ADDENDA. 349
inscription has been once erased, but twice allowed to stand. In the
erasure the words ®eov 2e/3ao~roC are inserted, which is a rare practice
(not noticed by Cagnat Cours d'Epigr. Laiinc p. 164 f). Similarly in
two inscriptions found at Ephesos, the name of Domitian has been erased
and 0e(3 KaiVapi and OuecnTa.<nav£> inserted BM CCCCXCVIII and
Smyrn. Mows. no. r££'. In these publications no notice is taken of the
erasure; but in the second, which I have copied at Ephesos, the erasure
is distinct and the inserted words are of a different form from the rest of
the inscription, while in the first the beginning' of the name Domitian
is still quite legible. It is quite probable that this custom has been
carried out in other cases, where the publications gave no hint of the real
character; perhaps it may be the proper explanation of the enigmatic
inscription from Sardis published Ath. Mitth. 1881 p. 148, where a
Roman officer, who was legate of a legion under Titus is stated to have
been legate of Cappadocia and Galatia under Vespasian. Now it is not
conceivable that an official who was a simple praetorius and legionary
legate under Titus should have governed the vast and important pro-
vince of Cappadocia and Galatia under Vespasian. Both natural pro-
priety and several examples prove that the combined province was
administered by a cousularis 1. In the Sardian inscription therefore we
must understand that the officer in question, who was appointed legate
of legio IV SeytKica by Titus after 23 July 79, served in Syria where the
legion was stationed for some time (the common period being three years),
then returned to Rome and held the consulship2, and then governed
Cappadocia. Mommsen thinks he was appointed to Cappadocia by
Titus (who died 13 Sept. 81), and that this emperor was mentioned in
the inscription by two different names, once as Titus Vespasianus Caesar,
and once as Titus Caesar 3. But though we may admit the have possibility
of such rapid promotion, the restoration is not probable, (1) because, as
Joh. Schmidt observes, there is not room for the words avroKparopos
Titov, (a) because a longer interval is natural between the legateship of
a legion and the command of a great province like Cappadocia-Galatia.
The original form of the inscription, according to our supposition, was
TTp€a^e]vT[rjv avTOKpd-
ropos AopiiTiavov Kaicrapos
2e/3]ao-ro{5 KaTT^abonCas Ta\a-
Ttals TIovtov intcriStay Avkcl-, &c.
1 C. Antius A. Julius A F. Quadratus probably about 85-9.
governed Cappadocia a,s p?-aetorius (Wad- 2 There is at least one case of a con-
dington Fastes p. 175); but be did not sulship in absence from Rome,
govern the double province ; his govern- 3 The variation of name would be
ment must have been under Domitian, very unusual, but is defensible.
inscription has been once erased, but twice allowed to stand. In the
erasure the words ®eov 2e/3ao~roC are inserted, which is a rare practice
(not noticed by Cagnat Cours d'Epigr. Laiinc p. 164 f). Similarly in
two inscriptions found at Ephesos, the name of Domitian has been erased
and 0e(3 KaiVapi and OuecnTa.<nav£> inserted BM CCCCXCVIII and
Smyrn. Mows. no. r££'. In these publications no notice is taken of the
erasure; but in the second, which I have copied at Ephesos, the erasure
is distinct and the inserted words are of a different form from the rest of
the inscription, while in the first the beginning' of the name Domitian
is still quite legible. It is quite probable that this custom has been
carried out in other cases, where the publications gave no hint of the real
character; perhaps it may be the proper explanation of the enigmatic
inscription from Sardis published Ath. Mitth. 1881 p. 148, where a
Roman officer, who was legate of a legion under Titus is stated to have
been legate of Cappadocia and Galatia under Vespasian. Now it is not
conceivable that an official who was a simple praetorius and legionary
legate under Titus should have governed the vast and important pro-
vince of Cappadocia and Galatia under Vespasian. Both natural pro-
priety and several examples prove that the combined province was
administered by a cousularis 1. In the Sardian inscription therefore we
must understand that the officer in question, who was appointed legate
of legio IV SeytKica by Titus after 23 July 79, served in Syria where the
legion was stationed for some time (the common period being three years),
then returned to Rome and held the consulship2, and then governed
Cappadocia. Mommsen thinks he was appointed to Cappadocia by
Titus (who died 13 Sept. 81), and that this emperor was mentioned in
the inscription by two different names, once as Titus Vespasianus Caesar,
and once as Titus Caesar 3. But though we may admit the have possibility
of such rapid promotion, the restoration is not probable, (1) because, as
Joh. Schmidt observes, there is not room for the words avroKparopos
Titov, (a) because a longer interval is natural between the legateship of
a legion and the command of a great province like Cappadocia-Galatia.
The original form of the inscription, according to our supposition, was
TTp€a^e]vT[rjv avTOKpd-
ropos AopiiTiavov Kaicrapos
2e/3]ao-ro{5 KaTT^abonCas Ta\a-
Ttals TIovtov intcriStay Avkcl-, &c.
1 C. Antius A. Julius A F. Quadratus probably about 85-9.
governed Cappadocia a,s p?-aetorius (Wad- 2 There is at least one case of a con-
dington Fastes p. 175); but be did not sulship in absence from Rome,
govern the double province ; his govern- 3 The variation of name would be
ment must have been under Domitian, very unusual, but is defensible.