^{page 57 note 1} There are only 30 items in the Corpus under the heading Decreta Epistulae, and the only ones which can definitely be identified as decrees of the Spartan state seem to be Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, I5(?), and 18–20, which seem part of one long and complicated enactment.

^{page 57 note 2} In v. 1, 14, l. 7 the restoration [τοὺς σὺν - -]ξ[ί]ππωι ἐξαπέσταλκεν will not stand. We must read and complete ll. 6–7 as follows: [ἐπαινέσαι μὲν τὸν δῆ]μον τὸν Λακεδαιμονίω[ν ἀρετῆς ἔνεκα, κ.τ.λ., καὶ] ἐπὶ τῶι ἐξαπεσταλκέν[αι δικαστὰς - -].

^{page 57 note 3} No. 29 is complete.

^{page 58 note 1} For these see Plassart, A. and Blum, G., B.C.H. xxxviii. pp. 449 ffGoogle Scholar., who publish eleven texts of this type inscribed on bronze plaques, found in their excavations on the site in 1913 (cf. op. cit. pp. 71 ff.). None of them can be dated after the end of the third century B.C., whereas our new decree cannot be earlier than the second century B.C.

^{page 60 note 1} E.g., I.G. iv. 749, 751 (753 in addenda), 756, at TroizenGoogle Scholar; v. 1, 4 and 5, at Sparta. All these are likewise petitions by individuals.

^{page 60 note 2} Cf. I.G. v. 2Google Scholar, Index IV. 2; and Swoboda, in Klio, xii. p. 47 f.Google Scholar, for their presence also in other cities of the Achaean League.

^{page 60 note 3} Cf. Thiel's, discussion of ἐπινομία, Klio, xx. pp. 54 ff.Google Scholar; add to his list of examples Ἀρχ. Ἐϕ., 1924, pp. 119 ffGoogle Scholar. A, l. 3 (Lokris). And see also Bourguet, É., Fouilles de Delphes, III. 1, p. 267Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 4} Cf. ξυλεία, Polyb. xxi. 39, 12; and the permission νέμειν καὶ ὑλάζεσθαι in I.G. ii ², 1035Google Scholar, ll. 38 and 59.

^{page 60 note 5} For his duties in cities of the Peloponnese cf. Swoboda, op. cit. p. 48 f.

^{page 60 note 6} The sanctuary of Artemis Mesopolitis, where some, if not all, of the proxeny-decrees found in 1913 were originally set up (B.C.H. xxxviii. pp. 74 ff. and 471Google Scholar), cannot be referred to in the present passage.

^{page 61 note 1} For the whole subject of the recording of ancient documents see Wilhelm, , Beiträge, pp. 229 ff.Google Scholar; and in special reference to their posting on walls, pp. 264 ff.

^{page 61 note 2} We would tentatively suggest as a possible restoration, after Δ[ιὀς ἱερόν], [ἐπιμελεῖσθαι δὲ τοὺς] ᾄ[ροχ]ντας με[τὰ (names of officials)-] ὄπως ἀνακαρυ[χθῇ, κ.τ.λ.] but the reading in l. 9 makes this very doubtful.

^{page 61 note 3} Cf. the Athenian, decree I.G. vii. 2411Google Scholar, ll. 4–5 (proclamation at the ᾿´Ισθμια, Πύθια and ᾿Ολύμπια); and the apocryphal decree of Byzantium cited by Wilhelm, , Rhein. Mus. lxxvii. (1928), p. 177Google Scholar (at the ᾿´Ισθμια, Νέμεια and ᾿Ολύμπια.

^{page 61 note 4} Νεμείων [τῶν] μεγάλ[ων] is out of the question here, as the last letter was and not Ω, and the space is too wide for only three letters. For a full discussion of the time and place of holding the Nemean games, of which the celebration was transferred from Nemea to Argos at some date between 323 and 237 (235 ?) B.C., and for the distinction between the ‘Great’ and the ‘Winter’ Nemea, see Boethius, , Der Argivische Kalender (Uppsala, 1922), pp. 1–48Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 1} Of the three instances given, the only one in a decree of an Arcadian city is recorded in Inschr. von Magn. 38, 1. 56.

^{page 62 note 2} For these alternative forms see Plassart's, note, B.C.H. xxxix. p. 74 (4)Google Scholar; Meillet, A., Mém. Soc. Linguist., xx. p. 128Google Scholar; for the language of the proxeny-decrees found in 1913 B.C.H. xxxviii. pp. 474 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 63 note 1} B.S.A. xxvi. p. 118Google Scholar; this piece is published ibid., p. 235 f., No. 28.

^{page 63 note 2} B.S.A. xxviii. p. 46 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 64 note 1} The editor writes παρ᾿ ᾿Ερετριέων which is shewn to be, in all probability, wrong by παρὰ τοῦ δήμου in l. 19 of our new decree.

^{page 65 note 1} As corrected by Wilhelm, , Neue Beiträge, vi. p. 62Google Scholar.

