Hi everyone,
I was wondering what the deal is with the name Virgil/Vergil. I see both used frequently, but Vergil seems more correct to me considering his full name (Publius Vergilius Maro). Is there a preferred form?
Thanks,
Deccius
I’ve always associated with North American usage, and with British.
And I could be quite wrong, of course!
Inero
These are two explanations I have found:
So it would seem his name was never given the an “i” until the middle ages. I feel that “Vergil” is the more acceptable spelling.
Vergil is definitely more accurate. People in the Middle Ages ascribed a magical characteristic to Vergil’s work and hence changed his name to Virgil after the Latin word for magic wand (virga). Most actual Latin texts will print his name using the e. See Pharr’s text of the Aeneid.
Vergil is definitely more accurate. People in the Middle Ages ascribed a magical characteristic to Vergil’s work and hence changed his name to Virgil after the Latin word for magic wand (virga). Most actual Latin texts will print his name using the e. See Pharr’s text of the Aeneid.
Thanks everyone. I don’t think I would have made that connection between virga and Virgil. Nevertheless, very interesting…
don’t forget virgo.
Just a vote for the other side of the issue:
“Strictly his name in English should be spelled Vergil, but the spelling Virgil has been traditional for so long that it seems inappropriate to abandon it.”
-x, introduction, Virgil: Aeneid, Books I-VI, ed. R. Deryck Williams, Bristol Classical Press.
I don’t hear a lot of controvery about calling Horace “Horat” or however you would choose to alter “Horatius.” Names change between languages in the same fashion as words, and there isn’t anything inherently preferable about adhering to the original spelling - except, perhaps, reducing the confusion caused by an arbitrary alteration. However, if confusion is at stake, let’s by all means retain “Virgil.” It is in fact the more accurate spelling that has produced confusion.
Or so I see it.
David
PS - This actually reminds me slightly of those Christians who refuse the name God in favor of Yahweh and refuse Christ in favor of Yeshua. More faithful to the Hebrew perhaps, but I think that this sort of scrupulousness alienates and baffles more than it elucidates.
Assentio, Dauid. Names change between languages, and in my personal practice I’ve taken to enjoy the transformations. In English I am merely “Luke,” but in Italian I prefer “Luca.” In Greek I choose “Loukas,” while in Latin I prefer “Lucius.” But they’re all forms of the same name, altered through the centuries and millenia. I personally feel “Virgil” looks like a stronger name that “Vergil” orthographically, even if the pronunciation in our language is identical. And after all, how many among us actually have the gall to talk to others in English about “Yoo-lee-oos Keye-sar”?
With 900,000 results for ‘Vergil’ and 6.1 million for ‘Virgil’ Google has made its vote known (for what it’s worth).
David, Luke:
I think you two are overlooking the crucial difference between reviving an older spelling and reviving an older pronunciation. Whether you pronounce Julius Caesar “yoo-lee-us ky-sar”, or what name you call Christ are two completely different things, and how you spell a word is different from both those examples because spelling does not affect pronunciation. Unlike sound changes, it hardly interferes with comprehension to change a spelling.
Perhaps I am more zealous than most, but when I know a word like “defence” comes from the perfect participle “defensum”, I am eager to change my spelling to “defense”. Similarly connection > connexion, license > licence, -ise > -ize. Some people consider this a strange habit since it mixes British and American spellings, but if the more historically accurate spelling is acceptable in contemporary writing, it is a sign of education to use it.
I am sure Virgil is the more common name for Publius Vergilius Maro, but a Google search will prove little, because there have been many other men named Virgil (but not Vergil).
Well, sure, but, the reason they’re named Virgil and not Vergil…
It is also a sign of education to use latin maxims in law, but use them in any Uni practice groups and no-one knows what you are talking about, especially if you attempt to pronounce them as latin instead of english. (if I hear “Order Ny-sy” one more time, when Order Nisi is ment, I think I will go into a violent rage.)
The purpose of language is to communicate efficiently and effectively. If your ‘historical accuracy’ gets in the way of effective communication it will be however inappropriate to use it.
Everyone is choosing to append an erroneous connotation to Vergil’s name when they choose to spell it Virgil. People have only spelled it “Virgil” for two primary reasons: either they merely conform to the traditional convolution of the original unwittingly, or, like those in the Middle Ages, they believe that Vergil was a sort of magician and his work had a preternatural quality to it. With neither of these two options would I wish to associate myself. If you say that people should keep with tradition, then you are asserting that, even though tradition has convoluted and masked the true definition of Vergil’s name with fanatic interpretations of his work, the mutated spelling should remain; hence, to maintain the original stem of Vergilius’ name while translating it into English without any mystical implications appended, his title should remain Vergil.
… which is precisely why I said “if the more historically accurate spelling is acceptable in contemporary writing”. You cannot spell things however you please, but you can spell them the more accurate way if there are spelling variations.
vir litterarum said:
People have only spelled it “Virgil” for two primary reasons: either they merely conform to the traditional convolution of the original unwittingly, or, like those in the Middle Ages, they believe that Vergil was a sort of magician and his work had a preternatural quality to it.
