An example of “Roman Greek” from Isthmia?
Greek and Latin in contact
Résumés
This paper presents findings from a project on language use and language contact in Roman Corinth. Inscriptions in Latin and Greek written after the refoundation of the city as a Roman colony (44 BC) are studied. Some plausible examples of language contact have been observed in a 2nd‑c.‑AD dedication in Greek from Isthmia. They are connected to a group of five texts (one in Latin) mentioning the archiereus of the imperial cult in Achaea. The features that may reflect Latin influence are the Roman naming formula, the clause-final position of the main verbs, the conjunction τε, which seems to resemble Latin ‑que more than Greek usage, and possibly the use of the article. Non-linguistic factors are also taken into account. The study of the inscriptions from the area is progressively informing our assessment of the apparent deviations. The working hypothesis is that we have an example of “Roman Greek”, born of a process of accommodation, or even of translation from a Latin original.
Cet article illustre les résultats d’un projet sur l’usage et le contact linguistiques à Corinthe. Les inscriptions latines et grecques datant d’après la refondation de Corinthe en tant que colonie romaine (44 av. J.‑C.) sont étudiées. De possibles exemples de contact linguistique ont été identifiés dans une dédicace d’Isthmia en grec datant du iie s. ap. J.‑C. en rapport avec un groupe de cinq textes (dont un en latin) mentionnant l’archiereus du culte impérial d’Achaïe. Les caractéristiques qui semblent être les résultats de l’influence du latin sont la formule onomastique romaine, la position en fin de proposition des verbes principaux, la conjonction τε qui ressemble plus au latin ‑que qu’à un usage propre à la langue grecque, et éventuellement l’utilisation de l’article. Des motivations non linguistiques sont aussi prises en compte. L’étude d’autres inscriptions façonne progressivement notre appréciation des écarts apparents. Ces textes paraissent offrir un exemple de « grec romanisé », issu d’un processus d’accommodation, voire de traduction d’un document en latin.
Texte intégral
1. Context of the research
1The initial findings in this paper arise from the doctoral research on language use and language contact in Roman Corinth, where we use inscriptions to investigate the linguistic environment of the area.1 The peculiarity of Roman Corinth and its surroundings, including the Isthmian sanctuary, is due to its history. The Greek city was destroyed by Lucius Mummius in 146 BC but refounded a century later, around 44 BC, by Julius Caesar as Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis. The refounded city was “a hybrid of both cultures, in which one language [Latin] became the mode of expression within the public sphere and another [Greek] within the private” (Millis 2010, p. 31).
2Close to Roman Corinth and under its control was Isthmia, a sanctuary sacred to Poseidon and the seat of the Panhellenic Isthmian games. We know from Pausanias that during the century between the destruction and the refoundation of Corinth, the control of the games was temporarily transferred to Sicyon. It later returned to Isthmia under (Roman) Corinth’s control.2
3In this context, scholars’ attention has been attracted by a group of at least six texts that communally mention the same person, an archiereus of the imperial cult, Publius Licinius Priscus Iuventianus.3 Five of them are in Greek, and one is in Latin, and they are all presented below for the sake of completeness. From the first editors, Dean 1922, pp. 472‑473 and West, apud Corinth VIII, 2, pp. 54‑55, until more recent contributions, studies have focused on the identity of this dignitary and the constructions funded by him at Isthmia from a historical and archaeological perspective. He was responsible for some of the first and most important dedications around the sanctuary after the reinstitution of the games there.4
4In this paper, we analyse the language of these texts. One of them, termed by Geagan 1989 “Stele A”, draws our attention as it is a dedication in Greek by Licinius Priscus, (possibly) a Roman.5 We notice in it some features that might indicate the influence of the dedicant’s first language (Latin) on his second language (Greek): the naming formula, the clause-final position of the main verbs, the use of τε in a peculiar position and, possibly, the use of the definite article. We will discuss these features in the second part of the paper. All these elements taken together lead us to hypothesise that our text is an example of “Roman Greek”, a text written by a Roman in Greek with signs of Latin interference. We borrow J.N. Adams’s expression, “Roman Greek” (Adams 2003, p. 509), and we follow his approach in analysing the reasons behind the language choices. We speak of accommodation in the religious domain and discuss the type of image Priscus (deliberately?) presents of himself.
5We start by summarising (see infra §§ 2, 3) the conclusions reached in previous studies about the identification of Licinius Priscus and the chronology of his benefactions.
2. The protagonist of the inscriptions: Publius Licinius Priscus Iuventianus
6Publius Licinius Priscus Iuventianus is mentioned in a group of six inscriptions from Isthmia and Corinth, and he is the dedicator of two of them.6 The so‑called “Stele A” and “Stele B” report a series of benefactions that he financed in the Isthmian sanctuary and show that he was one of the main artifices of the revival of the sanctuary after the period of neglect and decay of the area (from Corinth’s destruction in 146 BC to a period between the end of 1st c. BC and the beginning of 1st c. AD).7 As shown below (see infra § 5.1), his naming formula reflects his double identity of Roman and Corinthian. His gens, the Licinii, is a well-known family of tradesmen active in the East, and Spawforth 1996, pp. 179‑180, refers to other members attested in Corinth.
7The role Licinius Priscus played in the Peloponnese is clear: in two inscriptions (“Stele A”, see infra § 5; and the Latin text, Broneer 1939, pp. 188‑189, see infra § 4.3), he is identified as an archiereus, archpriest of the imperial cult of the Achaean koinon, with further specification in “Stele A”, where he is archiereus dia biou, archpriest for life. The archiereis were Roman citizens who resided in the East, overseeing the imperial cult. They could advance their careers through this role, reaching an equestrian or senatorial rank. The imperial cult was organised in the East by reuniting the important cities of a province into a league (koinon). The province of Achaea had several smaller koina.8
8While we know so much about Licinius Priscus’ life, there is no certainty about the exact period when he lived. The following section presents the different proposals to date his life and benefactions.
3. Proposals of date
9The exact chronology of Licinius Priscus’ life has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, being attributed to a variety of periods from Vespasian’s to Marcus Aurelius’ times.9 The main elements of the inscriptions used to date his life are the references to earthquakes and a sanctuary, the Palaimonion.
10Earthquakes are mentioned in two texts: in “Stele A”, we read τὰ ἀναλήμ|ματα ὑπὸ σεισμῶν |καὶ παλαιότητος δια|λελυμένα (l. 21‑23), “the foundations ruined by earthquakes and obsolescence” (transl. Geagan 1989, p. 353); in “Stele B”, we find τὰ [μὲν κα|τ]ὰ σ̣τάδ̣ιον ὑπὸ σεισμῶν ἐσκυλμένα τὰ δὲ [ὑπὸ πα|λ]α[ι]ότητος δ[ε]δαπανημένα (l. 10‑12), “what has been stripped away beneath the stadium by earthquakes as well as what has been plundered by age” (transl. Geagan 1989, p. 354). At least two earthquakes affected Corinth in the first two centuries of the common era and they are used by different scholars to date Licinius Priscus’ life. An earthquake under Vespasian is used by West, apud Corinth VIII, 2, p. 54, to attribute the texts to Vespasian’s reign (69‑79 AD). A second earthquake, which took place in the second half of 2nd c. AD, is used as an argument by Geagan 1989, p. 360. D.J. Geagan thinks that Licinius Priscus’ benefactions became necessary after this second earthquake and because of previous damages caused by obsolescence (παλαιότητος in “Stele A” l. 22 and “Stele B” l. 11‑12).
