^{page 153 note 3} For the relation of Thessalonica to Therme see Edson, , Classical Philology, XLII (1947), pp. 100–104Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 1} See for example MAMA, IV, nos. 28 (Seulun) and 257 (Tymandos); VI, no. 259 (Acmonia) ; SEG, VII, nos. 117 (Cotiaeum), 168 (Temenothyrae), 347 (Kunderaz) and 426 (Iconium).

^{page 155 note 2} See Dimitsas, M., ἡ Μακεδονία, Athens (1896)Google Scholar, Index A sub voce.

^{page 155 note 3} The spira of Asiani at Napoca in Dacia (CIL, III, no. 870) admitted natives; line 6 Dizo, line 10 Tzinta, line 13 Eptala, line 18 Tzinto. These are surely Dacian names.

^{page 155 note 4} Poland, F., Geschichte des Griechischen Vereinswesen, Leipzig (1909)Google Scholar, Index IV sub voce (p. 643). I have not attempted a thorough survey of the epigraphical material published since the date of Poland's book. No other examples of associations of Asiani are known to me.

^{page 155 note 5} IGRR, I, no. 787 on pp. 257–58.

^{page 155 note 6} Škorpil, H., “Antike Inschriften aus Bulgarien,” AEMÖst, XVII (1894), no. 107 on p. 212Google Scholar; Denkmäler, Antike in Bulgarien, Schriften der Balkankommision, Antiquarische Abteilung IV, Vienna (1906), no. 186 on cols. 166–67Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 7} CIL, III, no. 870, see above p. 7, n. 4. IG, XIV, no. 2540, from Malaca in Spain, seemingly attests a Σύρων τε κα[ὶ Άσια]νῶν κοινοῦ which honors its patron and [pros]tates. But this is apparently an association of Syrian and Asian (?) merchants. There is no indication of cult.

^{page 156 note 8} See Poland, op.cit., p. 153.

^{page 156 note 9} Professor Nock observes that Wilhelm's restoration hardly motivates the ὅπως clause.

^{page 156 note 10} Collart, P., Philippes: Ville de Macédoine [École françhise d' Athènes, Travaux et mèmoires, Fascicule V], Paris (1937), pp. 455–56Google Scholar and n. 1 on p. 456. See Addenda on p. 204.

^{page 156 note 11} See Quandt, W., De Baccho ab. Alexandri Aetate in Asia Minore culto, Hale (1912)Google Scholar [Dissertationes Philologicae Halenses, vol. XXI, pars 2], passim.

^{page 157 note 12} Poland, op. cit., p. 24: “Doch bleibt das Wort bei seiner Grundbedeutung namentlich für bakchische Vereine in Brauch …”

^{page 157 note 13} For mystai see Poland, op. cit., pp. 36–40. For Bacchic societies in Asia Minor cf. Poland, pp. 198–200 (p. 198 “—so beherrscht offenbar geradezu Dionysos das Vereinsleben Kleinasiens. Freilich muss man beachten, dass es sich in alien diesen Kollegien um Mysten handelt”), and Quandt, op. cit., pp. 241–49.

^{page 157 note 14} Heraclea — Perinthus, Thessalonica, Kutlovica — Ferdanovo and Napoca.

^{page 158 note 15} See now E. Gren, Kleinasien und der Ostbalkan in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der römischen Kaiserzeit, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, 1941: 9, pp. xl 172.

^{page 158 note 16} The Asiani very probably appear in a damaged text on a funerary bomos discovered in Salonica during the recent war. See B. Kallipolitis and D. Lazaridis, Άρχαῖαι Έπιγραϕαὶ θɛσσαλονίκης [Γεν. Διοίκησις Μακεδονίας Διεύθυνσις Ὶστορ. Μνημείων καὶ Άρχαιολογίας] Thessaloniki (1946), no. 10 on pp. 38–9, where at the beginning of line 2 I read ] Άσια[ν]ῶν.

^{page 158 note 1} Topographie de Thessalonique, Paris (1913), pp. 160–65Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 2} Tafrali, op. cit, pp. 149–55. His argument based on the stamped bricks used in common for the construction of the church and of the Theodosian city wall is decisive.

^{page 158 note 3} In the last days of 1944 I was again in Salonica and again visited the “Eski Cuma.” A portion of the open area southwest of the church has been filled in directly over the former location of the altar, which is therefore presumably no longer accessible.

^{page 160 note 4} Duchesne, , Mémoire sur une mission au Mont Athos [Bibliothèque des écoles francaises d' Athènes et de Rome], Paris (1876), no. 6 on pp. 16 ffGoogle Scholar. (M. Dimitsas, ἡ Μακεδονία Athens [1896], no. 379 on p. 439; all inscriptions reprinted by Dimitsas will hereafter be cited in the following manner: [D. 379 (439)]), — an honorary bomos found at the Golden (or Vardar) Gate, the entrance of the Via Egnatia into Thessalonica from the west (see below p. 198 ff.), in which the tribe Dionysias honors the local magnate Claudius Meno, a prominent personage during the age of the Severi (see below p. 194 ff.). In a companion altar found at the same place (Duchesne, op. cit., no. 5 on p. 16 [D. 378 (438)]) the same individual is honored by the ϕυλἠ Άντιγονίς. The creation of the tribe Antigonis must of course be dated into the early third century b.c., to the period when Antigonus II gained permanent control of Macedonia (cf. Holleaux, M., Etudes d'épigraphie et d' histoire grecques, III, Paris [1942], p. 248Google Scholar, n. 4). Since an early Hellenistic date is thus certain for one of the tribes of Thessalonica, it follows that the two other known tribes of the city, Dionysias and Asclepias (P. N. Papageorgiou, Άλήθɛια, 7 October 1906, no. 39 on p. 1 [now inv. no. 1776 in the Salonica Museum]; Duchesne, op. cit., no. 4 on p. 16 [D. 377 (438)]), are also early, for the tribal organization of the city of necessity accompanied its synoikismos by Cassander.

^{page 160 note 5} H. Gaebler, Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, III, Die antiken Münzen von Makedonia und Paionia, 2^te Abteilung, Berlin (1935), nos. 1 (p. 117), 9 (p. 119) and 15 (p. 120). Dionysus is apparently absent from the coinage of the city in the Roman period.

^{page 161 note 6} In this series I use the terms “early Hellenistic” for the period from the death of Alexander to the fall of the monarchy (323–168 B.C.), “late Hellenistic” for the period of rule by the Roman Republic (168–32 B.C., and “Roman” for the age of the Empire (32 B.C.–284 A.D.).

^{page 161 note 7} S. Pelekides, Ἀπὸ τὴν πολιτεία καὶ τὴν κοινωνία τῆς ἀρχαίας θεσαλονίκης Παράρτημα τοῦ δευτέρου τόμου τῆς ἐπιστημονικῆς έπετηρίδος τῆς ϕιλοσοϕικῆς σχολῆς 1933, ἐν θεσσαλονίκῃ, 1934 [cited hereafter simply as: Pelekides], no. 1 on p. 25, now inv. no. 860 in the Salonica Museum: ἡ πόλις | Διονύσωι | πολιταρχούνγων | Ἀριστάνδρου τοῦ Ὰριστόνου | Ὰντιμάχου τοῦ Ἀρισγοξένου. This large inscribed base was found built into a Roman wall near the Sarapeum in the western section of the city; it was therefore not in situ. It is on the whole unlikely that so large a base would have been transported any great distance for use as building material, and it seems probable that this dedication was set up originally in the western part of the city.

