V. The Supplement.
This is poorly written both in the Latin and in the Greek; and it is also a very imperfect summary of the document, summing up only what was spent upon games, donations and buildings. The fact that it is in the third person also proves that it is not the work of Augustus. The reckoning by denarii rather than by sesterces points to a Greek origin, and the mention of favors shown by Augustus to provincial towns (cf. c. 4 and notes) would indicate one outside of Rome.
VI. Trustworthiness of the Inscription.
The corroborations of the inscription by other inscriptions, coins and later historians, as well as by allusions in contemporary literature, form an interesting study. And the trustworthiness of the record becomes more manifest the more one compares its statements with those of other writers. Only one point has been found where Augustus makes what might be challenged as a perversion of fact. (Cf. c. 2, note [16].)
VII. Masons’ Blunders.
A number of apparent errors in the text are to be attributed in all probability to the stone-cutters at Ancyra. Such are the superfluous et of Latin ii, 2; aede for aedem, iv, 22; quinquens for quinquiens, iv, 31; ducenti for ducentos, iv, 45; provicias for provincias, v, 11; Tigrane for Tigranem, v, 31. εὔξησα for ἠύξησα, Gr. iv, 8; Ῥωμάοις for Ῥωμαίοις, vii, 6; ὑπατον for ὑπάτων, vii, 15; ἄνδρας μυριάδων for ἀνδρῶν μυριάδας, viii, 8; omission of τρὶς before χειλίας, ix, 13; ἐπεσκευσα for ἐπεσκευάσα, x, 18; omission of ναὸν before ἀγοράν, xi, 10; επεύξησα for ἐπηύξησα, xiv, 4; omission of Ἀρτάξου, xv, 3; μείσζονος for μείζονος, xv, 15; προκατηλειμένας for κατειλημένας, xv, 17; ἐπειταδε for ἐπίταδε, xvi, 11; βασιλεες for βασιλεῖς, xvi, 22; βασιλεις for βασιλεὺς, xvii, 4; ἐπείκειαν for ἐπιείκειαν, xviii, 5; ἀγορᾷ Σεβαστῇ for ἀγορὰ Σεβαστή, xix, 1.
VIII. Signs and Abbreviations.
The Latin and Greek texts are printed in such a way as to give the best idea practicable of their actual condition. Roman numerals denote the pages of the inscription, and the Arabic figures the lines. These numerals and the chapter headings are no part of the inscription. The projection of the first line of each chapter in the Latin is the only method of marking the divisions in the original.
Parts of the Greek and Latin text included within brackets, [], are conjectural restorations of the portions of the inscription which have perished. The Greek generally is a guide to the Latin and vice versa, for the instances are rare where both versions have been lost. The textual notes show that not all scholars have reckoned the same number of missing letters. These variations are quite allowable, for it is impossible to say that just so many letters are missing in any given case, owing to the various sizes of different letters, and varying degrees of closeness of writing.
Where dots (...) occur, it signifies that Mommsen reckons as many letters unrestored as there are dots.