part 2. p. 231. vol. II. p. 378. note k. Concerning the Thirty about

the king’s person, see below, ch. 12. § 5.

434 See below, ch. 7. § 5.

435 Od. XI. 184. Il. XII. 312. cf. IX. 578. Pind. Olymp. XIII. 60. βαθὺς κλᾶρος.

436 This is called δήμια πίνειν in Il. XVII. 250. (cf. σιτεόμενοι τὰ δημόσια Herod. VI. 57.) In Crete foreigners were fed δημόθεν, Od. XIX. 197. cf. Æschyl. Suppl. 964. and Platner, _ubi sup._ p. 100. The passage in Od. XI. 184. should be thus rendered. “_Telemachus enjoys in quiet the royal lands, and feasts on the banquets, which it is proper that a man of judicial dignity should eat, for all invite him._” Concerning the last words, see p. 110.

437 Xen. Rep. Laced. 15. 2.

438 Plat. Alcib. I. 39. p. 123 A. οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι is equivalent to περίοικοι.

439 Thucydid. V. 63. [An Æginetan drachma contains on an average ninety-five English grains of pure silver (see Knight Proleg. Hom. § 56.), according to which its value would be about fourteen pence in our money.]

440 Plutarch. Ag. 9.

441 Alc. I. 38. p. 122 E.

442 Compare Herod. VI. 57. (where the word δεῖπνον also refers to the συσσίτια) with Xen. Rep. Lac. 15. 4. quoted by Schol. Od. IV. 65. In Crete the cosmus on duty (ὁ ἄρχων) had four portions, Heracl. Pont. 3.

443 Herod. ubi sup. According to Xen. Hell. IV. 3. 14. and Plut. Ages. 17. the king sent to whom he pleased a share of his sacrifices. According to Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 15. 5. he also had a little pig out of every brood for sacrificing.

444 See p. 109. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “expense of the community,” starting “This is called δήμια πίνειν.”]

445 Herod. VI. 57. ἢν θυσίην τις (not a private individual, but a person appointed by the public) δημοτελῆ ποιέηται.

446 Herod. IX. 81.

447 According to Phylarchus in Polyb. II. 62. 1. These are the μέγισται λήψεις in Plat. Alcib. I. 39. p. 123 A.

448 Xen. Ages. 8. Plutarch Ages. 19. (see vol. I. p. 100. note o.) Hell. V. 3. 20. comp. Nepos. Ages. 7. The βοώνητα in Pausanias III. 12. 3. are of a different nature.

449 As Manso shows, vol. III. 2. p. 330.

450 De Rep. Lac. 15. 6. According to the same writer (15. 2.) three ὅμοιοι provided in war for all the necessities of the king, who are considered by Raoul-Rochette, _Deux Lettres sur l’authenticité des Inscriptions de Fourmont_, 1819. p. 136. as a part of the six ἐμπασάντες in a (spurious) inscription of Fourmont’s (ἐμπασέντες in Hesychius), Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 68. The point is by no means clear.

451 Herod. VII. 149. Aristot. Pol. V. 8, 4. See Æginetica, p. 52. Plutarch Lycurg. 7. (comp. Plato Leg. III. p. 692.) states generally that the power of the kings at Argos and Messene had been at first too extensive, and that by the violence of the governors, and disobedience of the governed, it was at last destroyed, without mentioning any time. The words of Diodorus (Fragm. 5, p. 635.) ἡ βασιλεία ἤτοι τοπαρχία τῆς Ἀργείας ἔτη φμθ. (comp. Eusebius, Malelas and Cedrenus), cannot be referred to this: he reckons this number of years from Inachus to Pelops (160-705 Euseb.).—I may be permitted in this note to subjoin the best arrangement of the Argive kings which the scanty accounts of antiquity seem to furnish. 1. Heraclidæ. Temenus, the father of Ceisus, the father of Medon (What Pausanias II. 19. 2. says of the limitations imposed upon this king, must be judged of from what has been seen above, p. 56. note x [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Thus Isocrates,” starting “Panathen. p. 270.”]; according to the Pseudo-Platonic Epistle VIII. p. 485 Bekk. the kings of Argos and Messene were about the time of Lycurgus tyrants). Then about four kings are wanting after the δέκατος ἀπὸ Τημένου of Ephorus, Æginet. p. 60. After the beginning of the Olympiads Eratus (Paus. II. 36. 5. IV. 8. 1.) who was probably succeeded immediately by Phidon, the son of Aristodamidas (according to Satyrus and Diodorus, Æginetica, p. 61.), before and about the 8th Olympiad. At a later period Damocratidas, about the 30th Olympiad (Pausan. IV. 35. 2. cf. 24. 2. This date is too low, according to Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 190; but not according to my date for the Messenian wars, nor according to that of Pausanias.) Phido II. confounded by Herod. VI. 127. with the earlier king of the same name (Æginetica, p. 60.) father of Λακήδης (in Ionic Λεωκήδης, as in Herodotus,) who wooed the daughter of Cleisthenes (about Olymp. 45. 600 B. C), and when king made himself despised by his effeminacy (Plutarch, de cap. ex hoste util. p. 278. where Λακύδης should be corrected.) His son Meltas (Μέλταν τὸν Λακηδέω, as should be written) was deposed by the people, according to Pausan. II. 19. 2.; but according to Plutarch. Alex. M. virt. 8. p. 269. the family of the Heraclidæ expired. He was succeeded, according to Plutarch, (ubi sup.) and Pyth. Orac. 5. p. 254. II. by Ægon, of another family, about Olymp. 55. 560 B.C. and it was probably the descendants of this king, who still reigned in Argos at the time of the Persian war. According to Schol. Pind. Olymp. VI. 152. Archinus was a king of Argos; but he was a tyrant, Polyæn. III. 8. 1.

452 See vol. I. p. 90. note n.

453 Ἐπὶ βασιλέος Πασγάδα, or Πασιάδα, according to Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1052. of about the time of Alexander.

454 See b. I. ch. 6. § 1. and ch. 7. § 11. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

455 B. I. ch. 6. § 10.

456 Ib. § 7, 8. According to several writers, Pollis was one of the kings of Syracuse, who by others is called an Argive, from whom the Πόλιος οἶνος is derived, Athen. I. p. 31 B. Pollux VI. 2. 16. from Aristotle, Ælian, V. H. XII. 31. In the Etymologist, the correct reading is probably ὑπὸ Πόλλιδος τοῦ ΣΥΡΑΚΟΣΙΟΥ τυράννου: compare Mazocchi Tab. Heracl. p. 202.

457 B. I. ch. 7. § 11. A king named Aristophilidas in Herod. III. 136.

458 Ib. c. 7. § 3. and the passage of Aristides quoted there in § 1. In Halicarnassus an Antheus is mentioned as of a royal family (Parthen. 14.), probably one of the Antheadæ; see ib. § 3.

459 B. I. ch. 5. § 2.

460 Herod. IV. 154.

461 See b. I. ch. 6. § 11.

462 Plutarch. Quæst. Græc. 12. p. 383.

463 Aristot. Pol. V. 9. I. Cic. de Leg. III. 7. de Rep. II. 33. Plutarch. Lyc. 7, 29. ad princ. I. p. 90. Euseb. ad Olymp. IV. 4. Val. Max. IV. 1. Compare Manso, vol. I. p. 243.

464 Heraclid. Pont. 4.

465 They are ἐπώνυμοι in the Theræan _Testamentum Epictetæ_; ἐπὶ ἐφόρων τῶν σὺν φοιβοτέλει. Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. Gr. No. 2448.

466 Polyb. IV. 4. 2. 31. In the cities of the Eleutherolacones, there were also ephors, as at Geronthræ in the decree in Boeckh. Inscript. 1334. and at Tænarum, ib. No. 1321, 1322; and in the time of Gordian, ἡ πόλις τῶν Βειτυλέων _i.e._, Œtylus, the Βίτυλα of Ptolemy, now _Vitulo_, ib. 1323. For Cyriacus (ap. Reines. p. 335.) is probably incorrect in stating that the inscription was found _in Pylo Messeniaca_.

467 In which city an ephor is as ἐπώνυμος of the πόλις in the Heraclean Tables.

468 I. 65.

469 De Rep. Lac. 8. 3. So also Plutarch. Agesil. 5. Pseudo-Plat. Epist. 8. p. 354 B. Suidas in Λυκοῦργος, also Satyrus ap. Diog. Laërt. I. 3. 1. According to others, it was introduced by Cheilon, who, according to Pamphila and Sosicrates, was ephorus ἐπώνυμος in Olymp. 56. 1. 556 B.C. (according to Eusebius Olymp. 55. 4. 557 B.C.) Compare Manso, vol. III. 2. p. 332. The passage of Diog. Laërt. I. 3. 1. (68) creates no difficulty according to the reading of Casaubon; γέγονε δὲ ἔφορος κατὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν πέμπτην Ὀλυμπιάδα. Παμφίλη δέ φησι κατὰ τὴν ἕκτην. καὶ πρῶτον ἔφορον γενέσθαι ἐπὶ Εὐθυδήμου (Olymp. 56. 1.), ὥς φησι Σωσικράτης. καὶ πρῶτος εἰσηγήσατο ἐφόρους τοῖς βασιλεῦσι παραζευγνύμαι; Σάτυρος δὲ Λυκοῦργον. The first πρῶτον refers to the office of the ephor eponymus; and hence appears to have originated the mistake which is contained in the words καὶ πρῶτος εἰσηγήσατο, &c., viz., that Chilon first introduced the practice of associating ephors with the kings. Manso, ubi sup., has taken the same view of the passage.

470 Cic. de Leg. and de Rep. ubi sup. Valer. Max. IV. 1.

471 Compare Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. I. p. 436. ed. 1. Engl. Transl. with whose opinions on the ephors, as well as on the government of Sparta in general, the views taken in this work generally disagree.

472 Polit. III. 1. 7. according to which passage the ephors allotted themselves to different branches of the δίκαι τῶν συμβολαίων.

473 Compare Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 196. Anaxandridas. ἐρωτῶντος δὲ τινος αὐτὸν, διὰ τί τὰς περὶ τοῦ θανάτου δίκας πλείοσιν ἡμέραις οἱ γέροντες κρίνουσι, and p. 207. Eurycratidas—πυθομένου τινὸς, διὰ τί περὶ τὰ τῶν συμβολαίων δίκαια ἑκάστης ἡμέρας κρίνουσιν οἱ ἔφοροι. Here, however, δίκαι ἀπὸ συμβόλων appear to be meant, as the answer shows; which is doubtless a mistake.

474 Aristot. Pol. II. 8. 4. III. 1. 7. says, as it appears to me, most clearly, that while in Carthage a certain board or court of public officers decided all law-suits, in Sparta the public officers indeed alone acted as judges, but decided only those cases which belonged to their respective departments. Cf. Justin. III. 3.

475 According to the Etymol. Gudian. ἔφοροι are οἱ τὰ τῶν πόλεων ὤνια ἐπισκεπτόμενοι.

476 Cf. Herod. I. 153.

477 Thucyd. V. 34.

478 See above, p. 101. note i. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ten days,” starting “According to Herod. VI. 50.”]

479 Hell. III. 3. 5.

480 Ælian. V. H. II. 15.

481 See Tittmann, p. 107, n. 4. where some contradictory statements are also noticed.

482 Sparta also frequently appointed five judges for extraordinary cases, as for example, concerning the possession of Salamis, the fate of the Platæans, Thucyd. III. 52. The same number were also appointed by the Iasians to decide the lawsuits of the Calymnians, Chandl. Inscript. p. 21. LVIII.

483 Ch. 5. § 4.

484 Polit. II. 3. 10. II. 6. 14, 15. II. 8. 2. IV. 7. 4.

485 μηδεμίαν κληρωτήν, Aristot. Pol. IV. 7. 5.

486 Plat. Leg. III. p. 692. calls the power of the ephors ἐγγὺς τῆς κληρωτῆς. Without an election, however, Chilon could not have attained the ephoralty, nor his brother have been able to complain that he was postponed. Diog. Laërt. ubi sup. The nomination by the kings (Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 197.) is an error.

487 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 6.

488 See above, ch. 5. § 9.

489 Κρίσεων μεγάλων κύριοι, Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 16.

490 Ib. II. 6. 17.

491 Plutarch. Agis 12. Compare Aristot. Ret. III. 18. 6.

492 Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4.

493 Herod. VI. 82.

494 Xen. Ages. I. 36. Plutarch. Ages. 4. Cleom. 10. An Seni sit ger. Resp. 27. Præc. Reip. ger. 21.

495 Plutarch. Cleom. 10.

496 Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4. ἄρχοντα κύριοι εἷρξαὶ τε καὶ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς ἀγῶνα καταστῆσαι. cf. Plut. Lys. 30. The same in reference to the king, Thucyd. I. 131. Nepos (Paus. 3. 5.) probably adds the words “_cuivis ephoro_” ex suo. Libanius Orat. I. p. 86. Reisk. is incorrect in stating that the ephors had power to imprison the king, and put him to death (δῆσαι καὶ κτανεῖν). Thus the ephors only seized and detained Pausanias; the sentence was passed by _the Spartans_ (οἱ Σπαρτιᾶται), _i.e._, the court of justice, concerning which see the next note.

497 Δικαστήριον συναγαγόντες, Herod. VI. 85. See particularly Pausan. III. 5. 3. and Plutarch Agis 19. Less accurately, Apophth. p. 195.

498 Xen. Hell. III. 5. 25.

499 Plutarch. Ag. 19.

500 Thucyd. V. 63.

501 Xen. Anab. II. 6. 4. ἐθανατώθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ Σπάρτῃ τελῶν ὡς ἀπειθῶν, where τὰ τέλη must signify this supreme court.

502 Ὕπῆγον θανάτου, Xen. Hell. V. 4. 24. The ephors did not seize Cinadon till after a secret conference with the gerusia; his punishment was probably fixed by the supreme court;—see Xen. Hell. III. 3. 5. Polyæan. II. 14. 1.

503 This is apparently affirmed (in addition to Libanius quoted in p. 122. n. l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “life or death,” starting “Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4.”]) by Plutarch. Periol. 22. Lysand. 19. and Lac. Apophth. p. 209; but it can be only inaccuracy of expression.

504 Plutarch. Erot. 5. p. 77. where a very fabulous story is related of an event, which is reported to have taken place before the earthquake in the 78th Olympiad. In Polybius V. 91. 2. the ephors are represented as recalling banished persons. Concerning the punishment of exile at Sparta, see below, ch. 11. § 4.

505 Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 4. cf. Polyæn. II. 26. 1.

506 Plutarch. Ages. 2. 5. cf. de Am. Frat. 9. p. 46.

507 Theophrast. ap. Plutarch. Ages. 2. de Educ. Puer. 2. Otherwise Heraclides Lembus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 566 A.

508 For this reason the ephors compelled Anaxandridas to marry two wives, Herod. V. 39-41., and watched the wives of the kings, Plat. Alcib. I. 36. p. 121 B. See above, ch. 6. § 6.

509 Plutarch. Lys. 19. They decided in the case of Gylippus, according to Posidonius ap. Athen. VI. p. 234 A. as ταμίαι of the state, as they appear to have been from notes i and k, p. 127. [Transcriber’s Note: Footnote “i” is the footnote to “the plunder,” starting “Xerod. IX. 76.”, and footnote “k” is the footnote to “public treasury,” starting “Plutarch. Lys. 16.”]

510 At least according to Schol. Thucyd. I. 84.

511 Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 254.

512 Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 3. 6. Ælian. V. H. III. 10. XIV. 7.

513 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 16. Plut. Ages. 29. the history of Timotheus.

514 Herod. VI. 63.

515 Pol. II. 6. 16.

516 Plutarch. Ag. 9.

517 Thucyd. I. 87.

518 Plutarch. Ag. 5. ῥήτραν ἔγραψε.

519 Ælian. V. H. III. 17.

520 Xen. Hell. II. 2. 13, 19.

521 Herod. III. 148. Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 214.

522 See, for example, Herod. IX. 8. Xen. Hell. II. 2. 17. III. 1. 1. Polyb. IV. 34. 5. Thuc. I. 90. ἀρχαὶ and τέλη are generally mentioned.

523 Xen. Hell. II. 2. 19.

524 See particularly Thuc. V. 36. Cf. Xen. Hell. V. 2. 9. That in these cases they always recurred to the public assembly is evident, Xen. Hell. III. 2. 23. IV. 6. 3.

525 Thuc. V. 19. 24.

526 Thuc. VI. 88.

527 Xen. Hell. II. 4. 29. Παυσανίας πείσας τῶν ἐφόρων τρεῖς ἐξάγει φρουράν. cf. III. 2. 25. IV. 2. 9. V. 4. 19. Plut. Lys. 20. Thuc. VIII. 12. See also Anab. II. 6. 2. Hell. V. 1. 1. where they grant permission to privateer.

528 Herod. IX. 7. 10. Plut. Arist. 10.

529 Προκηρύττουσι τὰ ἔτη, Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 2. φρουρὰν ἔφαινον μεχρὶ τῶν τετταράκοντα ἀφ᾽ ἥβης, Hell. VI. 4. 17.

530 That is, authorized by the state, as Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 3. shows.

531 Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8. III. 2. 6.

532 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 3. πέμψας πρὸς τοὺς ἐφόρους ἠρώτα τί χρὴ ποιεῖν. Hence they were especially οἱ οἴκοι, τὰ οἴκοι τέλη, Sturz Lex. Xenoph. vol. III. p. 254. Compare Plutarch. Lys. 14. Cleom. 8. and the spurious letters of Brasidas and Lysander in Lac. Apophth. pp. 203, 227.

533 Xen. Hell. III. 2. 6. Plut. Pericl. 22.

534 Thuc. I. 131. Plut. Lys. 19. Agesilaus was recalled, according to Xenophon Hell. IV. 2, 3. by “the state,” Ages. 1. 36. by τὰ οἴκοι τέλη, according to Plutarch Ages. 15. by the ephors.

535 Xen. Hell. V. 4. 24.

536 Plut. Lys. 20. Xen. Ages. 1. 26.

537 Μὴ περιπατεῖτε, the command to the army at Decelea, Ælian. V. H. II. 5.

538 This is seen most clearly from Thucyd. VI. 88, where the ephors and τέλη send ambassadors, _i.e._, wish to persuade the public assembly to do this, and from Xen. Hell. II. 2. 17-19. VI. 4. 2. 3. Compare p. 89. note t. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “magistrates alone,” starting “As Tittman.”]

539 Herod. IX. 76. Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 5. Hell. II. 4. 35, 36. cf. Thuc. IV. 15.

540 Herod. IX. 76.

541 Plutarch. Lys. 16. Diod. XIII. 106.

542 Xen. Hell. III. 4. 2. ἔφοροι τὰς πατρίους πολιτείας παρήνγειλαν. Thus the τέλη guarantee their independence to whatever allies Brasidas could gain over, Thuc. IV. 86, 88.

543 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 32.

544 τῆς πολιτείας τὸ κρυπτόν, Thucyd. V. 68.

545 Leg. IV. p. 712 D. Polit. II. 6. 14.

546 Plutarch. Cleom. 10.

547 Dodwell de Cyc. Diss. VIII. 5. p. 320. Manso, vol. II. p. 379.

548 Which also explains the affair with the Aulonitæ in Xen. Hell. III. 3. 8.

549 Aristot. ap. Plutarch. Cleom. 9. de sera Num. Vind. 4. p. 222. Κείρεσθαι τὸν μύστακα καὶ προσέχειν τοῖς νόμοις. Concerning the Laconian word μύσταξ, see Hesychius and Valcken. ad Adoniaz. p. 288.

550 Pausan. III. 11. 2. Plutarch. Cleom. 8. Ag. 16.

551 See Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 237. Comp. Ælian. V. H. II. 15. This building therefore corresponds to the Prytaneum at Athens, in which the civil laws (ἄξονες) were kept, and ambassadors entertained, together with certain distinguished citizens: indeed the prytanes of Athens themselves, as being presidents of the public assembly, have some similarity to the ephors. See also Proclus ad Hesiod. Op. et Di. 722.

552 Plutarch Cleom. 8, 9.

553 Plut. Ag. 9. Cic. de Div. I. 43, 96. Compare Manso, vol. III. 1. p. 261. Siebelis ad Pausan. III. 26. 1.

554 Above, ch. 6. § 6.—The ephors also had certain duties to perform at the sacrifices of Athene Chalciœcus, Polyb. IV. 35. 2.

555 Ἁνειμένη δίαιτα, II. 6. 16.

556 Which Pausanias had once wished to effect, Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 5.

557 See the comparison of Philo de Provid. 2. p. 80. Aucher.

558 Compare also the Scholiast, and Ducker ad Thucyd. I. 58. Sturz Lex. Xen. IV. p. 276. Αἱ ἁρχαὶ, τὰ ἁρχεῖα is the same, Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 800. In the army οἱ ἐν τέλει are the officers down to the Pentecoster, Xen. Hell. III. 5. 22, 23.

559 Pausan. III. 11. 2.

560 A πρέσβυς νομοφυλάκων in recent inscriptions, Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1363, 1364. So also a πρέσβυς βιδέων in No. 1364. (hence βίδεοι περὶ τὸν in inscriptions of late date), and there were six bidei _inclusively_ of this one, as the inscription last quoted, and another of Fourmont’s, prove. See above, p. 94. note b. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “peace and war,” starting “Herod. VII. 148.”] Why I pass over Fourmont’s pretended ancient inscriptions it is needless to say.

561 Hesych. in v.

562 Hesych. in v. In later times also ἁγοράνομοι, in the inscription No. 1364. Hesychius’s translation δήμαρχοι does not even explain the name of the γερόακται.

563 Plut. Ages. 30. Lac. Apophth. p. 189.

564 Meurs. Misc. Lac. II. 4.

565 Corsini Not. Græc. Diss. V. p. 95.

566 Boeckh No. 1364; compare Boeckh p. 611.

567 Since the first appearance of this work, Boeckh, in his Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. 605, has shown that the πατρόνομοι obtained indeed the power of the gerusia; but that the latter body still possessed an honorary dignity, comp. ib. p. 610. He further proves, p. 606, that the _first patronomus_ was the ἐπώνομος of the state; and that the expression ἐπὶ τοῦ δείνα, in the lists of magistrates, refers to him. The regular number of the nomophylaces, according to Boeckh’s references to Fourmont’s Inscriptions, p. 609, was also five. There was however sometimes a sixth. The bidiæi are called in the inscriptions βίδεοι, or βίδυοι; this, according to Boeckh’s ingenious explanation, is the Laconian form of ἴδυοι, ϝίδυοι, and signifies witnesses and judges among the youth. Compare the ἴστωρ Hom. II. XVIII. 801. XXIII. 486. and concerning the ἴδυοι in ancient laws, see Ælius Dionysius quoted by Enstathius on the first passage.

568 Polit. II. 7. 3.—ap. Strab. X. p. 482 A—de Rep. II. 33. Van Dale de Ephoris et Cosmis in his Dissert. Antiquar.

569 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 5.

570 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 3.

571 ἔδοξε τοῖς κόσμοις καὶ τᾷ πόλει.

572 Treaty between the Hierapytnii and Priansii in Chishull’s Ant. Asiat. pag. 130. πρειγηία (πρειγεία, _legatio_) δὲ ὧ κὰ χρείαν ἔχη πορηίω, παρεχόντων οἱ κόσμοι.

573 Cnosian decree, ibid. p. 121. τὸς δὲ κόσμος δόμεν ἀντίγραφον τῶδε τῶ ψαφίσματος σφραγίσαντας τᾷ δαμοσίᾳ σφραγῖδι ἀποκομίσαι Ἡροδότῳ καὶ Μενεκλεῖ.

574 As it appears from the treaty of the Hierapytnians, p. 130.

575 Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 484 B.

576 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4.

577 Treaty of the Hierapytnians, p. 130. A different regulation in that of the Latians and Olontians, p. 134.

578 Vid. ibid. p. 130.

579 Decree of the Istronians and Sybritians, p. 113, 114. οἱ κόσμοι—ἐπαναγκαζόντων ἀποδιδόμεν τοὺς ἔχοντας.

580 Ibid. p. 131. The Hierapytnians and Priansians had for a time had _no commercium juris dandi repetendique_ (κοινοδίκιον); in this treaty it is agreed that the cosmi of the year shall bring before a court appointed by both cities those lawsuits which had been interrupted by the want of a common tribunal; that they shall carry them through during the term of their office, and give sureties for this in a month after the conclusion of the treaty. Then follow similar stipulations for the future.

581 In the treaty of the Hierapytnians, p. 131, it is permitted that a γραφὴ τιμητὴ, according to the Athenian custom, should be instituted against the cosmus; in the decree of the Sybritians (p. 114.), however, the cosmi are guaranteed for a particular exercise of their power, to be ἁζάμιοι καὶ ἀνυπόδικοι πάσας ζαμίας.

582 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 7.

583 Lyctian Inscript. Gruter. p. 194. 15. Οἱ σύν τινι κόσμοι frequently occurs. Cf. Polyb. XXIII. 15. 1.

584 This sense is required by the context in Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 7; so that after the words τῶν δυνατῶν, τινὲς should be restored, and the passage be written thus: πάντων δὲ φαυλότατον τὸ τῆς ἀκοσμίας, ἣν συνιστᾶσι πολλάκις, ὅταν μὴ δίκας βούλωνται δοῦναι, τῶν δυνατῶν τινές.

585 VI. 46. 4. From the context it is plain that the senate was at that time chosen annually in Crete.

586 Similarly Tittmann, p. 413.

587 Strabo, p. 481 B.

588 See Herod. V. 92. Pausan. II. 4. See book I. ch. 8. § 3.

589 See the great inscription, earlier than the Roman times, in Boeckh’s Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 403, in which Aristomenes the prytanis, the son of Aristolaidas, a Hyllean, is mentioned, whose head occurs on a coin in connexion with the head of Hercules. Another inscription in the same book also mentions four prytanes together. At that time, however, the government was democratic, since the ἁλία was also a court of justice, p. 406.

590 Suidas: Χάρων πρυτάνεις ἢ ἄρχοντες Λακεδαιμονίων. It is also used for _king_ by Pindar and Æschylus.

591 Ἡρακλείδου πρυτανεύοντος, Paus. X. 2. 2.

592 See b. II. ch. 1. § 8. Compare the history in Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 3. Plut. Præc. Rep. ger. 52. p. 200. sq.

593 See Dissen’s Commentary and my note to Pindar Nem. XI. 4. where now I agree with Boeckh, that the ἑταῖροι compose the βουλὴ, over which the πρύτανις presides.

594 This I infer from Polyb. XXVII. 6. 2. Στρατοκλέους πρυτανεύοντος τὴν δευτέραν ἕκμηνον. Comp. Paulsen de Rhodo, p. 56.

595 See particularly Polyb. XV. 23. 3. XVI. 15. 8. XXIII. 3. 10. XXIX. 4. 4. XXIX. 5. 6. ἀρχὴ μάλιστα αὐτοκράτωρ, Appian. Bell. Civ. IV. 66. Comp. Plut. Præc. Rep. ger. 17. p. 173. Liv. XLII. 45. Poseidonius the historian was prytanis at Rhodes, Strabo VII. p. 316.

596 Polyb. XXIX. 4. 1.

597 Polybius and Appius ubi sup. mention δημαγωγοὶ; the former writer had also explained the τρέπος τῆς δημηγορίας, but the passage is lost.

598 Strabo XIV. p. 652. See below, ch. 9. § 3.

599 See Ubbo Emmius de Rep. Rhod.

600 Ad Pind. ubi sup.

601 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 3.—The prytanes of Cyzicus were on the other hand democratic.

602 Hesychius κέρκος—ἐχρῆτο δὲ αὐτῇ μᾶλλον ὁ ἐν Κῳ πρύτανις. Compare with this the sacrifice in the Peace of Aristophanes. The prytanis in the city of Crotona, sacred to Apollo, went every seventh day about the altars, Athen, XII. p. 522 C. Concerning the care of the prytanes for the κοινὴ ἑστία, see Aristot. Pol. VI. 5.

603 See particularly Andoc. de Myst. p. 37.

604 Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 64.

605 Ibid. vol. I. p. 232. where the nature of this office was first explained. The Areopagites also probably received their κρέας through these officers. Comp. Hesych. and Photius in κρέας.

606 Hence Solon ap. Plut. 19. ἐκ πρυτανείου καταδικασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων.—They also sat together in the royal porch, probably also as a court of justice. Pollux VIII. 111, 120. Hesych. in Φυλοβασιλεῖς.

607 Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6.

608 Book II. ch. 8. § 6.

609 Boeckh in several places, Schoemann de Comitiis, p. 364.

610 V. 71. Compare Schoemann de Comitiis, p. 12.

611 Olymp. 90. 1. 420 B.C. mentioned by Thuc. V. 47. Cf. Æginetica, p. 134.

612 Plut. Quæst. Græc. I.

613 A very numerous synedrion in the Prytaneum at the time of Cassander, Diod. XIX. 63.

614 Æl. Dionys. ap. Eustath. ad Od. XVII. p. 1285. Rom. Hesych. in v.

615 Hence Philip (ap. Demosth. de Corona, p. 280.) writes to the demiurgi and synedri of the Peloponnesians.

616 Thuc. ubi sup.

617 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1193. and see Boeckh, pp. 11. and 594.

618 Polyb. XXIV. 5. 16. Liv. XXXII. 22. XXXVIII. 30. and Drakenborch’s note, Plut. Arat. 43. ΔΑΜΙΟΡΓΟΙ in a Dymæan inscription, ib. 1543.

619 Etym. Mag. p. 265, 45. Zonaras in v.

620 Ibid. Aristot. Pol. III. 1.

621 Thuc. I. 56. with the Scholia. Compare Suidas in δημιουργός. Ἐπιδημίουργοι are _upper demiurgi_, as the ἐπιστρατηγοὶ in Egypt, in the time of the Ptolemies, were upper or superior στρατηγοί.

622 As in Mantinea, Xen. Hell. V. 2. 3. 6. They were different from the _regular_ τέλη, Thuc. V. 47. In early times the δαμιουργίαι were of considerable duration, Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 3. Compare Æginetica, p. 134.

623 See above ch. 4. § 2.

624 See ch. 6. § 10. The notions of the ancients, on the subject of the Argive kings, seem very vague and doubtful.

625 Book I. ch. 8. § 7.

626 Diod. XII. 75.

627 See particularly Thucyd. V. 29. 41. 44.—τὸ πλῆθος ἐψηφίσατο (404 B.C.). Demosth. de Rhod. Libert, p. 197.

628 Thuc. V. 27, 28.

629 See the passages quoted above, p. 56. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “great civil power,” starting “See Thuc. V. 67.”]

630 Aristotle Pol. II. 3. 5. calls them τοὺς γνωρίμους.

631 Aristot. ubi sup. Diod. XII. 80. Thuc. V. 81. τὸν ἐν Ἄργει δῆμον κατέλυσαν, καὶ ὀλιγαρχία κατέστη. Cf. 76.

632 In July of 417 B.C. Thuc. V. 82. Diod. XII. 80.

633 Thuc. V. 84. Diod. XII. 81.

634 Thuc. VI. 61. Diod. XIII. 5.

635 C. 11.—πάντας, ὄντας ἑκατὸν, the emendation of Casaubon, who wishes to introduce the word ἑκατοστὺς; does not agree with what follows. Perhaps there were at that time ten tribes at Argos, as in Athens, and the χίλιοι λογάδες are here meant: but even then it would be difficult to fix the time of this event.

636 Compare Plut. Alcib. 14. Nicostratus, who according to Theopompus ap. Athen. VI. p. 252 A. was προστάτης τῆς πόλεως at the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, was probably an officer of this description. Compare what was said on the demiurgi, ch. 8. § 5.

637 Below, § 8.

638 Diod. XV. 40.

639 Diod. XV. 57, 58.

640 Plutarch (Præc. Reip. ger. 17. p. 175.) reckons 1500 in all. He is followed by Helladius Chrestom. p. 979. in Gronov. Thesaur. Gr. vol. X.

641 Plut. ubi sup. compare also Dionys. Hal. Archæol. Rom. VII. 66.

642 Pausan. II. 20. 1.

643 Isocrat. ad Philipp. p. 92 C. D. Even however after this time _principes_ occur, Liv. XXXII. 38.

644 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 5. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 851. Phavorinus in ὀστρακίνδα. Compare Paradys _de Ostracismo_ in the Classical Journal, vol. XIX. p. 348.

645 See Aristid. II. p. 388.

646 Isocrat. ubi sup.

647 Ἀργεία φορὰ ap. Diogenian. II. 79. Apostol. IV. 28. Eustath. ad Il. β᾽. p. 286 Rom.

648 Cicero Brut. 13.

649 Ch. 5. § 1. ch. 8. § 5.

650 See vol. I. p. 187 note a.

651 Herod. VII. 99.

652 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 2.

653 P. 94. note b. and p. 140. note m. [Transcriber’s Note: These are the footnotes to “peace and war,” starting “Herod. VII. 148.,” and to “sacrifices of the prytanis,” starting “Hesychius κέρκος.”]

654 Olymp. VII. 87. Callianax was one of the ancestors of Diagoras of the γένος Ἐρατιδῶν.

655 Compare what Timocreon the Rhodian said in Olymp. 75. 4. 477 B.C. concerning the proceedings of Themistocles in this and in other islands, Plut. Them. 21.

656 See Boeckh’s masterly explanation of this ode at the end.

657 See Thucyd. VIII. 35, 84. Xen. Hell. I. 1, 2. I. 5. 19. Diod. XIII. 38, 43. Pausan. VI. 7. 2. The correctness of what Androtion relates in this passage is very doubtful.

658 Thuc. VII. 57.

659 Thuc. VIII. 44.

660 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 5, 6. V. 5. 4. These three passages apparently refer to the same event; which (if this is the case) must have taken place at the time to which I have in the text referred it; for in the middle one the popular party is said to have been defeated by the nobles, πρὸ τῆς ἐπαναστάσεως, which cannot signify “before the revolution,” a meaning which neither the words nor the context will admit; but “before the congregation of the inhabitants of the three small towns to the city of Rhodes,” the ἀνάστασις ἐπὶ μίαν Ῥόδον. Goettling indeed (ad. l.) is of opinion, that the two first passages cannot refer to the same event, since in the first the constitution of Rhodes is stated to have perished through φόβος, in the latter through καταφρόνησις. But the same example might have been strictly applicable to both; the γνώριμοι dreaded the disturbances of the demagogues, and at the same time despised the irregular proceedings of the people, and therefore overthrew the democracy.

661 Diod. XIII. 75. See also Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 155.

662 Diod. XIV. 79.

663 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 20-22. Diod. XIV. 97.

664 In the speech concerning the freedom of the Rhodians, cf. περὶ Συντάξεως, p. 194. The oligarchy of Hegesilochus (Theopompus ap. Athen. X. p. 444.) perhaps belongs to this period.

665 If I correctly understand de Repub. III. 35. cf. I. 31. and the traces of the later constitution in Aristid. Rhod. Conc. II. p. 385. and Dio Chrysost. Orat. 31. passim.—With the passage in Cicero compare particularly Sallust. de Rep. Ord. 2., who states, that in Rhodes rich and poor sat together in judgment on both important and unimportant affairs. Tacitus also in Dial, de Cl. Orat. 40. represents the Rhodian constitution as democratic.

666 Strab. XIV. p. 653 A.

667 Meurs. Rhod. c. 20.—The supposed letter of Cleobulus to Solon, in which he says that Lindus δαμοκρατεῖ (Diog, Laërt. I. 93. Suidas in Κλεόβουλος) evidently cannot be used for the constitutional history of Rhodes.

668 Pind. Olymp. XIII. 2. οἶκος ἄμερος ἀστοῖς.

669 In _early_ times a close _friendship_ existed between Corinth and Athens, Herod. V. 75. 95. Thuc. I. 40, 41.

670 See Xen. Hell. IV. 4. 3. sqq.

671 IV. 4. 6. sqq.

672 See particularly VII. 4. 6. The refugees from Corinth to Argos in Olymp. 101. 2. 375 B.C. (mentioned by Diodorus XV. 40.) were therefore democrats.

673 Plut. Dion. 53. No conclusion can be drawn from the word δημοκρατία in Plutarch. Timol. 50. for it is there used only to signify the contrary of τυραννίς.

674 Diod. XVI. 65, 66.

675 Polit. V. 5. 9.

676 Thuc. III. 73.

677 See Dionys. Halic. Archæol. Rom. VII. 66. Diod. XIII. 48.

678 Thuc. III. 81.

679 For a βουλευτὴς could hope, by virtue of his office, to persuade the people to an alliance with Athens, Thuc. III. 70.

680 Thuc. III. 70.

681 Thuc. III. 70. IV. 46. Æneas Poliorc. 11. Diodorus XII. 57. however says only, τοὺς δημαγωγεῖν εἰωθότας καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ πλήθους προίστασθαι.

682 Strabo lib. VII. Excerpt. 2. Proverb. Metric. p. 569. Schott.

683 Concerning the ἐλεφαντίναι κώπαι of the Corcyræan whips, see Aristoph. ap. Hesych. in Κερκυραία μάστιξ, Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1463. Zenob. IV. 49.

684 In Olymp. 92. 3. 410 B.C. Diod. XIII. 48. and in Olymp. 101. 3. 374 B.C. Diod. XV. 46.

685 Æneas Poliorc. 11.

686 See p. 138. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “democratic age,” starting “See the great inscription.”] Perhaps five prytanes in the inscription in Mustoxidi, Illustr. Corciresi, tom. II. p. 87. [Δαμ]οξενος Μολωτα πρυτανευσας και οἱ συναρχοι [Δαμ]ων Μολωτα Ικεταιδας ... Κ[λεα]ρχος Λεοντος ... ρ..ρου θεοις.

687 The inscription quoted above, p. 138. note y.

688 Πρόδικοι and πρόβουλοι also occur in another inscription, not written in the Doric dialect, in Mustoxidi, tom. II. p. 92. n. 43., in which an ἀμφίπολος (as in Syracuse) is also mentioned.

689 If Periander was the son of Gorgus, and the latter (according to Anton. Lib.) the brother of Cypselus, Neanthes of Cyzicus (ap. Diog. Laërt. I. 98.) was correct in stating that the two Perianders were ἀνεψιοί. Yet the hypothesis adopted in b. I. ch. 6. § 8. has its reasons. According to that, the genealogy would be

[Transcriber’s Note: The graph shows Cypselus the father of one Periander, and Gorgue (Gorgias) the father of another Periander.]

and then also Psammetichus might be considered as son of the same Gorgias (Gordias), without supposing the oracle in Herodotus V. 92 to be false.

690 Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 9. Plut. Erot. 23. p. 60.

691 Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 6. The Spartans also assisted in overthrowing the tyranny, b. I. ch. 9. § 5.

692 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 9. According to Anton. Liber. 4. a tyrant Phalæcus also reigned at Ambracia, against whom an insurrection was caused by an oracle of Apollo, whom the Ambraciots considered as the author of their εὐνομία. This Phalæcus (as is evident from the passage quoted) is called Phayilus by Ælian. de Nat. Animal XII. 40. Compare the MSS. of Ovid’s Ibis, 502.

693 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 4.

694 Ibid. III. 11. 1. V. 1. 6.

695 This I conceive to be the meaning of Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6. according to the reading of Victorius, Ἡλιαία is only a different form of ἁλιαία. See above, p. 88. note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “the Epidamnians,” starting “Aristot. Pol. V. 1. 6.”] The occasion of the revolution is perhaps related in V. 3. 4.

696 In the clause ἄρχων ὁ εἷς ἦν ἐν (V. 1. 6.), it appears to me, that the word ἐστὶν, in III. 11. 1. and the context, require the omission of ἦν. [This conjecture has since been confirmed by the best manuscript of the Politics. See Goettling’s edition, p. 391.]

697 Ælian. V. H. XIII. 5.

698 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 13.

699 See above, ch. 4. § 4.

700 Strabo VII. p. 316 C.

701 Aristot. Pol. IV. 3. 8. cf. Herod. IX. 93.

702 Ælian. ubi sup.

703 Ἐν Συρακούσαις τῶν Γεωμόρων κατεχόντων τὴν ἀρχὴν are the words of the Parian Marble, Ep. 37. ad Olymp. 41.

704 See above, p. 113. note m. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Syracuse and Corcyra,” starting “Ib. § 7, 8.”]

705 Ch. 4. § 4.

706 See also Plutarch. Præc. Reip. 32. p. 201. In the account of the confiscation of Agathocles’ property (Diod. Exc. 8. p. 549 Wess.) the geomori appear as the supreme court of justice.

707 Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 57.

708 Herod. VII. 155. Dion. Hal. VI. 62. Compare Zenobius, quoted above, p. 61. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “from the Greek,” starting “Hesychius.”]

709 This is stated by Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 6. The story in Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 1. Plut. Præc. Reip. ubi sup. refers to the dissolution of the ancient hereditary aristocracy, which Plutarch calls ἀρίστην πολιτείαν.

710 Herod, ubi sup.

711 Diod. XI. 26. Ælian. V. H. XIII. 36.

712 Thuc. VII. 55. Demosth. Leptin. p. 506, &c.

713 Pol. V. 3. 6. Compare, however, V. 10. 3.

714 Herod. VII. 156. Diod. XI. 25. The reason why there was so great a number of foreign mercenaries in Sicily, is, that the native Sicilians would not serve as hired troops (Hesychius and Apostolius in Σικελὸς στρατ. Toup in Suid. vol. II. p. 614); the tyrants were therefore compelled to hire _Condottieri_, as for instance Phormis the Mænalian.

715 Diod. XI. 72, 73.

716 Diod. XI. 76. cf. Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 11. This is the πολιτογραφία and the ἀναδασμὸς, Diod. XI. 86. Compare Goeller de Situ Syracusarum, 3. p. 9.

717 Οἱ χαριέστατοι Diod. XI. 87. Compare the χαρίεντες in Plutarch Phocion. 29. Dion. 28. Aristot. Eth. Nic. I. 4. 2. I. 5. 4. IV. 8. 10. Concerning the Petalismus, see, besides Diodorus, Hesychius in v. Rivinus in Schlaeger’s Dissert. 1774. vol. I. p. 107.

718 What sycophants were in a democracy, were the ὠτακουσταί and ποταγωγίδες in the tyranny of Hieron. (Aristot. Pol. V. 9. 3. comp. the _vetus interpres_ ap. Schneider.), and of the Dionysii (Plut. Dion, de Curios. 16. p. 147. who supposed that the latter were men). Compare vol. I. p. 183. note n.

719 See the mutilated Scholia to Hermogenes in Reiske’s Orators, vol. VIII. p. 196. together with Aristotle ap. Cic. Brut. XII. 46.

_ 720 Siculi acuti_, Cic. Verrin. III. 8. _acuta gens et controversa natura_, Brut. XII. 46. _dicaces_, Verr. IV. 43. _faceti_, Orat. II. 54.

721 Diod. XI. 82. probably from Philistus.

722 Thuc. VI. 32 sqq. 72 sq. Diod. XV. 19. 95.

723 Thuc. VI. 35.

724 Thuc. VI. 32, 41. Diod. XIII. 19.

725 Hermocrates, of an aristocratic disposition, filled a public office.—The νεώτεροι in Thucyd. VI. 38. cannot, from the context, be generally the young men of the city; they must be a party of youthful aristocrats, who were peculiarly hostile to the people, and, according to the statement of Athenagoras, wished to take advantage of the fear of a war and the blockade of Syracuse, for the purpose of regaining their lost privileges. In this sense οἱ τε δυνάμενοι καὶ οἱ νέοι are combined in VI. 39. [See Arnold’s History of Rome, vol. I. p. 332, note 29.]

726 Diodorus XIII. 19, 55. calls him a demagogue.

727 Aristot. Pol. V. 3. 6. Diod. XIII. 35. The δημηγοροῦντες cast lots merely for the _succession_ in which they were to address the people, Plut. Reg. Apophth. p. 89, 90. The generals were still chosen from among the δυνατώτατοι, Diod. XIII. 91.

728 Diod. XIII. 33, 35.

729 Plut. ubi sup. p. 92.

730 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 5. V. 8. 4. Diod. XIII. 96.

731 Diod. XIII. 94. cf. Polyæn. V. 2. 2.

732 Diod. XIV. 45, 64, 70. See several passages in Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 20. The assemblies summoned by Dion, for example, against Dionysius the Second (Diod. XVI. 10, 17, 20. Plut. Dion. 33, 38.), must not be considered as in any way connected with the tyranny. Cicero de Rep. III. 31. denies that Syracuse in the reign of Dionysius was a _Respublica_ at all.

733 Plutarch. Dion. 28.

734 Ibid. 53. σχῆμα—ἀριστοκρατίαν ἔχον τὴν ἐπιστατοῦσαν καὶ βραβεύουσαν τὰ μέγιστα. See above, ch. 1. § 7.

735 Diod. XVI. 70.

736 Plutarch. Timol. 37.

737 Diod. XVI. 81. with Wesseling’s note, Cic. in Verr. I. 2. 51.

738 Diod. XIII. 35. XVI. 70.

739 Diod. XIX. 3-5. _After_ a democracy of this kind, and _before_ the time of Agathocles, the state was legally governed by a synedrion of 600 of the most distinguished persons (χαριέστατοι), XIX. 6.

740 Diod. XIX. 4. 6-9. He also sometimes convened public assemblies, when it pleased him to play the δημοτικός. Diod. XX. 63, 79.

741 Otherwise it must have been newly appointed by election or lot at the death of Hieronymus, of which Livy XXIV. 22 says not a word. The _seniores_ (c. 24.) are probably members of this senate; a γερουσία also probably existed at that time, which occurs in a late inscription in Castelli Inscript. Sic. V. 5. p. 44.

742 Liv. XXIV. 27.

743 See Hesychius, Suidas, and Zenobius in ἱππάρχου πίναξ; on this tablet were entered τὰ τῶν ἀτακτούντων ὀνόματα. In Diod. XIV. 64. ἱππεῖς appears to be the name of the class of knights.

744 At Gela Cleander was tyrant, after a period of oligarchy (Aristot. Pol. V. 10. 4.), from 505 to 498 B.C. (Herod. VII. 157. Dion. Hal. VII. 1. Pausan. VI. 9.); then his brother Hippocrates 498-491 B.C. Gelon in 491 B.C. At Agrigentum there was a timocracy (Arist. Pol. V. 8. 4.), then Phalaris 555-548 B.C. according to Eusebius and Bentley, then Alcmanes and Alcander (Heracl. Pont. 36.), Theron 488-473 B.C. according to Boeckh, and Thrasydæus, who was expelled in the same year.

745 Diod. XI. 53. κομισάμενοι τὴν δημοκρατίαν.

746 See Diogen. Laërt. VIII. 66. Timæus Fragm. 2. ed. Goeller. Sturz Empedocles, p. 108.

747 Aristot. ap. Diog. VIII. 63. The words, ὥστε οὐ μόνον ἦν τῶν πλουσίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τὰ δημοτικὰ φρονούντων, do not present any difficulty.

748 Cic. Verr. I. 2. 50.

749 Gruter, p. 401. Castelli, p. 79, &c.

750 Ἁλιασμα ἑκτας διμηνον Καρνειον ἑξηκοντος ΠΕΜΠΤΑΙ. See above concerning Rhodes, § 3.

751 The Hierothytes was the παραπροστάτας of the βουλὴ (ΠΑΡΑΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΑ ΤΑΣ should be written).

752 Verr. I. 4. 23, 39.

753 Concerning the ἱεράπολοι see Boissonade in the Classical Journal, vol. XVII. p. 396.

754 Maffei Mus. Veron. p. 329. Muratori, p. 642, 1. Castello, p. 84. cf. ibid. p. 25.

755 Βουλας ἁλιασμα (vulg. ἁλιασματα) δευτερας ἑξαμηνου Καρνειου τριακαδι.

756 Εδοξε τᾳ ἁλιᾳ καθα και τᾳ βουλᾳ, as the sense requires us to read with Castello.

757 See also the Calymnian decree (Chandler, p. 21. n. 85.) εδοξε τᾳ βουλᾳ και τῳ δαμῳ γνωμα προσταταν.

758 B. I. ch. 8. § 2.

759 Plutarch, de sera Num. Vind. 7. p. 231.

760 Thucyd. V. 81.

761 Xen. Hell. VII. 1. 44.

762 VII. 1. 45. VII. 3. 4.

763 Ἄκρατος καὶ Δωρικὴ ἀριστοκρατία, Plutarch. Arat. 2.

764 Some members of the oligarchical party of Argos also fled to Phlius, Thucyd. V. 83.

765 Xen. Hell. V. 2. 8. sqq. V. 3. 10. sqq. V. 3. 21. sqq. Fifty persons of each party made a plan for a new constitution. Hell. V. 3. 25. The refugees residing at Argos, in 375 B.C. were manifestly democrats, the same as in Xen. Hell. VII. 2. 5. in 369 B.C.

766 Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 18. Μεγαρεῖς Θεαγένη—ἐκβαλόντες, ὀλίγον χρόνον ἐσωφρόνησαν κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν.

767 See above, ch. 3. § 3. It appears to me nearly certain that the passage refers to Megara near Corinth.

768 See above, ch. 1. § 4. ch. 4. § 8.

769 V. 43, 66, 847. ed. Bekker. [See generally on the aristocratical tendency of the poetry of Theognis, and the constitution of Megara, Welcker, _Prolegomena ad Theognin_, pp. x-xli.]

770 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 6. V. 4. 3. Plut. ubi sup. I suspect that Theognis (v. 677.) speaks of this period, χρήματα δ᾽ ἁρπάζουσι βίᾳ, κόσμος δ᾽ ἀπόλωλεν, and in the whole political allegory of the passage. This was the time of the violence done to the Peloponnesian theori, Plutarch ubi sup. p. 59.

771 Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 851. Phavorinus in ὀστρακίνδα.

772 Aristot. Pol. V. 4. 3. IV. 12. 10.

773 Thuc. I. 114. cf. 103.

774 Thuc. IV. 66, 74.

775 Thuc. ubi sup. et V. 31. In this aristocratic period the πρόβουλοι were magistrates of high authority in Megara, Aristoph. Acharn. 755.

776 Diod. XV. 40.

777 περὶ παραπρεσβείας, pp. 435, 436.

778 Above, p. 113, note i. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “very late period,” starting “Ἐπὶ βασιλέος Πασγάδα.”]

779 Plutarch. Symp. VIII. 8. 4. p. 319, where indeed the expression is very indefinite.

780 De Corona, p. 255. and in another decree in Polyb. IV. 52. 4. They also occur in coins.

781 In Caylus, Recueil, II. pl. 55. in the king’s library at Paris. It is the same which Corsini F. A. I. 2. p. 469. considered as Delphian. It decrees a crown to a Ἁγεμὼν βουλὰς, and the eight persons whose names are subscribed are probably senators.

782 Vol. I. p. 250, note l.

783 See, besides other writers, Boettiger, Amalthea, vol. II. p. 304.—Of the hieromnemons Letronne has treated at full length, Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. VI. p. 221, but without remarking that, besides Delphi, they are peculiar to Megara and its colonies,

784 At least if Dineus (Dinæus) was king, see book I. ch. 6. § 9; this Dineus is, however, called by Hesychius Milesius, § 20, only general of the Byzantians, and τοπάρχης of Chalcedon. He appears, nevertheless, to be an historical personage. Concerning the bondslaves, see above, ch. 4, § 5.

785 According to Hesychius Milesius, Λέων τις τῶν Βυζαντίων ἀριστοκρατίαν ἐδέξατο.

786 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 27. What the Thirty in Diodorus XIV. 12. are, whom Clearchus put to death after the magistrates, we are entirely ignorant, since the right explanation or emendation of the word Βοιωτοὺς is still a desideratum.

787 Aristot. Pol. V. 2. 10.

788 Theopompus ap. Athen. XII. p. 526 E. cf. Memnon. 23. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 724.

789 Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 3. The transit duties levied at the Bosporus are well known, Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 40.

790 A decree of the senate before it had received the sanction of the people was also called ῥήτρα in Sparta; see above, ch. 5. § 8.

791 It occurs on coins. See Heyne Comment. rec. Gotting. vol. I. p. 8.

792 Pseud-Aristot. ubi sup.

793 Chandler. Inscript. App. 12. p. 94.

794 Æneas Poliorcet. 11. (ad calc. Polyb.) οὐσῶν αὐτοῖς τριῶν φυλῶν καὶ τεττάρων ἑκατοστύων. There must evidently have been more than _four_ hundreds to _three_ tribes, as Casaubon remarks. Perhaps we should read τεττάρων καὶ εἴκοσι ἑκατοστύων, or with Goettling (Hermes, vol. XXV. p. 155.) τεττάρων ἐν ἑκάστῃ ἑκατοστύων. Casaubon’s emendation of τεττάρακοντα for τεττάρων is not admissible, as forty is not divisible by three without a remainder. The event probably took place before the 104th Olympiad, 364 B.C.

795 See book I. ch. 6. § 10.

796 See above, ch. 4. § 5.

797 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 6.

798 This is evident from the context of the passage in Justin. XVI. 4.

799 Compare with Justin Æneas Poliorc. 12.

800 According to Polyænus II. 30. 2. Clearchus caused the whole senate of 300 to be put to death, which is here represented as a standing body.

801 Of the Megarian colony _Astypalæa_ have inscriptions in tolerable preservation, but not until the last times of independence, when the constitution became similar to that of Athens. An inscription, already quoted in vol. I. p. 116, note y, begins εδοξε τᾳ βουλᾳ και τῳ δαμῳ φιλ ... ενευς επεστατει γνωμα πρυ[τανιων επει]δὴ Αρκεσιλας Μοιραγενευς αἱ[ρεθεις] αγορανομος επεμεληθη του δαμου μετα πασας φιλοτιμιας, &c. Another contains συνθῆκαι between the δῆμος τῶν Ἀστυπαλαιέων and the δῆμος τῶν Ῥωμαίων; in this also we read, εδοξε τω δημω Ευχωνιδας Ευκλευς επεστατει πρυτανιων [γνωμα]. See Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Gr. Nos. 2483, 2485.

802 All this is stated in Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 4.

803 Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 3, 11.

804 The former by Hermippus ap. Diog. Laërt. VIII. 88. and Plutarch, in Colot. 32. p. 194. The latter by Theodoretus Græc. Aff. IX. 16.

805 Thucyd. V. 84.

806 Above, ch. 6, § 10, and ch. 7, § 1.

807 Τεμένεα in the Homeric sense, Herod. IV. 161. Cf. Diod. Exc. 8. vol. II. p. 551. Wesseling. Τὰ τῶν προγόνων γέρεα in Herodotus, IV. 162. which Arcesilaus wished to regain, refers to the revenues, as well as to the privileges of which the kings had been deprived. Compare Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, p. 154. note.

808 Diod. vol. II. p. 550. Wess.

809 Herod. IV. 165.

810 Boeckh Explic. ad Pind. Pyth. IV. p. 266.

811 Pyth. IV. 263. according to Boeckh’s explanation.

812 Heracl. Pont. 4.

813 Aristotle Pol. V. 2. 11. says, that the founders of the democracy at Cyrene established other and more tribes; which statement must be referred to this time; for that by the τὸν δῆμον καθιστάντες Demonax is not meant, is evident from the circumstance that this person only instituted three tribes, and therefore could hardly have increased their number. See Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, pp. 103-192.

814 See also concerning the contest between a democratic and aristocratic party in Olymp. 95. I. 400 B.C. Diod. XIV. 34.

815 Plut. Lucull. 2.—Concerning the ephors of Cyrene see above, ch. 7. § 1.

816 Ch. 6. § 10.

817 Concerning these see above, page 52. note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “noticed above,” starting “So also ib Strab.”] From these Pelasgian bondsmen, bands of robbers, called περίδινοι, proceeded, according to Plato Leg. VI. p. 777. Cf. Athen. VI. p. 267.

818 Polit. V. 2. 8. See Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol. II. p. 221.

819 Aristot. Pol. VI. 3. 5. οἱ Ταραντῖνοι, κοινὰ ποιοῦντες τὰ κτήματα τοῖς ἀπόροις ἐπὶ τὴν χρῆσιν, εὔνουν παρασκευάζουσι τὸ πλῆθος. ἔτι δὲ τὰς ἀρχὰς πάσας ἐποίησαν διττὰς, τὰς μὲν αἱρετὰς, τὰς δὲ κληρωτάς; τὰς μὲν κληρωτὰς, ὅπως ὁ δῆμος αυτῶν μετέχῃ, τὰς δ᾽ αἱρετὰς, ἵνα πολιτεύωνται βέλτιον. These institutions can only be referred to _this_ period, for the present tense παρασκευάζουσι shows their existence when the author was writing; ἐποίησαν refers only to the time of the institution, and the words ἵνα μετέχῃ again prove their actual existence.—As to the interpretation of the words κοινὰ ποιοῦντες τὰ κτήματα ἐπὶ τὴν χρῆσιν, it is known that at Rome, when the _ager publicus_ was divided among the plebeians, it was either given them by assignation as absolute property (_mancipium_, _dominium_), in which case it ceased to be _publicus_; or it was held by _possessiones_, in early times by the patricians, who only occupied it with an usufructuary right, while the land remained _publicus_, was not marked out with limits, and could be at any time reclaimed by the state (See Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. II. p. 363. sqq. ed. 1. Eng. Transl. compare vol. I. note 443. ed. 2.). The occupation of the public lands of Tarentum was probably allowed to the poor on similar conditions. As to the δίττας ποιεῖν τὰς ἀρχὰς, Aristotle seems to mean, that if, for example, there had been two agoranomi, four strategi, &c. they then made _four_ agoranomi, _eight_ strategi, &c.: of whom two and four were chosen by lot, two and four by election.

820 Strabo VI. p. 280.

821 Which would also be proved by the Fragment of Archytas concerning the Spartan constitution (Stobæus Serm. 41. Orelli Opusc. Moral. vol. II. p. 254.), _if_ it were genuine.

822 Diog. Laërt. VIII. 79. six times, according to Ælian. V. H. VII. 14. cf. III. 17.

823 Aristoxenus ap. Diog. L. VIII. 82. See Jamblich. Pythag. § 197. Hesych. Miles. in Vit. Archyt.

824 Strab. p. 280. Demosth. Ἐρωτ. p. 1415. Plut. de Educ. lib 10. p. 28. Præc. ger. Reip. 28. p. 191. Cf. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles. vol. II. p. 30.

825 Concerning the ἀσέλγεια and ὕβρις of the Tarentines, see particularly Dionys. Hal. ed. Mai. XVII. 5, 7.—A βουλὴ at Tarentum, whose προβούλευμα was necessary for a declaration of war, in Livy VIII. 27. A public assembly deciding concerning peace and war, Diod. XIX. 70. Plut. Pyrrh. 13. Cheirotonia of this assembly, Plut., Qu. Gr. 42. from Theophrastus.

826 See above, p. 88. note l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “and Heraclea,” starting “Ἁλία κατάκλητος.”]

827 See b. I. ch. 6. § 12. and b. II. ch. 12. § 5.

828 Jambl. Pythag. 7. p. 33. 15. p. 255, 257. Cf. Porph. Pythag. 21. 22.

829 B. II. ch. 3 § 7.

830 Jambl. Pythag. 9. p. 45. and Dicæarchus ap. Porphyr. 18. who calls the members γέροντες. Perhaps the σύγκλητος in Diod. XII. 9. is the same.

831 Valer. Max. VIII. 15. ext. 1.

832 See above, p. 140, note m. [Transcriber’s Note: These is the footnote to “sacrifices of the prytanis,” starting “Hesychius κέρκος.”]

833 Heraclid. Pont. 25.

834 See below, ch. 11. § 6.

835 Jamblich. 35. p. 260.

836 See b. I. ch. 6. § 12.

837 Diog. Laërt. VIII. 3. See Apollon. ap. Jamblich. 35. p. 254, 261. Justin. XX. 4.

838 See above, ch. 5. § 4.

839 The elucidation of this fact is without doubt the work of Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenschaften, vol. III. ch. 3. The reason why Plato, de Rep. X. p. 600, represents Pythagoras as one who had been a master of education not in a public but a private capacity, is, that the Pythagorean discipline and mode of living, the βίος ἐπὶ στάθμῃ, was only kept up as a private institution, while the public regulations of Pythagoras had long fallen into oblivion.

840 Apollonius ap. Jamblich. 35. p. 255.

841 Ibid. p. 257. cf. 260.

842 Jambl. 35. p. 262.

843 Polyb. II. 39. Jambl. 35. p. 263. See Heyne Opuscul. Acad. II. p. 178.

844 II. 41. 5. and _passim_. Pausan. V. 7. 1.

845 Thucyd. V. 80.

846 Hell. VII. 1. 44.

847 See, for example, Plutarch. Philopœmen. 7, 18.

848 Liv. XXIV. 2, 3.

849 B. II. ch. 1. § 8. Above, ch. 8. § 3.

850 Above, ch. 6. § 10. From the passage quoted it is seen that even in Plutarch’s time a βασιλεὺς, in name at least, existed.

851 Above, ch. 8. § 8. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

852 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1688, 1689, 1694, 1705. The Delphian archons Gylidas and Diodorus in Olymp. 47. 3. 590 B.C. and 49. 3. 582 B.C. (Argument. Schol. Pind. Pyth.) were, however, perhaps, prytanes.

853 Ibid. No. 1693.

854 Ibid. Nos. 1702. sqq.

855 Αὐστηρὰ καὶ ἀριστοκρατικὴ πολιτεία, Plutarch. Comp. Lycurg. et Num. 2. According to Plutarch de Monarchia 2. p. 205. the government of Sparta was an ἀριστοκρατικὴ ὀλιγαρχία καὶ αὐθέκαστος. Isocrates Nicod. p. 31. D. says of the Lacedæmonians, οἴκοι μὲν ὀλιγαρχούμενοι, περὶ δὲ τὸν πόλεμον βασιλευόμενοι. Comp. Cragius I. 4.

856 Isocrat. Panath. p. 287 A. Crete also was free from tyranny, according to Plato Leg. IV. p. 711.

857 Isocrates Areopag. p. 152 A. says that the Lacedæmonians were κάλλιστα πολιτευόμενοι, because they were μάλιστα δημοκρατούμενοι. Plat. Leg. IV. p. 712 D. Aristot. Pol. II. 3. 10. IV. 5. 11. IV. 6. 4, 5. and compare Cicero de Rep. II. 23. who states that the _respublica Lacedæmoniorum_ was _mixta_, but not _temperata_; and on the other side the pretended Archytas in Stob. Serm. 41.

858 The king in the Doric constitution was said to honour the people, δᾶμον γεραίρειν, Pind. Pyth. I. 61.

859 The Cretan constitution also, according to Plato (ubi sup.), united every form of government.

860 To this, and not to conquests, the expression of Simonides, δαμασίμβροτος Σπάρτα, refers, according to Plutarch Agesil. 1. Compare Polyb. IV. 22. 2. Plut. Lycurg. 30. Præc. Ger. Reip. 20, 21. p. 181, 182. Lac. Apophth. p. 246. the verses of Ion the tragic poet in Sextus Empiricus adv. Mathem p. 69 A. and a Spartan inscription of late date, Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1350. ἡ πόλις M. Aur. Ἀφροδείσιον—τῆς ἐν τοῖς πατρίοις Λυκουργείοις ἔθεσιν εὐψυχίας καὶ πειθαρχίας χάριν.

861 See Plutarch. Lycurg. 29, 30.

862 Compare the Platonic Socrates, Criton. 14. Protag. p. 342 C. Repub. VIII. p. 544 C. with the Socrates of Xenophon, Mem. III. 5. 15. and what Antisthenes says in Plut. Lyc. 30.

863 In Leocr. p. 166. 5. The words of Æschines, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Λακεδαιμόνιοι (in Timarch. 25. 32.), are merely a ridiculous imitation of Cimon.

864 Polybius IV. 81. 12. also calls the Spartan constitution καλλίστη πολιτεία.

865 As, for example, the ignorant de Pauw, who was preceded among the ancients in an attempt to decry Sparta by Polycrates (probably the orator), Heyne de Spart. Rep. Comment. Gotting. vol. IX. p. 2.

866 Concerning the similarity of Plato’s state, and the Lacedæmonian government, see Morgenstern de Platon. Rep. p. 305.

867 ῥυάχετος, Lysistrat. 170. Compare the λάβρος στράτος of Pindar quoted above, p. 9. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “form of government,” starting “Herod. VI. 43.”]

868 Thuc. IV. 22. Compare the excuses of Alcibiades VI. 89.

869 Thuc. I. 77.

870 Above, ch. 2. § 3.

871 Herod. VI. 51. Compare above, ch. 6. § 9.

872 See ch. 4. § 1. concerning the μνοία. Compare the τεμένη δημόσια of Byzantium in Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. 3.

873 As also in Cyrene. See ch. 9. § 13.

874 Ch. 3. § 6.

875 Ch. 2. § 1.

876 Ch. 3. § 6.

877 Compare the supposed apophthegm of Lycurgus concerning the equal ricks of corn, Plut. Lyc. 8.

878 See, among others, Timæus ap. Schol. Plat. Phæd. p. 68. Ruhnk. and ap. Diog. Laërt. VIII. 10. Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenschaft, III. 3 Cicero de Rep. IV. (p. 281. Mai.) ap. Non. in v. _proprium_, p. 689. Gothofr. compares Plato’s _Communitas bonorum_. with the institution of Lycurgus.

879 Xen. Rep. Lac. 6. 3, 4. Aristot. Pol. II. 2. 5. Plut. Lac. Inst. p. 252.

880 Aristot. Pol. II. 2. 10.

881 The apophthegm of Polydorus ap. Plutarch, p. 223. shows that this king set on foot a κλήρωσις of Messenia.

882 Aristot. Pol. V. 6. 1.

883 This agrees completely with a fact mentioned by Pausan. IV. 18. 2. that Tyrtæus appeased the internal troubles, which arose from Messenia having been left uncultivated, on account of the incursions of the Messenians from Eira.—It was doubtless on this occasion that the Spartans, who had lots in Messenia, called for a fresh division of the Spartan territory; and to quiet these complaints Tyrtæus composed his Eunomia.

884 Plut. Agis 5. καὶ τῶν οἴκων ὃν ὁ Λυκοῦργος ὥρισε φυλαττόντων ἀριθμὸν ἐν ταῖς διαδοχαῖς, καὶ πατρὸς παιδὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἀπολιπόντος. See Heyne ut sup. p. 15.

885 The difficulties have been well perceived by Friederich von Raumer, Vorlesungen über alte Geschichte, vol. I. p. 236.

886 Thus Herodotus VI. 86. says of Glaucus the Spartan, οὔτε τι ἀπόγονον, οὔτ᾽ ἱστίη οὐδεμία νομιζομίων εἶναι Γλαύκον.

887 Herod. VII. 205. Compare Diod. XV. 64. also Thucyd. V. 64.

888 Heraclid. Pont. 2. πωλεῖν δὲ γῆν Λακεδαιμονίοις αἰσχρὸν νενόμισται (cf. Arist. Pol. II. 6. 10), τῆς ἀρχαίας μοίρας ἀνανέμεσθαι οὐδὲν ἔξεστι. Cf. Plut. Inst. Lac. p. 252.

889 This is quoted as a Laconian law by Proclus ad Hes. Op. 374. p. 198. Gaisford.

890 Younger brothers, however, inherited immediately, if the elder died without lawful issue, Plutarch. Ages. 4.

891 Pollux I. 8. 75. X. 3. 20. with Hemsterhuis’ note. Concerning the words derived from πάω, see Valckenær. ad Ammon. 3, 7.

892 The members of a family might be said to eat together, to be ὁμόκαποι, notwithstanding the institution of the syssitia, for the public tables did not furnish _all_ the food. Ὁμόκαπνοι (the reading of the best MS.) comes to the same thing; as the fire of the hearth was used by the Greeks more for cooking than for warmth; and in the summer for the former exclusively.

893 Aristot. Pol. I. 1. 6.

894 Hesychius, παῶται: συγγενεῖς, οἰκεῖοι.

895 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 21.

896 The μικρὰ ἔχοντες in Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 7. 4. must be those who possess no κλῆρος of their own, like the μικρὰν οὐσίαν κεκτημένοι in Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 10.

897 Lycurg. 16.

898 When a family was entirely extinct, probably they passed to that next in order in the τριακάς.

899 Mai Nov. Collect. Vet. Scriptor. vol. II. p. 384.

900 Below, § 4. near the end.

901 See Deuteron. xxv. 5-10. Michaëlis on the Laws of Moses, vol. II. p. 21-33. Engl. translation.

902 Plutarch Agis 5.

903 This circumstance is otherwise understood by Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 133. Tittmann, p. 660. Göttling ad Arist. Pol. p. 467. endeavours to exculpate Aristotle from this charge by supposing that under the word νομοθέτης he also comprises the later innovators of the constitution; but the author nowhere shows that he had any knowledge of these changes: otherwise he could not have stated that the destructive law of Epitadeus (for such in fact it was, which διδόναι καὶ καταλείπειν ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκε τοῖς βουλομένοις) was a part of the original constitution, as well as the corresponding laws respecting sacrifices.

