Quod ætatem marmoris attinet, multa multi ex variis auctoribus protulere. Instar omnium nobis sit Thucydides', qui aliquando uno eodemque anno Athenienses in Cypro, tum in Ægypto, deinde ad Halieas, mox in Ægina, tandemque in Megarensi agro dimicasse tradit. Eundem quem Thucydides in præliis recensendis ordinem servare nostrum marmor notandum est. Ex his duo contigisse, Philocle Archonte, anno do Olympradis LXXX, Megarense autem bellum anno 3tio ejusdem Olymp. auctor est Diodorus3. Nihil ergo in causa est quominus cum Bimardio, hoc marmor eodem anno, i. e. anno 3tio Olymp. LXXX, excitatum esse statuamus 5. In ipsa inscriptione nihil est quod vel indoctis moram injicere posset nisi vox ME^ARO, quæ mirum in modum omnes interpretes cruciavit. MEA APOI extat apud Montfauconium, Maffeium, Corsinium. ME^AROIZTE legendum confirmat Bimardius, quod quidem dedit Lanzius. Certo autem certius est, id quod fatetur Bimardius, nullam post ME^ARO literam in Marmore hodie exstare. Quendam e tribu Erechtheide, cui Megaro nomen esset, suo sumptu hoc marmor ponendum curâsse putat Montfauconius, et aveðŋkev intelligendum monet, quæ nec Atheniensum mos, nec inscriptionum leges, nec linguæ Græcæ indoles patiuntur. Maffeius postremas tituli voces ita conjungit; Meryapoc év τω αύτω ενιαυτω Στρατηγων quod nempe verum, neque, si res ita se habuisset, quare in hoc marmore memoraretur, nos docuit Vir Cl. Præterea quid tali Syntaxi durius excogitari potuit ? 6 Propius ad veritatem accedit Bimardius qui, cum Thucydides eodem anno quo in Cypro, Ægypto, apud Halieas et in Ægina, Megaris etiam pugnatum esse tradat, nullus dubitat quin in marmore Megarensis quoque pugna memorata fuerit. Quod autem dicit, fuisse proculdubio in marmore ME^APOIETE, id nullis argumentis confirmat. Non nisi unius 3 Diodor. XI. c. 78. P. 162. 2 Cf. Corsin. F. A. I. 5 Nescio quid sibi velit Montfauconius, qui nunc, flagrante bello Peloponnesiaco, nunc, anno A. C. 450. marmor positum esse dicat. Pal. Gr. lib. II. c. iv. p. 134. Diss. I. p. 42. literæ in marmore extat vestigium; quæ Sigma, necne esset, omnino dubium. MEAAROI ergo legendum puto, quæ vox legitur in Aristoph. Ach. 758. Plat. Theætet. p. 142. C. (Ed. Serran.) Conjunctioni Te, ut recte Maffeius "non opportunus hic locus et dictio Meyapoic Te, in Megaride, apte loquendo non significaret." Omnes libri ad unum ante TO AYTO ENIAYTO, EN dedere, quam vocem in marmore nunquam extitisse dudum notaverat Maffeius, atque idem Thierschius Vir Cl., meumque apographum confirmant. Maffeius autem suæ sententiæ oblitus est cum in Arte Critica Lapidaria3, dum lapidum scripturam sibi raro constare notaret, nostrum marmor exempli gratia protulerit. "Baudelotiana prima pro ev Tw, primum ev TOL, deinde εν το.” Hic autem το αυτο ενιαυτο pro του αυτού EviaUTOV, linguæ Græcæ indoli convenienter, scribitur*. Lacuna, quæ ante literas TEAON extat, eodem modo ab omnibus expletur; ETRATE^ON sc. scribunt, quod quomodo Maffeius explicet, jam dixi. Montfauconius eodem modo quo Maffeius vocem ΣTRATE^ON Latine reddit, longe aliter autem loci sententiam constituit, cum Cimonem hic innui putet, quem, cum ei tunc temporis summa rerum Atheniensium demandaretur, in omnium tribuum σtyλaic memoratum verisimile esse arbitretur. Quod quibus argumentis fretus protulerit Vir Cl. haud equidem video. Quod si hic ΣTRATE^ON legendum, proculdubio Ducum, vel E ducibus vertendum est. Exempla enim participii στρατηγων nude pro στρατηγοc positi desiderantur. Nec si aliter res sese haberet, sententia ita constituta expeditu facilis esset. Sed satis notum e more Atheniensium esse plures pari jure eidem exercitui præficere unde nota illa apud Thucydidem δέκατος αὐτὸς, τρίτος αὐτὸς, et similia. Hic ergo innui possunt Φανυλλος, Ακρυπτος (quorum nomina in 3 1 Mus. Veron. p. ccccxì. 5 2 Ubi supra. Apud Donat. Suppl. Murator. Nov. Thes. Vet. Insc. lib. III. cap. i. p. 79. 4 Cf. Matth. Tom. II. p. 528. 5 cc Ægre concedam Στрaτnyv esse genitivum pluralem. Phanyllus aut solus, aut præterea Acryptus, quum ducis munere jungeretur, in bello perierat; quod optime significatur, præmisso Erparo participio. eadem linea ac Σrpaτnywv posita sunt) quippe qui exercitibus ad Halieas et ad Phoenicen missis forsan præfuerint, atque inter tribules Epex@edoc numerarentur. Vel Ducum ea nomina censenda quæ vocem Zтратnуwv proxime sequuntur ut postea prope finem Epigraphes. ΣΤΡΑΤΕΛΟΣ ΕΝΑΙΛΥΠΤΟΙ ΗΙΠΠΟΔΑΜΑΣ Verba Epigraphes a se invicem separantur, tribus punctis interpositis, quod in antiquis inscriptionibus sæpe animadverti; e. g. in Elea illa Rhetra a R. P. Knight vulgata in Delphico marmore apud Dodwell. Itin. Tom. II. p.500. aliisque compluribus. Præpositio autem a casu quem regit nunquam disjungitur. Ita in Delphico lapide quem supra memoravi BOIOTION : ΕΧΣΕΡΧΟΜΕΝΟΥ. Antequam orationi finem imponam, bella hujus Epigraphes versione a Muratorio, Viro Cl. et doctissimo confecta, pulchro scilicet munere, Lector donandus. 