¹ For the circumstances of this change see Lehner, H., Ueber die Athenischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1890), pp. 12–17Google Scholar. This dissertation is still of the utmost value for our subject, although on some points the author's views or conjectures have been disproved by subsequent discoveries.

² In the fifth-century lists of the objects in the Hekatompedon (I.G. i². 262 ff.) it weighs 200 drs. It is not worth while to collect examples of similar inconsistencies in the weights of these votive offerings, or to discuss their possible causes. Cf. Lehner, op. cit., p. 24.

³ I have not shown as missing the letters read by Chandler but now lost owing to subsequent injury to the stele.

⁴ Numeros exaratos fuisse suspicatus sum; primo loco fortasse fuit

⁵ Op. cit., p. 32, note.

⁶ As is shown below, p. 151.

⁷ For the use of φιάλαι in apposition to χρυσίδες cf. I.G. ii.² 1396, l. 26 f. (Opisthodomos); the same objects seem also to have been called indifferently χρυσίδες and φιάλαι χρυσαῑ.

⁸ Two χρυσίδες, weighing together 274 drs., appear in the Parthenon list for 399/8 (I.G. ii.² 1377, l. 20; cf. 1373, l. 14 f., 1376, l. 15 f.), but seem to disappear from the lists soon afterwards (see the Editor's note on 1377, l. 20). If they had been transferred to the Hekatompedon, and thus represented the additional two found in 1400, l. 39 f., we should have expected the weight of the original three χρισίδες to be 763 drs., 1 obol, less 274 drs. = 489 drs., 1 obol which gives us 14 spaces instead of the seven required in 1388. It appears that there is no likely weight for five vessels of this sort which fulfils both our requirements, namely, to occupy nine spaces and, after having had 274 drs. subtracted, to leave a weight of seven spaces' length. Thus we can scarcely claim to recognise the two χρυσίδε; from the Parthenon as those added to the three of Artemis Brauronia in the Hekatompedon at some date before 390/89, to which date 1400 belongs. (Nevertheless if the addition were erroneous, 509 drs. + 254 = 763; but the difference of 20 drs. is not thus lightly to be juggled with!)

^8a I think we may recognise the same item, but with its weight given as 649 drs., 3 obols, in 1407, ll. 24, 25. I hope to publish subsequently some further restorations in this important list, the traditio of τά τῆς θεὄ for 385/4.

⁹ There is no doubt that this χερνιβεἴον, like the χρυσίδες and the πίναξ before it, was the property of Athena. Had it been otherwise, its ownership would have been indicated.

¹⁰ This is suggested by, and might be connected with, the curious entry in 1421, col. iii. ll. 67 ff.: Another possibility is

¹¹ This text is badly published in the Ed. Minor of the Corpus, as (1) there is an erroneous indication of a margin on the left; (2) the existing margin on the right is ignored, though its position is correctly stated in my publication of this stone in J.H.S. xxviii. (1908), pp. 301 ff., No. 4—it just leaves room for in l. 3 and only in l. 6; (3) the last two signs in l. 7 are given as whereas my facsimile correctly shows them as This is to be restored with 46 letters to the line, but, as the arrangement is not strictly observed throughout, a line of 47 letters is quite permissible. Kirchner has now corrected these mistakes in the latest fascicule of the Editio Minor (I.G. ii.², pars II. Fasc. ii. (1931)), Suppl. p. 799.

^11a Ἀρχ. Δελτίον, xi. pp. 127 ff. (No. 2); now republished in I.G. ii.², II. ii. Suppl. pp. 800 ff. as No. 1424a.

¹² There were faint traces of, apparently, ΗΗ as the 16th and 17th letters of the line, but the photograph does not show them. I noted them in 1909 when I first copied this fragment, but on re-examining the stone (in 1931) I could not see any signs of the first of the two.

¹³ 1400 belongs to the year 390/89, and 1401 seems to date from a few years earlier, rather than later, since its contents are less numerous (cf. p. 151).

¹⁴ I hope to offer a restoration of this passage in 1385 in my next article.

