¹ It was certainly inscribed, for 31 ends in the middle of a word. A horizontal stroke, as of Ε or Τ or Π; is to be seen in the 50th space in 32, under the Ρ in 31; and there are one or two other less certain vestiges.

² The bottom 11½ lines were better protected, and are more legible in consequence.

³ The vertical spacing is approximately the same on both sides. Line 34 in I.G. I² (line 3 in my transcript, page 63) stands level with line 3 on the undamaged side: line 59 in I.G. I² (line 28 in my transcript) stands about level with line 28 on the undamaged side.

⁴ The most distinctive letters are Υ and Ν with flattish diagonals, on the undamaged side; and Π with a neat small eye, on the damaged.

⁵ This has always been taken count of in suggested supplements; but the number 51 is, of course, determined by the spacing of the extant letters and the known margins; not by the requirements of supplements.

⁶ For the bearing of this on the date, see Epigraphic Appendix A.

⁷ Prof. Meritt has very kindly confirmed for me that in is certain: i.e. is certain, and the remains are compatible with Few scholars, then, will demur to This must be preceded by ho we know, therefore, that the name of the epistates ends with (or ). The identity of the epistates will carry with it the identity of the whole prescript. Names in are rare (in almost non-existent: of Mytilene): the few Attic examples ( etc.) are excluded by the traces of the earlier letters, with the single exception (as I believe) of The matter was clinched for me beyond reasonable doubt when I found that the prescript written out full exactly fills the line above, and that this line is exactly the same distance below the head of the stone as the first line on the undamaged side.

⁸ There are clear traces of a circular letter before ΙΝΑ.

⁹ See Epigraphic Appendix B.

¹⁰ In e.g. I.G. I², 49, line 12, it probably means ‘as herein decreed’; and so long as the beginning of our decree was totally unknown, it was possible it meant so here. But it is now clear that it means ‘as previously (elsewhere) decreed’: cf. LG. I², 39, line 49.

¹¹ Kolbe suggests that stood in the lacuna in lines 4–5. What Epistatai? of the Nikai? or the Propylaia? or both? The Epistatai of the work here ordered (and not the ‘Xynepistatai’) are named in line 8.

¹² in line 9 is not, I think, a main verb: for alleged in line 27, see the end of this section.

¹³ Cf. I.G., I² 295–8 and 301–4, the phrase is improper of any mere executive. In I.G. I², 78, line 8, Epistatai are ordered i.e. to expend out of their main fund on a bye-function.

¹⁴ etc. and several improbable aorist participles middle:

¹⁵ It is one of the singularities of our scribe that his circular letters (see lines 7 and 13) have worn worst (they commonly wear best and are Visible when nothing else is: e.g. in I.G. I², 19). The surface is here unbroken, the letters are worn, not broken away: so the restoration of two circular letters is pretty conclusive. Bannier supplies instead of The Boule indeed sometimes performs executive functions (I.G. I², 56⁴, 106a⁴, 110³², 113¹²), but an expert executive function like this is outside its province. In I.G. I², 88, line 17, it is doing its properest work of Probouleusis.

¹⁶ As it stands, the tense of seems to me very difficult. The surface before the A is not broken but only worn: I think possibly some reagent might show traces of the letter.

¹⁷ I cannot agree with Kolbe, , S.B. 1927, 328Google Scholar, that the infinitivus adhortativus is required by the usage of our document. Its usage is almost absolute, viz. infinitive when the subject is the unexpressed with all other subjects (here ) imperative.

¹⁸ This question will, I hope, be dealt with in Dinsmoor's Propylaia.

¹⁹ They were wealthy, Ἀθ. πολ. 8. 1: chosen by lot, I.G. I², 91 (the reverse of this decree), lines 13–15.

²⁰ The space is part of the carved margin, but this fraction of surface has been left. Lay a straightedge along the intact surface (which here is quite unworn), and there is not room for a hair between it and the surface which has preserved the lettertrace.

²¹ (200 talents) would do, but is extremely improbable.—I have written omitting (cf. X, 4 et passim).

²² See Epigraphic Appendix C.

²³ ‘The present college, plus their four predecessors of the last Panathenaic period.’ (For supplied commonly in line 27, see the end of Section I.) The phrase recurs regularly at the beginning of a new Panathenaic period: I.G. I², 232, 236, 240, etc. This does not damage the 434 hypothesis, though it excludes any date before 28 Hekatombaion of that year.

²⁴ Or 435–4 (see Kolbe, , S.B. 1927, p. 330Google Scholar), which I exclude ab initio because of Face Y, line 27.

²⁵ See Epigraphic Appendix A.

²⁶ Forsch., II, 131, note 1.

