34 HISTORY OF GREECE. enabled, beyond her hopes, to become possessed of Thebes itself, 1 through a party of traitors within, as will presently appear. In these measures regarding Bosotia, we recognize the vigorous hiind, and the miso-Theban spirit, of Agesilaus. He was at this time the great director of Spartan foreign policy, though opposed by his more just and moderate colleague king Agesipolis, 2 as well as by a section of the leading Spartans , who reproached Agesi- laus with his project of ruling Greece by means of subservient local despots or oligarchies in the various cities, 3 and who con- tended that the autonomy promised by the peace of Antalkidaa ought to be left to develop itself freely, without any coercive in- tervention on the part of Sparta. 4 1 In the Orat. (14) Plataic. of Isokrates, s. 30 we find it stated among the accusations against the Thcbans, that during this period (i. e. between the peace of Antalkidas and the seizure of the Kadmeia) they became sworn in as members of the Spartan alliance and as ready to act with Sparta conjointly against Athens. If we could admit this as true, we might also admit the story of Epaminondas and Pelopidas serving in the Spartan army at Mantinea (Plutarch, Pelop. c. 3). But I do not see how it can be even partially true. If it had been true, I think Xenophon could not have failed to mention it : all that he does say, tends to contradict it. 2 Diodor. xv. 29. 3 How currently this reproach was advanced against Agesilaus, may be seen in more than one passage of the Hellenica of Xenophon ; whose nar- rative is both so partial, and so ill-constructed, that the most instructive information is dropped only in the way of unintentional side-wind, where we should not naturally look for it. Xen. Hellen. v, 3, 16. TroA/lwv 6e he- ydvTuv A.aK6ai[ioviuv wf b?dyuv ZVEKEV uv&puTruv TroAei (Phlius) 7re^i?a- VOITO (Agesilaus) Ttvleov Trevra/ao^t/U'wv uvdp&v. Again, v, 4, 13. ev fi(5d>c, on, el orpar^yot?/, het;ecav oi iroT^irai, uf 'A jaecE role rvpavvoif, trpu-y/nara ry noXsi Trape^oi, etc. Compare Plu- tarch, Agesil. c. 24-26. 4 Diodorus indeed affirms, that this was really done, for a short time ; that the cities which had before been dependent allies of Sparta were now emancipated and left to themselves ; that a reaction immediately ensued against those dekarchies or oligarchies which had hitherto managed the cities in the interests of Sparta ; that this reaction was so furious, as every where to kill, banish, or impoverish, the principal partisans of Spartan su premacy: and that the accumulated complaints and sufferings of these exiles drove the Spartans, after having " endured the peace like a heavy burthen "(uanep ftapi) <j>6priov xv, 5) for a few months, to shake it off, and to reestablish by force their own supremacy as well as the government of their friends in all the various cities. In this statement there is nothing
