The Aeolic Component of Homeric Diction

§1. My starting point is a formulation to be found in an article by Milman Parry (1932), whose methodology of analyzing what I call here the dialectal components of Homeric poetry was strongly influenced by the discovery procedures of the linguist Antoine Meillet (as in his Aperçu d’une histoire de la langue grecque, Meillet [1913]; my Bibliography shows also the date of a later edition, 1935). The formulation by Parry, as we will see, builds a model for explaining the dialectal components of Homeric diction, and he lists these components as Arcado-Cypriote, Aeolic, and Ionic.[1]  I will offer additional arguments in support of Parry’s model, especially with reference to the Aeolic and the Ionic dialects as actually spoken by Aeolians and Ionians. My use of the terms Aeolians and Ionians involves, as we will see, sociolinguistic perspectives that go beyond the purely linguistic perspectives involved in my use of the terms Aeolic and Ionic.

§3. Next I turn to the term Aeolic, by which I mean a dialectal grouping that includes the Lesbian and the Thessalian and the Boeotian dialects of the ancient Greek language as attested in the first millennium BCE. I offer here the following definitions of the three terms I use for these three dialects:

§4. In two publications, indicated here in my Bibliography as “Nagy 1970” and “Nagy 1972,” I studied the phonological, morphological, and morphophonemic affinities of all three of these dialects—Lesbian, Thessalian, and Boeotian.

§5. My present argumentation builds on what I presented in those two publications, especially in the second of the two, “Nagy 1972,” updated first as “Nagy 2008” and now republished in Classical Continuum as a second edition, “Nagy 2023.08.21.”

§6. I quote here a formulation from the earliest version of my relevant work  (Nagy 1972:59) where I summarized the model built by Parry (1932), except that I substituted “Mycenaean” where he would have said “Arcado-Cypriote”:

§7. When I say here that Parry viewed the dialectal components of Homeric diction diachronically, I am using the term diachronic in line with the formulation of Ferdinand de Saussure concerning synchronic and diachronic analysis in the field of linguistics. According to Saussure, synchrony and diachrony designate respectively a current state of a language and a phase in its evolution:

§8. As we see from the wording that is quoted here, Saussure links diachrony with evolution. To develop synchronic and diachronic perspectives, then, is to build {135|136} synchronic and diachronic models for the description of linguistic structures and for visualizing the evolution of these structures. And such building of models can be applied not only to the structures of language in general but also to the structures of a specialized language like Homeric diction in particular (Nagy 2003:1).

§9. It is relevant for me to note at this point the fact that I later rewrote my wording, quoted above from my earliest relevant work (Nagy 1972), where I had first summarized Parry’s model. My rewritten wording takes the form of a qualification that I added in my revised version of that work (Nagy 2008), which in turn is republished in a second edition (Nagy 2023.08.21:58):

At a later point in my argumentation, I will elaborate on the overall thinking of Wachter (2000 and 2007) about the Aeolic and the Ionic components of Homeric diction.

§11. I start with six Homeric Aeolicisms posited by Paul Wathelet (1970:366–367):

§12. The examples I have just listed are only a selection taken from a larger number of forms originally listed by Wathelet. My list here concentrates on Homeric forms accepted and defended as distinctly Aeolic by Dag Haug (2002:70–72), who in turn argues that the following additional Homeric forms can likewise be described as Aeolic:

§13. I draw special attention here to one thing that all nine of these posited Aeolicisms of Homeric diction have in common: not one of these features is shared with the dialect we know as Ionic. [5] {137|138}

§23, In taking such a position, Haug cites as his authority the claims made by Hoekstra (1965:31–41) about Homeric forms showing quantitative metathesis, that is, where original ηο and ηω became εω. Hoekstra assumes that such Homeric forms showing εω, which are distinctly Ionic, must be non-formulaic, and he gives two reasons for making this assumption:

§24. But the distinction that Hoekstra makes here between non-formulaic and formulaic aspects of Homeric diction is untenable. There is no basis in fact for assuming that any aspect of Homeric diction, including the Ionic aspect, is non-formulaic. I had this assumption of Hoekstra in mind when I warned, from the very start, against a narrow and superficial understanding of the Homeric formula as simply a repeated phrase that fits the meter. Nor is there any basis for assuming that differences in (1) relative frequency and (2) patterns of distribution are indications of what is “invented” as opposed to what is “traditional.” These are my two general criticisms of the approach taken by Hoekstra. And I also have a number of specific criticisms, which I organize here along the lines of the three categories into which Hoekstra divides the Homeric examples of quantitative metathesis.

