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 ('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 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 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 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 -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 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 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 -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 -us -a, -urn) and, in partic­ ular, nouns adapted

to Latin: -aq (lampa), -rj.

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%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 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£poum)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