Part 4

37. CONSONANTS.--(i.) _Back palatal._ Breathed plosive _c_, pronounced always as _k_ (except that in some early inscriptions--probably none much later, if at all later, than 300 B.C.--the character is used also for _g_) until about the 7th century after Christ. _K_ went out of use at an early period, except in a few old abbreviations for words in which it had stood before _a_, e.g., _kal._ for _kalendae_. _Q_, always followed by the consonantal _u_, except in a few old inscriptions, in which it is used for _c_ before the vowel _u_, e.g. _pequnia_. _X_, an abbreviation for _cs_; _xs_ is, however, sometimes found. Voiced plosive _g_, pronounced as in English _gone_, but never as in English _gem_ before about the 6th century after Christ. Aspirate _h_, the rough breathing as in English.

(ii.) _Palatal._--The consonantal _i_, like the English _y_; it is only in late inscriptions that we find, in spellings like _Zanuario_, _Giove_, any definite indication of a pronunciation like the English _j_. The precise date of the change is difficult to determine (see Lindsay's _Latin Lang._ p. 49), especially as we may, in isolated cases, have before us merely a dialectic variation; see PAELIGNI.

(iii.) _Lingual._--_r_ as in English, but probably produced more with the point of the tongue. _l_ similarly more dental than in English. _s_ always breathed (as Eng. _ce_ in _ice_). _z_, which is only found in the transcription of Greek words in and after the time of Cicero, as _dz_ or _zz_.

(iv.) _Dental._--Breathed, _t_ as in English. Voiced, _d_ as in English; but by the end of the 4th century _di_ before a vowel was pronounced like our j (cf. _diurnal_ and _journal_). Nasal, _n_ as in English; but also (like the English _n_) a guttural nasal (_ng_) before a guttural. Apparently it was very lightly pronounced, and easily fell away before _s_.

(v.) _Labial._--Breathed, _p_ as in English. Voiced, _b_ as in English; but occasionally in inscriptions of the later empire _v_ is written for _b_, showing that in some cases _b_ had already acquired the fricative sound of the contemporary [beta] (see § 24, iii.). _b_ before a sharp _s_ was pronounced _p_, e.g. in _urbs_. Nasal, _m_ as in English, but very slightly pronounced at the end of a word. Spirant, _v_ like the _ou_ in French _oui_, but later approximating to the _w_ heard in some parts of Germany, Ed. Sievers, _Grundzüge d. Phonetik_, ed. 4, p. 117, i.e. a labial _v_, not (like the English _v_) a labio-dental _v_.

(vi.) _Labio-dental._--Breathed fricative, _f_ as in English.

38. VOWELS.--_a_, _u_, _i_, as the English _ah_, oo, _ee_; _o_, a sound coming nearer to Eng. _aw_ than to Eng. _o_; _e_ a close Italian _e_, nearly as the _a_ of Eng. _mate_, _ée_ of Fr. _passée_. The short sound of the vowels was not always identical in quality with the long sound. _a_ was pronounced as in the French _chatte_, _u_ nearly as in Eng. _pull_, _i_ nearly as in _pit_, _o_ as in _dot_, _e_ nearly as in _pet_. The diphthongs were produced by pronouncing in rapid succession the vowels of which they were composed, according to the above scheme. This gives, _au_ somewhat broader than _ou_ in house; _eu_ like _ow_ in the "Yankee" pronunciation of _town_; _ae_ like the vowel in _hat_ lengthened, with perhaps somewhat more approximation to the _i_ in _wine_; _oe_, a diphthongal sound approximating to Eng. _oi_; _ui_, as the French _oui_.

To this it should be added that the Classical Association, acting on the advice of a committee of Latin scholars, has recommended for the diphthongs _ae_ and _oe_ the pronunciation of English _i_ (really _ai_) in _wine_ and _oi_ in _boil_, sounds which they undoubtedly had in the time of Plautus and probably much later, and which for practical use in teaching have been proved far the best.

