American Journal of Philology

After an interval of sixteen years we now have the second volume of Threattes massive grammar of the Attic inscriptions, which follows in all essentials the practices established in 1980 for the phonology. This means that the traditional terminology and organization of the nineteenth century has been [End Page 455] largely adhered to . . . because the adoption of a more recent system of terminology . . . would have made this work inaccessible to many classicists and most epigraphers" (1). Thus the greatest importance of this vast and exceedingly careful collection of grammatical material lies not so much in the grammatical explanations (although they were sought by the author from the beginning; see I ix) as in the extraordinary precision with which attention is given to documentation of all aspects of normal morphology and its deviations. Proof of this care can be found in the numerous instances where the reading furnished in publications has been verified by autopsy (marked L.). Hence these volumes will remain an essential part of the library of all practicing epigraphists (that is, if they can afford the high price of the set).

One difference between the first volume and the second is that the lists of examples in the second volume are considerably larger than the lists in the first. This is explained on page 3 as necessitated by the greater difficulty of collecting normal morphological examples as compared with the ease of doing the same for normal phonological spellings. Threatte says that he distinguishes between complete lists and lists of selected examples, but in practice some of the select lists are also very large. For example, paragraph 54.03221 (194–99) deals with the genitive singular of – before 300 B.C., – vs. –. To demonstrate his thesis that – is mainly a case of abbreviatory omission of final sigma, twenty–four examples are discussed in detail. This is followed by one and a half pages of selected examples of the normal spelling – in the period 350–300 B.C. While this certainly proves that the ending in sigma is the norm in the fourth century, one wonders whether the length of the list was necessary to demonstrate it. The usefulness of such lists will vary, but in many cases they can, if needed, be found by searching the PHI disk of inscriptions and papyri in the computer (e.g., lists such as the long tally of proper names beginning with τεισ–, 536–38). Further, many of the examples listed are by necessity of fragmentary inscriptions, which means that in a number of instances the restorations will change over time. Hence it is not surprising that volume II contains a very important appendix of about one hundred pages (675–778) dealing with addenda and corrigenda to volume I, some (but by no means all) regarding improved readings.

Not the least important feature of the grammar, and one in which it differs markedly from Meisterhans–Schwyzer, is the great attention paid to what used to be called the instrumentum: inscriptions on objects other than stone, including a thorough survey of vase inscriptions culled from scattered publications. Since these are of particular interest to this reviewer (and since they extend the usefulness of the book to archaeologists) I may venture a few comments. It is somewhat unfortunate that most of the citations of Attic vases do not give the current or last–known location, which is the most certain means of identification. Thus on page 207, the fragment with book roll by the Akestorides Painter (ARV² 1670/4 bis) is now in the Getty Museum, Malibu 86.AE.324. On [End Page 456] page 608, middle, the oinochoe related by Schauenburg to the Triptolemos Painter (not just because of the shape of the vase), cited for the form from AM 90, is Hamburg 1981.173.

The vase inscriptions (together with other graffiti and inscriptions on lead such as the defixiones) have always been of particular interest as giving possible insight into the actual pronunciation of the Attic dialect. Here it would have been...