Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:36:24.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Renaissance of the First Century and the Origin of Standard Late Greek

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Martin J Higgins
Martin J Higgins*
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Greece, once the mother at whose feet European civilization sat and learnt, has ever quickened to the inspiration of her own past. When at intervals her learning and literature have languished and all but died out, her steadfast awareness of her ancient glory has always stirred in her a new impulse and a new life. How like her, then, on the morrow of her emancipation from the Turk, to look back to the period of her greatness for an answer to the problem confronting her! Reborn Greece needed desperately a common tongue. She had at her disposal only local patois, and possessed neither a national literature nor a national language. It had been preeminently the strong sense of a history, the reawakening of the age-old urge to vie with antiquity, that had kindled her to revolt against her overlord. To revive the idiom of classic Athens, to make it the symbol and bond of a resurgent Hellas appealed irresistibly to the enthusiastic patriotism of the victors. Others with equal ardor espoused the cause of the vernacular. Thus arcse the strife over the katharevousa and the demotike, an ever-recurrent conflict of never reconciled elements in the nation's psychology, the tug of the past over against the insistence of the present.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 3 , 1945 , pp. 49 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © 1945 by Cosmopolitan Science & Art Service Co., Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hatzidakis, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik (Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken 5, Leipzig 1892) 253f.; P S. Costas, Outline of the History of the Greek Language (Bibliotheca eurasiatica americana 6, Chicago 1936) 130–37Google Scholar

2 Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur (Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft IX, 1, Munich 1897) 29.Google Scholar

3 Schmid, Wilhem, Wilhelm von Christs Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur umgearbeitet v. Schmid, W u. Stählin, O. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft VII,2,2, 6th ed. Munich 1924) 666, 688.Google Scholar

4 Ibid. 872.Google Scholar

5 Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern (4 vols. Stuttgart 1887–97) I, 97–99.Google Scholar

6 Op. cit. (n. 3) 955.Google Scholar

7 Higgins, M. J., ‘Why Another Optative Dissertation?’ Byzantion 15 (1940–41) 443f.; Rademacher, L., Neutestamentliche Grammatik (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 1, 2nd ed. Tübingen 1925) 1–5, 81f.; Debrunner, A., Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (6 ed. Göttingen 1931) 39; Costas (n. 1) 72–74; Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II, 1, 1, Munich 1939) 130f.Google Scholar

8 All abbreviations and the system of citation used in the present paper are taken from the Jones-McKenzie edition of Liddell-Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford 1925–40) xvi–xlviii.Google Scholar

9 Op. cit. (n. 5) III, 83.Google Scholar

10 Harsing, C., De optativi in chartis aegyptiis usu (Diss. Bonn, Bonn 1910) 37, 57Google Scholar

11 Horn, R. C., The Use of the Subjunctive and Optative Moods in the Non-literary Papyri (Diss. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 1926) 155.Google Scholar

12 Hermann, E., Die Nebensätze in den griechischen Dialektinschriften (Griechische Forschungen 1, Leipzig and Berlin 1912) 279f. Google Scholar

13 Sister Rose de Lima Henry, The Late Greek Optative and its Use in the Writings of Gregory Nazianzen (Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 68, Washington 1943) 87–93.Google Scholar

14 ‘If it rain’ is obsolete.Google Scholar

15 Record of actual conversation.Google Scholar

16 Roberts Rinehart, Mary, K (Boston and New York 1915) Ch. IVGoogle Scholar

17 The grammarians have trouble in differentiating cf. B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache von Dr Raphael Kühner, II. Satzlehre (2 vols. 3 ed. Hannover and Leipzig 1898–1904) 2, 324f.; Smyth, H. W., A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York 1918) 636; Stahl, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit, (Indogermanische Bibliothek I, 1, 4, Heidelberg 1907) 414–16; this arises most likely from the failure to realize that often does not express concession but merely a doubtful contigency; cf. J. D. The Greek Particles (Oxford 1934) 303.Google Scholar

18 Kühner-Gerth II 2, 324f.; Smyth 636; Denniston 223.Google Scholar

19 Kühner-Gerth II, 2, 131; Smyth 646; Denniston 223f. 487f.Google Scholar

20 This is denied by Stahl alone, 291–93, 399f. He can be proven wrong, but only by a thoroughgoing discussion of the theory and semantics of the potential mood and the conditional sentence on a comparative and historical basis—much too formidable and lengthy a task for the present paper.Google Scholar

21 Jacobstahl, H. K., Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften (Diss. Strassburg, Strassburg 1907 = Indogermanische Forschungen 21 [1907] Beiheft) 93–100; Hermann (n. 12) 7–16, 27–49, 279–85; Buck, C.D., Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (College Series of Greek Authors, 2 ed. Boston and New York 1928) 126–28, 320.Google Scholar

22 Lejeune, M., Observations sur la langue des actes d'affranchissement delphiques (Diss. Paris, Paris 1939) 39–76.Google Scholar

23 In all Greek citations in the present paper the editor's various signs for restorations, etc. have been omitted save that three dots indicate a mutilation. Parentheses mark my own rare conjectures.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Daux, G., Delphes au II e et au I er siècle (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 140, Paris 1936) 187–209 for the date. Hermann follows the chronology of Pomtow, but this has been proven inaccurate.Google Scholar

25 Cited from Horn (n. 11) 146.Google Scholar

26 p. 281.Google Scholar

27 p. 42.Google Scholar

28 Cf. references supra, n. 21.Google Scholar

29 This can be seen at a glance from the tabulation of all conditions in the manumissions by Hermann (n. 12) 40–49. However, disregard his chronology, supra, n. 24.Google Scholar

30 Lejeune, (n. 22) 39f. Google Scholar

31 See Hermann's tabulation, 41–49.Google Scholar

32 Lejeune, 74f.; Stahl (n. 17) 291–93.Google Scholar

33 Cf. Hermann's tabulation, 41–49. Hermann looks at the conditions from the exclusively juridical point of view, and accordingly classifies as an expected eventuality. As we have seen above, there was a personal reason for the optative in this clause. If we remove it and analogous examples from Hermann's list, we have left but one instance in which, among the upwards of 1,000 protases analyzed by him, the mood appears in a desirable contingency, GDI 3217.10 (Priesthood XV, 84–59 B. C.). Lejeune, p. 39 n. 88, quotes Delph.3(6) 95, but with the indicative, not the optative. This is certainly the identical inscription in a later edition, but I cannot be sure of this because the latest fascicules of Fouilles de Delphes were inaccessible to me.Google Scholar

34 The following pages cite all optative protases referring to the future or vague present in the papyri down to 400 A. D. It is assumed that Horn (n. 11) is complete to 1926 and, for the Ptolemaic papyri to 1934, E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit II. Satzlehre 1 (1926) 293; 3(1934) 91. The excerpts have been made long enough to enable the reader to judge the precise shade of meaning without reference to the original. The editors of the various collections often provide a version. I have always found this extremely helpful. I have seldom taken the editorial rendition without altering it somewhat, but I have not felt it necessary to indicate this in detail. Furthermore, any student of grammar feels a most fervent gratitude to the growing number of editors that index completely the conjunctions. It lightens enormously the task of culling the occurrences of syntactical phenomena and saves a deal of dreary reading through tax receipts, etc. The following works are frequently cited: Meyer, Paul M., Juristische Papyri (Berlin 1920); Hunt, A. S. and Edgar, C. C., Select Papyri with English Translation (Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. London and New York 1932–34); Schubart, W, Ein Jahrtausend am Nil (2 ed. Berlin 1923). Cf. also supra, nn. 8 and 23, for other signs and abbreviations. As for papyri publications proper, PMerton was inaccessible to me, but I have examined all others for the Ptolemaic papyri since 1934 and for the later from 1926, i.e., from the point at which Mayser and Horn leave off. Also inaccessible were PFuad i, PHaun. i, PUniv. Giss. vGoogle Scholar

35 Cf. Mayser, loc. cit. Google Scholar

36 Edd. supply some such word as Google Scholar

37 P Lond.i.19 (= UPZ i.38) 18 = P Lond.33 (= UPZ i.39) 15 = P Par.33 (= UPZ i.40) 11 is definitely excluded; it is not optative, but infinitive, as Mayser says, op. cit. II, 2, 293. On the other hand, BGU iv.1187.24 may belong here and makes the possible twelfth Ptolemaic optative protasis. The editors date it s. i a. C.; Mayser, II, 3, 91, puts in 5 B. C.—though on what information I've been unable to discover. However, I've followed him and classified it with the post-Ptolemaic, infra, at n. 43.Google Scholar

38 This statement can be proven only in the way referred to supra, n. 20.Google Scholar

39 The optatives are extremely uncertain; for text and translation, see Crönert, W, De critici arte in papyris exercenda (Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso, Milan 1925) 504f. 513.Google Scholar

