ἐλέγοσαν, ἐγράφοσαν, ἐσχάζοσαν
(Antiatt. ε 1)

D. General commentary

The entry in the Antiatticist (A.1) deals with the use of the analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν‑(ο)σαν in the 3rd person plural of the imperfect active of thematic verbs. Relying on Aristophanes of Byzantium’s treatment of these forms in his treatise On Words Suspected Not to Have Been Used by the Ancients, the Antiatticist aims to demonstrate that such analogical forms were not confined to the use in the low‑prestige variety of the koine (i.e. ‘Alexandrian Greek’). Rather, their use by the Hellenistic poet Lycophron (C.2), who hailed from Chalcis, proves that the analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν is a dialectal feature of Lycophron’s native Euboean Chalcidian dialect. An entry in Photius (B.3) that likely depends on the Antiatticist (see Valente 2015, 27; 32–3) shares the same tolerant attitude towards the use of the analogical ending.

In some Greek dialects, including Attic, the analogical extension of the ending ‑σαν of the 3rd person plural of the sigmatic aorist (i.e. ἔλυ‑σαν) became standard very early on in the imperfect and aorist of the athematic verbsAthematic verbs (see ἦσαν ‘they were’, ἐδίδοσαν ‘they gave’, ἔδοσαν ‘they gave’, ἔβησαν ‘they went’, etc.). But this extension gradually became more pervasive: a case in point is the comparatively early development of the 3rd-person imperative active λεγόντων into the corresponding analogical form λεγέτωσαν – that is, the 3rd-person singular imperative active λεγέτω + the analogical ending ‑σαν as a marker of the 3rd person plural (see AGP vol. 1, 312–3). Moreover, in Post-classical Greek, the analogical ‑σαν spread to the imperfect and thematic aorist of thematic verbs (for a general discussion, see Buresch 1891, 194–203).

As discussed in the Antiatticist entry (A.1), forms such as the inherited 3rd-person plural ἔβαλλον were recharacterised as ἐβάλλοσαν through the addition of ‑(ο)σαν (though occasionally ‑(ε)σαν occurs in place of ‑(ο)σαν, possibly due to symmetry with the 3rd person singular). This extension of ‑(ο)σαν enjoyed some diffusion in the low koine (as is evident from documentary papyri as well as from the Septuagint, the New Testament, and early Christian literature), whereas it was foreign to the higher forms of the koine that were employed in literary texts (see the documentation collected by Reinhold 1898, 82; Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 83; Thackeray 1909, 212–4; Mandilaras 1973, 128; Blass, Debrunner 1976, 64 § 82; Gignac 1981, 331; Horrocks 2010, 143–4). Parallel to the imperfect of thematic verbs, the 3rd-person plural forms of the thematic aorist, such as the inherited 3rd-person plural ἔβαλον, developed into analogical ἐβάλοσαν (again, occasionally ‑(ε)σαν may occasionally occur in place of ‑(ο)σαν). In the case of the thematic aorist too, this development found some diffusion in the lower register of the koine (documentary papyri, Septuagint, New Testament, early Christian literature), while it is foreign to the high koine used in literary texts (see the documentation collected by Reinhold 1898, 82; Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 83; Thackeray 1909, 212–4; Mandilaras 1973, 155–6; Blass, Debrunner 1976, 64–5 § 84; Gignac 1981, 345). Aside from the need to distinguish the 1st person singular from the homonymous 3rd person plural, the similarity between couplets such as the imperfect ἔβαλλον > ἐβάλλοσαν and the aorist ἔβαλον > ἐβάλοσαν may have contributed to the diffusion of the analogical forms. Another motivating factor may be the tendency towards paradigm levelling with the aim of retaining an equal number of syllablesIsosyllabic inflection in the plural forms (i.e. ἐλέγομεν, ἐλέγετε, ἔλεγον vis‑à‑vis ἐλέγομεν, ἐλέγετε, ἐλέγοσαν; ἐφιλοῦμεν, ἐφιλοῦτε, ἐφίλουν vis‑à‑vis ἐφιλοῦμεν, ἐφιλοῦτε, ἐφιλοῦσαν; εἴπομεν, εἴπετε, εἶπον vis‑à‑vis εἴπομεν, εἴπετε, εἴπεσαν); interestingly, this aspect was already discussed by the ancient grammarians (B.4; see also EM 282.31–42 and Choerob. Epim. in Ps. 163.11–8). The analogical expansion of ‑σαν also involved the 3rd person plural of the sigmatic aorist, whereby ἔλυσαν was replaced by ἐλύσασαν (see Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2, 83–4), and the 3rd person plural of the optative active of sigmatic and thematic aorists, whereby λύσαιεν was replaced by λύσαισαν and ἔλθοιεν by ἔλθοισαν (see Thackeray 1909, 215; K–B vol. 1, 24–5). We also occasionally have evidence of the creation of mixed forms where ‑(ο)σαν has been added to endings that are themselves analogical in origin: see, e.g., the aorist παρεδώκοσαν in C.8, i.e. παρέδωκ- + ‑(ο)σαν (which is based on the analogical form παρέδωκαν).

