36 Dr. Kennepy Batuiz’s Researches amongst the inscribed Monuments 
Meandrum, and which I subsequently corrected on a second visit to the portal. 
It will be seen by those, who may deem the matter of sufficient moment to inquire 
into, that my copy contains ¢en lines, including the fractured ones, whilst those 
published by Mr. Fellows, and, I believe also, by Professor Bockh, number one 
less. But, from the precautions which I adopted whilst on the spot, I hardly 
think that I can have committed any oversight, notwithstanding the perplexing 
fracture which ran through the tablet, in the due disposition of the lines. 
Of the concluding one but two or three letters were discernible, of which I 
have formed KATESKEYASEN. But this, for all the light which the titulus 
in its present state supplies, might have been KATESTHZEN, or ANE- 
=TH2EN, as in the seventeenth of the Aphrodisian inscriptions published by 
Mr. Fellows, which forms also part of my collection. 
There are several allusions in this titulus which are calculated to excite our 
interest. The words SQTHPIA, TIMH, NIKH, AIAMONH, recall forci- 
bly to our minds the events of the reign of the son of Constantine. His perilous 
conflicts with the second Sapor, the fall of Magnentius, his triumph over the 
Sarmatians, the exploits of Julian in Gaul, when as yet not more than two years 
invested with the purple, pass in review before the reader of history. Civil war 
and the aggressions of foreign enemies afforded ample materials for a votive in-. 
scription much more diffuse than that which we owe to the loyalty of Monaxius, 
nor was the last campaign of Constantius against his most formidable antagonist 
of so triumphant a character as to render the prayer the gratuitous effusion of 4 
mere courtier. 
The fourth line of this inscription gives Constantius, at least in my copy, the 
title AYTOKPATOQP. This is quite in accordance with numismatic language, 
in which this title, and its Latin equivalent IMPERATOR, are of constant re- 
currence. But it is proper to remark that Mr. Fellows’ copy gives, instead of 
this, AHTHTOY (rather AHTTHTOY) to which the fifth line of my copy 
has been subjoined. From this latter circumstance has arisen the difference in 
the number of the lines, to which I have already adverted. 
That AYTOKPATOPOS existed in the inscription I am quite confident, 
but by no means equally so, that it was succeeded by the epithet which Mr. 
Fellows, and, I believe, Professor Béckh, would substitute in its place. I could 
