Dialect in Aristophanes. The Politics of Language in Ancient Greek Literature

360 Pages·1999·17.13 MB·English

by  Stephen Colvin

Es OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS
~¢4:~:~'.ww\vwr~,\\.u\.\. Publishedunderthes~uper'm'si0nofa Committeeofthe
5 _ Faculty ofLiteraeHumavz-ioresin the University ofOxford
1
\
in
is
ii
1
\
23:;
"&LF
=~'_¢.;~.'w;mwM~»2»a
The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces the
Offord Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish books
based on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancieht history,
and ancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of Literae
Humaniores.
1%
$-
5'%.;
25'.:;
|
Dialect in Aristophanes
E
and the Politics of Language
in Ancient Greek Literature
§
RE
iriis?
._§
STEPHEN COLVIN
Ill
.:~
2‘ I
ll
5
il
E
\
1
1
F
l
3
E
E
CLARENDON PRESS - OXFORD
I999
ii:
ill
T_T..._.M
$
OXFORD
UNIVERSITYPRESS
Great Clarendon Street, OxfordOX26DP
Oxford UniversityPress isadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford
and furthersthe University’saimofexcellence inresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay BuenosAires Calcutta
CapeTown Chennai Dares Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul
Karachi Kuala Luinpur Madras Melbourne Mexico City Murnbai
Nairobi Paris S50Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto VVarsaW
andassociatedcompaniesin Berlin Ibadan
Oxford isaregisteredtrademarkofOxford UniversityPress
PublishedintheUnited States
byOxford UniversityPress lnc., NewYork
© Stephen Colvin 1999
Themoral rightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxford UniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished 1999
All rightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted, inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermission inwritingofOxford UniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw, orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganizations. Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshould besenttotheRightsDepartment,
Oxford UniversityPress, attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditionsonanyacquirer
British Library CataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongress CataloginginPublicationData
ialect inAristophanes: andthepoliticsoflanguageinancient
Greek literature/Stephen Colvin.
(Oxfordclassicalmonographs)
Includesbibliographicalreferences
1.A1-istophanes—-Language. 2. Greekdrama(Comedy)—Historyand
criticism. 3. Greeklanguage—Political aspects--Greece.
4. Languageandculture—Greece. 5. Greeklanguage“-Dialects.
6. Rhetoric,Ancient. 7. Drama--—-Technique. I. Title. II. Series.
PA3888.C65 I999 882'.o1-—dc2I 98-137763
ISBNo-19-815249--3
1 3 5 79 IO8642
TypesetbyJoshuaAssociates Ltd.,Oxford
Printedin GreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
Bookcraft(Bath) Ltd., NlidsomerNorton
2-ii:
"t
i
E
E
i
2
.3 Preface
ii?
.2
F-
zi.I..Ri<lllf,EiI::=‘
VARIATION and innovation in language are generally seen as
decline, and dialects (social or regional) as imperfect approxima-
tions to a norm, instead of parallel varieties with linguistic
iZ1i? histories which arejust as complex and structured as the prestige
i1 dialect. In other words, the language of dialect speakers is often
assimilated to that of ‘foreigners’ (i.e. people who make mistakies
i
i as a result of having a different mother tongue), and an idiom
which is socially unacceptable is mistakenly categorized as lin-
guistically incorrect. This attitude towards language is bound up
iiil with an array ofpolitical and historical circumstances; there is no
reason-to suppose it is a sociolinguistic universal.
When characters in the novels of Tobias Smollett and Walter
Scott describe the Scottish dialect of English as ‘Doric’, they are
using the term in a sense which was alien to the ancient Greeks.
4i
.1. Nevertheless, it is not coincidental that in both cases it is Scots
l. English that is being assimilated to Doric and not, say, West
Country English; there is an interesting assimilation of Scottish
and Doric mores in the popular imagination. This book attempts
toexplore (and contrast) the relationship between real and literary
dialect, and attitudes toward linguistic variation in ancient
llz Greece. It contains a discussion of the use of dialect in literature
(including English literature); an analysis ofthe use ofdialect and
barbaric language in Greek literature; and a comparative grammar
of the epichoric dialects as reproduced in Aristophanes and the
fragments of Old Comedy. The comparative grammar is for
reference: readers who prefer not to plough through every para-
graph may consult the summaries at the end of each section and
refer to individual headings as necessary.
I have many debts to friends, colleagues, and teachers; in
ii‘lli particularto Anna Morpurgo Davies, who supervised the doctoral
izi thesis at Oxford on which the present work is based, and was
i
'I<ii.1
vi Preface
characteristically generous with her time and expertise; and to
Peter C. l\/IcG. Brown, who read and commented on the entire
book in draft formwith patience and acumen. I am also grateful to
John Penney for supervising the Work at an early stage (and later
re-reading it), andtoAlbio Cassio and Katrina Haywardformany
insights, both in personal comments and in published material.
Alan Sommerstein and Ieffrey Henderson replied promptly and
courteously to queries and gave valuable comments on the history
of the text of Aristophanes. Colleagues at University College
London who had particular chunks of material thrust on them
for comment include Maria Broggiato, Patrick Considine,
Stephen Instone, and Naoko Yamagata; Walter Cockle provided
me With bibliographical material. I have benefited much from
their kind help. Finally Leofranc Holford-Strevens at the OUP
not only helped in making the layout of the manuscript reader-
friendly, but also made numerous scholarly corrections and
suggestions for which I am most grateful. Needless to say," I
take sole responsibility for errors and peculiarities which remain.
The workwas funded by a British Academy studentship and by
a research scholarship at St ]ohn’s College, Oxford; I completed
work on the book while a British Academy Research Fellow at
University College London, and then as amember ofthe Depart-
ment of Classics at Yale University. It is a pleasure to record
thanks to all of these institutions.
S.C.
i
st
Z
li
i
i
2E
-z
Contents
$.%1v<ks\\w%>.~.2w<'¢s/.:~~z
ii
3i.i%;’
2%
5:
ii
1:
:1?
TE
l.i& Editions andAbbreviations IX
E 1. Investigating Language Attitude
3
1.0. Introduction y I \
1.1. Code-Switching and Linguistic
Accommodation 8
1.2. The Use of Literary Texts in Sociolinguistic
1 Research 12
1.3. Old Comedy and the Artistic Manipulation of
Dialect 26
e 2. The Language of Foreigners in Greek Literature
5 2.0. Conventions for Representing Foreign Speech 39
2.1. Epic Poetry: Homer 4.1
E 2.2. Other Non-Dramatic Poetry 50
l 2.3. Historical Prose and Drama 5'7
1i 2.4. Remarks 8'7
i
1 3. The Text of Aristophanes
3.0. Overview 90
3.1. The Alphabet Used by Aristophanes 92
22
_ii. 3.2. Hellenistic Scholarship 103
iAi!
3.3. Editors of the Byzantine Renaissance 112
.ii1si;
cE 3.4. Conclusions and Observations 113
if 3.5. Appendix: The Manuscripts ofAcharnians
and Lysistrata 116
3.;
=-Ii‘.3v>i5- 4. Non-Attic Dialect in Aristophanes
5..i1..%i,,
.. 4.0. Introduction 119
ii
1? 4.1. Phonology 132
=1;
4.2. Morphology x84
ii? 4.3. Syntax and Usage 223
23%
.5.
viii Contents
4.4. Lexicon and Idiom 231
4.5. The Songs at the End of Lysistrata 260
5. Old Comedy: Shorter Passages and Fragments
5.0. General 264
5.1. Greek Dialect 265
5.2. Non-Standard Attic 281
5.3. Strange and Barbarian Language 287
5.4. Summary 295
6. Dialect in Old Comedy: Recapitulation
6.0. Patterning of Dialect Features 296
6.1. Accuracy and Consistency 297
6.2. Contrast with Other Marked Language 299
6.3. Function of Dialect in Old Comedy 302
6.4. Language Attitude and Political Organization 306
Appendix: Sources for Laconian, Megarian, and Boeotian
Dialect 309
Short Glossary ofLinguistic Terms 313
References 316
General Index 335
Index ofGreek Words 341
.2
i
i
i
&~m<'.=em~z.=2£~z'\-'1
'1E Editions and Abbreviations
.4
1%
‘E
3
I::.11i2E;
-1
Ii
EDITIONS
<<<.11==5:
Unless otherwise stated, references to the extant plays of Aris-
QP-eEm: tophanes are based on the following editions:
Lysistrata ]. ]. Henderson, Aristophanes: Lysistrata (Oxford,
I51?;
1987)
Acharnians A. H. Sommerstein, Aristophanes: Acharnians
4<':: (Warminster, 1980).
References to other plays (and to the apparatus ofAcharnians) are
E based on:
Aristophane, ed. V. Coulon, transl. H. van Daele, 5 vols. (Paris
?
1923-30)
1
The following editions (comic plays and fragments) are cited by
editor:
tnas-n"~:.%'-r-‘:1
Blaydes, F. H. M., Aristophanis Comoediae, 12 vols. (Halle, 1880-
1 93)-
ii
-1?
i<iiii2 Cantarella, R., Aristofane: le commedie (Milan, 1949-64).
4ii: Dindorf, W., Aristophanis fabulae snperstites et perditarnm frag-
‘1§<gi.tE2.isi..1114 mentas (Leipzig, 1869).
Dover, K., Aristophanes: Clouds (Oxford, 1968).
iAristophanes: Frogs (Oxford, 1993).
E
ii Dunbar, N., Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford, 1995).
i Edmonds, ]. M., The Fragments ofAttic Comedy (Leiden, 1957-~
1;" 61).
i,IE. Elliott, R. T., The Acharnians ofAristophanes (Oxford, 1914).
‘E
-‘1r5i1Ee5t:1 Elmsley, P., Aristophanis comoedia Acharnenses (Leipzig, 1830).
3 Enger, R., Aristophanis comoediae cum scholiis (Bonn, 1844).
'1155. Hunter, R. L., Eubulus: thefragments (Cambridge, 1983).
Leeuwen, ]. van, Aristophanis Comoediae (Leiden, 1896--1909).
in
1z
Q"§;./Taiv <.‘-=AE“l"'.
1-t
ii