This book is part of an ongoing research to investigate
adverbials in the ancient Greek language. This first volume is devoted
to the use of the adverbs in -ως in texts from Graeco-Roman Egypt. It
deals with lexicographical, papyrological and stylistic issues and may
help to fill a gap in the research into the use of the Greek language in
Graeco-Roman Egypt.
The adverbs in -ως are formed mainly from adjectives or participles
and are characteristic for their ability to imply Manner (sometimes
combined with other values, such as Time, Instrument etc.). Kretschmer
and Locker (1963, 537-541) record c. 580 adverbs ending in -ως, while
Foris (1970) has listed 4683 adverbs (1863 adverbs with -ῶς perispomenon and 2820 adverbs with -ως paroxytone),
but certainly we have found many other adverbs that were not included
in these works. Our aim was to provide papyrologists, epigraphists and
philologists with a source of the attestations of adverbs in -ως and
their meanings, use and sense in the documentary sources coming from
Egypt. Therefore, this book functions, firstly, as a dictionary, since
it provides entries on the Greek adverbs in -ως, which are attested in
Egypt in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine period, and secondly, as a
concordance of these attestations, which are arranged in a
chronological sequence. We included rather extensive quotations of the
text of the papyri or inscriptions (with spelling accuracy indicated
either by following the rules of the use of the papyrological symbols,
or by putting the correct form in brackets) in order to clarify the
context in which the adverb is used, with the hope that this might be
convenient and useful not only for classicists, but also for the general
interested reader. This practice should allow readers simply to glance
at the entry to check for themselves how a particular adverb was used in
a particular context or in a variety of contexts. Likewise, we have
also included translations of some passages when we considered that the
understanding of the passage in a given context seemed confusing or
problematic, or that a translation could help to indicate better how we
should construct the adverb in the clause. In most cases we follow the
translations (also in German, French or Italian) given in the first
editions, and sometimes with our minor alterations.
In the era of the internet and digital humanities one may reasonably
question the need for printed dictionaries, given the disadvantage that
they cannot be updated frequently. Actually, there are several reasons
to justify the present printed book. For this study we had to check the
editions, the photographs and the commentaries of all the texts where
the adverbs in -ως were read and restored in the papyrological and
epigraphical sources (dated to the Graeco-Roman period) in Egypt. Our
aim was to produce a database with all the certain attestations, free
from proposed restorations or non-existant formations (although in some
cases the interventions and proposals of the previous editors could be
considered possible). In current databases, printed or online
dictionaries, these restorations were offered as certain and as
self-evident. When we finished this work, we observed that the result
produced many corrections which could be published in many and various
forms of articles or short papyrological notes, but could not provide a
full understanding of the function of these adverbs. In addition, this
work offers a number of rather minor additions and corrections to LSJ
and its supplements. In cases where we are unable to understand the use
or the general or specific sense, we write it explicitly in order that
the reader might find a solution. The same is true of the cases where we
are not certain about a reading or restoration and we cannot provide
any solution. We did not sidestep the problem, but we used the adjective
“debatable”, which may invite readers to extend our research and to try
to restore the text with certainty. For these reasons, we have
summarized and listed all these cases in the Index Videant doctiores! (p. 289).
At the same time, this book represents part of research into the
language of the private letters in the Greek and Latin papyri. This
research deals with the question “How many words (and of which parts of
speech) were used in the everyday written language of the people in
Egypt during the Graeco-Roman period?” The results of this research
concerning the extent to which adverbs in -ως are used in the private
letters were also incorporated in this book, which is the first work in a
series of books or articles. In the general introduction the first part
provides an outline of the main usage of the adverbs in -ως from
antiquity to nowadays, and the second part explains the reasons for the
necessity of studying this part of speech and focuses on specific
aspects of the results of the research concerning the use of these
adverbs in the private letters. The reason why private letters are
chosen for this first study is because in most cases by sending a
private letter written on a piece of papyrus or on an ostracon, people
want to convey their thoughts and the reason they write in a few words.
The same can be assumed, even if their thoughts are complex, especially
when the writer expects the reader to know the basic details of a
situation. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate the role of these
concise adverbs (one word – one meaning) in the conciseness of these
usually short private letters. In addition, to write a personal or
business letter and send it to someone requires a certain relationship
between the reader and the writer. It would be strange and illogical to
assume that this relationship does not affect the register of the
language. We examine if the certain use of the adverbs affects the
communication. As it seems, most of the adverbs are found once in the
private letters, which means that the person who used them had a certain
purpose in mind. In such cases if the language of the rest of the
personal private letter does not provide further details, we cannot say
with certainty if the style is formal or informal, and therefore, to
contribute to the purpose of the letter. In addition, the adverbs in -ως
include a subjunctive sense when they are used, which sometimes
confuses the clarity, so we have to assume that it was necessary that
the recipient of the letter was well aware of the situation under
discussion. If the rest of the text of the private letter or if the text
which belongs to an archive with further available context allows, we
can draw some conclusions. Otherwise, for the time being, we can only
indicate the particular use.
The term “private letter” is used for all letters that are written
between two individuals, even officials, for personal communication, and
they are not part of official correspondence. In that sense, the
business letters are also considered as private ones. “Private
documents” include –apart from the private letters– a variety of
documents such as private transactions, contracts, receipts, etc.
“Official documents” are those which involve officials and could have
been written as part of a public procedure, e.g. official correspondence
and circulars, petitions, tax documents, etc.
In his MA thesis in the University of Crete, Department of Philology,
Rethymnon (2015) Georgios Triantafyllou worked on the adverbs in -ως
which indicate Time, directly or indirectly, as they appear in the
private letters. He wrote the chapter “The adverbs in -ως”, pp. 1-8, and
the chapter concerning the adverbs indicating “Time” in Observations,
on pp. 21-24. His work on the following 58 adverbs, after its update,
has been incorporated here: ἀγρύπνως, ἀδιακωλύτως, ἀδιαλείπτως, ἀενάως,
αἰφνιδίως, αἰωνίως, ἀκαίρως, ἀκωλύτως, ἀνελλείπτως, ἀνελλιπῶς,
ἀνεμποδίστως, ἀνεπικωλύτως, ἀνόκνως/ἀόκνως, ἀνυπερθέτως, ἀπαύστως,
ἀπερισπάστως, ἀπροόπτως, ἀπροσδοκήτως, ἀπροσκέπτως, ἀρτίως, ἄφνως,
βραδέως, γοργῶς, διαταχαίως, διαφόρως, διηνεκῶς, δυενιαυσίως, δυσόκνως,
ἐκπροθέσμως, ἐμπροθέσμως, ἐνδελεχῶς, ἐνιαυσιαίως, ἐνιαυσίως, ἐπειγμένως,
ἐτησίως, εὐθέως, εὐκαίρως, εὐμαρῶς, εὐτάκτως, εὐχαιροτέρως, ἡμερησίως,
ἡμερουσίως, μηνιαίως, ὀκνηρῶς, ὀψίμως, προθύμως, προπετῶς, πρωιμότερον,
πρώτως, πυκνῶς, σπανίως, συνεχῶς, συντόμως, συχνῶς, ταχέως,
ὑπογύως/ὑπογύιως, ὠκαίως (= ὠκέως?). He also studied the adverbials (τὸ)
τάχος, κατὰ τάχο(υ)ς, which were incorporated in the entry ταχέως, the
adverb παραχρῆμα, which was incorporated in the entry εὐθέως, and the
adverb οὕτως. Nikos Litinas wrote the rest of the “General Introduction”
and worked on the other 500 adverbs in -ως and their use in the private
letters. He also wrote Appendix I (on p. 271) concerning the adverbs
ending in -ί and -εί, -δην and -δόν. We studied all the examples of the
adverbs in -ως occurring in the private letters which were published
until 2016. Only some editions of papyri, which appeared afterwards as
book editions or as journal articles were considered, therefore the
evidence based on these publications is not extensively included. The
total number of entries is 561. After the completion of our study, we
were pleased to see that our primary results were true of all new
instances provided in these new editions. The adverbs occurring in
private letters are marked with an asterisk (*), which is placed after
them in their entry.
As for the micro-organization of the entries, even though the adverbs
are listed in alphabetical order, the structure of the entries is not
the same, since it depends on the use in the private letters. It usually
takes the following form: translation and the basic meanings and the
various uses and senses that these adverbs could acquire within a
certain context, based on LSJ, Bauer, Lampe and LBG, and the
texts of the Greek inscriptions; attestation(s) in the Greek literature,
and where we consider necessary, with full citations from Greek
authors, earliest or latest attestations of the adverb, with remarks on
its use and various possible points of interest, which are related to
the position of the adverbs in the clause or the sentence, the
syntactical constructions, the modified constituents, and other notes
that could provide information for the user, such as concerning the
style, the way the context contributes to a certain expected or
unexpected meaning, collocations, morphological regularities or
specificities. References to the secondary literature are made where
necessary. This secondary literature is not included in the General
Bibliography (p. v). We include expanded or explanatory pieces on
entries concerning the use of the adverbs in the private letters. Since
in most cases the adverbs in -ως occur only once or very few times in
the private letters, the relevant passages are quoted. However,
references are made to other types of documents as well, and
occasionally there is a further discussion of adverbs in -ως in these
documents. In this book, the entries concerning adverbs which are
attested in documents other than private letters contain only the
meaning and the occurrences of the adverb, and in some cases we have
posed questions mainly concerning its sense and use, its position in the
clause, and the modification it provides, especially when this is not
clear. The purpose was to show that from the numerous adverbs which
existed (as mentioned above, more than 4700 adverbs in -ως in the Greek
language) and were probably known, only 558 were used in the everyday
texts in Graeco-Roman Egypt, and almost half of them (228 adverbs, that
is c. 41%) were used in private letters, and again almost half of them
(c. 52%) are attested only once in the private letters (see p. 14).
Obtaining results of a statistical analysis based just on a few
surviving ancient findings would be flimsy and not convincing, but in
our opinion, this comparative study is a reliable guide because it
allows us to see which adverbs were used in each type of document and in
which situations. When the adverbs occur both in the private and the
official documents, only the results concerning the private letters are
discussed, since these adverbs can provide a characteristic parallel or
some additional information concerning the textual use of adverbs in the
private letters. However, the study of the use of the adverbs in the
official and legal clauses of the documents will appear in a future
volume of this series. Such a study is uncommon in the papyrological
editions, with few and recent exceptions, such as that of Thomas
Backhuys in P.Köln XVI 651, pp. 199-202, 7-8n.
Furthermore, the comparative and superlative forms of the adverbs in
-ως, which are attested in the private letters, are also discussed in
order to indicate their morphological variations and how they are used
‒similarly or differently‒ from the positive degree. In some cases, when
the positive degree of these adverbs does not occur in the
papyrological documents, and we have examples of only the comparative or
superlative degree, it is placed in rectangular brackets [ ]. In
addition, in the following books or articles, studies concerning the use
of the adverbs instead of other corresponding expressions, such as
oblique cases, prepositional expressions etc. will appear. Some first
observations were included in the entries, or see footnote 38 in the
General Introduction.
The appendices concern the adverbs ending in -ί and -εί, -δην and
-δόν, ghost-adverbs, and adverbs rejected and corrected. At the end of
the book we have also included two indexes: (a) a reverse index of the
adverbs, and (b) an index of the adverbs, in which we have also included
the adverbs which should be disregarded, indicating them with a
strikethrough text formatting.