tlded these themes ‘ext meine eat nent suck "Lam led wa nmitice and hereaders some i, ris, ee mm: but Peano’ mal ake over Joven RevNoung REVIEW ARTICLE ANCIENT BILINGUALISM By ELEANOR DICKEY j ADAMS, BILINGUALISM AND THE LATIN LANGUAGE. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2003, Pp. xxviii + 836. ISN 0~$21-81771~4. £100.00. |) N.ADAMS, M. JANSE and 8, SWAIN (RDS), BILINGUALISM IN ANCIENT SOCIETY: LAN. GUAGE CONTACT AND THE WRITTEN TEXT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Bp. x ++ 483. ISN o-19~924506-1. £65.00. 1, NEW WORK ON ANCIEN'T LANGUAGE CONTACT “This book is overwhelmingly about identity’ remarks Adams (p. 71), summing up the impetus behind the recent boom in studies of language contact in antiquity, | pilingualism, as these authors (following the standard usage of linguists) define it, refers otto the relatively rare phenomenon of individuals attaining native-speaker ffuency in two languages, but to any active use of a second language, however primitive. The fact that these two works, which together amount to more than 1,300 pages, have appeared vithin a few months of each other is indicative of the current popularity of reseazch on | tncient bilingualism — as is the fact that their bibliographies list more than fifty books and atticles* from the past decade alone that focus on various aspects of language contact inanciquity, and many more that discuss such issues while focusing primarily on other topics. Of course, Classicists have been aware for years that more than one language was spoken in the ancient world, and by the middle of the twentieth century we had a |. reasonably clear understanding of the spheres in which each language was used and bow they interacted with one another. There is thus some reason to ask what all this new work can add to our knowledge of the subject: are the authors uncovering new | information and significantly revising the traditional picture of how the ancient languages were used? Or are they offering new interpretations of already established facts in order to reveal what language use can tell us about issues like power and identity | that are currently of particular interest to many Classicists? Or are neither the facts nor | the interpretation really new, but simply a recasting of the already well-known picture " infashionable and flasby but ultimately unilluminating jargon? Those who do not know what the difference between code-switching and language mixture is might reasonably ask whether they stand to gain anything significant from malcing the effort to find out. ‘The answer is that some work on ancient bilingualism falls into each of these three categories; indeed more than one is represented in the Adams-Janse-Swain collection, But the Adams monograph, which is clearly the most important as well as the longest book yet written on the subject, is full of new discoveries as well as of new interpretations and never employs a single piece of unnecessary or unexplained jargon. In order to assess the contributions of the new work on language contact, we need to start with the traditional picture of ancient bilingualism. According (o this view, Greek was the most prestigious language in the Greco-Roman world, and in non- | Greek-speaking areas knowledge of Greek was generally a mark of wealth and education. The Roman upper classes valued Greek literacy highly, and Greek language and literature exercised a powerful influence on Latin language and literature; Greek “am grateful te Alison Sharrock and the JRS _# Seoappendix for aeleetin ofthese. torial Commitee for helpful advice. © World copyright reserved. Exchusive Licence to Publish ‘The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2604,206 BLBANOR DICKEY speakers on the other hand made much less effort to master Latin, and Latin had little influence on the Greek language or its literature. Nevertheless the Romans insisted og the use of Latin in certain contexts, for example by making it the official language of the army, and after an insurrection in the late third century A.p. Diocletian attempted ts convert much of the Greek East to the use of Latin, Languages other than Latin and Greek fared badly throughout the Empire and usually died out, to be replaced by either Greek or Latin. Recent work has presented serious challenges to this view, both on issues of fact and on questions of interpretation. Earlier generations of scholars had a tendency t» concentrate on the educated, élite forms of language contact and influence, particularly that apparent in literature, so that they ignored much of the bilingualism lower down the social scale (which was the inevitable and well-documented result of a constant infusion of Greek and other foreign slaves and freedmen