SECTION A: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. Framework
6. Other Consonantal Variations
7.3 Use in Achilles’ Text
After this long discussion of the complications surrounding the -α-/-αι- variation, I am finally in a position to analyse Achilles Tatius’ preferences with regards to these forms.
In the table below, I present statistics relating to the use of these words in Achilles’ text.
After that, I will discuss his use. Again, I will treat each of the 5 lemmas in turn.
122 Table 7-4 Incidents of -α- and -αι- and of Significant Lemmas in Achilles’ Text
Lemma -α- % -αι- %
ἀεί 15 100
ἀετός 4 100
καίω 8 (4) 100
κλαίω 7 (4) 47 (36) 8 (7) 53 (64)
ἐλαία 2 100
Achilles has 15 instances of ἀεί. They are all spelled without the -ι- and there is no variation in the manuscript tradition. His spelling, therefore, is the one that is more common in both Attic and the Koine. His use could be described as mildly Koine- leaning as he does not use the hyper-Atticist alternative.
Achilles has 4 instances of the lemma ἀετὀς, all with the ι-less spelling (1 case of ἀετός, 2 of ἀετόν and 1 of ἀετοῦ). There is no variation in the manuscript tradition. From the point of view of historical use, he is again using the typical Koine spelling but this time there is more attestation for the ι-inclusive spelling among Attic writers, so his choice could be described as strongly Koine-leaning.
This lemma is complicated by the fact that Moeris claimed that the ι-less spelling was Attic and ι-inclusive non-Attic. According to Moeris, then, Achilles has used a perceived Atticism, but I think it is unlikely that Achilles would have been following Moeris’ guideline with respect to this lemma. Achilles has shown no tendency thus far to strictly adhere to Moeris’ (or Moeris-type) rules, so it would be surprising for him to suddenly do so when the “rule” violates observed practice. As such, it is more likely that Achilles was making no attempt to Atticise this lemma by using the common Koine form. In addition, there is some dispute as to exactly when Moeris’ lexicon was composed. Although traditionally attributed to the 2nd century AD, as in the TLG, recent scholarship has pushed it forward to the early 3rd century AD, which means that it would have been composed after the first version of Achilles’ text.302 This does not mean that Achilles would not have had access to precedents of Moeris’ work or that the views in Moeris’ text were not generally held and known at the time Achilles was
302 On the dates of Achilles and Moeris, see discussion of dates in the Literature Review (2.1) and Methodology (3.2.3) sections.
123 writing, but given Achilles’ practices so far, it is unlikely he would have taken these seriously in preference to actual practice.
Achilles has 8 cases of καίω and compounds. Based on Vilborg’s edition, he uses the ι- inclusive spelling in all cases (3 of καίομαι and 1 each of καίεται, καίων, καιέτω, κατακαίεται and ἀνακαιόμενον). This time, there is some limited manuscript variation.
The token καίεται (found at 5.8.2), two cases of καίομαι (5.15.5, 5.26.1), and ἀνακαιόμενον (5.15.5) all appear with the ι-less spelling in MS W.303 It is notable that all these tokens appear in Book 5 (and these are all the tokens of this lemma from that book). Vilborg describes MS W (a member of branch α) as “probably the oldest of the extant Achilles Tatius MSS, written with the utmost elegance and clarity.”304 It is not obvious why it is only in Book 5 and only in one manuscript that the ι-less spelling is found, but the fact that the word appears with -ι- in all other cases and in other manuscripts (of different families) suggests that the prototype had -ι- in all cases, even in Book 5, and that the scribe who wrote MS W dropped the -ι- in book 5 for some reason which cannot be recovered.
As has been seen, the ι-inclusive form of this word, which Achilles prefers, is generally associated with Ionic and the Koine, whereas Attic authors (Aristophanes and Plato) preferred the ι-less spelling. The orators used both spellings, but in numbers too small to make a reliable generalisation. Again, Achilles’ choice can be described as strong Koine-leaning as he has avoided the mildly Atticist form κάω. This attribution is strengthened by the recommendations in Moeris (explicitly) and Herodian (implicitly) that the ι-less form is Attic and the ι-inclusive non-Attic. Although, as mentioned, Achilles shows no intention of following Moeris’ work, the attestation in Moeris suggests a general perception at the time that the ι-inclusive spelling was the Koine preference and ι-less Attic. This time Moeris’ “rule” is backed up by actual practice and was more likely to have been widely held.
303 According to Vilborg 1955: lxxxvii, MSS S and P were copied from W. As such, it is probable that they too had κάω spellings in Book 5. Vilborg does not explicitly confirm this, but such would be expected from a direct copy.
304 Vilborg 1955: xxvi
Note that MS W covers the complete text of A.T. so the absence of ι-less spellings in other books is not due to these passages being missing from the MS.
124 There are 16 cases of κλαίω in Achilles’ text. For this lemma, his use is inconsistent. 1 instance of the word is in the aorist form ἔκλαυσα and is not relevant as the ι- is absent from all forms, but the remaining 15 have stems with the -αι-/-α- variable. A look at the examples in Vilborg reveals 8 cases of the ι-inclusive spelling (κλαίειν twice and 1 each of κλαίεις, κλαίουσα, κλαῖε, ἔκλαιε, ἔκλαιεν and ἔκλαιον) and 7 of the ι-less spelling (5 cases of ἔκλαον and 2 of ἔκλαεν). On closer examination, I found that there are 7 instances of κλαι- invariant in the manuscripts and 4 of κλα-. Of the remaining examples, 1 has κλαι- in manuscript family α and codex F, but κλα- in family β (4.1.4).
There are 3 with κλα- in some manuscripts and κλαι- in others, κλα- having a slight majority in these cases and being the form Vilborg uses (3.20.1, 5.21.5, 7.7.6). One of these examples, 3.20.1, is the only example that occurs in the papyrus fragments. In Π4, this word is spelled EKLAION, which matches the spelling found in MS W and F. In other manuscripts (i.e. all of family β and the M-branch of family α) the -ι- is omitted.
This is also the form Vilborg selects.
It seems, then, that while Achilles shows a slight preference for the ι-inclusive spelling, this may never have been a complete preference. Either Achilles’ original already had variations, or they were introduced at an early enough stage that at least 4 instances of the ι-less spelling made it into all the manuscripts. The presence of EKLAION in a papyrus fragment suggests that, at least in one case, the ι-less spelling found in some manuscripts (but not all) was introduced later. But the change must have happened early enough so that branches of both α and β have the ι-less spelling.
It is interesting to note that 3 of the 4 instances of the ι-less spelling which are consistent in all manuscripts again come from Book 5 (the fourth is from 4.10.5). There may be some connection between this and the ι-less spellings of καίω from Book 5 in MS W, but I cannot make a direct correlation, as the pattern is different there (applying only to one manuscript in the case of καίω). There is also one instance of κλαι- consistent in all the manuscripts from Book 5 (5.27.2).
Achilles’ use of the ι-inclusive forms could be called moderately Koine-leaning. There are, however, 4 invariant tokens pointing to the presence of ι-less forms in the original text, suggesting a very limited attempt at moderate Atticism. So Achilles shows marginal signs of moderate Atticism but far more of Koine-leaning preference. This is
125 consistent with other instances where Achilles has attempted to Atticise but has not done so regularly even for the same lemma.
It seems safe to say, therefore, that again Achilles shows no strong Atticist tendencies in his representation of this word, although there might have been some isolated examples in his original text.
Finally, Achilles has two cases of ἐλαία in his text (1 of ἐλαία and 1 of ἐλαίαν), both from 2.14.4-5. They are invariant in the manuscripts and do not appear in the papyri.
They both refer to the olive tree rather than the fruit, which, in theory, is in line with the advice of the later grammarians. But, as there are no references to the fruit in the text, I cannot tell whether or not Achilles held to their view that the fruit ought to be spelled without the -ι-, especially in Attic. With respect to the spelling of this lemma, Achilles shows moderate Koine-leaning. His use of the ι-inclusive spelling to indicate the olive tree falls in line with the grammarian’s view that the ι-less spelling should be used for the fruit. But as he has no references to the fruit, it is unclear whether this is intentional or not.