(ἐκ)λείψας, (ἐκ)λιπών
(Antiatt. λ 17, Phryn. Ecl. 343)

D. General commentary

The Antiatticist (A.1) and Phrynichus (A.2) are concerned with the competing thematic and sigmatic forms of the aorist of λείπω ‘to leave (behind)’ and its prefixed derivatives. The former lexicon attests the use of the sigmatic aorist participle λείψας in Aristophanes (behind whose name, however, a different classical author may lie: see below), while Phrynichus predictably rejects the innovation.

The inherited aorist of λείπω (from the ablauting root *leikʷ-/*loikʷ-/*likʷ-) is the thematic ἔλιπον, which is cognate with Armenian elik^c and Sanskrit áricat, and derives from PIE *(h₁é-)likʷ-e/o- (see LIV 406–7). This form is attested from Homer onwards, both in the simplex and in its numerous prefixed derivatives. Classical literature composed in Attic (among countless examples, see e.g. C.1, featuring both the simplex and the prefixed form with ἐκ-; see Veitch 1887, 416–8), as well as in other dialects (cf. e.g. Lesbian λίποισα in Sapph. fr. 1.7 or Laconian ἐκλιπῶἁ in Ar. Lys. 1296), exclusively attests the thematic forms. However, in a development shared with several other thematic aorists, a sigmatic form, ἔλειψα, arose at a later stage, as the s-aorist gradually became the default formation in Post-classical Greek at the expense of the thematic inflection (Schwyzer 1939, 755; Chantraine 1961, 180–1). In this case, the creation and spread of the sigmatic aorist were probably facilitated by the presence of forms with the full grade of the root and sigmatic suffixes, including the future λείψω and the nouns λείψανον ‘remain’ (from the future stem according to Chantraine 1933, 199, cf. ὄψανον ‘vision’ from ὄψομαι ‘I will see’) and (ἀπο-, ἐκ-)λεῖψις ‘lack, leaving’. The attestation, from the Hellenistic age onwards, of ‘τερψίμβροτος compounds’ in -σ(ι)- and -σο-, such as λειψυδρία ‘lack of water’ (Thphr.+) or λειψόθριξ ‘having lost its hair’ (Ael. NA 14.4), is likewise suggestive – albeit inconclusively – of the s-aorist’s spread during the same period. This is because τερψίμβροτος compounds were synchronically connected by speakers with sigmatic aorists and futures, and ‘could in principle be created from any of these verbal forms’ (Tribulato 2015, 170).

The occurrence quoted by the Antiatticist (A.1) would constitute our first attestation of the sigmatic aorist stem, but the text is problematic (see F.1): not only is Aristophanes’ name suspected of being a corrupt reading for either Antiphanes or Aristophon, but the occurrence of a sigmatic participle λείψας at such an early date is troubling. It is therefore possible that the lexicographer mistook a koine form that had intruded into the text of a classical author for a genuine early attestation of the innovative form. Phrynichus (A.2), writing in the second book of the Eclogue, likely responds to the Antiatticist’s entry by reaffirming that the thematic inflection is the only admissible one from a purist perspective (on the likely use of the Antiatticist in this book, see Latte 1915, 374; Valente 2015, 52–4). As already mentioned above, the forms’ historical distribution does in fact support Phrynichus’ claim.

Indeed, aside from the Antiatticist’s dubious quotation, the earliest occurrences of the innovative form date from the Hellenistic and Roman period. The prefixed forms (κατέλειψα ‘I left behind’, παράλειψα ‘I omitted’) are employed, albeit sparingly, in the Septuagint (C.4) and by koine writers such as Polybius (only in C.5, a textually and exegetically problematic passage: see Walbank 1967, 362), Strabo (C.6: note the thematic aorist optative παραλίποιμεν in the same passage), and Josephus (C.7), while a possible early occurrence of ἔλλειψα ‘I fell short, failed’ in Aristotle (C.3) is textually uncertain. The simplex aorist ἔλειψα is not attested in prose before Claudius Ptolemy, who employs the neuter participle λεῖψαν (8x) in the mathematical sense of ‘having lost by subtraction’. Forms of κατέλειψα occur in Ptolemaic papyriPapyri from the 1st century BCE and in the New Testament (Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 138; Blass, Debrunner 1976, 60), while Roman and early Byzantine papyri yield a richer body of evidence for both simplex and prefixed forms: see Gignac (1981, 291–2), who observes that λείπω, together with ἄγω, led the way in the replacement of the thematic aorist by the sigmatic one. The innovation was ultimately successful in Medieval and Modern Greek (see E.).

Although the replacement of thematic aorists by sigmatic ones was a major concern for the Atticists (see AGP vol. 2, Verbal morphology, forthcoming; Phrynichus, for instance, addresses it in several other entries of the Eclogue: 110Phryn. Ecl. 110, 154Phryn. Ecl. 154, 250Phryn. Ecl. 250, 326Phryn. Ecl. 326, 327Phryn. Ecl. 327), no further discussions of ἔλιπον vs. ἔλειψα survive prior to Thomas Magister (B.4), whose short entry clearly depends on Phrynichus, apart from A.1 and A.2. It is possible that ancient scholars occasionally mistook the sigmatic aorist of λείβω ‘to make a libation’ (which is the norm for this verb since Homer) for the homophonous post-classical one of λείπω; cf. Lobeck (1820, 713–5) and Rutherford (1881, 217) on ἀπολλείψας in Hes. Th. 793, where the required meaning is clearly ‘having made a libation’, but which was nonetheless interpreted as derived from ἀπολείπω even by some modern scholars. The formal ambiguity of ἔλειψα (and of the sigmatic future λείψω) was already recognised by the Latin grammarian Macrobius (B.1). Such confusions may have contributed to the idea that the sigmatic aorist of λείπω had a nobler pedigree than was in fact the case. Conversely, the need to avoid ambiguity with the aorist of λείβω may conceivably have provided an additional motivation for proscribing the innovative formInnovative forms.

The Atticising authors did not completely avoid the innovative sigmatic forms. Two relatively secure examples, both involving the prefixed verb καταλείπω, occur in Lucian (C.8) – where, as Deferrari (1916, 52) notes, all the MSS agree on the reading καταλείψασαν ‘having left’ (aor. ptcp., acc. fem. sing.) – and in Philostratus (C.9: see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 4, 38, 601). Furthermore, the sigmatic aorist participle of the simplex occurs in Luc. Par. 42 λείψαντα τὴν τάξιν ‘having deserted his post’, a work whose authenticity has at times been questioned. Even the hapaxHapax ἐλείψασκον ‘they left’ (B.3), formed by an unknown author on the model of the Homeric and Herodotean iteratives in -σκ-, indirectly suggests that ἔλειψα was accepted to some extent in the literary language: see F.2.

Even though the sigmatic forms achieved only limited acceptance in works aiming at a classicising register, they were frequently employed by early Christian writers, for whom they may have appeared more acceptable owing to their biblical attestations. A case in point is Gregory of Nazianzus, whose use of the sigmatic aorist participle λεῖψαν is recorded in an entry in the lexicon to his works (later interpolated into Hesychius’ lexicon: see B.2). Indeed, Gregory employs λεῖψαν three times (Carm. 1.1.20, MPG 37.490.36 = C.10, Carm. 2.1, MPG 37.969–1452, 2x) and once ἐλλεῖψαν (In seipsum, cum rure rediisset, post ea quae a Maximo perpetrata fuerant MPG 35.1229.29; interestingly, the thematic indicative ἀπέλιπεν occurs in the following line).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Although verbs that had a thematic aorist in Ancient Greek usually retained it into the medieval period, λείπω is among those that shifted to a sigmatic formation (see CGMEMG vol. 2, 1353; Kriaras, LME s.v.). The sigmatic forms are therefore frequent in works closer to the spoken language, such as the Alexander Romance (e.g. recensio α 3.35.1 κατέλειψεν), the Digenis Akritis (e.g. cod. G 4.168 κατάλειψον), the Bellum Troianum (48 forms of ἔλειψα), hagiographies, and chronicles (see Psaltis 1913, 220). By contrast, thematic forms remained very common throughout the Byzantine period in literature characterised by a more classicising register, including, for instance, the works of Photius, Michael Psellus, Michael Choniates, Nicetas Choniates, George Pachymeres, Theodore Metochites, Nicephorus Gregoras, and Maximus Planudes. Indeed, the thematic aorist remained a feature of higher-register Greek up to the 20th century: the most recent occurrences of ἔλιπον recorded by the online TLG date from the prose writings of Manuel Gedeon (1851–1943). Modern Greek λείπω ‘to be absent, missing’, with the transitive meaning ‘to lack’, still has a past tense έλειψα, descended from the post-classical sigmatic aorist (see LKN s.v.).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Antiatt. λ 17 (A.1)

