to the ceiling. The New English Dictionary points out a possible | possibly a misprint for 1490.1 Foxe states that at "the age of source of the word in Dan. lad, meaning apparently a supporting fourteen years he was sent to the university of Cambridge," framework, found in the name of the turning-lathe, drejelad, and and as he was elected fellow of Clare in 1509, his year of entrance also in savelad, saw-bench, vaeverlad, loom, &c. (2) One of five, was in all likelihood 1505. Latimer himself also, in mentioning formerly six, districts containing three or more hundreds, into his conversion from Romanism about 1523, says that it took which the county of Kent was divided. Though the division place after he was thirty years of age. According to Foxe, survives, it no longer serves any administrative purpose. It Latimer went to school "at the age of four or thereabout." was formerly a judicial division, the court of the lathe being The purpose of his parents was to train him up" in the knowledge superior to that of the hundred. In this it differs from the of all good literature," but his father" was as diligent to teach rape (q.v.) of Sussex, which was a geographical rather than an him to shoot as any other thing" As the yeomen of England dministrative division. In O. Eng. the word was laed, the were then in comparatively easy circumstances, the practice origin of which is doubtful. The New English Dictionary of sending their sons to the universities was quite usual, indeed considers it almost certainly identical with O. Norse lad, landed Latimer mentions that in the reign of Edward VI., on account possessions, territory, with a possible association in meaning of the increase of rents, the universities had begun wonderfully with such words as leið, court, mollacada, attendance at a meeting to decay. He graduated B.A. in 1510 and M.A. in 1514. Before or moot, or with Mod. Dan. laegd, a division of the country for the latter date he had taken holy orders. While a student he military purposes. was not unaccustomed "to make good cheer and be merry," but at the same time he was a punctilious observer of the minutest rites of his faith and "as obstinate a Papist as any in England." So keen was his opposition to the new learning that his oration on the occasion of taking his degree of bachelor of divinity was devoted to an attack on the opinions of Melanchthon. It was this sermon that determined his friend Thomas Bilney to go to Latimer's study, and ask him "for God's sake to hear his confession," the result being that "from that time forward he began to smell the word of God, and forsook the school doctors and such fooleries." Soon his discourses exercised a potent influence on learned and unlearned alike; and, although he restricted himself, as indeed was principally his custom through life, to the inculcation of practical righteousness, and the censure of clamant abuses, a rumour of his heretical tendencies reached the bishop of Ely, who resolved to become unexpectedly one of his audience. Latimer, on seeing him enter the church, boldly changed his theme to a portrayal of Christ as the pattern priest and bishop. The points of comparison were, of course, deeply distasteful to the prelate, who, though he professed his “ obligations for the good admonition he had received," informed the preacher that he "smelt somewhat of the pan." Latimer was prohibited from preaching in the university or in any pulpits of the diocese, and on his occupying the pulpit of the Augustinian monastery, which enjoyed immunity from episcopal control, he was summoned to answer for his opinions before Wolsey, who, however, was so sensible of the value of such discourses that he gave him special licence to preach throughout England. LATHROP, FRANCIS (1849-1909), American artist, was born at sea, near the Hawaiian Islands, on the 22nd of June 1849, being the great-grandson of Samuel Holden Parsons, and the son of George Alfred Lathrop (1819-1877), who for some time was United States consul at Honolulu. He was a pupil of T. C. Farrar (1838-1891) in New York, and studied at the Royal academy of Dresden. In 1870-1873 he was in England, studying under Ford Madox Brown and Burne-Jones, and working in the school of William Morris, where he devoted particular attention to stained glass. Returning to America in 1873, he became known as an illustrator, painted portraits, designed stained glass, and subsequently confined himself to decorative work. He designed the chancel of Trinity church, Boston, and decorated the interior of Bowdoin college chapel, at Brunswick, Maine, and several churches in New York. The Marquand memorial window, Princeton chapel, is an example of his work in stained glass. His latest work was a series of medallions for the building of the Hispanic-American society in New York. He was one of the charter members of the Society of American Artists, and became an associate of the National Academy of Design, New York, of which also William L. Lathrop (b. 1859) an artist who is to be distinguished from him, became a member in 1907. He died at Woodcliff, New Jersey, on the 18th of October 1909. His younger brother, GEORGE PARSONS LATHROP (1851-1898), born near Honolulu on the 25th of August 1851, took up literature as a profession. He was an assistant editor of the Atlantic Monthly in 1875-1877, and editor of the Boston Courier in 18771879. He was one of the founders (1883) of the American copyright league, was prominent in the movement for Roman Catholic summer schools, and wrote several novels, some verse and critical essays. He was the author of A Study of Nathaniel Hawthorne (1876), and edited the standard