Language in contact: The case of Corinth

This project aims to identify and evaluate the Latin influence (lexical, morphological and syntactic)
on the Greek language as recorded in a selection of Greek inscriptions. The starting point is the epi-
graphic material produced in Corinth during the imperial era, from its re-foundation as a Roman
colony in 44 BC (which followed its destruction in 146 BC) until Late Antiquity (approximately until
AD 600).1
Corinth had been one of the most important centres during the Roman empire, for several reasons.
In a recent study, Millis (2010) has reviewed epigraphic and literary evidence previously misinter-
preted in its reference to the population of Corinth in Roman times and has shown that the “new”
colony was repopulated not mainly with Roman veterans, as claimed in the past, but with freedmen
who were Greek in origin.2 Corinth «was a hybrid of both cultures, in which one language [i.e. Latin]
became the mode of expression within the public sphere and another [i.e. Greek] within the private»
(Millis 2010: 31).
The peculiarity of Corinth in the oriental landscape can be exemplified by its religious organiza-
tion. Hupfloher (2008) presented an overview on how the two cultures mixed in the colony to the
level that we cannot simply talk about ‘romanization’ or ‘hellenization’ because the two phenomena
happened simultaneously. Basing her account both on literary evidence, Pausanias and Strabo, and,
above all, epigraphical evidence, mainly inscriptions in Latin, she showed how the two cultures
blended in the new colony. On the one hand, the evidence reveals that in the Roman colony the gods
venerated were not simply an imitation of the ones worshipped in Rome, but they belonged to four
groups: there were the ‘traditional’ Greek gods, such as Demeter, Kore and, above all, Poseidon, next
to Roman gods like Iuppiter Optimus Maximus and Ianus; there were also gods who were venerated
both in the East and in the West but whose origin was neither Greek nor Roman, i.e. Moirai, Tyche,
Isis and Sarapis, and, finally, imported gods from the South-East or East of the Empire, such as Ar-
temis of Ephesos and Apollo of Claros. Among the cults there were imported from Rome, the imperial
cult was one of the most significant. However, it was also developed in ways typical of the Greek
usage, like in the case of the deification of Octavia, Augustus’ sister and Marcus Antonius’ wife.
Pausanias informed us that a temple dedicated to her existed in Corinth, but she was never venerated

1
The choice of indicating AD 600 as an (approximate) cutoff date has been made following Dickey (Submitted version),
who took as a model the end date indicated by Adams (2007) and Souter (1949) in their account of the Latin language.
This has been made on the assumption that after that time we cannot be certain that contacts with the West involved the
“unitary” Latin, but they could have involved the Romance languages that were arising. Furthermore, the relationship
between the two areas which were formerly part of the Roman Empire progressively decreased, except for the temporary
‘Restauratio Imperii’ by Justinian: DICKEY: 10. This date is, however, just an approximate indication: some texts, espe-
cially the ones published by Sironen (2016), which date to a later period, will not be excluded a priori but they will be
still analysed, taking into account the peculiarities of the period they were written in.
2
More precisely, in the past, the analysis of literary evidence, which included passages from Strabo, Appian and Plutarch,
convinced scholars that the colony was populated by Romans. However, those passages discuss mainly Carthage’s pop-
ulation and only the similarity between the history of the two colonies was used to claim that Corinth’s situation was the
same as Carthage. On the other hand, a comparison between Corinth and another colony, i.e. Patras, has shown Millis
that while in Patras there were many funerary inscriptions for Roman veterans, they are absent from Corinth, where there
are many epitaphs for Greek freedmen instead. Furthermore, Millis has demonstrated, mainly through onomastic (and, in
general, epigraphic) evidence, that the freedmen were mostly Greek. Finally, the predominance of Greek over Latin in
graffiti on pottery, which Millis considers the expression of private language choices, demonstrated how the Greek ele-
ment was important in the new colony: MILLIS 2010, pp. 17-20, 22-24, 26-27.

1
as a goddess in Rome.3 This usage resembles the reverence towards Roman people who played an
important role and reached integration in the province.4 The special situation of Corinth is also re-
flected in the names given to religious authorities. While some titles are entirely Latin, like augur,
sacerdos and sim., others show a peculiar mixture of languages: the most significant is theocolus
Iovis Capitolini, where we find the use of the Greek noun θεοκόλος/θεηκόλος (“servant of a god”)
transliterated and morphologically integrated into Latin next to the Roman god Iuppiter Capitolinus.5
Hupfloher informs us that Corinthians could have chosen an entirely Roman title, flamen Dialis,
which was adopted for example in the Roman colony of Narbo, but they preferred to use a partially
Greek designation adopting an uncommon Greek term used at Olympia.6 Finally, we can point out
that the Isthmian Games, which returned to Corinth short after its refoundation after a short period in
Sikyon, were an opportunity for contact between the Roman colony and the provincial elite, attracting
people from the East and the West.7
As for its importance as trade-centre, the city was located in a strategic area for commerce: it had
two harbours, Lechaeum on the Gulf of Corinth and Cenchreae on the Saronic Gulf.8 Also, its re-
foundation in the same place as the ancient city was due to its location: the colony «was founded for
its strategic commercial position in a relatively stable area» (Friesen 2010: 2) and it (and Carthage)
were «destined to flourish once again as commercial centers, as they had in the past» (Engels 1990:
16). Therefore, it maintained trade relations both by land, especially with the northern regions, and
by the sea with the east and the west.
For all these reasons, Greek epigraphic texts produced in Corinth during the Roman empire de-
serve careful study, to shed more light on language contact between Greek and Latin in the Greek-
speaking East.

State of the art

In the past fifty years increasing attention has been paid to the question of language contact in antiq-
uity, especially in the Roman Empire. While it has always been acknowledged that Greek has had an
extensive influence on Latin, less attention has been paid to the impact of Latin on Greek. However,
some works have been written dealing with this issue, especially in recent times. The scholarly envi-
ronment has recently become increasingly aware that the Roman world was multilingual and this
context has at last started to receive the attention it deserves. This is also due to the results achieved
in the study of contact between modern languages, which will, therefore, be our starting point in the
presentation of the essential bibliography for any studies concerning language contact between Greek
and Latin.

1. Some basic concepts borrowed from modern sociolinguistics

3
Octavia was also worshipped in Athens and Hupfloher considers it a ‘regional custom’ more than a Corinthian use
because her daughter was born in Athens during her trip to Greece in 39/8 B.C.: HUPFLOHER 2008, p. 155.
4
HUPFLOHER 2008, pp. 151-156, 160.
5
According to Hupfloher, the term is attested only once in Greek in Kent (1966, n°207) from the beginning of A.D. III,
where we find θε-/ηκόλος / Κρόνῳ: HUPFLOHER 2008, p. 157, n.54.
6
HUPFLOHER 2008, pp. 156-158.
7
HUPFLOHER 2008, pp. 159-160. There is no agreement on when exactly the Isthmian games returned to Corinth. Hup-
floher informs us that scholars usually dated the return to a time between 7 B.C. and A.D. 3 but that Kajava (2002) has
published new evidence that supports an earlier date: HUPFLOHER 2008, p. 159.
8
BRILL’S NEW PAULY, Corinthus/Corinth.

2
Modern sociolinguistics has contributed in many ways to the study of language contact between an-
cient languages.
Some of the most meaningful achievements have been obtained in the study of the motivations
for language choice in a bilingual (or multilingual) context. The choice of one language over another
can be determined by a process called “accommodation”, which happens in two opposite manners,
depending on the attitude of the actors of the conversation: the speaker can accommodate his speech
to the one preferred by the addressee («convergence») or he can decide to separate himself from the
addressee («divergence»), adopting a language or some features that his hearer could not understand
or could understand with difficulties.9 The question that scholars have asked themselves while stud-
ying this phenomenon is «to what extent does the individual wish to keep identifying with the group
or emphasize their own individuality and pass into the other group?» (Clyne 2003: 55). Examples of
convergence can be found in the capital of Belgium (where the most widespread languages are Dutch
and French): a citizen might choose to use Dutch when talking to a person coming from the Flanders,
where Dutch is the most used idiom, thinking that he/she is more proficient in Dutch than in French.10
Some of the factors that influence the language choice of modern speakers might have influenced the
use of ancient Romans and Greeks, as exemplified in the work of Adams (2003): e.g. socio-historical
factors, the status of the language in that area etc.11
Another factor which can influence language choice is the “domain” of an interaction. The
concept has been defined as follows by Fishman (1965: 75, italics in the original): «domain is a socio-
cultural construct abstracted from topics of communication, relationships between communicators,
and locales of communication, in accord with the institutions of a society and the spheres of activity
of a culture, in such a way that individual behavior and social patterns can be distinguished from
each other and yet related to each other». The idea has been defined starting from an analysis of the
socio-cultural context where language choice happens. Some domains have been identified by schol-
ars like Schmidt-Rohr in the study of some multilingual settings: family, religion, school, literature,
military, governmental administration etc. Significantly, similar situations, called «spheres of activ-
ity», were identified by anthropologists, psychologists and sociologists as «institutional contexts or
socio-ecological co-occurrences» (Fishman 1965: 73, italics in the original). Among the factors
which contribute to the definition of the domain, topic and role-relations have been presented by
Fishman as the easiest to define. As for the topic, in a multilingual society, the choice of the language
to use among people who are fluent in more than one language can rely on the specific argument that
they are discussing: for example, it might be easy to handle a discussion on economy in one language
due to the existence of a specialized terminology or to the fact that the actors of the conversation have
studied the issue in that specific language at school. For what concerns role-relations, «in certain
societies particular behaviors (including language behaviors) are expected (if not required) of partic-
ular individuals vis-à-vis each other» (Fishman 1965: 76, italics in the original). In the domain of the

