When we begin to study the ancient Greek language, one of the first lessons typically covers accents and enclitics. As Roussou and Probert stress at the outset of their “basic lesson” introducing the book under review, “generations of classicists have learned that an enclitic is a special word with no accent of its own, or alternatively a special word with a propension to throw its accent back onto the preceding word. Either way, there is a list of enclitics to learn, and a set of principles governing the ways in which an enclitic affects the accent of the preceding word” (p. 1). The thorough investigation in this book offers fresh insights into a rather marginal aspect of grammatical theories on Greek enclitics from classical antiquity down to this day.
The book is roughly bipartite. The first part presents critical editions with detailed introductions and careful translations of six surviving Byzantine treatises on enclitics, along with a thorough investigation of the earlier grammatical doctrines. The authors acknowledge the existence of a non-systematic set of accenting rules for enclitics in the transmitted treatises of Apollonius Dyscolus and in Herodian’s doctrine, which is primarily preserved in the Homeric scholia. The second part of the book is devoted to two monographic studies on the accentuation of the third-person singular form of the verb ‘to be’ (ἐστι/ἔστι) and on the rules governing the accentuation sequences of enclitics, culminating in a new proposal.
The editions presented here offer a significant improvement over the previous ones and are a welcome addition to modern scholarship on ancient and Byzantine grammar, particularly as the doctrines in these treatises form the foundation of our modern grammars. The six treatises – called On enclitics 1 to 4, Charax, and About ἐστιν – are meticulously edited, featuring a rich critical apparatus in the form of footnotes to the Greek texts, based on a complete recensio of all known witnesses. For each treatise, a stemma codicum is given, along with a detailed explanation of the manuscript groupings into families and their mutual affiliations. The precise translation of these technical texts is particularly useful for making them more accessible to a modern readership.
In general, these grammatical texts reflect the scholarly interest in this topic within the teaching and learning practices of the Middle Ages and – most importantly – of the early Renaissance. With the exception of one manuscript from the tenth century (Moscow, State Historical Museum, Synod. gr. 21 [Vlad. 124; Diktyon 43646], which transmits the brief treatise About ἐστιν, consisting of fewer than fifteen lines of Greek text) and eleven manuscripts dating to the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, the majority of the witnesses (approximately 60) date to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Such manuscripts were predominantly produced in western Europe (Italy) after the fall of Constantinople for an audience eager to learn Greek grammar and its rules. As a result, grammatical manuscripts were in high demand and circulated widely. This cultural phenomenon falls outside the scope of the book, which instead focuses on reconstructing the ‘original’ form of each text in order to recover ancient doctrines on enclitics.[1] The treatises edited here reveal the extreme fluidity of such textual transmissions: almost every manuscript copy bears traces of adaptations and reworkings typical of grammatical, non-authorial texts, as scribes and scholars felt entitled to intervene into the text the texts to suit their own needs or those of their cultural circles.[2] Although editorial practices nowadays rely on well-developed methods of textual criticism, the modern reconstruction of a supposed ‘original’ text through corrections and supplements could resemble in some ways the scholarly treatment these treatises received in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance. As for future prospects, digital editions of such texts – allowing for the simultaneous display of the differences between them – could significantly enhance our understanding of the learning practices of the past.
The subsequent investigation of earlier grammatical doctrines is of great interest, especially when comparing the Byzantine treatises with the writings of Apollonius Dyscolus and his grammatical doctrines, which mainly focus on the Homeric poems, and with Homeric scholia deriving from his son Herodian. Roussou and Probert trace the common roots of Byzantine practices to the system used in the second century CE, though this system may well be older: “many of the ideas are likely to derive from Hellenistic scholarship”, they properly stress (p. 206). The passages reflecting medieval thought on Greek enclitics provide invaluable evidence that would have profited from engagement with pivotal studies on the treatment of enclitics in Byzantine texts (and their manuscripts), most notably by Jacques Noret.[3] For instance, a passage in the treatise On enclitics 4, §f, which records that the particles μέν, δέ, and γάρ can sometimes be enclitic, reflects a common practice in Byzantine manuscripts.
In any case, this investigation forms a bridge to the second part of the book, which contains two main chapters. The first examines the accentuation of ἐστι/ἔστι. Among other approaches, the authors employ a comparative methodology, drawing parallels between Greek praxis and modern Serbian (and Russian) linguistic patterns. This allows them to relativise an overly rigid grammatical approach often found in the field of Classical studies. The authors then stress that modern grammatical rules governing how to accentuate ἐστι are largely correct and align with ancient practices. In particular, they trace the tradition supporting the ‘initial and quasi-initial’ position of ἐστι – that is non-enclitic only in initial position and after οὐκ – back to the second century AD, at least in a somewhat limited form. The authors cannot offer “a simple and correct rule for the accentuation of ἘΣΤΙ, for example for the purposes of editing a text”, explaining convincingly: “if the surviving evidence consists of various simplifications of a complex reality …, it is unrealistic to think that we can recover all the details of the complex reality itself” (p. 233). Therefore, they “encourage scholars to exercise tolerance towards each other’s practices in accenting ἘΣΤΙ” (p. 234).
The final chapter reviews modern scholarly practices in accenting sequences of enclitics in light of ancient usages and theories. These should be understood not as a strictly codified system, but rather as “rules of thumb” – as they call them – already recognised and applied by Herodian, as the doctrines transmitted in the Homeric scholia suggest. After analysing the evidence from a selected corpus of accentuated papyri and the renowned Venetus A of the Iliad (Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr. Z. 454, 10th century; Diktyon: 69921),[4] the authors conclude that “Greek grammatical texts present us with the system that we traditionally learn today (every enclitic except the last gets an accent on its last or only syllable), plus an apparently unlikely assortment of exceptions” (p. 294). They succeed in showing that consistency may be discerned if one applies the system once proposed by Karl Göttling and later endorsed by William Spencer Barrett in his edition of Euripides’ Hippolytus. According to this approach, enclitics should be regarded merely as parts of the accentuated preceding word, with the accent placement in a sequence determined recursively each time a new enclitic is added (to a word or a sequence). Building on ancient practices, the authors propose a ‘revised Göttling-Barrett system’ (summarised on pp. 237–239).[5] The revision concerns the treatment of sequences preceding a new enclitic with an acute accent on the penultimate syllable. In cases where a trochaic ending precedes a new enclitic, the supplementary accent is placed on the final syllable (e.g., ἔνθά τε). In Roussou and Probert’s view, the ‘revised Göttling-Barret system’ appears to be “an ancient and probably linguistic real system, while the ‘traditional’ system has the advantage of familiarity from our modern tradition”, the latter having likely been considered by Herodian “as a first rule of thumb that would yield correct results more often than not” (p. 297).
In sum, the accentuation of enclitics may be considered a minor point in modern studies on Classical and Byzantine scholarship. Nevertheless, it remains significant, as Jacques Noret has convincingly demonstrated.[6] Roussou and Probert’s welcome publication will surely rekindle interest in this grammatical issue.
Notes
[1] Nevertheless, considering the history producers and users of the manuscripts could have been useful in refining the stemmas proposed. In these stemmas, I feel that too many lost sub-archetypes have often been postulated, especially when considering that many of these manuscripts were copied around the same time and in the same places. This also concerns manuscripts transmitting more than one of the treatises edited here, particularly when they are assigned to different families.
[2] It goes without saying that this also complicates the dating of such texts and the determination of their authorship.
[3] Byzantion 55 (1985) 493–505; 57 (1987) 191–195; 59 (1989) 277–280; 65 (1995) 69–88 (esp. 79–88); 68 (1998) 516–518; 74 (2004) 205–209. Furthermore, this topic is discussed extensively in some editions of Byzantine texts: one can consider, for instance, the introduction by Diether Roderich Reinsch and Athanasios Kambylis to their edition of Anna Comnene’s Alexias. This provides valuable material for the discussion of the problems of enclitics and ‘synenclitics’: D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis, Annae Comnenae Alexias, I, Berlin/New York 2001, 34*–52* ‘Probleme der Akzentuation’).
[4] On this, see also R. Kühner and F.W. Blass, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, I, Hannover 1890, 434.
[5] See K. Göttling, Allgemeine Lehre vom Accent der griechischen Sprache, Jena 1835, 399–406; W.S. Barrett (ed.), Euripides. Hippolytos, edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1964, 426–427 (with reference to J. Vendryes, Traité d’accentuation grecque, Paris 1945, 88–89, who quoted both Göttling and Gottfried Hermann, De emendanda ratione Graecae grammaticae pars prima, Leipzig 1801, 73–75).
[6] J. Noret, Quand donc rendrons-nous à quantité d’indéfinis, prétendument enclitiques, l’accent qui leur revient?, Byzantion 57 (1987) 191–195: 195 “D’aucuns diront que ces problèmes d’accentuation n’ont finalement aucune importance. À cela je répondrai que lorsqu’on devient conscient d’une absurdité, fut-elle minime, on a tendance à l’éliminer; […]. Plus important; il n’est pas rare que dans un contexte donné (par exemple dans une phrase négative), le sens ou en tout cas la nuance du texte varie selon que l’indéfini est ou non accentué: en attirant sur ce point de détail l’attention des lecteurs de Byzantion et des éditeurs de textes grecs en général, nous espérons favoriser une compréhension plus profonde du grec ancien et médiéval”.