edition (Boston, 1883) of Hawthorne's works. In 1871 he married in London the second daughter of Nathaniel Hawthorne Rose Hawthorne Lathrop (b. 1851). After his death Mrs Lathrop devoted herself entirely to charity. She was instrumental in establishing (1896) and subsequently conducted St❘ Rose's free home for cancer in New York City. In 1900 she joined the Dominican order, taking the name of Mother Mary Alphonsa and becoming superioress of the Dominican community of the third order; and she established in 1901 and subsequently conducted this order's Rosary Hill home (for cancerous patients) at Hawthorne, N.Y. She published a volume of poems (1888); Memories of Hawthorne (1897); and, with her husband, A Story of Courage: Annals of the Georgetown Convent of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1894). At this time Protestant opinions were being disseminated in England chiefly by the surreptitious circulation of the works of Wycliffe, and especially of his translations of the New Testament. The new leaven had begun to communicate its subtle influence to the universities, but was working chiefly in secret and even to a great extent unconsciously to those affected by it, for many were in profound ignorance of the ultimate tendency of their own opinions. This was perhaps, as regards England, the most critical conjuncture in the history of the Reformation, both on this account and on account of the position in which Henry VIII. then stood related to it. In no small degree its ultimate fate seemed also to be placed in the hands of Latimer. In 1526 the imprudent zeal of Robert Barnes had resulted in an ignominious recantation, and in 1527 Bilney, Latimer's most trusted coadjutor, incurred the displeasure of Wolsey, and did humiliating penance for his offences. Latimer, however, besides possessing sagacity, quick insight into character, and a ready and formidable wit which thoroughly disconcerted and confused his opponents, had naturally a distaste for mere theological discussion, and the truths he was in the habit of inculcating could scarcely be controverted, although, as he stated them, they were diametrically contradictory of prevailing errors both in | LATIMER, HUGH (c. 1490-1555), English bishop, and one of the chief promoters of the Reformation in England, was born at Thurcaston, Leicestershire. He was the son of a yeoman, who rented a farm "of three or four pounds by year at the uttermost." Of this farm he "tilled as much as kept half a dozen men," retaining also grass for a hundred sheep and thirty cattle. The year of Latimer's birth is not definitely known. In the Life by Gilpin it is given as 1470, a palpable error, and " 1 The only reasons for assigning an earlier date are that he was commonly known as "old Hugh Latimer," and that Bernher, his Swiss servant, states incidentally that he was " above threescore and Bad health and anxieties probably made him look older than his years, but under Edward VI. in the reign of Edward VI. his powers as an orator were in full vigour, and he was at his book winter and summer at two o'clock in the morning. seven years "" doctrine and practice. In December 1529 he preached his two | references to many varieties of social injustice and unwise sermons on the cards," which awakened a turbulent controversy customs, in racy sketches of character, and in vivid pictures in the university, and his opponents, finding that they were of special features of the time, occasionally illustrated by unable to cope with the dexterity and keenness of his satire, interesting incidents in his own life. The homely terseness of would undoubtedly have succeeded in getting him silenced by his style, his abounding humour-rough, cheery and playful, but force, had it not been reported to the king that Latimer" favoured irresistible in its simplicity, and occasionally displaying sudden his cause," that is, the cause of the divorce. While, therefore, and dangerous barbs of satire-his avoidance of dogmatic subtleboth parties were imperatively commanded to refrain from ties, his noble advocacy of practical righteousness, his bold and further dispute, Latimer was invited to preach before Henry open denunciation of the oppression practised by the powerful, in the Lent of 1530. The king was so pleased with the sermon his scathing diatribes against ecclesiastical hypocrisy, the that after it "he did most familiarly talk with him in a gallery." transparent honesty of his fervent zcal, tempered by sagacious Of the special regard which Henry seemed to have conceived moderation-these are the qualities which not only rendered for him Latimer took advantage to pen the famous letter on the his influence so paramount in his lifetime, but have transmitted free circulation of the Bible, an address remarkable, not only his memory to posterity as perhaps that of the one among his for what Froude justly calls "its almost unexampled grandeur," contemporaries most worthy of our interest and admiration. but for its striking repudiation of the aid of temporal weapons to defend the faith, "for God," he says, "will not have it defended by man or man's power, but by His Word only, by which He hath evermore defended it, and that by a way far above man's power and reason." Though the appeal was without effect on the immediate policy of Henry, he could not have been displeased with its tone, for shortly afterwards he appointed Latimer one of the royal chaplains. In times so out of joint " Latimer soon became " weary of the court," and it was with a sense of relief that he accepted the living of West Kington, or West Kineton, Wiltshire, conferred on him by the king in 1531. Harassed