The present article, embracing all the Romance languages, aims at tracing on the one hand their common origin and their common development, on the other hand at pointing out the peculiarities of the individual languages and the possible explanations of the growth of these peculiarities. Their common development is mainly dealt with under Latin Language. The relation of the early vulgar Latin to the literary language, the spread of Latin following the spread of Roman rule, the prevalence of Latin over Oscan, Umbrian, Etruscan, and late Iberian and Gallic—all these matters concern rather the history of Latin than of the Romance languages. But we may say broadly that the language spoken throughout the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus was fairly uniform, and that naturally differentiations took place (varying according to regions) which were not, however, strongly marked, and which even tended to be obliterated in later times.
The main causes of these variations were twofold. (1) The process of Romanizing the various districts took place at epochs far remote one from the other, and between the earliest and the latest of these epochs Latin itself was modified.[1] (2) We have the reaction on Latin of the languages of the pre-Roman populations.
Applying this first point of view, we should find that the oldest form of Latin (oldest, that is, for our present purposes) was introduced into Sardinia (238 B.C.); next comes Spain (197 B.C.), Illyria (167 B.C.), South Gaul (120 B.C.), North Gaul (50 B.C.), Raetia (15 B.C.), Dacia (A.D. 107). And we can actually trace some of the results of these differences in date, chiefly perhaps in the vocabulary and morphology of the Romance languages. When, for example, we find the dative illui (Ital., Fr., Rum. lui) missing in the Iberian peninsula, we may infer that it was unknown to the Latin introduced there, and conversely that Latin still used the ancient cova (Sp. cueva, “cava”) and not the more recent cava (Ital. cava), also demagis or gumia, which we only know from Lucilius, Sp. demas, gomia.
We may be justified in assigning to these historic causes the beginnings of the divergence from the original uniformity. Neither active intercourse, nor the dislocations of tribes and populations brought about by the exigencies of military or colonizing enterprise, ever effected a complete fusion of these divergences. To this we must add, as a second element, ethnic considerations.
To begin with, we seem to find in Italy itself, among the Italic population in country districts, the survival of isolated forms which had been discarded by the literary language with its levelling tendencies, and in consequence also by what may be called “Average Latin” (Durchschnittslatein). In early Latin. d becomes r before labials, e.g. ar me advenias occurs in Plautus; arvorsus, arger from *arfger are the ancient forms. Only arbiter has survived as a word of the official language and because in general feeling the noun was consciously connected with the verb baetere, though it was soon discarded. Arger, under the influence of aggerere, aggestus, became agger, and arvorsus was displaced by advorsus. In Abruz. we have arbendá, “to repose,” beside Sicil. abbintari which suppose *arventare beside adventari; Abruz. armuri, “to put out the fire,” represents Lat. *armoriri instead of admoriri; arbukká is found beside Ital. abboccare.
All these forms are only attested in Italy, and they might by reason of their prefix be classed as Umbrian, since in Umbrian ar for ad is even commoner, cf. the place-name Arestaffele in Molise, which in Latin would be ad Stabula, save that the limitation to the cases that are in line with the Latin rule prove precisely that this is not a case of Umbrian influence, but of a preservation of ancient and popular forms. Beyond the limits of Italy arger has been preserved, e.g. Sp. arcen, and not only Ital. argine; further armissarius, “stallion,” in the Lex Salica and in Rum. armesariŭ; perhaps Sp. almuerzo, “breakfast,” for *armuerzo beside Lat. admorsus.
In the second place we have, especially in Italy, clearly Umbro-Oscan forms. Contrary to Latin use, these two dialects, the most important in ancient Italy, have f between vowels from an early bh, dh, as against Latin b, d; and Umbrian, Paelignan, &c., ē, ō, from an early ei, ou, as against Latin ī, ū. Thus crefrat (in the glosses), as against Latin cribrat, is both by right of its vowel and consonant, an Umbrian form. And with this we must compare Ital. bifolco beside Lat. bubulcus; Ital. taffiari, “to feast,” beside tabulari; tafano, “horsefly,” beside Lat. tabanus; bufalo, beside Lat. bubalus. Further, Neap. Ottufro, “October,” morfende, “eyeteeth,” Lat. mordente, &c. There is a special interest in cases like the French mandrin beside Ital. manfano. What has come down to us is manphur, which is not Greek, its ph notwithstanding, but which owing to its f we must take to be Osco-Umbrian; while the corresponding Latin form would be *mandar. The Latin supplies the French, the Osco-Umbrian the Italian form. As to the other instance, Varro points to vella beside villa as rustic, and to this we must add Ital. stegola, Sardin. isteva, Sp. and Port. esteva (*steva for stiva), “plough tail”; Ital. elce, Sardin. elige, Fr. yeuse, “holly” (*elex for ilex), or Ital. pommice, Fr. ponce, Sp. pomez, “pumicestone” (*pomice for pumice).
