(ie, 351/0). - The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA 173
vital objection, especially if weight-signs are concerned. In I.G., 12, 1517, in fact,
groups of these are frequently compressed into less than one space for each, whilst in
our text, to judge by the instance in line 37, where : K(: occupy four spaces, these
signs are spaced accurately in the stoichedon pattern. Assuming also that ebg rT'v
llap6iEv6'va followed aPvEE'O'Y) in each case, and that a4'-rara came next, and that the name
of the archon preceding the verb was Diotimos, we may suggest a restoration for
I.G., II2, 1517 A, conformable to that of the new fragment, lines 17-29:
I.G., 12, 1517 A, lines 66-71
am, :III: E'TE [pos . Trac8E EGiAtoor4wov a'p] ITOIX. 31
Y,OV : aVETEG [7- Ets Tov llapO,EvlC'va ac.TTaTa]
DEi?bpoorvjx ) [?? El) Kij@T3CO
31~~~~~~1
co acrrarog AL?I
70 E'v'&8tov E['t 'Apt-ro8irRo6ov apXov: aVE]
TE0 TE'O'7Ebg r`v [IlapOEvc'c79aKEp]
? oisTv[Hp9vva ........... 9Kp
It will be seen that in this text there is no mention of the handing over by the
Epistatai of the year of Thoudemos (353/2) to those of the next year, but that the
dedication by Euphrosyne is listed as the first item under the year of Diotimos
(354/3).
The restoration of lines 21-22 above is derived from the passage in I.G., 12,
1524, lines 51-54, where Avo-iag 'AXapvevt and his o-vva'pXovErE appear as the Epistatai
in the year of Aristodemos, but in reference to some other dedications; and it seems
quite possible that the [s]ta`X-q at the end of line 23 might be the dedication by
Euphrosyne, after whose name in line 68 of I.G., II2, 1517, only the letter phi is
preserved. Moreover, my restoration of line 23 in the new text leaves ten spaces available
after vaa'pXoo-tv, and if we allot the first space to the punctuation sign (:)
Ev&fpoo-vSv-q exactly fills the gap before [4]ta)iX-. This, however, does not clear up all
the difficulties involved, since we should expect her gift to be in the accusative, but
there is no doubt that the epithet dLo-rarog, both in I.G., 12, 1517, line 69, and as
restored in the new text in line 24, is in the nominative; and whether we retain the
restoration [wpog m"t -otX ] wt printed in the Corpus or restore [EV Kt/&3c] cot as I suggest
above for I.G., 112, 1517, we are left with a gap after 4 [tad?-vy] of either five or eight
letters, which I cannot explain. Moreover, the corresponding gaps -in the new text
would be seven or ten letters in length, and I see no way of accounting for the difference
unless some word was abbreviated by two letters in I.G., II2, 1517, but written
out in full in the new text.
Moreover, the fact that [a'-ra]rog is followed by a sigma on our fragment and
a6o-ra,roa by a lambda in line 69 of I.G., 112, 1517, must be due to some additional
entries in the former, which apparently fill the next three lines; but we regain contact