by severe bodily ailments, encompassed by a raging tumult of religious conflict and persecution, and aware that the faint hopes of better times which seemed to gild the horizon of the future might be utterly darkened by a failure either in the constancy of his courage or in his discernment and discretion, he exerted his cloquence with unabating energy in the furtherance of the cause he had at heart. At last a sermon he was persuaded to preach in London exasperated John Stokesley; bishop of the diocese, and seemed to furnish that fervent persecutor with an opportunity to overthrow the most dangerous champion of the new opinions. Bilney, of whom Latimer wrote, "if such as he shall die evil, what shall become of me?" perished at the stake in the autumn of 1531, and in January following Latimer was summoned to answer before the bishops in the consistory. After a tedious and captious examination, he was in March brought before convocation, and, on refusing to subscribe certain articles, was excommunicated and imprisoned; but through the interference of the king he was finally released after he had voluntarily signified his acceptance of all the articles except two, and confessed that he had erred not only "in discretion but in doctrine." If in this confession he to some extent tampered with his conscience, there is every reason to believe that his culpable timidity was occasioned, not by personal fear, but by anxiety lest by his death he should hinder instead of promoting the cause of truth. After the consecration of Cranmer to the archbishopric of Canterbury in 1533 Latimer's position was completely altered. A commission appointed to inquire into the disturbances caused by his preaching in Bristol severely censured the conduct of his opponents; and, when the bishop prohibited him from preaching in his diocese, he obtained from Cranmer a special licence to preach throughout the province of Canterbury. In 1534 Henry formally repudiated the authority of the pope, and from this time Latimer was the chief co-operator with Cranmer and Cromwell in advising the king regarding the series of legislative measures which rendered that repudiation complete and irrevocable. It was, however, the preaching of Latimer more than the edicts of Henry that established the principles of the Reformation in the minds and hearts of the people; and from his preaching the movement received its chief colour and complexion. The sermons of Latimer possess a combination of qualities which constitute them unique examples of that species of literature. It is possible to learn from them more regarding the social and political condition of the period than perhaps from any other source, for they abound, not only in exposures of religious abuses, and of the prevailing corruptions of society, but in In September 1535 Latimer was consecrated bishop of Worcester. While holding this office he was selected to officiate as preacher when the friar, John Forest, whom he vainly endeavoured to move to submission, was burned at the stake for denying the royal supremacy. In 1539, being opposed to the "act of the six articles," Latimer resigned his bishopric, learning from Cromwell that this was the wish of the king. It would appear that on this point he was deceived, but as he now declined to accept the articles he was confined within the precincts of the palace of the bishop of Chichester. After the attainder of Cromwell little is known of Latimer until 1546, when, on account of his connexion with the preacher Edward Crome, he was summoned before the council at Greenwich, and committed to the Tower of London. Henry died before his final trial could take place, and the general pardon at the accession of Edward VI. procured him his liberty. He declined to resume his see, notwithstanding the special request of the Commons, but in January 1548 again began to preach, and with more effectiveness than ever, crowds thronging to listen to him both in London and in the country. Shortly after the accession of Mary in 1553 a summons was sent to Latimer to appear before the council at Westminster. Though he might have escaped by flight, and though he knew, as he quaintly remarked, that " Smithfield already groaned for him," he at once joyfully obeyed. The pursuivant, he said, was “ a welcome messenger." The hardships of his imprisonment, and the long disputations at Oxford, told severely on his health, but he endured all with unbroken cheerfulness. On the 16th of October 1555 he and Ridley were led to the stake at Oxford. Never was man more free than Latimer from the taint of fanaticism or less dominated by "vainglory," but the motives which now inspired his courage not only placed him beyond the influence of fear, but enabled him to taste in dying an ineffable thrill of victorious achievement. Ridley he greeted with the words, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as (I trust) shall never be put out." He "received the flame as it were embracing it. After he had stroked his face with his hands, and (as it were) bathed them a little in the fire, he soon died (as it appeared) with very little pain or none." Two volumes of Latimer's sermons were published in 1549. A complete edition of his works, edited by G. E. Corrie for the Parker Society, appeared in two volumes (1844-1845). His Sermon on the Ploughers and Seven Sermons preached before Edward VI. were reprinted by E. Arber (1869). The chief contemporary authorities for his life are his own Sermons, John Stow's Chronicle and Foxe's Book of Martyrs. In addition to memoirs prefixed to editions of his sermons, there are lives of Latimer by R. Demaus (1869, new and revised ed. 1881), and by R. M. and A. J. Carlyle (1899). (T. F. H.) LATINA, VIA, an ancient highroad of Italy, leading S.E. from Rome. It was probably one of the oldest of Roman roads, leading to the pass of Algidus, so important in the early military history of Rome; and it must have preceded the Via Appia as a route to Campania, inasmuch as the Latin colony at Cales was founded in 334 B.C. and must have been accessible from Rome by road, whereas the Via Appia was only made twentytwo years later. It follows, too, a far more natural line of communication, without the engineering difficulties which the Via Appia had to encounter. As a through route it no doubt preceded the Via Labicana (see LABICANA, VIA), though the latter may have been preferred in later times. After their junction, the Via Latina continued to follow the valley of the Trerus (Sacco), following the line taken by the modern railway to Naples, and passing below the Hernican hill-towns, Anagnia, Ferentinum, Frusino, &c. At Fregellae it crossed the Liris, and then passed through Aquinum and Casinum, both of them comparatively low-lying towns. It then entered the interval between the Apennines and the volcanic group of Rocca Monfina, and the original road, instead of traversing it, turned abruptly N.E. over the mountains to Venafrum, thus giving a direct communication with the interior of Samnium by roads to Aesernia and Telesia. In later times, however, there was in all probability a short cut by Rufrae along the line taken by the modern highroad and railway. The two lines rejoined near the present railway station of Caianello and the road ran to Teanum and Cales, and so to Casilinum, where was the crossing of the Volturnus and the junction with the Via Appia. The distance from Rome to Casilinum was 129 m. by the Via Appia, 135 m. by the old Via Latina through Venafrum, 126 m. by the short cut by Rufrae. Considerable remains of the road exist in the neighbourhood of Rome; for the first 40 m., as far as Compitum Anagninum, it is not followed by any modern road; while farther on in its course it is in the main identical with the modern highroad. v. I sq. See T. Ashby in Papers the British School at Rome iv. I sq., (T. As.) LATINI, BRUNETTO (c. 1210-c. 1294), Italian philosopher and scholar, was born in Florence, and belonged to the Guelph party. After the disaster of Montaperti he took refuge for some years (1261-1268) in France, but in 1269 returned to Tuscany and for some twenty years held successive high offices. Giovanni Villani says that "he was a great philosopher and a consummate master of rhetoric, not only in knowing how to speak well, but how to write well.. He both began and directed the growth of the Florentines, both in making them ready in speaking well and in knowing how to guide and direct our republic according to the rules of politics." He was the author of various works in prose and verse. While in France he wrote in French his prose Trésor, a summary of the encyclopaedic knowledge of the day (translated into Italian as Tesoro by Bono Giamboni in the 13th century), and in Italian his poem Tesoretto, rhymed couplets in heptasyllabic metre, a sort of abridgment put in allegorical form, the earliest Italian didactic verse. He is famous as the friend and counsellor of Dante (see Inferno, xv. 82-87). For the Trésor see P. Chabville's edition (1863); for the Tesoro, Gaiter's edition (1878); for the Tesoretto, B. Wiese's study in Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, vii. See also the biographical and critical accounts of Brunetto Latini by Thoe Sundby (1884), and Marchesini (1887 and 1890). LATIN LANGUAGE. 1. Earliest Records of its Arca.-Latin was the language spoken in Rome and in the plain of Latium in the 6th or 7th century B.C.-the earliest period from which we have any contemporary record of its existence. But it is as yet impossible to determine either, on the one hand, whether the archaic inscription of Praeneste (see below), which is assigned with great probability to that epoch, represents exactly the language then spoken in Rome; or, on the other, over how much larger an area of the Italian peninsula, or even of the lands to the north and west, the same language may at that date have extended. In the 5th century B.C. we find its limits within the peninsula fixed on the north-west and south-west by Etruscan (see ETRURIA: Language); on the east, south-east, and probably north and north-east, by Safine (Sabine) dialects (of the Marsi, Pacligni, Samnites, Sabini and Picenum, qq.v.); but on the north we have no direct record of Sabine speech, nor of any non-Latinian tongue nearer than Tuder and Asculum or earlier than the 4th century B.C. (See UMBRIA, IGUVIUM, PICENUM). We know however, both from tradition and from the archaeological data, that the Safine tribes were in the 5th century B.C. migrating, or at least sending off swarms of their younger folk, farther and farther southward into the peninsula. Of the languages they were then displacing we have no explicit record save in the case of Etruscan in Campania, but it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence of place-names and tribal names, combined with that of the Faliscan inscriptions, that before the Safine invasion some idiom, not remote from Latin, was spoken by the pre-Etruscan tribes down the length of the west coast (see FALISCI; VOLSCI; also ROME: History; LIGURIA; SICULI). 2. Earliest Roman Inscriptions.