A History of the Greek Language: From Its Origins to the Present

A HISTORY OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE From Its Origins to the Present BY

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ ADRADOS

BRILL LEIDEN • B O S T O N 2005

This book was translatedfrom the Spanish by Francisca Rojas del Canto © Francisco Rodriguez Adrados, Historia de la lengua griega, Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1999.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Adrados, Francisco Rodriguez, 1922A history of the Greek language : from its origins to the present / by Francisco Rodriguez Adrados. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index. ISBN 90-04-12835-2 (acid-free paper) 1. Greek language—History. 2. Greek language. Modern—History. 3. Greek language, Medieval and late^History. I. Title. PA227.A37 2005 480'.9^dc22 2005047104

ISBN 90 04 12835 2

© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijhe Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Mjhqff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriatefees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change

PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

For Juan Rodriguez Somolinos for his help with this book and so many other things

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE A History o f G r e e k

xiii

Fragmentations and Unifications

xiv

Is a History o f G r e e k Possible? T h e Present B o o k

xvi xviii

PART ONE FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O ATTIC I. F R O M I N D O - E U R O P E A N T O G R E E K

3

1. F r o m the steppes o f Asia to G r e e c e

3

T h e Indo-Europeans and G r e e k

3

Diverse theories

5

2. F r o m I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture and l e x i c o n to Greek l e x i c o n

8

3. Greek within the I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialects

10

T h e Different Indo-Europeans

10

I n d o - E u r o p e a n I I I A and G r e e k

12

II. G R E E K A T T H E D O O R S O F G R E E C E

16

1. M o r e specifications o n G r e e k

16

2. C o m m o n G r e e k ( C G )

17

3. Essential characteristics

o f c o m m o n Greek

19

III. F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E D I A L E C T S OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

22

1. Variants within c o m m o n G r e e k

22

2. F r o m the arrival o f the first G r e e k dialects (East Greek, E G ) to the arrival o f the D o r i c dialects (West Greek, W G ) T h e diffusion o f the Greek dialects

25 25

G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium

29

T h e arrival o f the D o r i a n s

32

3. G r e e k and the n o n - G r e e k languages in the s e c o n d millennium Pre-Greek elements a d o p t e d b y G r e e k

34 37

CONTENTS

Vlll

IV. G R E E K IN T H E S E C O N D M I L L E N N I U M

42

1. East G r e e k

42

2. M y c e n a e a n as a G r e e k dialect o f the s e c o n d millennium

45

W h a t kind o f language is M y c e n a e a n ?

45

Linguistic characteristics

48

3. A c h a e a n epic as a G r e e k language o f the s e c o n d millennium

V.

50

Diverse theories o n the H o m e r i c language

50

O u r v i e w o f the H o m e r i c language

52

4. P a r a - M y c e n a e a n in the s e c o n d millennium

56

G R E E K IN T H E F I R S T M I L L E N N I U M : DIALECTAL PANORAMA

59

1. T h e expansion o f the G r e e k dialects

59

T h e first expansion

59

Colonization

61

2. T h e diffusion o f G r e e k

64

T h e alphabet a n d its diffusion

64

Inscriptions, literature and hellenisation

67

3. T h e creation o f the great dialects

72

Generalities

72

Ionic-Attic

75

A r c a d o - C y p r i a n a n d Pamphylian

77

Aeolic T h e D o r i c dialects

w

78 81

4. T h e unifying isoglosses

82

5. S e c o n d a r y differences

84

VI. T H E G E N E R A L L I T E R A R Y LANGUAGES: EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

87

1. T h e literary languages as general languages

87

2. T*he first general language: epic language in o u r Homer Innovations in epic language

89 89

Formulaic diction a n d the renovation o f epic language M o r e o n the epic language o f the eighth century

91 95

3. T h e diffusion o f the first general language: the language o f hexametric poetry after H o m e r

97

General o v e r v i e w

97

T h e different genres

99

CONTENTS

ix

4. T h e s e c o n d general language: the language o f elegy a n d epigram

102

Elegy

102

Epigram

105

5. T h e third general language: the language o f choral lyric

106

G e n e r a l ideas

106

Analysis o f the fundamental

elements o f the

language o f choral lyric

Ill

T h e evolution a n d variants o f choral lyric language

114

VII. T H E SPECIFIC L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S : LESBIAN, B O E O T I A N A N D S Y R A C U S A N

118

1. General o v e r v i e w

118

2. T h e Lesbian language o f m o n o d i c poetry

119

3. Corinna's B o e o t i a n

121

4. T h e D o r i c o f Syracuse

122

VIII. T H E L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S O F T H E ARCHAIC A N D CLASSICAL PERIODS: IONIC A N D ATTIC

126

1. I o n i c in the i a m b o g r a p h e r s a n d in general p o e t r y 2. I o n i c prose

....

126 129

Generalities a n d beginnings

129

Herodotus

135

T h e ancient Hippocratics 3. T h e transformation

140

o f the Attic dialect into a

literary language

142

Attic as an oral dialect

142

Sources

144

Characteristics

145

T h e oldest Attic prose

149

M a t u r e Attic prose

154

Variants within Attic prose

157

4. T h e creation o f the scientific language

161

T h e Presocratics

161

T h e Hippocratics

166

Attic literature

168

E x a m p l e o f a lexical system

170

Conclusion

171

CONTENTS

X

PART T W O FROM KOINE T O THE

I. K O I N E A N D I T S R E L A T I O N T O

PRESENT

OTHER

LANGUAGES

175

1. Origin, definition and levels

175

2. T h e diffusion o f koine

180

T h e difnision

180

T h e 'koinisation' o f the dialects

183

3. C o l l o q u i a l koine and its variants

184

Colloquial 'koine'

184

T h e influence o f other languages

185

Variants o f colloquial 'koine'

189

4. C o l l o q u i a l koine: general description

192

5. Literary koine and its stages

196

T h e first stage

196

Atticism

198

6. T h e evolution o f the intellectual and scientific l e x i c o n

203

Sources

203

Description

204

7. G r e e k and Latin in the R e p u b l i c and the Empire

207

T h e contact o f G r e e k with other languages

207

G r e e k in R o m e

209

8. Hellenised Latin and Greek-Latin

.Tr* 213

9. G r e e k and other languages o f antiquity

220

T h e languages revolving a r o u n d G r e e k

220

G e r m a n i c , Slavic and A r a b i c

223

II. B Y Z A N T I N E G R E E K A N D I T S I N F L U E N C E

ON

OTHER LANGUAGES

226

1. Historical context o f G r e e k in Byzantium

226

Historical data

226

Popular a n d higher literature until 1453

229

Literature f r o m 1453

235

2. Description o f Byzantine p o p u l a r Greek Phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y (until the century) Examples o f p o p u l a r texts

237 eleventh 237 240

CONTENTS

xi

Phonetics a n d m o r p h o l o g y (from the twelfth to the fifteenth century) Examples o f p o p u l a r texts

242 245

3. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Byzantine l e x i c o n

247

4. B o r r o w i n g s in Bfzantine G r e e k

250

Latin b o r r o w i n g s

250

Borrowings from G o t h i c and eastern languages

252

Borrowings from western languages

254

5. G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in other languages

255

General ideas

255

Borrowings in western languages

257

Borrowings in Slavic

264

Borrowings in A r a b i c

267

III. G R E E K I N T H E E U R O P E A N L A N G U A G E S

269

1. T h e penetration o f Greek-Latin in the E u r o p e a n languages

269

Generalities

269

Hellenisms in the high M i d d l e A g e s

270

Hellenisms in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries In Castilian

272 272

In French

275

In Italian

276

In English

278

Hellenisms in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

278

In Castilian

278

In other languages

280

Hellenisms in the nineteenth a n d twentieth centuries

281

2. Description o f the place and function o f Greek-Latin in present day E u r o p e a n languages

284

Origins and characteristics o f this lexicon

284

I m p o r t a n c e for the Spanish l e x i c o n

287

A n international character

289

IV. M O D E R N G R E E K

291

1. T h e history o f M o d e r n G r e e k ( M G )

291

2. Description o f M o d e r n G r e e k

297

3. Borrowings and culture w o r d s in the M o d e r n G r e e k lexicon

301

xii

CONTENTS

4. T h e M o d e r n G r e e k dialects

304

General considerations

304

Characteristics o f the principal dialects

307

Dialects a n d M G

309

CONCLUSION

312

ABBREVIATIONS

317

BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

INDEX

343

PROLOGUE

A

H I S T O R Y OF G R E E K

G r e e k and Chinese are the only languages still k n o w n to us

after

three thousand five h u n d r e d years that are still spoken today. T h e y are n o t the only languages o f culture that have b e e n spoken

and

written for m a n y centuries - s o m e o f w h i c h are still in use today, others dead, such as Sumerian, Egyptian, H e b r e w o r A r a b i c -

but

they d o have a longer history and have had a greater influence. T h e r e is n o d o u b t that, if j u d g e d b y the influence it has had o n all o f the E u r o p e a n languages, and continues to have t o d a y o n all lan­ guages, G r e e k can b e regarded as the most important language in the w o r l d . T h e direct o r indirect influence o f its alphabet,

lexicon,

syntax and literature has b e e n and is i m m e n s e . T h i s must b e taken into a c c o u n t w h e n embarking o n a n e w his­ tory o f the G r e e k language, after those o f Meillet, H o f f m a n , Palmer, Hiersche and H o r r o c k s and Christidis (ed.), a m o n g others, and

a

c o p i o u s bibliography. G r e e k arrived in G r e e c e and other parts in the second and first millennia before Christ and spread with Alexander's conquests, although its expansion was s o o n c u r b e d b y the resurgence o f c o n q u e r e d p e o p l e s and, m u c h later, b y invaders such as the Slavs, A r a b s and Turks. Earlier, w h e n the R o m a n s h a d c o n q u e r e d the East, G r e e k c o n ­ tinued to b e spoken there. I n d e e d , f r o m the s e c o n d century BC it had a great influence o n Latin and consequently, directly o r through Latin, o n practically every other language. T h i s was a l o n g process, as a result o f w h i c h t o d a y m a n y o f o u r languages c a n b e seen as a kind o f semi-Greek o r c r y p t o - G r e e k (as I have n o t e d o n other occasions). T o d a y , G r e e k is a living language in G r e e c e , but it also has a s e c o n d life: its alphabet, lexicon, syntax a n d literary genres c a n b e traced in all languages. In a sense, it is through these n e w forms, o r avatars, as the Indians w o u l d say, that G r e e k has survived. A n e w history o f G r e e k must take these matters into account. In­ deed, in dealing with Greek in Ancient G r e e c e and Hellenistic G r e e c e , it must highlight the literary, cultural and social factors w h i c h have c o n d i t i o n e d the G r e e k language and in turn are expressed b y it.

xiv

PROLOGUE

In its ancient phase, w e k n o w G r e e k b y two means: through epig­ raphy (from the p e r i o d o f M y c e n a e onwards) and through scripts. T h u s , w e are able to study the fragmentation

manu­

o f its dialects

and the unifying features that penetrated them until they were finally a b s o r b e d b y o n e o f these dialects, Attic. W e c a n also study

the

different languages used in G r e e k literature; the specific languages used for the different G r e e k literary genres. I will elaborate. First and foremost, w e must place G r e e k within I n d o - E u r o p e a n : in a specific phase and dialect, and with

certain

starting points. In this b o o k I will d e v e l o p the ideas that I have expressed elsewhere: G r e e k as descending from the final phase o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n expansion in E u r o p e , w h i c h introduced a polythematic Indo-European - the Indo-European traditionally reconstructed. W i t h i n this polythematic I n d o - E u r o p e a n , G r e e k descends from the southern g r o u p , w h i c h h a d still not r e d u c e d the verbal stems to t w o , and within this still, from the g r o u p that preserved gutturals and a system o f five cases. It is at this stage that G r e e k b e g a n to d e v e l o p multiple innovations. It is important to make a detailed study o f what w e c a n assume to have been C o m m o n Greek, its fundamental characteristics, from which it c o u l d transform, m u c h later, into the great language o f culture.

FRAGMENTATIONS AND UNIFICATIONS

T h i s is the starting p o i n t o f the history o f the fragmentation o f Greek into dialects (perhaps already in progress in C o m m o n Greek), and o f the successive attempts at unification w h i c h culminated in

the

imposition o f Attic, and its derivative koine, as the c o m m o n language o f all the Greeks -

a language w h i c h , with s o m e differences, has

survived to this d a y and has influenced all languages. T h e t w o main dialects o f G r e e k are the eastern dialect, w h i c h penetrated G r e e c e a r o u n d the year 2 0 0 0 BC, and the western dialect (Doric), w h i c h penetrated a r o u n d the year fragmentation,

1200. T h i s is the

first

o c c u r r i n g outside o f G r e e c e and i n t r o d u c e d there

later. But there was a political division at the time (between the M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s and the later cities) and a dialectal fragmen­ tation within the t w o m a i n groups, w h i c h crystallised in the

first

millennium but w h i c h was perhaps already in progress in the sec­ o n d millennium.

PROLOGUE

H o w e v e r , this g r o w i n g fragmentation

XV

was a c c o m p a n i e d b y

the

expansion o f certain important c o m m o n isoglosses a r o u n d the year 1000. Indeed, there was tendency towards linguistic unity. Actually, c o m m o n languages had already b e e n created in the s e c o n d millen­ n i u m , linguas francas w h i c h had a specific g e o g r a p h i c origin but w h i c h later spread throughout G r e e c e : M y c e n a e a n , an administra­ tive language, and what I refer to as epic A c h a e a n , the language o f the epic, w h i c h e v o l v e d , and, in H o m e r in the eighth century B C , a b s o r b e d later dialectal elements. T h u s , there were unifying elements a n d the dialectal d o n o t s e e m to have b e e n very marked.

differences

But w h e n the

Dorians

arrived they d r o v e wedges between the dialects, isolating the East G r e e k o f the P e l o p o n n e s e from that o f central G r e e c e ; at the same time, certain dialects o f East G r e e k e m e r g e d . F r o m this base, differ­ ences b e c a m e accentuated: eastern dialects w e r e created w h i c h were then exported, o r h a d already b e e n e x p o r t e d , overseas; that is, IonicAttic, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n , and A e o l i c T h e s e dialects were infinitely sub­ divided during the fragmentation o f political p o w e r a m o n g the Greek cities. T h e r e was also W e s t Greek, D o r i c , w h i c h in turn was also fragmented. H o w e v e r , the unifying tendencies c o n t i n u e d to g r o w . A s already mentioned, from about the year 1000 certain isoglosses almost entirely invaded b o t h groups o f dialects, eastern as well as western. A l t h o u g h the M y c e n a e a n dialect h a d already disappeared, the lingua

franca

o r c o m m o n language o f the epic, the H o m e r i c language, continued tonexist everywhere in an e v o l v e d f o r m . N e w lingua francas, o r c o m ­ m o n languages o f poetry, were also created: in particular, that o f elegy (from the seventh century BC) and choral lyric (from the e n d o f the sixth century BC). O f course, these languages h a d a specific g e o g r a p h i c origin, but s o o n they b e c a m e k n o w n and cultivated in m a n y parts. T h e i r I o n i c element p r o v i d e d the base for the later diffusion o f I o n i c prose, a n d the latter for that o f Attic prose. In this w a y , literature was essential to the unification o f Greek. Prose followed poetry, as I observed earlier: first I o n i c prose b e c a m e internationally fifth

k n o w n , then Attic prose, all towards the end o f the

century. A l t h o u g h Athens was unable to i m p o s e its political

h e g e m o n y , having lost the war against Sparta, it d i d m a n a g e i m p o s e its linguistic h e g e m o n y : Attic b e g a n to infiltrate and

to

substi­

tute all the dialects, transforming them into koine o r C o m m o n Greek. It a b s o r b e d the I o n i c intellectual vocabulary, d e v e l o p e d a n e w o n e ,

xvi

PROLOGUE

and the koine continued in this same path. T h e r e was again a ' C o m m o n 5

G r e e k , the base for all subsequent languages o f culture. C u r i o u s l y , the p o w e r w h i c h i m p o s e d its p o l i t i c a l h e g e m o n y , M a c e d o n i a , p l a y e d a decisive role in the diffusion o f A t t i c T h e polit­ ical unity did n o t last, but w h e n it died out, the linguistic unity c o n ­ tinued. T h i s is essentially the history, albeit in a very abbreviated form. Y e t the

history d o e s n o t quite e n d there.

T h e n e w split was

different: that o f educated, literary o r traditional G r e e k as o p p o s e d to p o p u l a r o r spoken G r e e k . It is k n o w n to us from the Hellenistic, R o m a n a n d Byzantine periods. B o t h strains continue to this d a y and are referred to respectively as the 'pure the ' p o p u l a r '

5

(icaBape'OO'oaa) language and

(SripmiKri) language. A t s o m e p o i n t (from a r o u n d the

e n d o f the M i d d l e A g e s perhaps, it is n o t k n o w n exactly), the ' p o p ­ ular' language b e g a n to split into dialects. A n e w a n d final unification o c c u r r e d , based o n the p o p u l a r language spoken in Athens, G r e e k i n d e p e n d e n c e . T h i s saw the e m e r g e n c e o f a n e w

after

KOIVT|.

T h e r e are m a n y varieties o f the G r e e k language, a n d the

study

o f their history is fascinating: from their I n d o - E u r o p e a n origins to Common

Greek, and, subsequently, to the small regional dialects

a n d the literary a n d scientific languages. S o m e t i m e s these languages n e e d to b e reconstructed, other times they c a n b e studied in a m o r e o r less c o m p l e t e f o r m . In any case, the task o f interpreting their ori­ gins is n o t always easy. I n d e e d , at a particular p o i n t in time, all o f these Greek languages shared c o m m o n features, such as the Homerisms a n d Ionicisms o f the literary languages, and, later, the elements from Attic a n d the scientific a n d intellectual languages as a w h o l e .

Is

A H I S T O R Y OF G R E E K POSSIBLE?

T h e history o f the splits a n d unifications in the G r e e k language is a rather curious o n e . It is a story o f the expansion o f the

territory

in w h i c h G r e e k was spoken, a n d then its reduction, o f political defeats a n d linguistic triumphs. T o d a y , G r e e k forms the basis o f a practi­ cally international language o f culture. T h e r e are m a n y conflicting theories regarding the I n d o - E u r o p e a n origins o f Greek, C o m m o n G r e e k a n d its dialectal fragmentation, as well as M y c e n a e a n a n d the H o m e r i c language. T h e s e topics c a n n o t b e i g n o r e d , yet the m a i n emphasis in this study will b e p l a c e d o n

xvii

PROLOGUE

the literary languages, the socio-linguistic levels and the influence o f G r e e k o n other languages. I will then attempt to describe the eventful j o u r n e y o f the G r e e k language through the ages: its influence o n so m a n y other languages, its role as the language p f the Eastern R o m a n empire and later the Byzantine empire (as the language o f the C h u r c h and State),

and

finally as the language o f the newly i n d e p e n d e n t G r e e c e . T h e influence and very existence o f the Greek, within and with­ o u t G r e e c e , is fundamentally

d u e to the cultural role that it has

played. I c a n n o t emphasise this e n o u g h . O t h e r languages m a y have also served as vehicles o f culture

(some o f w h i c h I have

already

cited), but G r e e k was the language that m o s t transcended its o w n limits, along with the w h o l e culture associated with it. Its a c c e p t a n c e at the court o f M a c e d o n i a was o f great cultural significance. It w o u l d later b e c o m e the s e c o n d language o f educated R o m a n s , and it was used b y K i n g A s h o k a o f India, the khans o f Bulgaria a n d the kings o f M e r o e in Ethiopia. T o b e sure, Berosus, M a n e t h o , Josephus

and

Fabius Pictor, a m o n g others, preferred to write in G r e e k rather than in their o w n languages. G r e e k was often translated into other languages a n d vice versa. Its presence c a n b e traced in the evolution o f these languages, their literatures and cultures. I n d e e d , almost f r o m the start, its

alphabet

enabled m a n y agraphic languages to b e written for the very first time, and it was later adapted to write even m o r e languages, f r o m Latin to the Slavic languages. •There is also the important t h e m e o f the unity o f Greek, from its beginnings to the present day. G r e e k has n o d o u b t evolved, but if w e c o m p a r e the different 'Greeks', f r o m M y c e n a e a n and H o m e r i c to the ' c o m m o n ' G r e e k o f today, there are n o t so m a n y differences after all. T h e vocalic system has b e e n simplified (quantities,

diph­

thongs and musical accents are g o n e ) , the consonantal system has evolved slightly, and m o r p h o l o g y has b e e n reduced: there has b e e n a loss o f the dual, dative, optative and infinitive, a fossilisation o f the participle, a reduction o f verbal inflection to t w o stems, the devel­ o p m e n t o f periphrastic forms, and s o m e formal variations. But the fundamental

categories and the essence o f the l e x i c o n remain

the

same. It is possible to write a history o f G r e e k from its beginnings to the present, whereas it w o u l d n o t b e possible, for instance, to write a history dealing with Latin and Spanish. In the history o f Latin

xviii

PROLOGUE

there is a strong differentiation with respect to c h r o n o l o g y and g e o g ­ raphy, while in Greek, a fundamental

unity has prevailed in b o t h

o f these aspects. T h i s was because o f the supremacy o f the educated language, defended b y ancient tradition and b y the C h u r c h and State o f Byzantium, while in the W e s t it was Latin that prevailed, and later b e c a m e fragmented. T h i s is the history that I will attempt to recount: an internal his­ tory o f G r e e k a n d an external history regarding its relation to other languages. It is a very c o m p l e x history, across so m a n y centuries and so m a n y 'Greeks'. I will e x p o u n d m y arguments in what I h o p e will b e a coherent a n d accessible narrative, based, o f course, o n m y o w n ideas, s o m e o f w h i c h I have presented in other publications. But this expository phase will occasionally b e c o m p l e m e n t e d with

erudite

notes in small print, p r o v i d i n g information regarding the matter in question and the hypotheses put forward against it, as well as a bibliography. It is n o t easy to write a history o f Greek. T o begin with, the ear­ liest written

r e c o r d s are nearly always d o c u m e n t a r y texts in

the

different dialects, ranging from M y c e n a e a n o f the thirteenth century BC to the various other dialects dating f r o m the eighth and seventh centuries B C . S o m e t i m e s they are also literary texts, w h i c h have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us in Hellenistic and R o m a n papyri as well as in Byzantine manuscripts, a n d w h o s e language o r languages are in a p r o b l e m a t i c relation to the epigraphic dialects. T h e s e texts evolve and r e s p o n d to various socio-linguistic levels: the l o w e r levels-being badly d o c u m e n t e d . H o w d o e s o n e g o a b o u t filling in the gaps and c o n n e c t i n g all o f this with an I n d o - E u r o p e a n origin and the later tradition? I believe that the main lines can b e traced.

THE

PRESENT

BOOK

T h e justification for writing this b o o k is clear from the a b o v e dis­ cussion: to trace the history o f the totality o f the G r e e k language and its influence o n other languages. T h e histories o f Greek, already m e n t i o n e d , w h i c h w e have today stop at Hellenistic and

Roman

koine, if not earlier. I n d e e d , H o r r o c k ' s n e w history deals with archaic and classical G r e e k in a very summary w a y and only goes into depth in the phase f r o m koine to the present. A n c i e n t G r e e k is treated as if it was a m e r e p r e c e d e n t , and this is reflected in the b o o k ' s c o v e r

PROLOGUE

XIX

illustration o f a Pantocrator. All o f these works fail to discuss

the

influence o f G r e e k o n o u r languages. M y aim is to write a b a l a n c e d history o f the G r e e k

language,

leaning neither towards ancient n o r medieval o r M o d e r n Greek. Also, I will explore the subject o f the diffusion and influence o f Greek, and its survival in other

languages.

It is important to point out that o n e o f the main purposes o f this b o o k is to stress the crucial role played b y the literary languages in the t w o unification processes, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to ancient and M o d e r n Greek. T i m e and again, these languages have triumphed o v e r cen­ trifugal tendencies, transforming

G r e e k into the m o d e l for all

the

languages o f culture. This b o o k is divided into t w o parts. T h e first part will study the trajectory

from Indo-European

and C o m m o n G r e e k to Attic,

the

n e w language that b e c a m e the c o m m o n language. T h e s e c o n d part will study the origin and history o f this koine o r c o m m o n language derived from Attic, and the history o f its variants from the Hellenistic p e r i o d until the present day, through the R o m a n and

Byzantine

periods. H o w e v e r , at times there will b e a special focus o n the

creation

and diffusion o f scientific Greek, w h i c h has penetrated all languages, whether directly o r through intermediate languages. S o m e n e w bibliography, collected and c o m m e n t e d b y this author, will b e f o u n d in m y paper History of the Greek Language included in M a d r i d , C . S . I . C . (forthcoming).

1983—2004,

PART ONE

FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O ATTIC

CHAPTER ONE FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK

1.

F R O M T H E STEPPES O F A S I A T O G R E E C E

The Indo-Europeans and Greek 1. Greek, a rich a n d flexible language w h i c h has served as the m o d e l for all subsequent languages, is only o n e o f the descendants o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n language, o r rather, the c o m p l e x o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages that w e r e b r o u g h t into E u r o p e b y n o m a d i c hordes, from the fifth millennium BC onwards. T h e s e hordes c a m e from the plains that extend f r o m the Urals to the T i e n Shan mountains, w h i c h close the passage to X i n j i a n g a n d the M o n g o l i a n interior (today part o f China). O t h e r I n d o - E u r o p e a n hordes, m o v i n g south, settled o n the b o r d e r o f the Caucasus up to Anatolia, while others later continued towards Iran and India (or else arrived in Iran directly). S o m e went East, to the other side o f the T i e n Shan mountains and the T a r i m Basin, in what is t o d a y Xinjiang, w h e r e the T o c h a r i a n language was later b o r n . 2. Although there is disagreement o n the dates, it is clear that towards 3 5 0 0 B C , these peoples, w h o were already in E u r o p e , destroyed the s o ^ a l l e d ancient E u r o p e a n lithic representations

culture, as attested in the Balkans b y

o f phallic g o d s and animals, c o p p e r utensils,

villages and pre-writing. T r a c e s o f the Indo-Europeans can b e found in the kurgans or tumu­ lus burials, w h i c h contain skeletons p l a c e d o n a b e d o f o c h r e beside sacrificed horses, a n d in their fortified settlements

(for e x a m p l e ,

V u c e d o l in the N o r t h o f Yugoslavia, dating towards 3 0 0 0 BC), a m o n g others. F r o m the fourth millennium they h a d a b r o n z e culture

and

horse-pulled chariots, w h i c h served as vehicles o f transport and war. (For m o r e details, see §§ 14 ff.) It w o u l d seem that the I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialect from w h i c h Greek, a m o n g other languages, e m e r g e d (the language w e refer to as I n d o E u r o p e a n III) was spoken to the north o f the Black Sea and to the south o f the Carpathian mountains a r o u n d the year 3 0 0 0 B C . T h e y

4

C H A P T E R ONE

d o n o t represent the oldest I n d o - E u r o p e a n s . T h e y were a g r o u p o f peoples w h i c h a r o u n d that time had a b s o r b e d the future T h r a c o Phrygian and A r m e n i a n peoples, and penetrated the South (no d o u b t along the shore o f the Caspian Sea through the G o r g a n plain), giv­ ing rise to Indo-Iranian ~ as attested in Babylonia, Anatolia (Mitanni) a n d in Palestine a n d Syria towards the m i d - s e c o n d millennium

-

like the Greeks did in G r e e c e . T h e expansion towards E u r o p e from the Balkans was m o r e recent. 3. W i t h i n this w h o l e g r o u p o f languages, G r e e k and

Indo-Iranian

are very similar, but they also share c o m m o n features with T o c h a r i a n and the E u r o p e a n languages. But far m o r e archaic I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages are k n o w n in Anatolia, w h i c h were certainly separated at s o m e earlier date: the so-called C a p p a d o c i a n tablets from Ktiltepe and other places, the oldest dating towards 2 0 0 0 B C , attest to the existence o f these other languages, w h i c h w o u l d later b e c o m e k n o w n as Hittite, Luwian, etc., from the end o f the third millennium onwards. This is I n d o - E u r o p e a n II, prior to I n d o - E u r o p e a n III, from w h i c h the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages o f E u r o p e , Iran a n d India, as well as T o c h a r i a n , are d e s c e n d e d . 4. T h u s , within g r o u p III, E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e s such as Slavic, G e r m a n i c , Latin a n d Celtic b e l o n g to the g r o u p called I E IIIB: they are m o r e recent than Greek, T h r a c o - P h r y g i a n , A r m e n i a n a n d I n d o Iranian, w h i c h c o m e from I E IIIA. Its c o m m o n languages can b e dated, at the earliest, towards 1000 B C , w h i c h does n o t necessarily m e a n that there w e r e n o I n d o - E u r o p e a n s before that date, from pre­ vious waves o f migration — concretely, those w h o left their trace o n the E u r o p e a n h y d r o n y m y studied b y H . K r a h e a n d others (which is n o t very old, as there are already signs o f a mastery o f the mascu­ line a n d feminine opposition), and perhaps the Telasgians', o f w h i c h traces are trying to b e f o u n d in the pre-Hellenic t o p o n y m y o f G r e e c e and in b o r r o w i n g s in G r e e k . 5. M o s t scholars agree that G r e e k entered G r e e c e from the N o r t h a r o u n d 2 0 0 0 ; it is thought that o n e o f its dialects, D o r i c , penetrated m u c h later, a r o u n d 1200. Actually, it is an indisputable fact that the invasion was from N o r t h to South in Iran, India, Anatolia, G r e e c e , Italy a n d Spain. In addition to this, everything seems to indicate that E u r o p e underwent invasions from east to west, and Asia from west to east (by the T o c h a r i a n s ) .

FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK

5

N o t e that, in the historic p e r i o d , I n d o - E u r o p e a n invasions c o n ­ tinued from Central Asia to the South: Kassites (in Babylonia, fifteenth century BC), C y m m e r i a n s (Asia M i n o r , seventh century BC), Kushans (India, first century BC), Parthians (Iran, s e c o n d century A D ) , and to the west (Scythians). Also^, in Europe, the m o v e m e n t o f Indo-European peoples (Slavic, G e r m a n i c and Celtic) to the west and south o c c u r r e d in the midst o f the historic p e r i o d . T h u s , there is every indication that the I n d o - E u r o p e a n s left from the plains o f Central Asia. T h e linguistic, archaeological and his­ torical evidence c o i n c i d e . T h e same thing applies to other invasions o f Asian n o m a d s , from the H u n s to the Turks, M o n g o l s , and others. 6, T o d a y w e tend to a c c e p t the hypothesis that postulates the plains to the east o f the Ural mountains, as o p p o s e d to the plains to the north o f the Black Sea, as the p o i n t o f departure. T h e north o f the Black Sea, w h e r e there are so m a n y traces o f Indo-Europeans, was merely an intermediate

stage o r t e m p o r a r y settlement. T h e h o r d e

that w o u l d introduce the Greeks, T h r a c o - P h r y g i a n s and Armenians into E u r o p e c a m e from this area, o n c e it h a d separated from

the

g r o u p carrying Indo-Iranian to the east and later to the south. (See also § 25.) Diverse theories 7. For a more elaborate discussion, with a bibliography, see M . Gimbutas's thesis on the successive Indo-European invasions, starting from Central Asia and crossing along the north of the Black Sea, in F. R . Adrados 1979a and 1998a. These papers also contain a linguistic argumentation on the migration wave that arrived in Greece around the year 2000 BC. Other works by M . Gimbutas, such as those o f 1974 and 1989, describe the cul­ ture of the 'old Europe', known through discoveries such as those of Gucuteni, Starcevo and Vinca, among others: a neolithic, agrarian civilisation, with skills in ceramics as well as copper. See also F. Villar 1996a, p. 73 ff. on this culture and the Indo-European occupation. Further on in this book, linguistic arguments in support of this view o f the Indo-European invasions will be presented. O f course, the culture o f the 'old Europe' o f the Balkans is closely related to the neolithic cultures of Greece (Dirnini, Sesklo, Lerna), Cyprus (Khirokitia), the Aegean islands, Crete (the base o f Minoan civilisation) and Asia Minor (Qatal Huyiik). All o f these cultures, in the Balkans and in Greece, had a strong influence on Greek culture: for instance, in the decorative arts and its representations o f divinities, from phallic to animal (the bull in particu­ lar), including the naked goddess o f fertility. They also influenced the Greek lexicon, which contains many non-Indo-European elements (or, in any event,

6

C H A P T E R ONE

a pre-Greek Indo-European known as 'Pelasgian', although some think it is Luwian or Carian). 8. O n the history o f the problem of Indo-European expansion (the hypoth­ esis that the Indo-Europeans left from Germania, Lithuania, Scandinavia, the Central European Danube region, the Balkans, Ukraine, etc.) and its arguments, cf. F. Villar 1996a, p. 28 ff. Here, it can be seen how the old arguments in favour o f a Nordic origin for the Indo-Europeans, based on the names for 'salmon* and 'birch-tree', etc., have been discarded today. In addition, a localisation o f the Indo-European homeland to the north o f the Black Sea is accepted (together with the Danubian) by P. Bosch-Gimpera 1960 and (as a stopover) by T h . V . Gamkrelidze~V. V . Ivanov 1995. Actually, the Balkans is considered a second stopover. 9. See Villar 1996a, p . 56 ff. for a critique o f the hypothesis of the British archaeologist C, Renfrew (1997, Spanish translation 1990), according to which the Indo-Europeanisation of Europe represents, quite simply, its neolithisation (without the need of an invasion) by a group that discovered agri­ culture in Anatolia in the seventh millennium; see a parallel criticism by J.J. Moralejo 1990, p . 274 ff., and another by J. de H o z 1992. Renfrew's hypothesis ignores all linguistic data and adheres to the trend that rejects the fact of the migration of peoples (contrary to all historical evidence). That there can be cultural diffusion without migrations does not exclude that there are migrations, for which there is almost infinite evidence. In opposition to this trend (also supported by, among others, C. Watkins and A. Giacalone-P. Ramat, eds., 1995, p. 64 ff.), cf. Adrados 1979a, p. 34 ff., Moralejo 1990, p . 272 ff., 284 ff., D e H o z 1992 and Adrados 1998b. Fur­ thermore, the identification o f agriculture with an Indo-European influence is purely a priori arbitrariness. 10. Another recent hypothesis, repeatedly sustained by Th. V . GamkrelidzeV . V . Ivanov (in his book of 1995), localises the area in which the IndoEuropeans originated in the Halaf culture o f upper Mesopotamia, between the fourth and fifth millennia BC. However, the argument o f cultural bor­ rowings (the war and horse chariots, metallurgy) and lexical borrowings (Semitic and Kartvelian, if true) does not require such a localisation, these things could have come to them from the north o f the Caucasus; the same can be said o f possible common features (lexical, again) between Greek and Iranian, Greek and Tocharian. Also, the specific linguistic (morphological) arguments are hardly taken into account. T o be sure, the fact that IE contains borrowings from northern Caucasian as well as from Uralic, attests to the localisation o f the Indo-Europeans at a certain point in the Volga region; cf. H . Haarmann 1996 (who proposes the fifth millennium BC). Furthermore, Th. V . Gamkrelidze-V. V . Ivanov accept an early sepa­ ration o f an Anatolian branch o f IE, as I do (cf. pp. 346 and 761). But their ideas regarding the migration o f the Greeks (without the Dorians who, according to them, had gone through the continent) from Anatolia to

FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK

7

Greece - a hypothesis held earlier by V . Pisani 1938 (cf. Adrados 1974, p. 48) - cannot be sustained. The existence of C o m m o n Greek and its relation to Indo-Iranian languages rests upon the existence of a continuum running from Turkestan to the north o f the Black Sea and further to the west. O n the other hand, there is data available on the incursions and set­ tlements of the Mycenaean Greeks in Asia during the second millennium (the Trojan War occurs in this context), but not regarding movements in Asia or Europe. O n Mycenaean expansion, cf. M . Fernandez-Galiano 1984, p. 231 ff; on the Trojan War seen from this perspective, Adrados 1992c. M . Sakellariou 1980, p. 67 ff. coincides with our thesis on the existence of an Indo-Greek, which, according to him, would have originated in the lower Volga region, breaking off later. 11. As Villar clearly demonstrates, the three homelands that are today pro­ posed for the Indo-Europeans are not so distant: they are located around the Caucasus, on either side of it. Both the linguistic and archaeological arguments favour the first hypothesis. In any case, it seems certain that the invasion that brought the Greeks into Greece came from the North, towards the year 2000 BC (see the bibliography in § 44). The most recent discrep­ ancy appears to come from R . Drews 1989, for whom the tombs o f the inner circle o f Mycenae, towards 1600, would correspond to the first Greeks; cf. against this view, J. J. Moralejo 1990, p. 281 ff. For other, former pro­ posals of a recent dating of the arrival o f the Greeks, and its refutation, see M . Sakellariou 1980, p. 32 ff. Although there are no actual linguistic arguments that are absolutely valid for choosing 2000 or 1600 as the date of the Greek arrival, archaeology inclines towards the first date. C f Adrados 1998b. Here, I provide a criticism o f the idea o f a separate Dorian inva­ sion (proposed, o f course, by J. Chadwick 1973, 1985, which I also argue against in Adrados 1998b and further on in this book in §§ 53 ff.). 12. I also reject the theses o f A. Hausler (lacking any linguistic argumen­ tation whatsoever), which bring up to date the old German thesis propos­ ing the origin o f the Indo-Europeans in the plains of eastern Europe: it denies any relation to the culture o f the steppes to the north of the Black Sea. In a large series o f works (among others, A. Hausler 1985, 1992a, 1992b), Hausler attempts to refute the movement o f peoples and cultures in Germany and Greece, and any relation between the Indo-Europeans and the cultures o f knotted ceramics and combat axes in eastern Europe, the tombs and stele of Mycenae, the war chariot and the horse in various places, etc. All is assumed to be indigenous (evolution in situ) or coming from Asia Minor. Yet, although the war chariot and the horse may have come from there originally, this does not mean we cannot maintain the hypothesis o f their extension to the Indo-Europeans. Indeed, one cannot deny the connection between the Indo-European kurgans and funerary tumuli, such as those o f the Scythians in the Ukraine, those of Thrace (Kasanlak, etc.), Macedonia (Vergina) and Phrygia (Gordium), not to mention the trea­ sure of Atreus.

8

C H A P T E R ONE

2.

F R O M I N D O - E U R O P E A N CULTURE AND LEXICON TO G R E E K LEXICON

13. M u c h o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture survived in G r e e c e , as well as in the G r e e k lexicon w h i c h also retained s o m e elements that have l o n g since disappeared o r b e e n forgotten. If the G r e e k language can b e seen as the continuation o f I n d o E u r o p e a n , o r s o m e o f its dialects to b e m o r e precise, G r e e k culture can b e seen as a continuation o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture, o r a par­ ticular temporal a n d local phase o f this culture. I n d e e d , culture a n d language g o h a n d in hand. W e need to e x a m i n e h o w a

particular

part o f the G r e e k lexicon is in effect a continuation o f Indo-European lexicon, and the extent to w h i c h it continues to reflect that same culture, while adapting its semantics to n e w circumstances. T h e Greek lexicon was supplemented with a n e w lexicon, b o r r o w e d f r o m other languages o r especially created in o r d e r to reflect the changing his­ torical a n d cultural circumstances. 14. T h i s is n o t the appropriate place for an in-depth l o o k at I n d o E u r o p e a n culture, w h i c h can b e reconstructed to a certain through a r c h a e o l o g y , through

extent

a comparative study o f the various

peoples d e s c e n d e d f r o m the Indo-Europeans (including the Greeks), and through a study o f the lexicon. T h e latter study is k n o w n as linguistic p a l a e o n t o l o g y : the r e c o v e r y o f things through w o r d s . It was initiated b y A . K u h n in the mid-nineteenth

century, and its latest

results can b e seen in the w o r k previously cited b y T h . V . G a m k r e l i d z e - V . V . I v a n o v 1995, p . 413 ff., a n d in specialised studies (on I n d o - E u r o p e a n poetry, for example). T h u s , in very general terms, w e can reconstruct the

characteris­

tics o f n o m a d i c , warring tribes that travelled in chariots pulled b y four horses a n d settled in fortified areas, but never lost their migra­ tory instinct. A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, this was a neolithic culture w h i c h nevertheless h a d k n o w l e d g e o f b r o n z e as well as ceramics, w o o d ­ working, a n d weaving; it h a d domesticated animals such as the bull, c o w , sheep, p i g a n d d o g ; it cultivated barley, and hunted a n d gath­ ered various fruit. Its social organisation was based o n the patriarchal family, w h i c h was united with other, m o r e primary families within phratries and tribes w h i c h at times c o a l e s c e d under the leadership o f a king with military, religious a n d judicial p o w e r s , but limited b y an assembly

F R O M INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK

9

o f warriors. W e have k n o w l e d g e o f their religion, with the g o d o f day, *Dyeus their sacrifices and libations, and their oral, epic and y

lyric poetry. 15. After Kuhn, this line of enquiry was followed by A. Pictet, 1859-63. O . Schrader and A . Nehring codified this science in their Reallexicon 1917-1929. See also later V . Pisani, Pakontologia Linguistics Caligari 1938, G. Devoto 1962, the volume Pakontologia Linguistica (Brescia 1977), in addi­ tion to E. Campanile 1990a and 1990b, p . 27 ff., F. Villar 1996a, p. 107 ff, and Th. V . Gamkrelidze-V. V . Ivanov 1995, p. 413 ff. O n the IndoEuropean epic, see Campanile (cit.) and Adrados 1992c and the bibliog­ raphy cited there (among others, H. M . Chadwick 1967, the same and N. K. Chadwick 1968, C. M . Bowra 1952, J. de Vries 1963, M . Durante 1966, K. V o n See, ed., 1978, R. Schmitt 1967, R. Finnegan 1977). 16. The Greek language inherited most o f the vocabulary that reflects this culture. For example, the name for fortified city (%6Xi<;); social and famil­ ial organisation (yevoc; 'family', 7ioxi<; 'lord, husband', rcoxvia ' o f the hus­ band, wife', Tiaxfjp 'father' and various other family names); names for house (56ucx;), the home (eoxia) and crafts related to working with mud, wood, clothing, textiles, etc. (xei%o<;, XEKXCOV, eoGfjc;, etc.); verbs such as 'to cook' (7ieaaco), 'to plough' (dpoco, cf. apoxpov 'plough'), 'to spin' (veoo), 'to milk' (due^yco). Also, the names for the god o f the sky (Zzvq), domestic animals (xcropcx;, po\)<;, ot><;, 6i<;, icucov, etc.), 'barley' (£eioci), honey (ueAa), and the names for mediums o f transport and o f war (untoc; 'horse', KX>KXO<; 'wheel', 6%o<; 'chariots'), etc. 17. Several observations should be made. Some Indo-European words that entered Greek - for instance, the word for 'bull' cited earlier, the word for 'lion' ?i£(ov), 'wine' (oivoq), perhaps even the word for 'horse' - are proba­ bly 'old words' which both IE and Greek adopted from the Middle East as -a result o f cultural factors; there are parallels with non-Indo-European languages (Sumerian, Kartvelian, Semitic, etc.), cf. Th. V . GamkrelidzeV. V . Ivanov, cit. These are considered to be Indo-European words, from the point of view o f Greek. However, when cultural circumstances change, some words survive, but with a change in meaning. Thus, the dp%ixeKxcov can build in stone as well as wood, the X£i%o<; does not have to be made o f mud, the %aXKEvq 'bronzesmith' becomes a 'smith', the
10

C H A P T E R ONE

5

cultural terms (for example, the name for 'fortress or for 'bronze') appear to be dialectal. In turn, Greek terms can differ from one dialect to another. But it is not just a question o f the lexicon. Today it is widely accepted that the first Greek poetry, mostly epic but also lyric poetry, followed the style of Indo-European oral poetry, with its formulas, similes, maxims or yvcouai, and even its metre. See the bibliography cited in § 15, and for lyric, Adrados 1984c, and p. 107 ff.

3.

G R E E K W I T H I N T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N DIALECTS

The Different Indo-Europeans 18. G i v e n the current s c o p e o f o u r k n o w l e d g e , w e c a n n o t continue regarding G r e e k simply as a derivative o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n - that is, o f the unitary a n d flat I n d o - E u r o p e a n traditionally

reconstructed,

called brugmannian. A t most, s o m e features o f G r e e k were consid­ ered to b e evidence o f an evolution o f this language. T h e r e is not o n e but various forms o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n ,

arranged

chronologically and divided into dialects, also arranged chronologically, from w h i c h the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages k n o w n to us derive. It is important to place G r e e k within this scheme, and to establish the dia­ lect from which it derives. I have already laid the essential foundations. In fact, the idea o f a c h r o n o l o g i c a l ladder o f I E is not

entirely

n e w . Meillet, Hirt, Specht and Benveniste, a m o n g others, speculated, for e x a m p l e , o n the evolution o f roots, the recent character o f the feminine, the aorist, the thematic declension, and, even earlier, o n an original non-inflectional I E w h o s e traces can b e found in the pure stems, the first terms o f c o m p o u n d s , a n d certain adverbs.

Other

scholars l o o k e d for traces o f agglutination o r adaptation in the ori­ gin o f certain inflectional forms. H o w e v e r , they continued to r e c o n ­ struct a single IE, 19. T h e p r o b l e m b e c a m e m o r e pressing with the decipherment o f Hittite and other Anatolian languages. T h e s e differ in m a n y respects from the reconstructed IE. Sturtevant suggested a first solution with his thesis o f 'Indo-Hittite' (1933,

1 9 6 2 , etc.): Hittite a n d I n d o - E u r o p e a n w e r e seen as t w o 5

different branches o f this ancient Tndo-Hittite . H o w e v e r , there was n o argument

that referred to a diachronic difference between the

two branches, the characteristics o f which were dealt with very i n c o m ­ pletely. His hypothesis m a d e hardly an i m p a c t . It was generally

11

FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK

believed that Hittite d i d n o t contain certain categories such as the masculine and feminine gender, the aorist, the subjunctive o r perfect, 5

because it h a d 'lost them. A w h o l e series o f p h o n e t i c and m o r p h o ­ logical archaisms w e r e n o t taken into a c c o u n t . F r o m 1962 onwards (in m y article 'Hettitisch u n d Indogermanisch'), I b e g a n to p o s e the p r o b l e m in a different way: Hittite as p r o c e e d ­ ing from a stage in I E in w h i c h the following categories had not yet been created: the masculine/feminine opposition, the adjective's grades o f c o m p a r i s o n and the c o m b i n a t i o n o f various stems in the verb (the present,

aorist, perfect and future;

the indicative, subjunctive

and

optative). V e r b a l and nominal inflection was m o n o thematic: as names and verbs only h a d o n e stem, verbal and n o m i n a l inflections (includ­ ing adjectival and p r o n o m i n a l inflections) w e r e d e d u c e d with

the

help o f desinences (including 0). T h i s m o n o t h e m a t i c IE (IE II) represents a phase before the polythematic I n d o - E u r o p e a n (IE III) that c o r r e s p o n d s to the traditional reconstruction. O f course, it contains m o r e archaisms: from the laryn­ g e a l , the lack in quantity o f vowels o r the frequent identity o f sin­ gular and plural forms outside o f N . and A c , and N . a n d G . singular in the thematic names, to certain features o f the desinential system. Polythematic I E contains, apart from polythematism, various other innovations; and there is n o lack o f innovations in Anatolian, o r rather, its branches (Hittite and other languages). In the same w a y , s o m e Hittite archaisms are often f o u n d as such in polythematic I E (see § 22). It must b e assumed that the Anatolian b r a n c h representative

of

I E II was e v i d e n d y separated at a certain p o i n t f r o m the rest o f IE; m o v i n g along the Caucasus, it then passed to Asia M i n o r and was i m m u n e to the innovations o f the rest o f I E to the north o f the Caucasus (IE III). T h i s coincides with that fact that o u r oldest Greek a n d Indo-Iranian

texts date from a r o u n d the fifteenth

century B C

a n d those o f Hittite from a r o u n d the twentieth century B C , as stated a b o v e (§ 3). But it is the linguistic argument that is decisive. 20. O f course, a detailed study o f the historical aspect of this matter is not appropriate here, but it has been dealt with in the following papers: Arqueologia y diferenciacion del Indoeuropeo' (1979a) and 'The archaic structure of Hittite: the crux of the problem' (1982b), nor is this the appro­ priate place for a detailed argumentation. A series o f articles on this subject have been collected in my Nuevos estudios de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea (1988a). General expositions can be found in

12

C H A P T E R ONE

my Lingiiistica Indoeuropea (1975) and especially in my Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea II (1996a). In the work 'The new image o f Indo-European. The history o f a Revolution', I show, with the aid of an abundant bibliogra­ phy, how there are more and more adherents to the new doctrine (often attributed to W . Meid 1975, who merely plagiarised me), even though the central character of the monothematism / polythematism opposition is rarely acknowledged. I must add the following authors to those already cited there, Th. V . GamkreHdze-V. V . Ivanov 1995, pp. 344 ff, 757 ff. Recently (Adrados 1998a), I have provided a global vision o f IE differ­ entiation. Furthermore, polythematism is not the only IE III innovation: others include the loss o f the laryngeals, the introduction o f quantity as a phonological characteristic o f vowels, the demonstrative pronoun *so, *sa Hod, the personal pronoun *eg(h)d/me, nominal inflection with asigmatic N. sg. with a long vowel, etc. But there is still much traditionalism in favour of a unique IE and few innovations in Hittite, and there are still those who, obviating the bibliography and the data provided there, attempt to resuscitate the Indo-Hittite hypothesis (A. Lehrmann 1996). He could have at least read my article o f 1992, published in the same journal in which he writes. For the concrete position o f Greek, c f Adrados 1975a. }

Indo-European Ilia and Greek 2 1 . T h e study o f I E II and its derivative Anatolian, with its various languages, is n o t d i r e c d y relevant in this context: it is clear that G r e e k and the other languages considered in the traditional r e c o n ­ struction d e s c e n d from I E III, the polythematic b r a n c h w h i c h spread from the year 2 0 0 0 B C through G r e e c e , Iran and India (A), and m o r e recentiy through E u r o p e and the T a r i m valley (B). It is jjaought that this type o f I E was f o r m e d during the course o f the third mil­ lennium BC: I have identified its expansion with the third o f Gimbutas' migrations, towards 2 3 0 0 BC. This does not m e a n that previous waves o f migration h a d n o t m a n a g e d to reach E u r o p e : the p r e - G e r m a n i c and p r e - G r e e k I n d o - E u r o p e a n remains to w h i c h I have alluded must b e attributed to these; I will return to them. I w o u l d like to stress that the linguistic arguments so neglected b y archaeologists are essential for an understanding o f the originality o f I E III. T h e s e arguments focus o n innovations and choices, although, o f course, archaisms identical to those o f IE II remain here

and

there: traces o f the laryngeals, the use o f the pure stem in L. and other functions, the occasional c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n N . and G , , heteroclitic inflection, verbs conjugated b y only o n e stem (such as dux in G r . ) , the lack o f the subj. (in Baltic and Slavic), the o c c a -

13

F R O M I N D O - E U R O P E A N T O GREEK

sional lack o f the distinction o f the same a n d the had. (in Gr., G e r m . , etc.), and so o n . T h e r e are even archaisms w h i c h Anatolian h a d lost (the distinc­ tion o f n o m i n a l stems in *-o and *-a, 1st sg. in *-d without desinence, etc.). T h e c h o i c e s are also notable: N . pi. in *-6s and not in 1st. sg. mid. in *(m)ai arid n o t in *~a, etc. 2 2 . H o w e v e r , this is insufficient w h e n it c o m e s to establishing

the

genealogy o f Greek: considering it a descendant o f IE III is not an innovation o n the traditional arguments that simply considered it a descendant o f IE. W e have only p o i n t e d out that this IE III corre­ sponds to a recent phase o f IE. S o , the task is to specify from w h i c h area o f this IE III G r e e k descends. By referring to the previous ideas of, for example, R . Birwe 1956, and b y anticipating the most recent discussions, such as that b y T h . V . G a m k r e l i d z e - V . V . I v a n o v 1995, p . 347 ff., in the pre­ viously cited works I p r o p o s e d the existence o f an IE dialect that forms the base o f Gr., I.-L, and A r m . (also, certainly o f T h r a c o Phrygian). I chose to call this dialect IE I I I A o r I n d o - G r e e k ,

the

o n e w h i c h has b e e n discussed. Cf. M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p . 65 f. F a c e d with this dialect, languages that have b e e n dated

more

recently, o r m o r e to the W . , i.e. those o f E u r o p e (Bait., Slav., G e r m . , Lat., Ital., Celt.) and the E. ( T o e ) , w o u l d represent an IE w h i c h is something fundamentally

new: the most important

IIIB,

innova­

tion w o u l d b e the reduction o f the verbal system to two stems (apart from the fut.), the i m p f , aor. and perf. m e r g i n g in the second. This is the fundamental

division: the old division into centum/satdm

languages corresponds to a m o r e recent phonetic p h e n o m e n o n which intersects with the IE I I I A / B split and other characteristics. A n o t h e r B innovation is the frequent use o f verbal stems in *-e and -a. Y e t the presence o f archaic features within g r o u p B is n o t e x c l u d e d (for e x a m p l e , the desinence *-r in Lat., Ital., Celt, and T o e ; the lack o f the a c t . / m i d . opposition, o f the subj. and perf. in Bait, and Slav., the occasional m o n o t h e m a t i s m (as in moli, 2nd~3rd sg. pret.) in Slav., etc. O f course, the existence o f archaisms in particular groups is not excluded: apart from those already mentioned, B also preserves semithematic verbal inflection, while A preserves better the sense o f the r o o t and the derivation o f stems from this r o o t (in this w a y , various aorists m a y c o r r e s p o n d to a single present and vice versa). A also preserves the o p p o s i t i o n o f the present and imperfect w h i c h

14

C H A P T E R ONE

+ - - . 0 is m a r k e d solely b y the desinences, and the richness o f the system o f derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n . Furthermore, there are i n n o ­ vations and archaisms that are specific to the different languages, G r . , I.-L and A r m . in the case o f g r o u p A . 23. T h e existence o f c o m m o n innovations in g r o u p A is fundamen­ tal. F o r instance, the relative -yo verbal augment (also in A r m e n i a n ) , y

the elimination o f semi-thematic inflection, the creation o f the m i d . perf. a n d p l u s c , the assignment o f m o o d s and participles to verbal stems, the opposition o f a durative *bhere/o- and a punctual

*tude/o-

stem, the future in -s- (also in Baltic), the tendency ( c o m p l e t e d in I.-L) to establish four c o m p l e t e series o f desinences (with the dis­ appearance o f the use o f the pure stem, except in the thematics), the loss also (with exceptions in I.-L) o f the des. *-r, the lack o f c o m ­ p o s e d verbal stems (except for G r . -0n) and o f *-e and

*a stems

(except for G r . -n), etc. G r e e k also often innovates with respect to Sanskrit: for e x a m p l e in the assignment o f an infinitive to every verbal stem and in the almost c o m p l e t e destruction o f the c o m p l i c a t e d system o f present tenses derived from the same root. Y e t , with all its innovations, the I I I A dialect is

fundamentally

archaic in its preservation o f the four verbal stems o f the

present,

aorist, perfect and future. T h i s coincides with its older diffusion. It has p r o d u c e d languages with a continuous, southern localisation: they spread to Iran and India, to G r e e c e and Asia M i n o r . In c o n n e c t i o n with this, I have suggested the existence o f a southern horde, (or a g r o u p o f them), w h i c h penetrated E u r o p e through the south o f the Carpathian mountains, and certainly a d v a n c e d westwards at an ear­ lier date than the hordes w h i c h penetrated through the north o f the Carpathians, creating various E u r o p e a n languages o f the IIIB type. W i t h o u t a d o u b t , the predecessors o f the Greeks were at the head o f the southern h o r d e , w h i c h carried I E IIIA: from the Balkans they turned southwards, the Thracians trailing b e h i n d them as well as the Phrygians and A r m e n i a n s , w h o crossed to Asia M i n o r . In c o n ­ trast, the predecessors o f the Iranians and Indians m o v e d (though n o t always) to the East and then descended to Iran and India. 24. The establishment o f the fundamental characteristics of IE IIIA is essen­ tial for determining the archaisms, choices and innovations o f Greek. But it must be pointed out that the separation o f the two branches or dialects into A and B is not absolute: there was certainly contact between the two

FROM INDO-EUROPEAN T O GREEK

15

before the continuity o f the languages was dissolved, in the Russian or European plains. Sometimes all or part o f the A branch coincides with the B branch. T h e more or less complete satemisation o f certain languages o f a par­ ticular group, the coincidence in the confusion o f the vowels, etc., are good examples. As far as morphology is concerned, we can cite, for instance, the presence o f the superlative suffix *-isto- in Gr., I.-L and Germ.; the case desinence belonging to group A, which is also present in Lat, Celt., etc.; concordance in personal pronouns (G. o f 1st pers. Av. mana, OSlav. mene, Lith. mane, A c . OIn. mam, OSlav. me), in the prohibitive nega­ tion *me (in I.-L, Bait.); the future in -s (Gr., L-L, Bait.); participles in -lo (Arm. and Slav.); the diffusion o f verbal stems in *-e (Gr., Arm., T o e , etc.); the creation o f a complete inflection for denominatives and deverbatives (but not in I.-L); the N. pi. in *-oi in thematic names (in Gr., Lat., OSlav., Germ., part o f Celtic); the dual (Gr., I.-L, Balto-Slav. and part o f Germ.), and so on. These are thought to be innovations or choices, as the case may be. But there are also archaisms, such as the nominal system with five cases and a unique form o f D.-L.-I. (in Gr., Germ., and Celt.) - although some would consider this an innovation - and heteroclitic inflection, o f which there are traces in Latin. All o f this is significant in that it lays the foundations for an examina­ tion o f the facts surrounding the Greek language, for it is not only a con­ tinuation o f IE IIIA, which is not always unitary, but it also coincides with particular language o f IIIB, as we shall see. This can be seen as distinct from its differentiation within group IIIA itself. W e believe that, by lead­ ing the IE IIIA hordes, its main contact was with the rearguard o f the IIIB hordes, especially with the Baltic and Slavic languages: this is revealed in their common features. For a more detailed account o f these ideas, see (among other works) Adrados 1979a, 1990b, 1992c and 1996a.

CHAPTER T W O GREEK A T THE D O O R S OF GREECE

1.

M O R E SPECIFICATIONS O N G R E E K

25. I w o u l d like to stress the relationship between G r e e k and Indo-European

the

languages. W e have already p o i n t e d out that the

I n d o - G r e e k g r o u p o r IE IIIA, whether in its entirety o r in a certain language in particular, often displays similarities with the g r o u p IIIB languages: whether in archaisms, innovations o r choices. I w o u l d n o w like to highlight this p h e n o m e n o n , focusing o n the G r e e k language. S o m e t i m e s G r e e k preserves archaisms that were lost in I . - L : gen­ erally, in c o n n e c t i o n with other languages (this is not surprising, given that an archaism m a y emerge anywhere). For instance, there is declen­ sion into five cases (also in G e r m , and Celt.); athematic inflection o f denominatives and deverbatives in the 3rd pers. pi. -aai, -nai (also in Lat., G e r m . , e t c , but in G r . only in Aeolic); possibly, the lack o f the personal G . *mene (in phonetics, the character centum). H o w e v e r , sometimes it is I.—I. w h i c h displays an archaism G r e e k , w h i c h innovates

that was lost to

a l o n e o r with other languages: w e

m o n o t h e m a t i c inflection o f d e n o m i n a t i v e s

a n d deverbatives,

find one

infinitive p e r verb w h i c h is not assigned to the stems, the l a c k o f verbal stems with the l o n g v o w e l -e o r *-d

y

etc.

H e r e is a short list o f the forms w h i c h the innovations o r choices o f Greek, together with other languages, m a y take: the dual, the N . pi. in *-oi and verbal stems in *-e and *-d, as cited previously; c o m ­ p o u n d verbal stems (with -0r|, with other variants in Lat., G e r m . , Sla., Bait., e.g. Lat. amabam, e t c ) ; G

Ital.,

pi. in *-dsdm (in G r .

and Lat.); the gentilitious adjective in -os (as an archaism in Gr., and also present in Lat.), e t c In addition, in phonetics, the vocali­ sation o f * with 0, as in Lat. (but in Gr., only in Aeolic); and the vocalic prothesis before a sonant (only in A r m . ) . 26. G i v e n that the h o r d e from w h i c h G r e e k w o u l d emerge was in the vanguard o f all the hordes that travelled along the northern coast o f the Black Sea and penetrated E u r o p e through the south o f the Carpathian mountains, it is not surprising that, o n o c c a s i o n , G r e e k

17

GREEK A T THE DOORS OF GREECE

should have c o m e into contact with the rearguard o f the northern h o r d e o f I E I I I B — c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the Slavic, Baltic, and

even

G e r m a n i c a n d Latin peoples (which in turn c a m e into contact with the Italic a n d Celtic peoples). O f course, all o f this implies, firstly, that the future Greek dialects could preserve archaisms o r introduce innovations o f their o w n accord, thereby distinguishing themselves from I . - L T h e y c o u l d also c o m e into contact, at various points (certainly at a relatively recent point in time) with the northern hordes. In other w o r d s , the unity o f I E I I I A was not absolute, and o n e o f its branches c o u l d evolve at different points in time. Indeed, even this b r a n c h was n o t absolutely unified, u n d e r g o i n g internal splits in its contacts with the northern a n d western dialects. Internally,

a

process o f breaking away or differentiation, w h i c h w o u l d later advance within G r e e c e , had certainly begun, besides the evolutions that affected the w h o l e G r e e k dialect. 27. For more details, see various of my publications, especially (among other earlier works) 'Sanscrito e Indoeuropeo' (1975a), 'La dialectologia griega' (1984a) and 'Las lenguas eslavas en el contexto de las lenguas indoeuropeas' (1980b), collected in Adrados 1988a; see also 'De la Dialectologia griega de 1952 a la Dialectologia griega de 1995' (Madrid, 1998b).

2.

COMMON GREEK

(CG)

2 8 . C o m m o n G r e e k flourished shortly before the year 2 0 0 0 B C in an area o f northern G r e e c e . T h i s was a G r e e k dialect w h i c h did not display an absolute unity and contained its o w n archaisms and i n n o ­ vations a n d c h o i c e s , linking it, at certain points, to other

Indo-

E u r o p e a n dialects. T h i s dialect contained various lines o f fracture, but it also had its o w n exclusive innovations, w h i c h I must discuss. It was n o r m a l to speak o f ' c o m m o n languages in w h i c h the image o f the 'genealogical tree

5

5

during a p e r i o d

(Stammbaumtheorie) was

d o m i n a n t as regards the evolution o f languages. T h e n c a m e the 'the­ o r y o f the waves

5

(Wellentheorie), w h i c h b r o u g h t expansive waves o f

diverse innovations to o u r attention, with a tendency to c o n v e r g e o n 5

a central nucleus, but to organise into 'bundles o f isoglosses o n the limits: n o w o n e c o u l d not speak o f c o m m o n intermediate

languages.

A struggle against these was l a u n c h e d in the scientific literature. Furthermore, with the arrival o f anti-migrationism and the idea that

18

CHAPTER T W O

languages are created through the c o n v e r g e n c e o f various other lan­ guages (for Greek, see V . Pisani and T h . V . Gamkrelidze), the theory o f c o m m o n intermediate languages tended to b e a b a n d o n e d . F a c e d with this idea, o n a n u m b e r o f occasions (most recently in A d r a d o s 1998a) I have defended the view that C o m m o n G r e e k and the other ' c o m m o n languages' did in fact exist. O f course, not as absolutely closed and uniform dialects, but as lax units, related to a particular region, and other surrounding regions, in w h i c h there was an incipient internal fragmentation. In fact, there is n o such thing as an absolutely uniform dialect: w h y should w e expect there to be such, in a preliterate p e r i o d with a merely tribal political organisa­ tion? M a n y o f us h a d already l o n g anticipated the ideas o f M . B i l e C . B r i x h e - R . H o d o t 1984 regarding the lack o f total unity in dialects. T h e m o s t curious thing, as far as G r e e k is c o n c e r n e d , is the p r o ­ gressively increasing popularity o f the idea that its dialectal frag­ mentation took place exclusively within G r e e c e . This is perhaps an understandable (though terribly excessive) reaction to the ideas held b y K r e t s c h m e r , T o v a r a n d myself regarding the origin o f G r e e k dialects outside o f G r e e c e . 29. H o w e v e r , in various works (especially 1976a and b , 1984a), w h i c h culminate in m y b o o k o f 1998b, I have always defended the theory of a C o m m o n

G r e e k : fundamentally

unitary, b u t with

budding

differentiation. T h i s is in n o w a y incompatible with the later origin o f certain dialectal characteristics. T h e idea o f a c o n v e r g e n c e o f dialects (Pisani, Gamkrelidze)'in the creation o f G r e e k is just as ludicrous as the idea o f M y c e n a e a n as the c o n v e r g e n c e o f dialects (Georgiev) o r C h a d w i c k ' s idea that there was only ever o n e G r e e k migration: the D o r i a n peoples w o u l d b e seen as submitted subjects to the M y c e n a e a n s , and at s o m e p o i n t revolting against them. It is evident that the p e o p l e s w h o b r o u g h t the D o r i c dialects to G r e e c e towards the year 1200 BC f o r m e d a part o f C o m m o n Greek: there is n o reason to dispute this traditional view. D o r i c is essen­ tially an archaic f o r m o f G r e e k that has n o t received the innova­ tions a n d choices peculiar to East Greek, w h i c h penetrated G r e e c e at an earlier date and from w h i c h the other dialects descend. It is likely that m a n y o f these innovations and choices w o u l d have already b e e n present, in statu nascendi, in C o m m o n Greek, for example those that j o i n A e o l i c with the western I n d o - E u r o p e a n dialects, IIIB, as w e have seen.

19

GREEK A T THE DOORS OF GREECE

3.

ESSENTIAL C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F C O M M O N G R E E K

30. H e r e , I will summarise the opinions regarding C o m m o n Greek w h i c h have b e e n presented in previous publications already cited. I will start with the essential characteristics and continue with the inter­ nal variants that they n o d o u b t entailed. Naturally, I will not l o o k at those c o m m o n characteristics

o f G r e e k that e m e r g e d later as a

p r o d u c t o f internal evolution, such as the creation o f the

article.

I have p l a c e d G r e e k within I n d o - E u r o p e a n and, m o r e specifically, within IIIA. But it is n o w essential to present its fundamental

char­

acteristics, w h i c h are n o d o u b t present in C o m m o n Greek, in a schematic w a y . T h e s e characteristics are present in the most ancient dialects, recent innovations not taken into a c c o u n t . T h e y are

also

the result o f the evolution o f G r e e k as a literary language. 3 1 . G r e e k preserved the musical accent o f I E a n d its system o f five short and five l o n g vowels. In archaic times, *i and the semi-vocalic forms o f y,

% c o u l d have

*w, w h i c h w e r e later lost; whereas

the

v o c a l i c forms o f the sonants w e r e lost (although there is a view, w h i c h I d o n o t h o l d , that < * r > w e r e p r e s e r v e d

in H o m e r

and

M y c e n a e a n ) . T h e laws o f O s t h o f f and Grassmann had b e e n fulfilled. T h e three laryngeals in a v o c a l i c position had b e c o m e vocalised as e, a, o (in certain different contexts). 32. For the supposed preservation o f <*r> in Homer and Mycenaean, cf., among other bibliography, Heubeck 1972; against this preservation, see J.J. Moralejo 1973b and my ' M y c e n a e a n . . . ' (Adrados 1976a, compiled in Adrados 1988a, cf. p. 450). For the dating o f vocalisation in C G , cf. my work Adrados 1976b, p. 260 ff, and my statements about this vocali­ sation in my article o f 1958 (followed by many others). C f also A. Bernabe 1977. 33. W i t h regard to the consonants, it is important to note that in C o m m o n G r e e k the aspirated v o i c e d consonants had b e c o m e aspi­ rated voiceless consonants, and that the labiovelars, j u d g i n g by M y c e ­ naean, were still preserved: thus C o m m o n G r e e k had three series o f plosives (voiceless, aspirated voiceless and unaspirated v o i c e d ) , with four points o f articulation: labial, dental, guttural and labiovelar. But the a p p e n d i x o f the laryngeals was lost in certain contexts. T h e s was preserved in groups and final position, but it b e c a m e aspirated h in initial and intervocalic position (lexical b o r r o w i n g s and the evolution o f certain groups later enabled the later acceptance o f s in these positions). Y e t , it is possible that certain later evolutions,

20

CHAPTER T W O

such as that o f -ti> -si and that o f certain groups with s andjy, h a d already b e g u n . In other words, the p h o n o l o g i c a l system l o o k e d like this: Vowels: Sonants: Consonants:

a, e, 6 , 1 , u, a, e, I, 6, u y, w, r, 1, m, n b , p, ph d, t, th g, k, kh

Sibilants: Aspirates:

s h

gw

k

w

h

34. M o r p h o l o g y displayed the following characteristics, sometimes in c o m b i n a t i o n with other languages:

*-s in the N . masc, sg. o f the

stems in *-a\ *-i N . pi. o f the n o u n s in *-e/o a n d -a; G . pi. in *-som o f these same stems in *-d; the D . pi. in *-si (not *-su) o f the athematic nouns; declension into five cases and three numbers; the d e v e l o p m e n t a n d frequent use o f stems in *-eu a n d the limited rep­ resentation o f those in *-e a n d * - o ; the c o n v e r g e n c e o f the suffixes *-tero a n d *-yos in the comparative, a n d the creation o f *-tato in the superlative; the inflection o f the pi. o f personal p r o n o u n s o n *-sme and

*us-sme; the opposition o f the p r o n o u n s 65e/o?>Toc/eK£ivo<;; the

preservation o f athematic — and the lack o f semi-thematic — inflection o f verbs; the suffixes -sa- in the aor., -k- in the perfect and the inte­ gration o f *-e a n d *-ihe- in the pas. aor.; the loss o f the desinence *-r; the assignment o f an infinitive to each stem a n d voice; e t c O n e must also p o i n t o u t the existence o f doublets, s o m e o f w h i c h have already b e e n m e n t i o n e d . It should b e stressed that G r e e k maintained the c o m m o n charac­ teristics o f I n d o - G r e e k , along with its o w n evolutions, such as: in general, the preservation o f the significance o f the r o o t a n d the m o r ­ p h o l o g i c a l use o f accent a n d alternation; in the n o u n , the opposi­ tion (though n o t always) o f m a s c and fern, stems, and in the adjective o f the positive, comparative a n d superlative; in the v e r b , the o p p o ­ sition o f the four stems o f the pres., aor., perf. and fut., and their association, in m o s t cases, with the subj. and o p t . m o o d s and the participles

(also, as m e n t i o n e d , the infinitives); the q u a d r a n g u l a r

system o f the desinences in the four stems, maintaining the middle ones having a passive value, although the passive is c o m p l e m e n t e d with special forms (Greek, n o t Indian) in the aor. and fut.; and the system o f three aspects.

21

GREEK A T THE DOORS OF GREECE

35. S o , G r e e k has a clear a n d c o h e r e n t p h o n o l o g i c a l system, as well as a clear a n d c o h e r e n t system o f interweaving categories and func­ tions. T h e p r o b l e m is the irregularity o f the m o r p h o l o g y : allomorphs, syncretism, amalgams, the p r i m a c y o f irregularity o n regular declen­ sions a n d conjugations. T h i s constituted the essence o f G r e e k , together with a syntactic system that, j u d g i n g from H o m e r , was similar to that o f V e d i c and in w h i c h the m o o d s preserved their o w n value in

subordination.

T h e r e was still n o article a n d the resources o f lexical derivation were still n o t as d e v e l o p e d as they w o u l d b e at a later stage (neither those o f the transformation

o f n o u n into v e r b , adjective and adverb, n o r

the inverse), yet there was already a rich system o f c o m p o s i t i o n a n d derivation, w h i c h f o r m e d the base o f the later system. Indeed, together with its system o f categories and functions, the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a syntax o f subordination a n d o f a lexicon were the principal factors o f progress in G r e e k , and those w h i c h contributed the most to its transformation into the universal linguistic m o d e l for all languages.

CHAPTER THREE F R O M C O M M O N GREEK T O THE DIALECTS OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

1. V A R I A N T S W I T H I N C O M M O N G R E E K

36. A language, especially o n e that is spoken b y n o m a d i c tribes lack­ ing a centralised organisation o r written culture, is never absolutely uniform. I believe that, despite trends in the current bibliography, variants w e r e already present in C o m m o n Greek. Indeed, it was in C o m m o n G r e e k that s o m e o f the characteristics

o f the later East

Greek, w h i c h d e s c e n d e d into G r e e c e towards the year 2 0 0 0 , b e g a n to disseminate. T h e s e characteristics appear in H o m e r , M y c e n a e a n and the later dialects (or at least s o m e o f them): for instance, -si for -ti, oi, od in the pi. p r o n o u n , at), eiai, -(a)av, e t c See § 6 9 . Y e t , there is still the serious p r o b l e m o f whether these

'pan-ori­

ental' characteristics w e r e diffused in a part o f C G outside G r e e c e , o r only in East G r e e k ( E G ) inside G r e e c e , before the Dorians blocked c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ; o r perhaps only in a restricted part o f E G inside o r outside G r e e c e . T h e n there is the existence o f archaisms in C G , although

these

c o u l d have b e e n displaced within it, in any location. T h e r ^ - i s also the presence o f doublets, from a m o n g w h i c h there was a tendency to c h o o s e : often, n o d o u b t , within C G , other times in G r e e c e , where the d o u b l e t was preserved in certain dialects while in others it was a choice. 37. But certain archaisms from s o m e o r all o f the dialects o f East G r e e k clearly c o m e f r o m C o m m o n G r e e k o r part o f it: H o r n . Zfjv, 8cp9ixo, 8 d u v a (with parallels in L e s b . and M y c ) , xoi (also in D o r . and part o f A e o L ) , case in -pi o r -91 ( M y c , Horn., T h e s . ) , G . in -010 (Horn,, M y c , traces in T h e s . ) , patronymics in -10c, (Horn., M y c , AeoL), desinence in -xo(i) ( M y c , A r c ) . In addition, there are archaisms in w h i c h the M y c e n a e a n is a c c o m p a n i e d , o r not, b y other dialects: the preservation o f -w-

y

sometimes o f -y- and o f -h- descending from

*-s-. I n d e e d , these p h o n e m e s existed in C G and continued to exist in E G , whether inside o r outside o f G r e e c e .

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

23

T h e archaisms did n o t establish the distinction, for they were also (at s o m e point) present in the part that w o u l d b e c o m e W e s t G r e e k ( W G ) . But their presence enabled innovations in a particular part o f C G o r in the later dialects. It is clear that doublets, from a m o n g w h i c h the dialects w o u l d c h o o s e , existed in C G and certainly in the E G within G r e e c e . It is difficult to distinguish between the t w o cases. T h e y often represent an o l d and a n e w f o r m that coexisted for a certain p e r i o d (u.exd/ mSa/zv/evq,

oduva/thematic forms) o r various attempts to find s o m e ­

thing to mark a n e w category (dv/Ke/ica, a i / d / i ) , j i i v / v i v , - v a i / -u£v, etc.). T h e y could also represent divergent analogical generalisations (aorists in -a- and -i;-, etc.) o r p h o n e t i c results arising from different contexts, striving to b e c o m e generalised (ocp/op); o r even simple hes­ itations within IE ( D . sg, *-ei/*-i,

2 n d sg. *-es/*-eis).

This was to b e

expected, see A d r a d o s 1952 and 1998b. T h e s e doublets w e r e subsequently distributed within E G and W G (-u£v/fxec,, -aa-/-^a- desinences in the verb), o r within different dialects o f E G , s o m e a c c o m p a n i e d at times b y W G : the vocalisation ocp (Ion.Att. and Dor.) / o p (AeoL, A r c - C y p . , Horn, and M y c . with fluctuations); athematic verbs ( M y c , A e o L , at times Horn.) a n d thematic

verbs

(elsewhere, but also in Horn.), in the deverbatives; D . sg. *-ei ( M y c , traces in Horn.) / *-i (other dialects); G . sg. -010/-00 (Horn, and else­ where) /*-os (identical to N . , in M y c . and Cyp.); the p r o n o u n s ju.iv (Horn., Ion.) / v i v ( D o r . ) , verbal desinences -eq ( C y p . , D o r . ) /-eiq (other dialects); infinitive in -vat (Horn., Ion.-At., A r c - C y p . ) /-jnev (Horn., A e o L , D o r . ) ; the conjunctions ei (Ion.-At., A r c ) / a i (AeoL, D o r . ) / f | ( C y p . , written B o e o t . ai); the particle dv (Ion., A r c , Horn.) /icev (AeoL) /KGC (only in D o r . ) ; the preposition ev + A c ( A r c - C y p . , Thes., Boeot.) / + D . (other dialects); etc. Sometimes, archaisms are only f o u n d in M y c : the preservation o f the groups -pm-, -tm-> o f the p r o n o u n to-to> e t c O r , w e find only archaic doublets (or doublets consisting o f an archaic f o r m and a recent f o r m , c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the other dialects): -or- / -or- (vocal­ isations o f <*-r-); the prepositions o-pi / e-pi, me-ta / pe-da; thematic and athematic verbal forms; D . sg. -e (<-ei) /

e t c A r c h a i c forms

m a y also b e present in M y c and other dialects: %%- I %- (in M y c , H o r n . , A r c - C y p . ) . S o m e t i m e s , w e find c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s b e t w e e n A e o l i c and the n o n - G r e e k dialects (the

timbre

o f vocalisations, the

athematic forms o f deverbatives and denominatives).

24

CHAPTER THREE

38. In other w o r d s , b o t h C G and E G contained certain

fluctuations

that w o u l d spread to the w h o l e o r part o f E G . Also, b o t h W G and E G (or part o f it) w o u l d have to c h o o s e between these

fluctuations,

although it is difficult to give an exact date o f w h e n this o c c u r r e d . M o r e o v e r , as m e n t i o n e d a b o v e (§ 36), s o m e innovations in E G c o u l d have already taken place in C G , anticipating a future division between the two dialects. T h o s e innovations in particular that appear in all o r most o f the E G dialects, w h i c h were separated b y large intransitable D o r i a n w e d g e s in archaic times, must c o m e from

an

earlier p e r i o d : either from C G or, at least, E G in G r e e c e before the arrival o f the D o r i a n s (eg., the evolution o f -ti > -si; the N . pi. o f the demonstrative oi, ai; the personal at), etc.). T h u s , at the most, it can b e said that the diffusion o f these innovations had

already

b e g u n in C G . Certainly, C G w o u l d have shown innovatory tendencies and lines o f fracture in those places where a differentiation

o f dialectal areas

was c o m m e n c i n g b e t w e e n the later E G and W G (certain isoglosses did not c o i n c i d e with this limit) o r between the later E G dialects. W i t h respect to these isoglosses, in m a n y cases it is impossible to determine the extent to w h i c h they c o r r e s p o n d to C G o r E G , and to trace the dialects w h i c h b e g a n to differentiate

themselves,

and

w h i c h in any case only b e c a m e defined in G r e e c e after the arrival o f the D o r i a n s , with the help o f n e w innovations. 39. This is but a summary of the doctrine presented in Adrados 1976a and b, 1984a, 1998a and b (also 1990a on G. = N. in M y c . and Cyp. thematics and 1990b on the system o f five cases in M y c , as well as in Gr. in general). Cf. also M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p . 67, on the differences in C G . For my views on all this and its precedents, see my two works o f 1998 already referred to, as well as the prologue to the reedition in 1997 o f my book o f 1952, La Dialectologia griega como fuente para el estudio de las migraciones indoeuropeas en Grecia. In these works, I refer to the stance attributing all dialectal differentiation to the period after the Dorian invasion in Greece; it derives from the well-known works o f W . Porzig 1954 and E. Risch 1955. I do not believe that this in any way prevents us from proposing the start of differentiation in C G and E G (inside or outside Greece), despite the crit­ icism of the view that a dialectal fragmentation had occurred outside Greece (cf, among others, A. Lopez Eire 1989a). It is typical that, for instance, J. L. Garcia R a m o n 1975, for example, considers Aeolic to be postMycenaean: in my opinion, on the other hand, it became defined at this time, but some features are o f an earlier date. The methodological issues and, more specifically, the concepts o f innovation and choice, are studied carefully in Adrados 1952 and 1998b.

25

F R O M C O M M O N GREEK T O T H E DIALECTS

O n the critique of J. Chadwick's thesis, in which he denies there was ever a Dorian invasion, cf. among others, J. J. Moralejo 1977b, pp. 243-267; also Adrados 1998b.

2. F R O M T H E A R R I V A L O F T H E FIRST G R E E K (EAST GREEK, EG)

DIALECTS

T O T H E A R R I V A L OF T H E D O R I C (WEST GREEK,

DIALECTS

WG)

The diffusion of the Greek dialects 4 0 . W e have discarded the idea that there w e r e n o G r e e k migra­ tions and that everything o c c u r r e d through simple cultural diffusion from Anatolia. I n d e e d , although this b o o k is d e v o t e d to the study o f the history o f the G r e e k language, not the history o f the Greeks from an archaeological perspective, it is important to fix the date o f arrival o f the first Greeks in G r e e c e , as well as that o f the last Greeks, the Dorians. Furthermore, it is necessary to fix the principal dates regarding the expansion o f the Greeks and Dorians. A history o f the G r e e k language w o u l d b e badly served without this. T h e main stages in the evolution o f the G r e e k language can b e established from this starting point: G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium, from the first entry o f the Greeks, w h i c h is k n o w n to us (though imperfectly) b y w a y o f M y c e n a e a n , H o m e r , and f r o m the

retro­

spective conclusions that c a n b e drawn from the G r e e k dialects o f the first mellennium; and the G r e e k dialect w h i c h penetrated at the e n d o f the s e c o n d millennium with the D o r i a n s . T h e n , w e must examine the split o f G r e e k into different dialects during the first millennium, the external diffusion o f m a n y o f them and the unifying tendencies that, in a s e c o n d phase, tended to bring these dialects closer together. W e must also l o o k at the creation, from here, o f the literary dialects o r languages o f G r e e c e , in w h i c h the unifying tendencies were also felt; and lastly, w e must examine the final unification, from Attic - the so-called koine - w h i c h sealed the fate o f the G r e e k language in the Hellenistic, R o m a n , Byzantine and M o d e r n periods. 4 1 . T h e G r e e k language n o d o u b t arrived in various waves from M a c e d o n i a and Epirus, in the transition from

m i d d l e to ancient

Helladic (or M i n o a n ) ; that is, a r o u n d the year 2 0 0 0 B C , as stated

26

CHAPTER THREE

previously (although perhaps s o m e w h a t earlier). T h i s ushered in the so-called M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d , o f w h i c h m o r e is k n o w n from 1620 B C onwards, w h i c h c o n c l u d e d with the D o r i a n invasion, from 1200 B C onwards. It is contemporaneous with o r rather posterior to the destruc­ tion o f cities and cultures throughout the East, from Ugarit to G r e e c e itself as well as Crete. O n l y in Egypt was this invasion o f the sofi

called Sea Peoples' successfully contained, due to Merneptah's efforts. F r o m the year 2 0 0 0 B C onwards, G r e e c e , b y will o f the Greeks, was assimilated into the I n d o - E u r o p e a n culture o f the kurgans, with its tumuli t o m b s , m a c e s and stone axes, o c h r e burials, and

many

other things. A c c o r d i n g to Sakellariou, Balkanic populations related to the culture o f ' o l d E u r o p e ' also entered with the I n d o - E u r o p e a n Greeks. T h i s is the m o m e n t in w h i c h the great M y c e n a e a n kingdoms o f G r e e c e were created: a b o v e all, M y c e n a e , T h e b e s , Athens, Pylos and K n o s s o s . It is unclear whether other M y c e n a e a n settlements,

such

as those o f O r c h o m e n o i in Boeotia, Iolcos in Thessaly o r Tiryns in Argolis consituted i n d e p e n d e n t political units. 4 2 . Nevertheless, at the outset, the military, e c o n o m i c and cultural d o m i n i o n o f G r e e c e was in the hands o f the M i n o a n s o f Crete, w h o exerted great influence o n M y c e n a e a n culture, T h e r a and

Athens

itself w e r e , n o d o u b t , what Sakellariou refers to as 'satelite cultures'. M i n o a n remains have b e e n found in T h e r a , and in ancient

myth

Athens figures as a vasall o f M i n o s , the mythical king o f Crete. H o w e v e r , the situation o n this island c h a n g e d after the earthtfuakes o f around

1550 and the v o l c a n i c eruption o f T h e r a o f the

date. It was a terrible explosion, worse than that o f the

same

Krakatoa:

the resulting w a v e o r tsunami devastated the entire A e g e a n littoral. T h e M y c e n a e a n s o n the continent c a m e to possess the

Cretan

palaces and created a n e w culture, adapting, for example, M i n o a n script (Linear A , derived in turn from a hieroglyphic script) to the needs o f the Greeks: in this w a y , Linear B was created. T h i s was the great climax o f p o w e r for the M y c e n a e a n s : in Crete, with its centre in K n o s s o s , a n d in G r e e c e in the kingdoms m e n t i o n e d , w h o s e archives used this script o f Cretan origin. T h e r e is evidence o f Cretan influence in Pylos 150 years before the destruction o f the palaces, and it c a n also b e f o u n d o n islands such as Cyprus and R h o d e s . In addition, cultural elements from the East, which had influenced Crete, were also present a m o n g the M y c e n a e a n s .

27

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

4 3 . This is the p h e n o m e n o n o f M y c e n a e a n expansion, the first Greek e x p a n s i o n . It also r e a c h e d C y r p u s , as I h a v e stated, w h e r e

the

M y c e n a e a n s settled a r o u n d 1400. H e r e , a C y p r o - M i n o a n script had b e e n created in the sixteenth Crete

and

century, similar to the Linear A o f

o t h e r islands, f o r an i n d i g e n o u s l a n g u a g e

known

as

Eteocyprian. Its use was continued in A m a t h u s , where the indige­ nous population t o o k refuge from the M y c e n a e a n s and, subsequently, from the Dorians: it was maintained until the fourth century. Classical Cyprian syllabic script is derived f r o m this script, a n d it is used for writing G r e e k f r o m the eleventh to the third century B C A multitude o f M y c e n a e a n remains w h i c h date from the

same

p e r i o d has b e e n discovered in Cyprus and R h o d e s ; particularly

in

the cemeteries o f Camirus and Ialysos, but let us r e m e m b e r the pres­ ence o f a R h o d i a n hero in the Iliad; T l e p o l e m u s . W e have k n o w l e d g e o f M y c e n a e a n expansion in the w h o l e o f the Levant, where there is not only evidence o f trade, but also o f fixed trade setdements, especially in Miletus. T h u s , apart from trade, there w e r e also setdements and military campaigns. T h e royal correspon­ d e n c e o f the Hittites and Ugarit

attest to relations b e t w e e n

the

A h h i y a w a o r A c h a e a n s and the k i n g d o m s o f Asia, w h i c h sometimes asked them for help o r m a d e agreements with them. All this o c c u r r e d during the reign o f the Hittite king Suppiluliumas ( 1 3 8 0 - 1 3 4 0 ) , then under

Mursilis II and his son Muwatallis ( 1 3 0 6 - 1 2 8 2 ) and

under

Tuthaliyas I V ( 1 2 5 0 - 1 2 2 0 ) . T h e A c h a e a n princes, w h o s e names are given o n o c c a s i o n (for e x a m p l e , Attarasiyas,

o r Atreus), carried out expeditions o f pillage

a n d were sometimes allied with the dissident k i n g d o m s o f the coast o f Asia, such as A r z a w a , in the southeastern limit o f Asia M i n o r : this o c c u r r e d during the decline o f Hittite imperial p o w e r in

the

peripheral region a l o n g the shoreline. A n o t h e r expansion extended to the w h o l e Mediterranean, ing the Iberian peninsula, b y means o f trade a n d the

includ­

establishment

o f emporia, such as that o f Thapsus in Sicily. 44. O n the arrival o f the Greeks and Mycenaean expansion, see in addi­ tion to the bibliography previously cited, works by N. G. L. Hammond 1986b, p . 19 ff; F. Schachermeyr 1980; M . Sakellariou 1980; F. Villar 1995, p. 289 ff; J.-P. Olivier 1996. These works are also useful in relation to the great catastrophe o f around 1200, the invasion of the 'Sea Peoples', which decimated the Mycenaean kingdoms (see also § 47), and in relation to the arrival of the Dorians. O n the Ahhiyawa, c f L. R . Palmer 1980, p. 67.

28

CHAPTER THREE

O n Cyprus, see F. R. Willets 1988 and V . Karageorghis 1991, p. 76 ff. The royal correspondence o f Egypt and the Hittites with the king of Alasia (Cyprus) refers to armed attacks from the continental peoples, c f V. Kara­ georghis 1991, p. 82. O n the Cyprian scripts, which include the Eteocyprian language (Cypro-Minoan script, from the sixteenth century), Greek (later Greek, from the eleventh century), cf. R . Schmitt 1977, p. 15 ff, Th. G Palaima 1991, CI. Baurain 1991, M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p. 52 ff., A. Sacconi 1991: although it contains elements o f the Cretan Linear A, CyproMinoan may proceed from Syria and especially Ugarit, where evidence of this has been found. O n Crete, c f C. Davaras 1976. O n Cretan scripts see, in general, C . Brixhe 1991a and J.-P. Olivier 1996 (who identi­ fies inscriptions which are dated earlier and later than the bulk of these, in the thirteenth century); on the Phaestus disk (Cretan hieroglyphics), see Y. Duhoux 1977; for Eteocretan, see Y. Duhoux 1982. O n Rhodes, cf. Ch. Karoussos 1973. O n Asia, apart from FernandezGaliano 1984, J. Boardman 1973, p . 41 ff, and the excellent revision of the later bibliography by V . Alonso Troncoso 1994. Also, E. Akurgal 1985, p. 206 ff; and my article Adrados 1992b. With regard to the West, I have provided a bibliography in my article 'Navegaciones del siglo VIII, navegaciones micenicas y navegaciones en la Odised (1998c). 45. T h e forced expansive m o v e m e n t w o u l d certainly have had lin­ guistic implications, so that G r e e k w o u l d have b e e n spoken

and

u n d e r s t o o d in these settlements. In Crete and Cyprus w e can trace its expansion f r o m the e n d o f the s e c o n d millennium, as in G r e e c e itself, although in H o m e r , as w e shall see, traces o f n o n - G r e e k p o p ­ ulations

remain.

G r e e k was certainly spoken in Miletus and other parts, where the Greek dialects b e c a m e established again in the eleventh century, dur­ ing the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d . Indeed, w e are told in the Illiad ( V I 168 ff.) h o w Prcetus, king o f Ephyra in Argolis, sent the hero Bellerophon to the king o f the Lycians with a letter containing instrucions to kill the messenger. T h i s letter is described as a dyptich o f tablets (made o f w o o d , n o doubt) containing M y c e n a e a n signs in Greek, and it is significant that the king o f L y c i a h a d n o p r o b l e m s understanding it. A l s o , there d o n o t appear

to have b e e n any linguistic

difficulties

a m o n g the A h h i y a w a a n d the Eastern princes o r a m o n g Greeks and Trojans. F o r this p e r i o d , there is archaeological evidence o f the

diffusion

o f M y c e n a e a n ceramics throughout the Mediterranean, even in Spain, in the Guadalquivir valley; other G r e e k cultural influences are also attested, along with, inversely, the Asiatic influence in G r e e c e . But there is n o data o n G r e e k outside o f G r e e c e itself, except for the

29

FROM COMMON GREEK T O THE DIALECTS

M y c e n a e a n tablets o f Knossos and traces o f second-millennium Greek in the epic that flourished along the Asian coasts in the beginning o f the first millennium. Greek in the second millennium 4 6 . O u r k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k during the s e c o n d millennium is scarce for a n u m b e r o f reasons. O n the o n e hand, there was an oral poetic tradition w h i c h was r e c o r d e d in writing only m u c h later, in

the

eighth century, m i x e d with several adventitious and recent elements, and greatly altered, so that it is difficult to isolate the linguistic ele­ ments o f the s e c o n d millennium. Linear B c o u l d serve s o m e w h a t as a c o m p l e m e n t , but it was only used in the palaces, w h e r e it h a d an administrative function, apart from the marks o n oil jars a n d such like; as w e shall see, it was a standardised language, with hardly any differences. T h e s e inscriptions p r o v i d e only partial evidence o f sec­ ond-millennium Greek. M o r e o v e r , their interpretation is often difficult and controversial d u e to the fact that the writing adapted badly to the G r e e k language, and due to o u r deficient understanding o f the cultural context. In contrast, the tablets, evidently organised after the m o d e l o f the eastern palaces and their archives, d o n o t contain lit­ erary texts as those o f the palaces did. T h e tablets were not baked, and were only preserved because o f the fire that destroyed the palaces at s o m e point during the e n d o f the thirteenth century. A s far as w e k n o w , it was only in Cyprus that this script p r o d u c e d something approximating a close derivative. T h e hypothesis attribut­ ing the origin o f the Iberian semi-alphabet to a syllabary related to that o f this script, is almost forgotten today. E v e n if it w e r e true, it c a n n o t b e d e n i e d that the later G r e e k alphabetic script h a d a very strong influence. T h e strong influence o f the G r e e k language out­ side o f G r e e c e c a n n o t b e detected until the later p e r i o d . It is n o t even easy to provide an image o f second-millennium Greek in G r e e c e . Finally, w h e n it c o m e s to reconstructing second-millennium Greek, the conclusions obtained from the comparative study o f dialects from the first millennium are not entirely reliable. H o w e v e r , I will refer to t h e m to s o m e extent. But the situation is as follows: the language o r languages spoken in the s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m w e r e n o t

written

d o w n . T h e sung o r recited language o f the aoidoi was written d o w n m u c h later a n d was m u c h altered; the written language was reserved for very limited administrative purposes a n d possibly was not spoken.

30

CHAPTER THREE

4 7 . It is important first to establish the historical b a c k g r o u n d before dealing with the linguistic issue in m o r e detail. I w o u l d like to e m p h a ­ sise the implications o f the pillage, destruction and migrations caused b y the 'Sea Peoples'. T h e y brought a series o f warrior peoples to Egypt a r o u n d 1200 B C w h i c h are cited in Egyptian texts: the names are often interpreted as referring to the Lycians, Sardinians, Dardanians,

Danaans,

Cilicians, Tyrsenians, A c h a e a n s and Philistines,

among

others. T o the west they b r o u g h t the Sardinians and, I believe, the Etruscans, w h o in m y view are an I n d o - E u r o p e a n p e o p l e from Asia M i n o r , and perhaps also the Elymi, w h o settled in Sicily. After the last G r e e k offensive in Asia, that o f the T r o j a n the Sea Peoples b r o u g h t about the destruction

o f the

War,

Mycenaean

cities in G r e e c e itself, and in Crete and Cyprus they interrupted, for an indefinite p e r i o d , trade and relations with the West: this is the so-called dark age. But that is not all: this vast c o m m o t i o n is linked with the destruction

o f Hattusas (today Bogazkoi) and the

entire

Hittite empire, w h i c h is attributed to the Phrygians: thus, there were great m o v e m e n t s o f peoples. Perhaps o n e o f these peoples, also I n d o E u r o p e a n , were the Armenians. H o w e v e r , Ugarit a n d other cities o f Asia were also destroyed, such as Mersin, Tarsus and Sidon, and the Philistines advanced, o c c u p y ­ ing the area w h i c h still today is n a m e d after them: Palestine. A s w e anticipated and shall s o o n see, the fall o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms is related to the D o r i a n invasion, w h i c h in turn is related to the emigration o f different G r e e k populations to Asia M i n o r , Cyprus and Rhodes. 48. See, in general, works such as those previously cited by Hammond (p. 51 ff) and Villar (p. 296 ff), along with specialised bibliography such as T . B. L. Webster 1958, p . 136 ff., H . Stubbings 1975, Ch. G. Starr 1964, M . Marazzi 1985, the book Trqffici micenei. . . (ed. By M . Marazzi and others, 1986), a colloquium in the French School o f R o m e (AA. W . 1995), etc. O n Etruscan as an Anatolian language transported into Italy (in opposition to the thesis of M . Pallottino and others attributing to it an indigenous origin in Italy), c f Adrados 1989c, 1994c and 2005. O n the Elymi, see R. Ambrosini 1983 (among other publications) and St. di Vido 1997. 4 9 . A l t h o u g h syllabic script died out, the Cyprian syllabary, destined to r e c o r d the G r e e k language, survived from the eleventh to the third centuries. A p a r t from this, there w o u l d b e n o other w a y o f r e c o r d i n g G r e e k in writing until the ninth o r eighth century, this time with the aid o f the alphabet, o r alphabets rather, created from

31

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

Phcenecian, w h i c h is often related to the c u n e i f o r m e Ugaritic alpha­ bet, w h i c h inherited a syllabic script. T h u s , this detour had to b e accepted, for in G r e e c e there was n o continuous evolution from the syllabary to the alphabet, as there h a d b e e n earlier in Asia; n o t even in Cyprus, w h i c h , h o w e v e r , created the n e w syllabary for the local G r e e k dialect, based o n the previous o n e , related to M i n o a n Linear A (which in turn inherited the hieroglyphic writing). S o , the Greeks h a d to a d o p t foreign systems o f writing twice. But they did m a n a g e to perfect the alphabet, making it a vehicle o f their literature a n d exporting it to m a n y different p e o p l e s , w h o , modify­ ing it, created their o w n alphabets and learned to write. This is h o w the Greeks contributed in this particular

context. I shall return to

this later. 50. O n the history o f these syllabaries, c f J. Chadwick 1962, p . 17 ff. O n Ugarit, c f J. L. Cunchillos-J. A. Zamora 1995, p. 15 ff; A. Curtis 1985, p. 27 ff. The fifteenth century is usually accepted as the date o f the Cretan tablets in Linear B (all from Knossos). L. R . Palmer has fixed this date later, in the thirteenth century, the date o f those from Greece, but this has received little acceptance; the fourteenth century has also been proposed. For J.-P. Olivier there are many possible dates, as has been mentioned. I refer to the origin of the alphabet in §§ 100 ff. C f J. Maluquer de Motes 1968, and J. de H o z 1969 on the cited hypoth­ esis regarding Iberian script. See in this same article, hypotheses regarding the influence of the eastern syllabaries on other Mediterranean scripts. 5 1 . T h e M y c e n a e a n syllabary throws s o m e light o n second-millen­ n i u m Greek, but it o n l y allows for a limited understanding facts already discussed regarding its standardisation

o f the

a n d its solely

bureaucratic use. Literature was oral: it was r e c o r d e d in writing only from the eighth century o n w a r d s , after the introduction o f the alpha­ bet. But it is d e b a t e d to w h a t extent this n e w epic a n d lyric inher­ ited the language o f the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d a n d to what extent it innovated. T h u s , the reconstruction o f second-millennium G r e e k (or G r e e k dialects) is a difficult task, w h i c h involves c o m b i n i n g data from M y c e n a e a n , H o m e r (eliminating the later elements) and

extrapola­

tions f r o m the G r e e k dialects o f the first millennium. 52. O n Homer and Mycenae cf, among others, T . B. L. Webster 1958, C. Brillante 1986 and J. Chadwick 1990; on Mycenaean culture in gen­ eral, J. T . Hooker 197, J. Chadwick 1976, O . Dickinson 1977 and 1995, W . Taylour 1983; etc. O n possible Mycenaean traces in lyric, C. Trumpy 1986 and C. Brillante 1987. O n the reconstruction o f second-millennium Greek, see §§ 68 ff.

32

CHAPTER THREE

The arrival of the Dorians 53. Before attempting this reconstruction, w e must examine the events o f the e n d o f the s e c o n d millennium - the arrival o f the D o r i a n s

-

as well as the linguistic scene which the Greeks encountered in G r e e c e and w h i c h must have had an effect o n their language. T h e p e r i o d o f instability -

in w h i c h palaces strengthened

their

fortifications and, as r e c o r d e d o n the o-ka tablets o f Pylos, military units w e r e d e p l o y e d o n the coast (events w h i c h are

simultaneous

with those in Ugarit and the campaigns o f R a m s e s II and M e r n e p t a h in Egypt) - e n d e d , as stated earlier, with the destruction and aban­ d o n m e n t o f the palaces, w h i c h were at s o m e point o c c u p i e d b y the Dorians. T h e arrival o f the D o r i a n s is m e n t i o n e d b y the ancient

histori­

ans, especially H e r o d o t u s I 5 6 , and also in the myth o f the return o f the Heraclides, o r sons o f Heracles. F o r a l o n g time, n o b o d y has d o u b t e d the fact that the D o r i a n invasion was the cause b e h i n d the destruction o f M y c e n a e a n culture, and this is still the most widely held view. H o w e v e r , it is suggested that, o n c e the M y c e n a e a n palaces h a d b e e n destroyed b y the invasions o f the 'Sea Peoples' and their society h a d b e e n disrupted, the Greeks w h o h a d remained

behind

in M a c e d o n i a and Albania, the D o r i a n s , w o u l d in turn have found it easier to realise their o w n incursions o f pillage. But it w o u l d n o t b e so easy for them, given that the same leg­ e n d refers to resistance in different parts. Indeed, all the sources insist that the D o r i a n s did n o t s u c c e e d in c o n q u e r i n g A t t i c a f w h e r e n u m e r o u s refugees h a d settled, o r the islands o f the A e g e a n and other places. 54. T h e same g e o g r a p h y allows us to see h o w the D o r i a n s c a m e from the N . and W . , and were stopped in Attica and the islands; they s u r r o u n d e d

the P e l o p o n n e s e , unable to penetrate its

centre,

A r c a d i a , but b e i n g able to break the c o n n e c t i o n between the dialect o f the latter and that o f Cyprus, w h o s e M y c e n a e a n p o p u l a t i o n evi­ dently departed f r o m the coast o f the P e l o p o n n e s e before the arrival o f the D o r i a n s . In any light, the D o r i a n conquest o f M e l o s , Crete, R h o d e s , C o s and the coast o f Asia M i n o r a r o u n d Halicarnassus

and

Cnidus t o o k place later o n . Historic tradition and archaeological data support this. W e must accept the fact that Attica -

'the most ancient land o f

Ionia', a c c o r d i n g to S o l o n (4.2), a region w h i c h h a d p r o s p e r e d and

33

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

d e v e l o p e d after the fall o f M y c e n a e , as demonstrated b y its remark­ able geometric ceramics - t o o k in a considerable n u m b e r o f refugees. T h e I o n i c colonies o f Asia, dated usually in the eleventh

century,

were f o u n d e d from here. In the same way, n e w waves o f M y c e n a e a n s m o v e d to Cyprus from ^the P e l o p o n n e s e before the Dorians p i e d its shores: there is a b r o n z e b r o o c h from the eleventh

occu­

century

with a G r e e k inscription in the Cyprian syllabary w h i c h reads O-pele-ta-o '(I am) o f Opheltes'. In addition, Lesbos was colonised from the continent, as stated b y T h u c y d i d e s III 2.3. 5 5 . In conclusion, w e must e m b r a c e the fact that the Dorians and the related p e o p l e k n o w n as 'Dorians from the N . W . ' , descended from the N . , taking advantage

o f the collapse o f the

Mycenaean

kingdoms: they were, in effect, Greeks w h o h a d r e m a i n e d after the invasion, and led a pastoral existence in the

behind

mountains.

T h e y had an archaic G r e e k dialect, w h i c h had remained

immune

from the innovations o f 'East G r e e k ' w h i c h had entered G r e e c e from the year 2 0 0 0 and f r o m w h i c h M y c e n a e a n , the language o f H o m e r , and the different dialects e m e r g e d . This dialect coincides with these as far as archaisms are c o n c e r n e d , but n o t as regards innovations. Y e t , there w e r e n o vacant lands in G r e e c e , so the Dorians to superimpose themselves o n t o the ancient G r e e k settlements,

had sub­

stituting their dialects - although traces o f these remained at times, especially in C r e t e — o r creating m i x e d dialects in B o e o t i a

and

Thessaly. B y stepping in and driving wedges between the o l d dialects, s o m e o f w h i c h h a d b e e n transported to the other side o f the sea, the Dorians contributed to the isolation o f the settlements and, in short, to dialectal differentiation, w h i c h is not attested (perhaps for a simple lack o f data) in either M y c e n a e a n o r the A c h a e a n epic o f the poets. M a n y years must have passed before the unifying ten­ dencies re-emerged. 56. As we know, on the basis of a well-known work by J. Chadwick 1973 (see also Chadwick 1985), a kind o f scepticism has taken root in the aca­ demic world and for some time it has been trendy to deny the Dorian invasion. The Dorians are seen as a subjected people who rebelled against their Mycenaean masters, and Doric is regarded as a type o f Mycenaean. Elsewhere (Adrados 1998b), supported by other studies, I have made a complete refutation o f this hypothesis. Cf. also J. J. Moralejo 1977 and P. G. van Soesbergen 1981 (the 'Dorian invasion' is seen as a secondary migration of a straggler part o f the Greek migration). W e have precise his­ torical and archaeological data whereas Chadwick's linguistic arguments are

34

CHAPTER THREE

insignificant. Cf. among others A. Lopez Eire 1984a R. A. Crossland 1985 and J. Mendez Dosuna 1985, p . 299 ff. See D . Musti 1985b on the way in which the arrival o f the Dorians should be conceived. O n the archaeo­ logical aspect o f this matter, see F. Schachermeyr 1980, p. 240 ff, who links the Dorians to the ceramics o f the 'circle o f Buboshti' in Macedonia and distinguishes them from the Dorians of the N. W., who are placed further to the west. O n the Ionic settlement in Attica, cf. the same author, p . 374 ff. O n pre-Dorian (Achaean) remnants in Cretan Doric, cf. Y. Duhoux 1988.

3.

G R E E K A N D T H E N O N - G R E E K LANGUAGES IN T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

57. S o , w e see that the Greeks were established in G r e e c e starting from the year 2 0 0 0 . F r o m the first millennium onwards, w h e n w e are p r o v i d e d with evidence for establishing these events, G r e e c e itself is c o m p l e t e l y Hellenised, H o w e v e r , there are very m a n y n o n - G r e e k elements in its t o p o n y m y and lexicon. I n d e e d , a series o f G r e e k authors preserved the m e m o r y o f n o n G r e e k settlements o f archaic date: they even indicate that n o n - G r e e k languages were still spoken in certain parts, especially in the periph­ ery o f G r e e c e . T h e information is collected in P. K r e t s c h m e r 1946, p . 146 ff., and O . H o f f m a n n

1973, p . 25 ff. H o m e r refers to the

Pelasgians in Argolis, Thessaly and Crete (Iliad II 681 ff., 843 ff; Odyssey X I X 179 ff.), and the m e m o r y o f the Pelasgians o f the heroic p e r i o d persisted. H e r o d o t u s I 56 refers to the Pelasgians as the first settlers o f G r e e c e in Thessaly, Attica and A r c a d i a , c f also I 146, V I I 9 4 s., V I I I 44; he refers to traces o f t h e m in Placia and Scylace, near the Propontis. But Thucydides I V 109 also refers to the Tyrsenians o f Athens and L e m n o s , w h i c h H e r o d o t u s calls Pelasgians ( V I 136 S.); he also mentions the Tyrsenians o r Etruscans w h o m o v e d from Lydia to Italy (I 94); nevertheless, Thucydides I V 109 distinguishes Pelasgian from Tyrsenian in the A t h o s peninsula. T h i s is confirmed b y the well-known L e m n o s inscription, written in a language that is very close to Etruscan. S o , the Greeks w o u l d have b e e n found in G r e e c e together with these Pelasgians o r Etruscans, w h o , with s o m e exceptions, later only survived in marginal 58. T h e r e are written

territories. accounts o f Asian settlements

in G r e e c e in

archaic times. H e r o d o t u s I 171, Strabo V I I 3 2 2 , 3 7 4 , X I I I 6 1 1 ,

35

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

Pausanias III 1, 1, V I 2, 4 and the historian Callisthenes (FrGH 124 F 25) write o f the Pelasgian o c c u p a t i o n o f central G r e e c e , Messenia, Leucas, E u b o e a a n d the Cyclades, as well as almost the w h o l e o f Ionia. Sometimes their n a m e is considered to b e s y n o n y m o u s with that o f the Garians ( o f vjhich there are still linguistic traces in Asia), o r else they are seen as part o f this g r o u p o r as their vassals. In any case, T h u c y d i d e s I 8 attests that the ancient t o m b s o f D e l o s were o f a Garian type; and Callisthenes mentions a Carian emigration to Greece. T h e s e neolithic settlements must have left a mark o n the G r e e k language, something w h i c h I shall address further o n (§§ 62 f f ) . 5 9 . Besides this, there is archaeological evidence in neolithic G r e e c e o f settlements o f a northern o r ' E u r o p e a n '

origin, in Sesklo and

D i m i n i (nude female figurines, certain kinds o f ceramics including those with stripes, spiral and w a v y line designs): see P. Kretschmer 1946, p . 151 ff., a m o n g others. T h e r e is also evidence o f setdements o f Asian origin (city planning a n d fortifications similar to those o f T r o y I and II, ceramics that make use o f a varnish known as 'Urfirnis', the nude goddesses o f C y c l a d i c art). It is interesting to note that in the peripheral regions w e still c o m e across n o n - G r e e k settlements in the historic p e r i o d , living m o r e or less in p e a c e with the Greeks. Aside from the information p r o v i d e d b y historians a n d the previously m e n t i o n e d L e m n o s inscription it suffices to recall the C y p r o - M i n o a n script that f r o m the

sixteenth

century onwards r e c o r d e d an indigenous language; it continued to d o so until the fourth century a m o n g an indigenous population that h a d sought refuge in A m a t h u s f r o m the n e w M y c e n a e a n invasions at the end o f the T r o j a n W a r (the myth mentions T e u c e r , founder o f Salamis) and f r o m the Dorians, w h o h a d arrived in the

twelfth

century and w h o did n o t s u c c e e d in i m p o s i n g their language. T h e oldest G r e e k inscription - dating f r o m the eleventh century, as pre­ viously m e n t i o n e d - is written in a n e w syllabic script and in the Cyprian dialect, w h i c h is related to A r c a d i a n . Crete must also b e mentioned, w h e r e the M y c e n a e a n s and then the Dorians arrived: an island with a highly civilised pre-Greek p o p ­ ulation, as s h o w n b y the hieroglyphic and Linear A scripts.

The

Odyssey X I X 176 refers to the Eteo-Cretans: their language contin­ u e d to b e spoken until the third century B C in Praisos and D r e r o s , and from a certain point it b e g a n to b e written in the Greek alphabet.

36

CHAPTER THREE

A l s o , w e must n o t forget Asia, w h e r e o n e n e e d only read H o m e r to appreciate just h o w m a n y different p e o p l e s were e m b r o i l e d in the turmoil o f the T r o j a n W a r . But there is n o record, in the s e c o n d millennium, o f the languages spoken b y the peoples o n the Asian coast, although there is evidence relating to Hittite and Luwian; only from the first millennium d o w e have knowledge o f Thracian, Phrygian, Lycian, Carian, Neo-Hittite,

etc

60. W e can b e certain o f the following: at the close o f the s e c o n d millennium, with the collapse o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms and

the

D o r i a n invasion, G r e e k d o m i n a t e d G r e e c e itself, but it only partially o c c u p i e d the outer region, in Cyprus, Crete and L e m n o s , and it was certainly in a minority in Asia and other parts w h i c h h a d

been

r e a c h e d b y the M y c e n a e a n expansion. In the N . it was limited b y Illyrian and Thracian, in Asia b y Phrygian. These were Indo-European peoples w h o had arrived in the Balkans at a later date, but w h o m a y at times have b e e n dragged along b y the Greeks: T h u c y d i d e s II 29 a n d Strabo I X 25 refer to the Thracians and

Phrygians.

S o m e problems are presented b y M a c e d o n i a n , which was implanted in a territory w h e r e the Greeks h a d settled before entering G r e e c e , It was Hellenised a n d b e g a n to disappear from the fourth

century

B C H o w e v e r , there is still s o m e d o u b t as to whether it was an I n d o E u r o p e a n language distinct from Greek, perhaps o f the I n d o - G r e e k g r o u p (such as T h r a c i a n o r Phrygian), o r whether it was a Greek dialect that was left behind. M a c e d o n i a n is only k n o w n to us through a few glosses that dis­ play certain

characteristics,

the principal b e i n g the c o n v e r s i o n o f

v o i c e d aspirated to unaspirated v o i c e d , in contrast to the G r e e k aspi­ rated voiceless (Sdvoq for 0dvaxo<;), as seen in Illyrian, Phrygian Slavic, a m o n g other languages. O t h e r characteristics

c o i n c i d e with

the G r e e k dialects o r with Illyrian o r Phrygian. Furthermore, tain names, such as P a r m e n o n having an altered

or cer­

o r Berenice, are Greek, the latter

pronunciation.

F r o m this p o i n t o n , it is generally believed that w e are

dealing

with a language that is different from Greek, In fact, the

Greeks

considered the M a c e d o n i a n s to b e barbaric, cf, D e m o s t h e n e s I X 3 1 . Y e t ultimately, in the context o f the debate about the Hellenism o f M a c e d o n i a , Greek scholars have claimed the Hellenicity o f its ancient language. M a c e d o n i a n w o u l d b e a Greek dialect that was left behind, a b r a n c h that stands in opposition to the language that a d v a n c e d

37

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

towards G r e e c e and gave rise to the first dialects considered to b e Greek. It is difficult to c o m e to a clear decision o n this matter, given the scarcity o f information available to us. 61. O n Macedonian, after O . Hoffman 1906 see E. Schwyzer-A. Debrunner (1st ed.) 1939, p. 69 ff. TJhe new pro-Hellenic position is presented by authors such as N. J. Kalleris 1954, B. Dasakalakis 1960, L. A. Giundin 1987, A. Panayotis 1992 and J. K. Probonas 1992. The interesting inves­ tigations of A. G. Tsopanakis 1993, which look for a Macedonian lexicon in Walachian dialects of Macedonia, do not resolve the problem. In any case, it is clear that the Greek that spread towards the S. left an empty space for this other language - a 'retarded' Greek or a different IndoEuropean language - to occupy, which only became Hellenised from the fourth century onwards. Pre-Greek elements adopted by Greek 6 2 . T h e fact is that most o f the t o p o n y m y o f G r e e c e and the islands, n o t to m e n t i o n the coast o f Asia M i n o r , is n o t actually Greek. T h e same applies to part o f the G r e e k lexicon, w h i c h sometimes displays the same kind o f suffixation as the t o p o n y m y , a n d sometimes dis­ plays p h o n e m e s in positions that originally were n o t allowed in Greek. A g o o d part o f these p r e - G r e e k t o p o n y m s find parallels in Asia M i n o r . Let us examine them from various perspectives. a) Suffixation. N o u n s in -nvoq, -y\vr\ ('AGdvoc, MvKr\vax Ileipdva, y

npifrvn, M-uTiA,f]vr|, the T o p a n v o i that emigrated to Italy); in -(G)GOC,,

-(T)TO<;

and its feminines a n d plurals

(ADKOCPTJTTOC,,

KriquGGoq, AdpiGGa, IlapvaGGOc,, TjuntToc,, etc.; in Kvcoaaoq, 'AUVI(G)6<;,

TDAIGGOC;;

in Asia

KOAOGGOCI,

Crete

TeAurjGGoc,,

rvfi)KccA,r[GG6<;, TepjinGGOc;, 'AAucccpvaGGOC,, SaYaAxxGGoq, nepyccGTi,

MuAaGCc, maybe Kopi)KriGiov); in -vBoq, -vQoq (KopivSoq, ndpvnc,, -n9o<; (T(p'uv(;/-iv0oc, in Asia HdvGog)); -Gxoq in Oouoxoc, is n o d o u b t a variant; in -ocv8a, -ivSa (perhaps related to the pre­ vious, only in Asia: 'AAav§a, 'AAapdv8a, 'ApuKdv8a, KaAivSa, Kapudvoa, AaPpdvSa, IliyivSa), also "AGTtevSoq; in -pvcc (MuKocpva in Aetolia; also in Asia: Sjmapva; in Crete: OaAccGapva; in Cos:

'AA-ccGapva).

b) Phonetics. T h e r e are various cases o f n o n - G r e e k phonetics: ini­ tial G - (locyoctaxGGoq, EaAocLnc,, Sdp5eiq, XiXXxov); the alterna­ tion o f spiritus lenis/asper (but perhaps this has something to d o with G r e e k transcription: 'AA,i/oc-, 'AA-t/oc-), the G - and the lack thereof; the alternation o f a/i (examples previously cited),

38

CHAPTER

pA

THREE

(TeA^noao^/TepjiinGGOc;),

y / K , -aa-/-a-. This marks the

start o f a different p h o n e t i c system. It seems that certain suffixes previously took a K> ('Api>K-dvSa, 'AAi-K-apv-aaaoc,, KoDpu-K-fiorov): the transcription o f a laryngeal? c) Derivation. Sometimes w e come across two derivatives

from

the same root o r o n e derived from another: with the roots f

A5u/oc-, 'AAi/oe-, in nepyn/nepYa^ov/nepivGo^/nepyaori, KoAo-

aaai/KoAocpcov, MuKaAn/MuKaAnaaoq, KopivGoq, Koptucrjcnov, napvaaao<;/ndpvn<;/napva>v, be

etc. Sometimes there seems to (

an accumulation o f suffixes: AA,iK-apv-aaa6<;, M-uK-dAn/

Mi)K-aAr|-aa6(; (maybe the K is phonetic, as I have said). d) Morphology. T h e r e are m a s c , fern., and n., sg. and pi. forms w h i c h display G r e e k m o r p h o l o g y . This m a y b e new

something

o r m a y just b e covering something old.

e) Roots. W e can deduce the existence o f various roots, some c o r r e s p o n d i n g to Greek, n o d o u b t as a result o f borrowings (although sometimes a common I n d o - E u r o p e a n origin can b e postulated). F o r example, 'A?u- and variants, rapu- (cf. G r . KapDa?), Kop- ( c f G r . Kopix;?), AccPp- (Gr, Adpp-uc,), rcapv-, Ttepy(the root o f G r . Tcopyoq?), TepLiVxeAu- (cf. Celtic Termes?), 018(Gr.

ai&n), aja-op- (in Euupvn, cf. Gr. auupva?), cpda- (cf. Odatc,,

OdanAiq),

%CCA,K-

(in XaAicn8cav,

ECCAKIC,,

cf. Gr. Xahcoq). In addi­

tion, there are t o p o n y m s common to G r e e c e and Asia which are neither Greek n o r appear to b e Indo-European: "OXX)\XKO<;, 0TJp<xi). As n o t e d a b o v e , the most striking thing is that these formations

are

analogous o r identical to those o f theonyms such as 'AGdva, the god­ c

dess, o r common nouns such as Kvnapxaaoq, the cypress', dadjuivGoq, 'the bath', PoAivGoq, 'wild bull', epePtv0o<;, 'chickpea', e t c O n e must l o o k for etymologies, in whatever sense, which are parallel to n o n Indo-European Greek words such as GdAocjioc,, 'the b e d r o o m ' , jaiyapov, 'living-room', (pdAaaaa, 'the sea', religious o r p o e t i c terms such as SiGupocujioc,, iccjj,po<;, Gpiceujio*;, AaP^pivGoq, pdic%o<;, etc. Sometimes w e find common terms with n o n - G r e e k e t y m o l o g y and phonetics, such as aixoc,, 'grain, wheat', aiSnpoi;, 'iron', aiSn, ' p o m e ­ granate', PaorAetx;, 'king'; o r simply with a n o n - G r e e k etymology, such as XfiK-oGoq, 'a vessel', KiGdpa, 'zither' and theonyms such as 'ATIOAACOV,

"Apxeuic;, Ki)pf|pr|, etc.

