, , - . ■■:•■. .'." TT^T . -
* V *. » . >
46747
GINN & COMPANY
BOSTON • NEW YORK • CHICAGO • LONDON
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, by
FREDERIC D. ALLEN
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington
Copyright, 1908, by
EMMELINE L. ALLEN
712. 1
»•• . c < ' • • « •
tKb t 3 tl) en it urn $rt8g
GINN & COMPANY ■ PRO-
PRIETORS • UOSTON • U.S.A.
PA
25|0
A
PREFACE.
r
'O
'N undertaking this little book I proposed to myself to get
together in small compass, and in a convenient shape for read-
ing and reference, such of the remains of the earliest Latin — pri-
marily inscriptions — as are most important as monuments of
the language, with enough explanation to make them fairly intel-
ligible. The need of such a collection had been felt, I found, by
others as well as myself, and this need had been only partly met
• p_ by Wordsworth's "Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin"
(London, 1874), a work which, with all its merits, is cumber-
some, ill arranged for reference, and too expensive to be widely
circulated. The present book is designed first of all for the more
advanced of our college students, but I venture to hope that
maturer scholars may find it useful as a convenient handbook,
since it comprises within a few pages matter somewhat scattered
and not very generally accessible.
The book is in nowise meant to teach palaeography. The in-
scriptions are presented simply as specimens of Latin. The text
of each is given in minuscules, without any attempt at representing
the appearance or arrangement of the stone or bronze. To have
done this last, even roughly, would have greatly increased the
bulk and expense of the volume (especially as most of the in-
scriptions would necessarily have been repeated in minuscules
f} after all, for cursory reading) without rendering it any better for
its main purpose. I desired furthermore to avoid everything
which would needlessly confuse the eye or the mind of the reader.
Thus it seemed best to indicate to the eye omitted final s and m.
iii
IV REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN.
And in some cases I have not felt bound to follow the original
documents in respect of the division of words ; thus 1 have writ-
ten ftlebeive, sitblegi, quasei (n. 106 II 1118 , n. 109), not plcbei ve,
sub legi, qua sci ; as such inequalities signify nothing but the pass-
ing caprice of the writer. Where prepositions are joined to the
following noun some will perhaps wish that I had printed them
so. But this usage, by no means characteristic of early Latin,
but rather of the imperial period, was at no time the prevailing
one, and it did not seem worth while to perplex the reader with
forms like incastreis (n. 81) and obeas res (n. 104 43 ). But in
general the originals have been followed even in the division of
words.
As to the selection of inscriptions, I drew the line at Sulla's
dictatorship, and admitted nothing later than the law about the
quaestors, n. 106. Down to this period it was my aim to give
pretty much all the inscriptions that illustrated the old language
in any striking way, yet by rigidly excluding less profitable matter
to keep the book within narrow limits. Accordingly I threw out ( 1 )
inscriptions too fragmentary to give any connected sense, (2) those
of little or no linguistic interest, (3) all un-Latin inscriptions, for
instance CI. 183 and 194, (4) the Lex Acilia repetundarum and
the Lex agraria, though sorely against my will, for reasons given
on p. 69. That I have made everywhere the best possible selec-
tion, I am by no means sure. — The arrangement of the inscrip-
tions is approximately chronological, — rather more so than in the
Corpus Inscriptionum, — but it was natural and convenient to
put like material together. And of course in a great many cases
the evidence on which monuments are assigned to this or that
period is presumptive merely. The Carmen Arvale and the
Columna rostrata are put last of all, for reasons which will be
apparent.
