Page:History of Greece Vol IX.djvu/266

 244 HISTORY OF GREECE decease of Agis. Lysander reckoned, if by his means Agesilaua became king, on a great increase of his own influence, and especially on a renewed mission to Asia, if not as ostensible general, at least as real chief under the tutelar headship of the new king. Accordingly, when the imposing solemnities which always marked the funeral of a king of Sparta were terminated, 1 and the day arrived for installation of a new king, Agesilaus, under the promptings of Lysander, stood forward to contest the legiti- macy and the title of Leotychides, and to claim the sceptre for himself, a true Herakleid, brother of the late king Agis. In the debate, which probably took place not merely before the ephors and the senate but before the assembled citizens besides, Lysander warmly seconded his pretensions. Of this debate unfortunately we are not permitted to know much. We cannot doubt that the mature age and excellent reputation of Agesilaus would count as a great recommendation, when set against an untried youth ; and this was probably the real point (since the relationship of both was so near) upon which decision turned ; 2 for the legitimacy of Leo- tychides was positively asseverated by his mother Timaea, 3 and we do not find that the question of paternity was referred to the Delphian oracle, as in the case of Demaratus. There was, however, one circumstance which stood much in the way of Agesilaus, his personal deformity. A lame king of Sparta had never yet been known. And if we turn back more than a cen- tury to the occurrence of a similar deformity in one of the Battiad princes at Kyrene, 4 we see the Kyrenians taking it so deeply to heart, that they sent to ask advice from Delphi, and invited over the Mantineian reformer Demonax. Over and above this senti- ment of repugnance, too, the gods had specially forewarned Sparta to beware of " a lame reign." Deiopeithes, a prophet and icligious 1 Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 1. 9 Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22 ; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3 ; Xcn. Hellen. iii, 3, 2 ; Xen. Agesil. 1, 5 Kplvaoa r TtoXiq avemnfaTOTEpov slvai 'Ayr/aiXaov Kai r YEVEI Kai rfi apery, etc. 3 Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 2. This statement contradicts the talk imputed to Timaea by Duris (Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3 ; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 23). 4 Herodot. iv, 161. AteJt'faro <5e rqv Paaihrjir/v rov 'Ap/cfatAeu 6 naif Barrof, wA6f re euv Kai OVK upriTrovf. Oi <5e KvpTjvaiOi Trpdf rfyv /ca rahapovaav ov /j.opr/v ETre/nrov if Ae^,0oi)f, ETTI iprjaopivov^ ovrtva rooirov KaraarrjaufiEvot Ka.7J.Lara uv OIKCOIEV