The Antiatticist’s attribution of the form λείψας to Aristophanes’ Andromeda was viewed with suspicion by modern editors, since no play of that title is ascribed to this author (see already Dindorf 1829, 9). Scholars have therefore conjecturally restored the names of Antiphanes (Meineke, FCG vol. 1, 325–6; vol. 3, 16) and Aristophon (Bergk in Meineke, FCG vol. 2,2, 899), albeit very speculatively, as neither playwright is known to have written an Andromeda (see entry διδόασι, διδοῦσι for a similar textual problem in Antiatt. δ 8Antiatt. δ 8). Kassel and Austin (PCG vol. 2, 327) accept Meineke’s emendation and the attribution to Antiphanes (C.2), whereas Valente (2015, 210) more cautiously retains cruces in the entry’s text. As Olson (2023, 127) remarks, the corruption may instead lie in the play’s title. Another problem is that all the proposed authors appear too early to have employed the sigmatic aorist of λείπω, which is otherwise first attested in the Hellenistic and imperial periods (see D.). For this reason, Olson, following Kock (CAF vol. 2, 23), tentatively suggests that the form may have been uttered by a non-Greek character. However, Willi (2010, 476) rightly observes that it is ‘dangerous to ascribe ‘ungrammatical’ forms from unknown comedies to stylistic deviations of this kind’, since the Antiatticist never quotes such forms from the pidgin Greek of the Thesmophoriazusae’s Scythian archer or of the Acharnians’ Persian ambassador (see also Fiori 2022, 24). Other scholars (Cobet 1873, 325–6; Van Dam 1873, 40) assumed that the lexicographer was misled by a faulty MS reading in which the innovative form λείψας replaced the classical λιπών. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that analogical innovations which are more abundantly attested at a later stage may have first surfaced in comedy as examples of colloquial or substandard language (see e.g. entry γυναί). Nor can it be ruled out, in the absence of any contextual information, that the quoted text in fact contained an aorist form of λείβω ‘to pour a libation’, which the Antiatticist or his source mistakenly interpreted as belonging to λείπω (see D.).

(2)    EM 330.16–7 (B.3)

The Etymologica record the form ἐλείψασκον, correctly explaining it as proper to the Ionic dialect and derived from the aorist ἔλειψα by the addition of -σκ-. It is, indeed, a so-called ‘Ionic iterative’ in -σκε/ο-, derived from the sigmatic aorist stem of λείπω. The form is otherwise unattested. The presence of the augment – which is almost without exception avoided in Ionic iteratives (see Willi 2018, 365–6; Willi 2024) – together with its derivation from a post-classical aorist stem, suggest that the entry’s source encountered the form in some late imitation of Homeric or Herodotean language (even though it cannot be entirely excluded that the augment was absent from the unknown author’s original form and was added at some later stage within the erudite tradition). It is worth noting that in Hdt. 4.78 the MSS tradition is divided between κατελίπεσκε (a suspect form precisely because of its augment) and καταλειπέεσκε (perhaps to be read καταλείπεσκε), the latter being used by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (De virtutibus et vitiis 2.13.24) when quoting the Herodotean passage (see Jiménez Delgado, García Zamora 2022, 35). In other words, the passage attests an Ionic iterative built either on the thematic aorist or – perhaps more likely – on the imperfect stem of καταλείπω. Such a formation may have provided the model for the creation of an iterative based on the innovative aorist stem.