Soltic, Jorie

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

RecensioniMartin Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature, Turn-hout, Brepols, 2014 (Buzavntio". Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 9),pp. VI + 228. [ISBN 9782503552378]This volume on the language of the Byzantine learned literature fills a gap in the field. Althoughthe Greek language, which has the longest documented history of any Indo-European language(covering nearly 3500 years of written records), has been subject to intensive linguistic research,not every period has been equally well investigated. Byzantine Greek was long pressed betweenAncient Greek and Modern Greek, both vital fields of linguistic research. Byzantine Greek hasbeen treated in a stepmotherly way in comparison with both its predecessor and its currentform. As such, it has been largely disregarded until the 20th century. Moreover, Byzantinistshave especially studied aspects of the language found in vernacular texts, in the conviction thatthese texts are the only (reliable) witnesses to the natural, spoken language of the period. Thelearned branch of Byzantine literature has been rather disregarded by linguists.Indeed, Byzantine Greek literature is conventionally thought of as consisting of two branches:learned literature, which still takes – or rather: attempts to take – Ancient (in particular Classi-cal) Greek as its linguistic model, and vernacular literature, which is written in an idiom close(r)to the contemporary spoken language. This contrast between learned literature (lovgia logote-cniva) and vernacular literature (dhmwvdh" logotecniva) is often reflected in the terminology, forthere is a tendency to use the term “medieval” to refer to the vernacular, as opposed to the term“Byzantine” reserved for the learned language. However, in recent years, the simple dichotomyvernacular versus learned literature has been problematized. It is now acknowledged that nei-ther the learned texts nor the vernacular ones present a pure idiom: it is not as if the former canbe equated with Ancient Greek and the latter with the contemporary spoken language. Despiteits “traditional” title, this volume also pleads in favour of a continuum from vernacular-ness tolearned-ness.Nonetheless, the assumed equation of the Byzantine learned language with Ancient Greek is, inmy view rightly, considered responsible for the fact that historical linguistics has long neglectedthe so-called high register texts. According to the authors of this volume – and I agree withthem –, there is an urgent need to fill this gap. First, the learned language is not a poor imitationof Ancient Greek literature, which is still extensively taught at school (cfr. Giannouli’s contribu-tion), since many Byzantine authors creatively and innovatively deal with classical linguistic phe-nomena. This is especially made clear in contributions by Wahlgren and Hinterberger on theuse of the dative and of the perfect respectively. Moreover, even though the learned language re-mains to a great extent a “Kunstsprache”, it more closely parallels the spoken language thanconventionally thought (cfr. Manolessou’s contribution). Certain of the formerly considered“deviations” from Ancient Greek norms actually reflect the spoken language. Furthermore, theByzantine learned language does not constitute a static system, but is in constant change, foreven a so-called “dead” variety evolves according to its own internal dynamics − in the words ofKaryolemou: «classicizing Greek is not a fossilized variety reproduced in inertia».The Byzantine learned language thus definitely deserves to be studied in its own right, which isthe target of the contributors to this volume. Nonetheless, most of them admit the preliminarycharacter of their investigations: the volume does not at all pretend to be exhaustive (the oppo-site claim would be highly incredible).However, the topics which are treated are varied and the order in which they are presented isvery well overthought: the case-studies, of which I will give a short account below, are clearly or-ganized according to a funnel structure. We begin with two methodologically oriented papers,which signal desiderata in the field (Manolessou: on the possibility of applying modern linguistictheories; Karyolemou: on adopting a modern sociolinguistic perspective). Next, the Byzantineeducational system, the cornerstone in the literary production, is discussed in broad outlines(Giannouli). From then on, more specific issues from different levels of grammar (noun and ver-354«MEG» 15, 2015MEG 15.**.4a:. 28-08-2015  18:11  Pagina 354Recensionibal morphology, syntax, and even accentuation) are taken into consideration. First, we get twopapers which question contemporary practices (Signes: on our current tripartite division of thevoices; Noret: on our modern accentuation rules). Afterwards, three linguistic phenomenawhich are generally acknowledged to have vanished from the everyday language are explored,especially to shed light on the extent to which these so-called “dead” features can be consideredstylistic markers of a high register: the particles (Loudová), the dative case (Wahlgren) and thesynthetic perfect (Hinterberger).As the volume covers a very wide time span (circa 300-1450), the precise texts which make upthe corpus of each contributor inevitably differ in nature. Noret, for instance, takes the CorpusChristianorum into consideration, while Loudová focuses on Nikepohoros Blemmydes. Al-though one could raise that this devalues the coherence of the volume, it entails, in my view, arichness and gives the reader an impression of the range of the literary production at the time.Moreover, certain sources are recurrent: Giannouli, Signes, Noret and Loudová, for example,all appeal to grammatical treatises (the work of Theodore Gaza is, for instance, repeatedly men-tioned) and both Loudová and Hinterberger rely on metaphrases. These metaphrases are re-vealed as an important source of linguistic information: it is instructive to compare them to their− more or less elaborated − original. Another type of texts revealed to be promising for furtherlinguistic research are “schede”, which are the work pieces of pupils who had to restore deliber-ately distorted texts (cfr. Giannouli).I will now give a short account of each paper. To begin with, it should be said that the contribu-tions are – without exception – of high quality; most are written by the authority on the field.The first paper is very appropriate for the opening of the book: Io Manolessou (Learned Byzan-tine Literature and Modern Linguistic, pp. 13-33) begins by retrieving why the learned languageof the Byzantine period has been overpassed by modern linguistics. As already mentioned, mod-ern (historical) linguists give primacy to natural language and thus prefer to make vernaculartexts their object of study. However, she is convinced that the learned literature can also serve asa good source for observing contemporary changes. More precisely, she thinks that especiallysociolinguistics and contact linguistics constitute branches in which the learned texts can lead tomore insights into the language.Manolessou’s suggestion is as it were picked up by Marilena Karyolemou (What Can Sociolin-guistics Tell us about Learned Literary Languages?, pp. 34-51), who asserts that a sociolinguisticapproach to the Byzantine literature is indeed revealing. Karyolemou first problematizes theterm “literary”, which is crucial in this volume, and proposes to consider it a sociolinguistic con-cept (rather than a purely linguistic one). More importantly, she gives the term a more dynamicand thus scalar interpretation. Departing from the observation that in Modern Greek too thedistinction between “the” dhimotiki and “the” katharevoussa is not that clear-cut, but that thereexist various degrees of dhimotiki-ness and katharevoussa-ness, she convincingly concludes thatwe should also conceive the Byzantine literature as a continuum, ranging from more vernacular-ness to more learned-ness. This is a very important methodological achievement.Antonia Giannouli’s paper (Education and Literary Language in Byzantium, pp. 52-71) does notreally present groundbreaking research, but gives a clear survey (of certain aspects) of theByzantine educational system, which of course plays a decisive part in the literary production.As such, this paper certainly deserves a place in this volume.Grammars are also important means to understand the literary production. These are made thetopic of Juan Signes Codoñer’s contribution (The Definition of the Middle Voice in Ancient andByzantine Grammars: A Guide for Understanding the Use of the Verb in Byzantine Texts Writtenin Classical Greek, pp. 72-95). In general, Signes attempts to show that the Greeks (includingthe Byzantines) sometimes conceptualized the language in a different way than we nowadays do.More specifically, he uses the example of the tripartite division of the voices to show that the an-cient grammars of Classical Greek and the modern grammars of Classical Greek do not always355«MEG» 15, 2015MEG 15.**.4a:. 