Notes to Pages 117–21 189
- Mēdèn ágan: Arist. Rh. 1389b2–7. Chilon ephor at advanced age: Hdt. 1.59, Diog. Laert.
1.72. Elevates importance of office: Hdt. 1.68. Architect of new policy: Guy Dickins, “The Growth
of Spartan Policy,” JHS 32 (1912): 1–42 (at 21–26), and George L. Huxley, Early Sparta (London:
Faber & Faber, 1962), 67–76. The available evidence justifies neither the view, recently resurrected
by Nafissi, La Nascita del Kosmos, 31–150, that Chilon was the figure who instigated the Spartan
revolution nor the contention, suggested even more recently by Thommen, Sparta, 59–61, that, as
a statesman, he was a figment of the later imagination.
56. Childless king Anaxandridas forced to take as second wife Chilon’s niece or second
cousin: Hdt. 5.39–41 with 6.65.2. On this, see Simon Hornblower, “Commentary,” in Herodotus,
Histories: Book V, ed. Simon Hornblower (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 150–53.
57. Cleomenes insists he is an Achaean, not a Dorian: Hdt. 5.62.2–72.4 with Hornblower,
“Commentary,” 181–217.
58. Anaxandridas’ son Dorieus: Hdt. 5.41.2–3. Likely Spartan named Philachaios: IG V ii
159, read in light of Posidonius FGrH 87 F48c. See C. H. de Carvalho Gomes, “Xouthias Son of
Philakhaios: On IG V.2.159 and Its Possible Historical Placement,” ZPE 108 (1995): 103–6.
59. See R. W. V. Catling, “The Survey Area from the Early Iron Age to the Classical Period
(c. 1050–c. 300 BC),” in Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey,
ed. William G. Cavanagh, Joost Crouwel, and Graham Shipley (London: British School at Athens,
1996–2002), II 151–256.
60.Dorieus’ colonial venture: Hdt. 5.42–48 with Irad Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spar
tan Mediterranean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 192–218, and Hornblower,
“Commentary,” 153–62.
61. Because the evidence we possess is limited and much of it comes from the period after
the end of the Peloponnesian War, the character of the so-called Peloponnesian League, especially
as it existed in the sixth century, is disputed: cf. Jakob A. O. Larsen, “Sparta and the Ionian Revolt:
A Study of Spartan Foreign Policy and the Genesis of the Peloponnesian League,” CPh 27:2 (April
1932): 136–50, “The Constitution of the Peloponnesian League,” CPh 28:4 (October 1933): 257–
76, and “The Constitution of the Peloponnesian League, II,” CPh 29:1 (January 1934): 1–19; Don-
ald Kagan, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969),
9–30; and G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1972), 89–166, 333–42, with Cawkwell, “Sparta and Her Allies in the Sixth Century,”
364–76, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 54–73; J. E. Lendon, “Thucydides and the Constitution of the
Peloponnesian League,” GRBS 35:1 (1994): 159–77; David C. Yates, “The Archaic Treaties Between
Sparta and her Allies,” CQ n.s. 55:1 (May 2005): 65–76; and Sarah Bolmarcich, “Thucydides 1.19,1
and the Peloponnesian League,” GRBS 45:2 (2005): 5–34, and “The Date of the ‘Oath of the Pelo-
ponnesian League,’ ” Historia 57:1 (2008): 65–79, and see Klaus Tausend, Amphiktyonie und Sym
machie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland (Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1992), 167–80; Ernst Baltrusch, Symmachie und Spondai: Untersuchungen zum
griechischen Völkerrecht der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (8.5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 19–30, and “Mythos oder Wirklichkeit?” 1–24; and Christina Wolff,
Sparta und die peloponnesische Staatenwelt in archaischer und klassischer Zeit (Munich: Herbert
Utz Verlag, 2010). Few scholars doubt that the alliance system served to protect Sparta from helot
revolts, to combat tyranny, and to sustain oligarchies in the cities allied with Sparta. Elsewhere I
suggest that, initially, its members swore to follow Lacedaemon’s two Heraclid kings wherever they
led: Rahe, PC, chapters 2 and 4.
62. Sparta and her allies responsible for Peloponnesian cart-road network: Giannēs Y. A.
Pikoulas, “The Road Network of Arkadia,” in Defining Ancient Arkadia, ed. Thomas Heine Nielsen
and James Roy (Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 1999), 248–319
(esp. 250–57, 306–9).
Conclusion
- Lacedaemon a kósmos: Hdt. 1.65.4, Plut. Lyc. 29.1 with the material collected in Intro-
duction, note 18, above. See also Thuc. 1.84.3 and Gloria Ferrari, Alcman and the Cosmos of Sparta