Chapter IX (6)

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.