VI. THE LANGUAGE AS RECORDED

39. Passing now to a survey of the condition of the language at various epochs and in the different authors, we find the earliest monument of it yet discovered in a donative inscription on a fibula or brooch found in a tomb of the 7th century B.C. at Praeneste. It runs "Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi," i.e. "Manios made me for Numasios." The use of _f_ (_fh_) to denote the sound of Latin _f_ supplied the explanation of the change of the symbol _f_ from its Greek value (= Eng. _w_) to its Latin value _f_, and shows the Chalcidian Greek alphabet in process of adaptation to the needs of Latin (see WRITING). The reduplicated perfect, its 3rd sing. ending -_ed_, the dative masculine in -_oi_ (this is one of the only two recorded examples in Latin), the -_s_- between vowels (§ 25, 1), and the -_a_- in what was then (see §§ 9, 10) certainly an unaccented syllable and the accusative _med_, are all interesting marks of antiquity.[2]

40. The next oldest fragment of continuous Latin is furnished by a vessel dug up in the valley between the Quirinal and the Viminal early in 1880. The vessel is of a dark brown clay, and consists of three small round pots, the sides of which are connected together. All round this vessel runs an inscription, in three clauses, two nearly continuous, the third written below; the writing is from right to left, and is still clearly legible; the characters include one sign not belonging to the later Latin alphabet, namely [symbol] for R, while the M has five strokes and the Q has the form of a Koppa.

The inscription is as follows:--

"iovesat deivos qoi med mitat, nei ted endo cosmis virco sied, asted noisi opetoitesiai pacari vois.

dvenos med feced en manom einom duenoi ne med malo statod."

The general style of the writing and the phonetic peculiarities make it fairly certain that this work must have been produced not later than 300 B.C. Some points in its interpretation are still open to doubt,[3] but the probable interpretation is--

"Deos iurat ille (_or_ iurant illi) qui me mittat (_or_ mittant) ne in te Virgo (i.e. Proserpina) comis sit, nisi quidem optimo (?) Theseae (?) pacari vis. Duenos me fecit contra Manum, Dueno autem ne per me malum stato (= imputetur, imponatur)."

"He (or they) who dispatch me binds the gods (by his offering) that Proserpine shall not be kind to thee unless thou wilt make terms with (or "for") Opetos Thesias (?). Duenos made me against Manus, but let no evil fall to Duenos on my account."

41. Between these two inscriptions lies in point of date the famous stele discovered in the Forum in 1899 (G. Boni, _Notiz. d. scavi_, May 1899). The upper half had been cut off in order to make way for a new pavement or black stone blocks (known to archaeologists as the _niger lapis_) on the site of the comitium, just to the north-east of the Forum in front of the Senate House. The inscription was written lengthwise along the (pyramidal) stele from foot to apex, but with the alternate lines in reverse directions, and one line not on the full face of any one of the four sides, but up a roughly-flattened fifth side made by slightly broadening one of the angles. No single sentence is complete and the mutilated fragments have given rise to a whole literature of conjectural "restorations."

R. S. Conway examined it _in situ_ in company with F. Skutsch in 1903 (cf. his article in Vollmöller's _Jahresbericht_, vi. 453), and the only words that can be regarded as reasonably certain are _regei_ (_regi_) on face 2, _kalatorem_ and _iouxmenta_ on face 3, and _iouestod_ (_iusto_) on face 4.[3] The date may be said to be fixed by the variation of the sign for _m_ between [symbol] and [symbol] (with [symbol] for _r_) and other alphabetic indications which suggest the 5th century B.C. It has been suggested also that the reason for the destruction of the stele and the repavement may have been either (1) the pollution of the comitium by the Gallic invasion of 390 B.C., all traces of which, on their departure, could be best removed by a repaving; or (2) perhaps more probably, the Augustan restorations (Studniczka, _Jahresheft d. Österr. Institut_, 1903, vi. 129 ff.). (R. S. C.)

42. Of the earlier long inscriptions the most important would be the _Columna Rostrata_, or column of Gaius Duilius (q.v.), erected to commemorate his victory over the Carthaginians in 260 B.C., but for the extent to which it has suffered from the hands of restorers. The shape of the letters plainly shows that the inscription, as we have it, was cut in the time of the empire. Hence Ritschl and Mommsen pointed out that the language was modified at the same time, and that, although many archaisms have been retained, some were falsely introduced, and others replaced by more modern forms. The most noteworthy features in it are--C always written for G (CESET = _gessit_), single for double consonants (_clases-classes_), _d_ retained in the ablative (e.g., _in altod marid_), _o_ for _u_ in inflexions (_primos_, _exfociont_ = _exfugiunt_), _e_ for _i_ (_navebos_ = _navibus_, _exemet_ = _exemit_); of these the first is probably an affected archaism, G having been introduced some time before the assumed date of the inscription. On the other hand, we have _praeda_ where we should have expected _praida_; no final consonants are dropped; and the forms -_es_, -_eis_ and -_is_ for the accusative plural are interchanged capriciously. The doubts hence arising preclude the possibility of using it with confidence as evidence for the state of the language in the 3rd century B.C.