9
This is based on one of the approaches adopted by linguists to study bilingualism, i.e. the ‘person-oriented’ approach.
The necessity to adopt a specific type of approach is due to the fact that nowadays, in several communities of the world,
«bilingualism is the norm, rather than the exception». This implies that the functioning of the languages requires some
«norms for the speakers, and a functional specialization of the languages involved»: APPEL-MUYSKEN 1987, pp. 22-31
(quotes from p.22).
10
APPEL-MUYSKEN 1987, p. 28.
11
The example of Dutch can be interesting for this study: while Dutch speakers have shifted to English in areas like US,
Canada and New Zealand, they were “successful” in competition to English in some areas of South Africa and in com-
petition with Malay in the Dutch East Indies because their language was the language of the rulers.CLYNE 2003, pp. 55-
57.

3
family, for example, different linguistic choices are made between grandmother and father or grand-
mother and grandfather and so on, and this type of interactions is vital in every domain.12
One of the most innovative additions to the study of language contact in antiquity, especially
in its distinction from borrowing/loanword, is the idea of “code-switching”. Code-switching «is the
ability on the part of bilinguals to alternate effortlessly between their two languages» (Bullock-
Toribio 2009: 1). This broad definition implies that code-switching can have different linguistic man-
ifestations and it can be produced by speakers who have different levels of proficiency. A widely
known and accepted distinction is the one between «intra-sentential» (when a single word or a sen-
tence/phrase in one language is inserted into a sentence in the other language) and «inter-sentential»
switching (when the alternation between the two languages is found at boundaries between clauses).
Both require a high degree of proficiency of the speakers in both languages.13 An example of “intra-
sentential” code-switching, as presented by Myers-Scotton (2006), can be found in a conversation
between two friends who speak both Spanish and English, since they come from Latin America but
they live in the USA: «Porque son two fans, él le cambió los fans» (2006:240, bold in the original,
used to indicate the switched items), which means «‛Because there are two fans, he changed the
fans’» (2006: 240). An example of “inter-sentential” code-switching, also from Myers-Scotton
(2006), is taken from a conversation in a shop in Kenya, held in Swahili, «the main informal inter-
ethnic group language in Nairobi» (Myers-Scotton 2006: 240), with switches into one of the official
languages of the country, i.e. English, between two people who have a different ethnic origin and, as
a consequence, do not share their first language: «Stallholder: Habari, mheshimiwa. (‛Hello, re-
spected sir’.) Have some vegetables. Customer: Mboga gani? Nipe kabeji hizi. (‘Which vegetables?
Give me these cabbages.’) How much is that?» (Myers-Scotton 2006: 240, both italics and bold in
the original). In addition to these well-recognised types of code-switching, a third type has been in-
cluded by some scholars: ‘tag(-switching)’. It is also known as ‘extra-sentential code-switching’ and
it is «the insertion of a tag, e.g. ‘you know’, ‘I mean’, from one language into an utterance which is
entirely in another language» (Hamers and Blanc 2000: 259). Among tag-switches, there are inter-
jections and exclamations. This third category of code-switching could sometimes be considered as
a type of inter-sentential code-switching (Adams 2002: 21).14
The difference between code-switching and loanwords, whose role is significant in recent
studies on lexical contact between Latin and Greek (see below Dickey par. 3), needs also to be out-
lined. Although the boundaries between the two linguistic phenomena are blurry and they can be
considered part of a continuum, in modern sociolinguistics a distinction is made based on frequency
and integration. In particular, the level of integration depends on three aspects: type (semantic, pho-
nological, morphological, prosodic, graphemic), degree (level of integration, which varies based on

12
FISHMAN 1965, pp. 72-77.
13
BULLOCK-TORIBIO 2009, pp. 1-4.
14
Anticipating examples from ancient languages, we can mention some of the cases Adams presented in his work. He
mentioned switches into Greek in Latin texts: see Petronius (37.9) where babae babae is a tag-switch in Latin script of
the Greek exclamation βαβαί βαβαί. These switches are recorded also in epigraphic texts: IGUR II 294 is an epitaph in
Greek where we find, in the end, the tag Dis manibus; IGUR II 308, on the other hand, is a Latin epitaph which ends with
a switch into Greek (in Latin script), i.e. eupsychi tecnon udis athanatos (εὐψύχι τέκνον, οὐδὶς ἀθάνατος). Next to tags
found at the beginning or end of texts, Adams considers tags cases like the insertion right after ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ of posit
memoriam, with the subject of the sentence following the formula in Greek, in the epitaph IGBulg. IV 2116. This is a
case that might be confused with inter-sentential switching, the difference being that it is a short formulaic expression:
ADAMS 2003, pp. 21-22.

4
the integration type, for example, an item can be phonologically but not morphosyntactically inte-
grated) and stability (while code-switches do not become part of the recipient language and are only
used by bilingual speakers, borrowings are used consistently and by monolingual speakers as well).15
Finally, one last term needs to be defined and clarified: ‘interference’. The term is often used
in discussions on bilingualism, but its reference is often left vaguely or not at all defined. Hamers and
Blanc (2000: 41) inform us that «the notion of interference, if often used, has never been more clearly
defined than as the inappropriate use by a speaker of elements or rules of one language while using
the other». The term is used with a more specific meaning in studies on second-language acquisition,
where it is considered one of the main causes of mistakes by a learner in his second language: it
«refers to learning processes in which the L2 learner inappropriately transfers units of his first lan-
guage to the second» (Hamers and Blanc 2000: 41). When a phenomenon of interference happens,
we may assume that we are not in front of what is called ‘balanced bilinguality’, i.e. «a state of
bilinguality in which an equivalent competence is reached in both languages, whatever the level of
competence» (Hamers and Blanc 2000: 368) because a ‘balanced bilingual’ knows how to prevent
interference from happening. From this definition, it appears clear that the main characteristic of the
phenomenon termed ‘interference’ is that it is unconscious, unlike accommodation and, especially,
code-switching, as standardly used.16 An example of interference can be found in the use of preposi-
tional phrases by second-generation Slovak immigrants in America studied by Meyerstein (1969).
We start from the assumption that Slovak immigrants of the second generation use English as the first
language. In Standard Slovak, prepositions require to be constructed with a specific case while this
does not happen in English. When a preposition is found followed for example by the nominative
(the unmarked case), which is never the case required by prepositions in Slovak, this can be due to
English interference: for example, we find the preposition od (“from”, “of”), which is normally fol-
lowed by the genitive, with the nominative in the expression /od jeden deň/ (Nom.) used by immi-
grants, whereas in Standard Slovak we find od jedného dňa (Gen.), which means in English “from
one day”.17
Before presenting how the study of ancient bilingualism has developed through time and has
made used on the concepts presented above, a short paragraph will be dedicated to some of the com-
plications and specificities of investigating ancient bilingualism.

2. How to study ancient bilingualism

After having presented some milestones in the study of modern bilingualism, we might be wondering
how these methodologies can be used in the study of ancient bilingualism. The difference in the
material under examination is evident: modern sociolinguistics used as main source the spoken lan-
guage, which is not available when we study ancient bilingualism. This is the reason why Fedriani-
Napoli (2018) for example have preferred to adopt the definition of ‘textual bilingualism’ when deal-
ing with the ancient world.18
A first distinction that might be made is between spoken and written code-switching. The
definition of code-switching presented above presupposes in fact the spoken language and a certain
level of spontaneity. This spontaneity cannot be expected when dealing with a written text: «textual
planning may be considered typical of numerous instances of CS in texts» (Fedriani-Napoli 2018:

15
CLYNE 2003, pp. 142-146; DICKEY 2018, pp. 8-9.
16
ADAMS 2003, pp. 27-28.
17
MEYERSTEIN 1969, pp. 64-66, 69-70.
18
FEDRIANI-NAPOLI 2018, pp. 129-131.

