I owe thanks to Prof. A. Fuks of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem for his very valuable advice and criticism. The opinions and errors are, of course, my own.

^{page 232 note 1} Most of the exiles were, of course, from the one hundred richest landowners (Plu. Cl. 10. 1; Ag. 5. 4).

^{page 232 note 2} Such was Cicero's opinion, see Off. 2. 80.

^{page 232 note 3} Especially the agogê (I deduce its re storation by Agis from Ag. 4. 6, 1. 14). The abolition of debts by Cleomenes, not ex pressly recorded, can be deduced from Cl. 16. 5 and 18. 2.

^{page 232 note 4} See Fuks, A., ‘Agis, Cleomenes and Equality’, C.P. lvii (1962), 162 f.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} Paus. 2. 9. 1; cf. Ehrenberg, R.-E. iiiA. 2, ‘Sparta’, col. 1432; Beloch, Griech. Gesch. iv. 1. 703; Busolt-Swoboda, Griech. Staatsk. ii. 729 f.; Schaeffer, R.-E. xviii. 4, col. 2302. Some writers suppose that he also changed the gerousia to a yearly elected body. While this is uncertain, the patronomoi, apparently intended to replace the ephors, may have affected the gerousia, too.

^{page 233 note 2} The source for die whole section is Plu. Cl., esp. 8. 1, 10–11 and 16. 4–5 and some minor notices; the synkrisis and the Aratus add very little, Polybius practically nothing. Paus. 2. 9. 1–3 may contain some non- Polybian tradition (cf. p. 235, n. a).

Cleomenes' arguments are called debatable for the following reasons. The great antiquity of the office is not denied. He charges the ephors with two disparate offences: usurpation of powers rightfully belonging to the kings, and obstruction of the efforts to restore the ancient way of life (Cl. 10. 3–4). The remedy would have been to curtail their power and to elect ephors friendly to die reforms, as Agis had done (Ag. 8. 1,cf. 12.3). Cleomenes'intentions colour his arguments (cf. p. 234. n. 3). In 219 the Cleomenists appointed kings without abolishing the ephorate (Polyb. 4. 35. 10). Cf. Gabba, , Studi su Filarco, pp. 76 f.Google Scholar, for the different attitudes of the two kings to the ephorate (see also pp. 96–98). On the other hand, perhaps not only the reformers considered the ephorate as non-Lycurgan; it is not mentioned in Polyb. 6. 10. 8 f., unless the words (§ 8) and (§ 9) are held to mean the ephors, which seems unlikely. But this does not affect Cleomenes' reasoning.

^{page 233 note 3} The reasons for this statement are: (a) Kingship—nobody doubts its Lycurgan origin; the Spartans acquiesced in the nonappointment of kings only during Cleomenes' lifetime (Polyb. 4. 35. 8 f.); the opposition to Lycurgus is personal, (b) Equality of kleroi— this is never attacked by the opponents of reform. In Ag. 10. 2 it is not mentioned; in 12. 1 is coupled with and means the whole revolutionary programme of Agis, cf. Fuks, loc. cit. (p. 232, n. 4). The tradition with regard to the Lycurgan equality of kleroi was unequivocal: Plu. Lye. 8.; Polyb. 6. 48. 3; Arist. Pol. 1263^b 40, 1270^a 15 (he seems to hold that earlier there had been equality), cf. Isocr. Archid. 20, Pl. Lg. 684 d-e. Cf. D. Asheri, , p. 89 (unpublished thesis, Jerusalem, 1962, in Hebrew widi an English summary). The conservatives used the parallel between the ordinary revolutionary programme and Agis' proposals to indict him. Cheilon (Polyb. 4. 81. 2) couples klerouchia and land-distribution. (c) There is no dissent on the Lycurgan origin of the diaita-agogê.

^{page 234 note 1} This paragraph is based on the following sources: patrios politeia referring to Agis and Cleomenes only: Ag. 9. 4; Cl. 10. 3; 18. 2. (cf. Comp, Ag. Cl.-Grac. 2. 3–4); Leonidas' argument, Ag. 10. 2; Pausanias on Cleomenes' motives, 2. 9. 1.

Polybius: only direct reference 4. 81. 14. Events of 222 referred to: 2. 70. 1; 5. 9. 9; 9. 36. 4. qualified or events alluded to: 2. 47. 3; 4. 22. 4; 9. 29. 8; 31. 4; 36. 4). He used, of course, mainly biased sources, and I believe that he intentionally disregarded the social reforms of Cleomenes, because they contradicted some of his theories (see my paper on this question in Historia xiii [1964]). But if so, his choice of words is certainly significant. The reforms are certainly not there, whatever the reason. For the use of and .a cf. 1. 13- 12; 2. 47. 3; 3. 2.6; 4. 1. 4; 25. 7; 6. 1.3 and the translations in the appendix of von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity.

