Current Epigraphy
ISSN: 1754-0909

This is posting VII of our “Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth.” The previous six may be found by following the links from here. This post features three fragments of grayish marble all broken on the backside, two of which have not been published. Fragment A was found in September, 1937 in Shop XXVII of the South Stoa and preserves the left edge of the inscription (margin of 0.027 m.) but is broken elsewhere. Fragment B was found 8 July, 1976 in Quarry Trench 9 of the Temple Hill and preserves the right edge (margin of 0.025 m.) but is broken on the other sides. Fragment C was found 12 August, 1974 in Quarry Trench 4 of the Temple Hill and while broken on all sides preserves an un-inscribed surface of 0.013 to 0.016 m. below and thus appears to be the last line, or at least near the very end. The planes of fracture produce thinner fragments to the right and below. The inscribed surface of all three fragments has been dressed with a multi-toothed chisel of at least three or four teeth. The pattern of chisel marks is regularly vertical on Fragment A, but becomes increasingly disorganized to the right. Fragments B and C show this greater irregularity. The letter forms and spacing are very similar, and the stone itself seems to be of identical quality leaving little doubt that these pieces belong together. Photos, squeezes, and autopsy of stones.

Fragment A:

Published: Kent, ICor VIII,3,40 ; cf. Bousquet, REG 80 (1967) 300, adn. 1 (= SEG 25.327); cf. Stroud, Hesperia 41 (1972) p. 203 ; cf. Gebhard and Dickie, Corinth XX.261-78 (= SEG 51.339).
Height, 0.145 m. ; width, 0.15 m. ; thickness, 0.035 m.
Height of letters, 0.006 to 0.010 m. ; interspace, 0.006 to 0.008 m.
Corinth inventory I 1885 ; NB 170, p. 82.

Fragment B:

Unpublished.
Height, 0.080 m. ; width, 0.073 m. ; thickness, 0.017 m.
Height of letters, 0.007 to 0.010 m. ; interspace, 0.006 to 0.009 m.
Corinth inventory I-76-12 ; NB 632, p. 76 ; NB 655, p. 7, Object 607.

Fragment C:

Unpublished.
Height, 0.112 m. ; width, 0.094 m. ; thickness, 0.023 m.
Corinth inventory I-74-12 ; NB 610, p. 111 ; NB 611, p. 58, Object 465.

HONORARY DECREE OF THE DIONYSIAN ARTISTS

128 a.?                  NON-STOIX

Fragment A:

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
τ̣εχνί̣τ̣ω̣[ν] ἀσφα[λεία— — — — — — ἀγαθῆι τύχηι δεδόχ]-      1
θα̣ι̣ τοῖς τεχνίτα̣[ις· ἐπαινέσαι μὲν — — — — — — — —]-
ν Ῥωμαίων καὶ ΑΠ[ — — — — — — — — — — φιλαγα]-
θίαν εἰς τὴν σύν[οδον — — — — — — — — — — — —]-
ων τοὺς μετέχ̣[οντας τῆς συνόδου — — —· εἶναι δὲ — —]-        5
οις τὰ τίμια ἂ κ̣[αὶ τοῖς — — — — — — — — — — — —]
. αυτων τ[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[.2-3.]τεχει̣[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

Fragment B:

[— — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — — — —].[—]                     1
[— — — — — — — — —]ΑΜΕΝ
[— — — — — — — — —]Α̣ΙΣΤΑΚ  vac.
[— — — — — — — — —]ΠΑΡΑΤ   vac.
[— — — — — — — — ἀργ]ύριον     vac.      5
[— — — — — — — — —]ΦΟΙ
[— — — — — — — — — — —]

Fragment C

[— — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — — — —]ΝΚΟ[— — — — —]       1
[— — — — —]ΩΙΤΟΥΛ̣[— — — — —]
[— — — — ἐπίσ]τανται̣ [— — — — —]
[— — — — κ]αὶ τῶν λοιπ[ῶν — — —]
[— — — ἀ]πολογισάσθω[σαν — — —]        5
                          vacat

Apparatus:

Fragment A:

Line 1: The careful drawing in NoteBook 170, p. 82 reveals that damage occurred to the upper left-hand corner of the stone shortly after discovery, for it displays the two letters preceding the chi that are clearly the remains of the foot of the tau and the bottom half of the epsilon. NB 170 also records the full iota after the nu, but only the upper tip of the iota’s hasta is visible today. The next letter space after the iota preserves the foot of a hasta the spacing of which is consistent with a tau. Kent (link above) read the seventh letter trace as an alpha and supplied [τε]χνί̣τ̣[ας], failing to see the trace of another letter. The alpha is regularly one of the larger letters and never far from the foot of the line and this trace is 0.002 m. higher than the previous letter trace. We believe it is more consistent with the left corner of an omega, thus requiring τ̣εχνί̣τ̣ω̣[ν].

Line 2: At the beginning of the line Kent read ω̣ν̣ τ̣οῖς etc. Our doubts about this reading were dramatically resolved by the drawing in NB 170. On the stone and a squeeze we had read the two lower tips of a splayed lambda-shaped letter followed by the foot of an adjacent hasta that does not join the previous diagonal stroke. There is space for one letter in front of the lamda-shaped traces. In addition, an omega is never that low in this inscription. The drawing in the NB, which is very reliable, leaves no doubt that at the beginning of the line we have ΘΑΙ. The restoration [δεδόχ]|θαι is virtually assured and means that this was a decree passed by the τεχνῖται. In the gap that follows we should have either [δεδόχ]|θα̣ι̣ τοῖς τεχνίτα̣[ις· ἐπαινέσαι μὲν…or [δεδόχ]|θα̣ι̣ τοῖς τεχνίτα̣[ις τοῖς ἐξ Ἰσθμοῦ καὶ Νεμέας· ἐπαινέσαι μὲν…].