11Archaeological arguments, on the other hand, are based mainly on the mention of a Palaimonion in “Stele A” (l. 8). The building was discovered during the American excavations. Evidence shows that two different temples, or two different phases of the same temple, existed: the first one was presumably built during (or before) Hadrian’s reign (117‑138 AD) because it was represented in coins from that time; the second was constructed between 150 and 180 AD and was recorded in coins from Marcus Aurelius’ reign (161‑180 AD).10 Since Licinius Priscus funded the construction of this temple, he must have lived at the time of the construction of one of the two. M. Torelli is sure in assigning Priscus’ benefactions to the second phase of the temple, not later than 169 AD: the mention of an enagistērion (“Stele A” l. 9, “pit” for offerings to the gods) next to the Palaimonion makes him conclude that Priscus was the artifex of the reconstruction and expansion of the sanctuary.11 Geagan 1989, p. 360, follows the same reasoning and, taking into consideration both the earthquake mentioned above and the second phase of the temple, supports a date in the late second century.
12Other scholars assign Licinius Priscus’ actions to the temple’s first phase and add prosopographical reasons. Other archiereis of the Achaean koinon are known from inscriptions, and, among them, two are known for having been archiereis under Antoninus Pius (138‑161 AD): Tib. Claudius Saithidas Caelianus and Tib. Claudius Polycrates. Furthermore, B. Puech presents evidence that the role of the archiereus for the imperial cult was associated for a certain period, until the end of the 2nd c. AD, with that of the helladarchēs of the Achaean koinon, another position held for life. The first who played both roles in the koinon was Cornelius Pulcher, archiereus from the end of Trajan’s reign (98‑117 AD) to approximately 137‑138 AD. Licinius Priscus is never designated as helladarchēs: therefore, he could have lived and worked before or after the two offices were assigned to the same person. The last dignitary who was both archiereus and helladarchēs was T. Statilius Timocrates Memmianus, who was in charge under Marcus Aurelius (161‑180 AD), when Priscus must have lived if we were to accept a low date for his life.12
13For all the reasons presented above, it seems plausible that Licinius Priscus lived under Trajan (98‑117 AD), but we highlight again the difficulties of precisely dating his life. We move now to the texts.
4. The inscriptions
14We will focus mostly on “Stele A” (see infra § 5), which shows evidence of the influence of Licinius Priscus’ Latin on his Greek. However, we present all the texts for the sake of completeness. Although the three monolingual texts of § 4.1 do not contribute to the discussion of language contact and interference, the language used in them reflects the image of Priscus in the context of the sanctuary of Isthmia and of Roman Corinth.
4.1. Short monolingual texts that mention Licinius Priscus
15The three following inscriptions are all in Greek and contain only the name of Licinius Priscus. We know the monument type only of the first one (Corinth VIII, 3, no. 201), which was a statue base. The lost statue must have represented Priscus.13 Of the second (Broneer 1939, p. 189), we can only hypothesise that it was inscribed on something dedicated to Licinius Priscus.14 The third text (Clement 1972, p. 230) was reconstructed from two fragments of a plaque of white marble.15 As for the findspots, only the third inscription (Clement 1972, p. 230) comes for sure from the Isthmian sanctuary (northeast of the temple of Poseidon).16 The first (Corinth VIII, 3, no. 201) was discovered in New Corinth, but Broneer 1939, p. 189, Kent, apud Corinth VIII, 3, p. 89, and Sturgeon 1987, p. 10, agree in thinking that it was also originally located in the sanctuary.17
Ἰουβεντιανὸς | ἱερεύς. (Corinth VIII, 3, no. 201)
Π. Λικί̣[νιον] | [Π. υ. Α]ἰ̣μ. Πρεῖσκ[ον] | [ - - - - - - - - - - - - ] (Broneer 1939, p. 189)
[- - - - - - - - - - - - - ].[- - - - - - ] | [- - - Π]ρεῖσκ[ος Ἰο]υ̣βεντ̣[ιανὸς - - - ] | [ - - - - ]Μ̣Ι̣[…6…] . . [- - - - - ] (Clement 1972, p. 230)
4.2. “Stele B”: rescript of the Roman governor
16The following long text is a rescript. Geagan 1989 demonstrates that two fragments of a grey limestone stele discovered in different places formed one text. One fragment (“Corinth I, 2194”, l. 14‑32; Broneer 1939, pp. 181‑190; Corinth VIII, 3, no. 306) was found in the South Stoa in Corinth, the other (“Isthmia I, 261”, l. 1‑14) was more recently discovered in the Justinian’s Fortress at Isthmia. Geagan hypothesises that it was originally set up at Isthmia next to “Stele A”, based both on the findspot of the first half and on the content, which recalls some parts of “Stele A”.18 We report the text and some comments on it.19
[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] [- - - - - traces of two lines- - - - - - - -] 3 - - - -]α[.]ο[.]νεπια[- - - - - [....]του[..]ο[..]σ[.]τος ἀνθύπατος [- - - - - - ] - - - - - -]ανο[- - - - - - - 6 - - - - ]α[. . . . .]τανευ[- - - - - - - - -]ς τῆς σ[τοᾶ]ς [- - - - - - - - ]Ν[. . . ΝΩ ὑετη[- - - 9 [...5-6...] ἀπ[ο]δέχεσθαι v Λικίνιον Π[ρ]είσ[κον ἂνδρα] [πε]πολειτευ̣μ̣ένον φιλοτειμότατα καὶ τὰ [μὲν κα]- [τ]ὰ σ̣τάδ̣ιον ὑπὸ σεισμῶν ἐσκυλμένα τὰ δὲ [ὑπὸ πα]- 12 [λ]α[ι]ότητος δ[ε]δαπανημένα ἀποκαθεστ[ότα - - - ] [...]θ̣α̣ ὑπὸ το[ῦ] δήμου [..]τε φημ̣[- - - - - - - ] [..] τοῖς χρίοισι ἀθλητ[άς - - - - - - - - - ]ωΙ̣[.]Ι̣Ι̣μ[- - ] 15 [- - - - - - - - - - - - - -]ο̣ς̣ [συ]νᾶραι ἐρείπια στοᾶς τ̣ῆς Ῥ̣ήγ̣λ[ο]υ̣ [.]α[.]μ̣άρας οὕτως ὥστε πο̣ιῆ̣[σ]αι οἴκους πεντήκ[ο]ν̣τα v ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ φι[λ]οτείμως 18 ὁ Πρ̣εῖ[σ]κ[ο]ς ἀναστρέφεται ὥστε ὑπὲρ τῆς τειμῆς τοῦ προδηλουμένου τόπου δοῦναι τοῖς πολείταις ἑκάστῳ δηνάριον ἕν v οὐ μόνον συνκατατίθεμαι 21 τῇ τε τῆς [β]ουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου γνώμῃ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀ- ποδέχομαι τὸν ἄνδρα οὕτως ἐν ἅπασιν ἀναστρε- φόμενον φιλοτείμως καὶ ἐπιτρέπω τὸν προ- 24 δηλούμενον τόπον ταύτῃ τῇ αἱρέσει αὐτῷ πρα- θῆναι v οὕτως μέντοι ὥστε τοὺς γεινομένους οἴκους τοῖς ἀθληταῖς προῖκα τῷ καιρῷ τῶν ἀγώ- 27 νων σχολάζειν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἔχοντος τοῦ κα- τὰ καιρὸν ἀγωνοθέτου ἐξουσίαν διανέμειν τὰς ξενίας αὐτοῖς v εἰ μέντοι τις πρὸς τοῦτο ἀν- 30 τιλέγει δυνήσεται διδάξαι με ἐντὸς Καλανδῶν Ἰανουαρίων τῶν ἔνγιστα v ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὔχομαι [data – ]IIII K Decembr v et pro rostris lecta pr. * Decembr’
[…] proconsul […] of the colonnade […] to receive favourably Licinius Priscus, who administered public affairs with generosity and restored what has been stripped away beneath the stadium by earthquakes as well as what has been plundered by age [- - -] by the people […] for those who anoint the athletes with scented oils […] [- - - to] raise the ruins of the stoa of Regulus in such a way as to make fifty rooms […]. Therefore, since Priscus conducts himself generously also in this so as to give to the citizens each a denarius as a price for the aforementioned place, not only do I assent to the proposal of the senate and populus, but also I congratulate the man so generously comporting himself in all matters. And I permit the aforesaid place to be made over to him under the following conditions, that in perpetuity the resulting oikoi be available to the athletes free of charge on the occasion of the games and that the agonothetes on each occasion have the authority to allot guest chambers to them. If perchance anyone should object to this, he shall be free to instruct me before the Kalends of January next. I wish you farewell. Given four days before the Kalends of December and read from the rostra the day before the Kalends of December (personal transl. based on Camia 2002, p. 372 and Geagan 1989, p. 354 for l. 1‑17, and on Geagan 1989, pp. 354‑355 for l. 17‑32).
