Raf Van Rooy “ ” P A ( . 1524/1525–1561) . T A G

(1)

T

^he^diversiTy^of

A

^ncienT

G

^reek^ThrouGh^The ^eyes

of AforGoTTenGrAmmAriAn

.

P

eTrus

A

nTesiGnAnus

(

cA

. 1524/1525–1561)

onThenoTionof

“

^diAlecT

”

^*1

* Thepresentcontributionservesasafirstcasestudythatanticipatessomeoftheresultsofmy researchintotheearlymodern“dialect”conceptanditsrelationshiptothenotionof“language”(fundedbytheResearchFoundation–Flanders(FWO)).IkindlythankPierreSwig- gersandToonVanHalfortheirmanycriticalandvaluableremarks.Iamalsomuchindebted totheusefulsuggestionsofthethreeanonymousreviewers.IthankYvesDussforcorrecting theFrenchofmyabstract.

Résumé

Lesidéeslinguistiquesdugrammairienfran- çais Pierre Davantès (^xvi^esiècle)ontétélar- gement négligées jusqu’à aujourd’hui. La présentecontributionchercheàcomblerpar- tiellement cette lacune de recherche dans le contextedelanotionde«dialecte».Après uneintroductionsuccincteàlavieetàl’œuvre deDavantès,saconceptiondedialecteestdis- cutée,conceptionqu’ilexposedanssesscho- liesde1554àlagrammairegrecquedeNico- lasClénard.L’analysesefaitàlafoisd’une façongénéraleetspécifiquementparrapport àlasituationgrecqueancienne.Ensuite,cette contribution contextualise les idées de Da- vantès.L’attaqued’HenriEstiennecontreles assertionsdeDavantèsestconçuecommeune étudedecasàcetégard.

Abstract

The linguistic ideas of the 16th-century French grammarian Petrus Antesignanus have been largely neglected up till now. In thepresentpaper,Iaimtopartiallyrepairthis researchlacunawithinthecontextoftheno- tionof“dialect”.Aftersomeshortintroduc- tory notes onAntesignanus’ life and works, Idiscusshisconceptionofdialect,whichis expounded in his 1554 scholia on Nicolaus Clenardus’Greekgrammar.Thisanalysisoc- cursbothonagenerallevelandspecifically withregardtotheAncientGreeksituation.I includeinthisdiscussionanumberofconsi- derationsthatcontextualizetheviewsofAn- tesignanus. Henricus Stephanus’ attack on Antesignanus’assertionsfiguresasacasestu- dyinthisregard.

Raf Van Rooy

KU Leuven &FWO

Mots-clés

Dialecte,dialectologie,grecancien, grammaire,PierreDavantès

Keywords

AncientGreek,dialect,dialectology, grammar,PetrusAntesignanus

Article published byEDP Sciencesand available athttp://www.hel-journal.orgorhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1051/hel/2016380107

(2)

Inthepresentpaper,Iaimtoanalyzeandcontextualizethelinguisticviewsof theFrenchscholarPetrusAntesignanus,especiallywithregardtothenotionof

“dialect”.Iarguethatthisoverlooked16th-centurygrammarianwasoneofthe firstinfluentialWesterntheorizersoftheconceptinquestion.Asoftenintheearly modern era, he discussed it against the background of the prototypicalAncient Greeksituation.¹

ThebiographicalinformationaboutAntesignanusservesasanintroduction(1.).

Then,thewayinwhichheconceivedofthedialectnotiontakescenterstage(2.).

Next,IconsidertheroleoftheAncientGreekbackground,whichclearlytriggered hisobservations(3.).IndispensablewithinthisregardisacontextualizationofAn- tesignanus’views,withspecialattentiontoHenricusStephanus’twofoldattackon hisassertions(4.).Sections2.-4.havethefollowingstructure:afterbrieflydiscuss- ingtherelevantresearchquestions,IanalyzeandreconstructAntesignanus’ideas (bothexplicitandimplicit).Iconcludethiscontributionwithsomegeneralnotes andanoutlook(5.).

1. PetRus antesignanus: afoRgottenscholiast

of nicolaus clenaRdus’ gReekgRammaR

PetrusAntesignanus(theLatinaliasofPierreDavantès“theolder”)² was a Protes- tantphilologist,grammarian,andmusicologist,bornca.1524/1525inRabastens-de- Bigorre,anOccitanvillagesome40kmnorthofLourdesand120kmwestofTou- louse.Therehasbeenanintense,ideologicallycoloreddiscussionaboutthenative townofAntesignanus.Marty(1896)offersa“definitive”answertothisquestion.Al- thoughheoriginatesfromRabastensintheTarndepartment,he“hasdoneawaywith everypersonalsentimentforthesakeofthehistoricaltruth”andconfirmsthatAn- tesignanuswasborninRabastens-de-BigorreintheHautes-Pyrénéesdepartment.³ 1 Cf.Haugen(1966,p.923):“ThelinguisticsituationinancientGreecewasboththemodeland

thestimulusfortheuseoftheterm[sc.“dialect”]inmodernwriting.”

2 SeeBayle(1740,p.243-244),Haag&Haag(1886,p.163-170),Hayaert(2008,p.46),and Schwarzfuchs(2008,p.27)formostoftherelevantbiographicalinformationmentionedin thissection.ForhisLatinaliasmeaning“hewhofightsbeforethestandard”anditslinkwith MiddleFrenchdavantié(“celuiquimarcheenavant”),seeHayaert(2008,p.46).HisHel- lenizednamewas“ΠέτροςὁΠρόμαχος”,asisclearfromthetitleofanepigrambyacertain JohannesGardegius.ThisisprintedontheversosideofthetitlepageofClenardus&Antes- ignanus(1554):“ἸωάννουτοῦΓαρδεγίουεἰςΠέτροντὸνΠρόμαχονἐπίγραμμα”.Heisdubbed

“theolder”,becausehisyoungerbrotherhadthesamename.Davantèstheyoungerwasactive asabooksellerandprinterinGeneva(intheperiod1561-1573;forthisinformation,seethe entry“DavantèsleJeune”intheR.I.E.C.HonlinedatabaseandChaix1954,p.166).Their fatherwasJe(h)andesDavantès(called“deLaHélète”;seeMarty1896,p.347).

3 SeeMarty(1896,p.346&p.351)andHaag&Haag(1886,p.163).Whatismore,evenin Marty’stimetherewerepeoplecalled“Davantès”livinginRabastens-de-Bigorre,whereas nooneofthatnameturnsupintherecordsofRabastensintheTarndepartment(Marty1896, p.351).TheLatinadjectiveRapistagnensis,whichisoftenincludedinthetitlesofAntesigna- nus’works(e.g.,inClenardus&Antesignanus1554),isinconclusiveinthisrespect.

(3)

Inthe1740editionofPierreBayle’s(1647–1706)Dictionnaire historique et cri- tique,Antesignanusiscalled“oneofthebestgrammariansofthe16thcentury”

(“undesmeilleursGrammairiensdu^xvi^esiècle”)⁴andcharacterizedasapatient editorofTerencewhopreferredanonymitytotheriskofbeingenviedbyrivals(to whichtheoblivionhesankintostilltestifiestoday).ApartfromLatinandGreek, healsomasteredHebrew.Heevenwrotearelativelylongletterinthislanguage, whichisprintedinCostus(1554,p.א-ד,insertedbetweenp.59&p.65)andrec- ommendsthebookletinquestion(seeHaag&Haag1886,p.163andHayaert 2008,p.96).HetaughtthesethreebiblicallanguagesinLyon(betweenca.1554 and1559).ThisisconfirmedbythededicatoryletterinhisfirsteditionofTerence (datedAugust13,1556andaddressedtothreebrothershetutored).Beforethat, AntesignanusappearstohavestudiedinAvignonforsometime.InMarch1559,he movedtoGeneva,wherehestartedprintingbooksandundertookmostofhismusi- cologicalactivity(seehiseditionofthe“PsalmsofDavid”,publishedin1560,and Chaix1954,p.165-166).AntesignanusdiedthereonAugust31,1561,only36/37 yearsold.HisdeathismentionedinaletterfromJohnCalvin(1509–1564)toTheo- doreBeza(1519–1605),datedSeptember3,1561(seeHaag&Haag1886,p.164).

Antesignanus’majorwritingsonAncientGreekare(1)thescholiaonNicolaus Clenardus’widelyusedgrammar,(2)thePraxis seu usus praeceptorum grammati- ces,and(3)theDe thematis uerborum et participiorum inuestigandi ratione libel- lus,thethreeofwhicharegenerallyeditedtogetherwithClenardus’grammar.The 1554 editio princepsofthiscollectionwasprintedinLyon.Itdidnotyetinclude text(3),whichfirstfiguresinthesecondedition(Lyon1557,p.321-414). Allof theseworksbyAntesignanusareonlybrieflymentionedbyhisbiographers—aneg- ligencethatiscontinuedinthehistoriographyoflinguistics.Forourpurposes,the commentaryonNicolausClenardus’(NicolaesCleynaerts;1493/1495-1542)Greek grammar,entitledInstitutiones in linguam Graecamandfirstpublishedin1530,is mostimportant.⁵Thescholionthatespeciallyconcernsusherebearsthetitle“De dialectisappendix”(1554,p.11-16)andfollowsClenardus’briefreferencetothe Greekdialectsituation.⁶Thispassagewillconstitutethecoreofthediscussion.

4 SeeBayle(1740,p.243);Antesignanusispraisedforbeingconcernedwiththemostbasic grammaticalissues(asisclearfromtheprefacetohisfirstTerenceedition,i.e.1556,p.*ijr-

*ijv):“Ilprittellementàcœursonmétier,qu’ilaimamieuxserendreutileàlajeunesseen s’attachantàl’explicationdeschosesquiembarassentlaprémiereentréedesétudes,quede chercherdelagloireparl’explicationdesgrandesdifficultez.”Ihavepreservedtheoriginal orthographyinquotingearlymodernFrenchtexts.

5 Formoreinformationaboutthiswell-knownHumanistfromDiest(nowadaysBelgium)and hisGreekgrammar,whichdominatedtheteachingofAncientGreekforcenturies,see,e.g., Hoven(1993)andSwiggers&VanHal(2009).

6 SeeClenardus(1530,p.7):“QuinqueGraecorumlinguaepraecipuae,communis,Attica,Ion- ica,Dorica,Aeolica.EquibusAtticiinomnideclinationeuocatiuumsimilemformantnomi- natiuo, ὁ et ὦΑἰνείας.”

(4)

2. t^he^concePtual^comPonent: ^dialect^and^Related^notions

ThecentralquestioninanalyzingAntesignanus’notionofdialectboilsdownto

“howisthetermdialectusdefined,paraphrased,approached,and/orused?”.An importantmethodologicalcaveatisinorderhere:wehavetobecarefulnottoproj- ectourownpresuppositionsonhistheorizing.Inadditiontothis,thepresentsec- tionrevealswithwhichlinguisticconcept(s)Antesignanuscontrastedorassociated thedialectnotionandwhichcriteriahetookintoaccountindefiningit.Ialsopoint outonwhich(linguistic)level(s)dialectsvaryinAntesignanus’viewandhowthe conceptualdiscussionisencodedterminologically.

Tostartwith,Antesignanus(1554,p.12-13)definesdialectusasfollows:

Itaque […] grammatici per dialectos, idiomata siue linguas, nihil aliud intelligunt, quam sermonis quandam proprietatem, qua distinguitur loquelae uarietas,quaesempersoletcontingereinterdiuersoseiusdemnationistractus;

cumhipauloaliterloquanturquamilliaccuiquepropriumquidpiamenatali solo sit insitum; quod, si bene auribus sonare uideatur, alii quoque usurpare gaudentetquoduniurbiautnationisparuotractuipropriumeratacpeculiare, aliquotemporisinterualloincommunemlinguamtransfundunt;atqueitaillam ditantexdiuersisuariorumtractuumproprietatibus,quaeinsignequiddamet auribusgratumcontinebant.

Therefore […] grammarians mean by “dialects”, “idioms”, or “languages”

nothingelsethanacertainpropertyofspeaking,bywhichthevarietyofspeechis distinguished.Thisusuallyoccursbetweendifferentregionsofthesamepeople, becausesomespeakalittledifferentlyfromothersandsomethingproperfrom thenativesoilisengraftedineveryone.Butifthiswouldseemtosoundgood totheears,othersalsotakepleasureinusingit.Andafterawhile,theydecant tothecommonlanguageanelementthatwasproperandpeculiartoonecity ortoasmallterritoryofthepeople;andthiswaytheyenrichitbydrawingon diversepropertiesofvariousregions,whichcomprisedsomethingremarkable andpleasanttotheears.⁷

HeclearlyfocusesontheGreekconcept(“quidGraeciintelligant”&“grammatici […]intelligunt”;Antesignanus1554,p.11&12;seeVanRooy2016),whichwas notyetentirelyintegratedintotheHumanistconceptualapparatusofhistimeand whichheclaimstohavebeenunderstoodwronglybyClenardus’opponents.Even thoughhemainlyusesthetermdialectusinthesenseof“languagevarietyparticular toacertainregionofonenation”,theaforementionedpassageshowsthatidioma andlinguacanalsobeusedinthisspecificmeaning.⁸Ratherthancontrastingdia- lectus to lingua(whichcanbesynonyms),heopposestheconceptof“language varietyparticulartoacertainregionofonenation”tothenotionof“commonlanguage”(lingua communis).Theformerischaracterizedbybeingtypicalofacertain 7 AllEnglishtranslationsinthepresentcontributionaremine.IhavealsouniformizedLatinor-

thography,whilepreservingtheGreekspellingoftheearlymodernsources.AllGreekandLat- inabbreviationsareexpanded.PunctuationinLatinquotesisadaptedtomodernconventions.

8 Forthismeaning,thetermdialectusseemstohaveprovidedtheunambiguityLatintermssuch as sermo, lingua, loquela,anduarietaslacked.

(5)

ethnic group (ethnic criterion)⁹andgeographiclocation(diatopiccriterion),and byexhibitingarelativeparticularitythatdistinguishesitfromothervarietiesof thesamelanguage.Moreover,thisspeechformservesasakindofidentitymark, revealingtheprovenanceofaspeaker,somethingwhichisdifficulttodissimulate entirely.¹⁰Antesignanusalsointroducesthenotion“mother/nativedialect”(ma- terna dialectus),whichisrepresentedasasourceofprideforGreekpoets,who mixitwithfeaturesofthe“commonlanguage”.¹¹

Thecommonlanguagehasawidercommunicativereach.¹²Afterall,itissaid tobethevarietycommontothespeakersofthedifferentdialects.However,the precise relationship between the dialecti andthecommunis lingua remainssome- whatunclear.Otherkindsofintralingualvariation(nottermeddialectus) are also alludedto.AntesignanusmentionsdiaphasicanddiastraticvariationinFrenchand Greek.Thejargonoflawyersiscontrastedwith“actorish”language(diaphasic) andissaidtoimitatespeechwithhighersocialstatus,whereasactorsindulgein stagingdiastraticallylowerspeechvarieties:

VthodieLutetiaeuiderelicetfabularumactores,utrisumauditorumcaptent, utisermonemuliercularum,acommuniGallicononnihildegenerante;namrin snonrarocommutantreliquasquelitterasblaeseaccompressislabiisenuntiant.

Patroniuero,quiinforocausasagunt,quamuispureacproprieloquistudeant etaliquidexLutetianosermonedecerpantnonnihilqueexAureliano,ubiforte legibusoperamnauarunt,acrursusaliquidexhuiusuelilliuscelebrisciuitatis idiomate,praecipueueroeRegisdomesticorumsermonedepromptum;cauent tamen maxime, ne muliercularum more loqui uideantur. Si enim illarum sermonemimitarentur,fabulaomnibusessentmaximoquerisuabauditoribus exciperentur. Confer nunc Demosthenis orationem cum ea, qua utuntur hodie patroni in foro Parisiensi; Aristophanis uero comoedias cum fabulis illorum histrionum, qui agendo sermonem Lutetianae plebeculae familiarem repraesentant.(Antesignanus1554,p.12)

IncontemporaryParisitispossibletoseethatactorsofplays,inordertoarousethe auditors’laughter,usethespeechoffoolishwomen,whichdegeneratessomewhat fromcommonFrench.Fortheydonotrarelychangetherintosandpronounce theremainingletterslispinglyandwithsqueezedlips.Lawyers,however,who pursuelawsuitsinpublic,areeagertospeakpurelyandproperly;andtheymay 9 SeealsoAntesignanus(1554,p.11):“Fueruntueroetaliaemultae,totscilicetquotfueruntna-

tiones,quaeGraecosermoneuterentur,uelutiBoeotica,Sicula,Rhegina,Cretensis,Tarentina, Cypria,Chalcidica,Macedonica,Argiua,Thessala,Laconica,Syracusana,Pamphylica;[...].”

10 SeeAntesignanus(1554,p.11):“[…]utiudicatudifficilenonsit(siquiseosloquentesaudiat,uel eorumscriptalegat)adquodidiomaillorumsermoaccedat.Vixenimfieripotest,quinaliquide propriasiuematernalinguaretineant,etiamillisinuitis,acGallicalingualoquinitentibus;[…].”

11 SeeAntesignanus(1554,p.13):“NosueroinhisScholiisnonsolumquaeaboratoribuset communiusuexuariisidiomatibusreceptasunt,annotabimus,sedeaetiamquaepoetaeex illisarripueruntuelsualicentia,utscilicetmetrihiatumimplerent,ueletiamnullacarminis necessitatecoacti,sedpotiusutτὴντοῦπεζοῦλόγουφράσινeuitarent,uelquodmaterna dialectomagisdelectarentur;utAristophanesAttica,HomerusIonica,DoricaTheocrituset AeolicaAlcaeus,quamuisuernaculaeacsibifamiliarialiasquoqueadmisceant.”

12 SeeAntesignanus(1554,p.12):“[…]sedDemosthenesgenereAtticus,quamuiscommuni sermone,utabomnibusGraecisintelligeretur,loquinitebatur.”

(6)

gathersomethingthatisdrawnfromthespeechofParisandsomethingfrom thatofOrléans,wheretheyhappenedtoservethelaws,andagainsomething from the idiom of this or that famous city, but especially from the speech of theroyalfamilyandhousehold.Nevertheless,theystilltakeveryspecialheed thattheydonotseemtospeakinafoolishwomen’sfashion.Foriftheywould imitatefoolishwomen’sspeech,theywouldbethesubjectofcommontalkforall andtheywouldbereceivedwiththegreatestlaughterbytheauditors.Compare nowDemosthenes’speechwiththespeechlawyersnowadaysuseontheParisian market;butcompareAristophanes’comedieswiththeplaysofthoseactorswho performintheiractingthecustomaryspeechoftheParisianpopulace.

Antesignanusthusalsooffersinvaluableinformationonthesociolinguisticsitua- tioninearlymodernFrance.BecausehedoesnotseemtohavevisitedParisduring hislifetime,itisprobablethathereadaboutthepronunciationhabitsofParisian mulierculae

(1) in Desiderius Erasmus’ (1466/1467/1469–1536) dialogue on Latin and Greekpronunciation(1528),¹³

(2)inthe1531FrenchgrammarofJacobusSylvius(JacquesDubois;1478–

1555),¹⁴ or

(3)inthe1550FrenchgrammarofJohannesPillotus(JeanPillot;1515–1592).¹⁵ Ofcourse,itmayalsohavebeenanattributeofthestereotypicParisianwomanat thattime.

FromAntesignanus’conceptionofdialectandhisoverviewofGreekdialec- tal features, it emerges that he saw dialectal variation as something anomalous thatdoesnotaffectthecommonlanguagesystematically.However,thisdoesnot makeitimpossibletoformulatecertainlessgeneralrules.ForClenardus’account issometimesfollowedbyascholionofAntesignanusthatdiscussesthechanges accordingtothe“varietyofdialects”(uarietas dialectorum).Thedifferencesare mainlyrepresentedas“permutationsofletters”(permutationes litterarum), which consistofalimitedsetoftypesofpermutations¹⁶:

Neuerocredaseaquaehicdiximuspassiminomnibusdictionibusobseruari.

Nonenimistalocumhabent,nisiincertisquibusdamuocibusetcertiscasibus 13 See Erasmus (1528, p. 52; italics mine): “Idem faciunt hodie mulierculae Parisinae, pro

Maria sonantes Masia, pro ma mere ma mese.”

14 SeeSylvius(1531,p.52;italicsmine):“InutroqueuitiomulierculaesuntParrhisinae;et earummodoquidamparumuiri,dumrinsetcontraEretriensiummore,sinr,passimmagna affectationeconuertunt,dicentesIeru Masia, ma mesè, mon pesè, mon fresèetidgenussex- centa pro Iesu Maria, merè, perè, frerè.”

15 SeePillotus(1550,p.5v):“R,caninalitterasonumasperioremhabet,quamuteamferant auresGallicae,potissimuminfinedictionum,idcircomultiprorsupponunts.Vbiqueueroid faciuntParisinaemulierculae,quaeadeodelicatulaesunt,utproperedicantpeze, pro mere meze.”IkindlythankProfessorPierreSwiggersandoneoftheanonymousreviewersfor drawingmyattentiontotherelevantpassagesintheworkofErasmus,Sylvius,andPillotus.

SeealsoColombat(2003,p.37,note90)forthesetestimoniesandanumberofsimilarpas- sagesfromlateryears.

16 ThislinguisticframeworkdatesbacktoMarcusTerentiusVarroandTrypho,bothactivein thefirstcenturyBC(seeVanHal2010,p.39-40).

(7)

partiumorationis,quaepercasusinflectuntur,atqueincertisquibusdampersonis ettemporibusuerborum;[...].Adiciemusquoquenonnullasaliasregulasminus generalesiuxtalocorumopportunitatem.(Antesignanus1554,p.15)

Butdonotbelievethatthesethingswehavesaidhereareobservedeverywhere inallwords.Forthesedonottakeplace,exceptincertainwordsandincertain casesofthepartsofspeech,whichareinflectedthroughcases,andincertain personsandtensesofverbs.Wewillalsoaddsomeother,lessgeneralrules,if the context allows it.

3. t^he a^ncient g^Reek^comPonent:

abenchmaRkindiscussingtheconcePtofdialect

Antesignanus’caseprovestheimportanceoftheAncientGreekcomponentintrig- geringearlydiscussionsofthedialectconcept.Tofullyunderstandthenotionas heconceivedofit,aninvestigationintotheclassificationoftheAncientGreek dialectsisindispensable.Inparticular,Ianalyzebothhisapproachtothekoinè andtheprincipleheinvokesinhisclassification.Antesignanusalsocomparesthe GreekstateofaffairstoFrenchdialectaldifferentiation.Thisraisesthequestionas towhatheconsiderstobethegroundforthecomparabilityofthesetwosituations.

FollowingClenardus’grammar(seenote6above),Antesignanus(1554,p.11) statesthattherearefive“principal”varieties:

QuinqueenimlinguaspraecipuasesseapudGraecosait,utpotequaeamagni nominisauctoribusfueruntcelebrataeetquibusscriptapaeneinfinitalibrorum uoluminaposteritatireliquerunt.

Forhe[sc.Clenardus]saysthattherearefiveprincipaltongueswiththeGreeks, namelythosethatwereusedbytheauthorsofgreatfameandinthesetheinfinite volumesofbookstheyhavelefttoposteritywerewritten.

HetakesovertheorderoftheprincipalGreekdialectsfromClenardus:“common”,

“Attic”,“Ionic”,“Doric”,and“Aeolic”,whichwerethecanonicalfivevarieties fromRomantimesonwards.¹⁷Theclassificatoryprincipleunderlyingthepropaga- tionofthesefiveGreekvarietiesisnotofalinguistic,butofaliterary-philological nature.Thesefivetonguesarelabeled“principal”,becausetheyhappenedtobe thelinguisticequipmentwithwhichthegreatGreekliteratorsgaveshapetotheir writtenmonuments.Therewere,ontheotherhand,manyotherGreekvarieties(as manyasthereweretribes),whichhecallsminus praecipuae(“lessprincipal”),as 17 See Clement ofAlexandria († beforeAD 215/221),Stromata 1.21.142.4 (ed. Stählin &

Früchtel1960,p.88):“Φασὶ δὲ οἱ Ἕλληνες διαλέκτους εἶναι τὰς παρὰ σφίσι εʹ, Ἀτθίδα, Ἰάδα, Δωρίδα, Αἰολίδα καὶ πέμπτην τὴν κοινήν.”ClenardusandAntesignanuslargelypreservethis order,onlyplacingthekoinèasthefirstandnotasthefifthvariety.Thismayindicatethatin earlymoderntimesthepeculiarplaceofthekoinèwasincreasinglycontrastedtotheposi- tionoftheotherfourdialects.Theuseofthetermpraecipuusfortheprincipalfivevarieties probablygoesbacktotheGreekgrammarofAmerotius;seeAmerotius(1520,p.Qiv),cited in note 18.

(8)

nobookshavesurvivedinthem.Henames13examples:Boeotian,Sicilian,Ca- labrian,Cretan,Tarentine,Cyprian,Chalcidian,Macedonian,Argive,Thessalian, Laconian,Syracusan,andPamphylian.Oftheselessprincipaldialects,onlysome vestigesareextant,whicharepreservedintheworksofauthorswhowroteinone oftheprincipaldialects.¹⁸Apparently,thisconceptionandclassificatoryprinciple greatlyinfluencedlaterauthors.Forotherimportant“dialectological”writersalso mentionit:e.g.,OthoGual(t)perius(OttoWalper;1543–1624)inhis1589De dia- lectis Graecae linguae praecipuisandPetrusBertrandusMerigonus(PierreBer- trandMérigon;ca.1586?–after1634?)inhis1621Facilis et compendiarius trac- tatus dialectorum linguae Graecae.¹⁹However,theydonotmentionAntesignanus explicitly,andnordolatergrammarianswhomentionthisclassificatoryprinciple.

Theseauthors,inturn,borrowiteitherdirectlyfromAntesignanusorindirectly throughscholarssuchasGualtperiusandMerigonus.

Antesignanusanalyzesthekoinèasbeingconstitutedbythebestofthefour other principal varieties (see also sub2.andAntesignanus1554,p.12-13).The mainsourceofthekoinèis,however,theAtticdialect:

Atrursusaliquiuerbisetphrasinonminusquamrebusaddicti(qualesfuerunt Demosthenes, Plato et Lucianus) non solum ad unguem communis linguae phrasim obseruabant, sed etiam, ut communem ditare uiderentur, ex aliis idiomatibus, praecipue ex Attico, nonnullas loquendi formulas, uel etiam peculiaresquasdamuoces,autuocumflexusdecerpebant;quaeomniatandem temporissuccessucommuniusureceptasint.(Antesignanus1554,p.12) Butagainsomewhoaredevotedtowordsandphrasingnolessthantoactual things(as,forexample,Demosthenes,Plato,andLucian)didnotonlyperfectly observethephrasingofthecommonlanguage,buttheyalso,soastogivethe impressionofenrichingthecommonvariety,gatheredfromtheotheridioms, mainlyfromAttic,someformulasofspeakingoralsosomepeculiarwordsor 18 Antesignanus(1554,p. 11):“Fueruntueroetaliaemultae,totscilicetquotfueruntnationes, quaeGraecosermoneuterentur,uelutiBoeotica,Sicula,Regina,Cretensis,Tarentina,Cypria, Chalcidica,Macedonica,Argiua,Thessala,Laconica,Syracusana,Pamphylica;uerumminus praecipuaemeritodicipossunt,quodillisnullilibri,quiadnostrausquetemporaperuenerint, scriptifuerunt.”SeealsoAmerotius(1520,p.Qiv):“Graecorumlinguaetotpaenesunt,quot nationes,exhistamenpraecipuequinquecelebranturἈτθὶς, Αἰολὶς, Ἰωνὶς, Δωρὶςetκοινὴ, i.Attica,Aeolica,Ionica,Dorica,communis,quarumcommunisnonalicuigentipeculiaris habetur,utceterae,sedeaestquacommuniteracpromiscueGraeciomnesutuntur.”

19 SeeGualtperius(1589,p.2-3):“Primariarumautemappellationemhaemeritosortiuntur, proptereaquodhisomnisfereGraecismuscontineaturomniumqueartiumacdisciplinarum theoremata,rerumitempraeclaregestarumhistoriaplenissimedescribatur;reliquisuerolibri (quiadnosperuenerint)perscriptinullisintideoquetemporisprogressufacilecollapsaefuis- sent,nisiexiisdemauctoresnonnulliquaedamstudiosesuisadmiscuissent.Quadecausaet hodiepluradeiisdicinonpossunt,quamquaeexiisdemauctoribusintelliguntur.”Seealso Merigonus(1621,p. 3-4):“Hicueronihilmoramurmultasaliasdialectos(totscilicetquot fueruntcoloniaeinuariasmundipartesaGraecismissae)uelutiBoeoticam,Thessalicam, Chalcidicam,Laconicam,Cretensem,Syracusanametc.quippecumnullaearummonimenta adnosusqueperuenerinttantumquereperianturquaedamuocessparsaeinlibrisauctorum, utu.g.Aristophanis,propteruariaspersonasaseinductasinsuiscomoediis,superuacaneum esseteasaliisdialectisannumerare,[…].”

(9)

inflectionsofwords;andeventuallybyasuccessionoftimethesewerereceived incommonusage.

Tosumup,Antesignanusbelievesthatliteraryauthorsenrichthecommonvariety byintroducingintoitelegantdialectalelementsthatbecomegraduallyaccepted.

AntesignanusalsooffersawindowoncontemporaryFrenchdialectdiversity, whichhediscussesforthestudent’sbenefit.BybeingpointedtoFrenchvariation, thestudentcanadoptareferentialperspectivethatallowshimtobetterunderstand thenatureofGreekdialectaldiversification:

Vt autem totum huiusce rei negotium tibi ob oculos proponatur ac quid grammatici per idiomata intelligant, penitus noscas, exemplo nostri Gallici sermonistibipaucisremomnemaperiam.(Antesignanus1554,p.11)

Inorderthattheentirefactofthismatterisputbeforeyoureyesandyou fullyunderstandwhatthegrammariansmeanby“idioms”,Iwilluncoverthe wholeaffairforyouwithfewwordsbymeansoftheexampleofourFrench speech.

Hestressestheimportanceofthenativesituationtofullyunderstandthenotionof

“varietyofalanguage”,terminologicallyencodedasdialectus, lingua, or idioma, whichthegrammariansusewhentalkingabouttheGreekspeechforms.Hestates thatalmostallpeoplewriteandspeakFrenchintheareasubjectedtotheFrench throne.Nevertheless,noteveryonespeaksasneatlyasthepeopleattheroyalcourt andinParis.Thismakesiteasytojudgetowhichvarietysomeonebelongs,despite hisexertionstoavoidrecognition.²⁰Therearesomeexceptions,though.Somesuc- ceedinforgettingtheirnativedialect(uernacula lingua)andinspeakingneatly andpurelythecommonFrenchtongue.TheyevenmanagetoenrichtheirFrench withsomephrasesandsayingsderivedfromthedialectsofthefamouscitiesthat arepraisedfortheirlanguage.Dialectsthathavereceivedgeneralrecognitioncan beusedas“flowers”thatadornthecommonlanguage.²¹NowAntesignanusmoves ontotheGreeksituation.HeclaimsthatallGreekstriedtospeakandwritein thecommonspeechform,thepreceptsofwhicharenowtransmittedingram- maticalwritings.Nevertheless,everyoneretainedparticularitiesfromhisna- tivedialect(proprium ac maternum idioma),asforexampleHippocrates,who

20 Seesub2.,note10,andAntesignanus(1554,p.11):“Quotquothodieinforisiudicialibus ditioniRegissubditisuersantur,nequesolumibi,sedpassiminteromnesfermenonomnino obscuroshomines,Gallicescribuntacloquuntur;nontamenomnesitaterse,utiiquiRegis aedesautParisienseforumfrequentant;utiudicatudifficilenonsit(siquiseosloquentes audiat,ueleorumscriptalegat)adquodidiomaillorumsermoaccedat.”

21 Seenote10aboveandAntesignanus(1554,p.11-12):“Vixenimfieripotest,quinaliquid epropriasiuematernalinguaretineant,etiamillisinuitisacGallicalingualoquinitentibus;

sunttamenaliquimaximoingeniiacuminepraediti,quiquasiuernaculaelinguaeobliti,terso acpurosermoneutuntur;immopeculiaresquasdamphrasesacdicendimodosexfamosarum etinGallicosermonemagisprobatarumurbiumdialectisuelutiAtticismosobseruant,quibus quasiquibusdamflosculisnonrarosuascriptaornatiorareddunt.”

