^{page 104 note 1} We may perhaps compare the practice observed by members of sacerdotal families in tracing their origin as well as the titles of their priesthood to the god whose priests they were. Thus we read in C.I.G. 1353: (cf. 1340, 1349, 1355, 1373, 1374, and Le Bas, , Voyage Arch., ii. n. 245).Google Scholar Still more precise is the copied inscription of Halicarnassus, C.I.G. 2655, where are mentioned by name, with the duration of their office for a period of 504 years, successive priests of Poseidon, from the date of the monument itself back to Telamon, a supposed son of the god, the seventh in descent, Anthas, being possibly a historical personage.

^{page 106 note 1} See below the remarks on Pl. xxxii. 3, p. 120.

^{page 107 note 1} See Vol. I. of this Journal, p. 231.

^{page 108 note 1} The following, too short or fragmentary to call for notice in the text, may be given here: εὐπο on the base of a small vase (Pl. xxiii. 7); συπο on a fragment of a large goblet (Pl. xxiii. 8); …αȋος Διΐ Νάῳ δῶρον on a square plate of bronze (Pl. xxiv. 1); Διῒ Ναῒῳ on a colander, perhaps used for sacrificial purposes (Pl. xxiv. 2); Διώνᾳ ἐπ on a small goblet (Pl. xxvi. 3); ις Δία on the handle of a vase (Pl. xxvi. 4 and 4 bis); ἀλκε)(?= ἀλκή) on a large ring (Pl. xxvi. 7); &c.

^{page 109 note 1} Pl. xxvii, 1, infra.

^{page 110 note 1} Obviously an error for προστάτα.

^{page 110 note 2} The fact that the Atintanians were an outlying tribe of Epirotes and perhaps hardly regarded as part of Epirus may explain why Kleomachos should have had conferred on him honours naturally accorded to aliens.

^{page 111 note 1} His reading seems to be supported by a comparison of another deed of enfranchisement (Pl. xxxii. 5) which runs, as restored: (sic)… Here again we have a king Alexander whose name is associated with that of a Προστάτας of the Molossians and a γραμματεύς of the σύνεδοι, which, in the genitive case, may well be the missing word after Μενεδάμου in Pl. xxvii. 3; or better, perhaps, we may restore thus:

^{page 115 note 1} This explanation of the words γένοςἐκ γενεâς is suggested to me by Mr. Ridgeway, who compares the gradation in Pl. xxxi.

^{page 117 note 1}

^{page 117 note 2}

^{page 119 note 1} Better Νάου, i.e Ναΐου.

^{page 119 note 2} Egger however(to whom the restoration is due) takes the view that the corresponds exactly to the of Pollux (Onom. viii. 63), a body of judges or ordinary citizens is invited from without to decide in cases where local tribunals were held to be inadequate from excess or business or partiality.

^{page 119 note 3}

^{page 119 note 4} With this reading Carapanos's ‘λυσείτριον, perhaps a local synonym for λύτρον,’ disappears. Rangabé, Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 118Google Scholar) suggests and Πολιτ he says is obviously the beginning of the name of the Prostates. (Comp. Dem. F. L. 394, where the ransom of a hoplite ia given at from three to five minae.)

^{page 120 note 1} Comp. and on an inscription mentioned p. 106, above.

^{page 120 note 2} The form could not come from ναός as Bursian supposes.

^{page 120 note 3} Comp. also pl. xxv. 2 (above, p. 106).

^{page 121 note 1}