Page:Thucydides, translated into English Vol 1.djvu/27

 INSCRIPTIONS XXlll (Thuc. ii. 13) ; but Kirchhoff, having a more accurate delineation of the text, reconstructs the inscription in an entirely different manner {(.o{r-q(Tav) while retaining the reference to the statue ^ One more warning against such divination may be added. From the fragment C. I. A. 51, when first dis- covered, it was inferred by Kirchhoff, (a) that it recorded a remission of the tribute (with the exception of the quota of one-sixtieth paid to the Goddess) made to some subject city ; {b) that it dated from some year during the Peace of Nicias; the latter conclusion being based on the words on avvSuiroXefjirja-av To/ATrdXc/xov, an expression which was thought to imply that the war in question was concluded at the time. But six more fragments of the same inscription have since been discovered (C. I. A. Suppl. i. 51). It was then found to relate to the city of Neapolis in Thrace, and consists of two parts, the earlier dating from the archonship of Glaucippus, 410 ; and Kirchhoff is compelled to adopt a much more elaborate explanation of the words relating to the 'first- fruits paid to the Virgin,' which he refers not to Athene Polias, but to the local worship of Neapolis, and supposes to have been deducted from the Athenian tribute. But this explanation is only an hypothesis. All that can be said about the recently found fragments is that they do not confirm the old theory which Kirchhoff gave up, and that they contain no resemblance to the words in which the Methonaeans are excused from the payment of their tribute with the exception of the quota (C. I. A. 40). Such conjectural interpretations should be guarded with the formula, ' subject to any future discoveries.' On the other hand, it may be objected that, if we carry our caution very far, and hesitate in attaching some frag- ment of an inscription to the narrative of an ancient writer, it becomes useless to us, and can be brought into no rela- ' New fragments of C. I. A. 298 ; 299 rt (vol. iv. Suppl. iii.), show that Kirchhoff rightly referred another inscription, 298, 299, to the famous ' gold and ivory ' statue.
 * ^H