Pelekides (p. 25 ff.) has used this and a similar dedication (inv. no. 859) as evidence for the existence of politarchs in Thessalonica before the Roman conquest of Macedonia. But his argument, which is based exclusively on letter forms, has no force. The letter forms of inv. no. 859 are quite suitable to the last half of the second or even to the early years of the first century B.C. Inv. no. 860 is a shocking example of stonecutting, actually almost as much a graffito as a true inscription. There is nothing whatever about the letter forms (broken barred alpha) which demands, or even suggests, a date before 167 B.C. From the technical epigraphical point of view, the salient characteristic of this monument is its slovenly workmanship, truly remarkable in an official dedication by the polis. It strongly suggests that the city was not well off, or at least that its morale was so slow that it took no pride in the appearance of such a dedication, and fits best into the unhappy period from the last quarter of the second down into the first century b.c. during which Macedonia had to suffer repeated barbarian invasions as well as the other aspects of Roman misgovernment. These two inscriptions contribute nothing towards solving the problem of the date for the creation of the politarchate in the cities of Macedonia.

^{page 161 note 8} Heuzey, L., Mission archéologique de Macédoine, Paris (1876), vol. I, no. 113 on p. 280Google Scholar [D. 386 (444)].

^{page 161 note 9} Op. cit, no. 59 on p. 43.

^{page 161 note 10} There is no reason to assume that this large bomos had been moved in the period between the visits of Heuzey and Duchesne to Salonica. Heuzey saw the stone together with two other large bomoi (his nos. 114 and 115 [D. 387 (445) and 388 (446)]) and these three stones were also seen together by Duchesne (nos. 59, 63 and 71) plus another (no. 74 [D. 431 (472)]) not published by Heuzey. It is highly improbable that all three of these large bomoi were moved from one house to another. It seems clear that Heuzey and Duchesne refer to the same house. Mordtmann (Ath. Mitt., XVI [1891], p. 366), in a somewhat cryptic parenthesis, states that Duchesne's nos. 59, 71 and 74 were dug up near the Kassandreotic (Kalamari) Gate in 1887. Possibly, therefore, they had been removed from the house and found their way underground some time after Duchesne saw them. But Mordtmann's observations are not always correct; cf. for example, his suggestion (op. cit, p. 368) that Duchesne's inscription no. 62 [D. 408 (461)] had been destroyed; this stone is now inv. no. 1764 in the Salonica Museum.

^{page 162 note 11} Rev. de Philol., XIII (1939), pp. 128–31 and Pl. II at end.

^{page 162 note 12} So Robert, op. cit., pp. 129–30. His arguments are decisive.

^{page 163 note 13} It is possible, as Professor Nock suggests, that Apollonius may have been granted citizenship in Thessalonica.

^{page 163 note 14} Wernerus Baege, De Macedonum Sacris (Diss. Phil. Hal., XXII [1913]), p. 91.

^{page 163 note 15} Loc. cit., pp. 130–31.

^{page 163 note 16} So Baege, loc. cit.: ύδροσκοπία igitur sacrum fuit aliquod negotium, quod maxime administravit Apollonius sive aquas indagans ut dei signum lavarent, sive alias agens caeremonias.

^{page 163 note 17} Note that the phrase ύδροσκοπὴσαντα καὶ ίερητεύσαντα is set off by puncts but that there are no puncts within the phrase itself. This definitely supports Baege's view.

^{page 163 note 18} Baege, loc. cit.: mirum quoddam videtur, quod aquarum speculatoris munus cum Baccho coniunctum est. sed ordine verborum adducimur (italics mine), ne quod profanum officium hoc ὑδροσκοπεῖν fuisse arbitremur; sine dubio enim Eutychus et Secunda dixissent ὶερητεύσαντα Διονύσου καὶ ὑδροσκοπήσαντα καὶ ὲτέρας ὐπ., si intellegere voluissent sacerdotiura, qui speculabatur in communi use rimabaturque, ubi aquae laterent, et qui aliis muneribus fungebatur, neque sacerdotis inter profana posuissent officia…. secundo loco (italics mine) Maximus et sacerdotis oficiis fungebatur et alias denique templi servorum partes suscipiebat.

^{page 164 note 19} Very possibly the posts of hydroskopos and priest were held jointly, but the point is that the hydroskopos is listed first, in what is ordinarily the position of distinction.

^{page 164 note 20} Loc. cit. Robert remarks, “Le titre ὑδροσκοπήσας ne revient, je crois, que dans une autre inscription, qui est précisément de la même région,” and then discusses the epitaph of Apollonius. In view of Robert's unrivalled knowledge of epigraphic evidence, this is as near an absolute negative so far as regions outside Macedonia are concerned as can, in the nature of things, be expected.

In late May of 1945 while driving from Larissa to Salonica I chanced to notice this and another bomos standing in front of the schoolhouse at Stavros. A local resident informed me that the stone had been found before the Balkan Wars by a Turkish landowner in the course of making repairs on a mosque near Stavros.

^{page 164 note 21} Boehm's article “Hydromanteia” in RE, IX, cols. 79 ff. has no reference to Dionysus.

^{page 164 note 22} Plutarch, De Isid. et Osir., 35 [364 F]: Ἀργείοις δὲ βουγενής Διόνυσος έπίκληνέστίν. ἀνεκαλοῦντο δ’ αὐτὸν ὑπὸ σαλπίγγων ἐξ ὔδατος, ἐμβάλλοντες ἐς τὴν ἄβυσσονἄρνα τῷ ΙΙναόχẉ. τὰς δὲ σάλπιγγας ἐν θύρσοις ἀποκρύπτουσιν, ὡς Σωκράτης ἐν τοῖς περι Όσιων εἴρηκεν. The inscription of Rhodes from the reign of Caracalla (Öst. Jahresh., VII [1904], p. 92; whence Quandt, De Baccho etc., p. 204) in which a water-organist is mentioned as “raising” Dionysus (δόντα δὲ αὶ τῷ ὑδραύλῃ τῷἐπεγείροντι [τὸ]ν θεὸν) is hardly pertinent.

^{page 165 note 23} Bursian, CLXXXIX (1921), 3^te Abteilung, p. 29.

^{page 165 note 24} Omont, “Inscriptions grecques de Salonique recueilles au xviii^e siècle par J.-B. Germain,” Rev. Arch, Third Series, XXIV (January–June, 1894), pp. 196–214; no. 23 on p. 209 [D. 729 (595)].

^{page 165 note 25} Duchesne, op. cit., no. 44 on p. 34 [D. 396 (449)].

^{page 166 note 26} P. Perdrizet, Cultes et Mythes du Pangée, Annales de l'Est, 24^e Année — Fasc. I, Paris and Nancy (1910), p. 87, n. 4.

^{page 166 note 27} In op. cit., p. 88, n. 1 Perdrizet gives the text (without line divisions) of the right side of the stone through line 8 and the complete text of the left side.

^{page 166 note 28} Die Ἱέρεια—θύσα— Inschrift von Saloniki, herausgegeben von Petros N. Papageorgiu, Triest [actually Salonica], 1901.

