A COMMENTARY ON THE PREFACE, CHAPTER ONE, AND CHAPTER TWO OF GREGORY OF CORINTH’S TREATISE ΠΕΡI ΔΙΑΛEΚΤΩΝ (DE DIALECTIS)

Abstract

AbstractThis dissertation is a select historical-philological commentary covering the Preface, Chapter One, and Chapter Two of Gregory of Corinth’s influential dialectal treatise De Dialectis (περὶ διαλέκτων). It is the first continuous commentary on these portions of the text. The primary focus is on Gregory’s chapter on the Attic dialect (Chapter Two in Schaefer’s 1811 edition of the text). Throughout the commentary I examine Gregory’s sources (both primary and secondary), his framework for conceptualizing the relationships and boundaries of the ancient Greek dialects, his method of composition, and how he places himself in the traditions of his predecessors from the Hellenisitc age down to his own time. I explain difficult grammatical terminology and syntax, comment on innovations in his terminology, and attempt - within reasonable bounds - to form a picture of the man behind the text. In all of this I try to look at this text not only as a vessel transmitting earlier scholarship (as is the typical modus operandi) but also and especially as a work written in and for a particular cultural context, i.e. 12th Century Byzantium, something often neglected by even the most eminent scholars. The more important contributions to knowledge of the field resulting from this dissertation include: (1) A more accurate understanding of how the structure and organization of the text reflect its purpose in the context of Byzantine education, which scholars have largely neglected to consider and have accordingly inappropriately condemned; (2) A more thorough analysis of both the depth and breadth of Gregory of Corinth’s use of earlier primary and secondary sources, in which I conclude (a) that he read the works of Aristophanes and Thucydides in extenso and (b) that he used a greater variety of secondary sources than has previously been identified; (3) An analysis of Gregory’s statement that Pindar wrote κοινή (a statement which has either been called erroneous or given only the slightest consideration in the scholarship) which demonstrates how the statement may, in fact, be coherent in the context of Byzantine notions of dialect and κοινή.