^{page 41 note 1} See my list below, where he is numbered 17.

^{page 42 note 1} B.S.A. xii, p. 390.

^{page 43 note 1} See the slemma of this family, B.S.A. xiv, p. 123.

^{page 44 note 1} Including those which are published above there are in all 104. See B.S.A. xii, pp. 353 foll., a–j and 1–48; ibid, xiii, pp. 182–188 and 196–200, Nos. 49–65; ibid, xiv, pp. 74 foll., Nos. 66–95, and many additions to previously published stones; and above, Nos. 96–99. This makes 108 in all, but we must omit No. 20, which deals with a different contest, the ᾿Εφ. ᾿Αρχ and Nos. 23, 29, and 30, which belong to the same stone as No. 18. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, represent 104 different inscriptions.

^{page 44 note 2} Nos. h, j, 1, 3, 4, 5, [8], 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19^*, 28, 31, [34], 35, 38, 39, 56, 58, 60, 62, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 94. Figures enclosed in square brackets imply that the word is a probable restoration.

^{page 44 note 3} Nos. c, e, [f], 2^*, 6, 11, 18^*, 22, 26, 32, 36, 43, 45, 47, 55, 59, 61, 65, 74, 85, 95, 96, 98.

^{page 44 note 4} Nos. g, 7, 9, 17, 25, 27, 33, 37, 41, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 64, 67, 68, 77, 80, 86–93. 97, 99.

^{page 45 note 1} Nos. a, b, d, 21, 24^*, 40, 44, 48, 57, 63, 69.

^{page 45 note 2} See Tod, S.M.C. p. 20, § 27.

^{page 45 note 3} As and See the well-known gloss on Herodotus quoted in this connexion by MrTillyard, , B.S.A. xii, p. 386Google Scholar, note 2.

^{page 46 note 1} In which the boy was called and (MS.).

^{page 46 note 2} In games at Thespiae there was a class of competitors called (I.G. viii, 1761), who were apparently distinguished from as being younger. These two divisions seem to correspond with and (ibid. 1765). were also a class in the Pan-Boeotian games (ibid. 2871); and at Chalkis we likewise find distinguished from ( 1897, pp. 195 foll., where Kavvadias shows clearly that the former was the younger class). The further division into and is confined to Sparta.

^{page 47 note 1} See Herwerden, Lexicon Graecum supplet. et dialect., p. 125; there is no necessity to quote instances, which are frequent. The loss of ε between τ and π has no exact parallel, but ε is often omitted between two consonants in inscriptions on vases, e.g. see Kretschmer, Vaseninschriflen, p. 124. For a list of examples in classical and mediaeval Greek see Jannaris, Hist. Gr. Grammar, p. 82, § 136.

^{page 47 note 2} Op. cit. p. 390.

^{page 48 note 1} The phrase has been dealt with above.

^{page 48 note 2} Tod, S.M.C. p. 16; B.S.A. x, pp. 63 foll.; xiii, 212 foll.

^{page 49 note 1} See, however, Tod, , B.S.A. x, pp. 77 follGoogle Scholar, for some valuable suggestions on these points.

^{page 49 note 2} Ath. Mitt, xxii (1897), p. 338.

^{page 49 note 3} Ten, if we regard the restoration of No. 64 as certain.

^{page 49 note 4} Tod, S.M.C. Introd. p. 20, § 27.

^{page 49 note 5} C.I.G. i, p. 613, quoted by Tillyard, (B.S.A. xii, p. 388)Google Scholar, who points out that the last of those cited by Boeckh is due to a wrong reading of the stone (C.I.G. 1249). This was confirmed in 1907 by our re-discovery of this inscription which has quite plainly (Col. II, 1. 7), followed by a little lower down (ibid. 1. 14). See B.S.A. xiii, p. 209.

^{page 50 note 1} As was suggested by Bosanquet and Tillyard (op. cit. p. 389). The accumulated evidence from Spartan inscriptions since 1906 only confirms and elucidates this view.

^{page 51 note 1} Loc. cit.

^{page 51 note 2} C.I.G. 1244, 1247, 1255, 1256, 1359, 1364 b.

^{page 51 note 3} The restoration of the name in No. 12 is not certain: we should perhaps read

^{page 51 note 4} B.S.A. xiii, p. 207.

^{page 51 note 5} Ibid. p. 199.

^{page 53 note 1} See B.S.A. xiv, pp. 112 foll.

^{page 53 note 2} This was re-discovered in 1907, and published in B.S.A. xiii, p. 209. If we could assume for certain that the praenomen ΤΙ was a mistake of the engraver for Μ, the stone would clearly refer to Marcus Aurelius before he became Emperor, for we have evidence for his being called M. Aurelius Verus Caesar, whereas the name, as it stands, is not that of a known personage. For his titles see Klebs, Prosop. Imp. Rom. p. 72, s.v. M. Annius Verus.

^{page 54 note 1} The name is correctly restored by Boeckh from C.I.G. 1241 (S.M.C. 204).

^{page 53 note 2} The fact that he held these two offices twice is practically certain, though in neither case is τὸβ′inserted. The letters in 1. I before are damaged but were apparently the same as in 1. 4 ad fin. namely and the abbreviation for is identical in both places where it occurs. The former sign may, however, have been merely i.e. there is nothing visible before the β, but the stone is damaged at this corner.

^{page 55 note 3} Whose patronomate may have fallen before the Hadrianic era, as we have no other record of it.

^{page 55 note 1} Whom I provisionally dated ‘after 136 A.D.’ in B.S.A. xiii, p. 207.

^{page 56 note 1} He cannot be here, as we have the names of five above his. For the question as to their number see Tod, S.M.C. Introd. pp. 10, 11, § 15.

^{page 56 note 2} See B.S.A. xiii, p. 204, where I had previously suggested this restoration.

^{page 57 note 1} See B.S.A, xiii, p. 207.

^{page 57 note 2} The name is badly mutilated: a suggested restoration will be found below, p. 92, in a note on this inscription.

^{page 57 note 3} Boeckh distinguished between two persons of this name, and believed that the later one was prominent under Caracalla. He is mentioned in C.I.G. 1349, 1350, 1353, and 1448. But Boeckh's dating is too late, for we know that the later Tib. Cl. Aristoteles (if there were two) was father-in-law to P. Memmius Pratolaus, qui et Aristocles, Damaris f. who was born ca. 155 A.D. See B.S.A. xiv, p. 123 for the stemma of this family. This inclines me to think that there was only one Tib. Cl. Aristoteles.

^{page 58 note 1} ‘Titulus secundum patronomorum seriem quamvis incertam non potest M. Aurelio vel Commodo antiquior haberi.’ ad 1248. He is, I think, correctly restored as Eponymus in the votive inscription to Orthia, B.S.A. xii, p. 375, No. 38.

^{page 58 note 2} , C.I.G. 1241; C.I.G. 1239, 1240; C.I.G. 1253; C.I.G. 1256; S.M.C. 215; S.M.C. 787.

^{page 58 note 3} Boeckh distinguishes between the Callicrates who is Eponymus in C.I.G. 1249, Col. II, and the man of that name who was and , and believes that the Callicrates Callicratis f. who is in C.I.G. 1252 is a different person. I see no possible reason for not believing them to be all one and the same man.

^{page 59 note 1} The fact that these two stones join was pointed out in B.S.A. xiii, p. 210, where the corrected version of the inscription was published, after being refound in 1907.

^{page 60 note 1} ‘Col. II, vs. II. prorsus turbatum esse manifestum est. Istud ΕΠΙ initio versus tollendum esse patet collato vs. 2. 3.’ It would be easy to give a list of instances in which Boeckh's alterations of Fourmont's correct copies were equally unfortunate; for a good example see B.S.A. xiv, p. 132, with reference to C.I.G. 1328.

^{page 60 note 2} B.S.A. xiv, pp. 112 foll.

^{page 60 note 3} See Tod, S.M.C. p. 16, § 22.

^{page 61 note 1} B.S.A. xiii, pp. 203, 207.

^{page 61 note 2} See above, p. 53, note 2.

^{page 62 note 1} See B.S.A. xiv, p. 126, No. 50. Theodoras Theoclis f. is to be found in C.I.G. 1249, Col. I, not as stated by me (B.S.A. loc. cit. p. 127, 1. 5) in C.I.G. 1254.

^{page 62 note 2} According to a probable conjecture of Tod's: the last letter is lost, but it was probably followed by the sign <.

^{page 63 note 1} It is found in C.I.G. 1242, 1. 17; S.M.C. 411, etc.

^{page 63 note 2} See B.S.A. xiii, p. 207.

^{page 63 note 3} B.S.A. xiv, p. 98.

^{page 64 note 1} This Eudamus may, however, be later still, as it is to be noted that he is described as which would make him later in date than M. Aurelius Aristocrates who in C.I.G. 1355 is the later inscription belongs, according to Boeckh, to the age of Caracalla. Eudamus may thus belong to the middle of the third century A.D.

^{page 64 note 2} See below, p. 105, for a more complete restoration of this inscription than that given there.

^{page 65 note 1} See his notes to C.I.G. 1353, 1354.

^{page 65 note 2} He was probably grandson or great-nephew.

^{page 66 note 1} B.S.A. xiv, p. 121, ad fin.

^{page 66 note 2} Ibid. p. 106, No. 5; and see p. 116 for a restoration of C.I.G. 1341.

^{page 66 note 3} Ibid. p. 109, No. 6.

^{page 66 note 4} See B.S.A. xiv, p. 99 for another fragment of the same inscription.

^{page 67 note 1} B.S.A. xiv, p. 115.

^{page 68 note 1} B.S.A. xiv, p. 123.

^{page 68 note 2} Though this may be a statue of the elder Brasidas, the father.

^{page 68 note 3} is Boeckh's emendation of Fourmont's copy but the latter name which = is known at Sparta (S.M.C. 241), so Fourmont is probably once again more correct than his corrector.

^{page 71 note 1} Figures enclosed in curved brackets imply that the dating of the inscription to which they refer is doubtful.

^{page 72 note 1} No. 31 is not to be dated so early as I thought at one time (B.S.A. xii, p. 372, note), if, as I am convinced, Tillyard is right in identifying Enymantiadas, to whom the victor is with the man of that name to whom Hierocles is in S.M.C. 212 (shortly after 100 A. D.). If Hierocles was ca. 100–110, his contemporaries Enymantiadas and Thrasybulus, the victor here, would have been born ca. 60 A.D., so this stone can hardly be earlier than 70 A.D. This involves the supposition that the two Eponymi mentioned in it are son and grandson of that C. Julius Laco who was prominent under Claudius (B.S.A. xii. loc. cit.) and who cannot have been still alive at this time. So there must have been three persons of this name: the youngest is no doubt the one mentioned in C.I.G. 1347, which belongs clearly to the second century A.D.

^{page 72 note 2} Italic figures in curved brackets refer to the numbers allotted to the Eponymi in my list.

^{page 74 note 1} B.S.A. xii, Pl. VII (General Plan), L 12, M 12.

^{page 74 note 2} The numbering is carried on from B.S.A. xiv, p. 139.

^{page 75 note 1} General Plan M 12.

^{page 76 note 1} See S.M.C. Introd.§ 32.

^{page 77 note 1} See Jannaris, Hist. Gr. Grammar, p. 48, § 35, where it is pointed out that the promiscuous use of υ for ει, η, and ι is frequent as early as the first century B.C., and becomes increasingly common later.

^{page 78 note 1} As it is broken at the back, the thickness was perhaps much more than ·22.

^{page 79 note 1} cf. I.G. ii, 5.563 b ( = Dittenb. Syll. ² 519), 11. 31, 40, 58; for cf. I.G. ii, I. 467 (= Dittenb. Syll ² 251), 1. 48.

^{page 79 note 2} Dittenb. Syll. ² 935, 1.7.

^{page 79 note 3} Larfeld, , Handbuch der gr. Epigraphik, i, pp. 504 foll.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 4} Dittenb. O.G.I. 339, 11. 86 foll. Cf. also I.G. ix, 2, 1114 b, 11. 7, 8, and I.G. ii, 1. 464, 1. 8 for mutilated remains of a similar impression.

^{page 79 note 5} E.g. Michel, op. cit. 731, 11. 10, 11: cf, Wilhelm, op. cit. pp. 318, 319.

^{page 80 note 1} B.S.A. xii, Pl. VIII (General Plan) M 14.

^{page 80 note 2} iii, 16, 4.

^{page 81 note 1} See B.S.A. xii, Pl. VIII (General Plan) J 15.

^{page 81 note 2} [. 1909], pp. 275–282.

^{page 81 note 3} Dimensions: ·47 × ·31 × ·11.

^{page 81 note 4} The surface of the stone being rather worn, the exact outlines are not easy to trace, but the relief seems to represent a pair of ram's horns somewhat unskilfully rendered; but see below.

^{page 81 note 5} For this arrangement cf. another archaic Spartan inscription, Roehl, I.G.P., 54 ( = Imagines,³ p. 98, No. 5).

^{page 81 note 6} In 1. 1, in the word τôι there is no dot in the centre of the Ο, nor apparently is there in the Ο in at the end of this line. This seems intentional, to distinguish ω from ο. The converse usage (Ο = ο, ⊙ = ω) is found on an early inscription at Thera (Roehl, op. cit. 451 = Roberts, Introd. to Gk. Epigraphy, No. 2).

^{page 82 note 1} S.M.C. 440.

^{page 82 note 2} See Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, s.v.

^{page 82 note 3} Plutarch, De Mul. Virt. p. 255 E; B.S.A. xii, p. 442, 1. 2.

^{page 83 note 1} See Roscher, Lexikon der Gr. und Röm. Mythologie, s.v. Karneios; Pausanias iii, 13, 3, with Frazer's notes ad loc.; and S. Wide, Lakonische Kulte, pp. 73–87.

^{page 83 note 2} Op. cit. 1. 2.

^{page 83 note 3} Meister holds (Dorer und Achäer, pp. 7 foll.) that this is one of the chief features which distinguish ‘Perioecan’ from ‘Spartan’ inscriptions.

^{page 83 note 4} Onomasticon, iii, c. 146.

^{page 84 note 1} Op. cit. 1. 10, and in the recently discovered portion, B.S.A. xiii, pp. 176 foll. 11. 24, 34.

^{page 84 note 2} s.v. We know from Herodotus ii, 125 that this food formed part of the menu of the builders of the Pyramids.

^{page 84 note 3} Hesychius, s.v. Bekker, Anecdota, i, 305, 25; they are alluded to in C.I.G. 1387, 13S8.

^{page 84 note 4}

^{page 85 note 1} Ath. Mitt, xxix (1904), pp. 21–24.

^{page 85 note 2} Pausanias iii, 24, 5; B.S.A. xiii, p. 233.

^{page 85 note 3} This paragraph merely reproduces in slightly abbreviated form the arguments of Mr. Kapsalis, with whose acute and attractive suggestion I am in entire agreement.

^{page 85 note 4} S.M.C. 85.

^{page 85 note 5} Ibid. 691.

^{page 85 note 6} iii, 14, 6.

^{page 85 note 7} Mr. Kapsalis points out that according to Pausanias the shrine of Artemis Dictynna was situated near the end of Apheta Street (iii, 12, 8), and must have lain to the south of the city, for when Flamininus marched on Sparta from Gytheion he attacked it ‘parte una a Phoebeo, altera a Dictynneo, tertia ab eo loco quem Heptagonias appellant,’ Livy, xxxiv, 38.

^{page 85 note 8} See Frazer, , Pausanias, vol. iii, pp. 324, 5Google Scholar; Waldstein, Thirteenth Annual Report of Arch. Inst. of America, pp. 71 foll.

^{page 86 note 1} Professor Ridgeway kindly reminds me of the passage in Plutarch, Lycurgas, c. 27,

^{page 86 note 2} For a list of such names see Bechtel-Fick, Griech. Personennamen, pp. 314 foll.

^{page 86 note 3} See Tod, S.M.C., Introd. § 4.

^{page 87 note 1} See Anthol. Pal. xiii, 16; Pausanias, vi, 1, 6, and Frazer's note ad loc. (Pausanias, vol. iv, p. 3); Inschriften von Olympia, No. 160.

^{page 89 note 1} See B.S.A. xiii, Pl. I (General Plan) M 13.

^{page 89 note 2} Though not previously known to us, this man must be Ti. Cl. Spartiaticus son of Ti. Cl. Eudamus, and therefore grandson of the earlier Ti. Cl. Spartiaticus. He is thus brother of Cl. Damosrheneia who is honoured in C.I.G. 445. See the genealogical table, B.S.A. xiv, p. 123.

^{page 90 note 1} The most accessible account of Cyriac's travels is to be found in Miller's Latins in the Levant, pp. 417 foll.

^{page 91 note 1} As noted above, ad loc, this is attributed to two different find-spots.

^{page 91 note 2} The average weight of these stones can hardly be less than three-quarters of a ton. I doubt whether Fourmont could have found appliances at Sparta in 1729, for moving these blocks, and moreover, we should expect them to have suffered in transit more than they have done.

^{page 92 note 1} As was suggested by Foucart (Le Bas-Foucart, Explication, No. 173 a).

^{page 92 note 2} For C. Julius as the praenomen and nomen in this family see above, p. 41, No. 96.

^{page 92 note 3} This man must not be confused with Julius Charixenus, the Eponymus of 126 or 127 A.D. The former apparently held office about three years before. For his name see B.S.A. xii, p. 460, No. 12.

^{page 93 note 1} B.S.A. xiii, p. 199.

^{page 94 note 1} B.S.A. xii, p. 372, No. 32. My note (op. cit. xiii, p. 203) attributing this victory to the year of the younger Alcastus is incorrect.

^{page 95 note 1} Le Bas-Foucart, Explication, No. 168 b; Tod, S.M.C, Introd. § 20.

^{page 95 note 2} As Boeckh notes, part of this inscription is transcribed, from Fourmont's MS., by Sainte Croix, Anciens Gouvernemens Fédératifs, p. 200, No. 2. It is interesting to see that there are dots in his copy after the word in 1. 2, showing plainly that there was another word in the line, though Fourmont could not read it. This was of course

^{page 95 note 3} See B.S.A. xiii, pp. 199, 203.

^{page 95 note 4} Tod, S.M.C. Introd. § 19, and p. 13, note 5.

^{page 96 note 1} See B.S.A. xiii, p. 207; Dittenb. Syll. ² 392.

^{page 96 note 2} See Le Bas-Foucart, Explication, No. 184, and the references there given to previous copyists.

^{page 97 note 1} Ath. Mitt, xxviii (1903), pp. 291 foll.

^{page 97 note 2} Ibid. 1. 5. We must substitute for in the transcript.

^{page 98 note 1} B.S.A., loc. cit.

^{page 99 note 1} See B.S.A. xiv, p. 14, No. 75.

^{page 100 note 1} Boeckh rightly restores as otherwise, if we assumed that Philocratidas was the we should have six and not five of these magistrates. But f think the date is not so late as he puts it (‘non potest M. Aurelio vel Commodo antiquior haberi’).

^{page 100 note 2} See Foucart, ad loc.; and S.M.C. 245, note.

^{page 101 note 1} S.M.C. Introd. § 33 ad fin.

^{page 101 note 2} If we restore the word as but vel sim. is equally possible.

^{page 102 note 1} Beiträge zur griechischen Insckriftenkunde, p. 319.

^{page 102 note 2} This name is found at Sparta in C.I.G. 1377, 1423 c. But the name is also known there, C.I.G. 1274, 1. 4. For the name ibid 1272, 1. 7.

^{page 105 note 1} The curved stroke may after all be accidental, and we should thus read we certainly expect a praenomen here.