Buck, Greek Dialects

StR.!:'

5

;W5?W'

KMMIilllnWMillljMvMiiMi iwiin,iiwi;|N>\miiirtiiiiia'iiwWi

BOUGHT WITH THE

INCOME

FROM

THE

SAGE

ENDOWMENT

FUND

THE

GIFT

OF

Hetirg

W,

Sage

i89r

.^.^.r^^..^:^

/r/MT//^....

arV10575

Introduction to the study of the Greek d

3

1924

031

214

822

Cornell

University

Library

The

original of this

book

is in

the Cornell University

Library.

There

are

no

known

copyright

restrictions

in

the

United States

on

the

use

of

the

text.

EDITEDDNDEKTHESUPERVISION OF

JOHN WILLIAMS

WHITE

AND

CHARLES

BUETON

GUUCK

INTEODUCTION

TO

THE STUDY

OF

THE

GEEEK

DIALECTS

GRAMMAR

SELECTED

INSCRIPTIONS

GLOSSARY

BY

CARL DARLING

§UCK

PBOFESSOK OF SANSKRITAND INDO-EUROPEAN COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGT

INTHE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO

GINN

AND COMPANY

Entered atStationebs'Hall

Copyright,1910,by

John'WilliamsWhiteakd CharlesBurtonGolick

ALLrightsreserved

910.1

(He attenanm gteg< GINNAND COMPANY• PRO-PRIETORS•BOSTON'U.S.A.

THE

MEMORY

OF

PREFACE

The

aim

of this

work

is to fnrnish in concise

form

the essential material foran introductory studyof the

Greek

dialects. Hitherto

therehas been

no

single

volume

intendedtofulfill therequirements

of college

and

graduate students

who

wish to gain a first-hand

knowledge

of

Greek

dialects,whether forabetterunderstanding of

historical

Greek grammar,

or fora greater appreciationofthe vari-ety ofspeechinthe

Greek

world, only half suspected

from

the

few

dialects

employed

in literature, or asa substantialfoundationfor a criticalstudy of theseliterary dialects, or merely for theabilityto

handle intelligently the

numerous

dialect inscriptions

which

are

important in the investigation of

Greek

institutions.

Itis

now

more

than ten years since the author

formed

the plan

of publishing a brief collection of

Greek

dialect inscriptions with explanatorynotes forthe use of students,

and

made

a selection for this purpose.

At

that time Cauer's Delectus inscriptionum Graeca^

rum

(2ded. 1883),

which

provedusefulfor

many

years,

had

already ceased to be a representative collection of dialect inscriptions. In

the case of severaldialects the material there given

was

quite

over-shadowed

inimportance

by

the discoveries of recentyears.

In

the

meantime

this situation has been relieved

by

the publication of

Solmsen's Inscriptiones Graecae ad inlustrandas dialectos selectae.

But

another need,

which

it

was

equally a part ofthe plantosupply,

namely

of

more

explanatory matter for the assistance of beginners

inthesubject,hasremainedunfilled

up

tothe presenttime, though hereagain inthe

meantime

a

book

has been

announced

as in prep-aration

(Thumb's

Handbuch

der griechischen Dialekte)

which

pre-sumably

aims toserve the

same

purpose asthe present one.

With

regard to the explanatory matter, the first plan

was

to

ac-company

the inscriptions not only

by

exegetical,butalso

by

rather

vi

PEEFACE

peculiarity in question -was treated as awhole.

But

tlie desire to includeallthat

was

most essentialto the student inthis single

vol-ume

ledtotheexpansionof the introduction intoaconcise "

Gram-mar

oftheDialects,"

and

the author has

come

to believe that this

may

provetobe the most useful partof thework.

Without

it the student

would

be forcedat every turn to consult either the larger

Greek Grammars,

where, naturally, the dialectic peculiarities are

not sifted out from the discussion of the usual literary forms, or else the various

grammars

of special dialects. For, since Ahrens,

the works devoted to the

Greek

dialects, aside

from

discussions of special topics, have consisted in separate

grammars

of a single

dia-lect or, atthe most, of a single group of dialects.

Some

of the

ad-vantages

which

this latter

method

undoubtedly possesses

we

have

aimed

to preserve

by means

ofthe

Summaries

(pp.129-153).

Highly

important as are the dialects for the comparative study

ofthe

Greek

language, this

Grammar

is distinctly not intendedas

a

manual

ofcomparative

Greek grammar.

It restricts itself to the

discussion of matters in

which

dialectic differences are to be ob-served,

and

the comparisons are almost wholly within

Greek

itself.

Furthermore, the desired brevity could be secured only

by

elimi-natingalmost wholly

any

detailed discussionof disputedpoints

and

citation of the views of others,whether in agreement or in

oppo-sition to those adopted in the text.

Some

notes

and

references

are

added

inthe Appendix, but even these arekept within

narrow

limits. Several of these references are to articles

which

have

ap-peared sincethe printingof the

Grammar, which

beganin

Septem-ber 1908,

was

completed.

Especial pains have been taken to define as preciselyas possible the dialectic distribution of the several peculiarities,

and

it is be-lieved that,

though

briefly stated

and

without exhaustive lists of examples, fullerinformation of this kind has been broughttogether

thanistobe foundin

any

othergeneralwork. Biit,as the

most

com-petent criticswill also bethe firsttoadmit,

no

onecan be safe

from

the danger of having overlooked

some

stray occurrence ofa given

peculiarityinthe vastandstill

much

scatteredmaterial; and, further-more,suchstatementsof distributionaresubject totheneedof contin-ual revision in the light ofthe constantly appearing

new

material.

The

reasons for not attempting in the

Grammar

afuller account of thepeculiaritiesexhibited

by

ourliterary texts in dialect are set forthon p.14.

The

Selected Inscriptions

show

such a noticeable degreeof coin-cidencewith theselection

made

by

Solmsen, inthe

work

citedabove, that it isperhaps wellto state expressly that this is not theresult ofhaving simply adopted a large part of his selections with

some

additions, asit

might

appear, butof an independentselection,

made

some

years before theappearance of his work,and, exceptfor

some

necessary reduction, adheredto with probablynot over half a dozen

substitutions.

Eor

a brief collection the choice of the most repre-sentative inscriptions from a time

when

the dialects are comparar

tively

unmixed

is fairly clear.

The

later inscriptions with their various types of dialect mixture are of great interest,

and some

few

examples of these have been included.

But

to represent this

phase adequately is possible only in a

much

more

comprehensive

collection.

The

transcription

employed

is also identical with that used

by

Solmsen

in hissecond edition,but this again is the result of

long-settled conviction thatthis system,as usedforexample

by Baunack

in hisInschriften

von Gortyn

(1885)

and

his editionoftheDelphian

inscriptions (1891), is theone best adaptedfora

work

of thiskind.

The

brevity of the notes is justified

by

the assistance given in other parts of the book. If, before beginning the inscriptions ofa

given dialect, thestudent familiarizes himselfwithits

main

charac-teristics

by

the help of the

Summaries

(180-273), he will not feel

theneedof a

comment

or reference fora

form

that,

from

the point

ofview ofthe dialect in question, has nothing abnormal about it.

Furthermore, the Glossary

makes

it unnecessary to

comment

on

many

individual words. Detailed discussion of the problems of chronology, constitutional antiquities, etc.

which

are involved in

many

of the inscriptions is not called for in a

work

the principal

aim

of

which

is linguistic.

It is sometimes advisable for a student to depart

from

the order

in

which

the inscriptions are given,

and

tobegin his study ofa

dia-lectwith one of the later inscriptions, e.g. in Arcadiantoread first

viii

PEEFACE

The

Glossary

and

Index, besides serving as an indexto the

Gram-mar, is intendedto include all words occurring in the Selected In-scriptions

which

arenottobe

found

in Liddell

and

Scott, orexhibit

unusual meanings.

Some

time after this book

was

first planned, I learned that the editors of the College Series

had

already arranged for a

volume

dealingwiththe

monuments,

inscriptional

and

literary,

which

rep-resentthe different dialects of Greece,

by

Professor H.

W.

Smyth.

But, finding that Professor Smyth, because of other interests,

was

quite willing to relinquishthe task, the editors invited

me

to con-tribute

my

contemplated

work

to the Series.

