The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek (Oxford Classical Monographs)

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS Published under the supervision of a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in the University...

Author: Andreas Willi

241 downloads 1552 Views 14MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS Published under the supervision of a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in the University of Oxford

The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish books based on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, and ancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of Classics.

The Languages of Aristophanes Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical A ttic Greek

ANDREAS WILLI

OXTORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard specification in order to ensure its continuing availability

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Andreas Willi 2003 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) Reprinted 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover And you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN 0-19-926264-0

To my Parents

Preface E V E N in classics bookshops linguistic titles do not appear on the bestseller lists, but knowing this and acting accordingly are different things: to write this book—and the doctoral thesis upon which it is based—was an act of self-indulgence. The choice of subject let me combine two of my greatest likings, that for language and that for entertaining literature. In addition, I enjoyed the privilege of declaring myself a linguist whenever I spoke to a classicist, and a classicist whenever I spoke to a linguist. There is no better way to be considered a 'specialist', to hide one's ignorance, and to obtain much-needed help. Of this I had no small share, and so my heartfelt thanks go to many people, only a few of whom I can mention here. No one . I should therefore start with my teachers Manfred Hauser, Christoph Jungck, Andreas Knecht, and Walter Wandeler at the Humanistisches Gymnasium Basel, who were the first to awaken my interest in the languages of classical antiquity. Later, I was taught by many inspiring scholars in Basel, Lausanne, Ann Arbor, and Fribourg, among whom I owe most to Joachim Latacz and Rudolf Wachter. The generous Charles Oldham Graduate Scholarship of Corpus Christi College Oxford allowed me to pursue my research without financial worries and in the most pleasant surroundings: those who know the College's wonderful library will understand what I mean. In the person of Ewen Bowie I had an ever-approachable college adviser, who is himself no stranger to Greek comedy. I also received much friendly and helpful advice from Angus Bowie, who acted as an interim supervisor in my second year at Oxford, and from John Penney and Peter Brown, who at various stages examined my progress on behalf of the Faculty of Literae Humaniores and who were thus forced to read two of my chapters in a less-thanfinal version. Richard Ashdowne, Peter Barber, James Henderson, Richard Hitchman, Philomen Probert, Elinor Reynolds, Elizabeth Roy,

viii

Preface

and Yashovardhan Shah all checked parts of what is presented here and made my English sound less Scythian. Helen Kaufmann did so too, and with immense patience pointed out to me where the logic of my argument was no logic yet. Even so, there were many things left to improve and in the final revision I was able to draw on a large number of suggestions made by my doctoral examiners Albio Cassio and Alan Sommerstein, who both sacrificed much of their time and shared much of their knowledge with me. After them, Lucy Qureshi, Enid Barker, Lavinia Porter, and Jenny Wagstaffe of Oxford University Press took care of the manuscript, and Julian Ward impressed me with his conscientious and circumspect copyediting. My greatest debts, however, are those to my parents, from whom I may well have inherited my love for language and languages, and those to my supervisor Anna Morpurgo Davies, who guided and supported my work in such an unsurpassable way that I feel almost sorry to have finished it now. A.W. Basel I July 2002

Contents

Texts, Translations, and Abbreviations

x

List of Figures

xii

List of Tables

xiii

1. Introduction

i

2. Religious Registers

8

3. Technical Languages

51

4. 'Scientific Discourse'

96

5. Sophistic Innovations

118

6. Female Speech

157

7. Foreigner Talk

198

8. Conclusion

226

Appendix: Aristophanes' Attic: A Grammatical Sketch

232

References 271

271

Index of Passages 305

305

Index of Greek 337

337

General Index 351

351


References to, and quotations from, the extant plays of Aristophanes are based on the Oxford editions by Dover (1968) and (1993) for Clouds and Frogs, Dunbar (1995) for Birds, Henderson (1987) for Lysistrata, MacDowell (1971) for Wasps, Olson (1998) for Peace, and Ussher (1973) for Ecclesiazusae, on Sommerstein's Warminster editions for Acharnians (19800), Knights (1981), Thesmophoriazusae (1994), and Plutus (2001). Aristophanic passages are cited by reference to the play alone (e.g 'Lys. 27' rather than 'Ar. Lys. 27'). The translations of the Aristophanic passages (except for the fragments, some single words, and certain instances where I want to bring out a particular point) either quote or closely follow those by Sommerstein in his complete edition: Sommerstein f Acharnians, (1981) for Knights, (1982) for Clouds, (1983) for Wasps, (1985) for Peace, (1987) for Birds, (1990) for Lysistrata, (1994) for Thesmophoriazusae, (1996) for Frogs, (1998) for Ecclesiazusae, and (2001) for Plutus. All the comic fragments and testimonies are cited according to Poetae Comici Graeci. The fragment numbering for the fragments of the Presocratics is that of Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The abbreviations K[assel]-A[ustin] (PCG) and D[iels]-K[ranz] (FVS) have been omitted. Occasional references to other classical texts are based on the standard editions; abbreviations for these and for further corpora are as listed below. DGE Eduard Schwyzer (ed. and comm.), Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora (Leipzig, 1923) FGrH Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, i-iii (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-58); with indexes by Pierre Bonnechere (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 1999) FVS Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz (ed. and trans.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1952)


IG i3

xi

Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores3, fasc. I: Decreta et tabulae magistratuum (ed. David Lewis: Berlin and New York, 1981); fasc. 2: Dedicationes, catalogi, termini, tituli sepulcrales, varia, tituli Attici extra Atticam reperta, addenda (ed. David Lewis and Lilian Jeffery with the assistance of Eberhard Erxleben: Berlin and New York, 1994); fasc. 3: Indices (by David Lewis, Eberhard Erxleben, and Klaus Hallof: Berlin and New York, 1998). LSJ Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon9 (revised and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, with a revised supplement by P. G. W. Glare with the assistance of A. A. Thompson: Oxford, 1996). PCG Rudolf Kassel and Colin Austin (ed.), Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin and New York, 1983- ). PG Patrologia Graeca PMC Denos L.Page (ed),PoetaeMeliciGraeci(?Oxford,1962 SEg SupplementukEpighium?Grem(LeidenAl aan den Rijn, Germantown, Md., and Amsterdam, 1923- )• SIG# ilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3 (indexes by Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen: Leipzig, 1915-24, repr. Hildesheim, 1960).

List of Figures

3.1 5.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Models of technical language Nominalization and typicalization processes in Clouds Chapter 5 (argument structure) Chapter 6 (argument structure) Chapter 4 (argument structure) Chapter 7 (fallacy)

55 150 228 229 229 230

List of Tables

2.1 3.1

The most frequent epithets in Aristophanic hymns and prayers Legal terms in Wasps and other plays

20 73

3.2 3.3

Denniston's 'technical terms' Some pre-technical adjective usages in Frogs

89 93

5.1 6.1

Articular infinitives in classical Greek literature Distribution of women's lines in Aristophanes

151 174

APPENDIX

A.I

Frequency of 'Aeolic' and 'non-Aeolic' optative endings in Attic drama

246

A.2 Frequency of in Acharnians and Birds A.3 Substantive clauses after in classical Greek (%) A.4 Frequency of on and introducing substantive clauses in classical Greek A.5 Frequency of indirect questions in classical Greek A.6 Frequency of final conjunctions in classical Greek A.7 The construction of in classical Greek

255 262

A.8 Frequency of causal conjunctions in classical Greek

267

263 263 265 266

I

Introduction

IN THE A N C I E N T Life of Aristophanes (Ar. test, I) we are told tha the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse once asked the philosopher Plato for information about the organization of public life in Athens. Plato, instead of writing a theoretical treatise, replied by sending an edition of the Aristophanic comedies to Sicily; in these plays, he told Dionysius, the tyrant would find the answer to all his questions:

When Dionysius the tyrant wanted to learn how the Athenian state was functioning, Plato allegedly sent him the work of Aristophanes . . . and suggested that he should study the plays and learn it that way.

What Dionysius was supposed to do was to read between the lines. He would of course have been naive, for instance, if he had inferred from Dicaeopolis' behaviour in Acharnians that every adult Athenian was allowed to make a private treaty with an enemy state. But he would have been correct if he concluded from the plot of Ecclesiazusae that women were not normally allowed to take part in the public decision-making process. Dionysius simply had 'to determine where reality ends and caricature or fantasy begins'. The last phrase is quoted from Victor Ehrenberg's groundbreaking 'sociology of Old Attic Comedy', The People of Aristophanes.^ Ehrenberg's project was similar to Dionysius' task, though with a wider scope. It was not just the organization of public life, i7-oAiT«ia, that interested Ehrenberg. He recognized that comedy is the most valuable literary source for reconstructing the 'atmosphere' of classical Athenian social and economic life as a whole: 'We shall best grasp and comprehend the "atmosphere" . . . 1 Ehrenberg (1962) 39. The following paragraph is based on, and quotes from, the introduction to that book (pp. 1-13).

2

Introduction

when a source answers our questions without intending to do so.' In most literary genres, matters of daily life are only introduced when they deserve particular attention, 'but in comedy . . . the facts of social and economic life [are] given merely as a background'. Sinc the comic author does not intend to inform his audience or readership about facts of daily life, he does so in the most immediate, unreflective—or should we say: honest—manner. In comedy, 'the reality of the people is not displaced by the myth, sacred or rationalized, a in tragedy, nor largely lost in the aloofness of the political historian as with Thucydides or in the abstractions of philosophy. In comedy it may be hidden, but it is never destroyed.' More than half a century after the first publication of Ehrenberg's book, it is a deliberate, though perhaps bold, act of intertextuality to entitle a book 'The Languages of Aristophanes'. I have done so because, in spite of my different aims, I have been guided by the same methodological convictions as Ehrenberg—or Dionysius, if he followed Plato's advice. Historical linguists, who are overwhelmed by the grammatical and dialectological evidence for classical Greek, often (and quite rightly) lament the almost complete lack of sociolinguistic data. The inscriptions, left untouched since antiquity, are the linguist's favourite sources, but their stylistic and thematic variety is extremely restricted. Poetry, including tragic poetry, deliberately differs from 'real' language. And even prose, though often acceptable as a substitute for the latter, still cannot provide us with firsthand evidence for oral styles. However, there is comedy. Just as this genre bristles with the socio-economic facts of daily life, so it glitters with linguistic variation. Styles, accents, dialects, sociolects—all intermingle. In sociolinguistics, 'linguistic varieties' is used as a cover term for these 'sets of communicative forms', which are restricted to a particular group of speakers, situational context, or thematic environment. 2 The comic mixture of linguistic varieties is a literary construct, no less than the language of tragedy or prose, but the ingredients, the single varieties themselves, are taken from 'real life'. This is no new insight. Without speaking of linguistic varieties, Kenneth Dover distinguished the main layers (or 'ingredients') of Aristophanic 2 See e.g. Saville-Troike (1989) 49-50; Hudson (1996) 22-4; Duranti (1997) 70-1.

Introduction

i,

language thirty years ago, and more recently Antonio Lopez Eire and Stephen Colvin have dealt with two major fields of variation in Aristophanes, the only author of Old Comedy whose plays have not been lost: Lopez Eire looked at colloquial language, Colvin at nonAttic dialects. 3 Both Lopez Eire's colloquialism and Colvin's dialectal divergences are extremely basic categories. Do we have to stop there, or is it possible to learn something about more fine-grained linguistic variation from Aristophanes' comedies? This main question unites the following chapters and guides us through them. They all look at variation in the Attic Greek of Aristophanes, but they can be read independently as they treat different aspects of this topic. Let me admit right at the beginning, the answer to the question I have just asked will not always be a positive one, even though I have chosen those aspects of variation which seemed most promising to me. But a negative answer can also be useful, for it may nevertheless teach us something about 'linguistic cultural history'. There are circumstances in which the absence of evidence is just as noteworthy as its presence. A comprehensive treatment of linguistic variation in Aristophanes was out of the question; the material is too abundant. Still, the range of topics presented here is meant to be representative and useful for further research along similar lines. My personal selection of varieties has been guided by an 'internal', subjective, and an 'external', objective, approach. 'Internally', I proceeded from the 'passive' observation (made in repeated readings of the Aristophanic text) that there are more or less systematic 'irregularities', i.e. bundles of similar features which seem to be thematically interrelated and thus constitute autonomous varieties. The most obvious example of a variety chosen in this way is the 'foreigner talk' (or broken Greek) of Chapter 7, but Chapters 4 and 5 on 'scientific discourse' and on sophistic language in Clouds belong here as well. 'Externally', I actively searched for linguistic varieties which have been extensively described in sociolinguistic literature on 3 Dover (1970) 7-8; Lopez Eire (19960), (1997), and (1998); Colvin (1999); see also Kloss (2001), who considers, from a more literary point of view, the comic pragmatics of several marked styles such as oracular language, the language of the bomolochos, or the language of foreigners. For further bibliography see Willi (20020), esp. 18-20 and 28-9.