The book might reasonably have ended with Part I. But it
seemed a pity to ignore those few remains, of a legal and liturgi-
cal nature, which in their origin far antedate the earliest of our
inscriptions and the beginnings of literature, — remains which,
in spite of the modernizing process they have undergone, are
still in many ways hardly less instructive monuments than the
PREFACE. V
inscriptions themselves. In Part II., therefore, the most note-
worthy of this material has been collected. Here of course only the
outward form and the diction, with now and then a grammatical
detail, can lay claim to antiquity. In these selections I have
followed the best editions, noting carefully the few changes I
have allowed myself. To have attempted at all to restore the
ancient grammatical forms would have been profitless, but I
have silently corrected vu and uu, writing divom, morluom, and
the like, even against the tradition. Occasion has been here
taken to illustrate somewhat fully the nature of the oldest Roman
poetry, according to the principles first laid down by Westphal.
It is hoped that this feature, which is quite new, may not be un-
welcome. — All literary matter, it will be observed, has been
excluded. It was no part of my plan to edit the fragments of
Naevius, Ennius, and other early poets. If even the most read-
able of these had been added, the book would have become
much larger, without, as it seemed to me, a corresponding in-
crease in usefulness. Possibly at some time hereafter it may
seem best to embody some of these fragments in a separate vol-
ume similar to this.
The commentary touches mainly on matters of language. It
was not my intention to make the selections the vehicle of syste-
matic instruction in Roman antiquities or law ; only such points
as came up I have tried to explain enough to make a fair under-
standing of the text possible. Especially in matters of law the
interpretations had to be strictly exoteric ; they are not such as
a jurist would need, but I hope that for untechnical statements
they are fairly accurate. Being myself an ISiurriq in this depart-
ment, I could not have attempted more, had it been desirable.
The foundation of the notes in the inscriptional part is, as a
matter of course, Mommsen's commentary in the Corpus Inscrip-
tionum. And a good deal of aid, first and last, has been derived,
in both parts, from Wordsworth's book mentioned above, — in
the main a thorough and painstaking work, despite occasional
lapses. These special sources must be acknowledged. But
there was plenty of opportunity to supply new remarks and illus-
trations. In grammar, Corssen's works have been laid most
frequently under contribution.
Vi REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN.
In the Introduction, in spite of the temptation to expand it into
a treatise on Latin grammar, I have only registered such leading
facts as seemed essential to an intelligent reading of the selec-
tions. It is suggested that students learn carefully this introduc-
tory part before proceeding to the body of the work.
Several friends have helped me with advice here and there.
But I am under the greatest obligations to Professor Lane of
Harvard University. He has taken the warmest interest in the
work, and besides lending me books, has read and criticised the
proof-sheets of the whole. I am sure that there is not a page of
the book but is the better for some correction or addition sug-
gested by him ; and even this is saying too little. I am also
indebted, for aid on points of law, to Professor Gurney of Harvard
University and Mr. A. S. Wheeler of this college, both of whom
have examined parts of my proof-sheets. To all these I desire
to express my hearty thanks.
Thus much in explanation of the plan of the work, and of what
is — as well as what is not — in it. The making of the little
volume has not been altogether an easy task, and I cannot doubt
that it has many defects ; I only hope that they are not so serious
as to impair altogether its usefulness. I shall be very grateful to
any one who will point out errors or propose improvements.
F. D. A.
New Haven, November, 1879.
CONTENTS,
PAGB.
INTRODUCTION 3
Chief Phonetic Peculiarities of Early Latin 5
Chief Peculiarities of Early Latin Inflexion 8
The Saturnian Verse 12
PART I. INSCRIPTIONS.