^{page 166 note 29} For the circumstances, see Perdrizet, op. cit., p. 87, n. 4. But Papageorgiou had certainly studied the monument at an earlier time since his text of the inscription on the face, as well as most (not all) of the two sides, had already been published in Ἀθηνᾶ XII (1900), p. 87. I have not seen his edition published in the newspaper Νέα Ἡμέρα of Trieste, 30 July 1899, ϕύλλος 1287, or in the Λεξικὸς Ἒρανος, Trieste, 1899, p. 13; cf. Phil. Woch, XXII (1902), col. 660. The important point is that Papageorgiou's text of the face quite certainly owes nothing to his examination of the stone during the short period of time in which it was exposed.

^{page 166 note 30} Picard, Ch. and Avezou, Ch., “Le testament de la prêtresse Thessalonicienne,” BCH, XXXVIII (1914), pp. 38–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 166 note 31} BCH, XXIV (1900), p. 322Google Scholar, B and Cultes et mythes, p. 88, n. 1.

^{page 166 note 32} See above, n. 28.

^{page 166 note 33} BCH, XXIV (1900), p. 322, CGoogle Scholar.

^{page 167 note 34} The position of the bomos in the yard of the Museum — it is placed close to another large bomos — made it impossible to take an adequate photograph of the right side.

^{page 168 note 35} See their discussion. An abrasion on the surface of the stone within the sphere of the omicron undoubtedly caused the earlier editors, who saw the stone under much more difficult circumstances, to read theta.

^{page 168 note 36} See LSJ, sub voce; Jessen in RE, VI, cols. 992–93.

^{page 168 note 37} Papageorgiou, P. N., Ὰθηνᾶ, XII (1900), no. 10 on p. 73Google Scholar, as restored and interpreted by Cameron, A., Harv. Theol. Rev., XXXII (1939), p. 143 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 169 note 38} Bakalakis, G., “Πɛρὶ Ἀλμώπων καὶ Ἀλμωπίας θɛᾶς,” Πρακτικά, XII (1937), pp. 484–88Google Scholar. I have not seen Collart's article, “La vigne de la déesse Almolpienne au Pangée,” Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde [Festband Felix Stähelin], 1943, pp. 9–21.

^{page 169 note 39} See Collart, Philippes, p. 484, n. 5.

^{page 169 note 40} Theophrastus, de Causis Plant., I, 13, 11 (at Dion in Pieria) ; Hist. Plant., VI, 6, 4. (Pangaeum and the Philippi region) ; Herodotus, VIII, 138, 2 (below the eastern slopes of the Bermion range).

^{page 169 note 41} Op. cit., pp. 474–85.

^{page 169 note 42} So Perdrizet, Cultes et mythes, p. 88, n. 1 (“Pour les mots μικρὸς μέϒας se rappeler les reliefs votifs et funéraires, où l'on voit les enfants s'approcher de l' autel avec les grandes personnes”) and Baege, op. cit., p. 91 (“‥ et senex et puer coronam roseam afferentes ‥ ”).

^{page 170 note 43} Our inscription is cited by Dodds (Euripides: Bacchae, Oxford [1944], p. 77) in his commentary on these lines, who, however, attributes it to Philippi.

^{page 170 note 43a} See Addenda on p. 204.

^{page 171 note 44} They adduce only Duchesne, op. cit., no. 46 on p. 36 ff. [D. 398 (452)], reëdited by themselves in Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., XXXII (1912), no. 4 on p. 355, which is beside the point, for the epigram on the right side of the bomos commemorates the deceased also named in the inscription on the face.

^{page 171 note 45} Additional texts are added to sarcophagi, but this is when other bodies, invariably members of the same family, are placed in the sarcophagus. Kallipolitis and Lazaridis (op. cit., nos. 10 and 11 on pp. 17–20 [for complete reference see p. 158, n. 16 above]) have published two third century Greek funerary inscriptions which had been inscribed over earlier Latin epitaphs. But neither of these stones is a bomos.

^{page 171 note 46} Vogliano, A. and Cumont, Fr., “La Grande Iscrizione Bacchica del Metropolitan Museum,” AJA, XXXVII (1933), pp. 215 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 172 note 47} See below, n. 49.

^{page 172 note 48} The parallels adduced by Avezou and Picard (op. cit., p. 44, n. 1; p. 42, n. 3) do not support their argument, for in all these instances the participial phrase follows the name. This can hardly be dismissed as a slight difference (“La seule différence, legère, est que le nom figure en tête de la formule”; p. 44, n. 1).

^{page 172 note 49} Baege, op. cit., p. 93; “ … neque enim aberrabimus a vero existimantes alterius audisse mystas collegii Πρινοϕόρονς, alterius Δροιοϕόρονς. Bacchus enim Πρινοϕόρος appellatus ab ipsis cepit colentibus Πρινοϕόρις hoc cognomen; unde fit ut alterius thiasi ducem et auctorem mysteriorum Δροιοϕόρον vocatum esse putare possimus.” Poland, op. cit., p. 202: “Gelegentlich nimmt Dionysos offenbar auch den Namen seiner nach heiligen Symbolen benannten Gläubigen an; so heisst er in Thessalonike selbst Πρινοϕόρος.” One recalls Dionysus “Mystes” (RE, V, col. 1031).

^{page 173 note 50} Die Ίέρεια θύσα Inschrift, p. 2.

^{page 173 note 51} For Papageorgiou's reading of the text on the face of the altar see above p. 166 and n. 29.

^{page 173 note 52} In the third century inscriptions of the city the iota adscript, to my knowledge, ordinarily appears only in the stock phrase ὰϒαθῆι τύχηι at the heading of honorary dedications.

^{page 174 note 53} Op. cit., p. 41, n. 2: “La transcription Διοσκο[-- de M. Papageorgiou paraît assurée (cf. la copie de Germain, et les traces de lettres aperçues encore par nous). On restituera done: Διοσκο[ρίδον.”

^{page 174 note 54} Papageorgiou, P. N., Phil. Woch, XI (1891), cols. 770–71Google Scholar, line 32 [D. 821 (666)]. The genitive occurs in an unpublished inscription of unknown provenience which in the summer of 1938 was preserved in the Gymnasium at Serres.

^{page 174 note 55} Germain's transcript of this line is very suspect because of his eta-sigma ligature. No ligatures occur in the preserved text on the sides, and a ligature of an eta with a lunate sigma, although attested in Macedonia, is most rare in Thessalonica. This ligature was not seen by the other editors.

^{page 175 note 56} Papageorgiou, Die Ίέρεια θύσα Inschrift, p. 2, asserts that there were four additional lines of text inscribed in the upper portion of the front central panel of the bomos, that is, in the area where the upper portion of the relief has been cut away. If true, this would be decisive evidence that the altar had, as Avezou and Picard argued, been “re-used.” These alleged four lines Papageorgiou held were to be inserted between lines 15 and 16, i.e. between the end of the text on the right side and the beginning of that on the left side. His suggestion is clearly motivated by his realization that a main verb is lacking in lines 16–20. In point of fact, there is not the slightest trace of any letters in the area in question. (Avezou and Picard, op. cit., p. 42, n. 1 remark, “Nous n'en avons rien vu, pour notre part.”) This bomos stood for two centuries or more in the interior of a Turkish mosque. Under these circumstances it is not remarkable that the exposed portion of the relief was cut away.

^{page 175 note 57} G. Bakalakis, Άρχ. ΈΦημ., 1936, ΆρΧαιολογικά χρονικά no. 10 on pp. 17–19. See also the documents from the Philippi region assembled by Collart, op. cit., p. 474, n. 3.

