 53f.
— biography of Agesilaus' youth 34 — Spartan terminology (see also Spartan
— chapter 14 (position / date) 5f., 9-13, Constitution dialect / dorisms /
27-31 ionisms) 46f.
— close to the genre of biography 102 — structure 44-47
— clusters of superlatives 55 — style 13, 53-55
— commentaries on 59-61 — syntax 53f.
— compounds 47-49, 142, 149, 213 n. 44, — textual transmission 56-59
51 — title 97
— compounds in Ionic - ά ρ χ η ς instead of — translations of 43
Attic -άρχος 51 — use of aorist 100
— contrasts Sparta with other Greek cities — variation 54,137,139, 141, 146, 247
44 — way of composition 27-31
— date of 9-13 spear (see also shield, weapons) 20, 205
— dialect / dorisms / ionisms (see also Sphaerus
Spartan Constitution —> Spartan — reception of SC 39
terminology) 9 n. 56, 51,168 — text witness of SC 58
— dorisms, see Spartan Constitution —» Sphakteria 176
dialect / ionisms — numbers of Spartans on 192, 263
— editions 59-61 — Spartan shield from 192f.
— encomiastic character (see also Sphodrias 15f„ 172,230
encomium) 29 stealing / theft 37f„ 125-128, 255-257
— enumerative syntax 53 — 'marriage by capture' as 254
— figures of style / thought 54f. Stephanus
— hiatus 5f., 54 — editions of Xenophon 42
— historicity 32-36 stewards
— homoioptoton 55,184 — at the royal syssition 210,219
— homoioteleuton 55,184 Stobaeus
— indexes of 59-61 — reception of SC 41
— ionisms, see Spartan Constitution —> — text witness of SC 58
dialect / dorisms Suda
— irony 55, 101, 187, 203 — reception of SC 42
— language 13, 46-53 Suebi 193
— medical terms (see also medicine) 48f., symposia 154, 156
117,139, 141,162 syskenion / syssition / mess 36, 149-157, 163,
— metaphor 52, 55, 137, 139 165f„ 208, 240-245
— military jargon / terms 49, 53 — and cult 140, 169, 173, 210, 243f.
— neologisms 52
296 Indexes
— building of (see also phiditia / philitia) Thrace / Thracian 228f„ 232

243f. — as mercenaries 205
— compulsory participation 163, 185, 240 — women 105
— contributions 123, 152f„ 166,185,243 Thucydides 21f„ 32, 257-264
— control conscription 189 — employment of hexameter 248
— drinking at 153-155 — stance towards Sparta 14
— educational function 155f. Thurii 150
— election of members 149 Thyrea / Thyreatis 193, 239
— establishment of 150 Timaeus
— food stolen from 125 — reception of SC 38f., 139
— furniture 244f. timocracy, see Plato —> timocracy
— hierarchy within 151f„ 166 Tithraustes 226
— mates 27,149f., 210 toil, see pain
— military unit 259 n. 11 'tongs-dance' 20
— open to all age groups 155f. trade / tradesmen 163-165, 228, 231, 263
— outside Sparta 150 training, see army training
— principle of seniority 156 travelling
— rations 151 — agathourgoi 21
— return home from 40 n. 184, 157 — physicians 220 n. 53
— royal 27 n. 128,210, 219,240-245 — prohibition of 231f.
— seating arrangement 166, 244f. treasurers 227
— self-representation in (see also self- trials 16, 113
representation / prestige) 166 — by ephors 172
— topics discussed in 156 — by gerousia 181f.
— women 130 — by hellanodikai 227
taciturnity / silence — of kings 172,216
— virtue of the young 138,140 — of non-Spartans 227
Tainaron 167, 205 — of perioikoi 172
Tarentum 163 — on death and banishment 172, 181
Taygetos 147f. Troizen 116
Tegea 25 n. 118, 127, 248f. trumpet 221
Thalamai 180, 241 tyranny
Thebes (see also Boiotia, Kadmeia) 16, 132, — ephorate 172f.
147,150, 194,230 — kingship 246f.
— aulos-players 221 Valckenaer, Ludwig
— common messes 150 — doubts authenticity of SC 5
— homosexuality 132 virtue(s) 19 n. 105, 29, 34, 37, 103, 119, 125,
— oracular archives 242 137, 139, 143, 148, 170, 180-184, 205,
— 'sacred band' 132f. 220,229, 232
Thectamenes 172 — aristocracy 181,183
theft, see stealing — civic 34,129
Theopompus 35 •— election to the gerousia agon in 182
— creator of the ephorate 35, 170 — of Agesilaus 34, 150f., 181
Therai 148 wagons 161
Thersander 221 — in the army 190f„ 216
Thessaly 12, 19, 134, 157, 241 wealth / well-off (see also poverty, property)
The Ten Thousand / Cyreans 3 , 4 n. 10, 10, 22, 21, 99 n. 3, 115, 122, 142, 152f„ 163,
205,222,232 168f., 183,221,230
— battlefield sacrifice 223 weapons (see also spear, shield) 20, 133, 191,
— wear red chitons 192 203,205
— wear wreaths 223 'wedding cake' 254 n. 2
— Xenophon among 3 Wells, Eward 43
The Thirty 14, 19 n. 106 wheat-bread 151, 153
The Three Hundred, see hippeis whipping, see diamastigosis
Thibron 3, 9 n. 56, 10,16 n. 95, 22,221 wine (see also drinking)
Thorax 168 — consumption of 103f„ 150, 153-155
Indexes 297
— presentation of 156 — banishment of 3f., 13, 32

