1. It was noted that the history of the epochs preceding Modern Times presupposes a dialogue between current historians and the subject of their research. Indeed, the interpretation of ancient history consists in applying the categories of sociology to phenomena that occurred in fundamentally different conditions. This procedure is simply unavoidable, since ancient history cannot be understood in modern terms. These circumstances are further compounded when historians try to understand facts that are closely related to ideology, such as revolutions.

In this article, I will try to describe the reforms carried out in Sparta by Agid, Cleomenes and Nabidus in 242-192 BC, and also consider how historians of antiquity should apply modern concepts to it. I have repeatedly argued that Plutarch's biographies of Agid and Cleomenes, the most important source of information on the reforms of these kings, cannot be taken for granted, ¹ and therefore I will also try to show that, even if Plutarch's dubious evidence is considered reliable, the concept of revolution is ill-suited to defining these reforms, as well as Nabid's reforms.

I'll start by reminding you of the most important facts. According to Plutarch, Agid IV, a king from the Euripontid dynasty in the unique Spartan diarchy, canceled debts, but was killed without achieving anything more. The same biographer reports that 15 years later, Cleomenes III, king of the Agiades dynasty, not only canceled the debt obligations again, but also implemented an agrarian reform, dividing the land among 4,500 Spartiates, most of whom received this status during the reform. Finally, after almost 30 years of anarchy and turmoil, the self-styled king Nabid appeared, carrying out the same reforms as Cleomenes. In addition, he forced the wives and daughters of dispossessed rich landowners to marry those who had received their property. ²

To make sense of this information, it is necessary to use modern concepts. Of course, the ancient Greeks had their own words and concepts to interpret them;

^{Lacy R.M.} 1 Plutarco de Queronea, Vidas de Agis у Cle6menes. Mexico, 1987. P. XXXI-XLIII.

² Cf. Murasco G. Commento alle biografie plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene. V. 1-2. Roma, 1981 (with my review: Nova Tellus. 1985. 3. P. 273-294); Lacy. Plutarco...; Cartledge P., Spawforth A. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta. A Tale of Two Cities. L., 1989. P. 38-90.

page 79

they tried to understand the above-mentioned reforms using such terms as metabole, metastasis, neoterismos, neotera pragmata ³ . However, while it is impossible to deny the need to know the meaning of these words and the concepts they express, it is clear that they were used by contemporaries of events in order to understand them in terms of ancient Greek culture. Needless to say, more than two thousand years have passed since then, and twentieth-century historians, even if they tried, would not be able to understand the world in the same way as the Hellenistic Greeks ^.4 Moreover, since the Spartan reforms were perceived and portrayed as the most striking example of a revolution in Hellenistic Greece, ⁵ it seems worth considering how this word and concept are used in this case, and what are the consequences of this for our perception of events, bearing in mind that, according to Finley, there are no correct and incorrect definitions in history, but only useful and useless ⁶ .

In general, the word "revolution" is used in two main meanings: one of them is specific and narrow, the other is vague and broad. In the first sense, it means the overthrow of the regime (and not just the Government) by the masses and its replacement by a new one; the means and ends of these actions are liberating ^.7 In the second sense, it is any structural and sudden change, not necessarily political. Given the appropriate nature of these word uses, the former should be much more restrictive and, I believe, useful hermeneutically; the latter, while not necessarily unscientific, can lead to banality. When using the first meaning, it is essential to contrast the revolution with reform or counter-revolution; when using the second meaning, there is no opposition at all, but only nuances.

The main task of this paper is to show how much the application of both meanings helps our understanding of the aforementioned reforms in Sparta. With this goal in mind, the presentation will focus on the participation of various social strata in the reforms and their results for the freedom of Spartiates, Periaks and Helots. It will also be necessary to take into account ideology, in particular what Francois Ollier called the "Spartan mirage", i.e. the legend of Lycurgus8 . To make the presentation clearer, I will talk about the reforms in chronological order, looking at the activities of each of the kings in turn.

