DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.619#0064
THE INSCRIPTIOXS.
G5
Now, taking all these together, we have no less
than twelve instances of this form of dedication.
This is too large a number to be explained away
as the result of accident or mistake, and thus
we are left to the conclusion that the intention of
the writer has been duly expressed. Instead,
therefore, of giving way to the two objections
above referred to, it is necessary to meet them in
the following manner:—(I) The peculiarity of
the dedication consists merely in the combination
of two forms, either of which alone is quite com-
mon. A god is often addressed in the vocative
and second person, but by the dedicator; the
object often speaks in the first person, but not to
the god. Here the object dedicated speaks in the
first person, and also addresses the god ; a pecu-
liar, but by no means incomprehensible fcrm of
inscription.
(2) The vocative 'AnoWa, if correct, is of ex-
treme interest and importance to the philologist.
Such a form would involve a nominative in -ws,
accusative in -a> (well known in Attic), &c. Now
Gustav Meyer, in his " Griechische Grammatik,"
§ 323, maintains that in the case of many nouns,
subsequently declined in the form -av, -w, &c, this
form is due to false analogy, the earlier declen-
sion being-w?,-&), &c. 'AvoKKcov is one of these, and
the new vocative in -&> will tend to strengthen his
view. So far, then, shall we be from setting aside
the form as a mere blunder, that we shall thus be
enabled to regard it as a valuable acquisition to
philology, and a step gained towards the dis-
covery of the still obscure and disputed origin of
the name Apollo.
65. It will be well to dispose at once of another
preliminary discussion. There is only one of our
bowls which can be brought into relation with a
known historical character, and so give indepen-
dent evidence as to its date. This is the one
dedicated by Phanes, the son of Glaukos
(Glauqos), and it appears to have been the
largest and most costly offering of its time, which
was probably, from style, characters, and depth
of discovery, the second half of the sixth century.
Now among the most important of the Greeks
in Egypt at this time was a certain Phanes,
who deserted Amasis for Cambyses (Her. iii. 4).
Hence we may conjecture that he was the very
man who dedicated this bowl; its fragments
were found extraordinarily widely scattered—a
likely fate for the traitor's offering. If this iden-
tification be correct, then the early coin of
Halikarnassos, the inscription of which has
been read as &dvovs el/u o-rjfia, may have
been struck either by the same man earlier,
or, more probably, by an ancestor of his ;
for the forms (closed rj, three-stroked s) of the
letters on that coin certainly appear at least two
generations earlier than those on the vase. But
for the vase an approximate date of 5:30 b.c. (the
treachery of Phanes was about 520) may thus
with great probability be assumed, and a fixed
point of great value gained for the arrangement of
our whole series ; for it includes but few that
seem assignable to any much later period.
GO. Another question next confronts us—a ques-
tion of wider bearing and of greater complica-
tion, which cannot be treated separately from the
inscriptions themselves—the question how far we
may regard the inscriptions found in the Apollo
temenos as a single consecutive series, and how
far such differences as we find are temporal, rather
than local. In the temple which, as Herodotos
expressly tells us (ii. 178), the Milesians sepa-
rately from the other Greeks consecrated to
Apollo, we should naturally expect dedications
to be inscribed in the Milesian alphabet. Such
a view is fully borne out by the character of
the inscriptions, which show the essential forms
of that alphabet in a series of inscriptions stretch-
ing apparently without any considerable gap from
about 650 to 520 B.C. It is hard to believe that
the various stages of epigraphic development can
have occupied a shorter period than this 130
years, and quite as great a change is visible in
the fabric of the pottery that bears the dedica-
tions. If this view be correct, it will follow that
Prof. Kirchlnlf's estimate of the position of the
G5
Now, taking all these together, we have no less
than twelve instances of this form of dedication.
This is too large a number to be explained away
as the result of accident or mistake, and thus
we are left to the conclusion that the intention of
the writer has been duly expressed. Instead,
therefore, of giving way to the two objections
above referred to, it is necessary to meet them in
the following manner:—(I) The peculiarity of
the dedication consists merely in the combination
of two forms, either of which alone is quite com-
mon. A god is often addressed in the vocative
and second person, but by the dedicator; the
object often speaks in the first person, but not to
the god. Here the object dedicated speaks in the
first person, and also addresses the god ; a pecu-
liar, but by no means incomprehensible fcrm of
inscription.
(2) The vocative 'AnoWa, if correct, is of ex-
treme interest and importance to the philologist.
Such a form would involve a nominative in -ws,
accusative in -a> (well known in Attic), &c. Now
Gustav Meyer, in his " Griechische Grammatik,"
§ 323, maintains that in the case of many nouns,
subsequently declined in the form -av, -w, &c, this
form is due to false analogy, the earlier declen-
sion being-w?,-&), &c. 'AvoKKcov is one of these, and
the new vocative in -&> will tend to strengthen his
view. So far, then, shall we be from setting aside
the form as a mere blunder, that we shall thus be
enabled to regard it as a valuable acquisition to
philology, and a step gained towards the dis-
covery of the still obscure and disputed origin of
the name Apollo.
65. It will be well to dispose at once of another
preliminary discussion. There is only one of our
bowls which can be brought into relation with a
known historical character, and so give indepen-
dent evidence as to its date. This is the one
dedicated by Phanes, the son of Glaukos
(Glauqos), and it appears to have been the
largest and most costly offering of its time, which
was probably, from style, characters, and depth
of discovery, the second half of the sixth century.
Now among the most important of the Greeks
in Egypt at this time was a certain Phanes,
who deserted Amasis for Cambyses (Her. iii. 4).
Hence we may conjecture that he was the very
man who dedicated this bowl; its fragments
were found extraordinarily widely scattered—a
likely fate for the traitor's offering. If this iden-
tification be correct, then the early coin of
Halikarnassos, the inscription of which has
been read as &dvovs el/u o-rjfia, may have
been struck either by the same man earlier,
or, more probably, by an ancestor of his ;
for the forms (closed rj, three-stroked s) of the
letters on that coin certainly appear at least two
generations earlier than those on the vase. But
for the vase an approximate date of 5:30 b.c. (the
treachery of Phanes was about 520) may thus
with great probability be assumed, and a fixed
point of great value gained for the arrangement of
our whole series ; for it includes but few that
seem assignable to any much later period.
GO. Another question next confronts us—a ques-
tion of wider bearing and of greater complica-
tion, which cannot be treated separately from the
inscriptions themselves—the question how far we
may regard the inscriptions found in the Apollo
temenos as a single consecutive series, and how
far such differences as we find are temporal, rather
than local. In the temple which, as Herodotos
expressly tells us (ii. 178), the Milesians sepa-
rately from the other Greeks consecrated to
Apollo, we should naturally expect dedications
to be inscribed in the Milesian alphabet. Such
a view is fully borne out by the character of
the inscriptions, which show the essential forms
of that alphabet in a series of inscriptions stretch-
ing apparently without any considerable gap from
about 650 to 520 B.C. It is hard to believe that
the various stages of epigraphic development can
have occupied a shorter period than this 130
years, and quite as great a change is visible in
the fabric of the pottery that bears the dedica-
tions. If this view be correct, it will follow that
Prof. Kirchlnlf's estimate of the position of the