BMCR 2024.09.04

Early Latin: constructs, diversity, reception

, , , , Early Latin: constructs, diversity, reception. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2023. Pp. 900. ISBN 9781108476584.

Review by

Preview

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]

 

For someone who is currently teaching a course on Old Latin,[1] this book is something of a revelation. It is not easy to find appropriate resources for such a course, especially one that attempts to fold in both epigraphic and literary sources from a linguistic perspective. In fact, it is not that easy as a scholar to find ways into Early Latin: speaking for myself this is particularly true with regard to fragmentary early literature. So having this treasure trove of information, data, approaches and discussions is a real boon, and will no doubt have a significant impact on future work in the field.

That having been said, it is slightly difficult to say exactly what kind of a book this is. It is clearly not a companion, or a handbook: as the ‘Acknowledgments’ state, “[m]ost chapters in this volume derive from a conference entitled ‘What is Early Latin’.” And, indeed, most chapters give the impression of being research papers: it is unlikely that a handbook would include a (whole) chapter on the use of ecquis or the etymology of edepol. However, many of the first few chapters do have a handbook-y feel: much of Rex Wallace’s initial chapter on the alphabet and epigraphy is similar to that of his chapter on the alphabet and epigraphy in Clackson’s Companion to the Latin Language (Wallace 2011), and the following four chapters (including all in the section on ‘The Epigraphic Material’),[2] are predominantly synthetic/didactic. This is particularly the case for de Melo’s chapter on ‘The Egadi rostra’, which devotes a non-negligible proportion of its space to the question of what would be written if the text were not so abbreviated: useful to beginners, but clearly not part of what the rostra tell us about the language of the time. There is nothing wrong with all this; and the chapter on dramatic metre will probably now become the easiest way for (English-speaking) students and scholars to inform themselves on the topic. But it does sit a little oddly with many of the other contributions.

Outside these chapters, the book has a message, which is that reference to, and identification of, Early Latin (particularly that attested through literary texts) is beset with problems. At base, this is due to the fact that almost the only Early Latin texts which survive in large numbers are comedies, a genre of which we have basically no later examples. Practically all other texts are fragmentary, preserved only in later authors. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to pull apart the various factors (chronology, style, register, genre etc.) that may have been involved in the use of any given linguistic feature, which may play out in a number of ways and need to be carefully teased apart.

This message is expressed clearly in the ‘Introduction’ by Pezzini and Chahoud and reiterated by Adams in the ‘Conclusion’, as well as being central to the various contributions of the editors (and others). Fortunately, a strength of the work as a whole is its resistance to any tendency towards the aporia that might result from the emphasis on the complexity of the question and patchiness of the data; many chapters present the reader with examples of ways in which the teasing apart can be done (while acknowledging cases where this cannot be done due to the state of the evidence).

For instance, what sort of differences are found between the language of Plautus and Terence, and are they a reflection of actual language change given the generation or two between the two writers? Not necessarily: Terence uses interrogatives of the ecquis type much less than Plautus, but his usages are also “less marked and less stereotyped or ritualised than in Plautus” (Bodelot, ‘Ecquis in “Early Latin”: Aspects of questions’, p. 156), which does not suggest a feature on the way out—and indeed, ecquis continues to be found in (some) later authors: Terence simply has a different style from Plautus. Terence actually uses present subjunctive forms of the verb ‘to be’ siem, siet instead of the younger sim, sit more frequently than Plautus, but for both authors they are used in particular at line-end, suggesting that for both they are archaisms, convenient for metrical reasons. Terence’s preference is the result of the differences in approach to metre between the two (de Melo, ‘Morphology and Syntax’).

