This article investigates the story of the origin and the expanse of the term caesar in the Indo-European languages. A hypothesis on the non-existence of the diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ in Gothic is used to show that the borrowing into Gothic occurred from Greek and renders the Greek spelling practice. Due to additional facts concerning the monophthongization of the diphthong /ai/ in Greek and Latin it is hypothesized that they might already represent not a diphthong but a single vowel. Counter-evidence is also stated, as the precise way of the borrowing still remains unknown

Piwowarczyk, Dariusz R.

Portal Czasopism Naukowych (E-Journals)

Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 
vol. 18 Kraków 2013 
DOI: 10.4467/20843836SE.13.007.0944 
 
 
 
Dariusz  R.  PIWOWARCZYK  (Kraków) 
 
 
THE  STORY  OF  Caesar  REVISITED 
 
 
Abstract. This article investigates the story of the origin and the expanse of the term 
caesar in the Indo-European languages. A hypothesis on the non-existence of the diph-
thongs /ai/ and /au/ in Gothic is used to show that the borrowing into Gothic occurred 
from Greek and renders the Greek spelling practice. Due to additional facts concerning 
the monophthongization of the diphthong /ai/ in Greek and Latin it is hypothesized that 
they might already represent not a diphthong but a single vowel. Counter-evidence is 
also stated, as the precise way of the borrowing still remains unknown. 
Keywords: etymology, Latin, Indo-European, Caesar, diphthong, monophthongization, 
spelling, borrowing. 
 
 
1. It is obvious that the widely known Roman cognomen Caesar, the exact 
etymological source of which remains obscure, was the source of the later term 
for ‘emperor’ in the European languages. Even more obvious is the story of the 
very influential man who bore this cognomen, Caius Iulius (101-44 BC). Fol-
lowing Caesar’s death and the beginning of the rule of Octavianus Augustus 
(i.e. Caius Iulius Caesar Octavianus, later Augustus) the term became the usual 
name assumed by his successors and further, around the middle of the 1st centu-
ry AD, the official imperial title for the ruler of the Roman Empire. After its fall 
in 476 AD, the term became synonymous with the word ‘emperor’ and spread 
within the languages of Europe and even further into Arabic and Turkish. 
 
2. However, the linguistic origins and wanderings of this term do not seem 
as clear as the historical ones. The name originated in the 3rd or even 4th century 
BC with Numerius Iulius Caesar from gens Iulia, who probably first bore that 
cognomen (Caesar’s father was also named “Iulius Caesar” and his predecessors 
had commonly used the cognomen Caesar, cf. Safarewicz 1986: 84), and sever-
al etymologies have been proposed – either a derivative of the adjective caesius 
‘grey-eyed’, or connected with the word caesariēs ‘long hair’ as ‘hairy’ or ‘hav-
ing long hair’ (*kaikro-kseh2-es- ‘having a combing of the hair’ > *kaikerksās- 
> *kairksās- > *kairsās- > caesār-, cf. de Vaan 2008: 81, r-stem derivative after 
Pinault 1998 but with doubts), or perhaps connected with the verb caedō ‘to cut, 
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione.  
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
106 DARIUSZ  R.  PIWOWARCZYK 
fall’ (Ernout-Meillet 1951: 148) as the Ancient writers did: “a caeso matris ute-
ro” (Pliny 7,47). Safarewicz points to the fact that the vowel /ă/ is unchanged in 
the name Caesăr, gen. sg. Caesăris like in anăs ‘duck’, gen. sg. anătis, contrary 
to the expected weakening to /ĕ/ as in canō ‘I sing’ but tībīcĕn ‘flute player’, 
and considers the forms as dialectal (Safarewicz 1953: 90). 
 
3. From Latin it made its way to Greek, giving the form καῖσαρ, with the 
velar pronunciation of the Latin C and probably the diphthongal value of AE 
/ae̯/ (coming from earlier /ai̯/ AI, cf. Old Latin AIDILES but 2nd century BC 
AEDEM, Meiser 1998: 58), which was later monophthongized in Latin 
around the 1st century AD. But the process of monophthongization was even 
earlier in Greek koiné where we find discrepancies in spelling between ε and 
αι in papyri as far as the 2nd century BC (Lejeune 1972: 230-231) and such 
forms like ἐκτέτατε instead of ἐκτέταται1 (cf. Rix 1976: 46). It is then thinkable 
that the αι in καῖσαρ was already a monophthong by the time of the borrowing. 
In rural Latin the monophthongization of /ai̯/ is also very early, cf. inscriptional 
2nd century BC attested CEDITO for CAEDITO 2  (Meiser 1998: 61-62). 
However, the exact and ultimate monophthongization was carried out later, 
probably at the beginning of our era,3 though some would like to see it even 
later, e.g. Safarewicz 1953: 47 would opt for 3rd or even 4th century AD for final 
monophthongization in cultural Latin. We also have an inscribed coin attested 
from around 27-23 BC with CAISAR written on it (OLD: 254). I cannot say if 
it is historical writing, an error or rendering of an actual pronunciation. There-
fore I am not sure if that single form could be used as counter-evidence for early 
monophthongization of /ai̯/ in Latin. We have to bear in mind that the sign AE 
did not denote strictly phonetic /ai̯/ but probably /ae̯/ as evidenced by the change 
in spelling from AI to AE at the beginning of the 2nd century BC (Meiser 
1998: 58). 
 
                                                 
1 The process of monophthongization was even earlier in Greek dialects – in Boeotian 
already in the 4th century BC we find forms like χῆρε, compare Attic χαῖρε (Rix 
1976: 46). 
2 The process of monophthongization of both /ai̯/ and /au̯/ was quicker outside Rome, 
both in Latin and in the other languages of Ancient Italy, cf. Umbrian PRE, OTE and 
Latin prae, aut (Meiser 1998: 61). Consider also the famous pun of the satirist Lu-
cilius about the praetor Caecilius, who pronounced /ē/ instead of /ae̯/: Cecilius pretor 
ne rusticus fiat ‘Let Cecilius not be a rustic praetor’, cf. Weiss 2009: 474. 
3 There is a Welsh word praidd ‘booty’ attested as a borrowing from Latin praeda evi-
dencing the diphthongal pronunciation of the Latin ae grapheme. The date of the 
borrowing could probably be around the 1st century AD since then Romans con-
quered the south of Britain. 
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione.  
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
 THE  STORY  OF  Caesar  REVISITED 107 
4. The term went then further into Germanic as we have such forms like 
first and foremost Gothic kaisar, later Old English cāsere, Old High German 
keisar, keisor, cheisur, Old Frisian keiser and Old Saxon kēsur, kēsar (cf. Feist 
1939: 305). It has been widely assumed that the Gothic word kaisar has been 
borrowed directly from Latin with its diphthongal pronunciation (so e.g. Leh-
mann 1986: 214 after Corazza 1969: 35-38, and Szulc 1991: 76-77). Yet, the 
claim about the existence of diphthongs in Gothic (cf. the modern transliteration 
of Gothic diphthongs as ái and aí found especially in German handbooks) is 
based strictly on etymology. Gothic follows the orthographic practice of late 
Greek in using the grapheme ai for /e/ and additionally au for /o/ which is an 
innovation of Wulfila’s writing system. Examples include the renderings of 
Greek words like ἐκκλησία as Gothic aikklesjo /ekklēsjō/ ‘church’ or ἀπόστολος 
as apaustaulus /apostolus/ ‘apostle’. As Jasanoff has put it in his excellent sketch 
of Gothic: “there is little basis for the view, rooted in a coincidence of Germanic 
etymology and Greek orthography, that ‘long’ ai and au actually represent syn-
chronic diphthongs in Wulfila’s Gothic. The only true diphthong is /iu/” (Jasa-
noff 2004: 886 in Woodard 2004).4 It might then be possible that Gothic bor-
rowed this term from Greek with its peculiar spelling (so already Meillet: “Le 
got. kaisar peut être une simple transcription de gr. καῖσαρ”, Meillet 1924: 110), 
rather than directly from Latin at the time when the diphthong was still pro-
nounced. The later West Germanic forms surely attesting the diphthongal pho-
netics (cf. Modern German Kaiser from Old High German keisar just like Mod-
ern German heil from earlier */ai̯/, cf. Gothic hails) would then have to be either 
written borrowings (so already Luft: “Die Westgermanen ihrerseits können 
cheisar, keisar erst relativ spät entlehnt haben, wobei sogar gelehrte einflüsse 
mitspielen können”, Luft 1897: 295-296) or very early borrowings from Classi-
cal Latin into West Germanic, independent of East Germanic, all of course after 
the operation of Grimm’s Law5 (cf. Szulc 1991: 76-77). Another scenario would 
include the preservation of the archaic pronunciation of this word due to the fact 
that it denoted a very high ranking official but that is also doubtful. Meillet pre-
sents a very compelling hypothesis that the West Germanic form became fixed 
in the kingdom of the Franks where Charlemagne, viewing himself as the heir 
                                                 