43. Of unquestionable genuineness and the greatest value are the _Scipionum Elogia_, inscribed on stone coffins, found in the monument of the Scipios outside the Capene gate (_C.I.L._[1] i. 32). The earliest of the family whose epitaph has been preserved is L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (consul 298 B.C.), the latest C. Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (praetor in 139 B.C.); but there are good reasons for believing with Ritschl that the epitaph of the first was not contemporary, but was somewhat later than that of his son (consul 259 B.C.). This last may therefore be taken as the earliest specimen of any length of Latin and it was written at Rome; it runs as follows:--

honcoino . ploirume . cosentiont . r[_omai_] duonoro . optumo . fuise . uiro [_virorum_] luciom . scipione . filios . barbati _co_]nsol . censor . aidilis . hic . fuet a [_pud vos_] _he_]c . cepit . corsica . aleriaque . urbe[_m_] _de_]det . tempestatebus . aide . mereto[_d votam_].

The archaisms in this inscription are--(1) the retention of _o_ for _u_ in the inflexion of both nouns and verbs; (2) the diphthongs _oi_ (= later _u_) and _ai_ (= later _ae_); (3) -_et_ for -_it_, _hec_ for _hic_, and -_ebus_ for -_ibus_; (4) _duon_- for _bon_; and (5) the dropping of a final _m_ in every case except in _Luciom_, a variation which is a marked characteristic of the language of this period.

44. The oldest specimen of the Latin language preserved to us in any literary source is to be found in two fragments of the Carmina Saliaria (Varro, _De ling. Lat._ vii. 26, 27), and one in Terentianus Scaurus, but they are unfortunately so corrupt as to give us little real information (see B. Maurenbrecher, _Carminum Saliarium reliquiae_, Leipzig, 1894; G. Hempl, _American Philol. Assoc. Transactions_, xxxi., 1900, 184). Rather better evidence is supplied in the _Carmen Fratrum Arvalium_, which was found in 1778 engraved on one of the numerous tablets recording the transactions of the college of the Arval brothers, dug up on the site of their grove by the Tiber, 5 m. from the city of Rome; but this also has been so corrupted in its oral tradition that even its general meaning is by no means clear (_C.I.L._^1 i. 28; Jordan, _Krit. Beiträge_, pp. 203-211).

45. The text of the Twelve Tables (451-450 B.C.), if preserved in its integrity, would have been invaluable as a record of antique Latin; but it is known to us only in quotations. R. Schoell, whose edition and commentary (Leipzig, 1866) is the most complete, notes the following traces, among others, of an archaic syntax: (1) both the subject and the object of the verb are often left to be understood from the context, e.g. _ni it antestamino, igitur, em capito_; (2) the imperative is used even for permissions, "si volet, plus dato," "if he choose, he may give him more"; (3) the subjunctive is apparently never used in conditional, only in final sentences, but the future perfect is common; (4) the connexion between sentences is of the simplest kind, and conjunctions are rare. There are, of course, numerous isolated archaisms of form and meaning, such as _calvitur_, _pacunt_, _endo_, _escit_. Later and less elaborate editions are contained in _Fontes Iuris Romani_, by Bruns-Mommsen-Gradenwitz (1892); and P. Girard, _Textes de droit romain_ (1895).

46. Turning now to the language of literature we may group the Latin authors as follows:--[5]

I. _Ante-Classical_ (240-80 B.C.).--Naevius (? 269-204), Plautus (254-184), Ennius (239-169), Cato the Elder (234-149), Terentius (? 195-159), Pacuvius (220-132), Accius (170-94), Lucilius (? 168-103).

II. _Classical--Golden Age_ (80 B.C.-A.D. 14).--Varro (116-28), Cicero (106-44), Lucretius (99-55), Caesar (102-44), Catullus (87-? 47), Sallust (86-34), Virgil (70-19), Horace (65-8), Propertius (? 50- ?), Tibullus (? 54-? 18), Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18), Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 18).

III. _Classical--Silver Age_ (A.D. 14-180).--Velleius (? 19 B.C.-? A.D. 31), M. Seneca (d. c. A.D. 30), Persius (34-62), Petronius (d. 66), Lucan (39-65), L. Seneca (d. A.D. 65), Plinius major (23-A.D. 79), Martial (40-101), Quintilian (42-118), Pliny the Younger (61-? 113), Tacitus (? 60-? 118), Juvenal (? 47-? 138), Suetonius (75-160), Fronto (c. 90-170).

