[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Over the past thirty years, the study of ancient Greek and Latin grammatical doctrines has experienced a resurgence of interest. Edited by Lionel Dumarty, this volume collects essays by some of the most prominent scholars in this field, particularly from the French-speaking academic community. The book explores the ancient grammarians’ perspectives on the relationship and potential conflicts between grammatical rules and the actual linguistic usage of writers and everyday speakers. In his brief but elegant presentation of the volume, Dumarty clarifies the central question the various contributors aim to answer: How did ancient grammarians manage the challenge of modelling something as inherently chaotic as linguistic usage? In other terms, how did grammarians articulate the distance between their normative generalizations and the language spoken by common speakers? This complex topic could not be exhaustively covered in relation to all relevant ancient authors. Consequently, the eight contributions in this volume focus on specific grammarians from different epochs, ranging from the first Alexandrian grammarians in Matthaios’ study to the commentaries on Priscian’s Institutiones in the twelfth century AD. The contributions investigate how the aforementioned tension is reflected in specific aspects of the grammarians’ work.
Six of the eight essays are written in French, Matthaios’ contribution is in German, and Tim Denecker’s essay is in English. Although most essays concentrate on ancient Greek grammar, the final two contributions shift the focus to the perspectives of Latin grammarians from late antiquity and the Middle Ages. Unsurprisingly, Apollonius Dyscolus, generally regarded as the greatest Greek grammarian of antiquity, is the central figure in three essays in the volume. Various books and papers have already dealt with the problem of regularization vis-à-vis actual usage in relation to Apollonius, but the essays contained in the volume undoubtedly enrich our understanding of this issue. In the following sections, I will highlight some of the most compelling ideas and arguments presented in this collection, noting some questions that remain open.
In his painstaking contribution, Stephanos Matthaios returns to the famous problem of Homer’s dual, highly debated in ancient and modern philology. This time, Matthaios focuses on how the first Alexandrian philologists account for the morphological differences between the Homeric forms of some duals and those of Hellenistic language. The protagonist of the study is Aristarchus of Samothrace, who critically engages with the positions of his forerunners, such as Zenodotus or Erathostenes. Matthaios argues that Aristarchus attempts to regularize Homer’s usage of dual verbs, positioning him in contrast to Zenodotus and Eratosthenes, who were more inclined to acknowledge and accept the exceptions found in the texts. At the same time, Matthaios underscores that Aristarchus tries to reconcile the rules he considers universal with the forms documented in text transmission and common usage, being forced to adopt explanations that may appear far-fetched to our eyes. I would note that this is the great challenge every analogist grammarian faces, as documented by the case of the later Apollonius Dyscolus, discussed in other contributions of the collection. Thus, the emergence of ancient grammar among the first Alexandrian philologists was shaped by the dynamic tension between ‘ideal’ and ‘real’ language.
Lionel Dumarty’s insightful chapter thoroughly examines how Apollonius grapples with grammatical exceptions and antinomies within his linguistic framework. Exceptions are counterexamples to general rules, whereas antinomies represent cases where two rules appear inconsistent. In both cases, Apollonius’ idealized grammatical model is challenged by the reality’s apparent disorder. Concerning exceptions, Apollonius endeavours to demonstrate that what seems irregular can often be traced back to regular grammatical patterns. Although this reductive method is well known to modern scholars, Dumarty effectively illustrates its application through detailed analyses of examples from Apollonius’ texts, not limited to the Syntax. As for inconsistent rules, Apollonius frequently resolves conflicts by refining the rule formulations or by establishing a hierarchy among them. Rules with greater semantic weight or more frequent application are prioritized. On rarer occasions, Apollonius allows for the coexistence of two seemingly inconsistent rules, each aligning with different linguistic levels: the theoretical and the actual. Overall, Dumarty presents a convincing and clear depiction of Apollonius’s analogist ideology. It would have been interesting to explore in more detail how the presupposition of two distinct linguistic levels—the ideal and the actual—can be rationally justified within Apollonius’ system. Holding that every linguistic phenomenon can be theoretically accounted for, yet positing two separate linguistic levels might seem like a concession to defeat for an analogist grammarian. Additionally, there are passages, such as Syntax 4.11, where Apollonius appears to limit the applicability of analogy, acknowledging the chaotic nature of language filled with exceptions that cannot always be regularized or legitimized, not even in the ideal language.
In her contribution, Manuela Callipo revisits several topics previously explored by Dumarty, focusing on how Apollonius integrates rhetorical and philological concepts into his grammatical analysis of the Greek language. She underscores the continuity among Aristarchus, Tryphon and Apollonius in their use of the rhetorical notions of tropes and figures for linguistic and literary analysis. Callipo shows how Apollonius employs these concepts to justify irregularities that seem inexplicable within his grammatical model. One may wonder whether those attempts really count as ‘justifications’ or whether they only represent Apollonius’ last resort to save his theory.
Frédéric Lambert’s chapter deals with the concept of συνέμπτωσις, a key term in Apollonius’ treatment of linguistic irregularities, traditionally translated as ‘(formal) coincidence’. Lambert persuasively argues for a translation as ‘accidental similarity’. This concept applies when two or more forms end up being formally coincidental but semantically divergent, as a result of parallel processes of morphological alteration. This indicates that the forms are not truly identical, and, in principle, formal distinctions can be made—such as between the adjective ταχύ and the accidentally similar adverb ταχύ. Thus, sunémptōsis does not coincide with homonymy in general, but highlights that the homonymy in question marks the end of a dynamic process that can be reconstructed. Lambert supports his argument by analyzing numerous passages from Apollonius and other grammarians across different periods. Sunémptōsis is often responsible for generating ambiguities and apparent irregularities. Lambert argues that, for Apollonius, this is not a bug, but an inherent feature of language that grammarians must accept and account for. By contrast, other grammarians view it as a defect that language strives to minimize. The chapter leaves some ambiguity regarding whether Apollonius considers sunémptōsis an element of the ideal language or a feature of the actual, more chaotic one, or whether it serves as a bridging concept between the two. It could appear that later grammarians, who perceive this phenomenon as a defect, align more closely with an analogist ideology than Apollonius himself. After all, if sunémptōsis leads to numerous irregularities, would not language be more orderly and rational without it? This would imply that Apollonius is more attentive to the rights of actual linguistic phenomena compared to other ancient grammarians.
In reading Apollonius’ works, one gets the impression that the great grammarian deliberately overlooked all languages other than Greek and its dialects. Stella Merlin’s contribution stands out as it addresses later Greek grammarians’ rare reflections on linguistic borrowings into Greek from foreign languages—a gap in Apollonius’ system. Especially in the Byzantine period, grammarians observed that foreign words imported into Greek were assimilated into standard inflectional patterns based on analogy. This integration was often not driven by actual usage, but by normative decisions made by grammarians, aiming to maintain the purity of the ideal language by rendering these foreign elements as ‘regular’ Greek forms. Merlin subtly suggests that these borrowings were seen as potential threats to linguistic purity. I would suggest that a similar perspective likely contributed to the reluctance of Apollonius and other grammarians to acknowledge and address such phenomena.
Jean Schneider deals with ancient orthography, another domain where the ideal language is continually challenged and compromised by actual usage, especially over extended periods. Ancient orthographic treatises typically make a theoretical distinction between common spelling practices and the prescriptive grammatical rules that dictate the correct spelling. However, Schneider effectively demonstrates that ancient grammarians often failed to apply this distinction in their practice, instead adhering solely to prescriptive rules as the standard of correctness. These grammarians strove to preserve traditional orthography, a task increasingly jeopardized by changes in actual pronunciation, particularly of vowels. Consequently, they were compelled to devise new methods for memorizing and teaching the ‘correct’ spellings. Despite their efforts, Schneider points out that these initiatives were frequently unsuccessful, highlighting the tension between prescriptive norms and real linguistic practice.
Denecker’s intriguing chapter explores the concept of ‘standard Latin’ during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, particularly in relation to the corruptive influence attributed to migrations and the influx of foreign speakers. Starting with Isidore of Seville, grammarians often associated the term barbarismus (single-word linguistic errors) with the expansion of the Roman Empire and the linguistic (and moral) vices introduced by barbarians. Similarly, the etymology of soloecismus (syntactic faults) is thought to refer to the corruption of Greek spoken by the inhabitants of Soloi who migrated to Athens, or by the sage Solon during his travels across Greece. From this perspective, immigrants are seen as inevitable corrupters of the standard language—the classical, ‘correct’ and prestigious form of Latin spoken in Rome, the so-called sermo urbanus, extensively studied by modern scholars. Notably, some late treatises suggest that foreigners not only corrupt the ‘standard language’, but also their own native languages. In this perspective, one cannot master two languages at the same time. Denecker provides a brilliant reconstruction of an important chapter in the ‘history of standard language ideology’. However, I wonder whether he would endorse a potential conclusion that might be implied by his study: that late ancient and medieval grammarians considered the influx of foreigners both a necessary and sufficient condition for linguistic corruption. In other terms, did these grammarians believe that, absent non-native speakers, language would remain uncorrupted over extended periods, perhaps indefinitely? While it is uncertain if this question can be definitively answered with the available textual evidence, it certainly merits further investigation.
Anne Grondeux’ chapter examines the concept of ‘rule’ in medieval commentaries on Priscian’s works, notably the Glosulae on Priscian and the Notae Dunelmenses. These commentaries articulate rules in both morphology and syntax as prescriptive guidelines that indicate what one must do, rather than what is typically done by ordinary speakers. Ideally, there should be instead no conflict between these grammatical norms and the usage of great literary authors. However, both Priscian and his commentators occasionally acknowledge inconsistencies between these standards without espousing a rigid normative stance. These medieval grammarians viewed their role as one of ‘discovering’ rather than inventing rules. They aimed to refine the formulations of Priscian’s rules, specify their scope, enumerate exceptions, and resolve potential ambiguities. Often, these commentators sought to demonstrate that apparent inconsistencies among rules were resolvable—just as Apollonius. They also incorporated explicit logical views of their time to enhance the articulation of rules they deemed inadequate. Notably, these grammarians explicitly recognized the linguistic shifts that had occurred since Priscian’s era, acknowledging that norms acceptable in Priscian’s time might no longer apply in their own. Despite their focus on rules, the main aspect of an ideal language, they admitted that ordinary language inevitably evolve over time. As a result, linguistic rules are bound to change in the long run.
Overall, this collection is a significant contribution to the historical study of ancient grammatical texts. It not only advances our understanding of classical and medieval grammar but also opens avenues for future research into the broader philosophical, cultural and even political implications of ancient attempts to idealize language. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in these topics.
Authors and Titles
Présentation, Lionel Dumarty
- Wessen Dual ist korrekt? Hellenistische Philologen über Sprachrichtigkeit und deren Kriterien am Beispiel des homerischen Dualgebrauchs, Stephanos Matthaios
- Contre-exemples et antinomies dans la grammaire alexandrine, Lionel Dumarty
- La langue courante entre faute et figure chez Apollonius Dyscole, Manuela Callipo
- Quand même l’exception obéit à une règle: le concept de sunémptōsisdans la tradition grammaticale grecque ancienne et plus spécialement chez Apollonius Dyscole, Frédéric Lambert
- À la recherche d’emprunts linguistiques chez les grammairiens grecs anciens, Stella Merlin
- L’orthographe: de la théorie à la réalité, Jean Schneider
- Migration, Variation, and Correctness: Barbarismusand soloecismus in Latin Grammars from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Tim Denecker
- Magistriet regula. La notion de “règle” dans les commentaires sur Priscien du premier XIIe siècle, Anne Grondeux