The evidence for the analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν in the imperfect and in the aorist, while not overwhelming, is sizable. This renders any selection pointless, and I refer the reader to the evidence collected in the secondary literature quoted above. However, some aspects pertaining to the distribution and uses of the analogical ‑(ο)σαν warrant closer examination.

On the literary side, it should be stressed that these forms are not evenly distributed: the SeptuagintSeptuagint alone provides the greatest body of evidence by far (amounting to several dozens, albeit not distributed evenly across all books), while they are less common in the New Testament. Furthermore, ἤλθοσαν/‑ήλθοσαν is the only analogical aorist form that does occur fairly commonly throughout the history of the Greek language. However, this is an exception. As far as literary texts are concerned, high‑frequency verbs such as ἀποθνῄσκω, κρίνω, and λαμβάνω occur with the analogical ending (whether in the imperfect or in the aorist) practically only in the Septuagint (though παρελάβοσαν occurs once in the New Testament in 2 Ep.Thess. 3.6). A partial exception is the recurrence of ἤλθοσαν/‑ήλθοσαν, εἴποσαν, and εὕροσαν in the ancient redactions of the Historia Alexandri Magni, but the fact that this was a work of popular literature likely accounts for the use of the analogical ending. The few apparent occurrences of analogical ‑(ο)σαν in Cassius DioCassius Dio – at least, to judge from our access to Cassius Dio via Zonaras’ Epitome historiarum – are unlikely to go back to Cassius Dio (see D.C. 54.7 Boissevan: συνήλθοσαν, 100.9 Boissevan: εἰσήλθοσαν, 110.3: ἐπήλθοσαν). Given that Zonaras makes relatively extensive use of ἤλθοσαν/‑ήλθοσαν and other such analogical forms himself – including in writings other than the Epitome historiarum (see E.) – it is highly likely that the three instances of ‑(ο)σαν are simply attributable to Zonaras’ hand.

Poetry presents a different case to that of literary prose written in the high koine. The analogical forms occur only in the imperfect in at least seven poetic texts – four literary (C.2, on which see below; C.3, on which see F.3; C.4; C.5) and three epigraphic (ἐκείροσαν in SEG 44.779.14–5 [Acate in Sicily, 2nd century CE]; ἐχαίροσαν in SEG 41.1150.6 = I.Pessinous 60.6 [Pessinous, 2nd century CE]; ἐστένοσαν in Vérilhac, Paides aôroi 104.B.8 = IG 12,2.489.16 [Mytilene, undated]). It is noteworthy that the analogical ‑(ο)σαν occurs with a wider array of lexemes than is the case in prose. It appears that this ending was metricallyMetre useful, and it was likely adopted irrespective of any other considerations (e.g. lack of prestige).