17The rescript presumably came from the Roman governor of Achaea, as shown by the mention of an anthypatos (= proconsul) in the first fragmentary part of the text. The name of the governor is lost but his decisions are recorded in the second part of the inscription: he accepted the request made by Priscus to buy the place “mentioned before” (τὸν προδηλούμενον τόπον, l. 23‑24), probably the part of the stoa of Regulus that he wanted to buy at the end of “Stele A” (see infra § 5); he declared that the rooms built there will always be available to the athletes for free; he promised that the agonothetes would be in charge of assigning the rooms to those athletes.20 Although the text is fragmentary, it respects the structure of official letters: it indicates the reasons why the governor sent the letter, the standard final epistolary formula containing the wish that the recipients are in good health, ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὔχομαι (l. 31), and the date when it was sent and read from the rostra, which has not been entirely preserved. The first part is lost but we can presume that it presented the “salutation” (see Sherk 1969, p. 189), with the indication of who sends the letter to whom, and the nominative ἀνθύπατος in line 4 supports this hypothesis.
18The date in Latin was partially lost and has been reconstructed differently by the editors. D.J. Geagan restores only [data], while O. Broneer reconstructed data - - - xIIII K DECEMBR ET PRO ROSTRIS LECTA IX K DECEMBR. O. Broneer sees IX in the day when the text was read and reconstructs a X before IIII to leave time for the letter to be delivered, assuming that the document was issued and read directly in Corinth and not sent from Rome. It is plausible since Roman governor officially resided in Corinth. However, we cannot be sure of the exact date recorded in the text. It seems like a postscript added by the administrative office to record the place and date of sending and reading.21
19This text shows some Latin elements that have already been noted in previous studies.22 It includes some common Latin loanwords: δηνάριον (l. 20), Καλανδῶν (l. 30) and Ἰανουαρίων (l. 31), respectively from Lat. denarius, Kalendae and Ianuarius. A possible Latinism is the final formula of greeting, ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὔχομαι (l. 31). O. Broneer interprets this as a feature typical of letters sent by Roman magistrates, while those sent by the emperor presented the shorter forms ἔρρωσθε or εὐτυχεῖτε.23 Our formula and its variations seem, on the other hand, formed on the Latin valere te opto.24
20Now, we turn to the two texts that explicitly name Licinius Priscus as the dedicator to study his linguistic choices, including some features that show Latin influence on his Greek.
4.3. Dedication for the priestess of Victoria by Licinius Priscus
21This inscription records a dedication. It was inscribed on a statue base set up by Licinius Priscus for Polyaena (his wife?). It was reconstructed from two fragments of white marble reused as a Byzantine capital in Corinth. They were originally published separately in Corinth VIII, 2, no. 70 and no. 111 and then recognised by Broneer 1939, pp. 188‑189 as parts of a single text.25
[- - - - -] M(arci) f(iliae) [Poly]aenae [sacerdot]i Victoriae. 4 [- - - - P(ublius) Li]cinius Prisc̣ụ[s] [Iuventian]us archiereus [uxori o]ptumae D(ecreto) D(ecurionum)
To [---] Polyaena, daughter of Marcus, priestess of Victoria. [Publius] Licinius Priscus [Iuventian]us, archpriest, (dedicated it to) his excellent [wife]. By decree of the city council (personal transl.).
22Licinius Priscus is the dedicator of this statue base, and the honorand determines the choice of using Latin. Even if she seems to bear a Greek cognomen (the name is partially reconstructed), she is honoured for her role as the priestess of the Roman goddess Victoria and the use of Latin is therefore expected. The fact that she was supposedly Licinius Priscus’ wife would not add much to the conclusion since he is dedicating the statue in his official role as archiereus of the imperial cult, to which the cult of Victoria was related. Unfortunately, we do not know the original location of the statue. We could hypothesise that it was in the (proximity of the) Forum, the most overtly Roman part of the city of Corinth, where Latin was the rule.
23The language to be adopted was different in the dedication below to the paternal gods and to the country at Isthmia.
5. An example of “Roman Greek”? “Stele A”
24The aforementioned “Stele A” is a dedication by Publius Licinius Priscus Iuventianus, which includes a list of his benefactions. It was inscribed on a rectangular stele discovered at Isthmia, although we do not know the exact findspot. As D.J. Geagan reports, J. Spon and G. Wheler saw it during their travels in 1676 (see Spon, Wheler 1678, p. 225). It is now held in the Museo Lapidario of Verona. We owe the reading of lines 28‑29 to Maffei 1749 and the reconstruction of line 30 to D.J. Geagan.26
θεοῖς πατρίοις καὶ τῇ πατρίδι. Π(όπλιος) Λικίνιος Π(οπλίου) υ(ἱός) Αἰμ(ιλίᾳ) Πρεῖσκος 4 Ἰουουεντιανός, ἀρχιερεὺς διὰ βίου, τὰς καταλύσεις τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐπὶ τὰ Ἴσθμια παραγεινο- μένοις ἀθληταῖς κατεσκεύασεν. 8 ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ τὸ Παλαιμόνιον σὺν τοῖς προσκοσμήμασιν καὶ τὸ ἐναγιστήριον καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν εἴσοδον καὶ τοὺς τῶν πατρίων θεῶν βωμοὺς σὺν τῷ περι- 12 βόλῳ καὶ προνάῳ καὶ τοὺς ἐνκριτηρί- ους οἴκους καὶ τοῦ ῾Ηλίου τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ ἄγαλμα καὶ τὸν περίβολον τόν τε περίβολον τῆς ἱερᾶς νάπης καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ 16 ναοὺς Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος σὺν τοῖς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀγάλ- μασιν καὶ προσκοσμήμασιν καὶ προνάοις ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐποίησεν καὶ τοὺς ναοὺς 20 τῆς Εὐετηρίας καὶ τῆς Κόρης καὶ τὸ Πλου- τώνειον καὶ τὰς ἀναβάσεις καὶ τὰ ἀναλήμ- ματα ὑπὸ σεισμῶν καὶ παλαιότητος δια- λελυμένα ἐπεσκεύασεν. ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ 24 τὴν στοὰν τὴν πρὸς τῷ σταδίῳ σὺν τοῖς κεκαμαρωμένοις οἴκοις καὶ προσ- κοσμήμασιν ὑπὲρ ἀγορανομίας ἀνέθηκεν. 28 Ὑπόσχεσις Π(οπλίου) Λικινίου Πρείσκου· ἐάν μοι πωλήσητε τῆς λεγ[ο]μ̣ένης ῥηγλια- [νῆς στοᾶς τὰ - ]πο[- - - - - - - - - - -] (IG IV, no. 203 + final line from Geagan 1989, p. 351)
To the ancestral gods and his country. P(ublius) Licinius, P(ublius’) s(on), (of the) Aem(ilian tribe), Priscus Iuventianus, lifelong high priest. He furnished the quarters for the athletes from the oikoumene who were present for the Isthmia. The same man, with his own funds, constructed also the Palaimonion with its ornaments, and the enagistērion and the sacred portal, and the altars of the ancestral gods with the peribolos and the pronaos, and the examining chambers, and the naos of Helios and the statue in it and the peribolos, and the peribolos of the sacred wooded valley and the temples in it of Demeter and of Kore and of Dionysos and of Artemis, and the statues in them, and the ornaments and pronaoi; he restored also the naoi of Eueteria and of Kore and the Plutoneion and the ramps and foundations undermined by earthquakes and age. The same man also set up, when he was agoranomos, the stoa next to the stadium with its vaulted rooms and furnishings. The promise of Publius Licinius Priscus: if you will sell to me (---) of the so‑called Regulian… (transl. based on Geagan 1989, pp. 352‑354)
25Licinius Priscus honours the traditional (Greek) ancestral gods and the country and includes in the text a list of the buildings whose construction or reconstruction he financed. Some of the ancestral gods are mentioned in the list of benefactions (Demeter, Kore, Dionysos, Artemis, Pluto, Palaimon) and others are understood, like Poseidon. The choice to honour them in Greek is significant, especially since we have seen the same dedicant honouring a person in Latin. He could command both languages and the purpose of the texts determined which language he chose. When he had to honour the priestess of Victoria, he chose to use Latin. Here he chose Greek, and we can see in this choice a form of accommodation to the traditional gods and to the language they would expect to be honoured in.27
26Nevertheless, the text shows signs of linguistic interference from Licinius Priscus’ (presumed) L1 (Latin) into his L2 (Greek). They are the naming formula, the clause-final position of the main verbs and, possibly, the use of the conjunction τε and the use of the article. They are examined in turn below.
