I am deeply indebted to Prof. A. Andrewes, Mr. J. M. Cook, Mr. R. Meiggs, and particularly to Mr. A. M. Woodward, who have read the following in whole or in part and given much valuable advice; to Professors B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, A. E. Raubitschek, and Mr. G. A. Stamires, for help on various points; to Prof. W. B. Dinsmoor, Prof. W. K. Pritchett, Dr. M. Mitsos, Mr. E. Vanderpool, and Mr. W. G. Forrest, for assistance in matters of readings and joins; to Miss Lucy Talcott of the Agora Museum and Dr. Mitsos of the Epigraphical Museum, for their patience; to Mr. R. V. Nicholls and Mr. J. Boardman for the photographs. I hope that these gleanings are not an entirely inadequate return for their invariable kindness and for the generosity of the Institute for Advanced Study, the Jane Eliza Procter trustees of Princeton University, the Oxford Craven Committee, and the Warden and Fellows of New College.

Abbreviations

ATL Meritt, Wade-Gery, McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists.

PA Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica.

GHI Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions.

Michel. Michel, Recueil d'Inscriptions Grecques.

^{page 17 note 1} In Prott-Ziehen, , Leges Graecorum Sacrae, II i, 58 ff., no. 14Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} Printed in IG I², and argued in his Neue Beiträge III 24.

^{page 20 note 3} AJA XXVIII (1924), 11–23, 406–23.

^{page 20 note 4} IG I² 372. 1.

^{page 20 note 5} AJA XXXVI (1932), 318. But Prof. Dinsmoor, who kindly read an early draft of this paper, tells me that he sees 10 reason to modify his view.

^{page 20 note 6} The Erechtheum 444–445.

^{page 20 note 7} Dinsmoor's reasons for rejecting this theory are summarised in AJA LI (1947), 108, n. 9. Those who have supported it are listed ibid. 119, n. 45.

^{page 20 note 8} The Erechtheum 465–66. Miss E. Brann has helped me considerably with the whole topographical question.

^{page 20 note 9} IG I² 6. 83 is not an exact parallel for the accusative, since there the whole month is in the accusative and the part months are in the genitive. But twenty-seven days may have been so near a whole month that the accusative seemed more natural.

^{page 20 note 10} Feste der Stadt Athen 487.

^{page 20 note 11} Plutarch, , Alcibiades 34.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 12} Op. cit. 495.

^{page 20 note 13} Attische Feste 20.

^{page 20 note 14} Op. cit. 491–493.

^{page 20 note 15} Loc. cit.

^{page 22 note 1} The earliest precisely datable is IG I² 39. 77 of 445.

^{page 22 note 2} No note 2.

^{page 22 note 3} ATL III 303.

^{page 22 note 4} Dedications 448–451.

^{page 22 note 5} Id., D 173.

^{page 22 note 6} See note 1 and cf. IG I² 34. 2; 57. 21, 41, 52; 108. 35; 952. 30.

^{page 22 note 7} IG I² 57. 51 seems the only really respectable example.

^{page 22 note 8} Nease, op. cit.

^{page 23 note 9} ATL II, D 16, Hesperia VI (1937), 319. I do not think it is necessary to suppose, with S., that the workman was an Eretrian. Native workmen are hardly to be assumed in the cases of Phaselis and Aphytis. The workman may have been any Ionian, or he may have been using a copy made by the Eretrian delegation.

^{page 23 note 10} IG I² 14/15 (SEG X 17 and ATL II, D 15).

^{page 23 note 11} GAI ³ 120 n. 12. There are ten restorations contravening this canon in SEG X. Only one of them (69. 3) is in any way secure.

^{page 23 note 12} Cf. IG I²52. 17; 116. 29; 117. 4 ff.; AJP LXIX (1948), 312.

^{page 23 note 13} By ‘properly’I mean the perfectly clear situation existing in IG I² 116.

^{page 23 note 14} SEG X 80. See Meritt, , Hesperia XIV (1945), 97–105Google Scholar, where the transaction is lucidly explained.

^{page 24 note 15} I would be reluctant to assume a vacant letter-space, were it not in accord with the practice of the inscription. See ll. 20 and 34.

^{page 24 note 16} IG I² 53, as restored in AJP LXVIII (1947), 312 ff. (SEG X 46). See n. 27.

^{page 24 note 17} Hdt. II 30. 3, and, e.g. Thuc. III 106. I would be prepared to argue for an abstract sense or a change to φὺλακας in many Thucydides passages where the word appears to be used concretely.

^{page 24 note 18} ATL II, D 10. 14.

