language of philological texts in the middle byzantine period

8/9/2019 Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

1/32

MC

Volume 3, 2013

D I A V L O S

MediterraneanChronicle


2/32

Contents

F DJ";*:

OZKXYXK[c_ YX XZZZW\XK[c_ KW\ Z]V]a\XYT d^S]KW W_ ZU_ .....................5

NQMSORT NQNSVWRUPRT:

Q A;* B;=:

! D* + +? I+ E *F +


3/32

Brigita Kukjalko

University of Latvia

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period1

1. Introduction

Just like in Antiquity, also during the so called Byzantine period2 many

texts on language studies were written. Their authors were usually well

educated people – senior ecclesiastics, grammarians, historians, rhetoriciansand others. At a glance, it seems that scholars of Byzantium, just like their

Ancient Greek predecessors, were not paying particular attention to the mode

of expression in their scientific essays, letters or commentaries. However,

though still undefined, the language of science did also exist in Byzantium.

The researchers of the language of Byzantine texts, literature or literaryculture in general3 have only sporadically touched on the features of the

scientific language in Byzantium. The terminology used by modern scholars to

describe this language is the following: the learned language , the language of

technical writings or the technical language , which confirms some kind of a

consensus among them regarding the degree of originality of this category of

language. There is no doubt that the language of these texts differs from that of

the fictional or non-theoretical texts of the period.

1 This paper was written under the auspices of Professor of Byzantine Philology Dr. Fotios

Dimitrakopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens; preparation of the paper

was supported by the scholarship granted by the Greek Government to foreign nationals for

academic year 2012-2013.2 The Byzantine period , Byzantium or Byzantine Empire is the conventional name of a medieval

state that existed for more than one thousand years (ca. 324–1453). The Byzantines themselvescalled their state the Roman Empire (ί ί) rather than Byzantium , applying

the name Byzantion only to their capital, renamed Constantinople. Byzantium as a term for the

state was introduced into scholarship only in the 16th C. Here and elsewhere, unless otherwise

stated, information on historical figures, facts and realities from The Oxford Dictionary of

Byzantium (ODB).3 E.g., Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages. From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa ,

Washington, D. C. 1988, p. 32; Robert Browning, Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ Αyzζntinκ Litκrζturκ, ThePast in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture , ed. S. Vryonis, Malibu 1978, pp. 103-133; Robert H.

Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians. Their Place in History, Berlin 1993; Alexander P. Kazhdan,

Studies on Byzantine literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries Cambridge – New York – Paris1984 ; Rτηκrt H. Rτηins, Grκκπ Linμuistiθs in tνκ Αyzζntinκ Pκriτι, History of the LanguageSciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to

the Present , edd. Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, Kees Versteegh, Berlin

2000, pp. 417-423; Iμτr Šκvčκnπτ, Lκvκρs τλ Σtyρκ in Αyzζntinκ Litκrζturκ, Greek literature , ed.G. Nagy, Volume 9, New York – London 2001, pp. 199-222; Staffan Wζνρμrκn, ΑyzζntinκLitκrζturκ ζnι tνκ Βρζssiθζρ Pζst, A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language , ed. E. J. Bakker,Malden – Oxford – West Sussex 2010, pp. 527-538; Nigel G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium ,London – Cambridge, Mass 1996.

- 79 -


4/32

Brigita Kukjalko

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

A recent study4 has shown that the language of Ancient Greek

philological texts5 is characterized by special features related to (1) the use of

ικsiμnζtiτns τλ υνiρτρτμiθζρ θτnθκυts, tνκ wζys τn ντw tνκ ζutντrspresence is revealed in the text (3) the use of figurative means of expression, as

well as (4) the referring and quoting.Ancient Greek philological texts form the basis of the European

philological thought. The language of these texts allows us to evaluate the

earliest available phase of the language used in the field of humanities today6.

Therefore, there is a reason to believe that the further development of the

philological thought and, also, of the language of humanitarian sciences could

be observed in Byzantine philological texts. Just like Ancient Greek philological

texts, those in Byzantium also deal with various language studies. Their

authors are interested in the stylistic, syntactic, lexical-semantic, morphological

and phonetic levels of language. However, unlike the Ancient Greekphilological texts, Byzantine ones within a single article more often focus – orat least attempt to focus – on the examination of one specific language questionor linguistic level, e.g., syntax. In terms of content, they are more similar to the

philological writings, which we can observe in the field of humanities today.

This article aims to look at the typical features of the language of the

philological texts written at the end of the so called Middle Byzantine Period

(usually dated ca. 610-1204). It will also evaluate the correlation between the

typical features of the language of Ancient Greek and Middle Byzantine

philological texts.

The period between the ninth and the twelfth centuries was a time not

only of military power but of cultural renaissance in the Eastern Roman

Empire. The main feature lies in the field of literacy, and more specifically in

the active transliteration of texts from uncial to minuscule and of attempts to

gather, observe, and appreciate the ancient heritage. In the field of literary

culture, one of the most relevant events of the whole Middle Byzantine Period

was the restoration of official support for institutions of higher education in the

capital. This, in its turn, promoted the revival of classicism, classical heritage

and endeavours to return to the so called Attic language and style7.

4 Αriμitζ “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ “nθiκnt Grκκπ Pνiρτρτμiθζρ Τκxts, Synopsisof the Doctoral Thesis , Rīμζ , υυ. -61.5 Three Ancient Greek philological texts written in different time periods were analyzed within

the abovementioned research: Ῥή (On Rhetoric) by Aristotle (4th C. A.C.), ὶ

έ ὀά (On the Arrangement of Words) by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st C. A.C.)

and ὶ ἰῶ ό (On Types of Style) by Hermogenes (2nd C. A.D.).6 Αriμitζ “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], Oriμins τλ tνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ Huςζnitiκs in “nθiκnt GrκκπPνiρτρτμiθζρ Τκxts, Hellenic Dimension, Materials of the Riga 3rd International Conference ofHellenic Studies, κιι. Α. “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], O. Lāςs, I. Rūςniκθκ, Rīga 2012, p. 40.7 Of course , points out Robert Browning, ωνκ “ωωξθξψς wνξθν Αyzζσωξσκψ υuχψuκι νζι vκχy ρξωωρκ ωτ

do with 5th and 4th Β. “ωνκσψ. “ωωξθ ρζσμuζμκ ξσ ωνκ Αyzζσωξσκ wτχρι ξψ θνζχζθωκχξzκι σκμζωξvκρy ηy

not being acceptable in the spoken language and positively by being used, or thought to be used by some

- 80 -


5/32

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period


The material chosen for this study consists of the following original

Byzantine prose texts on philological studies from the 11 th-12th centuries:

ὐὸ ἐή «ί ἐί ῖ, ὁ ὐί ἢ ὁ ί8»

(The ψζςκ ςζσ ωτ τσκ wντ χζξψκι ωνκ quκψωξτσ, Wντ wζψ ωνκ ηκωωκχ υτκω, ὖuχξυξικψ τχ

Οξψξικψ?9

) and ί ἡ ά ῶ ά, ὧ ῷ ὲ Χί, ῷὲ ί ὑέ ή;10 (What is the difference between the novel

which deal with Chariclea and Leucippe?) by Michael Psellos, ὶ ά

ό ἤ ὶ ῦ ὴ ί (On the syntax of the sentence, or rather on the

avoidance of syntactic errors) by Gregory Pardos, and ὶ ἰ ὴ

ή Ἰά (Βχξωξθζρ Ρκςζχπψ τσ Hτςκχψ Iρξad) by Eustathios of Thessaloniki.

The aforementioned treatises all centre in language, though they touch

upon different levels of it. Thus, Psellos deals with stylistic features of the

texts under discussion, Eustathios – with different language studies, still, in

most cases his attention is focused on the lexical-semantic level of language, but Pardos attention seems to be mainly drawn, as title shows, to the syntax.

All the above mentioned texts are readily available in recent editions, i.e., they

are recently printed, supplemented with indexes. The essays by Psellos have

been translated into English, while the treatise by Pardos – in French. However,no less important role in the selection of the material for this study played the

personalities of the abovementioned authors and their contribution to the

language studies.

2. The study of language in the Middle Byzantine Period

In Byzantium the greatest body of writings was concerned with religion,

as church, state and literature were very closely connected. However, texts in

the so called learned language also constituted a large part of Byzantine

literature. Byzantine scholars have left us works in a number of specialist fields

– philosophy, geography, history, mathematics, astronomy, natural sciences,medicine, military affairs, law, as well as in rhetoric and philology 11. The

history of philology and Greek linguistics in the Byzantine Period has been

wχξωκχ τλ θρζψψξθζρ τχ κζχρy Αyzζσωξσκ ωξςκψ. Τνκ ρξψω τλ ζuωντχξωξκψ λτχ “ωωξθ uψζμκ μχτwψ wξικχ ζσιwider until even Homer becomes a model of Attic language. See Browning, op. cit., p. 117.8 In Latin its common title is De Euripide et Georgio Piside judicium ( Judgment on Euripides and

George of Pisidia). Further in the text the abbreviation De Euripide has been used when referring

to the essay.9 Here and further translation in English of the essays by Psellos from A. R. Dyck, Michael

Psellus. The essays on Euripides and George of Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius , Wien

1986.10 In Latin its common title is De Heliodoro et Achille Tatio judicium ( Judgment on Heliodorus and

Achilles Tatius). Further in the text the abbreviation De Heliodoro has been used when referring

to the essay. 11 For a survey of Byzantine scientific literature, see: Herbert Hunger, ή ί:

ό ή ί ώ , . ΄– ́, ήα 1987-1994 and CarlKrumbacher, ί ή ί , . ΄- ́, ήα 1897-1900.

- 81 -


6/32

Brigita Kukjalko


surveyed in several principal publications12 , and it needs only be briefly

summarized here.