Oldest Coins (n. 1-18) 15
Inscriptions on Cups, Mirrors, and the like (n. 19-45) ... 16
Pisaurian Dedications (n. 46-57) 19
Several Smaller Inscriptions, presumably older than the second
Punic war (n. 58-73) 20
Epitaphs of the Scipios (n. 74-79) 22
Law of Luceria about a Sacred Grove (n. 80) 26
Decree of L. Aemilius Paullus (n. 81) 27
Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus (n. 82) 28
Smaller Inscriptions, from the second Punic war to about the
Gracchan period (n. 83-97) 32
Dedicatory Inscriptions of Mummius (n. 98, 99) .... 34
Milestone of Popilius (n. 100) 35
Boundary-stones (Termini) (n. 101, 102) 36
Tabula Bantina (n. 103) 37
Decision of the Minucii between the Genuates and their tribu-
taries (n. 104) 41
Senatus Consultum de Tiburtibus (n. 105) 48
Lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus (n. 106) 49
Inscriptions of Campanian magistri pagorum (n. 107-109) . . 5*
vii
vill CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Several Dedicatory Inscriptions, of the time of the Gracchi or later
(n. 110-116) 56
Several Public Inscriptions, of about the same period (n. 117-123) 58
Sepulchral Urns (n. 124-135) 60
Epitaphs, dating from about the Gracchan period on (136-148) . 61
Song of the Arval Brothers (n. 149) 65
Columna Rostrata (n. 150) 67
Lex Acilia repetundarum and Lex agraria, brief notice (n. 151,
152) 69
PART II. OLDEST REMAINS FROM LITERARY SOURCES.
Old Prayers from Cato de re rustica (n. 153-156) .... 70
Fragments of the Carmina Saliaria (n. 157) 74
Formulae of Calatio (n. 158) 75
Form of a Devotio (n. 159) . . 76
Formulae of the Fetiales (n. 160-162) 77
Form of proposing a Ver Sacrum (n. 163) 80
Form of Adrogatio (n. 164) 81
Fragments of the ' Leges Regiae ' (n. 165-173) 81
Fragments of the Laws of the Twelve Tables (n. 174-207) . . 84
Lex Silia de ponderibus publicis (n. 208) 93
Proverbs and Saws (n. 209-216) 93
Verses from old Triumphal Inscriptions (n. 217-220) . . .95
Index 97
Key to the Inscriptions 105
REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN.
INTRODUCTION.
1. By Early Latin we usually mean the language spoken
at Rome down to about the time of the first civil war, —
say 672/82, — that is, to the beginning of the Ciceronian
period. Of this earlier Latinity we possess, on the whole,
rather scanty remains.
2. Through literary channels nothing has reached us in an
entire condition except the plays of Plautus and Terence,
twenty-six in number, and the short prose treatise of Cato
de re rustica. Of other poets — Naevius, Ennius, Lucilius,
etc. — we have a good many fragments; of prose writers
much fewer. From a time anterior to the beginning of liter-
ature, there have been preserved to us a very few prayers,
laws, and other formulae ; most of this material will be found
in Part II. of this book. But all these remains, transmitted
to us as they have been indirectly through many hands,
have unfortunately been more or less modernized, so that
from them alone we could gain but an imperfect idea of
the early language.
3. It is the Inscriptions of this period which afford us the
surest means of acquainting ourselves with the Latin lan-
guage in its earlier stages. These alone give certain testi-
mony as to the forms of speech of the time when they were
3
4 REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN.
written. Of late years there has been greatly increased
activity in collecting and studying Latin inscriptions.
4. The recently awakened interest in the study of early Latin,
which has gone hand in hand with the historical or 'comparative'
study of language generally, received its first distinct impulse from
Friedrich Ritschl (b. 1806, d. 1876), who besides his well-known
labors on Plautus, and numerous other contributions, published in
1862" Priscae Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica" a collection of
the earliest inscriptions with admirable fac-simile representations. All
inscriptions of the republican period are united, with fuller commen-
tary, in the first volume of the " Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum "
(Berlin, 1863), edited by Theodor Mommsen. Among the many
others who have furthered these investigations, Wilhelm Corssen
(b. 1820, d. 1875) deserves special mention for his grammatical re-
searches, embodied in the large work, " Aussprache, Vokalismus und
Betonung der lateinischen Sprache" 2 vols. (2d edit., Leipzig, 1868-70),
and in two smaller books.
5. The Romans learned the art of writing and received the alpha-
bet from the Greeks of Cumae, 1 at a time not to be exactly defined.
