Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:16:51.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A New Portion of the Edict of Diocletian from Megalopolis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Extract

The inscription which follows came to light during the excavation undertaken this year, at Megalopolis, by the British School at Athens. It stood outside the house of a peasant, Βασίλєιος Πєτράκης, whose father had found it, many years previously, in a field upon the ancient site. The existence of the stone was reported first to the Ephor, Mr. Castroménos, who represented the Greek Government at our excavation. Mr. Castroménos courteously announced it to me, and both of us copied it. At that time we had no idea that it formed part of the ‘Edict of Diocletian’; this was first suggested to me by Mr. Gardner, Director of the School, on my return to Cambridge. Mr. Castroménos' copy is to appear, as I understand, in the ‘Δєλτίον.’ The text and edition which follow are from my own copy and squeeze.

The Edict of Diocletian and his colleagues, commonly spoken of either by Mommsen's title ‘De Pretiis Rerum Venalium’ or more briefly as the ‘Edict of Diocletian,’ is known to us already from a large number of fragments, Greek and Latin, found all (with one exception) in different parts of Greece or Asia Minor, and amounting together to many hundred lines. It is still however far from being complete.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1890

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

page 303 note 1 Gow: Companion to School Classics.

page 304 note 1 These must be added together; they cannot be equated; for the few letters which remain in Meg. do not correspond to the readings of the Geronthraean stone (Wadd. and C.I.L.), while they evidently form part of the same, or a similar, section. This implies either an omission on one of the two stones, or a slight differenee of arrangement between them.

page 304 note 2 The missing portion of Col. III. on the slab at Megalopolis is 21 lines; and the lower slab (entirely absent) perhaps contained, like the upper, 85 lines. 21 + 85 = 106. From this total subtract 60 lines of the Carystian stone [our portion (9)]. This leaves 46 lines as the probable amount missing both from the Carystian stone and from our own.

page 304 note 3 This portion is far from being continuous. C.I.L. has more than Wadd.; and C.I.L. may be supplemented by various fragments more recently discovered, by far the most important of which is that from Elatea, (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1885, p. 222sqq.)Google Scholar.

page 313 note 1 σμινύη is not = ‘bidens,’ ‘hoe,’as L. and S., but = ‘dolabra,’ ‘pickaxe.’ This is proved by Ar. Nub. 1486, as well as by our inscription.