[222]. Cf. Eustath. ad Il. λ. 784. 15.
[223]. See Bœckh. Pub. Econ. of Ath. i. 349.
[224]. l. v. § 34.
[225]. Dr. Arnold, in Thucyd. v. 34. Hudson, in Var. Lect. on the same passage observes, that “Neodamodes fuisse Helotas, contra quam censet Cragius (de Rep. Lac. i. 12,) clare ostendit Meursius in Miscell. Lacon. ii. 7.” Thucyd. t. iii. p. 492. Bip. Cf. Diod. Sic. xii.
[226]. Athen. vi. 102. Cf. Herm. Polit. Antiq. §§ 24. 48. et Valckenaar ad Herod. ix. 11, where the condition of the Periœci is sought to be explained. Suid. v. νεοδαμ. ii. 215. Animad. in Athen. t. viii. p. 603. Ubbo Emmius, iii. 138.
[227]. Thucyd. v. 34. 67. vii. 58. Xenoph. Helen. i. 3. 17. iii. 1. 4. iii. 36. 6. v. 2. 24. vi. 1. 4. I cannot discern the force of Schneider’s argument in his remark on Thucyd. vii. 58: “Sed locus Thucydidis clarissimus est: δύναται δὲ τὸ νεοδαμῶδες ἐλεύθερον ἤδη εἶναι. i. e. significat vocabulum νεοδαμῶδεις homines nuper libertate donatos.” Not to insist on the opinion of Æmilius Portus, that the above words have crept from the margin into the text, the recently enfranchised Helots were as much “homines nuper libertate donatos,” as the Neodamodes. And yet, when sent together to Lepreon they are carefully distinguished. See Hudson. Var. Lect. Thucyd. iv. 460. Bip.
[228]. Morus. ap. Schneid. Ind. Græc. ad Xen. Hellen. p. 468. Cf. Perizon. ad Ælian. xii. 43.
[229]. Plut. Agesil. § 6. Cf. Xenoph. Hellen. i. 3. 15. iii. 1. 3. v. 2. 24. Diod. Sicul. xv. 20.
[230]. See Book ii. chapter vii.
[231]. Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 632. Ubbo. Emm. iii. 132, seq. Mention is made in Plutarch of two Syntrophoi of Cleomenes, who were called Mothaces, and these we find at the head of a party of soldiers. Vit. Cleom. § 8. Cf. Valck. Diatrib. p. 231.