Introduction
[M. Z. Kopidakis]
Man is, according to Aristotle, a political animal –meaning
that, within the city, in a society organized by consensus, he can exploit his
innate abilities to the fullest and acquire new ones as well. In the city,
language, the communication instrument par excellence, is enriched, refined and
normalized. In the Archaic period, the formation of the city-state, along with
the institution of panhellenic athletic and religious centers, the contracting
of alliances and other political unions (amphictyonies), and the development of
commercial activities contributed to the smoothing out of differences between
dialects. In the pioneering region of Ionia, a type of hypertopical koine
language appears next to the equally hypertopical literary dialects of the epics
and of choral poetry. Until the beginning of the Persian Wars, this Ionic Koine,
which almost completely monopolized artistic prose, was the language of
distinction.
After the end of the Persian Wars, Athens assumed the
political and cultural hegemony of Greece. Fear of the Persians rallied the
Greeks and this rallying favored the Attic dialect. The Athenian League (478/7
B.C.), with the Temple of Apollo on Delos as its base, enforced its will that
Athens be regarded as the center of reference for the majority of mainland
cities and islands. With this new gravitas, Athens also attracted theoroi,
litigants, metics, actors, misfits, sophists and prostitutes. In order to fit
into the rather exclusive and demanding Athenian society, newcomers were forced
to espouse the Athenian way of life and, more importantly, to learn how to wield
the Attic dialect with fluency. The cosmopolitan city of Athens became the
“prytaneum of wisdom”, the «Ελλάδος παίδευσις».
Neither the sad outcome of the Peloponnesian War nor
ongoing civil convulsions -not even the rise of the Macedonian dynasty- impeded
the development of the Attic dialect into the Panhellenic linguistic medium. On
the contrary, Philip II, a magnanimous and discerning ruler, established the
Attic language as the official language for education and administration in his
state. Alexander and the offspring of other aristocratic Macedonian families all
received an Attic education. The celebrated panhellenic campaign to the East
promoted Hellenic culture all the way to Baktria. The multi-ethnic states of
Alexander’s successors furnished the proof of Isocrates’ statement that anyone
receiving a Greek education was a Greek. The Koine dialect, which at the time of
the successors became an international instrument of communication, was an idiom
based on the Attic dialect. This idiom was consciously promoted by the
Macedonian administration and the army, as well as by merchants, fortune-hunters
and scholars in Asia Minor, the Near Easy and Egypt.
While the term koine is ancient, grammarians have tended to
disagree on the origin of the koine dialect. Some argued that it originated in
the commingling of the four basic dialects (η εκ των τεσσάρων συνεστώσα); others
believed that it was the “mother” of the four dialects; yet others considered it
to be a fifth dialect, or a transformation of Attic. The latter view, which was
also supported by G. Hadjidakis and other reputable scholars in recent years,
turns out to be the right one. Nevertheless, today the term Koine is used to
indicate the various levels used throughout the Hellenic world in the oral and,
in part, the written language from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine
period. This is a syncretistic and “encyclopedic” language, which has a central
core and several radiating spurs. Needless to say, Athenians and Peloponnesians,
Ionians and Macedonians, the Hellenized Jews and the rulers from Eastern Libya
did not all speak the same language. In contrast to the spoken language, which
presented a pronounced lack of uniformity, the written language tended toward
homogeneity. Nevertheless, here, too, differences were important. The historian
Polybios writes in a refined and rich Koine, whereas the author of a spell would
use a spicy argot.
Our immediate sources for the koine are the texts that were
preserved in inscriptions, papyri and shreds (fragments of vases). A wealth of
material is also provided by the lexica/dictionaries of the Atticists; the
Greco-Latin glossaries -namely the elementary methods of learning Greek meant
for the native speakers of Latin- as well as literature. Among the most
important samples of the koine are the translation of the Old Testament by the
Septuagint, the New Testament, the Apocrypha and the Writings. Indirect sources
are also found in the dialects and idioms of the modern Greek language, that go
back to the Byzantine koine. An exception is found in the Tsakonic dialect,
which originated in the new Doric dialect of Laconia.