²⁷ See the new reading of line 74 published by Meritt in Cl. Phil., xxv. (1930), p. 237.Google Scholar

²⁸ can hardly mean ‘calculated and left on record,’ which is what Meyer apparently supposes. It means, in this case, ‘found calculated, and handed on to us’: precludes any gap in time between the two Colleges.— Also, Face X, 25–27 speaks clearly of annual Logistai: the four-yearly account in 27–28 is a separate thing.

²⁹ I know of no evidence. In I.G. I², 324 they calculate interest to 10 Hekatombaion 422 B.C., which Meritt takes to be the last day of the outgoing Boule. Since their report is for the information and action of the (new) Boule, this seems fairly certain (Meritt, , Calendar, p. 16Google Scholar).

³⁰ They are to be appointed at the usual X, 14.

³¹ S.B. 1927, p. 322. He would translate, ‘The local Tamiai, Epistatai, and Hieropoioi, who at present have charge’: he allows that this makes the in redundant, but tolerates the redundance.

³² They are due to my restoration, which I believe to be almost certain.

³³ See note 29 above.

³⁴ The Year of the Boule invariably ends some days (or weeks) before the Year of the Tamiai. The latter ends 28 Hekatombaion: for the former, see Meriti, , Calendar, p. 118.Google Scholar

^34a The writing is not so archaic as is implied in I.G. I². There is e.g. no sloping Υ.

³⁵ Other Gods are perhaps mentioned in I.G. I², 172, and their Tamiai perhaps in 176, if (as is possible) the two fragments belong together. It might be extremely interesting to recover this decree.

³⁶ Perikies in Thuc. II. 13. 5 is urging the evacuation, See Kolbe's, discussion of the passage, S.B. 1927, p. 321.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. Andokides, frag. 4. ‘May we never again see the charcoal-burners coming from their hills to the city, with sheep and cattle and waggons and women-folk, old men and labourers turned soldiers.’

³⁸ The names are from the inventory of 429–8, and from the Logistai's report.

³⁹ It would be an extreme instance of Thucydides' alleged dramatic instinct, which concentrates slow processes into dramatic moments.

⁴⁰ vel sim. Cf. I.G., I²² 22^4–5 26¹⁴, 39^46–7 65¹⁶ 90^31–2. The five Tamiai, I.G. I², 310, lines 91–94. There are, of course, other ways of accounting for this number. Kolbe suggests the plague. The Tamiai of Athena do not always put all 10 names to their documents: contrast I.G. I², 355 and 358 with 359 (it is possible indeed that if we could put dates to these documents we should have the year in which Athena's Tamiai first became 10 Klerotoi, one per tribe). The Tamiai of the Other Gods, who are certainly 10 in 421—0 and 418—17, write only g names in 420—19, I.G. I², 370.

⁴¹ The day the Boule left office: Meritt, , Calendar, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁴² 28 Hekatombaion. In 421, 3 July = 21 Skirophorion: Meritt, , Calendar, p. 118.Google Scholar

⁴³ This is natural enough: the report was the first essential, before reorganisation could be begun.

⁴⁴ Cl. Rev. 44 (1930), p. 164.

⁴⁵ And contemplates a residue at the end, Face X, 31,

⁴⁶ It is here that we first find the interest from 433 to 426, which was at a much higher rate (five or six times higher) than from 426 to 422. See Cl. Rev. 44 (1930), p. 163.

⁴⁷ 766 T. 95 Dr. borrowed 433–426, plus 37 T. 2338 Dr. interest on this from 426 to 422, plus 54 T. 5988 Dr. borrowed 423–2, plus 2202 Dr. interest on this to 422: Total 858 T. 4613 Dr. The 1000 is made up by the interest from 433 to 426: Cl. Rev. 44. P. 164.

⁴⁸ Line 55, etc.: line 77) etc.

⁴⁹ And, it seems, without interest: the Logistai are not told to compute interest X, 7 sqq.

⁵⁰ It is perhaps barely conceivable (see Appendix E) that a lump sum of accumulated Phoros might be transferred from one reserve to the Tamiai's reserve without diminishing the debt: but not that the Hellenotamiai should pay their income over to the Tamiai (Y, 20—21). In spite of this, Bannier has argued for the date 431–0 (for Face X), after the completion of the Lapis Secundus of the Quota Lists, Rh. Mus. 75 (1926), 184 sqq.: Face Y is dated 429/8.

⁵¹ The exact time relation between the Dionysia (Elaphebolion 24) and the payment of 100 talents (Pryt. VIII. 30) is obtained from Meritt, Calendar, esp. pp. 87–88Google Scholar. For the satisfaction of those who do not care to test the precision of his calculations, I offer the following control. The interval between the Armistice and the start of Nikias' expedition comes out at rather under a month [Armistice to Dionysia = Elaph. 14 (Thuc. 4. 118. 12) to Elaph. 24 = 10 days: Dionysia to the payment of 100 talents, ex hypothesi about a fortnight]. This short month is very amply occupied: the news of the Armistice is sent to Brasidas (Thuc. 4. 122. 2), the news is disregarded by him, the envoys finally come home re infecta.

