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 I have written plebeive, sublegi, quasei (n. 106 II 11 18, n. 109), not plebei ve, sub legi, qua sei; as such inequalities signify nothing but the passing caprice of the writer. Where prepositions are joined to the following noun some will perhaps wish that I had printed them 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. 10443). But in general the originals have been followed even in the division of words.

So.

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 selection, I am by no means sure. — The arrangement of the inscriptions 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 liturgical 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

inscriptions themselves. In Part II., therefore, the most noteworthy 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, mortuom, 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 unwelcome. 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 readable of these had been added, the book would have become much larger, without, as it seemed to me, a corresponding increase in usefulness. Possibly at some time hereafter it may seem best to embody some of these fragments in a separate volume similar to this.

The commentary touches mainly on matters of language. It was not my intention to make the selections the vehicle of systematic instruction in Roman antiquities or law; only such points as came up I have tried to explain enough to make a fair understanding 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 idɩórns in this department, 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 Inscriptionum. 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 illustrations. In grammar, Corssen's works have been laid most frequently under contribution.

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 selections. It is suggested that students learn carefully this introductory 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 suggested 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.

NEW HAVEN, November, 1879.

F. D. A.