45 That this could not always be said of the θεοπρόποι, may be seen from Theognis, v. 783. 46 This, I infer, nearly agreeing with Cragius, from Cicero de Div. I. 13. Conf. Herod. VI. 57. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. 15. 47 See particularly Timæus Lex. Plat. in v. ἐξηγηταὶ Πυθόχρηστοι. 48 See Æginetica, p. 135. Compare Dissen Expl. Pind. Nem. III. p. 376. In the Thearion at Trœzen there were expiatory sacrifices, book II. ch. 2. § 8. In Thasos they were called Θεῦροι, Inscript. ap. Choiseul. Gouff. Voyage pittoresque, I. 2. p. 156. Here also they were in connexion with the temple of the Pythian Apollo. 49 See Thuc. I. 84. Plat. Alcib. I. c. 38. 50 VII. 2. 5. Engel _de Rep. mil. Spart._, a Göttingen prize Essay for 1790., where Cossacks, Spartans, and Cretans are classed together. Compare Heyne _de Spartan. Rep._ Comment. Götting. tom. IX. p. 8. It appears, indeed, from Aristotle Pol. VII. 14 (13) to have been the opinion of the writers who treated of the constitution of Sparta during the predominance of that state, that “the Lacedæmonians owed their external dominion to their constitution, according to which they had been trained to dangers and exertions from their youth (ὅτι διὰ τὸ γεγυμνάσθαι πρὸς τοῦς κινδύνους πολλῶν ἦρχον.)” But the _intended_ effect of these institutions cannot be safely inferred from their _actual_ consequences. 51 IV. 126. 52 Pausan. IV. 3. 3. συγχωροῦσιν ἈΝΑΔΑΣΑΣΘΑΙ πρὸς τοὺς Δωριέας τὴν γῆν. Pausanias, however, very frequently makes use of this expression, and often perhaps without any historical ground. 53 Why I take no further notice of the account of Ephorus is explained in book I. ch 5. § 13. 54 Pausan. III. 22. 7. 55 Polyb. XX. 12. 2. with Schweighæuser’s note, Liv. XXXIV. 29. XXXVIII. 30. 56 αὐτόνομοι, Pausan. III. 21. 6.