42 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



we examine the epigrams in which these words appear (5, 1 1 7), we see 

 that both were written in honor of foreigners. Therefore the forms in 

 -IT} may be really Ionic and not epic. Other inscriptions which are 

 certainly in honor of foreigners are 79 and 83. 79 is, indeed, composed 

 in the Attic dialect because it was the Athenian state which set up the 

 stone, and the official language would naturally be used ; but 83 is in 

 the dialect of the Corinthians who lay beneath the stone. From those 

 facts we may reasonably conclude that 5 and 17 were also composed 

 in the dialects of the dead, and we may still hold that Attic forms 

 are replaced by epic only for metrical convenience. This position is 

 strengthened if we examine the following words, fjXnclas (12), veapav (1), 



$€viav (16), aypas (23), /3/ai (76), cr^eTepai' (81), yeveas (80), all of which 



have retained the Attic form, although at least two of them appear in 

 the epic as frequently as naTpaiTjs and alBoirjv. 



'A6r]va[T]i (117) is explained by v. Mess in the same way a,s ^AdfjVT)L (see 

 above), but here the case is somewhat different, since the Attic form 

 "Adrjuaiai would have Suited the metre equally well. Therefore, while 

 'AdfjuTji might appear in an inscription in Attic, 'Adrjvahji, in my opinion, 

 could not. 155 



Since only words which appear in epic or lyric poetry are found in 

 the epigrams in epic or Doric forms, it seems fair to conclude that 

 words not found in epic or lyric poetry could not be given epic or Doric 

 forms merely to add a poetic tone to the verses. Hence npayfi (1) is 

 the only possible form for that epigram, and in the much-discussed ep. 

 171,156 jrpayfjLacTi must have been the form which appeared on the stone, 

 if, as we now suppose, npaypa was a word not used in the epic. 



There remains a difficulty which no one has as yet been able to 

 solve, — the form Yivdayoprjv (id). The inscription, as was to be ex- 

 pected, is almost wholly Attic, even to the genitive Uvdayopov which 

 precedes the verses. The Doric form 2a\v^piav is easily explained, since 

 tlie name of a Doric town would be likely to remain unchanged in any 

 surroundings. Of the form UvBayoprjv v. Mess writes as follows : ^57 

 "Formam vero Uv6ay6pr)v in carmine nostro non ex lade vulgari sed 

 ex poetica moris epici imitatione ortam esse apparet, praesertim cum 

 in titulo suprascripto eiusdem nominis forma Attica, Uv6ay6pov, legere- 

 tur. Forma Uv6ay6pi)s fortasse inde explicatur, quod eis fere temporibus 



^•"^ V. Mess cites HofTinann 2.58 as an example of an Attic epigram containing 

 AOrjvalTji. But this epigram may also have been written by or for a foreigner. The 

 name ^/x]ikii97i (which is partly conjectural) is not foiinil in Attica alone, and it is not 

 certain that the form iavrTji could not be employed by an Ionic poet 



106 See Wilamowitz, Hermes 20, pp. 69 flf. 



"T p. 14. 