5.1. The naming formula
27The first element is the naming formula Π(όπλιος) Λικίνιος Π(οπλίου) υ(ἱός) Αἰμ(ιλίᾳ) Πρεῖσκος | Ἰουουεντιανός (l. 3‑4). Licinius Priscus is mentioned in all the texts presented in this paper, but never with the full formula used here (unless Ἰουουεντιανόν had to be reconstructed in Broneer 1939, p. 189, see supra § 4.1). He bears a full Roman name translated into Greek. In particular, the second cognomen (or agnomen) Iuventianus (Ἰουουεντιανός) has been discussed by scholars. Cognomina in ‑ianus can have different origins: they could be formed from gentilicia or cognomina in case of adoption or derived from the mother’s name. According to O. Salomies, the second origin is more common during the Empire.28 West, apud Corinth VIII, 2, pp. 54‑55, no. 70, is one of the supporters of the latter origin: he sees in an Iuventius Proclus, who had been agonothetes of the Isthmian games in 41 AD, Priscus’ grandfather. Others, like Camia 2002, p. 361, n. 3, think that this name, at that time, might not have been due either to adoption or to the mother’s name. This still represents a dilemma.
28The naming formula respects Roman usage in every way, including by adopting the abbreviations that are used in Latin. F. Zilken notes, in his study of bilingual inscriptions, how the normal Greek usage concerning Roman praenomina was to write them in full. However, there were instances of abbreviations in Greek (more numerous from the 2nd c. AD onwards).29 In this case, we see the praenomina of Licinius Priscus in the nominative and his father’s in the genitive in an abbreviated form: his (presumed) first language influenced the way he rendered his name in his second language.30 Another abbreviation is υ for υἱός. It corresponds to the Latin f(ilius) preceded by the genitive of the father’s name, whereas Greek would have used the genitive alone. The presence of the Latin form of filiation is listed by Sherk 1969, p. 17 among the linguistic characteristics of Greek translations of Roman senatus consulta. It is also one of the elements that J.N. Adams notices in the inscriptions of the negotiatores of Delos that makes him speak of linguistic interference of Latin on Greek (Adams 2002, pp. 119‑127). The use of υἱός to render the Latin form was born from the desire to clearly express filiation without the Greek ambiguity, where a plain genitive was used both to indicate filiation and the relationship between a freed slave and his master (in Latin genitive + abbreviated libertus).31 We agree with J.N. Adams in thinking that “it would arguably be less surprising if a native speaker of Latin when writing a formal Latin name in Greek should have translated filius into Greek” (Adams 2003, p. 672). Its presence here, therefore, expresses an influence of Licinius Priscus’ Latin, especially in the abbreviated form: we have not seen any abbreviated instances of υἱός in the naming formulas used in Delos, and this aspect might deserve further investigation. The abbreviations are signalled on the stone by a bar.
29Finally, the insertion of the tribe in the naming formula is significant since it reflects the double identity of the dedicator. The membership to a Roman tribe indicates that he was a Roman citizen; accordingly, it is abbreviated following the Roman norm. In Latin, we would have an ablative while here it is presumably rendered with a dative.32 It also follows the Roman norm in its position after the patronymic and before the cognomen and agnomen (Calabi Limentani 1991, pp. 139‑140). As a general tendency, the indication of the voting tribe is not commonly found in Greek inscriptions and, when found, is usually written in full, unabbreviated.33 Its presence in the abbreviated form in this text is therefore significant. The name of the tribe does not reflect only his Romanity but also his membership in the Corinthian Roman elite. We know from Rizakis, apud Achaïe II, p. 49, that all the Roman citizens of Patras, the other Roman colony in the province of Achaea, belonged to the tribe Quirina and the evidence supports the idea that when Roman citizens moved to Patras, they were all assigned the same tribe. The same is evident for Corinth, where the tribe of Roman Corinthian citizens was Aemilia.34
30As noted above (see supra § 5), Licinius Priscus conforms to the Greek traditions in the religious domain by choosing to make the dedication in Greek instead of Latin. Nevertheless, we are dealing here with a dedication made by him in his official role of archiereus of the imperial cult and, even while accommodating, he still presents his identity as Roman following Roman habits in the naming formula. This is therefore different from the form of accommodation referred to by J.N. Adams in Delos, where Romans writing private votive dedications in Greek, which is per se a form of accommodation, accommodated also by using the Greek form of filiation with the plain genitive.35
31We wonder whether this reflects a deliberate use to indicate the Roman (and Corinthian) origin of the dedicant or if it is the result of a literal translation from a Latin version of the text.
5.2. The placement of the main verbs
32The second element that probably reflects Latin interference is the position of the main verbs. There are four main verbs, excluding the last fragmentary sentence. They are all found at the end of their clauses, many lines after their subjects: […] Ἰουουεντιανός (subject, l. 3‑4) ‑ κατεσκεύασεν (verb, l. 7), ὁ αὐτὸς (subject, l. 8) ‑ ἐποίησεν (verb, l. 19) ‑ ἐπεσκεύασεν (verb, l. 23), ὁ αὐτὸς (subject, l. 23) ‑ ἀνέθηκεν (verb, l. 27). Establishing the unmarked word order in simple clauses in Greek is complex: there have been discussions as to whether Greek is a SOV or a SVO language, but no agreement has been reached.36 Nevertheless, “it has long been observed that Latin has a greater tendency to place the verb at the end of the clause than does Greek” (Frischer et al. 1999, p. 357). Therefore, the situation of our text is suspicious.
33The relegation of the main verb to the end of the clause is most striking in the case of ἐποίησεν (l. 19), whose subject occurs 11 lines above, ὁ αὐτὸς (l. 8). We wonder whether these verbs are used because they translate the Latin verbs common in dedications of buildings: in particular, ἐποίησεν might translate Lat. fecit and ἐπεσκεύασεν Lat. renovavit/refecit.37
34A tendency towards the use of verbs at the end of the clause has been noticed in Greek texts affected by Latin influence: this is the case of the prose of Cassius Dio and of official documents translated from Latin into Greek, the most striking (but not the only) example being the Res Gestae.38 Also G.C. Horrocks mentions that an effect of the contact of bureaucratic Latin language with Greek and, especially, of the translations of Latin documents into Greek was the preference for placing the main verbs at the end of the sentences. This feature was a sign that documents such as decrees or official letters were originally in Latin and later translated.39
35We report an example from the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Mon.Anc.Gr.) 19, used by R. Allan in a recent article on some of the linguistic features of the Greek translation of the Res Gestae.40
Lat. Curiam et continens ei chalcidicum, templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum porticibus curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal, porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat Octaviam, pulvinar ad circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri et Iovis Tonantis, aedem Quirini, aedes Minervae et Iunonis Reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem Larum in summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia, aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris Magnae in Palatio feci.