^{page 234 note 2} Cf. Ollier, ‘Le philosophe stoicien Sphairos et l'ceuvre reformatrice des rois de Sparte Agis IV et Cleomene III’, R.É.G. 1 (1937), 561.

^{page 234 note 3} Perhaps Plutarch intentionally refrained from mentioning the patronomoi or exculpating the abolition of the second royal house. He does not reflect on Cleomenes' use of mercen aries either (cf. Cl. 7. 4 with Polyb. 11. 18. 1; Liv. 34. 28. 8). Cf. Oilier, loc. cit., for other non-Lycurgan elements in the reforms.

^{page 234 note 4} Droysen, Gesch. d. Hellen. (ed. Bayer) iii. 401, Niese, Gesch. d. gr. u. mak. Staaten, ii. 346; Ehrenberg, R.-E. ‘Sparta’, col. 1434; Cary, loc. cit., 163; Beloch, Gr. Gesch. iv. 1. 718; Petit-Dutaillis, , De Lacedaemoniorum rei publicae supremis temporibus (Paris, 1894), PP. 24Google Scholar f.; Walbank, Commentary on Polybius ad 2. 70. 1; Porter, , Life of Aralus, pp. 85–86.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} Vita Agidis et Cleomenis, Prolegomena p. xiii, quoted by Petit-Dutaillis.

^{page 235 note 2} Plu. Cl. 30. 1; Polyb. 2. 70. 1; 4. 22. 4; 34. 9; 5. 9. 9; 9. 29. 8 (cf. 31. 4); 36. 4.Paus. 2. 9. 3 (here the mention of a peace between Cleomenes and Antigonos—cf. 7.7. 3—and of the murder of ‘Eurydamidas’ while a child may, and that of the patronomoi certainly does, point to a non-PoIybian tradition). No source says expressly that the reforms were repealed. This is an argumentum e silentio, but is is strange that all the above should be silent except Pausanias, who suggests the opposite (see n. 4).

^{page 235 note 3} To Plutarch the patrios politeia is the Lycurgan polity as restored by Cleomenes (Ag. 5; Cl. 10. 3. 4–6; 16. 4 f., Synkr. 2. 3). If the main features of the reforms were not re pealed, there was no need for details. It is rather difficult to assume that Phylarchus passed over such an important detail altogether, but perhaps he played it down in order not to praise Antigonus or Aratus; this applies to Plutarch, too. As to Polybius' silence: if, as claimed above (p. 234, n. 1), he disregarded the reforms intentionally, he would not mention their outcome either.

^{page 235 note 4} If we reject this evidence, there is no other time to which to ascribe the restitu tion of … . Pausanias stresses die opposition of the Spartans to the monarchy; this shows that he does not mean the agogê only (the con tinued existence of which in Roman times is well known). If he wanted only to explain this, he had no need to refer to the politeia. This may not be conclusive, but neither are the objections to the passage.

^{page 235 note 5} Antigonus Gonatas (1913), pp. 437 f.

^{page 236 note 1} Walbank ad 2. 70. 1. I take his words to mean that some of the laws of the ‘tyrant’ or of his reign remained sometimes in force after his downfall. This, I believe, happened in Sparta. Besides, there the phrase was used already before the tyranny. In Sparta at least it was not only a catchword (cf. p. 233, n. 3 and p. 234, n. 1).

^{page 236 note 2} Plu. Cl. 1. 1; 5. 2; cf. p. 233, n. 3. To the Cleomenists their leader was the rightful king (Polyb. 4. 35. 8 f.), and they as well as Antigonus (cf. Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 25 f.) were not interested in the appointment of a king who might usurp Cleomenes' place or lead the reaction.

^{page 236 note 3} Polyb. 4. 9. 4–6, see below. Ephorate, Polyb. 4. 22 f.; 34 ff.; no king, ibid. § 5, 35. 8–9; pro-Aetolian policy of Cleomenes, 5. 35. 2; its reversal, 4. 34. 10: … with Philip; besides, it is self- evident. While this (and the affiliation to the Hellenic Symmachy) belong to foreign policy, they are connected with internal affairs.