5
131). When a text is written / inscribed the idea of preserving it is implicit and «the act of writing
implies some effort by itself» (Fedriani-Napoli 2018: 132), which partially contradicts the definition
of spoken code-switching quoted above from Bullock and Toribio. Furthermore, we have to think
that the texts were written with the idea that they might have survived through time. The analysis of
written code-switching has to take into account the readers the text was aimed at and the context of
the writing process. This final element involves a series of issues, because many times we do not
know the scope of the texts, who read it or even who wrote it.19
Although the purpose of the present work is the analysis of signs of bilingualism in epigraphic
material, a quick account of the examples found in literary texts can be explanatory of the peculiarities
of studying ancient code-switching. Fedriani and Napoli have developed and studied a corpus of 50
literary texts from the Late Latin literature (A.D. III-VII) and have individuated 4 main reasons for
switching into Greek in those texts. The first cause was ‘metalinguistic remarks’, for example when
the author needed to explain the etymology of a word: an example has been found by the scholars in
Servius (Aen. VI, 347) where he explains the word cortina first in Latin, cortina dicta est aut quod
cor teneat […], and then in Greek, ὅτι τὴν κόρην τείνει ἤτοι τινάσσει. A second reason was to quote
literary passages, like in Macrobius (Sat. 7,7, 16), in reference to what Homer said, […] Homerus
testis est, qui ait, μέλιτι γλυκερῷ καὶ ἡδέϊ οἴνῳ. The third motivation was to reproduce a conversation
with speakers of Greek: again Macrobius (Sat. 1, 17) telling Pylades’ words which were σὺ βλέπεις.
The final one, ‘literary play’ is found by them when Ausonius (Epistula 6) presents more than one
switch between the two languages: Aequanimus quod si fueris ετ πάντα μελῷδειν / malueris, λήθη
πόνου ἔσσεται ἠδὲ πενείης, “but if you are composed and prefer to sing everything, there will be
oblivion of tiredness and poverty”. In this account some of the examples might seem more the effect
of a literary game than a sign of bilinguality, especially the quotations of other authors’ works, while
the etymological explanations are considered signs of more advanced knowledge of Greek and, there-
fore, of bilingualism.20
For what concerns also epigraphic material, not only literary, four different types of texts have
been indicated by Adams (2003) as the source for studying bilingualism, each with their own peculi-
arities. Proper ‘bilingual texts’, which are texts where two languages are adopted to convey the same
information, although they are not often the translation one of the other. The reasons behind the de-
cision of writing the same text in two languages can be several, and they need to be individuated by
scholars: the most obvious would be to be understood by more people, but it is often due to symbolic
reasons. For example, in the Greek East we find texts partially in Latin to show deference to the
Roman power. Furthermore, a peculiar aspect of ‘bilingual texts’ is that we can often identify the
version which was written first and influenced the translated one. For example, as we will see below,
the Greek translations of senatus consulta show many interferences of the primary version in Latin
on the translated Greek version.21 A second type of texts are the ‘transliterated’ ones, i.e. the ones
which are written in one language but used the script of another one, like writing Greek in Latin
letters or vice versa. These texts are useful to investigate the level of ‘literacy’ of the writers: while
some people in the Roman Empire might have been able to write both in Greek and Latin letters,
others might have been able to speak in one language but not to write in its script. For example, the
papyrus P. Lond II. 481 is a ‘Latin-Greek glossary’ written entirely in Greek script: Adams supposes

19
FEDRIANI-NAPOLI 2018, pp. 131-132.
20
FEDRIANI-NAPOLI 2018, pp. 133-138, 144-145.
21
ADAMS 2003, pp. 30-40.

6
that in this case either the writer or the people which it was aimed at were not able to read Latin
alphabet. However, in some cases the texts were written in one script for other reasons. Adams men-
tions defixiones from Africa, which were written in Latin with Greek characters for magical reasons.22
The third type are ‘mixed-language texts’, which are the ones where code-switching happens. The
reason why the switch happens is one of the elements that can be investigated: IG XIV 678, an in-
scription from Brundisium (Italy), states Heraclas Heraclidu Alexandreus uixit an(nis) L h(ic) s(itus),
where the first half, i.e. the name, is Greek in Latin script while the second half is in Latin. It is evident
that each language was used to convey a specific information, i.e. the name of the deceased is in
Greek and the rest of the formulaic epitaph is in Latin. As we will see below in par. 5, this choice
might be due to the desire to express a specific identity.23 Finally, there are the ‘texts which implicitly
reflect a bilingual situation’, which are texts where there are some features that indicate that the writer
might have been bilingual. Instances of it can be the use of spellings typical of another language: in
IGUR 728, which is a funerary inscription, the name of the person to which it was dedicated, D.M.
Cointo (in dative), is spelled as if his name was in Greek translation, i.e. Κοίντος instead of Quintus.24
This short account shows how many information on bilinguality can be found in written ma-
terial. It also makes clear how every situation is peculiar and can unveil interesting aspects of the
language written and spoken in the ancient world.
In the following paragraphs, we will now present accounts which deal more specifically with
Latin and its influence on Greek.

3. The study of the Latin lexicon in Greek

One of the first thorough studies of the Latin lexicon attested in Greek texts has been offered
by Daris (1991), who presented an overview of Latin loanwords found in Egyptian papyri. He found
800 loanwords over a period of 7 centuries and drew the following conclusions: Latin influence on
Greek lexicon is superficial and limited to the official language (the language of the bureaucracy);
the army was the main vector of transmission; Greek-speaking Egyptians preferred to use the corre-
sponding Greek forms when they existed; from the age of Diocletian onwards, the official terminol-
ogy is more affected by the influence of Latin, but the Latin presence is still artificial.25 We will see
below that Daris’ conclusions are limited to the corpus he analysed and their validity is reduced by
the fact that he uses “loanword” to indicate every word of Latin etymology attested at least once in
his material, without distinguishing between integrated loanwords and simple code-switches, as hap-
pened very often in literature before the introduction of the distinction between the two concepts.26
Daris’ work is still useful but Irene-Maria Cervenka-Ehrenstrasser (1996-) is currently work-
ing on a complete lexicon of Latin loanwords in Egyptian papyri in several volumes, which will most
likely replace Daris. Only two volumes have been published so far, as far as the letter delta. The items
included in the lexicon are well-explained. Each entry is organized as follows: translation of the term,
the indication of the Latin word, abbreviations (when existed), etymological discussion, synonyms,
examples from papyri, bibliography (including lexica and other literature) and thorough commen-
tary.27

22
ADAMS 2003, pp. 40-63.
23
ADAMS 2003, pp. 67-70.
24
ADAMS 2003, pp. 70-72.
25
DARIS 1991, pp. 17-18.
26
DICKEY 2012, pp.58-59.
27
CERVENKA-EHRENSTRASSER 1996, pp. 15-17.

7
 A work on a specific sector of the lexicon, i.e. Greek terms for Romain institutions, has been
offered by Mason (1974), which deals with how Roman political terms have been rendered in Greek.
The author decided to continue Magie’s work (1906) De Romanorum iuris publicique sermonis vo-
cabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis but with a different perspective. If Magie’s
work focused on the different «linguistic methods of translation» (Mason 1974: ix), Mason decided
to offer a tool where to understand the distribution of the different terms found in Greek texts, which
ones were more common and which ones were rare. Examples were taken from literature, inscriptions
and papyri. In general, the material cited does not go after Diocletian’s time (including Cassius Dio,
Herodian and Philostratus), but the author decided to add the material from De Magistratibus Roma-
nis (John the Lydian) for the significance it has on a study on official terms for Roman institutions.28
The work consists of two main parts: an alphabetical «Greek-to-Latin lexicon», where each Greek
item is followed by the Latin correspondent and it is explained through a series of examples which
present the context where the specific word was used, and a «discussion of selected terms», where
words which deserved further analysis and contextualization are discussed in more detail. In this
second part, there are, for example, terms which were widespread in Latin official texts, such as Lat.
senatus, which was translated with the Greek adjective σύγκλητος (βουλή), “called together, sum-
moned” (LSJ), while βουλή alone was adopted to indicate the small local councils. Other rarer vari-
ants were γερουσία and συνεδρίον, which is found in Polybius.29 Mason significantly noticed that
most of the words recorded in his lexicon are not loanwords: «perhaps 150 of the approximately 1200
items in the glossary are Latin words» (1974: 3). The two main chapters are preceded by a useful
introduction and followed by a «Latin-to-Greek reverse index». Although it is almost fifty years old,
Mason’s study is still of great value when dealing with Greek documents which mention Roman
magistrates or, in general, Roman institutions. The Greek-to-Latin lexicon is well-organized, com-
plete and easy to use, and the analysis of selected terms guides the scholars in understanding the
differences between items which were adopted to translate the same Roman institution.
A long-awaited innovation in the approach to the study of borrowings and lexical interference
of Latin on Greek has been made thanks to the contributions of Eleanor Dickey. Her explanations on
the methodology to be used to distinguish loanwords and codeswitches are of extraordinary value and
deserve to be presented in detail in the following pages. First of all, she has been the one who outlined
that there cannot be an agreement among scholars in the number of Latin loanwords found in Greek
because, as mentioned above, in many contributions «“Latin loanword” means “word of Latin ety-
mology attested at least once in a Greek text”» (Dickey 2012: 59). She also explained why the focus
has been placed, in the past, mainly on Greek papyri: in literary texts as well as epigraphy the Latin
words attested may have been used just because the topic concerned Roman realities or because they
were the translation of Latin official texts. However, although many examples are found in papyri,
some might be codeswitches made by bilinguals. Her studies started with this idea and aimed to
distinguish “real” (“integrated”) loanwords from codeswitches. Some of the differences are the fol-
lowing: loanwords are not a feature typical of bilingual speakers because they are often used by mon-
olinguals while code-switches can be only made by people who can switch from one language to the
other; the same word can be rendered in different ways when it is a codeswitch while it is adapted in
only one way when it is a loanword; «a loanword has a specific, consistent place in the lexicon of the