FROM COMMON GREEK T O T H E

63.

39

DIALECTS

T h e r e are evidently three possibilities: (i) that these w o r d s were 5

a d o p t e d in the Balkans from the culture o f ' o l d E u r o p e ; (ii) that they were a d o p t e d in G r e e c e itself o r in Asia; (iii) that they were a result o f the cultural influence o f p e o p l e s f r o m the ancient East. It is not necessary to p r o p o s e a unitary solution. Cultural elements such as the bath o r Mediterranean

plants c o u l d c o m e f r o m G r e e c e , o r

sometimes m o r e specifically from Crete (AxxpupivBoc,, ACKTUVVCG); 'iron' c o u l d c o m e from Asia M i n o r , where it was introduced; the n a m e o f A p o l l o seems to c o m e from Lydia, and C y b e l e from Phrygia. R e m o t e e t y m o l o g y is another matter. 64.

T h r e e theories c o m e to light w h e n w e see b e y o n d the

F o r the first theory, this v o c a b u l a r y is I n d o - E u r o p e a n

details.

but

with

5

'Pelasgian phonetic alterations different to those o f Greek: a different evolution o f the sonants w o u l d explain, for e x a m p l e , tvuPoc, (Gr. xdcpoq), a consonantal mutation

w o u l d explain the forms in -ivBoc,

(from -nt-, in daduivGoq, with the preservation time and satemisation, cf. G r .

OCKLICOV),

o f -s- at the

same

(poc?tA,6<; ( o f *bhel-\ xauiocc; (of

*dom~, with the alteration o f the v o w e l at the same time), etc. This explains ouc, beside ox;, Foptax; o f *ghrdh, *ghordh (cf. O S l a v . *gordu 5

'city , Phryg. Manegordum and the city o f G o r d i u m ) . F o r the s e c o n d theory the terms are considered to b e Hittite-Luwian o r Anatolian, having emigrated to G r e e c e before the arrival o f the Greeks. T h e third theory postulates a substratum o f n o n - I n d o - E u r o p e a n terms. I will refrain f r o m adopting any position here. 65. O n the Telasgian' hypothesis see, among others, V . Georgiev 1941, A. J. van Windekens 1952, W . Merlingen 1955; and further information and bibliography in R. Hiersche 1970, p. 33 ff, M . Meier-Briigger 1992, p. 69 f O n the hypothesis of Minoan, Luwian, and the rest, A. Heubeck 191, L. R. Palmer 1958, G. Huxley 1961. O n Semitic borrowings in Greek, some o f them very old, see § 66 and O . Masson 1967; on Egyptian borrowings, see J. L. Fournet 1989. 66.

Nevertheless, at least part o f this v o c a b u l a r y was already incor­

porated into G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium B C . T h e M y c e n a e a n vocabulary contains theonyms such as the names o f Artemis, Athena, Dionysus and Ilitia (e-re-u-ti-jd); p h y t o n y m s such as ku-pa-ro and kori-ja-da-no (lcurceipoq and KopiocvSpov), ku-pa-ri-so (in a toponym); cultural 5

5

words such as si-to, da-pu-ri-to, a-sa-mi-to and qa-si-re-u, 'grain , 'labyrinth , 5

5

'bath , and 'king . A l s o , o f course, t o p o n y m s such as, a m o n g those

40

CHAPTER THREE

described, a-mi-ni-so (Amnisos) and ko-no-so (Knossos) in Crete; and a n t h r o p o n y m s such as a-ki-re-u (Achilles). N o t to mention w o r d s from the Semitic, such as ' g o l d ' (ku-ru-so) o r 'tunic' (ki-to), o r from Egyptian, such as 'elephant'

(e-re-pa-)

y

o r the g r o u p o f ' o l d travelling' w o r d s

discussed earlier w h i c h , n o d o u b t , already existed in IE before enter­ ing the G r e e k dialects in G r e e c e . H o m e r represents,

in m a n y cases, a testimony c o n c o r d a n t with

M y c e n a e a n : with regard to t o p o n y m s , anthroponyms and c o m m o n names. Recall, for e x a m p l e , daduivGoc,, fiaoiXevq, Kvnapioooq, orioq, cri§r|poc,. O f course, there are certain M y c e n a e a n terms w h i c h are lacking in H o m e r , and in turn certain terms w h i c h are lacking in M y c e n a e a n , for e x a m p l e , ep8(3w6o<;, GdAaaooc, jjiyapov; and in both sources w o r d s are missing w h i c h appear m u c h later (for example, 5i6t)pcqx(3oc, in A r c h i l o c h u s , seventh century). This does not

mean

that n o n e o f them already existed in the s e c o n d millennium, what­ ever their path o f entry m a y have b e e n . T h u s , p r e - G r e e k e t y m o l o g y is not always certain, cf. for example, for

Auxc; and

AiocKog, A .

G.

Tsopanakis

1979.

67. It is certain that during this p e r i o d G r e e k a d o p t e d a n e w v o c a b ­ ulary o f different origins in order to give n a m e to n e w cultural cir­ cumstances, n e w gods, plants, animals, products, and metals.

But

even the names o f ancient institutions were replaced b y n e w names, whether I n d o - E u r o p e a n o r n o t (fiaaxXexx; 'king',
Indo-European;

most

o f all, its m e t h o d s o f derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n w e r e

Indo-European. T h e additions from this period and the periods before and after, taken from other languages, are important culturally but not structurally. I n d e e d , this subject has never b e e n

systematically

studied. T h e great d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G r e e k vocabulary t o o k place m u c h later. T h e m o r p h o l o g i c a l and syntactical borrowings from this p e r i o d were o f even less i m p o r t a n c e , perhaps even o f n o importance. T h e r e was n o great advance in this respect from C o m m o n G r e e k to the beginning o f the great d e v e l o p m e n t o f the beginning o f the seventh century. It was o n l y later that G r e e k m a d e a giant leap, b e c o m i n g the international m o d e l for all languages. U p to this point it was

F R O M C O M M O N G R E E K T O T H E DIALECTS

41

merely another I n d o - E u r o p e a n language that h a d arrived in a ter­ ritory d o m i n a t e d culturally b y Crete and Asia, although it did have a well-developed m o r p h o l o g y , as explained, w h i c h e n a b l e d advances. f

future

CHAPTER FOUR G R E E K IN T H E S E C O N D M I L L E N N I U M

1.

EAST GREEK

68. East G r e e k is sometimes referred to as southern Greek, but h o w ­ ever it is called it represents the G r e e k that entered G r e e c e a r o u n d the y e a r 2 0 0 0 a n d left its m a r k in the

second millennium,

in

M y c e n a e a n a n d whatever is archaic in H o m e r . It was also the base from w h i c h the great eastern dialects o f the first millennium w o u l d spring, that is, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n , Ionic, a n d A e o l i c . A t o n e point, until the arrival o f the D o r i a n s , it o c c u p i e d a continuous geographical area extending f r o m the S. o f M a c e d o n i a to L a c e d a e m o n , as well as to Crete, Cyprus, R h o d e s , and to other islands and certain parts o f Asia. A s I have stated, t o d a y it is thought that the principal innova­ tions

o f G r e e k are o f a m o r e recent date, the first millennium, as

o p p o s e d to the o l d view in w h i c h the three principal dialects were thought to have c o m e from outside o f G r e e c e . T h u s , w e have IonicAttic features w h i c h are o n l y half o r partially achieved in certain places, for e x a m p l e the c o n v e r s i o n o f a into n, contractions

and

metathesis o f quantity, u > u, the treatment o f the groups of**^- and sonants and o f -ss-> -ts-, -ty-, o r the loss o f the d i g a m m a , etc.; A e o l i c characteristics such as those resulting from the groups o f s and sonants m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , the D . p f in -eaoi, the part. perf. in -vx-, etc. (we consider others to b e archaisms o r choices); a n d others from A r c C y p . , as for e x a m p l e innovations such as ev > iv, - o >

assibi-

lated labiovelar before e, i, dvoc> 6v o r choices such as o v o , ovi, ove. 69. Despite this, I have insisted in m y review o f the b o o k b y G a r c i a R a m o n ( A d r a d o s 1979b) a n d elsewhere that other

characteristics

found in o n e o r various o f the dialects o f the first millennium are really either innovations f r o m the s e c o n d millennium, o r choices within doublets also f r o m the s e c o n d millennium: here a n d

there,

remnants o f the archaic f o r m o r the form not chosen are often found. T h e p r e s e n c e o f s o m e o f these characteristics in m o r e than o n e dialect o r in M y c e n a e a n o r H o m e r is a strong argument. Sometimes

43

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

only a few eastern dialects have maintained the archaism, o r s o m e ­ times only o n e : M y c e n a e a n , H o m e r , Cyprian, etc. F o r instance, innovations like -si, but with traces o f -ti (in M y c , Horn., A e o L , Pam.), o r the 3rd s e c o n d a r y pi. in -(a)av (Ion.-At., A r c - C y p . , Horn.), o r even \\\xz\q and TJV and their uncontracted forms (Ion.-At., Horn.), o r ano > dcTru ( A r c - C y p . , Lesb., Pamph.), w h i c h g o b a c k to the s e c o n d millennium. Indeed, also archaisms such as the p a t r o n y m i c -xoq (AeoL, M y c , Horn.) o r forms o f an o l d doublet: dv (but K 8 in A e o L and Horn.), -ocp- (but -op- in A e o L , sometimes in M y c . a n d Horn., and a bit everywhere). T h u s , as I m e n t i o n e d pre­ viously, the three principal dialect groups b e c a m e defined in the first millennium, in isolation, although m a n y o f their characteristics

are

o f an earlier date. O f course, s o m e characteristics o f E G g o b a c k m u c h further, to C G : as in the oppositions m e n t i o n e d , -jiev/-u£<;, - ^ a - / - o a - , and n o d o u b t m a n y o f the ones w e have referred to, at least in their initial state. O t h e r characteristics n o d o u b t o n l y g o b a c k to the p e r i o d in w h i c h E G was in G r e e c e : to b e sure, its great diffusion and political fragmentation

the

o f G r e e c e into different k i n g d o m s favoured

dialectalisation. 70. It is difficult to establish exactly to what extent the first-millen­ n i u m dialects w e r e anticipated in C G o r in E G . T h e r e are very different isoglosses w h i c h c o u l d b e traced b a c k to E G dialects, but w h i c h d o n o t c o i n c i d e . Further o n , I will e x a m i n e those o f M y c and H o m e r . H o w e v e r , there are also isoglosses linking Ion.-At. with A r c - C y p . , and excluding A e o L (-vcu, dv, et, -(G)OCV, -xe e t c ; but -ccv is f o u n d in A e o L , and -xoc is f o u n d in Attic); others link A r c - C y p . a n d A e o L , as s h o w n b y -op-, 7ce8cc, noxx, athematic verbs instead o f the contracted ones, e t c O n occasion, there is fragmentation: xeaaepec, in Ion. and A r c . (but At. xeaaocpeq seems to b e analogical). Sometimes the correlation extends to Horn, o r M y c , but it can also only affect o n e dialect (£uv in A t . and M y c , p a t r o n y m i c -10c. in A e o L , M y c , a n d Horn., -xo(i) in M y c and A r c - C y p . , -91 in Horn, and T h e s . , thematic G . sg. in -o in M y c and C y p . , as I have p r o p o s e d ) . T h e r e is euiv in D o r . a n d Horn.; also, P a m p h y l i a n presents

similarities

with M y c . and A r c - C y p . , cf. M . G a r c i a Teijeiro 1984 and A . L o p e z E i r e - A . Lillo 1982 and 1983. But what d o w e think a b o u t the pre­ vious extension o f an archaism such as this, a n d o f other m o n o dialectal p h e n o m e n a , such as the preservation o f -pm-, -tm- in M y c , that o f Zf\v in Horn., that o f the thematic G . -o-ne in C y p . ?

44

CHAPTER FOUR

I will not repeat the facts that I have presented in so m a n y other works, w h i c h sometimes are m o r e significant (the innovations

and

choices) sometimes less (the archaisms). T h e truth is, it is difficult for us to establish t o d a y whether there existed a dialect later split in Ion.-At. a n d A r c - C y p . , to what extent these two groups b e c a m e isolated, a n d h o w this d e v e l o p m e n t was related to A e o l i c . But w e will return to this matter. 7 1 . T h e archaic characteristics

o f M y c , w h i c h were

subsequently

lost, must b e attributed to E G ; for e x a m p l e , the preservation o f the labiovelars, solutions o f the rh type for groups o f liquids + $ o r y. W e must a c c o u n t for the transition phase in w h i c h certain isoglosses b e c a m e generalised in E G a n d W G , o r part o f these, as a result o f c o n t a c t with the W G w h i c h c a m e to G r e e c e towards the year 1200 (I stress this in §§ 127 ff.). All o f this means that E G , a c c o r d i n g to the dates a n d locations, must have b e e n markedly different from o u r current idea o f G r e e k a n d its dialects. T h r o u g h o u t the s e c o n d millennium, within G r e e c e , this E G w o u l d have u n d e r g o n e a d o u b l e process: o n the o n e hand, it b e c a m e unified to a great extent; o n the other hand, it b e c a m e m o r e differentiated. T h e c o n t a c t with D o r i c contributed to b o t h processes. T h i s different­ iation created a m o r e o r less germinal base dialect o f Ion.-At. a n d A r c - C y p . , with transitions to a germinal A e o l i c t o o , w h i c h was later invaded b y D o r i c isoglosses. Y e t , this split was m o r e o r less c o m ­ pleted, a n d there w e r e other - partly different - dialects close b y , w h i c h have left traces in M y c e n a e a n and in H o m e r . But here a n d there, archaisms c o u l d have existed, later to b e lost, hesitations where later doublets b e c a m e simplified, innovations w h o s e limits o f diffusion later c h a n g e d , e t c A l s o , o f course, archaisms coexisted with so m a n y later dialectal innovations. 72. O n the recent character o f the dialectal innovations, I would like to recall the works o f W . Porzig 1954 and E. Risch 1955, to which one can add the works of A. Lopez Eire 1989a and A. Negri 1982a and 1982b. The latter denies the dialectal units preceding or contemporaneous with Mycenaean. These, however, are supported in works such as Adrados 1995, Palmer 1980, p. 39, F. W . Householder 1972, p. 59 f, A. Lopez Eire 1978b, A. Lopez Eire and J. Mendez Dosuna 1971, A. Bartonek 1979, 1991, 1996, etc. Today the identifications are refuted: Mycenaean is not seen as the direct ancestor o f any dialect, c f , for example, E. Risch 1979, p. 97, and 1990 (on Cyprian). The subject o f dialectal differentiation in the second millennium is examined more closely in the works cited and in § 39. Above all, see A. Morpurgo 1984b and hesitant positions in K. Strunk 1997, p. 143 ff

45

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

2.

M Y C E N A E A N AS A G R E E K D I A L E C T O F T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

What kind of language is Mycenaean? 73. A description o f M y c e n a e a n , to a d d to the m a n y , will not b e attempted here: instead, w e will examine those elements o f M y c e n a e a n that make s o m e contribution to second-millennium G r e e k and to attempt to establish the position o f M y c e n a e a n within the latter. A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, M y c e n a e a n was an administrative language, w h i c h presents important lacunae for those attempting a description o f the G r e e k language. It is almost uniform from K n o s s o s a n d K h a n i a to Pylos, T h e b e s , M y c e n a e and Tyrins (the o n l y places in w h i c h it has b e e n preserved): although this uniformity is due m o r e to the fact that it was an official language that did n o t reflect the linguistic differentiations o f the real language. It was the administrative

lan­

guage o f the palaces, n o t a language o f the streets. But it seems clear that the differences b e t w e e n the language o f Pylos and that o f K n o s s o s are minimal, a n d that the proposals b y R i s c h and others to distinguish a ' n o r m a l M y c e n a e a n ' and a 'spe­ cial M y c e n a e a n ' must b e rejected. I believe that it was an error to focus o n the history o f M y c e n a e a n from the perspective o f the differences b e t w e e n the dialects o f the first millennium in an attempt to establish w h i c h o f these was related to it. H o w e v e r , c o m m o n sense seems to b e gaining g r o u n d and the n e e d to identify M y c e n a e a n with any o f t h e m appears to have dis­ appeared. T h e fact is, the dialects o f the s e c o n d millennium c a n n o t b e interpreted in the light o f the first-millennium dialects. I n d e e d , M y c e n a e a n contains linguistic elements preserved in the dialects o f the eighth century and sp,, but it d o e s not exactiy pre­ c e d e any o f these dialects, w h i c h essentially derive from a later frag­ mentation o f East Greek, although some o f their characteristics already h a d a dialectal character in the s e c o n d millennium. T h e subsequent introduction o f W e s t G r e e k was a d d e d , as well as the interaction o f s o m e dialects. All o f this, o f course, was alien to M y c e n a e a n . T h e r e w e r e also pan-dialectal innovations affecting a w i d e range o f dialects. But this m u c h is evident: M y c e n a e a n was first r e c o r d e d in writ­ ing in Crete with the help o f a syllabary derived from that used b y the M i n o a n scribes. I f scribes, t o o , o f the M y c e n a e a n p a l a c e o f K n o s s o s r e c o r d e d the G r e e k language for the first time with the help o f a Cretan syllabary, it seems logical that they w o u l d have used the Cretan dialect that was familiar to the palace

administrators.

46

CHAPTER FOUR

M y c e n a e a n is the

G r e e k dialect o f C r e t e that was

subsequently

b r o u g h t to the continent as an administrative language, in addition to writing; n o d o u b t , the first copyists w o u l d have c o m e from there. O f course, it is neither a p o p u l a r n o r a literary language, filled as it is with standard phrases and administrative

formulas, the per­

fect understanding o f w h i c h w o u l d require an understanding o f the cultural and e c o n o m i c context (which is not o u r case, since w e must d e d u c e this from the tablets). Even so, M y c e n a e a n is an invaluable testimony o f o n e o f the dialects o f G r e e c e in the s e c o n d millennium. A n d it is natural for a specialised language, whether

administrative

o r literary, to have a particular geographical dialect as its base. 75. O n Mycenaean as an administrative or bureaucratic language, cf. M . Lejeune 1968, M . Durante 1968 and A. Bartonek 1996. The differences between Mycenaean from Knossos and Mycenaean from Pylos have been noted, yet they are minimal: c f M . Lejeune 1976 and the bibliography in Adrados 1998b. I do not believe in the two dialects proposed by E. Risch, the 'normal' and the 'special' (E. Risch 1966, cf. also, among others, R. D . Woodward 1986), for they are based on mere hesitations or on dou­ blets; and to consider 'special' Mycenaean as that corresponding to the sup­ posed rebel Dorians is nothing but pure fantasy. See a bibliography and arguments in Adrados 1998b and C. Consani 1989 (despite the adminis­ trative character o f Mycenaean, there is 'affiorare sporadico' o f some forms of the spoken language), C . J . Ruijgh 1996, K. Strunk 1997, p. 137 ff and recently A. Bartonek 2003. Indeed, Mycenaean displays some slight variants (-e and -i in the D . sg., a and o as vocalisations o f < « > , etc.), which is normal: it was, after all, a living language, which grew through variants and innovations. This pro­ vides even less justification for its interpretation as a 'mixed' language, as proposed by Georgiev 1964 (and also A. Negri 1981 and, if I understand him correctly, A. Bartonek 1987). O n the Cretan origin o f Mycenaean c f some clarifications in J. P. Oliver 1996. O n the proposals attributing Mycenaean to a particular dialectal group of the first millennium, generally to Ionic-Attic, a bibliography has already been provided in § 72. But what the first-millennium dialects do display are isoglosses o f various extension: whether in the whole o f the Southern E G or only in A r c - C y p . (and sometimes Pamph., cf. M . Garcia Teijeiro 1984) or Ion.-At., often reaching some part of Aeol. (for example, there is correspondence with Lesbian in KO-, OXZIC, (OTTK;), -sue, cf. A. Lopez Eire 1987b). However, there are rarely any c o m m o n innovations (cf. nevertheless E. Risch 1991, p. 233), most often we are dealing with archaisms and choices (sometimes o f a recent date, common to W G ) . I must stress that the asso­ ciation of Mycenaean with a certain group is more that doubtful; see § 79. See also the bibliography in K. Strunk 1997, p . 143 ff.

47

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

With regard to its relation with Doric, as proposed by G. R o c c a 1984, this is really a question o f common archaisms. Furthermore, an inheritance of Mycenaean in the language o f choral lyric, as proposed by C. Trumpy 1986, does not seem credible, cf. C . J . Ruijgh 1989, p. 85 ff For the study o f Mycenaean archaisms, see my previously cited works, some o f which deal with tjie vocalisation of the sonants, starting with my 1958 article (also A. Morpurgo 1968). 76. Before embarking o n the study o f M y c e n a e a n f r o m this per­ spective, two points n e e d further attention. First is the fact that the M y c e n a e a n graphic system contains ideograms a n d signs for numer­ als, weights, and measures in addition to the syllabary, and that it leaves m a n y dark areas so that its interpretation is often controver­ sial. T h e r e is n o distinction between the quantities o f the vowels, o r b e t w e e n voiceless and v o i c e d occlusives, while there are various syl­ labic signs with a doubtful interpretation.

T h e r e are also p r o b l e m s

and irregularities in the transcription o f the consonantal groups; atten­ tion is hardly ever p a i d to final -n, -r, a n d -s. I even think that the mark o f final diphthongs is asystematic, a n d in o u r transcriptions w e are sometimes unsure whether a v o w e l is p h o n e t i c o r graphic, etc. See, for e x a m p l e , M . M e i e r - B r u g g e r 1992, p . 47 fF. S e c o n d l y , such i n c o m p l e t e texts with so m a n y gaps simply serve to bring to o u r attention the presence o f certain forms in M y c e n a e a n . M a n y other forms are simply lacking, such as verbal, n o m i n a l , adverbial a n d lex­ ical forms, so that w e c a n n o t d r a w a c o m p a r i s o n with subsequent dialects o r with H o m e r . W e d o not k n o w whether its m o d a l parti­ cle was ke o r an, whether the conditional c o n j u n c t i o n was ei o r ai W e are ignorant with regard to the athematic infinitive, etc. W h o l e paradigms are missing. I n d e e d , statements such as ' M y c e n a e a n has 5

lost the augment , 'the article a n d demonstrative w h i c h p r e c e d e d it 5

are missing , etc., simply c o u l d b e due to o u r lack o f information, 77. O n the characteristics o f M y c e n a e a n in relation to other dialects, see A d r a d o s 1976a, 1984a and

1 9 9 8 b . Specifically, o n the

archaic

system o f five cases, see A d r a d o s 1 9 9 0 b (regarding syncretism the­ ory, cf. for e x a m p l e , H . Hettrich

1985).

F r o m the perspective o f the originality o f M y c e n a e a n , the facts presented in detail in these works suggest that, in the first place, M y c e n a e a n is characterised b y a series o f archaisms that are p e c u ­ liar to M y c e n a e a n a n d that o n e supposes must c o m e f r o m C G o r E G , as the case m a y b e . T h e y are either I n d o - E u r o p e a n

archaisms

o r evolutionary stages anticipating the w h o l e subsequent evolution.

48

CHAPTER FOUR

In these archaisms,

M y c e n a e a n is either isolated from the

Greek

dialects w e k n o w , o r else a c c o m p a n i e d b y s o m e o f them. But I insist that w e must assume that these archaisms existed in all o f the dialects at a certain point before the phase in w h i c h w e k n o w them. Linguistic characteristics 78. A l t h o u g h n o attempt has b e e n m a d e here to p r o v i d e an exhaus­ tive list, w e can p o i n t out the following I n d o - E u r o p e a n archaisms in M y c e n a e a n , whether isolated o r a c c o m p a n i e d b y other dialects: Phonetics: the preservation o f the labiovelar series; partial preser­ vation o f y; lack o f v o w e l contraction; preservation o f the -pm-, -tmgroups; pt- beside p- (as in Horn, and A r c - C y p . ) . In the s + sonant, sonant + s and sonant + y groups, M y c e n a e a n displays the begin­ nings o f a solution with h o r 0 w h i c h precedes that o f the later dialects, as I have p r o p o s e d . N o u n : N . sg. in -a o f the

1st. m a s c decl. (uncertain); G . sg. in

-0 o f the 2 n d (= C y p . ; there is also *-o-yo = Horn., Thes.); D . - L . - I . sg.

-e < * -ei ( = Horn., seldom; but there is also the c o m m o n -i),

p i -a~i (< *-dsi) ( = Horn., Ion., archaic At.), -oi < *-oisi ( = Horn., archaic I o n . and archaic At.); a pure anumeric stem followed b y an agglutinated particle (po-pi) (= Horn., Thes.). P r o n o u n : the demonstratives to-to ( = At.), mi ( = Horn., Ion.), the reflexive pei ( = Horn.). Adjective: the p a t r o m y m i c in -io ( = Horn., A e o L ) , the numeral e-me,

the comparative o n l y in -yo.

V e r b : athematic forms in -a, (te-re-ja; there are also thematic forms) (= Horn., A e o L ) , des. -to(i) ( = A r c - C y p . ) ; p e r f part, in *-wosa: a-raru-wo-a. Prepositions: ku-su (£6v = Horn., archaic At.), me-ta (also, pe-da = A e o L , A r c ) , o-pi (remnants in Ion.-At., also T h e s . ; e-pi, the c o m m o n form, is also present), pa-ro. L e x i c o n : a m o n g o t h e r s , the w o r d s

*owosI *owesos ' e a r ' ,

i-ja-ro

(= H o r n . , Ion., e t c before the variant with -e-)\ u-ju ( = *i)vuc,); de-reu-ko

y

that is, *8A,ei)K0(;, yX- in other dialects; me-re~u-ro d^e^pov in y

other dialects; a b u n d a n t vocabulary, c o m m o n to Horn, and s o m e ­ times other dialects, o f the type wa-na-ka (dva^), i-ja-te (iaxrip, also in C y p . ) , e t c 79. All o f these archaic elements, in certain cases, c o u l d have o c c u ­ p i e d all o f C G a n d E G (or the latter, at least), o r part o f it. W e

49

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

can see that, besides archaism, M y c e n a e a n contained variants that were also present in other dialects. In s o m e cases there are

relative

archaisms: G . -o-yo, w h i c h is IE, but here it was m o r e recent than the N . - G . -os; and I w o u l d like to recall the sonant + s or y groups mentioned a b o v e

^

S o , n o n e o f this indicates a special relation between M y c e n a e a n and any other dialect, even w h e n M y c e n a e a n preserves a doublet o f G r e e k date: 0/a

y

or/ar in the vocalisation o f the sonants, or w h e n

it presents a c h o i c e : -eus and not -es (in nearly all o f Greek, except for A r c - C y p . ) ; G . in -oyo a n d not -00 (of *-osyo, in Horn, and Thes., as mentioned). O f course, this d e m a n d s b r o a d explanations, which I have p r o v i d e d in other works. I f what I say is correct, then these choices w o u l d also be o f n o use to us in classifying M y c e n a e a n . In a p e r i o d that predates our k n o w l e d g e , the distribution c o u l d have b e e n

different.

T h e innovations remain. T h e y are very rare: the creation o f a secondary yod ($u-za o f auKeai; there are close examples in Horn, and C y p . ) ; irregularities in the treatment o f primary yod after

the

occlusive (ka-zo-e < *kafyoses); the dual to-pe-zo; the loss o f augment. 80. T h u s , M y c e n a e a n was an extremely conservative dialect, with hardly any innovations o f its o w n , although with a few choices, it is true, in c o m m o n o r n o t with other dialects. It preserved its archaic forms in a time w h e n all o r part o f these other dialects had either lost t h e m o r h a d c h o s e n from a m o n g the doublets: this is the most remarkable thing. W e c a n n o t establish its exact relation to the paraM y c e n a e a n dialects, apart from the fact that it is m o r e archaic and p r o c e e d s in an original w a y with s o m e c h o i c e s and innovations. Y e t . the picture is incomplete without a study o f its relation to the H o m e r i c dialect. Before turning to this, the impression w e get is that M y c e n a e a n , a bureaucratic f o r m o f the Cretan dialect predating the tablets from the continent, maintained

an archaism that, n o doubt, was

absent

in the spoken language. This w o u l d have contained variants (what w e have referred to as p a r a - M y c e n a e a n dialects) w h i c h presaged the future dialects o f the first millennium. A n official, archaic

language

o f remote origin and antiquity w o u l d have co-existed with the spo­ ken dialects, s o m e w h a t like the co-existence o f Latin with the ger­ minal R o m a n c e languages at the start o f the M i d d l e Ages.

50

CHAPTER FOUR

3.

A C H A E A N EPIC AS A G R E E K L A N G U A G E O F T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

Diverse theories on the Homeric language 81. T h e r e is a s e c o n d source for the k n o w l e d g e o f Greek in the sec­ o n d millennium: the epic language o f H o m e r and his succesors. T h e p r o b l e m is that this language r e a c h e d its definitive form

through

H o m e r ' s writing o f it (directly o r b y dictation) in the eighth century B C . M o r e o v e r , as it is universally agreed, it was an artificial language that was renovated in the mouths o f the aoidoi from the s e c o n d mil­ lennium o n , and even earlier, from C G and certainly from IE. T h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n epic has similar characteristics: it mixes o l d and recent linguistic forms, and o l d and recent historical data. This occurs within a formulaic system that c o m e s from the I n d o - E u r o p e a n epic and that reinforces a partly artificial language b y using doublets and other artifices. It is, in effect, a system o f formulas and stan­ dard phrases within fixed metrical schemes: it m a y admit

different

forms o r it m a y adapt t h e m to the linguistic evolution; or, in c o n ­ trast, it m a y modify the formulas and create n e w ones. 82. K. Witte 1913 and K. Meister 1921 studied the formulaic and artificial character o f the Homeric language. After this, M . Parry 1928 studied the formulaic system, and a clear presentation o f the subject is provided by A. Parry 1971. I would like to distinguish J. B. Hainsworth 1968 and A. Hoekstra 1969a among the later works that explain how the formulas modified and adapted themselves to the evolution o f the language. The study o f formulaic diction in Serbian poetry began from the study o f Homer, and was undertaken by A . B. Lord 1960. A general picture of formulaic diction in the epic o f different Indo-European languages is provided in Adrados 1986d. These studies show that the Homeric formulaic system, despite being modified at the end o f the Mycenaean age, descends from Mycenaean and from Indo-European. So, in the second millennium we can also postulate general characteristics o f the language o f the Greek epic that are similar to those known to us through its renovation, its admission o f doublets, etc. It definitely remains a literary language, whatever the geographic base. See also A. Heubeck 1981. Furthermore, see the following works on the general characteristics of epic poetry, which are reflected in Homer: H. M . Chadwick 1967 and (in collaboration) 1968, and C. M . Bowra 1952; also, Adrados 1986d and 1992b. 8 3 . T h u s , the p r o b l e m is to distinguish what is ancient from what is recent in the H o m e r i c language: what c o m e s from the s e c o n d mil-

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

51

lennium a n d from the first millennium, that is, from the dialects o f the latter (Aeolic, Ionic-Attic, a n d a c c o r d i n g to s o m e , also A r c a d o Gyprian). It is not an easy distinction to make. T h e fact is that the language o f the s e c o n d millennium, w h i c h n o d o u b t h a d its o w n g e o g r a p h i c base (but n o t the same as M y c e n a e a n , j u d g i n g from the discrepancies b e t w e e n them), later o n received various additions from the different generations o f aoidoi in an age in w h i c h the dialects k n o w n to us already existed. T h e formulaic system adapted to the n e w needs and admitted this n e w linguistic material. T h e H o m e r i c language did n o t yet exist in the f o r m in w h i c h w e k n o w it in the s e c o n d millennium. I n d e e d , it is very clear that I o n i c elements such as n instead o f a, and A e o l i c elements such as ocu|ie, KeKX-nyovxeq b e l o n g e d to recent strata o f Greek, o f the first millen­ nium. H o w e v e r , it has never o c c u r r e d to a n y o n e that certain forms that c o u l d actually b e D o r i c , such as xoi o r the inf. in -u£v, were in fact D o r i c : they are simply passed o f f as b e i n g archaisms. N o t even a f o r m such as 9ed is considered to b e Attic: it is sim­ ply regarded as another archaism. In H o m e r there are n o innovated D o r i c forms o f the type ejneoc,, n o r innovated Attic forms such as &7ioxiv8xo)oav. F o r this reason, the interpretation o f the H o m e r i c lan­ guage as a c o n g l o m e r a t e o f dialects o f the first millennium is a colos­ sal error o f investigation, o n c e w e a c k n o w l e d g e the existence in this language o f s o m e simple archaisms (such as ecpGixo, akxo, KeXaai, TC£(pi8ea9ca, Zfjv, o r certain terms o f the lexicon), and s o m e artificial forms (verbal forms with diectasis, metrical extensions, etc.). T h i s reflects an uncritical continuation o f the interpretations o f the o l d grammarians, w h o in turn reflected the dialectal interpreta­ tion o f the Greeks in general o n the basis o f the dialects they k n e w and not o f the linguistic situation in the s e c o n d millennium, w h i c h they o f course i g n o r e d . F o r instance, H o m e r occasionally preserved forms such as the archaisms just m e n t i o n e d ; and h e preserved fluctuations w h i c h E G in general subsequently eliminated, such as -aa/-a- (without regular simplification), x o i / o i , x w n / o i ) . H o m e r also preserved doublets that h a d b e e n eliminated even from M y c e n a e a n , as n o t e d earlier

(fj'ov/

a w , etc.). 84. T h e traditional theory is that a first A e o l i c ' phase was s u c c e e d e d 5

b y a s e c o n d T o n i c phase. Beside elements from the first millennium, w h i c h w e r e clearly A e o l i c a n d I o n i c , elements f r o m the s e c o n d

52

CHAPTER

FOUR

millennium, w h i c h c a n n o t b e considered A e o l i c o r I o n i c , were c o n ­ sidered as b e l o n g i n g to their dialects. T h e same goes for the socalled A c h a e a n (or rather, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n ) elements, w h i c h other authors consider to b e earlier than the former: these elements tend to b e simple archaisms, nearly always o f a lexical type (atacc, 8S)jia, d v a ^ , etc.); cf. R . Hiersche 1970, p . 9 0 . A c c o r d i n g to this theory, a generation o f A c h a e a n

5

aoidoi w o u l d

have b e e n followed b y another generation o f A e o l i c ' aoidoi, and this b y a third generation o f ' I o n i c ' aoidoi Hardly anything is said about archaisms, nothing at all a b o u t Doricisms o r about artificial forms, e x c e p t to attribute them to very recent phases. Apart from that, there c a n b e n o d o u b t whatsoever a b o u t the artificial character o f the H o m e r i c language, its capacity to c h o o s e o r create forms a c c o r d ­ ing to metre, etc. Our view of the Homeric language 8 5 . T h e key p r o b l e m is that certain characteristics

that were, for

instance, I o n i c o r A e o l i c in the first millennium, were not yet so in the s e c o n d millennium before the dialects w e k n o w were shaped. In H o m e r , there is -ti, an archaism, and -si, East G r e e k in general; there is -ap- and -op-, dv and K 8 , w h i c h co-existed, they were not yet T o n i c ' and A e o l i c ' , in the same w a y that tpv yet A t t i c

5

and

Tonic

5

and ovv were not

a n d TCT- was n o t A c h a e a n

5

but simply an

archaism. In addition, characteristics that b e g a n to spread - such as -GCCV

in the 3rd sec. p f , w h i c h later b e c a m e I o n i c (but there' is -ccv

in Arcadian) - were innovations w h i c h had success in certain dialects, for they were n o t yet marked dialectally in any sense. Others, such as the D . pi. -eaor, never even h a d the c h a n c e to assign themselves to any o n e dialect. W e o n l y k n o w o f other forms through M y c e n a e a n o r H o m e r him­ self: there is n o reason to assign them to the dialects o f the first mil­ lennium.

Indeed, if certain

w o r d s are p r e s e n t

in H o m e r

and

A r c a d o - C y p r i a n o r M y c e n a e a n , for e x a m p l e , then this means that they also existed in s o m e part o f E G from the s e c o n d millennium. If -q>i is present in Thessalian, this only means that it existed in the s e c o n d millennium ( M y c e n a e a n is another witness), etc. O f course, w e must also attribute to the G r e e k o f that p e r i o d the labiovelars, n o t their later evolutions, the p, the vowels in hiatus without contraction, the groups o f s and sonant, and inversely (cf Horn.

53

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

xekaov),

o r o f sonant and y (or a phase with h still partially pre­

served in M y c e n a e a n ) and not their later evolutions in I o n i c o r Aeolic. 5

5

In other w o r d s , the supposed archaic Tonicisms , A e o l i c i s m s , etc. o f H o m e r (later, true Ionicisms a n d Aeolicisms w e r e introduced), were simply forms that w o u l d later b e c o m e part o f these dialects, as I explain in A d r a d o s 1 9 8 1 . A c c o r d i n g to H o o k e r 1983, the epic lan­ guage should b e studied without 'dialectal p r e c o n c e p t i o n s ' : the c o n ­ cepts o f ' I o n i c ' and A e o l i c ' are inadequate, as demonstrated b y TOI w h i c h does not fit into the system, C h a d w i c k himself (1990) acknowl­ edges that 'the four main dialectal groups c a n n o t b e projected o n t o the s e c o n d millennium'. 86. T h e fact is, certain H o m e r i c characteristics descend, indeed, from the dialects o f the first millennium, that is, from I o n i c and A e o l i c , in w h o s e sphere epic poetry continued to g r o w (perhaps in the region o f Asia in w h i c h they crossed paths, as p r o p o s e d b y W i l a m o w i t z ; cf. also C . J. Ruijgh 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ) . But it is a mistake to assign a dialectal label o f the first millennium to archaic H o m e r i c characteristics, from a p e r i o d in w h i c h these dialects did n o t exist. It is true that these characteristics were understood in this way: dv, vca w e r e understood b y later Greeks as Ionicisms; K 8 , -jnev as Aeolicisms, and m o d e r n linguists c o n t i n u e d this tradition in error. But they did not k n o w what to make o f TOI o r Bed whereas the reconstructed d i g a m m a o r the p a t r o n y m i c in -ioq, simple archaisms, w e r e attributed to A e o l i c . T h e y also called ccp forms Ionic, and op forms A e o l i c . Furthermore, v

the 5e- solution o f *g e- was considered I o n i c , and the pe- solution A e o l i c : this is correct, but they are referring to recent transcriptions o f ancient *^e-, as T^U- and djuu- are recent transcriptions o f <*n$m>, etc. T h u s , certain archaic forms or the characteristics o f certain archaic dialects were secondarily interpreted as I o n i c o r A e o l i c , for the sim­ ple reason that they were I o n i c o r A e o l i c in the eighth century and later o n were always interpreted so; they attracted recent Ionicisms and Aeolicisms to the epic language, w h i c h was always in a state o f evolution. In the same w a y , the p r e s u m e d ' A c h a e a n i s m s ' o f H o m e r , that is, certain m o r p h o l o g i c a l and lexical c o i n c i d e n c e s with A r c a d o Cyprian, are simply archaisms; but these did not attract recent archaic forms, it was a non-literary dialect neglected b y the aoidoi

54

CHAPTER FOUR

5

87. O n the ancient grammarians view o f the dialects, see J. B. Hainsworth 1967; also G. Scarpat 1952, R . Hiersche 1970, p . 80 (with a quote by Dio Chrysostomus X I 23), and C. Consani 1993. O n the bibliography o f the traditional interpretations of the Homeric language, see, for example, R . Hiersche 1972 and Adrados 1981, p. 13; a standard presentation can be found, for example, in the Grammaire Homerique by P. Ghantraine 1942. The truth is, there has been no real progress since then. O n the polemic surrounding the existence of Aeolicisms, or the lack thereof, cf. K. Strunk 1957, A. Wathelet 1970, as well as M . Durante 1968, G. C. Horrocks 1987. R . Hiersche 1970, p. 83 ff, is sceptical about a large series o f proposed Aeolicims (-op-, v < p, -eaai, which he regards as only 'passing for Aeolicisms). O n a possible, older layer of Achaean archaisms (based on Arc-Gyp.), c f G. J. Ruijgh 1957 and later works (against this, M . Peters 1986); on possible Myceaneanisms, J. Chadwick and G. P. Shipp in G. S. Kird (ed.) 1964. Shipp opposes Chadwick in the same volume by doubting the Mycenaeanisms, which to him are archaisms. Cf. also in the same vein, R . Lazzeroni 1969. See another theory (a Palaeo-Aeolic stra­ tum followed by an Arcado-Cyprian one) in A. Negri 1981b and C. Brillante 1986. O n the 'non-Ionic elements without a clear definition' cf. R . Hirsche 1970, p . 91. Other studies include: C . J . Ruijgh 1984 and 1995-1996, B. Forssmann 1991, O . Panagl 1992. 5

The theory presented here is supported in Adrados 1976a (with much more detail regarding Achaean Epic) and 1981 (the theoretical foundation). These ideas are strongly supported by J. T. Hooker 1983 and also by J. Chadwick 1990 (without quoting me, perhaps by coincidence he arrived at the same conclusion); they are ignored by K. Strunk 1997, p. 149 f Actually, they are an ineluctable consequence o f the thesis o f the recent character o f most o f the innovations o f the dialects: the strange thing is that there is a continuous and routine repetition o f the same ideas that were proposed when those dialects were projected onto the older"tiate. 88. S o , there was an epic language before the dialectal

differentiation,

at a time w h e n the labiovelars w e r e still preserved, there was n o contraction o f vowels, a n d archaisms a n d doublets, later reserved to certain

dialects, survived. I n d e e d , the

epic language

favoured

the

existence o f doublets, w h i c h h a d existed earlier in E G (although s o m e w e r e created artificially), but w e r e maintained

in places w h e r e

the

dialects tended later to c h o o s e b e t w e e n the t w o forms. F o r instance, oio/-6o/-oi), -Ti/-at -XG-

ccp/op, - v c u / - u e v , Jjuv/auv/ai/ei (previously q u o t e d ) ,

(archaic a n d

recent forms), - a c / - a in the first

declension,

(archaism) / forms with a lengthening o f the v o w e l , forms with

o r without d i g a m m a , e t c , n o r m a l o r artificial forms, e t c All o f this represented

n o t h i n g b u t an exploitation o f the variation

between

archaic a n d recent forms o r a m o n g parallel forms (phonetic o r other­ wise) in E G .

55

T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

I a m not attempting a study o f the H o m e r i c language as it is rep­ resented in o u r manuscripts, but a study o f its predecessor, the epic language o f the s e c o n d millennium. It coincides to a large

extent

with M y c e n a e a n as to the archaisms (patronymics in -10c,, the f o r m in -cpi, the d o u b l e t a p / o p j etc.) and also with the archaisms that can b e d e d u c e d from the study o f the first-millennium dialects (TO(, TO, e t c ) . H o w e v e r , it must b e granted that, o n occasion, this language (to the extent that it is k n o w n to us) has lost certain M y c e n a e a n archaisms; o r else has preserved doublets w h e r e M y c e n a e a n

had

simplified in a different way. I have p r o v i d e d examples. T h e H o m e r i c language also h a d its o w n archaisms o f the type Zfjv, ecpGiTO, xzkoov,

e t c Sometimes, the lack o f M y c e n a e a n data

allows us to establish a relation. But, o n o c c a s i o n , M y c e n a e a n and H o m e r i c archaism, o r its c h o i c e , o n l y spread to certain

dialects:

-s\)q (-eq in A r c - G y p . ) , jxera (except for a g r o u p with rceSoc in A r c 5

and Lesb.), etc.; or else H o m e r (or 'our H o m e r ? ) chose in a c c o r d a n c e with all the dialects, against M y c . ( D . sg. in -i, with exception) o r against M y c and A r c - G y p . (verbal des. -xai). A t times, archaism is preserved in an isolated dialect, against the rest, including H o r n , a n d M y c ( D . sg. in C y p . -o-ne). M y c e n a e a n archaisms such as the preservation o f the labiovelars o r the preservation o f h p r o c e e d i n g f r o m s have b e e n lost in the epic language: but perhaps this is just something peculiar to 'our

5

H o m e r , not that o f the s e c o n d millennium. W i t h regard to innovations, apart f r o m those that are clearly from the first millennium, H o m e r shares some (which are not in Mycenaean) with the southern g r o u p : -(G)OCV in I o n - A t . - A r c . - C y p , , c o n c o r d a n c e with Ion., A t . , and A r c in the treatment o f the groups o f -ss-, -tsand

e t c H o m e r also has s o m e innovations o f his o w n , but these

are not significant e n o u g h to establish dialectal relations. 89. In short, the ancient b a c k g r o u n d o f H o m e r ' s language c o m e s from a conservative dialect o f the s e c o n d millennium w h i c h is not exactly M y c e n a e a n , for its archaisms are partly different. A s far as its choices and innovations are c o n c e r n e d , sometimes it follows nearly all o f n o n - M y c e n a e a n E G , sometimes it follows the I o n . - A t . - A r c C y p . g r o u p (against M y c e n a e a n ) . But it preserves doublets identical to those o f M y c , w h i c h the different dialects, including A e o l i c , have simplified (at times in a contrasting w a y ) .

56

CHAPTER FOUR

W e c a n n o t establish the geographical base o f this language, n o r to what extent an older epic language was renovated afterwards b y various additions. W e can o n l y claim that it was an archaic lan­ guage closely related to M y c e n a e a n and to the language that is s o m e ­ times at the base o f the w h o l e o f

first-millennium

E G , sometimes at

the base o f just a part o f it (that is, to the p a r a - M y c e n a e a n dialects). T h e o n l y thing left for us to d o is to attempt to set aside those ele­ ments that were a d d e d to the epic language in the first millennium in the course o f its evolution. A c h a e a n epic, an archaic language, n o doubt comes from a different g e o g r a p h i c area than M y c e a e a n , w h i c h c o m e s from Crete. It has b e e n p r o p o s e d that variants in this language left traces in H e s i o d a n d lyric, see §§ 151 f. It was an area in w h i c h a peculiar dialect o f E G b e g a n to take shape, w h i c h did n o t take part in the tendency to differentiate preIonic from pre-Aeolic. But, because the archaic forms and the doublets o f this dialect often c o i n c i d e with those o f the later dialects, I o n i c and Aeolic -

or, to b e m o r e exact, Asian I o n i c and A e o l i c -

the

epic admitted forms o f these dialects secondarily. H e r e , the epic lan­ guage c o n t i n u e d to evolve. T h u s , w e k n o w the G r e e k o f the s e c o n d millennium, directly, through a dialect that was b r o u g h t from Crete to the continent in the s e c o n d millennium with an administrative purpose; and through a dialect b r o u g h t f r o m a certain place to Asia as a p o e t i c language in the first millennium (but w h i c h , perhaps, h a d b e e n developing in Asia since the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d ) . H o w e v e r , w e c a n also to a certain extent reconstruct what w o u l d have b e e n the spoken language o f the p e r i o d : the p a r a - M y c e n a e a n dialects.

4.

P A R A - M Y C E N A E A N IN T H E SECOND MILLENNIUM

90. T h u s , w e have a very i n c o m p l e t e k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k in the s e c o n d millennium. O n the o n e hand, w e can d r a w s o m e c o n c l u ­ sions f r o m C G a n d E G as to h o w m u c h in them is unified a n d frag­ mented.

O n the other h a n d , w e have a direct k n o w l e d g e o f an

administrative

language, M y c e n a e a n , w h i c h provides us with lacu­

nae a n d p r o b l e m s , a n d a reconstructed epic language that w e can d e d u c e from the epic language o f the first millennium. Both lan­ guages definitely have very concrete geographical origins.

THE

SECOND

MILLENNIUM

57

T h e s e archaic languages are o f very special and r e d u c e d uses, and their relation to the spoken languages — the archaic forms o f east­ ern dialects, w h i c h I call p a r a - M y c e n a e a n - is difficult to establish in any c o n c r e t e w a y . Evidently, throughout the w h o l e o f G r e e c e there must have b e e n a spoken language that was beginning to frag­ ment, just as the political p o w e r was fragmenting: s o m e information about this has already b e e n p r o v i d e d . I w o u l d like to highlight certain views. N o n e o f the previously m e n t i o n e d innovatory characteristics o f Ion.-At. is present in the sec­ o n d millennium: they appear later. T h e same applies to those o f A e o l . o r A r c . - G y p . T h e innovations that are c o m m o n to all o f them c o m e from E G , as w e have seen. A l s o , there are s o m e archaisms o f Ion.-At. (the prepositions without a p o c o p e ) o r o f Attic (^v, noXei). N o n e o f this tells us m u c h . But the series o f choices c o m m o n to Ion.-At. and A r c - C y p . are important: w e c a n recall the examples o f ei, TeaGBpec,, -vcti, av, -xe, -ap-,

EIKOGI,

etc. T h e y evidently g o b a c k

very far, before these dialects w e r e entirely constituted. It seems that there was a linguistic territory with c o m m o n characteristics

that

extended from Attica to the Peloponnesus, b y w a y o f the Corinthian isthmus. T h e fact that there was not always c o m p l e t e unity (archaisms in Attic o r Cyprian o r remnants o f divergent choices) does not under­ m i n e this argument. But I d o believe it is possible to speak o f a first hint o f Ionic-Attic and even A r c a d o - C y p r i a n a n d A e o l i c before the e n d o f the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d . 9 1 . Sometimes, a characteristic that in principle corresponds to the c o m p l e x f o r m e d b y the later Ionic-Attic and A r c a d o - C y p r i a n dialects extends b e y o n d these frontiers \xeia in T h e s . ,

-(G)OCV

and is f o u n d in an A e o l i c dialect:

in B o e o t , , and I have already t o u c h e d u p o n

those o f Lesbian. But the opposite is m o r e frequent: c o i n c i d e n c e b e t w e e n A r c a d i a n - C y p r i a n (or o n e o f the t w o dialects) and A e o l i c as a w h o l e o r part o f it, always as regards choices: the p r o n o u n s 6Vu, ove, ovi, the prepositions 7ce5d, TCOT{, the p r o n o m i n a l element - G U C In short, s o m e (innovatory) isoglosses o f the first-millennium dialects reflect something that was peculiar to E G as a w h o l e ; s o m e (choices, archaisms) e x c l u d e d the territory that later b e c a m e A e o l i c ; s o m e reached it in part; and s o m e e x c l u d e d the d o m i n i o n o f the later Ionic-Attic It must b e stressed that a great differentiation did not exist. T h e r e were n o great dialectal innovations. H e r e and there, archaisms and choices survived w h i c h were also present in distant territories. Indeed,

58

CHAPTER FOUR

archaisms and doublets which were present in H o m e r and M y c e n a e a n m a y have survived in P a r a - M y c e n a e a n , o r part o f it, in contrast to what c a n b e d e d u c e d from the later dialects. A n d there are p r o b ­ lems with A e o l i c : the d o u b t as to whether certain c o i n c i d e n c e s with Ionic-Attic are not an effect o f a recent influence, as p r o p o s e d b y Porzig; whether certain coincidences o f Boeotian and Thessalian with D o r i c were not an effect o f the influence o f the latter. If these two hypotheses were true, the dialectalisation o f E G in the s e c o n d mil­ lennium w o u l d b e m u c h clearer than w e n o w think. T h e s e p r o b l e m s will b e discussed in the context o f the study o f the first-millennium

dialects, w h i c h , as w e have seen, d e e p e n e d the

dialectal differences after the arrival o f the Dorians, w h o isolated the different

territories: the territory o f the P e l o p o n n e s e ( r e d u c e d to

A r c a d i a a n d to the emigration

to Cyprus), that o f Attica (and its

emigration to the islands and Asia), and that o f Thessaly and Boeotia (with emigration to Asia and Lesbos). T h e later dialects c o r r e s p o n d to these territories, w h i c h were M y c e n a e a n kingdoms o r groups o f M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s . It appears that there was already a hint o f them, to a certain extent. V a r i o u s authors, including myself, p r o p o s e d this.

have

CHAPTER FIVE G R E E K IN T H E FIRST M I L L E N N I U M : DIALECTAL

1.

PANORAMA

T H E EXPANSION O F T H E G R E E K D I A L E C T S

The first expansion 9 2 . I have specified the circumstances surrounding the

fragmenta­

tion, in the first millennium, o f the relatively unified East G r e e k that was spoken in G r e e c e during the s e c o n d millennium. T h i s topic must b e l o o k e d at m o r e closely, but to d o so it is useful first to examine the expansion o f the G r e e k dialects f r o m the arrival o f the Dorians onwards, inside a n d outside G r e e c e , and also to l o o k at the diffusion o f the alphabet a n d script. T o b e g i n with, the D o r i a n invasion b r o u g h t to G r e e c e an archaic language lacking the innovations o f East Greek, w h i c h had

entered

G r e e c e towards the year 2 0 0 0 and h a d Hellenised it during the sec­ o n d millennium. A p a r t from destroying the earlier culture, the inva­ sion also isolated the three regions w h i c h h a d b e e n spared

during

the invasion. T h e s e regions d e v e l o p e d three dialects — Thessalian and Boeotian, Attic and A r c a d i a n - w h i c h w e r e later e x p o r t e d to Asia a n d the islands. In their fully d e v e l o p e d state, these

dialects

b e c a m e k n o w n as A e o l i c , Ionic-Attic and A r c a d o - C y p r i a n . I n d e e d , f r o m the ninth century o n w a r d s , G r e e c e b e g a n to re­ invent itself. It d e v e l o p e d a g e o m e t r i c and later oriental style o f art. T h i s was the age o f the cities, o f the great sanctuaries, c o m m e r c e , and advances in architecture, sculpture, ceramics and painting. T h e aristocracies d e v e l o p e d an international w a y o f life, the alphabet was i n t r o d u c e d and links w e r e established a m o n g the eastern dialects and with D o r i c , w h i c h enabled the c o n v e r g e n c e o f dialects a n d o f Greek cultural forms, including oral and written literature. But this was to b e expected, and it will b e e x a m i n e d later o n . First, I must e m p h a ­ sise the dialectal

differentiation.

9 3 . A s I have explained, not so l o n g a g o it was customary in dis­ cussions o n G r e e k dialectology to p r o p o s e that the three great dialects

60

C H A P T E R FIVE

(apart from D o r i c ) h a d entered G r e e c e from the N o r t h in an already fully f o r m e d state a r o u n d the year 2 0 0 0 . Kretschner a n d T o v a r , a m o n g others, p r o p a g a t e d this theory and I myself was not i m m u n e to it. But from the 1950s onwards, it b e c a m e increasingly evident that the main innovations o f these dialects should o n l y b e dated starting from the year 1200 B C (in 1952 I h a d stated that the i n n o ­ vations w e r e essential in tracing the dialectal history). T h e relevant bibliography has b e e n p r o v i d e d . T o b e sure, s o m e scholars have g o n e further, presenting C o m m o n G r e e k a n d s e c o n d - m i l l e n n i u m G r e e k as absolute units: this is unre­ alistic, as w e have s h o w n . Y e t the great fragmentation o c c u r r e d , in effect, after the year 1200. 9 4 . T h i s expansion o f the G r e e k language was resumed, as w e have seen, after the great catastrophe

that was the destruction o f the

M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s a r o u n d 1200; and, a b o v e all, from the ninth century o n w a r d s , w h e n the Greeks, in rivalry with the Phoenicians, o n c e m o r e b e g a n to e x p l o r e the Mediterranean, to trade there and to establish colonies. Different cities with different dialects intervened in these processes after the arrival o f the Dorians. Actually, the islands and the w h o l e western coast o f Asia M i n o r b e c a m e a n e w G r e e c e through the efforts o f the Aeolians, Ionians a n d D o r i a n s ; even the southern coast between Lycia and Cilicia, Pamphylia. N e w 'contingents' o f G r e e k dialects from the

eastern

groups b e c a m e established in these parts a n d in C y p r u s . W i t h i n G r e e c e itself the D o r i a n s o c c u p i e d , as is well k n o w n , Phocis and the territories to the west; the w h o l e area surrounding the Peloponnesus, f r o m C o r i n t h a n d Argolis to Elis a n d Messenia; Crete and neigh­ b o u r i n g islands o f T h e r a , R h o d e s and C o s ; and also the I o n i c islands were o c c u p i e d b y the Ionians. In m o s t o f these places the dialects were grafted o n t o the earlier setdements. All o f this took place around the eleventh century B C , w h i c h is the starting date for the estab­ lishment o f the three great dialects — Ionic-Attic, A e o l i c and D o r i c — a n d also for the implantation o f the isoglosses that tended to either m e r g e t h e m o r fragment them. In G r e e c e itself, the city was n o w the political centre, whether unifying vast territories

under its rule (syncecisms such as that o f

Attica); j o i n i n g confederations (such as that o f the Boeotians); c o n ­ quering territories a n d subduing their populations (as L a c e d a e m o n did in Messenia, Athens in O r o p u s a n d Eleutherae); o r p r o m o t i n g

61

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

wars (between Eretria and Chalcis, Athens and M e g a r a ) . All o f this h a d linguistic c o n s e q u e n c e s , the main o n e b e i n g that the

dialects

(and alphabets) tended to c o i n c i d e with the cities. But this is n o t always the case; see § 131 o n the I o n i c dialect o f Asia. Colonization 9 5 . T o w a r d s the eighth century the dialects were practically fully f o r m e d . T h e colonisation o f M a g n a G r a e c i a was just beginning, with Sicily and southern Italy d o m i n a t e d b y the Greeks, and this p e r i o d is also marked b y the origin and diffusion o f the alphabet. T h i s is the point in w h i c h the great diffusion o f the G r e e k language b e g a n . Outside M a g n a Graecia, in their colonisation the Greeks gener­ ally only f o u n d e d isolated cities in the coastal region a r o u n d Black Sea and almost the w h o l e o f the Mediterranean:

the

they w o u l d

setde o n small islands o r o n a p r o m o n t o r y o n the coast, and s o m e ­ times they w o u l d extend their d o m i n i o n to a nearby region o n the continent. T h e regions d o m i n a t e d b y the Phoenicians and Carthaginians were an exception: that is, the N . o f Africa to the W . o f C y r e n e , the W . o f Sicily, the islands o f the western Mediterranean

and the S. o f

Spain. T h e Greeks were driven o u t o f all these places after the battie o f Alalia in 5 3 5 . T h e Phocaeans h a d b e e n the first to arrive in this region, a c c o r d i n g to H e r o d o t u s (I 165 f f , I V 152), but their defeat in Alalia against the Etruscans a n d Carthaginians,

after the

western Mediterranean was closed to the Greeks. 9 6 . W i t h this e x c e p t i o n , the cities o f the Greeks e x t e n d e d along the entire coastal region, a n d were like frogs a r o u n d a p o n d , to use Plato's expression {Phaedo 109 b). V a r i o u s G r e e k dialects, but prin­ cipally D o r i c and I o n i c , were spoken there. T h e Greeks left inscriptions very early o n : the p h e n o m e n o n o f colonisation follows o n l y a little later that o f the diffusion o f the alphabet. T h e inscription o n the c u p o f Pithecusa f r o m the eighth century is perhaps the oldest G r e e k inscription, followed b y that o f the oinokhoe f r o m the Dipylon in Athens, s o m e w h a t later. Also, liter­ ature arrived f r o m G r e e c e and a n e w literature was created, from the eighth century onwards in Asia and f r o m the seventh

century

in Sicily, and the arts flourished. T h e s e G r e e k cities w e r e in constant contact with the indigenous peoples o f the interior w h o , from here, b o r r o w e d so m u c h from G r e e k culture, the alphabet b e i n g o n e o f the

62

C H A P T E R FIVE

most important cultural loans (but this will b e e x a m i n e d further on). T h e founding o f the G r e e k colonies marked the culminations o f the resumption o f the travels o f exploration and c o m m e r c e . In Pontus, Asia and the West, the Greeks h a d followed in the footsteps o f the M y c e n a e a n s and the exploration myths o f the Argonauts, o f Heracles a n d Odysseus. T h e Odyssey described the navigations o f Odysseus in the western Mediterranean,

linking the M y c e n a e a n navigations

those o f the eighth century ( c f A d r a d o s 1998c). Stesichorus

and intro­

d u c e d the a c c o u n t o f Heracles's v o y a g e to the W e s t to Tartessus, w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n familiar to Greeks o f that period, w h o traded there. It is even possible that in places such as Miletus o r Thapsus, the G r e e k dialects f r o m the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d w o u l d have survived and served as a base for the n e w G r e e k dialects. T o d a y w e have a better understanding o f trade in the p e r i o d , w h i c h in effect continued the former trade routes

archaic through

Pontus a n d the East. Between such distant locations as al-Mlna, Tell Sukas, Pithecusae and Naukratis w e c a n find traces o f Greek trade from the ninth century onwards, where Greeks later coexisted with the Phoenicians and the local populations. Subsequendy, Greek e m p o ria p r o p e r e m e r g e d , a n d later real cities. A c o m m u n i t y o f Greeks and Phoenicians existed in m o r e archaic times; a ship c o u l d transport m i x e d merchandises.

O n l y later was

there a strong rivalry b e t w e e n them, and even war (I have discussed the a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f the Mediterranean

above).

97. It is a c o m p l i c a t e d p h e n o m e n o n . T h e oldest o f the cittes that f o u n d e d colonies w e r e E u b o e a , Chalcis and Eretria, w h i c h estab­ lished colonies in C o r c y r a , the gulf o f Naples (Pithecusae, C u m a e ) , the E. o f Sicily a n d Italy ( N a x o s , Leontini, Catana, R h e g i u m ) and C h a l c i d i c e ( T o r o n e , M e n d e , M e t h o n e ) ; Corinth, w h i c h displaced the Chalcidians in C o r c y r a and f o u n d e d Potidaea and Syracuse (the lat­ ter t o g e t h e r with the L a c e d a e m o n i a n s ) ; M e g a r a , w h i c h f o u n d e d M e g a r a Hyblaea in Sicily a n d B y z a n t i o n a n d

C h a l c e d o n at

the

entrance to the Black Sea; the cities o f Asia M i n o r , Miletus (which c o l o n i z e d the Black Sea) and P h o c a e a (which c o l o n i z e d the West); and afterwards

T h e r a (Cyrene), L a c e d a e m o n (Tarentum), etc.

S o m e colonies, in turn, founded other colonies, for example Massilia, the Phocaean c o l o n y ; and sometimes, t w o cities united to found o n e c o l o n y (I have cited the case o f Syracuse). T h e r e was even an entire city, P h o c a e a , w h i c h towards the year 5 4 0 displaced itself to Corsica,

63

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

to Alalia (which had b e e n f o u n d e d a r o u n d 5 6 0 ) , fleeing from

the

Persians. In short, m o s t frequently, o n e o r various cities f o u n d e d a c o l o n y in a p l a n n e d w a y , in o r d e r to relieve the strain o f an excess population o r to create a fulcrum for their trade o r p o w e r . This is not the appropriate

place for a detailed l o o k at

Greek

colonisation and its e n o r m o u s cultural repercussions in G r e e c e itself. T h e oldest colonies in the mid-eighth century are those o f Pithecusae (really an emporium) and Cumae (757) in Italy, N a x o s in Sicily (734), followed b y Syracuse (733) a n d later b y m a n y m o r e . T h e colonies o f Miletus and other cities a r o u n d the Black Sea are almost c o n ­ temporary; Naukratis, a trading post in Egypt, dates from the seventh century; m o r e recent are the colonies o f the W . , first Massilia, cited previously, towards 6 0 0 , and f r o m there E m p o r i o n in Spain

and

others. 98. For an echo o f the colonization in the Odyssey, cf. my article, previ­ ously cited, 'Navegaciones. . ( 1 9 9 8 c ) ; on Stesichorus and Tartessus, Adrados 1978, p. 261 ff. O n Greek trade and the founding o f colonies see, among various works, the book by J. Boardman 1973 and other works previously cited; the collaborations o f T . F. R. G. Braun and o f J. M . Cook in the re-edition of Cambridge Ancient History, 1982, and of A. J. Graham in the same work, 1983; G. Pugliese Garratelli 1985; F. G. Fernandez Nieto 1983; S. Deger-Jalkotzy (ed.) 1983 and 1992; P. G. Descoeudres (ed.) 1990; P. Rouillard 1991; G. Tsetskhladze-F. de Angelis (eds.) 1994; etc. The book by N. G. L. Hammond, as cited previously, contains not only a good expo­ sition on p. 109 ff, but also an impressive account o f the Greek colonies in the eighth to the seventh centuries (p. 657 ff). V . Alonso Troncoso 1994 provides more references. O n the Greek vocabulary o f the colonisation, see M . Casevitz 1985. 9 9 . T h e colonisation should b e regarded as a n e w G r e e k expansion, w h i c h went far b e y o n d that initiated in the M y c e n a e a n period. It should also b e seen as the start o f the expansion o f G r e e k culture arts, a w a y o f life - and o f the G r e e k language, w h i c h to us is par­ ticularly

reflected in writing. Y e t this was b u t a repetition

on a

grander scale o f the M y c e n a e a n expansion and the continuation o f the diffusion o f the eastern G r e e k dialects and o f the western dialects in G r e e c e itself, w h e r e the n e w dialects were f o r m e d . T h e

intro­

duction o f the alphabet in the mid-eighth century in G r e e c e and Asia, as well as in the large islands o f the A e g e a n and in Ionia, Sicily, and Italy, along with all the colonies, marked the start o f a great diffusion o f Greek, o r o f different

Greeks.

64

C H A P T E R FIVE

2.

T H E DIFFUSION O F G R E E K

The alphabet and its diffusion 100. T h e different G r e e k dialects o f the first millennium are k n o w n to us from the eighth century BC onwards, whether directly, through inscriptions in stone and ceramics in particular, o r indirectly, through the literary tradition w h i c h is reflected in the manuscripts. T h e r e are two kinds o f texts: those in the Greek that was spoken in the different cities, w h i c h has b e e n transmitted to us mainly through inscriptions; and those in literary Greek, the c o m m o n languages that have b e e n transmitted to us through inscriptions to some extent and also through manuscripts. T h i s is based o n a fundamental fact: the invention o f the G r e e k alphabet, a derivative o f northern Semitic alphabet, to w h i c h , as w e k n o w , it adds the vowels. It was p r o b a b l y the invention o f only o n e person (or if there were various alphabets, then only o n e was diffused) for trade purposes. It must have originated in a place where Greeks a n d P h o e n i c i a n s coexisted: A l - M m a has b e e n p r o p o s e d (perhaps ancient Posideion, o n the coast o f Syria), R h o d e s and Crete, in par­ ticular.

T r a d e is better c o n d u c t e d with the aid o f written d o c u m e n t s ,

and w e have e v i d e n c e o f such, although o f a later date, and also o f the transmission o f the G r e e k alphabet to the West. H o w e v e r , the hypothesis that the G r e e k alphabet was introduced in o r d e r to write the p o e m s o f the aoidoi is entirely unlikely; although it is true to say that it was used in the same century (eighth) for poetic inscriptions (dedicatory, funerary). This must have b e e n a stage p r e c e d i n g its systematic use b y the aoidoi. T h e fact is, it is thought today that from the e n d o f the ninth century the G r e e k alphabet was spread out over the w h o l e o f the Greek w o r l d and was beginning to penetrate the neighbouring regions. I have referred to the most ancient inscriptions o f Pithecusae

and

Athens from the eighth century. Thereafter, very early inscriptions are found in Thera, Crete, Naxos, Kalymnos, Aegina, Boeotia, Argolis, C o r i n t h and C o r c y r a ; a n d also derived alphabets in Etrutia, Caria and Phrygia. 101. It is widely a c c e p t e d that the G r e e k alphabet derived from the Phoenician alphabet: the ancients k n e w this, c f H e r o d o t u s V 58, and Tacitus, Annates X I 14, (poivucriioc 'letters' in an inscription in T e o s (Schwyzer 710.B.37) and the verb rcoiviKd^ev 'write' in Crete, c f

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

65

SEG 2 6 . 6 3 1 . A 5 (there are related forms). In effect, it is very close to the Phoenician alphabet, w h i c h w e k n o w from the

thirteenth-cen­

tury inscription in the sepulchre o f K i n g A h i r a m o f Byblos. T h e r e is s o m e debate regarding the relation b e t w e e n this alphabet and the cuneiforme alphabet o f Ugarit, w h i c h was created in the fourtheenth century. A s far as the date is c o n c e r n e d , most authors incline towards s o m e p o i n t in the eighth century, although an older date is often still p r o p o s e d . It is also believed that the Greek alphabet differs from the Phoenician in that it derives the five vowels: a e> o f r o m the three laryngeals, }

u a n d i from wau and yod. A n o t h e r difference is that it possesses only o n e sibilant p h o n e m e . Its most archaic f o r m c a n also b e f o u n d in the alphabet o f Crete, T h e r a , M e l o s a n d Sikinos, w h i c h lacks the letters to mark the labial and guttural aspirated occlusives and the d o u b l e letters (\|/ a n d Q, w h i c h w e r e i n t r o d u c e d b y later alphabets; likewise, s o m e o f them lack the marking o f the quantities o f the e and o, have other uses o f d o u b l e consonants, etc. T h e I o n i c a n d western alphabets are the most evolved. In any case, it is clear that the G r e e k alphabet was created b y a speaker o f a dialect that was not psilotic a n d did n o t lack p. It is also evident that it was diffused through Crete in various directions, a m o n g others, b y w a y o f Corinth, towards the west. It seems that the variants o f Eretria and A e g i n a arrived in Attica a n d were c o n ­ taminated

there.

102. The principal work on the history of the alphabet is by L. H . Jeffrey 1990 (2nd ed.): it proposes that the Greek alphabet was taken from the Phoenician in Al-Mma, as cited previously. Other proposals are Rhodes and Crete or Rhodes through Crete, or Crete proper (Rh. Carpenter in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 1-39, M . Falkner, ibid., pp. 143-171, M . Guarducci, ibid., pp. 197-213); M . G. Amasdasi 1991 refers more vaguely to Syria and Asia Minor. Cyprus (where Greeks and Phoenicians coexisted in Citium) seems to be excluded because the syllabary continued to be used there (but there are those who think that it was precisely the mark o f the vowels in this syllabary that was the source o f inspiration for the creator o f the alphabet). With regard to the date, the eighth century is generally considered the most probable, as sustained by Carpenter and Jeffrey in the works cited and by R . Wachter 1989; also, I. B. S. Iselin 1991 and M . G. Amadasi 1991. J. de H o z (forthcoming) adheres to the end o f the ninth century. However, there are those who propose older dates, even the twelfth century or earlier: for instance, B. L. Ullmann (in G. Pfohl 1968b, p. 40 ff.) and J. Naveh 1982. O n the Ugarit and Phoenician alphabets, see O . Eissfeldt

66

C H A P T E R FIVE

(in G. Pfohl 1968b, pp. 214 ff and 221 ff.), M . Dietrich and O . Lorentz 1991, and A. R. Millard 1991. It is also generally accepted that the alphabet was acquired first and fore­ most for trade purposes, although the data available is o f a later date: mate­ rials such as lead, wooden tablets, ostraca, etc. were used. But B. B. Powell 1991 thinks that its primary purpose, in view o f the frequency o f verse epi­ grams in archaic times, was to record Homeric poetry. See, in contrast, R. Schmidt, Kratylos 37, 1992, p. 69 ff A secondary use, such as that of sepul­ chral, honorific and even ludic inscriptions, was followed by a tertiary use: by the aoidoi. The subject of the discovery of the vowels by the Greeks can be con­ sidered as completely elucidated. Various factors contributed to this: the knowledge o f the marking o f vowels in Cyprian and Ugaritic; the need to write syllables of the type V C - , nonexistant in Phoenician, and the non­ existence, in turn, o f the glottal attack (the laryngeals) in Greek; and the existence of certain Phoenician inscriptions which transcribe Luwian names using aleph and wow to mark the vowels and initial % aleph and yod to indi­ cate vowels o f internal syllables. The road ahead was prepared, there was a need and there were models. For more details on the adaptation, see C f Brixhe 1991b. 103. T h e fact is, as s o o n as the practice o f trade and politics was resumed, w h e n intellectual life b e g a n to flourish and the

diverse

dialects were almost fully constituted, the alphabet spread very quickly, enabling the r e c o r d i n g and archiving o f c o m m e r c i a l transactions

as

well as o f political and private documents and literary works, although the m e t h o d s o f oral diffusion did not disappear. This was a huge advantage for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k life, language and culture, a n d for its diffusion a m o n g neighbouring peoples, G r e e c e itself, and i n d e e d the w h o l e G r e e k w o r l d . F o r a s e c o n d time, the Greeks, in this relaunching o f their his­ tory ( m o r e d y n a m i c a n d with a greater projection than the

first)

a d o p t e d a graphic system from a foreign p e o p l e . But they w o u l d use it in a m o r e general w a y and n o t just as an administrative

instru­

ment. T h i s w o u l d enable scholars o f the G r e e k language to gain direct access to the geographical and literary dialects through inscrip­ tions and the manuscript tradition. Indeed, the indirect k n o w l e d g e , through H o m e r a n d the dialects o f the first millennium, o f a dialect from the s e c o n d millennium is possible thanks to this script. T h e dialects o f so m a n y p e o p l e s w o u l d b e c o m e alphabetised as a result, at this p o i n t o r during the Hellenistic period, thus o p e n i n g the w a y for the diffusion o f G r e e k language and culture.

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

67

Inscriptions, literature and hellenisation 104. Let us make a few observations o n the inscriptions (including graffiti) and the literary texts that w e r e p r o d u c e d o r created

from

this p o i n t o n , from w h i c h w e obtain o u r k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k lan­ guage and culture. Here,Kve are dealing with private o r public texts; whether in prose, in the local alphabets and dialects, in verse, o r in the p o e t i c languages o f G r e e c e (literary prose dates from the sixth century, as w e know). T h e s e texts have b e e n preserved in m a n u ­ scripts and inscriptions o n various materials (stone, c e r a m i c , metal, w o o d , even ivory; the oldest papyri are from the fourth century). Y e t the manuscript tradition does not shed any light o n the official d o c u m e n t a t i o n that was kept in the archives, only the inscriptions are able to d o so. A n d there is an almost c o m p l e t e lack o f data o n the e c o n o m i c use o f the n e w script. It must b e stressed that the Phoenician inscriptions (followed b y the Punic inscriptions) offered a m o d e l for the G r e e k ones, not just with regard to letters but also the writing o f the text. A m o n g the oldest are the sepulchral inscriptions such as that o f K i n g A h i r a m , expository inscriptions b y kings a b o u t their wars a n d exploits (for e x a m p l e , king M e s h a o f M o a b ) , dedicatory inscriptions such as that found o n the b r o n z e helmet discovered in Cyprus; and others. T h e Greeks dispensed n o t only with the syllabic scripts b u t also with the use o f m u d o r brick tablets. T h e introduction o f p a r c h m e n t

com­

pletes the picture. B o o k s such as that b y Jeffrey

1 9 9 0 , p r e v i o u s l y cited, a n d b y

G u a r d u c c i 1967, n o t to m e n t i o n the large collections, illustrate the e n o r m o u s diffusion o f Greek inscriptions, their n u m e r i c increase from century to century and the immense variety o f their content. Individuals c o u l d engrave sepulchral epitaphs, dedications to the g o d s , there are inscriptions denoting ownership (such as the Pithecusae cup), inscrip­ tions o f artists, lovers, and w e find school excercises o r simple lists o f names such as those o f the G r e e k soldiers w h o engraved their names in the colossi o f A b u Simbel a r o u n d 668 B C . H o w e v e r , p u b l i c inscriptions from cities o r temples are m o r e fre­ quent: these include all kinds o f lists ( o f archons, priests, ephori, war casualties, etc.; inventories o f temples, etc.) decrees and laws, c o n ­ cessions o f h o n o u r s and priviledges, texts relating to sport c o m p e t i ­ tions, to festivals o r sacrifices, o r to the erection o f m o n u m e n t s , official letters and even chronicles such as that o f L i n d o s o r the Marmor Parium.

68

C H A P T E R FIVE

Cities o r individuals c o u l d also engrave literary texts, as for e x a m ­ ple Archilochus's passages in a heroon w h i c h the p e o p l e o f Paros d e d ­ icated to h i m , o r S a p p h o ' s ostracon. T h e variety o f content increased as time went o n . Cities, sanctuaries, and mere individuals n o w had an instrument with w h i c h they c o u l d use the G r e e k language in their daily lives, w h i c h they c o u l d m a k e accessible to p e o p l e in other cities and ages, and to n o n - G r e e k p e o p l e s t o o . T h e utility o f the script accounts for its sudden, great success. 105. H o w e v e r , it is important to note that the use o f the script in literature was o n l y gradual. H e r e , the papyrus had a m o r e i m p o r ­ tant role to play, despite the fact that w e only have samples from the fourth century o n w a r d s . But w e must assume that, from

the

archaic p e r i o d o n w a r d s , it was greatiy used in the private, public and literary spheres. T o b e sure, the b o o k as such did n o t exist until the fifth century and the diffusion o f literature was mainly oral. But private copies existed, w h i c h w e r e c o p i e d for use b y aoidoi w h o recited epic p o e m s o r b y performers o f lyric, including the c o m m e n s a l s w h o sang ele­ gies and skolia in particular. O f course, there is s o m e debate about w h e t h e r H o m e r a n d H e s i o d , in the eighth century, either w r o t e p o e m s o r dictated them; in any case, from this p o i n t o n , writing was at the service o f the transmission and diffusion o f literature. H o m e r was k n o w n e v e r y w h e r e , a n d elegy and choral lyric w e r e

written

everywhere in the appropriate dialect. T h e best illustration o f this can b e found in the inscriptions and epigrams in verse, w h i c h h a d such a great diffusion from the very start o f writing: the t w o oldest G r e e k inscriptions, o f Pithecusae and Athens as cited, are in verse. A collection such as that o f Hansen 1983, w h i c h contains inscriptions in verse from the eighth to the fifth century, demonstrates their w i d e diffusion and a b u n d a n c e . T h e y are mainly sepulchral a n d votive, but also honorific, agonistic, relat­ ing to ownership, constructions o r foundations, artists, etc. 106. F r o m the language perspective, it is important to emphasise that inscriptions partly reflect the local dialects, but that, particularly in the case o f inscriptions in elegiac distichs, the most numerous b y far, the international mosdy imposed.

language o f elegy o f w h i c h I have spoken is

69

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

T h e diffusion o f the great dialects (Ionic a n d D o r i c , A e o l i c in Asia) a n d their local variants, sometimes modified in the colonies, is i m p o r ­ tant in the inscriptions. W e k n o w the variants represented b y P a m phylian, Syracusan o r for e x a m p l e the language o f C y r e n e , variants w h i c h are n o t always ea^y to interpret with respect to origin. W e w o u l d hardly k n o w o f these variants without the inscriptions, for only a few o f the G r e e k dialects cultivated literature. T h e y were languages for daily life and for registering official and private

doc­

uments, w h o s e use was thus n o t m u c h wider than that o f M y c e n a e a n . S o , the case o f prose inscriptions written in the dialect o f each city, a n d o f inscriptions in literature is different. T h e latter used, o n the o n e hand, the local dialects, w h i c h w e r e hardly diffused exter­ nally: the iambi used I o n i c (but S o l o n ' s is in Attic); A l c m a n used L a c o n i a n ; S a p p h o and Alcaeus used Lesbian; C o r i n n a used Boeotian; Epicharmus a n d S o p h r o n used Syracusan, always with a generally strong H o m e r i c a n d literary influence. It was o n l y later, from the sixth century o n w a r d s , that I o n i c prose was created a n d diffused into all regions; and towards the e n d o f the fifth century, Attic prose. Y e t , the w o r l d o f literature - w h i c h was cultivated in a few cities f r o m the e n d o f the eighth century onwards, a n d particularly in the seventh a n d sixth centuries — was an international w o r l d that prin­ cipally cultivated international languages: the H o m e r i c language, first a n d foremost, w h i c h w e believe to b e an evolution o f the epic lan­ guage o f the previous millennium in Asia M i n o r ; subsequentiy, the language o f elegy, w h i c h contains m a n y H o m e r i c a n d I o n i c elements; a n d the language o f c h o r a l lyric, b a s e d o n D o r i c , but also very H o m e r i c i s e d . W e must turn o u r attention to these languages. T h u s , it c o u l d b e said that to a certain extent the linguistic situ­ ation in the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d was repeated here. L o c a l dialects existed, s o m e o f w h i c h at times h a d a literary cultivation. But inter­ national p o e t i c languages also existed. Poets attended the great fes­ tivals -

in Sparta, D e l p h i , D e l o s , Athens -

o r w e r e called to the

courts o f kings a n d tyrants - Corinth, S a m o s , Syracuse - a n d there they sang in these international languages. Poetry contributed to the reunification o f the G r e e k dialects, a n d also established

relations

b e t w e e n the different dialects, thereby making t h e m intelligible. 107. O n Phoenician inscriptions, cf. Rh. Carpenter 1968, previously cited. A general overview of Greek inscriptions can be found in the book by Jefferey 1990 and also in M . Guarducci 1967 and Hansen 1983.

70

C H A P T E R FIVE

For the diffusion o f Greek literature, see Adrados 1953b. The script of the Homeric text and its oral character is discussed in §§ 140 ff; on orality in general, among an abundant literature, see J. A. Fernandez Delgado 1983, W . Kullmann and M . Reichel (eds.) 1990 and E. A. Havelock 1986, 1990. It is important to stress that the alphabet was first used to write down local dialects, presenting local variants too. Its use in the international diffusion of literature represents a second phase, which gave privilege to the alphabets in which the literature was expressed and, of course, to the literary languages we have referred to above. 108. T h e r e was a proliferation o f G r e e k inscriptions throughout the Mediterranean. E v e n n o n - G r e e k peoples wrote in Greek, while oth­ ers b o r r o w e d the G r e e k alphabet, in a m o r e o r less modified form, to write their o w n languages, following the G r e e k m o d e l in every w a y (as regards the type o f inscription, formulas, syntax and certain lexicon). T o cite the p o i n t furthest from G r e e c e and least Hellenised, the Iberian peninsula, w e find in Ampurias and its surrounding areas (Pech M a h o , in France) a r o u n d the year 5 0 0 c o m m e r c i a l letters and d o c u m e n t s written in lead (there is also a defixio) o r terracotta, in addition to inscriptions o f the private kind (such as a donation) in c e r a m i c vases. T h e r e are n u m e r o u s inscriptions o n ceramic vases in Huelva, M a l a g a a n d Alicante, indicating the o w n e r , a dedication o r other data; a n d other inscriptions o n oil amphoras b r o u g h t directly o r indirectly from Attica. This is n o t all. Iberian inscriptions were written in GreekJetters (as, similarly, Celtic inscriptions were so written in Gallia). O f course, different alphabets o r semi-alphabets were created to r e c o r d Iberian, Tartessian and Celto-Iberian, with a great p r e d o m i n a n c e o f G r e e k letters, although this is a c o m p l i c a t e d topic. T h e Greeks definitely alphabetised Hispania and c o m m e r c i a l reasons p r o b a b l y m a d e this expansion necessary and inevitable, as in the case o f Italy. 109. See the edition o f the Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae Iberiae by H. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998b and the article by D e H o z 1970 on Attic inscriptions. For the Greco-Iberian inscriptions of Alicante, see the same author 1987 (but they correspond to the fourth century). With regard to the origins o f the scripts of the pre-Roman languages, there is an abun­ dant bibliography, c f a summary in de H o z 1969, who dates some of these back to the eighth century (p. 113), as well as another work of 1979. In addition, see the two recent works by the same author, 1991 and 1996, in which he places the Phoenician alphabet before the Greek as regards the origin o f the Hispanic semi-alphabets.

71

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

110. T h i s is but a m i n o r e x a m p l e o f what was h a p p e n i n g through­ out the Mediterranean. T h e r e were similar events in E u r o p e a n d Asia. In Phrygia, for instance, inscriptions have b e e n discovered dat­ ing from the eighth century onwards in an alphabet that is derived from the Greek, and o n e notices b o t h G r e e k influences in Phrygian a n d Phrygian influences in G r e e k (there is also a trilingual GreekLycian-Aramaic). T h e same goes for T h r a c i a n , for w h i c h w e have inscriptions with G r e e k letters in g o l d rings a n d silver vessels from the sixth to fifth centuries B C ; for Garian, for w h i c h w e have inscrip­ tions in a semi-Greek alphabet from the the seventh century onwards; a n d for Lydian, k n o w n from the same date, and m a n y others. In Sicily and Italy the case is similar. T h e G r e e k origin o f the Etruscan and Latin alphabets is well k n o w n ; they are believed to b e independent o f each other, although s o m e think that the Latin alpha­ bet derives from the Etruscan. In any case, w e are dealing with alphabets o f the western kind, taken from the Chalcidians o f E u b o e a , p r o b a b l y in Cumae. T h e Etruscan alphabet is k n o w n to us from the seventh century, the Latin alphabet from the sixth century. T h e alphabet h a d b e c o m e established in Etruria before the arrival o f the Corinthian Demaratus, father o f the first Etruscan king o f R o m e , Tarquinius Priscus ( a c c o r d i n g to ancient sources, Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, A.R.

I l l 4 6 , Livius I 34). Demaratus h a d arrived

through Pithecusae, a c c o m p a n i e d b y three Corinthian craftsmen w h o displayed their art in Italy. Y e t , it is n o t only the Etruscan

(from

Etruria) and Latin alphabets that derive from the G r e e k alphabet o f Cumae, but also the Etruscan alphabets o f C a m p a n i a , the O s c a n alphabet and the U m b r i a n . Cf. G . D e v o t o 1968, p . 8 9 . T h i s is but o n e o f the m a n y examples o f p r o f o u n d Hellenisation in Etruria from the seventh century onwards a n d s o m e w h a t later in R o m e : from the fifth century onwards, G r e e k terracotta (or terra­ cotta o f G r e e k inspiration), G r e e k cults and G r e e k w o r d s (sometimes with an Etruscan influence, such as triumpe, amurca, sporta, persona) are f o u n d in R o m e . T h e t w o languages w e r e penetrated with G r e e k (In the case o f Etruscan, particularly as regards t h e o n y m s a n d the names o f heroes, but also c o m m o n names). In Latin, there are G r e e k b o r ­ rowings from archaic times: w o r d s such as those cited and other o l d b o r r o w i n g s such as camera, gubernare, oleum, Pollux. 111. For Phrygian, see C. Brixhe in E. Vineis (ed.) 1983, pp. 109-133; for Thracian, V . Georgiev 1981, p . I l l ff; for Lycian, G. Neumann in E.

72

C H A P T E R FIVE

Vineis (ed.) 1983, pp. 135-151; for Garian, I. J. Adiego 1993 and M . E. Giannotta, et al. (eds.) 1994. For the languages of Asia Minor in general, G. Neumann 1980 and the corresponding chapters in F. Villar 1996a. O n the Etruscan alphabet c f G . and L. Bonfante 1985, p . 60 ff., and D . Briquel 1991 (where it is considered as being introduced by nobles, as an object of prestige); on Latin, F. Sommer, 3rd ed., 1948, p. 23 ff. A large series o f Greek borrowings in Etruscan can be found in M . Pittau 1994, p. 257 ff; for older Greek borrowings in Latin, see §§ 291 ff. Yet there are also inscriptions of various pre-Latin languages o f Sicily (those o f the Sicani, Siculi and Elymians) with Greek letters, c f R. Ambrosini 1979, 1983.

3.

T H E C R E A T I O N OF T H E G R E A T DIALECTS

Generalities 112. T h e three dialectal groups k n o w n to us as Ionic-Attic, A r c a d o C y p r i a n and A e o l i c were created within E G ; W G , w h i c h is not part o f this g r o u p , arrived later and tends to distinguish between D o r i c and N . W . Greek. A s w e have seen, there w e r e differences within this E G , perhaps before it entered G r e e c e , but certainly within G r e e c e . Characteristics that affected all o f E G o r a particular part o f it are reflected in Ion.Att. and A r c - C y p . , o r in the latter and A e o L Y e t these

character­

istics d i d n o t always affect all o f the dialects within each g r o u p , although w e are uncertain whether this is an o l d o r a m o r e recent d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e differences between D o r i c and N . W . G r e e t pre­ sent similar p r o b l e m s . H o w e v e r , turning o u r attention to E G , w e have said that the char­ acteristics referred to are actually archaisms that have b e e n preserved or c h o i c e s b e t w e e n doublets, a n d not innovations. Innovations were d e v e l o p e d a n d the dialects finished forming themselves in the postM y c e n a e a n p e r i o d , w h e n the D o r i a n invasion h a d isolated the cen­ tral nuclei o f these dialects: Attica (but see § 118), A r c a d i a T h e s s a l y , the r e g i o n s f r o m w h i c h a m i g r a t i o n

to Asia and

and the

islands w o u l d depart. But they should not b e regarded as unitary dialects, for w e find archaisms, choices and innovations only in parts o f them. A s I have repeatedly s h o w n , the attribution o f a p o s t - M y c e n a e a n origin to the three great dialects has b e c o m e a general

doctrine,

based o n the works o f Porzig and Risch in the 1950s. Garcia R a m o n

73

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

has m a d e a strong case for A e o l i c in particular.

I insist that this

view is correct, but only if o n e accepts an earlier base, and the start o f the differentiation in the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d . T h e key m e t h o d for the study o f this 'dialectal g e n e a l o g y ' (for b o t h E G and W G , in g e n p a l ) lies in demonstrating the ancient sim­ ilarity o f the t w o dialects because they share innovations; the choices also have a p r o b a t i o n a r y character, but to a lesser degree. T h e m o r e serious p r o b l e m is that o f establishing w h i c h characteristics are i n n o ­ vations and w h i c h are not; in doublets o n e must also determine whether o n e o f the t w o forms is an innovation. Furthermore,

in

s o m e cases, a relative c h r o n o l o g y must b e established. T h e r e has b e e n m u c h progress in this field as regards the estab­ lishment o f relative and absolute c h r o n o l o g i e s . But doubts remain, as in the case o f the secondary extension o f the isoglosses. 113. In my small book La dialectologia griega como fuente para el estudio de las migraciones indoeuropeas en Grecia, published for the first time in 1952 (2nd ed. 1997), I still followed the old theory of Kretschmer and Tovar, perhaps due to a traditional inertia, which proposed that Ionic, the most evolved dialect, was the first to penetrate Greece. However, I established two prin­ ciples which I believe have been essential to all subsequent investigation: the existence o f an E G with three main dialects and o f a W G (in addition to the criteria o f supporting this investigation on the different probationary value of the innovations, choices and archaisms, and in the chronology). This book is at the base o f subsequent investigations, such as those o f Porzig and Risch, cited previously, and others. Sometimes I am frequently cited, as in R. Schmitt 1977, p. 125, E. Risch 1979, p. 94, and A. Lopez Eire and J. Mendez Dosuna; sometimes not at all, as in W . Porzig and E. Risch in the works cited, and J. Chadwick 1956, who nevertheless follows my doctrine. In the prologue to a re-edition o f my book, cited above, I pro­ vide the proper base for the whole theory o f innovations and choices, and trace the history o f the investigation. At times, surprising discoveries are made: R . Hodot 'discovers' (in E. Crespo 1993, p. 207) that av and KE coexisted in ancient times, something which I have been saying since 1952. In the prologue cited, I also draw attention to my criticism o f certain modern currents of thought that attempt to undermine the genealogical study o f dialects. Although a very detailed and exact study of the data is essential, it must be added that without this other study the history o f the Greek language cannot be written. See also my observations in Adrados 1994e. The chronology o f the dialects has been examined by A. Bartonek 1979 and 1987 in particular, as well as A. Lopez Eire 1977, 1989a, etc. But today, practically every study on these subjects is based on chronology, which is essentially linguistic in nature; the archeological arguments (the lack of Dorian remains in Attica, etc.) and those o f ancient tradition are a secondary support.

74

C H A P T E R FIVE

For the evolution of the studies on Greek dialectology, see Adrados 1998b; also R. A. Santiago 1997. For tendencies that insist on the importance of description - that is, sociolinguistic description (which is relevant, but not if it involves a hypercritique o f the genealogical study), c f M . Bile 1990a and b, and Gl. Brixhe 1990a and b . The distance that is sometimes pro­ posed between the Greek o f the second and the Greek of the first millen­ nium, and between Mycenaean and subsequent dialects is excessive. 114. Certainly, p r o b l e m s persist with regard to the three great dialects o f E G , not just regarding

to what extent they were prefigured

in

second-millennium E G and to what extent they were o n c e unitary. T h e r e are also p r o b l e m s that affect W G . O n e p r o b l e m is the origin o f certain differences within the dialects. S o m e scholars even d e n y A r c - C y p . ever existed, and there are diver­ gent opinions regarding the relation between D o r i c and N . W . Greek. W i t h respect to A e o l i c , Lesbian s o m e t i m e s c o i n c i d e s with I o n i c , B o e o t i a n and Thessalian

(or parts o f them) with D o r i c A r e these

recent p h e n o m e n a through a secondary diffusion o f isoglosses, or, in s o m e cases, a result o f the superimposition o f peoples? This has also b e e n p r o p o s e d with regard to Cretan D o r i c , w h i c h seems to have retained A c h a e a n characteristics;

and with regard

w h e r e today the existence o f D o r i c characteristics

to

Pamphylian,

are

nevertheless

denied, see § 120. Characteristics

w h i c h are considered to b e D o r i c m a y b e found

outside these dialects. T h e facts must b e e x a m i n e d carefully because sometimes, as in the case o f Pamphylian, w e are dealing with archaisms o r c o i n c i d e n c e s in the c h o i c e w h i c h m a y not b e related but inde­ p e n d e n t o f each other. It serves to recall the theoretically possible Doricisms in H o m e r . O f c o u r s e , this makes the definition o f the four great

dialects

difficult, as d o e s the establishment o f their ancient limits and o f p o s ­ sible m o d e r n m o v e m e n t s o f borders. In a n y case, w e will schematically divide the study o f the dialects into three parts, w h i c h follow a m o r e thematic than c h r o n o l o g i c a l scheme: first, the differentiation Pamphylian,

o f Ionic-Attic, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n a n d

A e o l i c a n d D o r i c ; s e c o n d , the characteristics

which

helped to bring them closer together at s o m e point; third, the n e w differentiations. T h e first part is studied in this section o n ' T h e cre­ ation o f the great dialects'; the other t w o parts are considered in the following sections.

75

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

115. A very complete overview (though somewhat outdated today) of Greek dialectology and the particular aspects cited can be found in R. Schmitt 1977 and J. L. Garcia Ramon (1999). The great traditional treatises are by F. Bechtel 1921-1924, A. Debrunner-A. Scherer 1969 and, within Greek grammar in general, E. Schwyzer 1939 ff. W e will provide the most recent bibliography o f note with regard to each dialect. The reader should not expect a detailed study in this book. This pur­ pose is served by the general treatises of dialectology, which not only pro­ vide the relevant data but also the sources and bibliography, in addition to historical interpretations. Here, we are interested in outlining the char­ acteristics of the linguistic history o f Greece, with its successive processes of dialectal differentiation and unification and the interplay of the spoken and literary dialects peculiar to it. Ionic-Attic 116. Ionic-Attic o c c u p i e d Attica, the islands, the coast o f Asia M i n o r facing G r e e c e and the colonies o f the cities situated there. It is k n o w n to us from ancient inscriptions o f the eighth and seventh

centuries

B C , but n o d o u b t it originates from an earlier date. It continued the old M y c e n a e a n d o m i n i o n in Athens and in parts o f Asia M i n o r , such as Miletus. Athens possessed a M y c e n a e a n palace in the A c r o p o l i s , but myth presents the city as a vassal o f M i n o s . It must have b e e n m o r e i m p o r ­ tant in the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d itself and, j u d g i n g b y the logical remains,

especially in the p o s t - M y c e n a e a n a n d

archaeo­ geometric

p e r i o d ; a vase from this p e r i o d contains a very ancient G r e e k alpha­ betic inscription, to which I referred earlier. T h e r e is n o trace, whether in a r c h a e o l o g y , myth, o r history, o f a D o r i a n invasion. Isolated f r o m the Dorians, with w h o m they did n o t even share a c o m m o n b o r d e r (Boeotia was A e o l i c territory, another derivation o f para-Mycenaean), Athens d e v e l o p e d its o w n dialect. Athens was also isolated Peloponnesian para-Mycenaean,

from

from which Arcado-Cyprian de­

scended. T h u s , what c o u l d have constituted the beginnings o f a paraM y c e n a e a n dialect c o m m o n to Attica and the P e l o p o n n e s e b e c a m e fragmented. 117. H o w e v e r , the dialectal c o m p l e x did not just extend to Attica but also to the islands and Asia M i n o r , F o l l o w i n g Sakellariou, I have already discussed the great emigration to Asia b y the Greeks from the P e l o p o n n e s e , w h o h a d b e e n i n v a d e d b y the Dorians. Y e t S o l o n , as w e saw, describes Athens as 'the oldest land o f Ionia' and Herodotus (VTI 2) refers to emigration f r o m Attica to the Asian Ionia.

But

76

CHAPTER

FIVE

H e r o d o t u s himself depicts other traditions regarding the Ionians w h o departed to Asia f r o m central G r e e c e and the Peloponnese: O r c h o menus, E u b o e a , Messenia, Phocis, etc. In the Peloponnese, t o p o n y m s and various mythical names can b e found that recall the n a m e o f the Ionians. T h e fact is, there is a series o f innovations o f Ionic-Attic, partic­ ularly p h o n e t i c ones, w h i c h were transmitted b y sea from s o m e point a n d w e r e n o t always totally consolidated in the seventh

century.

A c c o r d i n g to A . Bartonek 1977, p . 121 ff, they only b e c a m e diffused from 9 0 0 B C onwards. A list o f the main innovations and choices can b e found in Adrados 1976b, p . 2 7 2 s., R . Schmitt 1977 o r in A . L o p e z Eire 1977 and 1989: a > r| (incomplete in the I o n i c o f the islands in the sixth and seventh centuries), ephelcistic -v, lengthenings o f the type -eou- > -81JLI-, vocalism and the prothesis o f eiKocu, PO\)A,OLXOCI, etc., the ei, ox>

lengthening b e f o r e a sonant plus f, the hiatus abbreviation

and

metathesis o f quantity, fiueec, and v\i&ec, (and contractions), exepoc;, in addition to the innovations that the dialect shares with others. In this way, the Ionic-Attic dialect was formed o n a c o m m o n paraM y c e n a e a n base but with innovations that b e c a m e diffused b y sea and w h i c h w e c a n n o t date before the ninth century B C . Nevertheless, apart from the differences in Eretria and

Oropus

(see § 118) there are also differences between I o n i c and Attic. T h e latter dialect preserved archaisms such as £6v,

KQ\ZI>

the

aspiration

and the dual, and there are choices w h i c h have b e e n b r o u g h t to the very e n d (xeaaocpeq, iepoc,, the metathesis o f quantity). Also, its o w n i n n o v a t i o n s : the return o f n to a after

p, i, e; the G . sg.

veavioi), certain innovations in the lexicon, etc. A progressive differen­ tiation u n d o u b t e d l y t o o k p l a c e , perhaps in an archaic phase, within Attica (cf. A . L o p e z Eire 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 and 1985). Also, Attic shares s o m e innovations with neighbouring dialects, as in the creation o f re, pp. 118. O n the ancient traditions relating to the origin of the Ionians, c f A. Tovar 1994, p. 289 ff. Bonfante 1984, p. 205 states that Homer 'hides' the name o f the Ionians (he only mentions them once, in relation to Attica), as well as that o f the Dorians (he also mentions them only once, in rela­ tion to Crete). O n Ionic-Attic, in addition to the bibliography cited, c f A. Lopez Eire 1971 (with J. Mendez Dosuna), 1972-1973, 1984a, 1985, 1987b and 1989, M . Negri 1981a and 1982a and b , and W . S. Allen 1987: different con-

THE

77

FIRST MILLENNIUM

tacts must be added to its innovations. Elsewhere, there are those who see Ionic-Attic as a synthesis o f two dialects rather than a differentiation. For the elimination in Attic o f the common lexicon o f other dialects, c f Adrados 1953a and 1957. There is a clear relation between Attica, the islands, and the Asiatic continent in archaic times, symbolised by the role of the Delos sanctuary (from the seventh century onwards, it is believed) and the Attic colonisation of Troas (from the sixth century onwards). Naturally, the problem o f Lesbian should not be forgotten, as well as that o f the subdialects (Eretria, Oropus) and o f the isoglosses with central Greece (we must return to this, in particular). Also, o f course, there is the problem o f whether there were different dialects within Ionic; and of the 'Atticisation' o f Ionic, which led to the creation of koine. There is no trace of differences within Attic, as a result o f the strict unification of the terri­ tory under Gleisthenes (and before him, mythically, under Theseus). See, for Aeolic in Asia, C. J. Ruijgh 1995-1996, who postulates the exis­ tence of Ionic influences in Aeolic; for example, the inf. in -vcu would be due to a contamination with the inf. in -uevca. Arcado-Cyprian and Pamphylian 119. Clearly, Arcadian was left isolated in the centre o f the Peloponnese b y the D o r i a n invasion, and before it was entirely carried out, p e o ­ ples from the P e l o p o n n e s e settled in Cyprus, w h e r e M y c e n a e a n set­ dements had already b e e n established; and, n o d o u b t , in Pamphylia, j u d g i n g b y similarities in the dialects. T h i s is supported b y myth, w h i c h present the hero T e u c e r , founder o f Salamis o f Cyprus, g o i n g to Cyprus. Perhaps this dialect e x t e n d e d to R h o d e s a n d Crete before the arrival o f the D o r i a n s (cf. §§ 131 f ) . The

existence o f an A r c a d o - C y p r i a n dialect g r o u p , t h o u g h dis­

p u t e d at times, is generally accepted; so t o o is its link to the g r o u p that also included Ionic-Attic, w h i c h has b e e n discussed. Aside f r o m the archaisms, innovations, and choices c o m m o n to other dialects, w e c a n p r o v i d e s o m e specific A r c a d o - C y p r i a n mate­ rial along with the characteristics that g o b a c k to E G . I w o u l d like to recall archaisms such as the preservation o f the p o r o f the ver­ bal desinence -to(i); choices such as the names in -nc, (instead o f -euq), the C y p . p r o n o u n o-ni/Arc.

ove, e t c But, a b o v e all, innova­

tions such as £v > iv, - o > -v (also in Pamphylian), the

sibilant

solution o f the labiovelar before the vowels e, i, dvoc > 6v, the c o n ­ j u n c t i o n s and prepositions po-se/noq,

ka-selK&C,.

O f course, this also

applies to archaisms in only o n e dialect ( C y p . pt-, G . sg. -o, o-ne, dual in A r c ) o r innovations also in o n l y o n e dialect ( A r c -Kpeinc,, Cyp.

alXoq).

78

C H A P T E R FIVE

In fact, the innovations o f A r c a d o - C y p r i a n are n o t so n u m e r o u s c o m p a r e d to those o f Ionic-Attic, w h i c h are m o r e c o n s p i c u o u s t o o . It often hesitates w h e r e the latter c h o o s e s in a decisive w a y : for e x a m p l e , in the aor. a n d fut. o f verbs in -£co (Ion.-At. -aa, -aco, here sometimes occurs). A r c a d o - C y p r i a n is a relegated dialect, w h i c h did n o t have a literary d e v e l o p m e n t a n d even a d o p t e d an

archaic

script in Cyprus, the C y p r i a n syllabary. I n d e e d , Ionic-Attic was the dialect that s t o o d out from the rest a n d m a d e its mark,

whereas

A r c a d o - C y p r i a n c a n b e seen as the archaic remnant that remained isolated, although it does contain s o m e characteristics o f its o w n . Ionic-Attic, with a series o f ancient c o m m o n characteristics,

sep­

arated f r o m the rest, and in its Attic variety c a m e to f o r m the c e n ­ tre o f the G r e e k language. 120. For Arc.-Cyp., see, in addition to the bibliography cited, A. Lillo 1979, who (like A. Lopez Eire and J. Mendez Dosuna 1971 and myself since 1952) considers it a derivative o f the group that it formed part of at an earlier date, together with Ionic-Attic (as we have seen, for some authors there are pre-forms o f both dialects in the second millennium). J. Chadwick 1988 and E. Risch 1988 tend to understate - excessively, I believe - the links between Arcadian and Cyprian. With respect to Pamphylian as a derivative o f the same group, but with later elements, I have already cited the works o f A. Lopez Eire and A. Lillo 1982 and 1983, and o f M . Garcia Teijeiro 1984. Pamphylian may preserve certain archaisms alien to Arc.-Cyp., such as -ti. Possibly, it comes from an area o f the Mycenaean world related to the dialect that we call Mycenaean and with the later Arcado-Cyprian dialect; but it does not appear to be influenced by Doric or Aeolic, the coincidences with these are archaisms. However, in the phase in which it is known to us, it does contain influences from the koine.

Aeolic 121. A s w e have seen, the A e o l i c dialects — Thessalian,

Boeotian

a n d L e s b i a n — c o n t i n u e various isoglosses o f the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d , s o m e o f w h i c h they share with w h a t w o u l d later b e c o m e the I o n i c Attic dialects, a n d s o m e w h i c h are their o w n . H o w e v e r , it is difficult to establish a c h r o n o l o g y for A e o l i c , o r resolve the p r o b l e m o f its partial c o i n c i d e n c e with D o r i c . Before w e e x a m i n e this, let it suffice to say that B o e o t i a ( T h e b e s , O r c h o m e n u s , etc.) as well as Phthia a n d Iolcos, in Thessaly, have a strong M y c e n a e a n tradition, as attested b y a r c h a e o l o g y and

myth;

and that tradition recounts h o w the c o n q u e s t o f Lesbos was under-

79

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

taken b y Achilles from Phthia. T h e r e are strong links b e t w e e n the dialect o f Lesbos and that o f eastern Thessaly, Pelasgiotis, a n d also b e t w e e n the dialects o f Thessaly and Boeotia. It seems that the centre o f this dialect was in Thessaly, w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to myth, K i n g Aeolus ruled and w h e r e the n a m e o f Aeolia, given to the Asian coast in w h i c h this dialect was spoken, originates. T h u c y d i d e s I 12 writes that the B o e o t i a n s w e r e expelled b y the Thessalians w h o , a c c o r d i n g to H e r o d o t u s V I I 176, had c o m e from Thesprotia

(which T h u c y d i d e s III

102 calls A e o l i a ) , in the N . W .

Balkans. W e r e the Thessalians G r e e k Dorians, later p a r d y Aeolicised, as p r o p o s e d b y R . Schmitt 1977, p . 74? D i d the Boeotians bring a second-millennium dialect to B o e o t i a that was m o r e o r less evolved in Thessaly, and did they superimpose themselves o n t o the M y c e n a e a n d o m i n i o n o f that region? O r was it, in contrast, the D o r i a n s w h o superimposed themselves o n t o the A e o l i a n d o m i n i o n o f Thessaly (in the W . , Thessaliotis) and B o e o t i a (especially in the S.W.)? O r did these isoglosses o n l y penetrate b y peaceful means? W e will return to this, showing the great diversity that exists within and a m o n g these dialects, resulting, n o d o u b t , f r o m b o t h

external

influences and the absence o f a political unity b e t w e e n these regions. H o w e v e r , there are s o m e isoglosses that unify t h e m , although

it

remains doubtful to what extent they result from a M y c e n a e a n dialect in the w h o l e area o r f r o m the m o d i f i e d version o f the same appear­ ing in Thessaly a n d later e x p o r t e d to B o e o t i a and L e s b o s . 122. A s I have explained, citing the b o o k b y J. L. G a r c i a R a m o n 1975, for this author a n d others A e o l i c has a p o s t - M y c e n a e a n ori­ gin. Personally, I have dealt with this t o p i c in depth in A d r a d o s 1 9 7 6 b and I have discussed it earlier (§ 39). I believe that, despite the existence o f recent characteristics

(although most o f them

are

peculiar to the different dialects), the principal c o m m o n feature found in A e o l i c is that o f the ancient isoglosses consisting o f archaisms o r choices, whether b e l o n g i n g to the w h o l e o f E G o r only to

these

dialects (or o n e o f them). Sometimes, these A e o l i c characteristics are also f o u n d in H o m e r a n d / o r in M y c e n a e a n , and they are not A e o l i c in these sources: they are simply c o m m o n to s o m e A e o l i c archaisms and choices.

There

are also archaisms c o m m o n to D o r i c , as well as c o m m o n charac­ teristics, o f an older date it seems, with Ionic-Attic and A r c a d i a n , as has b e e n m e n t i o n e d ; other, recent c o m m o n characteristics o n e dialect with a part o f D o r i c o r Attic.

unite

80

C H A P T E R FIVE

I consider the characteristics c o m m o n to all o f A e o l i c , which are rare, to b e almost entirely m a d e up o f archaisms or ancient, Mycenaean choices: I c a n n o t repeat the argumentation in detail, so I refer the reader to m y previous publication as cited. T h e s e characteristics are mainly: the vocalisation op, oA,; the c h o i c e o f -Lxev as desinence o f the 1st pL; and the p a t r o n y m i c in -10c,. T h e y are characteristics that put A e o l i c a n d D o r i c in opposition, and approximate, a c c o r d i n g to each case, A e o l i c to E G in general, o r to M y c e n a e a n o r H o m e r . Archaisms and choices, w h i c h c o u l d b e c o m m o n , are a d d e d only in certain dialects: athematic instead o f thematic inflection in the verb ( m o r e o r less diffused in A e o l i c , as in A r c - G y p . and H o m e r ) , thematic inf. -fxev (eastern Thes., Boeot., Horn.), ice (Thes. and Lesb.), neda (Boeot., Lesb. and T h e s . , but here also uexd), -(pi (Thes.), nxoXiq (Thes.), - o ( o , o v - / a v - , u£CT7io8i (eastern Thes.), ove (Thes. and A r c Gyp.), ev + A c . (Boeot., Thes.). 123. W i t h regard to innovations, I have considered those o f the sec­ o n d millennium: *k°e > Tie-, pe > pi, the perf. part, in -OVT-, and the D . pi. in -eoor (going far b e y o n d Aeolic); see m y

argumentation

in A d r a d o s 1976b, p . 261 ff., and for the last form also J. J. M o r a l e j o 1984 and P. Wathelet 1991. T h e r e are also partial innovations, such as the evolution o f the nasal o r liquid g r o u p with s o r y > gemi­ nate ( T h e s . , Lesb.), -vx- > -v0- (Thes., Boeot.). N o t to m e n t i o n those o f the different dialects. In other w o r d s , during the M y c e n a e a n p e r i o d the A e o l i c dialects h a d already either a c c e p t e d the archaisms and choices o f the -pest o f E G o r a d o p t e d n e w ones. Later o n , they introduced s o m e c o m m o n characteristics through archaism, c h o i c e o r innovation. But it was never a matter o f a perfectly defined dialect, whether in relation to other dialects o r internally. 124. Specifically, the D o r i c innovations (see § 125) did n o t penetrate A e o l i c Certain characteristics c o m m o n to D o r i c and all o r part o f A e o l i c (-xi, -GG-, *^el-,

inf.-jiev in athematics, the conditional ai, spir-

itus asper, ev + A c , e t c ) are but c o m m o n archaisms (although they c o u l d have b e e n introduced secondarily b y D o r i a n peoples o r D o r i a n isoglosses). I have p r o p o s e d this hypothesis as b e i n g the most p r o b ­ able due to the fact that the real innovations o f D o r i c did not p e n ­ etrate A e o l i c (although m u c h earlier, in A d r a d o s 1952, I had referred to transition dialects).

81

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

In conclusion, a very divided A e o l i c dialect was created o n the foundations o f p a r a - M y c e n e a n , whether

through

d e v e l o p m e n t s in

Boeotia and Thessaly o r through developments in Thessaly and later diffusion. It was simultaneously related and in opposition to the rest o f the dialects d e s c e n d e d from East Greek. T h e s e dialects are k n o w n almost exclusively through

inscriptions,

except for the case o f Lesbian a n d recent Boeotian (Corinna). F o r reasons that are not entirely clear, a part o f these dialects are close to D o r i c (Boeotian and Thessalian o f the Thessaliotis) o r to I o n i c (Lesbian). The Doric dialects 125. O n c e the reality o f the D o r i a n invasion has b e e n

established,

as it has b e e n in this v o l u m e , and o n c e the type o f G r e e k language that it brought with it has b e e n defined as an archaic Greek, little remains to b e said a b o u t the D o r i c dialects. It is clear that if there is a c o i n c i d e n c e with H o m e r in TOI, - X I , euiv, e t c o r with

others

with different dialects based o n the archaism, this is only a reflection o f the c o m m o n preservation o f an archaism, and nothing else. T h e m a i n p r o b l e m is whether D o r i c as such and the so-called N . W . G r e e k (from P h o c i a n to Elean) are secondary fragmentations G r e e c e o r whether they are a p r o d u c t o f older

within

differentiations.

A . Bartonek 1972 attempted to demonstrate this for a few cases. But the majority v i e w (E. R i c h 1985, A . L o p e z Eire a n d J. M e n d e z D o s u n a 1982, J. M e n d e z D o s u n a 1985, and various o f m y o w n p u b ­ lications) inclines towards the contrary thesis. I n d e e d , the innovations o f these dialects are rare: euioc,, euiv, a\)xoaai)x6v, xfjvoc,, the w o r d order in caxlqiax, the generalisation o f in the fut. and aor. o f the verbs in -£co (a choice), perhaps

the

act. v o i c e o f the pas. fut. (Cret. dvaypacprioei), the so-called D o r i c fut. Sometimes, there are p r o b l e m s regarding the origin o f an i n n o ­ vation, as in the case o f the D . pi. - e o o i ( D o r i c and A e o l i c dialects). T h e r e are also very clear and emphatic examples o f choices in the D o r i c dialects, as c o m p a r e d with E G , n o d o u b t m a d e outside G r e e c e : des. 1st p f

-JLLEC;,

inf. -uev,

KCC;

other choices leave traces o f

the least favoured f o r m , as for e x a m p l e uexd, 68e, rcoxi, *g°els, at. T h e N . W . dialects sometimes created clear differentiations,

with

innnovations such as those o f Elean o r L a c o n i a n . T h e y were devel­ o p e d within G r e e c e , and the same surely applies to those o f N . W .

82

C H A P T E R FIVE

Greek: characteristics such as - G 9 > GT, ep > ocp in addition to others that invaded A e o l i c ( D . sg. them. -01, the same and the D . pi. athem. -oi<; in Boeot.). 126. It should b e n o t e d that the arrival o f the Dorians gave rise to three different linguistic

situations:

(a) A clear, sharp linguistic b o r d e r , p r o o f o f a recent and sec­ o n d a r y encounter: as between Attic and Megarian. (b) P h e n o m e n a o f the substratum, such as those in Cretan; ear­ lier forms can b e seen underlying D o r i c . (c) Permeable borders, whether as a result o f invasions o r sim­ ple advances o f certain isoglosses (the case o f W . T h e s . and Boeotian). T h e fact is, the D o r i c dialects barely had a literary d e v e l o p m e n t (with exceptions, as w e shall see), but the peoples that spoke these dialects w e r e artistically and, a b o v e all, politically important in rela­ tion to the Ionians. Y e t , despite the defeat o f Athens in the P e l o p o n nesian W a r , the

city w a s able to i m p o s e its dialect t h r o u g h

a

c o m p l i c a t e d process, thus unifying G r e e c e .

4.

T H E UNIFYING ISOGLOSSES

127. F r o m the 1950s onwards, it was increasingly demonstrated that, along with the differentiating isoglosses o f Greek (of the great dialects and, subsequendy, other local dialects), unifying isoglosses b e g a n to diffuse: b e t w e e n D o r i c and Ionic-Attic in general, but also b r o a d e r o r m o r e r e d u c e d isoglosses than these, as well as others that crossed local dialectal borders. T h i s tension b e t w e e n differentiation

and unification

characterises

the evolution o f the G r e e k language from its beginnings. T h e first unifying e x a m p l e is the d e v e l o p m e n t , in the languages spoken in G r e e c e , o f isoglosses that p a r d y unified D o r i c with all o r s o m e o f its rivals. T h i s is due to the fact that the c o m m o n existence o f the Greeks, in spite o f the brutal c h a s m caused b y the fall o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms and the D o r i a n invasion, was slowly restored. I have dis­ cussed h o w the alphabet was diffused almost instantaneously

in the

eighth century, o r perhaps earlier. Dorians and Ionians were rivals in the f o u n d i n g o f c o l o n i e s and in trade. C e r a m i c styles, from g e o -

83

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

metric to orientalising and the later ones, reached every point o f the g l o b e that was accessible to the Greeks. Styles o f architecture and o f sculpture were diffused and influenced e a c h other in a reciprocal way. F r o m the eighth century onwards, certain sanctuaries and local oracles b e g a n to attract a^ll o f the Greeks. Pilgrims, artists and poets b e g a n to travel, aristocrats visited each other and established

close

relations with e a c h other, thereby uniting families: for example, the Alcmseonidae family and the tyrants o f Sicyon. Cities began to overflow with exiles and metics, and their armies sometimes fought side b y side: in the M e d i c W a r s , the Peloponnesian W a r s , and others. T r a d e t o o , and so m a n y other things, enabled close relations to develop. T h e n there was literature. Epic was sung everywhere, later iamb o s , elegy, and lyric, always in languages o r dialects penetrated by H o m e r and with c o m m o n musical instruments. In short, there were generally c o m m o n types o f society and pol­ itics, although the solutions attempted often varied. M y t h and reli­ g i o n also had a unifying function. T h u s , G r e e c e , despite its divisions, confrontations a n d peculiarities, b e c a m e a cultural unit which sought in vain for a degree o f political unity, just like medieval

Europe.

Historical facts and anecdotes point to a very high degree o f recip­ rocal intellegibility in the sanctuaries, cities, kings' courts (it serves to recall the a n e c d o t e a b o u t the c o m p e t i t i o n for the w e d d i n g o f Agariste in S i c y o n , in H e r o d o t u s V I 126 f f ) , and in other places in w h i c h various dialects a n d literary languages w e r e spoken o r heard. 128. H o w , in such a situation, c o u l d there not b e a c o n v e r g e n c e o f the dialects, particularly w h e n they contained identical o r approxi­ mate forms? N o t just literature, but also administrative d o c u m e n t s d e m a n d e d s o m e kind o f standardisation c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the recip­ rocal a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the dialects, since there was a similarity in the f o r m and formulas o f the d o c u m e n t s . In the l o n g run, this led to the birth o f the international lan­ guages, w h i c h culminated in the koine. But, earlier, it had led to the diffusion o f unifying isoglosses that crossed all the dialects. 129. M y b o o k o f 1952, p . 4 5 , E. R i s c h 1955, J. C h a d w i c k 1956 and the later bibliography ( a m o n g others, A d r a d o s 1 9 7 6 b , p . 2 5 1 , and 1984a, p . 2 3 6 ; A . L o p e z Eire and J. M e n d e z D o s u n a 1984) c o n c u r with the following: the existence o f a series o f characteristics

com­

m o n to D o r i c and E G (and sometimes only to Ion.-Att.) that can

84

CHAPTER FIVE

only b e attributed to recent innovations o r choices. Dates around 1000 BC have been proposed. For instance, the following characteristics were chosen: oep (not op) in Ion.-At. and D o r . , the derivatives o f *ens> -TOU not -TOI (this choice reaches A e o L , n o t A r c . - C y p . ) , the types -evq a n d -68e (the same observation applies), the thematic conjugation o f the denominatives (as in Ion.-At.), etc. Apart from penetrations in the border zone o f A e o L , the part o f E G which D o r i c most easily made contact with was Ion-At. (and less frequently, Arc.-Cyp.). W e cannot determine exactly through which route this occurred, but it could have been a maritime route o r through coexistence in the international world that was being created. It is significant that the same date is attrib­ uted to innovations that created inner fragmentations within each o f the three great dialects. Included were innovations that crossed bor­ ders and created isoglosses shared b y dialects that were located in close proximity to each other: the -TT- o f Attic and Boeotian, the fjvGov o f D o r i c o f the Peloponnese

in Arcadia

and

Delphi,

the

a

before ae in D o r i c , Aeolic and Boeotian, etc.: I studied these and other examples in Adrados 1952. In addition, there are the Aeolicisms o f Asian Ionic, derivatives from the bilingualism o f the speakers o f these languages. Cf. M . P. Hualde 1997. O f course, sometimes there are doubts, for instance, about the relation between Doric, o n the one hand, and Boeotian and Thessalian, o n the other; o r regarding the proposals b y Porzig in favour o f bor­ rowings from Ionic to Lesbian (-TI > -or, etc,, npoq; c f against this, a

A . L o p e z Eire 1 9 7 8 b , p. 4 6 5 , a n d J. J.

Moralejo

1996). D o u b t s

increase in cases where there is a wider diffusion o f the isoglosses, such as the D . pi. in -eaor and the evolution o f -pa- > -pp-, which I discussed in m y b o o k o f 1952. It should b e noted that physical contact, as it were, between the dialects is not essential for the diffusion o f isoglosses: o n e has to take travel culture into account, as well as relations in general, politics and the epigraphic models. 5. SeCONDARY

DIFFERENCES

130. A l o n g with the unifying currents, particularising currents also existed in G r e e c e . A s w e have seen, neither E G n o r W G were per­

fectly defined a n d unitary dialects; nor, generally speaking, were

85

T H E FIRST MILLENNIUM

Ionic-Attic, A r c a d o - C y p r i a n , Aeolic, o r D o r i c . T h e differences b e c a m e m o r e m a r k e d as time w e n t b y , w h e n the different dialects emigrated to the other side o f the sea and w h e n all kinds o f oppositions and confrontations e m e r g e d (Ionians, then Athenians, and Dorians; within these, Spartans a n d Argjves, etc.). It can b e said that in

general

terms, the m o s t important differences o c c u r r e d after the expansion o f the I o n i c - D o r i c isoglosses a r o u n d the year 1000; but general rules cannot be provided. In places with highly organised states, such as Athens, Corinth o r Sparta, dialectal units t e n d e d to f o r m w h i c h , in turn, tended differentiate

to

themselves strongly f r o m their neighbours. W h e n this

was not the case, internal differences emerged: as in Boeotia, Thessaly in particularly, but also in Crete a n d other parts. T h e existence o f a c o m m o n dialect has even b e e n the object o f debate, as in the case o f Saronican. A t any rate, G r e e c e b e c a m e fragmented into a mul­ titude o f m o r e o r less differentiated

dialects, with all kinds o f tran­

sitions. T h e y tended to b e written in different alphabets. A s w e have seen, most o f these dialects never b e c a m e literary dialects, they were mainly used for internal, colloquial and official purposes. T h e w h o l e subject o f dialectal fragmentation, w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d the diffusion o f the unifying isoglosses, has often b e e n the subject o f great discussion, 131. C h r o n o l o g y is o n e o f the p r o b l e m s : determining whether N . W . G r e e k is differentiated

secondarily f r o m D o r i c , within G r e e c e , o r

whether some differential characteristics c a m e from outside o f G r e e c e . A s I have noted, s o m e scholars (A. L o p e z Eire a n d A . Negri) believe that Attic a n d I o n i c were t w o dialects that later unified, w h i c h is the opposite o f what o n e w o u l d normally think. I have also discussed Pamphylian. T a k e the doubts regarding the language o f O r o p u s , a place in Attica affected b y Attic, Eretrian and B o e o t i a n influences: to what extent are the Eretrian characteristics o l d o r a p r o d u c t o f recent contacts? T h i s is n o d o u b t the case o f dialectal 'mixtures' as in the D o r i c region o f Asia M i n o r . T h i s brings us to the subject o f dialectal substrata, w h i c h tend to differentiate

certain dialects (approximating them, certainly, to oth­

ers). T h e r e are conflicting o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g D o r i c elements

in

Boeotian and Thessalian and I o n i c elements in Lesbian (cf. §§ 121 f. and 132); and also regarding M y c e n a e a n o r A c h a e a n elements, as the case m a y b e , apparently

unquestionable,

in certain parts o f

86

C H A P T E R FIVE

Crete; I w o u l d like to a d d the Lesbianisms o f I o n i c in Phocaea, Erithrae and C h i o s , and, allegedly, C y r e n e .

Smyrna,

Nevertheless,

there is a d o m i n a n t scepticism today with respect to the I o n i c ele­ ments (or A c h a e a n elements, as w e w o u l d say today) in the D o r i c dialect o f the P e l o p o n n e s e , as p r o p o s e d b y A . T o v a r 1944, but per­ haps it is w o r t h restating the

question.

It is impossible to e x a m i n e these topics in any depth here, I only wish to m e n t i o n them. T h e influece o f n o n - G r e e k languages w o u l d have to b e a d d e d , as in the I o n i c o f H i p p o n a x o f Ephesus, and o n e w o u l d have to s h o w that, due to o u r limited sources, o u r k n o w l e d g e o f not only the history o f the dialects, but also o f the dialects them­ selves, is very

fragmentary.

T h e case o f I o n i c demonstrates

this most effectively. T h e r e is a

statement b y H e r o d o t u s I 142 that the I o n i c o f Asia was divided into four dialects: but this is not confirmed b y literature o r the inscrip­ tions, w h e r e w e o n l y find small differences due to archaism o r c h o i c e a n d a few minimal innovations in C h i o s and Erithrae, and in C h i o s a n d Miletus. O r h a d a c o m m o n written language

others already

b e e n created? Y e t , w e c o m e across differences between I o n i c o f Asia, o f the islands and, naturally, Attic and

Euboean.

132. I will not touch upon the subject o f the Doric (or supposedly Doric) elements o f Thessalian and Boeotian, the Ionic elements of Lesbian, or the subject o f Pamphylian. For the dialectal fragmentation in Thessaly, see R . van der Velde 1924 and J. L. Garcia Ramon 1987; for Saronican (which is questioned), M . E. Perez Molina 1986; for the problems o f Cretan, E. Rizzi 1981, "Si. Bile 1988, I. Hajnal 1987 and 1988, Y. Duhoux 1988, C. Brixhe 1991a; for those o f Lesbian, J. J. Moralejo 1996, C . J . Ruijgh 1995-96; for those o f Cyrene, A. Striano 1987 (who questions the substratum); for those of Euboean and Oropus, M . L. del Barrio 1987, 1988, 1994; for the Doric of Asia, W . Blumel 1993; for the subject o f the Ionic dialect o f Asia, K. Stiiber 1996, M . P. Hualde 1997. Also o f useful reference are: for Aeolic, W . Blumel 1982 and R. Hodot 1990a; for Arcadian, A. Lillo 1979, L. Dubois 1983 and C. Cosani 1989; for western Argolic, P. Fernandez Alvarez 1981; for N . W . Doric, J. Mendez Dosuna 1985; for Delphian, J. J. Moralejo 1973a; for Aeolic, J. Mendez Dosuna 1980, J. Garcia Blanco 1988 and A. Thevenot-Warelle 1988; for western Locrian, R. Garcia del Pozo 1983; for Laconian, E. Bourguet 1927; for the Doric o f Sicily, U. Sicca 1924; For the Ionic o f Magnesia, E. Nachmanson 1903; for that o f Miletus, B. Bondesson 1936; for that o f Erithrae, K. A Garbrach 1978; for Attic, L. Threatte 1980-1996.

CHAPTER SIX THE GENERAL LITERARY LANGUAGES: EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L

LYRIC

1. T H E L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S AS G E N E R A L L A N G U A G E S

133. T h e unifying tendencies within the G r e e k dialects, o f a very ancient date, have b e e n discussed; so t o o , the social and cultural forces that stimulated this a p p r o x i m a t i o n , w h i c h g r e w progressively until the Attic dialect was i m p o s e d , in its koine variant, as the gen­ eral language o f the Greeks. S o , a factor w h i c h contributed decisively to the mutual

under­

standing o f the Greeks and to the approximation o f the dialects was the creation o f m o r e o r less general literary languages that w e r e u n d e r s t o o d b y e v e r y o n e in the cultural sphere. First, there w e r e poetic general languages: the H o m e r i c language, that o f elegy and choral lyric. T h e n , the particular languages that were

nevertheless

understood in all parts: I o n i c , Lesbian and s o m e others. Finally, the languages o f prose, first I o n i c (which was o n the brink o f b e c o m i n g a general language), then Attic (which s u c c e e d e d in d o i n g so). T h e r e are degrees o f generality, so to speak. I f a p o e t from any part o f G r e e c e , a speaker o f any dialect, sat d o w n to c o m p o s e poetry o f the epic kind, o r o n e o f the related genres, he w o u l d d o so in the H o m e r i c language. F r o m a certain p o i n t in history, any p o e t w h o c o m p o s e d elegies w o u l d d o so in the language o f elegy; and the choral poets, in the language o f choral lyric. In contrast,

other

p o e t i c genres were written only in restricted territories, mainly in the local language, whereas the genres o f w h i c h I have just spoken were c o m p o s e d , sung, heard and imitated everywhere. T h e same o c c u r r e d with the diffusion o f I o n i c and Attic prose. 134. H e s i o d , a Boeotian, wrote in the epic language o f H o m e r , as did the authors o f the Epic C y c l e p o e m s , such as Stasinus o f Cyprus or Arctinus o f Miletus, and the poets o f the so-called H o m e r i c H y m n s , recited in D e l o s , D e l p h i and other parts. I n d e e d , H o m e r was recited in the Athens o f Pisistratus, in the Sicyon o f Cleisthenes and practically

88

C H A P T E R SIX

everywhere. C e r a m i c pottery attests to the k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r at least from the ninth century onwards, and the oldest

inscriptions

starting f r o m the o n e o n the c u p o f Pithecusae, are influenced b y h i m ( c f , Iliad X I 6 3 2 - 6 3 7 ) . Similarly, epigraphy gives evidence that elegies were written every­ where: sometimes, first in the local dialects and then in the general language

o f elegy. I n d e e d , the Sicilian Stesichorus,

the

Boeotian

Pindar, the Ionians Simonides and Bacchylides, and the Attic trage­ dians all c o m p o s e d their p o e m s in the language o f choral lyric. O f course, these languages admitted modifications and evolutions, as well as major o r m i n o r influences from the language o f the poets: for e x a m p l e , the case o f the tragedy from Attic. But they were essen­ tially unitary. It is notable that the oldest language - the H o m e r i c language, as it was written in the eighth century - influenced

them

all. It influenced elegy, i a m b o s , choral lyric, the m o n o d y o f S a p p h o a n d A l c a e u s , e v e n the I o n i c o f H e r o d o t u s .

Subsequently,

Ionic

influenced literary Attic. 135. It should b e n o t e d that H o m e r , with the I o n i c and A e o l i c lin­ guistic forms that h a d penetrated his language (and the o l d forms that were interpreted in this way), helped to make certain dialects comprehensible. Likewise, these dialects were penetrated b y Homerisms as a natural d e v e l o p m e n t , in so far as they l o o k e d like a continua­ tion o f H o m e r . E v e n the I o n i c philosophers w e r e influenced b y H o m e r w h e n cre­ ating their n e w intellectual lexicon. T h u s , due to his diffusion

and

influence in the various literary languages, H o m e r was an important factor in the linguistic unification o f G r e e c e . G i v e n that A e o l i c was relegated to Lesbos and a small region o f Asia, first I o n i c and later Attic, as o p p o s e d to D o r i c , b e c a m e the true successors o f H o m e r , H o m e r gave Attic legitimacy, for instance in the case o f the M a c e ­ donians and even the D o r i a n s , a n d he helped to i m p o s e it. F r o m different g e o g r a p h i c areas in G r e e c e the literary languages, w h i c h modified the local dialects with the aid o f linguistic forms with great diffusion, o p e n e d increasingly larger areas to intellectual

and

cultural c o m m u n i c a t i o n , as well as just plain c o m m u n i c a t i o n between the Greeks. T h e r e was a cumulative process, w h i c h relegated dialects to simple languages for internal use.

many

89

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

All o f this resulted in the imposition o f Attic, favoured b y histor­ ical circumstances, although not as the general language o f prose (the o l d forms r e m a i n e d in use for poetry) but as the general lan­ guage in the everyday life o f the Greeks. T h e unity that had b e e n b r o k e n within East Greelf in the s e c o n d millennium was n o w r e c o n ­ structed.

2.

T H E FIRST G E N E R A L L A N G U A G E : EPIC L A N G U A G E IN O U R H O M E R

Innovations in epic language 136. A s w e have seen, there is an epic language o f the s e c o n d mil­ lennium, p r o c e e d i n g f r o m a l o n g evolution o f the

Indo-European

epic language a n d subjected to an evolutionary process o f w h i c h w e k n o w very little, and another epic language o f the eighth cen­ tury, w h e n H o m e r wrote o r dictated his p o e m s . It is significant that the epic language tradition, k n o w n to us through H o m e r , was not the only o n e that existed. H e s i o d , the H o m e r i c H y m n s and even the lyrics b r i n g oral traditions to m i n d that are Furthermore,

somewhat

different.

o u r H o m e r o f the eighth century suffered s o m e alter­

ations in transmission w h i c h to a certain extent have disfigured h i m in o u r eyes. H o w e v e r , leaving the b a c k g r o u n d , parallels and later alterations aside for a m o m e n t , the fact is that the literary language o f the eighth century, o f o u r H o m e r , was s o o n k n o w n and imitated in the entire G r e e k w o r l d . 137. It is a well-known fact this epic language was an artificial lan­ guage, n o t the actual dialect o f a particular place, and that it was m u c h c o n d i t i o n e d b y metre and formal diction. Traditionally, it has b e e n analysed b y t w o , not always clear, schemes: the first opposes archaic/recent/artificial times,

forms, and the s e c o n d o p p o s e s A e o l i c (some­

earlier, A c h a e a n ) / I o n i c . O u r analysis will b e a bit

different:

the forms that descend from the second millennium cannot b e classified as A c h a e a n , A e o l i c o r I o n i c , This has b e e n c o n s i d e r e d in a previous chapter, and the relevant bibliography was also p r o v i d e d . W e can only classify them as archaic forms, sometimes occurring in doublets, w h i c h are sometimes artificial

and, i n d e e d , are very

90

CHAPTER

SIX

c o n d i t i o n e d b y metre, w h i c h forces the c h o i c e b e t w e e n CXV/KE,

~G-/-GG-,

etc.

In contrast, forms (phonetic o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l ) that were only c o n ­ solidated in the first millennium are I o n i c and A e o l i c : such as the evolution o f *k°e- > m (Aeolic) o r xe (Ionic), the pers. p r o n . o f the 2 n d A c . pi. ujxjLie (Aeolic)/ujjice<; (Ionic, but aspirated), the evolution o f a > t| (Ionic, like the contractions, metathesis o f quantity, etc.), with the observation that a and the previous forms are not Aeolicisms but archaisms. 138. Naturally, the exact date o f an innovation c a n n o t b e fixed in all cases, but it is clear that Aeolicisms and Ionicisms did exist: they are the innovations o r choices o f these dialects in the first millen­ nium. I have presented m y theory: if in this recent date the archaic forms Ke, -op-, - E G G I , the f (and its occasional derivative -u-) were interpreted as Aeolicisms, this w o u l d o p e n the w a y for the entry o f 5

m e w Aeolicisms ; at first, w h e n e v e r they were n e e d e d , since the c o n ­ temporary language rejected certain archaisms; then, indiscriminately. For it is a characteristic o f epic language and o f epos in general to absorb recent cultural and linguistic forms, without shrinking before doublets o r contradictions. T h e same applies to the Ionicisms, given that, as m e n t i o n e d ear­ lier, forms such as ocv, ei, -voci and so m a n y others were interpreted as Ionicisms. But it is significant that, as I also m e n t i o n e d earlier, s o m e forms from epic language o f the s e c o n d millennium could, in themselves, b e classified as Achaeanisms (especially lexical forms) o r Doricisms: xo(, inf. -jiev, etc. Nevertheless, 'recent

5

forms o f A r c . -

C y p . o r D o r i c (for e x a m p l e , £juioc,) have not entered o u r H o m e r . This means that the H o m e r i c language g r e w in an environment in w h i c h only A e o l i c (essentially, that o f Lesbian and o f Asia) and I o n i c (also o f Asia: there are but a few rare Atticisms, n o d o u b t as a result o f the transmission) were k n o w n and a c c e p t e d as literary languages; perhaps in the region o f Asia M i n o r a r o u n d

Smyrna,

w h e r e the t w o dialects coexisted, as p r o p o s e d b y W i l a m o w i t z and supported b y C . J . Ruijgh 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 , w h o proposes the existence o f I o n i c influences in A e o l i c . F r o m o u r p o i n t o f view, the important

thing is that the local

dialects w e r e rejected in the entire G r e e k w o r l d w h e n it c a m e to writing a b o u t elevated, mythical o r philosophical themes, in favour o f this artificial and traditional language with greater prestige. T h e

91

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

H o m e r i c language was associated with these themes, without

any

Umitations o f time and space. Since each dialect, including the D o r i c dialects, found s o m e o f its o w n forms in the H o m e r i c language, it was at the same time b o t h familiar and strange to them, intelligible and obscure, like all religjous and literary languages in general. T h u s , differing f r o m the everyday language, it p r o v i d e d a base for the cre­ ation o f the general literary languages w h i c h shall b e discussed. 139. A n o t h e r t o p i c o f interest is the relative c h r o n o l o g y o f A e o l i c and I o n i c elements. A m o n g the latter, there are very recent e x a m ­ ples, such as the n e w a that penetrated the H o m e r i c language after the a > n evolution h a d taken place: naq, Kakoq; and there is a lack o f recent Lesbianisms such as 7taiaoc. T h i s is not a conclusive fact. Nevertheless, there are arguments to suggest that although the successive strata o f the s e c o n d millennium are pure fantasy, the A e o l i c forms o f the first millennium generally entered before the I o n i c forms. T h e A e o l i c forms replaced the archaic forms; the I o n i c forms replaced the archaic forms preserved (or not) b y A e o l i c , and often the A e o l i c forms, although they also m i x e d indiscriminately at a certain point. A l s o , at times, neither o f them w e r e sufficient, so that artificial forms w e r e introduced. But I will return to this. Formulaic diction and the renovation of epic language 140. I must first a d d something to what has already b e e n stated a b o u t the formulaic diction that dominates the tradition o f the I n d o E u r o p e a n and G r e e k epic. In principle, there is a criterion o f e c o n ­ o m y : a single person o r action requires the same formula in same metrical space, a n d different formulas in different

the

metrical

spaces; and actions o r things (behaviour, w e a p o n s , locations, etc.) c a n have identical formulas wherein w o r d s having the same metri­ cal s c h e m e substitute each other. O n e formula has other parallel for­ mulas w h e n w e g o from the N . to other cases, f r o m o n e person to another, etc. T h u s , it w o u l d seem to b e a closed, mechanical sys­ tem, w h i c h is h o w Parry described it; a system that is, in principle, barely p e r m e a b l e to linguistic evolution. In fact, sometimes linguistic evolution d o e s n o t affect the formu­ laic system: for instance, w h e n the labiovelar is substituted b y labial o r dental results o r w h e n ^cpGepyco is substituted b y (pOeppco o r (pGeipco o r -uav b y jif)v o r -ee- b y -ei- (where metre accepts d o u b l e short as

92

C H A P T E R SIX

well as long) o r Ur[hr{iaba *A%iA,fjoc, b y rir|Xr|id88co 'A%iA,fjoc.. W h e t h e r an A e o l i c o r I o n i c f o r m is introduced depends o n criteria that have nothing to d o with the formulaic system. O n the condition that nei­ ther the formulaic system n o r the metre is altered; a preferred lin­ guistic element is i n t r o d u c e d because it is c o n t e m p o r a r y . Indeed, a mixture o f archaism and innovation is preferred in the epic. In contrast,

recent forms w h i c h destroyed this system o r

metre

were, in principle, b l o c k e d : for e x a m p l e , -aav o f the 3rd pi. sec. in I o n i c . But if certain c o n t e m p o r a r y forms that were not b l o c k e d b y the formulaic system m a n a g e d to enter, this p r o d u c e d a tension w h e n other m o d e r n forms were unable to enter. 141. In effect, the formulaic system was subjected to the pressure o f n e w lexical and grammatical forms, and also o f the forms that were not accepted into the formulaic transformations: a formula in N . naxpxq apoupa cannot b e transformed into a formula o f G . ^rcaxpiooq apouprjc, because the metre d o e s n o t allow it (the p o e t must say naxpidoq ai'ac,). Also, transforming a formula which contains a verb in a certain tense o r m o o d to another with a different tense o r m o o d , o r chang­ ing the adjective o f a n o m i n a l formula o r elaborating, reducing, o r c h a n g i n g the metrical position o f a formula can p r o d u c e p r o b l e m s because certain c o n t e m p o r a r y forms and w o r d s are avoided. T h i s was gradually resolved through

the adaptation o f the

for­

mulas: the creation o f n e w formulas that favoured b o t h p o e t i c cre­ ation a n d the introduction o f n e w linguistic material. A . Hoekstra 1969 described recent formulas for forms without d i g a m m a 6*r with ephelcystic -v o r with various linguistic, stylistic and metrical p e c u ­ liarities. J. B. Hansworth 1968 has written extensively o n the flexibility o f the formula: it c a n c h a n g e position, b e reduced, w i d e n e d , can divide into two, etc. T h e b o o k b y P. Chantraine 1942 acutely describes the p r o b l e m o f the n e w forms and metrical schemes, showing that there is adaptability. 142. Yet, the formulaic system is not absolutely economic, as alternative formulas can be created, see P. Edwards 1971, p. 55 ff Also, authors such as H. Patzer 1972, G. S. Kirk 1976, J. M . Bremer 1987, B. Peabody 1975 have shown very clearly that the poet uses the formulaic system very skill­ fully, and that it is not simply mechanical. This applies equally whether we accept that Homer dictated his poems or believe that he wrote them. In any case, this modification o f the formulaic systems and the introduc­ tion of new forms into them has been a gradual process, a continuation of a very old evolution, not just a case o f one individual poet. C f also

93

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

P. Ghantraine 1942, p. 27 ff., L. Palmer 1980, p. 80 ff, M . Leumann 1950. 143. T h e epic language o f o u r H o m e r , the e n d p o i n t o f that l o n g evolution, is recognisable o n c e w e take away the thin covering that the later tradition left o n jt. It displays a fundamentally I o n i c aspect, and includes A e o l i c forms, as well as s o m e artificial ones, others archaic. It must b e emphasised that the latter should not b e given dialectal denominations, in spite o f the fact that they were

under­

stood in this w a y b y the poets w h o i n t r o d u c e d the true Aeolicisms and Ionicisms and, without d o u b t , b y their listeners; the same applies to the ancient grammarians (and, sometimes, m o d e r n linguists). This fundamentally Ionic character, as I explained in § 135, o p e n e d the w a y in G r e e c e for the prestige and understanding o f I o n i c and for the subsequent expansion o f Attic. But in this context, it should b e recalled h o w the innovations o f these t w o dialects penetrated the epic language o f the s e c o n d mil­ lennium, as it passed into the first millennium, without forgetting the archaisms and doublets w h i c h c o u l d b e interpreted as being from o n e or the other dialect. O b v i o u s l y , w h e n e v e r the p h o n o l o g i c a l system h a d b e e n trans­ f o r m e d (a p h o n e m e o r a g r o u p was n o l o n g e r admissible), it h a d to b e replaced b y the n e w o n e , as in the case o f the labiovelars. In H o m e r , w e find I o n i c phonetics in xeaaepec,, xeioxxi, xekoq, etc. (and x- is c o m m o n to the t w o dialects in xiq, xeo) b u t A e o l i c phonetics in rceXoop (x£A,cop is just a gloss o f Hesychius), neko\iai

(beside xeAXojicu,

etc.), KiaupeQ (beside xeaaepeq). F r o m the *ghw- g r o u p , w e have Or|p and (pfjp (in relation to centaurs). It is clear that I o n i c and A e o l i c c o m p e t e d with each other to impose their phonetics w h e n a p h o n e m e o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f p h o n e m e s was n o longer possible. Similarly, in the results o f %m-: aujaec/fijueic; (metrical equivalents before a consonant). H o w e v e r , sporadically, an archaism alternating with an innova­ tion could b e preserved: eicepaev, but aTteicelpaxo (Ionic) and 6(peM,eiev (Aeol. opt. aor.). 144. T h e p r o b l e m is the relation b e t w e e n archaic forms, o n the o n e hand, and A e o l i c and I o n i c forms, o n the other. T o begin with, it is evident that the archaic forms ( p s e u d o - A c h a e a n o r p s e u d o - A e o l i c ) w e r e difficult to substitute for A e o l i c o r I o n i c forms w h e n they did not coincide metrically and,

additionally, w h e n they were t o o

representative o f epic poetry. F o r instance, in the case o f p s e u d o -

C H A P T E R SIX

94

A c h a e a n o r p s e u d o - A r c a d o - C y p r i a n lexicon (avcci;, ouaoe, (pdayavov, etc.) and in p s e u d o - A e o l i c m o r p h o l o g i c a l forms such as ice, Gupacov, rccdSeaoi, eooxxca, etc.: that is, in the remnants o f second-millennium E G , w h i c h did n o t n e e d adjectives. H e r e , neither I o n i c n o r A e o l i c forms (the real ones, from the first millennium) c o u l d enter w h e n they differed. In the case o f non-alteration o f the metre, a c h o i c e c o u l d b e m a d e between an A e o l i c o r Ionic form, as w e have seen: the reasons for this are not exactly k n o w n , there was certainly in s o m e cases an ancient A e o l i c tradition, as in (pfjpec,, 'centaurs', and perhaps in other forms. T h e case o f I o n i c forms, b y far the most frequent, is different, as w e k n o w . Examples have b e e n p r o v i d e d in w h i c h they replaced other identical archaic forms from a metrical and formulaic perspective; and others in which the metre did not allow them (there is IloaeiSawv, but n o t rioaeiSeoov) o r in w h i c h they w o u l d f o r m a doublet with other forms (archaic o r Aeolic) w h e n they were metrically equiva­ lent ( d v / K 8 , i)|aei(;/a^|ie^, - a - / - a a - ) . T h e most interesting case, h o w e v e r , is w h e n an archaic form is replaced b y nothing other than an equivalent I o n i c form, whether regularly o r not. F o r e x a m p l e , n is introduced for a (but not always: there is xXaoq, noXmXaq); A c . pi. in -ouc, (< -ovc,): in this case, with­ out an A e o l i c alternative. But recent A e o l i c forms c o u l d in fact enter w h e n this did not involve an alteration o f the metre, as in s o m e examples already m e n ­ tioned

a n d a%e\)E (for a%eff e), perf. part, -ovxec, (for -©xec;), £pc- (for

*dya-). 1 4 5 . Nevertheless, sometimes the Ionicisms involved metrical alter­ ations that w e r e tolerated: if two breves are contracted, this means that n o w the foot is an spondee and not a dactyl (uncontracted forms still existed). But b e y o n d this the fall o f a d i g a m m a m a y p r o d u c e the creation o f a hiatus in principle antimetric (similarly, for e x a m ­ ple, 01, ai instead o f xoi, xcd); the metathesis o f -no- (which is s o m e ­ times preserved, ai^noq) in -eoo- involves the alteration o f the metre; etc. A l t h o u g h , o n o c c a s i o n , the restitution o f the ancient form has b e e n p r o p o s e d : for example, in the case o f nrjA,r|ia8ecD (for -a, as ;

cited previously) a n d those o f / / . V 21 &8eA,(peio o Kxocjjivoio (for -eoo), Od. X

60

AioXou

oKpuoexoq (for - { o o Kp-).

KXUXOC

Scbjiaxa (for - o o ) , / / . I X

64

kn\by\\do\)

95

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

T h e most serious are those cases in w h i c h , as m e n t i o n e d earlier, the Ionicisms implied a clear alteration in metre and, therefore,

a

need for n e w formulas. I cited the 3rd pi. sec. -oocv beside the archaic form -ev. M a n y other forms c a n b e a d d e d : apart f r o m those related to the contractions, metathesis and other p h e n o m e n a relating to v o w ­ els (which left n u m e r o u s examples o f archaic use), m o r p h o l o g i c a l forms o f the type N . pi. i)u.eic,, fijueic. w h e n f o l l o w e d b y a v o w e l (against *yusmes o r *yuhmes, A e o l . uujiec, and similarly in the 1st pers.), and A c . pi. in -eac,. It w o u l d s e e m then that at a certain p o i n t there was conflict between, o n the o n e hand, the archaism and the n e w form, and o n the other hand, in this s e c o n d case, between A e o l i c i s m and Ionicism. A t o n e point, certainly in a m o r e archaic date, b o t h dialects c o m ­ peted with each other and sometimes o n e , sometimes the other w o u l d triumph, although A e o l i c generally h a d the advantage

(but m i x e d

forms were created o f the type f]uPpoxe); A e o l i c (that is, the

recent

A e o l i c , w h i c h is the true Aeolic) does not seem to have altered metre. Later, I o n i c b e g a n to triumph with greater frequency, but without eliminating the archaic o r A e o l i c forms completely. This process was linked to the renovation o f the formulas. T h e frequency o f I o n i c , its stronger corrosive effect o n the formulaic tradition, a n d its inclusion o f very recent forms shows that i f A e o l i c i m and Ionicism had c o e x ­ isted at s o m e point, it was Ionicism that later i m p o s e d itself. More on the epic language of the eighth century 146. T h e history o f epic language can b e studied f r o m the succes­ sive renovations, w h i c h together with the archaic c o r e , introduced c o n t e m p o r a r y forms. H o w e v e r , it is an entirely different thing to establish h o w the language as a w h o l e was understood b y c o n t e m ­ poraries (of the eighth century, that is), ancient grammarians and b y m o d e r n linguists. It was u n d o u b t e d l y k n o w n that the e p i c language, apart from purely I o n i c forms, contained anomalies, a m o n g w h i c h there were all kinds o f hesitations and doublets. T h e s e a n o m a l o u s forms were usually interpreted as Aeolicisms, s o m e as Achaeanisms b y certain m o d e r n linguists; this interpretation was m a r r e d b y the idea that H o m e r displayed a mixture o f dialects o f the first millennium. I n d e e d m a n y o f his forms, the most archaic, w e r e neither Ionicisms n o r

96

C H A P T E R SIX

Aeolicisms in the s e c o n d millennium, although they w o u l d have b e e n so in the first millennium. Nevertheless, it must b e stressed that m a n y o f these a n o m a l o u s forms (whether archaic o r recent) were really artificial forms, result­ ing f r o m the adaptation to metre o f forms that did not fit into it. Actually, the date o f s o m e o f these artificial adaptations is s o m e ­ times difficult to establish: as, for instance, f|vio%fja (for -%ov), TTOVTorcopeuco (for -eco), dvocmjioc, (for avoaxoc,); or metrical enlargements such as dGdvaxoc,, SDGOXOC,, drceipecuoc,, oupecc, etc. S o m e presuppose certain recent p h e n o m e n a : for instance, diectasis (fjpobovxec;, f|(3daa9e) represents a transaction between the contraction and the desire to maintain the ancient metrical s c h e m e . In any case, there is an attempt to a v o i d the tribrach (three short syllables) and the cretic (long-short-long), w h i c h d o not fit into the hexameter. T h e epic tradition d o e s n o t hesitate in introducing false forms. I have s h o w n h o w , at times, beneath these forms there c o u l d be

archaic regular forms: for e x a m p l e , (poiviKoeic, with I p r o b a b l y

substituted (poivncp evx-. 147.

Furthermore,

the epic poets c o u l d misinterpret

the w o r d s o f

their ancestors: this was highlighted b y M . L e u m a n n 1950 with regard to the interpretation

o f H o m e r b y the Hellenistic poets, and also

with regard to misinterpretations within the epic tradition. For e x a m ­ ple,

terms such as ic6jj,pa%o<; 'the top o f the helmet' (//. X V 536),

later u n d e r s t o o d as ' o f the h e a d ( o f a person, //. V 586); o r 7iocpf|opoc, 5

5

'tied at the side , referring to the exterior carthorse (//. X V I 471), later interpreted as 'scattered, with outstretched arms

5

(//. V I I 156).

All o f this is e v i d e n c e o f an evolution within the epic tradition. For

the listeners, these forms, together with the archaisms (inter­

preted sometimes as I o n i c o r A e o l i c , but also simply as epic) and the doublets merely f o r m e d part o f the characteristics o f the epic language. T h e exercise o f c h o i c e was n o t entirely free, for metre and the formulas m a d e their presence and influence felt; but they were rather susceptible to modification. A n I o n i c that was b l e n d e d and modified in this w a y was understood as an epic language and, as such, was recited a n d listened to in all the corners o f G r e e c e . W e have an idea o f what it was like in the s e c o n d millennium and what it must have l o o k e d like in the first millennium. 148. H o w e v e r , the epic language o f the eighth century, the language o f H o m e r , has not r e a c h e d us intact. A t the very least, w e should

97

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

draw attention to the effects o f the shift f r o m the initial G r e e k alpha­ bet to the later I o n i c alphabet; and to its j o u r n e y through the Attic tradition and Alexandrine editions. A m o n g other things, the letters E and 0 in the primitive alphabet designated

Greek

each^ what w o u l d later b e c o m e three vowels:

e / e i / n and o / o u / c o . T h u s , lengthenings such as those m e n t i o n e d ear­ lier c o u l d b e p r o s o d i c , but not graphic. EOE c o u l d b e interpreted in various ways: r\oq, eioq, ecoc,. Furthermore, ^eivoq, fjyvoiaev were not written with -ei- a n d n-, nor there w e r e forms with diectasis. Indeed, since gemination went unnoticed, it is doubtful whether I o n i c forms such as Keipoo, dt^yeiovoc, and A e o l i c forms such as ocpeMxo, epavvoc, were introduced b y the p r e - H o m e r i c poets o r simply b y subsequent copyists. T h e n w e have the Atticisms (which are rare and m u c h debated) that must have penetrated the text during the p e r i o d in w h i c h it was c o p i e d and diffused in Athens (after Pisistratus, a c c o r d i n g to tra­ dition). T h e following forms are generally considered to b e Attic: KEIVTO

against I o n i c Keioa'; also, (pepoin, (ptAmri and a few others.

Nevertheless, these and a few other forms, including the prolifer­ ation o f contractions, metathesis o f quantity, lengthenings,

diectasis,

etc. can also b e attributed to the editions b y Aristarchus and other Alexandrine philologists. T h i s subject will not b e

the

examined

here. In any case, the fundamental characteristics o f the epic lan­ guage from H o m e r ' s o w n m o u t h , so to speak, in the eighth

century

are very clear. H e r e , w e have attempted, o n the o n e h a n d , to estab­ lish their origin, and o n the other h a n d , the interpretation

they

received.

3. T H E DIFFUSION O F T H E FIRST G E N E R A L L A N G U A G E : THE LANGUAGE OF HEXAMETRIC P O E T R Y A F T E R H O M E R

General overview 149. H o m e r represents a key, divisive m o m e n t in the evolution o f the G r e e k epic, in w h i c h it achieved a written f o r m and p r o d u c e d great p o e m s o f a dramatic kind in the language that w e have stud­ ied. E p i c p o e t r y h a d existed b e f o r e H o m e r , a n d p o e m s such

as

Memnoneia o r Achilleid and Meleagria have even b e e n cited as having influenced the Iliad. It is important to note that the h u m a n

and

divine epic (the conflict between the gods) is a c c o m p a n i e d in H o m e r

98

C H A P T E R SIX

b y traces o f c o s m o g o n i c poetry (II X I V 200 ff. and 2 7 4 ff, X V 185 ff.), b y h y m n s and prayers to the gods, and b y maxims

and

didactic elements (cf. / / . X X I I I 5 4 2 , Od. I 132 ff, etc.). After H o m e r , still within the archaic and classical p e r i o d , there is a continuation o f hexametric poetry: (a) Firstly, there is H e s i o d , w h o is p l a c e d in the same

century

(eighth), a little after H o m e r (he is p l a c e d before the Odyssey b y some) and w h o , in his principal p o e m s , Theogony, Works and Days, The Shield, and Catalogue of Women, writes c o s m o g o n i c poetry, genealogy, divine and heroic epic, hymns, with the first t w o genres

predominating.

(b) S e c o n d l y , the epic, w h i c h is brought together under the c o n ­ cept o f the Epic Cycle: a series o f p o e m s with various themes (above all, T h e b a n and T r o j a n themes, themes relating to the return o f heroes, Heracles, etc.) w h i c h are dated between the seventh a n d sixth centuries: the most cited being the Cypria b y Stasinus o f Cyprus, the Aethiopis b y Arctinus o f Miletus, the Little Iliad b y Lesches o f Pyrrha o r Miletus, and the works o f Eumelus o f Corinth, Panyassis o f Halicarnassus a n d Choerilus o f S a m o s . T h e p r o b l e m for the study o f the l a n g u a g e is the terribly fragmented

state in w h i c h these

p o e m s have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us. (c) Thirdly, the hymns: the so-called a n o n y m o u s Homeric Hymns, w h i c h are dated from the seventh century onwards. Also, the hexametric prayer o f S o l o n 28. (d) Fourthly, the philosophic hexametric p o e m s , derived from c o s m o g o n i c and didactic poetry: b y X e n o p h a n e s o f C o l o p h o n ( V I / V ) , Parmenides ( V ) , E m p e d o c l e s ( V ) ; also, the maxims o f Phocylides (VI). In sum, a relatively small number o f hexameters. (e) Finally, p a r o d y is represented

b y the Batracomyomachia, the

battle o f the frogs and the m i c e , w h i c h today is often attrib­ uted to the Hellenistic p e r i o d . Cf. also H i p p o n a x 135. 150. All o f these genres, including the last, continued to b e culti­ vated in the Hellenistic period; and the epic a b o v e all during

the

R o m a n p e r i o d , although p h i l o s o p h y b e g a n to b e written in prose in the same century (the sixth). S o , all this hexametric poetry follows the language o f H o m e r very closely, and this also applies to m i x e d hexametric p o e t r y (a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the hexameter and pentameter in the elegy, with the catalectic trochaic tetrameter in the Margites,

99

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

various combinations o f dactylic elements in Archilochus, etc.), w h i c h will b e discussed in §§ 155 ff. T h e great diffusion o f H o m e r i s m s throughout

G r e e k poetry and even I o n i c prose c o m e s from these

genres. B y focusing only o n p y r e hexametric poetry, it can b e said that it maintained the essence o f the H o m e r i c language and that it was a fundamental element in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k p o e t r y

and

thought. T o a large extent, it continued H o m e r i c themes, as w e have seen, although H e s i o d and other authors place greater emphasis o n particular themes. Nevertheless, there are sufficient differences to warrant s o m e expla­ nation, especially since theories have e m e r g e d a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the language o f H e s i o d and the H o m e r i c H y m n s has a different ori­ gin, at least in part, from that o f H o m e r . In general, I w o u l d say that the characteristics o f the n e w epic language display a degree o f modernisation, an adaptation to themes, and a slight approximation, at times, to the local dialects o f the poets. All o f this p o e t r y - like H o m e r himself, w e assume -

proceeds

from Asia M i n o r : from there it spread to B o e o t i a ( H e s i o d c a m e from C y m e ) , Sicily ( X e n o p h a n e s c a m e from C o l o p h o n ) , Corinth (Eumelus), Athens (Solon, perhaps the Hymn to Demeter). The different genres 151, T h e r e is a w h o l e theory p r o p o s i n g that H e s i o d and the Homeric Hymns

c o r r e s p o n d to a western,

n o t H o m e r i c , epic tradition: the

H o m e r i s m s w o u l d b e a result o f a later transmission. T h e r e has b e e n m u c h discussion regarding a series o f H e s i o d i c forms, in particular, w h i c h are considered Boeotian, D o r i c , o r simply 'western';

some­

times this tradition is identified with o n e that is thought to have also b e e n at the base o f A e o l i c poetry. But I will return to this later. T h e discussion centres o n s o m e forms that are rather Ac

pi. -de;, -oc, in the

1st and 2 n d declensions

doubtful:

(ante-consonantal

forms preferred in T h e s . , A r c , and the western dialects); athematic A e o l i c ' verbs, absent f r o m H o m e r (for e x a m p l e , aivnui), Tetopce (the only clear D o r i c i s m ) , d\jnv (supposedly A e o l i c ) , G . pi. jneAadv ( D o r . o r A e o L ) , e8ov, r\v (supposedly D o r i c , but p r o b a b l y archaisms), KaXoq (At. o r western). T h e degree o f modernisation

o r avoidance

o f archaisms is great, but sometimes there is a d r o p in frequency.

100

C H A P T E R SIX

A s m e n t i o n e d before, there is m u c h debate a b o u t this and today there is a tendency to incline towards scepticism. For m e , these n o n H o m e r i c forms are a recent introduction — whether from A e o l i c (in w h i c h territory H e s i o d originated), Boeotian o r the W e s t -

and a

slight local influence, such as that o f Ionic in H o m e r , w o u l d not have b e e n strange; nor, for example, w o u l d it have b e e n strange h a d H e s i o d preserved s o m e archaism not found in H o m e r . T h e most characteristic feature o f the language o f H e s i o d is its modernisation: the reduction o f the frequency o f archaisms. T h e loss o f the d i g a m m a , for e x a m p l e , is m o r e frequent than in H o m e r , even though it is preserved in Boeotian. 152. For the precedents o f Homer, see Adrados in A A . W . 1984, p. 80 ff For an analysis o f the work o f Hesiod see Adrados 1986c. The Cycle is edited by A. Bernabe 1996, and Antimachus o f Colophon (fifth and sixth century) must be added in particular. As far as the system o f formulas is concerned, it is logical that Hesiod uses a different series than Homer: formulas linked to cosmogonic and genealogic but also didactic topics. Curiously, some o f them coincide with those of the Homeric Hymns. There is a good collection o f data in F. Kraft 1963 and a series o f conclusions in J. de Hoz 1964; I drew my own conclusions in an article (Adrados 1986c), in which I proposed the exis­ tence o f this kind o f oral poetry in Greece (cosmogonic, genealogic, reli­ gious, didactic, poetry) which was thematically influenced by well-known models from Eastern literature (Mesopotamic and Egyptian), but which had developed those formulaic systems within Greece. Evidendy, hexametric oral poems flourished. Our Homer followed the central epic line, but others could contain formulaic and lexical systems that were pardy different. O f course, the poets o f the first millennium could broaden or modify these systems and also copy each other. It is very clear, with respect to the lexicon, that Hesiod included much colloquial and tech­ nical agricultural lexicon, cf. H . Troxler 1964, p. 240 ff. There is also another lexicon that coincides with that of the Hymns, cf. R. Hiersche 1970, p. 101. T h e philosophical poets had to create a vocabulary fit to express their thought, cf. R. Hiersche 1970, p. 104 ff. I will return to this subject when I look at the creation o f the Greek intellectual lexicon. The history o f the subject o f the language o f Hesiod and the Hymns can be found in H. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998a, p. 15 ff The idea o f a 'con­ tinental epic' (with a confused mixture o f Doric and Aeolic elements) comes from A. Hoekstra 1957, and was elaborated, in exaggerated terms, by C. O . Pavese 1972 and 1974 (but see p. 111 ff on the recent elements). A very clear and decisively sceptic study is provided by G. P. Edwards 1971, cf. also R . Hiersche 1970, p. 99 ff. and L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 101 ff. For R. Janko 1982, Hesiod is purely Homeric. For a rejection of 'Doricisms', c f A. Morpurgo 1964. For the language o f the oracles, c f J. A. Fernandez Delgado 1986.

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

101

There are parallel conclusions regarding the Hymns, in which the mod­ ernisation of the language predominates. According to A. Hoekstra 1969, the language and style of the Homeric Hymns is essentially derived from Homer, although it may contain some archaisms. There are even misun­ derstood Homeric expressions. Also, the Atticisms are centred on the Hymn to Demeter, perhaps o f Attic prigin. C f O . Zumbach 1955. 153. S o , this and the succeeding poetry inherited certain themes, a lexicon and formulaic expressions from the second millennium: whether the same as in H o m e r o r different. H o w e v e r , the small differences that c a n b e found in the language are the result o f a recent evolu­ tion w h i c h tended to reduce archaisms and, in rare cases, introduced local forms, as had o c c u r r e d in H o m e r , In short, it was the H o m e r i c language, in a m o r e o r less updated form, w h i c h b e c a m e the liter­ ary language in the w h o l e o f G r e e c e b y means o f hexametric poetry and the elegy derived from it. T h e s e conclusions, based o n H e s i o d and the Hymns, can hardly b e modified with the study o f the minimal remains o f the Cycle. In these and in the Hellenistic epic and that o f the R o m a n p e r i o d , the language o f H o m e r remained m o r e o r less intact. W i t h respect to philosophical hexametric poetry, it must b e stressed that it essentially offered the same language, nearly always elimi­ nating exclusively H o m e r i c and not I o n i c forms. H o w e v e r , modifica­ tions are admitted, and not just in the l e x i c o n and the formulas. T h e philosophers take great liberties: in X e n o p h a n e s , w e find the D . pi. Gneaxeoox,

the infinitive cpuv; E m p e d o c l e s prefers yevTo (Hes.),

creates QaXeioxq from 0dA,eia, etc. S o m e t i m e s , archaic and

recent

forms alternate; and as m e n t i o n e d earlier, n e w meanings are given to the lexicon, as in cases such as eov (Parm.) and (pi^uSinc, (Emp.). 154. T h e language o f these authors was essential for the later e v o ­ lution o f the philosophical and intellectual lexicon, b u t w e will deal with this in a later section, c f §§ 227 f f ; but also with the rhetor­ ical language and the Attic prose o f G o r g i a s , cf. A . Traglia 1952, p . 41 ff., o n E m p e d o c l e s . T h e s e poets, following H o m e r i c phraseol­ o g y to a large exent, w e r e at the same time great creators.

102

C H A P T E R SIX

4.

T H E SECOND GENERAL L A N G U A G E :

T H E L A N G U A G E O F E L E G Y A N D EPIGRAM

Elegy 155. T h e study o f the first general language o f the first millennium has b e e n c o m p l e t e d : H o m e r i c and epic language. T h e s e c o n d gen­ eral language, that o f elegy, is derived from the first. O f course, this are not the appropriate place to study the origins o f elegy, w h i c h are in any case m u c h debated. It is a fact that from the seventh century o n w a r d s w e c o m e across - in the I o n i c w o r l d but also in the D o r i c and subsequently in all o f G r e e c e — p o e m s in elegiac distics, a slight variation o f the hexametric rhythm given that the hexameter is followed b y a pentameter: this is called the elegeion, a derivative o f the elegos, w h i c h for s o m e scholars means a 'lament' and c o m e s from Phrygia. I n d e e d , because there is variation in the metre there is also vari­ ation in the language, although n o t o f a radical kind: w e are deal­ ing with an Ionicised epic language, o r I o n i c language influenced b y epic; a n d with p o e m s sung to the music o f the flute. F o r instance, in Callinus and A r c h i l o c h u s in the seventh century. T h e r e is also variation in the content. W e have a mythic o r mythic-historic elegy in M i m n e r m u s and Antimachus, a m o n g others, but usually it is a lyric in the first person w h i c h adresses a s e c o n d person: urging them to war, politics o r a particular c o n d u c t , thinking o r expressing feel­ ings - all o f this t o o k place at banquets, at funerary rituals o r var­ ious events (for e x a m p l e at the Pythian G a m e s ) , before an assembly o r the army, e t c T h u s , there was a n e e d for a m o r e agile rhythm and a m o r e agile a n d m o r e accessible language as well. It was in Ionia, as m e n t i o n e d , that, from the middle o f the sev­ enth century onwards, various p o p u l a r genres passed into the hands o f the poets, receiving the n e w rhythms, execution and language: the Ionicised epic, as I m e n t i o n e d . Tyrtaeus in Sparta, S o l o n in Athens, T h e o g n i s in M e g a r a and others (allegedly Sacadas in Argolis in the seventh/sixth century, but n o fragments remain) followed this m o d e l : the language o f the elegy b e c a m e , I must stress, the s e c o n d 'general language' o f G r e e c e . S o m u c h so that elegiac distics were c o m p o s e d b y all kinds o f personalities. In the fifth century, elegiac distics w e r e c o m p o s e d n o t o n l y b y elegiac poets such as Euenus o f Paros, I o n o f C h i o s , A n t i m a c h u s o f C o l o p h o n , Dionysius Chalcus

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L

103

LYRIC

a n d Critias o f Athens, but also b y Simonides, Bacchylides, A n a c r e o n , Aeschylus, S o p h o c l e s , Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Grates (at times, o f dubious authenticity). A n d there is a legion o f elegiacs in the Hellenistic period. 156. T h e r e is s o m e confusion b e t w e e n elegy a n d epigram. T h e lat­ ter term simply indicated an inscription, such as those at the e n d o f the eighth century, as w e saw, whether in prose o r verse: the aim was to transmit news o r a message (an epitaph, dedication, o w n e r , etc.) in a short and succinct form. In H o m e r , w e find evidence o f funerary steles o r dedications o f weapons to a g o d , but the Phoenician inscriptions, with their content as well as their alphabet,

had

the

greatest influence in G r e e c e . T h e most ancient inscriptions in verse are hexametric: H o m e r was the m o d e l in h a n d w h e n it c a m e to writing in a solemn way. But from the year 5 0 0 onwards, elegiac distic predominates; are a n o n y m o u s until a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 0 B C , although already

composed

epigraphs Simonides

e p i g r a m s as d i d , later, the p o e t s p r e v i o u s l y

mentioned. W i t h respect to the language, it has to b e said that the e p i g r a m was first written in the local dialects, always with the influence o f the H o m e r i c language; but s o o n it b e c a m e c o n t a m i n a t e d with the language o f elegy and, at a certain point, there was n o longer any linguistic distinction (since the borders between the t w o genres are blurred). 157. For archaic elegy, see Adrados 1990a, B. Gentili-C. Prato 1979-85, M . L. West 1989 (E. Diehl 1950 is still useful today); for epigram see P. A. Hansen 1983 and the great collection o f metrical inscriptions o f W . Peek 1955, as well as various other collections. O n the origin o f the genres, see, in addition to what I say in the Introduction to Adrados 1990a, the various dissertations included in the volume by A A . W . 1969; among them, that by A. E. Raubitschek regarding 'Das Denkmal-Epigramm' and that by B. Gentili, 'Epigramma ed elegia' (against the threnetic origin o f the latter and about the blurred limits with the epigram). O n the language, different works in this volume, in A A . W . 1963 on Archilochus (above all, A. Scherer and D . Page) as well as B. Kock 1910, B. Snell 1969, O . Hoffmann 1973, p. 102 ff, R. Hiersche 1970, p . 106 ff, L. R . Palmer 1980, p. 105 ff, among others. 158. Let us begin with the elegy, whose prime representative, C a l l i n u s w h o differs little from Archilochus — transformed the H o m e r i c heroes' discourses into exhortations

to his citizens to

fight

against

the

104

CHAPTER

SIX

C i m m e r i a n s . It should b e p o i n t e d out that the elegies o f b o t h writ­ ers are essentially epic, although the features that are distant from I o n i c have generally b e e n eliminated. In contrast, other features are perfectly preserved, such as those w h i c h are at the same time b o t h epic and I o n i c , for e x a m p l e , uouaecov a n d other forms without c o n ­ traction,

Em\

dv, the loss o f d i g a m m a leaving a hiatus, etc. Y e t

Aeolicisms such as maupec;, dpyevvoc,, dufieq d o n o t appear. Certain n o n - I o n i c H o m e r i c forms are, exceptionally, found linked to H o m e r i c formulas and metre: for e x a m p l e , the G . in -010,

TOGGOV,

K&XXIKOV

(Arch.), Kev, taxcp, onnoxe (Call.). Yet archaic forms and words disappear. C o n t e m p o r a r y I o n i c rarely enters: KOT' and KGX; appear in Callinus, and there is m u c h discussion regarding 8opi ( < * - p f - ) in Archilochus, w h i c h is considered to b e Attic b y s o m e , also insular I o n i c b y others. -e7iovr|0r|,

8GK£,

etc. and m u c h o f the l e x i c o n is not epic.

It is very clear that Archilochus's elegies are full o f epic formu­ las, as has b e e n clearly s h o w n b y D . Page 1963 and L. R . Palmer 1980;

but

the

latter d e s c r i b e s the i n t r o d u c t i o n

of new

popular

vocabulary. 159. W e d o not c o m e across great differences in the case o f Tyrtaeus, who We

exhorted the L a c e d a e m o n i a n s to fight against the Messenians. d o n o t k n o w whether he was L a c o n i a n or, as others w o u l d have

it, Milesian o r Athenian, but in any case, his language was under­ stood in Sparta. H e uses I o n i c -n, s o m e recent Ionicisms such as \|/u%8cov, m o s t times ignores f (which was preserved in Laconian!), uses epic forms such as pocGiAxjocc,, KccA-d, cpeuyov (and s o m e ''which are also L a c o n i a n , such as Xaoq), but there is o n c e again a lack o f archaic o r A e o l i c epic forms that are absent from I o n i c . A small n u m b e r o f D o r i c i s m s enter, particularly in the A c . pi. in -de, o f the 1st deck and Kaioceiuevoc;. C o n s e q u e n d y , Tyrtaeus is full o f H o m e r i c formulas, s o m e o f w h i c h have sometimes altered in meaning, as in A r c h i l o c h u s . T h e scene is always the same: an epic language in w h i c h the most archaic o r strange elements

are eliminated,

apart f r o m

formulaic

exceptions, and in w h i c h small samples o f the local language

are

introduced: I o n i c in M i m n e r m u s , D o r i c in T h e o g n i s , Attic in S o l o n . S o m e t i m e s , strange elements are introduced in S o l o n and X e n o phanes, such as - e G G i , formular - o i o , dcov, ice in X e n o p h a n e s , etc.; in S o l o n , epicisms such as KaMi7toiui, not ice o r -ceo.

OGGOV,

and fi?iu0e enter, but

105

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L L Y R I C

W e can find traces o f the local dialects in Semonides (the Ionicisms OKODj K O T ' ,

etc.), T h e o g n i s (Doricisms such as the G . Ei) parrot, the inf.

(peuyev and r|uev, etc.), S o l o n , although the manuscript unreliable. Atticisms such as

'Iaoviac;, uftepncpaviav,

6ppiLT07tcVcpri, a H o m e r i s m ) ueaov, a n d

tradition is fjuepa,

(but

s o m e I o n i c i s m s such

as

(popeujuevoq) w e r e n o d o u b t i n t r o d u c e d secondarily. Atticism d o m i ­ nates o v e r Ionicism o r H o m e r i s m : -a- against a single oaoo<;, -ou(against -eo-, perhaps archaic), in addition to a substantial Attic lex­ i c o n , cf. A d r a d o s 1953a, p . 138 ff. T h u s , a slightly different I o n i c language was formed, with some unobtrusive H o m e r i c remnants, but increasingly fewer, and with min­ imal c o n t e m p o r a r y dialectal forms. All o f this tended to

disappear

in elegy and epigram from the fifth century onwards. W h a t remained fixed was this quasi-Ionic w h i c h was cultivated and understood e v e n where: an updated H o m e r , but still remote from the local dialect; or an I o n i c dialect p r o v i d e d with b o r r o w i n g s and

internationalism

by epic diction. T h i s was the route o f general diffusion o f the I o n i c dialect into very c o m m o n poetic genres. T h e r e was another route, m o r e advanced in Ionicisation but less diffused, that o f the i a m b o s , w h i c h o p e n e d the w a y for I o n i c prose (which in turn o p e n e d the w a y for Attic, and Attic for koine). Epigram 160. T h e language o f epigram underwent the reverse process, but in the end there was a c o n v e r g e n c e . Instead o f a H o m e r approxi­ mated to the I o n i c dialect, w e are dealing with inscriptions in n o n literary dialects which, w h e n written in elegiac distics, were influenced b y the language o f H o m e r and elegy. It was a process which led to the assimilation o f the epigram's language into that o f elegy (and often to the practical confusion o f the genres). In the beginning, epigrams in distics used H o m e r i c formulaic lan­ guage, translating it into the local dialect; this is best illustrated w h e n an epigraphic version a n d a version o f the manuscrit

tradition are

available for the same epigram, as in the case o f the well-known c o m m o n burial o f the Corinthians in Salamis, Hansen 131 (for exam­ ple, 7COK' evaioii.ec, instead o f TCOT' evcdojuev). S o , KepotMrjvocq ueyaGuuoDt; in / / . 631 b e c o m e s KeyaXkavaq jneyaBujiioq in Hansen 3 9 1 ; formulaic Koupn (Aioc, y^ctt)K07ci8i K.) b e c o m e s Kopei (Hansen 215); other well-

106

C H A P T E R SIX

k n o w n formulas see the introduction o f IloTeSdpovi (Corinth, Hansen 357), KXzfoq,

a7i0iTov (Crisa, Hansen 344), etc.

161. In other cases, H o m e r i s m s entered these formulas, w h i c h had b e e n imitated from H o m e r : as in Hansen 145 (Corcyra) e V 'Apd00oio pnofcaor, T h e fact is, Ionicisms such as ^eivoc,, eiveica. etc. entered the D o r i c dialects through H o m e r . It should b e n o t e d that, occasionally, the archaism o f the D o r i c dialects in these inscriptions allows us to rediscover H o m e r i c forms which are older than those present in our manuscripts: as, for instance, in H a n s e n

367 r | i A i f o [ i 9u]jnio, with d i g a m m a (or ^evpoc,, beside

^eivoc,, as w e have seen, also in D o r i c inscriptions). But an Ionic p o e t such as S e m o n i d e s , in his epigram a b o u t the seer Megistias ( H e r o d o t u s V I I 228), written in pure I o n i c , nevertheless preserved the H o m e r i s m Kxeivav. Consequently, as w e have seen, the influence o f elegy was great. In the w o r k b y Gentili 1969, p . 69, there is a list o f loci similes c o m ­ m o n to epigram and elegy. T h e language o f elegy and that o f epigram eventually b e c a m e unified: although this o c c u r r e d at a point in w h i c h the I o n i c o f i a m b o s and o f prose, freed o f H o m e r i s m s to a greater extent, h a d b e c o m e the most widely used literary language. It w o u l d b e dethroned b y Attic, w h i c h it h a d helped to diffuse.

5.

T H E T H I R D GENERAL L A N G U A G E :

THE LANGUAGE OF CHORAL LYRIC

General ideas 162. C h o r a l lyric was a religious lyric sung in large public festivals, in contrast to melic lyric, w h i c h was sung in festivals o f hetairiai, thiasoi o r groups, o r in special circumstances in w h i c h a city or an army, e t c , asked for the arrival o r intervention o f the gods. A t the start, the s o n g o f the choregos o r chorus leader was i m p r o ­ vised, as w e are told b y A r c h i l o c h u s 219; the chorus responded to h i m , a b o v e all with refrains, w h e n they w e r e not just marking time o r dancing. Later, b o t h the song o f the choregos and that o f the c h o ­ rus b e c a m e literary, the w o r k o f a p o e t . This corresponds to the m i x e d lyric, as attested in A l c m a n and Stesichorus, I believe. But at s o m e point, the chorus b e g a n to sing the w h o l e song, multiplying

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D

CHORAL

107

LYRIC

groups o f s t r o p h e / a n t i s t r o p h e / e p o d e : this corresponds to choral lyric, w h o s e main representative is Pindar. A n o t h e r variant is p r o v i d e d b y dialogic lyric (between two choregot o r t w o choruses) or, within o n e chorus, in the multiplication o f the unit f o r m e d b y a s o n ^ b y the c h o r e g o s followed b y a song b y the chorus. T h e r e are traces o f all this in p o p u l a r lyric and also in theatre l y r i c T h e fact is that improvised lyric, with its variety o f possibilities, was just as o l d as epic, and also oral; there are clear allusions to it in H o m e r and H e s i o d , w h o occasionally adapted it to their h e x a m ­ eters, in literary lyrics and in other authors. Parallels exist, such as the Hymns of the Veda, w h i c h attest to its antiquity; and traces have b e e n preserved o f o l d p o p u l a r lyric, often in various re-elaborations. O n the other h a n d , the rhythms o f choral lyric (and o f m o n o d y or A e o l i c melic too) are inherited, and were not invented by the poets w h o transformed

this w h o l e lyric, starting from the eighth

century

(Eumelus o f Corinth), b u t a b o v e all during the seventh century, into the personal p o e t r y written b y the 'poets' o r creators. I have dealt with the origins o f the lyric in detail elsewhere. 163. H o w e v e r , with regard to the language, it must be said that w e are in a worse situation n o w than w h e n w e spoke o f H o m e r

and

epic language in general. W i t h it w e were able to establish

with

s o m e degree o f certainty what the epic language o f the s e c o n d mil­ lennium must have l o o k e d like and to understand h o w , from this language, the language o f eighth century was created; and, further­ m o r e , h o w the latter e v o l v e d into elegy and i a m b o s . H e r e , we are practically limited to the literary lyric o f the seventh century onwards. V e r y litde remains o f p o p u l a r lyric, and the little that has

reached

us is very influenced b y the lyric o f the great authors. Indeed, the attempts that have b e e n m a d e to link the

language

o f choral lyric with M y c e n a e a n have not attracted m a n y followers. A n e x a m p l e is the theory o f Pavese and others, cited earlier in ref­ erence to H e s i o d , w h i c h proposes the existence o f a western poetic language to w h i c h n o n - H o m e r i c p h o n e t i c and m o r p h o l o g i c a l char­ acteristics o f H e s i o d and the H o m e r i c H y m n s are attributed, as well as s o m e others o f choral lyric and the language o f the

(monodic)

Lesbian lyric, a n d even o f oracles, cf. J. A . Fernandez D e l g a d o 1986. T h e H o m e r i c elements o f all this poetry are recent.

108

CHAPTER

SIX

A l t h o u g h it is evident through the study o f phraseology that n o n H o m e r i c traditions existed -

this can b e seen in H e s i o d and

the

Hymns but also in the rich formation o f w o r d s in choral lyric - for phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y things are m o r e complicated, but w e will return to this later. It is also clear that H o m e r i c influence was essen­ tial in choral lyric as a w h o l e and in Lesbian m o n o d y . T h e most w e c a n venture to say is that, evidentiy, a D o r i c p o p ­ ular lyric existed w h i c h a v o i d e d b e c o m i n g t o o similar to the local dialects and also to I o n i c . It possibly united certain characteristics that w e r e widely diffused in D o r i c and N . W . Greek, such as the A c . pi. in -oc, a n d the D . pi. in -eoai (some were also Aeolic), with the elimination o f D o r i c characteristics which were t o o specific and which distanced the city dialects from each other as well as from H o m e r . Y e t H o m e r must have exerted an influence from an early date, for k n o w l e d g e o f H o m e r is attested in the few fragments o f popular lyric and in metrical inscriptions from the very outset. 164. S o , it w o u l d seem that w e are facing a continuation o f the oral lyric o f W e s t Greek, w h i c h was continued in the continent where it received contributions w h i c h were also diffused in the A e o l i c dialects o f B o e o t i a a n d Thessaly (from w h i c h they went o n to Lesbos) and others descending from H o m e r . F r o m this point o n , n e w forms were able to enter, a m o n g t h e m Aeolicisms. T h e s e gave rise to the entry o f p o s t - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms, such as

-OIGOC.

T h e oldest choral lyric should b e c o n c e i v e d as a minimal lyric, brief invocations to the g o d s , extremely brief refrains: thei*e is n o reason w h y it should b e c o m b i n e d with H e s i o d o r the Lesbian poets. It was influenced f r o m the start b y H o m e r , as I noted, but

also

u n d o u b t e d l y b y Lesbian m o n o d y , j u d g i n g from the Lesbianisms in choral lyric as a w h o l e . I have referred to this in §§ 162 ff. All this is d e d u c e d from a c o m p a r i s o n o f the language o f different lyric poets, w h o share a 'generic

5

choral

D o r i c , minimal continental

ele­

ments w h i c h are difficult to define, a lack o f Ionicisms and H o m e r i c and Lesbian

elements.

In contrast, n o I o n i c o r A e o l i c choral lyric has b e e n

preserved:

w e c a n only point this out. It is possible that it m a y have existed as A r c h i l o c h u s w o u l d have sung his dithyrambs in I o n i c : his ' H y m n to Hercales and Iolaus' has I o n i c and H o m e r i c resonances and its m o n o d i c strophes - which unite dactylic, iambic and trochaic rhythms presupposes the previous existence o f chorals, just like those o f Sappho

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D C H O R A L

LYRIC

109

a n d Alcaeus; in this case, in addition, w h a t w e have are the r e m ­ nants o f the epithalamium sung in Lesbian b y choregoi a n d choruses, at least, this is m y theory. But the o n l y o n e that has b e e n preserved for us is D o r i c choral l y r i c 165, T o gain a better understanding o f this, it is important to study the origins o f Greek lyric, to which I have dedicated a book, Adrados 1986a. Fragments of popular and ritual Greek hymns can be found in the Poetae Melici Graeci by D . Page 1967 and 1974, in J. U. Powell 1970 and in H . Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons 1983, among others; in translation, with bib­ liographic information and notes, in Adrados 1980. O n the metre, c f A. Meillet, 1975, p. 145 ff. T h e dependency o f the language o f lyric on Mycenaean has been studied, recently, by G. Triimpy 1986, see the cri­ tique by C . J. Riujgh 1986 and that by G. Brillante 1987 (who provides bibliographic precedents). With regard to the theory o f the western poetical language', refer back to § 163. This theory is supported by, for example, Gh. Verdier 1972 with respect to the non-epic Aeolicisms o f Pindar. I believe (see § 169) that, on a base o f Homeric Aeolicisms, new Aeolicisms were progressively incorpo­ rated into the lyric ones from an Aeolic tradition which evidently existed, but which must not be confused with the continental Doric choral (which, I insist, displays hardly any specific characteristics; there are hardly any Boeotisms, for example), and is not really Doric. Another point is that ele­ ments such as ai, the inf. in -|iev, D . pi. -eaai, o r uzha go beyond the limits of Aeolic: these are choices within a wider dominion. Above all, this theory does not take sufficiendy into account the role played by the influence of epic language and the progressive character o f the incorporation o f Lesbianisms and other elements. For the different Doric dialects, see the works cited in the bibliography. For the language o f the choral lyric, see, among others, A. Meillet 1975, p. 208 ff.; O . Hoffman 1973, p. 125 ff; R . Hiersche 1970, p . 128 ff; L. R . Palmer 1980, p. 119 ff; M . Nothiger 1971. For Pindar, see, specifically, B. Forssmann 1968; Gh. Verdier 1972; P. Hummel 1993 (on syntax in par­ ticular). For Simonides, see O . Poltera 1997. O n the role o f the language o f choral lyric in tragedy, F. R . Adrados 1953a and 1975c, also G. Bjork 1950; on phraseology, compounds, e t c , in the language of theatre choruses, F. R . Earp 1970 and 1972, A. Long 1968; and W . Breitenbach 1934. 166. T h e fact is that in the eighth century with Eumelus, and then in the seventh century with A l c m a n , in the seventh/sixth

century

with A r i o n , in the sixth century with Stesichorus a n d Ibycus, in the sixth/fifth with S i m o n i d e s , Pindar and Bacchylides, w e see the full flourishing o f c h o r a l lyric, c o n t i n u e d b y tragedy, w h i c h is k n o w n to us beginning with The Persians b y Aeschylus, f r o m 4 7 2 . T h e n c o m e s o m e m i n o r poets and ritual lyric, a n o n y m o u s o r not, w h i c h was sung at various celebrations.

110

CHAPTER

SIX

It should b e n o t e d that very little b y Eumelus has been transmitted to us (a very small fragment, which combines D o r i c a, H o m e r i c enXexo and t w o Lesbianisms in -oiaot), that nothing has survived b y A r i o n , and that the textual tradition o f the authors w h o transmit quota­ tions from these poets is often suspicious, a n d vastly different from that o f the papyri w h i c h have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us. T h e same was n o t e d with regard to the epigrams transmitted through literary quotations and their epigraphic versions. This complicates o u r task. T w o things should b e pointed out. First, that the great festivals where this poetry flourished t o o k place in D o r i a n countries: Delphi, Corinth, Sparta, Argolis, Sicyon and only secondarily (since Pisistratus), Athens; whereas the poets, with the exception o f Eumelus, are not D o r i a n — unless A l c m a n is taken to b e D o r i a n ; w e are told that he c a m e to Sparta f r o m L y d i a . Stesichorus

and Ibycus c a m e

from

H i m e r a a n d R h e g i u m , respectively, the former city having a m i x e d language (Ionic and D o r i c , cf. T h u c y d i d e s , V I 5), the second, I o n i c . Simonides and Bacchylides were I o n i c and c a m e from C e o s . Pindar was Boeotian. S o , neither the native dialects o f the poets n o r those o f the cities in w h i c h they lived o r p e r f o r m e d (Stesichorus in Sparta, Ibycus in S a m o s , Simonides, after having b e e n in Syracuse with Pindar and Bacchylides, in Thessaly, etc.) m a n a g e d to influence the language o f their p o e m s . T h e s e w e r e internadonal artists w h o sang for an inter­ national public in an international language with a D o r i c base, w h i c h was a c c o r d e d prestige and intelligibility b y a very strong H o m e r i c c o m p o n e n t . In substance, it was a 'diminished' D o r i c with H o m e r i c and, to a lesser extent,

Lesbian elements. T h e r e are hardly

any

Laconisms in A l c m a n , Boeotisms in Pindar, etc.; I o n i c hardly entered (except w h e n it c a m e from H o m e r ) , with s o m e exceptions in Ibycus and Bacchylides. In short, w e are dealing with an artificial p o e t i c language

filled

with a p o l y m o r p h i s m w h i c h offered doublets and even triple forms from w h i c h the poets c o u l d c h o o s e . It is the D o r i c counterpart o f the other literary language, epic, w h i c h was succeeded b y elegy, also international. Quite simply, it was m e a n t for another type o f poetry, other kinds o f festivals and ceremonies, wherever it was practiced and whatever the native origin o f the p o e t . Both lines o f the poetic language shared a H o m e r i c and, in part, Lesbian c o m p o n e n t : they differed because o f the I o n i c accent in the former, and the D o r i c accent in the latter.

EPIC,

ELEGY

AND

111

CHORAL LYRIC

167. In summary, the language o f choral lyric contained an enor­ m o u s a m o u n t o f p o l y m o r p h i s m , w h i c h included: (a) H o m e r i c elements, with I o n i c and A e o l i c doublets (but n o t all), including those w h i c h can also b e interpreted as D o r i c (b) N o n - H o m e r i c D 6 r i c (or continental) elements. (c) N o n - H o m e r i c A e o l i c elements. T h u s , the difference with respect to the e p i c language is that, o n the o n e hand, it was restricted (as in elegy), o n the other hand, it 5

was extended with ' n e w D o r i c i s m s and ' n e w Lesbianisms

5

justified

b y the existence in H o m e r o f forms w h i c h can b e interpreted as D o r i c o r A e o l i c , to w h i c h other n o n - H o m e r i c forms were added. T h e r e must have b e e n an interplay b e t w e e n a D o r i c o r continental language and a H o m e r i c language w h i c h displayed c o m m o n forms and, through these, justified the introduction o f n e w forms, as for e x a m p l e that o f n e w Lesbianisms. S o , this language was not absolutely uniform. In general terms, it should b e p o i n t e d out that the D o r i c element tended to b e c o m e r e d u c e d and the I o n i c element to e x p a n d (forms w h i c h were at the same time H o m e r i c , with exceptions, as m e n t i o n e d above). T h i s e v o ­ lution m a y b e followed f r o m A l c m a n to tragedy. Analysis of the fundamental elements of the language of choral

lyric

168. A general revision will b e p r o v i d e d , eleborated later with ref­ erences to the evolution o f this language and its peculiarities in each author. I think it is m o r e practical to start with the D o r i c elements. 1. N o n - H o m e r i c D o r i c i s m s , understood in the general sense: they appear frequentiy in the various dialects o f W e s t Greek, and even in those o f N . W . Greek; s o m e are at the same time A e o l i c T h e list 5

is all encompassing - s o m e o f these ' D o r i c i m s are lacking in s o m e poets - but it is certainly n o t a c o m p l e t e list. S o , w e have the contractions o x > n a n d oco/co > oc (in the stems in -a, the G . sg. -a, pi. - a v ) ; the preservation

o f - T I in 8i8coxi;

pi. -vxi; the accent Tcai8a; the p r o n o u n s ajLiec,, xu, xiv, xo(, viv; the verbal forms evxi, r\q; the adverbs

OKOC,

TCOKOC;

forms such as yXecpapov,

opvi%a, (Jbpavoc,. T o reduce the impression o f anti-Homerism, it can b e said that in Horn, there is xuvn and nouns that preserve -xi; that in the m o r e

112

CHAPTER

SIX

archaic script there was n o accent and AMOX was so written, the addition o f accents and writing ano<; o r au^oc, c a m e later. T h e same can b e said for ox*/®-. It is important

to p o i n t out that certain characteristic D o r i c i m s

w e r e a v o i d e d (in a general sense): the aor. in -£oc- o f dental stems, the fut. in -Geco, the desinence -jnec;, KOC, the p r o n o m i n a l G . as in xeoc,, eixeog. Specific 'western' forms are also absent, such as -pa- > -pp-, D . pi. -oiq, and in all this there are sometimes differences with respect to certain local dialects, including L a c o n i a n and Boeotian, w h i c h w e r e spoken b y A l c m a n and Pindar. 2. D o r i c i s m s (in the same sense) w h i c h are found in H o m e r i c d o u ­ blets: as in a s p i r a t i o n / o , f/ poets),

KOCXOC;/Kakoq,

-OIGI/-OI<;,

0, a/r\

(the first being c o m m o n in o u r

c d / e i , u e a c o c / u i a o c ; , x o i / o i , D . pi. - o r /

-EGGI,

-aiai/-cac,, e{3av, inf. in - | i e v / - u e v a i / - v a i , Lxexd/7i:85a.

H e r e , o u r poets occasionally preferred (but there is variation) forms within the H o m e r i c doublets w h i c h were identical to the D o r i c ones, although this is n o t the case in H o m e r : their presence there serves as a support for their use. It is evident that a goes far b e y o n d its use in H o m e r (but in the choruses o f the tragedy it is restricted in turn) a n d the use o f n is m u c h m o r e limited. It is also clear that f , although it was maintained

in the D o r i c dialects, was rarely

pre­

served in o u r poets; that I o n i c variants such as -vai tended to b e rejected; and that, in contrast, other forms were accepted, such as -eoai and 7te5d, qualified as A e o l i c , but really b e l o n g i n g to conti­ nental G r e e k . T h e r e is -eaor w h e r e metrically it w o u l d n o t fiVin the hexameter. A t any rate, the use o f certain forms is justified b y their presence in H o m e r . 3. O t h e r D o r i c i m s w h i c h appear in doublets. I a m referring to forms such as M S a a / M o u o a / M o i a a , to the inf. (pepeiv/cpepryv, cpepev, and the A c , pi. -ac/-a<;, -wc /-ox><;/-Qq. O n c e again, it must b e observed >

that the o l d graphia did not distinguish w h e r e w e n o w distinguish and it is difficult to establish what was ancient, later there was a t e n d e n c y towards ' D o r i c ' forms; and to the p o s t - H o m e r i c A e o l i c forms o f the type M o i a a , including fern, participles in -oioot, 3rd pi. -oiat. It seems clear that the existence o f A e o l i c forms in H o m e r , interpretable as such, attracted n e w Lesbianisms: a process that ran parallel to others w e l o o k e d at in the H o m e r i c language. 169.

A r c h a i c , A e o l i c , and I o n i c forms (or forms o f another type),

EPIC,

ELEGY

AND CHORAL

LYRIC

113

have entered b y m e a n s o f H o m e r i c p o l y m o r p h i s m . S o m e t i m e s , the p o l y m o r p h i s m continues a n d b o t h forms are a c c e p t e d . In the case o f archaisms w e are presented with, for e x a m p l e , the alternation b e t w e e n verbal forms with o r without a u g m e n t o r o f the G . in -010 (rare, but present in the lyric); Lesbianisms, K E V alternating with dv, a|H|i£c/fiu£ic;, (potevvoq/cpaeivoc,, M o i o a a n d others. In

the

case o f Ionicisms (although the term m a y b e rather narrow), w e are presented with ore, ^eivoc/^evoc,. Pure H o m e r i s m s m a y substitute a D o r i c form, as in the case o f -010 o r the n a m e o f the goddess "Apxeinq. But these are rare, just as the n o n - H o m e r i c Ionicisms, as m e n t i o n e d earlier. T w o things must b e stressed with respect to (potevvoc; first, that the graphia with geminate is not o l d a n d that the a c c e n t m a y o r m a y n o t b e so; s e c o n d , that, nevertheless, this p h o n e t i c treatment has a w i d e r diffusion in choral lyric than in H o m e r . In effect, it has eliminated certain Aeolicisms o r archaisms ( G . in -oco, -dcov), but has w i d e n e d the d o m i n i o n o f A e o l i c i s m , o n a base o f Aeolicisms from H o m e r , including those w h i c h , as w e have seen, w e r e D o r i c o r c o n ­ tinental at the time. 170. This m u c h is definite: a general a n d diminished D o r i c , justified b y H o m e r o r n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e with it in general, dominates

the

w h o l e scene; the choral lyric certainly goes further than H o m e r in certain details, in others there is variation d e p e n d i n g o n the poets. Aeolicisms are also justified b y H o m e r -

w h e n they are not, it is

d u e to their presence in ' D o r i c ' dialects - a n d they increase in n u m ­ ber; Ionicisms are also justified in this w a y , but they hardly increase in n u m b e r . This is the general definition o f this language, a Doricising variant o f the language o f epos. Y e t , c o m p o u n d s , p h r a s e o l o g y a n d syntax must b e e x a m i n e d , as well as phonetics a n d m o r p h o l o g y . H e r e , H o m e r i c influence is c o n ­ siderable, although hexametric formulas d o n o t often exactiy fit. But there is a proliferation o f n e w c o m p o u n d w o r d s , n e w p h r a s e o l o g y a n d a daring syntax, full o f interruptions a n d stylistic uses, with lit­ tle subordination: cf, for e x a m p l e , M . N o t h i g e r 1 9 7 1 , p . 162 ff. a n d P. H u m m e l 1993. All this differs markedly f r o m the H o m e r i c lan­ guage, as H e s i o d also differed in part. It is b e l i e v e d that there are also traces here o f an i n d e p e n d e n t tradition, that o f the oral type o f choral lyric f r o m continental G r e e c e , m o s t fully d e v e l o p e d b y o u r poets, culminating with Pindar.

114

CHAPTER SIX

It must b e p o i n t e d out that, from what w e can see, this language is m o r e o r less the same as p o p u l a r choral lyric and ritual lyric. T h e former is k n o w n to us through quotations from later authors w h o have sometimes disfigured it; nevertheless, D o r i c a and other char­ acteristics m a y b e f o u n d in the song o f the Elean w o m e n (PMG 871), in the o l d m e n ' s h y m n to A p h r o d i t e (PMG 8 7 2 ) , in the h y m n o f the C h a l c i d i a n s in h o n o u r o f G l e o m a c h u s (PMG

8 7 3 : together

with

tax%ex' without a u g m e n t and a H e s i o d i c epithet o f Eros, Xvoi\iEfa(\q), in the L o c r i a n song o f adultery in PMG 8 5 3 (there is b o t h a

and

djLUi'), etc. S o m e o f these passages are m o n o d i c . H o w e v e r , there is obviously less regularisation: the R h o d i a n song o f the swallow (PMG 848) repeatedly makes use o f the 1st pi. in -u.ee,. Similarly, w e find ritual lyric in engraved inscriptions in temples, to b e sung b y the faithful, in Delphi, D i o n , Palaikastro, e t c , from the fifth to the s e c o n d century. T h e s e are 'editions', as it were, o f the same texts, often a c c o m p a n i e d b y musical notation (in the trea­ sury o f the A t h e n i a n s -ouc/ -oq,

IIOOTIMV,

in D e l p h i ) . T h e y take a, -oiai/ - O K ; / -eacu,

7iaidv/7iaicov, forms lacking augment such as yeivaxo,

e t c , and always 1st pi. in -ixev and H o m e r i s m s such as obpae, %6Xi\oq. The evolution and variants of choral lyric language 171. T h e evolution o f this language is r e c o r d e d from A l c m a n to Bacchylides. It consisted in m o r e H o m e r i s m , m o r e Ionicism (but in H o m e r i c terms, barring exceptions) and less D o r i c i s m (but while cer­ tain D o r i c i s m s f r o m A l c m a n decrease in n u m b e r ,

others

increase

with H o m e r i c support); while L e s b i a n elements, in general,

also

increase. T h i s is particularly well illustrated in M . Nothiger's statis­ tics, but also in the rest o f the bibliography cited. T h i s evolution is often reflected in the doublets a c c o r d i n g to the statistics p r o v i d e d b y M . Nothiger: for example, the preference for ei after Stesichorus a n d Ibycus, for Ttpoc, increasingly, until Pindar, the progressive increase o f the p r o p o r t i o n in favour o f -oic,, the p r o ­ gressive t e n d e n c y towards oxe; f r o m S i m o n i d e s onwards, there is almost only uexd, etc. F o r m s from I o n i c a n d even Attic (including Boeotian) increase in n u m b e r , but only w h e n they are supported b y H o m e r . F r o m A l c m a n onwards, there is a reduction in Doricisms. Ionic-Homeric variants increase in number from Simonides onwards, so that even -vou enters; little o f D o r i c is left in Simonides

and

Bacchylides (-a, -av, viv, xiv, rare -^oc-, and not m u c h else), -ev and

EPIC,

- a i disappearing;

ELEGY AND

CHORAL

115

LYRIC

and Pindar also inclines towards ei, rcpoc,, -ovq,

wtXoq. H o w e v e r , earlier in Stesichorus, Doricisms from A l c m a n such as f-, - T I and the D o r i c p r o n o u n s are absent (but s o m e epic forms are present: -010, o%ea(piv, a hybrid (bpotvoGev). S o , there was

an

increase in pure H o m e r i s m s , w h i c h were hardly present in A l c m a n . A t the end o f the evolution, a few n o n - H o m e r i c Ionicisms entered: G . -ecov in Ibycus,

O I K E U O T ,

xkzooq,fiopryioqin Bacchylides. S o m e m o r e

Lesbisms also entered o f the type £7ioeivrj|Lii and o f those with -oic,and -vv-. T h e recent b o o k b y O . Poltera

1997 allows the study o f the

differences (which in any case are slight) between the choral poets. Simonides is closer to Pindar in language

a n d phraseology, b o t h

b e i n g m o r e ' D o r i c ' a n d H o m e r i c than Bacchylides. S i m o n i d e s is m o r e a d v a n c e d than the latter, for example, in his use o f K 8 and the G . sg. in -ou. Exceptionally, he introduces I o n i c n ('AQnvoucoi). Y e t , the differences b e t w e e n the papyri and manuscript tradition as well as textual p r o b l e m s often m a k e it difficult to r e a c h

any

exact

conclusions. 172. T h e process o f leaving a m i n i m u m o f Doricisms a n d increas­ ing H o m e r i s m s and even Ionicisms has a d v a n c e d the m o s t in the choruses o f tragedy, studied b y Bjork 1950. A is limited to a few traditional roots and suffixes; n is also present a n d there are hybrid forms ((pf}ua). O t h e r D o r i c forms include G . in - a , -av and -£oc, xoi. Besides these, there are

also H o m e r i c f o r m s (eiv, eue0ev, epccv,

-jneoGa, i|AA)0ov, apeicov, verbals forms without augment), H o m e r i c A e o l i c forms (aujii, eujuev) and H o m e r i c - I o n i c forms (^eivoq, Soupaxoq). In this way, w e have a useful p o l y m o r p h i s m (vaoq/vecoq, ^evoc/^rivoc,, ajxui/ajLiiv, - o i o / o u , etc.). H o m e r i c v o c a b u l a r y a n d p h r a s e o l o g y is added. Atticisms also entered, as they h a d earlier in S o l o n , and these are studied in m y articles A d r a d o s

1953a and

1957: - a i m , f]v, S w n ,

OTComa, yfipax;, phonetics that are archaic Attic a n d H o m e r i c at the same time (-pa-, -aa-), and an abundant archaic vocabulary. This tends to distinguish the sacred language o f Attic choral song (which was m o r e o r less c o m m o n , but also elevated), from the trimeters. Y e t , there is a clear evolution in phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y in an approximation to the c o m m o n language. Nevertheless, the phraseology and n e w lexicon in poets such as Pindar and Aeschylus create environment that is very distant from that o f prose.

an

116

CHAPTER

SIX

173. M e n t i o n must also b e m a d e o f ritual lyric, to w h i c h I have alluded earlier a n d for w h i c h w e have epigraphic evidence from the fourth century B C onwards (and from the fifth century in later copies). It is important to n o t e that a similar language was used the

G r e e k w o r l d : the

throughout

'diminished' D o r i c , previously discussed, in

addition to s o m e H o m e r i s m s . T h e same o c c u r s w h e n it c o m e s to engraved p o e m s in Delphi, in Epidaurus, Palaikastros (Crete) o r in Athens. H e r e , for e x a m p l e , the h y m n o f M a c e d o n to A p o l l o and Asclepius in an inscription in the temple

o f A s c l e p i u s , c o n t a i n s , a l o n g with D o r i c f o r m s s u c h

as

eixpapexpafv, H o m e r i c forms such as yeivaxo, oveiap, uepOTieaai, a i i v ; and doublets such as Koupoi/KOpoi. Doricisms such as (3B(3(XK£C;, xeov, Kaxfj%e,

Tiovxocpopoc, ( A c . pi.), but -u^v,

to Diktaian

Z e u s o f Palaikastro.

KOup£, are present in the h y m n

In the h y m n o f P h i l o d a m u s o f

Scarphea to Dionysus, in D e l p h i , the same mixture appears, in addi­ tion to a v o c a b u l a r y with H o m e r i s i n g c o m p o u n d s such as dA,ioq>£YYfi<;. 174. T h e r e was a g a p through w h i c h the c o m m o n language o f the p o e t a n d his audience c o u l d enter, as in the case o f H e s i o d , Tyrtaeus and T h e o g n i s , a m o n g others. This also o c c u r r e d in older choral lyric, but o n l y to a small degree, for the c o m m o n and international lan­ guage w h i c h w e have b e e n discussing was always dominant. S o , w e d o n o t c o m e across any o f the typical L a c o n i a n forms w h i c h w e might expect, such as aspirated -a-, yet w e d o c o m e across aioq. Also Boeotian phonetics, which have a large presence in Corinna, are absent in Pindar, for e x a m p l e , des. -ovGi, p a v d , 7C£xxapec; "in this and so m a n y other things, such as the lack o f attention to d i g a m m a , Pindar follows H o m e r instead o f the local dialect. F e w forms attributed to the latter, and even these are uncertain, xd

'such as', Ttep,

KOCV,

are

for e x a m p l e

vouov, 5i8oi, T h e native I o n i c poets o n l y

rarely i n t r o d u c e d this dialect in places w h e r e it differed from H o m e r . T h u s , w e have seen that there is a gradual distancing from purer D o r i c a n d an a p p r o x i m a t i o n to I o n i c (and to s o m e extent, Lesbian) w h e r e it c o i n c i d e s with H o m e r . T h i s means that the t w o p o e t i c lan­ guages o f G r e e c e i a m b o s (with gradual

the Ionicising language o f H o m e r , elegy and differences), a n d the D o r i c i s i n g language o f

choral lyric - apart f r o m sharing c o m m o n elements, tended to c o n ­ verge. T h e m o r e abrupt epicisms, D o r i c i s m s and Lesbianisms dis­ appeared, a n d the c o m m o n nucleus g r e w increasingly larger.

EPIC, E L E G Y A N D

117

CHORAL LYRIC

O n this base, o n e o f the subdialects, the I o n i c o f i a m b o s (which w e have not yet discussed and w h i c h , to a large extent,

dominated

both) w o u l d gradually b e c o m e the c o m m o n language o f prose, fol­ l o w e d b y o n e o f its variants, already k n o w n to us, w h i c h had

pen­

etrated into S o l o n and the theatre: the s o m e w h a t Ionicised Attic.

CHAPTER SEVEN T H E SPECIFIC L I T E R A R Y L A N G U A G E S : LESBIAN, B O E O T I A N A N D S Y R A C U S A N

1.

GENERAL

OVERVIEW

175. W e have seen h o w the majority o f the Greek dialects are not literary in f o r m , and h o w general literary languages emerged: the epic language in its various states and languages with either an I o n i c o r D o r i c base, but very influenced b y H o m e r and very evolved. T h r e e literary dialects d e v e l o p e d alongside these, and they origi­ nated in particular territories, although the literary works w e r e often c o m p o s e d in different parts o f G r e e c e . T h e m o s t important

was

Lesbian, that is, the A e o l i c dialect that was transplanted to the island o f Lesbos f r o m Thessaly and the language used in the m o n o d i c lyric o f Alcaeus and S a p p h o . It only survived in this area, aside from later imitations b y Theocritus and Balbila. N e x t to it was the B o e o t i a n dialect, used b y the p o e t ­ ess C o r i n n a ; and the Syracusan

dialect used b y Epicharmus

and

S o p h r o n , T h e o c r i t u s a n d in the prose o f A r c h i m e d e s and b y s o m e Pythagoreans

and Sophists. T h e s e dialects w e r e created to

satisfy

local needs, although their influence spread to the rest o f G r e e c e . T h e s e literary dialects, although they inherited m u c h from H o m e r (and the two latter dialects, also from Lesbian), are o n a very different level to the 'general' literary dialects previously discussed. T h e i r g e o ­ graphic and p o p u l a r 'base' is clear; all that was d o n e was to elevate it to a literary level with the help o f foreign influences. T h e r e f o r e , they c a n b e qualified as 'artificial' o r international dialects only to a very small degree. W h a t e v e r the secondary diffusion o f this liter­ ature, it is clear that it was intended for very c o n c r e t e , m o n o l i n g u a l populations. T h e s e 'specific' literary languages are mere episodes within

the

evolution o f the G r e e k language, w h o s e central line passes, as dis­ cussed earlier, through the 'general' literary languages. O f course, w e must distinguish them from the use o f certain dialects in literature for d o c u m e n t a r y o r p a r o d i c purposes: as, for e x a m p l e ,

119

LESBIAN, B O E O T I A N A N D S Y R A C U S A N

in Aristophanes ( M e g a r i a n and T h e b a n in Achamians and Laconian in Lpsistrata); and from their r e n e w e d use from the Hellenistic p e r i o d onwards, w h e n the geographic dialects had, o r were about to, b e c o m e extinct.

2.

THE

LESBIAN

LANGUAGE OF MONODIC POETRY

1 7 6 . A l t h o u g h the Lesbian literary language is k n o w n to us only through Alcaeus a n d S a p p h o a r o u n d the year 6 0 0 B C , it originated in the local Lesbian dialect w h i c h is clearly m u c h older; even m o n ­ o d y is older. T h e Lesbian language must have arrived from Thessaly after

the

fall o f the M y c e n a e a n kingdoms. It supposes the existence o f an oral p o e t i c tradition

within East Greek: actually, m o n o d y broke away

from the choregos/chorus

c o m p l e x , extending the m o n o d i c interven­

tion o f the former. Its metre, the so-called A e o l i c metre, has been c o m p a r e d b y Meillet to the metre o f the Veda. Indeed, we have seen h o w the H o m e r i c language and the language o f the choral lyric soon c a m e under the influence o f the A e o l i a n dialect. Furthermore, T e r p a n d e r , at the beginning o f the seventh century, diffused Lesbian m o n o d y in Sparta and D e l p h i (not to mention the epic p o e t Lesches o f Pyrrha o r Mytilene). H e played an

essential

role: the invention o f the bdrbitos, a kind o f lyre in seven chords, has b e e n attributed to h i m , as well as the creation o f the structure o f the nomos, the lyric m o n o d y , and the adaptation o f hexametric c o m ­ positions to music. In the time o f Archilochus, the Lesbian 'paean' was already famous (cf. A r c h i l o c h u s 2 1 8 ) , and S a p p h o 1 0 6 refers to the Lesbian singer w h o travelled in strange lands. Therefore,

L e s b i a n p o e t r y w a s b a s e d o n a tradition

o f oral

poetry o f the East Greek, but it s o o n achieved its i n d e p e n d e n c e and exerted the aforementioned influences. It did not identify this tradi­ tion with the D o r i a n o r Western tradition, although it is clear that B o e o t i a and Thessaly b e c a m e linguistically and poetically closely related to the West, and that the Lesbian language o f poetry w o u l d subsequendy influence all literary languages. It w o u l d influence choral lyric later than H o m e r : an increasingly greater n u m b e r o f Lesbian (and even p o s t - H o m e r i c ) forms entered it from A l c m a n o n .

120

CHAPTER

SEVEN

It is believed that m o n o d y was able to d e v e l o p in D o r i c and I o n i c territtory in a parallel manner,

but few traces remain, e x c e p t in

A n a c r e o n and in other places, w h i c h will b e discussed later (§ 190). T h u s , the p o e t i c genres w e r e d i v i d e d b e t w e e n dialects, with few exceptions:- there was Ionic iambos, Doricising choral lyric and Lesbian m o n o d y . T h e first two genres were diffused throughout G r e e c e while the latter was limited to L e s b o s , although its influence

extended

b e y o n d the island. E a c h genre is linked to o n e o f the three afore­ m e n t i o n e d literary languages, themselves being closely related to each other through the influence o f H o m e r . 177. For the Lesbian dialect in general and that of the inscriptions in par­ ticular, see W . Blumel 1986 and R. Hodot 1990; for the Lesbian dialect of the poets, see G. A. Mastrelli 1954 and E. M . Hamm 1957. For the history o f the interpretations of the Lesbian dialect o f the poets, c f J. J. Hooker 1977 and A . M . Bowie 1981, but in particular, H. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998a. See the relevant pages o f the repeatedly cited manuals on the history of the Greek language: A. Meilet 1970, p. 206 ff, O . Hoffman 1973, p . 84 ff., R . Hiersche 1970, p . 118 ff. and L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 113 ff. For Terpander, cf. A. Gostoli 1990. The points o f discussion are: the alleged Aeolic or Aeolic-continental lyric; the alleged Homeric origin of certain forms; and the existence o f two types o f poems in Sappho (as proposed by Lobel), one being more Homerising than the other. 178. T h e language o f Lesbian poetry was not quite the equivalent to the p o p u l a r Lesbian w h i c h is k n o w n to us, to s o m e extent, from the inscriptions. N o t a b l e examples o f H o m e r i s m s should b e a d d e d with respect to phonetics, m o r p h o l o g y and vocabulary. H o w e v e r , this study will n o t e x a m i n e the issue o f whether, in certain

narrative

p o e m s such as the M a r r i a g e o f H e c t o r and A n d r o m a c h e b y S a p p h o (44 v.), H o m e r i s m s appear in greater n u m b e r o r the issue o f h o w they w e r e assimilated. Additionally, there are other forms and w o r d s that create s o m e p r o b l e m s . It is n o t a question o f listing all the characteristics o f Lesbian that are k n o w n to us f r o m o u r study o f the dialects and o f H o m e r : the (partial) preservation o f p, the treatment o f the labiovelars and vocalic sonants, the treatment o f the groups -ee-, -a- + nasal and -pa-, the peculiarities o f the p r o n o u n s and o f certain verbal and lexical forms. P o s t - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms should also b e added, for instance, inter­ nal -a8-, -auog, the feminine participles in -otaoc and the A c . pi. -oiq, -ouc,, Zovvaaoc,, OTutara. Furthermore,

s o m e w h i c h are rare in

H o m e r but c o m m o n here, such as baritonesis, verbs in -r\\i\ instead o f contracted forms, the D . pi. -eaai o r the perf. part, in -ovt-.

LESBIAN,

121

BOEOTIAN A N D SYRACUSAN

It should b e n o t e d that s o m e o f these forms g o b e y o n d the lim­ its o f Lesbian, as w e have seen, and that s o m e ' H o m e r i s m s ' m a y b e Lesbian archaisms (a, G . -010, -arov, perhaps D . pi. -oic,, -ccic, and verbal forms without augment;

and, o f course, a n o r m a l

Lesbian

form such as - O G - whicri o n l y c o n t i n u e d the H o m e r i c phase. T h i s ' c o i n c i d e n c e ' , o n c e again, enabled the fusion o f the t w o dialects with the acceptance o f n o n - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms. Certainly,

o t h e r f o r m s u s e d b y the L e s b i a n p o e t s are

H o m e r i c : for instance, metric enlargements

clearly

such as ocGdvaioc;, the

occasional l o n g e o r o before - v / p - p (faced with the normal Sepa, yova), the G . nf|A,eoc,, the I o n i c forms n6Xr\oq, eooicocv, etc. Indeed, it was only through H o m e r that ' I o n i c ' forms w e r e able to penetrate. 179. H o w e v e r , H o m e r i c influence is most noticeable in the lexicon and phraseology, and the same applies to H e s i o d ' s influence

and

even that o f the Homeric Hymns ((pouvo^ic,, euatparcoc,). In spite o f this, as the study b y R o d r i g u e z S o m o l i n o s demonstrates,

a third o f the

total n u m b e r o f w o r d s in the Lesbian poets appear for the first time. S o m e o f these w o r d s (which n u m b e r a r o u n d five hundred, o f w h i c h 100 hapax) m a y b e archaisms w h i c h were preserved here. T o b e sure, it is easy to find traces o f the A e o l i c tradition

we

have b e e n discussing w h e n certain phrases k e e p appearing: oc%co Qeomoia,

%puGoaTe<pavo<; (of Aphrodite). It should b e noted that s o m e ­

times the Lesbian poets consciously depart f r o m H o m e r : divvococ,, d%co, 6%0oc, instead o f devvococ,, f)%f|, 6%0a. All the same, other w o r d s c o m e f r o m the p o p u l a r and colloquial language o r f r o m the

'technical' language relating to trades and

everyday life. S o , the agreements b e t w e e n Lesbian and H o m e r enabled the for­ m e r to b e used for literary purposes, with the preservation o f only a few H o m e r i s m s and the elimination o f others. In this w a y , a local dialect was elevated to the status o f a literary language.

3.

CORINNA'S

BOEOTIAN

180. Perhaps it was this m o d e l that was a d o p t e d b y C o r i n n a , the Boeotian poetess o f the fifth century o r perhaps earlier, in order to transform the p o p u l a r feminine poetry o f certain rituals into a per­ sonal and literary written

p o e t r y in the dialect o f her

homeland

(another poetess, Myrtis, is only k n o w n to us b y name). After all,

122

CHAPTER

SEVEN

the case o f S a p p h o is n o different; other poetesses, such as Praxilla o f S i c y o n , d o not appear to have attempted such an undertaking (but w e d o n o t have sufficient data o n this). H o w e v e r , Telesilla o f Argos wrote m o n o d i c p o e m s in the Doricising language o f choral lyric: xdv jiotxepa, obpavco, but H o m e r i c

KOCX'

oiipea,

Lesb. (peuyoiaa. Similarly so with T i m o c r e o n o f R h o d e s ; and w e c o m e across the same language in small m o n o d i c fragments such as the s o n g o f the Elean w o m e n and others m e n t i o n e d a b o v e (§ 170). M o n o d i c lyric followed different paths in each location (it serves to recall the I o n i c o f A n a c r e o n and w e will l o o k at the Attic o f the Attic scholia, w h i c h display s o m e D o r i c features). 181. O n popular feminine poetry, see E. Gangutia 1994 and my books, Adrados 1986a and 1995a. Unfortunately, as with the rest of popular poetry (collected, with introductory studies, in Adrados 1980), the pitiful state in which it has been handed down to us prevents us form forming any con­ clusions about the language. 182. C o r i n n a ' s principal fragment, about the dispute between M o u n t H e l i c o n and M o u n t Cithaeron, has been transmited to us in a papyrus with B o e o t i a n o r t h o g r a p h y f r o m a r o u n d 2 0 0 B C , a n d not in

the

o r t h o g r a p h y that she must have used a r o u n d 5 0 0 B C . All the same, the language used was the Boeotian dialect, w h i c h had gready altered phonetics and m a n y notable characteristics w h i c h distance it from D o r i c a n d A e o l i c , with w h i c h it nevertheless shared m a n y features, c

as w e k n o w . It c o n t a i n e d pccvd w o m a n

5

for yuvri,

TCOKOC

for note,

0icov for 0ecbv, 7ipdxoi for rcpcbxcp, -xx- for -aa-, -v0i, -v0n for -vxi, -vxooi, viv,
dialect is n o t less interspersed

with

Homerisms than the rest: xoaov, &0avdxa)v, D . pi. in -oici, -ouai, forms without augment, ephelcystic -v, epic words o f the type dyKoi)ta>jieixao; as w e l l as n e w w o r d s b a s e d o n the

H o m e r i c m o d e l , such

as

tayoupoKcbxiJtoc,. O n c e again, it is the existence o f ambiguous H o m e r i c Boeotian forms that justifies the use o f this dialect. Y e t it r e m a i n e d isolated a n d did n o t influence the future o f the G r e e k language.

4.

THE

DORIC

OF

SYRACUSE

183. Syracuse was the only city in western G r e e c e that m a n a g e d to use its language for literary purposes. Elsewhere in the West, written

LESBIAN, B O E O T I A N A N D

123

SYRACUSAN

literature used the same literary languages with w h i c h w e are already familiar. W e have mentioned the poets Stesichorus and Ibycus. Pindar, Simonides, Bacchylides and Aeschylus w o u l d c o m e to the court o f H i e r o n in Syracuse. H o w e v e r , Syracuse was a great city w h i c h e x p e r i m e n t e d with its o w n language in m i m e and c o m e d y , created here b y S o p h r o n a n d Epicharmus, respectively, e n c o u r a g e d b y the establishment o f d e m o c ­ racy after the death o f H i e r o n in 4 7 8 . O n l y fragments remain, but e n o u g h to give us s o m e idea o f what this language was like: essen­ tially, a stricter D o r i c than that o f choral lyric, but n o t strictiy the Corinthian o n e might expect, given the foundation o f the city. W e are certainly dealing with a p o p u l a r kind o f D o r i c koine w h i c h used the p o p u l a r i a m b i c a n d t r o c h a i c r h y t h m s in parallel with I o n i c a n d Attic. It was, in effect, a local p h e n o m e n o n w h i c h influenced n e w Attic c o m e d y , yet it was not, in the l o n g run, its rival o r a rival o f Attic language in general. The fragments o f Epicharmus and Sophron can be found in A. Olivieri 1930. O n their language, see A. Meillet 1975, p. 223 ff. and R . Hiersche 1970, p . 159 ff. For the language o f the Sicilian inscriptions, see V . Sicca 1924. 184.

T h e w e l l - k n o w n D o r i c p h e n o m e n a are n o t w o r t h

repeating

here. But it is useful to stress the presence o f D o r i c i s m s w h i c h are absent o r practically absent in choral lyric, such as the des. o f the 1st pi. -ueq o r personal p r o n o u n forms such as ejieoc,, duec,, uuec,, 5

\|/iv, w o r d s such as Afjv 'to wish . Less c o m m o n forms include ioa\xx 5

'I k n o w , the inf. in -ixeiv (apparentiy from R h o d i a n ) , xdppcov, TjvGec;, KEKOG%E,

e t c . A l l o f this p o i n t s to a m i x e d a n d

evolved

Doric

dialect. As always, it must b e p o i n t e d out that s o m e D o r i c i s m s such as a or -GO- or -eaai are shared b y H o m e r , a n d that, in this way, other H o m e r i s m s entered, n o t the m o r e characteristic ones but rather those that w e r e at the same time Ionicisms, such as -eo- (not -10- as in D o r i c ) , -a- next to -aa-, ot next to xo(, ephelcystic -v, youvaor (but KOpoq). Ionicisms o r Atticisms such as rcctpfjaav, euou, (if w e can rely o n tradition) entered through this route. O f course, the H o m e r i c l e x i c o n and p h r a s e o l o g y was a c c e p t e d , as w e l l as w o r d s i m i t a t e d TO^O%VCCOV8C,,

8pocaTO%ociToc

from

H o m e r , often c o m i c

or parodic:

(applied to Poseidon). T h e r e is a prolific,

p o p u l a r creation o f c o m p o u n d w o r d s such as eJiaiocpiAocpdyoc, ' w h o

124

CHAPTER

SEVEN

likes to eat olives', jjxxKpOKairjiuXauxnv 'with a l o n g twisted neck', yuvctiKdvSpeeai ' w o m e n - m e n ' , etc. Until the third century, there continued to b e representations o f the phlyakes, a type o f m i m e that is f o u n d o n characteristic

vases.

Lexicographers preserve s o m e words with D o r i c forms, such as e%coaoc, Kcuvav, (pocivo^av (formerly, in the Homeric Hymns and in S a p p h o ) , beside KoGocpoc, (in inscriptions) and the vulgarism bXioxaxv: in all cases, the same p h e n o m e n o n . 185. But it was not just the c o m e d i a n s (in the general sense) w h o m a d e the dialect o f Syracuse literary. T h e o c r i t u s , the creator o f b u c o l i c p o e t r y in the third century B C , wrote idylls not only in epic and Lesbian dialects, but also in the D o r i c o f Syracuse. This was d e p e n d e n t o n the influence o f the p o p u l a r origins o f the genre, as in the a d o p t i o n o f the song o f the Sicilian shepherds,

or on

the

influence o f Hellenistic realism, as in the presentation o f Syracusan hetairai trying to w i n b a c k the l o v e r w h o a b a n d o n e d

her

('The

Witches'), o r o f the t w o w o m e n o f Syracuse w h o attend A d o n i s ' s festival in Alexandria ( ' T h e Syracusan W o m e n ' ) . All o f this was imi­ tated b y B i o n and M o s c h u s . O f course, realism was not absolute, Theocritus is tinged with epic a n d Lesbian poetry. In the first o f his idylls, "Thyrsis\ w e find, a m o n g other forms: (a) D o r i c i s m s such as a, ee > n, xav, Kcopa, o a a o v ; TCOKCC;

T O ,

KCC,

dv-,

Ttoti,

xr)va, toi; I7iv5co, raupcoc,, 7iap08voc, ( A c pi.); eao;i, 2 n d

sg. -ec,, 1st pi. -u.ee,, inf. -ev, fut. 5caaS, Xr\\\ff\. (b) H o m e r i s m s ADKCCOVISCCO,

such

as 7toto:uoio,

a X a e a , Xim,

a i , duiia, copeoq ( D o r i c i s e d ) ,

eyevxo.

(c) N o n - H o m e r i c Lesbianisms: jneAaa8eToci, Moiaou, yeXcuaa. (d) Ionicisms: (pepeu. O n c e again, w e are faced with a local dialect that is influenced b y the great literary currents w h i c h spread t h r o u g h o u t

G r e e c e : the

H o m e r i c , Lesbian a n d I o n i c currents. H o w e v e r , it was a discovery w h i c h h a d minimal i m p a c t outside o f Syracuse. 186. Finally, w e should take note o f the attempt b y A r c h i m e d e s , w h o was living in Syracuse at the same time as Theocritus, to cre­ ate a scientific prose in Syracusan D o r i c . A l t h o u g h he also wrote in koine (in the text f o u n d in a Jerusalem palimpsest), the works that have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n to us through manuscripts are in Syracusan

LESBIAN,

Doric -

BOEOTIAN AND

SYRACUSAN

though very altered, it must b e said, whether due to

125 the

influence o f koine o r through medieval transmission. S o m e Pythagoreans and Sophists also wrote in D o r i c , as previously mentioned (the dialexeis). This romantic attempt was d o o m e d to fail. Attic koine, w h i c h h a d b e g u n to penetrate early o n and w o u l d b e c o m e universal in

the

fourth century, was strictly and persistently i m p o s e d in Syracuse, as it h a d b e e n in Lesbos, Cyprus, L a c o n i a and the entire G r e e k w o r l d . S o o n , Sicily w o u l d b e c o m e R o m a n .

CHAPTER EIGHT THE LITERARY LANGUAGES OF THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS: IONIC A N D ATTIC

1.

IONIC

IN T H E I A M B O G R A P H E R S A N D

IN GENERAL P O E T R Y

187. After the language o f epic and elegy, the third general lan­ guage o f the Greeks, a literary language with a dialectal base, is the I o n i c o f the i a m b o s . It is not an updated

and Ionicised epic lan­

guage, but an I o n i c language with epic ingredients, although this is n o t always easy to see. In contrast to the language o f elegy, this lan­ guage is only r e c o r d e d in Ionia, although Stesichorus n o d o u b t also used it in his iamboi. But Ionia also refers to Attica, for the literary Attic o f S o l o n and o f d r a m a is a variant o f I o n i c , and it is the pre­ decessor o f an I o n i c language w h i c h h a d a greater diffusion: that o f I o n i c prose, w h i c h , as discussed earlier, in turn o p e n e d the w a y for Attic prose. T h e term iambos, certainly not a G r e e k w o r d , is used to refer to a series o f genres in either i a m b i c rhythm (a foot containing t w o syl­ lables, short and long) o r trochaic rhythm (the reverse). T h e i a m b i c trimeter h a d a great diffusion, as well as the c h o l i a m b i c (the, same, but with a l o n g penultimate syllable), the catalectic trochaic tetra­ meter, e p o d e s o r distics w h i c h c o m b i n e i a m b i c o r trochaic kola o r ' m e m b e r s ' with dactylic o r other kola. This p o p u l a r poetry was cultivated b y Archilochus o f Paros (sev­ enth century), S e m o n i d e s o f A m o r g o s , H i p p o n a x o f Ephesus

and

S o l o n o f Athens (sixth century), and subsequendy b y Attic c o m e d y (from Susarion in the sixth century onwards, allegedly). It

flourished

in certain p o p u l a r cults, like those o f Dionysus and D e m e t e r , in the c o n t e x t o f j o k e s a n d free conversational language. A l t h o u g h

the

themes are partly similar to those o f elegy, there is m o r e freedom here in the treatment o f the same themes and in the language. F o r the first time, w e e n c o u n t e r a language o f the p e o p l e in a register that is a cross between the colloquial and satirical, and is sometimes even vulgar.

IONIC

188.

AND

127

ATTIC

This, in general terms, constituted

the I o n i c dialect, only it

received a literary character with the help o f epicisms w h i c h were not so remote from conversational

language.

I will not deal with the I o n i c o f Stesichorus's i a m b o i , w h i c h is difficult to reconstruct because the material w e have is Atticised (cf. A d r a d o s 1982a). Archilochus, to begin with, used contracted froms (particularly - e u - for -eo-), crasis, so-called Attic declension forms o f the type etc.

OKOIUV,

(nXmq),

D . (predominandy) in -oiai, thematic oXXvo),

T h e r e is n o G . in -oco, -acov, a p o c o p e o f the type

K & X X U T O V ,

infinitives in -jnev, -uivou, case in -(pi, A e o l i c forms with - L X U - n o r K£ (with o n e exception), e t c ; only in p a r o d i c o r cultural contexts d o w e find AuDvuooi', loXaoq, Xim.

T h e r e are H o m e r i c forms, but these

are assumed to b e archaic I o n i c before contraction, such as oce0A,ov, or before metathesis (7tocpf|opoc;). It is interesting to see the innovations o f the l e x i c o n : o l d w o r d s with a n e w meaning, p o p u l a r vocabulary, sometimes o b s c e n e (adGn, uuicnc,, 'prick ) o r from the countryside (A,uiepvf|X£C,, ' p o o r ) or bur­ 5

5

lesque (Kepo7tA,doTnc, 'with a hairstyle in the form o f a horn', pdpocJ; 'charlatan ), occasionally o f n o n - G r e e k origin (Lrupxov 'mirth', u/opov 5

'unguent').

A n d yet, A r c h i l o c h u s ' s i a m b o i , as d e m o n s t r a t e d

by

D . Page 1963, are full o f H o m e r i c formulas and e c h o e s , sometimes with a change in meaning. Similar observations can b e m a d e with respect to Semonides. F o r instance, there is n o - e a o r , - o i o , w e find

OKCGQ

and related forms,

forms without contraction (sometimes with synizesis), e t c But there are sporadic H o m e r i s m s such as eemev, ynpaoxuev, a w , oupeaiv. A new

vocabulary appears,

sometimes p o p u l a r (oavXa Pocivcov, 'walk­

ing effeminately', doP6?ir| 'ash', Poucicdpi 'Lydian unguent', Aaxocpyoc, 'who

5

runs quickly , e t c ) .

H i p p o n a x is clearly Ionic ('AxxdJteo), Kpeaaov,

OKOD);

are p a r o d i c (duuopoq). T h e r e is an a b u n d a n c e

the Homerisms

o f popular

words

(Tiuyecav 'ass', Kaxcou6%ocvo<; ' h o m o s e x u a l ' ) o r b o r r o w i n g s from Lydian or Phrygian

(K&X\XV<;

' c h i e f , rauric, 'priest', PeKoq 'bread'). Here, instead

o f a lexicon o f the G r e e k substratum w e have a substratum from other languages. But, instead o f the colloquial I o n i c o f the

other

iambographers, here w e find a b o v e all a truly vulgar Ionic, full o f foreign w o r d s and o b s c e n e terms. 189.

S o l o n presents an even m o r e interesting case, because in his

w o r d s w e see h o w , with slight modifications, the language o f the

128

CHAPTER

EIGHT

i a m b o s has b e c o m e Attic, something w h i c h w o u l d d e v e l o p into t w o different varieties: c o m e d y and tragedy. H e r e , w e find pure -a and the contraction -eo- > -ou-; but there is also Ionic n through H o m e r i c reminisence (dvayKairiq) and a contraction -eu- (1, 45), p r o b a b l y cited from an I o n i c i a m b o g r a p h e r ; there are also the Ionic forms uouvov, eepSov, n o d o u b t from H o m e r , as well as archaic Attic vocabulary, as o n e w o u l d e x p e c t (cf. A d r a d o s 1953a). T h e fact is that within the I o n i c territory, including Attica, the p o p u l a r language b e c a m e literary for the very first time, albeit with certain epic touches (hardly ever archaic o r Aeolic). In Ionia itself this type o f poetry was s o o n exhausted, but it continued in Attica in c o m e d y ; and, with less popularity, in tragedy. This limited route, together with that o f I o n i c prose, w h i c h s o o n spilled o v e r Ionian borders, contributed to the creation o f literary Attic, otherwise favoured for historical reasons linked with the c o m m e r c i a l and political expan­ sion o f Athens. I w o u l d like to d r a w attention to the e n o r m o u s i m p a c t o f the cre­ ation, for the very first time, o f a literary Attic in Solon's work, as a variant o f the I o n i c o f the i a m b o s . It was an innovation o f enor­ m o u s transcendence, as its political creation h a d been, d e m o c r a c y . For, w h e n tragedy was created - an Attic invention in w h i c h the chorals o f lyric o r ' D o r i c ' language were a c c o m p a n i e d b y iambic dialogue — there was a m o d e l to write these iamboi in Attic: S o l o n . Subsequently, the m o d e l o f tragedy and also o f satyrical d r a m a m a d e an Attic i a m b o s possible in c o m e d y w h e n it was created in 4 8 5 . This was o n e o f the precedents for Athenian prose at the end o f the fifth century. T h e r e is another precedent: the Attic skolia. T h e collection w h i c h is preserved dates b a c k to between the e n d o f the sixth century and an indeterminable

date in the fifth century. H o w e v e r m u c h

they

depend o n the language o f choral lyric, containing D o r i c and H o m e r i c forms (especially a, emiev, K ' , eyevx', d v a a a a , etc.), they also contain forms w h i c h are either Ionic-Attic o r simply Attic: contracted forms (oivo%oeiv, KccTeoGieiv, eABeiv, Em^fjGoD, nXovieiv,

cppoveiv) alternat­

ing with uncontracted forms, D . pi. -oic,/-oiai, -ueaGcc, and, a b o v e all, the dual (KTotvernv, %ocip£Tov, etc.). T o b e sure, m o d e l s o f Attic o r semi-Attic prose were created in a rather surreptitious m a n n e r .

IONIC A N D

190.

129

ATTIC

It is still w o r t h recalling that melic poetry was also c o m p o s e d

in literary I o n i c : concretely, in A n a c r e o n o f T e o s , w h o fought in A b d e r a , T h r a c e , lived in the courts o f Polycrates o f S a m o s

and

Hipparchus o f Athens, and died in Thessaly. His poetry travelled to all these places. A n a c r e o n ' s poetry was written in a purely I o n i c language uncontracted

with

forms (ejiiCTpecpeai, ouiAicov, but also the I o n i c c o n ­

traction Aeuvuae), n (jcopcpupfi), D . pi. in -not, crasis

(K&KOTCOV),

variants such as TroAafixnc,. It a c c e p t e d m u c h satirical a n d

and

popular

v o c a b u l a r y , as in the p o e m against A r t e m o n ( P M G 4 3 ) . But, o f course, it also contained s o m e rare H o m e r i s m s : ttTepx>Y£aai, 6%dvoio, SocKpuoeaaav, also in the lexicon, with p o e t i c o r H o m e r i c c o m p o u n d s created o n the latter. T h e r e are also rare Lesbianisms such as KoiXoq, Xpuoocpaevvcov. In short, w e are faced with an I o n i c that is slightly c o l o u r e d with archaisms o r H o m e r i c a n d Lesbian forms, as in the lyrical tradition in w h i c h A n a c r e o n is included.

2.

IONIC

PROSE

Generalities and beginnings 191.

Prose for literary purposes b e g a n to b e written in G r e e c e from

the mid-sixth century B C onwards (this should b e distinguished from the diverse types o f prose m e n t i o n e d a b o v e used in inscriptions). T h e writings were either philosophical (including c o s m o g o n i c ) o r histori­ cal.

T h e y have b e e n preserved in a very i n c o m p l e t e f o r m , in small

fragments,

with the e x c e p t i o n o f the last

flowering

o f this p r o s e ,

w h i c h has b e e n transmitted to us through the medieval manuscripts o f Herodotus and the Corpus Hippocraticum. T h e transmission is defficient and there are serious doubts a b o u t the origin o f the Attic forms f o u n d in it. Evidentiy, the origins o f the prose c a n b e traced b a c k to a c h a n g e o f mentality. T h e d o c u m e n t a r y prose o f inscriptions was set aside, as the n e w individualistic and rationalistic culture sought to create an entirely different w a y o f thinking and a history that consciously departed from the ancient myths. Occasionally, p o e t r y also aspired to this (in X e n o p h a n e s o r P a r m e n i d e s ) . T h i s w a s a c c o m p a n i e d by

an a p p r o x i m a t i o n to the e v e r y d a y c o l l o q u i a l language a n d

a

rejection, at least in part, o f the o l d m o d e l s (although those m o d e l s

130

CHAPTER

EIGHT

c o n t i n u e d to exert an influence, in their distance from the everyday and the trivial). 192. It should b e a d d e d that this I o n i c prose was universal,

being

the only existing G r e e k prose at the time, and was a d o p t e d b y writ­ ers o f D o r i c origin o r b y others, whatever their origin, w h o lived and w o r k e d in n o n - I o n i c speaking cities. T h a t is, there w e r e I o n i c writers: a m o n g others, the logographers w h o wrote in the Asian cities and in the islands (Hecataeus o f Miletus is the m o s t well-known), Pherecydes o f Syros (the author o f a cos­ m o g o n y ) , the Milesian philosophers, Heraclitus o f Ephesus, Democritus and Protagoras o f A b d e r a . But there were also writers w h o were b o r n outside this linguistic region: as is the case, as is well k n o w n , o f H e r o d o t u s , w h o was b o r n in the D o r i a n city o f Halicarnassus (he later m o v e d to the

Ionian

island o f S a m o s , then to Athens and other parts), and in the case o f H i p p o c r a t e s and the physicians o f the D o r i a n island o f C o s , s o m e o f w h o m w e r e travelling physicians. But there is also the case of, for e x a m p l e , Acusilaus o f A r g o s (author o f a genealogy), Hellanicus o f Mytilene (author o f a history o f Attica) and Pherecydes o f Athens (author, t o o , o f a genealogy), a m o n g the logographers. O n the other h a n d , m a n y writers w h o were Ionian

o r w r o t e in I o n i c lived in

Athens: Democritus, Hellanicus, Anaxagoras o f Clazomenae, Protagoras and other philosophers and Sophists. H o w did all this o c c u r ? T h e m o v e m e n t in favour o f G r e e k prose evidently originated

in I o n i a , w h e r e p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d

historians

d e c i d e d to dispense w i t h those p o e t i c dialects w h i c h w e r e

also

Ionicising. T h e shift from a mythical to a rational mentality is reflected in the shift from hexametric poetry (iambic poetry was also inade­ quate) to prose. But there was an essential precedent: apart from the official I o n i c o f the inscriptions, there was also a p o p u l a r I o n i c o f the i a m b o s . A n o t h e r leap, and the m o v e to prose was m a d e . T h e s e thinkers travelled throughout G r e e c e and h a d an influence everywhere, particularly in Athens. But at a certain point, in the last third o f the fifth

century, it was certainly in Athens w h e r e

they

realised that if they were to w i d e n their influence in a city w h i c h had b e c o m e , intellectually-speaking,

the main city o f G r e e c e , they

w o u l d have to write in Attic. Evidentiy, the Sophists and philosophers in Athens spoke in Attic. It was a diglossia, for they spoke in Attic and wrote in I o n i c . But

IONIC A N D

ATTIC

131

at least o n e o f them, Gorgias, w h o h a d arrived from Leontini, Sicily, in 4 2 7 , broke with this habit and started to write in Attic. H e did this precisely at a m o m e n t in w h i c h Attic was invading I o n i c . H e h a d the c o u r a g e to break away, thereby o p e n i n g the w a y for the Athenians and later for others. I n d e e d , the triumph o f Attic in a w o r l d where it coexisted with I o n i c marked the start o f the creation o f koine: Attic with certain I o n i c o r general variants o f Greek. 193. T h e shift from hexametric p o e t r y to prose (still a v o i d e d b y philosophers such as X e n o p h a n e s , E m p e d o c l e s a n d Parmenides) was not easy psychologically speaking: literature was strictly poetic. It was helpful, just as for the formation o f the different p o e t i c languages, that precisely these languages were full o f Ionicisms: they were a mixture o f Ionicisms and epicisms o f various origins, sometimes also o f Lesbianisms. I o n i c prose continued this process to a certain extent, insofar as it c o n t i n u e d to a d d epic elements to the I o n i c elements, albeit in a m o r e restricted way. T h e relation b e t w e e n spoken I o n i c and I o n i c prose presents a real p r o b l e m . T o b e g i n with, the former is hardly k n o w n to us. W e k n o w only the language o f the inscriptions, w h i c h d o e s not support

the

assertion b y H e r o d o t u s I 42 that there were four dialects in Ionia: very small differences are found, particularly certain innovations in C h i o s and Erythrae, and other c o i n c i d e n c e s in C h i o s and Miletus. B y contrast, in H e r o d o t u s , w h o is the most studied author, i m p o r ­ tant sections o f vocabulary are found w h i c h are lacking in the inscrip­ tions.

Indeed, in all these authors w e find H o m e r i s m s , to a greater

o r lesser degree, as well as the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e w paratactic syntax and stylistic features destined for success: alliterations and repetitions,

a n e w w o r d o r d e r , the historic p r e s e n t rejected

by

H o m e r , etc. 194. O n the Ionic dialect o f the inscriptions, see Ch. Favre 1914, A. Lopez Eire 1984b, p. 340 ff. and K. Stiiber 1996. O n the language of Ionic prose in general, cf. above all E. Norden 1898, K. Deichgraber 1962, H. Haberle 1938 and S. Lilja 1968. O n Herodotus, G. Steinger 1957, M . Untersteiner 1949, H. B. Rosen 1962, E. Lamberts 1967, I. Beck 1971 and D . G. Miiller 1980. O n the whole subject in general, R. Hiersche 1970, p. 198 ff., O . Hoffmann 1973, p . 168 ff, L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 142 ff. The remarks o f the ancient critics are not very coherent. The statement by Strabo I, 2, 6 that the most ancient prose only differs from poetry in its lack o f metre is contradicted by Cicero, De oral II 12, 53, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Thuc. 23, who refer to its lack o f ornament; Hermogenes,

132

CHAPTER

EIGHT

De id. II 399 contrasts Hecataeus (who is 'pure and clear', and 'uses pure Ionic') and Herodotus, whom he calls 'mixed and 'poetic'. For the language and style o f the older works o f the Corpus Hippocraticum, c f among others, P. Fabrini-A. Lanni 1979, A. Lopez Eire 1984b and 1992, O . Wenskuns 1982 and A. Lopez Ferez 1987. As regards the cre­ ation o f a scientific vocabulary and the actual structure o f the treatise, I provide references in the chapter on the creation o f the scientific language. 5

195. W e find ourselves before a series o f writers, the first o f w h o m w e r e active in the s e c o n d half o f the sixth century

(Anaximander,

Pherecydes o f Syros, Acusilaus o f Argos); at the turn o f the

sixth

and fifth centuries (Hecataeus, A l c m a e o n , Heraclitus); in the first half o r m i d d l e o f the fifth century ( C h a r o n o f Lampsacus, A n a x i m e n e s , Herodotus); and

finally,

in the s e c o n d h a l f o f the

fifth

century

(Pherecydes o f Athens, D e m o c r i t u s , Hellanicus, and the older writ­ ers o f the Corpus Hippocraticum). It should b e observed that the I o n i c writers w h o w e r e active in Athens in the fifth century n o t only had H o m e r and lyric at their disposal, but also Attic tragedy and c o m e d y ; and those w h o were active at the e n d o f the century, Attic prose. A t any rate, f r o m the p e r i o d o f the Persian wars, Attic was k n o w n to all o f them. I have discussed this with respect to the Sophists. I n d e e d , towards the mid-fifth century w e find Atticisms in I o n i c inscriptions, as well as Ionicisms in the Attic ones, c f A . L o p e z Eire 1984b, p . 3 4 0 ff. This is the c o r e o f the matter, a century after Ionic prose h a d tried to i m p o s e itself in the sixth century, dispensing as far as possible with epic influence. Indeed, it was in the s e c o n d half o f the fifth century

that it r e c e i v e d a great universalist

b e i n g already i n v a d e d b y Attic elements. In the mid-fifth

impulse, century,

Athens d o m i n a t e d G r e e k politics and also, through theatre, G r e e k poetry. Y e t it is difficult, as I have stated, to make detailed j u d g e m e n t s a b o u t the language o f writers o f w h o m w e k n o w so litde. But let us begin with the older authors, w h o predate the m o m e n t in w h i c h Athens peaked. 196. N o literal fragments

have survived o f the works o f Thales,

Pythagoras, A n a x i m a n d e r and A n a x i m e n e s , a m o n g others, and there are only minimal fragments o f A l c m a e o n . W e are better served b y Pherecydes o f Syros, thanks to a papyrus o f s o m e fifteen lines, and Heraclitus, w h o s e literal quotes are numerous (but almost invariably in the f o r m o f maxims); the same applies to D e m o c r i t u s , w h o is from

IONIC A N D

the A t h e n i a n

133

ATTIC

a g e , but for w h o m there are serious p r o b l e m s o f

authenticity. Let us deal with a previous p r o b l e m regarding the Atticisms that appear in I o n i c writers in the fifth century, such as Pherecydes o f Athens and Hellanicus, jput especially, as w e shall see, H e r o d o t u s and Hippocrates. It is sometimes postulated that these Atticisms c o m e from the later textual tradition, other times that they were already present in the original texts o f these authors.

T h e real answer is

p r o b a b l y a mixture o f the two: the later tradition multiplied the orig­ inal Atticisms. W h e n citations c o m e f r o m a variety o f sources, as is frequently the case, w e can clearly see the hesitation between Ionicism a n d Atticism. It c o u l d b e said that, at least until the Persian wars, these writ­ ers w o u l d have h a d a c o m m a n d o f an I o n i c without Atticisms, w h i c h w o u l d have gradually entered as the two dialects b e g a n to c o n t a m ­ inate each other; and w o u l d have increased in the manuscript tra­ dition, particularly in s o m e o f its later branches. 197. T h i s p r o b l e m aside, and before dealing with the central sub­ j e c t o f epic forms, w e should d r a w attention to two important

char­

acteristics o f this prose: (a) Philosophic prose, a b o v e all, has an a b u n d a n c e o f abstracts (particularly in -ir| a n d substantivised neuters with o r with­ out an article). M a n y are semantic innovations o r pure a n d simple creations based o n c o m m o n or, at times, epic lan­ guage. T h i s is a subject that must b e c o n s i d e r e d separately, w h e n w e discuss the creation o f the G r e e k scientific lan­ guage (also in philosophical poetry). F o r the first time, a lin­ guistic instrument h a d b e e n created that was able to serve abstract thought. T h i s i n c l u d e d the creation o f n e w c o m ­ positional structures, m o s t certainly that o f the scientific treatise. (b) T h e r e is a proliferation o f a series o f figures o f speech, w h i c h were later c o n t i n u e d in the first Attic p r o s e , in o r d e r to c o m p e n s a t e for the lack o f dactylic rhythm a n d to elevate the level o f the prose ('the style should b e clear a n d solemn', aeuvoc,, a c c o r d i n g to D i o g e n e s o f A p o l o n i a B l ) . E, N o r d e n in 1898 already r e c o g n i z e d this and subsequentiy it has b e e n confirmed b y all scholars.

134

CHAPTER

EIGHT

T h e s e figures o f speech are alliteration, repetition, w o r d play, parallelism, chiasmus and paratactic constructions (the so-called Xe^iq eipouevrt, a l t h o u g h w e h a v e f e w e x a m p l e s outside o f Herodotus). W i t h all this, a narrative prose was created w h i c h was

b o t h clear and capable o f establishing relations, and, also,

expressive and capable o f enhancing these elements. To

cite a few examples: Alliterations and repetitions: Pherecyd. Syr. 1, eyevexoyfj . . . yf]v yepac,; Heraclit. B 53, noXeyLoq Tidvxcov ^ievraxxripeaxi, ftdvxow 8e paaiAeuc,; A n a x a g . B 12, yvwurrv ye Ttepi navxoq nacav i'a%ei; Pherecyd Ath. e'Gue xa> rioaeiScovi 6 UeXiaq,

105,

K a i Jipoeute naox 7iapeivai,

Hellanic. 5 4 , dvco xr\q dcKavBou xou dvGeoc,. . . a t e ! avGeo-ocu. Word play: Heraclit. B 25, M,6poi ydp [xetpvec, \xeC,ovaq [loipaq Xay%avouai. Parallelism: H e r a c l i t . B 1, K a i xouc, \XEV Qeovq eSei^e, xovq

8e

eXeuGepouc,; A n a x a g . B 12, K a i dixoKpvvexai ano ye xov d p a i o u xo 7UUKV6V K a i ano xou \j/u%pou xo Gepjxov. Chiasmus: A n a x a g . B 12, e m ok EKi

KXEOV

rcepixcopei Kai

7repixcopf|aei

KXEOV.

Paratactic style: it c o m b i n e s the previous resources with clauses united b y 8e, Kat, ydp, etc.; cf. for example, H e c a t . 15, Heraclit 1, D e m o c r i t 191. T h e s e figures o f speech are rarest in Hecataeus and the logogra­ phers, a n d in D e m o c r i t u s . T h e s e authors went the furthest in their search for a style without adornment. 198. W e still have to deal with the subject o f epic's influence, w h i c h is derived from its penetration in all the literary languages and from the fact that b o t h history and philosophy originate in H o m e r , Hesiod, and the rest o f H e x a m e t r i c poetry. To

b e g i n with, w e certainly c o m e across hexametric

remnants,

although s o m e are clearer than others and s o m e m a y b e acciden­ tal. F o r instance, those that appear in Hecataeus o r Pherecydes o f Athens. W e also find, for example, in Heraclit. 1, Kai ercecov Kai epyoov, eupog TtoSoc, dv0po)7ie{ou; 35, eu \iaXa izoXX&v; Hellanic. 26, eu \iaXa ei86|j,evoi; Pherecyd. Syr. 1, Zaq \XEV Kai Xpovoc, fjaav; etc. But the lexicon and phraseology is o f greater significance: frequently, the two g o hand in hand, as in the start o f the w o r k b y Hecataeus: 'HKaxaioc, Mi^rjaioq obSe jiroGeixai (and in D e m e t r . De eloc. 2).

IONIC A N D

Yet,

135

ATTIC

p h r a s e o l o g y aside, the harvest o f epic w o r d s (or c o m m o n

w o r d s with epic forms) o r o f epic expressions is i n d e e d great. S o m e ­ times, w e are dealing with poetic w o r d s in general. S o m e examples: Acusilaus: f]ev, TioXefjeeaKev. Heraclit.: dei^oooc,, dGupjuoc, dpnicpaxoc,,

KXEOC,

d e v a o v , ij/euScov,

T£KTOV£C,. D e m o c r . : d-rnpoc,, 8ari|ia>v, o u o q , 6A,ooiTpo%oc;, 7ioXir|Tnc,. Hecat.: dpriyeiv, ouvojia, oupea. Pherecyd. Ath.: dxeoq, dmaq, epuKei, ouSoc,. Thus, there is n o doubt about the influence o f epic and poetry, unequal as it m a y b e , and a b o u t the ' n e w style' (with earlier precedents) o f parallelism, antithesis, repetition, etc. w h i c h w o u l d reach its peak in Attic prose with Gorgias. Herodotus 199.

Let us n o w turn to H e r o d o t u s , w h o , with the physicians, suc­

c e e d e d in diffusing I o n i c as the l a n g u a g e o f culture

throughout

G r e e c e , starting from a few small cities and a small island in Asia (Halicarnassus, Gnidus and C o s ) . T h e writers m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p r o v i d e d a precedent. T h e y were Ionians w h o s e w o r k was diffused throughout

G r e e c e , especially in

Athens, where m a n y o f them lived, and non-Ionians, such as Acusilaus o f A r g o s , Hellanicus o f Mytilene and A l c m a e o n o f C r o t o n , w h o also wrote in I o n i c . W i t h such precedents, before the writers o f I o n i c m a d e the m o v e to Attic, another generation o f writers from a small c o r n e r o f Asia H e r o d o t u s , Ctesias, Hippocrates and other physicians - h a d

made

the m o v e from D o r i c to Ionic, converting it into the o n l y prose-style o f G r e e k culture. All o f them were c o s m o p o l i t a n individuals, b o r n after the Persian wars. Exiled from Halicarnassus, H e r o d o t u s lived in S a m o s , an I o n i c island, and later travelled in Athens, the Persian empire, Italy, and Sicily. H e lived until the first years o f the P e l o p o n nesian W a r . Ctesias was a physician in the Persian court and, like Hippocrates, lived until at least the e n d o f the fifth century. It is believed that Hippocrates h a d contact with the main intellectuals o f his time. In any case, the physicians travelled and received students from all parts.

136

CHAPTER EIGHT

It is n o t strange that m e n such as these should have l o o k e d for a dialect that was accessible to all the Greeks, as their predecessors h a d d o n e so before them. H e r o d o t u s represents a shift from a myth­ ical to a critical and historical mentality, from localism to universalism: o n the basis o f small logoi o n a particular city o r village, from periegeseis o r peripluses and from novelistic narratives, H e r o d o t u s artic­ ulated (without violating any o f these) a universal history directed at all the Greeks. In turn, the physicians also addressed all m e n . T h e i r doctrine was based o n the study o f h u m a n nature and broke with traditional magical beliefs regarding the origin o f disease. It should b e emphasised that a universal language was as neces­ sary as it had b e e n in the case o f the language o f epic o r elegy, only n o w it h a d to b e a prose language. T h e c h o i c e was clear: the oldest prose h a d e m e r g e d in Ionia, and it was in Ionia o r its p r o x ­ imities w h e r e these authors lived and where their audience c o u l d b e found. I o n i c was u n d e r s t o o d in Attica and the w h o l e o f G r e e c e , and it linked up with the artificial, Ionicising languages o f poetry. A n d it entered into ever greater symbiosis with Attic, w h i c h w o u l d end up displacing it as the literary language. In this w a y , the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the literary languages w e n t h a n d in h a n d

w i t h the p h e n o m e n o n o f G r e e k i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m ,

the

Panhellenic character o f this culture. T h e only step that remained to b e taken was the replacement o f I o n i c b y Attic. 2 0 0 . But to return to I o n i c and, firsdy, H e r o d o t u s . T h e logographers w h o p r e c e d e d h i m w r o t e o n the themes to w h i c h I have

referred

and w r o t e in I o n i c , w h i c h contained certain epic echoes. H e r o d o t u s followed their e x a m p l e . H o w e v e r , he was still closer to epic than they h a d b e e n : the c o m p o s i t i o n o f his history imitates that o f the Iliad, and his p u r p o s e in writing it (I, 1), to ensure that 'great and 5

admirable events w e r e n o t forgotten, provides a further parallel with 5

the epic p o e m s w h i c h narrated the 'glory o f the heroes . T h e r e is m u c h o f epic in H e r o d o t u s , and also o f tragedy, as I have discussed in other works (Adrados 1966, p . 317 ff., 1994d, p . 83 ff). T h e r e f o r e , it is n o t surprising that Herodotus's language should have given the ancient critics the impression o f b e i n g m i x e d , p o e t i c and H o m e r i s i n g , something w h i c h was discussed earlier (§§ 134 and 193): H e r m o g e n e s , De id. II 399 regards Herodotus's language as 5

' m i x e d and 'poetic', as o p p o s e d to that o f Hecataeus; Longinus 13, 3

IONIC

AND

137

ATTIC

describes it as V e r y H o m e r i c ' . T h e r e was n o d o u b t a difference in degree with s o m e o f his predecessors. A g o o d part o f this is attested in H e r o d o t u s ' s text: w e find archaic a n d recent Ionicisms, Atticisms, w o r d s o f various origins and,

in

effect, epicisms. T h e p r o b l e m is that the text displays incoherences o f w h i c h w e are unsure to what extent they c o m e from H e r o d o t u s himself o r f r o m the manuscript

tradition (including the

papyrus

tradition). 201. In our manuscripts o f Herodotus, there is a coexistence o f archaic and recent as well as Ionic and Attic variants, whether epic or not. It is believed that the archetypes o f the two principal families date from the first or second century A D , so that their coincidencies should date from at least the Hellenistic period; sometimes the papyri coincide, whereas other times they contain a purer text, but not exempt from the same doublets. For more details, see the books by M . Untersteiner 1947 and H. B. Rosen 1962. It is clear that the Greek of Ionic inscriptions is partly different, yet it is difficult to establish linguistic use in contemporary Ionia in any decisive way. C f Gh. Favre 1914 and K. Stuber 1996. According to H. B. Rose 1962, p. 253, the dialect o f Cos and Halicarnassus is closest to Herodotus: but this is not certain. A. Lopez Eire 1984b, previously cited, insists on the penetration of Attic elements from the middle of the century, p. 336 ff. (and o f Ionic elements in Attic inscriptions, p . 341 ff). 2 0 2 . It is believed that a g o o d part o f H e r o d o t u s ' s 'anomalies', par­ ticularly those o f the archaic o r epic type, are d u e to

Herodotus

himself; and, n o d o u b t , also s o m e Atticisms, although it is likely that the later tradition reinforced this. But to assume that always used a uniform language -

Herodotus

for e x a m p l e , with always c o n ­

tracted o r uncontracted vowels, with the A c . sg. o f the masc, o f the 1st d e c l i n a t i o n always in -nv, the D . p i . o f the

2 n d always in

-oxen, the A c . pi. o f nouns in -ic, always in -iq is to ignore the fact that in all G r e e k literary languages there have always existed p h o ­ netic variants and p o l y m o r p h i s m , as well as an alternation o f the archaic and the c o n t e m p o r a r y . T h e r e are cases in w h i c h the o r t h o g r a p h y o f the p e r i o d , that is, the ancient I o n i c alphabet, indicates that the ouvoucc o f the

manu­

scripts o r the hesitation oupoc/opoc, are recent: this alphabet

wrote

O , and did not distinguish ou from o and, o f course, did not have a sign at its disposal to mark the spiritus asper. C o n t r a d i c t o r y

ten­

dencies - epicising, Ionicising, Atticising - were operative while not evident in every step. O f course, without c o h e r e n c e . But they n o

138

CHAPTER

EIGHT

d o u b t maintained certain features o f Herodotus's language, for w e certainly encounter epicisms a n d Atticisms, n o t to mention Ionicisms, which predominate. It is useful to study the language o f I o n i c inscriptions, but this does n o t solve all o f o u r p r o b l e m s : as I have already p o i n t e d out, it offers c o i n c i d e n c e s with Ionic. F o r e x a m p l e , in the inscriptions w e generally find -oiai in D . pi. o f the 2 n d , but w e also find -oic, in Halicarnassus in the fifth century: this therefore confirms H e r o d o t u s ; and also other Ionicisms such as the G . sg. in -ou o f p r o p e r nouns in -nc.. O n the other hand, this language writes Ejii, rcoiEv, w h i c h attests to the existence o f a contraction that sometimes appears in H e r o d o t u s , sometimes does not: h e has -ee, -eeaGai, -eev. T h e r e are hesitations too in other vocalic groups. N o doubt, Herodotus archaicised on the m o d e l o f H o m e r o r o f the survival in I o n i c o f certain v o w ­ els in hiatus, such as -eo- (but in H e r o d o t u s there are also contracted forms, I o n . -eu-, A t . -ou-). H e also certainly archaicised in using vnoc, 'temple' a n d in various forms with -n- o f the n o u n for 'ship'; there is fluctuation in H o m e r himself, whereas in H e r o d o t u s it is the manu­ scripts that fluctuate. Fluctuations m a y b e I o n i c , such as that o f the A c . sg. o f the masc. o f the 1st, already cited, between -nv a n d -ea: these are n o t attested, but the

G .

sg. -eccAe-Dc, is. In A c , pi. w e find

TCOAIC,

beside noXxaq in

the literary texts, n o t just in H e r o d o t u s ; this c o u l d b e old, b u t there are doubts c o n c e r n i n g A t , noXexq, perhaps a recent introduction. T h e s e are n o t the only cases in which there is a fluctuation between I o n i c a n d Attic forms, cf. for example, R . Hiersche 1970, p . 189 f f , A . L o p e z Eire 1984b, p . 3 3 7 . T h u s , I believe that the c o n c e p t i o n o f Herodotus's language as m i x e d a n d p o e t i c , with Attic elements, is correct. But it means that in the course o f transmission, the presence o f these elements b e c a m e accentuated, although w e c a n n o t fix any exact limits. 203. T h u s , w e c a n speak in terms o f various sectors o f Herodotus's language, including the lexicon. (a) I o n i c sector. T h i s is the m o s t frequent, a n d it includes the almost o m n i p r e s e n t n f o r a (there are s o m e e x p l i c a b l e cases o f a, cf. R . Hiersche 1970, p . 203), the p r e d o m i n a n c e o f the D , pi, -oicn, inflection in - i c / - I O C , , the perf. a n d plusq. 3 r d pi.

-CCTCCI,

-OCTO,

psilosis

(only in remnants), the l e x i c o n a n d so m a n y other things. I have dis­ cussed the possible variants a n d archaisms w h i c h rely u p o n epic.

IONIC

AND

139

ATTIC

(b) Epic and H o m e r i c i s i n g sector. Obviating to what extent this sec­ tor m a y have b e e n extended b y tradition, it exists, o f course, and is justified b y the reasons m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . But the H o m e r i s m s are m u c h m o r e limited than they are in poetry; for e x a m p l e , there is no G . in -010 except in transcribed oracular hexameters, n o 'Aeolicisms' o f the Kev type, o r outdated archaisms. It is a question o f a light H o m e r i c hint o r taste. In m o r p h o l o g y , w e can attribute the very rare D . pi. in

-EGGI

to

this influence, as well as the apocopated preposition and pre verb dv-, iteratives such as 8%eaK£, formations such as 7ioXiT)Tnc, (but also itoXiv(\<$, and, a b o v e all, n u m e r o u s w o r d s a n d expressions: see note, djieiPeTo, djKpiTcoXoc,, dTpeicecoc,, KocTceAii;©, euxe, Qv^iaXyia ejrea, etc. T h e r e is also H o m e r i c influence in phraseology, as for example w h e n Syagrus replies to the pretensions o f G e l o n o f Syracuse ( V I I 159,

cf. / / . V I I 125) o r w h e n the Lydian king Pittheus replies to

X e r x e s ( V I I 28). (c) T h e Attic sector (justified b y the fact that Herodotus, w h o admired the city, resided there, cf. V I I 139, and b y the g r o w i n g confluence o f b o t h dialects). I have already discussed the contraction -ou, and I w o u l d have to add aspiration instead o f psilosis in oupec,, etc., voaeco beside vouaoq, s o m e particular rare duals, a contaminated f o r m such as Gcouua (from Ion, Gcoucc and A t . Gocuucc), the lexicon, for e x a m p l e , drcoXoyeouou, vauKpapoi, ooopoooKeco, ETC' auxocpcopq), KapaooKeco; and the inclusion o f tragic w o r d s , such as Seiuccioo), Spdjanua. This antic­ ipates not only the arrival o f Attic as a literary dialect, but also the creation o f koine. (d) T h e foreign sector. Being a traveller with an impenitent curios­ ity, H e r o d o t u s introduced w o r d s o f various origins: Egyptian (Tupco^ic, 'gentleman',

KDAATIGTIC,

'bread', KataxGipic, 'dress'), Persian (dyyapoc,

'post', aKivdicnc,, 'scimitar'), M e d i a n (GTcdica 'dog'), Scythian

(aG%u,

'a fruit'), Lybian (^eyepieq, 'hill'), Phrygian (Pexoc, 'bread'). H e was also familiar with various technical terms from the G r e e k dialects. 204,

W e must c o n c l u d e that Herodotus's dialect restricted epicism

m u c h m o r e than the previous literary language, that o f elegy. It fol­ l o w e d the path initiated in this respect b y i a m b o s a n d yet it d o e s not represent the totality o f the I o n i c language. W i t h i n it, there are less H o m e r i s i n g sectors, as represented b y s o m e o f the logographers a n d also medical writers, see §§ 205 ff. A s regards Atticism, Herodotus

140

CHAPTER

EIGHT

is associated with the g r o u p that introduced it in a m o d e r a t e way, within the cultural and political climate k n o w n to us, although

the

later tradition n o d o u b t reinforced this feature. Hippocrates, as w e shall see, inclined m o r e towards Attic. H e r o d o t u s represented real progress with regard to the construc­ tion o f the phrase within the so-called paratactic style or Xefyq eipouivn, w h i c h , for the earlier I o n i c literature, only rare examples

remain.

Y e t , for H e r o d o t u s w e c a n p r o v i d e a m p l e examples because his w o r k has b e e n preserved. In fact, there are entire volumes dedicated to this t h e m e , such as those o f G . Stinger E. Lamberts

1957 (epic elements),

1967 (parataxis), I. Beck 1971 (ring composition) and

D . G . Miiller 1980 (sentence construction in general). A d v a n c i n g o n a base o f parataxis, participles o f various construction, ring c o m p o ­ sition and constant reference to terms o f the p r e c e d i n g phrase,

as

well as a certain degree o f subordination, Herodotus's prose departed from the artificial m e t h o d s o f s o m e o f his I o n i c predecessors: the parallelisms, alliterations, etc. But w e should add that H e r o d o t u s was capable o f constructing a hypotactic p e r i o d where necessary: w e only n e e d to l o o k at the first paragraph o f his work, in w h i c h a main clause is followed b y a final clause organised into antithetic m e m b e r s . H o w e v e r , H e r o d o t u s never m a n a g e d to break with the traditional epic construction based o n digressions and constant changes in set­ ting. O n l y with T h u c y d i d e s w o u l d w e arrive at a c o m p o s i t i o n o b e y ­ ing a strict c h r o n o l o g y and

organisation.

But his organisation o f the paragraph constituted a break in w h i c h he was certainly following authors such as Hecataeus anticipated

and w h i c h

the break that w o u l d b e m a d e b y Attic prose at s o m e

point, surpassing G o r g i a n prose. T h e s e were the origins o f narrative a n d scientific p r o s e , in w h i c h the physicians, in addition to

the

philosophers and Sophists, p l a y e d an important role. W e will briefly refer to the physicians b e l o w , but the subject will b e dealt with in a separate chapter. The ancient Hippocratics 205. T h e case o f Ionic in the oldest writings o f the Corpus Hippocraticum, from the last part o f the fifth century B C , differs to a certain

extent,

but n o t in essence: fundamentally, w e are dealing with the writings On Airs, Waters, Places, On Ancient Medicine, On the Sacred Disease, Epidemics

IONIC A N D

141

ATTIC

I—III and Prognostic. T h e r e is a consensus o f scholarly o p i n i o n against the attempts o f editors such as K u l h e w e i n to c o m p l e t e l y Ionicise the language o f these treatises, and it is widely a c k n o w l e d g e d that the mixture o f I o n i c and Attic forms in the manuscripts is certainly due to s o m e extent to the authors themselves, although in this case t o o there is an increase in Atticisms in the

manuscripts.

F o r a general o v e r v i e w see, for e x a m p l e , R . Hiersche

1970, p .

188 ff. and A . L o p e z Eire 1984b, p . 338 ff. and 1992. Herodotus's epicisms are absent: forms without augment, iteratives in

-EOKOV,

f]V£iKa. W e find, though m o r e rarely, doublets based o n the preser­ vation o f forms f r o m earlier literature: there is meeiv beside Seircveiv (but m o r e rarely). T h e r e are also similar alternations b e t w e e n I o n i c and Attic forms (-oicn, - a i a i / o i q , -aic,; avv/^vv;

jne^ov/uei^ov; ovXoq

but oXoq; vovaoq but vooxco) and there are Attic forms such as eocuxov, Se^ia, etc. N o w , the degree o f Atticisation in the texts o f the ancient physi­ cians is greater than in H e r o d o t u s . T h e r e is m o r e contraction in -ei-, ouv, yovv (not obv, ySv), eOeoav (not forms with - K - ) , des. o f the 3rd pi. in -aai (before the type ieicu), G . pi. o f the 1st -iSv, noXvq and not noXXoq, dcTioSei^ic, (not -Se^ic,), jneyeGoq (not jneyaBoq), aparrv (not eponv), iepoc, is frequent, etc. S o m e n e w formations are based o n Attic, such as vocnuaa. T h u s , w e are dealing with the same m i x e d dialect that linked the triumph o f I o n i c with the g r o w i n g influx o f Attic, as seen in the inscriptions a n d in H e r o d o t u s . A . L o p e z Eire 1992 has studied cer­ tain passages in w h i c h I o n i c and Attic are closely related. As w o u l d b e expected, a few D o r i c elements entered: Ttoxi, ocuxoc,, auxov, etc. It is certain

that a standardised I o n i c prose was n o t

formed, but there was a clear shift from a pure I o n i c towards Atticised I o n i c . T h e last step was that taken b y Gorgias: the

an for­

mation o f an Attic language. But, aside f r o m the essential feature o f Hippocrates's language

-

a scientific l e x i c o n a n d a scientific c o m p o s i t i o n a l structure, w h i c h shall b e discussed later - w e find here for the very first time (given that o u r k n o w l e d g e o f the earlier I o n i c prose is incomplete) what R . Palmer 1980, p . 142 refers to as 'the first fully d e v e l o p e d prose style'. Its features d o not differ so m u c h f r o m those o f H e r o d o t u s : ring c o m p o s i t i o n , anaphoric recapitulations, o f parataxis, cf. O . Wenskuns 1982.

repetitions,

dominance

142

CHAPTER

EIGHT

In other w o r d s , in H e r o d o t u s and in the first Hippocratics, prim­ itive prose based o n alliterations, parallelisms and diverse figures o f speech was replaced b y a broader, essentially paratactic prose based o n ring c o m p o s i t i o n and continuous references to the future and to the past. This p h e n o m e n o n later o c c u r r e d in Attic, w h e n G o r g i a n i c prose, related to primitive I o n i c prose, gave w a y to the

extended

p e r i o d , whether paratactic o r hypotactic.

3.

THE

TRANSFORMATION OF THE A T T I C A

DIALECT

INTO

LITERARY LANGUAGE

Attic as an oral dialect 2 0 6 . A s w e have seen, a dialect to w h i c h w e refer as Ionic-Attic existed within southern Greek. A r o u n d the year 1000 B C , this dialect received s o m e isoglosses f r o m D o r i c . Its innovations, a m o n g w h i c h the m o s t notable is the shift from a to n, are from a later date. T h e shift f r o m -rjcov to -ecov and the metathesis o f quantity vnoc, > vecoc, are dated even later. But a certain

amount

o f isolation a n d differentiation

occurred

b e t w e e n the I o n i c o f Ionia, the I o n i c o f the islands, Attic, and the dialect o f E u b o e a . F o r e x a m p l e , this dialect did n o t convert u > u; w h e r e Attic contracted the vowels, I o n i c did not d o so. It did n o t lengthen vowels p r e c e d i n g groups o f sonant and d i g a m m a (^evoq, not i;eivoc,), it c o n v e r t e d - p a > -pp-, converted the a b a c k to n after p, t, e, a c c e p t e d B o e o t i a n - T T - for - G O - , etc. It maintained

(although

not without exceptions) peculiar forms such as ^6v beside G U V , eiq beside eq. Furthermore,

it distanced itself increasingly in the course

o f its internal history: it e n d e d up preferring (after initial hesitations) exq to eq, -oic, to

-OIGI,

etc. Indeed, in an older w o r k o f m i n e (Adrados

1953a~57) I thought I c o u l d indicate a series o f Attic

differentiations

in the lexical area. Attic was a species o f provincial I o n i c , with s o m e very special characteristics

w h i c h even the Atticist writers, m u c h later, w o u l d

avoid. Athens was a small city w h i c h only began to gain recogni­ tion a b r o a d with S o l o n a n d Pisistratus, a recognition w h i c h increased w h e n it f o u n d e d a d e m o c r a c y a n d liberated

itself f r o m

Spartan

influence; and especially w h e n it acquired an essential role in the Persian wars and, later, led the Maritime League, from 477 onwards.

IONIC A N D

143

ATTIC

F r o m this m o m e n t o n , Athens b e c a m e very closely related to the I o n i c w o r l d , so that there was a reciprocal influence between

the

two dialects: w e have seen h o w from the mid-fifth century o n there were Atticisms in I o n i c inscriptions and Ionicisms in Attic ones: I will elaborate o n this in § 2 4 3 . Koine was definitively formed: an Attic held together b y s o m e of* its m o r e peculiar characteristics certain

Ionic, pan-Greek

a n d even D o r i c features.

and with

After its

split,

Ionic-Attic underwent a n e w unification. Y e t , h o w e v e r politically important Athens m a y have been, partic­ ularly from the Persian wars onwards, and h o w e v e r attractive it was to the G r e e k intellectual w o r l d , Attic was not yet the language o f prose. Athenians such as Pherecydes wrote in Ionic: Attic was not yet 'salonfahig' as J. Niehoff-Panagiotidis

1994, p . 199 puts it (the­

atre is another matter, see § 209). Indeed, foreigners living in Athens and all those w h o wrote prose did so in I o n i c . As m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , they certainly w o u l d have spoken in Attic in the streets, just like Socrates and the orators at the Assembly and the tribunals, but they wrote in I o n i c : for instance, Pherecydes, D e m o c r i t u s , Protagoras presumably Leontini -

the rest o f the

and

Sophists. T w o foreigners, G o r g i a s o f

already m e n t i o n e d ~ and T h r a s y m a c h u s

o f Chalcedon,

put an e n d to this a n o m a l y w h e n they created Attic prose in the twenties o f the fifth century. H o w e v e r , this did n o t m e a n that Ionic disappeared entirely, for it was cultivated in the fourth century by the physicians M e t r o d o r u s d e C h i o s and

Ctesias, a m o n g

others,

although they w e r e in the minority. 207. O n the Attic dialect, see §§ 117f. and A. Lopez Eire 1984a, 1985 and 1987b; also, my early work o f 1953a~57 already cited. W e now have good descriptions on the Attic of the inscriptions: on phonology, the first vol­ ume o f L. Threatte 1980, A. Lupas 1972 and S. Theodorsson 1974; on morphology, see the second volume of Threatte, 1996. A. Lopez Eire 1994 provides a description o f the evolution o f Attic through the inscriptions. In addition, see A T h u m b - A . Scherer II 1959 (with many references). On vulgar Attic, see P. Kretschmer 1894 and W . Rabehl 1906 (the tabellae defixionis). O n the strata o f Attic, A . T h u m b 1974, p . 202 ff. and J. Niehoff-Panagiotidis 1994, p. 195. O n literary Attic, R. Hiersche 1970, p. 207 ff, 152 ff, V . Bers 1983, besides the monographic studies. E. des Places 1934 is interesting. O n double forms in Attic, see in particular A. Lopez Eire 1986, 1991 (Aristophanes) and 1984 (Thucydides). These double forms sometimes anticipate koine, see § 226 for their presence in Xenophon, the late Plato and in Aristotie.

144

CHAPTER

EIGHT

Sources 2 0 8 . F r o m what base did Gorgias and T h r a s y m a c h u s

make their

transcendental leap? O f course, from the normal dialect o f the period, filled with p o e t i c a n d intellectual influences, s o m e o f w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n very m u c h at hand and unavoidable in Athens. But, apart from that, there existed a written Attic that was spread o v e r three different sectors: (a) Inscriptions. T h e s e were usually official or, at any rate, written in a formulaic and standard language, although w e also encounter graffitti and different manifestations

o f vulgar Attic, as in the vase

inscriptions studied b y P. K r e t s c h m e r

1894. H e r e , w e find forms

used b y the l o w e r sectors o f the population, as well as b y foreign craftsmen. But it is important to note that, the m o r e elevated official o r pri­ vate inscriptions, despite their formalism, d o not display a unified language: they contain multiple variants, see for example the data o n doublets such as ec/eic,, ^ u v / a u v , -oior(v)/-oic,, -rjor/-ouc;, y e y o v a / yeyevrjucci, -vufxi/-vuco, eoouev/eScbicocuev, etc., and they only corre­ s p o n d to c h r o n o l o g y in part. All o f this is in a c c o r d a n c e with the variants f o u n d in various writers: for e x a m p l e , Aristophanes

and

T h u c y d i d e s (see the works o f A . L o p e z Eire referred to in the pre­ vious n o t e ) . But the inscriptions w e r e n o t very n u m e r o u s :

many

dialects w e r e used for epigraphic, n o t literary, purposes. (b) T r a g e d y . T h i s is i n d e e d a precedent: it is Attic i a m b o s (with cer­ tain H o m e r i s m s and Ionicisms) c o m i n g f r o m Solon, and even from Attic skolia. H e r e there definitely existed a literary Attic, a contin­ uation o f the literary I o n i c o f the i a m b o s : a language

definitely

intended to b e recited. M y theory (see, in particular, A d r a d o s 1983a), w h i c h is o f course impossible to argue in any great length here, is that certain mimetic and dramatic choruses, specialised in the mythic themes w h i c h were later referred to as tragic, had b e c o m e an itinerant spectacle w h i c h presented various themes: the m e m b e r s o f the chorus were o c c a ­ sionally transformed into actors and entered into dialogue with each other. T h e s e w o u l d b e the Doricising choruses that Thespis brought to the Panathenaea festivals, at the request o f Pisistratus in the year 534; with just o n e actor (a specialised chorus singer) in the beginning, w e are told.

IONIC

AND

145

ATTIC

T h e r e was n o fusion o f the D o r i c chorus a n d the I o n i c i a m b o s , n o artificial fusion o f two independent genres, as has sometimes b e e n suggested. In Athens, if o n e chorus singer o r actor a b a n d o n e d the 5

song (in ' D o r i c ) to recite iamboi (very few in the beginning, but m o r e w h e n two a n d then three actors were introduced) he w o u l d have had a obvious m o d e l in S o l o n . It was a great innovation. It is clear that an archaic Attic o f the sixth century, with p o e t i c influences, was used. I will p r o v i d e details later. (c) C o m e d y (perhaps earlier, in satyrical drama). T h e i a m b o s o f c o m ­ edy and I o n i c i a m b o s have the same spirit, b o t h having

flourished

in similar festivals. It is not surprising that in the festive pendant o f the tragedy that is c o m e d y , created fifty years later in 4 8 5 , iamboi were recited in the colloquial and, at times, vulgar style o f those fes­ tivals. It was a literary language w h i c h c o u l d adapt itself to various dialects: also to Syracusan, a n d in this case, to Attic. Indeed, w h y l o o k further afield for something that c o u l d b e f o u n d within? Y e t this was not a prose language but rather a p o e t i c language o f a col­ loquial kind. Characteristics 2 0 9 . It should b e stressed that this did not yet constitute prose as such, but it p r o v i d e d a base for those w h o w o u l d g o o n to create it. T h i s base consisted o f two different levels o r registers: the solemn and remote register o f tragedy and the colloquial a n d familiar (even vulgar) register o f c o m e d y . W h e n prose was created there was s o m e hesitation

a b o u t w h i c h register to follow: the hesistations w h i c h ,

after Gorgias, gave rise to the different literary levels o f Attic, as w e shall see. W e have seen h o w the choruses o f tragedy o n l y preserved a few remnants o f the traditional language o f choral lyric, and that they already displayed an Attic influence. G . Bjorck 1950 and particu­ larly R . Hiersche 1980, p . 147 ff., have stressed this. Y e t , the iamboi (and trochaic trimeters) o f tragedy are closer to the c o m m o n Attic language, although they are very distant from colloquial, n o t to m e n ­ tion vulgar language, displaying as they d o a distance

appropriate

to a religious language. I have discussed this in A d r a d o s 1975c. S o , the theories regarding the I o n i c origin o f tragedy's dialogue have not always p r o v i d e d us with valuable perspectives. I refer the

146

CHAPTER

EIGHT

reader to R . Hiersche, as cited previously, with regard to the issue 5

o f the 'elevated language o f tragedy, its p o l y m o r p h i s m , the influence o f epic language and the scarcity o f I o n i c elements. T h e fact is that w e are dealing fundamentally

with Attic. I have 5

p r o p o s e d (Adrados 1953a~57) that certain 'glosses and

anomalous

forms w h i c h are qualified as H o m e r i c or Ionic are simply archaic Attic, dating from the birth o f tragedy. W h y should a form such as -OIOT

b e necessarily H o m e r i c o r I o n i c , w h e n it is also present in Attic

inscriptions? W h y , t o o , should Beaunc, b e necessarily so, w h e n used by Solon, or

w h e n used b y D r a c o ? I have emphasised this

OCTEOIVOC,

point in the article cited previously, cf. A d r a d o s 1957, p . 116. N o d o u b t , these terms were later eliminated from Attic prose, but s o m e survived in p o p u l a r language and passed into koine, as p r o p o s e d b y A. T h u m b

1974. I believe in the 'subterranean

5

existence, so to

speak, o f a series o f w o r d s , often I o n i c at the same time, w h i c h w o u l d e m e r g e in the late Plato and in X e n o p h o n and w o u l d spread into koine; o r w o u l d otherwise enter it directiy. 5

This 'subterranean l e x i c o n is only a part o f conversational Attic, w h i c h w a s able to

flourish

in the tragedy,

the c o m e d y , a n d

in

T h u c y d i d e s , but was n o t admitted into Attic prose (or even the lit­ erary transcription o f the language o f Socrates). It undoubtedly formed part o f the great Attic dialect, w h i c h will b e discussed further o n , and then entered the koine. It is notable that part o f that lexicon was at the same time archaic, dating f r o m a p e r i o d in w h i c h the subsequent regularisation h a d not yet o c c u r r e d . F o r this reason, it h a d the prestigious allure o f high poetry, w h i c h was even m o r e reason for it to b e rejected b y prose. It also p r o v i d e d tragedy with a p o l y m o r p h i s m w h i c h was not only useful but also similar to that o f all G r e e k poetry. H o w e v e r , it is clear that certain Attticisms that were felt to b e provincialisms did n o t have prestige, as for e x a m p l e - T T - and -pp-, w h i c h tended to b e a v o i d e d in poetry. T h e language

o f tragedy,

b e i n g Attic, functioned in the w a y that all G r e e k p o e t i c languages functioned. T h e same applies with respect to the different syntactic features o f tragedy, also shared b y other poetry, w h i c h are also at the same 5

time Attic archaisms: the use o f n u m b e r (the 'poetic plural ), m o o d s without av, etc. C f , V . Bers A d r a d o s 1992d, p . 285).

1983 (and A

C . M o o r h o u s e 1982,

IONIC

AND

147

ATTIC

T h e p r o b l e m lies in the fact that the oldest tragedy dates from 4 7 2 , sixty years after the birth o f the genre. But the conclusion seems clear. Naturally,

the language o f tragedy e v o l v e d f r o m A e s c h y l u s to

Euripides, a n d was a b l e , . at times, to a d o p t colloquial tones

and

nuances w h i c h were m o r e o r less c o m p a r a b l e to those o f s o m e prose writers. T h i s has b e e n studied in Euripides b y P. T . Stevens 1976, but it was already referred to b y Aristode, Rhetorica 1404 b 24. Indeed, it is evident that the theatre, starting with tragedy, was a m o d e l for the oldest Attic prose and for Socratic dialogue. 210, T h e study o f the language o f c o m e d y encounters an even greater obstacle than that o f the tragedy: the oldest preserved c o m e d y , the Acharnians b y Aristophanes, dates from the year 4 2 5 and is c o n t e m ­ p o r a r y with the oldest prose. Nevertheless, Aristophanes is essential for the study o f the colloquial and vulgar registers o f Attic and its p h o n e t i c , m o r p h o l o g i c a l , lexical and syntactic variants; also, for the study o f the c o m i c resources o f the language. I have cited t w o works b y A . L o p e z Eire, to w h i c h I add another o f 1996a o n colloquial language in Aristophanes; and a b o o k b y A n a g n o s t o p u l o s (1923) as well as a thesis, published in a summary, b y E. R o d r i g u e z Monescillo (1975). Aristophanes ( w h o for us, in practice, is almost the sole repre­ sentative o f the c o m e d y ) was an artist in his use o f language, w h o used a p a r o d y o f different p o e t i c languages and dialects,

different

registers, and o f the p o l y m o r p h i s m that was permitted b y Attic. H e gave the use o f the latter such flexibility that he n o d o u b t s m o o t h e d the w a y for prose writers w h e n , rejecting the poeticizing rigidity o f a writer like Gorgias, they tried to a p p r o a c h the c o m m o n language and all its resources. T h i s was something n e w , without precedent in G r e e c e , but it should again b e stressed that Aristophanes reflected a p o p u l a r language that was not yet regularised in prose. 2 1 1 . This is the scene that the creators o f the Attic language e n c o u n ­ tered. O f course, o n e should not forget the k n o w l e d g e o f the Attic that was spoken in the Assembly and in the tribunals, as well as in the sophistic debates: although here, it seems, with the n e w resources o f the antilogical style and the n e w intellectual lexicon w h i c h passed into prose. T h i s is the Attic w h i c h is m o r e o r less accessible to us through the routes I have outlined; but also, although it m a y appear

148 strange,

CHAPTER

through

EIGHT

another route, n a m e l y through

Socrates: a c o m ­

parison o f the different Socratic sources makes his language acces­ sible to a certain extent, c f A d r a d o s 1992a. A l t h o u g h n o w I believe that not all his language is m a d e accessible: a certain degree o f defor­ mation b y Plato a n d X e n o p h o n , in o r d e r to adapt it to c o n t e m p o ­ rary prose, is highly plausible, although I believe very rare. T h e sources through

w h i c h w e k n o w Socrates (mainly Plato,

X e n o p h o n and Aristophanes) filter his ideas in different directions, yet this d o e s not apply so m u c h to his language, j u d g i n g b y the sim­ ilarities b e t w e e n them. For instance, they share the feature

o f the

dialogue, instead o f the m o n o l o g u e ; although n o t literary dialogue, such as that o f the Socratics, but rather a dialogue o f free c o n v e r ­ sation w h i c h j u m p s f r o m o n e topic to the other in cUfferent contexts. It is a colloquial language, avoiding b o t h the vulgar and the 'ele­ vated' style o f the Sophists, w h i c h Socrates p a r o d i e d

(particularly

the G o r g i a n i c ) . It is also a l a n g u a g e displaying a uniformity o f register. Socrates, as he himself tells us in the Platonic Apology (17), spoke in the same language that he used in the agora and the counters o f the m o n e y c h a n g e r s . A distinguishing feature o f his language is the question and answer m o d e l rather than uninterrupted discourse; also, paraenesis (the use o f the voluntative a n d imperative), exclamations, the constant vocatives with which he directs himself to his interlocutor; and there is not a lack o f emotional m o m e n t s . C o m m o n w o r d s are always used, comparisons and similes, ironic and p a r o d i c m o m e n t s , anecdotes, fables and myths, paradoxes. In addition, there is the use o f polite attenuation: its constant 'perhaps', its potential instead o f indicative, parenthesis with verbs o f o p i n i o n , the replacement o f assertion with interrogation, excuses, impersonal forms. A l m o s t invariably, w e are dealing with short phrases, with m i n o r hypotaxis; o n l y rarely d o e s a conditional lead the phrase, o r does a final clause c o n c l u d e it; clauses that are temporal o r o f another type are i n t r o d u c e d asymmetrically, as well as s o m e genitive absolutes. T h e r e are interruptions and

anacolutha.

T h u s , the language o f Socrates is very representative

o f the lan­

guage o f the street, and is n o t far r e m o v e d from m a n y passages b y Aristophanes. It n o t only avoids vulgarism, but also preciosity, p o e t icism, antilogy and l o n g hypotactic periods. It was the starting p o i n t o f educated conversation in Athens: colloquial spoken language, not

IONIC

AND

149

ATTIC

prose. But often his very m e t h o d o f discovery led h i m to d e v e l o p special uses o f c o m m o n w o r d s such as (ppovnaic; (the n e w Socratic virtue), £7ria£^o|iiai 'to take care of, o r o c c u p y oneself with , BepocTieia 5

'the care' (especially o f the soul), Ekey%(d 'refute, c o n v i n c e ' , e^era^o) ' e x a m i n e ' , etc. Beside this, there was vulgar Attic, w h i c h w e k n o w f r o m the lan­ guage o f the vases studied b y P. K r e t s c h m e r and referred to b y A . T h u m b - w h i c h was filled with haplologies, dissimilations, and other p h o n e t i c accidents (some anticipating koine, such as oXioq) and admitted m a n y foreign w o r d s . P s e u d o - X e n o p h o n , in the Constitution o f Atenas II 8, acknowledges this mixture. It passed into koine to a certain

extent.

T h u s , spoken Attic had set aside the literary Attic o f the i a m b o s ; and it was n o t unitary, for it contained different strata, o f w h i c h w e have little k n o w l e d g e . Attic prose largely maintained a series o f c o n ­ current forms. Indeed, it sometimes rejected Atticisms such as - T T 5

and accepted 'international ,

I o n i c and especially poetic phonetics,

m o r p h o l o g y o r lexicon. The oldest Attic prose 212. Socrates explored, he did not theorise: he was n o t tempted to write treatises. In fact, h e lived in a context o f oral literature p e c u ­ liar to Athens, w h e r e poetry was heard in the theatre, in banquets, schools; w h e r e the discourses in the Assembly and the tribunals were neither written n o r read; where a visiting foreign philosopher such as Z e n o (as recounted b y Plato in Parmenides 126 b - c ) w o u l d gather s o m e friends together to read them o n e o f his writings, and w h e r e w e are told (by Eusebius in his Chronicle I 78) H e r o d o t u s m a d e his History k n o w n through a reading. It is true that in this p e r i o d o n e c o u l d b u y a tragedy o r a b o o k b y A n a x a g o r a s , but it was strange to have a library, a c c o r d i n g to Euthydemus (cf. X e n o p h o n , Mem. I V 2, 1), and the fact that Euripides h a d o n e ( c f Athenaeus 3 A ) was considered s o m e w h a t eccentric. T h e orality o f Athenian literature and its taste for debate is related to its culture o f democracy, as I have shown in a recent b o o k (Adrados 1997a). It left its mark o n the later written literature: o n orations, discourses within history b o o k s , the Socratic dialogues, etc.; and, o f course, o n theatre. It also forms the base o f the first Attic prose, that o f the Sophists and rhetoricians.

150

CHAPTER

EIGHT

It should b e n o t e d that these Sophists and rhetoricians

represented

a n e w culture, the culture o f the b o o k . T h e y debated and dialogued, but they also tended to write discourses that w o u l d serve as m o d ­ 5

els, rhetoric 'arts and treatises o n theoretical themes. T h e y followed, as w e k n o w , the line o f the ancient philosophers w h o authored their o w n writings, and the physicians, all o f w h o m wrote in Ionic; they also followed the Sicilian rhetoricians C o r a x and Tisias (although w e d o not k n o w in w h i c h dialect they wrote). I n d e e d , they w e r e important for the continuation o f Athenian lit­ erature: for oratory, n o d o u b t , but also for historiography, in w h i c h T h u c y d i d e s was very influenced b y them; and for the T8%voci and various essays, from ' O n the C h o r u s

5

b y S o p h o c l e s to the

different

essays o r discourses o n the theme o f love in the Platonic Symposium. Socratic dialogue was the only purely Athenian genre, with its o w n singular

characteristics.

213. A s w e saw, I o n i c was also used in Athens in the beginning. W e have anticipated that in the twenties o f the fifth century Gorgias o f Leontini, an Ionian city o f Sicily, and Thrasymachus o f C h a l c e d o n , a M e g a r i a n c o l o n y in the Bosporus, were inspired both b y that lit­ erature a n d b y what the Attic o f Athens had to offer for the writ­ ing o f fictitious discourses, rhetorical 'arts Athenian

5

and treatises, all in the

dialect, Attic. T w o Apologiae b y Gorgias have b e e n pre­

served, that o f Palamedes and that o f Helen; fragments o f an Epitaphius; and the treatise On Not Being. H e also wrote s o m e works w h i c h have b e e n lost, namely, speeches such as the Olympian, Pythian, Eulogy of the Eleans and a rhetorical Art. A n o t h e r Art, also lost, was written b y Thrasymachus, to w h o m a treatise is also attributed, On the Constitution. In this context, the language o f these writings is o f interest: b o t h with respect to the p h o n e t i c and m o r p h o l o g i c a l characteristics

of

their Attic and to the figures o f speech and phrase construction, as well as to the l e x i c o n . A l s o , fundamentally, the language o f the epi5

deictic works, the ' e c o n o m i c . Gorgias and T h r a s y m a c h u s created a m o d e l o f Attic prose w h i c h different authors s o o n struggled to surpass, creating what I will refer to as the s e c o n d Attic prose. H o w e v e r , the first Attic prose, influenced certainly b y

figures

o f speech and other resources o f I o n i c prose

m e n t i o n e d a b o v e (§§ 197 f ) , includes Gorgias and b u t s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d , to s c h e m a t i s e

Thrasymachus,

s o m e w h a t , the

historian

T h u c y d i d e s , w h o o n his return to Athens from exile in the year 4 0 4

IONIC

AND

151

ATTIC

wrote in a style strongly influenced b y Gorgias in his youth. This prose also influenced the orator A n t i p h o n , w h o s e Tetralogies (fictitious discourses in w h i c h an accusser and defender take turns) clearly fol­ l o w the line o f Protagoras and Gorgias. T h e s e w e r e possibly writ­ ten a r o u n d the year 4 1 5 ^ c . But T h u c y d i d e s and A n t i p h o n , as well as the orator A n d o c i d e s , fought strongly to free themselves

from

Gorgianism: they constitute a kind o f transition to mature Attic prose, w h i c h in Lysias is decidedly anti-Gorgianic. F o r only in epideictic oratory d o G o r g i a n i c characteristics appear here and there. See, o n the genre, V . Buchheit 1960. T h e small treatise, with o l i g a r c h i c o v e r t o n e s , ' C o n s t i t u t i o n

of

Athens', dated before the Peloponnesian war, is n o t included in the first Attic prose: it constitutes a first, rather clumsy attempt, before G o r g i a n i c prose. Atticisms such as -TT- are present, and the

sub­

stantivisation o f the neuters in intellectual prose is still absent. Also, w e have not included the two writings b y the Sophist Antiphon, Concord and Truth (some papyrus fragments still survive o f the latter). His identification with A n t i p h o n the orator, d e f e n d e d a m o n g others b y W . A l y 1987, is dubious, just as the c h r o n o l o g y p r o p o s e d , a r o u n d the year 4 3 9 . Concord belongs to the epideictic genre and displays an Ionic-poetic language, with the - G G - and ^uv o f the first Atticism; Truth is m o r e Atticistic (-XT-, o i v , Attic vocabulary), but it follows the m o d e l o f the Presocratic treatises, with badly organised and short members. Nevertheless, these w e r e the first buddings o f Attic prose. T h e great transformation,

its actual creation, was really in the hands o f

Gorgias and Thrasymachus:

s o m e believe that, in the l o n g run, it

was m o r e in the hands o f the latter w h o , a c c o r d i n g to the Suda, introduced 'the current style o f oratory' ( c f J. D . Denniston 1970, p . 14). 2 1 4 . Let us n o w l o o k at s o m e o f the characteristics

o f what w e

regard as b e i n g the oldest Attic prose and the transitional prose. H o w e v e r , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d b e f o r e h a n d

that it contains

many

irregularities a n d n u m e r o u s doublets in its phonetics and m o r p h o l ­ o g y ; also, with r e g a r d

to

figures,

construction,

and

vocabulary,

there are differences between the authors. T h u c y d i d e s is a special case, in w h i c h elements o f the G o r g i a n i c tradition are c o m b i n e d with various others; similarly with A n t i p h o n . T h u s , it is better to treat them

separately.

152

CHAPTER

EIGHT

215. See in particular R. Hiersche 1970, p. 208 ff. and the books o f A. Thumb 1974 and J. Niehoff-Panagiotidis 1994 as cited; for the lexicon, see my articles Adrados 1953a and 1957. O n Thucydides, see B. Rosenkranz 1930, C. Roura 1971, F. R. Adrados 2003, p . 50 ff, O . Hoffmann 1973, p. 176 ff, J. Gaveney 1978, L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 152 ff A joint study is lacking, after that by E. Norden 1898; for Gorgias I can cite the (unpub­ lished) bachelor thesis of A. Duran 1966. The connections between the Gorgianic figures and those o f Heraclitus can be seen in G. Rudberg 1942; for links with certain magical texts, see M . Garcia Teijeiro 1988; for other influences, including that of Protagoras, c f G. Zuntz 1939. O n the figures themselves, cf. J. Martin 1974, p. 270 ff O n their place in the history of Attic rhetoric and literary language, see the books cited by V . Buchheit, W . Aly and J. D . Denniston. There are problems regarding the hesitations o f manuscripts and editors, along with problems o f interpretation: it has been customary to regard as Ionic certain forms which today are clearly seen to be archaic Attic, espe­ cially in Thucydides. 216. T h e great leap toward writing in Attic prose was not m a d e without concessions: actually, similar concessions were m a d e b y the tragedians.

T h e forms -xx- and - p p - o n l y rarely appear

in

these

authors, I o n i c and p o e t i c forms (or simply the general forms in the literary dialects) - G O - and - p a - dominating. T h e p o i n t was not to iso­ late the n e w literature t o o m u c h (which w o u l d not have b e e n a p r o b ­ lem for c o m e d y or, indeed, for m o r e recent Attic prose). Perhaps the desire to maintain the dignity o f the prose can b e seen in the p r e s e n c e o f a r c h a i c forms such as edv, £6v, ec,, ouveica,

eveicev,

rcaAxxioxepoc,, although these sometimes alternate with m o d e r n forms. T h e same o c c u r s with at least part o f the so-called p o e t i c v o c a b ­ ulary f o u n d in tragedy, p r o c e e d i n g from poetry as well as the archaic Attic base. T h i s was discussed a b o v e . In contrast, the proliferation o f abstracts in

-JLIOC

and -ore,, w h i c h

c o m e s f r o m I o n i c prose, is the sign o f a n e w age. Also, in particu­ lar, the 'figures

5

w h i c h I have discussed in this c o n n e c t i o n , w h i c h

attempt to c o m p e n s a t e for the lack o f verse. 217. Gorgias went further than the Ionians: his small periods (kommata) w e r e integrated

b y tiny units

(KSXCX)

organised in antithetic

pairs, linked b y an equal n u m b e r o f syllables (rcccpiGcocnc,) and e n d rhyme

(TCCCPOLXOIOOOTC,,

OLioioxeXeuxov). T h u s , a very artificial style c a m e

into b e i n g w h i c h was later rejected with the creation o f longer peri­ ods organised o n the basis o f hypotaxis. Aristotle (Rhetorica 1404 a

IONIC A N D

153

ATTIC

26 ff.) criticises G o r g i a s b y saying that prose is n o t the same

as

5

poetry. H e describes this style as ' p o e t i c ; n o d o u b t , the l e x i c o n c o n ­ tributed to this impression, as well as the continued use o f m e t o n y m y and metaphors,

alliteration a n d verbal e c h o e s . A p a r t f r o m this,

there is the artificial imposition o f a 'corset

5

w h i c h is antithetic to

its content. T h r a s y m a c h u s w e n t a step further with his use o f metric clauses at the beginnings and endings o f periods: p a e o n i c rhythms the beginnings and

( — a t

— at the endings), and also trochaics and cretics.

In fact, all o f later Attic prose g r e w out o f the modification o f the Gorgianic style and that o f Thrasymachus b y Thucydides and Antiphon and its critique b y later writers: Plato in the Gorgias 4 6 7 b , 4 7 9 c, Menexenus 235 a, Symposium 198 a ff.; Isocrates V 2 7 , I X 10, etc. N o t to m e n t i o n the criticism o f Euripides o f ' t o o beautiful

5

words and

b y Aristophanes against the y o u n g enthusiasts o f sophistry and Rhetoric in Clouds 961 f f , a m o n g others. T h i s criticism was justified b y the success that G o r g i a n i c rhetoric enjoyed for s o m e time. Isocrates and Aristode s h o w this clearly. Plato, for his part, reflects this success in small examples that he includes in his works: various in the Symposium, especially the discourse b y A g a t h o n ; the erotic discourse o f Lysias recited b y Phaedrus in the dialogue o f the same n a m e ; etc. Also, a b o v e all, it is clearly reflected in Plato's o w n criticism. 218. T h e Gorgianic and Thrasymachean

construction o f periods

r e m a i n e d important for A n t i p h o n and also left traces in T h u c y d i d e s . In particular, its a b u n d a n c e o f antithetic expressions, whether used in parallel o r oppositionally. S o m e t i m e s , it is a c c o m p a n i e d b y w o r d play, with an exploitation o f s y n o n y m y . H o w e v e r , T h u c y d i d e s is an entirely different case. Elsewhere, I have studied his main characteristics (Adrados 2 0 0 3 , p . x x x f f ) . H e does not display any c o m p l e t e p h o n e t i c o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l regularisation, he can c h o o s e archaisms o r Ionicisms (which are sometimes the same thing). T h e r e is a lack o f short and rhythmic periods and he has n o t yet acquired the l o n g and well-structured periods o f the later prose, w h o s e d e v e l o p m e n t c a m e later, d u e to his exile b e t w e e n 4 2 4 and 4 0 4 . His prose is full o f parentheses and anacolutha,

of

syntactic imprecision. It preserves archaic syntactic uses and, in par­ ticular,

exploits nominal expression: this c o m e s f r o m the

intellectual

154

CHAPTER

EIGHT

base o f his work, as does the proliferation

o f abstracts.

Certainly,

with s o m e awkwardness, his prose manages to construct periods, c h a r g e d with

extended

thought.

S o , in T h u c y d i d e s w e find the unification

o f particular Attic

archaisms, a flight from m o r e local Atticism, the influence o f the p e r i o d i c and antithetical style o f Gorgias and Thrasymachus, and an attempt to create n e w m o d e s o f expression adapted to the n e w thought and to the needs o f prose d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e antitheses, with s o m e exceptions, are a d d e d to the thought, not the reverse, as in Gorgias. T h e s e needs w e r e also felt b y a series o f writers w h o extended the intellectual lexicon o f Attic and created extended and c o m p l e x periods based o n hypotaxis used in a regular w a y w h i c h b e c a m e characteristic o f a n e w style, although there were differences between the various schools. A n t i p h o n himself introduced a n e w style in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the periods. Mature Attic prose 2 1 9 . A s p o i n t e d out earlier, T h u c y d i d e s and A n t i p h o n should b e regarded as authors o f a transitional prose that led direcdy to the great Attic prose style, w h i c h only really began to

flourish

in

the

fourth century. O n the o n e hand, this prose is decidedly Attic, with­ out any o f the concessions to I o n i c phonetics, m o r p h o l o g y and lex­ i c o n o f w h i c h w e have spoken. O n the other h a n d , it

gradually

renounces G o r g i a n i c trappings and even rhetorical pomposity, as well as vulgarism. It d o e s n o t always avoid colloquialism, but it has a 5

'written style w h i c h is essentially different from the oral style. This Attic prose was o p e n to evolution, w h i c h begin in the fifth century and lead to the formation o f koine. It is important

to n o t e that the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Attic prose is

closely related to the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Athenian literature and

the

spirit that inspired it. T h u c y d i d e s , to b e sure, was not after bril­ liance, but after a rigorous exposition o f the facts and a rigorous theory: w h e n h e p r o p o s e s that his w o r k is 'a posession for all time and not a competitive p i e c e to b e heard for the m o m e n t

5

(I 22), he

is, in effect, criticising the rhetoricians, Sophists and historians w h o aim to please with their mythical and poetical fantasies, whereas he is o n l y after the truth. T h e s e criticisms are shared b y Plato w h e n , in the

Gorgias, he

opposes p h i l o s o p h y and rhetoric, and in the Symposium, p h i l o s o p h y

IONIC

AND

155

ATTIC

a n d poetry: his Socrates searches for the truth b y means o f a dis­ course rid o f all artifice. This explains his criticism o f Gorgianism. Isocrates is n o clifferent w h e n he describes his stylistic evolution ( X I I 2) and offers his o w n criticisms (cf. § 217). H e is after sapheneia, clarity o f exposition, in w h i c h everything fits. But to return to T h u c y d i d e s , w h o was o n the same path. T h e r e is a d o m i n a n c e o f narration and argumentation in the

impressive

part o f the proems and epilogues in the same discourses, cf. F. R o m e r o 1988. W i t h regard to A n t i p h o n , G . Z u n t z 1939 has noted the d o m ­ inance o f the narrative and argumentative part over Gorgianic 'adorn­ 5

ments , and h o w for the former he d e v e l o p e d his o w n version o f the lexis eiromene o r a c o o r d i n a t i v e version b e f o r e the katestrammene o r hypotactic version; but always without a forced regularisation, and avoiding G o r g i a n i c schematism. Both in T h u c y d i d e s and A n t i p h o n w e occasionally encounter

a

lexicon w h i c h is rather I o n i c and poeticising, and w h i c h sometimes turns out to b e archaic A t t i c This w o u l d later b e rectified in a gen­ eral way. 2 2 0 . T h e Athenian spirit is responsible for three great literary inven­ tions

(besides theatre, w h i c h I have discussed): (1) T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f written oratory, mainly forensic

and

political in nature b u t also epideictic, with the purpose o f 5

persuasion (Gorgias's m o t o ) , although through a 'middle lan­ guage, as it were, w h i c h was neither vulgar n o r poeticising. (2) T h e creation o f the Socratic dialogue, w h i c h is k n o w n to us a b o v e all through Plato and X e n o p h o n . A l t h o u g h it includes mythical and rhetorical passages, it essentially raises spoken dialogue to the literary level. O f course, there are differences: there is true dialectic dialogue in the first p e r i o d , dialectic and

d r a m a t i c d i a l o g u e in the s e c o n d (Protagoras,

Gorgias,

Symposium, Phaedrus, Phaedo, etc.) and in the late Plato there is a species o f fictitious dialogue, in w h i c h the 'yes

5

o f the interlocutor d o not hide the fact that w e are

replies really

dealing with an expository treatise. (3) T h e creation o f a n e w history, w h i c h c o n t i n u e d the line o f the I o n i c histories but aimed for exact narration o f political and military facts, without mythical o r ethnographic excursi or digressions. Also, occasionally, discussing their interpretation.

156

CHAPTER

EIGHT

T h u s , the mature Attic prose was created, a n d it was d e v e l o p e d mainly in the fourth century, during a p e r i o d in w h i c h Athens was a secondary p o w e r and w o u l d s o o n b e c o m e a small city within the Hellenistic w o r l d . Despite this, a mature prose style d e v e l o p e d , dis­ playing an ingenious regularisation, w h i c h distances it from the c o l ­ loquial language o f Aristophanes and what remains o f it in Thucydides. U n d e r l y i n g the m o r e formalised p r o s e , a freer Attic was stirring w h i c h w o u l d evolve and give rise to koine, e x p a n d i n g throughout the Greek world. 2 2 1 . A few characteristics o f this prose: (1) T h e elimination o f the excessively vulgar a n d o f certain archaic forms, without r e n o u n c i n g the forms c o m m o n

to

Attic, w h i c h are not replaced b y the Ionic forms. EHmination, t o o , o f certain poeticisms. (2) A degree o f c h o i c e in the m o r p h o l o g y a n d syntax (in, for e x a m p l e , Aristophanes a n d T h u c y d i d e s ) , w h i c h renounces forms w h i c h often e m e r g e d later in koine (and even earlier, as m e n t i o n e d previously). (3) C h o i c e in the lexicon, t o o , w h i c h I studied in m y earlier articles: this ' p u r g e d

5

lexicon survived in the p o p u l a r lan­

guage a n d was reintroduced in koine. It was a 'subterranean

5

lexicon, e m e r g i n g at the e n d o f the Attic p e r i o d and in koine. Attic prose definitely distanced itself from conversational language: b y resorting to Ionicisms, poeticisms, rhetorical

figures,

etc.; and,

subsequendy, to various types o f choices. Cf. A d r a d o s 1981b, p . 314 ff. T h e r e is n o difference b e t w e e n the language o f the accused and the accusers in Lysias, a n d there is n o attempt to categorise them b y their l a n g u a g e (the same applies in the case o f Aristophanes

or

Socrates with respect to conversational language). In short, Attic prose maintained the distinction b e t w e e n literary and conversational language w h i c h h a d existed f r o m the beginnings o f G r e e c e itself, and in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods the same antinomy c o n ­ tinued. Similarly, in the m o d e r n p e r i o d , a distinction w o u l d b e m a d e between a katharevusa o r 'pure

5

language and a dimotiki o r 'popular

5

language. 222. O n the role o f prose within Athenian culture, I refer the reader to the works mentioned above (cf § 215) and especially my book o f 1997. For rhetoric, see in particular V . Buccheit 1960 and J. Martin 1974, as

157

IONIC AND ATTIC

cited previously, as well as O . A. Baumhauer 1986. O n the intellectual aspects o f Socratic and Platonic philosophy, see various works of mine col­ lected in Adrados 1992d; also, the book cited, Democracia y literature, en la Atenas cldsica, o f 1997. For the style o f Attic prose in general, the book by J. D . Denniston 1970 is very important. For the composition of the Platonic dialogues, c f a m o n g others, V . Goldsmith 1963, H . Thesleff 1967, P. Badenas 1984 (and my Prologue, Adrados 1984d). O n the rhythm o f Demosthenes, see D . M c C a b e 1981. O n the occasional impact of the col­ loquial language, see E. des Places 1934, in general; D . Tarrant 1946 and 1958, on Plato; compare also P. T . Stevens 1976, on Euripides. O n the composition o f Thucydides, see A. Momigliano 1930 (and my Introduction to my translation, Madrid 1984b). The bibliography on the language, style and composition of Attic prose is more scarce than might be expected. Histories o f the Greek language, such as those of O . Hoffmann, R. Hiersche and L. R. Palmer, abundantly cited here, go up to Gorgias, Thucydides and Antiphon, and later surprisingly jump to Xenophon. It should be noted that relatively little remains o f Athenian prose of the fourth century. It is true that a large part o f oratory has been preserved, but as far as history is concerned, we have only Xenophon and some frag­ ments o f Theopompus and Ephorus; so many others are missing. With regard to the Socratics, we are only left with Plato and Xenophon, and precious little of the other thinkers of the fourth century. Also, very little has survived o f comedy. Note that the latter as well as the historians and philosophers were not often Athenians at all, only the orators were. But Attic was the language o f prose: first in Athens, written by Athenians and non-Athenians, and later in all other parts. Variants within Attic prose 2 2 3 . T h e r e are e n o r m o u s internal differences in Attic prose, within the c o m m o n characteristics w h i c h have b e e n discussed. F o r instance, with regard to oratory, there is firsdy the style o f Lysias, in w h i c h the l o g o g r a p h e r has to adapt to the simplicity o f his clients, w h o are uncomfortable in the tribune; secondly, there is the style o f certain passionate, political discourses, b y D e m o s t h e n e s ; thirdly, the style o f the c o m p l e x o f the grand epideictic discourses b y Isocrates — the Panegyricus, Panathenaicus, Areopagiticus and the rest -

with their l o n g hypotactic periods, w h o s e clauses contain

others

like Chinese b o x e s ; their a v o i d a n c e o f the hiatus; and their clauses with p a e o n i c rhythm. 5

In certain passages - the 'climactic m o m e n t o f the discourse On the Crown b y D e m o s t h e n e s , o r the passage souls a n d

the

d i s c o u r s e b y D i o t i m a in the

o f the p r o c e s s i o n o f P l a t o n i c Phaedrus

-

the p o e t i c style can resurface in the lexicon, phraseology and the kola.

158

CHAPTER

EIGHT

In any case, n e w and subtle rules o f c o m p o s i t i o n - w h i c h the ora­ tor can break, as flagrandy demonstrated b y D e m o s t h e n e s in On the Crown with his s e c o n d narration

the possibility o f turning to the

colloquial or, in contrast, o f introducing rhetorical emphasis, as well as the possibility o f constructing rather elaborate periods, j o i n s in the service o f exposition, argumentation

and persuation.

Rhetoric

was at the centre o f Athenian life, and all literature (including the­ atre and history) was influenced b y it. Y e t only e c h o e s survive o f ancient G o r g i a n i c rhetoric. T h e same can b e said o f the Socratic dialogues, w h i c h transformed dialogue (with varying themes) into literature. I have pointed out that the Socratic dialogues c o u l d consist o f various elements

and

c o u l d b e divided into different subgenres, w h i c h is clearly d e m o n ­ strated in Plato. But there is always a pre-established

organisation

underlying their apparent freedom, leading to a conclusion. T h e dialogues o f the m i d d l e p e r i o d o f Plato's life - starting with the Protagoras and the Gorgias, towards the year 390 - gave rise to the dramatic dialogue, w h i c h can take the f o r m o f a c o m e d y o r tragedy. W i t h o u t g o i n g into t o o m u c h detail about its construction (I already cited the bibliography), I w o u l d say that w e are faced with a n e w genre in w h i c h the dramatic makes use o f prose expressions and in w h i c h the style is flexible a c c o r d i n g to need. H . Thesleff 1967 discusses Plato's styles. O f course, the colloquialism o f Socratic discourse, w h i c h I dis­ cussed, is o v e r c o m e , but this does not exclude the occasional pres­ ence o f colloquialisms as appropriate, cf. D . Tarrant 1946 and 1958. Indeed, w h e r e necessary (I referred to the Phaedrus above), the style c a n b e elevated without resorting to G o r g i a n i c artifice. Similar observations c o u l d b e m a d e with respect to history, had m o r e works b e e n preserved for us. I have discussed T h u c y d i d e s , although something should b e a d d e d with regard to his c o m p o s i t i o n , c f for e x a m p l e , A . M o m i g l i a n o 1930. A s regards his successors, w e are acquainted with the simplicity o f diction and compositional organ­ isation o f X e n o p h o n a n d the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, and perhaps also o f T h e o p o m p u s , whereas a m o r e rhetorical and moralising aspect is attributed to Ephorus. It w o u l d seem that, in this way, the two essen­ tial lines o f Hellenistic historiography were presaged. 2 2 4 . J. D . Denniston 1970 has p r o v i d e d us with a magesterial w o r k o n the multiple possibilities o f Attic prose and its supreme flexibility.

IONIC

AND

ATTIC

159

F o r instance, he looks at the different ways o f introducing abstract expressions; the use o f w o r d order, for emphasis and rhythm;

the

structure o f periods, whether strict o r lax, o r organised o n the basis o f antithesis o r hendiadys, containing repetitions, anaphoras, anacolutha and asyndeton; augmenting o r reducing the subordinates, w h i c h call for others, using genitive absolutes and predicative participles, etc. Short m e m b e r s d o m i n a t e within the periods. T h e aim is always towards clarity o f exposition and emphasis w h e n the author deems necessary. T h e c o n c e p t o f Attic, in c o n n e c t i o n to prose, is multiple, ranging from the elevated to the colloquial, the formally c o m p l e x to the apparendy casual, from the interminable periods o f Isocrates to shorter ones. Because o f this, the Latin orators c o u l d chose b e t w e e n Lysias and D e m o s t h e n e s and the subsequent Atticists c o u l d follow different models. In any case, the loosely organised periods as well as the artificially constructed periods based o n antithesis and assonance were discarded. Consequently, the well-organised but flexible p e r i o d d o m ­ inated b y hypotaxis c a m e into being, w h i c h was decisive for all sub­ sequent literary languages, starting with Latin. Attic prose was directiy o r indirectly the m o d e l for all later prose. 225. Emphasis should be placed on the variants o f Attic prose, within cer­ tain limits, and the existence o f doublets, as in any language, which the constant presence o f Ionians and other foreigners reinforced. This subject has been studied by A. Lopez Eire in three works (1986b, 1991 and 1996a) on Aristophanes and one work on Thucydides (1984c). This is very appro­ priate, for Aristophanes was colloquial and Thucydides was a pioneer o f prose; both precede the regularisation of written prose. Xenophon and the late Plato were both influenced by koine. A. Lopez Eire provides many examples o f certain Aristophanic forms which would later belong to koine. For example, the plural next to the dual, the voc. Ixpe\jria8e(; as though one were dealing with a stem in -s, diminu­ tives tending to replace the base word (ueip&Kiov, which required the cre­ ation of the diminutive ueipaicoXAaov), superlatives transformed into mere positives, the replacement of vavq &pf|v and 6pvi<; by rctauov, &uvo<; and opveov, ti as atenuant, etc. He also points out some coincidences in the syntax. Similarly with Thucydides, as mentioned earlier: A. Lopez Eire points out, among other things, the intense use of diminutives, the loss o f the difference between o<; and oatic;, the use of prepositional phrases instead of cases, the confusion of ei<; and ev, the use of the active voice instead of the middle voice, the loss of the resultative value of the perfect, temporal periphrasis with eivoti, the construction o f oxi with the infinitive, etc. I think that these doublets remained in use in Attic, although, later, one of the y

160

CHAPTER

EIGHT

forms would prevail in prose, while the other would surface in koine. O n the 'freedom' o f Thucydides, see also R. Hiersche 1970, p. 215. 226. In effect, I believe that w e are dealing with a somewhat artificial regularisation o f Attic prose, beneath w h i c h strong forces were stir­ ring w h i c h w o u l d e n d up creating koine. I will c o m e b a c k to this. H e r e , I w o u l d like to emphasise t w o important points: that at a cer­ tain p o i n t this regularity tended to b e broken and that this b e g a n to b e admitted: (1)

It is a well-known fact, after the w o r k b y L. Gautier 1911, that

X e n o p h o n is littered with non-Attic forms: not so m a n y with respect to phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y , but m a n y in his vocabulary.

They

tend to b e attributed to the agitated life o f the writer, warring out­ side Athens and subsequently exiled, a n d consist o f Doricisms and Ionicisms, as well as o f various hesitations and, a b o v e all, a lexicon foreign to the standards o f Attic prose. His p r o s e is often interpreted as containing Doricisms, Ionicisms and poeticisms, and s o m e w o r d s have also b e e n pointed out as being simply from koine (cf. for e x a m p l e , O . H o f f m a n n 1973). In fact, s o m e o f these w o r d s c o u l d also b e l o n g to the p o p u l a r Attic base to which I have referred. T h i s merits s o m e research. In any case, it is clear that X e n o p h o n anticipated koine, especially in his lexicon, whatever its origin. (2)

W h e n writing m y Estudios sobre el lexico de las fdbulas

esopicas

(Adrados 1948) I was able to confirm time and again the existence o f n u m e r o u s lexical forms o f koine in the last dialogues o f Plato, in Laws and

Timaeus in particular. This was used b y A . D i a z

Tejera

1961 for his study o f Plato's c h r o n o l o g y . A writer w h o was active for almost fifty years c o u l d n o t help but reflect the linguistic changes o f his p e r i o d . S o , w e have first-rate d o c ­ umentation o f the evolution o f Attic vocabulary in the direction o f koine, although

w e c a n n o t discard the hypothesis that, very

w o r d s f r o m this infra-literary origin to w h i c h I have referred

often, were

gradually generalised a n d in the middle o f the fourth century were eventually accepted into the literature.

IONIC A N D

4.

THE

CREATION

161

ATTIC

OF T H E SCIENTIFIC

LANGUAGE

The Presocratics 227\ T h e Presocratics - w h o wrote in hexameters and in elegiac dis­ tics from the sixth century B C onwards (and in I o n i c prose, from the same date) - were primarily responsible for laying the foundations for the creation o f a scientific G r e e k language. T h e philosophical and technical writings o f the Attic and Hellenistic periods w o u l d fol­ l o w . Indeed, whereas other languages, from Latin to the m o d e r n E u r o p e a n languages, created a scientific language that was essen­ tially a continuation, adaptation and expansion o f the G r e e k scientific language, G r e e k created a scientific language based o n the c o m m o n G r e e k language with all its bits and pieces. T h i s distinguishes it from all the w o r l d ' s languages. Y e t this is true, n o t only with respect to the v o c a b u l a r y , although this is perhaps the most fundamental

aspect, but also with respect

to the creation o f a prose capable o f linking ideas in a rational m a n ­ ner, and the creation o f scientific texts organised in a systematic w a y . T h i s was briefly discussed in §§ 197 ff. T h i s does n o t m e a n to say that the beginnings o f a scientific lan­ guage had not existed before o r h a d n o t e m e r g e d in other places: for example, in B a b y l o n i a for astronomy, o r in India for grammar. But in G r e e c e , things p r o c e e d e d in a m o r e systematic w a y and, most i m p o r t a n d y , a scientific language was created that w o u l d influence all o f later languages. T h e s e langages, as I have stated in various works, are a species o f semi-Greek o r c r y p t o - G r e e k , due to a series o f G r e e k terms used with the f o r m and sense o f the originals o r with others; or, indeed, used in translation through semantic caiques. W h e n w e say conciencia in Spanish (Lat. conscientia) o r Gewissen in G e r m a n , w e are in effect translating the G r e e k auvemncuc,. T h e cre­ ation o f this scientific language is inextricably linked to the creation o f different philosophical and scientific systems. In this chapter w e will l o o k at the origins o f this language in the I o n i c and Attic periods; it c o n t i n u e d to d e v e l o p in the Hellenistic p e r i o d , in the R o m a n p e r i o d and, subsequently, in the m o d e r n lan­ guages until the present day. Indeed, the Greeks constituted a m o n o ­ lingual w o r l d : thus, in creating their science, they h a d to express it in their o w n language, specialising and e x p a n d i n g it where neces­ sary. Naturally, this did not o c c u r all at o n c e . T h e Presocratics and

162

CHAPTER

Ionic-prose writers contributed

EIGHT

o n l y in the first phase, w h i c h was

i n c o m p l e t e and hesitant, and w h i c h later g r e w e n o r m o u s l y in Athens. 228. There is no global monographic study o f the Greek scientific language or o f its influence in the later scientific language: only partial studies of words, suffixes, etc. I refer the reader to Adrados 1997b, where I provide a general overview o f this topic, along with the most important bibliogra­ phy (my own works and those o f others) on the characteristics o f this lan­ guage; and to Adrados 1996b, a summary o f the role o f Greek in this respect. Data is provided in A d r a d o s - D . Lara (1998e) and A d r a d o s J. Rodriguez Somolinos 1995-96, on the treatment o f this vocabulary in the Diccionario

Griego-EspanoL

For the Presocratic origins o f this vocabulary, cf. in particular Adrados 1995b, which is followed here, as well as R. Hiersche 1970, pp. 182, 184 ff, 190. O n medical vocabulary, see § 232. For Heraclitus, cf. Adrados 1973a. Note that the new lexicon is not only derived from the new thought but is also better understood as a result o f the new thought. For the study o f the development o f the diferent suffixes, c f , in partic­ ular, P. Chantraine 1933 and 1956; there is a specialised bibliography for the various suffixes, based on E. Frankel 1910—12. A very complete bibliography o f the lexicon o f scientific Greek can be found in P. Boned Colera-J. Rodriguez Somolinos 1998. 2 2 9 . It is evident that G r e e k literature and

thought represent

an

authentic 'departure' in the direction o f rationality and science; par­ ticularly,

as m e n t i o n e d previously, in the hands o f the

Presocratics,

in verse o r p r o s e , a n d in I o n i c prose. It was a c c o m p a n i e d b y the linguistic revolution discussed earlier. Y e t , b o t h thought a n d language were based o n what h a d g o n e before: the poetic, particularly H o m e r i c language, o r conversational language. T e r m s , whether p o e t i c o r c o m ­ m o n , a c q u i r e d a n e w meaning; others w e r e also created b y deriva­ tion o r c o m p o s i t i o n . Characteristics o f this language include, a b o v e all, n e w t a x o n o m i e s and terminologies, n e w abstracts, a n d n e w lexical networks in w h i c h nouns, verbs, adjectives a n d adverbs c o r r e s p o n d to each other. T h e r e are

also other aspects o f the language,

m e n t i o n e d previously:

the

creation o f a scientific style a n d syntax and o f a w o r d c o m p o s i t i o n w h i c h is also characteristic o f scientific writing. T o return to the v o c a b u l a r y , the p r o c e d u r e s used, whether in iso­ lation o r in c o n j u n c t i o n ,

are:

(a) T h e specialisation o f the p o e t i c a n d I o n i c vocabulary. (b) T h e creation o f n e w terms for derivation o r verbal c o m p o ­ sition; this includes the creation

o f abstracts from neutral

IONIC A N D

163

ATTIC

adjectives o r adjectives with o r without article: A n a x i m e n e s , TO SIKOCIOV;

A n a x a g o r a s , xo Bepjuov; D e m o c r i t u s , xoc

KCCAXX, TO

Seov. (c) T h e creation o f systems o f opposition, whether

formalised

(containing one o f the two paired terms with d~, 8uc-,

CCDTO-,

etc.), o r not (the type eiui/YiYvoum, Y£veorc/(p9opd, |3ioc/0dvaxoq); this involves the existence o f synonyms o r semi-syn­ o n y m s in each term, as I have studied in Heraclitus

(nvp

-ev, d^uveToi -oc7C8ipov8(; -euSovxec,, taSyoc,-, uexpov-SiTcn). (d) T h e creation o f networks o f n o u n / a d j e c t i v e / v e r b / a d v e r b , as stated earlier. O f course, the Presocratics a d v a n c e d relatively little; there is a d o m ­ inance o f abstracts in -in o v e r the later ones in -uov, adjectives in -IKOC,

(characteristic o f the Sophists) are rare, their opposites and their

lexical networks were later sometimes continued and e x p a n d e d (or not, as the case m a y b e ) . In addition, there are deficiencies and dis­ crepancies a m o n g certain authors. 230. A s has b e e n p o i n t e d out, there is a tendency to use p o e t i c lan­ guage as a starting point, f r o m w h i c h changes in m e a n i n g are m a d e or parallel forms are created. S o , for instance, avcavuuoc,, Od. V I I I 552,

and dvonxoc,, H. Merc. 8 0 , w e r e given a philosophical m e a n i n g

in Parm. 8, 17 and 16; dvcbtaBpoc, ( A n a x i m a n d . 3) was created o n c

5

this base. OiXoxnc, and Neucoc,, 'love' and hate in H o m e r , were trans­ f o r m e d into c o s m i c principles in E m p e d o c l e s ; and K6CT|LIO<; 'frame' in Od. V I I I 4 9 2 b e c a m e ' w o r l d ' . T h i s c o n t i n u e d in H i p p o c r a t e s , w h e r e , for e x a m p l e H o m e r i c ' b l o o d o f the g o d s ' , was c h a n g e d into

ixcbp,

the

'serum'.

Concretely, the c o s m o g o n i e s and theogonies were a source o f inspi­ ration for the creation o f the n e w vocabulary: this is n o t

surprising,

since the investigation o f the dpxn o r 'beginning' o f the w o r l d was b u t a rational continuation o f the c o s m o g o n i e s and theogenies. In effect, the 'beginnings' o f the Presocratics w e r e in H o m e r the names o f the corresponding elements used in the c o m o g o n i e s ('water', etc.). Presocratic uses such as the drceipovoc yf|c, pd0ri o f E m p . 39, sprang from H o m e r i c and H e s i o d i c uses, in c o s m o g o n i c

passages

(77. X I V 2 0 0 and 301 rceipaxa ycanc,, a m o n g others) and from Trepaq, ocTteipOQ, drceipcov w h i c h indicate a lack o f limits; the substantivisa­ tion o f obteipov 'the indefinite' in Pythagoras and A n a x i m a n d e r was an advance.

164

CHAPTER

EIGHT

In the H o m e r i c passage cited w e also find yeveaiq: II. X I V 201 'QKEOCVOV

xe, Gecov yeveorv is n o d o u b t the source o f the use o f this term

in Parmenides, Aristophanes and Plato to indicate the 'origin' o f the 5

gods; and f r o m H o m e r w e obtain the later uses o f (pucuc; 'nature : in H o m e r the w o r d o n l y referred to the magical quality o f a plant, c f O d . X 303 and P. Chantraine 1933, p . 2 3 8 . T h e r e is a precedent in Pherecydes o f Syros, 3, with regard to xoc evavxia 'the

contraries'.

2 3 1 . M o r e clarity is n e e d e d with regard to the Presocratics, w h o inspired the creation o f lexical systems and meanings w h i c h were often maintained. We

should c o n s i d e r those that w e rather anachronistically

call

abstractions, such as the series o f semi-divine principles: earth (Irj), love ("Epcoc,), etc. A l s o , principles such as cmeipov o r A,6yoc, w h i c h function o n their o w n , are automatically included. T h e s e terms were in the vanguard o f the rich w o r l d o f abstraction o f later philosophies. A n o t h e r important p o i n t for the first thinkers was the unity o f Nature, M a n and

G o d . Certainly,

G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y and science

attempted to break this unity, but traces o f it remained in ancient time, and are reflected in the vocabulary. T e r m s related to the sphere o f h u m a n life passed into the sphere o f nature: for instance,

SIKU,

uexpov, voj^oq, used n o w to refer to c o s m i c law o r regularity. Inversely, a natural o r physical term such as

KOGUOC,

entered

the

h u m a n sphere. It s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d out that the scientific v o c a b u l a r y o f the Presocratics was achronical. Its principles, o r dp%a{, refer to atemp o r a l realities: xd evavxia 'the contraries', xd ovxa 'being', xo 0ep^6v 'heat', etc. In Heraclitus, A-oyoq refers to b o t h a structural, organi­ sational l a w o f the universe a n d a law o f evolution. A n o t h e r p o i n t w o r t h considering is that in the Presocratics cer­ tain w o r d s were still m i d - w a y (depending o n the passages) between a mythico-religious and a philosophical conception. T h e w o r d avdyicn refers to necessity, e x p e r i e n c e d as a religious force, but also to nat­ ural law (Hdt. II 22) a n d physical o r logical necessity (Parm, B 8, 30; 10, 6; E m p . B 15, 1). T h e w o r d vouoc, means divine law (Heraclit. B 114), but also (in the same text) the law o f the city. O n the other h a n d , the lexical networks discussed (oppositions, c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s between different classes o f words) c o u l d b e i n c o m ­ plete in the Presocratics: o n l y Plato, Aristode and the philosophers c o m p l e t e d them.

Hellenistic

IONIC

AND

165

ATTIC

Y e t there is a serious p r o b l e m : sometimes, uses w h i c h are absent in the B fragments (the literal ones) appear in the A fragments, w h i c h are mainly citations in the source language but c o u l d also often b e faithful transmitters o f the original text. F o r example, the philosophical use o f 8iapeco, Siaipeorc, ('lp distinguish', 'distinction') appears in Plato a n d Aristotle, but h a d also a p p e a r e d earlier in the A fragments o f Leucippus, Parmenides, E m p e d o c l e s , Archytas, etc. T h e r e f o r e , cer­ tain doubts exist regarding the history o f the scientific vocabulary. 2 3 2 . T h u s , the n e w v o c a b u l a r y offers various possibilities: (a) S o m e t i m e s it only represents a semantic specialization o f the o l d meaning: ccicov 'eternity',

a i a B d v o u a i 'to perceive with

the senses', yiyvouai 'to evolve', xd ovxa 'being', cpuorc, 'nature', etc. I have already m e n t i o n e d Oxk6xr\q

a n d NeiKoc,, 5iicn,

vouq, vouoc,, etc. (b) N e w terms

are created, as e x p e c t e d : frequently,

they

are

derived forms (with prefixes o r suffixes) o r substantivisations. For instance, drceipov 'the infinite', the principle o f A n a x i ­ m a n d e r ; cf. m o r e details in A d r a d o s 1995b, p . 15. O r , n e w w o r d s such as aioGnorc; (Anaxag. B 2, D e m o c r . B 9), in addi­ tion to those already cited, oify\aiq

(Parm. B 1, 3 2 ; 4, 2),

v o n u a ( X e n o p h . B 2 3 , 2; Parm. B 16, 4 ; E m p . B 105, 3; e t c ) . Sometimes, as mentioned previously, doubts exist regard­ ing the date o f n e w formations such as Siaipeaic, O c c a s i o n a l l y , b o t h the adjective a n d

noun make

their

a p p e a r a n c e in the Presocratics for the first time: for e x a m ­ ple, dxojxoq 'indivisible', dxojuov 'the indivisible'. (c) Irregularities

survive, as e x p e c t e d ; s o m e related to different

uses b y the different authors, others related to different sys­ tems. F o r e x a m p l e , A n a x a g o r a s o p p o s e s vouc, to i)A,T|, X e n o phanes o p p o s e s di\iaq to vonjia (and likens vouc, to (pprjv), the n e w a n d multiple oppositions o f Heraclitus are well d o c ­ u m e n t e d , as well as Parmenides' c o m p a r i s o n o f (ppoveiv a n d eivou. T h e Presocratics ushered in the start o f the G r e e k philosophical lex­ i c o n , w h i c h , o n the o n e hand, w o u l d b e c o m e simplified, a n d o n the other hand, w o u l d b e c o m e specialised a n d w o u l d proliferate. Its roots c a n b e f o u n d in the p o e t i c a n d in the I o n i c language. T h e n u m b e r o f substantivisations

o f the neuter adjective (with o r without article)

166

CHAPTER

EIGHT

w o u l d increase, as w o u l d the abstracts created b y means o f a famil­ iar series o f suffixes. A m o n g them, -in, -jnoc, -cue;, H o m e r i c and Ionic suffixes, establish their presence in the n e w terminology, and -uoc, is preferred b y the physicians. T h e diffusion o f adjectives derived from nouns is still relatively small. The Hippocratics 233. In Herodotus and Hippocrates we come across the same tendencies which advance the cultural lexicon o f Greek, particularly the scientific lex­ icon. But it is the work o f the latter author in particular that we should study; that is, the Hippocratic treatises considered to be older. The dis­ cussion by R. Hiersche 1970, p. 190 is useful, along with works specially focused on Hippocrates, such as those by G. Maloney 1980, P. Fabrini and A. Lanni 1979, J. Irigoin 1980 and 1983, D . Lanza 1983, J. ZaragozaA. Gonzalez Senmarti 1989, C. Despotopoulos 1986, G. Santana 1991, A. Lopez Eire 1992. Other works regarding medical lexicon in general are also importantant, such as those of N. van Brock 1961 and F. Skoda 1988. For the composition o f the treatises, the best work is by D . Lara 1984. The book by van Groningen 1958, p. 247 ff. and the article by A. Bernabe are also useful. 2 3 4 . T h e Hippocratics, starting with the first ones, created a spe­ cialised m e d i c a l l e x i c o n . T h e lexicon d e v e l o p e d with the specialisa­ tion o f H o m e r i c w o r d s , and o f c o m m o n I o n i c o r Attic ones: w e have seen that these authors used these dialects simultaneously. T h u s , in the first H i p p o c r a t i c treatises, 7cd9r|, 7rd6r||na, o r rcdGoc, refer to ' c o n ­ ditions': the first t w o w o r d s are I o n i c and appear in H e r o d o t u s , but with the d o u b l e m e a n i n g o f ' c o n d i t i o n ' and 'suffering' (in Aristoteles, rccc0r|uceTa is later 'passions'); the third w o r d is Attic. S o , there are various sources and a specialised treatment; as w h e n , for instance, epic and Ionic vouaoc, coexist with the n e w forms vocrnpoc, and voorjua, created o n the Attic base voaoq. T h e r e is an interesting study b y N a d i a van B r o c k 1961 about the specialisation o f m e d i c a l terms from the H o m e r i c l e x i c o n , preferring irjTpoq rather than irjifip, for example, giving Gepomeuco specialised uses, e t c T h e m e d i c a l language is the first specialised scientific language, although it naturally followed existing paths and operated within ten­ dencies w h i c h were in turn followed b y the rest o f the scientific lan­ guages later created: there was n o interruption in medicine o r in any o f the other fields. It is worth noting the study b y F. Skoda

IONIC A N D

167

ATTIC

1988 o n h o w m e t a p h o r was used in a conscious w a y to create a n e w medical and anatomical lexicon. 235. In parallel, medicine was the first science to create its o w n lit­ erary instrument: the scientific treatise. Its precedents can b e

found

in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f didactic poetry, w h i c h I have studied in H e s i o d (cf. A d r a d o s 1986c): a p r o l o g u e w h i c h looks forward to the content is followed b y parts that m o r e or less respond to it, but with notable i n c o h e r e n c e s a n d digressions, although

unified b y the

continuity

p r o v i d e d b y the ' e c h o ' o f key w o r d s . T h e presence o f maxims is important. This prologue somewhat followed the m o d e l provided b y Parmenides and, as far as w e k n o w , Heraclitus, w h o s e p r o l o g u e is k n o w n to us but was n o d o u b t disfigured through

the m a n n e r

in w h i c h he is

cited: w e are nearly always p r o v i d e d merely with isolated maxims. In the literary c o m p o s i t i o n o f these authors, A . Bernabe 1979 sees a great influence o f epic and poetic models and, a b o v e all, o f g n o m i c literature; although I believe that this latter aspect has b e e n exag­ gerated b y o u r transmitters. S o , the first H i p p o c r a t i c treatises, followed later b y the

others,

offer schemes w h i c h , although still imperfect, are m u c h closer to the later scientific treatises. T h e y contain a p r o l o g u e , a nucleus, and an epilogue, w h i c h are all somewhat differenciated. T h e r e are p r o c e ­ dures in place to distinguish

them.

T h e p r o l o g u e anticipates and, occasionally, indicates the organi­ sation o f the nucleus into various parts; the epilogue summarises and provides advice. T h e nucleus o r its parts b e g i n with clear exposi­ tions, w h i c h at times b e c o m e unthreaded and are centered o n details o r examples. T h e r e w e r e clear procedures for articulating all o f this through formulas for o p e n i n g and closing, a n d ring c o m p o s i t i o n (cf. the reference in § 203 to the b o o k b y O . Wenskuns

1982); and

sometimes it is simply the content that establishes the divisions. 5

All o f this influenced the %£%vax o r diverse 'arts o f the fifth cen­ tury, in sofar as they are attested today; in turn, these c o u l d also exert s o m e influence. T h e treatises o f the Hellenistic and periods were also influenced, as I m e n t i o n e d

Roman

earlier.

It is n o t surprising that w e should encounter p r o b l e m s here regard­ ing c o m p o s i t i o n . After all, literary units are linguistic units, w h i c h are the most subjective and adaptable. T h e n e w m o d e l s m a d e their first appearance in I o n i c and later in Attic, a n d they w o u l d have a

168

CHAPTER

EIGHT

great success in the later literatures. A scientific lexicon, a coherent syntax with l o n g periods and literary c o m p o s i t i o n g o h a n d in hand in the creation o f the n e w educated language — particularly in phi­ l o s o p h y a n d science, w h i c h w o u l d serve as the m o d e l for all the later ones. Attic literature 236. T h e same tendencies were carried over into Attic literature philosophy, primarily, but certainly not exclusively. A s m e n t i o n e d previously, even Socrates, w h o b y definition used the colloquial lan­ guage, created specialised w o r d s such as
KOCXOC,

and Sucocioc,; a generic mean­

ing o f desire o r search was created for epooc,; n e w meanings were created for ei8oc,, (Sea o r Kvvnaic, or, in Aristode, for Kaxnyopia o r opyavov. W o r d s a n d meanings that have b e e n transmitted to all o f the languages o f the w o r l d . T h e s e c o n d phase constitutes the creation o f n e w terms, such as, in Aristotle, £0IK6<;, zvxeXexeia

o r Kivrijiia, w h i c h have had

substan­

tial success. W h e n in Spanish w e speak o f organo, entelequia, categoria, especie (and its derivatives) w e are still speaking in Aristotelian terms. A t times, these authors have c o m p l e t e d lexical networks, although, as w e have seen, there is sometimes d o u b t as to whether Plato is the creator o r whether the A fragments o f the Presocratics reflect a n e w kind o f use. In any case, oppositions such as \j/u%f)/ao)jLia, Ccorj/ Gdvaxoc,, uXn/vouc,, yiyvwaKco/aioGdvojiai, £7iiaxf|jir|/xe%vr|, euTieipia, which still dominate thought and the c o m m o n lexicon (sp. alma/cuerpo, vida/muerte, materia/ espiritu, conocer/percibir, ciencia/ arte, empiria) were only consolidated from this date o n w a r d s , although there w e r e earlier precedents.

169

IONIC A N D ATTIC

This study o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Attic l e x i c o n is not c o m ­ plete. But w e c a n obtain m u c h information f r o m the progress o f the different suffixes: o n the o n e hand, from those that create abstract w o r d s (alongside the other system, w h i c h consists in the abstract use o f neuter adjectives, with o r without an article); o n the other hand, from those suffixes that derive adjectives f r o m nouns, adverbs from adjectives (frequently, w e are dealing with ancient plural neuters or forms in -CGC,), verbs from nouns a n d nouns from verbs, creating the lexical networks to w h i c h I have referred w h i c h enable a free c o n ­ struction o f the phrase. Sometimes, different suffixes introduce possibility o f different

g r o u p s o f m e a n i n g in the

noun and

the in

the verb. It should b e n o t e d that it was not just the philosophers ( w h o e x p a n d e d the l e x i c o n o f the I o n i c philosophers), but also Attic prose in general w h i c h diffused these models, although they w o u l d finally end up being used b y the Sophists and, later, the philosophers. T h e Hellenistic language w o u l d follow the same path. 237.

It is curious to study (in P. Chantraine 1933, for example) the

d e v e l o p m e n t — in I o n i c a n d later in Attic, especially a m o n g

the

philosophers - o f the different suffixes o f abstract nouns o r nouns o f action in -(a, -org, -oc,, -uxx, -auvn, -TUT-, etc. Sometimes these suffixes have values w h i c h are practically s y n o n y m o u s (7id9r|u<x and TCOCGOC,,

tions

aTro^oynucc and a7roA,oyioc); sometimes they offer clear o p p o s i ­

(SCSayuxx and SiSa^xc,, noir\\ia and Tiovnaic,; result a n d action).

T h e poets preferred - o w n , the philosophers -TUT-, a n d the physicians -one, to designate diseases o r their symptoms. T h e most d e v e l o p e d suffix - adjectival, naturally, although it c o u l d o f course b e substantivised/nominalised -tooKoc,,

-TIKOC,, - I G T I K O C ;

— was -IKOC,, followed b y

a suffix that was hardly used b y H o m e r but

was very p o p u l a r a m o n g the y o u n g disciples o f the Sophists; see the well-known passage b y Aristophanes, Knights 1 3 7 1 - 8 1 , where he intro­ duces a classification, a ' b e l o n g i n g t o ' list, as it were; it f o r m e d the r

basis for the systems, still surviving today, o f -OC/-IK6C,, -IGUTJC,/ -ioTr|c/ -IOTIKOC,

T h e use o f the suffix grew enormously in Herodotus and Thucydides (ayobv yujuviKoq, jnouaiKoq/papPapiKoq/TA-A.riviKoc;); in Plato it appears no less than 3 9 0 times. It is worth noting the use o f substantivisa­ tion in -Hen to n a m e sciences and techniques, as well as the use o f adjectives derived from adjectives (eA.euOepoq/eXeuOspioq/eX.euOepiKoq).

170

CHAPTER EIGHT

T h e suffix was destined for great success: in the Reverse Index o f G. D . Buck and W . Petersen there are 4,627 examples (and examples o f

-IOCKOC,).

156

I will discuss its diffusion in Latin further o n .

T o d a y , it dominates in all languages. Example of a lexical system 238. Perhaps the clearest way o f illustrating the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the intellectual vocabulary o f G r e e k - from H o m e r to the

Presocratics

and I o n i c , f r o m the latter to Attic and, subsequently,

Plato

and

Aristotle, to arrive at late Hellenistic G r e e k - is b y resorting to the e x a m p l e o f a root's derivatives. H e r e , I shall p r o v i d e a brief descrip­ tion o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the derivatives o f the r o o t o f vooc,, voeco. O n l y five forms appear in H o m e r : the verbs voeco and Tipovoeco, the nouns vooc; and vor||na, and the adjective avooq.

W e should also

a d d dvorjToc, in H. Merc, and d v o i a in lyric. F r o m here, there is a superb d e v e l o p m e n t in two paths that c o m p l e m e n t each other: (a) W i t h the help o f various prefixes, the main ones being d-,

duxpi-,

dva-,

dm)-, 5ia-, Sua-, eK-, ev-,

Ttepl-, TipO-, TtpOG-,

U7C£p-,

erci-,

raxa-,

7capa-,

U7T-0.

(b) W i t h the help o f derivative elements w h i c h tend to f o r m a network in w h i c h various nouns c o r r e s p o n d to various verbs and adjectives, and to these, various adverbs. Aside from these forms (in -ox; o r adverbial neuters, o r in -ei), w e have the case in w h i c h the v e r b voeco corresponds to the nouns vooc;, vorjLra a n d vofjcuc, (these are simple, the derivatives o f the former are adjectives); vonTriq, simple o r c o m p o u n d ; only c o m p o u n d s -vonora, -voice. W i t h regard to the adjectives, there are vooc; c o m p o u n d forms (avoocj, etc.), f r o m vonLta w e obtain vorjucov; and the following are also related (with the verb too): vorjToq (and dvonToq, etc.) and voepoq; from the first w e obtain

VOT]TIK6CJ,

and from vonuec,

VOULUXCIKOC,.

With

regard to the verbs, in addition to voeco (and its c o m p o u n d s ) , there is dvontaivo) and dvonxeo). T h i s network is irregular and not absolutely symmetrical with all the preverbs; it gradually reached its c o m p l e t i o n after the H o m e r i c a n d lyric periods. S o m e forms w e r e in turn a b a n d o n e d ,

such

as

dvorijuoov (only in Democritus). T h e r e were various types o f devel­ o p m e n t . T h e s c h e m e is as follows:

IONIC

AND

171

ATTIC

(1) Horn., the lyric poets a n d all prose: cases previously cited from H o m e r , H. Merc, a n d lyr. (dvonxoc, a n d dvoioc). (2) Presocr., PI a n d Arist.; for example voepoc, a n d vonxoc,. (3) Ionic prose, Attic, PI and Arist.: Sidvoux, SiavorjjLia, Siavonorc,, rcapdvoia, Kpovoia; evvoeco, ejuvoea); raxocvoeco, \movoeco. (4) Attic, sometimes in G o r g . and Antiph., in addition t o P. and Arist.: evvoioc, emvoicc, ouavoioc, uicovoia; 8uavooc, (not in Arist.). (5) D i o g . A p o L , PI, Arist.: voncuc;; Siotvoeco. (6)

PI, Arist.:

evvoricuc,, KaxavorjLxa (Epin.),

KOCXCCVOUGIC;,

7iepivoia

(Ax.); SiavouTiKoq; 7iapavoeco, dvonxaiva). (7) Arist.: eicvoioc, evvoonua,

VOTJXIKOC,,

Sxavonxoc,.

T h e great v o l u m e o f Hellenistic a n d late vocabulary, o r only late, should b e added: for e x a m p l e , adjectives in -vouc, are Hellenistic o r late: eKvouq, duxpivouc,, nepivovq; -vofjLrcov, -vonxiKOC, a n d

as w e l l as m a n y adjectives i n

-vonuccTiKoc,; nouns in

-vonai<;, -vonxfj^; the

verbs dvonxeuco, dvonxeco; etc. T h u s , this c o m p l e x l e x i c o n w a s gradually created,

introducing

classifications in the n o u n (abstract, action, a n d agent nouns) a n d other c o r r e s p o n d i n g classifications in the adjective, subordinating all o f this to the other classification introduced f o r the preverbs. T h e successive periods o f the Presocratics, o f I o n i c a n d Attic prose, a n d the different philosophies are clearly displayed. Conclusion 239.

S o , Ionic-Attic clearly created a prose capable o f expressing

everything related t o thought, its process a n d organisation, with the help o f a specialised v o c a b u l a r y a n d a syntax in w h i c h hypotaxis dominates. T h e most important thing t o r e m e m b e r is that w e are dealing with a n o p e n , flexible language, capable o f increasing o r modifying its l e x i c o n a n d syntax t o the needs of the w h o l e intellec­ tual a n d scientific universe. Indeed, it achieves this without rigidity, w h i c h makes it possible for the c o m m o n m a n to follow all o f sorts o f specialisations and lines of thought, with extremely b r o a d nuances and possibilities.

PART T W O

FROM KOINE T O THE PRESENT

CHAPTER ONE K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R L A N G U A G E S

1.

ORIGIN,

DEFINITION A N D LEVELS

2 4 0 . Attic prose at s o m e point j o i n e d the ranks o f the literary lan­ guages that b e l o n g e d to a literary genre, w h i c h is exactly what was occurring in the other literary languages o f G r e e c e d e s c e n d e d f r o m the H o m e r i c language. This literary language was not identical to spoken Attic. Attic was used in inscriptions to the same extent

as

the other spoken dialects, also, like Syracusan, for the dialogue o f c o m e d y and, o f course, for the dialogue o f Socrates and his inter­ locutors in the streets and plazas o f Athens. But here w e c o m e across something that is n e w and original: it was not just literary Attic that was diffused across the entire G r e e k w o r l d as almost the unique language o f prose (Ionic a n d D o r i c prose, exceptionally, continued to exist for a time), b u t also spoken Attic, w h i c h was diffused throughout Alexander's empire, to b e g i n with, and later b e y o n d it. In s o m e cases, the Attic was, o f course, rather modified and was s o m e w h a t split u p into variants. This Attic is customarily called koine, C o m m o n Greek. T h e term is ambiguous: here it is used to refer to C o m m o n G r e e k as a w h o l e , with its p o p u l a r o r conversational (sometimes vulgar) and literary variants. F r o m the beginning, reciprocal influences and relations were established b e t w e e n these variants: the first filtered o r a v o i d e d certain features o f the s e c o n d , w h i c h rejected features o f the p o p u l a r variant but was subjected to its influence. Both underwent fragmentation evolution: w e shall consider them

or

separately.

O f course, b o t h variants have m a n y elements in c o m m o n , although neither is unitary. Conversational o r popular koine was always a s o m e ­ what Ionicised Attic, rather e x e m p t f r o m the regularisations o f prose; a n d rather submitted

to a process o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l simplification

and p h o n e t i c and syntactic, as well as lexical, evolution. Literary koine approaches it but it is m o r e influenced b y Attic prose, and this literary influence g r e w with time. H e r e w e definitely find the roots, as established l o n g a g o b y N . Hatzidakis and K . K r u m b a c h e r , o f

176

CHAPTER

ONE

the two m o d e r n G r e e k languages, the dimotiki o r 'popular

5

language

5

and the katharevusa o r 'pure language, to which I have already referred. 2 4 1 . This oaffusion o f a written but also spoken language, w h i c h unified vast areas formerly o c c u p i e d b y various dialects, is something new, although the g r o u n d w o r k was prepared,

as m e n t i o n e d previ­

ously, b y the earlier literary languages, especially Ionic (whose diffusion had b e e n , in turn, prepared b y the c o m m o n o r literary languages o f poetry). This process o f universal diffusion can be explained b y historical circumstances, starting with the creation o f the Athenian

Maritime

L e a g u e in 477 B C (and the s e c o n d L e a g u e in 377 B C ) . T h e k i n g d o m o f M a c e d o n i a , the empire o f Alexander, the kingdoms o f the Diadochi, the Aetolian and A c h a e a n Leagues, together with other alliances o r h e g e m o n i e s , required c o m m o n languages. T h e main language, nat­ urally, was the Ionic-Attic koine that w e have b e e n discussing, but it was not the o n l y language. T h e r e were various D o r i c koinai, m o r e o r less established: that o f the east o f the A e g e a n (with a centre in R h o d e s ) , that o f the G r e e k o f the N . W . , that o f the D o r i c o f the A c h a e a n L e a g u e , the Syracusan w h i c h for a p e r i o d d o m i n a t e d

in

Sicily (from the start o f the fourth century B C until it was gradually displaced b y the I o n i c - A t t i c koine and s u b s e q u e n d y b y Latin,

cf.

C . C o s a n i 1993, p . 118 ff.). But all the koinai and all o f the G r e e k dialects e n d e d u p being displaced b y the Ionic-Attic koine after a p e r i o d o f diglossia. Koine also h a d to struggle with different n o n - G r e e k languages

(Egyptian,

A r a m a i c , Lycian, Latin, etc.), admitting elements o f theirs, provid­ ing t h e m with b o r r o w i n g s , o r making them

disappear.

2 4 2 . A s w e can see, the history o f koine is rather c o m p l i c a t e d . O n e has to distinguish the origin o f koine f r o m its later diffusion. Let us start with the former t o p i c It has b e e n said that b o t h literary Attic (from around the e n d o f the fifth century into the fourth century and then converted into lit­ erary koine) a n d p o p u l a r

o r s p o k e n koine are descendants

Maritime L e a g u e or, if preferred, the Athenian

o f the

empire.