The main feature of Byzantine writing was to comment on and attempt

to clarify what had been written by the classical authors, and to prepare study

and research aids in the form of dictionaries, epitomies, textual studies, and thelike. Thus the main types of writing in the Byzantine literary science were: (1)

commentaries on writings of previous periods, dating from Antiquity or from

earlier Byzantine scholarship, grammatical texts (e.g. έ ή ( Art

of grammar) attributed to Ancient Greek grammarian Dionysius Thrax (ca. 100

BC)), as well as on literary texts such as the Homeric poems or texts by Pindar,

Euripides, Demosthenes, Aristophanes etc., (2) lexicons listing words of

scholarly or literary importance and those terms which may be misunderstood

(the best known Byzantine lexicons are the Souda Lexicon (10th C.), whose

authorship is still unknown, and the ὸ έ (Etymologicum Magnum) compiled at Constantinople by an unknown lexicographer ca. 1150)

and (3) extensive tabulated lists of the inflectional paradigms of nouns (which

inθρuικι tτιζys ζιοκθtivκs ζnι vκrηs κ.μ., ό (Tabulations) ofTheodosius of Alexandria, Ancient Greek grammarian from 4th C.)13.

Apart from the aforementioned types of writing, there are also

systematic and relatively concise treatises – grammar books of the structure ofclassical Greek, containing orthographic phonetics, morphology, and syntax.

So far only few of these writings have been edited and published. Among them,

υκrνζυs, tνκ ςτst, in Rτηinss wτrιs, tνκτrκtiθζρρy insiμνtλuρ τλ tνκgrammarians was scholar Maximus Planudes (ca. 1300), who wrote two books

on grammar, the ά ὶ (Dialogue of grammar) in style

similar to a Platonic dialogue and a textbook ὶ ά (On syntax)14.

These grammar books form the main pool of texts where a scholar can find out

about Byzantine developments in the field of philology.

In the Middle Byzantine Period the study of language usually is

associated with the names of Michael Syncellus (9th C.), Michael Psellos (11th

C.), Gregory Pardos (12th C.) and Eustathios of Thessalonica (12th C.).

12 E.g., Berschin, op. cit., pp. 18-40; Hunμκr, τυ. θit., Τ. ́; Krumbacher, op. cit., pp. 181-394;Rτηins, Grκκπ Linμuistiθs in tνκ Αyzζntinκ Pκriτι, υυ. -423; Robins, The ByzantineΖχζςςζχξζσψ… , pp. 25-33, 149-233; Leighton Durham Reynolds and Nigel Guy Wilson, Scribes

& Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature , Oxford 1999, pp. 44-78, John

Edwin Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship: From the Sixth Century B.C. to the End of Middle

Ages , Volume 1, Cambridge 1903, pp. 376-428; Wilson, op. cit., pp. 1-8, 89-119, 136-264.13 For more detailed characteristic see Robins, Τνκ Αyzζσωξσκ Ζχζςςζχξζσψ… , pp. 11-39, Robins,

Grκκπ Linμuistiθs in tνκ Αyzζntinκ Pκriτι, υυ. -423; Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit., pp. 44-78, and especially Sandys, op. cit., pp. 376-428.14 It should be noted, that much of the philological texts of the Byzantine age still remain

unedited and in manuscripts form. For a general survey of philological texts see Krumbacher,

op. cit., pp. 181-394. For an up-to-date survey of edited philological texts in printed form see

Rτηins, Grκκπ ρinμuistiθs in tνκ Αyzζntinκ Pκriτι, υυ. -419.

- 82 -


7/32



Michael Syncellus lived and worked in the first half of the ninth century

and was a Patriarch of Jerusalem. Along with rhetorical and ecclesiastical

works he was the author of a popular grammatical textbook devoted to syntax,

έ ὶ ῦ ό ά (The syntax of the sentence. Σynθκρρus

treatise is the first Byzantine syntax after the Syntax of one of the greatest of theGreek grammarians Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd C.). The book is good example

of the well-known fact that Byzantine grammarians were less original than

their Hellenistic predecessors, acting often as compilers of the texts written by

earlier authors. Σynθκρρus ὶ ά exemplifies the conception ofsyntζx tζπκn λrτς “υτρρτnius ζnι tνκ λinζρ twτ ηττπs τλ Prisθiζns Institutiones

grammaticae (Grammatical foundations)15 , and incorporated into a single and

much more concise book16. His syntax is the syntax of words. He is treating the

problem of the word, rather than the relation between words. His terminology

is sometimes determined by extra grammatical influence, e.g, the noun isdefined as essence acting or suffering. Syncellus became especially popular from

the 13th C. onward17.

The intellectual history of the eleventh century, as indicated by Nigel G.

Wilson, was dominated by Michael Psellos (1018-ca.1078), his friends and

students. Psellos was well known as a lecturer, he held the post of a professor

of philosophy, law and philology established by the government in

Constantinople, and was treated as a polymath by his students. For most of his

career, Psells was in the service of the Emperors, and if the account given inhis Chronographia is to be trusted he was for many years the power behind the

throne.18

Psκρρτs τκuvrκ νζs ηκκn θνζrζθtκrizκι ζs κnτrςτus19; it encompasseshistorical, philosophical, rhetorical, theological, and legal texts as well as a

collection of letters. The above mentioned Chronographia – a history beginningin the reign of Basil II, full of gossip and intriguing sketches of important people and

events, perhaps better described as memoirs than as a formal history 20 – is one of hismost important writings.

The name of Psellos, however, unlike the previously mentioned Middle

Byzantine authors of the philological texts is much less associated with the

studies of language. The two essays analyzed in this paper are related to the

field of rhetoric and belong to the category which Psellos himself called ό

15 The work of Priscian (4th C.) Institutiones grammaticae was the standard textbook for the study

of Latin during the Middle Ages.16 Ετr ικtζiρκι θνζrζθtκristiθ τλ tνκ Σynθκρρuss ὶ ά , fragments in original andtranslation see Robins, Τνκ Αyzζσωξσκ Ζχζςςζχξζσψ… , pp. 147-162.17 ODB , Volume 3, pp. 1369-1370.18 Wilson, op. cit., p. 156.19 ODB , Volume 3, p. 1754; Wilson, op. cit., p. 157.20 Wilson, op. cit., p. 156.

- 83 -


8/32

Brigita Kukjalko


έ21 (easygoing writings). They are also classified as ί22

(comparisons), which is not very successful designation as in the analyzed essays

Psellos writes about the qualities of either text in turn and then presents a very

brief conclusion. The actual comparison has to be constructed by the reader

himself23

.The essay ὐὸ ἐή «ί ἐί ῖ, ὁ ὐί ἢ ὁ

ί» (De Euripide) shows Psellos' attempt in the field of literary criticism

of Ancient Greek tragedy. The comparison is between general features of the

works by Euripides (5th C. BC), famous Ancient Greek tragedian, and George

of Pisidia (7th C.), a writer of verse on historical and theological subjects and the

latest Byzantine author familiar with the rules of classical prosody. In the

another essay ί ἡ ά ῶ ά, ὧ ῷ ὲ Χί, ῷ

ὲ ί ὑέ ή; (De Heliodoro), Psellos deals with the

comparison of two prose texts, the main features of their language. One of thetexts is written by Heliodorus, another one by Achilles Tatius.

Unfortunately, Psellos' views and conclusions in both essays can be

characterized by uncertainty and obscurity. Damage on the manuscript of the

essay on Euripides and George of Pisidia also prevents us from learning what

Psκρρτs λinζρ conclusion was24.Gregory Pardos or Gregory of Corinth25 (ca. 1070-1156) was an

important figure – scholar and writer – of twelfth century scholarship inByzantium. Pardos compiled several works on rhetoric and grammar.

However, the work, which has been discussed in this article – ὶ ῦ όἤ ὶ ῦ ὴ ί , – is the only one of his writings that has beenedited thus far in its entirety and is readily accessible26. As its title implies, it

concentrates on syntax, though later sections are also devoted to some

morphological questions.

Concerning its content, Daniel Donnet, the editor of the above

mentioned edition, has passed, as Wilson points out, unequivocally negative

judgment on it: although this work evidently enjoyed popularity at times (it is

21 Dyck, op. cit., p. 29.22 Ibid., p. 28. The comparison of persons or things was a favourite exercise of the rhetorical

schools in Classical Antiquity. However, as points out Dyck, while for Dionysius of Halicarnassus

ωνκ ύ ξψ ζ υχκθξψκ ξσψωχuςκσω λτχ λξxξσμ ζσ ζuωντχψ χνκωτχξθζρ θνζχζθωκχ ζσι ικμχκκ τλ κxθκρρκσθκ,

Psellos offers nothing as systematic or as carefully documented. (Dyck, op. cit., p. 29).23 Ibid., p. 29.24 Both essays have been particularly discussed in Wilson, op. cit., pp. 172-179, and Dyck, op.

cit.25 So called because he apparently followed a common career pattern by being promoted from a teaching

post in the capital to the bishopric of Corinth. (Wilson, op. cit., p. 184).26 Daniel Donnet, Λκ Τχζξωé «ὶ ά ό» ικ Ζχéμτξχκ de Corinthe. Étude de latrζιitiτn ςζnusθritκ, éιitiτn, trζιuθtiτn κt θτςςκntζirκ, Bruxelles – Rome 1967.

- 84 -


9/32



found in more that forty manuscript copies), its level of competence is low and

from the Italian Renaissance onwards scholars have rarely if ever cited it27.

Δustζtνiτs, ζrθνηisντυ τλ Τνκssζρτniθζs (ca. 1115-1195) commentary onthe Iliad , the work which has been chosen for the current study, is the longest

of his surviving works. He has treated and commented also the second Homer'spoem – the Odyssey , in the same way as the Iliad. He wrote these commentariesas a teacher of rhetoric in order to satisfy the needs of his students28.

