Classical Philology

Votume VIII April, IQI3 NuMBER 2


Not only in earlier times, but also, in most parts of Greece, long after Attic had become the norm of literary prose, each state employed its own dialect, both in private and public monuments of internal concern, and in those of a more external or interstate char- acter, such as decrees in honor of foreigners, decisions of interstate arbitration, and, in general, communications between different states.

This’ brief statement of the general situation, which I have given elsewhere and illustrated with some examples,! I repeat here by way of introduction to a more detailed consideration, with special reference to peculiar and exceptional cases, of the question of dialect in “interstate’’ inscriptions. This term is retained, in default of a better, but is to be understood here in the broadest sense, to include, for example, dedications set up away from the home of the dedicator.

There is no doubt as to what is the general practice, namely the use of the native dialect? of the authors of inscriptions, regardless of the parties to whom they are addressed, the subject-matter, or the place of publication. But there are some real or apparent excep- tions, and such have now and then misled competent epigraphists

1 Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects, pp. 154 ff.

2 Likewise the native type of alphabet. But it is to be remembered that the native alphabets were given up in favor of the Ionic long before most of the dialects were given up in favor of the Attic xoww?,

[CuAssicaL PatLoLoey VIII, April, 1913) 133

134 Cart Daruine Buck

into unnecessarily vague statements or even directly false assertions as to what is usual.!

It is obvious that certain forms of dialect mixture which occur have no bearing on the question before us. The influence of the literary epic, which shows itself in varying degrees in the metrical dedications and epitaphs, is no more common in the inscriptions set up abroad than in those set up at home. Nor is the admixture of Attic forms in the later Doric or other dialects generally any different in the interstate inscriptions from that which the same dialect shows in the inscriptions found within its own territory. It is only the substitution of the Attic «o.vy for the local dialect with Attic color- ing that would concern us. In the period of fluctuation between Attic and the local dialect the choice of the former may in some given instances be due to the interstate character of a document. But this should not be assumed without weighing the question in each case whether the difference is really between interstate and other documents, or between those of a formal public character, whether interstate or local, and others, as for example in the Nicareta inscription (IG VII, 3172), where the formally drawn financial con- trast is in Attic, the other portions in Boeotian.

Certain aberrations from the native dialect, in the nature of elimination of some specific local peculiarity, have often been pointed out as due to the interstate character of the inscriptions in which they occur, and no doubt correctly in some instances. Thus Solmsen KZ XXXII, 539, speaking of the inscription on the serpent column _ from Delphi, which is in the Laconian alphabet, but nevertheless has érroX€ueov without the regular Laconian change of antevocalic to z, remarks:

Es sollte das nationale geschenk aller Hellenen darstellen, soweit sie sich an den freiheitskimpfen beteiligt hatten, und so ist es nur natiirlich, dass die Lakedaemonier, wenn sie die weihinschrift auch in ihrem alphabet eingraben liessen, doch in der sprache die speciellen eigenheiten ihrer mundart ver-

1 Thus Hoffmann Griech. Dial. I, p. 17, regards the use of Attic in an Arcadian decree in honor of an Athenian as natural, ‘‘ weil Ehrendekrete fiir Angehérige eines fremden Staates schon seit Altester Zeit nicht im einheimischen Dialekte, sondern im Dialekte des Geehrten gehalten zu werden pflegten.”” This statement can only be understood as a momentary lapse on the part of a scholar who must on reflection be well aware that, whatever the explanation of this particular case, the general practice is precisely the opposite. See below, pp. 145 ff.


mieden und das den meisten dorischen stiimmen gemeinsame zu grunde legten; man kann darin einen ansatz zu einer dor. gemeinsprache sehen. Auch Pindar, der fiir den ganzen hellenischen adel dorischen stimmes dichtete, hat die in rede stehenden besonderheiten des lakonischen und seinen heimatlichen dialekts durchaus vermieden.

Similarly Meister Dorer und Achdéer I, 9 ff.:

Bei Verwendung dieser von Spartanen verfassten Inschriften fiir die Erkenntniss des spartanischen Dialekts sind die bekannten Tatsachen in Rechnung zu ziehen, dass in den Texten, die ausserhalb der heimischen Land- schaften aufgestellt fiir andere Greichen und fiir den internationalen Verkehr bestimmt waren, besonders exzentrische Eigentiimlichkeiten des Dialekts wie des Alphabets gewéhnlich unterdriickt zu werden pflegten.

The ‘“‘gewéhnlich” he qualifies in a footnote by “nicht immer.” I have no doubt that such elimination of certain specific peculiarities is to be recognized, but I believe that “occasionally, but not usually,” instead of “usually, but not always,’ would be nearer the mark, and further that this is not entirely confined to interstate inscriptions.!


The matter of the dialect employed in dedications has recently been recalled to notice by the Cleobis and Biton dedication at Delphi, apropos of which Premerstein Oest. Jhrh. XIII, 48 remarks: “In aller Regel sind die Inschriften archiischer Weihungen im Alphabet und Dialekt der Dedikanten gehalten; doch gibt es Ausnahmen, indem auswirtige Stifter mitunter der ortsiiblichen Schrift und Sprache sich bedienen, so z. B. die Séhne des Pariers Charopinos auf ihren delphischen Anathemen.”

