No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
page 89 note 1 A very few illustrations must suffice. ЄΛ(αιος) (p. 63) should be ЄΛ(αία), 
(p. 65) 
, 
(p. 89) 
, and 
(p. 90) 
; 
(p. 52) stands for 
rather than for 
, 
(p. 71) for 
rather than for 
(p. 62) for 
rather than for 
(p. 38) should be 
(cf. p. 62); 
(p. 66) appears in Dunaud's publication (Rev. Bibl. 1933, 248 no. 73Google Scholar) as 
(sic), but the facsimile clearly shows 
, i.e. 
; the reading 
(BCH XIII. 344Google Scholar) gives rise to the entries 
(p. 70) and C 
(p. 100), whereas a glance at the later and better publication of the inscription in question (IG xii(7). 412) shows that we must read 
, the 
having been originally omitted and later inserted above the line.
page 89 note 2 In a letter to myself.