This is the third entry in our Virtual Seminar on some Unpublished Inscriptions from Corinth (see post I here and post II here). It will feature our first Latin inscription, which 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 clear to us in what order they should be placed. Photos, squeezes, and autopsy of stones.
FASTI MAGISTRALES?
Date: 44 a. – 22/3 p.
Fragment A:
Published: Kent, ICor 8,3, 345.
Height, 0.0135 m. ; width, 0.127 m. ; thickness, 0.080 m.
Height of letters, 0.008 to 0.009 m. ; interspace, 0.004 to 0.006 m.
Corinth inventory, I-989 ; CECI II, I-989.
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — —] • M(arcum) • Instle[ium Tectum — — —] 1
[— — — —] •̣ Corint[hu]m • C • Anṭ[— — — — —]
[— — — —]M • et • Q(uintum) • Cornelium [— —]
[— — — — —] p̣ṛobaruṇt • XX̣[— — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
Apparatus:
Line 1: Kent read Instẹị[um Tectum], but the remnants of the last two preserved letters are clearly LE. For more on this reading, see the commentary below.
Line 2: There is some loss of the surface at the beginning of the line, but the traces of an interpunct may still be seen. Nothing of the H or V is visible. At the end of the line, Kent read Mịṇ[ucium], but this reading would require a space of 0.006 m. between the last stroke of the M and the I, which is three times greater than that found elsewhere on this stone and the new fragments. We believe that AN are clear, followed by the lower part of a hasta, the spacing and context of which suggest a T.
Line 4: The tops of the P and R are visible. The right hasta of the N is visible. After the first X, the trace of the upper left diagonal of another X is visible.
Fragment B:
Unpublished.
Height, 0.070 m. ; width, 0.110 m. ; thickness, 0.043 m.
Height of letters, 0.007 to 0.009 m. ; interspace, 0.004 to 0.007 m.
Corinth inventory I-76-14A ; NB 632, pp. 83 ; NB(FI) 655, pp. 20-21, Object 620A.
[— — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — —] . . . ỊỊA • decuṛ[ion— —] 1
[— — —]s • apparitoruṃ [— — — —]
[— —]er LXII • M • C[— — — — —]
[— — — —]ṣp̣uṇ[— — — — — — —]
[— — — — — — — — — — — — —]
Apparatus:
There is a micaceous flaw in the surface running from the top line at the left of the A through the O in line two and the C in line three to the preserved end of line four that makes reading difficult.
Line 1: Traces of three letters followed by two hastae, the first of which leans slightly to the right. Then an A followd by an interpunct. The upper left corner with a piece of the rounded loop of the R is clear at the edge of the break.
Line 2: The upper left angle of the M is visible. [tribuniciu]s apparitoruṃ ?
Line 3: There is a generous space after the R, but no interpunct seems visible, rather a slight point of damage high in the line space.
Line 4: The first letter trace is most consistent with an S, but it could also be the top of a C or the rising tip of a T or F that is found elsewhere on these fragments. The second letter trace can be the top of a B, P or R. The final trace has a hasta and diagonal connected at the top left corner and to the right there is the tip of another hasta, most consistent with an N.
Fragment C:
Unpublished.
Height, 0.105 m. ; width, 0.115 m. ; thickness, 0.048 m.
Height of letters, 0.007 to 0.009 m. ; interspace, 0.006 to 0.007 m.
Corinth inventory, I-76-14B ; NB 632, p. 86 ; NB(FI) 655, pp. 20-21, Object 620B.
[— — — — — — — —]ỊḄṚỊ[— — —] 1
[— — — — — — — —]nus • IIỊ[— —]
[— — — — — — —]C• Fideḷ[— — —]
[— — — — —]Ị• Caesaris [— — — —]
[— — — — A]ntiochus •I• [— — —] 5
[— — — —]canus • I[I — — — — —]
[— — — — —]ṾỊ • [— — — — — —]
Apparatus:
Line 1: The bottom of a hasta, followed by a letter with a base that resembles a B or D, followed by two letter traces that conform well with the bottom part of an R or a crowded IC, followed by the faint trace of a hasta.
Line 2: At the end of the line, only a faint trace of the third hasta is visible. A fourth may have followed the break. The numeral is overlined.
Line 3: It is not clear if the C is the last letter of an abbreviation, such as PROC(urator) or C for C(uravit)/C(uraverunt) or a name such as C(aius). It is not clear to us whether Fideḷ[—] is part of a proper name or an adverb or adjective.
Line 4: At the beginning of the line the lower half of a hasta survives.
Line 6: The overline of the numeral seems to be preserved to its full length and so the restoration of another I seems assured.
Line 7: The upper left tip of a diagonal and to the right of it the tip of a hasta are visible and are consistent with a V. Then there follows the upper tip of another hasta slightly lower in the line followed by an interpunct. We seem to have the end of a large number without an overline (cf. the large number in line 3 of Fragment B, which is also not overlined).
Fragment D:
Unpublished.
Height, 0.080 m. ; width, 0.070 m. ; thickness, 0.035 m.
Height of letters, 0.006 to 0.008 m. ; interspace, 0.005 m. to 0.016 m.
Corinth inventory, I-74-11 ; NB 610, p. 82 ; NB(FI) 611, p. 57, Object 464
[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —]
[— — — —]aedes[. .]E[— — — — — —] 1
[— — — — Ma]ecius • A(uli) • f(ilius) • Co-
[rnelius — —(?)] vacat
[— — — — — — —]t •A• decu-
[— — — — — — — —]ṃ. vac. 0.016 m. 5
Apparatus:
Line 1: Only part of the lower horizontal of the last E is visible.
Line 2: Or [D]ecius. Maecius is more common at Korinth.
Line 3: It is unclear whether the beginning of this line was inscribed or the text at the end of our line 2 continued at the beginning of line 4. It seems more likely that it finished here and a new entry was begun at the beginning of line 4.
Line 5: The two apices of a letter characteristic of an M elsewhere seem clear. Since there is a vacat of 0.016 m. to the right of this, it appears that we have the end of the line.
Commentary:
H.S. Robinson originally thought that these fragments might belong to the Lex Coloniae Corinthiensis (he noted that the words CAESARIS, DECVR[ION—], and APPARITORVM all appeared in the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Ursonensis and deduced a parallel). However, Mary Hoskins-Walbank while working on her dissertation (non vidimus) took a look at the stones and in some correspondence with Robinson expressed the view that they were more consistent with a fasti document – a view we find more likely. She also thought this stone might have been damaged in the earthquake of AD 22/3 and then discarded rather than suffering a damnatio memoriae.
One of the more intriguing aspects of this inscription lies in the reference to a Marcus Instleius in Fragment A, line 1, heretofore read as Insteius, who was one of the earliest duoviri of the colony of Korinth (established 44 BC). The spelling Insteius has been preferred by previous studies rather than Instleius undoubtedly because Instleius is not attested elsewhere (we do, however, find an A(ulus) Instuleius Tenax attested at Egyptian Thebes = Colosse de Memnon 2), while the name Insteius is attested in both Greek and Latin epigraphical and literary sources. The reading Insteius, however, is epigraphically impossible on this stone. Furthermore, the reading Instleius is corroborated on another stone from Korinth (ICor 8,3 149, line 1, photo here). Kent read the first line of this stone as [M •] INSTỊ[E]Ọ • C • F • TECTO, but he went on to add that “the letter following T can only have been I or L, and clearly was not an E. As there is no join between fragments a and b, as there would have been if the E had simply been omitted, I have assumed that the letters EI were erroneously transposed.” However, a transposition on this carefully carved piece of revetment seems scarcely believable. In addition, an L is more likely than an I given that the hastae of the other two instances of I on this same stone are taller while the close proximity of this letter’s hasta to the T that precedes it makes more sense space-wise if it is the hasta of an L (compare how the E in TECTO tucks in under the first T). In line 1 of ICor 8,3 149 we therefore propose reading INSTḶ[ΕΙ]Ο̣.
The reading Instleius rather than Insteius is further corroborated by a series of coins struck at Korinth (see Amandry BCH Suppl. XV pp. 124-128) that, given the rarity of the name Instleius, undoubtedly refer to our same man. On the reverse of several of these coins we find IIVIR paired with INSTL • CAS (example here), and on the reverse of others we find II VIR paired with INTS CAS (example here – where the order INTS is probably a ligature for INST). Previous scholars have interpreted the two men’s names as Inst(eius) and L. Cas. (for the last Amandry suggested L. Cas(tricius Regulus), while Kent suggested L. Cas(ius […]), but the placement of the interpunct between the L and C argues against such a reading and when we add the evidence of the coins to the inscriptions we once again are lead to believe his name was spelled Instleius. Perhaps the form Instleius may have been an older, alternative form of Insteius much like stlis is an earlier form of lis (as in Decemviri Stlitibus Iudicandis). Amandry (p. 36) places Instleius’ office of duovir in 42 or 41 and his office of duovir quinquennalis in 35.
If we assume Instleius is an alternate form of Insteius, this Marcus Instleius, as others have already pointed out, may have been the same man who fought at the side of Antony at the siege of Mutina in 44 BC (Cicero, Philippic 13.26) as well as at Actium in 31 BC (Plut., Antony 65.1).