40 For the view of the editors, cf. their notes to this passage, p. 178. Even on this view, the condition may be taken as of the improbable contingency, either ‘unless there should exist copies from the beginning,’ or ‘unless copies should have been made from the beginning, the revision cannot be properly done.’ The objection to the former is not the syntax of the mood but the meaning of It appears to me that in the papyri it almost always signifies ‘arise, happen', not ‘exist’ The objection to the latter is that such a rendering seems to require the perfect optative.Google Scholar

41 Cf. note to passage, p. 201.Google Scholar

42 Mayser, (n. 34) II, 3, 91. The date has caused considerable controversy and the papyrus is variously assigned to the principate of Augustus and to as late as Claudius; cf. editors’ introduction.Google Scholar

43 Cf. n. 37 for date.Google Scholar

44 Supra, p. 64.Google Scholar

45 Loc. cit. Google Scholar

46 At least, I find none in Thucydides nor in the Republic. No standard grammar cites any instance.Google Scholar

47 Cf. Rose de Lima, S. (n. 13) 73f.Google Scholar

48 Preisigke, Wörterbuch, s.v.; Horn (n. 1) 49, 165.Google Scholar

49 Supra, p. 64.Google Scholar

50 This excludes POxy.viii.1100.16, 21 (206 A. D., Prefect's edict). The papyrus is badly mutilated.Google Scholar

51 Mitteis, , Chr 23 (262 B. C.), 353 (c. 250 B. C.), 35 (133 B. C.), 47 (91 B. C.), etc.Google Scholar

52 Supra, pp. 65–67Google Scholar

53 Horn (n. 11) 161–69.Google Scholar

54 E.g., IG 12.1.5. The Index lists none of these particles with or without Google Scholar

55 Supra, p. 70.Google Scholar

56 Supra, p. 59.Google Scholar

57 Supra, pp. 60–63.Google Scholar

58 Cf. Rose de Lima, S. (n. 13) 77 Google Scholar

59 Supra, p. 73.Google Scholar

60 Horn (n. 11) 162f.Google Scholar

61 Supra, pp. 64,71,77Google Scholar

62 Goodwin, W W, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (2 ed. Boston and New York 1890) pp. 167, 172f.; Kühner-Gerth (n. 17) II, 2, 474 n. 1; Stahl, 294–98; Smyth, 525; Hermann (n. 12) 277–79.Google Scholar

63 Hermann, , loc. cit., also 9, 14, 29–38.Google Scholar

64 The main verb is an imperative optative.Google Scholar

65 Lejeune, (n. 22) 44–46.Google Scholar

66 Ibid. for date.Google Scholar

67 The following enumeration is complete to 400 A. D., positis ponendis; cf. supra, n. 34. Horn (n. 11) 64 cites BGU iii.811.7f., but the condition is eliminated by the correction in the same volume. Berichtigungsl. I, 168 reads the indicative in PGen.79.10. BGU i.326. ii. 9 and PLips.50.14 are editorial restoration.Google Scholar

68 Mayser (n. 34) II, 1, 293; 3, 88 and I, 285 n. 4; 3, 86 is strongly tempted to eliminate these subjunctives by emendation. However, the fragmentary P Zen. Col.ii.114b is unmistakably a pure subjunctive and establishes them.Google Scholar

69 I have taken the liberty to differ with the editor's interpretation as given with the papyrus and also: Wilcken, Chr. I, 1, p. 125.Google Scholar

70 is emphatic.Google Scholar

71 Supra, p. 64.Google Scholar

72 Blass-Debrunner (n. 7) 15–17Google Scholar

73 Horn (n. 11) 63f. enumerates all examples. Stud. Pal. xxii. 4. iii. 19 should be read otherwise, he shall repay one and one-half times the original amount.—P Teb.ii.293.21 is the editor's restoration and the subjunctive would suit better the average of letters to the line. Horn, p. 66, quotes two very doubtful examples of with fut. ind., neither later than the second century A. D. Finally, there is P Lond. ii. 417, pp. 229f. (= Wilcken, Chr 129 = Hunt-Edgar Sel. Pap. I, 161 = Schubart, Jahrt, am Nil 94) 11 (346 A. D., private letter); this may be taken for At all events, the future indicative is the least likely reading, if we take into account that this would then be the unique example later than the second centuryGoogle Scholar

74 Stahl, (n. 17) 277, 287, 411f.; Goodwin (n. 62) 169f., 192; Kühner-Gerth, II, 2, 481–83; Smyth 527,532f.; Hermann (n. 12) 282f. The Attic examples have been borrowed from Smyth 533 and Stahl 412.Google Scholar