into Rome): the characterization of knowledge of Greek as a feature of the most educated levels of Roman society was an error duc at least in part to scholars’ unbalanced focus on the educated classes. Both the books discussed here concentrate on non-<élite bilingualism, as do many of their recent predecessors, and so redress the imbalance of the traditional view. Another significant shift in viewpoint has been the growing recognition that Latin influence on Greek was stantial, particularly at the non-élite levels now more often examined, and that many Greeks learned Latin, Adams examines such language learning in progress and shows us some of its effects on both languages. Some traditional assumptions were based on very little real evidence, and now that we have more extensive collections of published papyri and ostraca and better tools for analysing this information, they do not stand up. Presenting official army documents in Greek, Adams argues convincingly that Latin was not always the official language of the Roman army. He also demolishes the evidence for Diocletian's linguistic reforms, showing that the practices of his reign were not innovations but dated back to the Republic. But in other areas new evidence confirms the older views: the devastating effect of Latin and Greek on local languages can now be more closely observed. ‘The traditional views of ancient bilingualism were also based on an imperfect understanding of how language contact works in general; scholars looking at Latin and Greek evidence tended to make assumptions about what is and is not possible based on their own experience with the modern languages they happened to know, rather than on any systematic study of the modern evidence for bilingualism. For example, an awareness of the full range of possibilities might have prevented people from implicitly equating Roman linguistic imperialism with early twenticth-century English linguistic imperialismn (which was much more official and deliberate and often involved severe sanctions for the use of languages like Welsh or Gaelic) and so jumping to conclusions about the policies of Diocletian. ‘One area in which the two works discussed here have taken particular advantage of linguistic theory is Cicero’s use of Greek in his letters. ‘That Cicero sprinkled his basically Latin letters with Greek, not merely individual words but phrases and even sentences, has long been obvious, but little progress had previously been made in understanding why Cicero used Greek when and how he did and what the language shifts were intended to convey. Both Adams and Swain have now recognized Cicero's use of Greek as part of the widespread phenomenon known to linguists as ‘code- switching’, and so they have interpreted it using knowledge of the factors that tend to govern code-switching in modern languages. 'These two independent interpretations of the Ciceronian data have produced very similar results, which suggests that they are right: Cicero’s code-switching was triggered by certain topics, but only when the addressee had the social, educational, and personal background to appreciate the use of Greek, and even then only when Cicero was not undergoing a personal crisis. Code- switching also occurs elsewhere in Latin, but previously it had not been recognized a8 & separate phenomenon from the use of loanwords (which follows very different principles, as a loanword can become integrated into its new language so that users do not think of themselves as switching languages when they use that word), so the factor® triggering it had swiching finds ¢ podern bilingual statements of ide Awareness 0 of what these th also because an linguistics. Som unremarkable to understanding 0 beneficial for out jecasions; one t soviety using two ow’, is inapp! societies. The Adams knowledge of ani for future resea together all surs Greek (Oscan, F more extensive t scholars we ean ‘Greco-Latin var Another useful s standard feature lenguage and it distinguish whic learning vulgar I use is crucial for now be easier. both these works Other contr an extensive exat of Roman Gree antiquity are oft most obvious ty significant impr sical and syntac soominal endings Contaet-induce evidence for suc interesting give lete period (thou the differences b Adams also iluminating bu Delos there was put up by Rom Used, certain C deliberate stater from Delos sot referring to RonLatin had little ans insisted on language of the n attempted to ‘han Latin and laced by either 1 issues of fact 8 tendeney to e, particularly m lower down of a constant haracterization {society was an asses. Both the of their recent cher significant on Greek was and that many fess and shows -,and now that better tools for y documents in anguage of the aistic reforms, ed back to the he devastati awed, 1 an imperfect ig at Latin and ssible based on rather than on r example, an from implicitly glish linguistic avolved severe to conclusions wradvantage of sprinkled his rases and even been made in t the Ianguage rnized Cicero's aigts as ‘code- 1s that tend to expretations of s that they are roly when the ciate the use of I crisis. Code- ognized 18 4 very. different o that users do . 