¹ I am extremely grateful to Professor C. Habicht for making it possible for me to work for three months in 1987 in Princeton, N.J., at the Institute for Advanced Study as a Summer Visitor, where I was able to make use of the extensive collection of epigraphic squeezes stored there, and to Mrs C. Peppas-Delmousou, the Director of the Epigraphic Museum in Athens, and her Assistant, Mrs C. Karapa-Molisani, who permitted me to study inscriptions stored there under their care. I am very grateful to the authorities of the British School at Athens, who obtained the necessary permits for me to work in Athens in 1988. I acknowledge, too, the financial assistance afforded to me by the University of Calgary on both occasions. The following abbreviations are used throughout: EM = Epigraphic Museum Inventory; Agora I = Agora Museum Inventory of Inscriptions.

² Henry, A.S., The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees (Mnemosyne Supplement 89, Leiden 1977)Google Scholar; ‘Polis/acropolis, Paymasters and the Ten Talent Fund,’ Chiron, 12 (1982) 91–118; Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees (Subsidia Epigraphica 10: Hildesheim, Zurich, New York 1983); ‘Athenian Financial Officials after 303 BC,’ Chiron, 14 (1984) 49–92; hereafter referred to as, respectively, Henry (1977); (1982); (1983); (1984).

³ The join between IG ii². 13a and Hesperia 40, No. 3 is not glove-tight, as EM 12917 has suffered considerable damage to its right side.

⁴ See Meritt, B.D. and Traill, J.S., The Athenian Agora, Vol. XV: Inscriptions. The Athenian Councillors (Princeton 1974) No. 13, line 70.Google Scholar

⁵ For this type of heading, see Henry (1977) 10–12. The best example of the form employed in my tentative restoration is IG i³. 126, dated to 405/4 BC.

⁶ Schweigert, E., Hesperia, 7 (1938) 626 = SEG 21. 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Lawton, C.L., Attic Document Reliefs of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods (Diss. Princeton University 1984) 292–294, No. 110 (photograph, pl. 59b).Google Scholar

⁸ Henry (1977) 23, n. 13.

⁹ Henry (1983) 141. His other two examples are IG ii². 110, lines 22–23, which is heavily restored, and IG ii². 351 (+ 624), lines 25–28.

¹⁰ Henry (1982) 106.

¹¹ Johnson, A.C., ‘Notes on Attic Inscriptions,’ CP, 9 (1994) 419 and 422.Google Scholar

¹² Dinsmoor, W.B., ‘The Burning of the Opisthodomos at Athens,’ AJA, 36 (1932) 158, n. 4.Google Scholar

¹³ Henry (1982) 118.

¹⁴ ap. IG ii².

¹⁵ Wilhelm, ap. IG ii², with Addenda, 658; see Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 1 (Bruxelles 1981) 65–66, No. D 18.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Pecírka, J., ‘Disiungenda’, Listy filologike, 89 (1966) 266–269.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Schweigert, E., Hesperia, 8 (1939) 173–175Google Scholar, associated IG ii². 289 with IG ii². 372, dating the composite document to 322/1 BC. That this association was impossible was shown by J. Pecírka, op. cit., 262–266 (for further bibliography on these fragments, see SEG 21. 303, 23. 60 and 32. 93). I have discussed other implications of this association elsewhere: see Ancient History Bulletin, 3.6 (1990), 119–22.

¹⁸ Walbank, M.B., Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views, 31 (1987) 229–233.Google Scholar They are, respectively, EM 257 and EM 7211.

¹⁹ op. cit., 306.

²⁰ Dittmar, A., de Atheniensium more exteros coronis publice ornandi quaestiones epigraphicae (Leipzig 1890) 86.Google Scholar

²¹ Wilhelm, A., Ath. Mitt., 37 (1914) 273.Google Scholar

²² Broneer, O., Hesperia, 2 (1933) 396–397, No. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Attische Urkunden, 5 (Wien 1942) 184–185.

²⁴ The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague 1966) 130–131.

²⁶ It is flat, but pitted all over with regular, rounded pock-marks, a treatment that sometimes occurs in documents of the archaic period, but is also found in reworkings of the mediaeval era.

²⁷ Pittakys, K.S., Ἐφ. Ἀϱχ., 47 (1857) 1642, No. 3199.Google Scholar

²⁸ On the proxenial formulae of IG ii². 286, see Wilhelm, A., Attische Urkunden, 5 (1942) 38.Google Scholar

²⁹ I believe that IG i³. 174a and b represent two separate decrees having the same context; others, including the editor of IG I³, believe that two copies of the same decree are involved. Since both fragments were found upon the Akropolis, this seems unlikely: a copy would have been set up elsewhere. The honorand of fragment b is unknown.

³⁰ Mattingly, H.B., in Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday (Oxford 1966) 214.Google Scholar

³¹ Schweigert, E., Hesperia, 8 (1939) 27Google Scholar, and Hesperia, 9 (1940) 339 = SEG 24. 89.

³² Schweigert, E., Hesperia, 7 (1938) 297Google Scholar, Hesperia, 8 (1939) 27, and Hesperia, 9 (1940) 339–341.

³³ Schweigert, E., Hesperia, 9 (1940) 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Broneer, O., Hesperia, 4 (1935) 169, No. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ I have discussed the further implications of this association elsewhere: see ZPE (1990), forthcoming. The second decree is by a completely different hand, and has a much longer line-length.

³⁶ See Walbank, M.B., Hesperia, 58 (1989) 84–85, No. 10, for another possible fragment of Hesperia, 10 (1941) No. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Walbank, M.B., Ancient History Bulletin, 1 (1987) 5–7.Google Scholar

³⁸ Walbank, M.B., ZPE, 67 (1987) 165–166.Google Scholar

³⁹ On this, see Henry (1983) 25–28.

⁴⁰ On this, see Henry (1984) 51–63.

⁴¹ See Henry (1984) 63.

⁴² Walbank, M.B., ZPE, 69 (1987) 261–265.Google Scholar