That the situation is vastly different in the language of documentary texts is suggested by the sheer variety of verbs that occur with ‑(ο)σαν (see the examples collected in the secondary literature quoted above). In addition to the evidence from Egyptian papyriPapyri, the analogical ‑(ο)σαν is also attested in inscriptionsInscriptions from Greece that date from at least the mid-3rd century BCE (see, e.g., ἐπηγγέλλοσαν in a set phrase which occurs in C.6 as well as in Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions 2.41.8 [Amphipolis, 243 BCE], IG 12,4.220.25 = Rigsby, Asylia 26.8 [Kos, 242 BCE], and IG 12,4.221.6–7 = Rigsby, Asylia 23.6–7 [Kos, 242 BCE]; προσήλθοσαν in IG 12,5.128.10 [Paros, 194–196 BCE]; παρελάβοσαν in ID 399.29 and 54 [Delos, 192 BCE]; ἔσχοσαν in I.Pessinous 7.15 [Pessinous, 158–156 BCE]; διελάβοσαν in IG 7.2426.20 [Thebes, ca. 150–100 BCE]; ἐλέγοσαν in F.Delphes 3,4.280.B.29–30 [Delphi, ca. 125 BCE], etc.). Although this is only a partial selection, it contributes to indicate that in the language of documentary texts ‑(ο)σαν enjoyed larger diffusion than in literary texts (other than the Septuagint). Comparison with an obscene graffito from Karnak (C.7: on which, see Bain 1991, 56) may also be instructive: the obscene meaning in this text is primarily conveyed by πυγίζω, and the use of the analogical ending must have been naturally in keeping with the register.

Analogical ‑(ο)σαν progressively fell out of use in the koine owing to the massive expansion of the alphathematic aorist (e.g. ἔβαλον > ἔβαλα in the 1st person singular and ἔβαλαν in the 3rd person plural) and the parallel extension of the alphathematic endings to the imperfect of thematic verbs (e.g. εἶχον > εἶχα in the 1st person singular and εἶχαν in the 3rd person plural: see the ample documentation in Gignac 1981, 332 and 335–45). This process eventually culminated in the redefinition of past‑tense endings in Medieval and Modern Greek (see E.).

As mentioned above, the entry in the Antiatticist is likely pursuing a polemical agenda, aiming to oppose those scholars who claimed that the use of the analogical ending was an ‘Alexandrian’ feature (on this label, see below) to be avoided by those who attempted to use good Greek. To counter this position, the Antiatticist quotes the occurrence of the analogical imperfect ἐσχάζοσαν in a passage of a Hellenistic poem, the Alexandra. Given that this poem was attributed to the tragedian and grammarian LycophronLycophron, who hailed from Chalcis in Euboea (on this attribution and the relevance of this entry for the poem’s chronology, see Meliadò 2019; Pellettieri in Dettori, Pellettieri 2020, 236–7; Pellettieri 2021, 8–13; a radically different approach concerning the authorship of the Alexandra is adopted by Nelson, Molesworth 2021), the aim was to affirm that the use of analogical ‑(ο)σαν in Lycophron was a genuine dialectal feature that he took from his native Euboean dialect of ChalcisEuboean dialect (see Nauck 1848, 204 and Wilamowitz 1881, 139; Callanan 1987, 64 is unnecessarily sceptical about this interpretation and offers no alternative solution). Thus, according to the Antiatticist’s reasoning, if the analogical ‑(ο)σαν was a dialectalism, it followed that it was not a development that belonged only to recent and debased common Greek: rather, it was an archaic and consequently prestigious trait worthy of imitation. This interest in the dialect of Chalcis is not isolated in ancient scholarship. Slater (1986, 15 ad Ar.Byz. fr. 19A–D = B.1) compares Lesbon.Gramm. fr. 14a.12–7 and fr. 14b, where Lesbonax quotes Dionysius of Chalcis (FGrHist 1773 F 2b) as evidence for an allegedly Chalcidian syntactic peculiarity concerning the construction and concordance of the accusative and dative depending on the verb δοκέω (see Blank 1988, 189 ad loc.).

