Aspects of Variations in Byzantine Greek Documents of the Patriarchal Chancellery of Constantinople (14Th C.)

Home , Algirdas, Andreas, Byzantine literature, Byzantine studies, Dmitry, Greeklish

Open Linguistics 2017; 3: 342–358

Research Article Christian Gastgeber* Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents of the patriarchal chancellery of Constantinople (14th c.)

https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0017 Received December 28, 2016; accepted July 2, 2017

Abstract: A unique collection of about 900 Greek documents, issued by the chancellery of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 14th c., provides insight into the linguistic level at one place in the capital of the Byzantine Empire. So far research focussed nearly exclusively on their historical or juristic interpretation, the big data for historical sociolinguistics – a general desideratum for Byzantine literature (Hinterberger 2015) – were not taken into account, only some text pragmatic aspects and the use of spoken Greek elements in letters sent abroad were addressed in studies and did unfortunately not entail further investigation. This article focusses on a sociolinguistic point of view and outlines two aspects of variations: a) in order to meet the addressee’s linguistic level and b) to “exclude” the addressee from the learned community (see also Hickey 2012). Three case studies exemplify the emphasis that is put on the intentional use of linguistic variations even in a chancellery with more or less rigid forms.

Keywords: medieval Greek, Byzantium, historical sociolinguistics, language of chancellery, code switching, language variation, Greek manuscripts

1 Introduction

Two Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine era comprise a collection of about 900 Greek documents of the chancellery of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, covering the time from 1315 until 1402. They represent the only known original register of a Byzantine chancellery; its texts were registered simultaneously with synod sessions, generally as copies, but some signed texts seem to be transmitted exclusively in the register. In these cases the registered text is the only existing version as no separate document was issued by the chancellery; to this group belong the confessions of faith and the promises of moral improvement (Mitsiou and Preiser-Kapeller 2010; Gastgeber 2016). The documents owe their preservation to chance since the two manuscripts were part of the bulk of Greek manuscripts the Austrian ambassador at the sultan’s court, Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, purchased in Constantinople during his diplomatic journeys in the 16th c. in order to “rescue” the Greek cultural heritage for the West and increase the Greek stock of the Emperor’s court library in Vienna (Kresten and Sturm-Schnabl 1983; Kresten 1991; Gastgeber 2008). The register itself was of paramount importance as their terms “hierós códex” or “hierón codíkion” (“holy codex”) underline. The attribute “holy” connects the document collection to the sphere of the holy bible (“hagía grafé”) and reflects the importance and high value of this continuously kept register, which

Article note: this paper belongs to the Topical Issue on Historical Sociolinguistic Philology, ed. by Chiara Barbati and Christian Gastgeber

*Corresponding author: Christian Gastgeber, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Vienna, A-1020, Austria, E-mail: [email protected]

Open Access. © 2017 Christian Gastgeber, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 343 served as an inventory of the most important decisions of the permanent synod (sýnodos endemúsa) at the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Although one might expect a collection of all written results of each session that were of any importance, in fact, the register contains only a small selection, and its choice is by no means clear and “logical”; as usual for Byzantium, there was no precise convention according to which documents were inserted into the register books. That the two manuscripts comprise only an (intentional) selection becomes clear if one calculates the assumed number of synod sessions each week for about 95 years (Darrouzès 1971: 299–303). Daily business demanded many more sessions and decisions. Furthermore the religious conflicts in this very turbulent century (the conflict between monkish and scholastic Christianity stemming from the impact of spiritualism under Gregory Palamas; increasing anti-Latinism) undoubtedly resulted in more documents than registered, the same applies to privileges for monasteries, e. g. at Mount Athos, where the original documents are preserved in the archives, but not transmitted in the register. As far as we know from the process of keeping the register, one of the major officials of the patriarchal chancellery alone was responsible for the selection of the inserted documents, the so-called (megas) chartophylax (the [great] “guardian of the written documents”). It was his decision what was to be regarded worth registering, or not, into the holy codex as “ever lasting” witnesses, as some documents emphasize with a stereotpical phrase. This decisive process hints already to a kind of audience relevance. It is a selection of what is considered important for a target audience, the synod members who could inspect the register during the sessions if necessary and for future chartophylakes in whose office the register was kept and who had to overview its content – an audience / readership that was intended to be manipulated by registering (and thus emphasizing) decisions about persons in positive or negative respects or by omitting the registration of such a decision. The focus of this article, however, is not set on the decisive process which has to be separately analysed for each document, but on the language variation or register, respectively, with regard to the target audience, once more a task the (megas) chartophylax is involved in because he and his officials were responsible for the drafts and final versions on behalf of the patriarch (alone or together with the synod). Some types of documents adhere to a formulaic wording that was more or less uniformly respected – with minor modifications as usual for Byzantium, the typical so called variatio minima, ‘smallest variation’ (Hunger 1981: 17–24). This “bureaucratic” language register was mainly used in schematized orders / decisions of the patriarch / synod that generally keep a distance from the addressee and attach more importance to all technical and juridical aspects and intense repetitions than to rhetorical composition. Other categories of documents allowed stylistic (and rhetorical) extravagancies and ornamentation, except for the “technical” standardized parts. To this group belong e. g. the prefaces to documents of solemn character and the most important source of this study, the letters of the patriarch (a thematic analysis of such prefaces is presented by Mazal [1974]; a critical approach to the study of rhetoric in chancellery products by means of text pragmatic and sociolinguistic methods in Gastgeber [2013]). This article aims to demonstrate that the chancellery could (and did) intentionally use different language registers1 and vary in its choice. This variation is not confined to all shades of Greek between a high (very

1 I admit that term „register“ was a suggestion, or demand, of an evaluator who did not want to accept, from linguistic point of view, the term „level“ (which term, however, is common in Byzantine studies for the deliberate language variety of an author [Sevčenko 1981]); the evaluator also resisted the term „vernacular“ for a text written in Greek demotike (albeit its usage in Greek linguistics [Horrocks 2010, 214–220, 325–369]). Due to this critical remark this paper paraphrases “vernacular” by “low register with spoken language elements”. Modern Greek language employs the terms katharevusa (high register) and dimotiki (low register with elements of spoken language), both for literary products socially differentiated; nevertheless, they don’t designate a canonized language register, but only the two opponent pols of language usage between a large scale of variety (Wahlgren 2010a, 2010b). But these terms are not customary for the Byzantine period. Therefore this paper adheres to the term “register” although it does not imply, for Byzantine Greek, a clearly differentiated language level. Again, the contrast becomes evident in the two opposite poles alone, but not in the fine nuances in-between. We are also confronted with the problem that the real spoken Greek of the Byzantine period is unknown; “low register” literature, documents and inscriptions reflect spoken language anyway, but are by no means the spoken Greek. Such documents of the patriarchal chancellery that are to attribute to the low(est) register with elements of spoken language evince that a general register definition is illusory. An alternative way of managing the problem of nomenclature might be to use the terms “standard” and “dialect” (and thus to met the term diaglossic, as outlined in Auer 2005, 2011); the latter term, however, is reserved in Greek for the classical local dialects as Attic, Ionic, Doric etc. It would produce more confusion to employ these terms in a level / register differentiation. 344 C. Gastgeber rhetorical; Wahlgreen 2010) and low language register (still used in literature), but nonetheless includes spoken language (vernacular) elements as well. Although centred on historical and juristic aspects of the patriarchal register, research has almost completely neglected its linguistic analysis. Only one preparatory study by Hinterberger (2005) focusses on a group of documents, letters exchanged between Constantinople and Russia, and their spoken Greek elements (the study of Hunger [1985] is mainly centred on rhetorical devices). The linguistic aspects require further investigation as this collection provides a unique case (for Byzantium) which enables us to overview the use of language over nearly an entire century in an office of the capital with a very dense literary documentation. Linguistic variation studies furthermore profit from the fact that the texts of the patriarchal register are dated (and located, incoming letters too) and differ from other literary products of that time by using high and low linguistic registers at the same place2. After a brief overview of particular features of Greek contemporary to the patriarchal register and differences between spoken and written Greek the article outlines the nuances in the documents and orthographic problems a Greek was confronted with because, in contrast to the majority of the Constantinopolitan clergy, the (orthographically well-trained) officials of the chancellery did not make phonetic mistakes (for the sociolinguistic aspect of orthography see Rutkoswka and Rössler 2012, Hebda 2012, Auer & Voeste 2012). Three case studies at the end will exemplify the intentional use of a low register Greek with spoken language elements as a kind of lingua franca for addressees outside the (political) Byzantine Empire, but only in the category of letters, whereas standardized patriarchal / synodic orders and decisions adhere to the formulaic schemes and the linguistic register of koine Greek, i. e. the general literary Greek of that time holding a middle position between the high register of atticizing Greek and the low register of contemporary “spoken” Greek as reflected in literary. In letters low register literary Greek could (but need not, see table 1) be used in the chancellery to support the understanding of the content, but, additionally, functioned as marker of a supposed lack of education. With that, the article aims at presenting an important source for sociolinguistic studies and intends to foster a discussion on the interpretation of documents in Byzantium from the perspective of linguistic variation and the use of language registers. As regards the methodological approach to these documents, the analysis relies on philological-linguistic examination of their stylistic “levels” or registers, respectively, combined with sociolinguistic / text pragmatic aspects of addressor and addressee (speaker-design, diglossia). The parameter of this linguistic study is the “range” between high-register (artificial) rhetoric and low-register adaption of spoken language.

2 Categories of entered documents and their use of language

The patriarchal register comprises different categories of documents: a) synod session summaries (synodic act), b) letters to potentates abroad, to clergymen outside and inside the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to parishes, a few incoming letters, c) synodic decisions (enthronization of metropolitans, parish enlargement or exchange of metropolitans etc.), d) official orders and instructions, and e) occasional varia like confessions of faith, promises, lists etc. As regards the language register, the chancellery uses on the one hand the common literary Greek, Byzantine koine, in subtle nuances, and generally avoids elements of spoken (vernacular) Greek3;

2 Other rare examples of this phenomenon are: a letter, written by Arethas, archbishop of Caesarea, to the Emir of Damascus (?) by order of Emperor Romanus II (about 926/7?; edition: Westerink 1968: 233–245 [Nr. 26]) which, expressis verbis, lowers the stylistic level in order to be understood (Oikonomides 1999: 13–14), and a letter of the ruler of Epirus, Michael II Comnenus Ducas, to the governor of Ragusa, Giovanni Tiepolo, from October 1237(Stefec 2014: 335–338). 3 In this regard, the main chancelleries are bastions of Greek purism (see for the loanwords Langer & Nesse 2012) and, albeit the acceptance of some generally common elements of spoken language even in literary products, the chancellery does not “deviate” from the standard of Byzantine literature; quite the contrary, the chancelleries rather tend to rhetorically garnish solemn or very important documents. From the chancellery of the Patriarch of Constantinople we know some names of responsible rhetoricians (from the offices of its chancellery) who had to polish up texts, i. e. draft a linguistically very exceptional document. These persons are noted in the margin of the register, next to the very documents. Needless to say that the capital disposed of a great number of educated persons who could serve as drafters, whether directly working in or for the chancellery, or being engaged for a specific text. Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 345

Table 1: Correspondence with “Russia” and “Poland”, outside the Byzantine Empire, but within the area of influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as documented in the patriarchal register (analysis based on the list of documents in Hinterber- ger [2005: 132–134])*1

Time Addressor Addressee Document Language Attitude towards Regest Type “Register” addressee Number

1339 patriarch m. Theognostus letter literary positive Darrouzès, reg. of Russia 2192 PRK II 122 1347 Emperor Metropolis of privilege literary, but no proem (omitted?), positive Dölger, reg. John Kiev (chrysobull) bureaucratic sober style 2925 (inserted in Darrouzès, reg. 2291,) PRK II 170 1347 Emperor Simeon Ivanovič letter literary, but tends partially to positive Dölger, reg. John Grand Prince of low register (incl. ἔνι /eni/ 2928 Moscow instead of ἐστί /esti/) PRK II 168 1347 Emperor Demetrius letter literary, but significant low- neutral? Dölger, reg. John Liubartas Prince register tendency (incl. ἔνι 2929 of Vladimir instead of ἐστί) PRK II 169 1347 patriarch m. of Kiev synodic act high register, with rhetorical positive Darrouzès, reg. and synod (Theognostus, of proem, clause rhythm 2291 Greek origin) (in [linguistically competitive?] PRK II 170 contrast to the inserted chrysobull of the emperor, Dölger, reg. 2925, see above) 1347 patriarch m. Theodore of letter literary, bureaucratically brief negative Darrouzès, reg. Galitza 2292 PRK II 171 1354 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev synodic act literary, with proem positive Darrouzès, reg. and synod 2363 PRK III 193 1354 patriarch b. Moses of letter literary, but significant low- negative Darrouzès, reg. Novgorod register tendency 2364 PRK III 194 1354 patriarch b. Moses of letter literary, but significant low- negative Darrouzès, reg. Novgorod register tendency, 2366 spoken language elements (ἂς PRK III 195 /as/ + conjunctive instead of imperative, ἔνι instead of ἐστί)) 1354 patriarch m. Alexey of synodic act literary, bureaucratic positive Darrouzès, reg. and synod Kiev and his (incl. ἔνι instead of ἐστί) 2367 metropolis PRK III 196 1361 patriarch m. Roman of letter literary, bureaucratic negative Darrouzès, reg. Lithuania 2435 PRK III 262 1370 patriarch Dmitry Donskoy letter low register, simple clause positive Darrouzès, reg. Grand Prince of structure, spoken language 2578 Moscow elements (imperatives besides MM I 264 one periphrasis with νὰ /na/ + conjunctive)

* Regest numbers refer to Darrouzès 1977, 1979 and Dölger 1960; MM I, II = Miklosich and Müller 1968 (1860) and (1862);PRK II, III = Hunger et al. (1995), Koder et al. (2001). Low level style is highlighted in grey. m. = metropolitan, b. = bishop. 346 C. Gastgeber

Time Addressor Addressee Document Language Attitude towards Regest Type “Register” addressee Number

1370 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev letter low register, simple clause positive Darrouzès, reg. structure, spoken language 2579 elements (periphrasis of MM I 265 imperative by πρέπει νὰ /prepei na/ + conjunctive; νὰ instead of ἵνα, ἔνι instead of ἐστί) 1370 patriarch (other than letter literary, higher register than reg. positive Darrouzès, reg. in reg. 1581) 2578 and 2579, written at the 2580 princes of Russia same time MM I 266 (ἂν + μέλλει /an mellei/ + infinitive instead of future tense) 1370 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev, ratification of literary positive (Alexey) Darrouzès, reg. princes of Russia an anathema negative (princes) 2581 of the m. MM I 268 Alexey against the princes of Russia 1370 patriarch Sviatoslav letter literary negative Darrouzès, reg. Ivanovič Great (ratifying the 2582 Prince of anathema MM I 269 Smolensk against Sviatoslav) 1370 patriarch b. of Novgorod letter literary, tendency versus low negative Darrouzès, reg. register 2583 MM I 267 1370 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev decree literary positive (Alexey) Darrouzès, reg. and clergy of 2584 Lithuania MM I 270 1370 Casimir patriarch letter low register; spoken language positive (but MM I 318 King of elements (preposition + threating) and Insert in Poland case, alternative verb ending, Darrouzès, reg. conjunction + mode, possessive 2625 pronoun) (see below) 1370/ Algirdas patriarch letter low register, spoken language positive (reply to MM I 320 1371 Great element (preposition + case, anathema) and Insert in Prince of conjunction ὅτι νὰ /hoti na/, Darrouzès, reg. Lithuania pronoun, vocabulary, verb) 2625 (see below) 1371 patriarch m. Antonius of synodic act literary, bureaucratic positive Darrouzès, reg. and synod Galitza 2622 MM I 319 1371 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev letter low register, close to vernacular, negative Darrouzès, reg. but in “purified” koine Greek (e. 2625 g. πρέπει ἵνα /prepei hina/) MM I 321 1371 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev letter low register negative Darrouzès, reg. 2626 MM I 322 1371 patriarch Michael Prince letter low register negative Darrouzès, reg. of Tver (incl. ἔνι), final clause 2635 conjunction ἵνα besides MM I 328 vernacular νὰ, spoken language elements: personal and possessive pronoun (only 2nd ps. pl., not sg.) Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 347