^{page 175 note 58} Cameron, A., Harv. Theol. Rev., XXXII (1939), p. 146Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 59} A striking example is inv. no. 1684 of the Salonica Museum, the dedication to the Pythian Apollo by the Amphictyones and Agonothetai of the fourth Thessalonicean Pythias (252 A.D.), published by Pelekides (pp. 39–48) and L. Robert Éitudes épigraphiques et philologiques, Paris [1938], pp. 53 ff.). Here the interior of the altar has been entirely hollowed out from the left side. It had acted as the receptacle for a spring in the Kallithea (Mevle-Hane) quarter of Salonica.

^{page 176 note 60} It is, I am confident, excluded that this cutting received Euphrosyne's bones or ashes. There is no sign that it was fitted with a lid, which would be essential for such use, and moreover there is no indication at all among the very considerable number of funerary bomoi still extant in Salonica of such a practice. Normal practice was for an osthotheke or similar container to be fitted onto the top of the bomos. See Robert, op. cit., pp. 220–21 and the inscribed ostotheke published by Pelekides, p. 35, n. 4.

^{page 176 note 61} Perdrizet, Cultes et mythes, p. 88, suggested that the two thiasoi were associations of merchants: “Je crois que, comme les dendrophores romains, les dryophores et prinophores de Thessalonique étaient des marchands des bois de charbon. Le commerce de bois a toujours été fort important en Macédoine. Les dryophores vendraient, je suppose, les bois de construction — ξύλα δρύἲνα — et les prinophores, le charbon obtenu avec le chêne vert‥‥”. This view does not, I feel, require discussion.

^{page 176 note 62} See LSJ ss. vv.

^{page 177 note 63} Cf. Theophrastus, Hist. Plant., III, 8, 2: δρνὸς δὴ γένη — ταύτην γὰρ μάλισταδιαιροῦσι.

^{page 177 note 64} Teos is well known as a center of Dionysiac cult (Quandt, De Baccho etc., pp. 152–59). At Acmonia the “holy first thiasos” (τοῦ ὶεροῦ ὰ θ [ιά]σον) of Dionysus Kathegemon is surely connected with state cult (MAMA, VI, no. 239 on p. 89) as are the famous three thiasoi of Magnesia on the Maeander (O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander, Berlin [1900], no. 215 on pp. 139–40). So in the Bosphoran Chersonese (CIG, no. 2099) the title thiasarch (line 11) appears in a context which demands that it be considered a municipal office.

^{page 178 note 65} I am aware that, as has happened in Salonica, ancient marbles can be and have been transported for considerable distances for use in later construction. It is conceivable that our three bomoi were brought to the area of the Eski Cuma from another part of the city. But the probabilities are, I believe, definitely against this and for the following reasons.

(1) Isidore's funerary bomos has been found in a context and in a state of preservation which suggest, though do not prove, that it is in situ or not far from its original position. But the essential point here is that this stone was not used for building purposes but stood embedded in the earth with only its top surface exposed to wear. It shows no signs at all of recutting for use as a building block (see Fig. 2). A stone can of course be moved for purposes of construction and then not used, but it is surely perverse to assume that such is the case unless there be clear and unmistakable indications. It is difficult to believe that the monument was brought from elsewhere, set up with its base at very nearly the Roman level (see above p. 158) and then left standing in isolation.

(2) The epitaph for Apollonius was not used for construction in the church itself but in the foundations of a nearby private house belonging to one of the Sephardic Jewish families of Salonica. Just conceivably the stone might have been taken out of the church in the course of repairs or at the time it was converted into a mosque and so became available, for private construction, but this is surely a desperate argument.

(3) The simplest and most obvious explanation is that this stone and Euphrosyne's bomos were used for building purposes in the house and the Eski Cuma respectively because they were ready to hand. Both these pieces of construction were late, in the case of the Eski Cuma after the conquest of Salonica by the Turks in 1430 (see Tafrali, Topographie, p. 164 — the exposed position of the bomos “à côté d'une colonne, en face de la grande porte, à gauche” can never have been part of the original construction [!] or Byzantine repairs), in that of the house sometime after the settlement of the Spanish Jews in the early sixteenth century.

^{page 178 note 66} It is appropriate here to list the other ancient inscriptions found at the Eski Cuma.

(1) An inscribed sarcophagus: Papageorgiou, Phil. Woch., XXXI (1911)Google Scholar, no. 1 on col. 1205; Avezou and Picard, Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., XXXII (1912), no. 1 on p. 359.

(2) An inscribed fragment: see Avezou and Picard, op. cit., no. 5 on pp. 360–61. The editors daringly suggest that this is a fragment of a decree in honor of a legatus pro praetore.

(3) Fragment of a sarcophagus acting as a flag in the floor of the mosque: Duchesne, op. cit., no. 41 on p. 33 [D. 506 (499)], now in the collection of antiquities in the church of St. George.

(4) Fragment of a sarcophagus: Avezou and Picard, op. cit., no. 2 on p. 359, now in the same collection.

(5) Fragment of a bomos, almost certainly funerary, seen by Germain “à côté de la grande porte, en entrant à la mosquée Eski Juma”: Omont, op. cit., no. 33 on p. 212 [D. 733 (596)]. I observed this fragment lying loose on the edge of the street near the church area.

As may be seen by one who visits the crypt beneath the church of St. Demetrius, ancient marbles were used in the construction of the Byzantine churches of Salonica, and also of course for later repairs. The point here is that of the inscriptions found at or in the immediate vicinity of the Eski Cuma, three have to do with cult, and all three with the same cult, that of Dionysus. It is surely difficult to regard this as fortuitous.

^{page 179 note 67} Felix Beaujour, French consul in Salonica in the late eighteenth century (Tableau du commerce de la Grèce, Paris [1800], vol. I, p. 44) asserted that the “Eski Djumma” was an ancient temple (of Venus Thermaea!). “C'était un parallélogramme parfait qui avait soixante-dix pieds de long sur trente-cinq de large, et qui était soutenu sur les deux côtés par douze colonnes d'ordre ionique [!], de la plus élégante form. Les six colonnes du fronton se trouvent aujourd'hui masquées dans les murs recrépis de la mosquée. Si ce pays appartenait à un peuple policé, on pourrait dépouiller le temple de Venus Therméenne des bâtisses gothiques qui le déparent; et cette carcasse serait alors, après le temple de Thesée, le monument pur le mieux conservé de la Grèce. Mais aujourd'hui on ne peut le voir qu'à travers une enveloppe de plâtre, et j' ai passé trois ans à Salonique, sans soupconner ce que c'était.” But Beaujour's exciting description of the temple of the Thermaean Aphrodite is of the same stuff as his temple of Hercules and “arc de triomphe” on the citadel of Salonica (op. cit., p. 29). See the remarks of Tafrali, op. cit., pp. 160–61. Beaujour seems clearly to have confused the Theodosian basilica with apagan temple.

^{page 179 note 68} So upon the foundations and portions of the ancient walls of the Sarapeion in the western portion of the city (see below pp. 181 ff.) are the remains of a Byzantine superstructure; BCH, XLV (1921), p. 540Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 69} See the discussion by Grégoire and Kugener in the introduction to their edition of the life of St. Porphyry of Gaza (H. Grégoire and M.-A. Kugener, Marc le Diacre: Vie de Porphyre, Évêque de Gaza, Paris [1930], pp. lxiv ff.).