The oldest extant inscriptions date from about 300 B.C., but writing is
certainly known to have been practised, though probably to a limited
extent, long before that period.
1 The Cumaeans used the old West-Greek alphabet differing in several
respects from the later Attic alphabet familiar to us. The Romans adopted
it without essential change, except that they rejected the signs for 0, %,
indifferently for any i, very seldom for e.
Note 2. We thus distinguish two sorts of ei. (i.) The genuine
diphthong which was once pronounced as such, so that the diphthongal
spelling is etymologically justified. This is the case for instance in
root-syllables as strengthening of i, as deico {die-), feidus {fid-), like
leinu (kin-) ; and in the dative singular of the third declension, virtu-
tei; also in the nominative, dative, and ablative plural of the second
declension, virei, doneis (where it stands for still older oi), and in the
dative and ablative plural of the first declension, vieis (where it stands
for older ai) ; so, too, in the pronouns heic and quei, in sei 'if'; and
in other words. This genuine ei is found in the earliest inscriptions.
(2.) The spurious ei, never pronounced as a diphthong, but merely
written in place of i. It is unknown in the earlier inscriptions, but
frequent from about the Gracchan period (620/134) on. Examples
are ameicus, audeire; the accusative plural and ablative singular of
/-stems, as omneis, fontei ; the infinitive passive, as darei ; also the
6 REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN.
genitive singular of the second declension, as populei /' and the perfect
indicative, fecei, posedeit. In tibei, sibei, ibei, ubei, nobeis, vobeis, utei,
the diphthongal spelling reaches further hack, and may be well founded,
though it is difficult to account for it etymologically.
10. Diphthong ou, in place of later u : douco, Louci?ia.
Note. This diphthong is almost always a strengthening of u in root-
syllables ; douco (due-) as \ I W I I W I i W \ I w
ww ww ww ww (ww,) ww _ I ww ww ww \\jyj) WW •
For examples see n. 74-77, 98, in, 137, etc.
67. A secondary form has the first series catalectic, but
adds an anacrusis to the second. For an example, see n. 75
(/'),v. 1.
68. Rarely tetrapodic series occur among the Saturnians.
They are longer than the above by one syllable — an addi-
tional thesis at the end. For an instance see n. 75 (/), v. 6.
INTRODUCTION. 1 3
69. The Saturnian seems to be a development of a still older
and ruder Italic verse-form, in which the most ancient carmina were
conceived. Carmen means 'formula,' 'set form of words'; such in
the earliest times were always in some sort of verse, however rude.
This rhythmical character, before the art of writing was known, was
all that gave such formulae any permanence, and preserved them from
constant change. Accordingly we find that not only the prayers and
proverbs, but the laws — or rather legal maxims — of this period, and
the set forms of speech of political and religious life, are constantly
spoken of as carmina. Of the outward form of this earliest poetry we
can form some idea from such specimens as n. 153 fig. It is based on
word-accent rather than on quantity, and is in this respect like English
verse. The theses (ictus-syllables) are not necessarily long, but the
accented syllable of every word, whether long or short, must stand as
thesis. For the rest the general rhythm is not unlike the Saturnian, but
the verse is more freely constructed, and syncopation (omission of the
arsis) is much more frequent. The rhythmical divisions correspond in
general with divisions of the sense. Each half-verse has four, rather
than three, ictus ; but when, as is usual, the two last are brought to-
gether by syncopation, the last does not receive much stress. See fur-
ther the note on n. 153.
EXPLANATION OF SIGNS.
CI.: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Vol. I., edidit Theod
Mommsen.
PLM. : Ritschl's Priscae Latinitatis Monumenta,
Eph. Epigr. : Ephemeris Epigraphica (supplement to the Corpus
Inscriptionum).
In the text :
Italics indicate additions by conjecture ; in the inscriptions they
supply what has been broken off or effaced: as Covnelios.
Parentheses indicate the filling out of abbreviations : as pr(aetor).
Small final letters (as in omne m ) supply, for convenience in read-
ing, consonants which have been neglected in writing because of their
weak sound; see Introduction, 17-19. They are to be pronounced
either not at all, or very slightly.
In the notes: a prefixed asterisk signifies a hypothetical form : *-
dant.
Dates are given thus : 520/234 ; that is, 520 A.U.C. = 234 B.C.
14
Part I.
INSCRIPTIONS.
Oldest Coins.
1 . Romanom or Romano" 1 . 9. Paistano 1 "
2 . Roma.
3. Corano™ or Korano™.
4. Coza or Cozano" 1 .
5. Alba.
6. Caleno ra .
7. Suesano™.
8. Suesano m {reverse),
Prboum {obverse),
{or Proboum, Probom).
17
18
10. Benventod {obv.},
Propom {rev.).
11. Aisernino m .
12. Aisernio m .
Aisernino™ (rev.),
Volcanom (obv.).
Tiano m .
Caiatino m .
13
14.
J 5-
16. Aquino™.
L. Pulio 9 L. f., C. Modio 9 Cn. f.
Se. Pos., P. Bab.
1-18 selected from CI. 1-27. Coins, chiefly of the fifth century a.u.c,
from Rome, Cora, Cosa, Alba, Cales, Suessa, Paestum, Beneventum, Aeser-
nia, Teanum, Caiatia, Aquinum. The city is mostly indicated by the gen-
tile name in the genitive plural; Romanom = J?omanorum (Introd. 35),
etc. But in 2 and 5 we have the city name in the nominative, and in 10 in
the ablative ('from Beneventum').— Whether in Coza, Cozano, we have
really the obsolete letter z, as most think, or merely a peculiar form of s
(Mommsen, Milnzwesen, p. 315), is uncertain. — What Prboum, etc., in 8
and 10 means, is not clear. It is usually taken as probum, ' sterling," referring
to the coin, but Mommsen disapproves this, not without reason. — In 12,
14, 16 we have the obsolete gentiles Aesernius, Tianus, Aquinus instead of
the usual Aeserninus, Teanensis, Aquinas. — Volcanom in 13 is accusative
«S
16 REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN. [n. 19-28
Inscriptions on Cups, Mirror 8, and the like.
19. Aecetiai pocolom. 23. Lavernai pocolom.
20. Belolai pocolom. 24. Saeturni pocolom.
21. Coerae pocolo" 1 . 25. Salutes pocolom.
22. Keri pocolom. 26. Volcani pocolom.
27. Aisclapi pococolom.
28. C. Ovio" Ouf(entina) fecit.
singular: cp. n. 42, and note. — In 17 and 18 (coins of Luceria) we have
the names of the duomviri who superintended the coining, in the nomina-
tive singular (Introd. 17). They are to be read Lucios Pullios Luci filios,
Gaios Modios Gnaivi filios ; Servios Postumios, Poplios (i.e., Publius) Bub-
bios. For Gnaivi = Gnaei, cp. n. 74 b.