28
MASON 1974, pp. ix-xi.
29
MASON 1974, pp. 121-124.

8
borrowing language, while a codeswitch often alternates with a native term that would normally be
used for the same idea» (Dickey 2018: 9).30
The first thing to do to distinguish the two phenomena in ancient texts was to find some criteria
to make this distinction. The easiest marker would have been «graphemic adaptation - or the lack
thereof, namely graphemic distinction» (Dickey 2018: 11) since it is difficult to detect phonetic ad-
aptation in written texts: code-switches would have been only the cases where the words were spelt
using Latin alphabet instead of the Greek one. However, codeswitches written in the Latin alphabet
are very rare.31
The adoption of the same criteria used in modern socio-linguistics, which have been briefly
presented above (par. 1.1), i.e. frequency and integration, is useful but more complex when dealing
with ancient material. «Morphological adaptation», for example, was very frequent in Greek without
considering whether the words were codeswitches or integrated loanwords: «Latin nouns and adjec-
tives almost always appear in Greek not with Latin endings, but with the endings appropriate to the
equivalent declension in Greek: -us becomes -ος, -um becomes -ον, -am becomes -αν, etc » (Dickey
2012: 61, italics in the original).32 However, there are cases in which morphological adaptation did
not happen or was not frequent: in case of single words, the ones belonging to Latin third declension
were frequently only transliterated without adaptation, due to the stronger differences between these
declensions in Greek and Latin (for ex. Dickey, p. 22, mentions the use of βρέβεμ for Lat. brevem in
Plutarch, Moralia 281d in Nachstädt et al. 1935:314); on the other hand, phrases remained often
unadapted, independently from their being loans or code-switches, although examples of adaptation
of at least the second member of the phrase are attested.33
Another element often used to understand whether the word was an “integrated loanword” or
not is its survival in Modern Greek. This criterion might be useful when the word was attested both
in the ancient and modern language but it involves some difficulties: Latin detained its role of lan-
guage of culture long after the fall of the Roman Empire and words of Latin origin might have been
borrowed by Modern Greek also in Medieval times, and the lexicon of a language constantly evolves
so Latin-derived words could appear in every phase of the history of a language.34
In addition to those valid principles, the context of use needs to be taken into account: «some
contexts make it clear that a word is not part of the writer’s language, by labelling it as a Latin word
and/or by explaining what it means and thereby indicating that readers are assumed not to know the
word’s meaning» (Dickey 2012: 61) and, conversely, in some cases, it is evident that the word had
become of common use. For example, Dickey mentions several passages from grammarians who
used a Latin word to explain other Greek words, demonstrating that the Latin word was commonly
used and widely understood, such as in the following case (Dickey 2012: 62):

30
DICKEY 2018, pp. 7-9.
31
DICKEY 2012, p.60; 2018, pp. 11-12. Examples of lack of graphemic adaptation have been found by Dickey in late
authors like the legal writer Theophilus Antecessor (AD VI), whose use of loanwords and not transliterated words Dickey
thoroughly analysed in her contribution from 2018. Theophilus Antecessor used to write common loanwords in Greek
alphabet and rare Latin words, or at least words which he perceived as foreign, in Latin alphabet. However, some incon-
sistencies have been found in his usage: some words have been written sometimes in Greek and sometimes in Latin
alphabet. In these cases, an analysis of context helped in understanding his usage, reaching the conclusion that it depended
on what he considered of foreign origin in a specific context and it does not reflect the modern distinction between loan-
words and code-switching: DICKEY 2018, pp. 12-18, 33-34.
32
DICKEY 2012, pp. 60-61; 2018, pp. 19-20.
33
DICKEY 2018, pp. 22-33.
34
DICKEY 2012, pp. 63-64.

9
ἀργυροθήκη, τὸ νῦν ἀργεντάριον καλούμενον· παρὰ Διοκλεῖ· ἔστι δὲ οὗτος τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας ποιητής.
([Herodian], Philetaerus 194)
Ἀργυροθήκη is the thing now called ἀργεντάριον; the word is found in Diocles, and he is a poet of Old Com-
edy.
(bank; Latin argentaria)

Other cases presented by Dickey are taken from texts which are known for having been composed
for fruition by Greek-speakers only who were expected to understand also the words of Latin origin
attested, like the Greek version of the New Testament.35
Dickey is currently about to publish a ‟Lexicon of Latin loanwords in Ancient Greek” where
she applies the criteria mentioned above to identify integrated loanwords. The conclusion she pre-
sented on the preliminary results of her study, published in previous articles, are the following: the
assumption that Latin loanwords in Greek are mostly words concerning the semantic fields of politics,
army, law, administration revealed to be wrong when the discussion is on “integrated loanwords”,
which are often «common, everyday concepts, in some cases what linguists refer to as “basic vocab-
ulary”» (Dickey 2012: 66); “integrated loanwords” appeared in every semantic field; the idea that
most loanwords entered the Greek language from the age of Diocletian (see Daris above) appeared
to be wrong, because in Dickey’s corpus they started to be used between II BC and AD II.36 The
criteria and methodologies offered by Dickey are of great significance for the present study and the
final version of her lexicon will be a fundamental tool for every scholar working with language in-
terference between Latin and Greek.

4. Studies concerning epigraphic material

Before approaching an overview of some of the main studies that worked on contact between
Greek and Latin in epigraphic texts, we will briefly present some of the «theoretical considerations»
outlined by Langslow (2012a: 290) which need to be taken into account when working with «linguis-
tic evidence», especially, but not only, epigraphical, which he presented giving examples of Latin in
contact with Italic languages (mostly, but not only, Oscan and Umbrian). First of all, in historical
sociolinguistics, some caution is required when drawing conclusions on the time and way “language
shift” happened when the only thing we know for sure is that there was some bilingualism which led
to language death. Assistance can be sought from typological considerations, which for example were
successfully used, according to Langslow, by Mullen when studying language contact between Gaul-
ish, Latin and Greek in Gaul.37 Another important factor is that some phenomena, which are often
considered linguistic features, are more culture-related and, therefore, Langslow draws a distinction
between “Romanisation” and “Latinisation” (in bilingual contexts, at least up to a certain level). He
mentions five «cultural objects […]: script; writing habits; dating formulae; institutions and institu-
tional formulae; and naming conventions» (Langslow 2012a: 294), which show a phenomenon of
“Romanisation” more than “Latinisation”. We mention one of the author’s examples from the first
“object”: from the II BC, some inscriptions in Venetic have been written using the Latin alphabet
without changing the actual language used.38 These objects, as well as the linguistic features they
show, reflect an “identity” but the study of this identity needs to be based also on the consideration

