R O M R M 661 and Loin du moyen age " (Re d. altfi-'inz. Heldengedichte, Vienna, 1S33 ; Baelir, Gesch. d. rom. Lit. im karohng. Zeitdltei; Karlsruhe, 1840; W. Wattenbach, Der Monch von Sanct Gallen iiber die Thaten Karls des Grossen, Berlin, 1S50 ; Merzdorf, Karolellus, Oldenburg, 1855 Svo ; C. d'Hericault, Sur I'origine de V epopee franraise, 1860 ; F. Guessard, and 2d ed., 1878 sq., 4 vols. SPANISH CYCLE. For the literary history, see E. Baret, De I' Amadis de Gaule et de son influence, 2d ed. 1873 ; L. Braunfels, Krlt. Versuch iiber den Roman Amadis von Galllen, 1876; A. Pages, La biblioth'eque de Don Quichotte: A. de Gaule, 1868 ; P. de Gayangos, Libros de Caballerias [Amadis y Esplandiari], con un discurso preliminar y un catalogo razonado, Madrid, 1857, an able and useful work ; F. A. de Varnhagen, Da Litteratura dos Livros de Cavallarias, Vienna, 1872; SirW. Scott, "Amadis of Ga.nl" (Kdinb. Rev., October 1803); prefaces to Southey's trans, of Amadis of Gaul, 1803, 4 vols., and of Palmerin of England, 1807, 4 vols. For the bibliography, see Barbosa Maehado, Dibliotheca Lusitana, Lisbon, 1741-59, 4 vols. folio ; N. Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana, Madrid, 1783-88, 4 vols. folio ; article by Salva in the Repertorio Americano, August 1827, pp. 29-39; articles in the Wiener Jahrbiicher, xxvi., xxix., xxxi., xxxiii., lix. ; G. Brunet, " l5tude sur les roinans de chevalerie espagnols" (Bull, du Bibliophile, April, May, June, 1861); P. Salva y Mallen, Cat. de la Biblioteca de Salva, Valencia, 1862, 2 vols. ; B. J. Gallardo, Ensayo de una Biblioteca Espanola, Madrid, 1862-66, 2 vols. ; D. Hidalgo, Diccionario General, Madrid, 1862-79, 6 vols. In the first volume of A. J. Duffield's trans, of Don Quixote, 1881, may be seen a long list of the Spanish romances. See also J. Onnsby, "The Spanish Romances of Chivalry" (trans, of Don Quixote, 1885, vol. iv.). TEUTONIC, DANO-ENOI.ISH, &c. See F. J. Mone, V ' ntersuchungen zur teutschen Heldensaye, Quedlinburg, 1836, Svo ; F. H. von der Hagen, Minnesinger, Leipsic, 1838, 4 vols. 4to, and Gesammtabeviewr, Stuttgart, 1850, 3 vols. ; H. A. Keller, Romvart, Manaheim, 1844 ; G. G. Gervinus, G-esch. derdeutschen Dichtung, Leipsic, 1871-74, 5 vols. ; K. Gpedeke, Deutsche Dichtung im Mittelalter, Dresden, 1871, Svo ; A. Bossert, La lift, allemande an Moyen 3ge et les origines de V epopee ger- manique, Paris, 1871 ; A. Nusch, Zur Vergleichung des Nibelungenliedes rn.it der Jlias, Spires, 1863 ; Stolte, Der Nibelungen-N6t verglichen mit der Ilias, Rietberg, 1869; M. Tiirk, Zur Vergleichung, &c., Cronstedt, 1873; O. Schade, "Homer u. d. Nibelungen " (Wissenschaftl. Monatsbl., iii., 1875); A. G. Richey, "The Homeric Question and the Teutonic Epics" (llermathena. 1876); J. Zupitza, Zur Literaturgeschichte des Guy v. Warwick, Vienna, 1873 ; A. Tanner, Die Sage von Guy von Warwick, 1877; T. Wissmann, "King Horn " (Brink 11. Scherer's Quellen, No. 16, 1876); R. Brede, "Ueber die Handschriften der Chanson de Horn " (E. M. Stengel's Ausgaben, 1883, pt. 3) ; F. Ludorff, Ueber die Sprache des Havelok le Danois, 1874, Svo. MODERN ROMANCE. For general works see the separate articles on the great European literatures. The following are some special treatises : Biblio- thek der Romane, Riga, 1782, 21 vols. ; J. Schmidt, Geschichte der Romantik, Leipsic, 1848, 2 vols. ;- J. y. Eichendorff, Der deutsche Roman des XVIIIten Jahrh. , Leipsic, 1851 ; Cholevius, Die bedeutendsten, deutschen Romane des XVIIten Jahrh., Leipsic, 1866; F. Bobertag, Geschichte des Romans in DeutscMand, Breslau, 1876-79 ; H. Korting, Geschichte des framosischen Romans im XVIlten Jahrh., Leipsic, 1S85, pt. 1 ; D. Masson, British Novelists and their Styles, Cambridge, 1859 ; B. Tuckerman, History of English Prose Fiction, New York, 1882. BIBLIOGRAPHY. It has been impossible to do more than indicate the dates and places of the first printed editions of the romances. More full information is to be sought for in J. C. Brunet, Manuel du libraire, 1860-65, 6 vols., Supple- ment by P. Deschamps and G. Brunet, 1878-80, 2 vols. ; J. G. T. Graesse, Tresor de livres rares et precieux, Dresden, 1859-69, 7 vols. 4to ; G. Brunet, La France litteraire au XVe siecle, Paris, 1865 ; A. Firmin-Didot, Essai de classification des romans de chevalerie, 1870, an admirable and careful work ; J. Ames and W. Herbert, Typ. Antiquities, London, 1785-90, 3 vols. 4to ; W. T. Lowndes, Bibliographer's Manual, ed. H. G. Bohn, London, 1857-64, 6 vols. ; Wi Blades, Life of W. Caxton, London, 1861-63, 2 vols. 4to ; B. Quaritch, Catalogue of Romances of Chivalry, 1882 ; G. Melzi, Biblwgrqfia dei romanzi e poemi cav. itali- ani, extended by P. A. Tosi, Milan, 1865, 12mo, first published as supplement to Ferrario, Storia ; P. Paris, Les MSS. franfais de la Bibl. du Roi, 1835-48, 7 vols., with many extracts and accounts of romances ; H. L.. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances in the Department of MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i., London, 1883, a most valuable and scholarly essay, and the most important work yet published on romance. (H. R. T. M. K.) ROMANCE LANGUAGES is the name generally adopted for the modern languages descended from the old Roman or Latin tongue, acted upon by inner decay or growth, by dialectic variety, and by outward influence, more or less marked, of all the foreign nations with which it came into contact. During the Middle Ages the old Roman empire or the Latin -speaking world was called Romania, its inhabitants Romani (adj. fiomanicus), and its speech Romancium, Vulgar Romancio, Italian Romanzo, from Romanice loqui = to speak Romance ; in Old French nominative romanz, objective roman(t Modern French roman, " a novel," originally a composition in the vulgar tongue. In English some moderns use Romanic (like Ger- manic, Teutonic) instead of Romance ; some say Neo-Latin, which is frequently used by Romance-speaking scholars. By successive changes Latin, a synthetical language, rich in inflexions, was transformed into several cognate analy- tical tongues of few inflexions, most of the old forms being replaced by separate form-words. As the literary language of the ancient Roman civilization died out, seemingly ex- tinguished by the barbarism of the Middle Ages, all the forms of the old classical language being confounded in the most hopeless chaos, suddenly new, vigorous, and beautiful tongues sprang forth, ruled by the most regular laws, related to, yet different from, Latin. How was this wonderful change brought about ? How can chaos produce regularity 1 ? The explanation of this mystery has been given by Diez, the great founder of Romance philology. The Romance languages did not spring from literary class- ical Latin, but from popular Latin, which, like every living speech, had its own laws, not subject to the changing literary fashions, but only to the slow process of phonetic change and dialectic variety. It is wonderful how like the very oldest archaic Latin is to the youngest, Modern Romance. A great number of old sounds, forms, and expressions, which were discarded or disused by classical Latin, reappear in late vulgar Latin, and live on in the modern languages. Here especially the words of Horace come true : " Malta renascentur, quae jam cecidere, cadentque Quae mine sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus, Quern penes arbitriimi est et jus et norma loquendi. " The present article, embracing all the Romance languages, dwells chiefly on their common origin and formation. Much of their general history has been treated under LATIN ; only some points, especially phonetic, which need a fuller discussion, are taken up again here. We will now briefly review the fate of popular Latin through its successive stages, showing everywhere the earliest appearance of the germs of Modern Romance. I. First (Pre-Classical) Period: to c. 80 B.C. (Cicero). Latin, like all other literary languages, began as a living Latin popular speech. There was during this first period practi- dialects, cally little difference between the vulgar and the literary language. In the oldest historical time Latin was spoken only in the small territory called Latium. The greater part of Italy proper was occupied by the Umbro-Oscan tribes, whose languages were Italic, related to Latin, yet so different as to be unintelligible to the Romans. The two most distinct types were Umbrian in the north and Oscan in the south. The chief difference between them is that Umbrian was in a much more advanced state of phonetic decay, and was in many respects a precursor of Italian and Romance, while Oscan was still more antique than Latin. When the territories where these dialects were spoken became subject to the Romans, about the beginning of the 3d century B.C., the language of the conquerors was intro- duced, but of course modified by the speech of the con- quered. Thus two groups of provincial dialects 1 were formed. (1) The North or Umbrian and Sabellian Latin, with which Etruscan Latin was closely connected, was peculiarly important, since it spread southwards and ex- tended to the neighbourhood of Rome ; thus Falerii, Prseneste, and Tusculum spoke it. Later it spread to Northern Italy. Being really a fuller development of the tendencies of the old popular Latin and easier to pro- nounce than literary Lafin, at last from the surrounding peasantry it reached the people of Rome and became the source of the modern tongues. (2) The South or Oscan Latin was Latin with some slight phonetic modifications, 1 The Latin dialects have been investigated by K. Sittl, Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache, Erlangen, 1882. On Latin sounds generally see Seelmann, Die A ussprache des Latein, Heilbronn, 1885. Both these books, however, must be used with caution. Sittl has the merit of having traced the relations of North Latin, but has many rash assertions ; see Zeitschr. f. rom. Phil., vi. 608 sq. Seel- mann is superior to Corssen as a phonetician, but is often obscure and given to elaborating strange theories. Thus he arrives at the absurd conclusion that the differences of quantity did not exist in the class- ical age, but that the poets judged of quantity by the close or open sound of the vowel.