^{page 65 note 2} Restored by L. R., in Rev. Phil. 1927, p. 118Google Scholar.

^{page 66 note 1} The word seemed to end in . ετο on the squeeze, but [α]ατο must be right.

^{page 66 note 2} Read by L. R.; the original copy gave πραχματείαν.

^{page 66 note 3} The squeeze seems to shew …. ; the first four letters are irrecoverable, the fifth might be ΗΜΝ or Π; if the seventh is really Ε it looks as if we must read. … ηθέντες.

^{page 66 note 4} This does not relate to δικασταί.

^{page 67 note 1} For a discussion of the nature of this hospitality see Boesch, P., Θεωρός (Berlin, 1908), pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar, and further examples and comments in Wilhelm, , Neue Beiträge, vi. p. 70 f.Google Scholar, and Robert, L., Rev. Phil., N.S. i. (1927), pp. 97–99Google Scholar; B.C.H. lii. p. 164Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 2} I.G. xii. 9, Nos. 197 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 67 note 3} For the geographical distribution of θυμελικοὶ ἀγῶνες see Frei, J., De Certaminibus Thymelicis (Diss. Berlin, 1900;, pp. 16–19Google Scholar. We get no references in Laconian inscriptions to θυμελικοὶ ἀγῶνες before the Imperial period, when we have them mentioned in the decree of Gythion, relating to the Καισάρεια, Rev. Arch. xxix. (1929, I.), p. 85, llGoogle Scholar. 19 and 25. In Hesychius, s.v. ᾿Ελευσίνια we read ἀγὼν θυμελικὸς ἀδόμενος Δήμητρι παρὰ Λάκωσι. The only mention of γυμνικοί at Sparta, I.G. v. 1, 20 AGoogle Scholar, l. 2, belongs to a much later date (ca. A.D. 110). In other Laconian towns they are alluded to in v. 1, 952, l. 22; 962, l. 24.

^{page 68 note 1} The first omikron is certain, so we cannot read Λεῳνι[δα] and the second one is pretty certain.

^{page 69 note 1} Cf. the list given by Cardinali, , Il Regno di Pergamo, pp. 233 ff.Google Scholar, which is, however, considerably out of date in this respect.

^{page 70 note 1} At the same time we have in ll. 56 ff. τὸν βουλόμενον Μιλησίων πολιτεύεσθαι ἐν Σελ ευκείαι (i.e. Tralles) ἀπογράφεσθαι πρός τε τοὺς στρατηγοὺς καὶ τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ δήμου, which is a suggestive parallel for the mention of these officials in our present text.

^{page 70 note 2} Perhaps [χα]ρίνου; in any case even if only seven στρατηγοί are recorded here it is no reason for doubting that the normal number may have been ten or eleven. For the punctuation of this text see Rev. Phil. 1929, p. 122, note 1Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 3} This must be the correct restoration of the name, although no cross-bar is visible in the presumed . It is also found at Sparta in v. 1, 212, l. 29 (first century B.C.); ᾿Αλκιππίδας on the other hand, is unknown there, alike in inscriptions and ancient authors.

^{page 71 note 1} Inscr. Gr. Ined. i. 25Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 2} ii. P. 74. 13.

^{page 71 note 3} The other errors in both versions–e.g. ΠΙΔΙ for ΤΡΙΔΙ, by Ross, in l. 5—are ignored here.

^{page 72 note 1} Λεωνίδας and Μένανδρος both occur there, the former in a text first published in Μουσεῖον . . . Εὐαγγελ. Σχολῆς (Smyrna), ii. (1876), p. 53, cf. Milet, Delphinion, p. 321 f.; the latter on coins of the second and first centuries B.C., B.M.C. Lydia, pp. cxxxvi and cxl. The names are too common to justify any identification with the bearers in our decree. ῾Ικέσιος is found at Ephesus, , O.G.I. 222Google Scholar, l. 46, and 437, passim. Μαρσύας is common in S.-W. Asia Minor, in particular.

^{page 72 note 2} For another example of ἐκτενῶς διακείμενος cf. I.G. ii.²992Google Scholar. In addition to the verbs quoted with this adverb in the new edition of Liddell, and Scott, , note ἐκτ.προογινόμενος I.G. v. 1, 961Google Scholar, l. 4; ἐκτ.προσηνέχθη, O.G.I. 339, l. 16; for the comparative, πλεῖον καὶ ἐκτενέστερον - - φροντίσαι Inschr. von Magn. 100, l. 66.

^{page 72 note 3} Cf. S.E.G. i. 115Google Scholar: εὐεργετείοντα αὐτὸν κατὰ θιαωρίαν

^{page 74 note 1} Or perhaps [ἐπὶ τῶι ἀποστεῖλ]αι, κ.τ.λ.

^{page 74 note 2} For tribunals composed of judges from different cities, see Rev. Ét. Gr. xxxviii. (1925), P. 34 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 74 note 3} For the date of the Kleitor documents, see Holleaux, , Rev. Ét. Gr. x. (1897), pp. 279 ff.Google Scholar, ad fin.