Comments on: Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth II

By: Current Epigraphy » Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth IV

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:42:03 +0000

[...] This is the fourth installment of our “Virtual Seminar of Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth” (for the previous three posts, see: Seminar I; Seminar II; and Seminar III). [...]

By: PaulIversen

PaulIversen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:17:31 +0000

Alexis,

[μάλ]ι̣στα μὲν would work in line 6, and it is the most common hit with a PHI search of στα μεν, but the purpose would remain unclear.

Mika,

All good suggestions. In line 3 I was considering something like [αἱ θυσί]αι̣̣ [ἃ]ς ἐπιτ̣[ελ- -], but obviously that’s quite speculative too.

Dirk,

In line 3, the missing letter between the ΑΙ̣ and Σ could be just about anything. Just to reiterate, the “iota” after the Α is really just the remnant of a hasta and it is dotted (which is maybe not clear on some browsers) and we thought there might also be the pieces of two horizontal cross-strokes with it suggesting rho or epsilon, but we weren’t sure.

By: Current Epigraphy » Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth III

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:01:47 +0000

[...] This is the third entry in our Virtual Seminar on some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth (see post I here and post II here) and it will feature our first Latin inscription. It consists in four fragments of buff-colored micaceous marble. Fragment A was found beside the Lechaion Road in December, 1929 and has already been published, Fragment B was found 12 July, 1976 in Quarry Trench 9, Fragment C was found a day later 13 July, 1976 also in Quarry Trench 9, and Fragment D was found 6 August, 1974 in Quarry Trench 3. All the fragments are broken on all sides, except Fragment D, which seems to preserve part of the original right edge, although it is not at a right angle with the inscribed surface and therefore it may have been trimmed for reuse. The corner, however, is smoothly rounded here between the two adjacent faces and there are no partial letter traces at the edge. None of the four fragments join and it is not entirely clear to us in what order they should be placed. Photos, squeezes, and autopsy of stones. [...]

By: Dirk Jongkind

Dirk Jongkind — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:54:10 +0000

Are there other possibilities besides an omicron or an alpha between ΑΙ and Σ in line 3?
-αι[ο]ς επιτ[...
or
-αι[α]ς επιτ[…
Does not help really, I think

By: Mika Kajava

Mika Kajava — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:03:13 +0000

This certainly looks like a decree. -In line 3, probably either ]ς ἐπὶ τ[... or ]ς ἐπιτ[... Other alternatives are possible but less likely. If in line 5 there is Κορι]νθίων - perhaps preceded by δῆμος or πόλις in the accusative or in the genitive and accompanied with a suitable article - one might continue with something like τὰς τε θυσίας θυεῖν… εὐσεβῶ]ς (or a similar adverb). Then, perhaps, τὰ μὲν [ἄλλα...e.g. καθάπερ τῇ βουλῇ, τὰ δ]ὲ εἰς τὰ π[ρογεγρ./-ειρημ. ...]. - Needless to say, this remains pure guesswork.

By: A. D'Hautcourt

A. D'Hautcourt — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:36:41 +0000

l. 6: μάλ]ιστα μὲν (mal]ista men) ?

By: PaulIversen

PaulIversen — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:02:45 +0000

Thank you both for your comments. We definitely think it’s a decree, the purpose of which remains hard to ascertain (the inscriptions of Corinth rarely give up their secrets easily). In line 4 we obviously have a subjunctive, but there are several permutations that could precede it ([ἐὰν] δοκῇ or [ἐὰν μὴ] δοκῇ or [ἐάν τι] δοκῇ, etc.). On the PHI web site I had also noted the parallel at Tit. Calymnii 78 that K.R. alludes to, but given that so much is missing, that it is a single instance, that it is from Kalymna, and that there are other possible parallels if one searches PHI with an iota adscript, we thought it more prudent to leave it as it is.

Although not really visible on the photo, at the end of line 6 we’re pretty sure we have a nu; we read part of the tip of the left apex, a part of the diagonal, and a part of the tip of the lower right apex, which is why we did not dot it.

At the end of line 7 we also saw a horizontal moving to the right of the upper tip of the hasta, not a diagonal, thus excluding nu.

As for the date, it almost certainly dates before the destruction of 146 BC, which I intended to indicate.

By: A. D'Hautcourt

A. D'Hautcourt — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:34:38 +0000

Thank you for organizing this virtual seminar.
I suppose that the dating “fin. III - med. I a.” is based on paleography
Is there any reason to think that the inscription might have been cut after Corinth’s destruction in 146 BC ?

By: K. Rigsby

K. Rigsby — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:25:41 +0000

Honorific decree? here are some guesses to test against the stone:
2 τ]ῶι̣ [σ]τε[φάνωι
4 [ - (τόπον) - ὃς ἂν] δοκῇ αὐτο[ῖς e.g. ἐπιτάδειος
6 τὰ μέγ[ιστα ἐκ τῶν νόμων
7 - καλέσαι δὲ - -] εἰς τὰν [κοινὰν ἑστίαν