Concerning the content of these commentaries, Wilson admits that in

general Eustathios repeats or paraphrases information that we already possess in the

collections of scholia on Homer or in some other author whom we can still read. He

ιτκψσω νζvκ vκχy ςuθν τλ νξψ τwσ ωτ ζιι, ζσι νκ ξψ στω ζσ ζθuωκ ωκxωuζρ θχξωξθ 29. The

value of these works largely lies in the fact, that writing them and also other his

commentaries Eustathios has used a number of books that now are lost or have

survived only partly.As it is clear from the characteristic of the types of writing within the

language science in the Byzantine Age, the scientific study of language was

tightly connected with and also to a great extent based on the classical heritage,

like other aspects of profound knowledge in Byzantine Period.

3. The language of the Middle Byzantine authors of philological texts

Gathering and studying materials on the language characteristic of the

authors of different types of scientific texts in Byzantium has shown that very

little this kind of researches has been done so far. There are more works30 ,

though not very many, on the language of Byzantine literature in general.

As it is argued by Staffan Wahlgren, the main reason why the language

of Byzantine literature has been studied so little, and especially regarding the

lack of studies of the higher functional varieties or registers of the language,

seems to be that Byzantine Greek has been simply considered identical with

Ancient Greek as far as the intentions of its users are concerned 31. Also, the

author of one of the most valuable overviews32 of the language of Byzantine

literature Robert Browning draws attention to the impression of a unchanging

(for the superficial observer) linguistic form in which much of Byzantine

literature is written: There are no striking differences between the Greek of Procopius

in sixth century and that of Critobulus in the fifteenth. And where a line of development

is traced, it not infrequently seems to go into reverse 33. The main reason behind

27 Wilson, op. cit., p. 185.28 Wilson, op. cit., p. 197.29 Ibid., p. 199.30 E.g., Browning, op. cit., pp. 103-133; Kazhdan, op. cit.; Wahlgren, op. cit., pp. 527-538.31 Wahlgren, op. cit., p. 527.32 Browning, op. cit., pp. 103-133.33 By going into reverse Browning means that authors from the latter centuries could write more

classical Greek than those from the earlier.

- 85 -


10/32

Brigita Kukjalko


getting such an impression is the different kinds of Greek34 being used for

literary purposes at one and the same time.

Still, distinctions in linguistic usage did exist, and Byzantine writers

were conscious of them and often referred to them, as well as to the supposed

reasons behind a choice of a specific linguistic form35

. In the context of thecurrent research, one of the Browning's conclusions on the language of authors

of the period that attracts the most attention is that they often seem to be observing

their own performance and drawing attention to their cleverness. They were aware

of the value of their knowledge, but the way to show it also was of cardinal

importance to them.

Hτwκvκr, Αrτwninμs ζttκntiτn is focused on the language of Byzantineliterature in general, not on the language of texts from particular fields. After

glancing back at the use of Greek as a literary language in the Roman Empire

and a short examination of the language of those of the Church Fathers, whose prestige as models to be imitated was immense throughout the Byzantine period36 ,

Browning traces the main features of the language of Byzantine literature from

the fifth to the fifteenth centuries dividing these thousand years into five

periods.

He characterizes the language of the literature in the eleventh and

twelfth centuries as far removed as possible from spoken Greek, with a vocabulary,

morphology and syntax imitative of that believed to be used by classical models, which

now ranged from Homer to the Fathers of Church37. To justify the above mentioned

statement, Browning provides short descriptions of the language (touching

upon its stylistic, syntactic, lexical, semantic and morphological features) of

several texts written in these centuries. He also briefly outlines the language

style of Michael Psellos and Eustathios of Thessalonica, among the other

authors of the age.

34 Byzantine Greek, like other languages of high culture, functioned at different levels. On the

one hand, there was vernacular Greek – the language spoken by all classes in informalsituations, and by the uneducated majority in all situations. On the other hand, there was

literary Greek – archaizing, imitative and fossilized form of Greek, in which was all official,public, or written communication, including literature. Literary Greek had two levels: one

version of the Koine Greek of the Roman Empire, often used in technical writings, the other an

imitation, successful to varying degrees, of either the language of Attic literature of the 5 th-4th

C. B.C. or of the Atticism of rhetoricians of the Second Sophistic (the two models were not

always clearly distinguished) (ODB , Volume 2, p. 1175). Byzantine diglossia was essentially a

literary phenomenon, while Modern Greek diglossia (till 1976) – political and educational.(Browning, op. cit., p. 105).35 Sometimes they even included a long apology for their language and style, e.g., I have no part

in letters; for I never studied Hellenic culture to get well-turned speech and learn eloquence. (..) May

style may be unprofessional, but if you attend it soundly to what I say you will find it most true

(Cecaumenus 76, p. 272, Litavrin). Thus, a new motive is here introduced – the writer's ownlack of education (Browning, op. cit., pp. 103-104).36 Ibid., p. 109.37 Ibid., p. 119.

- 86 -


11/32



Describing the language style of Psellos, Browning refers to a short

writing38 in which Psellos displays his own critical principles at work, which

shows that in general he aims at a middle style39. Psellos recognizes differences of

level within the classicism which he favours, differences which depend on the audience

aimed at40

.While Psellos like some other of his contemporaries, e.g., Anna

Komnena, was a visible representative of Atticism, Eustathios of Thessalonica

used Atticist language in his speeches and technical Koine in his lectures on Homer.

Browning draws attention to the fact that Eustathios was interested in the spoken

tongue and felt no inhibition in referring to it and quoting words and expressions from

it frequently in discussing Homer41.

The eleventh and twelfth centuries were the time when classicism and

Atticism dominated the literary world. However, it was also the time when

more and more texts were written in literary Koine and so called political verse42

.One of the reasons, why literary Koine became more and more popular, was a

necessity to make the language and style to suit the capabilities of the audience,

for example, as Browning points out, women readers – usually ladies of theimperial court wντ wτuρισω νζvκ νζι ωνκ κιuθζωξτσ ωτ ζυυχκθξζωκ ωνκ θρζψψξθξzξσμ

literary language. Also by that time literary Koine had already strengthened its

positions – it had to be learnt at school43.Returning to the main scope of this article and focusing on the texts

chosen for the current study, it has to be acknowledged that in this case much

more important than the question about the dialect in which they were written,

is the evaluation of the features that characterize the formal level of their

scientificity.

The following subchapters of the study have been structured according

to the aforementioned (see the introduction of the article) levels , which also

characterize the language of Ancient Greek philological texts. Such structure

has been chosen, as we assume that Byzantine philological texts in their form

could be quite similar to their predecessors. Each subchapter according to its

38 ώ

ἰ

ὸ

φὴ

ῦ

ώ

, see Eduard Kurtz, Michaeli Pselli Scripta minora ,

Volume 1, Milano 1936.39 A middle style designates one of the levels of production (high or grande, middle, low or plain) in

letters. It represents the antique doctrine of stylistic levels of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1 st C.

B.C.). Dionysius was known to several Byzantine writers – Psellos among them – andrudiments of his doctrine seeped down to Byzantine commentaries and introductory treatises

on rhetoric. For a survκy τn tνκ ρκvκρs τλ styρκ in Αyzζntinκ υrτsκ sκκ Šκvčκnπτ, τυ. θit., pp. 199-222.40 Browning, op. cit., p. 120.41 Ibid., p. 123.42 Political verse first appears around the 6th C. as fragments within other varied verse forms.

An interesting example of political verse is the poem of Digenes Akritas – epic-romance

compiled, perhaps in the 12th C.43 Browning, op. cit., p. 122

- 87 -


12/32

Brigita Kukjalko


title deals with all three texts selected for the current study, as its ηκρiκvκιthat the progress in the understanding of Byzantine literary Greek can be made only

on the basis of more work of a descriptive character and of internal comparison within

the corpus of Byzantine texts44.

3.1. The use of designations of philological concepts

3.1.1. Psellos

Ατtν Psκρρτs κssζys discussed in this article according to their contentare referable, in a modern sense, to the field of literary criticism. Although the

analyzed texts are very short, there can be observed comparatively many and

various philological terms or, more precisely45 , designations of philological

concepts that can be examined; one of them – ί (to commit solecism) – has even been explained:

(..) ὸ ὰ ὰ ὴ Ἀί ῶ ἐ ῖ ῖ έφέ.

(..) the element in barbarian speech which is contrary to Attic is solecistic.

Along with the content and structure analysis of the examined texts,

Psellos touches upon many, frτς tτιζys υτint τλ viκw , stylistics relatedquestions. In the essay De Euripide , tνκ ζutντrs ζttκntiτn is focused on thelanguage features of poetic texts. Another essay – De Heliodoro – deals with themain features of the language of two prose texts. Thus, designations of

stylistics-related philological concepts prevail. The most essential from them,

as well as the most often used are έ , ό , and φά. In Psκρρτs tκxtsthey all can denote the mode of expression or diction and in these cases of the

use are considered to be synonyms, e.g.:

ὕ ὐῷ ῦ ὰ ἡ ῥὴ φά ὶ ὸ

έω ὔ ὶ ὸ ῦ ῥῦ ἐέ. (De Euripide).

He always handles rhythmical language , euphony of diction and the

appropriateness of rhythm with such care.

ὶ ἡὺ έ ἐ έ ὶ ὐίᾳ ῦ ῥύ (..). (De

Heliodoro).

Iω μξvκψ υρκζψuχκ ηy vξχωuκ τλ ξωψ ζuωντχψ diction and beauty of language (..).(..) ύ ὲ ἐί ὴ φά ἐί (..). (De Heliodoro).

(..) His diction is sweeter (..).

φ̣ῖ ὲ ᾂ ̣`̣ ὴ ἰύῳ ύ ὰ ή ὶ ἡ ῦ

ό ααὴ έ (..). (De Euripide).

44 Ibid., p. 528.45 Author of the article prefers to use designation [of concept] rather than term in order to avoid

the identification of the modern word term with a linguistic phenomenon in the ancient world

τr Αyzζntiuς, θλ. “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ “nθiκnt Grκκπ Pνiρτρτμiθζρ Τκxts,p. 37.

