ἠκηκόεσαν, ἐλελήθεισαν
(Phryn. Ecl. 119, Antiatt. ε 7)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1) and the Antiatticist (A.2) discuss the variants -εσαν and -εισαν of the 3rd-person plural endingEndings, 3rd person plural of the active pluperfect. These entries concern an aspect of the generalisation of -ει- in the pluperfect paradigm, a phenomenon that is also discussed in several other entries in the Atticist lexica, particularly with reference to the 1st person singular and plural (cf. Antiatt. ε 117Antiatt. ε 117 on ἐπεπτώκειμεν, Moer. η 3Moer. η 3 on ᾔδη vs. ᾔδειν, Phot. ε 1427 and ε 2530 on ἐπεπόνθη, ἑωράκη, ᾔδη vs. ἐπεπόνθειν, ἑωράκειν, ᾔδειν, and see AGP vol. 2, Morphology, forthcoming).

Although the morphological background of the Greek pluperfect remains obscure (possibly an old perfect recharacterised with the aid of the ‘alphathematic’ endings -α -ας -ε, etc. of the sigmatic aorist: see Berg 1977; Willi 2018, 220–5; Ringe 2024, 221), this tense displays a characteristic vowel -ε- before the secondary endings (possibly a reflex of the PIE stative suffix *-eh₁-, according to Sihler 1995, 578–9 and Duhoux 2000, 435–6; differently Jasanoff, Katz 2017, who posit a starting point in the perfect optative *ϝειδειη- from οἶδα). The inflection already contains this -ε- in the earliest source in which pluperfects are attested, namely the Homeric epics, where one finds the forms -ε-α, -ε-ας, -ε-ε/-ει, -ε-σαν (the 1st and 2nd person plural are not attested). The early Attic-Ionic paradigm (-η, -ης, -ει, -εμεν, -ετε, -εσαν) represents a regular development of that found in Homer, with contraction εα > η in the 1st and 2nd person singular. In later Attic and in the koine, however, the sequence -ει- of the 3rd person singular came to be perceived as a suffix and gradually spread to the rest of the paradigm. The 3rd person plural was in fact the last to be affected by this innovation, which became common only in the koine. Attic inscriptions, in which the pluperfect is very rare, offer a single example of the 3rd-person plural ending -εσαν (IG 2².1631.335 [323–322 BCE] παρειλήφε[σ]αν ‘they had received’). Literary sources, however, leave little doubt that during the classical period -εσαν was the prevailing form in Attic. In addition to C.3 and C.4, featuring the pluperfects of λανθάνω and ἀκούω, cf. the following passages quoted by Olson (2017, 148): Ar. Eq. 651 ἐκεχήνεσαν (‘they gaped in admiration’), 674 ἐκεκράγεσαν (‘they shouted’); Pl. 744 ἐγρηγόρεσαν (‘they stayed awake’); Thuc. 1.89.3 ἐπεπτώκεσαν (‘they had fallen’); Men. Asp. 26 ἐπεφεύγεσαν (‘they had escaped’).

There are, however, indications that the analogical introduction of -ει- was not necessarily a late Attic or koine phenomenon (on what follows, see also AGP vol. 1, 336–8). The Hippocratic corpus (C.1), in fact, provides an early Ionic example of the ending -εισαν, and the Antiatticist’s ascription of ἐλελήθεισαν to Eupolis should not be dismissed out of hand, as shall be argued below. In the Hellenistic papyriPapyri, -εισαν predominates, with only one uncertain attestation of -εσαν in ἐξεπεπτώκε̣σ̣[αν] (P.Tebt. 1.28.7 (= TM 58179) [Ptolemais Euergetis, Arsinoites, after 22 May 117 BCE]; see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 85 and n. 1; Mandilaras 1973, 229–32). However, Mayser’s interpretation of all occurrences of -ησαν as itacistic spellings for -εισαν need not be accepted: for instance, as an anonymous referee has kindly pointed out, the editors of P.Fay. 12 (= TM 8334) [Theadelphia, Arsinoites, after 104–103 BCE] take ἐδεκώκησαν at l. 23 to be an error for -εσαν.

Be that as it may, the reception of the innovative forms in the literary koine appears to have been somewhat slower. Polybius, for instance, employs -εισαν 23 times, as against six occurrences of -εσαν (see de Foucault 1972, 76, referring to Schoy 1913, 67, which I have been unable to consult). The text of Josephus oscillates between -εσαν (which, in the case of ἵστημι and its prefixed forms, is in fact the only form attested: see Schmid 1893, 439) and -εισαν, including C.5, our first attestation of the form ἠκηκόεισαν ‘they had heard’, proscribed by Phrynichus. In the New Testament, -εισαν is the norm (Blass, Debrunner 1976, 65).

Phrynichus’ (A.1) rejection of the innovative ending -εισαν is justified by its spread in the koine; by contrast, the Antiatticist (A.2) probably sought to demonstrate the legitimacy of -εισαν by adducing a quotation from Eupolis (C.2). The latter has been viewed with suspicion on the grounds that -εσαν is expected in Attic at so early a date; indeed, ἐλελήθεσαν occurs once in Thucydides (C.3). Kock (CAF vol. 1, 264) defended ἐλελήθεισαν as a metrically useful variant (e.g. in anapests), but it remains unclear why the innovative form is not attested elsewhere in Attic drama. Meineke (1839, 113) accordingly suggested that the Antiatticist (or its source) relied on a corrupt MS of Eupolis. This speculative – and unverifiable – hypothesis, however, may not be necessary in the light of the relatively early attestations of the innovative endings: if we consider the 2nd person singular, for instance, even Aristophanes, in a play open to colloquial linguistic innovations such as the Plutus (684; see Willi 2003b), employs ἐδεδοίκεις ‘you were afraid’ (instead of the expected, but unattested, *ἐδεδοίκης < *ἐδεδοίκεας; see Tribulato 2014, 208).

Other grammatical sources outside the Atticist movement freely acknowledge that Attic and Ionic authors employed both -εισαν and -εσαν, and even tend to regard the former as the more regular form, since it contains the same element -ει- as the 1st-pers. plur. ending -ειμεν, which had by then evidently acquired a more accepted status. Thus, according to Choeroboscus (B.1), possibly drawing on Herodianic material, -εισαν was more correct from an analogic point of view, since it shared the diphthong -ει- with the other persons, whereas he describes -εσαν as an Ionic form also frequently employed in Attic; the same doctrine is reflected in B.2. On the other hand, the dialectological treatise falsely ascribed to Theodosius of Alexandria (B.3; see Schneider 1894) labels -εσαν as ‘Aeolic’. Given that in the same passage the 1st-pers. sing. pluperfect ending -εα and the ‘Ionic’ augmentless past iteratives in -σκ- are likewise ascribed to Aeolic, this attribution is likely based on the fact that all these forms are attested in Homer.

The usage of the Atticising writers with regard to -εσαν/-εισαν is not uniform, albeit with a slight overall preference for the older form (Schmid, Atticismus vol. 4, 27, 589–90). For instance, both Dio Chrysostom and Aelius Aristides exclusively employ -εσαν (with the sole exception of Aristid. 98.22 Keil [= 14.331.26 Dindorf] ἐδεδοίκεισαν), while Philostratus oscillates between -εσαν and -εισαν. Lucian, who adopts the innovative forms in -ει- for the other persons of the pluperfect, shows in the 3rd person plural a marked preference for -εσαν (21x) over -εισαν (2x; see Deferrari 1916, 20–2). A similar distribution can be observed in the medieval period, when neither form belonged to the spoken language owing to the loss of the synthetic pluperfect (see E.).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In Medieval Greek, the synthetic perfect and pluperfect had been lost from the spoken language, where they were replaced by various periphrastic constructions. Therefore, in texts closer to the spoken register, relic pluperfect forms are extremely rare; moreover, they often appear with aorist indicative endings (see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1766). In texts aiming at a more classicising register, by contrast, the synthetic pluperfect continues to occur throughout this period. As far as the 3rd person plural is concerned, both -εσαν and -εισαν are attested, without a clearly marked preference. Taking the verbs lemmatised in the lexica (A.1, A.2) as a case study, ἐλελήθεσαν is employed by Symeon Metaphrastes (Laudatio in sanctum martyrum Phocam 305.28) and Nicephorus Gregoras (3x), whereas ἐλελήθεισαν occurs only once each in the Life and Miracles of Saint Thecla (2.34.40), in the so-called Theophanes Continuatus (176.9), and in John Zonaras (Epit. 3.748.13). By contrast, ἠκηκόεσαν has only four attestations in the medieval period, compared to around 30 for ἠκηκόεισαν. The picture changes again with a frequent verb such as ποιέω: in Byzantine texts, (ἐ)πεποιήκεσαν occurs around 70 times, against eleven instances of (ἐ)πεποιήκεισαν.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Antiatt. ε 7 (A.2)

The MS reading θα after the lemma ἐλελήθεισαν – as if the lexicographer were attributing to Eupolis a non-existent form *ἐλεληθασαν – is senseless and must be the result of corruption. Lobeck (1820, 150; followed by Meineke 1839, 435) emended it to ει (Meineke 1847, 162, slightly differently, to θει), while Mehler (1855, 42) and Cobet (1876)    assumed that the corrupt reading reflects the abbreviation δφ for διφθόγγου ‘with the diphthong (ει)’. Both emendations may be correct; see Valente (2015, 154) and Olson (2017, 148).