^{page 443 note 1} (l. 19). ἐν τῷ πρὸ πρὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ προαστείῳ ὄσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις . . . ὑπάρχει

^{page 443 note 2} Cf. also Collitz-Bechtel 4430, Le Bas-Foucart, 194 a. Other Laconian honorary decrees are C.I.G. 1334 (Geronthrae), 1335 (Κοινὸν τῶν Λ Taenarum), B.C.H. ix. 517, No. 9 (the Hyperteleatic Sanctuary). The latter belongs to the same age as our decree. Cf. also I.G. iv. 940.

^{page 444 note 1} Swoboda, , Gr. Volksbeschlüsse, 108, 136–142.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 2} Livy xxxviii. 34 imperatum uti … Lycurgi leges moresque abrogarent, Achaeorum adsuescerent legibus institutisque.

^{page 444 note 3} All these questions are discussed by Swoboda, l.c. It would take up too much space to give all his arguments, which seem quite convincing.

^{page 445 note 1} The nearest parallel to the opening formula is in Collitz-Bechtel 4531.

^{page 445 note 2} Swoboda's view is not fully proved, and, should he be mistaken, the reasoning just given would fall to the ground. Foucart connected the establishment of the συναρχίαι with the reforms of Cleomenes III, and would thus put the decree in 221/0 B.C. (Le Bas-Foucart, 194a). Συναρχία in that case would refer to the whole college of patronomi, the junior members of which were called σύναρχοι (cf. S.M.C. 777). But it is not likely that Cleomenes would have given his new magistracy a name that savoured of Achaean institutions, and there is no evidence for any early use of συναρχία applied to the patronomi. (In 17 below it is uncertain to what board of magistrates the term πρέσβυς συναρχίας applies; it may refer to the patronomi, but even so the inscription is too late to afford a parallel to our decree. Σύναρχοι were junior members of various boards: cf. S.M.C. 214 agoranomi.—216 ἐπιμεληταί—784 agoranomi.) The explanation first given seems therefore the most likely.

^{page 449 note 1} For the meaning of the symbol in line 4 see Reinach, , Traité d'Ép. gr. p. 225.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} On such temple-banks Büchsenschütz, v. B., Besitz u. Erwerb im gr. Altert. 506–508Google Scholar: C.I.G. 158 = I.G. II. pt. ii. 814 (Delos): Ross Inscrr. Ined. II. n. 145 (Myconos).

^{page 449 note 3} Cf. Ditt. Syll. ² 940. 17 ff.

^{page 449 note 4} Paus. iii. 14. 1.

^{page 449 note 5} C.I.G. 1421. Cf. Wide, S., Lak. Kulte 358.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 6} S.M.C. 544, 12, 13. . . . καὶ ἀγωνοθέτην δ[ι] ὰ γέ]νους τῶν μεγάλων [Λε]ωνειδίωνί. This last phrase suggests that there may have been a greater and a lesser contest in memory of Leonidas. In C.I.G. 1417 the match seems to be called the ἐπιτάφιος (sc. ἀγών) of Leonidas. Τὰ Λεωνίδεια occurs Le Bas-Foucart 194 c. That inscription contains other regulations for this same contest, and may be a companion stone to ours. For the office of ἀγωνοθέτης cf. S.M.C. Introd. § 22.

^{page 449 note 7} Cf. L. and S. s.v.

^{page 449 note 8} Cf. Ditt. Syll. ² 754.

^{page 450 note 1} Almost the same procedure is found in Ditt. Syll. ² 688 (Epidaurus), where a man is fined by an ἀγωνοθέτης and the ῾Ελλανοδίκαι. This is confirmed on an appeal to the senate, and the fine is increased owing to a default of payment.

^{page 450 note 2} Cf. Smith, Dict. Ant. s.v. Calendarium.

^{page 450 note 3} S.M.C. Introd. § 15.

^{page 450 note 4} Ib. § 22. The ἀθλοθέται and ἀθλοθέται are distinguished in C.I.G. 1424, with Boeckh's note.

^{page 453 note 1} S.M.C. 204 ii. Introd. § 15, C.I.G. 1239, 1240. A [δημόσι]ον γραμματοφυλά[κιον] occurs in C.I.G. 4094 (Pessinus).

^{page 453 note 2} S.M.C. 246 = C.I.G. 1365, whence it appears that a man could be gymnasiarch more than once, besides being a ‘perpetual’ gymnasiarch. Boeckh holds that the ordinary gymnasiarchy was a ‘liturgy’ or public burden (p. 611), the perpetual gymnasiarchy must have been an honorary post; perhaps here the gymnasiarch was obliged to pay for the oil himself.

Gr. u. röm. Metrol. 104, 105, and table 703.

^{page 454 note 1} C.I.G. 1428.

^{page 454 note 2} S.M.C. Introd. § 13.

^{page 454 note 3} Ib. § 17.

^{page 454 note 4} Ib.

^{page 454 note 5} So far, not more than three ἀγωνοθέται are known to have been chosen together. Ib. § 22, C.I.G 1424.

^{page 454 note 6} Ross, , Inscr. Inéd. 49b.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 7} B.C.H. iii. 197.

^{page 455 note 1} S.M.C. Introd. § 15.

^{page 456 note 1} No patronomus occurs in our text, but if his name occurred before γέροντες this would explain its omission from the list of names.

^{page 456 note 2} The following is another indication of date; in S.M.C. 210 Aristocles son of Callicrates is a senator. In C.I.G. 1265 one Callicrates son of Aristocles is a colleague of Lysippus, who in C.I.G. 1348 appears as gymnasiarch at the time of Hadrian's second visit. The grandson of Aristocles appears as eponymus in the Antonine age, C.I.G. 1249. These facts point to the time about Nerva as a date for our inscription.

^{page 457 note 1} C.I.G. 1241 and Le Bas-Foucart 286 b. Cf. Dürr, J., Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, 59 f.Google Scholar and S.M.C., p. 24, n. 1.

^{page 459 note 1} The letters ΝΕ in line 1 were run together; the cross-stroke is partly worn away.

^{page 461 note 1} There were perhaps some state privileges as well: cf. S.M.C 648, n. Charixenus is no doubt the same as in 2 (p. 446, above).

^{page 462 note 1} Julia Balbilla was with Hadrian and Sabina in Egypt, when they heard the speaking statue of Memnon, in Nov. 130, C.I.G. 4725, 4727, 4729 (Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. 990, 988). These epigrams were written by Balbilla on the occasion and inscribed on the statue. In C.I.G. 4730 (Kaibel, 991) Balbilla speaks of her father, T. Cl. Balbillus, prefect of Egypt under Nero (cf. C.I.G. 4699), as a descendant of King Antiochus (probably of Commagene: cf. Kaibel's note ad loc.)

^{page 463 note 1} This name occurs S.M.C. 203.

^{page 466 note 1} Cf. 2, 12, above (pp. 446, 460).

^{page 471 note 1} See S.M.C. p. 14.