Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:46:33.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Some Attic Decrees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

A. M. Woodward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mr. D. M. Lewis has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of this decree relating to the Praxiergidai and their ancestral ritual, but his restoration of the last line (l. 25) is far from satisfactory. In his version the last two lines are given as follows:

In stating that the restorations are ‘virtually compulsory’ he has failed to realise that [με]δίμνον is not the only possible explanation for the six letters that survive, and he does not discuss the unlikely construction with a genitive plural following ἀμφιεννύ[ναι].

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 50 , November 1955 , pp. 271 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1955

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 Cf. also the marble weight from the Agora, inscribed ΔΙΜΝΟYΝ Hesperia III (1934), 53, no. 40.

2 Op. cit. 218.

3 In line 6 his restoration [εὺνομὶας Χ]ὴμε῀ς is preferable to my first suggestion [σωφροσὺνης ] ὴμε῀ς

4 It is surely safe to assume that these monuments, on which Herodotus enlarges (II 106), would be known by repute in Athens.