⁵² The old rate, a drachma per head per day, for a ship of 200 = 6000 drachmas a month: Thuc. 3. 17: he emphasises the extravagance. [See Prof.Adcock, in Camb. Hist. Journ., I. p. 319Google Scholar; the situation described is the summer of 430 B.C.] Nikias' fleet had certain other extravagances, 1000 hoplites and some mercenaries (Thuc. 4. 129. 2): but a hoplite only cost more than a sailor because he had a servant, so unless his 50 ships carried more than 10,000 souls, this makes little difference. I imagine the 100 talents had to pay for the whole campaign, plus what Nikias could extract locally and perhaps 30 more talents in July. (Thuc. 8. 8. 1 says 35 talents are allotted of a fleet: this is not perhaps the whole sum provided. See also some figures in Lysias XIX.)

⁵³ The whole Phoros cannot have been divided amongst minor executives: though some of it may have been.

⁵⁴ The arguments which force us to assume a sinking-fund at all make it begin in 433. The scheme was improved by the lowering of the interest paid to Athena from 426 onwards (Cl. Rev. 44, pp. 163–165). The Delian temple put money out at interest in the third century (Michel, , Recueil, 594Google Scholar, lines 28–35): the method is not suggested in Xenophon's Poroi among the new ways in which the State might use its capital; which perhaps suggests that this simplest method of all was already in use. The story told by two of the Scholiasts on Demosthenes. Timokrates, 136 (Dindorf p. 743, 1) is interesting. When the Opisthodomos was burnt the Tamiai were arrested: because, say the Scholiasts, they were supposed to have speculated privately with the money and lost it, and consequently fired the building to cover their tracks. I discuss the date of this fire (between 389 and 367) in a later paper: see meanwhile Johnson, A. G., A.J.A. 1914, p. 1Google Scholar sqq.; Kolbe, , Philologus, 84 (1928), 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar sqq.; Judeich, , Hermes, 1929, 412.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The early commentators, down to and including Kirchhoff, took it for granted that the 3000 talents was paid in a lump sum. The reductio ad absurdum of this view, when combined with a date before the Archidamian War, was brought by Loeschke: whom (pace Meyer, , Forsch. II, 89Google Scholar, note 4) Kirchhoff never adequately answered. The date 434 was rescued by Meyer with the quite fair assumption that the 3000 talents might have been paid in instalments. It might; but I now suggest that it was not, and the old view was right.

⁵⁶ I.G. V. 2, No. 159B: Early fifth century.

⁵⁷ Hdt. 6. 86 ( R S V, A B C P). The story well illustrates the nature of these deposits. Kallias' words are

⁵⁸ The matter is eased if Kolbe is right (S.B. 1930, P. 333 sqq.) in supposing the assessment of 425–4 was over 1400 talents.

⁵⁹ Were any capital charges taken out of the Phoros first? We do not even know if the απαρχε was; we have no Quota lists for that penteteris. Was the Fund fed from other sources? What rate of interest did it accumulate? How much Phoros actually came in during the high assessment period 425–421 ?

⁶⁰ See Meritt, and West, Harvard Studies, 38 (1927), p. 50Google Scholar, and the earlier articles there quoted, especially West, , A.J.A. 29, p. 135Google Scholar sqq. If Kolbe's figure for the previous penteteris is right (see note 58), the figure 600 would probably need raising.

⁶¹ Not, certainly, I.G. I², 324a.

⁶² 400 MSS.; but 300 in the close imitation of this passage in Aeschines, 2. 172 sqq.

⁶³ E.g. Meyer, E., Forschungen, II. p. 132Google Scholar sqq. It has had more sympathetic treatment from West, , Transactions and Proceedings of Am. Philol. Ass. 57 (1926), pp. 61Google Scholar sqq., and Kolbe, (S.B. 1930, 336Google Scholar): both are mainly concerned with the 1200 talents of Phoros.

⁶⁴ See Judeich, , Philologue, 35 (1926), p. 141Google Scholar sqq.

⁶⁵ Andokides' narrative starts (or professes to start!) from 480, forty years before he was born.

⁶⁶ The passage evidently became a locus communis, as we see from Aeschines 2. 172 sqq.

⁶⁷ Cl. Rev. 44, p. 163, note 1. If West is right about the doubling in 417, I am doing Andokides a slight injustice: the doubling would be a ‘result of the Peace.’

