No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2013
Not the least interesting of Professor A. Wilhelm's new discoveries in connection with the well-known Attic Quota-lists published in his recent brilliant paper, is that of a small fragment identified by him as belonging to I.G. i. 266, which solves finally the much-vexed question of the restoration of one of the rubrics or headings in that inscription. The stone in question, which is complete on the right-hand side alone, contains in ll. 9, 10 the following letters:
βολὲ καὶ Һοι πεντακόσιο[ι]
α]χσαν (vacat)
The restoration given by Kirchhoff in the Corpus is (transliterating letter for letter from the stone):
[Πόλες Һὰς Һε] βολὲ καὶ Һοι πεντακόιο[ι]
[- - -ἔτα]χσαν.
page 229 note 1 ‘Urkunden des attischen Reiches,’ in Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der kais. Akad. der Wissenschaften, Wien [April 28th, 1909], pp. 41 foll.
page 229 note 2 Urkunden und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des delisch-attischen Bundes, p. 82.
page 229 note 3 Op. cit. p. 42: ‘Aber πόλιν τάττειν im Sinne der “Einschätzung” einer Stadt ist ein Sprachfehler’…
page 232 note 1 The Κυζικενοί paid 522 dr. in 447 B. C. (I.G. i. 233), but, as we shall see, they occur elsewhere on our stele (I.G. i. 259) as paying dr., so this payment is clearly not theirs.
page 234 note 1 Le Trésor d' Athènes de 480 à 404 [Paris, 1908], pp. xxxvi, foll.
page 234 note 2 Op. cit., p. 45.
page 240 note 1 Hermes, loc. cit.
page 240 note 2 Hermes, loc. cit. This view is followed by G. F. Hill, Sources for Greek History, p. 72.
page 240 note 3 Cavaignac, op. cit. p. xxxvi, shows this conclusively.
page 242 note 1 In conclusion I must express my warmest thanks to Mr. M. N. Tod for his care in reading the proofs of this article, which has saved me from numerous inaccuracies, and to Mr. B. Leonardos, Ephor of the Epigraphical Museum, for his permission to publish this fragment.