^{page 180 note 70} Himerius (V, 8 [ed. Dübner]) in his speech to the people the Thessalonica given about 361 A.D. (he was on his way to the emperor Julian) can say in his flattering description of the city, ὶερὰ πανταχοῦ. These are presumably pagan temples. But Himerius, himself a pagan in an age when paganism had become a cause, is capable of some exaggeration on such a matter.

^{page 180 note 71} It is significant for the religious development in the city during the last third of the fourth century that St. Porphyry of Gaza was born into a family of the municipal aristocracy of Thessalonica; see Grégoire and Kugener, op. cit, ch. 4 of the Greek text on p. 4. The context shows, or at least strongly implies, that his family was Christian.

^{page 180 note 72} BCH, XXXVII (1913), no. 7 on pp. 97–100Google Scholar; now inv. no. 1784 in the Salonica Museum.

^{page 180 note 73} L. Robert, “Inscription de Thessalonique,” Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales, II (1933–34) [Mélanges Bidez], pp. 795–812 with plates VI and VII facing pp. 795 and 802 respectively.

^{page 180 note 74} AJA, XXXVII (1933), P. 259Google Scholar, n. 2.

^{page 180 note 75} The fact that the cult of Attis is not attested by any inscription so far discovered in Salonica is without any real significance.

^{page 180 note 76} It was first published by Papageorgiou (Άλήθεια, 14 July 1904, inscription no. 2) in an article entitled “θεσσαλονίκης ἀνέκδοτοι ἐπιγραϕαί,” and hence ought to be from Salonica, although Papageorgiou does not indicate the place of discovery. (It may be possible that in transcribing Papageorgiou's article from the unique — and incomplete — files of Άλήθεια in the National Library at Athens I neglected to copy the provenience.) But in an article published in the same newspaper for 19 July 1905, also entitled “Unpublished Inscriptions of Thessaloniki,” Papageorgiou includes, with only very incidental and unclear reference to provenience which can easily be missed, one inscription from Verria (his no. 15; later published by Avezou and Picard, op. cit., no. 12 on pp. 101–02 as from Salonica) and one from Yannitsa (no. 16; now inv. no. 721 in the catalogue of sculptures in the Istanbul Museum [G. Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures, vol. III, Constantinople (1914), no. 959 on p. 172]). It is therefore actually possible, though on the whole very unlikely, that this dedication is from elsewhere in Macedonia. Unless an inscription is known to have been found in Salonica and in a context which shows it was not brought into the city from outside, it is always at best somewhat precarious to use it as evidence for Thessalonica. A collection of the inscriptions of the ancient city must clearly distinguish the stones known certainly to be from Salonica from those of uncertain or unknown provenience. Any other method will inevitably create serious confusion.

^{page 181 note 77} Op. cit., pp. 801–04.

^{page 181 note 78} See Robert, op. cit., p. 803, n. 4.

^{page 181 note 79} See above n. 79 ad init.

^{page 181 note 1} BCH, XLV (1921), [Chronique des fouilles], pp. 540 ff.; Pelekides, p. 4.

^{page 181 note 2} Pelekides, pp. 4–5; cited by Nock, CAH, XII, p. 420, n. 4.

^{page 182 note 3} Pelekides, pp. 5–23; Welles, , AJA, XLII (1938), pp. 249 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 182 note 4} Charilambos I. Makaronas, Mακδονικά(Σύγγραμμα Πɛριοδικὸν τῆς Ἐταιρɛίας Mακɛδονικῶν Σπουδῶν), I (1940) [ Xρονικὰ Ἀρχαιολογικά ], pp. 464–65.

^{page 182 note 5} It is not apparent whether the text of the poem associates it specifically with the cult at Thessalonica or whether it is of a more general nature as, for example, in praise of one or more of the Egyptian gods. If the latter is the case, one may remark that there is no necessary reason to hold that the poem is precisely contemporary with the inscription or that it was composed in Thessalonica; it could then be a local publication of a poem well known in the cult of the Egyptian gods. The father of Nicander of Colophon (Fr. Gr. Hist., Ill A, nos. 271–272, T 2 on p. 85), who seems to have come from a family of poets, was named Damaios. See Jacoby's thorough discussion, Fr. Gr. Hist., Ill a, pp. 230 ff., particularly p. 236.

^{page 184 note 6} Michel, Recueil, no. 1223 on p. 856.

^{page 185 note 7} For οἶκος see Poland, op. cit., p. 459 ff., and particularly his statement on p. 462, “Alle Andeutungen, die wir soeben über die Verwendung der Kulthäuser beigebracht haben, mögen sie nun οἶκοι oder οἰκίαι genannt werden, weisen ihnen ihre Bedeutung als Mittelpunkt der Geselligkeit beim Feste zu.”

^{page 184 note 8} It is curious that his patronymic is not given. There is ample uninscribed space beneath line 18 for his title.

^{page 184 note 9} See above p. 161, n. 7.

^{page 185 note 10} The rendering of F. C. Babbitt in the “Loeb Classical Library,” with slight modifications.

^{page 185 note 11} Cf. the “Epistle to Diognetus” (ed. Blakeney, London [1943]), II, 7: οὐ πολὺμᾶλλον αὐτοὺς (i.e. the pagan gods) χλενάζετε καὶ ὑβρίζετε, τοὺς μὲν λιθίνους καὶ, ὀστρακίνους σέβοντες ἀϕυλάκτους, τοὺς δὲ ἀργυρέους καὶ χρυσοῦς ἐγκλείοντες ταῖς νυξί, καὶ ταῖς ἡμεραῖς ϕύλακας παρακαθιστάντες, ίνα μή κλαπῶσιν Here the implied reference is surely to public cult.

^{page 186 note 12} In view of Plutarch's remark at the beginning of the sentence in which he mentions the hieraphoroi to the effect that Isis is called “first of the Muses at Hermoupolis,” it is at least curious that the priestess honored by the hieraphoroi at Paros is named Mousa.

^{page 186 note 13} Metamorphoses, XI, 17— coetu pastophorum (quod sacrosancti collegii nomen est) ; 27 and 30.

^{page 186 note 14} IG, IX, 2, no. 1107, b. The priest of Sarapis, Kρίτων Kρίτωνος, was a person of considerable local importance as is shown by the fact that he was or became strategos of the League of the Magnesians (IG, IX, 2, no. 1132). That the hypostoloi at Demetrias were an organized group connected with the state cult is proven, not only by their own decree, but also by the dedication IG, IX, 2, no. 1133 wherein the polis Demetrias honors Kriton ἱɛρατɛύσαντα Σαρ[άπιδος]. The hypostoloi were so designated because of their vestments; see IG, XII s, no. 571 from Eretria (third century B.C.) where τὸ κοινὸν τῶν μɛλανηϕόρων καὶ ὑποστόλων crown a priest κατὰ τὴν μαντɛίαν τοῦ θɛοῦ. The god is presumably Sarapis or Osiris.

^{page 187 note 15} It is possible that some of the members of the society were emeriti, that is, that they no longer actively participated as cult officials.

^{page 187 note 16} The συνήθɛια τῶν πορϕυροβάϕων τῆς ὀκτωκαιδɛκάτης (Duchesne, op. cit., no. 83 on p. 52 [D. 439 (476)]; Mendel, Catal. sculpt. C/ple, III [1914], no. 967 on pp. 180–81; cf. L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes [Paris 1937], p. 535, n. 3) seems not to be connected with cult.

^{page 187 note 17} Duchesne, op. cit., no. 84 on p. 52 [D. 440 (476)] as interpreted by Nock, Harv. Theol. Rev., XXIX (1936), p. 57, n. 27. Inscriptions concerning Zeus Hypsistos have been discovered in Salonica during the recent war.

^{page 187 note 18} Kallipolitis and Lazaridis, op. cit., no. 10 on pp. 38–9 [for complete reference see p. 158, n. 16].

^{page 187 note 19} Avezou, and Picard, , BCH, XXXVII (1913), no. 6 on pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar; now inv. no. 1790 in the Salonica Museum. The provenience is not known. It is therefore possible (though not likely) that the base does not originate in Salonica. See above p. 180, n. 76.

^{page 187 note 20} P. N. Papageorgiou, Ἀλήθɛια, 17 October 1906, no. 27 on p. 1 (whence Pelekides, p. 76, n. 5); now inv. no. 1786 in the Salonica Museum.

^{page 188 note 1} This study is strictly limited to Thessalonica, and I have not, except in the introductory sentences, made use of any evidence which is not specifically and unmistakably related to that city. I have not, for example, adduced the two reliefs published by F. Chapouthier in his excellent monograph, Les Dioscures au service d'une déesse, Paris (1935), nos. 5 and 6 on pp. 27–29Google Scholar, for the provenience of these two monuments, given as “Salonica,” is in fact quite uncertain, as Chapouthier acknowledges. They can be from anywhere in central or eastern Macedonia. Until 1881 the place of origin of most of the accessions to the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople was usually indicated only by the name of the chief city of the vilayet in which they were found as, for example, “Brusa” or “Salonica.” See the remarks of G. Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures, vol. I, Constantinople (1912), pp. xiv and xix. I note that the barbarous relief published by Mendel, op. cit., vol. III (1914), no. 914 on p. 129, as from “Salonica,” is also quite clearly “Helen” and the Dioscuri.

^{page 188 note 2} Firmicus Maternus, De er. prof, rel, 11; cited by Duchesne, op. cit., p. 75 and Baege, op. cit., p. 177. Cf. Lactantius, Div. Inst., I, 15, 8, “privatim vero singuli populi gentis aut urbis suae conditores, seu viri fortitudine insignes erant, .… summa veneratione coluerunt, ut .… Macedones Cabirum;” cited by Duchesne, loc. cit., and Baege, p. 175.

^{page 189 note 3} Plutarch, Alexander, 2. The Macedonian lady Antigona of Pella (H. Berve, Das Alexanderrich, vol. II, Munich [1926], no. 86 on p. 42) was captured by the Persian fleet in 333 B.C. while en route to Samothrace from Macedonia presumably to partake in the mysteries; Plutarch, De fort. Alex. II, 7 (339 E). S. Accame has recently published (Riv. di Fil., New Series, XX [1941], pp. 179–93) an incomplete and undated letter of Philip V to the Athenians resident in Hephaistia on Lemnos. The stone was found in the Cabirion, and in his letter the king stresses his interest in the cult of the Anakes. I am not convinced by Accame's attempt to associate the letter with the events attending the outbreak of Philip's second war with Rome; the document can be dated to any period in Philip's reign down to the abolition of the two Macedonian tribes by Athens in 201 B.C.

^{page 189 note 4} There is unpublished epigraphic evidence from Philippi.

^{page 189 note 5} The Dioscuri or their equivalent do appear on the coinage of the city in four issues which are to be dated, according to Gaebler (op. cit., 2^te Abteilung, remarks to no. 17 on p. 120), after 89 B.C. and which bear on their obverse the head of Janus op. cit., nos. 17, 19, 20 and 21). The reverse of the first of these shows the mounted Dioscuri with flying cloaks symmetrically facing outward toward the edge of the coin. The other three issues have a pair of centaurs with streaming cloaks similarly arranged. But the head of Janus on the obverse of these four issues is surely a clear reference to Rome, and the Dioscuri are well known as a Roman coin type in the period after 187 B.C. (H. Mattingly and E. S. Robinson, “The Date of the Roman Denarius,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XVIII [1932], pp. 211–67). Hence these issues can hardly be considered evidence for a state cult of the Samothracian gods at Thessalonica in the late Hellenistic period.

^{page 189 note 6} The date, lines 5–6, is: ὠς Μακɛδόνɛς ἅγουσιν | ἔτους [ά καὶ.] καὶ ῥ in the most recent text published by Robert, L. in Collection Froehner, I. Inscriptions grecques, Paris (1936), no. 44 on pp. 52–53Google Scholar. The date is between the iii th and 191st years of the Macedonian provincial era.

^{page 190 note 7} Duchesne, op. cit., no. 1 on pp. 11–12 [D. 367 (427)]; see also Edson, Macedonica II. “State Cults of Thessalonica,” Harvard Studies, LI (1941), pp. 127–29Google Scholar. Lines 5 to 8 can be restored: ἐπὶ ἱɛρέως καὶ ἀγων[οθέτου·αὐ]|τοκράτορος · Kαίσα[ρος θɛοῦ] | υἰοῦ Σɛβαστο[ῦ Ἀρχɛπόλɛ]ως τοῦ Nɛικοπόλ[ɛως.

^{page 190 note 8} Chapouthier, op. cit., p. 234, n. 4.

^{page 190 note 9} The numismatic references which follow are all to H. Gaebler, Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, III Makedonia und Paionia, 2^te Abteilung, Berlin (1935), pp. 117–31. I have cited the numbers of the coins as given in Gaebler's catalogue. This catalogue, most unforunately, is not complete. Reference to such other numismatic publications as are available to me has not, however, brought to light evidence which modifies the views here expressed as to the importance of the cult of Cabirus in Roman Thessalonica.

^{page 190 note 10} No. 34. On the pseudo-autonomous coinage of the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods, as listed by Gaebler, Demeter appears twice (nos. 26 and 27), Pan twice (nos. 29 and 30); Zeus (no. 25) and Nike (no. 28) once each.

^{page 190 note 11} Nos. 35 to 38.

^{page 190 note 12} No. 41.

^{page 190 note 13} No. 42. But see below p. 191.

^{page 191 note 14} No. 52.

^{page 191 note 15} No. 53.

^{page 191 note 16} No. 54.

^{page 191 note 17} No. 55.

^{page 191 note 18} No. 56.

^{page 191 note 19} No. 66.

^{page 191 note 20} No.63.

^{page 191 note 21} No. 69.

^{page 191 note 22} Nos. 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 68 and 69.

^{page 191 note 23} Nos. 63 and 69.

^{page 191 note 24} Nos. 56 and 66.

^{page 191 note 25} For the Pythian Games of Thessalonica see Pelekides, pp. 39–48; L. Robert, Études épigraphiques et philologiques, Paris (1938), pp. 53–62. See also Gaebler, op. cit, remarks to nos. 56 and 62 on pp. 127 and 129. Beroea countered in 242 A.D. by naming her games “Olympian.” See below p. 196.

^{page 191 note 26} Gaebler, op. cit., remarks to no. 62 on p. 129.

^{page 192 note 27} Percy H. Webb in vol. V, Part I, no. 204 on p. 228 of Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. A., The Roman Imperial Coinage, London (1927)Google Scholar; see also Nock, CAH, XII, p. 417.

