No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on the History of the Fourth Century
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In the opinion of Aristotle and Plutarch the growth of latifundia and consequent decline of the citizen population at Sparta were due to the absence of restrictions on gifts and bequests of land. According to Plutarch this freedom of gift and bequest, so far as it applied to the κλ⋯ροι or entailed estates, was introduced by the ῥ⋯τρα of an ephor named Epitadeus, who removed the ban on gift and bequest imposed by Lycurgus.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1926
References
page 186 note 1 Politics II. 6. 1270a, I. 18sqq.
page 186 note 2 Agis 5. 2.
page 186 note 3 So Ed. Meyer, , Forschungen I. p. 258 n. 3Google Scholar.
page 186 note 4 Thncydides IV. 8, 31, 38.
page 186 note 5 The ρήτρα may have been a judicial pronouncement rather than an act of the Apella. Cf. Glotz, G., Histoire grecque I. p. 366Google Scholar.
page 186 note 6 So recently Busolt-Swoboda, , Griechische Staatsaltertümer II. pp. 635 and 636 n. 1Google Scholar.
page 186 note 7 Agis 5. 1–2.
page 186 note 8 See especially Cavaignac, E., Klio 1912 pp. 267–272Google Scholar. In Aristotle's time Sparta had nearly 1,000 hoplites, i.e. citizens with κλ⋯ρος in the days of King Agis IV. the numbers had sunk to about 100.
As modern scholars have pointed out, the decline of population was partly due to other causes than the ῥήτρα e.g. the tendency of the Spartans to sterility. (Glotz, , op. cit., pp. 367–8Google Scholar.
page 187 note 1 J.H.S., 1913, pp. 272–3.
page 187 note 2 Cf. Meyer, , op. cit., p. 258Google Scholar.
page 187 note 3 Toynbee, , loc. cit., p. 273Google Scholar.
page 187 note 4 Aristotle, , loc. cit., I. 23Google Scholar.
page 187 note 5 Those who followed the casualty records of British officers during the war will have been impressed by the large numbers who were described as ‘only sons.’ It will be interesting to trace the effects of these war-losses on the distribution of property in this country.
page 187 note 6 Antike Schlachtfelder I. pp. 172–187Google Scholar.
page 188 note 1 Griechische Geschichte (second edition) III. 2. pp. 295–8.
page 188 note 2 From Aeschines' In Ctesiph. § 124 (ψηφίςονται δ' ἥκειѵ τоὺς ἱερоμѵ⋯μоѵας π ρ ⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯πιо⋯σηε πυλα⋯ας έν ῥη⋯ѵῷ χρ⋯ѵψ) it appears that the second session was a supernumerary one, and not a spring meeting convened at a somewhat earlier date, as Beloch takes it. But the point is immaterial.
page 189 note 1 The key position on the Asopus road at Heraclea was in Macedonian hands in 322 B.C. (Diodorus 18. 11); and from the fact that since 344 B.c. the two Malian votes on the Amphictionic Council were distributed between Lamia and Heraclea we may infer that Heraclea by then had passed into Philip's control. (Stählin, F. in Pauly-Wissowa VIII. 1. cols. 426–7Google Scholar.)
For Philip's previous fortifications at Thermopylae, cf. Dittenberger, Sylloge (third edition), No. 220
page 189 note 2 Stählin, F. (Klio V. 70–1)Google Scholar in a short note suggests that we should read ⋯ξιо⋯ѵτоς N⋯καιαѵ θ ε τ τ α λ ο ῖ ς παραιδƄναι. But a few lines above we read Λ ό κ ρ ο ι ς ϕ⋯λιππος αντ⋯ν ⋯κ⋯λενσεν ⋯ποδοθ⋯ναι. The mistake therefore cannot be emended away.
page 190 note 1 Cf. Stählin, ad loc., Foucart, P. (Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, vol. 38, pp. 207–8)Google Scholar, and Glotz, G. (Bull. Corr. Hellénique, 1909, p. 532)Google Scholar defend the reading παρ⋯ but they ignore Stählin's objections.
page 190 note 2 So Stählin and Foucart, ad loc.
page 190 note 3 Diodorus 16. 80. 4; 20. 10. 6; 20. 11. I; 20. 12. 3 and 7; Plutarch, , Pelopidas 20. 3Google Scholar.
page 190 note 4 For their equipment, cf. Plutarch, , Timoleon 27. 3Google Scholar; 28. 1 and 3; 29. 2. A select corps: Diod. 16. 80. 4; 20. 12. 3. At the battle of the Crimisus it numbered 2,500 (Diod. 16. 80. 4). At the battle of Tunes (310 B.C.) Agathocles put only 1,000 men into line against it, but the Syracusan general only had some 15,000 men in all against the 40,000 of the Carthaginians. In 310 B.C. the Sacred Band may have been below strength, for in the previous campaign in Sicily the casualties among the citizen troops of Carthage had been heavy (Diod. 19. 106).
page 190 note 5 It was completely cut up at the Crimisus (Diod. 16. 80. 4) and at Tunes (20. 12. 7). We may perhaps recognize the Sacred Band in the corps which saved the battle of Ecnomus in 311 B.C. (οί τ⋯ν KαρΧηδονίων έπιϕαѵ⋯στατоι: Diod. 19, 108. 6).
page 190 note 6 Plutarch, , Pelopidas 18. I and 5; 19. 3–4; 23. 2Google Scholar.
page 190 note 7 I.G. VII. 2407; Dittenberger, , Sylloge (third edition), No. 179Google Scholar.
page 190 note 8 Polybius I. 32–33.
page 191 note 1 The editor of I.G. VII. argues that the ‘Nobas’ inscription was of similar date to I.G. VII. 2408, because two of the boeotarchs mentioned in the former recur in the latter, and that I.G. VII. 2408 belongs to 364–3 B.C. because two other boeotarchs mentioned therein (Malecidas and Diogeiton) were the generals who avenged Pelopidas' death in autumn 364 (Plutarch, , Pelopidas 35. IGoogle Scholar). The inference is not conclusive, for boeotarchs were re-eligible; but both inscriptions plainly belong to the sixties,
page 191 note 2 Plutarch, , Pelopidas 18. IGoogle Scholar.
page 191 note 3 Politics II. 8. 1272b, I. 32.
page 191 note 4 The Politics of Aristotle II. p. 362.
page 191 note 5 Gsell, S., Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord II. pp. 344 sqqGoogle Scholar.