of the Greco-Roman Era in certain ancient Sites of Asia Minor. 59 
representatives, to another party named Chresimus. ‘This cession was variously 
termed, €xdoois, ovyxepnois, Tapaywpnors, the first of which words may be 
translated deed of assignment, the second and third meaning perhaps the act which 
such deed made binding by its regular enrolment in the proper office. This act 
differed essentially from the araAAorpiwors, which we find in certain tituli so 
peremptorily forbidden, in that such cession might be effected in the way of sale, 
and saving the rights of the original proprietors, whereas the amaAdorpioors 
was a diversion of the usufruct altogether into another channel, with no regard 
to the will of the testator. 
This proceeding by synchoresis is frequently adverted to not only in the in- 
scriptions of Aphrodisias, but in those of Lycia, which Mr. Fellows has collected, 
viz. from Tlos, Telmessus, and Antiphellus; and appears also at the close of the 
Eumenian titulus which I have already cited from Mr. Arundell’s volume; but 
in none is the legal formality so distinctly specified as in the Aphrodisian in- 
scriptions. These limit the persons who were to exercise the right, and inform 
us that it was to be done by writ (eyypapas) passing through the office of the 
Chreophylakion.* 
These remarks concern the daw of Aphrodisias. I now proceed to offer one 
or two with respect to its municipal institutions. 
What is particularly deserving notice under this head is the office of the 
Stephanephoros, which, without doubt, was mentioned after the word XPEO- 
@®YAAKION, with which the last line but one concludes. The formula is 
easily supplied from another sepulchral titulus copied by me from a marble slab 
which lay exposed to view in a wall of a rectangular enclosure outside the ram- 
part. This I at first took to be the site of the registry office above mentioned ; 
but I changed my opinion after a little reflection, as it certainly was not in the 
* Vid. Arundell, Eumenian inscript. 1. 16, in Visit, etc., p. 879. Discov. in Lycia, p. 333, Tit. 
xlii. 3. 6, p. 348; li. 6, p. 879; cix. 17, p. 391; cxxx. 4, p. 3925 exxxii. 6, p. 3955 cxxxiv. 6, p.396 ; 
exxxv. 4, p. 4215 clxxxiii. 4. The 3:¢rx%i¢ mentioned in the first of the above seems to have ex- 
pressed the provisions of the #d0c:; mentioned in |. 3, or of some other modifying it. 
Between Synchoresis and Parachoresis, there might seem to have existed some difference. The 
first may have been an act either of the founder of the monument, or in conformity to his will; the 
latter not so, and differing from the Apailotridsis solely in this, that it implied a reservation of the 
right, of which the /ess leyal proceeding was wholly an alienation. 
H 2 
