^{page 23 note 1} Photograph, by kind permission of Dr Pleket, facing p. 23. The sizes of different letters in this inscription differ widely, so that restoration cannot proceed on any mechanical count of the number of spaces available. Some necessary supplements make it clear that the left-hand edge of the stone got a little wider (that is, sloped outwards) as it went down; on the right-hand side the stone abruptly changed in width, probably immediately beneath l. 8. (See also next note.)

^{page 23 note 2} Mrs Atkinson differs from Dr Pleket in her estimate of the length of lines on the right of the stone. The almost inevitable restoration of l. 7, however, supports Dr Pleket as far as ll. 1-8 go, and Mr A. G. Woodhead in S.E.G. xviii, at p. 182 agrees with him.

^{page 23 note 3} Prof. Kunkel most graciously allowed me to profit by study of an early proof of his paper. I was unable to make use of V. Arangio-Ruiz, B.I.D.R. 3rd ser. iii (1961), 323-42.

^{page 23 note 4} It is a revised version of one read to the Cambridge Philological Society. I am indebted to Mr M. I. Finley for patient and helpful discussion.

^{page 24 note 1} The reason for believing that it does not apply to all provinces is given in the discussion of ll. 1–2 below. If it is for a single province that province is obviously Asia.

^{page 24 note 2} Cf. the inscription on the temple of Dmeir, A.E. 1947, no. 182.

^{page 24 note 3} I am indebted for this suggestion to Miss J. M. Reynolds. Prof. Mihailov in discussion suggested, for the end of l. I, [].

^{page 24 note 4} Kunkel argues also that the imperative form in which the pronouncement is couched is uncharacteristic of an edict. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that the original Latin version of part (a) used the ‘second’ or ‘legislative’ imperative (‘ea ne quis auferto’, etc.); it may have used ‘ne’ with the subjunctive (‘ea ne quis auferat’, etc.).

^{page 25 note 1} This is true whatever supplement (hitherto proposed) be adopted at the end of 1. 3. For example, in the case of or of ἑν , if ἑκἁτης went with ἐπαρχεἱας one would expect Πὁλεων. It is very likely that haplography has led to the omission of τῆϛ after ἐκἁστης.

^{page 25 note 2} As asserted by Jones, A. H. M., Studies in Roman Government and Law, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 3} See Stroux, J. and Wenger, L., Die Augustus-Inschrift aufdem Marktplatz von Kyrene, pp. 68–9Google Scholar.

^{page 25 note 4} That is, ‘in cities, which are cities of each province’ (civitatis for civitates).

^{page 25 note 5} Meisterhans, , Grammatik der attischen Inschriften³, p. 198Google Scholar, has a parallel case, but one for which there are obviously special reasons. But Viereck, , Sermo Graecus, p. 62Google Scholar, quotes several cases from Roman inscriptions in Greek.

^{page 26 note 1} Lex Coloniae Ursonensis, XCVIII, in Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani, 1, ed. 2, at p. 189.

^{page 26 note 2} Lex Antonia de Termessibus, in Fontes at p. 136: ‘quei agrei quae loca aedificia publica preivatave Thermensium maiorum Pisidarum intra fineis eorum sunt fueruntve’.

^{page 26 note 3} .

^{page 26 note 4} Kunkel's readings are: in ll. 6–7 , and in ll. 10–11 .

^{page 26 note 5} Kunkel, op. cit. pp. 605–6.

^{page 26 note 6} Ad Atticum, XII, 25Google Scholar.

^{page 26 note 7} He is surely wrong in suggesting that aestimatio–ἀποτἱμησις represented the Greek mortgage in which the mortgaged object remained in the hands of the debtor unless and until he defaulted, while venditio- represented that in which the object passed at once to the creditor; for in the object did not normally change hands, see Finley, M. I., Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, pp. 36–7Google Scholar. Pledge was ἐνἑχυρον, and Sokolowski would read in 11. 10–11 (see S.E.G. XVIII, p. 184Google Scholar). But there are two objections: fist that this supplement seems a bit long for the space, and secondly that, while one could see the force of saying ‘And no action is to be given to a creditor seeking to recover one of these objects from the debtor who has mortgaged it if he defaults (for the debtor must not be allowed to lose it)’, if the object has, as ἐνἑχυρον (pledge), already passed to the creditor, the remark is pointless.

