Imitation / Innovation: Vocabulary of Late Byzantine Historiographic Literature

This project concerns a desideratum in Byzantine literary and linguistic history which, so far, has been touched only peripherally. The central point - in relation to an era of profound political as well as cultural transformation (Lascarid and Palaeologan period; 1204-1453) - is the survey of Byzantine historiography with regard to the linguistic usage in terms of vocabulary. Thus, the survey inter alia joins recent approaches of sociolinguistic studies by pursuing the question in how far the Byzantines adhered to traditional ("classical") vocabulary respectively updated and expanded their language by the use of neologisms. In late Byzantine literature, exponents for both "tendencies" are to be found, a fact that results from first analyses of the works in question within the framework of evaluation for the Lexikon zur griechischen Gräzität for which the applicant signs as the primarily responsible editor. But also for further research, the historians can figure as prime examples for the linguistic and lexical development in both directions, i.e. towards classicist or neologistic tendencies. Additionally, there is another element which brings forward the enlargement of the Greek language: the growing influence of the languages of the immediate neighbours (especially Latin/Roman languages, but also Turkish, Slavic and other elements) and the Greek reaction towards it. The authors to be considered are as follows: George Akropolites, Theodore Skutariotes, George Pachymeres, Ephraim, Nikephoros Gregoras, John Kantakuzenos, John Kananos, John Anagnostes, George Sphrantzes, Dukas, Laonikos Chalkonkondyles, Michael Kritobulos; Metaphrases or paraphrases as a sign of mediation between erudite and vernacular language: especially the paraphrase of Niketas Choniates and the condensed version of Pachymeres` history. METHOD The main task, next to the lexical and linguistic analysis of the text consists in the comparison with the synchronic and diachronic Byzantine literary production. As an auxiliary means serves on the one hand the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae which has continuously been enlarged with authors of the period in question; additionally, access can be taken to material comprising more than 1,000 records on contemporary authors collected from the work of the project leader on the yet unpublished parts of the Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität. The next steps comprise the analysis of the texts. Here a system is applied which has best proved its value for the basic comparison in the elaboration of the aforesaid Lexikon and which will be deepened with regard to the specific aims of this project: Reading the works with special regard to vocabulary and (in combination with the level of tendency) grammatical peculiarity. Typical archaizing linguistic tendencies will at once be examined with regard to mimetic elements. Neologisms will be collected and analyzed in line with the overall tendency of the work.

This completed project focused on a time of profound cultural change (12041453) and was aimed at studying the language of late Byzantine historians. In addressing questions concerning authors linguistic/stylistic choices and the mimetic and innovative tendencies in their writings, this research group benefited greatly from historical sociolinguistics and from the Lexikon zur Byzantinischen Gäzität, edited by Erich Trapp.Andrea Cuomo and Vratislav Zervan worked on conservative and innovative tendencies in the historical works of late Byzantine authors, and presented the outcomes of their research in the new critical edition of John Kananos account of the siege of Constantinople in 1422, in the collective volume Die Lehnwörter im Wortschatz der spätbyzantinischen historiographischen Literatur, and at several international conferences.