CHAPTER 10

The Lyric Dialects

Mark de Kreij

Introduction

The Greek lyric dialects can be classified in a number of ways, but perhaps the most important division to be made is between those lyric poets who used a fairly homogeneous dialect that had a more or less direct equivalent in the historical dialects of Greek (Alcman (Laconic Doric), Sappho and Alcaeus (East Aeolic)), and the others. This also means separating the earliest poets from the later ones, not by chance. By the time of Stesichorus, the hybrid dialect we may call the “lyric koinē” had become its own living organism, born from the language of the earliest lyric poets and in turn influenced by epic.

As discussions of the individual poets will show, the relationship between the poetic language of an author’s works and his or her native dialect is not always obvious, and never straight-forward.

The building blocks of the lyric language are Doric, East Aeolic, and (epic) Ionic, dialects that were synchronically bound to different geographic regions and their inhabitants. East Aeolic is associated with Lesbos and the adjoining mainland to the east, Ionic with the remaining Eastern and Northern Aegean coast, the Aegean islands, and parts of Magna Graecia, and Doric with the Peleponnese, Crete and the south Aegean islands, and a number of Western colonies. Diachronically, dialects are unstable: the Laconian of Alcman is not the same as the Laconian of the third century BC (see below). Our only evidence for the dialects, at least for the earliest period, are local inscriptions, which are very scarce. As a result, our access to the local dialects spoken in the regions where our lyric poets were born and worked is severely hampered.

A division is often made between choral lyric (Doric) and monodic lyric (East Aeolic). In practice, this means singling out Alcaeus, Sappho, and Anacreon from the other poets in the traditional canon of nine. The uncertainty about how the songs of Stesichorus and Pindar (linguistically firmly in the “choral lyric” column) were performed, as well as the close linguistic relationship between Anacreon and Simonides, make this division unproductive. In fact, the lyric koinē that emerged in the late archaic period came to be the point of reference for all melic lyric poets to come, irrespective of the intended performance context.

Genre, on the other hand, did play a role in poets’ linguistic choices. Simonides has left us both melic lyric poetry, which is largely Doric, and elegy, which is basically Ionic. For Bacchylides, the argument has been made that he wrote his encomia and erotic poetry in a thoroughly Ionic tradition, whereas his melic poetry is written in the lyric koinē.

Two factors hinder our full understanding of the dialects used by the different poets. The first is Homeric influence: all lyric poets, whatever their geographic background, allow Homeric (Ionic and East Aeolic) forms into their language. The pervasiveness of Homeric language is a reflection of the omnipresence of Homer in the archaic and classical Greek world. Whatever the diachronic relationship between lyric and hexameter poetry (see Kelly (Chapter 3) in this volume), by the seventh century the epic tradition represented by Homer had become a point of departure on the level of content and language. As one of the earliest genres to survive after Homer, lyric poetry already shows its debt to epic, and this complicates linguistic analysis. Since a number of Ionic forms later became part of the common language of late-Classical and Hellenistic Greece, it can be hard to establish whether a form is a late intrusion or an epic reminiscence. At the same time, it is often difficult to establish whether a certain form must be regarded as influence from epic or from the Lesbian poets.

This brings us to the issue of transmission. All lyric poetry has gone through multiple stages of transmission, perhaps (for some) even including a phase of transmission-in-performance, before attaining the form in which it has come to us. In this process, two events are particularly important: the assumed standardization of the texts in the Alexandrian collections (third-second centuries BC), and the moment of quotation or excerpting for fragments known only from indirect sources (see Phillips (Chapter 8) in this volume).

The Alexandrian scholars established the canon of nine lyric poets, proceeding to gather and order their works, as they found them. Moreover, they normalized the works’ orthography according to dialectal rules that they themselves established. As they attempted to reconstruct these dialects, they attempted to establish rules and generalizations from known material, in order to be able to prescribe the correct form. In this process, they produced apparently coherent dialects, but these often contained forms that comparative linguistics can now demonstrate to be impossible. Those forms that looked like they fit a particular dialect, but actually would never have existed, are called, e.g., hyperaeolicisms or hyperdoricisms. As a result, we have to be aware that even in most papyri we see Sappho’s language through the prism of the Alexandrian idea of the sixth-century BC Lesbian dialect.

As regards fragments known only through indirect sources, a considerable percentage of extant lyric, there is a further issue. Prose works and anthologies quoted lyric poetry for numerous reasons, and they were not always concerned with the exact replication of an original. As a result, a supposedly Doric fragment could be “quoted” in Attic Greek, or forms could be adjusted to fit the new context. It is often difficult to establish, however, whether Atticisation of such fragments occurred at the moment of quotation, or in later transmission of the surrounding prose text. After all, quotations were not marked out visually in manuscripts, and the difficult lyric forms were liable to be misunderstood in the process of copying. For the same reason, these fragments will have suffered in the development from majuscule to minuscule manuscripts (c. ninth century), since the re-introduction of accents will have obscured a number of peculiarities of accents and breathings in lyric excerpts.

As the brief discussion on issues of genre and transmission shows, the Greek lyric dialects are layered constructs. The language we find in the papyri, manuscripts, and editions must have its roots in the dialect of the original compositions, but studying the lyric dialects is always in part a study of the poetry’s reception over several millennia.

Strong Dialects

Let us first turn to the poets whose language is most homogeneous: Laconian Alcman and Lesbian Alcaeus and Sappho.

Alcman

Choral lyric as a tradition emerged on mainland Greece, perhaps initially in Corinth (Eumelus), but its first documented period of popularity was the eighth century BC in Sparta. The genre’s first exponents were both originally from Lesbos: Arion and Terpander. This interface of Lesbian (East Aeolic, see above) and Laconian language may have been the origin of the protean language of choral lyric, commonly called a “lyric koinē.” It is in this tradition that Alcman worked in Sparta in the seventh century BC. Already in antiquity there was discussion about his place of origin, either Lydia (current western Turkey) or Laconia, the region around Sparta (see Power (Chapter 17) in this volume). The discussion about his provenance was the result of a claim in one of his poems, rather than because of the language of his poetry. The language of Alcman’s texts is heavily marked with features that to some extent match the local Laconian dialect, with a few typically Aeolic forms.

The scholarship on Alcman’s dialect has gone through two phases. Initially, scholars attempted to defend the forms found in the texts as signs of an older Laconian (Doric) dialect preserved only in Alcman’s poetry, which would explain the discrepancies with inscriptions found in the region (so Page 1951: 153–155). After Risch 1954, scholars have regarded the dialectal mix of Alcman’s poetry as at least in part a result of its later transmission. Risch’s extreme point of view, no longer commonly followed, is that the Doric/Aeolic mixture is the result of Alexandrian scholars imposing the Doric dialect from Cyrene onto Alcman’s text.1

The most economical hypothesis is that Alcman was influenced by the early Aeolic poets active in Sparta, and that his songs were written down with inconsistent Doric vocalization and consonantization because such spellings served as “signals” (Willi 2012: 276) to mark a Doric-sounding recitation of the text.

The edition referred to is PMGF.

Dialectal features:

General

• Doric dialect
• Aeolic influences
• Some epic forms

Particular

1. Phonology
1. long α retained, e.g., 1.15 ἀλκά.
2. First compensatory lengthening: disappearance of non-terminal (i.e., not final) s before or after a liquid (e.g., *esmi) yields long open vowel (strict Doric), e.g., 1.16 ὠρανόν and 1.45 ἤμεν (see also 2a below), but note 117 εἱμένα, transmitted in Eustathius (Comm. Il. 1147.1).
1. gemination (doubling of a consonant) in select instances (East Aeolic): 1.44 κλεννά, 10b.12 κλ[εε]ννέ,2 8.10 γέννατο (corrected from -γην- or -γειν- by a second hand).
3. Second compensatory lengthening: disappearance of terminal (or non-terminal) ns after o yields long open vowel (strict Doric), e.g., 8.9 Μώσαι3 and 10b.15 ἀ]γερωχώς; but note:
1. in one case a participle dat. pl. has a long closed vowel: 1.2 καμοῦσιν (mild Doric).
2. the accusative plural of the 1^st declination yields short -ᾰς (<-ans), e.g., S5b.14 σίδας.
3. fem. present participle (*-ontya > -onsa) has the East Aeolic raising of the n, leading to a diphthong with iota: e.g., 3 fr. 3.65 ἔχοισα.
4. a few instances of diphthongization (East Aeolic) in thematic 3^rd pl., e.g., 56.4 ἔχοισιν; see below 2 c.
4. Third compensatory lengthening: where a digamma has disappeared within words before or after a liquid, Alcman tends to have a lengthened preceding vowel (strict Doric), e.g., 1.61 φᾶρος, 3 fr. 11.2 πήρα[τα. In 4 out of 14 cases, the vowel is not lengthened. Since Laconian normally has short forms, Hinge believes Alcman used the lengthened forms as “general license of the poetic language” or “a variant belonging to a higher, common Greek linguistic stratum.”4
5. α̅ο and α̅ω contract to α̅ (Doric), e.g., 1.82 τᾶν.
6. α̅ε contract to η (Doric), e.g., 1.16 ποτήσθω.
7. ε does not contract before ο, ω, or α, e.g., 38.3 αἰνέοντι and 103 κάδεα, except sometimes in endings, e.g., 1.3 ποδώκη. In a number of cases, ε changes to ι before α, ο, or ω, e.g., 1.98 σιαί (Att.-Ion. θεαί, see 1i) and 1.55 ἀργύριον (strict Doric).
8. εε contract to η (strict Doric), e.g., 1.88 ἁνδάνην (but see also 2a).
9. σ for θ before vowels, e.g., 1.71 σιειδής (θεειδής), but not consistently, e.g., S5b.12 Λευκοθεᾶ[ν.5
10. σδ for ζ, e.g., 3 fr. 3.72 ἵσδει. This spelling, only inconsistently attested (e.g., 17.8 ζατεύει but 19.1 τραπέσδαι), was most likely a later intrusion: when ζ was no longer pronounced [zd] the writing was adapted in order to assure that it was still recited correctly (Willi 2012: 275).
11. the digamma at word beginning makes its presence felt in about half of the certain instances, e.g., 1.6 τε Fάνακτα, while it is ignored in the remainder of cases, e.g., 1.16 ἐς ὠρανόν (the preposition scans short). The text thus does not directly reflect the local dialect of Alcman’s Sparta (pace Page 1951), where digamma at word beginning was still present (see Hinge 1997).
12. Thematic 3^rd plural active in -ντι (Doric), e.g., 38.3 αἰνέοντι, and -οισι(ν) (East Aeolic), e.g., 2(iv).4 ν[αί]οισιν. In three instances in secondary sources, the text reads -ουσι(ν): 56.4, 89.1, 89.6; this could be later normalization, but may also reflect the multiformity of the songs of Alcman in performance.6
2. Morphology
1. The thematic infinitive ends in -ην before vowel (see 1 h), e.g., 1.88 ἁνδάνην but -εν before consonant or verse end, e.g., 1.17 γάμεν. In S5b.17 we find πασεῖν, corrected to πασῆν in the papyrus. The athematic infinitive ends in -μεν (Doric), e.g., 1.45 ἤμεν, or -μεναι (East Aeolic), e.g., 42 ἔδμεναι.
2. First-plural active in -μες, e.g., 1.12 παρήσομες.
3. Nominative plural article first declension is ταί (Doric), e.g., 1.60; second declension not attested.
4. Dative plural first declension -αις (Doric) slightly preferred over -αισι(ν) (East Aeolic).
5. Dative plural second declension -οις (Doric) slightly preferred over -οισι(ν) (East Aeolic and Ionic). The statistical division fits in a historical development of a decline of the long dative form from epic to elegy and lyric. There is no correlation between the local dialect of poets and their choice for long or short dative plural.7
6. Dative plural of the third declension has the East Aeolic ending -εσσι(ν) in two cases: 26.4 άλκυόνεσσι and 98.2 δαιτυμόνεσσι. These forms may be explained as influence from epic (Nöthiger 1971: 38 and Hinge 2006: 167), but they may also represent further East Aeolic elements of the lyric tradition in Sparta.
7. Accusative plural first declension in -ᾰς, e.g., S5b.11 γλυκείᾰς (marked short in the papyrus).
8. In the papyri, Alcman’s text shows Doric accentuation, e.g., 1.14 γεραιτάτοι; see Hinge 2006: 122–130 for details.
9. Individual words and forms:
1. γα for γε (Doric), e.g., 43
2. ποτί (Doric), but note 70(a) πρός (Ionic or East Aeolic)
3. πεδά (Doric or East Aeolic), e.g., 1.58
4. ἐγών (Doric), e.g., 1.39
5. τύ, τίν (Doric), e.g., 10(b).8
6. νιν (Doric), e.g., 1.44
7. ἁμίν and ὑμίν (Doric), but note 97.226 ὔμμι (East Aeolic)
8. αἰ (Doric), e.g., 3 fr. 1.77
9. κε(ν) (Doric), but note 13a.6 ἄν (Ionic)
10. ὅκα and πόκα (Doric), e.g., 17.1 ποκά
11. γλεφ-/γλεπ- for βλεφ-/βλεπ- (Doric), e.g., 3 fr. 1.75 ποτιγλέποι

Sappho and Alcaeus

Alcaeus and Sappho were active on Lesbos in the sixth century BC. The language of their songs as transmitted is the East Aeolic dialect, often simply called Lesbian, and shows limited influence from epic, especially in those fragments with dactylic meters. The dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus’ songs has not led to much discussion in earlier scholarship, but it remains difficult to establish to what extent the poetic language of Sappho and Alcaeus represents the language spoken in Lesbos in the sixth century BC. Silk argues that Sappho’s language was intended to convey an “overall vernacular impression,”8 but it is reductive to equate her language to the Lesbian dialect spoken in her time.

The edition referred to is Voigt 1971 for most fragments of both poets, Greene and Skinner 2009 for Sappho 58, and Bierl and Lardinois 2016 for the Brothers and Kypris poems.

Dialectal features:

General

• East Aeolic dialect
• Limited epic influence

Particular

1. Phonology:
1. α̅ retained, e.g., S 16.17 βᾶμα.
2. First compensatory lengthening: gemination of liquid, e.g., Αlc. 150.5 κράνναν (for Attic and Ionic κρήνην).
3. Second compensatory lengthening: diphthongization with iota, e.g., Sapph. 103.5 Μοῖ[σαi, A 119.16 ἐοίσαις, A 72.9 παίσαις (Att.-Ion. Μοῦσαι, οὔσας, πάσας).9
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowel not lengthened. Forms like Sapph. 16.1 ἰππήων αre regarded as epic influence (Hamm 1957: 62).
5. α̅ο and α̅ω do not normally contract, but if so to α̅ (normal in gen. pl. first decl.), e.g., Sapph. Brothers 15 ἀήταν.
6. α̅ε does not normally contract, except S 95.10 ἔπαρθ᾽.
7. εε contract to η, e.g., Sapph. 16.3 κῆν᾽, or remains uncontracted, e.g., Sapph. 1.10 ὤ]κεες.
8. οο if contracted yields ω (East Aeolic), e.g., Sapph. 16.18 πρωσώπω.
9. in an ι-dipthong before a vowel, ι is normally lost, e.g., Sapph. 5.9 πόησθαι, except in the optative (see Hamm 1957: 27–8 for further details).
10. σδ for ζ at word beginning and word-internally, e.g., Sapph. 16.1 πέσδων. This is most likely a later intrusion (since Aeolic inscriptions have Z) because at some point ζ was no longer pronounced [zd] so the writing was changed to assure that it was still recited correctly (Willi 2012: 275).
11. F is preserved at word beginning in third person pronouns, e.g., 5.3 Fῶι, and in a few further textually difficult instances. Evidence suggests that digamma was no longer pronounced at the time of the Lesbian poets,10 and that they used it as a poetic archaism at their convenience, e.g., Α 140.15 πρώτισθ᾽ ὑπὸ (F)ἔργον. For original Fρ- the papyri and manuscripts have βρ- in a number of cases, but not consistently. It may be that in these cases βρ- are simply a scribal feature to represent defunct Fρ-, and that therefore these cases are actual archaisms.11
12. Thematic 3^rd plural active in -οισι(ν), e.g., Α 140.6 νεύοισιν.
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitives in -ην, e.g., A 249.5 κατέχην. Contract verbs (e.g., Att.-Ion. -εω) regularly take the athematic endings in East Aeolic (see 2b below), but the infinitive is still -ην, e.g., Sapph. Brothers 19 περτρόπην. Athematic infinitives in -μεναι (East Aeolic), e.g., Sapph. 16.3 ἔμμεναι.
2. Contract verbs in -αω, -εω, and -οω are conjugated as athematic verbs, e.g., Sapph. 60.4 κάλημι (see 2.m below), though with the infinitive as thematic verbs, e.g., A. 70.1 κάλην.12
3. Second singular present knows a secondary ending in -σθα, for athematic verbs (e.g., Alc. 58.28 τίτησθα), athematically conjugated contract verbs (e.g., Sapph. 129b φίλησθα), and for one thematic verb (Sapph. 96.23 ἔχηισθα [εχησθ᾽α pap.], S 129a ἔχηισθα [ἔχεισθα mss.] and Sapph. Kypris 4 ἔχησθα or ὀνέχησθα).
4. Nominative plural article first and second declension: αἰ and οἰ (East Aeolic).
5. Genitive singular second declension in -ω (East Aeolic), but note Sapph. 44.16 and Alc. 367.1 in -οιο (archaic East Aeolic13 or epic).
6. Dative plural first declension: -αισι(ν) (East Aeolic).
7. Dative plural second declension: -οισι(ν) (East Aeolic).
8. Dative plural third declension -εσσι(ν) (East Aeolic).
9. Accusative plural first and second declension: -αις and -οις (see 1 c above).
10. Aspiration at word beginning has been lost without consequence: psilosis (East Aeolic). This is also evident in compounds, e.g., Sapph. 17.20 ἀπίκε[σθαι.14
11. The accent is recessive (i.e., as far from word end as allowed in the normal accent rules), with the exception of prepositions, particles, and a select number of other words.15
12. Individual words and forms:
1. πρός (East Aeolic), e.g., 56.1 προσίδοισαν
2. πεδά (East Aeolic), e.g., A 70.7
3. ἐγώ (East Aeolic), e.g., S 16.3
4. σύ, σοι, σε (East Aeolic), e.g., A 308.1 σέ
5. ἄμμι and ὔμμι (East Aeolic), e.g., S 5.7 ἄμμι
6. αἰ (East Aeolic), e.g., S 1.5
7. κε(ν) (Εast Aeolic), e.g., A 117b.26
8. πότα (East Aeolic), e.g., S 1.5
9. apocope in preverbs and prepositions is common (East Aeolic), e.g., A 362.3 καδ δὲ χευάτω
13. A number of Hyperaeolicisms have made it into the tradition, e.g., 58.15 φίλημμι (for φίλημι by false analogy with ἔμμι), and Sapph. 141.3 Ἔρμαις (for Ἔρμας by false analogy with e.g., παῖς [Attic-Ionic πᾶς]).

II The “Lyric Koinē”

All subsequent lyric poets treat Alcman’s Doric and Sappho and Alcaeus’ East Aeolic as linguistic points of reference. Traditionally, Anacreon is treated separately since he was a monodic poet, and linguistically his Ionic dialect is closer to that of the poets of iambus and elegy. Nonetheless, his language is a mix of dialects that justifies the designation “lyric koinē.” Alcman already demonstrates an intermingling of Doric and Aeolic elements, though with a clear Doric (Laconic) base, and this is true for all other lyric poets, each of them occupying a slightly different position on the scale between Aeolic and Doric. Before discussing the poets in their customary chronological order, it is worth ordering them on this linguistic scale.

After Alcman, the texts of Stesichorus and to a lesser extent Ibycus show quite strong Doric influence. Unlike Alcman, these two poets had an Ionic dialect as their mother tongue. Further toward the middle, we find Simonides, followed by Bacchylides, who show more influence from their native Ionic dialect. Anacreon may be established in the Aeolic poetic tradition, but his language is clearly Ionic and innovative.16 He in turn formed a source of inspiration for the language of Simonides.17 Pindar stands at the end and at the pinnacle of the development of the lyric koinē, and shows in some forms stronger Aeolic influence than any other non-Lesbian poet, while also using rare Doric forms when it suits him. Pindar tends to shy away from the Ionic forms found in Anacreon, Simonides, and Bacchylides.

In discussing lyric koinē, the designation “Doric” for many of the dialectal peculiarities found in poets like Ibycus, Anacreon, and Pindar, is not unchallenged. Pavese 1967 and recently Maslov 2013 theorize that the language of choral lyric goes back to an old northern Greek (i.e., continental Aeolic) poetic language, while Gallavotti 1967 and Trümpy 1986 argue it goes back (at least partly) to a Mycenaean poetic language. These theories exclude each other, since Mycenaean is a southern Greek dialect. In current scholarship, neither theory is generally accepted, but Maslov’s recent article shows that the matter is not settled.18

Stesichorus

Stesichorus lived and worked in Magna Graecia in the sixth century BC, and his name is associated specifically with Metauros on the Tyrrhenian coast and Himera and Katane on Sicily.19 The unusually high number of books attributed to him, the fuzzy biographical tradition, his speaking name (“he who set up the chorus”), and the stylistic divergence of the extant fragments suggest that the 26 books of narrative lyric poetry transmitted under his name may in fact have been a collection of similar pieces by a range of authors from the late archaic period (for a counter-view see Finglass (Chapter 16) in this volume).20 The language of the songs attributed to him is largely Doric, with clear influence from epic, and to a lesser extent from Aeolic.21 The dialect of his home region was Ionic,22 so there may have been interaction between the lyric koinē and the local vernacular in his songs.23

The edition referred to is Davies and Finglass.

