TO NEAPOLIS. 29 
it, yet their commentators have collected a 
number of facts, and allusions to it, which serve 
to supply the loss; and, among these, no one 
has more largely contributed than IFesseling, 
in his Notes upon the Itinerary from Bourdeaux 
to Jerusalem^ He has given an epigram of 
Antipater, descriptive of its condition in the 
age of the Antonines ; by which it appears that 
a temple of Brauronian Diana was then con- 
spicuous among its ruins*. TVesseling also 
proves, from various authorities S but especially 
from Tzetzes upon Lycophron, that Amphipolis 
rose again from the ruined state in which it is 
described by Antipater, and took the name of 
(S) Itinerariuin Hierosolymitanum, p. 604. ap. Vet. RarR. Itiucr. 
ed. ff^esselingii. A7nst. 1735. 
(4) 'Sraufii'>vi xa.) fttyaXiu xitoXicftiiov 'EXX>jirsravr« 
"Hg<«y 'V^Svrii 4>vXX<Sa$ 'Afi(pi»iXi, 
As/Ta rm AiSio'rn; fioav^avi^o; J','^;v/a snou 
Mifitii, xa) Torafiou t' afi^ifjiu^rtrav uoaipt 
Tfj» Se ^oT Aiyti^ais /jLiyaX^v i^tv, ui aXiccv^f 
" Ex Amphipoli, monumento Edonie Phyllidis, ad Strymonem et 
Hellespontuni conditoj nulla vestigia praeter Dianae Braurouidis aedeni 
et aquani, de qu^ pugnatum fuerat, durare : conspici urbem, magnum 
olim Atheniensibus certamen, ab utraque rip&, ut lacerum purpurse 
pannura." 
(5) Catalogus Urb. Vatican, et alter ZiJac. Goar post Codin. p. 404. 
editus, Scholiastesque Ptokmcei CoisUnianus, prietereaque Tzetzes in 
Li/cophron. ver. 416. 
