The Journal of Hellenic Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/JHS

Additional services for The Journal of Hellenic Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The Aorist Innitives in -EEIN in Early Greek Hexameter Poetry

Alexander Nikolaev

The Journal of Hellenic Studies / Volume 133 / January 2013, pp 81 - 92

DOI: 10.1017/S0075426913000050, Published online: 24 September 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0075426913000050

How to cite this article:

Alexander Nikolaev (2013). The Aorist Innitives in -EEIN in Early Greek Hexameter Poetry. The Journal of
Hellenic Studies, 133, pp 81-92 doi:10.1017/S0075426913000050

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JHS, IP address: 194.95.59.195 on 19 Nov 2013

Journal of Hellenic Studies 133 (2013) 81–92 doi:10.1017/S0075426913000050

THE AORIST INFINITIVES IN -ΕΕΙΝ

IN EARLY GREEK HEXAMETER POETRY

ALEXANDER NIKOLAEV
Boston University*

Abstract: This paper examines the distribution of thematic infinitive endings in early Greek epic in the context of the
long-standing debate about the transmission and development of Homeric epic diction. There are no aorist infinitives
in -έμεν in Homer which would scan as ᴗ ᴗ − before a consonant or caesura (for example *βαλέμεν): instead we find
unexplained forms in -έειν (for example βαλέειν). It is argued that this artificially ‘distended’ ending -έειν should be
viewed as an actual analogical innovation of the poetic language, resulting from a proportional analogy to the ‘liquid’
futures. The total absence of aoristic -έειν in Hesiod is unlikely to be coincidental: the analogical form must have been
the product of a specifically East Ionic Kunstsprache, and so could have been simply unknown in some other Ionian
school of epic poetry where Hesiod was trained. Finally, the striking avoidance of anapaestic aorist infinitives in -έμεν
is argued to be explained better under the ‘diffusionist’ approach to the Aeolic elements in Homeric diction than under
the ‘Aeolic phase’ theory.

Keywords: Homer, Hesiod, epic diction, Aeolic phase, Greek dialects

As is well known, the language of the Homeric epics contains several different infinitival forma-
tions in the active voice, such as -ειν, -(έ)μεν, -(έ)μεναι and -έναι. Among them is a robust group
of thematic aorist infinitives ending in -έειν: βαλέειν, φαγέειν, θανέειν, ἰδέειν, δακέειν, ἑλέειν,
etc., with 102 attestations from 19 verbal roots in total.1 The ‘extra’ -ε- before the familiar ending
-ειν in these forms is puzzling: the expected active infinitive form of aor. βαλέ/ό- is βαλεῖν ( <
*βαλε(h)εν), not βαλέειν.2 This problem has not yet received the attention it deserves, nor is a
satisfactory explanation available.
The reason why these forms are interesting is twofold: firstly, as will be shown below, the
infinitives in -έειν are likely to be artificial forms, created by the singers in response to phono-
logical changes that had affected traditional formulae; a proper appreciation of these forms can
therefore enhance our understanding of the processes that conspired to produce the Homeric
Kunstsprache. Secondly, the peculiar distribution of these forms in early hexameter poetry, in
particular their absence from Hesiod, may shed light on the history of epic diction in Archaic
Greece.
Let us start by stating two important facts about the distribution of the forms. First, aorist
infinitives in -έειν are only made from roots of the structure (C)V̆C (βαλ-, φαγ-, ἰδ-, etc.).
Secondly, the majority of these forms are found before a consonant, and whenever they stand

* nikol@bu.edu. It is my pleasure to thank Albio
Cesare Cassio, Jay Jasanoff, D. Gary Miller, Gregory
Nagy, Martin Peters, Jeremy Rau, Martin West and two
anonymous JHS referees for much useful discussion
and feedback; needless to say, I am alone responsible
for all conclusions reached here.
5 tr
Symbols: | penthemimeral caesura, | tritotrochaic
7
caesura, | hepthemimeral caesura, || bucolic dieresis, x͜ x
bridge, # beginning or end of verse. A number (1–6)
above a vowel in the princeps indicates the foot. In
using ‘princeps’ and ‘biceps’ instead of ‘thesis’ and
‘arsis’ I follow West (1982).
1 -έειν is the predominant thematic aorist ending in
Homer: there are 102 ‘second’ aorist infinitives in -έειν
vs. 35 forms in -εῖν and 55 forms in -έμεν in the
Homeric epics (statistics for the Iliad are based on West
(1998), who writes τε ἰδεῖν instead of τ’ ἰδέειν).
2 The infinitival suffix *-ehen was used in Proto-
Greek with thematic present, future and ‘second’ aorist
stems; this state of affairs is continued in Attic-Ionic,
west Greek and ‘Achaean’ dialects, cf. Mycenaean
e-ke-e /(h)ekhehen/ (on the dialectal outcomes of
*-ehen, see García Ramón (1977)). By the loss of inter-
vocalic *-h- and vowel contraction *-ehen gave Attic-
Ionic -ειν (i.e. /-ē. n/, with a ‘spurious diphthong’).
82 NIKOLAEV

before a vowel, they are almost always followed by a caesura.3 Aorist infinitives in -έειν thus
invariably conform to an anapaestic foot (ᴗ ᴗ −). It appears, therefore, that the forms in -έειν have
not only a clearly defined morphological domain (being made exclusively from aorist stems of
the type βαλέ/ό- and never from present stems of the type φέρε/ο-), but also a very specific
metrical profile.

We can now turn to the origin of the ending -έειν. According to a popular view (going back to
G. Curtius apud Renner (1868) 34), these aorist infinitives are a product of Attic
μεταχαρακτηρισμός, viz. a transposition of ΦΥΓΕΕΝ written in the Old Ionic alphabet (with a
metrical structure ᴗ ᴗ – before a consonant) into φυγέειν with the ending of Attic φυγεῖν.4 But
if this indeed were the process responsible for the creation of aorist βαλέειν, etc., one would
expect that infinitives corresponding to present stems like φέρω (inf. *pherehen, spelled in the
Old Ionic alphabet as ΦΕΡΕΕΝ) would show such distension, too. Yet this is precisely not the
case: simple thematic present stems never take this ending.
A much more plausible explanation is given by P. Chantraine, who implicitly suggests
viewing the suffix -έειν as a product of the following proportional analogy:5

present stems in -ée/o- thematic aorists in -é/ó-

φορεῖν : βαλεῖν
= φορέειν : X, where X was resolved as βαλέειν

However, this does not answer one crucial question. It is unclear why thematic aorists should
have been modelled precisely on the contract verbs in -ée/o-,6 given the lack of any special
paradigmatic connection between these two classes of forms. For this reason, I would like to take
Chantraine’s idea one step further and suggest that an analogy of the same kind was triggered by
the so-called ‘liquid futures’, i.e. the asigmatic forms of the type κερέω, ἐρέω, μενέω, which
likewise had active infinitives both in contracted -εῖν and uncontracted -έειν. The reason these
forms provide a somewhat likelier starting point for the creation of inf. aor. -έειν is that many
asigmatic futures in -ée/o- are specifically associated with thematic aorists (fut. τεμέε/ο- : aor.
τεμέ/ό-, fut. κτενέε/ο- : aor. κτανέ/ό-,7 fut. ἑλέε/ο- : aor. ἑλέ/ό-, etc.). Therefore an aorist
infinitive βαλέειν (a nonce form from a historical point of view) could have been created beside
expected βαλεῖν ( < *gwal-ehen) in order to match the situation in the future of the same verb,
where both βαλεῖν and βαλέειν ( < *gwal-eh-ehen)8 were already available:

3 They are usually located in the biceps of the third

foot and the princeps of the fourth foot or in the biceps
of the second foot and the princeps of the third foot (in
rare cases -ειν fills the princeps of the fifth foot).
4 Simmerle (1874) 8; Rzach (1875–1876) 441;
with -α- in the root (κατακτανέουσι Il. 6.409;
κατακτανέεσθε Il. 14.481; κτανέοντα Il. 18.309, etc.): if
fut. κτανέειν / κτανεῖν was a real form, the parallelism
with aor. κτανεῖν is all the more evident.
8 The Proto-Indo-European suffix of the future

Hermann (1914) 262; Schwyzer (1939) 807; Wuest
(1943) 99; Nicosia (1996) 38, n.32.
5 Chantraine (1958) 493. Smyth (1894) 499
generally subscribes to Renner’s view, but adds a wise
(if confusing) provision, ‘false transcription of EEN
through the analogy of φιλέειν and congeners’.
6 Τhe group would also include several primary
simple thematic verbs of the structure *CRe(h/u̯)e/o-,
for example χέω, inf. χέειν ~ χεῖν.
7 As well as synonymous and likely related fut.
κανέε/ο-: aor. κανέ/ό-. The future forms from the root
κτεν- are in several instances unanimously transmitted
tense was *-h1s-, reflected in Vedic futures (3 sg. fut.
act. vaniṣyati ‘will win’ < *u̯en-h1s-i̯ e/o-) and
desideratives (3 sg. desid. act. vívāsati ‘wants to win’ <
*u̯i-u̯n̥-h1s-e/o-), Old Irish futures (3 sg. fut. act. céla
‘will hide’ < *kiklāse/o- < *ki-kl̥ -h1s-e/o-) and the
Hittite iterative suffix -šš(a)-, for example īšša-
‘perform’ (see Jasanoff (2003) 134–35). In Proto-Greek
the laryngeal was regularly deleted between a stop and
the following *s (*sik-h1s-e/o- > *hik-se/o- > ἵξε/ο-),
but was ‘vocalized’ after resonants (*-h1s- > *-es- >
*-eh-).
 THE AORIST INFINITIVES IN -ΕΕΙΝ 83

inf. fut. inf. aor.

βαλεῖν : βαλεῖν
= βαλέειν : Χ, where X was resolved as βαλέειν9

The key then becomes the accentuation of the infinitive: the presents of the type φέρω (inf.
φέρειν) never have infinitives of the type *φέρεειν, because they never had a circumflex
suffix -εῖν.10

The next question is whether this -έειν originated in the singers’ own vernacular or within the
Homeric Kunstsprache. The second scenario is a priori just as likely as the first, since artificial
forms may be generated by the same mechanisms as forms in a natural language. The
ending -έειν cannot be of Aeolic provenance,11 but was it ever a real form, current in one of the
Ionic dialects? This question has to be answered in the negative: the aorist infinitive ending -έειν
is not found in epichoric Ionic, is absent from iambic and elegiac poetry12 and has a demonstrably
epicizing function in Ionic prose.13 The grammarians call the ending Ionic (for example EM
465.49–50: <Ἰδέειν>: […] οἱ Ἴωνες ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς ειν ἀπαρεμφάτων, πλεονάζοντες τὸ ε, διὰ τοῦ εειν
προφέρουσι), and yet it is very likely that ‘Ἴωνες’ here stands for Ionic hexameter poetry and not
for any of the spoken dialects. The only place where the aorist ending -έειν exists is the epic
Kunstsprache, and based on the facts as we have them the only methodologically correct
conclusion would be to view -έειν as a product of the poetic grammar.14
The aorist infinitives in -έειν therefore stand on par with other artificial Homeric forms that
were never used in any spoken dialect of ancient Greek. The closest formal parallel is found in

9 Thematic aorists made from the roots other than
ending in a resonant were of course not associated with
a liquid future (λιπέ/ό- : λείψε/ο-, φυγέ/ό- : φεύξε/ο-,
etc., see the preceding footnote for a historical reason
for this distribution). Nevertheless, once the
pattern -εῖν ~ -έειν was established in some aorists
through the four-part proportion above, analogy would
take care of the rest, and the metrically convenient
longer form would be extended to all thematic aorist
infinitives of similar metrical structure (φαγέειν, ἰδέειν,
δακέειν, etc.). The fut. πεσέε/ο- (aor. πεσέ/ό-)
with -έε/ο- after the obstruent s ( < *-ts-), no longer
analyzable as a part of the future suffix, may have
contributed to the spread of -έειν in the aorist. Finally,
additional support may have come from the small group
of presents in -έε/ο- such as pres. ἀχέε/ο- : aor. ἀκαχέ/ό-
, pres. κτυπέε/ο- : aor. κτυπέ/ό-, pres. στυγέε/ο- : aor.
στυγέ/ό-. (Crespo (1977) 55 draws attention to these
verbs which in his opinion support Chantraine’s view;
however, the number of such pairs is too insignificant,
and it is not very likely (although strictly speaking not
impossible) that this rather marginal group could have
played the main role in the process of analogy. Νote
that Crespo refers to a longer list provided by Risch
(1974) 307–8, but many of the forms cited by the latter
have nothing to do with -έε/ο- present stems: for
instance, πίθησας does not point to pres. *πιθέε/ο-
beside aor. πιθέ/ό- and τετύχηκα does not prove that
there ever was pres. *τυχέε/ο- beside aor. τυχέ/ό-; on
the problem of ē-extension, see Peters 2007; Nikolaev
(2010) 83–85).
10 A similar analogy between thematic aorists and
futures (but through an inverted proportion) generates
futures in -έειν / -εῖν where they are not expected: this
seems to be the explanation for the troubling future form
τεκεῖσθαι (aor. τεκέ/ό-) in H. Ven. 127. Just as in the
case of aorist infinitives discussed above, the poet used
analogy to gain metrical advantage: by using τεκεῖσθαι
he was able to ‘conjugate’ the formulaic expression
(ἀγλαὰ) τέκνα τέκεσθαι#, in which the Homeric future
τέξεσθαι would be unusable.
11 In Thessalian and Boeotian verbal stems in -εε/ο-
have thematic active infinitives in -ειμεν, while in
Aeolic of Asia Minor these forms end in -ην.
12 The only exception being ἐκφυγέειν Phanocles fr.
2 (conjectured by Paulus Leopardus instead of mss
ἐκφυγεῖν on the grounds of meter and accepted by all
editors ever since). Phanocles is of course a later poet
whose diction is essentially epic, as can easily be seen
in his elegy on the death of Orpheus (fr. 1), replete with
epic parallels; in particular, Phanocles’ verse Μοιράων
νῆμα [...] ἐκφυγέειν likely harks back to Il. 21.66
ἐκφυγέειν θάνατόν τε κακὸν καὶ κῆρα μέλαιναν.
Moreover, Leopardus’ ἐκφυγέειν may not even be right
after all, see Alexander (1988) 106.
13 See Smyth (1894) 499, who notes that all aorist
infinitives in -έειν attested in Herodotus are also known
from Homer. Merzdorf (1875) 154 tries to make the
metacharacterismus responsible, but this is hardly
necessary.
14 A parallel case of a productive morphological
element created by Ionian singers for metrical reasons
can be seen in datives in -έεσσι, as recently analysed by
Blanc (2009).
84 NIKOLAEV

the cases of diectasis, viz. the distended forms of the type ὁρόωντες, which are likewise artificial
creations, brought to life as a compromise between the original metrical value of traditional
forms (*ὁρᾰ́οντες) and the singers’ habits of daily speech (ὁρῶντες).15

The parallel case of ὁρόωντες is instructive, since it helps us to see why the infinitive in -έειν had
to be created: just like in the case of *ὁρᾰ́οντες, the innovation in the aorist infinitive was neces-
sitated by the sound changes that distorted the original prosodic structure of the form.
Let us illustrate this point with the example of an Old Ionic formula: *balehen de he thūmos
5
anōgen, ‘heart was urging to hit him’ ( | ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – x #). In this exempli gratia reconstruction
of a traditional formula the infinitive *balehen (< *gwalehen) would have conformed to an
anapaestic foot. But by the time the Homeric epics took their final form, the Ionian singers
presumably only had contracted *balē ̣n (βαλεῖν) in their own vernacular, since the loss of *-h-
and the vowel contraction *-ese- > *-ehe- > *-ee- > ē ̣ must have been completed in Ionic by that
time.16 Even though the singers were constantly modernizing the epic diction by importing
elements of contemporary speech,17 doing so was impossible in this case, because using the form
βαλεῖν would have resulted in a defective third foot:
5
*βῆ δ’ ἰθὺς Τεύκρου, βαλεῖν δέ ἑ θυμὸς ἀνώγεν – – – – – | ᴗ! – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – x #

and went straight for Teukros, heart urgent to hit him

Importantly, the Ionian singers in this hypothetical scenario would have been confronted with
exactly the same problem if the traditional verse-final formula ‘heart urgent to hit (him)’ was only
known to them in its Aeolic shape *balemen de he thūmos anōge# with the infinitive ending not
in *-ehen, but in *-emen.18 (Another, probably better example is furnished by a metrically

15 For this interpretation of diectasis, see Schulze

apud Hermann (1914) 245; Wackernagel (1916) 66–70;
Parry (1932) 33; for a detailed discussion of Homeric
material, see Meister (1921) 62–80. Another similar
case is Homeric φόως, ‘light’: it is a distended form of
pyrrhic φάος, but φόως is mostly found before a
consonant or caesura, thus preserving what would have
been the scansion before the vowel contraction. The
similarity between the infinitives in -έειν and distended
forms of the type -οωντ- and -οῳ- has been noticed
before (for example Mangold (1873) 204; Latacz et al.
(2009) 2), but no attention has been paid to the details of
the very characteristic distribution of the ending or the
real mechanisms that may have been responsible for
creating this distribution.
16 That the contraction product ẹ̄ was unresolvable
at the late stage of the tradition is evident, for instance,
from countless cases of contracted infinitival ending
-εῖν occupying the princeps, or from the augmented
forms of ἕπομαι, ἔχω, ἕπω or ἕρπω whose initial /ē/̣
(spelled <εἰ>) is likewise mostly located in the princeps.
One more telling case is the infinitive εἶναι which goes
back to *ehenai with the same suffix *-enai as in inf.
pres. ἰέναι or inf. perf. λελυκέναι (see Cowgill (1964)
354–59; Ruijgh (1978) 422; Peters (1980) 258, n.213a):
in Homer εἶναι occupies the sixth foot 110 times
(including in verse-final formulae such as εὔχεται εἶναι,
κέρδιον εἶναι and ὄλβιον εἶναι) and another 20 times
εἶναι begins the fifth foot. On the relationship between
Ionic εἶναι and Αeolic ἔμμεν (always in the fifth foot
before vowel; 1× in the Iliad, 4× in the Odyssey), see
Renaud (2005).
17 For example Ionic μευ for inherited μοι, etc.
18 In
Proto-Aeolic the originally athematic
infinitive suffix -μεν was transferred to thematic stems,
probably via an analogical proportion τίθετε : φέρετε =
τιθέμεν : X, where X was resolved as φερέμεν. From
epichoric Aeolic one may compare east Thessalian
ὑπαρχεμεν (IG 9.2.461a), μενεμεν (IG 9.2.1229),
Boeotian ἀγιρεμεν (IG 7.4136), καταβαλλεμεν (SEG
22.407) or πεμπεμεν (SEG 32.456). In addition, an
infinitive φ]ερεμεν is found in Corinna (fr. 654.20
PMG). West Thessalian and Lesbian have thematic
infinitives of the type φερε̄ν, but these forms do not
have to reflect the original Proto-Aeolic situation; see
García Ramón (1975) 90. On this feature of (mainland)
Aeolic dialects, see Bechtel (1921) 193, 289; Thumb
and Scherer (1959) 43, 71; Wathelet (1970) 319; Blümel
(1982) 208–10; Ruijgh (1996) 294–95. Aorist infinitive
ἀγαγεμεν from an east Thessalian inscription published
in 1980 (SEG 27.226) has put to rest E. Hermann’s
theory that in Aeolic dialects thematic aorist infinitives
had the ending *-e(h)en ((1914) 262). Further evidence
against Hermann’s claim may come from Cretan inf.
aor. προϝειπέμεν (IC I.18.1), if the ending -μεν in this
form is attributable to an Aeolic substrate (which,
however, is not the only possible explanation of the
form; see García Ramón (1973) 268–69). (It is harder
 THE AORIST INFINITIVES IN -ΕΕΙΝ 85

equivalent formula *(u̯)idemen kosmētore lāōn, ‘to see the two marshals of the people’, featuring
in addition to Aeolic *-emen a nominal dual form, something that all Ionic dialects lost very
early.) The Ionian singers would strive to eliminate the foreign forms βαλέμεν and ἰδέμεν, in
accordance with their practice of ‘adapting Aeolic poetic language into their own dialect as far as
it would go’.19 But they would not be able to replace βαλέμεν and ἰδέμεν with contemporary
Ionic forms βαλεῖν and ἰδεῖν, because the result would not scan.
Our analysis of the infinitives in -έειν thus does not depend on whether one assumes an
‘Aeolic phase’ of the epic diction that left some residue in the Homeric epics after the tradition
had migrated to Ionia,20 or posits instead an Ionic epic tradition existing side by side with an
Aeolic tradition and borrowing from it:21 either way, artificial forms of the type βαλέειν and
ἰδέειν must have been generated in order to remedy situations like those described above, when
the forms in singers’ own vernacular no longer had the same metrical value as the traditional
forms, whether Ionic or Aeolic.22 Importantly, both scenarios explain why forms in -έειν are
invariably found before a consonant or a caesura: since the only way of using a form like
*balehen / *balemen in hexameter was to place its final syllable before a consonant or a pause
and use it in princeps, the expectation would be for βαλέειν to be used in the same metrical
environment as *balehen / *balemen, which βαλέειν was designed to replace.

One logical consequence of the solution proposed above is that the ending -έειν must have been
created rather late in the history of the epic diction, possibly at a time when different traditions
of hexameter poetry had already become firmly entrenched on either side of the Aegean. This
hypothesis receives additional support from the distribution of the ending in early epic poetry:
-έειν is completely absent from the Theogony and the Works and Days, which only have -εῖν
and -έμεν as infinitive endings in the ‘strong’ aorist.23
The Hesiodic situation in regard to thematic aorist active infinitives is thus in a sharp contrast
with the Homeric: 92% of these forms in Hesiod end in -εῖν, while only 18% do in Homer.24 The

to refute the similar assumption made by F. Solmsen
((1903) 607), who thought that in Common Aeolic
thematic verbs could form infinitives both in -έμεν(αι)
and -εεν.) Haug (2002) 157 states that inf. -εμεν is also
found in Doric dialects, and the extension of the
suffix -μεν to thematic stems ‘est assez ancienne en
grec’ (the same position has been more recently taken
by Vottero (2006) 133). However, I am not aware of
any such forms in any Doric dialects, save for Cretan
προϝειπέμεν above.
19 West (1988) 162.
20 Ever since Ritschl ((1838) 59–60), an Aeolic
phase has been postulated, for example by Parry (1932);
Wathelet (1970); Janko (1982); West (1988); Forssman
(1991); Ruijgh (1995); Berg and Haug (2000); Wachter
(2007). See the recent surveys by Hackstein (2010) and
especially Nagy (2011). It should be noted that even
scholars who accept an Aeolic phase may assume
diffusion (viz. secondary ‘Aeolicization’) for one or
another feature: for instance, such a position in respect
to infinitives in -έμεν is taken by Haug (2007) 22.
21 For the thesis of concurrent existence of Aeolic
and Ionic epic traditions, see, for example, Drerup
(1903) 107; Björck (1950) 220; Hooker (1977) 70–82;
Miller (1982); Peters (1989); Horrocks (1987); (1997)
214–17; Wyatt (1992); Hajnal (2003) 81; Crespo
(2003); Jones (2012). The literature on the topic of
Homeric dialect(s) is of course immense and it is
possible to multiply the bibliography indefinitely.
22 On the eastern Aeolian poetic tradition that must
have served as the source of such Aeolic elements as the
infinitives in -έμεν both in Homer and in the choral
lyric, see recently Trümpy (2004); Cassio (2005).
23 In the two genuinely Hesiodic poems we find 12
thematic aorist infinitives in -εῖν and one form in -έμεν.
It might be helpful to repeat the corresponding data for
the Homeric epics from n.1 above: 102 ‘second’ aorist
infinitives in -έειν, 35 forms in -εῖν and 55 forms
in -έμεν. The forms in the Theogony and Works and
Days are: ἀμφιβαλεῖν Op. 787; εἰπεῖν Op. 453; ἐνισπεῖν
Th. 369; ἐξελθεῖν Τh. 772; παρελθεῖν Τh. 613, Op. 216;
θανεῖν Op. 175, 687; ἰδεῖν Th. 701; παρασχεῖν Op. 712;
ταμεῖν Op. 807; προφυγεῖν Op. 647 (in all cases -εῖν is
either located in the princeps or fills the biceps of the
sixth foot); πεφραδέμεν Op. 766.
24 In view of the paucity of active thematic aorist
infinitives attested in Hesiod it might not seem to be
totally unreasonable to question the validity of statistics
in this case, but in fact the form has almost the same
frequency as it has in Homer: 13 active thematic aorist
infinitives for 1,873 lines gives us an average of one
form in every 140 lines, while in Ηomer (27,812 lines,
give or take a few) there are 192 forms of the same
formation, i.e. one form for every 145 lines.
86 NIKOLAEV

only aorist infinitive in -έμεν found in Hesiod is πεφραδέμεν, ‘to point out’ (Op. 766).25 It
contrasts with Homeric πεφραδέειν (Od. 19.477),26 both forms filling the first foot and the
princeps of the second one.27 Despite the lack of sufficient numbers of attestations to base any
statistical analysis on, the distribution of different aorist infinitives of φράζω in principle does
support our theory: the simplest account of this discrepancy is that while the poet of the Odyssey
was able to employ the form πεφραδέειν when traditional Ionic *pephradehen contracted to an
unmetrical *pephradē ̣n, Hesiod – granted Op. 766 contains the poet’s ipsissima verba28 – did not
have this option available to him and had to use an infinitive in -έμεν instead.29 Naturally, an
argument based on two forms cannot be expected to command immediate acceptance. However,
it is but a striking illustration of the larger picture that we see when we look at the entirety of the
relevant data: the complete absence of -έειν from the rather sizeable genuinely Hesiodic corpus
is very unlikely to be fortuitous, and the contrast with the situation in Homer where infinitives in
-έειν abound is almost certainly a reflection of a systematic difference between the language of
one poetic tradition and that of the other.
It appears that even though the dialect of Hesiod’s poems is ‘essentially the same as that of
Homer’,30 the former poet did not have access to the poetic tradition where the thematic aorist
infinitives in -έειν were available as substitutes for contracted (and therefore unmetrical) Ionic
forms in -εῖν.31 The conclusion that emerges is that infinitives in -έειν must have been a product
of one specific east Ionic Kunstsprache; they were unknown in the school of epic poetry where
Hesiod may have been trained.32

25 τραφέμεν printed by Rzach at Th. 480 on the
evidence of Laur. 32.16 and accepted by Troxler ((1964)
100) is indefensible: both the paradosis and the
following ἀτιταλλέμεναί τε suggest inf. pres. τρεφέμεν
(on the value of Laur. 32.16, see West (1966) 56).
26 In the Odyssey we also find inf. πεφραδέμεν
(7.49), but it is followed by δήεις, and it is quite likely
that πεφραδέειν δήεις was avoided for euphonic
reasons.
27 While it would have been nice if there were any
formulaic connection between the verses in the
Odyssey and the Works and Days, that would allow
comparing and contrasting the poets’ procedures, the
contexts are different, and there is no evidence that
parts of either verse come down from the stock of tradi-
tional material.
28 On the much vexed question of the (in)authen-
ticity of the ‘Days’ section of Works and Days (vv.
765–825), bracketed, for example, in the OCT, see
Ercolani (2010) 412–16, with literature. The Homeric
form πεφραδέειν (Od. 19.477) is also not beyond doubt:
it has been argued that the passage containing the form
is a later addition to the text (for example Kammer
(1873) 650).
29 -έμεν is found as a present infinitive ending 16
times in the Theogony and the Works and Days, in forms
made from 15 different verbal stems, in addition to two
futures.
30 West (1966) 79.
31 This paper is not the place to put forth far-
reaching theories concerning the formation and
constituent parts of Hesiod’s poetic language; I find
myself in substantial agreement with Cassio (2009). It
is important to emphasize that Hesiod uses some un-
Homeric elements of east Ionic speech: in addition to
examples like Ἑρμείης or δίη, discussed by Cassio, this
can be seen in the typical east Ionic conjunction ἔστε,
‘as long as, until’, (9× in Herodotus) that appears in
Hesiod (Th. 754), but is avoided in Homeric epics
(where we only find εἰς ὁ κε(ν)). The Hesiodic text may
look more Ionic than Homer’s because the poet had an
Ionian audience in mind when he was composing or
because the (east) Ionic dialect was at that time
associated with a prestigious and popular kind of poetry.
Either way, the Hesiodic poetry is just as firmly
entrenched in the east Ionian tradition, as it is rooted on
the mainland. The absence of artificial aor. -έειν in
Hesiod observed above dovetails nicely with this
theory: while the Ionic of Hesiod is often more linguis-
tically advanced than the Ionic of the Homeric epics (the
amount of vowel contractions and the absence of initial
*u̯ possibly reflecting the situation in vernacular Ionic
of the time), the forms in -έειν entered the Homeric
tradition late enough to have been unknown in the
mainland when the Theogony and the Works and Days
were composed. Note that distended forms in -έειν
from ‘liquid’ futures and contract verbs are also absent
from Hesiod
32 This would not be the only isogloss separating
the language of the Homeric epics from that of Hesiod:
for example, consider Hesiodic ἥδυμος, ‘sweet’, ( <
*su̯ādumos) vs. Homeric νήδυμος (ὕπνος) which shows
a reanalysis of ν-movable, something that would only be
possible if a verbal form ending in -ν was followed by
an east Ionic psilotic form ἤδυμος. (For this type of
metanalysis, see recently Reece (2009) 39–56.)
 THE AORIST INFINITIVES IN -ΕΕΙΝ 87

Not unexpectedly, things are different with the Ps.-Hesiodea. The Shield of Heracles, likely
composed in the beginning of the sixth century,33 shows the following forms: ἑλέειν (Sc. 337),
λιπέειν (Sc. 332; before a consonant), πιέειν (Sc. 252), πραθέειν (Sc. 240; before a consonant)
and μαπέειν (Sc. 231, 304). In all instances where -έειν is followed by a vowel, the infinitive
ending stands before the main caesura of the third foot. The Scutum thus faithfully replicates
the Homeric state of affairs.34 In the Catalogue of Women and the Great Ehoiai35 we find
three examples of thematic aorist infinitives in -έειν, all of which are found in verses that are
either direct borrowings from the Homeric text or have been constructed from Homeric
material.36
To sum up the proposal made thus far, Homeric aorist infinitives of the type βαλέειν have been
argued to be artificial formations which originated through an analogy to ‘liquid futures’ of the
type βαλεῖν / βαλέειν in one specific east Ionian poetic tradition.

By way of concluding the paper, I would like to point out the relevance of this small section of
Homeric grammar to the larger and much-debated problem of the dialect components of the epic
diction. An exempli gratia reconstruction *balehen (*balemen) de he thūmos anōgen was used
above to argue that forms like *baleē ̣n (βαλέειν) must have been created in response to the
sound changes which rendered contracted thematic aorist infinitives in the singers’ own
4
vernacular unusable in traditional formulae: –3 ba!lē ṇ de he thūmos anōgen#. Let us now
speculate what the singers would do when confronted with an identical aporia involving a
present stem instead, for example *(h)ekhehen / *(h)ekhemen, ‘to have’, or *pherehen / *pheremen,
‘to carry’.
We have already seen above why *ἐχέειν or *φερέειν was not an option, differently from
aorists βαλέειν and ἰδέειν. In some cases the singers were probably able to modify the formula
4
by adding a particle or a conjunction, for example *(h)ekhehen patrōu̯ii̯ a panta# → καὶ ἔχειν
πατρώϊα πάντα, ‘and hold his father’s property’, but this solution would not have been applicable
in too many cases. What we mostly find are present infinitives with the Aeolic ending -έμεν
occupying precisely such metrical slots in which Ionic -ειν would have been metrically inept.37
A typical example is Il. 9.411:
5
διχθαδίας κῆρας | φερέμεν θανάτοιο τέλος δέ

I carry two sorts of destiny toward the day of my death

33 The date of the composition of the Scutum is
traditionally placed somewhere between 590 and 570
BC (see the references in Hirschberger (2004) 49,
n.169; for the terminus post quem, see in particular
Janko (1986)).
34 This is not surprising given that the central part
compared to Homeric verse-end formulae ὁρᾷ φάος
ἠελίοιο and ὄψεσθαι λαμπρὸν φάος ἠελίοιο. Lastly,
ἐκφυγέειν καὶ ἀλύξαι (fr. 150.29 M–W) may have come
directly from Il. 8.243 = Od. 12.216, as Meier (1976)
242 notes.
37 ἀγέμεν (Il. 1.323, 443, 7.418, 420, 471, 19.195,

of this poem is modelled on the Homeric description of
the shield of Achilles (Il. 18.478–608).
35 On the authorship and date of both poems, see
Hirschberger (2004) 42–51 with rich bibliographical
references to which Rutherford (2012) can now be
added. On the dialect features in the language of the
Catalogue, see recently Janko (2012) 41–43.
36 πραθέε 4
ιν μάλα περ μεμαῶτες (fr. 35.3 M–W) can
be viewed as an imitation of Il. 9.532 διαπραθέειν
μεμαῶτες Ἄρηι (compare Sc. 240 πραθέειν μεμαῶτες).
The second example is found in fr. 58.12 M–W ( = Meg.
9 H): ἰδέ[ειν λ]αμπ̣[ρὸν φάος ἠελίοιο which can be
Od. 14.274); ἐχέμεν (Il. 4.302, 5.492, 9.708, 13.2,
17.476, 19.148, Od. 4.419, 7.313, 8.529); ἐσθῐ έμεν (Od.
2.305, 21.69); μενέμεν (Il. 5.486, 15.400, Od. 9.97,
20.330; φερέμεν Il. 5.234, 9.411, 24.119 ( = 147, 176,
196); μελέμεν Od. 18.421. The count would of course
depend on the edition used: in particular, the mss
evidence for -ειν vs. -έμεν in the biceps of the fourth and
the fifth foot is foggy. My figures are based on West’s
edition (cross-checked against Ludwich’s apparatus),
since West, as a rule, does not change all instances of
-ειν at the bucolic diaeresis before vowel to -έμεν (see
West (1998) xxx–xxxi).
88 NIKOLAEV

Present infinitives of the type φερέμεν with an Aeolic ending may be plausibly viewed as
borrowings from the parallel poetic tradition, necessitated by the absence of Ionic forms that
could fill the slot ᴗ ᴗ –4 in traditional formulae, or, no less plausibly, as remnants from an earlier
stage of the epic diction, retained because there were no metrically equivalent forms in contem-
porary Ionic. Neither approach would be easy to refute.
Anapaestic present infinitives like φερέμεν in the example above cannot be viewed
separately from an even larger group of dactylic infinitives in -έμεν, such as inf. pres. ἑλκέμεν
or inf. aor. ἐλθέμεν, the suffix of which for the most part occupies the biceps of the fourth or
the fifth foot. The use of these forms is governed by very similar demands of the meter: Ionic
ἕλκειν and ἐλθεῖν would have resulted in an undesirable spondee, while Aeolic ἑλκέμεν and
ἐλθέμεν conformed to the well-known preference for a dactylic word-end before the bucolic
dieresis and before the sixth foot.38 Just like φερέμεν above, the forms like ἑλκέμεν and
ἐλθέμεν can be plausibly accounted for either as old Aeolisms or as products of a more recent
‘Aeolicization’.
So far, so good – but the problem with this neat picture becomes clear once we recapitulate
what we have learned about Aeolic infinitives in -έμεν: in Homer we find present infinitives of
the type ἑλκέμεν that scan as dactyls and present infinitives of the type φερέμεν that scan as
anapaests; we also find dactylic aorist infinitives of the type ἐλθέμεν, but – and this is quite
striking – we do not find anapaestic aorist infinitives of the type *βαλέμεν.39 Instead, we find
artificial forms of the type βαλέειν.

Infinitives in -έμεν in Homer

(ᴗ–) – ᴗ ᴗ (–) ᴗ ᴗ –
present + +
aorist + –

The ending -έμεν as such has long become part and parcel of discussions about the dialectal
components of the Homeric epics; however, the interesting discrepancy in the attestation of the
actual infinitival forms (schematically presented in the table above) seems to have been
overlooked by previous researchers, and its relevance for the study of the history of the epic
diction has not been duly appreciated. If one wants to understand the processes that have
conspired to produce the Homeric epic diction, one would do well to consider the problem of
*βαλέμεν: specifically, the proponents of the ‘Aeolic phase’ theory would need a scenario that
would explain why *βαλέμεν was superseded by metrically equivalent and arguably artificial
βαλέειν, while the ‘diffusionists’ would be expected to be able to explain adequately the avoidance
of *βαλέμεν as a replacement for the metrically inept Ionic *balē ̣n in traditional formulae.

38 That is, the avoidance of the bucolic and

Meister’s bridges (–4 –͜ –5 and –5 –͜ –6, respectively). See
Bekker (1863) 144–48; Meister (1921) 7–9, 12–22;
Witte (1972) 88–90; Nagy (1974) 74–75.
39 Aorists of the type *βαλέμεν are exceptionally
rare in Homer, and each occurrence can be independently
motivated: πῐ έμεν (Od. 15.378) is surely analogical to its
metrically lengthened dactylic doublet πῑ έμεν (Il.
16.825; Od. 16.143, 18.3); φαγέμεν is followed by
πιέμεν in three out of its five occurrences (Od. 10.386,
15.378, 16.143, 17.404, 18.3); πεφραδέμεν δήεις (Od.
7.49) could be viewed as a substitute for cacophonic
*πεφραδέειν δήεις (see above n.26). Finally, τραφέμεν
(Il. 7.199, 18.436; Od. 3.28, always in VE formula
γενέσθαι τε τραφέμεν τε) is a special case: aor. τραφέ/ό-
has a passive meaning and is exceedingly rare (in post-
Homeric times it is only found once in Callimachus). If
intr. aor. τραφέ/ό- was on its way out in east Ionic, giving
way to aor. pass. τράφη-, it is not unreasonable to
speculate that at some point *τραφεῖν was no longer a
real form for the poets who only had τραφῆναι in their
vernacular, and therefore artificial *τραφέειν could not
have been coined easily. This particular situation would
warrant the use of Aeolic τραφέμεν.
 THE AORIST INFINITIVES IN -ΕΕΙΝ 89

This problem can only be discussed adequately in the larger context of Aeolic elements in epic
diction and their treatment in the Ionian epic tradition; space limitations prevent such discussion
in the present study, the main objective of which has been to clarify the origin of aorist infinitives
in -έειν. Nevertheless, a brief statement to this effect may seem warranted. All things being
equal, it appears to the present author that in this particular case the ‘diffusionist’ approach offers
a better explanation of the facts: when *-ehen contracted to -ẹ̄n, a repair strategy was necessary
5
in such cases as our exempli gratia reconstruction | balehen de he thūmos anōgen; the artificial
form -έειν, with its unmistakably Ionic make-up, was preferred to the foreign -έμεν. Now under
the ‘Aeolic phase’ theory it remains unclear why in the process of Ionicization an Ionian bard
would replace a foreign form in -έμεν by a form in -έειν which, according to the explanation
presented above, likewise did not belong to his own vernacular; such verses as
5 h
| balemen de he t ūmos anōgen were not in any immediate danger of becoming unmetrical, and
the singer could simply keep the Aeolic form. It is noteworthy that while artificial forms
generated by the preference for dactylic word-end or other metrical factors abound, there are no
cases in Homer where the proponents of an Aeolic phase can suspect an Aeolic form to have been
replaced by a metrically equivalent artificial form.40 Seen in this perspective, the infinitive in
-έειν would support the diffusionists’ view of the Aeolisms in the Homeric dialect. It may not be
the most important argument in favour of this view, but it cannot be ignored.

Bibliography
Alexander, K. (1988) A Stylistic Commentary on Phanocles and Related Texts (Amsterdam)
Bechtel, F. (1921) Die griechischen Dialekte. 1: Der lesbische, thessalische, böotische, arkadische und
kyprische Dialekt (Berlin)
Bekker, I. (1863) Homerische Blätter (Bonn)
Berg, N. and Haug, D. (2000) ‘Innovation vs. tradition in Homer – an overlooked piece of evidence’, SO
75, 5–23
Blanc, A. (2009) ‘Langue épique, parler des aèdes et datifs en -εσσι’, in F. Biville and I. Boehm (eds),
Autour de Michel Lejeune: actes des journées d’étude organisées à l’Université Lumière-Lyon 2-
Maison de l’orient et de la Méditerranée, 2–3 février 2006 (Lyon) 137–51
Björck, G. (1950) Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache: Attische Wort- und Stilstudien
(Uppsala)
Blümel, W. (1982) Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus
generativer Sicht (Göttingen)
Cassio, A.C. (2005) ‘I dialetti eolici e la lingua della lirica corale’, in F. Bertolini and F. Gasti (eds), Dialetti
e lingue letterarie nella Grecia arcaica: Atti della IV Giornata ghisleriana di filologia classica (Pavia,
1–2 aprile 2004) (Pavia) 13–44

40 It has been argued that perfect participles in

-ῶτος, -ῶτι, -ῶτα (for example (-)τεθνηῶτες,
(-)βεβαῶτα, (-)μεμαῶτα) represent an attempt to
reconcile ‘original’ Aeolic forms in -οντος, -οντι, etc.
(for example Boeotian ἀντεθεοντες, Lesbian
κατεληλυθοντος, Thessalian ἐπεστακοντα) with the
Ionic declension in -(κ)ότος, -(κ)ότι, etc., thus illus-
trating an Aeolic form being replaced by an artificial
one (for example Meillet (1918) 293; Wathelet (1970)
329; Janko (1992) 17). However, there is no need to
invoke Aeolic in this case at all: the expected Old Ionic
forms like *μεμᾰοτα (ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ) and *κατατεθνηότες (ᴗ ᴗ
− − ᴗ ᴗ) had to be accommodated to the hexameter, and
Homeric (-)μεμαῶτα and (-)τεθνηῶτες can be explained
as instances of metrical lengthening, or, rather, as metri-
cally lengthened forms produced by allomorphic
remodelling, that is, by substituting for the suffix
allomorph of the original stem the suffix allomorph of
the nominative (*-u̯ōs); the analogy was additionally
supported by the declensional pattern of nominal stems
in -ωτ-, for example ἱδρώς, ἱδρῶτος. (While it may
seem unconventional to use the term ‘metrical length-
ening’ for morphological analogy, there is in fact little
difference between the two, as long as one adopts a
view of metrical lengthening and shortening according
to which these are not random processes of adjusting
the vowel quantity in accordance with the demands of
the meter, but rather an actual analogical innovation:
see Wyatt (1969); Nussbaum (1998) 155; Rau (2009)
180).
90 NIKOLAEV
— (2009) ‘The language of Hesiod and the Corpus Hesiodeum’, in F. Montanari, A. Rengakos and C.
Tsagalis (eds), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod (Leiden) 171–201
Chantraine, P. (1958) Grammaire homerique I (3rd edition) (Paris)
Cowgill, W. (1964) ‘The supposed Cypriote duwánoi and dōkoi, with notes on the Greek infinitive forma-
tions’, Language 40, 343–65
Crespo, E. (1977) Elementos antiguos y modernos en la prosodia homérica (Salamanca)
— (2003) ‘Los eolismos en la lengua homérica’, Nova Tellus 21.2, 15–46
Drerup, E. (1903) Die Anfänge der hellenischen Kultur. Homer (Munich and Kirchheim)
Ercolani, A. (2010) Esiodo. Opere e giorni. Introduzione, tradizione e commento (Rome)
Forssman, B. (1991) ‘Schichten in der homerischen Sprache’, in J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre Homer-
Forschung (Stuttgart and Leipzig) 259–88
García Ramón, J.L. (1973) ‘El llamado sustrato eolico: revision critica’, Quadernos de filología clásica 5,
235–77
— (1975) Les origines postmycéniennes du groupe dialectal éolien: étude linguistique (Salamanca)
— (1977) ‘Le prétendu infinitif «occidental» du type ἔχεν vis-à-vis du mycénien e-ke-e’, Minos 16,
179–206
Hackstein, O. (2010) ‘The Greek of epic’, in E.J. Bakker (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Greek
Language (Malden MA) 401–24
Hajnal, I. (2003) Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht: die Struktur einer Argumentation (Innsbruck)
Haug, D.T.T. (2002) Les phases de l’évolution de la langue épique. Trois études de linguistique homérique
(Göttingen)
— (2007) ‘Les dialects grecs chez Homère’, Gaia: Revue interdisciplinaire sur la Grèce archaïque 11, 11–24
Hermann, E. (1914) ‘Die epische Zerdehnung’, ZVS 46, 241–65
Hirschberger, M. (2004) Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai: Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten
zweier hesiodeischer Epen (Munich)
Hooker, J.T. (1977) The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets (Innsbruck)
Horrocks, G.C. (1987) ‘The Ionian epic tradition: was there an Aeolic phase in its development?’, Minos
22–24 ( = Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick), 269–94
— (1997) ‘Homer’s dialect’, in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden and
New York) 193–217
Janko, R. (1982) Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction (Cambridge
and New York)
— (1986) ‘The shield of Herakles and the legend of Cycnus’, CQ 36, 38–59
— (1992) The Iliad: A Commentary iv: Books 13–16 (Cambridge)
— (2012) ‘πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰὲν ἀείδειν: relative chronology and the literary history of the Greek
epos’, in Ø. Andersen and D.T.T. Haug (eds), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry
(Cambridge) 20–43
Jasanoff, J. (2003) Hittite and the Indo-European Verb (Oxford)
Jones, B. (2012) ‘Relative chronology and an “Aeolic phase” of epic’, in Ø. Andersen and D.T.T. Haug
(eds), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry (Cambridge) 44–64
Kammer, E. (1873) Die Einheit der Odyssee (Leipzig)
Latacz, J., Nünlist, R. and Stoevesandt, M. (2009) Homers Ilias: Gesamtkommentar I.2 (3rd edition)
(Berlin and New York)
Mangold, B. (1873) ‘De diectasi Homerica imprimis verborum in -αω’, Studien zur griechischen und latei-
nischen Grammatik 6, 139–213
Meier, W.D. (1976) Die epische Formel im pseudohesiodeischen Frauenkatalog. Eine Untersuchung zum
nachhomerischen Formelgebrauch (Zürich)
Meillet, A. (1918) ‘Sur une edition linguistique d’Homère’, REG 31, 277–314
Meister, K. (1921) Die homerische Kunstsprache (Leipzig)
Merzdorf, R. (1875) Quaestiones grammaticae de dialecto Herodotea (Leipzig)
Miller, D.G. (1982) Homer and the Ionian Epic Tradition (Innsbruck)
Nagy, G. (1974) Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter (Cambridge MA)
— (2011) ‘The Aeolic component of Homeric diction’, in S.W. Jamison, H.C. Melchert and B. Vine (eds),
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Bremen) 133–79
 THE AORIST INFINITIVES IN -ΕΕΙΝ 91
Nicosia, S. (1996) ‘L’ epitafio per Admeto di Tera (IG XII 3, 868)’, ZPE 111, 31–39
Nikolaev, A. (2010 [2011]) ‘Indo-European *dem(h2)- “to build” and its derivatives’, HSF 123, 56–96
Nussbaum, A. (1998) Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics (Göttingen)
Parry, Μ. (1932) ‘Studies in the epic technique of oral verse-making. II. The Homeric language as the
language of an oral poetry’, HSCPh 43, 1–50 ( = (1971) The Making of Homeric Verse (Oxford)
325–64)
Peters, M. (1980) Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen
(Vienna)
Peters, M. (1989) Sprachliche Studien zum Frühgriechischen (Habilitationschrift Vienna)
— (2007) ‘οὐκ ἀπίθησε und πιθήσας’, in A. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Docenti. Studies in Historical and
Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students, Colleagues, and Friends (Ann
Arbor and New York) 263–70
Rau, J. (2009) ‘The origin of the short-vowel ευ-stems in Homer’, Glotta 84, 169–94
Reece, S. (2009) Homer’s Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Diction in the Light of Oral
Theory (Leiden and Boston)
Renaud, J.-M. (2005) ‘La tradition épique avant Homère: l’apport de l’infinitif εἶναι’, ConnHell 103,
32–38.
Renner, J.G. (1868) ‘De dialecto antiquioris Graecorum poesis elegiacae et iambicae’, Studien zur
griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 1, 133–236
Risch, E. (1974) Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache (2nd edition) (Berlin and New York)
Ritschl, F. (1838) Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken unter den ersten Ptolemäern und die Sammlung der
Homerischen Gedichte durch Pisistratus nach Anleitung eines Plautinischen Scholions. Nebst litterar-
historischen Zugaben über die Chronologie der alexandrinischen Bibliothekare, die Stichometrie der
Alten, und die Grammatiker Heliodorus (Breslau)
Ruijgh, C.J. (1978) ‘Compte rendu de García Ramón 1975’, Bibliotheca Orientalis 35, 418–23 (= (1991)
Scripta Minora I (Amsterdam) 662–75)
— (1995) ‘D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique. Analyse dialectologique du
langage homérique, avec un excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec’, in J.P. Crielaard (ed.), Homeric
Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology (Amsterdam) 1–96
— (1996) ‘La genèse de l’éolien d’Asie’, Verbum 18, 289–97
Rutherford, I. (2012) ‘The Catalogue of Women within the Greek epic tradition: allusion, intertextuality
and traditional referentiality’, in Ø. Andersen and D.T.T. Haug (eds), Relative Chronology in Early
Greek Epic Poetry (Cambridge) 152–67
Rzach, A. (1875–1876) ‘Der Dialekt des Hesiodos’ Jahrbücher für classische Philologie Supplement 8,
355–466
Schwyzer, E. (1939) Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer
Grammatik I (Munich)
Simmerle, P.M. (1874) Zur Bildung des homerischen Infinitivformen (Innsbruck)
Smyth, H.W. (1894) The Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects. Ionic (Oxford)
Solmsen, F. (1903) ‘Thessaliotis und Pelasgiotis’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 58, 598–623
Thumb, A. and Scherer, A. (1959) Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte II (2nd edition) (Heidelberg)
Troxler, H. (1964) Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods (Zürich)
Trümpy, C. (2004) ‘Wohlklingende Feste: Neues zu Pindars erster Pythischer Ode’, in A. Hornung, C.
Jäkel and W. Schubert (eds), Studia Humanitatis ac Litterarum Trifolio Heidelbergensi dedicata
(Frankfurt) 343–58
Vottero, G. (2006) ‘Remarques sur les origines “éoliennes” du dialecte béotien’, in C. Brixhe and G. Vottéro
(eds), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans la Grèce antique (Nancy) 99–154
Wachter, R. (2007) ‘Greek dialects and epic poetry: did Homer have to be an Ionian?’, in M.B.
Hatzopoulos and V. Psilakakou (eds), Φωνής χαρακτήρ εθνικός. Actes du Ve congrès international de
dialectologie grecque (Athenes 28–30 septembre 2006) (Athens) 317–28
Wackernagel, J. (1916) Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen)
Wathelet, P. (1970) Les traits éoliens dans la langue de l’épopée grecque (Roma)
West, M.L. (ed.) (1966) Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford)
— (1982) Greek Metre (Oxford)
92 NIKOLAEV
— (1988) ‘The rise of the Greek epic’, JHS 108, 151–172
— (1998) Homeri Ilias (Stuttgart)
Witte, K. (1972) Zur homerischen Sprache (Darmstadt)
Wuest, H. (1943) Morphologie des homerischen Infinitivs auf Grundlage der Ablautserscheinungen
(Freiburg)
Wyatt Jr, W.F. (1969) Metrical Lengthening in Homer (Rome)
— (1992) ‘Homer’s linguistic forebears’, JHS 112, 167–73