^{page 192 note 28} For Saint Demetrius as the protector of Thessalonica see now A. Vasiliev, “An Edict of the Emperor Justinian II, September, 688,” Speculum, XVIII (1943), pp. 1–13Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 29} This is indeed an object lesson in the dangers of negative inference from chance epigraphic finds on a site which has not been the subject of careful, prolonged and systematic investigation.

^{page 193 note 30} See Edson, op. cit., pp. 135–36. See Addenda on p. 204.

^{page 193 note 31} For ἄγιος see Eduard Williger, Hagios: Untersuchungen zur Terminologie des Heiligen in der Hellenisch-Hellenistischen Religionen [Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, XIX Band, Heft 1], Giessen (1922). The adjective is rare except for deities from the Near East.

^{page 194 note 32} See above p. 160, n. 4.

^{page 194 note 33} P. N. Papageorgiou, Ἀλήθɛια, 23 September 1906, no. 2 on p. 1 (Pelekides, p. 49, n. 1, ε); now inv. no. 1798 in the Salonica Museum. For civic consolation see the remarks of Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev., XXXIII (1940), p. 309Google Scholar. See Addenda on p. 204.

^{page 194 note 34} I saw this stone on 10 June 1938. It was then lying loose inside the courtyard of the same tchiftlik, that of Alexandros Michael Bey at Ayios Mamas. There is no doubt whatever that this is a herm, not a “stèle.” The head is broken off and the right front edge has been cut back removing the ends of the lines of the text which is inscribed just below the cutting for the phallus. H. (max. ext.) 1.51 W. 0.366 Th. 0.29 Top (ext.) of stone to top of first line 0.74 H. of letters decreasing irregularly from 0.02 to 0.016, phi 0.045 Vertical interspace lines 1–2 0.015, lmes 3–4 0.025. The letter forms are conventional. No ligatures.

^{page 194 note 35} Duchesne, loc. cit. See also Baege, De Macedonum Sacris, p. 180 and Edson, , Classical Weekly, XXXII (1939), pp. 174–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 196 note 36} J. Roger, “Inscriptions de la région du Strymon,” Rev. Arch., Sixth Series, XXIV (July–December 1945), no number on pp. 40–42.

^{page 196 note 37} Roger calls the bomos “une grande base funéraire.” Unless there are on the top of the stone the characteristic cuttings for an ostotheke or similar receptacle (such cuttings are not mentioned by Roger), we clearly have to do with an honorary bomos. The funerary formula is not present. Roger has possibly been misled by the adjective γλυκὐτατον which is of course extremely frequent in epitaphs but does occur also in dedications. Compare, for example, line 9 of the dedication honoring the neokoros of Cabirus discussed above, p. 193 ff.

^{page 195 note 38} So Roger, op. cit, p. 42, following Robert.

^{page 195 note 39} The text has been published, very inaccurately, only by K. Papakonstantinou in the Aαϊκὸς Ἀγών, a daily newspaper of Kozani, for 25 February 1934. I saw the stone on 24 June 1937. It acted then as the support of the altar top in the church of Saint Nicolas in Velvendhos. It is a smallish marble base with mouldings top and bottom. The upper right corner has been broken away and the stone has been damaged along the right edge. H. ca. 0.65 W. (max.) 0.56 Th. (max.) ca. 0.42 Top of stone to top of first line 0.175 H. of letters line 1 0.035, lines 2 ff. 0.03, phi 0.05 Vertical interspace 0.01 to 0.015. The letter forms are conventional except that the omicron is diamond-shaped. Ligatures: pi-rho, tau-epsilon, eta-sigma and tau-eta.

^{page 196 note 40} Anzeiger, LVII (1942), no. 9 on p. 176 and Fig. 42; REG, LV (1942) [Bulletin épigraphique], p. 343.

^{page 196 note 41} See, for example, M. Dimitsas, ἡ Mακɛδονία, Athens (1896), no. 60 on p. 70; Orlandos, Ἀρχ. Δɛλτ., II (1916), no. 4 on pp. 148–50; Anzeiger, LVII (1942), no. 23 on p. 183. The most recent discussion of the Macedonian Koinon known to me is that of J. M. R. Cormack, “High Priests and Macedoniarchs from Beroea,” JRS, XXXIII (1943), pp. 39–44. I note Cormack's statement on p. 40: “No infallible criterion can be evolved for distinguishing between άρχιɛρɛὺς τῶν Σɛβαστῶν and simple άρχιɛρɛύς, but, if the context mentions an agonothesia of the Koinon, we may perhaps assume that the high-priesthood is that of the Koinon too.” The “Olympian Games” mentioned in the inscription of Velvendhos are in fact the games of the Koinon. See below.

^{page 196 note 42} πρɛσβυτράρχης does not appear in LSJ.

^{page 196 note 43} Gaebler, op. cit., 1^2te Abteilung, Berlin (1906), p. 13.

^{page 196 note 44} See above p. 191.

^{page 196 note 45} The Sebastophant in the provinces of Asia (OGIS, no. 479, line 6 on p. 83), Bithynia and Pontus (op. cit., no. 528, line 11 on p. 189) and Galatia (op. cit, no. 540, line 10 on p. 213) is of course the flamen Augusti and hence is hardly relevant to the problem of the hierophant in the province of Macedonia.

^{page 197 note 46} Published from a bad copy only in the Ἐθνικός Ὁδηγός, Athens (1920–21), τɛῦχος 4, no number on p. 118. The stone is described as having been inside the narthex of the church of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Braniátes. In October 1936 Mr. J. M. R. Cormack and myself examined this church. Though we did not at the time know of this inscription, we surely would have seen it had it then been in the church. We were informed that an inscribed stone of unspecified nature had recently been removed from the church for use as building material in the village. The surface of the stone, clearly from the arrangement of the text a bomos, obviously had been badly damaged by the time the copy printed in the “National Guide” was made. The text is: οἰ σύνɛδροι | Kλαύδιον Πλω|τɛ⌈ἲνον υ⌉ἱόν | Kλ[αυδίο]υ Mɛ‖νω [νος τοῦ] Mακɛ|δονι[άρχο]υ EK|ΠAIA.…IAN|..ֵIOϒ..…CE|Γ ……. ‖ἐπι [μɛλη]θέν|τος ⌈τῆ⌉ ἀναστᾴ|σɛῳ[ς᾽I] ουλιανοῦ | Mɛνάδρου. I have reproduced the dots in lines 7 to 9 as they are given in the unique publication of this text, but it should be stated that they do not necessarily represent the number of missing letters with accuracy.

^{page 197 note 47} I here intentionally avoid the issue as to the meaning of the title “Macedoniarch.” In view of the very large number of Macedoniarchs now known for the late second and particularly the third centuries I feel it is quite unsound to draw hasty conclusions from such titles as “Asiarch” and “Lyciarch” attested elsewhere, for these terms are themselves still the subject of controversy. An added difficulty is that practically all our knowledge of the officials of the provincial Koinon in Macedonia is drawn from dedicatory altars whose language is ordinarily very far indeed from being precise. My present impression is that the Macedoniarchs were the members of the Synhedrion. In any case the office was elective; cf. Anzeiger, LVII (1942), no. 4 on p. 176: ἐν προβολαῖς | Mακɛδονιαρ|χικαῖς.

^{page 197 note 48} Roger (op. cit, p. 42), following a suggestion by Robert, remarks that the hierophant of the Koinon may have been connected with a provincial cult of Cabirus. The passages of Firmicus and Lactantius cited above (p. 188 and n. 2) probably indicate such a cult, but it is well to recall that Cabirus barely figures on the provincial coinage (Gaebler, op. cit., 1^2te Abteilung, Berlin [1906], p. 16).

