A careful reconsideration of the above document (see J.H.S. xliii. 1923, p. 194 sqq.) has led me to the conclusion that, in common with former editors, I had utterly missed its main point, and consequently gone astray on several details. I therefore lay before readers of this Journal a recantation of my errors, expressing at the same time my warm thanks to several scholars who have helped me to a truer interpretation, and above all to Dr. L. R. Farnell for a whole series of criticisms and suggestions.

I now regard the date of the inscription, for reasons presently to be stated, as being, not ‘about the third century,’ but the latter half of the fourth, or, to be specific, the year A.D. 361. Mr. M. N. Tod informs me that the shape and style of the letters are perfectly consistent with this supposition. ‘The letters,’ he writes, ‘are crowded close together and tend to become tall and narrow in a manner which indicates the triumph of the cursive influence over properly epigraphical or monumental script. … I think it would probably be found that the writing of I.G. xiv. 1018 (dated 370) and 1019 (dated 377) is not very far removed from that of the present text—and both of these relate to Eastern cults.’