ἀνέῳγoν, ἤνοιγoν
(Moer. α 60, Orus fr. A 6a, Orus fr. A 6b, Thom.Mag. 30.5–31.14)

D. General commentary

The verb ἀνοίγω is extensively discussed by Greek erudite sources for multiple reasons. At the morphological level, the coexistence of two conjugational patterns for past tenses – one with the augment added to the verbal stem, in accordance with classical use, and the other with the augment added to the prefix – draws the interest of ancient scholars, who reject the latter. Erudite sources also discuss ἀνοίγω in relation to voice: the use of the active perfect with an intransitive meaning, which spreads in later prose, is indeed regarded as problematic and rejected by ancient scholars (on this issue, see entry ἀνέῳγεν, ἀνέῳκται). A few of these ancient discussions deal with the position of the augment and reduplication and the use of the intransitive active perfect together: see Eustathius (B.3), Thomas Magister (A.4), most probably Orus (A.2, cf. the apparatus for the beginning of the entry in Zonaras’ lexicon), and possibly also Phrynichus (Ecl. 128Phryn. Ecl. 128, see F.3).

Before addressing these ancient theories, it is useful to recall some basic information about the augment and reduplication (on the origin of the augment, see Willi 2018, 357–415, who argues that it may derive ‘from a formally standardised reduplication syllable’ [p. 415]). In classical Attic, in verbs where the prefix was a preposition, both the augment and the reduplication were usually placed between the prefix and the verb. In Attic the augment and the reduplication are thus ‘internal’ according to the terminology adopted by ancient scholarship, which uses the expression ἔσωθεν κλίσις (lit. ‘augmentation and reduplication from within’, cf. ἐγγιγνομένη κλίσις, Dickey 2007, 234). The opposite case is the ἔξωθεν κλίσις (‘external augmentation and reduplication’, lit. ‘augmentation and reduplication from outside’, see B.2 and Alpers 1981, 132–3), occurring in simple and prefixed verbs which are no longer perceived as such (as it is the case with ἀνοίγω, see below).

ἀνοίγω (like its athematic form ἀνοίγνυμι, ‘to open’) is a prefixed verb from the simplex οἴγω (or οἴγνυμι, ‘to open’), of uncertain etymology (see DELG s.v., EDG s.v.). The prefixed ἀνοίγω/ἀνοίγνυμι is more common than the simplex, especially in Attic, where the latter is restricted to the poetic register. In classical Attic, the past tenses of οἴγω/οἴγνυμι and ἀνοίγω/ἀνοίγνυμι are augmented with εω(ι)-: these forms    are attested in Homeric Greek (cf. e.g. ἀνέῳγεν in Il. 24.228, ἀνέῳξε in Od. 10.389), possibly due to Attic interpolation, and are traditionally explained as deriving from an alleged long allomorph ἠ- of the augment (the syllabic augment) followed by quantitative metathesis (e.g. οἴγ- > ἠ-ϝοιγ- > ἔῳγ-); on forms analogically augmented in ἠ-, see entry ἤμελλον, ἠβουλόμην, ἠδυνάμην. Recent scholarship has proposed several reconstructions to explain the origin and development of the forms augmented in (ἀν)ἔῳγ-. According to Ittzés (2008, 182–3), the /ο/ reflects a laryngeal (*h₃u̯ei̯g- > *ou̯ei̯g-) and, in past tenses, the augment has triggered a development *é-*h₃u̯ei̯g- > *ōu̯ei̯g- > *ōei̯g- > *eōi̯g, with an analogical vowel change (and not quantitative metathesis). Verdejo Manchado (2014) has instead proposed that (ἀν)οἴγω derives from a pre-dialectal stem *woweig-, exhibiting an iterative prefix *wo- (which is, however, extremely rare in Greek, cf. Attic ἐπείγω, Aeolic ἐποίγω, ‘to urge on’; the likelihood that this prefix existed, however, has been questioned, see below). According to his reconstruction, subsequently to the dialectal split, the form developed independently in each dialect: in Ionic and Attic the iterative prefix ἀνα- was added to the stem, giving *ana-woweig-, or, with a non-etymological segmentation aided by the fact that the simplex was not widespread in Attic-Ionic, *an-awoweig-; the segmentation *an-awoweig- triggered the quantitative augmentation in the past tenses (and the reduplication in the perfect). Subsequently, after the loss of /w/ and the hyphaeresis of /e/, in Attic *anawoweig- became *anaoig- in Attic forms without augmentation and reduplication; the hiatus /aoi/ was then resolved by the elision of /a/, by analogy with other prefixed verbs in ἀν(α)-, yielding anoig- (cf. the present ἀνοίγω). In forms with both augmentation and reduplication, which by then were at the *anēoig- stage, the hiatus instead underwent quantitative metathesis, yielding aneōig- (cf. ind. impf. ἀνέῳγον ect.). Most recently, Chiattelli (2022, 26 n. 109) has noted that this reconstruction is too cumbersome and rests on a weak foundation, particularly with respect to the prefix *wo-. Indeed, this prefix is unparalleled in other IE languages and its only possible parallel in Greek dialects, proposed by Verdejo Manchado (2014, 274) following Brugmann (1912, 274), namely Att. ἐπείγω vs. Aeol. ἐποίγω (‘to press’), is not convincing. According to Chiattelli (2022, 26–7), forms augmented in (ἀν)ἔῳγ- either derive from long augmented forms or show a double augmentation. In the latter case, the ε in these forms may have been added to an inherited ἀνῷγ- (from an ablauting stem *ὀϝειγ-/*ὀϝιγ- < *h₃u̯eig-/*h₃u̯ig-, cf. Forssmann 2005) in order to strengthen the augment by analogy with hyper-characterised forms in ἐῴ- (e.g. ind. plpf. ἐῴκει, ‘s/he seemed’). Interestingly, this is also the explanation offered by some ancient scholars who mention a πλεονασμός (or ἐπείσοδος) τοῦ ε (‘addition of ε’), see A.2 (apparatus), B.2, Epim.Hom. α 267.

