An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.-A.D. 337)

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS

Contents

List of Tables......................................................................................xviiList of Figures.....................................................................................xixIntroduction........................................................................................1Part 1. General Matters1 Editorial Sigla...................................................................................272 Paleography, Punctuation, Abbreviations, and Numerals.............................................403 Inscriptions as Archaeological Artifacts..........................................................654 The Onomastics and Prosopography of Greek Names...................................................745 The Onomastics and Prosopography of Roman Names in Greek Inscriptions.............................112Part 2. The Nature of Greek Inscriptions7 The Classification of Greek Inscriptions..........................................................1818 Decrees...........................................................................................2159 Honorific Decrees, Proxeny Decrees, and Honorific Inscriptions....................................22810 Dedications and Ex-votos.........................................................................24611 Funerary Inscriptions............................................................................26012 Manumission Inscriptions.........................................................................289Part 3. Selected Topics13 Magistrates, Other Functionaries, and the Government of the Hellenistic City.....................30314 Roman Administration and Functionaries...........................................................32615 Orthography......................................................................................34616 Epigrams.........................................................................................35817 Currency and Its Commodity Value.................................................................369Appendix: Electronic Tools for Research in Greek Epigraphy..........................................383Abbreviations of Epigraphical and RelatedClassical Publications..............................................................................387Index of Greek Terms................................................................................473Index of Greek Personal Names.......................................................................489Index of Latin Terms................................................................................497Index of Roman Personal Names.......................................................................501General Index.......................................................................................505

Chapter One

Most inscriptions that have survived the ravages of time are damaged, either through accidental breakage, deliberate vandalism, physical wear (in the case of inscriptions reused as paving blocks or doorsills), or exposure to the physical elements, or because they have been broken in the course of being refashioned for reuse as construction materials. Accordingly, the first task of the editor is to estimate the extent of loss and damage and to provide an accurate representation of what has been preserved in an inscription.

It is also the editor's responsibility to introduce word divisions, punctuation, and accentuation. Though accents were never engraved, these should be furnished in minuscule transcriptions according to the classical form, to assist the reader in understanding the forms; for example, according to classical orthography, it is permissible to place a circumflex on an omicron taking the place of an omega or, conversely, to treat an omega as if it were an omicron (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]).

According to Henri Grgoire, accentuation constitutes a minimum of interpretation: "these accents provide exactly the same service as the masoretic pointing did in the corrupt text of the Hebrew Bible.... They immediately evoke the familiar character of words disfigured by itacism or by the permutation of consonants." Moreover, in texts that do not employ an iota adscript (see 15.02), an iota subscript should be added according to the classical form. This may involve putting an iota subscript under a short vowel taking the place of a long vowel (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]).

In 1931, under the auspices of the Union Acadmique Internationale, a conference was held in Leiden in an attempt to secure uniformity of usage in the editing of ancient texts. On this occasion, the editing convention known as "das leydener Klammer System" (the Leiden system) was devised. It has since been widely (but not universally) adopted for the editing of both epigraphical and papyrological texts.

Though the current editorial practice among epigraphists is diverse and no universal set of conventions has yet been adopted, the Leiden system (or some variation thereof) is the most commonly employed system. In the words of Sterling Dow, the purpose of this system is to provide a means "to set forth in print, by use of regular, understood, agreed-upon conventions, which shall be as simple and clear as possible ... a clear and correct representation of original text."

This system introduced some significant changes to the existing editorial sigla. The most dramatic change concerns the use of angular brackets (< >). Prior to 1931, angular brackets meant dele, that is, the excision of letters deemed to be superfluous by the editor; according to the Leiden system, dele is signified by brace brackets, ({ }) (see 1.06). In works after 1932, angular brackets usually mean adde (i.e., the insertion or substitution of letters; see 1.05). In the previous convention, adde was signified by parentheses, or ( ). Whenever there is any doubt as to usage, the editor's commentary should correct any ambiguity.

1.01 The Numbering of Lines and the Vertical Bar (|)

Printings of inscriptions often preserve the individual arrangement of lines, an essential in the case of an editio princeps. In later editions of a published inscription, individual lines are frequently printed continuously, with one line following immediately on the previous line to save space on the printed page. When printed in this fashion, it is necessary to indicate where one line ends and another begins with the use of a single vertical bar (|) to separate individual lines, except where the line number is a multiple of five (i.e., lines 5, 10, 15, etc.), in which case a pair of vertical bars (||) is used. Though it is customary to number every fifth line of the printed epigraphical text, this practice is not universal; some collections number every third or fourth line instead.