The

late Professor

Seymour, under

whom

more

than twenty years ago I

had

read

my

first dialect inscriptions, gave

me

valuable counsel on the general plan,

and

before his lamented death read over a large part of

my

manuscript. I

am

also under obligation toProfessorGulick forthe great care with

which

he hasreadthe proofs

and

forimportant sug-gestions.

The

proofreading inthe office of the publishers has been

so notably accurate

and

scholarlythat Icannot omitto express

my

appreciationofit. _m

r. r,

C. D.B. Chicago,Novembek 1909

CONTENTS

PAET

I:

GRAMMAR

OF

THE

DIALECTS

INTRODUCTION

Page

Classificationand Interrelation of the Dialects . . 1

The

Dialects inLiterature . . . . 12

PHONOLOGY

Alphabet

...

.15

Vowels

. . . 17

a

OFOROBEFOREAND AFTER LiQDIDS

...

17

FORa INOtherCases

.18

eFORa . . .

...

. . 19

a

i;FROMd ISAttic-IonK' . . . 19

c

1FROMeBEFORE A

VoWEL

. 19

1FROMeBEFORE VINAuCAnO-CYPRIAN

...

20

1BESIDEeINOtherCases . .

...

21 aFROMebeforep ixNoRTinvEST Greek:

...

21

West Greek

a

=

East

Greek

e. .

....

22

1

* _ofrom

ij INElean . . .

...

23

£1FROM17 INThESSALIANAND BOEOTIAN . .

.23

Lesbianai

=

-q

...

....

23

£FROM1AFTERp INAeOLIC 23 Consonantal i from Antevocalic tin Lesbian and

Thes-SALIAX . . .

...

2-t

Interchange ofiandv . . .

.24

i

...

. 24

o

VFROM0,ESPECIALLY INArCADO-CyPRIAN . . . 25

ovFROM u)INThessalian . . . . 25

VANDV . . . 25

ou INBoeotianetc. . . 25

CONTENTS

Diphthongs ijFROMatINBoeotian eiFROMoiinThessalian eFROMei . . . tFROMeiINBoeotian . VFROM01INBoeotian . . . .

ai,ei,otBEFOREVowels

av,CD,ou

InGeneral

....

. .

ao,CO,FROMau, evINEastIonic . Monophthongization ofo« CM,(VBEFORE

VoWELS

InLesbian

...

Insertionop_f. Lossofu LongDiphthongs InGeneral . . a,7;,w, fromdtjtjt,qjl. fitFROM7;t

...

Non-Diphthongal

Vowel

Combination (Contractionetc.)

InGeneral aORo

+

Vowel

e

+

Vowel

. Tl

+

Vowel

o

+

Vowel

. Notes to Preceding AssimilationopVowels EpentheticVowels AnaptycticVowels Vowel-Gradation . Consonants F InGeneral jSFOR f . .

Initial_{f before}a

Vowel

Intervocalic f Postconsonantal,

f before Consonants Consonantali .

SpiritusAsper. Psilosis

«r. Lossof Intertocalicc RlIOTACISM Changeoftto o-Page 28 28 28 29. 29 29 30 30 30 31 81 31 32 33 33 34 36 38 88 89 40 41 41 41 43 44 44 45 46 47 48 49 61 62 63

XI

Page

P,8,7

...

. ₅₄

<!>>',

_X

....

55

Lacoxian<rFROM6 ₅₅

Interchange opSurds, Sonants,axo Aspirates . 56

Interchange ofitanditt . . 67

InterchangeopLabials,Dentals,andGutturals

...

58

Nasals and Liquids

Nasalbefore Consonant . .

...

.59

Transpositionof a Liquid,ouLoss by Dissimilation . 60

CretanufkomX

.60

trr,ve,fromXt,xe .

...

.

.60

DoubleLiquidsandNasals inLesbianand Thessalian

P,>•,

+

_i 61

Xk .

....

. .

.61

Jntervocahc 0-

+

Liquid orNasal . . . 61

v<r

Original Intervocalic ko- 62

K7

+

Consonant 62 Secondary Intervocalickj- 62 Finalv<r . . . . 63 X<r,p<r 6'1 fr<r,TT

...

65 cr,mr, tt

...

66 Originala-a- . .

.66

J,88

...

. 66 o-e 67

Assimilation, Dissimilation,andTranspositionofConsonants Assimilation inConsonantGroups 68 TranspositioninConsonantGroups . . . . 69

Assimilation, Dissimilation, and Transposition, between

Non-Contiguous Consonants . . . . 69

Doublingof Consonants . . . 70

ChangesinExternal Cosibination

InGener.vl . . . 71

Elision

....

72

Aphaeresis .

....

.72

Shortening ofaFinalLong

Vowel

...

72

Crasis

...

72 Apocope. . . 74 ConsonantAssimilation Final, . . . 75 Finals . . 76 FlN.VL p . '7

xu

CONTENTS

Pinal

Mute

. l^,iK,is

....

ConsonantDoubling. pMovable

....

Accent

INFLECTION

Nounsand Adjectives Feminine.a-STEMS .

Masculine d-SiEMS o-Stems

Consonant StemsinGeneral

it-Stems

i-Stems . . . . w-Stems . . . .

Nounsin-evs

SomeIrregularNouns .

Comparison of Adjectives

Numerals

Cardinals and Ordinals

Pronouns

PersonalPronouns . . possessives

Reflexive Pronouns

....

Demonstrative Pronouns

Relative, Interrogative, andIndefinitePronouns.

Adverbs andConjunctions

Pronominal Adverbs and Conjunctions of Place, Time, and

Manner

....

Prepositional andOther Adverbs

....

Prepositions

PeculiaritiesinForm

PeculiaritiesinMeaning andConstruction

Verbs

Augment andReduplication

ActivePersonal Endings . . .

MiddlePersonal Endings

...

. . . ImperativeActiveandMiddle

Futureand Aorist

....

...

Perfect . .

Subjunctive

Optative

....

Infinitive

....

. .

....

Unthematic Inflection of ContractVerbs

....

Page 77 77 78 78 79 80 81 81 82 83 84 85 8.5 86 87 87 90 91 91 92 93 95 97 99 100 103 103 105 106 107 109 110 112 112 114

xiii

Page

MiddleParticiplein-ei/iei/os 114

Type0t\i}cD, (neipaviliiti . . ₁₁₅

Transferor/ii-VEKBStotheType ofContractVerbs .

.115

Some OtherInterchangesinthe Present System . . . 115

The Verb

"To Be"

...

₁₁₇

"WORD-FORMATION

Onthe

Form

andUse of Certain Suffixes and Certain Peculiari-tiesOF Composition -7)tos

=

-eios 119 Type xop'"s

...

. . . .

.119

-Tis,-(n%,-afis . . 119 -a-fws,-tr/jui . . 120 -Trip

=

-T))S . . 120 -los

=

-eos

...

. . 120 -qv

=

-<ov 120 -uvSas, -ovSas

...

120

IndividualCasesofVariationinSuffix 120

-Tepos

....

. . . . 121

-iSios . . 121

-rpoc . . . 121

~€0}V^-wv

...

. . . . 121

ProperNajiesin-kX&s . . 121

At6foTos, Gtifbros

...

...

. . 121

Interchange of Different

Vowel

Stems inFirst

Member

of

Compound,etc 122

PatronymicAdjectiveinsteadof Genitive Singular . . 122

SYNTAX

The

Cases

The

Genitive 124

The

Dative . 125

The

Accusative 125

The

Moods

The

Subjunctive

...

125

The

Optative . . 126

The

ImperativeandtheInfinitive .

...

128

Word

Order 128

SUMMARIES

OF

THE

CHARACTERISTICS OF

THE SEVERAL

GROUPS

AND

DIALECTS

East

Greek

Attic-Ionic 129 Ionic

...

• •

....

. . 130 Arcado-Ctpeian 132 Arcadian '°" Cyprian 1^*

xiv

CONTENTS

Page Aeolic . • • 135 Lesbian

....

• . 135 Thessalian . . . 136 Boeotian

....

.

...

139

West

Greek

....

. . . 141 NorthwestGreek

....

. . . 142 Phocian 143 LOCRIAN

....

144 Elean 144 Doric Laconian . 146 Heraclean 147 Argolio . . 148 Corinthian

...

148 Megarian 149 Rhodian 149 COAN 150 Theran

....

151 Cretan 151

SURVIVAL or

THE

DIALECTS

;

GROWTH

OF

VARIOUS

EORMS

OF

KOINH

154

TheAtticKoivii 156

TheDoricKoiirfi

....

....

157

The Northwest GreekKoi;'^ . . 158

Hybrid Forms, Hyper-Doric Forms, Artificial Revival op

Dialects 160

PAET

II:

SELECTED

INSCEIPTIONS

IONIC

EastIonic

...

. .

....

164

CentralIonic . . .

....

169

West

Ionic (Euboean) .

....

171

ARCADIAN

....

.

...

174

CYPRIAN

....

. . 180

LESBIAN

....

. . .

.183

THESSALIAN

Pelasgiotis

....

. . 190 Thessaliotis . .

...

₁₉₅

BOEOTIAN

.

....

196

PHOCIAN

Delphian

....

₂₀₅ Exclusive opDelphi 212

Page

LOCRIAN

214

ELEAN

219

NORTHWEST GREEK

KOINH

223

LACONIAN

225

HERACLEAN

.* ₂₃₁

ARGOLIC

239

CORINTHIAN

...

247

MEGARIAN

. . 249

RHODIAN

251

COAN

255

THERAN

259

CRETAN

261

APPENDIS

Selected Bibliographt 281'

Notes and Referexces 287

GLOSSARY

AND

INDEX

. . 299

CHARTS

ILLUSTRATING

THE

DISTRIBUTION

OE

IMPORTANT

PECULIARITIES

Plates I-IV

ABBEEYIATIONS

Thefollowing abbreviations areemployedforlanguages,dialects,andlocal sources oftheformsquoted.

Acarn.

=

Aoamanian Ach.

=

Achaean Aegin.

=

Aeginetan Aetol.

=

Aetollan Agrlg.

=

ofAgrigentum Amorg.

=

ofAmorgos And.

=

ofAndania Arc.

=

Arcadian Arc.-Cypr.

=

Arcado-Cyprian Arg.

=

Argive(ofArgos)

Argol.

=

Argolic(ofArgolis)

Astyp.

=

ofAstypalaea

Att.

=

Attic

Att.-Ion.

=

Attic-Ionic

Av. orAvest.

=

Avestan Boeot.

=

Boeotian Calymn.

=

ofCalymna Carpath.

=

ofCarpathus Chalced.

=

ofChalcedon Chalcid.

=

Chalcidian Cnid.

=

Cnidian Corcyr.

=

Corcyraean Corintli.

=

Corinthian Cret.

=

Cretan Cypr.

=

Cyprian Cyren.

=

of Cyrene Delph.

=

Delphian Dodon.

=

ofDodona Dor.

=

Doric El.

=

Elean Eng.

=

English Ephes.

=

Ephesian Epid.

=

Epidaurian Epir.

=

Epirotan Eretr.

=

Eretrian Eub.

=

Euboean Germ.

=

German Gortyn.

=

Gortynian Heracl.

=

Heraclean Herm.

=

ofHermione Ion.

=

Ionic Lac.

=

Laconian Lat.

=

Latin Lesb.

=

Lesbian Locr.

=

Loorian Mant.

=

Mantinean Meg.

=

Megarian Mel.

=

ofMelos Mess.

=

Messenian Mil.

=

ofMiletus Mycen.

=

ofMycene Nisyr.

=

ofNisynis N.W.Grk.

=

Northwest Greek Olynth.

=

of Olynthus Drop.

=

ofOropus Pamph.

=

Pamphylian Phoc.

=

Phocian Eheg.

=

ofRhegium Khod.

=

Rhodian Selin.

=

ofSelinus Sicil.

=

Sicilian Sicyon.

=

Sicyonian Skt.

=

Sanskrit Stir.

=

ofStiris Styr.=ofStyra -Sybar.

=

ofSybaris Syrac.

=

Syracusan Teg.

=

Tegean Thas.

=

ofThasos Ther.

=

Theran Thess.

=

Thessalian Troez.

=

ofTroezen

In abbreviating thenamesofGreekauthorsandof theirworks,LiddellandScott's listhasbeengenerally followed. Notealsothe moregeneralgram.

=

grammatical

(formsquotedfromthe ancientgrammarians),andlit.

=

literary(formsquotedfrom

theliterary dialectswithoutmentionofthe individual authors)

.

For abbreviations of modern works of reference, seeunder the Bibliography, pp.281fe.

Otherabbreviationswhichare occasionallyemployedwillbereadily understood, as cpd.

=

compound, dat.

=

dative, Imv.

=

imperative, 1.

=

line,pi.

=

plural,sg.

=

singular,subj.

=

subjunctive.

PAST

I:

GRAMMAR

_OF

THE

_DIALECTS

INTRODUCTION

Classification

and

Inteeeelation

of

the Dialects

^

1.

When

the ancient

grammarians

spoke of thefour dialects of

Greece

—

Attic,Ionic,Aeolic,

and

Doric, to

which some added

the

Koiv^asafifth

—

they

had

in

mind

solelytheLiterary dialects,wliich

furnishedtheoccasion

and

object of their study.

But

thesehterary

dialectsrepresent only a

few

of the

many

forms ofspeech current in Greece,

most

of

which

play

no

part

whatever

in literature,and,

apart

from

some

scattered glosses,

would

be entirely

miknown

to

us

were

it not for the wealth of inscriptions

which

the soil of

Greece hasyielded in

modern

times.

The

existence of Ionic, Aeolic,

and

Doric elements inthepeople

and

speech of Greece is

an undoubted

fact of

Greek

history,

and

one of first importance to

an

understanding of the dialect

rela-tions.

But

thereis

no

warrant,either iatheearUer

Greek

tradition or in thelinguisticevidence,for

making

this

an

aU-inclusive

classi-fication.

These

threeelements

were

precipitated,as itwere,

on

the

coast of

Asia

ilinor,

where

their juxtaposition gaveriseto the his-toricalrecognition ofthedistinction.

And

asthelonians,Aeolians,

and

Dorians of

Asia

Minor

were

colonists

from

Greece proper,it

was

a natural

and

properinferenceof thehistorians thatthey re-flected ethnic divisions

which

also existed, or

had

onceexisted, in

1See alsotheSummariesof Characteristics,180-273,andChartaIandla

at theendofthe book.

2

GEEEK

DIALECTS

[l

the

mother

country.^

As

to

who

were

the Doriansof Greece proper

there

was

ofcourse

no

mystery.

They

formed

a well-defined

group

throughout the historical period,

and

the tradition that they

came

originally

from

the

Northwest

is completely

home

out

by

theclose relationshipofthe Doric

and Northwest Greek

dialects (see below).

That

the lonians

were

akin to the inhabitants of Attica

was an

accepted fact in

Greek

history,

and

the

Athenians

are called Ionic

both in

Herodotus

(e.g. 1.56)

and Thucydides

(6.82, 7.57).

The

linguisticevidence is equally unmistakable.

The

only uncertainty

here is as to the extent of territory

which

was

once Ionic.

There

arevarious accounts accordingto

which

lonians once occupied the

southern shore of the Corinthian gulf,the later

Achaea

(e.g.Hdt. 1.145-146, 7.94),

Megara

(e.g.Strabo 9.392),

Epidaurus

(e.g.Pans,

2.26.2),

and

Cynuria (Hdt.8.73). If these accounts inthemselves

are of questionable value, yet

we

cannot

doubt

that the lonians

before the migration

were

not confined to Attica.

The

close rela-tions of Epidaurus

and

Troezenwith Athens,in cult

and

legend, are significant for theArgolicActe,

and

it is reasonableto

assume

that

at least theentire shore ofthe Saronic gulf

was

once lonic.^

The

affinities of the Aeolians

were

more

obscure,fortheirs

was

the earliest migration to Asia Minor, the

most

remote

from

the

historical period.

But

Thessaly

was

the scene of their favorite legends, the

home

of Achilles, as also of their

eponymous

hero Aeolus,

and

many

of their place-names

had

their counterpart in

Thessaly.

In Herodotus

we

findthe tradition that the Thessalians

ofthe historical period

were

invaders

from

the west

who

occupied

1Itis equallynatural, andquite iustiflableasamatterof convenience, to

applythesamenamesto these earlier divisions. ThatthenameIonian, for ex-ample, did not gainitscurrentapplicationonthemainland,butintheeast,is ofnoconsequence. Suchgenericterms areeverywhereofgradual growth.

2Thatis,ina periodcontemporaneous withtheAeolicandAchaean

occupa-tionofotherparts ofGreece(seebelow). Ofastillremoter periodtheviewhas been advanced that theloniansformedthefirstwaveof Greekmigration,were

infactthemuch-discussedPelasgians,andfora time occupiedalso the territory

which with the nextwaveof migration became Aeolic orAchaean. This is, naturally,

much

moreproblematical.

what had

hitherto

been an

AeoUc

land,i

and

withthisthe hnguistic

evidenceis in perfect accord.

For

Thessalianis of alldialects the

most

closely related to Lesbian,

and

atthe

same

timeshai-esin

some

of the characteristics of the

West

Greek

dialects, this admixture

of

West

Greek

elements being

somewhat

stronger in Thessaliotis

than

in Pelasgiotis. See 201, 202, 210,

and

Chart I.

The

Boeo-tians also are called Aeolians

by

Thucydides,''

and

the Boeotian

dialect is,next to Thessalian,the

most

closely related to Lesbian.

These

thr-ee

have

several notable characteristics in

common

(see

201

and

Chart I),

and

are

known

as the

Aeohc

dialects.

But

in

Boeotian there is

an

even stronger

admixture

of

West

Greek

ele-ments than

in Thessalian (see 217

and

Chart I), the historical

explanation of

which

must

be the same. If

we

credit the

state-ment

of

Thucydides

that the Boeotian invaders

were

from

Arne,

whence

they

had

been driven

by

the Thessalians,^

we

should

recog-nizein these Boeotians, not apart of the old

AeoKc

population of Thessaly,but a tribe of

West

Greek

invaders

from

Epirus (cf. Mt. Boeon),like the Thessalians

who

forced

them

onward.

The

Aeolic element is to be ascribed rather to the tribes, or

some

of them, comprising the early stratum, as for

example

the

Minyans

of

Orchomenos.

However

obscure such details

may

be, the evidence

is perfectly clearthatboth Boeotia

and

Thessaly

were

onceAeolic,

but

were

overrun

by West

Greek

tribes

which

adopted the speech

ofthe earlierinhabitantsin greater orless degree.

It is a natural presumption, of

which

there ai-e

some

specific indications, that not only Thessaly

and

Boeotia but the

interme-diatelands ofPhocis

and

Locris,

and even

southernAetolia

—

infact

1_{Hdt. 7.176} Are! e«r<roXoi^XfloKix eetrwpwrwvolicTljiTOVTesy^vriivAlo\lSa, tiJi' rep vSf^rr^rai.

'_{Thuc.7.57 ovroi Si AtoK^s} AtoXeB<rtTofsKTl<ra<rtBouirrorr tois/lerelZvpaKOtrlav (COT ivAymiviiiAxoTo, i.e.the Aeoliansof Mediymna,Tenedos,etc.,were

com-pelled to fightagainst the Aeolians

who

foundedthesecities,namelythe

Boeo-tians; id. S.2Boturuv(vyyeviop6rTuii (ofthe Lesbians).

s_{Thuc. 1.12}BotoiTofreyipoi vvv iii)Ko<rTV ^rei /isri 'Tklov iXairiy (i'Apvris

4

GREEK

DIALECTS

[l

allthat portion ofGreece north ofAttica

which

plays a r61e inthe legendsofearlyGreece

—

was

onceAeolic.

Phocaea

in

Asia

Minor, which,

though

later Ionic, surely belonged originally to the strip ofAeoliccolonies,

was

believed tobe a colonyofPhocis,

and

inthe

dialect of Phocisthereareactually

some

relics of Aeolic speech, as

the dative pluralof consonant stems in-ecrai (107.3),

which

is also

found

in eastern Locris.

As

for southern AetoHa, the region of

Calydon and

Pleuron

was

once called Aeolis

aecordmg

to

Thucyd-ides,i

and

the probabilityisthat theAetoliansofthe

Homeric

period

were

Aeolic,

though

their

name

was

taken

by

thelater.

West

Greek,

invaders.

The

Aetolian occupation of Elis

was an

accepted tradi-tion,

and

the existence of an Aeolic elementinthe dialect of Elis, likethe dative plural in-ecrai,

may

be broughtintoconnection

with

this if

we

assume

that while the invaders

were

Aetolians in the

later sense,thatis

West

Greek,as

Elean

is distinctlya

West

Greek

dialect,they

had

neverthelessadopted certaiucharacteristics of the

earlier Aeolic Aetolian

and

brought

them

to Elis. Corinth

was

alsoonce occupied

by

Aeolians accordingto Thucydides,^

and

itis

a noteworthyfactthatthedative plural in-ecro-t,

which

is

unknown

in otherDoricdialects,is

found

invariousCorinthiancolonies(107.3).

But

we

have

passed

beyond

the limits within

which

the

term

Aeolic, or in general the divisioninto Ionic, Doric,

and

Aeolic,can with

any

propriety be applied to the peoples

and

dialects of the historical period. Itis only in Strabo that these three groups are

made

into

an

all-inclusive

system

of classification,

by

means

of

an

unwarranted

extension ofAeolic to include everythingthat is not

Ionic or Doric.

And

yet it is, unfortunately, this statement of Strabo's,^ the error of

which

has long since

been

recognized, that

1Thuo. 3.102iiT^vXloXlSaTi]vvSv KaKaviiirrfV'KaKvSwvaKalnXevpwva.

2Thuo.4.42 iirkp ovb 'LoKiyeioi XAi^ositTTly, iiflovAupiijstA irdXai ISpvBirres.

rotsivT%irfiXctKopivBioKiiroX^fxovVj offtrtyAlo\eO<rt.

'_Strabo8.333 irivres yd,p ol iKris 'lirSiwOirXiiv'AOrivaluvxal Meyapiui'xalruv

irepXrbvIIo/ii'ocro'Ai'Aupiiuv/to!vvvenA2oXeisKoXoBvrai.... Kalolivris(sc.'lirfl/ioO) AfoXets Tp&repov^(rav,etr iii,lx9i](sa.v,'Iiivuvpip ixrijs'Attik^s riv Ai7ioX6i'

has

often been taken as representative of ancient tradition

and

still colors,inthe literal sense,our

maps

of ancient Greece.

The

historical Phocians, Locrians,Aetohans, etc.,

were

not, as Strabo's

statement implies, called Aeolic. Neither in Herodotus,

Thucydi-des, nor

any

early writer, are they ever brought

under any

one of

the three groups. Their dialects,

with

that of Elis,

which

Strabo also calls Aeolic, allof

which

may

be conveniently designated the

Northwest Greek

dialects, are,inspite of

some few

traces of

AeoHc

as

mentioned

above,

most

closely related to the Doric dialects.

There

is scarcely

one

of the generalcharacteristics

common

to the

Doricdialects in

which

they

do

not share,

though

they also

have

certainpeculiarities oftheirown. See 223

with

a, 226,

and

ChartI.

If

we

were

to classify

them

under any

one of the three groups,it is unquestionably Doricto

which

they

have

thebest claim,

and

if

Strabo

and

our

maps

so classed

them

there

would

be

no

very

seri-ous objection.

Indeed

modem

scholars do oftenclass

them

under

"Doiic in the widersense," calling

them

then specifically "

North

Doric."

But

on

the

whole

it

seems

preferable to retain the

term

Doricin its historical application

and employ

West

Greek

as the

comprehensive

term

to includethe

Northwest

Greek

dialects

and

the

Doric

proper.

In

fact the

most fimdamental

division of the

Greek

dialectsis

thatintothese

West

Greek

and

theEast

Greek

dialects,theterms

referringto their location prior tothegreat migrations.

The

East

Greek

Eire the"

_Old

Hellenic" dialects, thatis those

employed

by

the peoples

who

held the stage almost exclusively in the period

represented

by

the

Homeric

poems,

when

the

West

Greek

peoples

remained

in obscurityinthe northwest.

To

the East

Greek

division

belong the Ionic

and

Aeolicgroups,though,ofthelatter,Thessalian

and

Boeotian, as explained above, are

mixed

dialects belongingin

TdXirTOxAiisirwb'Axtuav, AloKixcSeBrov! fKct^StiS"irtJIleXoiroFiTJo-^irdSio^Bni, t6 tc AtoXurdc xal ri Awpixiv. &roifi^w o?>»^ttoptoisAwpiEwriv irewX^KOFTO,Kaddrep ww4priTotsre'ApKdirtKoirots 'HXeiots,...,ofroiotoXurrifitcX^ffqcrar,oi5"_SXXot/aurrj

6

GEEEK

DIALECTS

[l

partalso inthe

West

Greek

division.

And

to East

Greek

belongs

alsoanother group, the Arcado-Cyprian.

No

two

dialects,not even Attic

and

Ionic,belongtogether

more

obviously than do those of Arcadia

and

the distant Cyprus.

They

share in a

number

ofnotablepeculiarities

which

are

unknown

else-where. See 189

and

Chart I. This is to be accounted for

by

the

fact that

Cyprus

was

colonized,not necessarily or probably

from

Arcadiaitself,as traditionstates,but

from

the Peloponnesian coast, ata time

when

itsspeech

was

likethat

which

inArcadia survived the Doric migration. This group represents,

beyond

question, the

pre-Doric speechof

most

of the Peloponnesus,

whatever

we

choose

to callit.

The term Achaean

is usedin so

many

different senses^

that it

might

be wellto avoid it entirely.

But

it is convenient to

apply it to this group,

which

actually has the best claim to it,

whenever

theneed is feltof

some

other

term

than Arcado-Cyprian,

which,

whUe

describing accurately

what

is left of the group in the historical period, is strikingly infelicitous

when

applied to prehistoric times.

The

relations of this

group

to the others of the

East

Greek

division, especially Aeolic, are the

most

difficult to

interpret historically. Strabo,of course,callstheArcadiansAeolic,

but without warrant in earlier usage.

For

example, Thucydides,

in describing the forces engaged at Syracuse (7.57),

makes

the

most

of the distinction

between

Ionic, Doric,

and

Aeolicnations,

but does not class the Arcadians with

any

one of these.

Yet

the

Arcadian

and

Cyprian dialects

show

notable resemblances to the

Aeolicdialects

which

cannot beafecidental (see190.3-6

and

ChartI),

and

some would

class

them

alltogether

under

the

head

of "Aeolic

in the widest sense" or

"Achaean"

(Aeolic in the usual sense

then appearing as "

North Achaean

").

On

the other hand,

many

of the characteristics

common

to the Aeolic dialects are lacking,

1 '

'Achaean

'

'isappliedbysometoasupposed stratum intermediatebetween

thatwhichsurvived in Arcado-Cyprian and the later Doric. But thereisno goodevidence, either linguisticorotherwise, thatany suchintermediate stratum everexisted.

7

and

there are certain points of agreement with Attic-Ionic (see 190.1, 193.2,3,

and

Chart I).

One

may

surmise that the latter,

which

are in part confined to Arcadian,are

due

to contact with

lonians

on

the coast of the Peloponnesus (see above, p. 2),

and

that the connectionswith Aeolicareearlier

and

more

fundamental,

reflecting a period of geographical continuitywith

Aeohc

peoples

somewhere

in

Northern

Greece.

But

that bringsusbefore the "

mys-tery of the

Achaean-

name," that

most

difficult

problem

of the

relation

between

the

Achaeans

of the Phthiotis

and

the pre-Doric

Achaeans

of the Peloponnesus,

and

of thoseagain to thehistorical

Achaeans on

the Corinthian Gidf,

whose

dialect is

West

Greek.

Conservativeprocedure hereconsistsinrecognizingArcado-Cyprian,

or

Achaean,

as a distinct group intermediate

between

Aeolic

and

Attic-Ionic,

and

concedingthattheprecisehistorical

background

of their interrelationsishopelessly obscure.

Arcadian shows some

few

West

Greek

peculiarities

which

we

may

properly attribute to the

influence ofthe surrounding Doric dialectsinthehistorical period.

Just as in the

Northwest

Greek

dialects

some

traces of the

former Aeolic speech

have

survived, as noted above, so it is not

surprising to find

some

traces of

Achaean

speech in the Doric

dialects

spoken

in lands formerly Achaean.

For

example, in

Laconia Poseidon

was

worshiped

under

the

name

of IlohoiSdv,

which

recalls Arc.

HoaoiSdv,

the true Doric

form

being

Hotoi-Sdv (49.1, 61.5).

Here

possibly belongs Iv

=

iv in

some

Cretan in-scriptions(10). Besides survivals

which

bear specificallyeitherthe

Aeolic or the

Achaean

stamp,there are others of forms

which

are

common

to both,

and

so

from

the linguistic poiat of

view

might

be called Aeolic-Achaean, only their provenance leading us to infer either Aeolic or

Achaean

source (e.g. probably Achaean,

Te\etr<f>opevT€<; 157, TreSa 137.5, ypo<f)ev<} etc. 5, 6); or again others

which

might

be called simply East

Greek

without further

differ-entiation. But, apart from

some few

striking examples, the ques-tionofsurvivalversus accidental

agreement

orhistoricalborrowing

8

GEEEK

DIALECTS

[l

The

classification ofthe dialects isthen, inoutliae, as follows:

^

West

GreekDivision EastGreekDivision

1.

Northwest

Greek: Phocian, 1. Attic-Ionic.

Locrian, Elean, etc. 2. Aeolic: Lesbian, Thessalian,

2. Doric: Laconian,Corinthian, Boeotian.

Argolic, Cretan, etc. 3. Arcado-Cyprian orAchaean.

2.

The

Greek

dialects, classifiedinaccordance

with

the preceding

scheme,

and

with their important subdivisions noted, are the

fol-lowing.

For summaries

ofthe characteristics ofeach,see 180-273.

EAST

GREEK

I.

The

Attic-Ionic

Group

1. Attic.

2. Ionic.

A. East Ionic, or Ionic of Asia Minor.

The

Ionic cities of the coast of Asia

Minor and

the adjacent islands, Samos, Chios, etc.,

together with their colonies, mostly

on

the Hellespont, Propontis,

and

Euxine. There are

some

local varieties, of

which

the

most

marked

is Chian, containing

some

Lesbian features.

B. Central Ionic, or Ionic of the Cyclades.

The

Ionic Cyclades,

Naxos,

Amorgos,

Paros

with

its colonyThasos, Delos, Tenos,

An-dres, Ceos,etc.

C. "West Ionic, or Euboean. Chalcis (with its colonies in Italy,

Sicily,

and

the Chalcidian peninsula)

and

the other cities of

Eu-boea.

A

local dialect with

marked

characteristics is the Eretrian, seen ia theinscriptions ofEretria

and

Oropus.

1Pamphylian,of which the meager remains permit only avery imperfect knowledge,and whichistherefore,barring occasionalreferences,ignoredin this

book,shows notable affinitiesonthe one handwith Arcado-Cyprian(u

=

o,i^

with dat., etc.), on the other with WestGreek (<l>lKa.Ti, lap6s, Sko, etc.). As

Thessalian and Boeotian represent a mixture of Aeolic and WestGreek, so

PamphylianofAchaeanandWestGreek. Quite probably theearliest colonists

II.

The

Akcado-Cypeian

oe

Achaean Geoup

1. Arcadian.

The

most

important material'is

from

Tegea

and

Mantiaea.

2. Cyprian.

There

are

numerous

short inscriptions,

and

one of considerable length,the bronze ofIdaJium. Allare iu the Cyprian

syllabary.

III.

The

Aeolic

Geoup

1. Lesbian,or AsiaticAeohc.^

The

inscriptional materialisfairly extensive,but late.

There

is nothiug approachingthetime of the

poems

of

Alcaeus

and

Sappho,

and

verylittlethatisolderthan the

Macedonian

period.

Most

of the inscriptions are

from

the chief

cities of Lesbos, but a

few

are

from

other islands

and

to-wns of

the Aeolic mainland.

2. Thessalian.^

Two

subdivisions

with

marked

differences are

formed

by

thedialect of Pelasgiotis

and

that ofThessaliotis,

which

may

be conveniently,ifnotquite appropriately,designatedas East

and

West

Thessalian.

From

Phthiotis there is

an

earlyThessalianinscription,but

most

of the material is

from

the period of

Aetohan

domination

and

in

the

Northwest Greek

Koivri. See279.

From

Histiaeotis,Perrhaebia,

and Magnesia

the materialis very scanty.

3. Boeotian.^

The

material isvery extensive,

and

representative of all the important Boeotian towns, but is

meager

for the early period.

WEST

GREEK

IV.

The Noethwest Gkeek Group

1. Phocian.

A

large partofthe material,includingnearlyallthatis

of

an

earlydate,is

from

Delphi,

and

isquotedspecificallyas Delphian.

1SometimescalledsimplyAeolic. But,toavoid confusionwith Aeolicinits

widersense,the designation Lesbianis to be preferredin spite of the formal improprietyof applyingit to adialect notrestricted toLesbos. Most of the

materialisactuallyfromLesbos.

2_ThatThessalianandBoeotianareonlyinpartAeolic, inpartWestGreek, hasbeenexplained above,pp.2, 3.

10

GEEEK

DIALECTS

[2

2. Locrian.

The

early

and

importantinscriptions are

from

west-ern Locris.

From

eastern Locris the materialis

meager and

late.

3. Elean. All thematerial,

much

of

which

is very early,is

from

Olympia.

4.

The

Northwest Greek Koivri.

Employed

in Aetolia

and

other regions

rmder

the dominationofthe Aetolianleague. See 279.

Note. OnlyPhocian,Locrian, andElean are

known

to us as distinct dialects of this group. Of otherswhich presumablybelong here

we

have

practicallynomaterialfroma time

when

theyretained their individuality. InAetolia, forexample,beforetheriseoftheNorthwest GreekKoivqthere

wasundoubtedly adistinctNorthwestGreekdialect, probablymostnearly relatedtoLocrian,butof thispure Aetolian

we

have no knowledge. Ofthe speechofAenianiaandMalisprevioustothe Aetolian domination

we

have no remains. It isnatural tosuppose thatNorthwest Greekdialectswere once spoken also inAcarnaniaand Epirus. Butherethe influence of the Corinthian colonieswasstrong from anearly period, as shown bythe use

oftheCorinthianalphabetinthefewearly inscriptions; andinlatertimes,

from whichnearlyallthematerialdates,thelanguageemployedisnot the

Northwest Greek Kowq, butthe Doric koivtq,likethat of the contempora-neous insci-iptionsof Corcyra.-See 279. Hence the actual material from

Acarnania and Epirus ismore properly classified withCorinthian.

From

CephalleniaandIthaca

we

havedecrees intheNorthwest Greekkolvtifrom

theAetolian period(see279),but from earlier timesnotenoughtoshow

whether thedialectwas Northwest GreekorDoric.

From

Zacynthusthere

is almost nothing.

The

dialect ofAchaea(i.e. Peloponnesian Achaea in the historical period) isgenerally believed tobelong tothisgroup. This

isprobable on generalgrounds,butthereisasyetno adequate linguistic

evidence of it. For, apart from the inscriptions of Achaean colonies in

Magna

Graecia,which, bothonaccountof theirmeagemess andthemixed

elementsinthe colonization, are indecisive, nearlyallthematerialisfrom thetime of theAchaean league,and this is notin theNorthwestGreek

Koarfj,butinthesameDoricKotvijthatwasusedinCorinthandSicyon.

V.

The

Doric

Group

1. Laconian

and

Heracleata. Laconia

and

itscolonies

Tarentum

and

Heraclea. Heraclean, well

known

from

the Heraclean Tables, has

2. Messenian.

There

is scarcely

any

material until alate period,

when

the dialect is

no

longerpure.

3. Megarian. Megara,

and

itscolonies inSicily (especiallySelinus)

and on

the Propontis

and

Bosporus(as

Byzantium,

Chalcedon,etc.).

Except from

Selinus the materialis late.

4. CorintMan. Corinth, Sicyon, Cleonae, Phlius,

and

the

Corin-thiancoloniesCorcyra (withits

own

colonies

ApoEonia and

Dyrrha-chium), Leucas,

Anactorium,

Ambracia,etc.,and, in Sicily,Syracuse

with

its

own

colonies. Material

from

places other than Corinth,

though coming under

the general

head

of Corinthian,is generally

quoted specifically as Sicyonian, Corcyraean, Syracusan, etc. 5. Argolic. Argos,

Mycenae,

etc.,

and

the cities of the Acte, as

Hermione,

Troezen,

and Epidaurus

togetherwith Aegina.^ Argolic

(abbreviated Argol.)isusedasthegeneral term,whileArgive(Arg.) refers

more

specificallytothematerial

from Argos

(withtheArgive

Heraeum),

as Epidaurianto that

from

Epidaurus.

6. Rhodian.

Ehodes

(Camirus, lalysus, Lindus,

and

the city of Eliodes)

with

the adjacent smallislands (Chalce,etc.)

and

Carpathus,

Telos,

and Syme,

the settlements

on

the

mainland

(the

Ehodian

Peraea)

and

Phaselis in Pamphylia,

and

the Sicilian colonies Gela

and Agrigentum

(an inscriptionof

Ehegium, though

not a

Ehodian

colony,is inthe

same

dialect).

The

materialis veryextensive,but

little ofit isearly.

7. Coan

and

Calymnian.

The

materialisconsiderable,but notearly.

8.

The

dialects of Cnidus,

and

of Nisyrus,

Anaphe,

Astypalaea,

and

other small islands.

The

material is late,

and

insufficient to

determine

whether

any

of these should properly be grouped with Ehodian, Coan,orTheran. Nisyrus,forexample,

was

nearlyalways connectedpolitically

with

eitherCos or Ehodes.

9. Theran

and

Melian.

Thera with

Cyrene,

and

Melos. Early

in-scriptions are

numerous,

butbrief.

1

_From

Aegina thereisnot

much

materialfromtheperiod beforethe Athe-nian occupation,but enoughto showthat the dialectwasArgolic (notetapios

12

GEEEK

DIALECTS

[3 10. Cretan. Thisis

now

the

best-known

ofallthe Doric dialects,

owing

totheveryextensive early material, especially

from

Gortyna.

The

dialect of

Gortyna and

other citiesofthegreat central portion of the islandis also

known

more

specifically as CentralCretan, to

exclude the divergent type seen in the iascriptions, mostly late,

from

the eastern

and

western extremities of the island. See 273.

But

the

term

Cretan aloneis to be understoodas referring to this Central Cretan, unless otherwise stated.

The

Dialects

in

Liteeatuee

3.

Of

the

numerous

dialects of Greece a

few

attained the

rank

of literary dialects,

though

forthe

most

part in a

mixed

and

arti-ficial

form

not corresponding to anything actually

spoken

at a

given time

and

place. Moreover,inthe course of literary

develop-ment

these dialects

came

to be characteristic of certain classes of hterature,and,their r61e once established,the choice of one orthe

otherusually

depended

upon

this factor rather

than

upon

thenative dialect of the author.

The

literary

development

of epicsongs

began

with theAeolians

of Asia Minor,

whence

it passedinto the

hands

ofthe neighboring

lonians,

and

the language of

Homer,

which became

the

norm

of

aU

epicpoetry

and

stronglyaffectedsubsequent poetryofallclasses,

isamixture ofAeolic

and

Ionic,

—

inthe

main

Old

Ionicbut with

the retention of

many

Aeolic forms, such as dfifie<; beside ^fiel's,

genitive singular in -do beside-eco,etc.

The

language of

Hesiod

is

substantiallythe same, but

with

some

Aeolic forms not used in

Homer,

also

some

Boeotian

and

Doric peculiarities.

The

elegiac

and

iambicpoets alsouse the epicdialect

with

some

modifications,

not only lonians like Archilochus, but the

Athenian

Solon, the Spartan Tyrtaeus, the

Megarian

Theognis, etc.

Of

the melic poets, Alcaeus

and Sappho

followed very closely theirnativeLesbian dialect,

though

notentirelyunaffected

by

epic influence.

The

language of these

and

other Lesbian poets

was

directly imitated

by some

later writers, notably

by

Theocritus in three of his idyls,

and

contributed

an

important element to the language of

many

more, e.g.

Anacreon

of Teos,

who

in the

main

employed

his native Ionic

(New

Ionic), and, in general, to the

choral lyric,

which

Xv^as

mainly

Doric.

The

choral lyric

was

developed

among

Doric peoples,

though

under

theimpulse of Lesbian poets,

who we

know

were

welcomed

in Sparta, for example, in the seventh century. Its language is

Doric,

vnth an admixture

of Lesbian

and

epic forms,

no

matter

whether

the poet is a Dorian, or a Boeotian like Pindar, or

an

Ionianlike Simonides

and

Bacchyhdes. ThisDoric,however,isnot

identical

with

any

specific Doric dialect, but is

an

artificial

com-posite,

showing

many

ofthegeneral Doric characteristics,but with the elimination of local peculiarities.

An

exceptionis to be

made

in the case of

Alcman,

whose

Doric is of a severertype

and

evi-dently based

upon

the Laconian,

though

also

mixed with

Lesbian

and

epic forms.

The

earliestprose writers

were

the Ionic philosophers

and

Ms-torians of the sixth century,

and

in the fifth century not only Herodotus, but Hippocrates of Cos, a Dorian,wrote in Ionic.

In

the

meantime,

with

the political

and

intellectual

supremacy

of

Athens, Attic

had

become

the recognized language of the drama,

and

beforethe

end

ofthefifthcentury

was employed

inprosealso,

though

theearlier prosewriters as Thucydides,likethetragedians,

•avoided certain Attic peculiarities

which were

stUl feltas

provin-cialisms (e.g. TT

=

crcr, _pp

=

per). Henceforth Attic

was

the

lan-guage

of literary prose.

The

dialects

mentioned

are the onlyliterary dialects

known

and

cultivatedthroughoutthe

Greek

world.

But some few

otherswere

employed

locally.

Epicharmus and Sophron

wrote in their native

Syracusan

Doric, asdid,later,Archimedes.

A

form

of Doricprose

was

developed

among

the Pythagoreans of

Magna

Graecia, seen in

some

fragments of

Archytas

of

Tarentum,

Philolaus ofCroton,

and

14

GEEEK

DIALECTS

[3 spurious.

The

comic

poet Ehiuthon,

from

whom

the

grammarians

sometimes quote,used the Doric of Tarentum.

The

fragments of

Corinna of Tanagra,

whose fame was

scarcely

more

thanlocal, are in Boeotian,

and

the Boeotian dialect, as well as

Megarian

and

Laconian, arecaricatured

by

Aristophanes.

But

the greatmajority

ofthe dialectsplay

no

rolewhateverinliterature.

Even

for those dialects

which

are represented, the literary

re-maias

must

for the

most

part be regarded as secondary sources,

not only because of their artificial character but also because of

the corruptions

which

they

have

suffered in transmission.

Excep-tional importance, however, attaches.to the language of

Homer

because of its antiquity,

and

tothe Lesbian ofAlcaeus

and Sappho

because itis relativelypure

and

much

older than the inscriptional material.

Note. In the following exposition, dialectic forms from literaryand

grammatical sources are not infrequently quoted, especially where the inscriptionalevidence is slight, as it is,forexample,' quite naturally, for the personal pronouns. Such forms are sometimes quoted withtheir

spe-cificsources,sometimes simplyas literaryDoric(lit.Dor.),literaryLesbian

(lit.Lesb.), literaryIonic (lit. Ion.), or grammatical(gram.). Buta

de-tailedtreatmentofthedialectic peculiarities observedinourliterarytexts

is so bound upwith questions of literarytradition and textual criticism thatit isbestlefttothecriticaleditionsof the various authors. Itwould

beimpracticableinaworkofthepresent scope,andwould, moreover, tend

to obscure that more trustworthy picture of the dialectswhichis gained

frominscriptions,andwhichissoimportantasabasisforthecriticalstudy

PHONOLOGY

The

Alphabet

4.

The numerous

diEFerences in the local alphabets, so far as

theyconsist

merely

in variations of the forms of theletters,

need

not be discussedhere,important as the}- are tothe epigraphist in

decidingthe age

and

source of inscriptions.

But

certain points in

the useofthe alphabet

and

its

development

as a

means

of

express-ingthe

Greek sounds

should benoted.

1.

In

the

most

primitive type of the

Greek

alphabet, as it is

seen in the earliest inscriptions of Crete, Thera,

and

Melos, the non-Phoeniciansigns <|), X,

Y

have

notyetbeenintroduced,

and

the

I

is not in use.

The

sounds of <fi,y^ are represented

by

ttA, k/i

(or fh), or,asin Crete,

where

B

(H)

when

used is tj notA,are not distinguished fi-om tt,

k

; thoseofyjr, f,

by

ttct, Ktr.

2.

In

the

next

stage of development,after the introduction of

<l>,X,Y, the alphabets fall into

two

classes, accordingtothevalues

attached to these signs.

The

eastern division, to

which

Ionic belongs,

employs

them

as <|),%,'^,

and

alsouses the

i

as^,

though

a subdivision of this group, represented

mainly

by

theAttic aljdia-bet, uses only the first

two and

expresses fjr,_f

by

_<f>(r,

x'^-

The

western di^ision,^ to

which

belong the majority of the alphabets of Greece properas

weU

as that of Euboea,

whence

it

was

carried toItaly

by

the Chalcidian colonies

and

became

the source of the

Latinalphabet,

employs

<l>, X,

Y

as ^,f, x. not using

I

at all,

and

1Thisdistinction ofeasternandwesternalphabets,thedistribution of wliich is clearlyshown inthe ChartinKirchhoffs Sludien zurGeschictUe des

griechi-schen Alphabets, hasnoconnection withthat ofEast andWestGreekdialects,

andisanythingbutcoincidentwithit.

16

GREEK

DIALECTS

[4 generally expressing yjr

by

ttct or, oftener,

^a

(only in Locrian

and

Arcadian

by

a special sign *).

3. In the earliest inscriptions nearly allthe alphabets

have

the f (van or

digamma);

and

many

the9(koppa),

which

isused before

or V,

and

that too even if a liquid intervenes, e.g. ioptvdodev, h6ppo<!,Aop/30?, ippore, IlaT/aopXo?, XepvOof, 2\vtos (inother posi-tions it isvery rare).

4.

Two

signs

were

available for o-,

namely

^

or

5

(sigma)

and

M

(san),

and most

alphabets use one of these to the exclusion of the other.

But

there are

some few examples

of a differentiation.

In an early

Arcadian

inscription of

Mantinea

(no. 16), the charac-ter \A, a simplified

form

of the san,

which

is

known

from

other

sources, is used to denotea sibilant of specifically

Arcado-Cyprian

origin, as in v^t? (transcribed a;i<;)

=

Cypr.o-ts, Att. tk. See 68.3.

A

sign T,

which

isalso probably a modification ofthe san, isused

in

some

Ionic inscriptionsofAsia

Minor

fortheusualacr

=

Att.tt,

e.g.

from Hahcarnassus

'KXiicapvwve{(o)v beside 'AXiKupvacrcrecov,

from Ephesus

TeTape;,

reTapaKovra

=

reaaapei;, etc.,

from

Teos

\ff\d\wvr]'i beside OaKaacrav.

5. In Boeotian, V, a

compromise between

E

and

I, is

sometimes

used for the close e, later i (9.2).

At

Corinth

and

Megara

there

were

two

characters,

& and

E, for the e-sounds, but usually

dififer-entiated. See 28.

6. In

most

of the alphabets the

H

(early B) is the sign of the

spiritusasper,

and

neither77

and

conor the lengthenede

and

("spu-rious et

and

ow") aredistinguished

from

the short e

and

0.

But

in East Ionic,

where

the

sound

of the spiritus asper

was

lost at a very early period, the H,

which

was

thus left free,

was

turned to

accountasa

vowel

sign,notso

much

to

show

a dififerencein

quan-tity (in the caseofa, I, v

no

such

need

was

felt) asone ofquality. It

was

probably used first only for the extremely

open

e

coming

from

d, that is for the specifically Attic-Ionic -q (8),

which

for a

time

was

more

open than the

sound

ofthe inheritede,

though

this

17

identical

and were

denotedin the

same

way.

