^{page 49 note 1} Professors J. D. Beazley, Eduard Fraenkel, Hugh Last, Dr. Paul Maas, Mr. M. N. Tod, and Dr. W. W. Tarn discussed this note. They are not responsible for my conclusions.

^{page 49 note 2} W. Leaf' emendation of Φωκικν to Τρωικᾀν (Troy, 1912, 132) cannot be accepted.

^{page 49 note 3} Geffcken, J., Timaios' Geographie des Westens, 1892, 13Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, U. von, Die Ilias und Homer, 1916, 387Google Scholar. Bickel, E., Diatribe in Senecae Phil. Fragm. i, 1915, 165Google Scholar, does not persuade me.

^{page 49 note 4} Cf. ‘Suidas’, s.v. øεӨν. In the preceding sentence, quoted by ‘Suidas’, s.v. ννασӨαι, Antigonus is not called βασiλεσ: (oἵ δ γρ ἕσχoν ννασӨαi τ πρσταγμα) π' Ἀντiγνῳ τӨενταi τν κρσiν κτγ. Whatever the explanation of the fact (to which P. Maas called my attention) ‘Suidas’ is obviously correct in taking Antigonus as a king. On the arbitration of kings in general Tod, M. N., international Arbitration amongst the Greeks, 1913, 89 ff.Google Scholar(who does not quote our case).

^{page 49 note 5} αἵ γεπεμøӨεȋσαi κατεγρασαν ν τῇ Tρoᾳ τν δiαδχωμ øiκνoεμνων. The sentence, however, does not imply that the last maidens sent in the fourth century were still alive when the question of the revival arose. On καταγηρσκω (and consenesco) = ‘become old and die’ cf. Treves, P., AJPh. lxiii, 1942, 149Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 6} ‘Editio princeps’: Jahresh. Österr. Inst. xiv, 1911, 163–256Google Scholar. Improved edition by Nikitski, A., Journ. Minist. Instr. Publ. xliii, 1913, 1–100Google Scholar (in Russian: available to me only in summary): cf. Wilhelm's, judgement in Busolt-Swoboda, , Griech. Staatskunde, ii. 1457, n.3Google Scholar. Nikitski's text now in Schwyzer, Exempla, n. 366. On the date see Appendix.

^{page 49 note 7} The conclusions derived from the passage of Polybius for the origin of the tribute (for instance by Leaf, W.: Troy quoted and Strabo on the Troad, 1923, 191)Google Scholarare, of course, to be discounted (Wilamowitz, , Ilias und Homer, 391)Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 1} It is difficult to see how Leaf, W. could persuade himself that the inscription announced the end of the tribute (Ann. Brit. School Athens, xxi, 1914–1916, 148)Google Scholar. Farnell, L. R., Greek Hero Cults, 1921, p. 296 n.Google Scholar, did not follow him on this point. Another strange theory by an eminent man is C. Robert's contention (anticipated by Nikitski, ?) in Griech. Heldensage, ii, 1923, p. 1274Google Scholar, that the inscription does not refer to the maidens sent to Troy, but to an imitation of the Trojan tribute in favour of a sanctuary of western Locris.

^{page 50 note 2} The note by Tzetzes to Lycophr. 1141 κα πρτo μν τς παρӨνoες, εἶτα τ βρø;η νiασiα μετ τν τρoøν ἔπεμoν oἱ Λoκρo and Apoll. Epit. (quoted) μετπεiτα δ βρøη μετ τρoøν ἔπεμπoν must derive from a misunderstanding of νiασioς (cf. Schol. Lycophr. 1141 … παρӨνoες νiανσiαας … πoστλλεν). Cf. Vürtheim, J., De Aiacis origine, 1907, 104Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 3} L. 10 of the inscription is restored by Wilhelm κα τoῖν] κραν κατραi πεντεκαδεκα μνς ν κσμoν κα τρøν παρχεiν ἔντεκα [ν νδρς ἔλӨη? Nikitski suggests ἔντεκα [πανλӨωντi.

^{page 50 note 4} The text according to Wilamowitz, , Ilias und Homer, 384, n. 1.Google ScholarThe reading ν' ἔτεα is to my mind certain: for the ionism cf. πӨεα in 22. 180. Corssen, P., Sokrates, i, 1913, 197Google Scholar,has the curious theory that the yearly tribute was more ancient than the lifelong service.