904 This also occurs in later times, Plut. Agis 13. Ætian. V. H. XIV. 44.

905 II. 6. 10. To give away χρήματα or κειμήλια, was also permitted in early time, Herod. VI. 62. Plut. Ages. 4.

906 See Clinton, F. H. vol. II. p. 383. ed. 2.

907 Ἀτελῆ πάντων, _e.g._, of the contribution to the syssitia, Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 13. Ælian (V. II. VI. 6.) mentions five instead of four. Manso (I. 1. p. 128.) remarks that the law can hardly have proceeded from Lycurgus.

908 See below, ch. 12. § 2.

909 Pol. II. 6. 11.

910 Plut. Ag. 5. According to Macrobius (Sat. I. 11.) at the time of Cleomenes there were only _mille et quingenti Lacedæmonii, qui arma ferre possent_.

911 These only are called by Xenophon (Hell. III. 3. 5.) Σπαρτιᾶται, as is plain from the words; ὅσοι ἐν τοῖς χωρίοις Σπαρτιατῶν τύχοιεν ὄντες, ἔνα μὲν πολέμιον τὸν δεσπότην.

912 Plut. Agis 5.

913 Dionys. Byz. de Bosp. Thrac. p. 17. Hudson. Also Varro de Ling. Lat. V. (IV.) 36. p. 48. Bipont. says that the Sicilian Greeks (who were chiefly Dorians) used δωτίνη for _dowry_.

914 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 223. Ælian. V. H. VI. 6. Justin. III. 3. Compare the corrupt gloss of Hesychius in ἀγρετήματα.

915 Plut. Lysand. 30. Apophth. p. 229. Ælian. V. H. VI. 4. With regard to the story of Lysander’s daughters, it should be remarked, that the suitors could not have been deceived as to whether they possessed landed property or not; but they thought that the father had large personal property, and that this would be divided among them.—Lysander also left male issue, as appears from Paus. III. 6. 41. of whom one was named Libys, in memory of the proxenia of Lysander with the Ammonians. The name could hardly have been transmitted through Lysander’s daughters, since it is certain that they were not heiresses.

916 See Polit. II. 6. 10. In Plutarch (Agid. 6.) a very rich sister of a poor and distressed brother occurs. See also Plutarch Cleomen. I. concerning the wealth of the women in Sparta. But the rich wife of Archidamus II. (Athen. XIII. p. 566 D.), Eupolia, the daughter of Melesippidas, must have been an heiress.

917 Compare Bunsen De Jure Hered. Attico I. 1. p. 18.

918 Aristot. Pol. II. 8. 9.

919 See, besides Bunsen, Platner, Beiträge, p. 117. sqq. Sluiter Lect. Andoc. 5. p. 80. sqq.

920 Diod. XII. 18. Heyne Opusc. Acad. II. p. 119.

921 This is evident from the Supplices of Æschylus, particularly v. 382.

εἴ τοι κρατοῦσι παῖδες Αἰγύπτου σέθεν, νόμῳ πόλεως φάσκοντες ἐγγύτατα γένους εἶναι, τίς ἄν τοῖσδ᾽ ἀντιωθῆναι θέλοι;

922 Isæus de Pyrrhi Hered. p. 54.—The Jewish law was strikingly similar. See Numbers xxvii. 1-11. The daughters had the inheritance of their father, but they were not permitted to marry out of the family; the nearest relation had the first claim, to her, if he relinquished it, the next followed, and so on, Ruth iv.

923 See the law in Demosth. in Steph. p. 1134. 15. which I interpret thus: “Whatever woman is betrothed by her father, her brother by the same father, or her paternal grandfather, is a legitimate wife: if neither of these is living, and the woman is an heiress, she shall marry the nearest relation, the κύριος; but if she is not an heiress (_e.g._, if there are grandsons of the deceased alive), that relation shall give her in marriage to whom he pleases”—besides which it is his duty to portion her according to his valuation. The laws of Charondas also compelled the relation to marry the heiress, and to endow her if poor, Diod. XII. 18.

924 Plutarch Solon 20.

925 Thus Leonidas married Gorgo, the heiress of Cleomenes, as being her nearest relation (ἀγχιστεύς). It was however a common practice in Sparta to marry in the οἶκος. Thus Archidamus married his aunt Lampito, Herod. VI. 71; thus Anaxandridas married his sister’s daughter, V. 39. Thus the wife of Cleomenes (Plut. Pyrrh. 26.) was of the same family as her husband; and so with regard to the wife of Archidamus V. Polyb. IV. 35. 15. Plut. Ag. 6.

926 Herod. VI. 57.

927 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 11. Compare Manso I. 2. p. 131.

928 See Demosth. in Macart. p. 1077. Compare Platner, Beiträge, p. 139.

929 Herod. V. 39. VI. 61.

930 Xen. Rap. Lac. I. 7-9. From Xenophon Plut. Lyc. 15. Comp. Num. 3.

931 The ἐπεύνακτοι mentioned above in ch. 3. § 5.

932 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 1. In this passage it appears to me that the context requires πρῶτον, not πρῶτος. “By some the division of property has been considered a point of first importance in legislation; for which reason the first laws which Phaleas promulgated were on this subject.”

933 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 4.

934 Aristot. Pol. VI. 2. 5.

935 Aristot. Pol. II. 4. 4.

936 Ch. 9. § 6.

937 Aristot. Pol. II. 3. 7.

938 Orchomenos, p. 407, 408. where, however, Aristot. Rhet. II. 23. is incorrectly applied (the passage refers to Epaminondas).

939 Aristot. Pol. II. 9. 7. With regard to the νόμοι θετικοὶ of Philolaus, I also remark, that the οὐχ ὑπὲρ τὴν οὐσίαν ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς παῖδας is often recommended among the Greeks. See Plato de Rep. II. p. 372. with Hesiod Op. et Di. 374. This is the “_liberorum numerum finire_” of Tacitus, German. 19.

940 Aristot. Pol. II. 9. 8. where ἀνομάλωσις appears to signify a _fresh_ equalization, as ἀναδασμὸς signifies a _fresh_ division. Göttling writes Φαλέου for Φιλολάου: concerning which it is difficult to decide, as the passage is evidently much mutilated.

941 Strab. VII. p. 315.

942 VI. 46. 1.

943 This, however, does not disagree with the accurate separation of the rulers and the countrymen, which still existed in the time of Aristotle, Pol. VII. 9. 1.

944 Strabo X. p. 482.

945 Od. XIV. 206.

946 Pol. II. 6. 21. II. 7. 4.

947 Κατὰ κεφαλὴν, Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4.

948 Eight chöeis, according to Plutarch. Lyc. 12.

949 According to Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 223. Ruhnk.

950 Dicæarchus ap. Athen. IV. p. 141 B.

951 See Æginetica, p. 90. For this reason Plutarch ubi sup. mentions _one_ medimnus.

952 See the Scholia quoted in note l. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “dates,” starting “According to Schol.”]

953 Herod. VI. 57.

954 See Sphærus (the Borysthenite and Stoic, who had seen Sparta before the time of Cleomenes, Plutarch. Cleomen. 2.) Λακ. πολ. ap. Athen. IV. p. 141 B. Molpis, p. 141 D. cf. XIV. p. 664 E. Nicocles the Laconian, IV. p. 140 E. Perseus Λακ. πολ. ibid. Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 3.

955 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4. ἐκ κοινοῦ (_i.e._ from the public revenue) τρέφεσθαι πάντας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ ἄνδρας.

956 According to the Κρητικὸς νομος in Plat. Leg. VIII. p. 847.

957 Aristot. Pol. II. 7. 4.

958 Dosiadas ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 B. ἕκαστος τῶν γενομένων καρπῶν ἀναφέρει τὴν δεκάτην εἰς τὴν ἑταιρίαν. Every one (ἕκαστος) was therefore a member of an ἑταιρία, a company of persons who always ate together, which consisted of citizens; consequently he is speaking of citizens, and not of the Periœci, and therefore agrees with the passage just quoted from Aristotle. The διανέμειν εἰς τοὺς ἑκάστων οἴκους must have preceded the ἀναφέρειν, and the οἶκοι are manifestly the citizens’ families included in the companies.

959 See Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p 462. Engl. transl.

960 See above, ch 4. § 1.

961 In that case, Plutarch in the 12th, as well as in the 8th chapter of the Life of Lycurgus, means Æginetan medimni; and both passages were probably taken from some Lacedæmonian writer, such as Nicocles, Hippasus, Sosibius, or Aristocrates.

962 See above, ch. 7. § 3.

963 Polyb. VI. 49. 8. ἡ τῶν ἐπετείων καρπῶν ἀλλαγὴ πρὸς τὰ λείποντα τῆς χρείας—κατὰ τὴν Λυκούργου νομοθεσίαν. The case was probably the same among the Locrians of Italy. Heracl. Pont. 29. καπηλεῖον οὐκ ἔστι μεταβολικὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ γεωργὸς πωλεῖ τὰ ἴδια.

964 Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. I. 6.

965 Ibid. ad fin. Compare Schneider ad Anon. Œcon. Præf. p. 16.

966 See the passages quoted above, p. 201. note q. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]

967 The leathern money is probably a mere fable; Nicolaus Damascenus, Senec. de Benef. V. 14. Boeckh’s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 389. Engl. transl. Concerning the money of Sparta, see Oudinet in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Belles Lettres. tom. I. p. 227.

968 Plut. Lyc. 9. Lysand. 17. Comp. Arist. et Cat. 3. Pollux IX. 6. 79. Pseud-Æschin. Eryx. 100. and see Fischer ad c. 24.

969 Plut. Lys. 17. Compare Pollux VII. 105.

970 Hesych. in πέλανορ. The Scholia ad Nicand. Alexipharm. 488. incorrectly explain πελάνου βάρος to be the weight of an obolus.

971 Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 220. τὸ σιδηροῦν ὅ ἐστι μνᾶ ὁλκῇ Αἰγιναία, δυνάμει δὲ χαλκοὶ τέτταρες.

972 Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 7. 5. Plut. Lyc. 9.

973 Ephoras and Theopompus ap. Plut. Lys. 17. Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 7. 6. χρυσίον γε μὴν καὶ ἀργύριον ἐρευνᾶται καὶ ἤν τί που φανῇ, ὁ ἔχων ζημιοῦται. Comp. Nicolaus Damascenus, and Ælian. V. II. XIV. 29.

974 Δημοσίᾳ μὲν ἔδοξεν εἰσάγεσθαι νόμισμα τοιοῦτον, ἢν δέ τισ ἁλῷ κεκτημένος ἰδίᾳ, ζημίαν ὤρισαν θανάτου. Cf. Polyb. VI. 49. 8.

975 Plutarch. Lys. 18. Comp. Herod. I. 51. Posidonius ap. Athen. VI. p. 235 F. I do not mention the Thesaurus of Brasidas (Plut. Lys. 18.), because this general dedicated it, together with the inhabitants of Acanthus in Thrace, and moreover from Athenian plunder (Olymp. 89. 1.). See Plutarch. Pyth. Or. 14. p. 269. 15. p. 271. Lysand. I.

976 Above ch. 2. § 3.

977 Herod. I. 69. See book II. ch. 3. § 1. ch. 8. § 17. The story in Herodotus III. 56. we will not make use of, since Herodotus himself rejects it.

978 King Areus appears to have been the first who coined silver money, and he imitated without exception the method employed by the kings of Macedon, Eckhel. D. N. 1. 2. p. 278. 281.

979 Thus far Boeckh has carried the investigation, Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 385 sq. Engl. transl. Compare vol. I. p. 43. Heeren, Ideen, vol. III. part 1. p. 294. ed. 2.

980 The latter however accords better with the _Byzantine_ σιδάρεοι, which were tokens, than with the Lacadæmonian coins, which were really worth what they passed for.

981 See above, ch. 2. § 3. and concerning the corn trade down to Corinth, b. I. ch. 4. § 7.

982 The Epidamnians also, who retained much of ancient customs, paid great attention to the intercourse with foreigners. They held once in each year, under the superintendence of a πωλητὴς, a great public market with the neighbouring Illyrians, Plutarch. Qu. Græc. 29. p. 393.

983 Herod. IX. 81.

984 See above ch. 6. § 9. and Plut. Pericl. 22. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 855. from Ephorus.

985 Proofs of wealth, if not of the possession of money, are the ἱπποτροφία, and the maintenance of race-horses for the Olympic games. King Demaratus had conquered in the chariot-race (ἅρματι), and allowed Sparta to be proclaimed conqueror. Herod. VI. 70. The horses of Euagoras had won three times at the Olympic games. Herod. VI. 103. before the 66th Olympiad, according to Pausan. VI. 10. 2. According to Pausanias VI. 2. 1. the Lacedæmonians incurred great expenses for horses after the Persian war; he mentions Xenarges, Lycinus, Arcesilaus, and his son Lichas, as conquerors, and cap. 1. Anaxander and Polycles. Concerning the female victors, see b. IV. ch. 2. § 2.

986 V. 59.

987 Plut. Agis 13.

988 Herod. VI. 70. καὶ ἐπόδια λαβὼν ἐπορεύετο ἐς Ἦλιν.

989 Which Plato Alcib. I. (cf. Hipp. Maj. p. 283 D.) says of earlier times. Compare Bitaubé sur les Richesses de Sparte, Mémoires de Berlin, tom. XII. p. 559. Manso, Sparta, II. p. 372. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 43. Engl. tr.

990 See above, p. 204. note z. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “moveable property,” starting “Plut. Lysand. 30.”]

991 Anaxandridas (περὶ τῶν ἐν Δελφοῖς συληθέντων χρημάτων) ap. Plut. Lys. 18.

992 Posidonius ap. Athen. VI. p. 233 F.

993 He had been bribed by Pericles as being the adviser of Pleistonax. See Plut. Pericl. 22. Nic. 28. de Educ. Puer. 14. Timæus ap. Plut. Compar. Timol. 2. Ephorus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 855. Diodorus XIII. 106. calls him Clearchus. He was afterwards banished, and went to Thurii (Thuc. VI. 104. see Wesseling ad Diod. XII. 23.), fought with the inhabitants of that town, against the Tarentines, but afterwards had a share in the foundation of their colony Heraclea. See B. I. ch. 6. § 12. Polyænus II. 10. 1. 2. 4. 5. relates several martial exploits of this Cleandridas, in the wars which he waged with the Thurians against Terina and the Lucanians. Niebuhr, in the 3rd vol. of his Roman history, considers the Cleandridas, who took a part in the foundation of Heraclea, as the same person as Leandrias the Spartan, who, according to Diod. XV. 54, fought at Leuctra on the side of the Thebans. This supposition, however, cannot be reconciled with the chronological succession of the events; since the battle of Leuctra was 75 years later than the colony of Thurii. The political contrivances, which Cleandridas, according to Polyæn. II. 10. 3, practised against Tegea, must fall in the war between Sparta and Arcadia, which ended in Olymp. 81.

994 Plut. Pelop. 6. 13, &c.

995 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 197. πυνθανομένου τινὸς διὰ τί χοήματα οὐ συνάγουσιν εἰς τὸ δημόσιον.

996 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 23. εἰσφέρουσι κακῶς. The most opulent were bound to provide horses for military service (Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 11.), which burden was in Corinth, according to an ancient usage, imposed upon the families of orphans and heiresses (Cic. de Rep. II. 20. and compare Niebuhr’s Roman History, vol. I. p. 408. ed. 2.); not so unfairly as at first sight it appears, since these did not furnish any armed man, and would therefore have an advantage, if their concerns were honestly managed.

997 See above, p. 203. note p [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “from all taxes,” starting “Ἀτελῆ πάντων.”] and concerning the family of Anticrates, Plut. Ages. 35.

998 Plut. Ag. 16.

999 Above, ch. 10. § 3.

1000 Thucyd. I. 80. χρήματα οὔτε ἐν κοινῷ ἔχομεν οὔτε ἑτοίμως ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων φέρομεν. Aristot. ubi sup.

1001 B. I. ch. 9. § 2.

1002 Thucyd. I. 120.

1003 The Arcadian commerce of Ægina (Æginetica, p. 74.) was the basis of its other trade.

1004 Concerning Ægina, see Æginetica, p. 79. Megara manufactured ἐξώμιδες in particular, Xenoph. Mem. Socrat. III. 7. 6. Compare Aristoph. Acharn. 519.

1005 Heraclid. Pont. 5. Concerning the trade of Corinth, see above, p. 24. note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “value upon it,” starting “Plutarch, Lyc. 4.”]

1006 Pseud-Aristot. Œcon. II. 2. Suidas in Κυψ. ἀνάθημα. See also vol. I. p. 184. note p. and Schneider Epimetr. ad Xen. Anab. p. 473. The tithe paid by the Syracusans for the building of temples was something extraordinary. Prov. Vatic. IV. 20. from Demon.

1007 Æginetica, p. 89. According to Lucian περὶ πένθους 10. the Æginetan obolus was in his time still in circulation, as also among the Achæans, according to Hesychius in παχείᾳ (Æginetica, p. 90.); nevertheless, ever after the foundation of Megalopolis and Messene in Peloponnesus, the Athenian standard seems to have prevailed.

1008 I am unwilling to make use of Romé de l’Isle’s valuations of Greek coins, as in his _Métrologie_ he shows such a complete want of historical talent and knowledge. It is at once evident that his 14 different kinds of drachmas are a mere absurdity; the very first of 60 grains, which he calls _drachme d’Ægium ou du Péloponnèse_, is nothing more than a half Æginetan drachma, which should properly, according to the ratio to the Attic drachma (of 82 grains), contain 137 grains, but they are generally much rubbed on account of their great antiquity. To these belong the ancient χελῶναι, the coins with the Bœotian shield in the early style, the Corinthian coins with the Coppa and Pegasus, also the early Thessalian coins, more especially those found in Thrace, and generally marked _Lete_; together with those of the Macedonian kings prior to Philip. To the _drachme d’Egine_ he only assigns three coins.

1009 Followed by Pollux IV. 24. 173. IX. 6. 80. The names frequently occurred in Sophron and Epicharmus as coins and weights, as may be seen from Pollux; cf. Phot, in λίτρα et ὀγκία.

1010 I am of opinion, in opposition to Bentley Phalarid. p. 419, that the testimony of Pollux must be followed. In Hesychius also in v. τριᾶντος πόρνη, a τριᾶς is reckoned equal to 20 λεπτά; now the ὀγκία is generally made equal to the χαλκοῦς Ἀττικὸς (Aristot. ap. Poll.), and a τριᾶς is in that case equal to 21 λεπτὰ, which Hesychius gives in round numbers. Diodorus’ estimate of the πεντηκοντάλιτρον at 10 drachmas, which is otherwise very inexact, is explained by Boeckh, Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 37. from the different prices of gold in Attica and Sicily.

1011 Since copper was the basis of all coins in Italy, Epicharmus (but not an Athenian or Peloponnesian) could say χαλκὸν ὀφείλειν, _æs alienum habere_, Pollux IX. 6. 92.

1012 That νόμος, not νοῦμμος, is the proper Greek form, is shown by Blomfield ad Sophronis Fragm. Classical Journal vol. V. p. 384. (See also Knight, Proleg. Homer, p. 29. note 4.)

1013 Aristot. in Acragant. Polit. ap. Poll. IX. 6. 80. Æginetica, p. 9. Bentley, from not taking this statement as his foundation, has given a false direction to his inquiries.

1014 According to Romé de l’Isle, p. 40.

1015 According to Romé de l’Isle, 23-1/3; but see p. 223. note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “adapted to it,” starting “I am unwilling.”]

1016 See the author’s Etrusker, vol. I. p. 309-329.

1017 Which is Boeckh’s opinion, Public Economy of Athens, vol. I. p. 21. Engl. tr.

1018 Ap. Poll. IX. 6. 80.

1019 As Bentley supposes, ibid. p. 410.

1020 See Aristot. ap. Poll. IX. 6. 87. Apollodorus ἐν τοῖς περὶ Σώφρονος ap. Schol. Min. et Venet. ad Il. V. 516. and Schol. Gregor. Nazianz. in Montfauc. Diar. Ital. p. 214. according to the correction of ΝΟΜΩΝ for ΜΝΩΝ, also Suidas in τάλαντον according to Scaliger, likewise Bentley p. 409. The Venetian Scholia on Il. XXIII. 269. mention several other talents, but without specifying the places where they were current.

1021 Aristotle, as well as Apollodorus, states in the passages just quoted, that the νόμος was equal to τρία ἡμιωβόλια, which, according to the probable supposition of Salmasius and Gronovius, is a mistake for τρίτον ἡμιωβόλιον.

1022 These reasons are, 1st, that the coins with the figure of Taras generally weigh 72 and 140-155 grains, and therefore they are manifestly not sesterces, but rather quinarii and denarii, as determined by the depreciated litra; which would therefore have been about equal to an Attic obolus. 2dly, that the great Inscription of Tauromenium in D’Orville and Castello without exception contains talents of 120 litras (according to which the νόμος would have been again equal to 5 or 10 litras), as may be seen at once from an item in the account: “ἔσοδος 56,404 _talents_, 88 _litras_, ἔξοδος 30,452 _talents_, 42 _litras_, λοιπόν 4935 _talents_, 112 _litras_, and χρήματα δανειζόμενα 20,016 _talents_, 54 _litras_ (χίλια should be supplied),” therefore 56,404 talents 88 litras, are equal to 56,403 talents 208 litras, _i.e._, 1 talent, 88 litras. The well-known Epigram of Simonides, on the tripod of Gelon, also contains talents of more than 100 litras (fragm. 42. Gaisford.).

1023 Strab. VI. p. 398.

1024 Zenob. Prov. V. 4.

1025 Above, ch. 6. § 3, 7. ch. 7. § 3, 4.

1026 As is also proposed by Plato Leg. VI. p. 767.

1027 According to Plutarch de Socrat. Dæm. 33. p. 365. the _gerontes_ fined Lysanoridas (see above, ch. 10. § 11.), but it was probably the supreme court of public magistrates.

1028 See above, ch. 5. § 8. p. 104. note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “carefully distinguished,” starting “It is a δίκη.”]

1029 Plut. Ages. 30.

1030 See above, ch. 9. § 1. 7. 10. But in Crete, and perhaps in Ægina (Æginetica, p. 133.), there were similar _oligarchical_ institutions.

1031 Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 200.—Of the courts of justice at Argos, we only know of that upon the Pron (Dinias ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 869, from which Scholia it is also seen, that the place of the public assembly, ἁλιδίας, whence ἡλιαία, was in the neighbourhood; see above, ch. 5. § 9.), which was perhaps similar to the Aeropagus of Athens, together with the court ἐν Χαράδρῳ without the city, before which generals after their return were arraigned (Thuc. V. 60.).

1032 Thuc. I. 132.

1033 Aristot. Pol. II. 5. 12. This may be compared with the Cumæan law, that the neighbours of a person who had been robbed should replace the stolen property (Heraclid. Pont. II. comp. Hesiod. Op. et Di. 348. and see strabo. XIII. p. 622.). Yet Ephorus (ap. Steph. in βοιωτία) praises the νόμων εὐταξία of his countrymen.

1034 Plat. Leg. XII. p. 948.

1035 Aristot. Pol. II. 9. 8.

1036 Ἐξηγητὴς τῶν Λυκουργείων, in a late inscription, Boeckh No. 1364.

1037 See above, ch. 9. § 7. and Ruhnken ad Tim. p. 111.

1038 Meier de bonis damnatis, præf. p. 7.

1039 Strabo VI. p. 260 A. comp. Heyne Opuscula II. p. 37.

1040 Ap. Athen. IV. p. 140 E. 141 A.

1041 Above, ch. 10. § 11. See Meier p. 198.

1042 For example Thimbron, as appears from Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8.

1043 Concerning the account in Plutarch. Amator. 5. see above, p. 123. note t [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “I even doubt,” starting “Plutarch. Erot. 5.”] comp. Meier p. 199.

1044 According to Polyænus II. 21. defendants were heard in chains at Sparta, a statement which is not true in a general sense.

1045 Isocrat. Archidam. p. 134 B sqq.

1046 Concerning the ἀτιμία of this person, see Herod. VII. 231. Plut. Ages. 30. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 9. 4, 5., who by the κακὸς chiefly means the τρέσας. According to Tzetzes Chil. XII. 386. ῥιψάσπιδες were put to death. The assertion of Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 166. 13. that in Sparta all persons μὴ θέλοντες ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος κινδυνεύειν might be executed, is ambiguous, since the law to which he refers is lost.

1047 Thuc. V. 34.

1048 Plut. de Curios. 8. p. 139; Heyne, Opuscula, vol. II. p. 94.

1049 Diod. XII. 12.

1050 Plut. Ag. II. The meaning of Ælian V. H. III. 12. probably is, that a person convicted of the offence in question would be punished with death, if he did not voluntarily quit the country. (See B. IV. ch. 4. § 8.) Aristotle, Pol. IV. 8., indeed says, that the Spartan constitution was oligarchical, because a few persons had, as judges, the power of inflicting _death_ or _banishment_; yet in this passage also banishment may be considered as a means of escaping from the penalty of death before the final passing of the sentence; for Aristotle’s only purpose is to show that the decision of a few persons could deprive a citizen of life, or force him to quit the country. Concerning the power of the ephors to banish, see above, ch. 7. § 4.

1051 For example, the boy in Xen. Anab. IV. 8. 25.

1052 The polemarchs, who, according to Thucyd. V. 72, fled on account of disobedience in battle, and cowardice (δόξαντες μαλακισθῆναι), probably saved themselves from _death_: comp. Plut. Pericl. 22. Moreover, Clearchus, the leader of the mercenaries under Cyrus the Younger, was only an exile in this manner. He had been disobedient to the ephors at a military post, and on that account condemned to death. See Xenoph. Anab. I. 1. 9. II. 6. 4.

1053 Herod. VII. 213.

1054 Plut. Ag. 19. At Corinth the name of the public prison was Κῶς, Steph. Byz.

1055 Herod. IV. 146. Valer. Max. VI. 6.

1056 Plat. Phæd. 116. Olympiodorus ad loc.

1057 Plut. Qu. Gr. 2. The prohibition at Rhodes, that the δημόσιος should not enter the city, rests on a similar principle, Dio Chrysost. Or. 31. p. 632 Reisk. See Wessel. ad. Diod. I. p. 624. Aristid. II. 44. 5.

1058 P. 120 (171 Bekker.).

1059 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 197. See Thuc. I. 132.

1060 In Leocrat. p. 156. (§ 65. ed. Bekker.)

1061 Heracl. Pont. 7. Miscell. Lips. Nova. T. X. 3. p. 392. _de Tenedia securi_. Compare Meineke ad Menand. p. 70. See also the story in Nicolaus Damascenus, p. 442. ed. Vales. (Comp. book II. ch. 2. § 3.) and the account of the punishment of the μοιχὸς at Gortyna in Ælian. V. H. XII. 12. Also the strange account of a Cretan festival in Plutarch de Defect. Orac. 13. proves that rape was in that island once punished by decapitation. The very strict sumptuary and disciplinarian laws of _Ceos_ were, in my opinion, of Cretan origin, and certainly not of Ionic. See Æginetica, p. 132., and Jacobs ad Meleag. Anthol. Palat. I. p. 449. Meineke ad Menand. Fragm. 135. p. 237. The existence of Cretan institutions in the islands of the Ægæan is made probable by the report that Rhadamanthus was legislator of the islanders, Apollod. III. 1, 2.

1062 Ælian. V. H. XIII. 24. Valer. Max. V. 5. 3.

1063 See Book IV. ch. 4. § 3. and compare the degrading punishments for adultery at Cume, Plut. Qu. Gr. 2. p. 378. and at Lepreum, Heracl. Pont. 14. The account of the punishment for adultery at Tenedos may indeed be a mere fiction, in order to explain the symbol on the Tenedian coins (see Thirlwall in the Philological Museum, vol. I. p. 118); yet the parallel cases in the text give it a certain degree of credibility. The axe in the hands of the Apollo of Tenedos (B. II. ch. 8. § 17) appears likewise to be not so much a weapon as an instrument of punishment.

1064 See book II. ch. 8. § 5.

1065 Leg. IX. p. 865. The Scholiast also quotes an oracle (p. 235 Ruhnk. p. 454 Bekk.), which however Plato cannot allude to in particular.

1066 Book II. ch. 1. § 8.

1067 Herod. II. 134. Plut. de sera Num. Vind. 12. p. 244.

1068 τὰ περὶ τὰς δίκας, Plato de Leg. I. p. 625.

1069 See Aristot. Eth. Nic. V. 5. 3.

1070 Strabo VI. p. 397 D. Scymnus v. 313. Both follow Ephorus.

1071 Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol. II. p. 46. The descent from the latter is also confirmed by the tradition concerning the expiatory virgins for the crime of Ajax the son of Oileus. See Heyne, p. 53. Orchomenos, p. 167.

1072 From these was derived the Minerva, together with Pegasus (this goddess is also said to have given the laws to Zaleucus, see particularly Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 352 A.), and the Proserpine upon their coins; see Liv. XXIX. 18. The Corcyræan colony is very doubtful; see Heyne, p. 52.

1073 Aristot. Pol. V. 6, 7.

1074 See Polyb. XII. 5. 7. et sup. Heyne p. 53. Boeckh. ad Pind. Olymp. IX. 15. That the family of Ajax was one of them may be seen by comparing Servius ad Æn. I. 41. with Polybius.

1075 Polyb. XII. 16. Concerning the courts of justice, see Diod. XII. 20. Stobæus Serm. 42. p. 240.

1076 According to Eusebius. Comp. Bentley’s Phalaris, p. 340.

1077 Ap. Strab. VI. p. 260. Ephor. frag. n. 47. p. 150. ed Marx.

1078 Olymp. X. 17.

1079 Timæus, p. 20.

1080 Ap. Stob. Serm. 47. p. 280.

1081 See above, §. 4. The same law (_pœnaque mors posita est patriam mutare volenti_) is mentioned by Ovid Metam. XV. 29. in the story of the founding of Croton; the place appears from v. 19. to be Argos, but perhaps only by a misunderstanding; originally I believe it was Sparta.

1082 Heyne p. 30.

1083 Plut. de Curios. 8. p. 138. Diod. excerpt. Vat. VII.—X. 14. 2.

1084 Above, ch. 10. § 5.

1085 For example, the prohibition to drink pure wine, Ælian. V. H. II. 37. See book II. ch. 12. § 5.

1086 Stobæus _ubi sup_. See above, ch. 7. § 8. 11. Cic. de Leg. III. 20. _Græci hoc diligentius_ (quam Romani), _apud quos Nomophylaces creantur, neque hi solum litteras—sed etiam facta hominum observabant ad legesque revocabant._ The same is stated by Columella de Re Rust. XII. 3.

1087 See above, § 1, 3.

1088 This is the only way in which Cic. de Leg. II. 6. can be understood.

1089 See above, p. 15. note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Pythian god,” starting “Xenoph. Rep. Laced.”]

1090 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 5. Plut. Pelop. 23.

1091 See, besides, Plutarch, Polyæn. II. 1. 7.

1092 B. I. ch. 4. § 9.

1093 Οἱ ὲν ταῖς ἡλικίαις, Polyb. IV. 22. 8.

1094 Agesilaus, when sixty-two years old, according to Xenophon’s computation, was no longer ἔμφρουρος, Hell. V. 4. 13. Plut. Ages. 24.

1095 Isocrat. Busir. p. 225 A. (quoted by Harpocration in v. καὶ γὰρ τὸ), where μάχιμος is evidently put for ἔμφρουρος. Comp. Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 7.

1096 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 17.

1097 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 2. See above, p. 126. note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “number of men,” starting “Προκηρύττουσι τὰ ἔτη.”]

1098 On this point see Petit. Leg. Att. VIII. 1. p. 548; but the subject has been treated far better by Boeckh in a programm of the Berlin university for 1819.

1099 It was probably impossible to assemble the Periœci on a sudden summons of the army.

1100 βοηθία τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων γίγνεται αυτῶν τε καὶ τῶν εἱλώτων πανδημεὶ, Thuc. V. 64.

1101 Thuc. V. 68.

1102 Herod. IX. 10.

1103 Thuc. IV. 55.

1104 The Brasideans (emancipated Helots) and Neodamodes (see c. 67.) appear to have not been included in the seven λόχοι; and in c. 68 they are understood together with the Sciritæ. In Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 454. writes, ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης ζ᾽ φησὶ χωρὶς τῶν ΣΚΙΡΙΤΩΝ.

1105 Τὸ πολιτικὸν, Xen. Hell. V. 3. 25.

1106 Ibid. IV. 2. 12.

1107 Rep. Lac. 11. 4.

_ 1108 Enomotia quarta decuriæ_ (λόχου) _pars_, Ælian. Tact. 5.

1109 Suidas, Timæus, Etym. Magn.

1110 This was also the case with the rearguard of the 10,000.

1111 Three times twelve, according to Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 12.

1112 Hell. IV. 5. 11, 12.

1113 See Plutarch. Pelop. 16. from Ephorus, Diod. XV. 32.

1114 See the passages quoted by Cragius IV. 4. and add Etym. M. p. 590. 33. (where Martini Prol. de Spartiat. Mora. Ratisbonæ 1771. corrects 900 for 30), Biblioth. Coisl. p. 505. and Bekk Anecd. I. p. 209. Comp. Sturz Lex. Xen. in v. μόρα.

1115 τάξις τις διὰ σφαγίων ἐνώμοτος, Hesychius.

1116 Like _one_ στίχος or _versus_, Ælian. Tact. 5.

1117 Thuc. IV. 93.

1118 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 12.

1119 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 4. διὰ παρεγγυήσεως καθίστανται τοτὲ μὲν εἰς ἐνωμοτίας, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς τρεῖς, τοτὲ δὲ εἰς ἓξ, _i.e._ the enomoty was sometimes one, sometimes three, sometimes six men _in width_, as is evident from Hell. VI. 4. 12. In Hell. III. 2. 16. the enomoty is eight men wide, contrary to the usual custom. The single division of a lochus, in the common acceptation of the word, was also called λόχος, which, according to Schol. Arist. Acharn. 1073. Ælian. Tact. 4. Suidas, Tzetz. Chil. XII. 523, contained eight, or twelve, or sixteen men, that is, if the enomoty formed two, three, or four στίχοι. The τάξις, according to Ælian 9, contained eight lochi, or 128 men; in that case the enomoty had four στίχοι. Compare Sturz Lex. Xen. in λόχος, Perizon. ad Ælian. V. H. II. 44. D’Orville ad Chariton. p. 455.

1120 Isocrat. Archid. p. 136. C. Comp. B. 1. ch. 9. § 9.

1121 Xen. Anab. IV. 2. 11. IV. 3. 17. IV. 8. 10. Comp. Ælian, Suidas in ὀρθία, Sturz in ὄρθιος, in whose opinion the whole lochus formed _one_ file.