§25. The first of the three categories of quantitative metathesis as organized by Hoekstra (1965) is the type θυρέων, as at Odyssey xxi 191. Such forms in -έων, rarely attested in Homeric diction, are disyllabic, that is, without synizesis. Hoekstra says about them (p. 32): “With the possible exception of νεῶν, these [forms] do not show the slightest trace of formulaic employment.” I object. There is nothing that is non-formulaic about the combination of a genitive plural like θυρέων with the following verb ἔσαν before the bucolic diaeresis (marked here as “‖”):

{140|141} Here, for example, are two examples of parallel combinations of a genitive plural in -ων with the following verb ἔσαν before the bucolic diaeresis (marked here again as “‖”):

As for Hoekstra’s remark about the form νεῶν, with disyllabic -έων, which he considers to be the “only possible exception” to his rule that forms with disyllabic -έων “do not show the slightest trace of formulaic employment,” I note the results of a thorough analysis of this form by Jeremy Rau (2009:175n20), who shows convincingly that the disyllabic type νεῶν is deeply embedded in the formulaic system of Homeric diction. Even where forms in disyllabic -έων seem less deeply embedded in the formulaic system, as in the case of the genitive plural of eu-stems, the evidence collected by Rau (2008 and 2009) shows that the distribution of such short-vowel forms (with ε instead of η before ο or ω) within the Homeric hexameter is thoroughly consistent with the formulaic rules of Homeric diction. In Hoekstra’s discussion of the type θυρέων, where -έων is disyllabic, that is, without synizesis, he neglects to take into account the related type θυρέων, where -έων is monosyllabic, that is, with synizesis:

But the kind of argument I already made in the case of the other type θυρέων, where -έων is disyllabic, can be made in this case as well, where the -έων of θυρέων is monosyllabic. I maintain that the placement of θυρέων here before the word-break marked as “‖” is perfectly formulaic, as we can see from the parallel placement and the parallel syntax of other such nouns with monosyllabic genitive plural in -εων:

§26. Next I turn to the second of Hoekstra’s three categories of quantitative metathesis, which is the well-known type Πηληϊάδεω ᾿Αχιλῆος, as at Iliad I 1 and elsewhere. Such forms in -εω, frequently attested, are monosyllabic, that is, with synizesis. They are placed before words that begin with a vowel. Hoekstra says (p. 32): “These forms are simply reducible to older prototypes (*Πηληϊάδᾱ’ ᾿Αχιλῆος, etc.).” In terms of this claim, the term “formulaic” can be applied only to the forms that are “prototypes.” Such a so-called “prototype” is the type Πηληϊάδᾱο, which is positioned (1) before a word beginning with a consonant, as {141|142} at Iliad XVI 686, or (2) in verse-final position, as at Iliad XI 557. By contrast, the same description “prototype” supposedly does not hold for the corresponding Ionic forms of the type Πηληϊάδεω, which is positioned before a word beginning with a vowel, as at Iliad I 1. These Ionic forms are merely “reducible” to the older “prototypes”—and so, supposedly, they are no longer formulaic. My argument against this way of thinking can best be advanced by merging it with my argument against what Hoekstra says about the third and the last of his three categories of quantitative metathesis.

§30. In the end, Hoekstra (1965:38) arrives at this negative conclusion:

§31. Having already assumed that Homeric diction must have become non-formulaic during a phase of Ionic transmission that came after the metathesis from ηο and ηω to εω, Hoekstra then follows up with a further assumption by building on his previous assumption. He assumes that such a supposedly non-formulaic phase would be suitable for a special poet whom he understands to be Homer.

§35. So I agree with Janko when he contrasts the idea of such integral borrowing with the alternative idea of random adoption or, as he calls it, isolated borrowings of old Aeolic forms into the supposedly new Ionic tradition. I quote the wording of his formulation, noting in advance his use of the expressions “adopted,” “isolated borrowings,” and “integral” (Janko 1979:27):

§40. Janko’s argument is further elaborated, with specific reference to the genitive singular -ᾱο, in a later work of his. Again I quote him, noting in advance his use of the expressions “adopted” (twice), “taken over” (twice), “incidental borrowing,” and “isolated form” (Janko 1982:90):

§41. I agree with Janko when he says that -ᾱο and –ά̄ων are integral to the formulaic system of Homeric diction, and that they are not “incidental borrowings.” And I also agree with him when he goes on to say that the Ionic-speaking transmitters of Homeric diction “adopted” or “took over” these forms as part of the formulaic system of this diction. But here I must return to my disagreement with Haug (2002), which now extends into a partial disagreement with Janko (1979 and 1982). Janko too, like Haug, is arguing that forms like -ηο and -ήων {145|146} could not have existed in an Ionic phase of Homeric diction. By contrast, I am arguing that such forms could exist and in fact did exist—but only in an earlier Ionic phase of this diction. To that extent, I disagree with Janko as well as with Haug. Even so, as I have said already, I do in fact agree with Janko when he goes on to say that the “borrowing” of forms in -ᾱο and –ά̄ων into an Ionic phase of Homeric diction was not “incidental.” Rather, this “borrowing” was a systematic adoption of formulas involving the genitives of ā-stem nouns, and these formulas had already been operative in Aeolic Greek.

§46. What I have argued so far about quantitative metathesis in Homeric diction is derived from a briefer argument I presented in my earlier work (Nagy 1972 [2023.08.21]:67), and I review in the next two paragraphs what I said there:

§47. This model of formulaic borrowing from Aeolic into Ionic (Nagy 1972 [2023.08.21]:67) differs from the model of Janko (1979, 1982) by dispensing with the idea of a gap for Ionic-speaking transmitters of Homeric diction. In terms of Janko’s model, as we have seen, these Ionic-speaking transmitters did not have a fully developed formulaic system of their own, and that is why they had to borrow {147|148} from the formulaic repertoire of Aeolic-speaking transmitters. In terms of my model, by contrast, these Ionic-speaking transmitters did in fact have a fully developed formulaic system of their own, but they nevertheless borrowed systematically from the cognate formulaic repertoire of Aeolic-speaking transmitters.

§51. This concept of Sprachbund is relevant to a model I have built for explaining the multidialectal nature of Homeric diction, using synchronic as well as diachronic perspectives in reconstructing (a) patterns of mutual borrowings between the contiguous dialectal communities of Aeolic-speaking and Ionic-speaking Greeks in the early first millennium BCE and (b) older patterns stemming from the second millennium BCE. Here I summarize this model as I presented it in a book about the history and prehistory of Homeric transmission, Homer the Preclassic (Nagy 2010|2009). {148|149} I now epitomize what I say in that book at Part II §278 (in cross-references to the book, as here, I cite the paragraph-numbers in the online version of 2009, not the page-numbers in the printed version of 2010):

In this formulation, the recessiveness of the Aeolic component of Homeric diction corresponds to what I have been describing up to now as the Aeolic default.

§64. Frame (2009) has shown that the politics of the Ionian Dodecapolis shaped the poetics of what become the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey. Even the poetic organization of these two epics was shaped by the political numerology of the Dodecapolis as a federation of twelve city states. Here is a summary (Nagy 2010|2009 I §38, following the overall argumentation of Frame 2009 chapter 11):

§65. The Ionian Dodecapolis, this federation of twelve Ionian city states situated on the mainland of Asia Minor (Miletus, Myous, Priene, Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedos, Teos, Klazomenai, Phocaea, Erythrai) and on two offshore islands (Samos and Chios), was in direct political and cultural competition with the Aeolian Dodecapolis, a rival federation of twelve Aeolian city states, all situated {152|153} on the mainland of Asia Minor. The twelve city states of this Aeolian federation are listed by Herodotus (1.149.1) as Cyme, Lērisai, Neon Teikhos, Tēmnos, Killa, Notion, Aigiroessa, Pitanē, Aigaiai, Myrina, Gryneia, and Smyrna. Herodotus (1.151.1) says that the Aeolian cities on the mainland of Asia Minor in the region of Mount Ida were grouped separately from the Aeolian Dodecapolis, and he does not list these cities by name. As for the island of Lesbos, offshore from Asia Minor, Herodotus (1.151.2) says that it was politically organized as a federation of five Aeolian cities. This old federation is described by Strabo (13.2.1 C616) as a single unified state that claimed to be the metropolis or ‘mother city’ of the Aeolian cities on the Asian mainland.

§71. But the dominant Ionic dialect of Homeric diction never completely eliminated the Aeolic dialect. We have already noted a phenomenon that I have been describing up to now as the Aeolic default. And we can now see the relevance of this term to the wording I used earlier when I applied the concept of Sprachbund to build a model for explaining the multidialectal nature of Homeric diction. I repeat here the relevant part of my wording (Nagy 2010|2009 II §278):

I focus here on the integration of the Ionic and the Aeolic dialects as respectively dominant and recessive dialectal components within the working system that is Homeric diction. In terms of this working system, we can say that the dominant poetic language, which is Ionic, tolerates Aeolic forms only by default. This principle, I repeat, is what I have described as the Aeolic default.

§73. In the course of studying extensively this Aeolic-Ionic Sprachbund, I have developed a working definition of the poetic language of Sappho and Alcaeus, combining diachronic and synchronic perspectives (Nagy  2010|2009 II §281):

As in the case of the language of Homeric poetry, I follow Parry (1932) here in viewing the language of the poetry of Sappho and Alcaeus synchronically as a working system, not as an inert layering of dialectal components matching Aeolic / Ionic dialects (Nagy 1990a:418 = 14§9).

§76. The point that I just made here is opposed to another way of looking at the transmission of lyric poetry ascribed to Sappho and Alcaeus. I have in mind the following formulation by West (2002:219):

§77. By contrast with the point of view expressed in this quoted formulation, I view the transmission of the lyric poetry of Sappho and Alcaeus as a matter of performance, not text, arguing for a broad diffusion of this poetry as traditionally performed by kitharōidoi or ‘citharodes’ during the sixth and fifth centuries BCE and beyond (Nagy 2007c). In terms of my argument, the songs of Sappho and Alcaeus did not remain “local classics.” Rather, they became Panhellenic classics. And the transmission of these classics of lyric poetry as traditionally performed by kitharōidoi or ‘citharodes’ singing in a poetic language that was predominantly Aeolic is comparable to the transmission of epic poetry as traditionally performed by rhapsōidoi or ‘rhapsodes’ reciting in a poetic language that was predominantly Ionic (again, Nagy 2007c).

§90. The evidence for the historical context of this Aeolic-Ionic Sprachbund of lyric and epic comes from a variety of relevant sources, especially Herodotus (5.94–95), Strabo (13.1.38–39 C599–600), and Diogenes Laertius (1.74). I have analyzed this evidence at length in Homer the Preclassic (Nagy 2010|2009 chapter 6), and what follows is only an epitome:

§90a. The poetic language of Sappho and Alcaeus evolved in the political setting of a federation of five Aeolian cities situated on the island of Lesbos. The federation {159|160} was controlled by one of these cities, Mytilene, which was engaged in an ongoing conflict with the nominally Ionian city of Athens during the late seventh and early sixth centuries BCE. Both sides were fighting for possession of Sigeion, an Aeolian city situated on the mainland of Asia Minor. And both sides thought of this city, which I have just now described as Aeolian but which was destined, as we will soon see, to become Ionian, as essential for claiming possession of the entire region of ancient Troy. In general, possessing Troy was an essential aim for both sides, and there were two main reasons. One reason was that the region of Troy, situated at the Hellespont, was the gateway to the Black Sea, and the other reason was that this region had become a space made sacred by the heroes who fought in the Trojan War and who were memorialized by living poetic traditions that represented the conflicting claims of Ionians and Aeolians as headed respectively by Athens and Mytilene.

§90b. A primary focus of the conflict was a tumulus identified with the tomb of Achilles. This tumulus, named the Akhilleion, had been controlled by the Aeolian city of Sigeion. The Akhilleion was situated at the southern end of the heights known as the Sigeion Ridge, some ten kilometers in length, which extends along the Aegean coast of the Hellespont region from the promontory at the Bay of Beşike in the south all the way to the promontory of Sigeion (Kum Kale) in the north, which is where the city of Sigeion itself was located. In the course of the ongoing conflict between the Ionians led by Athens and the Aeolians led by Mytilene, the Aeolian side eventually lost the Aeolian city of Sigeion to the Athenians, who converted it into an Ionian city. Although the Aeolians lost Sigeion at the northern end of the Sigeion Ridge, they managed to retain the tumulus of Achilles at the southern end, the Akhilleion, with the result that the Athenians were forced to designate another tumulus as the allegedly real tomb of Achilles. This rival tumulus was situated at the northern end of the Sigeion Ridge, quite near the city of Sigeion, some ten kilometers north of the Akhilleion. So, now there were two rival tumuli of Achilles matching two rival poetic traditions about this hero.

§92. So, by now we have considered two cases of Aeolic-Ionic Sprachbund, corresponding to two cases of Aeolian-Ionian conflict in Asia Minor. While the historical sources emphasize the conflicts themselves, I emphasize the linguistic contacts achieved in the course of the conflicts, and I summarize here in two parts the effects of these contacts:

§93. I have argued, in both these cases, that the contact between poetic languages is a contact between cognate structures. And, as I said, we can expect to find enhanced structural opportunities for mutual influence if in fact these languages are cognate. Τhat is what we have seen most clearly in the evidence of Homeric diction, and I cite here once again as my primary example the morphophonemic rule that systematically substitutes the Aeolic morphological type -ᾱο for the cognate Ionic morphological type -ηο. This type -ηο, fitting one kind of metrical context, is demonstrably older than the type -εω, fitting another kind of metrical context. And the Aeolic type -ᾱο is in turn just as old as the type -ηο that it replaces, since it belongs to an independent Aeolian epic tradition that existed during a phase when the poetic traditions of the Ionians still coexisted with the corresponding poetic traditions of the Aeolians.

§104. That the myths about an Aeolian Migration were mutually accepted by both the European and the Asian Aeolians in the first millennium BCE is evident from the content of these myths, which tell how the Aeolians of Europe undertook an apoikiā or ‘colonization’ of the Aiolis ‘Aeolic territory’ of Asia Minor. This term apoikiā ‘colonization’ is the actual word used in ancient sources with reference to myths about what is also called the ‘migration’ of the Aeolians—and of the Ionians. I offer here a brief retelling of these myths about an Aeolian Migration, based primarily on a lengthy narrative by Strabo:

§110. Parker (2008:447) also confronts another innovation shared by Lesbian, Thessalian, and Boeotian: in this case, we see a substitution of the innovative thematic form *-o–nt– for the inherited athematic form *-wos–/*–us-of the perfect participle. This innovation, as Parker notes, is found “in full paradigm” only in these three dialects. Accordingly, Parker (p. 448) concedes that “this is the strongest evidence for a shared innovation.” Even so, he then goes on to cast doubt on this evidence by adding: “but the fact that other dialects succumb to the temptation of thematic forms for the perfect weakens the case somewhat.” At this point he summarizes the sporadic evidence for the existence of thematic forms of the perfect in other dialects:

§111. The evidence here does not add up. As we have just seen from Parker’s inventory of this evidence, and as we can see also from an extensive earlier survey by Wathelet (1970:326–327), such thematic forms of infinitives and participles do not match in any systematic way the thematic forms of the perfect participle as we find them attested in Lesbian, Thessalian, and Boeotian. Granted, many dialects show the innovation of changing an athematic conjugation or declension into a thematic counterpart, and there are even instances where perfect indicatives develop thematic present-tense endings, as for example in the dialect of Syracuse (Parker 2008:447; see already Chantraine 1961:185). Even so, the fact remains that only the dialects of Lesbos, Thessaly, and Boeotia show a thematic form “in full paradigm” for the perfect active participle.

§119. The decisive evidence of the Aeolic type κεκλήγοντες as attested in the Homeric textual tradition is highlighted in my earlier work (Nagy 1972:62). Referring to perfect participles with thematic formant in -οντ- as embedded in Homeric diction, I argued that the “pervasiveness” of such embeddedness proves the existence of an Aeolic phase in the evolution of Homeric poetry. And here is {168|169} the way I restated the argument in the first online version of the same work (Nagy 2008 [2023.08.21]:62):

§120. Another example of distinctly Aeolic innovations embedded in Homeric diction is a set of forms in dative plural -εσσι, of the type βελέεσσι at Iliad XXIV 759 and ἐπέεσσι at Iliad I 519 and elsewhere. Such Homeric forms, as Alain Blanc has observed (2008:444 and 2009:148, with reference to Witte 1914:54), point to the existence of an Aeolic component in Homeric diction. As Blanc has also observed (2009:148–149), the actual formation of this type of dative plural within the formulaic system of Homeric poetry must have taken place during an Ionic phase in the evolution of Homeric diction. A similar though slightly different observation has been made by Albio Cesare Cassio (2006), who points to epigraphical evidence in arguing that Homeric forms like βελέεσσι and ἐπέεσσι must be Aeolic: he cites as an Asian attestation the form ἐπιφανέεσσι in an inscription from Aeolic Cyme (second century BCE) and, as a European attestation, the form τειχέεσσι in an inscription from Skotoussa in Thessaly (also second century BCE). [6]

§124. So, at the very least, we can say that the Homeric attestations of Aeolic perfect participles in -οντ- and of Aeolic dative plurals of the type βελέεσσι and ἐπέεσσι provide evidence for a Lesbian component in Homeric diction. But the fact is, there are also Homeric attestations of other Aeolic forms that are no longer attested in the Aeolic dialect of Asia Minor but are still well attested in the Aeolic dialects of Europe. For a salient example, I quote from my earlier work with reference to the forms ποτί / προτί, which are deeply embedded in Homeric diction (Nagy 1972 [2023.08.21]:69):

§125. In this case, we know that the corresponding form in everyday Lesbian speech was πρός, exactly like the Ionic form, instead of ποτί or προτί (Janko 1979:28–29). And we also know that such a Lesbian form resulted from a lively Sprachbund that linked the Aeolic and the Ionic dialects of Asia Minor with each other. So the Homeric forms ποτί and προτί must have stemmed from European Aeolic forms.

§127. The integration of Thessalian forms in Homeric diction is parallel to the integration of Thessalian myths in the overall framework of Homeric poetry. As an example, I highlight here the figure of Achilles, native son of Thessaly in the Homeric Iliad. As I argue in Homer the Preclassic (Nagy 2010/2009 chapter 7) Achilles was a premier epic hero of the European Aeolians of Thessaly just as he was a premier cult hero of the Asian Aeolians of the Troad during the era when this epic real estate was still being controlled by the city of Mytilene as leader of a confederation of five Aeolian cities of Lesbos. I give here an epitome of my argumentation (Nagy 2010|2009, especially II §§47–49):

§127a. As we learn from the stylized account of Philostratus in the Heroikos (52.3–54.1), the tomb of Achilles in the Troad was the site of seasonally recurring sacrifices offered to the hero by Aeolians. But these Aeolians were Europeans. That is, they were Thessalians, whose sacrifice was performed as an act of ritualized stealth because they were notionally the enemies—according to myth—of Asian Aeolians. Relevant is the fact that the Thessalians were not only enemies of the Asian Aeolians in terms of myth but also allies of Athens in terms of early historical realities in the era of the Athenian tyrants, the Peisistratidai. Herodotus (5.63.3) highlights an ongoing alliance between the dynasts of Thessaly and the Peisistratidai of Athens.

§127b. In terms of Thessalian myth, the homeland of Aiolos, notional ancestor of all the Aioleîs ‘Aeolians’, was Thessaly, as we read in the Library of  “Apollodorus” (1.7.3 p. 57 ed. Frazer 1921). In other words, myth claims that the ancestor of all Aeolians was a prototypical Thessalian. By extension, the Thessalians claimed to be prototypes of the Aeolians on the island of Lesbos and, by further extension, of the Aeolians on the Asian mainland. By further extension, Thessaly could be viewed as a point of origin for the Aeolian Migration, that is, for the colonization of the Aeolian cities on the island of Lesbos and, by extension, of the Aeolian cities on the Asian mainland. So also, as we will see, the Athenians figured themselves as prototypes of the Ionians of Asia Minor and of its outlying islands in the context of myths about an IonianMigration, just as the Thessalians figured themselves as prototypes of the Aeolians of Asia Minor and of its outlying islands, especially of Lesbos, in the context of myths about an Aeolian Migration.

§128. In sum, the sharing of the myths about Achilles by Asian and European Aeolians meant that each of the two sides accepted the Aeolian identity of the other side, despite their mutual hostility.

§129. At the end of the narrative of the Homeric Vita 1, the so-called “pseudo-Herodotean” Life of Homer, we find a relative chronology that is based on a myth claiming that Homer was an Aeolian (Nagy 2010/2009 II §28):

§130.  There are a number of different myths that center of the dating of Homer’s birth, and each one of these myths promotes different sociopolitical interests (Nagy 2010|2009 II §29). For now, however, I concentrate on the myth I just paraphrased because it is evidently Aeolian in origin. That is why it highlights the idea that the city of Smyrna was still Aeolian when Homer was born there. That is, Smyrna had not yet turned Ionian. In terms of this myth, the birthplace of Homer was an Aeolian city, and Homer was an Aeolian by birth. In the Athenocentric narrative of the Homeric Vita 2, by contrast, Homer was born in Smyrna at a time after the Ionian Migration, after this city had already turned Ionian (Nagy 2010|2009II §§24–27). To put it another way, we see here the Homer of a diminished Aeolian Dodecapolis who is becoming redefined as the Homer of a {172|173} dominant Ionian Dodecapolis (Nagy 2010|2009 II §30).This version of the myth, which is pro-Ionian and anti-Aeolian, boasts that Homer was an Ionian by birth but concedes that the city was formerly Aeolian. So, the myth is saying that Homer originates from a city that was once Aeolian but is now Ionian, just as Homeric poetry originates from a poetic tradition that was once Aeolic but is now Ionic. I see here an Ionian aetiology for the principle that I have been calling the Aeolic default. In terms of this principle, as we have seen, Homeric diction defaults to its Aeolic component wherever an Ionic component is lacking.

§132. This same Aeolic word πεμπώβολα ‘having five prongs’, I note, was the first example of Homeric Aeolicisms that I highlighted at the beginning of my presentation. And the point that the narrator makes here has given me the opportunity to take one last look at the principle of the Aeolic default. I quote here the passage in its entirety:

§133. In highlighting the form πεμπώβολα ‘having five prongs’, the narrator of the “pseudo-Herodotean” Life of Homer is making the point that Homer defaults to Aeolic usage when he speaks about customs that are most familiar to him, as in the case of the Aeolian custom of using five-prong forks rather than three-prong forks for roasting sacrificial meat at an animal sacrifice. This cultural detail about an Aeolian custom is a fitting symbol of the linguistic process that I have been describing as the Aeolic default, where Homeric diction defaults to an Aeolic form in the absence of a corresponding Ionic form. It is this linguistic process that generates the Aeolic component of Homeric diction.

Bibliography

Footnotes