Time Addressor Addressee Document Language Attitude towards Regest Type “Register” addressee Number

1371 patriarch m. Alexey of Kiev letter low register (incl. ἔνι), final negative Darrouzès, reg. clause conjunction ἵνα besides 2636 vernacular νὰ, spoken language MM I 139 elements: demonstrative pronoun, vocabulary: δραγουμάνος /dragumanos/, but in contrast to reg. 2635 literary personal pronoun (2nd ps. pl.) 1381 patriarch administrators letter literary negative Darrouzès, reg. and inhabitants 2729 of Kiev MM II 347 1389 patriarch m. Cyprian of Kiev synodic act literary positive Darrouzès, reg. and synod and his parish 2847 MM II 404 1393 patriarch b., administrators letter literary negative Darrouzès, reg. and Christians in 2929 Kiev MM II 446 1393 patriarch archb. letter literary neutral (rather Darrouzès, reg. Euphrosynus of positive) 2930 Suzdal MM II 449 1393 patriarch Vasily Grand letter literary negative Darrouzès, reg. Prince of Moscow (incl. ἔνι) 2931 MM II 447 1393 patriarch b., administrators letter low register, negative Darrouzès, reg. and Christians in (ratification frequent elements of spoken 2934 Kiev of anathema language (pronoun, mainly 2. MM II 444 against the ps. pl. besides literary pronoun, addressees) νὰ instead of ἵνα, vocabulary, alternative verb forms, ἔνι) 1393 patriarch m. Cyprian of Kiev letter semi-literary, more tending Darrouzès, reg. towards low register in the 2935 simply clause structure, MM II 445 spoken language vocabulary (καράβιον /karabion/ “boat”) 1397 patriarch Władysław II letter low register, simple clause positive Darrouzès, reg. Jagiełło King of structure, numerous spoken 3039 Poland language elements (νὰ instead MM II 515 of ἵνα, vocabulary, ἂς /as/ + conjunctive for imperative, ἄμποτε νὰ /ampote na/ instead of classical εἴθε /eithe/, ἔνι, alternative verb form) 1397 patriarch m. Cyprian of Kiev letter literary, with tendency to low positive Darrouzès, reg. register in clause structure 3040 MM II 516 1400 patriarch m. Cyprian of Kiev letter literary, with tendency positive Darrouzès, reg. to low register, uses the 3112 spoken language final clause MM II 556 conjunction νὰ besides literary ἵνα 348 C. Gastgeber nonetheless low register (spoken) Greek was used during the sessions, as we can conclude at least from hearings of charged persons who were interrogated by the synod, and the synod had to tolerate listening to even very obscene low-register phrases of the charged person4. However, it is one thing to use low register Greek in synod hearings, and another to quote passages of a charged person in direct speech and present him speaking a striking low-register Greek, framed by a koine Greek text. Such variation modules provide additional information of the intentional use of language in view of the target audience: the charged person should be stigmatized by his inappropriate language usage in the Holy Synod. On the other hand, there are a few examples in the corpus where the whole document was written in low- register Greek, very close to spoken language and far from literary Greek than could be expected. Although such documents amount to no more than about 2%, this linguistic variation is witnessed. Furthermore, the register contains among the majority of koine (low register literary) Greek documents also literary products of high(est) register that use all rhetorical-dialectic devices of a perfectly trained rhetorician. With regard to the more or less formulaic rigidity of a chancellery and its schematized forms, the different registers evoke a sociolinguistic explanation and open a window to historical sociolinguistics that allows us to recognize the intentional use of language registers according to content and audience (and not to the skill of the involved official because the palaeographic evidence certifies their sound education). The very broadly documented chancellery production of the 14th c. reveals thus a parallel use of different linguistic “levels” at the same time and not, what one might expect if e. g. only the low register texts were transmitted: a decline of education of the chancellery notaries or a linguistic development towards “a low register language with spoken Greek elements”. To anticipate the results of the following part, the chancellery does use language registers, corresponding to a kind of speaker / writer design and his audience, and concedes (but, by no means, automatically uses, see table 1) intra-Greek code switching, so-called diglossia (Ferguson 1959; Browning 1982; Gumperz 1982, 1992a, 1992b; Auer 1988; Niehoff-Panagiotidis 1994; Erickson 2004; Wei 2007 [2000]; Gafaranga 2008; Toufexis 2008; Horrocks 2014; Karvounis 2016: 45–110). This particular design or contextualization is apparent too in “linguistic contests” where addressor and addressee are writing and replying in rhetorical-dialectical high register Greek in order to surpass the other one – contests that took place between learned authorities; such contests were carried out with the weapons of a partially very artificial rhetoric, of a huge amount of direct and indirect quotations, of a highly metaphoric language, of long periods with entangled clauses and of exquisite, urban vocabulary (as exemplified by Gastgeber [2017] in the controversy between the Greek clergy in the empires of Epirus and Constantinople / Nicaea in the first half of the 13th c.) –sticking to revived classical atticism or even asianism ideals of high rhetoric which were particularly trained in schools (Browning 1995 [1989, 1969]: 44–50, 104–113; Horrocks 2010 [1997]: 133–141, 155, 213–214, 231–242, 264–268; Wahlgreen 2010: 529–530; Lee 2013; Valente 2015). Glimpses of such scholarly use are preserved in the register as well, primarily in the very solemn synodic acts (if the addressee expected such a language register or that he was honoured that way) or documents where a longer narrative passage aims at “manipulating” the audience, i. e.to convince the audience of the rightness of the synod decision, in best Aristotelian dialectic tradition. The documents oscillate between the following linguistic registers5:

4 An impressive example dates from 24th August 1383 that was recorded by the megas chartophylax with verbatim quotes is the following case: the imperial clergyman and protopapas of the Blachernon palace in Constantinople, Konstantinos Kabasilas, was charged on 5 counts; charge 4 quotes him anointing a child and addressing its mother: “come with your pussy so that I can anoint it and don’t bend” (in low register vulgar Greek). charge 5 records him insulting an older protopapas during instructions, instead of “blessed are you, Lord” he said “fuck your brother-in-law and your sister-in-law” (again in low register vulgar Greek) (Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 52, 54, 56 [no. 361 I], 59 [no. 361 IV]; Darrouzès (1979: reg. 2756). 5 The four categories here match the three of Sevčenko (1981): 291 (see also Rollo [2008], Wahlgren [2010a]: 528; [2010b] 201) insofar our items 3 and 4 are encompassed by Sevčenko’s item 3. He also points to the possible finer differentiation of high style, as assessed by a modern Byzantinist and a Byzantine author, and proposes to establish a new category of „super-high style“ (Sevčenko [1981]: 302). In the same paper Sevčenko (307–309) considers the audience of high register products of the chancellery and their failing understanding at the target audience. – It is to underline that our categories result from the study of documents, including official letters. In these cases the low register needs a refined differentiation. A first approach of interpreting a Byzantine document (of the emperor’s chancellery) is provided by Horrocks (2010): 270–271. Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 349 a) high rhetorical literary register: literary koine6 with classical Attic element, complex periods, broad vocabulary, literary allusions, rhythmic clause ending, use of classical verb forms (tenses, mood), more or less sticking to Atticism b) “general” literary register: literary koine with very reduced rhetorical embellishment and classical Attic elements; partly overlapping with c c) low (literary, “colloquial”) register – “practice-oriented” administrative register: literary koine, smaller “manageable” periods, simple clause construction, limited vocabulary and within this nucleus periphrastic expressions with such a basic vocabulary instead of special terms, simplified grammar, increasing use of prepositions instead of suffixed case indicators, sporadic use of spoken language alternative forms, clearness is more important than “embellishment” – in particular the clause structure and the vocabulary are primary parameters for a methodological approach to the levels; partly overlapping with b d) low(er) register with evident spoken language influence; however still a literary adapted “spoken language”: combined literary and spoken koine; spoken language elements as generally described by Bádenas de la Pena (1985) and Horrocks (2000 [1997]: 214-219, 275-369), morphological changes of spoken language for verbs, nouns and conjunctions, simplified syntax of spoken language (generally not used in classical literature), reflection of spoken language pronunciation (visualized by new accentuation), mistaken mixture of (differently) spelled and spoken vowels and consonants, e.g. itacism, (Browning 1995 [1989, 1969]: 25-26, 56-57; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 118, 161-163, 168, 274)7.

