Acknowledgements. I am grateful once again to Joyce Reynolds for reading an earlier draft of this paper and suggesting numerous improvements; also to Julia Bell and Susan Walker for helpful discussion of individual points. Errors remain my own, of course, as is responsibility for the views expressed. I am indebted to Graham Shipley, assisted by David Hibler, for examining and photographing on my behalf the inscription published below.

Thanks are due to the Greek Archaeological Service for permission to publish PLATES 21b, 22a, and 22b, and to the Research Fund of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne for contributing towards travelling and other expenses incurred in the preparation of this article.

Abbreviations Artemis Orthia Dawkins, R. M. (ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (London 1929)Google Scholar

Bradford Bradford, A. S., A Prosopography of Lacedae monians from the Death of Alexander the Great, 323 B.C., to the Sack of Sparta by Alaric, A.D. 396 (Munich 1977)Google Scholar

Chrimes K. Chrimes, M. T., Ancient Sparta (Manchester 1949) (reprinted Connecticut 1971)Google Scholar

Groag Groag, E., Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian (Vienna and Leipzig 1939)Google Scholar

Paton Paton, J. M., ‘Some Spartan Families under the Empire’, TAPA 26 (1895) 30–9Google Scholar

Peek I Peek, W., Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros (Berlin 1969)Google Scholar

Peek II Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros (Berlin 1972)

Tod Tod, M. N. and Wace, A. J. B., A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum (Oxford 1906)Google Scholar

Inscriptions in Kolbe, W. (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae v. 1 (Berlin 1913)Google Scholar are referred to as IG, followed by the number of the text.

¹ It should be added that Bradford's work on later Spartan prosopography offers little fresh thinking on these Spartan families. I have not attempted to document all the points at which this article disagrees with entries of his.

² e.g. IG 725, 730, 732–3, 774.

³ e.g. IG 464, 466, 483, 490, 494, 497, 502, 507, 534–5, 537, 539. 545, 547–9. 560–1, 572, 587, 589–90. 592–3.595–602, 607.

⁴ IG 578: . See Vatin, C., Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée a l'époque hellénistique (Paris 1970) 33–4.Google Scholar

⁵ Sophrosune: IG 581, 586–7, 596–7, 600–1, 605. Philandria: 581, 600–1, 605, and the inscription published below. Semnotes: 586–7. Kosmiotes: 600. Cf. with Plutarch, , Mor. ii. 139c, 140c, 141e, 142f.Google Scholar

⁶ Note Plutarch's natural assumption that a suitor could expect to be looked upon more favourably, if he was a kinsman of the girl whom he was courting: Mor. ix. 772a The successive marriages between the family of Herodes Atticus and the Vibullii provide a good Athenian example of this tendency: see the stemma of Ameling, W., Herodes Atticus ii. Inschriftenkatalog (Hildesheim 1983) 233.Google Scholar

⁷ Plut. Mor. ix. 753a. Herodes: Ameling, op. cit. 16.

⁸ Note the remarks of Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1971) 40.Google Scholar

⁹ SIG ³ 788. The identification was accepted by Tillyard, W., BSA 12 (1905–1906) 468, 23Google Scholar; Dittenberger at SIG ³ 787–8; PIR ² I 290; denied by Kolbe at IG 141; Groag, RE x. I (1917) col. 578.

¹⁰ Hippocrates denned paidia as children up to seven years of age: Hp. ap. Ph. i. 26.

¹¹ Here I follow Chrimes, 185.

¹² For the date, see Bowersock, G. W., ‘Eurycles of Sparta’, JRS 51 (1961) 115.Google Scholar

¹³ IG 141. 12, 15–16, 23; 142. 15, 23–4.

¹⁴ Scholars have disagreed as to whether these five were civic magistrates, as at first sight they seem, or officials of a private cult whose titulature mimicked that of the public domain. For the second view, the chief argument is that ‘the state Βἱδυος was an officer of small importance and would certainly rank before the ephor’ (Tod, 18–19), whereas here he is named first of the five. But Tod probably underestimated the importance of the biduoi, who supervised a central institution at Roman Sparta, the ephebic training, and were among the five colleges singled out by Pausanias (iii. 11. 2) in his potted ‘constitution’ of the Antonine city. In two inscribed careers, indeed, the office of biduos seems to have been held after that of ephor (SEG xi. 488. 3, 5; 490. 3, 7).

