The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
Latin Inuence on Greek Orthography
A. N. Jannaris
The Classical Review / Volume 21 / Issue 03 / May 1907, pp 67 - 72 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X0017101X, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X0017101X
How to cite this article: A. N. Jannaris (1907). Latin Inuence on Greek Orthography. The Classical Review, 21, pp 67-72 doi:10.1017/S0009840X0017101X
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 130.88.90.140 on 07 Apr 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 6T the school-boy there is no need to ask; yet power of correct and forcible expression in the amount that claims his attention is not English. Not the least noble of the Latin really formidable. If our school books only teacher's duties is the maintenance of the ceased continually to divert his mind to a pure spring of English undented. He has thousand points of archaeology, mythology, perhaps not greatly distinguished himself in and geography, which are the proper province the past by his attention to this point; yet if of the Latinist, but are of very slight concern he were to make the experiment of address- to the citizen, and allowed him to concen- ing an audience of working men in the patois trate it upon the main human interest of which he allows to" pass muster in the class- Roman history, interpreted in the light of room, he would realize what an opportunity Roman poetry ar£l philosophy, its range he is losing. It is unhappily an English would perhaps not be excessive for the four affectation to despise ' rhetoric': hence the or five years of the school course in which vir bonus dicendi peritus is rare amongst us. Latin may still look forward to be the central But ' after all,' as the writer I have already subject of study. Already in more quarters quoted expresses himself, 'language is the than one the idea is gaining ground that the most wonderful creation of human genius'; best Latin authors only, and the best works and the more highly we rate the importance of those authors, must be selected, combined of politics and its handmaidens history and and even simplified so as to form a complete literature, the more we shall be likely to scheme of reading within the ordinary school insist on the necessity of keeping well course. furbished the implement by which each of But even from the point of view of politics the three is shaped. On this point I am the Latin course must never become a mere inclined to lay the more stress because it acquisition of knowledge. In the doctrine appears to me that amongst some advocates that Latin is ' playing with words' is latent a of the reform of Latin teaching the import- vital educational principle, and the phrase ance of grammar and composition is hardly needs to be realized in its best sense. Words sufficiently recognized. are the instruments of all thought, but in par- In conclusion I would say that in indicat- ticular they are the tools of the politician: ing the general character of the course which by their means he not only understands and suggests itself as suitable for the ordinary learns, but instructs and convinces. The school-boy, I do not forget the boy who may teaching of grammar is the special privilege later on specialize in classics. But it appears of the classical master. No sooner has his to me that either this course will suit him pupil an interest in his subject, than he must excellently as a foundation for his higher learn to state his facts clearly, to express his studies, or his special capacity will enable feelings with warmth, to point out the right him to make good any slight hindrance which course of action with conviction. All this one or more features in it may present to him. can be better learnt through Latin than If he has acquired a genuine interest in through English, and therefore Latin com- his subject he has the root of the matter position will still have its place, though it can in him. never again have the same importance as the E. V. ARNOLD.
LATIN INFLUENCE ON GREEK ORTHOGRAPHY.
THE Latin vocabulary occurring in Greek institutions or features peculiar to Roman inscriptions and papyri naturally consists life and history, e.g. 'PW/MJAOS, Kdrwv, Kaurap, chiefly of proper names and such military, irpairmp, Kivropimv, Keytwv, Kevrvpia, e'tSoi, administrative, and other terms as denote s, Erjvdpiov, KOfninov, etc. F 2 68 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW Now if we collect all this Latin stock 1 and and such like cases, therefore, must be dis- subject it to a critical examination, we shall counted as having little or no bearing upon find that its Greek garb follows certain the broad principle generally followed by the historical and grammatical principles. Greeks in grecizing Roman words. (3) Transliterations. IRRELEVANT CASES. We must further eliminate as irrelevant all (I) Blunders. such cases as betoken the opposite tendency. However, in order to arrive at safe results, I mean by this the purist tendency noticeable we must begin by eliminating such elements— among certain scribes through all periods of mostly very late—as obviously betoken either antiquity of simply transiting the names of manifest blunders, as 2e/i/?pios for ScirW/i- Roman men and institutions, and thus /Jpios 127; *\oua/3tosfor Flavius 17; 'lovXuqos rendering their Latin parentage almost irre- for Julius 47 ; 'Oavrpavos for Veteranus 99; cognizable. On this purist principle we find SeKovtvSos for Secundinus 127;—or exhibit Se/Jaoros for Augustus, Mcyas for (Cn. merely cases of literal transcription, e.g. Pompeius) Magnus, MeA.as for (M. Aurelius) ifurf.Tpa.rovi, ivyevovous, AuptAiVs, 'AeAiVs, Niger, o-vyK\rjTos for senatus, viraros for MapK Vs, EiovAiVs, Ovap Vs, avpiKeawpiftovs I37> consul, 7rap£/*/}oA.i7 for castra, I.—GRAMMATICAL PRINCIPLE. II.—GRAPHIC PRINCIPLE. When, therefore, Greece began to feel the Greek V or Y for Latin V influence of rising Rome and there arose the necessity of grecizing Roman names Graphic considerations are evidently at and institutions on the above threefold prin- work in the frequent though posterior prac- ciple of transcription, the Latin letter V tice of representing Latin V through Gre.ek found a natural and ready representative V or Y, inasmuch as the two letters had been in Greek O, the process being evidently sug- then graphically (if not phonetically as gested first by the terminal -VS, -VM which well) identified with each other. Accord- corresponded to Greek -O2, -ON. Thus ingly, we find since the-second century B.C: Romas became 'Pa>/*os, Marc«s MSpicos, Titas —first sporadically, then increasingly—trans- TITOS, etc., titulus TITAOS, praeturiwm irpcu- literations through Y, as : Ai/xvAios (188 B.C., 1 but cp. aijuvs), 'PwfivXla. (Romwlea), Ouertfpios ruipiov, linte#m AEVTIOV, etc., etc. Once identified with the very frequent Greek O, (120-95 B.C., but cp. Tupo's), SarupiW (cp. the equally frequent terminal u soon af- trarvpos), Av7roAos (cp. Avmj), AVT<£TIOS (78 fected also medial and initial u, and so B.C., cp. AUTOS, ADT«OV), KAvro/xctva (73 B.C., led to the association of every vocalic u cp. KAVTOS), SvAAas (cp. (rwAav), Tvppavios with Greek O. Accordingly in the older or (45 B.C.) and Tvpavos (39 B.C, cp. prae-Christian stage of the Graeco-Roman Ba/ftAAtos, TvAAios (45 B.C., cp. period we find regularly Greek O rendered 'OSOAWO-KIOS (73 B.C.), Mivfaios (73 B.C.), Mavi- by its Latin associate u, as 2?r<5pios (250- KIOS (45 B.C.), KaruAAttvos, AeirvAos, Awy- 30 B.C.), II<57rXios (since 190 B.C.), Nop,i- oa>v)jo-ta (Lagdunensis, cp. AvyStvos, AuySiyv), trios (170 B.C.), navSoo-ivos (170 B.C.), LIo7rAt- MapvAtvos, MapuAAos, TepTvAAtavds, TepruA- Aeivos, TepriAAios, Tcp-rvAAos, BtvwcrTeivos Btru- (120-95 BC-)» HowXticios (since 73 B.C.), o"TOs and BIJVWTTOS,—Kevrvpia, Ktvrvpliov, rip fir] R«bri«s (105 B.C.), 'POTIAIOS (R«tili«s, (toma), StKvpcvcras (cp. xvpios), <^pv/xevrapios since 105 B.C.), 'Oropios ( Voturms, 195-4B.C.), (cp. B.C.),Touppavios(7 B.C.),—I Now most of these combinations are (io A.D.), 'AmrovXijos (14-5 A.D.), avyoup- impossible in Greek for the well-known reason avyovpoi, SocowptW, KaXiroupviavos, Avyoupeivos, that the Greeks ever since classical (Attic) 'POVTIXIOS, SOVXITI'KIOS, SouXiriKiavds, KarovX- antiquity could not tolerate a succession of Xeivos, KavoiiXiyos, $OV I. BY g OR ov ( = w): II. BY $ ( = v): Valerius either O4aX«pios (130 times) or BaXepios ( 36 times). II ^alenanus Oiakepiavos ( 13 ») ) J» BaXeptavds ( )• Flaz/ius ^Xdovios [ Victor )y Oi£KT<«p 10 jj BlKT(l)p II ( ) ( )• So further— COTVUS : Kdpovio; and Sera«us : 2«powos and P^rgilius : O&pytXtos and B«pyt'Xtos, f/tellius : OfiireXXios and BireXXios, •. Nepo-ua and 'NepPa., etc. Now it will be remembered that the above the consonant Q in the complexes qua- que- vowel-combinations are most popular after qui- quo-, which form a most common feature 1 For the converse process of changing Greek « in Latin. But the combination qu- having no ( = V) into ov during Graeco-Roman times compare: corresponding K0- in Greek, and qua- que- qui- AavSiKtovs for AaoStxeis, yovfovai for -vivai, "Eovrvxos for E6TI;X A FEW NOTES ON THE SATIRES OF PERSIUS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PURPORT AND POSITION OF THE PROLOGUE. BEFORE we attempt to determine the Take for example the word ' semipaganus' position of the Prologue, we are confronted (v. 6). Whatever it means—whether 'half- with the preliminary question—what was its educated ' ' half a country clown,' as the purpose and its relation to the Satires ? scholiast renders it, or a ' poor half-brother of Is it merely a conventional and somewhat the guild' (as Jahn, Conington, and others)— commonplace Prelude without any special it suggests undoubtedly and beyond question reference to the whole, or a part, of the rusticity or, at any rate, provincialism. Yet Satires—of the kind, in fact, with which a Persius, as the best authority assures us, was feeble author bespeaks attention for his a man of noble birth and polished refinement. poems,-while he disparages their claims? Again, the author is at pains to tell us by an Such would seem to be the opinion of analogy in detail that he was poor and wrote Conington and a considerable number of the for money—another and still more startling editors. Yet surely a consideration of its falsity, for the same authority assures us subject matter might have given them pause that he was well-to-do and rich. Yet Con- before arriving at such a conclusion. ington and Nettleship accept all these This is no feeble category of excuses and contradictions with indifference, and barely apologies, of the kind we know so well, but a offer an attempt to explain them. series of downright point-blank assertions con- Now even the latter-day journalist doesn't cerningthe author's position and circumstance, hazard misrepresentations like these except written in the first person and bearing every with the strongest possible motive—much mark of intention and purpose. That the less would a Stoic philosopher of the strictest statements are false—or suggestively false— principles, as Persius undoubtedly was. constitutes the very difficulty of the case. It is our present object to determine, ifta\Co, MaXOaKio, E^SoXiSo, 'Aptorto; E,vru\o, KcictXio?, KdiVros (S/xvpvaios), KXatiSios O, ®tfXl(TTlO, NlKOtTlO, OaXXo, 'AplOTO- AiXiavds ('Apiorei'Sjjs) KoiVriXiavds, etc.— s, irpocroMro, T