1122 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 11. 8. cf. Anab. IV. 3. 26.

1123 See Hell. VII. 5. 22.

1124 Rep. Lac. ubi sup.

1125 Rep. Lac. 11. 10.

1126 Hell. IV. 2. 5.

1127 Rep. Lac. 11. 4. cf. Hieron. 9. 5. διήρηνται γὰρ ἅπασαι αἱ πόλεις αἱ μὲν κατὰ φυλὰς, αἱ δὲ κατὰ μόρας, αἱ δὲ κατὰ λόχους. That the number was six appears also from Xen. Hell. VI. I. 1. VI. 4. 17. and from Aristotle ap. Harpocrat. in μόρα (where Bekker’s edition has the correct reading _six_ instead of _five_). Diodorus XV. 32. proves nothing against the number _six_. The νεοδαμώδεις belonged to no mora, Hell. IV. 3. 15.

1128 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 17.

1129 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 11. 4.

1130 Hell. IV. 4. 10. IV. 5. 12. A square of fifty was called οὐλαμὸς, Plut. Lye. 23.

1131 Xen. Hell. IV. 5. 15, 16. cf. IV. 4. 16.

1132 Ib. IV. 5. 10.

1133 See above, ch. 5. §. 6.

1134 Plut. Lyc. 12. Lac. Apophth. p. 221.

1135 Plut. Ag. 8.

1136 See above, ch. 3. § 7.

1137 According to Schol. Aristoph. Lysist. 454. there were six lochi at Sparta, five are named, ἔδωλος, σίνις, ἀρίμας, πλοὰς, μεσοάγης. The last is evidently ΜΕΣΟΑΤΗΣ; of the others I have nothing to say, except that the ἔδωλος λόχος is also mentioned by Hesychius. Neither can the four lochi of the king be easily explained (cf. Schol. Acharn. 1087); perhaps it is only another expression for the mora of the king (Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 6.). There were five (or six) lochi in Sparta, according to Aristotle, Photius in λόχοι, Hesychius, and his commentators. Xenophon Hell. VII. 5. 10. speaks of ten lochi; of twelve in VII. 4. 20. Dindorf, however, writes _twelve_ in VII. 5. 10. with two manuscripts; by which the two passages are reconciled.

1138 Thuc. V. 66.

1139 Plut. Pelop. 23.

1140 Ælian. Tact. 5.

1141 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 6.

1142 See the instances of Amompharetus, Herod. IX. 53, and of Hipponoidas and Aristotle, Thuc. V. 71.

1143 This was probably the real character of the ξεναγοὶ (Anecd. Bekk. vol. I. p. 284. cf. Xen. Ages. 2. 10.); and there having the command of σύμμαχοι in sieges, as in Thuc. II. 75. appears to be an exception.

1144 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 4. Hell. III. 5. 22. IV. 5. 7. See Sturz in v. λοχαγός.

1145 Herod. VII. 173.

1146 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 14.

1147 Herod. IX. 10. In this instance Pausanias fixed upon Euryanax, the son of Dorieus, of the same family; yet Dorieus cannot have been the son of Anaxandridas (Manso, vol. III. 2. p. 315.), as in that case he would have been king before Leonidas.

1148 That is, δαμοσία σκηνὴ or τράπεζα.

1149 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 14. Rep. Lac. 13. 1, 7.

1150 See above, ch. 1. § 9.

1151 See above, p. 111, note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “public expense,” starting “De Rep. Lac.”]

1152 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 7. Nicol. Dam. The κρεωδαίτης also probably belonged to the same suite, Plut. Ages. 8.

1153 Manso, vol. II. p. 377. III. 1. p. 214.

1154 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 11.

1155 See above, p. 108, note m. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “armistice of Agis,” starting “Thuc. V. 63.”] Comp. Thuc. VIII. 39. Βουλιαῖοι occur in inscriptions of Fourmont’s which Raoul-Rochette considers the same as the σύμβουλοι.

1156 See above, p. 103, note o. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Agamemnon of Homer,” starting “A sacrifice to Zeus Agetor.”] See also Theopompus ap. Schol. Theocrit. V. 83. Eudocia, p. 251. concerning Ζεὺς Ἡγήτωρ, who was also worshipped at Argos as the god who had led the Heraclidæ into the country, a belief referred to by Tyrtæus in the verses quoted in vol. I. p. 52. note d.

1157 Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 2. Comp. Zenob. Prov. V. 34. Schol. Eurip. Phœn. 1415.

1158 Plut. Lyc. 22. Qu. Symp. II. 5. p. 88.

1159 Xen. Hell. III. 4. 2. IV. 1. 5, 30, 34. V. 3. 8. Plut. Ages. 6. 7. Lysand. 23.

1160 Manso, vol. I. 1. p. 153. See also Herod. VIII. 124. Xen. Hell. 5. 3. 9. Plut. Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac. Apophth. p. 232. Dionys. Hal. Arch. II. 13. according to whom they were _both_ horsemen and hoplitæ. The three hundred with Leonidas, although Herodotus VII. 205. calls them οἱ ΚΑΤΕΣΤΕΩΤΕΣ τριηκόσιοι, were not however ἱππεῖς; most of them were doubtless men of an advanced age; whereas the horsemen, as the false Archytas in Stob. Serm. 41. calls them, were κόροι.

1161 Strab. X. p. 481.

1162 Xen. Hell. VI. 4. 11.

1163 Thuc. IV. 55. Xen. Hell. IV. 2. 16.

1164 The ἅμιπποι (πρόδρομοι in Philochorus), Thuc. V. 57. Xen. Hell. VII. 5. 24. Harpocration and Hesychius in v.

1165 30,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry, Strab. VI. p. 280.

1166 Ælian. Tact. 2., Steph. Byzant. in Τάρας, &c.

1167 Also called λόχος, Diod. XV. 32. Hesychius and Etymol. M. in σκιρτὴς λόχος, Bekk. Anecd. I. p. 305. Schol. Thucyd. V. 67.

1168 Thucyd. V. 67.

1169 Xen. Rep. Lac. 12. 3. 13. 6.

1170 Thuc. ubi sup. Diodorus represents them as standing round the king’s person; he evidently confounds them with the knights.

1171 Xen. Hell. V. 4. 52, 53. Diod. ubi sup.

1172 This is also what Xenophon Cyrop. IV. 2. 1. says. Comp. Hesychius and other grammarians, Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 228.

1173 Ἦν δὲ Ἀρκαδικὸς, Hesychius.

1174 Λογάδες τῶν περιοίκων, Herod. IX. 11.

1175 At the battle of Leuctra there were only 700 Spartans present, according to Xenoph. Hell. VI. 4. 15; but he must use the word in a very limited sense; for there were four moras (μόραι πολιτικαὶ) of men less than thirty-five years (ἀφ᾽ ἥβης), which could not have contained less than 2000 men. The whole army was however much more numerous; at Corinth it had contained 6000 hoplitæ, IV. 2. 16. See also above, ch. 2. § 3.

1176 That at a latter time there were still many ψιλοὶ in the Peloponnesian army may be seen from Polyænus IV. 14.

1177 See above, ch. 3. § 2. and p. 45. note t, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Periœci,” starting “According to the epitaph.”] where however it should be observed, that the epitaph must _not_ be taken with the passage in VIII. 25; it refers to the battle _before_ the surrounding of the army. The statement of some writers (Hegemon in the Palatine Anthology VII. 436. Isocrat. Archid. p. 136 D.) that 1000 Spartans were present at Thermopylæ is evidently erroneous.

1178 Above, ch. 3. § 2. cf. Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 39.

1179 Aristoph. Lysist. 563. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 307.

1180 Xen. Hell. IV. 4. 17. see however IV. 15. 11. sqq. V. 4. 14.

1181 Probably the Δωρικὴ ὅπλισις of Hesychius.

1182 Herod. VII. 211.

1183 Plut. Lyc. 19. Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac. Apophth. p. 194, 261. Dion. 18. The Δωρικὴ μάχαιρα only occurs as a sacrificing-knife, Eurip. Electr. 819, 836.

1184 Xen. Rep. Lac. 11. 3. The ancient circular shields of Argos (see Spanheim ad Calim. Pall. Lav. 35.) are probably nearly the same which were really manufactured in that city, Pind. Hyporch. 3. p. 599. Boeckh; and see vol. I. p. 83. note r.

1185 Tyrtæus Fragm. 2. v. 23. Gaisford.

1186 See Critias (son of Callæschrus) ap. Liban. Or. XXIV. p. 86. Reisk. Plut. Cleom. 11. Hence Aristophanes Lysist. 107. uses the word πορπακισάμενος of a Spartan. See also Aristoph. Eq. 848. from which passage it is evident that the πόρπαξ was all that was most essential for managing the shield, and that the τελαμὼν or thong could be easily procured, so that it was considered as an appendage of the πόρπαξ. Compare Schneider’s Lexicon in ὀχάνη.

1187 Concerning the emblems on the Lacedæmonian shields, see Pausan. IV. 28. 3; besides which there were distinct ἐπίσημα, Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 240. The Cretans, according to the Scolion of Hybrias, also had λαισήια; the λαισήια πτερόεντα of Homer were probably similar to the shields furnished with leathern fringes, or _wings_, represented on vases, _e.g._, Tischbein IV. 51.

1188 See Xen. Hell. III. 4. 18.

1189 Ælian. Tact. 26, 27. Comp. Hesychius, Λάκων εἶδος παρὰ Τακτικοῖς.

1190 Thuc. V. 71.

1191 The latter was done by the Spartans at Thermopylæ, Herod. VII. 211; and according to Plato Lach. p. 191. at Platææ.

1192 Herod. IX. 71.

1193 Plut. Ages. 34. where however the fine of 1000 drachmas is very questionable.

1194 Thuc. IV. 126.

1195 See Herod. IX. 77. Thuc. V. 73. Plut. Lyc. 22. de cohibend. Ira. 10. p. 438. Lac.

1196 Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 246.

1197 Ibid. Ælian. V. H. VI. 6.

1198 Plut. ibid. p. 214. with the note of Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 236.

1199 Plut. Ages. 33.

1200 VII. 9. 6.

1201 See Strabo X. p. 448. with which comp. Il. II. 544. Archilochus, p. 144. ed. Liebel.

1202 As, _e.g._, at the Hyacinthia and Carnea. That the passage in Herodotus VI. 106. refers only to the latter, and that in the Carneus _alone_ the Spartans did not set out before the full moon, is shown by Böckh Index Lect. Æstiv. Berol. 1816. Yet Plutarch is not the only writer who has misunderstood this passage (see Diogen. Prov. VI. 20. Jo. Tzetz. Jamb. 161.); and Herodotus himself is not quite correct.

1203 Xen. Hell. IV. 7. 2.

1204 Thus also Brasidas only lost _seven_ men in the action with Cleon, Thuc. V. 11.; and the Lacedæmonians, in the great battle of Corinth, only _eight_, Xen. Hell. IV. 3. 1.

1205 Plut. Lyc. 13. Ages. 26. Lac. Apophth. p. 188. 222. Polyæn. I. 16. 2.

1206 Compare what Archidamus in Isocrates says of the campaigns of the kings of his family: also Panathen. p. 286 E.

1207 Thuc. I. 121. Herod. VII. 102. Comp. Hegemon in the Palatine Anthology VII. 436. Δώριος ἁ μέλετα.

1208 Aristot. Pol. II. 6. 22. When the fleet was commanded by a king, as, _e.g._, Leotychidas, it was an exception; see Plut. Ages. 10.

1209 In several apophthegms they are called _women’s apartments_.

1210 See Thiersch’s Preface to Pindar.

1211 For this reason the Cretan ἐξελιγμὸς was also called χόρειος; above, § 8. In Sparta the last in the chorus were called ψιλεῖς, Alcman Fragm. 108. Welcker. from Suidas and Hesychius.

1212 See book IV. ch. 6. § 7.

1213 Il. XVI. 617. quoted by Athen. V. p. 181. XIV. p. 630 B. Lucian de Salt. 7. Dio Chrysost. Orat. II. 31. 28. Heyne’s interpretation, _de motu declinantis et a telo sibi caventis_, is unquestionably not to be preferred to that of the ancients.

1214 Lucian ubi sup.

1215 Il. XI. 49. XII. 77. with the Scholia, and Eustathius. That the expression for it was also Laconian follows from Hesychius in προυλέσι, according to Salmasius.

1216 Among the Gortynians, according to Schol. Hom. Il. XI. 49: with whom πρύλις also signified a heavy-armed foot-soldier, Eustath. ad Il. κ᾽ p. 893. 35. Phavorinus, p. 390. ed. Dindorf. Likewise among the Cyprians (_i.e._, among the Greeks in Cyprus). Aristot. ap. Schol. Pind. II. 125. Callimachus Hymn. Jov. 52. also calls the dance of the Guretes by this name, this having been at a very early period identified with the Cretan war-dance.

1217 Plut. Lyc. 21. Lac. Apophth. p. 207. de cohibend. Ira, ubi sup. The χίμαιρα was not however sacrificed to the Muses (Manso, vol. I. 2. p. 234.), but, as after the battle of Marathon, to Artemis Agrotera. See Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 8. Plut. Lyc. 23. Xen. Hell. IV. 2. 20.

1218 Sosistrates ap. Athen. XIII. p. 561 E. Ælian. V. II. III. 9.

1219 As Dionysius of Halicarnassus says.

1220 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 12. 6. 7.

1221 Plut. Lyc. 22.

1222 Herod. VII. 208. Xen. de Rep. Lac. 13. 9. Plut. Lyc. 22.

1223 The appropriate expression for this was ξανθίζεσθαι, Bekker. Anecd. I. p. 284.

1224 Xen. de Rep. Lac. 11. 3. 13. 8. Plut. ubi sup.

1225 Concerning these, see, besides Xenophon and Plutarch, Ælian. VI. 6. Etymol. M. p. 385. 25. Suidas in καταξαίνειν, Aristot. Rep. Lac. ap. Moerin in φοινικίς, also Hesychius in πυτά. Comp. Meursius Miscell. Lac. I. 15. The ambassadors also wore a dress of this kind, Aristoph. Lysist. 1139. Plutarch. Cimon. 16. Lesbonax Protr. p. 24, 27. Reisk. The Cretan mantles were similar, only they were coloured with _fucus_, Meursius Creta III. 12.—As arms were considered the greatest ornament, the youths prayed in arms to the gods also armed. Plut. Lac. Apophth. p. 235. cf. Inst. Lac. p. 253.

1226 Plutarch Lycurg. 13. de Esu Carn. II. 2. Reg. Apophth. p. 125. Lac. Apophth. p. 222. Quæst. Rom. 87. p. 363. Proclus ad Hesiod. Op. et Di. 421.

1227 Above, p. 110. note d. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “two royal families,” starting “Xen. Ages. 8.”]

1228 Plutarch Lycurg. 13. Compare Lac. Apophth. pp. 179, 222.

1229 Towards the street were the θύραι αὔλειοι (Herod. VI. 69.); in the house the ἐγγύτερω πύλη, Plutarch Lac. Apophthegm of Leotychides (ὁ Ἀρίστωνος is an error), p. 215. It was the custom at Sparta not to knock, but to call, at the outer gate, Plutarch Instit. Lac. p. 253. The same was also the custom among the Æolians, according to Alcæus, among the poems of Theocritus, XXIX. 39.

1230 As it appears from Pausan. VI. 24. 2. Compare Strabo XIV. p. 646. concerning the ῥυμοτομία ἐπ᾽ εὐθειῶν in Smyrna.

1231 Photius and Hesychius in Ἱπποδάμον νέμησις—οὗτος ἦν καὶ ὁ μετοικήσας εἰς Θουρίους Μιλήσιος ὤν. It was probably not long before this time that he built the Piræeus.

1232 As Diodorus XII. 10. states.

1233 Meursius Rhod. I. 10.

1234 The following buildings of this archaic style are known to us from ancient writers and modern travellers. 1. The remains of three other treasuries near that described in the text. 2. One discovered by Gropius, on the Eurotas, not far from Amyclæ. 3. A ruin discovered by Dodwell near Pharsalus. 4. The treasuries of Minyas. 5. Of Hyrieus and Augeas. 6. The brazen vessels of the Aloidæ and of Eurystheus (Il. V. 387. Apollod. II. 5. 1.) 7. The brazen θαλαμὸς or chamber of Danaë, Alcmene, &c. 8. The subterraneous Cyclopian temple at Delphi, and several others.

1235 Sir William Gell’s Argolis, plate 7. Dodwell’s Classical Tour, vol. II. pp. 229, 240. I have also made great use of some drawings of Lusieri (in the print-room of the British Museum), who has also ingeniously endeavoured to restore the whole.

1236 Synopsis of the British Museum (19th edit.), Room 13. Nos. 220, 221.

1237 See particularly Vitruvius IV. 1. whose account is not indeed historically accurate. At Athens the triglyphs were always called Δωρικαὶ τρίγλυφοι, Eurip. Orest. 1378; in which passage the original ones of _wood_ are clearly marked by the apposition of κεδρωτὰ τέρεμνα. Also the Δωρικὸν κυμάτιον, _i.e._ the “hollow,” received its name from its use in this style of building, _e.g._ under the cornice; and the Λέσβιον κυμάτιον, the “ogee,” was borrowed from it by the Æolians, among whom the Lesbian style of architecture (Λεσβία οἰκοδομὴ) was native, which required a very moveable plumbline or κανὼν, Aristot. Eth. Nic. V. 10. 7. and Michael Ephesius ad loc.

1238 Boeckh Explic. ad Pindar. Olymp. XIII. pp. 213. sq.

1239 Hirt, Baukunst nach den Grundsätzen der Alten, 1809; and Geschichte der Baukunst bei den Alten, 1821.

1240 According to Plato de Rep. V. p. 452 C. the _Cretans_ were the first who wrestled naked (but their isolated situation prevented the extension of the custom), and the _Lacedæmonians_, who were the first, according to Thucydides I. 6. See also Hippasus ap. Athen. p. 14 D. The abandonment of all covering in the Olympic games is said to have originated with Acanthus the Lacedæmonian, and Orsippus the Megarian. The _former_, according to Dionys. Hal. VII. 72; and he, as we learn from Pausan. V. 8. 3, and Africanus, was victorious in the Diaulus, or Dolichus, in the 15th Olympiad (720 B.C.). The _latter_, according to Pausan. I. 44. 1. Eustath. ad Il. p. 1324. ed. Rom. Cf. Hesych. in ζώσατο, with the confused statements in the Venetian Scholia to Il. ψ᾽. 683. and Isidorus Orig. XVIII. 17. Pausanias’ authority is a Megarian inscription, of which a restoration has been preserved to our days, and is now in the _Cabinet des Médailies_ of the _Bibliothèque du Roi_ at Paris, see Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1050; where Orsippus is stated to have regained a part of the Megarian territory which had been lost in war, and to have first run in the stadium at Olympia without a girdle. Now Orsippus, according to the certain testimony of Julius Africanus, was victorious in the stadium at Olympia in the 15th Olympiad; and this statement is confirmed by Eustathius and Hesychius ubi sup.; whereas the Etymologicum M. and the Scholia vulg. ad Il. ψ᾽. 683. place the victory of Orsippus at Olymp. 32. (652 B.C.); in which, according to Africanus, Cratinus of Megara was the conqueror. All these apparently contradictory statements have been reconciled by Boeckh ib. p. 554 sq. as follows. Orsippus, either accidentally, or at least to appearance accidentally, lost his girdle when running in the stadium; in training afterwards, Acanthus the Lacedæmonian laid aside his girdle altogether; and thenceforth it became the established practice at the games. In other contests, _e.g._, wrestling and boxing, the use of the διάζωμα was kept up till a later period; and was not altogether given up till a short time before Thucydides wrote (καὶ οὐ πολλὰ ἔτη ἐπειδὴ πέπαυται, I. 6).

1241 See particularly Athenæus XIII. p. 566 E. Eustathius ad Il. p. 975. 41. ed. Rom.

1242 Plato de Leg. VII. p. 805. 6.

1243 Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 235. Apostolius XVIII. 19.

1244 Eurip. Androm. 598. (quoted by Plutarch. Comp. Num. iii.) αἱ ξὺν νέοισιν ἐξερημοῦσαι δόμους. Hence Propertius III. 12. 21. _Lex igitur Spartana vetat secedere amantes; Et licet in triviis ad latus esse suæ._

1245 To be inferred from Plutarch Lycurg. 14.

1246 Plutarch Thes. 19.

1247 Pausan. V. 6. 5. (concerning the history of Pherenice, see Boeckh Explic. Pindar. p. 166.) VI. 20. 6. Hence at Olympia unmarried women could contend for the prize, though only in the chariot-race; as, _e.g._, Cynisea, Pausan. III. 81. V. 12. 3. V. 6. 1. Xenoph. Ages. 9. 6. Plutarch Ages. 20. Lac. Apophth. p. 184; and Euryleonis, Pausan. III. 17. 6. In _Cyrene_, according to Pindar Pyth. IX. 102. (ἣ υἱὸν) _married_ women were also admitted, see Boeckh Explic. p. 328; and they also, as we learn from an inscription in Della Cella, presided over gymnastic contests in that town.

1248 κατάκλειστοι, Sappho Fragm. 15. ed. Wolf. Pseudo-Phocylid. v. 203.

1249 Ἐπεὶ ἥ γε Ἑλληνικὴ ἐσθὴς πᾶσα ἡ ἀρχαίη τῶν γυναικῶν ἡ αὐτὴ ἦν, τὴν νῦν Δωρίδα καλέομεν, Herod. V. 88. Compare Eustath. ad Il. V. 567. Æginetica, p. 72.

1250 Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 162. Boettiger, Raub der Cassandra, p. 60.

1251 Thus Herodotus V. 87. mentions the ἱμάτια of Doric women as corresponding to the Ionic χιτῶνες: and the different Scholiasts to Eurip. Hec. 933. call the Doric virgins sometimes μονοχίτωνες, sometimes ἀχίτωνες (the Fragment of Anacreon, p. 404. ed. Fischer. ἐκδῦσα χιτῶνα δωριάζειν is too mutilated to prove any thing). See also Horus ap. Etymol. Mag. p. 293. 44. who, besides Ælius Dionysius (who likewise states that the use of the χίτων was peculiar to the Dorians), follows Eustathius ad Il. XIV. 975. Compare also Hesychius in δωριάζειν, and the _Sophista Anonymus_ in Orelli’s Op. Mor. II. p. 214. Euripides (Androm. 599. and Hec. ubi sup.) calls the Doric dress inaccurately πέπλος, compare Hedylus in the Palatine Anthology VI. 292. Plutarch Cleomen. 38.

1252 Herod. and Schol. Eurip. ubi sup. where ἐπιπορπὶς appears to be the tongue of the clasp.

1253 Περόναι, or clasps, were also used in the Ionic female dress, in order to close the slit-up sleeve. Ælian V. H. I. 18.

1254 Wolf. Fragm. mul. pros. pp. 241, 242.

1255 Pollux, Plutarch. Comp. Lycurg. 3. and Sophocles there quoted: καὶ τὰν νέορτον, ἇς ἔτ᾽ ἄστολος χιτὼν θυραῖον ἀμφὶ μηρὸν πτύσσεται, Ἑρμιόναν. Eurip. Androm. 599. γυμνοῖσι μηροῖς καὶ πέπλοις ἀνειμένοις. Compare Duris in Schol. Eurip. Hec. αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ἐβρυαζὸν ταῖς Δωρίαις στολαῖς. This writer also entertains the erroneous notion that the Athenian women wore short hair and the Doric dress, at the same time that the men wore long hair and the Ionic dress.

1256 See Schol. Eurip. ubi sup. Callimachus (Fragm. 225. ed. Bentl.) says of a Lacedæmonian virgin, ἔσκεν ὅτ᾽ ἄζωστος χἀτερόπορπος ἔτι. Ἄζωστοι καὶ ἀχίτωνες, according to Schol. Eurip. and Eustathius p. 975. 38; without girdles also according to Pausanias ibid. p. 975. 40. and Suidas in δωριάζειν.

1257 Μονόπεπλος, Δωρὶς ὡς κόρα, Eurip. Hec. 928. _Doris nullo culia palliolo_, Juvenal III. 94. It is to this that the charge of nakedness, mentioned p. 273, in note b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “virgins naked,” starting “See particularly.”] and p. 277, in note x, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “and in the chorus,” starting “Plutarch. Lycurg. 14.”] refers. Also in Plutarch. Pyrrh. 17. the Spartan virgins are distinguished, as being ονοχίτωνες, from the married women in ἱμάτια.

1258 That the Corinthian costume was at that time different from the original Doric dress, I have already remarked (Æginetica, p. 64, note b.) from this fact, and from Herod. V. 87. The Syracusan ἐμπερόναμα had perhaps originated from the clasped χίτων of the Dorians, Theocrit. Idyll. XV. 34. compare Spohn Lect. Theocrit. I. p. 36, but it was drawn over the χιτώνιον. There was also a Corinthian female dress called παράπηχυ, Athen. XIII. p. 582.

1259 Pythænetus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 589. Compare Theognis v. 1002, where the Λάκαινα κόρη brings crowns for the guests. So also the Doric Greeks of Sicily substituted a πάρθενος φιαληφόρος in the place of the παῖς, Polyb. XII. 5. 7.

1260 Plutarch. Lycurg. 14. τὰς κόρας γυμνάς τε πομπεύειν καὶ πρὸς ἱεροῖς τισὶν ὀρχεῖσθαι καὶ ᾄδειν. Compare Lac. Apophthegm, p. 223. and Hesychius in δωριάζειν.

1261 Plutarch. Lycurg. 16; and concerning the custom of Phigaleia, see Athen. IV. p. 248. sq.

1262 Aristoph. Nub. 986. The same is in Xenoph. de Rep. Lac. 2. 1.

1263 Aristoph. Av. 493. 49. where χλαῖνα and ἱμάτιον are used as synonymous. But that the χλαῖνα and τρίβων were different kinds of the ἱμάτιον is shown by the same poet, Vesp. 1132; λαῖνα ἱμάτιον τετράγωνον, according to Didymus.

1264 In Iliad X. 133. the χλαῖνα is however laid double, and fastened with a clasp (over the shoulder).

1265 Pollux VII. 13. 46. X. 27. 124; and compare Hemsterhuis’s note, Diogenianus Prov. V. 21. Vatic. Prov. II. 14. Lexicograph.

1266 According to Pollux and Ammonius. Fragm. 68, 69. pp. 82, 83. ed. Wolf.

1267 See Aristoph. Lysist. 988. where it is the dress of the envoys, as the φοινικὶς in the last note of the third book; and Juvenal Sat. VIII. 101.

1268 See Tischbein I. 29. and Vases de Coghill I. planche 36.

1269 I. 6. Compare Dionys. Halic. in Thucyd. 9.

_ 1270 Minervæ Poliadis Ædes_, p. 41.

1271 Also called δαμοφανὴς by the Lacedæmonians, because it was worn in public.

1272 See Meursius Miscell. Lacon. I. 15. Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 197. The τρίβων could (as well as the χλαῖνα, p. 277, note b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “left shoulder,” starting “In Iliad X. 133.”]) be worn double, and be fastened with. a clasp, Polyæn. IV. 4. This more becoming variety of the ἱμάτιον, the χλαῖνα, was also worn at Sparta; see Theopompus the comic poet in Pollux X. 27. 124. Ἐξωμίδες φαῦλαι of the Lacedæmonians in Ælian V. H. IX. 34.

1273 Plat. Protag. 342. Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 7. 15. with Aspasius and the Paris Scholiast, p. 156. ed. Zell. Compare the Κρητικὸν ἱματίδιον in Hesychius.

1274 From the 12th year upwards, Plutarch Lycurg. 16.

1275 Lac. Instit. p. 247. Lac. Apophth. p. 178. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 2. 4. Justin III. 3. Likewise in Crete, Heraclid. Pont. 3. Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 483.

1276 Hence the Attic orators, in early times at least, never showed their left hand, Taylor ad Æschin. in Timarch. p. 59.

1277 De Rep. Lac. 3. 5. quoted by Longinus περὶ ὕψους IV. i. p. 114.

1278 See Boettiger’s opinions on this subject, Raub der Cassandra, pp. 74: sqq. Archäologie der Mahlerei I. p. 211. Vasengemälde I. 2. p. 37. and Uhden’s Letter, II. p. 65.

1279 Ἰσοδὶαιτοι, Thucyd. I. 6. Justin. III. 3.

1280 Athen. XV. pp. 686 sq. Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 224. Seneca Quæst. Nat. IV. 13. This ancient notion may also be traced in the use of the words φθείρειν, μιαίνειν, to _corrupt_, for to _dye_ or to _colour_.

1281 Δολερὰ μὲν τὰ ἕιματα, δολερὰ δὲ τὰ χρίματα, Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 294 Sylburg. Herodotus indeed (III. 22.) quotes the same saying of an Ethiopian king, comp. Plutarch. Quæst. Rom. 26. p. 327. Sympos. III. I, 2. p. 109. de Herod. Malign. 28. p. 312.; but the expression has a genuine Spartan character.

1282 A law of Diocles, according to Phylarchus ap. Athen. XII. p. 521 B. for Zaleucus see Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol. II. p. 33. for Sparta, Heraclid. Pont. Clem. Alex. Protrept. II. 10. p. 119. Sylburg. cf. Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7.

1283 Plato Comicus ap. Aspas ad Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 7. 15. (see Porson’s Tracts, p. 232). χαίροις, οἶμαι, μεταπεττεύσας αὐτὸν διακλιμακίσας τε, τὸν ὑπηνόβιον, σπαρτιοχαίτην, ῥυποκόνδυλον, ἑλκετρίβωνα. ἕλκοντες ὑπήνας. Aristoph. Lys. 1072. Compare the statue of Lysander in Plut. Lys. I.

1284 See above, p. 129, note s. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “obey the laws,” starting “Aristot. ap. Plutarch.”] Wyttenbach ad Plutarch. de Sera Num. Vind. p. 25. thinks that the Lacedæmonians also shaved their upper lip; but his, as well as Ruhnken’s emendation of Antiphanes ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 A. is very violent.

1285 Athen. XII. p. 565 C.

1286 Aristoph. Av. 1283. Eccles. 74. Their use was only prohibited in the public assembly, Plutarch Lycurg. II.

1287 Herod. III. 137. Aristot. in Ἰθακ. πολιτ. ap. Phot. in σκυτάλη. See the paintings on vases.

1288 Xen. Rep. Lac. II. 3. Plutarch. Lycurg. 22. Previously they were accustomed ἐν χρῷ κείρεοσθαι, cap. 16. which is sometimes also described as the general Spartan usage. Plutarch. Alcib. 23. de Discrim. Adul. et Am. 10. p 170.

1289 Antiochus ap. Strab. VI. p. 278. Aristot. Ret. I. 9. 26.

1290 The manner in which Herodotus (I. 82.) accounts for this, is rendered doubtful by Plutarch. Lysand. I. cf. Lycurg. 22. reg. Apophth. p. 124, 125. Lac. Apophth. p. 226, 230. Æginetica, p. 32, note o. In Crete the cosmi at least wore long hair, according to ancient custom, Seneca Controv. IV. 27. On the short hair of the Argives, see Herodotus and Plato Phædon. p. 89. J. Tzetzes Jamb. 161.

1291 See Σπαρτιοχαίτης in the verses cited above, p. 280, note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ornament of a man,” starting “Plato Comicus Ap. Aspas.”]

1292 Compare Aristoph. Lys. 1113. παραπυκίδδειν with Horace Od. II. II. _incomptam Lacænæ More comam religata nodo_, _i.e._, as Diana is generally represented in works of art. That the women were not allowed to wear long hair (κομᾶν, Heraclid. Pont. 2.), is a statement which must not be construed strictly. A lock of hair dedicated to the gods was called ἱέρωμα, according to the correction of Hemsterhuis in Hesychius: but Toup is probably correct in defending the common reading ἱερόβατον, Emend. in Suid. vol. II. p. 607. Spartans were distinguished not merely by their mode of wearing the hair, but also by the _shoes_, Paus. VII. 14. 2. Shoes for state occasion were the ἀμυκλαΐδες, and for common wear the ἁπλαῖ Λακωνικαὶ, above, p. 25, note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “shoes of Amyclæ,” starting “Theocrit. X. 35.”] Argive, Rhodian (Pollux VII. 22. 88.) and Sicyonian ἔμβαδες likewise occur (Lucian. Ret. Præc. 15. Lucretius IV. 1121. Eustath. ad Hom. p. 1302. 22. ed. Rom.).

1293 See the passages collected by Thiersch, Act. Mon. vol. III. p. 273 sqq. Also Phocylides ἔρματα λοξὰ κορύμβων and Nicol. Dam. p. 51 Orelli, of a Smyrnæan κόμην τρέφων χρυσῷ στρόφῳ κεκορυμβωμένην.

1294 Thuc. IV. 34. Comp. Pollux. I. 149. Erotian. Lex. Hippocrat. Meursius Miscell. Lac. I. 17.

1295 B. III. ch. 12. § 10.

1296 Bentley Phalarid. p. 347. Lips. Bergler. ad Alciphr. I. 36. 12.

1297 Plutarch. Lysand. 2. reg. Apophth. p. 127. Lac. Apophth. p. 200, where Archidamus the son of Agesilaus is meant, and afterwards too he is often confounded with the son of Zeuxidamus, Apostol. X. 48. In later times, however, διαφανῆ Λακωνικὰ are mentioned as a luxurious dress, Dio Chrysost. ad Es. vol. VI. p. 45 A. ad Matth. Hom. vol. VII. p. 796. B. ed. Montfaucon. On the Argive dresses τήβεννος and κλεοβίνικος see Pollux VII. 13. 61. and his commentators. The ἀφάβρωμα was an old-fashioned gown of the Megarian women, Plutarch Qu. Gr. 16. p. 383.

1298 Xen. Hell. V. 4. 28. Plutarch Alcib. 23.

1299 See particularly Martial Epigr. VI. 42. Casaubon ad Strab. III. p. 231. p. 663. ed. Friedemann.

1300 This explains away the contradiction which Manso finds, vol. I. 2. p. 199.

1301 V. 305. which passage would also apply to the syssitia of Sparta.

1302 Who abolished them as an institution favourable to aristocracy, Aristot. Polit. V. 9. 2. They were still in existence in the time of Archias, see vol. I. p. 129 note f. The σύσσιτος, of Æthiops, in the passage of Athenæus, is evidently his regular messmate. We may also mention the δημοσιαι θοῖναι of the Argives, at which the ancient clay vessels (Herod. V. 88.) were still used. Polemon ap. Athen. XI. p. 483 C. cf. p. 479 C. IV. p. 148 F.