Examples in plenty of the normal practice, the use of the alpha- bet and dialect of the dedicators, regardless of where the objects are set up, are furnished by the dedications from all parts of the Greek world found at the Panhellenic sanctuaries of Olympia, Delos, ° Delphi, and Dodona, as well as at other sites, e.g., a Naxian dedica- tion at Boeotian Orchomenus (SGDI 5422; Roberts I, No. 28).

The artist’s signatures are likewise normally in the dialect and alphabet of the artist. Yet now and then the artist working abroad may adapt himself to the local practice.

1See Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects, § 275, and the remarks on vats, below, p. 137, and on Ilv@ayépas, below, p. 138.

136 Cart Daruinc Buck

In those cases where both dedication and artist’s signature belonging to the same work are preserved, and dedicator and artist are not compatriots, we expect and find, as a general rule, the appropriate differentiation. But there are also some instances in which the dedication shows the form appropriate to the artist, indicating that the matter was intrusted to his hands; and others in which, con- versely, the artist’s signature is adapted to the dedication; and still others in which the local influence of the place of dedication is a third element. Some illustrations of the normal differentiation are given first, followed by examples of adaptation or local influence.

Inschriften von Olympia 271; Loewy Inschriften griechischer Bild- hauer 33:

a) [TAavxi]ar pe Kadov yeve[ ai F]aXciop ézoi€. b) [TA]avxins 6 Avxxideo [70] “Eppie ‘P[y]yivos. The signature of the Elean artist is in the Elean dialect and alphabet;

the dedication in the Ionic dialect and in the alphabet then current at Rhegium.

Inschriften von Olympia 143; Loewy 28:

a) Tédov Acwwopéveos Teddr Jos dveGE ke.

b) TAaveias Aiywaras é[ 2 Joiéce. There is nothing here significant for the dialect. But the contrast between = in the dedication and ¢ in the artist’s signature is not accidental. For that the use of = was established at both Gela and Syracuse considerably earlier than in many parts of Greece, for example at Athens where it is rare before the middle of the fifth century, we know from other sources, e.g., the coin legends of Gela and Syracuse, the Delphian dedication of Gelon, quoted below, the Olympian dedication of Hieron (Inschr. von Olympia 249), and the early inscriptions on the steps of the temple of Apollo at Syracuse (Roberts I, No. 110).

Inschriften von Olympia 162: Loewy 91:

Of the original inscription, the later restoration of which reads TIu@oxArjs *Aretos. [[loAv]erertos érrolee "Apyetos, enough is pre- served to show clearly the difference in alphabet, the signature of


the artist showing the characteristic Argive form of lambda, while the dedication shows the usual form current in Elis.

Dedication of Gelon of Syracuse at Delphi: Homolle BCH XXI, 589; Mélanges Weil 212 ff.; Hicks? 16; Ditt. Syll.2 910: a) Tédov 6 Aavoper[eos] | avebexe romdAAave | Svpagdaros. b) Tov tpiwoda Kai rév vixévy épydoaro | Biov Avodépo vids MiAéctos.

The dedication is Syracusan in alphabet and dialect. The article without spiritus asper has already been attested for Syracuse, among other places (cf. my Greek Dialects, p. 50), by the Olympian dedication of Hieron, beginning Hidpov 6. The artist’s signature is in the Ionic dialect (rév viéxév) as is natural, but the alphabet is not the Milesian Ionic (note E=7, O=@). It cannot be a case of continuation of the alphabet used in the dedication, for it has }, $ in contrast to C, = =, o. There seems to be left only one possibility, namely, that the alphabet is Delphian. Yet Delphian inscriptions of about the same date show [ =y and ==c.

Inschriften von Olympia 259; Loewy 49:

a) Meoodvioe cat Navraxrior dvéBev Aut | "Odvumias Sexdrav dd tov mrodepiwv.

b) Tatdyos éroinoe Meviaios | cai tdxpwrypia rowdy én tov vadv évixa.

The alphabet of both a and 6 is Ionic. This may be thought of as the use of the artist’s alphabet in the dedication as well. But the date of the monument is not long before the Ionic alphabet came into general use. In dialect the dedication and artist’s inscription are still distinct, the former in Doric, the latter in Ionic, except for vadv. This use of vads is not due merely to the fact that the particular temple referred to was so called (Dittenberger- Purgold, loc. cit.), but is an early example of the tendency to replace the Attic-Ionic veos by the more cosmopolitan form, which is also observed in dedications from Ionic soil and which results in the establishment of vads in the xoww7.!

1 Cf. Michel 1209: Bactdeds ’AXéEavdpos dvéOnxe Tdv vadyAPnvaly Todudd: (Priene, 334 B.c.); and Michel 1134: evoxdeldns Tdovos dvéOnxe Tov vady "Apréude Aypo- tépac krd. (Panagoria, second half of the fourth century.) vadés prevails in Attic

inscriptions after about 250 s.c. (Meisterhans-Schwyzer 128), and is the Modern Greek form (similarly always \aés).

138 Cart Daruine Buck

Inschriften von Olympia 144; Loewy 22: EvOvpos Aoxpds "Aoruxdéos tpis OdAdpm’ évixwv cixdva 8 xrnoev tHvde Bpotois évopav. EtOvpos Aoxpos ard Zepvpiov dveOnxe. TIvOayépas Sdyuos éroinoev. Alphabet and dialect are uniform, the Ionic of the artist, who, how- ever, in his own name prefers the form common to all dialects except his own to the strictly Ionic [lv@aydpns.

Works of the Parian Artist Euphron

Loewy 48; Roberts I, 143; from near the Peiraeus:

TWwv "Epp. dyadpa “Eppoorpa|ro *AB8Sypirys

eornoen modrads | Onoduevos méAnas Eidpwv élgeroino’ otk ddays Tdpios. The dedication and artist’s signature are uniform in dialect (Ionic, appropriate to both parties, with epic influence), and also in alpha- bet. Kirchhoff Studien‘, p. 17, argued that, since the alphabet does not show the characteristic Parian type, it must be that of Abdera, the home of the dedicator. Similarly Roberts, p. 171: “The sculptor then, the Parian Euphron, possibly adapted himself to the local alphabet of the dedicator, Python of Abdera.” But this view is to be given up, in view of the fact that the same alphabet is employed in the case of another work by the same artist (cf. the following). It is evident that Euphron was accustomed to use the ordinary Ionic alphabet, and we now know also that in Paros itself this displaced the distinctive Parian type during the fifth century. Cf. JG XII, v, 108; Ditt. Syll.? 569. IG I, Suppl. 373° (p. 205); E. Hoffmann Syll. Epigr. Graec. 258; from Athens: [Sp jexvOn pw’ dve[Onxlev “AO]nvaim ro[8? dyaA|ya edéapé|vn [8 ~ - ~] trép wa[idwv «Jat éavr[qs]. Evdpo[v Idpios ézo|é |noev.

The dedicator was in all probability an Athenian woman. The use of the Ionic alphabet and the Ionic form ’A@nvain is to be laid to the account of the artist.)

1 Othefwise Mess Quaestiones de epigrammate Alttico et tragoedia antiquiore dialec- ticae 7 ff., who discusses this inscription at length. He makes no account of the fact


1G I, Suppl. 373?” (p. 205); from Athens: PaiSpo[s I ]pobv - - - | Kepadebev dveO[Ex]ev. Evdpov éroie[o lev. This time the alphabet is Attic throughout, and no doubt the dialect, too, would show itself Attic, not Ionic, if anything distinctive occurred. The three following signatures of the Cretan artist Cresilas of Cydonia are adapted, in alphabet and dialect, to the dedications. IG IV, 683; Loewy 46; Michel 1066; Roberts I, 287; from Her- mione: "Arekias Avovos dvebe[xe] | raz Aduarps rae xOoviale] | Heppuovers. | Kpéciras éroiéoe Kvdondr[as]. Alphabet and dialect of Hermione. IG I, 402; Loewy 45; Michel 1055; from Athens: Hepporvxos | Acecrpépos | drapyxev. | Kpéciras | érdecev.

Attic alphabet and dialect.

IG I, 403; Loewy 46; Hoffmann Syll. Epigr. Graec. 269;

Athens: Tovde Ivpns] dvebexe ToAvpvéors dirols vids evédpevos Sexarév Tladddde Tprroyevel. Kvdonéras Kpécitas Epydocaro. Attic alphabet (except &) and Ionic epic dialect throughout. Here we must agree with Mess, in the dissertation cited above (p. 138), that this is one of the clear cases of the use of the epic dialect in

that the artist was an Ionian, pointing out that the Ionic alphabet was sometimes used by Attic writers in the fifth century, and arguing that "A@nvalm is due merely to epic influence. The author of this important dissertation has shown successfully that Kirchhoff’s tenet (Hermes V, 56), according to which inscriptional epigrams of Attic authorship show the Attic forms without the slightest admixture of any other dialect, cannot be maintained in all its rigor. There are some instances of Ionic forms due to epic influence or even of Doric forms due to lyric influence, where there is no reason to question the Attic authorship. But it remains true that such cases are exceptional, and that, particularly in the matter of 4, 7, Attic metrical inscriptions, until the Alexandrian period, maintain the Attic forms with a high degree of con- sistency (for examples, cf. Meisterhans-Schwyzer, p. 17). Specifically, "A@nvaln occurs only here and in the dedication of Hegelochus, who was clearly an Ionian resident of Athens (see below, p. 143), as against nearly a dozen examples of ’A@nvala in early Attic metrical inscriptions; and where a special explanation of this, and also of the use of the Ionic alphabet throughout, is available, it is not proper to ignore it.

140 Cart Darina Buck

an Attic metrical inscription, and that there is no occasion to assume with Kirchhoff and others, that Kudovéras is an error. For the alternation of Ion. 7 with Dor. @ retained in the final syllable, Mess compares ’Adpunvds in Eur. Hipp. 736. One may also recall the similar alternation of Att.-Ion. 7 and Dor. a@ in «uBepynras Bacchy- lides 5. 47 and other like cases.

Roberts II, 197; from Athens:

“Apxeppos éroiécev 6 Xios.

"Tpidixé p? aveBexev “APEvaias modoxou. The dedication, as well as the signature, is from the hand of the Chian artist. He intended to follow the Attic style of writing, and, after correcting éro{Hoev to éroiEcev, avoids the use of 7 or w. But his native habit shows through in the omission of the spiritus asper (6 not ho), and in the forms of certain letters which are at variance with the Attic usage.

Passing now from such special cases, where dedication and artist’s signature by citizens of different states are juxtaposed or combined, we may consider other dedications or artists’ signatures with reference to the question of local influence.

