¹ Strassburg, 1890.

² See his Staatshaushaltung der Athener ³, vol. ii. pp. 131 foll.

³ Two silver-gilt studs, whose weight was 184 drachmae.

⁴ See also I.G. i. Suppl. p. 29, for new fragments of Nos. 161 and 165.

⁵ C.I.G. 139.

⁶ I.G. i. loc. cit.

⁷ As is pointed out in the catalogue of Inscriptions in the B.M. No. XXVII, note 1.

⁸ In a fragment of the comic poet Philippides, quoted by Pollux, , Onomasticon, v. 100Google Scholar.

⁹ See Meisterhans, , Grammatik der attischen Inschriften ³, p. 63Google Scholar, Note 538. Or possibly the engraver incorrectly wrote τούτων for τοὐτοιν in the second item. I prefer to restore the passage in the latter way.

¹⁰ See e.g. I.G. ii. 5. 672 c, l. 25.

¹¹ Pollux, , Onomasticon x. 135Google Scholar says, à propos of ornaments, δεῖ δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐσθῆσι καὶ ῥαμ μἁτων

¹² Garments are frequent, of course, in the lists of objects dedicated to Artemis Brauronia and Asklepios, , see I.G. ii. 2Google Scholar. 751 foll., but they were never weighed.

¹³ The πέπλος in the well-known scene on the Parthenon-frieze clearly has an embroidered ῥάμμα See the photograph of this slab in A. S. Murray, Sculptures of the Parthenon, Pl. ad fin. No. V. East.

¹⁴ The former alternative is alluded to in the decree of Stratocles in honour of Antignnus and Demetrius, quoted by Diodorus xx. 46, ῾ τὸν τῆς ᾿ Αθηνᾶς πέπλον κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν There are reasons for supposing that this custom was introduced towards the end of the fourth century : it had lapsed in Roman times. The following authorities support the alternative view : Plato, , Euthyphro vi. p. 6Google Scholarc; Scholiast on Euripides, , Hecuba, l. 468Google Scholar; Harpocration s.v. πέπλος The Scholiasts on Aristophanes, , Equites, 1. 566Google Scholar contradict each other on the point. For the whole question of the πέπλος see Daremberg and Saglio s.vv. Panathenaea and Peplos.

¹⁵ See the full text of this inscription in ᾿ Εφ. ᾿ Αρχ 1903, pp. 141 foll., made after the stone had been removed from the doorway at the west end of the Parthenon. The copy in the Corpus gives only a small part of this side of the stone, the rest being previously invisible.

¹⁶ The method of striking coins is discussed in Hill's, G. F.Handbook if Greek and Roman Coins, pp. 143Google Scholar foll. For a specimen of an Attic die see Svoronos, in Corolla Numismatica, pp. 285Google Scholar foll.

¹⁷ They are perhaps to be identified with the ἄ[κ]μον[ε]ς of I.G. ii. 2. 742 A, 1. 3, if we adopt this reading rather than that given in the Corpus:ἀ.μον[ο]ς

^17a For the question as to the date of this issue see Head, , Historia Numorum, p. 314Google Scholar. Owing to lack of space I am unable to discuss the question at length here, but hope to do so in a subsequent paper.

¹⁸ Über die athenischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten Jahrhunderts, pp. 56, 63.

¹⁹ Op. cit. p. 60.

²⁰ Op. cit. p. 63, following Boeckh, , Slaatshaushallung ii. p. 257Google Scholar.

²¹ Lehner, op. cit. p. 36, note 2.

²² Der Parthenon, pp. 316–7, where this passage is fully discussed, with references to the previous commentators.

²³ No doubt, as Michaelis (loc. cit.) suggests, as ἀποτρόπαια He aptly compares the γοργόν ειον taken from the door of the temple of Minerva at Syracuse by Verres (Cicero, in Verrem, II. iv. § 124Google Scholar).

²⁴ By Brown, C. N., A.J.A. viii. (1904), pp. 265Google Scholar, 279, who publishes an important new fragment of this stone. His reference to I. G. ii. 2. 726 ii. 1. 12 for the γοργόνειον is, to say the least, uncertain, as this seems to refer to another shield with a similar device.

²⁵ Lehner, op. cit. p. 17.

²⁶ Op. cit. p. 62.

²⁷ In the gap after ἔχοσαι may very well have stood ἡ μὲν μία χρυσῆ, ἡ δὲ ἐτέρα but I hesitate to restore it in the text. We may also note the greater length of the gap after ὑδρίαι as compared with our new stone, but it does not make it any easier to restore.

²⁸ This seems the most natural restoration to account for the letters still visible on the stone: in the middle of the gap I thought I could detect which would thus be the remains of But I have no suggestion to offer to complete the line, nor does ἐ[ξαγί]στο seem certain when we have, by a sure restoration, a genitive in ΟY in 1. 8, though at this period we might possibly find both forms in the same inscription.

²⁹ The κανο῀ ν ἴνα ὁ ᾿ Απίλλων was presumably on the missing half of the stoue to the right of the existing left.

³⁰ Only the letters are preserved from the words κανο῀ ν ἴνα ὁ Ζεύς κ.τ.λ. the preceding item does not seem to have been the κανο῀ ν ἴνα ὁ ᾿ Απόλλων κ.τ.λ. as the remains of the figures visible are not part of its weight.

³¹ The former is described more fully thus: κανοῦν ὑπόχαλκον ἐπίχρυσον αὐτόστατον

³² Op. cit. p. 97, No. 35.

³³ Op. cit. p. 104.

³⁴ Cf. Michaelis, , Der Parthenon, p. 303Google Scholar. The diminutive, ἀμφορίσκοι is probably due to the orator's indignation. In any case our inscription is earlier than the period of Androtion's acts of vandalism, so not much stress can be laid on this evidence.

³⁵ The reading is uncertain, and the restoration of these objects (due to Boeckh, , Staats-haushaltung ii. p. 284Google Scholar) does not agree exactly with the copy given in the Corpus. See Lehner, op. cit. p. 47.

³⁶ ᾿ Αρχ. ᾿ Εφ (new series), Ko. 439, and Pl 70.

³⁷ The identity of these οἰνοχὁαι in all these inscriptions was pointed out by Brown, (A.J.A. 1904, p. 266Google Scholar, note 2).

³⁸ See Lehner's note on these objects, op. cit. p. 101, note 1.

³⁹ I must not omit to acknowledge the kind assistance of Mr. M. N. Tod throughout this paper.