— ration 151, 240 — follows Agesilaus in Asia Minor 3,232
— undiluted 103f„ 154 — guest-friend of Proxenus, Cyrus and
women 6, 18, 54, 105f„ 176 Agesilaus 221 f.
— and procreation 102-109 — life 3-5
— daughters of cowards 178f. — Socratic attitude 18f., 165
— food of 103 — sons of 4, 30,31 n. 138
— hairstyle of 194, 253f. — stance towards Agesilaus 15f., 17
— lending of 39,109-112 — stance towards the Spartans 16-18
— marriage age 108 — works circulating under his name 7
— marriage of 108f„ Zeno of Kition
— not brought up at home 178 — reception of SC 39
— participation in syssition 130 Zeus 26, 127, 187, 212f„ 236f.
— physical exercise / fitness 24,106,159 — Agetor 21 If.
— share in wealth 112, 166 — Amboulios 213
— shortage of 109 n. 5 — Basileus 212
— sexual licence 109, 111, 138 — god of kings 236f.
— wine consumption 103f. — Herkeios 236
— wool work 105 — Horios213f.
wreaths 176 — Hypatos 213 n. 42
— worn in battle 223 — Lakedaimon 235
xenelasia / expulsion of foreigners 21, 24, — leads the army 21 If.
230f. — Messapeus 213
xenia / guest-friendship 216, 152, 221f., 231 — Patroos 212
Xenophon — physicians receive the name of 220
— apologetic manner 16f. — Syllanios 26,213
— aristocratic attitude (see also aristo- — Uranios 235
cracy) 165 — Xenios 213
II Index Verborum
άγελάτης 130 n. 12 αλλά 8 η. 55, 31f„ 35, 97f., 211