80 the factors ANCIENT BILINGUALISM 297 rigaering it had never been studied. Adams’ exploration of non-Ciceronian code~ fnitching finds that conscious language switching on the part of Romans, like that of Sodern bilinguals, was used to communicate a number of different things, including Sutements of identity and expressions of solidarity or power ‘Awareness of the relevance of modern linguistic theories is useful not only because of what these theories can contribute to our understanding of the ancient evidence, but also because ancient languages can be the source of important contributions to Tinguistics. Sometimes an aspect of Latin or Greek usage that seems completely unremarkable to Classicists turns out to have important implications for an overall understanding of how languages work — and exploitation of that fact ean only be beneficial for our field. Both the works discussed here make such points on a number of ccctsions; one that occurs repeatedly is that the linguistic model of diglossia, in which a society using two languages marks one as consistently ‘high’ and the other as consistently ow’, is inapplicable to the relationship between Greek and Latin in many ancient societies. 1. PARTICULAR CONTRIBUTIONS AND OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS ‘The Adams monograph makes a number of especially useful additions to our knowledge of ancient bilingualism, Some of the most helpful are the resources it offers for future research; for example, Adams has collected and systematically presented together all surviving evidence for contact between Latin and languages other than Greek (Oscan, Etruscan, Celtic, Punic, Palmyrene Aramaic, ete.). This evidence is far more extensive than has previously been realized, and now that itis easily accessible to scholars we can expect to learn much more about types of bilingualism other than the Greco-Latin variety that has hitherto dominated discussion of ancient language contact. Another useful starting point is Adams’ discussion of the differences between the non- standard features found in the Latin of non-native speakers who were learning the language and in ‘vulgar’ Latin written by native speakers. Scholars often fail to distinguish which category a given text belongs to, particularly as learners were often learning vulgar Latin, yet correct identification of the evidence for non-native language use is crucial for our understanding of ancient bilingualism; such identification should now be easier. ‘The extensive (and largely complementary) bibliographies provided by both these works will also be much appreciated. ‘Other contributions are the results of analysis rather than collection, Adams offers, anextensive examination of contact-induced language change, including the phenomena of Roman Greek’ and ‘Greeks’ Latin’, Such discussions of cross-linguistic influence in antiquity ave often restricted to the study of loanwords, since these are the simplest and most obvious type of influence. Adams, though he does not ignore loanwords, offers a significant improvement on earlier work by paying considerable attention to morpholo- gical and syntactic influences (such 2s Latinate uses of the dative in Greek, and Latin "nominal endings created or altered by contact with Greek), and even to foreign accents. Contact-induced change sometimes resulted in regional’ variation within Latin: the evidence for such variation, and its persistence for centuries in some areas, is particularly interesting given the widespread belief that Latin had no regional varieties until a very late period (though the regional variations Adams finds are not ones that would explain the differences between Romance languages). ‘Adams also brings to our attention two local cases of language contact that are very . illuminating but had previously gone largely unnoticed. At 2 Roman trading-post on Delos there was unusually strong Roman accommodation to Greek: even inscriptions Put up by Romans to honour other Romans could be in Greek. Even when Latin was ‘wed, certain Greek syntactic features sometimes appeared, perhaps to provide a deliberate statement of a partially Greek identity. At the same time, Greek inscriptions from Delos sometimes show accommodation to Latin formulae, particularly when 'eferring to Romans, and this suggests competence in Latin on the part of their drafters.298 ELEANOR DICKEY Adams suggests that the unusually high levels of reciprocal accommodation found o Delos may be the result of commercial priorities that trumped national pride. Simin” priorities were probably at work at La Graufesenque, where both Latin and Celtic used in the native potters’ notations, but without the reciprocity found on Delo: Graufesenque the local Celtic speakers tended to give themselves a Romanized by adopting features of the Latin characteristic of the wider w did not reciprocate. 