3

C
M
Mediterranean Chronicle

M
C
Volume 3, 2013

D I AV L O S

Contents
Filippo DOria:
.....................5
:
servus callidus ..........................21
Luigi Andrea Berto:
Paolo Diacono era di destra? Identit e orientamenti politici altomedievali
e contemporanei, nuovo e vecchio, utilizzo delle fonti in un recente libro
sui Longobardi e un appello per Clio ........................................................................35
Brigita Kukjalko:
The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period ........................79
Nicolas Karapidakis:
Les livres du conseil des citoyens de Corfou 1432-1490:
prosopographie et groupes familiaux......................................................................109
Benedetto Vetere:
Oria 13 luglio - 31 agosto 1463. Il tinello di Margaritella e Isabella
Orsini del Balzo. Dal Registro 257/II della Camera della Sommaria .....................145
Sandra Bernato:
Sur la carniceria hbreu de Grone (1466) .........................................................187
Rosamaria Alibrandi:
Le ondate coleriche del Mediterraneo. Strategie e leggi per la tutela
della salute pubblica nella prima met dellottocento.............................................193
Diego DOria:
Napoli e la Grecia. I vantaggi di un Trattato di Navigazione e di Commercio
nel giudizio di un console napoletano dellOttocento..............................................225
C. Tsiamis, E. Poulakou-Rebeleakou, D. Anoyatis-Pel:
A Medical and Demographic Approach to Mortality in German Occupied
Athens during World War II (1941-1944).................................................................243
Theodora D. Patrona:
Juvenile Outlaws: Civil Strife, Trauma, and (Personal)
History in Stratis Haviaras The Heroic Age (1984)................................................263
Guidelines for authors...................................................................................................275

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, rhetoricians
and 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 literary
culture 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.

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. 3241453). The Byzantines themselves
called their state the Roman Empire (

) 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 16 th 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, Lnu yzntin Litrtur , The
Past 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 Paris
1984; Rrt H. Rins, Gr Linuistis in t yzntin Pri , History of 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. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, Kees Versteegh, Berlin
2000, pp. 417-423; Ir vn, Lvs ty in yzntin Litrtur , Greek literature, ed.
G. Nagy, Volume 9, New York London 2001, pp. 199-222; Staffan Wrn, yzntin
Litrtur n t ssi Pst , 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.
1

- 79 -

Brigita Kukjalko
A recent study4 has shown that the language of Ancient Greek
philological texts5 is characterized by special features related to (1) the use of
sintins ii nts,
t wys n w t utr s
presence 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 Greek
philological texts, Byzantine ones within a single article more often focus or
at least attempt to focus on the examination of one specific language question
or 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.
riit sv [Ku], Lnu nint Gr Pii xts , Synopsis
of the Doctoral Thesis, R
, . -61.
5 Three Ancient Greek philological texts written in different time periods were analyzed within
the abovementioned research:
(On Rhetoric) by Aristotle (4th C. A.C.),

st

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

and

(On Types of Style) by Hermogenes (2nd C. A.D.).
6 riit sv [Ku],
Oriins t Lnu Hunitis in nint Gr
Pii xts , Hellenic Dimension, Materials of the Riga 3rd International Conference of
Hellenic Studies, . . sv [Ku], O. Ls, I. Rni, Rga 2012, p. 40.
7 Of course, points out Robert Browning, w yz uu vy
do with 5th and 4th . . u yz w z vy y
not being acceptable in the spoken language and positively by being used, or thought to be used by some
4

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 80 -

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 11th-12th centuries:
8

(The w qu, W w , u
? 9) and

,
,
10

(What is the difference between the novel

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

(On the syntax of the sentence, or rather on the

avoidance of syntactic errors) by Gregory Pardos, and

( H Iad) 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 philology11. The
history of philology and Greek linguistics in the Byzantine Period has been
w y yz . u u w w
wider 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,

, .
,
1987-1994 and Carl
Krumbacher,

, . - ,
1897-1900.