¹⁵ See Roddaz, J.-M., Marcus Agrippa (Rome 1984) 422–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Chrimes, 196–200 with 204, tried unsuccessfully to identify these two Deximachi as one and the same person; see Spawforth, , BSA 73 (1978) 256–7.Google Scholar Others have seen the honorand of IG 374 as the father-in-law of Eurycles: Weil, R., AM 6 (1881) 19Google Scholar, followed by PIR ² I 290.

¹⁷ The fact that the same Deximachus is not styled as a Roman citizen in IG 209, which is later in date than the bilingual text, is not an obstacle to the identification proposed, since Spartan lists do not always record the Roman names of local cives: cf, e.g., IG 20b. 5 (Trajanic), listing a who recurs in a duplicate list, BSA 26 (1923–5) 168, C7, 7, as also the of IG 79. 13–14 (turn of the first century AD), a Tib. Claudius in SEG xi. 546. 7.

¹⁸ Note the gerontes and in IG 97, 12, 24 (Trajanic) and patronomos under Pius (IG 71a. 1–3).

¹⁹ Fouilles de Delphes 3. 2. 187–8 n. 160. Note the (an ancestor?) who served as Spartan naopoios at Delphi in 360 BC: SIG ³ 239 iii. 30.

²⁰ For freedmen of theirs, see IG 212. 57–8 and 209. 24

²¹ Date: Groag, , RE xv. i (1931) cols. 630–4.Google Scholar

²² For husbands and wives being enfranchised together, see, e.g., Moretti, L., Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome 1953) no. 71 11. 16–20.Google Scholar

²³ See the discussion of Woodward, , BSA 30 (1928–1930) 222–5.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 215–16.

²⁵ Woodward proposed a more ambitious restoration of this text: As well as hesitating over the identification of the honorand with Pratolaus (III), I cannot accept Woodward's restoration of the mythical pedigree(s), which, I think rightly, he saw as introducing: on my view (see below), to have claimed a Perseid pedigree, this ‘son of Deximachus’ would have to have descended from Pratolaus (III), since the appearance of the lineage at Sparta should probably be traced back to his Epidaurian wife, Pasichareia, who was born into a Perseid family.

²⁶ BCH 77 (1953) 646 n. 2.

²⁷ BSA 30 (1928–30) 223–4.

²⁸ For Spartiaticus see PIR ² I 587.

²⁹ Woodward, , BSA 30 (1928–1930) 222–5.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Strabo C 482.

³¹ But it is not unlikely that two earlier patronomoi named ‘Pratolaus’ belonged to the family (IG 143a and 263).

³² Dated by Woodward, , BSA 26 (1924–1925) 164 and 175Google Scholar, to 95–100, by Chrimes, 464, to about 90/1. The patronomos ‘Deximachus’ of IG 290 (Artemis Orthia 316–17 no. 37) might be the same man, or else the patronomos Deximachus qui et Nicocrates, evidently to be distinguished from Deximachus (III).

³³ Chrimes, III.

³⁴ IG 101. It is not clear whether he or his close kinsman, P. Memmius Pratolaus (V) Dexter, is the patronomos of IG 32b. 10–11.

³⁵ BSA 26 (1923–5) 186; 46 (1951) with n. 8.

³⁶ IG 59 (SEG xi. 631) 14–15; 114. 6; 66 (SEG xi. 524) 16.

³⁷ Substitute-patronomos: IG 58 (SEG xi. 631); SEG xi. 542. 3. Patronomos: IG 32a. 3–4; 34 (SEG xi. 479) 7; SEG xi. 494 and 630. Date: Bingen, , BCH 77 (1953) 646.Google Scholar

³⁸ under Pratolaus (IV), under Dexter. Confusion: Bradford, s.v. (8).

³⁹ SEG xi. 517. 2. For his family see Spawforth, , BSA 75 (1980) 214–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Inscription: SEG xix. 684; cf. Vitr. v. 20. 4.

