The ϝhεδιέστας inscription from archaic Argos (SEG 11:314): a reconsideration

This article offers a re-edition of SEG 11:314, Argos inventory number E274, based on re-examination of the stone and of recently rediscovered squeezes preserving material now lost from the stone; these allow improved readings in numerous places. We also offer a reinterpretation of the disputed syntax of the last three lines, which we translate ‘As for the things with which a δαμιοργóς is to compel (him to make amends), the ἀμφίπολος is to give thought to these things’

Zeus on the stud farm? : against a Homeric instance of attractio relativi

The genitive ἧς at Iliad 5.265 is sometimes considered due to attractio relativi. Alternatively it is taken as a partitive or ablatival genitive, or emended. The question matters for Greek linguistic chronology because uncontroversial attractio relativi is not found until the fifth century BC. This paper addresses the question via a fresh examination of the syntax and sense of lines 265–9. The linguistically most plausible views are: (i) we should not understand εἰσίν with τῆς γάρ τοι γενεῆς, nor punctuate strongly after 267; (ii) ἧς should stand, and is a partitive genitive; (iii) οὕνεκα means 'because'. The resulting interpretation implies that Zeus accessed some pre-existing stock of horses, otherwise unknown to Greek literature. For many scholars this is a fatal objection to ἧς as a partitive genitive, with some concluding that ἧς is due to attractio relativi or corrupt, and others that ἧς is an 'ablatival genitive' (a suggestion that does not solve the perceived problem). This paper defends the partitive genitive analysis on the grounds that Homeric audiences could easily have imagined Zeus getting the horses from some pre-existing stock. Parallels support the plausibility of this background assumption. We do not have a Homeric instance of attractio relativi.</p

Ancient and Medieval Thought on Greek Enclitics, Table Ap.1

Open-access, machine-readable version of Table Ap.1 from this book. Caption: The first 250 sequences of more than one enclitic appearing in Venetus A (omitting folios of Venetus A for which we have only a fifteenth-century replacement for the original), accented according to the five principles shown in Table 4.2, the ‘final hypothesis’ laid out towards the end of section 4.4, and then as in Venetus A. The word preceding the first enclitic is included, and enclitics themselves are underlined. For the forms ὉΤΤΙ (nominative-accusative neuter singular of ὅστις), ὉΤΙΣ, and ὈΥΤΕ, a hyphen separates the enclitic from what precedes (see Chapter 4, n. 42), except where we reproduce the reading of Venetus A. Shading indicates a way of accenting a sequence that differs from that of Venetus A, and an asterisk indicates a way of accenting a sequence differing from that of Venetus A only insofar as Venetus A accents the word preceding the first enclitic as if a non-enclitic word was to follow. For a full explanation, see the book, Chapter 4 (especially pp. 278-93)