^{page 253 note 2} In these remarks there are many statements with which I do not agree. Thus, I am more inclined to date the refounding of Pisidian Antioch as a Roman colonia to 27 than to 25 B.C., and I am far from convinced that the Jewish synagogue was destroyed by the fanaticism of the fourth century A.D., and a Christian church built on its site (p. 173). Jewish territory was taboo to the Christians; cf. A.J.A. xxviii, 1924, 443Google Scholar. The Byzantine church is later than the fourth century (p. 176). Sir William objects to any ‘damage … by an earthquake,’ and to the idea of ‘actual blows with a pick, intended to spoil the surface’ (p. 175). The surface of two blocks preserved from the pedestals on which the Res Gestae were carved had in my opinion been chipped off by some instrument; no such thorough surface damage could have been done by their fall or by débris piling upon them. On p. 175, n. 1, the idea is given that the ancient aqueduct still conveys water and that ‘near the city the conduit is on the top of arches.’ The acqueduct is now in ruins. The temple on the Augusta Platea which is said to be late Hellenistic (p. 201) is Roman.

^{page 253 note 3} These references are to J.R.S. xiv.

^{page 253 note 4} J.R.S. ii, 103, no. 37.

^{page 255 note 1} On p. 181, ‘1915’ is an obvious misprint for ‘1925.’

^{page 255 note 2} This inscription is also discussed by Harrer, G. A. in A.J.A. xxix, 429 ff.Google Scholar; by Stout, S. E. in Cl. Phil. xxi, 43–51Google Scholar; and by R. Cagnat in Comptes rendus de l'Acad. des Ins. et B.L. 1925, 227–237.

^{page 256 note 1} Fig. 25 reproduces a sketch made by Miss A. M. Ramsay (who had no opportunity of seeing the stone or the photograph) from rough notes supplied by Sir William Ramsay. Its object was to give a general idea of the appearance of the monument.— Ed.

^{page 256 note 2} I wrote to Sir William Ramsay twice for a copy of this inscribed fragment, but received no answer.

^{page 257 note 1} J.R.S. vi, 134.

^{page 257 note 2} Cl. Rev. xxxiii (1919), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 257 note 3} Klebs, , Prosopographia Imp. Rom. i, 289, nos. 258, 259Google Scholar.

^{page 257 note 4} J.R.S. iii, 309.

^{page 257 note 5} Cf. Dessau, Ins. Sel. 5840; Prosopographia Imp. Rom. s.v.; Liebenam, Fasti Consulares, p. 17.

^{page 257 note 6} Cf. Pauly-Wissowa s.v.; C.I.L. iii, 250.

^{page 257 note 7} Cf. Liebenam, Die Legaten in den röm Provinzen, p. 173; Dessau, Ins. Sel. 1017; Stech, Senatores Romani qui fuerint inde a Vespasiano usque ad Traiani exitum, p. 32, n. 205; Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. iv, 447Google Scholar. I cannot agree with Stout, Cl. Phil. xxi, 50, that it is certain that Sospes' administration cannot be placed just after 90 A.D. He may have held the governorship a very short time.

^{page 257 note 8} L'Empereur Domitien, p. 357.

^{page 258 note 1} It seems necessary to print the above details in full, since unfortunately the photograph of a squeeze sent by Prof. Robinson cannot be reproduced satisfactorily. Sir William Ramsay's publication, however, was not intended to show the precise relative position of the letters. He gave a reading, and not a facsimile or other illustration, of the inscription. The lines end evenly on the right, except for the last.—Ed.

^{page 259 note 1} Papers Amer. School at Athens ii, no. 103.

^{page 259 note 2} ibid. iii, 221, no 358.

^{page 261 note 1} J.R.S. ii, 91, no. 13, a reference not cited by Ramsay. In this article Calder published an inscription consisting of an elegiac couplet (p. 97, no. 25b), but his transcript of the second line, where he reads Άλεξάδρψ, is incorrect, as my squeeze (fig. 108) shows. Sterrett's copy (Papers Amer. School at Athens, ii, p. 157, no. 143), is fairly accurate except for the error of E between ΤϒΝ and Βω and the omission of the ligatures in l. 5. The stone is 0·45 m. high, 0·24 m. wide. Letters 0·02 high.