¹ SBAK Wien CCXVII v 94. The sentence quoted here is actually given by Wilhelm (loc. cit.) as οὐκ ἠθ[ὐμησαν ἀλ]|λ᾿ ἐς τὲν ἄ[μυναν αὐτ]ốν ἄνδ[ρες ἀγαθοὶ] ἐγένοντο, which is particularly misleading.

² For the phraseology see Thuc. III 55, 3: εἰ δ᾿ ἀποστῆναι Ἀθηναίων οὐκ ἠθελήσαμεν ὑμῶν κελευσάντων, οὐκ ἠδικοῦμεν.

³ IG I, Suppl., pp. 16–17 (1877); Roberts-Gardner, , Introduction to Greek Epigraphy II (1905), 60Google Scholar; Dittenberger, W., Sylloge³, I (1915), p. 137Google Scholar; IG I² (1924), p. 59; Wilhelm, A., SBAK Wien CCXVII (1939) v 91Google Scholar; Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions, I ² (1946), p. 207.Google Scholar

⁴ A similar error is the tradition that Ionic lambda was used for ἐ]πιμέλεσθ[αι in line 11 of IG I², 106.

⁵ See the text in Meritt, , Athenian Financial Documents (1932), 96.Google Scholar What looks like an alternative possibility in line 33 is probably to be ruled out because the restoration should be not but allowing the restoration of at least one additional talent. Cf. Meritt, op. cit., Plates IV and VI for a photograph and drawing.

⁶ Under date of March 29, 1950, John H. Kent has written from Athens as follows about this line: ‘The stone breaks off after Φ, and nothing further is pre served. The break is peculiar in that a short distance down the side there is a ridge that runs parallel to the right hasta of Φ: hence the Corpus reading. But to repeat, the numeral preserved is after which the inscribed surface immediately breaks off.’

⁷ See especially Meritt, Epigraphica Attica, 47–58.

⁸ Cf. the present tense in ἐχσαιρἔ[σθαι] in line 63 and the imperfect tense ἐγίγνετο in line 57.

⁹ E.g. [ἐπειδὰν hο κε̆ρυχς εὐ]φἐμος ε[ὔ]χσεται.

¹⁰ Gr. Hist. Inscr., I², pp. 209–210.

¹¹ The notion of quota from the tribute was accepted also by Meritt, , Wade-Gery, , and McGregor, , Athenian Tribute Lists, I (1939), 525–526Google Scholar; but cf. op. cit., III, xii. If the reference were to the quota from the tribute at Athens, there ought to be some more explicit statement about it. There is no evidence that Neapolis ever had remission of her tribute; on the other hand she was probably at the time of this decree under obligation to pay even other ἀπαρχαί, of grain and perhaps of oil (cf. IG I⁸, 76), to Athens. Dittenberger, Sylloge ³, 107, note 19, quotes Kirchhoff's opinion (IG I, Suppl. p. 17) that there must be reference here to the first-fruits from the Athenian tribute, else the decision about it would have been no business of the Athenians. We believe that they have underestimated the extent to which Athens might interfere in the local affairs of Neapolis, and their explanation that in effect the Neopolitans were seeking a lowering of their tribute in the guise of more first-fruits than before to their own Virgin goddess has no foundation, so far as we can see, on anything in the present text. This confusing hypothesis appears also in Roberts-Gardner, op. cit., 63.

¹² The corrected later version read ‘because they fought through the war with the Athenians and being besieged by the Thasians and the Peloponnesians’.