1303 Aristot. Pol. VII. 9. 2, 3.

1304 Harmodius on the laws of Phigaleia ap. Athen. IV. p. 148 F. comp. in general Plutarch Quæst. Sympos. II. 10. 2. Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. I. p. 287, has rightly remarked that the description of Harmodius refers only to the maintenance of two choruses in Phigalia.

1305 Book III. ch. 6. § 9.

1306 But upon hard benches without cushions, _in robore_. Cicero pro Muræna 35. Athen. XII. p. 518 F. cf. IV. p. 142 A. Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Suidas in φιλίτια et Λυκοῦργος, Isidorus Orig. XX. 11. It was not till the reign of Areus and Acrotatus, that soft and expensive cushions were used at the public tables. Phylarchus ap. Athen. IV. p. 142 A.

1307 Heraclid. Pont. 3. Pyrgion ap. Athen. IV. p. 143 F. Varro ap. Serv. ad Æn. VII. 176.

1308 B. III. ch. 2. § 4. Foreign cooks were not tolerated at Sparta, as is particularly stated of Mithæcus by Maximus Tyrius VII. 22. ed. Davies.

1309 Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7. There was a separate _broth-maker_ (ζωμοποιὸς) for the king, Plutarch. Lac. Apophth. p. 214.

1310 Heraclid. Pont. 2. who perhaps says too generally, πέττει σῖτον οὐδείς (πέττειν is said of ἄρτος made of ἄλευρα as μάττειν of μᾶζα made ἄλφιτα). Comp. Dicæarchus ap. Athen. IV. p. 141 A. Plutarch Alcib. 23.

1311 Book III. ch. 10. § 6. Varieties of ἄρτος were also eaten at the κοπὶς, Molpis ap. Athen. IV. p. 140 A. cf. p. 139 A. B. Hesychius in κοπὶς, βέσκεροι ἄρτοι, and πητεῖται πιτυρίαι ἄρτου. There was a Lacedæmonian kind of barley, Theophrast. Hist. Plant. VIII. 4. _Siligo Lacedæm_. Plin. H. N. XVIII. 20. IV. 4.

1312 B. II. ch. 10. § 4.

1313 Theocrit. Id. XXIV. 136. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 1077.

1314 Plutarch Lycurg. 12. comp. Meurs. Miscell. Lac. I. 8.

1315 Ælian V. H. III. 31.

1316 Dicæarchus ubi sup. A little pig was called by the Lacedæmonians ὀρθαγορίσκος, Athen. p. 140 B. see Hesychius in βορθαγορίσκος et ἡμιτύγια above p. 110. note y. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “days of each month,” starting “Herod. ubi sup.”]

1317 Ἀφέδιτοι ἡμέραι, according to Hesychius. cf. in διαφοίγιμόρ.

1318 See Critias the Athenian in Athen. X. p. 432 D sq. comp. XI. p. 463 C. Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 4, 5. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 172. In _Crete_ however the whole table drank from one large goblet, Dosiadas ap. Athen. IV. p. 143. Eustath. ad Od. p. 1860. 45.

1319 Pseudo-Plat. Min. p. 320. comp. Leg. I. p. 637 A. from which passage it also follows that all the inhabitants of Laconia were prohibited from attending drinking entertainments (συμπόσια). The Dionysia at Sparta were also more serious than elsewhere, Plut. ubi sup. Athen. IV. p. 155 D.

1320 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 7. Plutarch Lycurg. 12.

1321 B. III. ch. 10. § 7. In Sparta the guests, as in the time of Homer, were called δαιτύμονες, Alcman ap. Strap. X. p. 482. fragm. 37. ed. Welcker. Herod. VI. 57. and a κρεοδαίτης presided at the meal (above, p. 251, note r. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “volunteers in the army,” starting “Xen. Rep. Lac. 13. 7.”] comp. Plutarch Quæst. Sympos. II. 10. 2. p. 102. Pollux VI. 7. 34.), as a δαιτρὸς in ancient times; each guest in Sparta having a certain _portion_ or _mess_ allotted to him.

1322 See Plutarch Lycurg. 12. Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 229. ed. Ruhnken. p. 449. ed. Bekker.

1323 B. III. ch. 12. § 4. It is to this that Dionysius Hal. refers, when he says that the Phiditia made men ashamed to leave their comrades in the field of battle, _with whom they had sacrificed and made libations_, Ant. Rom. II. 23. p. 283. ed. Reisk.

1324 Persæus ap. Athen. IV. p. 140 F. and see below, p. 288, note k. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “vegetables (ἀβαμβάκευστα),” starting “Pyrgion ap. Athen.”]

1325 Plutarch Quæst. Sympos. VII. 9. p. 332. calls them in a certain sense βουλευτήρια ἀπόῤῥητα καὶ συνέδρια ἀριστοκρατικά, and compares them with the Prytaneum and Thesmothesium of Athens.

1326 B. III. ch. 10. § 6. The only ἐπάϊκλον eaten by boys was some dough of barley-meal baked in laurel leaves (καμματίδες), and kneaded in oil (Hesychius in ἁμφιμάντορα, ἀμφίτοροι); a cake of this kind was called κάμμα, and from its use παλλιχιὰρ, Meursius Misc. Lac. I. 12.

1327 Athen. IV. p. 138 B. comp. Herod. VI. 57. Perhaps Alcman describes a κοπὶς in the following verses, Κλίναι μὲν ἑπτὰ καὶ τόσαι τράπεσδαι Μακωνίδων ἄρτων ἐπιστεφοῖσαι Λίνω τε σασάμω τε κἠν πελίχναις Παίδεσσι χρυσοκόλλα, fragm. 17. ed. Welcker.

1328 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5, 6. and above, p. 287, note b. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “aristocratical principles,” starting “Plutarch Quæst. Sympos.”] Concerning Crete, see Dosiadas ubi sup.

1329 Critias ubi sup. Plutarch Lycurg. 12.

1330 Φοίναις δὲ καὶ ἐν θιάσοισιν ἀνδρείων παρὰ δαιτυμόνεσσι πρέπει παιᾶνα κατάρχειν, fragm. 31. ed. Welcker.

1331 It is very probable that this φειδίτια was a ludicrous distortion of an ancient Spartan name φιλίτια, _i.e._, “love-feasts.”

1332 Alcman ubi sup. Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 482. Aristot. Polit. II. 7. 3. The word αἷκλα is also used by Epicharmus for δεῖπνα.

1333 Pyrgion ap. Athen. 143. E. and Casaubon’s note. Ephoras ap. Strab. X. p. 483 A. For Sparta, see Alcman quoted in p. 288 note d. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “particularly the kings,” starting “Athen. IV.”] Plutarch Lycurg. 12. Quæst. Græc. 33. p. 332. Concerning the Phigalean custom, see Athen. IV. p. 148 F. From the passage quoted in p. 287 note a, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “state in itself,” starting “Persæus ap. Athen.”] it also follows that guests of inferior rank sat ἐπὶ τοῦ σκιμποδίου, as was also the custom among the Macedonians, according to Athen. I. p. 18 A. Wyttenbach. Miscell. Doctr. v. 3. ad Plat. Phæd. Addit. p. 234.

1334 This follows from Plat. Leg. VI. p. 780 D, p. 781 A. comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 12. Lac. Apophth. p. 221. παρὰ τῇ γυναικὶ (_i.e._, at home) δειπνεῖν. See also Lycurg. 26. Sosibius περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος ap. Athen. XIV. p. 646 A. speaks of banquets of the women at Sparta, at which certain cakes (κριβάναι) were carried, when they were about to sing the praise of the virgin, probably at marriages. Aristotle Polit. II. 7. 4. says that in Creta the women also were fed at the _public cost_, not that they ate _in public_.

1335 Dosiadas ap. Athen. p. 143 B. with the assistance of some men τῶν δημοτικῶν. Does he mean Periœci or Mnotæ? Young women were used as cup-bearers among the Dorians, above, p. 276 note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “wine to the labourers,” starting “Pythænetus ap. Athen.”]

1336 Dosiadas and Pyrgion ubi sup. Heraclid. Pont, and see the decree of the Olontians in Chishull’s Antiq. Asiat. p. 137. cf. p. 131, 134.

1337 Damasc. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 1037. Suidas in ἄθρυπτος et Δωριοσ. Δωριοσ οικονεμια in Diog. Laërt. IV. 3. 19. for a plain rough mode of living.

1338 Συρακοσίων et Σικελῶν τράπεζα, Athen. XII. p. 518 B. p. 527 C. Zenob. Prov. V. 94. Suidas Erasm. Adag. II. 2. Σικελικὸς κότταβος Anacreon ap. Athen. X. p. 427. fragm. p. 374. ed. Fischer. The Σικελικὸς βίος is opposed to the Δωριστὶ ζῆν in the 7th (spurious) Platonic Epistle, p. 336.

1339 See, among others, Timæus fragm. 76. p. 271, ed. Goeller. The Argives and Tirynthians were reproached for their debauchery, Ælian. V. H. III. 15. Athen. N. p. 442. D.

1340 See Æginetica p. 188.

1341 See above, p. 266 note d. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “from the street,” starting “Towards the street.”] In Crete it was called βοωνία, Hesych. in v.

1342 Dionys. Halic. XX. 2. ed. Mai.

1343 According to the supposed saying of Lycurgus, “_first make a democracy in thine own house_.” Plutarch Lycurg. 19. reg. Apophth. p. 124. Lac. Apophth. p. 225.

1344 See particularly Eurip. Androm. 596.

1345 Κόροις καὶ κόραις κοινὰ τὰ ἱερά. Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 254. above ch. 2. § 2.

1346 Eustath. ad Od. p. 1166. So also the Arcadians had, according to Polybius IV. 21. 3. (though not for the reason which he assigns) συνόδους κοινὰς καὶ θυσίας πλείστας ὁμοίως ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξὶ, ἔτι δὲ χοροὺς παρθένων ὁμοῦ καὶ παίδων. The unrestrained manners, and the public games and dances of the virgins of Ceos (Plutarch Mul. Virt. p. 277. Antonin. Liber. met. 1.), probably were derived from a Cretan custom (see above, p. 236. note q. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “with an axe,” starting “Heracl. Pont. 7.”]), and certainly one prior to the Ionic migration.

1347 Plutarch Lycurg. 14. comp. Welcker ad Alcman. frag. p. 10.

1348 VI. 61, 65.

1349 Polycrates ap. Athen. IV. p. 139 F. Xenoph. Ages. 8. 7. with Casaubon’s restoration from Plutarch. Ages. 19. Hesychius in κάνναθρα, Eustathius ad Il. XXIV. p. 1344. 44. Schol. ad Aristoph. Vesp. 413. The temple of Helen, mentioned by Hesychius in κάνναθρα, is that at Therapne, above the Phœbæum, of which Herodotus speaks, VII. 61.

1350 Λακεδαιμονίην τε γυναῖκα in the oracle; and how, in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes, the Athenian women admire the lusty and vigorous beauty of Lampito. comp. Athen. XII. p. 609 B.

1351 Heracl. Lembus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 566 A.

1352 If the father and grandfather died, the right, even in Doric states, _e.g._, in Cyrene, passed to the brothers, Plutarch Mul. Virt. p. 303. Polyæn. VIII. 41.

1353 Plutarch Lycurg. 15. Lac. Apophth. p. 224. Xen. de Rep. Lac. I. 5. The account of Hermippus in Athenæus XIII. p. 555 C. is absurdly disfigured. The same is true of Hagnon, ibid. XIII. p. 602 E. This explains the statement of Herodotus VI., 65. that Demaratus obtained possession of Percalus the daughter of Chilon, who was betrothed to Leotychides, by _previously carrying her away by force_, φθάσας ἁρπάσας. In later times, whoever ravished a virgin at Sparta (as also at Delphi, Heliodorus IV. p. 269.) was punished with death, Xenoph. Ephes. V. 1; and compare Marcellinus on Hermogenes, although this account does not belong to the age of which we treat.

1354 Plutarch. Cleom. 38.

1355 Strabo X. p. 482 D. from Ephorus.

1356 According to Hesychius. Homer. Il. XVI. 180. calls Eudoxus a παρθένιος, τὸν ἔτικτε χορῷ καλὴ Πολυμήλη, which I explain thus: she produced him “_in the chorus_,” _i.e._, while she yet belonged to the ἀγελὴ of the virgins. The passage is quoted by Dio Chrysost. Or. VII. p. 273., who also speaks of the Lacedæmonian παρθενίαι.

1357 Justin. III. 4. _Nulli pater existebat cujus in patrimonium successio speraretur._

1358 Book I. ch. 6. § 12. The common narrative of Ephorus is repeated by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and is evidently invented to account for the name Παρθενίαι, which Antiochus declines to explain.

1359 Xen. Rep. Lac. I. 6. Plutarch Lyc. 15. Comp. Num. 4. Lac. Apophth. p. 224.

1360 Hesychius in v.

1361 Op. et Di. 695.

1362 Leg VIII. p. 785. Aristotle indeed (Polit. VII. 16.) gives 37 years as the most fitting time for marriage in a man; which number Larcher (_Chronologie d’Herodote_) has no reason to suppose borrowed from the laws of Laconia. The Trœzenians were forbidden by the oracle from making early marriages, Aristot. Pol. VII. 14. 4.

1363 See Plutarch Lyc. 15. Lysand. 13. de Amore prol. 2. Lac. Apophth. p. 223. Clearchus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 555 C. Pollux III. 48. VIII. 40. Stobæus Serm. 65. Clem. Alexand. Strom. II. p. 182. compare Schläger’s Præfat. ad Dissertat. Helmst. 1744. p. 10. It is most singular that the cowards (τρεσάντες) to whom every man denied his daughter, were punished for not marrying, Xen. Rep. Lac. 9. 5.

1364 Pollux VIII. 40.

1365 Plutarch de Herod. Malign. 32. p. 321. Lac. Apophth. p. 216. fragm. p. 355.

1366 Plutarch Pyrrh. 28. See B. III. ch. 10. § 3. concerning the ius trium liberorum in Sparta.

1367 Καὶ πολλὰ μὲν τοιαῦτα συνελώρει, Xen. Rep. Lac. I. 9. Later writers often give fabulous accounts of this point, particularly Theodoretus Græc. Affinit. 9.

1368 B. III. ch. 10. § 4.

1369 See the saying of Geradates in Plutarch Lyc. 15. Lac. Apophth. p. 225. comp. Justin. III. 3. The νόθοι in Xen. Hell. V. 3. 9., who were a separate class, but shared in the education of the Spartans, probably were composed of a mixture of different ranks, and certainly were not the offspring of a regular _stuprum_. At Rhodes, according to Schol. Eurip. Alcest. 992, the νόθοι were called μαστρόξενοι, _i.e._ those who at a public scrutiny (called at Athens διαψήφισις) were rejected from the lists of citizens. The investigation was perhaps conducted by the μάστροι, Hesych. in v. comp. Harpocrat. μαστῆρες.

1370 Herod. V. 39, 40.

1371 Plutarch Agid. 11.

1372 The history of women in the heroic age has been better treated by Lenz, than by Meiners in his _Geschichte des Weiblichen Geschlechts_; although even he has many prejudices, _e.g._, that women are always improved by education, the reverse of which was the case in Greece. Lenz (p. 64.) correctly remarks, that in Homer the manners of unmarried are represented as less restrained than those of married women; although their intercourse with men was more free than among the Dorians. Comp. p. 143.

1373 I. 146.

1374 Though she lived in the interior of the house, as is proved by the Doric term for a wife, μεσόδομα: see Hesych. in οἰκέτις, Theocrit. Id. XVIII. 28. and compare the sayings of Aregeus in Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 198. of Euboidas, p. 205. and of the Lacedæmonian woman, p. 262. who being asked what she understood, answered, εὖ οἰκεῖν οἶκον.

1375 Plutarch. Lyc. 14.

1376 Vol. I. p.

1377 Polit. II. 6. 8. and in Plutarch Lyc. 14. At that time moreover the manners of the Spartan women had really degenerated, and a considerable licence (ἄνεσις) prevailed, Aristot. Polit. II. 6. 5. Plat. Leg. I. p. 637. Dion. Hal. Hist. Rom. II. 24.

1378 Plutarch Lyc. 14. Comp. Num. 3. Aristotle also (Polit. II. 6, 7.) speaks of their influence on the government in the time of the ascendency of Sparta; it increased still more, when a large part of the landed property fell into the hands of women. The singular assertion of Ælian V. H. XII. 34. that Pausanias _loved his wife_, has been correctly interpreted by Kühn to mean a too great, or uxorious affection; and so likewise Menelaus appears to have been represented, see, _e.g._, Aristoph. Lysist. 155.

1379 Πολλὰ λέγειν ὄνυμ᾽ ἀνδρὶ, γυναικὶ δὲ πᾶσι χαρῆναι, fragm. 13. ed. Welcker. comp. Franck’s Tyrtæus p. 173 and 203.

1380 See, _e.g._, Plutarch Cleom. 38.

1381 Plato Alcib. I. p. 41. Plin. H. N. VII. 41. Compare the saying of Gorgo in Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 258.

1382 The Bœotian poetesses, however, Corinna and Myrto, and Diotima the Arcadian (concerning whom see Frederick Schlegel, Griechen und Roemer, vol. I. p. 275.), were on the rank of Doric women; although in Bœotia the female sex was very much restricted, and placed under the superintendence of γυναικονόμοι (as under the ἁρμόσυνοι at Sparta, ch. 7. § 8.), Plutarch Solon. 21.

1383 See b. II. ch. 10. § 7. Aristoph. Lys. 90. Plut. 149. et Schol. Suidas in ἑταῖραι Κορινθ and χοῖρος. Pollux IX. 6. 75. Κορινθιάζεσθαι τὸ μαστροπεύειν η ἑταῖρειν (see b. I. ch. 8. § 3.) Eustath. ad II. p. 290. 23. ed. Rom. and Anacreon XXXII. 10. whose poems are of the Achæan or Roman time. Compare also the Κορινθία κόρη in Plato de Rep. p. 404 D. Κορίνθια παῖς, Eurip. Sciron. ap. Poll. X. 7. 25. cf. IX. 6. 75. and Hemsterhuis, and the proverb in Suidas (XIV. 81. Schott.) Plutarch Prov. Al. 92. ἀκροκορίνθι ἔοικας χοιροπολήσειν. Compare Jacobs in the Attisches Museum, vol. II. part III. p. 137. Schiebel zur Kentniss der Alten Welt, vol. I. p. 177.—The women of _Sicyon_ were, according to the βὶος Ἕλλαδος of Dicæarchus, exceedingly graceful in their carriage.

1384 Plutarch Lycurg. 17. Dionys. Hal. XX. 2. ed. Mai. Old men could punish persons conducting themselves improperly (ἀκοσμοῦντες) by striking them with their sticks.

1385 Εἰσπνήλας is probably the genuine form; see Callim. Fragm. 169. ed. Bentl. Etymol. Mag. p. 43. 34. p. 306. 24. Gudian. p. 23. 2. Orion, p. 617. 49. Εἴσπνηλος is used by Theocritus Id. XII. 13.

1386 Ælian V. H. III. 12. Ἐμπνεῖσθαι is the word used by Plutarch Cleom. 3.

1387 Vol. I. p. 5. Compare Etymol. Magn. p. 43. 31. Gudian. ubi sup. Ἀείτης was used by Aristophanes; see Bekker’s Anecd. p. 348. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 459, and ἀΐτιας by Alcæus ap. Athen. p. 430 D. Alcman also called lovely young women ἀΐτας κόρας; see Schneider’s Lexicon in v. and Etymol. Gudian. p. 23. 3; also the Lexicon _vocum peregrinarum_ in Valpy’s edition of Stephens’s Thesaurus, part XII. p. 492.

1388 Servius ad Æn. X. 325. _adeo ut Cicero dicat in libris de re publica_ (p. 280. Mai.) _opprobrio fuisse adulescentibus si amatores non haberent_.

1389 Ælian III. 10.

1390 Plutarch Ages. 2. Lysand. 22.

1391 Plutarch Ages. 13. Reg. Apophth. p. 128. Lac. Apophth. p. 177.

1392 Xenoph. Hell. V. 4. 25.

1393 Plutarch Cleom. 3.

1394 Ib. c. 37.—The youth of Argilus, loved by Pausanias, cannot be mentioned among these, Thuc. I. 132. Nepos Pausan. 4.

1395 Ælian V. H. III. 10.

1396 Id. III. 12.

1397 Plutarch Lyc. 25.

1398 Xen. Hell. IV. 8. 39. Plutarch Reg. Apophth. quoted in note e, p. 301. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “also a hearer,” starting “Plutarch Ages. 13.”]

1399 See Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 209. In Bœotia also ἀνὴρ καὶ παῖς συζυγέντες ὁμιλοῦσιν, Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 2. 12.

1400 Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Ælian V. H. III. 10.

1401 Athen. XIII. p. 601 E. p. 602 F. from Timæus, Heraclid. Pont. 3. Heyne ad Apollod. III. 1. 2. Κρῆτες ἐρωτικώτατοι, together with the Lacedæmonians and Bœotians, Plutarch Amator. 17. p. 37.

1402 Athen. XV. p. 782 E.

1403 Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 483. Hesychius in φιλήτωρ.

1404 Ephorus ubi sup. Compare Plutarch de Educ. 14.

1405 Ephorus and Heraclides Ponticus. Arms were in Crete, according to Nicolaus Damascenus, the most honourable present that could be made. Concerning the cup, see Hermonax ap. Athen. XI. p. 502 B.

1406 Ælian V. H. III. 9. comp. N. A. IV. 1.

1407 Aristot. Polit. II. 9. 6, 7.

1408 Aristoph. Acharn. 774. Theocrit. Id. XII. 28. and Schol.

1409 According to Plato and Cicero (Leg. I. p. 636 B. Tusc. Quæst. IV. 34. comp. Boeckh ad Leg. p. 106.) This practice _originated_ from the gymnastic exercises; a supposition probably not true in this general sense.

1410 Polit. II. 7. 5.—It is however true of Athens only, and not of the Dorians, that the love of the male supplied the place of that of the female sex.

1411 Welcker, Sappho von einem herrschenden vorurtheill befreit, p. 41. Confederates in arms are called Ἀχίλλήιοι φίλοι in the beautiful Fragment of Æolian lyric poetry, attributed to Theocritus, XXVIII. 34. Comp. Arrian. Peripl. Pont. p. 23.

1412 Cicero de Rep. IV. 4. _Lacedæmonii ipsi cum omnia concedunt in amore juvenum præter stuprum, ienui sane muro dissæpiunt id quod excipiunt: complexus enim concubitusque permittunt._

1413 Ælian V. H. III. 12. On account of this provision the Lacedæmonian law is called ποίκιλος by Plato Sympos. p. 182. The purity of the Lacedæmonian custom is also attested by Xenophon, the best authority on Doric manners. Εἴ τις παιδὸς σώματος ὀρεγόμενος φανείη, αἴσχιστον τοῦτο θεὶς (ὁ Λυκοῦργος) ἐποίησεν ἐν Δακεδαίμονι μηδὲν ἧττον ἐραστὰς παιδικῶν ἀπέχεσθαι ἢ γονεῖς παίδων ἢ καὶ ἀδελφοὶ ἀδελφῶν εἰς ἀφροδίσια ἀπέχονται, de Rep. Lac. 2. 13; and see Schneider’s note. Plato however has a different opinion of it, Leg. I. p. 638. VIII. p. 836. The Cretan fell into worse repute than the Lacedæmonian custom, Plutarch de Educ. 14. Both however are praised as equally innocent by Maximus Tyrius, Diss. X. p. 113. The suspicions thrown upon it are perhaps to be entirely traced to the Attic comic poets; thus Eupolis ap. Athen. I. p. 17 D. Hesych. et al. Lexicog. in Κυσολάκων and λακωνίζειν. Comp. Suidas and Apostolius, XI. 73. Λακωνικὸν τρόπον περαίνειν.

1414 On the subject of this last part generally, see Meiners’ Miscellaneous Philosophical Writings, vol. I. p. 61, and History of the Female Sex, vol. I. p. 321. Herder’s Thoughts on the Philosophy of History, Works, vol. V. p. 173. Since the first publication of this work, the view of the above question taken in the text has been approved by Jacobs, Miscellaneous Works, III. Leben und Kunst der Alten, II. (1829) pp. 212, sqq.

1415 Lucian. Anach. 38. θῆλυς νεολαία Theocr. Idyl. XVIII. 24. Comp. D’Orville ad Charit. p. 22. Alberti ad Hesych. in v.

1416 Plutarch, Lycurg. 16. I have written _house_ instead of _tribe_, as above, b. III. ch. 10. § 2.

1417 The philosopher Archytas is mentioned as the inventor of a child’s rattle, πλατάγη, Aristot. Polit. VIII. 6. 1. Apostol. XVI. 21.

1418 μίτυλλα, ἐσχατονήπια Hesychius.

1419 Plutarch, ubi sup.

1420 Concerning this expression see Plutarch, Ages. 1. Cleom. II. 37. Λακωνικὴ ἀγωγὴ Polyb. I. 32, also Zonaras and Suidas. The Λυκούργειος ἀγωγὴ was in later times supplanted by the Ἀχαϊκὴ παιδεία, the object of which was utility, Plutarch, Philop. 16. comp. Pausan. VII. 8. 3.

1421 According to the correct reading in Athen. VI. p. 271 E. These are the same as οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀγωγῆς παῖδες: see above, p. 22. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “assuredly had not,” starting “Χωρίτης.”] From the expression ὡς ἂν καὶ τὰ ἴδια ἐκποιῶσιν, we may infer that the fathers paid the expenses of education, which was observed in b. III. ch. 10, § 7.

1422 Xenoph. Hellen. V. 3. 9. τῶν ἐν τῆ πόλει καλῶν οὐκ ἄπειροι. The δημοτικὴ ἀγωγὴ in Polyb. XXV. 8. 1. is an inferior degree.

1423 See in particular Plutarch, Lac. Apophthegm. p. 243.

1424 Any one who when a boy would not undergo hard labour, according to Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 3. had no longer any share τῶν καλῶν; _i.e._ the remaining education (τὰ καλὰ in Sparta; comp. Xenoph. Hellen. V. 4. 32, and above, note h [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “half-blood were admitted,” starting “Xenoph. Hellen.”]), and became ἀδοκιμος in the town, not ὅμοιος. Plutarch, Inst. Lac. p. 252, says too generally, that “any one who did not go through the education lost the right of citizenship; which conversely might be obtained by a stranger who submitted to it.”

1425 Plutarch, Ages. i.

1426 Plutarch, Lycurg. 16: comp. above, ch. 2. § 5.

1427 Photius in συνέφηβος, where for ἑξῆς δέκα read ἑκκαίδεκα. Schneider Lexicon in σκύθραξ proposes συνεύνας; but all these were in the Agelæ. More general names are derived from κόρος, _e.g._ κωραλίσκοι: see Hesych. in v. From thence the piece of Epilycus, the scene of which was laid in Sparta, had its title: see above, p. 288, note d, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “particularly the kings,” starting “Athen. IV.”] κυρσανίον, Aristoph. Lysistr. 983. Schol. also Suidas, Photius in κυρσάνια, Hesych. in v. also in κύρσιον, σκύρθακες, σκυρθάκια: comp. Hesych. in σκύθραξ et σκυρθαλίας. Phot. in σκυρθάνια.

1428 In the second year after this period he was called Eiren, before it Melleiren, Plutarch, Lycurg. 17. Etym. Mag. and Gloss. Herodot. in εἴρην, Hesych. in ἰρίνες, ἴρανες, μελλίρην. Hesychius explains ἴρανες by ἄρχοντες, διώκοντες; and εἰρηνάζει to mean κρατεῖ, and this appears to be the original meaning of the word. Amompharetus, Callicrates, &c., the ἰρένες in Herod. IX. 85. were certainly not youths, but commanders, particularly Amompharetus, was lochagus of the Pitanatan lochus. After that same period he was called Proteires, Phot. p. 105. κατὰ πρωτεῖρας, Hesych. κατὰ πρωτῆρας. It appears that in this composition εἴρης is the same word as εἴρην.

1429 Pausan. III. 14. 6, and see Boeckh Inscript.

1430 Siebelis ad Pausan. ubi sup. and b. III. ch. 11. § 3.

1431 Above, b. III. ch. 3. § 4.

1432 Xen. Rep. Lac. 3. 5.

1433 Hesych. and Etym. Mag. in βουόα, where for ἀγλεῖ τις, read ἀγέλη τις, Valcken. ad Adon. p. 274.

1434 Xen. Rep. Lac. 2. 11. Plutarch, Lycurg. 16, 17. Inst. Lac. p. 248.

1435 At Tarentum, the commander of the ile was called βειλαρμόστας, the digamma being prefixed; see Hesych.

1436 See Hesych. in ἵππαρχος ἡνιοχαράτης, and according to Eustath. ad Il. θ᾽. p. 727. 22. not merely the 300 were called cavalry, but all the ἱππεῖς of the elders.

1437 Xen. Plutarch, ubi sup. uses the word agele instead of ile.

1438 Plutarch Lyc. 18.

1439 Xenoph. 2. 2. Plutarch. Hesych. According to Xen. 4. 6 the ἱππεῖς were still under the superintendence of the παιδονόμος.

1440 Xenoph. ubi sup.

1441 Hesych. where the βουάγορ is erroneously called παῖς. See b. III. ch. 7. § 8.

1442 Hesychius in ἄμπαιδες.

1443 Who were called κῶραι, πῶπαι, πάλλακες. For the first expression see Maittaire, p. 156. κόρα amongst the Pythagoreans. Jambl. Pyth. XI. 56. For the second, see Hesychius in v. where read κόραι. For the third see Etym. Mag. p. 649. 57.

1444 Theocrit. Idyll. XVIII. 23. comp. Pind. Fragm. Hyporch. 8. Boeckh, Callim. Lav. Pall. 33.

1445 In Porphyr. Pyth. VIII. 61. p. 263. Goeller: comp. Jambl. Pyth. 30.

1446 σκότιοι: see Schol. in Eurip. Alcest. 989. This also was the time in which the boys were taken away from home; see above, ch. 4. § 7; and from the circumstance of their belonging to no agele, they were called ἀπάγελοι, Hesych. in v.

1447 Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 483.

1448 Hesych. Ephorus ubi sup. and Nicol. Dam. mention indeed only a παίδων ἀγέλη, but use παῖς in an extensive sense.

1449 Chishull, p. 134.

1450 Ephor. ubi sup. Heracl. Pont. 3. From this circumstance, according to Hesychius, the ephebi in the agele were called ἀγελαστοὶ, for which Meursius reads ἀγελαῖοι from ἀγελάζω, without any authority.

1451 See book III. ch. 8. § 2.

1452 Suidas.

1453 οἱ δέκα ἔτη ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἠσκηκότες, according to the correction of Valcken. ad Ammon. I. 12.

1454 Eustath. ad II. θ᾽. p. 727. 18. ad Odyss. θ᾽. 1592, 57. Rom. Ammonius in gerôn.

1455 τριακάτιοι. Eustath. and Ammon. ubi sup. Hesych. in v. οἱ ἔφηβοι καὶ τὸ σύστημα αὐτῶν. comp. Intpp. vol. II. 1412. The observations of Mazocchi, Tab. Heracl. p. 258. 87. are very absurd.

1456 Hence a particular oil vessel used in the gymnasia was called Δωρὶς ὄλπα, Theocr. Idyll. II. 156. it was probably a very simple utensil, since the Spartans, instead of the στλεγγὶς, used a bundle of reeds, Schol. ad Plat. Charm. p. 90. Ruhnken. Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 253. Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 430. remarks ingeniously that several _vocabula musica_, _palæstrica et mititaria_, even in the common Grecian dialect, had a Doric character, being particularly in use amongst the Dorians.

1457 Dion. Chrysost. Orat. 37. 33. Φιλογυμναστοῦσι Λάκωνες. The same is said in Plato Protag. p. 342. of the imitators of the Spartans, who also (contrary to the customs of their original) were addicted to the contest with the cæstus. Aristot. Polit. VIII. 3. 3. merely says, that the discipline to which the Spartan youth were subjected made them too brutal, θηριώδεις.

1458 Comp. what the Spartan in Plutarch. Lac. Apophthegm, p. 246. says concerning the distinction between κρείσσων and καββαλικώτερος, a better wrestler.

1459 Plutarch Lycurg. 19. reg. Apophthegm. p 125. Lac. Ap. p. 225. Seneca de Benef. V. 3. Xenophon’s remarks in Rep. Lac. 4. 6. on the boxing of the ἡβῶντες, do not apply to the gymnastic exercises.

1460 Plato, Laches, p. 183.

1461 Where it was without doubt connected with the military service, and a display of valour in the practice of war.

1462 Athen. IX. p. 154 D. The Mantinean ὁπλομαχία will account for a Mantinean being reported to have invented the ἐνόπλιος ὄρχησις, Plutarch. Num. 13. There was also a peculiar Μαντινικὴ ὅπλισις.

1463 Corsini, Diss. Agon. p. 127.

1464 Thus, as is his usual practice, Hermippus gives a fictitious account of the victory gained by the son of Chilon in the contest with the cestus at Olympia. Diog. Laert. I. 3. 5.

1465 Pausan. V. 8. 3. It is however surprising that the πένταθλον παίδων existed only in one Olympiad, viz. the 38th, when a Lacedæmonian obtained the victory.

1466 See the Grammarians in the proverb ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα πηδᾷ.

1467 The Olympic conqueror, Philip of Croton, the friend of Dorieus the Spartan, was considered the most beautiful of the Greeks, Herod. V. 47. Cicero de Invent. II. 1. says of the Crotoniats as follows: “Quodam tempore Crotoniatæ multum omnibus corporis viribus et dignitatibus antesteterunt, atque honestissimas ex gymnico certamine victorias domum cum maxima laude retulerunt. Quum puerorum igitur _formas et corpora_ magno hic (Zeuxis) opere miraretur: horum, inquiunt illi, sorores sunt apud nos virgines.” This is doubtless a correct description of the flourishing period of the youth of Croton: but it falls much before the time of Zeuxis.

1468 Strab. VI. p. 262. comp. Meiners, Geschichte der Wissenshaft, book III. ch. 2.

1469 Diagoras, his sons Damagetus, Acesilaus, Dorieus, and grandsons Eucles and Peisirrhodus; perhaps also Hyllus, see Boeckh Expl. Pind. Olymp. VII. p. 165.

1470 Æginetica, p. 141. see also Menand. de Encom. III. 1. p. 97. ed. Heeren.