2. Agid IV, according to Plutarch, carried out the cassation of debts in 242 BC. ⁹ How, in his opinion, did this happen? Sparta was in decline at the time and had seriously deviated from the Lycurgus constitution, leading to a lack of freedom even for the top ¹⁰ . But, despite the general decomposition, the Agid by virtue of its nobility

³ This is how Paul Cartledge and Anthony Spofforth conveniently grouped these terms (Op. cit. p. 39).

⁴ For a critique of classicism that claims the opposite point of view, see Canfora L. Ideological del classicismo. Torino, 1980. On Sparta as a subject of idealization in Modern times, see Rawson E. The Spartan Tradition in European Thought. 2 ed. Oxf., 1991.

⁵ It is enough to mention the following works: Walhank F. W. The Hellenistic World. L., 1981. P. 170 (the second edition remains unavailable to me); Meier Ch. Revolution in der Antike / / Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexicon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland / Hrsg. von O. Brunner et al. Bd 5. Stuttgart, 1972. S. 657; Cartledge, Spawforth. Ор. cit. P. 39-40.

^{Finley M.I.} 6 Social Revolution in Antiquity // Revolution in History / Ed. R. Porter, М. Teich. Carnbr., 1986. P. 47.

⁷ I develop here Condorcet's definition of the revolutionary: "a revolutionary spirit is a spirit inclined to create, to accomplish revolution in the name of freedom": Condorcet M. J. A. C., marquis de. Sur Ie sense du mot revolutionnaire / / Idem. Oeuvres / Ed. par A. Condorcet-O'Connor, M.F. Arago. V. 12. P., 1847. P. 615 suiv. (reprinted in Stuttgart, 1968). Cit. по: Koselleck R. Die franzosische Revolution und ihre zeitgenossische Rezeption in Deutschland //Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe... S. 733.

^{Oilier F.} 8 Le mirage spartiate. V. 1-2. P., 1933-1943 (reprinted in a single volume in New York in 1973).

⁹ Personally, I doubt Plutarch's credibility as a source, but in the light of the above, in the interests of argument, I accept his testimony here verbatim.

^Plut. 10 Agis. 3.1; 5. Let me remind you that in the Polis as a whole, and especially in the Spartan Polis, the constitution included both the social culture and the way of life.

page 80

he adopted Lycurgus ' customs and began to lead a strict life. He then attempted to restore the traditional constitution, which had fallen into disuse. To this end, the young king - and he was only 20 years old-began to test people's moods (anthropoi, Plut. Agis. 4; 6.1). Plutarch must have used this word to refer to the hundred Spartiates who, as he noted earlier (5.6), still owned the land ^.11 Indeed, from Plutarch's words, it can be concluded that these people were the only citizens who could be counted on. Further, Agid's biographer divides this group into two: young people and older ¹² . The former were ready to go to hardships for the sake of freedom (6.1), but the latter were already corrupted and therefore did not want to return to the Lycurgus system at all. Only three of them sided with King Euripontides, but one of them, Agis ' maternal uncle Agesilaus, was not really a staunch supporter of his, and only joined his nephew under pressure from his valiant son Hippomedon. Although Plutarch says nothing about this, it seems that this son must have belonged to the Spartan youth.

The next step was to convince Agid's mother, a task that fell to both her son and her brother. The king persuaded his mother to take his side, arguing that the restoration he planned would bring him the same glory that other rich kings have. Here he could only refer to those kings who had succeeded Alexander in Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. Since this argument proved to be convincing, Agida's mother and grandmother turned to their friends and to the Spartan women ^.13 These women must have been either the wives of a hundred landowners, or widows from the same group, since, according to Plutarch, they owned most of the land. In their ignorance of the beautiful (apeirokalia), they not only rejected this plan, but also turned to another king, Leonidas II of the Agiades dynasty. The latter, being the eldest king, was able to prevent the restoration of ancient customs.

