The recent edition of Heraklel-
-dds Ponticus, published by Sohnei-
dewin in 1847 since my first edi-
tion, presents an amended text
which completely bears out my
interpretation. His text, derived
from a fuller comparison of exist-
ing MSS., as well at from better
critical judgement (see his Prolegg.
o. iii. p. liv.)> stands— IIodXs IV 6s
Y^vAaxs5ai(i,ovlon alajrpiv vev6|jLiaT«i.
t:^? 5i ap)ralac [xolpa? o65s e^sativ
(p. 7). It is plain that all this
passage relates to sale of land,
and not to testation, or succession,
or division. Thus much negatively
is certain, and Schneidewin remarks
in his note (p. 63) that it contra-
dicts Miiller, Hermann, and Scho-
mann — adding, that the distinction
drawn is, between land inherited
from the original family lots, and
land otherwise acquired, by dona-
tion, bequest, &o. Sale of the for-
mer was absolutely illegal: sale
of the latter was discreditable, yet
-not absolutely illegal. Aristotle
in the Politics (vii. 6, 10) takes no
notice of any such ■ distinction,
between land inherited from the
primitive lots, and land otherwise
acquired. Nor was there perhaps



any well-defined line of distinotion,
in a country of unwritten customs
like Sparta, between what waa
simply disgraceful and what was
positively illegal. Schneidewin in
his note, however, assumes tho
original equality of the lots as
certain in itself, and as being the
cause of the prohibition: neither
of which appears to me true.
