SECTION C: MORPHOLOGICAL ATTICISM 9. Second Declension Contraction
9.3 Use in Achilles’ Text
I conducted a preliminary search for lemmas containing potential contract forms in Achilles Tatius (using the Concordance programme) but found that this included forms that never undergo contraction.
These, as discussed above, are not relevant for the question of Atticism and include lemmas of only two syllables and that for other reasons tend to remain uncontracted.
Such lemmas that appear in Achilles’ text are: ὁ θεός (84), τό δέος (8), νέος (8), ἑός (1), τό κουλεόν (1), ἔνθεος (1), ἀργαλέος (1), ποιητέος (1), ἐνεός (1), στερεός (2), ὁ οἰνοχόος (1) and ὑπήκοος (1).
Of the remaining words with the potential for contraction, there are 16 lemmas with a total of 69 tokens. Of these, 13 tokens are uncontracted, 40 are contracted, 2 are heteroclitic 3rd declension inflections and 14 are ambiguous (either contracted 2nd declension or heteroclitic 3rd). As has been seen, however, in order to make a proper analysis of Achilles’ language choices, each lemma (or group of similar lemmas) must be looked at in turn.
τό ὀστέον: (“bone”)
This lemma occurs once in the contracted form of the genitive singular, (ἐνὸς) ὀστοῦ. It is, however, not consistent in the manuscript tradition. Family β of the manuscripts has contracted accusative (ἓν) ὀστοῦν and Family α uncontracted accusative (ἓν) ὀστέον.
147 An apparent quotation by Eustathius of Antioch (Commentarius in Hexaemeron 725.37) has instead the genitive (ἐνὸς) ὀστοῦ and Vilborg takes this form to be correct on the basis of sense, suggesting that in the manuscript tradition, the repetition of the letter sequence ΟΣ had suffered from haplography.346 As a result, it is uncertain what Achilles’ original form was, although the contracted variation, either accusative or genitive, has slightly better authority (coming from Family β and by suggestion from Eustathius’ reconstruction).
If Achilles did use the contracted form, this would point to moderate Attic-leaning preference on his part, strengthened by Moeris’ recommendation. Unfortunately, this is uncertain.
τό κάνεον: (“basket”)
This lemma occurs twice in Achilles’ text, both times in the contracted dative κανῷ.
There is no variation in the manuscripts. Achilles’ selection, then, could be described as mildly Attic-leaning (since Attic writers avoided the uncontracted form, but the contracted form is also used by the Koine writers who have it). Other Koine texts (e.g.
Galen and the New Testament) made use of synonyms, which Achilles does not.
ἀργύρεος (“silver”), χρύσεος (“gold”), σιδήρεος (“iron”) (fem. -εα neut. -εον):
The adjective ἀργύρεος appears once in the contracted dative plural ἀργυροῖς, and σιδήρεος appears once in the contracted nominative singular σιδηροῦς. χρύσεος has a total of 15 tokens, all contracted. 3 of these are straightforward adjectives χρυσαῖς (1), χρυσῆ (1) and χρυσοῦν (1). The remaining examples are forms of a derived noun (ὁ χρύσεος) referring specifically to gold coins: χρυσοῖ (4) χρυσοῦς (8).347 There is no variation in the manuscripts.
Achilles’ use of the contracted forms here can be described as mildly Attic-leaning as the contracted form was more common in both Attic and the Koine, but the Koine did sometimes make use of the uncontracted forms. In addition, the grammarians and
346 i.e. Loss of the double ΟΣ in ΕΝΟΣ ΟΣΤΟΥ (Vilborg 1955: 86; Vilborg 1962: 91).
347 The following examples look like inflected forms of χρύσεος, but examination reveals they are actually forms of the noun “gold” ὁ χρυσός: χρυσοῦ (4 times); χρυσῷ (3 times). These I have excluded as they are not subject to contraction.
148 lexicographers (including Moeris and Phrynichus) associated the contracted forms with the Attic dialect, despite actual Koine usage. Phrynichus goes so far as to say “χρὴ οὖν λέγειν … τὸν ἀττικίζοντα” (an Atticist ought to say… [the contracted forms]). This perceived Atticism enhances the Attic-leaning nature of Achilles’ choice.
πορφύρεος (“purple”), κυάνεος (“dark blue”) (fem. -εα neut. -εον):
πορφύρεος appears 3 times, always contracted: πορφυρᾶ (1), πορφυρᾶν (1), πορφυροῦν (1).348 There is no variation in the manuscripts. In addition, there is one attestation in papyrus fragment Π1, which corroborates the presence of πορφυροῦν at 2.2.4.349
Achilles use of the contracted form can be described as moderately Koine-leaning, as the contracted form was preserved in the Koine and both Moeris and attested use point to ἁλουργής being a moderately Atticist alternative. Achilles, however, does have one example of ἁλουργές in his text showing one instance of moderate Atticism with respect to his description of the colour purple.
κυάνεος, on the other hand, appears twice in Achilles’ text, both times as uncontracted κυάνεος. There is no variation in the manuscripts. The scarce evidence for this lemma in many of my comparison texts (it is absent from Attic inscriptions, Aristophanes, the orators, the biblical texts, and the Greek and Roman papyri) makes it hard to generalise about it. Given the testimony of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch and Galen, his use could be described as moderately Koine-leaning. Phrynichus’ inclusion of it in his list of words that ought to be contracted by Atticists (along with the adjectives of metal) enhances the non-Attic association with the uncontracted form. This lemma is notable for being the only one where Achilles has preferred the uncontracted spelling for a word that could be contracted.
ἁπλόος (“single”, “simple”), διπλόος (“double”, “twofold”) (fem. -όη neut. -όον):
There are 2 examples of ἁπλοῦς in Achilles’ text: ἁπλοῦν and the comparative ἁπλούστεροι. The manuscripts do not vary. There are 12 examples of διπλοῦς, all of
348 The following apparent examples of πορφύρεος, are actually forms of the noun ἡ πορφύρα: πορφύρα (2), πορφύραν (3), πορφύρᾳ (1), πορφύρας (4). These I have excluded as they are not subject to
contraction.
349 This is the only example of all the contract nouns given in this section which appears in the papyrus fragments. I will not repeat in each section that there are no other examples.
149 which are contracted: διπλοῦν (8), διπλῷ (1), διπλῆ (2), διπλῆν (1). There is no variation in the manuscripts except that one instance of διπλοῦν at 7.5.3 is omitted from manuscript G.
Excluding the comparative, which was always contracted, Achilles’ preference for contracted forms of these lemmas suggests a mild Attic-leaning preference.
ὁ νόος (“mind”), ὁ πλόος (“voyage”), ὁ ῥόος (“stream”):
νόος occurs 6 times: νοῦς (nom. sg.) (1), νοῦν (3), νῷ (2). While dative νῷ is clearly the contracted form, it not possible to say with certainty whether νοῦς and νοῦν are contracted 2nd declension or heteroclitic 3rd declension forms.
πλόος occurs 10 times: πλοῦς (nom. sg.) (1), πλοῦν (8), πλοῦ (gen. sg.) (1). Again, the genitive πλοῦ is clearly contracted but πλοῦς and πλοῦν are ambiguous between the contracted 2nd and 3rd declension alternatives.
ῥόος appears twice: ῥοῦν (1), (1) ῥοΐ. ῥοῦν is ambiguous but ῥοΐ is clearly a heteroclitic 3rd declension form.
There are some minor variations in the manuscripts: There is one additional case of τὸν νοῦν at 7.2.4 that appears in manuscript Family α. Vilborg and O’Sullivan prefer the pronoun τούτων given in family β, and interpret τὸν νοῦν as a gloss.350 The instance of (τὸν) πλοῦν at 4.18.1 is found in Family β, but Family α has the verb πλεῖν instead.351
More significantly, the attestation of heteroclitic ῥοΐ is not certain: ῥοΐ is the form given in manuscript family β. Most of family α has ῥέει, the dative singular of a related but different word τὸ ῥέος (with two syllables, this alternate word is not susceptible to contraction). Manuscript W (of family α) has another alternative ῥείθρῳ in the margin (dative of another synonym, τὸ ρεῖθρον) and in manuscript F, there is a lacuna with enough space for 7 letters.352 Vilborg perceives ῥοΐ as original and supposes that the
350 Vilborg 1955: 127; Vilborg 1962: 117; O’Sullivan 1980: 278
351 Vilborg 1955: 85
352 Vilborg 1955: 65; O’Sullivan 1980: 379
150 variation in α is “an attempt to remove the vulgarism” (i.e heteroclitic form). 353 He does not comment on the longer alternative ῥείθρῳ or the long lacuna in manuscript F. If Vilborg is correct, this is a rare example of Achilles’ original language being less properly Attic than later copyists would like, but as it is speculation on his part, I cannot make any real conclusions from this.
The large number of ambiguous tokens of these three lemmas is unfortunate as they make it hard to be certain whether Achilles preferred contracted 2nd or heteroclitic 3rd declension forms. Given the unambiguous contracted forms νῷ and πλοῦ, it is probable that all tokens of νοῦς and πλοῦς take contract 2nd declension rather than 3rd declension forms in all cases, but this is speculation. Given the heteroclitic example ῥοΐ (which is never corrected to ῥῷ even when copyists have changed it), it is tempting to interpret ῥοῦν as heteroclitic. But since there are only two examples of this lemma, and one of them is not without variation in the manuscripts, it is impossible to be certain.
Given Achilles’ inconsistency elsewhere, one cannot be sure about the interpretations for any of these lemmas.
Based on the unambiguous tokens, Achilles shows 3 contracted 2nd declension forms and 1 (though not fully attested) 3rd declension alternative. For the most part, then, Achilles seems to show a moderate Attic-leaning preference, with one possible instance of a Koine preference pointing to moderate avoidance of Atticism. If the other tokens of νοῦς and πλοῦς are contracted (which is likely but far from certain), there would be a stronger argument for moderate Attic-leaning preference.
ἀθρόος (fem. -όα neut. -όον): (“together”, “in crowds”)
There are 3 examples of this lemma, all uncontracted, as was the norm even in Attic:
ἀθρόον (2), ἀθρόα (1). There is no variation in the manuscripts. By avoiding the hyper- Atticist contract form, Achilles’ choice could be described as mildly Koine-leaning with the Koine nature of the form enhanced by Moeris’ recommendation.
353 Vilborg 1962: 76
151 ὄγδοος (fem. -οη neut. -οον): (“eighth”)
There is one example of this lemma in the uncontracted spelling ὀγδόην, as one would expect. The manuscripts do not vary. Since the contracted form was never actually found in Attic, Achilles’ choice is neutral. But the occasional hyper-correct use of the contracted form found in later texts, suggests that Achilles has avoided a case of extreme hyper-Atticism.
ὁ ἔλεος: (“pity”)
There are 7 examples of this lemma: ἔλεος (1), ἔλεον (3), ἐλέου (2) and ἐλέους (1). The first 6 examples are uncontracted 2nd declension masculine forms, as was the norm even in Attic. (The example ἔλεος has an overt article ὁ, confirming that this is indeed a 2nd declension form). The last example, however, must be a heteroclitic 3rd declension form (gen. sg.) ἐλέους.
According to Vilborg, Cobet “corrects” the ἐλέους at 3.10.2 to ἐλέου in his edition, but there is no variation in the manuscript tradition to support this emendation.354 In addition, at 7.9.6, manuscript G replaces ἐλέου with ἐλέους (resulting in 2 instances of the heteroclitic form, although the second is unlikely to have been original).
Achilles’ 6 uncontracted forms could be described as strongly Attic-leaning (as it is the form predominantly found in Attic and only occasionally in the Koine). The 1 case of ἐλέους (and possibly, though doubtfully, a second) shows that Achilles did sometimes make use of new (Koine-exclusive and therefore non-Attic) heteroclitic forms. This example, similar to that ῥοΐ above (if that example is original), would be considered Koine preference with avoidance of Atticism (in this case mild avoidance). These examples, however, are in the minority and for the most part Achilles has used the strongly Attic-leaning alternative.
ὁ φωλεός: (“cave”)
There is a single case of φωλεός in the text as the uncontracted (gen. sg.) φωλεοῦ. It does not vary in the manuscripts. As this lemma is normally uncontracted regardless of dialect, it does not reveal anything interesting. Since the heteroclitic variation τά φωλεά
354 Vilborg 1955: 57
152 applies only to the nominative and accusative plural forms of the word, Achilles’ choice here is neutral.