CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM NEO-PHRYGIARUM. A COMPLETE collection of the known Phrygian inscriptions belonging to the Roman Imperial period was published by Professor [Sir] W. M. Ramsay in vol. viii. of the Jahreah. d. Oest. Arch. Inst, (1905), pp. 79-120. On that occasion Professor Ramsay reprinted all the Phrygian texts which he had already collected in Kuhns Zeitsehrift fur Vergl. Sprachf. xxviii. pp. 381 ff., and added nineteen new inscriptions. The discovery in 1908 and 1910 of a score of fresh inscriptions, many of considerable interest, affords a suitable opportunity to revise the text of the older series. In a large majority, of cases, the new discoveries confirm Professor Ramsay's interpretations. In some cases they suggest or impose modifications. An account of other literature on the subject will be found in Ramsay's later paper. As I shall have occasion to refer constantly to Ramsay's papers in Kuhns Zeitsehrift and the Jahresh. d. Oest. Arch. Inst., it will be convenient to call those papers R (a) and R (b) respectively.1 Professor Ramsay's numbering does not correspond exactly with the number of Phrygian texts published, because his earlier collection contains a few Greek inscriptions. But it seems better to retain his numbers: it is to be understood that Nos. I. to XLVIII. are the older series, and Nos. XLIX.-LXVII. the new inscriptions. Whether or not the reprinting of the older texts is justified by the small amount of •change we shall have to introduce in Prof. Ramsay's divisions and interpre- tations, it will be convenient for philologists to have them all in a single paper. Ramsay's inscriptions will be reprinted in minuscule letters only; for the epigraphic copies, the reader is referred to R (a) and R (b) respectively. Exact epigraphic copies are given in the case of Nos. XLIX.-LXVIII. No. XXXVI. was re-copied by us in 1910la; we were able to improve on Prof. Ramsay's copy of 1905, and a fresh epigraphic copy is given below. A new copy of XLVI. is also given. It has not been considered necessary in every case to mention expressly the rejected views of former writers. Investigation in this subject has had to grope in the dark, and the material is still far from sufficient to give certainty. While the new inscriptions throw light on many obscure places in the older ones, they themselves raise new problems which can be answered 1 R(a) is used meaning sometimes 'Ramsay's earlier paper,' sometimes 'Ramsay in his earlier paper': and so R (b). Ia See below. 161 162 W. M. CALDER only by further discovery. It is pleasant to be able to confirm some former explanations, e.g. Torp's and Solmsen's division of AINIKOC (No. XVIII.), which seemed almost too ingenious to be convincing.2 I have received much help from Professor Ramsay, both in discussions while we were discovering and copying the new inscriptions, and in criticism of this paper after it was written. I have to thank him in particular for surrendering to me the privilege of making the new series publici iuris. To another friend, Mr. Fraser of Aberdeen University, I owe many helpful suggestions and criticisms. Fick, Solmsen, Kretschmer, and Torp have all been laid under contribution; I owe Professor Torp especial thanks for sending me three inaccessible articles on the Phrygian language, which I have found very useful. To keep this paper within reasonable limits of space, it seems better to assume in the reader a knowledge of Professor Ramsay's two articles than to quote extensively from them. The results attained in the following pages would have been impossible without Ramsay's exhaustive and successful treatment of the subject. The following notes do not pretend to be philo- logical : the writer expects and invites criticism from comparative philologists. It is only by candid interchange of criticism from the philological and the historical points of view that a final solution of many of the problems raised here can be attained. Seven of the new inscriptions were found by the writer in the course of a journey in Southern Galatia and Eastern Asia in the summer of 1908.3 I was not at that time acquainted with the literature on the subject, and, as several of the texts were fragmentary and difficult, I decided not to publish them until some traveller should have had the opportunity of revising them in the light of a fuller knowledge of the known formulae. That opportunity was given me during further exploration in the same region, partly in company with Sir W. M. Ramsay, partly alone, in the spring and summer of 1910. I was able to revise all the texts found in 1908 (with the exception of No. LV., which had been broken, and of which I saw only a fragment of the last line). Nos. LIV., LVL, and LVIII. were re-copied