The source on which the entry in the Antiatticist relies is Aristophanes of Byzantium’s treatise On Words Suspected Not to Have Been Used by the Ancients (see Cohn 1881, 293; Latte 1915, 384). This important Hellenistic treatise on language was a key source for the Antiatticist (see Latte 1915; Tosi 1997; Valente 2015, 31–5). The derivation of the Antiatticist’s entry from Aristophanes of Byzantium’s treatise provides cast iron proof. Indeed, the materials that Slater (1986) prints as Ar.Byz. fr. 19A–D as evidence of Aristophanes of Byzantium’s treatment of analogical ‑(ο)σαν are corroborated by the (scanty) remains of the direct tradition of Aristophanes of Byzantium’s treatise (i.e. MS M, see apparatus of B.1) and strengthened by the indirect evidence for Aristophanes of Byzantium’s doctrines that Eustathius provides (B.2). The shared use of so highly uncommon a verb as σχάζω makes it certain that the Antiatticist owes Aristophanes of Byzantium the use of Lycophron as the literary evidence cited in support of the Euboean interpretation of analogical ‑(ο)σαν. More elusive is the question that arises each time one confronts the relationship between Atticist lexicography and earlier sources – namely, whether Aristophanes of Byzantium, like the Antiatticist, also aimed to defend the use of ‑(ο)σαν or whether he was merely offering a philologically oriented description of linguistic variation in the history of the Greek language. On balance, it appears that the latter option is more solid (see Valente 2015, 32–3; entries εὐθύς, εὐθύ, εὐθέως and κόλλοψ, κόλλαβος; AGP vol. 1, 445–60).

The recourse to Lycophron, a Hellenistic poet, may be striking, given that Aristophanes of Byzantium and the Antiatticist had the shared aim of demonstrating the antiquity of analogical ‑(ο)σαν. Nonetheless, to claim that this was a dialectal feature – albeit one that was attested in a comparatively recent writer – would do as much. This approach presupposes the view that any dialectal form is intrinsically older than contemporary language (on this perception of the older dialects’ prestige of in the ‘new’ Alexandrian context see Willi 2012, 281–4 discussing the wider implications stemming from Theoc. 15.84–93, where the focus is on Doric). It is unlikely that Aristophanes of Byzantium or the Antiatticist would have resorted to any literary source earlier than Hellenistic poetry to document the use of ‑(ο)σαν. Nauck (1848, 204 n. 28) suggested that Aristophanes of Byzantium might already have been reading the passage of Euripides’ Hecuba with the same variant reading documented in the quotation by Choeroboscus (B.4), in which Euripides is cited to prove the use of the analogical form. Slater (1986, 15) does not follow Nauck and deems it improbable that Aristophanes of Byzantium had access to any pre‑Alexandrian evidence for the analogical forms (on the variant reading in the Euripides quotation in Choeroboscus, B.4, see F.1). However, although the use of the analogical ending was not sanctioned by classical texts, it appears to have enjoyed some diffusion in Hellenistic poetry: besides the instance of ἐσχάζοσαν in Lycophron, this is demonstrated by εἴχοσαν in an epigram by Posidippus (C.3, on which see F.3), by φεύγοσαν in an adespoton quoted by Eustathius (C.4), and by ἔσχοσαν in pseudo‑Scymnus (C.5). It has been suggested that ἐσχάζοσαν in Lycophron might be sociolinguistically connotated (see F.2), while in the other cases, it appears that ‑(ο)σαν is simply adopted for metrical convenience.

The analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν, in both the imperfect and the aorist, attracted the interest of other scholarly sources besides Aristophanes of Byzantium and the Antiatticist. The opinion that it was an old dialectalism rather than a recent development of koine Greek was quite widespread. Aristophanes of Byzantium’s attribution of the ending to the dialect of Chalcis resurfaces in Choeroboscus (B.4, see also schol. vet. Lyc. 21a and 252 Leone and note that, in the latter, it is also indicated as a feature of the Eretrian dialect; Choeroboscus’ doctrine is added in schol. (Tz.) Lyc. 252 and 253 Scheer: in the latter scholium, ὅσα τοιαῦτα Χαλδαϊικῆς ἤτοι Ἀττικῆς διαλέκτου, besides Χαλδαϊικῆς for Χαλκιδικῆς, it is likely that ἤτοι Ἀττικῆς is simply a trivialisation of Ἐρετριακῆς). Other sources credited the BoeotianBoeotian dialect with the use of the analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν in the imperfect (Et.Sym. ε 81a, EM 282.31–42, schol. vet. Lyc. 21b Leone) and the aorist (Choerob. Epim. in Ps. 163.11–8, Et.Gud. 240.20–5, EM 426.1–5; note that in Choeroboscus’ passage, one should understand οἱ Βοιωτοὶ ἐπὶ τῶν <μὴ> ἐχόντων τὴν μετοχὴν εἰς σ ὀξύτονον […] ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν {μὴ} ἐχόντων τὴν μετοχὴν εἰς <Σ> ὀξύτονον, as suggested by the comparison with the akin doctrine reported in EM 282.31–42 and Et.Gud. 376.4–8). Ahrens (1839, 210) deemed it plausible that this ending was indeed a Boeotian feature, though he offers no further discussion on the matter. Buresch (1891, 197) also deemed the Boeotian interpretation plausible and stressed Boeotia’s geographic proximity with Chalcis. Yet another ancient theory was that ‑(ο)σαν was an IonicIonic feature (Et.Sym. δ 334b). Heraclides of Miletus (B.5) pursued a different route, claiming that ‑(ο)σαν was in use among the Greeks of Asia of his time – that is, it was a contemporary variety (for a discussion of the quotation contexts, see Cohn 1884, 95–6). Nonetheless, this is not incompatible with the notion that ‑(ο)σαν is also an old dialectal feature, and the difference lies in the source’s different focus. Finally, the analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν may also be classified among the barbarismsBarbarism (B.6).

Whatever explanation ancient scholarship might offer regarding the origin of ‑(ο)σαν, the unifying element is that all sources share the view that it is a non‑standard feature that requires explanation. Indeed, when Heraclides of Miletus says that it belongs to Asiatic Greek, this is likely to have derogatory connotations (see, e.g., Antiatt. β 19 and κ 40, discussed by Valente 2015, 37). This works well with the fact that the Antiatticist (A.1) reports the earlier view, according to which the use of ‑(ο)σαν was an ‘Alexandrian’ feature. In the context of imperial scholarship, the Alexandrians represent the low‑prestige variety of the koine (rather than the συνήθεια at large, as claimed, e.g., by Valente 2015, 33), and this is very much in line with the distribution of the evidence (on the Alexandrians in ancient scholarship, see Fournet 2009; Favi, Tribulato 2024; Favi, forthcoming; AGP vol. 2 on πατάνια/βατάνια in Antiatt. β 7Antiatt. β 7 and Poll. 10.107–8Poll. 10.107–8, forthcoming; see also the entries ἤμελλον, ἠβουλόμην, ἠδυνάμην; ἐξαλλάσσω, ἐξάλλαγμα; χειμάζω). The Antiatticist’s entry on ‑(ο)σαν, however, has wider implications for the understanding of the way this evaluative label – i.e. Ἀλεξανρδεῖς – was used in ancient scholarship. Given the certainty of the derivation of the entry in the Antiatticist from Aristophanes of Byzantium, it is entirely possible that the use of the label Ἀλεξανδρεῖς may also be traced back to Aristophanes of Byzantium (on the possibility that Aristophanes of Byzantium wrote a treatise On the Dialect of the Alexandrians, see Sandri 2023; AGP vol. 1, 454–5; Favi, forthcoming). However, the same label may have been associated with different functions in the context of Hellenistic philology and imperial Atticism: while Aristophanes may well have used the Alexandrian usage as a close‑at‑hand term of comparison to document the contemporary informal koine, the references to the Alexandrians in later scholarship are devoid of any diatopic connotation, and the label becomes a sociolinguisticSociolinguistics category (see Favi, forthcoming).