(10)

exhibitedfeaturesfromhisnativeIonic.²²AntesignanusalsomentionsAtticismsas thefeaturespar excellence fortheenrichmentofthecommonGreeklanguage.He isthusclearlyrelyingonhiscontemporaryFrenchsituationtoexplaintheinternal diversificationofGreek.Hefallsbackonasimilarstrategytoapproachdiaphasic- diastraticvariationinGreek,apassageIhavediscussedearlier(seesub 2.). On theotherhand,theveryfactthatheistryingtoclarifytheGreeksituationforces himtoprojecthisowninterpretationoftheGreekprototypeonhiscontemporary Frenchstateofaffairs.WhatismostremarkablewithinthiscontextisAntesigna- nus’apparentlyoriginalclaimthatFrenchhascertaingenerallyrecognizeddialects thatcanenrichthecommonlanguage.Thus,Antesignanusistoacertainextentin accordancewithPierredeRonsard’s(1524–1585)ideathatdialectwordscanen- richtheFrenchcommonlanguage(françois).²³However,Ronsard,whoalsorefers totheGreekcontext,doesnotexplicitlystatethattherearegenerallyrecognized dialects.Forhemerelyassertsthat–inspecificcircumstances–certain“good”

elements(words)maybetakenoverfromthedialectsintothecommonlanguage.

Fromtheabovementioneddatawemayconcludethatthereisaratherambigu- ousinterplaybetweentheGreekmodelandtheFrenchsituationinAntesignanus’

perception.Figure1aimstodepictthisinteraction.

Figure1:Antesignanus’perceptionoftherelationshipbetweenGreekandFrenchvariation

AntesignanususestheFrenchsituationtoclarifytheGreekstateofaffairs,appar- entlywithoutrealizing,however,thathisviewonGreekdiversityispartiallyde- termininghisviewonFrenchdifferentiationand,consequently,hisclarificationof 22 Itisprobable,however,thatHippocrates’nativespeechwasavarietyofDoricandnotof Ionic,becauseCoswasoriginallyaDoricisland(seeColvin2007,p.61).Itnevertheless cametobeprofoundlyinfluencedbyIonicculture.

23 SeeRonsard(1565,p.4v-5r):“Tusçaurasdextrementchoisiretapproprieràtonœuure les motsplussignificatifsdesdialectesdenostreFrance,quandmesmementtun’enauraspoint desibonsnydesipropresentanationetnesefaultsouciersilesvocablessontGascons, Poiteuins, Normans, Manceaux, Lionnoisoud’autrepaïs,pourueuqu’ilzsoyentbonsetque proprementilzsignifientcequetuveuxdire,sansaffecterpartropleparlerdelacourt,lequel estquelquesfoistresmauuaispourestrelelangagededamoisellesetieunesGentilzhommes quifontplusdeprofessiondebiencombattrequedebienparler.”See,e.g.,Chaurand(1969, p.64),Picoche(1973,p.8-9),andLeclerc(2014).SeealsotheSuravertissement au Lecteur inRonsard(1550),wherehejustifieshisusageofdialectwords(withreferencetotheGreek poets,especiallyTheocritus).

consciousclarification

f^Rench^dialect^situation g^Reek^PRototyPe

unconscious interpretation

(11)

Greekvariation.Analternativewayofapproachingthisinteractionisintermsofa processof“mutualreinforcement”.Bothsituationsaresimilartoacertaindegree, butdifferencesaresuppressedsoastostressthesimilarities.Theallegedbasisfor comparabilityisthatbothGreekandFrenchhaveacommonspeechform,several linguisticvarieties,andsomegenerallyrecognizeddialects,bywhichthecommon speechcanbeenriched.

4. contextualizing antesignanus’ ^theoRizing^on^dialect

andRelatednotions

ForanunderstandingofAntesignanus’conceptofdialectandrelatednotions,itis indispensabletocontextualizehisviews.Indoingso,Itakehismotivestotackle this problem as a starting point. I also briefly investigate both the (kind(s) of) sourcesAntesignanusreliedonandthelaterfateofhisconceptions.

Antesignanus’motivesfordiscussingtheconceptseemquiteclear.Ingeneral, hisnotesserveasacompaniontoandexpansionofClenardus’grammar.Inpartic- ular,heisgivingmoreinformationonthe“fiveprincipallanguagesoftheGreeks”

(quinque Graecorum linguae praecipuae),towhichClenardushadonlybrieflyre- ferred(seesub1.).Inhisformulationanddefinitionofdialectusandthefollowing conceptualdiscussion,Antesignanusseemstobeoriginal.For,althoughherefers toother“grammarians”,Ihavenotdiscoveredanystraightforwardsourcessofar.

Itseemsprobablethatheisparaphrasingwhathehasreadelsewhere,elaborating upontheconceptalongtheway.Inanycase,theinterestintheconceptofdialect was steadily growing around that time.This is shown by, among other things, ConradGesner’s(1516–1565)discussionofthetermdialectusinhisfamousMith- ridates,whichwaspublishedoneyearafterAntesignanus’commentaryonCle- nardus.ContrarytoAntesignanus,Gesner(1555,p.1v-2r)is,forthegreaterpart, merelytranslatingfromClementofAlexandria(Stromata1.21.142.1-4;ed.Stählin

&Früchtel1960,p.88).²⁴However,Gesner(1555,p.2r)doesaddthefollowing:

Nos dialectum […] significare obseruauimus […] alias (apud grammaticos praesertim)linguaealicuiussiueinsingulissiueinpluribusuerbisproprietatem, quaacommuniuelreliquissimilibusautcognatisdiffert.

We have observed that elsewhere (mainly with the grammarians) “dialect”

signifies a peculiarity of a certain language, either in separate or in several words.Bythispeculiarity,itdiffersfromthecommon[variety]orfromother similarorcognate[varieties].²⁵

24 AntesignanusmayalsohaveknownthesepassagesfromClement’sStromata(seesub3.and note 17).

25 SeeColombat&Peters(2009,p.30-33)foradiscussionofGesner’susageandinterpreta- tionsofthetermdialectus.GesneralsodescribesawiderangeofAncientGreekdialectsin hisalphabeticallanguagecatalogue:see,e.g.,Gesner(1555,p.5v-6r)forAeolicandGesner (1555,p.58r)forLaconian.

(12)

VerymuchlikeAntesignanus,Gesnerreferstothemeaningofdialectusasitisused bythegrammatici.Moreover,Gesner’sphrasing(“[…]linguae[…]proprietatem, qua[…]differt”)alsoshowsastrikingsimilaritytoAntesignanus’definition(“[…]

sermonisquandamproprietatem,quadistinguitur[…]”).Thismightbeacoinci- dence,ofcourse.YetitisnotaltogetherinconceivablethatGesnerknewAntesigna- nus’scholia.Thereare,however,nootherindicationsofsuchaninfluence.

ForhisdiscussionofGreekdialectalparticularities,Antesignanusisclearly relyingonearlierwork,becauseheisquotingthetypicalandwidelyknownexam- ples.HeappearstofallbackonByzantinetreatises(thecanonicalthreeconsisting ofJohnPhiloponus,pseudo-Plutarch,andGregoryofCorinth;seeTrovato1984, appendix&VanRooyforthcoming)andprobablyalsoonRenaissancegrammar- ians both from Greece and fromWestern Europe.The latter seems to be clear from his insertion of tables to present dialectal changes. This methodological- typographicalinnovationappearstohavebeeninitiatedbyHadrianusAmerotius (AdrienAmerot;ca.1490s–1560)inhisinfluentialtreatiseontheGreekdialects.

Thiswasfirstpublishedasapartofhis1520grammar,butfrom1530onwardsit waseditedseparately(seeHoven1985,p.1-19&Hummel1999).Compare,e.g., Amerotius’(1520,p.Piv)schematicpresentationofdialectalpersonalpronoun variationwithAntesignanus’(1554,p.14)schematicpresentationofAeolicdia- lectalfeatures.ItmustbegrantedthatAmerotius’approachisdifferentfromthat ofAntesignanus,astheformerdiscussesdialectpeculiaritiesperpartofspeech(in whichheisoriginal),whereasthelatterpresentstheparticularitiesperdialect(fol- lowingthetraditionofByzantinegrammarians).Thisinnovationinthepresenta- tionofthedatawasstimulatedbytheprintingpressandcontrastswithByzantine discussionsofthedialects,whicharealwaysconstruedlinearly(withouttables).²⁶

Inthe16thcenturyalone,Clenardus’grammarwithAntesignanus’scholiare- ceivedatleast55differenteditions,whichwereissuedinseveralimportantEuro- peancitiessuchasAntwerp,London,Paris,andVenice.Thisway,Antesignanus’

conceptof“linguisticvariety”couldreachawidepublic,whichitcertainlyseems tohavedone.Ihavealreadymentionedhisinfluentialclassificatoryprinciplein approachingtheGreekdialects(namelythepossessionofagreatliterature;see sub3.).Furthermore,inhisGreekgrammarthatwaswidelyusedinearlymodern Jesuitschools,JacobusGretserus(JakobGretser;1562–1625)explicitlymentions thatheisfollowingAntesignanus’method.²⁷ There were, however, also scholars 26 Iamonlyreferringtothepresentationofdialectalfeatures;fortablesalreadyoccurinearlier manuscriptsandprintedbookstovisualizeotheraspectsof(GreekandLatin)grammar,as rightlypointedoutbyoneoftheanonymousreviewers.

27 SeeGretserus(1593,p.5r):“Dialectosporrononinunumcumulum,utitaloquiliceat,co- niecimus,sedsuoquasquelococollocauimusimitatiAntesignanum.Namutmembrumin corpore,tunccorpusornat,sisuumlocumobtineat,itaetdialectiinhocgrammaticocorpore.

Quiuerodiuersaconsiliasecuti,dialectospropriastationeauulsas,inunumcaputcongerunt,

(13)

whoattackedAntesignanus’ideas,themostprominentofwhomwasthefamous printerandgrammarianHenricusStephanus(HenriEstienne;1528/1531–1598).

For,inhisoftenoverlookedParalipomena grammaticarum Graecae linguae in- stitutionum,hecriticizesAntesignanus’commandandgrammaticaldescriptionof theGreeklanguageingeneralandhisviewonthekoinèinparticular.Theveryfact thathefeelstheneedtosystematicallycounterAntesignanus’viewsmaybetaken toconfirmtheinfluenceofthelatter’sscholia.

First,StephanusrejectsAntesignanus’presentationofAncientGreekbymock- inglyrelyingontheconceptofdialect.HerepudiatesAntesignanusforattributing fictitiousformsorparticularitiestotheGreeklanguageor–inotherwords–for inventing a dialectus Antesignanica,“anAntesignanicdialect”:

Magnus enim ibi est catalogus thematum, quae cum ille usitata esse dicat, sedparum,contratamen,paucissimisexceptis,omninosuntinusitata;adeout tucumtuopraeceptorifidemadhibenseausurpabis,ridendumteiisquiuel minimuminGraecalinguasuntexercitati,sispropinaturus.Namibicumalia nobis proponit, tum uero ista,ἀγάγω, αἰσθέομαι,ἁμαρτέω,ἀμφιέω,ἀναινέω (obseruaquammultaebarytoniscircumflexafaciat,sicutetinaliquaeorum quaesequunturparte),βάφω,βλάβω,βλέω,γάμω,δαρθέω,διδάχω,δραμέω, ἐθελέω,ἐλεύθω seu ἔλθω, ἕλομαι,ἐχθέομαι, θεύω, θρέφω, θρέχω (utrumque per θ), καύω,κλήγω,καλύβω,κρύβω,λάμβω,λάγχω,λήβω,μαχέομαι,μόργω, πεπιθέω.Cuiusdialectisunthaecuerba?Antesignanicae.Quid?Illadialectus exbarytoniscircumflexafacit?Facitcerte,utuides.Litteramυintericit?Ita:

utuidesinθεύωetκαύωproθέωetκαίω;seduidebisinpluribus,siulterius pergas;namitidemπλεύωetπνεύωinueniesproπλέωetπνέω.Habereueroeam etaliamultasibipeculiaria,tumexhiscognosces,tumexreliquisquaetibiapud eumuidendarelinquo(Stephanus1581,p.¶.viir-viiv).

For there [sc. in Antesignanus’ De thematis uerborum et participiorum inuestigandi ratione libellus],thereisalargecatalogueofprimaryverbs.And eventhoughhesaysthatthesearefrequentlyused,theyareneverthelessstill, withveryfewexceptions,whollyunusual–tosuchanextentthat,whenyou puttrustinyourteacherandusethem,youwillbecometheobjectofridicule for those who are even least of all practiced in the Greek language. For he presents to us both other verb stems and indeed these:ἀγάγω, αἰσθέομαι, ἁμαρτέω,ἀμφιέω,ἀναινέω (observe how many of them he transforms from barytonetocircumflexverbs,asalsoinanumberofthosethatfollow),βάφω, βλάβω,βλέω,γάμω,δαρθέω,διδάχω,δραμέω,ἐθελέω,ἐλεύθω or ἔλθω, ἕλομαι, ἐχθέομαι,θεύω,θρέφω,θρέχω(both with θ), καύω,κλήγω,καλύβω,κρύβω, λάμβω,λάγχω,λήβω,μαχέομαι,μόργω,πεπιθέω.Ofwhichdialectarethese verbs? Of theAntesignanic.What? Does that dialect forge circumflex verbs frombarytoneverbs?Itcertainlydoes,asyousee.Doesitinterjecttheletterυ?

Yes,asyouseeinθεύωandκαύωinsteadofθέωandκαίω;butyouwillseeit inmanymoreverbs,ifyouwouldgofurther.Forinlikemanneryouwillfind πλεύωandπνεύωinsteadofπλέωandπνέω.Butitalsohasmanyotherelements particulartoit,asyouwillrecognizefromtheseaswellasfromtheremaining things,whichIleaveuptoyoutoseewithhim.

illimihiπανσπερμίανquandamAnaxagoraemoliriuidentur,cuiiureoptimoadscribantduo illaelogia:πᾶνἐνπαντὶμέμικταιetrudis indigestaque moles.”

(14)

Stephanus’interpretivestartingpointisthedialectalrealityofAncientGreekandthe factthatcertainparticularitiescanbeattributedtoeachoftheexistingdialects.Butas heisunabletoassigntoaGreekvarietytheformsAntesignanusascribestoAncient Greek,heironicallyclaimstheexistenceofan“Antesignanicdialect”,whichdeceives andconfusesstudentsoftheGreeklanguage–uptothepointthattheybecomean objectofridiculeevenforthosehavingonlyamediocreknowledgeofGreek.²⁸ Else- where,StephanusjestinglystatesthatAntesignanusisthe“leader”(themeaningof Latin antesignanus)oftheaudaciousandfoolishgrammariansoftheGreeklanguage.²⁹

Second,afterhavingrespectfullyrefutedAngelusCaninius’(AngeloCanini;

1521–1557)conceptionofthekoinè,³⁰ StephanusattacksAntesignanus’assertion thatDemosthenesandAristophaneswroteinthekoinè, a view about which he is muchlessmild:

AbsittamenutAntesignanopotiusquamilliassentiar,dicentiDemosthenem et Aristophanem, licet Attice locuti dicantur, communi sermone scripsisse.

Immo ueroAttice scripsit uterque; sedAristophanes in nonnullis etiam quae leuiorasunt,sermonisAtticiconsuetudinemmagisseruatquamDemosthenes.

(Stephanus 1581, p. 37)

ButfarbeitthatIagreewithAntesignanusmorethanwithhim[sc.Caninius],as AntesignanusstatesthatDemosthenesandAristophanes,althoughtheyaresaid tohavespokenAttic,wroteincommonspeech.Onthecontrary,bothofthem wroteinAttic;butAristophanespreserveseveninsomerathertrivialaspectsthe usageofAtticspeechmorethanDemosthenes.

StephanusarguesthatbothauthorswroteinAttic,butthatAristophanespreserves moreAttic particularities in his plays than Demosthenes in his speeches.There arethereforedifferentdegreesofAtticism(withouttheAtticcharactervanishing).

Moreover,itispossiblethatAtticandthekoinèentirelyoverlap.³¹Stephanus’con- clusionseemstohavebeenthattheintersectionofAtticwiththekoinè is larger in theusageofDemosthenesthaninthatofAristophanes,whopreservesmoredetails thatareexclusivelyAttic.Theexistingoverlapsbetweenbothspeechformsdonot, however,implythattheywroteinthekoinè,asAntesignanuspropounds.

28 ReferenceismadetoAntesignanus’De thematis uerborum et participiorum inuestigandi ratione libellus,firstpublishedinthe1557Lyonedition(seesub1.).

29 SeeStephanus(1581,p.¶.iiiiv):“Eorumporroquosdiximaioreaudaciauelpotiustemeritate quamGraecaelinguaecognitioneinstructosadscribendamgrammaticenaccessisse,antes- ignanumdicerenondubitauerimPetrumAntesignanum;quippequinonsoluminScholiis quaeinClenardumscripsit,sedinPraxiquoque(utipsenominauit)multascripseritquae commenta potius quam commentationes uocare decet, nonnulla uero quae etiam homine mediocriterhuiuslinguaeperitoindignaessemecumfatebunturquiuelpaucashorasiniis serioexaminandisposuerint.”

30 SeeCaninius(1555,p.a3v):“Communisdialectusdicitur,nonquaaliquanatioautscriptor utatur,sedquaeuerbaabaliisnonimmutantur,eaadcommunemdialectumreferendasunt, ut ἄρτος,χρυσὸς,λέγω,γράφωaliaquegeneriseiusdem.”

31 SeeStephanus(1581,p.11):“Communisuerolinguaexsingulisaliquasumit,sedpraecipue exAttica;adeoutillainmultisnulloabhacdiscrimineseparetur.”

(15)

5. c^onclusion

Thepresentcontributionhadadoubleaim.First,Ipresentedadescriptive-ana- lyticaloverviewofAntesignanus’conceptionofdialectandrelatednotions.He clearlyregardedadialectus(synonyms:idioma & lingua) asaformofspeechthat isdetermineddiatopicallyandethnicallyandthusrevealsaspeaker’sprovenance.

Thisnotionwasopposedandsubordinatedtoanotherlinguisticentity,thelingua communis.Antesignanus’ discussion was indisputably triggered by theAncient Greekcontext,whichheneededtoclarifyforhisintended(i.e.French-speaking) readershipbyreferringtovariationwithintheFrenchvernacular.Abriefcontextu- alizationnotonlyallowedustooffersomeindicationsabouthissources,butalso abouthisundeniableinfluenceandhisWirkungsgeschichte.Second,Iprovideda glimpseoftheenormousterra incognitaofearlymoderntheorizingonthenotion ofdialectingeneralanditsAncientGreekbackgroundinparticular.ForAntesig- nanus’scholiatakeanimportantplaceinamoreextensiveresearchprojectthat investigatesthecomingintobeingoftheconceptualpair“language”and“dialect”

(stillproblematicinpresent-daylinguistics)andtheconstitutiveimportanceofthe earlymodernperiodinthisregard.³²Themostimportantresearchquestionsraised withintheframeworkofthisprojectwerementionedinsections2.-4.³³

32 SeeVanHal(2010,p.471,note204),whosignalsthisresearchlacuna.Importantpioneer- ingcontributionsareAlinei(1981[1984]),Trovato(1984),Blank(1996),Werlen(1996), Burke(2004),andHaßler(2009).Twodifferenttypesoftextsconstitutethecorecorpusof theproject:(1)writingsthatconsidertherelevantnotionsonageneralconceptualleveland (2)textsspecificallyfocusingontheAncientGreekdialectcontext.Thereasonsforthisfo- cusareevident.First,theGreeklanguageisthesourcefortheterm“dialect”.Second,early modernscholarsoftenusedtheGreekcontextasamodelfortheirconceptualizationoflocal speechvarietiesasopposedto“(standard)languages”andothernotions(asIhaveshown forthecaseofAntesignanusinthispaper).Itake1477/1478asthestartingpoint,atwhich timeJohann[es]Reuchlin(1450-1522)“wrote”theveryfirstWesternEuropeantreatiseon theGreekdialects(seeVanRooy2014foraneditionanddiscussion).Thechronological endpointis1782,inwhichyeartwoimportanttextswerepublished:(1)FriedrichGedike’s (1754–1803)Ueber die Dialekte, besonders die griechischenand(2)JohannesFriedericus Facius’(1750-1825)Compendium dialectorum Graecarum.

33 Othersomewhatmoremarginalresearchquestions(towhichAntesignanusoffersno(elabo- rate)answers)include:

(1)WhatistheearlymodernhistoryofspecificGreekdialectparticularities?E.g.,thehisto- ryofviewsontheAeolicdigamma,whichisinvokedasanetymologicaltoolinexplai- ningcertainlinguisticfeaturesbothcross-dialectallyandcross-linguistically.See,e.g., Schmidt(1604,p.):(3v-):(4r)forthisprincipleinacross-dialectalcontext.

(2)HowdothesourcetextsevaluateAncientandvernacularGreek(andother)dialectsand onwhichdatadotheyrely?E.g.,earlymodernAthenianissometimesconsideredthe vileaestheticoppositeofelegantancientAttic;seetheviewsofTheodosiusZygomalas (1544-1607) in Crusius (1584, p. 216).

(3)Arethererecurrentthemes/topoi?E.g.,theregional-administrativeentityoftheprouincia (“province”)isoftentiedupwiththenotionofdialect.See,e.g.,Bibliander(1548,p.19).

(16)

R^efeRences

Primary sources

Amerotius, Hadrianus, 1520.Compendium Graecae grammatices, perspicua breuitate complectens, quicquid est octo partium orationis,Louanii,apudTheodoricumMarti- numAlostensem.

—1530.De dialectis diuersis declinationum Graecanicarum tam in uerbis quam nomini- bus, ex Corintho, Ioan. Grammatico, Plutarcho, Ioan. Philopono atque aliis eiusdem classis,Parisiis,exofficinaGerardiMorrhiiCampensis.

Antesignanus,Petrus,1554.“Dedialectisappendix”,inClenardus&Antesignanus(1554), 11-16.

—(ed.),1556.Terentius. Dictionibus hyperdisyllabis a P. Antesignano Rapistagnensi affixi sunt in puerorum gratiam natiui accentus; atque ad marginem apposita est singulorum uersuum dimensio non minus utili quam artificiosa methodo litteris et notis breuissi- misque scholiis designata. Litterarum et notarum explanatio praefatione continetur, Lugduni,apudMatthiamBonhomme.

Bibliander, Theodorus, 1548.De ratione communi omnium linguarum et litterarum commentarius Theodori Bibliandri,Tiguri,apudChristoph.Frosch.

Caninius,Angelus,1555.Ἑλληνισμός. In quo quicquid uetustissimi scriptores de Graecae linguae ratione praecipiunt atque adeo omnia quae ad dialectos intelligendas et poetas penitus cognoscendos pertinent, facili methodo exponuntur. Eo accedit plurimorum uerborum originis explicatio,Parisiis,apudGuil.Morelium.

Clenardus,Nicolaus,1530.Institutiones in linguam Graecam,Louanii,exofficinachalco- graphicaRutgeriResciiacIoannisSturmii.

Clenardus, Nicolaus, and Antesignanus, Petrus, 1554.Institutiones linguae Graecae, N. Cleonardo auctore, cum scholiis P. Antesignani Rapistagnensis,Lugduni,apudMat- thiamBonhomme.

— 1557.Institutiones ac meditationes in Graecam linguam, N. Clenardo auctore, cum scholiis et Praxi P. Antesignani Rapistagnensis. [...], [altera editio], Lugduni, apud MatthiamBonhomme.

Costus, Petrus, 1554. םוגרת תלהק. Targum koheleth, hoc est Caldaica paraphrasis ecclesias- tis, Latina facta, […]. Cui Salomonis Ecclesiastem ex translatione uulgata aduersum po- suimus. Accessit epistola in eandem sententiam,Lugduni,apudMatthiamBonhomme.

Crusius, Martinus, 1584.Turcograeciae libri octo, Basileae, per Leonardum Ostenium, SebastianiHenricpetriimpensa.

Erasmus,Desiderius,1528.De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione [...] dia- logus,apudinclytamBasilaeam,inofficinaFrobeniana.

Facius,JohannesFriedericus,1782.Compendium dialectorum Graecarum,Norimbergae, sumptibusE.C.Grattenaueri.

Gedike,Friedrich,1782.“UeberDialekte,besondersdiegriechischen”,Berlinsches Maga- zin der Wissenschaften und Künste 1/2, 1-26.

Gesner,Conrad,1555.Mithridates. De differentiis linguarum tum ueterum tum quae hodie apud diuersas nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt, […] obseruationes, Tiguri, excudebatFroschouerus.

Gretserus, Jacobus, 1593.Institutionum de octo partibus orationis, syntaxi et prosodia Graecorum libri tres,Ingolstadii,excudebatDauidSartorius.

Gualtperius,Otho,1589.De dialectis Graecae linguae praecipuis, Attica, Ionica, Dorica, Aeolica et coronidis uice nonnulla de proprietate poetica. Libellus methodice conscrip- tus et in gratiam tironum φιλελλήνων in Academia Marpurgensi propositus,Francofurti adMoenum,exofficinatypographicaIoannisSpiessii.

Merigonus,PetrusBertrandus,1621.Facilis et compendiarius tractatus dialectorum lin- guae Graecae. Vna cum tabulis illarum, quibus accessit alia tabula licentiam poetarum complectens, perquam utilis studiosis poeticae lectionis. [...]. Cum indice eorum quae continentur in hoc tractatu,Parisiis,sumptibusauctoris.

(17)

Pillotus, Johannes, 1550. Gallicae linguae institutio, Latino sermone conscripta, Parisiis, exofficinaStephaniGroulleau.

Ronsard, Pierre de, 1550.Les quatre premiers liures des Odes, Paris, chez Guillaume Cauellart.

—1565.Abbregé de l’art poëtique François,AParis,chezGabrielBuon.

Schmidt, Erasmus, 1604.Tractatus de dialectis Graecorum principalibus, quae sunt in parte λέξεως. Cum rerum et uerborum indice locupletissimo. Ex optimis grammaticis, methodo discentibus aptissima dispositus, Wittebergae, imprimebat Laurentius Seu- berlich,impensisSamuelSelfisch.

Stählin, Otto (ed.), 1960.Clemens Alexandrinus. Zweiter Band. Stromata Buch I-VI, in dritterAuflageneuherausgegebenvonLudwigFrüchtel,Berlin,AkademieVerlag(Die griechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerdererstenJahrhunderte52/2).

Stephanus, Henricus, 1581. Paralipomena grammaticarum Graecae linguae institutionum.

Item animaduersiones in quasdam grammaticorum Graecorum traditiones,[Geneuae], [excudebatHenricusStephanus].

Sylvius, Jacobus, 1531.In linguam Gallicam isagωge, una cum eiusdem grammatica Latino-Gallica, ex Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis auctoribus,Parisiis,exofficinaRoberti Stephani.

Secondary sources

Alinei,Mario,1984.“1.‘Dialetto’.Unconcettorinascimentalefiorentino”,Lingua e dialet- ti: struttura, storia e geografia,Bologna,IlMulino(Studilinguisticiesemiologici), 169-199.[=Alinei,Mario,1981.“Dialetto:unconcettorinascimentalefiorentino.Sto- riaeanalisi”,Quaderni di Semantica2,147-173.]

Bayle,Pierre,1740.“Antesignan(Pierre)”,DesMaizeaux(ed.),Dictionnaire historique et critique,cinquièmeédition,revue,corrigéeetaugmentée;aveclaviedel’auteur,A Rotterdam, Leide, La Haye et Utrecht, chez P. Brunelet alii; Samuel Luchtmans;

P. Gosseet alii;EtienneNeaulme,vol.1/1[A-B],243-244.

Blank,Paula,1996.Broken English. Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings,London&NewYork,Routledge(ThePoliticsofLanguage).

Burke,Peter,2004.Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe,Cambridge, CambridgeUniversityPress.

Chaix,Paul,1954.Recherches sur l’imprimerie à Genève de 1550 à 1564. Étude bibliogra- phique, économique et littéraire,Genève,Droz(Travauxd’HumanismeetRenaissance Chaurand,Jacques,1969.Histoire de la langue française,Paris,PressesUniversitairesde16).

France(“Quesais-je?”Lepointdesconnaissancesactuelles167).

Colombat,Bernard(ed.),2003.Jean Pillot. Institution de la langue française / Gallicae linguae institutio (1561), Paris, Honoré Champion (Textes de la Renaissance.Série Traitéssurlalanguefrançaise72).

Colombat, Bernard, and Peters, Manfred, 2009. “Introduction”, Colombat, Bernard and Peters,Manfred(eds.),Conrad Gessner. Mithridate / Mithridates (1555),Genève,Droz (Travauxd’HumanismeetRenaissance452),11-90.

Colvin, Stephen, 2007. A Historical Greek Reader. Mycenaean to the Koiné, Oxford, OxfordUniversityPress.

Haag,Eugène,andHaag,Émile,1886.“Davantes(Pierre)”,La France protestante,deu- xièmeédition(dir.HenriBordier),Paris,Fischbacher,vol.5,163-170.

Haßler,Gerda,2009.“Dialekt”,Haßler,GerdaandNeis,Cordula(eds.),Lexikon sprach- theoretischer Grundbegriffe des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts,Berlin,DeGruyter,vol.1, 866-882.

Haugen,Einar,1966.“Dialect,Language,Nation”,American Anthropologist68/4,922-935.

Hayaert,Valérie,2008.Mensemblematica et humanisme juridique. Le cas du Pegmacum narrationibusphilosophicisdePierreCoustau, 1555,Genève,Droz(Travauxd’Huma- nismeetRenaissance438).

(18)

Hoven,René,1985.Bibliographie de trois auteurs de grammaires grecques contemporains de Nicolas Clénard. Adrien Amerot, Arnold Oridryus, Jean Varennius,Aubel,Gason (Livre-Idées-Société7).

—1993.“DeEuropeseuitstralingvanCleynaerts’Grieksespraakkunst”,Tournoy,G.,Tu- lkens,J.,andIlegems,M.(eds.),Nicolaes Cleynaerts (1493-1993). Van Diest tot Ma- rokko. Catalogus van de Cleynaertstentoonstelling in het Stedelijk Museum te Diest, juli-oktober 1993,Brussel,Dienstvoorgeschiedkundigenfolkloristischonderzoekvan deprovincieBrabant(DeBrabantsefolkloreengeschiedenis278-279),123-132.

Hummel,Pascale,1999.“Unopuscule-relais.LeDe dialectis(1520/1530)d’AdrienAme- rot”,Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance. Travaux et documents61/2,479-494.

Leclerc,Jacques,2014.“LaRenaissance.L’affirmationdufrançais(^xvi^esiècle)”,L’aménage- ment linguistique dans le monde,Québec,TLFQ[UniversitéLaval].[consulted:September 16, 2014. <http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s5_Renaissance.htm>.]

Marty,Emile,1896.“LapatriedePierreDavantèsconnusouslepseudonymed’Antesi- gnan”,Revue historique, scientifique et littéraire du département du Tarn (ancien pays d’Albigeois) 13, 346-351.

Picoche,Jacqueline,1973.“Lesmonographiesdialectales(domainegallo-roman)”,Langue française 18/1, 8-41.

R.I.E.C.H (Répertoire des imprimeurs et éditeurs suisses actifs avant 1800) [consulted:

September23,2014.<http://dbserv1-bcu.unil.ch/riech/intro.php>.]

Schwarzfuchs,Lyse,2008.L’hébreu dans le livre lyonnais au ^xvi^e siècle. Inventaire chrono- logique,Lyon,ENS&Institutd’histoiredulivre.

Swiggers,Pierre,andVanHal,Toon,2009.“NicolasClenardus”,Stammerjohann,Harro (ed.),Lexicon Grammaticorum. A Bio-Bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics,secondedition,revisedandenlarged,Tübingen,Niemeyer,vol.1,308-309.

Trovato,Paolo,1984.“‘Dialetto’esinonimi(‘idioma’,‘proprietà’,‘lingua’)nellatermino- logialinguisticaquattro-ecinquecentesca(conun’appendicesullatradizioneastampa deitrattatellidialettologicibizantini)”,Rivista di letteratura italiana 2, 205-236.

Van Hal, Toon, 2010.“Moedertalen en taalmoeders”. Het vroegmoderne taalvergelij- kende onderzoek in de Lage Landen,Brussel,KoninklijkeVlaamseAcademievoorWe- tenschappenenKunsten(VerhandelingenvandeKoninklijkeVlaamseAcademievan BelgiëvoorWetenschappenenKunsten.NieuweReeks20).

VanRooy,Raf,2014.“AfirststumblingsteptowardAncientGreekdialectologyinWestern Europe.AneditionandbriefdiscussionofJohannReuchlin’sDe quattuor Graecae linguae differentiis libellus(1477/1478)”,Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance.

Travaux et documents 76/3, 501-526.

—2016.“‘Whatisa“dialect”?’Somenewperspectivesonthehistoryofthetermδιάλεκτος anditsinterpretationsinancientGreeceandByzantium”,Glotta92,244-279.

—(Forthcoming)“«Plutarquedialectologue».Lapseudo-autoritédePlutarquedansle discourssurlesdialectesgrecsàlaRenaissance(ca.1400-1670),Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis / Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire”.

Werlen,Iwar,1996.“6.DialektologieundSprachgeographievom13.bis20.Jahrhundert”, Schmitter,Peter(ed.),Sprachtheorien der Neuzeit II. Von der GrammairedePort-Royal (1660) zur Konstitution moderner linguistischer Disziplinen,Tübingen, Gunter Narr (GeschichtederSprachtheorie5),427-458.