Can we identify particular features that are characteristic of Early Latin, either in the sense that they were no longer in use in later Latin (however we define that, and wherever we draw the line), or that they accurately reflect the speech of the time? Both are surprisingly difficult. As to the former, “the occurrence of a given word in an ‘early’ source may not indicate an affiliation with the ‘early’ period; that is, its absence or rarity in classical or late Latin sources may depend on factors related to subject matter, context, genre, style or chance, which have nothing to do with language change or periodisation” (Pezzini, ‘Early Latin Lexicon in Terence (and Plautus)’, p. 222). Different types of co-ordination could be correlated with particular genres rather than characteristic of Early Latin in general; asyndeton is not clearly older than co-ordination (Adams and Nikitina, ‘Early Latin Prayers and Aspects of Coordination’).

In this context, Gray’s ‘Repetition in the Fragmentary Orators’ is particularly striking for its careful consideration of ‘figured’ and ‘unfigured’ repetition, and its conclusion that use of repetition reflected a desire for clarity of structure which did undergo identifiable change over time, but which was also a catalyst for creativity in the language of early orators.

Lucilius’ archaisms from the point of view of Classical Latin were also archaisms to him, used in passages where high style was aimed at; conversely in passages where he seems to be representing everyday speech, there are few features which we can be reasonably sure had died out (Chahoud, ‘How “Early Latin” is Lucilius’). Likewise, the fragments of Atellane comedy contain a (perhaps surprising) number of ‘old’ features, such as subjunctives sies, mactassint and attulas, but a) it seems likely that these reflect a generic connection to the language of earlier comedy, b) later authors tend to quote these fragments precisely because of their (apparent) linguistic peculiarities, and c) we cannot always be sure that they belong to the Atellane playwright Novius rather than the earlier tragedian Naevius (written Neuius) (Panayotakis, ‘“Early Latin” and the fragments of Atellane comedy’).

One aspect of the study of Early Latin which might seem under-served—and would be expected in a handbook—is any direct discussion of the editing of texts, especially fragmentary ones attested primarily or only in other authors (although where relevant these problems are often acknowledged in individual contributions).

However, important lessons for considering transmission are imparted in Part IV, ‘Reception’: Pliny tends to rewrite Cato to fit the generic requirements of his Natural History, in a style more characteristic of the first century AD: but when he wants to, he can write in Cato’s style—in a passage which is not taken from Cato! (Damon, ‘Pliny Rewrites Cato’). Nonius preserves parts of older writers for his own purposes (intelligible novelties usable in oratory, avoidance of contemporary religious controversy), and is prepared to misrepresent what they mean in context (Welsh, ‘Nonius Marcellus and the Shape of “Early Latin”’).

This section also contains valuable contributions from other perspectives. Taylor’s ‘Lucretius and “Early Latin”’ provides a marvellously sensitive discussion and exemplification of the way that Lucretius’ use of archaisms can contribute to a general poetic Kunstsprache—including ways that are unique to him (“Lucretius appears not only to be emulating the style of his models, but also to be reanimating the early forms which … had become fossilised,” p. 438)—but can also create particular effects in particular contexts. As someone developing (with some surprise!) an interest in the thought and methods of Roman writers of language, I also find Garcea’s ‘Views on “Early Latin” in Grammatical Texts’ particularly valuable.

As one might expect from such a hefty work, there are things to cavil at: here is a small sample of mine.

Dating of sound changes: Marchesini’s ‘Identifying Latin in Early Inscriptions’ is better than some works in terms of providing (as precise as we can get) dating for the sound changes it exemplifies, but is still variable (e.g. “monophthongised forms from later Praenestine inscriptions”, p. 53: how much later?). “If the front diphthong ei and the back diphthong ou … developed in tandem …” (de Melo, ‘The Egadi rostra: a linguistic analysis’, p. 69); they probably did not: ou > ō took place in the fourth century BC (losna ‘moon’ > lūna, CIL 12.549), while ei > ē is not found in a Latin inscription until the third century.