^{page 236 note 4} Cleomenes answers exactly to the Greek description of a tyrant: overthrow of the constitution with the help of mercenaries (Plu. Cl. 7. 4) and his personal attendants (8. 1); seizure, or at least propaganda for the ‘voluntary’ submission, of movable property (Fuks, loc. cit.), confiscation and distribution of land (and even liberation of some helots, though not as part of his programme). Cf., e.g., Apollodorus of Cassandrea, Diod. Sic. 22.5; Polyaen. Strateg. 6. 7. Walbank ad 2. 47. 3 says that Cleomenes was not a tyrant in the light of 6. 7. 6–8, but that Polybius called him so because of the abolition of the double kingship and the use of violence. But the social-economic aspects should also be considered. Polybius' theories and practice differ sometimes, cf. Gabba, op. cit., pp. 23 f.

^{page 236 note 5} Pp. 233 f., and note 3.

^{page 236 note 6} When writing of the year of Cleomenes' defeat or of the time afterwards, when his memory was a live factor in Spartan politics. If we had only Plutarch, there would be no doubt on the question.

^{page 236 note 7} Or, according to Tarn and Walbank, as we know that the political arrangements of the ‘tyrant’ were abrogated, those left in force were the social and economic ones.

^{page 236 note 8} Polyb. 4. 81, esp. §§ 2 and 10.

^{page 237 note 1} 4.22 passim, 34 f.

^{page 237 note 2} It may be claimed that Cheilon would not have tried, if he had not thought the situation propitious. This cannot be denied, but (a) the argument in the text is not invalidated by this, (b) the evidence is inconclusive, (c) if, as Polybius suggests, Cheilon's main motive was to become king, this may have been his trump-card (the political issues had been used by others), and he found 200 adherents; eventually we have to decide between two interpretations, and that given in the text seems the stronger one. Cf. Walbank, , Philip of Macedon, p. 47 n. 4. The strength of the Cleomenists is attested also by the fact that they were able to appoint before the troubles of 220/19 at least three ephors (Polyb. 4. 22. 5, cf. 35. 5; 36. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 3} Plu. Cl. n. 1.

^{page 237 note 4} Niese, ii. 346 and n. 4; Cary, p. 163; Petit-Dutaillis, p. 26.

^{page 237 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 237 note 6} e.g. Polyb. 13. 6; 16. 13; Liv. 34. 26. 12.

^{page 237 note 7} Plu. Phil. 16. 5–6. As to the abolition of debts, Cleomenes probably had the relevant documents destroyed, and they could not be claimed anyway (cf. Ag. 13. 3); Antigonus, in keeping with his generosity (p. 238, n. 1) would leave them alone, to keep the populace quiet (cf. below in the text).

^{page 238 note 1} Phi. Cl. 30. 1; Polyb. 4. 34. 9; 5. 9. 9; 9. 31. 3–4; 36. 2 and 5; in 9. 29. 8 we would expect a reference to the rescinding of the land-distribution if it had occurred. The praise of Antigonus' generosity by Plutarch and in the Spartan assembly—before a hos tile audience—supports our thesis.

^{page 238 note 2} Cf. Tarn, op. cit., pp. 395–6, 398. The situation was not unique in Spartan history. Philip II may have been acting on similar considerations in 338/7 when he did not insist on Sparta joining his League of Corinth. Philopoimen, on the other hand, in 192 did not abolish Nabis' reforms (Plu. Phil. 15. 2, against 16. 3); certainly he, like Antigonus, did not want to upset the peace in the city which he had taken without a struggle (again like Antigonus); in 189 he destroyed the ‘Lycurgan’ constitution.

^{page 238 note 3} The sources for the following are: Plu. Cl. 30; Polyb. 2. 70. 1 f.; 20. 5. 12. Paus. 2. 9. I-3! Just. 28. 7–9; Tac. Ann. 4. 43; for others see above.

^{page 238 note 4} Polybius mentions (23. 4 and elsewhere) whose description would best fit the exiles of Cleomenes, but their re turn in 222 is probable on general considera tions. Perhaps they were invited to return, but refused, as they were not offered their whole property.

^{page 239 note 1} His success may be deduced from the fact that he left the city after a short time, apparently without trouble.

^{page 239 note 2} Polyb. 4. 22. 5–7; 34. 6 and 9. This can not be elaborated here.

^{page 239 note 3} Plu. Cl. 32. 2; Polyb. 5. 35. 1.

^{page 239 note 4} Polyb. 4. 16. 5 (I think that here ‘the Lacedaemonians’ means the Cleomenist party). Plu. Cl. 38. 4: the story of the escape of Panteus' wife to Egypt points to the existence of secret connexions between Cleo-menes and his followers who had remained in Sparta.