DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0463
NOTES ON PART II. 791
and exercised wide influence in N.E. Phrygia, which (as is proved in
Ch. XVII § 3, XII § 10) was not much affected by Chr. influence until
after 300. The memorials of Epitynchanos are connected with two
great religious centres, one at or near Akmonia (where he was high-
priest), the other at the hieroii of the Praipenisseis (situated at Kara-
Agatch-Euren, a little W. of Doghan-Arslan, beside the late Bishopric
Spore JHS 1884 p. 259, 1887 p. 512, Hist. Geogr. p. 145).
4. Zahn in Bcalencykl. f. prat. T/woL, s. v. Avercius, takes the name as
Celtic (quoting the proof from N. k. Z. 1895 p. 871, which I cannot
consult at present). The thought occurred to me many years ago (for
the name occurs in two Latin inscr. of Gaul); but a high authority,
whom I consulted, pronounced it not to be Celtic. I have therefore
taken it as Italic {Oh. in B. E. p. 440), but welcome the Celtic origin.
5. P. 606. The stone on which no. 495 has been engraved has been
carried to Smyrna to be sold (its origin being concealed) \ A new copy
is published in BCH 1895 p. 554 by M, Fontrier, who does not observe
that the inscr. has been previously published. M. Fontrier generally
confirms MM. Legrand and Chamonard ; but the following differences
occur, in which he is probably right2 (I add my restorations).
Line 2 ]rra piy oOl 3 ]y ? vi/ros (or v\j/6a)
5 nenjopov ay[vvjj.ivoi -nip ? 6 av ?]rap IO Aiwiwov
16 O marked doubtfully in OEAON: this suggests that il
(required for my text) may be correct.
18 }os Kal (confirming M. Henri Weil's reading apxr]y]bs or 717x0-
tktt]os). 20 KXrjCovTaC &>j Kal)aap icpiCXaro
The alteration of text, which I adopted from Dr. Buresch as a desperate
expedient in 12, is now proved to be untenable. In Bev. Univ. Midi 1896
p. 479 M. Weil reads
aw kch Aios ?ypape 6vp.[ov
12 p.rjpov] 7rat(s), GTTOvbfj tov eyeivaro veKTapo[i avrl
av9p](oTTOis.
In 15, M. Weil takes the same view as I do about em (eirei), and ype'a
as imperfect of xpau>; but he alters the reading to xp^e; whereas I regard
Xpea as a false form, imitating the Ionic ea (first sing, imperfect of d\xi).
In 20, he takes ecpeiXaro for eiptAaro, as I do. His restoration of 14-20
has considerable similarity to mine amid differences : but unfortunately
he gives nothing in lines 1-11 and 21 ff.
1 Compare the remarks on p. 366 (with 2 He is probably wrong in 4 TTAC for
note 1). TTAIC.
and exercised wide influence in N.E. Phrygia, which (as is proved in
Ch. XVII § 3, XII § 10) was not much affected by Chr. influence until
after 300. The memorials of Epitynchanos are connected with two
great religious centres, one at or near Akmonia (where he was high-
priest), the other at the hieroii of the Praipenisseis (situated at Kara-
Agatch-Euren, a little W. of Doghan-Arslan, beside the late Bishopric
Spore JHS 1884 p. 259, 1887 p. 512, Hist. Geogr. p. 145).
4. Zahn in Bcalencykl. f. prat. T/woL, s. v. Avercius, takes the name as
Celtic (quoting the proof from N. k. Z. 1895 p. 871, which I cannot
consult at present). The thought occurred to me many years ago (for
the name occurs in two Latin inscr. of Gaul); but a high authority,
whom I consulted, pronounced it not to be Celtic. I have therefore
taken it as Italic {Oh. in B. E. p. 440), but welcome the Celtic origin.
5. P. 606. The stone on which no. 495 has been engraved has been
carried to Smyrna to be sold (its origin being concealed) \ A new copy
is published in BCH 1895 p. 554 by M, Fontrier, who does not observe
that the inscr. has been previously published. M. Fontrier generally
confirms MM. Legrand and Chamonard ; but the following differences
occur, in which he is probably right2 (I add my restorations).
Line 2 ]rra piy oOl 3 ]y ? vi/ros (or v\j/6a)
5 nenjopov ay[vvjj.ivoi -nip ? 6 av ?]rap IO Aiwiwov
16 O marked doubtfully in OEAON: this suggests that il
(required for my text) may be correct.
18 }os Kal (confirming M. Henri Weil's reading apxr]y]bs or 717x0-
tktt]os). 20 KXrjCovTaC &>j Kal)aap icpiCXaro
The alteration of text, which I adopted from Dr. Buresch as a desperate
expedient in 12, is now proved to be untenable. In Bev. Univ. Midi 1896
p. 479 M. Weil reads
aw kch Aios ?ypape 6vp.[ov
12 p.rjpov] 7rat(s), GTTOvbfj tov eyeivaro veKTapo[i avrl
av9p](oTTOis.
In 15, M. Weil takes the same view as I do about em (eirei), and ype'a
as imperfect of xpau>; but he alters the reading to xp^e; whereas I regard
Xpea as a false form, imitating the Ionic ea (first sing, imperfect of d\xi).
In 20, he takes ecpeiXaro for eiptAaro, as I do. His restoration of 14-20
has considerable similarity to mine amid differences : but unfortunately
he gives nothing in lines 1-11 and 21 ff.
1 Compare the remarks on p. 366 (with 2 He is probably wrong in 4 TTAC for
note 1). TTAIC.