[Xenophon], Ath. 2.8. The Citizen and Language – second half of the 5th century BC

This well-known passage from the Constitution of the Athenians attributed to pseudo-Xenophon addresses the theme of the Athenians’ linguistic identity. The anonymous author articulates what appears to be a critique of the linguistic “corruption” of the Athenians who, owing to the intense contacts to which they were exposed by virtue of the commercial supremacy they enjoyed and the role of Piraeus as the principal trading hub throughout the Classical period (Thuc. 2.38.2; Isoc. 4.42; Xen. Vect. 3.1, 5.4), had begun to enrich their speech with elements drawn from other Greek dialects and even from “barbarian” tongues (on the polemical tone of the author, see Kalinka 1913, 203; Soverini 1992, 840–841; Colvin 2004, 102; Weber 2010, 115; Clackson 2015, 53–54; Lenfant 2017, 118; Mosconi 2021, 50–53). Some scholars, however, have discerned in the Anonymous’ words a genuine appreciation for the Athenians’ “multilingualism” (Frisch 1942, 254; Moore 1975, 53; Lapini 1997, 186–187; Marr – Rhodes 2008, 110). The overall tenor of the pamphlet, and the emphatic mention of the barbaroi as the rhetorical closure of the paragraph, nonetheless leave little doubt as to the derogatory intent of the author’s words.

The phōnē to which the author refers—here to be understood in the sense both of “language” and “dialect” (Frisch 1942, 253; Lapini 1997, 183; Lenfant 2017, 118; on the difficulty, especially in the Classical period, of drawing a strict distinction between “language” and “dialect”, see Clackson 2015, 13)—is thus presented as thoroughly contaminated with foreign and barbarian elements, on a par with the Athenians’ way of life (diaita) and clothing (schēma), the ethnographic triad which also appears in Hdt. 3.98.3–4. The author’s phrasing may well be hyperbolic, as suggested by the presence of the adjective ἅπας, implying that the Athenians’ language, lifestyle, and customs were by then a blend of elements drawn from all Greeks and all barbarians (Kalinka 1913, 199). Yet, even if not taken literally, such a depiction is not implausible if one considers that few other poleis in the Classical period experienced an influx of foreigners—principally merchants and slaves—comparable to that of Athens (Mosconi 2021, 49–50; on contact with other Greek dialects, see Aristoph. Ach. 729 ff. with Willi 2002, 125–135; on contact with non-Greek languages, see Pl. Com. fr. 61 K–A; Pl. Cra. 410a; Tht. 163 b–c; see also Mayor–Colarusso–Saunders 2014 on Athenian familiarity with Caucasian languages spoken in the Black Sea region).

Judging from the positions expressed throughout the treatise, it is legitimate to assume that the phōnē kekramenē was not, in the view of the Anonymous, a feature of all Athenian citizens, but only of that segment of the demos most in contact with merchants and foreigners in general, whereas the elites and the rural demos would have preserved a certain linguistic purism (Mosconi 2021, 47–48). That multiple socially marked variants (i.e. sociolects) of Attic must have coexisted is attested by various sources (e.g. Alex. fr. 146 K–A; Aristoph. fr. 706 K–A with Soverini 1992, 842–843; see also Colvin 2004). However, recent studies on the ancient Greek economy have demonstrated the cross-class involvement of the polis population in commercial activity (e.g. Christesen 2003, 46–53; Faraguna 2008, 51–57; Harris–Lewis 2016). Moreover, mortgage markers (horoi) reveal a deep osmosis between urban and rural demes, such that the dichotomy between city and countryside is no longer sustainable for Classical Athens (Shipton 2000, 87–90). It is therefore plausible that familiarity with languages other than Attic was shared by a broad segment of the citizen body, irrespective of each individual’s active or passive competence in any given language.

At the same time, it should be noted that in treaties of symmachia the Athenians required their allies to take the oath in the Attic dialect, as is attested by numerous inscriptions, including those found in Athens’ allied poleis. This would seem to exclude the possibility that the Athenians had translated the oath into Attic solely for publication purposes (Crespo 2004). In some cases, indeed, the evidence suggests that in the Athenian conception the Attic dialect was coextensive with the possession of citizenship rights (e.g. Eup. fr. 90 K–A; cf. Amph. fr. 30 K–A with Soverini 1992, 846–849). Nor should we forget that the sources often attest to a certain Athenian pride in their local dialect (Morpurgo Davies 1993, 264).

