iEibrarp at OF ^ (js-C'Ik a ^£ a^^-^/-*-/-* c£>-i- .-!./.-( <^uL^:r^. THE Dialects of North Greece BY HERBERT WEIR SMYTH, Ph. D. Johns Hopkins University. Read at the Meeting of the American Philologicai. Association HELD at Ithaca, July 1886. Reprinted from The American Journal of Philology, P'ol. I'll, No. 4. BALTIMORE Press of Isaac Friedenwald 1887 ov^° J- !:^ 6 lie? MA tN The Dialects of North Greece.' The statement of Strabo (VIII i, 2, p. 333) -navni ol yap eKTor ladfjLov 7t\t]v Adrjvaiaiv Koi Meyaptau koi Tav ufju tou Tiaiivnacroi' Awpuap Kai vvv en AloXels KoKovvrai is a Statement wliich epigraphic testimony proves to contain an illegitimate use of AtoXelr, but which is doubt- less to be explained by reference to that plastic use of tribal names the most patent case of which is the extension of the term "EWrjves. By the Greeks before Aristotle Thessaly was regarded as the cradle of the Greek race, and bore originally, t. e. before the incur- sion of the Thesprotians under Thessalus, the name AloXis. This incursion gave the impetus to a series of revolutions in tribal rela- tions which it is impossible for the historian to control with certainty. The AioXtSfwj^ n-oXi? in Phocis on the way from Daulis to Delphi (Hdt. VIII 35), and the territory of Pleuron and Calydon, called Alokis, in Southern Aetolia, received in all probability their names from exiled Aeolians. In the case of Pleuron (nXeiipwu'a) such a conjecture has at least the testimony of antiquity in its favor (Strabo X 3, 6, p. 465), and, as Meister remarks, the state- ment of a historian in Steph. Byz., fV ptv toi Ao^pievtriv AiVcoXot, can readily be brought into agreement with the assertions of Thuc- III 102, and the scholion on Theocr. I 56 {AloWs yap 17 AiVcoXiV), by regarding the Doric Aetolians as the inhabitants of the apxnia AtVtoXt'a. The passage from Strabo quoted above is the only authority which affixes to the inhabitants of northwestern and north-central Greece the name Aeolic. On the other hand, the consentient testimony of the ancients regarded Thessaly and Boeotia alone as Aeolic, and the grammarians restrict the use of 1 Read at the mjeting of the American Pliilological Association lield at Ithaca, July, iS86. 10177 the term " Aeolic dialect" to the idiom of Lesbian poetry, very infrequently characterizing as Aeolic a form which is Boeotian or Thessalian. Giese (Der aeolische Dialekt, p. 131) has well remarked, in dis- cussing the difficulties presented by the utterances of the Greeks in reference to their tribal and dialectological relations: ' N'icJit in den Mcinun^en der Alttn lieo^en die wahrhaft historischen Zeugnisse, sondern in ihrer Sprache selbst" If we supplement this stateinent by another, which in reality is not excluded by the first: " Ohne Ri'icksicht aiif das Leben des Volks ist die Sprach- wissenscha/t todt nnd wcriJdos'^ (Fick, Ilias, p. 564), we open up the two avenues by which the science of Greek dialectology is to be approached. It will, therefore, in the first instance be necessary to pass in review the various phenomena which constitute each of the cantonal idioms of that w ide territory reaching from the Aegean Sea to the western part of Epirus, and from Olympus to the southernmost parallel of those states washed by the Corinthian Gulf Upon this scientific basis alone can we hope to attain results, the value of which will doubtless be enhanced by the fact that so comprehensive an investigation has as yet not been attempted in Germany. To establish the position of the dialects of Thessaly and Boeotia as dialects of North Greece, in their connection with Asiatic- Aeolic and in their relation to one another, I present the following table of their chief distinctive morphological features. I. — Dialect of Thessaly. A. Peculiarities which belong specifically to Thessaly. I. f for « in fWf. 2. or for u ; u lias ceased to exist. 3. k for r in k\<;. 4. ^ for fl in 0e'7). 5. "^ for <^ in 'ArWoir/rof. 6. (5(5 for & in IM'inv. 7. Gen. sing, -o decl. in -oi.' 8. Deinonstr. pion oif. 9. Infin. pass, in -aOeiv. 10. 3 pi. pass, in -vHeiv. 11. Infin. aor. act. in -ariv. 12. fia for (5f. 13. (Joii^i/o for 6a(*tvr] in apxi<^nvxvaii)Oiii:ioac. 13. ca for C in iiKpaviaaoev. 14. -ev in 3 pi. im- perf. aorist (idoiiKas/i^d). 15. Points of agreement witli the dialect of Hoeotia. I. t for n in Oipcoq {(kipni)^ ali.0 is IJoeol.). 2. £t for //. 3. A labial for a dental: Tliess. nfrff(z/of :rz lioeot. *erra?.(>c. 4, A dental surd and aspirate in Thess.rz a double dental in V>oco\..z=.n(! in Attic. See example under 3. 5. 6/ for r ; iyivm>(ht:avyi>iv(htv'\'\\c\s.,T:aii)ivi-wi-07],iTro£laai-du Moeoi. 6. iftoTd^ for rfmrfu;. 7. f = v in middle of a word. 8. fiiKnog = jiiKpo^ (gramm ). 9. yivvfini for yi)vnuni from the analogy of the -vrfii verbs. The change must have takfiu place after the willuhawal of the .\siatic Acolians. 10. Dat. pi. cons. ' In the Pl.arsalian inscr. the gen. ends in -ov. stems in -ecai (also Lesbian), ir. Inf. in -e/jev (not Pharsalian), Lesbian •fcevnc and -ev. I2. Part. perf. Tliess. -ovv, Boeot., Lesb. -uv. This is one of the proofs tliat these dialects sprang from a common source. 13. t'f = i^ before a cons. Thess., Boeot. ; eag in B. before a vowel (Ik in Lesbian before a cons., ff before a vowel). 14. kv for elg, 15. Patronymics in -etoc, tog. 16. j3e?. in B. fieiXofievng^ Thess. fi£A?^iTai; B. also finA in /iwP.d, Locrian (hiTiOfini. 17. m)Ti B., Aeolic ~p6g, Trpeg. 18. Doubling of a before r, k, j. ig. Absence of ^iHAuaig. 20. r for a before vowels. 21. Absence of v £(j>e?.K. in the prose in-" scriptions. C. The Thessalian dialect has these points of similarity with Asiatic- Aeolic : ^ I. e for a in Oepang. 2. i for e (ei) /JOioc. >3. o for n in ovrzard. 4. v for o in (i~t'. 5. Assimilation of a liquid with a spirant, e/iiii. b. ca for n between vowels, eaneadem. 