⁴¹ For the probable location of Phoebaeum, see Hitzig, H. and Bluemner, H., Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio ii (Leipzig 1899) 789–90.Google Scholar The abandonment of the Menelaeum seems to have been marked by the filling up, not before the late second century BC, to judge from associated finds of pottery, of the cistern providing the sanctuary's water supply: see provisionally, Catling, H. W., ‘Excavations at the Menelaion 1976–77’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί 3, 1977, 413–14.Google Scholar

⁴² Ephebe: IG 285 (Artemis Orthia 319 no. 42), the patronomos Hermogenes being placed c. 116/17 by Chrimes, 465. Patronomos: SEG xi. 494. 6, two entries after the term of Meniscus, which is now dated to 137/8 (IG 59 with SEG xi. 521).

⁴³ e.g. IG 486, 487, 492, 494, 505–6, 529, 531, 535, 555a–b, 557, 560–1.

⁴⁴ Renewal: IG 467. For the meaning of aionios aristopoliteutes, see A. Wilhelm, in Wilhelm, and Heberdey, , Reise in Kilikien (Vienna 1896) 154.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The only other possibility among known Spartan names seems to be (Bradford, s.v.). For ‘Mnason’, note (IG 667), an agonothetes in about 97, a Hadrianic patronomos (IG 36b. 25 8), and his son a geron in the mid-second century (SEG xi. 585).

⁴⁶ An idea of the relative frequency of these two nomina at Sparta can be gained from Bradford, who lists fourteen Aelii as opposed to forty-seven Memmii.

⁴⁷ The earliest dated instance of is in IG 486 (128–9). In IG 487 it appears again in a Hadrianic context.

⁴⁸ Other known Spartan bearers of the name ‘Mnason’ seem to be peregrine. Bradford 270–1 identified C. Iulius Lysippus, patronomos, gymnasiarch (in 128/9) and senior nomophylax, his patronymic unknown, with a contemporary, also a patronomos and nomophylax. But these Lysippi ought probably to be kept distinct, no Spartan being known to have served twice as nomophylax.

⁴⁹ For the site of the Eleusinium, see Cook, J. M., BSA 45 (1950) 261–81Google Scholar, noting (261–3), the inscriptions now attributed to Sklavokhori (modern Amyklai), which in origin seem to have come from this sanctuary.

⁵⁰ Cook, ibid. 278–80. Other two texts: IG 584 and 604.

⁵¹ At Sparta, cf. IG 116. 9–10; 583. 5; 589. 14–15; 593. 3.

⁵² See Tod, M. N., JHS 32 (1912) 100–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sokolowski, F., Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969) nos. 64–6.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cook, , BSA 45 (1950) 278–80.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cook, e.g., translated her two posts as ‘hereditary priestess superior and perpetual visitor’. Chrimes, 472, described X. as ‘hereditary priest of Apollo Hyacinthus’. But the priesthood of Amyclaean Apollo was a quite separate office; under the Antonines it may have been hereditary and held by males: see IG 259 (Artemis Orthia 299 no. 6).

⁵⁵ See Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974) 92.Google Scholar Cf., e.g., SEG xxvii. 295. 1–2:

⁵⁶ IG 534 and 591. The term of Agathocles is recorded in IG 48. 6–8, where it falls after the term of Brasidas (I), dated (below) c. 167–77.

⁵⁷ For this family see below. Note too a (IG iv² 511), whom Kolbe (IG p. xvii) assumed to have been a Pomponius, but whose praenomen is exclusively associated at Sparta with the nomen ‘Pompeius’ (see Bradford s.v. ).

⁵⁸ IG 38. 1–2 and 68 (SEG xi. 525) 6, where the same synephebe is described as presumably a drafter's error (the first text, a career-inscription, is less likely to contain such an inaccuracy than the second, a catalogue). Chrimes, 444 no. 23, is muddled—the bouagos of IG 39 must be a C. Iulius, on analogy with the of IG 66. 10 (SEG xi. 524) and the of SEG xi. 569. 16–all members, it seems, of the same family.

⁵⁹ Chrimes, 466, dates his term c. 144/5.

⁶⁰ BSA 14 (1907–8) 121.