It is worth noting that an analogical development similar to the extension of ‑(ο)σαν to the imperfect and the thematic aorist of thematic verbs occurred in the perfectPerfect, whereby ἐλήλυθαν replaces the expected ἐληλύθασι on the analogy of the other past tenses in which the 3rd person plural active ends in ‑(σ)αν. Forms like ἐλήλυθαν are also listed among the barbarismsBarbarism by De barbarismo et soloecismo [2] 1.6–8De barbarismo et soloecismo [2] 1.6–8: κατὰ μὲν οὖν ἔνδειαν, εἴ τις λέγοι […] γέγραφαν καὶ πεποίηκαν ἀντὶ τοῦ γεγράφασι καὶ πεποιήκασι (‘[The barbarism may occur] by the lack [of a syllable] […] [as in the case of] γέγραφαν ‘they have written’ and πεποίηκαν ‘they have made’ in place of γεγράφασι and πεποιήκασι’). Interestingly, when Sextus Empiricus discusses such analogical perfects (M. 1.209–13S.E. M. 1.209–13), he attributes them to the Ἀλεξανδρεῖς. It is highly likely that he has in mind some scholarly source that used this item of evaluative terminology to qualify these analogical forms of the perfect (see Favi, forthcoming). This conclusion is further corroborated by the fact that an analogical perfect of this very type – that is, πέφρικαν (‘bristle’) in place of πεφρίκασι – occurs in Lycophron (252) and is discussed by ancient scholarship together with ἐσχάζοσαν among the features of the Euboean dialect of Chalcis that are found in Lycophron (see schol. vet. Lyc. 252 Leone, schol. (Tz.) Lyc. 252 and 253 Scheer).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Byzantine Greek offers substantial evidence for the use of the analogical ‑(ο)σαν in the imperfect and thematic aorist, though this statement requires some clarification. First, owing to the high frequency with which the analogical ending occurs in the Septuagint and, to a lesser extent, in the New Testament, numerous occurrences in Byzantine writers are Biblical quotations or reminiscences. Moreover, it is immediately clear that the analogical ending is also particularly common with ἤλθοσαν/‑ήλθοσαν in Byzantine writers, whereas the occurrences for all other verbs are comparatively few.

It is unsurprising that the analogical ending is scarcely attested in Byzantine prose writers who adopt a high-register form of the language. Nicetas Choniates was very fond of ἤλθοσαν/‑ήλθοσαν (see van Dieten 1975, 111), which also occurs, among other attestations, 1x in Constantinus VII’s De cerimoniis and 1x in Eustathius’ Sermones. This evidence is in keeping with the particular diffusion of this specific form. Anna Comnene also occasionally uses ἐφεύροσαν in the Alexiad (15.2.4; but this may have been influenced by the fact that εὕροσαν occurs 15x in the Septuagint, notably in particularly well-known passages from the Psalms and Song of Songs). Indeed, despite the reiteration of the ancient doctrines concerning the dialectal origin of analogical ‑(ο)σαν, Byzantine scholars continued to have reservations about the use of such forms. While this verdict is explicit in the case of Maximus Planudes (B.7), it may also be presupposed by the entry of the Lexicon Vindobonense (Lex.Vind. π 64Lex.Vind. π 64) which provides evidence to support the legitimacy of the analogical ending by quoting an occurrence in a letter written by the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregorius II Cyprius.