4

Introduction

modern languages and whose existence in ancient Greek could be hypothesized on typological grounds. This is the basis of Chapter 2 on register variation (with religious language in hymns and prayers as a paradigmatic example), Chapter 3 on technical languages, and Chapter 6 on women's language or 'genderlect'. I should stress, however, that in their final form, nearly all chapters combine elements of the external and the internal approach. Once I had chosen the linguistic varieties to be analysed, the main task was to identify (and describe) their specific linguistic characteristics. Throughout, I have used the following three methods of identifying the relevant features. Again, internal and external aspects are closely combined. (i) Stylistic comparisons: In a given passage, a linguistic feature is stylistically marked if its stylistic level departs significantly from that of its context (i.e. if the occurrence of such a feature cannot be sufficiently explained by its other attestations in comedy or classical Greek literature in general). For instance, an epic word in a colloquial invective calls for an explanation. (2) Statistical comparisons: Even a linguistic feature which is not stylistically marked as such can be irregular if its frequency in a given passage or text sample is not pragmatically justified by the context or topic and differs significantly from the frequency of the feature in comparable passages or text samples. In order to guarantee a high degree of comparability, I have based most of my statistical comparisons on the Aristophanic corpus only. The crucial importance of statistical comparisons is due to Aristophanes' reluctance to depict a linguistic variety without disruption. 4 (3) Cross-linguistic comparisons: Linguistic features specific to certain varieties are sometimes found more easily if one takes into account what features characterize similar varieties in other (usually modern) languages. Obviously cross-linguistic comparisons play a major role in those chapters where the external approach described above is prominent (Chapters 2, 3, 6, and also 7), but even there they can only be a hermeneutic tool because the variety4 The discontinuity of linguistic characterization, for instance, was first stressed by Plut. Mor. 8s3C-d. More recently, it has been discussed by Dover (1976), Silk (1990) 153-4, ancl Silk (2000) 209-15, who nevertheless admits (p. 221) that 'most, if not all, of the characters in Aristophanes' earlier plays possess some semblance of realist continuity at least some of the time' (cf. e.g. Chs. 4, 5, 6); see also Katsouris (1975) 101-2; Del Corno (1997).

Introduction

5

specific nature of features identified in this way still needs to be proved by either stylistic or statistical comparisons within comedy and/or Greek literature in general. The concept of 'irregularity' or 'markedness', which is crucial for both stylistic and statistical comparisons, presupposes a complementary concept of 'regularity', 'normative usage', or 'unmarkedness'. It gradually became clear to me that my project would gain in usefulness if I drew a picture not just of linguistic variation qua deviation from the norm, but also of the Aristophanic norm itself: that is, if I made explicit what Aristophanes' language looks like when it is not employed to convey specific effects. In order to set this background of unmarkedness, I have added the Appendix, which presents a short outline and characterization of Aristophanes' linguistic (or more precisely, grammatical) norms and distinctive features (as far as they either depart from, or are at least not simply predictable from, the abstract 'Attic grammar' that has acquired quasi-normative status in post-Renaissance classical scholarship). Even so, it may be objected that it is naive to expect any sound results from a linguistic study of comic language. Is not parody omnipresent in comedy, and does not parody falsify every inference that is based on stylistic markedness? To some degree, this is true. We are moving on dangerous ground, and this explains why there are many 'mays' and 'mights' in my text. However, it is rare that we are completely uncertain whether, and in what respects, a passage is parodic or not: scholia and non-comic literature are there to help us. And more importantly, to study comic language is the only way of finding out anything substantial about those aspects of linguistic variation which are considered here. To brand comedy as unreliable means to surrender before defeat is certain. Moreover, parody can be an advantage. Parody distorts and exaggerates, but it does not invent. 5 In other words, the parody of a style or linguistic variety often highlights its peculiarities. Parody is not faithful in degree, but it is faithful in kind. Let us suppose for a moment that not a single line of Greek tragedy had survived. Let us then take just the following two lines of Acharnians, where Euripides is speaking (Ach. 432-3): 5 The concept of 'parody' as a parasitic form is discussed by Rau (1967) 7—18, who speaks of 'formale Anlehnung und Nachahmung' (p. i j).

6

Introduction

E U R I P I D E S : Give him the ragments, boy, of Telephus. They lie above the Thyestean rags. Since the speaker is the tragic poet Euripides, we would assume that stylistic deviations from the norm are paratragic. We would notice, by looking through the rest of the Aristophanic corpus, that is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, that on the whole there are very few (11) Aristophanic nouns in (only some of which have simple synonyms like pdnros beside pd/^.a and of possessive adjectives rather than possessive genitives was felt by Aristophanes to be common in tragedy or at least Euripidean tragedy. A second, and slightly more daring, conclusion would be that these two features were indeed common in tragedy. And finally we might venture a third, even bolder conclusion: that the lost genre of tragedy, which was apparently departing from regular linguistic usage in these two cases, was consciously employing a 'de-automatizing' poetic language also in other, though perhaps unknown, respects. Now, since tragedy is not lost, we know that our second and third conclusions are absolutely correct, and by implication the same is probably true for the first conclusion. The example shows that some characteristic features of tragic language are reconstructable on the basis of their comic reflection. There is no reason why a similar procedure should not lead to trustworthy results with other linguistic varieties, where the 'original' is really lost. This is not to say that every conclusion is of equal value. If we had concluded from our two paratragic lines that there are no possessive genitives in tragedy, we would have been wrong. Utmost caution is absolutely mandatory. We must distinguish between evidence which is certain (e.g. stylistic and statistical data describing Aristophanes' usage) and suggestions or conclusions based on the evidence which are only possible. This is why I am somewhat

Introduction

7

reluctant to write, as Ehrenberg did in his introduction, that 'this book is not a book on Aristophanes or on Old Comedy'. Most of the positive facts assembled in this book are facts concerning the language, or languages, of Aristophanes, and of Aristophanes only. They show what a complex texture comic discourse has, how literary styles are composed and configured, and where the potentials and limitations of our analytic methods lie. But all of the following chapters also at least try to place these positive facts in the wider perspective of Attic Greek and attempt, quite literally, to look behind the scene. Sceptics, I hope, will find in my book a range of useful observations on Aristophanes' verbal art, which can enrich the literary interpretation of his comic masterpieces. Those who are a bit more adventurous may take these observations merely as their base camp, venture beyond literature, and set out to explore, with the help of the sociolinguistic equipment provided in each chapter, some areas of Attic language and culture which so far are largely unknown.

2

Religious Registers

2.1. R E G I S T E R V A R I A T I O N Like any other natural language, Greek is not a homogeneous entity. Everyone who reads Homer alongside Aristophanes, or Sappho alongside Pindar notices that there are different varieties of Greek. The linguistic differences between these texts can be correlated with the differences between epigraphic texts from various regions of Greece. Such geographically defined language varieties are called 'dialects': the Ionic dialect of Homer, the Attic dialect of Aristophanes, the Aeolic dialect of Sappho, and the Doric dialect of Pindar. In a wider sense we can speak of dialects when varieties are socially denned (i.e. when social grouping is their basic parameter). Less ambiguously, such varieties are called 'sociolects'. For instance, in many modern languages it is possible to individuate certain linguistic characteristics of the speech of working-class people. An altogether different type of language variety is situationally defined (i.e. its basic parameter is the 'contextual situation'). A native speaker of a given language may be unable to change his or her sociolect or dialect, but no native speaker speaks in exactly the same way in all communicative circumstances. Thus, a scientist speaks in two different modes when he or she explains a new theory at an academic congress and when he or she has dinner at home. Such situationally defined varieties are called 'registers'.1 'Register' is a more precise term than 'style' because styles are not necessarily defined by a situation: it is possible to speak of the 'style' of an author or of a literary epoch. 'Register' should also be distinguished from 'genre' (even though the two terms are sometimes treated as synonyms). 'Register' is the linguistic code that is used in the creation of a text that belongs to a 'genre'. In other 1

Biber (1995) 7; cf. Biber-Finegan (1994) 3-4; C. A. Ferguson (1994) 16.

Religious Registers

9

words, 'register' is the significant (e.g. the language used in a culinary recipe), 'genre' the signifie (the recipe itself).2 Register variation seems to occur in all languages although the number and range of registers may vary. 3 Systemic changes in register variation can even be a major factor in language change, for instance when a new field of technology generates a new technical register, whose terminology or syntactic preferences may eventually be absorbed into other registers as well.4 The recognition of a register is largely intuitive and based on non-linguistic criteria. In order to describe the linguistic characteristics of a register it is necessary to start from a corpus of texts or speech events which are grouped together because they fulfil similar functions and occur in similar situations (local settings, participant patterns). Obviously such a categorization can be more or less subtle. We could, for instance, establish a register of fictional prose, or divide the same text-corpus into different registers for folktales, nineteenth-century novels, science-fiction novels, etc. Both categorizations are valid, but the choice of one or the other influences the level of precision in the linguistic analysis. Depending on the choice we will find a register with greater or lesser inner variability, and with many or few 'subregisters'. A full register description therefore ideally indicates also how broad the 'internal variation' is.5 There are two basic types of synchronic monolingual register descriptions: descriptions of single registers and comparisons of two or more registers. In studies of single registers three major components can be distinguished: the description of the situation in which the register is used; the description of the linguistic characteristics of the register; the analysis of the functional or conventional associations between the situational and linguistic features.6 If linguistic features occur only in one register, they can be called 2 Cf. Biber (1988) 68; Biber (1994) 51-3; C. A. Ferguson (1994) 20-1, 28 n. 4; Biber (1995) 8-9. 3 Ure (1982) 5; Biber (1995) 54 Cf. Romaine (1980) and (1982), esp. on syntactic change (spread of whrelativization in Scots English); Ure (1982) 6; Biber (1995) 13 and 280-313. 5 Biber (1995) 7 and 133; cf. Duranti (1985) 203-20, Biber (1988) 28-33, Biber (1994) 39—44, and Saville-Troike (1989) 138-55 for situational parameters that can be used in the categorization (participant structure, relation between addressers and addressees, setting, channel, purposes, etc.); C. A. Ferguson (1994) 23-4. 6 Biber (1994) 33; Biber (1995) 10.

io

Religious Registers

'register markers'. However, this is very rare. Even a technical term like register variation could appear in several registers (e.g. in an academic article or in a university lecture). The peculiarity of registers therefore lies in the frequency of specific features and in the co-occurrence of entire clusters of features, which may belong to all linguistic levels (phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics, lexicon).7 2.2. R E G I S T E R D I M E N S I O N S When two or more registers are compared, the feature clusters can be grouped into 'dimensions of variation'. For instance, Douglas Biber has shown that oral and written registers differ crosslinguistically with regard to dimensions such as • 'interactiveness': e.g. conversation (with frequent first-person and second-person pronouns, questions, imperatives) vs. monologue • 'production circumstances': on-line production (e.g. with contracted forms, elliptical sentences, and parataxis rather than hypotaxis) vs. careful planning (with structural integration and elaboration, e.g. through frequent nouns, nominalizations, subordinate clauses, or precise lexical choices) • 'personal stance/involvement': linguistic encoding of commitment to a proposition or of attitudes towards a proposition or other participants (e.g. through use or absence of first-person pronouns and hedges) vs. informational focus (with increased referential explicitness and cohesion) • 'abstractness'8 Such dimensions of variation must be imagined not as either-or options, but as more-or-less continua: a personal letter shows more involvement than an article in a scientific journal but less involvement than a conversation at the pub next door. With Biber's dimensions, register studies become less atomistic since single linguistic features can belong to several dimensions 7

Cf. Biber (1988) 21-2, Biber (1994) 35—6, and Biber (1995) 29-30, after others. Biber (1995) 241-53; cf. Chafe (1982) 38—49 with the similar dimensions 'integration vs. fragmentation' and 'involvement vs. detachment'; Givon (1979) 103-6; Ochs (1979); 'planned' vs. 'unplanned' discourse. For the concept of 'stance' see Biber-Finegan (1989). 8

Religious Registers

11

and since various features can be grouped together into one dimension. However, without extensive statistical investigations on the entire register system of a language (e.g. Greek), it is still difficult to determine appropriate dimensions to which we can allocate isolated linguistic features if we describe just one or two registers (as we will do in this chapter). Fortunately, in a recent cross-linguistic study based on statistical register comparisons of English, Somali, Nukulaelae Tuvaluan, and Korean, Biber has discovered that certain dimensions are common to all of these genetically unrelated languages. They are therefore potentially universal or at least very widespread. Apart from three of the dimensions already mentioned (interactiveness, production circumstances, personal stance/involvement), which are often connected with orality and 'literacy' (including 'oral literature' 9 ), Biber also names • 'narrativity' (where narrative discourse can be marked by past-tense verbs, third-person pronouns, temporal adverbs and clauses, etc.), and • 'argumentation/persuasion' (marked by presence/absence of possibility modals, conditional subordination, concession conjuncts, etc.)10 In the following discussion we will see that several of Biber's 'universal' register dimensions are helpful for interpreting and classifying register features in ancient Greek. On the basis of Aristophanic material (and therefore from a purely synchronic point of view), we will deal with one aspect of register variation in Attic: discourse in a religious context. With this case study, the chapter will test the viability of a register-focused approach to linguistic variation in Old Comedy. 2.3. R E L I G I O U S L A N G U A G E 'Religious language' is often seen as one of the most basic or archetypal registers,11 perhaps because register studies originated in anthropological linguistics. 12 In some cultures, the religious code 10 " Cf. Chafe (1982) 49-52. Biber (1995) 236-70. " Cf. Crystal—Davy (1969) 146—7, recognizing different 'kinds of religious language'; Samarin (1976) 6-9; J. Webster (1988); Saville-Troike (1989) 76—8. 12 With the 'context of situation' of Malinowski (1923) 465-70: cf. Biber (1995) 6.