The numbering of lines is especially difficult when an inscription is fragmentary or badly mutilated and consequently the exact number of missing lines is not known or when there is uncertainty about whether lines are indeed missing at all. According to the old system, only those lines that were legible were numbered. In the Leiden system, line numbers can also be used as a convenience to refer to an area of the stone in which letters may or may not have been inscribed. Although it is preferable that the total number of lines should correspond to the total number of lines of the original inscription, this is not imperative. The matter is not deemed serious, since the convenience and accuracy of reference is of greater importance.

1.02 Lacunae: Dashes and Dots ([- - -], [...])

Some inscriptions are so fragmentary that it is difficult to estimate the proportions of the original. In such cases, dashes may be employed within square brackets ([- - -]) to indicate a lacuna of uncertain length. The precise number of dashes used is of no significance and does not suggest in any way the number of missing letters. However, the editor may wish to estimate the number of missing letters; for example, [- - - ca. 40 - - -] indicates that approximately forty letters are missing. If it is clear that a proper name once occupied the lacuna, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (so-and-so) can be put within square brackets. Points are used within square brackets ([. . . .]) to indicate individual letters, whether lost or illegible. In this case, the number of dots should always equal the number of lost letters. If a given inscription is written in stoichedon style (see 2.03), the number of missing letters can often be determined with consider- able accuracy by counting the letters in the preceding or following line. If an inscription is not written stoichedon, as is usually the case, it is often only possible to estimate roughly the number of missing letters, in which case dashes should be used. When restoring nonstoichedon inscriptions, it should be borne in mind that words at the end of each line are often divided on the basis of syllables. This is called the principle of syllabification. A restoration that violates this principle (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is less likely to be correct than one that respects it (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII][ [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]] [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]).

1.03 Spaces Left Blank by the Inscriber: Superscript V, Vac., or Vacat

There are numerous examples of stonemasons leaving areas of the stone's surface blank. Often, there are good reasons for these gaps. Sometimes, physical imperfections in the stone (e.g., intrusions of harder or softer stone caused by veins) made it difficult to carve letters. Such areas might be intentionally left uninscribed. This phenomenon is termed vitium lapidis (see, e.g., IG [II.sup.2] 6217). A second type of intentional gap occurs when the stonemason leaves spaces as an aid to the reader (i.e., as a form of punctuation) or to emphasize particular words or phrases.

A small superscript italic v (which stands for vacat, "it is empty") indicates one uninscribed space, equivalent to the module (width) of an average letter. Several blank spaces in a row are indicated by an equivalent number of superscript vs; thus, vvvv indicates that four spaces have been left blank, and vv1 1/2 indicates that one and a half spaces have been left blank. The use of vac or vacat indicates that the remainder of the line has been left uninscribed and cannot, or has not, been measured. Similarly, vacat 10 indicates that the size of a space can be accurately measured, whereas vacat ca. 10 denotes that the size of the space can only be approximated.

The sigla [v] and [vac.]/[vacat] signal the editor's deduction that one space or the remainder of a line was left blank, though the stone does not preserve this information. Similarly, v indicates that insufficient surface is intact to permit the editor to determine the presence of a single uninscribed space with certainty.

1.04 Doubtful Readings: Subscript Dots ([alpha], , etc.)

Partially preserved or indistinct letters may hold the key to the meaning of an entire inscription. Since most inscriptions have suffered damage through the ages, especially at the edges of the stone, such letters are very common. In view of their importance to the restoration process, it is critical that the editor be in firm control of the conventions for depicting such letters.

In the older corpora, as well as in some modern majuscule texts, partially preserved letters are often represented as incomplete, or as so-called broken capitals. For instance, a broken epsilon and alpha might be indicated by the single strokes [??] and /, respectively. If a letter is indistinct but its identity is unquestionable, its shape has sometimes been written as a series of closely spaced dots. When an inscription has become so worn and indistinct that the presence or shape of inscribed letters is uncertain, this has been conveyed by shading the entire area. These conventions were followed for the Attic inscriptions of Inscriptiones Graecae.

Gradually, these conventions were replaced by the use of dotted letters ([alpha], , etc.), a practice borrowed from papyrology, where it was well established as early as 1898, in the first volume of the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Kendrick Pritchett has documented the gradual and fluctuating adoption of dotted letters in the field of epigraphy. Throughout this transitional period, the use of dotted letters in the field of epigraphy was a matter of personal preference, not standard, generally accepted editorial policy. Dotted letters were used to represent sometimes partially preserved letters and sometimes indistinct letters.

At the 1932 Leiden conference, a deliberate step was taken to secure uniformity in the use of dotted letters. They were only to be used to indicate a "doubtful letter," that is, "a letter so imperfect that, without context, it can be read in more than one way." According to this convention, a subscript dot should not be placed under any letter of which, though imperfectly preserved, sufficient traces remain to identify the letter with certainty when read in isolation.