It must not be overlooked that the last word denotes an object found chiefly in Sicily and near Naples, that is, in the ancient seat of the Oscans. It will be clear that we are dealing chiefly with words connected with agriculture, and it is remarkable that those of our second category spread all over the empire, while those of the first were entirely, or almost entirely, limited to Italy.
As a parallel we may cite the vocabulary of North and South Gaul, which yields a number of Gallic elements, and one may safely infer that in the first few centuries after the Roman conquest these elements were more numerous than at a later stage, and there is in fact a definite justification for this inference. The so-called Endlichers glossary of the 5th century is a compilation, by a native of South Gaul, of Gallic words which were clearly at that time still current in the south of France.[2] And in this we have not only dunum, “montem,” cambiare, “pro re dare” (Fr. changer); caio, “breialo sive bigardio” (Fr. quai); nanto “valle,” Savoy. nã, “stream,” but also avallo, “poma,” which was lost in later times but is preserved in its derivative amelanche, “medlar.”
Another Gallic word recorded by ancient tradition—tegia, “hut”—still exists to-day with this meaning in the Venetian and Raetic Alps, and moreover plays an important part in toponomy—Fr. Arthies from Gall. are Tegias, “at the huts,” N. Ital. Tezze; but in the oldest Gallo-Romance it may have been in use as an appellative, and thence have passed into Basque—e.g. Basq. tegi, “hut.” The permeation of the Latin vocabulary by Gallic elements dates from the time of the contact of Gauls and Roman forces. Many of these elements—e.g. bracae, camisia—were widely used at so early a stage as to have penetrated into Rumania (Rum. îmbrăcá “put on,” cămeașă, “chemise”); others again have scarcely, if at all, passed beyond their ancient limits, even those that Roman literature has preserved for us. It is true that Martial says
| “ | Barbara de pictis veni bascauda Britannis |
| Sed me jam mavult dicere Roma sibi,” |
but only in France has bachoue been preserved up to the present, while so far no traces of bascauda have been established for Italy.
Glancing over the Gallic contributions to the Gallo-Romance vocabulary, we see at once that they belong to a considerable extent to the sphere of agriculture, and that among the implements mentioned it is chiefly vehicles of all kinds which have Gallic names. The record of Roman times supplies us with benna, carpentum, carrum, caruca, agredum, petorritum, rheda, but carrum alone gained a firm footing; caruca in the form of charrue, “plough,” survives in France, and benna (Fr. banne, Ital. benna) in its ancient home. Under this heading we may perhaps add taratrum, “gimlet,” in Isidore, Fr. tarière, Engad. tareder, Sp. taladro, Port. trado; Fr. jante, “felloe of a wheel” (Bret. Kammed), Fr. taranche, Gall. tarinca. With caruca we may class soc, “plough-share,” and O. Fr. raie, Mod. Fr. rayon, “furrow,” Gallic *rica (cf. Cymr. rhych).
A further group is formed by cervoise, “beer,” from Gall. cerevisia, O. Fr. braiz, Mod. Fr. brai, “malt,” brasser, “to brew,” Gall. brace; lie, “yeast.” Among the names of plants Gallic betulla has survived wherever the tree is common. Within narrower bounds we find Fr. if, “yew,” Gall. *ivum (cf. Ir. eo); probably also *cassanus, “oak,” Fr. chêne, Prov. casser; Fr. verne, “alder “ (cf. Ir. fern and the Gall. place-name Vernodubrum, “alderwater”); beloce, “sloe,” bulluca, and S. Fr. aranhon, “sloe” (Ir. airne). Pliny mentions marga, “marl,” as being in use among the Gauls as manure for soil, from the diminutive *margila, Fr. marne. An agricultural measure was called arepennis, Fr. arpent. Fields were separated by a hedge—Prov. gorce (cf. O. Fr. gort, “fence”); a hedged-round piece of land is called in French lande, Ir. land. Another method of demarcation was by means of hurdles, Fr. claie, Piedm. cia (cf. Ir. cliath); or of barricades, Fr. combre (whence the verbs encombrer, dncombrer), which corresponds to a Gallic *comboros. Inside the hurdles the sheep and cows were kept whose milk yielded mègues, “whey” (Ir. medg). The wood needed for the erection of fences was cut with the “wood-knife,” Gall. vidubium, Fr. vouge. We may notice further the group broga, “enclosure,” “preserve,” Prov. brogo and the diminutive brogilo, Fr. breuil.
In north Italy we find fruda, “torrent” (cf. Cymr. frwth), which is a parallel to na mentioned above; also Comasc. dren, “blackberry,” Ir. dren, “thorn,” and (over a large part of north Italy) bar, “bunch,” “tuft,” O. Ir. barr. To single out a few words, there is Prov. ban, “horn,” Cymr. ban; Piedm. vinverra, from a word that has come down to us as Latin, but is really Gallic: viverra, Cymr. gwywer, Gaelic feoragh, “weasel,” and in the Rhaeto-Rom. dialect in Switzerland carmun, from a Gallic carmon, which is cognate with O.H.G. harmo, Mod. H.G. hermelin, “ermine.”