άγέλη 130 n. 12 άλφιτα 151
άγη α 41, 42 n. 196, 200, 218f. ά εινον 173
άγήτωρ 211 ά ιπποι 204
άγρευό ενα 151 ά παιδες 118 η. 9
Άγροτέρα 148 ά υκλφδες (kind of shoes) 121
αγρυπνεί ν 37 n. 157 ¿tv 110, 124
αγωγή 115 αναβολή 122
άγων 181 άναθρψσκειν 50-52, 122
άεί 172f. άναλα βάνειν 211
αίδή ων 48, 50 άνανδρία 49, 178
αίδοίος 48, 50 ά ν α ν δ ρ ο ς 49
αιδώς 22, 29, 107, 119f., 129 αναστροφή 198
άικλον 151 άνδραποδίζειν 184
αισχρά λέγειν 49 ανδρεία 34
αισχρολογία 49, 156 άνδρείον 149 η. 23
αίσχρουργία 156 άνθρωπος (instead of τις) 196
άίτας / άΐτις 134 ά ν τ ι π α ρ α β ά λ λ ε ι ν 49, 153
αίτίαν ΰπέχειν 178 άντισφαιρίζειν 47, 146, 176f.
ακ άζοντες 143 άνοποδησία 42, 48
άκ ή 108 ανυπόδητος 121
ακόλουθοι 216 άξιάγαστος 41, 42 η. 196,49, 142, 181
άκρινό ος 148 άξιακρόατος 142
298 Indexes
&ξιον &γασθαι 49 γωνία 49

άξιοσπούδαστος 49, 142, 183 δαιτροί 210
άπαλύνειν 117 δα οσία / σκηνή 33, 47, 51, 240, 244
άπλαΐ (kind of shoes) 121 δα οφανής 122
άπό 52, 159 δα ώδεις 186
άποδειλιάν 138 δέ 97, 233f.
άποδιδόνα ι 50 δέ ... ο ί ν 126
άποκαθιστάναι 50, 162 δεισιδαι ονία 120
απολύει ν 108 δέκα άφ" τίβης 129-131, 141, 143, 189, 193,
άπόρραξις 177 196, 223f.
άποτελείν 114, 134 δεκάδαρχοι 196 η. 36
αποτρόπαιοι 236 δέος 22, 120
άπρόσκεπτος 49, 222 δή καί (in relative clauses) 241
αραιός 49, 197 δήλωσις 196
άρετή 19 η. 105, 29, 143, 184 δη ιουργοί 164
άριστοπολιτείας άγών 182 δήπου 199
άρ όζειν ['to act as harmost1] / ά δήτα 126
47, 229 διαβέτης 118 η. 9
άρ όζεσθαι 254 διάγειν 48, 103
άρπάζειν 127 διαθρύπτειν 117
άρτος 151 δίαιτα 45
άρχαί / &ρχειν / &ρχεσθαι / ι διαιτητηρες 227
120, 129, 163f., 169 διάκορος 48, 108
άρχεσθαι άπό 226 διαπλατύνειν 48
άσιτείν 48, 124 διαπυκτεύειν 49
&σκησις 18 διασαφείν 48, 50
άστυφέλικτος 49, 5If., 245 διασαφηνίζειν 48, 50
ίίτε 237 διασκηνεΐν 48
αυ 234 διαφέρειν 114
αύξάνεσθαι 124 δια χαρίτων 132
αυτεπάγγελτος 118 η. 9 διδασκαλείον 116
αϋτογνώ ων 172 δικαιοσύνη 34, 184
αύτοσχεδιάζειν 49, 216 δίκη άγα ίου 179
αυτοσχεδιαστής 49, 216 δίκη κακογα ίου 179
Λφρουρος 157 δίκη όψιγα ίου 179
αχώριστος 49, 177 δι οιρία 8 η. 53, 27, 240
βαθύς 197 διττός 112
βασιλείς (acc.) 52, 247 δοϋλαι 105 f.
βασιλεύς 53f. δούλοι 206
βασιλική τέχνη 1 8 δρο είς 177
βίδυοι 118 η. 9 δρό ος 158, 208
βλακεύειν 128 δύνα ις 228f.
βλαστάνειν 48, 52 δυναστευτικός 183
βορβαγορίσκοι 243 δύσκολος 49, 196
βρωτόν 155 έγγυάσθαι 254
βω ονίκης 256 έγκράτεια 34, 148
γε ήν 50 έγκρατής 128
γενναίος 111 έγκτησις 239
γένος 113f. εδραίος 48
γέρα 209f. έθελούσιος 48
γερόντια 47, 51, 180 (έ)θέλων 48
γερουσία 180 εί + τις + verb 28, 229
γερωχία 180 εϊδωλον 250
γοργός 5If., 193 εικός δέ 169-171
γυ νάσιον 158
είλωτες 206
γυναικονό οι 106
εϊρην 47, 122, 130f.
Indexes 299
εις 135 ευτεκνος 51, 111