A stock example for the substitution of the local alphabet is the one cited by Premerstein, the Delphian dedication, or as we now know two identical dedications, by the sons of the Parian Charopinus:

TOIYAPOTINOPAIDESANEOESANTOP APIO rot Xapomiva maides dvecav 75 Mapio.

Cf. Kirchhoff Studien 144; Roberts I, 230 bis, and for the second copy, Homolle BCH XX, 582. Kirchhoff pointed out that neither dialect nor alphabet could be Parian, and must therefore be the epichoric. The dialect, however, is mixed; ro/ is Delphian, but avéBecav Ionic. Homolle Fouilles de Delphes IV, 56, makes the plausible suggestion that Charopinus was a Parian sculptor who had taken up his residence at Delphi. This would explain at once the Delphian character of the dedication by his sons.

The fragmentary dedication of Micciades and Archermus of Chios, found at Delos, is generally believed to be in the alphabet of Delos, not that of Chios. Cf. Kirchhoff Studien 83 ff.; Roberts I, 24a; Loewy 1; SGDI 5387. Otherwise Hoffmann Gr. Dial. ITI, 59.


The Cleobis and Biton dedication reads as follows, according to Premerstein Oest. Jhrh. XIII, 44. Cf. also Homolle BCH XXIV, 447 ff., Fouilles de Delphes 7 ff.; Pomtow Woch. f. klass. Phil. 1911, 526; Baunack Philologus LXX, 312.

a) [KAéoBis xai Bijrov rav pardpa b) édyayov roe Suya| . . . pédes ewoiee hapyeios. The alphabet had been called Argive by Homolle, but Premerstein points out that the characters which occur here are such as have substantially the same form in both the Argive and the Phocian alphabets. The dialect, he thinks, can only be Phocian (Delphian). But this question of dialect is more complicated. The form patdpa, the reading of which is declared certain, is without doubt Delphian, ranging itself beside Delph. ¢apev, Sapyara, and mevtayapitevor, with ap from ep, as regularly in Locrian and Elean. This is enough to show that the dedication was not inscribed at Argos, but at Delphi. But did the Delphian stonecutter use his own dialect throughout, or did just this one form of his native dialect slip in, while he otherwise followed correctly an Argive copy? This latter, I believe, is correct. The form of crasis' seen in hapyeios (6 ’Apyeios) is so well attested in early Argolic inscriptions as to demand recogni- tion as one of the characteristics of the dialect. So Arg. rapryeioz (rol "Apyeior), Inschr. von Olympia 250, 251; Arg. Hayeraida rapyeto (6 ’Ayeraida tod ’Apyetiov), ibid. 631; Epid. taicxXamie (tp A-), IG IV, 1203 (the editor reads haroxXamie?, but Kabbadias’ reading is probably correct; cf. Solmsen Inscr. select., p. 45, footnote). From other dialects, leaving Attic out of account, there are a few scatter- ing examples, namely, so as far I know, one each in Corinthian, Arcadian, Rhodian, and several in Cyprian. But none such occurs in Delphian, which has only tordAXA@u etc., like most of the other dialects. Where, as in this dedication, it is a question of Delphian or Argive dialect, hapyevos is as distinctive of the latter as is watapa of the former.

The verb form ézrofee Premerstein says cannot stand for the Argive aorist évroi/céhe, and must therefore be regarded as Phocian and an imperfect. But there is no ground for the inference that,

1In reality, I believe, elision instead of true crasis; cf. my Greek Dialects, p. 73 with footnote. But this does not affect the present argument.

142 CarRL DarRuine Buck

taken as an imperfect, it must be Phocian. The form is equally strange in either dialect. Although intervocalic ¢ lasted longer in Argolic than in Phocian, in a sixth-century inscription it is to be expected in Phocian also (cf. «Adros, ai¢e/ on the altar of Crissa). The absence of contraction in érroée, which Premerstein calls ‘“‘das erste urkundliche Zeugniss fiir die unkontrahierte Vorstufe zu ézrotet,”’ but which can be explained only in the manner suggested to him by Kretschmer, namely, as due to the analogical influence of forms like ésroéeov with regularly uncontracted eo, is just as likely to be Argive as Delphian. Or better, it is no more unlikely. We have some few examples of verb forms with uncontracted en, as Locr. Soxéé:, etc., which are probably due to analogical influence (cf. my Greek Dialects, §§ 42. 4 and 45. 5), but nothing parallel to érrolee, outside the pages of Herodotus. Accordingly I prefer to believe that the first of the two E’s is intended for ¢ (cf. EOINON= fotvoy in the Delphian stadium inscription, and other similar cases‘) and that the correct reading is évro/¢é. This form might be either Delphian or Argive. ;

In duyo.=tvyo, if Premerstein’s reading is accepted,? the 6=¢ is new for either Delphian or Argive. But in view of the special relations between the Argive and Laconian dialects, the occurrence of ¢=6 in an early Argive inscription, and certain other facts (cf. especially Meister Dorer und Achder 52 ff.; in connection with Rhod. 70g’ =708’, note that Aevs has now turned up on a Rhodian vase), it may be said that the eventual appearance of 6=€ in Argive has been looked for.