12

Religious Registers

is a completely different language (e.g. Latin for Catholics before the Second Vatican Council), but often it is just a separate register which is associated with religious purposes. Its register features frequently include conservative and archaic forms (cf. English thou, speakesi), a special lexicon (behold, disciples), or particularities of intonation, pitch, rhythm, and structure (repetitions). 13 In Seneca, a North-American Indian language, Chafe found that ritual texts were structurally more integrated and elaborated than conversational discourse, which in turn showed more personal involvement features. 14 Similar observations have been made in other oral cultures. 15 Religion was omnipresent in ancient Greece and there is no evidence for the use of a distinct hieratic language in Greek cult: no priest spoke Egyptian or Aramaic during a religious ceremony. But how much do we know about a distinct religious register? Did some kind of code-switching take place in religious contexts? Did the Greeks address the gods in the same way as they conversed with each other? In Aristophanic comedy humans and divinities often interact. On the one hand, there are divinities who appear as comically humanized stage characters. In such cases we should hardly expect that their human interlocutors change register in talking to them. On the other hand, there are also many hymns and prayers. Even if these frequently have a parodic slant, they may provide the answers to the questions just asked. As I have stressed in the introduction, parody exaggerates formal peculiarities. If a religious register existed at all, comedy is the literary genre in which it would be reflected most unambiguously. The language of Greek prayers and hymns as the two most prominent genres of religious discourse has been studied extensively. Ausfeld, Ziegler, and Keyssner compiled huge collections of (mainly lexical) constitutive elements in prayers and hymns throughout Greek literature. Norden concentrated on diachronic developments of formal structure. More recently, Pulleyn has included a chapter on language in his monograph on prayer in 13 Crystal-Davy (1969) 152-71; C. A. Ferguson (1973) 225; Crystal (1976); C. A. Ferguson (1986) 207; J. Webster (1988) 96-9; Saville-Troike (1989) 77. 14 Chafe (1982) 49-5 2. 15 See e.g. Gossen (1976) on formal religious language in a Maya community; Mitchell (1988) and Forth (1988) on ritual Sumbanese.

Religious Registers

13

Greek religion.16 The value of dramatic poetry was recognized by Dieterich, who demonstrated that Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 echoes Orphic hymns, and encouraged the search for lost religious practices and texts in Greek drama. Adami compared several dramatic text samples with literary hymns in order to detect the 'formulae legitimae sermonisque sollemnis proprietates'.17 Similarly, by comparing the parodic prayers in Aristophanes with non-parodic material from other sources, Kleinknecht illustrated the validity of the principle that comedy can, to some degree and if treated with due caution, replace the missing real-life evidence. Horn subsequently discussed the function of parodic and nonparodic prayers in Aristophanic comedy.18 All of these studies contain valuable material. The present chapter intends to add to them in two ways. First, its limitation to the texts of one author allows a microscopic synchronic analysis of some of the linguistic material that had to be treated summarily in more comprehensive studies like those of Ausfeld, Keyssner, or Pulleyn. Second, the theoretical framework of register analysis enables us to find out whether, or in what sense, we may speak of a religious register in (Attic) Greek. The linguistic analysis will thereby contribute to the illumination of much more general aspects of cultural categorization.

2.4. PRAYERS AND HYMNS Religious language is most likely to occur in prayers and hymns. In other 'religious' texts such as solemn oaths or ritual formulae the interaction with the divine is less direct. Also, they are less frequent in comedy. Assertive idioms like have and 'secondary interjections' such as lost their original force even though secondary interjections often imply a passing request for assistance.19 A prayer is more explicit. 16 Ausfeld (1903); Ziegler (1905); Keyssner (1932); Norden (1956); Pulleyn (1997) 132-5517 Dieterich (1893); Adami (1901). 18 Kleinknecht (1937), esp. 62 for the methodological conclusion; Horn (1970); cf. Furley—Bremer (2001) i. 341-2. Conti Bizzarro (1998) is superficial. " On Aristophanic oaths see Ziebarth (1892) 6-14; Werres (1936); on the great oath in Lys. 212-36 Kleinknecht (1937) 51-2; on the boundaries between prayers and mere invocations Horn (1970) 2-3, referring to Blaszczak (1932) 1-2; on 'secondary interjections' Dittmar (1933) 17—20.

14

Religious Registers

For Plato euxcu 'prayers' are by definition 'requests to the gods'.20 Pure prayers of thanksgiving are rare in antiquity. 21 Prayers and hymns have several things in common. They are orally performed and share the same participant structure: a human being is the sender (addressor), a divinity, pragmatically if not grammatically, the addressee. The performative setting is often similar: hymns and communal prayers are part of religious festivals. Moreover, their purposes overlap to some degree. Both genres aim at communication with the gods in order to make them well-disposed to the sender(s). Hymns, like prayers, may contain a request, and frequently this is not just an embedded prayer but a central element: cletic hymns do nothing but ask for a divine appearance. For Plato, the essential difference is formal, not functional: hymns are sung prayers. 22 Unlike some prayers, hymns are not performed by individuals but 'sung in the participation of cultic performances by either the entire community or by a chorus of performers'. 23 However, Plato's equation is not entirely satisfactory on the functional side. A hymn is designed—just like a sacrifice—to win or retain divine favour (cf. Av. 855-6 so as to create conditions under which a prayer is likely to be heeded. The encomiastic or aesthetic element has therefore priority over the request. 24 In a prayer, on the other hand, the request is central and it usually depends far more on a specific situation. In our Aristophanic corpus, the use of spoken or recited, as opposed to sung, metres helps to distinguish hymns and prayers. Thus, Socrates' anapaestic words at Nub. 264-74 represent a prayer (cf. Nub. 263 although they contain elements that are typical of (cletic) hymns: the exalted Socrates prays in a hymnic style. Other passages are more ambiguous. The request in the choral song Pax 385—99 is so crucial and the aesthetic element so 20 PI. Leg. 8oia; cf. PI. Def. 415!); Euthphr. 140; Pulleyn (1997) 5-8, against Aubriot-Sevin (1992), esp. 172-4. 21 Ausfeld (1903) 509; Versnel (1981) 42—62. Instead, there are sacrifices and hymns: Versnel (1981) 53; Pulleyn (1997) 39-55. 22 PI. Leg. 7oob; on Plato's further classification see Bremer (1981) 193; Furley (1995)31—2; Furley—Bremer (2001) i. 10-13. 23 Bremer (1981) 193; cf. Rudhardt (1992) 185-7; Pulleyn (1997) 44. 24 Cf. Pulleyn (1997) 43-55; Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 3-4; pace Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 172.

Religious Registers

15

subordinated that the metre becomes an insufficient criterion. 25 The situational importance and the quantitative prominence of the request should therefore be taken into account too. In order to be as objective as possible, I have based the following observations on Horn's list and classification of Aristophanic hymns and prayers, which includes and discusses doubtful cases.26 While it is sometimes necessary also to distinguish communal and official prayers from private (or 'free') prayers, 27 no further attention will be paid to hymnic subgroupings (paeans, dithyrambs, processional hymns, etc.), except that one or two points concern only cletic hymns. Once we have recognized a partial overlap in the functions of hymns and prayers, the main question of this chapter becomes more complex. Instead of asking whether there is a religious register, we must now ask if we should speak of one religious register with two subregisters, or of two separate registers. Because the answer depends on the amount of linguistic similarity between the two genres, the following discussion will focus especially on similarities and differences between prayers and hymns. We will begin with two elements that are apparently the same in both genres: forms of invocation and epithets (§§ 2.5—2.6). We will see that prayers and hymns are linguistically rather diverse and that it makes more sense to speak of different registers. The same will appear in the following two sections (2.7-2.8) on lexical aspects and in a later section (2.11) on argument structuring. In between, we will look separately at some characteristic aspects of prayer syntax and hymn syntax (§§ 2.9-2.10). Finally (§ 2.12), we will briefly consider the question of internal variation mentioned in the first section.

25 Similarly Ran. 385—93, which is announced as a hymn (Ran. 383-4) but devotes eight lines to the formulation of requests; only Ran. 3856 avuTrapaarara. has something of a cletic imperative. For non-linguistic 'markers' (gestures) cf. Pax 56; Av. 623; Pulleyn (1997) 188-95; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 125-45; Sittl (1890) 174-99; Van Straten (1995) 134-6. 2I> Horn (1970) 4—11; cf. also the hymn list in Furley-Bremer (2001) i. 337-8. 27 Ausfeld (1903) 506-7; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 54; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 34-5; Pulleyn (1997) 9.

16

Religious Registers

2.5. F O R M S OF I N V O C A T I O N Most communal and private prayers are introduced with w preceding the name of the divinity. 28 However, the vocative particle is not obligatory. Since there are (semi-)official prayers with w, it does not seem that the absence of u> marks formality or dignity. 29 Literary factors like metrical convenience may sometimes condition the use of , whereas in other cases the presence or absence of (5 is probably related to the emotional distance the speaker wants to create between himself or herself and the addressee.30 The only element that frequently precedes the vocative is a transitional dlAAa (or drap). This, too, may be conditioned by literary conventions rather than represent actual usage. 31 Prayers where the vocative is further postponed are extremely rare and not embedded in the action of the respective plays. 32 That the invocation is a crucial element of 'prayerness' is also shown by the fact that longer prayers tend to repeat it towards the end as if to ensure the attention of the divinity. 33 In a few prayers the divinity is addressed indirectly instead.34 Thesm. 296 and 331 and Av. 864 suggest that official prayers were dat often formulated by a leader and took the form of divinity>. 35 Such indirect formulations may have acquired an 28 Private prayers: Nub. 264, 429; Vesp. 389, 438; Pax 58, 62; Lys. 742, 833, 972 (if the prayer begins with a> Ztv Zev); Ran. 875; Eccl. 369; communal prayers: Ach. 247; Vesp. 869, 875; Pax 974. 29 Pace Schwyzer-Debrunner (1950) 61; cf. Dickey (1996) 199-206. Without a> e.g. Lys. 203, 317; Thesm. 286; Ran. 886, 892; there is not much 'formality' in Ach. 816 or Eccl. 882. Thesm. 315 is rather a cletic hymn, Ran. 3850 ambiguous. 30 Cf. Ellendt-Genthe (1872) 797: 'poetae . . . quando precibus instandum, minitatione terrendum, arnica admonitione castigandum, indignabundi aut repente territi vox promenda esset, [particula u>] abstinuerunt libenter'. 31 Cf. Denniston (1950) 15-16; Nub. 1478; Vesp. 323, 652 (drop), 1001; Thesm. 282; Ar. fr. 705 (if this is a prayer); similarly Eq. 634 after aye Si) (cf. Neil (1901) 95: 'I do not suppose [aye Sri] would be used in devout prayer'); Lys. 341 after a connective relative pronoun. 32 Ran. 1529 (closing prayer of the chorus); Eccl. 958 = 967 (refrain in a love song). In Pax 385 and 416, Hermes is present as an interlocutor. 33 Pax 1016; Lys. 341—9 (3 invocations); Thesm. 368-9. 34 Vesp. 368, Thesm. 1229—31, and Plut. 592 are wishes or curses rather than prayers. 35 In Pax 435 with fv\iii^.ia%a no addressee is named (but see 432 of Thesmm.311.Pax cf. also Thesm.Thesm. 352 352a Thesm. 331. Pa 1322-30 is, strictly speaking, only a description of a prayer.

Religious Registers

17

officious ring. With first-person verbs they came to be used by public orators as ceremonial introductions to their speeches (cf. Eccl. 171).36 As a private prayer, Cleon-Paphlagon's lines at Eq. 763—4 (rfi jj.ev SetTTTOiVj) Adrjvair] . . . fij)(O/j.ai

'I pray . . . to OUT Lady

Athena') are therefore exceptional and characterize the speaker as bombastic (cf. the 'hymnic' epithet peSeovaa 'sovereign' and the epic vocalism in Both types of invocation are exactly matched in hymns. Cletic hymns most commonly use direct imperatives like eA0e (often coupled with the cletic adverb SeOpo).38 Alternatively, the hymnic ode at Nub. 563-74 consists only of /axAijaKto 'I call' + a list of gods.39 The indirect formulation (xraAe'to, etc. + ace.) can alternate with a imperative in order to create poetic variatio (Thesm. 1136-59).40 It has been suggested that real cultic hymns, unlike 'epic hymns', employed the direct form, 41 but for instance Nub. 563-74 and the functionally parallel antode in Nub. 595-606 differ in this respect; dfjupt i"01 a#rc 'come close to me again' in the latter may have been another stereotypical direct invocation formula. 42 The prayer structure <evxeode + dat. of divinity> corresponds to hymns with choral response (Lys. 1280; Ran. 395). Direct vs. indirect forms of invocation indicate the degree of interactiveness. With regard to this register dimension, the same range of options is found in hymns and prayers. If we wanted to distinguish two registers on the basis of this feature alone, we would put together hymns and communal or official prayers but separate them from private prayers. 36 Cf. Dem. 18. i (with Wankel (1976) 105-6; according to Usher (1999) 271 simulating the opening of the people's assembly); Lycurg. i. i; Plut. Mor. Sojf; Ussher ( J 973) 99; Burckhardt (1924) 33—4. Plut. 771 is paratragic. 37 Affijvaia may still have been used beside Ad-qva.: cf. Neil (1901) 109; Threatte (1980) 271-4; App. § 2.1.4. On n«Se'ouaa cf. C. A. Anderson (1995) 16—22. 38 Imp. + Sevpo: Ach. 665; Eq. 559, 586, 591; Lys. 1263, 1271; Thesm. 319; for hymnic Bevpo cf. also Thesm. 1137, Ran. 395, the 'parahymnic' passages Eq. 148-9 and 1335, and the cletic prayers at Eccl. 882 and (with Sevpo alone: cf. Wackernagel (1926) 71) Ran. 1306. The replacement of SeOpo by e.g. eVOciSe is exceptional (Thesm. "59)39 KiKAijoKco is an Aristophanic hapax legomenon and Adami (1901) 221 cites only Orphic parallels; cf. with pedestrian KaXew Thesm. 1137, 1145. 40 Cf. Thesm. 101-29 with xa'Pe anc' indirect formulations like iirofuu K\jj£ovaa . . . Aprefiiv 'I follow glorifying . . . Artemis'. 41 H. Meyer (1933) 6-7; cf. Furley (1995) 35. 42 Cf. PMG 697 (Terpander fr. i Page); with d/icpi'(fioi) h. Horn. 7. i, 19. 1,22. i; also the verb aiiifiavaKTit,fiv in Ar. fr. 62; Cratin. fr. 72; Dover (1968) 175; Kretschmer (1894) 106.

18

Religious Registers

2.6. E P I T H E T S The function of divine epithets has been a matter of dispute. Ausfeld argued that they reflect the wish to find the 'right' name, by which the divinity will be magically attracted, but he acknowledged that honouring the god may be a positive side effect. 43 For Plato (Crat. 4006) the latter is more important:

In our prayers it is traditional for us to pray that we may call them [sc. the gods] by their favourite names and from their favourite places.

Accordingly, the magical nature of divine epithets has been called into question. 'The enumeration of a god's names often had more to do with a desire to glorify that god by a rehearsal of his names and attributes. This fits in with what we saw of hymns, namely that they are a sort of x^p's-, intended to delight the god.'45 In several Aristophanic prayers an epithet is chosen to fit the dramatic situation of a speaker or group of speakers. The Megarian who has just sold his 'pigs' prays to Hermes ejuTroAafoy 'god of trading' (Ach. 816-17). The women's chorus of Lysistrata (341-9) invoke Athena as iroAiovxos 'guardian of the city' because they are concerned with saving the city, and as ûju/uaxos 'ally' because a fight with the men's chorus is impending. 46 The chorus of initiates in Frogs call Athena (or Demeter, or Kore? 47 ) -Ton-eipa 'saviouress' as they hope for eternal salvation (Ran. 378; cf. 386), and Dicaeopolis, inspecting the holes in his new rag-costume, comically prays to Zeus SIOTTTI)? 'through-seer' (instead of firoirr-qs 'overseer') (Ach. 435)- 48

43 Ausfeld (1903) 518-20, referring to Schol. //. 5. 118; similarly Usener (1929) 336; Kleinknecht (1937) 19; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 162. 44 Cf. Men. Rhet. 440. 13-15; Aesch. Ag. 160-2; Eur. fr. 912. 2-3 Nauck; PI. Phlb. 12c; Kleinknecht (1937) 131-2; Ausfeld (1903) 517—18. 45 Pulleyn (1997) 115; cf. also Graf (1991) 192. 46 Cf. Henderson (1987) 111-12; C. A. Anderson (1995) 46-7, also on 'golden-crested' and Tpnoyeveia 'Trito-born'. 47 Cf. Furley-Bremer (2001) it. 370. 48 On (TTOTTTTJS see Keyssner (1932) 99—101. The contextual appropriateness of epithets is a comic theme also in Pint. 1152-65.

Religious Registers

19

In the prayer at Pax 991-2, Trygaeus proposes a deal to Peace:

TRYGAEUS: And resolve our fights and our broils, that we may call thee Lysimache [Fight-resolver]. Here, the epithet is set out as a reward.49 Peace is not yet honoured as she will be if she acts in a way to deserve a hymn of thanksgiving. The x°-Pl$ conveyed by the epithet belongs to a hymn rather than to the present prayer. Despite these examples, the view that it was crucial to find the 'right' name in a prayer can be challenged. In the Aristophanic prayers (P) and hymns (H) collected in Horn's list, the epithets 'rank' as shown in Table 2.1 ('9 for 7' = '9 occurrences for 7 different divinities').50 The most frequent epithets are far more common in prayers than in hymns. This is all the more surprising because hymns tend to be extremely rich in epithets. Using just one out of the eight most common options, the short hymn in the parabatic ode of Clouds (Nub. 563-74) includes the following range of epithets. Zeus Poseidon

vi{iifj,fSwv 'high ruler', (9ea>i>) rvpawos 'sovereign', 'great' peyaadfvris 'great and mighty', rpiaivijs raîas 'warden of the trident',

Aither

Helios

'savage upheaver . . . of the earth and sea' 'Our ned', iê'repos Tranj father', ae/nvdraTos 'most revered", 'nourisher of all living things' tTTwowu/iay 'charioteer', /xeya? (8a£fuav) ) 'great power' (+ a relative clause functioning as epithet)

Unlike prayers, hymns strive for the unusual and unpredictable. 49 Similarly d\e£iKa.Kos 'averter of evil' for Hermes in Pax 422; cf. Dover (1968) 255; Olson (1998) 162. 50 Leaving aside exclamations like Ran. 337-8 and certain other passages which do not, in my view, belong here. Comic fantasy often makes possible direct conversations with gods (note especially Pax 170—728) or addresses to humans that look like prayers; cf. Horn (1970) 46. Thus, in Eg. 148-9 one may recognize cletic elements (Seupo, ipaveis) but I hesitate to count (ptArare and aajrrjp as epithets. I am more willing to classify Ach. 566-71 as a (parodic) prayer: cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 77-9. Different decisions in single cases (Horn's list does not include Pax 1108, but see Olson (1998) 280) would not fundamentally alter the picture.

Religious Registers

20

TABLE 2.1. The most frequent epithets in A ristophanic hymns and prayers Epithet

Occurrences/ divinities

Individual references

1

io for 7

H: Eq. 551; Nub. 595; Thesm.

128

'lord'

P: Nub. 264; Vesp. 327, 438, 875-6 (2X); Pax 442; Av. 868 9 for 7

2.

'dear(est)'

H: £5. 562; Pax 582; ^4i>. 676, 677; Thesm. 978

P: ^c/z. 568; Nub. 1478; Pox 416; Thesm. 286 3.

8 for 7

P: Eq. 763; JVu6. 266; Pax 976 (2X); Av.876; Lys. 203, 317; TTzesra. 286

7 for 6

H: Thesm. 989 P: /left. 247; M/6. 264; Vesp.

'mistress' 4.

'master'

389, 875; Pax 385, 399 7 for 6

7 for 5 'much-honoured' 7-

H: Nub. 570; Thesm. 116, 322 P: N«6. 265; Pax 974b

4 for 3

H: Eq. 560, 585 P: Eq. 763; Lys. 834

3 for 3

H: Thesm. 123, 971 P:c Ran. 3856

-ovaa + gen. 'sovereign' 9. 'lady' peyas 'great' 'city-guardian'

Eccl. 369 (cf. Pax n08) H: Ran. 323/4, 398 P: Afaft. 269; Vesp. 1001; Pax 978," 1016; Thesm. 286

5 for 5 '(most) revered'

8.

H: Lys. 1286; Thesm. 1149

P: Pax 445, 975; Lys. 742, 833;

'lady'

3 for 3

H: Nub. 565, 573; Av. 1748

3 for i

H: Eq. 581; Afu6. 602 P: Lys. 344/5

a Note the feminine form TroAimjMJTi), perhaps a morphological licence in hieratic language: similarly Lys. 344/5 xpvaohoya; Thesm. 320 &i)po<pov-q 'beast-slayer'; also (iys. 347; Nub. 989) beside TpiToyfxTJ? (Eq. 1189); Eq. 1181 'Gorgon-crested'; Lys. 217 draupoiTT) 'virginal' in an oath (cf. araupuiTos Aesch. Ag. 244). b Also P/«i. 772, if this is classified as a prayer with Horn (1970) 11; Kleinknecht (1937)128. c Cf. note 25 above.

Religious Registers

21

The ranking further reveals that the most frequent epithets are applied almost every time to a different divinity. In other words they are as unspecific as possible. Epithets like or irorvta all express a general notion of ruling, 51 while whichdemNDSA SPICIFEINDICATIONOF sovereign's subject(s), is already less common in prayers: its nonAttic phonology (lack of contraction) marks it as poetic. occurs in an authentic cultic prayer (PMG 854 Page52) which is praised by Marcus Aurelius (5. 7) for its simplicity. TroAimV^ros even leaves open why the divinity is 'much-honoured'. A joke in Acharnians (758-9) implies that this adjective was considered to be a polyvalent standard epithet.53 The limited diversity of epithets in prayers makes it implausible that they were 'needed' in order to address a divinity with the 'right' name. If that had been the case, we should expect epithet accumulations as we get them in hymns—not least because we have seen that the request is more crucial in prayers than in hymns, so that it would be more damaging if the divinity did not listen. Thus, the Aristophanic statistics confirm the view that epithets are a way of pleasing and honouring the god. Since this is the main function of hymns (but not prayers), it is not surprising that epithets are accumulated there. Moreover, if epithets in prayers were more than superficial embellishments, they should figure prominently in elaborate official prayers. Yet, in the most official-sounding Aristophanic prayers, they play hardly any role. The professional priest who prays to a long list of bird divinities at the foundation of the bird city (Av. 864-88) gives none of them more than one (usually comic54) epithet. 55 As the list grows longer and longer the prayer 51

Eur. Ale. 1004-5 suggests that no-ma is a 'default epithet'; cf. for araf and Eur. Hipp. 88; Hemberg (1955) 9-12; Pleket (1981) 174-6. Scanoiva, when not applied to Kore, may be a recent development since it is first attested in Euripides: Ausfeld (1903) 521; cf. Usener (1929) 222—5; Henrichs (19760) 253—66. 52 Cf. Pulleyn(iQ97) 149. 53 In Ran. 851 and PI. Euthd. 2g6d 7roAuTi)n)Tos is ironically applied to humans (as is J> am (not: araf) in Eq. 1298): cf. Dover (1993) 299; Radermacher (1954) 186; Kleinknecht (1937) 23-4 n. 3; more examples in Adami (1901) 250-1; Keyssner (1932) 66; G. Meyer (1923) 76—7. 54 e.g. Av. 873 ypuyiAos Za.pd£ws 'chaffinch Sabazius' for 0pvyios £afjd£ios', cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 31. 55 Unlike Peisetaerus, who interrupts him in Av. 868 'echt hymnenmassig': Kleinknecht (1937) 31.

22

Religious Registers

becomes mere name-dropping without epithets (Av. 881-8). Apparently, the proprium of an official prayer was the endless enumeration of divinities, not the accumulation of epithets.56 The official character—as in the bird prayer enhanced by the insertion of a prose passage57—is even stronger in the prayers before the Thesmophoria assembly (Thesm. 295-311, 331-51). Again the enumeration is prominent, but epithets conspicuously absent, except for rather unspecific indications of origin or belonging . The contrast with the interceding cletic hymn, which consists almost exclusively of epithets, is obvious (Thesm. 312-30). To be sure, the above statistics also show that not every hymnic epithet had to be recherche.58 Nevertheless, the number and the inventive range of epithets in hymns is much greater than that in prayers. The most diverse types of word-formation are represented. Apart from simple adjectives there are very many 'verbale Rektionskomposita' in various shapes (e.g. xiaaoyopos 'ivy-bearing', 'horse-driving',ftpovTr/aiKfpawos'lightning-thundering'), Bahuvrihi compounds (xpvaoTptawos 'with golden trident', 'with great might', xpuaoAupas 'with golden lyre', etc.), compounds with gw- (gvnnaxos 'ally', gvyiciopos 'fellow reveller'), and local epithets59 in -(a)ios (repaumos, xOovios 'chthonic', -npoTrvXaios 'before the gate"). Patronymic epithets (Kpovi^-qs, TwSapiSai, ApaKovTiSys) are slightly rarer. Local and patronymic epithets can also be parapHARASED 'DWELLING ON THE ROCK OF pARANES SON OF 'GOD OF AMYCLE Cronus', zlids napde'voi 'daughters of Zeus'). 56 Cf. Pax 456; for similar lists outside comedy (e.g. SIG3 181. 6—9) see Kleinknecht (1937) 29—30. Despite the different context, Pax 50-3 may parody such a list: Kleinknecht (1937) 35 n. 3; Platnauer (1964) 72; Horn (1970) 45. Olson (1998) 78 stresses that lists are typical of Aristophanic style anyway (cf. Spyropoulos (1974), here 172-3), but the masculine endings -oiaiv and -ctcn in Pax 51 echo those of with the archaic feminine ending -aoi (Dunbar, against MSS -r)(i)oi); cf. Fehling (1969) 267. 57 Elsewhere in official texts such as laws and treaties: Av. 1035-6, 1040-2, 1046-7, 1049-50, 1661-6; Eq. 941; Archippus fr. 27; cf. Eupolis fr. 401; Kloss (2001) 80-95. I" Thesm. 331-51 the lack of resolution makes the trimeters monotonous. 58 Cf. pfyas, a(fu>as, Av. 1747 Seivos, Lys. 1300 ayaflos, and 'lazy' predications like Nub. 569 and Thesm. 315 jieyaAairu/ios 'with great names', Thesm. 320 'with many names', Thesm. 1156 voXvirorvios 'most sovereign". 59 For geographical determinations in hymns cf. Adami (1901) 227-31, 242-3; Ausfeld (1903) 523-5.

