The other dialects of the Italian peninsula may be divided into two main groups, the Umbro-Sabellian and the Latin. The former is the more extensive in range in the earlier historic times, and includes Umbrian and Oscau or Samnite, still known to us by inscriptions, and (according to tradition) the language of the Sabines, the Marsians, and the Volscians, of which but scanty traces remain. The latter probably had in prehistoric times a much wider range than that to which we find it afterwards confined. There are no facts to contradict the hypothesis, to which a consideration of the geographical relations of the several tribes seems to point, that at one time, not only Latium, but also Campania, Lucania, Italia proper, and the eastern half of Sicily, were inhabited by tribes belonging to the Latin race. But these regions were early subjected to Hellenizing influences, or conquered by Sabellian invaders, and the only dialect closely akin to the Latin of which any specimens are preserved in inscriptions is that of Falerii in southern Etruria.

The Umbro-Sabellian and the Latin share many characteristics which enable us to unite them as members of a common Italian group; but what is the exact position to be assigned to this group in the Indo-European stock is a question which cannot be regarded as finally determined. Some scholars of eminence, as Schleicher, maintain that its closest affinities are with the Celtic group, mainly on the strength of the agreement of both in the loss of aspirates and retention of spirants, in the form adopted for the expression of the middle or reflexive voice in verbs, and in the dative plural, and on other less significant points. But the more common opinion is that its connexion is closest with the Hellenic group, and that we may safely assume the existence of a common Italo·Hellenic nationality. Hence in vol. xi. pp. 130-131 an attempt was made to reconstruct the main outlines of the language spoken by the ancestors of both Greeks and Romans, and to point out what phonetic-changes and what developments of inflexion must have already taken place. Starting from the basis there laid down, we may now proceed to notice the following leading features, as marking the course of the Italian group of languages after their separation from the Hellenic group. Even for scholars who do not accept this genealogical classification of languages such a survey will not be without its value as a statement of the facts which every theory has to take into account.

1. The vowels remained on the whole unaltered in Latin up to the time of the earliest inscriptions. After that date there was a rapid development of a tendency, of which traces are to be found even earlier, of the degradation of the diphthongs to simple vowels. But in the earlier records we find, e.g., still praidad = praeda (C. I. R., 63), utei = uti (ib., 196), virtutei = virtute (ib., 34), ploirume =plurimi (ib., 32), Leucesius=Lucetius (Carm. Saliar. ), abdoucit= abducit (C. I R., 30). Of these diphthongs ai is found almost exclusively in the inscriptions older than the 7th century of Rome, in words afterwards spelt with ae; ci is found representing an ë or an i as late as the time of Augustus; oi occurs regularly for oe or ΰ up to the time of the Gracchi, and occasionally later; eu is apparently found in the place of a later u only in the one form quoted, although it is probable that in many cases ou represents a still earlier eu, as is shown by Marti Loucekio (O'. I. Rhen., 929) by the side of Marti Leucetio (ib. 930), and by the transliteration of Lucius by Λ∈υκιos; ou is found regularly for u, with rare exceptions, up to the time of the Social War.

Umbrian in this respect shows evidence of a much more rapid decay of the vowel-system, and had reached, at the time at which we learn to know it, a stage of monotony to which Latin only attained several centuries later: e.g., vinu=0. Lat. veinδd, kvestur=O. Lat. quaistor, etu=O. Lat. eito, Aesë=Lat. ärae, tδru≈ Lat. tauros.

On the other hand, Oscan was much more faithful than the contemporary classical Latin to the complex diphthong-system, coming in this respect very near to archaic Latin: e.g., Fluus-aι∙ ≈ Florae, deicum (infinitive, answering to dicere), tozdicom=tuticum (i.e., publicum).

The change of o to u, u to i, and e to i takes place later. Within the history of the Latin language the u retains its full sound, not weakened like the Greek υ to ii.

2. In respect of the consonants the principal change is in the aspirates. While a comparison of Greek shows that they must have retained their character as sonant aspirates up to the time of the separation, none of the Italian languages have preserved them in this form. In Latin the guttural aspirate becomes g in the middle of a word (comp. &γχω and ango, λeiχω and lingo) and before r (comp. grä-tu-s and χdριs, grando and χάλαγα); with a parasitic v frequently appended (angui-s and iχι∙s), which sometimes leads to the loss of the g (brevi-s and βραχύ-s). At the beginning it becomes h (hiemps and χιών, holus and χKo-h) or/(/eland χόλ-os, for-mus and θeρ-μi-s), the two representative letters sometimes alternating dialectically (haedus and faedτιs, our goat; fostis and hostis, our guest). The dental aspirate became medially d (medius and μiσσos for μeθ-yos), or sometimes b (τιber and obθap, ruber and i-pυθ-p6-s; comp, also verbum and word, barba and beard), initially only f (fores and θύρα, ferus and θήρ). The labial aspirate passes medially into b (ambo and &μφω; comp, navibus and vavφιv, containing the same element bhi, although the terminations are not identical), initially into ∕ (fa-ri and Φnμi, fero and φeρω), and rarely into h (perhaps dialectically in horda by the side of forda, and by dissimilation in mi-hi for mi∙bi). Hence it appears that in Latin any one of the three original aspirates may be represented by/; we may compare our laugh (Germ, lachen), dιcαr∕(Germ. zwerg), Middle Eng. dwerth, the Russian Feodor for Theodore, and the change in Greek from p-h (pronounced separately) to ph =f.