Line 3: At the end of line 2 and the beginning of line 3 Kent proferred […τῶν κοινῶν εὐεργετῶ]|ν Ῥωμαίων. It could also be [τὸν δῆμον τὸ]|ν Ῥωμαίων] or [στρατηγὸν ὕπατο]ν Ῥωμαίων, or [στρατηγὸν ἀνθύπατο]ν Ῥωμαίων or other choices mainly involving a genitive absolute. At the end of the preserved portion of line 3 he read ἀγ̣[—]. Since the horizontal stroke extends to the left of a hasta, as is the case in the pi at the end of line 4 of Fragment C, and it does not in the gamma in line 5 of the same fragment, a pi is assured. The word beginning with ΑΠ may be the beginning of another infinitive such as ἀπ[οδοῦναι] or the beginning of a person’s name. I also wonder whether it may be a participle such as ἀπ[οσταλέντα], which here may indicate a praetor (Polybius refers to a Roman praetor as a στρατηγὸς ἐξαπέλεκυς).

Line 4: At the end of line 3 and beginning of 4 we could also have [καλοκαγα]|θίαν.

Line 5: Only a diagonal stroke is preserved at the end of the line, but there is little doubt that it is anything other than a chi.

Line 6: At then end of the preserved portion is there is the top tip of a hasta visible. At the end of line 5 and beginning of line 6 we probably have [εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐγγόν]|oις or [εἶναι δὲ αὐτ]|οῖς. Kent suggested that τὰ τίμια could possibly refer to the fine of ten talants imposed by C. Cornelius Sisenna (see Commentary below), but the position and context suggest they refer to honors.

Line 7: The tip of what is probably one broad letter is visible in front of the alpha.

Line 8: Kent read [με]τεχο̣ν̣[τ—], Bousquet read [με]τέχε̣ι̣, and Stroud read [. .]τεχε̣ι̣[—]. We believe the epsilon is assured. The space in front could accommodate two wide or three narrow letters.

Fragment B:

Line 1: The lower tip of a stroke is just visible on the stone.

Line 3: The dotted letter is either a lambda or alpha, probably alpha.

Line 5: At the end of the line after the final nu on the squeeze there is a mark that might look like a stroke above a scar, but on the stone it is clearly just a part of the scar and out of the margin anyway. [κ]ύριον is also possible.

Line 6: It is tempting to restore [Δελ]φοι|, which suggests this decree might have something to do with the dispute between the Isthmian/Nemeian τεχνῖται and their counterparts in Athens that was waged between 134 and 112 BC and involved the Pythian games at Delphi. See more in the Commentary.

Fragment C:

Line 1: [τῶ]ν κο[ινῶν] is the most probable restoration.

Line 2: At the end of the line in the photo I believe I may see the lower left foot of a splayed letter that both Don and I failed to see on the stone and squeeze (I will double check a squeeze in a couple of weeks). It looks like it may be the left foot of a lambda or alpha.

Line 3: The final letter is a full hasta broken only at the top and could only have been the part of a gamma, iota, mu, or nu. The context favors iota. We have some formula like [εἰδότες ὅτι ἐπίσ]τανται̣ [χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι οἱ τεχνῖται] or [ὅπως πάντες εἰδῶσιν ὅτι οἱ τεχνῖται ἐπίσ]τανται̣ [τὰς χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς εὐεργέταις εἰς αὐτούς…].

Line 4. This line may refer to some left over money, or is a catch-all phrase to cover any of the remaining items that need doing, or it may have something to do with the remaining τεχνῖται, or it may have something to do with those who live in the future.

Line 5: It could also be [ἀ]πολογισάσθω [— —]. The subject or subjects of this verb will be officials of the Association, probably ὁ ταμίας, and/or ὁ γραμματεύς, and/or οἱ ἄρχοντες. The two most likely restorations are [καὶ τὸ γενόμενον ἀνάλωμα ἀ]πολογισάσθω[σαν·] or [καὶ ἀ]πολογισάσθω[σαν τὸ ἀνάλωμα πρὸς τοὺς κατόπτας]. The vacat below means we have reached the end of the decree. There may have been the names of various officials written below.

Commentary:

In the Hellenistic period, actors, musicians and others associated with the dramatic arts of Dionysos (οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται) banded together to form powerful associations (κοινά / σύνοδοι) that were involved in a wide range of activities, including decrees that honored individuals or cities who had furthered their interests. One of the largest and most important was τὸ κοινὸν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν τῶν ἐξ Ἰσθμοῦ καὶ Νεμέας or The Association of the Artists of Dionysos from the Isthmos and Nemea. Fragment A has long been known to involve this group, but with the aid of the new readings, it can now be said with virtual certainty that this text is a decree of theirs in honor of Rome or some Roman official. One appropriate context for such a decree has long been known; a dispute between the Isthmian-Nemean Technitai and the Athenian Technitai that was waged between 134 and 112 BC and involved the Pythian games at Delphi. The details of this rivalry are known mainly from a fragmentary senatus consultum found at Delphi (FD III,2 70) that dates to 112 BC. The inscription informs us that during the praetorship (128 BC) of Publius Cornelius Lentulus there was a ruling favorable to the interests of the Isthmian-Nemean Technitai, possibly requiring the Athenians to join with them under one association. It was undoubtedly in return for this favorable ruling that the Isthmian-Nemean Technitai set up a statue for Lentulus at Delphi, the base of which still survives (Syll. (3) 704B). The Athenians were dissatisfied with the ruling, so in 118 BC they sent a delegation to Caius Cornelius Sisenna, who was proconsul of Makedonia, asking for reddress. Sisenna convened a meeting of the rival parties at Pella and imposed a new agreement on them that apparently recognized the Athenians and required the Isthmian-Nemean Artists to pay back the Athenians 10 talants. The Isthmian-Nemean Artists refused to endorse the ruling with their delegates’ signatures, they refused to return the money, and a schism followed. The Artists belonging to the Isthmian-Nemean faction held an assembly of its members at Sikyon while those who belonged to the Athenians met at Thebes. The Athenians then appealed to the Roman Senate accusing the Isthmian-Nemean Technitai of ignoring Sisenna’s ruling and misappropriating some of the funds that in part belonged to them. The senatus consultum of 112 reaffirmed Sisenna’s finding, referred the matter of the funds to an arbitrator, and thus generally pleased the Athenians.

Kent did not believe that Fragment A of our text referred to this dispute, because he felt it unlikely that it would have been set up in Korinth between the destruction of Korinth in 146 BC and its restoration in 44, nor did he think it plausible that the inscription would have ever been moved to Korinth. He thus posited a similar incident before 146 B.C. It seems entirely possible to me that, in whatever way this text made its way to Korinth, it refers to the dispute of 134-112 BC. Below I offer a possible restoration, interpreting it as a decree in honor of Lentulus that includes an image of him to be set up in Delphi. For this provisional interpretation I would welcome any suggestions, comments, or criticisms.

Fragment A:

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
τ̣εχνί̣τ̣ω̣[ν] ἀσφα[λεία— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ἀγαθῆι τύχηι δεδόχ]-                1
θα̣ι̣ τοῖς τεχνίτα̣[ις· ἐπαινέσαι μὲν Πόπλιον Κορνήλιον Ποπλίου Λέντολον στρατηγὸν ἀνθύπατο]-
ν Ῥωμαίων καὶ ΑΠ[ — — — — — — — — διά τε τὴν εἰς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὴν φιλαγα]-
θίαν εἰς τὴν σύν[οδον· — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]-
ων, τοὺς μετέχ̣[οντας τῆς συνόδου τῶν ἐξ Ἰσθμοῦ καὶ Νεμέας τεχνιτῶν· εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐγγόν]-      5
οις τὰ τίμια ἂ κ̣[αὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εὐεργέταις τῶν ἐξ Ἰσθμοῦ καὶ Νεμέας τεχνιτῶν — — — — — —]
. αυτων τ[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[.2-3.]τεχει̣[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

Unknown number of lines lost, part of which may have said something like:

[στῆσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰκόνα χαλκῆν ἔχουσαν τήνδε τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν· “τὸ κοινὸν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διό]-
[νυσον τεχνιτῶν τῶν ἐξ Ἰσθμοῦ καὶ Νεμέας Πόπλιον Κορνήλιον Ποπλίου Λέντολον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ]
[εὐεργέτην Ἀπόλλωνι Πυθίωι”· — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

Fragments B and C:

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —].[—]          1
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]ΑΜΕΝ
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]Α̣ΙΣΤΑΚ vac.
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]ΠΑΡΑΤ vac.
[— — — — — — — — — ἐπιμεληθῆναι δὲ τῆς ποήσεως τῆς εἰκόνος παραλαβόντας τὸ ἀργ]ύριον  vac.   5
[ἅπαν ἀπὸ τῶ]ν κο[ινῶν χρημάτων τοῖς τεχνίταις, στῆσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰκόνα χαλκῆν ἐν Δελ]φοῖ-
[ς ἐν τῶι ἱερ]ῶι τοῦ Ἀ̣[πόλλωνος ἐν τῶι ἐπιφανεστάτωι τόπωι, ὅπως πάντες εἰδῶσιν ὅτι οἱ τεχνῖ]-
[ται ἐπίσ]τανται̣ [χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς εὐεργέταις εἰς αὐτούς. — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — κ]αὶ τῶν λοιπ[ῶν χρημάτων — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— καὶ ἀ]πολογισάσθω[σαν τὸ ἀνάλωμα πρὸς τοὺς κατόπτας.]                                                                    10
                    vacat

If the general sense is correct, it would mean that the Isthmian-Nemean Technitai had used the common funds to pay for the inscription and for Lentulus’ statue. Undoubtedly this would have irritated the Athenians, and the funds expended on this may have been part of those 10 talants that the Isthmian-Nemean Technitai were asked to pay back.

This is installment VI of our “Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth.” For the previous five postings, follow the links from here. In this post we have two joining fragments of bluish-gray marble (photos are here and here) that record another foreign decree honoring Korinthian dikasts. Fragment A was found 9 July 1929 on the North Slope of the Temple between the “parãrthma” and the old road bridge ca. 2.60 m. below the bridge’s parapet. Fragment B was found 16 August, 1977 in Quary Trench XV of Temple Hill and joins to Fragment A to form the bottom left corner of the inscription with part of a tenon. Both fragments have been worked with a tooth chisel on their faces, both have preserved left edges, and both have a slight taper toward the back. Each of the preserved lines observes syllabic/word division. The left side of the tenon has a rough-picked surface and is preserved to a length of 0.032 m. and a width of 0.075 m. The distance from the left edge of the stone to the left edge of the tenon is about 0.11 m. Photos, squeezes, and autopsy of stones.

Fragment A:
Published: Kent, ICor 8,3 46 fragment b (who associated it with ICor VIII,1 6 = I-764, but see N. Robertson, Hesp. 45 (1976) 257, n. 5 — JSTOR link here — and my commentary below) ; L. Robert, REG 79 (1966) p. 738.
Corinth inventory, I-943 ; drawing in CECI II 943.

Fragment B:
Unpublished, joining with Fragment B. Cf. H.S. Robinson, AD 32B (1977) 57; Touchais, BCH 102 (1978) 660.
Corinth inventory I-77-13 ; NB 652, p. 64 ; NB 687, p. 55, Object 846.

Measurements of Fragments A & B together:
Height, 0.228 m. ; width, 0.184 m. ; thickness, 0.10 m.
Height of letters, 0.005 to 0.011 m. ; interspace, 0.011 to 0.016 m.

DECREE OF A FOREIGN STATE HONORING KORINTHIAN ARBITRATORS

fin. III – med. II a.       NON-STOIX

Fragments A & B:
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
μετὰ τὰ ἱε[ρ]ὰ̣ [— — — — — — — — — — — — —]        1
καὶ αἱ δεδομέναι̣ [— — — — — — — — — τοῖς δικασ]-
ταῖς καὶ γραμματε̣[ῖ — — — — — — — — — — — ἀ]-
ναγραφῆι εἶναι τό̣[δ]ε τὸ̣ [ψήφισμα· — — — — — — —]-
[.2.]ν ἀναθεῖναι ἐν τῶι ἐπ[ιφανεστάτωι τόπωι τῆς πόλεως·]      5
[.2-3.] ἐπιμεληθῆναι ΕΜΜΕ[— — — — — — — — —]
τοὺς προβούλους· καλέσαι δὲ α[ὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ ξένια ἐπὶ τὴν]
κοινὴν ἑστίαν.      vacat
                 vacat

Apparatus:

Line 1: The lower tip of the alpha’s right diagonal is just visible.

Line 2: The inscriber has left out the crossbar of the second epsilon, as he does in the last epsilon of line five, but no other letter besides epsilon is possible. Only the lower half of the final iota’s hasta is visible.

Line 3: Under the right tip of the final tau’s horizontal there is an imperfection in the stone masquerading as an iota followed by the upper left corner of a triangular trace consistent with the upper left-hand corner of other epsilons.

Line 4: At the end of the line the upper part of a round letter follows the tau, then in the break between the fragments there is space for one letter followed by a lower horizontal on the new fragment, followed by a tau, and then the left edge of a round letter, thus necessitating τό̣[δ]ε τὸ̣ [ψήφισμα]. L. Robert called Kent’s restoration of lines 3 and 4 ([τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐπὶ τῆι ἀ]/ναγραφῆι εἶναι·) a “un grand mystère” and, noting parallels at IG VII 271 line 20 and IG VII 272 line 105, suggested the restoration [ἐν ἀ]|ναγραφῆι εἶναι (we can add a third example at IG VII 273, line 56). It is usually a very bad idea to disagree with L. Robert, but it may be worth noting that all these examples are from Akraiphia and occur during the first century AD. In addition, the placement of the infinitive so far from the presumed conjunction in the previous line is rather odd. Now that we have the new fragment, one wonders whether the EINAI in line 4 may have been a dittography arising from the EINAI of ἀναθεῖναι below in line 5 so that one should read [ἀ]|ναγραφῆι {εἶναι}, where ἀναγραφῆι is the more usual aorist passive subjunctive. Alternatively, it could be the aorist passive infinitive and we should read [ἀ]|ναγραφῆ{ιει}ναι.

Line 5: At the beginning of the line there is space for two letters. Undoubtedly we have either [εἰς στή]|[λη]ν ἀναθεῖναι or [εἰς στήλην λιθί]|[νη]ν ἀναθεῖναι. The final epsilon once again lacks a medial crossbar, but no other letter is possible. This inscription was to be set up in front of a wall or some other structure in the most visible place of the city, which was probably Temple Hill where both fragments were found. As far as we know, there is no known location on Temple Hill where the tenon of this inscription would have fit. The Elean decree honoring Korinthian judges that was published by N. Robertson (Hesperia 45 (1976) 253-6, JSTOR link here) has a similar taper, and may have also employed a tenon.

Line 6: At the beginning of the line [συν]επιμεληθῆναι is also possible. It is highly unlikely that the ΜΕ[—] following the ΕΜ is the beginning of a city’s name (e.g., ἐμ Με[γάροις or ἐμ Με[γάληι πόλει]…). We could have the infinitive ἔμμεναι, or ἐμ μὲ[ν ludi, ἐν ludi δὲ…], or ἐμ μέ[σωι…], or possibly something like ἐμ με[γάλοις τραγωιδοῖς τῶν Διονυσίων], although admittedly this last suggestion would not be the usual formula and in any case would require more space than it appears this stone had. At Stroud, Hesperia 1972, no. 3, line 14 (JSTOR link here) we find a similarly enigmatic phrase [—]ως ἐν δὲ vv / [— —] occurring in roughly the same position of a very similar inscription.

Line 7: We have the first mention of Korinthian πρόβουλοι on an inscription found at Korinth or elsewhere as far as I know. See Commentary below.

Line 8: It appears that the inscriber began inscribing the epsilon in ἑστίαν as a sigma and then turned it into an epsilon. The eta in the phrase κοινὴν ἑστίαν is indicative of the koine and it completes a common formula found in a few different forms that helps us guess at the length. In addition, while the tenon is not fully preserved so that it is not known precisely how wide the inscription originally was, certainly at least half of it seems present. The epsilon in δὲ seems to be at about the half-way point of the presumed full tenon, which suggests an inscription circa 46 letters wide at the bottom. In my text above, the formula supplied is one of the most common, and it just so happens to fill the likely space perfectly and so seems secure. Given that the inscription tapers, that the letters vary considerably in size, and that the inscriber observes syllabification, the figure of 46 provides only a rough, yet important, estimate for the lines above.

Below is a possible restoration of 44-46 letters, exempli gratia:

[— — πρόσοδον πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆμον πρώτοις]
μετὰ τὰ ἱε[ρ]ὰ̣ [καὶ προεδρίαν ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν· ὅπως δὲ]     1
καὶ αἱ δεδομέναι̣ [τιμαὶ τῶι τε δήμωι αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς δικασ]-
ταῖς καὶ γραμματε̣[ῖ φανεραὶ καὶ Κορινθίοις ὦσιν, καὶ ἐν ἀ]-
ναγραφῆι εἶναι τό̣[δ]ε τὸ̣ [ψήφισμα· ἀναγράψαντας δὲ εἰς στή]-
[λη]ν, ἀναθεῖναι ἐν τῶι ἐπ[ιφανεστάτωι τόπωι τῆς πόλεως·]           5
[καὶ] ἐπιμεληθῆναι ΕΜΜΕ[— — — — — — — — — —]
τοὺς προβούλους· καλέσαι δὲ α[ὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ ξένια ἐπὶ τὴν]
κοινὴν ἑστίαν.     vacat
        vacat

Commentary:

This inscription will be of great interest to historians of Korinth because for the first time Korinthian πρόβουλοι are attested on stone. It appears that part of their job involved making sure Korinthian honorandi received proper recognition. For πρόβουλοι in the Greek world and a summary of the views concerning their function at Korinth, see J. Tréheux, BCH 113 (1989) 241-247 (for Korinth see esp. pp. 245-7).

Note on dissassociating I-764 (photo here).

Here are my reasons for disassociating I-764 (Kent’s “fragment a” of ICor 8,3 46) from this text. First, as Roberston points out, the interlinear spacing of I-764 is different; it runs from 0.009 to 0.012 m, while on the other two joining fragments it varies from 0.011 to 0.016 m. (the variations are not progressively different on either inscription, rather on both there is variation in each line depending on the shape and size of the letters above and below). Second, while the letters are very similar and may be from the same workshop, the letters on I-764 are fairly consistent in height, measuring from 0.004 to 0.006 m., while those on I-943 (our Fragment A) and I-77-13 (our Fragment B) vary from 0.005 to 0.011 m. Third, the letters on I-764 are also more crowded, they are cut more deeply, their strokes are less precise in joining at the tips, and they do not follow an imagined register line as regularly as do our Fragments A and B. Fourth, the surface of I-764 is a darker blue. Fifth and last, the expected formulae suggest that I-764, even if it had smaller letters, belonged to a wider inscription than does our Fragments A and B.

Another epigraphic paper in the London seminar series:

Digital Classicist/Institute for Classical Studies
Work in Progress Seminar, Summer 2008

Friday 25th July at 16:30, in room NG16, Senate House, Malet Street, London

Charlotte Tupman (KCL)
‘Markup of the epigraphy and archaeology of Roman Libya’

1,500 Greek and Latin inscriptions survive from Roman Cyrenaica (modern Libya). A project to produce a digital publication of these texts is currently in progress at King’s College London, in association with colleagues in Libya, Italy and the U.S.A. (http://ircyr.kcl.ac.uk/). This paper discusses the issues surrounding the markup of these texts in EpiDoc XML and the possibilities of associating archaeological data with the epigraphic material.

ALL WELCOME

The seminar will be followed by wine and refreshments.

For more information please contact Gabriel.Bodard@kcl.ac.uk or
Simon.Mahony@kcl.ac.uk, or see the seminar website at
http://www.digitalclassicist.org/wip/wip2008.html

This is the fifth installment of our “Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth.” Links to the first four posts may be found here. This post features a fragment of nicely finished white-veined, bluish-grey marble preserving the right side where the stone was cut (although this is not at the surface); one or two letter spaces are lost at the ends of some lines. It is broken elsewhere. A photo is here. It was found 8 July, 1976 in Quary Trench 9. H.S. Robinson apparently thought that this new fragment belonged to the same stele as that on which is inscribed ICor 8,3 46 fragments a and b, only it was a different text. It is clear, however, that this new text was not inscribed on the same stele as fragments a or b of ICor 8,3 46. Photo, squeeze, and autopsy of stone.

Unpublished. Cf. H.S. Robinson, AD 32B (1977) 57.
Height, 0.147 m. (preserved surface 0.065 m.) ; width, 0.022 m. (preserved surface 0.191 m.) ; thickness, 0.102 m.
Height of letters, 0.005 to 0.009 m. ; interspace, 0.007 to 0.010 m.
Corinth inventory I-76-15 ; NB 632, p. 76 ; NB(FI) 655, p. 22, Object 621.

DECREE OF A FOREIGN STATE HONORING KORINTHIAN ARBITRATORS

fin. III – med. II a.         NON-STOIX

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — δὲ διέκριναν ἀκο]λούθως τῶι τε ὅρκωι κα[ὶ]           1
[— — — — — —, τήν τε ἐπιδημί]αν ἐποιήσαντο καλῶς καὶ ἐνδό-
[ξως — — — — — — — — —] τ[ῶ]ν Κοριν⟨θ⟩ίων καὶ τῆς πόλε- v
[ως — — — — — — — — — — —]Σ̣ΙΕΤ̣[. 2-3 . φ]α̣νεροὶ ὦσιν
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —κ]ατατιθ̣ε[.1-2.]         5
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

Apparatus: The size of the letters of this text vary greatly and the interlinear spacing, though fairly regular, is not strictly followed. The inscriber probably observed syllabification, which would explain why he left a vacat after the epsilon in line three, but included an omicron in line two and a nu in line four (which would have originally allowed a right margin of 0.010 m.).

Line 1: No trace of the final iota is visible, but the surface here, while smooth, shows signs of wear. The formula [δὲ διέκριναν ἀκο]λούθως is paralleled on ICor 8,3 46 frg. a, l.2 (for more on this fragment see below). The oath may be significant; possibly it indicates that this arbitration was between members of the Akhaian league. Compare lines 14-15 of IvO 47, which dates to 164 BC.

Line 2: It looks as if the pi in line two was initially inscribed as a tau, but then turned into a pi. Part of the final omicron has been rubbed away. At the beginning we probably have [τοῖς νόμοις…] or [τοῖς ψηφίμασι…]. After that we could also have [παρεπιδημί]αν or [τήν τε ἀναστροφὴν καὶ ἐπιδημί]αν… The plural form ἐποιήσαντο means we have more than one honorandus.

Line 3: The inscriber left out the cross bar of the theta. After ἐνδό|[ξως] we could have numerous flowery phrases, at the end of which we find a form of ἀξίως followed by the extent genitives. In addition to the use of the koine, the order of the two cities strongly suggests that the decree was passed and inscribed by a foreign government and that the arbitrators came from Korinth.

Line 4: The break and then a scar of 0.050 m. obscure or obliterate parts of this line, which at the beginning contained a phrase such as τῆς πόλε|[ως ἡμῶν …] or τῆς πόλε|[ως τῶν ethnicum …]. When the text resumes, the first letter trace preserves only the tip of an upper horizontal of a gamma, epsilon, xi, sigma, or tau followed by the upper half of a hasta that must have been an iota. The following espilon is clear, followed by half of a hasta, the spacing of which strongly favors a tau. The traces do not allow the restoration of any obvious offices such as δικασταὶ, nor do they suggest the proper name of a city or of individuals. An ending in –σι (πᾶσι?) followed by ἔτ̣[ι τε] is possible (Cf. IG IV 853, l.14, which was found at Methana and grants proxeny status to a Korinthian man), although if we have a dative plural we would expect the nu-moveable before the initial vowel of the following word. The line resumes beyond the scar with the apex of a triangular letter, which from the context must be an alpha. The adjective φ]α̣νεροὶ probably is modifying an ethnicum in the nominative plural, or it modifies the two branches of that city’s government such as ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος.

Line 5: Only the top of the theta is visible. At the beginning of the line we have something such as [χάριτας ἀξίας ἀποδιδόντες τοῖς φιλοτιμουμένοις…] or [τιμῶντες τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας…]. At the end of the line, whatever form of the verb or participle we have, it is likely that it should be divided across syllables, e.g., [—κ]ατατιθ̣έ|[ναι…] or [—κ]ατατίθ̣ε[σ]|[θαι…].

While the formulae of this species of text show considerable variation, the overall sense is clear: Korinthian men went to a foreign city, performed a service for them, probably adjudicating some dispute, for which that city now sends back an inscription to honor them and to record its gratitude. Below I give a restoration of 56-59 letters, exempli gratia:

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — τάς τε δίκας τὰς — —]
[— — — τὰς μὲν διέλυσαν, τὰς δὲ διέκριναν ἀκο]λούθως τῶι τε ὅρκωι κα[ὶ]        1
[τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς τῶν Ἀχαίων, τήν τε ἐπιδημί]αν ἐποιήσαντο καλῶς καὶ ἐνδό-
[ξως καὶ καταξίως ἑαυτῶν τε καὶ τῆς πόλεως] τ[ῶ]ν Κοριν⟨θ⟩ίων καὶ τῆς πόλε- v
[ως ἡμῶν· ὅπως ἂν οὖν καὶ οἱ ethnicum — — —]Σ̣ΙΕΤ̣[. 2-3 . φ]α̣νεροὶ ὦσιν
[τιμῶντες τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας — — — — — — — — — —κ]ατατιθ̣ε[.1-2.]      5
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

Commentary:

Naturally, we would like to know the identity of the foreign government and the names of the Korinthians whom they honored, but alas the epigraphical gods of Korinth have once again fated those details to remain a mystery.

Several similar dikastic decrees have already been published at Korinth, one of which is ICor 8,1 4. While obviously not the same text, many of the characteristics of the letters and subject matter are similar to Stroud 1972, 201, no. 3 (I-70-40 – JSTOR link here). There is also another example of a decree honoring Korinthian dikasts that was inscribed by the Eleans and erected at Korinth; see N. Robertson, Hesperia 45 (1976) 253-6 (JSTOR link here). In addition, there is the famous example of the territorial dispute between Korinth and Epidauros that was adjudicated by the Megarians at the request of the Akhaian League, a copy of which has been found at Epidauros (IG IV(2),2 71). Whether our new fragment involved a similar dispute between members of the Akhaian League that was adjudicated by the Korinthians is not clear, but it remains a distinct possibility.

Finally, there are the examples of ICor 8,3 46 fragments a and b. In my next post we will add a new fragment that joins below ICor 8,3 46 fragment b. This new fragment naturally prompted us to take a look at Kent’s fragments a and b, and after examining them, I (P. Iversen) am of the same opinion as N. Robertson (1976, p. 257, n. 5; link given above) that fragment a of ICor 8,3 46 belongs to a separate inscription. After posting the new fragment, I will also go back and offer some new readings of ICor 8,3 46 fragment a.

Two reviews from BMCR that I’ve been sitting on for a while, far too busy with the EpiDoc Summer School to read and report on here:

(1) BMCR 2008.07.09: Marilynne E. Raybould, Patrick Sims-Williams, A Corpus of Latin Inscriptions of the Roman Empire Containing Celtic Personal Names. Aberystwyth: CMCS Publications, 2007. Pp. vi, 283; b/w ills. 2. ISBN 978-0-9527478-7-1. £18.00 and Marilynne E. Raybould , Patrick Sims-Williams, The Geography of Celtic Personal Names in the Latin Inscriptions of the Roman Empire. Aberystwyth: CMCS Publications, 2007. Pp. i, 210; b/w ills. 3. ISBN 978-0-9527478-6-4. £19.99. Reviewed by Philip Freeman, Luther College.

Freeman offers a very brief, summary review of these texts (the first a corpus of 800+ inscriptions, the second a geographical companion volume), partly justifying his brevity with the final comment:

Since it is not the intention of either of these volumes to offer a linguistic analysis of, an argument about, or any discussion of the Celtic names they contain, there is little to debate in them aside from whether or not a particular name is genuinely Celtic. I believe Raybould and Sims-Williams on the whole have adopted an admirably minimalist standard in rejecting questionable names and including only those with a defensible Celtic etymology. Scholars without a background in Celtic linguistics may find the volumes frustrating in their lack of explanation of name meanings and cognates, such as brog (”territory” — Old Irish mruig, Welsh bro, Latin margo) and mara (”great” — Old Irish mór, Welsh mawr), but these are easily available in standard etymological dictionaries. Others whose interests include the Celtic lands to the east of the Bosporus will lament the exclusion of many revealing Galatian names from these works. Nevertheless, the authors have provided scholars of the ethnic makeup of the Roman Empire an admirable and much-needed tool for exploring the distribution of Celtic names throughout Roman Europe.

(2) BMCR 2008.07.25: Pantelis Nigdelis, Epigraphika Thessalonikeia, Symvole sten politike kai koinonike historia tes archaias Thessalonikes. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2006. Pp. 646. ISBN 960-12-1550-6. €40.00. Reviewed by Paraskevi Martzavou, École Pratique des Hautes Études, IVème Section, Paris.

Martzavou gives a detailed and engaged summary of this volume of 140 inscriptions, a selection of those of most historical and geographical interest from the forthcoming IG volume on Thessalonika, particularly the more recent discoveries. As a final summary M. notes:

N. écrit dans un grec moderne extrêmement précis et clair, les références sont fouillées et à jour. Signalons seulement une petite inadvertence: à la p. 478, le donateur de l’inscription IG X, 2, 1 no 259 n’est pas une prêtresse de Dionysos mais un certain Iulius Bessartes. Il convient aussi de dire au passsage que cet ouvrage est caractérisé par la clémence des jugements sur les tentatives malheureuses de suppléer aux lacunes du matériel épigraphique. Ce volume ne sera pas intéressant seulement pour quelques spécialistes mais sera précieux pour les historiens de l’empire romain plus généralement.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.07.36
Filippo Canali De Rossi, Le relazioni diplomatiche di Roma, Vol. II: dall’intervento in Sicilia fino alla invasione annibalica (264-216 a.C.). Roma: Herder, 2007. Pp. 148. ISBN 978-88-89670-20-0. €28.00.

