1 Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, Von Justinian bis zum Ende des Oströmischen Reiches 527-1453 [Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9, 1] (Munich 1897) 385 Google Scholar ff., Appendix with the title Vulgärgriechische Literatur; Beck, H. G., Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12, 2, 3] (Munich 1971)Google Scholar.

2 In the context of the analysis attempted here I am using the end of the 15th century as a terminus for the end of the Byzantine era. I am fully aware of the arbitrariness of this decision; seen from the perspective of diglossia, however, the socio-cultural changes in the Greek-speaking world during the Ottoman period make such a decision tenable.

3 On the classification and the terminology problems in conjunction with Byzantine Literature see Hinterberger, M., ‘How should we define vernacular literature?’, paper given at the conference ‘Unlocking the potential of texts: Interdisciplinary perspectives on Medieval Greek’, Cambridge, 18–19 Google Scholar July 2006 (<http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/unlocking/Hinterberger.pdf> (accessed 31/03/2008).

4 Browning, R., Medieval and Modem Greek, 2nd edn (Cambridge 1983) 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For a more drastic (and not uncontroversial) approach to the question of the beginning of Modern Greek (language and) literature see Jeffreys, M., ‘Modern Greek in the 11th century - or what else should we call it?’, Κάμπος. Cambridge Papers in Modern Greek 15 (2007) 61–89 Google Scholar.

6 With the notable exception of the Aesop and Alexander tradition, among others.

7 Beck, Geschichte, XVII.

8 See Cupane, C., ‘Wie volkstümlich ist die Byzantinische Volksliteratur?’ BZ 96 (2003) 577-99Google Scholar for problems of this traditional classification and the use of the term Volksliteratur and Reinsch, D. R., ‘Byzanz, Literatur’, in Der Neue Fauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, XIII, 600 Google Scholar.

9 Cupane, op. cit., Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’. See also Eideneier, H., ‘Tou Ptochoprodromou’, in Hinterberger, M., Schiffer, E. (eds.), Byzantinische Sprachkunst. Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag [Byzantinisches Archiv 20] (Berlin and New York 2007) 56–76 Google Scholar.

10 Beck’s Geschichte has its counterpart in Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 5, 12], 2 vols. (Munich 1978)Google Scholar.

11 In the bibliographical supplements of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift the ‘volkssprachliche Literatur’ is treated as a different subject with all relevant publications listed under this separate heading.

12 Vernacular literature of the Byzantine period is covered by Kriaras, E.’ Λεξικό της Μεσαιωνικής Ελληνικής δημώδους γραμμχτείας (1100-1669) (Thessaloniki 1968- )Google Scholar; for Kriaras’ lemmatization practices in his dictionary in relation to the dichotomy discussed here, see his Prolegomena in vol. 4 of the lexicon (Thessaloniki 1975) xii-xiv.

13 In the context both of the national ideologies and the Modern Greek ‘Language Question’ discourse of the nineteenth century: see Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, Trapp, E., ‘Learned and vernacular literature in Byzantium: dichotomy or symbiosis?’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993) 115-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cupane, ‘Wie volkstümlich’ (esp. fn. 7 with further bibliography on the subject), Reinsch, ‘Byzanz, Literatur’.

14 Ševčenko, I., ‘Additional remarks to the report on levels of style’, JOB 32.1(1982) 220-1Google Scholar.

15 See Agapitos, P. A., ‘SO Debate: Genre, structure and poetics in the Byzantine vernacular romances of love’, Symbolae Osloenses 79 (2004) 7–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the comments of several specialists on Agapitos’ paper (54-101).

16 This fact is well documented with many authors from different periods and centuries referring to it. A good overview is provided by Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, and Jeffreys, M., ‘The silent millennium: thoughts on the evidence for spoken Greek between the last papyri and Cretan drama’, in Constantinides, C. N. et al. (eds.), Φιλελλην. Studies in Honour of Robert Browning (Venice 1996) 133-49Google Scholar; see also Böhlig, G. R., Untersuchungen zum rhetorischen Sprachgebrauch der Byzantiner mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schriften des fylichael Psellos [Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten] (Berlin 1956)Google Scholar.

17 All European vernaculars and more especially Romance languages have a phase of ‘interaction’ with Latin, where Latin and the vernacular are used in a ‘mixed’ way and where a ‘diglossia’ situation can be postulated (see Ong, W. J., ‘Orality, literacy, and medieval textualization’, New Literary History 16 (1984/5) 1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Batts, M. S., ‘The “emergence” of medieval German literature’, Mosaic 8 (1974) 135-46Google Scholar; P. Zumthor, ‘Birth of a language and birth of a literature’, ibid. 8 (1974) 195-206; Wright, R., Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages (London 1991)Google Scholar; Coulmas, F., ‘Schriftlichkeit und Diglossie’, in Günther, H. and Ludwig, O. (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit = Writing and its Use: ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 10, 1] (Berlin 1994) 739-45)Google Scholar. See also Ehler, C., ‘Verschriftung in den altenglischen Urkunden’, in Ehler, C. and Schaefer, U. (eds.), Verschriftung und Verschriftlichung. Aspekte des Medienwechsels in verschiedenen Kulturen und Epochen (Tübingen 1998) 174-88Google Scholar on the use of both Latin and Old English in Old English acts.