Dialectal features:

General

• Doric dialect
• epic lexicon and limited influence on morphology
• Some influence from East Aeolic

Particular

1. Phonology:
1. α̅ retained.
2. First compensatory lengthening: lengthening of vowel (mild Doric), e.g., 104.5 εἴμειν (see also 2a below), but note 117.6 κλεεννό[ν (East Aeolic).
3. Second compensatory lengthening: dipthongization in feminine participle (Aeolic), e.g., 97.217 ἁλοῖσαν, lengthening of vowel in all other cases (mild Doric), e.g., 97.220 δόμους, 97.257 πιθήσας.
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowels lengthened except in 85 (secondary transmission in scholia to Eur. Or. 249). The resulting vowel is sometimes open (strict Doric), e.g., 17.4 γωναζόμα[ι, but more often closed (mild Doric), e.g., 19.35 αἰολοδε[ίρ]ου).
5. α̅ο and α̅ω contract to α̅, e.g., 247.17 Ἱπ[π]οτάδα (masculine genitive singular), or remain uncontracted, e.g., 93.3 Ἄλκμαον.
6. α̅ε contracts to η, e.g., 319 ποταύδη (Hom. προσηύδα).
7. ε does not contract before ο, ω, or α, e.g., 97.233 νείκεος, 97.302 ἄστεα.
8. εε contract to ει, οο to ου (mild Doric), e.g., 85.3 κείνα, 97.201 ποίει (imperative). The one instance of strict Doric 25.2]φυγῆν was corrected to -ειν in the papyrus.
9. Thematic third-plural active -οντι (Doric), e.g., 10.4 ἔχοντι.
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitive in -εν (Doric), e.g., 93.17 γαμέν, and -ειν (Ionic), e.g., 97.214 ἐσιδεῖν, 15.18 ζω[εῖ]ν, and 19.8 πολεμε[ῖν). Athematic infinitive in -μεν (Doric and Aeolic), e.g., 97.221 ἀπίμεν, once -μειν (possibly Syracusan, see Willi 2008: 68), 104.5 εἴμειν; note also 19.7 εἶν which may have been a local form in Himera (Willi 2008: 68 with n. 72).
2. There are cases of a Doric contracted future (e.g., 97.278 δωσοῦντι instead of δώσοντι), but it is likely that these were later intrusions into the text (Cassio 1999: 208–11).
3. Article nominative plural 97.234 οἱ (non-Doric dialects), but 103.42 τοί (Doric).
4. Dative plural first declension: -αις (Doric) slightly preferred over -αισι(ν) (East Aeolic); see Willi 2008: 64–5 for statistics.
5. Dative plural second declension : -οις (Doric) slightly preferred over -οισι(ν) (Ionic and East Aeolic).
6. Dative plural third declension -σι(ν), but -εσσι(ν) in 97.249 and 282 στήθεσσι (epic); see Willi 2008: 65. The ending also occurs in Syracusan Doric but is not attested there before the fifth century BC; cf. Mimbrera 2012: 210 and Willi 2008: 65–66 with n. 58.
7. Accusative plural first declension -ᾰς. This short Doric form is metrically assured in a number of cases, e.g., 97.217 θανόντᾰς.
8. Doric accentuation, e.g., in third person plural of the aorist (ἐδείξαν for ἔδειξαν) and in nominative plural of first and second declension (γεραιτάτοι and ὀρθρίαι).24
9. Individual words and forms:
1. γα (Doric for γε), e.g., 214.11
2. ποτί (Doric), e.g., 18.4, but note 103.33 πρός (Ionic or Aeolic); in compounds, we find both ποτ(ι)- and προ(σ)-
3. πεδά (Doric and East Aeolic), e.g., 128.3
4. ἐγών (Doric), e.g., 93.9
5. τύ, τιν (Doric), e.g., 17.5 τιν
6. νιν (Doric), e.g., 115.2
7. ἁμίν/ὑμίν (Doric), but note 97.226 ὔμμι (East Aeolic)
8. αἰ (Doric and East Aeolic), e.g., 15.8
9. ὅκα/πόκα (Doric), e.g., 19.45 ὅκα
10. Individual Doric words: 114.12 Ἄρταμις, ἱαρός, 25 ὄνυμα, πρᾶτος, 97.180 ἐνθεῖν
11. Αpocope (epic and East Aeolic), e.g., 97.230 ἀμβάλλων
10. The text of Stesichorus contains a small number of hyperdorisms, all concerning the intrusion of α̅ where η is warranted (e.g., 97.241 μᾶλα for μῆλα), cf. Willi 2008: 59.

Anacreon

Anacreon worked in Teos, Abdera, Samos, and Athens in the sixth and early fifth centuries BC. He composed lyric poetry in a literary Ionic dialect, with some small influence from epic and East Aeolic (pace Fick 1886: 245). By his choice of dialect, he places himself rather in the tradition of iambus and elegy than that of sung lyric. In line with that, his work can be connected to Theognis’ erotic elegies, but some of his poetry shows clear echoes of Sapphic themes. Although his language is clearly literary, there is evidence that it was influenced here and there by “ordinary speech.”26

The edition referred to is PMG, with the addition of P.Oxy. 3722, a commentary to Anacreon.

Dialectal features:

General

• Ionic dialect
• Limited influence from epic
• Limited influence from East Aeolic

Particular

1. Phonology
1. α̅ has become η in all positions (Ionic), e.g., 358.1 σφαίρηι.27
2. First compensatory lengthening: lengthening of vowel (Ionic), e.g., 347.5 χεῖρας, 371.1 εἰμι.
3. Second compensatory lengthening: lengthening of vowel (Ionic), e.g., 347.4 πεσοῦσα, 357.4 συμπαίζουσιν.
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowels lengthened (Ionic), e.g., 348.1 γουνοῦμαι, 389 ξείνοισιν.
5. α̅ω > ηω > εω (Ionic), often in genitive plural first declension, e.g., 388.10 σατινέων.
6. α̅ε contracts to α̅ (Ionic), e.g., 394(b) μνᾶται.
7. ε does not contract before ο, ω, or α (Ionic), e.g., 357.5 μεο, 388.10 χρύσεα; note the occasional change of εο to ευ (Ionic).28
8. εε contract to ει, οο and οε to ου (Ionic), e.g., 346.6 ἀτιτάλλειν, 348.1 γουνοῦμαι, 352.2 στεφανοῦται.
9. Thematic third pl. act. -ουσι(ν) (Ionic).
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitives in -ειν (Ionic); athematic infinitives in -ναι (Ionic).
2. Nominative plural article οἱ (Ionic).
3. Dative plural first declension -ηισι(ν) (Ionic), e.g., 388.3 πλευρῆισι.
4. Dative plural second declension normally -οισι(ν) (Ionic), but also -οις (Doric and Attic), e.g., 356b.4–5 καλοῖς/… ὕμνοις.
5. Dative plural third declension -εσσι(ν) (East Aeolic) once in PMG 33.1 πτερύγεσσι.
6. Individual words and forms:
1. συν (common Greek), but note ξυν- (Ionic, epic, and perhaps East Aeolic) once as a pre-verb: 475 ἐξυνῆκεν
2. πρός (Ionic), e.g., 346 fr. 1.2
3. ἐγώ (Ionic), e.g., 347.8
4. σύ, σοι, σε (Ionic), e.g., 347.3 σύ
5. εἰ (Ionic), e.g., P.Oxy. 3722 fr. 21.8
6. ἄν (Ionic), e.g., 356a.5
7. πότε (Ionic), e.g., 426
8. two instances of gemination (East Aeolic): 379a χρυσοφαέννων and P.Oxy. 3722 fr. 16.12 κλεεν[ν-
9. long alpha possibly retained in 382 αἰχμάν (not all mss.), 393 μεναίχμαν, and 443 δάφναι χλωρᾶι τ᾽ ἐλαίαι (Doric or East Aeolic)
10. 357.11 and 365.2 Δεόνυσος: this non-Ionic form is derived from the local Samian dialect according to an ancient source
11. the tendency to add the article with the possessive pronoun (e.g., 358.6 τὴν μὲν ἐμὴν κόμην may be a colloquialism (Hutchinson 2001: 261)

