REVOLUTION AT TEGEA 209 tion to themselves in case the Spartan power should revive ; as well as by the Thebans and Argeians, from whom aid was ex- pected in case of need. It found great favor in most parts of Arcadia, especially in the small districts bordering on Laconia, which stood most in need of union to protect themselves against the Spartans, the Msenalians, Parrhasians, Eutresians, JEgytes, 1 etc. But the jealousies among the more considerable cities made some of them adverse to any scheme emanating from Mantinea. Among these unfriendly opponents were Heraaa, on the west of Arcadia bordering on Elis, Orchomenus, 2 conterminous with Mantinea to the north and Tegea, conterminous to the south. The hold of the Spartans on Arcadia had been always maintained chiefly through Orchomenus and Tegea. The former was the place where they deposited their hostages . taken from other suspected towns ; the latter was ruled by Stasippus and an oligarchy devoted to their interests. 3 Among the population of Tegea, however, a large proportion were ardent partisans of the new Pan- Arcadian movement, and desirous of breaking off their connection with Sparta. At the head of this party were Proxenus and Kallibius ; while Stasippus and his friends, supported by a senate composed chiefly of their parti- sans, vehemently opposed any alteration of the existing system. Proxenus and his partisans resolved to appeal to the assembled people, whom accordingly they convoked in arms ; pacific popular assemblies, with free discussion, forming seemingly no part of the constitution of the city. Stasippus and his friends appeared in armed numbers also ; and a conflict ensued, in which each party charged the other with bad faith and with striking the first blow. 4 At first Stasippus had the advantage. Proxenus with a few of the 1 See Pausanias, viii, 27, 2, 3. 2 Xen. Hellcn. vi, 5, 11. 3 For the relations of these Arcadian cities, with Sparta and with each other, see Thucyd. iv, 134 ; v, 61, 64, 77. 4 Xenophon in his account represents Stasippus and his friends as being quite in the right, and as having behaved not only with justice but with clemency. But we learn from, an indirect admission, in another place, that there was also another story, totally different, which represented Stasippus as having begun unjust violence. Compare Hellenic, ri, 5, 7, 8 with vi, 5. 36. The manifest partiality of Xenophon, in these lattei books, greatly tJi minishes the value of his own belief on such a matter. VOL. X. 140C.