1471 Boeckh Expl. Pind. Pyth. IV. p. 268. Pyth. V. p. 287. to which add Hesych. in ἐλαία.

1472 Boeckh Expl. Pind. Olymp. IV. p. 143.

1473 Olymp. XII. 20. comp. Boeckh Expl. p. 210.

1474 The Spartans were particularly fond of the mode of wrestling called κλιμακίζειν: see the verses of Plato the comic poet quoted above, p. 280, note x. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ornament of a man,” starting “Plato Comicus Ap. Aspas.”] comp. Plut. Lac. Apophthegm. p. 241. The ἀπὸ τραχήλον γυμνάζεσθαι, Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 9. appears to have required particular strength of neck. The Argives were dexterous ἑδροστρόφοι (throwers of crossbuttocks), Theocr. Idyll. XXV. 109.

1475 See b. I. ch. 4. § 3.

1476 Above, ch. 4. § 7.

1477 Above, § 3.

1478 See b. III. ch. 3. § 4.

1479 Xenoph. Anab. IV. 6. 14.

1480 Heracl. Pont. 2. Xen. Rep. Lac. 2, 6. Justin. III. 3. 6. 7 comp. Cicero apud Nonium in _clepere_. Gellius N.A. XI. 18. &c. Plutarch Lycurg. 17. does not state the reason accurately, comp. Inst. Lac. p. 249. Lac. Apophthegm, p. 239. The Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 225. ed. Ruhnken. 450. ed. Bekker. confound the cryptia with this institution.

1481 ὅσα μὴ κωλύει νόμος. Xenoph. Anab. ubi. sup. comp. De Rep. Lac. 2. 6. Cicero’s assertion de Rep. III. 9. _Cretes latrocinari honestum putant_ should also be taken in a limited sense; comp. however Polyb. VI. 46. 1.

1482 B. II. ch. 9. § 6. Concerning the διαμαστίγωσις, comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 18. Inst. Lac. p. 254. Athen. VIII. p. 350 C. Lucian. Icarom. 16. Musonius apud Stob. Serm. 92. p. 307. Schol. ad Plat. Leg. I. p. 224. Ruhnken. p. 450. Bekker. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. V. 27. Seneca de prov. IV. To this add the passages in Manso I. 2. p. 183. Creuzer Init. Philos. Plat. II. p. 166. A βωμονίκης occurs in a Lacedæmonian inscription, Boeckh, No. 1364. I am not yet convinced of the truth of Thiersch’s conjecture, that the bronze statute of the youth at Berlin is of this character. I should rather take it to represent a conqueror in the pancration τῶν παίδων, in the attitude of returning thanks to Jupiter for his victory.

1483 Pausan. III. 14. 8. comp. II. 2. Plat. Leg. I. p. 633. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. 5-27. Lucian. Anach. 38. Plutarch Lac. Apophthegm. p. 239. Lacæn. p. 258. what Plato terms γυμνοπαιδιὰς, are in general exercises of naked boys in the heat of summer, comp. Schol. ad loc. and Suidas in Λυκοῦργος. The ἡβῶντες according to Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 4. also fought with the selected three hundred wherever they encountered them.

1484 Ephor. apud Strab. X. p. 483. Heracl. Pont. 3.

1485 Xen. Rep. Lac. 5. 9. The Lacedæmonian ἀγωγὴ was in later times considered as a gymnastic education. Thus Phocion had his son brought up in the Lacedæmonian manner, and Alcibiades was at least nursed by Amycla, Plutarch Lycurg. 16. Schol. Plat. I. p. 77. Ruhnken.

1486 Herod. IX. 72. A Lacedæmonian strikingly resembled Hector, _i.e._ the ideal of heroic excellence, according to Plutarch Arat. 3.

1487 Nicol. Damasc.

1488 Plutarch Lycurg. 14. Lac. Apophthegm. p. 223. comp. Manso I. 2. p. 162. Respecting the exercise of running ἐνδριώνας, Welcker ad Alcm. p. 10 sq. The exercises, besides the gymnasia, are mentioned by a poet in Cic. Quæst. Tusc. II. 15. and referred to also in Aristoph. Lys. 117.

1489 Plato Theæt. p 162, 169. Plutarch Lycurg. 14. only says, that they witnessed the procession and dances of the young men.

1490 In Athen. XII. p. 550 D. comp. Ælian. V. H. XIV. 7.

1491 According to Isocr. Panath. p. 544. comp. Perizonius ad Ælian. V. H. XII. 50. That they learnt to read, is asserted by Plutarch Lycurg. 16. Inst. Lac. p. 247. but contradicted by a Soph. anon. in Orelli Opp. Mor. II. p. 214. The ancient simplicity of their manners is evident from the custom of cutting a staff (σκυτάλη) in pieces, and dividing the fragments, to be preserved as memorials of a contract entered into, Photius in σκυτάλη, and Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1284. from Dioscorides περὶ νομιμων. Concerning the schools of learning in Crete, see Heracl. Pont. 3. Ephor. apud Strab. X. p. 482. The most ancient Grecian letters appear also to have been called Doric, Suidas in Κόριννος.

1492 Ælian. V. H. II. 39. The same practice was enjoined by the laws of Lycurgus, see book I. ch. 7. § 3.

1493 Hence also δωρίζειν, _to sing in the Doric style_, Hesychius. A cithara strung so as to suit that measure was called a Δωρία φόρμιγξ. Pindar Olymp. I. 17. who also calls the rhythm which suited the Doric mode, Δώριον πέδιλον, Olymp. III. 5. and the whole together Δωρία κέλευθος ὕμνων, Fragm. Incert. 98.

1494 Plat. Lach. p. 188 D.

1495 Some endeavoured to explain this name by supposing that Thamyris was the inventor, who had contended with the Muses at _Dorium_, Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 307. comp. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. vol. I. p. 301.

1496 Vol. I. p. 351. note g. It was on this that Glaucus ap. Plutarch Music. 4. probably grounded his proof of the date of Terpander.

1497 According to the important testimony of Sosibius the Laconian, the musical contests at the Carnea were first instituted in Olymp. 26., and according to the catalogue of Hellanicus, Terpander was the first who gained the prize, Athen. XIV. p. 635. The Parian Marble ep. 35, places his new regulation of music at Sparta in Olymp. 33. 4. The other statements on the time of Terpander are far inferior to these in authority.

1498 Thus Pindar (ap. Athen. p. 635 D. fragm. Scol. 5. Boeckh.) says, that Terpander first heard at Lydian banquets the strings of the lyre sound _in opposition to_ the high πηκτίς.

1499 For the whole of this, see Boeckh de Metric. Pindar. p. 238. and particularly Heraclid. Pont. ap. Athen. XIV. p. 624 D.

1500 See Athenæus, p. 632. from Heraclides Ponticus.

1501 The supposed Plutarch, in the learned and excellent Essay on music, c. 9.

1502 See Aristotle and Ælius Dionysius in Eustathius p. 741. 15. Heraclid. Pont. 2. Plutarch de Sera Num. Vind. 13. Hesychius in μετὰ Λέσβιον ᾠδὸν, Apostolius XII. 70. &c. According to Plutarch Mus. 6, the last of that school who appeared at the Carnea was Pericleitus, who lived before Hipponax. If so, Ælius Dionysius is wrong in mentioning Euænitides and Aristocleides, the latter of whom was certainly of a later date. Phrynis is altogether out of the question.

1503 Diod. fragm. II. p. 639. Plutarch Music. 42. Schol. Od. γ᾽. 267. ed. Buttman. Tzetzes Chil. I. 16. Marm. Par. ep. 35.

1504 Although he is said to have been first fined by the ephors on account of the number of the strings, Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 251. but the account is very confused. Yet Athenæus XIV. p. 628 D., when he says that the Spartans saved music _three times_, seems to allude to it.

1505 For the statements of Schol. Od. γ᾽. 267. and Eustathius ad 1. concerning an ancient Lacedæmonian named Demodocus, of Sipias a Dorian, of Abaris a Lacedæmonian, and of Probolus a Spartan, at the time of the migration of the Heraclidæ, are hardly worthy of the name of mythical.

1506 B. II. ch. 1. § 5.

1507 Concerning whom see Boeckh Expl. Pind. Ol. X. p. 197.

1508 Polymnestus wrote a poem to Thaletas for the Lacedæmonians (Paus. I. 14. 3.), probably after his death, and therefore he is unquestionably of a later date than Thaletas; he is called the contemporary of Sacadas, who flourished about the 48th Olympiad (588 B.C.), but was probably somewhat earlier. According to Plutarch Mus. 5. he was mentioned by _Alcman_, which does not agree, if this poet lived in Olymp. 27 (672 B.C.) where he is generally placed: but the other date of the ancient chronologists for Alcman, viz. Olymp. 42 (612 B.C.), is doubtless more correct.

1509 Glaucus ap. Plutarch. Mus. 10.

1510 Sosibius ap. Athen. XV. p. 678 B. also mentions songs of Thaletas at this festival, comp. Suidas in Θαλήτας. It seems however probable that the introduction here mentioned did not take place before the battle of Thyræa, about Olymp. 58. or 546 B.C., since much of the musical solemnities of the gymnopædia referred to this action, Athen. ubi sup. comp. Etymol. Mag. in γυμνοπαιδία, if we should there read with Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part 2. p. 211. Θυραίαν for Πύλαιαν, on which however there is some doubt. See vol. I. p. 309, note m.

1511 Plutarch Agis 10. Lac. Apophth. p. 205.

1512 According to Plutarch Agis 10. Inst. Lac. p. 251, and Cicero de Leg. II. 15. compare Dio Chrys. Or. XXXII. p. 382 B. ed. Reisk.

1513 Artemon ap. Athen. XIV. p. 636 E.

1514 III. 12. 8.

1515 Etymol. Mag. in σκιάς.

1516 Ap. Boeth. de Musica ad calc. Arati. Oxon. p. 66. Also in Casaubon on Athen. VIII. p. 613. (vol. IV. p. 611. Schweigh.), Scaliger on Manilius, Bulliald on Theon, Leopardus in his Observationes Criticæ, Gronovius Præf. ad Thes, Ant. Græc. vol. V. from a Cambridge MS., Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 128, and with a collation of several Oxford manuscripts (Cleaver’s) Decretum Lacedæmoniorum contra Timotheum Milesium, Oxonii 1777; lastly, Payne Knight, Essay on the Greek Alphabet, sect. 7. and Porson, Tracts, p. 145. Mus. Crit. vol. I. p. 506.

1517 The following recension of the decree is made after the manuscripts, without any arbitrary introduction of laconisms; while the short vowels are every where retained, and even the singular Ι for Υ. Επειδε ὁ Τιμοθεορ ὁ Μιλησιορ παργινομενορ εν ταν ἁμετεραν πολιν ταν παλαιαν μοαν ατιμασδε, και ταν δια ταν ἑπτα χορδαν κιταριτιν αποστρεφομενορ πολιφονιαν εισαγον λιμαινεται ταρ ακοαρ τον νεον δια τε ταρ πολιχορδιαρ και ταρ καινοτατορ το μελεορ, αγεννε και ποικιλαν αντι ἁπλοαρ και τεταμεναρ αμφιεννιται ταν μοαν, επι χροματορ σινισταμενορ ταν το μελεορ διασκειαν αντι ταρ εναρμονιο ποτταν αντιστροφον αμοιβαν; παρακλετεις δε και εττον αγονα ταρ Ελεισινιαρ Δαματρορ απρεπε διεσκειασατο ταν τω μιτω διασκειαν ταν γαρ Σεμελαρ οδινα ουκ ενὀικα τορ νεορ διδακκε δεδοκται αρ περι τουτοιν τορ βασιλεαρ και τορ εφορορ μεμψατται Τιμοθεον, επαναγκαται δε και ταν ἑνδεκα χορδαν εκταμεν ταρ περιτταρ ὑπολιπομενον ταρ ἑπτα; ὁπορ ἑκαστορ το ταρ πολιορ βαρορ ὁρον ευλαβεται ετταν Σπαρταν επιφερεν τι τον με καλον ετον με ποτε ταραττιται κλεορ αγονον (according to Porson, ἢ τῶν μὴ ποτὶ τᾶρ ἀρετᾶρ κλέορ ἀγόντων.).

1518 B. II. ch. 10. § 4.

1519 In common Greek, ἐπὶ χρώματος συνιστάμενος τὴν τοῦ μέλεος διασκευὴν ἀντὶ τῆς ἐναρμονίου πρὸς τὴν ἀντίστροφον ἀμοιβήν.

1520 Thus, for example, we have ετων from ἔθος, the Laconian form of which was ΒΕΣΟΡ, Valcken. ad Theocrit. p. 282.

1521 For instance, ΜΟΥΣΩ has been written for μιτω (see Valckenær. p. 379.), without a shadow of probability; for κιταριτιν ΚΙΣΑΡΙΞΙΝ, for αμφιεννιται ΑΜΠΕΝΝΥΤΑΙ (from ἀμπέσαι, ἀμφιέσαι Hesychius), or ΑΜΠΙΓΕΝΝΥΤΑΙ (from βέστον, Etym. M. p. 193. 45. for ἔσθος Aristoph. Lys. 1090.); for ἐπαναγκάται ΕΠΑΝΑΓΚΑΑΙ from ποιηἁι, &c. &c.

1522 That it was a common practice to forge Spartan inscriptions is remarked by Valekenær. p. 257. The genuineness of _this_ decree was first questioned by Villebrun ad. Athen. VIII. p. 352. and Heinrich Epimenides, p. 175.

1523 Plat. Leg. II. p. 660. cf. III. p. 680.

1524 Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 121.

1525 A contemporary of Timotheus, Plutarch Mus. 21. Athen. VIII. p. 352 B.

1526 Plutarch Mus. 37.

1527 Boeckh Inscript. No. 1108. Plutarch Mus. 32. ascribes a moral judgment of music particularly to the Lacedæmonians, Mantineans, and Pelleneans.

1528 Max. Tyr. 4. p. 46. 21. p. 216. ed. Davis. cf. Cic. de Leg. II. 15.

1529 As was always the case in Arcadia, according to Polybius IV. 20. 7.

1530 Ap. Demosth. in Mid. p. 15. compare Buttmann’s Commentary, p. 35.

1531 Sosibius ap. Athen. p. 678 B.

1532 Pausan. III. 11. 7.

1533 Xen. Rep. Lac. IX. 5. ἐν χοροῖς εἰς τὰς ἐπονειδίστους χώρας ἀπελαύνεται.

1534 See the apophthegm of Damonides, Plutarch Reg. Apophth. p. 130. Lac. Apophth. p. 203. where however χοραγὸς is put instead of χοροποιὸς, which magistrate had the regulation of the choruses in general (Xen. Ages. 2. 17. Plutarch ubi sup. p. 173. but in Herodotus VI. 67. there is no reason to introduce him on conjecture); and the saying of Agesilaus, Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 173 (where however it is erroneously stated that Agesilaus was appointed king when a boy). The author of the Agesilaus attributed to Xenophon states, that Agesilaus, before the capture of Peiræum, returned home, though lame, in order to be conducted to his place by the choropœus at the pæan of the Hyacinthia; but he clearly confounds him with the Amycleans.

1535 Above, page 262, note g, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “corresponding evolutions,” starting “For this reason.”] where I preferred the explanation of Hesychius to that of Suidas.

1536 Aristot. Polit. VIII. 6. 6.

1537 Plato Leg. II. p. 666.

1538 Pollux IX. 5. 41.

1539 Ap. Athen. XIV. p. 628 F. Schweighæuser asks who this poet Socrates was? I believe the passage is from the Προοίμιον, or Hymn to Apollo, which the philosopher composed when in prison.

1540 The cicada was considered as a musical animal, and sacred to Apollo.

1541 Ib. XIV. p. 633 A.

1542 Aristot. Polit. VIII. 5. and on the other hand see Chamæleon ap. Athen. IV. p. 184 D.

1543 Above, ch. 2. § 3. ch. 4. § 1. Hesychius φουλίδερ, παρθένων χορὸς, Δωριεῖς.

1544 Boeckh ad Pindar. fragm. p. 598.

1545 Plutarch Lycurg. 21. de amore sui 15. Lac. Inst. p. 251. Schol. Plat. Leg. I. p. 223. Ruhnken. p. 449. Bekker Zenobius, Apostolius, &c. They are said to have been instituted by Tyrtæus (Pollux IV. 15. 106), to whom Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 162. 21. ascribes generally a large share in the education of youth at Sparta. It is from these of the Spartans that Plato copies his great choruses. Leg. II. p. 664 sqq.

1546 B. II. ch. 8. § 11, 13.

1547 Concerning these songs, see Athenæus IV. p. 181 B. where it is stated that tumbling (κυβιστᾶν) was a national custom in Crete, and in general Aristoxenus ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 B.

1548 Above, ch. 4. § 1. Eustathius ubi sup. relates that Theseus danced thus with the seven youths and maidens to Cnosus. Compare Lobeck ad Soph. Aj. 698. Κνώσια ὀρχήματα.

1549 Lucian de Saltat. 12. See Meursius Orchestra, tom. V. p. 237.

1550 Ephorus ap. Strab. N. p. 481 D.

1551 Herod. VI. 129. compare Wesseling’s note.

1552 Athenæus I. p. 22 D.

1553 Pausan. IV. 33. 3.

1554 Herod. III. 131.

1555 Boeckh ad Pindar, fragm. inc. 88. Concerning Hierax, see below § 7. Ariston is also mentioned as an ancient flute-player of Argos, in an epigram of Simonides or Bacchylides, Brunck’s Analect. vol. I. p. 141. Gaisford’s Poet. Min. vol. I. p. 383. Neue Bacchyl. fragm. 61.

1556 Pausan. IV. 27. 4.

1557 Pausan. VI. 14. 5.

1558 See the ancient Epigram in Athenæus XIV. p. 629.

1559 B. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1560 Athen. V. p. 181 C.

1561 The ἰαμβίζειν is also elsewhere connected with this worship; compare Max. Tyr. Diss. XXI. p. 216. Davis, and the general expression σικελίζειν for ὀρχεῖσθαι, Theophrast. ap. Athen. I. p. 22 C. And Archilochus perhaps belonged to the colony in which the priestess Cleobœa brought the mystical rites of Demeter from Paros to Thasos.

1562 Particularly of Artemis Χιτωνέα, as appears from Athenæus p. 629 E. who was also originally Ionic, b. II. ch. 9. § 5.

1563 Athen. IV. p. 103.

1564 On which see Athen. p. 624 B.

1565 Pausan. II. 21. 3. Comp. Schol. Soph. Aj. 14. Eurip. Phœn. 1386. Athene was evidently the patron of the trumpeters, under the name Σάλπιγξ, at Argos (an allusion to which see in Æsch. Eum. 556. Soph. Aj. 17.), because she was tutelar deity of the flute-players; and this was also the case at Sparta. For it is plain from Polyænus I. 10. that the διαβατήρια were offered to Athene on the boundaries (b. III. ch. 12. § 5.) only because she presided over the flutes, by which the army was conducted.

1566 Athen. XII. p. 517 A. de XIV. p. 627 D. Plutarch Mus. 26.

1567 Polyb. IV. 20. 6. Athen. XIV. 626. Plutarch ubi sup. Lucian de Saltat. 10. Dio Chrysost. Or. XXXII. p. 380. Reisk. Gell. N. A. I. 11. Eustath. ad Il. ψ᾽. p. 1320. 3. ed. Rom.

1568 Fragm. 14. ed. Welcker. Pausanias III. 17. 5. mentions flute, lyre, and cithara together. The fabulous narration of Polyænus appears to me to be historically refuted by Alcman, as also by that remarked in b. II. ch. 8. § 11.

1569 Polyb. IV. 20. 6. Compare Strabo X. p. 483 B.

1570 B. III. ch. 2. § 4. ch. 12. § 5, 10.

1571 V. 70. See Lucian de Saltat. 10.

1572 The Ἀδώνιον was one kind of the ἐπιβατήρια, according to Hesyehius, whose gloss ὅπερ ὕστερον παρὰ Λεσβίοις ὠνομάσθη, as well as the name itself, is by no means clear. Ἐνόπλια μέλη ἐμβατήρια in Athenæus XIV. p. 630 F. Valckenaer ad Theocrit. Adon. p. 283. is also of opinion that the σαρσίτειος χορὸς to the flute was an ἐμβατήριον (from θαρρεῖν); but an ἐμβατήριον was not a chorus.

1573 Plutarch de Mus. 26. Lycurg. 22. where however the Καστόρειον μέλος of the flute-players is distinguished from the ἐμβατήριος παιᾶν, in which the king joined (on the other hand Polyænus I. 10. ἐμβατήριον ἐνδίδωσιν αὐλὸς); Καστόρειον generally being used for the music of instruments, and ἐμβατήριον the song itself.

1574 Pollux IV. 10. 78.

_ 1575 Messeniacum metrum seu embaterium_, Victorinus, p. 2522. ed. Putsch. Comp. Hephæst. pag. 25. 46, 1. ed. Gaisford. Schol. Eurip. Hec. 59. and Demetrius Triclinius ad Soph. Aj. 134. Cic. Quæst. Tusc. II. 16.

1576 Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 251. Valer. Maxim. II. 6. 2.

1577 Pindar. Pyth. II. 69. Hermann de Dial. Pind. p. 19, 20. Boeckh de Metr. Pind. p. 276. Expl. Pyth. II. p. 249.

1578 Isthm. I. 16.

1579 B. II. ch. 10. § 8. A third supposition is that of the Scholiast to Pindar, Pyth. II. 127, that the νόμος took its name from the Dioscuri, as being the inventors of the Pyrrhic dance (comp. Plat. Leg. VII. p. 795. Lucian de Saltat. 10.) But in the Μῶσαι of Epicharmus (ap. Schol. Pind. et Athen. p. 184 F.) it was only stated that Minerva played the flute for the Dioscuri to the ἐνόπλιος νόμος (_i.e._ the Pyrrhic), and hence that the flute was used as a military instrument at Sparta; but not a word of the Καστόρειος νόμος.

1580 As, for instance, ἄγετ᾽ ὦ Σπάρτας εὐάνδρου in Dion Chrysost. Orat. II. p. 31 A. ed. Reisk.; although, according to Hephæstion, the _laconicum metrum_ was a _tetrameter catalecticus in syllabam_, with a spondaic ending; and according to M. Victorinus ubi sup. a _trimeter catalecticus in syllabam_.

1581 B. III. ch. 12. § 4.

1582 This very precise and credible account is given by Philochorus ap. Athen. p. 630. Lycurgus in Leocrat. p. 212. ed. Reisk. states, that it was sung at the king’s tent before the battle. Compare Manso’s Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 171. Conrad Schneider in the Studien, vol. IV. p. 18. Franck’s Tyrtæus, p. 133.

1583 Hesych. in ἰβυκτήρ. Write ἰβυκτήρ. ἦν παρὰ Κρησὶν Ἴβυκος ἐμβατήριον ποιησάμενος, ὅπερ ὁ ἄδων οὕτω ἐκαλεῖτο.

1584 Book III. ch. 12. § 10.

1585 Ib. notes.

1586 Plato Leg. VII. p. 795. Aristoxenus ap. Athen. p. 630 E. Strab. X. p. 467. Nicol. Damasc. Κρῆτες. Lucian de Saltat. 8. Schol. Pindar. Pyth. II. 127. Hesychius in πυῤῥιχίζειν. Pollux IV. 14. 99. derives two ἔνοπλοι ὀρχήσεις from Crete, the Pyrrhic and the Telesias, comp. Athen. p. 630 A; and from Athen. p. 629 C. it appears that there were there also the similar dances of ὀρσίτης and ἐπικρηνίδιος.

1587 See Hoeck’s Kreta, vol. I. p. 212.

1588 Above, p. 342. note r. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Spartan army,” starting “B. II. ch. 10.”]

1589 Schol. Pind. ubi sup.

1590 Leg. VII. p. 815.

1591 Athen. p. 631 A. Comp. Meursius Orchestra Op. vol. V. p. 242. Manso, Sparta, vol. I. part II. p. 175.

1592 As is frequently seen on vases.

1593 Plutarch. Music. 26. Comp. Pollux IV. 10. 79.

1594 Plutarch ubi sup.

1595 That is, if the emendation of Salmasius, ἱεράκιον for θεράκιον, in Pollux IV. 10. 78, is adopted.

1596 Athen. p. 678 B. and compare p. 631 B. p. 632 C. Concerning the gymnopædia in general, see Meurs. Orchest. p. 202. and the passages cited by Creuzer Comment. Herod. vol. I, p. 230.

1597 πόῤῥω παῖδες πόδα μετάβατε, καὶ κωμάξατε βέλτιον, Lucian de Salt. 10. 11.

1598 Athen. p. 14 D. from Dicæarchus and Hippasus. At Argos the choruses of boys were called Βαλλαχράδαι. Plutarch Quæst. Græc. 51. p. 405.

1599 Pollux IV. 14. 102.

1600 Lysist. 82. The ἀναλακτίζειν of the Spartan women when dancing is mentioned in Oribasius Med. p. 121. ed. Mosq.; the ἐκλακτίσματα, as a woman’s dance in general is mentioned by Pollux ubi sup.

1601 Cited by Pollux, χίλιά ποκα βιβάντι (rather βιβάτι) πλεῖστα δὴ τῶν πή ποκα, which becomes a trimeter iambic by the omission of the first ποκα.

1602 Pollux IV. 4. 101. Hesychius in v. See Meurs. Orchest. under διποδία, διαποδισμὸς ποδίκρα.

1603 Perhaps it was connected with the trochaic dipodia, which appears to have been the common metre in these choral songs, though mixed with cretics, spondees, dactylic, and logaœdic verses.

1604 Aristoph. Lysist. ad fin.

1605 Some rites of Bacchus were mixed with the worship of the Caryatan Artemis, as may be seen from Servius ad Virg. Eclog. VIII. 30; hence the dances of this goddess were of a wild and violent character. Accordingly, Praxiteles (Pliny, H. N. XXXVI. 4.) made a joint composition of Caryatides and Thyades; and Pratinas (Athen. X. p. 392.) wrote a play called Δύμαιναι ἢ Καρυάτιδες, the former of whom, also called Δύσμαιναι, occur as Bacchantes. The form Δύσμαιναι is defended against Toup and Meineke (Euphorion. fragm. 42. p. 93.) by Philargyr. ad Virg. Georg. II. 487. who translates the name by _furiosæ Bacchæ_. The Caryatides, who danced with uplifted hands, (Lynceus ap. Athen. VI. p. 241 D.) may be recognised in many reliefs as young women with their garments girt up and lightly clad.

1606 B. II. ch. 8. § 14.

1607 Pollux IV. 14. 104. where for βαρύλλικα write with Schneider (in v.) βρυάλλιχα.

1608 Hesychius has βύλλιχαι χοροὶ τινες ὀρχηστῶν παρὰ Λάκωσιν; then βρυαλίκται ὀρχησταὶ from Ibycus and Stesichorus; next βρυδάλιχα (but the order of the letters requires ΒΡΥΑΛΛΙΧΑ), in the sense of frightful female masks, from Rhinthon; and βρυδαλίχας (ΒΡΥΑΛΛΙΧΑΣ) τὰς μαχλάδας, Λάκωνες; and, lastly, βρυλλοχισταὶ, persons who sang hymns in hideous female masks. The original forms appear to have been βρυάλλιχα for the _dance_, βρυαλλίχα for the _mask_, and βρυαλλίκτης (like δεικηλίκτης) for the _dancer_.

1609 Vol. I. p. 377, note s.

1610 Pollux IV. 14. 104. ἦν δὲ τινα καὶ Λακωνικὰ ὀρχήματα. δειμαλέα: Σειληνοὶ δ᾽ ἦσαν καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς Σάτυροι ὑπότροχα ὀρχούμενοι. καὶ ἴθυμβοι ἐπὶ Διονύσῳ. καὶ καρυατίδες ἐπὶ Ἀρτέμιδι. καὶ βρυάλλιχα τὸ μὲν εὕρημα Βρυαλλίχον. προσωρχοῦντο δὲ γυναῖκες Ἀπόλλωνι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδι. οἱ δὲ ὑπογύπωνες γερόντων ὑπὸ βακτηρίοις τὴν μίμησιν εἶχον. οἱ δὲ γύπωνες ξυλίνων κώλων ἐπιβαίνοντες ὠρχοῦντο, διαφανῆ ταραντινίδια ἀμπεχόμενοι. καὶ μῆνες Χαρίνων μὲν ὄρχημα, ἐπώνυμον δ᾽ ἦν τοῦ εὑρόντος αὐλητοῦ. τυρβασία δὲ ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ ὄρχημα τὸ διθυραμβικόν. μιμηλικὴν δἐ ἐκάλουν δι᾽ ἧς ἐμιμοῦντο τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ κλοπῇ τῶν ἑώλων μερῶν ἁλισκομένους. λαμπροτέρα δὲ ἦν ἣν ὠρχοῦντο γυμνοὶ σὺν αἰσχρολογίᾳ. In this passage there is nothing altered except βρυάλλιχα and Βρυαλλίχου for βαρύλλιχα and Βαρυλλίχου, λαμπροτέρα δὲ ἦν ἣν for λαμπροτέραν δὲ ἣν; and μιμηλικὴν for μιμητικὴν, as a friend of the author’s has proposed (G. A. Schoell, de origine Græci dramatis, p. 97.), which gives the same sense δεικηλιστικὴν, which I had formerly proposed, as μιμηλοὶ and δεικηλισταὶ were synonyms, according to Suidas in Σωσίβιος.

1611 γένος οὐτιδανῶν Σατύρων καὶ ἀμηχανοεργῶν, Hesiod. ap. Strab. X. p. 471. The reading δειμαλέα is not however at all certain; and still less the word μῆνες, a little lower.

1612 On the _Charinus_ or _Gracioso_, see below, ch. 7. § 3; and on the Argolian τύρβη, b. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1613 Although the Spartans also called regular actors δεικηλίκται, Plutarch Agesil. 21. Lac. Apophth. p. 185. Apostolius XV. 39. Schol. Il. χ᾽. 391.

1614 δίκηλον according to Hesychius ἀνδρίας, ζῴδιον παρὰ Λάκωσιν perhaps refers to the fact mentioned in vol. I. p. 66, note q.

1615 δεικηλισταὶ σκευοποιοὶ καὶ μιμηταὶ, Sosibius ap. Athen. XIV. p. 621 D. Hesychius in δεικηλισταὶ. cf. interprett. They were μιμολόγοι according to Hesychius in δίκηλον, κωμικοὶ according to Eustathius p. 884. 23, σκωπτικοὶ according to Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 746. The Laconic form is δεικηλίκτας.

1616 Ap. Athen. Eustath. ubi sup. Suidas and Phavorinus in δικηλιστῶν, and Suidas in Σωσίβιος. On the Lacedæmonian mimicry see also Boettiger Quat. ætat. reiscenicæ, p. 8.

1617 See Plutarch Lycurg. I. καὶ φέρουσι κλέπτοντες, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τοὺς κήπους βαδίζοντες (robbers of gardens), οἱ δ᾽ εἰς τὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν συσσίτια παρεισρέοντες (the thieves of the ἐωλομερῆ of Pollux cited in p. 347, note b.) [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “grammarian,” starting “Pollux IV.”]

1618 B. III. ch. 3. § 3; and see Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 279. Eq. 632.

1619 Diomed. 3. p. 483. ed Putsch. Servius ad Virg. Ecl. I. Donatus Vit. Virg. p. 84. sq. Diomedes also connects the Sicilian bucoliasms with rites of Ἄρτεμις Λύη.

1620 Ἐν Ἁλκυόνι καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσεῖ ναυαγῷ, Athen. XIV. p. 619 A. Comp. Hesych. et Etym. M. in v.

1621 Ælian. V.H. X. 18.

1622 Tityrus, according to Servius ad Ecl. I. i. was _aries major, qui gregem anteire consueverit, lingua Laconia_; a goat, according to Schol. Theocrit. III. 2. Photius in v. Τίτυρος is the Doric form of σίσυρος, which also originally meant a goat; whence σισύρνα (_i.e._ σισυρίνα), or σισύρα, a _goat-skin_: but τίτυρος is not allied to σάτυρος (as the Schol. Theocrit. III. 2. VII. 72. Eustath. ad II. τ᾽. p. 1157. 39. ed. Rom. suppose; comp. Creuzer, Symbolik, vol. III. p. 197). The flute called τιτύρινος by the Italian Dorians (Artemidorus ap. Athen. IV. p. 182 D. Eustath. p. 1157. 38), was so named from a _shepherd_.

1623 Of the θεοὶ Παλικοὶ, near mount Ætna, which evidently were originally identical with the goddess _Pales_ of the Romans; and consequently her worship belongs to the Siculian branch of the Roman religion.

1624 Schol. Theoc. et Virg. Ælian ubi sup.

1625 The poems of Theocritus unluckily give little information on these points, as the bucolics are those which show the most artifice and novelty.

1626 Poet. IV. 14.

1627 Athen. XIV. p. 631 D. At Athens too the country Phallic festival was called ἑορτὴ ἁλῆτις.

1628 Semus Delius ap. Athen. p. 621 F. p. 622 C. and Suidas in Σῆμος. Compare b. II. ch. 10. § 6.

1629 It seems probable that the proverb μωρότερος Μορύχου originally referred to the rude mirth at the vintage-festivals, at which it was common in Sicily (and probably elsewhere also) to smear the face with the juice of the grape. In Italy there were also at the festival of Artemis Corythallia clowns, with wooden masks (κύριθρα), called κυριττοὶ, Hesych. in v.

1630 Æginetica, p. 170. sq.

1631 Aristoph. Vesp. 57. γέλωτα Μεγαρόθεν κεκλεμμένον. Eupolis ap. Schol. Vesp. 57. et Aspas. ad Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 2. 20. fol. 53 B. τὸ σκῶμμ᾽ ἀσελγὲς καὶ Μεγαρικὸν καὶ σφόδρα ψυχρὸν γελῶσιν, ὡς ὁρᾷς, τὰ παιδία (as emended by Dobree in Porson’s Tracts, p. 384.). See also on the γέλως Μεγαρικὸς Diogenian. Prov. IV. 88. App. Vatic. I. 46. Apostol. VI. 2. What Aristotle ubi sup. relates, refers merely to the silly and unnecessary display of a Megarian choregus for comedy, in the embellishment of the theatre.

1632 Aristot. Poet. 3. Aspasius ubi sup.

1633 Ecphantides ap. Aspas. ubi sup. says, Μεγαρικῆς κωμῳδίας ἆσμ᾽ οὐ δίειμ᾽: ᾐσχυνόμην τὸ δρᾶμα Μεγαρικὸν ποιεῖν, as Meineke ad Menand. p. 382. and Quæst. Seen. I. p. 6. has correctly written, _i.e._ “_the song which I sing is not that of a Megarian comedy; I was ashamed to make my play Megarian_.”