47. _Naevius and Plautus._--In Naevius we find archaisms proportionally much more numerous than in Plautus, especially in the retention of the original length of vowels, and early forms of inflexion, such as the genitive in -_as_ and the ablative in -_d_. The number of archaic words preserved is perhaps due to the fact that so large a proportion of his fragments have been preserved only by the grammarians, who cited them for the express purpose of explaining these.

Of the language of Plautus important features have already been mentioned (§§ 10-16); for its more general characteristics see PLAUTUS.

48. _Ennius._--The language of Ennius deserves especial study because of the immense influence which he exerted in fixing the literary style. He first established the rule that in hexameter verse all vowels followed by two consonants (except in the case of a mute and a liquid), or a double consonant, must be treated as lengthened by position. The number of varying quantities is also much diminished, and the elision of final -_m_ becomes the rule, though not without exceptions. On the other hand he very commonly retains the original length of verbal terminations (_esset_, _faciet_) and of nominatives in _or_ and _a_, and elides final _s_ before an initial consonant. In declension he never uses -_ae_ as the genitive, but -_ai_ or -_as_; the older and shorter form of the gen. plur. is -_um_ in common; obsolete forms of pronouns are used, as _mis_, _olli_, _sum_ (= eum), _sas_, _sos_, _sapsa_; and in verbal inflexion there are old forms like _morimur_ (§ 15), _fuimus_ (§ 17, vi.), _potestur_ (cf. § 5, iv.). Some experiments in the way of tmesis (_saxo_ cere _comminuit_-brum) and apocope (_divum domus altisonum_ cael, _replet te laetificum_ gau) were happily regarded as failures, and never came into real use. His syntax is simple and straightforward, with the occasional pleonasms of a rude style, and conjunctions are comparatively rare. From this time forward the literary language of Rome parted company with the popular dialect. Even to the classical writers Latin was in a certain sense a dead language. Its vocabulary was not identical with that of ordinary life. Now and again a writer would lend new vigour to his style by phrases and constructions drawn from homely speech. But on the whole, and in ever-increasing measure, the language of literature was the language of the schools, adapted to foreign models. The genuine current of Italian speech is almost lost to view with Plautus and Terence, and reappears clearly only in the semi-barbarous products of the early Romance literature.

49. _Pacuvius, Accius and Lucilius._--Pacuvius is noteworthy especially for his attempt to introduce a free use of compounds after the fashion of the Greek, which were felt in the classical times to be unsuited to the genius of the Latin language, Quintilian censures severely his line--

Nerei repandirostrum incurvicervicum pecus.

Accius, though probably the greatest of the Roman tragedians, is only preserved in comparatively unimportant fragments. We know that he paid much attention to grammar and orthography; and his language is much more finished than that of Ennius. It shows no marked archaisms of form, unless the infinitive in -_ier_ is to be accounted as such.

Lucilius furnishes a specimen of the language of the period, free from the restraints of tragic diction and the imitation of Greek originals. Unfortunately the greater part of his fragments are preserved only by a grammarian whose text is exceptionally corrupt; but they leave no doubt as to the justice of the criticism passed by Horace on his careless and "muddy" diction. The _urbanitas_ which is with one accord conceded to him by ancient critics seems to indicate that his style was free from the taint of provincial Latinity, and it may be regarded as reproducing the language of educated circles in ordinary life; the numerous Graecisms and Greek quotations with which it abounds show the familiarity of his readers with the Greek language and literature. Varro ascribes to him the _gracile genus dicendi_, the distinguishing features of which were _venustas_ and _subtilitas_. Hence it appears that his numerous archaisms were regarded as in no way inconsistent with grace and precision of diction. But it may be remembered that Varro was himself something of an archaizer, and also that the grammarians' quotations may bring this aspect too much into prominence. Lucilius shares with the comic poets the use of many plebeian expressions, the love for diminutives, abstract terms and words of abuse; but occasionally he borrows from the more elevated style of Ennius forms like _simitu_ (= simul), _noenu_ (= non), _facul_ (= facile), and the genitive in -_ai_, and he ridicules the contemporary tragedians for their _zetematia_, their high-flown diction and _sesquipedalia verba_, which make the characters talk "not like men but like portents, flying winged snakes." In his ninth book he discusses questions of grammar, and gives some interesting facts as to the tendencies of the language. For instance, when he ridicules a _praetor urbanus_ for calling himself _pretor_, we see already the intrusion of the rustic degradation of _ae_ into _e_, which afterwards became universal. He shows a great command of technical language, and (partly owing to the nature of the fragments) [Greek: hapax legomena] are very numerous.