-At Rome, at all events, it is clear from the unwavering voice of tradition that Latin was spoken from the beginning of the city. Of the earliest Latin inscriptions found in Rome which were known in 1909, the oldest, the so-called "Forum inscription," can hardly be referred with confidence to an earlier century than the 5th; the later, the well-known Duenos (=later Latin bonus) inscription, certainly belongs to the 4th; both of these are briefly described below (§§ 40, 41). At this date we have probably the period of the narrowest extension of Latin; non-Latin idioms were spoken in Etruria, Umbria, Picenum and in the Marsian and Volscian hills. But almost directly the area begins to expand again, and after the war with Pyrrhus the Roman arms had planted the language of Rome in her military colonies throughout the peninsula. When we come to the 3rd century B.C. the Latin inscriptions begin to be more numerous, and in them (e.g. the oldest epitaphs of the Scipio family) the language is very little removed from what it was in the time of Plautus. 3. The Italic Group of Languages.-For the characteristics and affinities of the dialects that have just been mentioned, see the article ITALY: Ancient Languages and Peoples, and to the separate articles on the tribes. Here it is well to point out that the only one of these languages which is not akin to Latin is Etruscan; on the other hand, the only one very closely resembling Latin is Faliscan, which with it forms what we may call the Latinian dialect of the Italic group of the Indo-European family of languages. Since, however, we have a far more complete knowledge of Latin than of any other member of the Italic group, this is the most convenient place in which to state briefly the very little than can be said as yet to have been ascertained as to the gen relations of Italic to its sister groups. Here, as in many kindred questions, the work of Paul Kretschmer of Vienna (Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, Göttingen, 1896) marked an important epoch in the historical aspects of linguistic study, as the first scientific attempt to interpret critically the different kinds of evidence which the Indo-European languages give us, not in vocabulary merely, but in phonology, morphology, and especially in their mutual borrowings, and to combine it with the non-linguistic data of tradition and archaeology. A certain number of the results so obtained have met with general acceptance and may be briefly treated here. It is, however, extremely dangerous to draw merely from linguistic kinship deductions as to racial identity, or even as to an original contiguity of habitation. Close resemblances in any two languages, especially those in their inner structure (morphology), may be due to identity of race, or to long neighbourhood in the carliest period of their development; but they may also be caused by temporary neighbourhood (for a longer or shorter period), brought about by migrations at a later epoch (or epochs). A particular change in sound or usage may spread over a whole chain of dialects and be in the end exhibited alike by them all, although the time at which it first began was long after their special and distinctive characteristics had become clearly marked. For example, the limitation of the word-accent to the last three syllables of a word in Latin and Oscan (see below)-a phenomenon which has left deep marks on all the Romance languages-demonstrably grew up between the 5th and 2nd centuries B.C.; and it is a permissible conjecture that it started from the influence of the Greek colonies in Italy (especially Cumae and Naples), in whose language the same limitation (although with an accent whose actual character was probably more largely musical) had been established some centuries sooner. 4. Position of the Italic Group.-The Italic group, then, when compared with the other seven main" families" of Indo (i) Back-palatal and Velar Sounds.-In point of its treatment of the Indo-European back-palatal and velar sounds, it belongs to the western or centum group, the name of which is, of course, taken from Latin; that is to say, like German, Celtic and Greek, it did not sibilate original k and g, which in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Slavonic and Albanian have been converted into various types of sibilants (Ind.-Eur. kmtom Lat. centum, Gr. ()-Karóv, Welsh cant, Eng. hund-(red), but Sans. Fatam, Zend satom); but, on the other hand, in company with just the same three western groups, and in contrast to the castern, the Italic languages labialized the original velars (Ind.Eur. god Lat. quod, Osc. pod, Gr. rod-(añós), Welsh pwy, Eng. what, but Sans. kás, "who ?"). European speech, in respect of their most significant differences, | xxx. 224), who thus explained the use of the accusative pronouns with these "passive" forms in Celtic; Ir. -m-berar," I am carried,' ranges itself thus: literally folk carry me "; Umb. pir ferar, literally ignem feratur, though as pir is a neuter word (=Gr. up) this example was not so convincing. But within a twelvemonth of the appearance of Society's Proceedings, 1890, p. 16, and Italic Dialects, p. 113) was disZimmer's article, an Oscan inscription (Conway, Camb. Philol. covered containing the phrase ulliumam (iuvilam) sakrafir, "ultiwhich demonstrated the nature of the suffix in Italic also. This mam (imaginem) consecraverint" (or "ultima consecretur") originally active meaning of the - form (in the third person singular passive) is the cause of the remarkable fondness for the personal" use of the passive in Latin (e.g., itur in antiquam silvam, instead of eunt), which was naturally extended to all tenses of the passive (ventum est, &c.), so soon as its origin was forgotten. Fuller and the authorities there cited (very little is added by K. Brugmann, details of the development will be found in Conway, op. cit. p. 561, Kurze vergl. Gramm. 