The Spartan Regime_ Its Character, Origins, and Grand Strategy - Paul Anthony Rahe

(Dana P.) #1

144 Notes to Pages xiii–xv



  1. It is hard to see how anyone who has read the ancient political analysts with the sympa-
    thetic attention and care they deserve could conclude that they “lacked a ‘conceptual framework’
    for the understanding... of long-range social change”: cf. Moses I. Finley, “The Ancient Historian
    and His Sources,” in Finley, Ancient History: Evidence and Models (London: Chatto & Windus,
    1985), 7–26 (at 18, 26). For an elegant inquiry into long-range social and political change self-
    consciously pursued in accord with Aristotelian principles, see Claude Nicolet, The World of the
    Citizen in Republican Rome, trans. P. S. Falla (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).
    10.See Schol. Pl. Leg. 1.625b and Isoc. 7.14.
    11. This explains the prominence of paıdeía as a theme in both The Republic and The Laws:
    cf. Pl. Resp. 2.376c–4.445a, 6.487b–497a, 7.518b–541b, 8.548a–b, 554a–b, 559b–c, 10.600a–608b
    with Leg. 1.641b–2.674c, 3.693d–701b, 4.722b–9.880e, 11.920a–12.962e.
    12.Cf. Arist. Pol. 1263b36–37 with 1276a8–b15.
    13. Cf. Polyb. 6.19–58 with Xen. Cy r. 1.2.15. See Ve c t. 1.1; Pl. Resp. 8.544d–e, Leg. 4.711b–
    712a; Isoc. 2.31, 3.37, 7.14; Cic. Rep. 1.31.47, 5.3.5–5.7 (with Leg. 1.4.14–6.19, 3.1.2). See also Leo
    Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 135–38.
    14.In this connection, see Pl. Ep. 7.336d–337d.
    15.After reading Pl. Resp. 8.543c–9.592b and Leg. 3.689e–701b, 4.712b–715d, note 1.631d–
    632c, 3.696c–698a, 4.707a–d, 711b–d, and consider 6.752b–768e in light of 5.734e–735a, 6.751a–b,
    and 7.822d–824a (esp. 823a); then, cf. Arist. Pol. 1273a39–b1 and 1278b6–15 with 1295a40–b2;
    consider 1328b2–23 (esp. 13–14, 22–23—where I am inclined to adopt the reading of Lambinus)
    in light of 1328a35–b1; and see Rh. 1365b21–1366a22. And finally, note Pol. 1264a24–1266b38,
    1276b1–13, 1277a12–b32, 1283a3–42, 1288a6–b4, 1289a10–25, 1292b11–21, 1294a9–14, 1297a14–
    b34, 1311a8–20, 1317a40–b17, 1323a14–1342b34; and see Cic. Leg. 3.12.28–14.32.
    16.See Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, ed. Jacob E. Cook
    (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), no. 1.
    17. After reading Arist. Pol. 1273a39–b1, 1278b6–15, 1289a10–25, 1292b11–21, 1295a40–
    b2, 1328b2–23, 1328a35–b1, and the rest of the material collected in note 15, above, cf. Pl. Leg.
    3.683e with 686b, 4.709a–710d, 5.747c–e, 6.757d–758a, 780b; Cic. Rep. 2.33.57. In this connec-
    tion, consider Pl. Leg. 10.886c–910d. Cf. Resp. 3.414c–4.427c, 5.449a–466d, 7.540b–541d with
    Leg. 5.739a–e. Cf. Leg. 4.713e–714a with Resp. 5.473c–474a and 9.591d–592b; then, cf. Resp.
    7.515c–516b with Phd. 99d–100a, Leg. 10.897d–e, and Xen. Mem. 4.3.14, 7.7. Note Pl. Meno 86e
    and Resp. 8.546a–547a.
    18. Lacedaemonian kósmos: Hdt. 1.65.4, Thuc. 1.84.3, Plut. Lyc. 29.1. Herodotus uses the
    word kósmos and its cognates to describe not only the elegant order that the gods impose on “all
    things” (2.52.1), but also court protocol among the Medes (1.99.1) and Persians (8.67); the outfit
    reserved for infants (1.113.2); the military discipline that distinguishes an army or navy in for-
    mation from a mob charging or fleeing in disarray (3.13.1, 8.60, 86, 9.59.2, 65.1, 66.3, 69.1); the
    proper arrangement of a bridge of boats (7.36.4); propriety in the conduct of foreign affairs
    (8.142.2); good manners and orderliness in the consumption of food (8.117.2); and finery in fe-
    male garb (3.1.3–4, 5.92η.3), jewelry (3.22.2), dining hall furnishings (3.123.1), tree ornaments
    (7.31), and military equipment (7.83.2). For the most part, Thucydides and those whose speeches
    he presents use the term in speaking of military discipline and orderliness on the battlefield or the
    lack thereof: 2.11.9, 89.9, 3.77.2, 108.3, 4.126.6, 5.66.2, 6.72.5, 7.23.3, 40.3, 84.3, 8.99. But the term
    is also used to describe political orders, such as the moderate oligarchy at Thebes (4.76.2), the
    democracy at Athens (8.48.4, 67.3), and the short-lived oligarchy of the four hundred there
    (8.72.2). It is also used as a term of approval, indicating that a particular practice or policy is
    deemed honorable (1.5.2, 33.2). On one occasion, it is employed to refer to the orderly practices
    that allow for public deliberation (6.18.6); and, on another, its absence is used metaphorically to
    describe the disorderly manner in which the plague dispatched Athenians (2.52.2).
    19. Spartan eunomía: consider Tyrtaeus F2 (West) in light of Hom. Od. 17.487, Hes. Theog.
    901–3, and Alcman F64 (PMG), and see Pind. Pyth. 5.63–81, F189 (Bowra), Hdt. 1.65–66, Thuc.
    1.18.1, Diod. 7.12 with Antony Andrewes, “Eunomía,” CQ 32:2 (April 1938): 89–102. Solon’s leg-
    islation was, according to his own testimony, aimed at achieving in Athens what the Spartans had
    accomplished: F4.30–32 (West). See also Aeschin. 1.5, 3.6. In this connection, see Edward M.
    Harris, “Solon and the Spirit of the Laws in Archaic and Classical Greece,” in Solon of Athens: New

Free download pdf