DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0458
NOTES ON PART II.
(Dec. 2, 1896).
J
1. On p. 538 the belief is expressed that the date in no. 399 has
been miscopied, and should be read ta8', instead of uA.8'; the reasoning
throughout Ch. XII points to this correction, which would strengthen
my case; but I did not venture to insert the conjecture in the text. At
the last moment, Mr. J. G. C. Anderson writes from Apameia, that rA.8'
is indubitable on the stone. When the emendation is thus confirmed,
the contrasted numbers of Chr. inscr. before a.d. 300 and after 325, stated
on pp. 510 and 716, need correction, and become an even more striking
proof of the argument in Ch. XII. Mr. Anderson reads also nr)[v6s],
and says that the last two lines have been erased, but are partially
legible Ke 0?/<rei [els tov] <\>[i<tkov\ hi]v[a{pi}a <p (M everywhere for N).
Mr. Anderson has also found a duplicate of no. 305, confirming my
reading boopeq against bcopedv (as given in BCH 1893 p. 247); this
duplicate has -noXLTevojxevov and iroXeos.
Further, he thinks CIBI . . . LOS probable in no. 693, confirming
my reading C, not S, as first letter of the name.
2. Ch. XII and XVII were sent to press before Dietrich's ingenious
pamphlet die Grabschrift des Aberkios, 1896, reached me early in
November. He in no way alters my view, for he violates the funda-
mental conditions of the problem.
(1) Any competent epigraphist, who has had some first-hand acquaint-
ance with Phrygian epigraphy, will recognize beyond doubt after seeing
the two stones, that no. 657 is distinctly earlier than no. 656; but
no. 656 is dated a.d. 216, whereas Dietrich's theory demands for no. 657
a date about 220.
(2) The reading Ntjotis was certainly not on the stone. As I have
said from the beginning, the reading Ularis is not certain (except in the
last four letters); but N was distinctly impossible. I had the stone
under my eyes on many occasions from 1883 onwards1.
1 Dietrich casts doubt on my reading Abbe Duchesne and (as I gather from
here, but accepts my authority for fiao-t- Dietrich) Monsignor Wilpert, in his
Kijav; some of the Catholics, like the Fractio Pants p. in, cast doubt on
(Dec. 2, 1896).
J
1. On p. 538 the belief is expressed that the date in no. 399 has
been miscopied, and should be read ta8', instead of uA.8'; the reasoning
throughout Ch. XII points to this correction, which would strengthen
my case; but I did not venture to insert the conjecture in the text. At
the last moment, Mr. J. G. C. Anderson writes from Apameia, that rA.8'
is indubitable on the stone. When the emendation is thus confirmed,
the contrasted numbers of Chr. inscr. before a.d. 300 and after 325, stated
on pp. 510 and 716, need correction, and become an even more striking
proof of the argument in Ch. XII. Mr. Anderson reads also nr)[v6s],
and says that the last two lines have been erased, but are partially
legible Ke 0?/<rei [els tov] <\>[i<tkov\ hi]v[a{pi}a <p (M everywhere for N).
Mr. Anderson has also found a duplicate of no. 305, confirming my
reading boopeq against bcopedv (as given in BCH 1893 p. 247); this
duplicate has -noXLTevojxevov and iroXeos.
Further, he thinks CIBI . . . LOS probable in no. 693, confirming
my reading C, not S, as first letter of the name.
2. Ch. XII and XVII were sent to press before Dietrich's ingenious
pamphlet die Grabschrift des Aberkios, 1896, reached me early in
November. He in no way alters my view, for he violates the funda-
mental conditions of the problem.
(1) Any competent epigraphist, who has had some first-hand acquaint-
ance with Phrygian epigraphy, will recognize beyond doubt after seeing
the two stones, that no. 657 is distinctly earlier than no. 656; but
no. 656 is dated a.d. 216, whereas Dietrich's theory demands for no. 657
a date about 220.
(2) The reading Ntjotis was certainly not on the stone. As I have
said from the beginning, the reading Ularis is not certain (except in the
last four letters); but N was distinctly impossible. I had the stone
under my eyes on many occasions from 1883 onwards1.
1 Dietrich casts doubt on my reading Abbe Duchesne and (as I gather from
here, but accepts my authority for fiao-t- Dietrich) Monsignor Wilpert, in his
Kijav; some of the Catholics, like the Fractio Pants p. in, cast doubt on