3 Pronunciation differences: spelled versus spoken Greek

Since antiquity phonetic development and mergers resulted in an increasing difference between spelled and spoken vowels as well as consonants (Brixhe 1993, 1996, 1998, 2010; Browning 1995 [1989, 1969]: 53–87; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 191–324; Wahlgreen 2010: 530–531), among that, a well-known phonetic phenomenon was the above mentioned itacism. The term refers to the pronunciation of some vowels or diphthongs as /i/8 (η [“eta”, former long /e:/], ι [“iota”, remains the former /i/-vowel], υ [“ypsilon”, former /y/] and ει [“epsilon and iota”; classical short e /e/ and /i/], ηι [“eta and iota”], οι [“omikron and iota”; former short /o/ and /i/ ], υι [“ypsilon and iota”]); additionally, the diphthong αι (“alpha and iota”) approached the pronunciation of the vowel /e/ and became so homophonic to ε (“epsilon”, classical short /e/; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 119). Further changes concern the diphthongs αυ /au/, ευ /eu/, and ηυ /e:u/ where the former vowel /u/ tended towards /v/ or /f/ (Browning 1995 [1989, 1969]: 25; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 169). The classical differentiation between the long and short vowel /o/ (omega vs. omikron: ω vs. ο) got lost the lacking awareness of whom writing beginners’ texts very clearly exemplify (Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 118, 129, 163, 169). Among the consonants, the main differences are as follows: The consonant /b/ tends towards the fricative /β/ (Browning 1995 [1989, 1969]: 26–27), the consonant /d/ towards the voiced fricative /ð/. Before the vowels /e/ and /i/ the consonant γ /g/ tends towards the fricative /ɣ/ and the consonant κ /k/ towards the palatal /c/ (Macharadze 1980; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 172). This brief overview emphasizes that a spelled and spoken syllable / word meanwhile could enormously differ; in other words, if someone was not trained in orthography, he automatically must have failed in reproducing spoken words – a phenomenon that is comparable to modern English or French. E. g. the definite feminine article singular, classical: /hē/ (ἡ), and the definite masculine article plural, classical / hoi/ (οἱ), were both pronounced as /i/ (for the aspiration was no longer spoken in medieval Greek; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 171). The specific meaning results from the context, but there are many cases where a priori

6 according to its time, since koine is no static language register. 7 Sevčenko 1981: 308 pointed to the interesting fact that „when the survival was at stake“ „secret letters“ of an emperor (in the very case Emperor Andronicus II to his nephew of the same name, October 1327) could follow other rules, i.d. they were written in „sub-literary style“ or our low (c) and lower (d) register, respectively. 8 The stages of this development still remain a task of research; in the 14th c., the period of the patriarchal register, the phonetic chance was long completed. 350 C. Gastgeber a misunderstanding results from an ambiguous utterance, e. g. the personal pronouns plural of the first and second person in all cases: former /hēmeis/ (ἡμεῖς; 1st person nom. pl. „we“) and former /hymeis/ (ὑμεῖς; 2nd person nom. pl. „you“); due to the phonetic development, both words were pronounced as / imis/. It is therefore not surprising that this phonetic merger requested a clearer differentiation and caused the creation of new forms of personal pronouns (Mackridge 2010: 581–582). Countless other examples illustrate that contemporary Byzantine pronunciation did not (no longer) mirror the spelled form (in contrast, for example, to medieval Latin, with few exceptions). From this, it appears how important the orthography training was in school and for professional scribes – a key factor in analysing the transmission of manuscripts as well as documents and the experience of their scribes. Although these differences as given in scribal mistakes could open a large field of research on orthography (standard graphs) and phonetic development in Byzantium, it was and is up-to-now not the focus of Byzantine linguistic research. Admittedly, the source material is not that exhaustive as the papyri (Gignac 1976, 1980; Horrocks 2000 [1997]: 160–188; Bentein 2015a, 2015b), but it exists and is still disregarded. Linguistic studies are primarily centred on literary products and their linguistics levels without taking into consideration the uncertainty factor of the transmitting media, the scribes who on the one hand amend texts on the fly according to their usual linguistic / spelling practice, on the other hand, failing by homophony, make mistakes and adulterate the graph/s of a letter (which may also differ from region to region). In this regard autograph signatures in documents of which the register contains a quantity are apparent indicators of the education level. They mirror, within the clergy, on the one hand the good writing experience (as well as education) and, on the other hand, the writing beginners’ level (more drawing the letters than writing and reproducing the spoken word). This aspect is emphasized here because new sociolinguistic research is focussing on elements of scribal evidence as well (Augst 2012 [1986]; Jaffe et al. 2012; Androutsopoulos 2012: 359–392 [about „Greeklish“ = Georgakopoulou and Silks 2009: 221–249]; Siekmann and Thomé 2012) Despite this problem, it is remarkable how rarely the official notaries / scribes of the chancellery failed in orthography, either when the text was copied from a draft version or the document was written down by dictate. Correct orthography indicates the good training and writing experience of such officials. Even in texts which contain spoken Greek elements orthography is always respected – in contrast to some of the few autographs that were personally registered by persons who did not belong to the patriarchal chancellery. Therefore orthographically correct texts of incoming letters, known only from quotes in outgoing replies, generally have to be suspected of automatic emendation in the chancellery, at least of orthography, not of spoken language alternative forms as this language level was pragmatically accepted. Among the autograph confirmations of external people in the register books a unique case is a dossier of 11 documents of 1357 when all priests (and some deacons) of the ten districts of Constantinople had to promise that they would obey the patriarch’s fourth and last moral call to order. In sum, 523 clergymen of the capital left a significant panorama of their education level and problems with orthography as well as differentiation between spoken and spelled words (it is noteworthy that these autograph certifications do not include the monks of the numerous monasteries in Constantinople, but only the priests active in the churches)9. Some examples of list 4 (Koder et al. 2001: 320–328) will illustrate the variety of written forms, all reproducing the same spoken words: The signature should correctly be spelled as follows: ὁ εὐτελὴς ἱερεὺς … στέργων ὑπέγραψα ‘I, the humble priest … have confirmed [the above written instructions] and signed ho eûtelès hiereùs … stérgon hypégrapsa: verbal transliteration10 o eftelis ierefs … stergon ipegrapsa: phonetic transliteration (according to the synchronic pronunciation)

9 On the base of these documents, the author is preparing a monograph of the education level (mirrored in writing experience) of these clergymen. 10 “^” over a vowel symbolizes the spiritus lenis, i. e. the marker over a vowel at the beginning of a word without aspiration (ἰ /i/, ὐ /y/), aspiration is transcribed with “h” (ἱ /hi/, ὁ /ho/); o / o (ω, omega / ο, omikron) and e / e (η, eta / ε, epsilon) symbolize the long or short vowel, e / e the long or short vowel, o~ / e~ etc. the circumflex accent over long o / e, o~ / e~ the (mistaken) circumflex accent over short o / e. Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 351

From the list of the signing clerics (verbal transcription, including diacritics):

(l. 15) o eûtelès îereùs … stérgon ŷpégra[psa] (l. 16) ô` eutelès hiereùs … sté[rgon] hypégrapsa (l. 17–18) ho eute~le~s hiêreùs … stérgon hypégrapsa (l. 19–20) ho eûteleĩs îêreùs … stérgon hypégrapsa (l. 21–22) ho eûtele~s … iereũs … stérgon ŷpégrapsa … (l. 49) ho eutêle~s iairès … stérgo~n ypégraps (sic) … (l. 51) o eutèles iereus … eipégrapsa (omitting stérgon) (l. 52) ho eûtele~s ieres … hypégrapsa (omitting stérgon) … (l. 66-67) o eûtelés ierêús … stérgon ypégrapsa (l. 68) ho eûtelés î´éres … strégon (sic) hypégrapsa … (l. 82) ho eutèle~s heereus … stérgon ypégrpsa (sic) … (l. 93) ho eûtelis eereùs yp(égrapsa) (omitting stérgon).

Another unique document that impressively reflects the situation of spoken vs. spelled Greek is the confession of faith of the Italian convert Filippo Lomelino registered as an autograph into the codex on July 1, 1370 (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2585; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1860]: 506-507 [no. 251]; Mitsiou and Preiser- Kapeller 2010: 254). In this case, it is remarkable that although Lomelino’s script displays writing practice by his fluid ductus, he was obviously not experienced in correct Greek orthography and continuously makes mistakes11. The linguistic analysis of this autograph shows that Lomelino learned writing in syllabic units and not in word units. If a learned syllable becomes part of a word, it is written in the same way (therefore the itacism variants in such syllables don’t entail a broad range of rendering an /i/ phoneme in written form, but generally only one possibility is chosen according to a particular syllable).

4 Language registers as categorization of the addressee

The intentional use of high(er) or low(er) language registers provide evidence that Byzantines authors attached a particular value to their (Greek) register choice: A melodious, well-composed, rhetorical text for an addressee is a privilege (from higher social position) or praise (from lower social position) as well – let alone the literary competition in the scholarly community (equal social position). Therefore, the text composition is soci(et)ally co-conditioned and intentionally applied (Ševčenko 1981); in other words: the high register composition must be earned. E. g. a product of high rhetorical quality evokes a response at the same level, vice versa a low register product with elements of spoken language cannot expect a rhetorical response in elaborate Greek. A Greek scholar is automatically associated with a high register addressee, a non-Greek, “barbarian” with its low register counterpart. This phenomenon is recognizable not only in usual rhetorical literary products of scholars, e. g. dedicated to potentates or co-equally educated persons (from lower to higher social position, bottom-up system, or from equal to equal social position, intra- societal system), but also in products of the two main chancelleries (of the emperor and the patriarch) where an addressee is intended to be honoured by an exclusive rhetorical high register (sometimes even ordered!). From this results that the language usage in documents reflects the esteem of the addressee as well (there are, indeed, other reasons too that cause the use of rhetorical style, but generally against the background of public performance and audience manipulation).

11 The errors are: mixture of homophonic vowels (e.g. the itacistic vowels); preposition prefix accentuated as separate word part; idiosyncratic (dialectal?) reduplication (double l); missing differentiation between long and short vowels (/ô/, /o/). 352 C. Gastgeber

Since we have concluded that linguistic registers were used as “societal markers” within one’s own community, the more this applies to contacts with non-Greeks addressees, on the one hand by giving a hint that the addressee is not reaching a level of Greek that he will be honoured by distinguished linguistic use; on the other hand by making use of the principle of conditioned text pragmatics, the so called Byzantine oikonomia: this means that an author may switch to a lower register for practical reasons, if he aims at being understood and meeting the addressee’s linguistic (“barbarian”; as verbatim expressed in a handbook of the 14th c. [Darrouzès 1969: 56 no. 43]) level12. For the Greek audience, e. g. in the synod to whose members a letter that had to be sent abroad was read aloud, such a style clearly hinted to the barbarian, cultural low scale of the addressee (and was thus a marker of esteem). Evidence for this assumption is the register itself: We find the low register documents with spoken language elements nearly exclusively in letters sent abroad or to non-Greek addressees, “barbarians” (see table 1 of documents concerning “Russian affairs” and Hinterberger 2005)13. In view of a societally determined use of language, the correspondence in the register exposes a further aspect already alluded to: When under more or less rivalling socio-political circumstances an addressor, who starts a written discourse or replies, makes use of exquisite rhetoric and sophisticated dialectics combined with high language register, the addressee is challenged to maintain at least that level or, better, to outdo it. So rhetoric entered a kind of competition, such texts challenged a proper counterpart. The patriarchs’ correspondence is strikingly reflecting this aspect in dogmatic letters between them and the Popes. Unfortunately, the register is very silent as regards the contacts between Rome and Constantinople in the 14th c.; only one letter to Pope Urban VI from September 1384 was registered (Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 86–87; Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2773), and this letter represents quite the opposite: the patriarch provokes the Pope because his legates were not welcomed due to a missing credential; the language register is low as regards the clause structure and the vocabulary, however, spoken Greek forms are not used. In comparison with the intentional use of language registers it is unlikely that this “happened” at random, but that level was obviously chosen to signalize — at least for the Greek audience (synod, other readers in Byzantium) — the esteem of the addressee abroad as well. This choice of language register seems to have been a kind of opposition to the emperor’s union policy which the patriarch does not support. It is, however, to emphasize that for Byzantine texts the term “spoken (vernacular) language14” influence encompasses a wide range of linguistic variation, – from the point of view of Byzantine scholars – “deviations” from literary (contemporary) koine or the more exclusive classical Attic (highest register); at this very term research is up to now lacking an exact register categorization to which nuances variation

12 A significant example outside the patriarchal register is a letter of the metropolitan Arethas of Caesarea to the emir of Da- mascus about 926/7?; the low register language of the letter is explained in marginal note of the Byzantine editor of Arethas‘ letter collection: „it was written in a particular linguistic idiom in order to be understood by the Saracens“; for this letter see Oikonomides (1999): 12–13. 13 Another group of spoken Greek elements in the patriarchal register are inserts of “external” persons, like the mentioned signatures and autograph confessions of faith or promises; within the last group the promise of Constantine Apocaucus from January 1381 is very interesting (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2710; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 21): Although another person – obviously an official of the chancellery – wrote his promise (in completely correct orthography) the text (of ten lines) contains four spoken language variants that are unusual in literary text; in contrast, another promise, immediately preceding (from December 1380), is written by the same scribe without any spoken language variants and again in correct orthography. Both promises have autograph signatures of the confirming clerics who – from palaeographic point of view – do not seem to be perfectly trained in writing; however, they did not make any orthographic mistake in writing their signatures (both except for one wrong accent). If the first text exactly records the preceding spoken one, the vernacular elements repeat the words of the promise as they were spoken by Apocaucus; a reverse process (first written, then spoken) confronts with a great problem of interpretation as both promises contain a phrase of future sanction expressed in a spoken Greek construction (conjunction “that”, ἵνα /hina/ with conjunctive, not depending on a superordinate verb θέλω / “I want” as usually [Browning 1995 (1989, 1969): 79–81, Horrocks 2000 (1997): 299–302, 350–351]), the first document uses literary ἵνα, the second spoken (vernacular) νὰ /na/ (three times). It is unbelievable that the scribe switched from literary to vernacular Greek in the same usual sanction phrase within one month. 14 Including the influence on a simplified text structure according to spoken language (e. g. paratactic phrases, combined with „and“, repetitions, limited vocabulary, clause structure not thoroughly following the classical instructions, structure aids by markers as prepositions instead of case immanent meaning (e. g. dative; s. Humbert 1930, Trapp 1965) as well as morphological changes that are used in spoken language (developed from the “classical” form or loaned from other languages). Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 353 could infiltrate the “literary” language and was more or less accepted or created even a new stylistic register (the pioneer work of Horrocks 2010 [1997] provides a basis with his diachronic overview of changes and developments across the periods; a differentiation between vernacular literature influenced by spoken language and really spoken language is outlined by Hinterberger [2006]). The spectrum includes following elements (as documented in the register): generally reflecting the use of spoken language • low register vocabulary of colloquial style (but adapted more or less to regular grammar; Böhlig 1956), partially accepted for literary products (among this vocabulary a particular group are loanwords from other languages that could intrude even into literature, either as a distancing expression of the author by adding “so called” or “as n. says”, or the word was already integrated into literature and no longer accompanied by an explanation of its use in the context – against a general tendency of purifying literary Greek from external linguistic elements) • influence of spoken language in written text structure: periphrastic tendencies: e. g. prepositions replacing the multiple meaning of case endings, so a. o. the different meaning of the dative was replaced by a preposition and its respective case in order to clearly express the particular meaning (Humbert 1930; Trapp 1965; Joseph 1990: 179–212; Markopoulos 2009; Horrocks 2010 [1997]: 183-185, 284-285; Brixhe 2010: 239–240; Holton and Manolessou 2010: 546–548; Wahlgren 2014); alternative verb forms and periphrastic expressions, on the one hand paraphrasing a verb by an auxiliary phrase (noun and verb like “do”, “make”, “have”) and an on the other hand replacing classical future, perfect, pluperfect, imperative (Moser 1988; Aerts 1965; Hinterberger 2007; Horrocks 2010: 130–132, 176–178, 228–229, 298–302, 350–351; Holton and Manolessou 2010: 550–554); reduced “understandable” length of periods, replacing long subordinate clauses and further dependent clauses by more or less clear paratactic composition, herein following spoken language sentences chained by conjunction [“and”] …) grammatical and morphological changes • grammatical influence of spoken language: e. g. free “spoken” grammatical use of the cases [Horrocks 2010 [1995]: 183–185, 284–285), prepositions with new dependent cases, different use of verbal mood, new conjunctions of subordinate clauses … • vocabulary of spoken language: e.g. new [short] version of pronouns [Browning 1995 (1989, 1969): 62–63); Horrocks 2010 (1997): 292–296], alternative form of spoken language vocabulary … • influence of spoken language pronunciation in written representation of letters (iotacism, “mirrored accentuation” …). Even the documents that tend to spoken Greek with its grammatical and morphological changes are by no means spoken Greek, they only contain such elements on different levels.

The following case studies exemplify the intentional shift of language for addressees abroad (4.1 and 4.2) and as counterpart (4.3) for the citizens of Constantinople

4.1 Case study 1: A letter of the Patriarch Philotheus Coccinus to the Metropolitan of Kiev and whole Russia Alexey (August 1371)

The document (Darrouzès 1977: reg. 2625; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1860]: 582–585 [no. 321]) consists of three linguistic layers: the framing letter of the patriarch and two inserted letters of the Emperor Casimir of Poland and the Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania. These three parts represent different linguistic levels: the framing nucleus, the letter of the patriarch, is written in a simple, but grammatically correct Greek (low literary register). Its low register significantly aims at meeting the very level of incoming letters from the far North East (the synod members themselves could become aware of the language level in this area as one registered synod judgment was exceptionally signed by the participating metropolitans themselves in the register; the metropolitan of Kiev and Great Russia signed only in Slavonic letters; Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2706; 354 C. Gastgeber

Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 7 [no. 332]). It is evident that the patriarch does not use any rhetorical ornament and structures the sentences as simply as possible (imitating spoken language). Furthermore, the vocabulary is limited, and the patriarch endeavours to explain his requests in a very unpretentious style. The document displays a very clear composition that one can easily follow like a spoken dialogue. However, this text avoids typical spoken Greek forms (even though tending to colloquial Greek, i. e. including words and phrases of spoken language, but the letter uses them in purified form that may also be accepted in a literary text; Karyolemou 2010). The two inserted letters of the Emperor Casimir of Poland and the Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania represent just the opposite: they, too, use a very low register Greek, but do not shy away from real spoken language alternative forms literary texts generally avoid. In this respect, documents of “Russian affairs” are a particular repertory for this sociolinguistic approach (see table 1). The official who drafted the reply of the patriarch and registered the document did not amend or slightly correct the spoken language forms, which can be controlled by the incoming letters, exceptionally registered as well (as refers to orthography, we, admittedly, cannot be sure if the registered texts displays correct spelling, above all the /i/ phoneme, of the original or were corrected during registration). The conscious choice of the language register in the response to the incoming correspondence entails the above highlighted sociolinguistic perspective of the document production in the chancellery: The chancellery lowers its language register down to a very simple, but under no circumstances really spoken Greek (in contrast to the incoming letters). As already emphasized above, the language level might be adapted, but need not to be. A further parameter seems to be the attitude towards the addressee (i. e. positive or negative, Hinterberger 2005: 132) and the consequence for the language concession. The patriarch and the synod may also stick to their bureaucratic (literary) Greek and not respect the level of the addressee (see table 1).

4.2 Case study 2: One instruction and three letters of the Patriarch Antonius IV (May 1395) concerning the organization of the metropolis of Moldavia

These examples, too, undoubtedly witness the synchronic language variation in the chancellery, thereby the lower language register for non-Greek addressees abroad; the linguistic differences result too from the type of document (koine Greek in the instruction vs. low register Greek with elements of spoken language [vernacular] for the letters). The letters belong to the few examples that witness the use of spoken Greek elements in an official letter of the patriarchate, side-lining the usual purifying tendency of chancellery products. The decision of the synod, i. e. the installation of a patriarchal exarch for the administration of the metropolis of Moldavia, was sent to four different addressees: (1) instruction to the patriarchal exarch, the former protopapas Petrus (schematized form) (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2993; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 241–243 [no. 488 I]), (2) letter to the Great Voivode of Rosoblachia Stephan Muşat (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2994; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 243–244 [no. 488 II]), (3) letter to the bishops Joseph and Meletius in Rosoblachia (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2995; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 244 [no. 488 III]) and (4) letter to all clergymen, monks, and the entire Christian community in Rosoblachia (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 2996; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 245 [no. 488 IV]). The linguistic differences are striking, for, on the one hand, the instruction is written in standard (koine) literary Greek as usual for instructions of the synod, including clauses of long periods; its Greek does not “deviate” to spoken language forms. As an exarch of the patriarch he is naturally expected to understand koine Greek even if his parish is only belonging to the “ecclesiastical empire of the Greek church of Constantinople” and no longer to the “secular Byzantine Empire”. On the other hand, the three letters, apparently drafted by the same official, adopt spoken Greek forms that are exceptional among the outgoing documents of the register and, within this group, confined to non-Greek addressees (abroad). The spoken Greek elements are mainly (possessive, personal) pronouns and verbs; partially, alternative case use of spoken Greek appear (e. g. supplement for the loss of the dative) in contrast to the purist classical tradition; their paratactic style and clauses concatenated by the conjunction “and” (instead of subordinate clauses) are reflecting spoken language as well. However, the three letters are orthographically correct. Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 355

With regard to sociolinguistic interpretation, it is evident that the two different language registers of the same content and that such linguistic differences did not occasionally “happen” due to the skill of an official, but were intentionally used. Again, we realize that when the patriarch and the synod were in contact with addressees abroad and got evidence (e. g. from incoming letters) of their linguistic level, they tried to meet their linguistic level and enable a better understanding of the content by this linguistic concession (a concession that might also be suppressed, see table 1). Indirectly, it reflects also a language usage that complies with “barbarians” and their “substandard”, low register written Greek. But this free use is limited, as far as the register reveals, to the generally “loose” composition of letters, at least in the chancellery. Such a level is not adopted for typically standardized documents of the chancellery.

4.3 Case study 3: Addressing the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople during the siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans (Mars/April 1401 [Reg. 3189])

This open letter (Darrouzès 1979: reg. 3189; Miklosich and Müller 1968 [1862]: 463–467 [no. 626]) provides an illustrative insight into the way the chancellery of the patriarch judges the level of its Constantinopolitan citizens. Addressing his entire flock in the capital, the patriarch defends himself against accusations of a private agreement between him and Sultan Baized I. The importance of this text is highlighted by the fact that a higher official, the protekdikos Eugenicus, was responsible for drafting the text. His name is mentioned in the margin of the register and indicates the responsible redactor / drafter. The document is composed in rhetoricized solemn high register Greek, the author is aware, too, of manipulative and effective means like clause rhythm; as usual in high register Greek, the sentences tend to long periods with subordinates clauses, although it seems doubtful if the addressed “entire Christian community” could follow this Greek in detail (but at least the core content was surely understood, the rhetorical ornament contributed to a good “sound”), the chancellery did not concede a low register Greek in order to reach the whole addressed audience; on the contrary, a rhetorically trained official was engaged to embellish the text.

5 Conclusion

The Vienna collection of about 900 documents provides a unique source for linguistic variation studies at the same place, i. e. in the patriarchal chancellery of Constantinople that could use a variety of language registers in non-standardized documents, the letters. From this results that a low language register (spoken Greek tendency) of a text does not permit the drawing of conclusions about a “worse trained” official, but, as the examples outline, rather indicates a “sociolinguistic” response meeting the level of an addressee. Therefore, these texts sensitize us to the fact that the linguistic level of literary products should be analysed in view of the target audience. John Austin’s perlocution counts more than style (Austin 1975 [1962]: 101–131; see also for the text pragmatic implication Jucker & Taavitsainen 2012). In these cases, “barbarians” were stigmatized when the low register Greek letters were read to the synod before sending. From the few examples of the register it is evident that much research would be misleading if e. g. only the low register letters with spoken Greek elements were preserved in this collection and these low register documents were assessed as language “decline” in the chancellery of that period (to which fallacy could contribute contemporary political and theological conflicts). Furthermore, the documents contradict a common connotation of chancellery style, particularly for Byzantium: linguistic rigidity and immobility, no linguistic variety (Wahlgren 2010: 529, referring to “deviations” from ancient Greek, against a usual verdict of incompetence). That is exactly what the register refutes. 356 C. Gastgeber

References

Aerts, Willem Johan. 1965. Periphrastica. An investigation into the use of εἶναι and ἔχειν as auxiliaries or pseudo-auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the present day. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2012. “Greeklish”: Transliteration practice and discourse in the context of computer-mediated digraphia. In Jaffe and Androutsopoulos 359-392. Auer, Anita & Anja Voeste. 2012. Grammatical Variables. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvetre 253–270. Auer, Peter. 1988. Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction, and Identity. London: Routledge. Auer, Peter. 2005. Europe’s Sociolinguistic Unity, or: A Typology of European Dialect / Standard Constellations. In Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera & Dirk Geeraerts (eds.), Perspectives on Variation (Trends in Linguistics 163), 7–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Auer, Peter. 2011. Dialect vs. standard: a typology of scenarios in Europe. In Bernd Kortmann and Johan van der Auwera (ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe – A Comprehensive Guide (The World of Linguistics 1), 485-500. Berlin: De Gruyter. Augst, Gerhard (ed.). 2012 (1986). New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Austin, John L. 1975 (1962). How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, posthumously published by James O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP. Bádenas de la Peña, Pedro. 1985. Primeros textos altomedievales en griego vulgar. Erytheia 6(2). 163–883. Bakker, Egbert J. (ed.). 2010. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Bentein, Klaas. 2015b. Minor complementation patterns in Post-classical Greek (I – VI AD). A socio-historical analysis of a corpus of documentary papyri. Symbolae Osloenses 89. 104–147. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2015.1 095012 (accessed 23 December 2016). Bentein, Klaas. 2015a. Particle-usage in documentary papyri (I – IV AD). An integrated, sociolinguistically-informed approach. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 55. 721–753. http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/15211/6721 (accessed 19 December 2016). Bentein, Klaas. 2015c. The Greek documentary papyri as a linguistically heterogeneous corpus: The case of the katochoi of the Sarapeion-archive. Classical World 108. 461-84. doi: 10.1353/clw.2015.0052 (accessed 19 December 2016). Böhlig, Gertrud. 1956. Untersuchungen zum rhetorischen Sprachgebrauch der Byzantiner mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schriften des Michael Psellos (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 2). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag Brixhe, Claude (ed.). 1993. La koiné grecque antique I: une langue introuvable? Nancy: presses universitaires. Brixhe, Claude (ed.). 1996. La koiné grecque antique II: la concurrence , Nancy: presses universitaires. Brixhe, Claude (ed.). 1998. La koiné grecque antique III: les contacts , Nancy: presses universitaires. Brixhe, Claude. 2010. Linguistic Diversity in Asia Minor during the Empire: Koine and Non-Greek Languages. In Bakker 228–252. Browning, Robert. 1982. Greek diglossia yesterday and today. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 35. 49–68. Browning, Robert. 1995 (1989, 1969). Medieval and Modern Greek. Reprint. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: CUP. Darrouzès, Jean.1969. Ekthésis néa. Manuel des pittakia du XIVe s. Revue des Études Byzantines 27. 5–127. Darrouzès, Jean. 1971. Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au XIVe siècle. Étude paléographique et diplomatique (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 12). Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines. Darrouzès, Jean. 1977. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. I.: Les actes des patriarches, Fasc. V: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines (quoted by regest number). Darrouzès, Jean. 1979. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. I.: Les actes des patriarches, Fasc. VI: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines (quoted by regest number). Dölger, Franz. 1960. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565-1453. 4. Teil: Regesten von 1282–1341 (Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Reihe A: Regesten, Abteilung 1). München & Berlin (quoted by regest number). Erbse, Hartmut. 1950. Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissen- schaften zu Berlin, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jg. 1949,2). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Erickson, Frederick. 2004. Talk and Social Theory. Ecologies of Speaking and Listening in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ferguson, Charles. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15(2): 325–340. doi:10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702 (accessed 23 December 2016). Fishman, Joshua. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 29–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00573.x (accessed 23 December 2016) (revised published as: Societal bilingualism: stable and transitional. In Joshua Fishman. 1970. Sociolinguistics: a brief introduction, 78–89. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House). Gafaranga, Joseph. 2008. Code-switching as a conversational strategy. In Peter Auer & Li Wei (eds), Handbook of Multilin- gualism and Multilingual Communication (Handbook of Applied Linguistics 5), 279–313. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek Documents... 357

Gastgeber, Christian. 2008. Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Historicum 96(2). 9–19. Gastgeber, Christian. 2013. Rhetorik in der Patriarchatskanzlei von Konstantinopel. Methodisch-innovative Zugänge zu den Dokumenten des Patriarchatsregistes. In Christian Gastgeber, Ekaterini Mitsiou & Johannes Preiser-Kapeller (eds.), The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32), 175–197. Vienna: ÖAW. Gastgeber, Christian. 2016. Confessiones fidei im Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel (14. Jahrhundert). In Marie-Hélène Blanchet & Frédéric Gabriel (eds), L’union à l’épreuve du formulaire. Professions de foi entre églises d’orient et d’occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle) (Collège de France, CNRS Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographie 51), 245–289. Leuven, Paris & Bristol: Peeters. Gastgeber, Christian. Das “Epiros”-Dossier im Codex Vindobonensis theologicus graecus 276. Patriarch Germanos II. und die Union mit der griechischen Kirche von Epiros (1232/3). Edition und sprachlich-textpragmatische Untersuchung. Mit neun Textabbildungen samt drei Appendices zur nizänischen Synodos endemousa. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 66 (2016) 61–110. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Michael Silks (eds.). 2009. Standard languages and language standards: Greek, past and present. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Gignac, Francis Thomas. 1976. A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods . Vol. I: Phonology (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità 55.1). Milan: Cisalpino Gignac, Francis T. 1981. A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods . Vol. II: Morphology (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell‘antichità 55.1). Milan: Cisalpino Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP. Gumperz, John J. 1992a. Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: CUP. Gumperz, John J. 1992b. Contextualization revisited. In Peter Auer & Aldo di Luzio (eds), The Contextualization of Language, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hebda, Anna. 2012. Phonological Variables. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvetre 237–252. Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvetre (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Malden, Oxford & Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Hickey, Raymond. 2012. Internally- and Externally-Motivated Language Chance. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvetre 387–407. Hinterberger, Martin. 2005. Les relations diplomatiques entre Constantinople et la Russie au XIVe siècle. Les lettres patriarcales, les envoyés et la langage diplomatique. In Michel Balard, Élisabeth Malamut & Jean-Michael Spieser (eds.), Byzance et le monde extérieur. Contacts, relations, échanges, 123–134. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Hinterberger, Martin. 2006. How should we define vernacular literature? Paper given at the conference “ Unlocking the Potential of Texts: Interdisciplinary Perspectives onMedieval Greek ” at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Cambridge, 18–19 July 2006. http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ hinterberger.pdf (accessed 20 December 2016). Hinterberger, Martin. 2007. Die Sprache der byzantinischen Literatur. Der Gebrauch der synthetischen Plusquamper- fektformen. In Martin Hinterberger & Elisabeth Schiffer (eds.), Byzantinische Sprachkunst Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag, 107–142. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Hinterberger, Martin (ed.). 2014. The language of Byzantine Learned Literatur (Byzantios. Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 9). Turnhout: Brepols. Holton, David & Io Manolesson. 2010. Medieval and Early Modern Greek. In Bakker 539–563. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010 (1997). Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2014. High Register Medieval Greek: ‘Diglossia’ and What Lay behind it. In Caterina Carpinato & Olga Tribulato (eds.), Storia e Storie della Lingua Greca, 49–72. Venice: Università Ca´ Foscari, online: http://edizionicafoscari. unive.it/media/pdf/book/978-88-97735-87-8/978-88-97735-87-8.pdf (accessed 28 August 2017). Humbert, Jean. 1930. La disparition du datif en grec du 1er au Xe siècle. Paris: Champion. Hunger, Herbert. 1981. Stil und Sprache des Patriarchatsregisters. In Herbert Hunger (ed.), Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel I (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 383), 11–60. Vienna: ÖAW. Hunger, Herbert, Otto Kresten, Ewald Kislinger & Carolina Cupane. 1995. Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. 2. Teil: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1357–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19/2). Vienna: ÖAW. Jaffe, Alexandra, Jannis Androutsopoulos, Mark Sebba & Sally Johnson (eds.). 2012. Orthograpyh as Social Action. Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Joseph, Brian D. 1990. Morphology and universals in syntactic change: evidence from medieval and modern Greek. New York and London: Garland. Joseph, Brian D. & Panayiotis A. Pappas. 2002. On some recent views concerning the development of the Greek future system. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26. 247–273. 358 C. Gastgeber

Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen. 2012. Pragmatic Variables. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvetre 293–306. Karvounis, Christos. 2016. Diglossie, Sprachideologie, Wertekonflikte. Zur Geschichte der neugriechischen Standardsprache (1780 bis 1930) (Griechenland in Europa. Kultur – Geschichte –Literatur 3). Cologne, Vienna & Weimar: Böhlau. Karyolemou, Marilena. 2010. What can sociolinguistics tell us about learned literary language. In Hinterberger 2010: 34–51. Koder, Johannes, Martin Hinterberger & Otto Kresten. 2001. Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel. 3. Teil: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19/3). Vienna: ÖNB. Kresten, Otto & Katja Sturm-Schnabl. 1983. Aktenstücke und Briefe zur Entstehung der Ausgabe der »Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCCII«. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Erforschung des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstan- tinopel. Römische Historische Mitteilungen 25. 339–402. Kresten, Otto. 1991. Fünf nachgezeichnete Metropolitenunterschriften aus der ersten Amtsperiode des Patriarchen Philotheos Kokkinos im Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel. In Walter Lukan (ed.), Franz Miklosich (Miklošic). Neue Studien und Materialien anläßlich seines 100. Todestages (Österreichische Osthefte, Sonderheft 33), 167–199. Vienna: Typogra- phische Anstalt. Langer, Nils & Agnete Nesse. 2012. Linguistic Purism. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvetre 607–625. Lee, John J. K. 2013. The Atticist Grammatians. In Stanley E. Porter & Andrews W. Pitts (eds.), The Language of the New Testament. Context, History, and Development, 283–302. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Macharadse, Neli A. 1980. Zur Lautung der griechischen Sprache der byzantinischen Zeit. Zeugnisse der altgeorgischen Sprache. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29. 144–158. Mackridge, Peter. 2010. Modern Greek. In Bakker 564–587. Markopoulos, Theodore. 2009. The Future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval. Oxford: OUP. Mazal, Otto. 1974. Die Prooimien der byzantinischen Patriarchenurkunden. Vienna: ÖAW. Miklosich, Franz, Joseph Müller. 1968 (1860). Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, MCCCXV–MCDII. Tomus prior. Reprint. Aalen: Scientia. Miklosich, Franz & Joseph Müller. 1968 (1862). Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, MCCCXV–MCDII. Tomus posterior. Reprint. Aalen: Scientia. Mitsiou, Ekaterini & Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2010. Übertritte zur byzantinisch-orthodoxen Kirche in den Urkunden des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel. In Christian Gastgeber & Otto Kresten (eds.), Sylloge Diplomatico- Palaeographica I. Studien zur byzantinischen Diplomatik und zur Urkundenpaläographie (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 19), 233–288. Vienna: ÖAW. Moser, Amalia: 1988. The history of the perfect periphrases in Greek. Camdridge: University of Cambridge PhD thesis. Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Johannes. 1994. Koine und Diglossie (Mediterranean Language and Culture Monographs 10). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Oikonomides, Nicolas 1999: L’“Unilinguisme” officiel de Constantinople byzantine (VIe–XIIe siècle). Symmeikta 13. 9–22. Rollo, Antonio 2008. “Greco medievale” e “greco bizantino”, ION. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione linguistica 30. 429-473. online: http://www.fryktories.gr/sites/fryktories.gr/files/filere- sources/rollo_greco_medievale.pdf (accessed 28 August 2017). Rutkowska, Hanna & Paul Rössler. 2012. Orthographic Variables. In Hernández-Campoy & Conde-Silvetre 213–236. Ševčenko, Ihor. 1981. Levels of style in Byzantine prose. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31(1). 289–312. Siekmann, Katja & Günther Thomé. 2012. Der orthographische Fehler. Grundzüge der orthographischen Fehlerforschung und aktuellen Entwicklung. Oldenburg: isb. Stefec, Rudolf. 2014. Beiträge zur Urkundentätigkeit epirotischer Herrscher in den Jahren 1205–1318. Nea Rhome 11. 249–370. Trapp, Erich. 1965. Der Dativ und der Ersatz seiner Funktion in der byzantinischen Vulgärdichtung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 14. 21-34. Toufexis, Notis. 2008. Diglossia and register variation in Medieval Greek. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32. 203–217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1179/174962508X322687 (accessed 23 December 2016). Valente, Stefano. 2015. The Antiatticist. Introduction and Critical Edition (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 16). Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. Wahlgren, Staffan. 2010. Byzantine Literature and the Classical Past. In Bakker 527–538. Wahlgren, Staffan. 2010. The Byzantine Literary Language and Classical Antiquity. In Chrys C. Caragounis (ed.), Greek. A Language in Evolution. Essays in Honour of Antonios N. Jannaris. Hildesheim, Zurich & New York, 199–208. Wahlgren, Staffan. 2014. Case, Style and Competence in Byzantine Greek. In Hinterberger 170-175. Wei, Li. 2007 (2000). The Bilingualism Reader. 2nd edn. London / New York: Routledge. Westerink, Leendert G. 1968. Arethae archiepiscopi Caesariensis scripta minora 1. Leipzig: Teubner.