18 Krumbacher (Geschichte, II, 787-9) sketches this development right at the beginning of his analysis of Byzantine vernacular literature. See also Coulmas, ‘Schriftlichkeit und Diglossie’ and H. and Kahane, R., ‘Decline and survival of western prestige languages’, Language 55 (1979) 183–198 Google Scholar.

19 Note however that the term ‘Old Athenian’ is conventionally used to refer to the Modern Greek dialect spoken in Attica in the period up to the end of the nineteenth century. This shows that, if nothing else, use of terminology goes hand in hand with ideologies towards Greek as a linguistic system and the notion of continuity from ancient to modern times.

20 Browning, R., ‘Greek diglossia yesterday and today’, International journal of the Sociology of Language 35 (1982) 51 Google Scholar.

21 The puristic attitudes of writers associated with the phenomenon of Atticism (see briefly Horrocks, G., Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (London 1997) 51 Google Scholar, 151f. with further bibliography) have significantly contributed to this development.

22 See Browning, ‘Greek diglossia’, 49-68; Kriaras, E., ‘Diglossie des derniers siècles de Byzance: Naissance de la littérature néo-hellenique’ in Hussey, J. M. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Oxford, 5-10 September 1966 (London 1967) 283-99Google Scholar, and the response of A. Mirambel, ibid. 309-13.

23 Ferguson, C., ‘Diglossia’, Word 15 (1959) 325-40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 There are, for instance, 2900 entries in the bibliography compiled by Fernández, M., Diglossia: A Comprehensive Bibliography 1960-1990 and Supplements (Amsterdam 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar covering the period 1960-1990.

25 See vol. 157 of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language (2002), ed. J. Fishman entitled ‘Focus on diglossia’ and especially the focus article by A. Hudson, ‘Outline of a theory of diglossia’, 1-48. One of the best theoretical discussions of diglossia is still Britto, F., Diglossia: A Study of the Theory with Application to Tamil (Washington, DC, 1986)Google Scholar.

26 Ferguson, ‘Diglossia’ 337.

27 Krumbacher, K., Das Problem der neugriechischen Schriftsprache: Festrede gehalten in der öffentlichen Sitzung der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München am 15. Nov. 1902 (Munich 1902)Google Scholar. Emmanuil Roidis had already used the term διγλωσσία in 1893 to refer to the nineteenth-century language question in Greece in his defence of demotic ( Roidis, E., Tòí εΐδωλα: γλωσσικη μελέτη (Athens 1893)Google Scholar, passim).

28 Chatzidakis, G. N., To πρόβλημα τής νεωτερας γραφομενης Έλληνικής ύπο Κ. Krumbacher кш άπάντησις είς U.ÜWV ύπο Γεωργίου N. Χχτζιδόικι (Athens 1905)Google Scholar. See also Mackridge, P., ‘“Sie sprechen wie ein Buch”: G. N. Hatzidakis (1848-1941) and the defence of Greek diglossia’, Κάμπος. Cambridge Papers in Modern Greek 12 (2004) 69–87 Google Scholar.

29 See Alexiou, M., ‘Diglossia in Greece’, in Haas, W. (ed.), Standard Languages Spoken and Written (Manchester 1982), 156-92Google Scholar and especially Frangoudaki, A., ‘Comment: Greek societal bilingualism of more than a century’, International journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (2002) 101-7Google Scholar.

30 Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, 2; Beck, H. G., Das byzantinische Jahrtausend, 1st edn. (Munich 1978) 147-8Google Scholar.

31 Ferguson’s article was initially intended as a starting point and not a full-scale theoretical framework; see Ferguson, C. A., ‘Epilogue: Diglossia revisited’, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10 (1991) 214-34Google Scholar, 215-20. See also Hudson, Outline of a theory’, passim.

32 My use of ‘register’ is not indebted to a particular theoretical framework. I understand register as ‘a set of features of speech or writing characteristic of a particular type of linguistic activity or a particular group when engaging in it’ ( Matthews, P. H., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (Oxford and New York 1997)Google Scholar, s.v. register).

33 See also Ferguson, ‘Epilogue: Diglossia revisited’, 222.

34 On the metaphor of superposition of H on L in a diglossie community, see above, p. 207.

35 Britto, F., ‘Tamil diglossia: an interpretation’, Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10 (1991) 61 Google Scholar. See also Hudson, Outline of a theory’, 5-6.

36 For this problem see Manolessou, I., ‘On historical linguistics, linguistic variation and Medieval Greek’, BMGS 32.1 (2008) 63–79 Google Scholar.

37 Edited in three volumes: Hunger, H. and Kresten, O. (eds.), Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, I: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315-1331 [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19, 1] (Vienna 1981)Google Scholar; Cupane, C. et. al. (eds.), Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, II: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337-1350 [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19, 2] (Vienna 1995)Google Scholar; Koder, J. et. al (eds.), Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, III: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350-1363 [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 19/3] (Vienna 2001)Google Scholar.

38 See Hunger, H., ‘Zum Stil und Sprache des Patriarchatregisters von Konstantinopel: Rhetorik im Dienste der orthodoxen Hierarchie’, in Hunger, H. (ed.), Studien zum Patriarchatregister von Konstantinopel I [Sitzungsberichte der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 383] (Vienna 1981) 11–60 Google Scholar.

39 For the nature of these elements and the context of their use see H. Hunger, op. cit. 54-8.

40 Hunger, op. cit. 59. For the existence of more than one register within H see below, p. 210.

41 Hunger, op. cit. 52-3.

42 Britto identifies at least four and three varieties of Tamil used as H and L respectively (Diglossia, 139 and 132-133).

43 ibid., 14, 304.

44 Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, 2.

45 See above, fn. 38, on the documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the fourteenth century and Ševčenko, I., ‘Levels of style in Byzantine prose’, JOB, 31.1 (1981) 289–312 Google Scholar on different registers used during the Byzantine period.

46 See Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, 5 ff. and the distinction between ‘demotic’ and ‘vernacular’ Greek of the Byzantine period.

47 For a detailed discussion see Hudson, ‘Outline of a theory’, 9-19.

48 Ibid., 23.

49 Beck, Das byzantinische Jahrtausend, 148.

50 Hinterberger, ‘How can we define?’, 2.

51 Cf. the example of the Cypriot Neophytos the Recluse, who apparently acquired reading and writing skills only in adulthood but managed to become a relatively skilled writer by studying sacred and patristic texts (I. Ševčenko, ‘Additional remarks’, 227-8). For more information on Neophytos’s education see Galatariotou, K., The Making of a Saint: The Life, Times and Sanctification of Neophytos the Recluse (Cambridge 1991) 153 Google Scholar ff. With proper education a native speaker of a language other than Greek could equally acquire the ability to produce texts in H.

52 Or even speakers of other languages who chose Greek as a medium of communication.

53 On the problem of ‘spoken language’ and historical linguistics in conjunction with Medieval Greek, see Manolessou, ‘On historical linguistics’, passim.

54 See E. and Jeffreys, M., ‘The oral background of Byzantine popular poetry’, Oral Tradition 1.3 (1986) 504-47Google Scholar (overview of literature up to this date); Eideneier, H., ‘KAI als Auftakt zur (rhythmischen) Phrase. Zur verbalisierten Pausenmarkierung im Mittel- und Neugriechischen’, JOB 39 (1989) 179–200 Google Scholar; Holton, D., ‘Orality in Cretan narrative poetry’, BMGS 14 (1990) 186-98Google Scholar (‘oral residue’); M. Jeffreys, ‘Silent millennium’; Eideneier, H., Von Rhapsodie zu Kap: Aspekte der griechischen Sprachgeschichte von Homer bis heute (Tübingen 1999)Google Scholar, Agapitos, ‘Genre, structure and poetics’, 53 and passim.

55 Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, 8-9.

56 Ibid., 5. See also Manolessou, ‘On historical linguistics’, 66 ff., on the principle of uniformitarianism, which allows historical linguists to interpret such forms in a historical perspective.

57 This by no means excludes the existence of speakers of non-Greek native languages in Byzantine times. For multilingualism in the Early Byzantine period see Horrocks, Greek, 146-9.

58 A tripartite division into ‘high’, ‘middle’ and ‘low’ can be applied to the language of Byzantine texts: ‘a working Byzantinist perceives [levels of style] instinctively, in terms of his everyday practice’ (Ševčenko, ‘Levels of style’, 291). It is not clear to me if Ševčenko’s ‘low’ covers also the so-called Volksliteratur. My impression is that it does not and that at least some Byzantine vernacular texts are even lower than Ševčenko’s ‘low’ texts.

59 Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, 6.

60 Hunger, H., ‘Stilstufen in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung des 12. Jahrhunderts: Anna Komnene und Michael Glykas’, Byzantine Studies 5 (1978) 139-70Google Scholar.

61 Ševčenko, ‘Levels of style’, 298 ff., refers to the ‘Tyranny of high style’.

62 Peter Hawkins comes to similar conclusions in his research on the use of katharevousa and demotic by Greek speakers in the 1970s (‘Greek diglossia and variation theory’, General Linguistics 19 (1979) 169-87Google Scholar).

63 Cf. the four patterns of vernacular literature laid out by M. Jeffreys, ‘Silent millennium’, 138-42.

64 On the problems of interpreting such variation from the perspective of historical linguistics see Manolessou, ‘On historical linguistics’, 72 ff.

65 Ševčenko, ‘Levels of style’, 292-4.

66 See Hinterberger, ‘How should we define?’, 11, for the example of Georgios Sphrantzes, and H. Eideneier, ‘Tou Ptochoprodromou’, 64-5 for the example of Ptochoprodromos and the Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds.

67 See Eideneier, H., ‘Die Metaphrase als Wechsel der Stilstufe in byzantinischen und postbyzantinischen Texten’, Göttinger Beiträge zur Byzantinischen und Neugriechischen Philologie 1 (2001) 27–45 Google Scholar; Høgel, C., Metaphrasis: Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hagiography [KULTs skriftserie, no. 59] (Oslo 1996)Google Scholar; Ševčenko, I. and Hunger, H., Des Nikephoros Blemmydes Vasilikos Andrias und dessen Metaphrase von Georgios Galesiotes und Georgios Oinaiotes: ein weiterer Beitrag zum Verständnis der byzantinischen Schrift-Koine [Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 18] (Vienna 1986)Google Scholar; Hunger, H., Anonyme Metaphrase zu Anna Komnene, Alexias XI-XIII: ein Beitrag zur Erschliessung der byzantinischen Umgangssprache [Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 15] (Vienna 1981)Google Scholar; cf. also Davis, J., ‘The “declassicising” metaphrases of 14th-century Byzantium’, paper given at ‘The Logos conference. Controlling Language: The Greek experience’, King’s College London, University of London, 9–11 Google Scholar September 2004.

68 Spanos: eine byzantinische Satire in der Form einer Parodie, ed. Eideneier, H. (Berlin 1977)Google Scholar.

69 See Ševčenko, ‘Levels of style’, 298 for this and further examples.

70 See Hatzigiakoumis, M., Ta μεσιχιωνικά δημώδη κείμενα: σνμβολή στη μελετη και στην εκδοσή τους (Athens 1977) 111-15Google Scholar, 122-38, on the manuscript witnesses of Livistros and Rodamne. Note that the question of responsibility (ad hoc copyist or conscious redactor?) for such changes is far from settled.

71 Browning’s, R. contribution to the discussion of Ševčenko’s paper on ‘Levels of style’, JOB 32.1 (1982) 212 Google Scholar (Proceedings of the XVI International Congress on Byzantine Studies, Vienna 1981).

72 Cf. also Bell, A., ‘Language style as audience design’, Language in Society 13 (1984) 240-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 See Trapp, E., ‘Learned and vernacular literature in Byzantium: dichotomy or symbiosis?’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993) 115-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar for examples.

74 Beck, Das byzantinische Jahrtausend, 147.

75 What, however, needs to be analysed is the exact function of introductory authorial remarks on their chosen register or style and how these relate to the linguistic situation described here.

76 Further research is needed as to the aims and the use of ‘metaphrasis’ and its possible application in educational practices (for bibliography on ‘metaphrasis’ see above, fn. 65).

77 Sofianos’ Grammar, written ca. 1550 and published only in 1874 by É Legrand, never fulfilled this purpose. For more details on grammatical descriptions of the Greek language written in the period 1500-1800 see I. Manolessou, ‘Μεσοαωνική γραμματική και μεσαιωνικές γραμματικές’, paper given at the conference ‘Neograeca Medii Aevi VI. Γλώσσα, παράδοση κοα ποιητική’, Yannina, 29 Sept.-2 Oct. 2005.

78 For some examples see Trapp, ‘Learned and vernacular literature’.

79 The English term ‘literacy’ does not capture all aspects concerning the use of script and writing in a diglossie community. I am using literacy here also in the sense covered by the German terms Schriftlich keit and Verschriftlichung (for more details see Ehler, C. and Schaefer, U. (eds.), Verschriftung und Verschriftlichung: Aspekte des Medienwechsels in verschiedenen Kulturen und Epochen [ScriptOralia 94] (Tübingen, 1998))Google Scholar: use of writing and its effects on the textualization of a language.

80 Hudson, ‘Outline of a theory’, 24 ff., Coulmas, ‘Schriftlichkeit und Diglossie’.

81 Note however the existence of functional literacy as a further complicating factor in this process as described by Browning, R., ‘Literacy in the Byzantine World’, BMGS 4 (1978) 39–54 Google Scholar, and especially 51.

82 I am following here Beck’s line of argumentation for the Ptochoprodromica (Geschichte, 104) formulated in the context of this article.