Here’s my write-up:
D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique. Analyse dialectologique du langue homérique, avec une excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec (From Homer to the proto-Mycenaean origins of the epic tradition: analysis of the homeric language with an excurus on the creation of the Greek alphabet) is a paper delivered by C.J. Ruijgh in 1993 and published in Homeric Questions with footnotes.
The conclusion to the paper summarizes Ruijgh’s beliefs: In the proto-Mycenaen period (16th-15th centuries), the Greeks borrowed dactylic hexameter from the Minoan Cretans for oral heroic verse. In the historical Mycenaean period (14th-13th centuries) the art of dactylic versification was distributed to all of the centers of Mycenaean civilization, not just in the Peloponnesus where the proto-Achaeans lived, but also in the North, Boeotia, southern Thessaly, where the proto-Aeolians lived. After the Dorian Invasions, when Achaeans disappeared from their ancient centers, the epic tradition was maintained by the Aeolians in the North (12th-11th centuries). Aeolian colonists continued the tradition in Asia Minor (10th - 9th centuries). Where Ionians coexisted with Aeolians in Aeolian areas, Ionians learned the art of epic versification from Aeolian bards using it as much as possible in their own Eastern Ionian dialect. The Ionian bard we call Homer (9th century) created the Iliad, a monumental epic of exceptional quality. Because of his fame, he was invited by Euboean princes to give epic recitals in Euboea, the only prosperous region in the Greek world at that time. In that environment, the poet created the Odyssey. To some degree, Homer’s Ionian epic language acquired an Euboean varnish. Finally the epics were written down, receiving their final form. From then on, Homer’s dialect became the standard for dactylic poetry. (Ruijgh acknowledges that his conclusions are hypothetical.)
Ruijgh’s arguments are almost entirely linguistic. In the footnotes he cites many of his own writings, starting from his first book on the Achaean element in the epic language (1957).
Ruijgh accepts the date that Herodotus gives for Homer, the 9th century, over the 2nd half of the 8th century which he says is the common opinion today. He also concludes that the Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the Greeks around 1000 BCE instead of around 800.
The arguments for the earlier date for the alphabet are based on the evolution of the Greek language. In Linear B tablets, there are indications that the ‘h’ sound was still a strong laryngeal acting like any other consonant. In the epic dialect the ‘h’ sound has weakened to the point that it doesn’t prevent elision or epic correption. When the Greek alphabet was created, the creator chose the Phoenician letter ‘heth’ – emphatic ‘h’ – rather than ‘he’ – weak ‘h’. The weakness of the ‘h’ sound is already evident in the Pithecusa cup (whose owner was certainly an Eubean colonist) in the hexameter which begins “HIMEPOΣ HAIPEΣEI” (— UU — — — ), the initial ‘h’ of αἱρήσει does not lengthen the final syllable of ἵμερος. Ruijgh considers this a strong argument for why the alphabet must have been adopted much earlier.
Ruijgh also points out that the adoption of two letters which represent the ‘s’ sound in different epichoric alphabets (sin which became sigma and san) indicates that at the time the alphabet was adopted, the letters must have represented different sounds, san representing ‘ts’ as in the word *tsawos. Eventually the two letters came to represent the same ‘s’ sound.
Ruijgh also notes that an earlier date for the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet also better explains the wide diversity in epichoric alphabets in Greece. The earlier date, of course, allows a 9th century Homer to dictate his poems to scribes.
Regarding date of Homer, Ruijgh notes that Homer’s Ionian is clearly anterior to the Ionian of Semonides and Hipponax, the iambic poets. In Homer’s Ionian, many vowel contractions have already taken place, but not for the sequence ‘εη’. In the iambic poets you only find η < εη. In Homer the combination is almost never contracted. Ἕρμέης vs Ἕρμῆς, for example. In addition, the vowel combinations εω, εο, εα are generally disyllabic in Homer whereas synizesis is the rule with the iambic poets. Ruijgh notes that Homer uses ἡμέας in the 5th foot where a spondee is prohibited. For him, the distance between the Ionian of Homer and that of Archilochus must be longer than half a century.
The rest of Ruijgh’s paper present linguistic evidence for his beliefs about the development of the epic dialect. The arguments move backward in time. He suggests the Euboean period for the existence of aspirated forms in the poems. (Often these are attributed to the redaction by Pisistratus.) He notes that the poems of Hesiod and Mimnermus have the same distribution of aspirated and psilotic forms, suggesting that these were already part of the epic language when they composed their works.
The arguments for an Aeolic phase prior to Ionian depend a lot on dactylic verse being better suited to the Aeolic dialect than to Ionian. Ruijgh shows how Homer prefers Ionian, but keeps Aeolic when the Ionian form won’t work. Again the prohibition against a spondee in the fifth foot causes Homer to keep the Aeolic infinitive (-μεναι) rather than the Ionian.
It would be difficult to summarize Ruijgh’s arguments as he moves back in time showing how particular verses in Homer reflect ever earlier stages of the language. I was not able to figure out how to get the character which represents a syllabic ‘r’ (r with a little circle under it), and the proto-Greek starts to look like Proto-Indo-European as he goes along.