Leonid, fearing that the people would be on the side of his colleague, did not openly oppose him, but communicated with officials and slandered Agid, saying that he wanted to divide the property of the rich only to become a tyrant. This is (7.8.) the first reference in his biography to agrarian reform, which Plutarch takes for granted, since it was one of the key elements of the "Spartan miracle" in which he believed.

Agid, for his part, secured the election of his supporter Lysander as ephor. The new ephor, in turn, proposed to the Geronts (members of the council of elders) a law (rhetra), which provided for the abolition of debts, the redistribution of land, an increase in the number of citizens to 4,500 (at the expense of perieks and foreigners) and the restoration of joint meals. Since the Geronts could not reach an agreement, Lysander called a national assembly (Plut. Agis. 8). At the meeting, the Agid and members of his group promised the people to transfer all their property to their disposal. The Spartiates, who responded enthusiastically to this act of generosity, aroused the envy of Leonidas, who had only to resist his co-ruler. So he retaliated by turning the Spartan mirage to his advantage, and asked when Lycurgus had cancelled his debts, or if he had ever been able to do so.

¹¹ For the intricate question of land ownership in Hellenistic Sparta, see Lacy. Plutarco... P. XLVI-L.

^Plut. 12 Agis. 6.1--6. To the extent that Sparta might have been an ordinary Hellenistic polis - and this cannot be determined - the young people (hoi neoi) must have formed a sort of club. Numerous examples of such clubs can be found in the anthology: Austin М.М. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambr., 1981 (see index). Cryptics are known for the classical period. Cf. Jeanmaire N. Couroi et couretes. Essai sur l'education spartiate et sur les rites d ' adolescence dans l'antiquite hellenique. N.Y., 1975 (reprint of the first edition, published in Lille in 1939); Vidal-Nuquef P. Le chasseur noir. Formes de pensee et fornies de societe dans Ie monde grec. P., 1981. P. 161-163.

^Plut. 13 Agis. 7.1-4. Judging from what Plutarch said earlier (6.7), at least some of these friends were in a similar position to the Roman clientele in relation to Agid's mother.

page 81

made strangers citizens (Plut. Agis. 9.1-10.3). Thus, it was shown that, like any ideological mirage, this one can also be used for any political purpose. King Euripontides reproached his opponent for his ignorance, which he attributed to the fact that he had long lived at the Syrian court and even married a woman there. He added some other counter-arguments (Plut. Agis. 10. 4-7). Although the masses supported the reformers and the rich supported the conservatives, the latter won by a margin of one vote.

Then the groups turned to mutual accusations and even worse means. The reformers deposed Leonidas and installed Cleombrotus; then the latter, together with Agid, removed the Ephors from their posts and appointed new ones. Later, the tsars armed the youth, and Leonidas went into exile (Plut. Agis. 11-12).

Agesilaus, who by this time had become one of the new ephors, was heavily indebted, but owned land and was stingy. So he persuaded his nephew to cancel his debts in the first place, under the pretext that the debtors who were released from their obligations would join his group as a token of gratitude. Lysander and his followers agreed to this; as a result, the promissory notes were burned in the agora, and the redistricting of the land was postponed. The following year, the Spartiates, dissatisfied with Agesilaus ' abuses, called Leonid back. The people went over to his side, feeling cheated because the land was not divided. This ultimately cost Agid his life (Plut. Agis. 13-21).

It should be noted that during all these events, the participation of the people is reported only in two cases - when they supported Agid in cassation of debts and when he agreed to return Leonid. Everything else consists of intrigues within the Spartan elite, intrigues of a kind that cannot be considered politics. One can definitely conclude that the strict concept of revolution does not apply to this situation. What about Cleomenes?

