^{page 206 note 2} A.-E.M. xiii. 120, note 1.

^{page 206 note 3} Kaestner, 51 ff.

^{page 206 note 4} For convenience of reference I use throughout this article the following special abbreviations in addition to those customarily used:—

Baege = Baege, W., De Macedonum sacris. Halle, 1913.Google Scholar

Cous. = Cousinéry, E., Voyage dans la Macédoine. Paris, 1831.Google Scholar

Delac. = Delacoulonche, , Mémoire sur le berceau de la puissance Macédonienne (Revue des Sociétés Savantes, iv., v. Paris, 1858).Google Scholar

Dem. = Demitsas, M. G., Ἡ Μακεδονία i. Athens, 1896.Google Scholar

Duch. = Duchesne, et Bayet, , Mémoire sur une Mission au Mont Athos (Archives des Missions Scientifiques, III. série, iii. tome. Paris, 1876).Google Scholar

Heuz. = Heuzey, L. et Daumet, H., Mission archéologique de Macédoine. Paris, 1876.Google Scholar

Kaestner = Kaestner, O., De aeris quae ab imperio Caesaris Octaviani constituto initium duxerint. Leipzig, 1890.Google Scholar

Le Bas = Ph. Le Bas, Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, vol. ii.

^{page 207 note 1} Some notes on the texts of these date-clauses are relegated to an Appendix at the close of this article.

^{page 207 note 2} I have omitted publications prior to the C.I.G.

^{page 207 note 3} The fact that there is no single exception among the eighteen examples cited appears to me to rule out the hypothesis that the ‘Actian’ and the ‘Provincial’ year did not begin simultaneously. Cf. Heur. pp. 235, 276, Kaestner, 51. See, however, tthe note on No. 17 in the Appendix to this article.

^{page 208 note 1} Heuz. p. 274 ff.

^{page 208 note 2} Les jeux Actiaques en particulier avaient très bien pu, à l'imitation des jeux Olympiques, servir de point de départ pour une ère nouvelle … C'est donc très probablement aux décrets qui organisèrent dans les deux régions le régime romain, que remonte l'institution d'une ère, cincordant sans doute avec celle dont on retrouve la trace dans les inscriptions de la Grèce (p. 278)

^{page 208 note 3} Duch. p. 216 f., 286.

^{page 208 note 4} 247, note 1.

^{page 208 note 5} B.C.H. viii. 464.

^{page 208 note 6} Staatsverwaltung, I.² 318 (Organisation de l'Empire Romain, ii. 205, note 8).

^{page 208 note 7} J.H.S. viii. 361.

^{page 208 note 8} Berl. phil. Woch. ix. 556.

^{page 208 note 9} A.-E.M. xiii. 120 ff. The same conclusion was independently reached by O. Kaestner before the publication of Kubitschek's article. See Kaestner, 43 ff.

^{page 208 note 10} Dio Cassius, li. I, τότε πρῶτον ὁ Καῖσαρ τὸ κράτος πᾶν μόνος ἔσχεν, ὥστε καὶ τὴν ἀπαρίθμησιν τῶν τῆς μοναρχίας αὐτοῦ ἐτῶν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἀκριβοῦσθαιἀπαρίθμησιν τῶν τῆς μοναρχίας αὐτοῦ ἐτῶν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἀκριβοῦσθαιἀπαρίθμησιν τῶν τῆς μοναρχίας αὐτοῦ ἐτῶν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἀκριβοῦσθαιἀπαρίθμησιν τῶν τῆς μοναρχίας αὐτοῦ ἐτῶν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἀκριβοῦσθαιἀπαρίθμησιν τῶν τῆς μοναρχίας αὐτοῦ ἐτῶν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας ἀκριβοῦσθαι

^{page 208 note 11} i. 30, 5; 32, 3.

^{page 208 note 12} i. 241 f. ed. Schöne.

