331



fax aii we gather from statements, alike meagre and
uncertified, resting on ttie authority of Ephorus. ^^^logous
Both are said to have tried to place the pre- represents-
existing inhabitants of the country on a level *i^^« ^ ^-
with their own Dorian bands; both provoked f^iy pro-*
discontents and incurred obloquy, with their J®®2*"f ■
contemporaries as well as with posterity, by spartam
the attempt; nor did either permanently sue- *'*^^®"'
-ceed. Kresphont^s was forced to concentrate
all his Dorians in Stenykllrus, while, after all, the discon-
tents ended in his violent death. And Agis, the son of
Eurysthen^s, is said to have reversed all the liberal ten-
tatives of his father, so as to bring the whole of Laconia
into subjection and dependence on the Dorians at Sparta,
wiiii Hie single exception of AmyklsB. So odious to the
Spartan Dorians was the conduct of Eurysthen^s, that
they refdsed to acknowledge him as their oekist, and con-
ferred that honour upon Agis; the two lines of kmgs being
called Agiads and Eurypontids, instead of EnrystheneidS
and Prokleids.1 We see in these statements the same
tone of mind as that which pervades the Panathenaic ora-
tion of IsokratSs the master of Ephorus, — the facts of an
unknown period so coloured as to suit an iddal of haughty
Dorian exclusiveness.
Again as Eurysthends and FroklSs appear, in the pic-
ture of Ephorus, to carry their authority at once over



1 Oompare th« two citations from
Ephoms, Strabo, Tiii. p. 801^866.
Unfortunately a portion of the
latter citation is incurably muti-
lated in the text; 0. Miiller (His-
tory of the Dorians, Book I. chap.
T. 18) has proposed an ingenious
conjecture, which however cannot
be considered as trustworthy.