3. Unlike Agid, this king is known not only from Plutarch's account, but also from Polybius ' Historia14 . However, the historian is primarily interested in the Cleomenean war, and not in part of the internal reforms of Cleomenes; he only makes it clear that he considers the Spartan king not a reformer, but a tyrant (n. 47.3). Therefore, the only source is again the dubious testimony of Plutarch. In any case, according to this philosopher who wrote biographies (or "biographies" as he appropriately called them), Leonidas illegally executed Agid and married his widow to his son Cleomenes. This woman made her young husband a supporter of the Agid restoration program, as Cleomenes was ambitious and generous ^.15

After becoming king, Cleomenes decided to put his ideas into practice. He began by asking Xenarus, who was in love with him, about the Agis, although he himself still found his father's co-ruler trying to restore the Lycurgus system ^.16 Be that as it may, Xenar initially responded readily, but later, noticing the enthusiasm shown by his lover, he chose to break off relations with him. Then Cleomenes, believing that war would facilitate the implementation of his plans, unleashed hostilities with the eternal enemies of the Spartans-the Achaeans. When, after several defeats, the Lacedaemonians were discouraged and the Ephors opposed the war, ¹⁷ the young Agiades decided to return to Sparta

¹⁴ Pausanias presumably also mentions Hagid (II. 8. 5; VII.7.3; VIII.10.5-8; 27.13-14), but what he says about him is so radically contrary to Plutarch's account that both versions exclude each other.

^Plut. 15 Cleom. 1; ambition is the leitmotif of the biographies of Agid and Cleomenes.

¹⁶ Ibid. 3.1-4. Indeed, if, as suggested in Der Kleine Pauly (article Kleomenes 6), he was born around 260 BC, he was already 19 years old at the time of Agid's death. In the classical era, the heirs of kings did not pass through the cryptiae system, but perhaps by the Hellenistic period they could have already joined the youth.

¹⁷ Ibid. 3.6-5.2. It should be remembered that both the Spartiates and the Perieci participated in the Spartan wars.

page 82

the heir of the Euripontids, Archidamus, the brother of Agid, to take over the Ephors, as Agid and Cleombrotus had ^previously done . Since I have repeatedly analyzed this passage, one of the most controversial in Plutarch, I will not re-examine it ¹⁹; suffice it to say that Archidamus was killed under unclear circumstances before reaching Sparta, and the new reformer king used money to break the reluctance of some of the Ephors to continue the war, which, by the way, he could have done. do this earlier without the help of Archidam.

Just as the mother Agida helped her son, so Cratesiclea, the mother of Cleomenes, helped hers by persuading the uncorrupted Ephors to allow the monarch ²⁰ to wage war. She even went so far as to marry a certain Megistonous (Plut. Cleom. 6.1-2). After a victorious encounter with the Achaeans, Cleomenes rallied and told his stepfather that it was necessary to get rid of the Ephors, then divide the property among the Spartiates and thus restore Spartan hegemony in Greece. Despite the apparent folly of this latter idea, Megistonoy was convinced, and even enlisted "two or three friends" (Plut. Cleom. 6.3-7.2).

As a result of these events, Cleomenes raised an army from among those citizens who, as he suspected, could become opponents of his plans. Then he took them all over Arcadia and drove them to such a state of exhaustion that at one point they asked him to leave them where they were. The treacherous king, taking mercenaries, marched to Sparta, informing his confidants who remained there of the plot (Plut. Cleom. 7.5). When he reached his native city, he sent a messenger to distract the Ephors who were eating, and then, with four followers and a few mercenaries, he attacked them and killed all but one (Plut. Cleom. 8). The next day, Cleomenes published a list of 80 Spartiates to be expelled from the Polis, and then called a national assembly. On it, Plutarch reports, he justified the bloodshed by declaring the Ephorate an institution unrelated to Lycurgus, and accusing the Ephors of abusing their powers. He stated that his goal was to purge Sparta of the evils brought in from outside, the main ones being wealth and poverty. He added that violence could not be avoided in such cases, and promised to redistribute land, free up debts, and replenish the civilian collective (Plut. Cleom. 10). The land was divided, four thousand Periaks were granted the status of Spartiates, and the Lycurgus system of education was restored. It was believed that the Lycurgus system was being revived, although the vacant Euripontid throne was occupied by Agid's brother Euclid (Plut. Cleom. 11).

