Epigraphical Research and Historical Scholarship, 1530-1603

This thesis explores the transmission of information about classical inscriptions and their use in historical scholarship between 1530 and 1603. It aims to demonstrate that antiquarians' approach to one form of material non-narrative evidence for the ancient world reveals a developed sense of history, and that this approach can be seen as part of a more general interest in expanding the subject matter of history and the range of sources with which it was examined. It examines the milieu of the men who studied inscriptions, arguing that the training and intellectual networks of these men, as well as the need to secure patronage and the constraints of printing, were determining factors in the scholarship they undertook. It then considers the first collections of inscriptions that aimed at a comprehensive survey, and the systems of classification within these collections, to show that these allowed scholars to produce lists and series of features in the ancient world; the conventions used to record inscriptions and what scholars meant by an accurate transcription; and how these conclusions can influence our attitude to men who reconstructed or forged classical material in this period. It then examines the sorts of information about the classical past scholars derived from inscriptions are then, with two works as case studies: the Commentariorum Reipublicae Romanae libri published by Wolfgang Lazius in 1551 and Marcus Welser's 1594 Rerum Augustanamm Vindelicarum commentarii. The examination of the citations of inscriptions in these two historical works demonstrates how Welser derived more information from inscriptions than his predecessor and reflected technical advances in epigraphic scholarship that had taken place in the preceding years. The thesis reveals that scholars showed an increasing interest in the agencies involved in producing classical inscriptions, and argues that this led to an increasing scepticism of the value of epigraphic evidence. Finally, it surveys contemporary work on classical coins, to consider how this differs from that on inscriptions, suggesting general conclusions for the nature of antiquarian scholarship in the period