In Medieval and Early Modern Greek texts, ‑(ο)σαν is sometimes attested in poetry (Achilleis Byzantina, Digenis Akritis, Bellum Troianum, Belthandrus et Chrysantza) and more rarely in prose (the anonymous metaphrasis of Anna Comnene’s Alexiad from the 13th/14th century CE). However, the use of the analogical ending was progressively obscured by the increasing influence of the sigmatic aorist and the transformations that the verbal endings of past tenses underwent. As discussed above (see D.), the sigmatic aorist was so influential in the formation of past‑tense forms that many new alphathematic aorists developed in Post-classical Greek and the use of the alphathematic endings was extended to the imperfect of thematic verbs. During the Middle Ages, this process eventually culminated in the definition of ‘a common set of ‘past‑tense’ endings’ (thus Horrocks 2010, 144), which remain standard in Modern Greek. These endings, used in the aorist and in the imperfect, are a result of the merger of the endings proper to the sigmatic aorist, the thematic aorist, and the imperfect of thematic verbs, i.e. ‑(σ)α, ‑(σ)ες, ‑(σ)ε, ‑(σ)αμε(ν), ‑(σ)ατε, ‑(σ)αν (though in the 3rd person plural, the ending ‑ασι(ν), originally from the perfect, was also adopted and persists in some Modern Greek dialects; see Horrocks 2010, 143–4; 318–9; CGMEMG vol. 3, 1531–43; 1571–91; 1613–27).

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Eur. Hec. 573–5 (C.1)

The Medieval manuscripts mostly unanimously transmit the present tense πληροῦσιν, while MS O has δ’ ἐπληροῦσαν, like Choeroboscus (B.4), and MS Sa has δ’ ἐπλήρουν. The variant reading with the analogical imperfect ἐπληροῦσαν likely originated from an attempt to smoothen the switch in tense from ἔβαλλον to πληροῦσιν. The change from δὲ πληροῦσιν to δ’ ἐπληροῦσαν is minimal, and this variant reading may well have circulated in Euripidean manuscripts before it ultimately died out or was amended by readers who were aware that such an analogic imperfect is unattested in any classical writer.

(2)    Lyc. 20–2 (C.2)

Once we accept that ἐσχάζοσαν is not a dialectalism, as suggested by the ancient sources, but rather is an innovation of Hellenistic Greek, we may reasonably wonder how Lycophron came to admit it into the Alexandra. Hurst, Kolde (2008, 94) have offered an explanation for this, pointing out that the speaker in this part of the poem is the servant himself before he begins to report Cassandra’s words: hence, the use of the ‘vulgarism’ may be sociolinguistically loaded. While this is a fine observation, it is countered by the fact that another similar ‘vulgarism’ – that is, the 3rd-person plural analogical perfect active πέφρικαν in place of expected πεφρίκασι (which, incidentally, is another development of Hellenistic Greek which ancient scholars attributed to the Ἀλεξανδρεῖς, see D.) – occurs as part of Cassandra’s reported speech (Lyc. 252).

(3)    Posidipp. fr. 128.5–6 Austin–Bastianini (C.3)

While this instance of the analogical ending ‑(ο)σαν has been largely neglected by scholars working on the entry of the Antiatticist, it is worthy of closer attention on several grounds. First, this parallel demonstrates that the use of analogical ‑(ο)σαν was not an isolated whim on Lycophron’s part. It is possible that similar forms were originally more common in Hellenistic poetry than we are now ready to believe based on the available evidence. If this was the case, Lycophron’s choice makes it even more apparent that Aristophanes of Byzantium was intent on finding an instance of analogical ‑(ο)σαν in a writer for whom he could claim prestigious ancestry in Greece. A figure such as Lycophron would (allegedly) suit the case best (perhaps also for Chalcis’ reputation as the place in which the famous poetic competition contended by Homer and Hesiod took place). On the contrary, a poet such as Posidippus, who was from Pella and therefore from an ethnically suspicious area (irrespective of the fact that the Ptolemaic kingdom was effectively a filiation of the Macedonians), might have represented a far less suitable authority to which the use of the analogical ‑(ο)σαν could be traced.