Of the Neodamodes or “new citizens,” our knowledge is little less scanty than of the other classes of freedmen. That they were enfranchised Helots is confidently maintained by several learned writers, though others suppose them to have been the sons of enfranchised Helots.[225] This latter supposition, however, is inconsistent with the testimony of Myron, who observes, that “the Lacedæmonians often emancipated their slaves, some of whom were then called _aphetæ_, others _adespotæ_, others _eructeres_, others _desposionautæ_; there were others whom they denominated _neodamodes_, different from the Helots.”[226] Of those modern writers who have treated of the Spartan institutions, some elude the discussion altogether, while others acquiescing in the commonly received opinion contend, that the Neodamodes were those Helots who, having conducted themselves gallantly in war, had for some time enjoyed their freedom. But this decision, however plausible it may seem, is by no means satisfactory. For, wherever Thucydides, or any other historian of authority, has occasion to mention this class of freedmen, they appear to be carefully distinguished from the enfranchised Helots. Thus, when the companions of Brasidas, before spoken of, had received their freedom, and were sent as settlers into the Lepreatis, it is added, that they were accompanied by a number of Neodamodes.[227] But if this term signified nothing more than Helots who had been rewarded with liberty, in what did they differ from the other Helots who had likewise been made free? One learned commentator,[228] not without ingenuity, infers that they were a class of tributary subjects inhabiting the neighbourhood of the capital, on whom the right of citizenship had been conferred, though they did not enjoy perfect equality with the elder citizens. But, as it is distinctly stated, that they were enfranchised slaves, we are compelled to abandon even this hypothesis, and seek to discover some other clue to the truth. ----- Footnote 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. Footnote 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. Footnote 227: