The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race Volume II Part 10

3. To determine with any degree of precision how much climate and the nature of the soil contributed to the formation of this dialect, would be a matter of extreme difficulty; although the comparison of the corresponding dialects of different languages with the various localities in which each was formed may lead to several interesting observations.

There can be no doubt that a mountain life is favourable to the formation of the pure, broad, and long vowels, such as ? and O; as also that a residence in the lowlands and on the coast produces rather modifications of the long vowels(1927) and short syllables. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the influence of these causes upon language was in full operation at one period only, when the organs generally evinced greater pliancy in adapting themselves to the various peculiarities of situation.

In later times, Doric was spoken in maritime towns, as low German is now in mountains and highlands. We must likewise remember, that not only the country, but also the people, bore a distinct national character, the influence of which upon their language must have been full as great as of the former. The hypothesis that the ancient dialects were determined more by internal than external influence, more by the nature of the men than the influence of place, is confirmed by a remarkable pa.s.sage of Jamblichus,(1928) who had probably derived this sentiment from the schools of the early Pythagoreans: he p.r.o.nounces the Doric dialect to be the most ancient and best, comparing it, on account of the sounding vowels with which it abounded, to the enharmonic style of music, as he does the Ionic and aeolic dialects to the chromatic style. The only meaning of this remark can be, that the long vowels ? and O were p.r.o.nounced in as clear and marked a manner (particularly when, as was often the case, they were circ.u.mflexed) as a bar separated by a double bar in the tetrachord strung to the enharmonic pitch, so much used for music of the Doric style.(1929) Otherwise a manly character is always attributed to the Doric dialect:(1930) its fitness for solemn occasions and simple expression is shown by the literary remains which have come down to us.

4. It cannot be expected that we should here enter into a minute examination of all the peculiarities of the Doric dialect: the following brief remarks will, it is hoped, be received as an attempt rather to set forth the most remarkable features of the spoken language, than to explain the niceties of the polished style used in writing and poetry. The frequent use of ? prevailed indeed partially in the ancient dialect, and in most cases the use of ? originated in the Ionic, which in this respect bore nearly the same relation to the ancient Greek as the English language does to the German.(1931) The broad p.r.o.nunciation (p?ate?as??) of the Dorians frequently, however, exceeded that of the ancient language, as may be seen from the Latin. Thus fa???, _f.a.gus_-f?a, _fama_-????, _malum_-?????, _terras_ (genit.) ?????, (_caduceus_), and the like, are clearly the genuine ancient forms. On the other hand, the change from ? to ? in the temporal augment existed in the most ancient Greek, as is evident from _ago_, _egi_, _????_, _capio_, _cepi_, &c. The Doric dialect, however, here also used ? in the place of ?. I am not aware whether another change very nearly coinciding with the latter has ever been noticed, viz. the frequent use of the short ? for ?, especially in the enc.l.i.tics, as ?? (which however is long) for ?e or ??, a form common to all the Dorians, and in the same manner ?a for ?e,(1932) ?a for the correlative te in t??a, p??a, ??a in Sophron, Theocritus, and others, to which corresponds ?a in p??s?a, ???p?s?a (Alcman), ?p??s?a, ????a.(1933) The same change is also observable in ?te??? for ?te???, t??f? for t??p?,(1934) ??ta??(1935) for ??te??, t???, pa?a?t???, in the Cretan dialect,(1936) t??? in the Heraclean Tables and elsewhere, s??a???, f?as??, in Pindar; and innumerable examples of a similar kind. ?, either as a contraction of ??, or a lengthening of ?, occurs in many instances in the place of ?? in the other dialects (the reverse took place among the Botians), as in p???, p????, ???,(1937) ?????, ?????? (Alcman), ??s??, ?at????? (Theocritus, and the Byzantine Decree in Demosthenes(1938)), d??a? for de??a? in the treaty of the Latians in Crete,(1939) ???e? in Cretan, and also used by Alcman, ????? or t???? in Alcman and others; pep?????, ?p????? Theocritus and the Heraclean tables: and thus in contractions from ???, ? has frequently preponderated over ?, as in the pure Doric form ????,(1940) ? ?a?d?a pad? Sophron;(1941) although it must also be allowed that the diphthong ?? was contracted into ?, as in ???, &c. ??a? for ??a?,(1942) and ????? for ????ae in a Laconian inscription in Leake's Morea, vol. III. Inscript. n. 71.:(1943) to which instances we should probably add the following cases of crasis, ???, ??p?, ???. The reverse of this, which we find in the words pe? in Sophron,(1944) and ?pe?

in a Corcyrean inscription(1945) for p? and ?p?, is a remarkable variety.

The Dorians, consistently with their love for the pure and long ?, were equally partial to the O. This letter frequently forms the original sound, as in the accusative case ???e???, _Argivos_; and hence the abbreviated form ?e?? for ?e?? in Cretan and Coan(1946) inscriptions, and in Theocritus, was probably formed by an elision of the characteristic vowel, as desp?t?? in the first declension. We frequently also find use made of the vowel O as a prolongation of ?, instead of the common form ??, produced by the elision of consonants: thus in the form of the participle feminine in ?sa, used in Crete and Peloponnesus, and also in the Heraclean Tables, whilst the softer form in ??sa, where ?? was also derived from ??t (as in the third person plural ?a???s??, and in the masculine participle t??a??), was perhaps peculiar to Sicily. ? also, when followed by ?, overpowers the latter letter, and is changed into O, as for instance in ?????ssa (a mountain near Phlius), ??t???, ?p??? for ?p??e?, Laconian forms in Aristophanes, pa????, and similar words in the Heraclean Tables; though whether this is the case when the ? precedes the ? is doubtful, for in e?????s? and similar forms in Cretan inscriptions, it is ?O, not ??, which is contracted into O. In this case ?? is generally contracted into ??, or it is changed into ??, as ?O into ?O; thus ????e?, ?????f?????te?

in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes (according to the old reading), ?pa????, ???e?a ib., a??????? for ???????? in the Laconian inscription in Leake, No. 71. with which compare ?e??? in the oath of the Latians, p?a???e?

in the decree of the Istionians, and pa???? in the Heraclean Tables.(1947) In the above cases there is no reason for a.s.suming any other changes, than from ?? into ?? and ?O into ?O, as the Dorians appear to have been very unwilling to tolerate ? with ?; the short ?, however, before the lengthened ? must have been particularly suited to their ears.

The long ? in ?????, ?t?e?da, ???s??a?, p??t?? was without doubt a thick sound between ? and ?, for which there was no distinct character. The Spartan dialect frequently has ?? for ? (which change regularly occurs in the Botian dialect), as d?f???a for ??f??a (Hesychius in v.), f???? for f?s??? (Valck. ad Adoniaz, p. 276.), ??s?dd? for ????? (ibid. p. 279.), f??a??? (vol. I. p. 384. note f.), ????? for ???? (Koen p. 343.), ?ap?????, a species of olive-tree (in Hesychius), derived, I believe, from ??pt?? ????, ?????a for ????a (Hesych. in v.); ??d?a??e?, pe???a?a??e? according to Hesych. for ?d?a??e?, t???? for s? (Hesych.), ?pess??a for ?pes?? in the letter of Hippocrates (compare Coray ad Plut.

Alcib. 28.). ?? for ? is only found in ???????, according to Photius.

5. The consonants in the Doric dialect were in some cases so brought together as to give the words a roughness which was avoided in other dialects, and consequently it possessed more of that ancient fulness of consonants which was preserved with greater fidelity in the Latin language than in the Greek; partly from the neglect of that law, which was so constantly observed by all the dialects of the Greek, that every word should end either with a vowel or semi-vowel. The Doric has at least the ancient form of the participle t????? (Lat. _ns_, in ancient Gothic _ants_), which is quoted as a Cretan and Argive form;(1948) and the preposition ??? for _in_ with the accusative (_into_), which in other dialects was changed into e??; but in the Doric it became, by the omission of the final S, ?? in the sense of _into_, as in Crete and in Pindar,(1949) although Cretan inscriptions of considerable antiquity have e??, which appears to have been the usual Laconian form. Thus also the Cretans and Argives formed the future in sp??s?, merely throwing out d, as a t is properly omitted in t?????.(1950) The Rhegians adopted the same usage from the Messenians.(1951) It is clear that the organs of the ancient Doric race were better fitted for this rough p.r.o.nunciation than the more delicate ones of the other Greeks, who even changed the Roman _Hortensius_ into ??t?s???. The same remark may be applied to the word ??a?? in Alcman (fragm. 66.), and some similar forms.

Another more striking characteristic of the Doric dialect is the aversion to S, the s?? ??da???; hence the Doric lyric poets, Lasus and others, wrote poems without that letter; a practice in direct contradiction with the partiality shown by the Ionians for that sound. To this principle may be traced various other peculiarities: first, the interchange of S and ?, which, however, is on the whole merely a relic of the original dialect, as in the adjectives ???a?t??? and p???t???,(1952) in t? or t??, _tu_, in t?ssa?e?, _quatuor_, in the third persons d?d?t?, fat?, which still retain this form in Sanscrit (while in the Latin and German languages T is always the last letter of this third person). Also in the name of Neptune the Doric was doubtless the original form, having the same root as p??t??, p?ta??; the original form was ??t?da? (in Epicharmus and Sophron(1953)), and the Megarian in Aristophanes says ??te?da?; so also the Corinthians; and hence their colony ??te?da?a,(1954) ??te?d?? (from ??te?d???) was the Spartan and the Rhodian form.(1955) It is singular that in some cases the Dorians also used S for ?, as s?te? for t?te?,(1956) corresponding to which we find s?e??? in Pindar, Theocritus, and the Tarentine dialect (a word, according to Hesychius, synonymous with ???); the s? for t? of the Megarians, and this latter for t??a is the same change.(1957) It was this aversion to S, noticed above, which led the Spartans in the double consonants S?, S?, S?, to reject the S and double the other consonant; hence the Laconian forms ?t?tta? for ?t?st??, ?tt?? for ?? t??, ?p?tta?

for ?f?st??,(1958) ????? for ?s???.(1959) Valckenaer lays down the following rule: "_literam_ S _Lacones in sequentem consonantem non liquidam mutant_;" and of this change he finds traces in the Tarentine dialect, to which we may add, that Hecate, according to Hesychius, was there called ?f?att??, _i.e._ ?f?ast??. The most interesting example of this change in the Spartan dialect is the form ?ttas? for ???st???

(derived from ?????S?), in which word more than three Laconisms are discernible. With this point is immediately connected the change of ?, _i.e._ S? into ??, for instance in verbs in ??, _Laconice_-dd?, many instances of which occur in the Lysistrata and Acharneans of Aristophanes.

There is no evidence of the same change occurring in verbs whose characteristic is G; although the Dorians were induced by a.n.a.logy and a partiality to the letter ? to introduce the termination ??, where the characteristic letter was not G but ?, which is evident by the formation of the substantive ?a??ppa??? (as should be read in Hesychius for ?a??pta???), de??????ta?, &c.(1960) Even in the Laconian dialect, however, the soft sound of S? is used instead of ??, as ???sde?, e??sd?e???, t??pesda in Alcman, and in the pretended apophthegm of Lycurgus, ?? pt????

???te ?a? ? ?sd? (_i.e._ e???) ?te??? ?at??? ???? ?t?e?.(1961) It would however be erroneous to suppose, with regard to the mode in which this transition was effected, that the sound of ?, when already formed, pa.s.sed into ?? or S?. The ancient dialect appears to have had a separate ?, p.r.o.nounced with a peculiar compression of the mouth; the Dorians in several cases, agreeing with the Ionians, added the S, and formed either ?, where the sounds were more combined, or S?. In other cases the Dorians merely gave additional force to the ?. With the aeolians there was scarce any distinction between the harsh and the common ?, as in ?e?? for ?e??, d???? for ????? &c.; in the same manner ?e?? in the Latin became _Deus_, ???a _radix_, ??? _odor_,(1962) and hence the long ? was wanting in that language; but the peculiarity of the original sounds of this consonant is evident from the circ.u.mstance that the Latins subst.i.tuted for it I; for example in _jugum_ from ?????, _major_ from e????, &c.; in like manner the aeolic dialect interchanged d?a and ?a, ?a???, ?a?d?a.(1963) The change of the last letters of verbs ending in -ss? into -?? in the Tarentine dialect, instead of tt? like the other Dorians, as ????? for ???ss?, is quite peculiar to that town.(1964)

6. Another mode of avoiding the sound of S was to omit it altogether. This suppression was made at an early date in the third person plural, which consequently retained a nearer resemblance to the original form in the Doric than in the Ionico-Attic dialect, in which the preservation of S soon caused the ?? to be dropped. Examples of this, as pe????t?, ?p?d?d??t?, ?e???a?t?, a?????t? (_bhavanti_, in Sanscrit, corresponding to the ancient high German _ant_; the Botians wrote -????, -a???) are found in all the Doric inscriptions; yet Alcman uses the termination -??s? as well as the ancient form. Sometimes this elision of s lengthened the preceding vowel, as in ???ef??e?a Lacon. for ?e?sef??e?a, according to Hesychius, with which we may compare p???? for p??d?? in the Cretan dialect (ibid.); also p?e??e?ta?, p?e???st??, p?e????a in Cretan inscriptions for p?ese?t??, &c.; the Argives also used G for ? in p???e??. (See Hesychius.) Concerning the omission of S before F, _e.g._, f?? for sf??, in the Laconic dialect, see Koen p. 254.; the Syracusans changed the place of the S, and converted SF?? into FS??, _i.e._ ???. This aversion to S also appeared in the subst.i.tution of the aspirate for this consonant, in which change the pure Doric dialect is directly at variance with the Latin, in which the aspirate was often replaced by S, for example, ???, _sal_, ??, _semi_, ????, sylva,(1965) &c. The Laconians, on the other hand, used ??, instead of ?sa, and on the same principle ????, _music_, as also in the participles ??e??, ????p??, &c, to which we may add ??a?? for ???s??, as in Aristophanes; also p?????, p??, ??? for ?s??,(1966) ???a for ??s?a;(1967) the same usage also prevailed among the Argives, as we learn from Dercyllus, among the Eretrians, who borrowed it from the Eleans, and also among the Pamphylians; with whom several Argive and Rhodian peculiarities of dialect appear to have been preserved.(1968) Lastly, with this aversion to S is connected the rhotacismus, which we have already observed in the Spartan and Elean dialect, and of which the interpreters of the decree against Timotheus,(1969) particularly Casaubon, have collected many examples. Of these I will only cite ?p??e?ast??, _the mocker_; ?a???a?, _an ape_ (Hesych. in vv. comp. Boeckh Exp. Pind. Pyth. II. p. 251); ????a?t??, _an a.s.s-driver_ (Pollux VII. 13. 56.); s????, _a palm-branch_ (Hesych.); t??, t??, (ib. and in the Elean Rhetra), pa?a??? (Aristoph. Lys. 988.), s???

?e??, p?? p???, ????? ?????, ??? _a kind of flute_ (Hesych. in vv.).

Whether in the oblique cases S could always be changed into ? is uncertain, since, besides the Elean Rhetra, no genuine monument, and only a few and obscure glosses, afford any information on the point. However, ?? ????? for ?p? ????? (according to Koen's conjecture ad Gregor. p.

283.) is an instance, as also the Cretan t??? for s?? (Hesych.), where the p.r.o.noun is declined, as ????, ????, ?e?? in Epicharmus.(1970) We may observe that generally the Latin is in this respect very different from the pure Doric; though it resembles it in some words. Thus the Laconian ??t?? is the Latin _actor_, and in _gubernator_ we see the Doric form ??e??at??, and so in other instances.(1971)

7. Notwithstanding this _fuga sibili_-this aversion to the S-to which almost all the changes mentioned in the last two sections may be traced-yet the Doric dialects always retained in the first person plural the final S from the ancient language (as is proved by the Latin -_mus_);(1972) and Laconians, Megarians, and Doric Sicilians said ???e?, ?p????e?, &c. It does not appear that in the Doric dialect any original consonant pa.s.sed into S, except T; and this change probably arose from a desire to soften the harsh sound of the aspirate. Instances of this Laconism in Alcman (?s??a?, ?s??e, s???e?, sa?a.s.s??d??sa?), in the Lysistrata (??se, ??s?, s??e??, ??s?dde??, &c.), and the grammarians (_e.g._ s???ase?de?, ?asa?????, for ?a?a???s??, according to Koen, ?asa?e?e??, according to Valckenaer) are well known, and particularly se???

????; comp. Valckenaer, p. 277, sqq. who has treated this point with great ability. Also in Hesychius, s???ade?, ?pe?a?e? (for s????e?) we should probably write s???ase? (otherwise Hemsterhuis), and ?ase?at?sa?, ?a??sa?, ibid. is from ???a, ??a, ???ed?a, _sella_; whence ??at??e??, ?a?e?at??e??, _sedere facio_. In this respect the colonists of Sparta at Tarentum did not follow the idiom of their mother city; as they said ???a???e??, not s??a???e??, _to beg_:(1973) the Rhodians also retained the original T in ?????? (Strabo XIII. p. 613. Eustath. ad Il. a. 34.): in Cretan this change only occurs in se??a? for ?e??a? in Hesychius, and in s??? in the treaty of the Olontians: for Corinth may be cited S?s?f?? for Te?s?f??, according to Phavorinus, p. 403. Dindorf; for Sicyon perhaps se????, ????st???, Hesych. and also st?a? for ???a?, Schol. Apoll. R.h.

II. 1172. That the Eleans were acquainted with this variety has been shown above.

8. In general the Dorians had less inclination to aspirated consonants than the other tribes of Greece, and therefore in many respects their dialect remained nearer to the primitive language. Thus the Lacedaemonians and Cretans said ?p? for ?f? (Koen ad Greg. p. 344), the latter in the derivative ?p?t??, the former in ?p?sa?, (above, p. 332, note f.

[Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "orthography," starting "For instance, ???SO."]) in ?p?tta? (p. 35, note a. [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "?p?tta?e?," starting "I. q. ?f?st??te?."]) ?p??????

in Hesychius; ?fa????, d??e??a, Hesych. _utrinque aptata_, makes an exception. So also the Thessalians called the river ?f????s??, ?????s??

(Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 51); and the same, according to the general rule (vol. I. p. 3, note g.), must be Macedonian and Latin. Some instances of ?

for ? in the Cretan, Laconian, and Sicilian dialect, see in Koen p. 340, sqq.; Pindar's d??es?a? is probably also Doric, as well as in the Heraclean Tables. According to Hesychius in e?p???t??, the Dorians called the baskets in which the ??????ta? were carried ??a???a, where ??? is ????, and the termination -???a is probably formed from ???, unless (as is probable) we should correct -???a here and in the word ???????, where Deinolochus (the Sicilian) is quoted as authority. (Compare Suidas in de??st??.) The aspirate by itself is absent from the words ????a?,(1974) ???s?????? and the names ????, ???sa?d???, ???s?p????, and ???s??a?? (Ion.

???s??e??); originally perhaps all these names had the digamma, as ?a???, a general _Lacon._ in Hesychius. The aspirate was also neglected by the Lacedaemonians in the p.r.o.noun ???, ???;(1975) as well as by the Cretans, as is evident from the words ???????, _i.e._ p??t? ??, in an inscription (Chishull, p. 115. 10.), and by the Dorians. In the word ????? likewise the lene breathing is Doric, as is shown by ?p????e?? in Thucyd. V. 77: and the Syracusan name ?p????? (Demetrius pe?? ????e?a?, -- 157. Eustath.

ad Il. e?. p. 571. Rom.). On the other hand the digamma was retained nearly as much among the Lacedaemonians and other Dorians, as by most of the aeolians; among the Dorians, however, it generally a.s.sumed the form of ?. See Etymol. M. p. 308. 26. Gudian. p. 104. 12. I will only cite a few examples. The Laconian word for "splendour" was ??a, ???a (Hesychius), _i.e._ ???, whence by the prefix a, signifying an union or number, the word ?e???? (??????S) was formed, literally "a collection or ma.s.s of brightness;" the Cretan and Pamphylian name for the sun (Hesychius; compare Hemsterhuis ad Hesych. in ??a???).(1976) The Greek or aeolic word for the "ear" was a?a?, in Latin _auris_, in Doric ??a? (like ?app?ta? for ?atapa?t??), whence the Laconian word ????d?a (_i.e._ ?????t?a) ???t?a, in Hesychius. In ?at???s?, ????s?a?, Doric according to Photius, the digamma is lost, as well as in the Tarentine contraction ?ta, Hesychius.

From the root ????O, _to burn_, are derived the Laconian forms d?e?, ?a?eta? (vulg. ????ta?, otherwise Hemsterhuis), ??d??, ??a??e; d?e???, da??? in Hesychius; also t?? d????? in Alcman, fragm. 76. ed. Welcker. In Crete also we find the forms ??d?? for ??d??, a?????t?? for ??????t??, a??a for a??a or ??? (Hesychius and Koen ad Greg. p. 251.); according to the same grammarian the Cretans called their shields ?a?a?, _i.e._ LaeVae, _the left_; thus by a reverse a.n.a.logy the Greeks said pa?? ?sp?da for "to the left." The Laconian word for "the dawn," was ??OS (also retained in ??????, ????f??, Hesych. _i.e._ ?s?-????), among the other Greeks ?OS: and as from the latter form the name of the east-wind e???? was derived (answering to ??f????, ?? ?? ??f?? p?e?), so from the Doric ???? came the word a??a, which had in this dialect the peculiar sense of "morning;"

hence ??a??? p???, ???te?, and ??, ?????e?, Hesychius. At Argos the digamma occurs in ?ea for ?? (_ova_) Hesych.; at Hermione a double digamma in e?d?? for ?d??, ??a?a, Etymol. M. p. 195. 52.; at Syracuse in ?as?? for ?as??, which was also a Laconian form, ib. p. 308. 26. Hesych.

9. If we except the changes of the vowels, semivowels, and aspirates, there are not many others peculiar to the Doric dialect, since the _mediae_ and _tenues_ were seldom inverted, and not often letters which are not cognate. It is worthy of remark that the Dorians frequently changed both ?

and G into ?, the former in d??t??, _good_, compared with ??t???, and ?de??? for ?e???;(1977) the latter in d? for ??, d???? for ?????, d?f???a for ??f??a in Laconian, de???? for ?????? in aetolian, which likewise was preserved in the Latin _dulcis_.(1978) I should also remark that p?da for et? is pure Doric, as is proved by Alcman ap. Athen. X. p. 416 A. the Laconian word p?de??a, ?te???, in Hesychius, ped??????? for ?t????? in an Argive inscription (Boeckh. No. 14.), and the Corcyraean inscription in Mustoxidi, tom. II. p. 70. (as it appears.)

The Doric dialect is also marked by a strong tendency to the omission of letters both in composition and flexion. In composition the prepositions ?at?, ???, p?t? become monosyllables by the suppression of the last vowel: and even with the first syllable short in ?aa????, Alcman. fragm. 34.

??pet??, Pindar. Olymp. VIII. 48. compare Hesychius in ????a and ??as?.

The Venus ???????a of Sparta (Pausan. III. 18. 1.) has been already explained from ??a???e?? t? ???a?, as also ?e?? ?app?ta? (ib. III. 22.

1.) as ?e?? ?atapa?t??. ?????, ???e?de, _Laconice_ in Hesychius, shortened by apocope from ?????s?, _i.e._ ?at??e???, as ?? for ??s? in Aristoph.

Lys. 1303. In conjugation the Dorians frequently shortened the ancient longer forms by apocope, and not, like the other cases, by contraction; as in the infinitives d?e? for d?ea?, e?e? or ?e? for ?e???, &c. the uncontracted form being seldom used, as ?e?a? Aristoph. Ach. 775., ??e??e?a?, Thucyd. V. 77., or the contracted, as s???????a? in Sophron.

ap. Etym. M. p. 717, ext. and in Alcman. fragm. 23, Welcker is probably right in changing ?a???a? into ?a???a?. Also the shortened third persons of the aorists, d?????? in the Heraclean Tables, ?d?? (Corp. Inscript. No.

1511.), ????e? (ib. No. 29.), d?e???e? in the decree of the Oaxians, d?e????? in that of the Istronians; as well as the infinitives in e? and the second persons in e?, for e?? and e??, and many other similar changes.

The forms e?e??, ?e???e?? are not merely Agrigentine; the former also occurs in an inscription (probably of Rhodes) in Chandler, p. 14. No. 38: the Sicilian adverbs t?, t??t? (t??t? ??e?a Sophron. fragm. 34. Mus.

Crit. vol. II. p. 347.) for p??e?, t??t??e?, also come under this head.

Ammonius adds p?? for p?se and p?? for p??e.

10. With regard to the differences of syntax, we may remark that the article was much used by the Dorians; as is evident from several pa.s.sages in the Spartan choruses in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes.(1979) It may be also observed that the article occurs very frequently in all the early monuments of Doric nations;(1980) and that in the Doric poetry, particularly of Alcman, it was first introduced into the literature of Greece: the earlier language having been quite dest.i.tute of it. Hence perhaps it may be inferred that it was the Dorians who introduced the general use of the article; which would afford some idea of the changes which the Greek language experienced in consequence of the revolution caused by the Doric invasion.

Every dialect has peculiar words; but it is remarkable when these are radical forms, expressing very common ideas, and when they are quite foreign to the other dialects of the same language. This at least is true of the Laconian word ????, ?????, ??a???, "good" (Aristoph. Lys. 90, 1157.

Hesychius in ??a?a, where Heinsius would without reason omit the a, Theocrit. VII. 4.), of ????, "large" (Etymol. M. p. 396. 29.), which words stand quite isolated in the common language: also ???, "to wish" (Koen. p.

252. Maittaire p. 278.), and ??, "I think," "I seek," are pure Doric forms; the latter a Laconian and Sicilian word, see Toup Emend, in Suid.

vol. I. p. 462. Meineke Euphorion. p. 162.(1981)

11. As yet we have considered the Doric dialect in general, as spoken by the whole race, only marking out the Laconian as its purest variety; we will now annex a brief list of those shades of difference which can be perceived in the language of the several states. The broad peculiarities of the Doric dialect of _Laconia_ are partly known from the remains of Alcman (who however avoided in his poetry such harsh forms as ?? for ?sa, ??p?? for ??p?sa or ??p??sa, and never uses S for ?, &c.); and more fully from the Spartans in the Lysistrata. On comparing these with the Spartan and Argive treaty in Thucydides V. 77., there is indeed a general agreement; yet in this doc.u.ment the contractions ??a?????ta?, pe?t????ta?t?, d???, p??e? (but p???es? and a?t?p???e?), also ?????? and d????es?a?, together with ?? in the accusative of the substantives, but ??? of the adjectives, can hardly be considered as pure Doric; nor is there any instance of the change of S into the aspirate, and S for T only in the word s??. With regard to the indiscriminate use of O and ?? our copies of Thucydides are not much authority: for these two sounds were not distinguished in the writing of the time, being both expressed by ?; and it is probable that some forms have been modified either by Thucydides or his copyists, or both. On the whole, however, it is probable that the popular dialect of Peloponnesus, which is preserved in all its harshness in the famous treaty of the Eleans, was about the time of the Peloponnesian war softened down in public doc.u.ments and treaties. Thus in a Lacedaemonian inscription of later date, we still find the ancient forms state?a?, a????a???, a??????, ???at?, da????? ??ta?at???, from a restoration, but also ??????? da?[?????], Corp. Inscript. No. 1511. In the Spartan decree preserved by Plutarch in his Life of Lysander c. 14., we should probably write, ta?ta ?? d???te? t?? e????a? ????te, ? ??? ?????S ?a? t?? f???da? ????te?. pe?? t?? ?a?? t? p???e?? ?????? t? ???????

d?????, ta?ta p???ete, as has been partly emended by Haitinger Act. Monac.

vol. III. p. 311. In the time of Pyrrhus much of the ancient peculiarity of the dialect was still in existence, although in the following saying all the forms are not those of the ancient Laconian language, a? ?? ?ss?

t? ?e ?e??, ??d?? ? p???e?, ?? ???, ?d??e?e?; a? d? ?????p??, ?seta?

?a? te? ?????? ?????, Plutarch. Pyrrh. 26. The remains of it in the decrees of the Eleutherolacones and Spartans in the time of the emperors are less considerable. That the _Messenians_ retained the ancient idiom, from ancient recollections, or perhaps from affectation, was remarked above, p. 414, note c. [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "Messenians of Sicily," starting "The coins."] The _Argive_ dialect has been more than once observed to agree with the Cretan, a correspondence which may be even traced in unimportant particulars; thus the name of the Argive a??a???da? (above, p. 355. note n [Transcriber's Note: There is no such footnote on that page.]), was derived from ?????, which Hermonax ap.

Schol. Nicand. Ther. 512. calls a Cretan, and Hesychius a Laconian word.

The grammarians likewise particularly remark that in the Argive dialect ?

was frequently changed into ?, as in ??t?? for ??t?? (Argive and Cretan, Maittaire p. 255), a???, ???at?? (Etymol. M. p. 402, 2.) fae???? (see Boeckh Not. crit. ad Pind. Olymp. I. 6.); the Sicilians in many cases made the contrary change-the Rhegini, however, the same as the Argives (Etymol.

M. p. 135, 45. Gud. 73, 44.); which peculiarity they had evidently borrowed from the Messenians. Dercyllus wrote in the ancient Argive dialect; see Etymol. M. p. 391, 20. above, p. 385, note c. [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "Ionians and Athenians," starting "This is only true."] The _Cretan_ has a singularity which does not appear to have been observed in any other dialect of Greece, viz. of changing ? before a consonant and after e or a into ? (a.n.a.logous to the French forms _aumone_, _haubergeon_, &c. from the German _Almosen_, _Halsberge_, &c.); thus a?s??

for ??s??, a?a for ??a, likewise a?????a, a??a?; ?e??es?a? and e??e??

for ????es?a? and ???e??, according to Hesychius, Koen. p. 354. The aetolian word de???? also shows the same formation, as it comes from the ancient root d?????, _dulcis_. There is an a.n.a.logous change in the Cretan forms ??a?s?? from ???a?s??, and ?e???ta?, p?pp?? (Hesych.) _i.e._ for ?????ta? from ?????, and directly the reverse of that observed above in the termination of the participles t?????, &c. where the Cretans retained the ancient form t?????, which other Greeks softened into t??e??, &c. The Cretan ??t??? for ??t??? is paralleled by the Sicilian forms ????? and f??tat??. The words peculiar to the Cretan town Polyrrhenia, such as s??t?? "a crane," ?a??a "a partridge," ??a "a crow," (see also Hesychius in ???a and ??tta) are probably remains of an ancient Cydonian language, having no affinity with the Greek. See Hoeck's Kreta, vol. I. p.

146, note b. In the Cretan inscriptions of the beginning of the second century before Christ, the ancient dialect is still preserved in some words, but not regularly and constantly; peculiarities such as a?s?? no longer appear: and if they were found in a writer named Cypselas, he must have been of a much earlier date (Joann. Gramm. ad calc. H. Steph. Thes.

Gr. p. 13.). Some peculiarities of the Doric dialect of _Corinth_ and _Sicyon_ have been noticed above; in general, however, we know little of these dialects; but of the _Megarian_ we are better informed by means of the Acharneans of Aristophanes, and this probably gives a tolerably correct notion of the Doric of Peloponnesus, except Sparta. The Dryopians of _Hermione_ also spoke Doric; at least an Hermionean inscription contains such Dorisms as ?p?da??t?, p?tt?? p????, t??? d? ?a??a? d?e?

st??a?, Boeckh No. 1193. and see others cited vol. I. p. 399, note y. The _Rhodians_ still spoke Doric in the time of Tiberius (Sueton. Tiber. 56.), and indeed, as Aristides de Conc. boasts, in great purity (see Meurs.

Rhod. II. 3.). Inscriptions of _Cos_ (in Spon), _Calymna_ (Chandler.

Inscript. p. 21. No. 58.), _Astypalaea_, and _Anaphae_ (in Villoison's papers) are written in a Doric style, common in such monuments. The same was also adopted by the _aeginetans_ after their re-establishment; see the inscription in aeginetica, p. 136, and the remarks on it in p. 160. Among the inscriptions of _Corcyra_, collected by Mustoxidi, a series might be arranged according to the greater and less traces of the Doric dialect; the large one in Boeckh's Staatshaushaltung, vol. II. p. 400. contains several peculiarities, as, _e.g._ the imperative d??t?. In a _Theraean_ inscription, containing the will of a certain Epicteta (Boeckh, No.

2448.), several pure Dorisms occur, as _e.g._ the accusative plural in ??, the infinitives ??a???, ??e?, (Eustathius ad Od. t?. p. 706. 49. quotes ???e? for ???e?? as Theraean); at the same time several peculiar forms, such as ?st??e?a, s??a?a???e?a; and upon the whole there is little archaic in the language. But the _Byzantine_ dialect was in the time of Philip, as we know from the decree in Demosthenes, rich in Dorisms: not so many occur in the more recent inscription in Chandler Inscript. App. p. 95. No. 10.

How much of the language of the surrounding nations had been introduced into the _Cyrenaean_ dialect cannot be determined: according to Hesychius ????? was the Cyrenaean word for "a.s.s;" which resembles the Spanish word _borrico_; _both_ probably were derived from Africans. All that we know of the _Tarentine_ dialect appears to have been taken from the Phlyaces of Rhinthon, who lived in the time of Ptolemy the First; although very different from the ancient Laconian dialect, it has many peculiarities:(1982) but besides the vulgar language of Tarentum there was also spoken a polished (Attic) dialect, which was alone used in public transactions. See Dionys. Hal. Exc. p. 2239. ed. Reiske. With regard to the exchange of words with the neighbouring Italian nations (above, p.