^{page 198 note 49} See Duchesne, op. cit, pp. 7–8.

^{page 198 note 50} Heuzey, Leon, Mission archéologique de Macédoine, Paris (1876), vol. I, p. 272Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 51} Tafrali, O., Topographie de Thessalonique, Paris (1913), pp. 102 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 198 note 52} Vol. I, pp. 272–73, and vol. II, Planche 22^bis. Heuzey's plate is reproduced by Tafrali, op. cit., fig. 10 on p. 105.

^{page 198 note 53} The drawings of these reliefs reproduced by Heuzey (Planche 22^bis) hardly support the suggestion that the heads were bearded.

^{page 198 note 54} Newton, C. T., The Collection of the Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part II, Oxford (1883)Google Scholar, no. CLXXI on p. 32 [D. 364 (422)].

^{page 199 note 55} I do not feel that Heuzey's suggestion (op. cit., p. 273) to the effect that the Dioscuri are here to be connected with two emperors, e.g. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, is necessary for the elucidation of this monument.

^{page 199 note 56} See Chapouthier, op. cit., pp. 180–83. One might argue that the appearance of the two Dioscuri on the Roman gateway is incompatible with the conclusion that a single Cabirus was worshipped in the municipal cult at Thessalonica (above pp. 192 and 193–4). Other divinities, the παῖς Kαβɛίρου for example (above p. 194), may well have been associated with the cult, although certainly in a subordinate position. The appearance of the Dioscuri rather than Cabirus on the gateway is, I feel, to be motivated primarily by the nature of the monument. The pilasters on each side of the gate were accessible and appropriate for sculptural decoration and therefore invited complementary reliefs. This observation suffices to explain the appearance of the Dioscuri rather than Cabirus on the gateway.

^{page 199 note 57} So Heuzey, op. cit., p. 272, “… la liste des politarques, ce qui s'explique, si ce n'était qu'une inscription complementaire, destinée à rappeler aux habitants l'année de la construction …”

^{page 200 note 58} See the plan of the gate drawn with measurements by H. Daumet in Heuzey, op. cit., vol. II, Planche 22^bis.

^{page 200 note 59} The view of the older travellers that the great early Byzantine church of Saint George had originally been the temple of Cabirus rests on no evidence whatever. See Tafrali, Topographie, pp. 155 ff.

^{page 201 note 60} So taken by Baege, op. cit, p. 178 and Kern, RE, X, cols. 1415–17. But of course it does not follow that this cult story was limited exclusively to Thessalonica.

^{page 201 note 61} Protrep., II, 16 P; cited by Baege, op. cit., p. 177 and Kern, op. cit., col. 1416. The translation quoted is that of G. W. Butterworth in the “Loeb Classical Library.”

^{page 201 note 62} But I feel that Kern, op. cit., col. 1416, goes much too far in asserting that “der XXXIX orphische Hymnos auf den Kορύβας aus dem Kult von Thessalonike stammt.” If such were the case, the hymn would be addressed to Cabirus rather than Corybas. Arnobius, Adv. nat., V, 19 (cited by Baege, op. cit., pp. 177–8 and Kern, op. cit., col. 1416) refers to a variant of the same story.

^{page 202 note 63} Ziegler, RE, XVIII, col. 1230: “So verlegen denn die meisten und frühesten Zeugnisse die Heimat des O(rpheus) in das als Teil Thrakiens angesehene nordostliche Vorland des Olymp, das alte Pierien, die Heimat der Musen.”

^{page 202 note 64} See E. R. Dodds (Euripides: Bacchae, Oxford 1944, pp. 119–20) in his commentary to lines 409–11, who very rightly emphasizes that the Bacchae was, almost certainly, first performed at Dion in Pieria.

^{page 202 note 65} So Timotheus, Persae, lines 234–36: πρῶτος ποικιλόμουσον Ὀρ|ϕɛὑς χέλυν έτέκνωσɛν, | υἱὸς Kαλλιόπας, Πιɛρίας ἔπι. See also e.g. Strabo, VII, frag. 17; X, 3, 17; Plutarch, Alexander, 14; Arrian, Anab., I, 11, 2 and Palaephatus, XXXIII [Festa, Mythographi Graeci, III, 2, p. 50]. These and the following references are intended to be merely illustrative and make no pretense to completeness. I am aware that Orpheus and aspects of his story, such as his death and his tomb, are also associated with other regions — although by no means to the same extent —, but this is without significance for my present argument.

^{page 202 note 66} Strabo, VII, frag. 18; Conon, XLV in Fr. Gr. Hist., vol. I, No. 26, F 1 (on p. 207) ; Pausanias, IX, 30, 8.

^{page 202 note 67} Damagetus, A. P., VII, 9, lines 1–2: Ὄρϕɛα θρηἲκίῃσι παρὰ προμολῇσιν Ὀλύμπου | τύμβος ἔχɛι…. For the date of Damagetus see now Friedländer, P., AJP, LXIII (1942), pp. 78–82Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 68} Conon, loc. cit.; Pausanias, IX, 30, 7–11; Diogenes Laertius, I, 5.

^{page 202 note 69} To Orphicorum Fragmenta, T. 105 on p. 31.

^{page 203 note 70} Kern does, however, suggest the presence of Orphic elements in the Kabirion at Thebes; loc. cit. and RE, X, col. 1440.

The remark of Himerius (V, 6 [ed. Dübner] = Kern, Orph. Frag., T. 36 on p. 12), in a rhetorical exhibition delivered at Thessalonica, to the effect that Orpheus was carried off from that city to the Thracian mountains is in no sense evidence for “Orphism” at Thessalonica nor for any connection of the Orpheus story with the city, for, Himerius goes on to say, it was the lack of a cultivated audience such as he would have had at Thessalonica which caused him as a second best to create bis “assembly of wild beasts” (θηρίων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). And Himerius had already implied, and not ineptly, at least from the merely geographic point of view, that the citizens of Thessalonica were “true neighbors of Pieria” (τῇ Πιɛρίᾳ γνήσιοι γɛίτονɛς).

^{page 203 note 71} Gelzer, H., Die Genesis der Byzantinischen Themenverfassung, Sächs. Abh., XVIII (1899), Nr. V, pp. 53–64Google Scholar. I owe this reference to the kindness of my colleague, Professor Robert L. Wolff.

^{page 203 note 72} Op. cit., p. 55.

^{page 203 note 73} Op. cit., p. 54: “Der Typus einer solchen Paganisierung des Christentums ist nun vor allem der hl. Demetrios. Er ist gleichsam die Personifikation oder die Fleischwerdung des antiken, griechischen Polisgedankens. Wie Apollon und Herakles fiihrt er den Beinamen Sosipolis.” Cf. also p. 53: “Das ganze Cbristentum der Thessalonikeer besteht nur [sic!] in Demetrioskult.”

^{page 203 note 74} See Gelzer's discussion of the epithets of the Saint, op. cit., pp. 55–62.

^{page 204 note 75} It is to be hoped that some competent scholar will investigate the possibility of iconographic similarity between the representations of Cabirus on the coins of the Roman city (above, pp. 190–91) and those of the Saint in the Byzantine age. It is at least clear that both the pagan god and the Saint (Gelzer, op. cit., pp. 61–2) are ordinarily represented as wearing the chlamys.