^{page 187 note 1} Études sur l'histoire financière a' Athènes au V^e siècle: le Trésor d' Athènes de 480 à 404 (Paris, 1908). Introd. pp. I. ff., and Pl. II.

^{page 188 note 1} Op. cit. Introd. p. lxii. Fig. 26: recognized by Cavaignac as belonging to year XI., i.e. that of Euthymenes.

^{page 188 note 2} The final v is omitted in Cavaignac's transcript, PI. II., bnt it is plainly visible on the stone and in the photograph of his squeeze.

^{page 188 note 3} The name occurs once at Athens in the 4th century: see Kirchner, Prosop. Att. s.v.

^{page 188 note 4} I.G. i. 301; i. Suppl. 300–302, B.

^{page 189 note 1} Op. cit. p. liii.

^{page 190 note 1} Mr. Dinsmoor had been studying the Parthenon Building-record before I began work upon the two fragments here discussed, but as he had not previously seen them I publish them independently, at his request, with my own conclusions only, though I wish to record my acknowledgment of many helpful suggestions made during our joint examination of the fragments. We discovered together that I.G. i. Suppl. 297b joins i. Suppl. 300–302, which proved finally that both narrow edges were inscribed.

^{page 191 note 1} Op. cit. Introd. p. lxvii.

^{page 191 note 2} For the general arrangement we may follow that of the expression in I.G. i. Suppl. 297b, 11. 7, 8, to which I refer again below.

^{page 191 note 3} It is used by Xenophon, Cyr. vi. 2, 36, to mean a pioneer, by Aeschines, 57, 1. 27, to mean a road-surveyor. Here it would not mean more than road-mender.

^{page 192 note 1} See L. and S. s.v.

^{page 192 note 2} I would restore [ηοδοποι]οῖς here.

^{page 192 note 3} P. 216.

^{page 192 note 4} We may reasonably suggest the same restoration in /. I.G. i. 306, 11. 1 and 2, which is from one of the narrow faces of the stone, and read: [ἀγαλματοπο]ιοῖς [ἐναιετίον μι]σθός, though there is not the στοιχηδόν arrangement to guide us.

^{page 194 note 1} I.G. i. 309.

^{page 195 note 1} This fragment is incomplete above, and so much is missing from there that it might be the continuation of the record of which the first line only is preserved at the bottom of the new fragment. This would not, of course, be the case if we follow Bannier, , Rhein. Mus. LXIII, p. 429Google Scholar, Note 2, in joining i. Suppl. 297 a to the bottom of I.G. i. 303, 304, for I.G. i. 304, 1. 1 contains the end of the name of the γραμματεύς There is no real join, but this is quite likely to be correct. Cavaignac, op. cit. p. lx. and PI. II. likewise connects them, but I am not convinced, and prefer to leave the point undecided.

^{page 195 note 2} If Bannier's view, mentioned in the preceding note, is correct, the first and third arrangements are ruled out at once.

^{page 195 note 3} In a recent article (Röm. Mitt., 1910, pp. 271 f.) L. Paretti attempts to revolutionize the chronology of the career of Pheidias, and dates the commencement of the Athena to 439, and its completion to 434. A re-examination of all the evidence hardly comes within the scope of the present article, but the traditional view seems to involve a less violent treatment of the ancient authorities than Paretti's.

^{page 196 note 1} I regret that I had no time to make a fresh study ab initio of all the fragments of the obverse face, for it was only just before leaving Athens that I realized how little reliance could be placed on Cavaignac's reconstruction of the stele, which I had at first accepted without question.

^{page 196 note 2} Cf. E. A. Gardner, Handbook of Greek Sculpture, p. 268.

^{page 196 note 3} Op. cit. p. 288.

^{page 197 note 1} Cf. Philochoros, apud Schol, on Arist. Pax, 1. 605; and E. A. Gardner, op. cit. p. 251, Note 2.

^{page 197 note 2} Nicole, J., Le procès de Phidias dans les Chroniques d'Apollodore.… [Geneva, 1910]Google Scholar; cf. J.H.S. xxx. (1910), p. 377, for a short notice of this work; and Paretti's article (Röm. Mitt., loc. cit.) for a refutation of almost every point made by Nicole.

^{page 197 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 197 note 4} Pericles, c. 31 (reprinted in H. Stuart Jones, Ancient Writers on Greek Sculpture, pp. 74, 75).

^{page 197 note 5} Nicole, op. cit. p. 47.

^{page 198 note 1} Unless, of course, we accept Paretti's dates. But if, with him, we date Pheidias' work at Olympia to 446–439, this precludes Pheidias from having even seen the Parthenon until it was more than half finished ! The planning and execution of all its sculptures—Athena, frieze, metopes, and pediments—would be an almost incredible task for one artist and his atelier to accomplish within six years, i.e. by 433 B.c.

^{page 198 note 2} The stele is represented as opened out flat, so that the margins on the extreme right and left are really the same edge of the stone. Thick lines indicate where the edge is preserved, dotted lines where it is missing. The dimensions are not to scale.

^{page 199 note 1} Attributed first by Bannier, , Ath. Mitt. xxvii. (1902), p. 304Google Scholar, No. 4.

^{page 199 note 2} Cf. κατ]αμενιον (case?), I.G. i. 311, 1. 5.

^{page 200 note 1} As is noted, I.G. i. ad loc.

^{page 200 note 2} Of. cit. pp. 302–3, No. 3.

^{page 200 note 3} K. says finally: ‘Vix mihi tempero quin hanc particulam esse censeam monumenti operis Propylaeorum.’

^{page 200 note 4} Ath. Mitt., loc. cit. ‘iv¹ S. 38, Nr. 315 a-c gehört sicher nicht zur Baurechnung der Propyläen, da die Dicke des Steines eine verschiedene ist, und auch die Anordnung abweicht.’

^{page 200 note 5} Op. cit. Introd. p. lxxi.

^{page 201 note 1} The lowest point at which the thickness could be satisfactorily measured.

^{page 201 note 2} The height is wrongly given in the Corpus as ·13: it should be ·31.

^{page 202 note 1} I. G. i. 312, 1. 6; i. 313, 1. 2; i. 314, 1. 6. Cavaignac, op. cit. Introd. p. lxx. restores [χώρ]ας in the third of these passages, in order to correspond with the spacing of the letters in [ὀνη]μάτων in 1. 9, ‘quoiqu'il faille supposer alors l'I de πινάκων en surcharge.’

^{page 202 note 2} Cavaignac, loc. cit. for the restoration [πινά[κων τιμή compares i. 313, 1. 8 without of course admitting this as a fragment of the same record, and therefore without seeing that in the following line οἰκίας points the way to the restoration οἰκίας and not χώρας in i. 314, where we now find no difficulty arising from the I of πινάκων being ‘en surcharge.’

^{page 202 note 3} Nine lines occupy not less than 20 cmm.

^{page 202 note 4} I.G. i. 315, 11. 11–12; i. 316 +i. Suppl. 331d, 11. 7–9; i. 554, 11. 3–5.

^{page 203 note 1} I regret that I had no time to lest this point on the actual stones.

^{page 203 note 2} I venture to differ from Kirchhoff in not classing 1. I under the same explanation as 11. 2 and 3.

^{page 204 note 1} There could not be room for a second column on the stone in addition to one twenty-eight letters wide plus the corresponding figures in the margin and space separating them.

^{page 204 note 2} E.g. 1. 8, πινάκο[ν τιμέ] ; 1. 9 [ὴιερᾶς μισθός].