Reviewed by Sandra Péré-Noguès, Université Toulouse II (perenog@univ-tlse2.fr)
Word count: 580 words

Ce livre fait suite à la parution en 2004 d’un premier volume consacré aux relations diplomatiques de Rome de l’époque royale à la conquête de l’Italie. Dans le même esprit Filippo Canali de Rossi (pour simplifier FCR) propose une nouvelle recension de toutes les sources littéraires grecques et latines qui concernent la diplomatie romaine à un moment clé de son histoire: les guerres puniques et l’intermède durant lequel Rome fut impliquée dans les guerres illyriques. L’ouvrage qui compte 148 pages (indices compris) s’organise en trois parties chronologiques: la première guerre punique (chapitre X); les guerres illyriques et l’expansion carthaginoise en Ibérie (chapitre XI); la seconde guerre punique (chapitre XII). Un appendice est consacrée à une étude plus approfondie du supplice de Regulus et à sa relation éventuelle avec la “tombe de Calatinus” (tombe “Arieti”) trouvée près de la Porta Esquilina (Rome).
Etc. at BMCR

published by the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaft
blurb

Gesamtindices
Schriftenverzeichnis

Vor fast 60 Jahren verstarb Adolf Wilhelm, einer der größten griechischen Epigraphiker seiner Generation. Seine enorme Schaffenskraft schlug sich, neben einigen Monographien, weit überwiegend in Hunderten von eher kleineren Artikeln nieder, die sich aber durch außerordentliche präzise Dichte der Darlegungen auszeichnen. Adolf Wilhelms Untersuchungen, Lesungen und Kommentare sind sowohl in epigraphischer Hinsicht wie allgemein für die Altertumswissenschaften von unverminderter Aktualität. In ihrer Fülle blieben sie freilich kaum überschaubar und sind zum Teil auch an schwer zugänglichen Stellen publiziert. Der Nachdruck dieser „Kleinen Schriften“ Adolf Wilhelms stellt daher ein Desiderat ersten Ranges in der Gegenwart dar. Das ehemalige Zentralantiquariat der DDR in Leipzig hat in den Jahren 1974–1984 mit einem solchen Reprint begonnen und insgesamt fünf Teilbände erscheinen lassen, sich jedoch nach den politischen Veränderungen ohne Rechtsnachfolger aufgelöst. Es verblieben noch ca. 174 Artikel, die als Abteilung II/3–5 des Nachdruckes von der Kleinasiatischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften publiziert wurden und mit ca. 1900 Seiten drei Bände füllten. Hierauf folgte als Abteilung III die Edition der Schriften aus Wilhelms Nachlass. Nach der positiven Aufnahme dieser bei der ÖAW herausgegebenen vier Bände der „Kleinen Schriften“ Adolf Wilhelms durch die internationale Fachwelt liegen nunmehr mit Abteilung IV die Gesamtindices zu allen in Wien und vorher in Leipzig nachgedruckten Werken Wilhelms (einschließlich seiner „Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde“ aus dem Jahre 1909) und somit der Abschlussband dieser Serie vor.
…
Adolf Wilhelm, one of the most eminent scholars of Greek epigraphs of his generation, passed away nearly 60 years ago. In addition to several monographs, his enormous creative output consisted above all in hundreds of shorter articles, distinguished through their exceptional precision. Adolf Wilhelm’s studies, readings, and commentaries are still of relevance today, both for epigraphical studies as well as for Classical Studies in general. It is clear that an overview of them all is almost impossible, especially since many of publications where they appeared are now available only with difficulty. This reprint of the Kleine Schriften has thus long been a special desideratum. The former Zentralantiquariat der DDR in Leipzig began work on such a reprint between 1974 and 1984, publishing a total of five volumes, but the work was discontinued during the political changes of the next years without there being a legal successor. The Commission of Asia Minor of the Austrian Academy of Sciences then reprinted the remaining 174 articles of Part II/3-5, which with approximately 1,900 pages fill three volumes. This was followed by Part III, an edition of Wilhelm’s posthumous works. After the international scholarly community’s positive reception of these four volumes, the series has now been completed with the publication of this volume, Part IV, a comprehensive index of all the Leipzig and Vienna reprints of Wilhelm’s works (including his “Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde” written in 1909).

ISBN 978-3-7001-3930-0
Print Edition
ISBN 978-3-7001-6121-9
Online Edition
Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klasse 772
Veröffentlichungen der Kleinasiatischen Kommission 21
GOid 0xc1aa500d 0×00185c2c
2008, 283 Seiten, 1 Farbabb., 24,9×16,2cm, gebunden
€ 63,20

Adolf WILHELM
war Professor für Griechische Altertumskunde und Epigraphik an der Universität Wien

Klaus HALLOF (Hg.)
Arbeitsstellenleiter, Inscriptiones Graecae (BBAW)

I just noticed that on July 10 the PHI database was updated, and thought I’d pass along the good news. It looks like roughly 8000 inscriptions have been added or had their existing entries updated: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=recent

By way of Silvia Orlandi comes this announcement from Silvio Panciera of a newly-formed Association for the Development and Dissemination of the Study of Roman Italy:

TERRA ITALIA ONLUS
Associazione per lo sviluppo e la diffusione degli studi sull’Italia Romana

Si segnala che, da parte di un gruppo di studiosi della Sapienza - Università di Roma, una nuova Associazione con questo nome è stata costituita in Roma il 14 maggio 2008, con atto notarile registrato il 10 giugno successivo. Nello Statuto e Atto costitutivo consultabile sul sito dell’Associazione (vedi sotto) si troveranno i nomi dei suoi promotori e responsabili pro tempore, insieme con l’indicazione delle sue motivazioni e finalità, nonché della struttura pensata per la stessa dopo una breve fase d’avvio che si concluderà con il prossimo anno.

Alcuni adempimenti amministrativi in corso (codice fiscale, riconoscimento Onlus, apertura conti correnti), che richiederanno due o tre mesi, consigliano di rinviare le iscrizioni all’inizio del 2009. Ma sembra importante far conoscere l’Associazione già da ora ed avviare una raccolta di adesioni di massima alla stessa, con la conseguente creazione di un indirizzario di simpatizzanti da utilizzare in futuro. Si consiglia di manifestare tale adesione di massima (non impegnativa) accedendo al sito dell’Associazione, che sarà utile anche per altre informazioni http://terraitalia.altervista.org, e seguendo le istruzioni ivi fornite. Altrimenti l’adesione stessa potrà essere comunicata, fornendo generalità, qualifiche e recapiti (postali, elettronici, telefonici, fax) ad uno dei seguenti indirizzi di posta elettronica:

• Silvio Panciera: silviopanciera@libero.it
• Gian Luca Gregori: gianluca.gregori@uniroma1.it
• Silvia Orlandi: silvia.orlandi@uniroma1.it
• Maria Letizia Caldelli: marialetizia.caldelli@uniroma1.it
• David Nonnis: dnonni@tin.it

Una qualche forma di raccordo con altre Associazioni similari, ma con finalità non identiche, come l’Associazione Italiana di Epigrafia, è allo studio. Siamo grati fin d’ora dell’inoltro di questa lettera ad altre persone che si ritengano interessate.