⁶⁸ 100 were to be kept for the emergency of a naval attack on Athens: 30 operated off Methone: about 20 at Naupaktos. Nor do I imagine the Ægean was empty.

⁶⁹ I.G. I², 99, line 28. I do not know whether the assignment of this fragment to the Sicilian decrees is certain. The supplements are, of course, tentative and give no real evidence. It may be simply if so, the of the next line will be the Iron Reserve. The alleged 3000 talents have been connected with Kallias' decree by Ferguson, , Camb. Anc. Hist., V. p. 280Google Scholar, note 2.

⁷⁰ See Epigraphic Appendix D, and A.J.A. 1931, pp. 31Google Scholar sqq.

⁷¹ Possibly on its first being housed in the Opisthodomos: see the end of this section. The words lines 96–97, do not exclude this: they merely mean that the (if any) are entered separately (perhaps on the latus sinistrum). The formula recurs in all our Inventories, with this meaning.

⁷² The bevel at the foot of Face Y makes it two lines shorter than Face X; and Face X is broken off in the middle of a sentence.

⁷³ Since Demosthenes (22, §76 = 24, § 184): the fifth-century Athenians called it the Great Temple their was the West Cella. I postpone discussion of the fifth-century names to a later paper, on the Akropolis buildings (see the end of this section).

⁷⁴ It is notable how little there was to start with. In the two front rooms there are eight items in all in 434: the Parthenon items are more numerous indeed (33), but hardly more impressive: Doerpfeld has well pointed out that this West Cella was a sort of apotheke, where curiosities and oddments were stored. These treasures multiplied themselves many times over during the next twenty-five years.

⁷⁵ I.G. I², 301, lines 103–114 (received by former Tamiai), 116–120 (by this year's Tamiai). I have republished this part of the inscription in Num. Chron. 1930, pp. 16–38, with a correction, pp. 333 sq.

⁷⁶ J.H.S. 1930, p. 293: see also Num. Chron. 1930, 17 sqq.

⁷⁷ The phrase recurs in I.G. I², 305, line 13. Cf. Aristoph., Plutus 1191–3Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Which I take to have been modest, and to have begun with the final adapting of the S.W. corner of the Propylaia to Nike's bastion and temple. I do not understand how Kolbe, , who argues (S.B. 1929, pp. 280–282Google Scholar) that the Propylaia cost 2000 talents, can argue (ibid. 285) that Kallias' Face Y orders the building of the Erechtheion: at a cost of 10 talents a year, which are to cover a number of other works as well.

⁷⁹ It is of the same prytany and ekklesia as I.G. I², 87, Laches' motion for alliance with Halieis, which from line 16 must be before the Peace in 421: but, from the dative in in line 23, probably not long before.

⁸⁰ Though is certainly a false restoration in I.G. I², 24.

⁸¹ Geissler, , Chronologie der altattischen Komödie (Berlin, 1925), p. 40Google Scholar; cf. 43, note 1.

⁸² Harvard Studies, 38 (1927), p. 48, note 4; 1925, pp. 60–61.

⁸³ Harvard Studies, 38, p. 48, note 5, and the articles there quoted.

⁸⁴ For the date see note 76 above.

⁸⁵ For date see note 76 above. The usual form is (2nd declension). Cf. in Pollux

⁸⁸ first published by Keil in 1902, and later shown by Wilcken, , Hermes, 42 (1907), pp. 374Google Scholar sqq. to be extracts from a commentary on Demosthenes' Androtion. See also Cavaignac, Trésor d'Athènes, lxxiv; Bannier, Rh. Mus. 75 (1926), pp. 187, 196–198; Beloch, , Gr. Ges ² II. 2. pp. 328Google Scholar sq.

⁸⁷ E.g. Aristoph, . Lysist. 245Google Scholar, 338, 487, 912, cum scholiis, Thuc. 2. 15. 6, and the inscriptions passim. I am not clear whether in I.G. I², 4, line 3, and ib. 44, lines 1–2, refer to the Akropolis.

⁸⁸ Beloch has argued for this date, Gr. Ges ² II. 2. pp. 328 sq. I find it hard to believe that the reserve was kept elsewhere than on the Akropolis between 454 and 450: I would prefer to read (even for this date) i.e. the Decree sanctions the expenditure of Phoros on the Akropolis temples: it would stand in some sort of relation to the decree recorded in Plut. Perikies, 17. On this view, is wrongly supplied in line 5: Perikles' motion is part of the same excerpt as lines 3 and 4 which speak of the building of the Parthenon. The Archon of 450/49 was Euthynos (I.G. I², 22, line 75), but Diodoros calls him Euthydemos (12. 3) and the Anonymus may have done the same. What then of lines 9–11 ?

⁸⁹ Some hundreds of talents: cf. I.G. I², 296, line 17, and Thuc. 2. 70. 2.