1904, p. 596). im (v.) Formation of the perfect passive from the -to- past participle, Lat. monitus (est), &c., Ir. léic-the," he was left," ro-léuced," he has character; in Irish (J. Strachan, Old Irish Paradigms, 1905, p. 50) it been left." In Latin the participle maintains its distinct adjectival has sunk into a purely verbal form, just as the perfect participles in only-us in Umbrian have been absorbed into the future perfect in ust or third plural active -us(s)so (probably standing for -ussor) as in (entelust, "intenderit "; benust, "venerit ") with its impersonal passive benuso, ventum erit" (or "venerint "). To these must be further added some striking peculiarities in phonology. (vi.) Assimilation of p to a g in a following syllable as in Lat. quinque Ir. cóic, compared with Sans. pánca, Gr. wire, Eng. five, Ind.-Eur. penge. of all from the historical standpoint-both Italic and Celtic are "son maq, The same distinction appears elsewhere; Germanic belongs, broadly described, to the q-group, an Greek, broadly described, to the p-group. The ethnological bearing of the distinction within Italy is considered in the articles SABINI and VOLSCI, but the wider questions which the facts suggest have as yet been only scantily discussed; see the references for the "Sequanian" dialect of Gallic article CELTS: Language. (in the inscription of Coligny, whose language preserves q) in the From these primitive affinities we must clearly distinguish the numerous words taken into Latin from the Celts of north Italy within the historic period; for these see especially an J. Zwicker, De vocabulis et rebus Gallicis sive Transpadanis apud interesting study by Vergilium (Leipzig dissertation, 1905). (ii) Indo-European Aspirates.-Like Greek and Sanskrit, but in contrast to all the other groups (even to Zend and Armenian), the Italic group largely preserves a distinction between the IndoEuropean mediae aspiratae and mediae (e.g. between Ind.-Eur. dh and d, the former when initial becoming initially regularly Lat. f as in Lat. feci [cf. Umb. feia, "faciat "'], beside Gr. -Onk-a [cf. Sans. da-dha-ti," he places "I, the latter simply d as in domus, Gr. Sóuos). But the aspiratae, even where thus distinctly treated in Italic, became fricatives, not pure aspirates, a character which they retained in Greek and Sanskrit. (iii.) Indo-European ŏ.—With Greek and Celtic, Latin preserved the Indo-European o, which in the more northerly groups (Germanic, Balto-Slavonic), and also in Indo-Iranian, and, curiously, in Messapian, was confused with d. The name for olive-oil, which spread with the use of this commodity from Greek (auFor) to Italic speakers and thence to the north, becoming by regu changes (see below) in Latin first laivom, then bleivom, and then taken into Gothic and becoming alev, leaving its parent form to change further (not later than 100 B.C.) in Latin to oleum, is a particularly important example, because (a) of the chronological limits which are implied, however roughly, in the process just described, and (b) of the close association in time of the change of o to a with the earlier stages of the "sound-shifting" (of the Indo-European plosives and aspirates) in German; see Kretschmer, Einleit. p. 116, and the authorities he cites. (iv) Accentuation. One marked innovation common to the western groups as compared with what Greek and Sanskrit show to have been an earlier feature of the Indo-European parent speech was the development of a strong expiratory (sometimes called stress) accent, upon the first syllable of all words. This appears early in the history of Italic, Celtic, Lettish (probably, and at a still later period) in Germanic, though at a period later than the beginning of the sound-shifting." This extinguished the complex system of IndoEuropean accentuation, which is directly reflected in Sanskrit, and was itself replaced in Latin and Oscan by another system already mentioned, but not in Latin till it had produced marked effects upon the language (e.g. the degradation of the vowels in compounds as in conficio from con-facio, includo from in-claudo). This curious wave of accentual change (first pointed out by Dieterich, Kuhn's Zeitschrift, i., and later by Thurneysen, Revue celtique, vi. 312, Rheinisches Museum, xliii. 349) needs and deserves to be more closely investigated from a chronological standpoint. At present it is not clear how far it was a really connected process in all the languages. (See further Kretschmer, op. cit. p. 115, K. Brugmann, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik (1902-1904), p. 57, and their citations, especially Meyer-Lübke, Die Betonung im Gallischen (1901).) To these larger affinities may be added some important points in which the Italic group shows marked resemblances to other groups. 5. Italic and Celtic.-It is now universally admitted that the Celtic languages stand in a much closer relation than any other group to the Italic. It may even be doubted whether there was any real frontier-line at all between the two groups before the Etruscan invasion of Italy (see ETRURIA: Language; LIGURIA). The number of morphological innovations on the Indo-European system which the two groups share, and which are almost if not wholly peculiar to them, is particularly striking. Of these the chief are the following. (i.) Extension of the abstract-noum stems in -ti- (like Greek páris with Attic Bags, &c.) by an -n- suffix, as in Lat. mentio (stem mention-)Ir. (er-)mitiu (stem miti-n-), contrasted with the same word without the n-suffix in Sans. mati-, Lat. mens, Ind.