the dialects of north greece

8/2/2019 the Dialects of North Greece

1/26

The Dialects of North GreeceAuthor(s): Herbert Weir SmythReviewed work(s):Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1886), pp. 421-445Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/287208 .

Accessed: 11/02/2012 15:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/287208?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/287208?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/26

AMERICANJOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

VOL. VII, 4. WHOLE NO. 28.

I.-THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.1The statement of Strabo (VIII I, 2, p. 333) 7raV7rE o0 yap KTOSr

'IaOL9ov7rXT)vA0rvaaiwv Kan Meyapeov KaL Tirv 7repl roTi Hapvao-rov AOopdwvKal vvv E'r AloXetsKaXovvrat is a statement which epigraphic testimonyproves to contain an illegitimate use of AtoXev, but which is doubt-less to be explained by reference to that plastic use of tribal namesthe most patent case of which is the extension of the term 'EXX7vEy.By the Greeks before Aristotle Thessaly was regarded as thecradle of the Greek race, and bore originally, i. e. before the incur-sion of the Thesprotians under Thessalus, the name ALoX\l. Thisincursion gave the impetus to a series of revolutions in tribal rela-tions which it is impossible for the historian to control withcertainty. The AloXISAv 7ro'XLsn Phocis on the way from Daulis toDelphi (Hdt. VIII 35), and the territory of Pleuron and Calydon,called AloXtL, n Southern Aetolia, received in all probability theirnames from exiled Aeolians. In the case of Pleuron (inXevpCvia)such a conjecture has at least the testimony of antiquity in itsfavor (Strabo X 3, 6, p. 465), and, as Meister remarks, the state-ment of a historian in Steph. Byz., EV fTvrot aWPLEV(L AlrOXol, canreadily be brought into agreement with the assertions of Thuc.III 102, and the scholion on Theocr. I 56 (ALoXisyap ? AirwoXL),byregarding the Doric Aetolians as the inhabitants of the apXaiaAlIToXla. The passage from Strabo quoted above is the onlyauthority which affixes to the inhabitants of northwestern andnorth-central Greece the name Aeolic. On the other hand, theconsentient testimony of the ancients regarded Thessaly andBoeotia alone as Aeolic, and the grammarians restrict the use of

1Read at the meeting of the American Philological Association held at Ithaca, July, i886.


3/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.the term " Aeolic dialect" to the idiom of Lesbian poetry, veryinfrequently characterizing as Aeolic a form which is Boeotian orThessalian.

Giese (Der aeolische Dialekt, p. I3I) has well remarked, in dis-cussing the difficulties presented by the utterances of the Greeksin reference to their tribal and dialectological relations: "Nichtin den Meinungen der Allen liegen die wahrhaft hisforischenZeugnisse, sondern in ihrer Sprache selbst." If we supplementthis statement by another, which in reality is not excluded by thefirst: " Ohne Riicksicht auf das Leben des Volks ist die Sprach-wissenschaft todt und werthlos" (Fick, Ilias, p. 564), we open upthe two avenues by which the science of Greek dialectology is tobe approached. It will, therefore, in the first instance be necessaryto pass in review the various phenomena which constitute each ofthe cantonal idioms of that wide territory reaching from the AegeanSea to the western part of Epirus, and from Olympus to thesouthernmost parallel of those states washed by the CorinthianGulf. Upon this scientific basis alone can we hope to attain results,the value of which will doubtless be enhanced by the fact that socomprehensive an investigation has as yet not been attemptedin Germany.To establish the position of the dialects of Thessaly and Boeotiaas dialects of North Greece, in their connection with Asiatic-Aeolicand in their relation to one another, I present the following tableof their chief distinctive morphological features.

I.--DIALECT OF THESSALY.A. Peculiarities which belong specifically to Thessaly.i. - for a in di'. 2. ov for o; d has ceased to exist. 3. Kcor in Ktc/. 4. 0

for 0 in feip. 5. rO for 00 in 'Ar6ovetroc. 6. 66 for 6 in iddiav. 7. Gen. sing.-o decl. in -ot.1 8. Demonstr. pron. ove. 9. Infin. pass. in -aOetv. 10. 3 pl.pass. in -vOetv. II. Infin. aor. act. in -oetv. 12. fia for de. 13. 6avxva for(iaPvrq n apXtdavXva?opeiaac. 13. aa for 4 in stLeaviuaooev. I4. -ev in 3 pl. im-perf. aorist (E6oiKnaelutd).

B. Points of agreement with the dialect of Boeotia.I. e for a in Otpaog(O0paog also is Boeot.). 2. et for ,7. 3. A labial for adental: Thess. IIer706Cr-= Boeot. 4erra6?o. 4. A dental surd and aspiratein Thess. = a double dental in Boeot. - ac in Attic. See example under 3.5. 0 for r; EyE'vovOoE?avypv6Oetv Thess., 7rapi'vviv071, k'7oeiaavOo Boeot. 6. 7por6o,for Epar6f. 7. F = v in middle of a word. 8. iLtKKo6 fIKpo6 (gramm.). 9.yivv/zat for yiyvouiat from the analogy of the -vv!uIverbs. The change must havetaken place after the withdrawal of the Asiatic Aeolians. To. Dat. pl. cons.

1 In the Pharsalian inscr. the gen. ends in -ov.

422


4/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.stems in -eaat (also Lesbian). Ir. Inf. in -e,uev (not Pharsalian), Lesbian-,uevat and -ev. 12. Part. perf. Thess. -ovv, Boeot., Lesb. -ov. This is one ofthe proofs that these dialects sprang from a common source. .3. = beforea cons. Thess., Boeot.; sag in B. before a vowel (ie in Lesbian before a cons.,if before a vowel). 14. fv for ei. I5. Patronymics in -ELto,og. 16. PE/3 inB. pelt23,o?eoc, Thess. PfAl ectrat; B. also /po2 in /3oXd,Locrian eizAo/yat. 17.TOriB., Aeolic Traf6,7pEt. I8. Doubling of a before r,;, X. 19. Absence of11pi/,oat. 20. r for a before vowels. 21. Absence of v t0e2h. in the prose in-scriptions.

C. The Thessalian dialect has these points of similarity with Asiatic-Aeolic:I. e for a in 0Opo?o. 2. 1 for E(el) /i0tog. 3. o for a in l =zavd. 4. v for oin a7ri. 5. Assimilation of a liquid with a spirant, it,u. 6. oa for a betweenvowels, eaeacOetv. 7. Dat. plur. conson. decl. in -Eaat. 8. Personal pronoundau/uE,

aityFiovv; Lesb. a/,1e, 6adF(JIw. 9. Contract verbs are treated as -,at verbs; notin Boeotian inscriptions. IO. Part. perf. act. in -ovv,Lesb. -tv. ir. Part. ofthe substantive verb in Eobv-v_=Uv,esb. and Boeot. 12. Article ol, ai. I3. lafor Doric and Ionic tzia,Goth. si, or aeva oivel. The feminine of ercis not foundin any Boeotian literary or epigraphic monument. I4. Ki for av. I5. Thename of the father is indicated by a patronymical adjective in -tog. I6. !tK-K6f= /.itK6g (gramm.). 17. Atovvvao' = Aiolic Z6vvvao. IS. aiv (the accent isuncertain); cf. Lesbic altv, aiv and Boeot. ill, ad. 19. F= v in middle of a word.20. Absence of v 0A6tcK.n non-Kotvenscriptions.

II.-THE DIALECT OF BOEOTIA.A. The Boeotian dialect is akin to that of Lesbos and Aeolis herein:I. e for a, OiepCo, Boeot. also Opaaoc. 2. Be2?Ooi,eol. B2,0ot. 3. o for a,

Crporo^,1 Boeot. also arpatro. 4. TropvtoV for 6rapvtob,Aeol. Hopvointov. 5. v foro, 6vvia (but do6). 6. arepog (gramm.) 7. o + o= to. 8. o-+ a= a. 9. Gen.o decl. in -to. 10. -rto verbs treated as -lit 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. I2. IeUtecrpori6laq B., 7rc/'vtLesb. forrr1Xoae. 13. zituKo=f6tcp6 (gramm.). I4. F-= v in middle of a word (F is.also preserved in B.). I5. d= dt6i. Corinna dta-. I6. Absence of v e2e.Kin the prose inscriptions.

