190 Notes to Pages 121–26
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008). Spartan eunomía: Tyrtaeus F2 (West) with the ma-
terial collected in Introduction, note 19, above.
- The material remains cast doubt on the supposition that the Spartans ever lived lives of
grim austerity: see Reinhardt Förtsch, “Spartan Art: Its Many Different Deaths,” and Stephen Hod-
kinson, “Patterns of Bronze Dedications at Spartan Sanctuaries, c. 650–350 BC: Towards a Quan-
tified Database of Material and Religious Investment,” in Sparta in Laconia: The Archaeology of a
City and Its Countryside, ed. William G. Cavanagh and S. E. C. Walker (London: British School at
Athens, 1998), 49–63, as well as Stephen Hodkinson, “Lakonian Artistic Production and the Prob-
lem of Spartan Austerity,” in Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed. Nick R. E.
Fisher and Hans Van Wees (London: Duckworth, 1998), 93–118. For a thorough and systematic
examination of archaic and early classical Spartan art, see Reinhardt Förtsch, Kunstverwendung
und Kuntslegitimation im archaischen und frühklassischen Sparta (Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von
Zabern, 2001). It is, I would suggest, a mistake typifying our modern bourgeois mentality to sup-
pose that the martial ethos propagated by Tyrtaeus required austerity and ruled out an apprecia-
tion for the beautiful.
3.Cf. Thuc. 2.37–40, where Pericles peddles to his compatriots the myth of Lacedaemonian
austerity, with Critias Vorsokr.^6 88 B6 and Xen. Lac. Pol. 1.2, 9.3, who attribute to them eudaımonía,
and see Nicolas Richer, “Eunomia et eudaimonia à Sparte,” Dikè 4 (2001): 13–38, and Ducat, SE,
336–39. - The term “grand strategy” was introduced in 1906 by Julian Stafford Corbett in the so-
called “Green Pamphlet,” which was printed as an appendix to the 1988 reprint of the book Some
Principles of Maritime Strategy (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1911), wherein he elaborated
on the idea without resorting to the term. The notion was taken up and first fully developed after
World War I by J. F. C. Fuller, The Reformation of War (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1923), 211–28.
For a recent discussion of its proper application to the study of ancient history, see Kimberly
Kagan, “Redefining Roman Grand Strategy,” Journal of Military History 70:2 (April 2006): 333–62
(esp. 348–50).
5.Lacedaemon like a river: Xen. Hell. 4.2.11–12. - See Victor Alonso-Troncoso, “The Idea of the Peloponnese in the Spartan Diplomatic
Tradition,” in CASPTP, 63–74.
Appendix 1. Land Tenure in Archaic Sparta
1 .It is striking—as I have pointed out early on in Chapter 4, above—that, when Aristotle (Pol.
1270a6–7, 1271b24–27) does mention Lycurgus by name in this particular context, it is only to
report what “they say” or what “is said” about his activities. As this fact suggests, it is not at all clear
that Aristotle is confident that the historical Lycurgus was responsible for the institutions, apart
from the gerousía (Plut. Lyc. 5.10–14 with Arist. Pol. 1271b25, 1316a29–34), attributed to him in
other writers. Cf. Hodkinson, PWCS, 92–93, with Raymond Weil, Aristote et l’histoire: Essai sur la
Politique (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1960), 243–44; 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), 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).
2.For a brief but convincing discussion of the evidence, see Hodkinson, PWCS, 77–79.
- Cf. Hodkinson, PWCS, 9–149 (esp. 19–64), who rejects the ancient evidence support-
ing Plutarch’s claim that there was public provision, with Marcello Lupi, “L’Archaia moira: Osser-
vazioni sul regime fondiario a partire spartano da un libro recente,” Incidenza dell’antico 1 (2003):
151–72, and Thomas J. Figueira, “The Nature of the Spartan Klēros,” in SpartSoc, 47–76, who show
not only that the evidence for public provision is reliable but also that, in the sociopolitical context
of the archaic age, the practices described in our sources make perfectly good sense. What follows
in this appendix is a restatement and amendment of Figueira’s argument.
4.See also Plut. Lyc. et Num. 2.10–11, Sol. 16.1–3, Mor. 226b, 231e. - As Pavel Oliva, “On the Problem of the Helots,” Historica 3 (1961): 5–34, and “Die Hel-