-Eur. *my-ti-. A similar extension (shared also by Gothic) appears in Lat. iuventu-l-, O. Ir. bitiu (stem oitiut-) beside the simple -tu- in nouns like senālus. (ii.) Superlative formation in -is-mmo- as in Lat. aegerrimus for aegr-ismmos, Gallic Ougiauŋ the name of a town meaning the highest." (iii) Genitive singular of the o-stems (second declension) in Lat. agri, O. Ir.(Ogam inscriptions) magi," of a son." (iv) Passive and deponent formation in -7, Lat. sequitur-Ir. sechedar, "he follows." The originally active meaning of this curious - suffix was first pointed out by Zimmer (Kuhn's Zeitschrift, 1888, 6. Greek and Italic.-We have seen above (§ 4, i., ii., iii.) certain broad characteristics which the Greek and the Italic groups of language have in common. The old question of the degree of their affinity may be briefly noticed. There are deep-seated differences in morphology, phonology and vocabulary between the two languages-such as (a) the loss of the forms of the ablative in Greek and of the middle voice in Latin; (b) the decay of the fricatives (s, v, i) in Greek and the cavalier treatment of the aspirates in Latin; and (c) the almost total discrepancy of the vocabularies of law and religion in the two languages-which altogether forbid the assumption that the two groups can ever have been completely identical after their first dialectic separation from the parent language. On the other hand, in the first early periods of that dialectic development in the Indo-European family, the precursors of Greek and Italic cannot have been separated by any very wide boundary. To this primitive neighbourhood may be referred such peculiarities as (a) the genitive plural feminine ending in -äsöm (Gr. -dwv, later in various dialects wv; -v, -âv; cf. Osc. egmazum rerum "; Lat. mensarum, with -r-from-s-), (b) the feminine gender of many nouns of the -o- declension, cf. Gr. óöòs, Lat. haec fāgus; and some important and ancient syntactical features, especially in the uses of the cases (e.g. (c) the genitive of price) of the (d) infinitive and of the (e) participles passive (though in 44 each case the forms differ widely in the two groups), and perhaps () of the dependent moods (though here again the forms have been vigorously reshaped in Italic). These syntactic parallels, which are hardly noticed by Kretschmer in his otherwise careful discussion (Einleit. p. 155 seq.), serve to confirm his general conclusion which has been here adopted; because syntactic peculiarities have a long life and may survive not merely complete revolutions in morphology, but even a complete change in the speaker's language, e.g. such Celticisms in Irish-English as "What are you after doing?" for "What have you done?" or in Welsh-English as "whatever " for " anyhow." A few isolated correspondences in vocabulary, as in remus from *rel-s-mo-, with peruos and in a few plant-names (e.g. páσov and porrum), cannot disturb the general conclusion, though no doubt they have some historical significance, if it could be determined. 7. Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic.-Only a brief reference can here be made to the striking list of resemblances between the Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic groups, especially in vocabulary, which Kretschmer has collected (ibid. pp. 126-144). The most striking of these are rex, O. Ir. rig-, Sans. rāj-, and the political meaning of the same root in the corresponding verb in both languages (contrast regere with the merely physical meaning of Gr. opeyvvμ); Lat. flämen (for flag-men) exactly Sans. brahman- (neuter), meaning probably "sacrificing," "worshipping," and then "priesthood," "priest," from the Ind.-Eur. root *bhelgh-, "blaze," "make to blaze "; rēs, rem exactly =Sans. rās, rām in declension and especially in meaning; and Ārio-," noble," in Gallic Ariomanus, &c., = Sans. arya-, " noble" (whence "Aryan "). So argentum exactly Sans. rajata-, Zend erezata-; contrast the different (though morphologically kindred) suffix in Gr. äpyupos. Some forty-two other Latin or Celtic words (among them credere, caesaries, probus, castus (cf. Osc. kasit, Lat. caret, Sans. šista-), Volcanus, Neptunus, ensis, erus, pruina, rūs, novācula) have precise Sanskrit or Iranian equivalents, and none so near in any other of the eight groups of languages. Finally the use of an -r suffix in the third plural is common to both Italo-Celtic (see above) and Indo-Iranian. These things clearly point to a fairly close, and probably in part political, intercourse between the two communities of speakers at some early epoch. A shorter, but interesting, list of correspondences in vocabulary with Balto-Slavonic (e.g. the words mentiri, rōs, ignis have close equivalents in Balto-Slavonic) suggests that at the same period the precursor of this dialect too was a not remote neighbour. 8. Date of the Separation of the Italic Group. The date at which the Italic group of languages began to have (so far as it had at all) a separate development of its own is at present only a matter of conjecture. But the combination of archaeological and linguistic research which has already begun can have no more interesting object than the approximate determination of this date (or group of dates); for it will give us a point of cardinal importance in the early history of Europe. The only consideration which can here be offered as a starting-point for the inquiry is the chronological relation of the Etruscan invasion, which is probably referable to the 12th century B.