- 88 -


13/32



Now Sophocles and Aeschylus have more profound ideas and a more dignified

linguistic arsenal (..).

Ἔ ὰ ὸ ά ῦ ' ὐὴ ό ὔ ά ὸ ὶ

ὸ ὔ ὴ Ἀό ὶ ὑήφ ἀὰ ῷ ῖ

έ. (De Heliodoro).The beauty of the language τλ Βνζχξθρκζψ ωζρκ ξψ σκξωνκχ κςηκρρξψνκι ζσι

theatrical nor Attic and high flown, but distinguished by its grandeur.

Besides έ , ό , and φά , in the essay De Heliodoro , there are

two more designations that denote the concept of mode of expression – χααὴ and ῶα , e.g.:

ὐ ὰ ῶ ὰ έ ἡά, ἀὰ φώ ἐὰ ῶ

χααήω ή I have not stuck in detailed observations, but have presented you with a

summary account of their respective styles.

(..) ἀὰ ὰ ὴ έ ὐ ἡ ῶα ἐ ὸ ὸ

φώ (..).

(..) but, contrary to the art, her language has been raised to a more sophistic

tone (..).

(..) ὴ ῶα ἔ ῦ ό ή (..).

(..) his tongue is the accuser of his character (..).

It should be noted that the designation ῶ in Psκρρτs tκxts θζn ηκalso used to denote concept of language or dialect , e.g.: ῶα ί

(Greek language), Ἀί ῶα ( Attic dialect ). Likewise ῶ (denoting

two various philological concepts) have been used also ό and έ. In

Psκρρτs κssζys tνκy ητtν θζn ικnτtκ nτt τnρy tνκ mode of expression or diction, but also the expression itself (words, speech or text and the like), e.g.:

ὅ έ ώ ἀώ ἐ ῦ ὰ ὰ ῖ ἰό,

ϊό ῦ ό , (..).

At the beginning (of the reading) the reader fancies that most elements are

superfluous, but as the narrative progresses , (..).

(..) ἐ ῖ ῖ έ (..).

(..) in barbarian speech (..).

3.1.2.

Pardos

Τνκ Grκμτry Pζrιτs trκζtisκ ὶ ά ό ἤ ὶ ῦ ὴί solely deals with grammar and can be treated as a grammar book.

In the first sections, the author concentrates on questions related to the syntax

of the sentence, later his focus changes to morphology. As the title of the workimplies, a strong emphasis is placed on accurate language production, i.e., on

- 89 -


14/32

Brigita Kukjalko


the well-formed construction of a sentence, the proper connection of different

parts of speech, as well as on the correct use of cases. Thus, it is to be expected

that the prevalent category of terms are those belonging to the morphological

level of language , e.g.: terms which denote parts of speech, e.g.: ἀί

( pronoun), ἄ (article), ἐί (adverb), ό ( prefix), ῥ (verb)etc., cases, e.g.: ῶ (case), ἰή (accusative), ή ( genitive), ή

(dative) etc., and other categories of verb or noun, e.g.: ἀό (masculine),

ἐό (active voice), ό ( plural), ό ( person), ί

(conjugation) etc.

In the context of the treatise, some of the most significant and often used

terms can also be related to the syntactic , e.g.: ύ (construction),

ά (to connect or to relate to), ά () (to construe, to construct)

etc., as well as to the lexical-semantic , e.g.: ί (to barbarize),

ό (barbarism), ἔ (sense), ί (meaning), ί (to mean)etc., and to the phonetic level of language , e.g.: ύ (monosyllabic),

ή (syllable), ό (emphasis) etc. It should be noted that Pardos has not

tτuθνκι uυτn tνκ quκstiτns τλ ρζnμuζμκ styρκ. “nι οust ρiπκ in Psκρρτs κssζys,we can see the use of the designations ό and έ. However, contrary to

tνκir ςζin rτρκ in Psκρρτs tκxts, in Pζrιτs trκζtisκ tνκy ζrκ nτt rκρζtκι tτ tνκstylistic level of language. ό denotes the concept of broader expression

(speech , phrase , text and the like), e.g.:

ώ ἰ ά ὰ έ ῦ ό (..).

The parts of speech are always eight (..). (Donnet, op. cit., p. 167).

ὰ ὲ ὶ ὸ ῶ ὶ ἀῖ ἐίῃ ἀὴ ά ὁ

ό (..).

From the other side if the first and necessary word is missing, the phrase is

again incomplete (..). (Donnet, op. cit., p. 169).

έ in its turn implies the concept of word , lexeme, e.g.:

φί ὲ ἡ έ ὰ ό έ· .., ἢ ὅ ἐ

έ ήῃ ὴ ὶ ἀὶ ῦ έ ἴῃ ἐέ· ἐ ύὁ ἐ ῖ έ ό.

The word can be corrupted in four ways: (..), or when there is syllable added in

the word and instead of ωκωyςςζξ wτuρι ψζy κωκωyςςζξ; from that the barbarism isin words. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 219).

ό and έ in Pζrιτs wτrπ ζrκ υνiρτρτμiθζρ tκrςs in μκnκrζρ46;their conceptual content is unambiguous and remains unchanged throughout

the work.

46 Βλ. “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ “nθiκnt Grκκπ Pνiρτρτμiθζρ Τκxts, υυ. -43.

- 90 -


15/32



In the treatise of Pardos, the observed philological designations stand

out with the clarity and accuracy of their conceptual content, as well as the

consistency of the use of designation: practically there are not synonymous

designations, at least among the most important and often used.

The attention attracts only two designations which belong to thesyntactic level of language, i.e., the conceptual content of ά () (to

construe and to construct) and ά (to connect or to relate to), as it seems to

be quite similar. However, the deeper analysis of their occurrences in the text

shows that the designation ά () (to construe and to construct) is

used in the context of the construction of a sentence, and especially regarding

the syntax of cases, e.g.:

ή ᾂ ἐ ῖ ά ὶ ὕ ώ ὸ ἀῖ ,

«ὁ ἴ», ὸ «ί ῖ», ὸ «ῖ», ὅ ἐ ῥ, ἔ ὰ ἑ·ί ῶ ῶ· ῶ ὐό· ὶ ὰ ί ὰ ῦ ά· ί

ὐῦ ἤ ἑῦ. ὶ ὕ ά ὀῶ.

So in the constructing a sentence look for and first find the necessary noun, for

κxζςυρκ, “οζx, ωνκσ wνζω νκ ξψ ιτξσμ", ωνζω ξψ fights in single combat, wνξθν ξψ

the verb, then the following: doing what? fighting; how? bravely; with what? with the

shield; whose? his or his own. Thus you would construct a sentence correctly.

(Donnet, op. cit., p. 169);

Ἡ ὰ ὰ ἰ ὶ άα (..).

ὰ is constructed with the accusative and with the genitive (..).);

Ἡ ά, ὅ ῖ ἀὶ ἀό, ὰ άα (..). ὰ

wνκσ uψκι ξσψωκζι τλ ἀό λχτς ξψ constructed with the genitive (..). (Donnet, op.

cit., p. 199).

ά (to connect or to relate) in its turn is referred to the correct

connection of different parts of speech, e.g.:

(..) ῶ ή ὸ ὶ ὸ ῥ ὶ ύα ὸ ἄ (..).

(..) first look for a noun and a verb and connect to one another (..). (Donnet,

op. cit., p. 177);

ὶ ὸ ὲ ἀὸ ὰῖ ά άα ὀό, ὸ ὲ

ὸ ῖ, ὸ ὲ ὐέ ὐέ (..).

And the masculine again is connected to the masculine words, the feminine in

its turn to the feminine, and the neutral to the neutral (..). (Donnet, op. cit., p. 187).

Τνκ sυκθiζρ λκζturκ τλ Pζrιτs trκζtisκ, wνiθν ζθtuζρρy κςκrμκs λrτς tνκnature and purpose of the book itself, is its author's efforts to formulate the

crucial linguistic phenomena before discussing them. These formulations are

concise and cannot be treated as definitions (in a modern sense) neitherformally, nor by the information which they provide. However, they give an

- 91 -


16/32

Brigita Kukjalko


insight into some of the most essential features of the linguistic phenomena,

which are discussed further. For example, introducing a discussion on how to

construct a sentence, the author defines the word classes:

ώ ἰ ά ὰ έ ῦ ό· , ῥ, ή, ἄ,

ἀί, ό, ἐί, ύ.Eight are always the parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun,

preposition, adverb, conjunction. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 167);

introducing the discussion of the proper connection of the noun like

words (Lat. nomina: nouns, adjectives, pronouns etc.), Pardos first draws the

rκζικrs ζttκntiτn tτ the grammatical genders:(..) ί ἰὶ έ ἐ ῖ ὀό, ἀό, ό ὶ ὐέ.

(..) three are the genders of the στςina: the masculine, the feminine and the

neutral. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 187);

opening the section on the correct use of cases, in fact, the syntax of cases,the author provides the definition of the number and kinds of cases:

(..) ώ ἰὶ έ· ὀή, ή, ή, ἰὴ ὶ ή.

(..) the cases are five: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative.

(Donnet, op. cit., p. 187).

Further down, the role of each of the cases have also been briefly

analyzed.

Pζrιτs trκζtisκ is ρτμiθζρ ζnι θρκζrρy struθturκι. Στςκ τλ tνκ tτυiθs – mainly in its later sections, which deal with the morphology, have titles: ὶ

ώ. (On the cases. Donnet, op. cit., p. 189); ί έ. (On the

prepositions. Donnet, op. cit., p. 197); ὶ ά ῥά. (Oσ ωνκ vκχηψ

syntax. Donnet, op. cit., p. 207); ὶ ῦ. (On the barbarism. Donnet,

op. cit., p. 217).

3.1.3.