^{page 51 note 1} Cf. for instance Gasse, H., De Lycophrone mythographo, diss. Leipzig, 1910, 46Google Scholar, and Ziegler, , , P.W, , s.v. ‘Lykophron’, 2336Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 1} Cf. my paper in Jourtt. Rom. Stud. xxxii, 1942, 53Google Scholar (with bibliography). Contra bank, F. W. Wai-, CQ, xxxvi, 1942, 145Google Scholar, and xxxvii, 1943, 10. Cf. also Holleaux, M., CAH, viii, 1930, 238Google Scholar: ‘the supremacy of Rome by land and sea … already sung by the poet Lycophron on the morrow of Cynoscephalae.’

^{page 52 note 2} I shelter my scepticism about the importance of the Locrian tribute for the Homeric question behind Wilamowitz's vigorous pages in Die Mas und Homer, 379 ff., which are accepted by Nilsson, M. P., Homer and Mycenae, 1933, 46Google Scholar, and Gesch d. griech. Religion, i, 1941, 600, n. 4Google Scholar(cf. also Parke, H. W., A History of the Delphic Oracle, 1939, 331)Google Scholar. But the matter is not clear.

Far-reaching theories in Brückner, A.ap. Dörpfeld, W., Troja und llion, ii. 554Google Scholar; J. Vürtheim, De Aiacis origine; W. Leaf, Troy quoted; Corssen, P., Sohrates, i, 1913, 188, 235Google Scholar; Reinach, A. J., Rev. de l'Hist. des Relig. lxix, 1914, 12Google Scholar; Valeton, M., Mnemosyne, xl, 1912, 20–2Google Scholar; Gruppe, O., Bursians Jahresb. clxxxvi, 1921, 344Google Scholar; Farnell, L. R., Greek Hero Cults, 1921, 294Google Scholar; Kalinka, E., Arch. f. Religionsw. xxi, 1922, 42Google Scholar; Oldfather, W. A., Phil. Quart, iii, 1924, 5Google Scholar (cf. P-W, s.v. ‘Lokris’, 1186); Bethe, E., Homer, iii, 1927, 128Google Scholar.–The attempt to find the Locrian maidens on fourth-century vases by Hauser, F., Jahresh. Österr. Inst. xv, 1912, 168Google Scholar, is refuted by Macchioro, V., Neapolis, ii, 1914, 254Google Scholar, and Robert, C., Archdol. Hermeneutik, 1919, 371Google Scholar (cf. Wilamowitz, , ll. u. Horn. 383Google Scholar, n. 1). Other bibliography in L. Séchan, , Études sur la tragédie grecque, 1926, 521Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 1} The obscurity of the date of the ‘Mädchenin-schrift' reflected in the uncertainty of the date of Antigonus’ arbitration, but one remembers that about 271 B.C. Antigonus Gonatas became very influential in the neighbouring Euboea (Flacelière, R., Les Aitoliens à Delphes, 1937, 193)Google Scholar. It may be added (Mr. Last's suggestion) that ‘Aντίγoνoς βασιλες means Antigonus Gonatas also in Aelian, , VH 2. 20Google Scholar(cf. Tarn, , Antigonos Gonatas, 256, n. 122)Google Scholarand 9. 26. W. A. Oldfather, P-W., s.v. ‘Naryka’, prefers Antigonus Mon-ophthalmus. The identification with Antigonus Monophthalmus seems to me improbable also for another reason. King Antigonus' arbitration, in its present form, is better explained if Ilium did not belong to his sphere—that is, if Anti-gonus is Antigonus Gonatas. If the king had been directly concerned with the city, one would expect Antigonus to arbitrate between Ilium and the Locrian cities or else another more impartial arbitrator to be chosen by the Locrians. It is remarkable that Ilium did not play any active part in the affair of the arbitration.[But it is a point that I owe to Dr. F. Jacoby that Ilium must have taken some step when the Locrians discontinued their tribute c. 346 B.C. And I am prepared to follow Dr. Jacoby in his further suggestion that, as soon as the tribute was discontinued, there must have been an appeal from the temple of Athena to Delphi and a reply by Delphi, the latter being probably, identical with the first oracle of Aelian's story ( Aπλλων φησί κτλ.). I hope that Dr. Jacoby will himself develop his interesting point.]

Davreux, J., La légende de la prophétesse Cassandre d'apris les textes et les monuments, ‘Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres … de Liège’, fasc. 94, 1942Google Scholar, and Perret, J., Les origines de la légende troyenne de Rome (281–31)Google Scholar, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1942, are not yet available to me. Perret's, theory is summarized in Journal des Savants, 1943, 118Google Scholar.