14 HISTORY OF village districts in Arcadia, reckoned as her subject allies, and comrades in her ranks at the last battle with Tegea. This con- quest had been made even during the continuance of the war with Athens ; a period when the lesser states of Peloponnesus generally, and even subject-states as against their own imperial states, were under the guarantee of the confederacy, to which they were re- quired to render their unpaid service against the common enemy ; so lhat she was apprehensive of Lacedaemonian interference at the request and for the emancipation of these subjects, who lay, moreover, near to the borders of Laconia. Such interference would probably have been invoked earlier ; only that Sparta had been under pressing embarrassments and farther, had assem- bled no general muster of the confederacy against Athens ever since the disaster in Sphakteria. But now she had her hands free, together with a good pretext as well as motive for interfer- ence. To maintain the autonomy of all the little states, and prevent any of them from being mediatized or grouped into aggregations under the ascendency of the greater, had been the general policy of Sparta ; especially since her own influence as general leader was increased by insuring to every lesser state a substantive vote ut the meetings of the confederacy. 1 Moreover, the rivalry of fegea would probably operate here as an auxiliary motive against Alantineia. Under such apprehensions, the Mantineians hastened to court the alliance and protection of Argos, with whom they 'njoyed the additional sympathy of a common democracy. Such evolt from Sparta 2 (for so it was considered) excited great ..ensation throughout Peloponnesus, together with considerable disposition, amidst the discontent then prevalent, to follow the. example. VTTTIKOOV, ?TI Tnv Trpdf 'A.$7]vaiovc iTofafiov ovTOf, Kal vo/j.iov ov TTEoitnf'fcr&ai o<f>df rot'f AaKEtiai/ioviove upxeiv, erretd}/ Kal ox.o7.rjv r>yov. As to the way in which the agreement of the members of the confederacy modified the relations between subordinate and imperial states, sec farther on, pages 25 and 26, in the case of Elis and Lepreum. 1 Thu*yd. i,125.
- Thucyd. v, 29. 'A.ir oaruv TUV <J ruv Mavr iveuv , nat fj uM.i)
ncto-nowr/Gor if dpovv Kadiararo of unl oipiol TTOITJT'OV roii'o, vofj.i^ovre( ir/.cov re TI f/JJraf [leTaaTijvai cvroijf, KUI roijf Aa/ce<5ai//oj>tot>f uua <V opyin
c, etc.