35
DICKEY 2012, pp. 64-65.
36
DICKEY 2012, pp. 66-68.
37
LANGSLOW 2012a, pp. 289-292.
38
LANGSLOW 2012a, pp. 293-295.

10
of «what choices were available to the respective authors of the inscriptions» (Langslow 2012a: 300),
i.e., were they forced to use that specific element because they did not have an alternative or was the
choice of that item deliberate and justified? In many cases, however, an answer is difficult or impos-
sible. The invitation the author gives to scholars is to use an interdisciplinary approach to understand
the linguistic evidence.39 All these principles and the idea of the existence of a phenomenon of “Ro-
manization”, next to the more well-known “Latinisation”, must be adopted when dealing with studies
on language contact and bilingualism in antiquity.
One of the first contributions that dealt with Greek epigraphic texts concerning Roman reali-
ties have been Sherk (1969), who followed the example of Viereck’s work titled Sermo graecus quo
senatus populusque romanus magistratusque populi romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in
scriptis publicis usi sunt (1888). In his work, Sherk presented 32 senatus consulta and 46 epistulae
respectively, which were sent to the Greek East and “published”, i.e. inscribed, there in Greek. For
reasons of space, he decided to study only the early documents sent to the East, from the Republic to
the time of Augustus, because imperial letters and decrees were too many to be included in a single
volume. Each document is followed by a historical commentary but the most significant aspect for a
study on language is the introduction that precedes the actual presentation of the texts, where Sherk
explains their structure and, more importantly for us, the type of language they show. The senatus
consulta published in the East were official translations from Latin originals: since the purpose was
to reproduce exactly what the Latin text said, these translations were verbum e verbo.40 For this rea-
son, sometimes the Greek texts can be understood only bearing in mind that they are based on a Latin
original. For example, the article is often missing where a Greek would have expected it, such as for
the title of the magistrate, or the form for expressing filiation with the genitive of the father followed
by ὑιός is the exact translation of the Latin alicuis filius. Furthermore, the texts share a series of fixed
expressions and lexical items. All these aspects show that they were all produced in Rome by profes-
sional translators and not in the places where they had been inscribed. 41 Unlike senatus consulta,
epistulae were sometimes written in Latin first and then translated while some other times directly in
Greek, and it is not always easy to understand what the case was. Sherk analysed some of the texts to
show whether the number of Latinisms, which were sometimes unavoidable when describing Roman
realities, and the tone used made him suspect that a Latin original existed. As for their structure, they
follow the rules of Hellenistic letters, which were developed during the reigns of Alexander’s suc-
cessors and acquired as models by the Romans when they started having diplomatic relationships
with the Greek-speaking East.42 Sherk’s work is significant for the present study when dealing with
Greek inscriptions that might be translations of Latin originals: although it analyzes older texts than
the ones which are the main focus of the present work, the features he offers are presumably found
in later material and are a good place to start when trying to understand whether a text was written in
Latin first and then translated into Greek.
A contribution which used the one by Sherk as a source for some of the texts analysed is
García Domingo (1979), which deals with Greek translations of Latin official documents, i.e. leges,
edicta, foedera, Res Gestae divi Augusti and, from Sherk, senatus consulta, from 212 BCE to 14 AD.
The focus of the author is, unlike Sherk, mainly linguistic. García Domingo took as raw material the
publication of these texts by other scholars and then studied them from a linguistic point of view.

39
LANGSLOW 2012a, pp. 300-309.
40
For the distinction between traslations sensus de sensu and verbum e verbo see LANGSLOW 2012b, pp. 143-145.
41
SHERK 1969, pp. v-vi, 4-19.
42
SHERK 1969, pp. 186-209.

11
García Domingo’s work is organised as follows: the first part consists of one chapter on, respectively,
the phonetics and morphology of the Latin words used in the Greek translations and one chapter on
the syntactic features that reflect some Latin influence in the texts; the second half of the volume
consists of a lexicon both Greek-Latin and Latin-Greek: in the Greek-Latin one the author presents a
translation from Greek to Latin and examples from the texts he presented, such as οἱ τρεῖς ἄνδρες for
Latin tresviri/triumviri in sentences like τριῶν ἀνδρῶν […] δημοσίων πραγμάτων κατορθωτὴς, which
translates director triumvirorum rei publicae (M.A., IV, 2, 14 p.); in the Latin-Greek one he simply
gives a translation of the terms from Latin to Greek, without examples, like Lat. locus, -i, which is
translated into Greek with ἡ τάξις, -εως or ὁ τόπος,-ου.43
An interesting contribution on cultural (and linguistic) contact between Greek and Latin in the
epigraphic material is the one by Kearsley and Evans (2001), which deals with bilingual inscriptions
from Asia during the imperial era. The authors present a selection of 171 inscriptions, mostly bilin-
gual (16 are only in Greek or Latin, the selection of which was, as they clearly state, «idiosyncratic»)
with a time range from the beginning of the Augustan principate to the end of AD III. Different types
of texts have been selected: “private” inscriptions (funerary and votive texts), decrees and records of
civic actions by privates as well as public bodies, inscriptions found on public donations. They de-
cided to exclude official documents and edicts of Roman officials because they considered them more
an expression of the language policy of the Roman government than of Asian citizens. The inscrip-
tions are organized per type as well as chronologically.44 The aim to create a study with a focus on
cultural interference is evident from the comments which follow the texts, where the cultural and
chronological context is often presented while linguistic features are sometimes neglected. However,
an interest in the items which reflect cultural interference is shown both in the appendix, which lists
a selection of loanwords found in the texts (mostly, but not only, Latin words found in the Greek
texts) and in the final overview. Apart from the borrowings, examples of code-switching are also
significant in the material analysed, especially in the epitaphs. Most of the inscriptions presented
come from Ephesos which, in some ways, can be compared to Corinth: it was the Roman adminis-
trative centre and also the most important trading area of the province.45
One of the most significant examples of studies concerning language contact and epigraphy in
a Greek-speaking area is the one on the island of Delos between the II and the I cent. BC offered by
Adams (2002 and 2003) and Hasenohr (2008), although with a different focus46. If Adams analysed
mostly the inscriptions of Italian negotiatores, Hasenohr focused on the magistri of Delos. Both con-
tributions are made on inscriptions from Delos because in 167 BC the island «became the earliest and
largest Roman-Italian commercial community in the Greek world» when it was made a free-trade
centre under Athenian supervision by the Roman senate (Adams 2002:104). Furthermore, «trade is
an activity in which cross-language communication is essential» (Adams 2003: 642) and studies on
language contact in trade-centres are well-placed.
Adams analysed public dedications written in Greek only, Latin only and bilingual produced
between 180 and 70 BC and discussed the issues of language choice as a way to express this identity.
The author adopted mainly a Latin perspective but many aspects are of relevance for studies that had
taken Greek as the main focus: in a case like Latin and Greek, which have been in contact for so long,
the influence had been both ways and the two languages were mutually interdependent (Adams 2003:

43
GARCÍA DOMINGO 1979, pp. 33-42, 303, 750.
44
KEARSLEY-EVANS 2001, pp. 1-4.
45
KEARSLEY-EVANS 2001, pp. 147-157.
46
The main previous contributions to the topic were Touloumakos (1995) and Siebert (1999): ADAMS 2002 p.103, n.1.

12
431-432). Adams’ starting point is the awareness, based on studies on the names attested in the area,
that most (if not all) of the Italian negotiatores were already bilingual before arriving at Delos: for
example, a banker named Philostratus mentioned in ID 1724 was from Naples (Magna Graecia) but
with Eastern origins and he was, therefore, presumably bilingual.47 The identity the negotiatores
wanted to show in the inscriptions they dedicated (or where they are mentioned) is evident in a series
of ways. First of all, this group of people defined themselves either as Ἰταλικοί (Italici in Latin) or as
Ῥωμαῖοι, which do not appear to be interchangeable. The first form is always attested in the plural
while the second is often found in the singular. These patterns of usage show that the first was pre-
sumably used to refer to a group’s «collective identity» (Adams 2002: 109) while Ῥωμαῖος, even
when applied to a group, reflecting the individuality of the members of such group. Furthermore, the
Latin correspondent Romanus is never attested, with Ῥωμαῖος used only in Greek or bilingual texts:
this might mean that these Romans were perfectly integrated into the Greek society they were living
in. The form Italici, on the other hand, is also found in Latin-only or bilingual texts, although still
60% of the texts that mention them are in Greek. A comparison between Latin-only (four) and Greek-
only texts (ten) has given the following results: out of the four Latin inscriptions, three have Italici in
the nominative case, i.e. as the dedicants who presumably chose the language to use, while only two
of the Greek ones show the same structure. When the origin of the honorand is taken into considera-
tion, the picture becomes clearer: the texts written by Italici who have at least a Latin version are
dedicated to Romans who were not part of the society of Delos, while when the honorands were part
of it Greek was often used and the Ἰταλικοί presented themselves as part of the Greek society.48
However, in the Delian corpus, some exceptions to this principle can be found. There are cases where
a visiting Roman dignitary was honoured in Greek by another Roman: for example, in ID 1842, which
is a statue base, the Roman L. Babullius honoured P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus in
Greek.49 This reflects perfectly the «special linguistic situation of the island» (Adams 2003: 646),
and, presumably, means that the dedication aimed to be understood by Greeks and Romans together.
Other two peculiar features of Delian inscriptions are considered by Adams forms of accom-
modation. The first one is the use in Latin (or bilingual) texts of the “accusative of the honorand”,
which is typical of Greek honorary inscriptions. He defined it as «a form of accommodation to Greek
practice» (Adams 2002: 116) but he hypothesized that structure was used by Romans to show to
Latin-speakers, who would have expected the dative form, that they considered themselves as part of
the Greek society.50 The other one is the adoption of the Latin form or filiation, i.e. genitive+f(ilius),
instead of the common genitive alone in Greek texts, to make clear the distinction between relation-
ships father-son and patron-freedman, which is also expressed in Greek with the only genitive. Adams
presented the hypothesis that the use of this syntactic structure is also a form of accommodation
because it is always found when the dedication is for Romans, while when it refers to Greek people
υἱός is often missing. The Latin feature is not attested in the older examples, around 150 BC. It ac-

47
ADAMS 2002, pp. 103-106.
48
ADAMS 2002, pp. 108-112.
49
It is not impossible, however, that the inscription was bilingual and that the Latin version had been lost, although the
statue base is well preserved: ADAMS 2003: p.646.
50
ADAMS 2002, pp. 115-117.

13
quired, according to Adams, a «‛sociolinguistic dimension’» (Adams 2002: 123, italics in the origi-
nal) because the variation in its usage by Romans can have a specific value: sometimes Latin people
preferred to name themselves without the formula, accommodating to the Greek usage.51
Another group of “Italians” who left traces of their presence in Delos were the magistri, whose
dedicatory inscriptions have been mentioned by Adams (2002) and further studied by Hasenohr
(2008). The texts are approximately 30 in total, among which 15 in Greek, 3 in Latin and 12 bilin-
guals. Some significant aspects of them are used by Hasenohr to present additional peculiarities of
Delian bilingualism. First of all, the words used to translate into Greek the Latin word magistri,
which means people who were in charge of a collegium with administrative or religious purposes, are
Ἑρμαισταί, Ἀπολλωνιασταί, Ποσειδωνιασταί, Κομπεταλιασταί, which were completely unexpected.
According to Hasenohr, the magistri «étaient nommés par les Italici pour veiller sur leur sanctuaires»
(2008: 56) and they were named from the gods they dedicated their inscriptions. The choice of the
suffix -σται, which is commonly used for members of associations and not for people in charge of
them, was probably due to the absence of a Greek correspondent and shows a high level of proficiency
of the Italians. In 10 out of the 12 bilingual texts, the Greek version seems to be a translation of the
Latin one: when in Latin there are two verbs like coeraverunt eisde(m) dedicaverunt (ID 1753) the
Greek version shows, next to the common verb for dedication ἀνέθηκαν, some forms of καθιερόω or
ἀφιερόω that are not common in monolingual Greek dedication.52 In other cases of bilingual inscrip-
tions, the two versions show some autonomy, like in the bilingual inscription ID 1736, where two
Ἐρμαισταί declare in Latin that they have dedicated a laconicum, i.e. a sort of sauna, “sweating-
room”, but they did not repeat the object of the dedication in the Greek version, presumably because
they did not know how to translate it. Even so, they expected the reader to understand both versions.
Some features are specific of a collegium, the one of Κομπεταλιασταί, who dedicated 9 inscriptions,
all in Greek and which was composed for the majority by slaves, unlike the other three groups. Adams
thought that the use of Latin by the other three collegia was an expression of their superiority due to
their higher origin and the Κομπεταλιασταί, on the other hand, used Greek because it was their mother
tongue. Hasenohr, however, found another explanation. First of all, she identified in some of the texts
by Κομπεταλιασταί features which presuppose a Latin original, like the use of καθιερόω or ἀφιερόω
next to ἀνέθηκαν mentioned above. Secondly, she detected in 4 of the Greek texts the use of the aorist
participle γενόμενοι, which she identified as a sign that the dedication was made after the magister
abandoned its role. She concludes therefore that the Latin was used in official contexts when the
magistri were still in charge as representers of the collegium of Italici, while Greek was adopted when
they did not have an official role anymore and “accommodate” themselves to the local use. Again
here, as we have seen for the inscriptions of the negotiatores, both language choices and linguistic
demonstrate that Delos was an island where there was a high level of bilingualism and an understand-
ing of both Latin and Greek was presupposed by the inscriptions attested there.53
Adams’ and Hasenohr’s contributions constitute an essential model for every study on lan-
guage contact and bilingualism in epigraphic material.

51
ADAMS 2002, pp.119-127. Hasenohr outlined, however, that the absence of the form of filiation was probably not a real
problem for Roman freeborn who were reading or receiving those dedications, especially in bilingual texts where the
Latin form of filiation was attested anyway and it would appear redundant in the Greek version: HASENOHR 2008, pp. 57-
58.
52
HASENOHR 2008, pp. 55-61.
53
HASENOHR 2008, pp. 66-69.

14
5. Language and identity
The concept of “identity” is of vital importance in the analysis of bilingualism. Language is the ele-
ment that more than others reflects an individual’s identity. If this is true for monolinguals, it is even
more accurate in the case of perfect or imperfect bilinguals, «because bilinguals of different types are
often particularly aware of the conflicts of identity determined by their belonging to more than one
speech community» (Adams 2003: 751-752).
The levels and types of bilingualism were various during the Roman Empire. In some cases,
the appearance of Latin was risking to cause the death of a local language, especially in the West, and
the users of this language show with their language use the fear of losing, with their native language,
also their identity: Adams mentions an example from Tacitus (Ann. 4.45.2), where we find the inter-
rogation of a farmer accused of murder, who was replying to the questions sermone patrio.54 How-
ever, the Latin language was in general accepted next to the native one. A peculiar aspect of the
expression of identity is found in the case of expressing professional identity. This has been presented
by Adams in the context of the army. The Roman army was composed of people coming from differ-
ent areas of the Empire and, although Greek was also accepted as a means of communication in the
East, «Latin became a marker of Roman military identity for those soldiers who were originally
speakers of Greek or of another language» (Adams 2003: 760). This can be seen in the following
funerary inscription (CIL III.125) by a Greek soldier for himself, found in Syria (Zorava): Κλ.
Κλαυδιανὸς οὐετ(ρανὸς) Θεοφάνου leg(atus) p(ro) p(raetore) ex leg(ione) III K(yrenaica) ἐποίησεν
τὴν στήλην ἰδίαις αὑτοῦ δαπάναις. We see in this case a code-switch from Greek to Latin: it seems
that the soldier chose to use Greek for his funerary inscription to express his Greek identity (and to
be better understood, since the inscription was set up in a Greek-speaking area), but at the same time
felt the need to switch to Latin when he defined his professional identity.55
The relationship between Latin and Greek was, as is well known, different that between Latin
and other languages and cultures of the Empire. We have seen a paradigmatic example of how lan-
guage choices reflected the identity the dedicants wanted to express in the honorary inscriptions by
the negotiatores in Delos (par. 1.3), where Romans often chose to be portrayed as members of the
Delian Greek society. If Romans have been throughout their history open to “Hellenization”, the
attitude of Greeks towards Romanisation was less straightforward. Rizakis (2008) outlines the differ-
ences in the attitude towards Roman people and their culture in the Greek East: the intellectuals
seemed to have been more resistant to the acquisition of Roman culture, whereas the local élite ac-
cepted their status as Roman citizens, alongside their being Greek, and so had the chance to climb the
provincial cursus honorum. These members of the provincial élite or part of the Roman military, who
were also holding Roman citizenship, were expected to know Latin.56 The expression of their identity
as part of the Roman society is clear from the style both of the honorific decrees made for them by
their cities and of the statues they received, which were the more common form of honour. Next to
the typical values of the Greek society, for example ἔθος and παιδεία, there is an insistence on the
use of superlatives to outline their qualities, an emphasis on their aristocratic origins (important from
Augustan times), an acknowledgment of their family roots, and their wealth. These texts were often
inscribed on statues which focused less on the military role and strength and more on the social status

54
ADAMS 2003, pp. 280, 752.
55
ADAMS 2003, pp. 299-300, 752, 760.
56
RIZAKIS 2008, pp. 21-22, 24.

15
of the honorand. The association of Greek and Roman values created what Rizakis called «l’am-
biguïté identitaire du notable grec» (Rizakis 2008: 28).57
After having seen some ways (through language and style) of expressing identity, it needs to
the be outlined that the most significant element which reflected individual identity was onomastics,
which will be shortly presented in the next paragraph.

5.1 Identity and onomastics

Starting from the assumption that «at a time of language shift in a bilingual community names are a
significant indicator of the sense of identity of their bearers» (Adams 2003: 753), some studies have
focused on the way identity was expressed through personal names during the Roman Empire.
Mullen (2007) analysed the implications of onomastics to study cultural (more than linguistic
stricto sensu) contact in her article on Romanization in Britain, which must be used with the database
of Celtic personal names of Roman Britain (CPNRB) made by Paul Russell and Alex Mullen herself.
Being unable, due to lack of data, to classify the texts with reference to regional or chronological
differences, Mullen studied the evolution of the naming patterns among different levels of society.
To do so, she classified the texts into two categories, RIB I (inscriptions on stone) and RIB II (Instru-
menta Domestica, which includes also curses on tablets), typical respectively of the higher and lower
levels of society.58 The article is divided into two parts. In the first part, Mullen presents some meth-
odological problems involved in the study of onomastics: for example, it can be assumed that Britons
chose to use Roman names for reasons of prestige and to show how integrated they were into the
Roman society; however, Mullen admits that we cannot be sure to what extent they were conscious
of the origin of their names, especially in the later phases of the Roman Empire. She also gives a short
presentation of the onomastic habits in Latin and Celtic (including respective naming formulae and
expressions of filiation) and how they changed through time. In general, she noticed that, in Britain,
Celtic names were not found often in Latin naming forms, which were used in ‘more Romanised
contexts’.59 The second part offers an analysis of the situation of Roman Bath, which has been chosen
as case-study for two main reasons: the epigraphical material includes defixiones and epigraphy on
stone, i.e. inscriptions by different social classes, and there are many dedications to gods, whose
names can be in Celtic, Latin or a mixed language, and the choice of the language reflects a different
identity.60 The situation of Roman Britain is different from the one we find in the Greek East, espe-
cially because Britain did not have a written tradition in Celtic and only Latin was used in writing.
Therefore, only names can be the indicators of Celtic identity in texts that were written in Latin. A
situation more similar to the one we find in the Greek East is the one Mullen mentions in passing
about Continental Celtic: in the attestation of names there is a higher level of mixing between Roman
and Gaulish names and, more importantly, Gaulish morphology is adopted even for Roman names.
This can be seen for example in the ‘Chamalières lead tablet’, numbered RIG II.2 L-100, were the
names are C. Lucion Floron Nigrínon adgarion, Aemilíon Paterin(on), Claudíon Legitumon, Caelion
Pelign(on), Claudío Pelign(on), Marcion Victorin(on), Asiatícon Ađđedillí, where the ending -on is

57
RIZAKIS 2008, pp. 26-28.
58
MULLEN 2007, pp. 37-38.
59
MULLEN 2007, pp. 36-38, 55-56. The attestation of the Roman form of filiation as a sign of Latin influence has been
commented in par.1.3. Mullen gives us some data on the use of Latin filius in Britain: it is mostly attested in inscriptions
on stone, i.e. the ones produced by the higher levels of society. In defixiones, which reflect the writing habits of the lower
classes, the Latin form of filiation is attested only three times in the 16 examples of Celtic names, and two of these were
presumably written by a professional scribe: MULLEN 2007, pp. 44-46.
60
MULLEN 2007, pp. 35-36, 46-47.

16
the Celtic accusative and Asiatícon Ađđedillí follows the Gaulish usage with the name and the patro-
nymic in genitive. This is probably explained by the fact that Continental Celtic, unlike British Celtic,
had a written tradition.61 However, provided that we keep in mind the differences between the socio-
linguistics situations of Britain and the Greek East, some elements of Mullen’s study can still be
useful for our research. Mullen outlines, for example, an important aspect of Roman onomastic habits:
«in the Roman world, naming patterns and nomenclature were intrinsically important to mark identity
and prestige and were intimately bound up with socio-political change» (Mullen 2007: 36). In the
second part of the article, based on the situation attested in Bath, Mullen analyses the ways in which
Celts naturalised Roman names, each way reflecting a different level of Romanization. The four
ways, from the lowest level of integration, attested in curse tablets, to the highest, found in epigraphic
texts on stone, are the following: use of “unmarked” (using Mullen’s words, «colourless») cognom-
ina, such as Maximus, Latinus etc.; use of a noun which consists of a homophonic element in the
languages, such as Senecio, with the element Sen-, which is used to form personal names both in
Celtic and Latin; use of Roman names which are a translation of local ones, like Candidus which
corresponds to Celtic Vind- (“white”); use of Roman names which belonged to members of the higher
levels of society, like the emperors’ names Iulius or Claudius.62 In the society Mullen presented,
locals who were highly integrated into Roman society had Roman names but we can also see lower
levels of integration.
Adams gives us an interesting example from a language which had a written tradition, i.e.
Etruscan with Greek. In the inscription CIE 10339 (from Gravisca) a Greek named Δειάκος made a
dedication to the Etruscan god Turan, who corresponds to Aphrodite. Although he decided to adapt
to the culture of the area using Etruscan, nevertheless he indicated his own name in his language and
even using his script.63 There were also cases where two names of different origins were used to
express a combined identity: the example mentioned by Adams is from coins produced in Punic areas
under the Roman Empire, where the town is named in neo-Punic but the emperor is indicated in Latin,
to outline both geographical and political identity of the area. As for Greek and Latin, Adams outlines
that in the western areas of the Empire there might have been a resistance to the complete adoption
of Latin in the naming formulae, as can be seen with women’s names, which were still expressed
with Greek morphology in Latin texts.64
Korhonen (2011) has given us some information on the situation of the (largely) bilingual
island of Sicily during the early phases of the Roman Empire. Through a statistical study of the dis-
tribution of Roman and Greek names in epitaphs in some Roman colonies, like Syracuse and Catania,
and other cities which never became colonies, such as Messina and Lipari, he drew some conclusions
on the identity they wanted to manifest. It seems that from late Republican times onwards, in conti-
nental Italy there was an association between some traditional Greek names and servile origin. This
association, which led to a preference for Latin names for children to make their freeborn origin clear,
was attested for example also in Catania. However, other Greek names are well attested and well
considered. 65 The case of Syracuse, on the other hand, might show some effects of the desire to
transmit a specific identity through the names in the epitaphs: there was a preference for Greek over
Latin and also a predominance of the use of Greek cognomina only, without a Roman gentilicium,

61
MULLEN 2007, pp. 35-36, 42-43.
62
MULLEN 2007, pp. 50-54.
63
ADAMS 2003, pp. 165-166, 752-753.
64
ADAMS 2003, pp. 752-753.
65
KORHONEN 2011, pp. 12-13, 15-16.

17
even for people who were Roman citizens. It seems that citizens wanted to emphasise their Greek
identity over the Roman one with this naming formula.66
With reference to the East, Rizakis has also considered onomastics as the strongest sign of
what he calls «acculturation romaine» (2008: 22). The Greek élite tended to adopt the Roman tria
nomina system as a sign of the newly acquired citizenship.67 The process of giving a Roman cogno-
men to new-born children was not as common as this acquisition by new citizens, but this process
lasted more or less until A.D. II. These people tended to outline this newly acquired identity not only
with the new naming formula but also declaring themselves φιλορῶμαιοι or φιλοσέβαστοι.68
From this brief account, we see how valuable the study of onomastics is, especially in the
epigraphic material, for understanding how people expressed their identity in these texts, and also
diverse aspects of the process of Romanization.

Methodology
What kind of technique am I being using for individuating features?
It depends on the type of features I am analysing. Starting from the lexicon, the first thing to do is to
check whether the word is commonly used and well attested in the Greek language. If it is not, the
second problem is to verify whether it was a loanword, and this can be done using the useful tools
(lexica etc.) mentioned in the par. 1.2. If they are not loanwords, they may be used with a meaning
uncommon or unknown in classical Greek. In that case, we ask ourselves whether it might have ac-
quired a new meaning inspired by Latin, especially in the case of compound words (semantic imita-
tion?). When the topic of analysis has been Greek influence on Latin, Adams has talked about «‘in-
directly Grecising’ lexemes» (Adams 2003: 764), which indicates words which are composed of Latin
elements but whose association is modelled on a Greek term. A similar phenomenon might be hy-
pothesised for compound words in Greek who are either rare or used with a meaning that is uncom-
mon or unknown in the early attestations. Once we hypothesis is made, we look for parallels in use:
if there are parallel uses in the two languages, we might suppose that we are in front of a Latinism.
!
!

66
KORHONEN 2011, pp. 13-17.
67
It needs to be pointed out that Mullen has contested the assumption that Roman names are almost always in the form
of tria nomina. The tria nomina are, according to her, the most common naming practice for Roman people only during
an intermediate phase, corresponding to the Augustan times, between two phases of the duo nomina form: it went from a
duo nomina structure composed of praenomen and nomen (VII B.C.-II B.C.) to one consisting of nomen and cognomen
(from the end of A.D. I onwards), which followed the “creation” of cognomina around V B.C. The tria nomina system
was, however, still common with freedmen and after adoptions, when people preserved their original name as a cognomen.
Interestingly, when in Roman Britain people had the Roman-style three names, which was a sign of integration into the
Roman society, if they used a Celtic name it was always the cognomen: MULLEN 2007, pp. 39-42.
68
RIZAKIS 2008, pp. 22-24.

