^{page 8 note 1} Ramsay, , Hist.Comm. on Galatians, p. 136 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} Anderson, in J.H.S., 1910, p. 163 ff. (Zeus Bussurigios).Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} Enumerated by Stähelin, , Gesch. der Kleinas. Galater, p. 109 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} Bell. Gall. VI. 19.

^{page 8 note 5} Inst. I. 55: ‘nec me praeterit Galatarum gentem credere in potestate parentum liberos esse.’

^{page 8 note 6} Berliner Festgaben für Beseler, p. 268, quoted by Mitteis, Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht, p. 24.

^{page 8 note 7} Another Statilius in Perrot, , Expl. de la Gal. I., p. 280Google Scholar. A Diofnetos, Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., 533, 31.

^{page 8 note 8} Examples are collected in Ramsay, , Stud, in E. R. Prov., p. 278Google Scholar; cf.JR.S. II., p. 81.

^{page 9 note 1} Dig. XXIII. 3, 9.

^{page 9 note 2} Dig. XXXII. 11 pr.

^{page 9 note 3} Op. cit., p. 285.

^{page 9 note 4} Bell. Gall. VI. 19. Did the ‘pecuniae … dotis nomine acceptae’ include the peculium, or was Oat peculium a separate item, passed over by Caesar as unimportant?

^{page 9 note 5} Op. cit., p. 266 f.

^{page 9 note 6} Mai, A., Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, X., p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} The theory stated by Ramsay, in H.G.A.M., p. 397Google Scholar, regarding the relation of Anabura to Neapolis would place the inscription, which mentions Anabura, before A.D. 75; but Ramsay has withdrawn this theory in A.B.S.A. IX., p. 250 f. The name Aurelius, as used in the text, points to the third century.

^{page 10 note 2} Was προίξ a general term including φρνη and παρφɛρνα?