Religious Registers

23

None of these formations is absolutely excluded from prayers. Interestingly, superlatives are proportionally less frequent in hymns (cf. Eq. 562, Nub. 570, Av. 677) than in prayers (cf. Pax 392-3, 393-4, 974) although Keyssner has pointed out that hymns are in general full of hyperbolic elements (compounds with words like diet, fj.6vos, TT&S, etc.).60 Some of the differences in the use of epithets in hymns and prayers can be related to the dimension of 'production circumstances' (elaboration). Private prayers arose from momentary situations of need and were produced 'on-line' so that some even went without any epithet (Pax 58-9, 62-3, Lys. 972-9). Hymns were necessarily performed after deliberate preparation. Epithets which do not reflect the immediate context could therefore be chosen (or invented) more carefully in hymns (from where every now and then an ornamental epithet may have found its way also into a reallife prayer61). Similarly, the superlative as a grammaticalized form of hyperbole requires less planning and is more 'automatized' than, for instance, the composition of new words. Hymns may avoid this 'cheap' type of praise on purpose. But why are epithets less important in official prayers, which could be pre-planned? Possibly, hymns and prayers at official occasions concentrated on their primary generic functions: while prayers formulated requests, the accompanying task of honouring the gods could be delegated to a preceding or subsequent hymn. If this is so, it would be wrong to consider the partial overlap of hymns and prayers with regard to epithets as an argument in favour of a common religious register. The consideration of some other lexical aspects will corroborate this conclusion. 2.7. SPEECH-ACT VERBS 2.7.1. 'TO PRAY' Both hymns and prayers often contain self-referential verbs, by which the speaker describes his or her own activity ('I pray', 'I sing of). A fundamental difference between such speech-act verbs in hymns and prayers is their illocutionary force. A 'performative' speech-act verb is a verb which describes the activity of the speaker 60

Keyssner (1932) passim. As in Thesm. 282 TrepiicaAAij; 'most beauteous'; more negatively Pulleyn (1997) 51-5 61

24

Religious Registers

and at the same time constitutes it. When someone says 'I pray that we will be saved' the use of the verb 'to pray' automatically makes a prayer out of the declarative statement (contrast: 'I hope that we will be saved', which describes a mental state). In hymns, on the other hand, it is not sufficient to say 'I sing of Athena' to make a song out of the utterance. This difference correlates with the register dimension of personal stance: performative verbs like 'I pray' imply a greater commitment to the action than purely informational verbs like 'I sing of. 62 In addition, there is a qualitative difference of lexical stock in the speech-act verbs of Greek hymns and prayers. Various Greek verbs describe the act of praying: and iVereuai. In classical Attic euôâi is the most general term for all kinds of prayers.63 Although dpdoât has a broader meaning in Homer,64 in fifth-century Attic it means only 'to curse (formally)' (cf. Thesm. 350; elsewhere Aristophanes uses Ka.Tapa.opai, which is little more than a synonym of TovBopvfa 'to grumble': Vesp. 614).6S The non-Attic phonology of Aioooâi (-aa- < *-ry-) reveals that this verb was not an everyday verb of classical Attic.66 In Pax 382, its only Aristophanic occurrence, the preceding poetic forms AamjCTTjs, Aa«i}crofiai 'you shall/I'll cry aloud', Teroprjaco 'I'll proclaim in piercing tones', and aâX^vvQâoât 'I'll be annihilated' underline its special flavour.57 A secondary form AiVoâi appears for the first time in Thesmophoriazusae, both at the beginning of the choral hymn in the opening ceremony of the women's assembly (313) and in the paratragic monody of the Relative (1040 AmyifW with 'Doric' vocalism). The variant AiVoâi must have arisen from a misinterpretation of forms like the aorist optative Airot/ii/i' (Od. 14. 406) as a present optative. Thus, both its formation and its distribution mark the verb as artificial and literary. Similarly, avroâi with its tragic meaning 'to be a suppliant' 68 occurs only twice in Aristophanes, both times in a hymn (Thesm. 977, 1155). 62 For the theory of 'speech acts' and the notions of 'performative verbs' and 'illocutionary force' see esp. J. L. Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). 63 Pulleyn (1997) 59-64 and 70-6, against Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 199-253; see also Corlu (1966) 23-118. 64 Cf. Corlu (1966) 251-9; Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 302-33; Pulleyn (1997) 74-6. 65 Similarly Nub. 871; Lys. 815; Ran. 746. 66 Pace Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 467-70, who, on the basis of Benveniste (1969) 247-9, suggests that Xiaaopai was a technical term for propitiatory prayers. 67 Cf. Rau (1967) 194; Olson (1998) 150. 68 Cf. Chantraine (1968-80) 92, s.v. avra.

Religious Registers

25

Finally, expressions like /uij 8fjd', iKtrevw ce 'please don't'69 appear in human conversation as well and show that ix-ereiico has completely lost its religious force. Like its synonym (cf.Eccl.915/17) it has no closer connection with prayers than English 'please' (although it can of course appear in prayers or hymns: Thesm. II59)- 7 0 Hence, in fifth-century Attic, ewô/xai and its compounds 'to pray that not', fwcuxo/xcu 'to join someone in praying', etc.) are the only verbs used in spoken prayers to express the corresponding speech-act.71 The elevated synonyms AiVofiai and are confined to hymns.

2.7.2. 'TO SING A HYMN' With 'singing a hymn' the picture is different. u/Wcu itself is surprisingly rare. At Pax 799 (lyr.) it describes the activity of the lyric poet in general, without a specific reference to hymnic compositions. In the Laconian final song of Lysistrata, v^veui twice refers to the activity of the chorus (Lys. 1303/4, 1320/1). It may be a coincidence that there is no similar case in any of Aristophanes' Attic hymns.72 In his hymn in Thesmophoriazusae, Agathon uses the imperative of dyaAAco to encourage the singing of the chorus (128; cf. Pax 399 lyr.), but the verb covers a wider range of activities to 'honour a god'.73 Its tone is high-flown, and elsewhere Aristophanes has it only in a quotation from Archilochus (Pax 1298). Agathon's hymn illustrates with how much variation one and the same notion can be expressed. The references to Agathon's—or 69 Cf. Eq. 1100; Nub. 696; Ran. 11, 167; similarly Ran. 745 iVereucu 'I beg your pardon'. 70 Against Kleinknecht (1937) 80—i and Horn (1970) 10, Ran. 298—9 is not necessarily an 'inverse prayer' to a human being. 71 Cf. Eg. 764; Pax 435, 1016, 1322; Av. 864; Thesm. 296, 331, 350, 351, 714; Eccl. 171. -npoaKvvfui (e.g. Eq. 156; Plut. 771) designates not a prayer but some kind of salutation: Pulleyn (1997) 191-3; Neil (1901) 28. For euxofuu 'to vow' see Eg. 928; Av. 1619. In Thesm. 810 (anap.) has the archaic meaning 'to declare (solemnly)'. 72 On u/j.Wto/ufu'os throughout Greek literature see Lattke (1991) 13-79. 73 Cf. Theopompus Com. fr. 48; Olson (1998) 155. For the stylistic level of see Phot, a 164, s.v. dyijAai, who quotes Phrynichus (Praep. soph. fr. 6a):

if you were interested in archaisms and lexical grandeur, you might use this kind of words'.

26

Religious Registers

rather: the imagined chorus's—hymnic singing are so frequent that they may have been a characteristic and easily recognizable feature of Agathon's poetry. Apart from dyaAAcu, Aristophanes' Agathon also uses oAj3i'£o> (Thesm. 118 MSS; 107 is conjectural), /cAi^co (i 16), and aeiSaj (115). dAj3i'£co 'to praise' is absent from the rest of Aristophanes and has a more prosaic synonym in /na/cap^co.74 In Av. 1745 (anap.) the chorus exhort themselves with KAiycrare to sing the final hymn, and is a favourite of the exalted anonymous poet in Birds (905, 950/1). This character exceptionally uses /cAjj£co in an iambic line (Av. 921), no doubt because his ordinary speech is influenced by his poetic obsessions.75 The root of xA^cu also appears in K-AEUO and KfXaSfw. In Pax 778 KXftovaa is taken from Stesichorus, but in the Spartan hymn in Lysistrata it is again introduced freely (1298). KfXaSew (with its family: is normally used for indistinct noises of the sea or of twittering birds, 76 but it is an equivalent of xrAûj in the choral passage at Ran. 384 (cf. Ran. 1527 anap.). K-eAaoVco does not appear in iambic trimeters. The same restriction applies to the hymnic root *melpunattested in other classical authors, is an Aristophanic hapax legomenon in the introduction to the Demeter hymn of Frogs (Ran. 379), the only play with the noun yuoAw^ (Ran. 370, 384, 1527). Its cognate êAwo) is confined to one choral hymn in Thesmophoriazusae (961, 970, 974, 989). All of these hymnic verbs are used by a chorus self-referentially, in self-exhortations, or in invitations to the Muse. None of them forms part of the pedestrian vocabulary in iambic or trochaic passages. When the singing of a hymn is described independently, qSw is used (cf. Ach. 261; Ran. 320).77 As mentioned above, the comic Agathon uses aSco in the poeticized, non-contracted form aelSw (Thesm. 115). 74 75

Cf. Vesp. 429, 588,1275. For /fAj)£oj in hymns cf. Adami (1901) 221, who also lists examples for and

76 Nub. 283, 284; Pax 801; Thesm. 44; Ran. 683. Despite its irregular vocalism, the connection of xe\a&(w with xAiJ^tu etc. seems certain: cf. Chantraine (1968-80) 485, s.v. 77 Cf. Ran. 874 viraBai; a8iu for non-hymnic lyrics: Ach. 1231, 1233/4; Nub. 1205; Lys. 1243; Ran. 1307; Ar. fr. 505. In Eq. 1266 aft&fiv echoes Find. fr. 8ga Snell-Maehler.

Religious Registers

27

Like the use of epithets, the choice of speech-act verbs is linked to the register dimension of 'production circumstances'. The poetic character of all the hymnic verbs reveals a search for the uncommon, which presupposes more careful planning and contrasts with the exclusive use of non-poetic euxoju.ai in prayers. The last-mentioned case of aSo> vs. aei&w is particularly interesting. Contracted forms are typical of on-line production. In Attic Greek, they have become normative in most registers. Through an artificial form of 'decontraction', hymns (like other lyric poetry) underline their high degree of planning.

2.8. R E G I S T E R - S P E C I F I C VOCABULARY IN PRAYERS If we diagnose a general divergence of hymns and prayers with regard to the dimension of planning, we must account for isolated poetic words appearing in prayers78 either as 'borrowings' from the register of hymns or as relics from an earlier stage when they were not yet ousted from everyday language. Either of these theories may for instance explain the occasional use of the archaic root in predications or that of epithets such as ava£/avaaaa and which no longer have an Attic referent outside the religious domain (cf. § 2.6). However, such an explanation is plausible only if our observations on epithets and speech-act verbs can be generalized, i.e. if there is no substantial group of other lexical elements which are common in prayers but excluded from 'everyday' language (for if there were such elements, we might just as well add -rrorvia and to them). By looking at a few more relevant items, this section will show that the Aristophanic comedies present virtually no evidence for a register-specific vocabulary of prayer. Let us start with a look at significant lexical gaps in our corpus. For instance, there are no special terms (a) for the 'help' of the divinity, (b) for his or her 'looking upon' or (c) 'listening to' the believer, nor (d) for the 'fulfilment' of a prayer. For (a) we find indiscriminately the common verbs |3oi}0efv, 78

Cf. e.g. /«>Au) 'I may reach' (Lys. 743; cf. Cratinus fr. 118; Strattis fr. 42, also with Z-qvos) and puaajueVos 'rescuing' (Lys. 343); however, such lexemes may be introduced to give the prayer a comic ring (e.g. Vesp. 879 r\mov 'favourable', often said of gods: Keyssner (1932) 93-5-).

