A few questions about the Byzantine Emperors

[Meneldil]

I just saw on Wikipedia that some Byzantine Emperors were still using what I think is the 'Roman naming convention' ie, Justinian I's name was Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus, Constantine I was Gaius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus.
Was this naming convention still in use during the 9th century ? Were the name rather in their latin (as shown on Wikipedia) or in their greek version ?

[edyzmedieval]

In the 9th century they forever left their latin origin.
Every name was in Greek.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Until Herakleios I (early 600s) the Latin titles were used. He replaced them with Basileus. Later ones added or subtracted things such as Sebastokrator etc.

The term Byzantine was invented by the humanist Hieronymus Wolf (17.c.) and spread out by Montesquieu. The empire and people always referred to themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Constantinopolis was not Byzantion/Byzantium, it was built on top of it, on third times the land, by the name "New Rome".

(Still today, the Ecumenic Orthodox Patriarch of Istanbul is officially addressed as Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, the Ecumenic Patriarch.)
.

[edyzmedieval]

Good explanation Mouz!!!

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Thanks sir.

With your kind encouragement, let me add the Greek words in their original script. (I was just too lazy to switch the keyb.)

Basileus (actually pronounced Vasileus): Βασιλευς
Sebastokrator (Sevastokrator; hence modern day Sıvas, from Σεβαστεια): Σεβαστοκρατορ
Romaioi: Ρωμαιοι
Patriarch's title (might be en error or two in this one, from memory): Αρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Νέας Ρώμης, Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης
.

[Rosacrux redux]

Mouzaphere I do not feel the need to intervene since you are doing such a great job (even though the words you wrote seem rather absurd in Greek, due to the absence of omega), just one little point. The term Byzantine was used by contemporary scholars some times to describe what we call today "Byzantine" empire. Priscus, for instance, uses the term "historia Vizantinae" (Ιστορία Βυζαντινή) in one of his works. Of course this term was confined in space and time and definitely was not accepted by anyone besides some scholars (the officials and public talked about "The Roman Empire" and that's it).

So, Wolf didn't come up with the term, he just found a convenient term some eastern Romans used themselves and adopted it, to differiantate the "decadent" easteners from the "true" Romans...

Ah, btw the latter should read Αρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Νέας Ρώμης, Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης

[Meneldil]

Well, I know Byzantine is a made up term. That wasn't really my question.

From what I understood, roman-like names (such as Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus) weren't used anymore in 843 ? Alexius Comnenus was Alexius Comnenus, period ? Not something like Flavius Tiberius Alexius Comnenus ?

[Meneldil]

To be deleted

[Byzantine Prince]

The term Byzantine was used by contemporary scholars some times to describe what we call today "Byzantine" empire. Priscus, for instance, uses the term "historia Vizantinae" (Ιστορία Βυζαντινή) in one of his works. Of course this term was confined in space and time and definitely was not accepted by anyone besides some scholars (the officials and public talked about "The Roman Empire" and that's it).

That is interesting. 'Byzantine' is not simply a made up term, it is there to describe the cradle of power of the Eastern Roman Empire. Even though the name of the city was changed, everyone knew what it really was. History cannot be fully erased.

Ah, btw the latter should read Αρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Νέας Ρώμης, Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης

I bet they still use polytonic. You know those old-school priests.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Mouzaphere I do not feel the need to intervene since you are doing such a great job (even though the words you wrote seem rather absurd in Greek, due to the absence of omega), just one little point. The term Byzantine was used by contemporary scholars some times to describe what we call today "Byzantine" empire. Priscus, for instance, uses the term "historia Vizantinae" (Ιστορία Βυζαντινή) in one of his works. Of course this term was confined in space and time and definitely was not accepted by anyone besides some scholars (the officials and public talked about "The Roman Empire" and that's it).

So, Wolf didn't come up with the term, he just found a convenient term some eastern Romans used themselves and adopted it, to differiantate the "decadent" easteners from the "true" Romans...

Ah, btw the latter should read Αρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Νέας Ρώμης, Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης

.


Somewhere deep in my mind a contemporary "Byzantine" reference was lurking. Thanks for pointing it out, and also correcting my spelling errors. (Damn Omega ). I don't speak Greek (though this will start to change in a month ), just read and (porly) write it. Aside from Priscus, there must be some Greek scholar, migrated to Italy sometime around early 15th century, who was also named "Byzantinus" over there. So it seems to be basically a humanist era convention.

*edits the spelling*
.

[Rosacrux redux]

Now, spelling those names in the true medieval Greek fashion would be quite an undertaking of itself, huh?

Just a rule of thumb: Most "B"s in the beginning of a name (and many others) are actually pronounced "V", most "u"s when after an "e" are pronounced as "ph" and most "D"'s in the beginning of the words are pronounced "Th" (as in "the").

Some examples:
- Basileus: Vasilephs
- Basileios: Vasileios
- Doukas: Thoukas
etc. etc.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Thanks again. This bit I actually know. Two (γ)s make an ng, (π) following (μ) is pronounced b, right?

