A Final Reflection on the Alleged Indirect Reflexive in IG i3 66.22

On the editors’ suggestion, Professors Meritt and McGregor have generously afforded me the opportunity to conclude our scholarly exchange with a brief comment on their latest remarks (see above, pp.21-24). First, a few points of detail. (i) I still find unacceptable the label ‘indirect reflexive’ given to the phenomenon in dispute, and I see no reason to retract anything I wrote in Antichthon 17 (1983), 32-36 on the grammatical case, (ii) The alternative restorations outlined by me (ibid. 31) were not proposals as such but merely exempli gratia suggestions. I entirely agree that it is undesirable ‘to restore errors and irregularities’ — though the doubled sigma is not demonstrably an error — but what I have suggested can at least be paralleled elsewhere on Attic stones. Likewise, although may well be unacceptable in i3 62.10-11, that does not mean that the heavily restored must therefore necessarily be right.