Comments on: Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth VI

By: Current Epigraphy » Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth VII

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:52:21 +0000

[...] This is posting VII of our “Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth.”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. [...]

By: PaulIversen

PaulIversen — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:41:01 +0000

Taking K. Rigsby’s observations into account, we might better restore line three as:

καὶ αἱ δεδομέναι̣ [τιμαὶ τῶι τε δήμωι αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς δικασ]-
ταῖς καὶ γραμματε̣[ῖ ἐπιφανέστεραι πᾶσιν ὦσιν, καὶ ἐν ἀ]-
ναγραφῆι…

By: PaulIversen

PaulIversen — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:11:55 +0000

Yes, I think you’re right. Thanks for pointing this out (which of course also means the bit about the most visible part of the city has nothing to do with Korinth or Tempple Hill). If of foreign origin the list of known cities with probouloi is quite short. Kerkyra can probably be ruled out because it doesn’t seem to have employed the koine at this time.

The other possibility is that this really isn’t of foreign origin and the Korinthians were honoring foreign judges. Unfortunately the decrees of Korinth are so few, that it’s difficult to know whether the koine absolutely means foreign engraving.

By: K. Rigsby

K. Rigsby — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:18:58 +0000

I don’t see how the foreign city could tell Corinth what to do. The last three injunctions are: to set up the inscription; the probouloi to take care of X; to invite (the Corinthian visitors) to dinner. Doesn’t all of that occur in the foreign city?

By: PaulIversen

PaulIversen — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:06:46 +0000

I took the injunctions at the end of the inscription to be referring to things the Korinthians should do (probably to take care for the setting up of the copy in their city, which obviously must have happened since this copy is in Korinth). In addition, we know that there were probouoi in Korinth, so I thought it a reasonable inference that it was the probouloi of Korinth. But it’s possible that the probouloi belong to the home city of this decree, and of course one thinks of Eretria immediately. Do you think there is something about this inscription or this type of inscription that makes your interpretation more likely?

By: K. Rigsby

K. Rigsby — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:20:07 +0000

Don’t the probouloi belong to the foreign state? Maybe Eretria or Chalcis?