28-08-2015  18:11  Pagina 355Recensioniconverge. This has consequences for our understanding of Byzantine literature, for the Byzan-tine Greeks of course based themselves on the former grammars.In Noret’s paper (the only one written in French – L’accentuation Byzantine: en quoi et pourquoielle diffère de l’accentuation «savante» actuelle, parfois absurde, pp. 96-146), attention is drawnto a linguistic phenomenon where our modern usage likewise differs from the Byzantine one:the accentuation. After giving a concise history of the accentuation system from Ancient Greektill now, he points out several differences between the accentuation practice in the Byzantinemanuscripts and the rules which editors nowadays apply. As such, it becomes clear that moderneditors have for decades been “correcting” “mistakes” made by scribes, which might not comeas a surprise, given the fact that we nowadays have become alienated from the original functionof accentuation, i.e. means to help reading aloud.Kateřina Bočková Loudová (On the Category of Particles in Byzantium, pp. 147-169) focuses onsmall − yet fascinating − words: the particles, which have received much scholarly attention inAncient Greek (especially within Functional Grammar) but are indeed neglected in Byzantinephilology, as she points out in a status quaestionis. After this overview of the (few) studies onByzantine particles, she attempts to derive the theoretical status which the particles had inByzantine times from grammatical treatises. Finally, she studies the various particles in the highstyle text of Nikephoros Blemmydes and its simplifying metaphrase. This comparative case-study yields an unexpected outcome: the allegedly “simple” metaphrase contains more archaiz-ing particles than the original text. Hence, we are warned that we cannot define the relationshipbetween the originals and their rewritings in too simplistic terms.Just as surprisingly, Staffan Wahlgren (Case, Style and Competence in Byzantine Greek, pp. 170-175) observes that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the dative from the living speech thiscase starts to adopt more functions and accordingly becomes more frequent. Wahlgren relatesthis remarkable increase of the use of the dative in the 14th century not only to its “dead” status,but also to the heightened degree of competence of the writers: in the later Byzantine era, theauthors’ familiarity with the structures of the ancient classics seems more developed than in the10th century. This is a promising suggestion. As such, the dative has become a stylistic marker, asign of ambition on part of authors. Nevertheless, the use of the dative is not limited to high reg-ister texts and the situation is thus again more complicated than it might have seemed at firstglance.Finally, pursuing along the same lines as in his paper on the pluperfect (2007), Martin Hinter-berger (The Synthetic Perfect in Byzantine Literature, pp. 176-204) examines the use and mean-ing of the synthetic perfect. It is a good thing that tense & aspect is not overlooked in this vol-ume. Again contrary to expectations, Hinterberger discovers that the use of the allegedly“dead” synthetic perfect by itself does not necessarily indicate high style: indicative perfectforms also occur in lower register texts – they are never entirely absent from certain texts, as wasthe case with the pluperfect (in this respect, Hinterberger’s article on the pluperfect was morestriking). However, the perfect forms occurring in low level texts usually belong to a lexically re-stricted group of verbs, such as gevgona. As for the semantics of the perfect, Hinterberger per-suasively argues that the synthetic perfect forms are used as equivalents of the aorist tense or −less frequently − the present tense, by relying on (the translations/paraphrases in) lexica and onmetaphrases, which once more prove their value as a source of linguistic information.In conclusion, the authors of this volume have successfully demonstrated that the so-calledlearned language is worthy of linguistic research. Many of the papers raise suggestions (e.g. Hin-terberger: translation of the synthetic perfect as an aorist rather than as an ancient perfect);problematize current practices (e.g. Signes: the tripartite division of voice found in moderngrammars of Classical Greek; Noret: editorial practices); and − especially − put forward furtherquestions: many contributors acknowledge that further research is needed before firm conclu-sions can be drawn and definitive answers can be given.The last three case-studies in particular have unequivocally shown that we cannot hastily or au-356«MEG» 15, 2015MEG 15.**.4a:. 28-08-2015  18:11  Pagina 356Recensionitomatically conclude that a certain linguistic phenomenon is a high style marker in ByzantineGreek, simply because it has disappeared in the spoken language and is thus an ancient relic. Inother words, Karyolemou’s prediction that one single linguistic feature is not sufficient to deter-mine the degree of learned-ness is definitely borne out. So, many challenges are awaiting us if wewant to establish a list of criteria to decide on the vernacular-ness or learned-ness of a specifictext. Consequently, this volume will undoubtedly foster more research.Jorie Soltic357«MEG» 15, 2015MEG 15.**.4a:. 28-08-2015  18:11  Pagina 357

Review 'Martin Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature'

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/6979365/file/6979371

Review 'Martin Hinterberger (ed.), The Language of Byzantine Learned Literature'

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography