Notes to Pages 29–31 161
Thuc. 4.81. In this connection, see K. L. Noethlichs, “Bestechung, Bestechlichkeit und die Rolle
des Geldes in der spartanischen Aussen- und Innenpolitik vom 7. bis 2. Jh. v. Chr.,” Historia 36:2
(2nd Quarter 1987): 129–70. Cf., however, Hodkinson, PWCS, 19–20.
74.Violence to human nature: Rousseau, Du Contrat social 2.7, in Œuvres complètes de Rous
seau, III 381–82. Rousseau made the same point in even stronger terms in his initial draft of this
work: ibid., III 313. From the constant constraint imposed on the individual Spartan, Rousseau
argued, “there was born in him an ardent love of the fatherland which was always the strongest or
rather the unique passion of the Spartiates, and which made of them beings above humanity.”
75.Man-subduing: Simonides F111 (PMG), which foreshadows the testimony later found in
Thuc. 1.84.3, 2.39.1–2; Xen. Hell. 7.1.8; Pl. Leg. 1.633b. Ducat, SE, 35–36, to the contrary notwith-
standing, it makes no sense to suppose that the unnamed sources for Simonides’ deployment of
this epithet, to whom Plutarch (Ages. 1.3) alludes, erred in supposing that, in describing Lacedae-
mon as damasímbrotos, Simonides was speaking of the impact of the Spartan polıteía on the citi-
zens of Lacedaemon. They presumably had in their possession the poem in which Simonides
employed the term and knew perfectly well what he had in mind. In any case, the poet who was
the first surviving writer to discuss Lycurgus and his achievements (Simonides F628 [PMG]) can
hardly be supposed incapable of making the observation attributed to him.
- Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 20.13. For evidence confirming Dionysius’ claim concerning the
attitude of the Athenians, see Dem. 18.132, 22.51–52. - Toil, victory, honor: Pl. Alc. I 122c7. Cf. Resp. 8.548c. With Nicholas Denyer, “Introduc-
tion,” in Plato, Alcibiades, ed. Nicholas Denyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),
1–29 (14–26), I take the first of these two dialogues to be an authentic work of Plato.
7 8.See Christopher J. Tuplin, The Failings of Empire: A Reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11–
7.5.27 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1993), and “Xenophon, Sparta and the Cyropaedia,” in SS,
127–81, and note Godfrey Hutchinson, Sparta: Unfit for Empire (London: Frontline Books, 2014).
Then, consider Noreen Humble, “Sophrosyne and the Spartans in Xenophon,” in SNS, 339–53,
in light of Noreen Humble, “Was Sōphrosynē Ever a Spartan Virtue?” in SBM, 85–109, and see
Noreen Humble, “The Author, Date and Purpose of Chapter 14 in the Lakedaimoniōn Politeia,” in
Xenophon and His World, ed. Christopher J. Tuplin (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004), 215–28;
“Why the Spartans Fight So Well... Even in Disorder: Xenophon’s View,” in S W, 219–33; “The
Renaissance Reception of Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution: Preliminary Observations,” in Xeno
phon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, ed. Fiona Hobden and Christopher Tuplin (Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 63–88; and “True History: Xenophon’s Agesilaus and the Encomiastic Genre,” forth-
coming in Xenophon and Sparta: New Perspectives, ed. Anton Powell and Nicolas Richer (Swansea:
Classical Press of Wales, n.d.), as well as Stephen Hodkinson, “The Imaginary Spartan Politeia,” in
The Imaginary Polis, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen (Copenhagen: Det Kongelige DanskeVidenskab-
ernes Selskab, 2005), 222–81 (at 238–44, 245–49, 259, 268); and Ellen Millender, “Spartan ‘Friend-
ship’ and Xenophon’s Crafting of the Anabasis,” in Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical
Enquiry, 377–425.
79.Spartan love of money: Pl. Resp. 8.544c read in light of 545a, 548a. See also Isoc. 8.95–96,
11.20; Plut. Mor. 239e–f. Widespread disobedience of law against possession of silver and gold: Pl.
Alc. I 122e–123a. See Hipp. Maj. 283d. Individual Spartans were known to have large sums on
deposit in Arcadia and at Delphi: Posidonius FGrH 87 F48c and Plut. Lys. 18.2. Houses as private
nests where great expenditures made: Pl. Resp. 8.548a–b. See also Diod. 15.65.5, Paus. 9.14.6.
Stocked with valuables: Xen. Hell. 6.5.27. Plato as critic of Lacedaemon: Edmond Lévy, “La Sparte
de Platon,” Ktèma 30 (2005): 217–36. - Aristotle on sumptuary laws: F611.13 (Rose) = Tit. 143.1.2.13 (Gigon) ap. Heraclid.
Lemb. 373.13 (Dilts). Charges Spartans covetous of wealth and subject to intemperate, luxury-
loving women: Pol. 1269b12–1270a14, 1271a18, 1271b17. On the lack of self-control exhibited by
Spartan women, see also Pl. Leg. 1.637c, 6.780d–781d, 7.804c–806c, and note Dion. Hal. Ant.
Rom. 2.24.6, Plut. Comp. Lyc. et Num. 3.5–9. See James Redfield, “The Women of Sparta,” CJ 73
(1977–78): 146–61; Alfred S. Bradford, “Gynaikokratoumenoi: Did Spartan Women Rule Spartan
Men,” AncW 14 (1986): 13–18; Barton Kunstler, “Family Dynamics and Female Power in Ancient
Sparta,” Helios 13:2 (1986): 31–48; Maria H. Dettenhofer, “Die Frauen von Sparta: Gesellschaft-
liche Position und politische Relevanz,” Klio 75 (1993): 61–75; and Paul Cartledge, “Spartan Wives: