Main Site . Other insciptions from the main site of Boubon
27. Honorary inscription for a deceased citizen (Nearchos IV?)
|[Β]ουβωνέ[ων ἡ] βο[υλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ]–
μο[ς.. ] ἐτεί[μη]σ̣εν Ι Ο[ – – 8–10 – – ]
Μ̣ο[λ]έσεο̣ς̣, Β[ου]βωνέα̣, ν̣[ – – – 5–7 – – ]
κο[ν], ἄνδρα σε[μν]ὸν καὶ ἀγα̣[θὸν καὶ με]–
γα̣λόφ̣ρονα̣, ἤθε̣ι καὶ δόξ̣ῃ διε̣[νένκαντα],
κ̣[αταλ̣]ιπόν͜τα τ͜ῇ πατρίδι εἴσ[οδον?]
Λ̣Ε̣. είαν, γέν̣[ο]υ̣ς ὑπάρξαν̣[τα]
ἀ̣πὸ προγόν̣ων πάσας ἀρ̣χ[ὰς]
φ̣ιλοτείμως τελ̣εσάν͜των, συν̣γε–
ν̣͜ῆ λ̣υκιαρχῶ[ν] καὶ ἐθνικῶν̣ [ἀρ]–
χ[ό]ντων, διαθέμενον δ[ὲ]
κα[ὶ κα]ταλιπόν͜τα ἐξ ἡ͜μίσους
[μ]έ̣[ρ]ο̣υς κληρονόμον τὴν
πόλιν, ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς προσόδου
ἔργοις κοσμηθῆναι, καὶ ἔξ̣ω–
θεν εἴς τε διανομὰς καὶ ἐλε–
οθεσίαν καὶ ἀγῶνας· ἀναστα–
θῆναι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὓ̣ς διετά–
ξατο γεν͜έσθαι ἀνδριάντας,
τειμᾶσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν καθ′ ἕτος
καὶ ταῖς κατὰ τὴ͜ν εἰσγραφὴ͜ν τει–
The council and the people of Boubon honored [... ] son of Molesis, citizen of Boubon [... ] an honorable, good and generous man, (a man) of distinguished character and reputation, who left his city a [perpetual revenue?], one who belonged to a family whose members exercised all (public) offices with generosity in accordance to their ancestral tradition, kinsman of Lyciarchs and federate officials, who arranged in (his) will to leave the city heir to one half (of his property), so that from the revenue (the city) will be embellished with public works, and (he donated) furthermore (money) for distributions, the provision of oil, and games; and (the city decreed) that the statues of him, which he arranged to be made, be errected, and that he be honored each year according to the register.
Rectangular base found in 1895 by R. Heberdey "lower than the theater" (unterhalb des Theaters), later destroyed. Bean and Schindler could recover only a small fragment.
Height: 85 cm; length: 52 cm; depth: 50 cm; letters: 2.35 cm.
Schindler 1972, no. 6 (pl. 2.8: squeeze of a fragment; pl. 9: Heberdey's old squeeze of the stone); BullÉp 1973, no. 453; Milner 1998, p. 2, no. 1.19.
L. 2-4 : Surprisingly, Schindler did not restore ΕΤΕΙ[..]ΣΕΝ to ἐτεί[μη]σ̣εν, because in his view, the lacuna seemed too short for the two letters MH. They were probably in ligature as many other letters in this inscription; cf. above. The honorand of this monument is likely to have been Nearchos IV, the young man honored in an inscription first published in 1994 by Milner (see no. 26). Milner (1994), p. 94 argues that the I O (or TO or ΠΟ) after ἐτεί[μη]σ̣εν, which Schindler read on Heberdey's squeeze, may have belonged to an elaborate N, formed by what looks like an eight between two vertical strokes. Such a N is used inconsistently in the inscription in honor of Nearchos found by Milner, and in one in honor of Artemion (no. 23) who was most likely his mother. Yet, in the monument under discussion here, the name of Νέαρχος τετράκι(ς) τοῦ Μολέσεος, if indeed it is to be restored in the lacuna of ll. 2-4, was most likely not engraved directly after ἐτεί[μη]σ̣εν. The name is too short to have extended from the middle of l. 2 to that of l. 4, even if the writing in those lines was larger for emphasis of the honorand's name. If I O is indeed correct, then we are more likely dealing with an expression such as τ̣ῷ̣ [ἀνδριάν|τι ] or τ̣ὸ [πέμπον vel sim.] directly after ἐτεί[μη]σ̣εν, followed by the name of the honorand in lines 3 and 4. The photograph of Heberdey's squeeze provided in Schindler 1972, pl. 2.9 is unhelpful; still, the Ρ of Νέαρχον in the middle of l. 3 may just be discernible. Since the inscription mentions yearly honors (in l. 21), it seems likely that ll. 2-3 refered to those by means of an ordinal (τό πρῶτον, δεύτερον etc.). On the other hand, if I O is not to be trusted, then the missing lines can be restored as in no. 26: [Β]ουβωνέ[ων ἡ] βο[υλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ]|μο[ς] ἐτεί[μη]σ̣εν [ταῖς ἀξίαις τει|μαῖς Νέαρχον τετράκι τοῦ] | Μ̣ο[λ]έσεο̣ς̣.
A strong argument in favor of identifying the 'jeune défunt' (BullÉp 1973, no. 458) of this inscription with Nearchos of no. 26, is provided by the fact that the honorand himself had undertaken no public offices. All praise in connection with a political career is directed towards his kinsfolk and ancestors, as is the case with Nearchos who also apparently died too young to have served as a magistrate. But of course Molesis, the only name belonging to the honorand's ancestors preserved here, is a common one. Alternatively, this monument might have been raised for a different member of the same family. Τετράκι instead of τετράκις is not unknown in the region; see for example TAM II 687 (cf. 688) from Kadyanda.