I have already l o o k e d at the creation o f liteary Attic: the Athenians and foreigners w h o lived in Athens, precisely through the

initiative

o f s o m e o f the latter, stopped writing in Ionic at s o m e p o i n t

and

b e g a n writing in Attic (although there are exceptions). T h e political and intellectual p o w e r o f Athens led to the conversion o f its lan-

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER LANGUAGES

177

guage into a literary language. T h e same o c c u r r e d in the case o f Castilian, Florentine, and the French o f the He de France. T h e creation o f popular, spoken koine is m o r e c o m p l e x , besides w h i c h there are discrepancies in the interpretation o f the facts. But w e can b e certain o f o n e thing: Attic and I o n i c had already begun approximating e a c h other in the fifth century. This is not surpris­ ing, given the p o w e r , political and otherwise, w h i c h Athens had over the Ionians o f the Maritime L e a g u e , b o t h those o f the islands and the continent, and the constant I o n i c presence in Athens. W a r , politics, c o m m e r c e , the tribunals, everything worked to approx­ imate them. It was a process that culminated in the adoption by Athens o f an I o n i c alphabet in the year 403 (and it was not long before its use b e c a m e generalised in all parts). It should b e n o t e d that since Antiquity, diverse circumstances o f h u m a n and c o m m e r c i a l mobility h a d acclimatised all kinds o f Greek speech in Athens. T h i s is stated b y b o t h S o l o n (24, 31 f.) and Pseudo X e n o p h o n (II 8). 2 4 3 . I have already l o o k e d at the influence o f I o n i c in

fifth-century

Attic literature. I o n i c forms are also f o u n d in Attic inscriptions from 4 5 0 onwards: the lengthened D . p f , a w , etc. A l t h o u g h sometimes w e are really dealing with Attic archaisms, o r with the 'subterranean' Attic w h i c h I discussed. T h e penetration o f Attic in Ionia after the same p e r i o d is m o r e decisive, creating the so-called Great Attic (Gran Atico, Grossattisch), the predecessor o f koine. W e have seen it in H e r o d o t u s and Hippocrates. It is present in inscriptions f r o m the fifth century onwards, c f A . L o p e z Eire 1996b: OIKICCV,

ovxac,, EKyovoic,, etc. Indeed, certain Hellenistic forms such as

vaoc, 'temple' appeared in the 'Great Attic' o f the islands m u c h earlier than in Athens (in the fourth century in D e l o s , circa 250 in Athens). This 'Great Attic' is, as stated, an anticipation o f koine, w h i c h is fundamentally Attic, with -pa, -ta, -oic,, -cue,, etc., but with certain I o n i c forms and other general o r D o r i c forms (-co-,

-pp-, etc.). It

also contains Attic variants such as can b e found in Aristophanes and X e n o p h o n , and s o m e o f the vulgar Attic as studied b y P. Kretschmer

1894, W a h r m a n n

1907, a n d E. N a c h m a n s o n

1910; and,

a b o v e all, it contains a large dose o f lexicon that is poetic, Ionic, and, very often, n o d o u b t 'subterranean' Attic. Apart from the authors previously cited ( X e n o p h o n , the late Plato), Aristotie and the Hellenistic authors were also invaded b y it.

178

CHAPTER

S o , koine is fundamentally

ONE

Attic, although it contains I o n i c ele­

ments a n d v o c a b u l a r y (for example, the declension in - a c / - a S o c j and has eliminated Atticisms such as - T T - , -pp- and certain

inflectional

types. It displays Kopn, ^evoc,, oXoc,, etc. 244. H o w e v e r , authors such as V . Bubenik 1989 and A . L o p e z Eire 1993a insist that the participation o f vulgar Attic in koine was rare (not accepting forms such as nax>$ and that the diffusion o f the middle-class, administrative and bureaucratic Attic o f the inscriptions was significant. T h e y stress the similarity between the language o f Attic and M a c e d o n i a n public inscriptions, in the period after Phillip II, the father o f A l e x a n d e r . T h i s Attic, in effect, w o u l d have

been

a c c e p t e d b y the M a c e d o n i a n court and, subsequently, b y the courts o f the D i a d o c h i . T h e influence o f the Attic o f the M a c e d o n i a n s in the expansion o f G r e e k in Asia, particularly through the foundation o f cities, has recently b e e n gready emphasised. T o be sure, the Attic o f the M a c e d o n i a n inscriptions and o f the official inscriptions o f the Hellenistic p e r i o d is the 'Great Attic' which has b e e n discussed, in its official o r literary version (later reinforced b y the role o f the Athenian school and the Attic literature w h i c h was read inside and outside Athens). But this is just o n e aspect o f the p r o b l e m . T h e other means o f diffusion was through the p o p u ­ lar 'Great Attic', w h i c h was diffused in Ionia during fifth and fourth centuries, and through that o f the soldiers and colonists, M a c e d o n i a n s o r otherwise, w h o arrived in Asia. This view is held b y C . Brixhe 1 9 9 3 b . I n d e e d , the continuity o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l and lexical Attic Variants' in koine as a w h o l e , as discussed previously, and even o f vulgar forms, points in the same direction. S o , in the same w a y that there is a p o p u l a r Attic (colloquial o r vulgar) a n d a literary Attic, so there is also a popular, conversational koine and a literary koine. Neither is unitary, and I will elaborate o n this further o n ; they share m a n y c o m m o n elements and exchange m a n y elements. T h i s situation did not change until m o d e r n G r e e c e . 2 4 5 . W e have greater k n o w l e d g e o f literary koine: not just

through

the inscriptions, but, a b o v e all, through prose literature (at this time, p o e t r y was written in the ancient dialects that had b e e n

resuscitated

for this purpose), although w e shall see that in the literary koine, there w o u l d b e a shift from Atticism to poetism and that, for the oldest ones, o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n is very scarce. Apart from the inscriptions, for the vulgar register w e mainly have the Cynics and separate fea-

KOINE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER

LANGUAGES

179

lures adopted b y various authors; for the middle register, after Aristode, M e n a n d e r , Epicurus, w e have fragments

o f various philosophers,

Philo o f Byzantium, Aristeas, Polybius, certain parts o f the L X X , s o m e papyri, s o m e a p o c r y p h a l texts such as the Definitions, attibuted to Plato, o r the De decentia, attributed to H i p p o c r a t e s (cf. U . Fleischer 1939), and a few m o r e . W i t h regard to popular, spoken koine, w e have to make d o with the 'mistakes' o f written

texts, all o f those m e n t i o n e d a b o v e and

others such as private papyri, the L X X (literature o f translation; but s o m e b o o k s c o r r e s p o n d to a higher level) and the N e w Testament (these t w o texts have special features); the Life of Aesop and texts such as the fragments

cynic

o f B i o n o f Borysthenes m a y also b e

included. N o t e that a written text, h o w e v e r 'popular', always aspires to propriety, to the literary. Also, literary texts, as w e have seen, contain 'mistakes' o f spoken koine. In any case, there is a great c o r ­ respondence b e t w e e n b o t h koinai, h o w e v e r m u c h literature m a y par­ tially correct the m o r p h o l o g y , syntax, and l e x i c o n ; a n d it almost entirely covers p h o n e t i c evolution. A valid description c a n b e p r o v i d e d for b o t h koinai. But it is only partial: for e x a m p l e , the disappearance o f the D . and the construc­ tion ev + D . c a n rarely b e followed in the literary texts, w h i c h intro­ d u c e the dual, optative, and so m a n y other forms w h i c h h a d b e e n lost. For m o r e details, see §§ 261 f f , 275 ff. I must stress the existence o f t w o koinai, interrelated a n d divided into different levels; I will discuss their local a n d temporal differences in §§ 2 5 4 ff, 259 ff. 246. For koine in general see, among others: K. Dieterich 1898, A. Thumb 1974, A. Meillet 1975, p. 253 ff, L. R. Palmer 1980, p . 174 ff, V . Bubenik 1989, p. 180 ff, R . Browning 1993, p . 19 ff, CI. Brixhe 1993b, A. Lopez Eire 1993, p. 41 ff, J. Niejoff-Panagiotidids 1994, p. 195 ff, G. Horrocks 1997, p. 32 ff. O n the role o f Macedonia in the origins o f koine, see Gl. Brixhe A. Panayotis 1988, A Panayotis 1992 and G. Horrocks 1997, p. 42 ff. For the levels of koine in written texts, see F. R. Adrados 1948 and 1981b. For vulgar Greek, see K. Dieterich 1898, P. Wahrmann 1909, E. Nachmanson 1910 and H. Ljungvik 1932. For the Doric koinai, V . Bubenik 1989, p. 227 ff, G. Vottero 1996, C. Consani 1996, M . Bile 1996, etc. It should be pointed out that the theory followed here is that which is commonly accepted, although, as I mentioned earlier, there are discrepan­ cies with regard to the role of the popular Attic language. It goes against the idea o f koine as a mixture o f dialects, as held by P. Kretschmer 1901, cf. A. Thumb and others; for koine as a 'pidgin' or 'creole , cf. J, Frosen 1974 (and the critique in V . Bubenik 1989, p . 180 ff). 5

180

CHAPTER

2.

THE

ONE

DIFFUSION

OF KOINE

The diffusion 247. T h e triumph o f Attic is quite remarkable. It b e c a m e the general language o f all the Greeks after the two great defeats o f Athens: that o f 4 0 4 against Sparta and 338 (and 322) against M a c e d o n i a . Indeed, Castilian and French, for example, b e c a m e general languages o f m o r e extensive nations, not only due to their literary significance, but also due to the political p o w e r o f Castilla and the He de France: b o t h factors w e n t h a n d in hand. But not here: o n e w o u l d have to c o m ­ pare the diffusion o f the Florentine dialect in Italy and the language o f Luther in G e r m a n y , and even then it does not bear c o m p a r i s o n . T o b e m o r e exact, in the fifth century Attic b e g a n to convert, in a slighdy modified w a y , into a lingua franca o f the Athenian empire: political p o w e r and trade a c c o u n t for this because, literarily speak­ ing, Athens continued to b e a p r o v i n c e o f Ionia. Later, Attic i m p o s e d itself as a literary language. W h e n the political p o w e r o f Athens was eclipsed, the foundations laid in the fifth century - that is, Attic as a lingua franca outside o f Athens a n d the literary Attic w h i c h even non-Athenians were begin­ ning to write - were maintained. Linguistically speaking, the victory o f the Spartans and their allies was meaningless. T h r o u g h o u t

the

fourth century their dialects w e r e implacably invaded b y Attic, and this also applied to the D o r i c koinai w h i c h attempted to resist. Indeed, nearly all the intellectual life o f G r e e c e , w h i c h expressed itself in Attic and later koine, c o n v e r g e d o n Athens, the free city. A s e c o n d factor was decisive: the adaptation o f Attic (Great Attic) b y the c o u r t o f M a c e d o n i a in the fifth century. Great Attic was a c c e p t e d b y enemies as well as friends. Consequently, the

military

defeat against M a c e d o n i a constituted a linguistic victory for Athens: it accelerated a process w h i c h had already b e g u n . Athens, having attempted to establish its h e g e m o n y in G r e e c e in the fifth

century,

failed in this attempt despite its intitial success. But failure in the political field translated into success in the linguistic field. H e r e , Athens was the great victor. T h i s is the p a r a d o x , w h i c h I think has n o parallels in linguistic history. T h e triumph o f Attic was merely o n e aspect o f the intellectual tri­ u m p h o f Athens, w h i c h c o n d i t i o n e d all o f literature and later thought (although pre-Attic literature, written in the diverse literary languages

KOINE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER

LANGUAGES

181

w h i c h c o n v e r g e d in I o n i c , also strongly influenced later

literature).

F o r the educated Hellenistic public, all o f this meant a reinforce­ m e n t o f unity: the G r e e k tradition, w h i c h they were attempting to continue. 248. Let us study the difftision o f koine m o r e closely. V a r i o u s points can b e noted: ( 1 ) T h e gradual conversion o f Attic and Great Attic into koine: in Attica, in the Ionian cities o f the islands, Asia M i n o r , and M a c e d o n i a . (2) T h e conversion o f the I o n i c o f exportation into koine: for e x a m p l e , in Caria and Lycia, where it was cultivated, least as a written language, from the fifth century

7

at

onwards;

and in the colonies o f Italy, Sicily, and the West. See Part I o f this v o l u m e o n the colonies o f G a u l and Hispania; the G r e e k alphabet was used to write the Celtic and

Iberian

languages. (3) T h e direct implantation

o f Great Attic and koine in n o n -

G r e e k territories b y means o f the M a c e d o n i a n conquest and the politics o f the D i a d o c h i . M a c e d o n i a n s and Greeks o f various origins were established in recently f o u n d e d cities, in w h i c h they essentially survived isolated from the easterners; where as children they attended schools in which they studied G r e e k letters a n d literature; although this did not, however, prevent the reciprocal influence o f the languages, see §§ 2 5 4 ff, 2 8 6 ff. In spite o f the Lesbian w h i c h continued to be spoken and written in Lesbos, koine was spoken in Pergam u m f r o m the beginning, and in all o f the M a c e d o n i a n setdements. (4) T h e penetration o f different dialects (Aeolic, Boeotian, D o r i c , etc.) b y koine, w h i c h supposes a gradual p e r i o d o f bilingualism, a 'koinisatiori* o f the dialects and a gradual loss o f their active d o m i n i o n , although they w o u l d b e partly preserved and w o u l d continue to b e written in certain circumstances. T h i s is discussed in m o r e detail b e l o w . In a r e m o t e corner o f the G r e e k w o r l d , in Pamphylia, local characteristics o f koine penetrated into the local dialect, whereas in other parts, under m o r e conservative influence, it t o o k m u c h longer for these local characteristics to i m p o s e themselves.

182

CHAPTER

ONE

(5) T h e expansion o f koine outside the strict d o m i n i o n s o f the G r e e k w o r l d . F o r instance, in R o m e , partiy due to the effect o f a Greek-speaking immigrant population (including Syrians, Jews, etc.), and partly to the fact that it was the s e c o n d lan­ guage o f educated R o m a n s . In this way, the G r e e k language b e g a n to influence the Latin language, and, similarly, G r e e k literature b e g a n to influence Latin literature. This c o m p e n ­ sated for the fact that Greek had b e e n displaced in the W e s t b y Latin. 249. T h e cultural and universal value o f the Greek language resulted in d o c u m e n t s being written in this language b y kings and dignitaries w h o spoke other languages: K i n g A s h o k a (third century BC) trans­ lated into Greek the edicts that he placed in what is today Afghanistan; edicts o r important d o c u m e n t s were written in G r e e k b y the kings o f the k i n g d o m o f A x u m in Ethiopia during and after the Hellenistic p e r i o d (cf. E. Bernand a n d others 1991), b y the Sasanid K i n g S a p o r (third century B C ) , as well as, m u c h later, the khans o f Bulgaria (eighth a n d ninth centuries A D ) . T h e same is true o f literature: R o m a n s such as Fabius Pictor wrote in Greek, as well as j e w s such as Flavius Josephus, Ghaldians such as Berosos, Egyptians such as M a n e t h o (not to m e n t i o n those o f a later date). G r e e k b e c a m e the language o f the Christian C h u r c h in the East a n d the official language o f Byzantium from the

Danube

to the Euphrates and the Nile, and also o f its conquests in the West. O n the other hand, there is the exportation o f the G r e e k alpha­ bet and its essential role in the creation o f different alphabets (con­ tinuing an already ancient process). Also, the clifmsion o f linguistic characteristics and literary and cultural m o d e l s to all the

surround­

ing w o r l d . In this w a y , a small c o n g l o m e r a t e o f dialects w h i c h o c c u ­ p i e d a r e d u c e d geographical area, that o f G r e e c e , was converted into a universal language, a m o d e l for all the others. Indeed, G r e e k c o n ­ tinued to b e s p o k e n in G r e e c e (although in a g e o g r a p h i c a l area equally reduced), as well as in an important diaspora, until today. T h u s , G r e e k originated in G r e e c e and eventually found refuge again in G r e e c e , but it m a d e a p e r m a n e n t i m p a c t o n all languages. But this is another topic, w h i c h w e will c o m e b a c k to later. T h e fact is that Greek, in its koine phase, whether colloquial o r literary, gradually extended throughout the Mediterranean w o r l d and b e y o n d . F r o m C o r d o b a to K a n d a h a r , from M e r o e to Bulgaria.

KOINE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

183

OTHER LANGUAGES

The 'koinisation* of the dialects 2 5 0 . Let us n o w turn to the subject o f the 'koinisation' o f the G r e e k dialects. It is widely k n o w n that the m o d e r n G r e e k dialects d o not c o m e from the ancient dialects, with the e x c e p t i o n o f Tsakonian in Messenia and Pontic in particular; there are doubts about the G r e e k o f Calabria, w h i c h is rather m o r e Byzantine, cf. D . M i n n i t i - G o n i a 1992. In general, M o d e r n G r e e k derives from koine, w h i c h absorbed all o f the G r e e k dialects. T h i s subject has b e e n studied in m u c h detail b y a n u m b e r o f scholars: after A . T h u m b 1901, p . 2 8 2 , b y A L o p e z Eire, V . Bubenik, G . H o r r o c k s , and the French

s c h o o l o f C . Brixhe, M . Bile

and

R . H o d o t , a m o n g others, always o n the basis o f inscriptions w h i c h allow us to make out the influence o f spoken koine in the local dialects. T h e r e is variation

from dialect to dialect. Dialectal

inscriptions

often stop a r o u n d the beginning o f o u r era, but dialectal inscriptions o r dialectal features in koine inscriptions sometimes survive up to the third century A D . In the l o n g run, the resistance o f the D o r i c koinai m e n t i o n e d a b o v e p r o v e d useless, as d i d s o m e conservative dialects such as those o f Boeotia, Messenia and Cyrenaica, in addition

to

artificial resurrections, for political reasons, in Lesbos, L a c o n i a , Elis and Cyprus. T h e public a n d private inscriptions o f the local dialects, w h i c h are m o r e conservative, are a different case altogether. In the former, cer­ tain cases have b e e n studied in w h i c h political reasons the preservation

motivated

o f the local dialect, for e x a m p l e , in Larissa (cf.

L. R . Palmer 1980, p . 189 ff.), Boeotia (cf. G . V o t t e r o 1996, p . 5 6 ff, G. Horrocks

1997, p . 37 ff.), L e s b o s and C y p r u s (cf. R . H o d o t

1990c). Koine was preferred in foreign relations o r for various polit­ ical uses, whereas the dialect was used within the territory for var­ ious purposes and particularly to highlight nationalist attitudes. Y e t the dialect eventually w o u l d b e penetrated b y koine a n d w o u l d even contain hypercorrections w h i c h reflect just h o w unfamiliar it was to its speakers. 251. After A. Thumb, a very informative general perspective, from dialect to dialect, can be found in V . Bubenic 1989, p. 73 ff, cf. also P. Wahrman 1907, J. Niehoff-Panagiotidids 1994, p . 273 ff. and G. Horrocks 1997. A very good up-to-date study is provided by A. Lopez Eire 1996b. For the penetration o f the koine in certain dialects, there are monographs by E. Nachmanson 1903 (Magnesia), E. Kieckers 1910 and M . J . Barrios 1996

184

CHAPTER

ONE

(Crete), R. Nehrbass 1935 (Epidaurus), J. J. Moralejo 1973 (Delphi), R. Hodot 1990a (Asian Aeolic), A. Panayotis 1990 (Chalcidice), C. Brixhe 1993c (Caria and Licia; Laconia), G. Vottero 1996 (Boeotia), C. Consani 1996 (southern Italy). For the late preservation o f some dialects, c f L. Zgusta 1980, p. 123 ff For the Greek-speaking Eastern population in Rome, see J. Kaimio 1979, p. 21 ff and I. Kajanto 1980, p. 89 ff For Greek in the East, see the book by J. Kaimio and H. B. Rosen 1980, as well as the references already cited.

3.

COLLOQUIAL KOINE AND

ITS V A R I A N T S

Colloquial 'koine' 2 5 2 . It c o u l d b e said that literary koine has a general n o r m : that o f Attic r e d u c e d b y certain innovations o f the koine and later progres­ sively a d d e d to b y m e a n s o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f Atticism. T h e differences are o f a temporal and scholarly nature, as well as being differences b e t w e e n individual authors. In contrast, colloquial o r spo­ ken koine, also referred to as popular, c a n n o t b e regarded as unitary except to the extent that the literary koine served as a support, elim­ inating the m o r e o b v i o u s deviations. But deviations did exist. O n the o n e hand, they were a p r o d u c t o f the influence o f other languages: a b o v e all, Egyptian in Egypt and A r a m a i c o r H e b r e w , although there is s o m e d o u b t about the latter. O n the other hand, they were a p r o d u c t o f an evolution that w e c a n only partly follow and date, since it is c o v e r e d up b y the fact that all o u r d o c u m e n t s are written and therefore, in a certain sense, literary. Frequentiy, p o p u l a r koine c a n only b e d e d u c e d from the mistakes o f the literary texts. W e are still left with the p r o b l e m o f differences in level within the spoken language, that is, between colloquial and vulgar language. T h e r e are also c h r o n o l o g i c a l differences, w h i c h I will discuss later, c f §§ 2 6 4 f f S o , the attempts to define the dialects o f koine ( o f Egypt, Asia, e t c ) are not often very productive and tend to b e abandoned, c f A . T h u m b 1974, p . 167 ff. A l t h o u g h , at times, they have b e e n undertaken again with the aid o f n e w m e t h o d s , as in the 'essay

5

b y C . Brixhe 1984

o n Anatolian Greek from the beginnings o f the period under discussion. 253. It is almost impossible to describe literary and spoken koine sep­ arately, and the latter's social, local o r temporal dialects.

KOINE A N D

185

ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R L A N G U A G E S

Focusing for a m o m e n t o n spoken, p o p u l a r o r conversational koine, we

can only make a p a n - c h r o n i c and pan-dialectal description deal­

ing with certain characterisctics f o u n d here and there, with greater or lesser frequency and regularity, which o n e tries to date and localise. T h e s e characteristics must b e obtained from all kinds o f texts, includ­ ing those o f literary koine w h e r e they penetrate to a greater o r lesser extent, whether in a n o r m a l w a y o r as mistakes. S o m e have sur­ vived, in a m o r e generalised form, in M o d e r n Greek. Before making such a description I will p o i n t out the variants within spoken koine, insofar as this is possible. T h e y c a n b e studied from various perspectives, since w e are n o t l o o k i n g at them

from

the perspective o f the existence o f strict dialects. T h e n I will deal with these, insofar as they result from the influence o f languages with w h i c h G r e e k c a m e into contact; I will e x a m i n e the 'social' vari­ ants o f a vulgar type; and w h e n w e attempt a description o f the koine in the next chapter, I will p r o v i d e examples o f most o f the vari­ ants, resulting from its evolution, although it is often fortuitous fix

to

their c h r o n o l o g y and diffusion. The influence of other languages

254.

Starting with the variants resulting from the influence o n G r e e k

o f the languages with w h i c h it c a m e into contact, I will indicate the principal variants o f these languages. T h e clearest conclusions refer to Egypt, doubtless because it is here w h e r e o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n , thanks to the papyri, is m o r e abun­ dant. Sometimes, w e have exaggerated: for instance, cases such as the confusion o f o and co, ei and i, the p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f -u in ecu and eu as a semi-vowel, the later loss o f difference in quantity, the loss o f inter-consonantal y and o f final -v o r the A c . Gtiyaxepav, are general in koine and n o t specifically Egyptian. In contrast, the inter­ change o f voiceless and v o i c e d occlusives (they are n o t distinguished in C o p t i c ) and, in certain positions, the voiceless and aspirated (these no

d o u b t lost their aspiration) are features o f the G r e e k o f Egypt.

A

g o o d description o f the G r e e e k koine o f Egypt can b e found in

C.

Consani 1993, p . 27 ff. O f course, G r e e k received linguistic b o r r o w i n g s from Egyptian, cf.

P. W a h r m a n n

1907 and J. L. Fournet

1989.

Little o f this is f o u n d in Syria a n d Palestine. T h e A r a m a i c sub­ stratum has b e e n held responsible for the occasional spelling o instead o f a (TIOVSO%{O), the loss o f nasals in groups o r in intervocalic position

186

CHAPTER

(NucpiKoc,), s o m e prothesis

(eioicoxXa

ONE

= Lat. scutella) and little else.

O t h e r characteristics, such as the elimination o f the diphthongs ecu and eu, the fricativisation o f aspirated consonants, the A c . pi. Koixeq, e t c are general. R e g a r d i n g Anatolian koine, cf. W . Dressier C. Consani

1993, p . 30 ff. (and, earlier, A

Thumb

1963,

1974 [ 1 9 0 1 ] ,

p . 139 f f ) . T h e trilingual inscription o f X a n t h u s reflects an influence o f L y c i a n in the Greek: sometimes the article is missing, there is m u c h Kai, KoeGiepoco with G . O n the other hand, the G r e e k o f D u r a E u r o p o s is very altered, n o d o u b t through A r a m a i c influence (the prothetic v o w e l , G . instead o f D , N . pi. instead o f A c p i , indec­ linable eva, the thematisation o f athematic nouns, nouns in -iv). Y e t , there was influence f r o m the l o c a l dialects ( L y c i a n , Pisidian)

in

Pamphylian: the tonic accent, frequent apheresis and metathesis,

the

glide after i and u in hiatus, the neutralisation o f final o/u, the frica­ tivisation o f intervocalic g and d. A t any rate, these are very mar­ ginal cases. 255, N o t h i n g very definite is found in other regions. But w e should at least recall the vexata quaestio o f the Semitisms in the G r e e k ver­ sion o f the O l d Testament (that o f L X X ) and the N e w Testament. In general, after the works o f A . D e i s m a n 1923 (cf. F. R . A d r a d o s 1948, p . 132) and J. H , M o u l t o n - G . Milligan 1 9 1 4 - 2 9 , it has b e c o m e clear that these texts are practically koine and are very close to p o p ­ ular o r conversational koine, despite the notable differences between them. Luke writes in a m o r e literary G r e e k than the other evange­ lists. T h e ' G r e e k o f the J e w s

5

is n o t sufficientiy k n o w n , if it existed

at all, and s o m e o f the characteristics f o u n d in the two

Testaments

c o m e f r o m the H e b r e w literary tradition; only s o m e can b e attrib­ uted to the A r a m a i c that was spoken there. M a n y alleged Semitisms have b e e n rejected; as, for instance, b y A . T h u m b 1974, p . 121 ff. Indeed, this has b e e n the line followed b y , a m o n g others, the well-known manual b y F. Blass—A. D e b r u n n e r 1949, p . 3 f f : m a n y alleged Semitisms are simply koine, the clearest Semitisms b e i n g those o f pure translation from the H e b r e w in the L X X (and citations o f these in the N T ) , and those o f Jewish c o n ­ cepts translated into Greek. D . Hill 1967 has written a b o o k a b o u t 5

these ' G r e e k w o r d s with a H e b r e w meaning . But these authors are in a minority: for J. A . L. L e e 1983, after a detailed lexical study o f the G r e e k Pentateuch, 'the G r e e k o f the L X X should b e consid­ ered as b e i n g essentially o f its time

5

p . 146.

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER LANGUAGES

187

T h i s is the m o s t c o m m o n view, although there is n o lack o f p r o ­ posals regarding Hebrewisms and Aramaicisms. But true Aramaicisms from the c o n t e m p o r a r y language are rarely cited and they are sur­ rounded by doubt. 256. For the influence o f jndigenous languages on koine, see in general A. T h u m b 1974, p . 102 ff, V . Bubenik 1989, p . 198 ff, J. NiehoffPanagiotidis 1994 and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 60 ff With regard to the Greek o f the L X X and New Testament (for descriptions see, for the N T , H. Pernot 1927, F. Blass-A. Debrunner cit. and B. Gonsani 1994), and, in addition to the references already cited, see works that stress the syn­ tactic and stylistic features derived from the Hebrew bible: for instance, D . Tabachovitz 1956, K. Beyer 1962, C. F. D . Moule 1968 and H. B. Rosen 1979. O n the New Testament as koine, see also L. Zgusta 1980, p. 126 ff. O n the more educated Greek used by Luke, see among others, L. R . Palmer 1980, p. 174; on the more popular character o f Mark, see J. Gh. Doudna 1961 (who places much emphasis on Semitisms). O n the wide use of Greek in Palestine and the minimal presence o f Aramaicisms in the inscriptions, cf. H. B. Rosen 1963, 1979 and 1980; for its scarcity in the N T , see V . Bubenik 1989, p . 67 (but they are more frequent in later Jewish literarure, as, for instance, in Flavius Josephus or the Shepherd of Hermes, cf. A. Hilhorst 1976). For the L X X in general, c f N . Fernandez Marcos, 1973. L. Rydbeck 1967 represents a different sort of critique: one cannot strictly speak o f a 'popular language', for the N T has many similarities with the technical Greek language of the first century A D . 2 5 7 . T h e influence o f Latin o n G r e e k also failed to crystallise into the creation o f local o r regional dialects. O n l y in Egypt d o s o m e technical terms o f the R o m a n army o r administration appear to b e translated b y a particular w o r d , but this c o u l d just b e accidental. C o m m o n translations were often m a d e : consul is w a x o q , senator is avyKXTITIKOC,,

frumentarius is

OTTVKOC,,

potestas is e^ouoia, etc.

T h e inscriptions, papyri a n d literary texts offer us an abundant mass o f Latin v o c a b u l a r y o f the type m e n t i o n e d . F o r example, for the N e w Testament see the great n u m b e r o f terms relating to mil­ itary, judicial and administrative

life as summarised b y F. Blass-

A . D e b r u n n e r . T h e r e are studies in w h i c h all o f these elements c a n b e found, although the m o r e cultivated writers, such as Plutarch, tended to avoid this. In fact, the direction o f b o r r o w i n g s generally w e n t in the opposite direction, f r o m G r e e k to Latin. For the lexicon, S. Davis 1991 collects some eight hundred Latinisms from all periods in the papyri, but for the Hellenistic p e r i o d he points out that w e are dealing with a superficial p h e n o m e n o n limited to

188

CHAPTER

ONE

the w o r l d o f the military and administration; and only in cases where satisfactory

G r e e k translations did not exist (these have b e e n c o l ­

lected b y H . J . M a s o n 1974). Subsequently, in the age o f Diocletian, there was another w a v e o f Latinisms relating to administration and functionaries, but equally superficial. See § 258. 258. F o r other aspects o f the language, the most productive o r use­ ful texts are the senatus consulta, treatises, laws, e t c , w h i c h , for the eastern half o f the empire, were often written in G r e e k (or G r e e k translations were p r o v i d e d ) from translated Latin texts. T h e s e have b e e n studied particularly b y E. Garcia D o m i n g o 1973 and

others.

In these translations (and in inscriptions in general), as well as in the b o r r o w i n g s collected b y Davis, w e c o m e across certain

charac­

teristics affecting phonetics and other aspects o f Latin; but also char­ acteristics

h e l p i n g to distinguish

the G r e e k f r o m koine w h e n , for

example, i is p r o n o u n c e d instead o f ei, and a fricative (Lat. f)

instead

o f an aspirated (Gr. <j>). Sometimes, it is a question o f the adapta­ tion o f the Latin inflection o f nouns (and adjectives, pronouns) to the Greek. T h e syntactic characteristics

include: f o r c e d translations o f the

gerundive (Seauiouc;. . . dvajnpocv 7tpoax{0r||jii. . . %68aq %iX{ouc, for agrum addo . . . mille pedes)] the indication o f the father AeuKiou uioq; the D . o f place (evedcrjaa

rcapaxa^ei

for uici. . . acie); the m a n n e r o f

making a v o w (ouvueiv etc, xov OuixeAAiov); the jussive (8ouvai KeXeuan for dare iubeat); certain subjunctives in

subjunctive subordinates

(oic, . . . e^nyfjacovxai for quibus . . . exponant). T h e n there are

clear

semantic caiques, w h i c h translate eligo for eicXeyca, colligo for auMteycQ, dilectio for Kaxa?loyr|. H o w e v e r , it is dangerous to attribute the presence o f these o r other koine characteristics in the G r e e k to a Latin influence. T h e sub­ junctive o f wish is already present in the L X X (with earlier p r e c e ­ dents); the

subjunctive

of subordination

without

orccoc, also

has

precedents. A n d the confusion o f the perfect and aorist, w h i c h has sometimes b e e n seen as a Latinism, has its o w n history. 2 5 9 . T h e influence o f Latin o n G r e e k is negligible with regard to the formation o f w o r d s a n d m o r p h o l o g y . It has b e e n p r o p o s e d that nouns and adjectives in -iq, - w in Greek, where -toe,, - I O V is old, is a Latin influence; but it seems to b e m o r e a question o f a p h o n e t i c

KOINE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER

LANGUAGES

189

p h e n o m e n o n . H o w e v e r , the suffix -ocpioc, o r -ocpic, is indeed a Latinism. In spite o f everything, the l e x i c o n h a d a significant influence: it reached Byzantium and M o d e r n G r e e k a n d all its dialects. T h e r e are certain formal changes, such as ?ULHTOV f r o m limes, Snvdpiov f r o m denarius, Kopiri f r o m cohors. But sometimes the transfer o f a w o r d from Latin into G r e e k p r o d u c e d a semantic c h a n g e : for instance, calamarium is 'writing reeds', but KocXauxxpiov is 'inkpot'; and Constantine's Xdpocpov c o m e s f r o m a m o r e general laureum. T h e p h e n o m e n o n was repeated in Byzantium. H o w e v e r , the influence o f G r e e k o n Latin in the lexicon and for­ mation o f w o r d s was m o r e significant, giving rise, in Latin, to a spe­ cial nucleus that w e call G r a e c o - L a t i n , w h i c h h a d an

enormous

influence o n later languages. See m o r e about this in §§ 2 9 4 ff. S o , all in all, the influence o n koine o f the different languages in c o n t a c t with G r e e k w a s quite negligible. O r , rather, it is b a d l y reflected in the inscriptions, given that it mainly c o r r e s p o n d e d to pronounciations w h i c h rarely figure in the inscriptions, a n d to mis­ takes that the written texts eliminate in most cases. I f subdialects o f the koine were created at all, n o d o u b t in a small measure, these are barely k n o w n to us and w e r e not important for the later tradition. 260. In general, see A. Thumb 1974, p. 152 ff, and, for the New Testament, F. Blass-A. Debrunner 1949, p . 4. For the subject o f Latin borrowings in general, cf. F. Viscidi 1944 and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 75 ff; for the Greek of official use among the Romans, see P. Viereck 1888, H . J . Mason 1974 (administrative, political and military terminology). Also, L. Zgusta 1980, p. 131 ff For the Latin lexicon in the papyri, c f B. Meinersmann 1927, R. Cavenaile 1951 and especially Cerveka-Ehrenstrasser, I. M . Diehart, J. 1996. For the inscriptions, see A. Cameron 1931. The circumstances sur­ rounding Latin and Greek in the R o m a n empire will be studied more closely in a later chapter. Variants of colloquial 'koine* 2 6 1 . Attempts have b e e n m a d e to reach conclusions o n the local variants o f the koine from what has survived o f it in M o d e r n Greek. F o r instance, after A . Hatzidakis by A

Thumb

1977 (1892), attempts w e r e m a d e

1974 (1901), p . 190 ff., a n d J.

Niehoff-Panagiotidis

1994, p . 311 ff. It is evident that characteristics o f koine, whether in the Hellen­ istic o r R o m a n p e r i o d , survive in M o d e r n Greek: the

pronuncia­

tion o f certain vowels and diphthongs (examples o f iotacism and the

190

CHAPTER

ONE

elimination o f eu, ceo, in particular), the fricativisation o f aspirated voiceless occlusives ( L a t . / f o r G r . cp); forms such as the N . sg. depac,, A c sg. yuvouKav, A c . pi. yuvaucec,, N . pi. ypcupfic;, verbs in -wto, evi ( m o d . G r . eivca), thematics instead o f athematics

(icrrdvo), axdvco,

OTTJKCQ, dcpiaxouuev), aor. eXapot; the loss o f the dative (confusion o f D . a n d A c ) , the dual, the perfect and the optative, the extension o f the use o f the subjunctive in the main clause (sometimes equivalent to the future), i v a + subj. instead o f inf., the defective inflection o f the participle, etc. M o r e details are p r o v i d e d b e l o w , cf. §§ 3 3 0 ff, 4 2 5 ff. T h e difficulty is in fixing the dialects locally and temporally. T h e attempts that have b e e n m a d e have taken into a c c o u n t the varieties within koine (in Italy, Crete, C a p p a d o c i a , Cyprus, R h o d e s ) , varieties which descend at least in part from the old dialects (Tsakonian and Pontic). Certain

differences in the p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f

the

maintenance (or lack thereof) o f the o l d geminates, the palatalisa­ tion (or lack thereof) o f the gutturals, the preservation o f the 3rd pi. -ouor (for -ouv) a n d the extension o f -occu to the 3rd pi. o f the aorist -

are all attributed to o l d developments, from Attic to the

R o m a n age. It c a n n o t b e d e n i e d that this c o u l d b e true, but it is far t o o c o n ­ jectural. S o , as I anticipated, there is n o other solution w h e n defining the general lines o r the p o p u l a r o f conversational koine (including its i m p a c t o n literary koine) than to provide a synchronic and spatially unitary type o f description. T h e data can b e extracted from all kinds o f texts, including the literary texts. 2 6 2 . Let us first l o o k at a variant that w e have already discussed, w h i c h is easier for us to understand, although w e are dealing with a social, n o t a geographical o r temporal, dialect: vulgar koine. W e have already looked at the vulgar register in Ionia (in H i p p o n a x and others) and general references have b e e n p r o v i d e d o n Attica, It is n o w interesting to see h o w s o m e vulgarisms, apart from those that seem to b e mistakes, seem to have b e e n consciously introduced b y s o m e authors in o r d e r to distance themselves from literary and ele­ vated prose. I will refer to the Cynics. I refer the reader to a previous w o r k o f mine (Adrados 1981), w h i c h is in turn based o n another w o r k b y J. F. Kinstrand

1975 o n

B i o n the Borysthenite, a n d an unpublished thesis b y P. Peran o n the Life of Aesop, w h o s e cynical characteristics I have emphasised in various works. In b o t h cases, vulgarism is definitely and consciously

KOINE

AND

ITS

RELATION TO

OTHER LANGUAGES

191

sought for. Furthermore, since this is c o m m o n in literary texts, h o w ­ ever l o w their level m a y b e , Hellenistic phonetics is m u c h less obvi­ ous

than in the 'mistakes', w h i c h authors such as E. N a c h m a n s o n

1910 263.

and K . Dieterich 1898 have researched. Bion displays some characteristics o f Hellenistic phonetics (yivouca,

yivobaKco, ouGeiq,

neiva)

and m o r p h o l o g y (rcocuGdcGcoaav, lack o f the

dual, a b u n d a n c e o f the diminutive and vocative); as well as syntac­ tic and lexical characteristics. The

Life of Aesop contains traces o f Hellenistic phonetics (iotacism,

m o n o p h t h o n g i s a t i o n o f diphthongs, the confusion o f l o n g and short o, -toq > -iq, confusion in aspiration, etc.), and contains an

abun­

d a n c e o f expressive terms for physical defects a n d o f Hellenistic v o c a b u l a r y in general. F o r m o r p h o l o g y , w e c a n note the following: A c . %eipocv, euy£vf|v, N . n. fJccGw, numerals o f the type 5eica.T£vxe, lack o f augment (e7uxexd%ei, eupov), inf. onAmv, dvapeiv, the c h a n g e from o n e contracted f o r m to another, from athematic to thematic (exiGovxo, SiSouvxoq, oxpcovvueaGai), aor. evjta, -aq, ei)paxe, p e r f o i 8 a , -aq, in the verb 'to b e ' rjq, fern. part. eiScbq, etc. In syntax, the A c . is used instead o f another case, the G . instead o f D . (GOV euvoei, also substituted b y rcpoq + A c ) ; the Hellenistic use o f §idxi, orccoq, iva:

o f the m o o d s and tenses (ind. instead o f s u b j , perf. instead o f

p r e t , periphrasis). Short and interrupted dialogue is characteristic; mixture o f tenses, with neutralised uses (historic present and praesens pro futuro); the K C U style; expressions such as

8COGOO

yvco^mv x( eaxou, oval

xcp Aiaco7U(p.

M a n y o f these characteristics are also f o u n d in colloquial koine in general, but the agglomeration a n d special uses in vulgar koine dis­ tinguish

it from the colloquial.

It serves to b e r e m i n d e d that the difference b e t w e e n the p o p u l a r and the vulgar is n o t always easy to define: b o t h share m a n y fea­ tures, although literature does a v o i d certain w o r d s , expressions and turns o f phrase, n o t to m e n t i o n p h o n e t i c s . T h e vulgar

language

should b e seen as a subterranean substratum w h i c h only emerges by

mistake o r as a conscious literary resource. It also emerges in

the tabellae defixionis and other vulgar inscriptions, and, at the begin­ ning o f the Byzantine p e r i o d , in a remarkable text from the sixth or

seventh century: the prose o f the a n o n y m o u s collection o f the

Aesopic Fables, referred to as the V i n d o b o n e n s i s , w h i c h consciously vulgarises a m o r e educated earlier prose. C f F. R . A d r a d o s 1948,

192

CHAPTER

ONE

p . 67 ff. A similar case is that o f J o a n n e s Malalas, a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f o u r collection, o f w h o m m o r e will b e said later.

4.

C O L L O Q U I A L KOINE: GENERAL

DESCRIPTION

264. T h e koine that was c o m m o n l y spoken is referred

to as collo­

quial o r p o p u l a r koine. Its phonetics is k n o w n particularly the

'mistakes

5

o f texts without any literary pretensions;

through the

other

areas o f the language are k n o w n through these same texts and other m o r e literary texts, particularly

o f the Hellenistic p e r i o d . Literary

texts, especially the oldest ones, c o i n c i d e in m a n y aspects o f syntax and l e x i c o n , in particular with conversational koine. Since w e are l o o k i n g for c o m m o n characteristics, let us eliminate those that w e have registered

as c o m i n g from contact with

other

languages. I w o u l d like to stress that, as w e shall see, it is not a question o f a temporally unitary language, for different

character­

i s t i c s e m e r g e in different dates, while others (or the same but in an earlier period) are o n l y registered as a tendency (which sometimes culminates in M o d e r n Greek). Indeed, s o m e m a y begin as vulgarisms 5

o r as 'mistakes , and e n d up as regular

characteristics.

265. Descriptions of koine can be found in general works, such as those by A. Meillet 1975, p . 253 ff, E. Schwyzer-A, Debrunner 1975 (passim) and R. Browning 1993, p . 19 ff Specific works on certain aspects of koine (apart from the works cited previously on its origins and internal differences, and on the L X X and N T ) include, on Greek papyri, E. Mayser 1926 ff. (Ptolemaic period), H. Ljungvik 1932, L. R. Palmer 1945, T . Gignac 1976 and 1981 (Roman and Byzantine periods), S. G. Kapsomenos 1958 (id.), B. G. Mandilaras 1973 (the verb); on phonetics. H. Pernot (1921); on the dative, J. Humbert 1930 and W . Dressier 1965; on the perfect, P. Chantraine 1927, p . 214 ff; on syntax, F. R. Adrados 1988c and 1992e (passim). C f , in general, L. R. Palmer 1980, p. 174 ff. and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 65 ff. An elementary description is provided by W . R . Funk 1977. For certain evo­ lutionary features, c f H. Ljungvik 1932 and St. Wahlgren 1995. R. Browning provides an interesting comparison of the lexical use o f N T and Atticists such as Phrynichus and Moeris. For the lexicon, see in general, F. R. Adrados 1948, p. 31 ff and 199 ff. (only words in koine). For Ionicisms' cf. for example, E. Mayser 1926, I, p. 20 ff (a list following from papryri), F. R. Adrados 1948, p. 160 ff. (id. from the Aesopic fables and from numerous texts used in the comparison). For Attic words which are absent in koine, c f for example, F. BlassA. Debrunner 1954, p . 70 (particles) and, for individual authors, the ref­ erences given in § 277. Lucian, Rhet mag. 16 and Lexiph. 1 reproaches the pedantic use of a series of Atticisms.

KOINE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R L A N G U A G E S

193

2 6 6 . A description o f p o p u l a r koine must start from what w e already k n o w . It is fundamentally

Attic, with s o m e rare I o n i c o r general

forms, a n d an abundant non-Attic lexicon, also I o n i c and general. H o w e v e r , it is not always the standard Attic o f prose but very often the popular types o f Attic. Y e t , it should b e p o i n t e d out that from the start, o r gradually,

n e w features e m e r g e d : s p o r a d i c

features,

reflecting n e w tendencies, or features generalised earlier o r later. 267. Phonetics. D u r i n g the R o m a n p e r i o d the opposition o f long and short vowels was lost, something w h i c h was presaged b y the confu­ sion o f n and e, co and o in Egypt f r o m the third century B C , but with even earlier traces. A r o u n d the year A D 100, the p o e t Babrius disregarded the quantity o f the penultimate in his choliambs, as he was m o r e interested in the presence o f the n e w tonic accent. T h e vocalic system was totally transformed, w h i c h are rarely found in

fifth-century

following tendences

Attic (examples o f iotacism

in inscriptions from the A c a d e m y : ' A 0 w a , "Apic,) and w h i c h greatly penetrated fourth-century Beotian (closure o f n into ei, m o n o p h t h o n g i sation o f a i , etc.). In the Hellenistic p e r i o d , the p h e n o m e n o n o f iotacism was clearly a d v a n c e d (i for n, ei) as well as the

pronun­

ciation o f 01 as u; the elimination o f the diphthongs eu (> ef ev) and y

ecu ( > af, av) is difficult to date; the m o n o p h t h o n g i s a t i o n o f cu dates from the Imperial p e r i o d ; a n d the evolution u > i is Byzantine. T h e s e p h e n o m e n a gradually c a m e to create M o d e r n Greek, but left little mark o n the literary texts. In short, the disappearance o f the differences in quantity, iotacism, and the elimination o f diphthongs are key, although these p h e n o m ­ ena did not quite reach c o m p l e t i o n . T h e consonantal system also underwent a drastic evolution. Aspirated voiceless occlusives b e c a m e fricatives in the Hellenistic period; the v o i c e d ones also b e c a m e fricatives, except after a nasal; £ b e c a m e a v o i c e d sibilant; g was lost in cases such as oXioq. T h e s e p h e n o m e n a b e c a m e regulated from the fourth century B C , the fricativisation o f the aspirated stops c a m e later, after Christ. See H . Pernot 1921 and E. S c h w y z e r - A . D e b r u n n e r

1975.

268. Morphology. Let us l o o k at s o m e notable characteristics.

There

is the sporadic appearance o f A c rcocxepav, from w h i c h in M o d e r n G r e e k the N , Ttaxepocc, was created (depocc, in the third century A D ) . A b o v e all, there is the disappearance o f the D , following a sort o f flourishing during the Hellenistic p e r i o d (cf. A d r a d o s 1992e, p . 219), and in the Imperial p e r i o d (cf. J. H u m b e r t

1930 and W . Dressier

194

CHAPTER

ONE

1965); it has culminated in M o d e r n Greek. But from an earlier date o n w a r d s w e e n c o u n t e r the e x c h a n g e o f ev + D . and eiq + A c . T h e r e is also an A c . pi. yuvottKec,, N . pi. ypacpric,, G . in -ou in the 3rd d e c l , all in the Imperial p e r i o d . A l s o , the dual was lost. V e r b a l inflection also contained s o m e novelties. Since the Hellenistic era, the use o f athematic verbs in -ui was m o r e and m o r e r e d u c e d in p o p u l a r texts, as they tended to b e c o m e thematic o n -co (Seucvueic,, e^covvuec,, ouvueiv, 8(8(0,

iaravG)); sometimes athematic verbs w e r e

replaced b y other thematic verbs (%opTa£a> replaced b y Kopevvuui). T h e r e is an aoristic influence o n the present (KpuPco), a n e w inflection o f the aorist o f the type e(3a^a, -ec, (etSa, rjpGa), the replacement o f thematic aorist b y the sigmatic (icaT£A,i\|/a, s e c o n d century A D ) ; confusion o f a u g m e n t a n d reduplication; regularisations

the

o f the type

£0fiKa(ii8V, oiSaiiev, i\[ir\v; a reduction o f the optative, almost limited to stereotyped expressions o f wish, c f statistics in A . Meillet 1975, p , 2 8 9 ff.; the value o f the subjunctive future; the contamination, at times, o f aorist a n d perfect ( o f the type ejniaGcoKajnev) w h i c h presaged the loss o f the perfect in M o d e r n G r e e k (except for s o m e w h i c h were left as aorists,

such as Ppfjica);

the extension o f the passive

aor.

(dcTreKpCGnv) instead o f the middle; the b e g i n n i n g o f the part, with defective inflection, as in M o d . Gr.; the increase in periphrastic ver­ bal inflections. In c o n c l u s i o n , there was a t e n d e n c y to reorganise the declensions, with a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f the v o c a l i c stem and a reduction o f the dative; and, in the v e r b , the elimination o f the inflection in -ui, the disappearance

o f the

optative

and

the perfect (or a fusion

with

the aor.), the confusion a n d even elimination o f augment and redu­ plication, regularisations

o f the desinential system, etc.

2 6 9 . Syntax. T h e system o f cases evolved. A s I explained in A d r a d o s 1 9 8 8 c 1 9 8 9 b a n d 1992e, the A c tended to b e c o m e a general rule, eliminating s o m e special uses, and the G . tended to focus o n the function o f determining the n o u n . A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, the D . dis­ appeared, but m u c h later o n , a n d the use o f prepositions increased. W e have seen h o w the frequency o f use o f the optative was almost totally r e d u c e d to stereotyped expressions o f wish. T h e potential and the imperative tended to b e substituted b y futures. T h e subjunctive tended to b e r e d u c e d to subordinate clauses, although its jussive use in m a i n clauses was important in the Hellenistic p e r i o d . A s far as tenses w e r e c o n c e r n e d , the perfect almost always b e c a m e resultative,

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER LANGUAGES

195

its intransitive use with a present value b e i n g rare; it b e c a m e almost the equivalent o f the aorist, w h i c h presaged its eventual loss, as w e have seen. H o w e v e r , the historic present is absent. T h e system o f voices focused o n the opposition o f active and passive, the m e d i u m was reserved almost exclusively for reflexive and reciprocal use as a variant o f the active. W e have discussed the participle. Sometimes, w e c o m e across an infinitive with a subject, even if the subject is the same as that o f the main clause. T h e frequency o f subordina­ tion decreased, but there was an increase in the use o f i v a + sub­ junctive, instead o f the infinitives d e p e n d e n t

o n verbs o f will and

others. 2 7 0 . Lexicon. First, there is the characteristic

elimination o f a large

n u m b e r o f Attic terms and their replacement b y other terms, whether n e w o r from various origins. Sometimes, they are the I o n i c terms w h i c h w e have p r o p o s e d as b e i n g at the same time Attic, b e l o n g ­ ing to the 'subterranean' o r popular language. T h e s e and other terms also a p p e a r

in the late Plato ( c f A . D i a z T e j e r a

X e n o p h o n ( c f L. Gautier

1961) a n d

in

1911), a m o n g other authors: s o m e were

perhaps traditional terms from the same subterranean language w h i c h was n o w beginning to surface; others were n e w creations. T h e r e is also a large n u m b e r o f w o r d s that are only found in koine'. Ionicisms and n e w creations, a b o v e all. O f course, the

fre­

q u e n c y o f abstracts and adjectives related to t h e m is l o w e r in p o p ­ ular as o p p o s e d to literary koine, but it increased considerably due to transfers b e t w e e n the two. Furthermore, there are w o r d s that can only b e f o u n d in a particular region o f the Hellenistic w o r l d (for example, in Egypt xhxokoyoq 'administrator o f private property'

or

Ga^aixnyoc, 'a vessel'); but this m a y b e accidental a n d in any case, it is a m i n o r difference. I w o u l d like to recall s o m e conclusions w h i c h I presented in a very early w o r k (Adrados 1948), but have not b e e n picked up o r considered b y other scholars, o r replaced with other studies. Indeed, this field has b e e n largely ignored. T h e point is, within the koine that dates before ca. A D 100 there is very little difference b e t w e e n the l e x i c o n o f the spoken and o f the literary language (with the exception o f vulgarisms a n d technicisms). B o t h the elimination o f certain Attic terms and the admission o f I o n i c o r other terms p r o b a b l y o f a p o p u l a r origin (and o f certain abstracts and adjectives) are p h e n o m e n a that affect the w h o l e o f the

196

CHAPTER

ONE

language k n o w n to us. T h e most 'popular' texts, m e n t i o n e d earlier (§ 245), and authors such as Polybius o r Philo c o i n c i d e fundamen­ tally as far as the l e x i c o n is c o n c e r n e d . All o f the written language displays the same extraordinary

d e v e l o p m e n t o f the suffixes

-ia,

-uoc,, -r|, -eia, etc. a n d their corresponding adjectives; and o f verbs with preverb; etc. T h e n there is the case o f special lexicon within popular koine (the p h e n o m e n o n is without d o u b t m o r e important in literary koine), as well as the

'hiding' o f w o r d s (conventional synonyms) and w o r d s

without meaning, a n d magical w o r d s in magical texts. Cf. M . Garcia Tejeiro 1996.

5.

LITERARY KOINE AND

ITS S T A G E S

The first stage 2 7 1 . H o w e v e r m u c h every written text o f koine reveals a literary intention

and hides, as far as possible, p o p u l a r phonetics and lan­

guage, it is clear that texts such as the L X X o r the N T , n o t to m e n ­ tion the defixiones o r private d o c u m e n t s in papyrus, were directed at a n o n - e d u c a t e d public and were looking for a means o f c o m m u n i ­ cating with it; the writers tried not to distance their language t o o m u c h f r o m their audience. A s regards the vulgar G r e e k o f the Life of Aesop and other texts, w e are dealing with a conscious and liter­ ary vulgarism. Y e t the majority o f the prose texts written from the beginning o f the s e c o n d half o f the fourth century B C onwards—-I a m not refer­ ring to p o e t i c texts, w h i c h artificially resuscitated the o l d dialects— were a i m e d at an educated, international public, an elite within the different Hellenistic kingdoms and leagues o f cities. T h e cultural back­ g r o u n d for prose was r o o t e d in Attic, w h o s e literary genres (philos­ o p h y , history, c o m e d y , erudition, sometimes oratory) still survived. N e w genres such as the novel o r the diatribe were added. T h e idea was not to w i d e n the cultural gap with Athens, w h i c h existed all the same. T h e r e f o r e , p e o p l e wrote in a language w h i c h was an intermediate so to speak, between Attic prose and c o n v e r ­ sational koine, with all sorts o f gradations. It contained elements o f b o t h , w h i c h is w h y w e have b e e n able to use it to describe the c o n ­ versational koine, particularly as regards the lexicon, h o w e v e r different it m a y have b e e n in s o m e respects, its similarities with Attic being m o r e significant.

KOINE A N D

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER

LANGUAGES

197

T h i s is the prose w e refer to as literary koine o r literary Hellenistic koine, the first stage o f its evolution in the Imperial p e r i o d . Let us l o o k at this in m o r e detail. 272. T h e p r o b l e m is that very few texts o f the first literary koine have b e e n preserved and even studied to the degree that they deserve. It was precisely the increase in the m o r e Atticist prose from the start o f this era, along with the increase in works o f erudition and sci­ ence in the p e r i o d o f the R o m a n empire, w h i c h led to the loss o f the majority o f Hellenistic literary prose. W e have h a d to make d o with a few scattered

remains.

A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, the beginning o f the first stage was marked by the late works o f Plato, X e n o p h o n , and Aristotle. Aristode's works are, firstly, written in various registers; the esoteric b e i n g m o r e lit­ erary, the exoteric being m o r e popular and at the same time scientific. S e c o n d l y , Aristotle has barely b e e n studied from a linguistic p o i n t o f view, and the same applies to his disciple Theophrastus and others, w h o s e writings have b e e n preserved in fragments. The

texts w h i c h are useful for the study o f literary koine o f the

Hellenistic p e r i o d have b e e n m e n t i o n e d a b o v e (§ 245). W e can a d d D i o d o r u s o f Sicily and Strabo, o f a m o r e recent date, in the Augustan period. Additionally, there are studies o n specific points, b u t n o n e o f a general

character.

273. For Menander, c f D . B. Durham 1969 (1913, very partial, only deals with the lexicon); for Philo, M . Arnim 1912; for Aristeas G. H. Meecham 1935; for Epicurus, H. Widmann 1935 and P. Linde 1906; for Polybius, J. A. Foucault 1972; for the late Hippocratic writings, U. Fleischer 1939 and J. Mendoza 1976; for Diodorus, J. Palm 1955. The book by S. Wahlgren 1995 is also useful, cf. § 277 and G. Horrocks 1997, p . 48 ff. 274. Unfortunately,

n o study has b e e n m a d e o n the w h o l e o f this

type o f koine: i.e. literary Hellenistic koine in its first stage. T h e works cited place particular emphasis o n the lexical aspects: the lack o f Attic terms, the appearance o f I o n i c ' o r recent terms, as m e n t i o n e d previously. A l t h o u g h a general o v e r v i e w is lacking, s o m e observa­ tions can b e m a d e o n various aspects o f the language. T o begin with, it should b e p o i n t e d out that the writers o f this p e r i o d were very conscious o f the existence o f the t w o levels corre­ sponding to literary and p o p u l a r koine. S o , in the G o s p e l s , Luke uses traditional Attic w o r d s as o p p o s e d to the p o p u l a r w o r d s used b y the other evangelists: Kpocvtov for ToXyoGav, (popoc, for icfyvaov, anb xou vuv for an apxi, acoixa for rcxcouet, eaOico for xpcbyco, 8epco for KoXacpi^co.

198

CHAPTER

ONE

But the w h o l e o f the Gospels makes frequent use o f a lexicon w h i c h was rejected b y Atticists such as Phrynichus and M o e r i s , w h o drew 5

attention to the A t t i c ' and 'Hellenistic words. C f R . Browning 1983, p . 47 ff. W e k n o w , from the b o o k b y H . W i d m a n n , that Epicurus displayed a series o f non-Attic characteristics: frequent substantivisation o f the participle, reduction o f the difference between active and middle, periphrastic verbal forms, confusion o f the aorist and perfect, use o f the subjunctive in subordinate clauses, a reduction in the use o f the optative, an increase in the use o f prepositions, etc. S o m e observations o n the characteristics

o f Polybius and

other

authors (Strabo and Diodorus) can be added. A . Meillet 1975, p . 290 f. provides statistics o n the rare use o f the optative. J. Palm 1955 makes the following observations for D i o d o r u s (apart from the large n u m b e r o f fluctuations due to the influence o f his sources): strengthening o f the cases with the help o f prepositions; scant use, as mentioned, o f the optative; rarity o f the historic present; neuter pi. with sg. verb.; infinitives with the same subject as that o f the main clause; periphrastic conjugation; etc. Indeed, the first literary koine is characterised b y rather negative as o p p o s e d to positive aspects: the lack o r rarity o f Attic and Atticist lexicon a n d grammar; the entry o f n e w koine characteristics (in the lexicon and grammar), s o m e o f w h i c h were later eliminated. But w e should stress that Hellenistic literary G r e e k was n o t uni­ tary. It c o n t a i n e d the poeticising rhetoric o f Hegesias o f Magnesia, studied b y E. N o r d e n 1958 (1898), filled with a p o e t i c lexicon and Gorgianic figures, as well as with Attic grammar: dismissed b y C i c e r o , it nevertheless h a d a great i m p a c t o n posterity. Also, w e should point out the presence o f technical and scientific prose, w h i c h was signifi­ cant for the lexical d e v e l o p m e n t o f G r e e k and w h i c h shall b e fur­ ther discussed. Atticism 275. T o w a r d s the start o f the imperial age, in the p e r i o d o f Augustus and Tiberius, there was a change in literary taste w h i c h steered the literary p r o s e o f koine in an archaistic direction. T h i s m o v e m e n t , k n o w n as Atticism, was marked b y the revaluation o f Attic culture, and also h a d an i m p a c t o n sculpture (and contributed to the loss o f the f o r m e r prose).

K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R

LANGUAGES

199

This m o v e m e n t found its origins a m o n g theorists o f style such as Caecilius o f Galeaete, L o n g i n u s and D i o n y s i u s o f Halicarnassus, although, earlier, Aristophanes o f Byzantium had written about words w h i c h should b e repudiated.

S o m e b e l i e v e it was r o o t e d in

the

Asianism o f Hegesias and other rhetoricians, while others (Philostratus in his Life of the Sophists)' believe it originated with the rhetors o r 'Sophists' (the ' S e c o n d Sophistic') w h o were m a k i n g declamations o r meletai in p u b l i c a r o u n d this p e r i o d , particularly o n historic o r imag­ inary themes: for e x a m p l e , a certain Nicetas, o f w h i c h nothing has b e e n preserved, and his successors such as P o l e m o n (in the times o f Trajan) and those that c a m e later, starting with H e r o d e s Atticus. A t any rate, the n e w style d o m i n a t e d in educated prose and f o u n d its practical exponents in authors o f dictionaries w h o , like Phrynichus and M o e r i s , d r e w attention to the p r o s c r i b e d w o r d s . T h e r e is n o d o u b t that the imitation o f the ancients sought to ele­ vate the Greeks to a superior cultural level than the R o m a n s , and to p r o v i d e t h e m with a sense o f identity. It is interesting to note that, as regards Christian Greek, this b e g a n at a p o p u l a r level, but w h e n Christianity reconciled with the R o m a n empire in the fourth century, its main representatives — Synesius, Basil, the t w o Gregories and J o h n Chrysostom, a m o n g others - a d o p t e d Atticism (to the same extent as the last great pagans, Libanius and Proclus). W i t h the c l o ­ sure o f the A c a d e m y o f A t h e n s b y Justinian (529), the

balance

definitely shifted towards the Christians, w h o were given the formidable task o f continuing the Attic level o f G r e e k prose and rescuing ancient G r e e k literature from obscurity. 2 7 6 . It c o u l d b e said that Atticism was a d o p t e d b y the G r e e k higher classes, w h o n e e d e d a strong sense o f identity to face R o m e

and

n e e d e d to distinguish themselves from the populations w h o spoke a p o p u l a r Greek. A l t h o u g h they often c o o p e r a t e d with R o m e ,

they

retained a feeling o f cultural superiority, also regarding their value as a nation. In general, there was a gradual reintroduction o f an Attic lexicon and g r a m m a r . But the authors did n o t form a h o m o g e n o u s w h o l e . S o m e preferred the Attic o f prose, and there w e r e those w h o filled it with p o e t i c w o r d s , even taken from

S a p p h o (Himerius). T h e r e

were 'Sophistic' professionals, such as D i o Chrysostomus, the t w o Philostratuses, Aristeides and Favorinus, cf. the b o o k b y W . S c h m i d 1964 ( 1 8 8 7 - 9 6 ) , the fundamental w o r k o n the subject, and writers

200

CHAPTER

ONE

influenced b y them o r 'part-time' Sophists, such as Dionysius o f Hali­ carnassus, D i o Cassius, Arrian (editor o f the work b y Epictetus), Lucian, Aelian, etc. T h e r e is n o c o m p l e t e study: the b o o k b y W . S c h m i d deals with Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Aristeides, Lucian, and Aelian, and is important but incomplete in certain respects, c f A d r a d o s 1948, p . 36. T h i s is n o t all. W i t h the task o f creating archaism, s o m e authors imitated H e r o d o t u s , as for instance Dionysius o f Halicarnassus

and

Josephus, o r simply w r o t e in I o n i c (as Arrian in his Indike). Besides, there was the technical o r scientific literature, w h i c h was somewhat Atticising, and Christian literature, w h i c h adapted itself to the m o v e ­ m e n t from the fourth century onwards. 277. O n the Atheists, c f the book by W . Schmid previously cited, and my contribution in F. R. Adrados 1948, p. 31 ff. For precedents, c f L. Zgusta 1980, p . 127. For Herodotisms, c f S. Ek 1942 and 1946. For Christian literature, c f for example, P. Gallay 1933. The important book by S. Wahlgren 1995 draws a systematic compar­ ison - for a series o f characteristics such as the dual, anomalous conju­ gated forms, prepositions, particles, final and consecutive constructions between the situation o f classical and pre-classical Greek, the koine ( L X X , Letter o f Aristeas, Polybius and Diodorus) and o f the early Imperial prose (Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Nicolaus o f Damascus, Strabo and Philo o f Alexandria). The latter clearly displays the progress of Atticism, which rein­ troduced Attic forms or increased their frequency, always with differences according to the author and to the different linguistic features. 2 7 8 . T h e fundamental

thing is that the Atticisms (and poetisms)

entered progressively. In m y b o o k o f 1948, I established that from a r o u n d the year 100, in the times o f Trajan, then o f Hadrian

and

H e r o d e s Atticus, a n e w phase in literary koine began. Purism was all the rage, as reflected in the lexicon o f Phrynichus and M o e r i s , m e n ­ tioned previously, w h o distinguished what was Attic and Hellenistic. It was also reflected in certain satires, such as that o f the

character

w h o in Athenaeus is called Kevxouiceixoc, because o f his repeated ques­ c

tion Keixou TI OU Keixca; i.e., Is it d o c u m e n t e d o r not?'. W e have seen h o w Lucian, himself an Atticist, also satirizes the excesses o f the Atticists. Let us take the example, from the b o o k b y W . Schmid (I, p . 226 f f ) , o f Atticisms in Lucian, w h o is not the most exaggerated o f the Atticists: (a) Morphology. A m o n g other things: pi, 8eaud, vecbq, axepoc,, of as indirect reflexive, f]8uvdur|v, impv. -ovxcov, jiocvxeun besides Hellenistic forms.

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

(b) Syntax. Substantivisation

OTHER LANGUAGES

201

o f neutral, dual, plural adjectives o f

the abstacts, certain G . partitives, G . o f agent, D . o f relation, historic present, perf. with present value, imperative o f middle perfect, final o r consecutive infinitive, optative in subordinate clauses; etc., besides Hellenistic uses. i

In m y b o o k cited a b o v e , I established (p. 195 ff.), while studying the lexicon o f the Augustan collection o f A e s o p i c fables, certain groups o f Atticisms w h i c h did not enter the n e w literature until a certain date -

for e x a m p l e , until the s e c o n d o r the fourth

century—and

w h i c h , because o f this, can b e used to date a n o n y m o u s texts such as these (which c a n n o t b e assumed to have b e e n written before the fourth century). O f course, o n e has to distinguish between Atticisms as such, prosaic Atticisms, and the poetisms o f particular rhetori­ cians, w h i c h also increased with time. O n e also has to consider that technical literature is m o r e moderate as regards Atticism. Furthermore, it w o u l d b e useful to study other types o f literature, as, for e x a m ­ ple, the n o v e l o r the different types o f Christian literature. In any case, Atticism is m a d e up o f m a n y stages, as is the devel­ o p m e n t o f abstract v o c a b u l a r y , w h i c h can b e seen, for e x a m p l e , w h e n c o m p a r i n g Polybius and Plutarch. H e r e , terms from the pre­ vious koine were admitted, but m a n y m o r e w e r e a d d e d , usually o f a literary type. It is particularly difficult to separate p o p u l a r from lit­ erary koine in this p e r i o d , the latter remaining almost h i d d e n f r o m us. T h e r e is also a difference between Atticising and poeticising lit­ erary koine, w h i c h is seen, for example, w h e n c o m p a r i n g the Augustan Collection o f fables and A p h t h o n i u s , b o t h f r o m the fifth century A D . 279. H o w e v e r , in the fables as in other literature, it was only at the start o f the fourth century A D that Atticism b e g a n to retreat, faced with the fashion for p o p u l a r and even vulgar language. This battle continued with varying results throughout the Byzantine and m o d e r n periods. I w o u l d like to stress that w e find ourselves in u n e x p l o r e d terri­ tory here, for w e lack any systematic studies o n the evolution o f Hellenistic and R o m a n G r e e k (I have n o t e d s o m e exceptions) and especially o n the variants o f the different schools o f Atticism and the Atticism o f the different genres. In certain cases, w e c o u l d b e look­ ing at a mixture o f prosaic Atticisms and poeticisms, as in the c o l ­ lection o f fables already referred to. Indeed, the same author c o u l d

202

CHAPTER

ONE

change his style a c c o r d i n g to the genre he was using, something w h i c h is illustrated in Lucian and

Plutarch.

T h e fact is that prose language progressively b e g a n to distance itself from conversational language, w h i c h b e c o m e s m o r e and m o r e difficult to define. This o c c u r r e d w h e n e v e r mannerisms were intro­ d u c e d for literary purposes, as with the Spanish imitators o f G o n g o r a o r the French Symbolists: a series o f steps had to b e created to rennovate resources w h o s e effect had b e e n overused. Consequendy, Greek literature b e c a m e increasingly elitist and aimed at a closed circle o f readers, until the arrival o f the M e d i e v a l period. 280. Before this, Greek had developed a remarkable literature through this artificial l a n g u a g e (and the even m o r e artificial language o f poetry), in w h i c h Christian literature must b e included. It laid the foundations for its survival as a language o f culture. But m o r e i m p o r ­ tant was the growth o f the literary lexicon and its influence o n Latin. This Graeco-Latin l e x i c o n m a d e its way, through numerous obsta­ cles, to arrive at the m o d e r n languages in w h i c h it survives as an essential element. W e shall l o o k at this in m o r e detail further o n , c f §§ 2 9 4 ff. T o m o v e o n from the subject o f the lexicon, it is worth looking at the m o d e r n study o n the syntax o f fifth- and sixth-century liter­ ature; I a m referring to the w o r k b y K . Hult 1990. By c o m p a r i n g various authors, b o t h p a g a n and Christian,

from the centuries in

question, this scholar m a n a g e d to distinguish a g r o u p o f four m o r e 'literary

5

authors (Eunapius, T h e o d o r e t , Marinus and Procopius) from

t w o m o r e 'popular

5

authors (Palladius and Callinicus). T h e r e is a

series o f points in w h i c h they differ. F o r example: Literary variants: hno and npoq as agents, in final sentences with
OTCGOC;

av, a future participle indicating intention, an absolute

infinitive, an indicative in consecutives, xuyxavco with participle in nominative case, D . o f agent, etc. Colloquial variants: purpose expressed b y an infinitive with a p r e p o ­ sition, direct instead o f indirect style, oxi after verbs o f thought and vision, impersonal passive, consecutive i v a and after verbs o f willing, impersonal £xu%e with A c . and infinitive, etc. A s w e c a n see, there is a series o f subde variations, but from the year A D 100, it b e c o m e s difficult to gain access to p o p u l a r koine: w e only have access to different variants o f literary koine, influenced b y various tendences o f Atticism, and to less influenced texts.

KOINE

6.

THE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER LANGUAGES

EVOLUTION OF THE INTELLECTUAL AND

203

SCIENTIFIC L E X I C O N

Sources 2 8 1 . T o continue from where w e left o f f (§ 237), let us l o o k at the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G r e e k ^intellectual and scientific language in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. W e are partly dealing with special terms (semantically modified o r newly created) relating to

different

philosophies and sciences, and partly with a v o c a b u l a r y with a gen­ eral diffusion, at all levels, and in all the periods: the w o r d s them­ selves o r the types o f formation, derivation a n d c o m p o s i t i o n passing into the w h o l e literary sector o f the later languages. A t the outset, it is important to make t w o observations. First, that there are n o b r o a d o r up-to-date studies o n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this lexicon, so that w e have to make d o with approximations.

Second,

that the collection and study o f the G r e e k l e x i c o n in dictionaries and special works is i n c o m p l e t e , o r has b e e n until n o w , because o f a lack o f lexicons, c o n c o r d a n c e s and indexes o f authors, and through the absence, even in the general dictionaries, o f data that appear in the m o r e specialised publications. H o w e v e r , there are specialised dictionaries ( o f botany,

geometry,

rhetoric, etc.) w h i c h m a y b e o f use (see D . Lara 1997 and F. R . A d r a d o s - D . Lara,

1998e). But dictonaries

o f philosophical terms,

such as those o f F. E. Peters 1967 and J, O . U r m s o n

1990, focus

o n content a n d neglect the lexicographic aspects. T h e same thing happens in specialist studies like that o f D . Tsekourakis ancient

1974 o n

Stoic t e r m i n o l o g y (Koc0r|KOVTa, KaTopOobjuaxa, T O xekoq,

aipexd, etc.). Fortunately, the

recent p u b l i c a t i o n

TOC

o f the Repertorio

bibliogrdfico de la lexicografia Griega b y P. B o n e d - J . R o d r i g u e z S o m o l i n o s (1998) provides us with a very c o m p l e t e list o f all that has b e e n p u b ­ lished in this field, w h i c h is a great aid to research. N o w , because o f the data p r o v i d e d in the Thesarus Linguae Graecae (Irvine, California), and the Diccionario Griego-Espanol (I—VI, M a d r i d 1 9 8 0 - 2 0 0 2 ) , the situation is starting to c h a n g e . A s regards the latter, I refer the reader to t w o works: (a) F. R . A d r a d o s - D . Lara (1998e), w h i c h provides an overview o f the l e x i c o n o f different specialities and sciences and

the

c o r r e s p o n d i n g bibliography, as well as its collection in the DGE. It also points out s o m e p r o b l e m s : the difficulty o f dis­ tinguishing

b e t w e e n c o m m o n and specialised use, the lack

204

CHAPTER

ONE

o f precision (at times) as regards the taxonomies, the lack o f data, the transitions b e t w e e n normal o r specific uses, etc. In addition, examples are p r o v i d e d o f advances m a d e in this area. (b) F. R . A d r a d o s - J . R o d r i g u e z S o m o l i n o s 1998d and

2002"

2 0 0 3 , w h i c h provides data o n the e n o r m o u s advance o f the D G E V a n d V I c o m p a r e d to the dictionary b y Liddel-ScottJ o n e s , as regards n e w w o r d s o r n e w technical and scientific meanings o f k n o w n w o r d s , w h i c h are exemplified with arti­ cles such as 8eKac;, Sfjjuoc, o r 8ucn. It also points out, with respect to these volumes, hapax legomena that cease to b e so and n e w w o r d s that were not collected until n o w . Description 282. T h e scope o f the intellectual and scientific Greek lexicon, whether w e are dealing with specific w o r d s o r meanings o f others, with tran­ sitions ranging from the most specialised to c o m m o n and conversa­ tional language, is i m m e n s e . T h e ability to f o r m n e w w o r d s is also without parallel; where w e w o u l d form n e w phrases, the Greeks could f o r m n e w w o r d s . It serves to recall the observation b y V e n d r y e s : 'there was never such a beautiful tool to express h u m a n

thought'.

Cf. F. R . A d r a d o s 1968. T h r o u g h o u t the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods, the lexical net­ works w h i c h w e discussed a b o v e (§ 227) - created b y the Presocratics and c o n t i n u e d b y the Socratics with repercussions o n the c o m m o n language—were perfected. T h e y contained different kinds o f nouns (abstract, action, agent, etc.), adjectives related to these as well as verbs a n d adverbs; in addition, variants functioning as preverbs, prefixes, and first elements o f c o m p o u n d s . T h u s , an infinitely flexible intellectual tool was created. P. Chantraine p r o v i d e s a detailed study o f the extension o f the different formations across the centuries; for koine and later Greek, cf. for example, p . 190 fT. (-jua), 289 ff. (-cue,), 320 ff. (-rnq). Specialised studies exist o n s o m e o f these, m a n y o f w h i c h are cited in m y w o r k Adrados

1 9 9 7 b . In fact, they originate from the I o n i c a n d Attic

p e r i o d , as I have explained in the appropriate context: but

during

the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods they reached an unrivaled level. In s o m e o f the examples o f suffixes and different derivatives w h i c h I offered earlier, I p l a c e d m u c h emphasis o n this.

K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N T O O T H E R

205

LANGUAGES

A b o v e all, it is a question o f abstract a n d action n o u n s in -d, -r| - ( a , -act, -|J,6c,, -aic,, - a w n , agent n o u n s in -xr|c,, etc.; adjectives in -toe,, -(X)IKOC;; a n d a series o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g verbs. A l s o , c o m p o u n d s a n d derivatives with prepositions. T h e r e was a t e n d e n c y to

create

systems in w h i c h nouns, adjectives, adverbs a n d verbs c o r r e s p o n d , systems w h i c h h a d parallels with others with initial prepositions o r with c o m p o u n d forms. T h i s was subsequently

imitated

in all

the

w o r l d ' s languages. M a n y o f the w o r d s f r o m w h i c h these lexical networks are f o r m e d did

not e m e r g e until the fifth o r fourth century B C and w e r e later

diffused, sometimes b e c o m i n g specialised a n d c h a n g i n g in semantics, in the Hellenistic p e r i o d o r later. F o r e x a m p l e , anaBia and 8 i d v o i a d e s c e n d from H e r o d o t u s , avrdpiceia a n d Siacpopd f r o m D e m o c r i t u s , al'c0rioT<; f r o m A n a x a g o r a s , arcdBeia f r o m Aristotle; they w e r e then widely diffused, with various meanings, along with their derivatives. F o r instance, if, in the eighth century ( H o m e r ) w e find cdpeco, only in the fifth century d o w e find the abstract otipeorc, ( H d t ) , w h i c h later survived in various literary genres a n d with various specialisations; in the

fifth/fourth

semantic

century odpeoruoc, ( X . ) , in the fourth

century aipexoc, (pi., I s o c ) , in the fourth/third century aip£xiaxr|c, (Philem.), aipr(GiX£i%r|c, (Diph.), in the third century a i p e o i a (Delos inscription), -etioc, (Chrysipp.), -dxnc, ( L X X ) , -exi^a) ( H p . , Ep., L X X ) , -etiKoc, (pi., Def),

-STUTOOC,

( L X X ) , in the first century Bc/first c e n ­

tury A D a i p e a i o ^ d x o q (Ph.), in the s e c o n d century A D aip£cndp%r|c, (S.E., Gal.), in the third century A D aipeaiobxrjc, (Porph.), in the fourth century A D ocipeoiccpxeco (Gr. Naz,), aipeaitaxxpicc ( D i d . ) . T h e lexical network g r e w across the centuries, across literary genres, a n d across b o t h pagans a n d

Christians.

T h e same applies in the case o f prepositional c o m p o u n d s , for e x a m p l e , those with Sux-: Sioupeaic, appears in H d t . , in the fifth c e n ­ tury, as does the v e r b Sicap&o; then there is 8iatp£x6<; and Siaipexucoc, in p f , Siapexrjc, in an inscription f r o m the third century B C , Siapexrjp in Philod. (first century B C ) a n d 8iaipex£oq, 8iaipr|jLia in T h e m , a n d Dam.

respectively (fourth and fifth century A D ) . F o r the documentation,

as in the previous case, see the DGE. 283.

T h e c o n c l u s i o n is analogous.

T o b e sure, the G r e e k language created lexical systems w h i c h

s o o n b e g a n to proliferate, such as ^oyi£o)/-ia|ia/-ioxf|<; (from w h i c h we

obtain -IOXIKOC,, -iox£ia)/-iK6c/-i|ioc,; pot>A,£uco/-xfi(;/-jj,a/-xr|pxov;

(pi?io(;/-£Go/-r|iia/-ia/-iK6<;; 8pdco/8paai<;/8pajia (from w h i c h w e obtain

206

CHAPTER

-TIKOC,)

ONE

/ 8pcWr|c;; etc. H o w e v e r , the derivatives f r o m prefixes are n o

less prolific (dva-,

OCTCO-,

£K-,

£TU-,

m i c e - , Tiapoc-, etc.) and c o m p o s i ­

tional elements ( d - / d v - , ccuxo-, e i > ,
DGE,

and a u t o , a r o u n d 1,750 with

d7io-, 50 with dyocGo-, 2 5 0 with dp%i- (dp%e-, dp%-). N o t e that most o f this type o f v o c a b u l a r y is present in all the written language. 284.

A n o t h e r line o f enquiry in the study o f G r e e k lexicon, c o m ­

plementing the previous o n e , deals with formative elements: terms w h i c h enter into c o m p o u n d s and derived words, like suffixes. W e have briefly l o o k e d at the treatment o f the lexicon in the and

archaic

classical p e r i o d , b u t there w e r e e n o r m o u s a d v a n c e s in

the

p e r i o d that w e are studying. I refer the reader to m y w o r k A d r a d o s 1997b a n d its bibliography. F o r the extension o f certain suffixes, cf. R . B r o w n i n g 1983, p . 38 ff.; for the n e w meanings o f s o m e words, p. 42. B e l o w , I p r o v i d e s o m e statistics (which also include even the most ancient

Greek, as there are n o studies based o n dates o r genres)

regarding n o u n and adjective suffixes. T h e y c o m e from the reverse index of Greek b y C . D . B u c k - W . Petersen 1944. S o m e frequencies: -105, -iov: 12,000 -ia, -in, -la: 7,500 -jioc,, -jwSv, -fxa,

-GJHOC,,

-\o\ibq:

4,000

-ccajna, -ia|xa: 3,300

-TT|<; (-Tac,)/-Tr|Toc,, -TOCTOC,:

500

-TUG, (-Tac,)/(-Tou), etc., -iGTfjc; 5,400 -oic,, -^ic,, -xj/ic,, -TIC; 5,400 -KOC,,

-KOV,

-IOCKOC,,

-TIKOC,:

7,200

It w o u l d b e interesting to distribute the frequencies chronologically, as there was a continuous increase. 285.

I think that this c a n give us s o m e idea o f the v o l u m e , the char­

acteristics a n d the evolution o f the intellectual v o c a b u l a r y o f Greek. Using I n d o - E u r o p e a n resources for w o r d formation, it represented a remarkable a d v a n c e c o m p a r a b l e to that o f science, philosophy, and thought in general. It laid the foundations for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this type o f lexi­ con

in the c o m i n g periods, although this o c c u r r e d largely

through

an intermediate stage, still to b e studied, w h i c h w e refer to as the G r a e c o - L a t i n l e x i c o n . It is simply the last o f the G r e e k grafts w h i c h

KOINE

AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER

LANGUAGES

207

Latin received from Plautus onwards, w h i c h enabled it to b e c o m e a language o f culture, a base for those w h i c h followed and continued to receive G r e e k grafts.

7.

GREEK AND

L A T I N IN T H E R E P U B L I C

AND THE

EMPIRE

The contact of Greek with other languages 286. G r e e c e and the Hellenistic k i n g d o m s w e r e c o n q u e r e d b y R o m e in the third century B C T h e process extended through the conquest o f southern Italy and Sicily ( T a r e n t u m fell in 2 7 2 , A g r i g e n t u m in 2 6 2 , Syracuse in 212) to the defeat o f the M a c e d o n i a n king Perseus b y Aemilius Paulus in 167 B C (Greek resistence c a m e to an e n d with the fall o f Corinth in 146) and the collapse o f the Hellenistic king­ d o m s ( P e r g a m u m was legated to the R o m a n e m p i r e in 133 B C , P o m p e y c o n q u e r e d Syria in 6 4 B C , and Caesar c o n q u e r e d Alexandria and Egypt in 30 B C ) . A t this time, and later, R o m e seized almost all o f the countries o n the Mediterranean, culminating its advance in the p e r i o d o f Trajan

(AD 9 8 - 1 1 7 ) : its d o m i n i o n extended from

England to the Euphrates, from the D a n u b e (and b e y o n d , in D a c i a ) to the Sahara. Latin i m p o s e d itself wherever it c a m e into contact with languages o f m o r e primitive cultures (in Italy, Gaul, England, Hispania, Germania, Pannonia, Illyria, Africa), and in G r e e k cities in s o m e o f these places, the o l d colonies o f the Mediterranean coast. H o w e v e r , R o m e ' s e n c o u n t e r with the Greeks from the third cen­ tury B C onwards (following another encounter o f lesser intensity from the seventh century onwards) h a d a rather u n e x p e c t e d o u t c o m e : the Hellenisation o f R o m e . It was a Hellenisation o f the culture, literature and language o f R o m e . A c o n q u e r e d G r e e c e in turn c o n q u e r e d its fierce victor, o r as H o r a c e puts it: Graecia capta ferum cepit uictorem (Epist

II 1, 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 ) .

2 8 7 . H o w e v e r , the o u t c o m e was different in the East. H e r e , G r e e k was maintained, n o t just in G r e e c e but also in the Hellenistic king­ d o m s o f Asia, w h e r e it h a d only b e e n a superstratum o n the indige­ nous languages. G r e e k was maintained for a l o n g p e r i o d in Sicily and in Marseille, but it s u c c u m b e d in the end. In Africa it e n j o y e d a p e r i o d o f splen­ d o u r after the fall o f Carthage, then after Justinian's invasion, but it did n o t s u c c e e d in i m p o s i n g itself. In G r e e c e a n d the East, Latin

208

CHAPTER

ONE

was the official language, but Aemilius Paulus spoke in G r e e k with Perseus; Licinius Crassus delivered his p r o n o u n c e m e n t s in

Greek;

A g r i p p a , king o f the Jews, was allowed to speak before the R o m a n senate in Greek; a n d the R o m a n s themselves c o m m u n i c a t e d with the Phoenicians, J e w s , a n d Syrians in Greek. In Egypt,

Romans

allowed G r e e k to b e used from the very start, as o p p o s e d to the i n d i g e n o u s l a n g u a g e . In fact, n o t even the generalisation

o f the

R o m a n citenzenry u n d e r Garacalla was able to i m p o s e Latin in any generalised way. In short, G r e e k was the language o f the educated and urban populations a n d the international language o f the East. Indeed, Latin only m a n a g e d to impose itself in the newly c o n q u e r e d territories, in Pannonia, T h r a c e and D a c i a , with the help o f the n e w colonists. T h e military, judicial, and part o f the administrative vocabulary, as m e n t i o n e d previously, b e c a m e generalised. In Byzantium, it was the official language until Justinian, and it was used a b o v e all in inscriptions and titles o f h o n o u r . H o w e v e r , from a m u c h earlier date, discourses were p r o n o u n c e d in Latin, followed b y translations; edicts and other inscriptions w e r e published in b o t h languages (such as the Res gestae b y Augustus) o r simply in Greek (as many edicts b y Hadrian). H . Zilliacus and J. K a i m i o have m a d e a very detailed study o f the use o f G r e e k in p u b l i c inscriptions, political life, legal language, and its role in private life and as a language o f culture. In fact, there was never any kind o f anti-Greek policy, and although this l a n g u a g e

h a d great prestige o n the o n e h a n d , a n d yet was

considered inferior o n the other hand, a state o f bilingualism was r e a c h e d in the East and the West, and was resolved in two different directions. T h e result was two-fold. O n the o n e hand, Latin b e c a m e filled with G r e e k expressions, w o r d s and constructions, derived f r o m the Hellenising culture w h i c h it e n c o u n t e r e d

and f r o m the fact that

R o m a n society, at the higher level, b e c a m e bilingual. O n the other hand, geographically speaking, Latin h a d to share its territory with Greek, w h i c h was maintained,

as w e mentioned, in the East (and

sometimes m o v e d to the W e s t through cultural means o r carried b y the Eastern diaspora). Furthermore,

within the Eastern empire there were p e r i o d

and

local differences. Latin was the preferred official language o f Gonstantine and later o f T h e o d o s i u s and Justinian, w h o maintained it, as I

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER LANGUAGES

209

stated, as the official language. A t the most, translated versions o f d o c u m e n t s were published in Greek; Latin was also the language o f law and jurisprudence, so that w h e n e v e r translations were m a d e they were full o f Latinisms, cf. L. B u r g m a n n 1991. H o w e v e r , the e m p e r o r Julian, for instance, preferred

Greek, Arcadius allowed the use o f

b o t h languages before the tribunals, a n d s o o n legal texts were para­ phrased and translated into Greek. In Egypt, the use o f G r e e k d o m ­ inated, with a few exceptions. 288. S o m u c h for the official use: it is clear that in the East, G r e e k was the language

o f the higher and m i d d l e classes, as well as o f

most writers, w h i c h explains w h y it e n d e d up i m p o s i n g itself in all fields. T h e R o m a n empire therefore b e c a m e bilingual in two ways. In the West, G r e e k was at the same time the language o f l o w e r class immigrants and the language o f educated society; in the East, G r e e k was the language c o m m o n l y spoken b y the e d u c a t e d classes

and

Latin held sway o v e r the administrative and official sectors (this was lost, h o w e v e r , in the Byzantine p e r i o d ) . This rather c o m p l e x situa­ tion was a c c o m p a n i e d b y a love-hate relationship,

in w h i c h

the

R o m a n s a d m i r e d the Greeks for their culture b u t despised their weakness and d e c a d e n c e , while the Greeks despised the R o m a n s for their lack o f culture and arrogance but admired their discipline and p o w e r . Y e t there were also G r e e k R o m a n o p h i l e s a n d R o m a n Greekophiles, and all sorts o f intermediate positions, Greek in Rome 2 8 9 . Let us g o b a c k to the origins. G r e e k influence o n Latin resulted in a total renovation. First in literature: the Saturnian was replaced b y the hexameter; the fescennini and the Atellana b y a G r e e k type o f c o m e d y ; annales and the elogia b y the Hellenising epic, history and lyric; even tragedy was a d o p t e d and, later o n , p h i l o s o p h y and ora­ tory. D u r i n g the Augustan p e r i o d , the first influence o f c o n t e m p o ­ rary Hellenism was substituted b y that o f earlier literature, w h i c h was classic and still archaic: classic oratory and history, archaic lyric and epic. T h e first Latin literature was a translation from the G r e e k (Livius A n d r o n i c u s translated the Odyssey) o r was written in G r e e k (Fabius Pictor, C i n c u s Alimentus); and m u c h later, R o m a n authors such Suetonius and M a r c u s Aurelius c o n t i n u e d to write in Greek.

210

CHAPTER

ONE

W h e n this n e w Latin literature e m e r g e d , it contained original fea­ tures, o f course, but in s o m e ways it was also a continuation o f the Greek. Certain factors must b e taken into a c c o u n t in o r d e r to fully under­ stand this. Firstly, something w e have already t o u c h e d u p o n , namely, the influence o f G r e e k o n all the languages o f the

Mediterranean,

from the archaic p e r i o d to, a b o v e all, the Hellenistic period, due to wars a n d conquests as well as trade. Subsequently,

an

enormous

Greek-speaking population (Greeks, Jews, Syrians, e t c ) b e c a m e estab­ lished in R o m e , as extensively attested in the inscriptions. Juvenal scornfully refers to the Graecam urbem (III 61). Secondly, the factor o f the m o d e r n i t y and the strength o f influence exerted b y G r e e k lit­ erature, w h i c h e n d e d up erasing ancient Latin literature and replac­ ing it with a n e w , very Hellenicised literature to w h i c h I have just referred. Thirdly, the bilingualism o f the R o m a n educated classes, w h o learned G r e e k and finished their training o r education in G r e e c e (although m a n y o f the G r e e k also learned Latin). Indeed,

Roman

c o n q u e r o r s f r o m the s e c o n d century BG, such as Aemilius Paulus (who a n n e x e d M a c e d o n i a after his victory in Pydna in 168) o r the Scipios w e r e fervent Hellenisers. Even the hostage Polybius m a n a g e d to introduce Hellenism to the R o m a n aristocracy. 2 9 0 . In the letters o f C i c e r o and in m a n y anecdotes relating to Caesar and the conspirors w h o m u r d e r e d h i m , to Augustus, Tiberius and so m a n y other personalities, the Latin text is interspersed with pas­ sages o r replies in Greek. It was in G r e e k that Caesar delivered his famous p r o n o u n c e m e n t to cross the R u b i c o n ('the dice are thrown'); that Caesar spoke to Brutus w h e n he was assassinated ('you t o o , m y son?'); that Augustus reproached Asinius Pollio for admitting Timagenes £

into his house ( you are feeding a wild beast'); and that Tiberius spoke w h e n he d r e w s o m e o n e into his confidence. Greek was also used as the language o f love, as attested in Lucretius I V 1160 ff. and criticised b y Juvenal V I 196 ff. A l t h o u g h c i r c u m ­ stances later c h a n g e d in the West, for in the fourth century only the higher classes a n d technical writers had a c o m m a n d o f Greek. A b o v e all, G r e e k was an intellectual language and the

language

o f literature and science: these were either written in G r e e k o r in Latin filled with a G r e e k vocabulary w h i c h was m o r e o r less assim­ ilated, a n d

e v e n with G r e e k w o r d s written in G r e e k

characters.

Cicero's letters and Ausonius's p o e m s are littered with Greek phrases.

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N

TO

OTHER

LANGUAGES

211

T h o s e o f Augustus, Claudius and T i b e r i u s are filled with G r e e k w o r d s , although this d o e s n o t include oratory o r political works, n o r the Acts (but Claudius did speak G r e e k in the Senate, a c c o r d i n g to Suet., Claud. 42). T h u s , a part o f Latin ^absorbed so m a n y G r e e k elements that it turned into what I have referred to as Graeco-Latin, w h i c h w o u l d play a decisive role in the diffusion o f ancient cultures and languages in the M i d d l e A g e s and indeed in all the succeeding periods until the present day. 2 9 1 . T h e origin o f this p h e n o m e n o n is in the early influence o f the G r e e k language o n the Latin language, w h i c h was essential for fac­ ing n e w cultural circumstances. W e are particularly familiar with this p h e n o m e n o n from the Hellenistic p e r i o d o n w a r d s . T h e influence t o o k place in various stages: in the archaic, r e p u b ­ lican a n d imperial periods; and b y various means: oral,

literary,

scientific and ecclesiastical I believe I have p r o v i d e d sufficient data o n this. It should b e o b s e r v e d that at the e n d o f Antiquity, familiarity with G r e e k diminished: in R o m e it was still very m u c h alive in p h i l o ­ sophical and theological circles and a m o n g the aristocracy, but it was hardly k n o w n outside the city. Y e t , cultivators o f G r e e k c o n ­ tinued to exist. T h e e m p e r o r Gratian officially established its teach­ ing in G a u l (376), w h e r e Ausonius's circle was active in B o r d e a u x ; the British Pelagius assisted the s y n o d o f D i o s p o l i s in 4 1 5

and

impressed everyone with his mastery o f Greek. T h e councils, always celebrated in the East, enlightened the western bishops o n the i m p o r ­ tance o f Greek. Let us stop here for a m o m e n t . T h e Neoplatonists, particularly Plotinus and Porphyry, h a d the greatest influence o n western thought during the fourth and fifth centuries. T h e r e were those w h o h a d a g o o d mastery o f Greek, such as M a c r o b i u s , Calcidius (translator o f the Timaeus) o r Hilary o f Poitiers; and those w h o h a d mastered it to a lesser extent, such as Saint Augustine, w h o c a m e to Platonism through the Hortensius o f C i c e r o . T h e n there w e r e the Hellenising poets, such as Ausonius, Claudian and Dracontius. Translations played an important role. In the third to the fourth centuries w e have the Hermeneumata o f Ps. Dositheus, w h i c h include translations o f G r e e k fables into Latin (the w h o l e fabulistic genre consists o f adaptations o f Greek). A m o n g the Christian

translations,

212

CHAPTER

ONE

w e must m e n t i o n the oldest translations o f the Bible (Vetus Latino)^ which were very non-literary, literal translations; the Vulgata b y J e r o m e , which, for the O l d Testament, also translates f r o m H e b r e w and is relatively literary; and the translations o f the Acts o f the councils. Rufinus and J e r o m e translated Eusebius and Origen, the Gappadocian Fathers, etc. T h e style gradually i m p r o v e d in the direction o f Atticism: as s h o w n in the translation b y Evagrius o f the Life of Saint Anthony b y Athanasius, w h e n c o m p a r e d with a previous translation. 2 9 2 . All in all, G r e e k was cultivated to a lesser extent in this p e r i o d . It flourished, h o w e v e r , in Italian court circles under the Ostrogoths o f T h e o d o r i c ( 4 9 3 - 5 2 6 ) , w h o were familiar with it due to its culti­ vation in the East, w h e r e Ulfila translated the Bible into G o t h i c . T h e Hellenised p h i l o s o p h y o f S y m m a c h u s and Boethius date from this p e r i o d ; the w o r k o f the latter being very prodigious, although he was unable to c o m p l e t e his translation o f the entire works o f Plato and Aristotle into Latin. Also from this p e r i o d is Priscian, w h o , while living in Constantinople, wrote his Grammatica o n the G r e e k m o d e l . S o m e w h a t later, in the sixth century, Cassiodorus lived in gothic Italy a n d wrote o n historical and theological subjects. M a n y translations from the Greek into Latin date from this period, s o m e b y Dionysius Exiguus and Saint Martin o f Braga (monastic writings). S o m e w h a t later, in the seventh century, w e have Isidore, w h o in Visigothic Spain, in his Etymologiae and other works, left a kind o f testament o f the w h o l e o f Antiquity. T h i s cultivation o f G r e e k is reflected in Latin Hellenisms, w h i c h will b e emphasised here (not just lexical Hellenisms, but Hellenisms in general). 293. O n Latin expansion and its relation with Greek in general, see R . J . Bonner 1930, H. Zilliacus 1935, J. Marouzeau 1949, p . 125 ff., J. Kaimio 1979 and L. Zgusta 1980, F. Bivillee 1990, p . 21 ff., S. A. Tovar 1990, p. 41. More specifically, see, on the situation in Rome, H. Kajanto 1980; in Palestine, H. B. Rosen 1980; on the border of Greek and Latin in the Balkans, see B. Gerov 1980. O n the bilingualism of the educated classes in Rome, see J. M . Pabon 1939, L. Zgusta cit, p. 138 ff. O n the emergence of Latin literature, see Adrados 1994b. O n the relations between Greeks and Romans in general, and their estimation of each other, see S. Swain 1986 (and my review in Emerita 65, 1997, pp. 374-75). O n late Hellenism, see W . Berschin 1969-70. O n the concept o f 'Sprachbund' or the GraecoLatin linguistic league, J. Kramer 1983. This author proposes the existence of a series o f characteristics in the evolution o f Greek and Latin during the Republican and Imperial periods, resulting from the intense contact between

KOINE A N D

ITS R E L A T I O N

TO

OTHER

LANGUAGES

213

these two languages. Thus, in phonetics, we have the lenition of intervo­ calic occlusives, the palatalisation of velar occlusives before a preceding e or i, the fricativisation o f intervocalic 4, the loss of aspiration and o f the differences in quantity and the monophthongisation of diphthongs; in mor­ phology, the introduction in Latin o f new types o f declension, the transfer of Greek suffixes into Latin, and Latin suffixes into Greek and the reduc­ tion of the case system (with the advance o f the A c ) ; in syntax, the decline of constructions with infinitive, the dative absolute o f Greek, the different periphrastic verbal forms, the tendency in vulgar Latin towards a central positioning o f the verb, as in Greek, etc. Gf. G. Horrocks 1997, p. 73 ff. O n Greek and Romance, Gf. W . Dietrich 1995.

8.

HELLENISED

LATIN AND GREEK-LATIN

2 9 4 . T h e Hellenisation o f Latin can b e followed from the s e c o n d century BG onwards, together with the Hellenisation o f literature. T h e social circumstances described p r o v i d e an adequate explanation o f this process: the influence o f spoken G r e e k w h e r e the t w o p o p u ­ lations were in contact o r interrelated,

the cultural influence o f lit­

erary and scientific Greek. It was a process that was continued, with increasing intensity, throughout Antiquity. Phonetic and m o r p h o l o g i c a l adaptation varied d e p e n d i n g o n the route o f entry o f the G r e e k elements a n d o n their date. W i t h regard to phonetics, a classic transcription exists in w h i c h , for instance, the voiceless aspirated are transcribed in Latin as such: ph, th, ch. But, particularly in the archaic p e r i o d , diverse transcrip­ tions were p r o d u c e d (for example, ampulla, purpura. Poems, etc.), w h i c h shed light o n the phonetics o f G r e e k a n d Latin at the time o f the loan. F o r instance, there are G r e e k w o r d s that w e r e taken before the alteration o f the Latin vocalic system and others after it. Similarly, there are transcriptions o f (p as p and as ph, and later others as f o r b (Orpheus, baselus); there is P transcribed as b a n d u, etc. Linguistic b o r r o w i n g s also p r o v i d e information o n various details, such as the origin o f certain b o r r o w i n g s in the G r e e k dialects o f Italy and Sicily (machina with D o r i c a, Achiui, Argiui, oliua with digamma, Ulixes, sc(h)ara, etc.) o r o n the languages o f m e d i a t i o n (especially Etruscan, it is thought, in cases such as Proserpina o r persona, from KpOGCGTCOV).

2 9 5 . Systems o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l adaptation

w e r e also created. F o r

instance, the first Greek declension, in -a, -n and -aq, -nq was reduced in Latin to -a: nauta, poeta. But alterations o f the type Tarentum for

214

CHAPTER

Tdpaq,

ONE

Agrigentum for 'AKpocyctt;, bracchium for |3pa%iG)v, trigonus for

tp-oycov, aulona for oaoXcbv are frequent, as is the mixture o f inflections (Piraea). H o w e v e r , sometimes the strict G r e e k f o r m was respected (Achates, Pelides, agon, andron), depending o n the level and style o f the language. Nearly all verbs passed into the first conjugation: not just machinari from |ia%ccv&a0ott but also exanclare from e^avi^etv, hilarare from i^apoco, tornare from topveueiv. But it is important to note that, e x c e p ­ tions aside, sometimes w e are dealing with Latin derivatives: coaxare (from KodQ, paedicare (from xa rccciSnca), stomachari (from o%6\ia%o<;), pausare (from the aor. o f Tcoueiv). But I will not g o into further detail o n aspects relating m o r e to Latin than Greek. T h e significant thing is the absorption o f the Greek vocabulary, whether o n the cultural level o r o n other levels. T h e Latin language was enriched b y a p a n o p l y o f roots and

formative

elements; it even altered its phonological system, permitting, for exam­ ple,

finals in -n, a n d its m o r p h o l o g i c a l and syntactic systems, admit­

ting constructions identical to the Greek. 296. The fundamental work continues to be that of O . Weise 1882. One should add the various works by F. Biville cited in the bibliography and, among many others, the works o f J. Marouzeau 1949, J. Andre 1971, A. Ernhout 1954, M . Leumann 1948 and 1968, G. Devoto 1968, pp. 86 ff, 117 ff., 147 ff., 184 ff., H. Liidtke 1974, p. 37 ff., 59 ff., G. Lagunz 1995 and my work o f 1997b. For fourth century pagan authors, see R . Moes 1980. Suffixes with a Greek origin can be found in L. Delatte and others 1981. For the Greek influence on vulgar Latin, see E. Goseriu 1977. I also use two papers by L. Perez Castro 1997 (on Quintilian) and F, Hernandez Gonzalez 1997 (on Faventinus). All the same, the subject deserves a new systematic study to define the different tendencies, accord­ ing to date and author, in the acceptance or rejection (by means o f caiques, etc) o f Greek lexicon and syntax. N o systematic study has ever been made. 297.

In continuation, I will sketch the fundamental

lines o f G r e e k

influence o n Latin in the different areas o f language, starting with the l e x i c o n . T o take a few examples, w e find Greek lexicon in the Carmen Auvale (triumpus), Livius Andronicus (cothurnus, purpureus), Naevius (barbarus, mebs, nauta), Plautus (absinthium, basilica, comoedia, emporium, peplum), T e r e n c e (musicus, scaenicus), Catullus (ambrosia, astrum, satyrus), Lucretius (cycnus), Virgil (calthus, magicus, narcissus), C i c e r o (astrologia, bibliotheca, epigramma, geometria, schola), Tertullian (apostolus), A m m i a n u s (geographus), etc.

KOINE AND

The

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

OTHER

LANGUAGES

215

oldest b o r r o w i n g s were oral and c a m e from conversational

language: they referred to the sea and maritime trade; they included the vocabulary o f luxury, games a n d pleasure; domestic conversation; and the arts and sciences. Later, the poets played a decisive role, particularly since the Alexandrine school. I have only cited a few examples, in w h i c h there is a d o m i n a n c e o f things w h i c h were unfamiliar to the R o m a n s and c a m e from the intellectual vocabulary. The

7

introduction o f Hellenisms h a d b e g u n in the fifth century BG,

with terms that were influenced b y Etruscan, as w e have seen umpe, amurca, sporta, persona) or otherwise (camera, gubernare, oleum,

itri-

Pollux)]

it increased after the Samnite wars, starting from 330 (mina, dracuma, techna, talentum, balineum, catapultd) and was stepped up through

the

literary and scientific route m e n t i o n e d . O f couse, there w e r e reactions against this, such as the expulsion o f rhetoricians and philosophers in the years 173, 161 and 154; the rejection o f G r e e k words in official oratory; and the efforts b y C i c e r o , QuintiHan, etc., to create Latin equivalents o f Greek words, see § 300. T h i s Hellenistic lexicon b e c a m e increasingly larger in bulk in the later literature, w h i c h included Christian literature. E n o r m o u s incre­ ments are r e c o r d e d in Plautus, the R e p u b l i c a n and Augustan poets, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, C i c e r o , Tertulian, the Historia Augusta J e r o m e . T h e s e and other data, along with the distribution

and

o f the

lexicon in semantic areas, c a n b e f o u n d in the b o o k b y R . M o e s 1980,

w h i c h records the Hellenisms in J e r o m e , the Letters, the b o o k

De rebus bellicis, A m m i a n u s , Claudian, and the Historia Augusta. D e v o t o ' s statistics, p . 193, for literary authors from Catullus to Persius (via O v i d , Tibullus, Propertius, H o r a c e , Ep. and Sat, Juvenal), reveal that the p r o p o r t i o n o f Hellenisms oscillates between 10 and 20 percent. 298.

Christian Hellenisms are very important. W e are dealing with

w o r d s w h i c h , with a change in meaning, have remained fixed in the Latin language (words like angelus, baptisma, euangelium, christus,

ecclesia,

episcopus, liturgia, monacus, presbyter, monasterium, etc.) and with words, such as eremita, w h i c h were created f r o m Greek. T h i s is because, at a certain point, Latin was c o n v e r t e d in the W e s t into the language o f the C h u r c h , w h i c h nevertheless inherited m u c h from its Greek phase, w h i c h continued in the East. It should b e noted that w e are not just dealing with direct borrowings (sometimes with morphological adaptation), but also with caiques, such as spiritus for %vzv\ia

(but

216

CHAPTER

ONE

sometimes a caique was attempted and failed, as w h e n tingere gave way

to pccTm^eiv).

O . W e i s e records a total seven thousand Latin Hellenisms in his b o o k o f 1882, the p i o n e e r w o r k o n this subject. Clearly, this n u m b e r should b e increased. Latin Hellenisms are useful for the understanding o f Greek; not just the phonetics, but also the lexicon: in Latin there are

Greek

w o r d s a n d a c c e p t a n c e o f G r e e k w o r d s w h i c h are d o c u m e n t e d there before they are in G r e e k (cf. for e x a m p l e , df|p 'atmosphere', 'air' in the DGE, fifth century II 1). 299.

O n the other hand, it is not just a matter o f borrowings, but

also semantic caiques, resulting in the creation o f n e w w o r d s . Both tended to r e m e d y what Lucretius (I 832) referred to as patrii sermonis egestas, the p o v e r t y o f the m o t h e r

t o n g u e . Plautus translated

(piA,oyuvaioc, for mulierosus, C i c e r o transformed

crov£{8r|0ic,, 7coa6xr|c,

and TtoioTnc, into conscientia, quantitas and qualitas. H e used conuenientia instead o f 6|K)^oyia, aequilibrietas instead o f iaovouioc; sometimes he hesitated (notitia rerum, cognitio o r intellegentia for evvoioc). Frequently, it t o o k s o m e time to find an equivalent: 7id0oc, is not passio until Saint Augustine. T h e process continued: accentus for rcpoocpSia, e t c T h e bilingualism o f the educated classes o f R o m e and, at

times,

o f the p o p u l a t i o n that coexisted with Greeks and Eastern peoples established in R o m e , and o f the traders and artisans explains G r a e c o Latin 'monsters' such as sescentoplagus, Pompeiopolis, cistophorus, e t c This system o f w o r d formation continues to this d a y (sp. automovil, e t c ) . 300.

It is necessary to study in greater detail (and it must b e stressed

that n o such study has yet b e e n realised) the behaviour o f the different authors with regard to the a c c e p t a n c e o r rejection o f the G r e e k lex­ i c o n , d e p e n d i n g o n factors relating to date, literary genre and per­ sonality. See L. Perez Castro 1997. T o take an e x a m p l e , in the Institutiones Oratoriae b y Quintilian there is m e n t i o n and sometimes criticism o f G r e e k adaptations to Latin by authors such as Plautus o r C i c e r o ( w h o in the Acad. post. I 7, 25 states 'I will make an effort to speak in Latin'), as well as his o w n numerous proposals. H e accepts, for example, essentia for ouaia because 'there is n o Latin n a m e ' (III 6, 23) and conclusio for emXoyoc, (in the Rhet ad Her. 1, 4); he translates KaGoAaicd for uniuersalia 'ut dicamus quo modo possumus" (II 13, 14); he prefers uis for Suvajiic, to other p r o ­ posals, potestas, facultas (II 15, 3); etc.

KOINE AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER LANGUAGES

217

But Hellenisms were not i n c o r p o r a t e d to the same extent b y all authors, and not all Hellenisms w e r e the same. C i c e r o often reacted against t h e m (see Orator 4 9 , 164, De qfficiis I 111 a n d the

afore­

mentioned passages) and used them m o r e restrictively than the Rhetorica ad Herennium. S o m e ancient Latin voices remained definitively fixed by h i m as the equivalent o f the Greek: sapienta for Goqnoc (cf. Afranius 299),

ars for T£%vr|, casus for

TTCCOGK;,

ratio for AxSyoq, causa for aixia.

S o m e terms c a l q u e d from G r e e k c o m p o s i t i o n a l m e t h o d s (altitonans, horrisonus, c o m p o u n d s in -ficus, -gena, -gradus, etc.) were reserved for poetry. Similarly, s o m e exact transcriptions

o f the N . o f the

first

declension in -e, the A c . and the s e c o n d declension in -n> etc. Faventinus,

w h o p r o d u c e d an abbreviated

edition o f Vitruvius,

struggled with his G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y (sometimes leaving the Greek, other times suggesting Latin caiques), adapting it to a ' h u m b l e lan­ g u a g e ' for private use. 301.

In the long run, a large proportion o f the Greek lexicon remained

firmly

established in Latin and, m o r e importantly, formative G r e e k

elements such as -Tn<;, - U X X , -xpxa ( > -ta, -ma, -tria) and so m a n y m o r e w h o s e diffusion has b e e n studied b y J. A n d r e are also verbal elements, such as M.

Leumann

-I£GD

( >

-izare),

-IGOCO

1 9 7 1 ; there ( >

-issare), cf.

1948. In addition, suffixes related to Greek, such as

-icus, -men, -mentum, etc. were diffused. In fact, all these suffixes c a m e to f o r m a single system, in w h i c h other Latin suffixes w e r e also admitted, such as -osus, sometimes with shades o f differences a m o n g them. Similarly, there was a t e n d e n c y towards a unique system o f prefixes and preverbs, w h i c h were at the same time G r e e k and Latin: a-/in-,

hiper-/super-, peri-/circum-, in addition to those w h i c h were only

G r e e k o r Latin. Yet

G r e e k suffixes have a lesser s c o p e for use in Latin than they

d o in Greek: for the 9 2 0 cases o f -\o\ioq

in Buck-Petersen, there are

65 examples o f -ismus in Latin. But it m a r k e d the start o f the enor­ m o u s diffusion o f -ismo, -isme, etc. in the m o d e r n languages. O n the other h a n d , G r e e k prefixes and suffixes w e r e often linked to w o r d s o f G r e e k origin (for e x a m p l e , a-, eu-, epi-, cata-) and only gradually b e c a m e freed (mainly the suffixes). Nevertheless, Latin contained a lesser p r o p o r t i o n o f G r e e k elements than the E u r o p e a n

languages

today: it only p r o v i d e d the m o d e l , the starting point, as it w e r e , for these languages to d e v e l o p . T h i s is the G r a e c o - L a t i n I have b e e n referring to, w h i c h displayed syntactic features similar o r identical to those o f G r e e k and, a b o v e

218

CHAPTER ONE

all, a l e x i c o n that was already to a large extent c o m m o n to the t w o languages. This m i x e d Latin, w h i c h began to spread at the e n d o f Antiquity and to w h i c h Christianity also contributed, served as the vehicle o f transmission o f the intellectual vocabulary o f G r e e k during the M i d d l e A g e s in the West, despite the fact that this language was practically i g n o r e d at the time. Later o n , in the fifteenth

century,

b o t h languages o n c e again c o n v e r g e d in the West, so that G r a e c o Latin grew and continued to develop within the languages o f Europe. W e should r e m e m b e r that Graeco-Latin was not just an educated and ecclesiastical p h e n o m e n o n . In the same w a y that in the archaic p e r i o d a series o f b o r r o w i n g s c a m e from the spoken language, so it was in the later p e r i o d . In studies o n vulgar Latin, such as that b y Grandgent

1928, it is said to contain Hellenisms such as amygdalum,

5

cited;

cata ' e a c h , colaphus, dactylus; the verbal suffix -izare, already

adjectival suffixes such as -o<; -rj, -ov ( > -us -a, -urn) and, in partic­ ular, nouns adapted

to Latin: -aq (lampa), -rj<;, -%r\q (tructa, boletus),

-i (piper, sinapsis/sinape, gumma/gummis/gummi),

-xq (pausa), -\xa (cima),

-po<; (Alexander), -o>v (leo). Sometimes, the starting point is a case other than the N . (elephantus, magida) o r phonetic alterations are introduced (ceresus, cithern, scopulus, spatula). 3 0 2 . But w e n e e d to p a y closer attention to the influence o f G r e e k syntax o n Latin to w h i c h w e have already referred o n several o c c a ­ sions. This influence was to b e expected given the contact between b o t h nations and the fact that the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Latin literature o n the G r e e k m o d e l s called for the d e v e l o p m e n t in the former o f the syntax as well as the lexicon. T h e fact is that the oldest surveys o f G r e e k syntactic influence o n Latin were followed b y m o r e restrictive ones - t o o restrictive, in m y view. Strange prejudices e m e r g e d ; for instance, if a construction was present in C i c e r o , then this p r o v e d that it was Latin. N o t m a n y Hellenisms are referred to in the treatises o n Latin syn­ tax: s o m e in classical prose a n d in particular in classical poetry. F o r e x a m p l e , quod mihi uolenti est (Sallustius, Livius, Tacitus), cf, G r .

TOVXO

eaxiv ejiol (3(n)A,ou£v(p; partitives G . and others related, such as dea dearum (Ennius), opportuna moenium (Livius), cuncta curarum (Tacitus); A c . o f relation as in traiectus lora, sacra comas (Virgil); A c . o f the w h o l e and a part (Deiphobum tibiam ferit, Dictys Cretensis); part, equivalent to a subordinate (sensit medios delapsus in hostes, Virgil); G . dependent o f a verb as in regnauit populorum ( H o r a c e ) , also with gratulator, gaudeo,

KOINE AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER LANGUAGES

219

miror, etc.; G . absolute, as in eius praeteriti temporis (Bellum Hispaniense) and o f time, as in huius temporis ( J e r o m e ) ; ille as art., as in ille mortuus (Itala); inf. o f preterite with aoristic value, as in insidiam non timuisse debet (Tibullus); inf. d e p e n d e n t o n the adjective, as in concedere digna (Catullus); inf. clauses with ellipsis o f subject a n d predicated in N . , as in uxor inuicti louis esse nescis (Horace). T h e abundance o f periphrastic forms o f the verb in late Latin has b e e n attributed to Greek influence. 5

In short, sometimes w e are dealing with 'literary and p o e t i c c o n ­ structions a n d sometimes with vulgar and late constructions. 3 0 3 . T h e influence o n phrase construction in general is m o r e i m p o r ­ tant. F o r e x a m p l e , the construction o f verbs o f understanding and l a n g u a g e with quod, w h i c h is frequent

in Plautus (scio iam, filius

quod amet meus istanc meretricem in Asin. 52—53), only appears later in 5

'incorrect passages o f the Bellum Hispaniense (36: renuntiaueront quod. . .) o r Justin (I 7, 9 cognito quod. . . ) , but m u c h later it was n o r m a l in vulgar Latin and has passed into the R o m a n c e languages. T h e c o n ­ clusion that c a n b e drawn is that a 'submerged

5

construction b e c a m e

non-literary. T h i s , n o d o u b t , was a result o f G r e e k influence, w h i c h i m p o s e d the generalisation

o f the subordinate

with infinitive, also

possible in Latin from the very beginning. Y e t , this is but a m i n o r detail. A l t h o u g h the same c a n n o t b e said for the creation o f the c o m p l e x p e r i o d based o n subordinates

and

determinations o f these, as imitated b y C i c e r o f r o m the G r e e k ora­ tors (Isocrates, Demosthenes) and subsequently practiced b y the ora­ tors and throughout prose. A s stated b y W . K r o l l 1935, p . 33: I am not speaking o f Greek influence in the construction o f discourse and of the Latin period, which, through this, obtained a clear and lucid form for the first time. W e can appreciate the form that the lan­ guage o f the old laws and the Umbrian tablets used to have, Varro always preserved something of this burden. The great service provided by Cicero consists in that he completely rid himself o f this. K r o l l also c o m p a r e s the transformation

o f G e r m a n prose (or any

E u r o p e a n prose, for that matter) through Latin influence from the fourteenth

century onwards.

Classical G r e e k syntax remained very m u c h alive in Latin and, today, in o u r languages.

220

CHAPTER

9.

GREEK AND

ONE

OTHER LANGUAGES OF ANTIQUITY

The languages revolving around Greek 304. Latin was, o f course, the language w h i c h was most influenced b y G r e e k a n d w h i c h was largely responsible for introducing

the

language and culture o f the Greeks to the M i d d l e Ages and, indeed, modernity. But G r e e k influence was not limited to Latin: w e have discussed its contact with the languages o f Gaul a n d Hispania, with Etruscan, D e m o t i c and C o p t i c o f Egypt, with the languages o f the Balkans, Asia M i n o r , Syria, and Palestine. M o s t o f these languages disappeared precisely because o f the impact o f G r e e k (or Latin, for others). I n d e e d , within the limits o f the R o m a n empire, o n l y H e b r e w , A r a m a i c a n d A r a b i c survived; also C o p t i c in Egypt, w h i c h at s o m e p o i n t was r e d u c e d to a sacred language. Subsequently, at the e n d o f the R o m a n empire, A r m e n i a n and Syriac created a literature, as did, m u c h later, G o t h i c and Slavic — always under the influence o f Greek. G r e e k did n o t m a n a g e

to i m p o s e itself in Egypt, for

Egyptian

( D e m o t i c at this point, but later called C o p t i c ) continued to b e the language

o f the masses. It also m a n a g e d

to influence G r e e k ,

as

already discussed. T h e r e existed a bilingualism, as attested b y the famous Rosetta Stone. H o w e v e r , D e m o t i c was in turn enormously influenced b y Greek. W . Clarysse 1987 links 9 6 G r e e k w o r d s to D e m o t i c texts:

particu­

larly honorific titles, p r o p e r names, official titles, administrative terms (especially from the sphere o f finance) and objects o f everyday life. T h i s influence increased from the m o m e n t in w h i c h , beginning in the s e c o n d century A D , D e m o t i c began to b e written in G r e e k char­ acters, first in local magical texts. This language is referred to as C o p t i c . F r o m the year 3 0 0 onwards, translations into C o p t i c were p r o d u c e d o f Biblical, Gnostic and M a n i c h e a n texts -

always from

Greek, w h i c h increased its influence. It has b e e n calculated that up to 2 0 percent o f the C o p t i c l e x i c o n is o f G r e e k origin, adapted

to

this language. T h e m o r p h o l o g y was also adapted: for example, there were changes in gender, a c c o r d i n g to G r e e k synonyms o f the nouns. Also, c o m p o u n d s a n d derivates were created w h i c h did not corre­ s p o n d with the n o r m a l use in C o p t i c , a n d n e w meanings to s o m e w o r d s were introduced t h o u g h G r e e k borrowings. T h e r e were also syntactic influences.

K O I N E A N D ITS R E L A T I O N

305.