^{page 26 note 8} Kunkel supposes it to be implied, along with sale, in .

^{page 27 note 1} Dig. 19, 1, 19: ‘veteres in emptione venditioneque appellationibus promiscue utebantur’.

^{page 27 note 2} See Pringsheim, F., The Greek Law of Sale, pp. 111 ff.Google Scholar I owe to Mr Finley the following additional references: Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora, no. 177,1. 4; Aristotle, Politics 1270a, 11. 19–20. The original Latin will in any case have influenced the Greek here.

^{page 27 note 3} Though she is wrong to connect it with the private law restitutio in integrum allowed to minors who show that they have been defrauded. From mixing up public and private law much confusion is born; and in this case Mrs Atkinson is misled into introducing into part (b) of the inscription a notion of fraud for which there is no warrant.

^{page 27 note 4} It is most important to observe that in part (b) Lysias, the possessor of the fanum which is to be restored, is offered his money back without question.

^{page 27 note 5} It may be objected that the supplement is too short. This ought not to be pressed, for since the whole word δῶρον would not have gone into 1. 10 the mason would have been led by the principle of syllabic division to break it at δῶρ. Kunkel notices that in 1. 11 the verb is in the aorist subjunctive as opposed to the perfect subjunctives of 1. 8; he believes therefore that this clause must refer to something which is likely to happen in the future. It may equally well be a reflection of some feature of the Latin model, such as use in 1. 8 of ‘datum est’ and in 1. 11 of ‘datum erit’.

^{page 28 note 1} A few minor points may be dealt with here. L. 12: Mrs Atkinson argues against [L.] Vinicius in favour of a substantially later proconsulate of [M.] Vinicius. Dunst (see n. 4 below) had made the same suggestion. It is difficult to believe that action consequent upon the pronouncement of Augustus and Agrippa will not have been begun and completed in quite a short time; nevertheless it is true that Λεὑκιος would need a bit of squeezing to get into the corresponding place in 1. 23. Ll. 12–13: there is not room to restore ‘No[raceus | c.v.], in spite of ὑμἑτερο[ς] in 1. 24. L. 14: Tucalleus is presumably (like Noraceus) a deme or tribe name, but it ought to be in the ablative, and remains wholly obscure. L. 17: it is known that ‘v.v.c.’ is an abbreviation of ‘volo vos curare’; Dunst and Mrs A. may be right to rescue the mason from an apparent solecism, ‘ab Lusiae, v.v.c’ by writing ‘ab Lusia, e(go) v(olo) v(os) c(urare)’.

^{page 28 note 2} Mrs Atkinson contends that nomine implies fraudulence; but the phrase is probably equivalent to ‘venditionis causa possideri’, the regular way of specifying the transaction that validates the possessio. (See Buckland, Textbook of Roman Law, p. 228.)

^{page 28 note 3} This would provide an exact parallel to the story told by Strabo (622 c, quoted by Pleket) about how these very Cymeans mortgaged, and by defaulting lost, their stoa.

^{page 28 note 4} In his review of Pleket, , Gnomon, xxxi (1959), 675–7Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 5} Mrs Atkinson's attempt to show that ‘iussu Augusti’ cannot refer to the pronouncement of part (a) seems to me to be misconceived.

^{page 28 note 6} Cf. Suet., Div. Aug. 47Google Scholar: ‘alias (sc. urbes)…aere alieno laborantes levavit’.

^{page 29 note 1} He restores ‘[sei] autem Lusia contradeicit quae Apollonides pos[tu∣lat, vadi]monium ei satis dato ubi ego ero Lusiam prom[itte∣re magi]s probo’.

^{page 29 note 2} Cf. Cic. II in Verr. III, 15, 39: ‘statuit iste ut arator quo vellet decumanus vadimonium promitteret’.

^{page 29 note 3} Cic. ad Att. III, 20, 1; ix, 7; Vitruv. IV, 2, 5; Caes. B.C. 1, 29, 1.

^{page 29 note 4} There is also a distinct vacat before ‘probo’.