'The difference between the one. visible here and the reciprocal accommodation visible in Delos and Egypt is the Romans ‘acted as if only two languages (Greek and Latin) existed administration of the Empire and the conduct of trade’ (p. 682). ‘hese and other examples show that language choice in antiquity — not just the choice of which language to use, but also the choice of features within one language tha, show influence from another — was often a marker of identity. Identity could be ethnic but it could also be professional. Adams also shows that there was no uniform relationship between Greek and Latin, and that while there was no explicit attempt to make subject peoples learn Latin, a fairly consistent ‘language policy’ ean be discerned on the part of the Roman government. Adams’ research has been scrupulous and painstakingly accurate; in no case did this reviewer (who is independently acquainted with some of the evidence presented, though not competent to judge all of it) find any misrepresentations or inaccuracies in the treatment of the ancient evidence.’ The same standard is achieved in the quality of the argumentation, in its clarity and concision, and in the balanced, knowledgeable, and judicious treatment of linguistic theories. Remarkably, the work is as tightly-construeted as a good article, and well-placed cross-references, as well as a detailed table of contents and substantial indices, allow the reader to navigate it with confidence. By contrast, the Adats-Janse-Swain collection is basically good, and some individual contributions are excellent, but the quality varies from one contribution to the next;* it is not in the sane class as the Adams monograph. Both the Adams monograph and the collection are accessible to the non-specialist, but t differing degrees, Adams’ work is highly readable, remarkably so for a book containing so much detail on such a large topic. Only a minimal background in ancient literature and history, and no knowledge of linguisties, is required in order to follow the arguments, and readers with any curiosity about the issues addressed will find their interest sustained and enlivened. But readers will need a good knowledge of Latin in order to appreciate and evaluate Adams’ arguments, for translations are few and fer between, and most of the quotations are of obscure words or passages of more than ordinary difficulty for those used to classical literary Latin; the author has however compensated for the scarcity of translations by wording his text so that comprehension of the quotations is almost never necessary in order to follow the argument. ‘The collection on the other hand requires virtually no background in Classics; translations are almost always provided, along with the necessary historical background. Background in linguistics is not essential cither, For most of the theories and terminology employed re 8. At La identity Id, but Latin speaker, led accommodation to Lathe riking: There are remarlably few inaccuracies in other reas 100; 1 four nly a coupic of ypagrapiical — pettera in Lyla (1 Ruther rors, and one slightly misleading sip n the bibio- ord) -illngualism in Roman Ugypt (P. Fewsie) teaphy (Bivile’s 1998 arite fin RPA 6, not $3). “Intersctions berwaen Greek and Phrygian vndor the “Te collection originated ina conference held at Roman Empire (C. Brizhe) Tee Gesioe Diet Soport she Unie of eng in tog the contributions Gea and Mle rani na dociment of Stan. ‘Approaching blingucliers to corpus langunges’ —anicRoman propagans’ (2, Rubiny-biinguslism, GD, 1 Eangslowy, ‘Dead o- alive? The status ofthe ad dglossla in fae antique Syn lsopotamie tondard language? (Kees Versteeph); “The Gracco- (1. Gs Ke. Taylor) “Aspects of bilmguaitn 22 Romans and Graeco-Latin: terminological frame- history ofthe Greek language’ (MC. Janee) css wwork for cases of biingualisa (F_Bivill) Bilingunl- _Latin-Gorhie interaction (P. Buston)s Latin Enh mat Delos (J.N. Aduns); Bilingualism in Cicero? ish bilingualism in sixthersury Gaul the Latin of ‘The evidence of code-switching’ (5, Swain); ‘From Clovis" ( Flober). contece to mature! bilingsel inscriptions fran Italy” woes wath « angu subje work papy! langu Bayp