Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:52:53.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ΟΙΚΗΙΟΙ ΠΕΡΙΝΘΙΟΙ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. J. Graham
A. J. Graham
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The archaic inscription from Samos recording a dedication to Hera by two Perinthians (SEG xii 391) is a most interesting document from many points of view. But in this paper I shall confine myself to a single topic, the crux of 11. 3–4.

Klaffenbach, the first editor, frankly admitted that he could not master the problems presented by the letters on the stone (3 f.) Ο.ΙΚΗΙΟΙ. He was naturally reluctant to postulate dittography. The text is short and well inscribed, but that is not all. For when one has assumed the engraver's error one is still left with a phrase qualifying the names of the two dedicators, οἰκήιοι Περίνθιοι, for which Klaffenbach could see no satisfactory explanation. He therefore inclined to the possibility that there is a word for some form of craftsman concealed in these letters, and the dedication is comparable to the tithe dedications by potters from the Athenian acropolis. The lack of any word for a craft at all similar to the letters on the stone gives this suggestion the appearance of a last resort.

Robert thought that dittography should be assumed and οἰκήιοι explained as referring to the relationship as kinsmen which existed between the two dedicators but which was not evident from their names and patronymics. This explanation did not convince Klaffenbach, nor is it supported by other examples. And, as Guarducci rightly objected, clearer ways of expressing their relationship, if this is what the dedicators intended, could surely have been found.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 84 , November 1964 , pp. 73 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts vi (1953) 15–20. His text is reproduced as SEG xii 391.

2 On all this see Klaffenbach, 17 f.

3 See Klaffenbach, ibid., and REG lxxii (1959) 225 §320.

4 Loc. cit.

5 p. 25; see next note.

6 Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni i (Milan, 1956) 23–7, ‘Un'antica offerta alla Era di Samo’.

7 Loc. cit.

8 See 365 with n. 4. Cf. ‘This would mean that the phrase οικηι{ηι}οι means not “the settlers” (i.e. original colonists) but simply “the colonists”.’ Her tentative suggestion that the two dedicators were 'οικηιοι in the sense of Perinthian officials responsible for the gifts in a Perinthian οἱκος or Treasury’ seems too far from the attested meanings of οἰκεῑος to be a serious possibility.

9 To do this one needs now to visit the ‘apotheke’ by the main church in Tigani (officially Pythagoreion).

10 See plate II.

11 REG lxxii (1959) 225 §320. I take the liberty of correcting Robert's actual words ‘simple haplo- graphie’.

12 See Guarducci, 26 f., for examples.

13 Diehl, Anth. Lyr. Grace. ii (1925)Google Scholar, Simonides no. 114, a dedicatory epigram probably not by Simonides (see Boas, M., De Epigrammatis Simonideis (Groningen, 1905) 119Google Scholar), is hardly an exact parallel, as the sum mentioned is presumably the sculptor's fee, not the cost of the dedication:

14 I also agree with her that this would explain why the two men dedicate together even though they were apparently not related.

15 Loc. cit.

16 E.g. that of Deinomenes to Athena Lindia; see Lindian Chronicle xxviii in Blinkenberg, , Lindos ii.Google Scholar

17 Whatever the date of the inscription, though the argument is stronger if it is dated to within a generation of the colony's foundation in c. 600, i.e. 580–570. This is where Klaffenbach placed it (16 f.), but Jeffery offers a much later date, c. 525 (371, no. 35), on arguments which do not seem to me compelling; see 365.

18 Cf. 3 f.:

19 Robert makes the general comment that in Hellenistic decrees οἰκεῑος is sometimes equivalent to συγγενής but not always (BCH lii (1928) 171 n. 5).

20 SEG ix 3. I discuss this document in JHS lxxx (1960) 94 ff.

21 The text is that of Oliverio, , Ric. di Fil. vi (1928) 225.Google Scholar The words τῶν οἰκείων were printed by him in large type to indicate that he read them with difficulty (cf. 186). Mr P. M. Fraser has kindly informed me (by letter) that he could not see the letters on the stone, which is now fixed in a dark part of the museum. However, Oliverio (223) describes how he waited for the sun to strike the stone at favourable angles to reveal each letter in turn, and it is noteworthy that even his photograph (pl. 12) reveals two letters quite clearly (ων of οἰκείων) which were not visible to Mr Fraser, and possibly others (e.g. π of ἄποικοι). There is, therefore, sufficient reason for confidence in Oliverio's reading of this passage. It is not among those attacked by Ferri, , Historia iii (1929) 389–96.Google Scholar

22 E.g. Oliverio and Chamoux took it as equivalent to all the Theraeans, (Riv. di Fil. vi (1928) 227.Google Scholar and Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades (Paris, 1952) 107), while Meiggs' translation suggests to an English reader a more narrow sense of relationship (‘any kinsman’; see Bury, , History of Greece 3862Google Scholar).

23 I discuss the question of the decree's authenticity at length in the article cited above, n. 20. Cf. also Jeffery, , Historia x (1961) 139 ff.Google Scholar, whose conclusions, reached independently, are on the whole similar. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the justness of Parke's criticism of my treatment of the word αὐτοματίζω (JHS lxxxii (1962) 145).