Ċ. (see ETRURIA), to the two strata of Indo-European population-the -CO- folk (Falisci, Marruci, Volsci, Hernici and others), to whom the Tuscan invaders owe the names Etrusci and Tusci, and the -NO- folk, who, on the West coast, in the centre and south of Italy, appear at a distinctly later epoch, in some places (as in the Bruttian peninsula, see BRUTTI) only at the beginning of our historical record. If the view of Latin as mainly the tongue of the -CO- folk prove to be correct (see ROME: History; ITALY: Ancient Languages and Peoples; SABINI; VOLSCI) we must regard it (a) as the southern or earlier half of the Italic group, firmly rooted in Italy in the 12th century B.C., but (b) by no means yet isolated from contact with the northern or later half; such is at least the suggestion of the striking peculiarities in morphology which it shares with not merely Oscan and Umbrian, but also, as we have seen, with Celtic. The progress in time of this isolation ought before long to be traced with some approach to certainty.. THE HISTORY OF LATIN 9. We may now proceed to notice the chief changes that arose in Latin after the (more or less) complete separation of the Italic group whenever it came about. The contrasted features of Oscan and Umbrian, to some of which, for special reasons, occasional reference will be here made, are fully described under OSCA LINGUA and IGUVIUM respectively. It is rarely possible to fix with any precision the date at which a particular change began or was completed, and the most serviceable form for this conspectus of the development will be to present, under the heads of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, the chief characteristics of Ciceronian Latin which we know to have been developed after Latin became a separate language. Which of these changes, if any, can be assigned to a particular period will be seen as we proceed. But it should be remembered that an enormous increase of exact knowledge has accrued from the scientific methods of research introduced by A. Leskien and K. Brugmann in 1879, and finally established by Brugmann's great Grundriss in 1886, and that only a brief enumeration can be here attempted. For adequate study reference must be made to the fuller treatises quoted, and especially to the sections bearing on Latin in K. Brugmann's Kurze vergleichende Grammatik (1902). I. PHONOLOGY account of the most important discovery made since the application 10. The Latin Accent.-It will be convenient to begin with some of scientific method to the study of Latin, for, though it is not strictly a part of phonology, it is wrapped up with much of the development both of the sounds and, by consequence, of the inflexions. It has long been observed (as we have seen § 4, iv. above) that the restriction of the word-accent in Latin to the last three syllables of the word, and its attachment to a long syllable in the penult, were certainly not its earliest traceable condition; between this, the classical system, and the comparative freedom with which intervened a period of first-syllable accentuation to which were due the word-accent was placed in pro-ethnic Indo-European, there had many of the characteristic contractions of Oscan and Umbrian, and in Latin the degradation of the vowels in such forms as accentus from ad+cantus or praecipitem from prae+caput (§ 19 below). R. von Oscan also, by the 3rd century B.C., this first-syllable-accent had Planta (Osk.-Umbr. Grammatik, 1893, i. p. 594) pointed out that in probably given way to a system which limited the word-accent in some such way as in classical Latin. But it remained for C. Exon, in a brilliant article (Hermathena (1906), xiv. 117, seq.), to deduce from noted, see e.g. F. Skutsch in Kroll's Altertumswissenschaft in the more precise stages of the change (which had been gradually letzten Vierteljahrhundert, 1905) their actual effect on the language. 11. Accent in Time of Plautus.-The rules which have been established for the position of the accent in the time of Plautus are these: (i.) The quantity of the final syllable had no effect on accent. (a) if the ante-penult was long, it bore the accent (amábimus); (i.) if the ante-ante-penult was long, the accent was on the ante-penult (amicitia); but (ii.) if the ante-ante-penult was also short, it bore the accent (columine, puérilia). Exon's Laws of Syncope.-With these facts are now linked what may be called Exon's Laws, viz:— In pre-Plautine Latin in all words or word-groups of four or more syllables whose chief accent is on one long syllable, a short unaccented medial vowel was syncopated; thus quinquedecem sups-emere became supsmere and that sumere (on -psm- v. inf.) became quinqdecem and thence quindecim (for the im see § 19), surregere, surregemus, and the like became surgere, surgêmus, and the rest of the paradigm followed; so probably validè bonus became valde bonus, exierd viam became extra viam; so "supo-tendo became avidus) became ardere, audere. But the influence of cognate forms subiendo (pronounced sup-tendo), *āridère, *avidère (from aridus, often interfered; poster!-die became postridie, but in posterórum, posterdrum the short syllable was restored by the influence of the tri-syllabic cases, pósterus, pósteri, &c., to which the law did not apply. Conversely, the nom. "áridor (more correctly at this period aridos), which would not have been contracted, followed the form of ardorem (from *áridőrem), ardere, &c. The same change produced the monosyllabic forms nec, ac, neu, seu, from neque; &c., before consonants, since they had no accent of following word, neque tantum becoming nec tantum, and the like. their own, but were always pronounced in one breath with the So in Plautus (and probably always in spoken Latin) the words i̟ ̧nemp (e), ind(e), quipp(e), ill(e), are regularly monosyllables |