⁶¹ IG 89. 16 with add. et. corr. p. 301: II Patronomate of Longinus, : IG 45. 15–16.Google Scholar The term of Cleomachus as nomophylax coincided with that of as ensitos (IG 89 with add. et corr. p. 301). Gorgippus is now firmly attested as an office-holder between 197 and 205 (Spawforth I 265); so the patronomate of Longinus could have fallen in the reign of Severus. He perhaps can be recognized in the patronomos of IG 78+81 = SEG xi. 855. 2, dating a catalogue which includes the same Gorgippus.

⁶² IG 543, copied by Fourmont and now lost. Lines 1–5 were evidently difficult to read and in his transcription are clearly garbled. Apart from in line 4, can perhaps be recognized in lines 3–4 (a nominative seems preferable to Kolbe's genitive), and possibly in line 2, where the transcription reads ΟΝλΟΝ.

⁶³ BSA 14 (1907–8) 106.

⁶⁴ I am not convinced by Woodward's restoration in lines 1–2 of (adopted by Kolbe), although I have nothing better to suggest.

⁶⁵ See Spawforth, I 270–1.

⁶⁶ See Robert, L., REG 64 (1951) 140–1.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For dedications at Sparta in honour of gymnasiarchs, see n. 43 above, to which add SEG xi. 492. 9–12, where the provision of oil by a generous incumbent is expressly mentioned.

⁶⁸ In SEG xi. 528. 4 the abbreviated praenomen T. should be expanded to rather than to

⁶⁹ SEG xi. 550. 11; see BSA 29 (1927 8) 24.

⁷⁰ e.g. by Kolbe, IG p. 131, stemma.

⁷¹ SEG xi. 510. 1, which Woodward considered ‘early Trajanic’: BSA 29 (1926–7) 8 s.v. C₂. In BSA 26 (1923–5) 190 he wrongly identified this patronomos with Tib. Claudius Spartiaticus, who, as will be seen, lived in the reign of Severus.

⁷² For these later Iulii Lacones, see IG 280–1, 480, 971, 1172.

⁷³ Bradford, s.v. (6).

⁷⁴ IG 65. 18 (), where the post of hieromnamon is dated by the patronomate of Nicephorus, assigned to 136–7 by Spawforth, , BSA 73 (1978) 249–50.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ IG 71b. 1–2 and 85. 2–4 (note Chrimes, 449 no. 82; but she was wrong, 464, to assign the term recorded in IG 85, which is indubitably Antonine, to c.91/2).

⁷⁶ Its first three lines were published by Chrestou, C., ADelt 17 (1961–1962) B, 84Google Scholar, where the name of the patronomos should read The stone is now in the apotheke of the Sparta Museum (Inv. no. 6263), where I was able to examine it in 1977.

⁷⁷ Bradford, s.v. (6) conflated these two men: for the distinction, note the remarks of Kolbe at IG 80, recording the term as nomophylax of the elder Eudamus, and 296, recording the patronomate of a ‘Eudamus’, perhaps the same man. For the younger Eudamus, see IG 63. 1–2 and SEG xi. 490.

⁷⁸ See Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome (1971) ch. 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ JHS 25 (1905) 53–4.

⁸⁰ Inschriften von Olympia nos. 446 and 459 respectively.

⁸¹ For another notable from Roman Messene who claimed this lineage see Inschriften von Olympia no. 487, 8–9; note too IG 1469. I, recording a priest of Zeus Ithomatas in AD 126 named Cresphontes, after the Messenian king of that name.

⁸² Grunauer-von Hoerschelman, S., Die Münzpragung der Lakedaimonier, Antike Münzen und Geschnittene Steine Bd vii (Berlin 1978) 159Google Scholar series 2 in group xxi, with her observations on pp. 45 and 52.

⁸³ Other emissions ‘signed’ by Aristocrates: ibid. 154 (series 13 in group xvii); 148 (series 17 in group xvi); 154 (series 12 in group xvii); 159 (series I in group xxi). In the first he appears as APICTOKPATHC once more; in the last three his name and patronymic are both given in monogram.

⁸⁴ Respectively Peek II 32, no. 51 and IG iv² 604.

⁸⁵ Hiller, , IG iv ²604 and p. xxxiGoogle Scholar, stemma, followed by Peek.