Right from the start, the Koine laid siege to that bulwark
of linguistic conservatism: literature. Of course, all the poetic genres that
survived (epic, elegy, iambic, epigram) retained their old artificial idiom,
with some compromises. New genres were composed in new, also artificial,
dialects. For instance, Theocritos’ Bucolics were a hypertopical Doric dialect
based on the dialect of Syracuse. A refined version of the Koine was used by the
minor composers of the Anacreontia, the early Christian Hymns as well as work
songs and erotic verses. Nevertheless, the first samples of poetry using stress
accents, which later dominated, first appeared in the early post-Christian
centuries. The traditional prosodic poetry would soon be demoted into a museum
piece.
The conquests of the koine in the realm of prose are even
more significant. Aristotle, who was much admired by Cicero, used an early form
of literary koine. Koine was also the language used by philosophers, historians,
scientists, mythographers, and fabulists. Nevertheless, the deviations are worth
noting: the language of Polybios (201-120 B.C.) is highly artificial
(neologisms, poetic words, avoidance of hiatus), whereas the language of
Epictetos (55-135 A.D.), who was a freedman, is very similar to the popular
koine.
In other words, the cultural prestige of Athens, literary
production (especially prose) and the browbeating suasion exerted by state
authority (Athenian alliances and, later, Macedonian hegemony, reinforced Attic
in the contest of dialects. Nevertheless, the koine that emerged was the result
of multiple concessions and compromises. Thus, some uniquely Attic
characteristics, such as the use of –ττ instead of –σσ and the second Attic
declension (λεώς) were rejected, since the other dialects were able to offer a
unified type. The tendency of Attic oral speech towards simplification found
some unexpected allies. Native speakers of other languages, those speaking other
dialects as well as ordinary people could not easily use the numerous
eccentricities, the flamboyant particles, the complicated syntax and the finest
semantic of the unforgiving Attic dialect. With time, major changes took place
on all levels, leading to the creation of a plastic, rich and, at the same time,
simple linguistic instrument or idiom.
While the Attic dialect comprised the core of the koine,
other dialects, mostly the Ionian, also played a role in its creation. St. G.
Kapsomenos (1907-1978) and Agapetos Tsopanakis proved that the contribution of
the Doric language was more important than previously thought. The Doric
language significantly enriched both military and legal terminology: λοχαγός,
ξεναγός (originally the leader of mercenaries), ουραγός, άγημα, ανάδοχος. The
widely used terms βουνός (NE βουνό instead of the Attic όρος), λαός, ναός,
ορκομωσία were also Doric. Even the marginal NW endowed the Koine, especially
the modern Greek one, with the extension of the ending –ες from the nominative
of the third declension to the accusative: οι πατέρες - τους πατέρες (and, by
analogy, οι, τους ταμίες). The language of administration and the military
was strengthened by the Macedonians: δεκανός (>NE δεκανέας, δεκανίκι),
ταξίαρχος, σωματοφύλακες, υπασπισταί, while Macedonian was also the origin of
the word κοράσιον and of the ending –ισσα (Μακεδόνισσα).
Thus, at the time of the Koine, major changes were
introduced in the phonological system, in the morphology, syntax and vocabulary
of the Greek language. Nevertheless, the most significant changes, those that
primarily led to the shaping of the modern Greek language, took place in the
realm of phonology. The stress of the ancient Greek language was musical, as is
indicated by the terms αρμονία, προσωδία, οξεία, βαρεία and others. The
transition from the musical to the dynamic stress (more specifically, the
transition of the word stress from musical to dynamic) seems to have had, as its
principal effect, the suppression of prosody. Thus, the turn of the diphthongs
into single notes is accelerated (ει → i, αι → e) and consonants become
isochronal. Thus, for instance, ι, ει, η, οι and υ ended up being pronounced as
ι (the transformation of the pronunciation of the diphthong οι to ι was
completed only in the 10th century A.D.). One of the results of iotacism was the
creation of many homonyms. Changes were also sweeping in the realm of
consonants. Nevertheless, even today in modern Hellenic dialects, double
consonants (άλλος = άλ-λος) continue to be pronounced, while the ending –ν that
has been hounded by both grammarians and popular usage, since the 4th century
B.C. continues to resist. The script remained phonetic. The variance between the
written word and the phoneme resulted in a plethora of spelling mistakes: ώντος
instead of όντως, λυπόν instead of λοιπόν etc.
Morphology is dominated by the tendency towards
simplification, which is mainly accomplished by analogy.Two-syllable and
three-syllable formations replace capricious monosyllables in terms of
declension: οις: πρόβατον, μυς: ποντικός, υς: χοίρος, ναυς: πλοίον. Irregular
comparatives are replaced: μέγας, μειζώτερος or μεγαλώτερος (instead of μείζων),
μέγιστος. Adverbs ending in –ως (καλώς) are limited to the advantage of those
ending in –α (καλά). The multiplicity of the verb is sharply limited. Some verbs
ending in –μι acquired an ending in –ω (δίδωμι – δίδω). The dual, which had
suffered since the 3rd century B.C., received the final blow by Christ himself:
«ουδείς οικέτης δύναται δυσί κυρίοις δουλεύειν» (Luke, 16, 13). Nevertheless,
the Atticists attempted to revive this archaic type: «δυσί μη λέγε, αλλά δυοίν»
(Phrynichos).
In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for
simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often
replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually
replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive
was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the
infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and
some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of
conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και
acquired additional meanings.
There are perennial, short-lived and ephemeral words – the
latter being the most noisome. The Koine was forced to reject a great number of
words that either resisted the tendency to simplification or lost their
etymological clarity, were highly idiomatic or represented ephemeral values and
objects. Nevertheless, those losses were offset by the influx of thousands of
neologisms that were necessitated by radical changes in society; the rise of the
lower classes; political developments; the emergence of the multiethnic states
of the successors and the Roman occupation; cultural innovations; and, finally,
the advent of Christianity. Thus, for instance, many ancient words acquired new
meanings in Christian idiom (άγγελος, διάβολος, επίσκοπος, εκκλησία).
In the period of the koine, Greece was dominated
politically by Rome (1st century A.D.) and culturally by Christianity. This
double domination left indelible marks even on our national identity: Ρωμιοί,
namely “Romans”, and Χριστιανοί instead of Έλληνες. The conquest of Greece by
the Romans naturally led to an antagonistic linguistic exchange. The Romans as
conscious founders of a multiethnic empire proved to be good students in areas
that used to puzzle them. Thus, they systematically topped the Greek language to
meet the needs of their poor agrarian language in art, science and voluptuous
sensuality. In order to facilitate their administrative mechanism, they founded
an official translating service in Rome. Moreover, a good part of the Roman
upper class, especially women of the aristocracy, was bilingual. Caesar expired
with a Greek phrase on his lips: «Και συ τέκνον Βρούτε;». Augustus died with a
line by Menander. Nero used to translate Aeschylos and was acclaimed as a
performer of tragedy. The poets helped themselves to meters, genres and themes
of both Classical and Hellenistic poetry.
By contrast, the Greeks (even Γραικύλοι) had an arrogant
attitude toward Latin and Roman civilization as a whole. Borrowings from the
Latin language were limited to the first years of the conquest, and resistance
was led by the Atticists, fervent champions of linguistic purity. Nevertheless,
in the 3rd and 4th century B.C., many words (particularly from military,
administrative and commercial terminology) insinuated themselves into Greek.
The effect of the Latin language on Greek is imperceptible
on the level of syntax, only slightly perceptible in terms of morphology
(particularly in the endings: -άριος, -άτος, -ούρα, -πουλλος), but was very
prominent in terms of vocabulary. Numerous words that found their way into the
Koine, especially in its mature period, remain until today: τίτλος, μεμβράνη,
μίλιον, δικτάτωρ, κάστρο, κάρβουνο, σπίτι (οσπίτιον), παλάτι, φάβα, λουκάνικο.
Latin was also the origin of the names of many months as well as of a number of
personal names (Αντώνιος, Κωνσταντίνος, Πουλχερία).
The meeting of Hellenism with Judaism was a traumatic
experience for both sides. The Greeks attempted to impose their own world-view
and way of life on people who identified themselves as the chosen people. The
Jews threw off the Greek yoke, and for a certain period of time Judaea remained
independent. Nevertheless, in 68 B.C., Pompey annexed the wider area to the Rome
sphere of influence. In the interim, already from the 3rd century B.C., a large
number of Judaeans of the diaspora spoke Greek as their mother tongue. Thanks to
all those Greek-speaking Jews, the Old Testament was translated into Hellenistic
Koine. It took them approximately three centuries to complete the translation
(the book of Job was only translated in the first century A.D.). The text of the
Septuagint does not have a unified linguistic form. The numerous
barbarisms (Exodus 18,6, Τρία εγώ ειμί), solecisms, (Genesis 4,8 και εγένετο εν
τω είναι αυτούς), the indeclinable names (Αβραάμ, Ιακώβ) and the overall
unadorned and brusque style reveal that the authoritative voice of Yahweh was
not at ease in a foreign tongue.
The New Testament is also characterized by a marked lack of
stylistic uniformity. One end is occupied by the highly artificial Greek of
Luke, the other by the strident popular language of the Apocalypse. The numerous
Biblical scholars and Hebraists remind us that the New Testament did not
supplant but rather continued and supplemented both the Laws and the Prophets.
The peculiar Greek of the Bible, which caused such repugnance among followers of
Hellenistic purism, influenced, under the dominance of Christianity, the popular
tide of the Koine.
Thus, the Koine was a language of communication, different
from one region to another as it is colored by the local dialect (Koine with
Doric and Ionic elements). It favored lively expressions (direct speech
instead of indirect, superlatives instead of comparatives), strove for emphasis,
clarity and simplicity, and used, if necessary, loans from high literature
(λαίλαψ) as well as from the languages of nearby peoples. As a language, it was
also the key to accessing the goods of high civilization. For many years, its
reach was extensive. Foreign rulers (Armenians, Parthians, Siclo the King of the
Nubians), priests (the Egyptian Manethon, the Babylonian Barossos, the Druids of
Gaul) and sophists – all wrote in the koine.
In the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., as the Koine
began its triumphal course towards the linguistic unity of Hellenism, rhetoric
gradually abandoned its cradle, Athens, and repaired to Ephessos, Smyrna and
Rhodes. With the fall of democracy, the freedom of speech that had served to
sharpen the orator’s skill was restricted, but the rhetoric of the “γυμνάσματα”
was still free to chatter about trivial subjects. The Asian style was no longer
confined to the sphere of ostentatious rhetoric and threatened to inundate both
philosophy and historiography as well. The Atticists, strict guardians of the
Classical tradition, attempted to stop the trend. Nevertheless, the flamboyant,
chattering and self-satisfied Asian style was an easy opponent, merely the
pretext for a conspiracy of conservatives. The Atticists directed their furor
mainly at the Koine, which was threatening to conquer prose. Their themes were:
nostalgia for ancient glory, and a longing for the comfortably familiar and
strict Attic language of Lysias and Plato.