B. The following are the chief peculiarities of the dialect of Boeotia, andnot found either in Thessaly or in Lesbos. (Many later peculiarities are hereincluded.)I. a for e in lapdo, Thessal. tep6r, Aeol. Ipog < lepog or *Z~pog. 2. t for Et

throughout. 3. Accus. pl. o decl. in -to, Aeol. -otn, Thessal. -oc. 4. to fromrcompens. length. This transformation of ovg occurred after the separation ofthe three dialects. 5. ov for v, tovafter X,v and dentals. 6. ov for o in Atovatco-pidav. 7. ot is written oe, v, et. 8. r for at. 9. 7 for f/ in 7rpta-ee,. o10.rr foraa. rI. rr from r7. I2. dr'O,Thessal.,Lesbiandirv. 13. /3avdforyvv)l. yvvatiI This word is one of the few examples in which the relationship of Boeotian and Aeolic isprovenwithout the concurrenceof Thessalian.

423


5/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.is, however, also Boeot. 14. EttEv= 3tIUEv.15. Inflection 6Lttrtl; Lesb., Thess.

eflLtaTO(.C. Divergences between Boeotian and Asiatic-Aeolic:I. Prep. av; Aeol., Thessal. 6v alone; av is the only form in Boeot. andDoric. 2. rerrapf)e; Aeol. T7raavpeg,7raovpeg .. Ktaroc, also Thessal.; Aeol.

KpETo0. 4. Ka, Aeol. Ki; 'Apra7tt, Aeol. 'Ap)TEfzt. 5. et for t throughout.The solitary example of et in Lesbic is 77OteiI/EVOg. 6. t for et throughout. 7.O6romcompensatory length: pw36, AtopltaXe';accus. pl. covyypacgS; fem. part.O2toaa. 8. ov for v, tov after 2.,v and dentals. 9. ov for v. Io. oe, v, et for ot.II. t7 for at. 12. t before vowels t, et. 13. Gen. pl. -aov, Lesb. -av. 14. EE= Boeot. et, Lesb. r7. I5. KaLi+ Boeot. 7, Lesb. a seldom 71. I6. Aeolicb'iaXctgs not found in Boeot. I7. Aeolic /3apvr6vralot.18. Aeolic a(, Boeot.6, d66 ; cf. the Elean ,, which is Doric, not Aeolic. 19. EaCor Lf. 20. tverbs inf.: Boeot. -/tev, Lesb. -9/v, -Ev. 21. duc, dc for Aeol. E(oc. The latter hasbeen attributed to Ionic influence. 22. Imperative -vOw,Lesbic -vrTo. TheBoeotian form is, of course, a later development. 23. Boeot. Trrvre, Aeol.irE/ire. 24. Absence of IdiZto?wat.

D. The dialect of Boeotia differs from that of Thessaly herein. (Manylater peculiarities of B. are here included.)I. iapogB., LEtp6(hess., with the exception of C.2 400, 25 Crannon. 2. av,Thess. 6v. 3. Thessal. change to E in (5ti, FEKe6alof ; Boeot. a. 4. B. rTpor6Cand arparog, Thess. arpar6o. 5. Boeot. o, Thess. ov. 6. et in Boeot. = , Thess.Et. 7. at in Boeot. = 79,Thess. at or Et in the ending -TEl. 8. v in Boeot. - ov,tov, 'hess. v. 9. ot _ Boeot. oe, v, et = Thess. ot. io. e before vowels-Boeot. E, t, Et z Thessal. e, t. I. a - o = Boeot. ao, av, ia Thessal. a. I2. Eo= Boeot. to = Thess. Eo. 13. oo = Boeot. o = Thess. oo in -voof. 14. Thess. cabetween vowels (oeaaOetv) = Boeot. a. I5. Thessal. 0 for X in dpXtdavXva-fopEitaa. I6. Thessal. has no v eqtEXKVr7tI6V. 17. Thess. gemination of nasalsand liquids. 18. avg, ov = Boeot. aC, og = Thess. 6(, oc. I9. -= Boeot. 6, 66_ 'hess. r, aa. 20. oa = Boeot. rr ='Thess. r0, 4rETraX6c, TrerOa6c. 21. . forr in Thess. KmC. 2. Gen. sing. -o decl. =Boeot. t, Thessal. ot. 23. Boeot.rtoa)to = Thess. rrEitcrov. 24. Boeot. Kcd Thess. K,E.

III.-POINTS OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE DIALECTSOF THESSALY, BOEOTIA AND LESBOS.

I. E for a in OEpaoC. 2. Formation of patronymics. 3. Pronunciation of v(probably). 4. Termination of the perf. act. part. (-ov). 5. Participle of thesubstantive verb /) v. 6. Termination -Gaat in consonantal declension. 7. Fin middle of a word = v. 8. Absence of v ?eYEK.n the non-Kotvijprose in-scriptions.

From this summary it is clear that the dialect of Boeotia occu-pies an intermediate position between that of Thessaly and that ofLesbos, is nearer akin to that of Thessaly, and that the dialect of

424


6/26

THE DIALECTS OF NOR'TH GREECE.Thessaly has a distinctively Aeolic coloring.' Aside from thosespecial evolutions in vocalization to which the Boeotian dialectfirst gave graphical expression, and the Aeolisms of Boeotianspeech, there is a remainder of Dorisms the explanationof whichhas offered no inconsiderabledifficultyto the dialectologist.2That the inhabitants of Boeotia and Thessaly were of theAeolic race is proved by the close similarityof their dialects, andby the indisputablebelief of the ancients that the Boeotians wereof kindred race with the Aeolians. Boeotians joined the KrlTaaVreAIoXEZvexpelled by the Dorians,in the emigrationto Aeolis, Lesbosand Tenedos, a union of emigreJs scarcely possible had thereexisted no ties of consanguinitybetween them.Two great tribes occupied Greece north of the CorinthianGulf-the Aeolic in the east, the Doric chiefly in the west and centre,'the Dores themselves being referred to North Thessaly. Fromthat westernelement camethe PeloponnesianDoric as an offshoot.4now expelling the idiom of the original settlers, now absorbingitsforms, which stand out as isolated landmarks of a bygone age(e. g. Iloo''aaa in Sparta, the only example of the ot ablaut in thisname). Though the Locrian dialect offers certain peculiarities,reappearing in Elean, it can nevertheless be adjudged to be adescendant of North-Doric speech.Whether a dialectical separation between Peloponnesian andNorth-Greek Dorians took place at the time of the return of theHeraclidae, or whether they continued to use one and the samespeech, is a question admitting merely a tentative solution, thoughthe latter seems the more probable assumption, since there exist inNorth Doric a few remnants which are parallel to PeloponnesianDoric (gen. ifi -o and -ow).

This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of Collitz's assertion: diethessalischeAIundartbildet . . . die UebeWrangsstufeombootischen un lesbischen,aom lesbischen zum kyprisch-arkadischen und vomr kyprisch-arkadischen zuimbootischenDialekte.2 Wilamowitz-MolIendorf regards the Boeotian idiom as a mixture ofAchaean and Aeolic elements. Of the exact nature of the former we knowtoo little to permit us to treat it as a basis of argumentation. When Aeolicand Doric agree it is difficult to determine to which the phenomenon inquestion is to be referred, e. g. Boeot. gen. in -w.3The authority of Herodotus should not be invoked to militate against thisassertion, since it rests solely on the supposition of the Ionic historian that theDorians alone were originally pure Hellenes. From this zrp)rovipev6ocheconcludes that the Dorians lived in Phthiotis, the seat of Hellen.4The consensus of historical investigation now relegates the wanderings ofthe Dorians to a period anterior to the irruption of the Boeotians.

425


7/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.While the similarity between Thessalian and Boeotian wasrendered more apparent by the dialectological J;p/aov of theinscription from Larissa, their points of difference still await afinal explanation. Upon the solution of the problem whether theoriginal inhabitants of Boeotia were of Aeolic or of Doric blood

depends the exact position of its dialect in its relation not only tothat of Thessaly, but also to that of Western and Central Greece. Weenter here upon a tortuous path, which is illuminated solely by theoccasional rays of light cast by ancient literature.It 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 hasflourished upon the sterile soil of reverence for Strabo from thetime of Salmasius to the present day. Its correctness has neverbeen demonstrated by a detailed investigation, nor is it easilysupportable by any more cogent argument than that in a bothAeolic and Doric have preserved a common inheritance, and thatthey retained P with greater tenacity than the Ionians. But theseconsiderations, together with some other minor points of agree-ment, by no means prove the existence of an Aeolo-Doric unity inany determinable prehistoric period, much less elevate such aunity to that degree of certainty sufficient to serve as a basis forexact dialectological investigation. Though Merzdorf acceptsthis unity as an incontrovertible fact, he fails to show that theBoeotian dialect, with its mixture of Aeolic and Doric forms, standsin direct succession to this primitive Aeolo-Doric period.'If, then, this contingent of Aeolic and Doric forms cannot bedemonstrated to be an heirloom of an Aeolo-Doric period, it isnecessary to take refuge in the theory of dialect intermixturethrough the agency of the influence of one race upon another.The opinion has prevailed in many quarters that the inhabitantsof Boeotia were originally Doric, and that they were Aeolizedat the time of the irruption of the "Boeotians" from Arne inThessaly, whence they were driven by the Thesprotians under

1Merzdorf finds four characteristic marks of the Aeolo-Doric period: 1.The treatment of -w as -JLterbs. 2. ev for Eic. 3. Trp for 'Epi. 4. Dat. plur.in -eavt. The incorrectness of all these assumptions will be shown later on,when we come to a discussion of the intermixture of dialects in CentralNorth Greece. Merzdorf assumes that in the Aeolo-Doric period the Dorians,who remained in North Greece, were more closely connected with the Aeoliansthan the Peloponnesian Dorians, i. e. that the North-Doric dialect is one ofthe bridges which lead from the AioXifto the Aup/l.

426


8/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.Thessalus. Thucydides (I I2) says that, sixty years after the fallof Troy, the Boeotians, having been expelled by the Thessalians,took possession of the land, which was now called Boeotia, butwhich before had been called Cadmeis,wherein there had previ-ously dwelt a section of their race, which had contributed theircontingent to the Trojan war. The latter statement is evidentlya makeshift to bring his account into harmony with Homer,who recognizes the Boeotians as inhabitants of Boeotia. Theaccount of Pausanias varies from that of Thucydides in thathe relegates the immigrationof the Boeotians to a period ante-rior to the Trojanwar, and Ephorus states that the invading forcewas composed of the Boeotians from Arne, and of Cadmeanswho had been expelled from Boeotia by the Thracians andPelasgians. The theory of Thucydides that the Boeotians in theiringression from Thessaly into Boeotia were returning to theirancestral dwelling-place is evidently an invention, coined in theworkshop of fiction,and failingto show that the Boeotians were ofAeolic stock. A similar inversion of historical fact is seen in thelegend that the Aetolians "returned" to Elis at the time of thereturn of the Heraclidae. The atmosphere which Greek histo-rians breathed was surcharged with "returns" of expatriatedtribes.

Though tradition is adduced pointing to an invadingforce ofAeolic blood, and though it has been assumed that this force wassuccessful in subduing a Doric race in Boeotia, traces of whoselanguage worked theirway into the speech of the conquerors,itcannot be said that these suppositions have either been made con-vincing oreven possible. According to Brand, the latest writeronthe subject,all those Dorisms which appear in the Boeotian dialectare either survivalsof the Doric speech of the conqueredinhabi-tants,or are importationsfrom the neighboring communitiesto thewest. Whatever may be said of the plausibility of the latterassertion, which will not be overlooked later on, the grotesqueingenuousness of his argument that, because in all the cantons ofNorthern Greece, except that of Thessaly, at the time of Alexanderthe Great,there obtained a dialect which presentsthe samegeneralDoric characteristics, herefore such must have been the case inprehistorictimes, needs no refutation.1 Inasmuch as all previous

1The substructure of Brand's theory of a pan-Aeolic dialect is constructedof the flimsy materials of gratuitous assumption and a marvellous readiness totake refuge in that most pliable of arguments-the argumentumex silentio.

427


9/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.treatises on the dialect of Boeotia have failed to investigate thesource of its dialect-mixture, an examination of this problem maynot be without value.

Upon the arrival of the expatriated Arneans in Boeotia, theyfound there a mixed population, of which the Cadmeans and theMinyae certainly formed a portion. (The Thebans are said to havetaken possession of their land-a-vtJLuKTovS avOpWJ7rovV&eXa-avr7es.)Busolt denies that the Cadmeans were of Phoenician origin, thoughit is impossible to tell with any certainty to what race they belonged.It is, however, probable that upon their expulsion they settled inClaros, Laconia, in Melos and in Thera. Tradition informs us thatErchomenos, the city of the Minyae, of which Athamas, the son ofAeolos, was king, was connected with Iolcos' in Thessaly, anAeolic city, called an a7rol/cK of the Minyae. If we remember thatthe seats of the Minyae were originally on the Pagasaean Gulf, andthat they emigrated thence to the Copaic valley, we cannot fail tosee that Boeotia and Thessaly were originally united into oneterritorial district.2

Athamas was worshipped as a hero at Alos in Achaea Phthiotis,having a chapel connected with the temple of Zeus Laphystios.'Here human sacrifice had been permitted-an importation fromBoeotia, where it had been introduced by Phoenicians. In Boeotiaand in Phthiotis was an 'AJOali.vrLov rerslov. Near the BoeotianCoroneia was a temple dedicated to the Itonian Athena; a similartemple 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 withthose at Mycenae. The Achaeans were an AiOXLKOYvOvos; and theDorians did not develop at this remote period any architectonicgreatness.When the new-comers from Thessaly took possession of Boeotia,the Minyae fled to Lemnos, Phocaea and Teos, and thence toTriphylia in Elis.4 Pelias of Iolcos, and Neleus of Pylos, whichwas identified with the Triphylian Pylos, were brothers (X 254).Busolt (Griech. Geschichte, I 95) finds it difficult to explain theorigin of the settlement of the Minyae in Triphylia, and character-izes the Elean dialect as " related to the Arcadian." The Arcadians,

1Jason, leader of the Argonauts from Iolcos, was one of the Minyae.See Curtius, Hist. Greece, American reprint, I Ioo.3In Boeotia Zeus Laphystios had a temple near Erchomenos.4 Hdt. IV 145-49. 7rora?oMtvvtoS, A 722.

428


10/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.it is true, are said by Strabo to have been the earliest inhabitantsof Triphylia. But, if the Minyae were of Aeolic stock,' as is sup-posed by Fick (Ilias, p. 568), their settlement in Elis would explainthat mixture of Aeolic and North Doric which is one of the chiefpeculiarities of the Elean patois.Aetolians settled in Elis, under the leadership of Oxylus, at thetime of the return of the Heraclidae. If these Aetolians broughtwith them a dialect not dissimilar to that of Locris, we understandwhy the Eleans displayed such a fondness for a before p, as inFapyov,7rap;for a as in Fparpaand 7rarap, phonetic aberrations foundchiefly in Locris as regards a, and in Locris alone as regards thea. Furthermore, we then comprehend such unmistakable tracesof North-Doric influence as the dative-locative in -ot in the o decl.,-oE dat. pl. cons. decl., r for or0,and perhaps -~e accus. pl. (Delphicand Achaean). The Dorisms which are the common property ofall Doric dialects, and which recur in this dialect, may be ascribedto the same source, e. g. r for ro,c by comp. length, 7ro7t, roKda,TEve-KaTIOL,nfin. in -e^v, though the possibility of the influence of Pelo-ponnesian Doric is not thereby excluded. Strabo testifies to theadmission of Doric elements into the Elean dialect, saying /o-ot tLvovT?i-cr'ov TroEs AOcpLe(tv '7rerLKovTro KaOdirep ateV^E'i T0ro re 'ApKua( Kal Troi'HXetous, roTOLIoXlrTTl eFXeX8Oqrav.f the Minyae who settled in Tri-phylia (Hdt. IV 148) were Aeolic originally (and we need not assumethat they had been Aeolized at Lemnos), their phonetic contingentwas Aeolic, and we perceive whence came the Aeolic stratum inthat remarkable combination of dialectical phenomena known asthe Elean dialect. I refer to the g+XwactseIriapov),to the accus. pl. ofthe a and odecl. in -awsand -oLr e. g. raTp,rop, rhotacism being a laterdevelopment), to the treatment of -co verbs as -ILverbs in KaaaX!7-pevog, though it must be conceded that this too is a peculiarity ofthe Locrian dialect. This theory of the origin of the intermixtureof dialects in Elis (first suggested by Fick), though new, and per-haps destined to excite the hostility of surprise, cannot be dis-missed without an examination of all the arguments that make forthis conclusion.'

I The Asiatic Aeolians were then composed of two contingents: (i) Theexpelled Thessalians and Minyae, who joined the (2) Peloponnesian Aeolians,who reached their destination via Boeotia. The argument that the Minyae wereIonians who brought tc(instead of ki cum genet.), ei', etc., to the Aeolic dialect,is a mere supposition. Duncker (Vs 24), it is true, regards as Ionians thoseexpelled by the Arneans.2Blass lays weight upon the fact that Pisatis was connected with Arcadia

429


11/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.This digression was necessitated by my desire to develop andconfirm the supposition that, of the original inhabitantsof Boeotia,the Minyaeat least were of Aeolic stock.' The name of the inhabit-ants of the land drained by the Cephissuswas in historical timesinter alia ALoXsABoLWroL.Now, the peculiarity of this denomina-tion of a people which formed later on a federalunity, leads to thenot unplausible supposition that herein we have a designation oftwo tribal entities-the Aeolians and the Boeotians; otherwise, itwould be difficult to explain a compound name of this characternot easily paralleledin the domain of Greek ethnography or else-

where in Greek, but occurringin at least one cognate language.If in reality the tribe called BoLoroTwas a part of that body ofDorian Greeks who, as pioneers of a Dorian civilization,left theirwestern home to seek a new habitation in the east, the possibilityof a solution of the problem of dialect-mixturein Boeotiabecomesat once apparent. The Boeotians left Arne in Thessaly eitherbefore or after the Trojanwar-our authoritiesvarying betweenthe one date and the other-but thatthey werenecessarilyAeoliansis farfrom being proved by the sporadic testimony of tradition.Pausanias, X 8, 4, couches his opinion in positive language:

Eo-rraaXLav yap Kal oVTro (oi Bo rooK) rT dpXato'repa &KTcrav Kal AlokXEs fVt-Kavra EKaXovvro, but we have no warrant for the credibility of hissource of information. Thucydides doubtless believed them to beAeolians, since they were "returning"to Boeotia, which was anAeolic country in his opinion. A dispossessed Aeolic peoplewould naturallytake refuge with a kindred race, but their arrivalis signalized not by a fraternalwelcome, but by the expulsion ofthe Minyae, once the most powerfultribe of North Greece. If it begranted that the Arneanswere Aeolians-and we mustconfess thatthe balance of probability according to tradition inclines to thisview-we are driven to the conclusion thatat this turbulentperiod,when the Dores themselves were compelled to vacate their settle-ments, a body of Dorians must have forced their way across theconfinesof Boeotia and become amalgamatedwith the remnantofbefore its conquest by the Eleans in the fifth century. But from Arcadia theElean dialect could have derived but few Aeolic ingredients. The generalfeatures of the Arcadian dialect are widely different from those of Elis;-thus-v for o in trbi,, 2x?v; Eag for i ; iv for v ; 7Tr05or 7rp6c; termination -vat,accus. pl. -roc, ,l, avi, aL, Fievat, change of r to a.1 llev/idrrTo(TevfuarroC) e2,ooi, IHevOebSave been regarded as survivals ofthe original Aeolic, a proof of the long life of proper names, even under theadverse conditions of the supremacy of an alien tribe.

430


12/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTI GREECE.the originalAeolic population. Whence these Dorians came weknow not, if they be not in reality the Arneans.' Doubtless theywere Dorians who had crossed the Pindus-such ultramontaneDoric tribes are not without parallel-and, forced by the laterincursions of the Thesprotians under Thessalus, pressed south-ward to seek a new abode in Boeotia.2 Or, perhaps,from theDores who,on theirexpulsionfromThessaly, settled in Doris, mayhave come an offshoot, which forced its way into Boeotia. Wemust be content with a non liquet in the investigationof such anelusive problem,and rest satisfied with the results attained-thatBoeotia was originally an Aeolic land, and that it was partiallyDorized at an early period of its history. The possibility ofDoric accretions from the west at a later period is not therebyexcluded, though an examinationof the dialectof the neighboringcantons justifies the conclusion that the Boeotians were moreliberal in infusingpeculiaritiesof their idiom into adjacentregionsthan ready to receive foreign loan-forms.In Thessaly, as frequentlywhere alien races come into contact,the speech of the conquerors yielded to that of the conquered.That the invaders were Dorians is clear frommany considerations,one of which has heretoforebeen overlooked. The leader of theThesprotianswas Thessalus, grandsonof Hercules; the leaders ofthe Dorians who overran the Achaean Spartawere the sons ofAristodemus,grandson of the same hero. In both Thessaly andSparta the subdued inhabitants occupied a similar position,3 heAchaeans and Magnetes in the north being reduced to a conditionparallel to that of the 7replotKoL,hile the rEviEraTLwere subjected tothe fate of the Helots. Thessaly was divided into four, Laconiainto six divisions. It need notexcite oursurprisethat the tenacityof the Aeolic of the overpowered Thessalians was so vigorous as

1Too much stress should, perhaps, not be laid on kinship between tribes.It is, therefore, impossible to show that the Arneans were not Dorians, fromthe fact that they compelled Locrians and the Abantes of Abae in Phocis toleave their homes. That the Aegidae of Thebes took part in the return of theHeraclidae does not prove the original inhabitants of Boeotia to have beenDorians.2 Such tribes must have crossed the ridges of the Pindus at a period ante-dating the inroad of the Thesprotians, since Achilles calls upon the Zeus ofthe Epirotic Dodona as the ancestral divinity of his house. Had theseEpirotes, it may be remarked, been barbarians, as a later age assumed, thepreeminent position of Dodona and of the Achelous would be unexplainable.3 " When Aio7iSbecame Thessaly its real national history was at an end "-Curtius.

431


13/26

AMIERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.to supplant the dialect of the conquerors. The western Greeks,though of genuine Hellenic stock, were an uncultivatedpeople, theAeolians of Thessaly a peopledestined,togetherwith the Achaeans,to be the nurse of the noblest development of Hellenic poetry.Hence the fact that we find so few Dorisms in Thessaly; e.g. 7rori,Kparos (Lesbian Kperos), #aLta/divar, etc.,1 whereas in the land of thecrassi Boeoti, a people enkindled by no great love of the humanerarts-for Pindarwas really extra flammantia moenia mundi-lessresistance was offered to the speech of the invading Dorians.Thus we find such surviving Aeolisms2 as inf. in -/1ev, patronymicsin -toq, dat. in -eorTLmixed with Dorisms; e. g. a for E in lapo' (Thess.lepos, Lesbic tpor); the accus. pl. in co, eL< j, by comp. length; d7r6for dar, ELLEv for for EE, for Thess., Lesb.; Ka, the change ofEo to LO (?), inflection of Oe4L9 (0E/Lrt) 01,T, ra, absence of assimilation,reflexive avroS avrwv, dajavTv, fut. in -+o, aorist in -fa from -Ccoverbs.Other non-Doric peculiarities of Boeotian speech which find noparallel either in Thessaly or in Lesbos are either individualdevelopments of the dialect or importations from elsewhere; e. g.rr from Attica or Euboea, as we may assume that the o-rc on themost ancient Boeotian inscriptions (Kvwraplro-o ALv36oarat)s antece-dent to the Tv of the later monuments.

Turning from the eastern to the western portion of NorthHellas, we enter upon a field that has heretofore not been system-atically explored by the dialectologist. The present investigationof the vowel and consonantal systems of the dialect of Epirus,Acarnania, Aetolia, Phthiotis, and of the dialect of the Aenianes,is the first that attempts to bring together all the phenomenaillustrative of the dialect of this extensive region. Before proceed-ing to a summary of the chief features of this patois, it may beinstructive to pass in review some matters of ethnographic andhistorical importance that will cast light upon this obscure cornerof Greek dialectology.Epirus. The Greeks held that Hellas proper ended at Ambra-cia, and that therefore the Epirotic tribes were non-Hellenic.Though Thuc. (II 8I) expressly states that the Chaones were

1 regard the use of lv for EiSas originally Hellenic, and not confined to theDoric of North Greece. Some portion of the Dorisms of Thessaly may, ofcourse, be held to be later accessions. The inscriptions of Pharsalia in Thes-saliotis are completely Aetolian in character.2 It is improbable that any of these Aeolisms should have been importationsfrom Thessaly.

432


14/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.barbarians, modern investigation has determined that of thenorthern tribes some were wholly barbarous,while the southerntribes at least were Hellenized. If, however, the Thesprotiansunder Thessalus, presumablyin the eleventh century, were thesource of the admixtureof Doric elements in the Aeolic of Thes-saly, and perhaps of Boeotia, we cannot doubt but that theEpiroteswere on afootingof ethnicequalitywiththe other Hellenes,nor refuse to allot them a place among the sections of that Doricrace which afterwardswas split into a northern and a southerndivision. In history the Epirotes play no part till the rise of theMolossi under Pyrrhus; and in i68 B. C. they were subdued bythe Romans.Acarnania. The earliest inhabitantswere Leleges and Curetes,the former of whom had originally their habitations in Caria.Traditionpoints to earlysettlementsunderCypselus fromCorinth,and Blass has declared thatthe Acarnaniandialect is nothing morethan an imported Corinthian,a declarationwhich he has unfortu-nately not yet proved. The Acarnanianswere at all times thebitter opponents of the Aetolians, serving as auxiliaries underPhilip of Macedon after 220, to which fact they owed their fallin I97.Aetolia. Curetes,Leleges and Hyantes are stated to have beenthe original settlers of Aetolia. At the period of the tribal revo-lutions Aeolians from Thessaly forced their way in to settle nearPleuron and Calydon, and Epirotes came from the northwest toaugment the numberof immigrants. The Aetolians were the earlysettlers of Elis under Oxylus, though tradition fixed the originalseat of the Aetolians in Elis ('HXeiav rpoyovLKijv). Thucydides,III 94, makes the uncannystatementin reference to the Aetolians,ayvocrraroL e yXcTcriav elaOr Kat opofriyot, Ws XEyovraL. If this asser-tion be true, which is doubtful on accountof the qualification, tcan readily be referred to the inhabitants of Aetolia e'7TiKTro7. Theeastern Greeks evidently had a fragmentary knowledge of theirwestern brethren, whom they characterizedas semi-barbariansbecause they failed to keep pace with themselves in the race forintellectual development. If we may trust the evidence of theinscriptions (cf. especially Coll. I4I3), which flatly contradicts theself-asserting superiority of other more favored tribes, there didnot fail to exist, even in this western canton,some love of sculptureand of poetry. The Aetolian league disseminated for almost acentury its Kanzleistyl over a large part of Greece and the Archi-

433


15/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.pelago (Ceos, Teos). In Laconia (Cauer2 30, 32) we find tracesof Aetolian forms in inscriptions otherwise composed in pureLaconian. In Phocis (Delphi was subject to the Aetolians from290 to I9I), Locris, South Thessaly, are inscriptionsvarying in noimportant particular rom those discovered in Aetolia itself. Onepossibilitymust,however, not be suppressed-the dialectpresentedin the inscripti6nsmay not be the native dialect of the inhabitants.As the Macedonianofficiallanguage is separatedby a chasm fromthe speech of the people,which sufferedone of the earliestrecordedLautverschiebungenon Europeansoil, so the judicial language ofthe Aetolian league may fail to present to us those delicatenuances of vowel and consonantal coloring which are the boneand sinew of a genuine " dialect."The ever-increasingsway which this Aetolian state-speechexer-cised throughout Hellas was a potent factor in the dissolution ofthe ancient cantonal idioms. So complete, indeed, appearedtheauthority of this dialect at the time of Ahrens, that he was misledinto the assertion that North Doric was merely an extension ofAetolian Doric, an assertion proved to be false by the Locriantables, and by the Delphic decrees of manumission.'The Aenianes were genuine Hellenes and closely related to theMyrmidonsand Phthiote Achaeans. Their original habitationissupposed to have been Thessaly, though in historical times theyoccupied the valley of the Spercheios,covering in part the territoryembraced by the ancient Phthia. From 279 to I95 they weremembersof the Aetolian league.The inscriptions from the southernmost Thessalian quarter,Phthiotis,bear such unmistakabletraces of North-Doric influencethat the opinion of Fick, who has collected and commenteduponthem in Coll. II I439-I473, cannot be upheld, though supportedby the authority of Kirchhoff(Alphabet 138), and Meister (Dia-lecte, I 289). These scholars all hold that the inscriptionsaffordatrue pictureof the Phthiote dialect. The inconsistencyof Fick'sopinion is manifest when we rememberthat he assumed the Doricdialect of the invaders from Epirus to have succumbedto that ofthe subjected Aeolians in North Thessaly. Here, however, inPhthiotis, wherethe pulse of Aeolic life must have beaten withthegreatest vigor, where dwelt the PhthioteAchaeans,close to Phthia,the home of the Myrmidons and of Achilles, who was undoubt-

I There is no foundation for Giese's statement that the language of Aetoliawas Aeolic.

434


16/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.edly an Aeolian of the Aeolians-here we are asked to accept acomplete submerging of the Aeolic dialect and its replacementbya foreignspeech. On the contrary,I hold thatwe have to maintainthat the linguistic peculiaritiespresentedby the inscriptionsare therecord of the political dominationof the Aetolians. Despite thecomplete ascendency of the official language of the Aetolians,traces of the original native speech may have forced their waythrough, since the patronymic formations n -toS-the surest crite-rion of the Aeolic dialect-in Nos. I453, 1460, I473 need not beexplained as importations from any one of the three northernprovincesof the rerpapxla. Whatever may liave been the originalform of the dialect of Phthiotis, so far as our epigraphical testi-mony allows us to judge, its present status is completely NorthDoric. Thus, for example, we find earaaXa\vo. I444 (I83 B. C.),and Kdf,uov o. 1459 (I60 B. C.), the North-Thessalianformsbeing

TErOaXov and Kcatovv.The following table presents the chief characteristics of thedialects of Epirus, Acarnania, Aetolia, of the Aenianes and ofPhthiotis:r. a for e in iapovAaK(ov etol. tepbois also Aetolian and Acarnanian. Thereis no trace of 'Aprautt 2. ev-< evF in F$vof, etc. evSIcovraOetaea. 3.'Arres2aIo? Oetaea. 4. o in OEOKxowOetol.; cf. Oeo7ro2eoPlato's Leges. 5.There is no trace of t for e in earla. 6. v in 6vvla Aetol., ovoliain all the otherdialects of this group; 6volia s also Aetolian. 7. a, as in Peloponnesian Doricand Aeolic. Oiepo6 and OEop6oAetol. IlarpoKXcag is a form declined accordingto the analogy of the a decl. 8. Hellenic t7 is everywhere preserved, withthe exception of yicyraaov,Epirus, and (probably) Eipdva, ound in all thesedialects. The ingression of qi from the KOtviYis comparatively rare. 9. Thegenuine diphthong et appears as e in AtowreTi71Epirus), Atorei[Oseo]Acarn.;idv has the form E;av (Epirus). Iloaetddvt is the South-Thessalian form. I0.Spurious et and not spurious / is the result of compensatory lengthening of ebefore vg. evF is reduced to ev. 1I. Spurious ov from ovc; opF= op exceptin AopCiuaxoocarn. Aetol. 12. -tl is either (I) preserved, or (2) reduced to-o or -ot (or ot may be regarded as the loc.). 13. r/t has frequently lost theiota adscriptum. 14. Contraction of vowels: ea uncontracted or contracted toe/; ee contracted to t ; eat contracted to a in -KXrij; eo uncontracted or con-tracted to ov, ev; ao uncontracted or contracted to to; aa uncontracted orcontracted to a; oo uncontracted or contracted to ov, w in 'Ap)Iaro6; as uncon-tracted; oe contracted to ov; ao contracted to a; es uncontracted. 15. F inbut two examples, FeZdvg, PFanridag (both Epirotic).2 I6. v for vv (?) in eviKovra

I have included in this table certain Oetaean forms of interest. We possess,unfortunately, no inscriptions from Doris, the metropolis of the Laconians andMessenians.2 Meister, I, p. o16, quotes as Acarn. the form otvaoirc, which does not occur in the in-scriptions.

435


17/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.Oetaean. Kopvtob= 7pvuo Oet. Strabo XIII I, 64. 17. s for a once. I8.Declension: (I) a decl. gen. sing. -ag, -a; gen. pl. -av. (2) o decl. gen. sing.-ov; dat. sing. -ut, -ot, -to; accus. pl. -ovc. (3) -es decl. gen. sing. -eog,-oc once;-ovg in IKcpdrovg Aetol., -Eovg in NtKpoKcpaTrovg Phth.; dat. sing. -et; accus.sing. -ea, -r. (4) -evSdecl. gen. -eog(-eog late); dat. et, Ai and iAt; accus. -Ea,-7t; gen. pl. -owv. (5) -tS decl. gen. sing. -tog; dat. sing. -i, et; nom. pi. -te.(6) -i) decl. gen. -fig and o01. 19. -otc occurs in the consonantal decl.; there isno trace of -ecot. 20. Pronouns: rivotg, avroaavrov ; cf. Boeot. vrrep anvroanv,. 21. Verbals: -7rlt, -ovrt, -v71 ; f in aor. of -Cd verbs; -ecoverbs do notgenerally contract -co; inf. -etv for -)overbs ; -yev for Jt verbs. 22. Preposi-tions: av, irdp, trori, ev accus. and dat. 23. Adverbs, etc.: ei, Kd, yev once(Epir.); KaOd)Cs very common.1

In turningfromthe rich bloom of thegenerous dialect-lifein theAeolic cantons of the east to the monotonous sterility of theNorth Doric of the west, we enter upon a period of the devel-opment of Hellenic morphology in which the life-blood of thecantonal speech has been drained dry, in which the epichoristicidiom has suffereda disintegrationwhich is equivalentto absorp-tion into the lizgua franca of Dorism. None of the westerncantons resisted the encroachment of the KOtv as long as did thoseof CentralGreece,or equalledthe tenacitywithwhichthe Laconianand Messenian dialects maintainedtheir cantonalindividuality.Of greater vitality, and therefore of greater moment to thedialectologist, are those phenomena of speech contained in theinterlyingdialectsof Locris and Phocis (especially Delphi), dialectswhich occupy no unimportantplacein an investigationof the prob-lem of Greek dialect-mixture. These dialects in their oldest stagepossess almost as strong a local coloring as the patois of Boeotia.The Delphic LatXEKTOS,hile not so strongly marked in its earliestepigraphical monuments as that of Locris, preservesa good partof its individualitytill the birth of Christ; but the Locrianpatoiswas soon merged into that North Doric which is spreadthroughoutall the regions of the west.The Locriandialect is representedby two strataof phenomena:(I) An older stratumfound in the inscriptionrelatingto the settle-ment of the Opuntiansat Naupactus among the Ozolian Locrians

I The inscriptions all date from a late period. The two oldest of those of Epirus may beplaced between 342 and 326, another between 272 and 260; the rest are all without precise date,though undoubtedly of late origin. The oldest Acarnanian inscription dates shortly after 200,the oldest Aetolian between 240 and 189, while the majority are of the second century. AnAenianian inscription, No. 1429, must have been written shortly after the death of Alexanderthe Great in 323, No. 1430 is anterior to 279, others are of the second century. None of thePhthiotic monuments antedate the period when Phthiotis was incorporated in the Aetolianleague (279-193); others belong to the period of the later Thessalian league (I93-I46). Most ofthe inscriptions in this dialect are to be dated before I50 B. C.

436


18/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.(Coll. 1478), dating from the first half of the fifth century,and inthe inscription containinga fragmentof the treaty between Chal-eion and Oeanthea, placed by Kirchhoff at the beginning of thePeloponnesianwar; (2) All the later inscriptions. The two docu-ments of the first class, together with the fovarpop80&Ovnscriptiondiscovered at Crissa (Cauer2 202), and dating at least from thefifth century, are (aside from the great Larissaeaninscription)themost importantepigraphical monuments of NorthernGreece, andof incalculablevalue to the dialectologist,inasmuchas they containtraces of the oldest phase of Northern Doric found nowhere else.The chief features of the older strata of forms are as follows:I. The manifest fondness for a for Ebefore p, which we noticed as being achief peculiarity of the Olympian inscriptions; e. g. ad#pa, Feardaptog,7rardpa.2. Contractions: a + E= /; a + o = ; a + w a, ; e+- et; o+ o' ;o +E--=; E+ o, e-+-' do not suffer contraction, and -+ a in neut. pl.-ecstems (nom. -oc) is uncontracted. 3. The frequency of the use of 9 and F(F6or,Fenaa7ro). 4. cr for Ga, found also in Thessaly, Boeotia and Elis; e. g.dpEarat, eM,7ar, Xpfarai. 5. The position of the dialect between the Iaxouraland the aavvrtKoi; e.g. 6, a, oi, vSop; ayetv. 6. o decl. has gen. sing. in -o,accus. pl. in -ovS(traces of this in Delphic are very problematical). 7. et, o;,not /, w from compensatory lengthening. 8. The flexion of the -eu verbs as-,a verbs in vtKa7Zeitevoc.9. F in the fut. and aorist of -C( verbs. Io. Preposi-tions: evfor eic ; ro6,TOi; 7; p; E bE. I. Dat. pl. consonantal decl. in -otC;e.g'. yet6votc,XaLetdotf.

The later stratum of forms presents the general Doric characterof the western group, all the remarkable peculiarities of theolder stratumhaving disappeared.' Contractionof vowels is morefrequent,F ceases to appear, there is no a for e beforep. In thislater development of the dialect there is one essential differencebetween the dialect of Opuntian and that of Ozolian Locris: theformer alone has -erao in the dative plural of consonantal stems(XpqITadreo-r-L, bout 200 B. C.). This characteristic mark of theAeolic dialect is found fromMount Olympus throughout Boeotia,OpuntianLocris and Delphi, but is unable to force its way acrossthe boundaryinto the territoryof Ozolian Locris.A survey of the dialect of Phocis, including that of Delphi,which contains some few peculiaritiesof its own,will complete ourreview of the speech of Northern Hellas. The oldest monumentsof the Phocian dialect are inscription No. I537 (Crissa), whichKirchhoffassigns to the sixth centuryas the earliest possible date,

The inscriptions of the Ozolian Locris contain the same dialectic featuresas those of Opuntian or Hypocnemedian Locris.

437


19/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PIZLOLOGY.and No. 1531 (Elatea), which must be of considerable antiquity,as it has the labial spirant in FavaKcewC. Of the Delphic dialect theoldest monuments are Cauer2 203, which contains the form FE,and No. 204, 380 B. C. As the manumission decrees of Delphipresent more peculiarities than the inscriptions of the rest of Phocis,I give here a summary of the dialect of the former, noticing whenthe Phocian monuments register actual differences:

I. a in cad;there are but few cases of av, these occurringafter the birth of Christ,al in the oracle Hdt. IV 157 and C.2 204; all later inscriptions have el. iapofand Iep6k in the oldest Delphic inscription. 'Apard/zroS, dtaKdrtot. 2. e. adj.termination in -eog, which is contracted about 200. 'AreF.aloc; cf. Loc.'Arr6Xov; e for o is Delphic alone in p3fEZI7/Kovra,06e6c (also Megarian),7reberpov. -ew for -ac in aVuEtW, 7tTrti/E. 3. o; rErope' to the third centuryB. C. 7roi in Ilotrpo6rtoS. 4. v; ovvua, EvdvS, 5. d; a6, though ioECis more com-mon; Oeapo-and 0ewpo-; EvhKraal. 6. y, from - ; in ZotKcpa4rTia, lep7iZa,etc.7. ; ai' ;7raC, Trerp(KOL'Ta. 8. Contractions: e + E= et; a + o = ao and a(a+); a +7 a ; e + a = ea and y7 in neut. pi. of -oc nouns (except Erea);e +- r7 (one example of 1)7); a + - = a, (; e -+- 0o o, later ev, ov ; e + o

Es, later o; o + o = o (in nouns in -6) and or. 9. Spiritus asper in k0ttopKEiv,iaKEeito0,'iltog Delphic alone. io. Spurious et and ov from comp. length. II.Consonants: 'b6e6, 6eioyat ; ,r for r in nfl;riE2iea; yv0oi. 12. Declen-sion: gen. sing. -ov, accus. pl. -ovg (the forms in o and oc, in C.2 204 aredoubtless mere inaccuracies); dat. in -ot (about 30 cases); -otI and -eaatin conson. decl. in Delphic. I find no case of -Eaat in the rest of Phocis;-,/v stems have gen. -eog. 13. Conjugation: verbs in -oo, -^'w; -s' and -~afrom -Coverbs (-eaE fut. is a peculiarity of the older Delphic); -Ec verbs con-jugated according to -/,t inflection. Optative in -otev,-oLv,-otCav. Imperative-vr7v in the oldest inscr., later -vrto and -aav. Infin. in -sv, kpepev, evoiKevD.,Phocis -etv or -rv (CvXav, itrTtLuiv D.), elLev, 6arodo6/ev. Participle: eaarTyUWvavZ7ovre7, roteifUevop, Xpe/ievO 14. Prep., etc.: Ka, ,rep in rrepod6o, Vo,cum accus.; el, oic " 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 ofeach dialect, has now placed us in a position to gain a widerhorizon in our estimate of the interrelation of the various dialectsof this extensive territory. The entire region north of the Pelo-ponnesus, with the exception of Attica and Megara, was the seatof two great dialects: (I) the Aeolic in the east, found originallyin Thessaly and in Boeotia, where, through tribal revolutionsand later dialect mixture, it has become strongly interfused withDorisms, and (2) the North Doric, found in comparative purity, ifwe consider the paucity and late date of the inscriptions, inWestern Greece, i. e. from the eastern confines of Aetolia to thewest and northwest. This dialect contains no Aeolisms what-

