LESLIE THREATTE THE GRAMMAR OF ATTIC INSCRIPTIONS I w OE G Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/11/17 12:55 AM Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/11/17 12:55 AM LESLIE THREATTE THE GRAMMAR OF ATTIC INSCRIPTIONS Volume One PHONOLOGY WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK 1980 Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/11/17 12:55 AM Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Threatte, Leslie, 1943- The grammar of Attic inscriptions. Bibliography: v. 1, p. Includes index. CONTENTS: v. 1. Phonology. 1. Greek language—Dialects—Attic. 2. Inscriptions Greek. I. Title. PA523.T4 485 79-27522 ISBN 3-11-007344-7 (v. 1) CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Threatte, Leslie: The grammar of Attic inscriptions / Leslie Threatte. - Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Vol. 1. Phonology.-1980. ISBN 3-11-007344-7 О 1980 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., vormals G. J. Göschen'sdie Verlagshandlung J. Guttentag, Verlagsbuchhandlung - Georg Reimer - Karl J. Trübner - Veit 8c Comp. Berlin 30 Printed in Germany Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der Übersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie, Xerokopie) zu vervielfältigen. Satz und Druck: Hubert 8c Co., Göttingen Einband: Lüderitz 8c Bauer, Berlin Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/11/17 12:55 AM TO THE MEMORY OF MY FATHER Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/11/17 12:55 AM Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/11/17 12:55 AM PREFACE Konrad Meisterhans published the first edition of his Grammatik der attischen In- schriften in 1885. This was the first comprehensive reference grammar based on Attic inscriptions, and it provided the foundation for the study of the language of these important sources for the history of the Attic dialect. A revised and expanded second edition appeared in 1888. In compiling these volumes Meisterhans used the recently issued volumes of the first edition of the Inscriptiones graecae (JGI—Ш, 1873—), although some fascicles had not appeared even by the time of his second edition.1 Eduard Schwyzer, who two years before had been awarded first prize in a competition organized by the University of Zürich for his Grammatik der pergamenischen In- schriften (issued unter the name Schweizer, which he was using in his earlier years), published his greatly expanded third edition of the grammar of Meisterhans in 1900. This volume has remained the standard work of reference. In making his revisions Schwyzer was able to use all the fascicles and supplements to IG I—ΠΙ except some of the indices. He also sought new texts in recent issues of periodicals, chiefly the Athenische Mitteilungen, Bulletin de correspondance heüenique, Athenaion, and Archaiologike Ephemeris. The last two were both being published in Greece. Although Schwyzer's own description of his revision as "meine in kurzer Zeit durchgeführte und fast nur die neu erschienenen Texte berücksichtigende Bearbeitung"2 is certainly unduly modest, he was unable to do more than make extensive additions to the earlier work, which he had to leave essentially unchanged. Most of his additions were new examples, but he also greatly increased the usefulness of the book by placing greater emphasis on explaining orthographical phenomena from a philological standpoint. He also gave the work a more comprehensive character by systematically including evidence from the defixiones just published by Wünsch in IG Ш. 3 and from the dipinti on Attic black- and red-figure vases published in P. Kretschmer's Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht.3 A few dipinti had also been men- tioned by Meisterhans. The dissertation of W. Lademann, De titulis atticis quaestiones orthographicae et grammaticae,4 published in 1915 and justifiably praised by Schwyzer,1 made the next major contribution to the grammatical study of Attic inscriptions. Lademann was able to use the first fascicle of IG Π2, part one (nos. 1-831, state decrees) and most of 1 Notably the third fascicle of the supplements to IG I (IG I, suppl. pp. 133-206, appeared 1891); the supplements to IG Π (IG Π.5, appeared 1895); the indices to IG Π (1893) and to the supplements to IG I (1903); the volume of R. Wünsch containing die defixiones (IG ΙΠ.3, 1897). 2 Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 36 (1916) col. 1371. » Published at Gütersloh, 1894. 4 Kirchhaini, 1915. 5 Cf. note 2 supra. Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 8/29/15 11:15 AM VUI Preface die second fascicle (nos. 832ff., state and other decrees).6 Lademann's work is actually an appendix to the Meisterhans-Schwyzer grammar, treating a selected number of problems, many of them phonological, and concentrating on texts of the Hellenistic Period. A more recent series of such appendices, apparently independent of Lademann, but including the evidence of the numerous new texts published in the last sixty years, has been published by A.S. Henry in the Classical Quarterly·,'' these are also limited almost exclusively to texts of the Hellenistic Period.* Appendices limited to particular periods have naturally not replaced the grammar of Meisterhans and Schwyzer as the standard work of reference, although the dis- covery of large numbers of new Attic inscriptions since 1900 has made it a quite unreliable reference work today. By 1968 the American excavations (begun in 1931) in the Athenian Agora alone had already unearthed more than 7,000 new inscriptions. This site has yielded the largest number of texts, but large numbers have also been found in the Roman Agora, the Ceramicus, on the slopes of the Acropolis, and in many districts outside the city such as Brauron, Rhamnus, etc. Furthermore, the texts known to the nineteenth century have often been augmented by one or more new fragments, and even when they have not, many texts have been corrected and more accurately interpreted by scholars. The dates of many documents have also been changed or accurately fixed for the first time. All this new evidence has in fact made the grammar of Meisterhans and Schwyzer inaccurate in so many details that its complete revision has long been a desideratum for epigraphers and for philologists interested in Attic writing. The debt owed to Meisterhans, Lademann, and especially Schwyzer will often be apparent in these pages. The volume of new evidence, however, has become «о large that more than appendices to their work was needed. I have tried to base the present grammar on a comprehensive reexamination of all the evidence available. This plan has not been easy to execute: the sources of inscriptions today are a great deal more numerous and diverse than they were in the late nineteenth century, when virtually all the texts could be found in the Inscriptiones graecae and a few issues of some five periodicals. It was also clear almost from the beginning that a great many of the readings, especially those on stone inscriptions, would have to be verified by inspection of the monuments themselves. In section two of the Introduction (pp. 10 ff. infra) 6 At least he cites some texts in this fascicle by IG II2 numbers, but others according to IG Π or IG Ш numbers or periodicals; die IG II2 numbers are not necessarily from the earlier part of the fascicle. 7 CQ n.s. 14 (1964) pp. 240f f.; 16 (1966) pp. 291-297; 17 (196η pp. 258-295 (Phonology); 19 (1969) pp. 289-305 (Morphology). • Sven-Tage Teodorsson's The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect 400-340 В. C. (Studia gracca et latina Gothoburgensia 32, Lund 1974) appeared too late to be taken into consideration in this book, although I have been able to add a few references to it. His copious lists of examples usually include data from die Archaic Period and the fifth century as well as the Hellenistic Period. In general I do not believe that the methodological practices he employs are all correct, nor do I find convincing much of his interpretation of the data, especially when he assumes very early dates for certain sound changes. Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 8/29/15 11:15 AM Preface IX there is a survey of the various printed sources of texts of inscriptions and a discus- sion of the criteria used in selecting readings for verification. Following the precedent of Meisterhans and especially Schwyzer I have attempted to give explanations for most orthographical deviations. Although the explanation of many phenomena is apparent, there are many other cases which are controversial. Thus it is often difficult to decide whether a spelling anomaly is due to some purely mechanical cause, i.e. a graphic mistake such as a simple copying error or accidental omission, or whether there is in fact some phonological basis for it. Again, if phono- logical causes can reasonably be assumed, their precise nature may be disputable, or the implications of certain spellings as evidence for the pronunciation of contemporary Attic may be highly debatable. In some cases it seemed to me that no decision was possible, and I have listed two or more possible explanations. Doubdess some of my interpretations will not be accepted by all, but I did not feel that this grammar would be as useful if it were merely a descriptive collection of data, especially as the decision where to place many spellings was only possible after some interpretation had been given to them. In some cases, there was so much doubt that a spelling had to be treated under more than one category. The usefulness of the assembled data will not, I think, be vitiated by these grammatical explanations, whether my own or those of other scholars. Where such explanations have been made generations ago, I have not often repeated older bibliography unless still useful, but have preferred to refer the reader to some recent statement of the explanation, which will usually serve as a source of earlier bibliography on the problem. The bibliographies given in the individual sections are also not intended in any sense to be exhaustive: they merely refer the reader to the appropriate section of the grammar of