Gr. βουλευτήρ(ιο)ν καὶ τὸ πλησίον αὐτῶι χαλκιδικόν, ναόν τε Ἀπόλλωνος ἐν Παλατίωι σὺν στοαῖς, ναὸν θεοῦ Ἰουλίου, Πανὸς ἱερόν, στοὰν πρὸς ἱπποδρόμωι τῶι προσαγορευομένωι Φλαμινίωι, ἣν εἴασα προσαγορεύεσθαι ἐξ ὀνόματος ἐκείνου Ὀκταουΐαν, ὃ(ς) πρῶτος αὐτὴν ἀνέστησεν, ναὸν πρὸς τῶι μεγάλωι ἱπποδρόμωι, ναοὺς ἐν Καπιτωλίωι Διὸς Τροπαιοφόρου καὶ Διὸς Βροντησίου, ναὸν Κυρείν(ο)υ, ναοὺς Ἀθηνᾶς καὶ Ἥρας Βασιλίδος καὶ Διὸς Ἐλευθερίου ἐν Ἀουεντίνωι, ἡρώων πρὸς τῆι ἱερᾶι ὁδῶι, θεῶν κατοικιδίων ἐν Οὐελίαι, ναὸν Νεότητο(ς, να)ὸν Μητρὸς θεῶν ἐν Παλατίωι ἐπόησα.
I built the curia and the Chalcidicum adjoining it, the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of the deified Julius, the Lupercal, the portico at the Circus Flaminius which I allowed to be called Octavia after the name of him who had constructed an earlier one on the same site, the state box at the Circus Maximus, the temples on the capitol of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter Tonans, the temple of Quirinus, the temples of Minerva, of Juno the Queen, and of Jupiter Libertas, on the Aventine, the temple of the Lares at the highest point of the Sacra Via, the temple of the Di Penates on the Velia, the temple of Youth, and the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine (transl. Shipley 1924, pp. 375‑377).
36R. Allan points out that the word order found in these texts reflects that they were mostly translated very literally from Latin into Greek. In the Res Gestae, 50% of the instances of the main verbs are at the end of the clause, and one of the most striking examples is the one reported above, with the verb feci/ἐπόησα at the end of a long list of buildings constructed by Augustus.41 The structure of that sentence corresponds surprisingly well to that of ὁ αὐτὸς (l. 8) […] ἐποίησεν (l. 19) in our text.
37Pragmatic factors cannot be excluded when determining the word order in a text.42 In our text, the list of buildings might have been put in a prominent position to outline their importance. Nevertheless, we wonder whether Licinius Priscus unconsciously adopted a Roman feature in writing his dedication or, alternatively, there was a Latin original from which the word order was transferred.
38The first and second elements presented above are more straightforward than the other two points presented in the following two sections, which are nevertheless noticeable in a text with clear signs of Latin influence.
5.3. The use of τε
39The third element that may reflect more Latin usage than Greek is the enclitic conjunction τε (l. 14). We find correlative τε in a list after many instances of καί:
ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ (1) τὸ Παλαιμόνιον σὺν τοῖς | προσκοσμήμασιν καὶ (2) τὸ ἐναγιστήριον | καὶ (3) τὴν ἱερὰν εἴσοδον καὶ (4) τοὺς τῶν | πατρίων θεῶν βωμοὺς σὺν τῷ περι|βόλῳ καὶ προνάῳ καὶ (5) τοὺς ἐνκριτηρί|ους οἴκους καὶ (6) τοῦ ῾Ηλίου τὸν ναὸν καὶ (7) τὸ | ἐν αὐτῷ ἄγαλμα καὶ (8) τὸν περίβολον τόν τε | περίβολον τῆς ἱερᾶς νάπης καὶ (9) τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ | ναοὺς Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου | καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος σὺν τοῖς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀγάλ|μασιν καὶ προσκοσμήμασιν καὶ προνάοις | ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐποίησεν (l. 8‑19)
The same man with his own funds constructed also (1) the Palaimonion with its ornaments and (2) the enagistērion and (3) the sacred portal and (4) the altars of the ancestral gods with the peribolos and the pronaos and (5) the examining chambers and (6) the naos of Helios and (7) the statue in it and (8) the peribolos (of the naos of Helios) and (τε) the peribolos of the sacred wooded valley and (9) the temples in it of Demeter and Kore and Dionysos and Artemis and the statues in them and the ornaments and pronaoi (transl. based on Geagan 1989, p. 353)
40In l. 8‑19, we have a list of the buildings financed by Licinius Priscus: the Palaimonion (1), the enagistērion (2), the sacred portal (3), the altars (4), the examining chambers (5), the naos of Helios (6) and its statues (7) and the peribolos (of the naos) and the peribolos of the sacred wooded valley. We wonder why the author would introduce τε after having used καί to connect all the other items on the list.
41Two aspects draw our attention. First, we know that the conjunction τε tends progressively to disappear in the history of the language. It was already not that frequent in the language of classical Attic inscriptions.43 In our Corinthian corpus, only nine examples of τε have been found so far, including the present text.44 This might be due to the characteristics of the corpus, where most of the inscriptions are short dedications, but it might also indicate something else. Two of them are by Romans and they are presented on these pages, the first one being in “Stele B”.45 Nevertheless, these attestations, including “Stele B”, show mostly the correlation τε…καί, which leads to the second aspect: “καί…τε stehen nie in gegenseitiger Beziehung, weil das präparative Glied nicht etwas Nachdrücklicheres und Bedeutenderes enthalten kann als das folgende Glied” (Kühner, Gerth 1904, p. 251).
42The “anomalous” correlation in our text could be explained in Greek terms: we could think that τόν τε | περίβολον is the beginning of a new correlation that forms a whole separated correlation, indicating the buildings that belonged to the sacred valley. In this case, it would not be in relation to the other terms connected by καί and it would represent a correlation of elements related more intimately than those connected by καί.46
43However, given the presence of other signs of Latin interference in the text, another explanation could be offered. The conjunction τε is used here to introduce the second instance of the same noun, τὸν περίβολον, and to distinguish and separate the precinct of the sacred valley from the precinct of the naos of Helios.47 We wonder whether the dedicant resorted in our text to the correspondent of Lat. ‑que as the only alternative to καί he knew to distinguish this precinct from the other. Kühner, Gerth 1904, pp. 251‑252, notice the oddity of the cases where καί…τε is used and they think that it indicates an addition to the previous element (meaning something like praetereaque) unrelated to καί and, interestingly, they refer not only to Greek examples but also Latin ones in Cicero. In Latin, we find instances of et…‑que, although the correlations ‑que…et are more frequent. In particular, in correlating formulas, among the rarely attested cases there are et…‑que…‑que and et…‑que…et, whereas more common is et…et…‑que.48 Can we see here an example of the last case? The use of τε is at least suspicious.
44We can refer to some bibliography on the use of τε as a correspondent of Lat. ‑que. Sherk 1969, p. 17, in describing the style of senatus consulta found in the Greek East says that “the use of καί and τε corresponds exactly to et and ‑que”.49 Also, García Domingo 1979, pp. 37‑38, treats the instances of τε instead of καί as a translation of Latin ‑que, and considers them a sign that the text was previously written in Latin and then translated into Greek. This can also be seen in the passage of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Mon.Anc.Gr.) quoted above (see supra § 5.2): we have a list of constructions funded by Augustus, and we find τε not as the first element of the correlation, as common in the Greek usage, but as the second element of the correlation. Can this be considered a parallel to our text and in support of the hypothesis of a Latin influence?
45This use of τε is not alien to Greek, but we can at least suspect the effect of the influence of Licinius Priscus’ L1. This could have happened while writing the text in Greek or translating it from a Latin original.
5.4. The use of the definite article?
46Finally, we mention another element that could reflect the influence of Licinius Priscus’ Latin on his Greek: his use of the definitive article. In general, as far as we can tell, the definite article is used according to Greek habits and shows, like the rest of the text, Priscus’ knowledge of Greek. Nevertheless, we notice some elements that might hint at a less‑than‑perfect knowledge of using the definite article.