And I’d like to add a third option: though aware of the origin of the altered spelling, some continue to use it because time has worn away most of the original connotation and made it the expected and neutral choice.
There are currently a number of books about Virgil on my desk, translations, criticisms, and texts. Let’s see what the consensus is.
-W.F. Jackson-Knight’s translation: Virgil: The Aeneid. (1956)
-Wordsworth Classics (Dryden translation): Virgil: The Aeneid. (1997)
-Further Voices in Vergil’s Aeneid, by R.O.A.M. Lyne. (1987)
-Virgil and the Augustan Reception, by Richard F. Thomas. (2001)
-Virgil: Aeneid. Ed. R. Deryck Williams. (1972)
-Allen Mandelbaum’s translation: The Aeneid of Virgil. (1971)
-Talking to Virgil: A Miscellany, by T.P. Wiseman. (1992)
Well, six to one, which is rather similar to the google ratio.
Benissimus, I appreciate your point and would agree that, when there are two equivalent options for spelling, it is perfectly reasonable to choose the one that is etymologically most faithful - especially for people, like us, who are interested in Latin. But I would argue that the Virgil/Vergil issue does not fit neatly into this category. For me, at least, using Vergil conveys a certain contempt for current usage and a certain predilection for pedantry. Now, I am fully aware that these need not be the motivations of someone who writes “Vergil”! But “Virgil” has the advantage of being the completely neutral choice, at least until so many begin using “Vergil” that “Virgil” is relegated into some sort of substandard, illiterate category. Until that happens, and, judging by my highly unrepresentative survey, just conducted on my desk, it certainly hasn’t, I intend to stick with Virgil and his magic wand.
David
[/list]
The tradition has been in anglicizing classical personages names into English to either leave the name unaltered or to merely remove the inflective case ending. For example, Suetonius and Tacitus are not changed, but Christ comes from Christus which is derived from the Greek christos; Priam is derived from Priamus; Alexander from Alexandros. Very rarely in anglicizing an author’s name is the actual stem changed. Why should Vergilius’ case be any different? Either the name is left in its original form or the case ending is removed. There is no logical reason for changing the stem. The case study presented is also inaccurate. The difference in usage of “Vergil” or “Virgil” is traditionally that between texts printed in the United States or those printed in Great Britain; hence, either spelling could be considered contemporarily prevalent dependent upon which nation you are in.[/img][/quote]
Salue, Benissime.
I understand and concur with your sentiment. Spelling changes which do not affect pronunciation are quite different from mere alternative pronunciations, especially since our English spellings are generally far more loyal to the original classical spellings, as compared to Italian, for instance.
I find your argument for classical orthography very compelling. For I strongly support the reformed, that is, maintained orthography of American English, truer to the original Latin spellings in most cases. “Connexion” aside, however, (and how it recalls Jane Austin to the mind!), wouldn’t you judge most of those examples of yours to be merely American, rather than a mix? Compare the “US Department of Defense” with the “Ministry of Defence.” Though it would seem my Pennsylvania Driver’s License has taken the wrong way out. Ah well. A mix indeed! And so be it; consentio maxime.
Could you give us some other examples of spelling mixings of this nature thare are especially meaningful to you?
I wonder about “license” with an ‘s’; I think it should, if anything, be “licens,” without any ‘e’. Now that would be knocking on the Roman ianua.
Salue o beate Vir,
I believe “Alexander” is the Latin spelling, whose language’s orthography we tend to inherit directly.
While doing research for an essay on translations of Virgil (the works, not the name!) , I’ve come across a few quotes that, though not definitive, at least shed light on this debate.
[W.F. Jackson-Knight translated the Aeneid for Penguin Classics in the 1950s. The following two passages are found in the biography that his brother wrote about him:]
“A disagreement arose at the meeting [of the Virgil Society, of which J.K. was the secretary and T.S. Eliot the president] in regard to the spelling of ‘Vergil.’ In The Property Basket (1970, XIII, 228), Robert Speaight writes, ‘Jackson Knight, who knew far more about Virgil than all the rest of us put together, pleaded for the E, but he was presumptuously over-ruled.’” (Jackson Knight: A Biography, by G. Wilson Knight 268)
[At this point J.K.'s approach to translation is under discussion:]
“The translation must be as impersonal as possible, and this impersonality is neatly symbolised by the spelling ‘Virgil,’ as was no doubt demanded by the editor or Penguini Books for purposes of standardisation.” (ibid 385)
[Admittedly, Ziolkowski is an American, but he doesn’t cite that as his motivation for his decision:]
“I have chosen to employ the form ‘Virgil,’ which is used by the majority of writers and secondary sources to which I refer.” (Virgil and the Moderns, by Theodore Ziolkowski xi)
Curate ut valeatis,
David