⁸⁶ IG iv² 86 = Peek I no. 36 11. 10–12: κατὰ πρόσωπον/μὲν παραμυθήσασθαι τάν τε ἀδελφὰν τοῦ τετελευτακότος Πασιχάρειαν καὶ τὸν θεῖον αὐτοῦ Ἀριστοκράτη/καὶ τὸν Πασιχαρείας ἄνδρα Πρατόλαον κτλ.

⁸⁷ Cf. Groag, col. 48; Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate (Oxford 1971) 277 no. 512.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Peek I no. 36 11. 7–8 [scil. Lamprias (III)]

⁸⁹ Paus. iii. 6. 8 and Plut. Lys. 2. 1, with Bommelaer, J.-F., Lysandre de Sparte (Paris 1981) 57 n. 16.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ IG iv² 83. 9–10 and 84. 25.

⁹¹ IG iv² 84. 28–30: εὐγενείαι τε (κεκοσμημένον) τῆι Ἀθήνησιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ πρώτων ἀνδρῶν, ἱερέων καὶ ἱερειῶν τῆς προσωνύμου τῆς πόλ[ε]ως θεοῦ̣ καὶ ὁεροφαντικῶν καὶ δᾳδουχικῶν οἴκων γνήσιον ὑπάρχοντα κτλ.

⁹² Peek I no. 36 11. 4–6: [scil. Lamprias (III)]

⁹³ On Sparta and Athens under Augustus, see also Peppa-Delmouzou, D., Στήλη. Τόμος είς μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος (Athens 1979) 430–9.Google Scholar Euryclids at Epidaurus: IG iv² 592+662 = Peek I no. 253; IG iv² 663.

⁹⁴ SEG xi. 569, assigned by Woodward, , BSA 29 (1927–1928) 8Google Scholar, to c. 115, by Chrimes, 465, to c. 112/13. The same patronomate seems to be referred to in IG 32b. 6–7; SEG xi. 516. 1; IG 58 (SEG xi. 631); SEG xi. 542.

⁹⁵ Tod, 281.

⁹⁶ IG 488. 9–10. Wide, , Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig 1893) 356.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ SEG xi. 559. 5, the patronomos here, C. Iulius Agesilaus, having been assigned by Chrimes, 464, to c.95/6, and by Woodward, , BSA 29 (1927–1928) 8Google Scholar, to c. 100–5 (?). Theogenes returns in SEG xi. 605. 6 and IG 82. 3 (SEG xi. 545), in these being simply described as .

⁹⁸ IG 58 (SEG xi. 631) and SEG xi. 542.

⁹⁹ Respectively IG 68 (SEG xi. 525); SEG xi. 529. 4; IG 295 (Arte Orthia 122 no. 48).

¹⁰⁰ IG 541–2; see Spawforth, , BSA 73 (1978) 253.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ e.g. SEG xi. 778; note too IG 487 (Hadrianic).

¹⁰² For another possible example from Megalopolis itself, note the Messenian family of Flavii who claimed descent from Polybius, a citizen of Megalopolis: Inschriften von Olympia nos. 486–7.

¹⁰³ Die Senatoren aus dem östlicken Teil des Jmperium Romanum (Göttingen 1978) 188 no. 111, an entry which can be expanded and corrected by what follows here.

¹⁰⁴ Spawforth, , BSA 75 (1980) 210–17Google Scholar, followed by Ameling, op. cit. (n. 6) 93 no. 68.

¹⁰⁵ los [piut.] Reg. et Imp. Apophtheg 207 f. with Bowersock, , Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford 1965) 105 n. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See Ameling, op. cit. (n. 6) 98–100 no. 70 and commentary (but on the date of the patronomos Brasidas, see below for a different view).

¹⁰⁷ Ameling, op. cit. i. 36.

¹⁰⁸ SEG xi. 530. 4–5: his name completely preserved in IG 116. 3, along with (11. 17–18) von Premerstein, A., Klio 11 (1911) 358–66Google Scholar, connected the second term of Nicocles with the (shadowy) belium Parthicum of 172; I prefer to take prefer to take to indicate two campaigning seasons within the war of 163–6.

¹⁰⁹ See IG 31a. 5–8; 32a. 6–7 and 13; 32b. 12–15 and 25–7 with 30–2; 34. 10–12; 39 (SEG xi. 526) 23–5 and 31–2, 33, 37–8; SEG xi. 490. 2–3; 494. 2 and 5. The only apparent exception is SEG xi. 488. 3–4, where the ephorate is listed before the first term as geron.

¹¹⁰ IG 116 in fact is incomplete, the names being preserved of the last seven gerontes only. But complete catalogues show that the full strength of the Roman gerousia was normally 23: IG 93–4; SEG xi. 564 and 565. (SEG xi. 569 lists only twenty-one gerontes, but at least one name, in line 16, seems for some reason to have been omitted.)

¹¹¹ The best example of a list of gerontes ranked in this way is IG 97 (SEG xi. 564b).

¹¹² This date for the term of Brasidas contradicts the one between 163 and 166 proposed by Woodward, , BSA 43 (1948) 219–33Google Scholar, followed recently by Ameling, op. cit. (n. 6) ii. 99–100. But this dating is based on the uncertain restoration in IG 44. 6, where Fourmont's transcription actually reads

¹¹³ SEG xi. 530, the same patronomos probably recurring in IG 71b. 21 (reign of Pius). A kasen of this Brasidas is perhaps in question in IG 161. 1.

¹¹⁴ Dig. xxxvi. 1. 23, a passage discussed briefly by Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (London 1977) 533.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ IG 519+582 = Woodward, , BSA 43 (1948) 253–4Google Scholar (SEG xi. 811).

¹¹⁶ Paton, 36.

¹¹⁷ Oliver, J. H., Hesperia suppl. 13 (1970) 85–90 no. 41.122.Google Scholar For the function of these senators, see ibid. 36 (1967) 331–2.

¹¹⁸ For a further possibility, see Halfmann, op. cit. (n. 103) 203 no. 143. There is no good reason why the 77. Ti Claudius Antipater of a Latin epitaph from Patrae, Sasel Kos, M., Inscriptiones Latinae in Graecia repertae, etc. (Faenza 1979) no. 73Google Scholar, should be connected with the Spartan Claudii.

¹¹⁹ Much less likely, in my view, is the alternative suggestion of Smith, A. H., Catalogue of Sculptures in the British Museum i (1892) 371Google Scholar, that the sanctuary of Dionysus at Bryseae (Paus iii. 20. 3), its site unknown, is here in question.

¹²⁰ SEG xi. 683

¹²¹ Paton, 36; Kolbe, IG p. 131, stemma.

¹²² Chrimes, 473–4.

¹²³ To this period should probably be assigned the (?) brothers M. Valerius Ulpianus Aphthonetus (IG 323) and Sex. Pompeius Ulpianus Sosicrates (IG 151 = SEG xi. 598). Bothevidently belonged to the family of the M. Ulpii Sosicrates and Aphthonetus, patronomoi respectively under Trajan and Hadrian, but at some stage both, it seems, had been adopted in Roman law, the one by a Valerius, the other by a Sex. Pompeius; each retained his original cognomen, and Ulpianus Aphthonetus perhaps continued to use his original praenomen too.

¹²⁴ IG ii² 3979. See Ameling, op. cit. (n. 6) ii. 171, stemma.

¹²⁵ Pompeius Pericles: IG 69. 34; 71. 37 (SEG xi. 526); SEG xi. 554. 6.

¹²⁶ Chrimes, 473–4.

¹²⁷ See Cook, , BSA 45 (1950) 279 n. 41.Google Scholar No evidence supports his assertion that 608 is the earlier of the two.

¹²⁸ JHS 25 (1905) 51 n. 29.

¹²⁹ e.g. REG 62 (1960) 311 with n. 1.

¹³⁰ Chrimes, 472.

¹³¹ IG 500 and 525; Fouilles de Delphes iii. 1 no. 543.

¹³² Consultation: Fouilles de Delphes iii. i no. 215.

¹³³ IG 332 (Artemis Orthia 337 no. 36). The earliest dedication with archaizing orthography: IG 286 (Artemis Orthia 319 no. 43), from the early 130s.

¹³⁴ But note a Spartan eques, M. Aurelius Stephanus, described as IG 596. The only specifically senatorial predicates of rank attested at Sparta are both attached to ex-consuls: IG 552 IG 541

¹³⁵ Kolbe identified this Aristoteles with the homonym honoured in IG 528, although I proposed above that an earlier Aristoteles is in question. The honorand of this text bears no patronymic, whereas the sons of Spartiaticus invariably do (527, 590, 591). Nor does he bear an honorific predicate, whereas the son of Spartiaticus elsewhere does (IG 527 and 591).

¹³⁶ It is now in the store-rooms of the Sparta Museum (Inv. no. 2897). I am grateful to the Greek Archaeological Service and the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens for permission to publish this text.

¹³⁷ For the stone's initial discovery and publication, see Woodward, , BSA 29 (1927–1928) 34–9 no. 57Google Scholar, with BSA 28 (1926–7) 8.

¹³⁸ Cf. the facsimile of IG 544 in Artemis Orthia 359, dated by Spawforth I 272, to c.220; the (early Severan?) dedication for Ageta, IG 249 = PLATE 21a, the statue-dedication for Severus and his family of 197–205 (Koumanoudes, S. N., AAA 3 (1970) 260Google Scholar, with the comments of Spawforth I 265); on the basis of autopsy I would also associate with this style of lettering IG 479 (erroneously attributed by Kolbe, as I hope to show elsewhere, to Hadrian's reign), 552, 563, 569, and 597.

¹³⁹ Elsewhere, e.g., see CIG iii. add. et corr. 4971b (Egypt); Merkelbach, R.et al., Die Inschriften von Kalchedon (Bonn 1980) 61.Google Scholar At Sparta, note the bouagos of IG 314 (Artemis Orthia 335 no. 70), dating to the mid-third century.

¹⁴⁰ Date: Spawforth, , BSA 73 (1978) 251–2.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ IG 495 (SEGxi. 788).

¹⁴² For other instances of the name ‘Pericles’ at Sparta (where it was not uncommon), see Bradford, s.v.

¹⁴³ In IG 546 he is named as where, had ‘Aristeas’ been a patronymic, we should expect so Kolbe's stemma, IG p. 131, seems to be incorrect on this point.

¹⁴⁴ IG 1258.

¹⁴⁵ In what follows, Kolbe's stemma of the family, IG p. 88, is largely overthrown.

¹⁴⁶ IG 69 (SEG xi. 526) 27; 70. 5; 71. 14–19: to be distinguished from the later , IG 78 (SEG xi. 555) 6–7 and SEG xi. 503. 8, also a former bouagos but not, it seems, a Roman citizen.

¹⁴⁷ The date for the career of the younger Neon suggested by the editors of SEG xi. 499—‘145—60’–now looks too early: 145–75. perhaps.

¹⁴⁸ For this title, see Robert, , REA 31 (1929) 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁹ See Wilhelm, op. cit. (n. 44).

¹⁵⁰ Peek I 128 with plate Hi fig. 90.

¹⁵¹ Note IG iv² 121. 43 (fourth century BC):

¹⁵² Groag, cols. 25–30.

¹⁵³ Fränkel at IG iv¹ 1139, followed by Hiller, IG iv² p. xxxi. stemma.

¹⁵⁴ IG iv² 84. 40–1 instructs the Athenian embassy to address itself to [scil. Lamprias (III)]

¹⁵⁵ Links with Thespiae: see Jones, , HSCP 74 (1970) 227Google Scholar; also the interesting new inscription provisionally published in BCH 98 (1974) 649, a list of victors in the Thespian Museia including an and one Nagl, A., RE ii. A 2 (1929) col. 2209 no. 45Google Scholar, identified Messalina's father with T. Statilius Taurus, cos. 44.

¹⁵⁶ Peek I no. 36 1. 11, improving the of IG iv² 86. I 7.