10-45 = CI. 43-52, 54, 56-60, with additions from Eph. Epigr. 5-24, and
Philologus, 37, p. 175. The vessels and works of art are mostly of Etruscan
origin, and date somewhere from 350-200 B.C. The Latin language was
rapidly spreading in Etruria. The pocola were sacred temple utensils ; each
bears the name of the god to which it belonged. — 19. Aecetia is as it
were *Aequitia (= Aequitas), formed like iustitia, duritia, etc. : c is for qu,
and e is the o of stem aequo- not yet sunk quite into /. Whether in a geni-
tive like this we are to read -ai (Introd. 27), or contracted ai (= ae), cannot
be told. — 20. Belola: probably dialectic for Bellona: the cup is orna-
mented with a head having snake-hair. — 21. A goddess Coera (= Cura 5 )
is not elsewhere known. — 22. Kerus means 'creator' (root as mcre-are),
and in the Salian Hymns (n. 157) Janus was called ' duonus cents' but it is
by no means certain that Janus is meant here. — 23 Laverna (root as in
/"■crum, airo-hav-etv) was a goddess who is said to have enjoyed the special
veneration of thieves. — 24. Saetumus is an old form of Satumus, but
the ae (or ae?) is hard to explain. The root is certainly sa-, ' sow.' Saturn
was god of agriculture. — 25. Salutes: see Introd. 37. — 27. Aisclapiua
= 'AoK?.a.Tt6r } without the help-vowel used in the ordinary form Aescula-
pius. The diphthong in this name receives its elucidation from the dialec-
tic Greek form AJ(TjAa7r/(.» on a bronze statuette (Ann. dell' inst. arch. 1834,
p. 223). pococolom is of course only a blunder. — 28. On a bronze bust
of Medusa. Outcu/ma, sc. tribu. See Introd. 10. The designation of a
man's tribe is added in the ablative. The tribe L/ferttinawas formed 436/318.
N. 29-36.] INSCRIPTIONS ON CUPS, MIRRORS. ETC. 17
29. C. Pomponi Quir(ina) opos.
30. L. Canoleios L. f. fecit Calenos.
31. Retus Gabinio 8 C. s. Calebus fecit.
32. C. Gabinio 9 T. n. Caleno 9 .
33. Eco C. Antonios.
34. Dindia Macolnia fileai dedit.
Novios Plautios med Romai fecid.
35. Castor. Pater Poumilionom.
36. Iovos. Apolo. Menerva. Diana. Iuno. Mercuris.
Leiber. Victoria. Mars. Fortuna.
— 29. On bronze image of Jupiter. The tribe Quirina was added 513/241.
opos: see Introd. 12. — 30. On a patella found at Tarquinii. A similar
one found at Caere has an almost identical inscription. — 31. One of three
similar inscriptions on patellae. Retus, i.e., Rhetus. C. s. is probably Gai
servos, i.e., Gai liber/us. The slave Rhetus assumed at manumission his
master's (C. Gabinius) gentilician name. Calebus for Calibus by what is
probably a mere irregularity of spelling : cp. n. 75 b. ; 104, 1. 39. — 32. T. n.
= Titi nepos. — 33. Eco : read ego; Introd. 25. Supply feci. This inscrip-
tion is on the cover of a well. — 34. Inscription of the famous Cista Ficoro-
niana, found at Praeneste, with admirable engraved designs. Dindia —
elsewhere a notnen gentilicium — seems here a feminine praenomen. Ma-
colnia = Magulnia. Probably the c is meant as g, and we should pro-
nounce Magclnia : Introd. 25. flleai and fecid are mere inaccuracies.
Novios must be thought of as a freedman of the Plautian gens, med is
accusative : Introd. 44. Romai : locative.
The following, from mirrors and cistae, are designations attached to the
figures of the drawings. They are meant to be Latin, but some are tinged
with foreign — doubtless Etruscan — peculiarities. Indeed I have omitted
four of these, as quite too un-Latin ; but I cite from them a few forms
which are instructive as showing how Greek names were Italicized in early
times: Aciles (Achilleus), Casentera (Casandra), Crisida (Chryseis), Teses
(Theseus) , Ateleta (Atalanta), Felena (Helena: probably Velena, Fe?.eva,
F being used as in Etruscan), Acmemeno (Agamemnon), Lavis (Lais).
