170 Notes to Pages 50–52
- Ruled by laws and ephors: Plut. Mor. 211c. Compact with the pólıs: Xen. Lac. Pol. 15.1.
Royal oath to maintain nómoı: Nicolaus of Damascus F114.16 (FHG Müller III 459). Monthly
exchange of oaths with kings: Xen. Lac. Pol. 15.7. Shooting star and suspension of king: Plut. Agis
11 with H. W. Parke, “The Deposing of Spartan Kings,” CQ 39:3/4 (July–October 1945): 106–12.
47. Ephors can arrest and indict kings on capital charges: Hdt. 6.82, Thuc. 1.131, Plut. Agis
18–19. Fate of fifth-century kings: G. E. M. Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), 350–53, and Powell, “Divination, Royalty and Insecurity
in Classical Sparta,” 85–135.
48. Herodotus (6.75, 85, 7.205) places Cleomenes’ death and Leonidas’ succession shortly
before the battle of Marathon in 490. When Leonidas’ reign came to an abrupt end at Thermopylae
in 480 (7.224), Pleistarchus—his son by Cleomenes’ daughter Gorgo (5.48, 7.205, 239)—became
king. Pleistarchus was a minor at the time of the battle of Plataea in 479 (9.10) and remained so
for a considerable time thereafter (Thuc. 1.132). His mother Gorgo was only eight or nine years
old in 499 at the time of the Ionian Revolt (Hdt. 5.51) and cannot have given birth to a child before
493 at the earliest. See Darrel W. Amundsen and Carol Jean Diers, “The Age of Menarche in Clas-
sical Greece and Rome,” Human Biology 41:1 (February 1969): 125–32. Indeed, since the Spartans
did not normally marry off their daughters at menarche, but usually waited a few years until they
were fully grown (Plut. Lyc. 15.4), it is probable that Gorgo did not marry Leonidas much, if at all
before 490. This suggests that Pleistarchus reached the age of thirty and took on the full responsi-
bilities of kingship (cf. Xen. Mem. 1.2.35 with Mary White, “Some Agiad Dates: Pausanias and His
Sons,” JHS 84 [1964]: 140–52 [at 140–41]) only shortly before his death—which took place some-
time before the battle of Tanagra in 458 or 457 when Pleistoanax had already succeeded him
(Thuc. 1.107.2; H C T, I 270). This supposition is confirmed by Pausanias’ report (3.5.1) that Pleis-
tarchus died very soon after taking up the kingship. Cf. Diod. 13.75.1 with White, “Some Agiad
Dates,” 140 n. 3. According to Theophrastus (Plut. Ages. 2.6, Mor. 1d), Archidamus was once fined
for choosing too short a wife. See also Ath. 13.566a–b, and note Pollux’ reference (Onom. 3.48) to
díkē kakogamíou. I do not share the skepticism of Andrewes, “The Government of Classical
Sparta,” 19 n. 17; Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, 352; and Cartledge, Agesilaos, 20,
regarding this anecdote. The Spartans had every reason to concern themselves with the physical
qualities of the offspring of their kings. Cf. Thuc. 2.18 with 5.63: Archidamus courted disaster in 431.
49. Theophrastus’ testimony: Keaney, “Theophrastus on Greek Judicial Procedure,” 181–82.
Cf. Xen. Lac. Pol. 4 with Moses I. Finley, “Sparta and Spartan Society,” in Finley, Economy and
Society in Ancient Greece, ed. Brent D. Shaw and Richard P. Saller (London: Chatto & Windus,
1981), 32–33. Role political jealousy could play in trials: Plut. Mor. 775c–e.
50. Kings court ephors: Arist. Pol. 1270b13–17. Aware of vulnerability: Xen. Ages. 1.36.
Polybius on royal spirit of obedience: 23.11.4. Powers akin to those of tyrants: Xen. Lac. Pol. 8.4,
Pl. Leg. 4.712d2–e5, Arist. Pol. 1270b14.
51. Chance governs selection of ephors: Pl. Leg. 3.692a with Paul A. Rahe, “The Selection of
Ephors at Sparta,” Historia 29:4 (4th Quarter 1980): 385–401. The defense of the orthodox view
that the ephors were directly elected, advanced by Peter J. Rhodes, “The Selection of Ephors at
Sparta,” Historia 30:4 (4th Quarter 1981): 498–502; Richer, Les Éphores, 271–300; and Sommer,
Das Ephorat, 22–23, leaves unexplained Plato’s testimony, which gibes well with the observations
of Aristotle (Pol. 1270b8–10, 20–29) and is clearly not intended as a description of the peculiar
circumstances of the fourth century. If the ephors and the gérontes were selected in the same fash-
ion, as these scholars suppose, it would be impossible to explain why the outcomes differed, as we
shall soon see, so dramatically.
52. For the relationship, in general, between favors accepted and dependency, see Xen. Cy r.
5.5.25–34. For a Spartan king’s practice of the art of gaining adherents in this fashion, see Plut.
Ages. 20.6, Mor. 212d. In this connection, note Xen. Hell. 5.4.15–34, 6.4.14. Ephors nonentities:
Arist. Pol. 1270b20–29. In Aristotle’s day, poor and easily bribed: 1270b8–10. Kings can await
board more favorable or more easily corrupted: e. g., Plut. Ages. 4.3–6. A king could deal with his
opponents by the same means: Cic. QFr. 1.2.7; Plut. Ages. 5.2–4, 20.6, Mor. 212d, 482d. Note Xen.
Ages. 11.11–12. Overwhelming authority if two kings united: Hdt. 6.56, Plut. Agis 12.2–3. As
Carlier, “À Propos de la double royauté spartiate,” 49–60, argues, the fact that Sparta was a dyarchy,
not a monarchy, was crucial for her political development.