270 



rOINTS CONNECTED WITH THE EARLY HISTORY OF ROME. 



[1854. 



any theory as to the extent of Umbrian influence in the forma- 

 tion of the Latin tongue. 



II. 'I'm: SaDELLO-OsOAN LANGUAGE. 



The language of the ancient ( Iscans and Sabellians, consisting, 

 in all probability, of a fusion of tin- I'mbrian Sabines with the 

 Oscan population whom they conquered, is preserved in several 

 remarkable remains. The most important of these is the Ban- 

 tine Tabic. This document, which seems to have reference to 



the Apulian city ot Bantia, mentioned in the inscripti was 



discovered in the year 1793 at Oppido, on the borders of Lu- 

 cania. It consists of thirty lines, more or less incomplete, and 

 is in consequence only partially deciphered. The next fragment 

 of importance is a stone tablet known by the name of the Cippus 

 Abellanus. This inscription seems to have referred to an agree- 

 ment between the neighbouring t'ampanian cities Abella and 

 Noal. Its adventures are curious. In 1G85 it was removed 

 from Avella Vecckia to the modern village of that name, where 

 it remained in use as a door-step until 1745, when it was 

 remarked by Remondini, a professor in the Episcopal Seminary 

 at-Nola, and by him conveyed to the Museum in that seminary 

 about 1750. The bronze Tablet of Agnone, the most recent 

 contribution to our kgowledge of the Oscan language, was dis- 

 covered at Fonte di Romito, between Capracolta and Agnoneni, 

 184S. It is, however, merely a series of dedications to different 

 deities and heroes, and therefore does not add much to our vo- 

 cabulary of the Sabello-Oscan language. We may add to these 

 sources the fragments of the Atellance, the only remaining branch 

 of Oscan literature. These tabulae Atellana3, we are told by 

 Livy, were a species of farce, which were acted by the Roman 

 youth in what we should call private theatricals; and their re-' 

 presentation had the peculiarity of being permitted to citizens 

 without any detriment to their civic rights. 



As an example of this language, we will take a few lines from 

 the Bantine Table : — 

 L. 11 " Suda3 pis contrud eseik fafakust, auti komono 



hipust, molto etan — 

 " 12. to estud n. MM.; in siife pis ionic fortis meddis moltaum 



berest ampert minstreis aeteis 

 " 13. eituas moltas moltaum likitud." 



This is translated by Donaldson as follows: — "Si quis ad ver- 

 sus hasc fecerit, ant com-unum (i.e., agrum publicum) habuerit, 

 {i.e., possederit) multa tanta esto numi M.M., inde si quis eum 

 validus magistratus multare voluerit, usque ad minores partes 

 pecuniae rnultas multare liceto." 



In this passage we observe many words which throw some 

 light upon etymological principles. Thus in L. 11. eseik points 

 out the old neuter accusative plural of is; an important discovery 

 in itself, as it enables us to account for such forms as prater-eel 

 propter-ed, inter-eci, and to identify the termination with that 

 which appears in the words post/iac, antehac. Again, ionk, in 

 ]., 12, exhibits the original form of the accusative case, corres- 

 ponding to the ordinary Latin hunc. Meddix, again, represents 

 a compound similar to jud-ex, and vind-ex, and seems to mean 

 here medium dicens, or, according to another explanation, con- 

 tains the root med+a merely formative ending x (= c-s). 

 Her est is the perfect subjunctive of a verb hero=" to choose" or 

 " to take," (Sanscr. hri) from the root Mr, " a hand," which we 

 have already found, with a slightly different application, in the 

 Umbrian Tables. Am-pert Donaldson considers to be equivalent 

 to the Latin usque ad, from a comparison of am with the German 



inn, :iIhi used in composition with other prepositions; whileper/ 

 appears with Beveral words in the sense of ad. Minstreis is 

 used here in the sense of " less." The word minis-ter is, in fact, 

 the correlative of magis-ter, the latter meaning a superior, the 

 former an inferior functionary, contrasted as would be the con tils 

 and praetors, and other higher Roman magistrates, with the 

 subordinate attendants, such as were lictors and viators. 



III. The Etruscan Language. 



We now approach the great crux philologorum, the obscure 

 problem of the origin and language of the Etruscans. In the 

 former part of this Lecture, I have endeavoured to confirm the 

 opinion of Niebuhr — that the pure Etruscans are to be con- 

 sidered as Northern Gotiiic invaders; as opposed to that theory 

 (maintained by Dennis, and supported by Prof. Newman) which 

 refers them to Lydia, and would class them among the Semitic 

 family of nations. This question is so difficult, and a discussion 

 of its merits so desirable, that I will here advance some further 

 reasons of a positive character in confirmation of the negative 

 reasoning by which I have above endeavoured to support the 

 Gothic hypothesis. 



1. It is acknowledged, I believe, by most philologers, that the 

 Tyrrhenians and the Etruscans are two widely distinct people. 

 The former name refers us at once to a Pelasgian race ; the latter 

 stands for a Northern tribe, who ultimately conquered this Pelas- 

 gian colon}'. Those who deny this distinction " have endeavoured, 

 by a Procrustean method of etymology, to overcome the difficul- 

 ties caused by the discrepancies of name." — ( Varronianvs, 

 p. 1G.) Those who can identify the names Rascyia and Tyrr- 

 heni cannot expect to find any difficulties in ethnological or phi- 

 lological inquiries. 



2. The express statement of Livy (v. 33), and that not in a 

 hypothetical form, but in a chapter containing "one of the most 

 definite expressions of ethnological facts to be met with in ancient 

 history," goes to connect the Etruscans with the Rhaeti, an Alpine 

 tribe of Goths; an opinion confirmed also by Pliny and Justin, 

 and by Stephanus of Byzantium. (See Varronianvs, p. 18.) 



3. The circumstances of the Etrurian invasion bear a striking 

 resemblance to the later invasion of the Gauls; so much so, that 

 it is bard to refer the different invaders to any but one and the 

 same geographical source. The immigration of the various 

 Germanic tribes into the West, accompanied in their gradual 

 advance by a lateral expansion of portions of their force, drove 

 the Rhseti in the first instance to invade the rich territory of the 

 dominant Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, who had extended their rule 

 over the old Umbrian population to the north and east of the 

 Tiber. The same cause pushed the Gauls down from the old 

 haunts of the Rhasti into the rich settlements of their precursors. 

 Successfully establishing themselves in the vast plains of the 

 Po, the territory afterwards named Cisalpine Gaul, they swept 

 over Umbria and Etruria, and even sacked Rome. But again 

 they were borne back to the old starting point of the Etrurians, 

 and Italy was saved a second time by the city of Horatius and 

 Camillas. 



4. We find that there was a marked difference between the 

 town language in Southern Etruria and that of the country, 

 which can be accounted for only on the supposition that the 

 conquerors established themselves in cities, leaving the cultiva- 

 tion of the fields to the old inhabiiants, who occupied the posi- 

 tion of the Saxons in England, and the periceci in Laconia. 