Meisterhans and Schwyzer or other grammars (where older bibliographical references will normally be found, repeated by me only when indispensable) and to recent articles treating the phenomenon in question when they seemed particularly useful. The transliteration of Greek names into English is continually a difficulty. In most cases I have simply transliterated without Anglicizing the name, e.g. Kleombrotos, Kadmos, etc. But the striving for rigid consistency produces many forms which seem peculiar, and I see no reason why I should not write Macedonia, Sunium, rather than Makedonia, Sounion, since I do not call these places [ma-ke-do-ni-a], [su-ni-on]. I have accordingly kept die traditional forms for many well known toponyms, e.g. Attica, Acropolis, Sunium, Rhamnus, Ceramicus, Delphi, etc., and personal names, e.g. Achilles, Pericles, Socrates, etc. In the names of the vase-painters I have simply copied Beazley's spelling of the name. Of the many who have provided help to me in the preparation of this book the greatest thanks go to Sterling Dow. It was he who first suggested this project to me, and for a decade he has consistendy and constantly given his support in the form of encouragement, assistance in obtaining funds for research and publication, in sug- gestions and comments on the content of the work, and in many other ways. I would also like to thank especially Eugene Vanderpool for many helpful suggestions and an unflagging interest in this project. These two scholars have saved me from many Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 8/29/15 11:15 AM χ Preface errors and wrong decisions. To Kevin Clinton I express the warmest thanks for much help and advice; through his help it was possible to verify the readings of almost all the texts at Eleusis, and the designation (L.) by an inscription at Eleusis normally means the verification of the reading was made by him. Ronald Stroud has tirelessly provided encouragement and advice, and was always willing to write yet another letter to further this project; I express my deepest gratitude to him here. I would like also to thank warmly Volkmar Schmidt, who read the proofs through the end of section 14 (p. 267), and both supplied helpful references and suggested many corrections. Others who have helped me with specific problems include John Traill, James Oliver, John Lynch, John Kroll, Terrence Boring, Robert Rodgers, Barbara Saylor, Stella Grobel Miller, Stephen Miller, John More, David Jordan, Evie Bell, Andrea Shankman, and for help with the proofreading, Dennis Anderson and Victor and Cara Hanson. A great deal of the research for this volume would not have been possible without the constant help and willingness of Mrs. DinaPeppas-Delmousou, director of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, and her kind and generous staff. Mention here cannot begin to thank sufficiendy Mrs. Delmousou and her staff for their constant good will in dealing with the special problems of the epigraphical grammarian, often interested in only a few readings on a text. I also wish to thank the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and especially James R. McCredie, director during most of the years I was preparing this volume, and Nancy Winter, librarian. It is a pleasure to record my warmest thanks to Sara Aleshire, who undertook the monumental task of typing the first version of a very difficult and demanding manu- script. But her assistance went beyond that of a typist, for she provided much editorial expertise, and saved me from many difficulties later on with sound advice. The bulk of the work of setting up the system of references was done with the aid of Craig Lewis, and Stephen Berard, Fran Hill, and James Clauss also assisted in this. Special thanks also go to Marjorie Kaiser and Jean Teague, for assistance in many ways. A fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies enabled me to spend the year 1975—1976 in Athens, when a part of the research for this book was con- ducted. A grant from the Council and from the American Philosophical Society also enabled me to travel to Athens in the summer of 1970.1 am grateful to Gordon Kirk- wood and to Cornell University for providing me with a fellowship during the summer of 1969. I express my thanks to the National Endowment for the Humanities, who provided me with a generous stipend for the summer of 1974, ahd to the American Philosophical Society, who awarded me a grant in the spring of that year, for making it possible for me to spend six months working on this project. The University of California, Berkeley, provided me with a fellowship in the summer of 1971, and through the Committee on Research, with travel funds in 1972,1974, and 1977, and with a salary supplement in the summer of 1972. The publication of this book was made possible by a subsidy of $ 5000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am very grateful to the Endowment for this award, and to Mr. Richard Koffler of the Endowment and Dr. John Wonder of Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 8/29/15 11:15 AM