The war continued, and Cleomenes subdued most of the Achaean poleis, many of whom went over to his side in the hope that he would extend to them the reforms carried out in Sparta. But when the Achaean leader Aratus eventually allied himself with the powerful Macedonian king Antigonus Doson, and the latter invaded the Peloponnese, most of these poleis, disappointed by the respect that the Spartan conqueror showed for the status quo that existed in them, soon abandoned it and contributed to the rapid defeat of the overly ambitious reformer (Plut. Cleom. 12.1 sqq.).

In the case of Cleomenes, the Spartan people are only the audience for one of the king's speeches, but everything is decided only through intrigue and conspiracy. The role of the people is insignificant, so there can be no question of mass mobilization or liberation

¹⁸ See above.

¹⁹ See the latest work: Lacy. Plutarco... P. CXLI-CXLIII.

²⁰ The following should be taken into account: although there is a version that Agid had a son (Pans. III. 12.5; VI.9.1), it seems that if there was one, he must have died in infancy. In any case, his legal guardian would have been his stepfather, Agiades Cleomenes, so the execution of Agid led to the end of the diarchy and the transformation of Sparta into a monarchy. Moreover, through the marriage of Agid's widow, the Euripontid inheritance was absorbed by the Agiades, and Cleomenes was also able to manage his wife's dowry.

page 83

people. At the same time, it is easy to imagine that the newly minted Spartiates must have been fanatically devoted to the statesman who raised their status, and that they could not free themselves from this feeling.

4. Nabidus, because of its direct opposition to Rome, probably could not be viewed in a positive light either by Plutarch or, for this very reason, by any other historian. His image, which has come down to us, is outlined by Polybius. However, since much of his work relating to Nabid has been lost, sources for his reforms include Livy and several other historians, all ultimately based on the work of the Megalopolitan. What follows is a paraphrase of the relevant section of my book on Hellenistic revolts ^.21

The last Spartan reformer became king in 206 BC, when he, as regent, ordered the murder of an unknown minor king by name and took the throne himself. Then he began to disenfranchise or expel the aristocrats and the rich. Some "slaves" who had married the wives and daughters of the exiles were freed, and the land was redistributed. The mentioned slaves were probably Helots, although the classical type of slaves cannot be excluded. This is an example of a reform carried out through a purely authoritarian diktat. The question of popular participation does not even arise; moreover, as in the case of Cleomenes, the freed "slaves" must have become clients of the one to whom they owed their freedom.

Let's summarize the above. If we proceed from the strict concept of revolution, we can say with confidence that there was nothing similar in the history of Hellenistic Sparta. Politics was the monopoly of the elite, and this may be the only positive conclusion from the analysis. But what about the broad concept of revolution? It seems timely to move on to this now.

5. It is hardly necessary to repeat the whole series of reforms. It is enough to ask whether any of them caused significant and lasting changes in the political or social structure of Sparta. Agid's cassation of debts destroyed the bonds between debtors and creditors and must have had a certain effect on land ownership. However, it is not known whether Leonid did not reverse this reform when he returned to power only a year later, and he could easily have done so simply by referring to oral evidence.

All of Cleomenes ' reforms were in turn declared null and void when Antigonus took Sparta in 222 (Plut. Cleom. 30.1). Since the reformer's coup took place in 227, they lasted for five years. If the Agid reforms were still in force, they also lost it 20 years after the introduction of ²² . As for Nabidus ' reforms, they initially lost their validity in most of Laconia, which was taken from him by Rome in 195 (about 10 years after he came to power); in the rest of the region, they were abolished later, when Sparta was annexed by Philopemen to the Achaean Union (Liv. XXXV. 37. 1-3; Plut. Philop. 15.4; Paus. VIII. 51.1), approximately 17 years after their introduction.

