Notes to Pages 49–50 169
Thuc. 1.131.1–2; Xen. Hell. 2.2.13, 19; Plut. Lys. 19.7–21.1. Receive embassies, conduct negotia-
tions, decide when to place matters before authorities: Thuc. 5.36–38, 6.88.7–93.3, 8.5–6 should be
read in light of Hdt. 3.46, 148.2, 6.106, 9.6–11; Thuc. 1.90.5; Xen. Hell. 2.2.11–13, 17–19, 4.28–29,
35–38, 3.1.1, 5.2.9, 11–24; Theopomp. FGrH 115 F85; Polyb. 4.34; Plut. Them. 19.1–3, Cim. 6.3,
Lys. 14.5–8. The appointment of a harmost: Xen. Hell. 4.8.32. The supersession of a commander:
Xen. Hell. 2.4.28–29. Orders to commanders: Thuc. 1.131.1–2; Xen. Hell. 3.1.1, 7, 2.12; Plut. Lys.
- See also Thuc. 8.6.3, 12.1–3; Xen. Hell. 3.2.6–7, 5.4.24. Needless to say, a strong king could
influence the choices made: Plut. Mor. 212d. Army called up: Xen. Hell. 3.2.23–25, 5.6, 4.2.9,
5.3.13, 4.47, 6.4.17, 5.10. For a full discussion, see Andrewes, “The Government of Classical
Sparta,” 10–12 and notes: sometimes the ephors were implementing a decision of the assembly; at
other times, they were no doubt acting on their own authority. Similarly, sometimes the assembly
picked the commander; at other times this detail seems to have been left to the ephors: Hdt. 9.10;
Thuc. 8.12; Xen. Hell. 2.4.29, 5.1.33, 4.14, An. 2.6.2. Age groups for march determined: Lac. Pol.
11.2, Hell. 6.4.17.
42. Enforcement of sumptuary laws, censorship of music and poetry: Plut. Agis 10.5–8, Ael.
VH 14.7. Inspection of the néoı and their bedding: Agatharchides FGrH 86 F10, Ael. VH 14.7.
Appointment of hıppágretaı: Xen. Lac. Pol. 4.3–4. Control of treasury, oversight of tax collection:
Plut. Agis 16.1. Receive proceeds from sale of prisoners and booty: Diod. 13.106.8–9, Plut. Lys. 16.
The Spartans normally sold captured men and goods on the spot. The proceeds were public prop-
erty: Pritchett, GSW, I 85–92. Intercalation of months: Plut. Agis 16.1.
43. Annual declaration of war on helots and use of krupteía: Arist. F538, 611.10 (Rose) =
F543, Tit. 143.1.2.10 (Gigon) ap. Heraclid. Lemb. 373.10 (Dilts), Plut. Lyc. 28.7. For the murder of
helots, see Thuc. 4.80, Myron of Priene FGrH 106 F2. Cf. Annalisa Paradiso, “The Logic of Terror:
Thucydides, Spartan Duplicity and an Improbable Massacre,” with David Harvey, “The Clandes-
tine Massacre of the Helots (Thucydides 4.80),” both in SpartSoc, 179–217. Most scholars doubt
Isocrates’ assertion (12.181) that the ephors could execute períoıkoı without trial. I am hesitant to
reject his statement out of hand. Decree specifying obedience to the law, compliance with customs,
and shaving of upper lip: consider Arist. F539 (Rose) = F545 (Gigon) in light of Ath. 4.143a, and
see Plut. Cleom. 9.3. See Humfrey Michell, Sparta (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964),
126 n. 5.
44. Conduct of eúthuna: Arist. Pol. 1271a6–8. That they examined the magistrates of the
preceding year and not their fellow magistrates follows from their examining the ephors of the
preceding year. Authority to suspend fellow officials: Xen. Lac. Pol. 8.4. Individually judge civil
suits: Arist. Pol. 1275b8–10. Moral censors and criminal justices authorized to impose fines: Xen.
Lac. Pol. 8.4, Arist. Pol. 1270b28–31. Role in capital cases: Xen. Lac. Pol. 10.2; Arist. Pol. 1270b39–40,
1273a19–20, 1275b10, 1294b33–34; Plut. Lyc. 26.2, Mor. 217a–b should all be read in light of Paus.
3.5.2, which shows the ephors joining the gerousía in a capital case involving a king. For a conduct
of the anákrısıs and prosecution by the ephors, see Thuc. 1.95.3–5, 131; Xen. Hell. 5.4.24, Lac. Pol.
8.4; and the new Theophrastus fragment: John J. Keaney, “Theophrastus on Greek Judicial Proce-
dure,” TAPhA 104 (1974): 179–94 (at 189–91). See also Robert J. Bonner and Gertrude Smith,
“Administration of Justice in Sparta,” CPh 37 (1942): 113–29. Note the appearance of a king in a
judicial role: Plut. Mor. 213d.
45. Ephors alone seated in presence of the kings: Xen. Lac. Pol. 15.6, Nicolaus of Damascus
F114.16 (FHG Müller III 459), Plut. Mor. 217c. Cf. Arist. F611.10 (Rose) = Tit. 143.1.2.10 (Gigon)
ap. Heraclid. Lemb. 373.10 (Dilts). Can summon kings, jail, and fine for misconduct: Thuc. 1.131;
Nep. Paus. 3.5; Plut. Lyc. 12.5 (read in light of Mor. 226f–227a), Lys. 30.1, Ages. 2.6, 4.2–5.4, Cleom.
10, Mor. 1d, 482d. The king was required by law to answer the third summons. See also Thuc. 5.63,
Ephorus FGrH 70 F193. Whether these last two references record the work of the ephors remains
unclear. There must have been some limit to the fines they could impose: an extremely large fine
was tantamount to banishment. Two ephors accompany king on campaign, give advice: Xen. Lac.
Pol. 13.5. See Hdt. 9.76.3, Xen. Hell. 2.4.36. When the expedition took the king far away from
Lacedaemon for an extended period, the city could send a board of advisors [súmbouloı] in addi-
tion or, more likely, instead: Xen. Hell. 3.4.2, 20, 4.1.5, 5.3.8. When the judgment of a king inspired
distrust, the same procedure could be followed even when the struggle was nearer home: Thuc.
5.63.