^{page 208 note 13} Pauly-Wissowa, i. 2141 ff.; Niese, B., Geschichte der griech. u. maked. Staaten, iii. 331 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} No. 2 in the list given above.

^{page 209 note 2} Kubitschek, , A.-E.M. xiii. 122Google Scholar; Kaestner, 44 ff.; W. Liebenam, Fasti Consulares Imp. Rom. 104. Heuzey, who dates the inscription early in 46 A.D., assumes that τὸ τέταρτον (1. 5) is an error (p. 277): Hogarth also dated it in 46 A.D., but did not discuss the Imperial titles.

^{page 209 note 3} Le Bas, 1359, Heuz. p. 274, No. 112, Duch. p. 206, J.H.S. viii. 363, Dem, 365. Cf. A. Wilhelm, Beiträge zur griech. Inschrijtenkunde, 198.

^{page 209 note 4} But this is called in question by Kaestner, 48.

^{page 210 note 1} Gesch. iii. 336; Grundriss roem. Gesch. 162.

^{page 210 note 2} Beiträge, 114, 312.

^{page 210 note 3} Z.f.N. xxiii. 165 f.

^{page 210 note 4} B.C.H. xviii. 425 f., 438.

^{page 210 note 5} Ath. Mitt. xxi. 99.

^{page 210 note 6} Ib. xxxvi. 279, Beri. phil. Woch. xxxi. 1205, etc.

^{page 210 note 7} ᾿Εοιγραφαὶ τῆς Μακεδονίας 17, No. 14.

^{page 210 note 8} Rev. É Gr. xiii. 494.

^{page 210 note 9} ᾿Αρχ. Δελτίον ii. 14S, 147.

^{page 210 note 10} B.C.H, xxxvii. 116, Mélanges d'Arch. et d'Hist. 1912, 359.

^{page 210 note 11} Syll. ¹ 247, note 1 = Syll ^* 318, note 1.

^{page 210 note 12} J.H.S. xxxiii. 346, B.S.A. xviii. 143, etc. I cannot refrain from expressing a protest against the common custom of equating Macedonian and Julian years as unscientific and misleading. In B.S.A. xviii. 170, for example, we read ‘The year 391 = A.D. 245’: in reality the year 391 extends (if we adopt the older view, as is done in the example selected) from October 15th, 245 to October 14th, 246. This leads to such errors as that in J.H. S. xxxiii, p. 346, where ‘A.D. 194’ should read ‘A.D. 195’ upon the assumption there made that the Macedonian era begins in 146 B.c.

^{page 210 note 13} Jahresh. x. 20 ff., Beiträge 112 ff.

^{page 210 note 14} Hermes, xlix. 589.

^{page 210 note 15} Hermes, li. 476.

^{page 211 note 1} No. 700, note I. This is somewhat fuller than the corresponding note in the first and second editions and contains a summary of the suggestion made by Holleaux.

^{page 211 note 2} No. 704, note 44.

^{page 211 note 3} Hermes, liii. 102 ff. The article contains no reference to Dittenb. Syll. ³.

^{page 212 note 1} Heuz. p. 278.

^{page 212 note 2} Staatsrecht, ii. 2³ 746, note 4.

^{page 213 note 1} See B.S. A. xviii. 105.

^{page 213 note 2} Cf. Keil-Premerstein, Bericht über eine dritte Reise in Lydien, p. 65.

^{page 213 note 3} Beiträge sur griech. Inschriftenkunde, 152 ff., 311 f.

^{page 214 note 1} Ibid. 161.

^{page 215 note 1} Heuz. p. 279: Nous avons remplacé par des preuves positives ce qui ne pouvait être encore, de a part de Boeckh, qu'une hypothèse; de plus nous avons déterminé les points de départ avec plus de précision.

^{page 216 note 1} The copy shows but the Χ plainly represents a Λ with prolonged strokes.

^{page 216 note 2} in the copy, which transforms into φ the ivy leaf of Delacoulonche.