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. Footnote 228: Morus. ap. Schneid. Ind. Græc. ad Xen. Hellen. p. 468. Cf. Perizon. ad Ælian. xii. 43. ----- It has already been observed, that the Spartans appear to have possessed numbers of slaves properly so called, besides their oppressed and miserable bondsmen, with whom they seem often to have been confounded. These, by being more constantly about their masters, were, doubtless, able to gain more upon their affections, and could not possibly be viewed with equal dread, since they were necessarily brought together from various countries, and connected consequently by no bond of union. As often, therefore, as the state required a fresh supply of citizens, it is from among these that they appear to have been selected; and that, too, in numbers so considerable, that Agesilaos, on one occasion, was enabled to select two thousand to attend him on an expedition wherein he was accompanied by only thirty Spartans.[229] ----- Footnote 229: Plut. Agesil. § 6. Cf. Xenoph. Hellen. i. 3. 15. iii. 1. 3. v. 2. 24. Diod. Sicul. xv. 20. -----