1634 Concerning Ecphantides, see Schneider ad Aristot. Pol. VIII. 8. Gaisford ad Hephæst. p. 97. and particularly Næke’s Chœrilus, p. 51 sq. and Meineke Quæst. Scen. I. p. 12. who correctly places him between Magnes and Chionides on the one side, and Cratinus and Teleclides on the other, about Olymp. 80. 460 B.C. [See also Clinton, F. H. vol. II. Introduction, p. xxxvii.]

1635 Aspasius ubi sup. Schol. Dionys. Thrac. in Bekker’s Anecdota Gr. p. 748. compare Bentley Phalarid. p. 261.

1636 Marm. Par. ep. 34. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 308.

1637 As may be inferred from Statius Theb. XII. 619.

1638 According to Aristot. Poet. 3. it originated during the existence of democracy at Megara; but the period of popular rule in this town (b. III. ch. 9. § 10.) was too late for this to be strictly true, though its rise was probably connected with a democratic principle, which was alive at Megara before the time of Theagenes, and after his downfall was continually on the increase.

1639 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 362 sqq. and Thiersch, Einleitung zu Pindar, p. 117. with the opposite remark on the τὰ ἐπινίκια κωμῳδός, Goettingen Review, 1821. part 106. p. 1050. I also conceive that the comedies of Antheas the Lindian, the relation (συγγενὴς) of Cleobulus, were lyric; who passed his whole life in leading processions to Bacchus, and also practised the obscure ποίησις διὰ συνθέτων ὀνομάτων, Athen. X. p. 445 A. In this instance the comedies are evidently only _procession-songs_ from κῶμος. The same is likewise true of the slanderous comedies of Timocreon, also a Rhodian, Suidas in v.

1640 Aristoph. Byz. ap. Ath. XIV. p. 659 A. Hesych. in Μαίσων, τεττιξ. Festus in Maeson. cf. Zenob. Prov. II. 11.

1641 Poet. III. 5.

1642 B. I. ch. 6. § 10.

1643 That the names “Chimarus” and “Tityrus” were taken from the occupation of the shepherd and goatherd, is remarked by Welcker on Schwenck’s Mythologische Andeutungen, p. 331.

1644 Diog. Laert. and τινὲς ap. Suid. cf. Diomed. 3. p. 486. ed. Putsch.

1645 See vol. I. p. 187. note a.

1646 This statement is indeed inconsistent with the account in Diog. Laert. VIII. 78. that Epicharmus, when a child of three months, was brought from Cos to Megara; but this is not a sufficient authority to set aside the other accounts. The statements of the writer περὶ κωμῳδίας in Kuster’s Aristophanes, p. xii. γέγονε κατὰ τὴν ογ ὀλυμπιάδα, and of Suidas, ἦν δὲ πρὸ τῶν Περσικῶν ἔτη ἓξ, διδάσκων ἐν Συρακούσαις, perhaps refer to the arrival of Epicharmus in Sicily.

1647 Suidas. His first covering the stage with purple skins reminds us of the Megarian choregus, who used real purple. Aristot. Eth. Nic. IV. 2. 20. Bentley Phalarid. p. 260. considers him as identical with Phormis the Mænalian, who served Gelon and Hieron with great honour; to me it seems that the ideas of an Arcadian _condottiere_ and a comic poet are quite irreconcileable.

1648 Fabric. Biblioth. vol. II. p. 315. Harles.

1649 There is no reason for supposing that there were never more than two interlocutors in the plays of Epicharmus. Three, viz. Amycus, Pollux, and Castor, are evidently engaged in the dialogue of which a fragment is preserved in Schol. Soph. Aj. 722. Ἄμυκε μὴ κύδαζέ μοι τὸν πρεσβύτερον ἀδελφέον; and there must have been several in the Ἅφαιστος.

1650 See Casaubon ad Athen. III 13. p. 176. Harless ibid. p. 45.

1651 Photius in Ἥρας δεσμοὺς, and Suidas in Ἥρας δὲ δεσμούς.

1652 Figured in Mazocchi Tab. Heracl. ad p 138. Hancarville, vol. III. pl. 105. Millin, Galérie Mythologique, XIII. 48.

1653 This form of the H or aspirate, which seems to have been peculiar to the Italian Greeks, is found, besides the Heraclean Tables and this vase, on the Pæstum vase, which Lanzi and others have edited (_Illustrazione di due vast fittili_, Roma 1809).

1654 Why I do not (with Visconti Mus. Pio Clement, vol. IV. p. 20. and Welcker ap. Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. IV. p. 386.) suppose that Dædalus means Hephæstus himself, is sufficiently explained in the text.

1655 Millingen Vases de Coghill. pl. 6. and in Millin vol. I. pl. 9. The scene in Millin vol. II. pl. 66. Tischbein III. 9. IV. 38. is evidently the same, and Millingen’s opinion, p. 10. seems to me untenable.

1656 B. II. ch. 12. § 10.

1657 Millin I. pl. 63. 72. comp. Tischbein II. 7. 18.

1658 Winckelmann Monum. ined. No. 190. p. 285. Hancarville, vol. IV. pl. 160.

1659 Tischbein IV. 57. The figure looks like the Κάγχας in the vase described below.

1660 See A. W. Schlegel, Ueber dramatische Kunst. vol. II. p. 8.

1661 Millingen, Peintures de Collections diverses, 46, Compare the explanation, p. 69. From this name _charinos_ for jester probably comes the Latin _carinari_, in Festus. The Glossaries of Labbæus render it by χαριεντίζεσθαι.

1662 Above, ch. 6. § 9.

1663 The best translation for κάγχας is “_cachinno_” in Persius Sat. I.

1664 That the above painting was taken from the Σκίρων of Epicharmus, I could hardly maintain, from the grounds stated in the text; although the bed of Procrustes probably occurred in that play, as well as in the Σκίρων of Euripides. On the latter see Hemsterhuis ad Poll. X. 7. 35. Boettiger, Vasengemälde I. 2. p. 147.

1665 Ad Poll. IX. 4. 26.

1666 Schol. Pind. Pyth. I. 99. see Boeckh Explic. Pyth. II. p. 240.

1667 Athen. VI. p. 235. 236 A. X. p. 429 A.

1668 Menæchm. Prol. 12. Indeed the expression can only mean, that the characters of this play of Plautus were Sicilian Greeks. Plautus has sometimes Doric names for his characters; thus a parasite in the Stichus I. 3. 89. is called _Miccotrogos_, from μικκὸς Doric for μικρὸς. Such names as this were probably borrowed from Epicharmus. Notwithstanding the line of Horace, “_Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare Epicharmi_,” his chief model was the Attic comedy.

1669 Epicharmus was γνωμικὸς, according to the writer περὶ κωμῳδίας, p. xii. Kuster.

1670 Jambl. Pyth. 36. p. 219. whose statement seems probable to Boeckh, Philolaos, p. 13. This person’s name is uncertain; Jamblichus calls him Ἀρήσας, Ἄρκεσος Plutarch de de Gen. Socrat. 13.

1671 Diog. Laert. III. 16.

1672 Diog. Laert. VIII. 18. Eudocia ap. Villois. Anecd. vol. I. p. 193. compare the Ἐπιχάρμειος λόγος in Suidas, and the fragm. Ennii, p. 110. ed. Hessel. It is however possible that this Ἐπιχάρμειος λόγος was merely an extract from his comedies.

1673 Cicero Tusc. I. 8. ad Att. I. 19. calls him _acutus_ and _vafer_, as being a Sicilian.

1674 Bentley Phalar. p. 413.

1675 As may be inferred from Photius in Ῥηγίνους, where Sophron’s son Xenarchus (also a mimographer, Hermann ad Aristot. Poet. I. 3. p. 94.) is mentioned as a contemporary of Dionysius (the elder). Suidas and Eudocia p. 389. place Sophron in the time of Xerxes and of Euripides; several moderns have followed the former statement.

1676 Which appear to have partially corresponded with one another, as is evident from some fragments extant, and from a comparison of the Schol. in Gregor. Naz. in Montfaucon’s Biblioth. Coislin. p. 120. with the poem to which it refers, in Tollius’ Itin. Ital. pag. 96 sq. See Hermann ibid. p. 93.

1677 Hence in early inscriptions fragments of hexameters often occur.

1678 Xen. Hell. I. 23. Plutarch Alcib. 28. Eustathius ad Hom. II. p. 63. 1. Apostol. IX. 2. Compare Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 264. But to suppose that Hippocrates _intentionally_ wrote two scazons, would be very absurd.

1679 Plutarch Lacæn. Apophth. p. 260. τεῦ and ἀπωθεῦ, according to Valckenær. p. 260. who collects some letters, which say the same thing a little differently.

1680 Compare, _e.g._, the fragment of Sophron in Athen. p. 86 E. (Blomfield No. 12. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 342.)

τίνες δ ἐντί ποκα, φίλα, ταῖδε τοι μακραὶ κόγχαι; Β. σωλῆνες, τουτί γα γλυκύκρεων κογχύλιον χηρᾶν γυναικῶν λίχνευμα.

1681 The actual representation of the mimes of Sophron is also proved by the words of Solinus 5., that in Sicily “cavillatio mimica in _scena stetit_.” Compare Salmas. Lect. Plin. p. 76 B.C.

1682 Σικελίζειν, τὸ ἀτηρεύεσθαι παρὰ Ἐπιχάρμῳ, οἱ δὲ τὸ πονηρεύεσθαι, Photius &c. in v.

1683 Diod. XX. 63.

1684 See particularly on this point, Valckenær. ad Adoniaz. p. 200 sq.

1685 Demetrius de Elocut. 156. cf. 127. 162. Ulpian. ad Demosth. Olynth. p. 36. comp. Apolladorus ἐντοῖς περὶ Σώφρονος fragm. p. 438 sq. Heyne.

1686 Duris ap. Athen. XI. p. 504 B. Diog. Laert. III. 18. Olympiodorus Vit. Plat. &c.

1687 On Sophron see the references of Fabricius Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 493 sq. Harl. and Blomfield in the Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 380. Museum Criticum, vol. IV. p. 340-358. 559-569.

1688 J. Laurent. Lydus de Magistratibus Rom. p. 70. ed. Fuss.

1689 Identical with φλυακογραφία, Suidas in Ῥίνθων, &c.

1690 The Amphitryon, Hercules, Orestes, Telephus, the Iphigenias, and the slave Meleager in Athenæus, Pollux, Hephæstion, and Herodian.

1691 This is the explanation given by several writers of the word φλύακες, Steph. Byz. in Τάρας, Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 976. φλύακες τραγικοὶ Nossis Epigr. ap. Brunck. Analect. vol. I. p. 196. See Reuven’s Collect. Litter. p. 71.

1692 Apollonius Dysc. de Pronom. p. 364 C. ed. Bekker. comp. Valckenær. ad Adoniaz. p. 294.

1693 In Hephæstion p. 10. Gaisford. Rhinthon says to a choliambic line, in the last thesis of which there is a syllable lengthened by a violent metrical licence, ἴθ᾽ Ἱππώνακτος τὸ μέτρον; οὐδέν μοι μέλει. Trimeter iambics of Rhinthon often occur; _e.g._ two properly constructed in Herodian περὶ μονήρους λέξεως p. 19. 27. 30. ed. Dindorf.

1694 At least it appears that there is an hexameter extant of Sopater, another writer of φλύακες, in Athen. XIV. p. 656 F. if Osann. Anal. Rei Scenicæ p. 73. corrects rightly; the other verses of the same poet are however all iambic. But the ἱλαροτραγῳδία of Rhinthon could not by any means be generally called ἑξαμετρικὴ, and I agree with Reuvens on Lydus I. 41. who considers that the statement ὃς ἑξαμέτροις ἔγραψε κωμῳδίαν as a mistake of that writer, and Lange in I. 40. seems properly to defend ἑξωτική.

1695 Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 294 classes Sclerias (whom he considers as identical with Sciras in Athen. IX. p. 402 B.), Blæsus, and Rhinthon together; and there is no doubt that in Lydus Reuvens p. 69 has rightly corrected Ῥίνθωνα καὶ Σκίραν καὶ Βλαῖσον: as also φλυακογράφων for πυθαγόρων, and Lange κωμικῶν for οὐ μικρῶν. In Hesychius in ἄσεκτος, for παρὰ Ῥίνθωνι Ταραντίνῳ φιλοσόφῳ may be corrected either φλυαοκογράφῳ or Τηλέφῳ.

1696 Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 426. Harl. Reuvens Coll. Litt. p. 79.

1697 II. VI. 132.

1698 V. 67; for an explanation of which passage see vol. I. p. 404. note c. Perhaps μεγαρίζειν for “to lament” (Aristoph. Ach. 822. Suidas and the Parœmiographers in Μεγαρέων δάκρυα, comp. Tyrrwhit ad Aristot. Poet, p. 174.) refers to tragedy, as Μεγαρικὸς γέλως to comedy.

1699 Suidas in Θέσπις. Photius, Apostolius, and Suidas in οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον, the former of whom says, Ἐπιγένους τοῦ Σικυωνίου τραγῳδίαν εἰς αὐτὸν (in Suidas εἰς Διόνυσον, but perhaps it is an old error for εἰς Ἄδραστον) ποιήσαντος ἐπεφώνησάν τινες τοῦτο; ὅθεν ἡ παροιμία.

1700 Poet. 3. and Hermann ad I. p. 104.

1701 Themistius Or. XIX. p. 487. says directly that the Sicyonians were the inventors of tragedy.

1702 Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 362.

1703 Particularly by Aristocles ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 C.

1704 Suidas in Ἀρίων.

1705 Arion’s age is stated in Suidas after the beginning of Periander’s reign, Olymp. 38, or, according to Eusebius, Olymp. 40. (628 or 620 B.C.)

1706 Hence also his father is called Cycleus, according to the analogy remarked above, p. 357. note n. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Helothales,” starting “That the names.”]

1707 Herod. I. 23. cf. Hellanic. ap. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1403. p. 87. ed. Sturz. Aristot. ap. Procl. Chrestom. p. 382. Gaisford.

1708 Olymp. XIII. 18. cf. Schol. ad 1.

1709 Suidas in Πρατίνας. Acron ad Horat. A. P. 216. and compare the Φλιάσιοι Σάτυροι in Dioscorides. Anthol. vol. I. p. 252. Jacob. See Casaubon de Sat. Poësi I. 5. p. 120. Toup Emend. in Suid. vol. II. p. 479.

1710 Paus. II. 13.

1711 As may be inferred from the fact that Pratinas also composed Doric hyporchemes, Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 135, and from the title of one of his plays, Δύμαιναι ἢ Καρυατίδες, above, p. 346, note n. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]

1712 F. Schlegel, Geschichte der Poësie der Griechen und Römer, I. 1. p. 226. sqq. Schneider, Geschichte der Elegie, Studien, vol. I. p. 2.

1713 The choral poetry of Corinna in the Bœotian dialect is however an exception.

1714 Boeckh ad Pind. Fragm. p. 607.

1715 In the Prytaneum at Elis also Doric songs were sung in the time of Pausanias (V. 15. 8.) and the ἔπη used at the Lernæa were in the same dialect (ib. II. 37. 3.).

1716 See above, ch. 6. § 4. and the τετραγώνοι χοροὶ of the Laconists, Ath. IV. pag. 181 C. from Timæus.

1717 Ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 21.

1718 Ib. Fragm. incert. 110. Boeckh; above, p. 94, note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “appointed for war,” starting “Which is beautifully expressed.”]

1719 Ælian V. H. XII. 50.

1720 Ælian V. H. IX. 41.

1721 According to Athenæus XIV. p. 632 F.

1722 Plutarch Lycurg. 28.

1723 Sosibius ap. Athen. XV. p. 687 B.

1724 Above, ch. 6. § 3. I will not add Philoxenus of Cythera in the time of Dionysius to the names in the text.

1725 Pausan III. 17. 3. Chilon likewise, according to Diog. Laert. I. 3. 68, wrote ἐλεγεῖα to the number of about 200 verses. Likewise Areus the Laconian (Anton. Liber. 12.) was a lyric poet, and _different_ from the epic poet Ἄρειος in Paus. III. 13. 5. if such a person ever existed. Also the μελοποιὸς Eurytus, who, according to J. Lydus de Ostent. p. 283. Hase, wrote an ode, beginning “Ἀγαλμοειδὲς Ἔρως,” and Zarex, according to the conjecture of Paus. I. 38. 4, both Lacedæmonians.

1726 Valer. Max. V. 3. Archiloch. Fragm. p. 147. Liebel.

1727 Plutarch Cleom. 2. de Solert. Anim. I. Apophth. Lac. p. 244.

1728 Alcman ap. Apollon. Dys. de Pron. p. 381. Bekker. Fragm. 73. Welcker.

1729 Alcman ap. Athen. XIII. p. 600 F. Fragm. 27. Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 1239. Suidas in Κλειταγόρα Olcarus ap. Wolf. Fragm. Mul. 2. p. 62, 145. Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. vol. II. p. 11, 157. vol. I. p. 883.

1730 In denying the truth of the report that Telesilla routed Cleomenes (vol. I. pag. 191, note n.) I did not mean to disparage the beautiful and genuine Doric character of that poetess and heroine.

1731 Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. II. p. 135.

1732 Plutarch Sympos. V. 2. p. 206.

1733 Æginetica, p. 143. cf. Dissen. Expl. p. 381.

1734 See above, p. 151. note k, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “influence of Athens,” starting “Compare what Timocreon.”] and Fabricius.

1735 The assertion in the text makes it necessary for me to remark, that I do not consider either Homer or his language as originally Ionic; and the Ionisms of his dialect appear to me to have been introduced by the prevailing schools of rhapsodists. To offer any proofs of these positions would be improper in this place.

1736 The following epic poets were Dorians: Eumelus of Corinth, Cinæthon of Lacedæmon, Augeas of Trœzen, Pisander of Rhodes, Panyasis of Halicarnassus; and Empedocles of Agrigentum was the author of a philosophical didactic poem.

1737 See b. II. ch. 8. §. 13.

1738 Ibid.

1739 B. I. ch. 7. §. 4. The laws of Lycurgus were doubtless reduced into epic or elegiac verse, possibly by Terpander himself, who was likewise an epic poet, and composed προοίμια as introductions to the Homeric poems. He also wrote scolia, probably of the Doric kind, Plutarch. Mus. 8. and spondaics in the Doric measure, as the splendid one in Clemens Alex. VI. p. 658. Ζεῦ πάντων ἀρχὰ, πάντων ἡγῆτορ Ζεῦ, Σοὶ πέμπω ταύτων ὕμνων ἀρχάν. His epic poems too, in part at least, were written in the Doric dialect, in which the earlier Orphic hymns were composed, according to Jamblichus, and many Delphic oracles, concerning which see Appendix VIII. ad fin.

1740 Although several broken dactylics of this kind were named after Alcman, he was doubtless not the first person who introduced them. It is to this that the expression “_numeros minuit in carmine_” (Welcker, p. 11.) refers.

1741 See the beautiful fragment, No. 10, in Welcker.

1742 Fragm. 63.

1743 See the beautiful lines of Alcman, fragm. 12.

Οὔ μ᾽ ἔτι, παρθενικαὶ μελιγάρυες ἱερόφωνοι, γυῖα φέρειν δύναται. βάλε δὴ, βάλε, κηρύλος εἴην, ὅστ᾽ ἐπὶ κύματος ἄνθος ἅμ᾽ ἀλκυόνεσσι ποτᾶται, νηδεὲς ἦτορ ἔχων, ἁλιπόρφυρος εἴαρος ὄρνις.

1744 An ancient erotic poet was Ametor of Eleutherna in Crete, Athen. XIV. p. 638 B. from whom a family or clan of Citharistæ was there called Ἀμητορίδαι, Hesych. in v. whence correct Athenæus and Etymol. M. p. 83, 15. The author of the Εἵλωτες laments in Athenæus XIV. p. 638. E. that “it had become oldfashioned to sing the songs of Stesichorus, Alcman, and Simonides: but every one listened to Gnesippus, who had taught lovers how to serenade their mistresses with harps and guitars.” This fragment, which is written in logaœdic metre, has little of the Doric dialect. The Εἵλωτες was a satyric drama, and its complete title was οἱ Εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ, Eustath. ad Il. p. 297. ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Ἡρωδιανοῦ. Perhaps in allusion to the ἄγος Ταινάριον. See vol. I. p. 208. note q. Concerning the origin of this singular drama, see some remarks in Niebuhr’s Rhein. Museum, vol. III. p. 488.

1745 B. II. ch. 10. §. 9.

1746 Above, p. 308 notes h and i. [Transcriber’s Note: These are the footnotes to “were admitted” and “free citizen,” starting “Xenoph. Hellen. V.” and “See in particular.”]

1747 Above, ch. 4. § 1. ch. 5. § 7.

1748 B. II. ch. 8. § 18.

1749 Æginetica, p. 96. sq.

1750 Thiersch, Epochen der Kunst, vol. II. p. 27.

1751 B. III. ch. 2. § 3.

1752 B. II. ch. 8. § 18.

1753 It is only by this general proposition that we can explain why the physicians of Cos wrote in the Ionic dialect.

1754 Plato Hipp. Maj. p. 285 C. Philostr. Vit. Soph. I. 11. p. 495. Olear. comp. Plutarch Lycurg. 23. So also the Πολιτεία Σπαρτιατῶν of Dicæarchus was annually read in the ephors’ office at Sparta (Suidas in Δικαίαρχος) and in early times Hecatæus of Miletus found there a favourable reception. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 199.

1755 This is only true of the more early times; for later we find many historians among the Dorians. Of the Lacedæmonians, Nicocles and Hippasus are mentioned by Athenæus (see Schweighäuser ad Athen. Ind. p. 129.), Aristocrates by Plutarch and others, Pausanias by Suidas, Diophantus by Fulgentius, and Sosibius is frequently quoted. See Heeren de Font. Plutarchi p. 24. and Meursius Miscell. Lacon. IV. 17. Λαοκράτης, ὁ Σπαρτιάτης, in Plutarch de Malign. Herod. 35, is doubtful. I also mention Dercyllus the Argive, because he wrote in the dialect of his native city; see Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 274. et ad Eurip. Phœn. Schol. p. 7. and see Schol. Vrat. Pind. Olymp. VII. 49. This Dercylus or Dercyllus is connected in a singular manner with another historian, the very same quotations being sometimes made from both. See Athen. III. p. 86 F. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 39. Sylb. Schol. Vat. in Eurip. Tro. 14. Since in all these passages Agias and Dercylus are connected, we ought, in Schol. Vrat. Pind. Ol. VI. 4 g. p. 167. Boeckh., where the manuscript has οἱ περὶ ΔΕΡΑ (with a mark of abbreviation) καὶ Δέρκυλον, to write: οἱ περὶ Ἀγίαν (not Δεινίαν). Probably a single work had been composed upon Argolic antiquities, with a mixture of various Argolic expressions, by Agias and Dercylus.

1756 Unless his religious turn, and a certain infantine simplicity, which seems the more singular, when it is remembered that he wrote nearly at the same time as Thucydides, are considered as traces of a Doric character. He does not however appear to have the idea of government, which belonged to that race.

1757 See b. III. ch. 9. § 7. besides which we may mention Gorgias of Leontini, and the great sums gained by Hippias even in small towns of Sicily, as, _e.g._, Inycus.—Sparta, on the other hand, together with Argos (b. III. ch. 9. § 1. extr.), and Crete, had no orators (Cicero Brut. 13. Tacitus de Orat. 40.), and rhetoric, as being an art favouring untruth (τέχνη ἄνευ ἀληθείας, Plutarch et Apostol. XIII. 72.), was prohibited, Athen. XIII. p. 611 A. Cephisophon the _good speaker_ (ὁ ἀγαθὸς μυθήτας) was banished (Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 254. Apostol. XIX. 89.), and the ephors punished any person who introduced a foreign method of speaking; in the same manner as at Crete, those who made speeches of false display were driven from the island (οἱ ἐν λόγοις ἀλαζονευόμενοι, Sextus Empiricus adv. Mathemat. p. 68 B.). Nor is there any better criticism of sophistical panegyrics, than the Lacedæmonian remark, τίς αὑτὸν ψέγει?

1758 Above, ch. 2. § 5.

1759 Plutarch de Garrul. 17.

1760 Ἡ βραχυλογία ἐγγὺς τῷ σιγᾶν, a saying of Lycurgus, according to Apostolius IX. 69.

1761 See particularly Demetrius de Elocut. VIII. p. 241 sqq.

1762 Crete, according to Plat. Leg. I. p. 641. aimed more at πολύνοια than πολυλογία. Σύντομος ἦν ὁ ξεῖνος is said of a Cretan, Anthol. Palat. VII. 447.

1763 Æsch. Suppl. 198. 270. Pindar Isthm. V. 55. Sophocl. ap. Schol. Isthm. VI. 87. See also Sophocles in Stobæus Florileg. 74. p. 325.

1764 Pope’s translation of Iliad III. 213. This passage is referred by the Venetian Scholiast, Eustathius p. 406. ed. Rom. and Tzetzes Chil. V. 317. to the βραχυλογία of the Lacedæmonians.

1765 Above, p. 298 note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “yoke of their wives,” starting “Plutarch Lyc. 14.”]

1766 Ap. Plutarch. Cimon. 4.

1767 Protag. p. 342. Plutarch Lycurg. 20 extr. refers to this passage. When Thucydides IV. 84. says of Brasidas, that he was not, for a Lacedæmonian, _unable to speak_ (ἀδύνατος λέγειν), he probably does not mean literally that the Lacedæmonians were unable to speak, but only points to their peculiar mode of speaking.

1768 Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 242. Similarly the saying αὐτᾶς ἄκουσα τήνας in Plutarch Lycurg. 20. cf. Reg. Apophth. p. 129.

1769 Herod. VII. 226. Lac. Apophth. p. 245.

1770 P. 244. Compare the apophthegm in Plutarch de Frat. Amor. 8. p. 44.

1771 This figurative turn may be particularly remarked in Cleomenes’ address to Crius, in the speech of Bulis and Sperthis to Hydarnes, in which they say, “Would you then advise us to fight for freedom, not with lances, but with axes?” and the action of Amompharetus, who laid a block of stone at the feet of Pausanias, as if it were a pebble for voting.

1772 Athen. VI. p. 261 C.

1773 Plutarch et Heracl. Pont. 2.

1774 Plutarch Lycurg. 17. 19.

1775 B. III. ch. 11. § 3.

1776 This I infer from the passage of Pollux quoted above, p. 347. note b, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “grammarian,” starting “Pollux IV.”] compared with the joke (χλεύασμα) of Leotychides at the gymnopædia in Herod. VI. 67.

1777 Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 3. 5. and above, p. 288. note f. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “not prohibited,” starting “Critias ubi sup.”]

1778 Plutarch Lycurg. 12. comp. Macrob. Sat. VII. 3.

1779 Τῷ λεγομένῳ εἰς τὸ μέσον, Herod. VI. 129.

1780 Θεὸς δ᾽ ὑπὸ καλὸν ἄειδεν Ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίης πειρώμενος, ἠύτε κοῦροι Ἡβηταὶ θαλίησι παραιβόλα κερτομέουσιν, v. 54.

_ 1781 Gämelicher Sprüche wart do niht verdeit_, _i.e._ non abstinebatur a sermonibus ludicris. Niebelungen Lied. v. 6707. p. 345. ed. 1820.

1782 Sosibius ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 25. It is worthy of remark, that the worship of abstract ideas, as of _Death_, of _Fear_ (b. III. ch. 7. § 7.), of _Fortune_ (Plutarch Inst. Lac. p. 253.), existed among the Spartans, as among the Romans; see Plutarch Cleom. 9.

1783 Plutarch Ages. 2.

1784 Plutarch Cleom. 13.

1785 Protag. p. 342. see also Plutarch de Garrul. 17.

1786 Hence this mode of expression was called the _Chilonian_, Diog. Laert. I. 72.

1787 Or Spartan, see the passages quoted above, p. 8. note p. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “Money makes the man,” starting “Χρήματα χρήματ᾽ ἀνὴρ.”] comp. Diog. Laert. I. 41. Others are mentioned by Hermippus, ibid. 42.

1788 Thus, for example, Apollo is said to have given the same answer to Gyges, as Solon to Crœsus, Valer. Maxim. VII. 1, 2.

1789 Plutarch ubi sup.

1790 The chief passage on this point is Demetr. Phaler. ap. Diog. Laert. I. 22. who places the event in the archonship of Damasias (Olymp. 49. 3.), the same year in which, according to the Parian Marble, which probably follows the same authority, the second Pythian ἀγὼν γυμνικὸς, the first ἀγὼν στεφανίτης, fell. Also Branchus, the ancient prophet of Miletus, is mentioned as βραχυλόγος, Diog. Laert. I. 72.

1791 Diog. Laert. I. 89. comp. Jacobs Comment. Anthol. tom. I. p. 194.

1792 Athen. X. p. 448 B. Aristot. Rhet. III. 2. Plutarch Sept. Sap. Conviv. III. 10. Menage Hist. Mulier. Philos. 4. Hence the Κλεοβουλῖναι of Cratinus, concerning which see Schweighæuser ad Ind. Ath. p. 82.

1793 Athen. X. p. 452 A.

1794 Epicharmus called it λόγον ἐν λόγῳ, Eustathius ad Od. IX. p. 1634. 15. ed. Rom. Many ancient _griphi_ are in the Doric dialect; though this is not always the case.

1795 Thus for example, if they said, “Admit no swallows into your house,” they not only avoided the company of _talkative_ persons (Porphyrius, Vit. Pythag. 42.), but actually prevented swallows from building under their roofs. On this subject see the ancient writers quoted by Fabricius Bibl. Græc. vol. I. p. 788 sq. comp. Creuzer’s Symbolik, vol. I. p. 104.

1796 Orchomenos, p. 438. note 2.

1797 B. I. ch. 5. § 3.

1798 There is an account of a dialogue between Pythagoras and Leon the tyrant of Phlius, Cicero Tusc. Quæst. V. 3. Diog. Laert. VIII. 8. According to Diogenes Laert. VII. 1. Pythagoras was the _fourth_ from Cleonymus, who had fled from Phlius; and therefore he would be a Dorian.

1799 B. II. ch. 8. § 20.

1800 See vol. I. p. 370. note m.

1801 B. III. ch. 9. § 16.

1802 Their silence is also worthy of remark, Timæus ap. Diog. Laert. VIII. 17. Gale Opusc. Mythol. vol. I. p. 739. On the use of music see b. II. ch. 8. § 20. A work of Philochorus is cited: περὶ ἡρωΐδων ἤτοι Πυθαγορείων γυναικῶν. See Siebel. Fragm. p. 9.

1803 Pausan. III. 13. 2. See vol. I. p. 76. note l.

1804 Sosibius ap. Diog. Laert. I. 10, 12. Pausan. II. 21. 4. III. II. 8. III. 12. 9. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 399. ed. Potter. Heinrich’s Epimenides, p. 128. Epimenides is said to have informed the Spartans of a defeat at Orchomenos, Diog. Laert. I. 117., of which nothing else is known.

1805 Plutarch Agid. 10. Diog. Laert. I. 117. from Theopompus, Creuzer Init. Philos. Platon. vol. II. p. 164.

1806 Vol. I. p. 208. note p.

1807 He erected the first sun-dial at Sparta, Plin. H. N. II. 66.

1808 See, _e.g._, Jamblich. Vit. Pythag. 36.

1809 Herod. IV. 77.

1810 Ἀφθονία σχολῆς, Plutarch Lycurg. 24. Inst. Lac. p. 255.

1811 Id. Lycurg. 24. Lac. Apophth. p. 207.

1812 Manso, vol. I. 2, p. 201.

1813 Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 7. Hence the excellence of the Lacedæmonian hounds, Pind. Hyporch. fragm. 3. p. 599. Boeckh. Simonides ap. Plutarch Symp. IX. 15. 2. Meursius Misc. Lac. III. 1. The love of the Cretans for the chase is well known, see above, ch. 4. § 7.

1814 B. III. ch. 10. § 2. cf. Plutarch Lycurg. 25. Also in Cleomen. 30. I prefer ταῖς λέσχαις to the other reading, ταῖς σχολαῖς.

1815 Plutarch Lycurg. 25.

1816 Id. Inst. Lacon. p. 254. τὸν ἐκ τοῦ γυμνασίου νεανίσκον ἐπετίμων ὅτι τὴν εἰς πυλαίαν ὁδὸν ἠπιστατο.

1817 At Delphi it was a regular fair (Dio Chrys. Orat. 77. p. 414. Reisk.), and also a slave-market, as I infer from Plutarch Prov. Alex. p. 105. By means of it a considerable suburb, or new-town, called Pylæa, was formed at Delphi, Plutarch de Pyth. Orac. 29. p. 296. Perhaps this was the locality of the Πυλαία of Cratinus.

1818 At Rhodes liars were called πυλαιασταὶ, Hesychius and Schol. ad Plutarch. Artaxerx. I. p. 387. ed. Hutten. compare Suidas in v. In Plutarch de Fac. Lunæ 8. jugglers of the Pylæa, in the Life of Pyrrhus, 29. πυλαικὴ ὀχλαγωγία, are mentioned. But these expressions do not refer to the Pylæa cf Delphi.

1819 Polyb. VIII. 30.

1820 See Athen. XII. p. 522 F.

1821 Plutarch Lycurg. 27. Inst. Lac. p. 251. The Laconian word for “to bury” was τιθήμεναι, Schol. Cantabr. II. ψ᾽. 83. On the burial of the king, see b. III. ch. 6. § 6.

1822 Plutarch Lycurg. 27. Thus Pausanias III. 14, 1. saw at Sparta the names of the 300 who died at Thermopylæ, and the same monument is, as it appears, referred to by Herodotus VII. 224.

1823 What Ælian. V.H. VI. 6. says only of persons who had fallen in battle, Plutarch states of _all_ who died.

1824 B. II. ch. 6, § 2. At Argos the mourning was white, Plut. Quæst. Rom. 26.

1825 Plutarch Solon. 9, 10. comp. Ælian. V. H. V. 14. and Minervæ Poliadis Sacra, p. 27.

1826 It is remarkable, that among all the names for the races of the Greek nation, Δωριεὺς alone is by itself a laudatory term (as in several passages of Pindar, Boeckh ad Pyth. VIII. 21. Dissen ad Nem. III. 3. and frequently in Plutarch. See likewise the epigram in Athen. V. p. 209 E. and Damagetus in the Palatine Anthology, VII. 231.), and expresses a national pride respected by the other Greeks, Thuc. VI. 77. Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 385 C.