είσπνήλας 134 εΰχαρι 34
εις τά έσχατα 48, 101 ευχερής 48, 124
έκβαίνειν 135 έφήκειν 207
έκεΐ 12 η. 75 εφορεία 47
έκπέ πειν 237 έφορεΐον 245
έκ πλείστου 48, 203 έφορος 46
έκ πολλοΰ 203 ζη ιοΰν 179
έκπράττειν 49, 51f., 171 ζω ός 151
έκτελείν 50, 185 •ή άνυστόν (+ superi.) 49f.
έκφέρειν 237 τίβη 115, 141
έλευθέριον 207 ήβητική ήλικία 141, 146, 193
ελεύθερος 105f., 164 ήβώντες 116, 136, 141, 223
ελλανοδίκης 47 ή δυνατόν (+ superi.) 48
έ βατήρια έλη 220 ήνιοχαράτης 198
έ βατήριοι ρυθ οί 220 ην δτε / εστίν δτε 232
έ βατήριος παιάν 220 ήρε εϊν 48
έ πασέντας 239 ήρε ίζειν 48
ε πασις 239 ήρφα 249
έ πεδορκείν 49, 245 θαυ άζειν 98, 187f„ 209
έ πί( )πλη ι 231 θαυ άζειν (+ gen. participle) 234
έ φανής 34 θεόπροποι 241 f.
ε φρουρος 141, 157, 188 θεράποντες 116
έ φύεσθαι 137 θεωροί 241
έννοείν 100 θήρα 147
ένόπλια έλη 220 θρφσκειν 51
ένω οτάρχης 46, 51 θύεσθαι 213
ένω οτία 46 θώκος 245
έξαίρετος γή 239 ιατρός 220
έξ ελιγ ός 198-201 ίέναι 49
έξω ίς 117 ίερεία 214
έπάικλα 151 ιεροί 236
έπαναλα βάνειν 30 η. 135, 32, 54, 211 ΐλη 47, 119
έπι ελεΐσθαι δπως 232 ΐ άτιον 122
έπιπολάζειν 137 ϊππαγρέται 46, 125
έπιπονείν 124 ισχυρός 49
επιστάτης 173 Ίφικρατίδες (kind of shoes) 121
έπιτείνειν 124 καθ' Ενα 146
έπιτελεΐν 50 καθθηρατόριον 143, 148
έπιτηδεύ ατα 30, 38, 44, 100, 187f., 234 καί 107, 140, 175
έπί 219 καί (= 'actually') 52, 175
έπίκλησις 49, 176 καί ... δέ 50
επίπονος &σκησις 21 κακία 18 η. 103
έπίσκυρος 177 καλά [= 'civic rights/duties'] 46, 137, 145
έπίψογος / έπιψέγειν 49, 234 καλοκαγαθία 46, 169, 180-182
έποίησεν see (νό ι ον) έποίησεν Καστόρειον έλος 220
έρευνα ν 230 κατά 52, 114
<ερια> έργάζεσθαι 47 καταλέγειν 144f.
έριουργείν 47 κατανοείν 100
ερις 143, 146 καταπλήττειν 171
ευγονία 48 κατοιάδες 214
εύγώνιος 49 κελοΐα 143
ευδαι ονία 18, 170, 182, 229 κηδό ενοι 138
ευεξία 159, 168 κλέπτειν 48, 50
ευσέβεια 34 κλώψ 48
ευταξία 168 κλωπεύειν 48, 50
300 Indexes
κνεφαίος 49, 51 f., 214f. ναυκληρεΐν 49, 164

