^{page 84 note 1} See also Meritt, B. D., The Athenian Calendar (1928), Plates I and IIGoogle Scholar; Athenian Financial Documents (1932), pp. 136–43Google Scholar; Oguse, A., B.C.H. lix (1935), 416–20Google Scholar; Broneer, Oscar, Hesperia iv (1935), 158–9 (on lines 62–65)Google Scholar; Meritt, , C.Q. xl (1946), 60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions², No. 64Google Scholar; S.E.G. x. 227Google Scholar; Lang, Mabel, Hesperia xxxiii (1964), 146–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 224–47Google Scholar; S.E.G. xxi. 75; xxii. 47. With this summary we conclude our study of the Logistai In scription. Enough has been written to enable scholars to form their own judgement about it. Unless some new evidence appears, which at the moment seems unlikely, we do not intend to participate in further discussion.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} For the general disposition of letters upon the stone see Meritt, , The Athenian Calendar, Plate I.Google Scholar The question of ancient damage is discussed in Hesperia xxxiii (1964), pp. 161–3 and xxxiv, (1965) pp. 240–2.Google Scholar Modern damage has also occurred. At some time between our visits to the Epigraphical Museum in 1964 and 1966 the last figure in the amount of principal (H) in line 32 was gouged out at the bottom and the naked marble scraped with a sharp instrument. This was done without the knowledge of the Director of the Museum, and must be counted an act of vandalism which, after the destruction of the evidence, permits no control. The figure can no longer be studied on the stone; one must turn to the photographs in Hesperia xxxiv (1965)Google Scholar, Plate 57, and in Phoenix xx (1966), 215Google Scholar, which fortunately preserve the appearance of the stone before the damage was done, and to the descriptions given by earlier editors (summarized in Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 237–9).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} See Lang, Mabel, Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 229.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} Shown erroneously as complete in the drawing on Plate I of Meritt, , The Athenian Calendar.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} See ibid., pp. 69–70.

^{page 85 note 4} Lang, Mabel, Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 227.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 5} Ibid. 229.

^{page 85 note 6} Ibid. 228.

^{page 85 note 7} This figure includes the seven-year total (433/2–427/6) of 4001 Tal. 4522 Dr. of lines 99–100.

^{page 85 note 8} Cf. Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 230. The ׀ instead of in line 14 was a mason's error, not an error in the copy submitted to him.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 9} See Meritt, , The Athenian Calendar, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} See lines 86–87 above.

^{page 86 note 2} The article in I.G. i ², 304 BGoogle Scholar, lines 48–49, was divided The reason for this remains obscure.

^{page 86 note 3} As shown in Meritt, , The Athenian Calendar, Plates I and II.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 4} C.Q. xl (1946), 61.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 5} The exigencies of space in line III re duce the possible maximum addition to the figure here shown.

^{page 86 note 6} An alternative (cf. line 114) is: and then the numeral.

^{page 87 note 1} C.Q. xl (1946), 63–64.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 2} e.g.

^{page 87 note 3} See Meritt, , C.Q. xl (1946), 62, for the preference shown to Gell. He used Dodwell in The Athenian Calendar.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 4} The four largest figures that can be re stored in line 113 are but they would give a final total too short to run over into line 118.

^{page 87 note 5} See Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 228.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 6} Ibid. 230.

^{page 88 note 1} From the point of view of space the maximum interest in line 76 on the first loan is 2149 Dr. Arithmetically the computation would be much lower. If reckoned on the principal of 30 T. 5990 Dr. (line 76) in 342 days (cf. Hesperia xxxiv (1965), 234Google Scholar) the in terest comes to 2120¾ Dr. (see the tables, op. cit., p. 225), but since the total interest was the sum of the individual interest amounts the actual total was doubtless slightly more than this.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} For these maximum and minimum figures see above, p. 86.

^{page 88 note 3} The error in addition by the Logistai, who wrote instead of in line 112, has been noted (above, pp. 85–6). This error was perpetuated in line 116 and doubtless also in line 122.

^{page 88 note 4} There is no way of knowing how much interest to add for the Other Gods in the seven years (433/2–427/6), or even exactly how much to add for the two loans of 423/2 (cf. note 1, just above).

^{page 88 note 5} For these maximum and minimum figures see above, p. 86.

^{page 88 note 6} There is here the added uncertainty of how much interest had accrued on the loans from Hermes in the seven years (433/2–427/6).

^{page 89 note 1} Damage to the stone or some blemish in the marble which prevented the writing of letters in available letter-spaces must be assumed near the ends of lines 45 and 51. These spaces are designated in the text by hatched markings. It is highly probable that similar difficulties with the marble led to the irregularities at the ends of lines 37–42 and 47–50.

^{page 90 note 1} The text assumes (exempli gratia) the maximum number of spaces for the Unknown's principal; the minimum number of spaces would be fewer by three (1976 Dr. 2 Ob.); both maximum and minimum produce the same interest, so that spaces not used for the Unknown's principal will be added to the principal of Hephaistos.