'Ex Erectheide Tribu. Qui in bello mortui sunt, in Cypro, in Ægypto, ac Phoenice in MARITIMIS NAVIGATIONIBUS IN ÆGINA MEGARE. 2 Eodem Anno. Quæ sequitur nota, ipsa versione præstantior. "In Marit. Nav. nisi sit In Eleusi3." PLAN. The object of the work, of which the two preceding Inscriptions are a specimen, is to collect in one volume of moderate size, the Inscriptions most valuable to scholars in a critical point of view those namely engraven before or soon after the Orthography was finally settled, and those of even a later date, which are valuable from their peculiarities of dialect. They are scat participio. (Απεθανε) Φάνυλλος Στρατηγών dur quum esset.” Aug. Böckh. in literis MSS. tered through a variety of voluminous publications, almost all dear, and many not easily procured. Wherever it is practicable, fresh copies will be obtained, and in these cases the form of the letters as extant on the stone will be accurately given. In others, their forms will be given from the authorities most to be relied on, with the variations that occur in the different transcripts. In the Preface, it is proposed to give some view of the progressive alterations in the forms of the letters, in Orthography and Grammar, as exhibited in the Inscriptions contained in the volume itself. In the remarks, according to the specimen, the opinions of the different writers on Inscriptions will be given, so as to form a body of Variorum Notes and an Index, after the manner of Scaliger's, will be subjoined. By the kindness of several friends, the Editor will be able to add several Inscriptions as yet unpublished, and he will feel great obligations to any traveller under whose notice this specimen may fall, who will favour him with either new inscriptions, or (what are almost equally valuable) fresh transcripts of those already known to the world, addressed "To the care of Messrs. Payne and Foss, Booksellers, Pall-Mall." R. ON THE CHALYBES OF XENOPHON. XENOPHON in his account of the retreat of the Ten Thousand (IV. vii. 15.) says that after leaving the country of the Taochi, they marched seven days through the Chalybes, fifty parasangs. Major Rennell, in his late elaborate and learned work on the Geography of the Anabasis, p. 233. supposes that instead of Χαλύβων we should read Χαλδαίων. "Xenophon indeed passed through a tribe of Chalybians on the shore of the Euxine but then they were denominated from their being workers in iron; and doubtless it was a nick-name given by the Greeks; as Mosynacians to the dwellers in wooden fortresses, : in another place. -On one occasion he actually names these Chaldæans; although it is certain that in three other places he writes Chalybians." This is an acute conjecture; but we entertain some doubt whether it be admissible. In IV. v. 34. the Chalybes are said to be contiguous to the Armenians. IV. iv. 18. Teribazus is said to have as mercenary troops Chalybians and Taochians. IV. vi. 5. near the Phasis they are opposed by Chalybes, Taochi, and Phasiani; and lastly in VII. viii. 25. we have this enumeration, Καρδοῦχοι δὲ, καὶ Χάλυβες, καὶ Χαλδαῖοι, καὶ Μάκρωνες, καὶ Κόλχοι &c. So that the Chalybes lay between the Carduchi (or, as Mr. Mitford elegantly terms them, the Cardoos) and the Chaldæi. Now we certainly have in V. v. 17. Καρδούχους, καὶ Χαλδαίους, καὶ Ταόχους, all of them free people; and we read in the Cyropædia, that Cyrus forced the Chaldæans to make peace with the Armenians; and they are described as being the most warlike tribe in those parts, and as fighting for hire with any one who wanted them, for they were brave and poor. The fact seems to be, that the Chalybes were a tribe between the Chaldæans and Armenia. It is not impossible that both were originally called by the name of Chalybes. For this latter supposition we have the express testimony of Strabo ΧΙΙ. 19. Οἱ δὲ νῦν Χαλδαῖοι, Χάλυβες τὸ παλαιὸν ὠνομάLOVTO, from which it appears that the tribe of blacksmiths on the coast, whom Xenophon calls Chalybes, were in later times called Chaldæi. Why therefore may we not suppose that this too was the older name of the Chaldæans near Armenia. The supposition of M. de Sainte Croix (Nouv. Observ. sur la Cyropédie) which has escaped Major Rennell's notice, is this; that the Chalybes whom Xenophon first mentions, and whom Pliny calls Armeno Chalybes (a name, by the way, which effectually precludes Major Rennell's conjecture) were a colony of the Chalybes on the Pontus; who not being able to support themselves in a barren and rugged country, served in the pay of Astyages, and committed great ravages on the Armenian confines, till Cyrus persuaded the latter to give up to them a portion of their mountainous district. From which time the Chalybes formed a new tribe between the Armenians and Chaldæans. At all events, sufficient has been said to refute Major Rennell's conjecture, to which we may add |
