Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/51

41 Spartan Constitution. 41 the towns of the Perioeci were peopled by Dorians ; nor does such a supposition agree with Dr Arnold's general view of the Doric conquest of Laconia. The Spartans out of the chief city, mentioned by Xenophon in his account of Cina- don'^s conspiracy, were resident not in the country towns, but on their own estates in the district of the citizens, the yj^pa. iroXiTiKri, (Hell. iii. 3. 5). S, Among these towns was Amyclae, which though not three miles distant from Sparta, is known to have held out till the reign of Teleclus, 278 years after the invasion, and to have been in a state of constant hostility to Sparta. So fre- quent indeed were the alarms of an attack, that the Amycleans are reported to have made a law that no one should give warning of the enemy'^s approach : and it was so current a tradition in antiquity that the city was taken by surprise in consequence of this regulation, as to be made a matter of allusion by an early Roman satirist. It does not therefore appear that Amyclae was soon after the invasion in such a state of subjection that it could be given as a reward to a friend, in the same way that Bonaparte gave kingdoms to his relations and generals : and its destruction mentioned by Pausanias may naturally have been provoked by so long and determined a resistance. There is however an explanation (such as it is) which Dr Arnold might allege. Conon (Narr. 86) states that Phi- lonomus the Spartan^ who had betrayed Lacedaemon to the Dorians, received Amyclae as the reward of his treachery, and peopled it with settlers from Lemnos and Imbros (i. e. Minyae). In the third generation these colonists re- belled against the Dorians, were driven out of Amyclae, and went, accompanied by some Spartans and headed by Pollis and Delphus, to Crete. This statement of a writer of low authority is rendered more suspicious; 1. Because Philonomus^ of real persons by an etymological resolution of their names, when he urges as a pro- bable mode of accounting for the fable of Buonaparte's existence, the suggestion that in fact he is a mere representative of a large part (buona parte) of the French nation. Nevertheless in this instance the name Philonomus (as Miiller has remarked) is very suspicious, and seems as if it alluded to the fondness of this traitor for the voiio^ 'Ayui/zcXalo?. Vol. II. No. 4. F
 * Archbishop Whately has justly ridiculed those sceptical historians, who get rid