¹⁵ By Professor A. B. West, who has generously allowed me to make use of his suggestion.

¹⁶ Op. cit., pp. 62, 68.

¹⁷ More strictly it means silver from which the lead has not been extracted. Arist. Soph. Elench. I, §2, The word appears also as an adjective, quoted by Athenaeus, 451 c.

¹⁸ I cannot recognise this in any other list, and it would be rash to suggest its identity with a weighing (101 drs., 4 obols) in 1425, col. I, l. 93 (cf. 1428, col. II, l. 109 f.), in spite of the weight appropriately filling three spaces.

¹⁹ Cf. above, p. 147, n. 13.

²⁰ These additions were not all recorded at the end of the list, as we may see by comparing 1400 with 1401, for many can be recognised before the rubric

²¹ The items contained in this part of 1401 are:— (1) of Aristola; (2) ring of Dorkss; (3) unidentified weighing 404 drs., 3 obols; (4) uncertain, perhaps explanatory of (3); (5) weighing 12 drs.; (6) unidentified (? of Athena); (7) of Meletades, silver weighing 30 drs.; (8) unidentified; (9) dedication of Glyke. In 1393 we have Nos. 1, 2(?), 5, 7, 8 (?) and 9, but 3, 4 and 6 are certainly not included, and the space would permit of Nos. 2 and 8 coming in their correct order, if in a shortened form.

²² No. 1403 does not really help us after all, as the φιάλη of Aristola and the ring of Dorkas (Nos. 1 and 2 in the previous note) are the last two recognisable items. I believe it to be, at any rate, earlier than 1401, but must reserve for another occasion a fuller discussion of its date and contents.

²³ Op. cit., p. 76.

²⁴ I am indebted to Professor J. Kirchner, who most kindly verified this point for me in the collection of squeezes possessed by the Prussian Academy at Berlin. Subsequently I have confirmed this for myself, in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens.

²⁵ Various other items from this Eleusinian list can be recognised in the fourth-century lists of the Hekatompedon treasures, such as the 43 gold Darics (I.G. i.², 314, l. 55 = I.G. ii². 1401, l. 26). I hope to discuss this transference in a subsequent article.

²⁶ Professor Kirchner, in his editorial note to 1449, calls attention to the ‘scriptura simillima’ of the two fragments, and informs me that he feels sure, from the comparison of the squeezes, that 1448 belongs to the same stele. I have, since he wrote, confirmed this attribution, on the actual fragments.

²⁷ Cf. Hondius, , Novae Inscriptiones Atticae, p. 63Google Scholar, X. A, ll. 10, 11, where the text is more accurately given than in the Corpus (Ed. Minor).

²⁸ For the dating of these lists see the Editor's note to 1377, following Hondius, op. cit., p. 49.

²⁹ There is some inconsistency in the weight of these objects in the different lists where they appear; it is certain that they belonged to Athena and not to one

³⁰ Except that the participle is the difference between this and is negligible.

³¹ J.H.S. xxix. (1909), p. 175, ad fin.

³² The Editio Minor omits the from the number, but I certainly saw faint remains of it when I first studied the stone.

³³ 1409 is cut on a rather soft block of marble which is of an unusually white tint, practically free from discoloration; in this it resembles 1400, but there is no chance of it belonging to that stele, which has letters .07 high, and 91 to each line.

³⁴ Further study of 1393 etc. has convinced me not only that 1448 belongs to it, but also that a satisfactory restoration of the beginning of 1393a is attainable, which indicates the date as 397/6.

³⁵ I wish to record my indebtedness to the authorities of the British Museum for facilitating my studies of I.G. ii². 1388 and other Treasure-records, and to the late Dr. B. Leonardos for permission to publish the new fragment of this stele and for his constant help and courtesy during my work in the Athens Epigraphical Museum. For facilities for further study, in the summer of 1931, I am indebted to the new Director, Dr. A. Philadelpheus, and I owe much to the active and efficient co-operation of the Museum's factotum, Stavros.