An Amazon is marked Oinumama, i. e. unimamma, ' one-breasted.' —
35. Poumilionom = pumilionum. — 36. Iovos is a strange nomina-
tive. Menerva is the regular old Latin form : root as in mens. CI. 1457,
1 8 REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN. [N-37"4S
37. Castor. Amucos. Polouces.
38. Telis. Aiax. Alcumena.
39. Taseos. Luqorcos. Pilonicos, Tasei filios.
40. Marsuas. Painiscos. Vibis Pilipus cailavit.
41. Iuno. lovei. Hercele.
42. Venos. Diovem. Prosepna is.
43. Cupido. Venos. Vitoria. Rit.
44. Mirqurios. Alixentrom.
45. Oinomavos. Ario. Melerpanta.
1462. Mercuris : Introd. 32. — 37. Amucos = Amycus (king in
Bilhynia). Polouces = Polluces (Plaut.) from tln^vSevK^g: ou repre-
sents £r. Later shortened to Pollux. — 38. Telis is Thetis. Alcumena
= 'Afaiurpf7}, with a help-vowel, as always in Plautus. — 39. Luqorcos
= the Doric AvK&pyog : c is of course to be read^. Pilonicos = $Mvei-
nor. — 40. Painiscos = YlavioKog, diminutive of tlav. The diphthong
is singular: but cp. n. 27. Vibis = Vibios; Introd. 32. I'hilippus is a
freedman of the Vibian gens. Note nom. in -us. — 41. Iovei, dative, is
on a representation of an altar; so is a dedication, ' to Jove.' Hercele(s)
is, however, nominative. — 42. We have here three cases : nominative, ac-
cusative, and genitive. The accusative in works of art is to be explained
(according to Mommsen) by understanding vides. Cp. n. 13 and 44. The
genitive supposes imago or some such word : it is common on Grecian
vases. Diovem: see on n. 73. Prosepnais : Introd. 29. There is a
dispute regarding this form of genitive, some (Ritschl, Biicheler) maintain-
ing that it is a real ancient form (-a-ls = Sanskr. -a-jas) which afterwards
survived in the provincial -aes (see n. 145), others (Mommsen, Corssen)
regarding all these as spurious grecizing genitives, in imitation of those in
I incline to the former view. Prosepna without an r approaches
n.epae^~.
Vt/\^->^
74. ((i.) L. Conic/io* Cn. f. Scipio
(/;.) Cornelius Lucius Scipi6 Barbatus z.'
Gnaiv6d patre prognatu>, fortis vir sapiensque,
quoius forma virtu tjji parisuma fuit,
^^ — *c,ons6l censt')r aidilis qtuji fuit apud vos,
Taurasia" 1 Cisauna" 1 S.'uuuio cepit,
subigit omnP L,qucanam 6psid6sque abdoucit.
Suppl. iii. p. 1 ; Cales. Apolone : cp. n. 65. — 73. PLM. Suppl. ii. p. 12.
The meaning is uncertain, castud facitud seems best taken, with Ritschl,
as ablative absolute, facitud being perhaps dialectic for factod. Castus is a
season of fasting. Diovis is the older form of lovis : see n. 42 and 96 : Diove
also occurs in a fragment, CI. 188. Compare Zfi'C, for * A/fir/. It does not
appear whether Diovis belongs with the following or preceding words.
Iunone Loucinai is, of course, dative.
74. CI. 29, 30. This and the following epitaphs were found in the fam-
ily tomb of the Scipios, near the Appian Way, outside the ancient Porta
Capena, where excavations were made in the 17th and 18th centuries. They
are preserved in the Vatican Museum. — Inscription a is J^micJ only, on
the upper margin of a sarcophagus; b is cu jon the side of the same. The
latter is in its forms (nom. in -us) less archaic than the former, or even than
the next epitaph — that of the son. Hence it is all but certain that only the
painted inscription dates from the time of the burial, and that the other was
cut a good many years (at least 50) later. The subject of the epitaph, the
great-grandfather of Scipio Africanus the elder, was consul 456/298, and cen-
sor 464/290. The campaign mentioned took place during his consulship,
in the third Samnite war.