Dedication of land to the Muses of Helicon, by Philetaerus, son of Attalus of Pergamum. Two identical copies found in the neigh- borhood of Thespiae. Homolle BCH VIII, 158; JG VII, 1789; Michel 1103:

Dirernpos "Arradw Ilepyapeds dvexe trav yav tis Moons ris “EAckw- vudderor tapav eluev ev Tov mavta xpovov.

Philetaerus, whose patronage of the Greek cults and festivals is evidenced by dedications and decrees in his honor found at Athens,

1Cf. Kretschmer Vaseninschriften, 97; Solmsen Untersuchungen, 147.

2 This is questioned by Pomtow Woch. f. klass. Phil. 1911, 529, who still prefers to read roi viol.


Delos, Olympia, and Delphi (cf. Homolle, loc. cit.), had acquired and donated to the proper authorities certain land to be consecrated to the Muses of Helicon. The form of dedication is evidently not one furnished by Philetaerus himself. Rather the Boeotian beneficiaries commemorated his gift in their own dialect, but in the form of a dedication in his name.

Dedications by the Theran Archedamus, from the Cave of Vari at the foot of Mt. Hymettus. Dunham Am. Jour. Arch. 1903, 297 ff.; Roberts II, 199-201; SGDI IV, 796 ff.:

a) "Apxédapos ho @ép|aios xarov Nu|udas épvrevoe

b) *Apxé{aluos [h]o @€éplaios xai x0(p)ov (p)xeord?] Nwvpa éx|co- KL 080 uécev.

d) *Apxedynpuos 6 @|npatos & vuud|dAnrros dpad| ator vupov | dvrpov éénpy | déaro. The dedicator, a native of Thera but doubtless a resident of Athens, follows the local practice in writing (a and 6 in Attic alphabet, d in Ionic except for O=), but in dialect mixes Attic and Doric forms. Even in d, where his name appears in Attic form, he uses the Theran é€npydfaro. The restoration of b, ll. 2, 3, is uncertain.!


In his article on the epigram in Pauly-Wissowa, Reitzenstein remarks (p. 78): “Der Dialekt ist wesentlich epichorisch; wenn der Tote im Ausland begraben ist, der seiner Heimat. Doch hat die Einwirkung des Epos oder der Lyrik ab und an auch die dialekt- ische Form beeinflusst.”” The matter of literary influence is nowhere more correctly and concisely stated. But the words “wenn der Tote im Ausland begraben ist, der seiner Heimat” are only in part true of the facts, and imply a misconception, which may be observed in other writers, too, of what determines the dialect. Just as the dialect of honorary decrees is determined by that of the authors, not by that of the recipients, so the dialect of epitaphs is determined by that of the authors, not primarily by that of the deceased. If

1The metrical dedication of Hegelochus (Loewy 40; Roberts I, 67), who was evi- dently an Ionian resident in Athens, is in the Attic alphabet but in the Ionic dialect,

the only inconsistency being the spiritus asper in hudés, this being properly omitted in the dedicator’s own name.

144 Cart DarRLinG Buck

epitaphs are actually, in the great majority of cases, in the dialect of the deceased, it is because they are usually from the hands of rela- tives or compatriots, whose dialect is the same. But in the case of those buried on alien soil this may or may not be true. Note the following illustrations, of which the first three are in the dialect of the deceased, and the next three not in that of the deceased.!

Hicks? 18; Dragoumis Athen. Mitt. XXII, 52; Wilamowitz Gditt. Nachr. 1897, 306; Wilhelm Oest. Jhrh. II, 227; found at Salamis: Epitaph of the Corinthians slain at Salamis. As we learn from Plutarch, the Athenians allowed the Corinthians to bury their own dead at Salamis. The epitaph is accordingly in the Corinthian alphabet and dialect.

Hicks? 28; Roberts I, 77; found at Athens:

Fragment of an epitaph and list of Cleonaeans (and Argives ?) who were slain in the Battle of Tanagra, and, as Athenian allies, received burial at Athens (Paus. I, 29, 5). The names show their Doric form and the alphabet is the Argive. The copy for the inscription was doubtless furnished by the compatriots of the dead.

IG I, 477; Loewy 8; Hoffmann Syll. Epigr. Graec. 11; found at


Dedication by Phocylides in memory of his wife Lampito. The alphabet is Attic, but the dialect Ionic. The phrase yijs watpwins shows that Lampito (and doubtless her husband) was a foreigner, and it is an altogether reasonable presumption from the dialect that the family was Ionian. Cf. Kirchhoff Hermes V, 54.

IG IX, i, 867; Roberts I, 98; SGDI 3188:

Monument of Menecrates at Corcyra. Menecrates was a native of Oeanthea, but this monument to him is from the hands of the people of Corcyra whose proxenus he had been. The epitaph is ac- cordingly in the Corinthian alphabet and dialect (with epic mixture).

IG I, Suppl. 491" (p. 115); Hoffmann Syll. Epigr. Graec. 32: Monument of Pythagoras at Athens. Pythagoras was a native of Salybria, a Megarian colony, but the monument was set up by

1The epitaph of a Syracusan woman at Athens, ANAZATOPA ZTPOKOSIA, is taken by Kirchhoff Studien* 109 to be in the Syracusan alphabet, but this is a doubtful case. For the only two non-Attic characters, = and I, may also be Ionic, since these were not infrequently used at Athens in the fifth century.


the people of Athens, whose proxenus he had been. The epitaph is accordingly in the Attic dialect (with epic coloring in the vocabu- lary) except for the natural retention of the original form of the name Ladrvfpia and the Ionic form [lv@ayépnv. This last is in puzzling contrast to the converse substitution of [lv@ayépas by the Samian artist (above, p. 138), and even the explanation suggested by Mess Quaest. de epigr. Alt., p. 14, is not entirely convincing. The use of the Ionic alphabet is, in spite of Kirchhoff, perhaps of no special significance here.