by Professor Ramsay and myself in company, and also the difficult text of'Sinanli (No. XXXVI. in Ramsay's collection). Nos. LXI. and LXIII. were revised by myself. While travelling alone, I also found Nos. LXII. and LXV., and the authority for the text of those two inscriptions (of which No. LXII. is excellently preserved, and offers no difficulties) rests on my 1910 copy alone. No. LXVI. was copied by Mr. J. G. C. Anderson in 1898. and is now for the first time claimed as Phrygian. No. LXVII. was copied by Professor Callander : it is identical with No. XLI. in Ramsay's collection, copied by Mr. Hogarth. Professor Callander adds a few letters, and gives us a highly interesting text. The attempt to interpret these texts must be founded mainly on a study of the Greek formulae used by the neighbours and friends of the dedicators. It is natural to suppose that the ideas expressed (according to the taste or 2 See on No. XVIII. 3 Described briefly in Klio, 1910, pp. 232-242. CORPUS INSCRIPTIONTJM NEO-PHRYGIARUM 163 education of the dedicator) in Greek or in Phrygian, were roughly the same. It was by comparison with the prevailing Greek formulae against violation of the tomb that Schmidt, and especially Professor Ramsay, found their way to a true explanation of the common Phrygian formulae, and laid the basis for a scientific study of the language. We shall not err if we proceed a little further along the same road—an exact correspondence in detail cannot of course be looked for. As Greek education spread among the towns and villages of Eastern Phrygia (at first radiating in some degree from the centres of Seleucid and Roman Government, and later implanted firmly by the broadcast extension of Christianity)4 it gradually killed out the use of the native language; but the two idioms existed for a long time side by side,5 and it is to this period that the Neo-Phrygian texts belong. The vast majority of these texts are in the form of a curse on the violator of the tomb, appended to an epitaph written in Greek. In a few cases the epitaph is written in Phrygian, and one of these Phrygian epitaphs has a curse in Greek appended to it. Three dedications to deities, two in Phrygian and the third possibly containing a Phrygian verb, form a separate class. The writers of these inscriptions must, therefore, have been acquainted with both languages, and, whether the formula against violation was written in Greek or in Phrygian, it must have expressed the same general idea. This principle gives us the key to the interpretation of much that would otherwise be dark in the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions. After this method, based on a knowledge of the Greek Epigraphy of the district, and of the general historical conditions, has been applied, its results must be tested in the light of Com- parative Philology; but historical interpretation must come first. Much labour has been wasted by scholars who have searched the Neo-Phrygian inscriptions for affinities to other Indo-Germanic languages, unconsciou3 of the conditions which a knowledge of Phrygian antiquities would have imposed on their work. Several causes contribute to complicate the task of interpretation. The great majority of the inscriptions have been copied by competent epigraphists, but a few important and unique formulae occur in texts for which the authority is unreliable. A large number of the inscriptions are fragmentary. Further discovery alone can clear up many questions which are tantalizingly near to solution. Orthography offers another stumbling-block. The ortho- graphy of the Greek inscriptions of Eastern Phrygia permits great latitude in the use of vowels, and we must assume a corresponding or even greater latitude in the case of Phrygian, which had to use a foreign alphabet. But it is often impossible to decide whether a given variation is orthographic, or whether it is to be attributed to variety of dialect, or even to difference of inflexion. A further point requiring emphasis in this connexion is the influence 4 On the date of this movement, see to Kamsay's writings given there. Anderson in Studies in the . E. Roman 6 See Holl in Hermes, 1908, jjp. 240 ff. Prof. Provinces (Ramsay), p. 196, and the references Ramsay has always maintained this view.. 164 W. M. CALDER exercised by Greek on the Phrygian idiom under the Roman Empire. As time went on, the Phrygian-speaking districts became islands in a Greek sea. This situation probably influenced the character of Phrygian in two ways. (1) In the first place, many Greek words were borrowed. Several such, e.g. cropov and 6a\afiei (dative), have already been accepted as Greek, but it seems highly probable that the inscriptions contain a much larger admixture of Greek than is generally recognised.