From this cursory survey, it appears that Spartan statesmen may have proposed reforms, but their fate was determined from outside, first by Macedonia, then by Rome and its weaker ally, the Achaean Confederation, so that the true revolutionaries in the broadest sense should be considered Antigonus Doson, Flamininus, and Philopemen, rather than Agis, Cleomenes, or Nabis. However, if we expand the perspective, it should be borne in mind that the measures of Antigonus, considered by Plutarch as a restoration of the ancient constitution, lasted only 16 years at most; Philopaemenes was more fortunate, since Sparta remained in the Achaean Confederation (being a constant source of concern) for forty-three years. Podlin-

^{Lacy R.M.} 21 Rebeliones populares en la Grecia helenistika. Mexico, 1995. P. 160-168.

²² See the opposite opinion: Shimron V. Late Sparta. The Spartan Revolution 243-146 B.C. Buffalo, 1972. P. 57-59. Ср. Lacy. Rebeliones... P. 148-153.

page 84

A major change in the state structure occurred as a result of the Achaean War, as Sparta fell under Roman rule. This situation changed only when the Crusaders captured the Peloponnese at the beginning of the 13th century A.D. Thus, it is the Achaean War that should be considered a truly revolutionary event in the broadest sense of the term.

In any case, regardless of what we mean by "revolution", the period between the Agid reforms (242) and the Achaean War (146) should be considered as a time of gradual transition from isolated independence to submission to Rome, and not as an age of revolutions.

6. Perhaps one last remark is appropriate.

To what extent were these reforms determined by the peculiarity of the Spartan constitution, and not by the influence of new trends that emerged during the Hellenistic era? Based on the interpretation suggested above, it should be clear that the Spartan mirage provided ideological reinforcement for all groups other than the Achaeans. This was the traditional aspect of the question. On the other hand, all the evidence, however inadequate, is unanimous in saying that the Lycurgus system is obsolete and out of use (Plut. Agis. 3. 1; Cleom. 3.1-2; Phylarch. FGrH 81 F 44). Therefore, it seems that the development trends of the Greek world had a much greater influence on these reforms than the local tradition. ^*

R. M. Lasi

THE APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF REVOLUTION TO THE REFORM OF AGIS, CLEOMENES AND NABIS AT SPARTA

R.M. Lacy

In this article my endeavour is to characterise the reforms that Agis, Cleomenes and Nabis effected at Sparta between 242 and 192 B.C. as well as to explore the way in which ancient historians should apply modern concepts. I have repeatedly argued that Plutarch's "Lives of Agis and Cleomenes", the most important source for these king's reforms cannot be taken at face value, so that I will also try to show that even if Plutarch's dubious testimony is considered truthful, the concept of revolution is ill-suited to define their reforms as well as those of Nabis.

What emerges from this quick revision is that Spartan statesmen could propose reforms, but their fate was determined from outside, first by Macedon, then by Rome and her weaker ally, the Achaean Confederacy, so that the true revolutionaries in this loose sense should be considered to be Antigonus Doson, Flaminius and Philopoemen, rather then Agis, Cleomenes or Nabis.

In any case, no matter which sense of revolution is used, the period between Agis's reform (242) and the Achaean war (146) should be considered one of gradual transition from isolated independence to Roman subjection rather than a revolutionary age.

How far were these reforms determined by the peculiar nature of the Spartan constitution rather than by presures from new trends that appeared during the Hellenistic period? By the explanation just made, it should be clear that the Spartan mirage provided ideological ammunition to all parties, exept the Achaeans. This was the traditional facet of the question.

On the other hand, all the evidence however defective agrees unanimously that the Lycurgan constitution had became obsolete and had fell into disuse (Plut. Agis. 3.1; 5; Cleom. 3.1-2; Phylarch. FG//81 F44).

It seems then that current trends had a much larger weight than local tradition in these reforms.

^* Translated by I. E. Surikov.

Permanent link to this publication: