The historical records become more numerous from the time of the Kushan king Kaṇishka or Kāṇishka, who began to reign in 58B.C., and founded the so-called Vikrama era, the great historical era of Northern India, beginning in that year.27For the period of him and his immediate successors, Vāsishka, Huvishka and Vāsudēva, we have now between seventy and eighty inscriptions, ranging from 54B.C.toA.D.42, and disclosing a sway which reached at its height from Bengal to Kābul: we are indebted for some of these to the Buddhists, in connexion with whose faith the memory of Kaṇishka was preserved by tradition, but for most of them to the Jains, who seem to have been at that time the more numerous sect in the central part of his dominions.
The dynasty of Kaṇishka was succeeded by another foreign ruler, Gondophernēs, popularly known as Gondophares, whose coins indicate that, in addition to a large part of north-western India and Sind, his dominions included Kābul, Kandahār, and Sēistān. This king is well known to Christian tradition, in connexion with the mission of St Thomas the Apostle to the East. And the tradition is substantially supported by an inscription from Takht-i-Bahaī in the Yūsufzai country on the north-west frontier, which, like some of his coins, mentions him as Guduphara or Gunduphara, and proves that he was reigning there inA.D.47.
Gondophernēs was followed by the Kadphisēs kings, belonging to another branch of the Kushan tribe, who perhaps extended their sway farther into India, as far at least as Mathurā (Muttra), and reigned for about three-quarters of a century. For their period, and in fact for the whole time to the rise of the Guptas inA.D.320 we have as yet but scanty help from the inscriptions in respect of the political history of Northern India: we are mostly dependent on the coins, which tend to indicate that that part of India was then broken up into a number of small sovereignties and tribal governments. An inscription, however, from Panjtar in the Yūsufzai territory mentions, without giving his name, a Kushan king whose dominion included that territory inA.D.66. And an inscription ofA.D.242 from Mathurā has been understood to indicate that some descendant of the same stock was then reigning there. The inscriptional records for that period belong chiefly to Southern India.
Meanwhile, however, in the south-west corner of Northern India, namely in Kāṭhiāwār, there arose another foreign king, apparently of Parthian extraction, by name Nahapāna, described in his records, whether by a family name or by a tribal appellation, as a Chhaharāta or Kshaharāta, in whom we have thefounder of the so-called Śaka era, the principal era of Southern India, beginning inA.D.78: in respect of him we learn from thePeriplus of the Erythraean Seathat he was reigning betweenA.D.80 and 89, and from inscriptions that he was still reigning inA.D.120 and 124: at the latter time, his dominions included Nāsik and other territories on the south of the Narbadā; and thePeriplusnames as his capital a town which it calls Minnagar, and which Ptolemy would locate in such a manner as to suggest that it may be identified with the modern Dōhad in the Paňch Mahāls district of Gujarāt, Bombay. Nahapāna was overthrown, and his family was entirely wiped out, soon afterA.D.125, by the great Sātāvahana king Gautamīputra-Śrī-Sātakarṇi, who thereby recovered the territories on the south of the Narbadā. On the north of that river, however, he was followed by a line of kings founded by his viceroy Chashṭana, son of Ghsamotika, to whom Ptolemy, mentioning him as Tiastanēs, assigns Ujjain as his capital: these names, again, show a foreign origin; but, from the time of his son Jayadāman, the descendants of Chashṭana became Hinduized, and mostly bore purely Indian appellations. The coins show that the descendants of Chashṭana ruled till aboutA.D.388, when they were overthrown by the great Gupta dynasty of Northern India. Only a few of their inscriptional records have been discovered: but amongst them a very noteworthy one is the Junāgaḍh (Junagarh) inscription of Chashṭana’s grandson, Rudradāman, bearing a date inA.D.150; it is remarkable as being the earliest known long inscription written entirely in Sanskṛit.
From Southern India we have, at Nāsik, inscriptions of the Sātavāhana king Gautamṕputra-Śrī-Sātakarṇi, mentioned just above, and of his son Vāsisṭhīputra-Śrī-Puḷumāyi, and of another king of that line named Gautamīputra-Śrī-Yajña-Sātakarṇi; and other records of the last-mentioned king come from Kaṇheri near Bombay, and from the Kistna district, Madras, and testify to the wide extent of the dominions of the line to which he belonged. The records of this king carry us on to the opening years of the 3rd century, soon after which time, in those parts at any rate, the power of the Sātavāhana kings came to an end. And we have next, also from Nāsik, an inscription of an Ābhīra king named Īśvarasēna, son of Śivadatta; in this last-mentioned person we probably have the founder of the so-called Kalachuri or Chēdi era, beginning inA.D.248 or 249, which we trace in Western India for some centuries before the time when it was transferred to, or revived in, Central India, and was invested with its later appellation: we trace it notably in the records of a line of kings who called themselves Traikūṭakas, apparently from Trikūṭa as the ancient name of the great mountain Harischandragaḍ in the Western Ghauts, in the Ahmadnagar district.
We can, of course, mention in this account only the most prominent of the inscriptional records. Keeping for the present to Southern India, we have from Banawāsi in the North Kanara district, Bombay, and from Maḷavaḷḷji in the Shimoga district, Mysore, two inscriptions of a king Hārit putra-Sātakarṇi of the Viṇhukaḍḍa-Chuṭu family, reigning at Vaijayantī,i.e.Banawāsi, which disclose the existence there of another branch, apparently known as the Chuṭu family and having its origin at a place named Vishṇugarta, of the great stock to which the Sātavāhana-Sātakarṇis belonged. And another Maḷavaḷḷi inscription, of a king Śiva-Skandavarman, shows that the Sātakarṇis of that locality were followed by a line of kings known as the Kadambas, who left descendants who continued to rule until aboutA.D.650. From the other side of Southern India, an inscription from the stūpa at Jaggayyapēṭa in the Kistna district, Madras, referable to the 3rd centuryA.D., gives us a king Māḍharīputra-Śrī-Vīra-Purushadatta, of the race of Ikshvāku. And some Prākṛit copperplate inscriptions from the same district, referable to the 4th century, disclose a line of Pallava kings at Kāňchī, the modern Conjeeveram near Madras, whose descendants, from aboutA.D.550, are well known from the later records.
Reverting to Northern India, we have from the extreme north-west a few inscriptions dated in the era of 58B.C.which carry us on toA.D.322. The tale is then taken up chiefly by the records of the great Gupta kings of Pāṭaliputra,i.e.Patna, who rose to power inA.D.320, and gradually extended their sway until it assumed dimensions almost commensurate with those of Aśōka and Kaṇishka: the records of this series are somewhat numerous; and a very noteworthy one amongst them is the inscription of Samudragupta, incised at some time aboutA.D.375 on one of the pillars of Aśōka now standing at Allahābād, which gives us a wide insight into the political divisions, with their contemporaneous rulers, of both Northern and Southern India: it is also interesting because it, or another record of the same king at Éraṇ in the Saugar district, Central Provinces, marks the commencement of the habitual use of Sanskṛit for inscriptional purposes. The inscriptions of the Gupta series run on to aboutA.D.530. But the power of the dynasty had by that time become much curtailed, largely owing to an irruption of the Hūṇs under Tōramāṇa and Mihirakula, who established themselves at Siālkōṭ, the ancient Śākala, in the Punjab. We have inscriptional records of these two persons, not only from Kura in the Salt Range, not very far from Siālkōṭ, but also from Éraṇ and from Gwālior. And next after these we have inscriptions from Mandasōr in Mālwā, notably on two great monolith pillars of victory, of a king Vishṇuvardhana-Yaśōdharman, which show that he overthrew Mihirakula shortly beforeA.D.532, and, describing him as subjugating territories to which not even the Guptas and the Hūṇs had been able to penetrate, indicate that he in his turn established for a while another great paramount sovereignty in Northern India.
We have thus brought our survey of the inscriptions of India down to the 6th centuryA.D.There then arose various dynasties in different parts of the country: in Northern India, in Kāṭhiāwār, the Maitrakas of Valabhī; at Kanauj, the Maukharis, who, after no great lapse of time, were followed by the line to which belonged the great Harshavardhana, “the warlike lord (as the southern records style him) of all the region of the north;” and, in Behār, another line of Guptas, usually known as the Guptas of Magadha: in Southern India, the Chalukyas, who, holding aboutA.D.625 the whole northern part of Southern India from sea to sea, then split up into two branches, the Western Chalukyas of Bādāmi in the Bijāpūr district, Bombay, and the Eastern Chalukyas of Veṅgī in the Godāvarī district, Madras; and, below them, the successors of the original Pallavas of Kāñchī (Conjeeveram). These all had their time, and passed away. And they and their successors have left us so great a wealth of inscriptional records that no further detailed account can be attempted within the limits available here. We must pass on to a few brief remarks about the language of the records and the characters in which they were written.
The inscriptions of Aśōka present two alphabets, which differ radically and widely: one of them is known as the Brāhmī; the other, as the Kharōshṭhī or Kharōshṭrī. For the decipherment of the Brāhmī alphabet we are indebted to JamesAlphabets.Prinsep, who determined the value of practically all the letters between 1834 and 1837. The decipherment of the Kharōshṭhī alphabet was a more difficult and a longer task: it was virtually finished, some twenty years later, by the united efforts of C. Masson, Prinsep, C. L. Lassen, H. H. Wilson, E. Norris, Sir A. Cunningham, and John Dowson; but there are still a few points of detail in respect of which finality has not been attained.The Kharōshṭhī script was written from right to left, and is undeniably of Semitic origin; and the theory about it, based on the known fact that the valley of the Indus was a Persian satrapy in the time of Darius (521-485B.C.), is that the Aramaic script was then introduced into that territory, and that the Kharōshṭhī is an adaptation of it. Except in a few intrusive cases, the use of the Kharōshṭhī in India was limited to the valley of the Indus, and to the Punjab as defined on the south by the territory watered by the Biās (Beas) and the Satlaj (Sutlej): and the eastern locality of the meeting of the two alphabets is marked by coins bearing Kharōshṭhī and Brāhmī legends which come from the districts of the Jālandhar (Jullundhur) division, and by two short rock-cut records, each presented in both the alphabets, at Paṭhyār and Kanhiāra in the Kāṇgṛa valley. Outside India, this script was notably current in Afghānistān; and documents written in it have in recent years been found in Chinese Turkestān. In India it continued in use, as far as our present knowledge goes, down toA.D.343.The Brāhmī alphabet, written from left to right, belonged to the remainder of India; but it must also have been current in learned circles even in the territory where popular usage favoured the other script. Various views about its origin have been advanced: amongstthem is the theory that it was derived from the oldest north-Semitic alphabet, which prevailed from Phoenicia to Mesopotamia, and may, it is held, have been introduced into India by traders at some time about 800B.C.It is, however, admitted that the earliest known form of the Brāhmī is a script framed by Brāhmaṇs for writing Sanskṛit. Also, the theory is largely based on a coin from Ēraṇ, in the Saugar district, Central Provinces, presenting a Brāhmī legend running retrograde from right to left; from which it is inferred that that was the original direction of this writing, and that the script eventually assumed the other direction, which alone it has in the inscriptions, after passing, like the Greek, through a stage in which the lines were written in both directions alternately. But we can cite many instances in which ancient die-sinkers were careless, wholly or partially, in the matter of reversing the legends on their dies, with the result that not only syllables frequently, but sometimes entire words, stand in reverse on the coins themselves; moreover, the Ēraṇ coin, being one of the earliest known Indian coins bearing a legend at all, may quite possibly belong to a period before the time when the desirability of working in reverse on the dies presented itself to the Indian die-sinkers. In all the circumstances, the evidence of the Ēraṇ coin cannot be regarded as conclusive; and we require some inscription on stone, or at least some longer record on metal than a brief legend of five syllables, to satisfy us that the Brāhmī writing ever had a direction different from that which it has in the inscriptions. Further, if there is any radical connexion between the Brāhmī and the Semitic alphabet indicated above, so many curious and apparently capricious changes must have been made, in adapting that alphabet, that it would seem more probable that the two scripts were derived from a joint original source. In view of the high state of civilization to which the Hindus had evidently attained even before the time of Chandragupta, the grandfather of Aśōka, it must still be regarded as possible that they were the independent inventors of that which was emphatically their national alphabet. The Brāhmī alphabet is the parent of all the modern Hindu scripts, including on one side the Nāgarī or Dēvanāgarī, and on the other the widely dissimilar rounded forms of the Kanarese, Tamiḻ, Telugu, and other southern alphabets; and the inscriptions enable us to trace clearly the gradual development of all the modern forms.The great classical Indian language, Sanskṛit, is not found in any inscriptional records of the earliest times. It is not, however, to be supposed therefrom that the use and cultivation of Sanskṛit ever lay dormant, and that there was a revivalLanguages.of this language when it did eventually come to be used in the inscriptions; the case simply is that, during the earlier periods, Sanskṛit was not known much, if at all, outside the Brāhmaṇical and other literary and priestly circles, and so was not recognized as a suitable medium for the notifications which were put on record in the inscriptions for the information of the people at large.In Northern India, the inscriptions of the period before 58B.C.present various early Prākṛits,i.e.vernaculars more or less derived from Sanskṛit or brought into a line with it. From 58B.C., however, the influence of Sanskṛit began to manifest itself in the inscriptions, with the result that the records present from that time a language which is conveniently known as the mixed dialect, meaning neither exactly Prākṛit nor exactly Sanskṛit, but Prākṛit with an intermixture of Sanskṛit terminations and some other features; and we have, in fact, from Mathurā (Muttra), a locality which has yielded interesting remains in various directions, a short Brāhmanical inscription of 33B.C.which was written wholly in Sanskṛit. The mixed dialect appears to have been the general one for inscriptional purposes in Northern India until aboutA.D.320. But a remarkable exception is found in the inscription of Rudradāman, dated inA.D.150, at Junāgaḍh in Kāṭhiāwār (mentioned on a preceding page), which is a somewhat lengthy record composed in thoroughly good literary Sanskṛit prose. Also, the extant inscriptions of the descendants of Rudradāman—(but only four of their records, ranging fromA.D.181 to 205, are at present available for study)—are in almost quite correct Sanskṛit; and this suggests that, from his time, the language may have been habitually used for inscriptional purposes in the dominions of his dynasty. That, however, is only a matter of conjecture; and elsewhere pure and good Sanskṛit, without any Prākṛit forms, appears next, and is found in verse as well as in prose, in the two inscriptions from Ēraṇ and Allahābād, referable to the period aboutA.D.340 to 375, of the great Gupta king Samudragupta. From that time onwards, as far as our present knowledge goes, Sanskṛit, with a very rare introduction of Prākṛit or vernacular forms, was practically the only inscriptional language in the northern parts of India. We can, however, cite a record ofA.D.862 from the neighbourhood of Jōdhpur in Rājputānā, the body of which was written in Māhārāshṭrī Prākṛit.In Southern India we have an instance of the mixed dialect in the Nāsik inscription, referable toA.D.257 or 258, of the Ābhīra king Iśvarasēna, son of Śivadatta, which has been mentioned on a preceding page. With the exception, however, of that record and of the few which are mentioned just below, the inscriptional language of Southern India appears to have been generally Prākṛit of one kind or another until aboutA.D.400, or perhaps even somewhat later.Sanskṛitfigures first in one of the records at Nāsik of Ṛishabhadatta (Ushavadāta), son-in-law of the Kshaharāta king Nahapāna, which consequently gives it almost as early an appearance in the south as that which is established for it in the north; but it is confined in this instance to a preamble which recites the previous donations and good works of Ṛishabhadatta; the record passes into Prākṛit for the practical purpose for which it was framed. Sanskṛit figures next, in an almost correct form, in the short inscription of not much later date at Kaṇheri, near Bombay, of the queen (her name is not extant) of Vāsishṭhīputra-Śrī-Śātakarṇi. It next appears in certain formulae, and benedictive and imprecatory verses, which stand at the end of some of the Prākṛit records of the Pallava series referable to the 4th century; but here we have quotations from books, not instances of original composition. We have a Sanskṛit record, obtained in Khāndēsh but probably belonging to some part of Gujarāt, of a king named Rudradāsa, which is perhaps dated inA.D.367. But the next southern inscription in Sanskṛit, of undeniable date, is a record ofA.D.456, belonging to the Vyārā subdivision of the Baroda state in Gujarāt, of the Traikūṭaka king Dahrasēna. The records of the early Kadamba kings of Banawāsi in North Kanara, Bombay, exhibit the use of Sanskṛit from an early period in the 6th century; and records of the Pallava kings show it from perhaps a somewhat earlier time on the other side of India. The records of the Chalukya kings present Sanskṛit fromA.D.578 onwards. And from this latter date the language figures freely in the southern records. But some of the vernaculars, in their older forms, shortly begin to present themselves alongside of it; and, without entirely superseding Sanskṛit even to the latest times, the use of them for inscriptional purposes became rapidly more and more extensive. The vernacular that first makes its appearance is Kanarese, in a record of the Chalukya king Maṅgalēśa, of the periodA.D.597 to 608, at Bādāmi in the Bijāpūr district, Bombay. Tamiḷ appears next, between aboutA.D.610 and 675, in records of the Pallava king Mahēndravarman I. at Vallam in the Chingalpat (Chingleput) district, Madras, and of his great-grandson Paramēśvaravarman I. from Kūram in the same district. Telugu appears certainly inA.D.1011, in a record of the Eastern Chalukya king Vimalāditya; and it is perhaps given to us inA.D.843 or 844 by a record of his ancestor Vishṇuvardhana V.; in the latter case, however, the authenticity of the document is not certain. Malayālam appears aboutA.D.1150, in inscriptions of the rulers of Kēraḷa from the Travancore state. And on the colossal image of Gommaṭēśvara at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, in Mysore, there are two lines of Marāṭhī, notifying for the benefit of pilgrims from the Marāṭhā country the names of the persons who caused the image and the enclosure to be made, which are attributed to the first quarter of the 12th century: this language, however, figures first for certain in a record ofA.D.1207, of the time of the Dēvagiri-Yādava king Siṅghaṇa, from Khāndēsh in the north of Bombay.Bibliography.—The systematic publication of the Indian inscriptions has not gone far. Cunningham inaugurated aCorpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, by giving us in 1877 the first volume of it, dealing with the records of Aśōka; but the only other volume which has been published is vol. iii., by Fleet, dealing with the records of the Gupta series. The other published materials are mostly to be found here and there in theJournalsof the Royal Asiatic Society of London, its Bombay branch, and the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in theReportsof the various Archaeological Surveys, and in theIndian Antiquary, theEpigraphia Indicaand theEpigraphia Carnatica; and much work has still to be done in bringing them together according to the periods and dynasties to which they relate, and in revising some of them in the light of new discoveries and the teachings of later research. The authority on Indian palaeography is Bühler’s work, published in 1896 as part 2 of vol. i of theGrundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde; an English version of it was issued in 1904 as an appendix to theIndian Antiquary, vol. xxxiii.
The inscriptions of Aśōka present two alphabets, which differ radically and widely: one of them is known as the Brāhmī; the other, as the Kharōshṭhī or Kharōshṭrī. For the decipherment of the Brāhmī alphabet we are indebted to JamesAlphabets.Prinsep, who determined the value of practically all the letters between 1834 and 1837. The decipherment of the Kharōshṭhī alphabet was a more difficult and a longer task: it was virtually finished, some twenty years later, by the united efforts of C. Masson, Prinsep, C. L. Lassen, H. H. Wilson, E. Norris, Sir A. Cunningham, and John Dowson; but there are still a few points of detail in respect of which finality has not been attained.
The Kharōshṭhī script was written from right to left, and is undeniably of Semitic origin; and the theory about it, based on the known fact that the valley of the Indus was a Persian satrapy in the time of Darius (521-485B.C.), is that the Aramaic script was then introduced into that territory, and that the Kharōshṭhī is an adaptation of it. Except in a few intrusive cases, the use of the Kharōshṭhī in India was limited to the valley of the Indus, and to the Punjab as defined on the south by the territory watered by the Biās (Beas) and the Satlaj (Sutlej): and the eastern locality of the meeting of the two alphabets is marked by coins bearing Kharōshṭhī and Brāhmī legends which come from the districts of the Jālandhar (Jullundhur) division, and by two short rock-cut records, each presented in both the alphabets, at Paṭhyār and Kanhiāra in the Kāṇgṛa valley. Outside India, this script was notably current in Afghānistān; and documents written in it have in recent years been found in Chinese Turkestān. In India it continued in use, as far as our present knowledge goes, down toA.D.343.
The Brāhmī alphabet, written from left to right, belonged to the remainder of India; but it must also have been current in learned circles even in the territory where popular usage favoured the other script. Various views about its origin have been advanced: amongstthem is the theory that it was derived from the oldest north-Semitic alphabet, which prevailed from Phoenicia to Mesopotamia, and may, it is held, have been introduced into India by traders at some time about 800B.C.It is, however, admitted that the earliest known form of the Brāhmī is a script framed by Brāhmaṇs for writing Sanskṛit. Also, the theory is largely based on a coin from Ēraṇ, in the Saugar district, Central Provinces, presenting a Brāhmī legend running retrograde from right to left; from which it is inferred that that was the original direction of this writing, and that the script eventually assumed the other direction, which alone it has in the inscriptions, after passing, like the Greek, through a stage in which the lines were written in both directions alternately. But we can cite many instances in which ancient die-sinkers were careless, wholly or partially, in the matter of reversing the legends on their dies, with the result that not only syllables frequently, but sometimes entire words, stand in reverse on the coins themselves; moreover, the Ēraṇ coin, being one of the earliest known Indian coins bearing a legend at all, may quite possibly belong to a period before the time when the desirability of working in reverse on the dies presented itself to the Indian die-sinkers. In all the circumstances, the evidence of the Ēraṇ coin cannot be regarded as conclusive; and we require some inscription on stone, or at least some longer record on metal than a brief legend of five syllables, to satisfy us that the Brāhmī writing ever had a direction different from that which it has in the inscriptions. Further, if there is any radical connexion between the Brāhmī and the Semitic alphabet indicated above, so many curious and apparently capricious changes must have been made, in adapting that alphabet, that it would seem more probable that the two scripts were derived from a joint original source. In view of the high state of civilization to which the Hindus had evidently attained even before the time of Chandragupta, the grandfather of Aśōka, it must still be regarded as possible that they were the independent inventors of that which was emphatically their national alphabet. The Brāhmī alphabet is the parent of all the modern Hindu scripts, including on one side the Nāgarī or Dēvanāgarī, and on the other the widely dissimilar rounded forms of the Kanarese, Tamiḻ, Telugu, and other southern alphabets; and the inscriptions enable us to trace clearly the gradual development of all the modern forms.
The great classical Indian language, Sanskṛit, is not found in any inscriptional records of the earliest times. It is not, however, to be supposed therefrom that the use and cultivation of Sanskṛit ever lay dormant, and that there was a revivalLanguages.of this language when it did eventually come to be used in the inscriptions; the case simply is that, during the earlier periods, Sanskṛit was not known much, if at all, outside the Brāhmaṇical and other literary and priestly circles, and so was not recognized as a suitable medium for the notifications which were put on record in the inscriptions for the information of the people at large.
In Northern India, the inscriptions of the period before 58B.C.present various early Prākṛits,i.e.vernaculars more or less derived from Sanskṛit or brought into a line with it. From 58B.C., however, the influence of Sanskṛit began to manifest itself in the inscriptions, with the result that the records present from that time a language which is conveniently known as the mixed dialect, meaning neither exactly Prākṛit nor exactly Sanskṛit, but Prākṛit with an intermixture of Sanskṛit terminations and some other features; and we have, in fact, from Mathurā (Muttra), a locality which has yielded interesting remains in various directions, a short Brāhmanical inscription of 33B.C.which was written wholly in Sanskṛit. The mixed dialect appears to have been the general one for inscriptional purposes in Northern India until aboutA.D.320. But a remarkable exception is found in the inscription of Rudradāman, dated inA.D.150, at Junāgaḍh in Kāṭhiāwār (mentioned on a preceding page), which is a somewhat lengthy record composed in thoroughly good literary Sanskṛit prose. Also, the extant inscriptions of the descendants of Rudradāman—(but only four of their records, ranging fromA.D.181 to 205, are at present available for study)—are in almost quite correct Sanskṛit; and this suggests that, from his time, the language may have been habitually used for inscriptional purposes in the dominions of his dynasty. That, however, is only a matter of conjecture; and elsewhere pure and good Sanskṛit, without any Prākṛit forms, appears next, and is found in verse as well as in prose, in the two inscriptions from Ēraṇ and Allahābād, referable to the period aboutA.D.340 to 375, of the great Gupta king Samudragupta. From that time onwards, as far as our present knowledge goes, Sanskṛit, with a very rare introduction of Prākṛit or vernacular forms, was practically the only inscriptional language in the northern parts of India. We can, however, cite a record ofA.D.862 from the neighbourhood of Jōdhpur in Rājputānā, the body of which was written in Māhārāshṭrī Prākṛit.
In Southern India we have an instance of the mixed dialect in the Nāsik inscription, referable toA.D.257 or 258, of the Ābhīra king Iśvarasēna, son of Śivadatta, which has been mentioned on a preceding page. With the exception, however, of that record and of the few which are mentioned just below, the inscriptional language of Southern India appears to have been generally Prākṛit of one kind or another until aboutA.D.400, or perhaps even somewhat later.Sanskṛitfigures first in one of the records at Nāsik of Ṛishabhadatta (Ushavadāta), son-in-law of the Kshaharāta king Nahapāna, which consequently gives it almost as early an appearance in the south as that which is established for it in the north; but it is confined in this instance to a preamble which recites the previous donations and good works of Ṛishabhadatta; the record passes into Prākṛit for the practical purpose for which it was framed. Sanskṛit figures next, in an almost correct form, in the short inscription of not much later date at Kaṇheri, near Bombay, of the queen (her name is not extant) of Vāsishṭhīputra-Śrī-Śātakarṇi. It next appears in certain formulae, and benedictive and imprecatory verses, which stand at the end of some of the Prākṛit records of the Pallava series referable to the 4th century; but here we have quotations from books, not instances of original composition. We have a Sanskṛit record, obtained in Khāndēsh but probably belonging to some part of Gujarāt, of a king named Rudradāsa, which is perhaps dated inA.D.367. But the next southern inscription in Sanskṛit, of undeniable date, is a record ofA.D.456, belonging to the Vyārā subdivision of the Baroda state in Gujarāt, of the Traikūṭaka king Dahrasēna. The records of the early Kadamba kings of Banawāsi in North Kanara, Bombay, exhibit the use of Sanskṛit from an early period in the 6th century; and records of the Pallava kings show it from perhaps a somewhat earlier time on the other side of India. The records of the Chalukya kings present Sanskṛit fromA.D.578 onwards. And from this latter date the language figures freely in the southern records. But some of the vernaculars, in their older forms, shortly begin to present themselves alongside of it; and, without entirely superseding Sanskṛit even to the latest times, the use of them for inscriptional purposes became rapidly more and more extensive. The vernacular that first makes its appearance is Kanarese, in a record of the Chalukya king Maṅgalēśa, of the periodA.D.597 to 608, at Bādāmi in the Bijāpūr district, Bombay. Tamiḷ appears next, between aboutA.D.610 and 675, in records of the Pallava king Mahēndravarman I. at Vallam in the Chingalpat (Chingleput) district, Madras, and of his great-grandson Paramēśvaravarman I. from Kūram in the same district. Telugu appears certainly inA.D.1011, in a record of the Eastern Chalukya king Vimalāditya; and it is perhaps given to us inA.D.843 or 844 by a record of his ancestor Vishṇuvardhana V.; in the latter case, however, the authenticity of the document is not certain. Malayālam appears aboutA.D.1150, in inscriptions of the rulers of Kēraḷa from the Travancore state. And on the colossal image of Gommaṭēśvara at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, in Mysore, there are two lines of Marāṭhī, notifying for the benefit of pilgrims from the Marāṭhā country the names of the persons who caused the image and the enclosure to be made, which are attributed to the first quarter of the 12th century: this language, however, figures first for certain in a record ofA.D.1207, of the time of the Dēvagiri-Yādava king Siṅghaṇa, from Khāndēsh in the north of Bombay.
Bibliography.—The systematic publication of the Indian inscriptions has not gone far. Cunningham inaugurated aCorpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, by giving us in 1877 the first volume of it, dealing with the records of Aśōka; but the only other volume which has been published is vol. iii., by Fleet, dealing with the records of the Gupta series. The other published materials are mostly to be found here and there in theJournalsof the Royal Asiatic Society of London, its Bombay branch, and the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in theReportsof the various Archaeological Surveys, and in theIndian Antiquary, theEpigraphia Indicaand theEpigraphia Carnatica; and much work has still to be done in bringing them together according to the periods and dynasties to which they relate, and in revising some of them in the light of new discoveries and the teachings of later research. The authority on Indian palaeography is Bühler’s work, published in 1896 as part 2 of vol. i of theGrundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde; an English version of it was issued in 1904 as an appendix to theIndian Antiquary, vol. xxxiii.
(J. F. F.)
III. Greek Inscriptions
Etymologically the term inscription (ἐπιγραφή) would include much more than is commonly meant by it. It would include words engraved on rings, or stamped on coins,28vases, lamps, wine-jar handles,29&c. But Boeckh was clearly right in excluding thisvaria supellexfrom hisCorpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, or only admitting it by way of appendix. Giving the term inscription a somewhat narrower sense, we still include within it a vast store of documents of the greatest value to the student of Greek civilization. It happens, moreover, that Greek inscriptions yield the historian a richer harvest than those of Rome. Partly from fashion, but partly from the greater abundanceof the material, the Romans engraved their public documents (treaties, laws, &c.) to a large extent on bronze. These bronze tablets, chiefly set up in the Capitol, were melted in the various conflagrations, or were carried off to feed the mint of the conqueror. In Greece, on the contrary, the mountains everywhere afforded an inexhaustible supply of marble, and made it the natural material for inscriptions. Some Greek inscribed tablets of bronze have come down to us,30and many more must have perished in the sack of cities and burning of temples. A number of inscriptions on small thin plates of lead, rolled up, have survived; these are chiefly imprecations on enemies31or questions asked of oracles.32An early inscription recently discovered (1905) at Ephesus is on a plate of silver. But as a rule the material employed was marble. These marble monuments are often foundin situ; and, though more often they were used up as convenient stones for building purposes, yet they have thus survived in a more or less perfect condition.33
Inscriptions were usually set up in temples, theatres, at the side of streets and roads, inτεμένηor temple-precincts, and near public buildings generally. At Delphi and Olympia were immense numbers of inscriptions—not only those engraved upon the gifts of victorious kings and cities, but also many of a more public character. At Delphi were inscribed the decrees of the Amphictyonic assembly, at Olympia international documents concerning the Peloponnesian cities; the Parthenon and Acropolis were crowded with treaties, laws and decrees concerning the Athenian confederation; the Heraeum at Samos, the Artemisium at Ephesus, and indeed every important sanctuary, abounded with inscriptions. It is a common thing for decrees (ψηφίσματα) to contain a clause specifying where they are to be set up, and what department of the state is to defray the cost of inscribing and erecting them. Sometimes duplicates are ordered to be set up in various places; and, in cases of treaties, arbitrations and other international documents, copies were always set up by each city concerned. Accordingly documents like theMarmor Ancyranumand theEdict of Diocletianhave been restored by a comparison of the various fragments of copies set up in diverse quarters of the empire.
Greek inscribed marbles varied considerably in their external appearance. The usual form was theστήλη, the normal type of which was a plain slab, from 3 to 4 or even 5 ft. high,343 or 4 in. thick, tapering slightly upwards from about 2 ft. wide at bottom to about 18 in. at the top, where it was either left plain or often had a slight moulding, or still more commonly was adorned with a more or less elaborate pediment; the slab was otherwise usually plain. Another form was theβωμόςor altar, sometimes square, oftener circular, and varying widely in size. Tombstones were eitherστῆλαι(often enriched beneath the pediment with simple groups in relief, commemorative of the deceased), orκίονες, pillars, of different size and design, or sarcophagi plain and ornamental. To these must be added statue-bases of every kind, often inscribed, not only with the names and honours of individuals, but also with decrees and other documents. All these forms were intended to stand by themselves in the open air. But it was also common to inscribe state documents upon the surface of the walls of a temple, or other public building. Thus the antae and external face of the walls of the pronaos of the temple of Athena Polias at Priene were covered with copies of the awards made concerning the lands disputed between Samos and Priene (seeGk. Inscr. in Brit. Mus.iii. § 1); similarly the walls of the Artemisium at Ephesus contained a number of decrees (ibid.iii. § 2), and theprosceniumof the Odeum was lined with crustae, or “marble-veneering,” under 1 in. thick, inscribed with copies of letters from Hadrian, Antoninus and other emperors to the Ephesian people (ibid.p. 151). The workmanship and appearance of inscriptions varied considerably according to the period of artistic development. The letters incised with the chisel upon the wall or theστήληwere painted in with red or blue pigment, which is often traceable upon newly unearthed inscriptions. When Thucydides, in quoting the epigram of Peisistratus the younger (vi. 54), says “it may still be readἀμυδροῖς γράμμασι,” he must refer to the fading of the colour; for the inscription was brought to light in 1877 with the letters as fresh as when they were first chiselled (see Kumanudes inἈθήναιον, vi. 149;I.G.suppl. to vol. i. p. 41). The Greeks found no inconvenience, as we should, in the bulkiness of inscriptions as a means of keeping public records. On the contrary they made every temple a muniment room; and while the innumerableστῆλαι,Hermae, bases and altars served to adorn the city, it must also have encouraged and educated the sense of patriotism for the citizen to move continually among the records of the past. The history of a Greek city was literally written upon her stones.
The primary value of an inscription lay in its documentary evidence (so Euripides,Suppl.1202, fol.). In this way they are continually cited and put in evidence by the orators (e.g.see Demosth.Fals. Leg.428; Aeschin.In Ctes.§ 75). But the Greek historians also were not slow to recognize their importance. Herodotus often cites them (iv. 88, 90, 91, v. 58 sq., vii. 228); and in his account of the victory of Plataea he had his eye upon the tripod-inscription (ix. 81; cf. Thuc. i. 132). Thucydides’s use of inscriptions is illustrated by v. 18 fol., 23, 47, 77, vi. 54, 59. Polybius used them still more. In later Greece, when men’s thoughts were thrown back upon the past, regular collections of inscriptions began to be made by such writers as Philochorus (300B.C.), Polemon (2nd centuryB.C., calledστηλοκόπαςfor his devotion to inscriptions), Aristodemus, Craterus of Macedon, and many others.
At the revival of learning, the study of inscriptions revived with the renewed interest in Greek literature. Cyriac of Ancona, early in the 15th century, copied a vast number of inscriptions during his travels in Greece and Asia Minor; his MS. collections were deposited in the Barberini library at Rome, and have been used by other scholars. (SeeBull. Corr. Hellén.i.; Larfeld in Müller’sHandbuch1.2, p. 368 f.; Ziebarth, “de ant. Inscript. Syllogis” inEphem. Epigr.ix.). Succeeding generations of travellers and scholars continued to collect and edit, and Englishmen in both capacities did much for this study.
Thus early in the 19th century the store of known Greek inscriptions had so far accumulated that the time had come for a comprehensive survey of the whole subject. And it was the work of one great scholar, Augustus Boeckh, to raise Greek epigraphy into a science. At the request of the Academy of Berlin he undertook to arrange and edit all the known inscriptions in one systematic work, and vol. i. of theCorpus Inscriptionum Graecarumwas published in 1828, vol. ii. in 1833. He lived to see the work completed, although other scholars were called in to help him to execute his great design; vol. iii., by Franz, appeared in 1853; vol. iv., by Kirchhoff, in 1856.35The work is a masterpiece of lucid arrangement and profound learning, of untiring industry and brilliant generalization. Out of the publication of theCorpusthere grew up a new school of students, who devoted themselves to discovering and editing new texts, and working up epigraphical results into monographs upon the many-sided history of Greece. In theCorpusBoeckh had settled for ever the methods of Greek epigraphy; and in hisStaatshaushaltung der Athener(3rd ed. of vols. i. ii. by Fränkel, 1886; well known to English readers from Sir G. C. Lewis’s translation,The Public Economy of Athens, 2nd ed., 1842) he had given a palmary specimen of the application of epigraphy to historical studies. At the same time Franz drew up a valuable introduction to the study of inscriptions in hisElementa Epigraphices Graecae(1840).Meanwhile the liberation of Greece and increasing facilities forvisiting the Levant combined to encourage the growth of the subject, which has been advanced by the labours of many scholars, and chiefly Ludwig Ross, Leake, Pittakys, Rangabé, Le Bas and later by Meier, Sauppe, Kirchhoff, Kumanudes, Waddington, Köhler, Dittenberger, Homolle, Haussoullier, Wilhelm and others. Together with the development of this school of writers, there has gone on a systematic exploration of some of the most famous sites of antiquity, with the result of exhuming vast numbers of inscriptions. To mention only some of the most important: Cyrene, Rhodes, Cos, Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Miletus, Priene, Ephesus, Magnesia on the Maeander, Pergamum, Delos, Thera, Athens, Eleusis, Epidaurus, Olympia, Delphi, Dodona, Sparta, have been explored or excavated by the Austrians, English, French, Germans and Greeks. German, French, British, Austrian and American institutes have been established at Athens, to a great extent engaged in the study of inscriptions. From every part of the Greek world copies of inscriptions are brought home by the students of these institutes and by other travellers. And still the work proceeds at a rapid rate. For indeed the yield of inscriptions is practically inexhaustible: each island, every city, was a separate centre of corporate life, and it is significant to note that in the island of Calymnos alone C. T. Newton collected over one hundred inscriptions, many of them of considerable interest.The result of this has been that Boeckh’s great work, though it never can be superseded, yet has ceased to be what its name implies. The four volumes of theC.I.G.contain about 10,000 inscriptions. But the number of Greek inscriptions now known is probably more than three or four times as great. Many of these are only to be found published in the scattered literature of dissertations, or in Greek, German and other periodicals. But several comprehensive collections have been attempted, among which (omitting those dealing with more limited districts of the Greek world) the following may be named:—Rangabé,Antiquités helléniques(2 vols., 1842-1855); Le Bas-Waddington,Voyage archéologique, inscriptions(3 vols., 1847-1876, incomplete); Newton, Hicks and Hirschfeld,Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum(parts i.-iv.); and above all theInscriptiones Graecae, a Corpus undertaken by the Berlin Academy (absorbing theCorpus Inscr. Attic.and other similar collections). Of this work six complete volumes and parts of others have appeared (by 1906) representing Attica, Argolis, Megaris, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania, Ionian Islands, Aegean Islands (exc. Delos), Sicily, Italy and western Europe; they are edited by Kirchhoff, Köhler, Dittenberger, Fränkel, Hiller von Gaertringen, Kaibel and others. Of a similar Austrian publication dealing with Asia Minor (Tituli Asiae Minoris) only the first part (Lycian Inscriptions) has appeared. Of general selections of inscriptions on a smaller scale it is necessary to mention: Dittenberger,Sylloge Inscriptionum Graec.(2nd ed., 1898-1901, 3 vols.); the same,Orientis Graeci Inscr. Selectae(2 vols., 1903-1905); Hicks,Greek Historical Inscriptions(1st ed., 1882; 2nd ed., 1901); Michel,Recueil d’inscriptions grecques(1900); Roberts and Gardner,Introd. to Gk. Epigraphy(2 vols., 1887-1905); Röhl,Inscr. gr. antiquissimae(1882), andImagines Inscriptionum(2nd ed., 1898).
Thus early in the 19th century the store of known Greek inscriptions had so far accumulated that the time had come for a comprehensive survey of the whole subject. And it was the work of one great scholar, Augustus Boeckh, to raise Greek epigraphy into a science. At the request of the Academy of Berlin he undertook to arrange and edit all the known inscriptions in one systematic work, and vol. i. of theCorpus Inscriptionum Graecarumwas published in 1828, vol. ii. in 1833. He lived to see the work completed, although other scholars were called in to help him to execute his great design; vol. iii., by Franz, appeared in 1853; vol. iv., by Kirchhoff, in 1856.35The work is a masterpiece of lucid arrangement and profound learning, of untiring industry and brilliant generalization. Out of the publication of theCorpusthere grew up a new school of students, who devoted themselves to discovering and editing new texts, and working up epigraphical results into monographs upon the many-sided history of Greece. In theCorpusBoeckh had settled for ever the methods of Greek epigraphy; and in hisStaatshaushaltung der Athener(3rd ed. of vols. i. ii. by Fränkel, 1886; well known to English readers from Sir G. C. Lewis’s translation,The Public Economy of Athens, 2nd ed., 1842) he had given a palmary specimen of the application of epigraphy to historical studies. At the same time Franz drew up a valuable introduction to the study of inscriptions in hisElementa Epigraphices Graecae(1840).
Meanwhile the liberation of Greece and increasing facilities forvisiting the Levant combined to encourage the growth of the subject, which has been advanced by the labours of many scholars, and chiefly Ludwig Ross, Leake, Pittakys, Rangabé, Le Bas and later by Meier, Sauppe, Kirchhoff, Kumanudes, Waddington, Köhler, Dittenberger, Homolle, Haussoullier, Wilhelm and others. Together with the development of this school of writers, there has gone on a systematic exploration of some of the most famous sites of antiquity, with the result of exhuming vast numbers of inscriptions. To mention only some of the most important: Cyrene, Rhodes, Cos, Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Miletus, Priene, Ephesus, Magnesia on the Maeander, Pergamum, Delos, Thera, Athens, Eleusis, Epidaurus, Olympia, Delphi, Dodona, Sparta, have been explored or excavated by the Austrians, English, French, Germans and Greeks. German, French, British, Austrian and American institutes have been established at Athens, to a great extent engaged in the study of inscriptions. From every part of the Greek world copies of inscriptions are brought home by the students of these institutes and by other travellers. And still the work proceeds at a rapid rate. For indeed the yield of inscriptions is practically inexhaustible: each island, every city, was a separate centre of corporate life, and it is significant to note that in the island of Calymnos alone C. T. Newton collected over one hundred inscriptions, many of them of considerable interest.
The result of this has been that Boeckh’s great work, though it never can be superseded, yet has ceased to be what its name implies. The four volumes of theC.I.G.contain about 10,000 inscriptions. But the number of Greek inscriptions now known is probably more than three or four times as great. Many of these are only to be found published in the scattered literature of dissertations, or in Greek, German and other periodicals. But several comprehensive collections have been attempted, among which (omitting those dealing with more limited districts of the Greek world) the following may be named:—Rangabé,Antiquités helléniques(2 vols., 1842-1855); Le Bas-Waddington,Voyage archéologique, inscriptions(3 vols., 1847-1876, incomplete); Newton, Hicks and Hirschfeld,Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum(parts i.-iv.); and above all theInscriptiones Graecae, a Corpus undertaken by the Berlin Academy (absorbing theCorpus Inscr. Attic.and other similar collections). Of this work six complete volumes and parts of others have appeared (by 1906) representing Attica, Argolis, Megaris, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania, Ionian Islands, Aegean Islands (exc. Delos), Sicily, Italy and western Europe; they are edited by Kirchhoff, Köhler, Dittenberger, Fränkel, Hiller von Gaertringen, Kaibel and others. Of a similar Austrian publication dealing with Asia Minor (Tituli Asiae Minoris) only the first part (Lycian Inscriptions) has appeared. Of general selections of inscriptions on a smaller scale it is necessary to mention: Dittenberger,Sylloge Inscriptionum Graec.(2nd ed., 1898-1901, 3 vols.); the same,Orientis Graeci Inscr. Selectae(2 vols., 1903-1905); Hicks,Greek Historical Inscriptions(1st ed., 1882; 2nd ed., 1901); Michel,Recueil d’inscriptions grecques(1900); Roberts and Gardner,Introd. to Gk. Epigraphy(2 vols., 1887-1905); Röhl,Inscr. gr. antiquissimae(1882), andImagines Inscriptionum(2nd ed., 1898).
The oldest extant Greek inscriptions appear to date from the middle of the 7th centuryB.C.During the excavations at Olympia a number of fragments of very ancient inscriptions were found (seeOlympia, Textbandv.); andOldest Greek inscriptions.other very early inscriptions from various places, as Thera and Crete, have been published (see Röhl,op. cit.). But what is wanted is a sufficient number of very early inscriptions of fixed date. One such exists upon the leg of a colossal Egyptian statue at Abu-Simbel on the upper Nile, where certain Greek mercenaries in the service of King Psammetichus recorded their names, as having explored the river up to the second cataract (C.I.G.5126; Röhl, 482; Hicks2, 3). Even if Psammetichus II. is meant, the inscription dates between 594 and 589B.C.Another, but later, instance is to be found in the fragmentary inscriptions on the columns dedicated by Croesus in the Ephesian temple (c.550B.C.;Gk. Inscr. in the Brit. Mus.518). Documents earlier than the Persian War are not very frequent; but after that period the stream of Greek inscriptions goes on, generally increasing in volume, down to late Byzantine times.
Greek inscriptions may most conveniently be classified under the following heads: (1) those which illustrate political history; (2) those connected with religion; (3) those of a private character.
1. Foremost among the inscriptions which illustrate Greek history and politics are thedecreesof senate and people (ψηφίσματα βουλῆς, ἐκκλησίας, &c.) upon every subject which could concern the interests of the state. These abound from every partPolitical inscriptions.of Greece. It is true that a large number of them are honorary,i.e.merely decrees granting to strangers, who have done service to the particular city, public honours (crowns, statues, citizenship and other privileges). One of these privileges was theproxenia, an honour, which entailed on the recipient the burthen of protecting the citizens of the state which granted it when they came to his city. But the importance of an honorary decree depends upon the individual and the services to which it refers. And even the mere headings and datings of the decrees from various states afford curious and valuable information upon the names and titles of the local magistrates, the names of months and other details. On the formulae, see Swoboda,Die gr. Volksbeschlüsse(1890). Droysen in hisHellenismus(1877-1878) has shown how the history of Alexander and his successors is illustrated by contemporaryψηφίσματα. And when the student of Athenian politics of the 5th and 4th centuries turns to the 1st and 2nd volumes of theI.G., he may wonder at the abundance of material before him; it is like turning over the minutes of the Athenian parliament. One example out of many must suffice—No. 17 inI.G.ii. pt. 1 (Hicks2, 101) is the famous decree of the archonship of Nausinicus (378B.C.) concerning the reconstruction of the Athenian confederacy. The terms of admission to the league occupy the face of the marble; at the bottom and on the left edge are inscribed the names of states which had already joined.Inscribedlaws(νόμοι) occur with tolerable frequency. The following are examples:—A citation of a law of Draco’s from theπρῶτος ἄξωνof Solon’s laws (I.G.i. 61; cf. Dittenberger,Syll.252); the Civil Codes of Gortyna (5th century, Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jurid. gr.i. 352 ff.); a reassessment of the tribute payable by the Athenian allies in 425B.C.(I.G.i. 37; KöhlerUrkunden und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des delisch-attischen Bundes, 1870, p. 63; Hicks2, 64); a law passed by the Amphictyonic council at Delphi, 380B.C.(Boeckh,C.I.G.1688;I.G.ii. 545); law concerning Athenian weights and measures (Boeckh,Staatshaushaltung3, ii. 318;I.G.ii. 476); the futile sumptuary law of Diocletian concerning the maximum prices for all articles sold throughout the empire (Mommsen-Blümner,Der Maximaltarif des Diocletian, 1893). For a collection of such legal documents, see Dareste, Haussoullier and Reinach,Recueil des inscr. juridiques gr.(1891-1898).Besides the inscribedtreatiespreviously referred to, we may instance the following: Between Athens and Chalcis in Euboea, 446 B.c. (I.G.suppl. to vol. i. 27A); between Athens and Rhegium, 433B.C.(Hicks2, 51); between Athens and Leontini, dated the same day as the preceding (ibid.52); between Athens and Boeotia, 395B.C.(ibid.84); between Athens and Chalcis, 377B.C.(ibid.102); between Athens and Sparta, 271B.C.(I.G.ii. No. 332); between Hermias of Atarneus and the Ionian Erythrae, about 350B.C.(Hicks2138); treaties in the local dialect between the Eleans and the Heraeans, 6th century (Olympia Inschr.9), and between various cities of Crete, 3rd centuryB.C.(C.I.G.2554-2556;Griech. Dial. Inschr.5039-5041, 5075). Egger’sÉtudes historiques sur les traités publics chez les Grecs et chez les Romains(Paris, 1866) embraces a good many of these documents; see also R. von Scala,Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, pt. i. (1898).The international relation of Greek cities is further illustrated byawardsof disputed lands, delivered by a third city called in (ἔκκλητος πόλις) to arbitrate between the contending states,e.g.Rhodian award as between Samos and Priene (Gk. Inscr. in Brit. Mus.405; Dittenberger,Syll.2315); Milesian between Messanians and Spartans, discovered at Olympia (ibid.314; see Tac.Ann.iv. 43); and many others. Akin to these are decrees in honour of judges called in from a neutral city to try suits between citizens which were complicated by political partisanship (seeC.I.G.No. 2349B, with Boeckh’s remarks;I.G.xii. 722). On the general subject, E. Sonne,De arbitris extends(1888).Lettersfrom kings are frequent; as from Darius I. to the satrap Gadates, with reference to the shrine of Apollo at Magnesia (Hicks2, 20); from Alexander the Great to the Chians (ibid.158); from Lysimachus to the Samians (C.I.G.2254; Hicks1, 152); from Antigonus I. directing the transfer of the population of Lebedus to Teos (Dittenberger,Syll.2177); from the same to the Scepsians (Dittenberger,Or. Gr. Inscr. Sel.5), Letters from Roman emperors are commoner still; such as Dittenberger,Syll.2350, 356, 373, 384-388, 404.The internal administration of Greek towns is illustrated by the minute and complete lists of the treasures in the Parthenon of the time of the Peloponnesian War (Boeckh,Staatshaush.3vol. ii.); public accounts of Athenian expenditure (ibid.); records of the Athenian navy in the 4th century, forming vol. iii. of the 1840 ed. of the same work. To the same category belong the so-called Athenian tribute-lists, which are really lists of the quota (of the tribute paid by the Athenian allies) which was due to the treasury of Athena (ἀπαρχαί τῆ θεῷ μνᾶ ἀπο ταλάντου). Being arranged according to the tributary cities, they throw much light on the constitution of the Athenian empire at the time (I.G.i. 226-272 and suppl. p. 71 f.; Köhler,Urkunden und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des attisch-delischen Seebundes1870; Boeckh,Staatshaush.3ii. 332-498). The management of public lands and mines is specially illustrated from inscriptions (Boeckh,op. cit.vol. i. passim); and the political constitution of different cities often receives light from inscriptions which cannot be gained elsewhere (e.g.see the document from Cyzicus,C.I.G.3665, and Boeckh’s note, or that from Mytilene, Dittenberger,Or. Gr. Inscr.2, and the inscriptions from Ephesus, Gk.Inscr. in Brit. Mus.pt. iii. § 2).Inscriptions in honour of kings and emperors are very common. TheMarmor Ancyranum(ed. Mommsen,21883) has already been mentioned; but an earlier example is theMonumentum Adulitanum(from Abyssinia,C.I.G.5127A); Dittenberger, (Inscr. or. Gr.54) reciting the achievements of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I.Offerings in temples (ἀναθήματα) are often of great historical value,e.g.the dedications on the columns of Croesus at Ephesus mentioned above; Gelo’s dedication at Delphi, 479B.C.(Hicks216); the helmet of Hiero, now in the British Museum, dedicated at Olympia after his victory over the Etruscans, 474B.C.(C.I.G.16; Hicks222); and the bronze base of the golden tripod dedicated at Delphi after the victory of Plataea, and carried off to Constantinople by Constantine (Dethier and Mordtmann,Epigraphik von Byzantion, 1874; Hicks219).2. The religion of Greece in its external aspects is the subject of a great number of inscriptions (good selections in Dittenberger,Syll.2550-816, and Michel 669-1330). The following are a few specimens. (1) Institution of festivals, with elaborateReligious Inscriptions.ritual directions: see Sauppe,Die Mysterieninschrift aus Andania(1860); Dittenberger,Syll.2653, and the singular document from the Ephesian theatre inGk. Inscr. in Brit. Mus.481; the following also relate to festivals—C.I.G.1845, 2360, 2715, 3059, 3599, 3641b; Dittenberger,Syll.2634 (the lesser Panathenaea) andOr. Gr. Inscr.383 (law of Antiochus I. of Commagene). (2) Laws defining the appointment, duties or perquisites of the priesthood: Dittenberger,Syll.2601; Boeckh,Staatshaush. ii. 109 seq. (3) Curious calendar of sacrifices from Myconus: Dittenberger,Syll.2615. (4) Fragment of augury rules, Ephesus, 6th centuryB.C.:ibid.801. (5) Leases ofτεμένηand sacred lands (see Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jur. Gr.ii. § 19 and commentary). (6) Imprecations written on lead, and placed in tombs or in temples: Wünsch,I.G.iii. App.; Audollent,Defixionum tabellae(1904). (7) Oracles are referred toI.G.xii. 248; Michel 840-856. (8) Among the inscriptions from Delphi few are more curious than those relating to the enfranchisement of slaves under the form of sale to a god (seeGr. dial. Inschr.nos. 1684-2342); for enfranchisement-inscriptions of various kinds, Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jur. Gr.§ xxx. (9) Cures effected in the Asclepieum at Epidaurus (Dittenberger,Syll.2802-805). (10) Inventories, &c., of treasures in temples: Michel 811-828, 832, 833, &c. (11) Inscriptions relating to dramatic representations at public festivals: A. Wilhelm,Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen(Vienna, 1906). This catalogue might be enlarged indefinitely.3. There remain a large number of inscriptions of a more strictly private character. The famous Parian marble (I.G.xii. 444) falls under this head; it was a system of chronology drawn up, perhaps by a schoolmaster, in the 3rd centuryB.C.Private Inscriptions.The excessive devotion of the later Greeks to athletic and other competitions at festivals is revealed by the numerous dedications made by victorious competitors who record their successes (see Michel 915-960; Dittenberger,Syll.2683 f.). The dedications and honorary inscriptions relating to the Ephebi of later Athens (which occupy half ofI.G.iii. pt. 1), dreary as they seem, have yet thrown a curious light upon the academic life of Roman Athens (see A. Dumont,Essai sur l’éphébie attique; Reinach,Traité, pp. 408-418; Roberts and Gardner ii. 145); and from these and similar late inscriptions the attempt has been made to constructFastiof the later archons (von Schöffer in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyklopädie, s.v.“Archontes”; W. S. Ferguson inCornell Studies, x. The sepulchral monuments have been beautifully illustrated in Stackelberg’sGräber der Hellenen; for the Attic stelae see Conze,Die attischen Grabreliefs(1893 ff.). Some of the most interesting epitaphs in theC.I.G.are from Aphrodisias and Smyrna. Kumanudes’s collection of Attic epitaphs has been mentioned above; see also Gutscher,Die attischen Grabschr.(1889); they yield a good deal of information about the Attic demes, and some of them are of high importance,e.g.the epitaph on the slain in the year 458B.C.(Dittenberger,Syll.29), and on those who fell in the Hellespont, c. 440B.C.(Hicks246). For the metrical inscriptions see Kaibel,Epigrammata Graeca(1878). Closely connected with sepulchral inscriptions is the famous “Will of Epicteta” (I.G.xii. 330). It was also customary at Athens for lands mortgaged to be indicated by boundary-stones inscribed with the names of mortgagor and mortgagee, and the amount (I.G.ii. 1103-1153; Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jur.i. pp. 107-142); otherὄροιare common enough.The names of sculptors inscribed on the bases of statues have been collected by E. Löwy (Inschriften gr. Bildhauer, 1885). In most cases the artists are unknown to fame. Among the exceptions are the names of Pythagoras of Rhegium, whom we now know to have been a native of Samos (Löwy 23, 24); Pyrrhus, who made the statue of Athena Hygieia dedicated by Pericles (Plut.Per.13; Löwy 53); Polyclitus the younger (Löwy 90 f.), Paeonius of Mende, who sculptured the marble Nike at Olympia (Löwy 49); Praxiteles (Löwy 76), &c.The bearing of inscriptions upon the study of dialects is very obvious. A handy selection has been made by Cauer (Delectus inscr.Gr. 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1883) of the principal inscriptions illustrating this subject, and a complete collection is inStudy of Dialects.course of publication (Collitz and others,Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, Göttingen, 1884 ff.). See also R. Meister,Die griech. Dialekte(1882-1889), and O. Hoffman,Die griech. Dialekte(1891-1898). The grammar of Attic inscriptions is treated by Meisterhans,Grammatik der att. Inschr.(3rd ed. by Schwyzer, 1900).The date of inscriptions is determined partly by the internal evidence of the subject, persons, and events treated of, and the character of the dialect and language. But the most important evidence is the form of the letters and style ofDate of Inscriptions.execution. For the Attic inscriptions the development from the earliest times to aboutA.D.500 is elaborately treated by Larfeld,Handbuch der att. Inschr.(1902). bk. ii. Much of the evidence is of a kind difficult to appreciate from a mere description. Yet—besides theβουστροφηδόνwriting of many early documents—we may mention the contrast between the stiff, angular characters which prevailed before 500 or 450B.C.and the graceful yet simple forms of the Periclean age. This development was part of the general movement of the time. Inscriptions of this period are usually writtenστοιχηδόν,i.e.the letters are in line vertically as well as horizontally. From the archonship of Eucleides (403B.C.) onwards the Athenians officially adopted the fuller alphabet which had obtained in Ionia since the 6th century. Before 403B.C.ζ and ψ were expressed in Attic inscriptions by ΧΣ and φΣ, while Ε did duty for η, ε, and sometimes ει, Ο for ο, ου, and ω—Η being used only for the aspirate. There is, however, occasional use of the Ionic alphabet in Attica, even in official inscriptions, as early as the middle of the 5th century. The Macedonian period betrays a falling off in neatness and firmness of execution—the letters being usually small and scratchy, excepting in inscriptions relating to great personages, when the characters are often very large and handsome. In the 2nd century came in the regular use ofapicesas an ornament of letters. These tendencies increased during the period of Roman dominion in Greece, and gradually, especially in Asia Minor, theiota adscriptumwas dropped. The Greek characters of the Augustan age indicate a period of restoration; they are uniformly clear, handsome, and adorned withapices. The lunate epsilon and sigma (ε,C) establish themselves in this period; so does the square form, and the cursive ω is also occasionally found. The inscriptions of Hadrian’s time show a tendency to eclectic imitation of the classical lettering. But from the period of the Antonines (when we find a good many pretty inscriptions) the writing grows more coarse and clumsy until Byzantine times, when the forms appear barbarous indeed beside an inscription of the Augustan or even Antonine age.The finest collections of inscribed Greek marbles are of course at Athens. There are also good collections, public and private, at Smyrna and Constantinople. The British Museum contains the best collection out of Athens (see the publicationCollections of Marbles.mentioned above); the Louvre contains a good many (edited by Fröhner,Les Inscriptions grecques du musée du Louvre, 1865); the Oxford collection is very valuable, and fairly large; and there are some valuable inscriptions also at Cambridge.Bibliography.—The following essays give good outlines of the whole subject:—Boeckh,C.I.G., preface to vol i.; C. T. Newton,Essays on Art and Archaeology(1880), pp. 95, 209; S. Reinach,Traité d’épigraphie grecque(Paris, 1885). Besides the works already quoted the following should be mentioned:—Boeckh’sKleine Schriften; Michaelis,Der Parthenon; Waddington,Fastes des provinces asiatiques, part i. (1872), andMémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aristide; Kirchhoff,Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets(4th ed., 1887); Schubert,De proxenia(Leipzig, 1881); Monceaux,Les Proxénies gr.(Paris, 1886); Latyshev,Inscr. ant. orae septentr. Ponti Euxini Gr. et Lat.(2 vols., St Petersburg, 1885-1890); Bechtel,Inschriften des ionischen Dialekts(Göttingen, 1887); Paton and Hicks,Inscriptions of Cos(Oxford, 1891); Fränkel and others,Inschriften von Pergamon(2 vols., Berlin 1890-1895); Comparetti,Le Leggi di Gortyna, &c. (Monum. antichi, iii., 1893); E. Hoffmann,Sylloge epigrammatum Graec.(Halle a. S., 1893); O. Kern,Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander(Berlin, 1900); S. Chabert,Histoire sommaire des études d’épigraphie grecque(Paris, 1906); Hackl,Merkantile Inschr. auf attischen Vasen(Münch, arch Stud., 1909); Wilhelm,Beiträge zur griech. Inschriftenkunde(Vienna, 1909).
1. Foremost among the inscriptions which illustrate Greek history and politics are thedecreesof senate and people (ψηφίσματα βουλῆς, ἐκκλησίας, &c.) upon every subject which could concern the interests of the state. These abound from every partPolitical inscriptions.of Greece. It is true that a large number of them are honorary,i.e.merely decrees granting to strangers, who have done service to the particular city, public honours (crowns, statues, citizenship and other privileges). One of these privileges was theproxenia, an honour, which entailed on the recipient the burthen of protecting the citizens of the state which granted it when they came to his city. But the importance of an honorary decree depends upon the individual and the services to which it refers. And even the mere headings and datings of the decrees from various states afford curious and valuable information upon the names and titles of the local magistrates, the names of months and other details. On the formulae, see Swoboda,Die gr. Volksbeschlüsse(1890). Droysen in hisHellenismus(1877-1878) has shown how the history of Alexander and his successors is illustrated by contemporaryψηφίσματα. And when the student of Athenian politics of the 5th and 4th centuries turns to the 1st and 2nd volumes of theI.G., he may wonder at the abundance of material before him; it is like turning over the minutes of the Athenian parliament. One example out of many must suffice—No. 17 inI.G.ii. pt. 1 (Hicks2, 101) is the famous decree of the archonship of Nausinicus (378B.C.) concerning the reconstruction of the Athenian confederacy. The terms of admission to the league occupy the face of the marble; at the bottom and on the left edge are inscribed the names of states which had already joined.
Inscribedlaws(νόμοι) occur with tolerable frequency. The following are examples:—A citation of a law of Draco’s from theπρῶτος ἄξωνof Solon’s laws (I.G.i. 61; cf. Dittenberger,Syll.252); the Civil Codes of Gortyna (5th century, Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jurid. gr.i. 352 ff.); a reassessment of the tribute payable by the Athenian allies in 425B.C.(I.G.i. 37; KöhlerUrkunden und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des delisch-attischen Bundes, 1870, p. 63; Hicks2, 64); a law passed by the Amphictyonic council at Delphi, 380B.C.(Boeckh,C.I.G.1688;I.G.ii. 545); law concerning Athenian weights and measures (Boeckh,Staatshaushaltung3, ii. 318;I.G.ii. 476); the futile sumptuary law of Diocletian concerning the maximum prices for all articles sold throughout the empire (Mommsen-Blümner,Der Maximaltarif des Diocletian, 1893). For a collection of such legal documents, see Dareste, Haussoullier and Reinach,Recueil des inscr. juridiques gr.(1891-1898).
Besides the inscribedtreatiespreviously referred to, we may instance the following: Between Athens and Chalcis in Euboea, 446 B.c. (I.G.suppl. to vol. i. 27A); between Athens and Rhegium, 433B.C.(Hicks2, 51); between Athens and Leontini, dated the same day as the preceding (ibid.52); between Athens and Boeotia, 395B.C.(ibid.84); between Athens and Chalcis, 377B.C.(ibid.102); between Athens and Sparta, 271B.C.(I.G.ii. No. 332); between Hermias of Atarneus and the Ionian Erythrae, about 350B.C.(Hicks2138); treaties in the local dialect between the Eleans and the Heraeans, 6th century (Olympia Inschr.9), and between various cities of Crete, 3rd centuryB.C.(C.I.G.2554-2556;Griech. Dial. Inschr.5039-5041, 5075). Egger’sÉtudes historiques sur les traités publics chez les Grecs et chez les Romains(Paris, 1866) embraces a good many of these documents; see also R. von Scala,Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, pt. i. (1898).
The international relation of Greek cities is further illustrated byawardsof disputed lands, delivered by a third city called in (ἔκκλητος πόλις) to arbitrate between the contending states,e.g.Rhodian award as between Samos and Priene (Gk. Inscr. in Brit. Mus.405; Dittenberger,Syll.2315); Milesian between Messanians and Spartans, discovered at Olympia (ibid.314; see Tac.Ann.iv. 43); and many others. Akin to these are decrees in honour of judges called in from a neutral city to try suits between citizens which were complicated by political partisanship (seeC.I.G.No. 2349B, with Boeckh’s remarks;I.G.xii. 722). On the general subject, E. Sonne,De arbitris extends(1888).
Lettersfrom kings are frequent; as from Darius I. to the satrap Gadates, with reference to the shrine of Apollo at Magnesia (Hicks2, 20); from Alexander the Great to the Chians (ibid.158); from Lysimachus to the Samians (C.I.G.2254; Hicks1, 152); from Antigonus I. directing the transfer of the population of Lebedus to Teos (Dittenberger,Syll.2177); from the same to the Scepsians (Dittenberger,Or. Gr. Inscr. Sel.5), Letters from Roman emperors are commoner still; such as Dittenberger,Syll.2350, 356, 373, 384-388, 404.
The internal administration of Greek towns is illustrated by the minute and complete lists of the treasures in the Parthenon of the time of the Peloponnesian War (Boeckh,Staatshaush.3vol. ii.); public accounts of Athenian expenditure (ibid.); records of the Athenian navy in the 4th century, forming vol. iii. of the 1840 ed. of the same work. To the same category belong the so-called Athenian tribute-lists, which are really lists of the quota (of the tribute paid by the Athenian allies) which was due to the treasury of Athena (ἀπαρχαί τῆ θεῷ μνᾶ ἀπο ταλάντου). Being arranged according to the tributary cities, they throw much light on the constitution of the Athenian empire at the time (I.G.i. 226-272 and suppl. p. 71 f.; Köhler,Urkunden und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des attisch-delischen Seebundes1870; Boeckh,Staatshaush.3ii. 332-498). The management of public lands and mines is specially illustrated from inscriptions (Boeckh,op. cit.vol. i. passim); and the political constitution of different cities often receives light from inscriptions which cannot be gained elsewhere (e.g.see the document from Cyzicus,C.I.G.3665, and Boeckh’s note, or that from Mytilene, Dittenberger,Or. Gr. Inscr.2, and the inscriptions from Ephesus, Gk.Inscr. in Brit. Mus.pt. iii. § 2).
Inscriptions in honour of kings and emperors are very common. TheMarmor Ancyranum(ed. Mommsen,21883) has already been mentioned; but an earlier example is theMonumentum Adulitanum(from Abyssinia,C.I.G.5127A); Dittenberger, (Inscr. or. Gr.54) reciting the achievements of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I.
Offerings in temples (ἀναθήματα) are often of great historical value,e.g.the dedications on the columns of Croesus at Ephesus mentioned above; Gelo’s dedication at Delphi, 479B.C.(Hicks216); the helmet of Hiero, now in the British Museum, dedicated at Olympia after his victory over the Etruscans, 474B.C.(C.I.G.16; Hicks222); and the bronze base of the golden tripod dedicated at Delphi after the victory of Plataea, and carried off to Constantinople by Constantine (Dethier and Mordtmann,Epigraphik von Byzantion, 1874; Hicks219).
2. The religion of Greece in its external aspects is the subject of a great number of inscriptions (good selections in Dittenberger,Syll.2550-816, and Michel 669-1330). The following are a few specimens. (1) Institution of festivals, with elaborateReligious Inscriptions.ritual directions: see Sauppe,Die Mysterieninschrift aus Andania(1860); Dittenberger,Syll.2653, and the singular document from the Ephesian theatre inGk. Inscr. in Brit. Mus.481; the following also relate to festivals—C.I.G.1845, 2360, 2715, 3059, 3599, 3641b; Dittenberger,Syll.2634 (the lesser Panathenaea) andOr. Gr. Inscr.383 (law of Antiochus I. of Commagene). (2) Laws defining the appointment, duties or perquisites of the priesthood: Dittenberger,Syll.2601; Boeckh,Staatshaush. ii. 109 seq. (3) Curious calendar of sacrifices from Myconus: Dittenberger,Syll.2615. (4) Fragment of augury rules, Ephesus, 6th centuryB.C.:ibid.801. (5) Leases ofτεμένηand sacred lands (see Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jur. Gr.ii. § 19 and commentary). (6) Imprecations written on lead, and placed in tombs or in temples: Wünsch,I.G.iii. App.; Audollent,Defixionum tabellae(1904). (7) Oracles are referred toI.G.xii. 248; Michel 840-856. (8) Among the inscriptions from Delphi few are more curious than those relating to the enfranchisement of slaves under the form of sale to a god (seeGr. dial. Inschr.nos. 1684-2342); for enfranchisement-inscriptions of various kinds, Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jur. Gr.§ xxx. (9) Cures effected in the Asclepieum at Epidaurus (Dittenberger,Syll.2802-805). (10) Inventories, &c., of treasures in temples: Michel 811-828, 832, 833, &c. (11) Inscriptions relating to dramatic representations at public festivals: A. Wilhelm,Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen(Vienna, 1906). This catalogue might be enlarged indefinitely.
3. There remain a large number of inscriptions of a more strictly private character. The famous Parian marble (I.G.xii. 444) falls under this head; it was a system of chronology drawn up, perhaps by a schoolmaster, in the 3rd centuryB.C.Private Inscriptions.The excessive devotion of the later Greeks to athletic and other competitions at festivals is revealed by the numerous dedications made by victorious competitors who record their successes (see Michel 915-960; Dittenberger,Syll.2683 f.). The dedications and honorary inscriptions relating to the Ephebi of later Athens (which occupy half ofI.G.iii. pt. 1), dreary as they seem, have yet thrown a curious light upon the academic life of Roman Athens (see A. Dumont,Essai sur l’éphébie attique; Reinach,Traité, pp. 408-418; Roberts and Gardner ii. 145); and from these and similar late inscriptions the attempt has been made to constructFastiof the later archons (von Schöffer in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyklopädie, s.v.“Archontes”; W. S. Ferguson inCornell Studies, x. The sepulchral monuments have been beautifully illustrated in Stackelberg’sGräber der Hellenen; for the Attic stelae see Conze,Die attischen Grabreliefs(1893 ff.). Some of the most interesting epitaphs in theC.I.G.are from Aphrodisias and Smyrna. Kumanudes’s collection of Attic epitaphs has been mentioned above; see also Gutscher,Die attischen Grabschr.(1889); they yield a good deal of information about the Attic demes, and some of them are of high importance,e.g.the epitaph on the slain in the year 458B.C.(Dittenberger,Syll.29), and on those who fell in the Hellespont, c. 440B.C.(Hicks246). For the metrical inscriptions see Kaibel,Epigrammata Graeca(1878). Closely connected with sepulchral inscriptions is the famous “Will of Epicteta” (I.G.xii. 330). It was also customary at Athens for lands mortgaged to be indicated by boundary-stones inscribed with the names of mortgagor and mortgagee, and the amount (I.G.ii. 1103-1153; Dareste, &c.,Inscr. jur.i. pp. 107-142); otherὄροιare common enough.
The names of sculptors inscribed on the bases of statues have been collected by E. Löwy (Inschriften gr. Bildhauer, 1885). In most cases the artists are unknown to fame. Among the exceptions are the names of Pythagoras of Rhegium, whom we now know to have been a native of Samos (Löwy 23, 24); Pyrrhus, who made the statue of Athena Hygieia dedicated by Pericles (Plut.Per.13; Löwy 53); Polyclitus the younger (Löwy 90 f.), Paeonius of Mende, who sculptured the marble Nike at Olympia (Löwy 49); Praxiteles (Löwy 76), &c.
The bearing of inscriptions upon the study of dialects is very obvious. A handy selection has been made by Cauer (Delectus inscr.Gr. 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1883) of the principal inscriptions illustrating this subject, and a complete collection is inStudy of Dialects.course of publication (Collitz and others,Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, Göttingen, 1884 ff.). See also R. Meister,Die griech. Dialekte(1882-1889), and O. Hoffman,Die griech. Dialekte(1891-1898). The grammar of Attic inscriptions is treated by Meisterhans,Grammatik der att. Inschr.(3rd ed. by Schwyzer, 1900).
The date of inscriptions is determined partly by the internal evidence of the subject, persons, and events treated of, and the character of the dialect and language. But the most important evidence is the form of the letters and style ofDate of Inscriptions.execution. For the Attic inscriptions the development from the earliest times to aboutA.D.500 is elaborately treated by Larfeld,Handbuch der att. Inschr.(1902). bk. ii. Much of the evidence is of a kind difficult to appreciate from a mere description. Yet—besides theβουστροφηδόνwriting of many early documents—we may mention the contrast between the stiff, angular characters which prevailed before 500 or 450B.C.and the graceful yet simple forms of the Periclean age. This development was part of the general movement of the time. Inscriptions of this period are usually writtenστοιχηδόν,i.e.the letters are in line vertically as well as horizontally. From the archonship of Eucleides (403B.C.) onwards the Athenians officially adopted the fuller alphabet which had obtained in Ionia since the 6th century. Before 403B.C.ζ and ψ were expressed in Attic inscriptions by ΧΣ and φΣ, while Ε did duty for η, ε, and sometimes ει, Ο for ο, ου, and ω—Η being used only for the aspirate. There is, however, occasional use of the Ionic alphabet in Attica, even in official inscriptions, as early as the middle of the 5th century. The Macedonian period betrays a falling off in neatness and firmness of execution—the letters being usually small and scratchy, excepting in inscriptions relating to great personages, when the characters are often very large and handsome. In the 2nd century came in the regular use ofapicesas an ornament of letters. These tendencies increased during the period of Roman dominion in Greece, and gradually, especially in Asia Minor, theiota adscriptumwas dropped. The Greek characters of the Augustan age indicate a period of restoration; they are uniformly clear, handsome, and adorned withapices. The lunate epsilon and sigma (ε,C) establish themselves in this period; so does the square form, and the cursive ω is also occasionally found. The inscriptions of Hadrian’s time show a tendency to eclectic imitation of the classical lettering. But from the period of the Antonines (when we find a good many pretty inscriptions) the writing grows more coarse and clumsy until Byzantine times, when the forms appear barbarous indeed beside an inscription of the Augustan or even Antonine age.
The finest collections of inscribed Greek marbles are of course at Athens. There are also good collections, public and private, at Smyrna and Constantinople. The British Museum contains the best collection out of Athens (see the publicationCollections of Marbles.mentioned above); the Louvre contains a good many (edited by Fröhner,Les Inscriptions grecques du musée du Louvre, 1865); the Oxford collection is very valuable, and fairly large; and there are some valuable inscriptions also at Cambridge.
Bibliography.—The following essays give good outlines of the whole subject:—Boeckh,C.I.G., preface to vol i.; C. T. Newton,Essays on Art and Archaeology(1880), pp. 95, 209; S. Reinach,Traité d’épigraphie grecque(Paris, 1885). Besides the works already quoted the following should be mentioned:—Boeckh’sKleine Schriften; Michaelis,Der Parthenon; Waddington,Fastes des provinces asiatiques, part i. (1872), andMémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aristide; Kirchhoff,Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets(4th ed., 1887); Schubert,De proxenia(Leipzig, 1881); Monceaux,Les Proxénies gr.(Paris, 1886); Latyshev,Inscr. ant. orae septentr. Ponti Euxini Gr. et Lat.(2 vols., St Petersburg, 1885-1890); Bechtel,Inschriften des ionischen Dialekts(Göttingen, 1887); Paton and Hicks,Inscriptions of Cos(Oxford, 1891); Fränkel and others,Inschriften von Pergamon(2 vols., Berlin 1890-1895); Comparetti,Le Leggi di Gortyna, &c. (Monum. antichi, iii., 1893); E. Hoffmann,Sylloge epigrammatum Graec.(Halle a. S., 1893); O. Kern,Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander(Berlin, 1900); S. Chabert,Histoire sommaire des études d’épigraphie grecque(Paris, 1906); Hackl,Merkantile Inschr. auf attischen Vasen(Münch, arch Stud., 1909); Wilhelm,Beiträge zur griech. Inschriftenkunde(Vienna, 1909).