excessive love of praise is dangerous in all cases, but, in statesmen, utterly ruinous; for when it takes hold of men in the possession of great power it drives them to commit acts of sheer madness, because they forget that honourable conduct must increase their popularity, and think that any measure that increases their popularity must necessarily be a good one. We ought to tell the people that they cannot have the same man to lead them and to follow them, just as Phokion is said to have replied to Antipater, when he demanded some disgraceful service from him, “I cannot be Antipater’s friend and his toady at the same time.” One might also quote the fable of the serpent’s tail which murmured against the head and desired sometimes to take the lead, and not always follow the head, but which when allowed to lead the way took the wrong path and caused the head to be miserably crushed, because it allowed itself to be guided by that which could neither see nor hear. This has been the fate of many of those politicians who court the favour of the people; for, after they have once shared their blind impulses, they lose the power of checking their folly, and of restoring good discipline and order. These reflections upon the favour of the people occurred to me when I thought of its power, as shown in the case of Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, men who were well born, well educated, and began their political career with great promise, and yet were ruined, not so much by an excessive craving for popular applause as by a very pardonable fear of disgrace. They both received at the outset great proofs of their countrymen’s goodwill, but felt ashamed to remain as it were in their debt, and they ever strove to wipe out their obligations to the people by legislation on their behalf, and by their beneficent measures continually increased their popularity, until, in the heat of the rivalry thus created, they found themselves pledged to a line of policy in which they could not even pause with honour, and which they could not desist from without disgrace. The reader, however, will be able to form his own opinion about them from their history, and I shall now write, as a parallel to them, the lives of that pair of Laconian reformers, Agis and Kleomenes, kings of Sparta, who, like the Gracchi, increased the power of the people, and endeavoured to restore an admirable and just constitution which had fallen into desuetude; but who, like them, incurred the hatred of the governing class, who were unwilling to relinquish their encroachments and privileges. These Lacedæmonians were not indeed brothers, yet they pursued a kindred policy, with the same objects in view.

III. After the desire for silver and gold had penetrated into Sparta, the acquisition of wealth produced greed and meanness, while the use and enjoyment of riches was followed by luxury, effeminacy, and extravagance. Thus it fell out that Sparta lost her high and honoured position in Greece, and remained in obscurity and disgrace until the reign of Agis and Leonidas. Agis was of the Eurypontid line, the son of Eudamidas, and the sixth in descent from king Agesilaus, who invaded Asia, and became the most powerful man in Greece. This Agesilaus had a son named Archidamus, who fell in battle against the Messapians at the battle of Mandurium1 in Italy. He was succeeded by his eldest son Agis, who, being killed by Antipater near Megalopolis, and leaving no issue, was succeeded by his brother, Eudamidas; he, by a son named Archidamus; and Archidamus by another Eudamidas, the father of Agis, the subject of this memoir.

Leonidas, the son of Kleonymus, was of the other royal family, that of the Agiadæ, and was eighth in descent from Pausanias who conquered Mardonius at the battle of Plataea. Pausanias had a son named Pleistoanax, whose son was again named Pausanias. This Pausanias2 fled for his life from Sparta to Tegea, and was succeeded by his eldest son Agesipolis; and he, dying childless, by his younger brother Kleombrotus. Kleombrotus left two sons, Agesipolis and Kleomenes, of whom Agesipolis reigned but a short time, and left no children. Kleomenes succeeded his brother Agesipolis on the throne. Of his two sons, the elder, Akrotatus, died during his father’s lifetime, and the younger, Kleonymus, never reigned, as the throne was occupied by Areus3 the grandson of Kleomenes, and the son of Akrotatus. Areus perished in battle before Corinth, and was succeeded by his son Akrotatus. This Akrotatus was defeated and slain near the city of Megalopolis by the despot Aristodemus, leaving his wife pregnant. When she bore a son, Leonidas the son of Kleonymus was appointed his guardian, and, as the child died before reaching manhood, he succeeded to the throne although he was far from being an acceptable personage to his countrymen; for, though the Spartans at this period had all abandoned their original severe simplicity of living, yet they found the manners of Leonidas in offensive contrast to their own. Indeed, Leonidas, who had spent much of his life at the courts of Asiatic potentates, and had been especially attached to that of Seleukus, seemed inclined to outrage the political feeling of the Greeks by introducing the arrogant tone of an Oriental despot into the constitutional monarchy of Sparta.

IV. On the other hand, the goodness of heart and intellectual power of Agis proved so greatly superior not only to that of Leonidas, but of every king since Agesilaus the Great, that before he arrived at his twentieth year, in spite of his having been brought up in the greatest luxury by his mother Agesistrata and his grandmother Archidamia, the two richest women in Sparta, he abjured all frivolous indulgence, laid aside all personal ornament, avoided extravagance of every kind, prided himself on practising the old Laconian habits of dress, food, and bathing, and was wont to say that he would not care to be king unless he could use his position to restore the ancient customs and discipline of his country.

V. The corruption of the Lacedæmonians began at the time when, after having overthrown the Athenian empire, they were able to satiate themselves with the possession of gold and silver. Nevertheless, as the number of houses instituted by Lykurgus was still maintained, and each father still transmitted his estate to his son, the original equal division of property continued to exist and preserved the state from disorder. But a certain powerful and self-willed man, named Epitadeus, who was one of the Ephors, having quarrelled with his son, proposed a rhetra permitting a man to give his house and land to whomsoever he pleased, either during his life, or by his will after his death. This man proposed the law in order to gratify his own private grudge; but the other Spartans through covetousness eagerly confirmed it, and ruined the admirable constitution of Lykurgus. They now began to acquire land without limit, as the powerful men kept their relatives out of their rightful inheritance; and as the wealth of the country soon got into the hands of a few, the city became impoverished, and the rich began to be viewed with dislike and hatred. There were left at that time no more than seven hundred Spartans, and of these about one hundred possessed an inheritance in land, while the rest, without money, and excluded from all the privileges of