BIBLIOGRAFÍA

The main verb of the contract proper could have nonfinite complements (i.e., infinitives). One such structure is the nonfinite prosecution clause in homological agreements, where the main verbal phrase of the document is "N.N. agrees" (e.g., ὁµολογεῖ Πατῆς Τοτοέους…), which is followed by an infinitive complement indicating the main action (e.g., ἀφίστασθαι) and, the prosecution clause at the very end of the document as another infinitive complement (…καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι…). In this construction, the subject of the main verb was the same as the subject of the infinitives, except that in the prosecution clause, there was an addition of other hypothetical people possibly acting for the agreeing party in the future. In other words, the subject of the main clause was partly coreferential with the subject of the infinitive in the prosecution clause. In Greek, if the subject of the infinitive was not identical with the subject of the main clause (i.e., the subjects were not coreferential) the subject of a declarative infinitive was always in the accusative case.¹⁹ This construction is called accusative with infinitive (ACI, accusativus cum infinitivo). If the subjects were coreferential, the subject of the infinitive was usually left out and then the nominal modifiers of the subject were in the nominative, in agreement with the main clause subject (nominative with infinitive, NCI).²⁰

E. Mayser noted that in some contracts, if the coreferential subject of an infinitive was a personal name, the name was repeated with the infinitive in the nominative (but sometimes there was confusion with cases when a pronoun was in a different case from the name). All the examples Mayser presented are in the corpus of this study, mostly from Hermias' documents.²¹

The prosecution clause states that the parties should not proceed against each other in the court (concerning the matter that has just been agreed upon in the contract in question). As the infinitives depend on the verb "agree," I take them as declarative

19 RIJKSBARON 2002, 96–99 (§31–32); the declarative infinitive acts as a constituent of a verb denoting saying or thinking. The other type of infinitive is the dynamic infinitive, a constituent of verbs denoting desire or will; the subject of the dynamic infinitive could be in the genitive, the dative or the

accusative, depending on the main verb.

20 BLOMQVIST &JASTRUP 1992, 222. Rijksbaron introduces the NCI only as the counterpart of ACI in sentences in the passive, RIJKSBARON 2002, 101.

21 MAYSER II:11926,335(§50,Anm.13).

MORPHOSYNTAX –USE OF CASES

149 infinitives. The construction of this clause is the accusative with infinitive in six documents²² of the corpus (30 will serve as an example for all of them).

30 21–24 (114 BCE, Heliodoros/ ?)

[καὶ] µὴ ἐπελεύ[σ]ασθαι²³ Πατῆν µηδὲ Ταελιλοῦν µηδὲ Σιεπµοῦν

and not proceed against:F^UT.I^NF Pates:A^CC not Taelilous:A^CC not Siepmous:A^CC

[τῶ]ν Τοτοέους µηδ᾽ ἄλλον [µ]ηδένα ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ

A^RT.G^EN.P^L Totoes:G^EN not other:A^CC not one:A^CC P^REP P^RON.G^EN.P^L against

τὴν [Τακ]µῆιν µηδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα τῶν παρ᾽

A^RT.F.A^CC Takmeis:A^CC not against other:A^CC not one:A^CC A^RT.G^EN.P^L P^REP

αὐτῆς περὶ [τῆ]ς̣ σ̣ηµαινοµένης συνγρα(φῆς)

P^RON.F.G^EN about A^RT.F.G^EN signify:P^ART.F.G^EN contract:F.G^EN

and Pates or Taelilous or Siepmous, the children of Totoes, or anyone else for them, are not to proceed against Takmeis or anyone else of her party about the above-mentioned contract

The ACI can be interpreted as a correct choice since the subjects are only partly coreferential (representing the addition of the other aforementioned hypothetical people "or anyone else acting for them" who are not part of the subject of the main clause). Moreover, the fact that the personal names of the contracting party are repeated in this clause, shows that the writer did not consider them as coreferential with the main subject. Another possibility is that the clause was considered to be independent of the verb "agree." In any case, the ACI construction has been accepted by the editors of these four papyri without any need for emendation. In document 55, written in the Memnoneia, the ACI is used with only the pronoun "himself" instead of the name of the contracting party (µηδ᾽ ἐπελεύσασαι µητ᾽ αὐτὸν µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πικῶν καὶ Τατεαθύρει µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ).

35 28–29 (113 BCE, Heliodoros / ?)

καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι ἕτερος ἐπὶ τὸν ἕτερον περὶ

and not proceed against:F^UT.I^NF other:N^OM against A^RT.M.A^CC other:M.A^CC about

τῶν παρακεχωρηµένων ἑκάστωι µερίδων

A^RT.G^EN.P^L cede:P^F.P^TCPL.G^EN.P^L every one:D^AT share:G^EN.P^L

and the other is not to proceed against the other concerning the shares ceded to each

36 25–26 (113 BCE, Ammonios)

καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι ἕτερος ἐπὶ τὸν ἕτερον περὶ

and not proceed against:F^UT.I^NF other:N^OM against A^RT.M.A^CC other:M.A^CC about

22 19 (126 BCE, Herakleides), 30 (114 BCE, Heliodoros/?), 55 (110 BCE, Apollonios), 59 (109 BCE, Sosos), and 89, 95 (Hermias, see below, n. 24).

23 In all the documents from Pathyris, this verb form has been written ἐπελεύσασθαι even though it should rather be ἐπελεύσεσθαι, the future infinitive of ἐπέρχοµαι, see also Chapter 5.1. In 19, it was written with the correct vowel (ἐπελεύσεσθαι) and in 55, it was ἐπελευσασαι (!) and in 59, with a different preposition at the beginning, but the right vowel: εἰσελεύσεσθαι.

CHAPTER 6

150

τοῦ µεµερισµένου ἑκάστῳ αὐτοῖς τρόπῳ µηδενί

A^RT.M.G^EN divide:P^F.P^ART.M.G^EN every one:D^AT P^RON.D^AT.P^L manner:D^AT not one:D^AT and the other is not to proceed against the other concerning what was divided between each of them, in any way

Two documents from Pathyris, 35 and 36, use pronouns only in this prosecution phrase. These seem to be like model formulae, where the notary would be expected to exchange the names of the contracting parties for the pronouns. It is noteworthy that the NCI has been used in both examples. However, the subjects are not verbatim coreferential, unless the pronoun would really be replaced by the name. The additional "anyone else," which was used in the previous year in 30 (µήδ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ) is missing altogether in 35 and 36.

In six documents written under Hermias' name (84, 91, 93, 102B, 110, 113, all presented below), the subject of the infinitive is in the nominative as already mentioned above. However, only the personal name that is verbatim coreferential with the subject of the main clause is in the nominative, the complements being in the accusative (the hypothetical people "anyone else with/for him/her"). However, in two other documents under Hermias' name, the ACI is used (89, 95)²⁴ and in one (97) the name has been abbreviated. (For the most part, the editors of these papyri have made the correction of the nominative forms into the accusative forms in the apparatus criticus, but, for example, in 102B, the editor W. Schubart accepted the nominative.)

84 14–16 (104 BCE, Hermias)

µὴ ἐ]π̣ελεύσασθαι Φῖβις µ̣η̣θ̣᾽ Ὧρ[ον²⁵ µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα

not proceed against:FUT.INF Phibis:NOM not Horos[:ACC not other:ACC not one:ACC

τῶν π]α̣ρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Πασῆµιν µη[δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον

ART.PL.GEN PREP he:GEN.PL against ART.SG.ACC Pasemis:ACC not against other:ACC

µηδένα τῶν π]αρ᾽ αὐτοῦ

not one:ACC ART.PL.GEN PREP he:GEN

Phibis and Horos, or anyone else of their party, are not to proceed against Pasemis, or anyone of his party

91 14–16 (103 BCE, Hermias)

καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι Ὧρος µηδ' {επ} ἄλλον µηδένα

and not proceed against:FUT.INF. Horos:NOM not other:ACC not one:ACC

τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πετεαρσεµθεία καὶ

ART.PL.GEN PREP he:GEN against ART.SG.ACC Peteharsemtheus:ACC and

τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς…

ART.PL.ACC brother:PL.ACC

24 89 16–19 (103 BCE, Hermias): καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι Νεχθανοῦπιν µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µη[δ]ένα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πετεαρσεµθεία καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐ[τ]ῶν περὶ τῶν ἄνω παρακεχωρηµένων; 95 17–18 (102 BCE, Hermias): καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι Πετεαρσεµθεία µηδ᾽ ἄλλον τινὰ.

25 It is possible that the form has actually been the nominative Ὧρος, but the editor restored the ACI structure.

MORPHOSYNTAX –USE OF CASES

151

And Horos, or anyone else of his party, is not to proceed against Peteharsemtheus and his brothers…

93 14–16 (103 BCE, Hermias)

καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι Σεννῆσις µηδ᾽ ἄλλον τινὰ τ[ῶν] παρ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐπὶ

Sennesis:NOM she:GEN

τὸν Πετεαρσεµθεία µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µη[δέ]να τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ

And Sennesis, or anyone else of her party, is not to proceed against Peteharsemtheus, or anyone else of his party

102B 7–9 (101 BCE, Hermias)

µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι µήτ᾽ αὐτὸς Ψενµεγχῆς µήδ᾽ ἄλλον P^ERS.P^RON.M.N^OM.3^SG Psenmenches:N^OM

µηδένα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Πετεῆσιν µήδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ

And Psenmenches himself, or anyone else of his party, is not to proceed against Peteesis, or anyone else of his party

110 19–20 (100 BCE, Hermias)

καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι µήτ᾽ αὐτὸν Κολλούθης µήδ̣᾽ ἄλλον PERS.PRON.M.ACC.3SG Kollouthes:NOM

µηδ̣ένα

And Kollouthes himself, or anyone else of his party is not to proceed…

113 9–11 (100 BCE, Hermias)

καὶ µὴ ἐπελεύσασθαι µήτ᾽ [αὐτ]ὸν Ψενενοῦπις ἐπὶ

and not proceed against:F^UT.I^NF. not he:A^CC Psenenoupis:N^OM against

τὸν Ἁρσιήσιος µή[τ᾽] ἄλλον µηδένα

A^RT.A^CC Harsiesis:G^EN not other:A^CC not one:A^CC

And Psenenoupis himself is not to proceed against Harsiesis, or anyone else (of his party)

In the first three examples (84, 91, 93) only the personal names are present and they are in the nominative (the accusative forms would be: Φῖβιν (84), Ὧρον (91), Σεννῆσιν (93)). In the last three, there is also the pronoun "himself," αὐτός. In 102B, it is also in the nominative, but in 110 and 113, it has been inflected in the accusative, even though the name is in the nominative. Further, the following formulaic "anyone else with him," which belongs to the same entity, is in the accusative in all the examples. This means that we cannot interpret these examples as instances of nominative with infinitive, but more like instances of nominative+accusative with infinitive, where the subject of the infinitive is divided; the part that is coreferential to the subject of the main clause (the person), is in the nominative, and the other part, the formulaic "anyone else with him," is in the accusative. The pronoun αὐτὸς before the name caused confusion. It is possible that in Hermias' mind, the idea that the subject

CHAPTER 6

152

must be in the nominative was predominant. Therefore, he wanted at least the name, the marker of the main subject of the verb ἐπέρχοµαι, to be in the nominative even though the latter part of the phrase had possibly been learned as a fossilized entity in the accusative (but it was not lexically fossilized, however, since there were different choices for the word "anyone": ἄλλον µηδένα / ἄλλον τινὰ).

The "model" type of documents 35 and 36 (see above) did not use ACI.

However, those documents could not have been direct models for Hermias since the µηδ᾽ ἄλλον µηδένα -part was missing there. Hermias seems to show a sudden linguistic skill since he used a coreferential subject in the nominative. But he does not expand it further than the names. Another explanation is simply that he did not think of coreferentiality, he just emphasized the subject by using the nominative, cf. below, the guardian clause.

In sum, there are more instances of this infinitive structure in the documents of Hermias (9) than in documents from other notaries (6). The score for the subject of the infinitive in the nominative is 8 (6 from Hermias' documents, and 35 and 36) and 6 for the names in the accusative (2 from Hermias' documents). In one document, the first personal name is abbreviated so that the case is not visible. In all of the examples, the accusative is correctly used with the preposition ἐπί in the later part of the clause, for example, in 91 and 93 the "against Peteharsemtheus and his brothers/anyone else with him."