Ibycus

Ibycus was born in Rhegium (on the south-western tip of Italy), where Ionic was the main dialect at the time, and for part of his life he worked at the court of Polycrates in Samos, also Ionic; he is probably to be dated to the second half of the sixth century BC. As a bridge between West and East, his language is Doric with hints of epic/literary Ionic, and some interesting Aeolic peculiarities. His erotic poems, though transmitted only indirectly, permit the interpretation that they were originally largely Ionic.29 There is particularly little securely attributed material by Ibycus,30 which makes it hard to establish his dialectal tendencies.

The edition referred to is PMGF.31

Dialectal features:

General

• Doric dialect
• Influence from epic
• Limited influence from East Aeolic

Particular

1. Phonology
1. α̅ retained.
2. First compensatory lengthening: lengthening of vowel (strict Doric) S151.41 ἐγήνατο.
3. Second compensatory lengthening: dipthongization in third pl. (East Aeolic), e.g., 37a.2 ἱζάνοισι, lengthening of vowel in all other cases (mild Doric), e.g., S151.13 ἄλλου[ς, S224.6 ἐπιτηρήσας. The ptcp. pr. f. is not attested.
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowels sometimes lengthened (Ιonic or mild Doric), e.g., S151.10 ξειναπάταν, but sometimes not (East Aeolic) e.g., S303a.2 κόραν.32 Since Doric and epic tend to have compensatory lengthening, the short forms must be regarded as influence from his local dialect, or from East Aeolic.
5. α̅ο and α̅ω contract to α̅, e.g., S166.15 Μοιρᾶν, or remain uncontracted, e.g., S166.19]νοπάονες. There is one Ionic formation: 288 γλαυκέων, if the reading is correct.33
6. ε does not contract before ο, ω, or α, e.g., 6.5 τρομέω, S151.46 κάλλεος, S166.35 ἄλσεα. A possible exception is 257a.9 εὐώδη, but this fragment’s attribution to Ibycus is not secure (pace West 1984).
7. εε contracts to ει, οο to ου (mild Doric), e.g., 32 εὑρεῖν. There is one likely instance of strict Doric: S151.12 [ὑμ]νῆν, and εε remains uncontracted in S151.2 περικλεές.
8. Thematic third plural active -οισι(ν) (Aeolic), e.g., 37a.2 ἱζάνοισι.
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitives in -εν (Doric), e.g., S166.14 ἔχεν, but note 32 εὑρεῖν (Ionic).
2. Article nominative plural first declension αἱ, e.g., 5.1 and 5.4 (non-Doric).
3. Dative plural first declension -αις (Doric) preferred slightly over -αισι(ν) (East Aeolic).
4. Dative plural second declension -οις (Doric) preferred slightly over -οισι(ν) (Ionic and East Aeolic). The longer forms may be explained as literary, possibly epic influence.34
5. Dative plural third declension -εσσι(ν) (East Aeolic) is frequent, e.g., S222.6 ἀχέεσσιν, but in quotations we also find the non-Aeolic form, e.g., 286.5 ἕρνεσιν.35
6. Accusative plural first declension -ᾰς not securely attested.
7. Doric accentuation found in the papyri may have been due (in part) to an attempt by Alexandrian scholars to recreate the—by then Doric—local dialect of Rhegium.36
8. Schema Ibyceum: the use of -ησι in the indicative third sg. act. (normally a subjunctive form). This is to be explained through analogy with -ει forms in indicative and subjunctive (rather than -ηι), which could be a result of shortening of long final diphthongs in the Western colonies of Euboea.37
9. Individual words and forms:
1. πεδά (Doric and East Aeolic), e.g., S151.46
2. πρός (Ionic and East Aeolic), but note 6.6 ποτί (Doric)
3. ἐγών (Doric) once in S221.4
4. σύ and σε (Ionic), e.g., S151.47
5. νιν (Doric), e.g., 287.5
6. αἰ (Doric and East Aeolic)
7. κε(ν) (Doric), but note S151.23 ἄν (Ionic) supplied (wrongly?) in lacuna
8. ὅκα/πόκα (Doric) but note 30a, S220.6 ποτε/πότε (Ionic and East Aeolic)
10. Hyperdorisms: S151.17 ὑπ]εράφανον.38

Simonides

Simonides worked on Ceos, an Ionic island, from the mid-sixth to the mid-fifth century BC. His melic poetry, which concerns us here, is largely Doric. However, Simonides employs fewer obscure Doric forms than that of his predecessors, and frequent influence from Ionic.39 The dialect of his elegies and epigrams, conversely, is primarily Ionic, under the influence of generic convention. As is the case for Ibycus, little of Simonides’ melic lyric survives, which makes generalizing statements about his dialect difficult.

The edition referred to is PMG.

Dialectal features:

General

• Doric dialect
• Influence from Ionic
• Limited influence from East Aeolic

Particular

1. Phonology
1. α̅ retained.
2. First compensatory lengthening: vowel normally lengthened (Ionic or mild Doric), e.g., 509.2 χεῖρας, but note 543.6 χέρα (East Aeolic)
3. Second compensatory lengthening: vowel normally lengthened (Ionic or mild Doric), e.g., 600 στίζουσα, but note 519 fr. 92.3 τελέσσαις and 577a.1, 519 fr. 22.3 Μοισᾶν (East Aeolic).
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowels sometimes lengthened (Ιonic or mild Doric), e.g., 543.10 δούρατι, but sometimes not (East Aeolic), e.g., 542.12 μόνος and possibly 519 fr. 5a.4]μοιοκοραι.
5. α̅ο and α̅ω contract to α̅, e.g., 543.13 κομᾶν, but remain uncontracted in 519 fr. 73c.2 θυσιάων.
6. α̅ε contracts to α̅ (Ionic), e.g., 541.36 βιᾶται.
7. ε does not normally contract before ο, ω, or α, e.g., 509.1 Πολυδεύκεος, 521.1 ἐών, 519 fr. 35b.5 ἔαρ.
8. εε contract to ει, οο to ου (mild Doric), e.g., 519 fr. 124.4 γεραίρειν, or remain uncontracted, e.g., 525 νόον and 519 fr. 32.2 ῥέεθρα.
9. Athematic third singular in -τι (Doric) in 519 fr. 35.5 πάρειτι.
10. Thematic third plural active in -οντι (Doric) in 581.6 θραύοντι, but in -ουσι(ν) (Ionic) in 508.5 καλέουσι(ν) and possibly in 533b ἀποτρέπουσι.
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitives in -ειν (Ionic), but note 519 fr. 79.12 θορέν (Doric). Athematic infinitives in -μεν (Doric and Aeolic) but note 542.13 ἔμμεναι (East Aeolic).40
2. Genitive singular second declension normally in -ου (Ionic), but 10x -οιο (epic), e.g., 519 fr. 46.2 ἄνέμοιο. Note—textually difficult—551 βιότω (Doric).
3. Dative plural first declension -αις (Doric) preferred over -αισι(ν) (epic and East Aeolic).41
4. Dative plural second declension -οισι(ν) (epic/Ionic and East Aeolic) preferred over -οις (Doric).
5. Dative plural third declension normally -εσσι(ν) (East Aeolic) but 2x -σι(ν) (Doric and Ionic).
6. Individual words and forms:
1. μετά (Ionic), e.g., 527.3 μεταρρίπτει
2. ποτί (Doric), though only attested in the epigrams
3. ἐγώ (Ionic), e.g., 542.21
4. Second person pronouns in σ-, e.g., 559.1 σύ
5. μιν (Ionic), e.g., 508.4, but note 541.8 νιν (Doric)
6. 542.26 ὑμίν (Ionic and Doric) but often emended to ὔμμι (East Aeolic)
7. εἰ (Ionic) and αἰ (Doric and East Aeolic) equally common
8. κε(ν) (Doric and East Aeolic) and ἄν (Ionic) equally common
9. ποτε (Ionic), e.g., 521.1
10. One case of athematic conjugation of a contract verb (East Aeolic): 542.27 ἐπαίνημι
11. One case of gemination (East Aeolic): 559.2 ἔλλαθι

Pindar

Originally from Thebes in Boeotia, Pindar worked for patrons throughout the Greek world in the late sixth and the first half of the fifth century BC. His poetry, transmitted in mediaeval manuscripts and a number of papyri, is in a largely Doric dialect, but with strong Aeolic influence.42 At times he also allows specifically epic forms, especially often in Pyth. 4 (see Forssman 1966: 86–100). His native Boeotian, conversely, has left few traces in the text, perhaps because most of his songs were performed elsewhere, for a non-Boeotian audience.

The edition referred to is S-M.

Dialectal features:

General

• Doric dialect
• Strong influence from East Aeolic
• epic influence

Particular

1. Phonology:
1. α̅ retained.
2. First compensatory lengthening: vowels sometimes lengthened (Ionic or mild Doric), e.g., Νem. 1.2 κλεινᾶν, Nem. 7.61 σκοτεινόν, but more often geminated (East Aeolic), e.g., Pyth. 4.14 ἄμμες, Οl. 1.6 φαεννὸν.
3. Second compensatory lengthening: dipthongization (Aeolic) in feminine participle, e.g., Οl. 1.31 ἐπιφέροισα, and sometimes in aorist participle, e.g.,Pyth. 4.61 αὐδάσαισα, vowel lengthened in all other cases (mild Doric), e.g., Νem. 5.15 ἀλκίμους.
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowels sometimes lengthened (Ιonic or mild Doric), e.g., Pyth. 9.27 μούναν, Ol. 3.40 ξεινίαις, but more often not (East Aeolic), e.g., Ol. 7.43 κόρᾳ, Pyth. 11.16 ξένου.43
5. α̅ο and α̅ω if contracted yield α̅, e.g., Pyth. 8.46 Ἀλκμᾶνα.
6. α̅ε contracts to α̅, but note Nem. 5.5 νίκη (< (ἐ)νίκαε, Doric).
7. ε does not normally contract before ο, ω, or α, e.g., Ol. 1.116 ἐόντα, Ol. 10.105 ἀναιδέα, but note Ol. 12.6a ψεύδη.
8. εε contract to ει (mild Doric), e.g., Pyth. 5.107 κεῖνον; οο contract in gen. sg. m. (mild Doric), e.g., Ol. 1.2 πλούτου, but note fr. 333.6 Πυταγγέλω and fr. 333.8 Ὀρχομενῶ (strict Doric). οο can also remain uncontracted, e.g., Pyth. 10.68 νόος.
9. Thematic third plural active -οντι (Doric), e.g., Ν. 9.27 φεύγοντι, preferred over -οισι(ν) (East Aeolic), e.g., O. 7.95 διαιθύσσοισιν.44
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitives in -ειν (Ionic), e.g., Οl. 2.69 ἔχειν but a few cases of -εν (Doric), e.g., Οl. 1.3 γαρύεν; infinitive of verbs in -έω is contracted, e.g., Ol. 1.116 ὁμιλεῖν. Athematic infinitives normally in -μεν (Doric and East Aeolic), e.g., Ol. 6.63 ἴμεν, but some cases of -μεναι (East Aeolic) and -ναι (Ionic).
2. Dative plural first declension -αις (Doric) narrowly preferred over -αισι(ν) (East Aeolic).
3. Dative plural second declension -οις (Doric) narrowly preferred over -οισι(ν) (Ionic and East Aeolic).
4. Dative plural third declension in -σι(ν) (Ιonic), e.g., Ol. 6.55 ἀκτῖσιν, or -εσσι(ν) (East Aeolic), e.g., Pyth. 1.79 παίδεσσιν.45
5. Peculiarities
1. πρός (Ionic), but 25x ποτί (Doric)
2. μετά (Ionic), but c. 10x πεδά or πεδ- (Doric and East Aeolic)
3. εἰ (Ionic), but note Pyth. 4.78 αἴτ᾽ ὦν (Doric and East Aeolic)
4. ἐγώ (Ionic and East Aeolic) preferred over ἐγών (Doric)
5. Second person pronouns: normally σ- (Ionic), but about one thirds τ- (Doric), especially in dative, e.g., Οl. 5.7 τίν, Ol. 8.10 τοι
6. μιν (Ionic) and νιν (Doric) used interchangeably
7. ἄμμι and ὔμμι (East Aeolic) preferred, but 3x ὑμῖν (Doric) Ol. 14.5, Isthm. 2.30, fr. 122.6
8. πότε (Ionic and East Aeolic), but 3x τόκα, in Ol. 6.66 and Nem. 6.12 (Doric)
9. ἐσλός (East Aeolic),46 e.g., Οl. 2.19
10. δίδοι imp. pr. (Boeotian?), e.g., Nem. 5.5047
11. γλέφαρον (Doric) for βλέφαρον (Ionic) in about half of extant instances, e.g.
12. Hyperdorisms: on possible hyperdoric α̅, see Strunk 1964 and Forssman 1966: 83–85

Bacchylides

Bacchylides hailed from the same island as Simonides, Ceos, and is regarded in the biographical tradition as having been his nephew, living from the late sixth to middle of the fifth century BC. As for Simonides, Bacchylides’ native Ionic has left a clear mark in his poetry. The find of a magnificent papyrus roll at the end of the nineteenth century means that the size of his corpus is second only to that of Pindar’s. In this single manuscript, Bacchylides’ language shows distinct dialectal inconsistency, which is often metrically guaranteed. Nonetheless, the dialect is far from the author’s native Ionic, with some Doric, some East Aeolic, and some epic or more generally archaizing features. It is common practice to call Bacchylides’ language basically the same as that of Pindar (Irigoin 1993: XLIX), but this is unhelpful. Bacchylides uses more epic and Ionic forms, and he differs especially from Pindar in his avoidance of East Aeolic forms. His encomia and erotic poetry may have been more Ionic than his other lyric.48

The edition referred to is Maehler 2003.

Dialectal features:

General

• Doric dialect
• Influence from Ionic and epic
• Occasional influence from East Aeolic

Particular

1. Phonology
1. α̅ typically retained, but not consistently.49
2. First compensatory lengthening: vowel lengthened (Ionic), e.g., 5.14 κλεινός, 2.4 θρασύχειρος, but note the East Aeolic forms 17.25 ἄμμι and 5.182 κλεεννός.
3. Second compensatory lengthening: vowel lengthened (Ionic), e.g., 3.63 ἔχουσιν, 5.142 ἀγκλαύσασα, 11.56 ἱεῖσαι. The exceptions are 13.227 ἐπαθρήσαις (not certain) and 19.13–4 λαχοῖσαν.
4. Third compensatory lengthening: vowel typically lengthened (Ionic), e.g., 13.206 κα̅λῶς, 12.8 μουνοπάλαν, 11.85–6 ξείνα.50
5. α̅ε tends to contract to α̅ (Ionic), e.g., 13.180 στρωφᾶται.
6. α̅ο and α̅ω contract to α̅, e.g., 5.193 Μουσᾶν, 13.164–5 δι[ν]ᾶντα or remain uncontracted, e.g., 17.3 Ἰα̅όνω[ν.
7. ε does not normally contract before ο, ω, or α, e.g., 1.165 κέαρ, 1.166 ἐών, 1.173 ἀφνεός. In the case of εο, we sometimes find the Ionic ευ, e.g., 18.12 φθέγγευ.
8. εε contracts to ει, e.g., 5.90 κεῖνον, οο does not normally contract, e.g., 5.95 νόον.
9. Digamma is treated inconsistently, sometimes obviating hiatus, e.g., 9.45 πολυζήλωτε (F)ἄναξ, sometimes not, e.g., 3.76 δ᾽ ἄναξ.
10. Thematic third plural active -ουσι(ν) (Ionic), e.g., 5.24 ἴσχουσι, but tendentially -οντι (Doric) after -σσ- and -ξ-, and when the final syllable is elided, e.g., 5.22 πτάσσοντι, 13.231 καρύξοντι, Pa. 4.79 βρίθοντ.’ For verbs in -έω, we also find Ionic -εῦσι(ν), e.g., 9.43 οἰκεῦσι.
2. Morphology
1. Thematic infinitives in -ειν (Ionic), e.g., 4.20 λαγχάνειν, but a few cases of -εν (Doric), e.g., 16.18 θύεν; infinitive of verbs in -έω is contracted, e.g., 9.6 ὑμνεῖν. Athematic infinitives in -μεν (Doric and Aeolic), e.g., 19.12 ἴμεν, but note 18.14 ἔμμεναι (East Aeolic).
2. Finite aorist forms often unaugmented (epic), e.g., 3.9 θρόησε.
3. Article nominative plural first/second declension normally αἱ/οἱ (non-Doric), but note 9.42 ταί and 5.149 τοί.
4. Genitive singular second declension in -ου (Ionic), with a few instances of -οιο (epic), e.g., 10.37 ἀριγνώτοιο.
5. Dative plural first declension -αις (Doric) narrowly preferred over -αισι(ν) (epic and East Aeolic), but note 13.135 κλισίηισιν (epic/Ionic).
6. Dative plural second declension -οισι(ν) (Ionic and East Aeolic) preferred over -οις (Doric)
7. Dative plural third declension -σι(ν), e.g., 5.72 τ[ε]ύχεσι, but occasionally -εσσι(ν) (East Aeolic), e.g., 5.96 ἄνδρεσσιν and 13.203 πάντεσσι.
8. Individual words and forms:
1. μετά (Ionic), but note 16.9 πεδοιχνεῖν (Doric and East Aeolic)
2. πρός (Ionic), but 2x ποτί (Doric): 16.29 and 11.96
3. ἐγώ (Ionic), e.g., 13.221
4. σύ, σε, σοι (Ionic), but note 18.14 τίν (Doric)
5. νιν (Doric), but note 11.111 μιν (Ionic)
6. 17.25 ἄμμι (East Aeolic)
7. εἰ (Ionic), but 2x αἰ (Doric): 17.64 αἴ κ(ε) (epic) and 5.5 αἴ τις
8. ἄν (Ionic) preferred over κε(ν) (Aeolic)
9. πότε (Ιonic), e.g., 3.23
10. One case of gemination (East Aeolic): 11.8 ἔλλαθι
11. thematic third singular subjunctive. in -ησι (epic), e.g., 19.3–4 λάχησι
12. Αpocope (epic and East Aeolic), e.g., in 5.7 ἀμπαύσας

Late-Classical and Hellenistic Lyric

The lyric koinē survives the canon of nine lyric poets, but what little we can discern of late-Classical and Hellenistic lyric suggests a further simplification of the dialect. In the late fifth-century poet Timotheus, the proponent of the “New Music” (see LeVen (Chapter 25) in this volume), the Aeolic element appears to have disappeared completely. The Hellenistic poet-scholar Callimachus, however, revives Pindar’s rich lyric language, and applies it even outside of the lyric meters (i.e., hexameter and elegiac distichon): see Morrison (Chapter 27) in this volume. Moreover, the dialect even more clearly becomes a tool in the hands of Callimachus, as he adapts his language at will. Thus he writes Doric iambos (Ia. 6, 9, 11), a genre normally associated with Ionic, while another has Aeolic reminiscences (Ia. 7).51 A similar flexibility can be found in Theocritus, who has a set of Lesbian poems, in Lesbian meter and East Aeolic dialect (28–31), while most of his other poetry is in Doric hexameters.52

The language of Corinna, a Boeotian poet whose date is a debated issue,53 is strongly influenced by the dialect of her native region. Unlike for Pindar, who keeps his language almost entirely free of Boeotian words and forms, Corinna’s poetry is transmitted with the peculiar spelling that reflects the vocalization particular to Boeotia. The dialect is characterized especially by the monopthongization of certain diphthongs (e.g., αι > η, οι > υ) and the raising of some vowels (e.g., η > ει, ει > ι) with secondary further shifts (e.g., υ > ου).

Imperial Lyric

By Roman times, the attitude toward the lyric dialect has become yet less strict. Mesomedes, a Cretan poet working at the court of Hadrian, has recourse to the whole arsenal of poetic forms and expressions, without any care for consistency, e.g., 3.17–19 Νίκην … πάρεδρον Δίκας, ἅ. Most non-Attic elements can at this point justifiably be called Doric coloring, although he too allowed East Aeolic forms in his poetry (e.g., 2.9 ἴχνεσσι). Julia Balbilla, a poet at the same court, was more strict in her use of dialect. The four epigrams she composed to be inscribed on the Colossus of Memnon in Egyptian Thebes are all in the East Aeolic dialect. Unlike Mesomedes, she must have read and consciously imitated Sappho’s language and poetry, albeit in the poetic form of the elegiac distichon.54

Although little other lyric poetry can be securely dated to the Imperial period, one recently published fragment (P.Oxy. 5191) illustrates the continuity of the lyric koinē. Datable to the Roman period because of the occurrence of Καπιτώλιος (an epithet of Jupiter) in line 6, this fragment of unclear nature shows a typical mix of Ionic and Doric characteristics, though without any East Aeolic elements (see above on Timotheus).55 Long α is largely retained, except in two epic borrowings (Hesiod). Like in Bacchylides, lexical choice is not consistent (e.g., l. 4 πελώριον and l. 12 πελώρην).

FURTHER READING

For a brief overview of the Greek literary dialects, one may turn to Tribulato 2010. Miller 2013 is more extensive, paying special attention to the language of Homer and the lyric poets. As regards individual authors, see Hinge 2006 on Alcman, but also read the important critiques of his main thesis in Cassio 2007 and Willi 2012: 274–278; most recently, see Miller 2013: 198–203. | For what is often simply called the Lesbian dialect, see Hamm 1957, Hooker 1977, and Bowie 1981; more recently, see Tribulato 2008a: 152–162. | For Stesichorus, see the seminal work of Nöthiger 1971, but now also Willi 2008: 58–74 and Davies and Finglass 2014: 40–46. | Anacreon’s dialect has not been the subject of thorough study, but useful remarks can be found in Fick 1886: 242–272, Garzón Diaz 1990-1991: 60–61, and Hutchinson 2001: 260–261. | Discussions of Ibycus’ dialect tend to be subsumed into larger discussions of the dialect of choral lyric (e.g., Felsenthal 1980; Trümpy 1986), but see Nöthiger 1971 and Ucciardello 2005: 23–54 for useful observations.56 | Despite its title, Poltera 1997 is not an accessible guide to Simonides’ language, but it deals admirably with specific issues and contains valuable observations. One might rather start with Nöthiger 1971, or with the brief overview in Miller 2013: 158–161. | Nöthiger 1971 gives a good overview of Pindar’s language, while Forssman 1966 specifically studies the long α in the Pindaric corpus. Hummel 1993 attempts to capture the syntax of Pindaric language. | The fullest work on Bacchylides’ dialect is Schöne 1899, but there are more accessible decriptions in Jebb 1905: 79–92, Irigoin 1993: XLIX–LIII, and Maehler 2003: XIX–XXI.

Notes

1 See Cassio 1993 and Willi 2012.

2 This form does not occur in epic, so it must be regarded as influence from earlier East Aeolic poetry: either the lyric tradition that came to Sparta, or lost Aeolic epic; cf. Nöthiger 1971: 43, Braswell 1988: 380–381, and Hinge 2006: 41.

3 Ruijgh 1989: 89 argues that Alcman used Μῶσα rather than Μοῖσα to underline the “local character” of his poetry’s subject.

4 Hinge 2006: 50.

5 It is generally assumed that this spelling intruded into the text later, once pronunciation of pre- and intervocalic t^h in Laconia became s; see Hinge 2006: 70–78 for extensive discussion.

6 Hinge 2006: 87.

7 Hinge 2006: 151.

8 Silk 2010: 431.

9 In the case of -ens East Aeolic yields -εις through diphthongization (raising of the n), whereas Attic-Ionic yields the same form through loss of the n and subsequent lengthening of e. In Att.-Ion. -εις is a spurious diphthong, i.e., a digraph spelling representing a single long vowel, in this case a long closed e.

10 See Hooker (1977: 23–27), Bowie (1981: 69–74), and Miller 2013: 248–249.

11 The main argument for this is that in a number of cases βρ- makes metrical position; see Bowie (1981: 80–84), against Hooker (1977: 29–30).

12 Voigt and other editors print κάλημμι (and ὄρημμι, etc.), but this form of the first sg. is not supported by linguistic theory or manuscript evidence; cf. Miller 2013: 243 and De Kreij 2016: 68.

13 See Hooker 1977: 112 for this argument.

14 Hooker 1977: 13–17 offers important critical comments about the editorial practice of applying psilosis throughout in the Lesbian poets.

15 See West 1970a and Hooker 1977: 18–23.

16 Gentili 1958: xxiii–xxiv.

17 Poltera 1997: 541.

18 See e.g., Nöthiger 1977: 126–127 with n. 1, Cassio 2005, Tribulato 2008b: 194–195.

19 For the confusion about Matauros/Metauros and its geographic location, see the discussion in Ercoles 2013: 272–275.

20 See D’Alessio 2015, pace Davies and Finglass 2014: 61.

21 So Colvin 2007: 55 and Willi 2008: 74–76. Russo 1999: 340 and Silk 2010: 426 rather see his language as basically epic Ionic with Doric coloring.

22 Cassio 1999: 204–206. From the fifth century onward, Magna Graecia was steadily Doricized, which may have had an effect in the later transmission of the poetry.

23 Davies and Finglass 2014: 46.

24 See Curtis 2011: 48 and Davies and Finglass 2014: 43.

25 This form also occurs on Sicily, as early as 600–550 BCe, e.g., Isic.MG I 35.

26 So Hutchinson 2001: 261; cf. Silk 2010: 431.

27 This is due to some extent to editorial intervention: the manuscripts have α̅ in a number of cases, but they have been consistently eliminated from the editions; cf. Garzón Diaz 1990: 61.

28 The manuscripts quite regularly have ευ, but the editors differ in their approaches to this vocalization.

29 Ucciardello 2005: 44, with his evidence for Ionic erotic poetry gathered on 40–43.

30 See Ucciardello 2005: 21–23 for an overview of the papyri attributed, with differing degrees of certainty, to Ibycus.

31 Thus following Page and Davies in attributing P.Oxy. 2735 to Ibycus (frr. 166–219), contra West.

32 See Hinge 2006: 50.

33 For this reading, see Brillante 1998: 13–20.

34 See Nöthiger 1971: 25 and Hinge 2006: 151 n. 2.

35 See Ucciardello 2005: 37–38 on the likely Attic influence on this form.

36 See Cassio 1999: 208 and Ucciardello 2005: 48–49.

37 Peters 1987: 256.

38 So Nöthiger 1971: 61, but Ucciardello 2005: 46–47 points out that the derivation of the first α̅ is unclear.

39 See Poltera 1997: 503 and Miller 2014: 161.

40 In his elegiac poetry he employs Ionic forms, e.g., 21.3 West εἶναι.

41 In his elegiac poetry we find Ionic -ηισι(ν), cf. Poltera 1997: 521–523.

42 The Byzantine scholar Eustathius already noted that Pindar had many Aeolic forms (§21, p. 16.18 Kambylis).

43 See Hinge 2006: 50.

44 The manuscripts read -ουσι(ν) (Ionic) as only or variant reading in a number of cases, but the editors always print -οισι(ν).

45 See Nöthiger 1971: 34 for details.

46 See Pavese 1967: 174 n. 1.

47 See Strunk 1960 for the argument that this form is from Pindar’s native Boeotian dialect.

48 Ucciardello 2005: 43 and Maehler 2003: xviii–xix.

49 See further Jebb 1905: 79–80, Nöthiger 1971: 62–3 and 68–70, and Maehler 2003 XIX–XX about Ionic η in Bacchylides.

50 See Hinge 2006: 50.

51 See Hutchinson 1988: 55.

52 See Abbenes 1996 for an overview of Theocritus’ language.

53 Traditionally regarded as a contemporary of Pindar, renewed study of her dialect has led scholars to date her work to the fourth or even third century BC; cf. Lobel 1930 and West 1990a. As for the date of our texts, Penney (personal communication dated 11/04/2018) notes that “the stage that our texts of Corinna seem to represent would be right for about 200 BC.”

54 On her active reception of Sappho 1, see De Kreij (forthcoming-a).

55 De Kreij 2014.

56 Wilkinson 2013: 37 provides no linguistic introduction or commentary.