T O OTHER

LANGUAGES

221

I have already discussed h o w various languages o f the Balkans

( T h r a c i a n ) , Syria a n d Asia M i n o r (Phrygian, P h o e n i c i a n , Lydian, Lycian, e t c ) w e r e subjected to G r e e k influence a n d b e g a n to disap­ pear in different periods, at the very latest during the R o m a n empire. This entire region was for^a time bilingual: numerous bilingual inscrip­ tions have survived. H o w e v e r , a c c o r d i n g to Strabo, the majority o f the languages o f N.

W . Asia M i n o r h a d d i e d out in his lifetime; the same can b e

said o f other languages, such as P h o e n i c i a n , w h i c h survived until the first century A D , in C y p r u s until the s e c o n d century. T h e r e are bilin­ gual inscriptions a n d others, such as that f r o m Piraeus dating a r o u n d 96 B C , w h i c h are a caique o f the G r e e k . A r a m a i c as well as G r e e k was spoken in Syria and Palestine: this is seen in Babatha's

archive, dated A D 132. Palmyra was multilin­

gual: the higher class spoke G r e e k and A r a m a i c , others also A r a b i c . H e r e w e find decrees in A r a m a i c a n d Greek, with Aramaicisms ( N . for A c , etc.). T h e r e are also decrees in G r e e k , Latin a n d Palmyric (Aramaic). G r e e k was also written, in a very altered f o r m , in D u r a E u r o p o s , in the Euphrates. G i v e n such circumstances, it is n o t strange to find G r e e k influence in the rare examples w e have o f these languages, w h i c h s o o n d i e d out; for e x a m p l e , in Phrygia,

KOCKODV

in sepulchral inscriptions.

H o w e v e r , this influence is best demonstrated in r a b b i n i c H e b r e w , studied b y X . S z n o l 1989 based u p o n the works o f S. Krauss, H . B. R o s e n , D . Sperber and others, cited in the b i b l i o g r a p h y , in addition to his o w n study o f the rabbinical text Genesis Rabba (Galilee, third to fifth century A D ) . T h e sources o f these texts c a n b e f o u n d in other writings in H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c , f r o m the destruction o f the sec­ ond

temple to the Byzantine p e r i o d .

T h e r e are m a n y lexical b o r r o w i n g s f r o m Greek: terms relating to everyday life, trade, p u b l i c administration

a n d the military, religious

a n d philosophical currents. T h e s e w o r d s are c o m m o n in koine and are also f o u n d in Egypt, Syria a n d Asia M i n o r . T o m e n t i o n a few: 5

5

dva^oyrj 'bill, receipt , Xoxnaq ' a d d e d tax , (piaXn, 7coxr|piov. T h e r e are also n e w w o r d s :

dvxiKaiaap, 58iy|a,aTfipiov,

8i
new

formations: KepauaSoc, Tcpcbxaxa, ap^ovxaq ( o f the A c . pi.).

306.

A p a r t from the languages w h i c h gradually died out in Antiquity

and those w h i c h survived, albeit rather precariously, such as A r a m a i c a n d C o p t i c , w e should n o t forget the languages w h i c h b e g a n

to

be written towards the e n d o f the Imperial p e r i o d : f r o m the third

222

CHAPTER

ONE

century A D (Ethiopic) o r the fourth century (Syriac, A r m e n i a n ) . This is significant, for u p until then, these were languages without writing (although Syriac is actually a derivative o f A r a m a i c ) even though they were spoken early r e m o t e Antiquity. Galatan, spoken in Asia M i n o r in the third century BG, has left neither inscriptions nor writings. All these languages b e g a n to be written as a result o f diverse kinds o f contact with the Greeks and G r e e k culture. For Ethiopic w e have inscriptions in the k i n g d o m o f A k s u m from the third century A D , inscriptions in Ethiopic and A r a b i c , but also in Greek. W e are told that the e m p e r o r Zoskales, at the start o f the century, was an expert in Greek. A n o t h e r e m p e r o r , from the fourth century, Ezana, c o n ­ verted his p e o p l e to Christianity and i n t r o d u c e d vowels, a c c o r d i n g to the G r e e k m o d e l , into the former alphabet, introduced from Saba in Y e m e n . T o w a r d s the year 5 0 0 the Bible was translated

from

G r e e k a n d there was a v o l u m e o f literature w h i c h b o r r o w e d m a n y words from Greek, o f the type notawfy) < vouTnc;, mangel < e^ayyeA-iov, zomo < £co|n6<;, etc. W e have examples o f Syriac from the s e c o n d century A D , and it p r o d u c e d an entire literature from the fourth century A D , coincid­ ing with its Christianisation. This was initiated b y the bishop Ephraim, the great writer w h o w r o t e commentaries to the Bible and

other

apologetic works. A very important Syriac literature developed, largely translated f r o m Greek; Syriac was also the intermediate

language

between original Pahlavi texts and the G r e e k language (as in the case o f Syntipas) and also A r a b i c . This literature also included p r o ­ fane G r e e k works, starting with Aristotle. O n c e again, the forces o f Hellenism together with those o f Christianity initiated the c o n v e r ­ sion o f a n e w language into writing. Syriac is full o f G r e e k w o r d s : ^eskema < a%fju.cc, hjule < iS&n, 'aksenjo < £ev(a, ^qftord < (pQopd, etc. T h e case o f A r m e n i a n is s o m e w h a t similar, only here w e are deal­ ing with an I n d o - E u r o p e a n language w h o s e alphabet was exactly adapted from the G r e e k . A t the start o f the fourth century,

the

A r m e n i a n king Tiridates III c o n v e r t e d to Christianity and declared it the state religion b e f o r e R o m e did. A century later, the m o n k M e s r o p invented an alphabet based o n the G r e e k alphabet, thirty-eight

with

letters a n d very adapted to A r m e n i a n p h o n o l o g y : the

p u r p o s e b e i n g to enable the A r m e n i a n p e o p l e to follow the Christian liturgy. T h i s invention was followed b y translations o f Christian writ­ ings b y the same m o n k and m a n y o f his successors in the fifth cen-

KOINE AND

ITS R E L A T I O N T O

tury. It is a fundamentally

OTHER LANGUAGES

223

religious and historical literature, w h i c h

was continued, in rather closely related dialects, until the middle o f the nineteenth century; afterwards, it continued in m o d e r n dialects. N u m e r o u s G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s were also introduced here, o f the type oyer < df|p, argiuron < dpyupiov, zom < ^euyjaoc, rawdos < pdpSoq; and s o m e through Pahlavi. T h e r e w e r e also b o r r o w i n g s f r o m G r e e k syntax. T h e s e were the peoples w h o e m e r g e d a n d established n e w cul­ tures in the o l d territory o f the R o m a n empire a n d its b o r d e r zones. T h e influence o f G r e e k o n the Iranian language o f the Parthians and Sasanians should also b e a d d e d , as well as that o f the Celts, after the first contacts with the Greeks in Marseille a n d the colonies o f Hispania. In effect, w e have s o m e seventy Gallic inscriptions in the G r e e k alphabet f r o m the third century B G onwards (along with m a n y ostracd). Cf. P.-Y. L a m b e r t

1994, p . 81 ff.

See § 109 for the Iberian inscriptions in the G r e e k alphabet the creation o f alphabets and semi-alphabets, based o n the

and

Greek

m o d e l , to r e c o r d Iberian, Tartessian, a n d Celtiberian. H e r e w e g o b a c k in time again, for most o f these inscriptions date f r o m

the

fourth century BG onwards. 307. O n Demotic and Coptic, c f A. Bohling 1960, W . Clarysse 1987 and V. Bubenik 1989, pp. 257-64. O n other languages, cf. E. Liiddekens in Neumann-Untersteiner 1980, pp. 2 4 1 - 6 5 , V . Bubenik 1989, pp. 2 6 4 - 8 3 . For Palestine, see H. B. Rosen 1963 and 1980, D . Sperber 1984, S. Krauss 1898 and X . Sznol 1989. Also, for other languages, see the different sec­ tions in E. Schwyzer 1939, p. 161 ff. and F. Villar 1996. For Ethiopic, see F. Altheim-R. Stiehl, I, 1971, pp. 393-473. For Armenian, A. Thumb 1916 and A. Meillet 1936, p. 8 ff Germanic, Slavic and Arabic 308. A t the close o f Antiquity, the peoples w h o i n v a d e d the ancient R o m a n and Byzantine empire b e c a m e the protagonists o f the n e w era: G e r m a n s , Slavs and Arabs. T h e y were all influenced in s o m e w a y o r another b y the G r e e k language. I will not attempt to examine the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the pressure exerted b y the G e r m a n i c tribes o n the Mediterranean

w o r l d (the

invasions o f the Cimbrians and Teutonics), from the s e c o n d century B C onwards, but I think it is useful to l o o k briefly at the

Goths.

T h e s e G e r m a n i c tribes, w h i c h h a d established themselves next to the D n i e p e r , clashed with the R o m a n s in the third century A D (with the

224

CHAPTER

ONE

incursions into Maesia and Thessalonika, the defeat against Aurelian). Subsequently d i v i d e d into Visigoths a n d

O s t r o g o t h s , the

former

invaded various R o m a n provinces, especially in the West, but also m a d e treaties with the R o m a n s (under Constantine), and b e c a m e their allies in the East. T h e turning p o i n t was the Christianisation o f the G o t h s , w h o c o n ­ verted to Arianism, and the translation o f the Bible (which has not c o m e d o w n to us in a c o m p l e t e form) b y the bishop Ulfilas, w h o c a m e from a Christian family in C a p p a d o c i a and whose grandparents had b e e n taken as prisoners b y the Goths. O n c e again, the reason for translating the Bible was to enable p e o p l e to b e c o m e acquainted with the sacred writings in their o w n language. F o r this purpose, Ulfilas created an alphabet o f twenty-seven letters (nineteen Greek, six Latin and two runic letters). O f course, he also had to introduce some Greek words (hairaisis < ccipeoic;, aikkksjo < praisbytairein <

rcpeapWipiov,

8KKA,T|G{OC,

etc.), as well as G r e e k syntax.

Nevertheless, the majority o f the G e r m a n i c tribes pressed o n into the W e s t and were civilised and Christianised b y the Western R o m a n empire, a n d b y Latin. T h e r e f o r e , Greek influence there was indirect. C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , the next invasion was b y the Slavs. This I n d o E u r o p e a n p e o p l e , sometimes allied with alien tribes, c a m e to the D a n u b e f r o m the N . and E. towards the year A D 5 0 0 . A t o n e point, they were allied with Byzantium against the Goths, but in the sixth century they b e g a n their incursions; in the seventh century they p e n ­ etrated G r e e c e , T h r a c e , and M a c e d o n i a . Y e t , an important z o n e o f the Byzantine empire did not definitively c o m e under the Slavs: in turn, it received a very strong G r e e k influence (see m o r e o n this in §§ 3 7 9 ff.). 309. But the great catastrophe for the Byzantine empire (and later for the West) was the A r a b invasion in 6 3 2 : in a very short p e r i o d o f time it m a n a g e d to o c c u p y Palestine, Syria and Egypt, as well as Persia, part o f India, R o m a n Africa and Spain. U n d e r the attack o f the U m a y y a d dynasty the Byzantine empire collapsed, except for Asia M i n o r and the E u r o p e a n continent, w h i c h was under

Turkish

attack from the eleventh century onwards, culminating in the c o n ­ quest o f Constantinople in 1453. Nevertheless, the A r a b s were from the outset strongly influenced b y Byzantine civilisation and received m a n y b o r r o w i n g s from G r e e k language. W e will l o o k at this subject in §§ 383 ff.

the

KOINE AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER LANGUAGES

225

In addition, there was G r e e k influence o n Nubian: G r e e k w o r d s in the inscriptions o f the Cathedral o f Faras (in the tenth century). Cf

M . Krause

1971 (citing K . M i c h a e l o w s k i 1938).

3 1 0 . T h u s , the

Slavs w e r e definitely the first -

f o l l o w e d b y the

Armenians and, later, oth&r peoples o f Asia and, a b o v e all, the A r a b s from the seventh century onwards - to reduce the extent o f the the Byzantine empire and, consequently, o f the G r e e k language. Later, in the eleventh century, the T u r k s w o u l d c o n q u e r almost all o f Anatolia, and a large part o f the Balkans in the fourtheenth

century.

But all this was to a certain extent c o m p e n s a t e d for b y the par­ tial Hellenisation o f the languages o f these p e o p l e s , w h i c h extended to regions very distant from Byzantium: in the case o f the Slavs to the w h o l e o f Eastern E u r o p e , a n d in the case o f the A r a b s

and

Turks to vast dominions. In 1453, as mentioned above, Constantinople fell to the Turks, although s o m e Byzantine cities and places remained w h i c h w e r e gradually lost, such as T r e b i z o n d a n d later Crete. H o w e v e r , G r e e k led a rather subterranean existence during

the

Turkish d o m i n a t i o n , a circumstance w h i c h favoured its diffusion as the language o f the newly liberated G r e e c e at the start o f the nine­ teenth century. W e must examine this. Byzantium defended E u r o p e in the East for s o m e time, then it retreated; and it defended the G r e e k language, w h i c h was preserved, although in a r e d u c e d area, m o r e o r less that o f ancient G r e e c e . But G r e e k m a n a g e d to have an e n o r m o u s influence in E u r o p e , espe­ cially through l o w i n g pages.

Hellenised Latin: this will b e e x a m i n e d in the

fol­

CHAPTER T W O B Y Z A N T I N E G R E E K A N D ITS INFLUENCE O N OTHER

1.

HISTORICAL

LANGUAGES

CONTEXT OF G R E E K

IN B Y Z A N T I U M

Historical data 311. W e have referred to the Hnguistic situation in the Eastern R o m a n empire before and after the great historical events from the

fourth

century onwards: the a d o p t i o n o f Christianity b y Constantine

and

the p r o c l a m a t i o n o f the f r e e d o m o f cults (324), the transfer o f the capital o f the e m p i r e to Byzantium (330); the prohibition o f pagan cults b y T h e o d o s i u s (394); the division o f the empire (395); the sack o f R o m e b y Alaric (510); and the closure o f the A c a d e m y o f Athens b y Justinian (529). Greek was n o w de facto the official language o f the Eastern R o m a n empire, w h i c h in a few years b e c a m e the last remaining

Roman

empire: the Byzantines referred to themselves as ' R o m a n ' . W e have seen h o w Latin maintained

a symbolic role for a time, and then

practically died out, b e i n g barely left as the language o f jurists. T h e Greek C h u r c h also b e c a m e independent in practice, the schism o f the ninth century having b e e n foreseen for quite a l o n g time. It had a d o p t e d Atticist G r e e k as its language, while p o p u l a r koine c o n ­ tinued

to b e spoken in the streets in an increasingly altered form.

In this w a y , a situation o f diglossia was inherited, w h i c h has c o n ­ tinued,

indeed, until the present day.

3 1 2 . G r e e k was n o w the c o m m o n language o f the Byzantine empire, strongly centralised a r o u n d Constantinople. It was also the language o f the C h u r c h . T h i s was a c o n s e q u e n c e o f an imperceptible transi­ tion, w h i c h h a d started a l o n g time before. Y e t there was an internal p r o b l e m , that o f diglossia. In theory, the situation was similar to that in the W e s t (Latin confronted with national languages), but in pratice, the strong centralisation o f Byzan­ tium and the prestige o f the empire and the C h u r c h reduced the p o p u l a r language to the subliterary level for a l o n g time, and truly

BYZANTINE

G R E E K A N D ITS I N F L U E N C E O N O T H E R

LANGUAGES

227

n e w literary works were not created in this language until the twelfth century; even then, only in marginal genres a n d always m i x e d with the literary language. T h e western risk o f dialectal

fragmentation

was absent. T r u e M o d e r n G r e e k did n o t e m e r g e until the nineteenth century as a unitary language. O n the other hand, there were terrible swings - retreats, r e c o n quests, n e w retreats - w h i c h have already b e e n discussed a n d w h i c h culminated in the sack o f Constantinople b y the Turks in 1453, w h i c h forced G r e e k into a subterranean existence until i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d international recognition in 1830. G r e e k , as w e have seen, dis­ appeared first from the W e s t and then from the territories c o n q u e r e d b y the Slavs a n d Arabs, and later b y the Turks. Let us e x a m i n e this in m o r e detail. 313. T h e p e r i o d o f the western barbaric invasions h a d its counter­ part in the East with the G o t h i c invasions, from the fourth to the sixth centuries A D : from the defeat o f A d r i a n o p l e to the G o t h i c king­ d o m o f T h e o d o r i c and the final destruction o f the Ostrogoths in 5 3 6 . But at least there was a favourable result: the

Christianisation

o f the G o t h s a n d the creation o f their writing based o n Greek, as discussed earlier. T h e last date falls within the rule o f Justinian ( 5 2 7 - 6 5 ) , w h o r e c o n ­ q u e r e d vast territories in Italy, N o r t h Africa, a n d Spain for the empire. H e consolidated Byzantine culture, something w h i c h T h e o dosius II ( 4 0 8 - 5 0 ) h a d g o n e a l o n g w a y towards achieving b y reor­ ganising the A c a d e m y o f Athens, with chairs o f G r e e k and

Latin

( C h o e r o b o s c u s , w h o w r o t e o n G r e e k g r a m m a r , was a titular there in the time o f Justinian). R o m a n law was codified (the Corpus Theosianum and Corpus Iuris) and the whole culture b e c a m e founded o n Christianity a n d the study o f the G r e e k classics. T h e R o m a n empire e x p e r i e n c e d a rebirth, with the G r e e k a n d Christian cultures as its foundations. O f course, Atticist G r e e k d o m ­ inated. Justinian was decisive: h e b r o u g h t the pride b a c k to the empire a n d reorganised its culture. T h e Cathedral o f H a g i a S o p h i a was a s y m b o l o f this a n d served as an inspiration a n d e x a m p l e in the b a d times to c o m e . 314. Indeed, a n e w series o f misfortunes w e r e to c o m e . T h e Slavs, united with the Avars, a Turkish p e o p l e (and later assimilated b y them), crossed the D a n u b e a r o u n d 5 0 0 a n d clashed with Justinian in 5 5 8 . Later o n , they went o n to plunder the Balkans, f o u n d e d

228

CHAPTER TWO

their o w n k i n g d o m in Bulgaria (with the khan Kubrat, in 581), o c c u ­ pied territories around Thessalonika and the Peloponnese and besieged Constantinople (626). T h i s at least had the virtue o f expanding Greek culture to the Slavic w o r l d , w h i c h w e shall discuss. A n o t h e r focus o f tension was in the East, w h e r e the

Persian

Sasanians w e r e making terrible incursions into the empire: K h o s r o w I c o n q u e r e d A n t i o c h (540), w h i c h was then reconquered b y Belisarius; K h o s r o w II c o n q u e r e d Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and threatened Constantinople (615); in the end, he was defeated b y the e m p e r o r Heraclius (627). H e r e , w e are fortunate that asylum was given to the G r e e k thinkers w h o had fled w h e n Justinian closed the A c a d e m y o f Athens, and that G r e e k literature arrived in Persia b y w a y o f the Syriac translators o f Edessa. F r o m the time o f Justinian, the empire h a d b e e n in a constant state o f alert and h a d b e e n weakening, w h i c h was fatal o n the eve o f the A r a b invasion. It c o u l d not c o u n t o n any help from the West. Byzantium was even m o r e w e a k e n e d b y the religious conflicts within C h r i s t e n d o m inherited f r o m the past: the M o n o p h y s i t e s were p o w ­ erful in Egypt and Syria, the Nestorians here, and all were o p p o s e d to the o r t h o d o x y o f the N i c e n e creed, w h i c h had b e e n a d o p t e d b y Constantinople after m u c h

hesitation.

All o f this will b e outlined so that w e can gain a better under­ standing o f the cultural decline during these centuries. T h e great c o d e s in p a r c h m e n t ceased to b e written, those that remained b e i n g left to gather dust in the libraries until the ninth century, w h e n they b e g a n to b e c o p i e d in the n e w minuscule. Also, literature was barely p r o d u c e d (we shall return to this). 3 1 5 . All o f the previous p r o b l e m s and fears materialised with

the

A r a b invasions: in 6 3 4 , Bosra, the capital o f Arabia, fell; the great defeat at the river Y a r m u k , in Palestine, o c c u r r e d in 636; D a m a s c u s fell in that same year; Jerusalem and A n t i o c h fell in 638; M e s o p o t a m i a in 6 3 9 ; and Alexandria in 6 4 6 . M e a n w h i l e , the A r a b s c o n q u e r e d C y r e n a i c a and Tripolitania, R h o d e s , C o s , and C h i o s and launched annual incursions into Asia M i n o r , w h e r e they c o n q u e r e d numerous cities, such as C y z i c u s and Smyrna. T h e y m a n a g e d an attack o n Constantinople

in 6 7 4 . In a d d i t i o n ,

Spain

a n d Italy w e r e lost.

B y z a n t i u m was r e d u c e d to little m o r e than the limits o f ancient G r e e c e . But it never r e n o u n c e d its past: in the ninth century it ini­ tiated a reconquest a n d cultural renaissance at the same time.

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 229 H o w e v e r , in the m e a n t i m e , cultural

circumstances remained

unfavourable. F r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the eighth century, various emperors h a d j o i n e d the ranks o f those calling for the prohibition o f the cult o f images. A d o r e r s o f images were persecuted and images were destroyed in the churches, until 8 4 3 , w h e n the cult o f images was finally restored. T h i s marked the start o f the Byzantine cultural renaissance, a r o u n d the Patriarch Photius. But, until that time, these unfortunate events did not favour literary production, w h i c h remained just as stagnant as before. Popular and higher literature until 1453 3 1 6 . Let us quickly review literary a n d subliterary p r o d u c t i o n in these centuries. F o r the first p e r i o d , until the tenth century, few texts are avail­ able, s o m e o f w h i c h reflect the p o p u l a r language to s o m e extent, though always m i x e d with the literary language. T h i s was a c c o m ­ panied b y the m o r e formal and literary language of, for e x a m p l e , P r o c o p i u s , Paul the Silentiary, Ioannes Lydus, Agathias a n d C o s m a s Indicopleustes in the sixth century, T h e o p h y l a c t u s Simocattes a n d G e o r g i o s Pisides in the seventh century, J o h n D a m a s c e n e a n d T h e o phanes the Confessor in the eighth century. S o m e examples o f p o p u l a r language have b e e n preserved, such as the acclamations to the emperors in the Constantinople h i p p o d r o m e , s o m e o f w h i c h contain satyrical traits such as that to the e m p e r o r M a u r i c e in 6 0 2 ; as well as other short p o e m s w h i c h are just as satyri­ cal, for e x a m p l e , the p o e m to the empress T h e o p h a n o in 9 7 0 ; and s o m e w h i c h are simply erotic (the theme o f the a b a n d o n e d girl). In the seventh century there were also Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions, writ­ ten in vulgar G r e e k a n d c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the Bulgarian K h a n s . T h i s is all subliterary. A n example o f sixth-century literature c o n ­ taining vulgarisms is the chronicle o f J o h n Malalas ('the rhetorician'), a Hellenised Syrian w h o s e attempt to write a history in the vulgar language was s o o n a b a n d o n e d . But w e must also m e n t i o n the Paschal Chronicle in the sixth century, the Pratum Spirituale b y J o h n M o s c h u s in the seventh century, the Breviarium b y the Patriarch N i c e p h o r u s in the eighth century, the Chronology b y T h e o p h a n e s a n d the Chronicle b y G e o r g e the M o n k in the ninth century, as well as the lives o f the saints (Saint J o h n the Charitable, c a . 6 3 0 , a n d Saint Philaretos, in the ninth century).

230

CHAPTER TWO

I w o u l d like to a d d a text that is n o t m e n t i o n e d in the histories o f Byzantine literature: the collection o f A e s o p i c fables called the V i n d o b o n e n s i s (after a manuscript from Vienna) and the versifications o f the Bodleian Paraphrasis o f the included in the same manuscripts. T h e r e is also a certain p o p u l a r air in L e o the W i s e ( 8 8 6 - 9 1 2 ) and Gonstantine V I I Porphyrogenitus (emperor from 944). Yet, w e should stress that these are n o t texts written in p o p u l a r Greek, for such texts did n o t e m e r g e until the eleventh o r twelfth century, and even then m i x e d with literary Greek. 317. T h e m a i n p r o b l e m with this literature is dating the stages o f the language. For, indeed, most o f the p o p u l a r characteristics it dis­ plays are f o u n d already in papyri, inscriptions, and texts from

the

Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. It is difficult to k n o w w h e n they were actually diffused, a n d whether the literary characteristics w h i c h are m i x e d with the p o p u l a r in o u r texts were also m i x e d in the lan­ guage o f the street, o r whether w e are dealing with contaminations b y semi-educated writers. For, evidently, the representatives o f the truly p o p u l a r language did not write. 318. For the Byzantine history, see, in particular, A. A. Vasiliev 1946, G. Ostrogorsky 1984, J. M . Hussey (ed.) 1996. For the literature, K. Krumbacher, 2nd ed., 1897, H.-G. Beck 1971, S. Impellizeri 1975, H. Hunger 1978b, I. Sevcenko 1982, U. Albini-E. V . Maltese 1984 (introductions), L. Politis 1994 and J. A. Moreno Jurado 1997 (introductions); also, S. A. Tovar 1990, p . 41 ff. For the older literature, o f a vulgar type, cf. J. M . Egea 1987a (with more detail than is here provided, cf. p. 268 ff.) and 1990 (Anthology), P. Badenas 1985b (edition o f the Acclamations), V . Ursing 1930 (on the Vindobonensis fables) and K. Weierholt 1963 (on Malalas). In general, see G. Horrocks 1997, p. 179 ff. 319. Great events o c c u r r e d in Byzantium in the ninth century. U n d e r M i c h a e l III ( 8 4 2 - 6 7 ) , Cyril and M e t h o d i u s p r e a c h e d in M o r a v i a and in 8 6 5 , k i n g B o r i s o f B u l g a r i a w a s b a p t i s e d , u s h e r i n g

in

the

Hellenisation o f the Slavs, w h i c h w e have already discussed. A n d after the victory over the emir o f Melitene (863), a Byzantine offensive was launched in Asia, w h i c h continued under the M a c e d o n i a n dynasty ( 8 6 7 - 1 0 5 6 ) ; it was initiated b y Basil I ( 8 6 7 - 8 8 6 ) . T h e r e w e r e successes and reconquests in Italy (Benevento, Bari), in the islands (Crete), a n d in Asia ( A l e p p o , Cilicia, Syria). U n d e r Basil II ( 9 7 6 - 1 0 2 5 ) , Bulgaria was transformed

into a Byzantine

p r o v i n c e , and there was an advance o n Asia, followed b y the c o n ­ quest o f A r m e n i a .

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

231

O n the other hand, u n d e r the Patriarch Photius, Byzantine sep­ arated from R o m e (867) and Photius himself, together with other scholars (the b i s h o p Aretas o f Caesarea in particular, in the ninthtenth centuries) initiated the great Byzantine renaissance, w h i c h led to the proliferation o f writings in the literary language (katharevusa). T h e ancient manuscripts were c o p i e d in the n e w minuscule, and a literature emerged which was derived from the ancient Greek (Photius, Constantinos V I I Porphyrogenitus, Ioannis Kameniatis, the Accursiana collection o f A e s o p i c fables) -

always in the literary language, as

stated. F r o m the time o f Photius, a reorganisation o f learning had b e e n under w a y w h i c h culminated in the schools o f L a w and Philosophy f o u n d e d b y Gonstantine I X (the first, in 1046). W e also k n o w o f a patriarchal school in the twelfth century. T h e prelates a n d large c o n ­ vents favoured the p r o d u c t i o n o f copies and the study o f the ancient writings, as well as intellectual w o r k . T h i s m o v e m e n t involved per­ sons in the court itself o r p r o t e c t e d b y it. H o w e v e r , under the next dynasty, that o f the D u c a s ( 1 0 5 9 - 7 8 ) , d e c a d e n c e set in with the great defeat o f Manzikert, w h i c h o p e n e d Asia M i n o r to the Seldjuq Turks: o n c e again, Byzantium was left to defend itself. Nevertheless, the C o m n e n i ( 1 0 8 1 - 1 1 8 5 ) u n d e r t o o k a hard struggle to defend the empire in Asia, with setbacks such as the rights they had to c e d e to the Venetians, the start o f the Crusades (in 1096), and the defeat o f the e m p e r o r M a n u e l in M y r i o c e p h a l o n against the Seldjuqs (1176). T h i s laid the g r o u n d w o r k for the great­ est defeat o f all: the conquest o f Constantinople b y the fourth Crusade, in 1204. 320. Such dangerous times w e r e splendid for the Byzantine culture. T h e Atticist language had the advantage: united with Byzantine patri­ otism and the Church, it was diffused from the court o f Constantinople as though it w e r e a s y m b o l o f its majesty. This was a reaction against so m a n y Barbarian attacks, the dispersion o f the empire, and provin­ cialism. It was also an honorific tide that linked Byzantium not only with R o m e but also with ancient G r e e c e . W i t h the start, already summarised, o f the literary renaissance in the ninth and tenth centuries, it was history in particular that flourished (in the eleventh and twelfth centuries): Scylitzes, Psellus, K e k a u m e n o s , Bryennius, A n n a C o m n e n a , Eustathius, Nicetas Choniates; but also p h i l o s o p h y (Psellus), erudition (Eustathius) a n d the genres that were

232

CHAPTER TWO

translated o r derived from the East: the translation o f the Panchatantra in the eleventh century (by S i m e o n Seth), o f the Syntipas in the twelfth century (by A n d r e o p o u l u s ) , etc. T h e remarkable thing is that under the C o m n e n i a truly p o p u l a r literature e m e r g e d for the very first time, even though it was m i x e d with characteristics o f the literary language and had s o m e special characteristics

o f its o w n . T h i s p o p u l a r literature was r e d u c e d to

marginal genres that cultivated satire, didactics and fantasy. Its p o p ­ ular characteristics w e r e not so different from those o f the

earlier

p e r i o d , as w e shall see in m o r e detail. But the p r o b l e m remains o f indicating to what extent this mixture o f w h i c h w e speak was a response to aspects o f the spoken language and to what extent it was a result o f artificial contamination. Furthermore, the differences b e t w e e n the different authors

must b e attributed to literary,

not

chronological, reasons. Indeed, the copyists tended to introduce forms o f literary Greek. 3 2 1 . T h e p o p u l a r literature w e are referring to in the eleventh and twelfth centuries consisted fundamentally of: (a) B o r d e r p o e t r y - the fight b e t w e e n the Byzantines and A r a b s o n the Euphrates b o r d e r - d o c u m e n t e d in the ninth cen­ tury b y Aretas and represented, a m o n g others, b y the eleventh a n d twelfth century p o e m s o f The Death of Digenis, The Sons of Andronicus, The Song of Armuris, Porphyris and Digenis Akritas (El Escorial manuscript), (b) V a r i o u s p o e m s -

the

T r o d r o m i c poems' by Theodore

P r o d r o m u s o r P t o c h o p r o d r o m u s , o n the themes o f b e g g a r y a n d satire, using the contrast b e t w e e n the t w o types o f lan­ guage; the p o e m b y M i c h a e l Glycas, w h o defends himself, attacks and pleads from prison; the so-called Spaneas, c o n ­ taining advice to the prince; the Judgement of the Fruit; and p o e m s o f animal epics inspired b y the W e s t . 322. For more details, see the works cited by H . - G . Beck, p . 48 ff., R. Browning 1983, p. 72 ff., J. M . Egea 1987a, p . 269 ff. (and the Anthology of 1990, p . 44 ff). See also J. M . Egea 1987b (explanation o f the weight of classical tradition on the language o f Constantinople) and 1990-91 (expla­ nation o f the literary character o f the historiography o f the Comnenian period); and P. Badenas 1985a, p . 7 ff. For the Digenis see the edition of M . Castillo Didier 1984. Note that the authors o f this 'popular' literature were erudite and sometimes also wrote literature in the Atticist language (Prodromus and Glycas).

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 323. Pressure f r o m the crusades b e g a n to b e felt towards the

233 end

o f the eleventh century, and in 1176 the defeat suffered b y M a n u e l I in M y r i o c e p h a l o n p l a c e d the Byzantines in a very b a d positon in Asia M i n o r . T h i s culminated in the c o n q u e s t o f Constantinople, in 1203 and later in 1204 under the Angelus dynasty, b y the Franks o f the Fourth Crusade

aicled b y the Venetians. Earlier, the latter

along with the G e n o v e s e and various western communities had set­ tled in the coastal cities w h e r e they had a c o m m a n d i n g influence o v e r trade. All this was decisive for the history o f Byzantium and, indeed, for the history o f the Greek language. T h e Latin k i n g d o m o f Thessalonika was founded, and the Venetians seized the islands o f the A e g e a n , Ionia and Crete, a m o n g other areas; R i c h a r d the L i o n - H e a r t in turn seized p o w e r in Cyprus, and the Hospitallers t o o k in R h o d e s . T h e Franks controlled the P e l o p o n n e s e . M e a n w h i l e , the Greeks created successor states in Epirus (with the Angelus dynasty), in N i c a e a ( N . E. Asia M i n o r , with the Lascaris dynasty) a n d in T r e z i b o n d (along the Black Sea, with the C o m n e n o s dynasty). In Asia M i n o r , the situation o f Byzantium was precarious, for the different G r e e k d o m i n i o n s had b e e n left isolated. In spite o f every­ thing, a d e e p - r o o t e d belief in the value o f Hellenism h a d

remained

very m u c h alive, so that the repeated attempts to unite the G r e e k C h u r c h with the Latin C h u r c h were destined to fail. 324. H o w e v e r , things w e r e never the same again, despite the r e c o n quest o f Constantinople in 1261 and the political and cultural restora­ tion that c a m e with the Palaeologus dynasty. O n c e Constantinople and later Thessalonika h a d b e e n liberated, the Franks o f the Villehardouin family c o n t i n u e d to control the P e l o p o n n e s e ( n o w called M o r e a ) and the Lusignans, Cyprus; and towards the e n d o f the thir­ teenth century, the Catalan A l m o g a v a r e s f o u n d e d the duchies o f Athens and

Neopatra.

A r o u n d this time, the Turks disembarked in E u r o p e : in 1354 they c o n q u e r e d Gallipoli and after the battle o f K o s o v o (1389),

Serbia

and later Bulgaria fell under their control. 3 2 5 . In fact, at o n e point, only the regions o f Constantinople Thessalonika (until their fall in 1430) c o n t i n u e d u n d e r the

and

depen­

d e n c y o f the e m p e r o r ; whatever remained o f the G r e e k language in Asia M i n o r a n d Italy was left isolated, w h i c h favoured dialectal frag­ mentation (the dialects w h i c h have b e e n preserved c o m e from these regions).

234

CHAPTER TWO

T h e influence o f the western languages o n the G r e e k language (especially in the lexicon) was significant; western literature also exerted an influence, p r o v i d i n g m o d e l s for the n e w G r e e k literature (the chronicle, novel, a n d erotic poetry). But the principal m o d e l was 5

p r o v i d e d b y the 'vulgar western languages with a literary use, w h i c h , through imitation, stimulated a similar p h e n o m e n o n in G r e e c e . A n d yet, with the Palaeologi, in the t w o centuries from the recov­ ery o f Constantinople to its definitive fall in the hands o f the Turks (1453), literary cultivation was significant in the region that was still free. I n d e e d , for the (official) Atticist language w e can cite, in N i c a e a , N i c e p h o r u s Blemmides, G e o r g e Pachymeres and G e o r g e Acropolites; in Constantinople, the scholars o f N i c a e a w h e n the capital was lib­ erated, and others such as J o h n Cantacuzenus, Alexius Macrembolites, D u c a s , etc. But, a b o v e all, the c o p y i n g o f ancient manuscripts was resumed: at a certain point, in minuscule and paper, w h i c h m a d e them c h e a p e r a n d thus easier to diffuse. O n the other hand, m o n a s ­ tic schools e m e r g e d , such as those in w h i c h Planudes, N i c e p h o r u s Gregoras a n d M i c h a e l Apostolius, a m o n g others, taught. T h e r e was also a series o f learned m e n , s o m e o f w h o m m o v e d to Italy

after

the city was taken, w h e r e they b r o u g h t their manuscripts, a n d c o n ­ tinued to teach. 326. T h i s was important for the preservation and transmission o f ancient G r e e k . But for the understanding o f p o p u l a r M o d e r n G r e e k from the twelfth century onwards, the n e w literature that used it is essential, h o w e v e r m i x e d it m a y have b e e n with Atticist Greek. I have described the reasons for the appearance o f this literature: the isolation o f certain regions w h i c h were under western p o w e r , and the western m o d e l o f p o p u l a r literature and s o m e o f its genres. Perhaps the first written text in a generally p o p u l a r language is the C h r o n i c l e o f the M o r e a , dating from around 1300, w h i c h is a narrative o f the c o n q u e s t b y the Franks from a favourable p o i n t o f view; it was p r o b a b l y the w o r k o f a Frank o r a descendent o f o n e . A l t h o u g h it was written in Byzantine political verses and reproduces Byzantine formulas, it is actually a western epic p o e m written in a cross b e t w e e n the p o p u l a r and Atticist language. For m o r e details, see J. M . E g e a 1988, p . 11 ff. Prose d o c u m e n t s such as the Assizes (feudal laws o f Cyprus) also have a western base, a l o n g with other chronicles, such as that o f C y p r u s b y M a c h a e r a s , those o f D u c a s , M o n e m v a s i a , and T o c h o s .

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 235 T h e Cyprus chronicles (the o n e already cited and s o m e later ones) were written in a dialect o f that island. But w e must refer in particular to the knightly p o e m s o f an erotic type, true novels containing echoes o f the G r e e k novel but with addi­ tions o f a western type. T h e y date from the fourteenth century and a m o n g t h e m w e c a n cite Lybistros and Rhodamne,

Callimachus and

Chrysorrhoe, Belthandros and Chrysantza, etc. T h e s e are the most wellk n o w n works. T h e r e are also historical songs and threnodies, a trans­ lation o f the Iliad into Byzantine Greek, fabulistic p o e m s (The Book of Birds, of the Quadrupeds, etc.), love songs, religious a n d m o r a l poetry, satires, etc. It is remarkable h o w the western o c c u p a t i o n , b y isolating certain G r e e k territories from the great cultural centre o f Constantinople and p r o v i d i n g t h e m with other m o d e l s , contributed - but only to a certain extent - to the liberation o f the p o p u l a r G r e e k language from the d o m i n i o n o f Atticism (although always in marginal genres, as in the previous period). T h e r e is s o m e d o u b t about whether o n e ought to speak o f Byzan­ tine

G r e e k o r M o d e r n Greek: I have c h o s e n to reserve the latter

term for the national language after the liberation. Literature from

1453

327. T h e o c c u p a t i o n o f Constantinople in 1453 (and subsequently that o f T r e b i z o n d in 1 4 6 1 , and Lesbos in 1462) represented a bru­ tal shock at a time w h e n the principal characteristics o f M o d e r n G r e e k w e r e already present, but there hardly existed any literature in this language outside the marginal zones and genres, and always with a linguistic mix. T o b e sure, o n c e the empire was left without its h e a d and without an imperial court, this situation in principle favoured the e m e r g e n c e o f a n e w literature; but other circumstances w e r e n o t favourable to this. In the z o n e o c c u p i e d b y the Turks, culture was in the hands o f the clerics w h o lived a c c o r d i n g to the o l d tradition; if they wrote, it was in the Atticist language. M o r e o v e r , the Patriarchy o f Constantinople and the idea o f a lost empire that h a d to b e r e c o v e r e d was pre­ served. Nevertheless, oral poetry did exist although w e k n o w very litde a b o u t it; for instance, the klephtic ballads w h i c h narrate the adventures o f the bandits w h o fought against the Turks in the m o u n ­ tains. Little else remains. T h e p o p u l a r language gives the impression o f having b e e n well established, although it did take certain lexical

236

CHAPTER TWO

b o r r o w i n g s f r o m the Turkish language, w h i c h also b o r r o w e d from Greek. 328. N o w , as previously mentioned, there were indeed s o m e terri­ tories that w e r e , at least for a time, free from the p o w e r o f the Turks. H e r e , western p o w e r , generally Venetian, was m u c h

more

tolerable. A n e w literature t o o k root. It serves to b e r e m i n d e d that R h o d e s was in the hands o f the Hospitallers until 1522; Nauplia and M o n e m v a s i a were in the hands o f the Venetians until 1540, Crete until 1569, Cyprus f r o m

1489 to 1566. Also, the islands o f Ionia

and the G r e e k regions o f Italy never fell into the hands o f the Turks. It is in these territories that the n e w literature took root. In Cyprus, besides the chronicles already mentioned, such as that b y Machaeras, there w e r e also love p o e m s in the style o f Petrarch in an

almost

pure C y p r i a n dialect (sixteenth century), and also in R h o d e s (The Alphabet of Love, Love Trial). But it was a b o v e all in Crete where n e w literature e m e r g e d : the p o e m b y M a n u e l Sclavos o n the earthquake o f 1504, a series o f tragedies (Erophile, The Sacrifice of Abraham, etc.) and comedies (Katzurbos, Stakis, Fortunato), the narrative p o e m Erotokritos, the b u c o l i c The Beautiful Shepherdess, etc. S o m e o f these works are b y well-known authors: Cuortatzis, w h o d i e d in 1610, wrote Katzurbos and Erophile; Foscolos wrote Fortunato (1660); K o r n a r o s wrote The Sacrifice of Abraham

and

Erotokritos (1635 o r later). S o m e t i m e s their b o o k s w e r e printed in V e n i c e and circulated in the continent. T h e dialect used was Cretan, with purist forms. In these works w e encounter, for the first time, and with few inter­ ferences from the literary language, a post-Byzantine

Greek which

is almost M o d e r n Greek. T h e I o n i c islands also p r o d u c e d p o p u l a r literature. Sometimes, these works w e r e translations; although

there was also a tradition

that remained alive and was continued b y the p o e t S o l o m o s . Corfu p r o d u c e d the first G r e e k g r a m m a r , b y Nikolaos Sophianos. It was written in V e n i c e towards the year 1540, but remained

unpublished

until 1870. T h e s e are the f o u n d a t i o n s

upon which M o d e r n Greek would

e m e r g e as the national language, see §§ 417 ff. 329. See the works by R . Browning 1983, p. 69 ff., 88 ff., J. M . Egea 1987a, p. 270 ff. and 1990 (introduction), P. Badenas 1985a, p. 5 ff. For the Chronicle o f the Morea, cf. J. M . Egea 1988; for the novel Callimachus

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

237

and Chrysorrhoe, P. Apostolopoulos 1984. For the literature, see the references in § 318. For the literature o f Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus, see P. Stavrianopoulou (ed.) 1996, with an edition and translation of the texts. It should be noted that Byzantine literature developed almost without the influence o f Latin literature. In highly sophisticated authors we find quotations from Latin authors and references to a few translations, almost always by later and medieval authors, and mostly of a juridicial or theo­ logical type. It was only in the fourteenth century, largely through the work of Maximus Planudes, that many Latin classics were translated. Nevertheless, from the thirteenth century onwards, but particularly in the fourteenth cen­ tury, many Latin and French novelistic texts were translated: for example, the Latin novel about Apollonius King of Tyros, the French Gyron le Courtois (from the Arthur cycle), Boccaccio, the fables o f Reynard the Fox, the novel Flora and Blancaflora (Tuscan version), etc. Cf. A. Lumpe 1970 and Adrados 1979-87, II, p. 704 ff. of the english edition. All of this (along with the direct knowledge o f French and Italian literature) had a great influence on Byzantine literature and facilitated the entry o f a lexicon from western lan­ guages, as we shall see further in §§ 362 ff. But this together with the Turkish lexicon entered mainly by means of human contact, from the period of the Crusades onwards.

2. DESCRIPTION OF BYZANTINE POPULAR GREEK

Phonetics and morphology (until the eleventh century) 3 3 0 . W e c a n identify a first phase, f r o m the sixth to the

eleventh

century. But let us not forget that m a n y o f its characteristics

were

already present in the G r e e k o f the Hellenistic o r R o m a n periods; that they c a n n o t b e dated within this p e r i o d , with few exceptions, although it c a n n o t b e e x c l u d e d that s o m e w h i c h are d o c u m e n t e d in the later p e r i o d already existed in this p e r i o d ; a n d that the

true

differences b e t w e e n the few p o p u l a r texts available to us consist in the p r o p o r t i o n o f the always present mixture o f p o p u l a r terms and literary o r Atticist terms. F o r this reason, the description that fol­ lows is an abstraction, based u p o n the ' p o p u l a r ' forms w h i c h appear alongside the literary forms a n d hypercorrections. 3 3 1 . T h e v o c a l i c system o f koine -

with its lack o f distinction o f

quantity, iotacism, elimination o f diphthongs a n d its six vowels

-

r e m a i n e d intact until, in the tenth century, t> (that is, u) was p r o ­ n o u n c e d i, with w h i c h the shift was m a d e to a system o f five vowels w h i c h is still current. But initial atonal vowels, with the e x c e p t i o n o f &-, w e r e d r o p p e d (as in onixi

' h o u s e ' , jnepa 'day', pcoxS 'I ask',

238

CHAPTER TWO 5

5

jLLotxt ' e y e , \|/dpi 'fish , etc.). Y e t , through an influence o f the Atticist language, EXzvBepia and XevxEpia, for example, were restored. This led to the loss, o n occasion, o f atonal

augment.

A s regards the consonants, the fricativisation o f v o i c e d occlusive and aspirated voiceless was generalised, as well as the simplification o f geminates (with hypercorrections such as noXXvq in Malalas) and the loss o f -v (except before a vowel). T h e latter p h e n o m e n a did not reach all o f the dialects. 3 3 2 . A s regards the n o u n , w e must point out the definitive loss o f the D . (except in formulas such as 56tqa xfi 0e£> and in Atticisms): in its place, w e have A c , G . , o r eiq + A c ( n o ^ a i o xov Geov, eircev amovt). T h r e e systems d o m i n a t e (in the sg.) for the N . , G . , and A c cases, all with stems ending in a vowel. In the first system, the o l d m a s c in -ac; entered, as well as part o f the o l d third declension; in the s e c o n d , the o l d feminines in -a and another part o f the third declension; in the third, the o l d 2 n d declension: 1. N . noXix^q, naxepaq, fiaGiXzaq A c rcoAixriv, rcaxepav, p a a i A i a v G . TDOMTTJ, TCaxepa, P a a i A i a 2. N . rcopxa, K6X% 'EXXaSa A c Kopxav, 7t6A,r|v, 'EXXabav G.

7t6pra<;,

n6Xr\q, 'EXXaSaq

3. N . Xoyoq Ac

Xoyov

G . Xoyov W i t h the loss o f the -v, types 1 and 2 were left with t w o forms. O n the other hand, some residues o f the old consonantal system remained: yivoq/yivovq,

aSjua/awjxocToq, etc. T h e r e was also a t e n d e n c y to

modify stems using -o<; in m a s c , -n in fern. (6 i|/fj(po<;, r\ 7cap0evr|). In the adjective, those with t w o desinences in -o<;, -ov n o w had three (-oq, -n, -ov). All o f this (as well as changes in gender o r stem) is c o n n e c t e d with analogous processes and with the simplification o f the declension, w h i c h h a d the tendency to reduce the stems to t w o and to gener­ alise the A c . as a d e p e n d e n t o f the verb and the G . o f the n o u n , a process w h i c h was already under w a y in the Hellenistic period. In the plural, w e also find the types mentioned, o n three stems. N o t a b l e examples are the N . in -zq in the systems 1 and 2 (naiepeq,

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

239

%cope<; but also still %capai), and those in -dSec;, -{Sec; (icacpeSec;, nannovSeq, on (pDydSeq, SaKxuAiSeq). 333.

T h e article and p r o n o u n present a very different case, result­

ing in part f r o m the p r e c e d i n g p e r i o d . F o r instance: Article: fern. pi. N . 01; A c . xec;. Personals: along with the o l d forms, in the sg. w e find hypercharacterisations

and in the pi., equivalences with the sg.: 1st

A c . que, euiv, ejnevot, quevccv; 2 n d N . eav; A c . eoe, eoev, eoevoc, eaevav; G . icov; 2nd

N.

pi. 1st N . ejieiq; A c . euxx<;, juaq; G . euxov, LJXDV;

eaeic;, cEiq;

Ac.

eaac;, aac;;

G.

eacov, acov. A l s o ,

there

are atonal forms jiaq, aac;. F o r the 3rd, an atonal f o r m was cre­ ated xov, xnv, xo, etc., derived from Demonstratives: o8e disappears, avioq

avioq. is replaced b y iSioq, I5IK6<;,

the stem xcvux- is generalised in ovxoc;. Relatives: oc, tends to b e replaced b y oaxiq, and b y the inter­ rogative XIQ, x(; also, b y OTOI), 334.

T h e most important

bnoloq.

thing with regard to the verb is the fol­

lowing. In the present, verbs in -jii disappear and the following stems are widely diffused: -x^co, -d^co, -eoco, - v o , -vco, -dpco: for example, there is cpepvoo, Kepvco, dcpivco. By analogy, there is Kpvpco,

KXEPCO.

W i t h these presents there is a tendency to create a system o f t w o stems, insofar as the aorist and perfect are confused or mixed: eTtoiKccq, djidb^eKac;, etc. T h e normal system thus b e c o m e s that o f dcpivoo/dcprjccc, \|/rjvco/e\j/r|aa, etc. T h e system o f the middle v o i c e is also d r o p p e d , while that o f the passive voice develops. In the latter, forms o f the type (pepGrjica impose themselves. F o r the future tense, e'xco 4- inf. is normally used; other periphrases are also diffused. O n the other hand, augment is in decline, as m e n ­ tioned earlier, as well as reduplication. T h e system o f desinences innovates, but with a confused mixture with the previous system. W e can p o i n t out the m i d d l e inflection o f eijLii (eijuai, e i a a i . . . ) , with a 3rd sg. evi, the o l d adverb later b e i n g written as eivcu. T h e mixtures o f o l d and m o d e r n desinences referred to are frequent (3rd pi. pres. -ox>v/-ovoi, Yet,

aor. -otv/-ov, e t c ) .

with the loss o f the optative and, in part, the

subjunctive

(with a short v o w e l it b e c a m e identical to the indicative), the infinitive a n d participle

are in d e c l i n e . T h e f o r m e r survives, but tends to

240

CHAPTER TWO

b e c o m e r e d u c e d to certain constructions: the V i n d o b o n e n s i s collec­ tion o f fables mostly eliminates the infinitives o f the completive clauses o f the Augustana, its m o d e l T h e participle is used in a confused way, with errors o f g e n d e r and construction: dAxorceKa . . . 8eXedaaaa, "RXxoq . . . Tipo^evcyovxa (which anticipates the later indeclinable par­ ticiple in -vra [<;]). Examples of popular texts 335. It is useful to make s o m e observations o n prepositions and c o n ­ junctions (u£ for jnexd, cbadv, i;e-, c^ava-, OTOV etc.); and the advances in certain suffixes such as -IT^IV, -aioq,

great

as well as the n e w

lexicon. T h i s will b e discussed in m o r e detail in §§ 352 ff. W i t h regard to syntax, w e must stress the frequent substitution o f the subordinates b y coordinates with KOU. F o r clarification, it m a y b e useful to provide examples o f the Greek o f s o m e o f these texts (I will not deal with phonetics and orthography). 336. Acclamations of the stadium and other small poems. A n o m a l o u s forms are in the minority: Lexicon: djuovi 'anvil', yepdia 'falcon', uo'uAxx 'mule', oeXXa 'chair', oXoq for naq,

O%V\KOVOX.

Nominal inflection: N . dXeKTopw, yepdiav, Mccupdac;; A c . yofivav. Anomalous form: 8epuecv, hypercorrected. Lack of augment: (pepe, vorjaec;. Pronoun: enclitic

TOD, TO,

Trjv, relative

OKQX>.

Prepositions: 0T6V,

eioe (contamination o f the o l d f o r m with the n e w f o r m ae). 337. Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions. T h e same observation applies here. Lexicon: yopevco 'to search', Xaoq 'army', okoq, KaXa adv. Prepositions: a%6 + A c , d v d ^ e o a , em = eox;, eco<; + A c , eacoOev, {<; + A c . = 'in', a i . Nominal inflection: A c .

fiaoiXiav.

Verbal: pres. eiv(oa), subj. = ind.

iva . . . i)7iojivr|aKeTe, f)va Siajiivo-oai (with fut. value), aor. e(pxdaxia a v (with - 0 0 - >

-ax-).

Parataxis to a v o i d the inf.: eSoicev (perf. for aor., but there is also 86aoc<;), ice eprjuoaev (without augment). 338. Malalas. C o l l o q u i a l and paratactic style, but Byzantinisms are rare: inflection is almost always classical, but see, for example:

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES Lexicon:

XOVKOV

5

5

241 5

'onwards , 7tidoou 'to catch , pfjya (Ac.) 'king ,

lAAouaxpioq, etc. Prepositions: eiq xov depa 'in

5

and the hypercorrection ev 'Iepo-

5

GoMuxnc; 'towards . Relative: abundant usp o f OGXK; for oq. Verbal inflection: dta)xdp%rjaocv

without a u g m e n t ,

aor. eipeKox;,

periphrastic perf. r|v 7ipoxp8\]/d|LL8voc;, piuAj/ac; rjv pas. v. enavQr{. Various constructions: dxpeiXcov + inf. with fut. value, e5o^ev . . . 6 ^aaiXzvq, final construction npbq xo

87ux£A,eiG0ai, f|Gi>%aG£v . . .

xot> Tioieiv xapa%dc;, ano (agent). 339. Fables from the Vindobonensis collection and the Bodleian paraphrasis. M o s t vulgarisms c a n b e f o u n d in these fables, f r o m the sixth and seventh centuries. I follow the study b y Ursing o n the M o s c o w c o d e x : Nominal inflection: A c . sg. o f the 3rd cpAxSyccv, 7i68av, N . pi. o f the 1st Qipeq, dypoxeq; forms o f the 2 n d decl. in w o r d s w h i c h were originally o f the 3rd: 6pv(0oic;, SeAxptvoi); changes in gender. In the adjective, the use o f the comparative with the same value as the positive. Pronouns. T h e article as a relative, equivalent amov possessive

and ocmou,

\8ioq.

Verbal inflection: lack o f augment in 6p%oi)vxo, Tcerccoiceiv; id. o f reduplication in dvocTtexaauivai; perfect for aorist, and pluper­ fect for perfect (ei<; xotx; pp6%0D<; £7C£7n;a)K£i). Prepositions and conjunctions: a%6 + A c , du.cc 4- G . , interchange o f ev/eiq; woe xi, edv + ind., yi&xpiq, £00c; + dv and ind. Syntax: anomalous A c .

(8EXXOV

ae £(pepa, dTcrivxnaev ccoxov,

rcai5a KXavdiivpi^wv); a n o m a l o u s G : (pi)5id^ojiiai G O D ,

TIKOUGE

ojnoiov

dv5po<;; hypercorrect D . : xoiq aXXoiq ^r\Xo\)vxzq, £7tr|pcbxrjG£v at>xa>; 5

verbs o f ' p r o m i s e , etc. with present infinitive; final infinitive with article; a v o i d a n c e o f the inf. in completives with various constructions (rcapfiveae .

. .

OTCCOC; .

. . ,

Xiyow oxi. . . d7toSa>G£iv, £(*)<;

dv . . . GDvGXdaai); a n o m a l o u s uses o f the participle, cf. § 334. 340. F o r m o r e data see the references already cited, cf. §§ 318, 3 2 2 , 329; and in G . H o r r o c k s 1997, p . 205 ff. F o r the V i n d o b o n e n s i s , I insist o n U . Ursing 1930: it is a shame that this area has escaped the attention o f scholars studying the Byzantine language. But this is n o t all, for w e still n e e d to study, for e x a m p l e , the Byzantine cor­ rections o f the classics in the manuscripts o f this p e r i o d through the eleventh century.

242

CHAPTER TWO

S o m e t i m e s w e are faced with difficulties. In the Life of Aesop, w h i c h I have studied (cf. A d r a d o s 1993), w e n e e d to determine,

firstly,

whether w e should correct in the Atticist sense as the editors d o ; and secondly, whether o r not the non-Atticist terms o f a manuscript such as the G (a Gryptoferrantensis o f the tenth century) are Hellenistic o r Byzantine. Phonetics and morphology from the twelfth to the fifteenth century) 3 4 1 . Let us n o w turn to the next p e r i o d , w h i c h dates from

the

twelfth to the fifteenth

the

century. V o c a l i s m is kept as it was at

e n d o f the previous p e r i o d , o n c e t> has b e c o m e i: it is a system o f five vowels. In the consonants, the evolution KX, %0 > %x, %%, cp0 > cpx, G 0 , G% > OK b e c o m e s d o m i n a n t ; but traditional

orthography

results in the preservation, alongside this, o f old forms o f the type aa%r\\ioq. Final -v is d r o p p e d , a p h e n o m e n o n b e g u n earlier, w h i c h results in h o m o p h o n o u s cases o f the 1st and 2nd declension, with the p r e s e n c e o f n o n - e t y m o l o g i c a l extensions (we have seen s o m e examples); -ea, -(a b e c o m e -id (rapSid). T h e geminates are simplified (but n o t in s o m e dialects). H o w e v e r , dialectal variations are k n o w n in this period, such as those preserving final -v (in Cyprus, D o d e c a n e s e and Italy), those giving other treatments to the c o n s o n a n t groups (in southern Italy), those palatalising the K before preceding vowels (in Cyprus), o r closing the vowels e, o. W e shall discuss these dialects further o n (§§ 4 3 4 ff.) in c o n n e c t i o n with M o d e r n Greek. 3 4 2 . In nouns, the main difference, as n o t e d earlier, is that with the loss o f -v, the N . and A c . o f the fern, o f the 1st declension b e c a m e identical ( N . A c . %a>poc/G. %cbpa<;) and the same applies to the A c . and G . o f the m a s c . ( N . K^eqnriq/Ac. G . K?i£(pxr|). T h e rest stays the same, including the remnants o f declensions in -oq/-ovq,

-\ia/-|naxo<;,

-tc;/-eax;, plurals in -dSsc;, -iSeq, adjectives with three desinences (those in -r\q/-eq

a n d others h a d to adapt in various ways); there are also

other regularisations

such as uitaxvo<;, jneydAxx;.

343. T h e subjunctive, w h i c h as w e k n o w is constructed o n two stems, ends up being assimilated to the indicative, and the participle b e c o m e s indeclinable in -ovxoc(<;). T h e future is m a r k e d b y the periphrasis with w h i c h w e are already familiar, with £%G) + infinitive o r £%co v d + subjunctive; £i%a in the

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 2 4 3 same constructions is p o t e n t i a l Nevertheless, with the a d v a n c e o f the p e r i o d , there is preference for periphrasis with 6e?uo + infinitive, 0eX© vd

+ sunjunctive, the previous ones passing into the perfect

(ex©)

and pluperfect (el%a); in the Chronicle of the Morea, w e c o m e across b o t h uses, as well as the periphrasis with 0e?t© (from w h i c h the m o d ­ ern future with 9 d is obtained). In twelfth-century C y p r u s w e find 0e. T h e r e is a large variety o f personal desinences. In the 3rd p i w e find the present -oi)v(e)/-oi)Gi, pret. - a v ( e ) / - a a i , -GCCV. Contracted c o n ­ jugations have developed, w h i c h in the active voice sometimes confuse the o l d forms in -d© and -e©, while in the m i d d l e v o i c e w e find b o t h (pofkro^cu, (po|3daai, (po(3axai a n d forms with - { e u m , -leaoci, -iexai. In the m i d d l e v o i c e (or the deponents), w e find n e w forms alongside the traditional: -ODJLIO'OV, -OUGODV, -oxocv, -o^eaxa, -eaxe, - o w x a v . In verbs with a c c e n t o n the last syllable an imperfect is created, -croGa, etc. a n d -ayoc, etc. T h e desinence o f passive aorist -Gnv is replaced definitively b y -GrjKa. In the imperative, the desinence -e o f the present extends to the aorist. 344.

P r o n o u n s systematise the n e w forms, for e x a m p l e , N . pi. eiieiq.

Similarly with prepositions. H e r e , with the generalisation o f the use with A c , the o l d distinctions in m e a n i n g b e t w e e n p r e p . + A c / p r e p . +

D . disappear:

u.e(xd) + A c is 'with' ('after'

is ikrcep' drco); ev

+ D . is replaced b y \xeoa ei<;. O t h e r prepositions either disappear o r are retained as sophisticated w o r d s (dvd, em, raxd, rcepi, 7cpo, rcpoq, Gt>v, weep, 0)7c6). The

vocabulary also evolves, as a result o f borrowings from Turkish

and the western languages, as well as internal d e v e l o p m e n t s (deriva­ tion, c o m p o s i t i o n , semantic c h a n g e ) . T h i s subject will b e dealt with in another 345.

chapter.

L o o k i n g b a c k at ancient G r e e k a n d I n d o - E u r o p e a n , w e find

that w e n o w e n c o u n t e r a very different language w h i c h nevertheless retains traces o f its inheritance. In phonetics, the v o c a l i c system is f o r m e d b y the five vowels a, e> % o> u, without diphthongs; the c o n ­ sonantal system is f o r m e d b y a system o f voiceless and v o i c e d o c c l u ­ sives with three points o f articulation and a system o f voiceless and v o i c e d fricatives with the same three points o f articulation; with the liquids a n d nasals p, X, ji, v; a n d a voiceless a n d v o i c e d sibilant (writ­ ten Q. I will n o t deal with c o m p o u n d consonants. N o m i n a l inflection has b e e n simplified: the D . is lost a n d the A c . a n d G . tend to have well-defined general functions; they can, for

244

CHAPTER TWO

instance, b e used as determinants o f the verb o r n o u n . T h e gender o f o l d G r e e k (diffused in the adjective in a regular m o r p h o l o g i c a l manner) has b e e n maintained, as well as the sg. and pi. numbers (the o l d dual was lost m u c h earlier). Formally, there is a p r e d o m i ­ n a n c e o f v o w e l stems, w h i c h frequently a d o p t the same f o r m for the N . and A c . o r the A c . and G . , as mentioned. T h e adjective has taken forms that are analogous to those o f the noun. In the desinences, there are also analogous generalisations. But exceptions remain in f o r m and content. T h e article and p r o n o u n are essentially the same, with differences w h i c h are almost invariably o f a formal nature. For instance, w e find the extension o f the sg. to the pi. stem o f the personals; n e w demonstratives, invariably based o n the o l d three stages, and n e w possessives o f the 3rd pers,; a tendency for various kinds o f elimi­ nation o f the o l d relative. T h e r e are also changes in inflection. T h e creation o f atonal personals o f the 3rd pers. is newer, enabling the creation in M o d e r n G r e e k o f an objective conjugation w h i c h is sim­ c

ilar to the Spanish ( o f the type se lo dire todo a tu madre'). 346. In the v e r b , there is a reduction o f the present stems and a fusion o f aorist and perfect, w h i c h form a s e c o n d stem. T h e future and perfect are n o w expressed with periphrastic forms. In the m o o d s o f the v e r b , with the early loss o f the optative, the

subjunctive,

identified with the indicative, is n o w lost, and also the participle, transformed into an indeclinable adverbial form; at the e n d o f this p e r i o d the infinitive is at the p o i n t o f b e i n g lost. S o , the marking o f tense is r e d u c e d to the o p p o s i t i o n o f pre­ sent/preterite and to the indicative; the other tenses and the sub­ junctive are expressed b y atemporal periphrases o f a subjective kind. But the aspect o f present and aorist is kept very m u c h alive, even b e i n g carried outside the indicative. W e are dealing with a simplified Greek, w h i c h partly follows ten­ dencies that are similar to those in the I E that w e call IIIB (polythematic IE o f the European languages and Tocharian), which reduces verbal inflection to t w o stems and regularises it significantly, almost eliminating athematic inflection; and w h i c h also reduces the m o o d s , the participle a n d infinitive a little, a n d makes a b u n d a n t use o f periphrasis for the future and perfect. S o m e t i m e s the n e w G r e e k resembles a certain b r a n c h o f IE: for instance, with respect to details o f verbal inflection (such as the ere-

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

245

ation o f a n e w imperfect and others referred to earlier) and n o m i ­ nal inflection (such as the loss o f the D . and the creation o f inflections with only t w o stems). T h e r e is a parallel for the loss o f the infinitive in Balkan languages such as R u m a n i a n and 347.

Bulgarian.

Consequendy, the tendencies o f koine are carried o n into Byzantine

Greek, in that the latter simplifies verbal m o r p h o l o g y , w h i c h is only used to mark three persons, t w o numbers, two tenses (in ind.) a n d two

aspects. T h e older G r e e k system was evidently far t o o refined

and c o m p l e x , and so it was r e d u c e d and c o m p l e m e n t e d with peri­ phrastic forms. T h i s also applies to the n o u n a n d adjective. Y e t it survived, and the rich system o f n o m i n a l and verbal derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n c o n t i n u e d to d e v e l o p . It is useful to p r o v i d e , as w e did for the G r e e k o f the previous period, examples o f the language o f s o m e o f the representative authors o f this period. W e will l o o k at texts in w h i c h there is a contamina­ tion o f the t w o levels o f Greek. Pure, o r almost pure, p o p u l a r G r e e k is f o u n d in the p o p u l a r p o e m s dated b e t w e e n the fifteenth and sev­ enteenth centuries, m e n t i o n e d a b o v e in § 3 2 8 . Examples of popular texts 348.

Prodromus. See the b e g i n n i n g o f the verses to the

emperor

M a n u e l . S o m e , expressly addressed to the e m p e r o r ( 1 4 1 - 4 4 ) ,

are

in a purely literary language; in the rest, there is sporadic literary language. F o r e x a m p l e , w e find D . yepovxncoic;, 7iocxpiKoi<;, Coyote; A c . yeixovcc, impf. rcepteTidxei, aor. e^ocGov, pas. aor. eKX£v{a0r|, i m p v . 7t£{a0rjTi, u£xd and £K + G . , anb

(xiKp60£v, ovdev,

EK^aXke,

some

infinitives in -£iv, e t c But there is also an a b u n d a n c e o f m o d e r n elements: for example, in the l e x i c o n (PAircG) 'see', y£|xara 'full', yopeoco 'search', xaayydpr|<; 'shoemaker; xcopa ' n o w ' , cbadv ' h o w ' , the suffixes -ixaioq, -axoq). In the n o u n , there is a frequent

use o f N . - A c . in -iv (TCOU8IV), A C .

yovcciKocv (and erroneously -v in dva0£}iav). T h e r e is also a frequent use o f enclitics: xo-o (6 KoXnoq XOD, 7cox£ TOD) and xov (P^£7t£i<; xov), the relative bnov, and the pers. e o e v a . T h e accusative o f a n o m a l o u s syntax is very frequent

(vnipnvpa

there are n e w forms o f the present

y£U£i, arc' £K£iva). In the verb,

(d7tXcbvco,

x o p x a i v o ) , the

aorist-

perfect (ETTOIKCCV, ni)piaKa), the subjunctive, w h i c h is identical to the indicative (napaQeaovGi,

viyexoci), the indicative o f ei\ii (evx). A b o v e

all, there is abundant periphrasis with vd + subjunctive with values

246

CHAPTER TWO

o f prospective, future (vd TOV euro), v d ovojudaouv, v d ixaQr\q), o r pre­ sent (npbq TO v d |iid0co ypdjiiuxrca). 349.

Digenis Akritas. It is sufficient to l o o k at the first verses o f the

p o e m in the manuscript o f El Escorial edited b y Castillo Didier. T h e first impression is o f an entirely classical text: for example, w e have a N . pi. amxXax,

A c . sg. KCCTdpav, pi. nXv^aq,

o l d verbal forms such

as iir\ (poprjGfiq, p r e p . + G . Ttccpd unTpoq, etc. But there is m o d e r n lexicon (eicapaAiiceDGev, with o l d inflection, doTepaxov with the famil­ iar suffix, dpyupoTadTtcDToc, a hybrid form). In the noun, the diminutives %epia, 6vD%ia (from w h i c h w e obtain the forms o f M o d e r n Greek), jLieTcbjiiv. In the p r o n o u n , w e find iiaq a n d the enclitics TOD, TTJV. In the v e r b , the n e w subjunctive KocTccTUTofiaoDv (with a classical c o n ­ struction, jifi a e , in the first verse); it also appears with aq a n d dv with a prospective o r future value (iced TOT8 aq TTIV 87tdp0DV, 6 0e6<; vd

\xb\q PoT|8fiar|). W e c o u l d continue. A few verses further o n w e c o m e across ofircpoc;

etv(ai), fjBeAxxaiv, ejHTifJKav, ooadv, relative xaq, ox yv%£q, etc. 350. Egea

Chronicle of the Morea. H e r e , w e c a n refer to the study b y J. M . 1988. W e n e e d only l o o k at the beginning o f the p o e m to

appreciate the same mixture. In the first t w o lines, w e find o l d ele­ ments indisolubly linked with the n e w elements: 6eA,oo, %Xzxq + sub­ junctive, OTOCV + imperfect ryzovz, anb KTiaeco<; KoajKn) (a perfectiy classical, ecclesiastical influence) but jne SDvaunq (the m o d e r n form o f the preposition a n d inflection). T h e r e is a m o d e r n use o f p r e p o ­ sitions in zxq TOD X p i a x o D xov Tacpo (with the loss o f -v), GTOV in'; c

and a m o d e r n use o f the relative (ooxxq,

OKOV).

T h e system o f per­

sonal p r o n o u n s is almost that o f M o d e r n Greek. N e w verbal forms include, a m o n g others, imperfects such as dcpevTEDocv (Byzantine lex­ i c o n ) , D\J/COV8V, spputTotv, TijjxopoDccv, the aorists 8K?ia\j/ev, epapeGrixev (but eX-D7ifiGr|v), the participle I56VTCC<;; and, a b o v e all, very diverse and hesistant periphrastic

uses.

In contrast, the stems o f the future a n d perfect a n d the optative, a m o n g other things, have

disappeared.

Indeed, it w o u l d seem that popular Greek dominates: Atticist forms are often the result o f corrections in various manuscripts, a n d often the p o p u l a r language is written with Atticist spelling, w h i c h makes it possible for us to discover Atticist forms in the phonetics as well as m o r p h o l o g y . F r o m verse 7 5 4 onwards, there is a notable presence o f false lit-

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

247

erary words and hypercorrections: the participles dKxroaoov, Siapovxa, A c . O-oydxrip; other forms are correct, such as eTrdpcojiev, anb xr\q PcbjLiriq xfjj; EKKkr\oiaq,

anb xov vt>v, fiaoxXzvq, xiveq. Y e t , alongside

this w e find m o d e r n forms such as paaiXea<;, xov eSa)Kev oe ypdcpco, xrjpfiaexe, the p r o n o u n e|xioc(;/jia(;/|Lia(;, dv (pdyouai, etc. 3 5 1 . Callimachus and Chrysorrhoe. This novel brings us to the fourteenth century. T h e study o f Ph. A p o s t o l o p o u l o s 1984 is very c o m p l e t e : here, w e p r o v i d e only a few data. In the n o u n , w e find a i f | | j i p a i / c u fjuipec;;

rcaiSt/rcaiSdia,

%epi,

A c . sg. yepovxav, N . pi. 01 xe%vixai/oi dcpBevxec; (also A c , alternat­ ing with -aq). W e should note that the D . still appears with s o m e frequency. In the p r o n o u n s , w e find all the forms w e have already discussed, including the enclitic forms: iiov, iiaq, xov, xovq (beside eucm, f]|iSv, e t c ) , the type 6

ISIKOQ HOD

' m i n e ' , demonstrative avxoq, e t c ; archaic

indefinites (xxq, o\)8ei<;, 7tocvxo8oc7i6c;, naq) beside the m o d e r n (Kaveic;, xinoxe). Similarly, w e find classic relatives and bnov, in addition to the article (xovq yvXaKaq xovq eiSe). T h e inflection o f the two per­ sonals is quite classical, with i\iiE\<;, e t c and forms in D . , but along­ side

and enclitic forms.

EIIEV

T h e r e is a significant advance in the frequent

lack o f augment.

T h e imperfect eftXena and aorist 2 n d pers. sg. eypct\|/e<; are

gener­

alised, along with the aorist imperative o f the type yvcopioe, the aorists with -K- such as ercoiKa, d(pfJKa (but also dcprjaa); also, the forms o f the middle v o i c e o f eijxi. T h e system o f desinences is quite conser­ vative (but, Aiyo-ov). T h e particles aq, dv, and periphrasis with e%co and eBeA-CG function normally but, curiously, very often with the old subjunctive

(aq Spdjj.coju.ev). F u r t h e r m o r e ,

ue Keipd^ai) a n d the participle

the infinitive

(|ULr| Oe^rit;

are retained, a l t h o u g h

with l o w

frequency. This novel displays a very m i x e d , rather archaising

language—

proof, o n c e m o r e , that c h r o n o l o g y is not always the deciding factor.

3. T H E DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYZANTINE LEXICON

3 5 2 . It is useful to dedicate a separate chapter to the growth o f the lexicon in Byzantine Greek; to b e c o m p l e m e n t e d b y a further c h a p ­ ter in which, b y describing the influence o f Byzantine lexicon in the East and West, w e m a y b e able to shed s o m e light o n other data.

248

CHAPTER TWO

T h e fact is, since I have already paid special attention to the growth o f the G r e e k l e x i c o n - particularly o f the educated language, in the Classical, Hellenistic and R o m a n periods -

and since I intend

to

deal with its diffusion and growth in the West, it is impossible to leave this important intermediate stage u n t o u c h e d . T h e facility o f G r e e k to create n e w derived and c o m p o u n d w o r d s (see A d r a d o s 1968) is a fundamental w h i c h c o n t i n u e d to o p e r a t e

characteristic o f this language,

d u r i n g the Byzantine p e r i o d , while

different parts o f the g r a m m a r were innovating in a p r o f o u n d way. T h i s did not m e a n that the o l d lexicon was preserved (though this did o c c u r , particularly in Atticist o r 'pure' prose) o r that n e w w o r d s were i n t r o d u c e d through b o r r o w i n g o r semantic variation, but

the

m e t h o d s o f derivation and c o m p o s i t i o n , w h i c h were essentially the same, continued to e x p a n d the Byzantine lexicon. T h e fact is that the Byzantine lexicon has never b e e n systemati­ cally studied in its entirety, and w e d o not even possess c o m p l e t e dictionaries. A p a r t f r o m the o l d lexicons, w h i c h are incomplete, b y Stephanus, S o p h o c l e s , Dimitrakos, and L a m p e (a partial w o r k ded­ icated o n l y to the patristic lexicon), w e have to make d o with c o n ­ temporary works w h i c h are also incomplete: our Greek-Spanish Dictionary (Diccionario Griego-Espanot), w h i c h only goes upto the year 600), the Dictionary b y Kriaras and that b y Trapp-Horandner-Diethart

(apart

from partial studies). I n d e e d , the study o f the Byzantine lexicon should deal with two very important issues: the b o r r o w i n g s it received f r o m different lan­ guages, and its diffusion into different languages (sometimes diffusing w o r d s o f non-Byzantine origin). All o f this will b e dealt with before w e l o o k at the diffusion o f Graeco-Latin into western languages. For, although w e c a n n o t d r a w clear divisions, w e c a n distinguish between Byzantine influence through a p o p u l a r route, preferrably from an earlier date, a n d the influence o f classical G r e e k (usually

through

Latin) through a literary route, particularly from the twelfth century onwards a n d even m o r e so during the p e r i o d o f H u m a n i s m . 353. For a general overview o f the matter in question, see E. Trapp 1988. For compounds and borrowings from Greek, see R. Browning 1983, pp. 67 ff.. and 84 ff., and 1997; and A. Steiner-Weber 1991. For the relation between the Atticist and popular lexicon, see Adrados 1948, p . 67 ff. For borrowings adopted by Byzantine Greek, see H. and R. Kahane 1970 ff. And 1979; also, L. Burgmann 1990 (Latin borrowings). Furthermore, see M . A. Triantaphylides 1909.

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

249

For French and Italian borrowings, cf. H . and R . Kahane 1970 ff., p. 501 ff.; for Turkish borrowings, see R. Browning 1983, p. 97 ff. 354.

Nearly all o f the suffixes o f ancient G r e e k continued to b e

productive in Byzantium, but w e should d r a w attention to suffixes w h i c h were either n e w o r m o r e frequent: -&<;, -GIUO, -uoc, -IGGCC, the diminutives -tov, -dpiov, -dSiov, «{8iov, -CXKIOV, -(KIOV, the n e w suffix -x£i(v), -(x£i(v), the Latin suffix -axoc;, those o f Italian origin -omai(ov), -ox>TGiKoq; w e have already p o i n t e d out w h i c h o f the verbal suffixes are m o s t frequent.

Consequently, derivation was very s m o o t h ; an

adjective could b e obtained from practically every n o u n , as, for e x a m ­ ple

MavoriX-cxToq f r o m Mavt>r|A,. C o m p o s i t i o n was extremely rich. Although m a n y o l d nominal c o m ­

pounds o f the elevated language, disappear, as well as m a n y verbs with prepositions, m a n y n e w forms o f all the traditional types were created. Copulative c o m p o u n d s are present, such as dpioxoSetTivov T o o d and meal', dvSpoyovoQ ' m a n and w o m a n ' ; adjectival c o m p o u n d s such as ppcxxDjiocKpoc; 'short a n d l o n g ' (and Ppax\)jnaKp6ppa%D(; 'short, l o n g a n d short'); determinative c o m p o u n d s o f various kinds: yopyoyA-coxxiot 'great o r a t o r y skill', TiayK^erjq ' v e r y g l o r i o u s ' , 7covxopducov ' w h i c h 5

m o v e s in Pontus , etc; QeoftXaoxoq ' b o r n o f G o d ' ; and possessives: dypioTipoacoixoq 'with a fierce expression'. T h e r e are also verbal c o m ­ p o u n d s , with n o u n (unpoKA-d^co 'to break a leg', Gi8rjpo8eco 'to chain up')

and with preverbs (KocxocTiayexeco 'to freeze', imo^avxi^co 'to die

a light b l o n d ' ) ; also, with d o u b l e o r triple preverb (eytcocOomoypdcpco 'to sign in', TCocpeKemxeivco 'to extend even m o r e ' ) . V e r b a l c o m p o u n d s with the preverb ^ccva- 'again' are

frequent.

As I have stated throughout, G r e e k has preserved that marvellous trait w h i c h enables a n y o n e to create a n e w w o r d . M a n y o f these new

w o r d s are individual discoveries m a d e b y writers o f the elevated

language. T h e total numbers are very high and have n o t yet b e e n properly calculated, cf. A . Steiner-Weber 1 9 9 1 , p . 2 4 5 . 355.

T h e n e w Byzantine lexicon represents to a large extent a ren­

ovation, in that the p o p u l a r language, in particular,

loses a sub­

stantial part o f the o l d vocabulary. T h e r e is cdaxpoq and daicrijioq, against duopqxx;; otKoq against GTUXI; KaXoq n o longer refers to phys­ ical beauty, etc. T h e r e are innumerable examples. But classical w o r d s c o u l d continue to b e used in the literary language. Consequently, we

find

purposes.

doublets o f the type PaaiA-euq/paaiXtdq, used for stylistic

250

CHAPTER TWO

T h i s subtle g a m e is particularly well illustrated w h e n a text is car­ ried from o n e o f the t w o main registers to the other. I have studied this in c o n n e c t i o n with the p o p u l a r Byzantine collection o f fables, the V i n d o b o n e n s i s , w h i c h rewrites its o l d m o d e l , the Augustana c o l ­ lection, w h i c h is a cross b e t w e e n an Atticistic and a poeticising lan­ guage. I have studied the m e c h a n i s m in A d r a d o s 1948, p . 67 ff., and have s h o w n h o w Attic and poetic terms are almost systematically substituted b y terms w h i c h are c o m m o n to koine, or rather, to popular and sometimes vulgar koine. T h e n u m b e r o f c o m p o u n d verbs with preverbs is reduced. T h e stylistic study o f the Byzantine texts is threfore rather c o m ­ plicated. Cf, for e x a m p l e , the study o f the Alexias b y A n n a C o m n e n a in E. D i a z R o l a n d o 1989.

4. BORROWINGS IN BYZANTINE G R E E K

Latin borrowings 356. T h e Byzantine l e x i c o n also grew, as w e have seen, b y means o f linguistic borrowings from peoples and cultures with w h i c h Byzantium had contact. Let us l o o k at o n e p e o p l e o r culture at a time. W e have already discussed the Latin b o r r o w i n g s in East G r e e k in the first periods. It was p o i n t e d out h o w Latin only gradually ceased to b e the official language and h o w k n o w l e d g e o f Latin literature in Byzantium was negligible. W e also n o t e d the huge importance o f the trace it left in law. H . M i h a e s c u 1993, p . 3 5 0 ff. has established that s o m e 3,000 Latin terms entered Byzantine G r e e k , o f w h i c h s o m e 2 0 0 w e r e retained in M o d e r n Greek, A v o i d e d b y the educated, they were not o f m i n o r i m p o r t a n c e for the public; not just with regard to legal and administrative t e r m i n o l o g y but also military terminology. In the legal and administrative fields it was inevitable that a great n u m b e r o f Latin terms w o u l d enter into translations and c o m m e n ­ taries. T h e r e is a g o o d study o n this subject b y L. B u r g m a n n 1990. Sometimes, Latin terms in Latin letters were included, sometimes they w e r e transcribed into G r e e k (of the type juayKircioDin), B u r g m a n n indicates that in the paraphrase o f the Institutiones, s o m e 1,000 Latin w o r d s appear, each o n e a b o u t ten times. T h e y also appear in pri­ vate a n d official d o c u m e n t s . It is clear that there were certain currents that sought to Hellenise

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

251

the legal texts. A t times, authors limited themselves to altering the Latin terms, adapting them to G r e e k inflection (dScmxdkiv) o r else glossing them; while other times, they translated o r c a l q u e d

them.

H o w e v e r , m a n y w o r d s from the legal language w e r e carried into the p o p u l a r language; for instance, Tioaasoicov, dKK£7txiA,ocxicov 'receipt', xeaxa(uevxov, e^epeSaxeutoJ EurxyKiTtaxeuco ^mydxcop, Tioiva, uoSepdxcop KT|V0£\)CO, etc. Now,

the creation o f G r e e k terms from Latin was important in

the p o p u l a r language from the start o f the Byzantine period: it was the

continuation

o f the p r o c e s s w h i c h w e h a v e

studied for

the

R e p u b l i c a n and Imperial R o m a n periods. G i v e n the rather limited influence o f Latin literature in Byzantium, it was the p o p u l a r lan­ guage that exerted the most influence and not the elevated language (with the e x c e p t i o n , as w e k n o w , o f the legal a n d

administrative

vocabulary). T h i s p o p u l a r language created w o r d s w h i c h in

many

cases were reexported to the West: occasionally, they display specific p h o n e t i c o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l alterations; indeed, there are even m i x e d 'monsters' 357.

(anXonaXXxov).

Let us quickly review the principal elements o f this vocabulary: Imperial

court, titles, functionaries,

professions: Kccioocp, [idyiaxpoq,

TtaxpiKioc;, oqwadAaoq, K-ueaxcop, npaxnoaixoq;

xa(3oi)X,dpioq, A,nyd-

xoq, peaxi07cpdxr|(; 'silk trader', juaiceXXdpux;, etc. Military: see in particular H . M i h a e s c u 1993, w h o examines the G r e e k terms o f Latin origin relating to uniform and

equipment

(KaTuroc, KaXiyco, xevxcc), transport (Ka$aXXxKzx>(o, oiXfax), w e a p o n r y (dpudxoc;, dpKdxoq, ocxyixxoc, onaQa),

organisation

(opStvocxicov,

cruexpavoq, KCDVCOV, E^TCESTXOI), v i g i l a n c e (e^TiXopdxcop), ranks (rcpiuoc;, KopviKoi)Xdpio<;), insignia (fi^xXXov, egy


(KipKeiieiv, Kcmpadxcop), rewards a n d punishment (d8copea,

Snaepxcop), signals (POUKIVOV,rcpaiKcov),settiements a n d fortifications (Kdaxpa, dyeaxa), means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n (oxpaxoc), etc. Daily life: Kojn|jipKiov, vot>|jno<;, ouyida, KaXdvSai, t o w toe;; U^JIPpavdpioq, PpaKapioq, Pavidxcop, xaPeAAicov, ooxidpioq; OGTUXIOV, oeXXa, (poopva^, aKpCviov, paK^ov, juaKeX^dpiov; Kajiuoiov, aayiov, ppaKiov. The world of the circus: the h i p p o d r o m e played a fundamental in Byzantine life a n d h a d its o w n vocabulary, nearly

role

always

taken f r o m the Latin. Cf., for e x a m p l e , the seats o f places reserved for the emperor and magistrates (oev^ov < sessus, oeXXiov,

252

CHAPTER TWO xevxa); carts, flags, c r o w d s (pfJYtx,

TIOCVIV

5

'team insignia , pn^dpiv

5

5

'flag to signal the start , (potKxicov, opva 'urn for drawing lots , 5

ocopvydpiv 'tunic o f the auriga\ XovnepKaX 'end o f the year race , 5

(pcxKTiovdpioc; 'president o f a circus team , jua^iXXdpioq 'he w h o 5

puts the cushions o n the seats ). 358. W e c o u l d easily g o o n . Clearly, part o f this vocabulary was lost, along with the institutions it served; but another part survived into M o d e r n Greek. O n the other hand, f o r m and meaning in this v o c a b u l a r y are at times Latin, while other times there is derivation (particularly with -axoc;) o r semantic change. In addition to the pre­ vious examples, w e c a n point to others such as xpovXXa (from Lat. trulla 'serving s p o o n ' ) , aK&Xa

'cupula'

'port' (Lat. 'stair'),

ii&Xoq

(from Lat. moles), KccXccudpiov 'inkpot' (from Lat. calamarium 'writing reeds case'), etc. It should also b e noted that derivation can b e from the A c (dovKaq from A c Sowcx, in turn, from Lat, ducem); in the first two declen­ sions w e c a n n o t see whether they originate in the N . o r the A c Also, modifications in f o r m can b e m o r e p r o f o u n d than the

mere

addition o f a suffix: sometimes the n e w w o r d b e c o m e s semi-Greek, like KEViapxoq (for centenarius), diaeKxoq

(for bisextus). T h e original Latin

can also turn out to b e hypothetical; for instance, KocA,a
Balkans,

(impedimentum), with fricativisation.

Cf.

H . M i h a e s c u 1993, p . 3 5 4 . Borrowings from Gothic and eastern languages 3 5 9 . Let us n o w l o o k at the m u c h rarer b o r r o w i n g s f r o m

other

languages. F o r instance, b o r r o w i n g s f r o m Pahlavi, the Persian language o f the Sasanian p e r i o d , given that the contact between the two p e o ­ ples was, as w e k n o w , intense (mostly o f a bellicose nature but also cultural). T h e Byzantines s u c c e e d e d the R o m a n s as defendors o f the Euphrates frontier, suffering terrible invasions in Syria and Palestine, and achieving great victories under the e m p e r o r Heraclius, o n the eve o f the A r a b expansion. This conflict weakened b o t h peoples and left t h e m defenseless before the n e w c o n q u e r o r s . But there was also an important cultural e x c h a n g e , as reflected in the G r e e k influence o n Sasanian art and the spread o f M a n i c h e a n i s m to b o t h sides o f

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

253

the border. G r e e k literature m e r g e d with the Pahlavi literatures o f the Persians, w h i c h had b e e n previously influenced b y the Greeks: the Sasanian court h a d w e l c o m e d G r e e k philosophers w h o had

emi­

grated w h e n Justinian closed the A c a d e m y o f Athens (529), such as Simplicius, as w e noted previously; and G r e e k elements entered into Pahlavi versions o f the ^anchatantra,

such as that w h i c h ,

through

A r a b i c , served as the base for the Castilian Calila and Dimna. I have dealt with this elsewhere (cf. for example, A d r a d o s 1983b). Consequently, w e find G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in Pahlavi and Pahlavi b o r r o w i n g s in Greek, A m o n g these, w e can cite *tv8aviKov (mid. Lat. andanicum 'a type o f steel'), from kindawdni 'Indian'; %iPidpiov 'caviar', from kapi 'fish' and ya ' e g g ' (?). 360. A s regards the Goths, w e have discussed their conflicts with the Byzantine empire as well as the Ostrogothic empire o f T h e o d o r i c . T h e eastern Goths had received Christianity (in its Arrian sect) from the Greeks and were very Hellenised. It was in the G r e e k East that the G o t h i c bishop Ulfilas o r Wulfilas created G o t h i c writing based o n G r e e k and translated the Bible into G o t h i c , as m e n t i o n e d previously. T h e Gr, rcoDyytov (attested in the sixth century a n d even in the dialects o f today), from the G o t h , puggs ' b a g ' , was also carried into Rumanian.

Y e t the m a i n influence was in the opposite direction.

T h e same o c c u r s in the case o f Slavic, w h i c h h a d a very close belie, but also cultural, relationship

with B y z a n t i u m , as w e have

seen. I will explore this subject w h e n I discuss G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in Slavic. 3 6 1 . In the case o f A r a b i c , in contrast, lexical b o r r o w i n g s o c c u r r e d in t w o directions, and, frequendy, those w h i c h G r e e k received from A r a b i c w e r e later re-exported in various directions. In general,

it

c o u l d b e said that A r a b i c b o r r o w i n g s in Greek result from relations at the p o p u l a r level from the time o f the A r a b conquests that w e have referred to; whereas the b o r r o w i n g s w h i c h the A r a b s t o o k from the G r e e k result from relations at the literary as well as

popular

level. But this subject will not b e dealt with n o w . I will limit myself here to a few observations o n A r a b i c b o r r o w i n g s in Greek, w h i c h sometimes later re-exported them, as mentioned. T h e r e are very concrete examples o f terms from military and polit­ ical life, o r relating to plants and animals. F o r instance, w e have amir, w h i c h b e c a m e G r . djuipcxc; with various derivatives, rizq 'that w h i c h Providence provides', from w h i c h G r . pi^iKov (and from this

254

CHAPTER TWO

Sp. riesgo, etc.) was obtained; targaman, from w h i c h Spayojiicxvoq with m a n y derivatives was obtained; badingan, from w h i c h G r . u ^ i v x ^ d v a (and from this S p . berenjena, etc.) was obtained; babga, from w h i c h G r . nanayaq

(Sp. papagayo, etc.) was obtained. Borrowings from western languages

3 6 2 . Let us n o w turn to the b o r r o w i n g s from western languages, w h i c h was the p r o d u c t o f a history that is already familiar to us. T h e r e were relations with Italy early o n , but the oldest relations with the Byzantine Italy o f Justinian did n o t result in Italian borrowings, only Latin ones. T h e n , from the eleventh century, V e n i c e , G e n o a , Amalfi, a n d other cities established close relations with Byzantium, w h e r e there were colonies o f their citizens; there was also a V e n e t i a n d o m i n i o n in Crete and other parts, and Turkish conquests in the sixteenth a n d seventeenth centuries, to w h i c h I have already referred. Furthermore, the Franks passed through Byzantium from the e n d o f the eleventh century onwards as crusaders, c o n q u e r e d the city, and when they later lost it, remained there as l o r d s ' o f the Peloponnese and Cyprus. In the fourteenth century it was the turn o f the Catalans and A r a g o n s . I have referred to the Turkish conquests in the Balkans in the fourteenth century, the sack o f Constantinople and later the Byzantine cities. T h e Italians and French left their mark o n Byzantine literature, as w e m e n t i o n e d earlier. I n d e e d , they even left a mark o n the lan­ guage. G r e e k contained b o r r o w i n g s from the Italian languages, from Provengal, French, Catalan, etc. but n o longer from Latin. 363. Titles and feudal terminology, in particular, were taken from French: KaPaTtdpoq 'knight', jxiaip 'lord', poi 'king', yinapovq ' b a r o n ' , aipyevxr|<; 'sergeant'; q>ie = Fr. fief mpA,au{x<; 'parliament', Kcropxeaia 'courtesy'; Ko-oyKeaxi^co 'to conquer', etc. Also, military terms (Kouyiceaxa 'conquest', xpe(3a 'truce'); and eccleciastical terms (naaoaxlp

'passage

to the H o l y L a n d ' , cppe 'friar', Tiapxofiv ' p a r d o n ' ) . In the G r e e k dialect o f Cyprus, m a n y French and Provengal words have been preserved: PocAXevxi^oc 'bravery', Koupowoc ' c r o w n ' , izka^ipxv 'pleasure', yccpevxid^co 'to guarantee', x^ijuufoc ' c h i m n e y ' , aoi^a provision' (asize)

y

'legal

etc.

364. C o m m e r c i a l and naval terms, in particular, were taken from Italian. In the oldest p e r i o d , the naval lexicon had b e e n carried over from the Greeks into Italy; but from the eleventh century onwards

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

255

(and later, the sixteenth century) the reverse was true; also, suffixes such as

-exxo, - e o o a , -ivoq

-EXXO,

w e r e carried over. T h e

majority

are Venetian, but w e shall not g o into this n o w . A m o n g the o l d Italianisms,

from the eleventh century

onwards,

w e c a n cite: in the navy and in war, noboxaq < pedotta, xpaixo-ovxdva < tramontana, naxoq < pako; in fashion and daily life: cappuccio, ypxtpq

< gris, Kovxriq < conte, jnepKocxdvxoc;

KOCTWCOVT^IV

<

<

mercatante,

T^aujiouvoc < zampogna. T h e r e are n u m e r o u s borrowings in the m o r e recent Italian. F o r example: titles (So-UKeaooc, noozoxaq); public life (oaXfto 'safe-conduct', vxodvoe 'customs'); c o m m o n terms (ypdx^tcc 'grace', Pe(v)5exxa 'revenge', dpevxofipa 'adventure'); from religion (nxoq, (pe, cpeaxoc); cultural life, music, poetry (voPeAxx, fhotax, xpo-oujJexac;, KpovocKa); fashion, profes­ sions (pd^ov 'satin', pepexxa < berretta, p65a

wheel',

\mpovv^xvoq

' b r o n z e ' ) ; w a r , w e a p o n r y (yo^PepvaSopoq, TiepiKO'uA.ov, cpopxex^a,

Tiavxiepa); etc. N a v a l terms w e r e particularly

important:

<povxo<; ' d e p t h ' , pevoc

'sand', dpjad8oc, (poika, dvxeva, KooPepxa, Karcexdvoc;, etc. M a n y o f these w o r d s were carried into M o d e r n Greek. 365. Finally, w e must m e n t i o n the Turkish w h i c h have survived to the present

borrowings, many o f ,

day. F o r instance, 7ia7io uxaia

'shoes', rcitaxqn 'rice', yiaoupxi 'yoghurt', Kaq>e<; 'coffee', xoi)q>8Ki 'rifle . 5

W e find -oytan) in the patronymics. Turkish influenced w o r d order in the dialects o f Asia M i n o r .

5.

G R E E K BORROWINGS IN OTHER LANGUAGES

General ideas 366. W e are n o w dealing with a decisive m o m e n t in the history o f the G r e e k language. O n the o n e hand, it continued to survive, as such, in Byzantium and from there into m o d e r n G r e e c e , while o n the other hand, it influenced and implanted itself into all the sur­ rounding languages. This process has already b e e n e x a m i n e d for the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. In R o m e , specifically, a type o f Latin w h i c h w e call G r a e c o - L a t i n was created. E n o r m o u s advances fol­ l o w e d , so that G r e e k remains a m o n g us until today. It should b e n o t e d that G r e e k penetrated o u r languages

through

multiple routes. Let us review a few o f the observations w e have already m a d e :

256

CHAPTER TWO (a) T h r o u g h Byzantium, whether through contact between indi­ viduals and p e o p l e s o r through a cultural and ecclesiastical route. (b) T h r o u g h the Latin that was kept alive in the M i d d l e Ages as the language o f culture, and w h i c h a b s o r b e d G r e e k terms f r o m classical and especially late Latin.

367. Later o n , classical Latin, w h i c h was progressively discovered and studied in the age o f H u m a n i s m , b e c a m e the source for extract­ ing Hellenisms; in the fifteenth century t o o , they b e g a n to b e directly extracted f r o m the ancient G r e e k that was b r o u g h t to Italy b y schol­ ars fleeing from the Turks. It is n o t always easy to stick to this classification: Byzantine terms passed into Latin and the languages that were just starting to b e written, but sometimes the entry o f these predates Latin d o c u m e n ­ tation. V e r y often, it is difficult to fix a date o r route o f entry for these Hellenisms. Y e t , at a certain point, G r e e k roots and formative elements b e g a n to b e freely used within the m o d e r n languages, o n c e they h a d b e e n fully i n c o r p o r a t e d into them. A t any rate, there are t w o fundamental

routes. First, the route o f

medieval G r e e k and Latin (which shall b e l o o k e d at in this chapter), consisting o f B y z a n t i n e

G r e e k a n d m e d i e v a l , late Latin m o d e l s .

Second, the route consisting o f classical Greek and Latin models (which shall b e l o o k e d at in the next chapter). Indeed, with the arrival o f the Renaissance and H u m a n i s m in the W e s t there was a shift o f perspective in the western p e r c e p t i o n o f G r e e k culture: the old, clas­ sical phases o f G r e e k and Latin n o w served as the m o d e l to follow. It is p a r a d o x i c a l that the learned Byzantines, b y taking refuge in Italy, w o u l d bring there classical G r e e c e , w h i c h was m u c h

more

appreciated b y the W e s t than c o n t e m p o r a r y G r e e c e . A l o n g time w o u l d pass before Byzantium and even the E u r o p e a n M i d d l e Ages w o u l d b e studied a n d

appreciated.

368. Y e t , if w e return to the e n d o f Antiquity and the M i d d l e A g e s , Byzantium was the centre o f the w o r l d , the true continuation o f the R o m a n empire. Its literature, with the exceptions w e shall give, was barely k n o w n in the W e s t . But its State, C h u r c h , military organisa­ tion,

art, a n d industries were imitated b y all.

Indeed, it was a centre o f the w o r l d w h i c h , with Justinian, o c c u ­ p i e d all the area extending f r o m the D a n u b e to the Euphrates and the Nile, in addition to N o r t h Africa and a g o o d part o f Italy and

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 257 Spain. Its influence did n o t diminish after the loss o f the Byzantine possessions in Italy (the exarchate o f R a v e n n a in the eighth century, Sicily in the ninth century, southern Italy in the eleventh century), Africa, and Spain (in the seventh century). N o r did it diminish after the successive conflicts with the Slavs and Arabs: only from the thir­ teenth century onwards
and with it the G r e e k language -

exerted

the greatest influence o n the surrounding p e o p l e s , whether through force o r d i p l o m a c y . W h o were these peoples? T o the north, the G o t h s , and later the Slavs; to the east and south, together with those already m e n t i o n e d , first the Sasanians, then the Arabs, and later the Turks. Byzantium had a influence o n all o f them. Similarly, in the West, a m o n g the Latin, G e r m a n i c , and Celtic peoples. I will e x a m i n e the G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s received b y the various lan­ guages o f these p e o p l e s in the first half o f the M i d d l e Ages, until the thirteenth century: with this, I continue the parallel study w h i c h I b e g a n for the p e r i o d o f Antiquity. T h e n , I will e x a m i n e the other area referred to, the influence o f literary G r e e k in E u r o p e , through the classics, from this same p e r i o d in the thirteenth century. H o w e v e r , before exploring the linguistic issue and G r e e k influence o n these different languages, it will b e useful to give an overview o f the historical-cultural context. In this w a y , w e will e x p l o r e , succes­ sively, G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s through Latin; those that entered directly into the R o m a n c e languages; those that entered the G e r m a n i c lan­ guages (through G o t h i c ) ; b o r r o w i n g s t h r o u g h Slavic and

through

A r a b i c (at times, the transmitter o f b o r r o w i n g s into other languages). F o r each case I will give the historical context. Borrowings in western languages 369. I will b e g i n with the W e s t . T h e G e r m a n i c e m p e r o r s were pri­ marily interested in b e i n g recognised b y the e m p e r o r s o f Byzantium as e m p e r o r s o f the R o m a n s , from C h a r l e m a g n e to O t t o III. T h e y sought equality -

as two emperors c r o w n e d b y the P o p e and

the

Patriarch - w h i c h the Byzantines had denied them, even though they c

y

did call the e m p e r o r o f the W e s t patricius o r 'king' o f the R o m a n s . T h e d r e a m o f unity remained alive: C h a r l e m a g n e attempted

to

258

CHAPTER TWO

w e d the w i d o w e m p e r e s s I r e n e ,

O t t o II m a r r i e d

the

princess

T h e o p h a n o , w h o gave birth to the e m p e r o r O t t o III. But this was an impossible d r e a m to realise, for w h e n the p o w e r o f the p a p a c y b e c a m e t o o strong, Byzantium's response was the Photian schism. This led n o t o n l y to a political but also to a religious division. T h e u n i o n was impossible, and the W e s t knew very little about Byzantine culture, as the Byzantines in turn knew little about Latin culture. T h e G r e e k language was even less k n o w n in the West. But G r e e k still h a d prestige, as attested b y certain residues in the liturgy (the Kyrie eleison, the trisagiori) and b y the tradition o f bilingual Bibles that were still b e i n g c o p i e d . G r e e k was better preserved b y the Irish and English monks w h o were active in the court o f Charlemagne, and later in France a n d the monasteries o f St. Gall, R e i c h e n a u , and others. A l s o , b y the G r e e k m o n k s themselves, w h o were present in the c o u r t o f O t t o I, and were n u m e r o u s in R o m e in the eighth and ninth centuries, and even m o r e so in southern Italy: first, as refugees from the A r a b invasions, and later from the iconoclasts, they founded monasteries and cultivated Greek, 370. Translations, h o w e v e r , were not very numerous. T h e transla­ tions, particularly in Italy, o f the lifes o f the saints are from an early period. Later, Dionysius the Areopagite entered in favour, with trans­ lations o f Hilduin (abbot o f St. Denis) and Scotus Erigena in the eighth and ninth centuries. In the latter century, Anastasius trans­ lated hagiographic a n d ecclesiastical literature in R o m e . S o m e texts w e r e translated in St. G a l l ( H i p p o c r a t e s ,

Galen,

Dositheus). Aristotle and others w o u l d have to wait until the twelfth century, with the translations b y Aristippus, in Sicily, and Grosseteste, in England. In the thirteenth century, w e have the translations o f Guglielmus o f M o e r b e c k e and the T o l e d o school o f translators, w h o worked from Arabic, as w e know. Also, there was the Greek Grammatica b y R o g e r B a c o n , translations o f Nicholas o f Otranto,

etc

S o , although R o g e r B a c o n himself referred to the scant knowl­ edge o f G r e e k in E u r o p e , and philosophers such as Albertus M a g n u s and T h o m a s A q u i n a s studied the Greeks through Latin translations, there is n o d o u b t that the G r e e k language had prestige. This pres­ tige was linked to the prestige o f Antiquity and o f Byzantium itself, with w h i c h there was m u c h contact in the councils and

numerous

embassies f r o m the time o f C h a r l e m a g n e . W e should also note that the influence o f Byzantine art was enor-

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 2 5 9 m o u s in E u r o p e : in architecture,

painting, textile, ivories. F r o m at

least the ninth century onwards, it served as a vehicle, n o t only for G r e e k literature, but also for Eastern art w h i c h was i n t r o d u c e d into E u r o p e through this route. I have studied this subject in detail in c o n n e c t i o n with the fable, in A d r a d o s 1984a. There' is a G r e e k fable tradition, for instance, in one manuscript o f St. Gall from the ninth century: the same monastery in w h i c h , a r o u n d that p e r i o d , G r e e k authors were b e i n g translated. 3 7 1 . In fact, as w e shall see, there are m a n y G r e e k lexical b o r r o w ­ ings dating from the medieval p e r i o d . T h e y m a y sometimes turn out to b e Latinisations o f G r e e k w o r d s that penetrated the n e w R o m a n c e and G e r m a n i c languages, but mostly the opposite seems true. T h e r e w e r e various routes o f entry: through cultural o r personal contact in the West, o r other routes through Byzantine Italy and the A r a b s . A t any rate, Latin was the language o f culture a n d religion in the West: from here, the lexicon o f G r e e k origin, together with the resid­ ual Latin lexicon, penetrated into the n e w languages o f E u r o p e . 372. For the historical relations between Byzantium and the West, in addi­ tion to the historical works already cited, see W . Berschin 1970 and S. A. Tovar 1990. For Byzantium as the transmitter of the fable tradition to the West, see Adrados 1984e. For borrowings in western languages, H. and R. Kahane 1970 ff., p. 349 ff., F. Brunot 1966, I, p . 121 ff., M . Gortelazzo 1970, A. Ewert s. a., p. 288 f., W . Stammler (ed.), 1957, p. 733 ff., K. M . Pope 1973, p . 30 ff., H . Liidtke 1974, p . 160 ff., A . de la Cruz and A. Caflete 1992, p . 109 ff.; and, for Spain, M . Fernandez-Galiano 1966 and J. Berguz 2002. 3 7 3 . W e shall n o w l o o k at the influence o f Byzantine G r e e k o n the western

languages.

H o w e v e r , it is very difficult to dissociate this

influence from that o f the older b o r r o w i n g s : for e x a m p l e , if auvoSoq 'meeting o f the b i s h o p s ' is attested from the fourth difficult to d e c i d e w h e t h e r different

western

century, it is

Lat. synodus and its derivatives in

languages

is f r o m the

same

date o r f r o m

the the

Byzantine period (the same applies for Kocujtf|, xapxapotixoc;, £7U(pav[e]ia, Powupov, etc.). Just as it is difficult, as w e m e n t i o n e d previously, to establish whether

there was an intermediate Latin in G r e e k b o r ­

rowings, o r a direct link from Byzantine G r e e k to the m o d e r n lan­ guages, through o n e o f these. T h e r e is also the question o f whether

the b o r r o w i n g is i n d e e d

p o p u l a r o r literary, a n d not strictly Byzantine: sometimes it is the

260 two,

CHAPTER TWO from monasterium w e obtain p o p u l a r as well as elevated deriva­

tives (Sp. monasterio) in the western languages, and similarly with ecclesia, etc. Sometimes, from a single w o r d w e obtain a derivative through the Byzantine route and another through the n o r m a l Latin route: from djroGriicri w e obtain Sp. botica (with Byzantine iotacism) and bodega (without it). It w o u l d seem m o r e appropriate here to p r o v i d e actual Byzantine terms w h i c h infiltrated the W e s t through Latin transcriptions (keep­ ing in m i n d the d o u b t expressed in § 371). T h u s , I will p r o v i d e a summary o f actual Byzantine w o r d s (by date o f a p p e a r a n c e o r b y semantics) w h i c h infiltrated

the western

languages. T h e y will b e classified b y date o f appearance in Byzantium: the date o f the Latin f o r m m a y b e c o n t e m p o r a r y to o r posterior to this date (even anterior to o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the Greek). C h r o n o ­ logical groups will b e established, and I will indicate whether

the

Latin term and, very briefly, the western forms are o f interest. But we will o n l y b e dealing with a few examples. 374.

In the following, I will indicate the date o f the w o r d ' s o r the

meaning's first a p p e a r a n c e in Byzantium: Fifth-sixth centuries: Xov

KavoviKoq,

judvSpoc 'cloister', 'cell';

'first leaf o f a roll o f papyrus', Xuaveia

'litany', *Tpiadyiov 'tris-

agion', 8KTIK6(; 'consumptive fever', Kapa|3o<; 'rapid b o a t ' , 'receipt',

ra£i8iov

TCPCOTOKOX-

anodeifyq

' v o y a g e ' . T h e Latin transcriptions are attested in

general, although in s o m e cases they have to b e reconstructed. A s regards the derivatives in the Western languages, w e n e e d only refer to,

for e x a m p l e , in S p . tetania, trisagio, hetico, carabela; in other lan­

guages, for e x a m p l e , O F r . etique, Port, karavo, Ital. polizza (from w h i c h we

obtain S p . poliza), Ital. tasseggio. Seventh-eighth centuries: eiKoov ' i m a g e ' ( M L a t . icona, eighth cen­

tury), dpxoq ' c o n s e c r a t e d b r e a d ' ( M L a t . artona, seventh century), KataSynpoc; ' m o n k ' ( M L a t . calogerus), JLIO-OGTCXKIOV, TraAAnKapiov 'young m a n ' . See derivatives such as: S p . canonigo, Cat, calonge, Ital. (dialects) ancona, icona, cona> V e n e t . mostacci, S p . mostacho. Ninth-tenth centuries: vaoq

'temple', p©umo<; 'pilgrim', cujaxpoovia

'musical instrument', rcepyajurjvri 'parchment', pdjipoci; ' c o t t o n ' , Xzlvio^ 'snail', duipaq ( M L a t . amiras) 'admiral', p-o^dvTi(ov) 'a Byzantine c o i n ' , jnocicdpi 'perhaps', EapaKr|v6<; 'muslim' (before, ' A r a b ' ) , yaXza

'small

battle-ship', Kovxotipoc 'ship with a short tail', %copa 'region' ( M L a t . hora), GKXafioq. T h e r e are derivatives, generally through Latin, such as

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

261

Sp. nave, Fr. nef, S p . romero, zampona, parche, besante, maguer, sarraceno, galera, eslavo; M F r . amirail, O l t a l . saracino, V e n e t . gondola. Eleventh-twelfth centuries: 7iapd5eiao<; 'paradise', %apiGX£toc 'scarcity', pi. dpyaXeiov (Lat. argalia) 'catheter', *(3povxiov ' b r o n z e ' , 'cadastre',

8(JLLIXOV

'a tissue',

£^dutxov

KoexdGXixov

'another type o f tissue', *d|3poxd-

pi%ov (Lat. butaricum) 'salted fish', OKaXa 'port'. T h e r e are derivatives such as Ital. paradiso, S p . paraiso, carestia, bronce, Ital. algalia, Fr. algalie, V e n e t . catastico (Sp. catastro), Ital. (dialects) buter, boder (Eng. butter), S p . botarga, and escala. Thirteenth-fourteenth centuries: *7ip6%iov 'pitcher' ( M L a t . broccus), *7iXf|xpia 'funnel',

|xaKapcbv£ia 'funeral

s o n g ' f r o m 'funeral

food'.

F r o m here, forms through Latin such as Ital. (dialects) brocca, O P r o v . broc> Ital. (dialects) pledria, plera, plero, Ital. maccheroni, S p . macarrones, Ital. arcipelago, Fr. archipel, S p . archipielago. S o m e w o r d s passed directly into French during the Crusades, such as boutique, chaland, dromond. 375. A few observations should b e a d d e d to the a b o v e : 1. Byzantine phonetics appears frequently: Sp. botica, pergamino, Himosina (pressupposed for Opisan. mozina, etc.), Ital. bisante, icona, Sp. sdndalo, etc. 2. Sometimes, w e find the A c . (Ital. duca, limaca) o r a change in n u m b e r (Ital. algalia, S p . botarga) o r declension ( o f the type despotus) o r an adaptation with a particular suffix (Ital. fanale from (potvdpiov) o r a verbal unification {*galamateus, S p . gali­ matias, f r o m

Kocxd

MaxGaiov) o r a semantic c h a n g e (such as

that o f archipielago). 3. T h e r e are contaminations: ^petroleum f r o m 7t£xp£?iaiov o n the Lat. oleum, trepalium from xpucdaGCc^ov 'instrument o f torture', o n the Lat. palus. 4. T h e r e are semantic caiques: f r o m anoKpeoyq w e obtain M L a t . carnelevare, from w h i c h w e obtain S p . carnaval. 5. Latin Hellenisms, as Latinisms in general, passed n o t only to the R o m a n c e languages, but also the G e r m a n i c and other languages ( O H G . pergamin, M H G . tievel < diabolus, etc., and w o r d s o f diverse origins, cf. al. Kirsche < cerasus, Pfirsich < persicus, Quitte < cydoneus, ^wetschge < damascenus). In other lan­ guages t o o , for example, Basque and Albanian, cf. H . Liidtke 1974, p p . 181 ff., 186 ff. 6. Occasionally, w e can follow the route b y w h i c h words derived from the G r e e k penetrated from o n e language to another.

262

CHAPTER TWO F o r e x a m p l e , in Spanish w e have influences o f French H e l ­ lenisms, as in cisne, cofre, monje, golpe, tapiz, ants; from Italian, calma, chusma, gruta (but these are p r o b a b l y w o r d s that c a m e f r o m B y z a n t i u m through other Italian languages, without Latin as an intermediate language - w e shall discuss these later). In English there is a series o f Hellenisms w h i c h have entered through French: abbey, baptism, blasphemy, chair, charity, clergy, govern, homily, parish, parliament

In G e r m a n , in parallel, Hellenisms entered through French, as for instance, O H G . Prestar < O F r . prestre < Lat. presbyter < Gr. 7ipeo|3i)T£po<;; other times, there are semantic caiques ( O H G . salmsang 'psalter'). 376. Let us n o w l o o k at the Hellenisms w h i c h entered through a p o p u l a r route, through the Byzantine d o m i n i o n s in Italy. A l t h o u g h , as I have said, it is n o t always easy to make a distinction. A s before, I will p r o v i d e a brief historical introduction. Byzantine influence was particularly important in R a v e n n a , V e n i c e and G e n o a , as well as in southern Italy, Amalfi, Naples, Sicily, and even R o m e . F r o m these centres, a series o f Byzantine w o r d s were diffused throughout the western

Mediterranean.

R a v e n n a was, as w e k n o w , the capital o f the Byzantine exarchate o f Italy, from the mid-sixth century to the mid-eighth century. It possessed G e n o a until the mid-seventh century; and also V e n i c e , w h i c h after the fall o f the exarchate b e c a m e a d u k e d o m with a loose dependence o n Byzantium in the ninth century, b e c o m i n g independent and even a rival in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Subsequendy, f r o m the thirteenth c e n t u r y o n w a r d s , V e n i c e h a d settlements

in

Constantinople, as well as G e n o a , and even possessions in the islands m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . Until a b o u t the year

1000, Dalmatia was also

under Byzantine rule and there was an analogous e x c h a n g e between the t w o . In short, a close relationship existed, as reflected in the introduction o f Italianisms in Byzantium (as w e have seen) and in the acceptance o f G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y , w h i c h was later diffused into other languages, in V e n i c e , G e n o a and other regions. T h e Hellenisms o f R a v e n n a are almost invaribly related to daily life, industry, and clothing; those o f V e n i c e , to trade a n d navigation, the C h u r c h , technology, banking and fashion. Similarly with those o f Dalmatia, w h i c h diffused these Byzantisms in the Slavic w o r l d . Southern Italy was c o n q u e r e d b y Justinian and from the seventh

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 263 century onwards received m a n y immigrants w h o w e r e fleeing from Islam; in the eighth century, immigrants fleeing f r o m the Iconoclasts, and in the ninth century, m a n y m o r e from Sicily, w h i c h was lost to the Muslims, previously having b e e n c o n q u e r e d b y Justinian. M a n y G r e e k convents were f o u n d e d in southern Italy and also in R o m e . G r e e k culture flourished in these convents (and later even in Sicily, u n d e r the N o r m a n s ) , as discussed in §§ 369 f. T h u s , Italy was a centre o f diffusion for the G r e e k l e x i c o n , not just o f the l e x i c o n w h i c h entered through a cultural route, but also o f that w h i c h entered b y means o f trade, and personal and political relations. Let us l o o k at s o m e examples. 377.

T o illustrate, I will provide examples o f s o m e Byzantisms w h i c h

penetrated the Italian dialects and sometimes, f r o m here, other West­ ern languages b y means o f trade and other means, in the Middle Ages. F r o m the R a v e n n a exarchate, f r o m the ninth century: in various dialects, delta 'rim o f a triangular well church

5

5

< SeA/rcc, ardica 'hall o f the

< ocpQrjKoc, butinus ' h o l e ' < P60DVO<;, buter 'butter' < Poi>xi)pov,

angaria ' c u c u m b e r ' < dyyoupxov, bronzo ' b r o n z e ' < *ppovxiov, deuma ' m o d e l ' < 8eiy|ia. F r o m G e n o a : cintraco, centrego 'inferior functionary'

< Kevxocpxoq.

F r o m V e n i c e : dromo 'fence' < 8p6uo<;, liago ' b a l c o n y ' < fjAactKoc;, prostimo 'fine' < rcpooxijiov, messeta 'broker, currency e x c h a n g e agent' < jieaixriq, agio 'charter' < dycoyiov, staria 'firm land' < axe pea, stradioto 'soldier' < oxpaxubxnc;, gripo 'small ship' < ypiTioq, gondola < Kovxcmpoc. F r o m Dalmatia: inchona < eiKova, condura < Kovxo-upa. F r o m southern Italy and Sicily: ana < d v d 'in equal parts', parabisu < *7capdpeiao<; < 7capd8eiao<;, romeus 'pilgrim' < pcojjxxioc;, malanzana 'aubergine' < u^Xivx^dva. It is frequent for the same w o r d to appear, with variants, in the different Italian d o m i n i o n s ; and Latin forms o f m a n y o f them

are

found, whether created from the dialectal forms o r as intermediate forms: it is often difficult to tell, but the literary route is favoured in cases such as Sp. paraiso, Cat. paradis, whereas the Italianism is evident in other cases. O n the other h a n d , m a n y o f these w o r d s h a d a w i d e diffusion outside Italy, as stated earlier: they were i m p o r t e d through the Italian forms, w h e n n o t directly through Latin. F o r instance, Sp. anchoa (Gr. dr|), brujula (nvfyq), calma (Kccfijxa), grata (xpvnxr\), poliza (drcoSei^K;). In o l d French, w e c a n cite examples o f Italianisms o f G r e e k origin

264

CHAPTER TWO

(sometimes through Provengal), such as bourse, Fr. chiere ( < mpce, cf. Sard., Prov., Cat., S p . , Port., card), falot

(cpdpcx;), golfe, calme, casse

(Koc\|/a), medaille (jieraAAov), moustache, magasin, page (< pagio < 7iai8{ov), risque, etc.; others infiltrated

through

an intermediate

A r a b i c (for

instance, carat, G r . Kepcmov) or, usually, from Latin (with a classical p r o n o u n c i a t i o n , as in chemeil ' c a m e l ' o r Byzantine, as in tapis). T o cite a w o r d o f general extension: the w o r d for 'admiral', from the G r . djuipaq (in turn, from the Arabic) w h i c h , contaminated with the Latin ad-, has extended to all the languages from N o r m a n Sicily through G e n o a . 378. Let us n o w turn to the eastern Byzantine contacts. W e have discussed the relation b e t w e e e n Byzantium and the G o t h s , Slavs and A r a b s . In all these cases, the G r e e k l e x i c o n found an o p e n i n g in the respective languages. W e have l o o k e d at G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in G o t h i c . T h e G o t h s were a G e r m a n i c p e o p l e w h o h a d direct contact with Byzantium, as w e k n o w ; but this was mainly the b r a n c h o f the Ostrogoths, w h o dis­ appeared

f r o m history in the sixth c e n t u r y .

