ἥρῳ
(Moer. η 9)

D. General commentary

According to Moeris (A.1), the Attic dative singular of ἥρως has a mute iota (this is what he means by ‘without ι’; see below and F.1). Ancient grammarians certainly regarded the trisyllabic form ἥρωϊ as the standard dative singular of ἥρως: the disyllabic ἥρῳ was either considered to pertain to a particular type of inflection (sometimes attributed to Attic) or treated as a consequence of ‘apocope’ – that is, the omission of a syllable at the end of a word (an Attic phenomenon, according to some sources: for further information, see entry ἱδρῶ, κυκεῶ, Ἀπόλλω, τυφῶ): see B.2, B.4 and B.5, and cf. Lobeck (1862, 299–300).

Moeris’ prescription was likely aimed at restoring the Attic isosyllabic model against the standard inflection to yield the following declension: nom. sing. ἥρως; acc. sing. ἥρω; gen. sing. ἥρω; dat. sing. ἥρῳ. Incidentally, the acc. sing. ἥρων of Ar. fr. 712Ar. fr. 712 – defined as Attic by schol. (Did.?) Hom. Il. 13.428 (T) – need not be a scholiast’s mistake, as Rutherford (1881, 248) states: cf. Willi (2003, 242 n. 54), according to whom it ‘belong[s] to marginal and (synchronically) irregular words where people may have been uncertain about the ‘correct’ forms’). Moeris’ discounting of ἥρῳ as an instance of ‘apocope’ is supported by the fact that the ‘Attic’ inflection otherwise exhibited no indications of what ancient grammarians would have classified as apocope, see B.6 and B.7. Moreover, Moeris was potentially referring back to AristarchusAristarchus (via Herodian? See B.2), according to whom ἥρῳ was disyllabic in Hom. Il. 7.453 (= C.1) and Hom. Od. 8.483 (= C.2; cf. F.1 and F.2).

In this regard, one wonders why Moeris’ lemma refers to Homer and not, for example, to an Attic author (see C.3, C.4, C.5). In fact, the occurrence of several characteristics of Attic dialect in Homer may have led grammarians to conclude that Homeric language constituted a primitive form of Attic: Aristarchus himself believed that Homer was Athenian (see Schironi 2018, 621–2; cf. F.1). Furthermore, other lemmas in Moeris’ lexicon may be traced back to Homeric scholarship – adapted to the usual Attic vs. Greek speakers schema (see Hansen 1998, 52 n. 127). Aside from Moer. ο 31Moer. ο 31 (see entry οἶσε) and perhaps also Moer. ι 13Moer. ι 13 (see entry ἱδρῶ, κυκεῶ, Ἀπόλλω, τυφῶ), we may cite the following:

– Moer. χ 12Moer. χ 12: χολάδαςχολάς οἱ πρῶτοι Ἀττικοί, χόλικας θηλυκῶς οἱ μέσοι ‘χόλικας ἑφθάς’· τοὺς χόλικας ἀρσενικῶς Ἕλληνες: ‘Users of early Attic [employ] χολάδας (‘guts’) (Hom. Il. 4.526 etc.); users of middle Attic [employ] χόλικας, feminine: ‘χόλικας ἑφθάς’ (‘boiled guts’) (Ar. Pax 717); users of Greek [employ] τοὺς χόλικας, masculine’. Here, Homer seems to be representative of the ‘Old’ AtticAttic, old dialect, see entry χολάς, χόλιξ.

– Moer. γ 2Moer. γ 2: γέλων Ἀττικοί· γέλωτα Ἕλληνες ‘Users of Attic [employ] γέλων (‘laugh’, acc. sing.); users of Greek [employ] γέλωτα’ (cf. Moer. φ 12 φιλόγελῳ ᾿Aττικοί· φιλογέλωτες Ἕλληνες ‘Users of Attic [employ] φιλόγελῳ [‘fond of laughter’, nom. plur.]; users of Greek [employ] φιλογέλωτες). The ‘isosyllabic’ form γέλωνγέλως was found in Attic together with γέλωτα. Moeris’ appraisal of the ‘isosyllabic’ form as the Attic one may be founded on the occurrence of γέλων in Homer, who may be counted as an authoritative ‘Attic’ model.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Moer. η 9 (A.1)

According to modern conventions, the decision to print ἥρω without the iota subscript (so Pierson 1759, 163, tacitly followed by Hansen in his reference edition) is justifiable if Moeris intended the form as an original ἥρωϊ that was subject to ‘apocope’ (i.e., omission of the final syllable ϊ). However, this does not appear to be the case: the Homeric example quoted by Moeris indicates that the lexicographer likely shared Aristarchus’ opinion that the form was disyllabic (see B.1, D. and F.2). The model he had in mind was likely that of an ‘Attic’ isosyllabic declension (see D.).

(2)    Schol. (Ariston.) Hom. Il. 7.453a (B.1)

Aristarchus’ interest in Hom. Il. 7.453 (= C.1) and Hom. Od. 8.483 (= C.2) may depend on ambiguous writings found in the MSS at his disposal (see further Schironi 2018, 64–75, with bibliography): in fact, both the disyllabic and the trisyllabic forms may be traced back to an archaic spelling hεροι (caution is advised, however: cf. Cassio 2002, 110–2). The issue was perhaps rendered more complex by the lyric poets’ alternation of ἥρω̆-/ἥρο- with ἥρω̄- (cf. Braswell 1988, 140–1; Platt 1889, 130 suggested to read ἥροϊ in C.1).

Ludwich (1885, 239 n. 208), referring to B.1, believes that Aristarchus found Trennungspunkte (i.e., syllabification markers) in the Homeric MSS. This is far from certain, however. Aristarchus and others may have found ἥρωϊ (⎼⏖) in C.1 and C.2 to be inconsistent with all other Homeric occurrences of ἥρω̄- + vowel (note that in Hom. Od. 6.303 ἥρωος [⎼⏖] is Barnes’ emendation, accepted by West as an alternative to the ἥρως of the MSS. Regarding this line in particular, evidence suggests that ancient grammarians dealt with both the morphology of ἥρως and the punctuation (cf. schol. [Nican.?] Hom. Od. 6.303a [B]; see also Hainsworth in Heubeck, West, Hainsworth 1988, 312). On the other hand, Aristarchus may also have favored the ‘Attic’ form ἥρῳ on the grounds that it accorded with his view of Homer as an Athenian.

Finally, it should be noted that, in other passages, the Homeric scholia address dative forms whose endings may theoretically be either monosyllabic or – with a dieresis – disyllabic. However, schol. (bT) Hom. Il. 21.112 offers a peculiar explanation of the form Ἄρῃ (from Ἄρηϊ, by way of ‘conjunction’ of the two syllables), not to be compared with ἥρῳ/ἥρωϊ (note that the trisyllabic form Ἄρηϊ is metrically unviable in Homeric verse, unlike ἥρωϊ in C.1 and C.2). Regarding schol. Hom. Od. 13.35 Ὀδυσῆ’] τὸ πλῆρες Ὀδυσῆϊ, ὡς ‘ἥρωϊ Λαομέδοντι’ (‘Ὀδυσῆ’] The full form is Ὀδυσῆϊ, as ‘ἥρωϊ Λαομέδοντι’’), the scholiast likely aimed to compare two ‘short’ forms (Ὀδυσῆ’ and ἥρῳ) that are actually attested in Homer and their corresponding ‘long’ forms: as such, ἥρωϊ need not be regarded as a vestige of scholarship alternative to that of Aristarchus. The same may perhaps be said of schol. Hom. Od. 15.157 Ὀδυσῆϊ ἐνὶ] Ἀττικόν ἐστιν, ὡς ‘ἥρωϊ Λαομέδοντι πολίσσαμεν’ (‘Ὀδυσῆϊ ἐνὶ] It is Attic, as ‘ἥρωϊ Λαομέδοντι πολίσσαμεν’’), where the text on which the scholiast is commenting likely differs from Dindorf’s restoration (perhaps Ὀδυσῆ’ ἐνὶ] should be written).