4 But we also have to reckon the Runic Gothic forms hailag (Ring from Pietroassa, ca. 
401-450) and u(n)thf(i)nthai (Charnay, ca. 551-600) as arguments in favour of the 
diphthongal value of ai, at least in Gothic written with runes. On these forms and 
the phonetic value of the diphthong, see now Nedoma 2010: 43-44, 58, but note also 
the counterarguments of Braune-Heidermanns 2004: 40. I am grateful to Stefan 
Schaffner (Brno) p.c., for turning my attention to those facts. 
5 If it had come to Germanic before Grimm’s Law, it would have gone through it and 
we would have a form like *χaisar instead of the attested Gothic kaisar. As Schmidt 
points out: “kein einziges lat. Lehnwort im Germ. ist von der ersten Lautverschie-
bung betroffen worden” (Schmidt 1976: 37). 
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione.  
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
108 DARIUSZ  R.  PIWOWARCZYK 
to the Roman Empire, called himself ‘emperor’ in the Roman imperial tradition 
(Meillet 1924: 110). The West Germanic form *kaisar with the diphthong pre-
served would thus be explained as a written borrowing at the time of the Caro-
lingian Renaissance, a period during which multiple attempts were made to re-
create and revive the previous culture of the Roman Empire. Rix, on the other 
hand, postulates that the term went into Germanic around 37-41 AD, during the 
reign of Caligula, who had Germanic warriors in his guard (Rix 1993: 13-14). 
The fact is further complicated by other borrowings from Greek or Latin into 
Gothic like Kreks ‘Greek’ (from Greek or Latin Graecus) or paida ‘tunic’ (most 
probably from Greek βαίτη and this from Anatolian, Lehmann 1986: 221). Sev-
eral different ways were suggested for the former word, including a possible 
Illyrian or even Etruscan middle source (cf. the discussion in Lehmann 1986: 
220-221). I would opt for Kreks as being borrowed from Latin and paida from 
Greek, just like kaisar, witnessing the same rendering of the underlying diph-
thong. Whereas it is not impossible that the term caesar was borrowed into Ger-
manic (both East and West) around the beginning of our era as many scholars 
would like to pose, I would like to point out that it is only in the 3rd century AD 
that the Roman army started to rely heavily on barbarian troops, especially from 
the Germanic tribes, who in the course of the 4th century assumed command of 
some of the senior posts in the Roman military (Todd 1992: 59). They must 
have learnt Latin and borrowed certain terms into their own languages. The bor-
rowing might have also occurred earlier but certainly on a smaller scale. I find it 
impossible to decide. But the Gothic form seems to me a perfect borrowing 
from Greek with the spelling included. 
 
5. It has been widely assumed that the word went further into Old Church 
Slavic. Gothic is here mentioned as the possible direct source (cf. Lehmann 
1986: 214). It could either be borrowed with the diphthongal pronunciation and 
then the dipthong was monophthongized and the word underwent the second 
palatalization: Goth. kaisar → Sl. *kaisarĭ > *kěsarĭ > *cěsarĭ > OCS cěsarĭ or, 
if we deny the existence of the diphthong /ai̯/ in Gothic, then the borrowing oc-
curred after the first palatalization and monophthongization of diphthongs but 
before the second palatalization. The /k/ was then automatically palatalized be-
fore /ē/ to /c/.6 A different form *cĭsarĭ, occurring in South and East Slavic with 
shortening as Old Russian carĭ, is usually explained as a second variant of the 
borrowing or with irregular reduction of the vowel due to the frequency of oc-
currence in official titles (cf. Boryś 2005: 52, SP II: 82-83). 
 