47We notice some inconsistencies in the use of the article with the gods’ names and their temples. We have the following forms: τοῦ ῾Ηλίου τὸν ναόν (l. 13), τοὺς […] | ναοὺς Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου | καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος (l. 15‑17), τοὺς ναοὺς | τῆς Εὐετηρίας καὶ τῆς Κόρης (l. 19‑20). It is difficult to establish any clear rules when it comes to the use of the definite article with proper names: they are found both with and without the article (see Bizos 1947, p. 6; Méndez Dosuna 2020, pp. 451‑454). According to Smyth 1956, p. 290, we find the definite article with names of gods when the reference is to a precise cult, like in our texts. We might therefore have expected its use also in τοὺς […] | ναοὺς Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου | καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος (l. 15‑17). Can we explain this absence in terms of Latin influence? Adams 2003, pp. 515‑517, considers the absence of the definite article as one of the typical features of “Romans’ Greek”, and the form in our text hints at this.
48Another case is the “subscription” in l. 28, Ὑπόσχεσις Π(οπλίου) Λικινίου Πρείσκου, where the reference is to a specific promise of Licinius Priscus, presumably reported in the lost lines of the text. We might not have expected the definite article here: in headings (if this is the case, as it seems), the definite article is commonly omitted.50 We can nevertheless mention R. Allan’s point on the subject (see Allan 2019, pp. 339‑340): he notices in the Res Gestae the frequent absence of the definite article in general and, more specifically, at the beginning of sentences, i.e. the prominent part of the clause, considered a deliberate choice to give the text a Latin flavour.51 This element deserves further study.
6. Working hypotheses
49At the end of this overview, our provisional conclusions point in two directions. One concerns language choice in the texts that mention Publius Licinius Priscus Iuventianus, while the other concerns the apparent deviations from “standard” Greek found in “Stele A”.
50We find Publius Licinius Priscus Iuventianus in six texts, five in Greek and one in Latin. The honorand determines the choice of Latin in the only Latin text: the priestess of Victoria was honoured preferably in Latin, and Licinius Priscus dedicated this statue using the appropriate language. On the other hand, when honouring the ancestral gods and the country at Isthmia, the language to be used is Greek. This choice can be considered a form of accommodation to the traditional Greek gods. The same dignitary was familiar with both languages to the extent that he could adapt his choices to the purpose of the text – or see to it through the work of others that the choice was appropriate –, Latin for the priestess of the Roman goddess, Greek for the Greek divinities.
51Regarding the Greek texts that honoured him, the choice of Greek is explained by his role as a priest (of Poseidon according to Puech 1983, p. 40), archpriest (of the imperial cult) and benefactor of a very Greek area. The area of the sanctuary (and the games celebrated there) was one of the elements in the Corinthian landscape that maintained stronger ties with the Greek culture, and the fact that all the inscriptions related to Licinius Priscus found there without exception were written in Greek although mentioning a Roman citizen cannot be a coincidence.52 We can hypothesise that the use of Greek was a way of accommodating to the culture and the cults that Licinius Priscus helped to preserve with his benefactions.
52Moving to the peculiar “Stele A”, we propose two alternative explanations for the apparent deviations from standard Greek. The first hypothesis is that the text was written in Greek without a Latin written original. In this case, the naming formula is a deliberate sign of the Roman (and Corinthian) identity of the dedicant, while the other instances, i.e. the main verbs in clause-final position and, possibly, the use of τε and the inconsistencies in the use of the article are involuntary interferences of Latin. Licinius Priscus accommodates to the Greek traditions by using Greek in the area. Nevertheless, since he is funding the construction of many buildings in his official role of archiereus of the imperial cult, he presents his identity as Roman following Roman habits in the naming formula.
53According to the second alternative hypothesis, the text was written in Latin first, and its translation into Greek preserved some elements of the Latin original: the naming formula with the abbreviations and the form of filiation; the main verbs in the final position; τε for Latin ‑que; absence of the definite article in specific contexts. This second hypothesis is especially supported by the clause-final position of the main verbs, which is typical of official documents translated into Greek.
54We cannot say which hypothesis is more probable at this stage, but the (probable) Romanness of the dignitary, who might have been part of a “Hellenized élite” (Piérart 1998, p. 108), is evident. Licinius Priscus’ ability to write in the two languages of the area is emblematic of the syncretic religious environment of Roman Corinthia: the archpriest of the imperial cult (a very Roman cult) honours Greek divinities in “their” language.
Bibliographie
Abbreviations of editions and of works of reference for alphabetic Greek epigraphy are those of the list of the AIEGL published online: GrEpiAbbr, version January 2022, https://www.aiegl.org/grepiabbr.html (accessed 06/07/2023), and abbreviations of ancient works of the Diccionario griego-español, http://dge.cchs.csic.es/lst/lst4.htm (accessed 06/07/2023).
Adams 2002: J.N. Adams, “Bilingualism at Delos”, in J.N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain (dir.), Bilingualism in ancient society. Language contact and the written text, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 103‑127.
Adams 2003: J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin language, Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Allan 2019: R. Allan, “Πράξεις τε καὶ δωρεαὶ Σεβαστοῦ θεοῦ. De Griekse vertaling van de Res Gestae Divi Augusti”, Lampas, tijdschrift voor classici 52, 2019, pp. 335‑348.
Bitner 2016: B.J. Bitner, “Mixed-language inscribing at Roman Corinth”, in J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn (dir.), The first urban churches, vol. II, Roman Corinth, Atlanta, SBL Press, 2016, pp. 185‑218.
Bizos 1947: M. Bizos, Syntaxe grecque, Paris, Vuibert, 1947.
Broneer 1939: O. Broneer, “An official rescript from Corinth”, Hesperia 8, 1939, pp. 181‑190.
Buonopane 2009: A. Buonopane, Manuale di epigrafia latina, Rome, Carocci, 2009.
Calabi Limentani 1991: I. Calabi Limentani, Epigrafia latina, Milan, Cisalpino, 1991 (4th ed.).
Camia 2002: F. Camia, “IG IV 203: la cronologia di P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus, archiereus della lega achea”, ASAA 80, 2002, pp. 361‑378.
Clement 1972: P.A. Clement, “Isthmia excavations”, AD 27/B1, 1972, pp. 224‑231.
Crespo Güemes 1983: E. Crespo Güemes, “Sobre el orden de palabras en griego: de SOV hacia SVO”, in Unidad y pluralidad en el mundo antiguo. Actas del VI Congreso español de estudios clásicos, Sevilla, 6‑12 de abril de 1981, Madrid, Gredos, 1983, pp. 287‑294.
Dean 1922: L.R. Dean, “Latin inscriptions from Corinth. III”, AJA 26, 1922, pp. 451‑476.
Denniston 1954: J.D. Denniston, The Greek particles, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1954 (2nd ed.).
Forni 1980: G. Forni, “Intorno all’Achaia tributim descripta”, in K. Schefold, J. Pouilloux (dir.), Στήλη: τόμος εις μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος, Athens, Σωματείο φίλων του Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος, 1980, pp. 222‑226.
Frischer et al. 1999: B. Frischer, R. Andersen, S. Burstein, J. Crawford, R. Gallucci, A. Gowing, D. Guthrie, M. Haslam, D. Holmes, V. Rudich, R.K. Sherk, A. Taylor, F. Tweedie, B. Vine, “Word-order transference between Latin and Greek: the relative position of the accusative direct object and the governing verb in Cassius Dio and other Greek and Roman prose authors”, HSPh 99, 1999, pp. 357‑390.
García Domingo 1979: E. García Domingo, Latinismos en la koiné (en los documentos epigráficos desde el 212 a. J.C. hasta el 14 d. J.C.). Gramatica y léxico griego-latino, latino-griego, Burgos, Colegio Universitario de Burgos, 1979.
Geagan 1989: D.J. Geagan, “The Isthmian dossier of P. Licinius Priscus Juventianus”, Hesperia 58, 1989, pp. 349‑360.
Geagan, Trundle, de Lisle forthcoming: D.J. Geagan, M. Trundle, C. de Lisle, Isthmia. The inscriptions of the Roman period, forthcoming.
Gebhard 1993: E.R. Gebhard, “The Isthmian games and the sanctuary of Poseidon in the Early Empire”, in T.E. Gregory (dir.), The Corinthia in the Roman period, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1993, pp. 78‑94.
Halla-aho 2009: H. Halla-aho, The non-literary Latin letters. A study of their syntax and pragmatics, Helsinki, Societas scientiarum fennicae, 2009.
Hofmann, Szantyr 1972: J.B. Hofmann, A. Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik, vol. II, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, Munich, C.H. Beck, 1972.
Horrocks 2010: G.C. Horrocks, Greek. A history of the language and its speakers, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010 (2nd ed.).
Humbert 1960: J. Humbert, Syntaxe grecque, Paris, Klincksieck, 1960 (3rd ed.).
Kühner, Gerth 1904: R. Kühner, B. Gerth, Ausführliche grammatik der griechischen Sprache, vol. II, Satzlehre, Hanover, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1904.
Maffei 1749: S. Maffei, Museum veronense, hoc est Antiquarum inscriptionum atque anaglyphorum collectio, cui taurinensis adiungitur et vindobonensis, Verona, typis Seminarii, 1749.
Maquieira 2020: H. Maquieira, “El orden de palabras”, in D. Jiménez-López (dir.), Sintaxis del griego antiguo, vol. II, Sintaxis verbal, coordinacíon, subordinación, orden de palabras, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2020, pp. 995‑1019.
McLean 2002: B.H. McLean, An introduction to Greek epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman periods from Alexander the Great down to the reign of Constantine (323 B.C.-A.D. 337), Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2002.
Méndez Dosuna 2020: J.V. Méndez Dosuna, “El artículo”, in M.D. Jiménez-López (dir.), Sintaxis del griego antiguo, vol. I, Introducción, sintaxis nominal, preposiciones, adverbios y partículas, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2020, pp. 441‑460.
Millis 2010: B.W. Millis, “The social and ethnic origins of the colonists in early Roman Corinth”, in S.J. Friesen, D.N. Schowalter, J.C. Walters (dir.), Corinth in context. Comparative studies on religion and society, Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2010, pp. 13‑35.
Nastasi forthcoming: L. Nastasi, Greek and Latin in Roman Corinth: language use and language contact (TBC), PhD thesis, The University of Manchester, forthcoming.
Piérart 1998: M. Piérart, “Panthéon et hellénisation dans la colonie romaine de Corinthe: la ‘redécouverte’ du culte de Palaimon à l’Isthme”, Kernos 11, 1998, pp. 85‑109.
Puech 1983: B. Puech, “Grands-prêtres et helladarques d’Achaïe”, REA 85, 1983, pp. 15‑43.
Rizakis, Zoumbaki 2001: A.D. Rizakis, S. Zoumbaki, with the collab. of M. Kantirea, Roman personal names in their social context (Achaia, Arcadia, Argolis, Corinthia and Eleia), vol. I, Athens/Paris, Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2001.
Salomies 1992: O. Salomies, Adoptive and polyonymous nomenclature in the Roman empire, Helsinki, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1992.
Sherk 1969: R.K. Sherk, Roman documents from the Greek East. “Senatus consulta” and “epistulae” to the age of Augustus, Baltimore (MD), Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.
Shipley 1924: Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman history. Res gestae Divi Augusti, transl. F.W. Shipley, London/New York, William Heinemann/G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1924.
Smyth 1956: H.W. Smyth, Greek grammar, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press, 1956.
Spawforth 1996: A.J.S. Spawforth, “Roman Corinth: the formation of a colonial elite”, in A.D. Rizakis (dir.), Roman onomastics in the Greek East. Social and political aspects. Proceedings of the international colloquium organized by the Finnish Institute and the Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, Athens 7‑9 September 1993, Athens, KERA, 1996, pp. 167‑182.
Spon, Wheler 1678: J. Spon, G. Wheler, Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant: fait aux années 1675 et 1676 par Jacob Spon, docteur médecin... et George Wheler, Lyon, A. Cellier, 1678.
Sturgeon 1987: M.C. Sturgeon, Isthmia, vol. IV, Sculpture I. 1952-1967, Princeton (NJ), American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1987.
Torelli 2010: M. Torelli, “P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus e la ricostruzione Antonina del Palaimonion di Istmia”, in C. Fornis, J. Gallego, P. López Barja, M. Valdés (dir.), Dialéctica histórica y compromiso social. Homenaje a Domingo Plácido, Zaragoza, Libros Pórtico, 2010, pp. 555‑582.
Wackernagel 2009: J. Wackernagel, Lectures on syntax, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009 (English transl. D. Langslow).
Zilken 1909: F. Zilken, De Inscriptionibus latinis graecis bilinguibus quaestiones selectae, Bonn, typis C. Georgi, 1909.
Notes de bas de page
1 Nastasi forthcoming. Roman Corinth seemed the appropriate place to investigate language contact, given the so many attestations of inscriptions in Latin next to Greek. We are studying approximately 520 inscriptions in Latin against 270 in Greek from the period under examination (between the refoundation of the colony and the time when Latin disappeared from the epigraphic record, approximately at the end of the 4th c. AD). The purpose is to give an account of language use in Corinth and of the evidence showing the influence of Latin on Greek and vice versa. The starting point was the awareness that there were speakers of different languages, and many of them were bilingual. Data indicates that one of these bilingual residents of Corinth was the protagonist of the inscriptions under examination here. I would like to thank the organisers and participants of CoLiGA, and my supervisor, Prof. David Langslow, for the precious comments and remarks.
2 Sturgeon 1987, p. 2. Scholars do not agree on the exact time when the games returned to Isthmia. Hypotheses are found in Gebhard 1993, pp. 78‑94. We refer to these events because one of the main benefactors who contributed to the revival of the sanctuary after the one-century hiatus was the “protagonist” of our inscriptions: Puech 1983, p. 35.
3 Besides the six texts presented here, two more are sometimes connected to Licinius Priscus but the attribution is dubious. We focus only on those referred to him with higher degrees of certainty.
4 Sturgeon 1987, p. 7.
5 Licinius Priscus bears an entirely Roman name (see infra § 5.1), which makes us treat him as a Roman who resided in Corinth. This view is shared by M. Piérart, who considers him part of a “Hellenized élite”: Piérart 1998, p. 108. In a private communication, B. Millis informed us that he would consider Licinius Priscus a Romanised Greek. This is due to the formula θεοῖς πατρίοις καὶ τῇ πατρίδι in IG IV, no. 203 (l. 1‑2), which seems to imply that the dedication was made to “his country”. In addition, the gens Licinia in Corinth included many people of freedman/Greek origin, for which see Spawforth 1996, pp. 179‑180. This view cannot be ruled out based on the poor evidence we have, but the formula of IG IV, no. 203 could have been used by a Roman citizen of Corinth, especially when he was honouring the local gods at Isthmia through his benefactions. If B. Millis is right, the features we found would be signs of interference of Licinius Priscus’ L2 (Latin) on his L1 (Greek). For the rest of the paper, we will consider Licinius Priscus a Roman, but the reader should bear in mind the aforementioned difficulties. We also know the difficulties of determining the inscriptions’ authors. In our case, we are dealing with public inscriptions, especially in the case of “Stele A”, for which a draft must have preceded the engraving of the text. For this, see McLean 2002, p. 9. Our account assumes that Licinius Priscus was the drafter or the person who dictated the document. With all the due caveats, we study the texts thinking that he (or a member of his entourage upon his approval) was the author of the inscriptions he dedicated.
6 For Licinius Priscus, see also Rizakis, Zoumbaki 2001, pp. 343‑345, COR 378.
7 Puech 1983, p. 35.
8 Camia 2002, p. 361.
9 The issue is complex. We present here only an overview of the different hypotheses, all based on solid arguments, and of the assumptions that seemed more plausible so far.
10 Camia 2002, pp. 363‑368; Torelli 2010, pp. 566‑568.
11 Torelli 2010, pp. 574‑576.
12 Puech 1983, pp. 35‑41; Camia 2002, pp. 367‑368. These arguments are valid if the title was held for life. The expression dia biou could simply be an honorific designation for ex‑high priests: see Broneer 1939, p. 186, n. 2.
13 Kent, apud Corinth VIII, 3, p. 89. Similar honours were given to other benefactors of the sanctuary, such as Herodes Atticus: Sturgeon 1987, p. 10.
14 O. Broneer restores an accusative, which is the expected case in Greek inscriptions to honour individuals, whereas Kent, apud Corinth VIII, 3, no. 200, prefers to reconstruct a dative, which is more common in Latin inscriptions. The state of preservation does not allow us to reach a solution.
15 A revised edition will be published in Geagan, Trundle, de Lisle forthcoming.
16 Camia 2002, pp. 363 and 373.
17 The second inscription was found written on a fragment of white marble in Oakley House (the old Excavation House, now called Hill House) and we cannot tell if it was originally in the sanctuary: Kent, apud Corinth VIII, 3, p. 89.
18 Geagan 1989, pp. 349‑350. For a different interpretation of the text, see Bitner 2016, pp. 201‑209.
19 We present the text from Geagan 1989, p. 351. There are a few differences between this and that published by previous editors, for which see Broneer 1939, p. 182; Corinth VIII, 3, no. 306; Robert, apud Hellenica I, pp. 43‑53.
20 Geagan 1989, pp. 349‑355.
21 Broneer 1939, pp. 182 and 185.
22 Some aspects, especially lexical elements, and the use of the article in l. 18, ὁ Πρ̣εῖ[σ]κ[ο]ς, might deserve further study. In particular, the use of the article here has been explained by O. Broneer. In this typology of texts, it is added to cognomina only the second time a person is mentioned, while the first time they are called with the complete naming formula: Broneer 1939, p. 183. The discovery of the first half of the inscription, which shows the nomen and cognomen in l. 9, might support this explanation, although the person is not named in full.
23 Broneer 1939, pp. 184‑185. The short form is found in many letters published by R.K. Sherk from republican times and seems the typical way of ending both Roman and Greek letters, even private ones: Sherk 1969, p. 197. The extended version is never recorded in his collection.
24 See Parsons, apud Adams 2003, pp. 79‑80. The discovery of the verb cupio with an infinite clause in a papyrus from the Augustan period seems to have confirmed the Latin origin of the formula. The oldest examples in Greek inscriptions come from approximately a century later: Halla-aho 2009, p. 53.
25 The text was later published in Corinth VIII, 3, no. 199, where [viv(us)] is reconstructed in l. 4.
26 Geagan 1989, p. 349.
27 See Adams 2003, pp. 577‑579 for examples of Romans using Greek as a form of accommodation in the religious domain.
28 Salomies 1992, pp. 61 and 85.
29 Zilken 1909, pp. 7‑21; McLean 2002, pp. 132‑133.
30 See Adams 2003, p. 45 and n. 120; Zilken 1909, pp. 7‑21 for examples of this type of influence.
31 Adams 2003, p. 670.
32 When we have the non‑abbreviated form, like in the senatus consulta, the name of the tribe is expressed in Greek with the dative: Adams 2003, p. 503.
33 Forni 1980, pp. 222‑223.
34 West, apud Corinth VIII, 2, pp. 88‑89.
35 Adams 2003, pp. 577‑578 and 675‑676.
36 The issue remains controversial and cannot be treated here. We refer to Maquieira 2020, pp. 995, 1005‑1008 and to the bibliography there. The standard word order in Modern Greek is SVO: Crespo Güemes 1983, p. 290.
37 These are some of the most common verbs found in Latin and Greek dedications: McLean 2002, pp. 196‑197; Buonopane 2009, pp. 197‑200. It is difficult to verify how often these verbs are found at the end of the clause since they are some of the most common verbs used in Greek inscriptions. Through a search of concordances of σκευάζω and its compounds in the third-person aorist in the online database of Greek inscriptions PHI (https://epigraphy.packhum.org [accessed 21/07/2022]), the result seems to support our arguments. Excluding decrees, rescripts and all those texts with a freer structure, we have found a predominance of attestations in the non‑final position (approximately 1,500) against ca 300 cases in the clause-final position. These data are not conclusive, given the many variables that could be involved, but they are worth mentioning in passing.
38 Frischer et al. 1999, pp. 373‑381.
39 Horrocks 2010, pp. 127, 143 and 146.
40 Allan 2019, pp. 339‑340.
41 Allan 2019, pp. 339‑342.
42 See Maquieira 2020, pp. 1005‑1008.
43 Humbert 1960, pp. 434‑435; Kühner, Gerth 1904, p. 235. Humbert, in contraposing the use of τε in inscriptions and orators to the abundant attestations in the historians and Plato, says “tandis que les orateurs et les inscriptions semblent l’éviter tout‑à‑fait”: Humbert 1960, p. 435. One specific usage of τε alone is as “eine Ergänzung, Erklärung, weitere Ausführung des vorangehenden Satzes”: Kühner, Gerth 1904, p. 242. However, it does not seem the case attested here because the peribolos mentioned immediately before seems to refer to the naos of Helios, whereas the peribolos connected by τε is that of the following sacred wooded valley.
44 The attestations of ‑que are more than twenty (forty if we include the reconstructed instances).
45 The only examples of τε in the other Roman colony of Achaea, Patras, are attested, as far as we know, in Rizakis, apud Achaïe II, p. 37, an honorific epigram from the Low Empire. The style of the text is very archaising, and, according to the editor, the use of τε is explained by its archaising language.
46 For this usage, see Kühner, Gerth 1904, pp. 249‑251. Another explanation could be that of a “single correlative τε”, which “introduces the last item of a series, the previous items being connected by καί or δέ”. This use was rare already in the prose of the 4th c. BC: Denniston 1954, pp. 497‑500. This explanation seems less likely because the last items of the series are the temples of l. 15‑17.
47 It seems that S. Maffei already noted the oddity of τε whereas nobody else did. He translated it differently from the instances of καί, saying […] & septum: septum quoque sacri luci & templa […]: Maffei 1749, p. 40.
48 Hofmann, Szantyr 1972, p. 516.
49 In general, R.K. Sherk considers the asyndeton more common than the adoption of conjunctions: Sherk 1969, p. 17.
50 Wackernagel 2009, p. 579.
51 R. Allan refers to the passage quoted in § 5.2, where βουλευτήριον, the beginning of the sentence, does not have the definitive article, whereas the following one, τὸ πλησίον αὐτῶι χαλκιδικόν, has it: Allan 2019, pp. 339‑340. This passage from the Res Gestae does not represent an exact parallel for our text.
52 See, among others, Millis 2010 for an outline of how Greek traditions were respected in the case, for example, of the Isthmian games.
Auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Dire la ville en grec aux époques antique et byzantine
Actes du colloque de Créteil, 10-11 juin 2016
Liliane Lopez-Rabatel, Virginie Mathé et Jean-Charles Moretti (dir.)
2020
Dérivation nominale et innovations dans les langues indo‑européennes anciennes
Alain Blanc et Isabelle Boehm (dir.)
2021
Stylistique et poétique de l'épigramme latine
Nouvelles études
Daniel Vallat et Florence Garambois-Vasquez (dir.)
2022
Contacts linguistiques en Grèce ancienne
Diachronie et synchronie
Alcorac Alonso Déniz, Julián V. Méndez Dosuna, Enrique Nieto Izquierdo et al. (dir.)
2024
Les représentations du désir féminin dans la poésie latine, de Catulle à Juvénal
Contraintes et libertés de l’espace poétique
Giacomo Dimaggio
2024
Définir l'épopée en Grèce ancienne
Contribution à une histoire de l'idée d'épopée d'Hérodote à Tzetzès
Flore Kimmel-Clauzet
2024