^{page 71 note 1} [᾿Αφ]ροδείσιος Εὐκαταλλάκτου Le Bas-Foucart, No. 168i: M. Aὐρ. C.I.G. 1350: Αὐρ. ᾿Αφροδεισία C.I.G. 1379: Αὐρ. ᾿Αφροδώ C.I.G. 1386 (No. 11, above). The only doubtful instance is Le Bas-Foucart, 248c, from Gythion.

^{page 71 note 2} Cf. Athen. Mitt. 1904, p. 51.

^{page 73 note 1} Olympia v. Nos. 54, 225, 227: in all three cases the contest is the παγκράτιον

^{page 73 note 2} Dittenb., Syll. ² 683, note I is qui nunquam per totum certamen sortis felicitate ἐφεδρείαν nanctus est, ita ut continua priorum certaminum serie defatigatus ad illam supremam de corona dimicationem perveniat. Van Herwerden, Lex. Supplet. s.v.

^{page 73 note 3} See also note on No. 2.

^{page 74 note 1} The uncertainty is due to the enigmatical letters ΜΑΧ and ΒΑΣ in lines 2, 3: it has been suggested that these may represent a name accidentally omitted and later added in the margin (Foucart, ad loc).

^{page 74 note 2} iii. 11, 2 τοῖς Βιδιαίοις τοὺς ἐπὶ τῷ Πλατανιστᾷ καλουμένῳ καὶ ἄλλους τῶν ἐφήβων ἀγῶνας τιθέναι καθέστηκεν

^{page 74 note 3} C.I.G. p. 611b.

^{page 74 note 4} It might be suggested that the βίδεος in these cases is an obe-official distinct from the state magistrate of the same title. This, however, I do not regard as at all likely.

^{page 74 note 5} C.I.G. p. 611a.

^{page 75 note 1} Cf. C.I.G. 1365, ἐπὶ τῇ δευτέρᾳ γυμβασιαρχίᾳ ἠν αὐτόθεν ὑπέστη

^{page 75 note 2} See note on No. 2. This supposition is not necessarily disproved by the fact that in No. 3 a διαβέτης bears the title αἰώνιος ἀριστοπολιτευτής I would rather take this to indicate that the office of διαβέτης was not always, though it was in many cases (C.I.G. 1241 i, ii, 1242, 1243), the first, or nearly the first, step in the ctirsus honorum.

^{page 75 note 3} H. Blümner, Lehrbuch der Griech. Privatalterthümer ³ p. 292 and the works cited there: Α. Δ. Κεραμόπουλλος, Αἱ ᾿Επωνυμίαι τῶν ᾿Αγαλμάτων (Athens, 1903), p. 60 foll.; Marquardt, Privatleben der Kömer,² p. 841 foll., and De Sphaeromachiis veterum disputatio (Güstrow, 1879).

^{page 76 note 1} See Thirlwall, History of Greece, i. App. II, where the previous literature is discussed: Busolt, Griech. Staats- und Rechtsalterümer ³ in Iwan Müller's Handbuch p. 100: Thümser, Griech. Staatsaltertümer ⁶ in K. F. Hermann's Lehrbuch, p. 164–166. Grote, (History of Greece, New Edition, London, 1884, vol. ii. p. 362)Google Scholar regarded the evidence as too scanty to afford any probable conclusion: ‘At Sparta, though we seem to make out the existence of the three Dorian tribes, we do not know how many tribes there were in all; still less do we know what relation the Obae or Obês, another subordinate distribution of the people, bore to the tribes.’

^{page 76 note 2} Demetrius of Scepsis speaks of 9 τόποι which seemingly correspond to 9 tribes, and of 27 φρατρίαι (Athen, iv. 141 f).

^{page 77 note 1} Foucart supposed that No. 9 commemorated a victory won by the inhabitants of a city Neopolis, of which Marcus Aurelius Alcisthenes was προστάτης But

1. The commoner form is Νεαπολιτῶν not Νεοπολιτῶν

2. That προστάτης πόλεως refers to Sparta and not to Neopolis is proved by Bull. Corr. Hell. ix. p. 515, a Spartan inscription in which, though no mention of Neopolis or Neopolitans occurs, the same title is given to the same man.

3. The fact that No. 9 falls into its place in the series of σφαιρεῖς-inscriptions shows that the Νεοπολῖται referred to formed an obe, a fact which is proved by the occurrence of the same obe in No.1

The only question is whether we are to see in them the inhabitants of a ‘Sparta New Town,’ or whether, as seems to me far more probable, the strictly local principle was in this case abandoned, and all those who were on some occasion admitted to civic rights were united in the obe of ‘the newly-enfranchised’ (Cf. Diodor. xiv. 7, 4, τοὺς ἠλευθερωμένους δούλους,οῦς ἐκάλει νεοπολίτας and Athen. 138A).