δύνῃ, ἐπίστῃ
(Phryn. Ecl. 336, Antiatt. ε 28)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ Eclogue (A.1) and the Antiatticist (A.2) give different prescriptions regarding the 2nd person singular forms δύνῃ and ἐπίστῃ of the present indicative of the verbs δύναμαι ‘to be able’ and ἐπίσταμαι ‘to know, to be able, to understand’: Phrynichus rejects δύνῃ as an indicative (while pointing out that it is the correct form in the subjunctive), but the Antiatticist probably defends ἐπίστῃ as a permissible alternative to ἐπίστασαι (cf. also the textually problematic Suda entry in B.3). Phrynichus’ rejection of δύνῃ is echoed in the Atticist lexica of Philemon (B.1) and Thomas Magister (B.5). Although Phrynichus and the Antiatticist do not deal directly with the same forms, they can be seen as discussing the same problem, since the linguistic histories of δύνῃ and ἐπίστῃ are largely parallel. While δύναμαι is a nasal present built on an inherited root (see Kölligan 2021 for a possible etymology), ἐπίσταμαι is probably a later creation: according to Forssman (2020), the present ἐπίσταμαι was morphologically modelled on δύναμαι, with a starting point in the formal similarity between the futures ἐπιστήσομαι (originally belonging to ἐφίσταμαι) and δυνήσομαι, both already attested in Homer, and thanks to the semantic proximity between ‘to can, to be able’ and ‘to know (how to do something)’. The 2nd pers. sing. primary middle ending -σαι (on whether *-sai or *-soi was the Proto-Greek ending, see Sihler 1995, 476; Willi 2018, 559‒60) was analogically preserved in Attic in the athematic conjugation, while in the thematic conjugation it underwent the phonologically regular loss of the intervocalic /s/, followed by contraction with the thematic vowel: -ε-σαι > -εαι > -ῃ (see K–B vol. 2, 68; Schwyzer 1939, 668). As athematic presents, δύναμαι and ἐπίσταμαι regularly formed the 2nd pers. sing. δύνασαι and ἐπίστασαι, which are the rule in Attic literature. In IonicIonic, on the other hand, asigmatic forms also occur in the athematic conjugation (cf. forms like δίζηαι ‘you seek’). In addition, in Ionic the ending -εαι (e.g. Hdt. 7.104.2, 7.135.3 ἐξεπίστεαι), later contracted to -ῃ (see Thgn. 1.1085 ἐπίστῃ, Carm.Aur. 19 δύνῃ, Anacreont. 4.6, 31.11 δύνῃ), also spread to athematic presents in -αμαι, either through the influence of the thematic conjugation (Chantraine 1961, 295) or as a result of phonetic dissimilation -αα- > -εα- (Untersteiner 1949, 46). The Ionic origin of such forms was also recognised in ancient scholarship (cf. B.2, B.4).

Attic tragedy attests very few contracted forms for these verbs, which do not agree in their vocalism (see Lautensach 1896, 22‒4): an ending -ᾳ is found in Aeschylus (Eu. 86, 581 ἐπίστᾳ) and Sophocles (OT 696, Ph. 849 δύνᾳ, both lyric parts), while δύνῃ is found in Sophocles (Ph. 798 = C.1) and Euripides (Hec. 253 = C.3, Andr. 239 = C.2). Since -ᾳ is the regular outcome of the contraction of -α-αι, the forms in -ᾳ may be native to Attic (as argued by some ancient erudite sources: see B.7), but they are also attested in Western Greek poetry (Pi. P. 3.80 ἐπίστᾳ, Theoc. 10.2 δύνᾳ) and were apparently interpreted as Doric by other erudite sources (see B.6, F.1). Either way, the tragic attestations of δύνῃ have proven embarrassing to some scholars: Porson corrected them to δύνᾳ (followed by Diggle in his edition of Euripides), while Lautensach (1896, 23) suggested that they may be subjunctives standing for ἂν δύνῃ. However, there are other possibilities: for example, these forms could have been created within Attic by analogy with thematic presents (as is surely the case in later Greek, see below). The forms δύνῃ, ἐπίστῃ appear later in koine prose, but it seems that they were avoided in high-registerRegister texts. Apart from a single occurrence of δύνῃ in Polybius (C.5), the forms in -ῃ are sometimes found alongside δύνασαι and ἐπίστασαι in the Septuagint and the New Testament (see Conybeare, Stock 1905, 34; Blass, Debrunner 1976, 68), and they are the norm in Ptolemaic papyriPapyri (Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 91); in Roman and Byzantine papyri, however, both -ῃ and -σαι are found (Gignac 1981, 384‒5). In the light of the later affirmation of -σαι in Modern Greek, such forms in papyri from the imperial period should probably not be considered an Atticism but a feature of the spoken languageColloquial language, especially since they predominantly occur in private letters and other documents uninfluenced by literary style. The nature of δύνῃ, ἐπίστῃ in the koine is uncertain: they could be seen as Ionicisms, but also as forms of the thematic present δύνομαι, attested since the 3rd century BCE and probably formed on the basis of the subjunctive according to the analogical proportion λύωμαι : δύνωμαι = λύομαι : δύνομαι (Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 125). In the long run, however, the morphologically more transparent ending -σαι was not only re-established in the athematic conjugation, but spread to the thematic one, and survived into Modern Greek (see E.).

The meagre attestations of δύνῃ in canonical authors and its diffusion in the lower koine easily explain its rejection by stricter Atticists like Phrynichus or Philemon. The fact that both Phrynichus and Thomas Magister (who may have relied on a fuller version of Philemon’s entry) took pains to distinguish the indicative δύνασαι from the subjunctive δύνῃ suggests that some speakers may have been uncertain about the proper use of these moods, which in thematic forms were merging phoneticallyHomophony due to the loss of distinctive vowel length (see Horrocks 2010, 317; CGMEMG vol. 3, 1434). Thomas Magister supports the rule with quotations from prose authors: he cites Plato (C.4) for the use of δύνῃ as a subjunctive, and Synesius (C.7) ‒ an author whom he elsewhere regards as a good model (see, e.g., the entry βασμός, βαθμός, ἀναβασμός, ἀναβαθμός) ‒ as an example of the incorrect use as an indicative. In fact, Synesius’ passage comes from a text (a letter of recommendation addressed to his former teacher Hypatia) which focuses on the theme of power(lessness), and where consequently forms of δύναμαι are remarkably frequent: in particular, the subjunctive δύνῃ occurs in the previous sentence, and may have influenced the choice of the homophonous indicative form (note that in Epist. 73.5 Synesius uses the more Atticising δύνασαι).

The basis for the Antiatticist’s defence of ἐπίστῃ, on the other hand, remains uncertain, since this form, unlike δύνῃ, is not attested in Attic literature. Its only early attestation is in Theognis, who does not usually appear among the Antiatticist’s sources. While it cannot be excluded that ἐπίστῃ occurred in some lost work, or that it was transmitted as a varia lectio in the text of some Attic author, it is also possible that the compiler of the lexicon, in response to an explicit proscription of ἐπίστῃ on the part of another lexicographer, extrapolated from the attestations of δύνῃ in tragedy a general theory that athematic present indicatives in -ῃ were acceptable in Attic (note that the forms of these two verbs are treated together elsewhere in lexicography, cf. Moer. η 22Moer. η 22: ἠδύνω ἠπίστω Ἀττικοί· ἐδύνασο ἐπίστασο Ἕλληνες, ‘Users of Attic [employ] ἠδύνω (‘you were able’) ἠπίστω (‘you knew’); users of Greek [employ] ἐδύνασο ἐπίστασο’). Although the Antiatticist’s theory is the opposite of Phrynichus’, it need not be a direct response to him. According to Valente (2015, 54 n. 320), in entries such as these ‘it is the radically different conception of language that provides an explanation for the apparent polemics’; therefore, the contrasting positions endorsed in the Eclogue and (apparently) in the Antiatticist do not prove that one of the two lexica was composed in response to the other. In any case, the practice of 2nd-century CE authors is more in line with the prescriptions of Phrynichus and Philemon than with those of the Antiatticist. Schmid (Atticismus vol. 3, 38; vol. 4, 597) found only one occurrence of δύνῃ, which he regarded as a feature of low-register speech, in Atticising authors, namely in Aelian (C.6).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

The -μι verbs as a class were gradually lost in Post-classical Greek, either through a shift to the thematic conjugation or via lexical replacement (see Horrocks 2010, 304‒5; CGMEMG vol. 3, 1273). In the case of δύναμαι, low- and mid-register texts from the medieval and early modern periods attest to the former strategy: indeed, the thematic present δύνομαι, already attested in antiquity, and parallel to similar remodellings such as κάθομαι for κάθημαι ‘to sit’, is well-documented in Byzantine Greek (see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1378 and LBG s.v. δύνομαι). Another innovative present from this period is δυνάζομαι, formed from the Ionic passive aorist ἐδυνάσθην (see Kriaras, LME s.v.). In Modern Greek δύναμαι/δύνομαι survives as a learned term alongside μπορώ ‘I can, am able’. In contrast, ἐπίσταμαι, which was already rare in Classical Greek, is restricted to high-register texts and has been replaced in the sense of ‘to know’ by other verbs such as γνωρίζω or ξέρω. Modern Greek has preserved from the learned language only the former present participle επιστάμενος as an adjective meaning ‘thorough, careful’ and the derived adverb επιστάμενως ‘carefully’. To the extent that δύναμαι or other -μι verbs survive, however, the 2nd pers. sing. middle ending is -σαι: in addition to its greater morphological transparency, it cannot be ruled out that the support of Atticist authorities played a role in its success.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Schol. (ex. [Hdn.?]) Hom. Il. 14.199a1 (B.6)

This exegetical scholium, which Erbse tentatively attributed to a Herodianic source, contrasts various ancient interpretations of the Homeric form δαμνᾷ ‘s/he/it subdues, destroys’ (see also B.7). The scholiast first reports that some authorities saw it as formed from a contract present in -άω, and consequently wrote it with a circumflex accent and an iota subscript (as modern editors do). The following remarks are more difficult to interpret, and much depends on how one chooses to punctuate the text. It is quite clear that some read the form as δάμνᾳ and explained it as Doric, produced by apocope from δάμνασαι (see, more explicitly, schol. Hom. Il. 14.199a2). It is less clear, however, whether this theory is to be attributed to AristarchusAristarchus, and which of the words after φησιν go back to him. Schironi (2018, 615 n. 77) argues that ‘the scholiast might have simply added the reference to Aristarchus in support of the scholars who read δάμνᾳ’ while ‘Aristarchus might have only commented on ἐπίστᾳ […] and δύνᾳ’, which as seen above are also attested in Attic. Consequently, Schironi rejects this scholium as evidence that Aristarchus found Doric elements in the Homeric language. Of course, the scholium’s text allows for other interpretations, e.g., that Aristarchus attributed δάμνᾳ to Doric, if οὕτως is taken to refer to what precedes it, while the comparison with ἐπίστᾳ and δύνᾳ was added by the scholiast.