1827 B. II. ch. 8. § 20. B. III. ch. 1. § 1. 10.

1828 B. III. ch. 9. § 18.

1829 Ib. ch. 4. § 6.

1830 Ib. ch. 9. § 18. ch. 12. § 5. Above, ch. 5. § 2.

1831 See, _e.g._, above, ch. 3. § 3.

1832 See above, p. 4. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ancient authors,” starting “From Thucyd. I.”]

1833 B. III. ch. 9. ad fin.

1834 B. II. ch. 6. § 2.

1835 B. III. ch. 12. § 9.

1836 Above, ch. 8. § 1.

1837 Ib. § 2.

1838 With which the ἄτολμον of the Spartans was connected.

1839 B. III. ch. 1. § 1.

1840 Above, ch. 2. § 1. ch. 3. § 1. ch. 6. § 1.

1841 Above, ch. 7. § 12.

1842 B. III. ch. 1. § 10.

1843 B. II. ch. 8. § 2. 11. 20.

1844 Ib. § 10. Above, ch. 6. § 2.

1845 B. II. ch. 6. § 7. ch. 8. § 7.

1846 Above, ch. 8. § 17. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

1847 B. II. ch. 5. § 7. ch. 8. § 12. ch. 10. § 9.

1848 B. III. ch. 4. § 1.

1849 According to Demetrius de Elocut. § 122. the ephors caused a person to be scourged who had made some innovation in the game of ball; a subject on which Timocrates, a Spartan, had written a treatise.

1850 Herod. IX. 54. Λακεδαιμονίων ἄλλα φρονεόντων καὶ ἄλλα λεγόντων. So also Eurip. Androm. 452. In this poet’s attacks upon Sparta the date should always be attended to (Markland ad Suppl. 187. Wüstemann Præf. ad Alcest. p. xv.) He calls the Spartans δόλια βουλευτήρια, ψευδῶν ἄνακτας in the Andromache, when the Athenians accused them of a breach of treaty, Olymp. 90. 2, according to Petit and Boeckh Trag. Princip. p. 190. In the Orestes (Olymp. 92. 4.) in reference to the proposals of the Spartans for peace after the disasters of Mindarus, which the Athenians had declined, Philochorus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 371. (cf. ad 772, 903), who states that these were made in Olymp. 92, 2. Diodorus XIII. 52, however, in Olymp. 92. 3. Aristophanes Lys. 1269. calls them αἱμύλας ἀλώπεκας (comp. the false Bacis Pac. 1068. Lycophr. 1124), in Olymp. 92. 1. at the time when the proverb arose, οἴκοι λέοντες, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ δ᾽ ἀλώπεκες, Meursius Misc. Lac. III. 2. However, similar charges of perfidy and treachery are made against them in the Acharneans v. 308, οἶσιν οὔτε βωμὸς οὔτε πίστις οὔθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει, in Olymp. 88. 3.

1851 In Plutarch. Ages. 15, 37. it is said that the benefit of his country was the aim of a Spartan’s actions. The Athenians say in Thuc. V. 105, that the Lacedæmonians, as far as respects themselves and their native institutions, are virtuous and well-principled; but that in their dealings with foreign states their own interest was their only standard.

1852 B. III. ch. 11. § 11. [Transcriber’s Note: There is no such section number in that chapter.]

1853 Plutarch. Lysand. 1.

1854 Xen. Hell. III. 1. 8. Ephorus ap. Athen. XI. p. 500 C. says of Dercylidas, ἦν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ τρόπῳ Λακωνικὸν οὐδ᾽ ἁπλοῦ νἔχων.

1855 Lysand. 5.

1856 Besides Xenophon, see Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 210. Diod. XIII. 76, 97. and Manso, vol. II. 327. sqq.

1857 Plutarch Pelopid. 2.

1858 Plutarch Lysand. 5.

1859 Pedaritus has been sufficiently defended by Valckenær ad Adoniaz. pag. 261. against the charge of the exiles at Chios.

1860 See Xenophon cited above, p. 4. note g. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “ancient authors,” starting “From Thucyd. I.”]

1861 Above, p. 218, note a. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “six hundred talents,” starting “Proofs of wealth.”]

1862 Thuc. V. 50. Paus. VI. 2. 1.

1863 Thuc. VIII. 43.

1864 Thuc. VIII. 84.

1865 Paus. III. 2. 8.

1866 Tit. I. 12.

1867 B. III. ch. 8. § 2. Hence Polybius IV. 54. 6. calls the Lyctians the best men in Crete. They are also said to have driven the Epicureans from their city, Suidas, vol. I, p. 815. who mentions a νόμος τῇ ἐπιχωρίᾳ φωνῇ, probably a forgery, like the decree against Timotheus, above, ch. 6. § 3.

1868 B. I. ch. 8. § 7. b. III. ch. 9. § 1.

1869 See also on the Ἀργεῖοι φῶρες Suidas in v. Prov. Vat. II. 49.

1870 B. III. ch. 9. § 3.

1871 The school of the ancient Coreggio, Protogenes. See also the Anacreontic Ode XXVIII. 3. of the Alexandrine or Roman age.

1872 Meyer’s Geschichte der Kunst, vol. I. p. 208, 218.

1873 Meurs. Rhod. I. 20. cf. Anacreont. Od. XXXII. 16.

1874 The hospitality of Corinth is confirmed by the proverb ἀεί τις ἐν Κύδωνος, Zenob. II. 42. Prov. Vat. IV. 19. Diogenian. VIII. 42. Suidas I. 86. ed. Schott. Plutarch Prov. Al. 129. Apostolius VIII. 66.

1875 Corinthian ἄσωτοι occur so early as the 5th Olympiad (vol. I. p. 134), and were restrained by ancient laws, ib. p. 189. and Lydus de Magistr. Rom. I. 42. According to Alciphron Ep. 60. Corinth itself was beautiful and full of luxuries, but the inhabitants were ἀχάριστοι and ἀνεπαφρόδιτοι.

1876 B. III. ch. 9. § 5.

1877 In Corinth the husbandman was obliged ἐκλιθοβολεῖν, but not in Syracuse. Theophrast. de Caus. pluv. III. 20. But ἀμᾶν Κορινθικὸν (Suidas in Κορινθ.) probably refers to τὰ μεταξὺ Κορίνθου καὶ Σικύωνος.

1878 Thuc. VI. 20.

1879 VIII. 96.

1880 VI. 73.

1881 Ib. above, B. III. ch. 9. § 7.

1882 See B. I. ch. 8. § 2.

1883 Above, page 300, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “courtesans,” starting “See b. II. ch. 10.”] b. IV. ch. 7. § 8, 12.

1884 Thuc. I. 28.

1885 B. III. ch. 9. § 9.

1886 Ib. and vol. I. pag. 197, note d.

1887 Hell. VI. 5. 45.

1888 Theophrast. ubi sup. Strabo IX. p. 393. Isocrat. de Pace, p. 183. A. in whose time however Megara had rich families.

1889 Above, p. 222, note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “the interior,” starting “Concerning Ægina.”]

1890 Above, p. 371, note z. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “before Thespis,” starting “Suidas in Θέσπις.”]

1891 Above, p. 174, note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “a long time,” starting “Theopompus ap. Athen.”]

1892 Περὶ Βυζαντίων ap. Athen. X. p. 442 C. Ælian. V. H. III. 14.

1893 See Aristot. Pol. III. 4. 1.

1894 Menander ap. Ælian. ubi sup. Athen. X. p. 442. Nicetas Acominatus Hist. p. 251. ed. Fabric.

1895 Sextus Empiricus adv. Rhetor. § 37.

1896 Herod. VII. 99.

1897 I say _hardly_, on account of an exception which a fragment of the Argolica of Dinias (ap. Herodian. περὶ μον. λέξεως, p. 8. 14. emended by Dindorf) establishes, viz. that “Perimeda, queen of Tegea, generally called Χοίρα, compelled the captured Lacedæmonians to cut a channel for the river Lachas across the plain.”

1898 B. III. ch. 9. § 15. above, ch. 5. § 5.

1899 Of this we have probably a trace in Hesychius, μαιριῆν, κακῶς ἔχειν, in Tarentine; which probably refers to the Sirocco in the dog-days.

_ 1900 E.g._ besides the names of coins, πᾶνα, _panem_, among the Messapians and Tarentines, Athen. III. p. 111 C. σάννορος, _sannio_, in Tarentum, Hesychius.

1901 IV. 27. 5.

1902 Vol. I. p. 210, note c.

1903 The coins which Eckhel ascribes to the time of Anaxilaus have both MESSANION and MESSENION; but it is not improbable that the first was merely affectation, as the city appeared more illustrious if its origin was Doric: it cannot be doubted that the language of the Samian-Chalcidian population preponderated in common life.

1904 Both Xenarchus (ap. Phot. in Ῥηγ. Apostol. XVII. 15. cf. XI. 72.) and Nymphodorus (ap. Athen. I. p. 19 F.) reproach them with effeminacy.

1905 See Athen. IV. p. 173.

1906 Above, § 1.

1907 Eustath. ad Il. α᾽. p. 96. Rom. Etymol. M. and Gud. in many places. Phavorin. Ecl. p. 296. 305. Dindorf.

1908 Πινδάροιο occurs in the fragments of Corinna the Bœotian poetess, p. 51. Wolf.

1909 Maittaire p. 173. ed. Sturz.

1910 Gregor. Corinth, p. 580. Schæfer.

1911 Hesychius in πεμφθοί.

1912 II. 37. 3.

1913 Herod. VIII. 73.

1914 Pausan. IV. 34, 5. The Eleutherolacones likewise use many Dorisms in their decrees.

1915 Strabo VIII. p. 333. Plutarch Philopœmen. 2.

1916 Corp. Inscript. No. 1513.

1917 ϜΑΛΙΣ, ϜΕΤΕΑ, ϜΕΠΟΣ, ϜΑΡΓΟΝ, ϜΕΤΑΣ, βαδὺ for ϝηδὺ.

1918 Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 11.

1919 Hesych. in δίκαρ and βαρβαρόφωνος. Phavorinus p. 429. 21.

1920 Vol. I. p. 271. note z.

1921 Plat. Cratyl. p. 434. Strab. X. p. 448. Hesychius in Ἐρετρίεων ρῶ, Diogenian. IV. 57. Apostol. IX. 6.

1922 Suidas in χαλκιδίζειν.

1923 Koen ad Gregov. Cor. p. 300.

1924 Etymol. M. p. 391. 13.

1925 Stephanus of Byzantium in Ἰωνία reckons the Ætolians generally as Dorians. Chishull Ant. As. p. 104.

1926 Grammaticus Meermannianus ap. Gregor. Corinth. p. 642.

1927 Such as ä, ö, and ü, which are not diphthongs, but (as it were) middle tones among the vowels.

1928 Vit. Pythagor. 34.

1929 As is particularly stated by Clem. Alex. VI. p. 658. Compare book IV. c. 6. § 3.

1930 Aristides Quintil. de Musica, vol. II. p. 93.

1931 That is, the Α, which is pronounced broad by the Germans (as in _father_), has in English generally the sound of their E.

1932 See Welcker ad Alcman. fragm. 65. ἐμίνγα Sophron. ἴγωνγα, the Megarian in Aristoph. Acharn. 736. 764. 775.

1933 Tab. Heracl. Comp. Apollon. de Adverb. p. 563.

1934 Aristoph. Ach. 787.

1935 Vol. I. p. 375. note f.

1936 Hesychius in v. Inscript. and see Koen ad Greg. C. p. 305.

1937 Aristoph. Lysist. 1174, 1320. and Phavorinus Ecl. p. 156. Dindorf.

1938 De Corona p. 255.

1939 Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 134.

1940 Koen ad Greg. C. p. 229.

1941 Ap. Apollon. de Pronom. p. 343. C. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 563. Compare Maittaire p. 227.

1942 Etymol. M. p. 434, 51. Koen ubi sup. p. 185.

1943 Ἐνίκη for ἐνίκαε also occurs in a poetical inscription, which was contained in Boeckh’s Corp. Inscript. No. 17, but can now be safely amended from a better copy in Ross Inscript. Grec. Ined. fascie. 1. n. 55. It runs as follows, with a few supplements.

...ΟΟΝΑΝΕΘΗΚΕ τε]ΝΤΕΑΙΣΧΥΛΛΟ[σ ΘΙΟΠΟΣΤΟΙΣΔΑΜ ΟΣΙΟΙΣΕΝΑΕΘΛΟ ΙΣ: ΤΕΤΡΑΚΙΤΕ[σ ΠΑΔΙΟΝΝΙΚΕΚΑΙ ΔΙΣΤΟΝΟΠΛΙΤΑ[ν

It should be read as follows:

... θων ἀνέθηκε τἤντεα. Ἴσχυλλος Θίοπος τοῖς δαμοσίοις ἐν ἀέθλοις, Τετράκι τε σπάδιον νίκη καὶ δὶς τὸν ὁπλίταν.

“So and so (probably Ischylus himself) has offered up the arms. Ischylus, the son of Theops, was conqueror in the public games (of Argos), four times in the stadion, and twice in the hoplite race.” Θίοψ is Doric for Θέοψ; and σπάδιον for στάδιον is cited as Doric, as well as Æolic.

1944 Ap. Ammon. p. 122. Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 566.

1945 Dodwell’s Travels vol. II. p. 503. Mustoxidi pp. 188. 193-7.

1946 An inscription of the island of Cos in the Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions tom. XLVII. p. 325. has τὸς θεός. τὸς ἀνθρώπως, τὸς ἄλλως, Epicharmus as corrected by Hermann, ap. Diog. Laert. III. 11, 17.

1947 Chishull Aut. As. Compare Koen ad Greg. C. p. 220.

1948 Herodianus in the Hortus Adon. p. 209.

1949 Phavorinus p. 283. Dindorf. Eustath. ad Il θ᾽. p. 722. 60. Gregorius p. 355. Koen ad 1. Maittaire p. 330.

1950 Herodian et Eustath. ubi sup. Etym. M. p. 302. 2 where for σπένδω and σπείδω the sense everywhere requires σπένσω and σπείσω.

1951 Etymol. M. p. 135. 45. Etymol. Gud. p. 73. 44. where the same correction should be made.

1952 Etym. M. p. 156. 17.

1953 Herodian. p. 10. ed. Dindorf.

1954 See Thiersch Act. Monac. II. 3. p. 393. In the town of Ποσειδωνία ΠΑΙΣΤΟΝ, Achæans of Sybaris joined the Trœzenians, and hence the common form of the name.

1955 Xenoph. Hell. III. 3. 2. Aristid. Or. Rhod. vol. II. p. 346.

1956 Maittaire p. 349; and compare the inscription of Gela in Castelli p. 84.

1957 Etymol. M. p. 157. 48. p. 167. 37.

1958 Vol. II. p. 35, note a.

1959 Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 287. cf. ad Eurip. Phœn. 1671.

1960 Above, p. 349. note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “regular players,” starting “Although the Spartans.”] Compare Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 382.

1961 Ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 19. less correctly in Apophth. Lucon. p. 226. For the common reading ἐρατέημεν Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 258. conjectures κρατέῃ, Haitinger in Act. Monac. vol. III. 3. pag. 311. μέσδων—ἐρᾶτε ἦμεν.

1962 See Schneider’s Latin Grammar, vol. I. p. 385.

1963 On the other hand the High German dialect changed the Greek sound of Δ into Z; _e.g._ δέκα, _zehen_, δύω, _zwo_, δάκτυλος, _zühe_, δάκρυ, _zähre_, δεικνύναι _zeigen_, dis—_zer_—&c. See Grimm’s Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I. p. 586.

1964 Etym. M. p. 605. 43. Heraclides ap. Eustath. ad Od. κ᾽. p. 1654. Phavorinus p. 444. Dindorf. Koen ad Greg. p. 613.

1965 The same tendency may be traced in the German, as in _Salz_, _Süss_, _Sitz_ for ἅλς, ἡδὺ, ἕδος.

1966 Valckenær ad Adon. p. 277.

1967 Vol. II. p. 310, note t. This explains the Κυνοουρέων φυλὴ in recent Laconian inscriptions (Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. 609.); it stands for Κυνοὁυρέων, _i.e._ Κυνοσουρέων. For the same reason Hesych. in Εὐτρηΐους calls this form Doric for Εὐτρησίους; the word was pronounced Εὐτρηἱοι.

1968 Etymol. M. pag. 391. 13. Eustath. ad Il. λ᾽. pag. 844. 7. Maittaire p. 199.

1969 Book IV. ch. 6. § 3.

1970 Apollon. de Pronom. pag. 355. A. Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 294.

1971 In High German Rhotacism is very prevalent, although, according to Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I. pp. 802, 825, it succeeded in the place of the S; and the German article _der_ clearly corresponds with that which must have been the original Doric article, viz. τόρ.

1972 The ancient High German likewise always has—_mês_ in the same person.

1973 θαυλακίζειν, Blomfield, Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 387.

1974 ἀγῆται is the best reading in Aristoph. Lysist. 1314.

1975 See Reisig. Synt. Critic. p. 14.

1976 I feel now considerable doubt whether ἀϜέλιος, ἀβέλιος really comes from ἕλη, Ϝέλα. The original form was, without doubt, ΣΑϜΕΛΙΟΣ, whence _Sol_ in Latin, Sòl in Icelandish, _Saule_ in Lithuanian (a language which has a remarkable resemblance to the Greek). Hence in Greek Ἁ ϜΕΛΙΟΣ, in Homer softened into ἡέλιος, afterwards among the Dorians ἅλιος, in Attic ἥλιος. Now it seems doubtful whether this ἁ, or ΣΑ can be considered as the α _conjunctionis_, as in ἀδελφεὸς, or whether ΣΑ ϜΕΑΙΟΣ should not rather be considered as a separate root.

1977 Ptolem. Hephæst. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 486.; comp. Toup, ad Hesych. vol. IV. pag. 165. Gregor. Corinth, p. 235.; the Megarian in Aristoph. Ach. 796.; the Delphian Inscription in Boeckh No. 1690.; Epicharmus ap. Athen. VIII. p. 362 B.C. ὀδολκαὶ a Cretan form according to Hesychius.

1978 Schol. Æschyl. Theb. 367. Schol. Nicand. Ther. 625.

1979 See Reisig. Synt. Critic, p. 16.

1980 For instance, ἁ Ϝράτρα τοῖς Ϝαλείοις, Τἀργεῖοι ἀνέθεν τῷ Δὶ, &c.: among the treaties in Thucydides the Doric documents always τοὶ Ἀργεῖοι, the Athenian Ἀργεῖοι, &c.—also the form ἁ Σπάρτα which so frequently occurs (οὐ γὰρ πάτριον τᾷ Σπάρτᾳ, Tyrtæus; ἀξίως τῆς Σπάρτης, Thuc. I. 86. &c.), belongs to the same class.

1981 I may incidentally remark that the consideration of the word μάω, and its derivatives, shows how little ground there is for the notion that the Muses were originally _Ionic_ deities: does not the word μοῦσα, incorrectly formed from μῶσα, the feminine participle of μάω, distinctly prove that the word, and also the idea, were transferred from a different branch of the Greek language and nation?

1982 A remarkable agreement of Tarentine, Lacedæmonian, and Cretan words is ἀματὶς ἅπαξ Tarent., ἀμακίον Lacon., ἄμακις Cret. in Hesychius.

1983 See Lobeck, Aglaoph. vol. 11. p. 846.

1984 This date must have been fixed by the logographers.

1985 According to Apollodorus, vol. I. p. 145, note q, from whom Tzetzes, Chil. XII. 193, gives the same statement (with the exception of what he says on the age of Homer, which must be a misunderstanding). Apollodorus is followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Solinus: see Larcher, Chronologie d’Hérodote, p. 373. The calculation of Timæus only differed by nine years, vol. I. p. 131. note t, who is nearly followed by Velleius Paterculus. The date of Apollodorus can now be completely restored from the Armenian Eusebius p. 166; from which we see that, according to Apollodorus, the first Olympiad coincided with the 10th year of Alcamenes. The Canons of Eusebius place the first Olympiad at the 37th and last year of Alcamenes; an error which appears to have arisen from Eusebius having taken the first year of Eurysthenes as identical with the epoch of the return of the Heraclidæ. Apollodorus however appears to have allowed thirty years for the minority of the brothers, see vol. II. p. 90. note u. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “rights by law,” starting “Plut. Lyc. 25.”] And he seems not to have reckoned the time from the entrance of the Heraclidæ into Sparta until the birth of the brothers, which Herod. VII. 52. calls χρόνον οὐ πολλόν. Now the canons have 324 years from the return of the Heraclidæ to Olymp. 1. (916 to 1240); if from this we deduct 26 years for Alcamenes, in whose 37th year the first Olympiad falls, according to the calculation of the canons, and add 30 years for the minority, we obtain 328, the number of Apollodorus. Apollodorus apparently took the 10 years of Alcamenes before Olymp. 1. as complete; whereas Eratosthenes probably placed Olymp. 1. at the beginning of this 10th year; hence the difference of 327 and 328 years. See however Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 124. 330.

1986 If the years of the minority are included in those of the reign, (as the Spartans used to do in reckoning the reigns of their kings,) the 30 years of the guardianship of Theras must be given to Eurysthenes and Procles. But since this guardianship for the heads of both the royal houses was something peculiar, it is possible that the Spartan lists, and the Alexandrine chronologists who followed them, reckoned these 30 years separately.—For a defence of the opinion that the Spartan ἀναγραφαὶ contained chronological statements, and for an explanation of their character in reference to the remarks of Mr. Lewis (Philol. Museum, vol. II. p. 46.) and Mr. Clinton (F. H. vol. I. p. 332), see the Gottingen Gel. Anz. 1837. p. 893.

1987 Vol. I. p. 147. note b. The line of the Corinthian princes is arranged after Diodorus, who evidently followed the Alexandrine chronologists; but committed an error similar to that just pointed out in Eusebius. It has been corrected by Wesseling from Didymus.

1988 According to Eusebius. Compare b. II. ch. 3. § 4.

1989 Æginetica, p. 98.

1990 The Armenian Eusebius p. 166. in the extract from Diodorus, assigns 51 years to Procles, for which I correct 41; see b. I. ch. 5. § 14. But the list of the Proclidæ in that extract is very imperfect; and therefore only gives certain dates _before_ Soüs and _after_ Charilaus.

1991 Larcher will not allow that Agis only reigned one year, as in that case he could not have been so famous. But (to reason in his own manner) may he not have obtained his renown when regent, and may not the regret for the king, whom the nation so soon lost, have even increased the fame of his reign?

1992 This date and others followed by an asterisk are merely approximations to the truth.

1993 On this epoch see vol. I. p. 145. note q. Eratosthenes, who fixed the first Olympiad 407 years after the fall of Troy, placed Lycurgus 219 years after the return of the Heraclidæ; so also Porphyrius ap. Euseb. Armen. p. 139 Scalig. p. 27. Apollodorus and Eratosthenes both reckoned twenty-seven Olympiads from Iphitus to Corœbus, which number is testified by Aristodemus of Elis and Polybius, ap. Euseb. Armen. p. 141. Scalig. p. 39. Callimachus, however, only reckons thirteen Olympiads between these two eras. Perhaps this is to be explained by supposing that the Olympiad of Corœbus was the first of _four years_, whereas the former Olympiads had contained _eight years_ (book II. ch. 3. § 2.); in which case we have 13 × 8 + 4 = 108. On this Cleosthenes, see Phlegon Trallianus apud Meurs. Op. vol. VII. p. 128. et Schol. Plat. Rep. V. p. 246. 7.

1994 Aristomedes reigned thirty-five years, according to the Armenian Eusebius, and Syncellus, in the list in p. 165; and not thirty years, as is stated in Syncellus, ib. p. 164.

1995 Sosibius ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 327. gives sixty-four years for the reign of Charilaus and thirty-nine for that of Nicander, and places the first Olympiad in the thirty-fourth year of Nicander; and this appears also to be the computation of Pausanias, who therefore carries the reign of Theopompus six Olympiads lower than Eusebius. In Pausanias likewise the successor of Polymestor, the contemporary of Charilaus, is the contemporary of the first Messenian war.

1996 Vol. I. p. 104, note g.

1997 Those who with Eusebius place the foundation of Syracuse in Olymp. 11. 4. and that of Leontini in Olymp. 13. 1. must assume that Lamis the Megarian founded Trotilus and Thapsus in the _same_ year, and went from Thapsus to Megara. Why then, it must be asked, does not Thucydides (VI. 4.) say that Lamis went to the Chalcideans at Leontini ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον that he had founded Trotilus, as he states that he remained ὀλίγον χρόνον at Leontini, if Thucydides meant that all these events should be understood to follow in so very rapid a succession? At the same time the author acknowledges that though the arguments of Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. II p. 265. ed. 2, for the founding of Syracuse in Olymp. 11. 4. have not convinced him, they have shaken his former conviction: and he adds the following remark in favour of that opposite opinion. If Syracuse was founded in Olymp. 5. 3., the founding of Camarina must be placed in Olymp. 39. 2. (Thuc. VI. 5.) Camarina, according to Scymnus v. 293, was destroyed forty-six years afterwards, _i.e._ in Olymp. 50. 4. Now it appears from the authentic catalogues of the conquerors at the Olympic games, that Parmenides of Camarina was victorious in the stadium in Olymp. 63. Camarina had not at that time been rebuilt; he could therefore only have been so called from his native place; which would (according to the assumed dates) have been then destroyed forty-nine years. It must, however, have been uncommon for men of fifty to be victorious in running. If, however, we place the foundation of Camarina in Olymp. 45. 1, and the destruction in Olymp. 56 (with the Schol. Pind. Ol. V. 16.), the whole receives a greater degree of probability. This argument, however, is not conclusive.

1998 This is the date of Eusebius. Pausanias, however, makes Alcamenes live till the 10th Olympiad, but without much authority, as the date is given in the romantic narrative of Myron.

1999 Euseb. Armen. p. 167. Pausanias represents Theopompus as still alive in the 15th Olympiad; as he follows Tyrtæus, who calls this prince the conqueror of Messenia, b. I. ch. 7. § 10. Yet it is not _absolutely_ impossible that Tyrtæus might have used this expression as meaning that Theopompus contributed largely to the final result, without having actually completed the subjugation. The chronologists followed by Eusebius appear to have adopted the Messenian tradition, that Theopompus was killed during the war (according to Myron in the last year but one), vol. I. p. 159, note h, at the sacrifice of a ἑκατομφόνιον, according to Clemens of Alexandria (Protr. p. 36. Sylburg. Euseb. Præp. Evang. IV. p. 126 C.), who, however, has a very confused notion of this sacrifice; from which, and from the testimony of Sosibius the Lacedæmonian mentioned above, in p. 446, note l, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “according to Sosibius,” starting “Sosibius ap. Clem.”] I infer that the authorities of Eusebius in this part of the history no longer followed the public register of Sparta.

2000 According to Thucydides, with reference to the date Olymp. 5. 3.

2001 Polydorus was honoured as a hero by posterity, as his τιμαὶ (Pausan. III. 3. 2.), the use of his portrait as the state seal ib. (11. 8.), and his house being bought by the state (ib. 12. 2.) sufficiently prove.

2002 B. I. ch. 6. § 7.

2003 B. I. ch. 8. § 2. Plutarch, de sera Num. vind. 7. p. 231, errs greatly in placing the victory of Teletias the Cleonæan ἐν παισὶν at the Pythia (after Olymp. 47.) before the reign of Orthagoras.

2004 B. I. ch. 6. § 8.

2005 Who also took refuge in Sparta, the protectress of aristocracy, Plutarch Lysand. 1. Some Heraclidæ, however, still remained in Corinth, b. I. ch. 6. § 8. With regard to the epoch, the dates from Diodorus of the kings and ninety prytanes of Corinth, agree completely with the best testimony as to the time of the Cypselidæ. Strabo’s 200 prytanes have arisen from a confusion with the number of males in the clan of the Bacchiadæ. See vol. I. p. 181, note u.

2006 Thuc. VI. 5. Compare the date of Syracuse, Olymp. 5. 3. The Scholiast to Pindar. Olymp. V. 16, who places the foundation in Olymp. 45. and Eusebius, reckon from Olymp. 11. 4.

2007 According to Thucydides, with the date Olymp. 16. 4.

2008 This victory cannot well be placed _earlier_, because Megacles, who was a party leader at Athens, from about the 54th to the 60th Olympiad, could have hardly come forward as a suitor before this time, (the other Athenian suitor, Hippoclides, was archon in Olymp. 53. 3.); nor _later_, because the Cypselidæ were not then in power, as is evident from Herod. VI. 128.

2009 On the computation of the Pythiads, see Boeckh. Expl. Pindar. Olymp. XII. p. 206. It does not however seem probable, as Boeckh supposes, that the ἀγὼν χρηματίσης took place in Olymp. 48. 3.: but I suspect that Pausanias, knowing practically that the Pythiads were to be counted from Ol. 48. 3, placed the first Pythiad in this year; not perceiving that the first Pythiad was an ἐνναετηρὶς, or octennial period, as is evident from the Parian marble; whence in the argument to the Pythians, for μετὰ χρόνον ἑξαέτη, I would correct ἐνναέτη; although the fault, if it be a fault, is of old standing.

2010 Orchomenos, p. 374, where for 60 write 50. As some misapprehensions have arisen on the passages relating to this event, I may be permitted to make the following remarks. I. The three passages of Pausanias, V. 63. V. 10. 2. VI. 22. 2. on the ἀνάστασις of the Pisans, evidently refer to the same event; and consequently the second of them should be interpreted thus: “_the statue of Jupiter is made from the plunder gained at the time when the Eleans overcame Pisa_.” This is the explanation of Dodwell, Annal. Thuc. p. 137. otherwise Voelckel, Ueber den Tempel des Olympischen Jupiters, p. 6. Krueger de Xenoph. Vita. II. In Strabo VIII. p. 355, C. the ἱσχάτη κατάλυσις τῶν Μεσσηνίων cannot be the war of Olymp. 81; since the Pisans could neither have had the management of the games at that time, nor any Nestoridæ been in existence at Pylos. But he must mean the subjugation of Messenia after the 30th Olympiad, after which time the Lacedæmonians perhaps assisted the Eleans in gradually weakening Pisa, until in the 50th Olympiad it became completely subject. A more precise date for the distinction of Pisa may be gathered from the strange statement of the catalogue of the Olympiad in Eusebius according to Africanus, that the Pisans celebrated the 30th and the 22 following Olympiads (vid. ad Ol. 30); if we understand it to mean that the Pisans had a share in the celebration of the Olympiads until their destruction. According to this, Pisa was destroyed in Olymp. 52.

2011 Diog. Laert. I. 98.

2012 In later times, however, a certain T. Statilius Lamprias, the son of Timocrates Memmianus derives his origin from Perseus (through Hercules) and the Dioscuri, Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1124; as also a M. Aurelius Aristocrates, the son of Damænetus, hereditary priest of Hercules and the Dioscuri at Sparta, declares that he is descended from Hercules in the 48th, and from the Dioscuri in the 44th generation, ibid. No. 1353. and see Boeckh on No. 1340.

2013 That Pausanias (III. 7. 5.) errs greatly in assigning this battle to the reign of Theopompus (about Olymp. 2-16.) is proved by his own statement that Perilaus, the son of the Argive warrior Alcenor, was a conqueror at the Nemean games (b. I. ch. 7. § 16); for no conquerors at those games are mentioned before Olymp. 53. Plutarch Lac. Apophth. p. 233, states that the battle took place in the reign of Polydorus (about Olymp. 7-17.), Solinus VII. 9. in Olymp. 10, 4. 737 B.C.

2014 To this war, which must be placed about Olymp. 60, should probably be referred the inscription on the helmet found at Olympia, which formed part of a trophy, Corp. Inscript. 20. 29. cf. Addend. p. 885.

ΤΑΡΓ[ει]ΟΙ ΑΝΕΘΕΝ ΤΟΙ ΔΙϜΙ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΘΕΝ.

2015 Herod. V. 46. cf. Plutarch. Lycurg. 20. That Dorieus did not fight against Sybaris may also be proved chronologically.

2016 Lacedæmonian envoys to this tyrant are mentioned by Plutarch, Lac. Apophth. p. 245.

2017 According to Herod. VI. 33. See b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

2018 Perhaps in Olymp. 71. 3. in which case Diodorus XI. 48. has confounded Anaxilas’ government of Messana with his government of Rhegium.

2019 The oration of the supposed Thessalus, in Epist. Hippocrat. p. 1294. ed. Foës. states, that “the king of Persia demanded earth and water (493 B.C.), which the Coans refused (contrary to Herod. VI. 49.); that upon this he gave the island of Cos to Artemisia to be wasted. Artemisia was shipwrecked, but afterwards conquered the island. During the first war (490 B.C.), Cadmus and Hippolochus governed the city; which the former quitted when Artemisia took the island.”

2020 The fall of this town was preceded by a great plague, according to Diomedes, p. 484. ed. Putsch, who mentions Hiero instead of Gelo. It is to this time that Corsini, Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 110, refers the elegy of Theognis to those who had escaped the siege of the Syracusans, mentioned in Suidas in Θέογνις. It appears probable that in the words εἰς τοὺς σωθέντας τῶν Συρακουσίων ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ, a slight transposition should be made, (viz. ἐν τῇ τῶν Συρακουσίων πολιορκίᾳ,) as at this time Syracuse was only the besieging and never the besieged party.

2021 B. IV. ch. 7. § 2.

2022 Euryanax was the son of Dorieus, according to Herod. IX. 10. But why was he not king before Leonidas, if Dorieus was the eldest son of Anaxandridas? Perhaps because a Heraclide who left his native country lost his right to the throne. Plut. Agesil. 11.

2023 On the unfortunate skirmish of the Megarians and Phliasians with the Theban cavalry (Herod. IX. 69.), see the splendid eulogium contained in the Megarian epigram. Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 1050. Mus. Crit. Cant. vol. II. p. 616.

2024 In Pausan. III. 14. I. I correct τέσσαρσιν for τεσσαράκοντα, which I cannot reconcile with the time.

2025 The statements of Diodorus XI. 48. on the length of both these princes’ reigns are quite correct; but are inserted in a wrong place. According to Plutarch, Cimon. c. 6. the earthquake was in the 4th year of Archidamus (Olymp. 78. 3. 466 B.C.). Pausanias, IV. 24. 2. places it, pretty accurately, in the 79th Olympiad. Diodorus incorrectly in Olymp. 77. 4. the first year of Archidamus.

2026 Vol. I. p. 208, note q.

2027 Pleistarchus, according to Paus. III 5. 1., died a short time after he had become king, and therefore not much above the age of 30. His mother Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, was a girl of 8 or 9 years, when Aristagoras attempted to induce Sparta to join the Ionic revolt. Herod. V. 51.

2028 According to the calculation of Thucydides. See Corsini Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 207.

2029 It is to this that the offerings of the Megarians are referred, mentioned in vol. I. p. 195, note k.