28

Religious Registers

or fuyyiyvcotfcu,79 but the request for help can also be implicit in a rhetorical question (Vesp. 439-40) or in the wish not to be 'overlooked' (Eccl. 369-70). It is rare to ask for 'salvation' instead (Vesp. 393; Ran. 386).80 Both Kadopav/Kari&etv and ftpopav/eirtSfiv for (b) Can be

said of human beings just as well as of gods,81 and the same is true for the imperative of tW/couui (c).82 The concept of 8eoi ETTTJ/COOI is well known, and eirriKoos may be a piece of religious terminology, but in Aristophanes it occurs only in a hymn (Thesm. HS7). 83 For (d), (Thesm. 369) is isolated and reXew and epic xpaivw are absent. The imperative Si'Sou 'fulfil!' once summarizes a list of preceding wishes (Pax 1016), but elsewhere the concrete requests stand alone. Only re'Aeos 'successful' (* re'Aeos 'entire', as in Lys. 104) shows a remarkable repetition in prayer contexts (Thesm. 329, 35 353). where it may have been promoted by the existence of the epithet TeAetos/VeAet'a '(prayer-)fulfilling'.84 In other cases, the higher frequency of a lexical form in prayers is a simple consequence of the pragmatic situation. There are few communicative situations in which a speaker orders a human interlocutor to 'accept' a present or to 'appear'. So the imperatives of and <paiVo/j.cu are proportionally over-frequent in prayers (or hymns), but even in the limited Aristophanic corpus they are not exclusive to these genres.85 The adjective evêv-^s 'well-disposed' and the adverb 'with good fortune' are perhaps the best candidates for a distinct terminology of prayer. The latter occurs twice in Aristophanes, 79

Ach. 567; Pax 416; Lys. 317; Thesm. 370; Ran. 3856; cf. Lys. 346

80 Note how the growth of the cult of Zeus Soter is reflected in the increase of pertinent references in Aristophanic comedy: Thesm. 1009 (411 Be); Ran. 738, 1433 (405 BC); Eccl. 79, 761, 1045, 1103 (392 BC); Plut. 877, 1175, 1186, 1189 (388 BC); c R. Parker(1996) 238-41. 81 See Ach. 1156 and Eq. 75, 170, beside Nub. 289 and Ran. 876, 879.

82 Lys. 878 beside Ach. 405 (perhaps a prayer parody: Kleinknecht (1937) 79); Nub. 274; cf. Nub. 360; Pax 785; Dover (1968) 134. 83 On the fleoi ewijKoot see Weinreich (1912), and cf. e.g. Phrynichus fr. 72. In Nub. 263 (TraKovia 'to listen to' is said of a human being. 84 In Thesm. 973 for Hera as goddess of marriage but elsewhere also for other gods: Bruchmann (1893) 141; Keyssner (1932) 118-19. 85 Imp. of 8e'xo(iai in prayers: Vesp. 876; Pax 977, 978; Lys. 204; Thesm. 282; c Nub. 274; Kleinknecht (1937) 45 and Pulleyn (1997) 218 for non-Aristophanic paral lels; elsewhere: Eq. 909; Nub. 1103; Vesp. 735; Pax 1204; Lys. 603; Thesm. 779; Pl 63, 1147; on Vesp. 1225 see MacDowell (1971) 291. Imp. of and once or twice in a prayerlike request formulated by Dicaeopolis when he asks for Euripides' help. If the argumentation da-quia-dedisti was (or was considered to be) typical of hymnic requests,120 perhaps because a hymn represented a recompense for the earlier gift, Dicaeopolis' pseudoprayers may be hyper-characterized for dramaturgical reasons: a structure da-ut-dem, which would have been more common in prayers (see below), could easily be misunderstood by the audience as simple bargaining between two equal human beings. The self-assertive da-quia-dedi (2(c)) is very rare. In Pax 385-99 it is moderated by an implicit argumentation of type 1(0) and by the extensive da-ut-dem promise. The only character who impertinently relies on his 'merits' is Cleon-Paphlagon in Eq. 763-8: the structure of the prayer is part of the character portrayal. Another figure who prays in a characteristic manner is Philocleon in Wasps. He speaks four of the seven prayers that ask for pity or forgiveness (3), three times without another argument. Philocleon is presented as a weak and helpless puppet of demagogues, who is only superficially upheld by his power fantasies. The most frequent of the explicit argument structures in prayers is da-ut-dem (2(0)). Many of the promises (though not Ach. 277-8 and Vesp. 393-4) could occur in real prayers. Hence, da-ut-dem was probably seen as the archetypal prayer-form. 121

119 Cf. Hansen (1991) 142, referring to Aeschin. i. 23; Dinarchus 2. 141100)2. 16; Dem. 19. 70; see also Isocr. 4. 157; Dem. 23. 97; Kleinknecht (1937) 33—5. 120 Cf. Nub. 356-7, without a request. 121 Note that Greek evx/i 'prayer' is also the normal word for a 'vow', where the same idea of da-ut-dem is crucial.

Religious Registers

41

If we look at the linguistic structuring elements in the explicit argumentations of type 2, we observe a regularity that further corroborates the register typology established so far. Ausfeld pointed out that the argumentation of Greek prayers (which he called 'pars epica') often begins with a conditional clause introduced by ei as the divinity is reminded of his or her earlier services or of previous gifts from the believer.122 In fact, these «i-clauses are found in most examples of types z(b) and z(c)—but we have seen that z(c) is exceptional and z(b) characteristic of hymns rather than prayers. As an alternative, some examples of 2(6) employ a connective ydp, which is highlighted as a hymnic feature in Pax 582—600: in this hymn to Peace the chorus use ydp no less than five times within twelve lines when they explain their exultation (do-quiadedisti).123 Vesp. 1001-2, where ydp occurs in a prayer, is of a different argument type (3).124 Thus, since ydp and a (TTOT^TTOV) are predominantly 'hymnic', their use in literary prayers probably reveals more about religious attitudes than about the actual phrasing of real-life prayers. The typical prayer argumentation (2(0)) only once employs a subordinate clause. Instead, phrase coordination with , but the sense and the parallelism of (2) and (9) suggest that there was a regular formulation in which aroâ was the object of either or a compound of this verb. Obviously, there was no single liturgical formula for the proclamation of eiHprjfjiia, but the repetition of certain types of formulation in Aristophanes shows that some standardization must have taken place. There were at least three regular options—(a) , (b) repeated euîj/neiTe, (c) (repeated) but we would need additional material to know, for instance, if (c) was always used before the opening prayer of an assembly. The stem eixprjfj,- is used throughout. The fanciful descriptions of the projected ciVw"a by Agathon's servant in (9) were certainly not normal practice.130 The case illustrates how a fairly standardized formula is dramatically transformed for the sake of comic characterization.

2.12.2. ' A M E N ' The same 'limited diversity' is seen at the end of several Aristophanic prayers. The following list of the closing words of some of the more elaborate prayers shows the essential similarities: 1. Vesp. 874 (choral prayer before the courtroom scene) 2. Pax 453 (prayer before the rescue of Peace) 3. Pax 1016 (sacrificial prayer of Trygaeus)

130

likely.

'Hail, Paean.'

'But for us may there be blessings. Strike up the paean: hail!'

'All this, o most highly honoured one, grant us, we pray thee.'

Mesomedes Sol. 1—4 is so similar to Thesm. 39—50 that a direct influence is

46

Religious Registers 4. Thesm. 310—11 (prayer before the Thesmophoria) 'For this pray ye, and for their blessings upon yourselves. Hail Paean, hail Paean, hail Paean! May we fare well!' 5. Thesm. 350-1 (ditto) " . . . but to all you others pray that the gods may grant many blessings.' 6. Thesm. 368-71 (ditto, chorus) 'O almighty Zeus, we beg thee give effect to these prayers, so that the gods may be with us, women though we be.'

In some communal prayers Aristophanes may have left out the closing element because it was not essential for his dramatic purposes. The above passages fall into three groups: (a) recapitulation of the preceding requests with ravra: (3), (4), (6); (b) general requests for ayafla:131 (2), (4), (5); (c) the cultic cry with variation of the exact shape: (i), (2), (4). In both (a) and (b), a personal pronoun occurs in the dative, either in the first or in the second person depending on whether a leader formulates the prayer. The elements {TO.VTO.} , {pers. pron. dat.}, and {dya8d} are most freely combined. The cultic cry (c) is not restricted to prayers to Apollo (Paean) and there is no Aristophanic evidence for other cultic cries with the same closing function. 132 That 117 -no.ui>v was a regular ending of 131 Cf. Av. 623-4; Eccl. 781; Rudhardt (1992) 208 n. 2; Kleinknecht (1937) 31-2 on aatrripia. and uyiem in Av. 878-9 as in Men. Kol. fr. I. 7, where summarizes the preceding prayer; Ausfeld (1903) 542-6; Pulleyn (1997) 7-8. 132 e.g. the oAoAuyT), on which see Pulleyn (1997) 178-80; Olson (1998) 86; Rudhardt (1992) 178-80; Deubner (1941). Lys. 240-2 implies the use of the as a cry of joy and victory: similarly Eg. 616, 1327; Pax 97.

Religious Registers

47

prayers is also implied by other sources such as Thucydides (6. 32. 2).'" The same cultic cry occurs in other circumstances. In Ach. 12.12 it is a wailing invocation of the healing-god, in Lys. 1291 a cry of victory, and the context in Av. 1763 suggests a link with the 'wedding hymn' mentioned in Thesm. 1034-5. In Eq. 1318 and Pax 555, the verb •nauovil,ea> means 'to sing a song of celebration and thanksgiving'.134 Nevertheless, the cry is the closest pragmatic equivalent to our 'Amen' in response to a prayer recited by a leader. As an expression of joy it is reinforced by âipiatuv in (4)- 135 Both in the proclamation of euqnîa and in the closing words of communal prayers there is just enough standardization to consider them as established register features. The range of variation in the actual wording suggests that the concept of a fixed liturgy was as foreign to fifth-century Athens as that of religious scriptures (and in fact, the two concepts may well be connected). Now if a fair amount of variation characterizes even the most standardized parts of the prayer register, this register must have been extremely heterogeneous as a whole. This heterogeneity resulted in the occasional overlap with the register of hymns, which we have observed earlier (cf. §§ 2.6 and 2.8). However, the two registers diverge so much with respect to several dimensions that it would be unwise to group them together as one religious register. Instead, the overlap should better be conceived of as 'functional transfer' from hymns to prayers. 136 2.13. C O N C L U S I O N The results of this chapter are threefold: (i) literary, (2) methodological, and (3) linguistic.

133

Cf. Herod. Mim. 4. 82, 4. 85; Xen. Anab. 3. 2. 9; Pulleyn (1997) 182. Cf. Eq. 408 iTjiraiomaai; Olson (1998) 190; Pulleyn (1997) 182—3; Kappel (1992), esp. 65-70; Kleinknecht (1939) 60; for the orthography Wackernagel (1925) 61-3. 135 Another response is Thesm. 312 StxojuefJa 'we say amen' (cf. e.g. Ran. 589): as in Thesm. 352 £weuxo'/«a0a, the congregation approves of the leader's prayer. 136 As described for religious discourse elsewhere by C. A. Ferguson (1986) 134

211-12.

48

Religious Registers

(i) On the literary level, we have several times touched upon the intersection of style, dramatic function, and characterization. As Dieterich saw first,137 Socrates' prayer in Nub. 264-74 is full of hymnic elements (cletic imperatives, elaborated ornamental epithets, a predicating relative clause, local predication with the hypotactic structure eir(e) . . . fir(f) . . . e?r(e) ... 17 ... i?138). The atypical prayer lends an air of comic solemnity to the selfappointed mystery-priest Socrates. In Eq. 763—8 Cleon-Paphlagon uncommonly uses the selfconscious da-quia-dedi structure, the indirect formulation euô/nai + dat., which was typical of official and ceremonious prayers, the hymnic epithet êSeouojj, and the epic form Myvaiy. This man has lost contact with the demos, in whose interest he claims to act. Conversely, Philocleon's prayers reveal his weakness as he continuously asks for pity and forgiveness. The two parabatic hymns of Knights are differentiated linguistically into a demotic one for Athena and an aristocratic one for Poseidon (use of the article). The great variety of hymnic speechact verbs in Agathon's hymn may be a parody of his style, just as the proclamation of aVw"'a by his servant contrasts with the common formulae and foreshadows the appearance of the exalted poetaster. (2) The results are encouraging also on a methodological level. The dimensional approach to register variation has provided a theoretical framework within which the findings can be interpreted straightforwardly. The cross-linguistic validity of the four basic dimensions 'production circumstances', 'interactiveness', 'argumentation/persuasion', and 'personal stance/involvement' has been confirmed. Furthermore, the correspondence of the linguistic material found in comedy both with these dimensions and with extralinguistic expectations (dramatic function of single characters, functional differences between hymns and prayers) demonstrates that comedy is a reliable source for register studies. A comprehensive register description of Attic Greek might well start here. 137

Dieterich (1893) 282-3; cf. Kleinknecht (1937) 22-5. Parallels in Adami (1901) 227-9; Ausfeld (1903) 525; Norden (1956) 144-7; non-hymnic examples (Aesch. Bum. 292—6; Theocr. i. 123-4) show hymnic influence on literary prayers. 138

Religious Registers

49

(3) On the linguistic level, we have seen that prayer language and hymn language are too different from each other to form a single religious register of Attic Greek. It cannot be said, as it can about 'religious English', 139 that 'religious Greek" was 'probably the most clearly marked variety of all'. The differences between the register of prayers and that of hymns are grouped with respect to several dimensions. Most prominently the two genres diverge in the dimension of production circumstances. The much smaller range of epithets and the lack of variation in speech-act verbs both reflect the more improvisational (on-line) production of prayers (which is in itself a remarkable cultural fact even though it seems normal to us because the Christian, especially Protestant, tradition encourages extemporary as well as institutional praying140). Moreover, there is little register-specific vocabulary in prayers. Exquisite lexical choices, structural elaboration (subordinate clauses, both relative and conditional), and 'de-automatizing' devices (lack of articles, decontraction) betray the careful planning of hymns. The lack of articles illustrates the reduced importance of referential explicitness. In the argumentation/persuasion dimension, logical cohesion seems stronger in hymns than in prayers since causal clause connections are made explicit. Prayers and hymns share some common ground in the dimensions of interactiveness and personal stance. In the former, both genres make use of direct and indirect modes of address, and differentiation rather occurs between subgenres of prayer (official/communal vs. private prayers). The interesting preference for aorist imperatives in addressing divinities is related to the dimension of personal stance: it appears to reduce the speaker's pressure upon the interlocutor. The dispersonalization of requests goes even farther in prayers where infinitival constructions camouflage the roles of addresser and addressee. An additional interest of register studies lies in their sociocultural implications. If we deny the existence of a single religious register in Attic Greek, we say something about cultural categorization. Religion was not perceived as one unified cultural domain 139

Crystal-Davy (i 969) 171. Cf. Samarin (1976) 10. Contrast e.g. the situation in Sumbanese, where ritual language is required: Mitchell (1988) 66. Similarly, prayers in Swiss German churches are usually said in Standard German. 140

SO

Religious Registers

with clear boundaries against other, 'normal', domains. The nonexistence of a single religious register and in particular the limited specificity of prayer language mirror the comparatively relaxed attitude towards the divine in the Greek world. The distinctiveness of hymn language, on the other hand, is that of lyric poetry in general, xapiy is created for gods and men alike.

3 Technical Languages

3.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N In the preceding chapter we saw how comic material can be used in historical register studies. We are now prepared to tackle the slightly more complex, but not dissimilar, issue of technical languages. Every now and then technical languages are 'discovered' in Aristophanes and Greek comedy in general.1 It is believed that the integration of technical languages into comedy shows Aristophanes' mastery of verbal art. Unfortunately, the methodological and theoretical issues that should form the basis of such discoveries have never been properly addressed. The aim of this chapter is therefore twofold. In the first place it seeks to provide the theoretical background for the study of technical languages in comedy (§§ 3- 2 ~3-3)- Secondly, some of the evidence collected by earlier researchers will be critically reviewed. I will argue that technical languages are far less prominent in Aristophanes' plays than is often assumed—an observation which does not in the least lessen the poet's linguistic achievements (§§ 3.5-3.8). I will also as why technical languages are such a marginal phenomenon. From a theoretical perspective there are two basic requirements when dealing with technical languages in comedy. We need (i) a suitable definition of technical language (§ 3.2) and (2) appropriate criteria for the identification of technical terms (§ 3.3). 3.2. D E F I N I N G ' T E C H N I C A L L A N G U A G E ' 3.2.1. TECHNICAL LANGUAGES AND REGISTERS

Even in linguistic literature, registers and technical languages are not always clearly distinguished. Let us therefore first look at the 1 Cf. in particular Denniston (1927), Miller (1945), and Byl (1990), but also e.g. Dover (1970) 7-8, where 'technical languages' are listed as one out of five stylistic categories in Aristophanes.

52

Technical Languages

fundamental difference between these two linguistic varieties. In the previous chapter (§2.1) we saw that the basic parameter of registers is their situational context (just as the basic parameter of sociolects is social grouping and that of dialects is geographic region). So what is the basic parameter of technical languages? In a recent discussion of medical Latin, Langslow has argued that the definition of a technical language has both a social and a contextual part. In Langslow's view all the spoken and written utterances of a defined group of specialists on topics related to their specialized field constitute a technical language.2 If technical languages were defined, like sociolects, through the group of speakers alone (i.e. Langslow's 'group of specialists') we should have to argue that a physician uses medical language when he or she buys food at a supermarket. The question is just whether we need a social specification at all. Is a word like polioencephalitis less technical when a butcher utters it than when a doctor does? To be sure, polioencephalitis is likely to occur more frequently in texts and utterances produced by doctors, but strictly speaking this is accidental. We may therefore regard topic (Langslow's 'contextual part') as the basic parameter of technical languages.3 Technical languages and registers partially overlap: the situational parameter of registers often implies a topical restriction. For example, if we study the language of legal contracts, this will be in the first place a register study: we are dealing with a genre that is created in a more or less well-defined situational context. At the same time we will find much technical (legal) terminology. However, this is accidental again. It is theoretically possible on the one hand to find the same terminology, perhaps even with the same frequency, in other situational contexts (e.g. in a lecture on contract law) and on the other hand to draw up a legal contract without using any legal terminology (for instance by replacing it with complicated paraphrases). The description of a given register (e.g. the register of instruction sheets) may point out that it is a characteristic feature of the register to include a large amount of technical vocabulary, but because topic, not situational context, is the basic parameter of a technical language, it would be mistaken to speak of the 'technical language of instruction sheets'. 2 Langslow (2000) 26—7. On the history of modern technical-language research see Hahn (1981). 3 Cf. Porzig (1957) 219; Hoffmann (1985) 30.

Technical Languages

53

3-2.2. TECHNICAL LANGUAGES AS TECHNICAL VOCABULARIES

A careful separation of registers and technical languages also explains why technical 'languages' regularly consist of vocabulary items ('terms') rather than morphological or syntactic features. 'The essence of a technical discipline is a structured set of objects and methods. . . . Because it names things which are not named in the language of every day, the lexicon of a technical language must be peculiar, but there is no corresponding functional need for the technical language to develop non-standard features in spelling, pronunciation, inflection, syntax, or style.'4 In fact, syntactic or stylistic features that are sometimes listed as 'technical' (e.g. th frequency of passive constructions, the rarity of personal pronouns, the prominence of nominal groups over verbal expression5) are not technical-language features but register features. They are not conditioned by the topic but by the situational context. The use of technical vocabulary ('terminology'), on the other hand, is often unavoidable when a special topic is dealt with. Unless I resort to extensive explanatory paraphrases, which substantially reduce clarity of communication, I cannot express without technical terms an observation like 'the o-grade of the root of ye'pcu can be seen in the verbal noun cpopoy'; but there is no intrinsic reason why I should not say, with alternative syntax, 'you can see the o-grade of the root of in the verbal noun <popos'. Or again, a doctor may write in a per sonal letter to a professional friend about a difficult case of polioencephalitis and produce a text which bristles with terminology but completely lacks any distinctive syntactic or stylistic features.6

4

Langslow (2000) 7; cf. Porzig (1957) 259; Seibicke (1981) 50. Cf. Sager-Dungworth—McDonald (1980) 186—229; Hoffmann (1985) 41—2, 136-41; Hoffmann (1986) 464 (which can be read as a brief register description of technical genres: note the reference to 'Textsorten'); Fluck (1996) 55-6. For the style (or register characteristics) of ancient Greek scientific genres see Thesleff (1966) and van der Eijk (1997). 6 The existence of an established terminology can of course influence the style of technical texts. Since there is a technical term appendicectomy a physician may replace a verbal phrase like after the appendix has been cut out by the shorter nominal phrase after the appendicectomy. 5

54

Technical Languages

3.2.3. G E N E R A L KNOWLEDGE AND SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION

Since technical languages are topic-based varieties, their existence is closely linked with the existence of specialized fields. We must not search for a technical language of a specialized field that did not exist as such in a professionally less diversified ancient society. For example, one may classify the verb to winnow as a technical term of agriculture in a modern industrial society. In an ancient agricultural society, where winnowing was part of daily life, the same classification would be problematic. The definition of 'technicality' is therefore always subjective and based to a large extent on fuzzy categories such as 'majority usage' and 'collective general knowledge' in a given society. It depends both on the fragmentation of a society into professional groups and associations and on the amount of shared education among the members of this society (no matter if that education takes an institutionalized form or not).7 Because 'collective general knowledge' is no hard and fast category, the validity of a horizontal opposition between 'technical' and 'general' language has sometimes been questioned. It has been argued that technical languages should be seen, in a vertical model, as a subcategory of general language.8 The question whether to winnow belongs to general or to technical language would then be wrong. By belonging to technical language the verb would also belong to general language. Just as every Greek utterance belongs to one or another Greek dialect every utterance would belong to one or another technical language. Figure 3.1 illustrates the two models. From a theoretical point of view the vertical model is unobjectionable, but it is counterintuitive. Who would classify as technical an utterance like / am going to buy an ice cream? The vertical model does not even eliminate the need for the native speakers' subjective judgements. Who, if not the native speakers, will decide where to set the boundaries between the different technical domains?9 7

Cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 68-9, 98; Heller (1981) 225-8. Heller (1981) 220-2, Mohn (1981) 210, and Hoffmann (1985) 48-52, against e.g. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 63-4 and Seibicke (1981) 51 (but note the postscript on p. 66). Reformatskij (1968) 121-2 ambiguously speaks of terminology as a 'subsystem' in the lexical system of a language, although he subscribes to the 'horizontal' model. 9 Cf. Hoffmann (1985) 53-7. 8

Technical Languages Horizontal model

Vertical model

Language A

Language A = GL

55

GLTL,TL 2 T L 3 - T L , T L 2 T L 3 Note. GL = general language; TL = technical language FIGURE 3.1. Models of technical language

Moreover, there is not more vagueness in a horizontal separation of general and technical language than in other 'horizontally separated' categories of variational linguistics. In dialectology isoglosses constitute geographical dialect boundaries wherever they form prominent isogloss bundles. Similarly, one may envisage the boundary between technical language and general language as a transitional zone in which every individual has his or her personal boundary. There will be a line where a (relative, if not absolute) majority of the individual 'technolect' boundaries coincide. This majority boundary can be regarded as the theoretical abstraction of the collective boundary between technical and general language. The horizontal model has a further advantage. Only if there are both technical and non-technical language features does it make sense to classify a given utterance or text as more or less technical. A text is more technical than another text if it shows more technical features or if its technical features are more unanimously recognized as technical (in linguistics, for example, Schwebeablaut is more technical a term than adjective). If texts—as in the functional stylistics of the Prague school10—are labelled as 'communicative', 'aesthetic', 'practically special', or 'theoretically special' (the two latter referring to technical texts), there must be some measure of technicality, especially because the differences between technical and non-technical discourse are differences in degree rather than in kind. 11 10

Cf. Hoffmann (1985) 31-3; Fluck (1996) 12-13. Cf. Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 17, 65; Fluck (1996) 15. The mutual exclusiveness of the aesthetic and the practically or theoretically special may have been less pronounced in classical Greek science: Lanata (1968). 11

56

Technical Languages

3.2.4. A D E F I N I T I O N OF

TECHNICAL LANGUAGE

On the basis of the preceding remarks, we can now formulate the following definition: a technical language is the sum of all the linguistic features (a) which are necessary for the formulation and labelling of concepts, ideas, and phenomena in what a given society perceives as a specialized area, but (b) whose active and passive handling does not form part of what that society acknowledges as the general linguistic knowledge and competence which every adult member is expected to have acquired in the process of his or her education. Since the formulation and labelling of specialized concepts, ideas, and phenomena does not usually necessitate non-lexical extensions of the linguistic system, technical languages regularly manifest themselves as technical vocabularies ('terminologies'12). The present chapter, like technical-language research in general, 13 therefore concentrates on the lexicon (and its extension through derivational morphology). 3.3. I D E N T I F Y I N G TECHNICAL TERMS 3.3.1. COMEDY AND THE NEED FOR CRITERIA OF TECHNICALITY

The reduction of technical language to technical vocabulary has practical consequences for the linguistic study of ancient comedy. Since technical terminology is independent of its situational context, a comic passage that does not parody a particular technical genre may nevertheless contain technical terms. Where there is no parody, for instance, of a medical treatise, a medical consultation, or a medical prescription, there may still be medical terminology. If this were not so, any search for medical terminology in 12

Including, in the terms of Soviet terminological research, both 'terminologies' and 'nomenclatures': terminological signs (terminy) are linked with the conceptual system of a specialized field, whereas nomenclature signs (nomenklaturnye znaki) merely label the ontological inventory of objects belonging to the field and cannot be defined because they lack a differentia specified: cf. Reformatskij (1961) 47-9; SeibickefigSi) 55-6; Hoffmann (1985) 162-3. Thus, amaryllid is a termin but snowdrop a nomenklaturnyj znak. 13 See e.g. Fluck (1996) 47; only the lexicological-terminological (Moscow) school of technical-language research acknowledges the special status of the lexicon from a theoretical point of view too: cf. Hoffmann (1985) 30 and (1986) 460-1.

Technical Languages

57

Aristophanes would fail a priori because there are no parodies of medical text genres in the Aristophanic plays.14 Hence, in order to study technical language(s) in comedy we need a catalogue of criteria by which technical words can be identified. In the following subsections I will first discuss such criteria as are valid for all literary genres (§ 3.3.2) and then highlight a few additional points which are more specifically linked with comedy (§ 3.3.3). At the end of each subsection, the discussion will be illustrated with comic examples. 3.3.2. G E N R E - I N D E P E N D E N T C R I T E R I A

3.3.2.1. Special reference, monosemy, and normalization In his book on Latin medical language Langslow discusses three possible criteria of technicality: '(i) the extent to which a word is generally understood in the linguistic community as a whole ("Allgemeinverstandlichkeit"); (2) the extent to which a word is related to a particular specialist or technical discipline ("Fachbezogenheit"); (3) the extent to which a word is normalized or standardized in its usage ("Normung").' 15 Of these criteria Langslow rejects (i) but retains (2) and (3). The need for criterion (2) is obvious. It would be absurd to suggest that a word x belongs to the technical terminology of field Y if the referent of x had nothing to do with the objects and ideas of Y. No one would suggest that apple is a technical term of medicine. Criterion (3), which demands consistent and regular usage by the specialists in a given field, is supported by the fact that technical terminology is meant to facilitate communication among specialists. Words that are ambiguous or polysemous within a specialized field are useless as technical terms (e.g. word in linguistics). Ideally, a technical term is precisely related to other terms within the same field, context-independent, and monosemous (but one and the same lexeme may of course act as a technical term with different meanings in different specialized fields: e.g. valency in linguistics and chemistry).16 14

Ran. 939—44 is at best a faint echo of a medical prescription. Langslow (2000) 13, based on Heller (1981). 16 Cf. Reformatskij (1961) 51-2; Sager-Dungworth-McDonald (1980) 75; Fluck (1996) 47; Langslow (2000) 8-9, who then refers (pp. 11-12) to a case of apparent polysemy in ancient medical terminology. On the problem of polysemy and lack of 15

58

Technical Languages

In the case of synonym pairs, a specialist community often uses (i.e. standardizes) only one of the two words because the technical lexicon also tends to be as economic and concise as possible.17 Example The concept of the metrical unit 'verse' is expressed with three different words in Frogs: eiros, pf/na, and <m'xo?. Very often it is not clear whether eVoy and prâ refer to a single word, a phrase, a passage, or a verse: they show an ambiguity or polysemy that is typical for general-language words. In the verse-weighing scene (Ran. 1364-1413) there is less ambiguity because Aeschylus and Euripides put single lines, 'verses', onto the balance. Nevertheless, both tiros (Ran. 1381, 1387, 1388, 1407, 1410) and p-fjua (Ran. 1367, 1379) are used. In Ran. 1239, on the other hand, Euripides uses ai-iôs (although he might well say SXov TO 'to judge', SiVij (-ISiov) 'lawsuit', SiKacmjpiov (-ISiov) 'lawcourt', (£vt>)SiKaarris '(fellow) juror', oStKcco 'to do wrong', KoAa£u> 'to punish'). Almost all of the lexemes in the table belong to large Greek word-families. For a Greek they would not produce the alienating effect that characterizes much of modern terminology (where foreign words are common). There are no comic misunderstandings and no obvious cases of dramatic characterization through the use of legal vocabulary in Wasps. The list also shows a remarkable lack of formal patterning. There are only two words in each of -ais, -ca, and -IKOS (respectively, one in -fj.a (rtfj.rifjia), and one in -rr/p («:Ai)Tr}p), while the formation of the rest follows less marked types. It may be argued that amoyfvgis and TrpooKhyais were subjectively perceived as technical. There is an Aristophanic passage where the systematic function of the suffix -ais in legal terminology is underlined by the creation of a comic lexeme that parallels two real terms. In Nub. 874-5 Socrates asks:

Technical Languages

77

SOCRATES: How is he ever going to learn effective forensic defence, or the summons, or persuasion by bombast? Similar pseudo-terms are coined in Nub. 764 (dydviats SiVijs58) and Thesm. 863 (Sowai •ywaiKioeius SIKIJV 'to pay the penalty for a female impersonation'). That -my was frequently employed in legal terminology is illustrated by the fact that there are over forty different nouns in -ens in the index to Harrison's textbook on Athenian law.59 irpoaKXijats is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes and rare elsewhere. In Vesp. 1041 it occurs in conjunction with dimoftoaia and fiaprvpla so that this line may be intended to highlight terminology through accumulation, dm>9>eu£i? occurs several times but—apart from the passage of Clouds just quoted—only in the mouth of Philocleon and the chorus of jurors. However, there are arguments against treating drroVcuû and as technical terms. First, the formation of nouns in -ais was extremely productive not only in legal language. Any Athenian could have formed the two words on the spot from dwoêuyco and Neither dwoipeuycu nor Tf/xxncaAeofiai was reserved for communication among specialists. The latter is used by a female bread-seller in Wasps (1406) and by Plathane, another woman of low social standing, in Frogs (578); comic incongruity is not a sufficient explanation in either case. The same type of argument is applicable for KAr/rij/i (used by the bread-seller: Vesp. 1408), (Strepsiades: Nub. 495), KaXew 8t>cr)v (Strepsiades: Nub. 780), rinrjfj,a (Chremylus: Plut. 480), and even (small child: Vesp. 304-5). As for amoyevyai, the word occurs in non-legal contexts with a very similar meaning ('to escape'), and basic concepts like 'to acquit', 'to be acquitted', or 'to be convicted" must have formed part of general vocabulary anyway. Hence, we ask, 'How else could 57 According to Dover (1968) 206, xaiivioois 'puffing up' is 'the language of rhetoric, not of law', but the parallelism with dbroipeufis and KArjcns makes that doubtful; cf. also Holt (1941) 152 and, on K\f/oi.s, A. R. W. Harrison (1971) 85. 58 dtpdviois 'getting rid of in PI. Soph. 2596 and Dem. 33. 22 is a parallel coinage rather than an adaptation of an existing legal term; in Hdt. 4. 15. i the meaning is different ('disappearance'). 59 A. R. W. Harrison (1968) and (1971); on legal -ow-nouns see also Holt (1941) 156-7 and Handley (1953) 130-1, 139. On the increase of -ens-nouns in prose see Holt (1941) 158-65 and § 5.5.2.

78

Technical Languages

it be expressed?' There is a synonym eKcpfvyw, but this is less widespread and therefore more likely to have been technical (though I would also hesitate to label fKyxvyw as 'technical', since this compound verb too is very straightforward in meaning and formation). 60 Partial synonymity must also be taken into account. In Vesp. 824—6 Ka\Kw(v), i}Aia<mjs, K\r]r^p, gwrj-yopos, and

(»): would Aristophanes use these lexemes so often if they were restricted to a specialist discourse? Lexemes like d-noXoyeofiai, Karrjyopeai, âprvpofiai (often little more than 'help!'), pdprvs, ^cpiôâi occur in some contexts without any reference to lawcourt proceedings. At best they are determinologized terms and thus synchronically no longer technical. Other words designate items of everyday life whose use in the lawcourts is, linguistically speaking, accidental Finally, there are items and concepts which all Athenians, however little contact they had with the law, would have encountered, 60 In the use of anotpeirytu and tKipetryai (as well as dtroAiicu) legal vocabulary overlaps with the vocabulary of healing in medicine: van Brock (1961) 222—3 and 235.

Technical Languages

79

heard of, and referred to frequently in their personal lives. These are physical objects (SpvyaKros, TO Kcuvov,6* icty/cAi's), administrative functionaries (01 IvScKa, BeapoOtrris, KwhaKpfTrjs, irohfiiapxos), and general sociocultural phenomena (8ia6r/Ki), Soxriâô/iai (every freeborn Athenian boy underwent the process of One might certainly argue in favour of the technicality of some words listed in Table 3.1. For instance, (in a formal question of the beadle at Vesp. 754), and may well have been technical. Yet, it is clear that large proportions of the legal vocabulary even in such a topical play as Wasps did not belong to an exclusive specialists' discourse. This appears to be a consequence of the Athenian legal system, in which a large part of the citizens over thirty could and did serve as jurors. 62 As a consequence, a comparatively advanced mastery of legal vocabulary was recognized as the cultural standard. Of course Aristophanes may have preferred not to use many words exactly because they were too technical. But even that would point in the same direction: if Aristophanes, in a play centred on legal matters, did not make fun of legal vocabulary, this vocabulary was probably not regarded as technical. The democratic organization of the lawcourts prevented not only the creation of an inaccessible legal language, but also the folk-linguistic idea that legal language is hard to understand and employ. 3.6. M E D I C A L L A N G U A G E Medical language has been particularly attractive to Aristophanic scholars because we possess in the Hippocratic corpus an extensive medical documentation from ancient Greece. The oldest Hippocratic writings are roughly contemporary with Old Comedy and therefore easily comparable. 63 Also, the great practical impact of medicine on everybody's life might make the comic exploitation of medical terminology rewarding. 61

A proper name: cf. MacDowell (1971) 147. See S. C. Todd (1990), esp. 167-70, and MacDowell (1995) 156-7 for a discussion of how the juries were composed in practice (primarily old men with low cash incomes, perhaps mainly farmers). The orators seem to take it for granted that the jurors understand the regular features of court procedure. 63 On the dates of the various treatises see Jouanna (1992) 85-105, 527-63. The comparison of considerably later texts is of course problematic. 62

80

Technical Languages

On the other hand, the general importance of medicine means that medical terms are quickly taken over into general language. Since earlier Greek literature is less concerned with everyday life than comedy, it is not surprising that the lexical overlap of medical literature with comedy is greater than that with lyric poetry or tragedy. If an anatomical or physiological term first appears in comedy and in the Hippocratic writings, this does not automatically imply that medical discourse is the comic source.64 In this section I will discuss all those lexemes that have been classified as technical terms of medicine in two articles, one by Miller and one by Byl.65 The obvious non-technicality of some of them shows that these compilations were more than exhaustive. For reasons of space and because the context is of some importance in establishing the technicality of a word, I will disregard a few lexemes that occur only in the Aristophanic fragments. The general reservations expressed here would hold for those words as well. Miller and Byl proceed in a similar way, and Byl expressly states that he wants to complement Miller. Both collect those words which are attested in Aristophanes as well as in the Hippocratic corpus and which have some—though sometimes remote—connection with any field of medicine (especially anatomy and pathology). The banality of many of the words they discuss might suggest that Miller and Byl operate with a different definition of technicality from the one adopted here (or the one adopted by Galen in the fragment discussed in § 3.3.3.1). However, this is apparently not the case. Neither makes explicit methodological statements, but both occasionally note that a given word does perhaps not deserve inclusion in the list because it was also used in common language. Hence, the criterion of common usage and the dichotomy between general and technical language are implicitly acknowledged. Byl, for instance, concludes: 'il faut remarquer que le genial poete comique n'a pas cesse de recourir a un vocabulaire medical technique que seuls, sans doute, des inities pouvaient saisir (aTroTj-AijKTos, Guepes, 948; KorvXrj&wv, Guepes, 1495; are/nV7?. Thesmophories, 641; , Guepes, 810; and similar words often indicate the technical status of a word (cf. § 3.3.2.6), a avxa (Travopdlovaiv may rather point out to the reader that he or she knows the described object under the colloquial name av*

The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek

Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Attic Script: A Survey (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology)

The Attic Orators (Oxford Readings in Classical Studies)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Plato's Symposium: The Ethics of Desire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Late Roman Warlords (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

The Oxford-History Of The Classical World

The Oxford History Of The Classical World

The Oxford History of the Classical World

Medical Latin in the Roman Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Greek History (Classical Foundations)

Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek

Stochastic Aspects of Classical and Quantum Systems

Global aspects of classical integrable systems

Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics

Global Aspects of Classical Integrable Systems

Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics

Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Classical and Modern Methods in Summability (Oxford Mathematical Monographs)

Studies in the Linguistic Structure of Classical Arabic (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics)

Apuleius and Drama: The Ass on Stage (Oxford Classical Monographs)

The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford Classical Monographs)

The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek

Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Attic Script: A Survey (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology)

The Attic Orators (Oxford Readings in Classical Studies)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Plato's Symposium: The Ethics of Desire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Late Roman Warlords (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

The Oxford-History Of The Classical World

The Oxford History Of The Classical World

The Oxford History of the Classical World

Medical Latin in the Roman Empire (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Greek History (Classical Foundations)

Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek

Stochastic Aspects of Classical and Quantum Systems

Global aspects of classical integrable systems

Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics

Global Aspects of Classical Integrable Systems

Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics

Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Classical and Modern Methods in Summability (Oxford Mathematical Monographs)

Studies in the Linguistic Structure of Classical Arabic (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics)

Apuleius and Drama: The Ass on Stage (Oxford Classical Monographs)

The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford Classical Monographs)

Recommend Documents