Latin sours in Gi visibl ones) Gree lange in Re ment infor theif Egyp situa tobe alan Jonge ang at an Bivil may’ that defin usefi cont In o} Titer adeg Ada poor have wou nati leary +A sou the f trans supe ‘eenodation found oy ral pride. Similas tin and Celtie arg Jon Delos. Atle manized identigy ut Latin speaker, wodation to Latin Egypt is striking: )existed in che ty — not just the one language that y could be ethnic, was n0 uniform xplicit attempt te can be discerned in no case did dence presented, or inaccuracies in tin the quality of owledgeable, and shtly-constructed I table of contents By contrast, the contributions are is not in the same he non-specialist, ily so for a book zround in ancient rder to follow the cd will find their ledge of Latin in s are few and far ges of more than hor has however it comprehension argument. The ssies, translations und. Background nology employed tranaltionese? Some rec (Rah "Egypt (P. Fewstesk sd Pheygian uncer the €s Gest Divt Super: document of Sosaiah Robin), ‘Bilingual, “in and Mesopetamit > bilingual in he (Mt Jane) ‘Asceais free) Latin- Hank iy Gaul te Latin of ANCIENT BILINGUALISM 299 those without such background will have a hard time ce explained, but nev n this volume.® ‘fi a few of the contr 111, DIFFERENCRS OF OPINION AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK One striking difference between the two works discussed here is their treatment of uoguage use in Egypt, to which Adams devotes a long chapter and which is also the subject of a contribution by Penelope Fewster. Egypt has long been a prime focus of work on ancient language contaet, because of the abundant evidence in the form of pepyxi and ostraca, but a complete and satisfactory understanding of the Egyptian fanguage situation has never been achieved. Adams’ discussion of the use of Latin in Faypt is excellent, but in keeping with the scope of his book his treatment is confined to Latin, a minority language in Egypt, Examining graffiti from centres of pilgrimage and. tourism, Adams finds that Latin speakers normally made an effort to write their graffiti in Greek, except at the Colossus of Memnon, Such accommodation to Greek is also visible in other spheres, but in some contexts (particularly legal and administrative ones) Latin was used as the language of power. Throughout this chapter Adams treats Greek as the majority language of Egypt and rarely mentions the native Egyptian language, and therefore Fewster’s study of the interaction between Greek and Egyptian in Roman Egypt, in which Egyptian is viewed as the majority language and t! little mention of Latin, makes a fascinating complement to Adams’ work. chapter is informative, but clearly each presents only one side of the picture, and on some pi their assumptions are mutually exclusive, ‘The contrast should remind us that si Egypt was not bilingual but trilingual, a complete understanding of its linguis situation can come only from 2 comprehensive study embracing all three languages; itis tobe hoped that such a study will soon be undertaken, “Another point of disagreement is the phenomenon of language mixture, the use of ‘language that contains so many elements from both Greck and Latin that it can no longer be meaningfully classified as one or the other. Adams considers the evidence for language mixture in antiquity and concludes that there was no genuine mixed language at any of the places he investigates, but two contributions to the collection, those of Biville and Leiwo, argue in favour of the existence of ancient language mixing. This may be a ease in which linguistic theory is less helpful than it might be, since I suspect that the root of the difference lies not in interpretation of the facts but in subtly varying definitions of language mixing; nevertheless more clarification of the issue would be uweful. Most of Adams’ conclusions are hard to argue with; even though a number of them contradict well-established beliefs, the evidence presented is almost always convincing. In only one case, the claim for provision by the Roman army of instruction in Latin literacy, does it seem to me that the author offers a theory for which there may not be adequate support. ‘There is no direct evidence for such military Latin instruction, but Adams argues for it as follows: because some soldiers who wrote in Latin had a very Poor command of the language and in particular of its writing system, they must not have been learning it for long, hence they must have been learning it in the army, which ‘would have needed to provide instruction in Latin literacy to members of units with few native speakers if certain documents had to be produced in Latin (pp. 620-1). Moreover, since different degrees of competence can be discerned