50. _Cato._--The treatise of Cato the elder, _De re rustica_, would have afforded invaluable material, but it has unfortunately come down to us in a text greatly modernized, which is more of interest from the point of view of literature than of language. We find in it, however, instances of the accusative with _uti_, of the old imperative _praefamino_ and of the fut. sub. _servassis_, _prohibessis_ and such interesting subjunctive constructions as _dato bubus bibant omnibus_, "give all the oxen (water) to drink."

51. _Growth of Latin Prose._--It is unfortunately impossible to trace the growth of Latin prose diction through its several stages with the same clearness as in the case of poetry. The fragments of the earlier Latin prose writers are too scanty for us to be able to say with certainty when and how a formed prose style was created. But the impulse to it was undoubtedly given in the habitual practice of oratory. The earliest orators, like Cato, were distinguished for strong common sense, biting wit and vigorous language, rather than for any graces of style; and probably personal _auctoritas_ was of far more account than rhetoric both in the law courts and in the assemblies of the people. The first public speaker, according to Cicero, who aimed at a polished style and elaborate periods was M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina, in the middle of the 2nd century B.C.[6] On his model the Gracchi and Carbo fashioned themselves, and, if we may judge from the fragments of the orations of C. Gracchus which are preserved, there were few traces of archaism remaining. A more perfect example of the _urbanitas_ at which good speakers aimed was supplied by a famous speech of C. Fannius against C. Gracchus, which Cicero considered the best oration of the time. No small part of the _urbanitas_ consisted in a correct urban pronunciation; and the standard of this was found in the language of the women of the upper classes, such as Laelia and Cornelia.

In the earliest continuous prose work which remains to us the four books _De Rhetorica ad Herennium_, we find the language already almost indistinguishable from that of Cicero. There has been much discussion as to the authorship of this work, now commonly, without very convincing reasons, ascribed to Q. Cornificius; but, among the numerous arguments which prove that it cannot have been the work of Cicero, none has been adduced of any importance drawn from the character of the language. It is worth while noticing that not only is the style in itself perfectly finished, but the treatment of the subject of style, _elocutio_ (iv. 12. 17), shows the pains which had already been given to the question. The writer lays down three chief requisites--(1) _elegantia_, (2) _compositio_ and (3) _dignitas_. Under the first come _Latinitas_, a due avoidance of solecisms and barbarisms, and _explanatio_, clearness, the employment of familiar and appropriate expressions. The second demands a proper arrangement; hiatus, alliteration, rhyme, the repetition or displacement of words, and too long sentences are all to be eschewed. Dignity depends upon the selection of language and of sentiments.

52. _Characteristics of Latin Prose._--Hence we see that by the time of Cicero Latin prose was fully developed. We may, therefore, pause here to notice the characteristic qualities of the language at its most perfect stage. The Latin critics were themselves fully conscious of the broad distinction in character between their own language and the Greek. Seneca dwells upon the stately and dignified movement of the Latin period, and uses for Cicero the happy epithet of _gradarius_. He allows to the Greeks _gratia_, but claims _potentia_ for his own countrymen. Quintilian (xii. 10. 27 seq.) concedes to Greek more euphony and variety both of vocalization and of accent; he admits that Latin words are harsher in sound, and often less happily adapted to the expression of varying shades of meaning. But he too claims "power" as the distinguishing mark of his own language. Feeble thought may be carried off by the exquisite harmony and subtleness of Greek diction; his countrymen must aim at fulness and weight of ideas if they are not to be beaten off the field. The Greek authors are like lightly moving skiffs; the Romans spread wider sails and are wafted by stronger breezes; hence the deeper waters suit them. It is not that the Latin language fails to respond to the calls made upon it. Lucretius and Cicero concur, it is true, in complaints of the poverty of their native language; but this was only because they had had no predecessors in the task of adapting it to philosophic utterance; and the long life of Latin technical terms like _qualitas_, _species_, _genus_, _ratio_, shows how well the need was met when it arose. H. A. J. Munro has said admirably of this very period:--