Christianisation

and alphabetisation,

Nevertheless,

their

together with their translation

o f the Bible into their language, placed them above the other Germanic peoples to w h o m they transmitted s o m e Hellenisms c o m p l e m e n t i n g those w h i c h entered through

Latin.

F o r e x a m p l e , w e find icoptaKov 'house o f the lord', w h i c h was the n a m e for c h u r c h in various G e r m a n i c languages (Ger. Kirche, Eng. church with the Scottish variant kirk); nanaq, nanaq (Goth, papa, O H G . pfqffb, G e r . Pfqffe); 7tevTr|KOGTf| (Ger. Pfingsten); "Apeox; fjuipa (Aust. and Bav. Ertag); %i\m%r[ (Aust. and Bav. IJinztag); adppcxTOv ( G o t h . *sambat, G e r . Samstag). O t h e r Hellenisms, through ecclesiastical Latin, penetrated in ancient times into the G e r m a n i c languages: for instance, A N o r d . tollr, O H G . tol, f r o m V u l g . Lat. toloneum (Gr. xetaoveTov), O H G . Biscqf ' b i s h o p ' , Miinster

'monastery'. Borrowings in Slavic

379. W e still n e e d to l o o k at G r e e k b o r r o w i n g s in O l d

Bulgarian

(and the other Slavic languages) a n d in A r a b i c . T h r o u g h the

first

route, Hellenisms penetrated all the Slavic world, and through

the

s e c o n d route, they increased their presence in the western w o r l d . A s before, I will start b y giving a brief historical introduction.

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES

265

380. For the relations between the Greeks and other Indo-European peoples in general, see the book by F. Villar 1996a. For Gothic, see W . Streitberg 1919, M . H. JeUinek 1926, pp. 19 ff. and 186 ff., W . P. Lehmann 1986 (see Greek borrowings on p . 537 ff.). For Slavic, see F. Dvornik 1956 and Adrados 1987. For the relations between the Arabs o f the Caliphate o f Baghdad and Byzantium, as well as for translations from Greek, see J. Vernet 1978 and my book Adrados 2001, p. 21 ff. For the Greek lexicon which entered Spanish through Arabic, cf. R . Lapesa 1980 (8th ed.), p . 131 ff. and M . Fernandez-Galiano 1966, p 57 f. For its entry into French, see Ewert s. a., p. 296. 3 8 1 . W e are familiar with the m a i n episodes o f the meeting between Byzantium and the Bulgarians and with the relations between them. Let us n o w focus o n the language. T h e Slavic language was not written: instead, the Slavs used G r e e k in their inscriptions, starting with the great inscription o f the khan K r u m in M a d a r a . In Greek, the khan was called ap%oov o r fiamXzxx;. After the foundation o f the Bulgarian state b y khan K u b r a t

in

6 8 1 , the conversion to Christianity, o n c e again, initiated the process o f alphabetisation and increased G r e e k cultural influence. T h i s was undertaken b y K i n g Boris (852~89), after a c o m p l e x history in w h i c h the G e r m a n i c empire, R o m e and Byzantium disputed religious and political d o m i n i o n over the Slavs, leaving the latter s o m e r o o m to m a n o e u v r e : in the end, the pressure exerted b y the e m p i r e and the p a p a c y forced Boris to seek protection with Byzantium. T h e influence o f Byzantium was great, as reflected in the c o n ­ struction o f palaces (in Preslav and Pliska) a n d in close relations o f all kinds: K i n g S i m e o n , for e x a m p l e , studied in Constantinople. T h i s relationship was n o t interrupted with the destruction o f the Bulgarian k i n g d o m b y the Byzantines (1018), w h o o c c u p i e d the country, o r with the creation o f the s e c o n d Bulgarian k i n g d o m (1185™1396). F r o m our perspective, the most interesting thing was the creation o f Slavic writing, based o n the Greek, b y the m o n k s o r missionaries Cyril and M e t h o d i u s - t w o G r e e k brothers f r o m Salonika w h o were very familiar with Slavic at a time w h e n the Slavic tribes were sur­ r o u n d i n g the city. A s I stated earlier, the history is rather c o m p l e x . T h e r e was a p o w e r struggle b e t w e e n the Byzantine a n d G e r m a n i c empires

-

w h i c h was reflected in these missionaries b e i n g sent to B o h e m i a and M o r a v i a - with the p o p e s o f R o m e playing an often adverse, often a m b i g u o u s role with regard to petitions for the creation o f an

266

CHAPTER TWO

autocephalous Bulgarian C h u r c h with a Slavic liturgy. T h e

Photian

schism ( c o n c l u d e d in 863) favored this idea, although in the

end,

B o h e m i a and M o r a v i a (where Cyril and Methodius had first preached) were left under the sphere o f influence o f the R o m a n o - G e r m a n i c empire. T h e fact is, the Slavic alphabet had b e e n invented for this evan­ gelisation, and it was implanted,

f r o m the year 8 8 5 , in

Bulgaria,

when Boris accepted Methodius's disciples, w h o had fled from Moravia. In 9 2 5 , S i m e o n m a n a g e d to establish a patriarchy in Bulgaria: this was the G o l d e n A g e o f Bulgaria. Later, the Slavic liturgy spread to Pannonia, Croatia and

Dalmatia.

3 8 2 . It is significant that an important s c h o o l o f Bulgarian literature was f o r m e d at this point, with C l e m e n t o f O c h r i d and others: from here, Slavic literature spread to the Ukraine and other Slavic c o u n ­ tries. In the principality o f K i e v , K i n g V l a d i m i r ( 9 7 8 - 1 0 1 5 ) took the initiative to convert. It should b e p o i n t e d out that in Bulgaria, as in the Ukraine, the translation o f sacred and profane Greek texts formed the c o r e o f the n e w literature: liturgical writings, J o h n C h r y s o s t o m , J o h n D a m a s c e n e , Malalas, C o s m a s Indicopleustes, the Physiologies, etc. T h e r e was an undeniable continuation o f Byzantine literature, o r lit­ erature a d o p t e d b y the Byzantines. Indeed, there w e r e t w o forms o f script, Glagolitic and Cyrillic, derived respectively f r o m the G r e e k alphabet in minuscule and in uncial. T h e latter i m p o s e d itself and continues to serve the Slavic languages, e x c e p t for those that fell under western influence. T h e r e w e r e lexical b o r r o w i n g s from the start: in names o f persons, in t o p o n y m i e s , and in w o r d s like pinix < (poTvt£, ankjura < dyicopa, dijavol < SidpoXoq, myro < jxtipov, e t c , all f o u n d in the translation o f the Gospels; and, o f course, the creation o f a syntax and prose based o n the G r e e k m o d e l . N o w , w e are not just dealing with O l d Bulgarian o r eccleciastical Slavic. T h r o u g h o u t the first p e r i o d o f the M i d d l e Ages, Greek w o r d s f r o m the Byzantine territories entered into the different Slavic languages (sometimes through Latin, see H . Mihaescu 1993, p . 430 f f ) . F o r e x a m p l e , from G r . eiicova w e obtain O S e r b . icona; from pdaov 5

'coarse w o o l e n cloth , O S e r b . rasa; from naxoq 'floor' w e obtain Serb.C r o a t , patos; f r o m 5idicovo<;, iakan;

f r o m Kepocaoc; 'cherry',

OSlav.

cersa, Bulg. cresa. T h e s e w o r d s were often also carried into R u m a n i a n and Albanian.

BYZANTINE GREEK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER LANGUAGES 267 In short, if G r e e k influence in the W e s t was exerted,

fundamen­

tally, through Latin, in the East it was exerted through Slavic. Borrowings in Arabic 3 8 3 . It should b e p o i n t e d out that the A r a b s , emerging from the desert

as c o n q u e r o r s o f Syria, Palestine,

E g y p t , Persia,

western

India, North Africa and Spain, were enormously influenced b y G r e c o Byzantine culture, as well as Persian a n d R o m a n culture, in art and architecture (including o f a military type), literature, p h i l o s o p h y and science. I n d e e d , from a certain perspective, the A r a b conquest c o n ­ stituted a re-Hellenisation: part o f the G r e e k legacy was introduced in the M i d d l e A g e s through the A r a b s , the other part being intro­ d u c e d through

Rome.

T h e y were not the only route, but the translations from G r e e k (and from Sanskrit, Pahlavi, C o p t i c , and Syriac) into A r a b i c during the A b b a s i d dynasty in B a g h d a d , w e r e o f fundamental

importance.

A w h o l e school o f Syriac translators w o r k e d in Edessa o n the trans­ lation o f G r e e k (and Pahlavi) texts into Syriac and A r a b i c , and o f A r a b i c texts (often o f Pahlavi and r e m o t e Sanskrit origin) into Greek; this activity was later continued in B a g h d a d with H u n a y n I b n Ishak, towards 8 5 0 . T h e Arabs w e r e m o r e interested in p h i l o s o p h y a n d the sciences than in poetry. M o s t o f their literature and thought reflected this: from the philosophers influenced b y Aristotle o r the Platonists Gnostics, to the physicians, botanists, astrologists,

and

mathematicians,

and others. Subsequentiy, part o f this literature was translated into Latin in the thirteenth century in T o l e d o : the t w o routes o f trans­ mission o f G r e e k culture c a m e together. But there were older trans­ lations in Italy, such as those o f H i p p o c r a t e s a n d G a l e n b y a m o n k , Constantine o f M o n t e Cassino. 384. Personally, I feel that A r a b i c p o e t r y o w e s m u c h to erotic G r e e k poetry, especially in its p o p u l a r versions f r o m Alexandria and Syria, with w h i c h w e are s o m e w h a t familiar, a n d to the ideas o f the Epi­ cureans, C y n i c s , and Sceptics, reflected in authors such as

Omar

K h a y y a m , Hafiz, B e n C u z m a n and m a n y A n d a l u c i a n poets. O f course, n o t only the Arabs but also the Jews w e r e influenced b y the Greeks: for example, Moses o f L e o n , influenced b y the Gnostics, and S e m T o b , b y the sapiential tradition. W e have already discussed the introduction o f the G r e e k lexicon into R a b b i n i c literature.

268

CHAPTER TWO

385.

R e t u r n i n g to the Arabs, w e k n o w a b o u t their cultural under­

taking in great detail: h o w the Caliphs al-Mansur and al-Ma^mum obtained G r e e k manuscripts through their conquests o r embassies to Byzantium, o r as ransom: so that, at the e n d o f al-Mansur's life, w e find A r a b i c translations o f Plato, Aristotie, Hippocrates, Galen, Euclid, and later o f Vettius V a l e n s , D i o s c o r i d e s , etc. O r , indeed, h o w a manuscript o f D i o s c o r i d e s was sent b y R o m a n u s to A b d e r r a m a n III, and n o b o d y in C o r d o b a c o u l d understand it so the Byzantine e m p e r o r h a d to send a translator, etc. As always, the influence o f the G r e e k language reached the Arabs through a t w o - w a y route: through the spoken language (in the East, in Sicily, Africa, a n d Spain), w h i c h p r o v i d e d terms relating to the realities o f the Mediterranean

w o r l d and Byzantine life and prac­

tices; and through the literature, w h i c h was translated and

imitated

and w h i c h i n t r o d u c e d the A r a b s to the intellectual w o r l d o f the Greeks. 386.

H e r e are s o m e examples o f A r a b i c terms derived from Greek,

w h i c h later penetrated the western languages. I will cite examples w h i c h give a Spanish derivative: KouaapeTov > qaisariya (Sp. alcaiceria); %apxr\q > qaritas (Sp. carta); xeXeoiia > tilasm (Sp. talisman); oiyxXXaioc, (from Lat. sigillatus) > siqirldt > Sp. escarlata; iiaXXmi] Sp.

> malluta >

marlota; 7ieptp6A,ouov > M o z a r . fir(i)wil > S p . ferreruelo.

A l s o , here follows a list o f Spanish w o r d s d e r i v e d f r o m A r a b w o r d s o f G r e e k origin, taken from the Historia de la Lengua Espanola by D . Rafael Lapesa 1980: A m o n g the plants, fruits, fish, etc.: acelga (oiKeXoq),

adelfa (8d
albaricoque (PepiKOKKov), alberchigo (rcepaiKov), alcaparra (KdrcrcapK;), alfostigo (TciaxdcKri), almdciga (u.acru%r|), altramuz

(Gupjucx;), arroz (opu^a), atitn

(Qvvvoq), cazuz 'ivy (KIGCO<;), jibia (anTcia), zumo (£a)ji6<;). Scientific and 5

technical terms: alambique (du.pi4), albeitar (iKKiaipoq), adarme (8pa%ur|), alquimia (xDjueioc). F r o m daily life and luxury: abalorio (prjpi)A,A,o<;), ebano (ePevoq), fondac fonda, y

alhondiga (7cav8o%etov), guitarra (KiOdpa), quilate

(Kepdtiov). To

s h o w that this is n o t just a Spanish p h e n o m e n o n (although it

was certainly widespread here), I will give examples o f French w o r d s derived f r o m A r a b w o r d s taken from the Greek: alchimie, amalgame, alcooly alambicy ambre, coton, elixir, gazelle, harem, jupe, nadir. S o m e o f these w o r d s penetrated into other languages: Spanish (algalife, papegai, abrico, pasteque), Portuguese (epinard); Italian (arsenal, chiffre, girafe).

CHAPTER THREE G R E E K IN T H E E U R O P E A N L A N G U A G E S t

1. T H E PENETRATION OF GREEK-LATIN IN THE

EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Generalities 3 8 7 . G r e e k d i d n o t e n d with G r e e k o r R o m a n Antiquity o r with the Byzantine M i d d l e A g e s . Its agitated life — always the same, yet always different - c o n t i n u e d until the present d a y with M o d e r n Greek. Y e t , w e have seen h o w in Antiquity as in the M i d d l e A g e s , Greek its l e x i c o n a b o v e all, but also its m o r p h o l o g y , syntax and even its literary genres - b e g a n to infiltrate different languages, including the E u r o p e a n languages (Slavic, R o m a n c e , G e r m a n i c ) w h i c h b e g a n to take shape during the ninth century. W e have already studied part o f this process. T h e G r e e k w o r d s sometimes c o m e f r o m Byzantium, sometimes f r o m M e d i e v a l Latin, w h i c h c o n t i n u e d the o l d G r a e c o - L a t i n w e have discussed a n d w h i c h as w e k n o w was the language o f the C h u r c h and. o f culture in the M i d d l e A g e s . W e left o u r study a r o u n d approximately the

twelfth

century, stressing that it is n o t always easy to establish a c h r o n o l o g y for the b o r r o w i n g s , o r their Byzantine o r Latin source. N o w w e shall place emphasis o n Hellenisms taken f r o m a literary source f r o m the twelfth century o n w a r d s , with s o m e older precedents. W e will find that there is a steady escalation in the n u m b e r s o f Hellenisms enter­ ing E u r o p e a n languages, w h i c h continues all the w a y u p until the present day. 388. Let us m a k e s o m e preliminary observations. 1. O u r study is focussed o n Spanish, with references to French, Italian, English a n d G e r m a n , a b o v e all, b u t with the aware­ ness that m a n y Hellenisms also m a d e their w a y into m a n y other languages, and indeed, today, all the languages o f the world.

270

CHAPTER THREE 2. O n the other h a n d , o u r study intends to offer general ideas, as well as s o m e examples. A b r o a d , up-to-date study with a general focus has n o t really existed until n o w . 3. U p to the sixteenth century, Hellenisms nearly always entered through Latin (except for those from Byzantium); from then o n , they also entered directly from G r e e k texts. 4. W e should recognise the i m p o r t a n c e o f this: from

ancient

times, but later to an ever greater degree, Hellenisms were originally not just foreign w o r d s w h i c h were later assimilated into the different languages, but also a source o f formative elements (roots, suffixes, prefixes, methods o f compostition a n d derivation) w h i c h were very fertile within each language, creating n e w w o r d s . In this sense, w e can say that G r e e k survives in o u r languages as a dynamic, integral part o f them. 5. Finally, I should also stress that, although studied here to a lesser extent, G r e e k g r a m m a r (particularly syntax) and liter­ ature, d i r e c d y o r indirecdy b e c a m e constituted

as models:

they have continued to d e v e l o p and are still very m u c h alive. In view o f this, I have stated o n a n u m b e r o f occasions that o u r E u r o p e a n languages (which are in turn m o d e l s o f others in this respect) are in fact a semi-Greek o r crypto-Greek. A t times, the G r e e k element is remote and difficult to describe w h e n it has p r o v i d e d semantic caiques and words w h i c h have b e e n fully integrated with p h o n e t i c and semantic

variations.

389. For Spanish, see in particular M . Fernandez-Galiano 1966 (much used in the following discussion) J. Berguz 2002 and the bibliography given on p. 65, n. 11, in addition to R. Lapesa 1980; for French, F. Brunot 1966; for German, W . Stammler (ed.) 1952; for English, A. Ewert s. a., A. G. Baugh 1971 and F. Fernandez 1982; for Italian, B. Migliorini 1968. Hellenisms in the high Middle Ages 390. W e begin o u r discussion with s o m e elaborations o n the intro­ duction o f Hellenisms through Latin in the M e d i e v a l p e r i o d . T h e Carolingian renaissance o f the ninth century, with similar p h e n o m e n a in countries such as Ireland and Spain, p r o d u c e d waves o f Latinisms; a m o n g t h e m were G r e e k w o r d s (whether o f ecclesiastical origin o r not) w h i c h h a d b e e n integrated into Latin. After so m a n y m e d i e v a l Hellenisms f r o m Latin (which existed already in Latin in the p e r i o d in w h i c h the R o m a n c e languages were

271

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

derived from it, and very often even earlier), w e also find Latin cul­ tural w o r d s , often o f Hellenic origin, in the first texts in Castilian. In the Poema de Mio

5

Cid w e find mirra, tus 'incense ; in the Auto de

los Reyes Magos, retoricos, gramatgos. In the thirteenth century, Latinism, and with it Hellenism, b e c a m e accentuated:

5

B e r c e o usei abysso 'abyss , epistolero, evengelistero (mixed

formations); the Apollonius uses idolo; the Alexandre uses prologo, silogismo, elemento. Naturally, this increased in the prose o f Alfonso X the W i s e , w h i c h required a technical language w h i c h sometimes b o r r o w e d from A r a b i c , sometimes from Latin o r Graeco-Latin.

O n o c c a s i o n , the

Latin o r G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y was a c c o m p a n i e d b y its interpretation in Castilian: for instance, in the case o f teatro ('a large a n d r o u n d yard'). I will give s o m e examples o f these w o r d s . Scientific and technical terms such as alegoria, apoplejia, aritmetica, dtomo, autentico, clima, cronica (coronica), dialectica, filosojia, geometria, glosa, gramatica (gramatgo), historia (estoria), logica, musica, planeta, poeta, policia ('politics'), retorico (retoligo), silaba, sqfisma, teologia, teorica. Mythical beings, exotic plants and ani­ mals, ancient cultural elements: aloe, Amazona, amomo, bdlsamo, ballena, bufalo (bubalo), camello, centauro, ceptro (cetro), cocodrilo, draco (drago, dragon), elefante (elifant), gigante, grifo, pergamino, tesoro, trono. It should b e n o t e d that sometimes there is a R o m a n c e adaptation, a n d sometimes a pure Latinism. A l s o , there are m i x e d forms such as bigamo. Recall t o o h o w Latin w o r d s that already gave rise to deriv­ atives in the R o m a n c e languages, w e r e reintroduced

and p r o d u c e d

semi-literary forms, as in the case o f monasterium and ecclesia. 3 9 1 . T o p r o v i d e an e x a m p l e , let us briefly discuss the Hellenisms o f French, introduced through a cultural route, recalling h o w s o m e o f these, resulting f r o m the N o r m a n conquest, w e r e carried into English. In writings from the p e r i o d o f C h a r l e m a g n e w e already c o m e across w o r d s such as element, angele, chrestien; and the following are also o f ancient

date, f r o m an ecclesiastical context: abisme, anateme, apostle,

baptisier, baptistere, basilique, diacre, eglise, estatue, heretique, idee, idole, isope, pope, paradis, scisme, sinagoge, throne, timpan. In works o f M e d i e v a l science: allegorie, aloes, amesthyste, aromatiser, astronomien, basilisc, element, embleme, nigromance, zone. It is easy to see h o w , as in Castilian, there is sometimes adapta­ tion to the R o m a n c e language, and even derivation. 3 9 2 . Similar observations c a n b e m a d e with regard to the

German

language. In addition to the Latin borrowings from the ancient period,

272

CHAPTER THREE

which I have already discussed, a n e w wave o f cultural words entered, p a r d y o f G r e e k origin, from the ninth century onwards, w h i c h the A n g l o - S a x o n missionaries h e l p e d to diffuse: O H G . scuola, prestar, pergamin, arzat (< archiater), postolik. T h e r e were also semantic caiques, such as O H G . forasako for profeta, gotspel and cuatchundida for evangelium, w h i c h was also present. Later, in the eleventh and twelfth

centuries,

w e find poete, zepter and, in scientific writings, the terms grammatica, dialectica, physica, etc. T h e n , in the thirteenth century,

metaphysica,

melancholisch, musica. In parallel with this, in English w e find the w o r d s allegory, mechan­ ical, polite, zephyr, a m o n g others. But the principal influence o n English in these centuries c a m e from French, which often introduced Latinisms and Hellenisms. Hellenisms in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries In Castilian 393. In the p e r i o d from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, w o r d s descending f r o m Latin (and stylistic resources such as hyperbaton) were i n t r o d u c e d into the western languages, first gradually, then in great numbers; these included a considerable n u m b e r o f Hellenisms. O t h e r Hellenisms c o n t i n u e d to enter f r o m French o r Italian through a cultural or, m o r e frequently, colloquial route. Others finally b e g a n to enter directiy through G r e e k literature from the fifteenth

century

onwards, w h e n it b e c a m e k n o w n in the West. W o r k s such as the translation o f D i o s c o r i d e s b y A n d r e s L a g u n a (155) were a source o f Hellenisms (mosdy o f a scientific type, alongside the literary Hellenisms). T h e Hellenisms w e r e adapted in f o r m to Latin transcription and sometimes m o d e r n language use, there w e r e also hypercorrrections. C h a n g e s in m e a n i n g w e r e also introduced w h e n necessary. It should b e n o t e d that this p e r i o d is characterised b y two, often opposing, often c o n v e r g i n g tendencies. O n the o n e hand, Antiquity and its authors were a d o r e d and considered as models: Juan de M e n a c

c

considered the Iliad a sancta e serdphica ohra\ and the r o m a n c e rudo y desierto\ In the fourteenth

century, w e have translations o f G r e e k

b y Fernandez de H e r e d i a and from Latin b y the chancellor Ayala. Hellenisms such as olligarchia, politico, theremotu, ypocrita, astralobio, entered the works o f these authors. Authors such as the marquis o f Villena a n d the marquis o f Santillana, J u a n de M e n a and

Fernando

d e R o j a s followed the ancient m o d e l s , as w o u l d Garcilaso, Fray Luis,

273

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a , and so m a n y others. T h e same was true for the other E u r o p e a n

nations.

394. O n the other h a n d , this was also the p e r i o d in w h i c h the n e w languages w o u l d acquire their definitive f o r m a n d gradually w o u l d b e c o m e the only language^ o f literature (although Garcilaso and Fray Luis, a m o n g others, continued to write in Latin). W i t h his Gramdtica and his Latin-Spanish and Spanish-Latin Diccionarios o f 1492 (fol­ l o w i n g the

Universal Vocabulario o f 1490 b y A l f o n s o Fernandez

Palencia), Nebrija laid the foundations

de

for the use o f Castilian o r

Spanish as a language o f culture just like G r e e k and Latin; almost half a century w o u l d pass before the appearance dictionary b y R o b e r t

o f a Latin-French

Etienne.

T h e Castilian language, n o w integrated into Spanish, was extolled b y Luis Vives, as Italian was b y B e m b o , French b y D u Bellay, o r English b y Mulcaster.

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f the G e r m a n

language

was slower, p r o m o t e d b y Luther: until 1680 the majority o f b o o k s were edited in Latin. Y e t , this advance o f national languages was n o t an obstacle for the introduction o f literary words: o n the contrary, they were n e e d e d n o w m o r e than ever, and the Latin language, serving as a m o d e l , functioned as a huge deposit o f w o r d s that c o u l d b e introduced (and used, at times, for the expression o f n e w concepts) - m a n y o f these w o r d s having, o f course, a G r e e k origin. It was not just a question o f words, but also o f prefixes and suffixes w h i c h functioned freely, perfectly assimilated within Latin from the ancient period. In English, for example, a m o n g the l e a r n e d prefixes' w e find, amphi-, a(n)-/an(a)-,

archfi)-, aut(o)-, cata-, di-, hyper-, hypo-,

mono-, pant(o)-, prot(o)-, syn-, w h i c h are also f o u n d in other languages; a n d suffixes such as -ism, ist, -ite, ize, e t c

(the same

observation

applies). T h e r e are others m o r e . 395, F r o m the fifteenth century, Hellenisms from the field o f botany, in a literary o r R o m a n i s e d f o r m , were i n t r o d u c e d into Spanish: for e x a m p l e , acacia, celidonia, cerfollo ( < Lat. caerefolium < G r . xccipeqyoAAov, then perifollo), dragontea, eleboro, jacinto; also, Hellenisms f r o m exotic animals, such as dspid, delfxn, dromedario, hiena, lince, tigre; from medicine, such as agonia, arteria, cardiaco, colico, diarrea, frenesi, gangrena, mania, pronostico, tisico; from chemistry or p h a r m a c y , such as amoniaco, arsenico; from mathematics, astronomy and other sciences, such as drtico, boreal, caos, catarata, estadio, cilindro, cono, cubo, giro, matemdticas, nauta, polo,

274

CHAPTER THREE

tropico, zona; from g r a m m a r , music and literature, such as academia, alfabeto, apocope, armonia, biblioteca, comedia, diptongo, elegia, etimologia, metro, oda, ortografia, proemio, prologo, ritmo, sintaxis, tragedia; from thought, lit­ erature, and politics, such as cinico, didlogo, enigma, fantastico, heme, pedagogia, periodo, politico, sqfista, tirano; from mythology, such as ambrosia, laberinto, musa, sdtiro, sirena. W e should also recall the Hellenisms imported through

French

(page, ddtil), Italian (galea, golfo, porpdo), A r a b i c in the fifteenth century (we have already mentioned a few, w e can add alambique, alcaparra, almoraduj (djudpctKcx;), bodoque ( < Catalan and Portuguese.

TCOVUKOV,

a type o f nut). Also through

But from the sixteenth century onwards,

Byzantinisms rarely entered directly. In contrast, the n u m b e r

o f scientific Hellenisms increased.

For

instance, from botany, such as acanto, achicoria (< cichoria < Ki%6piov), amaranto, anemona, asfodelo, camomila (< chamaemelon < %auociur|A,ov), crisantemo, ebano, iris, menta, mirto, opio. F r o m medicine: antidoto, asma, cataplasma, colirio, diafragma, dosis, laringe, narcotico, pancreas, tisana, etc. F r o m zoology: fenix, hipopotamo. F r o m chemistry: cdnstico, colqfonia. F r o m construction: arquitecto, aula, maquina, mecdnico. F r o m mathematics, g e o ­ graphy, sailing: dbaco, atlas, estadio, escdlamo, eter, horizonte, istmo. F r o m g r a m m a r and literature: andstrofe, apologo, catdlogo, encyclopedia, erotico, frase, lira. F r o m thought and politics: aristocracia, asilo, catdstrofe, despota, didlogo, idea, teoria. F r o m mythology and the ancient world: atleta, nectar, ninfa, obelisco. 396. Cultural words, as indicated previously, were adapted in various ways. By means o f v o c a l i c changes: oregano, laudano, rumbo; b y changes in suffix (poesia, hipocresia, amatista, didfano); b y haplology (idolatria); b y change in gender (diadema). Also, by other means: achicoria ( < Ki%6piov), 5

algalia 'catheter (epyaXetov), cornisa (< Kopcoviq), panadizo (< 7iapcovu%iov), perlesia, pocima ( < drco^eu-a), tericia, almorranas, pdrrafo, teulogia and iproquesia in Saint Teresa. Naturally, educated forms very often appear together with vulgar forms. T h e r e are also changes in meaning. T h e following words acquired values related to religion o r the C h u r c h : cimborio (Ki(icbpiov, the fruit o f the waterlily and a c u p o f a similar form), clew, cripta, dogma, jerarquia, liturgia, ortodoxo, presbitero, pompa, tiara; and other values, for example, chisme (from a%ia(iia), quimera. T h e r e was a definite acceleration in the growth o f Graeco-Latin w h i c h was never quite forgotten and which n o w b e c a m e G r a e c o Spanish (and G r a e c o - F r e n c h , etc.). This literary and scientific Greek

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

275

vocabulary was i m p o s e d in o r d e r to serve a c o m m o n culture. W i t h it c a m e an increase in prefixes and suffixes, w h i c h were increasingly transformed

into the elements o f the n e w languages, w h i c h w o u l d

use them in their o w n formations. This was because these languages lacked an adequate vocabulary for the n e w culture and especially the n e w science, w h i c h were b o t h intimately c o n n e c t e d to Antiquity. T h e same p h e n o m e n o n that had o c c c u r r e d in Latin, w h e n , under similar circumstances,

its lexical p o v e r t y (patrii semonis egestas) was

o v e r c o m e with the help o f Greek, was n o w r e p r o d u c e d here, with the help o f the Graeco-Latin w e have b e e n discussing and, o n o c c a ­ sion, with the help o f G r e e k directly. In French 3 9 7 . Similar conclusions can b e extracted from the study o f French. In the thirteenth century w e find w o r d s w h i c h have b e e n taken from Latin, often with a French

derivation,

such as austerite, authentique,

bigame (mixed G r a e c o - L a t i n form), machination, margarite, physician, poli­ tique, practicien, rhetorique, along with m a n y w o r d s that are m o r e purely Latin. This increased in the fourteenth century w h e n kings and princes e n c o u r a g e d translations o f Latin. T o take a few examples o f the b o r ­ rowings: agronome, allegorique, anarchie, anatomic, antipode, apoplectique, apostasie, apostat, apostumeux, apostumer, architectonique, aristocratic, asthmatique, astronomique, barbarie, boreal, catalogue, cataplasme, catechisms, cautere, cephalique, cithare, climat, colerique, colon, comedie, coriandre, critique, cyclope, cynique, cynocephale, declinable, democratic, diabetique, diaphane, diaphoretique, diaphragme, diarrhee, economie, empirique, effimere, epigramme, etymologic, fantasie, farmacie, heretique, hierarchie, historien, hypotheque, maniache, mathematique, mecanique, medecin, monopole, oligarchic, pedagogie, periode, peritoneon, phlegmon, poeme, pompeux, poreux, pronostique, regmatique, spermatique, spherique, spasme, spongiosis, spongieux, tragedie, tetragone, thorax, triumphete, tyrannique, ydrophobique. This list, though i n c o m p l e t e , reveals a series o f facts: 1. T h e variable degree o f assimilation into the French language. 2. T h e p r e d o m i n a n c e o f v o c a b u l a r y f r o m the fields w e have discussed: sciences (particularly medicine), politics, literature, etc, 3. T h e diffusion o f desinences a n d suffixes derived from G r e e k (from -a, -oq, -iKoq) and Latin (-osus, -anus, -bilis, -tas); also, prefixes such as cata- and dia-; the elimination o f neuters in

276

CHAPTER THREE -iia, w h i c h passed into feminines in -me, the derivation o f verbs (apostumer), etc.

In the fifteenth century, with the Renaissance rage for classical Antiq­ uity, there was an invasion o f such terms: agaric, angeliser, apologetique, bachique, boree, caducee, fantasien, eteroclite, satire, to n a m e a few. O f course, this was intensified in the sixteenth century, w h e n the kings favoured b o t h the classical languages and French. T h e sciences, in particular, were filled with G r e e k and Latin formative

elements

and terms: whether in a crude Latin a n d even G r e e k form, o r in an a d o p t e d form. But there was still s o m e controversy. A b e l Mathieu criticised literary w o r d s and preferred to replace elegie and hymne with complainte a n d chant a dieu ou aux choses saintes respectively; D u Perron used accord de naturel instead o f sympathie, and contrenaturel instead o f dvTurdGeicx. In contrast,

R o n s a r d c o m p l a i n e d that in F r e n c h

one

c o u l d not, as in Greek, say ocymore, dispotme, oligochromien. T h e r e was an intermediate solution, but it c o u l d b e said that Greek-Latin

triumphed.

M a n y w o r d s entered from b o t h late and

classical Latin, such as, to cite a few, Academic, acromion, anagramme, anodyn, apophtegme, charite, chiliandre, disque, embleme, enthousiasme, epilepsie, heptagone, hydraulique, hygiene, hysterique, lythargue, magnes, metaphrene, neoterique, ode, pericarde, philogue, phlebotomie, sympathie, trachee, trapeze and many more. O n c e again,

derivations

a n d m i x e d forms must b e taken into

account: academkien, archicoupeur, clisteriziste, diabliculer, gigantal, sumbolisation, theatrique, etc. This indiscriminate mixture o f w o r d s with a Greek o r Latin r o o t a n d suffixes derived from b o t h languages, all as an exten­ sion o f the French vocabulary, is a reflection o f the literary language, with the strong G r e e k and Latin stamp w e have b e e n discussing. A g a i n , this is displayed mostiy in the field o f science and rather strange natural elements. In Italian 398. Similarly, in Italy, from the thirteenth century onwards,

the

vulgar language was filled with Latinisms: not just ancient but also medieval Latinisms. In the sphere o f culture (often centered

around

the University o f B o l o g n a ) and religion, these Latinisms were often actually Hellenisms: postolo, arismetica, canonista, clima, codicillo, diavolo, epiciclo, grammatica, martire, melodia, profeta, rettorica, sfera, sinfonia, zodiaco. D a n t e ( w h o writes in the vulgar language and justifies this with 'the

277

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

natural love o f o n e ' s o w n language', although he considers it infe­ rior to Latin) adds G r e e k w o r d s taken f r o m his sources: perizoma, latria, tetragono and the false entomata. O n the other hand, m a n y o f the Latinisms are Greek caiques: conszienza (awetSoq), conoscienza (ht\Gxi\iir[), dottrina (86y|ia), sostanza (tytoiceiiaevov), accidente (aujipePnicog), etc. T h e case was similar during the fourteenth century, in w h i c h poets such as Petrarch and writers such as B o c c a c c i o flourished and in which the translation or edition o f philosophical and theological works required a G r a e c o - L a t i n lexicon. W o r d s such as the following were i n t r o d u c e d : ambrosia, antropofago, autentico, austero, discolo, energumeno, eunuco, sofistico. Also, w o r d s w h i c h h a d b e e n asssimilated for a l o n g time regained their Latin form, such as vangeo o r evangelfijo for guagnello, gigante for giogante. T h e fifteenth century displays the same features in Italy as in the other E u r o p e a n countries, but with m o r e emphasis o n

Humanistic

culture, particularly towards the e n d o f the century with the intro­ duction o f printing and the arrival o f learned Greeks. T h e Humanists were conscious o f the fact that they were elevating the Italian lan­ guage, in prose and verse, with the help o f G r a e c o - L a t i n borrowings. Furthermore,

there was a symbiosis o f Latin

a n d the

vulgate:

authors such as Sannazaro and Poliziano, as D a n t e a n d B o c c a c c i o before them, wrote in b o t h languages, Poliziano and L o r e n z o d e ' M e d i c i praising the T u s c a n vulgate. T h e mixture o f b o t h languages is also frequent in the d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the p e r i o d , w h i c h includes letters. T h e massive entry o f Latinisms (which are sometimes Hellenisms) was thus inevitable, as was the a d o p t i o n o f Latin orthography

in

w o r d s w h i c h had acquired Italian orthography. T o cite a few examples o f Hellenisms w h i c h seem to date from this period: amaranto, calamo, cataratta, onomatopea, paraninfo, plettro, tragelafo. T h e r e are also caiques such as insetto, for evrojiov. In the sixteenth century, in the p e r i o d in w h i c h Spain,

France,

the P o p e , and V e n i c e w e r e the main p o w e r s , the T u s c a n

vulgate

m a d e substantial progress: even p h i l o s o p h y and mathematics, various d o c u m e n t s and history b e g a n to b e written in this language. T h e r e can b e said to have b e e n a rebellion, led b y academies and poets, against tradition and the exclusive use o f Latin b y the

universities.

But, at the same time, the advance o f Latinism in the vulgar lan­ guage continued, albeit with various differences with respect to ortho­ graphic and m o r p h o l o g i c a l adaptation.

278

CHAPTER THREE

Within this a d v a n c e , the Hellenisms are nearly always, as custom­ ary, taken from the scientific and literary spheres: assioma, clinica, crisalide, ecatombe, entusiasmo, gimnico, omonimo, ottica, parafrasi, parossismo, rapsodia, scenogrqfia, tripode. A s in other parts, there w e r e

reactions

against this, such as the attempt to i m p o s e errante instead o f planeta; and n o t all Latinisms and Hellenisms were maintained, s o m e disap­ p e a r e d with the writers that introduced them, such as bibliopola o r elego. In English 399. W e shall l o o k rather briefly at the case o f English, w h i c h is similar to the others; let us recall that s o m e Hellenisms entered from French after the N o r m a n conquest, and later from Italian. O n c e again, Latin was the source o f Hellenisms. T h e p r o b l e m o f d e c i d i n g to what extent this n e w v o c a b u l a r y should b e a c c e p t e d arose, here t o o , in the sixteenth

century, w h e n T h o m a s W i l s o n

attacked it in his Art of Rhetorique. D r y d e n and Mulcaster took inter­ mediate positions; as in the other cases, this was the solution adopted. In Elyot, w e find anachronism, analogy, encyclopedia, autograph; in M o r o , monopoly, monosyllable, paradox; in Shakespeare, antipathy, apostrophe, cat­ astrophe, emphasis, misanthrope, pathetical. A t times, the Latin f o r m was retained

(climax, epitome), at times, the English

adaptation.

Perhaps this has served to give s o m e idea o f the progress o f the G r a e c o - L a t i n l e x i c o n a n d the formative elements o f Graeco-Latin in this p e r i o d . It w o u l d b e useful to a d d u c e other languages, such as G e r m a n , w h i c h lagged b e h i n d a bit. But in the end, this lexicon, from w h e r e v e r it m a y have originated, reached all languages. Hellenisms in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries In Castilian 4 0 0 . D u r i n g the next centuries, Hellenism c o n t i n u e d to g r o w in Spanish in the scientific and educated language in general. In the seventeenth

c e n t u r y , the p o e t s assimilated,

within

the

Latinisms, a r e d u c e d n u m b e r o f Hellenisms, largely relating to myth and various aspects o f Antiquity o r w h i c h were used b y the

Latin

poets (antro, aspid, himeneo, musa, ninfa, pdnico, palestra, pira, rima, etc.). A l t h o u g h a prose writer such as Q u e v e d o was able to enrich Spanish with his use o f G r e e k prefixes; for e x a m p l e , archipobre o r protomiseria: this w o u l d receive a large following in m o r e recent times.

279

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

But the other field, w h i c h was always g r o w i n g , is m o r e important. H e r e , as before, I will p r o v i d e s o m e examples o f the n e w w o r d s that w e r e introduced, divided into separate fields: Z o o l o g y : anfibio, foca, pardsito, rinoceronte. Chemistry and m i n e r o l o g y : fosforo, amianto. M e d i c i n e : alopecia, embrion, epidemia, reuma, sintoma, trdquea. Mathematics: astronomy, geography, nautics: cateto, cometa, didmetro, elipse, estrobo, geografia, hipotenusa, meteoro, ndutico, paralelo, pirata. G r a m m a r , lit­ erature, music: apostrqfe, critico, dialecto, ditirambo, drama, encomio, episodio, jilologia, idilio, lexico, lirico, metafora, museo, palinodia, paradoja, pleonasmo, sindnimo, tropo. T h o u g h t and politics: andlisis, anarquia, antagonista, democracia, diploma, economia, entusiasmo, emporio, epoca, etnico, genesis, hipotesis, ironia, lirico, metamorfosis, metodo, monarca, patriota, problema, poligamia, sindico, simbolo, simpatia, tests. Religion: ateo, carismo, mistico, proselito, sarcofago. A n c i e n t w o r l d : esfinge, falange, gimnasio, mausoleo. Sometimes, derivatives were created: cetdceo, diagonal, hipocondria. 4 0 1 . L e t us n o w m o v e o n to the eighteenth

century, w h e r e w e

encounter a n e w environment in the fields o f illustration and science. Latin was still important as the intellectual language: Leibnitz and N e w t o n wrote their main works in Latin, a n d Linneus used Latin to give scientific n a m e s to plants, a n d the Spanish Diccionario de Autoridades used it to define the meanings o f w o r d s . Certainly, the R o m a n c e languages h a d an absolute d o m i n i o n as literary languages, b u t Latin c o n t i n u e d to supply n e w v o c a b u l a r y w h i c h , in the field o f science, was very often Greek. O n the other hand, G r e e k was n o w accessible to scientists, w h o d i d n o t hesitate to use it in creating the n e w lexicon w h i c h b e c a m e necessary. In short, the g r o w t h o f science required the introduction o f n e w waves o f Latin terms, m a n y o f them Hellenisms, a n d o f Hellenisms taken directly f r o m Greek. T h i s was in o r d e r to express concepts w h i c h w e r e already present

in G r e e k science, o r to express n e w

things o r concepts with the help o f G r e e k terms w h i c h were able to express something m o r e o r less approximate, o r w h o s e elements c o u l d b e used for n e w formations. Often, this n e w v o c a b u l a r y arrived in Spain through other m o d e r n languages, particularly

French.

T h i s p e r i o d is characterised b y the fact that, alongside the true Hellenisms that b e l o n g e d mostiy to the traditional fields o f science and thought, great numbers

o f neologisms were introduced.

The

f o r m and often m e a n i n g o f the G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y h a d always, even from Latin, u n d e r g o n e alterations.

But n o w , radically n e w w o r d s

280

CHAPTER THREE

with G r e e k elements w e r e increasingly created. This has s o m e p r e c e ­ dents, as for e x a m p l e in the w o r d s c o m p o s e d o f b o t h G r e e k

and

Latin w h i c h have b e e n discussed, but n o w the p h e n o m e n o n

had

added importance. M a n y Hellenisms as such w e r e i n t r o d u c e d : for e x a m p l e , aorta, autonomia, autopsia, base, bibliogrqfia, botdnica, ciclo, clepsidra, coriza, criterio, despotismo, diastole, dicotomia, diddctico, esceptico, exantema, fase, fenomeno, fildntropo, jiltro, hidrdulico, hipodromo, isosceles, mecanismo, miope, misdntropo, mitologia, neumdtico, parodia, periferia, periodico, perone, rombo, simetria, sinfonia, sistema, tirania, trapecio. N o t e that there are changes in suffix (heterogeneo < exepoyevfi^) o r in m e a n i n g (diatribe 'violent discourse o r writing', polemica 'discussion') and that French sometimes acts as an intermediary (automata, poliglota with -a due to a b a d interpretation o f Fr. -e). T h e most important thing, as m e n t i o n e d previously, was the g r o w ­ ing n u m b e r o f neologisms d e m a n d e d b y the n e w sciences and scientific concepts, machines, etc. T h e r e is the e m e r g e n c e o f n e w sciences (or arts), such as hidrostdtica, mecdnica, ornitologia, paleogrqfia, pirotecnia, psicologia, zoologia (and sociologia, etc.); machines and instruments such as barometro, microscopio (and others in -scopid), termometro, the

machine

pneumdtica, the g l o b e aerostdtico; fluids and concepts such as electricidad, the logaritmos, etc., as well as related adjectives and nouns, such as electrico, escepticismo; verbs such as electrizar. N e w systems were created o n the m o d e l o f the o l d systems: there is aristocracia/ aristocrdtico, but also estoicismo/estoico, electricidad/electrico, etc. In a recent article (Adrados 1996c) I have indicated that the eighteenth

century saw the intro­

duction o f Fr, acrobate, Eng. acrobat, Sp. acrobata, G e r m . Akrobat, at a time in w h i c h G r , aKpopdxrjq was not attested (today it is): but it was easy to d e d u c e from ocKpoPaxeco, aicpoPaxiKoq. In other languages 4 0 2 . In other E u r o p e a n languages w e see almost the same things occurring. O n l y G e r m a n , to a certain extent, differs somewhat due to the systematic cultivation o f the semantic caique: the

negative

prefix un-; abstract suffixes -heit, -keit, -nis; -kunde instead o f -logia, -grqfia; adjectives with -reich; indigenous terms for concepts such as equality

(Gleichheit), Being (Sein), k n o w l e d g e (Erkenntnis), c o n s c i e n c e

(Gewissen) and the grammatical terms, instead o f familiar G r e e k terms such as

Despot/Despotismus.

T o a v o i d devoting t o o m u c h space to this, I will limit myself to a brief description o f the facts with regard to Italian.

281

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

In the seventeenth century w e c o m e across Hellenisms in the most diverse disciplines. For example, acrostico, analjabeto, apogeo, conoide, hiperbole, molecula, panegirico, parergo, parodia, sinoride, sintassi, sintesi, patologia, pleura, prisma, scheletro, taumaturgo, tesi. N o t e that sometimes the o l d form is r e c o v e r e d instead^ o f another e v o l v e d f o r m (chirurgo instead o f cerusico, clistere instead o f cristeo o r cristero, emmorroidi instead o f moroide). W e also c o m e across neologisms, often o f an international type (selinografia in B a c o n and Galileo). O f course, in the eighteenth century the introduction o f scientific Hellenisms continued: monopetalo, polipetalo, rizotomo, stalagmite, clinico, diagnosis, prognosis, patema, elissoide, sometimes with a n e w derivation. S o m e Hellenisms that entered at a later date but were rarely used, were incorporated definitively into the language: miriade, erotico. It is also important to note that s o m e Hellenisms entered through foreign languages, most notably French: analisi, aneddoto, biografo, cosmopolita, epoca. F r o m G e r m a n w e obtain dicaster(i)o, estetica, etere (in the chemistry sense). W e also find that the p h e n o m e n o n o f n e o l o g i s m is o n the increase: aeronautica, aerostato, anglomania, bibliqfilo, bibliomane, eliocentrico, scqfandro and others, w h i c h did n o t prosper. T h e r e was then a great diffusion o f -ismOy -ista, -izzare, a d d e d b o t h to Latin a n d G r e e k terms: botanista, cambista, capitalista, caratterizzare, dispotismo, elettrizzare, tranquilizzare. Hellenisms in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries 4 0 3 . In these centuries, Hellenisms w h i c h had n o t b e e n previously taken as b o r r o w i n g s w e r e c o n s t a n d y introduced: often with alter­ ations in the formation o r meaning, as in the previous examples. T h e y are mostiy c o m m o n to all the E u r o p e a n languages, so that it is not always easy to establish through w h i c h language they

have

entered. Let us, o n c e again, take a few Spanish examples from the various sciences and disciplines: abulia, afonia, anacoluto, anemia, aneurisma, aporia, apoteosis, arcaico, asceta, autarquia, autoctono, asindeton, asteroide, astenia, batracio, biografia, clinico, colofon, cosmos, crater, diabetes, elitro, epidermis, ecumenico, encefalo, esquema, estetico, estigma, fonetica, hemiplegia, homeopatia, marasmo, necrologia, neumonia, palimpsesto, pederastia, peripecia, plutocracia, pornograjia, programa, prostata, quiste, sinopsis, taquigrafo, triptico. S o m e terms change in meaning, such as dnodo, bacteria, baritono, cloro, estoma, higiene, pldstico, tonico. T h e ability to f o r m small systems b y means o f familiar suffixes has increased.

282

CHAPTER THREE

4 0 4 . But m o s t significant is the increasing n u m b e r o f neologisms to satisfy the d e m a n d s o f the n e w sciences, techniques and currents o f thought—whether through derivation o r through the c o m b i n a t i o n o f G r e e k and Latin elements (prefixes, roots and suffixes). T h e y tended to b e international, with slight differences in form, phonetics orthography. In effect, they constituted the n e w E u r o p e a n w h i c h coexisted with e a c h o f the m o d e r n languages, a

and

language

Greek-Latin

w h i c h was alive within them. Therefore, it is not very useful to study this subject language b y language, although w e are often left with the p r o b l e m o f where and w h e n these w o r d s were invented, and b y w h i c h means they w e r e diffused. A t times, certainly, there can be a lack o f formal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e : Sp. mdquina de escribir translates Eng. typewriter, G e r . Fall translates Lat. casus (and this translates G r . nt&oiq), G e r . Fernsprecher translates forms o f other languages with tele- and -phono. T h e s e neologisms, w h i c h pass from o n e language to another, o c c a ­ sionally c a n b e dated with s o m e precision. Fr. voiture automobile dates from 1875, then w e find automobile, and f r o m there the S p . automovil, auto. T h e w o r d cinema is dated towards 1899 (from Fr. cinematographe, from w h i c h w e also obtain Eng. cinema, G e r . Kino). T h e w o r d telefono dates from the last quarter o f the nineteenth century, maraton from 1896 onwards (the resumption o f the O l y m p i c s ) , aeroplano from the start o f the twentieth century, and later television. S o m e w o r d s descend from others, sometimes with a c h a n g e in m e a n i n g o f o n e o f their elements: in fotogrqfia, foto- is still 'light', but in fotocopia etc, it is ' i m a g e ' . Auto-

is n o l o n g e r 'the s a m e ' in Ital. autostrada, Sp.

autopista o r autovia. N e o l o g i s m s r e s p o n d most frequentiy, scientific language

as w e pointed out, to

the

(sometimes existing with other meanings). C o n -

sequendy, they supply the names o f various sciences: arqueologia, binomio, biologia, geologia, histologia, morfologia, numismdtica, ontologia, ortopedia, psiquiatria, psicoandlisis, etc. T h e y also refer to m e d i c i n e : anestesia, asepsia, astigmatismo, blenorragia, colitis, Jlebitis, metabolismo, microbio, neuralgia, organismo, quirqfano, etc.; to the natural sciences: eucalipto, cromo, glucosa, hidrogeno, hormona, organismo, orquidea, oxigeno, proteina, etc.; to various techniques: aerodromo, aeroplano, astronauta (and c o m p o u n d s with -nauta), automovil (and c o m p o u n d s with auto-), batiscqfo, cine (cinema, cinematogrqfo), clonico, endocrinologia, filatelia (and derivatives with fil[o]-), hermeroteca (and c o m p o u n d s with -teed), hipoglucemia (and derivatives with

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

283

hipo-), megaterio (and c o m p o u n d s with mega-), metro (metropolitano), microfono

(and c o m p o u n d s with micro-), ortodoncia (and c o m p o u n d s with

orto-), pancromdtico (and c o m p o u n d s with pan-), paranoico (and c o m ­ p o u n d s with para-), pediatra (and c o m p o u n d s with ped- and deriva­ tives in -iatra), taxi (taximetro), telefono (and c o m p o u n d s with

tele-),

termostato (and c o m p o u n d s with termo-), etc. Others b e l o n g to less spe­ cialised fields: melancolia, nostalgia, panorama. 4 0 5 . T h i s is but a short list o f examples, w h i c h c a n b e extended easily in b o o k s such as those b y Eseverri 1945 o r G o n z a l e z Castro 1994 o r Bergua 2 0 0 2 . Y e t , w e d o n o t have a c o m p l e t e repertory, either for Spanish o r the other languages w h i c h indicates the date o f first appearance, diffusion and frequency. It is clear that a G r e e k lexicon appears in o u r languages in t w o ways: (a) Assimilated, from different dates and through different means. It has b e c o m e an integral element o f the lexicon o f o u r lan­ guages, a n d is felt b y speakers to b e part o f them. (b) F o r m i n g part o f the stratum o f the cultural and scientific lexicon: from a Greek-Latin that forms a special stratum within each language, accepting characteristics o f the lan­ guage, but remaining essentially the same in all o f them. It consists o f intact G r e e k w o r d s , others that are formally o r sematically altered, o r various neologisms; always alternat­ ing o r c o m b i n i n g with the Latin lexicon, with w h i c h it forms an integrated w h o l e . T h e r e is an a b u n d a n c e o f hybrid for­ mations o f the type binomio, monocorde, etc. T h i s is the Greek-Latin w e have b e e n discussing, w h i c h was created in gradual stages through the ages, but w h i c h culminated in o u r age and is advancing towards the future. It is the m o s t living and active lexical element that exists: its original c o m p o s i t i o n a l elements c o m ­ bine with those o f the n e w languages; a n d the n e w w o r d s pass from o n e language to another: for e x a m p l e , burocracia from French, and autocar from English. It is curious that a n e w w a v e o f G r e e k and Latin terms should b e arriving through the latter language (tecnologia, macro, base de datos, etc.), as well as transcriptions with ch and th. N e x t , I shall deal with the place o f this Greek-Latin in o u r lan­ guages today. A s I have stated, it is n o t a fossil element, such as

284

CHAPTER THREE

the lexicon f r o m A r a b i c o r other languages, including s o m e G r e e k elements. It is a linguistic stratum o f e n o r m o u s vitality, making it at the same time a unifying agent o f all the cultural languages

and

today, indeed, o f all the w o r l d ' s languages.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE AND FUNCTION OF GREEK-LATIN IN

PRESENT DAY EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Origins and characteristics of this lexicon 4 0 6 . W e have described the essential features o f the Greek-Latin o f Antiquity a n d have s h o w n h o w after a l o n g p e r i o d o f decline, the lexicon o f the m o d e r n languages was slowly reconstructed with the aid o f G r a e c o - L a t i n terms incorporated into the n e w medieval lan­ guages through different means - particularly through Latin litera­ ture a n d later G r e e k literature, but also directly f r o m the

Greek

lexicon. W e have also indicated, although m u c h m o r e detail is n e e d e d , to what extent Greek-Latin is today the most d y n a m i c element in our languages. A l s o , h o w it essentially forms a unique language

within

the western languages (and i n d e e d all the world's languages). Let us make s o m e specific observations. 407. In general, there are simple and regular correspondences between the different m o d e r n languages: for example, Sp. democracia/Fr. d e m o c ­ ratic/Eng. democracyy'GerDemokratie/Itai.

democrazia/Rus.

.neMOKparaa,

have innumerable parallels with exact correspondences in phonetics, o r t h o g r a p h y and suffix; the same is true o f other series, such as those with Eng. -ty, Fr. -te, S p . -dad, Ital. -td, and with series with the same prefixes. But there are variations w h i c h are sometimes a p r o d u c t o f his­ torical accidents, such as the splitting o f a w o r d o r element into two o r m o r e : S p . cdtedra/cadera, musicalmurga> arce-/archi-/arqui-/arz< tinely,

rou­

the p o p u l a r forms are left out o f the Graeco-Latin system.

T h e y m a y also b e a result o f lexical variations (Ger. autostrada!'Sp.

Autobahn/\\A.

autopista, autovid) o r o f external influences,

including

errors o f transcription (Sp. -ie and n o t -ia in hematie, due to a b a d interpretation o f Fr. Vhematie, les hematics). Also, o n e w o r d m a y b e b o r r o w e d directiy, through another language, resulting in two forms and two meanings

[crater/ cratera, f r o m Fr., with the same

error).

285

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES Variations m a y also result from formal hesitations in the

transcrip­

tion o f b o r r o w i n g s . T h e r e are irregularities in transcription even in m o d e r n times, see the b o o k s already cited b y Eseverri and G o n z a l e z Castro, as well as Fernandez-Galiano 1969 and J. Berguz 2 0 0 2 . 4 0 8 . A s w e have seen, Gueek-Latin coincides to a large extent with the c o n c e p t o f the scientific language, although there are also n o n G r a e c o - L a t i n w o r d s . T h i s c o n c e p t and even that o f the cultural lan­ guage in general, goes b e y o n d its limits. It has b e e n used to create small lexical systems o f very varied values, o f the type hijolfilial hermano/fraternal, ojo/ocular/dptico,

dedo/dactilar/digital and so m a n y others

in w h i c h the adjective is o f a cultural type. O n the other hand, the limits are difuse: a technical term m a y b e c o m e c o m m o n , and vice versa. 4 0 9 . G r a e c o - L a t i n elements are often used with n e w meanings, as w e have seen with regard to foto-.

T h i s is inevitable w h e n w e are

dealing with n e w professions, as in cases such as -nauta (cosmonauta, aeronauta, astronauta). W h a t w o u l d the Greeks have said about these w o r d s o r a b o u t hemeroteca, videoteca, cinemateca, taximetro, o r dinamometro? A n d w h o w o u l d ever imagine that ion c o m e s from the pres. Part, o f the v e r b eijitt? T h e same is true in the case o f suffixes and prefixes, as w e have seen: for e x a m p l e , in chemistry -ico and -oso (sulflrico/' sulfuroso) take specific values. G r e e k and Latin prefixes and

suffixes

sometimes b e c o m e s y n o n y m o u s and try to o c c u p y the same field (for instance, sidoso/siddtico),

s o m e t i m e s they b e c o m e specialised (Gr.

-ma is favoured to Lat. -mm in linguistic and medical terminology, and a distinction is drawn b e t w e e n hipermercado and supermercado). 4 1 0 . A l s o , the types o f formation are often different from the ancient ones and very u n o r t h o d o x from the p o i n t o f view o f Greek and Latin: the Utopia b y T o m a s M o r o was rather u n o r t h o d o x , and today, true monstrosities are sometimes created. V e r y often, as we have seen, n o t only are G r a e c o - L a t i n hybrids created, but also hybrids of the m o d e r n language a n d G r e e k o r Latin suffixes (naturismo/naturista, turismo/turista, o f French origin). Y e t the systems are optional, not c o m p u l s o r y (there is n o *nazista, *bandolerista). O n the other hand, the small lexical systems o f M o d e r n GreekLatin are, in principle, the same as those w e have seen within Greek and Latin, but they occasionaly e x c e e d themselves in creating m o r e than o n e n o u n / a d j e c t i v e / v e r b / a d v e r b system from the same root:

286

CHAPTER THREE

and with greater o r lesser symmetry o r asymmetry with respect to the parallel systems. A n d m a n y forms are only used in c o m p o s i t i o n . S o , from (pcovf) w e obtain the nouns -fonia (zampona < oDjjxpcovia is an o l d R o m a n c e w o r d w h i c h was left out o f the system), fonema, fonetica (substantivisation); the adjectives -fono (substantivised from telefond) fonico, fonetico, fonemdtico and neither verbs n o r adverbs; all with y

various semantic specialisations within the different scientific fields. F r o m 7id9o<; w e obtain: the nouns -pata, -patia, patologo, patologia; the adjectives -pdtico, patetico, patologico. F r o m nXaooay. the nouns plasma, -plastia, plasta, pldstica, pldstico; the adjective pldstico; the verb plasmar. In short, the situation o f irregularities and lacunae found in the sys­ tem in G r e e k continues here, within a g r o w i n g v o l u m e o f lexicon. But the e x p a n s i o n o f the various formations a n d their semantic diversification is steadily increasing. 411. The truth is, a systematic study of the cultural lexicon with a GraecoLatin base has never been attempted: today it is possible thanks to the new information systems of databases and data processing. But, of course, we can still count on studies such as those cited in § 389: works by R . Lapesa, M . Fernandez-Galiano, F. Brunot, A. Ewert, A. C. Baugh, F. Fernandez, W . Stammler, B. Migliorini, H. Ludtke, J. Berguz. The direct study o f dictionaries is particularly significant. W e shall refer later to the D R A E , the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy (Real Academia Espafiola) 2001, and that o f C. Eseverri and J. F. Gonzalez Castro, previously cited; also, to the inverse Spanish dictionary by I. Bosque-M. Perez Fernandez 1987. For the problems o f scientific and technical language, cf. Adrados 1973b, 1986b and 1997b (with bibliography) and M . A. Martin Zorraquino 1997. For the lexical systems in general, see Adrados 1969, I, p. 490 ff, E. Coseriu 1977; for some concrete lexical systems in Spanish, see Adrados 1995. For the quantifying o f this lexicon, K. Psomadakis 1995 (and the data that I extract directly from various sources). 4 1 2 . I n fact, these n u a n c e s , w h i c h c o u l d b e e x t e n d e d

almost

indefinitely, d o n o t negate the central importance in o u r languages o f the stratum o f the cultural and scientific language w h i c h w e have called Greek-Latin. T h i s stratum is a practically international c o n ­ tinuation

o f scientific G r e e k and Latin, without w h i c h today w e c o u l d

hardly speak in terms o f culture and science. It has totally renovated the languages w h i c h were f o r m e d in the M i d d l e A g e s f r o m the o l d I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages and

others,

bringing t h e m closer together. W e are dealing with a Graeco-Latin cultural universe, w h i c h is m o r e alive today than it ever was. T h u s , G r e e k and Latin continue to b e living languages in the present day.

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

287

A s an e x a m p l e , let us try to quantify in s o m e measure the i m p a c t o f this type o f language in m o d e r n Spanish. I say 'as an e x a m p l e

5

because the circumstances are strictly c o m p a r a b l e in other E u r o p e a n languages and because, as I m e n t i o n e d before, exhaustive studies o n this subject d o n o t exist. Eseverri's dictionary o f Spanish Hellenisms, already outdated and incomplete, serves as a starting p o i n t (it contains s o m e 17,000). If w e c o m p a r e the 2,500 Latin Hellenisms collected b y W e i s e , w e can see that the n u m b e r has increased considerably. A n d it continues to d o so: the p r o p o s a l for n e w w o r d s presented to the plenary sessions o f the Royal Spanish A c a d e m y (Real Academia Espanola) b y the Technical V o c a b u l a r y C o m m i s s i o n (Comision de Vocabulario Tecnico), contains hun­ dreds and hundreds o f words w h i c h are, for the most part, Hellenisms o r formations with elements from G r e e k lexicon. T o b e sure, in the recently published (1998) collection o f e m m e n d a t i o n s a n d additions to the DRAE

(only for the letters a and c), w o r d s with a G r e e k base

a p p e a r in a v e r y great n u m b e r . F o r e x a m p l e : there are 6 with aero-, 10 with aero-, 17 with anti-, 12 with bio-, 14 with cat(a)-,

13

with cine-. T h e s e elements are Spanish p r o p e r , and they j o i n for the m o s t part with Spanish words: antiimperialismo, antiniebla, antinuclear, antipartkula, etc. (but also antihelmintico, antipatia, antipoda, e t c , with G r e e k elements, antihidtico, antimisil, e t c with Latin elements). Importance for the Spanish lexicon 4 1 3 . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f these elements for the Spanish lexicon can b e seen b y studying the DRAE.

In m y article A d r a d o s 1997b I indi­

cate, for e x a m p l e , that there are s o m e 100 w o r d s with auto-, 80 with hiper-, 25 with filo-; there are also abundant

Latinisms with circum,

hiper, etc. I have studied a list, m a d e b y the Institute o f L e x i c o g r a p h y o f the R o y a l Spanish A c a d e m y (Instituto de Lexicografia de la Real Academia Espanola), containing prefixes o r initial formative elements that appear in the DRAE

- s o m e 2 0 0 - and the p r o p o r t i o n o f Hellenisms and

Latinisms is astonishing: a b o u t 95 percent. In the first page, w h i c h contains 4 8 , there are 22 Hellenisms; a-, aden-, adeno-, aero-, alo-, an-, ana-, anarco-, ami-, aniso-, anti-, antropo-, arce-, archi-, arqui-, arz~, auto-, baro-, biblio-, bio-, bradi-, cata- (we c a n see that sometimes there are variants o f the same element). Alongside this, w e have 22 Latinisms

288

CHAPTER THREE

and 4 elements o f other origins. In other pages, the p r o p o r t i o n o f Hellenisms is even greater. T h i s m e a n s that Greek-Latin covers all o f the cultural language and is a fundamental element o f Spanish. But n o t just the prefixes. In the Diccionario inverso de la lengua espanola b y I. Bosque—M. Perez Fernandez

1987, w e find, as I indicate in the article cited, a r o u n d

6 0 0 w o r d s with -tico, 5 0 with -sico-> 8 0 0 with -ismo

y

11 with -asmo.

T h e s e are just s o m e samples. T h e study o f the DRAE

list leads to analogous conclusions with

respect to suffixes: whether from G r e e k (like those m e n t i o n e d and others) o r from other origins: Latin (-ario, -ano> etc.), originating from the former o r latter (-ia, -ico, etc.), o r from Spanish (-able, -ador, etc.). T h e Greek element is strong, although not as m u c h as in the prefixes. It is also strong in the s e c o n d terms o f c o m p o u n d s (which s o m e ­ times also appear in the first): see series such as -fib, -fobo, -fugo, -genesis, -genia, -geno, -gono, -grafia, -grama, -hidrico, -iatria; o r such as -plastia, -podo, -ptero, -rragia, -rrea, -rro, -scopia, -scopio, -statico, -teca, -tecnica, -termo, -tomia, -tomo, -trofia, -trofo. N o t e that in these relations w e are only dealing with G r e e k ele­ ments (and Latin elements such as -cultura, -forme) o f m o r e frequent use, w h i c h have b e e n assimilated into Spanish and have practically b e c o m e part o f it. F r o m this, w e can d e d u c e that o u r qualification o f the m o d e r n languages o f E u r o p e as semi-Greek o r c r y p t o - G r e e k is not an exaggerated o n e . 4 1 4 . A n o t h e r resource for evaluating the importance o f the cultural language is the study o f the growth o f the lexicon through the cen­ turies. In a report presented recently to the R o y a l Spanish A c a d e m y , the p r o p o r t i o n o f w o r d s that have entered in each historical p e r i o d is established, b a s e d o n a study o f 1,000 pages o f the

Diccionario

Historico de la lengua Espanola. T h e s e periods are: T h e M i d d l e A g e s (until 1501), 1,060 (14 percent). T h e G o l d e n A g e (until 1701), 1,148 (15.4 percent). T h e eighteenth-twentieth

centuries, 5,242 (70.3 percent).

T h i s impressive increase is mainly due to the cultural and scientific v o c a b u l a r y a n d derivatives within Spanish, created a c c o r d i n g to ten­ dencies o f this v o c a b u l a r y . It is clear that in passing from Latin to Castilian, the l e x i c o n h a d b e e n extremely reduced, with very few abstracts a n d hardly any derivatives and lexical paradigms. O n l y the

289

GREEK IN THE EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

cultural lexicon o f Greek-Latin, a n d that created in its likeness, was able again to p r o d u c e a rich and flexible language with a b r o a d e r lexicon than Latin. Similarly, an impoverished syntax gave w a y to a m o r e flexible and rich syntax which was abl^ to express abstract thought. Again, through imitation o f the ancient models: Latin syntax, w h i c h had d e v e l o p e d under the influence o f G r e e k syntax. An international character 4 1 5 . W e have repeatedly indicated that w e are dealing with a gen­ eral p h e n o m e n o n , w h i c h is not restricted to Spanish. I w o u l d like to c o n f i r m this b y referring

to a study b y K . Psomadakis

already cited in § 4 1 1 , in w h i c h he summarises

1995,

Greek words and

formative elements (or o f G r e e k origin) in seven E u r o p e a n languages. T h e first is M o d e r n Greek, w h i c h has often received these words from other E u r o p e a n languages, without this affecting its original G r e e k character. T h e first part o f this study draws a list o f 120 words o f the cul­ tural and scientific language w h i c h are almost identical in the seven E u r o p e a n languages in question: G r e e k (modern), Russian, English, French, G e r m a n , Italian and Spanish. This is the case in the w o r d democracy (cf. § 4 3 6 ) . It is impossible to treat these 120 w o r d s and their seven versions here, so I will limit myself to the beginning o f the list in

Spanish

(alphabetisation is a c c o r d i n g to Greek, naturally): estetica, etiologia, alegoria, amnistia, anemia, andlisis, anarquia, anecdota, aritmetica, harmonia, arqueologia, astronauta, atmosfera, dtomo, automata, bardmetro, base, bibliogrqfia, biologia, galaxia, genetica, geogrqfta, decdlogo, democracia, demagogia, diagnosis, dicta, didlogo, didmetro, diqfragma. T h e s e c o n d part o f the study draws a list o f a series o f c o m p o s ­ itive elements w h i c h are c o n s i d e r e d to b e c o m m o n to these lan­ guages (I will also give these in Spanish, the correspondences are obvious): Initial elements: (a) prepositions, anfi-, ana-, anti-, apo-, cata-, dia-, ec-, en-, hiper-, hipo-, meta-, para-, peri-, pro-, sin-; (b) numer­ als, mono-, proto-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, pento-, hexa-, hepta-, octo-, deca-, dodeca-, hecto-, kilo-; (c) n o u n s , adjectives and

adverbs,

aero-, astro-, auto-, bio-, cromo-, crono-, dis-, ecto-, electro-, endo-, eu-, exo-, geo-, gramo-,

hemo-, hemato-,

hetero-,

holo-,

homo-,

homeo-,

290

CHAPTER THREE hidro-, higro-, iso-, macro-, micro-, meso-, neuro-, nefro-, orto-, paleo-, pan-, pango-, filo-, fono-, foto-,

poll-, pseudo-, psico-,

tele-, termo-,

uro-, xero-, zoo-. Final elements: (a) suffixes, -oide, -ista, -ico, -ismo, -osis; (b) n o m ­ inal elements, -cracia, -gnosis, -gnostico, -grqfia, -grdfico, -logico, -logia, -metro, -metrico, -metria, -morfo, -morfico, -morfismo, -nauta,

-patia,

-patetico, -fono, -fonico, -fonia, -plasma, -plasia, plastico, -rrea, -scopio, -scopia, -topo, -topico, -tropo, -trofico, -trofia. 4 1 6 . In most cases, w e are just dealing with examples. But I believe that, given the aforementioned data, the act o f including the life o f G r e e k in other languages in the history o f G r e e k is justified.

This

stratum belongs to these languages, but it is at the same time inter­ national a n d also Graeco-Latin. It is an entirely living stratum w h i c h is constantly developing. T h u s , G r e e k not o n l y p r o v i d e d the m o d e l for scientific v o c a b u ­ lary and prose, but also survived to the present day in very diverse languages, actively serving this vocabulary. It is not just a fossil ele­ ment o r o n e a m o n g other elements: it is an element w h o s e history still continues.

CHAPTER FOUR MODERN GREEK

1. T H E HISTORY OF M O D E R N GREEK ( M G )

4 1 7 . T h e G r e e k language has always p r o v i d e d surprises: in A n c i e n t G r e e c e , its differentiation a n d then unification through the c o n v e r ­ g e n c e o f literary a n d political factors; subsequently, in the R o m a n p e r i o d , its uninterrupted existence in the East u n d e r R o m a n rule; a n d in Byzantium, its continuity as the language o f the C h u r c h a n d State. A n d then, o f course, its 'invasion' o f all languages, making t h e m suitable for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f culture a n d science. Finally, after the fall o f Byzantium a n d the Turkish p e r i o d , G r e e k was resurrected in the f o r m o f t w o sociolinguistic strata a n d a m y r i a d o f dialects; it then unified them, a r o u n d A t h e n s , as in Antiquity, a n d in a s o m e w h a t parallel

manner.

S o m e h o w , the language o f a small g r o u p o f p e o p l e h a d m a n a g e d , in extremely unfavourable circumstances, n o t o n l y to survive a n d achieve unity twice, b u t also to b e c o m e the m o d e l w h i c h all lan­ guages w o u l d follow. H e r e , w e shall deal with its last adventure: the creation o f M o d e r n Greek. 4 1 8 . W e have seen h o w , during the Turkish p e r i o d , only

certain

marginal dialects o f the I o n i c islands (which w e r e never o c c u p i e d p e r m a n e n d y b y the Turks), a n d o f C y p r u s a n d Crete (which main­ tained their i n d e p e n d e n c e for a time), w e r e cultivated in a literary w a y . In the o c c u p i e d z o n e , continental G r e e c e , the dialects w h i c h e m e r g e d h a d , with f e w exceptions, a purely oral character. T h e C h u r c h , u p o n w h i c h the Greeks b a s e d their sense o f iden­ tity, m a d e use o f the Atticist language. T h e previously m e n t i o n e d attempts m a d e in the Byzantine p e r i o d , to use p o p u l a r language in literature (only in v e r y c o n c r e t e genres a n d without a mixture o f o l d elements) w e r e a b a n d o n e d . T h i s brings us b a c k to the subject o f the t w o G r e e k linguistic strata. W e have seen that in the periods o f the Byzantine a n d R o m a n

292

CHAPTER FOUR

e m p i r e s , there h a d b e e n t w o languages w h i c h h a d

a reciprocal

influence o n each other: spoken o r p o p u l a r language and literary or Atticist language. I n d e e d , in m o d e r n G r e e c e , from the

liberation

o n w a r d s , there has b e e n a rivalry b e t w e e n these t w o languages, 5

k n o w n respectively as KocGotpeuouaa 'pure' and 8r||ioTtKr| 'popular , the former b e i n g derived from Atticist G r e e k and the latter from p o p u l a r o r spoken Greek. A . Hatzidakis, in his b o o k o f 1892, estab­ lished the g e n e a l o g y o f M G as descending from the o l d koine, and not, in general terms, f r o m the o l d dialects. T h e M o d e r n G r e e k dialects, w h o s e origins have b e e n discussed, also descend from koine (although these dialects m a y have inherited features o f the old dialects, see § 4 4 0 ) . T h e history o f M G resumes with an evolutionary tendency: the disappearance o f the t w o linguistic strata and o f the different dialects in favour o f a single, almost unified M G (which has also, o f course, received influences f r o m different languages). MG

has r e d u c e d its s c o p e to a relatively r e d u c e d geographical

area, close to that o f A G (Ancient Greek). It o c c u p i e s nearly all o f G r e e c e , w h e r e 95 percent o f the population speak it (more than 10,000,000 p e o p l e ) a n d the G r e e k part o f Cyprus (some 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 people). In G r e e c e , the n u m b e r o f Slavic, A r m e n i a n , Albanian and R u m a n i a n speakers has diminished drastically and the majority

are

bilingual; L a d i n o o r Judeo-Spanish practically disappeared after the persecutions o f the S e c o n d W o r l d W a r . T h e r e are about

150,000

Turkish speakers left in T h r a c e . Besides this, the n u m b e r o f G r e e k speakers in Egypt (Alexandria) and Asia M i n o r has diminished incredibly as a result o f anti-western backlash: the lost war in Anatolia and the exchange o f population groups (1923), nationalist regimes in Egypt (from 1956). T h e i r n u m ­ b e r has d e c r e a s e d in Istambul.

T h e s e G r e e k s , a n d those o f the

Caucasus and Ukraine, have withdrawn to G r e e c e . By contrast, there are

flourishing

G r e e k c o m m u n i t i e s in western E u r o p e , A m e r i c a and

Australia. 419. For the bibliography relating to M G in general (until 1972), c f D . V . Vayacacos 1972. The linguistic study o f M G was initiated by A. Hatzidakis in his book o f 1892, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, and was con­ tinued by other works outlined in our bibliography. Here, one can also find references to the grammars and linguistic studies of J. Psichari 1886-89, A. Thumb 1895, H. Pernot 1921 and A. Mirabel 1959a as weU as the works o f M . Triandaphyllidis, whose Grammatiki o f 1941 had a profound

293

MODERN GREEK

influence. See also F. W . Householder and others 1964, O . Elefteriadis 1985 and (today, the more complete Grammatiki) A. Tsopanakis 1994. For the various areas o f grammar, see H.-J. Seiler 1952, A. Koutsoudas 1962, P. H . Matthews 1967 and D . Sotiropoulos 1972; for the lexicon, see P. Mackridge 1985, p. 307 ff. and § 432 ff. For the most essential points regarding the history o f M G , the 'linguistic question' in Greece and the state o f the current language see: in this work, p. 70 ff., and in R. Browning 1983, p . 100 ff, D . V . Vayacacos 1972, p. 81 ff. and P. Mackridge 1985, p . 1 ff. See also, on these subjects, A. E. Megas 1925-27, A. Mirambel 1937, 1957 and 1959, V . Rotolo 1965, C. D . Papadatos 1976, E. Petrounias 1978, G. Babiniotis 1979, R. Brown 1982, S. C. Caratzas 1957-58, I. P. Walburton 1980 and G. Horrocks 1997, p. 334 ff. 4 2 0 . G r e e k m a n a g e d to maintain its prestige in the East in

the

Turkish p e r i o d , despite the terrible b l o w s it received. A small elite regarded it as the descendant o f the glorious past; many m o r e regarded it as the language o f the true religion, centered o n the

patriarchy

o f Constantinople. H e r e and in other parts o f the Turkish empire, there were many Greek speakers w h o were generally tolerated although there were periods o f persecution. I n d e e d , a small G r e e k aristocracy h e l d official posts in the e m p i r e , particularly

the P h a n a r i o t s o f

Constantinople, w h o held important administrative and political posts and g o v e r n e d W a l a c h i a a n d M o l d a v i a for the Sultan. In the West, h o w e v e r , the only reference for G r e e k was Classical Antiquity. In its n a m e (or using it as a pretext), Frederick II o f Prussia rejected Voltaire's proposals to help liberate the Greeks from the Turks. T h e Greeks were considered undeserving, debased, and their language corrupt. A n exception was Catherine o f Russia, n o d o u b t because o f the d e e p b o n d s between her country and Byzantine culture. H o w e v e r , towards the e n d o f the century, after the

Enlighten­

m e n t and the French R e v o l u t i o n , efforts to help the Greeks slowly b e g a n to g r o w , as they b e c a m e identified m o r e o r less with

the

ancients: for e x a m p l e , L o r d B y r o n and the Philhellenes w h o fought in the G r e e k w a r o f liberation f r o m 1821 onwards. T h i s was c o m ­ p l e m e n t e d b y the fact that the Greeks, w h o w e r e subjects o f the Turkish empire, b e g a n to relate to E u r o p e as partners in foreign trade o r as m e m b e r s o f the G r e e k communities w h i c h were being f o r m e d in Russia and the W e s t . A l s o , b y the diffusion o f E u r o p e a n ideas o f i n d e p e n d e n c e and f r e e d o m , w h o s e ancient g e n e a l o g y was admitted b y all.

294

CHAPTER FOUR

U n d e r liberal and nationalistic influence, groups o f G r e e k i m m i ­ grants p r o m o t e d the creation o f i n d e p e n d e n c e groups in G r e e c e and a b r o a d (in O d e s s a a n d in the West), w h i c h were supported b y the Phanariots o f Constantinople and the G r e e k C h u r c h . O n the other h a n d , G r e e c e was a g o o d support base for the Russians and westerners in their desire for expansion at the expense o f the Turks. All o f this resulted in aid to the Greeks w h e n they tried to liberate themselves from the Turks. T h e events unfolded as follows: the revolt o f 1821, a war with disputable results; the sup­ p o r t o f Great Britain, Russia and France (the treaty o f L o n d o n and the battle o f N a v a r i n o , 1827); G r e e k i n d e p e n d e n c e (the treaty o f Adrianopolis o f 1829 and the L o n d o n C o n f e r e n c e o f 1830). 4 2 1 . G r e e c e thus f o u n d itself liberated, but there was still the lin­ guistic issue. T h e minority that was able to write did so in KaOapewuoa ( K G ) , the continuation o f the old, Byzantine koine; the rest spoke Sn^oxiKti ( D G ) , divided further into dialects, a language w h i c h was not written. T h e western m o d e l and a little rationality required a single language, a language that w o u l d also b e capable o f satisfying the needs o f E u r o p e a n civilisation. But h o w w o u l d this be achieved? T h e task was undertaken b y A d a m a n t i o s Korais ( 1 7 4 8 - 1 8 3 3 ) , a G r e e k from S m y r n a w h o h a d b e e n sent to A m s t e r d a m b y his father as a c o m m e r c i a l representative, and had later studied medicine at the University o f M o n t p e l l i e r . H e h a d lived through the

French

R e v o l u t i o n and saw in the expedition to Egypt the beginning o f the e n d o f the O t t o m a n empire. In his last years, he witnessed the lib­ eration o f G r e e c e . K o r a i s was an excellent classical philologist. H e b e g a n b y trans­ lating Strabo, at N a p o l e o n ' s request, and later translated and edited (with numerous notes) the classical authors: Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides, Isocrates, a n d m a n y others. H e c o n s i d e r e d G r e e k as a c o n t i n u u m , believing that Polybius, Plutarch, a n d the rest h a d followed the p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f M o d e r n Greek. Y e t , if, for Korais, 8njioTi.cn, was the continuation o f A n c i e n t Greek, he w a n t e d to 'purify' it, b y adding s o m e elements o f the old language in o r d e r to c o n v e r t it into a language o f culture, adminis­ tration, and education. H e was treading an intermediate

territory

b e t w e e n the pure 5r|jnoTiKf| and the 'pure' language a d v o c a t e d b y the m o r e traditional sector, led b y Codrikas, a representative o f the Phanariots o f Constantinople.

295

MODERN GREEK 5

F o r e x a m p l e , against the d e m o t i c yapx 'fish , he p r o p o s e d its ety­ mological f o r m o ^ d p i o v , whereas Codrikas w a n t e d to return to the

A G ixfaq. T h e poets o f the I o n i c islands were m o r e radical. T h e s e islands were the only place where a dialect continued to b e cultivated in written f o r m , after the conquest o f Cyprus and Crete b y the Turks. We

have m e n t i o n e d the p o e t S o l o m o s , the m o s t well-known o f the

g r o u p . But it was a local language and n o w , attempts were being m a d e to create a national language suitable for administration

and

prose in general. 422.

In these circumstances, a provisional government was established

in Nauplion in 1828, and later, in 1833, the capital was m o v e d to what really was a small city but with an illustrious n a m e , Athens. T h e clas­ sicist interpretation prevailed (although making Athens into a monar­ chy

was hardly classical) and the city b e c a m e filled with neoclassical

buildings. This orientation also prevailed with regard to language. H o w e v e r , from the outset, the hard facts o f reality b e g a n to impose themselves. T o g e t h e r with the Athenians, an influx o f foreign peoples, mainly Peloponnesian, invaded the small city o f Athens. A spoken dialect b e g a n to f o r m , w h i c h was m o r e o r less c o m m o n , based o n 'southern G r e e k ' , m o r e conservative than that o f the N o r t h but with certain

archaisms

p r o c e e d i n g f r o m the dialect s p o k e n in Attica,

M e g a r a and A e g i n a . It h a d (and still has) the forms avOpcorco*; (not avQpovnovq),

\IVTT\

'nose' (not u m ) , jxeonuepi ' m i d d a y ' (not jLuauip).

It a c c e p t e d s o m e features f r o m the G r e e k o f the I o n i c islands ( A c . pi. fern, TIC; o f the article) and

Constantinople.

H o w e v e r , o n c e the G r e e k g o v e r n m e n t h a d b e e n installed,

pres­

sure from classicism was very strong, so that the Ka8apenoi)aa under­ went a renovation and was taken a step further. T h e r e were certainly extremists (such as P. Soutsos, w h o attempted to renovate o l d Attic) and moderates (such as K . Asopios). O n the other hand, there was also hypercorrection and the creation o f n e w words: instead o f Kocoaa ' b o x ' , %pr||iaTOKiPa)Tiov was used; instead

o f TCCXTOVCCC, yeoburiXov (a

caique from Fr. pomme de terre). T h e D e m o t i c language ( D G ) was referred to as 'long-haired' and riots b r o k e o u t in A t h e n s w h e n , in

1 9 0 1 , A . Rallis published

a

translation o f the N e w Testament into D G (he h a d previously trans­ lated the

Iliad).

296 423.

CHAPTER FOUR Nevertheless, the situation h a d b e g u n to change in 1888 w h e n

J. Psicharis, a G r e e k writer w h o lived in Paris, published his novel To ra£,i8i ( ' M y v o y a g e ' ) in D G . H e attempted to create a regularised D e m o t i c (too regularised), w h i c h admitted, it is true, literary w o r d s from K G . Y e t , in spite o f everything, the language o f journalism, law,

a n d science c o n t i n u e d to b e K G , and until 1909 it was the

only language taught in the schools. Gradually, h o w e v e r , it b e g a n to lose the most extreme features o f Atticism: the o l d G r e e k future, the optative, Attic declension, imper­ atives in -0i. But the 1911 Constitution still considered G K the official language o f G r e e c e . Nevertheless, the r e n o v a t i o n b e c a m e stronger w h e n , in 1 9 1 0 , M . Triandaphyllidis f o u n d e d the association k n o w n as the 'Education Society' ( 'EKTICXISCDTIKCX; "OUIAAX;). T h i s b o d y influenced the legisla­ tion o f the Liberal Party o f E. V e n i z e l o s , w h o in 1917 introduced DG

into elementary education. T h e language a d v o c a t e d b y Trian­

daphyllidis was described in his Grammar o f 1941, w h i c h was a kind o f prescriptive linguistics. Certainly, his c o n c e p t i o n was m o r e o p e n than that o f Psicharis: it preserved certain

d o u b l e forms and purist forms, such as -KT-

instead o f -cpx- in w o r d s o f ancient origin (7iepi7iT£po). But,

unfortu­

nately, the linguistic 'issue' b e c a m e politicised, and the supporters o f DG

w e r e at times a c c u s e d o f pro-Russian and even pro-Bolshevik

sympathies. F r o m 1923 to 1964 D G continued to b e the language o f the first levels o f school education (except during the g o v e r n m e n t o f Tsaldaris in 1 9 3 5 - 3 6 ) ; in 1964, the Centre Party p l a c e d b o t h languages o n an equal footing, although D G was rarely studied b y students older than 14. Later, during the g o v e r n m e n t o f the C o r o n e l s , K G was o n c e again declared the official language (1969), D G b e i n g restricted to the first four levels o f primary education. T h e r e was a reaction against this with the c h a n g e o f regime: in 1976, D G was declared the official language o f education and

administration.

Subsequently, the triumph o f the PAS O K

party saw the

intro­

duction o f the so-called m o n o t o n i c system in 1982: an orthographic reform w h i c h abolished the spiritus, allowed monosyllables to b e writ­ ten without accents (with exceptions) and polysyllables with only an acute accent. 424.

H o w e v e r , the path towards the imposition o f D G turned out

to b e longer than expected. For a l o n g time, and despite everything,

MODERN GREEK

KG,

297

liberated f r o m extremisms, c o n t i n u e d to b e the language o f the

tribunals, army a n d C h u r c h . It was the language o f culture, while DG

slowly b e g a n to b e i m p o s e d (from genre to genre) and with

errors, p r o d u c i n g an often artificial and confused prose. This situa­ tion was only m a d e worse b y the decline in the standard o f teach­ ing o f the classics a n d b y h e w p e d a g o g i c a l trends w h i c h constantly l o w e r e d the level o f the All

students.

the s a m e , D G n o w triumphs

in G r e e c e . But rather than

Demotic, w e should simply call it, at least in its written form, C o m m o n Greek. Indeed, there are various types o f D G , a m o n g t h e m the socalled KaGojiiTtoDuivr), with a b u n d a n t elements o f Ka9ocpe\>um)aa w h i c h were culturally indispensable. C o n s e q u e n d y , what w e normally refer to as M o d e r n G r e e k ( M G ) is n o t exactly unitary: it preserves elements o f the ancient language in its phonetics and m o r p h o l o g y , and especially in its lexicon. T h e r e is 7t6A,r|/.T;6Aa<; ( G . -nq o r -ecoq), -6Ta/-6xr)<;, G . o f the first declension in -a (modern)/-nc; (ancient), 8eo7ioiviSa/8eG7ioiv{<;, 'EAAd8a/'EA,A,d<;; the N . pi. o f the first in -at (xoDpiaxai) is sometimes preserved; from the adj. pcc0\><; there is G . sg.

poc9icnVPa0eo<;, N . pi. (3a0ioi/pa0ei<;. A n d there are still m a n y

compositive elements o f A G , as well as infinite variations w h i c h are m o r e o r less s y n o n y m o u s in the lexicon, o f the type KOKKOCAX)/OOTOUV 5

' b o n e . T h e language w e call M G therefore c o m b i n e s different vari­ eties o f D G .

2. DESCRIPTION OF M O D E R N G R E E K

425.

T h u s , a n e w koine, w h i c h is M o d e r n Greek, was created and

diffused,

a m i d the debates o f the p r o p o n e n t s o f diverse

official

interventions and solutions. It is not entirely uniform (although nei­ ther was the ancient koine), but it is fundamentally based o n a dialect, as the o l d koine h a d b e e n : in Peloponnesian Greek, in this case. A new

element has b e e n added: the resolution o f the inherited diglos­

sia, w h i c h had b e c o m e increasingly aggravated. A l s o , the absorption o f lexical elements from the western languages, w h i c h shall b e dis­ cussed later. The

principal characteristics

are k n o w n to us f r o m the D G o f

various Byzantine texts, particularly from the twelfth century onwards (and in later dialects o f Cyprus and Crete, a m o n g others). W e have discussed these. But it is useful to present an o v e r v i e w o f D G as a w h o l e , adding data o n K G .

298

CHAPTER FOUR

4 2 6 . Phonetics. T h e following characteristics are found: iotacism and the elimination o f diphthongs, w h i c h provokes various graphias o f the same p h o n e m e ; the elimination o f the opposition o f short and l o n g vowels (but there are t w o graphias o f o), o f the accent o f inten­ sity, a n d o f the t w o o l d tonal accents; a system o f voiceless and v o i c e d occlusives and fricatives, in the three points o f articulation, with graphic distinction; an opposition o f the sibilants G / £ , also in certain contexts o f v o i c e l e s s / v o i c e d a; o f the affricates

XG, x£; the

loss o f -v (except before occlusives and affricates, but sometimes pre­ served in K G ) ; %x, (px (sometimes KX,TCXin K G ) ; the palatalisation o f consonants before i (y); and a fixed accent in adjectives (vecoxeprj, but not in K G ) . 4 2 7 . Noun and adjective. T h e n o u n has a simplified m o r p h o l o g y , with the three cases o f N . , G . a n d A c . (rarely a separate V . ) and the two numbers sg. and pi. T h e r e are isosyllabic w o r d s o f two types: the first, with t w o forms in sg. and another t w o in pi. (masc. sg. N . rcaxepac/G.-Ac.

Tcaxepa, pi. N . - A c . Ttaxepeq/G. rcaxepcov; fern. N . - A c .

K a p 5 i a / G . Kapoiac;, pi. N . - A c . Kocpoiiq/G. KapSicov, and close types); the second, with three forms in sg. and pi. ( m a s c sg. N . 8d0KaXoc;/Ac. SdaKocAo/G. SccGKaAm), pi. N . SdGKocAoi, A c . SccGKatanx;, G . 8CXGK&AG)V),

but t w o in the neuters (sg. N . - A c . 7rpoGC07io/G. upoGcoTun), pi. N . - A c . rcpoGGma, G .rcpoGcoTCcov,cf. also jnepo(;/(xepoi)<;/|j,epr|/jLiepSv). In addition, there are anisosyllabic w o r d s , w h o s e masc. and fern, have t w o forms in the sg. ( N . / A c . - G . , but there are three in

the

case o f Popidq), and another t w o in pi, ( N . - A c , / G . ) , pi. ones having o n e syllable m o r e thanks to the desinence -8e<;, w h i c h w e have dis­ cussed. A l s o , the neuters have t w o forms with the same

distribution

and o n e pi. in -ocxoc (ovo^a/ovojuaxcc), o f ancient origin. T h e adjective has generalised the triple inflection

masc./fern./n.

(with few exceptions). It has maintained three degrees, but the c o m ­ parative and superlative, together with the synthetic forms o f ancient origin, have analytic forms with nio/b

nw.

A s w e c a n see, inflection has b e e n greatly altered and simplified; w e saw h o w in K G ancient desinences are sometimes

preferred.

4 2 8 . Pronouns and articles. T h e p r o n o u n s o f the 1st person (eycb) and 2 n d person (EGV, GX>) continue to exist, while the 3rd is n e w (the old is a\)xoc;, 'the same'). T h e unification o f forms in the pi. is notable ( N . ejieiq; 8G8i<;; G . eiiaq, jiaq; ioaq,

oaq) and the preservation,

with

formal variants, o f the o l d opposition between full forms (1st G . - A c .

299

MODERN GREEK euivcc, uivoc, 2 n d eoevct,

GEVCC,

a m o n g others) and clitics (which are

n o t necessarily atonal, the majority b e i n g b o t h enclitic a n d proclitic): for

instance, G . uxyo, GOU, XOV ( m a s c ) , A c ui, oL O n l y the A c . TO,

TT|,

TO,

the

3rd,

o f the 3rd is enclictic a n d atonal. K G has DG

has

TOOV

as G . pi. o f

TOD<;.

S o m e systems are important: the demonstratives avxoq, EKeivoq;

xexoxoq, xoaoq; possessives w h i c h are the G . eiiov,

xovxoq, etc.; the

reflexives 6 kavxoq urn), etc.; the indefinite Kccvevaq, pi. |xspiK0i; the interrogatives TIOI6<;, but also 07i;oio<;,

TI,

noaoq;

the relative

OTIOIOC;, O G o q , OGTIC;

rcoi),

without inflection,

(in K G ) .

In the article, together with the traditional

definite article (with

slight variations in inflection, fern. pi. N . o i , A c . x i q ) , there is an indefinite evocc;. 429.

Verbs. T h e m o s t important

characteristics have already b e e n

m e n t i o n e d : the reduction to t w o stems, the s e c o n d c o m i n g from the aorist and perfect, the loss o f the dual and optative, a n d the unification o f the indicative a n d subjunctive in the present stem (not in that o f the aorist), the loss o f the future (replaced b y 9 a a n d the ind.), perfect (replaced b y a periphrastic form), infinitive (usually, replaced b y v d and subjunctive), the participle (made indeclinable in

-OVTCCC;,

-(ovxaq;

but the middle-passive is maintained); an a b u n d a n c e o f periphrastic forms. In addition, the o l d verbal system, although simplified, is essentially maintained: three persons, t w o voices (the m i d d l e v o i c e also acting as a passive), three tenses, three m o o d s (with the imper­ ative), t w o aspects (opposition extended to the future). The

modifications are a b o v e all formal: the reduction o f suffixes

in the present stem, various ways o f f o r m i n g the aorist stem (we have discussed this), n e w multi-stem verbs; the middle-passive aorist -9r|Koc; the loss o f atonal augment (but it is maintained in K G ) ; the verb d u i inflected as a middle (eijuou); considerably altered desinences. S u c h alteration is notable a n d sometimes gives rise to variants. For

those that c o m e from A G , there are notable forms such as the

act. pres. ind. 2 n d sg. Aiq, aicovc;, naq, 1st pi. 3rd 8£V0i)v, d i c o w e ; impf. 1st sg. pres. ind. 1st mid. -ojunv,

dyaTtisfLiai.

dyomoftGa;

SEVODU^

for 8evo|ie,

aor. 2 n d sg. eSeGeq; m i d .

A t times, before n e w desinences such as

1st pi. -OJJXXGTE, K G preserves the o l d -6|i£9a; in the imperfect, -£Go,

-£T0 c a n b e maintained instead o f

-OJIODV, - O G O W ,

-OTOCV.

In the imperfect o f contract verbs in the active v o i c e , the o l d forms - c o v , e t c c a n b e used in K G instead o f -OUGCC, e t c , the aorist passive

300

CHAPTER FOUR

-0r|v c a n b e maintained instead o f -9r|Ka, the articular infinitive, etc. But the optative, the o l d aorist, and future, etc., a n d a large series o f forms have definitively b e e n lost. 4 3 0 . Invariable words. A d v e r b s are to a large extent those o f A G ; adverbs in -a p r e d o m i n a t e o v e r those in -coc;, w h i c h are

maintained

particularly in K G . Prepositions are practically those o f A G , sometimes with an altered form: yid,

ae

JLIE,

(GTOV

in D G , eiq

in K G ) , sometimes main­

TOV

tained; there are n e w prepositions, such as Sixcoc;, %o>pic; 'without', o d v ' h o w ' , xaaiiz 'the same as'; they are constructed with the A c , s o m e with the G . o r N . But only s o m e o f them function as preverbs (dvii, dTto, Kara, uexd, Tcapd, rcpoq), alongside the o l d prepositions w h i c h alone preserve this function even though they are used as prepositions in r e a d y - m a d e phrases and in K G (8td, Kept, 7ip6, bnip,

EK/EJ;,

ev,

mi,

bno). W e should a d d the preverbs, ^e- (from e£) and

i;ocvoc- (also an adverb, from e^-ava-). As far as conjunctions are c o n c e r n e d , w e must distinguish between c o o r d i n a t i n g and subordinating conjunctions. T h e former are not very different from those o f A G : copulative KCC{; disjunctive r\. . . r\. . ., eixe .

.

. EIXE

.

.

.,

OUXE

. . . ovxe

.

.

.,

UTJXE .

.

.

UT|T£

. . . The

importance

o f the latter has g r o w n since the disappearance o f the infinitive, as well as the genitive absolute. Apart from relative clauses with 7 1 0 - 0 and other relatives, already m e n t i o n e d , there are clauses o f c o m pletives foq, 9
COOTE,

finals with woe, yid v d , those o f fear with \xr\, ur|v,

those o f m o o d with

KCC9CO<;,

a d v , etc.

4 3 1 . Suffixes, lexicon. Suffixation closely resembles that o f A G , but there are far m o r e suffixes, whether n e w (some o f foreign origin, as w e saw), o r ancient: f r o m abstracts such as

-GIJXO

-Tjxo ((pocynxo 'meal'), -ot>poc (aicowupa 'confusion'),

(TPE^IJLLO

-E(OC,

'race'),

-£id (8o-oA,£id

'work'); f r o m diminutives such as -dici, -{81, -ovXa and augmentatives such as -dpec, -dpoq; f r o m ethnics such as -dvoq, -ivo<;, - E ^ o q ; from the derivation o f adjectives taken f r o m nouns such as -aKoq, -dpnc;, -dtoc; o r other adjectives such as -ot)Ari<; (da7Cpot>Ar|<;) o r verbs such as -£po<; (OAtfipoc;). In § 3 3 4 w e saw the preferred suffixes for verbs from the Byzantine p e r i o d onwards. T h e important thing is that the richness o f derivation and c o m ­ position is preserved, functioning in a w a y similar to that o f A n c i e n t Greek, but with constant innovation.

301

MODERN GREEK

T h e l e x i c o n continues that o f A G to a large extent, but it has b e e n renovated; w e shall deal separately with this subject, for it is an area in w h i c h foreign influence has b e e n considerable. It serves to d r a w attention to the existence o f a D G l e x i c o n that is different from

that o f K G , w h o s e terms,

nevertheless,

occasionally can b e

i n t r o d u c e d in D G . Examples o f pairs with the o p p o s i t i o n D G / K G 5

are the following (some were m e n t i o n e d previously): zvaq/ziq ' o n e , u^ydAoc;/'uiyou; 'big', KOKKaAo/oaxouv ' b o n e ' , \|/api/i%8n<; 'fish', umrj/piq ' n o s e ' , vep6/u5cop 'water', etc.

3. BORROWINGS AND CULTURE WORDS IN THE M O D E R N GREEK LEXICON

4 3 2 . W e have seen h o w , in the history o f Greek, the partial difference b e t w e e n D G a n d K G presented the greatest obstacle for unification. Later, h o w e v e r , m a n y w o r d s f r o m K G , a l o n g with the lexical base o f D G , w o u l d aid in the formation o f M G . G r e e k has

absorbed

m a n y b o r r o w i n g s from other languages, a m o n g t h e m western b o r ­ rowings (sometimes o f G r e e k origin) w h i c h have enabled it to b e c o m e i n c o r p o r a t e d into the universal cultural a n d scientific m o v e m e n t . T h i s was a late i n c o r p o r a t i o n , given that G r e e c e h a d n o t partic­ ipated in the m o v e m e n t o f H u m a n i s m a n d m o d e r n science because o f Turkish d o m i n a t i o n . Y e t , the facility o f its language for deriva­ tion a n d c o m p o s i t i o n , inherited

f r o m the A n c i e n t language,

this i n c o r p o r a t i o n possible: it easily a d m i t t e d

made

lexical elements o f

A n c i e n t G r e e k origin o r those derived from them. N o t e that the ' n e w ' w o r d s are a b u n d a n t in the p o p u l a r language today, whereas w e c a n write a b o u t abstract o r scientific subjects with a v o c a b u l a r y that is practically that o f A n c i e n t G r e e k with

forms

derived f r o m it. A c c o r d i n g to the statistics presented b y P. M a c k r i d g e a n d extracted from van Dijk-Wittop K o n i n g , 324 out o f 1,148 w o r d s studied b y this author are w o r d s f r o m A G w h i c h have r e m a i n e d u n c h a n g e d in form and meaning; 148 are substantially the same, with s o m e changes in m o r p h o l o g y o r phonetics (ACyoq for 6A,{yo<;, Oexco for x(0r|jii); 129 are w o r d s f r o m A G that have b e e n 'resuscitated'

in m o d e r n

time;

2 0 2 are w o r d s derived f r o m A G from the fourth century BC onwards (awe%i^co, dKaxaTia-oaxoi;, etc.); 252 are w o r d s derived in m o d e r n time from others c o m i n g f r o m A G ; o n l y 50 w o r d s are true b o r r o w i n g s .

302

CHAPTER FOUR

433. O n the Modern Greek lexicon in general and its problems, see P. Mackridge 1985, p. 306 ff. On borrowings of various origins, A. Tsopanakis 1994, p. 629 ff. For the borrowings from Slavic, Albanian and Rumanian, G. Meyer 1894; for borrowings from Turkish, K. Kazazis 1972; and from French, A. A. Papadopoulos 1926 and N. G. Kontospoulos 1978. For a fuller bibliography (until 1972), see D . V . Vayacacos, p. 215 ff. 4 3 4 . G r e e k continues to have m a n y w o r d s o f Latin origin, taken in loan in different periods: dcKouupcb < accumbo, darcpoc; < asper, ppa%i6Ai < bracchiolum, lcdaxpo < castrum, etc. T h e majority o f these w o r d s have adapted to the G r e e k system o f inflection and from them very productive suffixes are obtained, such as -dpoo, -dvoq, -ot>Ai. Greek maintains m a n y w o r d s o f Italian origin, mostly Venetian, such as poAxoc, yovoxo,

KapauiAot, Koaxoi>jii,

KOD^VVOC, UTCCCGXOUVI,

aap8eAAa, xapexoa, xaijjivxo, etc. These are assimilated into the Greek lexicon a n d its inflection. T h e y are a p r o d u c t o f medieval contacts with the peoples o f Italy, in s o m e cases also in the m o d e r n period. A series o f b o r r o w i n g s are a p r o d u c t o f the o c c u p a t i o n b y neigh­ b o u r i n g peoples and from other contacts. R u m a n i a n borrowings are quite frequent: PeAivx^ce 'cloak', yKccPoq 'blind m a n ' , etc. Slavic b o r ­ rowings are numerous: Pccyevi 'barrel', AOUXGCC 'marsh', pou%o 'dress', etc. T h e r e are also Russian borrowings, s o m e are old, but others date from the eighteenth century (jiTcaAaAaiKa, uxyo£(Ko<;, etc.), and s o m e A l b a n i a n b o r r o w i n g s (icoKopexat, a kind o f 'hen guts', Tudxanco ' a r m e d incursion', etc.) and A r a b i c borrowings (icapapdvi, jxaya^i, aowpdpx, etc.). But this is n o t as important as the Turkish vocabulary that was left in G r e e c e , especially relating to material objects, f o o d ,

dress,

hierarchical ranks, etc.: dcpevxnq, yAivxi 'party', jxeAix^dvoc 'aubergine', p,7cocKdAr|<; 'shopkeeper', xadvxa 'bag', xoercrj 'pocket'. T h e r e are m a n y frequendy occurring words, despite efforts to replace them with Greek words; w e even encounter formative elements such as the -oyAoi) o f the patronymics. 4 3 5 . Borrowings from the western languages were the most i m p o r ­ tant in shaping the G r e e k language: there are very few from Spanish (KOCWIPCCAXX;,

Kaoxaviexeq, Tiaxdxa) and Portuguese (icojmpa 'snake'),

but an abundant n u m b e r from French; there are also borrowings from English and

German.

F r o m French, apart from literary terms and borrowings from the e n d o f the M i d d l e A g e s , w h i c h w e have already considered, w e find, a m o n g others: dyica^e < engage, yraAepi < galerie, ypapdxa < cravate,

303

MODERN GREEK

KOCGKO^ < cache-col, X-iKep < liquer, jnocKiyid^ < maquillage, [inXi < bleu, VXZKOXXZ

< decollete, Goq>£p < chauffeur, etc. V e r y often, they are words

from the w o r l d o f fashion, f o o d , and social life. All o f this reflects the e n o r m o u s French cultural influence in G r e e c e from

nineteenth

century onwards. T h e s e w o r d s are routinely left undeclined and are sometimes entirely assimilated (KouA/roupa, nXox>paXia\i6q). English (and A m e r i c a n ) terms, apart f r o m derived and c o m p o u n d literary words, mostiy refer to the n e w civilisation a n d w a y o f life: YKdvyKGiep, yicotap, KiXoftax, KTUXUTI, K?id^ov, Koujuoikep, judvaT^iLievT, ujcdp, 7u£dua, GTOK TG8K, xiouuop, etc. T h e i r p h o n o l o g y adapts badly to Greek, or hardly at all if they are altered: they are

transcribed

with the original phonetics, with o r without inflection. Sometimes, there is an effort to a v o i d t h e m , b y i n t r o d u c i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , bnoXoyi<5xr\q instead o f KojLuuouxep, eTcixayri instead o f TGEK. G e r m a n b o r r o w i n g s are o f less significance: \mipa,

ovuoeX,

etc.

4 3 6 . This v o c a b u l a r y partly links the G r e e k p e o p l e with their east­ ern neighbours, but insofar as it originates from the W e s t a n d is o f a recent date, it has gradually introduced the G r e e k p e o p l e to the w o r l d o f m o d e r n culture. Nevertheless, the entry o f what w e refer to as Greek-Latin is o f greater significance in this field — the lexicon, nearly always f o r m e d f r o m derivatives a n d c o m p o u n d s , a n d nearly always o f a G r a e c o - L a t i n origin, w h i c h has b e c o m e the international language o f culture a n d science. W e have l o o k e d at examples based o n the w o r k o f K . Psomadakis 1995, Indeed, these are often w o r d s w h i c h already existed in A G , a n d w h i c h have returned to M G through French o r English: a c c o r d i n g to Tsopanakis, they can b e seen as w o r d s w h i c h h a d

'emigrated

5

a n d later returned to their native land, sometimes with a change in meaning. O r , as I have p o i n t e d out, w o r d s f o r m e d with elements o f A G . G r e e k has reconstructed its form, eliminating the p h o n e t i c o r inflectional accidents o f the m o d e r n languages. F r o m Fr. anecdote it has created dveicSoTov, f r o m necrologie, veKpoJioyia; from Eng. telephone it has created TT|X£(pcovo, from G e r . Leukamie, A,£u%cupia. A n o t h e r o f the paradoxes o f the G r e e k language has to b e that, after providing the western languages with so m a n y elements, a n d losing them itself, it later r e c o v e r e d t h e m from these same languages. Thus, it has b e c o m e incorporated into the field o f European languages, previously enriched b y Greek, and the culture expressed b y them. O f course, sometimes the r e c o v e r e d ancient w o r d s have taken o n

304

CHAPTER FOUR

5

a n e w meaning: dAArjAoypacpia is ' c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , and n o longer 'writing o f amoebaei verses', vuaXk^koc,

5

is ' e m p l o y e e . This is partic­

ularly the case w h e n G r e e k w o r d s are created to translate m o d e r n vocabulary that is not always entirely Greek: Fr. automobile is awoidvriTo, bicycle is

TCOOTIAOTO,

journalist is SrjjLiooioYpdcpoq, universite is Ttavemcrcfijiio,

G e r . Eisenbahn is aiSrjpoSpouoc;, Weltanschauung is KoajxoGecopioc. H o w e v e r , w e are still left with s o m e errors o r imprecisions. G r . SnjuoKpotTicc does not distinguish between ' d e m o c r a c y ' and 'republic',

dxojLLiKoq is b o t h 'individual' and ' a t o m i c ' ,

KnPepvnxiKoq is b o t h ' g o v ­

ernmental' a n d 'cybernetic'. T h e new concepts are expressed in Greek with w o r d s that used to express other concepts and that c a n n o t b e r e n o u n c e d . But p r o b l e m s such as these o c c u r in all languages. T h e G r e e k l e x i c o n thus portrays a bizarre i m a g e , filled as it is with all kinds o f b o r r o w i n g s and w o r d s w h i c h m a y l o o k Greek, but either never existed or, if they did, then with a different

meaning.

It has not always m a n a g e d to resist the influence o f foreign lexicon w h i c h is to a large extent o f G r e e k origin; it has only assimilated it as far as possible. H o w e v e r , Greek has definitively incorporated the same layer o r stratum o f cultural vocabulary -

o f definite G r e e k origin

and international through its diffusion - which w e have been discussing.

4. T H E M O D E R N GREEK DIALECTS

General considerations 4 3 7 . W e saw in o u r treatment o f medieval G r e e k h o w the devel­ o p m e n t o f the p o p u l a r language and, specifically, o f the dialects, was p r o d u c e d mainly in places that were distant from the unifying p o w e r o f Constantinople. Y e t , very little is k n o w n a b o u t the dialects o f that p e r i o d , except for what w e have n o t e d about Cyprus, R h o d e s , Crete, and the I o n i c islands. M u c h m o r e is k n o w n a b o u t the current dialects, w h i c h almost invariably arose in similar conditions o f isolation, but w h o s e history is for the m o s t part a matter o f pure conjecture. It is generally thought that they descend from Byzantine Greek, not from A n c i e n t Greek: this was established b y Hatzidakis. But w e also find residues o f the ancient dialects, see § 4 4 0 . 438. A general treatment o f these dialects can be found, especially, in R. Browning 1983, p. 119 ff, in N. G. Kontosopoulos 1995 and G. Horrocks

305

MODERN GREEK

1997, p. 299 ff.; also, R . M . Dawkins 1940 and A. Tsopanakis 1994, p. 62 ff. For Tsakonian, see H. Pernot 1934 and S. Caratzas 1976; for Gappadocian, R . Dawkins 1916; for Pontic, D . E. Oeconomidis 1908, A. A. Papadopoulos 1955, D . E. Tobaidis 1988 (and A. Semenov 1935 for the southern Russia); for the dialects o f Northern Greece, A. A. Papadopoulos 1927; for the dialect o f Cyprus, B. Newton 1972; for that o f Crete, A. A. Papadopoulos 1948, N. G. I^ontosopoulos 1970, 1980 and 1988 and M . I. Kaukala 1992; for the dialect o f Mani, D . V . Vayacacos 1972b; for that of Chios, H. Pernot 1946; for the dialects o f southern Italy, G. Rohlfs 1950 and 1962; for that o f Cargese, in Corsica, G. H. Blanken 1951. See more references in D . V . Vayacacos 1972, p . 160 ff. and N. G. Kontosopoulos 1994, p. 199 ff. Our current knowledge o f the dialects is incomplete; a good part of the bibliography deals with local aspects, vocabularies, etc. 4 3 9 . T h e n e o - G r e e k dialects are in decline. O n the o n e hand, this is a result o f the increasing diffusion o f the m o d e r n koine, w h i c h w e call M o d e r n Greek; o n the other hand, it is due to the

constant

retreat o f Hellenism, d u e to the Slavic and A r a b invasions at the start o f the M i d d l e A g e s , the invasions o f the Seldjuqs f r o m

the

eleventh century onwards and the O t t o m a n s in the fourteenth

and

fifteenth

centuries, to the population m o v e m e n t s in o u r century to

w h i c h w e have referred: the e x c h a n g e o f populations with T u r k e y in 1923 (and earlier with Bulgaria) and the almost c o m p l e t e disap­ pearance o f the Greeks in Alexandria, Constantinople, and southern Russia. T h e s e communities found refuge in the G r e e k continent, par­ ticularly in Athens. Indeed, since Antiquity itself, G r e e k has b e c o m e almost eliminated from the ancient colonies in Italy, Sicily, and the West; if any G r e e k speakers were left, as p r o p o s e d b y Rohlfs a n d Caratzas as regards southern Italy, it was in a b a n d o n e d and isolated areas. In G r e e c e itself, the occupation o f part o f the territory b y the Slavs and Albanians during l o n g periods o f time and, o f course, Turkish rule, gave rise to parallel isolations, to which w e attribute the preservation o f Laconian features in the T s a k o n i a n dialect, in the S. E. P e l o p o n n e s e , o n the eastern side o f Parnon. Occasionally, the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a certain island o r place with a certain dialect is attributed to migrations in the

Byzantine

period: for e x a m p l e , the G r e e k dialect o f Cargese, in Corsica, o f Peloponnesian origin ( M a n i o t i c , to b e m o r e exact), o r the fact that the dialect o f S a m o s is o f a northern and n o t sourthern type (due to a migration from Lesbos); o r the existence o f a Tsakonian c o l o n y in Propontis. In Asia M i n o r , the isolation o f G r e e k

communities

306

CHAPTER FOUR

during the Turkish p e r i o d was responsible for the special character o f the Pontic dialect, a m o n g others (in C a p p a d o c i a , Pharasa

and

Silla); they also received Turkish influence. A n a l o g o u s circumstances o f isolation are responsible for the dialects o f southern Russia. A s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e (§ 4 1 8 ) , the most widely accepted view, taken from Hatzidakis, is that the koine o f the R o m a n and Byzandne periods provides the base for these neo-Hellenic dialects. H o w e v e r , Rohlfs and Caratzas have p r o p o s e d that in the G r e e k o f southern Italy s o m e small nuclei centered o n L e c c e and B o v a -

-

residues o f the

ancient dialects remain: otherwise, it w o u l d b e impossible to explain their archaisms. Y e t , the subsequent invasion b y Justinian must have h a d an influence o n the language. Similarly, Tsakonian received ele­ ments f r o m koine, in addition to L a c o n i a n elements. 4 4 0 . A t any rate, this is a m u c h debated subject. After A . T h u m b 1885, A . Tsopanakis

1994 has p r o p o s e d that the northern Greek

dialects, characterised b y the loss o r closure o f atonal vowels, were influenced b y Thessalian

a n d other A e o l i c dialects: this is rather

doubtful, for w e have n o exact date for the differenciation, w h i c h in any case appears to b e medieval. T h e r e is m o r e clarity surrounding the persistence

o f dialectal archaisms preserved in certain

places,

especially in dialects o f the periphery: this proves that the implantation o f koine was never as absolute as the literary and epigraphic texts w o u l d have us believe. O n the other hand, koine features w h i c h were lost in the later G r e e k were sometimes preserved in particular places. H e r e , I give s o m e examples o f different kinds o f archaisms: Tsakonian: preserves the d i g a m m a ((3avve < *&pvo<;), also the distinc­ tion b e t w e e n l o n g and short vowels (ov for co, o maintained) and the Doric a

(TOCV

a u i p a ) ; as in L a c o n i a n , it makes 0 > a (oepoq) and loses

the a b e t w e e n vowels (opoua < opSaoc). It preserves the active eui. Euboea, Megara, ancient Athens: v b e c o m e s t, not xov. Cyprus, Dodecanese, Pontic, etc.: they retain -v ( C y p . rcaiSiv). Cyprus, Dodecanese, S. Italy: they retain geminate consonants (akXoq). Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, S. Italy: 3rd pi, in - o w i . Pontic and other dialects of Asia Minor, preserve the e timbre o f the n (as e), the negation ' K I , the possessives e\xoq, ejneTepoq. Pontic, S. Italy: i m p v .

CXKOI)GO(V).

T h e s e are just a few examples. T h e y attest to the resistance o f the ancient dialects and ancient koine in marginal areas to the tendencies, n o t just with regard to K G , but also D G .

unifying

MODERN

307

GREEK

Characteristics of the principal dialects 4 4 1 . A detailed study o f the n e o - H e l l e n i c dialects is not pertinent here. T h e important thing is to establish that these dialects can b e divided into t w o groups, northern and southern; within the latter, w e find the archaising and at the same time innovatory dialects w e have referred to, and from this g r o u p w e derive the D e m o t i c dialect w h i c h forms the base o f M o d e r n Greek. T h e t w o large G r e e k dialect groups are separated b y a line that runs through the entire gulf o f C o r i n t h and the Isthmus, climbing north and leaving Attica to the South, continuing through the S. o f E u b o e a , the South o f S a m o s (a recent extension, as w e saw, C h i o s being a southern dialect) and arriving in Asia M i n o r . Thus, the Greekspeaking regions o f Italy, the I o n i c islands, Attica, the Peloponnese, and most o f the Cyclades (the case o f the G r e e k o f Asia is m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d ) c o m p r i s e the southern dialect; the n o r t h e r n

dialect

embraces the w h o l e o f northern G r e e c e , including M a c e d o n i a . This dialect has m o r e innovations. T h e y are mainly p h o n e t i c and relate to atonal vowels, as m e n t i o n e d previously: e and o b e c o m e i and u respectively, while i a n d u are lost: avGpowiouq, urn

' n o s e ' , Xein

'leaves', etc. T h e r e is also palatalisation o f consonants before atonal i, fricative p r o n o u n c i a t i o n o f s, velar /, etc. In short, these dialects deviate considerably from the n o r m and, specifically, f r o m A n c i e n t Greek. A s regards the relation o f M G with this dialect, w h i c h c o n ­ tinues to b e preserved, it is fortunate that southern G r e e k has imposed itself, effacing the peculiarities o f the marginal

dialects. N o t e that

southern G r e e k has a system o f five vowels (as well as that o f Crete); northern G r e e k has o n e o f five vowels in tonic position and o n e o f three in atonal position; and various marginal dialects

(Tsakonian,

Pontic, C a p a d o c i a n ) have systems o f six o r seven vowels. T h e y are hardly c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to the speakers o f M G . 4 4 2 . I c a n n o t engage here in a detailed description o f the

different

dialects. Indeed, their classification and mutual relations are

often

very unclear. But let us note the principle dialects. In Asia M i n o r , until the interchange o f populations, w e find Pontic (in the Black Sea coast, from Inepolis to Athens o f the Colchis); in the interior, w e find isolated nuclei o f C a p p a d o c i a n and the lan­ guages o f Pharasa and Silla; G r e e k dialects were also spoken in Livisa and Makri, o n the S. W . coast. O n the other hand, w e find Pontic dialects in the Ukraine,

the most notable b e i n g that o f M a r i u p o l

(whose population c a m e from the C r i m e a ) .