The problem is, how should we transcribe them? Academy seems to stick to the ancient pronounciation rather than the Koine. (η) is still transcribed as e (smetimes é or ê) and so on.
.

[Rosacrux redux]

Mouzaphere, do you live in Greece? You have a great interest in our language (and it's evolution over the ages) and I find that great.

Also, I take it you accept the erasmian pronounciation, yes? Well, I don't and I believe the ancient Greeks did speak Greek, not greekified latin... the Koene (the medieval Greek dialect evolved directly from Koene and was quite close related anyway) was spoken in a non-erasmian manner, and Koene has evolved in the early 3rd century BC directly from Attic - why would've Attic be spoken differently?

The transcription problem exists anyway, as it's a different alphabet anyway. I usually prefer a phonetic approach, but many'o'times I stick with the official (latinized) writing, in order to make sense to non-Greek audiences.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Thanks. I'm living right across the pond.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Erasmian pronounciation all that "Alexius" instead of "Aleksios" stuff? I'm not in favour of it, no. In earlier times, languages adopted others into their own structure; the Latins and later humanists would spell anything in Latin, Arabs according to Arabic phonetics and so on. I'm sure Dâriûsh would be quite surprised if he heard how classical Farsi was pronounced in Turkish.

I'm just trying to stick to a more or less common academic format for sake of intelligibility. Being able to transcribe every language into others phonetically would be fine. (Actually it's quite possible using IPA and similar systems.) But for increasing readability, compromises are made. Arabic alphabet, for instance, is also too 'roundishly' transcribed into English/Western languages. Faisal would detest to this.

Having said that, there are no certain academic conventions without exceptions. Back to Greek, the Western academia transcribes "χ" as "chi" but here in Turkey "khi" is used. Same is valid for "ξ", which is notated as "x" or "ks".


.

[Meneldil]

Thanks to both of you for your useful explanation and for the name list

[Byzantine Prince]

Mouzaphere, do you live in Greece? You have a great interest in our language (and it's evolution over the ages) and I find that great.

Mouz lives in Istambul and even though he's turkish I like him.

Also, I take it you accept the erasmian pronounciation, yes? Well, I don't and I believe the ancient Greeks did speak Greek, not greekified latin...

Don't go there. You are going to get warned once the Wizard shows up and starts talking about his school.

[L'Impresario]

Well as this thread has served its purpose, maybe it's allowed to stray a bit heh.

The erasmian pronounciation has to do with the sounds of dipthongs and many other letters (eg. β pronounced as b, υ pronounced as modern ου, before being modified into ϋ and then settling into today’s ι) in the attic dialect.

Well, I don't and I believe the ancient Greeks did speak Greek, not greekified latin

Actually they spoke Greek, just in a quite ancient way heh
As Greeks are being schooled for so many years in ancient greek by using the modern pronounciation –which is the best way not only to acquire easier a good knowledge of the ancient language but also to facilitate foreigners in learning the modern one-, it is only natural that they would believe they know the best. But at an academical level this won’t suffice. I’ll be using some references later on drawn from a 72-page school manual distributed in the last junior high school equivalent class, written by D. E. Tombaidis (Δ. Ε. Τομπαίδης) and published by the ΟΕΔΒ (known to all greek students heh), just to show that there is official greek material which are following the international view on the matter of pronounciation, but it isn’t taught at all.
Also people tend to say that it “sounds bad” if the ancient texts are read the erasmian way. I don’t think we can be the judges of that heh. That is not to say that the erasmian pronounciation is accurate; there are more recent works that have analysed in great depth the pronounciation issue. Ofcourse a 100% reproduction of those sounds seems rather unachievable nowdays, as there are always great problems regarding the tonical system that the ancient Greeks used, and the pitch accents, as this was what comprised the tonical system until the early hellenistic period -already some of its elements were compromised- and not the higher volume placed on a syllable.
Even among the dialects of the 7th and 6th century significant differences existed. Through centuries of interaction many changes -phonetic,morphological,syntactical etc- took place, and as it is well known, the koine speakers’ inability to use the attic dialect (they came from a vast number of places anyway) led to the amalgamation of the “i”s, among many other things.
A very simple argument regarding how the pronounciation should have been, is revolving around that, ancient greeks using a phonetic orthography, in contrast to our modern historical one.
On the subject of transliteration, I don’t find for example “e” a bad substitute for “η”. Here’s an excerpt from an 6th century attic inscription I just copied from the above-mentioned manual: «ΣΕΜΑ ΦΡΑΣΙΚΛΕΙΑΣ ΚΟΡΕ ΚΕΚΛΕΣΟΜΑΙ ΑΙΕΙ…», reading «ΣΗΜΑ ΦΡΑΣΙΚΛΕΙΑΣ΄ΚΟΡΗ ΚΕΚΛΕΣΟΜΑΙ ΑΙΕΙ».



Hope I ain't opening any Pandora's box here ;)