Over time, however, the awareness that ἀνοίγω was a prefixed verb was gradually lost. The verb took on other prefixes (cf. e.g. ὑπανοίγω/ὑπανοίγνυμι, ‘to open from below, to open secretly’ in C.5; παρανοίγω/παρανοίγνυμι, ‘to open a little’) and later developed a secondary inflectional pattern, with the augment affecting the preverb, which was no longer perceived as such: cf. e.g. ind. impf. ἤνοιγον in place of ἀνέῳγον, and ind. aor. ἤνοιξα for ἀνέῳξα. The diffusion of external augmentation can be seen as an aspect of the post-classical trend towards morphological regularisation, since it leads all verbs back to the conjugation of simple ones, which was the standard and most familiar case (cf. Dickey 2007, 115). The use of forms with an augmented prefix may already have been a colloquialColloquial language trait of Classical Greek that slowly found its way into literary texts (cf. Olson 2016, 276–7). Evidence that the external augment is typical of colloquial use comes from grammatical sources: Orus (A.3) attests that such forms were widespread among his contemporaries (οἷς νῦν χρῶνται ἐπιεικῶς ἅπαντες) and Philoponus (B.2) allegedly restricts their use to the laymen’s common language (ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν λεγόμενον). Literary Attic retains the inherited conjugation of ἀνοίγω (cf. C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6, C.8, and C.9; on the verb’s frequency in comedy and its many occurrences in Aristophanes, see Orth 2013, 265), while occurrences of forms with the augmented prefix are very scanty and limited to Xenophon (C.7, aorist, plus HG 1.6.21, imperfect), see further AGP vol. 1, 314–6. Note also that innovative forms of ἀνοίγω never occur in Attic inscriptions (cf. Threatte 1996, 625).

The innovative conjugation later spread to biblical and koine Greek: numerous occurrences can be found in the Septuagint (e.g. C.10) and the New Testament (e.g. Ev.Io. 9.30; Act.Ap. 5.19, see Blass, Debrunner 1976, 77); the frequency of these forms in Scripture ensures their use in Christian texts of various registers, from apocryphal and hagiographical literature (cf. e.g. Ev.Petr. 37) to the Church Fathers’ works (cf. e.g. Greg.Naz. MPG 35.485.29). Forms with the augmented prefix are occasionally used by prose authors of the imperial age such as Pausanias (e.g. 2.35.7.4), Achilles Tatius (e.g. 3.17.7), and Chariton (1.10.2), but are avoided by Atticising authors such as Aristides (C.12) and Lucian (cf. the passages in A.4), who adopt the classical forms. Overall, the innovative forms are less common than the conservative forms in literary texts: the use of the latter prevails even in works where both forms are used indiscriminately. The Scriptures are a case in point, since here the two conjugations coexist according to the book’s linguistic register: externally augmented (and double augmented) forms prevail in lower-level texts (e.g. Ev.Marc., Ev.Io.), while internally augmented forms dominate in texts whose linguistic level is higher (e.g. Ev.Luc.).

Post-classical Greek shows great variability in the conjugation of ἀνοίγω. Besides the sigmatic aorist, the verb develops a passive second aorist with the external augment, ἠνοίγην, first attested in the Old Testament apocrypha (cf. e.g. the Apocalypse of Enoch 89.44 and the Life of Adam and Eve, e.g. 10.6) and in the New Testament (cf. Ev.Marc. 7.35); see Blass, Debrunner (1976, 77, on the conjugation of ἀνοίγω in the New Testament, and 60, on passive second aorists). Among the irregularly augmented forms of ἀνοίγω that spread in Post-classical Greek, one also finds forms with the double augment. These are first attested in Scripture: see, for instance, the double augmented aorists ἠνέῳξεν (e.g. C.11, NT Ev.Io. 9.17) and ἠνεῴχθησαν (e.g. LXX Ge. 7.11, LXX Is. 24.18). A 3rd-pers. pl. passive aorist ἀνωΐχθησαν is used by Nonnus (cf. e.g. D. 6.250 ἀνωΐχθησαν ὀχῆες, ‘the bars were opened’; D. 25.285 ἀνωίχθησαν ὀπωπαί, ‘[his] eyes were opened’) and once by Paulus Silentiarius (cf. Soph. 681); cf. the inf. aor. act. ἀνωΐξαι in Q.S. 12.331. These forms in ἀνωΐ- can be explained as epic markers, since augmented forms of οἴγω are usually in ὠϊ- in Homer (cf. Il. 6.298 θύρας ὤϊξε Θεανώ, ‘Theano opened the doors’).

Papyrological sources reflect the irregularity of the conjugation of ἀνοίγω. Hellenistic papyriPapyri show great variability, as classical forms are often preserved in them (see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 104). Externally augmented forms, on the other hand, predominate in papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods (while the reduplication is usually positioned on the stem or, rarely, on both preverb and stem, cf. Gignac 1981, 249–50). Among the most outstanding irregular forms, note the perfect ἀνηνέῳκται, which occurs in P.Münch.1.13.30 (= TM 15321) [Syene, 594 CE], a sale agreement between private parties: καὶ ἡ αὐθεντικὴ θύρα ἀνηνέῳκται, ‘and the main door opens’.    

Given the wide occurrence of irregular forms, it is natural that the placement of augment and reduplication in prefixed verbs (or in verbs perceived by speakers as having a prefix) was a topic of interest for grammarians, particularly for Atticist scholars. This interest concerned not only ἀνοίγω, but a variety of verbs, as the discussions of Orus (A.2) and Choeroboscus (B.2) attest, and as is confirmed by the existence of several entries dealing with augmentation and reduplication scattered throughout the Atticist lexica: see e.g. Antiatt. δ 1Antiatt. δ 1, Antiatt. ε 2Antiatt. ε 2, Moer. δ 10Moer. δ 10 and Philemo (Laur.) 359Philemo (Laur.) 359 on forms of διακονέω (‘to serve’, see entry δεδιακόνηκα, διηκόνηκα, ἐδιακόνουν, διηκόνουν); Antiatt. ε 3Antiatt. ε 3 on διαιτάω (‘to live’); Antiatt. δ 3Antiatt. δ 3 on διοικέω (‘to manage’); Phryn. Ecl. 19Phryn. Ecl. 19 on περισσεύω (‘to be above the number’). The Atticists’ stance on these forms varied depending on the verb under discussion and, arguably, on the usage of the Attic authors themselves, a usage that – as Orus (A.2) notes, describing them as having an anomalistic approach (οἱ Ἀττικοί […] εἰσὶν ἀνώμαλοι) – was not too rigid. Occurrences in (potentially) canonical authors were most likely a determining factor in the admissibility of a form. In the case of ἀνοίγω, given the paucity of classical evidence for forms augmented on the prefix, along with the abundance of their post-classical attestations (see above), it is unsurprising that Atticist erudition unanimously recommends the classical forms augmented in ἀνέῳ- and rejects the innovative formsInnovative forms (A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, and B.2); note that Orus (A.2), rejecting such forms outright, describes them as ‘tremendously barbarous’ (δεινῶς βάρβαρα).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

ἀνοίγω remained in use throughout the Byzantine period. As we have seen, verbs originally prefixed in a similar way to ἀνοίγω were already regarded as simple verbs and augmented on the preverb in classical times; later, this tendency increased in late antiquity. In Medieval Greek, the augment is generally retained in verbs beginning with a consonant, while it is often omitted in prefixed and compound verbs, and in simple verbs beginning with a vowel (cf. CGMEMG vol. 3, 1395). Prefixed verbs, when augmented, usually take the external augment (in η-), but internal augment is occasionally used too, especially when the prefix begins with a vowel; nevertheless, it is mainly found in literary texts, and is often combined with the external augment (cf. CGMEMG vol. 3, 1417–9; the extreme variability in the augmentation of prefixed verbs is well summarised in 1419: ‘verbs prefixed with a preposition can have internal augment, external augment, both or neither’). In any case, by this time ἀνοίγω was considered to be a simple verb beginning with a vowel; as such, its forms are generally unaugmented in all areas.

We get a very different picture from more formal contexts and high-register literature, where ἀνοίγω continues to be inflected in the classical way, with the augment placed between verb and preverb. Note, for instance, that the occurrences of ἀνοίγω in Nicetas Choniates always seem to follow the classical inflectional pattern (cf. e.g. 157.23 ἀνέῳγε). Nevertheless, the majority of Byzantine Atticising authors use – mostly, but not exclusively – forms with the internal augment, while occasionally using forms with the external or the double augment; see, for instance, in Michael Psellus: ἤνοιξα (Poemata 2.986), ἤνοικτο (Orationes panegyricae 2.708), ἠνέῳξας (Orationes panegyricae 1.84), ἠνέῳξε (Orationes forenses 1.407, 1.1433; Orationes agiographicae 3b.793); in Michael Choniates: ἤνοιξε (Orationes 14.251.10); in Nicephorus Gregoras: ἤνοιξαν (Historia Romana 2.1017.13), ἠνοίγοντο (Historia Romana 1.397.4). The presence of such forms is easily explained by the fact that Byzantine Atticising authors were perfectly familiar with their use in ScriptureHoly Scriptures, where externally augmented forms abound (see D.): forms with the misplaced augment were thus probably difficult to avoid, despite the scholarly tradition proscribing them. When considering the distribution of forms with the external augment in Byzantine texts, one should keep in mind the context in which they occur and consider the influence of the language of Scripture. A case in point is Aretas, who, as a rule, uses the internal augment: in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, however, forms with the augmented prefix sometimes appear under the influence of the Apocalypse passages that are being commented on (cf. e.g. 577.49). Anyway, irregularly augmented forms of ἀνοίγω can sometimes be found even in the more experienced Atticising authors: in Anna Comnene’s Alexiad, for instance, irregular forms are less rare than one might expect; see e.g. forms with the double augment (ἠνέῳκτο: 1.16.1, 13.3.10) and augmented infinitives (ἀνεῷξαι: 13.3.3; ἀνεῳχθῆναι: 2.5.8; 4.4.7; for cases of irregular use of the augment in other verbs, see Reinsch, Kambylis 2001 vol. 2, 224).

ἀνοίγω is still the standard verb meaning ‘to open’ in Modern Greek (see ILNE s.v.; LKN s.v.) and is also used in the secondary meaning ‘to switch on’. Since Modern Greek has not retained the augment as an inflectional marker, imperfect (παρατατικός) and aorist (αόριστος) forms are not augmented: cf. imperfect άνοιγα, aorist άνοιξα.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Orus fr. A 6a (A.2)

After focusing on forms of ἀνοίγω, this entry broadens its scope by considering the treatment of augmented forms of prefixed verbs in general in Attic authors. Emphasis is placed on the anomalistic tendency in the use of Attic authors – the interest in anomalyAnomaly is one of the clues pointing to Orus’ authorship, see Alpers 1981, 65, and entry Orus, Ἀττικῶν λέξεων συναγωγή – and several classical occurrences are produced to illustrate the variability in the placement of the augment and reduplication. First, Orus deals with perfects which show a reduplication of the preverb. Alpers’ conjecture ἀνα<δεδιπλωμένης> τῆς προθέσεως in place of the manuscripts’ reading τῆς ἄνευ προθέσεως fits very well the scope of the passage: the following examples refer indeed to forms with double reduplication (δεδιῄτημαι, καταδεδιῃτημένον), which are an addition to the previous ones (δεδιακόνηκα, δεδιῴκηκα); on this use of ἀναδιπλόωἀναδιπλόω cf. Phryn. PS 32.12–4Phryn. PS 32.12–4. Incidentally, it is not necessary to displace the article, since the phrasing τῆς ἀνα<δεδιπλωμένης> προθέσεως works just fine. Note that the verbs διακονέωδιακονέω (‘to serve’) and διαιτάωδιαιτάω (‘to live’) are actually non-prefixed. Nevertheless, at some point, they both began to be mistaken for prefixed verbs and were treated as such; as a result, they developed an inflection with internal augment and reduplication: see, for instance, the imperfect διηκόνουν, which was typical of koine Greek (cf. e.g. NT Ev.Matt. 4.11) in place of the regular Attic imperfect ἐδιακόνουν (recommended by Antiatt. ε 2Antiatt. ε 2). Some of these forms are known to Atticist lexicography (see above D.). The perfect δεδιακόνηκα is recommended by Moer. δ 10Moer. δ 10 (against διηκόνηκα, or the doubly augmented δεδιηκόνηκα in cod. C); note that the entries on δεδιακόνηκα in the Antiatticist (δ 1)Antiatt. δ 1 and Philemon’s lexicon ([Laur.] 359)Philemo (Laur.) 359 probably have the same scope. δεδιῴκηκα (from διοικέωδιοικέω, with both reduplication and internal augment; cf. the classical active perfect διῴκηκα) is paralleled in Antiatt. δ 3Antiatt. δ 3, where the participle δεδιῳκημένα (‘[things] that have been arranged’) is signalled in Antiph. fr. 153 (on which see Olson 2022, 198–9). On these forms see in detail entry δεδιακόνηκα, διηκόνηκα, ἐδιακόνουν, διηκόνουν. The mention of Nicostratus’ ἐδιακόνεις (fr. 34) immediately after the examples of perfect formation may seem out of place. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for the two tenses to be dealt with together, since ancient scholarship considered the perfect to be formed from the imperfect by reduplication of the first syllable (see Alpers 1981, 133). Moreover, the rest of the entry deals with the placement of the augment in the imperfect, mentioning both forms in which the augment is placed between verb and preverb (κατηγγύησεν), forms with the external augment (ἐπροξένει, cf. the regular Attic προὐξένουν, and ἐπροτίμων, cf. προὐτίμα, προὐτίμησα), and a form with both augmentation and reduplication (ἐσυνείθικας, cf. συνείθικα). The attribution of ἐπροξένει, ἐπροτίμων, and ἐσυνείθικας to classical authors (Euripides, Aristophanes, and Herodotus respectively) can only come as a surprise, since both the forms of προξενέω and προτιμάω with the external augment and the forms with augment and reduplication of συνεθίζω with augmentation and reduplication lack literary attestation, except in very late sources (Medieval Greek literature from the 11th century onwards).

(2)    Orus fr. A 6b (A.3); Σ^b α 1339 = Phot. α 1906, cf. Su. α 2282 (B.1)

This entry, based on Orus, entered the Synagoge tradition via the expansion Σʹ, which incorporated material from Orus to a greater extent than the later expansions (see Cunningham 2003, 53). In addition to A.3, Σʹ also contained another entry dealing with the imperfect of ἀνοίγω, most likely based on an Atticist source (although it is not marked as such in the edition), i.e. B.1. Interestingly enough, the Suda combines both doctrines into an individual entry. Nevertheless, the two entries may deal with different issues. While A.3 focuses on the promotion of internally augmented forms of ἀνοίγω, B.1 may be concerned with the intransitive use of the verb’s active voice (which Atticist scholarship rejects; see entry ἀνέῳγεν, ἀνέῳκται). Orth (2013, 265–6) wonders whether B.1 alludes to the intransitive use of the active perfect: if one follows the text in the Suda (cf. A.3 in the apparatus), this is indeed possible, since ἀνέῳγε can be either the imperfect or the perfect. If this is the case, the occurrence in Ameipsias would be the first of such use, and the mention of more recent poets would perhaps make more sense, as they are more likely to attest to the use of a late feature. One indication in favour of this hypothesis is that the active pluperfect ἀνεῴγεισαν, which is the entry’s lemma in the Suda, most probably comes from a passage of Athanasius where it is used intransitively (cf. Historia Arianorum 81.6.8: τῇ βίᾳ τοῦ πλήθους ἀνεῴγεισαν αἱ θύραι, ‘the doors opened because of the mob’s force’), while in Classical Greek one would expect the passive ἠνοίχθησαν, as the Suda notes. However, if one accepts the form ἀνέῳγον, as transmitted in the Synagoge and in Photius’ lexicon, then the entry necessarily focuses on the imperfect.

(3)    Thom.Mag. 30.5–31.14 (A.4)

This entry promotes the use of internally augmented forms of ἀνοίγω and supports it with a large number of literary quotations – incidentally, mostly from authors of the imperial period (Aelius Aristides, Lucian) and late antiquity (Libanius, Synesius) – some of which added in the course of the lexicon’s expansion process (see the apparatus for the portions of the text absent from mss. F and L, which more closely mirror Magister’s redaction; on the lexicon’s expansion cf. Gaul 2007 and entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή). Most surprisingly, the entry contains an open criticism of Phrynichus (ἁμαρτάνει Φρύνιχος, ‘Phrynichus is wrong’). If such harsh criticism of Phrynichus – who is one of Thomas’ main sources; see entry Thomas Magister, ’Ονομάτων Ἀττικῶν ἐκλογή – is unexpected, it is even more remarkable that the aorist ἤνοιξε(ν) is not found in Phrynichus’ corresponding entry as it has come down to us. Phryn. Ecl. 128Phryn. Ecl. 128 proscribes the intransitive use of the intransitive active perfect of ἀνοίγω (see entry ἀνέῳγεν, ἀνέῳκται) and reads as follows: ἀνέῳγεν ἡ θύρα· σολοικισμός· χρὴ γὰρ λέγειν ἀνέῳκται (‘The door is open’ [ἀνέῳγεν, ind. perf. act.]: [It is] a solecism; for one should say ‘[The door] has been opened’ [ἀνέῳκται, ind. perf. mid.pass.]). A first hypothesis is that Phrynichus’ entry originally dealt also with the coexistence of the internally and externally augmented and reduplicated forms of ἀνοίγω: this is quite possible, given the interest shown by other Atticist scholars (A.1, A.2, and A.3). Nevertheless, since, according to Thomas’ report, Phrynichus argued that ἀνέῳγεν was in use in place of ἤνοιξεν, another possibility is that Phrynichus’ entry originally also discussed the merging between the perfect and the aorist in koine Greek, where the perfect was increasingly used as a general past tense. The pairing of such a topic with the discussion of the correct placement of the augment and reduplication would make sense, since the functional overlap of perfect and aorist can at least in part be traced back to the confusion between augmentation and reduplication, which caused augmented perfects to be seen as alternative aoristic forms (see Horrocks 2010, 176–8). Interestingly, the same possibility is raised by Eustathius (B.3). The criticism of Phrynichus can thus be explained by the fact that Thomas could read Phrynichus’ entry in a corrupted form, or by a misunderstanding of his doctrine on the part of Thomas (note indeed that the pericope at issue is already in mss. FL). Towards the end of the entry, the form ἀνέῳγεν is (properly) said to be Attic, as opposed to ἤνοιγε and (allegedly) ἀνεῴχθη, which are labelled as ‘common’ (κοινά). In place of the form ἀνεῴχθη printed in the editions from cod. B, the doubly augmented ἠνεῴχθη, transmitted by the rest of the manuscript tradition, is preferable: ἀνεῴχθη is indeed a perfectly classical form (cf. Eur. Ion 1563), the rejection of which would be unwarranted.