Cordiali saluti
Il Consiglio Direttivo Provvisorio

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

This post features a grayish fragment of marble with the left edge preserved from lines 3-6 but broken elsewhere (photo here). It was found 11 August, 1972 in Trench III of the Quarry Area. There is a regular margin of 0.025 m. to the left and the mason habitually punched puncta with his inscribing tool at the tips of the letter strokes. The regular thickness of the stone and the shallow depth of the letters seem to indicate that this is a revetment. Photo, squeeze, and autopsy of stone.

Unpublished.
Height, 0.105 m. ; width, 0.094 m. ; thickness, 0.020 m.
Height of letters, 0.007 to 0.010 m. ; interspace, 0.009 m.
Corinth inventory I-72-8 ; NB 570, p. 7 ; NB(FI) 566, p. 69, Object 288

PROXENY DECREE?

fin. IV- med. II a. NON-STOIX

vac.             [θεός·]?
ἐπὶ γρ[αμματ— — — — — — Νι]-      1
κάρχο[υ — — — mensis, numerus]
ἐπὶ δέκ[α — — — — — — — —]
ἔδοξε τ̣[ᾶι ἐκκλησίαι?· — — — —]-
ανδρο[— — — — — — — — —]-      5
ρου Κυ[— — — — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — — — — — —]

Apparatus:

Line 0: Above the pi in the first preserved line there is an uninscribed letter space-and-a-half that extends to a maximum height of 0.014 m above line one, while in the other lines there is only an interlinear space of 0.009 m. This indicates that we have the upper left-hand corner of a decree. As such, it is the only decree of pre-Roman Korinth known to me with a preserved upper-left corner. If there was text on this line, it must have been an indented heading, the most probable of which are θεός οr the ubiquitous ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι. The inscriber may have also observed syllabic breaks between lines, but given the paucity of decrees at Korinth it is impossible to ascertain the length of any line.

Line 1: On other inscriptions from Korinth we find a form of γραμματεύς restored at ICor 8,1 4, l.9, ICor 8,1 7, l.1, and ICor 8,1 8, l.1 (for this last example, however, see Dow HSCPh 53 (1943) 111, no.8 — those who have access to JSTOR may find a stable link here). There is also another example published by Stroud (Hesperia 41 (1972), 198,1 — JSTOR article here). It has the koine spelling γραμματέως, which we may have here. For the evidence of the koine on pre-Roman decrees at Korinth as perhaps signifying foreign engraving, see Stroud’s comments. Stroud (p. 199, footnote 4) also mentions an example of a ὑπογραμματεύς in the first line of on an unpublished inscription from Korinth (I 2649).

N.F. Jones (TAPA 110 (1980) 165 ff. – JSTOR article here) argues that a proxeny decree honoring two Athenians that was found on Delos actually comes from Korinth (= SEG 30.990). If Jones is correct, and our inscription is similarly narrow, then we may have ἐπὶ γρ[αμματιστᾶ Νι]|κάρχο[υ]…

Another possibility is that we have a decree of the Akhaian League that began with the formula ἐπὶ γρ[αμματέος τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς nomen, στραταγοῦ δὲ Νι]|κάρχο[υ, μηνὶ nomen, numerus] vel sim. (cf. IG IV(2),1 60, l.1).

Lines 1-2: The restoration [Νι]|κάρχο[υ] seems highly probable. Far less likely are [Νει]|κάρχο[υ] or [Λευ]|κάρχο[υ]. The [Δι]|κάρχου restored at IG X,2 2 196, ll.7-8 is undoubtedly a ghost and instead should be restored as [Νι]|κάρχου.

Line 3: The final kappa is assured, so this appears to be part of the day of the month. As incredible as it may seem, there is no other published decree found at Korinth that preserves the day of the month on which a decree was passed, and only one other decree is extant that records the name of a month (ICor 8,1 2, l.1).

Line 4: Only the upper left tip of an upper horizontal is visible. The restoration of
ἐκκλησίαι is based on the probable restorations of ICor 8,1 2 line 7 and ICor 8,1, 3, line 5, but is by no means assured.

Line 5: Clearly part of a name. If the inscriber observed syllabification, as it appears, the final syllable in line 4 should have ended in a vowel or diphthong, such as [Κλε]|ανδρο[—] or [Εὐ]|ανδρο[—]. It could also be Ἀνδρο[—].

Line 6: If the inscriber observed syllabification, [—]|ρ οὐκ υ[—], [—]|ρ’ οὐκ υ[—], or [—]|ρ ου κυ[—]… should be excluded and it looks as if we have the end of a name followed by the beginning of a patronymic or ethnic. Names beginning in Κυ- are relatively rare, so we may have an ethnic such as Κυρηναῖος, Κύπριος, or Κυζικανός (the latter is already attested at Korinth at ICor 8,1 29). If so, this may be a proxeny decree. Alternatively, if this is the end of a Korinthian man’s name, the ΚΥ may refer to his tribal affiliation of Κυνόφαλος. For this Korinthian tribe, see S. Dow, HSCPh 53 (1943) 90 ff. and N. Jones, TAPA 110 (1980) 176-7 (links to JSTOR provided above).

Commentary:
Although Korinth was one of the most powerful city-states in the Greek world, we know precious little about how the government functioned there, primarily because of the paltry epigraphical remains. Each new inscription, no matter how small, has the potential to alter our understanding of this enormous puzzle. Such is the potential of the present inscription, but the fragmentary state of it once again cheats our hopes. It is, however, the first solid example of a decree found at Korinth beginning with the formula ἐπὶ γραμματ-. Even so, we cannot be sure whether this new inscription was passed by the government of Korinth, or some other city or governmental body such as the Akhaian League.