308 We

CHAPTER FOUR also find G r e e k dialects in the C y c l a d e s , the D o d e c a n e s e ,

Cyprus, Crete: the last t w o b e i n g particularly d y n a m i c . In C h i o s , w e find three dialectal varieties. On

the

continent,

mention should be made

o f the

normal

Peloponnesian dialect, w h i c h differs from the dialects o f M a n i and Tsakonia; to the N . o f the Isthmus, the archicising and already extinct dialects o f Athens, M e g a r a , and Aegina; and then there are the living northern dialects o f Thessaly, M a c e d o n i a , and T h r a c e , a m o n g others. The

dialects o f Apulia and Calabria remain to be mentioned, two

small nuclei, and the dialect o f Cargese in Corsica. As regards their p h o n e t i c , m o r p h o l o g i c a l and lexical characteris­ tics, I will not present an overview here, as I have already stated. But perhaps it is useful to provide s o m e loose data, to give the reader a general idea. In Tsakonian, apart from the archaisms mentioned, there are frica­ tives instead o f occlusives, a a like the sh in English (the fricative s), the K b e c o m e s xo after a vowel; nouns in -oq are c h a n g e d to -e; there are remnants o f participles. In C a p p a d o c i a , Pharasa and Silla, together with archaisms such as the retention o f the e timbre o f the n, there is strong

Turkish

influence, w h i c h imposes v o w e l h a r m o n y and the opposition o f ani­ mated and unanimated

nouns. T h e r e are coincidences with G r e e k

o f the N . , for instance atonal e > i, along with m o r e serious alter­ ations o f the consonantal system and, for example, the use o f oov and n o t GXOV. In Pontic, besides archaisms such as the preservation o f -v, w e find the fricatives / and z, a very o p e n e and vocalic features that c o i n c i d e with the G r e e k o f the N . ; the x and K are seriously altered (LXOVCUX > LX&KIOC, OKvXXoq > xoovXXoq).

T h e article is routinely

o m m i t t e d , the N . in -o<; b e c o m e s -ov, there is 0oc
instead

o f Gdjupovxcu. The

southern

type o f C y p r i a n is notable, it preserves -v (and

extends it: TcpoypaLniav) and the geminates; it maintains the 3rd pi. in - O D O I , -aat. But it innovates consonantism: K b e c o m e s the affricate c before e, i; there is also / (from % before e, i, o r a before y) Z (from Q. In the Cretan

and

dialect, it is notable that the x is p r o ­

n o u n c e d as 0 before y, the vx as 8 (jidOioc, dp%o8id); and that -v0is r e d u c e d to -0- (dOpomoq, the loss o f the nasal in groups occurs in various dialects). T h e r e are variations in the article (xoi = xovq, xiq), Q£X(o in the fut. (vd (pajie 0eX,ei), and v d is lost before the verb in the negation context (8ev e%0) nov Ttdco).

MODERN GREEK

309

M a n y differences exist f r o m island to island and there are three varieties in Chios, as I stated earlier. For example, in the Masticochora, the % before e, % is p r o n o u n c e d as a fricative (s), GK before e b e c o m e s s, the £ b e c o m e s vxC,; in Phita the G before y b e c o m e s % (eicicA,i%id). In the C y c l a d e s , w h e r e the southern dialects d o m i n a t e , there is o n e northern dialect in part of* A n d r o s and in T e n o s ; M i k o n o s is shared between the t w o . W e k n o w o f the situation in the P e l o p o n n e s e , but w e should note that, apart from the a n o m a l o u s dialect o f Tsakonia, there is also that o f M a n i , w h i c h p r o n o u n c e s the K as xo (affricate) before e, i It was diffused into C o r s i c a , as m e n t i o n e d . A s regards the G r e e k o f southern Italy, apart f r o m the archaisms already m e n t i o n e d , s o m e innovations should b e noted. In Apulia, 0 and 5 are u n k n o w n , x is generally p r o n o u n c e d , as well as G (TEO, djiEGOcvE) and occlusive d; in Calabria, ax is p r o n o u n c e d for KT, %0, nx. T h e s e are just a few notes, mainly p h o n e t i c , w h i c h w o u l d have to b e supplemented b y multiple data. Palatalisations and fricativisations are, as w e can see, routine, as in the R o m a n c e languages. In m o r p h o l o g y , o n e w o u l d have to a d d n u m e r o u s data relating to declension and, in the verb, to the limitations o r exclusions that o c c u r here and there in stems o f the present o r aorist. Pontic lim­ its aspect to the indicative, C a p p a d o c i a n only obtains a subjunctive and future from the the aorist, etc. Dialects and MG 443. Dialects are being lost in G r e e c e b y the diffusion o f M G through education, means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , administration, etc. O f course, the forced migrations from Asia, Constantinople, a n d Egypt have had an e n o r m o u s influence: having arrrived in continental G r e e c e with the immigrants, the ancient dialects s o o n b e g a n to decay. T h e same o c c u r r e d in the small localities and islands where there was large-scale immigration. In the N . o f G r e e c e and the large islands (Crete, R h o d e s , Chios), dialects are s o m e w h a t better preserved. In the large cities they are lost. T h u s , the centrifugal tendencies w h i c h led to the growth o f the dialects ( o f w h i c h only a few w e r e given prestige b y literature and regarded as fixed dialects), and w h i c h h a d considerable strength at the e n d o f the Byzantine empire and later in places w h e r e Turkish p o w e r was felt the least o r not at all, were extinguished with the creation o f the n e w G r e e k state.

310

CHAPTER FOUR

A n e w centre had emerged, Athens, which in a first phase attempted to i m p o s e K G a n d in a s e c o n d phase, gradually a c c e p t e d a D G tainted with K G : w h a t w e refer to as M G o r M o d e r n Greek. G r e e c e has always h a d a strong nationalist a n d centralist sentiment, p r o b a ­ bly because o f the m e m o r y o f historical misfortunes and the c o n ­ stant pressure from the Turks and Slavs. T h i s has b e e n reflected, t o o , in the creation a n d diffusion, from the dialects just m e n t i o n e d , o f a c o m m o n language: a language w h i c h , based a b o v e all o n the Peloponnesian dialects, has remained relatively close to A G , without u n d e r g o i n g the v o w e l and consonantal alterations o f other dialects, n o r their great m o r p h o l o g i c a l innovations. This has allowed for a fluid relation b e t w e e n D G and K G , a n d the arrival at M G , in w h i c h d e m o t i c has received, through K G , elements from A G w h i c h were indispensible for its transformation into a language o f culture. 4 4 4 . N o t e that in M o d e r n G r e e k the vocalic system has remained intact, although the same c a n n o t b e said o f p r o s o d y , accentuation, o r the use o f diphthongs (the dialects have p r o d u c e d m o r e p r o f o u n d alterations). T h e consonantal system has not varied too m u c h , although aspirated voiceless consonants have b e c o m e fricatives and in addi­ tion there are other fricativisations (though m u c h less than in the dialects). T h e m o r p h o l o g i c a l s c h e m e is fundamentally the same as that o f A G , although with simplifications not dissimilar from s o m e in the n o r t h e r n I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages (IIIB) and, within this,

from

G e r m a n i c a n d R o m a n c e languages: the elimination o f the dual, the reduction o f the causal system (without dative) a n d the m o d a l (with­ out optative a n d with a subjunctive with limited use); the elimina­ tion o f the synthetic perfect a n d future,

the creation o f a verbal

system based o n t w o stems. S o m e developments are also c o m p a r a ­ ble to those in other languages: the creation o f futures, perfects and other analytic forms, a n d the opposition o f a definite and an indefinite article. M G has created analytic comparatives a n d superlatives, along with the synthetic. T h e s e w e r e n o d o u b t , as with certain p h o n e t i c evolutions, general tendencies o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n , w h i c h t o o k s o m e time to reach

the

different languages; they are also reflected in the history o f Indie. By contrast, the disappearance o f the infinitive finds a parallel in the Balkan languages (the extension o f its use was r e d u c e d in G e r m a n i c and R o m a n c e ) .

MODERN GREEK All the same, M G has maintained its inflection, fundamental

311 gram­

matical categories, derivation, and c o m p o s i t i o n ; and it has d e v e l o p e d a great capacity to create abstracts, to easily transform certain classes o f w o r d s into others, and to assimilate foreign lexica (very often o f G r e e k origin). T h e s e conditions are all necessary for it to continue being an intellectual language, the inheritor o f the ancient language. Athens has acted as the n e w Byzantium a n d its role has not b e e n so different from the role it had in Antiquity. A l t h o u g h , then, w e were dealing with a cultural triumph w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d and fol­ l o w e d a political defeat, whereas here, it is the political role o f Athens in G r e e c e w h i c h has favoured the unifying tendencies as regards lan­ guage strata a n d dialects.

CONCLUSION

4 4 5 . T h e remarkable history o f the G r e e k language is an adven­ turous o n e , w h o s e writings can b e followed across 3,500 years (only Chinese, as w e stated, is c o m p a r a b l e ) a n d w h i c h , through

direct

o r indirect influence, has transformed all E u r o p e a n languages, and indeed, all the w o r l d ' s languages, into languages o f culture. G r e e k b e g a n its life as o n e o f the various languages o f the last phase o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n . Within this, it b e l o n g e d to the m o r e archaic southern g r o u p w h i c h preserved, in the n o u n and verb, inflections o n various stems and h a d n o t u n d e r g o n e the inflectional reductions o f the northern g r o u p . H o w e v e r , this was an innovatory g r o u p in various aspects. In short, G r e e k is a derivative o f the g r o u p o f p e o ­ ples that, with Persian, A r m e n i a n and the Indo-Iranian

languages,

d e s c e n d e d into G r e e c e , Asia M i n o r , Iran a n d India: the so-called I n d o - E u r o p e a n IIIA. Its first nucleus, C o m m o n Greek, was implanted in s o m e area o f the Balkans. It was only relatively unitary. Its eastern g r o u p descended into G r e e c e towards the year 2 0 0 0 . T h e western g r o u p , m u c h later, towards

1200. F r o m it, t w o groups derived. T h e speakers o f the

eastern g r o u p setded o n the neolithic and b r o n z e cultures,

from

w h i c h they t o o k m a n y elements; those o f the western g r o u p (the Dorians) settled p a r d y o n t o p o f the speakers o f the eastern g r o u p . In G r e e c e , b o t h g r o u p s tended to b e c o m e m o r e differentiated

and

to split internally. T h i s was the process that w e believe East G r e e k was u n d e r g o i n g during the s e c o n d millennium. It is p r o b a b l e that a

fragmentation

was already initiated within it, w h i c h tended to distinguish an A e o l i c a n d an I o n i c g r o u p , and, a m o n g them, a g r o u p k n o w n as A r c a d o Cyprian. In any case, it is clear that t w o special languages were created in the s e c o n d millennium: M y c e n a e a n , the language o f the bureaucracy o f the M y c e n a e a n k i n g d o m s ; a n d A c h a e a n Epic, the language o f epic poetry, w h i c h was, o f course, oral. T h e y h a d a lot in c o m m o n with the dialects referred to a b o v e , from w h i c h the later dialects w o u l d e m e r g e ; a n d differentiating features t o o . In the first millenium, with the disappearance o f M y c e n a e a n , the

313

CONCLUSION

fragmentation process o f East G r e e k continued; also o f W e s t Greek, n o w within G r e e c e . V a r i o u s dialects w e r e created within the groups. E a c h valley, e a c h small region tended to created its o w n dialect; even its o w n alphabet, w h e n , from the ninth century onwards, a n e w script e m e r g e d , derived from Phoenician. T h u s , this is a story of* diversification, o f an ever greater rupture o f unity. It deals with what w e call the epigraphic dialects (because it is principally through inscriptions that w e k n o w them), although s o m e b e c a m e literary and in most o f t h e m o n e c o u l d write verse inscriptions, influenced b y H o m e r i c poetry. Y e t the creation, a r o u n d the year 1000, o f isoglosses that partly unified the eastern and western dialects, or at least most o f them, was an event o f great significance. After this, diversification contin­ ued. T h e unity o f G r e e k seemed to b e definitively lost, although the Greeks considered themselves as the descendants o f c o m m o n ances­ tors, with a c o m m o n culture. 4 4 6 . H o w e v e r , the calling o f Greek, after so m a n y adventures, was unity. W h a t is so unique a b o u t this is that it should have

been

achieved through the literary languages. First, the H o m e r i c language. A s the inheritor o f o l d A c h a e a n epic, it a b s o r b e d A e o l i c and in particular I o n i c elements b y means o f o l d features w h i c h w e r e interpreted as A e o l i c o r I o n i c (from their dialec­ tal assignment in a later date). I n d e e d , this literary, artificial guage was sung a n d u n d e r s t o o d in all parts. It thus

lan­

contributed

towards the unity o f the Greeks. M o r e o v e r , it strongly influenced the subsequent literary languages w h i c h were also international and w h i c h received a strong epic and a b o v e all I o n i c influence. It was received b y the language o f elegy, i a m b o s , and even b y languages with an A e o l i c base (the language o f the Lesbian poets) and D o r i c base (the language o f choral lyric). A n y p o e t w h o w r o t e in any o f these genres, whatever his

native

land, wrote in the language appropriate to the particular genre: these were international languages. All o f t h e m contained, first, a strong epic influence; secondly, a strong I o n i c influence - especially those w e refer to as the 'general' literary languages o f elegy, i a m b o s , and even choral lyric. T h u s , H o m e r i c e p o s was j o i n e d with the later literary languages, w h i c h were sung and u n d e r s t o o d everywhere. I o n i c was the d o m i ­ nant language, so that w h e n prose arrived in the sixth century I o n i c prose - everyone c o u l d write and understand it.

-

314

CONCLUSION

T o b e sure, I o n i c prose was but a forerunner o f Attic prose. Athens h a d b e c o m e a centre o f p o w e r and a b o v e all the cultural centre o f G r e e c e and a place o f freedom. T h e G r e e k intellectuals, w h o wrote in I o n i c , flocked to Athens. O n e o f them, Gorgias, b e g a n to write in Attic, w h i c h was n o t so different. A n d Attic, because o f its cul­ tural force, triumphed everywhere. It was adopted b y the Macedonians, w h o w o u l d later c o n q u e r G r e e c e . S o , Athens m a y have lost the war, but its c o n q u e r o r s generalised the use o f Attic. This n e w Attic was koine. T h u s , there can b e n o d o u b t that the literary languages, b y means o f the last o f them, Attic, unified the G r e e k language. T h e epigraphic dialects s o o n disappeared

entirely,

o r almost entirely. This was the first unification o f Greek. It coincided with the promis­ ing creation — first in I o n i c , later in Attic, and finally in koine — o f a cultural and scientific language, w h i c h was the first o f its kind. G r e e k spread throughout the East, and to a great extent also in the West, w h e r e the sophisticated m e n o f R o m e were bilingual. It b e c a m e the language o f the R o m a n empire in the East. 447, But, after unification c a m e diversification. This o c c u r r e d with the creation o f t w o strata, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the p o p u l a r

language

and the literary language. T h i s distinction prevailed in the Hellenistic, R o m a n , Byzantine, a n d M o d e r n periods, almost until the

present

day. In the case o f the literary language, the g r o w i n g relevance o f Greek, w h i c h Latin b o r r o w e d , was extremely important for the expan­ sion o f the cultural and scientific language. T h i s was the Greek-Latin I have referred to, w h i c h h a d such a great influence o n so m a n y languages. F r o m the fourth century AD, Greek was the language o f the R o m a n empire o f the East; in the M i d d l e Ages it was the language o f the Byzantine e m p i r e and the eastern C h u r c h . Literary o r 'pure

5

Greek

d o m i n a t e d . N o t m u c h is k n o w n a b o u t the p o p u l a r o r d e m o t i c G r e e k and its dialects: it was written rarely and in limited genres, partic­ ularly from the twelfth century onwards. But subsequentiy the Greeks w o u l d b e d o m i n a t e d b y the Slavs, Franks, Venetians, and Turks

-

a sad state o f affairs. Y e t , in the m e a n t i m e , literary G r e e k m a n a g e d to influence

the

European languages through Ancient and Medieval Latin, and through Byzantine Greek.

315

CONCLUSION

4 4 8 . But w h e n G r e e c e finally lifted itself out o f this sad situation b y gaining its i n d e p e n d e n c e in 1830, G r e e k was o n c e again

frag­

m e n t e d into t w o sociolinguistic strata and into geographical dialects. It was again the language o f Athens that w o u l d end up imposing itself, a dialect based o n the Peloponnesian dialects without the weak­ nesses and losses o f v o w e l s ' o f the northern dialects, or the palatali­ sations and other features o f the various dialects. T h i s dialect, the n e w Attic, w o u l d assimilate lexical features

par­

ticularly from the 'pure language'. T h u s , the n e w G r e e k was created: the so-called M o d e r n Greek, w h i c h is essentially D e m o t i c , but with literary elements. Greek-Latin had a decisive influence o n it. F o r a s e c o n d time in the history o f Greek, unification had

fol­

l o w e d a differenciation. A n d o n c e again, it had o c c u r r e d in Athens. W i t h o n e difference: the first time around, a cultural triumph had a c c o m p a n i e d a political defeat; the s e c o n d time a r o u n d w e were dealing with a political triumph w h i c h , h o w e v e r , was founded on the m e m o r y o f ancient Athens. In e a c h case, b y whatever

means, G r e e k m a n a g e d

to b e c o m e

unified. S o , it is significant that although in its worst m o m e n t s , Greek m a y have b e e n in decline, the educated Greek-Latin language, still m a n a g e d to invade all the w o r l d ' s languages. D e f e a t e d at h o m e , albeit provisionally, G r e e k w e n t o n to c o n q u e r the world.

ABBREVIATIONS*

OHG.

= Old High

German

Cyp.

= Cypriot

A c . = accusative

Cret. = C r e t a n

act. — active v o i c e

D.

adj.

D . - L . - I . = dative-locative-

= adjective

decl. = declension

O F r . = O l d French = Old High

dative

instrumental

O S l a v . = O l d Slavic OHG.

=

German

des.

= desinence

O I n . = O l d Indie

Dor.

O l t a l . = O l d Italian

eg. = e x a m p l e

OSerb = Old

AeoL = Aeolic

Ger. =

Serbian

Sp.

German

= Doric

=

Spanish

O N o r . = O l d Norse

fern. = feminine

aor. =

Fr. =

aorist

French

O P r o v . = O l d Provencal

Phryg. -

Arc.

fut. = future

= Arcadian

Arc.-Cyp, = Arcado-Cypriot Arm.

= Armenian

Phrygian

E. = East G.

= genitive

AG

= Ancient Greek

CG

= C o m m o n Greek

DG

= Demotic Greek

atem , = athematic

GK

= G r e e k katharevusa

Austr. =

MG

= M o d e r n Greek

art. =

article

OSerb. = Old At.

Serbian

= Attic Austrian

av. = avestico

WG

Bait. = Baltic

EG

Balto-Slav. = Balto-Slavic

Goth. = Gothic

Bav.

Gr. = Greek

=

Bavarian

= West Greek = East G r e e k

Boeot. = Boeotian

Horn. = H o m e r i c

Bulg. =

I.-L -

Indo-Iranian

c. = circa

IE =

Indo-European

Cat. = Catalan

impers. =

Celt. = Celtic

impf. = imperfect

Bulgarian

impersonal

* Abbreviations for the names of authors and works are those of the Diccionario Griego-Espanol

318

ABBREVIATIONS

i m p v . = imperative

part. = participle

ind. = indicative

pas. = passive v o i c e

inf. = infinitive

perf. = perfect

Eng. -

pers. = person

English

Ital. — Italian

pi. = plural

Ion. = Ionic

plu. = pluperfect

Ion.-At. = Ionic-Attic

Port. -

L. — locative

p r e p . = preposition

Portuguese

Lat. = Latin

pres. = present

Lesb. = Lesbian

pret. = preterite

lyr. — lyric

pron. = pronoun

Lith. = Lithuanian

Prov. ~ Provengal

M H G , = Middle High German

S. = South

m a s c = masculine

S. E. = South East

mid. = middle voice

S. W . = South W e s t

M F r . = M i d d l e French

sec. = secondary

Myc

Serb.-Croat. = Serbo-Croatian

= Mycenaean

M L a t . = M i d d l e Latin

sg. = singular

mod. = modern

subj. = subjunctive

N . = nominative (also North)

them. =

N. W . = North West

T h e s . = Thessalian

thematic

W . = West

T o e = Tocharian

West. = Western

Voc

opt. = optative

vulg. = vulgar

Pam. =

Pamphylian

— vocative

BIBLIOGRAPHY

i

J. Pouilloux et al., 1963: Archiloque, Vandoeuvres-Geneva. A. E. Raubitschek et al., 1968: Uepigramme grecque, Vandoeuvres-Geneva. Istituto lombardo-accademia di scienza e lettere, 1977: Pakontologia linguistica, Brescia, Adrados, et al., 1984 (2nd ed.): Introduction a Homero, Barcelona, 2 vols. A A . W . , 1995: Les grecs et ['Occident, Rome. A A . W . , 1996: Filhelenismo e tradizionalismo nei primi due secoli deWimpero, Rome. Actes de la premiere recontre intemationale de dialectologie grecque, 1987: in Verbum 10, no. 1-3, Nancy. A.A.V.V., 1999: Les completives en grec ancien, Saint Etienne. Adiego, I. J., 1993: Stadia Carica, Barcelona. Adrados, F. R., 1948: Estudios sobre el lexico de las Jdbulas esopicas, Salamanca. , 1952: La dialectologia griega como juente para el estudio de las migraciones indoeuropeas en Grecia. Salamanca 1952 (2nd ed., Madrid 1997). , 1953a and 1957: 'Sobre los origenes del vocabulario atico', Emerita 21, pp. 123-162; 23, pp. 81-121. ——-, 1953b: 'Como ha Uegado a nosotros la literatura griega', Revista de la Universidad de Madrid 1, pp. 527-552. , 1955: 'Achaisch, Ionisch und Mykenisch', IF 62, pp. 240-248. , 1958: 'La vocalizacion de las sonantes indoeuropeas', Emerita 26, pp. 249—309 (in Estudios sobre las sonantes y larengales indoeuropeas, 2nd ed., 1973, pp. 3-79, enlarged). , 1962: 'Hettitisch und Indogermanisch', in / / . Fachtagung ftir Indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 145-151, Innsbruck. , 1966: Ilustracion y politica en la Grecia cldsica, Madrid. , 1968: 'Ideas para una tipologia del griego', EC 54, pp. 25-258 (in Estudios de Lingiiistica General, 2nd ed., Madrid, 1969, pp. 111-135). , 1969a: Lingiiistica Estructural, Madrid. , 1969b: 'El Banquete platonico y la teoria del teatro', Emerita 37, pp. 1-28 (in Adrados 1992d, pp. 353-389). , 1971: 'Lengua, ontologia y logica en los sofistas y Platon', Revista de Occidente 96, pp. 340-355 and 99, pp. 285-309 (in Estudios de Semdntica y Sintaxis, Madrid 1975, pp. 209-246). , 1973a: 'El sistema de Heraclito: estudio a partir del lexico', Emerita 41, pp. 1-43 (in Estudios de Semdntica y Sintaxis, Madrid, 1975, pp. 237-313). — — , 1973b: 'La lengua en la Ciencia contemporanea y en la Filosofia actual', RSEL 3, pp. 297-321 (in Estudios de Semdntica y Sintaxis, Barcelona 1975, pp. 43-67). , 1974 (2nd ed.): Evolution y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo, Madrid. , 1975a: 'Sanskrit and Indoeuropean', in Proceedings of the first international Sanskrit Conference 111, New Delhi, pp. 436-444 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 421-428). , 1975b: Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, Madrid. , 1975c: 'La lengua del teatro griego', in Estudios sobre los generos literarios, Salamanca, pp. 29-48. , 1976a: 'Micenico, dialectos paramicenicos y aqueo epico', Emerita 44, pp. 65-113 (in Adrados 1988a, pp. 429-472). •, 1976b: 'La creacion de los dialectos griegos del primer milenio', Emerita 44, pp. 245-278 (in Adrados 1988a, pp. 473-503).

320

BIBLIOGRAPHY

, 1978: 'Propuestas para una nueva edition e interpretation de Estesicoro', Emerita 46, pp. 251-299. , 1979-87: Historia de la fdbula greco-latina, Madrid, 3 vols. (English transl., Leiden, Brill, 1999-2003). , 1979a: 'Arqueologia y diferenciacion del Indoeuropeo', Emerita 47, pp. 245-278^(in Adrados 1988a, pp. 19-38; German vers., Innsbruck, 1992). , 1979b: review of J. L. Garcia Ramon, 'Les origenes postmyceniennes du groupe dialectal eolien', Emerita 47, pp. 471-472. , 1980a: 'La teoria del signo linguistico en un pasaje del Banquets platonico', RSEL 10, pp. 331 337 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 61-69). , 1980b: 'Les langues slaves dans le contexte des langues indoeuropeennes', in Supostabitelno ezykosnanie, pp. 3-14 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 541-557. , 1980c: Lirica griega arcaica, Madrid. , (dir.), 1980 2002: Diccionario Griego-Espanol, Madrid (6 vols.). , 1981a: 'Towards a new Stratigraphy of the Homeric Dialect', Glotta 59, pp. 13-27 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 505-518). , 1981b: 'Sociolmgiiistica y griego antiguo', EC 11, pp. 311-329 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 34-45). , 1982a: 'Neue jambische Fragmente aus archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stesichorus, Semonides (?), Auctor incertus', Philologus 126, pp. 157-179. , 1982b: 'The archaic structure of Hittite: the crux of the problem', JIES I 1, p. 135 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988a, pp. 391-420). , 1983a (2nd ed.): Fiesta, Comedia y tragedia, Barcelona. , 1983b: 'Siria, cruce de caminos de la narrative bizantina y la oriental', Aula Orientalis 1, pp. 17—29. , 1983c: 'Las categorias gramaticales del griego antiguo', in Estudios metodologicos sobre la lengua griega, pp. 85-97, Caceres (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 139-149). , 1984a: 'La dialectologia griega', in A. Martinez (ed.), Actualizacion Cientifica en Dialectologia griega, pp. 219-237 (in Adrados 1988a, pp. 519-539). — — 1984b: Origenes de la lirica griega, Madrid. , 1984c: 'Prologo' to P. Badenas, La estructura del didlogo platonico, Madrid, pp. I X - X I (in Adrados 1992d, pp. 349-351). ——•, 1984d: 'The earliest influences of Greek Fable on Medieval Latin Writing', Classica et Mediaevalia 35, pp. 243-263. , 1986a (2nd ed.): Origenes de la lirica griega, Madrid. , 1986b: 'Scientific Language: Instrument and Obstacle. Examples from the Field of linguistics', in Wissenschaftssprache und Gesellschqft, Th. Bungarten (ed.), Hamburg, pp. 13-21 (Sp. vers, in Adrados 1988b, pp. 46-52). ——, 1986c: 'Las fuentes de Hesiodo y la composition de sus poemas', Emerita 54, pp. 1-36. —-—, 1986d: 'La epica romance a la luz de la epica indoeuropea', in Adas del Congreso de la Juglaresca, Madrid, pp. 7—22 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 309-322). , 1987: 'Cultural Contacts between Byzance and the Roman Germanic Empire in the time of Methodius', in Kirillo-Methodievski Stydii 4, Sofia, pp. 52~56. , 1988a: Mievos estudios de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, Madrid. — — , 1988b: Nuevos Estudios de Lingiiistica General y Teoria Literaria, Barcelona. , 1988c: 'Sistema y sistemas de los casos en Griego antiguo', in Homenaje a Maria C Giner, Salamanca, pp. 143-147 (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 170-174). -——, 1989a: 'De la paideia tragica a la socratico-platonica', in Paideia y Humanitas, Santiago de Chile, pp. 119-135 (in Adrados 1992d, pp. 159-182). , 1989b: 'Anticipos de una nueva teoria del sistema casual del griego antiguo , in Adas del VII Congreso Espanol de Estudios Cldsicos \, pp. 23-278, Madrid (in Adrados 1988b, pp. 158-162). y

5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

321

, 1989c: 'Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (but not Hittite) Language', JIES 17, pp. 363-383. , 1990a (3rd ed.): Liricos griegos. Elegiacos y yambografos arcaicos, Madrid. , 1990b: 'Sincretismo de casos en micenico?', Menos 24, pp. 169-185. , 1990c: 'El genitivo tematico en -o en micenico y chipriota', in Stadia Indogermanica et Palaeohispanica en honorem A. Tovar et L. Michelena, Salamanca, pp. 175-181. , 1992a: 'La lengua de Socrates y su filosofla', Methexis 5, pp. 29-52 (in Adrados 1992d, pp. 251-278). , 1992b: 'Mito e historia en la Epopeya', in 3er Coloquio de Estudiantes de Filologia Cldsica, Valdepenas, pp. 217-227. , 1992c: 'The new Image of Indoeuropean. The History of a Revolution', IF 97, pp. 1-28. , 1992d: Palabras e Ideas, Madrid. , 1993: review of M. Papathomopoulos, Aesopus revisitatus and '0 pio<; xox> AiocbflOD Gnomon 65, pp. 660-664. , 1994a: 'De la literature helenistica a la literature latina', in Adas del VIII Congreso Espanol de Estudios Cldsicos, I, pp. 855-862. 1994c: ('More on Etruscan as an IE-Anatolian Language', Historical Linguistics 107, pp. 54-76. , 1994b (2nd ed.): Rakes griegos de la cultura moderna, Madrid. -——, 1994c: Nueva Sintaxis del Griego antiguo, Madrid. , 1995a: Sociedad, amor y poesia en la Grecia antigua, Madrid. , 1995b: 'Human vocabulary and naturalistic vocabulary in the Presocratics' Glotta 72, pp. 182^195 , 1995c: 'Problemas lexicos y lexicograficos del espanol actual', Donaire 4, pp. 52-58. , 1996a: Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, II. Morfologia nomenal y verbal, Madrid. , 1996b: "la eXfoivnca, r\ nXeov TcayKoauia yXcbaaa', in E^Xrjvucfi Ai£8vf|<; TAxoaaa 7, pp. 275-277. , 1996c: 'Esp. acrobata o de como quince diccionarios pueden equivocarse , in Adas del IV Congreso de Hispanistas de Asia, Seoul, pp. 1-5. , 1997a: Democracia y literatura en la Atenas clisica, Madrid. , 1997b: 'Los origenes del lenguaje cientifico', RSEL 27, pp. 299-315. , 1997c: "More on the Diccionario Griego-Espanol", en A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta, Berlin-Nueva York, Mouton-de Gruyter, pp. 221-231. — — , 1998a: 'La reconstruction del Indoeuropeo y su diferenciacion dialectal', in Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea, III, pp. 144-205. Madrid. , 1998b: La 'Dialectologia Griega', hoy (1952-1995). Madrid. — — , 1998c: 'Navegaciones del siglo VIII, navegaciones micenicas y navegaciones en la Odisea (in Greek) OMHPIKA, Ithaca,, pp. 13-29. , 1998d: and Rodriguez Somolinos, J., 1995-96 [1997]: 'Diccionario Griego-Espanol Vol. V , Museum Criticum 30-31, pp. 301-317. , 1998e: and D. Lara: 'El Vocabulario tecnico en el Diccionario Griego-Espanol', in Atti del II Seminario . . . sui Lessici, Messina, pp. 13-25. , 1998f: "Escisiones y unificaciones en la historia del Griego", en Classica Boli­ viano, 61-68. , 1999a: Manual de Lingiiistica Indoeuropea III (en colaboracion), 'La reconstruc­ tion del Indoeuropeo y de su diferenciacion dialectal', pp. 249-284. , 1999b: 'El etui de Conchita' Miscelenea lexica en memoria de Conchita Serrano, Madrid, CSIG, pp. 3-9. , 1999c: 'Ambiente y lexico egipcico en Esquilo, Las Suplicantes: (3api<; (839, etc.); oivSovia (121); %&UTiaa (878); Iai (848)', in Eikasmos 10, pp. 46-55. , 1999d: "Hacia una tipologia de las combinaciones de rasgos linguisticos", en Language Change and Typological Variation, II, Washington 1999, pp. 387-396. 5

9

?

322

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— — , 2000a: 'Homero y las lenguas poeticas de Grecia como via hacia la unidad del griego', in Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore de G. Aurelio Pnviterra, Perugia, pp. 3-12. , 2000b: '^Como describir el Indoeuropeo y sus variantes?', in Europa et Asia Polyglotta, Dettelbach, pp. 1-6. , 2000c: 'La Semantica en el Diccionario Griego-Espanol', in Cien anos de inves­ tigation semdntica: de Michel Breal a la adualidad, La Laguna, pp. 99-110. , 2000d: 'Towards a Syntax of Proto-Indo-European', IF 105, pp. 60-67. , 2000e: 'Griego y Latin, vivos en la lengua culta international', Revista de Lengua y Literatura Espanolas 1, pp. 9-22. , 2000f: "Toponimos griegos en Iberia y Tartessos", Emerita 68, 2000, 1—18. , 2001: Modelos gtiegos de la prosa castellana y Europea. Madrid, Real Academia Espanola. , 2001a: 'Lexicographical Studies and Publications in Madrid', in Praktikd, Tomos A, Athens, pp. 1-14. , 2001b: 'Introduction a "El verbo Esslavo'", in Paleobulgaristika i Starobulgaristica, Veliko Turnovo, pp. 147-157. , 2001c: 'The reconstruction of the most ancient Indo-European at the School of Madrid', in Cinquant' ami di ricerche linguistiche, Milan 2001, pp. 89-95. , 2001 d: "Mas sobre Iberia y los toponimos griegos", Archivo Espanol de Arqueobgia, 25-33. , 200 le: "La composition de los poemas hesiodicos", Emerita 69, 197-224. , 2002a: "Sobre Botorrita IV", Emerita 70, 2002, pp. 1-8. , 2002b: "Los eslavos: de los origenes a la helenizacion y la integration en Europa", en Espana y el Mundo Eslavo, Madrid 2002, pp. 27-40. , 2002c: "Hacia una teoria de la Ciencia Toponimica", RSEL 32, 2002, pp. 33-51. — — , 2002c: "La Lingiiistica griega en Espana (1983-2000)", en Adas del II Congreso de la RSEL, Madrid 2002, I, pp. 215-231. , 2002d: 'Tipologia de las lenguas indoeuropeas modernas', Stadia Indoeuropaean, pp. 9-29. , 2002e: "El lexico espanol y el diccionario de la Academia", in 2002. Central Nuclear Trillo 1. Encuentros Culturales, pp. 103-122. — — 2 0 0 2 f (en colaboracion): Diccionario Griego-Espanol VI. Madrid, C.S.I.C. , 2003 (new ed.): Tucidides. Historia de la guerra del Peloponeso, Madrid. ——-, 2003a: "Grecia en los origenes de la prosa castellana", en Grecia y Espana. Los confines de Europa. Madrid 2002 (2003), pp. 13-23. and Rodriguez Somolinos, J., 2003b: Diccionario Griego-Espanol, vol. VI, in Illinois Classical Studies 27-28, pp. 115-130. , 2004a: "Griego y Latin, ^lenguas muertas?", Estudios Cldsicos, 125, 2004, pp. 7-16. Agud, A., 1980: Historia y teoria de los casos. Madrid, Gredos. Agud, A. and others (eds.), Las lenguas de corpusy sus problemas linguisticos, Madrid, 1996. Akurgal, E., 1985: Ancient civilizations and ruins of Turkey, Istambul. Albini, U. y Maltese, E. V., 1984: Bizanzio nella sua Letteratura, Milan. Allen, W. S., 1987: 'The Development of the Attic Vowel System. Conspiracy or catastrophe?', Minos 20-22, pp. 21-32. Alonso Troncoso, V., 1994: El comercio griego arcaico, La Corufla. Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R. (eds.), 1971: Christentum am Roten Meer, Berlin and New York. Aly, W., 1987 (1st ed. 1929): Formprobleme der alteren griechischen Prosa, New York. Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., 1991: 'The shadow Line. Reflexions sur l'introduction de Palphabet en Grece', in Baurain, CI., and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 293-309. Ambrosini, R., 1970: 'Problemi e ipotesi sulla lengua dei graffiti di Segesta', in Rendiconti, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, 25, pp. 461-464.

323

BIBLIOGRAPHY

, 1979: 'Le iscrizioni sicane, sicue, elime', in Le iscrizioni pre-latine en Italia, Rome, pp. 57-104. , 1983: 'Lengue nella Italia pregreca', in Tre Millenni di Storia Linguistica, Pisa, pp. 13-35. Anagnostopulos, C , 1923: 'The language of Aristophanes', Athena 36, pp. 1-60. Andre, J., 1971: Emprunts et suffixes nominaux en latin, Geneve-Paris. Apostolopoulos, Ph., 1984: Lafatiguedu roman byzantin Callimaque et Ch?ysorrhoe , Athens. Arnim, M., 1912: De Philonis Byzantii genere dicendi, Gryphia. Aura Jorro, F., 1986-1996: Diccionario Micenico, 1-11, Madrid. Babiniotis, G. A., 1972: To pfjjua rfjg 'EXXrfviKrjg, Athens. , 1978: NeoeXXrjvucrf Koivrj. Ylipa rf\g KaOapevjiovarjg xal rfjg SrjfioTiicfjg, Athens. , 1985: ZvvomiKr) iotopia rfjg EXXrfviicfjg yXwaarfg, Athens. , 1999: H rXwaaa cog celiac. Athens, Gutenberg, 1999. Bach, A., 1949: Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, Heidelberg. Badenas, P., 1984: La estructura del didlogo platonico, Madrid. , 1985a: 'La lengua griega en la baja Edad Media', Erytheia 6, pp. 5-41. , 1985b: 'Primeros textos altomedievales en griego vulgar', Eiytheia 6, pp. 163-183. Barrio, M. L. del, 1987: El dialecto de Eubea, Madrid. , 1988: 'La position dialectal del euboico', Emerita 56, pp. 255-270. — — , 1994: 'Relation dialectal entre colonia y metropoli: ^herencia o proximidad geografica? Eretria y Oropo', RSEL 24, pp. 315-328. Barrios, M. J., 1996: El dialecto cretense. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Seville. Bartonek, A., 1972: Classification of the West Greek Dialects, Brno. , 1979: 'Greek Dialects in the second millenium b . g . ' , Eirene 9, pp. 49-66. , 1987: 'The Greek Dialects between 1000 and 300 b . g . ' , SMEA 26, pp. 7-20. , 1991: 'L'evoluzione dei dialetti greci nella dimensions geografica delle eta oscure', in Musti, D. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 241-250. ——, 1996: 'The Mycenaean Language and Dialect', in De Miro, E. and others (eds.) 1996, pp. 7-23. , 2003: Handbuch der Mykenischen, Heidelberg, Winter. Baugh, A. C. 1971 (2nd ed.): A History of the English Language, London. Baumhauer, O. A., 1986: Die sophistische RhetoriL Eine Theorie sprachlicher Kommunikation, Stuttgart. Baurain, C , 1991: 'L'ecriture syllabique a Chipre', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.), Phoenikeia Grammata. Lire et ecrire en Mediterranee. Actes du Colloque de Liege, 15-18 novembre 1989, Namur, pp. 389-424. Bechtel, F., 1921-1924 (2nd ed. 1963): Die griechischen Dialekte, I—III, Berlin. Beck, H.-G., 1971: Geschichte der byzontinischen Volksliteratur, Munich. Beck, I., 1971: Die Rings/composition bei Herodot und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Beweistechnik, Hildesheim. Bergua Cavero, Jorge, 2002: Introduction al estudio de los hellenismus del espanol, Zaragoza. Bernabe, A., 1977: 'La vocalization de las sonantes indoeuropeas en griego', Emerita 45, pp. 269-298. , 1979: 'Losfilosofospresocraticos como autores literarios', Emerita 47, pp. 357-394. ——, 1996 (2nd ed.): Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta, pars I, Stuttgart and Leipzig. , 2004: Poetae Epici Graecii Testimonia et Fragmenta, pars II, fasc. 1, Miinchen & Leipzig. , Bernand, E. and others, 1991: Recueil des Inscriptions de I'Ethiopie pre-axoumite et axoumite, Paris. Bers, V., Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age, New Haven. Berschen, W., 1969-70: 'Literatur und Sprache. III. Literatur. Griechisches im lateinischen Mittelalter', in Reallexikon der Byzantinistik 3-4, cols. 227-304. Beyer, K., 1961: Semitische Syntax im neuen Testament, Gottingen. (

}

324

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bile, M., 1988: Le diakcte cretois ancien, Paris. — , 1990a: 'Dialectologie et chronologies*, Lalies 9, pp. 7-16. , 1990b: 'L'apport de la linguistique a la dialectologie', Lalies 9, pp. 17-39. , 1996: 'Une koina est-egeenne?', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 133-146. Brixhe, C. and Hodot, R., 1984: 'Les dialectes grecs, ces inconnus', BSL 79, pp. 155-203. Birwe, 1956: Griechisch-Arische Sprachbeziehungen im Verbalsystem, Waldorf. Biville F. 1987: Graphie et pronontiation des mots grecs et latin, Louvain. , 1990-1995: Les emprunts du Latin au Grec. Approche Phonetique, 1-11, LouvainParis. , 1993: 'Grec des romains ou latin des grecs? Ambiguite de quelques proces­ sus neologiques dans la koine', in Brixhe, G. (ed.) 1993a, pp. 129-140. Bjork, G., 1950: Das alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache, Uppsala. Blanken, C. H., 1951: Les grecs de Cargese, Leiden. Blass F, and Debrunner A., 1949 (8th ed.): Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gottingen. Blumel, W., 1982: Die aiolischen Dialekte, Gottingen. , 1993: 'Dialekte und Dialektmischung im siidwestlichen Kleinasien', in Grespo, E. and others (eds.) 1993, pp. 29-35. Boardman, J., 1973: Los griegos en Ultramar: comercio y expansion colonial antes de la era cldsica, Madrid. Bohling, A., 1960: 'Griechische Elemente im Koptischen als Zeugniss fur die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache', in Akten des XI. intemaiionalen Byzantmistenkongresses, Munich. Bondesson, B., 1936: De sonis et formis titulorum Milesiorum Didymaeorumque, Lund. Boned Golera, P. and Rodriguez Somolinos, J., 1998: Repertorio bibliogrqfico de la Lexicografia griega, Madrid. Bonfante, G., 1984: / / miceneo, il greco storico e Omero, Rome. — and L., 1985: Lengua e cultura degli etruschi, Rome. Bonner, R. J., 1929-30: 'The conflict of Languages in the Roman World', CJ 25, pp. 579-92. Bosch-Gimpera, P., 1960: El problema indoeuropeo, Mexico. Bosque, I. and Perez Fernandez, M., 1987: Diccionario inverso de la lengua espanola, Madrid. Bourguet, E., 1927: Le dialecte laconien, Paris, Bowie, A. M., 1981: The poetic Dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus, New York. Bowra, C. M., 1952: Heroic Poetry, London. Braun, T. F. R. G., 1882: 'The Greeks and the Near East' and 'The Greeks in Egypt', in the reedition of the Cambridge Ancient History, III 3, pp. 1-31 y 32-56. Bravo Garcia, A., Signes Codoner, J., Rubio Gomez, E., 1997: El Imperio Bizantino, Madrid. Breitenbach, W., 1934: Untersuchungen uber die Sprache der Euripideischen Lyrik, Stuttgart. Bremer, J. M. and others, 1987: Homer: Beyond oral Poetry, Amsterdam. Brescia, C , 1955: Ricerche sulla lingua e lo stilo di Epicuro, Naples. Brillante, C , 1986: 'Sul dialetto miceneo e la lengua epica', QUCC 22, pp. 145-151. , 1987.: 'Sulla lingua della lirica corale', QUCC 23, pp. 145-153. , Cantilena, M., Pavese, C. O. (eds.), 1981: I poemi epici rapsodici non omerici e la tradizione orale, Padua. Briquel, D., 1991: 'L'ecriture etrusque. D'apres les inscriptions du VIP s. av. J.-Ch.', in Baurain, G. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 615-63 1. Brixhe, C , 1983: 'Epigraphie et grammaire du phrygien: etat present et perspec­ tives', in Vineis, E. (ed.), Le lingue indoeuropee di frammentaria attestazione, Pisa, pp. 109-133. , 1984: Essai sur le grec anatolien au debut de notre ere, Nancy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

, 1990a: 'L'apparentement des dialectes grecs', Lalies 9, pp. 27-39. ——-j 1990b: 'Dialectologie et ideologic', Lalies 9, pp. 41-53. , 1991a: Sur la Crete antique. Histoire, Ecriture, Langues, Nancy. , 1991b: 'De la phonologie a Pecriture. Quelques aspects de l'adaptation de l'alphabet caneen au grec', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 313-356. , 1991c: 'Du mycenien aux dialectes du ler millenaire. Quelques aspects de la problematique', in Musti, D. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 251-272. , 1992: 'Du "datif" mycenien aux protagonistes de la situation linguistique', in Olivier, J. P. (ed.) 1992, pp. 129-157. (ed.), 1993a and 1996a: La koine grecque antique, 1—11. Nancy. , 1993b: 'A chacun sa koine?', in Brixhe, G. (ed.) 1993a, pp. 7-21. , 1993c: 'Le Grec en Carie et Lycie au IV siecle', in Brixhe, G. (ed.) 1993a, pp. 59-82. , 1996b: 'Le IP et le I siecles de Phistoire linguistique de la Laconie et la notion de koina', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 93-111. , 1996c: Phonetique et Phonologie du Grec ancien, 1, Louvain-la-Nueve. and Panayotis, A., 1988: 'L'hellenisation de la Macedonie, Pune des sources de la koine', Verbum 11, pp. 245-260. Browning, R., 1982: 'Greek diglossia yesterday and today', Int. Journal of Sociology of Language 35, pp. 49-68. , 1983 (2nd ed.): Greek transl. Athens 1996. Medieval and Modem Greek, Cambridge. — — 1 9 9 7 : 'Von der Koine bis zu den Anfangen des modernen Griechisch', in H.-G. Nesserath (ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, Stuttgart and Leipzig, pp. 156-168. Brunot, F., 1966: Histoire de la langue frangaise, I—II vols., Paris. Buchheit, V., 1960: Untersuchungen zur theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis Aristoteles, Munich. Buck, C. D. and Petersen, W., 1944: A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives, Chicago. Bubenik, V., 1989: Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area, Amsterdam. Burgmannn, L., 1991: 'Ae^eic; pCGjxaiicai. Lateinische Worter in Byzantinischen juristischen Texten', in W. Horandner and E. Trapp (eds.) 1991, pp. 61-79. Cadell, H., 1981: "Papyrologie et information lexicologique", en Scritti Motevecchi, Bolonia, pp. 73-83. Cameron, A., 1931: 'Latin Words in the Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor', AJPh 52, pp. 232-262. Campanile, E., 1990a: La riconstruzzione delta cultura indoeuropea, Pisa. , 1990b: 'Antigiiedades indoeuropeas', in A. Giacalone - P. Ramat (eds.), Las lenguas indoeuropeas, Madrid, pp. 27-56. Cantilena, M., 1982: Ricerche sulla dizione epica. I. Per uno studio della formularieta degli Inni Omerici, Rome. Caratzas, S., 1957-58: 'Die Entstchung der neugriechischen Literatursprache', Glotta 36, pp. 194-208. , 1958: Uorigtne des dialectes neo-grecs de Vltalie meridionale, Paris. , 1976: Les Tzacones, Berlin. Carpenter, Rh., 1968: 'Das Alter des griechischen Alphabets', in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 1-39. Casevitz, M., 1985: Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en Grec ancien, Paris. Cassio, A. C , 1996: 'La prose ionienne postclassique et la culture de I'Asie Mineure a Pepoque hellenistique', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 147-170. Castillo Didier, M., 1994: Epopeya de Diyenis Akritas, Santiago de Chile. Cavenaile, R., 1951: 'Influence latine sur la vocabulaire grec de PEgypte', Chronique d'Egypte 51, pp. 391-404. Caveney, J., 1978: Verbal Variation and Antithesis in the Narrative of Thucydides, Ann Arbor. e

er

326

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser, I. M. and Diethart, J., 1996: Lexikon der lateinischen Lehwdrter in den griechischen Texten Aegyptens, 1, Vienna. Chadwick, H. M., 1967 (1st ed. 1912): Vie Heroic Age, Cambridge. and Chadwick, N. K., 1968 (1st ed. 1936): The Growth of literature, Cambridge. Chadwick, J., 1956: 'The Greek Dialects and Greek History', Greece and Rome 3, pp. 38-50. , 1958: El enigma micenico, Madrid. , 1964: 'Mycenaean elements in the Homeric Dialect', in G. S. Kirk (ed.), The Language and Background of Homer, Cambridge, pp. 38-50. , 1973: 'Who were the Dorians?', PP 103, pp. 103-117. , 1976: The Mycenaean World, Cambridge. , 1985: 'I dori e la creazione dei dialetti greci', in D. Musti (ed.) 1985a, pp. 3-12. , 1988: 'Differences and similarities between Cypriot and the other Greek Dialects', in The History (Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O., eds.), 1988, pp. 55-66. , 1990: 'The Descent of the Greek Epic', JHS 110, pp. 174-177. Chantraine, P., 1927: Histoire du Parfait Grec, Paris. , 1933: La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris. , 1942: Grammaire Homerique (Phonetique et Morphologic), Paris. , 1956: Etudes sur le vocabulaire grec, Paris. Christidis, A. Ph. (ed.), 2001: laxopta xr\<; *EXkr\viKr\<; rtaoaaaq, I., Thessaloniki. Clarysse, W., 1987: Greek loan Words in demotic, Louvain. Conejero, V., 1973: El lenguaje coloquial griego, Barcelona. Consani, C , 1989: 'Storia e preistoria dei dialetti antichi: a proposito di una recente pubblicazione', QJJCC 62, pp. 157-167. , 1993: 'La koine et les dialectes grecs dans la documentation linguistique et la reflexion metalinguistique des premiers siecles de notre ere', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1993a, pp. 23-39. -, 1996: 'Koina et koine dans la documentation epigraphique de l'ltalie meridionale' in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 113-132. Cook, J. M., 1982: 'The Eastern Greeks', in reedition of the Cambridge Ancient History, III 3, p. 196 ff. Corsani, B., 1994: Guida alio studio del Nuovo Testamento, Rome. Cortelazzo, M., 1970: Uinflusso linguistico greco a Venezia, Bologna. Cortes Gabaudan, F., 1986: Formulas retoricas de la oratoria judicial dtica, Salamanca. Coseriu, E., 1966: 'Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire', in Actes du Premier Colloque International de Linguistique Appliquee, Nancy, pp. 175-272. , 1977: 'Influencia griega sobre el latin vulgar', in Estudios de Lingiiistica romdnica, pp. 264-280. Costas, P. S., 1979: An Outline of the History of the Greek Language with particular Emphasis on the Koine and the subsequent Periods, Chicago. Crespo, E. and others, 1992: Homerica. Estudios lingilisticos, Madrid. , (eds.), 1993: Dialectologica Graeca. Adas del II Coloquio International de Dialectologia Griega (Miraflores de la Sierra [Madrid], 19-21 de junio de 1991), Madrid. Crespo, E., Conti, L., Maquieira, H., 2003: Sintaxis del Griego Cldsico. Madrid, Gredos. Crossland, R. A., 1985: 'La tradizione greca suila migrazione dorica', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1985a, pp. 235-240. Cruz, A. de la y Canete, A., 1992: Historia del ingles. Malaga. Cruz, J. de la and Trainor, P., 1989: Gramdtica inglesa, Madrid. Cunchillos, J. L. and Zamora, J. A., 1995: Gramdtica Ugaritica, Madrid. Curtis, A., 1985: Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Cambridge. Dagron, G., 1969: 'Aux origines de la civilisation Byzantine: langue de culture et langue d'Etat', Revue Historique 241, pp. 23-56. Daris, S., 1991 (2nd ed.): 77 lessico latino nel greco d'Egitto, Barcelona.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

Daskalakis, B., I960: 'O 'EXXrfvicjfiog vfjg dpxcciag MaKs5oviag, Athens. Davaras, C , 1976: Guide to Cretan Antiquities, Park Ridge, New Jersey. Dawkins, R., 1916: Modern Greek in Asia Minor: a Study of Dialect of Silly, Cappadocia and Pharasa, Cambridge. , 1940: T h e Dialects of Modern Greek', TPHs pp. 1-38. Debrunner, A., 1933: Nahklassisches Griechisch, Berlin. , and Scherer, A., 1969^(11, 2nd ed. by A. Scherer): Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, Berlin. Deger-Jalkotzy. S. (ed.) 1983: Qiechenland, die Aegais und die Levante wdhrend der Dark Ages vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr., Vienna. Deichgraber, K., 1962: 'Rhythmische Elemente im Logos des Heraklit', AWLM, Abh. des Geistes und Sprachwiss. Klasse, pp. 477-552. Deissmann, A., 1923 (4th ed.): Licht von Osten, Tubingen. Delatte, L. and others, 1981: Dictionnaire frequentiel et inverse de la langue latine, Liege. Denniston, J., 1970 (1st ed. 1952): Greek Prosa Style, Oxford. Descoeudres, P. G. (ed.), 1990: Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Canberra and Oxford. De Miro, E. and others (eds.), 1996: Atti e Memorie del secondo Congresso Internationale di Micenologia, Rome. Des Places, E., 1934: 'Style parle et style oral chez les ecrivains grecs', Mel. Bidez, I, 267-286. Despotopoulos, C , 1985-86: 'Hippocrate et la philosophic', Philosophia 15-16, pp. 145-155. Devoto, G., 1962, Origini indo-europee, Florence, 1962, , 1968 (trans.): Geschichte der Sprache Roms, Heidelberg. Di Vido, St., 1997: GH elimi. Storie di contatti e di rappresentazione, Pisa. Diaz Rolando, E., 1989: La Alexiada, Seville. Diaz Tejera, A., 1961: 'Ensayo de un metodo linguistico para la cronologia de Raton', Emerita 29, pp. 241-286. Dickinson, O., 1977: The Origins of mycenaean Civilization, Goteborg. , 1995: The Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge. Diehl, E., 1950: Anthologia Lyiica I 1-2, Leipzig. Dieterich, K., 1898: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenistischen £eit bis zum 10. Jahrhundert nach Christ, Leipzig. Dietrich, M. and Lorentz, O., 1991: 'Die Keilalphabete aus Ugarit', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 49-67. Dietrich, W., 1995: Griechisch und Romanisch. Divergenzen und Parallelen, Munster. Dimitrakos, D. B., 1933-51: Meya AE^IKOV T % 'EXXr}viKr\<; yXoiccrqg, Athens, 9 vols. Doudna, J. Ch., 1961: The Greek of the Gospel of Mark, Philadelphia. Dressier, W., 1963: Einfluss epichorischen Sprachen auf die griechischen Inschriften Kleinasiens, Vienna. , 1965: 'Der Untergang des Dativs in der Anatolischen Grazitat', WS 78, pp. 83-107. Drews R., 1989: The coming of the Greeks, Princeton. Dubois, L., 1983: Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, Paris. Duhoux, Y., 1977: Le disque de Phaestos. Archeologie, Epigraphie, Edition Critique, Lou vain. , 1982: Ueteocretois. Les textes. La langue, Amsterdam. , 1983: Introduction aux dialectes grecs anciens Louvain-la-Neuve. — — , 1987: 'Lineaire B cretois et continental: Elements de comparaison', in Ilievski, P. H. and Crepajac, I. (eds.) 1987. , 1988: 'Les elements grecs non doriens du cretois et la situation dialectale grecque au IF millenaire', Cretan Studies, 1, pp. 57—72. , 2000: Le verbe grec ancien. Louvain la Neuve. Duran, A., 1966: La lengua de Gorgias. Unpublished bachelor thesis, Madrid. K

328

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Durante, M., 1966: Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca, Rome. , 1968: 'Vicende linguistiche della Grecia fra l'eta micenea e il medioevo ellenico', in Atti del T Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre3 ottobre 1967, Rome, vol. II, pp. 744-755. Durham, D. B., 1969 (1st ed. 1913): The Vocabulary of Menander, Amsterdam. Dvornik, F., 1956: The Slavs. Their Early History and Civilization, Boston. Earp, F. R , 1972 (1st ed. 1944): The Style of Sophocles, Cambridge. , 1970 (1st ed. 1948): The Style of Aeschylus, New York. Edwards, G. P., 1971: The Language of Hesiod in its traditional Context, Oxford. Egea, J. M., 1987a: 'El griego de los textos medievales', Veleia 4, pp. 255-284. , 1987b: 'La lengua de la ciudad en el s. xii', Eiytheia 8, pp. 241-262. , 1988: Gramdtica de la Cronica de Morea, Vitoria. , 1990: Documenta selecta ad historiam knguae Graecae inlushandam II (medioaevi), Vitoria. , 1990-91: 'La lengua de la historiografia bizantina tras el cambio linguistico', Erytheia, 11-12, pp. 21-32. Eissfeldt, O., 1968: 'Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung unseres Alphabets', in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 214-220. Ek, S., 1942: Herodotismen in der Archaologie des Dionysius von Halicarnassus, Lund. , 1946: Herodotismen in der judischen Archaologie des Josephus, Lund. Eklund, B.-L., 1976: Modern Greek. Verbal Aspect and Compound Nouns. Two Studies, Gothenburg. Elefteriadis, O., 1985: Modern Greek. A contemporary Grammar, Palo Alto, California. Ernout, A., 1954: Aspects du vocabulaire latin, Paris. Eseverri, C , 1945: Diccionario Etimologico de Helenismos Espanoles, Burgos. Ewert, A., s. a.: The French Language, London. Fabrini, P. and Lanni, A., 1979: 'II problema della lengua nello scritto ippocratico De arte', RSF 34, pp. 123-133. Falkner, M., 1968: 'Zur Fruhgeschichte des griechischen Alphabets', in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 143-171. Favre, Ch., 1914, Thesaurus verborum quae in titulis ionicis leguntur cum Herodoteo sermone comparatus, Lund. Fernandez, Francisco, 1982: Historia de la lengua inglesa, Madrid. Fernandez Alvarez, P., 1981: El argolico occidental, Salamanca. Fernandez de Palencia, Alfonso, 1490: Universal Vocabulario, Seville. Fernandez Delgado, J. A., 1983: 'Los estudios de poesia oral cincuenta afios despues de su "descubrimiento"', Anuario de Estudios Filologicos 6, pp. 63-90. , 1985: Los ordculos y Hesiodo. Poesia oral mdntica y gnomica griegos, Caceres. Fernandez Marcos, N., 1973: La Septuaginta en la investigation contempordnea, Madrid. , 1979: Introduction a las versiones griegos de la Biblia, Madrid. Fernandez Nieto, F. G., 1983: 'La colonization griega' and 'Los griegos en Espana', in Historia de Espana Antigua, Madrid, pp. 527-558 and 559-591. - — 1 9 9 2 : 'Griegos y colonization griega en la peninsula iberica', in Chaves Tristan, F. (ed.), Griegos en Occidente, Seville, pp. 129-145. Fernandez-Galiano, M., 1966: 'Helenismos', in Enticlopedia Lingiiistica Hispdnica II, pp. 51-77. Madrid. , 1969: La transcription castellana de los nombres propios griegos, Madrid. — — , 1984: 'El marco historico de la epopeya', in R. Adrados-Fernandez-Galiano, Gil and Lasso de la Vega, Introduction a Homero, pp. 197-234, 2nd ed., Barcelona. Ferrari, F., 1997: Romanzo di Esopo. Introduzione e testo critico, Milano. Finnegan, R., 1977: Oral Poetry, Cambridge. Fleischer, U., 1939: Untersuchungen zu den pseudohippokratischen Schriften, Berlin. Forssmann, B., 1968: Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars, Wiesbaden. ; 1991: 'Schichten der Homerischen Sprache', in Latacz, J. (ed.), ^weihundert Jahre Homerforschung, Stuttgart-Leipzig, pp. 259-288. Foucault, J. A., 1972: Recherches sur la langue et le style de Poly be, Paris.

329

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Foumet, J. L., 1989: 'Les emprunts du grec a Tegyptien', BSL 84, pp. 55-80. Frankel, E., 1910-12: Geschichte der griechischen Nomina Agentis aitf -Tt)p -reap, -%r\g (-T-), Strasbourg. Frosen, J., 1974: Prolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in the first Centuries A.D., Helsinki. Funk, R. W., 1977 (2nd ed.): A beginning-intermediate Grammar of the Hellenistic Greek, Missoula, Montana. Gallay, P., 1933: Langue et styih de Saint Gregoire de Nacianze dans sa cortespondance, Paris. Gamkrelidze, Th. - V. Ivanov, V. V., 1995: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin-New York. Gangutia, E., 1994: Cantos de mujeres en Grecia, Madrid. Garbrach, K. A., 1978: A Grammar to the Ionic Inscriptions from E?ythraea, Meisenheim. Garcia Blanco, J., 1988: Gramdtica de las inscripciones eleas. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Madrid. Garcia Domingo, E., 1979: Latinismos en la koine (en los documentos epigraficos desde el 212 a. J. C hasta el 14 d J. C), Salamanca. Garcia del Pozo, R., 1983: Las inscripciones del locrio occidental, Madrid. Garcia Teijeiro, M., 1984: 'Reflexiones sobre la clasifkacion dialectal del panfilio', in Athlon. Satura grammatica in honorem Francisci R. Adrados, I, Madrid, pp. 191-197. , 1988: 'Retorica, oratoria y magia', in G. Morocho (ed.), Estudios de drama y retorica en Grecia y Roma, Leon, pp. 143-153. , 1996: 'Sobre la lengua de los documentos magicos griegos , in A. Agud and others (eds.), Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingiiisticos, Salamanca. Garcia-Ramon, J. L., 1975: Les origines postmycennienes du groupe dialectal eolien, 1975. , 1987: 'Geografia intradialectal tesalia: la fonetica, Verbum 10, pp. 101-153. , 1999: 'Griechische Dialekte', in Gancik (ed.), Der Neue Pauly. Gautier, L., 1911: La langue de Xenophon, Geneva. GentiH, B., 1969: 'Epigramma ed elegia', in A A . W . 1969, pp. 37-81. and Prato, C , 1979-85: Poetae Elegiaci, Stuttgart-Leipzig, 2 vols. Georgakas, D. and Kevxpov 'EAAnviicfjc; Ytabacrn<;, 1998: AE^IKO tfjg Neag EXXrfviicfjg yXmaaag. Vol. 1, Salonika. Georgiev, V., 1941: Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschqft, Sofia. -——, 1964: 'Mycenaean among the other Greek Dialects', Wingspread Colloquium, pp. 125-129. , 1981: Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages, Sofia. Gerov, B., 1980: 'Die lateinisch-griechische Sprachgrenze auf der BalkanhalbinseP, in Neumann, G. and Untermann, J. (eds.) 1980, Bonn. Giacalone, A. - Ramat, P. (eds.), 1993: Las linguas indoeuropeas, Madrid, Catedra. Giannotta, M. E. and others (eds.), 1994: La detifrazione del cario, Rome. Gignac, F. T., 1976: A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol 1. Phonology, Milan. , 1981: A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. II Morphology, Milan. Gimbutas, M., 1974: The Gods and Goddeses of Old Europe, London. , 1989: The Language of the Goddess, San Francisco. Giundin, L. A., 1987: 'A propos du statut de la langue des macedoniens de l'Antiquite', EBalk 23, pp. 19-27. Goldsmith, V., 1963 (2nd ed.), Les dialogues de Platon. Structure et methode dialectique, Paris. Gonzalez Castro, J. F., 1994: Palabras castellanas de origen griego, Madrid. Gostoli, A., 1990: Terpandro. Introduzione, testimonianze, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Rome. Graham, A. J., 1982: 'The colonial expansion of Greece' and 'The Western Greeks', in the reedition of the Cambridge Ancient History, III 3, pp. 83 ff. and 183 ff. Grandgent, D. A., 1928: Introduction al latin vulgar, Madrid. 3

5

330

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guarducci, M., 1967-78: Epigrqfia Greca, I-TV, Rome. , 1968: 'Die Geburt des griechischen Alphabets', in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 197-213. , 1987: UEpigrqfia greca dalle origini al tardo impero, Rome. Haberle, J., 1938, Untersuchungen ilber den ionischen Prosastil, Munich. Haarmann, H., 1996: 'Aspects of early Indo-European contacts with the neighbor­ ing cultures', IF 101, pp. 1-14. Hainsworth, J. B., 1967: 'Greek Views of Greek Dialectology', TPHS 1967, pp. 62-76. , 1968: The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula, Oxford. Hajnal, L, 1987 and 1988: 'Zur Sprache der altesten kretischen Inschriften', IF 92, pp. 58-84 and 93, pp. 62~87. , 1995: Studien zum Mykenischen Kasussystem, Berlin and New York. Hamm, E.-M., 1957: Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios, Berlin. Hammond, N. G. L., 1986 (3rd ed.): A History of Greece, Oxford. Hansen, P. A., 1983: Carmina Epigraphka saeculorum VIII- Va. Chr. n., Berlin-New York. Hatzidakis, G. N. 1905-7: MeaaimviKa xai Nea 'EXXr)viKa, Athens, 2 vols. , 1947 (1st ed. 1915): ZvvTOjioq iaiopia %r}<; 'EXXrjviicrjg yXaaarfg, Athens. , 1977 (1st ed. 1892): Einleitung in die neugrkchische Grammatik, Hildesheim (Greek transl, Athens 1976). Hausler, A., 1985: 'De Anfange von Rad und Wagen in der Kulturgeschichte Europas', in Produktivkrqfte und Produktionsverhaltnisse, Berlin, pp. 121-133. , 1992a: 'Zum Verhaltnis von Ockergrabkultur und Schnurkeramik', in Schnurkeramik Symposium, Prague, pp. 541-548. , 1992b: 'Zur kulturgeschichtiichen Einordnung griechischer Stelen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung der Griechen , in Heinrich Schliemann. Grundlagn und Ergebnisse. . . . Berlin, pp. 253-266. , 1994: 'Archaologische Zeugnisse fiir Pferd und Wagen in Ost- und MittelEuropa', in Die Indogermanen und das Pferd, Budapest, pp. 217-257. — — , 1995: 'Ueber Archaologie und Ursprung der Indogermanen , in Whither ArchaeologkP, Prague, pp. 211-229. Havelock, E. A., 1986: La Musa impara a scrivere, Bari. , 1996: Alle origini della filosqfia greca. Una revisione storica, Bari. Heisenberg, A., 1934: Neugrkchische diakkttexte, Heidelberg. Hernandez Gonzalez, F., 1997: 'Apuntes lexicales sobre Faventino', Ckn anol de inves­ tigation semdntica, II, pp. 1611-1625. Hettrich, H., 1985: 'Zum Kasussynkretismus im Mykenischen', MSS 46, pp. 111-122. Heubeck, A., 1961: Praegraeca, Erlangen. , 1972: 'Syllabic r in Mycenaean Greek?', Acta Mycenaea II, pp, 55-79, Salamanca. , 1981: 'Zum Problem der homerischen Kunstsprache', MH 38, pp. 65-80. Hiersche, R., 1970: Grundzuge der griechischen Sprachgeschkhte, Wiesbaden. , 1972: Dk Sprache Homers im Lichte neuerer Forschungen, Innsbruck. Hilhorst, A., 1976: Semitismes et latinismes dans k Pasteur dHermas, Nijmegen. Hill, D., 1967: Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, Cambridge. Hodot, R., 1990a: Le diakcte eolien dAsie, Paris. , 1990b: 'Dialecte et koine', Lalies 9, pp. 55-62. , 1990c: 'Inscriptions et litterature dialectales', Lalies 9, pp. 63-70. Hoekstra, A., 1957: 'Hesiode et la tradition orale', Mnemosyne 10, p. 193 ff. , 1969a: Homeric Modifications of formulaic prototypes, Amsterdam. , 1969b: The sub-epic stage of the formulaic tradition, Amsterdam. Hoffmann, O. and others, 1973: Historia de la lengua griega, Madrid. Hofinger, M., 1981: Etudes sur k vocabulaire grec archaique, Leiden. Hooker, J. T., 1976: Mycenaean Greece, London. , 1977: The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets, Innsbruck. 5

5

331

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— — , 1983: 'The Homeric Dialect', in Concilium Eirene XVI, III, pp. 75-79. , 1991: 'Mycenology in the 1980Y, Kratylos 36, pp. 32-72. Horandner, W. and Trapp, E. (eds.), 199 1: Lexicographica Byzantina. Beitrage zum Symposion zur byzantinischen Lexikographie (Wien, 1-4.3.1989), Vienna. Horrocks, G., 1987: 'The Ionic-Epic tradition: Was there an Aeolic Phase in its Development?', Minos 20-22, pp. 269-294. , 1997: Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers, London and New York. Householder, F. W., 1972: Greek. A Survey of Recent Work, The Hague-Paris. — and others, 1964: Reference Grammar of Literary Dimotiki, Bloomington. Hoz, J. de, 1964: 'Poesia oral independiente de Homero en Hesiodo y los himnos homericos', Emerita 32, pp. 283-298. , 1969: 'Acerca de la historia de la escritura prelatina en Hispania', AEA 119-120, pp. 104-117. — , 1970: 'Un grafito griego de Toscanos y la exportation de aceite ateniense en el siglo VIP, Madrider Mitteilungen 11, pp. 102-109. — — , 1979: 'On some Problems of Iberian Script and Phonetics', in Adas del II Cobquio sobre lenguasy culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula Iberica, Salamanca, pp. 257-271. , 1987: 'La escritura greco-iberica', Stadia Palaeohispanica, pp. 285-298, Vitoria. — , 1991: 'The Phoenician Origin of the early Hispanic Scripts', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 669-682. , 1992: 'Arqueologia del lenguaje sin lagrimas . . . y sin lenguaje', Arqritica 3, pp. 11-14. , 1996: 'El origen de las escrituras paleohispanicas quince aflos despues', in Actas del VI Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula Iberica, Salamanca, pp. 171-206. Hualde Pascual, M. P., 1997: 'Eolismos en Jonia: revision de un problema de geografia intradialectaP, Emerita 65, pp. 221-256. Hult, J., 1990: Syntactic Variation in Greek of the 5th Century A.D., Goteborg. Humbert, J., 1930: La disparition du datif grec, Paris. , 1972 (1st ed. 1945): Syntaxe grecque, Paris. Hummel, P., 1993: La Syntaxe de Pindare, Louvain. Hunger, H., 1978a: 'Stilstufen in der Byzantinischen Geschichtschreibung des 12. Jh. Anna Kommene und Michael Glykas', Byz. Studies 5, pp. 139-170. , 1978b: Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, Munich. Hussey,J. M. (ed.), 1966: The Cambridge Medieval History IV. Byzantium and Its Neighbours, Cambridge. Huxley, C , 1961: Crete and the Luwians, Oxford. Ilievski, P. H. y Crepajac, I., 1987: Tradata Mycenaea, Skopje. Impellizzeri, S., 1975: La letteratura bizantina da Costantino a Fozio, Florence-Milan. Irigoin, J., 1980: 'La formation du vocabulaire de l'anatomie en grec: du mycenien aux principaux traites de la Collection Hippocratique', Hippocratica. Ades du Colloque hippocratique de Paris (4-9 Sept 1978), Paris, pp. 247-257. , 1983: 'Paralleles linguistiques a Interpretation de termes techniques attestes dans la Collection Hippocratique', in Lasserre, F. y Mudry, P. (eds.), Formes de penste dans la Collection hippocratique. Ades du IV Colloque International hippocratique (Lausanne, 23~26 septembre 1981), Geneva, pp. 173-180. Iselin, I. B. S., 1991: 'The transfer of the Alphabet to the Greeks: the state of doc­ umentation', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 283-291. Isenring, H. C , Die lateinischen Adjediva auf -icus und -ticus, Zurich 1955. Janko, R., 1982: Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns, Cambridge. Jeffery, L. H., 1990 (2nd ed.), The local scripts of archaic Greece, Oxford. Jellinek, M. H., 1926: Geschichte der gotischen Sprache, Berlin. Kahane, H. y R., 1979: 'Les elements byzantins dans les langues romanes', in Graeca et Romanica, Scripta Selecta, Amsterdam, pp. 67-73. e

332

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—

1970 ff.: 'Abendland und Byzanz. III. Literatur und Sprache. B. Sprache', in Reallexicon der Byzantinistik, cols. 345-640. Kaimio, J., 1979: The Roman and the Greek Language, Helsinki, 1979. Kajanto, I., 1980: 'Minderheiten und ihre Sprachen in der Hauptstadt Rom', in G. Neumann and J. Untermann (eds.), 1980, pp. 83-101. Kalleris, J. N., 1954: Les anciens macedoniens. Etude historique et linguistique, Athens. Kapsomenakis, S. G., 1938: Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der Papyri aus der nachchristlichen ^eit, Munich. Kapsomenos, S. G., 1958: Die griechische Sprache zwischen Koine und Neugriechisch', in Berichte zum XL Internationalen Byzantinistenkongress, II 1, Munich. Karageorghis, J. y Masson, O. (eds.), 1988: The History of the Greek Language in Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Symposium sponsored by the Pierides Foundation. Larnaca, Cyprus, 8~13 September- 1986, Nicosia. Karageorghis, V., 1991: Les anciens Chipriotes. Entre Orient et Occident, Paris. Karoussos, Gh., 1973: Rhodos, Athens. Katicic, R., 1976: Ancient Languages of the Balkans, The Hague, 2 vols. Kaukala, M. I., 1992: Mvr}fi6ovvo Kprftucfjg diaXsKTOv, Athens. Kazazis, K., 1974: 'The status of the Turkisms in the present-day Balkan languages', in Birnbaum, H. and Vryonis, S. (eds.), Aspects of the Balkans, The Hague, pp. 87-116. Kieckers, E., 1910: 'Das Eindringen der Koine in Kreta', IF 21, pp. 72-118. Kinstrand, J. F., 1975: Bion of Borysthenes, Uppsala. Kirk, G. S. (ed.), 1964: The Language and Background of Homer, Cambridge. , 1976: Homer and the Oral Tradition, Cambridge. Kock, B., 1910: De epigrammatum Graecorum dialectis, Gottingen. Kontosopoulos, N. G., 1970: "H armepivT] yA,G)acn,icri Kaxdaiaaxc; ev KpT|TT| KOU f| Y^coaaa TCDV ev 'ABrrvau; Kpr|Teov', KprjriKr) XpoviKa 22, pp. 144-278. , 1978: Uinfluence du frangais sur le grec, Athens. 1980: "H yhhaaa avyxpovoi) netpv KpiyctKoi) Keuxevot)', in Mvrjfia Koupjuook, Athens, p. 19 ff. , 1988: r^coaaiKoq "AxXac, tfjc; KpT|Tr|c,, Iraklio. — — , 1994 (2nd ed.): AKXXEKTOI Km iSicofiam xr\g viae, EXXr\viKr)g, Athens. Koutsoudas, A., 1962: Verb Morphology of Modem Greek: A Descriptive Study, Bloomington, Indiana. Krafft, F., 1963: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Homer und Hesiod, Gottingen. Kramer, J., 1983: 'Der kaiserzeitliche griechisch-lateinische Sprachbund', in Zjele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik, Berlin, pp. 115-131. Krause, M., 'Inschriften aus Faras', in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer, Berlin-New York, 1971. Krauss, S., 1898: Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Berlin. Kretschmer, P., 1894: Die griechischen Vaseninschrifien Hirer Sprache nach untersucht, Gutersloh. , 1901: Die Entstehung der koine, Vienna. , 1909: 'Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte. I', Glotta 1, pp. 9-59. •, 1946: Introduction a la Lingiiistica griega y latina, Madrid. Kriaras, E., 1968 ff.: AE^IKO rfjg MsaaicoviKfjg eXXriviicfjg 8rffid>6ovg ypa^areiag (1110-1669), Thessalomiki, vols. I-XIII. Kroll, W., 1935: La sintaxis cientifica en la ensenanza del latin, Madrid. Krumbacher, K., 1897 (2nd ed.): Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, Munich. Kullmann, W. and Reichel, M. (eds.), 1990: Der Uebergang von der Miindlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, Tubingen. Laguna, G., 1995: 'Influencia lingiiistica del griego sobre el latin', Tempus 9, pp. 5-32. c

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Lambert, P.-Y., 1994: La langue gauloise, Paris. Lamberts, E., 1967: Untersuchungen zur Parataxe bei Herodot, Vienna. Lampe, G. W. H., 1961: A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford. Lanza, D., 1983: 'Quelques remarques sur le travail linguistique du medicin', in Lasserre, F. and Mudry, P. (eds.), Formes de pensee dans la Collection hippocratique. Actes du IVe Colloque International hippocratique, Geneva, pp. 181-185. Lapesa, R., 1980 (8th ed.): Historia de la lengua espanola, Madrid. Lara, D., 1984: Estudio sobre la composition de los tratados hipocrdticos, Madrid. , 1997: Initiation a la lexicografia griega, Madrid, 1997. Latacz, J. (ed.), 1991: ^weihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung, Stuttgart. Lazzeroni, R., 1969: 'Correnti linguistiche nel greco letterario', in Studi e saggi lin­ guistics suppl. a Ultalia diakttale 33, pp. 111-138. Lee, J. A. L., 1983: LAX. A lexical Study of the Septuagenta Version of the Pentateuch, Chico, California. Lehmann, W. P., 1986: A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, Leiden. , 1992: Die gegenwdrtige Richtung der indogermanischen Forschung, Budapest. Lehrmann, A., 1996: 'Indo-Hittite revisited', IF 101, pp. 73-88. Lejeune, M., 1968: 'Rapport sur le grec mycenien', Atti del 1° Congresso Intemazionale di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre - 3 ottobre 1967, Rome, vol. II, pp. 726-731. , 1976: 'Pre-mycenien et proto-mycenien', BSL 71, p. 193 ff. , 1993: 'D'Alcoy a Espanca: Reflexions sur les ecritures paleo-hispaniques', in Michel Lejeune. Notice biographique et bibliographique, Louvain, pp. 53-86. Leumann, M., 1948: 'Griechische Verba in 4£eiv im Latein', in Melanges Marouzeau, Paris, pp. 371-389. -——, 1950: Homerische Worter, Basilea. — — , 1968: 'Die Entgliederung entlehnter griechischer Verben ins Latein', Studii Clasice 10, pp. 7-12. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., 1940 (9th ed., there are two Supplements of 1968 and 1997): Greek-English Dictionary, Oxford. Lilja, S., 1968: On the Style of the Earliest Greek Prose, Helsingfors. Lillo, A., 1979: El dialecto arcadio, Salamanca. Linde, P., 1906: De Epicuri vocabulis ab optima Atthide alienis, Bratislava. Ljungvik, H., 1926: Studien zur Sprache der Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, Uppsala. , 1932: Beitrage zur Syntax der spdtgriechieschen Volkssprache, Uppsala. Lloyd-Jones, H. y Parsons, P., 1983: Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin and New York. Long, A., 1968: Language and thought in Sophocles, London. Lopez Eire, A., 1966: 'Dislocacion sintactica y atico coloquial en la comedia aristofanica', in Agud, A. and others (eds.), pp. 167-197. , 1972-1973: 'Los jonios y el jonico-atico', Zepty™ 23-24, pp. 197-207. , 1977: 'Nuevas perspectives metodologicas en dialectologia griega', Helmantica 28, pp. 315-329 (in Lopez Eire 1986a, p. 289 ff.) . 1978a: 'El retorno de los Heraclidas', J&pkyrus 28-29, pp. 287-297. -, 1978b: 'Problematica actual de la Dialectologia griega', in Adas del V Congreso Espanol de Estudios Cldsicos, Madrid, pp. 457-479. , 1984a: 'Genealogia del Atico', EC 26, pp. 43-46. , 1984b: 'En tomo a la lengua del Corpus Hippocraticum', Emerita 52, pp. 325-354. , 1984c: Tucidides y la koine', in Athlon. Saturn grammatica in honorem Francisci R. Adrados, 1, Madrid, II, pp. 245-261. , 1985: Jonico y Atico', in Melena, J. L. (ed.), Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena septuagenario oblatae, I, Vitoria, pp. 81-93. , 1986a: Estudios de Lingiiistica, Dialectologia e Historia de la lengua griega, Salamanca. , 1986b: 'La lengua de la comedia aristofanica', Emerita 54, pp. 237-274. , 1987a: 'Sobre los origenes de la oratoria', Minerva 1, pp. 13-31.

334

BIBLIOGRAPHY

-——, 1987b: 'Geographie intradialectale de Pionien-attique', Verbum 10, 155-178. , 1989a: Las invasiones griegas y la dialectologia', Homenaje a Marcelo Vigil, Salamanca, pp. 147-169. , 1989b: 'Sobre las innovaciones del jonico-atico', in Borrego Nieto, J. and others (eds.), Philologica I. Homenaje a D. Antonio Llorente, Salamanca, pp. 191-1998. , 1991: Atico, koine y aticismo. Estudios sabre Aristqfanes, Murcia. , 1992: 'Algunos aspectos de la lengua de los tratados hipocraticos mas antiguos', in Adas del VIE Congres Hippocratique, Madrid, pp. 351-364. , 1993a: 'De PAttique a la koine', in Brixhe, C. (ed.), 1993a, pp. 41-57. , 1993b: 'Estructuras linguisticas recurrentes en las inscripciones dialectales grie­ gas', in Crespo, E. and others (eds.) 1993, pp. 221-227. , 1994: 'Historia del atico a traves de sus inscripciones', ^ephyrus 47, pp. 157-188. , 1996a: La lengua coloquial de la comedia aristofdnica, Murcia. , 1996b: 'L'influence de Pionien-attique sur les autres dialectes epigraphiques et Porigine de la koine', in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 7-42. and LiUo, A., 1982: 'Pannlia y el dialecto pannlio', Zephyrus 34-35, pp. 243-248. and Lillo, A., 1983: 'En torno a la clasifkacion dialectal del pannlio', Emerita 51, pp. 5-27. and Mendez Dosuna, J., 1971: 'En busca de la situation dialectal del jonicoatico', in Simposio de Colonizaciones, pp. 247-278, Barcelona. and Mendez Dosuna, J., 1980: 'El problema de los dialectos dorios y nordoccidentales', Emerita 48, pp. 15-30 (in Lopez Eire 1986a, p. 273 ff.) Lopez Ferez, J. A., 1987: 'Problemas linguisticos en los escritos hipocraticos: el tratado Sobre los Humores', Emerita 55, pp. 253-263. Lord, A. B., 1960: The Singer of Tales, Cambridge (Mass.). Louw, J. P., 1982: Semantics of the Mew Testament, Chico (California). LiAddekens, E., 1980: 'Aegypten', in Neumann, G. and Untennann, J. (eds.) 1980, pp. 241-265. Liidtke, H., 1974: Historia del lexico romdnico, Madrid. Lumpe, A., 1970: 'Abendladisches in Byzanz', in Reallexicon der Byzantinistik, 4. Amsterdam, pp. 305-306. Lupas, L., 1972: Phonologie du grec attique, The Hague. McCabe, D., 1981: The Prose-rhythm of Demosthenes, New York. Mackridge, P., 1985: The Modern Greek Language, Oxford. Maloney, G., 1980: 'L'emploi des particules dans les oeuvres d'Hippocrate', RELO 1, pp. 1-20. Maluquer de Motes, J., 1968: Epigrqfia prelatina de la Peninsula iberica, Barcelona. Mandilaras, B. G., 1973: The Verb in the Greek non-literary Papyri, Athens. Marazzi, M., 1985: 'TrafBti Minoici e Micenei d'Oltremare: una rassegna su recenti incontrP, QUCC 50, pp. 107-116. and others (eds.), 1986: Trqffici micenei net Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeological, Tarento. Marouzeau, J., 1949: Quelques aspects de la formation du Latin litteraire, Paris. Marschall, M. H. B., 1987: Verbs, Nouns and Postpositives in Attic Prosa, Edinburgh. Martin, J., 1974: Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode, Munich. Martin Zorraquino, M. A., 1997: 'Formation de palabras y lenguaje tecnico', RSEL 27, pp. 317-339. Martinez Hernandez, M., 2000: Semnantica del Griego antiguo. Madrid, Ediciones Clasicas, 2000. Martinez Vazquez, R. - Ruiz Yanmuza, E., 1999 et alii: Gramdtica funcional-cognitiva del griego antiguo. Sevilla. Mason, H. J., 1974: Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto. Masson, O., 1967: Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts semitiques en Grec, Paris. , 1988: 'Le dialecte de Paphos', in Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O. (eds.) 1988, pp. 19-30. c

BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

Mastrelli, C. A., 1954: La lengua di Alceo, Florence. Mateo, J., 1977: El aspecto verbal en el Nuevo Testamento, Madrid. Matthews, P. H., 1967: 'The main features of Modern Greek Verb inflection', FL 3, pp. 262-284. Mayser, E., 1926 ff. (2nd ed., 1970): Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit, Leipzig. Meecham, H. G., 1935: The Letter of Aristeas, Manchester. Megas, A. E., 1925-27: 'Iarojyw TOV yXmooiKov fy]%r)iiaxog, Athens, 2 vols. Meid, W., 1975: 'Probleme der raumlichen and zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen', in Rix, H. (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9-14 September 1973, Wiesbaden, pp. 204219. Meier-Brugger, M., 1992: Griechische Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin-New York. Meillet, A., 1936: Esquisse d une Grammaire comparee de Farmenien classique, Vienna. , 1975 (7th ed.): Apergu d une histoire de la langue grecque, Paris. Meinersmann, B,, 1927: Die lateinischen Worter und Namen in den griechischen Papyri, Leipzig. Meister, K., 1921 (reed. 1965): Die Homerische Kunstsprache, Stuttgart. Mendez Dosuna, A., 1980: 'Clasifkacion dialectal y cronologia relativa: el dialecto eleo' SPHS 4, pp. 181-201. , 1985: Los dialectos dorios del Noroeste. Gramdtica y estudio dialectal, Salamanca. Mendoza, J., 1976: 'Aportaciones del estudio de la lengua a la determination de la cronologia de dos tratados del Corpus Hippocraticum", Emerita 44, pp. 171-195. Merlingen, W., 1955: Das vorgriechische und die sprachwissemchqftlichvorhistorischen Grundlagene, Vienna. Meyer, G., 1894: Die slavischen, albanischen und mmddnischen Lehworter im Neugriechischen, Vienna. Michalowski, K., 1938: Storia de la Nubia cristiana, Rome. Migliorini, B., 1968: Historia de la lengua italiana, Madrid. Mihaescu, H., 1993: La romanite dans le sud-est de VEurope, Bucarest. Millard, A. R., 1991: 'The uses of early Alphabets', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 101-114. Minniti-Gonia, D., 1992: 'Les theories sur l'origine du dialecte grec de Calabria', Parousia 8, pp. 117-124. Mirambel, A., 1937: Les etats de langue dans la Grece actuelle, Paris. , 1957: 'La doctrine linguistique de Jean Psichari', La nouvelle Clio 3, pp. 78-104. - , 1959: La langue greque moderne, Paris (Greek transl., Thessalonika 1978). Momigliano, A., 1930: La composizione della Storia di Tucidide, Turin. Moes, R., 1980: Les Hellenismes de Fepoque Theodosienne, Strasbourg. Moorhouse, A. C , 1982: The Syntax of Sophocles, Leiden. Moralejo, J. J., 1973a: Gramdtica de las inscripciones delfcas, Santiago. , 1973b: 'Sonantes y griego micenico', Emerita 41, pp. 409-426. , 1977a: 'Dialectos y niveles de lengua en griego antiguo', RSEL 7, pp. 57-85. , 1977b: 'Los dorios: su migration y su dialecto', Emerita 45, pp. 243-267. , 1979: Recent contributions to the History of the Greek Dialects, Santiago. , 1984: 'Nota al dativo eolico', EC 26, pp. 61-66. , 1990: 'Griego antiguo: migraciones y dialectos', RSEL 20, pp. 271-308. , 1996: 'Position del dialecto lesbio', in Agud, A. and others (eds.), 1996, pp. 111-127. Moreno Jurado, S. A., 1997, Antologia de la Poesia Griega (siglos XI 4 sigs.), Madrid. Morpurgo Davies, A., 1964: '"Doric" Developments in the Language of Hesiod', Glotta 62, pp. 138-165. , 1968: 'The treatment of *r and */ in Mycenaean and Arcado-Cyprian', in Atti del 1° Congresso Intemazionale di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre - 3 ottobre 1967, Rome, vol. II, pp. 791-812. y

y

336

BIBLIOGRAPHY 5

, 1984b: 'Mycenaean and Greek Language , in Morpurgo Davies, A. and Duhoux, Y. (eds.), 1984, pp. 75-125. , 1992: 'Mycenaean, Arcadian, Cyprian and some questions of Method in Dialectology , in Olivier, J. P. (ed.) 1992, pp. 415-431. , and Duhoux, Y. (eds.), 1984a: 'Linear B: A 1984 Survey , Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 75-125. Moser, H., 1957: 'Deutsche Sprachgeschichte der allteren Zeit , in W. Stammler (ed.), Berlin. Moule, C. D. F., 1968: An Idiom-Book of the New Testament, Cambridge. Moulton, J. H. y Milligan, G., 1914-29: The Vocabulary of the New Testament illus­ trated from the Papyri and other non-literary Sources, London. Mugler, Ch., 1938: Uevolution des subordonnees relatives complexes en grec, Paris. Mulller, D. G., 1980: Satzbau, Satzgliederung und Satzverbindung in der Prosa Herodots, Meisenheim. — — , 1982: Homer and the Ionian Epic Tradition, Innsbruck. Musti, D. (ed.), 1985a: Le origini dei Greci. Dori e mondo egeo, Rome. , 1985b: 'Continuita e discontinuity tra Achei e Dori nelle tradizione storiche , in Musti, D. (ed.) 1985a, pp. 37-71. and others (eds.), 1991: La Transizione dal Miceneo aWalto arcaismo. Dal palazzo alia citta. Atti del Convegno Intemazionale, 1988, Rome. Nachmanson, E., 1903: Laute und Formen der Magnetischen Inschriften, Uppsala. , 1910: Beitrage zur Kentniss de?- altgriechishen Volkssprache, Uppsala-Leipzig. Nagel, P., 1971: 'Die Einwirkung des Griechischen auf die Intstehung der koptischen Literatursprache , in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl (eds.), Christentum am Roten Meer, Berlin. Nagy, G., 1970: Greek Dialects and the transformation of Indoeuropean Process, Cambridge. Narr, G. (ed.), 1971: Griechisch und Romanisch, Tubingen. Naveh, J., 1982: Early History of the Alphabet, Jerusalem/Leiden. Nebrija, A. de, 1592: Lexicon hoc est Dictionarium ex sermone latino in hispaniensem, Salamanca. ——-, 1592: Dictionarium ex hispaniensi en latinum sermonem, Salamanca. Negri, A., 1981a: 'La straficazione delfattico , K£95, pp. 61-65. , 1981b: Miceneo e lengua omerica, Florence, 1981. ——, 1982a: 'L'unita intermedia ionico-attica , Acme 35, pp. 7-17. , 1982b (1984): 'II problema delle unita intermedie e 1'unita intermedia ionicoattica , ASGM, 23. Nehrbass, R., 1935: Sprache und Stil der Iamata von Epidaurus, Leipzig. Nenci, G. and Vallet, G. (eds.), 1977 ff.: Bibliogrqfia topogrqfica de la colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, Pisa-Rome, Neumann, G., 1980: 'Kleinasien , in Neumann, G. and Untertnann, J. (eds.) 1980, pp. 167-185. — — and Untermann, J. (eds.), 1980: Die Sprachen im rbmischen Reich der Kaiser zeit, Cologne. Newton, B., 1972: Cypriot Greek. Its Phonologie and Inflexion, The Hague-Paris. Niehoff-Panagiotidis, J., 1994: Koine und diglossie, Wiesbaden. Norden, E., 1958 (5th ed.; 1st ed. 1898): Die antike Kunstprose, Stuttgart. Nothiger, M., 1971: Die Sprache des Stesichorus und des Ibycus, Zurich. Oeconomidis, D. E., 1908: Lautlehre des Pontischen, Leipzig. Olivier, J. P. (ed.), 1992: Mykenaikd. Actes du IX Colloque international sur les textes myceniens et egeens organise par le Centre de VAntiquite Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellenique des Recherches Scientifiques et Fecole Frangaise d Athenes (Athenes, 2-6 octobre 1990), Athens-Paris. , 1996: 'Les ecritures cretoises: sept points a considered, in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 11-123. 5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

e

3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

Olivieri, A., 1930; Frammenti della comedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia, Naples. Ostrogorsky, G. 1983 (original ed. 1963): Historia del estado bizantino, Madrid. Pabon, J. M , 1939: 'El griego, lengua de la intimidad entre los romanos', Emerita 7, pp. 126-131. Page, D. L., 1963: 'Archilochus and the oral tradition', in A A . W . 1963, pp. 117-163. , 1967 (2nd ed.): Poetae Alelici Graeci, Oxford. , 1974: Supplementum Lyricis Graecis, Oxford. Palaima, Th. G., 1991: 'The advent of the Greek Alphabet in Cyprus: a competi­ tion of scripts', in Baurain, C. and others (eds.) 1991, pp. 449-471. Palm, J., 1955: Ueber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien, Lund. Palmer, L. R., 1945: A Grammar of the post-Ptolemaic Papyry. Vol. I, London. , 1958: 'Luwian and Linear A', TPhS, pp. 75-110. , 1980: The Greek Language, Oxford. Parry, A., 1971: The Making of Homeric Verse, Oxford. Parry, M., 1928: Uepithete traditionelle dans Homere, Paris. Panagl, O., 1992: 'Mykenisch und die Sprache Homers: Arte Probleme, neue Resultate', in J. P. Olivier (ed.) 1992, pp. 499-513. Panayotis, A., 1990: 'Des dialectes A la koine: l'exemple de la Chalcidique', Poikila 10, pp. 191-228. , 1992: "tf yXmoaa roov emypaq&v %r\g Maxedoviag', Athens. Papadatos, C. G., 1976: 'H &votTO|Lua xfj<; 'EXkT|vticfj<; yXoxjoaq, Athens. Papadopoulos, A. A., 1927: FpawiaiiKY] %
c

338

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pittau, M., 1984: Lessico Etrusco-Latino, Sassari. Pohl, W. (ed.), 1997: Kingdoms of the Empire. The integration of the barbarian in late antiquity, New York. Politis, L., 1994: Historia de la Literatura griega moderna, Madrid. Poltera, O., 1997: Le langage de Simonide, Berne. Pope, K. M., 1973 (1st ed. 1934): From Latin to Modern French, Manchester. Porzig, W., 1954: 'Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Dialekten', IF 6\, pp. 147-169. Powell, B. B., 1991a: Homer and the origin of the Greek alphabet, Cambridge. , 1991b: 'The Origins of the alphabetic Literacy among the Greeks', in Baurain, C. (ed.), 1991, pp. 357-70. Powell, J. U., 1925 (reimpr. 1970): Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford. Probonas, J. K., 1992: H EXXr^viKoxi^xa xr\g Mamdoviag \xeoa arovg amvag, Athens. Psichari, J., 1886-89: Essais de grammaire historique du neo-grec, Paris. PsomadaMs, K., 1995: 'YlapaoxaxiKr\ npoopoXr) rfjg EXXrjviicfjg cog BisBvovg TXcoaaag', in EXXr]viKr] SieOvrjg FXmaaa 2. Pugliese Carratelli, G., 1985: Magna Grecia. II Mediterraneo, le metropoleis e la fondazione delle colonic, Milan. Rabehl, W., De sermone defixionum atticarum, thesis, Berlin, 1906. Raderenacher, L., 1947: Koine, Vienna. Raubitschek, A. E., 1969: 'Das Denkmal-Epigramm', in A A . W . 1967, pp. 1-26. Real Academia Espanola, 2001 (22nd ed.): Diccionario de la lengua espanola, Madrid. •, 1998: Enmiendas y adiciones al Diccionario de la Real Academia Espanola aprobadas por la Corporation. Letters A - C , Madrid. Regard, P., 1924: 'La version grecque du Monument d'Ancyra', REA 26, pp. 147-161. Renfrew, G , 1987: Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indoeuropean Origins, Cambridge (Sp. transl., Barcelona, 1990). Risen, E., 1955: 'Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekten in neuer Sicht', MH 12, pp. 61-76. , 1966: 'Les differences dialectales dans le mycenien', in Cambridge Colloquium, Cambridge, pp. 150-157. , 1974: Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Berlin. , 1979: 'Die griechische Dialekte im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend', SMEA 20, pp. 91-101. , 1985: 'La posizione del dialetto dorico', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1985a, pp. 13-35. , 1988: 'Le developpement du chipriote dans le cadre des dialectes grecs anciens', in Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O. (eds.) 1988, pp. 67-80, Nicosia. , 1991: 'La contribution de la langue mycenienne au probleme de la transi­ tion du palais a la cite', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1991, pp. 231-240. Rix, H., 1992: Historische Grammatik des Griechischen, Darmstadt. Rizzi, E., 1981: 'II dorico di Creta: aspetti e problemi della struttura fonematica', Studi italiani di linguistics teorica ed applicata, pp. 251-282. Rocca, G., 1984: Continuitd micenee nel dorico, Milan. Rodriguez Monescillo, E., 1975: Estudios sobre la lengua de Aristqfanes, Madrid. Rodriguez Somolinos, H., 1998a: El lexico de los poetas lesbios, Madrid. (1998b): 'Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae Iberiae', in Gangutia Elicegui, E., Testimonia Hispaniae Antiqua, Madrid, II. pp. 335-363. Rohlfs, G., 1950: Historische Grammatik der unteritalischen Grdzitat, Munich. — — , 1962: Neue Beitrage zur Kenntnis der unteritalischen Grdzitat, Munich. Romero Cruz, F., 1988: 'En tono a los proemios y epilogos de Tucidides', in G. Morocho (ed.), Estudios de Dramay Retorica en Grecia y Roma, Leon pp. 155-167. Rosen, H. B., 1962: Eine Laut- und Formenlehre der Herodoteischen Sprachform, Heidelberg. r

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

, 1963: 'Palestinian KOIVTJ in Rabbinic Illustration', JSS 8, pp. 56-72. , 1979: Uhebreu et ses rapports avec le monde classique, Paris 1979. , 1980: 'Die Sprachsituation im romischen Palastina', in Neumann, G. and Untermann, J. (eds.) 1980, pp. 215-239. Rosenkranz, B., 1930: 'Der lokale Grundton und die personliche Eigenart in der Sprache des Thukydides', iF 35, pp. 127-178. Rotolo, V., 1965: A, Korais e la questione della lengua en Grecia, Palermo. Roura, C , 1971: 'La indeterminacion sintactica en Tucidides y los problemas de la traduction', Emerita 39, pp. 121-127. Rudberg, G., 1942: 'Herakleitos und Gorgias', Serta Eitremiana, Oslo, pp. 128 140. Ruijgh, C. J., 1957: Uelhnent acheen dans la langue epique, Assen. , 1967: Etudes sur la Grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec Mycenien, Amsterdam. , 1984: 'Le mycenien et Homere', in Morpurgo, A. and Duhoux, Y. 1984, pp. 75-125. , 1995: 'D'Homere aux origines de la tradition epique', in Crielaard, J. P. (ed.), Homeric Questions, Amsterdam, pp. 1—96. , 1995-96: 'La genese de l'eolien d'Asie', Verbum 18, pp. 289-297. , 1996: 'Sur la position dialectale du mycenien', in De Miro, E. and others (eds.) 1996, pp. 115-124. Rydbeck, L. 1967: Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und JSfeues Testament, Uppsala. Sacconi, A., 1991: 'I sistemi grafici del monde egeo tra la fine del II e l'inizio del I millennio a. C.', in Musti, D. (ed.) 1991, pp. 43-52. Sakellariou, M., 1980: Les proto-grecs, Athens. Santana Henriquez, G., 1991: 'En torno a la composition en la prosa medica griega antigua', Emerita 59, pp. 123-132. Santiago, R. A., 1997: 'La dialectologia griega, hoy', in Bosch, M. G. and Fornes, M. A. (eds.), Homenatge a Miquel Dole. Actes del XII Simposi de la Seccio Catalana i de la Seccio Balear de la S.E.E.C., pp. 13-30. Scarpat, G., 1952: / dialetti Greci in Omero secondo un grammatico antico, Milan. Schachermeyer, F., 1980: Griechenland im ^eitalter der Wanderungen, Vienna. Schrader, O., y Nehring, A., 1917-29: Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, I-II, Berlin-Leipzig, 1917-1929. Scherer, A., 1963: 'Die Sprache des Archilochos', in A A . W . 1963, pp. 89-116. Schmid, W., 1964 (1st ed. 1896-97): Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern, Hildesheim, 5 vols. Schmift, R., 1967: Dichtung und dichtersprache im idg. £eit, Wiesbaden, 1967. , 1977: Einfuhrung in die griechischen Dialekte, Darmstadt. Schwyzer, E., and Debrunner, A,, 4 vols., 1975 (4th ed., 1st ed. 1939 ff.): Griechische Grammatik, Munich. See, K. von (ed.), 1978: Europdische Heldendichtung, Darmstadt. Semenov, A., 1935: 'Der nordpontischen Dialekt des Neugriechischen', Glotta 23, pp. 96-107. Seiler, H.-J., 1952: Vaspect et le temps dans le verbe neo-grec, Paris. , 1958: 'Das Problem der sogenanten Geminaten in den neugriecmschen Dialekten . . .', Glotta 36, p. 209 ff. Sevcenko, I., 1982: 'Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose', JOB 31, pp. 281-312 and 32, pp. 220-233. Shipp, G. S., 1964: 'Mycenaean Evidence for the Homeric Dialect', in G. S. Kirk (ed.), The Language and Background of Homer, Cambridge, pp. 1-14. Shipp, G. P., 1972 (2nd ed.): Studies in the Language of Homer, Cambridge. Sicca, U., 1924: Grammatica delle Iscrizioni Doriche delta Sicilia, Arpino. Skoda, F., 1988: Medicene ancienne et metaphore. Le vocabulaire de Vanatomie et de la pathologie en grec ancien, Paris. Snell, B., 1969: Tyrtaios und die Sprache des Epos, Gottingen.

340

BIBLIOGRAPHY c

Soesbergen, P. G. van, 1981: The coming of the dorians', Kadmos 20, pp. 38-51. Sommer, F., (3rd ed.), 1948: Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut und Formenlehre, Heidelberg. Sophocles, E. A., 1914 (3rd ed., reprint, 1975): Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100), Cambridge. Sotiropoulos, D., 1972: Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek, The Hague. Sperber, D., 1984: A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, Bar

Ilan. Stammler, W., (ed.), 1952: Deutsche Philologie im Aifriss, I, Berlin. Starr, Ch. G., 1964; Gli origini della civiltd greca, Rome. Stavrianopulu, P. (ed.), 1996: TIio Kovrd c%r\v EXXdSa 11, Madrid. , 1997: riw Kovxd oxr\v EXXdba 12 13, Madrid. , 1998: TIw Kovxd orr]v EXXdSa 14, Madrid. , 1999: Ilid Kovrd arrfv EXXdSa 15, Madrid. Steiner-Weber, A., 1991: 'Merkmale der byzantinischen Wortbildung anhand der Komposition', in Horandner, W. and Trapp, E. (eds.) 1991, pp. 235-248. Steinger, G., 1957: Epische Elemente im Redestil des Herodot, Kiel. Stephanus, H., 1831-65 (reprint, 1954): Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Paris. Stevens, P. T., 1976: Colloquial expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden. Stichel, R., 1991: 'Die Bedeutung der mittelalterlichen slavischen Uebersetzungliteratur fur die byzantinische Lexicographies in Horandner, W. and Trapp, E. (eds.) 1991, pp. 249-282. Streitberg, W., 1919 (2nd ed.): Die gothische Bibel, Heidelberg. Striano, A., 1987: 'Sobre los supuestos lesbismos del dialecto cirenaico , Emerita 55, pp, 335-344. Strunck, K., 1957: Die sogenannte Aeolismen der homerischen Sprache, Koln. , 1997: 'Vom Mykenischen bis zum klassischen Griechisch', in H.-G. Nesselrath (ed.), Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, Stuttgart-Leipzig. Stubbings, F. H., 1963: The Rise of Mycenaean Civilization, Cambridge. , 1975: The recession of Mycenaean Civilization, Cambridge. Stiiber, K., 1996: J?ur dialektalen Einheit des Ostionischen, Innsbruck. Sturtevant, E. H., 1933 (2nd ed. New-Haven-London 1942): A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, Philadelphia. - , 1962: T h e Indo-Hittite Hypothese', Language 38, pp. 101-110. Swain, S., 1996: Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World, Oxford. Sznol, X., 1989: 'Ejemplos del griego rabinico a traves del tesoro lexicografico del DGE\ Emerita 57, pp. 329-343. Tarrant, D., 1946: 'Colloquialisms, Semi-proverbs and Wordplay in Plato , CQ40, pp. 109-117. , 1958: 'More Colloquialisms, Semi-proverbs and Wordplay in Plato', CQ N. S. 8, pp. 158-160. Taylour, W., 1983 (1st ed. 1964): The Mycenaeans, Cambridge. Theodorsson, S., The phonemic System of the Attic Dialect 400-340 B.C., Lund, 1974. , 1977: The Phonology of the Ptolemaic Koine, Lund. TheslefT, H., 1967: Studies in the Styles of Plato, Helsinki. Thevenot-Warelle, A., 1988: Le dialecte grec d'Elide. Phonetique et Morphologie, Nancy. Thompson, D. W., 1928: 'On Egyptian Fishnames used by Greek Writers', The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14, 1928 I—II. Threatte, L., 1980-1996: The Grammar of Attic inscriptions, Berlin, vols. 1-11. Thumb, A., 1885: Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, Strassbourg. , 1916: 'Die griechischen Lehnworter im Armenischen', B% 9, p. 388 ff. , 1974 (1st ed. 1901): Die griechische Sprache im ^eitalter des Hellenismus, Strassbourg. and Kieckers, E., 1939: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, I, Heidelberg. and Scherer, A., 1959: Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte, II, Heidelberg. 5

5

341

BIBLIOGRAPHY (

Tobaidis, D. E., 1988: H %ov%xaKr\ SidXeKxog, Athens. Tovar, A., 1944: 'Ensayo sobre la estratigrafia de los dialectos griegos. I. Primitiva extension geografica del Jonio', Emerita 12, pp. 245-335. Tovar, S. A., 1990: Biografia de la lengua griega, Santiago de Chile. Traglia, A., 1952: Studi sulla lengua di Alceo, Bari. , 1952: Studi sulla lengua di Empedocle, Bari. Trapp, E. and others, Studien {zur Byzantinischen Lexicographic, Vienna 1988. , 1988: 'Stand und Perspektiven der mittelgriechischen Lexicographic \ in E. Trapp (ed.), Studien zur Byzantinischen Lexicographic, Vienna, pp. 11-46. , Horandner, W. and Diethart, J., 1994 ff.: Lexikon zur byzantinischen Grdzitat (besonders des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts), Vienna. Triandaphyllidis, M., 1909: Die Lehnworter der mittelgriechiscfien Vulgarliteratur, Strassbourg. , Kcxi £7iixpo7rf|(^, 1941: N£oeXXi)viKf\ rpafifiaxiKT) (rfjg ArjporiKrjg), Athens. , 1981 (1st ed., Athens, 1946): NeoeXXrjviKX] rpafifiamcr) ('loxopiKX] Eiaay<&yr\\, Thessalonica. Troxler, H., 1964: Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods, Zurich. Trumpy, C , 1986: Vergleich des Mykenischen mit der Sprache der Ghorlyrik. Frankfurt am Main and New York. Tsekourakis, D., 1974: Studies in the Terminology of early Stoic Ethics, Wiesbaden. Tseskhladze, G. and de Angelis, F. (eds.), 1994: The Archaeology of Greek Colonization. Oxford. Tsopanakis, A., 1994: NeoeXXriviKr) Tpa\i\iaxiKr], Athens. Tsopanakis, A. C , 1979: 'Onomatologia omerica', QUCC, N. S, 1, 1979, pp. 83-90. , 1993: "Ava£fYnicn KatatanTtwv i% ap%aia<; MaK£5ovncfj<; 'EM,T|VIKTJ<; in EXXriviKfj AiaXexxoXoyia 3, pp. 61-82. Ullmann, B. L., 1968: 'Wie alt ist das griechische Alphabet , in G. Pfohl (ed.) 1968a, pp. 214-220; Ein Beleg fur die Buchstabenfolge unseres Alphabets aus dem 14. Jahrhundert vor Christus', ibid., pp. 221-32. Unterenann, J., 1987: Einfuhrung in die Sprache Homers, Heidelberg. Untersteiner, M., 1949: La lengua di Erodoto, Bari. Urmson, J. O., 1990: The Greek Philosophical Vocabulary, London. Ursing, U., 1930: Studien zur griechischen Fabel, Lund. Van Brock, N., 1961, Recherches sur k vocabulaire medical du grec ancien, Paris. Van der Velde, R., 1924: Thessalische Dialektgeographie, Nijmegen. Van Groningen, B., 1958: La composition litteraire archaique grecque, Amsterdam. Vasiliev, A. A., 1946 (original ed. 1928-29): Historia del imperio bizantino. De Constantino a las Cruzadas, Barcelona. Vayacacos, D. V., 1972a: Le grec moderne, les dialectes neohelleniques et le dutionnaire historique de la langue grecque de lAcademie dAthenes, Athens. , 1972b: r^ooaoncT) avyyeveia Kprixn*; m i Mavni;, Ae^ixoypacpiKov SeXriov, pp. 3-42. Verdier, Ch., 1972: Les eolismes non-epiques de la langue de Pindare, Innsbruck. Vemet, J., 1978: La cultura hispano-arabe en Oriente y Occidente, Barcelona. Viereck, P., 1888: Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque romanus magistratusque popuh romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem utebantur, Gotemburgo. Vilborg, E., 1960: A tenta­ tive Grammar of mycenaean Greek, Gotenburg. Villar, F., 1996a (2nd ed.): Los indoeuropeos y los origines de Europa. Lenguaje e historia, Madrid. and d'Encarnagao, J. (eds.), 1996b: La Hispania prerromana, Salamanca. Vineis, E. (ed.), 1983: Le lingue indoeuropee di frammentaria attestazione, Pisa, pp. 135-151. Viscidi, F., 1944: I prestiti latini nel greco antico e bizantino, Padua. Vottero, G., 1996: 'Koines et koinas en Beotie a Pepoque dialectale , in Brixhe, C. (ed.) 1996a, pp. 43-92. Vries, J. de, 1963: Heroic Song and heroic Legend, London. 5

5

c

5

342

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wachter, R., 1989: 'Zur Vorgeschichte des griechischen Alphabets', Kadmos 28, pp. 19-78. Wahlgren, St., 1995: Sprachwandel im Griechischen der friihen Kaiser zeit, Gotenburg. Wahrmann, P., 1907: Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der griechischen Dialekten im ^eitalter des Hellenismus, Wien. Walburton, I. P., 1970: 'Greek Diglossia and the true aspects of the Phonology of Common Modern Greek', JL 16, pp. 45-54. Wathelet, P., 1970: Les traits eolien dans la langue de Vepopee grecque, Rome. , 1991: 'Les datifs analogiques en -eaoi', REG 104, pp. 1-14. Watkins, C , 1995: 'El protoindoeuropeo', in Giacalone, A. and Ramat, P. (eds.), Las lenguas indoeuropeas, Madrid, pp. 57-117. Webster, T. B. L., 1958: From Mycenae to Homer, London. Weierholt, K., 1963: Studien im Sprachgebrauch des Malalas, Oslo. Weise, O., 1882: Die griechische Wb'rter in Latein, Leipzig. Wenskuns, O., 1982: Ringskomposition, anaphorisch-rekapitulierende Verbindung und anknupfende Wiederholung im Hippokratischen Corpus, Frankfurt. Widmann, H., 1935: Beitrage zur Syntax Epikurs, Stuttgart-Berlin. Willets, F. R., 1988: 'Early Greek in Cyprus', in Karageorghis, J. and Masson, O. (eds.) 1988, pp. 39-54. Windekens, A. J. van, 1952: Le pelasgique, Louvain. Witte, K., 1913: 'Homer, Sprache', in RE VIII 13-47. Woodward, R. C , 1986: T h e Dentalization of the Labiovelars in Greek', 7F 91, pp. 129-154. Zaragoza, J. and Gonzalez Senmarti, A., 1989: 'Reflexions sur le lexique dans les Epidemies II, IV, V, VI, VIP, in Die hippokratischen Epidemien. Theorie, Praxis, Tradition. Verhandlungen der V Colloque International Hipporcratique (G. Baader et al. eds.), Stuttgart. Zgusta, L., 1980: 'Die Rolle des Griechischen im romischen Kaiserzeit', in G. Neumann and J. Untermann (eds.) 1980, pp. 121-145. Zilliacus, H., 1935: £um Kampf der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich, Helsinfors. Zumbach, O., 1955: Neuerungen in der Sprache der Homerischen Hymnen, Winterthur. Zuntz, G., 1939: 'Earliest Attic Prosa Style (On Antiphon's second Tetralogy)', Classica et Medievalia 2, pp. 121-144. e

INDEX

The numbers in this index refer to paragraph numbers, not to page numbers.

acclamations of the stadium: language, 336 Achaean epic: 81 ff.; origin, 89 Aeolic: 121 ff.; in Homer, 144 ff. Alcaeus and Sappho: language, 176 ff. alphabet: Greek, 100 ff; Etruscan, 110; derived from Greek, 110 f; Iberian, 306; Gothic, 308 Antiphon: language, 213, 217 Arab: 309, 314; invasion, 315; borrowings from Greek, 386 ff. Aramaic: influence in koine, 254; influence from Greek, 305 Arcado-Cyprian: 119 f; precedents, 90 Aristophanes: language, 225 Armenian: influence of Greek, 306 Attic lexicon: scientific vocabulary, 236 ff. Attic scholia: language, 189 Attic: in Ionic inscriptions, 195; oldest Attic prose, 212 ff.; mature prose, 219 ff; variants in prose, 223 ff; scientific lexicon, 234 ff; diffusion, 247 atticism: 275 ff. Bacchylides: language, 171 biblical Greek: 255 f. Boeotian: 180 Bulgarian: 381 Byzantine Greek: popular language, 330 ff, 341 ff; Latin borrowings, 356 ff; borrowings from Gothic and the easten languages, 359 ff; borrowings from western languages, 363 ff; borrowings in other languages, 366 ff; borrowings in western languages, 369 ff; borrowings in Slavic, 379 ff; borrowings in Arab, 383 ff. Byzantine lexicon: 352 ff. Byzantium: historical context of Greek, 311 ff; literature, 316 ff, 327 ff. Callimachus and Chrysorrhoe: language, 351

Callinus: language, 158 Cicero: 297 colonization: 95 ff. colloquial koine: 252 f.; local variants, 261 f; vulgar koine: 262 f; general description, 264 ff. comedy: language, 208, 210 Common Greek: his existence, 28 f; essential characteristics, 30 ff; variants, 36 ff Coptic: 304 Corinna: language, 180 ff Chios: modenr dialect, 442 choral lyric: language, 162 ff Chronicle of the Morea: language, 350 Demotic: influence of Greek, 304 Digenis Akritas: language, 349 Dorian: 125 f. Dorians: arrival, 53 ff. East Greek: 68 ff; precedents in CG, 38 f; variants, 90, 112 ff. Egyptian: influence in koine, 254 elegy: language, 155 ff epic: v. Achaean epic, Homer epigram: language, 160 f. Eteo-Cretan: 59 Ethiopian: influence of Greek, 306 Etruscan: alphabet, 110 Fables from the Vindobonensis collection: language, 339 Germanic: 308; hellenisms, 378 Gorgias: language, 213, 217 Gothic: alphabet, 308 Greek inscriptions: 108 ff. Greek: in the 2nd millenium, 46; Pre-Greek elements, 62 ff; expansion in the first millenium, 92 ff; inscriptions, 104 ff; unifying isoglosses, 127 ff; differences in the first millenium, 130 ff; general literary languages, 133 ff; specific literary languages, 175 ff; Ionic

344

INDEX

and Attic literary languages, 185 ff.; influence of Latin, 257 ff; contacts with other languages, 286 ff; coexistence with Latin within the empire, 287 f; in Rome, 289 ff; influence of othe languages, 304 ff. Greek-Latin: 387 ff., 406 ff.; in Spanish lexicon, 413 ff; international character, 415 f. Greeks: expansion and arrival to Greece, 40 ff hellenisms: in western languages in the high middle ages, 390 ff; in Castilian (centuries xiv-xvi), 393 ff; in French (centuries xiv-xvi), 397; in Italian (centuries xiv-xvi), 398; in English (centuries xiv-xvi), 399; in Castilian (centuries xvi-xviii), 400 f; in German (centuries xvii-xviii), 402; in Italian (centuries xvii-xviii), 402; in Castilian (centuries xix-xx), 403 ff. Herodot: language, 199 ff Hesiod: language, 151 f hippocratics: language, 205, 231 ff Homer: language, 85 ss, 136 ff; formulaic diction, 140 ff; dialectal forms, 143 ff; artificial forms, 146; problems of transmission, 148 Homeric Hymns: language, 153 Iambographers: language, 187 ff. Iberian: alphabet, 306 Indo-European: monothematic (IE II), 19; polithematic (IE 111), 19; IIIA, 23 f, 26; IIIA and Greek, 21 Indo-Europeans: origins, 1 ff; invasions, 5 ff; point of departure, 6 ff; theories about home and expansion, 7 ff; culture, 13 ff; cultural vocabulary, 16 f. Ionians: origin, 118 Ionic-Attic: 116 ff; precedents, 90 Ionic: in Homer, 144 ff; prose, 191 ff; Iambographers, 187 ff; inscriptions, 194; in Attic prose, 242 koine: origin, definition, levels, 240 ff; diffusion, 247 ff; influence in dialects, 250 ff; influence in other languages, 254 ff.

Latin: influence in koine, 257 ff; Hellenization, 110, 294 ff; in the East and Byzantium, 287 f. christian hellenisms, 298 Lesbian: 118, 122, 177 f, 183 literary koine: the first stage, 271 ff literary Syracusan: 183 ff Macedonian: 60 f. Malalas: language, 338 Minoans and Mycenaean expansion: 42 ff Modern Cyprian: 442 Modern Greek: general panorama, 417 ff, 443; description, 425 ff; borrowings and culture words, 432 ff; dialects, 437 ff, 443 ff. Mycenaean: 73 If; texts, 76; linguistic features, 77 ff Neolithic in Greece: 59 Nubian: 309 oral Attic: fuentes, 208; general features, 206 ff; characteristics, 209 ff Para-Mycenaean: 90 Pelasgian: 57, 64 f Phrygian: 110; influjo del griego, 305 Plato: language, 221, 270 post-Homeric epic: language, 149 ff. Pre-Greek languages: 57 ff Prodromos: language, 348 Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions: language, 337 rabbinic Hebrew: influence of Greek, 305 ritual lyric: language, 173 Sappho: v. Alcaeus scientific Greek lexicon: presocratics, 197, 227 ff; hippocratics, 233 ff; Attic literature, 236 ff; example of a system, 238; sources, 281; general description, 282 ff. Sea Peoples: 47 semitisms in Greece: 255 Semonides: language, 159 Simonides: language, 171 Slavic: 379 ff; borrowings from Greek, 382

INDEX Socrates: language, 211 Solon: language, 189 syllabaries: 49 ff. Syriac: influence of Greek, 306

Thucydides: language, 218, 225 tragedy: language, 172, 208 Tsaconian: 440, 442 Tyrtaeus: language, 159

Theocrit: language, 185 Thrasymachus: language, 213, 217

West Greek: 53 ff., 125 ff. Xenophon: language, 226

04:0