¹⁵⁷ Peek I no. 36 11. 6–7:

¹⁵⁸ Athenian provisions: IG iv² 83. 13–14: ἀναθεῖναι δὲ καὶ ἀνδρίαντας αὐτοῦ ἐν τῆι ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἐν τῆι ἐν Ἐλευσεῖνι αὐλῆι παρὰ τοῖς προγόνοις καὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρωι τῆι ἱερᾶι ἐν τῶι τεμένει τοῦ Ἀσκληπίου. Spartan decree: IG iv² 86. 28–33: ἀναθεῖναι δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐν μὲν τῶι γυμνασίωι εἰκόνα χαλκέαν πεξικάν, ἐπὶ δὲ τᾶς ἀγορᾶς γραπτὰν ἐπίχρυσον … ἀναθεῖναι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῶι ἱερῶ[ι] τοῦ Ἀσκλαπίου εἰκόνα χαλκέαν, ἐπὶ δὲ τᾶς ἀγορᾶς γραπτὰν ἐπίχρυσον κτλ.

¹⁵⁹ Note the fragmentary inscription from Corinth mentioning a T. Stat[iliush]: West, A. B., Corinth viii. 2 (Cambridge, Mass. 1931)Google Scholar no. 5.

¹⁶⁰ IQ iv₂ 80–1 = Peek I 28–9 no. 34.

¹⁶¹ Peek I 28–9 no. 34 11. 9–13: [αἱρ]εθεὶς δ[ὲ] γραμματεὺς μετὰ τὸ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμεῖν ἀποδοθῆναι μ[ε]γά[λ]ων ἐ[ν μ]ηκίστοις χρόνοις ἐπιπονωτάτων ἅμα καὶ σφαλερωτάτων καιρῶν πόνους καὶ θεραπ[εί]ας ὑπέστη ἑνὸς μὲν ἀνδρὸς μείζονας, ἑνὸς δ᾿ ἐνυαυτοῦ πλείονας, δἰ ὧν πολυπάθειαν καλῶς διέθηκεν ἡμᾶς καὶ τὰ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἔτι πλανώμενα κατεστήσατο β[έ]βαια.

¹⁶² JRS 34 (1944) 115–16. For the date of the grant, see now Bradley, K. R., Latomus 37 (1978) 66–71.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ To the earlier references quoted by Momigliano, ibid., add Oliver, J. H., Hesperia 47 (1978) 187–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Peek I 28–9 no. 34 11. 8–9:

¹⁶⁵ Peek II 39–40 no. 68, dated

¹⁶⁶ Cf. Graindor, P., Chronologie des archontes athéniens sous l'empire (Brussels 1922) 71–3Google Scholar (‘vers l'époque de Claude’); Follet, S., Athènes au II_e et au III_e siècle, etc. (Paris 1976) 303 and 365Google Scholar (‘l'epoque de Claude ou de Neron’); Dittenberger, SIG ³ 796b, suggested ‘c.40?’, followed evidently by Geagan, D., Hesperia suppl. xiii (1967) 29Google Scholar (‘around AD 40–2’). Oliver, , Hesperia 20 (1951) 351 n. 1Google Scholar, offered a precise date (38/9), by applying to the Athenian documents ‘Ferguson's law’ for the Athenian secretaries of prytany; but it remains doubtful whether this ‘law’ applies for the period between Sulla and Hadrian: see Follet, op. cit. 301–3.

¹⁶⁷ See the stemma in IG iv² p. xxxi.

¹⁶⁸ See n. 23, above.

¹⁶⁹ Actian era: IG iv² 101. 4–5. Era of Hadrian's first visit: IG iv² 383–4 and 389; Follet, op. cit. (n. 166) 108–10. Era of the Panhellenion: IG iv² 384. For its evident lapse, see IG iv² 389, dated to 151 but by the era of Hadrian's first visit.

¹⁷⁰ SEG xxxii. 289. Otherwise, a Tib. Claudius Xenocles is attested in IG iv² 678, of uncertain date, and in IG iv² 406, recording the term of the dedicator as purphoros in 224/5.

¹⁷¹ See Robert, J. and Robert, L., REG 86 (1973) 96 no. 190.Google Scholar

¹⁷² IG iv¹ 590.

¹⁷³ Julian, Epp. no. 198, 410b (Bidez and Cumont), with the remarks of Groag, cols, 548–9 (who sought to identify this Lamprias as a member of the Statilii).

¹⁷⁴ Kahrstedt, U., Das wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit (Berne 1954) 177–8.Google Scholar Athens: see Kapetanopoulos, E., AE (1964) 122 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Kahrstedt, op. cit. 178.