^{page 24 note 19} SEG X. 14 (ATL II, D 11), certainly in 1. 77, but they were probably also referred to in l. 11. I find Oliver's, suggestion (TAPA LXVI (1935), 190)Google Scholar that l. 11 refers to military assistance that Miletus was to give to Athens, quite out of place in this part of the decree, which deals with the organisation of the mission that was to regulate the affairs of Miletus.

^{page 24 note 20} IG II² 43. 22.

^{page 24 note 21} ATL II, D 10. 38.

^{page 24 note 22} IG I² 39. 76.

^{page 24 note 23} ATL II, D 11 (SEG X 14). φὺλακες the accentuation of ATL, has now been corrected (ATL IV x).

^{page 24 note 24} How Plut., Solon 15.3 fits in with tie history of the word is obscure. See Gomme's note on it (Historical Commentary on Thucydides I 385). Perhaps Plutarch's source was thinking of passages like Isocr. IV 107, φυλακῆς ὲνεκα τῶν χωπὶων though this refers to cleruchies. Cf. also IG I² 59. 13 for the verbal usage.

^{page 25 note 25} Op. cit. I 384.

^{page 25 note 26} SEG X 80.

^{page 25 note 27} See AJP LXVIII (1947), 312 ff. There is really not enough of this on which to base a discussion, but I find it extremely hard to accept Meritt's view that it deals with a defeated ally. For such states it was not a question of a treaty or χσυνθε̄και but of χσυλλραφαὶ i.e. an imposed arrangement, and it seems to me that an undertaking by the other state to keep its land free from pirates and enemies of Athens must mean that Athens has not direct control herself. If the stone belongs to the twenties, which I do not think the case, it must be a treaty with Methymna, the one member of the Empire besides Chios to which this technical equality was still appropriate and whose ethnic fits neatly into ll. 2–3 and 5.

^{page 25 note 28} Aigina (Berlin, 1938), 41.

^{page 25 note 29} The real Athenian blow to Aeginetan commercial supremacy lay in forbidding her coinage. This seems to stop dead in 457. See Robinson, , Hesperia, Suppl. VIII (1949), 329.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 30} SIG ³ 110.

^{page 26 note 1} CR LIV (1940), 65–67.

^{page 26 note 2} CPh XXXVII (1942), 371–384; XXXVIII (1943), 20–27.

^{page 26 note 3} HarvSt XXXVII 75–76.

^{page 26 note 4} P. 15.

^{page 26 note 5} RivFil XVI N.S. (1938), 411–414; ibid., XXX N.S. (1952), 223–237.

^{page 26 note 6} Well analysed in ATL III 60–61.

^{page 27 note 7} ATL I 16, fig. 13. The drawing on Plate IX should be disregarded; it is more of an interpretation than a facsimile.

^{page 27 note 8} Since it is virtually impossible to measure Lists 1–2 in their present position, all measurements for them are taken from squeezes and should, particularly for List 2, be treated with reserve.

^{page 31 note 1} REG XXXIV (1921), 1 ff.

^{page 31 note 2} Notably by Dinsmoor, , AJA XXXVI (1932), 156–160Google Scholar, the most comprehensive survey of dating problems in the irst quarter of the century.

^{page 32 note 3} See below, no. XI.

^{page 32 note 4} De Demosthenis orationum And., Timocr., Aristocr. temporibus 32–42.

^{page 32 note 5} Ad Amm. I 4.

^{page 32 note 6} Akamantis, then, remains the only possibility for the third and is to be restored in II² 134. 1.

^{page 32 note 7} II² 140. 2. See Johnson, , CPh IX (1914), 423.Google Scholar The fifth and seventh are outside possibilities.

^{page 32 note 8} II² 130. 3, but I have not seen the stone or a squeeze, and there is an unsolved mystery about the prytany-calendar of this year. Wilhelm's new restoration of II² 131. 1 (Attische Urkunden V 133 ff.) is irreconcilable with the present restoration of II² 133.5.

^{page 32 note 9} Neue Jahrbücher, Suppl. XXIV 255.

^{page 32 note 10} The Secretaries of the Athenian Boule 22, 34.

^{page 33 note 13} Op. cit. 6–8.

^{page 33 note 14} I agree with Beloch, West, and Accame that it belongs to 376–5, and I believe it to have had a much longer line than current texts allow.

^{page 33 note 15} Op. cit. 11. Twenty-eight letters for the line-length of ll. 1–3, which must be transferred to the lost first line, is a misprint for twenty-nine.

^{page 34 note 16} IG II², ad loc.

^{page 34 note 17} La lega Ateniese del secolo IV a.C. 44–45.

^{page 34 note 18} Hermes LXIV (1929), 328.

^{page 34 note 19} GHI II 59.

^{page 34 note 20} Op. cit. 13, n. 1.

^{page 34 note 21} IG II² i. ii, p. 657.

^{page 34 note 22} Op. cit. 9.

^{page 34 note 23} Glotz' restoration (9 n. 3) can therefore not stand.

^{page 34 note 24} See below, no. XII.

^{page 35 note 1} BSA XLVII (1952), 108 ff.

^{page 35 note 2} Arch. epigr. Mitt. Oest. XVII (1894), 38.

^{page 35 note 3} Jahreshefte XXI–XXII (1922–24), 164; SEG III 69.

^{page 36 note 4} Koehler does not say so explicitly, but marks it with a black line (CIA II Add. 97 b, p. 407).

^{page 36 note 5} IG II² i. ii, p. 655.

^{page 36 note 6} AJA XXXVI (1932), 157.

^{page 36 note 7} Cf. IG I² 106.

^{page 37 note 1} This suggestion is partly anticipated in the Hesperia Index, vols. I–X 32, s.v. ᾿Αχαιὸς where ᾿Αχα[ρνεῑς] is read.

^{page 38 note 1} Klio XV (1914), 393.

^{page 38 note 2} Chronology of Hellenistic Athens 37, Hesperia X 266, n. 6.

^{page 38 note 3} Beiträge 275–276.

^{page 39 note 1} De Scribis 197.

^{page 39 note 2} CPh IX (1914), 424.

^{page 39 note 3} Philohgus XXXIV (1929), 265 ff.

^{page 39 note 4} Treasurers of Athena 120–121.

^{page 39 note 5} AJA XXXVI (1932), 162.

^{page 39 note 6} The accepted demarcation line for this is 354–3, but such rules are admittedly unsafe. IG II² 366, which certainly belongs to 323, is a private inscription and does not come under the rule.

^{page 40 note 7} For the supposed secretary of Chion's year, see above no. XII.

^{page 40 note 8} ÖJh XXXIII (1941), 29 ff.

^{page 40 note 9} See Schweigert, , Hesperia VII (1938), 286Google Scholar, for this new certain dating of II² 120.

^{page 40 note 10} The exact date is provided by Hesperia X (1941), 16, no. 1, l. 40. An incidental result would be that this year would replace 368–7 as the latest for which we can demonstrate the monthly secretaryship, for the secretary for the third prytany is known from Hesperia VIII 5, no. 3 (GHI137) and is different.

^{page 40 note 11} Fourth-century parallels for the phrase by itself are scarce, but it is a certain restoration in IG II² 1141 (376–5), as revised by Pritchett, , Hesperia X 265 no. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 12} Loc. cit.

^{page 43 note 13} Op. cit. 119, n. 1.

^{page 43 note 14} Op. cit. 164.

^{page 43 note 15} See n. 9. Dinsmoor, to allow for this, has now (HarvSt Suppl. I 177, AJA LI (1947), 128) brought Androtion's activity down, to 355. This seems to me to involve a corresponding down-dating of Demosthenes' attack, and still does not bring the two reforms into conjunction.

^{page 43 note 16} Such a view would make 377–6 and 373–2 possible dates for the decree.

^{page 43 note 17} 22. 70, 24. 178.

^{page 43 note 18} So Dionysius, , Ad. Amm. I 3.Google ScholarSchwartz, , RE I 2174Google Scholar and Stavenhagen, Quaestiones Demosthenicae 31, n. 3, found themselves unable to believe this. As Stavenhagen says, ‘Si oratio anno 355–4 habita esset, senatus anno 356–5 naves aedificandas neglexisset, quam rem, cum illo anno Athenienses bellum sociale gererent, nemo credat. Oratio ergo 354–3 habita est, quod iam Schwartz vidit.’ This seizes the main point, but I do not think that the conclusion can be maintained in view of the absence of the Social War from XXII 15. This absence was felt odd even by Kahle, De Demosthenis orationum And., Timocr., Aristocr. temporibus, who returns (51) to 355–4, placing it as early as possible in the year to get it before the worst disasters. His reply (44) to Stavenhagen is ‘Cur non? notum est Athenienses huius belli temporibus pecuniam maximo modo defecisse; cur igitur plane incredibile videtur naves tum aedificatas non esse?’ He is acute in detail, particularly in the method by which he undervalues the certain evidence (IG II² 1614–37 ff.) which proves that ships were built in 356–5, but never really considers the implications of placing in that year a Council which built no ships, or of the fact, as it seems to me, that Demosthenes never mentions the war at all.