 
                                                 
6 I owe this remark to Zbigniew Babik (p.c.). 
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione.  
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
 THE  STORY  OF  Caesar  REVISITED 109 
Dariusz R. Piwowarczyk 
os. Szklane Domy 1/204 
PL – 31-972 Kraków 
[dariusz_piwowarczyk@yahoo.com] 
 
 
B i b l i o g r a p h y  
 
Boryś, Wiesław. 2005. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Kraków: Wy-
dawnictwo Literackie. 
Braune, Wilhelm / Heidermanns Frank. 2004. Gotische Grammatik. 20. Aufla-
ge. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 
Corazza, Vittoria. 1969. Le parole latine in gotico. Roma: Accademia Naziona-
le dei Lincei. 
Ernout, Alfred / Meillet, Antoine. 1951. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue 
latine. Paris: Klincksieck. 
Feist, Sigmund. 1939. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. 3rd ed. 
Leiden: Brill. 
Jasanoff, Jay. 2004. “Gothic”, in: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s 
Ancient Languages, ed. R. Woodard. Cambridge: University Press. Pp. 
189-214. 
Kluge, Friedrich. 1924. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 
10th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 
Lehmann, Winfred. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill. 
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. 
Paris: Klincksieck. 
Luft, Wilhelm. 1897. “Die umschreibungen der fremden namen bei Wulfila”. 
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 35. Pp. 291-313. 
Meillet, Antoine. 1924. “Review of Feist S., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der 
gotischen Sprache, 2nd ed., 1922”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de 
Paris 24. Pp. 109-110. 
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen 
Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 
Nedoma, Robert. 2010. “Schrift und Sprache in den ostgermanischen Runenin-
schriften”. NOWELE 58/59. Pp. 1-70. 
OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary. 1968. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1998. “Analyse de latin caesaries”, in: Moussyllanea. 
Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature anciennes offerts à Claude Mous-
sy, eds. B. Bureau and C. Nicolas. Louvain – Paris: Peeters. Pp. 15-30. 
Rix, Helmut. 1976. Historische Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione.  
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych
110 DARIUSZ  R.  PIWOWARCZYK 
Rix, Helmut. 1993. “Latein – wie wurde es ausgesprochen”, in: Beiträge zur 
mündlichen Kultur der Römer, ed. G. Vogt-Spira. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 
Verlag. Pp. 3-17. 
Safarewicz, Jan. 1953. Zarys gramatyki historycznej języka łacińskiego. War-
szawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 
Safarewicz, Jan. 1986. Zarys historii języka łacińskiego. Wrocław: Wydawnic-
two Polskiej Akademii Nauk. 
Schmidt, Wilhelm (ed.). 1976. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig: 
Volkseigner Verlag. 
SP II = Słownik prasłowiański, vol. 2 (C – D). 1976. Ed. F. Sławski. Wrocław: 
Ossolineum. 
Szulc, Aleksander. 1991. Historia języka niemieckiego. Warszawa: Wydawnic-
two Naukowe PWN. 
Todd, Malcolm. 1992. The Early Germans. [Reprint from 2000]. Oxford: 
Blackwell Publishers. 
de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic 
Languages. Leiden: Brill. 
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of 
Latin. Ann Arbor – New York: Beech Stave Press. 
 
Publikacja objęta jest prawem autorskim. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie zabronione.  
Publikacja przeznaczona jedynie dla klientów indywidualnych. Zakaz rozpowszechniania i udostępniania serwisach bibliotecznych


The story of Caesar revisited

http://www.ejournals.eu/sj/index.php/SEC/article/download/3362/3306

The story of Caesar revisited

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Portal Czasopism Naukowych (E-Journals)