Page:Essays and Addresses.djvu/283

 of Laconia, to the western, which was distinguished from the eastern by these among other traits:—(i) the use of only as the sign of the rough breathing; (ii) the use of the sign  for the letter ; (iii) the use of X or + with the value of.

The first six lines of our inscription exhibit the characters of the Laconian alphabet as it was after 476 B.C. The rest of the inscription is in characters of the eastern type: we have for eta; X represents, not, but (as now). How are we to explain the fact that two different alphabets are used in two different parts of the same inscription? M. Homolle justly rejects the hypothesis that the inscription is a late copy of an older document. In such a case the original orthography, if not wholly altered, would have been consistently preserved.

I venture to propose a simpler explanation. This was a convention between Sparta and Delos, of which Sparta—victorious in the war—doubtless prescribed the terms. It was dated, on the one hand, by the names of the Spartan kings and ephors; on the other hand, by the names of the Delian magistrates. The first six lines of our inscription form the end of the part which prescribed the terms: these are in the Laconian alphabet. The names which mark the date are in the later Ionian alphabet. I conceive that the terms were framed at Sparta, and that a copy of them was sent to Delos. At Delos they were engraved on stone, to be set up in