No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Observations on Final Clauses in Hellenistic Attic Prose Inscriptions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
I Begin with quotations from two authoritative works, both of which require modification in the light of the evidence which I have assembled concerning the language of the inscriptions of Attica of the period 323–146 B.C. These quotations are: (a) LSJ s.v. 
B: ‘in early Attic inscriptions only 
is used …; 
without 
only once in cent, iv B.C., IG 22. 226. 42 (343 B.C.), after which it becomes gradually prevalent.’ This is very near the truth. (b) Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 328: ‘
final with the subjunctive appears first in Aeschylus, and remains in good use in Attic poetry and prose, being almost the only final expression found in the formal language of the Attic inscriptions.’ This, although absolutely correct in relation to the fifth and fourth centuries, is too sweeping for the period 299–146 B.C., and definitely misleading for the period after 146 B.C.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1966
References
page 291 note 1 I am concerned here only with those clauses which have the subjunctive, i.e. those in primary sequence and those which ‘retain’ the subjunctive even after an historic main verb. For one cannot determine in a clause with 
optative whether 
is omitted because the optative 
is not found in prose (cf. Meisterhans, , Grammatik der attischen Inschriften 3, p. 248,Google Scholar ‘Der Optativ mit 
ist nur aus der Poesie zu belegen. In den Dekreten und Rechenschaftsberichten war für ihn kein Platz’) or because the writer preferred 
as a final conjunction. However, to quote Meisterhans again, ‘Für den Optativ liegen in prosaischen Inschriften nur wenige Beispiele vor’ (op. cit., p. 247Google Scholar), and those examples which do occur in Final Clauses are introduced by 
page 291 note 2 Statements made in this article refer exclusively to the period 323–146 B.C., (cf. C.Q. N.S. xiv [1964], 240, n. 2Google Scholar) unless otherwise indicated, and figures quoted are the result of an examination of all relevant material in the following sources: (i) Inscriptiones Graecae ii2 (editio minor), 1913-1940; (ii) Supplementum Epigraphicum Graeatm (here inafter S), vols, xii-xviii; (iii) Hesperia (H), vols, i-xxx (including Supplements).Google Scholar
page 291 note 3 Evidence which I may quote for the period after 146 B.C. is in no way to be taken as exact, but merely as a fair indication of the situation. It derives from a cursory reading through the relevant inscriptions in I.G. and S.E.G. down to the end of the pre-Christian era.
page 292 note 1 This omission of iota in 
and 
occurs even as early as the end of the fifth century (see Meisterhans, , op. cit., p. 67, note 586Google Scholar). Towards the end of the second century this phenomenon becomes increasingly com mon (cf., e.g., I.G. ii2. 1006Google Scholar passim (123/1); ibid. 1008 passim (118/17); ibid. 1011 passim (106/5) ibid. 1028 passim (101/100), on which the editor notes ‘Iota mutum in hoc titulo modo adscriptum, modo omissum est’. The parallel phenomenon of 
ibid. 1043. 21 (?38/37); 
ibid. 6078 (s. ii); 
1046. 28 (52/51)) shows clearly that by the second century B.C. iota was no longer pronounced in these combinations, so that it could be omitted in writing or even inserted at an incorrect place.
page 292 note 2 This table is divided into seven sections of roughly 25 years each. The total (T) is composed of figures taken from two Dating Categories (DC). DC 1 comprises examples drawn from inscriptions datable by archons. Figures quoted under DC 2 are drawn from inscriptions whose dates, although not completely certain, have a very good claim to reliability; cf. C.Q. N.S. xiv (1964), 241, n. 4.Google Scholar
page 292 note 3 i.e. the ‘first’ occurrence after the fourth-century example quoted above.
page 292 note 4 Cf. Goodwin, , op. cit., § 313.Google Scholar 2: ‘It 
first becomes frequent in the Attic poets. In Thucydides and Xenophon it is the most common final particle; and in these writers, as in tragedy, its final use greatly exceeds its use in object clauses. The latter, however, far exceeds the final use in Herodotus, Plato, and the orators; but here ‘
has gained almost undisputed possession of the field as a final particle.' And ibid. 313. 3: 
’ with the subjunctive appears for the first time in final clauses in Aeschylus, and after wards maintains itself vigorously by the side of the simple 
(See also Schwyzer, , Griechische Grammatik, vol. 2, p. 665.)Google Scholar
page 293 note 1 For the restoration of this inscription see (iii) below.
page 294 note 1 But it must npt be overlooked that four of the seven examples of 
also have adverbial 
immediately following without preventing the dissolution of 
These are
I.G. ii2. 380. 3 (320/19)Google Scholar
ibid. 466b. 32–33 (307/6)
ibid. 908. 17. (bet. 181–170),
909. 19–20. (c. 170).
page 295 note 1 See Meritt, , The Athenian year, p. 233.Google Scholar
page 296 note 1 Contrast 
I.G. ii2.1485. 12 (307/6), the only example which appears to contravene this pattern. But this occurs in a Traditio where items are listed as briefly as possible, and, unlike the examples quoted above, the name of the people comes first.Google Scholar
page 296 note 2 In this inscription there can be little faith put in anything restored after 
Koehler is the restorer here also.