Scansion: “Plautus and Terence still preserve inherited long vowels in final syllables ending in a consonant” (de Melo & Pezzini, ‘Metre’, p. 79). But in Terence these can scan as light, at least according to Questa (2007: 19). Final -s does make position in Lucilius in the second half of a foot, contra Chahoud (‘How “Early Latin” is Lucilius’, p. 369)—nine times, according to Skutsch (1985: 56), unless one wants to emend these all away, e.g.

est, quod mancus miserque, exilīs, ramice magno (332 M)

Differences on minor points aside, however, it should be clear that this work is indeed, to quote the blurb, “the most detailed and comprehensive study to date of early Latin language”, and one that, notwithstanding its change in tone after the first few chapters, and the large number of contributors, is remarkably consistent in the way it addresses its subject. It is a great achievement, and I expect it both to be a foundation stone for much further research in this area, and to make a significant intervention into our definition of, and thinking about, Early Latin.

 

Authors and Titles

  1. Introduction: What Is ‘Early Latin’?, Giuseppe Pezzini and Anna Chahoud

Part I The Epigraphic Material

  1. Alphabet, Epigraphy and Literacy in Central Italy in the 7th to 5th Centuries BC, Rex Wallace
  2. Identifying Latin in Early Inscriptions, Simona Marchesini
  3. The Egadi Rostra: A Linguistic Analysis, Wolfgang de Melo

Part II Drama

  1. Metre, Wolfgang de Melo and Giuseppe Pezzini
  2. Morphology and Syntax, Wolfgang de Melo
  3. Support Verb Constructions in Plautus and Terence, José Miguel Baños
  4. Ecquis in ‘Early Latin’: Aspects of Questions, Colette Bodelot
  5. Indirect Questions in ‘Early Latin’, Peter Barrios-Lech
  6. Latin edepol ‘by Pollux!’: Background of a Latin Aduerbium Iuratiuum, Brent Vine
  7. Early Latin Lexicon in Terence (and Plautus), Giuseppe Pezzini
  8. A Comparison of the Language of Tragedy and Comedy in Early Latin Drama, Robert Maltby

Part III Other Genres and Fragmentary Authors

  1. The Language of Early Latin Epic, Sander M. Goldberg
  2. Early Latin Prayers and Aspects of Coordination, N. Adams and Veronika Nikitina
  3. Some Syntactic Features of Latin Legal Texts, Olga Spevak
  4. Repetition in the Fragmentary Orators: From Cato to C. Gracchus, Christa Gray
  5. How ‘Early Latin’ Is Lucilius?, Anna Chahoud
  6. Greek Influences on Cato’s Latin, Neil O’Sullivan
  7. Greek Loanwords in ‘Early Latin’, James Clackson

Part IV Reception

  1. ‘Early Latin’ and the Fragments of Atellane Comedy, Costas Panayotakis
  2. Lucretius and ‘Early Latin’, Barnaby Taylor
  3. Cicero and Early Dramatic Latin, Gesine Manuwald
  4. Early Latin Texts in Livy, John Briscoe
  5. Pliny Rewrites Cato, Cynthia Damon
  6. Gellius’ Appreciation and Understanding of ‘Early Latin’, Leofranc Holford-Strevens
  7. Views on ‘Early Latin’ in Grammatical Texts, Alessandro Garcea
  8. Nonius Marcellus and the Shape of ‘Early Latin’, Jarrett Welsh
  9. ‘Early Latin’ to Neo-Latin: Festus and Scaliger, Anna Chahoud
  1. Conclusions: ‘Early Latin’ as a Concept, N. Adams

 

References

Questa, Cesare (2007). La metrica di Plauto e di Terenzio. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti.

Skutsch, Otto (1985). The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Oxford Unversity Press.

Wallace, Rex (2011). The Latin Alphabet and Orthography. In James Clackson (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language, 9–28. Malden, Oxford & Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

 

Notes

[1] With, I must note, my colleague James Clackson, a contributor to this volume.

[2] And, to some extent, occasional later ones such as Sander M. Goldberg’s programmatic ‘The language of Early Latin epic’ at the start of Part III.