DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.800#0360
Evius of Chalcis was the musician; Neaechmus was archon; and Car-
chidamus, son of Sotis, composed the piece. But let us observe that
the inscription says nothing about the building.1 It was in its place
when Stuart saw it; and stood in the centre of the architrave, con-
sequently immediately under the statue with the tripod. It is true
that Wheler in his cut does not place this inscription, but one of the
others, relating not to Thrasyllus as choragus, but to Thrasycles, his
son, or grandson, as agonothete, in the centre.2 But, first, Wheler
does not, like Stuart, give all three inscriptions in his cut of the
building, but only one, so that it is evidently more carelessly done;
secondly, the word ave6r)Kev is more appropriate to a statue and a
tripod than to a building;3 thirdly, as the inscription relating to
Thrasyllus, as choragus, was many years older than the other two
relating to Thrasycles, as agonothete, it is natural to suppose that it
was placed in the middle of the architrave, and the two later ones,
which both relate to the same epoch, on each side of it. This being
so, the centre inscription, we think, refers not to the dedication of
the building, but to the dedication of the choragic prize, that is, the
statue with the tripod, which stood immediately over the inscription.
The building, as we have seen, was the work of Nicias, long before the
time of Thrasyllus. It is possible, however, as Leake suggests,4 that
Thrasyllus made some embellishments in the architecture, and espe-
cially he may have altered the architrave in order to suit his anathema.
The other two inscriptions relate, as we have said, to choragic
contests in the archonship of Pytharatus, which was in the year b.c. 271,5
and, consequently, forty-nine years later than the monument of Thra-
syllus. In both these latter contests the people supplied the chorus, an
office which it appears to have taken upon itself in the interval between
1 It runs as follows: QpaavWos Opa- 3 Ka6iep6a> would be more appropriate
<rvX\ovAcKe'\evsav(6r]Kcv \ ^opt)ya>v vucqiras to the dedication of a temple than ava-
dvSpruriv 'limodoavribi (f>v\!j | Eiios XaXict- rt%u, though the latter may be sometimes
Sevs TjiXel Ne<ux/ios tjp\tv \ Kap\tSapos used for it.
Stirios e&i&a<TKfv. 4 vol. i. p. 186.
" See Wheler's Journey, p. 368; Stuart's 5 Clinton, F. H. iii. 6.
Athens, vol. ii. eh. iv. and pi. iii.
■A 2
chidamus, son of Sotis, composed the piece. But let us observe that
the inscription says nothing about the building.1 It was in its place
when Stuart saw it; and stood in the centre of the architrave, con-
sequently immediately under the statue with the tripod. It is true
that Wheler in his cut does not place this inscription, but one of the
others, relating not to Thrasyllus as choragus, but to Thrasycles, his
son, or grandson, as agonothete, in the centre.2 But, first, Wheler
does not, like Stuart, give all three inscriptions in his cut of the
building, but only one, so that it is evidently more carelessly done;
secondly, the word ave6r)Kev is more appropriate to a statue and a
tripod than to a building;3 thirdly, as the inscription relating to
Thrasyllus, as choragus, was many years older than the other two
relating to Thrasycles, as agonothete, it is natural to suppose that it
was placed in the middle of the architrave, and the two later ones,
which both relate to the same epoch, on each side of it. This being
so, the centre inscription, we think, refers not to the dedication of
the building, but to the dedication of the choragic prize, that is, the
statue with the tripod, which stood immediately over the inscription.
The building, as we have seen, was the work of Nicias, long before the
time of Thrasyllus. It is possible, however, as Leake suggests,4 that
Thrasyllus made some embellishments in the architecture, and espe-
cially he may have altered the architrave in order to suit his anathema.
The other two inscriptions relate, as we have said, to choragic
contests in the archonship of Pytharatus, which was in the year b.c. 271,5
and, consequently, forty-nine years later than the monument of Thra-
syllus. In both these latter contests the people supplied the chorus, an
office which it appears to have taken upon itself in the interval between
1 It runs as follows: QpaavWos Opa- 3 Ka6iep6a> would be more appropriate
<rvX\ovAcKe'\evsav(6r]Kcv \ ^opt)ya>v vucqiras to the dedication of a temple than ava-
dvSpruriv 'limodoavribi (f>v\!j | Eiios XaXict- rt%u, though the latter may be sometimes
Sevs TjiXel Ne<ux/ios tjp\tv \ Kap\tSapos used for it.
Stirios e&i&a<TKfv. 4 vol. i. p. 186.
" See Wheler's Journey, p. 368; Stuart's 5 Clinton, F. H. iii. 6.
Athens, vol. ii. eh. iv. and pi. iii.
■A 2