among soldiers, some army learners were probably more advanced than others, showing that instruction in Latin * A few other aspect of she collection are worthy of |—_errors, though ane slip is misleading: on p. 30 itis note makes on inp Savenmeat stated that dhe Latin filainn formula followed the ‘hour bilingualism tthe modern scholarly workd by praewoman of the person whose tliat the fcr that all the French contributions have been though the author clearly’ knows. that ‘umnsated into English; the cransletions are however followed the getline, as his examples show. {oer "and ie ve a pity that the teznaator not ictal there ae few sypogeapbial or other300 ELNANOR DICKEY literacy might have been ongoing (pp. 632~3). My own experience of teaching Greek ty students already literate in # language with a different alphabet suggests that while man students master the writing system rapidly, some write very poor Greck even after , Jong period of study. L have often found spelling errors, including some stemming fru problems with the alphabet (e.g. use of nu instead of gamina for a velar nasal, andl even confusion of pi and rho), in the work of students who began learning Greek youn previously, particularly if their study of the language was interrupted or did nee previously involve actually writing Greek, It docs not seem to me impossible that « soldier writing Latin badly might be one who had received instruction years ago but had not completely grasped or retained it, or one who was trying to write Latin based on g passive knowledge of Latin literacy that he had picked up on his own, perhaps over 4 period of many years. And if either of these scenarios is possible, the textual evidence for provision by the Roman army of instruction in Latin literacy disappears. Of course if a few types of document had to be produced in Latin and some army units had ng members who could produce Latin documents, the argument from probability remains — but in order to provide ongoing instruction in Latin literacy, a unit would have needed at least one employee who was already literate in Latin, and if the only need for Latin literacy was the occasional composition of a few documents, would it not have been more efficient to have that person compose the documents himself rather than teach others to do so? However, even if this reviewer is not fully convinced by the arguments on thet minor point, ‘there is no actual evidence that Adams’ theory is incorrect. In the collection, on the other hand, a number of the points made will need further investigation, of the counter-evidence before they can become generally zecepted, and those points are not always minor, Readers will be particularly startled by Versteegh’s attempt to redate a number of key changes in both Greek and Latin on largely theoretical grounds; he argues that the changes probably happened rapidly and were completed long before they appear in the written record, in fact as soon as Greek and Latin first came into contact with ather languages. While he cannot be said to have proved this point, in the process of arguing it he succeeds in demonstrating that the traditional view of slower, later change is not as solidly supported as we tend to think. It is to be hoped that this piece will stimulate further debate and a serious effort to examine the assumptions involved on both sides and to make maximum use of the ancient evidence. ‘One could also wish that the contributors to the collection, particularly in its theoretical section, had paid more attention to genre as a possible determining factor for language choice, Genre exercised a powerful influence on linguistic choice in classical Greece, and it still operates in our own society today,° so it cannot be ruled out as 8 factor in the imperial Roman period on which the majority of the contributions focus. Some contributors, indeed, recognize that genre exercised a powerful influence: ‘. .. the genre was an important determinant of language choice; at least in Naples the choice of language was largely directed by the genre of the inscription’ (p. 183). Some others, however, ignore issues of genre in places where its possible relevance (whether to choice of language or choice of a particular variety of language) needs to be investigated, end this omission is especially problematic in discussion of the theoretical issues of what we can learn from our evidence. In a pattern that has become common in linguistic studies of antiquity, scholars debate the extent to which we can cross the spoken/written boundary without considering whether this is the right boundary to worry about. This set of assumptions has been imposed on Classics from outside the field: linguists working on languages like English or French