Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth VII

This is posting VII of our “Virtual Seminar on Some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth.”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Unpublished.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Unpublished.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