For the Saturnian metre of this and the three following epitaphs, see
Introd. 65 fig. — Lucius: the praenomen is put after the nomen, for
metrical convenience. Lucius apparently, with long i ; so also in the next
epitaph. This would seem to have been the earlier pronunciation. Ob-
serve that we do not have * Loucius, though we might expect it, as the root
is the same as in Loucina, Loucetius (namely, luc-, ' shine'), and the Oscan
has Luvkis. — Gnaivod = Gnaeo. The name Gnaivos — later Gnaeus —
is t! as {g)nar, m >,' 'birth-mark' : from it comes Naevius. —
patre : with long e; Introd. 38. — forma: long a in the nominative;
Introd. 26. So also parisuma = parissima. The above scansion of this
line seems to me the only right one : parlssuma has the i short, not because
IA>
N.7S-] EPITAPHS OF THE SCIPIOS. 23
75. (a.) L. Cornelio 9 L. f. Scipio, aidiles cqsol cesor.
(l>.) Hone oino 111 ploirume' cose nti6n t 'Kojndne
y c£ cU t xtCi duon6ro m 6ptum6 m false vir6 m virdrd*.
j—, Luciom Scipi6ne m . Fili6s Barbati,
cons61 cens6r aidilis hie fu6$ &pud vos ;
hec c£pit C6rsica m Aleria m que urbe m ,
ded£t Tempestatebus aide m mereto*/ votam
one s is written, for that is merely graphical, but by the now well-known
' Plautinian usage which allows a long syllable to be used as short in certain
positions; namely, (1) when it follows a short ictus-syllable (6 — = w v^),
and (2) when it stands between a preceding short syllable and a following
ictus (w— — =^vy— ). It is true that an interior syllable of a word is
seldom affected in this way, but cp. siniillumae, Asin. 241 ; dedisse. Pseud.
990. — fuit. (v. 3) with long «,• not infrequent in old Latin (Plautus, En-
nius). — censor: the original quantity, as in censoris. — fuit (v. 4): see
"Introd. 57 (2). — Taurasia and Cisauna are towns in Samnium ; the for-
;
mer referred to by Livy, xl. 38, the latter quite unknown. Samnio Ritschl
takes as accusative, but Mommsen as ablative, saying, not without force,
that it is strange to mention two unimportant places and then say that he
took the whole country. As ablative it would mean ex Samnio partitively,
rather than in Samnio ; but we miss the final d (cp. Gnaivod). — subigit :
4_aj, Introd. 56. Yet we might read subig'it. — Loucanam (sc. terram) for
Lucaniam. — opsides : ob appears as op regularly in early Latin in com-
position before a surd consonant. Not assimilation : op is the older form ;
Oscan op, Umbrian up, Greek km. — abdoucit : Introd. 10, note. Observe
the change of tense : cepit, subigit, abdoucit.
75. CI. 31, 32. Inscription a is painted, b is cut. One slab is missing,
so some of the verses are incomplete : the supplements are Ritschl's (except
that of v. 1). This Scipio, son of the
). This Scipio, son of the preceding, was consul 495/259 and
fought in the first Punic war, and was censor 496/258. — aidiles : a nomi-
native like nubis, volpes, canes (Plaut.) : these were more numerous in early
" times. But see the usual form below in b, v. 4. — cosol, cesor : Introd. 20.
•p So cosentiont below. — Hone oino m ploirume = hunc unum pturimi.
Introd. 48 and 8. The e in ploirume is for ei, Introd. 9. — duonoro m :
duonus and duellum are the older forms of bonus, bellum. On the form of
these first two verses see Introd. 67. — Luciom as in n. 74. —hie, but in
the next verse hec: both stand for heic ; Introd. 9 and 48. — fuet like
dedet, etc.; Introd. 57 (2). — cepit Corsica™ : during his consulship.
Aleria being the principal town of Corsica, its capture deserves separate
1 A~X
I
- 7*7
24 REMNANTS OF EARLY LATIN. [N. 76.
76. Quei dpice m insigne" 1 Dili's y?aminis gesistei,
mors perft.v/7 tua ut £ss£nt 6mnia breVia,
honus_ fama virtusque gl6ria atque ing^nium :
quibus sei in 16nga licu/s^t tibe uti