What Can We Learn About Greek Grammar from a Mosaic?

WHAT CAN WE LEARN ABOUT GREEK GRAMMAR FROM A MOSAIC?

Stanley E. Porter

1. Introduction

Grammarians have already learned much from inscriptions and papyri regarding a number of features of ancient Greek, including phonology, mor- phology, and syntax, among others.1 A neglected area of exploration for grammatical purposes, however, may be mosaics. Despite knowledge gleaned of such important linguistic features as syllabi cation (e.g. the Roman Mosaic of the second or third century ad found in Gerasa, Jordan, with names written syllabically [Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 178]), there are, I believe, even more telling insights to be gained. I wish to argue here that a unique Greek mosaic found at Antioch-on-the-Orontes can help to shed light on the persistent problem of how to understand the Greek tense-forms and their meanings.2

2. The Ancient Greeks on Time and Tense-Forms

Aristotle was apparently the rst ancient Greek writer to recognize that verbs had something to do with indicating time (Int. 16b: τὸ προσσηµαῖνον

1 See K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (rev. E. Schwyzer; 3rd ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1900); L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions (2 vols. to date; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980–); E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (3 vols., with vol. 1 rev. H. Schmoll; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1906–1970); F.T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (2 vols. to date; Milan: Cisalpino, 1976–); B.G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1973); among other works. 2 See S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Lang, 1989), 17–65, for a treatment of this issue in terms of the history of Greek grammatical discussion. Cf. I. Sluiter, “The Greek Tradition,” in W. van Bekkum, J. Houben, I. Sluiter and K. Versteegh, The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions: Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 82; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997), 147–224. 30 stanley e. porter

χρόνον),3 but this thought was left undeveloped in his de nition of predica- tion. However, the Greeks had long been interested in linear time, even if they did not understand its exact relation to the grammatical forms of their language. For example, in speaking of Calchas the prophet, Homer makes the temporal distinction between past, present and future (Il. 1.70: ὃς ᾔδη τά τ’ ἐόντα τά τ’ ἐσσόµενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα),4 a distinction also found, for example, in Euripides (Daughters of Troy 468 and Electra Frag. 3.15) and Plato (Resp. 392D). Dionysius Thrax ( rst century bc), in his Greek handbook,5 lists three times/tenses (χρόνοι), usually translated as present (ἐνεστώς), past (παρελη- λυθώς), and future (µέ ων). He divides the “past” into four parts as well: παρατατικόν (imperfect), παρακείµενον (perfect), ὑπερσυντέλικον (pluper- fect), and ἀόριστον (aorist), using terms that are equatable with Greek tense- forms. Apart from his linking all six of these tense-forms according to mor- phology, this is all that he says regarding times/tenses. In scholia on Diony- sius Thrax, however, one has fuller but still incomplete comments. One scholiast recorded in the Vatican codex comments upon the three times/ tenses (χρόνοι), noting that in fact there are only two times/tenses, past (παρεληλυθώς) and future (µέ ων), that which has been done and that which is going to happen respectively, since nothing stands still but is always moving. He attributes this to the view of the philosophers (he clearly has in mind the kind of discussion found in Sextus Empiricus, “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” 3.140–143), but also notes that grammatically the designation of the present is accurate for describing momentary or brief time.6 The famous Stoic scholiast Stephanus, as might be expected, attempts to solve some of the enigmas of grammar mentioned above. He notes that time can be either circular, or bounded or unbounded (ἀόριστος), and bounded time is that of the ἐνεστώς, ἀόριστος, and παρῳχηµένος (the exact meaning of these distinc- tions here is not clear). Another way to describe time, he says, is that time is the understanding of the ow of eternity. Some say that time is indivisible, while philosophers say there are only two times, past (παρῳχηµένον—note

3 L. Minio-Paluello, AristotelisCategoriaeetLiberdeInterpretatione (OCT; Oxford: Claren- don, 1949), 50. 4 A.T. Murray, Homer The Iliad (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942), 8. 5 G. Uhlig and A. Hilgard, eds., Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica, Scholia in Dionysii Aratem Grammaticam (Grammatici Graeci I/I, III; Leipzig: Teubner, 1883, 1901; repr. Hildes- heim: Georg Olms, 1965), I/I.53. 6 Uhlig and Hilgard, eds., Dionysii Thracis, I/III.248.