In the Leiden system, a subscript dot indicates that the identity of the letter is uncertain because either part of it is missing (previously indicated by broken type) or a letter is indistinct (previously indicated by writing letters as a series of dots or by shaded areas). Letters with missing parts or indistinct letters should not be dotted if the identity of a letter is undisputed, nor should they be dotted simply because the editor finds the meaning of the letter baffling when read in context. This latter issue arises when an editor anticipates the task of restoration before completing the prior task of carefully documenting what has been preserved on the stone.

The editor must ask whether a given letter can be read accurately in isolation. In other words, context must not be used to decide whether a letter should be dotted. According to Giancarlo Susini, the interpretation of a text must begin with "a proper evaluation of the actual letter in its graphic aspect, and of the way it came to be where it is, before considering what phonetic value it was meant to have." It is not the first responsibility of the editor to decide which readings are decisive based on a contextual reading.

It hardly needs to be said that caution must be exercised in interpreting dotted letters appearing in texts published prior to 1932. However, care is also required in publications after 1932. For example, even J. J. Hondius, who professed to adopt the Leiden system, used context to determine whether a letter should be dotted.

No letter appearing in brackets should ever have a subscript dot unless (1) it is a doubtful letter occurring in an erasure (indicated by double square brackets, e.g., [??]; see 1.08 or (2) an editor is working from an old printed edition of a lost inscription and changes one of the letters of the old edition to a different letter.

1.05 Additions and Substitutions by the Editor: The Use of Angular Brackets (< >)

The use of angular brackets (< >) according to the Leiden convention is somewhat ambiguous, since they are used in three different ways. However, since the specific use of these brackets is generally expanded on in the lemma, ambiguity is rarely a real problem. Angular brackets indicate additions or substitutions by the editor or letters left incomplete by the editor.

Sometimes an editor will insert into the text letters that he or she considers to have been erroneously omitted by the inscriber. Such editorial additions are designated by enclosing them in angular brackets (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). If the editor is working without the aid of a squeeze or photograph of the inscription, there may be a reasonable degree of doubt as to whether the original engraver or modern transcriber of the text is at fault. This problem is irresolvable in cases in which the stone itself has been lost or damaged in this intervening period.

1.05.2 Substitutions by the Editor

Angular brackets are also used to substitute the correct letters in place of letters deemed by the editor to have been erroneously inscribed. Whenever such substitutions are made, the lemma should always provide the actual reading of the stone.

Due caution should be exercised in this use of angular brackets. The editor should only correct that which the engraver would have considered to be an error (see 0.11-13). In other words, angular brackets should not be used for editorial corrections. The grammar, orthography, and morphology of the inscriptions should always be respected. The interchange of vowels (e.g., E for AI) and consonants (e.g., B for [??]) that attests to the pronunciation of the time should not be corrected (see 15.02-06), nor should such forms as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (for -[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ) or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (for -[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Similarly, the following phenomena should not be corrected:

itacism (see 15.04) haplography of double letters in a single word (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) dittography of single letters in a single word (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) parasitic iota erroneous crasis (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])

The exposition of such forms with reference to classical form should be confined to the lemma or commentary. It must be admitted that there is editorial inconsistency in this regard, not only in older editions, but in recent works as well. Therefore, the epigraphist should be prepared to reedit an inscription to bring it into conformity with modern standards.

1.05.3 Letters Left Incomplete by the Engraver

Occasionally, when a mason changed from one chisel to another, he might inadvertently leave part of a letter uncut (e.g., [??] engraved for an A or [??], II for H or [??]). Such corrected letters should be enclosed in angular brackets if the stonemason's intent is clear and should be printed with a subscript dot if the intent is not clear.

1.06 Suppressions by the Editor: Brace Brackets ({ })

Every so often, a stonemason will accidentally engrave twice in succession a group of letters or even entire words. Such errors can be suppressed by the editor with the use of brace brackets (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). In older corpora (e.g., CIG, SIG, LSS, DGE, LSAM), this was indicated by angular brackets (< >).

1.07 Resolutions of Abbreviations and Ligatures: Parentheses ( )

When an engraver intentionally abbreviates a word by omission of letters or with a ligature (see 2.06.2), the editor may wish to expand the form to the complete word. The letters used in such expansions should be enclosed in parentheses, as in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Parentheses may also be employed to decipher currency signs for drachmae and denarii: e.g., ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) [x.sup.'] for < [x.sup.'; ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) [x.sup.'] for * [x.sup.'].

1.08 Rasures: Double Square Brackets ([??])

Double square brackets indicate letters that were deliberately erased in antiquity but whose existence can still be positively read. Dashes are used within such brackets if the individual letters cannot be read ([??] - - - [??]), and subscript dots are used when letters can be partially read ([??]).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.-A.D. 337)by B. H. McLean Copyright © 2002 by University of Michigan . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.