The spirants (y, w, s), the loss of which is so marked a feature in the Greek consonant-system, are retained with but few important exceptions. The most important of these is the rhotacism whereby an s between two vowels passes regularly (probably through the intermediate stage of a sibilant pronounced like z) into r between two vowels, as in uro for an earlier usa. The loss of a y (z) between vowels is not uncommon, e.g., sêdo for sedaio through sedao; it is less frequent after consonants, as in obex for ob-iec-s; undeι ’ similar circumstances w (u) disappears, as in amasti for amavisti, canis for cuanis.

With regard to inflexion, the following may be noted as the chief developments subsequent to the stage described in vol. xi. p. 131 :—

1. In substantives there was a considerable extension of the class of z-stems, due partly to new creations, partly to the transformation of stems belonging to other classes. Thus a primitive gamι-s, Gr. βαρΰ-s, in Latin is grau-i-s, a primitive kvan-s becomes cani-s. Very few of the Latin z-stems have corresponding z’-stems in Sanskrit or Greek. In some cases the i appears to have been originally an a; comp, imbri-and oμβpo-.

2. The final -d of the ablative was retained, and (in Latin at any rate) the -bus of the dative plural; on the other hand, the instrumental in -bhi (Gr. φι) does not appear at all on Italian soil.

3. The dual number was lost both in nouns and in verbs, as in the later Greek.

4. An entirely new system of inflexion for the reflexive tenses (the middle, or, as it subsequently became, the passive voice) was created by the use of the reflexive pronoun se as a suffix. (Whether this system is common to the Italian and the Celtic languages, or •whether the apparently similar formations in the latter are of different origin, is a question not yet definitely settled. )

5. In many verbs the compound aorist with an s element was made by the action of analogy into a perfect in si.

6. Numerous verbs adopted for their perfect tenses a suffix in -vi or -ztz'. This has been commonly supposed to represent a new process of combination with the root bhu instead of es; but weighty objections have recently been brought against this explanation, and it can no longer be propounded with confidence.

7. The root bhu was employed to form a past imperfect in -bam, and a future in -bo; but in the case of consonant verbs and t-verbs the latter formation was usually replaced by an optative form used as a future. ·

8. Imperfect and pluperfect tenses of the subjunctive were formed apparently by compounding the present and perfect stems with the optative of the root es, “to be.”

9. The infinitive and participle system received a considerable expansion, especially by the formation of gerundives and supines, which, however, were differentiated in, usage in the various Italian dialects (see below).

10. The pronominal elements, though for the most part the same as in Greek, were commonly used in composition one with another, and thus acquired a different form. ’

11. The «-class also was extended by the more common use of the suffix -tu for verbal nouns.

With regard to the vocabulary, very extensive additions were made, probably in many instances from Celtic sources. Many of the most common Latin words are entirely without demonstrable cognates in the other Indo-European languages; and, even when the common root may be suggested with considerable plausibility, the particular Latin word has evidently behind it a long and independent history, during which its meaning and usage have been greatly modified. Hence all attempts to deal with the etymology of the Latin stock of words are confronted with a residuum which the materials at our command do not allow us to deal with satisfactorily.

The principal distinctions between the Latin branch of the Italian group and the Umbro-Sabellian are the following:—

1. Neither Umbrian nor Oscan had any character for o; for this the former language used v=zz, c.g., puplum<=populum; the latter û (perhaps approximating to o), c.g., pud≈quod, or sometimes u, as in aragetüd=argentδd.

2. The Old Umbrian did not distinguish between surds and sonants in the case of gutturals and dentals, having no g or <Z; but both these letters were used in Oscan.

3. Oscan distinguished between i and i*, the latter a sound probably intermediate between i and e.

4. In Umbrian d, when occurring between vowels, or at the end of a word after a vowel, was replaced by r, in later Umbrian by rs, e.g., asam ap=aram ad, i.e., ad aram, dupursus=bipedibus. K before e and z acquired a palatal sound, not existing in Latin until long afterwards, which was denoted by f j, i.e., ç; e.g., ςcsna=cena,

5. The Umbro-Sabellian dialects agreed in retaining the earlier genitive in s (becoming afterwards in Umbrian r), e.g., Uιta-s, “of a city,” molta-s = multae, while the Latin has in the case of a-, c-, and o-stems substituted for this a form in z', probably a locative.

6. They retain also the future compounded with cs, e.g., Umb.

heriest, Osc. herest=volet, replaced in Latin either by the optative or by a new form in -bo.

7. Both Oscan and Umbrian allowed the velar guttural (q) to pass into p, as in the Gallo-British branch of Celtic and in Greek, while this is never the case in Latin; comp, qui-s and^zs, Quintius with its Samnite equivalent Pontius ≈ Pompeius.

Three clearly marked stages present themselves in the history of the Latin language (1) the archaic stage, previous to the development of literature; (2) the stage of literary culture, during which the popular spoken language runs, as it were, underground, giving but few traces of its existence; (3) the stage at which the popular language reappears as colouring literature, and finally recasting it in its own mould.

The archaic stage is known to us almost wholly from inscriptions, and from isolated forms and words quoted by the grammarians; although a careful study of the phenomena of the diction and especially the metre of the early Roman dramatists reveals to us many of its characteristic tendencies. It may be said to have lasted until the time of Ennius (d. 169 b.c.), whose growing influence is intimated in the epitaph composed for himself by Naevius (d. 204 b.c.) :—

“itaque postquam est Orci traditus thesauro obliti sunt Romai loquier Latina lingua.”

Perhaps the oldest specimen of the Latin language preserved to us is to be found in two fragments of the Carmina Saliaria preserved by Varro (De ling. Lat., vii. 26, 27), and one in Terentianus Scaurus, but unfortunately they are so corrupt as to be quite unintelligible without the help of very extensive conjectural changes in the reading (<f. Jordan, Frit. Beiträge, pp. 211-224). More valuable 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 Arvai brothers, dug up on the site of their grove by the Tiber, 5 miles from the city of Rome; but this also supplies many points for discussion, and even its general meaning is by no means clear (ib., pp. 203-11; cf. Wordsworth, Fragments and Specimens, pp. 157, 158, with the notes).

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, and it is doubtful whether any accurate reproduction of the laws in their primitive form was accessible to our authorities. Hence the language has been much modernized, and any archaic forms which have been preserved are due rather to the citations of the grammarians than to continuous quotations.

Schoell, whose edition and commentary (Leipsic, 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, c.g., ηi it αntestαmino, 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; ast ( = sz)and igitur ( = tum demum) have a different force from that found in later Latin. There are of course numerous isolated archaisms of form and meaning, such as calvitur, pacunt, endo, escit; but on the whole the diction cannot have been accurately preserved.

In the case of inscriptions there is rarely any question of their faithful reproduction of the language at the time at which they were made; but there may be a difficulty about determining their date. Perhaps the oldest fragment of Latin preserved in this way is furnished by a vessel dug up in the valley between the Quirinâl 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 by short broad pipes, so that there is easy communication from one to the other. 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 some signs not belonging to the Latin alphabet proper, but to the other Italian alphabet, e.g., 4 for R, and I for Z, while the M has five strokes and the Q has the form of a Koppa.

The inscription is as follows :—

Jovei Sat deivos qoi med mitat, nei ted endo cosmis virco sied, asted noisi Ope Toitesiai pacari vois.

Dvenos med feced en manom einom dzenoine med maao statod.

The general style of the writing and the phonetic peculiarities make it pretty certain that this work must have been produced not later than 300 B.C.; the characters employed prove that the writer was familiar with one of the dialects spoken in the hilly country to the east of Rome; but on the whole the language may be taken as Latin. Some points in its interpretation are still open to doubt; but the probable interpretation is—

Jovi Saturno divis qui ( = si quis) me mittet, ne te endo ( = in te) comis virgo sit, ast nisi Opi Tutesiae pacari vis.

Duenus me fecit in manum: enim die noni me mano stato.

“If any one brings me to the gods Jupiter and Saturn, let not any maiden be kindly to thee, except unless thou wilt offer a sacrifice to Ops Tutesia.

“Duenus made me for the offering to the dead; therefore on the ninth day place me for the offering for the dead.”

The noteworthy phenomena here are the retention not only of ci but of the much more archaic oi, apparently taking the place of the former by a dialectic variation; ei in einom for a short c i , e for i in feced, g before o, and dz apparently to represent the sound of dy (=H

A bronze tablet recently discovered near the Fucine Lake, and some works of art found at Palestrina, belong to the same period. They are undoubtedly Latin, but the Latin has been mixed with other elements so that it would have been quite unintelligible to a native of Rome.

Of the earlier long inscriptions the most important would be the Columna Rostrata, or column of Duilius, erected to commemorate his victory over the Carthaginians in 260 B.C., but for the uncertainty as to 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 suppose 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 for G (CESET=gess⅛), D retained in the ablative (e.g., in altod marid), o for τι in inflexions (primos, exfodont = exfugiunt), single for double consonants (closes=classes), c 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, -cis, and -is for the accusative plural are interchanged capriciously. The doubts hence arising preclude the possibility of using it with confidence as contemporary evidence for the state of the language.

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. 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. ). The last may therefore be taken as the earliest specimen of any length of Latin as it was written at Rome; it...