Eustathios

Δustζtνiτs ὶ ἰ ὴ ή Ἰά addresses questions ofgrammar, rhetoric, etymology, mythology, history and geography; therefore

this text can be treated quite sporadically as philological, i.e., when the topics

of grammar and rhetoric are superficially examined. Σinθκ Δustζtνiτscommentaries are an exceptionally extensive work47 , the occurrences of a

philological content in this and the following subchapters are accessed with the

help of the indexes in Indices in Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis

Commentarios ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes composed by Helen Maria Keizer

(Leiden 1995)48.

47 In the edition Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem ad fidem

exempli romani editi , (4 parts in 2 volumes), Hildesheim 1970 (reprint of Leipzig 1825 and 1827

editions), which does not have any apparatus criticus , it fills 751 pages.48 The first index lists proper names. The second index consists of Greek words and clusters of

words discussed by Eustathios. The third index comprises Eustathios' own vocabulary, both

- 92 -


17/32



The third index Vocabularium Eustathianum allows us to appreciate – inKκizκrs wτrιs – both the technical and non-technical vocabulary of Eustathios.The so called technical terms have been classified in grammatical, rhetorical and

metrical terms; however, the largest part of them can also be treated as

philological terms belonging to different levels of language. Many of therhetorical terms can be easily related to the stylistic level of language (e.g.,

ἀή [έ] (impudent word), ἀφά (repetition of word), έ ( give a

double sense), ῖ (climax , i.e., in Lat. gradatio, αφά metaphor) etc.,while the grammatical terms in their turn can be sorted out into the syntactic

(e.g.: ό (short sentence), ό ((opposite έ) sentence , statement), φά

(speech , expression)); lexical-semantic (e.g.: ἑί (to use Greek), έ (word),

etc.); morphological (e.g.: ἀή (derivation), ή ( participle),

((opposite ή) noun), ῥ (verb), ( grammatical form of word) etc.), and

phonetic level (e.g.: (crasis), όφ (monophthong), ὀύ (acuteaccent), ή (syllable), ύφ (consonant) etc.). There are also many

concepts, which cannot be easily attributed to the specific level of linguistic

research, but which in general are philological, e.g., ἐί (etymology),

ὀφί (orthography), ὀΐ (word- formation) etc.

Besides providing the classification of the terms in grammatical,

rνκtτriθζρ ζnι ςκtriθζρ, Kκizκrs inικx ζρsτ sντws tνζt, just as it is nowadays,many of terms in one and the same text can also function as ordinary words 49

e.g.,

ῶα (language , dialect , gloss) and ῶα (tongue):

ί ὲ ῶα έ ὸ ί (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri

Iliadem 1.150.2550).

The language of Syracuse speaks the believer (..)51.

And

ῶ ὰ ἂ ὁ ὴ ῶα ἐὶ ἔ ῖ; Commentarii adHomeri Iliadem 1.48.24).

How would the one have spoken, who had his tongue cut?

Since in the previous subchapters amplified attention has been paid to

some stylistics-related designations of philological concepts characterized by

technical (grammatical, rhetorical, metrical) and non-technical (post-classical, Byzantine). The

fourth index contains the sources which were used by Eustathios or which offer parallels to his

remarks. (Keizer, op. cit., pp. xi-xviii).49 When a word is listed in the index more than once and no technical sense is involved, a dash (-) is

added in the margin (Keizer, op. cit., pp. xiv-xv).50 Hκrκ ζnι λurtνκr tνκ sτurθκ τλ tνκ υζμinζtiτn τλ Δustζtνiτs tκxt – Thesaurus Linguae Graecae.

A Digital Library of Greek Literature , Irvine, CA, University of California [online] 2001–.Available: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/about/.51 Here and further, if not stated otherwise, English translation by the author of the article.

- 93 -


18/32

Brigita Kukjalko


quite similar conceptual content (έ , ό , φά and ῶ), firstly,

interest emerges on the contraposition of έ and ό inιiθζtκι in Kκizκrsindex: (ό τυυτψξωκ έ ψκσωκσθκ, ψωζωκςκσω)52. The proper analysis of the

some of the cases where the terms έ and ό occur shows that, just like

in Psκρρτs κssζys, ζρsτ in Δustζtνiτs tνκy ητtν ικnτtκ κitνκr the concept ofexpression (mainly), or the concept of mode of expression (rarely), and theycan still be treated as synonyms:

The use of έ denoting the concept of expression (word), e.g.: ἱὰ

έ (holy word), ὴ έ ( poetic word), ἐ ῖ έ (in prosaic

(literally walking) words , i.e., in prose), (..) ὰ ὶ ῥ ὰ ῖ

ῥή έ ἐέ. ((..) ωνκ χνκωτχψ θζρρκι ζ στuσ τχ ζ vκχη κvκχy word)

(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.183.20).

The use of ό denoting the concept of expression (sentence,

speech, text and the like), e.g.: ὰ ὸ ά ό (according to the oldsaying ), ὁ ό ό ( prosaic text , i.e., prose), ὁ ἔ ό (metered text ).

The use of έ denoting the concept of mode of expression , diction ,

e.g.:

(..) ἰά ὲ ἡ έ ὶ ἐὶ ῶ ῥῳύ ά ἐί

(..).

(..) diction differs also among those who recites poems. (Commentarii ad

Homeri Iliadem 1.1.5.12).

The use of ό denoting the concept of mode of expression ,

diction , e.g.:

ὶ ἔ ὁ ό ὺ ἅ ὶ ἰό (..).

And there is a heavy mode of expression and at the same time dissembling (..).

(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.355.21);

(..) ἐό ὶ ὸ ὁ ό (..).

(..) active and efficient mode of expression (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri

Iliadem 1.609.14).

Concerning the designation φά , in Δustζtνiτs tκxt it denotes theconcept of expression ( phrase , utterance) and often is used to introduce a

quotation that follows, e.g.:

ἔ ' ἐ ύ ἡ ὴ φά ὕ· ...There is this Homeric phrase: (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.590.5);

(..) ὅ ἐή ὴ φά ὰ ὸ ὶ ὕ ὶ ὕ ύ

έ, · ...(..) however he changed the phrase by that and thus could say, for example, (..).


52 Keizer, op. cit., p. 393.

- 94 -


19/32



The designation ῶα in its turn in Δustζtνiτs tκxt νζs ηκκn usκιiικntiθζρρy ζs in Psκρρτs κssζys ζnι ζρsτ ζs, it sντuρι ηκ nτtκι, tτιζy: τn tνκone hand ῶ denotes the concept of language, dialect or foreign word ,

e.g., ἡ ὲ ὴ ῶ (the common (koine) language), ὰ ῶ ῶ

(according to the Cretan language); and on the other hand it can also mean modeof expression or diction , e.g.: ἡ ὴ ὲ ῶ (low style, ἡ ὴῶ (Hτςκχψ ρζσμuζμκ).

3.2. The author’s presence in the text

In ητtν Psκρρτs κssζys, tνκ ζutντrs υrκsκnθκ in tνκ tκxt θζn ηκ λκρtthroughout the work: the main indication is the use of the first-person singular

verb forms. While in the essay De Euripide the use of the first-person occurs

sporadically, the essay De Heliodoro is actually written in the first person. The

author uses the first person singular forms to express his opinion oruncertainty , e.g.:

ὺ ἶα ὶ ῶ ἄ έ ἀφῦ ὶ ῶ

ύ ύ ἐῶ ά (..).

I know that even many well-educated persons are in dispute concerning these

two romantic novels (..). (De Heliodoro);

ὐ ὰ ἶα ἴ ά ύ ἐί ἰί (..).

For I doubt that anyone knows how to write lovelier iambic verse than he (..).

(De Euripide).

In both texts, the author often uses φί (I say or I mean) to bestow his

explanation , resp., thoughts, e.g.:

(..) φὶ ὴ ὴ ἐ ό̣ (..).

(..) i.e. (I mean), that in the words (..).;

(..) ὸ ὶ Χί φί, ὅ ὴ ῖ ὲ ῷ

ῥή φέ (..).

(..) namely ωνκ λζθω ωνζω ζuωντχ θζσστω μκω Βνζχξθρκζψ ψυκκθν ωτ ψτuσι wτςζσρy

or feminine (..).

Τνκ ζutντrs υrκsκnθκ θζn ζρsτ ηκ λκρt wνκn νκ addresses or turns to thereader , e.g.:

ῦ ὲ ὸ ἕ ί̣̣ω ῦ ό (..).

By all means let this point be prefaced to our account (..).

Ἔχ, ὦ φό , ὴ ῶ ί ά ἐ φί ὰ

έ.

You have, my friend , in summary form, the difference between the books, a

matter of great import.

In Pζrιτs trκζtisκ, tνκ ζutντrs ιisυτsitiτn tτ μivκ νis τwn τυiniτn is

κvκn ςτrκ visiηρκ ζnι υκrθκυtiηρκ iλ θτςυζrκι tτ tνκ Psκρρτs κssζys, tντuμν itis not written in the first person. The main feature that definitively shows it is

- 95 -


20/32

Brigita Kukjalko


the regular use of the second person singular imperative. This is the main way

how the teacher (Pardos) addresses or turns to his pupils (readers). This fact

has been pointed out also by Robins, when he describes the content and briefly

also the styρκ τλ Pζrιτs trκζtisκ, ιrζwinμ ζttκntiτn tνζt it sνζrκs ςζny trζits

with other grammars of the Byzantine age:

It is unashamedly didactic (..). There is a sequence of mementos to the reader

or the teacher who may be using this book, for example,

ὴ ό ὲ ὅ ...

Don't think that (..). (Donnet, op. cit., p. 169);

Ὅα ὶ ῡ ...

Ντtξθκ this also (..).;

Πόχ ᾂ, ἐ ῖ ά, ἀέ ῷ ώῳ ὸ ἁό

ῥ. Be careful in constructions to assign to the pronoun the verb form that is in

agreement with it. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 171);

Φέ ὶ ὶ ά ῥά ἴω (..).

Come on, let's talk about the syntax of verbs (..). (Donnet, op. cit., p. 207)53.

A number of the above mentioned phrases e.g.: ό ᾂ ηκ careful),

ὅ ὶ ῡ στωξθκ ωνξψ ζρψτ, ὴ ό ὲ ὅ ιτσ'ω ωνξσπ ωνζω , and also some

others, e.g.: ἐῖ ά (learn this), ά ἀῖ (learn this also) , ή ᾂ ρττπ

for) can be found several times within the text and can be seen as stable formula-

like expressions. However, the author addresses or turns to his reader not only

by using the above mentioned imperative forms, the consistent use of the

second person singular of the present tense also characterizes the whole text

τλ Pζrιτs tκxt ζnι θρκζrρy shows the author's presence, guidance, advices andthe like e.g: ὁ ( you see), ὡ ὁ (as you see), έῃ ( you would say), ὀάῃ

( you would name), ῖ ( you look for) etc.

Also in Eustatνiτs wτrπ tνκ ζutντrs υrκsκnθκ, οust ρiπκ in Psκρρτs ζnιPζrιτs tκxts, is rκυκζtκιρy visiηρκ. “s it wζs stζtκι ζt tνκ ηκμinninμ τλ tνκarticle, Eustathios wrote his commentaries τn Hτςκrs Iliad in order to satisfythe requests of his students. Therefore the text is characterized by the

permanent use of the first-person verb forms , as well as the constant

addressing to the reader in the form of rhetorical questions.

The use of the first-person plural verb forms dominates in the text. In

this way the author expresses his thoughts or opinion , e.g.:

ἴ ὰ ῖ ἑέ, ὡ ὐ ἂ ἡῖ ό ἴω (..).

53 Robins, Τνκ Αyzζσωξσκ Ζχζςςζχξζσψ… , p. 163.

- 96 -


21/32



This point has been covered by so many others that we have nothing further

to say (..)54. (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.6.4);

ἡῖ ὲ ὐ ῦ ό, ἐῖὲ ὶ έα.

This is not our intention, but rather what we have already set forth.


As it is obvious in the examples above, along with the use of the first-

person plural verb forms, equally often we also observe the forms of the

personal pronoun in the first person plural (ἡῖ , ἡ etc.).

The first-person plural verb forms are also often used, whenever the

author turns to another topic or part of discussion , e.g.:

ὶ ῦ ὲ ὕ, ἵ ὴ ἐὶ έ ό ῦ ῦ αώα.

But let us stop with this so that we do not stray even further from ourintention. (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.6.3);

ἀὰ ὰ ἤ ῷ ῷ ἐέ, ἵ ή ἀύω

ὰ ἐ ὐ έ φί.

But we should now aim for our goal, lest we hear later that we speculated

unnecessarily. (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.8.6).

By using the first-person plural verb forms and the forms of the personal

pronoun in the first person plural the author wittingly creates an impression

for the reader of being the co-author of the text and making him to agree with

the read much more easily. Such techniques can also be seen in the

contemporary scientific writings. Of course, Eustathios also uses the first-

person singular verb forms , but much more rarely and mainly in cases when

his own negation or doubts are expressed, e.g.:

, ἰ ὶ ἀέό ὶ ῦ ὁ ό ἔ, ὐ ἶα , ἰ ή

ῶ ὑώ ό ύ ἐί, ἐ ὧ ὰ ῶ ἐῦ

ἠά.

But, if our narrative seems somewhat high-minded and haughty, it is not my

fault that there are dullards who are barely familiar with the works from which many

of our materials have been collected. (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.5.7).

Δustζtνiτs tκxt is λuρρ τλ rhetorical questions which he also attempts toanswer. Such style of writing gives an impression of a dialogue or conversation

54 Hκrκ ζnι λurtνκr, iλ nτt stζtκι τtνκrwisκ, Δustζtνiτs tκxt trζnsρζtκι in Δnμρisν ηy Γζviι Jenkins, David Bachrach and Darin Hayton. Byzantine Studies Collection, University of Notre

Dame, 2002. Available online [cited April 05, 2013]:

http://www.library.nd.edu/byzantine_studies/translations.shtml

- 97 -


22/32

Brigita Kukjalko


with the reader and, of course, clearly shows tνκ ζutντrs υrκsκnθκ in tνκ tκxt,e.g.:

(..) ἂ ὸ ὸ ἀύ, ἰ ὸ ί ἀό, ὕ ὶ

ὸ ὴ ἀύ (..) ὸ Ὅ ἐό. ὰ ί; ὅ ἐ αὐῷ ἀὴᾶα ήω (..).

(..) wνκσκvκχ wκ νκζχ ωνκ ρyχξθξψω, wκ μτ ψωχaight to Pindar, and so too,

ψτςκτσκ wντ νκζχψ ωνκ υτκω ωνξσπψ τλ Hτςκχ (..). Why? Because he displays every

virtue of poetry (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.5.30).

3.3. The use of figurative means of expression

Τνκ ρζnμuζμκ τλ ητtν Psκρρτs κssζys is θνζrζθtκrizκι ηy θτnsυiθuτusfigurativeness. The most frequently used figurative mean of expression is the

metaphor. In both texts one can observe simple and quite trivial metaphors,such as, e.g.,: ἡ ῦ ό ὴ έ (dignified linguistic arsenal),

ί ὶ ὴ ἀὴ ί (little words which flatter the ear); ὀό

ἁῖ (with graceful words), ἱ ῶ έ ἡὶ ( pleasures of language). Both

texts, but especially De Heliodoro is full also with much more sophisticated

metaphors, e.g.:

φ ὲ ὁ ό ά ά ἄ.

The work teems with flowers of every grace;

ώ ὲ ὶ ἐί ή ά, ὡ ἂ ἴ ,

ἀφί έ.

It has been embellished with episodic narratives which, one might say, breath

the grace of Aphrodite.

Βνζrζθtκrizinμ tνκ ςζin ρinκs τλ tνκ υρτt τλ Βνζriθρκζs nτvκρ, Psκρρτscompares it tτ ζ θτiρκι snκζπ…:

(..) ὶ ὐὴ ὲ ἡ ἀὴ ῦ ά ἔ ῖ ἑῖ φ·

ᾃ ὰ ὴ φὴ ἴ ί ύ, ὸ ὸ

ῶ έ, ὶ ὸ ί ὴ ὑέ ἰὴ ἐ έῳ

ή ὥ ά ἀὴ ί ὴ ό.

(..) the beginning of the work itself resembles a coiled snake: the snake conceals

its head inside the coils and thrusts the rest of its body forward; so the book makes a

beginning of its middle, and the onset of the story, which it has, so to speak, inherited,

slips through (to end up) in the middle.

His adoration of Chariclea's tale Psellos expresses with the help of a

hyperbole:

(..) ὥᾳ ὶ ά έ ἔ ὰ ῦ ῦ ὸ

ἡὺ ὐὶ {ῷ} ἄῳ ἐχῖ ἂ ύα.

(..) one could find no other work which possesses pleasure blended sobeautifully and gracefully with nobility.

- 98 -


23/32



The passage devoted to the features of Euripides in De Euripide much

more resembles a panegyric than a philological text:

(..) ὶ ὲ ὲ ὑή ̣`̣̣ ὴ ̣̣ί ὶ έ

ῦ ὶ ί, ὲ ὲ ὶ ῶ ἄ ί ὶ̣ή ἐά ὶ ῖ ά ̣ύ ὶ ὸ

ή ό, ὶ ἠώ `̣̣ ῖ ἦ ἐύ ὶ

ᾂ ώ ἔ ά ῶ ό ὑί (..).

(..) sometimes you will find the poet chanting dithyrambs and [striving for] and

preferring [novelties], sometimes talking the lead in other forms of grace and solemnity

and adoring himself with choriambs and becoming variegated in his poetry; a master in

character drawing, when character must assume a solemn air, a master in the

ικρξσκζωξτσ τλ υζψψξτσ wνκσ ωνκ vξθωξςψ ψuλλκχξσμ τvκχλρτw (..).

Τνκ λiμurζtivκnκss τλ tνκ ρζnμuζμκ in Psκρρτs κssζys θζn ηκ τηsκrvκι inthe entire text, not only in the context dealing with different language

phenomena. Concerning the occurrences when figurative means have been

usκι in tνκ ζλτrκςκntiτnκι θτntκxt, it is nτt surκ, wνκtνκr tνκ ζutντrsfigurativeness helps or rather hinders the understanding of the analyzed

content.

Iλ tνκ ρζnμuζμκ τλ Psκρρτs wζs θνζrζθtκrizκι ηy tνκ θτnsυiθuτusfigurativeness, then in Pardos treatise there are no figurative means of

κxυrκssiτn ζt ζρρ. Pζrιτs unashamed didacticism , in Rτηins wτrιs, νζs nτt ρκλtspace for any word, which would not be related to the flow of the obviously

pragmatic and unambiguous theorization. Also the text is full of well-turned

examples, which assist the reader to better understand the analyzed

phenomena than the use of any figurative mean of expression.

Βτςυζrκι witν Psκρρτs ζnι Pζrιτs, tνκ λiμurζtivκnκss τλ Δustζtνiτslanguage in the chosen text, i.e., in his commentaries τn Hτςκrs Iliad , is muchmore difficult to assess due to the enormous size of the text. However, from the

examinatiτn τλ its intrτιuθtiτn, it is υτssiηρκ tτ θτnθρuικ tνζt ζρsτ Δustζtνiτslanguage does not stand out with a particular figurativeness. Yet, some

hyperboles can be observed, e.g.:

φό ὲ ὐ ἔ ἰῖ ὅ ῖ ῷ έ ἐέ.


It is not possible to express how much one would learn if he devotes himself to

it (Homeric poetry);

(..) ὶ ἕ ί ὰ ἰ ί ή (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri

Iliadem 1.3.22).

(..) there are a thousand other good things that are useful for life (..).

- 99 -


24/32

Brigita Kukjalko


The most interesting feature, and indeed, different from what we saw in

Psκρρτs tκxts is tνζt Δustζtνiτs τλtκn sυκζπs in allegories. In the short text ofthe introduction, can be read several of them, one of the most impressive relates

tτ tνκ siμniλiθζnθκ τλ Hτςκrs υτκtry:

ἐ Ὠῦ ὲ ὰ ὶ ά, ὶ , φέ ά

ὰ ὸ ά ό· ἐ ή έ, ἰ ὶ ὴ , ὴ ῦ

έ ῖ φῖ ό ἐή. ὐὶ ῦ ὔ ῶ ὰ ἄ

έ ὔ ῶ ὶ φύ ὔ ῶ ὶ ἦ ὔ' ἁῶ ῶ

ὶ ό ἐύ, ὁί ἂ ἰ , ὴ ὴ ὴ

ἀώ, ἀὰ ά ' ὐῷ έ, ἱ ὲ ὡ ὶ ά

' ὐῷ έ έ ὶ ῶ ὐῦ ί ἀέφ, ἱ ὲ ὥ

ί ἀί ὶ ῖ ἐ ὐῦ ῷ όῳ ή.

(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.1.8-16).For according to the old saying, all rivers, springs and wells are from the ocean.

Iλ στω ζρρ, ωνκσ ζω ρκζψω ςuθν τλ ρξωκχζωuχκψ κλλκθω ζςτσμ ωνκ wξψκ λρτwκι λχτς Hτςκχ.

Indeed, there was no one among those who pondered the things above or studied nature,

θνζχζθωκχ τχ κvκσ ψκθuρζχ χκζψτσξσμ wντ wζψ στω χκθκξvκι ζψ ζ μuκψω ζω Hτςκχψ

banquet. All were refreshed by him. Some stayed through to the end and lived off his

common meals, and others found what they needed and took from him something useful

for their own work.

However, the main body of the commentaries does not show noticeable

fiμurζtivκnκss. Σiςiρζrρy tτ Pζrιτs, ζρsτ Δustζtνiτs tκxt is λuρρ τλ quτtζtiτns τrexamples (mainly from the Iliad), and also here it seems they have overtaken

tνκ rτρκ wνiθν in τtνκr ζutντrs tκxt wτuρι νζvκ ηκκn υκrλτrςκι ηy tνκ νκρυ τλdifferent figurative means of expression.

3.4.

The referring and quoting

Psellos κssζys tνζt νζvκ ηκκn ζnζρyzκι ζrκ nτt θνζrζθtκrizκι ηyfrequent referring or quoting. The existing few references and quotations are

mainly related to the personalities (De Euripide), or works under discussion (De

Heliodoro). In the essay De Euripide , both compared authors – Euripides ofPhlyeia and George of Pisidia – , contemporaries of Euripides – Sophocles andAeschylus, as well as his work Prometheus Bound have been mentioned. All

cases of mentioning have characteristics of a comparison, e.g.:

῾ ῦ ὐ̣ί ὴ ί̣̣ ὡ ὐὶ ἄ ἀά, ἰ ή ὐῦ ί ̣ὸ φ̣̣έ, ὰ ὴ ί ά ὶ ά

ῖ ό (..).

Now Euripides, who had a through understanding of the art of poetry as [no

one] else has had – - unless one prefer Sophocles to him – [is admirable for his varietyand capable of imitating every subject] (..).

- 100 -


25/32



Surprising, in his essay De Heliodoro Psellos does not even mention the

names of the authors of the discussed novels – Heliodorus of the so calledΒνζχξθρκζψ στvκρ and Achilles Tatius of Laucippe's novel. Instead, he refers to

these works as follows: ὸ Χί [ύ] Βνζχξθρκζψ στvκρ or ὸ ὲ Χί (Βνζχξθρκζψ ηττπ), ί ὸ ὲ ὰ ί ί

(Λκuθξυυκψ ηττπ). However, the word φύ (author) has been mentioned

several times, e.g.:

ὐ ὰ ὰ ό ἰώ ἰ ῷ αφῖ (..).

The author has not introduced a character like ordinary girls (..).

Discussing Βνζriθρκζs nτvκρ, Psκρρτs ςκntiτns tνκ nζςκ τλ Isτθrζtκs ζnιDemosthenes, actually compares it to their works:

(..) ᾠό ὲ ὰ ὰ Ἰά ὶ έ έ .

(..) It is organized according the arts of Isocrates and Demosthenes.Although, the essays are dealing with the language style, they both lack

quotations of the discussed authors. In the De Heliodoro , there are no quotations

at all, in the De Euripide there are two quotations – very short, which, actually,do not contribute much to the better understanding of the issue under

discussion (beholding the spoken word as living action).

Βτntrζry tτ wνζt wζs τηsκrvκι in Psκρρτs κssζys, Pζrιτs trκζtisκ is λuρρof examples, from which, as specifies Donnet, tνκ κιitτr τλ Pζrιτs tκxt, ζt ρκζstsome are quotations. However, Pardos almost never refers to his sources

(mainly Biblical texts). Also there is not almost any reference to the contribution

of his predecessors into the theory of the morphology and syntax, although the

text commentators draw attention to many places in the text, where Pardos

conclusions are very similar to what has been said, or more precisely, written

by others, e.g., by Dionysius Thrax, the famous Alexandrian grammarian

Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd C.) or Michael Syncellus55.

Τνκ rτρκ τλ tνκ κxζςυρκs τr quτtζtiτns in Pζrιτs tκxt is unιτuηtκιρypractical. As it was said before, they help the understanding of the analyzed

phenomena, e.g.:

Ἀῶ ἀὶ ῦ ῶ, ἰ, ὡ ὸ «ἀῶ ὸ φί »· ἀῶὲ ἀὶ ῦ ἀῦ, , ὡ ὸ «ἀῶ ῖ ῦί ή».

I ρτvκ uψκι ξσψωκζι τλ I ρτσμ λτχ [μτκψ wξων] ζσ ζθθuψζωξvκ, ζψ ξσ I ρτvκ ςy λχξκσι I ρτvκ ξσ ξωψ ωuχσ uψκι ξσψωκζι τλ I ζς ψζωξψλξκι wξων [μτκψ wξων] ζ ιζωξvκ,

ζψ ξσ I ζς ψζωξψλξκι wξων ωνκ ςτσκy I νζvκ. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 207);

ῶ ῦ ἴ, , ὡ ὶ έ «ῶ ῦ ί», ἀὶ

ῦ ἐί ἔ· ῶ ὲ ὸ έ ῖ, ἰ, ὡ ὶ ὸ «ἐίέ ἡ

ή ».

55 See the Commentaire et annotations in Donnet, op. cit., pp. 230-300.

- 101 -


26/32

Brigita Kukjalko


ζς thirsting for a wine , [goes with] a genitive, as also in Demosthenes56:

ζς thirsting for a hemlock- οuξθκ57 , ξσψωκζι τλ I νζvκ ζ ικψξχκ I ωνξχψω ζλωκχ λχτςωνκ τωνκχ ψξικ ςκζσξσμ I wζσω ωτ ιχξσπ [μτκψ wξων] ζσ ζθθuψζωξvκ, ζψ ξσ "Μy ψτuρ

thirsted for you". (Donnet, op. cit., p. 209).

In the last example, this is the only case where we can see Pardos

mentioning the author of the text that he is quoting; unfortunately, the

reference is erroneous as it is shown in the note by the editor.

Βτntrζry tτ tνκ ζnζρyzκι Psκρρτs ζnι Pζrιτs tκxts, Δustζtνiτs wτrπ isfull of references and quotations. It has been already mentioned above, that the

value of his commentaries largely lies in the fact, that writing them Eustathios

has used a number of sources that now are lost or have survived only partly.

Wνκn ζssκssinμ tνκ rκλκrrinμ ζnι quτtinμ in Δustζtνiτs wτrπ, τnθκ

ζμζin Kκizκrs inικxκs υrτvκ νiμνρy usκλuρ, ςτrκ υrκcisely, the 4th

index Fontes ,which comprises the Greek sources used by Eustathios or which offer parallels

to his remarks58. The index guides a reader to the countless places in the

κxtκnsivκ Δustζtνiτs tκxt, wνκrκ νκ νζs rκλκrrκι tτ τr quτtκι ζnτtνκr ζutντrsor their works. Among them are plenty of Ancient Greek, as well as Byzantine

authors, belles-lettres (e.g., Digenes Akritis, Euripides, Pindarus etc.) and the so

called technical sources (e.g., Aristoteles, Apollonius Dyscolus, Dionysius Thrax,

Gregory of Corinth (Pardus), Hermogenes etc.). On almost every page of the

commentary occur references also to the several ancient lexica (Etymologicum

Magnum , Suda κtθ.. Δustζtνiτs ζρsτ rκλκrs tτ νis τwn wτrπs. Its intκrκstinμ tνζtwhen criticizing his predecessors in commenting on Homeric poetry,

Eustathios refers to them as ἐῖ (some), ἕ (others), i.e., not naming

them.

4.

Conclusions

This article has dealt with the language of three quite different

philological texts, in form and content, written at the end of the Middle

Αyzζntinκ Pκriτι: tνκ ρζnμuζμκ τλ twτ Psκρρτs κssζys, wνiθν ζrκ referable tothe field of literary critiθisς, tνκ ρζnμuζμκ τλ Pζrιτs trκζtisκ, wνiθν ιisθussκs questions related to the syntax, morphology and well-formedness of a sentence,

as well as, though relatively superficial due to an exceptional extensiveness of

the work, the language of Δustζtνiτs θτςςκntζriκs τn Hτςκrs Iliad – thework which inter alia focuses also on different linguistic questions.