We must therefore posit a twofold plane: the ideological–official and the factual. Athenians represented themselves as rigidly and proudly monoglot, and this self-representation also found expression in the institutional sphere. Factually, however, as noted above, citizens—regardless of class—possessed a degree of familiarity with foreign idioms. The standpoint of the Anonymous author of the pseudo-Xenophontic Constitution thus straddles the perspective of the actors and that of the observers. The linguistic purism he likely advocated does not substantially diverge from the ideological–institutional stance of other Athenians. At the same time, he also seems to adopt the vantage point of an external observer, who sees in the contact between Attic and other languages the sign of a dangerous decline, eroding the (cultural, social, and political–institutional) boundaries separating the politēs from the outsider.

Ἔπειτα φωνὴν πᾶσαν ἀκούοντες ἐξελέξαντο τοῦτο μὲν ἐκ τῆς, τοῦτο δὲ ἐκ τῆς· καὶ οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες ἰδίᾳ μᾶλλον καὶ φωνῇ καὶ διαίτῃ καὶ σχήματι χρῶνται, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ κεκραμένῃ ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων.

Then, listening to every tongue, they selected one element from here, another from there. And whereas the other Greeks adhere more to their own distinctive language, way of life, and manner of dress, the Athenians exhibit a mixture of elements taken from all the Greeks and all the barbarians.

• P. Christesen, P. Christesen, Economic Rationalism in fourt-century Athens, Greece and Rome 50, 2003, 31–56.
• J. Clackson, Language and Society in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Oxford 2015.
• S. Colvin, Social Dialect in Attica in Penney 2004, 95-108.
• E. Crespo, The Attitude of the Athenian State towards the Attic dialect during the Classical Era in Penney 2004, 109-118.
• M. Faraguna, alcolo economico, archivi finanziari e credito nel mondo greco tra VI e IV a. C. in V. Koenraad – K. Vandorpe – V. Chankowski (eds.), Pistoi dia technen: bankers, loans and archives in the Ancient World: studies in honor of Raimond Bogaert, Leuven 2008, 33-57.
• H. Frisch, The Constitution of the Athenians: A Philological-Historical Analysis of Pseudo-Xenofon’s Treatise De re publica Atheniensium, Copenhagen 1942.
• E. M. Harris – D. Lewis, Intoduction. Markets in Classical and Hellenistic Greece in E. M. Harris – D. M. Lewis – M. Woolmer (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy, Cambridge 2016, 1–37.
• E. Kalinka, Die pseudo-Xenophontische Athenaion Politeia: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Erklärung, Leipzig-Berlin 1913.
• W. Lapini, Commento all’Athenaion Politeia dello Pseudo-Senofonte, Firenze 1997.
• D. Lenfant, Pseudo-Xénophon. Constitution des Athéniens. Texte établi, traduit et commenté par D.L., Paris 2017.
• A. Mayor, J. Colarusso, D. Saunders, Making Sense of Nonsense Inscriptions associated with Amazons and Scythians on Athenian Vases, Hesperia 83, 2014, 447-93.
• J.L. Marr – P.J. Rhodes, The Old Oligarch. The Constitution of the Athenians Attributed to Xenophon. Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford-Haverton (PA)1975.
• J.M. Moore, Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1975.
• A. Morpurgo Davies, Geography, History and Dialect: The Case of Oropos in Crespo, E., Garcia-Ramon, J.L., and Striano, A. (eds.). Dialectologica Graeca: Actas del II coloquio internacional de dialectologia griega (Miraflores de la Sierra, Madrid), 19–21 de junio de 1991), Madrid 1993, 261-279.
• G. Mosconi, La lingua creola del demos. Sul Vecchio Oligarca (Ath. resp. 2, 8) e sui significati sociopolitici del plurilinguismo nel pensiero greco, Historika 11, 2021, 43-81.
• J. H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, Oxford 2004.
• K. M. W. Shipton, Leasing and Lending: the Cash Economy in Fourth-Century BC Athens, London 2000.
• L. Soverini, Parole, voce, gesti del commerciante nella Grecia classica, ASNP, s. III, 22, 1992, 811-884.
• G. Weber, Pseudo-Xenophon. Die Verfassung der Athener, Darmstadt 2010.