where the writing system has for centuries been standardized and exposed to artificial regulation while spoken varieties continued to develop freely, and where the spoken/written dichotomy therefore eclipses all gente variation, have an understandable tendency to focus exclusively on that dichotomy and to accuse those working from written texts of missing more than half the picture. Of * Cleves are frequently keto ansate sottos often fl that Latin isthe coeret language fr #8 isco Latin tor eacipron since even people whe nneribed nto bat who among wh bo ane ® Enow'o Latin ndexpecttheirreadsratatew none tramlaes reatnirant manu orstns frm mao course evidend pur vie world. evidenc ianguad distinct how mi rave st well as to epitaph extent | readers An betwee: relation period: recepti directic of Rom Th bilingu Adams, previow and kr thesub weakne that vi disprov is muel ‘must 1 future and the itrathe ingu of the F Center| eil202 Be those th together Divitle, |reek tp e many after 4 1g from il even yea lid noe that a nit had over 4 ridence course, had no ability would ly need ot have st than vn that Tn the igation nts are redate tds; he before re into in the ‘lower, at this pptions in its tor for assical wt as a cudies eritten ‘This iguists tinued genre ay and re, Of for a» isked to Leta’ ANCINNT BILINGUALISM 301 qgurse Classicists must answer such accusations by justifying the use of written idence, but itis important not to allow the external need for such justifications to force Sir view of language into a spoken/written mould that is inadequate for the ancient sorid. When writing systems are new and unstandardized —as is the case in our earliest Idence for many ancient languages — the distinction between spoken and written language is often insignificant, and we know that at least in early Greece the crucial listinction was that of genre, not of medium, ‘Therefore we need to consider not merely. how much the use of a given Ianguage (or of a particular variety of that language) on a wave stele can tell us about usage in casual conversation (spoken language has genres as fall as written language, but the conversational genre is the one linguists most often ish fo recover), but also how much it can tell us about usage in genres other than the {pitaph It is to be hoped that future research will more fully address the question of the Zient to which genre restrictions could outweigh the preferences or even abilities of readers and writers, ‘Another factor that could profitably be explored is the way the relationships between different languages changed over time. My own research suggests that the relationship between Greek and Latin in the Empire was different from that at an earlier period: in the second and third centuries .c. Latin seems to have been much more feceptive to Greck influence than vice versa, but by the third century A.D. the primary direction of influence had been reversed. Presumably this shift was ultimately the result of Roman political domination, but one wonders how and when the change occurred. IV, CONCLUSION ‘The appearance of these two works marks a turning point in the study of bilingualism and language contact in antiquity, Suddenly, thanks in particular to Adams, there is far more primary evidence available for consideration than was previously recognized, and new standards have been set for comprehensiveness, rigour, and knowledge of linguistic theory in the evaluation of that evidence. The orientation of the subject has also been shifted. Many recent works on bilingualism have reacted to the ‘weaknesses of the traditional view discussed above, but these two new works have laid that view to rest on ¢ number of points, Future scholars will not be able to continue disproving these aspects of the traditional view, and in its other aspects the older picture is much less vulnerable. A new framework has been established, so that researchers must now either work within it (for example by following some of the suggestions for future work to be found throughout Adams’ monograph or by applying the techniques and theories of these authors to other examples of ancient bilingualism), or react against it rather than against the view it replaced (for example by comparing élite and sub-élite bilingualism and arguing that the former was actually more important in some portion of the Roman world), Conter for Hellenic Studies and Columbia University ed2oz@columbia.edu APPUNDIX Below is a selection of works on language contact published in the past decade, comprising those that I consider to be of greatest importance or of particular interest to readers of JRS, together with a few that do not appear in the bibliographies of these two works. Adains, J. N., ‘Latin and Punic in contact: the case of the Bu Njem astraca’, JRS 84 (1994), 87112 Biville, F., Les emprunts du latin au grec: approche phonétique (Louvain, 1990-5)30a BLEANOR DICKEY —; ‘Gree des Romains, ou latin des Grees? Ambiguité de quelques processus néologiques dan, la Koiné’, in C., Brixhe (ed), La koind grecque antique i (Nancy, 1993), 129-40 ——, ‘Competence bilingue latino-grecque et manipulations inter-linguistiquee’, in C, Briehy (cd), La hoind grecque antique it (Nancy, 1998), 145-60 — ,‘Bilinguisme gréco-latin et exéations éphémézes de discours’, in M. Fruyt and C. Nicholas, {La création lexicale en latin, Lingua latina: recherches linguistiques du Centre Alfred ernoat (Patis, 2000), 91-107 Blanc, A. and Christol, A. Langues en contact dans lantiquité: aspects levicaux (Nancy, 1999) Briqucl-Chatonnet, F., Mosaique de langues, mosaigque culturelle: te bilinguisme dans te proche. orient ancien (Pacis, 1996) Brock, 8. P., ‘Greek and Syriac in late antique Syria’, in A. IK, Bowman and G. Woolf (eds, Literacy and Power in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1994), 149-6 | — ‘Greek words in Syriae: some general features’, Seripta Classica Israelica 15 (1906), 251-6 Cervenkts-Ehrenstrasser, I.-M., with J. Diethart, Lexikon der lateinischen Lehmadrier (Vienne, 1996-2000) Dickey, E., ‘Kipte, Stanova, domine: Greek politeness in the Roman Empire’, JES 12x (2001), Drivers, J. W., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus. 15.13.12: some observations on the career and bilingualism of Strateyius Musonianus’, CQ ns. 46 1996), $327 Dunkel, G., ‘Remarks on cod (2000),'122-9 Famerie, E., Le latin ct le grec d’Appien (Geneva, 1998) Friseher, B., et al., ‘Word-order transference between Lat Greele the relative position of the accusative direct object and the governing verb in Cassius Dio and other Greek and Roman prose authors’, Hareard Studies in Classical Philology 99 (1999), 357-90 Holford-Strevens, L. A., “Viraque lingua doctus: some notes on bilingualism in the Roman Empire’, in Tria Lustra: Estays and Nates Presented to John Pinsent Founder and Rditor of Liverpool! Classical Monthly by some of its Contributens om the Occasion of the 150th Issue, Liverpool Classical Papers 3 (Liverpool, 1993), 203-13 Jocelyn, H. D., ‘Code-switching in the Comoedia Palliata’, in G. Vogt-Spira and B. Rommel, Rezeption und Identitat: Die kulturelie Auscinandersetsund Roms mit Griechenland als europtischen Paradigma (Stuttgart, 1990), 169-95 Kearsley, R. A., and Bvans, T. V., Greeks and Romane in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Koidence for Cultural Interaction until the end of AD II (Bons, 2001) Leiwo, M., Neapolitana: A Study of Population and Language in Greco-Roman Naples (Helsinki, 1995) —, "The mixed languages in the Roman inscriptions’, in H. Solin, O. Salomies, and U.-M. iertz, Acta Colloqui: Epigraphica Latin Helsingac 3.~6. sept. 1992 habiti (Helsinki, 1998), 293-301 and Halle-Aho, H., ‘A marriage contract: aspects of Lutin-Greek language contact (P.Mich V1 434 and P.Ryl. TV 612 = ChLA IV 249), Mnemosyne 4th ser. 55 (2002), 560-80 Millar, F. G. B., ‘Latin in the epigraphy of the Roman Near East’, in H. Solin, 0. Salomies, and ULM. Liertz, Acta Colloguit Epigraphica Latini Helsingae 3.6. sept, 1097 habiti (Helsinki, 1995), 403-19 Rochette, B., “Sur le bilinguisme dans Egypte gréco-romaine’, Chronique d’Bgypte 71 (1996), 153-68 —, ‘Papyrologica bilinguia Graeco-latina’, Aegyptus 76 (1996), 37-79 Le latin dans le monde grec (Brussels, 1997) —; ‘Berire en deux langues: remarques sur le mixage des écritures grecque et latine d'aprés les Papyrus littéraires bilingues d’auteurs classiques’, Scriptoritum 53 (1999), 32534 —,'A propos di gree 8iyhwaaos’, L’Antiquité classique’7o (2002), 277-84. Sediey, D., ‘Lucretius’ use and avoidance of Greek’, in J. N. Adams and R. G, Mayer (eds), Aipects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Proceedings of the British Academy 93 (Oxford, 1999), 227-46 Wenskus, ‘O., Emblematischer Codewechsel und Verwandtes in der lateinischen Prosa: stoischen Nahesprache und Distanzsprache (Innsbruck, 1998) —,'Wie schreibt man einer Dame? Zum ‘Problem der Sprachwahl in der rBmischen Epistolographie’, Weiner Studien 114 (2001), 215=32 -switching in Cicero's letters to Atticus’, Musewm Heleetiowm 7 scue WSS pelo Thea Greck and Soerpines, demograph voor. It fonned the The 1 eplorto book inh sce f srethods "The tose the offer ge impact of conditions ‘The « methods a oh. 2 Brer bathing ¢ rable ove the Medit Ch.3 the fist 6 population onthe del ‘epublica ch. 4, My hypothe Empire e the press populato Egypt in. decline, R for a tran transition Stati ancient w certain members the fact ¢ frst thre The! such dats isa famet permits ¢ mortality and Hike 2 Sinker’