L. 4-5 : If indeed the last letter before the lacuna was a N, then we might be dealing with a case where the honorand, being perhaps in his late twenties, could be referred to both as neanias and as andras; cf. an inscription from Pogla in Pisidia (IGR III 407): Αὐρήλιον [Ἀρτειμιανὸν]..., ἄνδρα νεαν[ί]αν, παιδείᾳ διαπρέψαντα. In an inscription from Pantikapaion (Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani, Moskow 1965, 134), a 32-year-old man is referred to as ἀρτίχνους νεανίας, literally: a young man whose first beard has just appeared. On the age of neaniae und paides, see Strubbe (1998), pp. 45-46. The lost word in lines 4-5 might, then, have been ν̣[εανίσ̣]κο[ν].
L. 7 : κ̣[αταλ̣]ιπόντα is an obvious restoration here. Though, as Schindler notes, the available space seems somewhat narrow, the letters have been clustered elsewhere in this document too. The missing word at the end of this line must have referred to the honorands' most important service to Boubon, his having left the city heir to one-half of his property. In lines 15-16 we learn that the purpose of the bequest was to provide revenue for the construction of public works. It is likely, then, that the word beginning with EIΣ in line 7 was εἴσοδον, revenue (LSJ, εἴσοδος III).
L. 8 : At the beginning of the line, Schindler read a letter that could be an A or Λ, then an Ε, then maybe a Π or ΤΡ. None of this makes much sense in combination with the ending -ειαν. If the proceeding word was indeed εἴσοδος, and referred to the revenue provided to the city by the honorand's legacy, then one might consider reading in l. 8 ἀ̣ε[ίδ]ειαν. This would be an incorrect form of the accusative feminine of the adjective ἀείδιος, -ος, ον, perpetual, and the phrase would be understood as having bequeathed to his home city a perpetual revenue. But I would be reluctant to accept this restoration, as there are no other ungrammatical forms in this inscription.
L. 12-15 : Though the (young?) man had undertaken no political offices, he served his patris in death: he bequeathed to the city one half of his property with the provision that the revenue be used for public works. Cf. an inscription from Caria, IK Iasos 274: [ἡ βουλὴ] καὶ ὁ δῆμος Διόδοτον δʹ Διοδότου ἄνδρα φιλόπ̣α̣τριν γυμνασιαρχήσαντα καὶ κ̣αταλιπόντα τῇ πόλει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ [οὐσ]ίαν πᾶσαν εἰς ἄλ[ιμ]μα; from Lycian Sidyma, TAM II 190: [Μ(ᾶρκον)Αὐρ(ήλιον) Εὔκαρπον τρίς ]... καταλιπόντα̣ τῇ πόλει πάντα τὰ περὶ τὸν Κράγον γεγονότα αὐτοῦ χωρία δι’ ὧν ἔθετο διαθηκῶν; from Nisa, TAM II 742 (cf 743): Νεισέων ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος Διογένην γ' τοῦ Μητροδώρου δ' Νεισέα, νεανίαν εὐγενῆ καὶ φιλόπατριν, καταλιπόντα τὴν πόλιν κληρονόμον.
L. 18-20 : L. Robert's (loc. cit.) explanation of these lines unnecessarily complicates what must be a simple matter. Robert writes: "la construction très libre revient à dire: 'en sorte qu' a été érigée une statue de lui et les statues qu 'il a ordonné par testament d' ériger', apparemment des statues de membres de sa famille". But ἀνασταθῆναι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὓ̣ς διετάξατο γενέσθαι ἀνδριάντας is just as good as ἀνασταθῆναι δὲ καὶ οὓ̣ς διετάξατο γενέσθαι ἀνδριάντας αὐτοῦ. Αὐτοῦ refers to multiple statues of the honorand himself. No distinction is made between a statue for him and other statues for members of his family, and none need be construed.
The will contained provisions for the erection of statues of the deceased. In accepting the will, the city apparently endorsed those provisions too. We are not told who would pay for the statues though. As the city was the recipient of only half of the inheritance, the private legatees were at least as likely to be expected to bear the costs as was the public treasury. In any case, the public announcement in a civic decree of the honor to be bestowed through those statues, as it is reflected in ll. 18-20 of this inscription, can be seen as promoting what might otherwise have remained a private honorary act to the higher status of public honors. In addition, official sanctioning presumably meant that the statues could be raised on public ground. It seems an effective 'strategy' for public representation, and it may have been a common one: a will that benefited the community alongside private persons set aside a certain sum for honoring the deceased. The city was likely to endorse the intentions of the legator concerning his own commemoration, and to sanction the fulfilment of his wish by public decree. Such a merging of public and private honorary initiatives would not be unique; cf. the commentary on no. 59.
L. 21-23 : Annual honors are mentioned many times in the Lycian epigraphic record, most notably in the Opramoas dossier from Rhodiapolis (Kokkinia 2000, pp. 224-232), but the actual content of those yearly repeated ceremonies evades us. It may, of course, have been different from place to place or even from case to case. An εἰσγραφή τειμῶν figures repeatedly in the list of honors bestowed to Iason of Kyaneai (IGR III 704-706). Robert (loc. cit.) speculates that, in our inscription from Boubon, the εἰσγραφή referred to the written motion introduced for the honorary decree, though this meaning of the verb εἰσγράφω is attested only in Hellenistic documents (cf. Wörrle 1988, p. 30; Kokkinia 2000, pp. 228-229). Alternatively, the εἰσγραφή τειμῶν may be an honorary act in which the yearly bestowed honors were entered in a public list or register.