More Aeolic Elements in γλῶσσαι κατὰ πόλεις?

Abstract

This paper examines the reliability of ancient lexicographical sources, using as a case study Ποῖαι γλῶσσαι κατὰ πόλεις, an anonymous work that features an ancient list of 100 forms attributed to various dialects (Urb. gr. 157; cf. Latte 1925:136–147; Bowra 1959: 43–60). The List includes four examples identified as belonging to the Aeolic (Lesbian) dialect, namely: Αἰολέων· αἰχμή – λόγχη; γοός – κλαυθμός; δῶμα – οἶκος; κεκρυφάλεος – ἀριστερόν. As argued by Sowa (2011: 172–179), these four forms cannot be interpreted as examples of Lesbian dialectal vocabulary. Since there is a theoretical possibility that the List contains forms that have been erroneously classified as belonging to the lexical systems of particular dialects, this article examines whether additional Aeolic forms may be identified among those attested in the List, but attributed to other poleis, as Bowra has previously suggested. In light of a dialectal analysis of the forms attested in γλῶσσαι, the Homeric character of the entire work appears evident. However, the fundamental question remains as to why certain dialects or regions are assigned specific sections concerning πόλεις, while others are not, and why these particular πόλεις were selected, given the fictional nature of many of the dialectal attributions.