κνέφας 49 νεανίας 144
κοινοβουλείν 47 νεανίσκος 144
κοινολογεϊσθαι 210 νείκος 143
κολάζειν 126 νέος 122,223
κόρη 139 νεώτεροι 155
κοσ ητής 119 νοείν (with derivatives) 98f.
κοϋροι 144 η. 20 νό ι α 185
κράτιστοι 168-171, 174 (νό ι ον) έποίησεν 30, 53, 109
κρατόνειν 48, 121 νό ος 44, 234, lOOf.
κρεωδαίτης 210 νΰν 28
κρηπίδες (kind of shoes) 117, 121 νύξ 50
κύκλον 202 ξεναγοί 215
κυνηγεσία 147 ξενηλασία 47, 230f.
κυριεία 178 ξενία 22If.
κύριος 119 ξενικόν 215
Λακεδαί ων / Λακεδαι όνιοι 97, 99 ξένος 11 η. 69, 204, 215, 221
Λάκωνες / Λακωνικός 97, 99 ξυν- / συν- 52
Λακωνικαί (kind of shoes) 121 οί από δα οσίας 208
λάφυρα 228 οίκέτης 161
λαφυροπώλης (and derivatives) 48 οικία 112, 243f.
λεία 227 οίκος 112, 243f.
ληίς 227 οί περί δα οσίαν 219
Λί ναι 243f. όλιγάνθρωπος 47
λί νη 243f. ό ατα 139
λιπαρός 180 ό οιοι 46, 185f.
λόγος 152 δπλα 203, 207
λφον 173 όπλο αχία 49
άντεις 220 όπλο άχος 49, 198
άσσω 51f., 207f. όργή 146
αστιγο νό ος 119 όρθ(ρ)αγορίσκοι 243
αστιγοφόρος 49, 118f., 125 Όρθία 126-128
αττΰη 151 δρθιοι λόχοι 201
άχι οι 157 ίίρφνη 50-52, 157
εγαλεΐος 146 δταν ... τηνικαΰτα 50, 135
εγαλοπρεπής έπί 207 8ταν ... τότε 50
εγαλύνεσθαι έπί 207 ούκ 245
εθη ερινός 49, 202 ούλα ός 145, 260 η. 13
ειρακιεύεσθαι 135f. ούρανία 177
ειράκιον 24, 136 οφθαλ οί 139
ειράκιον γίγνεσθαι 50 δψον 103, 151
ειρακιούσθαι 50, 135f. παιδαγωγός 116
εϊραξ 144 παιδεία 45, 114f.
εν 203 παίδες 116, 136
εν ... έντοι 225 παιδίσκοι 116, 136, 140f.
έντοι 225 παιδονό ος 47, 118
εν τοίνυν 50 η. 220 παις (= παιδικά) 133
ετά 52f. πάλιν 233f.
εταστρατοπεδεύεσθαι 48 παραβάλλειν 49
έτρον 117 παράγγελσις 49, 195
ηχανή 47 παραγωγή 197
ηχανικός 47, 128 παρακελεύεσθαι 224
νή ατα 249 παραλα βάνειν 148
όθακες / όθωνες 113 παράλογος 49, 151
όρα 42, 47, 194 παρεγγυάν 49, 195, 224
ώα 143 παρεγγύησις 49, 195f.
Indexes
παρθένος (='pupil') 48f„ 52, 139 σίτησις 49, 157

