^{page 157 note 1} The stone was re-examined in 1952 by Professor H. T. Wade-Gery, who with characteristic generosity placed his notes, new readings, and drawings at my disposal, discussed the text with me, and in fact laid the foundations for this article. It owes throughout far more to his suggestions and corrections than can be shown by specific footnotes, and I desire here to make grateful acknowledgement to him for all the help which I have received: also to Professor A. Andrewes, who has read and improved my text at many points. My thanks are due also to the Directors of the Archaeological Museum at Istanbul for the photographs in Plate 43. When this article was in galley-proof, I had the privilege of another discussion with Professor Wade-Gery, and was able therefrom to improve the text at several points. He is in no way responsible for such errors as remain. For his further comments on this inscription, particularly in connexion with the history of the archaic Attic courts, see his forthcoming article ‘The Judicial Treaty with Phaselis and the History of the Athenian Courts’.

^{page 159 note 1} NiS 65 f.: ‘Ein Unterschied zwischen der Vorderseite [A] und rechten Schmalseite [B] und den beiden andern ist die Interpunktion…. Die andern beiden Seiten kennen sie nicht. Man kann also denken, daβ diese später oder doch von anderer Hand geschrieben wären, zumal die Schrift etwas gleichförmiger wird. Aber tief gehen die Unterschiede nicht; es konnte auch derselbe Schreiber sich's bequemer machen.’

^{page 159 note 2} AJA xxxix (1935) 514 ff.

^{page 159 note 3} It must be emphasized that Fig. 1 has been constructed for general guidance only, from a combination of squeezes and photographs. It does not profess to give an accurate picture of the chisel-strokes, but only to remind the reader that C and D (and to a lesser degree B also) are cut more deeply than A. Where squeeze and photograph differed in the appearance of a letter, I have tried to follow the squeeze; but the numerous small cracks in the surface of the stone, and the transverse chisel-strokes which were used to smooth it, all helped to defeat accuracy.

^{page 159 note 4} I hope to discuss this problem more fully elsewhere.

^{page 159 note 5} ‘Forum Stele’: Diehl, , Inscr. Lat. (1912) 1.Google ScholarPrinias, : IC 1. xxviii7.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 6} Kleonai: DGE 129. Tiryns, : SEG xi. 369.Google ScholarSparta, : SEG xi. 652.Google Scholar Athens: IG i.² 842. Miletos: Rehm, , Milet i. 3, 376 f.Google Scholar, no. 132. Delphi: DGE 323.

^{page 160 note 1} DGE 707. Some authorities have held that it originally formed part of the closed foundation-deposit under the Basis; but it was found beyond the Basis, in a disturbed area (Hogarth, , Excav. at Ephesus (1908) 45 f.Google Scholar).

^{page 160 note 2} Richter, , Archaic Greek Art (1949) 103ff.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} Op. cit. 42 and 108.

^{page 160 note 4} GHI ² 4.

^{page 160 note 5} JHS lxxi (1951) 156 ff.

^{page 160 note 6} This was pointed out to me by Professor Andrewes. W should then expect the metal to be specified (electrum, silver?), and indeed it may have been, for the text breaks off at that point.

^{page 162 note 1} Phokis: DGE 316. Samos: DGE 713. Crete (Dreros): Effenterre, Van, BCH lxx (1946) 597 ff., 3.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} Cf. Hignett, , History of the Athenian Constitution (1952) 90 f.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 1} Sparta, Taras, Herakleia, Elis. Cf. Busolt-Swoboda, Griech. Staatskunde (= BS) i. 43 and 456; Wade-Gery, , CQ 1944, 1 ff., 115 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} I owe this suggestion to W. G. Forrest, who cites as parallel SIG ³ 987, line 35 (4th cent. B.C.).

^{page 164 note 1} LSJ cites Antiphon iv. 4, 9 and Plato, Rep. 359a for instances of ὰδικεὶσθαὶ used, as here, in the present tense but with the meaning of the perfect. The passage of Antiphon best illustrates it: τὸν τε γὰρ διὼκοντα οὺ ‘For it is not just that the accuser should seek to arrest (the accused), unless he has shown clearly that he is the victim of wrong.’

^{page 164 note 2} Bonner, and Smith, , Administration of Justice i (1930) 177 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} Wilamowitz, , Athen u. Aristoteles i. 60Google Scholar; Hignett, op. cit. 97 f.

^{page 164 note 4} BS ii. 966 ff.

^{page 164 note 5} BS i. 353.

^{page 165 note 1} Argos, : SEG xi. 314, 336.Google Scholar Mycenae: DGE 98. Elis, : Ol. v. 11.Google Scholar Mantinea: Thuc. v. 47. Alea: DGE 654. Thera, : IG xii. 4, 350.Google ScholarKyrene, : SEG ix. 11–44.Google Scholar Delphi: DGE 323. Petelia, : IG xiv. 636.Google Scholar Chaleion (?): IG ix. 1, 333, 335 (the site is there identified as Oianthea; but see now Lerat, , Les Locriens de l'Ouest i (1952) 198 ff.Google Scholar Corinth: Thuc. i. 56. 2 (ἑπιδημιουργοιo Potidaia).

^{page 165 note 2} NiS 67; BS ii. 351 ff.

^{page 165 note 3} BS i. 352.

^{page 165 note 4} Hignett, op. cit. 76, 311 ff.

^{page 165 note 5} Waisglass, A. A. I., AJP lxxvii (1956) 167 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 6} e.g. GHI ² 34: του ξενον μη αγειν ἐ τας Χαλεὶδος τον Οιανθεα κτλ.; ‘No one is to carry off the Oianthean stranger from Chaleian territory, etc.’ Cf. Meisterhans, Grammatik d. Att. Insch. ³ 79.

^{page 166 note 1} BS i. 120.

^{page 166 note 2} Gaebler, Erythrae 115, 118Google Scholar; Szanto, , SbAkWien, 1901, 60 f.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} See SIG ³ 577 (not. ad loc.) and Rehm, , Milet i. 3 (1914) 231 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} In my view, it does offer strong support. Cf. Andrewes, , Probouleusis (1955) 21 f.Google Scholar and (contra) Hignett, op. cit. 92 ff.