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 81 -

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 the
like. 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.
(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

(Etymologicum
Magnum) compiled at Constantinople by an unknown lexicographer ca. 1150)
and (3) extensive tabulated lists of the inflectional paradigms of nouns (which
inu ty s tivs n vrs ..,

(Tabulations) of
Theodosius 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 of
classical Greek, containing orthographic phonetics, morphology, and syntax.
So far only few of these writings have been edited and published. Among them,
rs, t st, in Rins s wrs, trtiy insitu t
grammarians was scholar Maximus Planudes (ca. 1300), who wrote two books
on grammar, the

(Dialogue of grammar) in style

similar to a Platonic dialogue and a textbook

(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.).
E.g., Berschin, op. cit., pp. 18-40; Hunr, . it., . ; Krumbacher, op. cit., pp. 181-394;
Rins, Gr Linuistis in t yzntin Pri , .
-423; Robins, The Byzantine
, 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, yz , pp. 11-39, Robins,
Gr Linuistis in t yzntin Pri , .
-423; Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit., pp. 4478, 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
Rins, Gr inuistis in t yzntin Pri , .
-419.

12

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 82 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

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,

(The syntax of the sentence . ynus

treatise is the first Byzantine syntax after the Syntax of one of the greatest of the
Greek 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. ynus

exemplifies the conception of

syntx tn r nius n t in tw s Prisin s 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 is
defined 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, Psell s was in the service of the Emperors, and if the account given in
his Chronographia is to be trusted he was for many years the power behind the
throne.18
Pss uvr s n rtriz s nrus19; it encompasses
historical, philosophical, rhetorical, theological, and legal texts as well as a
collection of letters. The above mentioned Chronographia a history beginning
in 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 history20 is one of his
most 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

The work of Priscian (4th C.) Institutiones grammaticae was the standard textbook for the study
of Latin during the Middle Ages.
16 r ti rtristi t ynus s

, fragments in original and

translation see Robins, yz , 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.
15

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 83 -

Brigita Kukjalko
21
22

(easygoing writings). They are also classified as

(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

(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

,
,

(De Heliodoro), Psellos deals with the

comparison of two prose texts, the main features of their language. One of the
texts 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
Pss in conclusion was24.
Gregory Pardos or Gregory of Corinth25 (ca. 1070-1156) was an
important figure scholar and writer of twelfth century scholarship in
Byzantium. Pardos compiled several works on rhetoric and grammar.
However, the work, which has been discussed in this article

, is the only one of his writings that has been

edited thus far in its entirety and is readily accessible 26. 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

Dyck, op. cit., p. 29.

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

u x u x,
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,

de Corinthe. tude de la
tritin nusrit, itin, trutin t ntir, Bruxelles Rome 1967.
21
22

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 84 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

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 it 27.
usttis, ris ssni s (ca. 1115-1195) commentary on
the 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's
poem the Odyssey, in the same way as the Iliad. He wrote these commentaries
as 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
v vy u w , u xu 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 reverse33. The main reason behind
Wilson, op. cit., p. 185.
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.
27
28

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 85 -

Brigita Kukjalko
getting such an impression is the different kinds of Greek 34 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 the
current 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.
Hwvr, rwnin s ttntin is focused on the language of Byzantine
literature 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.
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 informal
situations, 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 own
lack of education (Browning, op. cit., pp. 103-104).
36 Ibid., p. 109.
37 Ibid., p. 119.
34

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 86 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

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 the
imperial court w wu v u z
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

, 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 and
rudiments of his doctrine seeped down to Byzantine commentaries and introductory treatises
on rhetoric. For a survy n t vs sty in yzntin rs s vn, . it., pp. 199222.
40 Browning, op. cit., p. 120.
41 Ibid., p. 123.
42 Political verse first appears around the 6 th 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

38

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 87 -

Brigita Kukjalko
title deals with all three texts selected for the current study, as it s iv
that 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
t Pss ssys discussed in this article according to their content
are 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

(to commit solecism)

has even been explained:
(..)

.
(..) 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, fr ty s int viw, stylistics related
questions. In the essay De Euripide, t utr s ttntin is focused on the
language features of poetic texts. Another essay De Heliodoro deals with the
main 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 ,
, and . In Pss txts
they all can denote the mode of expression or diction and in these cases of the
use are considered to be synonyms, e.g.:

. (De Euripide).
He always handles rhythmical language, euphony of diction and the
appropriateness of rhythm with such care.

(..). (De
Heliodoro).
I v u y vu u diction and beauty of language (..).
(..)

(..). (De Heliodoro).
(..) His diction is sweeter (..).

(..). (De Euripide).

Ibid., p. 528.
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
r yzntiu, . sv [Ku], Lnu nint Gr Pii xts ,
p. 37.
44
45

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 88 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

Now Sophocles and Aeschylus have more profound ideas and a more dignified
linguistic arsenal (..).

'

. (De Heliodoro).
The beauty of the language
theatrical nor Attic and high flown, but distinguished by its grandeur.
Besides ,
, and , in the essay De Heliodoro, there are
two more designations that denote the concept of mode of expression
and , e.g.:



,

I have not stuck in detailed observations, but have presented you with a
summary account of their respective styles.
(..)

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

(..).
(..) his tongue is the accuser of his character (..).
It should be noted that the designation

in Pss txts n
also used to denote concept of language or dialect, e.g.:

(Greek language),
(Attic dialect). Likewise
(denoting
two various philological concepts) have been used also
and . In
Pss ssys ty t n nt nt ny t mode of expression or diction,
but also the expression itself (words, speech or text and the like), e.g.:

, (..).
At the beginning (of the reading) the reader fancies that most elements are
superfluous, but as the narrative progresses, (..).
(..)

(..).
(..) in barbarian speech (..).
3.1.2. Pardos
Grry Prs trtis

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 work
implies, a strong emphasis is placed on accurate language production, i.e., on
Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 89 -

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.:

(pronoun),
(article),
(adverb),

(prefix),
(verb)
etc., cases, e.g.:

(case),
(accusative),
(genitive),

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

(masculine),

(active voice),
(plural),

(person),

(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.:
(construction),

(to connect or to relate to),

(
) (to construe, to construct)
etc., as well as to the lexical-semantic, e.g.:

(to barbarize),
(barbarism),
(sense),
(meaning),

(to mean)
etc., and to the phonetic level of language, e.g.:

(monosyllabic),
(syllable),
(emphasis) etc. It should be noted that Pardos has not
tu un t qustins nu sty. n ust i in Pss ssys,
we can see the use of the designations
and . However, contrary to
tir in r in Pss txts, in Prs trtis ty r nt rt t t
stylistic level of language.
denotes the concept of broader expression
(speech, phrase, text and the like), e.g.:

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

(..).
From the other side if the first and necessary word is missing, the phrase is
again incomplete (..). (Donnet, op. cit., p. 169).

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

.. ,

.
The word can be corrupted in four ways: (..), or when there is syllable added in
the word and instead of y wu y y ; from that the barbarism is
in words. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 219).

and
in Prs wr r ii trs in nr46;
their conceptual content is unambiguous and remains unchanged throughout
the work.
46

. sv [Ku], Lnu nint Gr Pii xts , .

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 90 -

-43.

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

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 the
syntactic level of language, i.e., the conceptual content of

(
) (to
construe and to construct) and

(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

(
) (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.:

,
,

,
,

.
So in the constructing a sentence look for and first find the necessary noun, for
x, x , w ", fights in single combat , w
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);

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

(..).

w u constructed with the genitive (..). (Donnet, op.

cit., p. 199).

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

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

(..).
(..) first look for a noun and a verb and connect to one another (..). (Donnet,
op. cit., p. 177);

(..).
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).
si tur Prs trtis, wi tuy rs r t
nature 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) neither
formally, nor by the information which they provide. However, they give an
Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 91 -

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:

,
,
,
,

,
,
,
.
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
rr s ttntin t the grammatical genders:
(..)

,
,

.
(..) three are the genders of the ina : 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:
(..)

,
,
,

.
(..) 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.
Prs trtis is i n ry strutur. t tis
mainly in its later sections, which deal with the morphology, have titles:

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

. (On the
prepositions. Donnet, op. cit., p. 197);

. (O v
syntax. Donnet, op. cit., p. 207);

. (On the barbarism. Donnet,

op. cit., p. 217).

3.1.3. Eustathios
usttis

addresses questions of
grammar, 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. in usttis
commentaries 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.
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
47

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 92 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

The third index Vocabularium Eustathianum allows us to appreciate in
Kizr s wrs 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 the
rhetorical terms can be easily related to the stylistic level of language (e.g.,

[ ] (impudent word), (repetition of word),

(give a
double sense),

(climax, i.e., in Lat. gradatio ,

metaphor) etc.,
while the grammatical terms in their turn can be sorted out into the syntactic
(e.g.:
(short sentence),
((opposite ) sentence, statement),
(speech, expression)); lexical-semantic (e.g.:
(to use Greek),
(word),
etc.); morphological (e.g.:
(derivation),
(participle),
((opposite ) noun),
(verb),
(grammatical form of word) etc.), and
phonetic level (e.g.:
(crasis),

(monophthong),
(acute
accent),
(syllable),
(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.,
(etymology),

(orthography),
(word-formation) etc.
Besides providing the classification of the terms in grammatical,
rtri n tri, Kizr s inx s sws tt, just as it is nowadays,
many of terms in one and the same text can also function as ordinary words49
e.g.,

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

(..). (Commentarii ad Homeri
50
Iliadem 1.150.25 ).
The language of Syracuse speaks the believer (..)51.
And



Commentarii ad
Homeri 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 Hr n urtr t sur t intin usttis txt 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.

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 93 -

Brigita Kukjalko
quite similar conceptual content ( ,
,
and

), firstly,
interest emerges on the contraposition of
and
init in Kizr s
52
index: (

, ) . The proper analysis of the
some of the cases where the terms
and
occur shows that, just like
in Pss ssys, s in usttis ty t nt itr the concept of
expression (mainly), or the concept of mode of expression (rarely), and they
can still be treated as synonyms:
The use of
denoting the concept of expression (word), e.g.:

(holy word),

(poetic word),

(in prosaic
(literally walking) words, i.e., in prose), (..)

. ((..) u v vy word)
(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.183.20).
The use of
denoting the concept of expression (sentence,
speech, text and the like), e.g.:

(according to the old

saying),
(prosaic text, i.e., prose),

(metered text).
The use of
denoting the concept of mode of expression, diction,
e.g.:
(..)

(..).
(..) diction differs also among those who recites poems. (Commentarii ad
Homeri Iliadem 1.1.5.12).
The use of
denoting the concept of mode of expression,
diction, e.g.:

(..).
And there is a heavy mode of expression and at the same time dissembling (..).
(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.355.21);
(..)

(..).
(..) active and efficient mode of expression (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri
Iliadem 1.609.14).
Concerning the designation , in usttis txt it denotes the
concept of expression (phrase, utterance) and often is used to introduce a
quotation that follows, e.g.:

'

.. .
There is this Homeric phrase: (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.590.5);
(..)

,
.. .
(..) however he changed the phrase by that and thus could say, for example, (..).
(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.644.21).

52

Keizer, op. cit., p. 393.

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 94 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

The designation
in its turn in usttis txt s n us
intiy s in Pss ssys n s s, it su nt, ty: n t
one hand

denotes the concept of language, dialect or foreign word,

e.g.,

(the common (koine) language),

(according to the Cretan language); and on the other hand it can also mean mode
of expression or diction, e.g.:

(low style ,

(H u).
3.2. The authors presence in the text
In t Pss ssys, t utr s rsn in t txt n t
throughout 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 or
uncertainty, e.g.:

(..).
I know that even many well-educated persons are in dispute concerning these
two romantic novels (..). (De Heliodoro);

(..).
For I doubt that anyone knows how to write lovelier iambic verse than he (..).
(De Euripide).
In both texts, the author often uses (I say or I mean) to bestow his
explanation, resp., thoughts, e.g.:
(..) (..).
(..) i.e. (I mean), that in the words (..).;
(..)

(..).
(..) namely u u wy
or feminine (..).
utr s rsn n s t wn addresses or turns to the
reader, e.g.:

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

.
You have, my friend, in summary form, the difference between the books, a
matter of great import.
In Prs trtis, t utr s issitin t iv is wn inin is
vn r visi n rti i r t t Pss ssys, tu it
is not written in the first person. The main feature that definitively shows it is
Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 95 -

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 sty Prs trtis, rwin ttntin tt it srs ny trits
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,

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

.. .
t this also (..).;
,

.
Be careful in constructions to assign to the pronoun the verb form that is in
agreement with it. (Donnet, op. cit., p. 171);

(..).
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.:
careful),

,
' , and also some
others, e.g.:
(learn this),
(learn this also),

for) can be found several times within the text and can be seen as stable formulalike 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
Prs txt n ry shows the author's presence, guidance, advices and
the like e.g:
(you see),
(as you see), (you would say),

(you would name),
(you look for) etc.
Also in Eustatis wr t utr s rsn, ust i in Pss n
Prs txts, is rty visi. s it ws stt t t innin t
article, Eustathios wrote his commentaries n Hr s Iliad in order to satisfy
the 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.:

53

Robins, yz , p. 163.

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 96 -

(..).

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

This point has been covered by so many others that we have nothing further
to say (..)54. (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.6.4);

,

.
This is not our intention, but rather what we have already set forth.
(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.7.3).
As it is obvious in the examples above, along with the use of the firstperson plural verb forms, equally often we also observe the forms of the
personal pronoun in the first person plural ( ,
etc.).
The first-person plural verb forms are also often used, whenever the
author turns to another topic or part of discussion, e.g.:


,

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

.
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 firstperson singular verb forms, but much more rarely and mainly in cases when
his own negation or doubts are expressed, e.g.:
,

, ,

.
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).
usttis txt is u rhetorical questions which he also attempts to
answer. Such style of writing gives an impression of a dialogue or conversation

Hr n urtr, i nt stt trwis, usttis txt trnst in nis y vi

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
54

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 97 -

Brigita Kukjalko
with the reader and, of course, clearly shows t utr s rsn in t txt,
e.g.:
(..)

,

(..)

.

(..).
(..) wv w y, w aight to Pindar, and so too,
w H (..). Why? Because he displays every
virtue of poetry (..). (Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.5.30).
3.3. The use of figurative means of expression
nu t Pss ssys is rtriz y nsiuus
figurativeness. 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.,:

(dignified linguistic arsenal),

(little words which flatter the ear);

(with graceful words),

(pleasures of language). Both

texts, but especially De Heliodoro is full also with much more sophisticated
metaphors, e.g.:

.
The work teems with flowers of every grace;

,
,

.
It has been embellished with episodic narratives which, one might say, breath
the grace of Aphrodite.
rtrizin t in ins t t ri s nv, Pss
compares it t i sn:

.
(..) 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:
(..) <
>

{ }

.
(..) one could find no other work which possesses pleasure blended so
beautifully and gracefully with nobility.
Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 98 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

The passage devoted to the features of Euripides in De Euripide much
more resembles a panegyric than a philological text:

(..).
(..) 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
w v u vw (..).
(..)

iurtivnss t nu in Pss ssys n srv in

the entire text, not only in the context dealing with different language
phenomena. Concerning the occurrences when figurative means have been
us in t rntin ntxt, it is nt sur, wtr t utr s
figurativeness helps or rather hinders the understanding of the analyzed
content.
I t nu Pss ws rtriz y t nsiuus
figurativeness, then in Pardos treatise there are no figurative means of
xrssin t . Prs unashamed didacticism, in Rins wrs, s nt t
space 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.
r wit Pss n Prs , t iurtivnss usttis
language in the chosen text, i.e., in his commentaries n Hr s Iliad, is much
more difficult to assess due to the enormous size of the text. However, from the
examinatin its intrutin, it is ssi t nu tt s usttis
language does not stand out with a particular figurativeness. Yet, some
hyperboles can be observed, e.g.:

.
(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.2.9).
It is not possible to express how much one would learn if he devotes himself to
it (Homeric poetry);
(..)

(..). (Commentarii ad Homeri

Iliadem 1.3.22).
(..) there are a thousand other good things that are useful for life (..).

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 99 -

Brigita Kukjalko
The most interesting feature, and indeed, different from what we saw in
Pss txts is tt usttis tn ss in allegories. In the short text of
the introduction, can be read several of them, one of the most impressive relates
t t siniin Hr s try:

,

,

'

,

,

,
'

,

'

.
(Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 1.1.8-16).
For according to the old saying, all rivers, springs and wells are from the ocean.
I , u u w w H.
Indeed, there was no one among those who pondered the things above or studied nature,
v u w w v u H
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
fiurtivnss. iiry t Prs , s usttis txt is u quttins r
examples (mainly from the Iliad), and also here it seems they have overtaken
t r wi in tr utr s txt wu v n rr y t
different figurative means of expression.
3.4. The referring and quoting
Psellos ssys tt v n nyz r nt rtriz y
frequent 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 of
Phlyeia and George of Pisidia , contemporaries of Euripides Sophocles and
Aeschylus, as well as his work Prometheus Bound have been mentioned. All
cases of mentioning have characteristics of a comparison, e.g.:

(..).
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 variety
and capable of imitating every subject] (..).

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 100 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

Surprising, in his essay De Heliodoro Psellos does not even mention the
names of the authors of the discussed novels Heliodorus of the so called
v and Achilles Tatius of Laucippe's novel. Instead, he refers to
these works as follows:

[
] v or

( ),

(u ). However, the word

(author) has been mentioned
several times, e.g.:

(..).
The author has not introduced a character like ordinary girls (..).
Discussing ri s nv, Pss ntins t n Isrts n
Demosthenes, actually compares it to their works:
(..)

.
(..) 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).
ntrry t wt ws srv in Pss ssys, Prs trtis is u
of examples, from which, as specifies Donnet, t itr Prs txt, t st
some 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.
r t xs r quttins in Prs txt is unuty
practical. As it was said before, they help the understanding of the analyzed
phenomena, e.g.:

,
,

,
,

.
I v u I [ w] uv, I v y

I v u u I w [ w] v,
I w y I v . (Donnet, op. cit., p. 207);

,
,

,
,

55

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

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 101 -

Brigita Kukjalko
thirsting for a wine, [goes with] a genitive, as also in Demosthenes56:
thirsting for a hemlock-u 57, I v I
I w [ w] uv, "y u
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.
ntrry t t nyz Pss n Prs txts, usttis wr is
full 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.
Wn ssssin t rrrin n qutin in usttis wr, n
in Kizr s inxs rv iy usu, r rcisely, 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
xtnsiv usttis txt, wr s rrr t r qut ntr utrs
or 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 t. . usttis s rrs t is wn wrs. It s intrstin tt
when criticizing his predecessors in commenting on Homeric poetry,
Eustathios refers to them as (some),
(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
yzntin Pri: t nu tw Pss ssys, wi r referable to
the field of literary critiis, t nu Prs trtis, wi isusss
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 usttis ntris n Hr s Iliad the
work which inter alia focuses also on different linguistic questions.

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
, a hemlock-juice, poison by which criminals were put to death at Athens. See
Henry 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.
56

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 102 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

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 written
in 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.,
and
in
Psellos and Eustathios).
If the analysis of the use of designations of philological concepts shows
a relativy ivrsii itur, tn t wys n w t utr s rsn is
revealed 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
nint Gr ii txts wr t utr s rsn is t quit
sporadically, in the Middle Byzantine philological texts it is visible throughout.
In the analyzed texts, common features certainly do not characterize the
us iurtiv ns xrssin. Wi in Pss txt n n s n
obvious figurativeness of the language, in the text of Eustathios it is only
sporadic, but in the text of Pardos, there are not even any traces of it. Unlike the
Ancient Greek philological texts61, t iurtivnss srv in Pss
essays rather hinders than helps the understanding of the analyzed content.
Prs txt, wr t us iurtiv ns xrssin ws nt
observed, actually resembles the text by Ancient Greek rhetorician
Hermogenes (2nd C.). In his

, 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
sr n turs. Prs n usttis txts r t rist s t t
use of quotations. Mst rrns, in tir turn, r srv in usttis
Cf. Aleksejeva [Kukjalko], Lnu nint Gr Pii xts , pp. 42-43.
Cf. ibid., pp. 46-48.
61 Cf. ibid., pp. 51-53.
62 Cf. ibid., p. 52.

59

60

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 103 -

Brigita Kukjalko
text, least in Prs . In t, none of the authors has been diligent concerning
the 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 the
authors 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
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, of
course, 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 appreciated
in 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
64

Cf. ibid., p. 58.

Cf. ibid., pp. 37-43.

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 104 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

Bibliography
Primary sources
Daniel Donnet,

Corinthe. tu tritin nusrit, itin, trutin t ntir,
Bruxelles Rome: Academia Belgica 1967.
Andrew R. Dyck, Michael Psellus: The essays on Euripides and George of
Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 1986.
Eduard Kurtz, Michaeli Pselli Scripta minora, Vu , Min: it
editrice 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 works
riit sv [Ku], Oriins t Lnu Hunitis
in Ancient Greek Phili xts , Hellenic Dimension, Materials of the Riga
3rd International Conference of Hellenic Studies, edd. B. Aleksejeva [Kukjalko], O.
Ls, I. Rni, Ri: Univrsity Ltvi
, . -48.
riit sv [Ku], Lnu ncient Greek
Pii xts , Synopsis of the Doctoral Thesis, R
, . -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 Brownin, Lnu yzntin Litrtur , The past in
Medieval and Modern Greek Culture, ed. S. Vryonis, Malibu 1978, pp. 103-133.
Herbert Hunger,

, . - ,
:

1987-1994.
Alexander P. Kazhdan, Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and
Twelfth Centuries, Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press Paris:
itins Misn s ins l'Homme 1984.
Helena M. Keizer, Indices in Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis
Commentarios ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, Leiden: Brill 1995.
Carl Krumbacher,

, . - ,
:
. .
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.
Rrt H. Rins, Gr Linuistis in t yzntin Pri , History
of 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.

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 105 -

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 Sixth
Century B.C. to the End of Middle Ages, Volume 1, Cambridge: At the University
Press 1903, pp. 376-428.
Ir vn, Lvs ty in yzntin Litrtur , 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 Wrn, yzntin Litrtur n t ssi Pst , 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.
H I. Iu, y u .
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 LiddellScottJones 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
nu tw Pss ssys, wi r referable to the field of literary
ritiis, t nu Prs trtis, wi isusss questions related to
the syntax, morphology and well-formedness of a sentence, as well as the
language of usttis ntris n Hr s Iliad the work which inter
alia focuses also on different linguistic questions.
The typical features of the language of the aforementioned texts are
revealed by examining the following levels: (1) the use of designations of
ii nts,
t wys n w t utr s rsn is rv in
the text, (3) the use of figurative means of expression, as well as (4) the referring
and quoting.
The author of the study believes that the characteristic of the language
of chosen texts highlights an important part of the middle phase of the
development of the language used in the humanities today. The description of
the typical features characterizing the examined levels of the chosen texts
Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 106 -

The Language of Philological Texts in the Middle Byzantine Period

shows that their authors were paying quite little attention to their mode of
expression concerning its scientificity. It is also quite obvious that the language
of the chosen Middle Byzantine philological texts does not differ much from
that of Ancient Greek, though, some certain differences do exist.

Keywords
Learned language, philological texts, Middle Byzantine Period.

Brigita Kukjalko
University of Latvia
brigita.kukjalko@gmail.com

Mediterranean Chronicle 3 (2013)

- 107 -