Sources from the 4thcentury show Coptic to be an operational tool, standardized despite inevitable regional differences, and capable of fulfilling the role of a lingua franca. Documentation then remained fairly stable until the middle of the 6thcentury . Who was now using Coptic (referred to in the texts as " Egyptian ") rather than Greek? The question is a delicate one, and has given rise to a variety of answers, tinged with prejudice and ideological undertones.
The first criterion is ethnicity. But this one is very difficult to handle : the Egyptian/Greek term pair (aigyptoi/hellênes) as used in the sources acquires various values that have nothing to do with ethnicity or language. We must be no less wary of onomastics, which do not necessarily reflect an individual's ethnicity, but rather the socio-cultural aspirations of his or her parents.
Research quickly turned to religion as a possible explanation for the Greek/Coptic division, according to several approaches :
- Coptic would have been the medium of Christian militancy in the face of pagan or paganizing Hellenism. But the latter began to become a socio-culturally marginal phenomenon with the elevation of Christianity to the rank of state religion.
- It has been suggested that Coptic-speaking anti-Chalcedonian Christians should be contrasted with Greek-speaking Chalcedonian Christians. But the language of the Church of Egypt will remain Greek for as long as possible.
- More legitimate is the opposition that Greek was the language of the clerics, while Coptic was mainly that of the monks. The latter could do without Greek and resort to what was for most of them their mother tongue, either out of rejection of the Greek culture at work in the world, or by cutting themselves off from active and public life, where Greek remained indispensable. In fact, the majority of Coptic papyri from the 4th to 17thcenturies come from monastic circles. But apart from the fact that the topos of the only Coptic-speaking monk needs to be qualified, Egyptian monasticism was more diversified than is too often thought: it included a Greek component and sometimes even encouraged the use of Greek, which was in any case indispensable in the management of the monasteries' economic activities.
- The link between Coptic and monk (poor and rejecting the city) has led to an analysis of the use of Coptic in socio-economic terms, contrasting the predominantly Greek-speaking urban environment with the Coptic-speaking village population. While this bipartition is partially valid, the use of the two languages follows a less simplistic divide: Coptic was born in highly Hellenized environments, which may also have been urban. Moreover, centuries of cohabitation led the Greeks to turn to Egyptian, particularly in the management of their agricultural estates. Conversely, some villagers could not do without Greek, which was indispensable to their own business, to that of their village and in their dealings with the metropolis. A natural bilingualism thus developed.
In fact, rather than asking who used Coptic, which necessarily leads to impressionistic answers (depending on the period, region and sector of society), we should be asking what types of writing Coptic was used for. The result is the emergence of clear, systemic trends. These will be studied next year.