7. Dat. pi -tT. conson. decl. in -sacn. 8. Personal pronoun a/i^ui, diiueovp; Lesb. d/z/ue, d//|Uis ; not in Boeotian inscriptions. 10. Part. perf. act. in -ow, Lesb. -cjv. ii. Part, of the substantive verb in tovv -zzkuv, Lesb. and Boeot. 12. Article oi, a'l. 13. la for Doric and Ionic fiia, Goth, si, or aeva oIi'tj. The feminine of e)c is not found in any Boeotian literary or epigraphic monument. 14. ke for dr. 15. The name of the father is indicated by a f)atronyniical adjective in -Lor. 16. (ilk- Koq 1^ fLiKoog {gxAxam.). 17. ^lovvvaoq zz:. WoWc Zowvaog. iS. d/j' (the accent is uncertain) ; cf. Lesbic altv, alv and Boeot. ///, ai. ig. fz^v in middle of a word. 20. Absence of v f^e/i/c. in non-Koivr/ inscriptions, II. — The Dialect of Boeotia. A. The Boeotian dialect is akin to that of Lesbos and Aeolis herein: M. c for a, depoor, Boeot. also Opdaog. 2. BeTifni, Aeol. Bi^cpou ^2- " for a, arpoTog,^ Boeot. also arpardg. 4. nopvcjTp for Trd/jfwi/', Aeol. IlopvoKtuv. 5. v for 0, oi'Vfia (but ciTTo). 6. arepag (gramm.) 7. o -|- o=r w, 8. o-j- a^u. g. Gen. o decl. in -u. 10. -cu verbs treated as -/n verbs, according to the grammarians, and at least at the time of Aristophanes (Achar. 914). II. Name of the father is expressed by a patronymic adjective. 12. UeiAEarpoTidag B., tv^/.vi Lesb. for TtfAoae. 13, jiiKKog zn fWipog (gramm.). 14. frrv in middle of a word (F is also preserved in B.). 15. L,dzz.ihd. Corinna (J^a-. 16. Absence of v i€q ; Aeol. TTiacvpEc, ziavpeg. 3. Kpdrog, also Thessal. ; Aeol. Kpirog. 4. Ka, Aeol. Kt ; 'Ap-aui^, Aeol. 'AfiTe^iq. 5. ei for J? throughout. The solitary example of ti in Leshic is nOieifiEvoc;. 6. i for ei throughout. 7. r/atc. 18. Aeolic it(5, Boeot. fl, fW zr: C ; cf. the Elean C, which is Doric, not Aeolic. 19. eag for l^. 20. w verbs inf. : Boeot. -//rr, Lesb. -r/v, -ev. 21. duf, df for Aeol. ftjf. The latter has been attributed to Ionic influence. 22. Imperative -vWu, Leshic -vtcj. The Boeotian form is, of course, a later development. 23. Boeot. Tzhve, Aeol. TztfiTve. 24. Absence of tjii/^uaic. D. The dialect of Boeotia differs from that of Thessaly herein. (Many later peculiarities of B. are here included.) I. iapoi: B., ie/tog Thess., with the exception of C- 400, 25 Crannon. 2. uv, Thess. or. 3. Thessal. change to e in 6u-, FeKf6afiog ; Boeot. a. 4. B. a-fiorog and CTparug, Thess. orparoc 5. Boeot. w, Thess. ov. 6. ec in Boeot. zz i, Thess. Et. 7. ai in Boeot. zz ?/, Thess. ac or ei in the ending -rei. 8. r in Boeot. =.or, wr, Tiiess. w. 9. o< rr Boeot. oe, v, e; z= Thess. 01. 10. t before vowels rz Boeot. f, I, cc zz. Thessal. e, t. 11. n -(- o in Boeot. nv, av, a z- Thessal. a. 12. eu zz. Boeot. 10 zz. Thess. eo. 13. 00 nz Boeot. (j zz Thess. 00 in -voof. 14. Tjiess. cct between vowels {eoeaadeiv) =: Boeot. a. 15. Thessal. ^ for ;i in iipxn^avxva- ipopeiaac. 16. Thessal. has no v e Uehergangsstufe vom bootisclien zitm lesbischejt, vom leshischen ztim kyprisch-arkadisclien und vom kyprisch-arkadisc lun zuin bihtischen Dialekte. - Wilamowitz-Mollendorf regards the Boeotian idiom as a mixture of Achaean and Aeolic elements. Of the exact nature of the former we know too little to permit us to treat it as a basis of argumentation. When Aeolic and Doric agree it is difficult to determine to which the phenomenon in question is to be referred, e.g. Boeot. gen. in -u. *The authority of Herodotus should not be invoked to militate against this assertion, since it rests solely on the supposition of tlie Ionic historian that the Dorians alone were originally pure Hellenes. From this irpuTov fevdog he concludes that the Dorians lived in Phthiotis, the seat of Hellen. ■* The consensus of historical investigation now relegates the wanderings of the Dorians to a period anterior to the irruption of the Boeotians. 6 While the suiiilarity between Thessalian and Boeotian was rendered more apparent by the dialectoloijical fiyfxdiov of the inscription from Larissa, their points of difierence still await a final explanation. Upon the solution of the problem whether the original inhabitants of Boeotia were of Aeolic or of Doric blood depends the exact position of its dialect in its relation not only to that of Thessaly, but also to that of Western and Central Greece, We enter here upon a tortuous path, which is illuminated solely by the occasional rays of light cast by ancient literature. Il has been asserted by many, and, for example, by Merzdorf, that there existed an Aeolo- Doric period. This favorite assump- tion rests upon a probability that is purely specious, and has flourished upon the sterile soil of reverence for Strabo from the time of Salmasius to the present day. Its correctness has never been demonstrated by a detailed investigation, nor is it easily supportable by any more cogent argument than that in a both Aeolic and Doric have preserved a common inheritance, and that they retained F with greater tenacity than the lonians. But these considerations, together with some other minor points of agree- ment, by no means prove the existence of an Aeolo- Doric unity in any determinable prehistoric period, much less elevate such a unity to that degree of certainty sufficient to serve as a basis for exact dialectological investigation. Thoui^h Merzdorf accepts this unity as an incontrovertible fact, he fails to show that the Boeotian dialect, with its mixture of Aeolic and Doric forms, stands in direct succession to this primitive Aeolo-Doric period.' If, then, this contingent of Aeolic and Doric forms cannot be demonstrated to be an heirloom of an Aeolo-Doric period, it is necessary to take refuge in the theory of dialect intermixture through the agency of the influence of one race upon another. The opinion has prevailed in many quarters that the inhabitants of Boeotia were originally Doric, and that they were Aeolized at the time of the irruption of the "Boeotians" from Arne in Thessaly, whence they were driven by the Thesprotians under 'Merzdorf finds four characteristic marks of the Aeolo-Doric period: i. The treatment of -fw as -lu verbs. 2 ev for f/f. 3 nip for ntpi. 4. Dat. plur. in -Eaai. Tlie incorrectness of all these assumptions will be shown later on, when we come to a discussion of the intermixture of dialects in Central Nortli (jreece. Merzdorf assumes that in the Aeolo-Doric period tlie Dorians, who remained in North Cireece, were more closely connected with the Aeolians than the I'eloponnesian Dorians, i. f. that the North-Doric dialect is one of the bridges which lead from the Aio/./f to the A«J/<'f. 7 Thessahis. Thucydides (I 12) says that, sixty years after the fall of Troy, the Boeotians, havino^ been expelled by the Thessalians, took possession of the land, which was now called Boeotia, but which before had been called Cadmeis, wherein there had previ- ously dwelt a section of their race, which had contributed their continy^cnt to the Trojan war. The latter statement is evidently a makeshift to bring his account into harmony with Homer, who recognizes the Boeotians as inhabitants of Boeotia, The account of Pausanias varies from that of Thucydides in that he relegates the immigration of the Boeotians to a period ante- rior to the Trojan war, and Ephorus states that the invading force was composed of the Boeotians from Arne, and of Cadmeans who had been expelled from Boeotia by the Thracians and Pelasgians. The theory of Thucydides that the Boeotians in their ingression from Thessaly into Boeotia were returning to their ancestral dwelling-place is evidently an invention, coined in the workshop of fiction, and failing to show that the Boeotians were of Aeolic stock. A similar inversion of historical fact is seen in the legend that the Aetolians " returned " to Elis at the time of the return of the Heraclidae. The atmosphere which Greek histo- rians breathed was surcharged with " returns " of expatriated tribes. Though tradition is adduced pointing to an invading force of Aeolic blood, and though it has been assumed that this force was successful in subduing a Doric race in Boeotia, traces of whose language worked their way into the speech of the conquerors, it cannot be said that these suppositions have either been made con- vincing or even possible. According to Brand, the latest writer on the subject, all those Dorisms which appear in the Boeotian dialect are either survivals of the Doric speech of the conquered inhabi- tants, or are importations from the neighboring communities to the west. Whatever may be said of the plausibility of the latter assertion, which will not be overlooked later on, the grotesque ingenuousness of his argument that, because in all the cantons of Northern Greece, except that of Thessaly, at the time of Alexander the Great, there obtained a dialect which presents the same general Doric characteristics, therefore such must have been the case in prehistoric times, needs no refutation.' Inasmuch as all previous 'The substructure of Brand's theory of a pan-AeoIic dialect is constructed of the flimsy materials of gratuitous assumption and a marvellous readiness to take refuge in that most pliable of arguments — the argiimentutn ex sileiilio. 8 treatises on the dialect of Boeotia have failed to investigate the source of its dialect-mixture, an examination of this problem may not be without value. Upon the arrival of the expatriated Arneans in Boeotia, they found there a mixed population, of which the Cadmeans and the Minyae certainly formed a portion. (The Thebans are said to have taken possession of their land — a-v^iiiKrovi rli'^pcoTroiT e^fXdo-niTer.) Busolt denies that the Cadmeans were of Phoenician origin, though it is impossible to tell with any certainty to what race they belonged. It is, however, probable that upon their expulsion they settled in Claros, Laconia, in Melos and in Thera. Tradition informs us that Erchomenos, the city of the Minyae, of which Athamas, the son of Aeolos, was king, was connected with lolcos' in Thessaly, an Aeolic city, called an fJn-ocKia of the Minyae. If we remember that the seats of the Minyae were originally on the Pagasaean Gulf and that they emigrated thence to the Copaic valley, we cannot fail to see that Boeotia and Thessaly were originally united into one territorial district.' Athamas was worshipped as a hero at AIos in Achaea Phthiotis, having a chapel connected with the temple of Zeus Laphystios.' Here human sacrifice had been permitted — an importation from Boeotia, where it had been introduced by Phoenicians. In Boeotia and in Phthiotis was an 'Adafiuvnov TreStS*'. Near the Boeotian Coroneia was a tem[)le dedicated to the Itonian Athena; a similar temple near a town called Itonus existed in Thessaly ; cf. Grote, Chap. XVIII. The architectural remains of the Minyae at Ercho- menos are testimonials of Aeolic genius contemporaneous with those at Mycenae. The Achaeans were an aIoXikw fdfos ; and the Dorians did not develop at this remote period any architectonic greatness. When the new-comers from Thessaly took possession of Boeotia, the Minyae fled to Lemnos, Phocaea and Teos, and thence to Triphylia in Elis.* Pelias of lolcos. and Neleus of Pylos, which was identified with the Triphylian Pylos, were brothers (X 254). Busolt (Griech. Geschichte, I 95) finds it difficult to explain the origin of the settlement of the Minyae in Triphylia, and character- izes the Elean dialect as " related to the Arcadian." The Arcadians, 'Jason, leader of the .\rgonaiits from lolcos, was one of the Miny.xe. *See Curtiiis, Hist. Greece, American reprint, I 100. ' In Hoeolia Zeus Lajihystios liad a temple near Erchomenos. * Hdt. IV 145-49. ~<>'(i/io^ Mtvvr/tn(, \ 722. 9 it is true, are said by Strabo to have been the earhest inhabitants of Triphylia. But, if the Minyae were of Aeolic stock,' as is sup- posed by Fick (Ilias, p. 568), their settlement in Elis would explain that mixture of Aeolic and North Doric which is one of the chief peculiarities of the Elean patois. Aetolians setded in Elis, under the leadership of Oxylus, at the time of the return of the Heraclidae. If these Aetolians brought with them a dialect not dissimilar to that of Locris, we understand why the Eleans displayed such a fondness for a before p, as in Fapyov, Trap ; for a as in Pparpa and irarap, phonetic aberrations found chiefly in Locris as regards a, and in Locris alone as regards the a. Furthermore, we then comprehend such unmistakable traces of North-Doric influence as the dative-locative in -01 in the o decl., -on dat. pi. cons, decl., or for from Thessalv. 13 barbarians, modern investigation has determined that of the northern tribes some were wholly barbarous, while the southern tribes at least were Hellenized. If, however, the Thesprotians under Thessalus, presumably in the eleventh century, were the source of the admixture of Doric elements in the Aeolic of Thes- saly, and perhaps of Boeotia, we cannot doubt but that the Epiroteswere on a footing of ethnic equality with the other Hellenes, nor refuse to allot them a place among the sections of that Doric race which afterwards was split into a northern and a southern division. In history the Epirotes play no part till the rise of the Molossi under Pyrrhus; and in i68 B. C. they were subdued by the Romans. Acarnofiia. The earliest inhabitants were Leleges and Curetes, the former of whom had originally their habitations in Caria. Tradition points to early settlements under Cypselus from Corinth, and Blass has declared that the Acarnanian dialect is nothing more than an imported Corinthian, a declaration which he has unfortu- nately not yet proved. The Acarnanians were at all times the bitter opponents of the Aetolians, serving as auxiliaries under Philip of Macedon after 220, to which fact they owed their fall in 197. Aetolia. Curetes, Leleges and Hyantes are stated to have been the original settlers of Aetolia. At the period of the tribal revo- lutions Aeolians from Thessaly forced their way in to settle near Pleuron and Calydon, and Epirotes came from the northwest to augment the number of immigrants. The Aetolians were the earlv settlers of Elis under Oxylus, though tradition fixed the original seat of the Aetolians in Elis ('HXeiai/ TrpoyonKiji/). Thucydides, III 94, makes the uncanny statement in reference to the Aetolians, ayvmoTaToi Se yXaJacraf eiVi Kiii d>fMO(f)(iyoi, o)s Xeyovrai. If thlS asser- tion be true, which is doubtful on account of the qualification, it can readily be referred to the inhabitants of Aetolia eTriKTr]Tos. The eastern Greeks evidently had a fragmentary knowledge of their western brethren, whom they characterized as semi- barbarians because they failed to keep pace with themselves in the race for intellectual development. If we may trust the evidence of the inscriptions (cf. especially Coll. 1413), which flatly contradicts the self-asserting superiority of other more favored tribes, there did not fail to exist, even in this western canton, some love of sculpture and of poetry. The Aetolian league disseminated for almost a century its Kayizleistyl o\'er a large part of Greece and the Archi- 14 pelago (Ceos, Teos). In Laconia (Cauer - 30, 32) we find traces of Aetolian forms in inscriptions otherwise composed in pure Laconian. In Phocis (Delphi was subject to the Aetolians from 290 to 191), Locris, South Thessaly, are inscriptions varying in no important particular from those discovered in Aetolia itself. One possibility must, however, not be suppressed — the dialect presented in the inscriptions may not be the native dialect of the inhabitants. As the Macedonian official language is separated by a chasm from the speech of the people, which suffered one of the earliest recorded Lautverschiebiingen on European soil, so the judicial language of the Aetolian league may fail to present to us those delicate nuances of vowel and consonantal coloring which are the bone and sinew of a genuine " dialect." The ever-increasing sway which this Aetolian state-speech exer- cised throughout Hellas was a potent factor in the dissolution of the ancient cantonal idioms. So complete, indeed, appeared the authority of this dialect at the time of Ahrens, that he was misled into the assertion that North Doric was merely an extension of Aetolian Doric, an assertion proved to be false by the Locrian tables, and by the Delphic decrees of manumission.' The Aenianes were genuine Hellenes and closely related to the Myrmidons and Phthiote Achaeans. Their original habitation is supposed to have been Thessaly, though in historical times they occupied the valley of the Spercheios, covering in part the territory embraced by the ancient Phthia. From 279 to 195 they were members of the Aetolian league. The inscriptions from the southernmost Thessalian quarter, Phthiotis, bear such unmistakable traces of North-Doric influence that the opinion of Fick, who has collected and commented upon them in Coll. II 1439-1473, cannot be upheld, though supported by the authority of Kirchhoff (Alphabet ^ 138), and Meister (Dia- lecte, I 289). These scholars all hold that the inscriptions afford a true picture of the Phthiote dialect. The inconsistency of Fick's opinion is manifest when we remember that he assumed the Doric dialect of the invaders from Epirus to have succumbed to that of the subjected Aeolians in North Thessaly. Here, however, in Phthiotis, where the pulse of Aeolic life must have beaten with the greatest vigor, where dwelt the Phthiote Achaeans, close to Phthia, the home of the Myrmidons and of Achilles, who was undoubt- ' There is no foundation for Giese's statement that the language of Aetolia was Aeolic. 15 edly an Aeolian of the Aeolians — here we are asked to accept a complete submerging of the Aeolic dialect and its replacement by a foreign speech. On the contrary, I hold that we have to maintain that the linguistic peculiarities presented by the inscriptions are the record of the political domination of the Aetolians. Despite the complete ascendency of the official language of the Aetolians, traces of the original native speech may have forced their way through, since the patronymic formations in -to? — the surest crite- rion of the Aeolic dialect — in Nos, 1453, 1460, 1473 need not be explained as importations from any one of the three northern provinces of the Terpapxia. Whatever may have been the original form of the dialect of Phthiotis, so far as our epigraphical testi- mony allows us to judge, its present status is completely North Doric. Thus, for example, we find eeaaaXmv No. 1444 (183 B. C), and Ka>Q)i/ No. 1459 (160 B. C), the North-Thessalian forms being YlerdaXovv and Kdfjiovp. The following table presents the chief characteristics of the dialects of Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, of the Aenianes and of Phthiotis : ' I. rt for F in Lapo(jivXaK(.)v Aetol. hpOQ is also Aetolian and Acarnanian. There is no trace of "Apra/u^. 2. ev- <[ hf in ^ivog, etc. ev^Kovra Oetaea. 3. 'AireXlalog Oetaea. 4. in (koKolku Aetol. ; cf. OeotoMu Plato's Leges. 5. There is no trace of i for e in Ecrta. 6. v in bvvfia Aetol., bvofm in all the other dialects of this group ; bvo/ia is also Aetolian. 7. n, as in Peloponnesian Doric and Aeolic. Oedpog and Oeupog^Aetol. TlarpoKAiag is a form declined according to the analogy of the a decl. 8. Hellenic 7 is everywhere preserved, with the exception of eyK-amv, Epirus, and (probably) elpdva, found in all these dialects. The ingression of t; from the kolvt/ is comparatively rare. 9. The genuine diphthong « appears as e in Aio-iOrig (Epirus), Aio7TEi[lkor'] Acarn. ; iidv has the form ndv (Epirus). Uocjeiduvi is the South-Thessalian form. 10. Spurious ei and not spurious // is the result of compensatory lengthening of f before vg. evf is reduced to rv. 11. Spurious ov from ovg ; opfzzop except in Aupijuaxog Acarn. Aetol. 12. -ui is either (i) preserved, or (2) reduced to -u or -01 (or 01 may be regarded as the loc). 13. r]i- has frequently lost the iota adscriptum, 14. Contraction of vowels: ea uncontracted or contracted to ?/ ; ee contracted to ft ; er/ contracted to v in -/cX^ ', £o uncontracted or con- tracted to ov, EV ; ao uncontracted or contracted to w ; aa uncontracted or contracted to a ; 00 uncontracted or contracted to ov, u in ^Apiarug; aE uncon- tracted; oE contracted to ov ; au contracted to a ; eu uncontracted. 15. f in but two examples, pEidvg, farrldaQ (both Epirotic).- 16. v for vv (?) in ivtjKovra ' I have included in this table certain Oetaean forms of interest. We possess, unfortunately, no inscriptions from Doris, the metropolis of the Laconians and Messenians. ^ Meister, I, p. io6, quotes as Acarn. the form foivia.Sa.1., which does not occur in the in- scriptions. 16 Oetaean. Kopvuf =: Tropi-uxji Oti. Strabo XIII 1,64. 17. 5 for a once. 18. Declension : (l) a decl. gen. sing. -"C. -" ; gen. pi. -av. (2) decl. gen. sing. -ov ; dat. sing, -ui, -01, -u ; accus.pl. -o?,'f. (3) -ff decl. gen. sing, -eof, -of once ; -Off in 2w«/)d70T'f Aetol., -eouf in N/vf/w/vyiar/m'f Phth. ; dat. sing, -ei ; accus. sing, -ea, -ti. (4) -tvg decl. gen. -eoq (-fwr late); dat. ei, Ati and At ; accus. -fa, -}) ; gen. pi. -ewv. (5) -i( decl. gen. sing, -tof ; dat. sing, -l, el ; nom. pi. -/ef. (6) -u decl. gen. -wf and ovg. 19. -o, which we noticed as being a cliief peculiarity of the Olympian inscriptions ; ^. ^^. hfiapa, pEmrdpLnq, Tzardpn. 2. Contractions : n -\- t :=z ?/ ; a -j- o :zi d ; a -(- 6> zz Tt, w ; £ -|- e rz £/ ; o -j- o zr w ; o-\-f^o); E -\- o, t-[-7/do not suffer contraction, and f -|- « in neut. pi. -ff stems (nom. -»f) is uncon traded. 3. The frequency of the use of 9 ^'^fl •^ (fori, ftKaoTor). 4. err for r;'/, found also in Thessaly, Boeotia and Elis; e. j^. dpfnrai, E/.fcro), XPV^'"-'- 5- l^t: ]iosition of the dialect between the ^lU.ural and the i)aavi'Tii<.ni; e. ^i^''. o, a, o'l, yiLj/j ; a}tii\ 6. o.decl. has gen. sing, in -w, accus. pi. in -dix (traces of this in Delphic are very problematical). 7. ei, ov, not 7j, 0) from compensatory lengthening. 8. The flexion of the -fw verbs as -fu verbs in hKaAEifiEvog. 9. ^ in the fut. and aorist of -s(j verbs. 10. Preposi- tions: £v for Eig ; tto, ttu'l ; Trip ; e zr: tvc. 11. Dat. pi. consonantal decl. in -o/f ; e. o". fiEiavoiq, XaAetioic. The later stratum of forms presents the general Doric character of the western group, all the remarkable peculiarities of the older stratum having disappeared.' Contraction of vowels is more frequent, f ceases to appear, there is no a for e before p. In this later development of the dialect there is one essential difference between the dialect of Opuntian and that of Ozolian Locris : the former alone has -eaa-i in the dative plural of consonantal stems (xp'iiJ-itreaai, about 200 B. C). This characteristic mark of the Aeolic dialect is found from Mount 01y?.ipus throughout Boeotia, Opuntian Locris and Delphi, but is unable to force its way across the boundary into the territory of Ozolian Locris. A survey of the dialect of Phocis, including that of Delphi, which contains some few peculiarities of its own, will complete our review of the speech of Northern Hellas. The oldest monuments of the Phocian dialect are inscription No. 1537 (Crissa), which Kirchhoff assigns to the sixth century as the earliest possible date, ' The inscriptions of the Ozolian Locris contain the same dialectic features as those of Opuntian or Hypocnemedian Locris. 18 and No. 1531 (Elatea), which must be of considerable anticjuity, as it has the labial spirant in FavaKtian. Of the Delphic dialect the oldest monuments are Cauer''' 203, which contains the form Fi^, and No. 204. 380 B. C. As the manumission decrees of Delphi present more peculiarities than the inscriptions of the rest of Phocis, I give here a summary of the dialect of the former, noticing when the Phocian monuments register actual differences : I. a in Kfj ; there are but few cases of ar, these occurring after the birih of Christ, u'l in the oracle licit. IV 157 and C- 204 ; all later inscriptions have n'l. la/joc and u7)of in the oldest Uelphic inscription. ^ Aprafiirug, (UiTf>6~in^. 4. v; orvfia, evih'c. 5. v ; t -\- lo := f, -oiaav. Imperative -VTuv in the oldest inscr., later -vru and -nav. Intin. in -fv, (pipev, h'oiKiv D., Phocis -Eiv or -//v (av?if/v, i-iTiitf/v D.), elut:i\ a-o(^ou£i\ Participle : /lac'riytjuv avAr/ovreg, ■Kmeijievog, jp£//^ci'Of. 14. Prep., etc.: ^a, ~f/> in 7rf/)0(5of, ~oi, kv cum accus.; el, olt; " whither " D. ; Elision is more frequent in D. than in Locrian. This presentation of the phenomena of North-Greek speech, which affords a complete summary of the prominent features of each dialect, has now placed us in a position to gain a wider horizon in our estimate of the interrelation of the various dialects of this e.xtensive territory. The entire region north of the Pelo- ponnesus, with the exception of Attica and Megara, was the seat of two great dialects : (i) the Aeolic in the east, foimd originally in Tliessaly and in Boeotia, where, through tribal revolutions and later dialect mixture, it has become strongly interfused with Dorisms, and (2) the North Doric, found in comparative purity, il we consider the paucity and late date of the inscriptions, in Western Greece, /. e. from the eastern confines of Aetolia to the west and northwest. This dialect contains no Aeolisms what- 19 ever. Between the two — the Aeolic of the east and the North Doric of the west— lies the Doric of the centre, a Doric essen- tially of the same character as that of the west, though from its greater antiquity presenting peculiarities not found elsewhere. The Doric of the west and the Doric of the centre of North Greece presents so many characteristic features which are identical, that it can hardly be deemed an assertion devoid of improbability if we maintain that no small portion of the Doric peculiarities of the Locrian idiom must have been a common heritage of the Dorians who remained in North Greece, and that, if we possessed epigraphic testimony from Aetolia or Epirus of the sixth or fifth centuries, or even such of a later date but of an unofficial type, we should discover manv of those phenomena which are now held to be the distinctive property of Locris or Phocis ; e. g. the Locrian geni- tives in -o). The peculiar nature of the North Dorisms, mixed with Aeolisms, in the Elean dialect substantiates the above hypothesis ; for, had the Aetolians, at the time of their emigration to Elis, used as a vehicle of expression no other form of the dialect than that found in the inscriptions of their canton, those distinctive North-Greek features of Elean could never have been introduced by their agency. We may, indeed, conjecture that the official language ol the in- scriptions—a language reduced to the dead level of a monotonous Dorism— does not represent the language of the people, but such a conjecture does not militate against the probability of the assumption that originally there was but one North Doric, varied no doubt here and there by cantonal preferences, but spoken by Locrians and Aetolians alike. By this assumption alone can the Doric ingredient in the mixture of dialects in Elis be explained. There now remains but one problem for our consideration— the interrelation of the North-Doric and Aeolic elements in the speech of Locris and Phocis. There are thr e possible solutions to this difficult question: (i) The Aeolisms embedded in the Doric of Phocis and Locris are loan-formations from the Aeolic of the east or northeast, or (2) they are the result of independent generation, or (3) they are relics of an Aeolo-Doric period. To the impossi- bility of demonstrating the existence of such a period, and of the inadvisability of attributing to it, if demonstrated, any potency in the settlement of mooted questions, reference has already been made. If, at the time of Homer, or of the return of the Heraclidae, Aeolic and Doric were cleft asunder, to what re- 20 moter period sliall we then penetrate to discover a unity which shall throw a flood of lii^ht upon the existence of sporadic phenomena at variance with the genius ot the dialect in whicli they appear — phenomena that belong; to a period at least a thousand years after this supposed Aeolo-Doric unity? Perhaps no argu- ment could be better adapted to strengthen Schmidt's " wave- theory " than the indefensibility of such assumptions as those of Merzdorf and others.' Shall the dialectologist. supported solely by the elusive testimonv at his command, arrogate to himself the right to establish periods in the prehistoric life of Hellas, from which even the historian or ethnographer recoils ? If I read aright the march of Greek dialectological investigation, one tendency at least is apparent : the assumption of an original unity of tribes, that later on enjoyed a separate existence, is only then available as a sure basis for further speculation when such a unity is elevated beyond the possibility of a doubt. When a causa cfficiens for dialect mixture^ can be found in tribal migrations attested by the evidence of antiquity, such evidence