18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Inscriptiones Graecae (IG) IV
1902, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Peloponnesi et Insularum Vicinarum, FRAENKEL Maximili-
anus (ed.), Berlin.
Inscriptiones Graecae IV editio altera, fasciculus 3 (IG IV2 3)
2006, Inscriptiones Corinthiae saeculorum IV. V. VI., SIRONEN Erkki (ed.), De Gruyter, Berlin.
ADAMS J. N.
2002, “Bilingualism at Delos”, in ADAMS J. N., JANSE M., SWAIN S. (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient
Society, Language Contact and the Written Text, New York, Oxford University Press, pp.
103-127.
2003, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
APPEL René, MUYSKEN Peter,
1987, Language contact and bilingualism, London, Edward Arnold Publishers.
BALZAT Jean-Sébastien, MILLIS Benjamin W.
2013, “M. Antonius Aristocrates: Provincial Involvement with Roman Power in the Late 1st Century
B.C.”, in Hesperia 82, pp. 651-672.
BIVILLE F., DECOURT J.-C., ROUGEMONT G. (eds.)
2008, Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie, Actes du colloque organisé à l’Université Lumière-Lyon
2 (17, 18 et 19 mai 2004), Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
BULLOCK Barbara E. and TORIBIO Almeida Jacqueline (eds.)
2009, The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching, New York, Cambridge University
Press.
CERVENKA-EHRENSTRASSER Irene-Maria
1996, Lexicon der lateinischen Lehnwörter in den griechischsprachigen dokumentarischen Texten
Ägyptens mit Berücksichtigung koptischer Quellen (Lex. Lat. Lehn.), Wien, Verlag Brüder
Hollinek.
CLYNE Michael
2003, Dynamics of Language Contact, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
DARIS SERGIO
19912 (19711), Il lessico latino nel Greco d’Egitto, Barcelona, Institut de Teologia Fonamental.
DICKEY Eleanor
2012, “Latin loanwords in Greek: a preliminary analysis”, in LEIWO M., HALLA-AHO H. & VIERROS
M. (eds.), Variation and Change in Greek and Latin, Helsinki, Finnish Institute at Athens, pp.
57-70.
2018, “What is a loanword? The case of Latin borrowings and codeswitches in Ancient Greek”, in
Lingue e Linguaggio (year XVII, n° 1), pp. 7-36.
Submitted version (August 2018), Lexicon of Latin Loanwords in Ancient Greek.
ENGELS Donald W.
1990, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City, Chicago, The University of Chi-
cago Press.

19
FEDRIANI Chiara - NAPOLI Maria
2018, “Which type of bilingualism? A corpus-based approach to the use of Greek in Late Latin”, in
Lingue e Linguaggio 17 (1), pp. 129-147.
FISHMAN Joshua A.
1965, “Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When?”, in La Linguistique vol. 1, fasc. 2, pp. 67-
88.
FRIESEN Steven J., JAMES Sarah, SCHOWALTER Daniel (eds.)
2013, Corinth in Contrast: Studies in Inequality, Leiden-Boston, Brill.
GARCÍA DOMINGO Enrique
1979, Latinismos en la Koiné(en los documentos epigráficos desde el 212 a. J.C. hasta el 14 d. J.C.),
Burgos, Colegio Universitario de Burgos.
HAMERS Josiane F. and BLANC Michel H.A.
2000, Bilinguality and Bilingualism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
HASENOHR Claire
2008, “Le bilinguisme dans les inscriptions des magistri de Délos”, in BIVILLE F., DECOURT J.-C.,
ROUGEMONT G. (eds), pp. 55-70.
HUPFLOHER Annette
2008, “A small copy of Rome? Religious organization in Roman Corinth”, in RIZAKIS A.D. and
CAMIA F. (eds.), Pathways to Power: Civic Elites in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire,
Atene, pp. 151-160.
KEARSLEY Rosalinde A. – EVANS Trevor V.
2001, Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia, Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
KENT J. H. (ed.)
1966, Corinth VIII, 3. The Inscriptions 1926-1950, Results of Excavations conducted by the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at
Athens.
KORHONEN Kalle
2011, “The Language and Identity in the Roman Colonies of Sicily”, in SWEETMAN Rebecca J. (ed.),
Roman Colonies in the First Century of Their Foundation, Oxbow Books, pp. 7-31.
LANGSLOW David
2012a, “Integration, Identity, and Language Shift: Strengths and Weaknesses of the ‘Linguistic’ Ev-
idence”, in ROSELAAR S.T. (ed.), Processes of Integration and Identity Formation in the Ro-
man Republic, Leiden-Boston, Brill, pp. 289-309.
2012b, “Typologies of translation techniques in Greek and Latin: Latin elticis : catelticis = Greek
ἑλκτική : καθεκτική”, in MULLEN Alex, JAMES Patrick (eds.), Multilingualism in the Graeco-
Roman Worlds, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 141-171.
MARTIN Thomas R.
1977, “Inscriptions at Corinth”, in Hesperia, vol. 46 n°2, pp. 178-198.
MASON Hugh J.
1974, Greek terms for Roman Institutions, A Lexicon and Analysis, Toronto, A. M. Hakkert Ltd.

20
MERITT Benjamin D. (ed.)
1931, Corinth VIII,1. The Greek Inscriptions 1896-1927, Results of Excavations conducted by the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Cambridge (Massachussets), American
School of Classical Studies at Athens.
MEYERSTEIN Goldie Piroch
1969, “Interference in prepositional phrases: migrant Slovak in America”, in Lingua 22, pp. 63-80.
MILLIS Benjamin W.
2010, “The social and ethnic origins of the colonists in early Roman Corinth”, in FRIESEN S. J.,
SCHOWALTER D. N. and WALTERS J. C. (eds.), Corinth in Context, Comparative Studies on
Religion and Society, Leiden – Boston, Brill, pp. 13-35.
2017a, “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit: Cultural Expropriation and Assimilation in Roman Cor-
inth”, in BRÉLAZ Cédric (ed.), L’Héritage Grec des Colonies Romaines d’Orient: Interactions
culturelles dans les provinces hellénophones de l’empire romain, Paris, Éditions de Boccard,
pp. 49-59.
2017b, “The Freedman Magistrates of Corinth and their Position in Roman Greece”, in RIZAKIS A.D.,
CAMIA F., ZOUMBAKI S. (eds.), ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 74: Social Dynamics under Roman Rule Mo-
bility and Status Change in the Provinces of Achaia and Macedonia, Athens, National Hel-
lenic Research Foundation, pp. 181-194.
MULLEN Alex
2007, “Linguistic evidence for Romanization: Continuity and change in Romano-British onomas-
tics”, in Britannia 38, pp. 35-61.
MYERS-SCOTTON Carol
2006, Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism, Malden, Oxford, Carlton, Blackwell Pub-
lishing.
RIZAKIS Athanasios D.
2008, “Langue et culture ou les ambiguïtés identitaires des notables des cités grecques sous l’Empire
de Rome”, in BIVILLE F., DECOURT J.-C., ROUGEMONT G. (eds), pp. 17-34.
SCHOWALTER Daniel N., FRIESEN Steven J. (eds.)
2005, Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, Cambridge (Massachussets), Harvard University Press.
SHERK ROBERT K.
1969, Roman documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the age of Augustus,
Baltimore (Maryland), the Johns Hopkins Press.
STROUD Ronald S.
2013, Corinth XVIII.6, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Inscriptions, Results of Excavations
conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, American School
of Classical Studies at Athens.
WALBANK Mary E.H.
1996, “Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth”, in SMALL A. (ed.), Subject and
Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity, Ann Arbor, JRA, pp. 201-214.
1997, “The foundation and Planning of Early Roman Corinth”, in Journal of Roman Archaeology
(JRA) 10, pp. 95-130.

21
WEST Allen Brown
1931, Corinth VIII, 2. Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926 Results of ExcavatIons conducted by the Ameri-
can School of Classical Studies at Athens, Cambridge (Massachusetts), Harvard University
Press.
WILLIAMS Charles K.
1987, “The Refounding of Corinth: Some Roman Religious Attitudes”, in MACREADY S., THOMPSON
F.H. (eds.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World, London, Society of Antiquaries of London,
pp. 26-37.
1993, “Roman Corinth as a Commercial Center”, in GREGORY T.E. (ed.), The Corinthia in the Roman
Period, Ann Arbor, JRA, pp. 31-46.
WISEMAN James
1979, “Corinth and Rome I: 228 B.C. - A.D. 267”, in TEMPORINI Hildegard (ed.), Aufstieg und Nie-
dergang der Römischen Welt, II, 7.1, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, pp. 438-548.

22