413, note z [Transcriber's Note: This is the footnote to "the Siculians,"

starting "_E.g._ besides."]), it is sometimes doubtful which party borrowed from the other. Thus Alcman uses p??t?? for _puls_; are we to suppose that this word was so early brought over from Italy? ????a??? is used for "prison" by Sophron, for "stall" by Rhinthon: it is the same word as the Latin _carcer_; but possibly _both_ are derived from the Laconian word ??????a in Alcman. That the Italian _Heracleans_ should have preserved the ancient language and writing to the fifth century after the building of Rome so faithfully as the famous Heraclean Tables show us, is very remarkable. At _Syracuse_ the dialect was nearly the same as that in which Epicharmus and Sophron wrote: the laws of Diocles too were probably drawn up in this dialect, but the circ.u.mstance of their requiring an interpreter in the time of Timoleon is a proof of the rapid preponderance of the Attic language in this city (B. III. ch. 9. -- 7.). The language of Sophron is also nearer to the common dialect, and less strictly Doric than that spoken in Peloponnesus in his time; _e.g._, he always says t??? and not t??. On the spreading of the Doric dialect in Sicily see Castelli Proleg. p. 25. We have not as yet touched on the _Delphic_ dialect, the strong Doric character of which is proved by an inscription (Boeckh No.

1690.) in which ?de??? and t?t??e? occur, and still more, as I believe, by a monument of Olymp. 100. 1, which has futures such as ???e??? &c., the infinitives ?p?????e?, f??e?, and ??e?, a??a for ???, p??tess?, ?e???a??ess?, d?a??t???, ?p???s?s??t?, ?? for ?? _adverbialiter_, ?att??, ???a?t???, p?p??t?, p?tt?? (Boeckh No. 1688.). Besides this, all the prose oracles given at Delphi were doubtless written in Doric; as _e.g._ that in Demosth. in Mid. p. 531, and in Macart. p. 1072, that in Thuc. V. 16. (-??????? e????? e????e??, is, according to the scholiast, a Laconian expression), and the oracle quoted in vol. I. p. 199. note p, p??

t? ?a?? ?a? p?? t? ?a????? ?a? p?? t? ????s?? (here the sense requires ?sfa???? ??e??, ???t??, ?e?e??...) ????a te ?e???s?a?, which, however, was probably written in hexameters, since the epic oracles sometimes show traces of Dorisms (Herod. IV. 155, 157; compare that given to the Lacedaemonians, ? f??????at?a &c.). Plutarch (Pyth. Orac. 24. p. 289.) quotes from ancient oracles the expression p????a?? (_i.e._ p??????, as the Delphians themselves were called, vol. I. p. 254. note b), ??e??a? for ??d?a?,(1983) ??ep?ta? for p?t????; likewise ??ata?p??? (Schol. Pind.

Olymp. XIII. 114.) is probably from an oracle: from the Dorisms of the vulgar dialect we have G???da? for the treasure of Gyges, Herod. I. 14, a half-adjective form in -a?, which occurs frequently in Doric, and ??a for ???, "love," Plutarch Amator, 23. The name of the month ??s??? (ap.

Plutarch Quaest. Gr. 9. and in Delphian inscriptions) was derived by some from F?s???, as being a spring-month; it is, however, far more probable that this sacred oracular month received its name from Pytho, as ??????.

In that case the change of ? into s corresponds with the Laconian dialect; but that of p into is peculiar to the Delphians, among whom, according to Plutarch, it also occurred in ????? for p?????, and other words. A newly discovered honorary decree of Delphi (Ross, Inscript. Graec. ined.

Fasc. I. No. 57.) points to a closer affinity of the Delphian and aetolian dialects. We find in it the datives ???????, ??t???a???t???, and therefore the same metaplasm of declination as among the aetolians, to whom the grammarians attribute such forms as ?e???t???, pa???t???. The _Phoceans_ appear from the inscriptions to have spoken an aeolic dialect, nearly akin to the Doric. A remarkable peculiarity, which occurs in inscriptions both of Steiris and Daulis, in the territory of the Phoceans, is that the radical vowel of t???? and ??? remains unlengthened in the active and pa.s.sive perfect; as in ??ate???a?t?, ??ate?e?????, ?fe??a for ??ate?e??as?, ??ate?e??????, ?fe????.

Appendix VI. Chronological Tables.

1. An attempt to ascertain the precise date of mythical events would at the present time be considered unreasonable, nor would it be better to arrange them according to generations. It must however be allowed that the mutual dependence of events recorded by mythology can be proved, and by this means, to a certain degree, their succession may be satisfactorily traced. We shall give a specimen from the work before us.

The Dorians in Hestiaeotis. Worship of Apollo at Tempe b. I. ch. 1. b. II.

ch. 1.

The Dorians at war with the Lapithae. Taking of chalia, b. I. ch. 1. -- 7.