Notes on Ionic verse inscriptions

BMI 952 (= Schwyzer 430, IG IX,1 649, and CEG I 391: LSAG) features:
(1) a masc. a-stem, without final sigma, of a unique personal name: Ἐξοίδα (IG l.c. has Εὐσ-); (2) the genitive singular Διϝὸς; and, (3) the spelling of the dual ϙόˉροιν.

The Poinikastas description amuses me: 'Bronze disk dedicated to the Kioskouroi by Exoides, probably from Kephallenia'.

Some duals

Menander, fr. 520 Kock
μήτηρ τέθνηκε ταῖν ἀδελφαῖν ταῖν δυοῖν (δυεῖν in Körte-Thierfelder)
ταύταιν· τρέφει δὲ παλλακή τις τοῦ πατρὸς
... but ...
αὐτάς, ἅβρα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῶν γενομένη.


Josephus (!), AJ 14.425:
ὡς δὲ καθιμήθησαν αἱ λάρνακες, ἐτόλμα δ’ οὐδεὶς προσελθεῖν τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν στομίων,
ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ δέους ἠρέμουν, μάχαιράν τις περιζωσάμενος τῶν ὁπλοφόρων καὶ ταῖν χεροῖν ἀμφοτέραιν δραξάμενος ἁλύσεως, ἀφ’ ἧς ἤρτητο ἡ λάρναξ, κατῄει ἐπὶ τὰ στόμια δυσχεράνας τὴν τριβὴν τῶν ἐπεξιέναι μὴ τολμώντων.

In Plutarch, we find ταῖν with θεαῖν (so too in Arrian's Anabasis) and χεροῖν.

In Job 13:20, we find δυεῖν '(you shall indulge me) in two things' (NETS, p. 678) in the poetic section, but δύο in 42:7 in the prose epilogue (Joosten 2014: 35), where δυεῖν would be inadmissible syntactically.

Some dual and non-dual anchors

Pindar, Olympian 6.100-102, counsels ἀγαθαὶ δὲ πέλοντ’ ἐν χειμερίᾳ | νυκτὶ θοᾶς ἐκ ναὸς ἀπεσκίμ|φθαι δύ’ ἄγκυραι, without using the dual, unlike Demosthenes (56.44), who instructs μηδ’ ἐπὶ δυοῖν ἀγκύραιν ὁρμεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐᾶτε. Plutarch, Life of Solon 19.2, takes a different course: οἰόμενος ἐπὶ δυσὶ βουλαῖς ὥσπερ ἀγκύραις ὁρμοῦσαν (sc. πόλιν).

See an earlier post for the dual in Sappho and Alcaeus.

Plans and clods

Εὔ-βωλος is a dialect form of Εὔ-βουλος, not a name formed from βῶλος 'clod', unlike ἐρί-βωλος in Homer.

LSJ has a lemma εὔβωλος (βῶλον), which is in Dorotheus, but the entry only points to εὔπωλος, which is at Il.5.551 and S.OC.711.

The name Εὔβουλος is attested numerously (330x), but the few attestations of Εὔβωλος (15x) are far more restricted, chiefly to the regions of IG VII (hence <ω> not <ου> as the residue of *boln-) and to Tanagra in Boeotia at that.

Also, from a coin from Cnidos c. 400 BCE, there is ΕΥΒΩΛΟϹ (= Schwyzer 258). 


IG VII 3171 (line 3, inter al.) has the (loc.)dat.sg. Εὐβώλυ: another helpful Boeotian (see also this earlier post, its forerunner, and some of my favourite Boeotians)!
This one (LGPN IIIb. s.v. 19) can be found in the online database by searching for Εὔβουλος (!): 'IG VII 3171, 3, 15 etc. (Εὔ[βω]λος: s. Ἀρχέδαμος)'. The printed volume has Εὔβουλος as its lemma, and reads, for this 19th individual from Elateia in Phokis, 'IG VII 3171, 3, 15 etc. (-βω-: s. Ἀρχέδαμος)'.

Sapphica

55.4-5:
                              ἀλλ’ ἀφάνης κἀν Ἀίδα δόμωι

φοιτάσηις πεδ’ ἀμαύρων νεκύων ἐκπεποταμένα. 

Cf. Il.5.845, on which Leaf and Bayfield note:

"The Tarnkappe or Nebelkappe of northern mythology, not elsewhere mentioned in Homer. It is familiar, however, from the legend of Perseus, and alluded to in Scutum Her. 227, Ar. Ach. 390 and Plato, Rep. X. 612 B. 

It is a piece of the oldest folk-lore. The name here evidently preserves something of its original sense, the Invisible (Ἀϝίδης).
It is of course not necessary to suppose that the poet conceives Athene as literally putting on a cap; he iobly employs the traditional-almost proverbial-way of saying that she makes herself invisible to Ares."

A fifth-century BCE grave stele from Thessaly (Pelasgiotis) shows the early form of the theonym, with its digamma.

81.4 Δί̆κᾰ: The LGPN knows a few other bearers of the name Δίκα, all of whom are 1st c. BC/AD, but only one Δίκη. Cf. 82a Μνᾱσιδίκᾱ.

The Dual
Students new to Sappho and Alcaeus may be puzzled by the frequent nominal forms that end in -ω. Snaps to those who ask whether these forms are duals. The dual number is very rare in Sappho and Alcaeus. In short, any such ending is much more likely to correspond to the Attic-Ionic genitive singular -ου.

That end in -ω: none for sure (unlikely in Alc.135).
Alc.43 begins νῶ μέν, which might be either νῶι the dual first person pronoun (Wilamowitz) or a genitive singular of νόος 'in fancy (would...)' (Lobel).

That end in -οιν: ἄμφοιν (Alc.S262.20/298.20), which cannot help but be a dual (cf. ambo, duo, but also ἀμφοτερ- Sapph.148.2, Alc.208a col. ii line 5, incert. 12 obelized)

That end in -αιν: none for sure (in Alc.152.10 and Sapph.23.12, 59.3, and 87(2).8 the context is too damaged).

There are 587 instances of words (or parts of words) that end in -ε, but no secure dual forms (e.g. Alc.301.3).

Alc.143 col. ii, line 6 is one such unlikely possibility: πώγωνε 'a pair of beards'.
]..[ / ]δ̣αμασ.[ / ]λάοις λυ.[ / ⸏]τ̣οὶς οὐκ[ / (5) ἦ μάλ’ ἄξ.[ / πώγωνε [ / φοίταν δ̣ῆ.[ / ⸏περιστρ̣ό̣φιδ’.[ / καππεπάδμ[ / (10) θ̣έρμαν σποδ[ / φοίταις ὀν π[ / |θ| μ̣ά̣σλ̣ητ[ / γ̣[ /. . .

Alc.S262.20/298.20 (better, I think, line 21, given the four-line stanzas) is of particular interest: χέρρεσ]σι δ’ ἄμφοιν, which might be evidence for compensation for the elimination of the dual through the use of ἄμφω. Cf. IThesp.38 (= Buck, no 39) ϝαγάνω δύο (line 19) and ἐν Κρείσυι λέβετε δύο ∶ ὀ ∶ βελίσκω- /ν δαρχμαὼ δύο (lines 27-28); δύο στατῆρσι Hdt.1.54.1 and δύο στατέρανς on the Gortyn Lawcode.