406 HISTORY OF GREECE. and the rent accruing from each, represented by a given quantity of moist and dry produce, all these particulars are alike true or alike uncertified. Upon the various numbers here given, many authors have raised calculations as to the population and produce of Laconia, which appear to me destitute of any trustworthy foundation. Those who accept the history, that Lykurgus con- stituted the above-mentioned numbers both of citizens and of lota of land, and that he contemplated the maintenance of both num- bers in unchangeable proportion, are perplexed to assign the means whereby this adjustment was kept undisturbed. Nor are they much assisted in the solution of this embarrassing problem by the statement of Plutarch, who tells us that the number re- mained fixed of itself, and that the succession ran on from father to son, without either consolidation or multiplication of parcels, down to the period when foreign wealth flowed into Sparta, as a consequence of the successful conclusion of the Peloponnesian war. Shortly after that period (he tells us) a citizen named Epitadeus became ephor, a vindictive and malignant man, who, having had a quarrel with his son, and wishing to oust him from the succession, introduced and obtained sanction to a new Rhetra, whereby power was granted to every father of a family either to make over during life, or to bequeathe after death, his house and his estate to any one whom he chose. 1 But it is plain that this story (whatever be the truth about the family quarrel of Epita- deus) does not help us out of the difficulty. From the time of Lykurgus to that of this disinheriting ephor, more than four centuries must be reckoned : now, had there been real causes at work sufficient to maintain inviolate the identical number of lots and families during this long period, we see no reason why his new law, simply permissive and nothing more, should have over- thrown it. We are not told by Plutarch what was the law of succession prior to Epitadeus. If the whoje estate went by law to one son in the family, what became of the other sons, to whom industrious acquisition in any shape was repulsive as well as interdicted ? If, on the other hand, the estate was divided be- of thirty thousand ; but the latter seems better supported by MSS, aiwt most suitable. 1 Plutarch, Agis, c. 5.