To

be sure,

no

such

distinction is to be observed in East Ionic inscriptions,but it is

seenin

some

of the Cyclades, to

which

the useofthe

H had

passed

from

East Ionic,e.g.

from

Naxos

(no. 6) NiKcivSpr), popr], etc.,but avedeKev (with

E

inthepenult). Siinilai-

examples from

Ceos(e.g.

no. 8)

and Amorgos.

The

use of

H

=

?/extended not onlytotheIonic but alsotothe Doric islands, Rhodes, Thera, Melos,

and

Crete,

where

itis found

in the earliest inscriptions,

though

in Creteit

went

out of usefor

a time, not appearing for

example

in the Law-Code. In Central Ionic,

where

the

sound

of the spiritus asperstillsurvived, as also in Ehodes, Thera,

and

Melos, the sign

was

used both as t)

and

as

k

It occurs also

with

the value of he, at Delos,

Naxos

(no. 6),

and

Oropus

(no. 14.46).

The

Ionic alphabet is also characterized

by

its distinction of o

and

o)

through

dififerentiated forms of (usually

Q

=

(o, but in

some

oftheislands,

namely

Paros, Thasos,

and

Siphnos,

Q

=

o,

and

or

G

=

w).

7. In

403

RC. the Ionic alphabet

was

officially introduced at

Athens,

and

not

much

later replaced the native or "epichoric" alphabets in other partsof Greece. Inscriptionsof the

end

of the

fifth or the beginning of the fourth century often

show

a transi-tional

form

of the alphabet, partly epichoric, partly Ionic.

Even

with

the full Ionic alphabet,

_{f was}

generally retained

where

it

was

stillsounded,

and sometimes

a

form

of

H

was

used forthe spiritus asper, as h in the

Heraclean

Tables

and

occasionally elsewhere

(Elis, no. 60, Sicyon,Epidaurus).

The

Delphian Labyadae

inscrip-tion(no. 51) has

B

=

h,

H

=

?/.

For

the Cyprian syllabary, see no.19.

VOWELS

a

5. o for

a

before orafter liquids.

Examples

are

most numerous

18

GREEK

DIALECTS

[5

(7t/jo'tos

=

arpaTO^, hpoaea)<i

=

Bpaaewi, ^oKaicri

=

y^dXcoai, etc.

So an^p[6]Trjv (no. 21)

=

dfiaprelv, like Horn, rjn^porov

=

•^fj.ap-Tov (fjL^p

from

iu,p, as regularly).

Both

arporayoi;

and

a-Tpdrayo';

occur in inscriptions,

Kkewise

in Boeotian crrpoTo^ in

numerous

propernames,a-TporicoTa';,ia-TpoTevaO-rj,but also a-Tparo^ inproper names,arpaTay(ovTo<i.

The

forms with a,

which

are the only ones

attested for Thessalian, are to be attributed to icoivri tafluence. Cf. Boeot., Thess. iporo'i

=

e/aaro?, ^pox"<i==^paxv<;, attested

by

proper names, Boeot., Lesb. ttojovot^

=

Trdpvoyjr,

whence

Lesb. IlopvoTricov (Strabo 13.613), Tiopvoiria (no. 23).

In Arcado-Cyprian also

we

find Arc. i(ji6opKd><;

=

e^BapKm,

TravdyopcTK

=

iravrjyvpL'i but iu

form

belonging with

West

Ion. (Naples)

dyappa

(49.2),crTopirdo<;

=

aa-rpairaloi; (alsoArc.a-Topird, Cypr. arpoTrd inHesych.), Cypr. Kop^Ca (Hesych.)

=

KapSia, Kare-fopyov

=

*KaTepapyov

aorist of *icaT-epepyco {icaTelpyoa) with the

weak

grade ofthe root asin eSpaKOv

from

SepKOfiai (49.2).

Invarious

West

Greek

dialectsoccurderivativesofypd^ca witho,

though

theverbitself always hasa.

Thus

ypo^ev<; inEUs,Argolis,

Sicyon, inArgolis also ypo<l>evco, (Tvyypo(j)o<;, etc.,Heracl.

aveiriypo-</>09,Cret. aTToypo^ov,eyypo^ov, Mel. Tpocfxov. Cf.also Cret.,Epid.

KaTaXo^ev<i

=

*Kara\a/3ev';, support, Cret. a/3Xo7ria

=

a^Xa^Ca.

a.

Some

of tlie examples, if takenby themselves, might be regarded

simf)ly asinheritedo-gradeforms(cf.49.2),e.g.Arc.i(j>dopKioi(cf.i<j)9opa).

But an actual substitutionmust berecognized inLesb.o-rporosetc., and, whilethe precise conditions andscopeofthe

phenomenon

arenotclear,it isevidentlyoneinwhichallthe AeolicdialectsandArcado-Cyprianhad a share. Whether ypoc^eiJs etc. are anything more than inherited o-grade forms

may

be less certain,but it is probable that these areAchaean

sur-vivals (see p. 7), andbelonginthissameconnection.

6. fora in other cases. 6v

=

avd

in Lesbian, Thessalian

(Pe-lasgiotis),

and

Arcado-Cyprian {iv, see 22). Lesb., Arc. SexoToi

=

Se/earo?, also Arc. Ssko

=

Se'/ca,heKorov

=

ewoToV,

and

Lesb. evoro^

—

evaTO's. Thess. k^ofieivvov

=

e^dfirjvpv. Delph. evTo^rjia, burial

rites, Heracl. to</)kbi^, hurial-plaee (cf.ra^os). Kodap6<i

=

Kadapo^

19

a.

The

explanation is uncertain, and not necessarily the same for all

theforms cited here. Forexample,it ispossible thattheo of SeKorosetc. istobeviewedinthesamelightasthatofcIkoiti

=

West GreekpiKaTi. See

116a. But the preference for o appears to he, here as in 5, an

Aeolic-Aohaeancharacteristic.

7. e for a.

For

forms

with

e beside

a which

fall within the regular

system

ofvowel-gradation, see 49.2-4.

An

actual

change

of final a to e isseen in Thess.Sie

=

Sid. Of.

Thess. -ec

=

-at (27).

d

8. Attic-Ionic r/

from

d. Original a,

which

remains

unchanged

in all other dialects,

becomes

tj in Attic-Ionic.

Thus

ti/j,'^, ^rjfii, la-Trjfii,but in otherdialects Tifia(a-stem),(j^dni (Lat.farl), la-Tdfii

(Lat. stare).

For

thecontrast

between

this rj

and

that

which

repre-sents

an

inherited e-sound

and

is

common

to the other dialects also,note Att.-Ion. lirjT'qp, elsewhere /MaTrjp (Lat. mater).

But

Attic differs

from

Ionic, in that it has d, not 17, after e,i,

and

p, as yevea, olicid, x'^P^

=

Ion- jeve'^, oIkCtj,

x^PV-a.

The

changeofainthe direction ofijbeganinthe Attic-Ionic period,

and wasuniversal.

The

din Att._X'^^P^^tc. isnotthe originald unchanged, but aspecialAttic reversionto d,whichoccurred,however,beforethe

new

sound hadbecomecompletelyidentical with that representing originale,

andhence did not affectthe latter (soAtt.jrpa.TTOi,butpjjTwp). Thatis,

the17from d was atfirst an extremelyopen e-sound,evenmoreopen than

that of original e, and even in the historical period the two sounds are distinguished inthespellingofsomeinscriptionsofthe Cyclades. See4.6. 6.

The

darisingfromlengtheningofain connectionwithoriginal

inter-vocalic vcr,(TV, etc.,undergoesthe same change, e.g. Att.-Ion.i<j>rjva. from l<^va,,original*£^av<Ta. See76, 77.1. Butin rdsfromTavsandirStrafrom irdva-a, original*iravTia., thedwasof lateroriginandwasunafiected. See 77.3, 78.

£

9. t

from

e before a vowel.

1.

Even

inAttic

an

e before another

vowel

had

a closer

sound

than

in other positions,

and

was

frequentlywritten «, as 0«o'?

=

6e6<;, veiuK

=

vew.

So,sometimes,inIonic,as £?&)?

=

em?,Seto'/iei/o?