of the Greek language acknowledge that alongside of the literary language there existed a conversational, which must have varied in different localities. We have the clearest traces of this language in the New Testament, as noticed under Greek Language, p. 135, and some ecclesiastical writers of a later date bear equally unmistakable indi cations of it. The Pastor of Hermas is specially marked V>y such features, and the form of it given in the Codex Sinaiticus is as far advanced towards the modern as we find in several w r orks of the 12th century written in the popular language. Very distinct approximations to the modern forms are also to be found in some of the apocry phal gospels, and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, but especially in the Apocryphal Acts and Apocalypses pub lished by Tischendorf. All these writings tend to show that it is impossible to fix on any period when the modern language may be said to be definitely formed. It grew out of the conversational language of earlier times. Till very recently some poems of Theodoras Prodromus (often called Ptochoprodromus) were supposed to be the earliest distinct specimens of the modern language; but recent researches among the libraries have brought to light the fact that between the 10th and 15th centuries various works were produced in the modern form of the language. These researches are not yet concluded, and any results that are attained must be deemed merely provisional. The work which is now regarded as the earliest specimen of the new form is the Exploits of Basilios Digenis Acritas, written according to Legrand in the second half of the 10th century. The writer of this work unquestionably knew classical Greek well, and most of the lines would be perfectly intelligible to every scholar. But now and then words and construc tions purely modern intervene. Yet there is a wide and marked difference between the language of this poem and that of the two poems of Prodromus, belonging to the 12th century, published by Corais ; or the three more recently discovered by E. Miller, and published by him in his Melanges, and subsequently by Legrand. In every line of these the scholar comes upon forms which are quite strange. The difference will be best appreciated if we quote some lines from each of the writers. We take a passage from the Digenis, which contains more than the usual number of modern peculiarities. Kai yap 6 yuitpbs at)e<pos KaT* ovap flSe TavTa MeTa fftcoTias ayeipeTai, eyei TO?S aSecpofs TOV "Opa/j.a elSov, aSe(pol, iv TavTy TTJ eo Trepa.- IfpaKes fj.01 e<pavt]<rav fTrl AeuKTjs TTJS TTfTpas, Kal aerbs xP vff OTTTfpos irepiffTepav SIWKUV AffTrpYjv Kadairep x iol/a > K> effefti) s rb KOV[}OVKIV, Ev <S Koi/j.a.Tai o ya/j.f)pbs /uera TTJS a8eA^)}s juas. Here the accent of O-KOTIU, TOV for avrov, ao-Trpo? signify ing white, s for ets, KovfiovKiv from cubiculum, and pas for ry/zwv, are the novel peculiarities, and none of them need puzzle the scholar. As a contrast we take a few lines from one of the poems of Prodromus published by Miller. "np/j.7]cra raxa-re Kayh T~b va ytv> Mr; va xopTaffu rb ij/cou!* rb fyovv a Aa rb /Afffoicddapov rb eyovffi TJJS yueV^s, T fTTidvfj.ouv ypa/j./j.aTiKol Kal KaKoffTixoirX&KOi. Kal Tews yvpevoov Tf]upr)Ka Kal TapTapov OKairov, K fSuKa TO K rjyopacra <rovyv aTrb T^ayydpTjv. The lines are thus translated by Miller : " Et moi aussi, j ai essay e" de la cordonnerie, non pas pour me rassasier de pain de gruau, mais de ce pain bis, dit de moyenne qualite, qui fait envie aux grammairieris et aux versificateurs de talent. Apres maintes recherches, j ai trouve" une menue monnaie, et je 1 ai donnee pour prix d une alene de cordon- nier." After the fall of Constantinople some of the learned Greeks took an interest in the popular form of the language, and one of them, Sophianos, composed a grammar in the first half of the 16th century, which Legrand has published, along with a translation by the same scholar of Plutarch s treatise On the Education of the Young, into modern Greek. This grammar proves that the popular form of Greek was by that time fully developed, and it might still be taken as a good exposition of the ordinary spoken language of illiter ate Greeks. Of course there were great varieties in this popular form. Almost every small district and every island had inflexions, constructions, and words peculiar to them selves. Kavasilas wrote to Martin Crusius in the end of the 16th century that there were upwards of seventy modern dialects, of which that of the Athenians was the worst. Bat however many dialects there may have been, there is no reason to suppose that the difference was such as to prevent a Greek residing in one part of Greece from understanding a Greek residing in any other part. Since that time changes have taken place in the popular forms. Turkish words were introduced to a larger extent, but the language has remained substantially the same. There aie indeed still a considerable variety of forms in the different districts, and one of the most amusing of modern Greek comedies, H j3a./3v<j>via. r/ rj Kara TOTTCWS Sta<opa rrj<i EAATpi/ci/s yAwcrcr^s, by D. K. Byzantios, is based upon the different dialects spoken by the Greek of Asia Minor and the Peloponnesian, the Chian, Cretan, and Cypriote, the Albanian and Heptanesian. This language is no longer the language of cultivated Greek society, of literature, or of science. When Greece was stirred with new life, no question agitated the patriotic Greeks more intensely than that of the form which the language should take. Some, led by Chrysopoulos, maintained that the popular language was really ancient, that it was a mixture of yEolic and Doric, and that it ought therefore to be retained. Others, with Q^conomos as their champion, were for adopting the classical language with a few slight modifications which could claim the sanction of some of the best Byzantine writers. A third party, headed by Corals, were for steering a middle course, and they have ultimately triumphed. Colonel Leake has well described the present language. " This style," he says, " may with tolerable accuracy be defined to consist in Hellenic words, arranged in the syntax of modern Europe, with, a grammar partly Hellenic and partly modern. Inversions and transpositions occur with almost the same degree of frequency as in Italian, and the arrangement in general is not much more complex than that of our own language" (Researches, p. 54). We extract a specimen cf it from the sixth volume or " Epilogos" of the History of Greece by Paparrhegopoulo?. "Ore T( 1 790 Tpels TOV eOvovs avTtTrpuffonroi Ka6vTTf/3aov els Tr,v /j.fydriv AiKaTepivav TTIV a lT-rjo iv TOV va KaTaTTffj.^/rj T~OV tyyovov avTrjs KtavcTTavTlvov ws avTOKpaTopa, ol avSpts OVTOI Stv Trapfo T riffav Ttov us PcUjUcuoi ^ Kal anws Xpio~Tiavol aa ws"Erjves Kal a.7r6- yovoi T(Oiv A.dr)vai(i>v Kal T>V A.aKfSai/j.oviwv.
In this sentence all the words are ancient. Two of them are contracted, va for iVa and Sev for oioev, and some have had their meanings modified. The remarks of Paparrhegopoulos relate to a subject which demands a brief notice. The Greeks at the time of the capture of Constantinople were proud of being Pw/xcuoi or Romans, and the term included all the Christians who formed the subjects of the Greek empire. Hence the term Romaic was the name given to the popular language. But during all the period of the Turkish domination the Greeks occasionally spoke of themselves as FpaiKot and "EAX^ves, and when the period of revival came, they cast off the old name of Payzcuoi and Po)/xatK>), and spoke only of "EAAfpes and EXXrjviKjj. Accordingly the Greek language is now spoken of as the Hellenic tongue. When it is necessary to distinguish the modern from the ancient, the language of cultivated men is called Xeo-Hellenic, veoeAA??riKr/, and the popular form is styled a7rAoeAA??vi/o7 (see especially Dr Clyde s Romaic and Modern Greek, Edin. 1855).