438


20/26

THE DIALECTS OF 1VORTI GREECE.ever. Between the two-the Aeolic of the east and the NorthDoric of the west-lies the Doric of the centre,a Doric essen-tially of the same character as that of the west, though from itsgreater antiquity presenting peculiaritiesnotfound elsewhere. TheDoric of the west and the Doric of the centre of North Greecepresentsso many characteristic eatures which are identical,that itcan hardly be deemed an assertion devoid of improbability if wemaintain that no small portion of the Doric peculiaritiesof theLocrian idiom must have been a common heritage of the Dorianswho remained n NorthGreece,and that,if we possessed epigraphictestimony from Aetolia or Epirus of the sixth or fifthcenturies,oreven such of a later date but of an unofficial type, we shoulddiscover many of those phenomenawhich are now held to be thedistinctive property of Locris or Phocis; e. g. the Locrian geni-tives in -o.The peculiarnature of the North Dorisms,mixed withAeolisms,in the Elean dialect substantiates the above hypothesis; for, hadthe Aetolians, at the time of their emigration to Elis, used as avehicle of expression no other form of the dialect than that foundin the inscriptionsof their canton, those distinctiveNorth-Greekfeaturesof Elean could neverhave been introducedby theiragency.We may, indeed, conjecture that the official language of the in-scriptions-a language reduced to the dead level of a monotonousDorism-does not representthe language of the people, but sucha conjecture does not militate against the probability of theassumptionthat originally there was but one North Doric, variedno doubt here and there by cantonal preferences,but spoken byLocrians and Aetolians alike. By this assumption alone can theDoric ingredientin the mixture of dialects in Elis be explained.There now remainsbut one problem for our consideration-theinterrelationof the North-Doric and Aeolic elementsin the speechof Locris and Phocis. There are three possible solutions to thisdifficult question: (I) The Aeolisms embedded in the Doric ofPhocis and Locris are loan-formations rom the Aeolic of the eastor 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 theinadvisability of attributing to it, if demonstrated, any potencyin the settlement of mooted questions, reference has alreadybeen made. If, at the time of Homer, or of the return of theHeraclidae, Aeolic and Doric were cleft asunder, to what re-

439


21/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.moter period shall we then penetrate to discover a unity whichshall throw a flood of light upon the existence of sporadicphenomenaat variancewith the genius of the dialect in which theyappear-phenomena that belong to a period at least a thousandyears afterthis supposed Aeolo-Doric unity? Perhaps no argu-ment could be better adapted to strengthen Schmidt's "wave-theory " than the indefensibilityof such assumptions as those ofMerzdorf and others.' Shall the dialectologist, supportedsolelyby the elusive testimony at his command,arrogate to himself theright to establish periods in the prehistoric life of Hellas, fromwhich even the historianor ethnographerrecoils ? If I read arightthe marchof Greek dialectological investigation,one tendency atleast is apparent: the assumption of an original unity of tribes,that later on enjoyed a separate existence, is only then availableas a sure basis for further speculation when such a unity iselevated beyond the possibility of a doubt.When a causa efficiens for dialect mixture2 can be found intribal migrations attested by the evidence of antiquity, suchevidence cannot be neglected. But the assumption of dialectmixture, even when we can show no historical testimony to thespecial influenceof one tribe upon another,or the assumptionofindependent generation,is invariablypreferable to any theory ofgreat tribal unities designed to solve all difficultiesas a deus exmachina. By the " independentgeneration" of a formin a Greekdialect, I understand the genesis of a form which is alien to thegenius of the dialect in which it appears,and which is controlledin the last instance by the forces of analogy. As language con-stantly renewsher processes, it is possible that the same tendencyto create a given formmay arise independentlyin differentlocali-ties which stand in no interrelation. Such an analogicalforma-tion may have arisen,for example, in the dialect of Locris manyyears after a similar formationwas called into existence in thedialect of Lesbos, and at a time when the forces that caused theLesbian formationhad become impotent in Lesbos.I assert, then, in opposition to each and every scholar who is ofthe opinion that the Aeolisms of Locris and Phocis are survivalsofan Aeolo-Doric unity, thatneitheris thetestimony of antiquity3nor

I Prof. Allen no longer accepts the views adopted by him in Curt. Stud. III,1870.2The Gortynian inscription offers some remarkable instances of dialectmixture; e. g. the Aeolic ?C,it, Td,vd ,T iv,rt.3Strabo regarded the Doric as a part of the Aeolic dialect (rj7vde Awpida

440


22/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH1 GREECE.is the evidence of Greek dialectology able to establish as validany such unity; on the contrary,I maintain thatall these Aeolismsare either loan-formationsor are the result of independentgenera-tion. The delimitation of the extent of dialect mixture is asdifficultas the delimitationof thatof independentgeneration; andthat it is often difficultto. determine whether we shall assign agiven formto one or to the other of these causes, cannot be heldto militateagainst the validity of my position.Connection between Boeotia and Phocis or Locris is eo ipsoprobable, and is attested in many ways;' 'Epxouevos in a Delphicinscription preservesthe epichoristicspelling of the later 'OpXo,Evos.Hartmann attributes to the Boeotian dialect a vigorous influencein coloring the Doric of the west, but as he fails to support hisassertionsby any arguments that savor of cogency, we are notloath to characterizeas incrediblehis statementthat the datives in-0Ln Delphic area loan-formation, ince thereare about30 instancesof -01, over Iooo in -co. It has been assumed that the -oc's repre-sent an orthographicalerror, an assertion as far from the truthas that they are Boeotisms. Traces of Boeotian influence havebeen seen in ApVULEVS and in e'vs., for LpoLLEVS (cf. ApoEV,S, Apdo'/o)and 'vYao,which is ascribedto the Dorians, Anecd. Ox. II I62, Io.But, though the darkening of o to v is found in Boeotian (ALovcr-Kovplaao, OwovrlTiv and in ALvaorco NLVuzcLvloS), this phenomenonis notexclusively Boeotian,as it is not even chiefly Aeolic. As '>osroccurs in Delphic, the v of ;'vpvsmay have been generated onDelphian soil; and Apvwata, Apv,;(i, Apvrfi, are different names of acity of Phocis. tpvriLEVs eed, therefore, not contain the base apop.rI?XeKXea,W. F. 54, 2, is perhaps a Boeotism for T7XEKcXa cf. Boeot.

HIiXEovrpoTL&avbut also TEtXedYveLor) and Lesbic 7rrT-v= T7Xo'(E.Locrian EvKaXeltevos,Delphic 7roiLL/AEvos, aatpELuEPos are instancesof the -jL inflection of -Eo verbs that constantly recurs in the dialectsof Aeolic coloring.2 It is improbable that evKaXeI,tvos should,through Boeotian influence,have forced its way into the dialect ofthe Ozolian fromthat of the OpuntianLocrians,who were settlersin Naupactus. The -,LLorm is to be ascribed either to the influ-ence of Aeolic settlers (cf. Terpanderand the Lesbic citharoedi,Tr Aioi6t5). In another passage Strabo calls the Aeolians and DoriansJt.oyeveri.' Connection with Thessaly was, perhaps, not so intimate. The sacredprocessions to Olympus may, however, be adduced.Horn. a;Xt7/' evoS, old Lesbic irotj,uevoS, later Lesbic 'roeitevo?, Boeot. f2i?ett(gramm.),Thess. yvuLvaatapXevrog,rcad. a6t&KU?Evor,lean Kasdar'jtevo'.

