166 Notes to Pages 43–44
3.3.2, Nep. Ages. 1.2–5, Plut. Ages. 1.1–5, Paus. 3.6.2–3. The royal title descended, as directly as
possible, down the male line. Where the legitimacy of an heir was in dispute, Delphi might be
consulted, but the decision lay in principle with the pólıs and with its magistrates: Hdt. 6.61–66;
Xen. Hell. 3.3.1–4; Paus. 3.6.2–3, 8.8–10 with Brenda Griffith-Williams, “The Succession to the
Spartan Kingship, 520–400 BC,” BICS 54:2 (December 2011): 43–58. At succession, cancellation
of debts, reenactment of founding choral dances and sacrifices: Hdt. 6.59, Thuc. 5.16.3. Current
kings as archágetaı: Plut. Lyc. 6.2–3. For the meaning, see Tyrtaeus’ paraphrase of the oracle: F4
(West). For the term archagétēs, see Pind. Ol. 7.79 (with 30); GHI 1.5.11, 26; Eur. O r. 555; Thuc.
6.3.1; Pl. Lys. 205d; Xen. Hell. 6.3.6, 7.3.12; Ephorus FGrH 70 F118; Arist. Ath. Pol. 21.5–6; Polyb.
34.1.3 (ap. Strabo 10.3.5); ICr III iii A; IDelos nos. 30, 35 (with Fernand Robert, “Le Sanctuaire de
l’archégète ANIOS à Delos,” RA 41 [1953]: 8–40; and with Georges Daux, “Chronique des fouilles
et découvertes archéologique en Grèce en 1961,” BCH 86 [1962]: 629–978 [at 959–62], and “Chro-
nique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1962,” BCH 87 [1963]: 689–878 [at
862–69]); Strabo 14.1.46; Paus. 10.4.10; Plut. Arist. 11.3, Demetr. 53, Mor. 163b–c. See also Irad
Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 241–50. Obsession with
legitimacy: Hdt. 5.39–41, 6.61–70; Xen. Hell. 3.3.1–4. Heraclids barred from having offspring by
any woman from abroad: Plut. Agis 11.2. I see no reason to accept the view, advanced by Cartledge,
Agesilaos, 96, that the prohibition against a Heraclid’s having children ek gunaıkòs allodapēˆs is a
prohibition against marrying anyone not of Heraclid stock. There is no evidence suggesting that
the descendants of Heracles were a separate caste; in ordinary circumstances, the pertinent adjec-
tive refers to those from foreign parts; and, in the passage cited, the prohibition under discussion
here is linked with another barring settlement abroad on pain of death. Moreover, it is most un-
likely that the Spartans were worried that a son born to a non-Heraclid woman would somehow
not be a Heraclid. What the Spartans did, of course, fear was the corrupting influence of foreign-
ers. And, believing, as they did, that their own right to Laconia and Messenia rested on a divinely
sanctioned Heraclid claim, they were terrified at the prospect that a legitimate claimant to either
throne might be born abroad to a foreign woman, reared among an alien people, and groomed as
a champion against Lacedaemon. In this connection, consider Hdt. 6.74.1–75.1 in conjunction
with W. P. Wallace, “Kleomenes, Marathon, the Helots, and Arkadia,” JHS 74 (1954): 32–35.
- Conduct of sacrifices: Arist. Pol. 1285a3–7; Xen. Lac. Pol. 13.2–5, 8, 11. On campaign
absolute sway: Hdt. 9.10.3, Xen. Hell. 5.4.15 (with 25), and Arist. Pol. 1285a7–9 (with Plut. Ages.
32.6–11), and note Thuc. 5.66.2–4, 8.3, 5. Word law: Thuc. 5.60 (cf. 63), 71–72. The discussion of
royal patronage here recapitulates in brief an argument advanced in my unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation: see Paul A. Rahe, “Lysander and the Spartan Settlement, 407–403 B.C.” (Yale University
1977). As Cartledge, Agesilaos, 99–112, 139–59, 242–73, has more recently shown, Agesilaus
made ample use of the patronage power available to the king. The same was presumably true of
Cleomenes son of Anaxandridas: see Rahe, PC, chapters 2 and 4. - To get some feel for the role that a king or regent could play in the making of foreign
policy, one need only survey Herodotus (3.148, 5.49–54, 6.50–84, 9.106 [with 90–91, 104]), Thu-
cydides (1.79–85, 94–96, 128–35, 2.12–13, 18, 71–75, 5.16–17, 19, 59–60, 63, 8.5, 8, 70–71), and
Xenophon (Hell. 2.2.11–13, 4.28–39, 3.2.21–31 [with Paus. 3.8.3–6, Plut. Mor. 835f, Lys. 18.10–12],
4.2–29, 5.17–25, 4.1.1–2.8, 3.1–23, 4.19–5.18, 6.1–7.7, 5.1.32–34, 2.3–7, 32, 37, 3.8–25, 4.13–18,
20–41, 47–59, 6.3.18–20, 4.1–16, 5.3–5, 12–21, 7.5.9–14). Xenía and proxenía: Gabriel Herman,
Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), and
Lynette G. Mitchell, Greeks Bearing Gifts: The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek
World, 435–323 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). For further evidence, see
Gabriel Herman, “Nikias, Epimenides, and the Question of Omissions in Thucydides,” CQ n.s.
39:1 (1989): 83–93, and “Patterns of Name Diffusion Within the Greek World and Beyond,” CQ
n.s. 40:2 (1990): 349–63. Lacedaemon alone not betrayed to Philip of Macedon by treachery: Paus.
7.10.1–3. Royal selection of Sparta’s próxenoı abroad likely: Paus. 3.8.4. Royal selection of cities’
próxenoı at Lacedaemon: Hdt. 6.57.2. Possible ratification of choice by these cities: IG II^2 106. In
practice, proxenía, like the relationship of xenía on which it was modeled, tended to be hereditary
both at Sparta (Pl. Leg. 1.642b–c) and abroad (Thuc. 6.89.2). I see no reason to accept the sugges-
tion advanced by D. J. Mosley, “Spartan Kings and Proxeny,” Athenaeum, 2nd ser. 49 (1971): 433–