75 Lejeune, (n. 22) 42f Google Scholar

76 The enumeration is complete. P Rein. 7 (= Mitteis, Chr 16) 23 is infinitive; cf. Mayser (n. 34) II, 1, 295 n. 2. In P Bouriant 20.40 (cf. b, supra, p. 66), Google Scholar

77 Supra, n. 39.Google Scholar

78 Note the lack of concord in this and the previous example, an odd constructio ad sensum. Google Scholar

79 Horn (n. 11) 165 quotes P Lond. 1344.7ff. of 710 A. D.Google Scholar

80 Sister Rose de Lima (n. 13) 53.Google Scholar

81 All exx. to 400 A. D. are cited.Google Scholar

82 Stahl, (n. 17) 292; Hermann (n. 12) 279 n., 283.Google Scholar

83 Lejeune, (n. 22) 71f.Google Scholar

84 Sister Rose de Lima (n. 13) 34–37Google Scholar

85 Only three examples of the optative in the relative clause, P Lille 3.38, BGU vi. 1253.10, and P Petr ii.13(5) 1, are mentioned by Mayser (n. 34) II, 1, 292; 295 y and Anm. 4, resp. The optative in P Petr depends on conjecture and has been variously emended, Berichtigungsl. II, 2, 108. The text of BGU vi.1253.10 also offers considerable difficulty: when they had this bit of business attended to, in their insubordination they seized the cattle and absconded with them, with intent to dissipate whatever our wealth had accumulated. The papyrus is mutilated and the lacuna indicated has been read variously, What I make of the passage is that the serfs on an estate had rebelled and taken vengeance on their masters in wanton destruction. So far as I can see, the only text that would give sense is The optative is iterative. Finally, in P Lille 3.38 even if we took the form as optative, it differs in no way from δóρaτa with all the spears that a man could just manage to carry,—X. An. 5.4.25 (quoted from Smyth 574), a characteristic potential.Google Scholar

86 Supra, p. 72.Google Scholar

87 This very mutilated papyrus has been quoted here because the optative in this formula is very well attested later, Horn (n. 11) 146f.Google Scholar

88 Ibid.; Harsing (n. 10) 37Google Scholar

89 This peculiarity of the papyri has been previously noted: Blass-Debrunner (n. 7) 209; most of the above exx. are already cited by J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek I (3 ed. Edinburgh 1908) 169, 239.Google Scholar

90 Hermann, (n. 12) 14.Google Scholar

91 Horn, (n. 11) 55.Google Scholar

92 Sister Rose de Lima (n. 13) 2.Google Scholar

93 For Lucian, , Schmid, , Atticismus (n. 5) I, 620; for Basil, J. Trunk, De Basilio Magno sermonis attici imitatore (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht d. kgl. Gymn. Ehingen a. D. für d. Schuljahre 1907/08 u. 1910/11, Stuttgart 1911) 56. The statement about Gregory Nazianzen rests upon my own observation.Google Scholar

94 Supra, p. 62.Google Scholar

95 Horn, (n. 11) 63–66. The exx. of fut. ind. are all to be taken as pure subjunctive.Google Scholar

96 Harsing, (n. 10) 37 Google Scholar

97 Sister Rose de Lima (n. 13) 47Google Scholar

98 Schmid, Atticismus (n. 5) I, 244.Google Scholar

99 Op. cit. (n. 1) 5f.Google Scholar

100 Schmid, Atticismus, I, 97Google Scholar

101 H. Reinhold, De graecitate patrum apostolicorum librorumque apocryphorum Novi Testamenti quaestiones grammaticae (Diss. philologicae Halenses 14, 1, Halle 1898) 35.Google Scholar

102 Meisterhans, K. and Schwyzer, E., Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (3 ed. Berlin 1900) 166, n. 1402; 247, n. 1933; 248, nn. 1935f.; 255, n. 1987 Google Scholar

103 Mayser (n. 34) II, 1, 296.Google Scholar

104 Op. cit. (n. 10) 57Google Scholar

105 Schmid, Atticismus (n. 5) IV, 607Google Scholar

106 Ibid. II, 59; IV, 90.91; I, 244.Google Scholar

107 Ibid. IV, 85; I, 244.Google Scholar

108 Ibid. IV, 599.Google Scholar

109 Ibid. 589.Google Scholar

110 Ibid. I, 35.Google Scholar