441


23/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.Ahrens, G6tt. Phil. Versamml., i852, p. 77), or,better,to a devel-opment of the Doric of these cantons parallel to that of theAeolic dialect. As these forms are undoubtedlyof later origin,they offerno proof of an Aeolo-Doric period.ev cumnaccusativo occurs throughout the entire extent ofNorthern Hellas (iELoccurs in all the Delphic inscriptions butthree times), and in Arcado-Cyprian. It does not occur, however,in the Kar-'eoxv Aeolic dialect, the Lesbian. As this constructionis a relic of the period when Greeks and Latins possessedbut one preposition to express "motion to" and "rest in," itcannot be regarded as a characteristicof an Aeolo-Doric age.The Ionians have supplanted it entirely by the use of e', eli, andthe Aeolians too, perhaps under the influence of their Ionicneighbors, relinquished their ancient inheritance. That es cumgenetivo in Aeolic was driven out by EK,e; of the Ionians is notimprobable,as both Thessalian and Boeotian stand here on aplane. The occurrence of ev in XAAaKEcailova(C.2 26, 8, about 316B. C.), the single example in Laconian inscriptions,is, if correct,a trace of Elean influence,rather than a survival of the originalconstruction.The elision of 7replis not Aeolo-Doric, but Hellenic, though ofsporadic occurrence. For Attic the forms 7rcpe3aXovro,Agam. 147;7repcK9~vCeoov, Eum. 634; 7reprwv, in a fragment of a comic poet, arewell attested. The elision of this preposition, claimed as acharacteristicof the Locrian idiom, is done away with by thecorrect reading, rnpKo0ap,av, oll. 1478. 7repooor, he single occur-rence on Delphian territory,2 rept8aios, rTpaTrcov, 7rcp' avras, 7rep'arXadrov rdOaE in Pindar, 7repolxera, 7reptaXEn Hesiod, poets, whohave incorrectlybeen supposed to have preserved herein traces oftheir close relationship to the Pythian oracle at Delphi, 7repoAvvvat,7rfpooXTa, Irpwa-lov in Hesychius, the Elean rrap,which may be dueto North-Doric or to Aeolic influence (cf. Alcaeus 36, rrepOeroandin two conjectures of Bergk Irp'), 7rep'EeLioMegara CIG I, o064-all these formsmake clear the folly of attachingto a single dialectan occurrenceof such general character.3

The dative pl. in -ows n the cons. decl. is found in Aetolian,Locrian and Delphic, and also in Boeotian (?iyvs), the isolatedI Cf. old Irish i(n), Germ. in, old Pruss. en, Lith. in, t.2Tiepteitv is also Delphic, C.2 204, I8-the same inscription in which

rripodof occurs. r'ep is also Thessalian, in which dialect the full form does notexist.3Cf. a/tp' in Homer, a&ztin Attic.

442


24/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTH GREECE.position of which leads us to regard it as an importationfromthewest, though the possibility of its being a native growth shouldnot be suppressed. This analogical formation, ike that of -aoavinthe imperfect,testifies merely to the loosening of the old rigidityof inflection,and is not the exclusive property of any dialect, sinceit appears in Messenian,late Laconian,Sicilian,Arcadian, Cretan,and perhaps in Lesbian.That -eoa-c s not Aeolo-Doric is clear from the fact that, apartfrom the Homeric and Lesbian formations, it occurs only inBoeotian and in Thessalian. There is no trace whatsoever of-Ec0a in any inscription of Peloponnesian Doric, and in NorthGreece it comes to light only as far west as the western boundaryof Phocis. If this form were Aeolo-Doric, its appearancebeyondthis boundaryand elsewherewouldhave followedas a consequence.The Delphic forms are not necessarily loan-formations,as theymay be representativesof the forces of analogy inherent in eachseparatedialect. -Eacr-ccurs in inscriptionsof Corcyra,Megara,in Theocritusand in Archimedes.

The result of this investigation may now be brieflystated:I. The eastern part of North Greece was originally the abodeof an Aeolic race whose dialect survived in Thessaly till the latesttimes. In Boeotia the incursionof a foreign Doric element wasnot so successfullyresisted as in the case of Thessaly, and it is tothe influence of this foreign elementthat we owe, both in Thessalyand Boeotia, the existence of Doric forms,though thereby thepossibility of later accessions is not denied.II. The dialect of the extreme western partof North Greeceis pure North Doric, and absolutelyfree fromthe contaminationofAeolisms.III. The dialects of Central North Greece are substantiallyNorth Doric in character; the Aeolisms whichthey containare notsurvivals of an Aeolo-Doric period, but are purely adventitious,and their appearanceis traceableup to certaindefinite limits.IV. Conformityto general usage, and not an accuratetermino-logy, dictates my expression "dialect of Epirus,"etc., though caremust be taken to assert that, in the five cantons,Epirus,Acarnania,Aetolia, the canton of the Aenianes and Phthiotis, there obtainedat the periodsubjectto ourcontrolbut one "dialect,"distinguishedhere and there by minute local landmarks. I see herein a proofof the correctness of the theory of Joh. Schmidt (or of PaulMeyer, if he has the prior claim of being its originator), in so far

443


25/26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.as it maintains that the term "dialect " refuses to be restricted toany limited centre of speech. In any theory of dialects whichare ever subject to a Heraclitean flux, especially if not subjectedto 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 theexpression "dialect" is one of peculiar relativeness, it is a justifi-able termfor certainaggregationsof morphologicaland syntacticalphenomenain the earlierperiodsof language,whendialect-relationswere more sharply defined. Schmidt's theory is undoubtedlypopular, though it has suffered trenchant criticism,notably at thehands of Fick, but I doubt whether it can ultimatelyhold ground.If it were rigorously enforced,it might deprive of all individualexistence so strongly colored an idiom as that of Boeotia or Thes-saly, Locris or Delphi. The restrictionof the term "dialect " tonarrow geographical limits may convey, and has conveyed,erroneousconceptions concerningthe natureof a dialect, but theboundarieswhich enclose a dialect in the true sense of the wordare not necessarilycoextensivewith those dictatedby geographicalconfigurationor by the exigencies of state policy.This investigation,then, is notwithout its significance, nasmuchas it casts a light-dimmed, it is true, by the poverty of materialat our command-upon the contentionbetween two theories of theinterpretationof dialectical phenomena. It shows us that wecannot cast aside the Stammbaumstheorieengrafted upon Greekby the Darwinismof Schleicher, and still defendedby Ulrich vonWilamowitz-M6llendorf,even though the practical difficulties inthe way of its absolute adoption seem well-nigh insurmountable.If, too timid, we struggle to avoid being dashed against the Scyllaof Schleicherism,we may be drawn into the Charybdeanwaves ofSchmidt's Wellentheorie. The cardinal feature of this consists,accordingto one of its most keen-sighted adherents,' n its assump-tion: " Dass sie (Schmidt's Theorie) eine allmihliche Differen-zierung des urspriinglich in continuierlicherReihe verlazufendenSprachgebietes annimmt,und zwar eine Differenzierung durchdialektischeNeuerungen,diean verschiedenenStellen desurspriing-lichen Gebietesaufkommenund von dem Punkteihrer Entstehungaus auf das benachbarteGebiet sich verbreiten." The adoptionof such an explanationnot only of the I.-E. languages, but also ofthe Greekdialects,may lead us to see the causewhereby sub-dialect

1Collitz in Verwandtschaftsverhlltnisse der griechischen Dialekte, I885.

444


26/26

THE DIALECTS OF NORTIH GREECE.may lead to sub-dialect,and how each dialect may thus be boundtogether with the life of anotherby a "continuousseries of minutevariations." But we are confrontedin the science of Greek dialec-tology with phenomena dating from historical periods; for thesephenomenawe must seek a historicalexplanation as faras is per-mitted by the dim light of history. The wave-theory regards asmerely interesting confirmationsof its suppositions those causesof differentiation of a linguistic territory which to its opponentsare the very sinew of the genealogical theory. It may well bequestioned whether Schmidt's theory does not confusethose pro-cesses which caused dialects originally to come into existence,andthose processes which give birth to phenomenathat have becomein historicaltimes the propertyof two adjacentdialects which haveflourished for a long period of time. Peculiarities which linktogether two dialects may be ascribed to the influence of oneupon the other; but in periods antedating all historical ken theinfluenceof a neighboring speech-territory need not necessarilyhave been the cause of dialecticpeculiarities.If linguisticphenomenaalone be taken as the pointof departure,we must confess that we therebyseek a refuge in a sauve quipeuf,and renounce that ideal whose every patient endeavor aims atdiscovering in the disiecta membra of dialect-speech a clue thatwill reinforce those utterances of antiquitywhich make for theintimateconnection between parent-stockand the offspringwhich,in periods subject to conjecturealone,left an ancestralhome. Thisideal in dialectology is as importanta guiding motive as the idealof the freedom fromexception to phonetic law is in the science ofcomparativephilology. We have,then, at least no meanpurpose,if we search for the golden thread that shall lead us to an expla-nation of the genealogy of each separate form. With this ideal inview we may perhapsdiscover that,when the formsof adventitiousgrowth have been separatedfromthose which are indigenous, it isnot impossibleto constructgenealogicaltrees forthe Greekdialects,which will stand in harmonious nterdependence. If we endeavorto sift the material which a kind chance has preserved to us, andbelieve that ferra nmaer Znoua miracila slis ex uisceribus nnzm-quam emileree cessabil, we may trust that a solution may not befar off for many problems which the vigorous dialect-life of Hellaspresents. HERBERT WEIR SMYTH.

445

the dialects of north greece

Documents