cannot be neglected. But the assumption of dialect mixture, even when we can show no historical testimony to the special influence of one tribe upon another, or the assumption of independent generation, is invariably preferable to any theory of great tribal unities designed to solve all difficulties as a dens ex rnachina. By the '' independent generation " of a form in a Greek dialect, I understand the genesis of a form which is alien to the genius of the dialect in which it appears, and which is controlled in the last instance by the forces of analogy. As language con- stantly renews her processes, it is possible that the same tendency to create a given form may arise independently in different locali- ties which stand in no interrelation. Such an analogical iorma- tion may have arisen, for example, in the dialect of Locris many years after a similar form "^ ion was called into existence in the dialect of Lesbos, and at a time when the forces that caused the Lesbian formation had become impotent in Lesbos. I assert, then, in opposition t-T each and every scholar who is of the opinion that the Aeolisms of Locris and Fhocis are survivals of an Aeolo-Doric unity, that neither is the testimony of antiquity ' nor ' Prof. Allen no longer accepts the views adopted by l)im in Curt. Stud. Ill, 1870. * The Gortynian inscription offers some reinarkable instances of dialect mixture ; e. 1^ ilie Aeolic *<;, 'tin, vtfid, okvi, t/I/i'/. 'Straho rcj^arded the Doric as a part of the .'\coIic dialect (7//I' (U- Supit^a 21 is the evidence of Greek dialectology able to establish as valid any such unity ; on the contrary, I maintain that all these Aeolisms are either loan-formations or are the result of independent genera- tion. The delimitation of the extent of dialect mixture is as difficult as the delimitation of that of independent generation ; and that it is olten difficult to determine whether we shall assign a given form to one or to the other of these causes, cannot be held to militate against the validity of my position. Connection between Boeotia and Phocis or Locris is co ipso probable, and is attested in many ways ;' 'Ep;^o/net/o$- in a Delphic inscription preserves the epichoristic spelling of the later '0/,;^oyufrof. Hartmann attributes to the Boeotian dialect a vigorous influence in coloring the Doric of the west, but as he fails to support his assertions by any arguments that savor of cogency, we are not loath to characterize as incredible his statement that the datives in -01 in Delphic are a loan-formation, since there are about 30 instances of -01, over 1000 in -wi. It h;is been assivried that the -ot's repre- sent an orthographical error, an assertion as far from the truth as that they are Boeotisms. Traces of Boeotian influence have been seen in Apu^ui's and in eVSi-?, for ApofjLuvs (cf. ApnfxeCs, Apo/^m?) and eVSor, which is ascribed to the Dorians, Anecd. Ox. II 162, 10. But, though the darkening of o to v is found in Boeotian (Aiov' tpflo Megara CIG I, 1064 — all these forms make clear the folly of attaching to a single dialect an occurrence of such general character.'' The dative pi. in -on in the cons. decl. is found in Aetolian, Locrian and Delphic, and also in Boeotian (nyvi), the isolated ' Cf. old Irish i{n), Germ, in, old Pruss. e/t, Lilli. in, /. ^ Kepiuiev is also Delphic, C* 204, 18 — the same inscription in which Tripodog occurs, nip is also Thessalian, in wiiicii dialect the full form does not exist. *Cf. a/if in Homer, a/KJii in Attic. 23 position of which leads us to regard it as an importation from the west, though the possibility of its being a native growth should not be suppressed. This analogical formation, like that of -(T(w in the imperfect, testifies merely to the loosening of the old rigidity of inflection, and is not the exclusive property of any dialect, since it appears in Messenian, late Laconian, Sicilian, Arcadian, Cretan, and perhaps in Lesbian. That -faai is not Aeolo-Doric is clear from the fact that, apart from the Homeric and Lesbian formations, it occurs only in Boeotian and in Thessalian. There is no trace whatsoever of -f(T(Ti in any inscription of Peloponnesian Doric, and in North Greece it comes to light only as far west as the western boundary of Phocis. If this form were Aeolo Doric, its appearance be> ond this boundary and elsewhere would have followed as a consequence. The Delphic forms are not necessarily loan-formations, as they may be representatives of the forces of an.-'ogy inherent in each separate dialect, -eam occurs in inscription^ of Corcyra, Megara, in Theocritus and in Archimedes. The result of this investigation may now be briefly stated : L The eastern part of North Greece was originally the abode of an Aeolic race whose dialect survived in Thessaly till the latest times. In Boeotia the incursion of a foreign Doric element was not so successfully resisted as in the case of Thessaly, and it is to the influence of this foreign element that we owe, both in Thessaly and Boeotia, the existence of Doric forms, though thereby the possibility of later accessions is not denied. II. The dialect of the extreme western part of North Greece is pure North Doric, and absolutely free from the contamination of Aeolisms. III. The dialects of Central North Greece are substantially North Doric in character ; the Aeolisms whch they contain are not survivals of an Aeolo-Doric period, but aie purely adventitious, and their appearance is traceable up to certain definite limits. IV. Conformity to general usage, and not an accurate termino- logy, dictates my expression " dialect of Epirus," etc., though care must be taken to assert that, in the five cantons, Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, the canton of the Aenianes and Phthiotis, there obtained at the period subject to our control but one " dialect," distinguished here and there by minute local landmarks. I see herein a proof of the correctness of the theory of Joh. Schmidt (or of Paul Meyer, if he has the prior claim of being its originator), in so far 24 as it maintains that the term "dialect" refuses to be restricted to any limited centre of si)ccch. In any theory of dialects which are ever subject to a Heraclitean flux, especially if not subjected to the restraining hand of a written literature, chronological con- siderations are of an importance that cannot be underestimated. Therefore, while for a later period of the dialect-life of Hellas the expression "dialect" is one of peculiar rclativeness, it is a justifi- able term for certain aggregations of morphological and syntactical phenomena in the earlier periods of language, when dialect-relations were more sharply dehned. Schmidt's theory is undoubtedly popular, though it has suffered trenchant criticism, notably at the hands of Fick, but I doubt whether it can ultimately hold ground. If it were rigorously enforced, it might deprive of all individual existence so strongly colored an idiom as that of Boeotia or Thes- saly, Locris or Delphi. The restriction of the term "dialect " to narrow geographic.^', limits may convey, and has conveyed, erroneous conceptioi.^' concerning the nature of a dialect, but the boundaries which enclose a dialect in the true sense of the word are not necessarily coextensive with those dictated by geographical configuration or by the exigencies of state policy. This investigation, then, is not without its significance, inasmucli as it casts a light — dimmed, it is true, by the poverty of material at our command — upon the contention between two theories of the interpretation of dialectical phenomena. It shows us that we cannot cast aside the Sianunbauinsihcorie engrafted upon Greek by the Darwinism of Schleicher, and still defended by Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, even though the practical difficulties in the way of its absolute adoption seem well-nigh insurmountable. If, too timid, we struggle to avoid being dashed against the Scylla of Schleicherism, we may be drawn into the Charybdean waves of Schmidt's Wellenthcirie. The cardinal feature of this consists, according to one of its n'.ost keen-sighted adherents,' in its assump- tion : " Dass sie (Schmidt's Theorie) cine allniahliche Dijfercn- zicruiii^ des urspr'un^Uch in (ontinuieylichcr Reihe verlaufenden Sprachgcbielcs anninwil unci cicar cine Dijfcfcnzierjaii^ dnrch diakklische N£iierunf;^cn,die an verschicdcncn S/e/lcn des iirspi i'tm;- lichen Gcbietes aufkommen tind von dcm Punktc Hirer Ent^tchun^ aus an/ das bcnachbarie Gcbict sick vcrbreiicn." The adoption of such an exi^lanation not only of the I.-E. languages, but also of the Greek dialects, may lead us to see the cause whereby sub-dialect ' Colliu ill Vcrwancltschaftsvcilialtnissc dcr griccliisclicii Di.ilckto, 1SS5. 25 may lead to sub-dialect, and how each dialect may thus be bound together with the life of another by a "continuous series of minute variations." But we are confronted in the science of Greek dialec- tology with phenomena dating from historical periods ; for these phenomena we must seek a historical explanation as far as is per- mitted by the dim light of history. The wave-theory regards as merely interesting confirmations of its suppositions those causes of differentiation of a linguistic territory which to its opponents are the very sinew of the genealogical theory. It may well be questioned whether Schmidt's theory does not confuse those pro- cesses which caused dialects originally to come into existence, and those processes which give birth to phenomena that have become in historical times the property of two adjacent dialects which have flourished for a long period of time. Peculiarities which link together two dialects may be ascribed to the influence of one upon the other ; but in periods antedatin. all historical ken the influence of a neighboring speech-territory -".eed not necessarily have been the cause of dialectic peculiarities. ; ■__ If linguistic phenomena alone be taken as the point of departure, we must confess that we thereby seek a refuge in a sauve qui peut, and renounce that ideal whose every patient endeavor aims at discovering in the disieda membra of dialect-speech a clue that will reinforce those utterances of antiquity which make for the intimate connection between parent-stock and the offspring which, in periods subject to conjecture alone, left an ancestral home. This ideal in dialectology is as important a guiding motive as the ideal of the freedom from exception to phonetic law is in the science of comparative philology. We have, then, at least no mean purpose, if we search for the golden thread that shall lead us to an expla- nation of the genealogy of each separate tbrm. With this ideal in view we may perhaps discover that, when the forms of adventitious growth have been separated from those wi ich are indigenous, it is not impossible to construct genealogical trees for the Greek dialects, which will stand in harmonious interdependence. If we endeavor to sift the material which a kind chance has preserved to us, and believe that terra mater noua miracula suis ex uisceribus num- quam emittere cessabit, we may trust that a solution may not be far off" for many problems which the vigorous dialect-life of Hellas presents. Herbert Weir Smyth. i THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. ^^B-Q no 23Jnn^59Mff IVi--*^ yz:^ JAN Ifi 1959 subject to recall after- ^ vo ^■ OCJ ., mm ^i 78 MAY 1 4 1977 # Ju~j'^(, ('?■^-:^ t-i/ff^ l-i^ii/m A-c/.Vy^k»j- ili8>!'» • rt ^ ^ *^ (t £C CI R . OCT ?0 77 LD 21-100;H-7,':ti)(402s) U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES CD^7D^S3^7