Notes to Pages 98–99 183
Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments and Memories (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), 132–75. Daniel Ogden’s analysis of the tales told concerning Aristomenes
needs to be reconsidered in light of Alcock’s sensible suspicion that there lies at their core the
outlines of a true story: see Ogden, Aristomenes of Messene, 1–127.
Chapter 4. Politics and Geopolitics
1.Disputed date for Lycurgus. Time of Leobatas: Hdt. 1.65.4. Time of Charillos: Simonides
F628 (PMG), Schol. Pl. Resp. 10.599d–e, Suda s.v. Lukoûrgos, Arist. Pol. 1271b24–26. Hieronymus
of Rhodes and others claim time of Terpander and Thaletas: Ath. 14.635e–f, Arist. Pol. 1274a29,
Plut. Lyc. 4.1–3. Note also Mosshammer, CE, 173–91.
- Lycurgus and ephorate: Hdt. 1.65.4–5, Pl. Ep. 8.345a–c. Theopompus and ephorate:
Arist. Pol. 1313a26–28. See also Pl. Leg. 3.691d–692a. Even Xenophon (Lac. Pol. 8.3) hints that
Lycurgus was not solely responsible. For a comprehensive survey of the ancient testimonia and
of modern opinion, see Nicolas Richer, Les Éphores: Études sur l’histoire et sur l’image de Sparte
(VIIIème–IIIème siècles avant JésusChrist) (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998), 13–20, and
note Stefan Sommer, Das Ephorat: Garant des spartanischen Kosmos (St. Katharinen: Scripta Mer-
caturae Verlag, 2001), 3–16.
3.Lycurgus, Polydorus, and public land allotments: Plut. Lyc. 8, Mor. 231. - Great Rhetra attributed variously to Lycurgus and to Theopompus and Polydorus: Tyr-
taeus F4 (West), Plut. Lyc. 6. Workings of the assembly: Chapter 2, note 40, above, and the atten-
dant text. See Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch Lycurgus VI: B. The
Eynomia of Tyrtaios,” CQ 38:1/2 (January–April 1944): 1–9, reprinted in EGH, 54–66. For a recent
review of the role played by Tyrtaeus, see Mischa Meier, Aristokraten und Damoden: Untersuchun
gen zur inneren Entwicklung Spartas im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. und zur politischen Funktion der
Dichtung des Tyrtaios (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998), passim (esp. 186–328). As should be
clear, I am not persuaded by those who deny that Tyrtaeus is alluding to the Great Rhetra: cf. Hans
van Wees, “Tyrtaeus’ Eunomia: Nothing to Do with the Great Rhetra,” in SNS, 1–41, with Mischa
Meier, “Tyrtaios fr. 1B G/P bzw. fr. º14 G/P (= fr. 4 W) und die große Rhetra—kein Zusammen-
hang?” GFA 5 (2002): 65–87. Hans van Wees’s response, “Gute Ordnung ohne Grosse Rhetra:
Noch einmal zu Tyrtaios’ Eunomia,” GFA 5 (2002): 89–103, is not compelling, as Stefan Link,
“Eunomie im Schoss der Rhetra? Zum Verhältnis von Tyrt. frgm. 14 W und Plut. Lyk. 6, 2 und 8,”
GFA 6 (2003): 141–50, points out. Nor can I regard the Great Rhetra as a forgery: cf. Massimo
Nafissi, “The Great Rhetra (Plut. Lyc. 6): A Retrospective and Intentional Construct?” in Inten
tional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, ed. Lin Foxhall, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, and Nino
Luragi (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010), 89–119. Nor am I inclined to doubt that the Great
Rhetra was an archaic document and to redate the fragments attributed to Tyrtaeus to the late fifth
century: cf. Andreas Luther, Könige und Ephoren: Untersuchungen zur spartanischen Verfassungs
geschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Antike Verlag, 2004), 21–93. Note, however, Christopher A. Fara-
one, “Stanzaic Structure and Responsion in the Elegiac Poetry of Tyrtaeus,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser.,
59:1 (2006): 19–52. For a proper appreciation of the oral traditions on which our written sources
ground themselves, see Mait Kõiv, ATEGH, 9–215; “The Origins, Development, and Reliability
of the Ancient Tradition about the Formation of the Spartan Constitution,” Historia 54:3 (2005):
233–64; and STAS, 25–66. - Aristotle’s sensitivity to the defects of the oral tradition: F611.9 (Rose) = Tit. 143.1.2.9
(Gigon) ap. Heraclid. Lemb. 372.9 (Dilts). Resort to shorthand, evidence for circumspection and
discrimination in attribution: F611.10 (Rose) = Tit. 143.1.2.10 (Gigon) ap. Heraclid. Lemb. 373.10
(Dilts), Pol. 1269a29–1271b31, 1273b33–35, 1274a22–30, 1296a18–21 with Raymond Weil, Aris
tote et l’histoire: Essai sur la Politique (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1960), 243–44; Richer, Les
Éphores, 58–59; and Edmond Lévy, “Le Régime lacédémonien dans la Politique d’Aristote: Une
Réflexion sur le pouvoir et l’ordre social chez les Grecs,” in Images et représentations du pouvoir et
de l’ordre sociale dans l’antiquité, ed. Michel Molin (Paris: De Boccard, 2001), 57–72 (at 59–61).
6.Two lawgivers named Lycurgus: Timaeus of Tauromenium FGrH 566 F 127. - First, see Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch Lycurgus VI: B.