68 Dr. Kennepy Batrie’s Researches amongst the inscribed Monuments 
occasioned me no small embarrassment, as may be seen from the note in my 
Varie@ Lectiones on the second. The missing line is as follows, commencing 
with the beginning of the fragment : 
IN =, 92 JRATTOVTOAIAT A ' 
TMATIAEAHAQKENAIOGOEN . . ATK 
ONHT'HSAMHNKAIAYTOSAIOBAT 
TIQNEISTETHNEYSEBEIANTH26GEO 
That is, - — — — wavnyupw — — — — Kal rovTo Suaraypare SedndAwxevat, 
dOev avayKaiov nynTauny Kal adros, amoBAEror Eis Te THY EVTEBELaY THS Oeod 
x. T. A. In this the reader will perceive not only the restoration of the line which 
had, by some mischance attendant on transcription, disappeared, to the great de- 
triment of the construction, but also of a fragment in the commencement, and of 
an improved reading in the third line, that 1s, Suarayjsatt, where before I had 
conjectured dia ra avaOnpara. 
Ibid. page 129, line 5. 
For BovAapxos read BovAapyys, according to the analogy of ’Acvapyns, 
&e. in the note on Bularch. 
Ibid. same page, line 7. 
Professor Béckh* has included this amongst the number of his Philadelphian 
inscriptions, from the transcript made by Sherard,j but has ventured upon ex- 
tremely few restorations. Possibly he regarded the task as hopeless. The only 
observation he makes is, Hutropius fortasse nomen architecti est. The architect 
of what? The church? If so, the conjecture originated most probably in 
Sherard’s vague description of the position of the fragment, viz., Zn muro olim 
cathedralis ecclesie. But it ought to have been added, cum versibus ad per- 
pendiculum positis, for such is the position of the marble, a clear proof that it had 
existed previously to the construction of the edifice, and the extreme improba- 
bility of the abovementioned conjecture. 
* Vol. ii. p. 806, n. 3431. } Cod. p. 69, in Ask. i. 99. 
y 
