Another inscription

[ObsequiousNewt]

Translated to Attic from IG7.3172:

μηνὸς Ἀλαλκομένιου¹ εἰκαστῇ καὶ ἕκτῃ, ἐπεψήφιζε Φιλόμηλος Φίλωνος, Κηφισόδωρος Διονυσίου ἔλεξε· προβεβουλευμένον εἶναι αὐτῷ πρὸς δῆμον, ἐπειδὴ ἐπεψηφίσατο ὁ δῆμος ἀποδοῦναι Νικαρέτῃ Θέωνος τὸν ταμίαν τὸν προάρχοντα τὴν τρίτην τετράμηνον ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπερημεριῶν τῶν ἐουσῶν² κατὰ τῆς πόλεως, ὃ ἐπίθωσε³ αὐτὴν ἡ πόλις, ἀργυρίου⁴ δραχμὰς μυρίας ὀκτακισχιλίας ὀκτακοσίας τριάκοντα τρεῖς, καὶ τοὺς πολεμάρχους ἀνελέσθαι τήν τε σύγγραφον ἣν ἔδωκαν ὑπὲρ οὔτων τῶν χρημάτων κατ᾽ αὐτοὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ ταμίας καὶ ὧν προσείλετο Νικαρέτα δέκα, καὶ τὰς ὑπερημερίας διαγράψασθαι τὰς κατὰ τῆς πόλεως τὰς ἐπὶ Ξενοκρίτου ἄρχοντος ἐν Θησπιῆς, καὶ τοῦτα ᾠκονομηκότων τῶν πολεμάρχων καὶ τοῦ ταμίου ἀποδόντος τὰ χρήματα κατὰ τὸ ὁμόλογον τὸ παρὰ Θεόφεστον Θεοδώρου Θησπιέα τεθέν, δεδόχθαι τῷ δήμῳ· τοὺς πολεμάρχους, ἐπεί κε τό ψήφισμα κύριον γένηται, ἀναγράψαι ἐν στήλην λιθίνην τό τε ψήφισμα τοῦτο καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀποδόσεως, κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τὰς ὑπερημερίας τὰς κατὰ τῆς πόλεως τὰς Νικαρετης καὶ τὸ ὄνυμα τοῦ γραμματέως τοῦ διαγράψαντος αὐτὰς καὶ τὴν σύγγραφον⁵ τὴν τεθεῖσαν παρὰ Ἰφιάδην καὶ τὸ ἀντίγραφον <καὶ τὴν ἀντίγραφον> τοῦ ὁμολόγου τοῦ τεθέντος παρὰ Θεόφεστον καὶ τὴν διαγραφὴν τῶν χρημάτων ὧν ἔγραψαν αὐτῇ διὰ τραπέζης⁵, καὶ τὸ ἀνάλωμα ἀπολογίσασθαι πρὸς κατόπτας, πόρον δ᾽ εἶναι ἀπὸ τῶν πολιτικῶν.

¹Μαιμακτηριῶνος.
²Or ἰουσῶν.
³ἔπιθε.
⁴Or ἀργυρέου.
⁵σύγγραφην.
⁶Or τραπέζας.

This seems to be one sentence, or possibly three. As such, it's hard for me to figure out where clauses belong.

Here is my attempt at translation:

In the month of Alalcomenius on the 26th, Philomelus son of Philon put it to the vote, and Cephisodorus son of Dionysius said: that he had a senatus consultum before the assembly, after which the assembly voted that the treasurer in charge for the third period of four months pay back to Nicarete daughter of Theon due to the notes being held against the city, which(?) the city persuaded her, 18833 drachms of silver, and that the polemarchs rescind the contract which they and the treasurer gave for this money against themselves and from which Nicarete chose ten, and that the notes against the city on(?) Archon Xenocritus in Thespia be struck, and with the polemarchs having administered these and the treasurer having paid back the money in accordance with the agreement set by(?) Theophestus son of Theodorus the Thespian, to be decreed to the people: that the polemarchs, after the decree became law, record this decree on the stone monument and that for the repayment, against the same as well as Nicarete's notes against the city, and the name of the secretary of the striking them and the contract set by Iphiades and the transcript <and the transcript> of the contract set by(?) Theophestus and the striking of the money of which they wrote to her through bank(s?), and the expense to be reckoned before katoptae, to be providing by the officials.

1. It's evident enough that εἶναι belongs to ἔλεξε (right?) but I lose certainty after that, essentially because I can't figure out what ὅ is doing there. The closest thing it agrees with is προβεβουλευμένον, and ἐπίθωσε already has both a subject and an object.
2. Perhaps as a consequence of this, I can't figure out what δραχμὰς belongs to.
3. Is it ἀργυρίου or ἀργυρέου? The nature of the Bœotian dialect makes this ambiguous. It seems weird to say "drachmas of money", but it makes less sense to have a lone adjective in the genitive case, unless there's something I'm missing either way.
4. Does ἀνελέσθαι belong to ἔλεξε or ἐπίθωσε? It doesn't seem to make sense in the latter case ("the city persuaded her to take up the polemarchs"? not to mention that ἄνελέσθαι already by all appearances has a subject and object) but otherwise what exactly is the city persuading her to do?
5. What is ὦν modifying?
6. Also, there's nothing in that sentence that's being modified, so why is καὶ there?
7. I don't know if anyone will be able to answer this, but why does Θησπιαι have a long vowel? (The original Boeotian is ΘΕΙΣΠΙΗΣ/ΘΕΙΣΠΙΕΙΑ, which corresponds to Θησπιαῖς/Θησπιέᾱ.)
8. The bit running from καὶ τοῦτα to τεθέν I can't place. There's no verb except for participles: what do those belong to?
9. Does δεδόχθαι still belong to ἔλεξε? It's really hard to make sense of it.

At this point, as you can tell, my ability to translate the rest of it fragmented entirely. After seeing κε used with a subjunctive, which I had thought wasn't done (and I didn't see a conjunction to signal to me that this was a subordinate clause) I couldn't make sense of anything anymore.

I would appreciate any help.

(EDIT: Modified translation according to mwh's post.)

[mwh]

Just a couple of quick notes. ανελεσθαι and διαγραψασθαι refer to canceling, annulling (withdrawing, crossing out). This might help you make some sense of the document.

(As to the κε, try επεί κε, Attic επάν; and delete the nonsensical τε. And drachs of silver are just that, silver drachs. Your q.8: gen.abs., and τεθεν with the agreement, το ομολογον)

[ObsequiousNewt]

I'm aware of the meaning of διαγραψάσθαι, although I didn't notice ανελέσθαι could mean 'rescind'.

I feel like an idiot for not realize that ΕΠΙ was to be read as ἐπεί here. With that in mind the clause makes much more sense. (I'm not sure whether τε is supposed to be there—it's not on Packhum, but Buck has it. If it doesn't make sense, I suppose it's best removed.)

I appreciate the answer to one of my questions.

EDIT: Never mind, Buck doesn't have τε, I misread it from the following line.

[ObsequiousNewt]

Bump?

[ObsequiousNewt]

If nobody is able or willing to answer my questions, can somebody point me toward any other resources than Textkit where I might find answers?

[jeidsath]

You could try asking on the German Textkit, though I don't know if they'll be much more help: http://www.latein.at/phpBB/index.php

However this may help you out: https://books.google.com/books?id=NiYTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA199

That entire book looks pretty good actually, not just the discussion of the Nicareta inscription. Personally, I'm not spending much time on dialects until I can read Attic comfortably, and I'm still some way off from that.

EDIT: Also see the discussion on page 22 (French) here: http://booksnow1.scholarsportal.info/eb ... 00larf.pdf

[ObsequiousNewt]

The book is where I got the inscription from. I'm pretty well acquainted with it. I just don't understand several grammatical peculiarities, which I was hoping someone would be able to explain.

[jeidsath]

Well, take a look at their translation of this section in the footnote labelled 10ff. That should clarify the first few of your questions.

[seneca2008]

"ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπερημεριῶν τῶν ἐουσῶν² κατὰ τῆς πόλεως"

I cant follow your translation here. ὑπερημερία is a default or according to L&S "forfeiture of recognizances, distress, or a document declaring such forfeiture, τᾶν ὑπερα_μεριάων (Boeot. gen. pl.) τᾶν ἰωσάων (i. e. οὐσῶν）“ κὰτ τᾶς πόλιος” ", presumably against the city.

This should clear up part of your translation as "ὑπεραμερία" occurs three times.

I will continue to look at the text but I am not familiar with this type of legal inscription, which uses quite a lot of technical language and is in the unfamiliar Boeotian dialect ( I have been looking at packhum rather than your attic rendering).

You may be interested to read this http://quod.lib.umich.edu/i/icp/7523866 ... w=fulltext if you have not already seen it.

What is your particular interest in reading this text?