^{page 44 note 19} Hesperia VIII (1939), 14–16.

^{page 44 note 20} Contra, Weil, ad loc., but how could the Corinthian War be the most recent war against the Spartans? “Dem.” XLIX 13 is the locus classicus for the situation of 373.

^{page 44 note 21} AM XXXV (1910), 51–52.

^{page 44 note 22} XXII 72; XXIV 180.

^{page 44 note 23} II² 1425. 131.

^{page 45 note 24} Op. cit. 121. But on the next page he recognises that it survived.

^{page 45 note 25} II² 1438 A 1–4; 1436. 9–14, as revised by Schweigert, , Hesperia VII 287.Google Scholar All references to 1438 are to Schweigert's revised text, ibid. 284–285.

^{page 45 note 26} II² 1425. 333; 1428. 194. All references to 1428 are to the revised text in the Addenda and Corrigenda to IG II² ii. ii.

^{page 45 note 27} This suggestion is not as wild as it may seem; there are four other interpolations in the same paragraph.

^{page 45 note 28} II² 1425. 284.

^{page 45 note 29} XXII 69; XXIV 176.

^{page 45 note 30} The weight of the crown of 369–8 is given erroneously in 1425. 130.

^{page 46 note 31} But the δὴμο συλλογεῑς crown of 370–69 (1425. 126–7) was melted, though of standard weight.

^{page 46 note 32} One might invoke the Social War to bridge the gap, but was no one at all prepared to crown Athens during it?

^{page 46 note 33} This result is obtained by comparing 1425. 85–107, 1428. 113–130 and 1429. 22–34.

^{page 46 note 34} For the new date of 1424, see Kolbe, loc. cit.; 1421, 1423, 1689 and Hesperia IX 320 no. 32 belong to the same stone, and I suspect that 1434 would prove to belong also, if we could find it. For the new date of 1424a, see Woodward, , AE 1937, 165, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 35} Part of (11), though not read in the editio minor, is clear on the stone, and there is no reason to suspect that (12) was missing from its normal rubric.

^{page 47 note 36} See n. 2.

^{page 47 note 37} Dem. XXIV 136 with Scholia.

^{page 47 note 38} AJA XXXVI (1932), 143–172.

^{page 47 note 39} IG II² 1654; new fragment, Hesperia VII (1938), 268–9, no. 3 (SEG X 300).

^{page 47 note 40} Dinsmoor, op. cit. 143–160.

^{page 47 note 41} Xenophon, , HG I 6. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 42} Dinsmoor accepts this (HarvSt Suppl. I 175; AJA LI (1947), 111, n. 14, 128, n. 93), thereby removing the very icanty literary evidence for his exact date.

^{page 47 note 43} Dinsmoor, op. cit. 163.

^{page 47 note 44} Ibid. 164–165; HarvSt Suppl. I 176–180, in which he extends reverse rotation to 353–2; AJA LI (1947), 111, n. 14.

^{page 47 note 45} Chronology of Hellenistic Athens 36–42.

^{page 47 note 46} Op. cit. 165.

^{page 47 note 47} Ibid. 166–167.

^{page 48 note 48} Treasurers of Athena 118, n. 1.

^{page 48 note 49} Op. cit. 167, n. 6.

^{page 48 note 50} Ibid. 167, n. 1.

^{page 48 note 51} Op. cit. 184.

^{page 48 note 52} HarvSt Suppl. I 392.

^{page 48 note 53} The editio minor layout is misleading. Mr. Woodward tells me that he feels that a line of about sixty-six letters should provide adequate restorations.

^{page 48 note 54} Op. cit. 168.

^{page 48 note 55} Ibid. 168, 1. 12.

^{page 48 note 56} II² 1424a. 115–122.

^{page 48 note 57} Kahle's date for the speech Against Timokrates, which I accept.

^{page 48 note 58} Cf. Ferguson, op. cit. 111, n. 5; Vallois, , L'architecture Hellé;nique à Délos 57 n. 1.Google Scholar There is a hitherto unnoticed topographical problem here, for no one will believe that the building we now think of as the Chalkotheke could ever have had an opisthodomos, little though the evidence is for its interior plan. See Stevens, Hesperia Suppl. III 7–19.

^{page 49 note 59} Op. cit. 169, 326.

^{page 49 note 60} XXII 75; XXIV 183.

^{page 49 note 61} XXII 48; XXIV 161.