56 As points out Donnet, the phrase belongs to Libanius (4th C.): Non Demostenes, sed Libanius,

Declamatio de Socrate , II, p. 132, 7 (Donnet, op. cit., p. 209).57 ώ , ό – a hemlock-juice, poison by which criminals were put to death at Athens. SeeHenry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon , Oxford 1996, p. 1018.

Available also online [cited April 26, 2013]: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context =lsj.58 Keizer, op. cit., pp. 479-641.

- 102 -


27/32



In terms of content these three works are linked, first of all, by belonging

to the field of philology, and, secondly, by the fact that each of them is tightly

connected with and also to a great extent based on the classical heritage.

Therefore it was logical to suppose that the typical features of the language of

philological texts written in Byzantium, similarly, as in the case of those writtenin Antiquity, can be seen drawing attention to the same levels, which

characterize also the language of Ancient Greek philological texts.

The use of designations of philological concepts observed in the

analyzed texts of the Middle Byzantine Period is very similar to that of Ancient

Greek59: on the one hand there are numerous terms characterized by the clarity

of their conceptual content, as well as by the consistency of the use of

designation (especially in Pardos), on the other hand, there are also some

crucial philological designations who have synonyms and whose conceptual

content is still context-sensitive and, thus, quite vague (e.g., ό and έ inPsellos and Eustathios).

If the analysis of the use of designations of philological concepts shows

a relativκρy ιivκrsiλiκι υiθturκ, tνκn tνκ wζys τn ντw tνκ ζutντrs υrκsκnθκ isrevealed in the analyzed texts, are quite similar. Just like in Ancient Greek

philological texts60 , also in the analyzed Middle Byzantine texts, it is primarily

indicated by the use of the first-person singular and plural verb forms and the

cases when the author addresses or turns to the reader, either using the second

person singular imperative and present tense or addressing to the reader in the

form of rhetorical questions. Though it should be stressed that, unlike the

“nθiκnt Grκκπ υνiρτρτμiθζρ tκxts wνκrκ tνκ ζutντrs υrκsκnθκ is λκρt quitκsporadically, in the Middle Byzantine philological texts it is visible throughout.

In the analyzed texts, common features certainly do not characterize the

usκ τλ λiμurζtivκ ςκζns τλ κxυrκssiτn. Wνiρκ in Psκρρτs tκxt τnκ θζn sκκ ζnobvious figurativeness of the language, in the text of Eustathios – it is onlysporadic, but in the text of Pardos, there are not even any traces of it. Unlike the

Ancient Greek philological texts61 , tνκ λiμurζtivκnκss τηsκrvκι in Psκρρτsessays rather hinders than helps the understanding of the analyzed content.

Pζrιτs tκxt, wνκrκ tνκ usκ τλ λiμurζtivκ ςκζns τλ κxυrκssiτn wζs nτtobserved, actually resembles the text by Ancient Greek rhetorician

Hermogenes (2nd C.). In his ὶ ἰῶ ό , there is relatively little room for

figurativeness, and thus considerably larger for examples62.

Also in terms of the referring and quoting the analyzed texts do not

sνζrκ θτςςτn λκζturκs. Pζrιτs ζnι Δustζtνiτs tκxts ζrκ tνκ riθνκst ζs tτ tνκuse of quotations. Mτst rκλκrκnθκs, in tνκir turn, ζrκ τηsκrvκι in Δustζtνiτs

59 Cf. Aleksejeva [Kukjalko], Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ “nθiκnt Grκκπ Pνiρτρτμiθζρ Τκxts , pp. 42-43.60 Cf. ibid., pp. 46-48.61 Cf. ibid., pp. 51-53.62 Cf. ibid., p. 52.

- 103 -


28/32

Brigita Kukjalko


text, least – in Pζrιτs. In λζθt, none of the authors has been diligent concerningthe referring to their sources. In Ancient Greek philological texts, the references

were missing mainly when the quoted text was supposed to be well-known for

everyone, e.g., its author was Homer or Demosthenes63 , but in case of the

Middle Byzantine philological texts it is different. The question, why theauthors of the analyzed texts did not use to refer, remains unclear.

It should be admitted, that none of the analyzed works is conspicuous

for the definitions, which would resemble those observed in Ancient Greek

(e.g. in the Ῥὴ of Aristotle) philological texts64. However, the

formulations found in the analyzed texts invite us to think about the basic

principles of the definition in Byzantium – it could be a topic worthy of a study.The current research also does not allow us to draw well-founded

conclusions about the structure of the Byzantine philological texts. Yet it is clear

that it was quite various – largely depending on a type of writing, and, ofcourse, on its content.The description of the typical features characterizing the examined

levels of the chosen texts shows that their authors were paying quite little (if

any) attention to their mode of expression concerning its scientificity. It is also

quite obvious that the language of the chosen Middle Byzantine philological

texts indeed does not differ much from that of Ancient Greek.

There is no doubt that the focusing of Middle Byzantine scholars on the

revival of classicism and its heritage, as well as their endeavours to return to

the Attic language have also influenced the learned language of the age. On the

one hand, it ensured the preservation of classical heritage – highly appreciatedin later times, but on the other hand, it definitely impeded the further

development not only of the ability to theorize, but also of the learned

language. However, it should not be forgotten, that the aforementioned

conclusions were made on the basis of three quite different philological texts

written in a comparatively short period. A more extensive and well-founded

insight about the features of the language of Byzantine philological texts and,

thus, the middle phase of the development of the language of science applied

in the humanities today could be reached by examining all the most significant

philological texts of the age, and certainly taking much more into account the

differences of their types of writing.

63 Cf. ibid., p. 58.64 Cf. ibid., pp. 37-43.

- 104 -


29/32



Bibliography

Primary sources

Daniel Donnet, Λκ Τχζξωé «ί ά ό» ικ Ζχéμτξχκ ικ

Corinthe. Étuικ ικ ρζ trζιitiτn ςζnusθritκ, éιitiτn, trζιuθtiτn κt θτςςκntζirκ,

Bruxelles – Rome: Academia Belgica 1967.Andrew R. Dyck, Michael Psellus: The essays on Euripides and George ofPisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften 1986.

Eduard Kurtz, Michaeli Pselli Scripta minora , Vτρuςκ , Miρζnτ: Στθiκtàeditrice Vita e pensiero 1936.

Marchinus van der Valk, Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis

Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes , Leiden: Brill 1971-1987.

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. A Digital Library of Greek Literature [online],

2001–. Available: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/about/.Secondary worksΑriμitζ “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], Oriμins τλ tνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ Huςζnitiκs

in Ancient Greek Philτρτμiθζρ Τκxts, Hellenic Dimension, Materials of the Riga3rd International Conference of Hellenic Studies, edd. B. Aleksejeva [Kukjalko], O.

Lāςs, I. Rūςniκθκ, Riμζ: Univκrsity τλ Lζtviζ , υυ. -48.Αriμitζ “ρκπsκοκvζ [Kuποζρπτ], Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ “ncient Greek

Pνiρτρτμiθζρ Τκxts, Synopsis of the Doctoral Thesis , Rīμζ , υυ. -61.Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages. From Jerome to

Nicholas of Cusa , Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press

1988.

Robert Browninμ, Τνκ Lζnμuζμκ τλ Αyzζntinκ Litκrζturκ, The past in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture , ed. S. Vryonis, Malibu 1978, pp. 103-133.

Herbert Hunger, ή ί ό ή ί

ώ , . ΄-΄, ήα: Μφωό Ία ή αέ1987-1994.

Alexander P. Kazhdan, Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and

Twelfth Centuries , Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press – Paris:Éιitiτns ικ ρζ Mζisτn ικs Σθiκnθκs ικ l'Homme 1984.

Helena M. Keizer, Indices in Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis

Commentarios ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes , Leiden: Brill 1995.

Carl Krumbacher, ί ή ί , . ΄-΄, ήα: ύ Π. . ααί 1897-1900.

Leighton Durham Reynolds and Nigel Guy Wilson, Scribes & Scholars. A

Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature , Oxford: Clarendon Press

1999.

Rτηκrt H. Rτηins, Grκκπ Linμuistiθs in tνκ Αyzζntinκ Pκriτι, Historyof the Language Sciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of

Language from the Beginnings to the Present , edd. Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K.

- 105 -


30/32

Brigita Kukjalko


Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, Kees Versteegh, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter

2000, pp. 417-423.

Robert H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians: their Place in History,

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1993.

John Edwin Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship: From the SixthCentury B.C. to the End of Middle Ages , Volume 1, Cambridge: At the University

Press 1903, pp. 376-428.

Iμτr Šκvčκnπτ, Lκvκρs τλ Σtyρκ in Αyzζntinκ Litκrζturκ, Greek literature ,ed. G. Nagy, Volume 9, New York – London: Routledge 2001, pp. 199-222.

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium , ed. A. P. Kazhdan, 3 volumes, New

York – Oxford: Oxford University Press 1991.Staffan Wζνρμrκn, Αyzζntinκ Litκrζturκ ζnι tνκ Βρζssiθζρ Pζst, A

Companion to the Ancient Greek Language , ed. E. J. Bakker, Malden – Oxford –

West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell 2010, pp. 527-538.Nigel G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium , London: Duckworth – Cambridge, Mass: Medieval Academy of America 1996.

Βχξωξθζρ Ρκςζχπψ τσ Hτςκχψ Iρξζι. Iσωχτιuθωξτσ, ηy ὖuψωζωνξτψ τλ Τνκψψζρτσξπξ.

Translated by D. Jenkins, D. Bachrach and D. Hayton [online]. Byzantine

Studies Collection, University of Notre Dame [cited April 05, 2013]. Available:

http://www.library.nd.edu/byzantine_studies/translations.shtml

Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon ,

Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996; also The Online Liddell – Scott – Jones Greek-English

Lexicon. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. A Digital Library of Greek Literature [online],

2001–. Available: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj

Abstract

This paper examines the typical features of the language of three

philological texts written at the end of the so called Middle Byzantine Period: the

ρζnμuζμκ τλ

language of philological texts in the middle byzantine period

Documents