^{page 46 note 1} e.g. Hesychius, s.vv.

^{page 47 note 1} e.g. Hesychius, s.w. oval, οùαí, ὠáς, ὠγ⋯, ὠβáρα⋯.

^{page 48 note 1} IG v(i) 564 (Limnae), 682 (Amyclae).

^{page 48 note 2} For additional cognates of , see Pokorny, J., Indog. Eiynt. Wörterb., 1948Google Scholar, s.v. 'auo-s', Grorsvater mütterluherseits (where mütterlicherseits is a qualification unsupported by the bulk of the evidence).

^{page 48 note 3} Plutarch, Lycurgus 6. 2 … The text at this point requires modification, as I shall prove in a separate article, but not in such a way as to alter the obvious implication of the participial phrase quoted.)

^{page 48 note 4} Herodotus 3. 55, 9. 53; Hesychius, s.v. , Xenophon, Hellenica 4. 5 II; Strabo 8. 5. 4. Cf, Thucydides I. 20. 3; 5, 18, 10; 5. 23. 5.

^{page 48 note 5} IG v (1), Nos. 26, 27, etc. For the conventional view of the tribes and obes here described, see Pauly-Wissowa, RE, s.vv. ‘Phylai’, ‘Obai’.

^{page 49 note 1} My theory of the five tribes and thirty obes will be expounded in a separate paper. I believe that this state of affairs is reflected in the legendary account by Ephorus, ap. Strabo 8. 5. 4 and 8. 4. II (Amyclae being an independent obe outside the tribal division). For the ‘Free-Laconian’ cities see Pausanias 3. 21. 6–7: eighteen out of the original twenty-four survived in his day.

^{page 49 note 2} Pausanias 3. I. 3. Cf. Apollodorus 3. 10. 3, where the same story appears without mention of Argalos. Pausanias 7. 18. 5 mentions the hero again: …

^{page 50 note 1} For this treatment of voiced bilabial +y, cf. “having a tress, or knot of hair”(Apollo being the ideal of full-grown youth with uncut hair: , Pindar). So also , and perhaps also

^{page 50 note 2} IG v (1), No. 538 see Robert, F., Thymélè, pp. 101 f., 113 f.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} is probably corrupt and perhaps irrelevant to the gloss.

^{page 50 note 4} Or perhaps read

^{page 51 note 1} m.f., has of course also a general currency in the sense of ‘young man’, ‘young woman’. This may be an extension of the religious connotation, or it may be no more than an obvious metaphor. I do not think, however, that the religious connotation was derived from the metaphor. In my opinion it has its origin in a very early concept of the nature of the goddesses who are associated with but I reserve discussion of this point for a separate paper. The maiden of Artemis, etc., are clearly the counterpart of the of Artemis Brauronia in Attica. m. has not, so far as I am aware, any currency in religious contexts except with regard to the Dioscuri.

^{page 51 note 2} IG v (1), No. 594; that Epaphro was quite young is shown by the fact that her grandmother was alive to act as sponsor for her on this occasion. Cf. Wide, S., Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig, 1893). P. 179.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} IG v (1), No. 1444.

^{page 52 note 2} Jahrb. d. deutsch. archdäl. Gesellsch. xxvii (1912), p. 8Google Scholar, Nos. 2, 3:

^{page 52 note 3} Wide, , op. cit., pp. 326–332.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 4} Ath. Mitt. xxix (1904), p. 297Google Scholar: (? Cyzicus).

^{page 52 note 5} From a linguistic point of view it is conceivable that could tefer to the sale of goods in the market which accompanied many religious festivals. Leges sacrae occasionally refer to the vendors on such occasions, But the regulations concerning them are normally an appendix to the main paragraphs of the law. It is scarcely conceivable that people of this class could be mentioned in the same sentence as one of the chief causes of ritual impiety.

^{page 52 note 6} I am indebted for this explanation to Mr. A. G. Woodhead. Previously I had supposed that the engraver used and M, both with the value σ, the second being the san-form which is well known in the Arcadian and other Peloponnesian alphabets. The assumption of M would make it easier to account for Fourmont's use of the upright letters M N Y where σ is required by the context. But this hypothesis breaks down not merely because M (= san) is unknown in Laconian inscriptions but because it would be necessary to suppose that the engraver distinguished μ. from san by using M (with a short fourth stroke), a form which is also unknown in Laconian and is not indeed supported in this case by Fourmont's transcript (e.g., 1. 3, ME = ).

^{page 52 note 7} The symbol occurs in 1. 7, but no argument can be based on the meaningless jumble in that part of the text.

^{page 53 note 1} The occurrences of M, N in 11. 3–4 need not be reconsidered in this light.

^{page 54 note 1} Wide, , op. cit., pp. 31, 45 f.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 2} IG v (2), No. 3, 1. 21 (Athena Alea).

^{page 54 note 3} 1934–5, p. 141 (inscr.); cf. (Delphi), Hesychius, s.v.

^{page 54 note 4} IG v (1), No. 992, etc.

^{page 55 note 1} Nilsson, , Griechsche Feste, pp. 1401.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 2} Ibid., pp. 182 ff.; and esp. p. 184, n. 4. See Plutarch, , Lycuzgus, 14. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 3} Nilsson, , op. cit., pp. 370–1.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} Wide, , op. cit., pp. 326–32.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} Pausanias 3. 16. 2.

^{page 57 note 1} Other conjectures, such as , might be offered. I omit them from my discussion both because they involve the assumption of a major corruption in the text (haplography following , etc.) and because they do not represent any real syntactical improvement on those conjectures which are mentioned above.

^{page 58 note 1} IG v (1), No. 1390, 1. 26 et al.

^{page 58 note 2} IG v (1), Nos. 579, 594, and other texts in the same volume which refer to with out naming Demeter (Nos. 583, 584, 589, 596, etc.).

^{page 58 note 3} IG v (2), No. 514 (Lycosura); Schwyzer, E., Dial. graec. exempla epigr. potiora (Leipzig, 1923)Google Scholar, No. 429 (Dyme); Beattie, A. J., CQ. xli (1947), pp. 66 f. (? Clitor).CrossRefGoogle Scholar