IG IV, 49; Roberts I, 127c; SGDI 3414:

Monument of Gleucitas at Aegina. Gleucitas was a native of Salamis in Cyprus. But the epitaph is in the Aeginetan alphabet and dialect, and probably Diotimus, who set up the monument, was an Aeginetan.

Similar to the two cases preceding the last is the fourth-century epitaph, JG II, 1678, of the two Corcyraean envoys who died at Athens and were commemorated by the Athenian state. But there are numerous other fourth-century epitaphs of foreigners who were buried in Athens, e.g., Hoffmann Syll. Epigr. Graec. 77, 78, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, where the use of Attic has no such special explanation. Most of these persons had probably become residents of Athens and their children (cf. op. cit. 82) or other relatives naturally used Attic.


Decrees granting honors or specific privileges to foreigners or to a foreign state are regularly in the dialect of the party issuing the decree, regardless of the dialect of the party honored. Thus the numerous honorary decrees of the Boeotian League or of any of the Boeotian towns, down to about the middle of the second century B.C., are in the Boeotian dialect, whether the recipient is a citizen of Athens, Alexandria, Antioch, Byzantium, Carthage, Chalcis, Delphi, Phalanna, Naupactus, Rome, Tarentum, or Teos. If Mycenae honors a Gortynian, or Troizene a Plataean, the dialect is that of Argolis. If Tenedos or Mytilene honors the people of Erythrae, the dialect is Aeolic. When the Eleans honor Damocrates of Tenedos, the dialect is the Elean of the time. And so on, in examples so numerous that there can be no doubt as to what is the usual practice.

146 Cart Daruine Buck

Although the great majority of the extant decrees of this kind are those which were set up in the cities issuing them, there is also a sufficient number represented by the copies which were set up in the home of the recipient. These show the original dialect retained, apart from occasional errors due to the local stonecutter. Thus, to cite a few of the most striking illustrations, an inscription found at Mytilene (JG XII, ii, 15) contains the text of a decree of the Aetolian League in favor of Mytilene, in its original Aetolian (North- west Greek xow7) form, a copy of which had been brought back by the Mytilenaean envoys. This is followed by a decree of Mytilene, in Lesbian, quoting from the Aetolian decree and ordering the inscription of both. From Cos (Paton and Hicks 13) we have a portion of a decree of Halicarnassus in honor of a Coan citizen and announcing an embassy to Cos to request its publication there. Subjoined is the Coan decree, in Doric, granting this request. Copies of Coan decrees in honor of citizens of Calymna and of another Coan decree accepting the proposal of the Calymnians to honor a Coan physician have been found at Calymna (SGDI 3611, 3612, 3619). However, the dialect of Cos and Calymna was the same. From Iasus (Hicks! 130) we have a copy of a Calymnian decree, in Doric, in honor of certain judges who had been sent from Iasus. This is preceded by a decree of Iasus, in the xouvyn, in response. From Priene we have a decree of some Aeolian city, in Aeolic, in honor of a judge from Priene (Inschr. von Priene 60). Cretan and Delphian decrees in honor of Athenians have been found at Athens (IG II, 547, 548, 550). From Delos (Ditt. Syll.2 722; SGDI 5150) we have a decree of Cnossus in honor of Dioscurides the grammarian, a native of Tarsus. According to the text the decree was to be set up at Cnossus, and copies sent to the ‘“‘ Athenians dwelling in Delos”’ and to the people of Tarsus.!

1 There is also no lack of examples of copies of other classes of decrees and com- munications which have been set up in the home of the party addressed. The copy of the Spartan decree found at Delos (SGDI 4415; Roberts I, 267) is in the Laconian alphabet as well as dialect, though the subjoined names of the magistrates are in the Ionic alphabet. We have Rhodian decrees found at Iasus, Seleuceia, and Cyzicus (SGDI 3750-52), decrees of Iasus, Naxos, Athens, and some Doric city, found at Cos (Paton and Hicks 14-17), decrees of the Aetolians and Naupactians found in Ceos (IG XII, v, 526, 527), Aetolian and Cretan decrees found at Mytilene (JG XII, ii, 16, 17), etc. From Delphi (BCH VI, 460 ff.=SGDI 1412, 5151) we have a letter in


We may now consider the few exceptional cases in which an honorary decree is not in the dialect of the party issuing it, but in that of the recipient. One, but of questionable significance, is the decree of Megarian Aegosthena in honor of Boeotian Siphae (JG VII, 207), which is mainly in Boeotian, though with several un-Boeotian forms. The use of Boeotian is commonly attributed solely to the fact that the decree was in honor of a Boeotian town,' whereas I

Cretan from Axus to the Aetolians, subjoined to a decree of the Aetolians in response. From Athens we have a copy of the amphictyonic decree of 380 B.c. (SGDI 2501) in its original Delphian form. In this case the Athenians are not specifically addressed, and no doubt several other copies were set up elsewhere. The most extensive series of foreign decrees are those found at Teos (Le Bas et Waddington III, 61 ff.) and at Magnesia on the Maeander (Kern Inschr. von Magnesia), dating from the early part of the second century B.c., and accordingly showing the various dialects employed in a mixed form. The Teian series embraces decrees, granting the privilege of asylum to the temple of Dionysus at Teos, from the Romans in the Attic xow#, from the Delphians and the Aetolians in Northwest Greek xoww4, from the Athamanes in the Attic xo}, and from twenty Cretan towns in various forms of mixed Cretan. The Magnesian series comprises replies to an invitation of Magnesia to participate in the festival of Artemis Leucophryene, also several decrees in honor of citizens of Mag- nesia, and affords a comprehensive picture of the linguistic conditions of the time. There are decrees in Arcadian, Boeotian, Lesbian, Thessalian, Cretan, Doric ow} (from Corinth, Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus, Epirus, Acarnania, Achaea, Cnidus, Cos [?], Rhodes), Northwest Greek xo.v} (from Aetolia, Cephallenia, Ithaca, Phocis, Messenia), and the Attic xowv} (nearly all these from Attic-Ionic territory or the Macedonian cities of the Orient).

1 Foucart (Le Bas et Waddington II, Explic., p. 2) says Boeotian was used “‘sans doute pour tre mieux compris des Siphéens.”’ Meister (note to SGDI 1145) says: “Ein Akt besonderer Héflichkeit war es, dass man in Aegosthen& den gefassten Be- schluss in den béotischen Dialekt tibertragen liess, um ihn in béotischer Fassung nach Siphé zu schicken; dass bei dieser Uebertragung einige unbdotische Schreibungen (éridh 2, éx 3, 9, éxreOjxav& 6, Orwr 8, Satfo. 12) in den Text hineingekommen sind, erscheint begreiflich.” This is also the conclusion of Dittenberger (note to JG VII, 207), who discusses the other alternative only to reject it. His comment raises the issue so distinctly that it must be quoted in full: “‘Plebiscitum n. 207 Boeotica dialecto composita est. Quod utrum Aegosthenitae fecissent, ut Siphensibus Boeotis gratificarentur, an quia ipsi tum Boeotorum societati ascripti essent, Boeckhius quidem (Opp. VI, p. 365) dubitabat. Sed eos populos, qui cum natione Boeoti non essent per aliquod temporis spatium foederis Boetici participes erant, nequaquam propterea in actis publicis sermone Boeotico usos esse cum ex reliquis Aegosthenitarum titulis et nonnullis Megarensium (n. 27, 28, 29) tum ex permagno numero decretorum Oropiorum apparet, quae ad unum omnia Attica dialecto composita sunt (n. 237 ff.). Restat igitur prior Boeckhii interpretatio; etsi haec quoque res satis inusitata est, tamen aliquot eius generis exempla extant, veluti decretum Arcadeum quo Phylarchus Atheniensis honoribus afficitur (Syll. Inscr. Gr. 167) ipsum quidem sermone Attico compositum, cum index nominum subiunctus dialecti Arcadicae formas habeat."’ But where we are dealing with a practice which is admittedly unusual from either point of view, the one decree of Oropus in Boeotian is as good a parallel in one direction as the decree of the Arcadians in the other. Boeotian forms occur also in a decree of the

148 Cart Daruine Buck

regard this as, at most, only a contributory factor, since Boeotian forms and expressions occur in several other inscriptions of Aegos- thena, which was at this time in the Boeotian League. Certainly the case has no such unambiguous significance as it would have if it were, for example, a decree in honor of a Thessalian town and in Thessalian.

The stock example, the one cited by Dittenberger in the note just quoted, and the one which even misled Hoffmann, Griech. Dial. I, 67 (cf. above, p. 134), into a generalization which is the reverse of the truth, is the decree of the Arcadians in honor of the Athenian Phylarchus, Ditt. Syll.2 106; Michel 198. While the subscribed names of the officials keep their native form, the decree proper is in Attic. But, for the very reason that this is an exception to the general practice in honorary decrees, it is not enough to say merely, with Dittenberger, that Attic was used out of compliment to the person honored. May not the explanation lie in part in the linguistic situation of the time in Arcadia, about which, unfortunately, we are still very imperfectly informed? The date of the inscription was formerly put in the third century B.c., but the character of the letters is more suitable to the fourth century, and for this and other

reasons, this date is now preferred. Cf. Dittenberger’s note, and most recently Hiller von Gartringen Athen. Mitt. 1911, 349 ff. It is long prior, and would be even with the later dating, to the final adoption of the Attic xovvy in Arcadia. But this is equally true of a decree of Tegea in honor of a Thessalian Agesandrus, Ditt. Syll.? 476, Michel 189, which is of about the same time, and which is also in Attic.!. In this connection may be mentioned also another fourth-

Phocians (Inschr. von Magnesia 34). And, what is more to the point, other inscrip- tions of Aegosthena do contain Boeotian forms though not nearly so many as the decree in honor of Siphae. Dittenberger recognizes those in No. 208, but thinks they are due to the fact that the stonecutter had just been working on No. 207 (‘‘quae in animo scribae ex eis quae paullo ante exaraverat haesisse videntur’’). But we have also the Boeotian phrase év weXTropépas in 210, 211, 214, @rete in 219, dae- [yp]4pav60 in 214. Plainly it was not unusual to employ Boeotian forms at this time, and at most only their more nearly consistent use in No. 207 can be attributed to the fact that it was in honor of a Boeotian town.

1 The only trace of the native dialect is the retention of %umracis =%yxrnors, and even this not in its strictly local form (tvracis). The date of the inscription is generally given as the end of the third century B.c. But this rests on the remarks of Sauppe De titulis Tegeaticis pp. 5, 6: “‘In universum igitur literatura eius simillima


century Arcadian decree, that of Psophis in honor of a Naxian, Inschr. von Olympia 294. Dittenberger says that the use of Ionic “‘mag in einer Riicksicht auf die Heimat des Geehrten seinen Grund haben,” and again refers to the Phylarchus decree as an example of this practice. But there is nothing in the inscription which may not be Attic as well as Ionic. It is evident that the occasional employment of Attic in Arcadian inscriptions (its influence upon the native dialect is apparent in the Tegean building inscription) is earlier than had been supposed. Only sub- sequent discoveries can determine whether this was confined to certain classes of inscriptions, such as those involving foreign relations like these two decrees, and how far it was restricted in time within certain narrow limits.’

Michel 188; Inschr. von Olympia 30:

"Edogev *AXewior. Aidirov tov "AGav[atlov, MeAavoro huiv, mpogevov Kai ekepyérav tov "Adeov ypddoat év ’OdAvpaiae Boker. Meister Griech. Dial. II, 79, is certainly right in recognizing an Attic admixture in both writing and dialect,? and in his explanation of the same. This is not a copy of the original honorary decree but of an authorization to publish its result at Olympia. Diphilus had attended to the matter himself, and in preparing the copy of the authorization had allowed some Attic peculiarities to slip in.

est, quae in titulis P. Foucarti et A. Michaelis esse dicitur,” and p. 8: ‘‘Itaque hoc unum restat, ut comparatis literarum formis cum eis, quae in titulo foederis arcadici habentur, etiam tegeaticum Agesandri eodem fere tempore scriptum esse iudicemus, i.e., sub finem tertii ante Christum natum saeculi.’’ The two inscriptions here referred to are the Phylarchus decree, which as noted above is now dated in the fourth century, and the Tegean building inscription, which was also formerly dated in the third century, but which, according to Wilhelm Beitrage zur griech. Inschriftkunde 21, belongs rather to the fourth. The forms of the letters in the Agesandrus decree, as described by Sauppe and as represented by Milchhéfer Athen. Mitt. IV, 140, also point to the fourth century.

1 We know that the advance of Attic influence in Arcadia was not one of unin- terrupted progress. The native dialect persisted till about 200 B.c. (the decree of Megalopolis, Ditt. Syll.2 258, with all its mixture, is essentially Arcadian). But before this there had come into use, through the influence of the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues, a form of Doric xo.v}, and it is this, not the Attic xoiw4, which prevails in Arcadian inscriptions of the last two centuries B.c.

2 Doubted by Dittenberger-Purgold, loc. cit. But, though Meister’s points are not all equally certain, the one occurrence of L =A, and the »- movable in @5oter, are not to be explained away.

150 Cart Darina Buck

Ditt. Syll.2 483; Michel 316; SGDI 1340 =4256:

[@eds. r]ixa dyabd.] [eri rlpoordra Aeu[x]dpov, ddixopevwn ‘Trroabéveos,

Teloia}], “Eppwvos, Sedinos, eof trois Modoacois mpofevialy] dopey rois "Axpayavrivos. The infinitive in -wecv is confined to the dialect of Rhodes and its colonies, hence déuev must belong to the speech of the Agrigentines, not the Molossians. Yet we must take decided issue with the statement in the note to SGDI 4256: ‘‘ Die Urkunde ist den Akragan- tinern zu Ehren in ihrer, nicht in der Sprache der Molosser abge- fasst.”” There is not the slightest probability that the Molossians employed the dialect of the Agrigentines in their original decree. But the envoys mentioned in the decree, who had come from Agrigen- tum and obtained a decree of proxeny in its favor, had themselves furnished the copy for its publication at Dodona, and, probably inadvertently, used their familiar déuev.

An interesting fact, perhaps to be explained in the same way, if not accidental, is that in a long series of decrees of Olus in different hands (SGDI 5104) the one in honor of certain Gortynians (No. IT) shows Toptuviovs mpokdvovs juev Kal evepyéravs Kal Toditavs Kai avrows Kal éyydvovs, whereas all the others have only -os or -ous in the accusative plural. It was at Gortyna and Cnossus that the forms in -vs persisted longest.


Decisions of interstate arbitration were regularly rendered in the dialect of the arbitrators, and copies in this form were set up by the states involved in the dispute, at home and often also in one of the religious centers as Olympia or Delos. The majority of the extant inscriptions of this class,! as it happens, involve arbitrators and disputants who have the same dialect anyway, or had come to use the same at the given date, by the spread of one of the forms of «ow7. So, for example, besides those most numerous cases in which the use of Attic xovv7) was common to all parties, a decision of unknown arbitrators in a dispute between Sparta

1 Conveniently grouped in Berard De arbitrio inter liberas Graecorum civitates.

Many of the texts there cited are not copies of the decisions proper, but decrees of parties to a dispute either authorizing arbitration or carrying out its terms.


and the Achaeans acting in behalf of Megalopolis, copy found at Olympia (Inschr. von