, see 
The text at this point requires modification, as I shall prove in a separate article, but not in such a way as to alter the obvious implication of the participial phrase quoted.)
, Xenophon, Hellenica 4. 5 II; Strabo 8. 5. 4. Cf, Thucydides I. 20. 3; 5, 18, 10; 5. 23. 5.
“having a tress, or knot of hair”(Apollo being the ideal of full-grown youth with uncut hair: 
, Pindar). So also 
, and perhaps also 
see 
is probably corrupt and perhaps irrelevant to the gloss.
m.f., has of course also a general currency in the sense of ‘young man’, ‘young woman’. This may be an extension of the religious connotation, or it may be no more than an obvious metaphor. I do not think, however, that the religious connotation was derived from the metaphor. In my opinion it has its origin in a very early concept of the nature of the goddesses who are associated with 
but I reserve discussion of this point for a separate paper. The maiden 
of Artemis, etc., are clearly the counterpart of the 
of Artemis Brauronia in Attica. 
m. has not, so far as I am aware, any currency in religious contexts except with regard to the Dioscuri.
(? Cyzicus).
could tefer to the sale of goods in the market which accompanied many religious festivals. Leges sacrae occasionally refer to the vendors 
on such occasions, But the regulations concerning them are normally an appendix to the main paragraphs of the law. It is scarcely conceivable that people of this class could be mentioned in the same sentence as one of the chief causes of ritual impiety.
and M, both with the value σ, the second being the san-form which is well known in the Arcadian and other Peloponnesian alphabets. The assumption of M would make it easier to account for Fourmont's use of the upright letters M N Y where σ is required by the context. But this hypothesis breaks down not merely because M (= san) is unknown in Laconian inscriptions but because it would be necessary to suppose that the engraver distinguished μ. from san by using M (with a short fourth stroke), a form which is also unknown in Laconian and is not indeed supported in this case by Fourmont's transcript (e.g., 1. 3, ME = 
).
occurs in 1. 7, but no argument can be based on the meaningless jumble in that part of the text.
1934–5, p. 141 (inscr.); cf. 
(Delphi), Hesychius, s.v.
, might be offered. I omit them from my discussion both because they involve the assumption of a major corruption in the text (haplography following 
, etc.) and because they do not represent any real syntactical improvement on those conjectures which are mentioned above.
with out naming Demeter (Nos. 583, 584, 589, 596, etc.).
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Boardman, John
Edwards, I. E. S.
Hammond, N. G. L.
and
Sollberger, E.
1982.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
Ruzé, Françoise
1997.
Délibération et pouvoir dans la cité grecque.
p.
545.
Cavanagh, William
2017.
A Companion to Sparta.
p.
59.