παρίστασθαι 137 σίτος 103, 151
παύειν άπό 136 σκευοφορικός 48
πειθώ 29, 119f. σκευοφόρος 48, 216
πεντηκοστήρ [= πεντηκοντήρ] 46, 194f. σκηνή / σκηνοΰν 140, 149, 207
περιοράν 178 σκηνή, see δα οσία
περίπατος 208 σοφία 34
περιττός 49, 152 Σπάρτη 99
πηδάν 122 σπουδαιογέλοιον 155
ποιεΐν 49 σπουδής &ξιος 49
πολέ αρχος 46 στολή 191
πολε ικά 217 στράταρχος 49
πολε ιστήρια έλη 220 στρατιά 209
πόλις 234, 239 στρατίαρχος 49, 215
πολιτεία 97, 261 η. 17 στρατιωτικά 217
πολίτης 261 στυφελίζειν 245
πολιτική όρα 194, 261 συζυγέντες 132f.
πολιτική χώρα 261 η. 17 συλλάνιος 26, 213 η. 44
πολιτικόν 261 η. 17 σύ βουλοι 216
πολιτικός λόχος 262 σύ αχος 204, 215, 261 η. 17
πολύπλοκος 49, 196 συ φορείς 210
πόνος 18f„ 115, 124, 137 σύν 52f.
πόσις 155 συναικλία 149 η. 23
ποτέ 98 συνθήκαι 24-27, 31, 234
πράγ ατα εχειν 50, 128 συνιέναι 49
πράγ ατα λα βάνειν 50, 128 συσκήνιον 47, 149
πραγ ατεύεσθαι όπως 232f. συσσίτιον 149
πρό 52 σφάγια / σφαγιάζειν 214, 223
προδιερευνάσθαι 49, 218 σφαΐραι 177
προ εξερ ευνάν 218 σφαιρείς 177
προερευνάσθαι 49, 218 σφαιρίζειν 177
προκηρύττειν 49, 188 σφαιρο άχια 177
πρός 52, 135 σφάλλειν 155
προσεθίζεσθαι 48 σώ α (versus ψυχή) 110, 183
πρόσθεν 52 σω ασκείν 47
προσκοπεΐν 49, 222 σω ασκία 47
προτι άν 247 σωτήρες 236
προφυλακές 204 σωφρονείν 19
προφυλάττειν 204 σωφρονισταί 119
πρώτοι 152, 232 σωφροσύνη 138f., 148, 184
πρωτοστάτης 196 ταγά 157
Πύθιοι 47 ταγός 157
πυθόχρηστος 49, 51f., 174 ταξίαρχος / ταξιάρχης 51 η. 221
πυκτεύειν 146 τάξις 168
πυρφόρος 212 τάφοι 249
πυτόν 191 τεκνοποιία 44, 47
ραβδοφόροι 119 τεκνοποιός 47
ραδινός 48, 125 τέλη 129
ραδιουργείν (and derivatives) 47, 149 τέ ενος 238
ρέπειν 49, 141 τετράγωνος 49
ρήτρα 26 τι ή 209f„ 228f„ 249
ρυπαίνειν 49, 192 τι ωρείν 126
σθένος 146 τοιγαροΰν 50
σίδηρος 203 τοιγάρτοι 50
σίνεσθαι 51 τοίνυν 50, 97
σίνος 51 τορός 49, 51f„ 130
302 Indexes
τοϋτ' αυ 225 φιλοτι ία 142

τρέσας 176 φιλοφροσΰνη 154
τριβών 122 φοβερό ν 175
τριηραύλης 221 φόβος ι Φόβος 120, 169
υδαρής 48, 103 φρουρά 46f„ 157, 188f„ 209
ϋπανίστασθαι 37 η. 157 φυλαί 213
ύπέρ 245 φωλεός 116
ϋπερπληροϋσθαι 48 χειροτεχναι 190
ΰπέρχεσθαι 169 χαροποιός 177f.
ύποδείσθαι 122 χρή ατα 114, 160
φαιδρός 51f., 224 χρη ατισ ός 49, 165
φαίνεσθαι 230 χρησθαι 133
φαινίνδα 177 χωρίζειν 49, 177
φάλαγξ 46, 197, 203 ψέγειν 49
φιλαπόδη ος 232 ψυχή (versus σώ α) 110, 183
φιλίτιον 46, 140 ώβαί 213
φίλοι 203 ωρα 133
φιλονικία 141-143, 146 ώς 237, 250
φιλόπολις 34

Xenophon. Athenian Constitution. de Gruyter.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xenophon. Athenian Constitution. de Gruyter.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael Lipka

Siegmar Döpp, Adolf Köhnken, Ruth Scodel

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Library of Congress - Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging in Publication Data

X(enophon)'s S(partan) C(onstitution) is a major source for the historian of

sticker (Berlin) and Manfred Clauss (Frankfurt / Main), furthermore to Ewen

Patras, April 2002 M. L.

not permit an author of the Isocratean circle.26 In 1889 Hartman launched an

Despite these doubts, the majority of scholars of the nineteenth and

Antiquity already questioned the genuineness of the work. Diogenes Laertius

'Αθηναίων καί Λακεδαι ονίων π ολιτείαν, ήν φησιν ούκ είναι

Many arguments could be put forward to explain why Demetrius doubted

In favour of authenticity further arguments can be produced. First, there are

The few established dates of composition for Xenophontic works may be

1. At 14.2 X. says of certain Spartans that they did duty as harmosts èv

of Spartan power on the mainland, as shown by the meaning of π ά λ ι ν just

period is an overt attack on Lysander's system of favouritism. Perhaps the

If one places the composition of chapter 14 between autumn 395 and

IV Predecessors and Influences

Since it is in the context of lakonophilia that the SC must be understood, it

1. Agesilaus. X. spent a substantial period of his life on his estate in

2. Spartans. "Bias towards Agesilaos is of course not the same as bias

explained as an attempt in the SC to account for a widely known and criticized

In short, in my view X. is likely to have been a fervent and biased admirer

The main task of literature on the ideal state is to outline a constitutional

Memorabilia·, due to his training Socrates endures tribulations better than

Critias wrote among others a work on the Spartan constitution in elegiac

e.) Thucydides (Epitaphios)

The SC may be compared with the Thucydidean Epitaphios (Th. 2.34-46).

At Pol. VII 1333b 12-21 Aristotle mentions a number of works which

Lysander and/or Cleon of Halikarnassos-a client (rhetor?) commissioned by

King Pausanias wrote a treatise on Sparta after his expulsion in 395 or

The subject of chapter 15 is, as X. stresses at 15.1, how Lycurgus regulated

(a number of infinitives follows)

Similarities are that the text as transmitted by Plutarch is a Lakonian prose

constructions, so typical of both the Rhetra and the συνθήκαι, as shown

For the understanding of the different stages of composition of the SC the

2. Scholars who believe that chapters 13 and 15 originally belonged together

manuscript. Still, it would be an extraordinary coincidence -almost a miracle - ,

3. Marchant in his Loeb edition of Xenophon's Scripta Minora (London

έπαναλήψο αι at 13.2 may point to an outline that could be changed and

In the SC X. does not describe historical events like Herodotus or

is the picture as painted by X. in the SC? In order to answer this question it is

credibility, if only due to its unexpected criticism of Spartan affairs. Even

Dicaearchus, a pupil of Aristotle, is likely to have based his treatise on the

Timaeus appropriated clumsily the Xenophontic expression έν τοις όφθαλ οίς

Nicolaus of Damascus, a follower and friend of Augustus, excerpted the S C

To the second century AD X. constitutes the representative of the 'simple

the first substantial critical apparatus, giving variant readings of manuscripts

In general, from antiquity the reception of the SC depended largely on the

The SC describes the differences which, according to X., existed between

SECTION THEMES STRUCTURE

12.1-4 setting up and guarding the camp THE ARMY IN

13.1-5 religious functions of the king in the field THE KING IN

14.1-7 decline of Spartan institutions CRITICISM

15.1-8 privileges of the living king THE KING AT

Gautier 1911 is the fullest investigation of the Xenophontic style and

a.) Spartan terminology

The author of the SC shows himself well acquainted with Spartan

1. Spartan terms, found outside the SC in X. and in works earlier or