12. Dr. Kennepy Baiinm’s Researches amongst the inscribed Monuments 
same series, and was therefore compelled either to dispatch with a comparatively 
slight notice, or wholly to pass over, the inscriptions of other sites which I visited 
in my progress, yet meriting, from the archeological allusions which they contain, 
voted to that purpose, with a precise representation of the characters of the original monument, as 
also with some readings which the transcript of De Peysonnel has but imperfectly preserved. 
The first thirteen lines of this titulus are, with some exceptions, tolerably distinct in the copy 
which he has published, thus giving us some more precise insight than we could otherwise have at- 
tained into the date and purport thereof, as also making us acquainted with certain names, which, 
in consequence of their similarity of termination, I had referred to Trajan. 
It now appears that the titulus dates considerably posterior to the time of Hadrian, or the Antoni- 
nes, to which I felt disposed to refer it, the Christian epoch of the Indiction being mentioned in the 
fifth line, which, as is well-known, commenced with Constantine the Great,* and a distinct notice 
having been preserved of the Emperor Flavius Leo in the mutilated fragment which constitutes the 
nineteenth, 
The name of Patricius® also, one historically connected with that of Leo, has been preserved, in 
conjunction with two others of inferior note,° but with terminations such as very naturally to induce 
a supposition in the mind of any one who viewed the inscription in its present state, that either 
Trajan or Hadrian were mentioned in the seventh and following lines. Nor was this persuasion 
lessened in its force from Sardes’ being designated, as it unquestionably is in the fifth line, as éwice 
Neocore, an appellation essentially heathen, and which led me to think of anything rather than a 
Christian origin or date in the case of this titulus.4 But so it is. The document refers to certain 
public works that had been going on in Sardes under the sanction of the proconsular edict, and 
refers to accusations which had been preferred either to the Proconsul or the Emperor himself against 
certain persons who had been intrusted with their management. 
Beyond this point the notices are exceedingly meager and unsatisfactory. The impression on 
my mind is rather of surprise than the reverse, that De Peysonnel, inspecting it at the time he did, 
when the marble must have been vastly less injured than it is at present, did not turn it to better 
account. So far was that from being the case, that he transmitted his copy to the learned body in 
Paris with which he was in correspondence, expressing at the same time his despair of any useful in- 
formation resulting from his labours. 
I have entered at considerable length into the details of this subject in the appendix of my work 
on the Inscriptions of the Apocalyptic sites,* and have given to the public in as intelligible a form as 
*Viz. A. D. 312. See Petavii, Rationarium, ete. P. I. lib. vi. p. 247. 
> See, amongst other authorities, Evagrii Hist. Eccles. 11, 16.-c. 
Namely, L, Aurelianus, and M. Histrianus, vv. 7, 8. 
‘See Eckhelii Doctr. Num. Vet. yol. iii. p. 117. The true solution of this apparent inconsistency appears to 
have been an attachment to their ancient superstitions yet lingering amongst the higher classes of the Sardians, 
and which the animosities that then prevailed among the Christians could hardly fail of augmenting. 
© Vid. Auctarium, pp. 153, ss. 
