Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:36:30.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Reflexion: IG i3 66 (and 62) Again

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Alan S. Henry
Alan S. Henry*
Affiliation:
Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article Benjamin Meritt and Malcolm McGregor have sought to refute my criticisms of their text of the publication formula in the Athenian decree concerning relations with Mytilene.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 17 , 1983 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1983

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 Originally published in AAA 13. 1 (1980), 154–6, but this version was so‘riddled with errors’ (M.F. McGregor, letter of 19/5/83) that the editor agreed to reprint a corrected version in AAA 13. 2 (1981), 351–3. All references hereinafter are to this latter version.

2 See ‘Petrified Silence: An Essay in Epigraphical Restoration’, in Vindex Humanitatis, Essays in Honour of John Huntly Bishop, ed.Marshall, B.A.University of New England Press (1980), 17–33 (and especially 25).Google Scholar

3 ATL II, D22 = i2 60 = i3 66. (The reader is asked to note that, in referring to inscriptions in the Corpus, I omit the letters IG).

4 In fact, I wrote only of ‘reflexives’ without qualification, but I think it is clear from my argument (op. cit. [above, n. 2] 23–27) that it was to the insertion of direct reflexives in these expressions that I was objecting.

5 I would refer the reader to the photographs in ATL II, Plate XVI and AAA 13. 2 (1981), 352. (The photograph in AJA 30 (1926), 177 is of little help.) No epigraphical judgement should, of course, be based on photography alone, and ultimately each reader will have to satisfy his own conscience by a trip to the Epigraphical Museum (EM 6823 + 6631).

6 Op. cit. [above, n. 1], 351.

7 As I write, Professor Osborne has just taken up the Chair of Classical Studies in the University of Melbourne. I take this opportunity to welcome him to the world of antipodean epigraphy and to thank him for his many helpful responses to my queries in the past while he was still on top of the world.

8 My italics.

9 I wish to thank most sincerely both David Jordan (and his colleagues) and Stephen Miller, the Director of the American School,who passed on my query to Dr. Jordan.

10 Geoffrey Woodhead is also of the opinion that ‘the stroke that is so important… is a stroke and not a casual mark’ (letter of 22/12/82).

11 In the editto princeps, 5 (1876), 168-171, Koumanoudes was misled by the doubled sigma of roicc into assuming that the costs of publication were to be met not by the Mytilenaians but by ’άλλην τινά πάλιν, ηò τò άρκτικòν γράμμα ητο Σ'. Kirchhoff, however, IG Isupp., p. 22,96, considered the second sigma superfluous, and readroic{c} [Μυτίλεναίον vv ταΰ]. As I have shown in Vindex Humanitatis 25 n. 21, doubled sigma before a labial can be paralleled, as Hiller clearly recognized in his i2 60 text, roicc [Μυπλεναίον vv ταΰ]. But see Leslie, Threatte’s caution, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, vol 1 (Berlin, 1980), p. 530,Google Scholar example no. 90.

12 Examples occur both with and without the article: see Vindex Humanitatis 21–22.

13 See Threatte, L.op. cit, pp. 527–528,Google Scholar especially examples 2, 3, and 4. If i3 65 was cut by the same man as i3 66 (‘Lapicidam eundem n. 66 incidisse sensit Lewis, monstrabit S. Sherwin-White’, lemma to i3 65), then we may find some support for this charge of masonic carelessness: for at i 65. 8 the second alpha of καΰάπερ has been cut without its crossbar. We may note also that, at i3 65 9–10, the mason has in all possibility inscribed έ [πειδέ instead of επιγράφοαι έ>Ι[πειδέ.

14 As in the Brea decree, where the colonists themselves are to pay for the stele (see i3 46. 22–24).

14a Cf. i3 40.63 ff, where a resumptive ταύτα μεν is followed by 4 vacant spaces: ταύτα μεν φοεφ’ιαααθαι Χαλκlιδεϋαν. νννν τα δ'ε hœpà κτλ.

15 I note that Gomme, sometime Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, refers to ‘the older, and grammatically preferable (my italics), ’ in Studies Presented to David M. Robinson, 2. 336 (ed. Mylonas, G.E. and Raymond, D. [Saint Louis, Missouri 1953]).Google Scholar Obviously Gomme felt somewhat uneasy about the use of the reflexive.

16 Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 2. 1 (Hannover and Leipzig 1898).

17 Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum: zweite Abteilung: Die Attische Prosa und Schlussergebnisse (Würzburg 1893). This is Band III, Heft 4 (der ganzen Reiche lO.Heft) of the Beiträge zur Historischen Syntax der Griechischen Sprache, ed. M. Schanz.

18 This is what Meritt and McGregor refer to as a ‘logical antecedent’.

19 For indirect reflexives, see K-G 2. 1. 561–2 (with note 9) and 568–70.

20 And note that this infinitive depends on δοκεϊ, not είπε.

21 See AJPh 75 (1954), 366, where Meritt translates his restoration as follows: ‘And they shall charge to the klerouchs whatever has been sold to anyone from the kleroi before their being given back to them, after searching for those who have such goods whether generals or soldiers or any other Athenians.’

22 Op. cit. 562 Note 2: ‘Das Reflexiv εαυτv wird bisweilen so gebraucht, dass es im Satze selbst kein Wort hat, auf das es bezogen wird, sondern eine Person gedacht wird (my italics), auf die dasselbe zu beziehen ist.’

23 For the uncommon use of the reflexive pronoun as subject of an infinitive see Dover's, K.J.commentary ad loc (Thucydides Book 6, [Oxford 1965]).Google Scholar

24 So too Plato Menex. 237b ή των προγόνων yévecic ουκ επηλυΐ ohca, ουδ'ε τουο, εκγόνουο τούτουο άποφηναμένη μετοικούνταο εν τη χώρα αλλοάεν οφών ήκόντων (logical subject πρόγονοι); Laws 948c των δε δη πλείοτων ècrì κα'ι κακίατων ή δόξα ¿c (sc. οι δεο)… μεγάλων οφάο εκλύονται κατά πολλά ζημιών (logical subject oí πλείοτοι καί κάκιοτοή).

25 For a real ‘logical subject’ in an epigraphical text, see i3 40. 71–72 (quoted here below with note 29).

26 Op. cit. (above, n. 17) 1–2.

27 Grammatik der attischen Inschriften 3 (Berlin 1900), 152–3.

28 The evidence is very slight, however. (The reader is asked to note that I am speaking only of prose inscriptions here.)

29 Here the ‘logical subject’ is, of course, ‘the Chalkidians’ (cf. note 25 above).

30 In neither of these two examples is there adequate context to decide whether the usage is direct or indirect.

31 The text is very fragmentary, but the use of τα οφέτερα αυτόν as a direct reflexive seems secure from the general context as restored.

32 For the context, see under (i) above. (Meritt and McGregor draw attention (op. cit. 352–3) to this example of a direct reflexive in the text under discussion.)

33 Cited by Meisterhans-Schwyzer, op. cit. (above, n. 27) 153 note 1314 (under the heading CIA.IV, 1, a, 46, b, 18), but not by Dyroff.

34 See Meritt, and Davidson, , AJPh 56 (1935), 65–71.Google Scholar

35 See n. 34 above.

36 The reader should note that Meritt and Davidson comment on v.9 that ‘the stone is so preserved that before the letters ON iota alone seems possible’ (my italics).

37 It is interesting to note that the Table on p. 144 of Dyroff's book demonstrates that, whereas αφετέρου αυτών is regularly employed as a direct reflexive by Attic prose writers, it is virtually never used as an indirect reflexive.

38 Meritt and McGregor, op. cit. (above, n. 1), 353.