^{page 9 note 2} Cf. Thuc. iii. 2.3. For a rather different political use of Proxenoi, Thuc. ii. 29.1.

^{page 10 note 1} See especially Eleanor Weston, A.J.P. lxi (1940), 345.

^{page 10 note 2} Wilhelm, 17–24.

^{page 10 note 3} Wilhelm, 23. Eleanor Weston, l.c. 347 f., associated IG. ii². 71 with IG. ii². 38 as two fragments from thesame decree. If this association were valid, Wilhelm's restoration, based on a line of 32 letters, would need drastic revision, for IG. ii². 71 demands a line of only 28 letters. The argument for associating the fragments, however, is based on the general appearance of letter forms and the supposed length of line. There is no join. Meritt, Hesperia, x (1941), rejects the association and accepts Wilhelm's restorations.

^{page 10 note 4} Budé edition, vol. ii, p. 104, n. 2.

^{page 10 note 5} Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions 62. 9.

^{page 11 note 1} Thuc. iv. 51.

^{page 11 note 2} Meritt, Hesperia, xiv (1945), 115–19; S.E.G. x.76.

^{page 11 note 3} A photograph of IG. i². 27 in Wilhelm, plate 1.

^{page 11 note 4} For the crisis of the early forties, Wade-Gery, Hesperia, xiv (1945). 212.

^{page 11 note 5} For Athenian imperialism in the fifties, Meiggs, J.H.S. lxiii (1943), 21.

^{page 11 note 6} Wilhelm, 27.

^{page 12 note 1} Anz. Wien, xiv. 6 (1911), p. 180 f.

^{page 12 note 2} Correspondences with S.E.G. x

I am grateful to Dr. J. J. E. Hondius for enabling me to use proofs of S.E.G. x before publication.