Dionysios of Alexandria, who taught from 30-8 B.C. in Rome
–the most significant center for Hellenic culture and letters at the time– was
the most important theorist of the Atticists. This movement spread quickly
thanks to the popularity of the Attic dialect; the prestige of the writers of
the 5th and 4th centuries; Augustus’ belief that Classicism in language and art
could preserve traditions; as well as the philological work that were done by
the Alexandrians on Classical texts (editing, lexicography, annotation). The
enemies of Christianity also acceded to the movement of the Atticists; as
representatives of the high intelligentsia, they scorned both the simple lessons
of the Gospel and the Apostles as well as their simple language.
The direct aim of the Atticists seemed to be a shared one:
a return to the pure and correct Attic dialect. However, which was the true
scholarly Attic dialect? At this point, opinions diverged. Some singled out
Lysias, others Plato, still others Xenophon. Nevertheless, all of them agreed
that the imitation of form would sooner or later lead to the creation of
masterpieces. Since the Atticists believed that the purely Attic idiom
vouchsafed the urbanity of speech, they considered the presence of certain words
in the texts of scholarly writers as an infallible criterion. Ulpian, a
grammarian of the 2nd century A.D., was named “Κειτούτιος”, because, before
sampling a dish he would attempt to discover whether the name of that dish
existed in the Attic paradeigms (κείται ή ου κείται). However, it was not only
the “outer shell” of language that captivated the supporters of retrogression.
They also believed that simply being involved with the “texts” would
automatically revive the ancient values of the soldiers at Marathon! In any
case, regardless of the motives of its supporters, Atticism was ultimately
characterized by the nobility of the quest for utopia and unattainable goals.
During the 2nd century A.D., the Roman state flourished.
Education was no longer restricted to a narrow aristocracy. The Greek-speaking
portion of the populace claimed cultural hegemony. At that time, the most
popular writers of prose in the Greek-speaking world were the representatives of
the Second Sophist Movement, led by Aelios Aristeides (129-181). These witty
Atticists, apparently captivated, with their well-paid talks, even illiterate
audiences who failed to understand their sophist nuances or their manners of
speech, due to the radical social changes that had taken place. Finally, strict
Atticism was also accepted by the established Christian Church. This causes one
to wonder how much of the wise words of the Great Fathers of the Church the poor
congregation could even comprehend. However, among the achievements of Atticism
were the protection of the written language from the influx of Latin words, and
the protection of the cultural tradition of the Classical world from the purges
and onslaughts of fanatic Christians.
However, retrogression came at a high price. The fixation
of the Atticists on their glorious past and their refusal to accept the
self-evident truth that language evolved over time, led to bilingualism, which
afflicted the nation for two thousand years and widened the gap between the
educated minority and the rude masses. Access to the benefits of education
presupposed a long occupation with texts. This distorted estimation of a text
based only on its language was the principal reason for the neglect of authors
writing in simpler language – a fact that resulted in the loss of important
scientific and literary works.
Towards the end of the fifth century A.D. in the wider
Greek world, the state of language was nebulous. The Koine dominated oral
speech, although differences were observed within each region, due to both
tribal allegiances, social stratification and the overall differences in
education. The written text was multifaceted. Authors who targeted the general
audience as well as administrators compromised by using different brands of the
Koine. Nevertheless, official historiographers, orators, philosophers and the
heads of the Church were Atticists. Some genres of poetry continued to be
composed in traditional literary dialects. However, lyric poetry, particularly
the writing of hymns, as well as popular songs were composed in the Koine.
Poetry using stress accents had already made its appearance.
Despite the deep disunity between the spoken and the
written language, the Greek language managed to beat out Latin in the struggle
for linguistic domination of the East. This great victory greatly contributed to
the gradual Hellenization of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.
The conquests of Alexander the Great and the political and
cultural unification of the Eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor and the Middle
East are historical phenomena that can be explained by the context of that
period – however, they are also related with the personality of the Macedonian
King. The creation of the Hellenistic world, which later became the backdrop for
the Roman presence in the area and for the spreading of Christianity, was the
result of both the socio-economic changes in Greece and Alexander’s conscious
choice. The founding of numerous cities with a mixed (Greek and local)
population in the subjugated regions; the intermarriages of the Macedonians with
Asian princesses; the preservation of institutions and practices in areas that
formerly belonged to multinational and multicultural empires; the plans for the
transfer of populations from Greece to Asia and vice versa – all these
indications prove that Alexander had envisioned the creation of a new Empire,
not just the annexation of lands to the Macedonian kingdom.
Just as the military supremacy of the Athenians was
associated with their cultural supremacy and resulted in the domination of the
Attic dialect over the Ionian, Alexander’s victorious campaign against the
Persians in the second half of the 4th century created the political framework
and the conditions that resulted in the dissemination of the Greek language and,
subsequently, of Greek civilization. The language of the time, known as the
Koine, was developed gradually as a unified language used only by many
inhabitants of the Greek universe, in lieu of various ancient Greek dialects.
At the time of Alexander, the Classical notion of the
“citizen” was replaced by that of the “cosmopolitan” and Greek cities were
founded everywhere. Greeks were all those partaking in Greek education. Thus,
the term “Greek” did not relate only with ethnic background, but also with the
Greek education and way of life – and it was reflected in language. It included
the Macedonians, the Classical Greeks, the Persians and other nations of Asia,
or, even, the entire universe. This language was a simplified version of the
Attic language, dictated by the new needs of the large and heterogeneous
population groups in Alexander’s vast empire. The Hellenistic Koine became an
international language and was used by the Greeks and the Hellenized foreigners
of Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria and Persia. It was not only the official language of
the administration but also the language of intellect, literature and commercial
transactions – the common code of the many inhabitants of the Hellenistic world
– the “lingua franca” of its time.
At the time when the Koine was the dominant language,
Greece’s political submission to Rome was succeeded by its cultural submission
to Christianity, which constituted a true milestone in the history of the
Mediterranean and, later, of Europe as well. Christianity emerged when the
linguistic and spiritual unity of the Eastern Mediterranean had already taken
place. As Greece was the best-known language and Greek philosophical and
rhetorical schools existed in all major cities, Greek civilization had
established its presence to the peoples of the East.
The new religion opposed the ancient Greek way of life,
while the pagan religious rites of the ancient Greeks came into real conflict
with the Christian tradition. However, Christianity was related to the
principles of Stoic philosophy and the esoteric principles of Platonism, as well
as to messages related to self-control, philanthropy and gentleness –all of them
basic elements of Greek philosophy. Combining the great theological tradition of
Judaism, transferred by the laws and prophets of the time, Christianity and
Hellenism followed a common route, though not without conflicts.
Thus, the Koine, which was the formal written and spoken
language in the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of Alexander
the Great to approximately the 6th century A.D., became the language of the
sacred texts of Christianity. Moreover, the texts of the Old and New Testament
along with the inscriptions and the papyri, are the main sources of information
for the language of the period.
The Bible consists of 66 books, starting with the Genesis
of the Old Testament and ending with the Apocalypse of St. John, the last book
of the New Testament. The term Old Testament was used by the Christians to
distinguish the Judaic scripts from the New Testament, which includes the
preaching of Christ and his disciples.
The 39 books of the Old Testament were translated from
Judaic and Aramaic into Greek in Alexandreia, from the 3rd to the 1st century
B.C. This translation is known as the Old Testament according to the Seventy
(O), because according to a historically unsound tradition, Ptolemy II
Philadelpheus commissioned the translation of the Judaic Law to 72 Judean
scholars –six from every tribe – to meet the needs of the Greek-speaking
Judaists of the area. In essence, this is the oeuvre of many translators – a
fact that explains its linguistic dissimilarity.
Similarly, the 27 books of the New Testament, which were
written straight into Greek, exhibit a stylistic discrepancy, though with clear
Semitic influence. Aramaisms and Judaisms could be due to either the
bilingualism of the authors or their conscious attempt to imitate the language
of the Seventy. Atticisms, Latin terms and neologisms abound in both the Gospels
and the New Testament.